3 ms·

It is also possible to cut those numbers with low tech: less driving. Stop subsidizing roads and parking, start allowing walkable development. Take back the str

It is also possible to cut those numbers with low tech: less driving. Stop subsidizing roads and parking, start allowing walkable development. Take back the streets. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/236825193_Street_Rivals_Jaywalking_and_the_Invention_of_the_Motor_Age_Street https://www.researchgate.net/publication/236825193_Street_Ri...

melling 9y ago
Where do you think most of the 40,000 deaths occur? Fender benders at low speeds in cities?
- gpm 9y ago
  We can get a lot of useful numbers, including road type, here [0] Only 12% occur on interstates and freeways. So I'd assume that a lot of collisions could be impacted by getting people to drive less inside a city. [0] http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/t/general-statistics/fatalityfacts/overview-of-fatality-facts#Speeding http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/t/general-statistics/fatalit... (You need to manually divide for the percentages, oh well)
eru 9y ago
Congestion charging might help as well. But anyway, most of the things you mention are social solutions to social problems. We are not very good at actually implementing those. We are fairly good at implementing technical solutions, however. And whenever we can (even if only partially) convert a social problem into a technical one, that's a win.
Animats 9y ago
"Walkable development" led to two-bedroom apartments in SF averaging $4637/month. Cities are getting way too big. It's much worse outside the US; NYC was 8 million in the 1960s, and it's 8.2 million now. Beijing is up to 21.5 million, and China's government is trying hard to keep it from growing further.
- thatswrong0 9y ago
  SF is a terrible example of "walkable development", if it's even applicable at all.
- CalRobert 9y ago
  '"Walkable development" led to two-bedroom apartments in SF averaging $4637/month.' - citation massively needed. If walkable areas are expensive, that's presumably because A) people want to live in them and will pay a lot for it. B) there is more demand for said areas than supply. Which, in effect, means exactly the opposite of your assertion - forced sprawl (making most of the bay low density suburban) is what led to the aforementioned $4637 /mo apartments.
- mlinksva 9y ago
  New theory to me. How did walkable development lead to ~$5k/mo 2br apartments in SF? If the theory is true, what are its implications? That even more auto-oriented development will make SF cheaper? Or that less development (or even destruction of existing housing) of any kind will make SF cheaper? Why do you mention megacities? Walkable development helps safety in cities of any size.

melling 9y ago

Where do you think most of the 40,000 deaths occur? Fender benders at low speeds in cities?

gpm 9y ago
We can get a lot of useful numbers, including road type, here [0] Only 12% occur on interstates and freeways. So I'd assume that a lot of collisions could be impacted by getting people to drive less inside a city. [0] http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/t/general-statistics/fatalityfacts/overview-of-fatality-facts#Speeding http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/t/general-statistics/fatalit... (You need to manually divide for the percentages, oh well)

eru 9y ago

Congestion charging might help as well. But anyway, most of the things you mention are social solutions to social problems. We are not very good at actually implementing those. We are fairly good at implementing technical solutions, however. And whenever we can (even if only partially) convert a social problem into a technical one, that's a win.

Animats 9y ago

"Walkable development" led to two-bedroom apartments in SF averaging $4637/month. Cities are getting way too big. It's much worse outside the US; NYC was 8 million in the 1960s, and it's 8.2 million now. Beijing is up to 21.5 million, and China's government is trying hard to keep it from growing further.

thatswrong0 9y ago
SF is a terrible example of "walkable development", if it's even applicable at all.
CalRobert 9y ago
'"Walkable development" led to two-bedroom apartments in SF averaging $4637/month.' - citation massively needed. If walkable areas are expensive, that's presumably because A) people want to live in them and will pay a lot for it. B) there is more demand for said areas than supply. Which, in effect, means exactly the opposite of your assertion - forced sprawl (making most of the bay low density suburban) is what led to the aforementioned $4637 /mo apartments.
mlinksva 9y ago
New theory to me. How did walkable development lead to ~$5k/mo 2br apartments in SF? If the theory is true, what are its implications? That even more auto-oriented development will make SF cheaper? Or that less development (or even destruction of existing housing) of any kind will make SF cheaper? Why do you mention megacities? Walkable development helps safety in cities of any size.