7 ms·

"Making cars extremely fast won’t make them much more dangerous." Once again, car advocates don't seem to realize that there are other things out there in the s

"Making cars extremely fast won’t make them much more dangerous." Once again, car advocates don't seem to realize that there are other things out there in the street. Sure, they won't be more dangerous to other cars. In dedicated roadways that makes perfect sense. But in city streets? The life of the street require them to remain multiuse, and the constant push for higher speeds has been extremely destructive to that fabric.

Retric 14y ago
If you go to the Baltimore MD Inner Harbor they have a raised pedestrian walkway covering several blocks it completely changes how you treat walking though that part of the city. In Crystal City VA they have a significant underground walkway / mall that spans ~15 city blocks, and connects to the DC Metro (subway system). Between the two options I prefer the underground walkway, but either option completely change how long it takes to get around. Rather than trying to accommodate both cars and pedestrians if you just separate the two both benefit. Cars can make turns easier and avoid accidents, people don't need to stop at intersections.
- pwthornton 14y ago
  No, only cars benefit from this. The idea is to remove people from the streets to allow more cars to move. This has the effect of making that area less desirable. Look around the world. Desirable places strongly correlate to people walking at street level, because this allows people to pass shops, cafes, etc. and easily go in. It's the core of city life. Crystal City is one of the least nice places close to downtown DC. Above ground it has huge streets, little street life and few people walking around. Compare that with Dupont Circle, where the city is full of life (this is where I work). Raised or underground walkways are a great way to kill a city. Skybridges are a very 1970s idea and they are being torn down. Where I live, Downtown Silver Spring (not far from Crystal City), sky bridges are expressly forbidden in the CBD. There are some areas way up North (upper Midwest, Canada) where there are underground walkways due to the weather in the winter. Most places, including the DC area, are fine in the winter. There is a lot of writing about Skybridges out there. Here is a start: http://greatergreaterwashington.org/post/654/skybridges-dont-make-the-connection/ http://greatergreaterwashington.org/post/654/skybridges-dont...
  - Retric 14y ago
    That's particularly bad because people often don't use skybridges even when they are there. Pedestrians generally don't want to climb two flights of stairs on each end just to cross a street; they will take the shortest path. I agree, most Skybridges are terrible. But, it's a density and network effect question, when you can walk 6 blocks without going back to street level AND the shop you want to get to is also up/down there AND you take your elevator / escalator to that level then it works. The Crystal City underground suffers from making the underground path a lot longer so you can often get someplace faster at street level. However, I have both lived and worked in the area and used it all the time. PS: Dupont Circle greatly benefits from being part of a much larger city, it is walk-able with a well connected subway system. However, it's a low density area and driving around there sucks. If live in that area or take the metro it's great, but you can't sustain that when building get taller and people still want to drive.
    - pwthornton 14y ago
      I would disagree that Dupont Circle is low density. Density is more of a reflection of the width of roads than the heights of buildings. Narrow roads and alleys allow for a lot of density without a lot of height. Look at Western Europe to see how they get more density than U.S. cities without sky scrapers. Paris is largely mid-rise buildings or lower. Paris is denser than NYC and not that far behind Manhattan in terms of density (54,000 people per sq mi in Paris versus 71,000 for Manhattan and 27,000 for NYC as a whole). DC density could be greatly raised without taller buildings by filling in missing teeth (abandoned lots of unused buildings on otherwise built streets) and by urbanizing the large swaths of the City that are suburban. Narrowing some streets to allow for wider buildings would also help. Ultimately, I think we'll have to agree to disagree. I don't think elevators or escalators really belong in an urban setting. I do agree that being able to get to a store that you know you want to get to via underground tunnels can have its benefits. But one of the things that I like about living in an urban area are all my unplanned walks, where I walk around, check out the shops, grab a coffee, maybe go into a few stores. A lot of urban life is unplanned and when we remove people from streets, we begin to lose that.
pwthornton 14y ago
THIS. Faster cars would not benefit the core users of cities -- people on foot. However, autonomous cars should be much safer as they have senors to avoid collisions. Car drivers often come onto sidewalks to avoid hitting cars. So yes, to avoid a minor car accident, car drivers kill people on sidewalks. The biggest benefit to autonomous cars will be that we will go from 40,000 people dying a year to almost none. That's a huge win. And if that's all we get, wouldn't that be awesome?

Retric 14y ago

If you go to the Baltimore MD Inner Harbor they have a raised pedestrian walkway covering several blocks it completely changes how you treat walking though that part of the city. In Crystal City VA they have a significant underground walkway / mall that spans ~15 city blocks, and connects to the DC Metro (subway system). Between the two options I prefer the underground walkway, but either option completely change how long it takes to get around. Rather than trying to accommodate both cars and pedestrians if you just separate the two both benefit. Cars can make turns easier and avoid accidents, people don't need to stop at intersections.

pwthornton 14y ago
No, only cars benefit from this. The idea is to remove people from the streets to allow more cars to move. This has the effect of making that area less desirable. Look around the world. Desirable places strongly correlate to people walking at street level, because this allows people to pass shops, cafes, etc. and easily go in. It's the core of city life. Crystal City is one of the least nice places close to downtown DC. Above ground it has huge streets, little street life and few people walking around. Compare that with Dupont Circle, where the city is full of life (this is where I work). Raised or underground walkways are a great way to kill a city. Skybridges are a very 1970s idea and they are being torn down. Where I live, Downtown Silver Spring (not far from Crystal City), sky bridges are expressly forbidden in the CBD. There are some areas way up North (upper Midwest, Canada) where there are underground walkways due to the weather in the winter. Most places, including the DC area, are fine in the winter. There is a lot of writing about Skybridges out there. Here is a start: http://greatergreaterwashington.org/post/654/skybridges-dont-make-the-connection/ http://greatergreaterwashington.org/post/654/skybridges-dont...
- Retric 14y ago
  That's particularly bad because people often don't use skybridges even when they are there. Pedestrians generally don't want to climb two flights of stairs on each end just to cross a street; they will take the shortest path. I agree, most Skybridges are terrible. But, it's a density and network effect question, when you can walk 6 blocks without going back to street level AND the shop you want to get to is also up/down there AND you take your elevator / escalator to that level then it works. The Crystal City underground suffers from making the underground path a lot longer so you can often get someplace faster at street level. However, I have both lived and worked in the area and used it all the time. PS: Dupont Circle greatly benefits from being part of a much larger city, it is walk-able with a well connected subway system. However, it's a low density area and driving around there sucks. If live in that area or take the metro it's great, but you can't sustain that when building get taller and people still want to drive.
  - pwthornton 14y ago
    I would disagree that Dupont Circle is low density. Density is more of a reflection of the width of roads than the heights of buildings. Narrow roads and alleys allow for a lot of density without a lot of height. Look at Western Europe to see how they get more density than U.S. cities without sky scrapers. Paris is largely mid-rise buildings or lower. Paris is denser than NYC and not that far behind Manhattan in terms of density (54,000 people per sq mi in Paris versus 71,000 for Manhattan and 27,000 for NYC as a whole). DC density could be greatly raised without taller buildings by filling in missing teeth (abandoned lots of unused buildings on otherwise built streets) and by urbanizing the large swaths of the City that are suburban. Narrowing some streets to allow for wider buildings would also help. Ultimately, I think we'll have to agree to disagree. I don't think elevators or escalators really belong in an urban setting. I do agree that being able to get to a store that you know you want to get to via underground tunnels can have its benefits. But one of the things that I like about living in an urban area are all my unplanned walks, where I walk around, check out the shops, grab a coffee, maybe go into a few stores. A lot of urban life is unplanned and when we remove people from streets, we begin to lose that.

pwthornton 14y ago

THIS. Faster cars would not benefit the core users of cities -- people on foot. However, autonomous cars should be much safer as they have senors to avoid collisions. Car drivers often come onto sidewalks to avoid hitting cars. So yes, to avoid a minor car accident, car drivers kill people on sidewalks. The biggest benefit to autonomous cars will be that we will go from 40,000 people dying a year to almost none. That's a huge win. And if that's all we get, wouldn't that be awesome?