Attached: 1 image
Sidewalks used to be wider. It’s a fact that rarely gets acknowledged in discussions about road diets. Usually the road diet debate is framed as taking space AWAY from cars. Really it’s about giving it BACK to pedestrians. Here’s a good article about it https://tinyurl.com/2s4bzxw3
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
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
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.
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 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.
It’s a great sentiment, but most poems don’t impact society, unfortunately. Advancement and monetary gain do. Horse and carriage were no longer as profitable than motorized vehicles, so historically, pedestrians got the short end (figuratively and literally). Now we’re in a society that is dependent on cars. And I’m in no way trying to criticize your opinion on saying “fuck cars”, but it’s a harsh reality of what society is right now. If we did away with cars and trucks, then it would shut trade down inside and outside a country. The economy would take a massive dip, and (IMO) would either be the start of another depression or would make the trade market bad enough to destabilize to the point where it’s irreparable. Yes, some trade markets are not exactly necessary, but there would just be someone else to replace the merchants.
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
EVERY STREET A TROLLEY
EVERY SIDEWALK A PALACE
You’re gonna have to help me out with your quote haha. Who said that?
Huey Long.
Every home a castle, every man a king
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Every_Man_a_King_(song)
Im dewey short and i made it
It’s a great sentiment, but most poems don’t impact society, unfortunately. Advancement and monetary gain do. Horse and carriage were no longer as profitable than motorized vehicles, so historically, pedestrians got the short end (figuratively and literally). Now we’re in a society that is dependent on cars. And I’m in no way trying to criticize your opinion on saying “fuck cars”, but it’s a harsh reality of what society is right now. If we did away with cars and trucks, then it would shut trade down inside and outside a country. The economy would take a massive dip, and (IMO) would either be the start of another depression or would make the trade market bad enough to destabilize to the point where it’s irreparable. Yes, some trade markets are not exactly necessary, but there would just be someone else to replace the merchants.
Me