Not so long ago our streets were more than just a means of getting
from A to B; they were social spaces - places for conversing with
friends, for meeting new neighbours, as well as
playgrounds for kids.
Now streets are there for cars to travel along as quickly as possible,
and damn everything else.
And we never question it. All the pollution cars bring, all
their noise and danger, and their absolute dominance over everyone else on the
street - it's just the way things are.
And the kicker? Drivers still spend most of their time stuck in
traffic.
Isn't it time we tried something else?
Roads
Conventional
Outside of pedestrian centres, most urban streets are like this one;
30mph roads flanked by footpaths on both sides.
They're not exactly pedestrian friendly, are they? They force you to walk
right next to the speeding traffic, making sure you breathe in all the
exhaust fumes and subjecting you to a good deal of noise.
And just try crossing the street. Since the cars have right of
way, it can mean waiting several minutes if there's a steady stream
of traffic. Even pedestrian crossings make you wait for the little
green man and, usually, walk halfway down the street to the crossing and
then halfway back up on the other side.
Divided
Separating the path from the road with strips of greenery makes
pedestrians feel a lot safer, and gives them fresher air to breathe.
However, it tends to encourage speeding and consumes a lot of space.
Woonerf/Home Zone
A woonerf is a street where pedestrians, cyclists and cars all share
the same road space. Pedestrians and cyclists have priority, and
winding roads and street furniture restrict cars to about 10mph.
This is an enormous step forward.
However, these kinds of streets only work over short distances.
Driving for long distances at 10mph will infuriate drivers and,
since cars are very inefficient at such slow speeds, would actually
result in more pollution.
The response rates of the emergency services are also delayed.
And, even travelling slowly, cars still impose a burden on the
street. 1 car every few minutes is fine. But a constant
string of cars will force pedestrians to the fringes, will prevent kids
playing there, and will greatly pollute the street.
Bicycle Priority
Here bicycles replace cars on the road, and pedestrians use the paths
on either side.
This is ideal from a cyclists point of view, separating
them from the danger of cars but still allowing them to travel at high
speeds.
But it's rather less ideal for pedestrians, confining
them again to narrow paths. Bicycles are a lot less dangerous than
cars, but you still have to keep a constant look out for them. And
the I-have-priority mindset means that even when the street is deserted
some cyclists will practically crash into you rather than cycling easily
around.
Pedestrianised
Pedestrian streets go further still, removing cars and giving
pedestrians the priority.
Without cars, without their danger, noise and pollution, pedestrians and
cyclists can let their guard down and enjoy the street again. And,
should they wish to cross from one side to the other, they can just do
it.
No matter how clogged up the roads outside the pedestrian area get, the
pedestrian streets are never affected.
Parking
On-street
On-street parking is dangerous; children crossing between parked
cars have to step into the road
before they can see approaching cars.
It's not very pretty either.
Front
Parking in front of homes is certainly safer, and can look reasonably
attractive if houses aren't too narrow. But with houses 4 - 5
metres wide, cars would still dominate
the street visually.
Plus, the owners of all those cars tend to object when kids start
throwing balls around.
Side
Driveways to the sides of houses are better still. Parking cars
behind the front walls of houses reduces their visual impact on the
street and, if parked far enough back, makes their owners far less
jittery about playing kids.
However, they are still far from ideal for eco-towns. Driveways to
the sides of houses consume a lot of space, considerably lowering the
town's density. And, by turning a street of row houses into
semi-detached houses, they reduce the number of common walls, meaning
homes will lose more heat to their surroundings and making them less
energy efficient
Ground-floor
Incorporating garages into houses takes cars off the street,
benefiting the street aesthetically and encouraging play.
But whilst some houses, like the one above, can just about pull it
off, houses narrower than about 6 metres can't. They become all
garage door.
Rear/Off-site
The scene below happened quite randomly when a few of us were hanging
out at a friend's apartment. A bunch of 10 year olds were making a
lot of noise outside, throwing a Nerf ball up and down the street.
I remember wishing they'd all go play somewhere else. Then we
somehow ended up joining in with them. And, well, life should
always be that much fun.
The street isn't carfree. We had to stop every time a car came.
But since there was only about 1 car every 10 minutes, they were driving
quite slowly, and there were no parked cars on the street for owners to
get concerned about, we had a great time.
Carfree Eco-towns?
It follows then that carfree eco-towns are ideal - fully pedestrianised
towns, with parking limited to
car parks on the edge of town.
However, I don't believe the majority of people are yet ready to live
carfree.
And liveable streets should be for everyone, not just those of us who
are willing to give up our cars.
We should definitely be building carfree places, but we also need a
solution that can be applied everywhere.
So the question becomes, can we build a fully pedestrianised town
without asking residents to park any further away than their driveways, and
without limiting all cars to 10mph?
Radburn
Radburn, New Jersey, was founded in 1929 as 'a town for the motor
age.'
It's main innovation was the complete separation of pedestrian and
vehicular traffic.
One of its planners, architect Henry Wright, writes 'Cars must be
parked and stored, deliveries made, waste collected - plan for such
services with a minimum of danger, noise and confusion.'
Adapting the Radburn model for eco-towns, we get a continuous network
of pedestrian streets overlooked by houses, and parking kept out of
sight behind homes.
Pedestrians have to cross roads every so
often, but zebra crossings give them the priority so that, in
effect, it is the pedestrian streets continuing, not the roads.
Residents can keep their cars on their own driveways or, if they find
that carsharing meets all their needs, they can get rid of their car and
enjoy a larger garden.
The roads are not the complete domain of cars - cyclists, keeping
their bicycles in the back garden, would use them too, at least at the
start of their journeys - so speed limits cannot be too high, but they
can certainly be above 10mph.
Emergency response times are kept high since, with sirens sounding,
ambulances and fire engines don't have to stop at zebra crossings.
Deliveries can be made and waste collected with minimal impact on
pedestrians.
And no matter how many cars clog up the roads, the pedestrian (and
trolleybus) network, crossing at right angles to roads and always having
priority, is never affected.
Some will argue that pedestrians feel vulnerable and
isolated without cars to watch over them. But this is in towns and
cities where cars are the main mode of transportation. In a
predominantly pedestrian town with all paths overlooked,
walkers and cyclists will gladly separate themselves from cars. Drivers can watch over
the rear entrances instead.
