3 ms·

Just throwing it out there but it would be nice if there were a lot more pesestrian and bike only roads built separate from car roads. Big cities already have r

by _8j50 3y ago

Just throwing it out there but it would be nice if there were a lot more pesestrian and bike only roads built separate from car roads. Big cities already have recreational walking trails that typically follow some sort of a drainage or sewage "river". Another thing I wondered is how under most city streets there is already wiring and tunnels and some infra. Is the cost that unreasonable to convert roads one by one so that cars go underground and intersections overlap to avoid stops, then all you need is exits to parking spaces and low-speed residential streets. Cars get to go a lot faster with little stopping in cities (which will reduce freeway jams), less pedestrians die, self-driving cars would do well there too. Flooding is the main issue I can think of but given climate change, they need to make cities much more flood tolerant and making more floos tunnels/digging might be needed anyways. In my ideal city, these roads will also have systems for small package delivery/transport and garbage disposal where people will select the type of garbage and put it in a box, upon validation they get credits for it if it gets recycle but also less package waste because the package delivery system won't need to have boxes with your address on it, it would just be the stuff, as-is. And this will work with grocery delivery and even high volume destinations like warehouses to walmarts which also require a lot of packaging and waste. Now imagine this delivery system as a subway for packages and imagine adding humans to the mix, delivering them to destinations as if they were packages and then you need a lot less cars and parking space waste. That type of transportation removes the downsides of public transportation like sharing space with a lot of people and being picked up/dropped off ar specicific points and then having to walk to the destination. Just random ideas to put out there for anyone who reads and knows the subject better.

bryanlarsen 3y ago
> Big cities already have recreational walking trails Those are a great example of the problem. Often those recreational walking trails are very nice, but they don't go anywhere functional.
- _8j50 3y ago
  Perhaps they could be extended to do so? Because houses near them already list them as a feature to have near you.
lozenge 3y ago
Milton Keynes tried separating pedestrians and cyclists, it is mostly considered a failure. Reasons include- they built the place so well for cars that everybody owns a car- poorly lit underpasses- confusing layout- crime and the feeling of being alone if somebody were to attack, due to no cars passing by and no shop windows. https://www.cycling-embassy.org.uk/blog/2012/04/27/they-built-it-and-they-didnt-come-lesson-milton-keynes https://www.cycling-embassy.org.uk/blog/2012/04/27/they-buil... https://forum.cyclinguk.org/viewtopic.php?t=46081 https://forum.cyclinguk.org/viewtopic.php?t=46081 "You have to cycle quite a long way to get anywhere useful - Signage is appalling. If I hadn’t had the map I would have got quite lost. [the cycle paths don't follow the grid system]" Tunnels are quite dangerous, having cars at high speed for long distances is extra dangerous. Having them leave the tunnel is either a highway junction or a stroad. There is one in Boston though. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d5pPKfzzL54 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d5pPKfzzL54
- _8j50 3y ago
  > Milton Keynes tried separating pedestrians and cyclists, it is mostly considered a failure That's not what I was suggesting, I was suggesting restructuring cities so that pedestrians and cyclist have their own road network accessible to residential streets and businesses. This road network would complement artery/busy car roads as opposed to being a sidewalk next to them. Where I am, cycling on the sidewalk is prohibited but i see people use it all the time, even where is a bike lane because cars don't take enough care, especially if you wear a helmet. There are many "memorial" roadside spots where cyclists and pedestrians were killed by cars. Walking with someone is also hard because even smaller busy roads have loud cars that make it harder to talk. But the one time my family lived close to a walking/biking trail, everyone started taking routine recreational walks (weather permitting) Most of the reasons you mentioned are easily solvable except the first one, it would indeed require businesses placing signages and retargeting to include foot traffic. But if you think about it, if these complementary roads are parallel to arterial car roads, food trucks and street vendors will flock there. I also see people walking their dogs next to unpleasant busy car roads when they really prefer the type of roads i spoke about, but also dog parks and other recreational human friendly spot could be exclusive to these roads. Milton keynes seems to have had an implementation/planning problem. > Tunnels are quite dangerous, having cars at high speed for long distances is extra dangerous. Having them leave the tunnel is either a highway junction or a stroad. There is one in Boston though. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d5pPKfzzL54 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d5pPKfzzL54 Freeways already have cars at high speeds for long distances. What I am proposing isn't making the tunnels very fast, just slightly faster than existing roads but also actually faster because less pedestrians and stopping. A 30mph road might become 45mph not 60mph. The right lane would be slow enough to take a ramp to/from parking lots. I was also suggesting the tunnels for artery roads, not huge highways. And unlike boston, there would be no addding lanes, above ground would be converted to pedestrian roads and/or metrorail where it makes sense. This can be done one road section at a time, roads would dip into a tunnel and then dip out. Sidewalks would be replaces with space for offramping. Places with underground parking fit even better. Another huge advantage of this is that there could be much more grass/soil/greens above ground making the city cooler and more flood resilient. Boston replaced a highway but used that to add more lanes. They had their railway add more stations according to that video but if they went my that would be done to begin with above ground where there are cars now

by _8j50 3y ago

bryanlarsen 3y ago

> Big cities already have recreational walking trails Those are a great example of the problem. Often those recreational walking trails are very nice, but they don't go anywhere functional.

_8j50 3y ago
Perhaps they could be extended to do so? Because houses near them already list them as a feature to have near you.

lozenge 3y ago

Milton Keynes tried separating pedestrians and cyclists, it is mostly considered a failure. Reasons include- they built the place so well for cars that everybody owns a car- poorly lit underpasses- confusing layout- crime and the feeling of being alone if somebody were to attack, due to no cars passing by and no shop windows. https://www.cycling-embassy.org.uk/blog/2012/04/27/they-built-it-and-they-didnt-come-lesson-milton-keynes https://www.cycling-embassy.org.uk/blog/2012/04/27/they-buil... https://forum.cyclinguk.org/viewtopic.php?t=46081 https://forum.cyclinguk.org/viewtopic.php?t=46081 "You have to cycle quite a long way to get anywhere useful - Signage is appalling. If I hadn’t had the map I would have got quite lost. [the cycle paths don't follow the grid system]" Tunnels are quite dangerous, having cars at high speed for long distances is extra dangerous. Having them leave the tunnel is either a highway junction or a stroad. There is one in Boston though. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d5pPKfzzL54 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d5pPKfzzL54

_8j50 3y ago
> Milton Keynes tried separating pedestrians and cyclists, it is mostly considered a failure That's not what I was suggesting, I was suggesting restructuring cities so that pedestrians and cyclist have their own road network accessible to residential streets and businesses. This road network would complement artery/busy car roads as opposed to being a sidewalk next to them. Where I am, cycling on the sidewalk is prohibited but i see people use it all the time, even where is a bike lane because cars don't take enough care, especially if you wear a helmet. There are many "memorial" roadside spots where cyclists and pedestrians were killed by cars. Walking with someone is also hard because even smaller busy roads have loud cars that make it harder to talk. But the one time my family lived close to a walking/biking trail, everyone started taking routine recreational walks (weather permitting) Most of the reasons you mentioned are easily solvable except the first one, it would indeed require businesses placing signages and retargeting to include foot traffic. But if you think about it, if these complementary roads are parallel to arterial car roads, food trucks and street vendors will flock there. I also see people walking their dogs next to unpleasant busy car roads when they really prefer the type of roads i spoke about, but also dog parks and other recreational human friendly spot could be exclusive to these roads. Milton keynes seems to have had an implementation/planning problem. > Tunnels are quite dangerous, having cars at high speed for long distances is extra dangerous. Having them leave the tunnel is either a highway junction or a stroad. There is one in Boston though. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d5pPKfzzL54 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d5pPKfzzL54 Freeways already have cars at high speeds for long distances. What I am proposing isn't making the tunnels very fast, just slightly faster than existing roads but also actually faster because less pedestrians and stopping. A 30mph road might become 45mph not 60mph. The right lane would be slow enough to take a ramp to/from parking lots. I was also suggesting the tunnels for artery roads, not huge highways. And unlike boston, there would be no addding lanes, above ground would be converted to pedestrian roads and/or metrorail where it makes sense. This can be done one road section at a time, roads would dip into a tunnel and then dip out. Sidewalks would be replaces with space for offramping. Places with underground parking fit even better. Another huge advantage of this is that there could be much more grass/soil/greens above ground making the city cooler and more flood resilient. Boston replaced a highway but used that to add more lanes. They had their railway add more stations according to that video but if they went my that would be done to begin with above ground where there are cars now