Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Much of NYC is within a 15 minute walk or less from a supermarket, but many (in some areas most, Manhattan all but a couple) supermarkets don't have parking. Adding parking would be difficult and cost money that might not be worth it to the store. People seem to manage, I didn't realize it was such a big deal until I came to this forum.
The London suburb my aunt lives in the local supermarket is free for up 1.5 hours and they care. But regardless, out of all stores, supermarkets are a type of store that will try add parking for reasons many of posters have described.
This forum seems to have an odd definition of walkable/PT that it must be as convenient as driving for the average person. That's an unreasonable standard in most places, Manhattan being a possible exception. Then there's some other odd rules like you can't walk along streets where cars go more than 30 mph, can't walk across parking lots, can't walk past surface parking lots. I found Seattle's downtown area highly walkable. Based on the fact that an equal number of people walk to work as drive, I guess others do as well. Still, driving would often have been more convenient... just not worth the cost for the added convenience for me. $175 a month to park a few blocks away, $5/hour parking most places, $30 parking a day where I worked. It didn't make a whole lot of sense to me and apparently doesn't to 40% of the people that live in the downtown area. But the average person still owns a car and many still drove to work every day, to the grocery store, etc, and you had to walk by surface lots. It might not meet the threshold of what many here consider walkable since most people are still "forced into car dependence," which is the only reason anyone would choose to buy a car. That's odd.
What's really odd is then you apply that rather unreasonable standard to some far-flung exurban area like Sammamish whose existence is an affront to some. People who are forced to live in Sammamish are either incredibly dumb or just don't care very much about how walkable it is and how the PT is extremely limited. I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt and assume they aren't just incredibly dumb even when they are "forced" (aka choose) a lifestyle that doesn't comport to my own.
What you just said is sensible. The problem is that some don't see the sense you make, it's become an all or nothing "get rid of cars" mantra.
I would say it has more to do with the cars only crowd than anything else, most people that seem to be for public transportation options and walkable communities tend to also be okay with cars being used, but want to get rid of the car dependency that is cresting in cars only environments.
I would say it has more to do with the cars only crowd than anything else, most people that seem to be for public transportation options and walkable communities tend to also be okay with cars being used, but want to get rid of the car dependency that is cresting in cars only environments.
I would say it has more to do with the cars only crowd than anything else, most people that seem to be for public transportation options and walkable communities tend to also be okay with cars being used, but want to get rid of the car dependency that is cresting in cars only environments.
For starts, I don't think there is a "cars only" crowd on here. Most of us who use cars for almost all our personal transportation needs, have no issue with public transportation. We are voting to pay taxes to support public transit. The anti-car crowd, OTOH, is always bellyaching about the subsidies the suburbs receive for roads, and wants to eliminate them. "If we just got rid of these subsidies, people would flock back to the cities".
I agree with Malloric, too. There are some very odd standards for "walkable". It is a travesty to have to walk or bike across a parking lot. Even with a sidewalk separated by a grass strip from the road, the speed limit can't be too high, and the walk has to be "interesting".
First, was there a connection to your post and my post you were replying to? I wasn't defining walkable or much of anything in that post.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malloric
This forum seems to have an odd definition of walkable/PT that it must be as convenient as driving for the average person. That's an unreasonable standard in most places, Manhattan being a possible exception. Then there's some other odd rules like you can't walk along streets where cars go more than 30 mph, can't walk across parking lots, can't walk past surface parking lots. I found Seattle's downtown area highly walkable. Based on the fact that an equal number of people walk to work as drive, I guess others do as well. Still, driving would often have been more convenient... just not worth the cost for the added convenience for me. $175 a month to park a few blocks away, $5/hour parking most places, $30 parking a day where I worked. It didn't make a whole lot of sense to me and apparently doesn't to 40% of the people that live in the downtown area. But the average person still owns a car and many still drove to work every day, to the grocery store, etc, and you had to walk by surface lots. It might not meet the threshold of what many here consider walkable since most people are still "forced into car dependence," which is the only reason anyone would choose to buy a car. That's odd.
I don't think anyone here would consider Seattle's downtown area not walkable, I certainly didn't. Though while perhaps it may be more convenient to drive in downtown Seattle, it may be more practical not to drive considering the cost.
Yes, having a definition that public transit or walking is as convenient as driving is a bit extreme. But then there's the other extreme on the forum: as long as sidewalks exists, or you have a few stores within a 15 minute walk, and some skeltal transit service it must be walkable / not auto dependent. There isn't one definition to make a place walkable or not-auto dependent: different people have different routines. But if not having a car would seriously limit most people's mobility (judging typical day to day trips not a weekend getaway), or gooble up lots of extra time that would impractical for most, then it's probably car dependent and not walkable. If you see few people walking on the street, it's a good hint that it's not a great pedestrian environment. Is it common for people to leave their cars at home for days? If not, probably auto-dependent.
Some of the other things listed are sometimes overemphasized, but often they affect pedestrian safety and practicalities. Wide roads, with fast moving traffic? Frequently hard to cross, so one has to make a long detour to find a safe crossing point. I'd rather avoid just crossing this intersection
. Yes, you can walk across parking lots. But usually, at least here, strip mall areas are more spread out than non-strip malls and if I have choice between walking towards a parking lot filled area and one with, all things being equal, yes I'd head to the one without. Almost always, the one without has more pedestrians and just more pleasant to spend time. Compare:
The former is safe and practical to get to from the nearby residential areas (not true of the first Long Island link!) but most would still consider the second link more walkable.
For starts, I don't think there is a "cars only" crowd on here. Most of us who use cars for almost all our personal transportation needs, have no issue with public transportation. We are voting to pay taxes to support public transit. The anti-car crowd, OTOH, is always bellyaching about the subsidies the suburbs receive for roads, and wants to eliminate them. "If we just got rid of these subsidies, people would flock back to the cities".
I agree with Malloric, too. There are some very odd standards for "walkable". It is a travesty to have to walk or bike across a parking lot. Even with a sidewalk separated by a grass strip from the road, the speed limit can't be too high, and the walk has to be "interesting".
I disagree, when one mentions public transportation or bike infrastructure, it is always met with bellyaching from the anti-public transportation and biking infrastructure crowd.
I disagree, when one mentions public transportation or bike infrastructure, it is always met with bellyaching from the anti-public transportation and biking infrastructure crowd.
I disagree, when one mentions public transportation or bike infrastructure, it is always met with bellyaching from the anti-public transportation and biking infrastructure crowd.
Mostly due to financing issues. Car owners pay liquid fuel taxes which are diverted from roads to build bikeways and operate mass transit. While the users of those pay little (30% of the cost from point A to point B for mass transit) to nothing for them.
Mostly due to financing issues. Car owners pay liquid fuel taxes which are diverted from roads to build bikeways and operate mass transit. While the users of those pay little (30% of the cost from point A to point B for mass transit) to nothing for them.
They are called "public" for a reason. Public transportation if for everyone to use, therefore it is something for everyone to pay into. I don't have kids at the moment, but I have no issue with my tax dollars going to public schools.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
