4 ms·

The point is that (in the US) no one outside of New York City and maybe Chicago has any ability to really experience this kind of hierarchy. Even in those citie

The point is that (in the US) no one outside of New York City and maybe Chicago has any ability to really experience this kind of hierarchy. Even in those cities, it's still not prioritizing pedestrians and bicyclists, it's just increased the relevance of public transport due to the inherent density making driving and parking a pain. Mid sized cities (or larger cities built up after the 50's) just aren't designed to support this kind of lifestyle, and would require laws to change around zoning/parking/etc.

throwaway22032 3y ago
Yeah, that makes sense. I'm not sure that you could go much further than NYC without making private car ownership impossible for most, though. Maybe that's the point. Despite having a good transport network overall (I live in London), it's just such an integrated part of my life to be able to jump in the car and go and visit friends say 50 miles away that I can't imagine ever wanting to give that up. I'd rather have that than the fancy downtown bars. Am I old? :)
- rainsford 3y ago
  The point that always seems to get lost in these discussions is that it really shouldn't be an either/or thing. There's no reason you can't still have a car for journeys that make sense to drive while having great alternatives so you aren't forced to use a car for every single trip, which would be a huge transportation improvement over what exists now in the vast majority of American cities.
rainsford 3y ago
I don't think that's true at all, especially thinking about bicycling (or e-bikes or electric scooters or whatever). Biking can get you long enough distances easily enough that you don't need a city to be super dense or ultra mixed use for biking to be a practical mode of transportation. I live in a fairly suburban fairly mid-sized city and there are tons of destinations within a couple of miles of my house. The reason my city isn't more bikable isn't zoning or parking or density or whatever, it's that there is literally no safe way to reach many of those destinations by bike because the only route there is on streets with high speed limits designed exclusively for cars. I think this is the case for a lot of mid-sized cities in the US if you really look at the distances involved. In fact my city is slowly improving things by turning sidewalks into mixed use paths that make it much easier to get places without using a car, so it's clearly doable. Sure, a lot of exurban bedroom community type places are never going to be anything but car dependent without totally rebuilding them, but alternatives like biking are definitely not only possible in the densest American cities.
- digdugdirk 3y ago
  Sounds like we're in complete agreement then. The hierarchy starts with walking (which it sounds like your city is too spread out to be a useful means of transport) then biking, then public transport. Unless your city also has a public transit system that is sufficient enough in coverage and timing to replace the need for anyone in your city to own a car, in which case... Please send me a direct message with the city name, I don't want the secret to get out before I move there. Also, don't discount the impact that zoning and parking requirements can have on the ability to have communities like this. Does your city have a collection of parking lots occupying valuable real estate in your downtown? Land that could be used to build a valuable business or multi-unit housing? Yep - that's mandatory parking requirements. Does your city have a lack of neighbourhood businesses and restaurants, leading to the necessity to travel by car to big box stores in a spread out car-centric shopping center away from any other part of the community? Yeah, that's because of zoning laws. These laws can be changed, but cities have already been built entirely around the automobile in most of the US - there has to be a specific push to enable alternate lifestyles to be a possibility. Otherwise, the only viable lifestyle revolves around four wheels and two tons of steel.
  - rainsford 3y ago
    The point I'm trying to make is that my city does indeed have many of those problems you mention...it's not all that different from many American cities. I think it's better than average in that zoning seems to have allowed a little more neighborhood type shopping options, some multi-use paths, a mixed-use downtown, and multi-family dwellings, but it's not Manhattan. Public transit is nearly non-existent, plenty of big box stores, shopping centers, downtown parking lots, etc. Living here without owning a car at all would be extremely limiting. And yet, biking could be a perfectly viable transit option without changing most of those factors if there was just more bike infrastructure. You wouldn't get the full hierarchy, as you said, but you could very realistically have more options than just driving.
burkaman 3y ago
This is absolutely not true, most midsized cities in the US are decently bikeable and have usable bus systems. If you live in a massive sprawling southwestern city like Phoenix or you live in a relatively rural area, then yes you have to use a very different hierarchy.
- digdugdirk 3y ago
  What's your definition of mid-sized city? I ask because the hierarchy in the article starts with walking, and very few midsized cities are livable if your only form of transportation is your own two feet. I'm also curious about what your concept of "usable" is with regards to bus transportation, since in my experience bus service tends to be highly focused around commuting to a downtown work area - with very degraded service outside these times and areas.
  - burkaman 3y ago
    Also not sure what counts as mid-sized, but I'm thinking of places like Richmond, Asheville, Chattanooga, Little Rock, Tulsa, Santa Fe, Flagstaff. > very few midsized cities are livable if your only form of transportation is your own two feet. I mostly agree, but nobody is saying you shouldn't own any kind of vehicle, just that you should consider walking first for closer destinations. If you can't walk then you start moving down the hierarchy. "Usable" bus system is also hard to define, if I'm being honest what I mean is when I was there and moving around for non-work reasons, I was often able to use a bus. I don't have a better source than my own limited experience so you can ignore that part of the comment.

throwaway22032 3y ago

Yeah, that makes sense. I'm not sure that you could go much further than NYC without making private car ownership impossible for most, though. Maybe that's the point. Despite having a good transport network overall (I live in London), it's just such an integrated part of my life to be able to jump in the car and go and visit friends say 50 miles away that I can't imagine ever wanting to give that up. I'd rather have that than the fancy downtown bars. Am I old? :)

rainsford 3y ago
The point that always seems to get lost in these discussions is that it really shouldn't be an either/or thing. There's no reason you can't still have a car for journeys that make sense to drive while having great alternatives so you aren't forced to use a car for every single trip, which would be a huge transportation improvement over what exists now in the vast majority of American cities.

rainsford 3y ago

I don't think that's true at all, especially thinking about bicycling (or e-bikes or electric scooters or whatever). Biking can get you long enough distances easily enough that you don't need a city to be super dense or ultra mixed use for biking to be a practical mode of transportation. I live in a fairly suburban fairly mid-sized city and there are tons of destinations within a couple of miles of my house. The reason my city isn't more bikable isn't zoning or parking or density or whatever, it's that there is literally no safe way to reach many of those destinations by bike because the only route there is on streets with high speed limits designed exclusively for cars. I think this is the case for a lot of mid-sized cities in the US if you really look at the distances involved. In fact my city is slowly improving things by turning sidewalks into mixed use paths that make it much easier to get places without using a car, so it's clearly doable. Sure, a lot of exurban bedroom community type places are never going to be anything but car dependent without totally rebuilding them, but alternatives like biking are definitely not only possible in the densest American cities.

digdugdirk 3y ago
Sounds like we're in complete agreement then. The hierarchy starts with walking (which it sounds like your city is too spread out to be a useful means of transport) then biking, then public transport. Unless your city also has a public transit system that is sufficient enough in coverage and timing to replace the need for anyone in your city to own a car, in which case... Please send me a direct message with the city name, I don't want the secret to get out before I move there. Also, don't discount the impact that zoning and parking requirements can have on the ability to have communities like this. Does your city have a collection of parking lots occupying valuable real estate in your downtown? Land that could be used to build a valuable business or multi-unit housing? Yep - that's mandatory parking requirements. Does your city have a lack of neighbourhood businesses and restaurants, leading to the necessity to travel by car to big box stores in a spread out car-centric shopping center away from any other part of the community? Yeah, that's because of zoning laws. These laws can be changed, but cities have already been built entirely around the automobile in most of the US - there has to be a specific push to enable alternate lifestyles to be a possibility. Otherwise, the only viable lifestyle revolves around four wheels and two tons of steel.
- rainsford 3y ago
  The point I'm trying to make is that my city does indeed have many of those problems you mention...it's not all that different from many American cities. I think it's better than average in that zoning seems to have allowed a little more neighborhood type shopping options, some multi-use paths, a mixed-use downtown, and multi-family dwellings, but it's not Manhattan. Public transit is nearly non-existent, plenty of big box stores, shopping centers, downtown parking lots, etc. Living here without owning a car at all would be extremely limiting. And yet, biking could be a perfectly viable transit option without changing most of those factors if there was just more bike infrastructure. You wouldn't get the full hierarchy, as you said, but you could very realistically have more options than just driving.

burkaman 3y ago

This is absolutely not true, most midsized cities in the US are decently bikeable and have usable bus systems. If you live in a massive sprawling southwestern city like Phoenix or you live in a relatively rural area, then yes you have to use a very different hierarchy.

digdugdirk 3y ago
What's your definition of mid-sized city? I ask because the hierarchy in the article starts with walking, and very few midsized cities are livable if your only form of transportation is your own two feet. I'm also curious about what your concept of "usable" is with regards to bus transportation, since in my experience bus service tends to be highly focused around commuting to a downtown work area - with very degraded service outside these times and areas.
- burkaman 3y ago
  Also not sure what counts as mid-sized, but I'm thinking of places like Richmond, Asheville, Chattanooga, Little Rock, Tulsa, Santa Fe, Flagstaff. > very few midsized cities are livable if your only form of transportation is your own two feet. I mostly agree, but nobody is saying you shouldn't own any kind of vehicle, just that you should consider walking first for closer destinations. If you can't walk then you start moving down the hierarchy. "Usable" bus system is also hard to define, if I'm being honest what I mean is when I was there and moving around for non-work reasons, I was often able to use a bus. I don't have a better source than my own limited experience so you can ignore that part of the comment.