5 ms·
> you look at the built environment in a city and the pedestrians often only get 20% of the road area between buildings, while cars get 80%. How is that signif
by wolverine876 3y ago
> you look at the built environment in a city and the pedestrians often only get 20% of the road area between buildings, while cars get 80%.
How is that significant? I very rarely have run out of room on the sidewalk. Cars are larger than I am, they need more space.
I agree with the general consideration that cars waste real estate, but sidewalk width hasn't been a problem that I've seen.
- bedobi 3y agoUh, I encounter that everywhere from San Jose to NYC to Miami
- wolverine876 3y agoYou run out of room on the sidewalk? Like a traffic jam? Maybe we're talking about different things. I rarely have to stop moving on a sidewalk, or if I do it's not for more than a moment, and I'm talking about the most dense cities. Maybe NYC in the theater district when some plays are letting out ...
- ghaff 3y agoTimes Square can get pretty bad. But, yes, that's unusual.
- Panzer04 3y agoMy more conventional frustration is wide roads with shitty traffic signalling that hold up a crowd of pedestrians while 10-15 cars crawl through the intersection. That being said, at peak times some areas definitely get extremely busy with pedestrian traffic. Realistically you do need vehicles in cities for logistical reasons etc, so it's not really a sensible line of thought - but it's still annoying :). It's probably worse in other cities, as Melbourne has plenty of street-level trams with separated rights of way as well as many roads being single-laned both ways, so it's honestly not that bad here.