7 ms·

Livable streets, which are a joy to walk down, are essential. And the author of this piece is correct that you can't just use a top-down plan to segregate roads

by nwah1 8y ago

Livable streets, which are a joy to walk down, are essential. And the author of this piece is correct that you can't just use a top-down plan to segregate roads and streets. It seems to me that the key is to find ways to make automobiles less mandatory in general. So instead of needing two or three lanes for automobiles in each direction, you only need one. And, ideally, a reduction in the need for curbside parking. This can be accomplished through tax policies, zoning, and ordinances that promote walkability and transit-oriented development. Shift taxes off buildings and onto land value. Allow mixed-use development. End mandatory minimum parking requirements. Implement congestion pricing and smart parking meters. Use pigouvian penalties for pollution, in proportion to the harm caused. All of those could be implemented without requiring top-down planning or accumulating more municipal debts. I'm all for spending money on parks, libraries, bike trails, and public transit, but you can't just drop those into a community where all the economic incentives incline us towards the McLifestyle with big box stores, strip malls, and drive-thru.

msla 8y ago
> End mandatory minimum parking requirements. Including mandatory handicapped spaces?
- nwah1 8y ago
  If you live in a walkable area, handicapped accessibility means ramps and elevators, and handicapped-accessible public transit. Even in our current largely non-walkable cities, there's neighborhoods with high walkability scores. Doesn't make sense for planners to hand out edicts from on high, which force these places to spend money on parking that they don't want. Which, by the way, causes sprawl since more land is devoted to cars rather than people. It makes sense to mandate that a certain ratio of parking be allotted to the handicapped. But if the total parking is zero, then the ratio would net out to zero.
- the_gastropod 8y ago
  I know this is well-intended, but "what about the disabled?" has become almost a canard for suggesting the status-quo is ideal for disabled people. It's absolutely not. Virtually every suggestion this author made would benefit disabled people. Denser/walkable cities aren't just good for walkers. They're easier to traverse in wheelchairs, crutches, etc, too. A 2+-ton, 100+hp vehicle capable of going 150+mph is not the best way to transport a disabled person. It's just what we have available, given our current city layouts. We can do better.
  - msla 8y ago
    > I know this is well-intended, but "what about the disabled?" has become almost a canard Accusing me of dishonest argumentation ends the argument, and indicates your side has no actual points to make.
Theodores 8y ago
The dreaded electric car is the answer. When you look at busy streets where all of the houses have turned their backs on the noise, pollution and general filth that comes with regular traffic think how different it would be if every one of those vehicles 'sat in traffic' and inching forward was an electric vehicle. People could have clean windows and open their front doors to the street. They could even grow a few plants. Crossing the road even in solid traffic would be safer just because you could hear. If individual communities could vote if their street was electric only then there would be an incentive for people to get their street essentially car free. Imaginably the lamp posts would be charging points too. Streets designed a century or more ago and where community once thrived would come back to life. House price values would be vastly more for 'electric' streets just because the standard of living is better. So you could buy an electric car and offset that against the higher valuation of the house - assuming you are owning and not renting. As for old fashioned cars blazing through and creating pollution, there are license plate reading cameras and fines. As for the folks from the countryside that still have their old ICE vehicle, they just have to park a street or two away when visiting their friends on 'electric' streets. This will obviously stress out the parking in neighbouring streets incentivising them to go electric too. Eventually everyone can have a livable street even if there is lots of slow moving traffic moving at a snails pace. It just won't be noisy traffic with killer fumes.
- nwah1 8y ago
  I think the combination of ideas that Silicon Valley is inching us towards is essentially what Personal Rapid Transit has always been. Electric cars are about eliminating the issue of pollution. The idea of ridesharing is to eliminate the maintenance, debt, and storage costs of owning a car. Self-driving cars are about eliminating the accidents and wasted time spent driving. Hyperloop is about using up less valuable surface space just for transportation, and hiding the ugliness of roads underground. Personal Rapid Transit has been able to accomplish literally all those goals since its inception. Each pod is autonomous, on-demand, driverless, and electric. It can be either on a hanging monorail, or undergound, to avoid wasting valuable surface space. And it doesn't require miles of ugly gray asphalt.
- soperj 8y ago
yellowapple 8y ago
Speaking of parking, I think a lot of the need for street parking would go away if underground parking became more ubiquitous (and less expensive relative to street parking). Make street parking (if it exists at all) for loading/unloading only (maybe max 5 minutes), and basically build the city atop a bunch of underground parking structures. Obviously this wouldn't be easy to pull off for existing buildings, but for new construction it'd make life a lot easier for everyone (drivers have an easier time parking, pedestrians/cyclists have more room for dedicated sidewalks and bicycle lanes, etc.).
- ghaff 8y ago
  Underground parking is sometimes put in as a requirement for new development. But even with new construction where you start by digging a hole in the ground, it's relatively expensive. It's sometimes a necessity when there simply isn't room in the area for e.g. commuters driving in to park, but it doesn't come cheap.
- bluGill 8y ago
  Underground parking will always be expensive. It is expensive to build and engineers need to check on it once in a while. (walls aren't collapsing, water isn't filling it up, there is enough ventilation). While it can work, it isn't cheap. A parking lot is as cheap as you can get parking (just parking cost, ignoring externals) The trick is to avoid the need for parking in the first place. A small town can get by with on street parking. As the town grows it can get by with one parking lot on the edge of town if the growth goes up as well as out. Allow tearing down old historic buildings for something more modern. Allow houses to turn into duplex to turn into 5 floor apartments. (I stopped at 5 floors for a reason: for engineering reasons more than 5 tends to not be cost effective though in some locations the rich may be say who cares about cost and build higher anyway) More radically allow someone to turn their first floor into a shop and live upstairs. All of this allows people to live, work, and shop withing walking distance. Once you actually walk most places not having a car is something to think about. When you have to drive to work like most people do (because there are zero houses/apartments within walking distance of the office park their job is in) buying a car is the most cost effective way to have a car and then the incremental cost of using the car for other things is nearly zero.

by nwah1 8y ago

msla 8y ago

> End mandatory minimum parking requirements. Including mandatory handicapped spaces?

nwah1 8y ago
If you live in a walkable area, handicapped accessibility means ramps and elevators, and handicapped-accessible public transit. Even in our current largely non-walkable cities, there's neighborhoods with high walkability scores. Doesn't make sense for planners to hand out edicts from on high, which force these places to spend money on parking that they don't want. Which, by the way, causes sprawl since more land is devoted to cars rather than people. It makes sense to mandate that a certain ratio of parking be allotted to the handicapped. But if the total parking is zero, then the ratio would net out to zero.
the_gastropod 8y ago
I know this is well-intended, but "what about the disabled?" has become almost a canard for suggesting the status-quo is ideal for disabled people. It's absolutely not. Virtually every suggestion this author made would benefit disabled people. Denser/walkable cities aren't just good for walkers. They're easier to traverse in wheelchairs, crutches, etc, too. A 2+-ton, 100+hp vehicle capable of going 150+mph is not the best way to transport a disabled person. It's just what we have available, given our current city layouts. We can do better.
- msla 8y ago
  > I know this is well-intended, but "what about the disabled?" has become almost a canard Accusing me of dishonest argumentation ends the argument, and indicates your side has no actual points to make.

Theodores 8y ago

The dreaded electric car is the answer. When you look at busy streets where all of the houses have turned their backs on the noise, pollution and general filth that comes with regular traffic think how different it would be if every one of those vehicles 'sat in traffic' and inching forward was an electric vehicle. People could have clean windows and open their front doors to the street. They could even grow a few plants. Crossing the road even in solid traffic would be safer just because you could hear. If individual communities could vote if their street was electric only then there would be an incentive for people to get their street essentially car free. Imaginably the lamp posts would be charging points too. Streets designed a century or more ago and where community once thrived would come back to life. House price values would be vastly more for 'electric' streets just because the standard of living is better. So you could buy an electric car and offset that against the higher valuation of the house - assuming you are owning and not renting. As for old fashioned cars blazing through and creating pollution, there are license plate reading cameras and fines. As for the folks from the countryside that still have their old ICE vehicle, they just have to park a street or two away when visiting their friends on 'electric' streets. This will obviously stress out the parking in neighbouring streets incentivising them to go electric too. Eventually everyone can have a livable street even if there is lots of slow moving traffic moving at a snails pace. It just won't be noisy traffic with killer fumes.

nwah1 8y ago
I think the combination of ideas that Silicon Valley is inching us towards is essentially what Personal Rapid Transit has always been. Electric cars are about eliminating the issue of pollution. The idea of ridesharing is to eliminate the maintenance, debt, and storage costs of owning a car. Self-driving cars are about eliminating the accidents and wasted time spent driving. Hyperloop is about using up less valuable surface space just for transportation, and hiding the ugliness of roads underground. Personal Rapid Transit has been able to accomplish literally all those goals since its inception. Each pod is autonomous, on-demand, driverless, and electric. It can be either on a hanging monorail, or undergound, to avoid wasting valuable surface space. And it doesn't require miles of ugly gray asphalt.
soperj 8y ago

yellowapple 8y ago

Speaking of parking, I think a lot of the need for street parking would go away if underground parking became more ubiquitous (and less expensive relative to street parking). Make street parking (if it exists at all) for loading/unloading only (maybe max 5 minutes), and basically build the city atop a bunch of underground parking structures. Obviously this wouldn't be easy to pull off for existing buildings, but for new construction it'd make life a lot easier for everyone (drivers have an easier time parking, pedestrians/cyclists have more room for dedicated sidewalks and bicycle lanes, etc.).

ghaff 8y ago
Underground parking is sometimes put in as a requirement for new development. But even with new construction where you start by digging a hole in the ground, it's relatively expensive. It's sometimes a necessity when there simply isn't room in the area for e.g. commuters driving in to park, but it doesn't come cheap.
bluGill 8y ago
Underground parking will always be expensive. It is expensive to build and engineers need to check on it once in a while. (walls aren't collapsing, water isn't filling it up, there is enough ventilation). While it can work, it isn't cheap. A parking lot is as cheap as you can get parking (just parking cost, ignoring externals) The trick is to avoid the need for parking in the first place. A small town can get by with on street parking. As the town grows it can get by with one parking lot on the edge of town if the growth goes up as well as out. Allow tearing down old historic buildings for something more modern. Allow houses to turn into duplex to turn into 5 floor apartments. (I stopped at 5 floors for a reason: for engineering reasons more than 5 tends to not be cost effective though in some locations the rich may be say who cares about cost and build higher anyway) More radically allow someone to turn their first floor into a shop and live upstairs. All of this allows people to live, work, and shop withing walking distance. Once you actually walk most places not having a car is something to think about. When you have to drive to work like most people do (because there are zero houses/apartments within walking distance of the office park their job is in) buying a car is the most cost effective way to have a car and then the incremental cost of using the car for other things is nearly zero.