The Big Problem with Who Designs Our Cities

[@Taladar2003]

To the people who say "crossing the road in the middle of the block is dumb" I would just say "not as dumb as putting a wide road between a building and the closest parking lot to the entrance". That doesn't even make sense in a car-centric world view.

[@Descriptor413]

Pretty much this. I'm an electrical engineer. If my circuit doesn't work, I don't blame the electrons for not going where I want, I blame my design. And while people, unlike electrons, have free will and stuff and can react to a situation in different ways, at the end of the day, using legal solutions to these problems isn't always viable. All it does is erode public trust in institutions. People give up on rules if the rules are dumb, after all.

[@michaeljfoley1]

I know. People are just blind to this dumb type of design. Not everyone, but, you know...just a lot of blissfully ignorant hypocrisy.

[@ttopero]

@@michaeljfoley1this is engineering as deign by default! As Chuck has stated, engineers are not trained as designers. Designers can understand engineers & engineering much better than engineers can understand design.

[@Milkytron]

@@Descriptor413 Check out the book: "Killed By A Traffic Engineer", it goes into how "transportation engineering" doesn't follow basic principals of engineering and science. We have accepted faulty studies for decades without questioning them, and the results have become standards for road design. It's quite sad how little reproduction and independent research has been done, and how much, "it's been done this way for years, why would we change" there is.

[@Descriptor413]

@@Milkytron It's definitely been on my reading list!

[@BuildNewTowns]

They should be asking... "How can we design places where people don't need a car?!"

[@DutchinCle]

I am spending a lot of time in the past 2 months talking to people around Cleveland that want to build the right infrastructure. THEY KNOW what to build and they are slowly winning. I am seeing it. Get involved locally people it DOES make a difference. They want to hear your voice for everyone 1 that says something there are a 1000 that dont and complain online. so your voice matters. no matter where you are.

[@GhostOnTheHalfShell]

Listening to a video like this suggest to me that’s what’s needed for city planning is a bit of guerrilla (speech to text is not smart, thanks to supernova for catching it) urban design. A bunch of frisky individuals can get a couple of buckets of paint and maybe put up a sign on a pole and paint themselves the street walk and they yield to pedestrians sign.. even if it’s temporary, perhaps City Hall will finally get the hint.

[@supernova622]

Guerilla*, friend Not 🦍 😹

[@GhostOnTheHalfShell]

@@supernova622 yes this is a hazard of using voice to text. I still neglect to review what it produces at times my bad

[@michaeljfoley1]

As bad as the crossing issue is, the visceral thing that really grinds my gears here is the big ass parking lot, itself 😕 Obviously these problems are directly related, but jeez. Truly craptastic.

[@ttopero]

These are the mindsets, among others, that keep me from investing in & moving to these small & medium cities near the resources of metropolitan areas. I believe these small cities have the potential to resolve our housing & economic challenges for many people, far more than the big cities do. However, it’s the mindset, limited thinking & refusal to adjust to current realities that keep me & others from pursuing these opportunities. I don’t have 10-20 years to fight for policies to allow what is needed before actually getting the permission to do it.

[@ttopero]

From news articles: raised platform to slow drivers down, a crosswalk, and a light to direct pedestrians; removes on lane of traffic for a pedestrian refuge island. A pedestrian activated stop signal (HAWK) is to be installed too.

[@pirateprofessor]

When I was doing a job with a construction company, I learned about "desire lines", the paths that real people create in their real negotiations of their physical environment. Where I live (in Switzerland), you can see them all the time - the planners here are trained to think rectilinearly, while the walkers are thinking about getting to their destination efficiently. I'd hazard to say, the planners are used to getting in their cars and driving from point a to point b, so if they have to follow a course that takes them an extra few hundred yards, they've only burned the tiniest bit of extra calories stepping on the gas pedal (while burning all the fossil fuel necessary to lug a hippopotamus the extra distance), whereas the walker will inherently favor the basic principle of "conservation of energy". It's so basic to nature, we have it embedded in our language: "As the crow flies" is the shortest distance between two points, because no animal is going to be so stupid as to travel under their own power on anything but a straight line if they can help it. That principle is also why we have road kill, including all of the human people who try to get from the library to their car in the most natural way.

[@GegoXaren]

If they are so concerned with the traffic lights... Why not remove them?

[@Optopolis]

I noticed the bushes and fence in the last video, I was intrigued about that. It's nice to learn they are putting a crossing near there.

[@pirateprofessor]

I grew up in Bennington and lived 15 years in New Haven, so used to pass Springfield all the time. As carcissitic a city as ever there was. I'm looking at it right now with the Google Maps aerial view. There is a trail for walking or biking along the river, but no other connection to what should be a great public feature (you'd have to build some public plazas above the railroad tracks to provide pleasant access). Check out the relationship between the river and the Basketball Hall of Fame, using Street View - boy is that grim. Drive south to Hartford and it's equally bleak - I count 13 lanes of highway between downtown and the riverside. When I was back in Bennington recently, I belligerently tried to walk from my sister's house to the Walmart - I shot a bunch of terrifying video of massive pick-up trucks and disappearing sidewalks, that one of these days I promise I'll edit into a video for my KZbin channel. (Here's one about carcissism in Missouri that I spent a bunch of time on, that I think is pretty good: kzbin.info/www/bejne/bGrCgGCQi55lmMk)

[@nunyabidness3075]

Didn’t a wise college professor once decide to not put in sidewalks on a new campus development so that the students would create trails and thus show where the sidewalks should be? Don’t smart politicians tend to be the ones that give the people what they want? Seems smart and wise to put the crosswalk in front of the library. Right?

[@pirateprofessor]

I'd love to see something about the "wise college prof" who begged off on sidewalks, if it's not apocryphal.

[@MrSunrise-]

At the University of Victoria in British Columbia this approach was followed to the point where a cartoon circulated showing paving crew following a pedestrian across a lawn.

[@alfredogarbanzo2276]

should be a no brainer to put a midblock crossing there!

[@ttopero]

Except that 2 lanes of traffic in each direction is the engineering preference. They accommodated pedestrians by engineering signalized crosswalks at each end of the block so their professional obligation has been fulfilled.

[@kailahmann1823]

the only problem: That won't fix anything. They don't need to mid-block crossing, but a mid-building crossing, was the building is the trip generator. Here the city has build a crossing between the exit of a parking lot and the side street on the other side. This crossing island is 10 meter (!) out of the way for several reasons - people are still crossing right next to the island…

[@weldonyoung1013]

I can see the geometry of the crosswalk placement. But like you question why the 'new' (planned) crosswalk has to be equidistant from intersections? Surely placing it about 1 & a half building from an intersect could be problematic, but if the 'mid-block crossalk' were at the most distant edge of the across the street parking lot shouldn't it be far enough from an intersection? As for the LARGER ISSUE: regarding traffic/urban planning - what generation are most of or the senior staff in those departments? How old is their training? And are they using some of the newer planning concept? Concrete and its funding have a long lifespan, usualy longer than many humans. And I'm not just talking about the 'road kill'.

[@milliedragon4418]

It's not that people are dumb. Is that human nature is to take calculated risk. You could cross that road several times and as a pedestrian and it'll be safe even if it isn't designed to be safe because most people will stop. You got to love the fact that they'll just address it through 'hostile pedestrian design'. But yes, it is annoying that we prioritize cars over pedestrians. Especially public libraries, but if you think that's bad my area, we have a public park. Well it has two public crossings. It has three at three driver intersections. The sad part is that they want to expand the road and on top of that they want to claim. They're going to make it more walkable by having these broad walkable areas and yet they're not adding an additional crosswalk to the park. Right now it's a two-lane so people do cross it. Even though it is somewhat dangerous, it at least is less dangerous than a multi-lane because people do cut quarters to walk. And similarly, it takes probably five extra minutes to walk to the designated crosswalk. And then you have to deal with the wait time. On top of that that adds up. You would think for every entrance or exit it would have a crosswalk because it's a public park. They've been saying for decades that they'll expand the road, so it's been in the works for a long time. In some ways, I'm disappointed that it's finally coming to fruition. Only because I know it really won't solve the traffic problems not in that area, It will only increase users, It already has an alternative route and this means that they will not use it as often. And keep in mind this already has a medium so it's not as if they need to make it a 'parkway style'. And I know exactly that this is going to cause more deaths. By the way, the walkways are much needed. There literally is no sidewalks. And it's supposed to be for the trails. So now they're going to be to increase more pedestrian activity and yet most likely won't address the safety risk that that will oppose. Three if you count the preschool as well.

[@lkruijsw]

Do the city designers not understand that the pedestrians that are walking to the car parking are actually car drivers in a few minutes? 😂

[@ArtisticHH57]

I agree with you. It bothers me how politicized some of the conversations around safer streets can get. It shouldn’t be a political problem because it’s a safety problem.

[@kailahmann1823]

It's political for three reasons: * the car industry needs car dependency for their profit and in the US this even comes down to "more dangerous roads sell bigger tanks". Remember: The car industry basically wrote those policies to turn the county into a place, where only cars are feasible. * Americans don't only drive everywhere, but also relatively long distances - and when your commute is already two hours, then you don't accept any additional delay. A work culture, where being 5 minutes late once can get you fired makes this worse. * Also because "everybody" drives, the US (and really ONLY the US!) has a lot of prejudice against people, who don't. You regularly hear comments like "grow up and get a car", "you bike to work? Had your licence revoked for DUI?" "If you can't afford a car, then get a job you sucker!" or worst of all "probably a tree-hugger". As a result the comfort or often even the life of non-drivers is considered as "worthless".

[@derickcastillo9083]

This issue is all over our country! We should all be advocating for safe streets regardless of what mode of transportation we choose. No one should ever be in a "hurry" when going anywhere! Plan your trips better! Leave earlier! The truth is if you are driving a vehicle you are contributing to the vehicle traffic problem.

[@lite1979]

What is a one-way couplet?

[@ttopero]

Two one-way streets next to each other to convey vehicles in both directions

[@kailahmann1823]

@@ttopero basically continuous median XXL

[@ttopero]

@@kailahmann1823 That would be describing a very wide parkway median😉 There’s differences between a one-way couplet & wide parkway but I think you know that already

[@Jamie_says_weirding_is_real]

Maybe people are dumb, "or maybe our design is suggesting that regular, smart and normal people do dumb things" 💯

[@welcometoSL]

Or maybe regular, smart and normal people's actions are suggesting our design is dumb. - That is what I was waiting for him to say.

[@TheLyricalCleric]

Car-centric design creates cities designed for cars, not for people. If we designed houses for cars rather than people, all our hallways would be 11 feet wide and our bedrooms would need to have turning radiuses to accommodate. It’s nonsense design. Cars can be accommodated in city design, but cities should be designed to limit car traffic and promote biking and walking. I guarantee you that if you simply took out the stop lights, limited lanes of state street, and put in a raised crosswalk so that cars had to slow to mount over the crosswalk, traffic would be calmed and people who wanted to drive faster would find alternate routes. The resulting calmed traffic would probably move just as fast as the artificially “calm” signaled traffic, but with the added benefit of reclaiming two thirds of the roadway for pedestrian and bike traffic. It’s so simple, a child could understand it. Why city planners don’t understand that is why those planners should be replaced. If I designed a house with 11-foot hallways, I should rightly no longer be designing houses, because I’m inefficient at house design. Inefficient city designers should not be given carte blanche to design cities around cars, not people.

[@wmentzer58]

I'm not handicapped, but, where are they supposed to park?

[@ArtisticHH57]

I agree with you

[@blinkingmanchannel]

You were not "uncharitable." I don't even care to look that town up on a map. I'm just trying to post a supporting note without cussing a blue streak. I'd love for you to take a camera and go meet the people who make those decisions and see what their incentives are. I'm new to paying attention, having always simply acted in my own interest, because I can. But nowadays I'm letting my curiosity off the chain. Most people aren't stupid. Indeed they very often have perverse incentives. ❤ A few are bad people. Nowadays I ask a lot of very direct questions. Please do the same.

[@rimankis8087]

World Health Organization designing our cities?! No way

[@Justinb2]

Yeeeeesh that is wide road

[@traffic.engineer]

This 100% fault of the urban planners. They created this problem and expected the traffic engineers to fix their issues. Traffic engineers can only fix within the infrastructure they are given. A request of just placing a crosswalk is only a bandage that does not address the systemic illness of the bad urban planning. Now suddenly urban planners say they want to improve safety but give traffic engineers no resources to complete it. They leave the same bad infrastructure intact without addressing use of the roads. Simply placing the crosswalk creates other issues for pedestrian safety, not just the vehicular congestion. If there is a need to connect to library to the lot, then address the issue to redirect the major traffic to other roads. Don't just expect a majorly travelled roadway to suddenly cater to pedestrian needs without addressing a roadway classification and designation. Traffic engineers are not simply going apply an urban planner's whim if it may create other problems.

[@realdata8624]

Who the hell wants to live in cities these days? I mean in the mix, not surrounding areas?

[@DanielBrotherston]

Sidenote: The way you capitalized "WHO" and with the kind of conspiracy theories that go around 15 minute cities, there's a potential for a whole lot of crazies to interpret this as a video about the world health organization designing cities.

[@weaver270]

So why is a pedestrian bridge not the most obvious answer? Give it 25 feet of clearance and that should be good enough to keep people alive.

[@brucemastorovich4478]

How many people that won’t walk to the end of a block would climb a 25 foot staircase?