Making Streets Narrower

[WeimieLvr]

Originally Posted by joezierer

Suburbanist: If you want to live somewhere wide open with lots of space why not live in the country?

Instead you want all of us to deal with your social engineering. People don't want to live in the suburbs anymore, and you're just gonna have to deal.

People? What people? It's true that some of us prefer urban areas, but it seems like the majority of Americans prefer suburban life - since that is where majority currently lives. In almost every large city, more than half of the metro population is outside of the city limits. That doesn't necessarily mean that they live in a suburb, but for the most part they don't live in an urban area either. It's sad, but true.

[Suburbanist]

Originally Posted by WeimieLvr

. I don't think that most of us believe that every street should be narrowed and arranged with only the pedestrian in mind, but some apparently should be more pedestrian oriented with others should be more automobile oriented. There is a place for both.

I agree with balance, but what some people in this thread is advocating is making access by car to large swaths of cities purposefully difficult/slow/annoying to force them to walk or use already slow trams/buses.

[Martin S]

I see argument for narrowing streets in order to allow better pedestrian access. However, this can't be a universal panacea. For those of us who live in more northerly climes, where the sun is lower in the sky, narrow streets, depending on their alignment, can be dark and dank.

[WeimieLvr]

Originally Posted by Suburbanist

I agree with balance, but what some people in this thread is advocating is making access by car to large swaths of cities purposefully difficult/slow/annoying to force them to walk or use already slow trams/buses.

True...I see it as forcing drivers using particular streets as cut-throughs to use an alternate rather than causing more pedestrian-oriented areas to continue to be unsafe. That seems to be the more logical use of narrowing streets, but apparently some people would advocate doing away with cars altogether - but I guarantee you that most of them drive as much as anyone else.

[Suburbanist]

Originally Posted by WeimieLvr

True...I see it as forcing drivers using particular streets as cut-throughs to use an alternate rather than causing more pedestrian-oriented areas to continue to be unsafe. That seems to be the more logical use of narrowing streets, but apparently some people would advocate doing away with cars altogether - but I guarantee you that most of them drive as much as anyone else.

I see two completely different scenarios:

- having pedestrianized streets in different areas fit for walking etc = ok
- "cordoning off" cars from large areas as they did in London = bad

[NCT]

Originally Posted by Suburbanist

I see two completely different scenarios:

- "cordoning off" cars from large areas as they did in London = bad

If you really need to you can still pay the charge to enter central London and most roads are still open to cars. However the bottom line is car travel absolutely and categorically has to be restricted in London. Just imagine all the cars from Zone 1 to Zone 6 all trying to get into central London in the morning peak. That'd be carmogeddon in the millionth order. By the time you've got in it'd be home time.

[Suburbanist]

Originally Posted by NCT

If you really need to you can still pay the charge to enter central London and most roads are still open to cars. However the bottom line is car travel absolutely and categorically has to be restricted in London. Just imagine all the cars from Zone 1 to Zone 6 all trying to get into central London in the morning peak. That'd be carmogeddon in the millionth order. By the time you've got in it'd be home time.

That wouldn't happen either.

Outside the core in London, there is a semi-decent subway network (it's crap and old, but the streets are also narrow and lack major widening as Paris and Madrid had done in late 19th century) and commuter trains. People living AND working close to fast transportation links could still use them, but if they got rid of some pedestrianized streets and carved more car lanes against sidewalks, people would have more choice, particularly those who DO NOT live near a tube station in the outskirts and have to use filthy and utter slow buses to get into a tube station.

[I-275westcoastfl]

This thread is funny because there are "walkable" cities in Europe with multiple traffic lanes and tram tracks and people still cross those. How about NYC the densest city in the US where there are one way streets with 4 lanes going one direction or 6 lane boulevards. People manage fine in those cities so why do smaller cities that aren't as dense or have many people downtown narrowing roads? Even better is in big cities like New York the traffic controls your speed, with no traffic I've driven 30-45mph in Manhattan. However with traffic I've gone slow. Take a city by me Tampa, the downtown is dead and I can do higher speeds with no problem most of the day.

Don't get me wrong I have no issue with widening sidewalks if its needed. But to take away traffic lanes and make the roads narrower, put twists or curves, and bumps in places where the pedestrian activity is fairly low anyways is just pointless.

[erbse]

Pedestrian activity is mostly low because it's forced out of some areas or there's no walkable infrastructure. You're seeing this from the wrong pov here.

[Piltup Man]

Originally Posted by Suburbanist

I agree with balance, but what some people in this thread is advocating is making access by car to large swaths of cities purposefully difficult/slow/annoying to force them to walk or use already slow trams/buses.

Generally speaking what town planners want to achieve is to fluidify transport for everyone involved, not just for one mode at the expense of another. There is no such thing as completely separate categories of traveller: i.e. personal automobile, public transport and pedestrian - people will change between modes according to their needs and practicality for each trip, and the objective is for them to have those options. The more modes of transport people can use, the less each mode will face congestion and over-capacity.

[poshbakerloo]

Originally Posted by Suburbanist

That wouldn't happen either.

Outside the core in London, there is a semi-decent subway network (it's crap and old, but the streets are also narrow and lack major widening as Paris and Madrid had done in late 19th century) and commuter trains. People living AND working close to fast transportation links could still use them, but if they got rid of some pedestrianized streets and carved more car lanes against sidewalks, people would have more choice, particularly those who DO NOT live near a tube station in the outskirts and have to use filthy and utter slow buses to get into a tube station.

It would happen, the problem with making roads bigger is that it attracts more cars, and unless the road get converted into a dual 4 lane Motorway (London Ringway plan) the roads will just get jammed and also all the roads leading to them. Outside central London, particularly in the north the roads are much larger aka North Circular. But traffic on that road is ridiculous, because the road is so big. If they got rid of it, the cars would no longer be there. Not saying its a good idea, but its what would happen.

[joezierer]

Originally Posted by WeimieLvr

People? What people? It's true that some of us prefer urban areas, but it seems like the majority of Americans prefer suburban life - since that is where majority currently lives. In almost every large city, more than half of the metro population is outside of the city limits. That doesn't necessarily mean that they live in a suburb, but for the most part they don't live in an urban area either. It's sad, but true.

Well yeah and a lot of people are racists, that doesn't mean we should start lynching blacks again.

[Suburbanist]

Originally Posted by poshbakerloo

It would happen, the problem with making roads bigger is that it attracts more cars, and unless the road get converted into a dual 4 lane Motorway (London Ringway plan) the roads will just get jammed and also all the roads leading to them. Outside central London, particularly in the north the roads are much larger aka North Circular. But traffic on that road is ridiculous, because the road is so big. If they got rid of it, the cars would no longer be there. Not saying its a good idea, but its what would happen.

But you are ignoring a basic fact: cars do not pop up somewhere just because there are lanes available?

Doubt me? Go to a place like Detroit (with oversized boulevards and a population reduced by 60% in 40 years) or Kansas City or Omaha.

If you narrow a street, cars don't disappear, but quality of mobility suffers.

This is the same of I say: that subway lines has lots of traffic, people stand and they even queue on turnstiles. Oh, let's close that subway and all passengers will disappear!

[isaidso]

Street narrowing might be the only way to go for the downtown stretch of Yonge Street in Toronto. The sidewalk is already bursting at the seams and its only at the beginning of its vertical development. I wouldn't want to see car traffic eliminated or for it to become 1 way, but one lane in each direction could work.

Downtown needs to be for the people who live there, not for suburbanites that insist on bringing 3000 lbs of metal, rubber, and glass with them.

[erbse]

^ Well said, totally agree!

[Suburbanist]

Originally Posted by isaidso

Downtown needs to be for the people who live there, not for suburbanites that insist on bringing 3000 lbs of metal, rubber, and glass with them.

Medieval thinking too much, as in "let's build a wall around the city and not let people from outside come in"?

The problem with that reasoning is that is assumes "downtown life" would be able to cater to people of all trades and income, when ideally it wouldn't (downtown should either be a very rich or a very poor place, middle class often will be either priced out or creeped out - they don't want to put up with small cramped apartments that fit their budged in the first case or live among poor people dragging down the public services in the second).

[poshbakerloo]

Originally Posted by Suburbanist

But you are ignoring a basic fact: cars do not pop up somewhere just because there are lanes available?

Doubt me? Go to a place like Detroit (with oversized boulevards and a population reduced by 60% in 40 years) or Kansas City or Omaha.

If you narrow a street, cars don't disappear, but quality of mobility suffers.

This is the same of I say: that subway lines has lots of traffic, people stand and they even queue on turnstiles. Oh, let's close that subway and all passengers will disappear!

The cars don't 'vanish' but people look for the fastest, or cheapest or generally the best way to travel in and around a city. If the roads are all narrow and slow then they will take other forms of transport, leaving the car at home, or like many people in London not even bother buying a car.

If you live in a city such a Detroit with its huge motorways and boulevard, and not much mass transit then you will drive as its the best way to get around.

All cities have the problem, how do people who live in suburbs 20 miles away get into the city centre. Will I like 13 miles outside Manchester (UK) in the outer suburban area, I take the train as I live quite close to the station and can get to the city centre in about 15-20mins. From there I either walk of take the tram. If you don't live near a station...you drive to the suburban station and do like me, take the train in. In the UK its pretty awkward to drive around city centres which is why many don't bother and which is also why UK cities seem to function fine with roads that are tiny when compared to other cities roads.

[the spliff fairy]

this used to be an ugly road with bollards and fencing, and multiple crossings - a drag for cars and pedestrians alike.

Now it's a shared space - and all the safer for it. It also happens to be much more beautiful, and has done wonders
for all the businesses on the street:

[the spliff fairy]

Bear in mind the average speed of cars in Central London, before the pedestrianisation, congestion charge or the road narrowing was 3-5 mph. They found out the more car lanes they created the more traffic was attracted. Instead of easing congestion larger roads created it.

[WeimieLvr]

Originally Posted by joezierer

Well yeah and a lot of people are racists, that doesn't mean we should start lynching blacks again.

I would love for you explain what racism has to do with suburban living. To even allude to any similarity is ludicrous.