Is your city more pedestrian or car oriented?

[mhays]

Seattle has an "ok" pedestrian environment by US standards...but US standards are pathetic. On the bright side, we have a variety of neighborhoods where people generally walk for short trips and use transit in decent numbers for the rest. On the negative side, we have nothing as good as the inner parts of many European and Asian cities, and much of our suburbia is horrible pedestrian-wise.

[Manila-X]

Originally Posted by mhays

Seattle has an "ok" pedestrian environment by US standards...but US standards are pathetic. On the bright side, we have a variety of neighborhoods where people generally walk for short trips and use transit in decent numbers for the rest. On the negative side, we have nothing as good as the inner parts of many European and Asian cities, and much of our suburbia is horrible pedestrian-wise.

Like other major US cities, most of Seattle's pedestrian activity happens in the downtown area.

Suburbs around the world are similar to the ones in North America where it is car oriented.

[Blackraven]

To put in an extreme situation:
If we were all like Forrest Gump, then we can move anywhere and everywhere just on foot. Heck, our ancestors did this for hundreds and thousands of years.

In this day-and-age, it's more about comfort, convenience, preference and factors involved...........but the human body says you can move anywhere just on foot.

ANYWAYS
I haven't seen comments yet for Taiwan and Japan. I guess I'll be the first......although this view comes from someone who has not been yet to those countries (so don't take this too seriously). Better ask the locals of those areas or at least those who visited those territories/places.

1) Japan

It's sort 100:100 (divided between non-car). Non-car comes in the form of their super-duper uber big and wide RAIL TRANSPORT NETWORK and spaghetti set-up.

More than 20,000 kilometers of rail (as of year 2003) and growing. Hence, rail transport dominates the public transport sector in Japan.

Other than rail, you have buses, motorbikes, taxis, some old school rickshaws and counting. Then you have walking of course (some places like Akihabara streets are example of this and some streets in Tokyo are car-free streets during Sundays).

In Hokkaido though, you may need to get an automobile for some areas as it is filled with ice and snow all the way (hence it's the coldest place in Japan)...

That's what I can say for now as I don't know the rest

2) Taiwan

I'd say that places like Taipei and Kaoshiung have superb rail network. Other than those places, I'm not sure.

Hsinchu and Chunghua counties do not have a rail network yet so if you don't have your own car, you only get around by bus, taxi or walking.

Interestingly, a lot of people in Taiwan have scooters. I dunno why though. Maybe Taiwan people may give an explanation regarding this. Either way, there are tons of scooters in Taiwan (more than the number of taxi cabs I think) so it's definitely a popular form of personal transportation there.

Anyways, that's all for now

[Slartibartfas]

Originally Posted by WANCH

Suburbs around the world are similar to the ones in North America where it is car oriented.

Quite wrong. In Europe for example many if not most suburbs seem to be much better connected to public transport than American suburbs. It is worse than in more central parts of course but still. In Vienna for example PT is a viable option in the entire city area, also those that look pretty suburban. Suburbs beyond he city border tend to have at least ok PT coverage many even commuter rail, S-Bahn or light rail connection. Not to forget about most of them having sort of local village centres.

I can't say I made the same experience in US suburbs.

[Shezan]

my city, Rome, is definitely car-oriented

[Svartmetall]

Auckland, and the whole of New Zealand (except perhaps parts of Wellington) are so car orientated it brings me to tears. Auckland, for a city of 1.4 million people has one of the most woeful public transport systems I have encountered in all my travels, though small improvements are slowly happening.

[Ribarca]

Hong Kong is neither...

In many places the sidewalks are tiny, traffic lights take ages and the fumes from the outdated city busses are killing.

At the same time it's not a car oriented city. Only a few people have cars as there is no space to park them to start with.

Hong Kong is a taxi oriented city.

[Ribarca]

Originally Posted by WANCH

Anyway, I'm in Manila right now and the city is 50% pedestrian and 50% car oriented.

50% pedestrian is very generous. Most areas in Manila don't even have sidewalks...

[Manila-X]

Originally Posted by Ribarca

50% pedestrian is very generous. Most areas in Manila don't even have sidewalks...

Many areas in Manila lack sidewalks but these areas are not commercial areas. Either that or you have cars parked in there. The CBDs however have proper pavements and pedestrian activity there is high.

As for HK, alot of taxi but certainly more bus oriented.

[Sarcasticity]

I live in two different cities. I'm currently living in NYC, and it's definitely a pedestrian city. People walk, but ofcourse most depend or choose to ride the subway to go the longer distances. Then I also live in Davao City. Being in the southern part of the Philippines, most people prefer to take some sort of transportation, be it car, our jeepneys or taxis to beat the heat

[Manila-X]

Originally Posted by Sarcasticity

I live in two different cities. I'm currently living in NYC, and it's definitely a pedestrian city. People walk, but ofcourse most depend or choose to ride the subway to go the longer distances. Then I also live in Davao City. Being in the southern part of the Philippines, most people prefer to take some sort of transportation, be it car, our jeepneys or taxis to beat the heat

New York is actually a car oriented city.

Pedestrian activity is mostly concentrated in Manhattan particularly from The Battery up to Harlem. The northern most parts say Washington Heights or The Cloisters have less pedestrian activity and people there depend either in cars or public transportation.

Some parts within the outer boroughs are a combination of pedestrian and car.

Staten Island is definitely car oriented. Even the greater Tri-State area is suited for the automoblie though rail access is viable.

The only thing NY has compared to other US cities is there is greater access to public transportation.

[Sarcasticity]

Originally Posted by WANCH

New York is actually a car oriented city.

Pedestrian activity is mostly concentrated in Manhattan particularly from The Battery up to Harlem. The northern most parts say Washington Heights or The Cloisters have less pedestrian activity and people there depend either in cars or public transportation.

Some parts within the outer boroughs are a combination of pedestrian and car.

Staten Island is definitely car oriented. Even the greater Tri-State area is suited for the automoblie though rail access is viable.

The only thing NY has compared to other US cities is there is greater access to public transportation.

Well, I agree, but if you compare it to, say Los Angeles, NYC seem more pedestrian-oriented. I think most borroughs, not just limited to Manhattan, are pedestrian oriented as well, not unless the people travel somewhere in the tri-state area, but you definitely see more people walking than you do people own a car unlike LA when you walk down most of the Hollywood and spot a pedestrian or two.

Clarification: Do you consider people walking to use public transportation such as subway and bus to be car oriented or pedestrian oriented?

[Svartmetall]

Metro and rail-based transit largely points to pedestrian friendly. Buses on the other hand can (as they share space with cars more often than not) point to a more car friendly environment.

[Manila-X]

Originally Posted by Sarcasticity

Well, I agree, but if you compare it to, say Los Angeles, NYC seem more pedestrian-oriented. I think most borroughs, not just limited to Manhattan, are pedestrian oriented as well, not unless the people travel somewhere in the tri-state area, but you definitely see more people walking than you do people own a car unlike LA when you walk down most of the Hollywood and spot a pedestrian or two.

Clarification: Do you consider people walking to use public transportation such as subway and bus to be car oriented or pedestrian oriented?

Despite being a car centric city, there are several places in LA that has a reasonable amount of pedestrian activity.

Downtown LA is definitely pedestrian oriented. And it gets busier in within the financial and historic core districts.

If there is one place in Downtown LA with large amounts of crowd and this happens at a regular day would be Santee Alley



Some commercial areas and key tourist spots in LA would have moderate to high pedestrian activity. This would be

-Hollywood Blvd (from Fairfax to Vermont)
-Olivera St.
-Westwood (UCLA area)
-Rodeo Drive (Beverly Hills)
-Melrose (from Fairfax to La Brea)
-Old Town (Pasadena)
-3rd St Promenade (Santa Monica)

Most key beach fronts within LA and Orange Counties have high pedestrian activity as well.

Other than that, areas such as the western areas of LA County's city core (West LA, Culver City, Santa Monica, Marina Del Rey, Venice, Beverly Hills, Westchester) have a good coverage of public transportation with buses that run frequently. Areas within Downtown and Hollywood are served well with the Metro bus and subway.

[Skyrazer]

What about Korea Town, I've heard it's quite pedestrian friendly?

[Manila-X]

Originally Posted by Skyrazer

What about Korea Town, I've heard it's quite pedestrian friendly?

When I was there, pedestrian activity was moderate. But the area within Vermont and Wilshire was busy.

But it is rare to see this happen in this area

[atmada]

car oriented, wide street, poor pedestrian way

[RogerioAndrade]

Sao Paulo, Brazil:

Car oriented
Narrow streets and avenues (except the main ones)
narrow sidewalks, not good for pedestrians...

...the real urban chaos !

[BarbaricManchurian]

Tianjin is bicycle oriented, most streets have bike lanes separated with a physical divider, though with the construction of several new expressways, it is becoming much more car oriented. Boston, on the other hand, is very well pedestrian oriented, it's very "walkable" due to its compactness and one can find interesting things on many streets just by walking, which they may miss by driving.

[anaki101]

Well, where i was born, Jakarta, no doubt it is car oriented. The city doesnt really have the best public transportation system in the world, not a lot of sidewalks. the whole city IMO is sorta like "house came first, then the road".

Mississauga, where i am now, well its a suburb, i guess its 50/50. People take cars to go to work in Toronto or something, but a lot of people just take the Mississauga Transit.

Toronto, well it has a wide variety of transportation, like streets cars and subways and stuff, but because commuters are coming from outside of Toronto, it makes it look like a car oriented city.

I may be a little off on a few points so yaaaaaa