New study: The worst cities for walking

[txsta...@hotmail.com]

Saw this, thought it might be interesting, considering most of the
cities on this list seem to have a much greater focus on roads than on
pedestrians...

http://www.good.is/post/the-worst-cities-for-walking/?GT1=48001

[John Lansford]

"txsta...@hotmail.com" <txsta...@hotmail.com> wrote:

"The report blames most pedestrian deaths on what they call �poorly
designed arterial roads��they�re high-speed, multi-lane city streets
lined with shopping centers, drive-throughs, apartments, and office
space, yet devoid of pedestrian-friendly elements like crosswalks."

Yes, that can be a problem, but often what starts off as a
low/moderate volume road with a development or shopping center on it
turns into a major arterial with way too many lanes to safely get
pedestrians across. Plus, many of those arterials were designed back
when pedestrian access wasn't given much in the way of consideration,
and now coming up with a solution is both expensive and not that easy
to provide.

For example, Capital Boulevard in Raleigh (one of the areas listed on
the study) is a 6-8 lane arterial connecting north Raleigh with the
downtown area. The entire route is a mix of developments, shopping
centers, businesses and residential areas. Traffic volumes are very
high (over 100k daily) and while some of the traffic signals have
crosswalks, not all of them do and many pedestrians cross wherever
they want anyway. There've been several pedestrians killed by
vehicles crossing the road, but short of building multiple pedestrian
bridges over the road (which often don't work anyway), what else can
be done?

With the Raleigh/Cary area covering such a large area (bigger than SF
in area), everything tends to be spread out a lot, making vehicles
necessary to get around if you're going to be doing much more than
going to the next door store. Many southern cities are built like
that, which is why so many of them are on that list.

John Lansford, PE
--
John's Shop of Wood
http://wood.jlansford.net/

[Rich Piehl]

I'm surprised at the number of people walking to work in St. Louis. But
maybe that includes people riding light rail and then walking from the
station to the office? I'm guessing.

--
"One thing I've learned after all this road
Is that you don't know as much as you thought you know."

--The Reverend Peyton's Big Damn Band

[Nathan Perry]

In article
<36cee868-96c1-4762...@o10g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
"txsta...@hotmail.com" <txsta...@hotmail.com> wrote:

I'd add Fort Myers very high on that list; it may be a little smaller
than the cities sampled...but I had to rent a car to make an
across-the-street commute for the two weeks I was there.

[Guy Olsen]

On Nov 19, 5:08 pm, "txstatee...@hotmail.com"

I wonder what the proportion of drivers versus pedestrians being at
fault is in each of those cities.

Guy Olsen, PE(NJ), PTOE

[floyd rogers]

<txsta...@hotmail.com> wrote

I notice that Seattle, while the 14th or so largest metropolitan area, is
not in the
top-35. Perhaps because our cops actually give out jay-walking tickets?
Also,
our local culture generally mandates crossing only at designated cross-walks
and
only with the light?

Over here in Europe (where I am currently on vacation), pedestrian centers
make it hard to get hit. There are probably no cities in the US that are
set
at a scale that make pedestrian-only areas a viable option.

FloydR

[Nathan Perry]

In article
<b863e335-2793-49f3...@p35g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
Guy Olsen <guyp...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I wonder what the proportion of drivers versus pedestrians being at
> fault is in each of those cities.

Depends; I've almost been run over in a Florida crosswalk by drivers
running a No Turn On Red sign that lit up specially for my crossing.
Then again, how many actions can a pedestrian take that would result in
a legal fault being applied to him?

[Nathan Perry]

In article <ufoeg5da4kkqm0t85...@4ax.com>,
Scott in SoCal <scotte...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Last time on misc.transport.road, Justin Rhodes
> <justin...@gmail.com> said:
>
> >I'm surprised to see the Phoenix Metro area outranking Tucson on that
> >list. Both cities are spread out and have wide roads, but Phoenix has
> >a better sidewalk system
>
> Tucson's speed limits are generally lower, thanks to the preponderance
> of unimproved horse-and-buggy width streets that the NIMBY Tucsonans
> steadfastly refused to widen for decades. This combination makes
> Tucson relatively safe for pedestrians, and I'm actually surprised it
> ranked as high as it did.

I wonder how they determine the extent of an included city? Obviously
they're measuring whole metro areas, not just cities proper, and I'll
best even the most pedestrian-friendly city core will get bumped way up
the list by the surrounding suburban areas. Since southern and western
cities tend to have smaller urban cores and widespread suburbanized
areas, that's mhy they're on the list and why someplace like Tucson
might be surprisingly high up.