6 ms·

I agree, but "people" should mean all people, not just the able bodied. Cities keep on inexplicably designing these cool pedestrian only areas for the able bod

• jdavis703 8y ago
  Making cities walkable is not ableist, or at least doesn't have to be. In Copenhagen you see motorized wheelchairs using the bike lanes, here in the Bay Area I see motorized wheelchairs forced to operate in dangerous roads because the sidewalks are too narrow or damaged for their scooters. Further not everyone with a disability can't walk or bike. What about legally blind people? Auto-centric infrastructure is terrible for anyone who is legally barred from driving. Lastly, every able bodied young person (and that's the majority of the population) that you get out of a car means that road infrastructure get's better for those who genuinely need to use it.
  • kenjackson 8y ago
    I don't think the person you're replying to is saying that you should build exclusively for one class of people. You need to look more broadly when you design cities.
    • jschwartzi 8y ago
      The point of the article is that what is being done in places like San Francisco is what looking more broadly looks like. It's not ableist to allow people who'd prefer not to drive to bike or walk instead, and it's also not ableist to build our cities to allow these different modes of transport in addition to cars. Framing it like it's ableist ignores the near century of subsidies and prioitization of the automobile in the US. The fact is that us able-bodied people need spaces that we can enjoy too. We need to find a way to inhabit the same space without inhibiting each other.
      • deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
      • Someone1234 8y ago
        You're taking away a mode of transport some disabled people depend upon, you have to take their needs into account while doing so. Simply adding ramps and slapping ADA stickers onto everything isn't an actual answer, just a convenient way to simplify the problem. If you go from heavily vehicled areas to large pedestrian areas where vehicles are banned, you've gone from one extreme to the other. In both cases disabled people are left behind. > The fact is that us able-bodied people need spaces that we can enjoy too. I thought that was everywhere, including nature.
        • jschwartzi 8y ago
          I agree. The thing I'm concerned about is that reintroducing cars into these areas is a trickle opening onto a floodgate in terms of causing us to backslide into car-centrism. And by your argument ADA compliance becomes a good excuse to erase all the pedestrian- and cyclist-only areas and replace them with "good old" city streets again. It effectively becomes an argument for people who want car-centric infrastructure only to disguise their desire and hide behind the disabled to accomplish their goals. What I'm wondering is if there's a way to accommodate without using cars? In a market we could provide some scooters or other motorized transport that's more compatible with the market's layout.
        • yardie 8y ago
• yongjik 8y ago
  > The distance from a car door to a shop is a good ten minutes, so she simply doesn't go there. She goes to out-of-town supermarkets with disabled bays right near the entrance. ...which is rather ironic, considering "ten-minute walk from parking lot to shop entrance" is an almost unique American suburban problem: we need huge parking lots because everybody's driving. Construct a city so that 95% of the people take public transportation, and you can keep parking space for the rest 5% who really need it, and they will be practically at the front door when they get off.
  • trothamel 8y ago
    Short of things like taxis and ubers and so on, is there any form of public transportation that is so dense, when it comes to stopping locations?
    • yongjik 8y ago
      Sorry I wasn't clear: I meant "at the front door" for those 5% who have to drive. The rest can walk. It's good for health, and usually still faster than being stuck in the sea of single occupancy vehicles! :)
      • rootusrootus 8y ago
        I feel like this only makes sense if you build cities of any size, even when they have 50 people, as if they are ultra-dense. The reality is that public transit takes a certain size city before it reaches critical mass and becomes superior to individual transit. Even where I live (Portland, Oregon) which is considered to have decent public transit, I would have to walk a lot and plan on 2-3 times as long if I wanted to stick with public transit. The density just isn't there yet.
        • bluGill 8y ago
          It isn't lack of density, that is a symptom. We don't allows stores, jobs and houses to be within walking distance of each other. As a result you have to drive everywhere. As a result you have to have a car. As a result we need space for lots of cars, as a result things are spread out. If you had stores and jobs within walking distance of your house you would not need a car. As a result you wouldn't find a car worth having. As a result you wouldn't need all the space dedicated to the car. Also as a result you would take public transportation. It also hurts that our focus on not allowing change means that even when someone is willing to spend their own money to tear down a smaller house/apartment to replace it with something larger we won't allow it. Thus areas that "want" to grow denser cannot do that. The only option is to grow outwards. That means people need to be farther out, which implies more time in a car, which implies more roads and parking spaces, which in turn means less density is possible. Note that the above is simplistic. I ignored many other factors. It is a complex problem and no one change can solve it.
• dleslie 8y ago
  Most sidewalks are accessible to mobility aids; like walkers, scooters, canes, wheelchairs and so forth. _All_ can be designed to be accessible to such. Moreover, the choice isn't between only pedestrians or only cars; there exists combinations of the two that are more favourable to pedestrians but allow access by vehicle for those that need it.
  • Someone1234 8y ago
    > Most sidewalks are accessible to mobility aids; like walkers, scooters, canes, wheelchairs and so forth. If people cannot traverse the distance required, it doesn't really help. For example someone with bad osteoporosis, and who doesn't have a $10K+ wheelchair and a $75K minivan to carry it, won't really gain much by theoretical ADA sidewalks if the distance is too far. Claiming stuff is "disabled accessible" without really considering the people we're talking about is just a lie society tell itself to feel less guilty.
    • redial 8y ago
      Maybe the solution is to share those wheelchairs. Not everyone needs one all the time.
    • jimmaswell 8y ago
      Then maybe these pedestrianized areas should have small fleets of scooters that people who need them can use, like large grocery stores tend to have.
    • p49k 8y ago
      You’re right: such city designs should be accompanied by good universal healthcare and accessible public transportation, like most other wealthy countries, so that neither of these would be an issue.
    • JumpCrisscross 8y ago
      > someone with bad osteoporosis, and who doesn't have a $10K+ wheelchair and a $75K minivan to carry it, won't really gain much by theoretical ADA sidewalks if the distance is too far One solution to this is this person should move closer.
• Karrot_Kream 8y ago
  A lot of big-box retail chains (like Walmart) have mobility scooters to help folks like your mother. Mandating that open, pedestrian friendly spaces have some of these available should be pretty easy. There are also disabilities that are exacerbated by driving rather than aiding. Legally blind folks can walk but have a much harder time driving.
• trumped 8y ago
  sidewalks are usually wheelchair accessible...
• maxxxxx 8y ago
  But when you are really old or disabled you can't drive either and then you are totally screwed. And your electric wheelchair is not usable in a typical US town.
• drblast 8y ago
  Oh yes. I just had surgery that requires me to be on crutches for a few months, so I'm temporarily disabled. If you're young and able-bodied (like me pre-surgery) and want to understand what it's like to not be young and able-bodied (which you almost definitely won't be at some point) you should put your right leg in a brace, and try not to let your foot hit the ground for a day or two and try to live that way. The ground is lava for one leg. "Walking distance" means about a block or two before you get sore from crutches or your arms get tired or your hands fall asleep. Disabled access is a godsend, everywhere. And while I can't cook a meal in my own kitchen because I can't move around and hold a plate of things at the same time, I can drive to get takeout and carry the bag inside. The world changes when you can't easily walk. Edit: Those electric scooters at Costco aren't as fast or fun as they look.
  • the_gastropod 8y ago
    Cars are not the only solution here. Transporting a single disabled person does not require a 100+ horsepower 2-ton vehicle.
    • thereisnospork 8y ago
      But doing it fast, cheap, and flexibly does. Cars cost 50 cents a mile, go anywhere at as fast as anything that doesn't fly, and require negligible physical exertion or special skills to operate. When there is adequate infrastructure that's pretty optimal.
      • Karrot_Kream 8y ago
        The point is, in a walkable city, nobody needs the speed. What's the point of driving at 40mph in a 10x10mi city vs using a scooter at 15mph? You'll probably hit a stoplight after hitting 20mph, and then waste braking to stop again. Electric mobility scooters are, per-mile, much much cheaper than cars, and cost much less to purchase.
        • thereisnospork 8y ago
• Finnucane 8y ago
  Accesibility is important, but for decades, urban centers were sacrificed to benefit suburban, car-dependent sprawl. Even now, much urban development is burdened by mandated parking requirements. But where space is at a premium and traffic congestion is already a nightmare, why encourage more cars? Private cars don't have to be the only option (here in Boston, the MBTA has services for the disables, and apparently Uber and Lyft are making a little progress in this area).
• drewr 8y ago
  If you can get the able-bodied out of their cars, then there's more room for those that really need a car. I only take my car when it's not practical to walk or ride my bicycle. And probably 80% of the time I'm in my car, I could easily be on my bicycle but there's no safe way to get where I'm going. It's also a myth that disability automatically equals driving. I have a friend with impaired vision who can't drive but can ride a bicycle. I would like for him to be able to do that as safely as possible.
• jhbadger 8y ago
  On the other hand, not depending on cars helps a lot of disabled people. Busses and subways are generally made taking into account wheelchair use, plus visually impaired people can use transit systems where the stops are called out.
• oftenwrong 8y ago
  From my observations, walkable neighbourhoods can be great for disabled people. I live in a very walkable neighbourhood where there are many homes, businesses, schools, and more in walking distance, as well as bus lines and a subway station. Everything within 10 minutes at a normal pace. There is a home for people in wheelchairs (not sure of the correct term) down the street from me, and the people that live there are always out and about. Same with a man in a wheelchair that lives one street over. Same with the slow, tiny, 90-something-year-old lady that lives across the street from me. Same with the blind man who lives down the street. None of these people have to drive, and I believe none of them even own cars, but they are able to get around with little issue because they have the option to just jaunt down the sidewalk 10 minutes for most things, or use accessible transit connections for longer trips.
  • jpernst 8y ago
    As a disabled person who's spent his entire life dependent on others for transportation basically anywhere, I'll confirm how badly I'd love to live in a place like that. (I understand if you don't want to say where you live, but any hints to narrow it down or other places like that you know of?) It can't be overstated how confining it is when anything you'd like to do or see involves logistical wrangling to work out when exactly you need to be there, how long you'll be there, when you need to be picked up, etc. I've lost count of the number of times I've just decided to not bother with all that and just stay home, which makes for a pretty depressing existence after a while. Things like uber can help, but you're still placing your trust in someone you've never met to be able to get you there, and more importantly, to be able to get you back home. Not to mention having to do an upfront value analysis to determine if the trip is worth it, and for disabled people this can be a tough call given the difficulties with employment and income in general.
    • oftenwrong 8y ago
      I live in Boston, Massachusetts. Unfortunately, it is an expensive place to live (probably because actually walkable areas like this are so rare in the US), and I may not stay much longer with the rate of rental increases. If you do live in an area that is more car friendly than anything, a van might be the better option: https://nicolagriffith.com/2018/05/26/new-car-an-accessible-minivan/ https://nicolagriffith.com/2018/05/26/new-car-an-accessible-...
• spraak 8y ago
  From the_gastropod below: > Cars are not the only solution here. Transporting a single disabled person does not require a 100+ horsepower 2-ton vehicle.
  • jimmaswell 8y ago
    Rendering a webpage does not require an 800+ watt 50-pound computer setup. A balanced diet does not require flavor. Clothes do not require coloring. We can't just throw out having nice things because they aren't "required."
    • spraak 8y ago
      Your first analogy (50lb computer) is nonsense because that's exactly the point I'm saying: computers that fit on your pocket and are just a few grams can easily render a webpage. Who thinks that a 50lb computer is nice unless it's sophisticated hardware that can't be condensed? Cars are nice yes but there are plenty of other smaller and more nimble transportation devices. So weren't not throwing away nice things here.
      • jimmaswell 8y ago
        The desktop computer will likely be a lot more responsive, let you do a lot more, have a higher resolution and screen size, let you have more tabs running at once, etc. Using nothing but a smartphone for all my home computer usage would be a major setback.
        • spraak 8y ago
          > Using nothing but a smartphone for all my home computer usage would be a major setback. But that's not the analogy here. This is for the "last mile". Perhaps a more appropriate analogy is using a lightweight laptop (rather than a phone)
    • vilmosi 8y ago
      >>> We can't just throw out having nice things because they aren't "required." I wouldn't assume driving for 30 min in traffic is "nicer" than a 30min train ride.