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.
My preference is narrow streets, with frequent crosswalks. My idea would be narrower than wburg's photos, though I don't mind those streets. Sounds like wider streets (as described by Caladium) works better than I would expect.
Any multilane road with traffic at high speeds (35+ mph) is likely daunting to cross on foot without overpasses. The turning cars make it worse.
The one Google Street View I linked may not be clear: when this street is set up as an "outdoor room," the street is blocked entirely to cars, and the whole block becomes a pedestrian environment.
I'll have to go take some photos of K Street here in Sacramento. It was a pedestrian mall for more than 40 years, a few weeks ago it was reopened to auto traffic, but only one narrow lane in either direction, with a textured street surface and no street parking except a drop-off point on each block. Most of the street is pedestrian sidewalk space, with trees, benches, and a lot of restaurant patio seating, plus light rail runs down the middle of the street. Because there are still pedestrian/auto only blocks at either end of the four-block section reopened to cars, it hasn't become a busy street, but it creates an environment kind of like a European "woonerf", with narrow lanes and low speeds.
The one Google Street View I linked may not be clear: when this street is set up as an "outdoor room," the street is blocked entirely to cars, and the whole block becomes a pedestrian environment.
I'll have to go take some photos of K Street here in Sacramento. It was a pedestrian mall for more than 40 years, a few weeks ago it was reopened to auto traffic, but only one narrow lane in either direction, with a textured street surface and no street parking except a drop-off point on each block. Most of the street is pedestrian sidewalk space, with trees, benches, and a lot of restaurant patio seating, plus light rail runs down the middle of the street. Because there are still pedestrian/auto only blocks at either end of the four-block section reopened to cars, it hasn't become a busy street, but it creates an environment kind of like a European "woonerf", with narrow lanes and low speeds.
I'd love to see photos of this. Why did they reopen it to auto traffic?
The downtown of the suburb I lived in has quite a "Main Street" feel. I has two wide sidewalks, 2 parking lanes, 1 left turn lane and 2 other lanes (1 in each direction). Since there are a lot of stop lights, delivery vans, people parking, jaywalkers, etc, traffic goes at about 15-20mph, not because of congestion but because that's the speed at which drivers are comfortable going. The result is that when I walk around, I'm mostly paying attention to the sidewalk and the storefronts on my side of the street, without really noticing the traffic, but also not really noticing the stores/sidewalk across the street. It does feel safe to cross the road though. Lakeshore Road, Oakville: Lakeshore Road and Trafalgar, Oakville, Ontario, Canada - Google Maps
One of the greatest pedestrian spots in Toronto is Kensington Market, a bohemian neighbourhood consisting of a few side streets next to Chinatown. Due to the narrowness of the street, and the large numbers of pedestrians relative to cars, the streets have become unofficial "woonerfs", with people feeling comfortable walking in the street. Because of this and the fact that you're never far from either side of the street, you feel connected to both sides of the street no matter where you are. Kensington Avenue, Toronto: Baldwin St, Toronto, ON, Canada - Google Maps
From the point of view of a pedestrian only, I don't think there's really such a thing as a too narrow street (although sidewalks can be too narrow), unless it's so narrow it's overcrowded with pedestrians (rarely the case). While I agree that people feel comfortable in a "room sized" street, I think that street in Sacramento was a little big for a room, although it's still narrow enough to be quite nice, imo it would feel even more intimate if it was narrower. Of course, for a narrow street to succeed, it has to have inviting features, not like a back alley with only dumpsters, loading bays and fire escapes. Medieval streets are quite narrow, and that doesn't make them uncomfortable, they feel quite intimade. Example, Eguisheim, France: Eguisheim, France - Google Maps
There are some like this in New World cities. There was another thread about Melbourne which had several (and of course Japanese cities which were largely rebuilt from scratch after WWII). Here's one from Toronto in the neighbourhood of Yorkville from panoramio by Raymond M: Panoramio - Photo of Old York Lane (looking North)
There's also a cool little Victorian style shopping area that was built recently in the old part of a city that's more or less a suburb of Toronto and Hamilton. Nathan Lewis liked it so he posted some pictures of it on his website: http://www.newworldeconomics.com/arc...11/110611.html
There's similar places in San Francisco, Philadelphia, Boston, Montreal, Quebec City, Provincetown, Victoria, BC, and I think NYC and Baltimore, maybe elsewhere too. In the end, there's not much of a difference between these streets and an aisle in a store, or a hallway in a house. Of course, our cities haven't reached the point where they can be completely car free, so you need to accommodate for cars. I think streets like those in Kensington, or woonerfs are a good model for sidestreets. As for busier streets, I like the recent improvements of King Street in Kitchener, close to where I go to university. Here's a picture I took:
Very generous sidewalks with patios and one lane of traffic each way, overall it's narrow enough so that you can feel somewhat connected to the other side of the street. For even busiers roads, you'd probably want some sort of buffer between the road and sidewalk, like parked cars or landscaping.
I'd love to see photos of this. Why did they reopen it to auto traffic?
Here are some shots from the local paper of the "grand reopening" parade:
Cars on K Street - Photo Galleries - sacbee.com (http://www.sacbee.com/2011/11/12/4050414/cars-on-k-street.html - broken link)
The "pedestrian mall" concept never worked very well on K Street for various reasons, and since 1987 the pedestrian mall had light rail running down its length, so the middle of the street wasn't particularly useful as pedestrian space. Apparently quite a few other pedestrian malls have been reopened in one way or another, as very few actually worked as intended, especially those actually in urban cores (the successful ones, like Santa Monica's 3rd Street, were typically in suburbs where they played the role of a suburban mall.)
A lot of merchants pushed for a return of cars in some form, and one other possible reason is because a city can't get federal transportation funding for a street unless it carries automobiles--pedestrian and transit only spaces have to battle for the scraps dedicated to "alternative transportation."
The photo below is what the street looked like this summer, on the opening night of an annual midnight movie festival launched with a "zombie walk", in addition to the crowds on the street. The street can actually still be closed off to cars if it is needed--they just switch on the "No Turns" light and maybe throw up a Jersey barrier.
I commute by bus and I truely feel it is "safer" to cross a narrower street than a wide multiple-laned road. When crossing a street at a stoplight with a timed "walk" light, it is easier and quicker to cross a two lane street rather than a seven-lane street [three in each direction and a middle turn lane].
The thing about many urban, walkable places with narrow streets is that they tend to be shopping/dining areas that most ordinary people would have to drive to. I often call them "boutique walkable areas," because they tend to be way too expensive for most people to actually live close enough to walk, not drive, to. Wider roads of 3-4+ lanes are much more the norm for the vast majority of where average people (OK correction, average Americans) actually live, work, and play in their everyday lives, and it's not likely to change anytime soon. If more attention were paid to simple, inexpensive changes like shade trees, signaled or flashing crosswalks, overpasses/underpasses, and dedicated pedestrian access to normal, run-of-the-mill shopping centers and malls, I bet people would walk a lot more. IMO, for concepts like new urbanism and smart growth to really catch on, average people have to see the benefits in their own neighborhoods.
I agree that once you get to 7+ lanes of traffic, it's impossible to make walking a pleasent experience at street level. However, overpasses/underpasses at major transit stops and intersections would be an excellent improvement to pedestrian safety, and also traffic flow on major arterial roads (e.g., where busses/transit tend to run). It also encourages transit use by making it easier to get to a transit stop!
The thing about many urban, walkable places with narrow streets is that they tend to be shopping/dining areas that most ordinary people would have to drive to. I often call them "boutique walkable areas," because they tend to be way too expensive for most people to actually live close enough to walk, not drive, to. Wider roads of 3-4+ lanes are much more the norm for the vast majority of where average people (OK correction, average Americans) actually live, work, and play in their everyday lives, and it's not likely to change anytime soon.
Did you mean 3-4 lanes in each direction or total? Anyway, if you lived in the northeast (or any older built area) you'd find that relatively narrow are quite common, though maybe not the norm. And large portions of older cities in the northeast outside of the bigger arterial roads have commercial districts in walking distance of the locals on narrow streets.
The suburb I grew up in had a mix of wide and relatively narrow streets. Except for some of the more "boutique walkable areas", as you said, it wasn't more expensive to live near a narrow commercial street. But because the density was low, most people didn't live walking distance. Here's some examples of not so wide streets:
the links i posted are auto centric (if you go down the streets, you'll see more strip malls and parking lots, though the lots are small) but still pedestrian friendly. In fact, the housing near each of those views are towards the cheaper end for the area, because the houses tend to be on smaller lots.
Massachusetts also tends to have narrow commercial roads, if only because most of the state is old.
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.
As a bus commuter, I prefer narrow streets
I commute by bus and I truely feel it is "safer" to cross a narrower street than a wide multiple-laned road. When crossing a street at a stoplight with a timed "walk" light, it is easier and quicker to cross a two lane street rather than a seven-lane street [three in each direction and a middle turn lane].
