Live data from Hacker News

Surveys show Americans want more walkable cities

governing.com

351–360 of 370 posts

Re: Surveys show Americans want more walkable cities

#351
post #251
post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Biking and public transit moves most commuters off of the streets Help me understand this. Where do cyclists and ground-level public transportation go if they're not on the streets? > Then I quarantined in Tokyo for 2 weeks and everything was a convenient 5-minute walk away. Wait a minute, quarantined and walked around?

> Help me understand this. Where do cyclists and ground-level public transportation go if they're not on the streets? Public transportation is much denser ( even a paltry bus can fit at least 30 people vs a car which occupies slightly less space, but usually has a single person in it), and bikes take much less space. You can fit 4 bikes in the space of a single standard sedan; and a small bus is what, 2-3 sedans but…

You'd think, but come to San Diego and take a look at downtown. I frequently see 2-3 buses driving in a row down Broadway with single digits of occupants between all three.

Re: Surveys show Americans want more walkable cities

#352

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Portland is a pretty unique place. They famously drew a circle around the city and said development can’t go outside of that area which forced a certain density and allowed transit to be planned well in advance. I didn’t spent a ton of time there and admittedly it was January so it was quite frigid, but the distances can still feel quite long between things outside of downtown. Portland made a few mistakes when they…

Close-in marin, so Sausalito, Marin city, Larkspur, Corte Madera, San Rafael, and the 'Sir Francis Drake corridor' (San Anselmo, Kentfield, etc) are very walkable. I don't really understand the consternation about bart, the bus service is reliable, and both the marin transit and golden gate transit are the gold standard in american public bus service IMO. Clean, WIFI, nice seats... My wife and I frequently took publi…

People can only walk so far especially if the weather is bad, they are older, etc. The point is if I have to walk past multiple gas stations and a car service center with broken down cars and fumes then it’s not a nice place to walk. I have lived next to a car service center before and even though it was tiny it was a constant blight on the neighborhood.

Not to mention almost all the grocery stores in San Rafael are east of the highway while the Google-labeled walkable areas are west of the highway. So in practice people probably don’t walk to the grocery store on a regular basis unless they go to the Safeway. You may have a different view but Safeway is a terrible grocery store by Bay Area standards so it’d be a real shame for that to be your only realistic option without resorting to bus rides.

Bus transit is less reliable than metro for a number of reasons, most notably getting stuck in traffic. It’s fine if it works for your particular usage pattern but a bus that runs once an hour and doesn’t have an exact arrival time isn’t the most convenient. I’d much rather have a metro that comes every couple minutes like almost every major city in Europe and Asia.

You seem to hate BART but I’m not really sure why and why you believe the cities outside the North Bay are full of lawbreakers. San Mateo has a higher household income and SF is tied with Marin. Marin is just full of more NIMBYs. It’s not like their shit doesn’t smell just because they live in a less populated county.

As for why I focus on public transit, it’s because you can only walk so far before you need another mode of transit. If you don’t find a convenient one, then most likely you’ll take a car. If people take cars a lot, then the city will be designed to support those cars which makes it harder to walk. Then fewer people can reasonably walk to all their needs so even more people buy cars creating induced demand as the highways and roads constantly need to be widened over the decades.

Maybe you’re happy with a tiny little downtown like those in most of the Marin cities but for most people from a major city they would be bored with what they could easily explore on foot in one of those towns in probably a few weeks. Without a way to connect to other cities, you’re basically just trapped in a tiny little area without resorting to once an hour bus service and cars.

Re: Surveys show Americans want more walkable cities

#353
post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would you look at just the lot sq ft and ignore the house or other factors?

Because it's the land that drives value in the Bay Area. I suppose you can use some weighted combination of lot and house, but I haven't seen common and simple valuation metrics there.

> Because it's the land that drives value in the Bay Area.

I'd say that's kind of their point.

Re: Surveys show Americans want more walkable cities

#354
post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would you look at just the lot sq ft and ignore the house or other factors?

Because it's the land that drives value in the Bay Area. I suppose you can use some weighted combination of lot and house, but I haven't seen common and simple valuation metrics there.

Land is 50-60% of the total value in the Bay Area. You can’t ignore the other 40-50%.

Re: Surveys show Americans want more walkable cities

#355

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes being flat does help for sure. In much of Europe I think they solve this problem with trains or sometimes buses to get to the parks or outlying areas. For example, much of Italy is hill towns and no one wants to walk up huge hills to get to each town but you can typically get there with transit. The United States admittedly is quite large and spread out but if we started to connect more things with transit then I…

We have lots of choices, but driving is the norm. There is a train near Ranier, it’s still operable (steam train!) but is now for tourism. Let’s hope it reopens. Switzerland has trains and postal buses to serve its mountain villages and make tourism easy. The distances involved are a bit greater out west, however.

Yes I was delighted to learn in Switzerland that before my flight out I could take my suitcases to any train station in the country and they would route them to the airport for me and make sure they made it on the plane. It’s some truly incredible infrastructure!

Re: Surveys show Americans want more walkable cities

#356
post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Roads often do make a big difference - if there are too many lanes it you end up with a block-sized, loud and dangerous chasm in the middle of what could be a bustling neighborhood. I live in Tokyo and it’s dominated by streets that are literally barely wide enough to have two cars pass each other at <5mph, and I’ve come to love that.

IMO this still just comes down to density. Getting to a park just across a 3 lane divided highway isn’t a problem especially via skyway or underground tunnel. Walking 5 miles to that same park isn’t. Narrow streets can significantly boost city density which then gets people out of their cars. One way streets make crossing traffic easier. But, if there’s nowhere to walk to then it’s all kind of pointless.

Not saying you’re wrong but in Tokyo most of the streets I mentioned have no sidewalk but just by the nature of being tiny they don’t need one - cars will pass at very slow speeds anyway. Agreed that it only matters if you can achieve high density, but part of achieving high density is designing for it, including not optimizing car traffic.

Re: Surveys show Americans want more walkable cities

#357
post #287
post #261

Sometimes I think Americans don’t know how badly they want this. Americans will tell you how wonderful European cities are with their small streets and their public squares filled with great restaurants. They think we don’t have cities like that because we’re lacking some fundamental European-ness. No. We just put cars everywhere. Cars ruin everything. Now you have wider streets. Louder streets. More dangerous street…

I’ve lived in walkable US cities. The main ingredients are mixed use, high density, effective public transportation, useable sidewalks, and zero surface level parking lots. Roads and underground parking is fine because they don’t lower density that much and density defines how much you can reach in a reasonable walk. What I think people miss is public transportation is the least important part of the equation. Once p…

Which US cities do you consider walkable?

Re: Surveys show Americans want more walkable cities

#358
post #261

Sometimes I think Americans don’t know how badly they want this. Americans will tell you how wonderful European cities are with their small streets and their public squares filled with great restaurants. They think we don’t have cities like that because we’re lacking some fundamental European-ness. No. We just put cars everywhere. Cars ruin everything. Now you have wider streets. Louder streets. More dangerous street…

What choice is there if you live in an area designed for cars? In the average suburb there is nothing around for miles, the streets are wide and designed for cars as you said. At that point the only workable option is to buy a car like everyone else. Urban centres which are walkable tend to have the highest home prices. It's a tough feedback loop.

The suburbs have to be made livable first, with plenty of shopping, restaurants, theatres, parks nearby so that living without a car is feasible.

Personally I hope to live in/rent apartments all my life and even raise a family there, but i don't know what it'll be like.

Re: Surveys show Americans want more walkable cities

#359

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can see this in the south bay in an incredibly acute way. Where are Google, Microsoft, and a bunch of other enormous campuses located? East of the 101. Where are all of the residential areas? West of the 101. Gazillions of commuters need to cross the 101 to get from their home to their office twice a day. This means that everything is limited by a few small overpasses that are crazy expensive to expand. What if p…

My town, though much smaller, has its own "101" with similar bottlenecks. But there are now (at least) three bike bridges across it. While not free to build, they're doubtlessly much cheaper, especially since the bikes can use already existing neighborhood streets with minimal impact on the residents. I'm not sure there's a master plan for improving bike routes, but when they have to tear up a road for some reason, t…

Bikes are great! 101 has at least one bike bridge. But I'd personally feel really unsafe in the bay area biking. Zero protected lanes. Tons of cars merging through bike lanes to enter turn lanes. Fast-moving roads that also have direct access from driveways.

Re: Surveys show Americans want more walkable cities

#360
post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And now let's say you want to get out of the city for the weekend. Do you rent a car? That's way more expensive in the long run compared to owning. Are you doing it every weekend? Renting a car for just the odd weekend away would be way cheaper than owning. The initial cost / capital depreciation aside even. I live in London and don't have a car, a £50+ train out to my parents' seems a bit absurd next to the cost o…

Cars are unfortunately too cheap. My last car was a basic VW polo, and the insurance was £350/year, road tax £99 and probably £200 a year amortized over the 5 years on servicing/wear and year, with a 400 mile range on ~£50 worth of fuel. The break even point on that is ~5-6 trips per year, and much lower if you use the car for basically anything else. I can fly to eastern Europe for £15, but the transit to the airpor…

Arguably they aren't cheap... they're just able to externalize their greatest cost: roads. If the cost of building and maintaining the US road system were baked into say the cost of gas or registration... you would be looking at an entirely different cost of ownership.
Post reply on HN