#walkability

Cars should not be allowed in towns and cities at all. The only places where they should be at all present is in rural areas where any other means of transportation should be impossible.

High speed rail networks should allow for a trip from Mexico city to Montreal in under 24 hours.

All public transportation should be 100% free.

Lawns should not exist.

It doesn't make sense for single family homes to be built in most American cities.

Architecture must be beautiful again.

Every commercial street should have at least one bench.

Public restrooms must be free, common and accessible.

you need to take a long hard look at whether you actually care about disabled people

there are WAAAY more types of disability that make people unable to drive than there are ones that make people unable to navigate walkable, transit-friendly communities without a car but still leave them able to drive.

consider: vision issues, heart conditions, epilespy, other neurological issues like parkinson's or MS, stroke and other brain injuries, mobility limitations especially in the arms and legs, medication side-effects, sleep disorders, and pretty much any condition that could cause fatigue, blackouts, or temporarily inability to function which is super broad, including severe anemia, kidney disease, severe breathing disorders, severe diabetes, endocrine disorders, and a number of mental health conditions

a large portion of these people can safety and competently navigate walkable communities and even ride public transit.

and you want to know something? it's a tough reality to face but 99%+ of us at some point WILL be disabled in one of these ways. yes, probably you. it may happen near the end of your life, your vision deteriorates. or it could happen right now. it might happen for a few days, wees, or months, or for the rest of your life.

on top of this, there are also a lot of disabled people who cannot drive for reasons other than their disability: even if in theory they could drive, they cannot because they are too poor to own a car, or otherwise lack the resources to go through the arduous process of learning to drive, passing the driver's test, and then acquiring a car, having a place to park it, and getting insured, and keeping the car in good enough condition to keep driving it. cars are incredibly expensive and there are a lot of communities (dense cities in particular) where keeping a car is more difficult and costly.

yes, there are accessibility limitations with transit. not all people who use wheelchairs, power scooters, or other mobility aids are able to ride "accessible" buses, trains, or paratransit, or access "accessible" stations or businesses or other buildings. yes, navigating walkable communities and/or transit becomes more complex and difficult with any of these disabilities and some places will always be inaccessible to you with any disability

but the point is, walkability and transit helps disabled people FAR more than any disabled people are excluded from walkability or transit.

if you are one of the disabled people who is excluded from walkability or transit, but able to drive a car, then i get it, walkability advocacy and transit advocacy doesn't benefit you directly.

but in order for society to work and in order to help all disabled people, we NEED people to support solutions that help people other than themselves. let us advocate for transit and walkability in peace, without shutting us down. if you don't want to make that your #1 passionate issue then i totally understand and i will never judge you if you stay out of the movement entirely. but stop shutting us down. and stop tolerating (and reblogging) the discourse that shuts us down without offering anything constructive.

Boring World: Walkable Cities.

What exactly does "walkable" mean, and is it still a useful term for urbanism advocacy? That question occurred to me today when we made a trip to the intersection of Piedmont Road and Cheshire Bridge Road.

To get there, we took MARTA's 809 and 27 buses and it was a great trip -- the buses were on time and the transfer from one to the other was seamless (just as predicted by the Google Maps trip planner).

Transit access? Check.

When we arrived at the intersection, sidewalks and crosswalks were both plentiful.

Pedestrian infrastructure? Check.

We had a great lunch at Little Rey, where a front door connected well to the sidewalk, followed by a shopping trip to Sprouts where the door was easy to get to from the sidewalk.

Pedestrian connections to destinations? Check.

But it still didn't feel like a welcoming place to walk. There were "slip lanes" all around, where frustrated drivers were making quick turns and not necessarily looking for pedestrians. Older shopping centers are fronted by parking lots. The expanses of asphalt and car lanes were wide, with no trees or landscaping to serve as a buffer between cars and pedestrians.

It's technically walkable. But realistically it's a car-oriented place and pedestrians will understandably feel like they're an afterthought.

I've honestly tried to lessen my use of the word "walkable" in recent years, adopting phrases like "pedestrian-oriented" instead.

This is because I've seen many places like this one that follow the letter of the law, so to speak, by being basically walkable (yes, you *can* walk there) without following the spirit of the law and putting pedestrian experiences in a place of importance (but do you *want* to walk there?).

To be sure, many places in the city lack even the basics of walkability, putting transit-dependent people in truly dire situations. I don't mean to undermine the primary importance of addressing those problems.