Hacker News Reader

Comment by chetanahuja | Hacker News Reader

I'm seeing a lot of resistance to the idea of narrower city streets on this thread. The advantages of narrower city streets (and hence, crossings) goes far beyond safety. It actually enhances quality of life in a significant way. A wide, four lane highway running across your town basically says humans must come encased inside an automobile. Pedestrians and cyclists become second class citizens. It's a design driven for the convenience of cars and to the detriment of humans.

Here's a far more engaging critique of car-first design by James Kunstler: http://youtu.be/Q1ZeXnmDZMQ

View on HN

So many ostensibly "urban" places in the US feel actively hostile to pedestrians. One of the best things about New York is that, more than any other place in the country, pedestrians unequivocally own the city. If you are in a car (or even a bike), you are on borrowed turf and must drive as such. This is as it should be – cities are for people, not cars.

I agree the better argument is the "stroad" or street vs road philosophy: http://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2013/3/4/the-stroad.html

I could do without the bragging about rubbing elbows with White House staffers and setting public policy through executive orders.... and a little more discussing the elephant in the room -- namely that most cars on the road will be mostly driving themselves, much sooner than you think.

"setting public policy through executive orders...."

It is "appropriate" because the only way to ram this down our throats would be at the federal level... If small city A decides to ruin their roads from the perspective of people who matter, that being the vast majority who are drivers, people will simply move to city B and property values will compensate.

A narrow four lane highway is scarcely better than a wide four lane highway.

Get rid of the highways downtown if your goal is better cities. Don't just make the lanes look less safe to slow people slightly.

Actually, the evidence suggests that a narrow four lane road is better than a wide four lane highway when it comes to roadway user safety.

But we should get rid of highways downtown. We should make all streets safer for pedestrians and cyclists (which will in turn make them safer for motorists).

I think the article is targeting more arterial streets that have 12-foot lanes (e.g. one-way, two lane streets). Not highways running through cities, which are not "streets".

From my experience, few cities have four lane highways running through them - and if they do, they are grade-separated from pedestrians. In cities where the four lane highways are at grade with sidewalks along them, this is a different case. Those roads are hopeless and should be subject to complete removal.

Well the Florida example is for 4 lane highways, so not so sure.

In my experience (limited mostly to Gainesville) a lot of fairly residential streets in Florida with speed limit ~30mph are ridiculously wide, often 3 or 4 lanes each way.

stop charging for mass transit if your goal is to make better cities. We waste billions on transit lines no one will use because authorities build overly expensive systems even when studies say don't. Portland and Seattle for example seem hell bent on finding out who can spend the most per mile, estimates put them over 200m per mile on new lines. The top it off with not only do the streets need repairs but light rail lines need them too.

Yet they continue to charge for something they want people to use, if they want to change behavior tax the people in the city and the businesses downtown for it. If they are truly economic benefits they will prove it

Soundbites like "Stop charging for mass transit" unfairly ignore the complexity of the issue at hand.

In Sydney, IPART (Independant Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal) recently reported that revenue from Sydney's public transport captures about 30% of the cost associated with running it.

The determined that it doesn't make sense to make PT free (fully subsidised by tax) because public transport is doesn't provide significantly enough value for all tax payers. http://www.ipart.nsw.gov.au/Home/Industries/Transport/Review...

All transportation is subsidized. Except maybe my morning trot from my bed to the bathroom.

The argument for eliminating fares is that the revenue more or less covers the cost of administration.

Also, for future, distinguish between capital and operating expenses.

The argument against eliminating fares (at least in Sydney) is that the added costs would vastly outweigh any benefits of a small number of people getting free transport.

That's also ignoring the different ways people would use public transport (and non-public transport) if it were free.

The more people using public transit the less congested the roads become which is a huge benifit.

That does not necessarily follow. If you offer free mass transit, the people who take advantage of it may not be the same people who would otherwise be clogging up the roads in their personal cars.

It does not need to be a 1:1 relationship for my statement to be true. If every 10 rides reduces 1 car trip it's still reducing congestion. The important thing to remember about congestion is at maximum capacity new trips simply increase wait times so a 30 min trip can add more than 30 minutes of wait time spread among all drivers. And removing a 30 minute trip can save people more than 30 minutes of wait time.

Granted as delays reduce people my decide to simply take more trips, but a combination of a car congestion tax, free public transit, and walk-able / bike-able city's are far more efficient say trying to stack highways.

I understand this, but it wouldn't be that simple.

The more people using PT, the greater the operating and capital expenses are

Just like it doesn't make sense to build expensive, high maintenance highways, largely at public expense to subsidize driving. But that's exactly what's been happening in large parts of the world (led by the US example) for the past 50 years or so..

That doesn't make better cities, it just makes certain areas less safe. I see no reason for my taxes to be used to send bums and thugs around all over town. Does that make me a bad person?

Yes CamperBob2 you seem like a bad person.

Then I guess I'll own it, and vote accordingly.

You do realize that the highways that you, along with all those same "thugs and bums", are driving on are also largely tax subsidized.

Yep. That's (literally) life in the big city. You are part of others' lives, whether you like it or not. Often that implies subsidizing their activities.

That does not, of course, mean you're not entitled to your opinions about the relative economic and social values of the things you're required to subsidize.

Threads like this always end up full of people who are absolutely convinced that there is only one truth, one valid perspective, one "right" thing to do. The irony inherent in that point of view goes completely unnoticed.

> stop charging for mass transit

That's impossible. We could stop charging per use and just charge through general income taxation or maybe special taxation like car registrations or maybe sales tax. All those methods might work, but there's no way to "stop charging".

The university I went to invested in skywalks to replace many if almost all cross walks within and on the edges of campus. It does require more energy to go up and down sometimes, but it means everyone is safer and everything still flows.

How does it work for people with reduced mobility, wheelchairs, etc?

It is a spiral with an acceptable grading with rails.

The big problem with skywalks is that they result in the streets underneath them being empty (of pedestrians). This has downsides:

  - Empty streets feel less safe
  - Stores get less foot traffic
  - Cars are more likely to speed when there's no one walking about

So they really can suck the life out of the street.

Elevate the stores.

After you've done that, in combination with sidewalks, you have effectively created a pedestrian-only street above the cars.

The cost of that is immense. Why not just make the surface (ground level) street more accessible to pedestrians, and keep the businesses where they would prefer to be?

After you've done that, in combination with sidewalks, you have effectively created a pedestrian-only street above the cars.

Aren't there large parts of Chicago already like that?

None of the vaguely famous underground/above-ground roads in Chicago, notably Wacker, Congress, and Michigan Ave, are pedestrian only above ground. It would also be pretty much lying to define those three roads as "large parts". There's probably 10-15 miles of drivable underground road in downtown (maybe less), most of which is used as not much more than service roads for garbage pickup and loading docks for the high rises above these.

Chicago is also somewhat of an exceptional city in this regard in that it was to an extent demolished and rebuilt twice, and the city was further built up from water level to accommodate underground plumbing and (IIRC) to reduce the swampiness of the land.

Every city I've visited that has an extensive skyway system is also a city that gets severe winter weather. The skyway is not so much about protecting pedestrians from cars, and more about protecting them from the weather.

Minneapolis has this pretty much (it get's REALLY cold there in winter) It's actually pretty great.

They also, y'know, cost a ton.

You're not going to put them at every crosswalk

I doubt they actually cost all that much relative to the cost of a 40+ story buildings.

I don't know where this is so can't really comment on this particular situation. But the general idea of skyways, while making walking from building to building easier, would also isolate these pedestrians completely from the surrounding environment -- in particular, from other people who live and work in the city but don't have access to universities' buildings. How do you feel it works in your university?

They are outdoor bridges, so perhaps I used the wrong term. I do not feel like it sucks any life out of the scene, since even some of the bridges have bridges between them to connect over some nice landscaping.

The university I went to is not like the one I see in Madison or Chicago. The entire campus was self contained and did not have non-university buildings there. So not much car traffic through the actual campus (as there were few roads, although the walkways were wide enough for maintenance vehicles to get around).

I don't know about his university, but I figured you might be interested in this too.

We have a '+15' system in downtown Calgary such that most of the core office towers are connected on the second floor. Parts of the first two floors of most buildings are open to the public, and tend to be commercial space.

Reading the Wikipedia page, it seems some people have been wondering if they're making the streets less vibrant, but quite frankly even if they were, the enclosed walkways would still be worth it for winter. It can get brutally cold on the Canadian prairies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%2B15

Winnipeg has the same thing.

My walk to work was about 3.5km, half of it inside. Winter? What winter! I laugh at your winter!

Winnipeg has central Canadian weather, going down to -40 celsius wind chill. Brr. Skyways and subway walks are about the only way to go for pedestrian access in a city where the climate for half the year threatens hypothermia within ten minutes of exposure to surface temperatures.

In contrast, I live in Edinburgh. The all-time high temperature was around 30 celsius, but it only drops below freezing at night during a couple of months. The city predates the automobile; as a result, unless you move out to the suburbs, it's entirely walkable. And guess what? The Council is currently holding a consultation on a blanket reduction in the vehicle speed limit to 20mph except on designated high-volume routes.

What an absolutely awful idea.

There is a good article about the failure of the plan to make the City of London pedway-based http://vimeo.com/80787092

My alma mater needs those. It's not cars, but the bikers on campus are downright vicious and will run you down if you happen to be in their way when crossing the street.

That town also had a problem downtown of people that would cross the street without looking, and glaring at people driving cars. Pretty much the people posting in this thread lol.

I live in a country where lanes are that narrow. Driving is fucking terrifying. You're just inches away from the traffic in the next lane. Traffic is always congested. For me to get to work, the fastest way is bicycle or scooter, then public transport, then car, then walking. A third of the population doesn't drive it at all. It's simply too dangerous, too frustrating and too slow. I'd argue for expanding the lanes to 15ft rather than narrowing them.

>> For me to get to work, the fastest way is bicycle or scooter, then public transport, then car, then walking.

>> I'd argue for expanding the lanes to 15ft rather than narrowing them.

I can't even comprehend people like you. Encouraging biking and public transport is a good thing, environmentally and socially.

except when I live 20 miles from work and the public transit system has no regular schedule that will suit my needs, meaning I'd have to arrive at work 1+ hours early, or 1+ hours late, carrying my laptop bag with all my work supplies + my school bag with all my university supplies. (not everyone lives in SF). This simply is not practical, nor is it practical to impose every person should "just ride public transit".

"except when I live 20 miles from work and the public transit system has no regular schedule that will suit my needs"

That right there is the vicious cycle that has brought us to the mess we're in today. The answer is not to keep feeding the monster of urban sprawl with bigger and faster roads to encourage even longer hellish commutes by car. The answer is to encourage mixed developments where a majority of people live close to the business centers and have short commutes (so a mix of public transit/biking/walking is practical for most people).

I don't want my commute distance to limit my employment opportunities.

I can't envision a day where I personally would be capable of lugging my day's supplies on a bike 20+ miles (each way!), nor where it's practical to take public transit. Nor do I want to only be limited to working in areas my local public transit serves.

This ideal you have just isn't realistic for an awful lot of people. Especially those not living in the large metropolitan areas.

You drive your car to the outskirts of the city, and use public transportation inside.

How do you still not understand this is not practical for majority of people?

The solution isn't "just ride public transportation".

The solution is less polluting vehicles, ie. hybrid/electric cars. More efficient roadways (ie. "smart roads"), etc.

the solution is definitely public transport.

the idea that 200 pound bags of flesh need to be ferried around by tonnes of steel, massive swathes of land devoted to letting them rest nearby while we remain in the destination, and the entire landscape designed to let them roam around is insanity.

edit: also, the majority of people don't own cars.

> For me to get to work, the fastest way is bicycle or scooter, then public transport, then car, then walking. A third of the population doesn't drive it at all.

That sounds pretty awesome. Driving a personal vehicle that takes up space, pollutes, and has the most capacity for causing harm should not be the default option like people treat it as.

Driving is fucking terrifying.

Of course that equates to Mission Accomplished, from the point of view of the people you're responding to.

> Traffic is always congested

Wider lanes won't make it less congested.

A classic TED talk and some classic J. H. Kunstler. Most interesting is how, despite his spot-on takedown of postwar urban planning, his dire predictions of having to adapt the suburbs to a post-oil world have been completely upended by the shale oil economy of the past decade. The suburbs got a stay of execution thanks to fracking, and the economic pressure to reform our living spaces has been relieved for now.

The article is 3/4's fluff, and 1 paragraph about the author's actual reasoning behind narrowing lanes. Saving 4, or 8 feet of space isn't going to magically make pedestrian crossings super safe.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com