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.
I'm not at all disputing the fact that emerging walkability outside of downtown areas is "drive-to" urbanism for the most part. However, these walkable destination areas are often right up against major highways (because the destination uses depend upon a wide market area and therefore need highway access). What I disagree with is the notion that feeder roads and under/overpasses shouldn't be reasonably accommodating and comfortable for pedestrians and cyclists even when you have these emerging walkable nodes adjacent (even The Woodlands Town Center and Sugar Land Town Square are next to the freeway). You're prejudicially limiting the ability of those nodes to grow as walkable areas on their highway frontages when you take that attitude. I don't think we should do that. Even the traditional downtown areas have had to deal with ring freeways that present barriers to walking / biking travel, and have had to undertake major (expensive) efforts to mitigate that. If we design things right the first time, the retrofits aren't necessary, and it's still not detrimental to moving cars.
Hmm, maybe I should change my notion on this a bit...
In areas where mix-use development or towncenters exist, I personally feel there needs to be a study conducted to see how much walkability is wanted / or needed in the vicinity around them. The reason I feel this way is because, these sorts of developments are very much a 'drive-to-urbanism' design. I do Uber / Lyft as a side gig in Austin metro and it kind of cracks me up as they label us as a walkable city and then seeing all the night life and foot traffic in places like Domain / Downtown Austin, but as soon as they're ready to go home, they're calling a Uber / Lyft taxi to convert them to an automobile orientated mode of travel to get to their home. While these town centers do have remarkable walkability within their confines, it changes very quickly when you leave their vicinity, they are very concentrated walkable nodes but they don't seem to do very well at attracting walkability outside of their general vicinity.
There are exceptions I might add, take Legacy in Plano which is divided by DNT - that is a circumstance where I would imagine walkability demand does exist and the feasibility to walk between Legacy West (West side of DNT) and Shoppes @ Legacy (East Side of DNT) is rather.. ..difficult and walkable methods should be employed.. ..but lets go further north into lets say - Frisco @ Eldorado Pkwy & DNT - There's no major points of interest between the two sides of the Tollway that would attract very much walkability demand. Therefore the best method to keep traffic moving is to prioritize automobile in traffic design...
This also applies to many other mix-used developments nationwide, Avalon in Alpharetta GA is very similar in this regard. Live and vibrant in its core but you won't find very many people walking between it and Downtown Alpharetta which is merely a few blocks away.
What I am trying to do is concentrate efficiency in travel in the method of travel that people are using, not necessarily trying to confine people to one method of transportation or deny walkability in an area but rather plan and design for what is present and currently in demand - and if that changes - design as needed - being realistic here intersections get designed and redesigned to traffic demands all the time, that includes bus and walkability demands - there is no sin in redesigning for what is needed when we have the demand for it. The same happens for cars as traffic volumes increase all the time, why not pedestrians? If we focus on walkability, and no one uses it - then we decrease the efficiency of the methodology of travel that people 'are' willing to use for no good cause.
From what I have personally witnessed, true walkability starts at the core of a major city and as the core grows and demand increases to live near it, walkability demand increases and therefore along with it, walkability priority and options also increase with it as well.
I get the whole fear of induced demand, and while I do believe there is some truth to it, I also believe it's.. ..not exactly best practice to neglect automobile infrastructure in favor of what we feel may be more efficient - while there is truth that transit method are more efficient - if people are unwilling to use them, we create even worse bottle necks by attempting to enforce them.
Suburbs 'can' become walkable - but thats a long endeavor... Subdivisions would need to be bought out by investors, converted into multi-family units, as well as increasing the number of entry / exit points so pedestrians are not forced to walk longer distances to reach amenities (for example, a gated community that was built before a mixed use community which was later developed on the north end of the development and the entry / exit point on the south end of the development - pedestrians will have to circle around 3 major streets to enter / exit their subdivision and mixed use community and the likelyhood of that community changing in the near future is almost none - it would probably take until most of the houses are in need of rehab and redesign before someone considers the project - no telling what will come of the mixed-use community by then either.
Moving people around suburbs by Busses / Street Car would probably be a bit more feasible as they eliminate most of the hassels of crossing major streets and cut commute times down.. ..but from my personal witness - pedestrian activity, especially in southern suburbs are very localized occurrences and don't extend very far from their hubs. I think it is more by nature than by their design.
--
Now when it comes to the efficiency of automobiles, thats a whole nother animal as Automobiles plainly are 'not' efficient people movers, although there are things that can be done to change that, it would require a large collaborative effort.
Thing is - if we made all of our interchanges in TX as walkable design, even in places where noone is walking, we decrease the throughput of vehicles who do use the interchange for no reason - Intersections in general have a real estate, or an allotment of time for right of way. That allotment never changes, what does change is who we allow to travel during that allotment, we always want to prioritize that allotment to the methodoloy of travel whom demands it the most regardless of which direction, which methodology, what kind of vehicle, ect.
Last edited by Need4Camaro; 10-22-2021 at 11:22 AM..
Hmm, maybe I should change my notion on this a bit...
In areas where mix-use development or towncenters exist, I personally feel there needs to be a study conducted to see how much walkability is wanted / or needed in the vicinity around them. The reason I feel this way is because, these sorts of developments are very much a 'drive-to-urbanism' design. I do Uber / Lyft as a side gig in Austin metro and it kind of cracks me up as they label us as a walkable city and then seeing all the night life and foot traffic in places like Domain / Downtown Austin, but as soon as they're ready to go home, they're calling a Uber / Lyft taxi to convert them to an automobile orientated mode of travel to get to their home. While these town centers do have remarkable walkability within their confines, it changes very quickly when you leave their vicinity, they are very concentrated walkable nodes but they don't seem to do very well at attracting walkability outside of their general vicinity.
There are exceptions I might add, take Legacy in Plano which is divided by DNT - that is a circumstance where I would imagine walkability demand does exist and the feasibility to walk between Legacy West (West side of DNT) and Shoppes @ Legacy (East Side of DNT) is rather.. ..difficult and walkable methods should be employed.. ..but lets go further north into lets say - Frisco @ Eldorado Pkwy & DNT - There's no major points of interest between the two sides of the Tollway that would attract very much walkability demand. Therefore the best method to keep traffic moving is to prioritize automobile in traffic design...
This also applies to many other mix-used developments nationwide, Avalon in Alpharetta GA is very similar in this regard. Live and vibrant in its core but you won't find very many people walking between it and Downtown Alpharetta which is merely a few blocks away.
What I am trying to do is concentrate efficiency in travel in the method of travel that people are using, not necessarily trying to confine people to one method of transportation or deny walkability in an area but rather plan and design for what is present and currently in demand - and if that changes - design as needed - being realistic here intersections get designed and redesigned to traffic demands all the time, that includes bus and walkability demands - there is no sin in redesigning for what is needed when we have the demand for it. The same happens for cars as traffic volumes increase all the time, why not pedestrians? If we focus on walkability, and no one uses it - then we decrease the efficiency of the methodology of travel that people 'are' willing to use for no good cause.
From what I have personally witnessed, true walkability starts at the core of a major city and as the core grows and demand increases to live near it, walkability demand increases and therefore along with it, walkability priority and options also increase with it as well.
...
Suburbs 'can' become walkable - but thats a long endeavor... Subdivisions would need to be bought out by investors, converted into multi-family units, as well as increasing the number of entry / exit points so pedestrians are not forced to walk longer distances to reach amenities (for example, a gated community that was built before a mixed use community which was later developed on the north end of the development and the entry / exit point on the south end of the development - pedestrians will have to circle around 3 major streets to enter / exit their subdivision and mixed use community and the likelyhood of that community changing in the near future is almost none - it would probably take until most of the houses are in need of rehab and redesign before someone considers the project - no telling what will come of the mixed-use community by then either.
...
Thing is - if we made all of our interchanges in TX as walkable design, even in places where noone is walking, we decrease the throughput of vehicles who do use the interchange for no reason - Intersections in general have a real estate, or an allotment of time for right of way. That allotment never changes, what does change is who we allow to travel during that allotment, we always want to prioritize that allotment to the methodoloy of travel whom demands it the most regardless of which direction, which methodology, what kind of vehicle, ect.
But is not the presence of fully auto-oriented, pedestrian-hostile infrastructure a major reason why you don't have much walking going outside, say, a CityCentre or Domain? Essentially you're prejudicing they way an area can evolve by the nature of the streets that get built. Traditional highway interchanges and intersections, and high-speed 6-8 lane thoroughfares with minimal or no sidewalks and safe frequent pedestrian crossings aren't exactly going to encourage a developer to want to latch onto a suburban town center's walkability if that's what lies between.
And your reasoning clearly is dependent on the idea that better accommodating pedestrians means a meaningful negative tradeoff for moving cars, which is incorrect. Reducing traffic speeds and adding safe crossings does not sub-optimize motor vehicle movement.
But is not the presence of fully auto-oriented, pedestrian-hostile infrastructure a major reason why you don't have much walking going outside, say, a CityCentre or Domain? Essentially you're prejudicing they way an area can evolve by the nature of the streets that get built. Traditional highway interchanges and intersections, and high-speed 6-8 lane thoroughfares with minimal or no sidewalks and safe frequent pedestrian crossings aren't exactly going to encourage a developer to want to latch onto a suburban town center's walkability if that's what lies between.
And your reasoning clearly is dependent on the idea that better accommodating pedestrians means a meaningful negative tradeoff for moving cars, which is incorrect. Reducing traffic speeds and adding safe crossings does not sub-optimize motor vehicle movement.
I won't deny that it's part of the reason, but its far from the only reason.
Those areas by nature include walking distances that are too far. Keep in mind unlike what is seen in an urban core, these town centres which people mostly go to shop or waste time, are not the only places people are going. Their jobs, grocery stores, family/friends, other points of interests are often miles and miles apart in multiple different directions thus they end up buying a car to commute for increased flexibility because the time in transit via walking / bus / rail is often greater than the time in transit via automobile even with traffic accounted for. People will generally do what they feel is most efficient for themselves, not what is most efficient for society.
Increasing the throughput of interchange walkability would basically be band-aiding a bullet wound to the overall equation of the problem while ALSO decreasing throughput for traffic who does use the interchange, which there are alot of contributing factors to. There's a natural process of urbanization that ultimately rectifies this, but it isn't something that happens overnight, it takes a long time and there also has to be a demand for it. Over-planning for it can lead to immediate term detrimental affects.
Any increas of functionality through an intersections always trades off functionality of another means - there is no free lunch. to gain functionality in one area, you have to leave something behind or decrease functionality in another, that philosophy holds true in everything. It doesn't matter if its increased walkability or increased vehicular traffic throughput in a direction of travel. If you increase the time allowed for left turning traffic, you have to decrease the time allowed for opposing traffic to pass through an intersection. Intersections have a time pool allotment, what changes is not how much time they are allowed, but which and what direction of travel has the priority of that time. This holds true for any method of transportation through an intersection.
Last edited by Need4Camaro; 10-22-2021 at 11:51 AM..
Tell that to everybody on Katy Freeway that slams on their brakes and creates traffic during rush hour
I think this is merely your personal issue, sorry. I've never heard anyone else complain about it. TxDOT adheres to safety guidelines regarding sightlines of overpasses.
I won't deny that it's part of the reason, but its far from the only reason.
Those areas by nature include walking distances that are too far. Keep in mind unlike what is seen in an urban core, these town centres which people mostly go to shop or waste time, are not the only places people are going. Their jobs, grocery stores, family/friends, other points of interests are often miles and miles apart in multiple different directions thus they end up buying a car to commute for increased flexibility because the time in transit via walking / bus / rail is often greater than the time in transit via automobile even with traffic accounted for. People will generally do what they feel is most efficient for themselves, not what is most efficient for society.
Increasing the throughput of interchange walkability would basically be band-aiding a bullet wound to the overall equation of the problem, which there are alot of contributing factors to. There's a natural process of urbanization that ultimately rectifies this, but it isn't something that happens overnight, it takes a long time and there also has to be a demand for it. Over-planning for it can lead to immediate term detrimental affects.
The reality of auto-dependent, spread-out suburban living is NOT incompatible with designing transportation infrastructure for walkability. It is not "over-planning" to do so, and I do not see any "detrimental affects" (should be "effects" BTW) from doing it. In fact, a huge suburban mobility issue is that too few connecting streets get built, under the incorrect assumption that a small number of extra-large high-speed pedestrian-unfriendly thoroughfares should handle all the traffic. Now, THAT is detrimental for sure, not just for pedestrian movement, but for motor vehicle traffic. Those "high-speed" thoroughfares quickly become not-so-high-speed when even low to medium density development happens around them, and people start whining ("if we could just make that 4-lane street into 6 or 8 lanes, it would solve the problem!" silliness).
I think this is merely your personal issue, sorry. I've never heard anyone else complain about it. TxDOT adheres to safety guidelines regarding sightlines of overpasses.
Most of the traffic on Katy freeway is because of all the hills on that highway (highway going over streets)
Most of the traffic on Katy freeway is because of all the hills on that highway (highway going over streets)
On what basis are you making that assertion? The academics who study traffic, like at TTI, never mention this as a principal cause of traffic. It's mostly because of (1) excessive volume and (2) merging and weaving movements, near interchanges or on/off ramps.
Frankly, I think you're inventing a reason out of nothing except your personal pet peeves.
On what basis are you making that assertion? The academics who study traffic, like at TTI, never mention this as a principal cause of traffic. It's mostly because of (1) excessive volume and (2) merging and weaving movements, near interchanges or on/off ramps.
Frankly, I think you're inventing a reason out of nothing except your personal pet peeves.
It's because the constant overpasses every 1/4 to 1/2 mile eliminates sightlines which causes some issues on Houston freeways. It's more noticeable in a flat area like Houston because man creates this effect versus other places where the freeway rolls naturally with the land more. In places like that once you reach the crest of a hill you have a much further sight line usually.
One way these academics could have eliminated the sightline thing was by having the Katy Freeway be elevated completely for more overpasses. The Southwest Freeway has sections like this. Even this elevated idea would have cost more money though so TXdot wouldn't have done it. Miami is flat like Houston and they do more of this with their freeways and also have more road overpasses instead vs freeway overpasses. It's not the worst thing regarding freeways but Houston/Miami do seem to have similar issues where the designs are similar regarding accidents.
As time goes on the Katy Freeway design gets worse in my opinion. The tollway is poorly done compared to other tollways in the state, and is just a giant harris county constable speed trap anyway, but the feeders are especially bad. I've seen so many accidents on them. People flying down 60+ while traffic is merging from the freeway (with some folks coming down going 70+), and at the same time people are pulling in/out of numerous driveways. And some of these folks pulling out of driveways want to go slow all the way to the freeway entrance lane which I've seen one bad rear end collision happen here. It gets worse the closer you get to Katy. That stretch between Greenhouse and Mason on both sides of the freeway, but particularly the north side, seems to get a lot of accidents on the feeder.
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.
