It’s kind of weird how negatively I react to “walkable cities” rhetoric considering how I rarely get through a car trip without at least one exclamation of “I HATE driving”.
Probably it has to do with how I have lived without a car and I did not enjoy it. I dragged a little cart to the grocery store and back every week for like 10 months, and contrary to various people’s assurances it never got any less exhausting and it definitely never got less painful. I walked to and from a bus stop for work for years and over time it became more exhausting and painful.
And yeah, sure, maybe ‘walkable city’ is supposed to imply 'but disabled people can still use cars’. But disabled people aren’t the only ones who would want to still use cars — because of travel time, because of cargo transport — so how do you deal with that? How do you decide who’s allowed a car?
I really do hate driving, though.
Short answer: you don’t have to ban/restrict driving or cars to make cities walkable, you just need to stop prioritizing it over all other forms of transportation such that tons of people who don’t especially prefer cars end up driving anyway.
Long answer:
I think the answer to “what will need to happen to make cities walkable?” is really better phrased as “why aren’t cities walkable right now?” Here are some of the answers:
Stuff is too far away:
Restrictive zoning means people can’t live very close to where they work, shop, play, etc.
Lack of density/suburban sprawl means things are just very spread out.
Big parking lots and wide roads take up tons of space (needed to accommodate large volumes of cars).
There isn’t adequate non-car transportation:
Sidewalks are poorly maintained.
Bike infrastructure is poor compared to car infrastructure.
Buses take a long time to get anywhere (because of all the car traffic), are inconvenient to walk to (because stuff is so spread out), and come infrequently enough that you have to plan your trips around the bus schedule.
Trains don’t serve enough destinations, are inconvenient to get to and from (because of the crappy pedestrian, bike, and bus infrastructure), come too infrequently, and are slow compared to modern train technology.
Existing and traveling outside of cars is unpleasant and unsafe:
Roads are optimized for car throughput, not for minimizing the danger and disruption cars create to others (e.g. no traffic calming).
Crosswalks and bike paths exist as afterthoughts to car roads and put non-drivers in harm’s way.
There’s tons of air, noise, and other pollution, from all the cars.
There are inadequate or no amenities for existing in public (benches, restrooms, bus shelters, etc).
You just need to stop making driving the vastly prioritized mode of transportation, and then the people who need cars can use cars, and the people who don’t need cars don’t have to use cars in order to get to where they need to go quickly, safely, and comfortably.
Plenty of people would prefer to switch their cars out for walking and/or bikes - if that would still get them to school, to work, to their doctor occasionally, and so on.
Cars are expensive. If 90% of what you needed day-to-day were within a half-hour walk or short bike ride, and the majority of the rest were available by GOOD public transit (bus, train)… a lot of people would decide they don’t want the ongoing expense of a car, even if they didn’t care about the environmental issues.
“Walkable city” includes
Lots of benches/rest stops, so if you have to go a long distance, you can take breaks.
With a roof for rainy weather.
Better sidewalks. With curb cut-outs for wheels, so you can bring a stroller/cart/wagon/etc. for your shopping trips.
Stores have covered spaces outside, near the entrance, where you can shake off rain, close your umbrella, etc.
Bags are designed to be carried over distance; they don’t start to tear if you carry them more than a block and a half. Baggers are trained to balance the weight and bulk of purchases across multiple bags so there’s not “the heavy one” and “the light one.”
Fewer supermarkets. More small markets.
Fewer major medical centers with five multi-story buildings within a two-block radius. More small doctor offices and clinics.
Bus routes that pull up to the front of large stores, instead of across the street after a huge parking lot.
Bike racks outside of most stores, instead of huge parking lots.
Raised crosswalks–cars slow down at intersections; pedestrians don’t have to deal with tripping at the edge of the sidewalk:
Does not mean “cars are banned.” It means “cars are not prioritized.” It means cities arranged for easy walking and bike travel and car travel will be slower, have fewer lanes, less parking.
And many, many people will switch to the more-convenient and often more-pleasant option of walking or biking, and those who can’t, can continue to use cars - with fewer asshole drivers on the road.
Because part of the switch is “enforce traffic laws” and pull the licenses of people who refuse to drive safely.
Yeah.
I would love to have a system where those who cannot drive or prefer not to drive have the easiest time possible with not driving.
I would rather not have a system in which anyone has to be judged on whether they “deserve” to be “allowed” a car.
But the fact is that we currently do have such a system.
And the current system is even worse than means-testing by need.
Because the way we currently decide who is allowed a car, goes like this:
Are you too poor to afford a car? Are you disabled in a way that means you can’t drive a car? If you answer yes to either of those… then you don’t get one.
And there aren’t other options, so you just… don’t get to go anywhere.
Any solution that actually offered alternatives to driving a car would be better than what we have now. It’s a damn low bar.