Nobody walks in L.A., but everybody walks the Lijnbaan
September 22, 2018 2:07 PM Subscribe
Every year on or around 22 September, people from around the world get together in the streets, intersections, and neighbourhood blocks to remind the world that we don't have to accept our car-dominated society. In support of the idea that going car-free shouldn't just be one day, The Guardian has a series of posts on Walking the City, including life in the Spanish city of Pontevedra that banned cars; an exclusive essay for Guardian Cities: David Sedaris has walked through cities all over the world and the worst, by far, is Bangkok; and Vision Zero: has the drive to eliminate road deaths lost its way?
Q&A: What is Walking the City week?Also this week: Picnics on the motorway: the first car-free Sundays – in pictures.
As cities around the world close central streets to cars to mark World Car-Free Day, Guardian Cities is looking at the joys and trials of urban walking.
The US humourist and writer David Sedaris tells us about walking in cities from Raleigh to Reykjavik. A round-up of writers: Will Self explains what he learns from perambulations in London, there’s Fran Lebowitz in New York, Helen Garner in Melbourne, “natural navigator” Tristan Gooley in Portsmouth, and writers on Delhi and Newcastle, Cairo and Wellington.
Laura Laker casts a critical eye on the performance of Vision Zero, the global city scheme to eliminate traffic deaths. London has signed up – will it enjoy the success of New York, or the delays of LA? The recent blocking of Sadiq Khan’s plans to pedestrianise Oxford Street does not bode well.
Correspondent Stephen Burgen samples the newfound silence in the Spanish car-free city of Pontevedra, and Matthew Keegan discovers what prompted Hong Kong to reopen a popular pedestrian street to vehicles.
Renate van der Zee looks at the rise, fall and rebirth of the Lijnbaan in Rotterdam – Europe’s first pedestrianised street – while Rachel Aldred at the University of Westminster crunches the numbers to identify the most dangerous London boroughs for people on foot.
For three months from November 1973, the Dutch government banned cars on Sundays to curb oil consumption during the Opec energy crisis. City residents enjoyed picnics on empty motorways and got around on foot, by bike ... and on horseback'I follow a different person every day': using strangers to explore the city -- The rules of the art of ‘following’ are simple: choose a stranger and secretly copy their route – you’ll see the city in a new light.
"The worst, by far, is Bangkok."
Manila: "Hold my beer...."
posted by micketymoc at 3:59 PM on September 22, 2018 [2 favorites]
Manila: "Hold my beer...."
posted by micketymoc at 3:59 PM on September 22, 2018 [2 favorites]
I’ve managed to walk across Bangkok. Jakarta is so far the city which has defeated my attempts to walk it.
posted by frumiousb at 4:17 PM on September 22, 2018 [2 favorites]
posted by frumiousb at 4:17 PM on September 22, 2018 [2 favorites]
I've been to 70+ countries, and 28 of the 30 largest cities in the world.
1) people from around the world get together in the streets, intersections, and neighbourhood blocks to remind the world that we don't have to accept our car-dominated
society.
Auckland, London, Manchester, Paris, Brussels, Denver, Lijnbaan/Rotterdam: the pedestrian-friendly, utopian, rich-nation "world" of these articles is not the world at all.
These cities say as much about Mumbai, Manila, Bangkok, and Cairo as a filet mignon does about a slaughterhouse
posted by BadgerDoctor at 4:28 PM on September 22, 2018 [2 favorites]
1) people from around the world get together in the streets, intersections, and neighbourhood blocks to remind the world that we don't have to accept our car-dominated
society.
Auckland, London, Manchester, Paris, Brussels, Denver, Lijnbaan/Rotterdam: the pedestrian-friendly, utopian, rich-nation "world" of these articles is not the world at all.
These cities say as much about Mumbai, Manila, Bangkok, and Cairo as a filet mignon does about a slaughterhouse
posted by BadgerDoctor at 4:28 PM on September 22, 2018 [2 favorites]
I like this collection of links! Thank you!
I am of two minds on the link about following people; one mind says, hey, that sounds neat, I should try it; the other mind says, wow, what a way to scare some innocent stranger to death, if you happen not to be practiced at being inconspicuous.
posted by eirias at 5:16 PM on September 22, 2018 [3 favorites]
I am of two minds on the link about following people; one mind says, hey, that sounds neat, I should try it; the other mind says, wow, what a way to scare some innocent stranger to death, if you happen not to be practiced at being inconspicuous.
posted by eirias at 5:16 PM on September 22, 2018 [3 favorites]
Auckland, London, Manchester, Paris, Brussels, Denver, Lijnbaan/Rotterdam: the pedestrian-friendly, utopian, rich-nation "world" of these articles is not the world at all.
These cities say as much about Mumbai, Manila, Bangkok, and Cairo as a filet mignon does about a slaughterhouse
This is why the quote “A developed country is not a place where the poor have cars. It's where the rich use public transportation.” was a powerful call to action. Car culture is most brutal on the most vulnerable and deprived people everywhere.
posted by Space Coyote at 5:57 PM on September 22, 2018 [28 favorites]
These cities say as much about Mumbai, Manila, Bangkok, and Cairo as a filet mignon does about a slaughterhouse
This is why the quote “A developed country is not a place where the poor have cars. It's where the rich use public transportation.” was a powerful call to action. Car culture is most brutal on the most vulnerable and deprived people everywhere.
posted by Space Coyote at 5:57 PM on September 22, 2018 [28 favorites]
Walking in Bangkok is lousy, but not for the reason Sedaris cites ("It might be different if you’re a man with his wife or sister, but when you’re alone, you get taken for a sex tourist, and are hounded every moment of the day and night." - this only happens in specific tourist neighborhoods).
The main roads in Bangkok have nice, broad sidewalks...that are used by motorcycles. I assumed it was illegal until a couple of motorcycle cops rode past me. (Two on one bike, which is another cultural difference between Bangkok and the US.)
The sois (side streets) are also problematic. Most don't have sidewalks, which leaves you walking in the middle of the road where someone is likely to drive up at 50mph and run you over. And also, because so many of the main roads were once canals, plus there's a bunch of vestigial canals still kicking around like diseased organs, the sois mostly don't connect with other roads. So if you're going from, say, Sukhumvit Soi 49 to Phetchaburi Road, it's a 3KM journey even though the two are maybe 100 meters apart.
I thought I knew "you can't get there from here," being from Boston, but Bangkok takes it to a whole new level.
posted by rednikki at 6:02 PM on September 22, 2018 [12 favorites]
The main roads in Bangkok have nice, broad sidewalks...that are used by motorcycles. I assumed it was illegal until a couple of motorcycle cops rode past me. (Two on one bike, which is another cultural difference between Bangkok and the US.)
The sois (side streets) are also problematic. Most don't have sidewalks, which leaves you walking in the middle of the road where someone is likely to drive up at 50mph and run you over. And also, because so many of the main roads were once canals, plus there's a bunch of vestigial canals still kicking around like diseased organs, the sois mostly don't connect with other roads. So if you're going from, say, Sukhumvit Soi 49 to Phetchaburi Road, it's a 3KM journey even though the two are maybe 100 meters apart.
I thought I knew "you can't get there from here," being from Boston, but Bangkok takes it to a whole new level.
posted by rednikki at 6:02 PM on September 22, 2018 [12 favorites]
How well do people with limited mobility get around in pedestrianised cities? I'm guessing it's harder for long distances, much easier for short ones?
posted by Joe in Australia at 6:11 PM on September 22, 2018 [2 favorites]
posted by Joe in Australia at 6:11 PM on September 22, 2018 [2 favorites]
I am of two minds on the link about following people; one mind says, hey, that sounds neat, I should try it; the other mind says, wow, what a way to scare some innocent stranger to death, if you happen not to be practiced at being inconspicuous.
I had the "funny" idea of following someone to the point of possibly creeping them out, and when they turn around I'd say "hey, where can I get some good ice cream around here?"
But I haven't done this because, as you noted, it's a great way to scare a stranger, and possibly get you punched or worse.
posted by filthy light thief at 7:16 PM on September 22, 2018 [3 favorites]
I had the "funny" idea of following someone to the point of possibly creeping them out, and when they turn around I'd say "hey, where can I get some good ice cream around here?"
But I haven't done this because, as you noted, it's a great way to scare a stranger, and possibly get you punched or worse.
posted by filthy light thief at 7:16 PM on September 22, 2018 [3 favorites]
I saw in Amsterdam an octogenerian on a conventional wheelchair, but with a gearbox on the dude's lap that was connected to both of the larger wheels. The gearbox had handcranks, and the guy was using them to move at quite a clip.
There are lots of ways to provide mobility that do not require 2 tons of steel capable of reaching 60MPH
posted by ocschwar at 7:18 PM on September 22, 2018 [6 favorites]
There are lots of ways to provide mobility that do not require 2 tons of steel capable of reaching 60MPH
posted by ocschwar at 7:18 PM on September 22, 2018 [6 favorites]
>How well do people with limited mobility get around in pedestrianised cities? I'm guessing it's harder for long distances, much easier for short ones?
I see far more wheelchair users on public transportation than I ever did in a parking lot. Pedestrianized cities are also more likely to have wide sidewalks that accommodate mobility devices. I think in the US it's easy to visualize the family with the converted van in a rural town who need it to get around, but in cities having such a van without also having a generous driveway at home to load/unload is impractical in denser areas and forces them into suburbs.
posted by JauntyFedora at 8:40 PM on September 22, 2018 [5 favorites]
I see far more wheelchair users on public transportation than I ever did in a parking lot. Pedestrianized cities are also more likely to have wide sidewalks that accommodate mobility devices. I think in the US it's easy to visualize the family with the converted van in a rural town who need it to get around, but in cities having such a van without also having a generous driveway at home to load/unload is impractical in denser areas and forces them into suburbs.
posted by JauntyFedora at 8:40 PM on September 22, 2018 [5 favorites]
"Limited mobility" is not limited to people in wheelchairs. The people who are most hurt by going carfree are frequently invisible and you have seen many of them and not known it.
Reducing unneeded car usage is great, increasing public transportation is even better. But there are many people who need cars, for whom public transportation will never, outside of the wildest sci-fi utopias, be more accessible than cars.
posted by brook horse at 9:17 PM on September 22, 2018 [5 favorites]
Reducing unneeded car usage is great, increasing public transportation is even better. But there are many people who need cars, for whom public transportation will never, outside of the wildest sci-fi utopias, be more accessible than cars.
posted by brook horse at 9:17 PM on September 22, 2018 [5 favorites]
Reducing traffic overall creates more space on the roads for those who must use them. If you need a car due to mobility issues, then getting all the able-bodied people out of their cars is good for you.
posted by jb at 9:24 PM on September 22, 2018 [2 favorites]
posted by jb at 9:24 PM on September 22, 2018 [2 favorites]
So they're invisible because they have limited mobility, and they're not in wheelchairs, right? Because they don't need wheelchairs, as long as they've got cars, and can drive everywhere. The cars are their wheelchairs.
So we've solved the problem of some people needing mobility assistance, by creating a society where everyone needs mobility assistance. At an incredible cost.
It's the Wall-E solution.
posted by alexei at 10:46 PM on September 22, 2018 [8 favorites]
So we've solved the problem of some people needing mobility assistance, by creating a society where everyone needs mobility assistance. At an incredible cost.
It's the Wall-E solution.
posted by alexei at 10:46 PM on September 22, 2018 [8 favorites]
Having limited mobility myself I can say that car culture is the reason for my limited mobility and anyone bringing up hypothetical disabled people before asking any of us can kindly please stop doing that.
posted by Space Coyote at 10:54 PM on September 22, 2018 [17 favorites]
posted by Space Coyote at 10:54 PM on September 22, 2018 [17 favorites]
I have dealt with periods of severe chronic pain from shingles neuralgia that left me barely able to stand for months, unable to work for a year, and only able to work part time for three more years and I certainly could not have walked long distances. Yet I too think that is not a good reason not to challenge car use. I'm totally in agreement that when we make changes we leave disabled and disenfranchised groups out and we absolutely must be accountable for making accomodations for such but that is absolutely not a reason not to challenge the way we use cars at present which is overwhelmingly because we have planned our cities and chosen a lifestyle that we believe we NEED cars and we can't challenge ourselves otherwise.
I look at these issues of change we need to make with a lense of harm reduction, so I can totally walk the path where we talk about the reasons for the behavior and the reasons some people might literally NEED the coping behavior, but harm reduction also means facing the harms of the behavior and looking for better adaptations and coping mechanisms that reduce the use of the harmful behavior and minimize it's harms, and look to build alternate solutions that satisfy the same goal the behavior was serving. It's not the same thing as abstinence and for some it never means abstinence but it can lead to abstinence or moving away entirely from certain harmful behaviors for many people. Car free zones, cities that try working with such policies, I think these are all things that work with this change. And yes providing transportation options for those with invisible disabilities and not judging specific individuals who still use cars because we don't know why they use them is also good. That's different than saying that even though it's challenging, we should all be working to move away from this dependence/addiction to cars as best we can.
posted by xarnop at 11:04 PM on September 22, 2018 [6 favorites]
I look at these issues of change we need to make with a lense of harm reduction, so I can totally walk the path where we talk about the reasons for the behavior and the reasons some people might literally NEED the coping behavior, but harm reduction also means facing the harms of the behavior and looking for better adaptations and coping mechanisms that reduce the use of the harmful behavior and minimize it's harms, and look to build alternate solutions that satisfy the same goal the behavior was serving. It's not the same thing as abstinence and for some it never means abstinence but it can lead to abstinence or moving away entirely from certain harmful behaviors for many people. Car free zones, cities that try working with such policies, I think these are all things that work with this change. And yes providing transportation options for those with invisible disabilities and not judging specific individuals who still use cars because we don't know why they use them is also good. That's different than saying that even though it's challenging, we should all be working to move away from this dependence/addiction to cars as best we can.
posted by xarnop at 11:04 PM on September 22, 2018 [6 favorites]
Well-designed public transport is dense enough to minimise excessive walking. The goal in my city is covering the center with enough stops for people to always be 400 metres from the nearest stop. Step-free access is of course essential, which is where places with old underground systems like London and Paris fail, but step-free buses are trivial.
There's a hell of a lot of detail that goes into designing a pedestrian-friendly city, which includes frequent places to sit down and rest - another point where you have to fight past people's knee-jerk instinct that providing benches just means homeless people or criminals will camp out on them. Ask me for how long the main train station in my city had nowhere to sit down because of that fear...
A good starting point is PRM TSI, the EU regulation on adapting rail infrastructure to people with reduced mobility and disabilities (also hearing, visual etc). When you straight-up make it government law, somehow accessible transport actually gets built...
posted by I claim sanctuary at 11:43 PM on September 22, 2018 [13 favorites]
There's a hell of a lot of detail that goes into designing a pedestrian-friendly city, which includes frequent places to sit down and rest - another point where you have to fight past people's knee-jerk instinct that providing benches just means homeless people or criminals will camp out on them. Ask me for how long the main train station in my city had nowhere to sit down because of that fear...
A good starting point is PRM TSI, the EU regulation on adapting rail infrastructure to people with reduced mobility and disabilities (also hearing, visual etc). When you straight-up make it government law, somehow accessible transport actually gets built...
posted by I claim sanctuary at 11:43 PM on September 22, 2018 [13 favorites]
(re Space Coyote's post)
A developed country is not a place where the poor have cars. It's where the rich use public transportation.
Enrique Peñalosa, the former mayor of Bogota, said this during a TED talk. It's nonsense
a) The statement "A developed country is not a place where the poor have cars," is logically equivalent to its contrapositive: "an undeveloped country is a place where the poor have cars."
According to census data from 2017, only 4.3% of American workers over age 16 had no access to a car
If a developed country is not a place where the poor have cars, then the USA is not a developed country.
B) Public transport accounts for a very small portion of total trips in some very big, very rich cities with exquisite public transportation. In London and Sydney, for example, only about 10% of all trips are made by public transport, while over 70% of all trips are made by car.
If a developed country is where the rich use public transportation, then Australia and England are not developed countries.
C) According to the UN's Inequality-Adjusted Development Index, Australia, the USA, and the UK are, respectively, the 3rd, 13th, and 14th most developed countries in the world.
D) If Peñalosa is right, the UN is wrong.
As I said, NONSENSE
posted by BadgerDoctor at 12:08 AM on September 23, 2018
A developed country is not a place where the poor have cars. It's where the rich use public transportation.
Enrique Peñalosa, the former mayor of Bogota, said this during a TED talk. It's nonsense
a) The statement "A developed country is not a place where the poor have cars," is logically equivalent to its contrapositive: "an undeveloped country is a place where the poor have cars."
According to census data from 2017, only 4.3% of American workers over age 16 had no access to a car
If a developed country is not a place where the poor have cars, then the USA is not a developed country.
B) Public transport accounts for a very small portion of total trips in some very big, very rich cities with exquisite public transportation. In London and Sydney, for example, only about 10% of all trips are made by public transport, while over 70% of all trips are made by car.
If a developed country is where the rich use public transportation, then Australia and England are not developed countries.
C) According to the UN's Inequality-Adjusted Development Index, Australia, the USA, and the UK are, respectively, the 3rd, 13th, and 14th most developed countries in the world.
D) If Peñalosa is right, the UN is wrong.
As I said, NONSENSE
posted by BadgerDoctor at 12:08 AM on September 23, 2018
Could we also keep in mind that many of us can’t drive because of disabilities and illnesses and impairments? Cars are not the default transport mode that works for every human.
Car culture is not a world in which people are permitted to own cars, but one in which our cities and towns and lives are built around cars and the expectation that of course everyone has cars, why would you not have a car, ugh could you imagine having to take the bus to work those poor souls.
Car culture is also the reason why we have cases of older people with age-related vision loss causing harm to themselves or others in car accidents. They could drive safely for a long time until one day they couldn’t, and then there was no simple non-car way for them to get around, and no reason for them to consider alternative options anyway because you can’t not drive that’s ridiculous. Except that when driving means being in control of a large fast mass of metal that can kill people, yes we really do need a way you can not drive once that’s no longer a safe option for you.
posted by Catseye at 12:15 AM on September 23, 2018 [21 favorites]
Car culture is not a world in which people are permitted to own cars, but one in which our cities and towns and lives are built around cars and the expectation that of course everyone has cars, why would you not have a car, ugh could you imagine having to take the bus to work those poor souls.
Car culture is also the reason why we have cases of older people with age-related vision loss causing harm to themselves or others in car accidents. They could drive safely for a long time until one day they couldn’t, and then there was no simple non-car way for them to get around, and no reason for them to consider alternative options anyway because you can’t not drive that’s ridiculous. Except that when driving means being in control of a large fast mass of metal that can kill people, yes we really do need a way you can not drive once that’s no longer a safe option for you.
posted by Catseye at 12:15 AM on September 23, 2018 [21 favorites]
If a developed country is where the rich use public transportation, then Australia and England are not developed countries.
Much of London (especially the outer boroughs) is an inhospitable car-clogged shithole where the air is too toxic to breathe and doing something as mundane as riding a bicycle to work is likely to leave you dead or severely injured. The rich are able to block popular cycling schemes because it would hinder them being able to use the local park as a shortcut in their cars and taxis.
It will only become a properly developed city when car culture goes away.
posted by grahamparks at 2:02 AM on September 23, 2018 [5 favorites]
Much of London (especially the outer boroughs) is an inhospitable car-clogged shithole where the air is too toxic to breathe and doing something as mundane as riding a bicycle to work is likely to leave you dead or severely injured. The rich are able to block popular cycling schemes because it would hinder them being able to use the local park as a shortcut in their cars and taxis.
It will only become a properly developed city when car culture goes away.
posted by grahamparks at 2:02 AM on September 23, 2018 [5 favorites]
a) The statement "A developed country is not a place where the poor have cars," is logically equivalent to its contrapositive: "an undeveloped country is a place where the poor have cars."
The point of the statement is not that it's not a developed country if the poor have cars, but that the poor having cars does not imply a developed country.
In London and Sydney, for example, only about 10% of all trips are made by public transport, while over 70% of all trips are made by car.
The London link here goes to statistics for the UK as a whole, rather than London. In London, nowhere near 70% of trips are made by car. This TfL report about modes of travel in London shows private transport (mostly cars) making up 36.5% of trips, and public transport cycling and walking together making up 62.1%. The rich in London absolutely use public transportation.
posted by Law of Demeter at 3:39 AM on September 23, 2018 [6 favorites]
The point of the statement is not that it's not a developed country if the poor have cars, but that the poor having cars does not imply a developed country.
In London and Sydney, for example, only about 10% of all trips are made by public transport, while over 70% of all trips are made by car.
The London link here goes to statistics for the UK as a whole, rather than London. In London, nowhere near 70% of trips are made by car. This TfL report about modes of travel in London shows private transport (mostly cars) making up 36.5% of trips, and public transport cycling and walking together making up 62.1%. The rich in London absolutely use public transportation.
posted by Law of Demeter at 3:39 AM on September 23, 2018 [6 favorites]
The contrapositive of "A developed country is not a place where the poor have cars" isn't "an undeveloped country is a place where the poor have cars."
It's "a place where the poor lack cars is not an undeveloped country."
Which seems right to me. You don't judge a country's development on whether or not poor people have cars; if rich people similarly don't have cars, maybe it's a country where cars are unnecessary.
posted by pykrete jungle at 4:47 AM on September 23, 2018 [3 favorites]
It's "a place where the poor lack cars is not an undeveloped country."
Which seems right to me. You don't judge a country's development on whether or not poor people have cars; if rich people similarly don't have cars, maybe it's a country where cars are unnecessary.
posted by pykrete jungle at 4:47 AM on September 23, 2018 [3 favorites]
Here in the Netherlands, I know more and more people who are carless by choice. They could afford a car but they chose not to get one, or not to have one any longer.
I believe that being able to make that choice, because the local infrasctructure makes it possible, is a big step forward.
posted by Too-Ticky at 5:08 AM on September 23, 2018 [1 favorite]
I believe that being able to make that choice, because the local infrasctructure makes it possible, is a big step forward.
posted by Too-Ticky at 5:08 AM on September 23, 2018 [1 favorite]
The accessibility issue seems to come up a lot in these discussions but it usually feels odd since the status quo being defended usually isn’t great. I live near Takoma Park, Maryland, which is basically the Berkeley of the DC region but more car-centric, and we saw recently got permission to take over a single parking space for extra outdoor seating, in what’s a perfect location for less car-centric design – downtown business district with heavy foot-traffic and two parking lots within a block. There was a fair amount of backlash from drivers and accessibility angle was a favorite talking point but nobody was willing to explain why you’d prefer unloading directly into traffic (presumably why none of the existing spaces were designated) with little extra space rather than drive 100 feet into the municipal parking lot where there are large, safe places to park.
The kicker, of course, is that the local activists and politicians pushing for better urban space usage are also on board with things which would make huge accessibility improvements like having wide sidewalks in good repair, fewer intersections of doom where anyone not in a car has to dodge multiple lanes of high-speed traffic, lights timed so the pedestrian crossing isn’t a sprint, etc. so presenting this as a conflict was thoroughly unnecessary.
posted by adamsc at 5:28 AM on September 23, 2018 [1 favorite]
The kicker, of course, is that the local activists and politicians pushing for better urban space usage are also on board with things which would make huge accessibility improvements like having wide sidewalks in good repair, fewer intersections of doom where anyone not in a car has to dodge multiple lanes of high-speed traffic, lights timed so the pedestrian crossing isn’t a sprint, etc. so presenting this as a conflict was thoroughly unnecessary.
posted by adamsc at 5:28 AM on September 23, 2018 [1 favorite]
I am not a hypothetical disabled person; I am a real disabled person who is unable to drive and for whom cars are still more accessible than public transportation. It was literally more feasible for me to buy a car I cannot drive (which I acknowledge is a privilege that I was able to do that, although I'm kind of drowning under the debt of it + insurance so maybe not so much) and rely on others to drive me than it was to use public transportation, despite living in a city with a robust public transportation network.
It is wildly impractical to design public transportation that I would be able to use, because I:
1) Cannot walk more than a couple hundred feet
2) Can't spend more than about 5 minutes in the heat without becoming sick and dizzy and risk fainting and having a seizure
3) Have an unpredictable condition that causes me to have to suddenly sit down, or suddenly end up on the toilet, meaning that no matter how well I plan I will end up running late and then either have to run to catch the bus (leaving me with severe dizziness and tachycardia for the next hour) or miss it entirely
4) Cannot carry more than about a pound or two for more than 50 feet, meaning groceries are impossible
5) Have significant attention and memory problems and frequently miss my stop or get confused and have to sit on the entire route again to get where I need to go.
6) Frequently need to leave my city for doctor visits, because there are few specialists in my condition in any one location and even fewer on my insurance
If there were completely temperature-controlled stops every couple hundred feet everywhere in the city, with buses/trains coming every 5 minutes so that it's not a big deal if I miss it, and if I were provided a buzzer like the ones in restaurants that would tell me when my stop is coming up without having to remember and constantly be listening for the specific street name, and inter-city transportation worked well enough that I wouldn't have to worry about potentially being 15.01 minutes late and having my appointment cancelled, maybe it could work. But that's not the reality of public transportation, and I don't think it's likely to be in the near future.
There are 3 million people with my condition in the US, and more with other disabilities with similar symptoms or problems, and more with different issues that make public transportation equally impractical (e.g. sensory processing issues). I and many others would love to use public transportation; I have a lot of anxiety about being in a car due to being in a car accident that was bad enough to seriously disable one of the passengers for life. I would feel much safer in a bus or a train, and I would love not to have to deal with owning a car. But I can't do that if I want to be able to leave my house.
Like I said, reducing car usage and increasing public transportation is great. We absolutely need to challenge the idea that cars are needed for everyone and everything. And I absolutely want us to continue discussing and working on how to improve public transportation; I definitely don't want to leave it as "public transportation right now isn't accessible, so forget it." But carfree discussions frequently frame people who use cars as selfish assholes destroying the environment because they're lazy--and sure, maybe that describes a lot of people. But like many discussions of technology that has some harm associated with it, that we are trying to reduce use of (plastic straws, smartphones, air conditioning), I never see it acknowledged that many disabled people need this to be able to exist in public spaces. Car-free zones and blocking off central roads literally means "this is a space where many disabled people are not allowed."
I'm not saying don't challenge car culture. I'm just asking you not to forget that disabled people exist while you're trying to create a better future. Because that happens so, so often, and if no one speaks up about it, disabled people will not be included in that future.
So they're invisible because they have limited mobility, and they're not in wheelchairs, right? Because they don't need wheelchairs, as long as they've got cars, and can drive everywhere. The cars are their wheelchairs.
I am not sure precisely what this means, but if you're saying people with invisible disabilities could just use wheelchairs and then they wouldn't have to drive:
1) For anyone whose problem is chronic fatigue or whose joint paint extends to their hands/arms, a manual wheelchair is just as bad as walking.
2) A power wheelchair solves this problem but does not account for people who cannot regulate temperature (a large portion of individuals with chronic illness) and for whom being out in the heat is dangerous
3) I used a power wheelchair in college because I otherwise could not get to and from my classes on a small (less than half a mile between the farthest corners of any two places I needed to get to) campus, and after a full day, it would still sometimes run out of battery before I got home. I had it looked at, there was nothing wrong with it, power wheelchairs just are frequently not designed to last long distances. I could not get to my pharmacy 2 miles away without a car. There are power wheelchairs that are designed to go farther but more than about 10 miles and it gets up in the $8-10k range, which is the price of a used car for something that can only transport one person and is susceptible to the elements.
4) They also are frequently not designed to function in the rain or snow; it literally said in my instruction manual not to use it in the rain or snow, which doesn't... work, in a place that has winter. And even if the city is SUPER ON TOP of snow removal, it's just not possible to clear it fast enough while it's falling. I had times where I could not get to class at all even though the paths had just been cleared, because another thin layer of snow had fallen that I couldn't get through. I also had times where I could not get up a hill because the rain made it too slick, and there's nothing at all that the school could do about that.
If we had long-distance electric wheelchairs with enough power and traction to get up hills in the rain and snow, with a chassis around it that's temperature-controlled, it would probably work? But at that point it's basically a miniature electric car. Or a mech suit. I would absolutely take either of those as an alternative to the car I have. Chop chop, engineers.
posted by brook horse at 7:41 AM on September 23, 2018 [6 favorites]
It is wildly impractical to design public transportation that I would be able to use, because I:
1) Cannot walk more than a couple hundred feet
2) Can't spend more than about 5 minutes in the heat without becoming sick and dizzy and risk fainting and having a seizure
3) Have an unpredictable condition that causes me to have to suddenly sit down, or suddenly end up on the toilet, meaning that no matter how well I plan I will end up running late and then either have to run to catch the bus (leaving me with severe dizziness and tachycardia for the next hour) or miss it entirely
4) Cannot carry more than about a pound or two for more than 50 feet, meaning groceries are impossible
5) Have significant attention and memory problems and frequently miss my stop or get confused and have to sit on the entire route again to get where I need to go.
6) Frequently need to leave my city for doctor visits, because there are few specialists in my condition in any one location and even fewer on my insurance
If there were completely temperature-controlled stops every couple hundred feet everywhere in the city, with buses/trains coming every 5 minutes so that it's not a big deal if I miss it, and if I were provided a buzzer like the ones in restaurants that would tell me when my stop is coming up without having to remember and constantly be listening for the specific street name, and inter-city transportation worked well enough that I wouldn't have to worry about potentially being 15.01 minutes late and having my appointment cancelled, maybe it could work. But that's not the reality of public transportation, and I don't think it's likely to be in the near future.
There are 3 million people with my condition in the US, and more with other disabilities with similar symptoms or problems, and more with different issues that make public transportation equally impractical (e.g. sensory processing issues). I and many others would love to use public transportation; I have a lot of anxiety about being in a car due to being in a car accident that was bad enough to seriously disable one of the passengers for life. I would feel much safer in a bus or a train, and I would love not to have to deal with owning a car. But I can't do that if I want to be able to leave my house.
Like I said, reducing car usage and increasing public transportation is great. We absolutely need to challenge the idea that cars are needed for everyone and everything. And I absolutely want us to continue discussing and working on how to improve public transportation; I definitely don't want to leave it as "public transportation right now isn't accessible, so forget it." But carfree discussions frequently frame people who use cars as selfish assholes destroying the environment because they're lazy--and sure, maybe that describes a lot of people. But like many discussions of technology that has some harm associated with it, that we are trying to reduce use of (plastic straws, smartphones, air conditioning), I never see it acknowledged that many disabled people need this to be able to exist in public spaces. Car-free zones and blocking off central roads literally means "this is a space where many disabled people are not allowed."
I'm not saying don't challenge car culture. I'm just asking you not to forget that disabled people exist while you're trying to create a better future. Because that happens so, so often, and if no one speaks up about it, disabled people will not be included in that future.
So they're invisible because they have limited mobility, and they're not in wheelchairs, right? Because they don't need wheelchairs, as long as they've got cars, and can drive everywhere. The cars are their wheelchairs.
I am not sure precisely what this means, but if you're saying people with invisible disabilities could just use wheelchairs and then they wouldn't have to drive:
1) For anyone whose problem is chronic fatigue or whose joint paint extends to their hands/arms, a manual wheelchair is just as bad as walking.
2) A power wheelchair solves this problem but does not account for people who cannot regulate temperature (a large portion of individuals with chronic illness) and for whom being out in the heat is dangerous
3) I used a power wheelchair in college because I otherwise could not get to and from my classes on a small (less than half a mile between the farthest corners of any two places I needed to get to) campus, and after a full day, it would still sometimes run out of battery before I got home. I had it looked at, there was nothing wrong with it, power wheelchairs just are frequently not designed to last long distances. I could not get to my pharmacy 2 miles away without a car. There are power wheelchairs that are designed to go farther but more than about 10 miles and it gets up in the $8-10k range, which is the price of a used car for something that can only transport one person and is susceptible to the elements.
4) They also are frequently not designed to function in the rain or snow; it literally said in my instruction manual not to use it in the rain or snow, which doesn't... work, in a place that has winter. And even if the city is SUPER ON TOP of snow removal, it's just not possible to clear it fast enough while it's falling. I had times where I could not get to class at all even though the paths had just been cleared, because another thin layer of snow had fallen that I couldn't get through. I also had times where I could not get up a hill because the rain made it too slick, and there's nothing at all that the school could do about that.
If we had long-distance electric wheelchairs with enough power and traction to get up hills in the rain and snow, with a chassis around it that's temperature-controlled, it would probably work? But at that point it's basically a miniature electric car. Or a mech suit. I would absolutely take either of those as an alternative to the car I have. Chop chop, engineers.
posted by brook horse at 7:41 AM on September 23, 2018 [6 favorites]
If we had long-distance electric wheelchairs with enough power and traction to get up hills in the rain and snow, with a chassis around it that's temperature-controlled, it would probably work? But at that point it's basically a miniature electric car. Or a mech suit. I would absolutely take either of those as an alternative to the car I have. Chop chop, engineers.
Solved decades ago. THe Dutch have this tiny two seater they allow on the fietspads, with a very low-CC gasoline egine, for disabled people.
Same ddeal: they allow it in car free spaces because it cannot reach dangerous speeds.
posted by ocschwar at 8:11 AM on September 23, 2018 [5 favorites]
Solved decades ago. THe Dutch have this tiny two seater they allow on the fietspads, with a very low-CC gasoline egine, for disabled people.
Holy shit. Why don't we have this everywhere? What's it called, where can I find more information? This would change everything.
posted by brook horse at 8:21 AM on September 23, 2018
Holy shit. Why don't we have this everywhere? What's it called, where can I find more information? This would change everything.
posted by brook horse at 8:21 AM on September 23, 2018
I had not heard of it before but from the googles it seems like this is what oschwar is referring to.
posted by ghharr at 8:49 AM on September 23, 2018 [1 favorite]
posted by ghharr at 8:49 AM on September 23, 2018 [1 favorite]
The Canta is the most common one in the Netherlands:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canta_(vehicle)
were provided a buzzer like the ones in restaurants that would tell me when my stop is coming up without having to remember and constantly be listening for the specific street name
There are *lots* of apps that will do this. If you're lucky there'll be an app for your city that integrates it into journey planning so it all happens automatically. If not you find an app that'll alert you when you get near a certain place (the Apple Reminders app can do this).
posted by grahamparks at 8:50 AM on September 23, 2018
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canta_(vehicle)
were provided a buzzer like the ones in restaurants that would tell me when my stop is coming up without having to remember and constantly be listening for the specific street name
There are *lots* of apps that will do this. If you're lucky there'll be an app for your city that integrates it into journey planning so it all happens automatically. If not you find an app that'll alert you when you get near a certain place (the Apple Reminders app can do this).
posted by grahamparks at 8:50 AM on September 23, 2018
brook horse: my intention wasn’t to say that your needs don’t matter but that I don’t like the way this issue is often framed as a zero-sum competition. I’d like if we rethought things from the perspective of benefiting people rather than optimizing for a particular technology. As you noted, the option of driving somewhere and parking right in front leaves out anyone who can’t afford access to a suitable vehicle, is unable to operate or have someone else operate it, doesn’t live in an area where that parking is served by good curb cuts and usable walkways, etc.
I live in DC, which is way above average accessibility-wise, but we travel around the country a bit and I’m always struck by how much the design freezes out people who don’t have sufficient affluence and support. Every day I see people with wheelchairs, canes, walkers, etc. looking comfortable and safe on wide sidewalks, ramps, using public transit, etc. (or for that matter, people with strollers or bags - everyone benefits from more usable designs at some point in their lives). When we travel, I see people in wheelchairs on the shoulders of not especially wide roads, having to make substantial detours around broken concrete or hostile designs (we were in Denver last month and went by an office building where there was a handicap spot with a ramp going up to one office and then a single step preventing people wheelchairs from accessing the rest of the building), etc.
I should also note that in the example I mentioned, the response from a couple local politicians was to suggest reclaiming most of the parking and optimizing the remainder for handicapped access, which would be an improvement over the current zero at that location. Again, I don’t think these need to be presented as cases where one party has to lose since the status quo tends to underserve many people, even the drivers who see subsidized parking as a win but ignore the traffic jams and quality of life impacts.
posted by adamsc at 10:57 AM on September 23, 2018 [3 favorites]
I live in DC, which is way above average accessibility-wise, but we travel around the country a bit and I’m always struck by how much the design freezes out people who don’t have sufficient affluence and support. Every day I see people with wheelchairs, canes, walkers, etc. looking comfortable and safe on wide sidewalks, ramps, using public transit, etc. (or for that matter, people with strollers or bags - everyone benefits from more usable designs at some point in their lives). When we travel, I see people in wheelchairs on the shoulders of not especially wide roads, having to make substantial detours around broken concrete or hostile designs (we were in Denver last month and went by an office building where there was a handicap spot with a ramp going up to one office and then a single step preventing people wheelchairs from accessing the rest of the building), etc.
I should also note that in the example I mentioned, the response from a couple local politicians was to suggest reclaiming most of the parking and optimizing the remainder for handicapped access, which would be an improvement over the current zero at that location. Again, I don’t think these need to be presented as cases where one party has to lose since the status quo tends to underserve many people, even the drivers who see subsidized parking as a win but ignore the traffic jams and quality of life impacts.
posted by adamsc at 10:57 AM on September 23, 2018 [3 favorites]
adamsc: My post wasn't in response to yours--I did not feel dismissed or disrespected by what you had to say, don't worry! I also absolutely agree we shouldn't frame it as a zero-sum competition. I love the phrase "benefiting people rather than optimizing for a particular technology." That's exactly what accessibility means to me. I think there are solutions that can benefit disabled and abled people and I just want to make sure we are thinking about everyone. So many of those hostile designs are simply due to people just not thinking about the existence of disabled people, or about the practical realities of moving about as a disabled person. Even when people think about wheelchair access, they don't consider the extra space it takes to open a door and move through it, the problem of traction in the rain, the location of access buttons when a door opens towards you, etc.
That's why I'm somewhat uncomfortable with "carfree" being the rallying cry--that's a solution for many, but not lots of disabled people without major, major changes to infrastructure; I'm afraid of disabled people being left out of design decisions if we move forward with this as a culture. I'm not saying we shouldn't, just that we should consider disabled people when we do. I think framing it as "making cars unnecessary" works better for me, because it's clear the focus is on finding solutions and making changes to benefit people, rather than just removing a piece of technology that many people currently need.
Anyway if we can just get an electric version of the Canta in the US + good bike infrastructure (which is what it seems like the Canta uses) then the majority of accessibility problems I have would be solved and I would be happy to ditch the car. It is heartening to see that's a solution that has already been implemented elsewhere; often in the US with how terrible our accessibility it's hard to imagine something like that outside of, as I said, a scifi utopia, but I'm glad to have been proven wrong in that regard.
posted by brook horse at 11:42 AM on September 23, 2018 [5 favorites]
That's why I'm somewhat uncomfortable with "carfree" being the rallying cry--that's a solution for many, but not lots of disabled people without major, major changes to infrastructure; I'm afraid of disabled people being left out of design decisions if we move forward with this as a culture. I'm not saying we shouldn't, just that we should consider disabled people when we do. I think framing it as "making cars unnecessary" works better for me, because it's clear the focus is on finding solutions and making changes to benefit people, rather than just removing a piece of technology that many people currently need.
Anyway if we can just get an electric version of the Canta in the US + good bike infrastructure (which is what it seems like the Canta uses) then the majority of accessibility problems I have would be solved and I would be happy to ditch the car. It is heartening to see that's a solution that has already been implemented elsewhere; often in the US with how terrible our accessibility it's hard to imagine something like that outside of, as I said, a scifi utopia, but I'm glad to have been proven wrong in that regard.
posted by brook horse at 11:42 AM on September 23, 2018 [5 favorites]
Vision Zero has lapsed in Montreal with pedestrian deaths sharply up this year. We have particular problems with traffic lights being too short for older people to get safely across, and pedestrians and cyclists dying when large trucks are taking a corner.
Public health knows how to fix a lot of this but the political will simply is not there to tell car commuters they've gotta slow down.
posted by zadcat at 1:44 PM on September 23, 2018 [1 favorite]
Public health knows how to fix a lot of this but the political will simply is not there to tell car commuters they've gotta slow down.
posted by zadcat at 1:44 PM on September 23, 2018 [1 favorite]
I walk through two medium-hostile intersections every day, and every day I think about how those intersections would look if they were designed for everyone, not primarily drivers and everyone else as an afterthought.
There are places where car free is a useful goal, but mostly places are dealing with existing infrastructure and transportation needs that require cars or car-like options.
The Netherlands does a lot of innovative things with transportation, but it is a dense, flat, and wealthy country. Not everything that works there will be a good fit elsewhere and vice versa. But it’s good to question the primacy of cars in modern cities and privileging drivers over other users of public space.
posted by Dip Flash at 3:51 PM on September 23, 2018
There are places where car free is a useful goal, but mostly places are dealing with existing infrastructure and transportation needs that require cars or car-like options.
The Netherlands does a lot of innovative things with transportation, but it is a dense, flat, and wealthy country. Not everything that works there will be a good fit elsewhere and vice versa. But it’s good to question the primacy of cars in modern cities and privileging drivers over other users of public space.
posted by Dip Flash at 3:51 PM on September 23, 2018
The ideal of walkable cities with lots of great public transportation where your work is close, your grocer is close and your neighborhoods are friendly sounds amazing. Why can't we all live in Pleasantville?
but, even living close to a city known for it's superb bike paths, things get spread out so far in the midwest that life gets really difficult without access to vehicles. Using the bus system in town works pretty well most of the time, with enough planning, but 10min outside of town you're pretty much stranded.
We have all this land, all these farms, and of course everyone wants to live near the lakes and streams, and that tosses a lot of urban grid planning right out the window.
posted by dreamling at 7:54 AM on September 24, 2018
but, even living close to a city known for it's superb bike paths, things get spread out so far in the midwest that life gets really difficult without access to vehicles. Using the bus system in town works pretty well most of the time, with enough planning, but 10min outside of town you're pretty much stranded.
We have all this land, all these farms, and of course everyone wants to live near the lakes and streams, and that tosses a lot of urban grid planning right out the window.
posted by dreamling at 7:54 AM on September 24, 2018
Huh, this prompted me to fire off a quick email to my elected city council representatives urging for more pedestrianised streets. We'll see how that goes.
posted by Harald74 at 1:05 AM on September 25, 2018
posted by Harald74 at 1:05 AM on September 25, 2018
There is a world between completely car-free and totally car-first designing - and it's the latter that reigns in a lot of places. In my own city, people are pointing out that where people are dying is out in the suburbs, where roads have 6 lanes and no sidewalks or crosswalks. We're not even at the point of making those places pedestrian-safe, let alone pedestrian-friendly.
When people do talk about making places car-free, that's always selectively car-free: small areas with exceptions for deliveries and accessibility. But there's nothing about making places more pedestrian-safe and pedestrian friendly which is inherently anti-accessibility, and for a lot of other people with disabilities, pedestrian-safe is required for their access.
Pedestrian-safe cities don't mean taking all cars out, but they do mean
- eliminating rounded corners (and especially cutaway turning lanes) at intersections; banning right turns on the red
- reducing speed-limits to no more than 30km on residential streets, and 40km on main streets
- reducing the width of roads (which will help, psychologically, with the speed limit reduction - drivers naturally want to drive slower on narrow roads)
- increasing the number of pedestrian crossings; for example, there should never be a public transit stop on a major road without an associated pedestrian crossing
Pedestrian-friendly design goes a step further: one big change (and I'm not sure our governments have the power to do this) would be to change entirely how commercial properties relate to pedestrian access. In the suburbs, it's not uncommon for pedestrians to have to cross multiple parking lots and driveways to access commercial properties, especially big-box stores. But this doesn't have to be -- a big box store can still maintain a massive parking lot, but also pedestrian access by locating itself at the side of the property closest to the road/bus stop, and thus be adjacent to both the sidewalk and the parking lot. But all this would take a political will to tell people that their convenience of being able to drive into a massive parking lot and not have to walk back to the store entrance is more important than the safety of the people walking in from the street. (As for their safety - they are walking through the parking lot either way - which is why parking lots should also have pedestrian-walkways.)
posted by jb at 9:24 AM on September 25, 2018 [4 favorites]
When people do talk about making places car-free, that's always selectively car-free: small areas with exceptions for deliveries and accessibility. But there's nothing about making places more pedestrian-safe and pedestrian friendly which is inherently anti-accessibility, and for a lot of other people with disabilities, pedestrian-safe is required for their access.
Pedestrian-safe cities don't mean taking all cars out, but they do mean
- eliminating rounded corners (and especially cutaway turning lanes) at intersections; banning right turns on the red
- reducing speed-limits to no more than 30km on residential streets, and 40km on main streets
- reducing the width of roads (which will help, psychologically, with the speed limit reduction - drivers naturally want to drive slower on narrow roads)
- increasing the number of pedestrian crossings; for example, there should never be a public transit stop on a major road without an associated pedestrian crossing
Pedestrian-friendly design goes a step further: one big change (and I'm not sure our governments have the power to do this) would be to change entirely how commercial properties relate to pedestrian access. In the suburbs, it's not uncommon for pedestrians to have to cross multiple parking lots and driveways to access commercial properties, especially big-box stores. But this doesn't have to be -- a big box store can still maintain a massive parking lot, but also pedestrian access by locating itself at the side of the property closest to the road/bus stop, and thus be adjacent to both the sidewalk and the parking lot. But all this would take a political will to tell people that their convenience of being able to drive into a massive parking lot and not have to walk back to the store entrance is more important than the safety of the people walking in from the street. (As for their safety - they are walking through the parking lot either way - which is why parking lots should also have pedestrian-walkways.)
posted by jb at 9:24 AM on September 25, 2018 [4 favorites]
One odd thing about some Dutch supermarkets (particularly small suburban ones) is that they’re built with the entrance by the pavement on the main road with the parking at the rear or on the side (random example. They look very unusual if every other supermarket you’ve ever seen requires traipsing across an inhospitable car park.
posted by grahamparks at 11:55 AM on September 25, 2018 [2 favorites]
posted by grahamparks at 11:55 AM on September 25, 2018 [2 favorites]
The Canta is the most common one in the Netherlands:
And the only one actually allowed on cycle paths and pedestrian areas, because of its width, or rather narrowness. The others[1] are wider and are able to seat two side-by-side, which might be kind of possible in the Canta but goes from somewhat uncomfortable into requiring hydraulic equipment and lots of lubricant depending on the size of the occupants. Max speed for this class of vehicle is 45km/h (30mph), so driving outside a city is limited to secondary roads. And there you have the problem that most of them look like a scaled down version of cars like the Toyota Aygo, which makes it hard to judge speed and distance. Especially when some have license-plate like cutesy plates.
They've all been powered by small combustion engines, although electrical ones are now appearing, so there's little energy to spare for airconditioning. Heating is less problematic as combustion engines need to have their heat shedded anyway.
[1] one of the other manufacturers of microcars is Ligier, better known from their Formula 1 racing cars. What contrast.
posted by Stoneshop at 5:49 AM on September 30, 2018 [1 favorite]
And the only one actually allowed on cycle paths and pedestrian areas, because of its width, or rather narrowness. The others[1] are wider and are able to seat two side-by-side, which might be kind of possible in the Canta but goes from somewhat uncomfortable into requiring hydraulic equipment and lots of lubricant depending on the size of the occupants. Max speed for this class of vehicle is 45km/h (30mph), so driving outside a city is limited to secondary roads. And there you have the problem that most of them look like a scaled down version of cars like the Toyota Aygo, which makes it hard to judge speed and distance. Especially when some have license-plate like cutesy plates.
They've all been powered by small combustion engines, although electrical ones are now appearing, so there's little energy to spare for airconditioning. Heating is less problematic as combustion engines need to have their heat shedded anyway.
[1] one of the other manufacturers of microcars is Ligier, better known from their Formula 1 racing cars. What contrast.
posted by Stoneshop at 5:49 AM on September 30, 2018 [1 favorite]
« Older Full on its crown, a fig's green branches rise | “For whatever reason it moves the needle for them.... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by The Underpants Monster at 3:43 PM on September 22, 2018 [3 favorites]