8 ms·

Buried in the hyperbole is this nugget of truth: It is only the last two generations that we have scaled places to the automobile. City, suburb, whatever the

by qjz 15y ago

Buried in the hyperbole is this nugget of truth: It is only the last two generations that we have scaled places to the automobile. City, suburb, whatever the residential setting, this is the true enemy of creating a network of livable communities. Any jogger, cyclist or volksmarcher can tell you that a continuous green ribbon connecting communities enhances the quality of life many times over. It's a crime that road/highway development rarely takes this into consideration, especially when some of the nicest trails I ride go alongside or beneath some of the busiest roads in my metropolitan area. A well-planned paved trail can can offer a cycling commute comparable to that of an automobile (sometimes even shorter), only far more pleasant and healthier. Unfortunately, sharing the road with cars in any metropolitan or suburban area is a life-threatening experience.

necubi 15y ago
I have trouble believing that simply making cycling more attractive will be enough to deal with the massive transportation problems that suburbs (and more so exurbs) create. No matter how nice the trails are, most people will not communicate by bike or walking. The solution is to pack people more densely in mixed-use communities. Ideally most people would have their necessities within walking distance (grocery store, drug store, restaurants, movie theatre, bank, etc.) and public transportation to everything else, including work. Both of these goals can only be implemented affordably if population densities are high.
- qjz 15y ago
  Experience tells me you're wrong. I know people who walked one block to work every day of their lives, only to be critically injured by passing cars or trucks. I know plenty of of cyclists injured by buses pulling over to pick up passengers, or even by parked cars suddenly opening doors. Population density does not protect you from motor vehicle traffic density. Even bike lanes are dangerous when the only barrier is a line of paint. There is no reason pedestrians or cyclists need to be anywhere near motor vehicle traffic. Once this becomes a principle of residential planning, communities become far more liveable.
  - necubi 15y ago
    Those are anecdotes that don't address my main point, which is that there will be no mass turn towards biking merely because it is made more pleasant. I offer as counterpoint Santa Cruz, CA, where I grew up. It's hard to imagine a more bike friendly city: there are bike lanes on nearly every road, there are special bike trails along many busy routes, and there are bike racks everywhere. And a lot more people bike than in other places I've lived. But it's still a tiny minority, and the vast, vast majority of people drive everywhere because the city is too small and spread out to have decent public transportation.
    - qjz 15y ago
      True, anecdotes aren't proof. But how can you counter that making something more pleasant won't affect its popularity? Your original concern was that this wouldn't "be enough to deal with the massive transportation problems that suburbs (and more so exurbs) create." I agree that the sprawl of population over vast distances creates a dependency on individual motor vehicles that simply isn't going to disappear as the commute lengthens. But certainly, some relief is offered wherever consideration is given to pedestrians and cyclists. Consider how much worse your example of Santa Cruz would be if cycling were impossible. Also note, I'm not only talking about commuting to work or shopping. I live in an area where every single structured activity my children are involved in (school, sports, entertainment, etc.) requires them to be chauffeured. That's one more car on the road that could have been avoided with better residential planning, urban or suburban.
    - rdouble 15y ago
      No offense, but Santa Cruz is hardly a bicycling mecca. It's actually kind of bad for cycling - downtown is too congested, Pacifc Avenue is a one way, the east side is too spread out, once you go up the hills on the west side it's also too spread out, there are a lot of small and winding busy roads with no shoulder that you need to use to get from one part of the city to another, and the cops are hostile to cyclists. Even in California, you don't need to imagine a more bike friendly city, you can just visit Sacramento. The parent is right - studies have shown that if you improve bicycling infrastructure, you increase the number of bicycle commuters. However, you are also correct... even in the American city with the most bicycle commuters (Minneapolis) the total percentage of commuters using bicycles is less than 3%. Unfortunately, the density of American cities does not lend itself to bike commuting. Even though it's not even ranked in the "best places to bike" articles, I thought Manhattan was the easiest place in the USA to get around on a bike.
- baguasquirrel 15y ago
  One word for you. Copenhagen.
  - gnosis 15y ago
    And one word for you: Amsterdam. Amsterdam is arguably the most bicycle-friendly city in the world. It has more bikes in it than people. The city is completely flat and designed for biking. Virtually everyone rides bikes. Bike lanes and bike racks are everywhere. Bicycling around Amsterdam is one of the most pleasant activities I've ever engaged in. However, I wouldn't say that it makes for a nicer community on its own. People are no more apt to socialize or feel part of the community if they're riding past each other on bikes at 10 mph than they are if they drive past each other at 60 mph or walk past each other at 3 mph. Though I suppose it is more likely that they'll stop and chat if they're walking or biking than if they're driving.
- ianb 15y ago
  Public transportation unfortunately can't deal with mixed-use areas. It can deal with a nice big downtown commute center, but that's the opposite of mixed-use, and by definition someone works in all those non-residential locations.
  - enjo 15y ago
    This is a head scratcher. Downtowns, by their nature, are the very epitome of mixed use. They are almost always populated (to some extent), sport shops and restaurants, as well as providing employment. It doesn't get more "mixed use" than that. Public transit systems are at their most efficient in these environments. In my experience the cities that offer the best mixed use neighborhoods have the best transit systems, if for no other reason than high density, mixed use areas provide the highest economic impetus for transit in the first place.
    - ianb 15y ago
      How many downtowns are livable and enjoyable after 6pm? Some have pockets of activity, usually built with lots of subsidies and great effort (and they often have an eery feel of the-city-as-imagined-by-suburbanites). Skyscrapers are density without any of the advantages of density (http://newurbannetwork.com/news-opinion/blogs/michael-mehaffy/14138/more-low-down-tall-buildings http://newurbannetwork.com/news-opinion/blogs/michael-mehaff...). Even Manhattan, a kind of endless downtown, is at its best in the somewhat lower density areas that have fewer skyscrapers.
- omarchowdhury 15y ago
  That solution is New York City, especially the outer boroughs.
- georgieporgie 15y ago
  Victoria, B.C., which has crappier weather than most places I've lived, has a fantastic arterial bike path which penetrates to the core of downtown. I have never in my life seen so many commuting cyclists at rush hour.
pavel_lishin 15y ago
Does it enhance the quality of life for people who don't jog, cycle, or hike? Could you actually convert a significant amount of people to these activities just by offering greenbelts?
- qjz 15y ago
  Yes and yes. One less car on the road relieves congestion for other commuters. While some homeowners may be concerned about converting nearby abandoned railroads to trails, there's no question that it will increase resale value (beautiful, quiet, paved 25 mile nature trail out my back gate? Sold!). I've seen every cross section of society utilizing these trails, including infants, elderly and severely handicapped. One worthwhile consideration: pavement is a must. Gravel roads are simply less accessible.
  - pavel_lishin 15y ago
    Sure, but are the people using them the type of people who always have? People who have never done anything like that, if they move to a community with greenbelts, will they use them?
    - ABrandt 15y ago
      Three weeks ago I relocated to Madison, WI which (I'm told) is one of the most bike friendly cities in the US. I haven't ridden or owned a bike since childhood, but I wouldn't be surprised if that changes in the near future. Having trails that get you where you need to go simply turns the biking questions from "how?" to "why not?". Why continue a) paying gas prices b) causing unnecessary pollution and c) sitting on your a if a bicycle can truly fulfill 75% of your transportation needs. Time will tell but I definitely think availability of greenbelts can only be a good thing.
      - pavel_lishin 15y ago
        I'm not against them, I'm just trying to play devil's advocate. I bought a bike last friday because mine was stolen before I moved to New York City. I mention this because I moved from Dallas, which is one of the unfriendlier cities for biking - the heat makes it impractical to bike to work unless you have a shower on site, and the other drivers make it a more dangerous sport than it has to be.
jarrodtaylor 15y ago
One of the most important reasons I choose to live in the suburbs is because it's scaled to the automobile. Owning and driving a fun sports car is one of the great joys in life, and making it part of my daily routine is not something that can be replaced by biking or walking. I get to own my own property for a relatively low price, which in the long run has significantly lowered my cost of living. I'm close enough to drive into the city anytime I want, yet I don't have to deal with the overcrowding when I don't feel like it. With the internet, I get to work from home. And I'd much rather go jogging through a quiet neighborhood than a city greenway any day. My point isn't that cities or suburbs are better, just that there's a place for both. Having lived in both and now getting to enjoy the best of both has allowed me a life I couldn't possibly have if I was stuck in one or the other. Scaling for automobiles works out really well for people who enjoy automobiles and the communities they create, which are not only livable, but enjoyable, for the people who want that kind of life.
- techdmn 15y ago
  I enjoy automobiles. I love to drive, and work at it: toe heel, left foot brake, etc. I moved and started walking to work last year, and was worried I would miss driving every day. Not at all, not even a little. My commute was not quality driving time, even if I did find a few moments of excitement each day. It means a LOT more to me to have extra free time, not worry about traffic, and (surprisingly to me) feel in touch with nature. I've grown to feel that living inside your house, your car, your office, it's very isolating. Spending a few minutes outside, every day, definitely good for my mental health.
  - jarrodtaylor 15y ago
    Absolutely agreed. Rush hour sucks. I work remotely, but I do end up working from coffee shops around town a lot. I enjoy getting out and being part of society. Best of both worlds. Edit: I know that won't work for everyone, but that's why we have choices.
- dasil003 15y ago
  Well I think the point of the article is that you're not paying the true cost of the lifestyle you enjoy. It claims only 10% of the actual cost is covered by taxes. I'm not saying that's true, but it's an interesting thought experiment, how would you feel about it if your property taxes went up 10x?
marknutter 15y ago
You obviously don't live in Minnesota.
- jarek 15y ago
  Well, you obviously do, but for the rest of us not intimately familiar with the trails situation in Minnesota that's not a very useful comment.
gcb 15y ago
I don't think it takes anything into consideration. Living in Sao Paulo --a place with much much much denser population than L.A. where I live now, I could walk everywhere (only had a weekend car) and my apartment was huge compared to the places I can afford here. So, it's not the need to pack people. It's just not planned at all

by qjz 15y ago

necubi 15y ago

I have trouble believing that simply making cycling more attractive will be enough to deal with the massive transportation problems that suburbs (and more so exurbs) create. No matter how nice the trails are, most people will not communicate by bike or walking. The solution is to pack people more densely in mixed-use communities. Ideally most people would have their necessities within walking distance (grocery store, drug store, restaurants, movie theatre, bank, etc.) and public transportation to everything else, including work. Both of these goals can only be implemented affordably if population densities are high.

qjz 15y ago
Experience tells me you're wrong. I know people who walked one block to work every day of their lives, only to be critically injured by passing cars or trucks. I know plenty of of cyclists injured by buses pulling over to pick up passengers, or even by parked cars suddenly opening doors. Population density does not protect you from motor vehicle traffic density. Even bike lanes are dangerous when the only barrier is a line of paint. There is no reason pedestrians or cyclists need to be anywhere near motor vehicle traffic. Once this becomes a principle of residential planning, communities become far more liveable.
- necubi 15y ago
  Those are anecdotes that don't address my main point, which is that there will be no mass turn towards biking merely because it is made more pleasant. I offer as counterpoint Santa Cruz, CA, where I grew up. It's hard to imagine a more bike friendly city: there are bike lanes on nearly every road, there are special bike trails along many busy routes, and there are bike racks everywhere. And a lot more people bike than in other places I've lived. But it's still a tiny minority, and the vast, vast majority of people drive everywhere because the city is too small and spread out to have decent public transportation.
  - qjz 15y ago
    True, anecdotes aren't proof. But how can you counter that making something more pleasant won't affect its popularity? Your original concern was that this wouldn't "be enough to deal with the massive transportation problems that suburbs (and more so exurbs) create." I agree that the sprawl of population over vast distances creates a dependency on individual motor vehicles that simply isn't going to disappear as the commute lengthens. But certainly, some relief is offered wherever consideration is given to pedestrians and cyclists. Consider how much worse your example of Santa Cruz would be if cycling were impossible. Also note, I'm not only talking about commuting to work or shopping. I live in an area where every single structured activity my children are involved in (school, sports, entertainment, etc.) requires them to be chauffeured. That's one more car on the road that could have been avoided with better residential planning, urban or suburban.
  - rdouble 15y ago
    No offense, but Santa Cruz is hardly a bicycling mecca. It's actually kind of bad for cycling - downtown is too congested, Pacifc Avenue is a one way, the east side is too spread out, once you go up the hills on the west side it's also too spread out, there are a lot of small and winding busy roads with no shoulder that you need to use to get from one part of the city to another, and the cops are hostile to cyclists. Even in California, you don't need to imagine a more bike friendly city, you can just visit Sacramento. The parent is right - studies have shown that if you improve bicycling infrastructure, you increase the number of bicycle commuters. However, you are also correct... even in the American city with the most bicycle commuters (Minneapolis) the total percentage of commuters using bicycles is less than 3%. Unfortunately, the density of American cities does not lend itself to bike commuting. Even though it's not even ranked in the "best places to bike" articles, I thought Manhattan was the easiest place in the USA to get around on a bike.
baguasquirrel 15y ago
One word for you. Copenhagen.
- gnosis 15y ago
  And one word for you: Amsterdam. Amsterdam is arguably the most bicycle-friendly city in the world. It has more bikes in it than people. The city is completely flat and designed for biking. Virtually everyone rides bikes. Bike lanes and bike racks are everywhere. Bicycling around Amsterdam is one of the most pleasant activities I've ever engaged in. However, I wouldn't say that it makes for a nicer community on its own. People are no more apt to socialize or feel part of the community if they're riding past each other on bikes at 10 mph than they are if they drive past each other at 60 mph or walk past each other at 3 mph. Though I suppose it is more likely that they'll stop and chat if they're walking or biking than if they're driving.
ianb 15y ago
Public transportation unfortunately can't deal with mixed-use areas. It can deal with a nice big downtown commute center, but that's the opposite of mixed-use, and by definition someone works in all those non-residential locations.
- enjo 15y ago
  This is a head scratcher. Downtowns, by their nature, are the very epitome of mixed use. They are almost always populated (to some extent), sport shops and restaurants, as well as providing employment. It doesn't get more "mixed use" than that. Public transit systems are at their most efficient in these environments. In my experience the cities that offer the best mixed use neighborhoods have the best transit systems, if for no other reason than high density, mixed use areas provide the highest economic impetus for transit in the first place.
  - ianb 15y ago
    How many downtowns are livable and enjoyable after 6pm? Some have pockets of activity, usually built with lots of subsidies and great effort (and they often have an eery feel of the-city-as-imagined-by-suburbanites). Skyscrapers are density without any of the advantages of density (http://newurbannetwork.com/news-opinion/blogs/michael-mehaffy/14138/more-low-down-tall-buildings http://newurbannetwork.com/news-opinion/blogs/michael-mehaff...). Even Manhattan, a kind of endless downtown, is at its best in the somewhat lower density areas that have fewer skyscrapers.
omarchowdhury 15y ago
That solution is New York City, especially the outer boroughs.
georgieporgie 15y ago
Victoria, B.C., which has crappier weather than most places I've lived, has a fantastic arterial bike path which penetrates to the core of downtown. I have never in my life seen so many commuting cyclists at rush hour.

pavel_lishin 15y ago

Does it enhance the quality of life for people who don't jog, cycle, or hike? Could you actually convert a significant amount of people to these activities just by offering greenbelts?

qjz 15y ago
Yes and yes. One less car on the road relieves congestion for other commuters. While some homeowners may be concerned about converting nearby abandoned railroads to trails, there's no question that it will increase resale value (beautiful, quiet, paved 25 mile nature trail out my back gate? Sold!). I've seen every cross section of society utilizing these trails, including infants, elderly and severely handicapped. One worthwhile consideration: pavement is a must. Gravel roads are simply less accessible.
- pavel_lishin 15y ago
  Sure, but are the people using them the type of people who always have? People who have never done anything like that, if they move to a community with greenbelts, will they use them?
  - ABrandt 15y ago
    Three weeks ago I relocated to Madison, WI which (I'm told) is one of the most bike friendly cities in the US. I haven't ridden or owned a bike since childhood, but I wouldn't be surprised if that changes in the near future. Having trails that get you where you need to go simply turns the biking questions from "how?" to "why not?". Why continue a) paying gas prices b) causing unnecessary pollution and c) sitting on your a if a bicycle can truly fulfill 75% of your transportation needs. Time will tell but I definitely think availability of greenbelts can only be a good thing.
    - pavel_lishin 15y ago
      I'm not against them, I'm just trying to play devil's advocate. I bought a bike last friday because mine was stolen before I moved to New York City. I mention this because I moved from Dallas, which is one of the unfriendlier cities for biking - the heat makes it impractical to bike to work unless you have a shower on site, and the other drivers make it a more dangerous sport than it has to be.

jarrodtaylor 15y ago

One of the most important reasons I choose to live in the suburbs is because it's scaled to the automobile. Owning and driving a fun sports car is one of the great joys in life, and making it part of my daily routine is not something that can be replaced by biking or walking. I get to own my own property for a relatively low price, which in the long run has significantly lowered my cost of living. I'm close enough to drive into the city anytime I want, yet I don't have to deal with the overcrowding when I don't feel like it. With the internet, I get to work from home. And I'd much rather go jogging through a quiet neighborhood than a city greenway any day. My point isn't that cities or suburbs are better, just that there's a place for both. Having lived in both and now getting to enjoy the best of both has allowed me a life I couldn't possibly have if I was stuck in one or the other. Scaling for automobiles works out really well for people who enjoy automobiles and the communities they create, which are not only livable, but enjoyable, for the people who want that kind of life.

techdmn 15y ago
I enjoy automobiles. I love to drive, and work at it: toe heel, left foot brake, etc. I moved and started walking to work last year, and was worried I would miss driving every day. Not at all, not even a little. My commute was not quality driving time, even if I did find a few moments of excitement each day. It means a LOT more to me to have extra free time, not worry about traffic, and (surprisingly to me) feel in touch with nature. I've grown to feel that living inside your house, your car, your office, it's very isolating. Spending a few minutes outside, every day, definitely good for my mental health.
- jarrodtaylor 15y ago
  Absolutely agreed. Rush hour sucks. I work remotely, but I do end up working from coffee shops around town a lot. I enjoy getting out and being part of society. Best of both worlds. Edit: I know that won't work for everyone, but that's why we have choices.
dasil003 15y ago
Well I think the point of the article is that you're not paying the true cost of the lifestyle you enjoy. It claims only 10% of the actual cost is covered by taxes. I'm not saying that's true, but it's an interesting thought experiment, how would you feel about it if your property taxes went up 10x?

marknutter 15y ago

You obviously don't live in Minnesota.

jarek 15y ago
Well, you obviously do, but for the rest of us not intimately familiar with the trails situation in Minnesota that's not a very useful comment.

gcb 15y ago

I don't think it takes anything into consideration. Living in Sao Paulo --a place with much much much denser population than L.A. where I live now, I could walk everywhere (only had a weekend car) and my apartment was huge compared to the places I can afford here. So, it's not the need to pack people. It's just not planned at all