You must log in or register to comment.
you guys getting sidewalks?
So many places in the US don’t have sidewalks and it’s a real tragedy. It sends the message that not only is this community not walkable, it is also hostile to pedestrians and children.
Seeing new housing developments being built without sidewalks is so disheartening.
The worst is when there’s no sidewalk and the community is really sprawly, yet there are desire paths in the grass. It shows that even though the odds are stacked against walking, a bunch of people still do.
My grocery store is literally 0.7mi from my house, but there’s no sidewalks along the two 6 lane roads I’d need to follow to feet there.
not only is this community not walkable, it is also hostile to pedestrians and children.
The ones with the pedestrian path painted in the road are even worse I think, almost like the designers actively decided not to build a pedestrian path there
The only plus about where I live is I believe sidewalks are mandated on new developments. This is great, but it results in a lot of sidewalk - grass - sidewalk - grass. Eventually we’ll get there, I suppose…
In Italy we have a similar problem: new developments must have cycle paths, but that means that we have many useless cycle paths in the middle of nothing,
Maybe one day, maybe…
Love how Texas sidewalks just have ADA compliant ramps that just lead to… The grass. As if that helps anyone.
Make them wider, add more trees, add protected nike lanes.
Are we so bad we need corporate sponsorship of our lanes?
Honestly I’d take it at this point, anything to get safer and more walking spaces. Maybe getting in bed with big shoe could work and we can always spray paint over the logos later
Until you walk down a street with a nike lane on one side and Adidas lane on the other. Nothing safe about that.
God damn it.
Nike lanes sponsored by the Chevron or Ford. Imagine that.
This lane bro ght to y u by coc ola…
but where drive suv and trucks in city when scared and no big street???
(surely some boomer somewhere)
The post links to this article: https://nyc.streetsblog.org/2016/07/01/the-new-york-of-2016-needs-the-wide-generous-sidewalks-of-1906
It was also a single lane originally built for horse and carriage. As more people got cars, more road space was needed. To get those size sidewalks back, they would have to narrow the road which would cause congestion and more sporadic traffic patterns
This is working from the premise that cars belong on these streets in the first place, which I don’t agree with.
Why is that?
see what community you’re in
I’m aware what community I’m in, and I’m trying to have a conversation with someone that has an opposing view to mine. If you think my intention is to be disrespectful or play the “gotcha” game, I’m not. Legitimately curious of your view and opinion
I believe the stance is more public transit.
Walkable cities, more trees, public transit. Like, I can deal with it, man.
I agree with that, but that is not a reality atm
Cars are a completely unnecessary luxury in a place like the intersections that are used as examples in the article. When the foot traffic is so heavy that 15,000 people are in the area crossing through there in an hour, cars should simply not even be in the picture, let alone given the majority of the space. The roads should be used for trams/trolleys and pedestrians at that point. Cars are point to point transport or through traffic, and they should either have been parked elsewhere or rerouted around the area with the highest traffic.
You can read ‘Movement’ by Thalia Verkade if you want an insight into this community.
If you’re not a book kinda person, look through YouTube channels @NotJustBikes and @AdamSomething
Most multilane roads are wider than they need to be for the speed limit, and a 2 lane bidirectional road with roundabouts can move the same amount of vehicles as a road with 2 or more lanes in both directions and a stop light. We have a ton of space in our streets needlessly dedicated to cars.
You seem to be unaware of induced demand…
You mean supply and demand? Very aware of it. But induced demand in reference to roads only shows the idea of road expansion and more people take the road. What about alleviating congestion in another part of the city due to road expansion? What about travel time? What about travel distance?
Very little of the demand is demand to drive a car. It’s mostly demand to travel as effectively as possible.
When you build out road networks you make traveling by car more effective, increasing demand on that specific mode.
When you build out transit networks you make traveling by transit more effective, increasing demand on that specific mode.
When you have well designed cities, you reduce the demand for travel, period.
Higher population centers have favorable economics for transit vs. Personal vehicles. And are more impacted by pollutants.
Low population centers have favorable economics for personal vehicles vs. Transit. And are less impacted by pollutants.
That’s a description of the dynamics anyway.
I imagine vast majority of people would agree that folks that live in the densist cities need transit, and those living in a forest need a personal vehicle. The debate occurs somewhere in between of the extremes.
Personally I’m of the opinion that we skew too far towards cars, because the true costs/externalities are harder to see, so what seems like favorable economics is actually just socializing the costs.
If you don’t mind, I’d like to take some time to do my own research and get back to you. Is that ok?
For sure, happy to open up the conversation again later
Hey still working in time to read all the things. I haven’t forgotten about you. I got a busy life
And we didn’t have flipping joggers either! Ban them to parks only! Make them run in the street! /s
