elfwreck:

argentconflagration:

ceescedasticity:

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:

There isn’t adequate non-car transportation:

Existing and traveling outside of cars is unpleasant and unsafe:

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

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.