It's apparently not in the interest of traffic engineers in the U.S. to care for pedestrian (or cyclist) safety. It's been this way since the post-war area where everything was built for cars, and this seems to have manifested in peoples' minds like the concrete they built. Hard to remove this. People seem to fight over minor improvements (like adding a protected bike lane or making safer crosswalks) while a drastic change would be necessary (like building completely different roads or changing underlying laws).
I'd recommend checking out the "Not Just Bikes" YouTube channel for some interesting observations on the differences between the U.S. and Europe when it comes to traffic safety. Also, Strong Towns is a resource you might want to check out: https://www.strongtowns.org/
> It's apparently not in the interest of traffic engineers in the U.S. to care for pedestrian (or cyclist) safety.
Knowing the average engineer, traffic engineers probably care about a lot of things.
What usually happens is that someone higher up (politicians, city administrators, etc) set up an incentive system that forces the engineers' hand. Stuff like: "Increase car traffic speed in region X by Y% in 2023".
Funny you mention that metric since it happens often and is irrelevant since throughput would be way more interesting since it is often chosen as a metric to "solve" congestion, especially total throughput (including not cars) would most likely increase the total speed (in general) for all commuters due to limiting congestion.
Don't mention to car-centric politicians the most effective speed for safe throughput is about 40kph/25mph and not 120/75.
It's pretty well known graph in traffic engineering -- Max throughput isn't free flowing traffic. (Though I remember it at 35-40 mph on interstate/motorway).
The basic reason is that free flowing traffic requires bigger gaps between vehicles. (safe anyway, but practically the way people drive generally follows the safe spacing function, but with a 'bit' of y offset). At the minimum latency (the free flow speed (ffs)) the spacing between cars is x seconds, so you get 3600/x cars per hour. At maximum flow rate, ~1/2 the ffs, the spacing is more like 1-2 seconds, so you get closer to 2k cars per hour. Even slower, the cars can be packed closer, but you don't clear the road nearly as quickly so the throughput is lower.
Throughput is mostly independent of road as distances between cars increase more than you can speed up to compensate (you reaction time stays the same or get's worse). Type of road can make a difference, obviously dirt makes the distance requirements worse. If people also exit/enter the road it's even worse.
I was assuming an ideal road though with everyone sticking to the same speed. Cross lane movement and speed difference in traffic also places limits and slower speeds limit both of those afaik.
Costs mostly. He's talking from a privileged position of someone who can afford living in Amsterdam with his lifestyle.
Take for example buying groceries in your corner shop daily on your way back from work. Easily 50% more expensive than taking a longer, less frequent trip to a larger supermarket further away.
But what upset me the most was showcasing a building built somewhere in Canada that was, in his view, great because it didn't have parking spaces.
What actually happened is that the building rented-out parking spots from a nearby multi-level parking lot and was only allowed to be built as an exception, because it was too tall according to the zoning. And it shows, because it stands out like a buck tooth.
I live in a country essentially taken over by construction companies' interests and this is the kind of bullshit they peddle to improve their margins.
I don't follow your argument. I've lived in various major European cities and it was always easy enough to find a discount supermarket (Lidl, Aldi etc.) within walking distance, and if not, maybe within 5 minutes of cycling. There would've rarely been a need to use the (more expensive, but certainly not 50%) corner grocery store. Everyone can afford this — quite the contrary: people often ignore the hundreds of Euros they spend on a car, because it's just a given for them. (That said, I know there are lots of people who depend on the car for getting to a work location because of lack of public transport.)
I don't know about the building you're talking about and can't weigh in on this.
A store placed where land and labour is expensive will necessarily have considerably higher prices than one far away from such an area.
I had friends who, in order to save money, went by bus, did shopping for the whole week and just Ubered back, because even compared to a local Lidl it was worth it. Of course it was a major time sink, but spread over a week didn't affect them too much.
My personal record was in Zurich, where I had a whopping 3.6km to the next Lidl, from which I only returned by bus, because those ~4CHF saved on the ticket there afforded me 1kg of bananas(2CHF instead of 3 in Coop) and a can of tuna.
This is the type of reality I'm talking about - note the lack of cars in these scenarios.
I wish I could find the clip showing the mentioned building, but a cursory search didn't yield results.
> My personal record was in Zurich, where I had a whopping 3.6km to the next Lidl, from which I only returned by bus, because those ~4CHF saved on the ticket there afforded me 1kg of bananas(2CHF instead of 3 in Coop) and a can of tuna.
By bicyle, 3.6 km would take 10-15 min without riding hard.
I don't follow. One of the things he rallies against the most in his videos is precisely laws — like zoning regulations and parking minimums — which make it illegal to build walkable neighbourhoods and encourage car-dependent sprawl.
As for buying for the corner shop being 50% more expensive, why? What are you basing yourself on to make that assertion?
> One of the things he rallies against the most in his videos is precisely laws — like zoning regulations and parking minimums — which make it illegal to build walkable neighbourhoods and encourage car-dependent sprawl.
I see this as a perspective of someone who never lived in a walkable city that has both zoning and parking minimums. It's not a case of either-or.
The type of construction he's proposing is a net negative to how a city functions - specifically it was a particularly tall building in an area where four floors + ground level buildings were already allowed - that's an already appropriate density for a city.
> What are you basing yourself on to make that assertion?
That's my experience from just about every European city I spent any appreciable time in(meaning - at least a few months) - especially the one I grew up in.
And no wonder - grocery stores scale exceedingly well so far as there's cheap land to build on. That's not the case in city centres.
Ah the famous Tade0's-experience-price-index /s :)
Sure, I'd love to see how prices in small shop chain retailers compare to big box chain retailers. But sorry, your personal gut feeling is not data enough for me.
As for walkable cities with zoning and parking minimums, perhaps it can technically be done? But you do agree that it makes it extremely difficult and disincentivised, right?
I'd recommend checking out the "Not Just Bikes" YouTube channel for some interesting observations on the differences between the U.S. and Europe when it comes to traffic safety. Also, Strong Towns is a resource you might want to check out: https://www.strongtowns.org/