3 ms·

> Walking as a primary form of transportation, and the extreme density it required of the working class, was not a scalable, long-term, or humane solution. Wha

> Walking as a primary form of transportation, and the extreme density it required of the working class, was not a scalable, long-term, or humane solution. What are you talking about? Walking is awesome, it's incredibly healthy and in the long term, as our cities reorganize around us better, walking will be the default. As a human being, you need to walk to be healthy anyway, so why not kill two birds with one stone? We'll use cars only for long distance travel, but food, work, and other basic daily necessities will all be within easy walking distance of your house. Surburbia is a horrible system because it guarantees density is so low that walking by default is impossible. I would describe any system where it's difficult to choose walking alternatives for your various errands as a form of slow torture which turns peoples bodies into useless sacks.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
closeparen 10y ago
>as our cities reorganize around us better The average human walks about 3mph. Let's say you should be able to cross the city in an hour, so we want a radius of 1.5mi, which yields an area of 7.1 square miles. Manhattan's daytime population is 3.9 million. Let's put them all in those 7.1 square miles: 549,000 people per square mile [0]. The densest city in the world is Manilla, at 107,562 per square mile [1]. You're asking for more than 5x the highest density level we've ever attempted. Walking doesn't scale. To congregate in large population centers effectively, we need fast(er) transportation methods. Granted, personal cars don't scale too well either, which is why the correct solution probably involves trains, buses, two-wheeled vehicles with varying degrees of power (bicycles, e-bikes, electric scooters, etc), and traditional cars/trucks which are too expensive for mainstream daily use but still available when needed. All dangerous for pedestrians. [0] http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=3.9+million+people+%2F+7.1mi%5E2 http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=3.9+million+people+%2F+... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_by_population_density https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_by_population_d...
- erikpukinskis 10y ago
  Why do you think high speed trains and designing our neighborhoods to provide walkable basics are incompatible ideas? Yes, we need better public transit. But the cheapest, most ecological transit is the distance you just don't travel. There is no reason, even at Manila densities, you can't have a green grocer within a few blocks of every city resident.
  - closeparen 10y ago
    Trains are extremely dangerous for pedestrians, and they create spaces (train tracks) cutting up the city where pedestrians are unwelcome. We regularly and unabashedly victim-blame pedestrians who die after getting in the way of trains. We even do it in TV commercials set to catchy music. [0]. I agree that trains are a better idea than personal cars in general, and that cities should be designed for as much walkability as possible. But walking alone doesn't cut it, and once you introduce trains, you have the same problem foxop pointed out: spaces that vehicles own and pedestrians must tread carefully in, where pedestrians will be blamed for their own deaths when killed by those vehicles. They are unavoidable. We just get to choose which kind of vehicle goes in them. [0] http://www.dumbwaystodie.com/ http://www.dumbwaystodie.com/

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

closeparen 10y ago

>as our cities reorganize around us better The average human walks about 3mph. Let's say you should be able to cross the city in an hour, so we want a radius of 1.5mi, which yields an area of 7.1 square miles. Manhattan's daytime population is 3.9 million. Let's put them all in those 7.1 square miles: 549,000 people per square mile [0]. The densest city in the world is Manilla, at 107,562 per square mile [1]. You're asking for more than 5x the highest density level we've ever attempted. Walking doesn't scale. To congregate in large population centers effectively, we need fast(er) transportation methods. Granted, personal cars don't scale too well either, which is why the correct solution probably involves trains, buses, two-wheeled vehicles with varying degrees of power (bicycles, e-bikes, electric scooters, etc), and traditional cars/trucks which are too expensive for mainstream daily use but still available when needed. All dangerous for pedestrians. [0] http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=3.9+million+people+%2F+7.1mi%5E2 http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=3.9+million+people+%2F+... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_by_population_density https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_by_population_d...

erikpukinskis 10y ago
Why do you think high speed trains and designing our neighborhoods to provide walkable basics are incompatible ideas? Yes, we need better public transit. But the cheapest, most ecological transit is the distance you just don't travel. There is no reason, even at Manila densities, you can't have a green grocer within a few blocks of every city resident.
- closeparen 10y ago
  Trains are extremely dangerous for pedestrians, and they create spaces (train tracks) cutting up the city where pedestrians are unwelcome. We regularly and unabashedly victim-blame pedestrians who die after getting in the way of trains. We even do it in TV commercials set to catchy music. [0]. I agree that trains are a better idea than personal cars in general, and that cities should be designed for as much walkability as possible. But walking alone doesn't cut it, and once you introduce trains, you have the same problem foxop pointed out: spaces that vehicles own and pedestrians must tread carefully in, where pedestrians will be blamed for their own deaths when killed by those vehicles. They are unavoidable. We just get to choose which kind of vehicle goes in them. [0] http://www.dumbwaystodie.com/ http://www.dumbwaystodie.com/