2 ms·

For 1, this is well established history that I didn't feel was necessary to provide sources for. That said, the vox article linked to by jeromegv does a good j

For 1, this is well established history that I didn't feel was necessary to provide sources for. That said, the vox article linked to by jeromegv does a good job of describing the transition. For 2, I'd make a distinction between paths built for long-distance travel (roads) and paths built for connecting to destinations (streets). The two have fundamentally different goals that cannot be safely achieved at the same time. To allow for high-speed travel, a road should be as predictable as possible, with limited entrances and exits and barriers to prevent people and animals from wandering onto the road, and should be restricted to vehicles that can maintain a high speed. To allow streets to connect to destinations; such as homes, shops, and workplaces; there should be many entrances and exits to the street. The destinations should be packed as tightly as possible, so that they can be reached with a minimal distance traveled. It's not just that these goals require tradeoffs, but that they are fundamentally antithetical to each other. The best way to satisfy these two goals is by having separate designs for streets and roads. The roads are pathed around pedestrian areas, and allow branching off into them at limited locations. The streets are mixed use, with rougher surfaces (e.g. brick/cobblestone) to prevent high-speed travel. This doesn't exclude motor vehicles from using roads altogether, allowing for use cases such as delivering food to cornershops or dropping off somebody with limited mobility, but does steer motorized traffic off of the streets and onto the roads wherever possible.

MathCodeLove 5y ago
1. Fair enough, but sources should almost always be provided. I hadn't heard that particular piece of historical trivia and I don't think it's necessarily common knowledge. As for the later, why is that any better than just sidewalks and crosswalks, which the majority of areas with heavy pedestrian traffic already have? It'd be incredibly eco-unfriendly, expensive, and impractical to have two different types of roads for cars and pedestrians when we already have a solution that works just fine - sidewalks.
- MereInterest 5y ago
  I do provide sources when something is difficult to find, uncommon, or uses numeric values beyond ballpark estimations. Demanding sources for every statement contributes to Brandolini's Law [0], which states "The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude larger than is needed to produce it." In the spirit of restoring symmetry, I invite you to provide sources for the following statements made in this thread. * "Most areas with heavy pedestrian traffic have sidewalks." I am uncertain on this one, as heavy pedestrian traffic is more frequent on mixed-use streets. Sidewalks are only used in places with car-centric design, which discourages walking. * "Even with cars taking up much more space, a bunch of cars traveling at 25 mph are able to carry a many more people through a distance X in a period of time T than the equivalent walking would be able to." I am uncertain on this, because cars require very large amounts of space both for the physical size of the car, the spacing between cars, and the spacing between groups of cars at an intersection. * "It'd be incredibly eco-unfriendly, expensive, and impractical to have two different types of roads" I'd be interested in a source for this, as I've generally heard that separating out usage improves the efficiency of each. Cars go faster because there are fewer stops requires. Pedestrians die less often because there are fewer cars nearby. * "Bike lanes are less common than sidewalks" This is correct by my experience, but I've only lived in places with car-centric city planning. Can you provide a source? I'm interested in continuing this conversation, but not if it is a conversation between sourced comments and unsourced assertions. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini%27s_law

MathCodeLove 5y ago

1. Fair enough, but sources should almost always be provided. I hadn't heard that particular piece of historical trivia and I don't think it's necessarily common knowledge. As for the later, why is that any better than just sidewalks and crosswalks, which the majority of areas with heavy pedestrian traffic already have? It'd be incredibly eco-unfriendly, expensive, and impractical to have two different types of roads for cars and pedestrians when we already have a solution that works just fine - sidewalks.

MereInterest 5y ago
I do provide sources when something is difficult to find, uncommon, or uses numeric values beyond ballpark estimations. Demanding sources for every statement contributes to Brandolini's Law [0], which states "The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude larger than is needed to produce it." In the spirit of restoring symmetry, I invite you to provide sources for the following statements made in this thread. * "Most areas with heavy pedestrian traffic have sidewalks." I am uncertain on this one, as heavy pedestrian traffic is more frequent on mixed-use streets. Sidewalks are only used in places with car-centric design, which discourages walking. * "Even with cars taking up much more space, a bunch of cars traveling at 25 mph are able to carry a many more people through a distance X in a period of time T than the equivalent walking would be able to." I am uncertain on this, because cars require very large amounts of space both for the physical size of the car, the spacing between cars, and the spacing between groups of cars at an intersection. * "It'd be incredibly eco-unfriendly, expensive, and impractical to have two different types of roads" I'd be interested in a source for this, as I've generally heard that separating out usage improves the efficiency of each. Cars go faster because there are fewer stops requires. Pedestrians die less often because there are fewer cars nearby. * "Bike lanes are less common than sidewalks" This is correct by my experience, but I've only lived in places with car-centric city planning. Can you provide a source? I'm interested in continuing this conversation, but not if it is a conversation between sourced comments and unsourced assertions. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini%27s_law