The Wordsmith's Forge

>> Urban planners want to build WIDER roads,to relieve the congestion.<<

They fail to understand that this does not work, although plenty of people have done the math to show why it does not.

>>And your definition of "walkable" is probably nothing like mine.<<

I've done some description of Terramagne examples, such as Bluehill, and how to copy that. So for example:

* Plentiful and wide sidewalks, especially wider where stores or restaurants are right next to them -- 12' is good for downtown areas.

* Trees and awnings provide shade and shelter from inclement weather while walking.

* Benches or other seating at least once per block; better is both ends and middle, especially for longer blocks. Wide walls at seating height also work. Benches must be suitable for someone to lie down on or diaper a toddler on, etc. Buildings should have interior seating too, particularly near the doors.

* Bus stops should have an enclosed shelter with at least one full bench, usually no more than a block or two apart in the busy areas, or a few blocks farther out. Downtown, buses run about every 5 minutes; in much of town, it's about 10 minutes; farther out, less often but even the fringes have at least a morning and evening bus for workers.

* Mixed-use neighborhoods allow the option of working, living, playing, and shopping within the same area. Not everyone wants to live somewhere that busy though. At minimum, a walkable neighborhood should have high-use facilities like a corner store, hair salon, health clinic or nurse's office, at least one place to eat, and at least one park. If people can walk to high-need places, they require fewer car trips and cause less traffic. Preferably, have a school and at least one social area such as a church, craft center, community center, etc. In this comparison of neighborhood designs, the two end examples are more walkable and the middle is more car-dependent.

* Goods and services should be accessible at ground level or via elevator. Do not deface historic buildings with eyesore ramps or other inept renovations, as this increases resistance against accessibility and people with disabilities. Match the style and materials; elevators can often be concealed by adapting closets, dumbwaiter shafts, or other less-vital areas.

* Parks including pocket parks should include at minimum a bench and a garbage can, preferably also a water station and features (e.g flowerbeds, public art, inclusive playground equipment) that can be enjoyed by people of diverse ages and abilities. Better is to have a bench at each entrance and at least one more in the middle, but not all parks are big enough to need or even fit that. A sensory garden makes an excellent pocket park.

* Engage a disability consultant, or better yet a team, to assess the neighborhood for walkability, bikeability, and accessibility for diverse users, not just "wheelchair accessible" or "put Braille on signs and call it done." You need someone who knows that a 1/4" crack or raised traction bumps might as well be a brick wall to most electric wheelchairs, and how to accommodate sitting disabilities, and how far apart benches should go. (I found references to partial mobility with limitations from 35 feet to 1 block, but I would prefer an expert to suggest a good bench distance.) Multiple consultants can observe different issues.


>> Their simple little minds can't comprehend "build affordable housing near the bus routes." <<

Sadly so. Meanwhile over in Terramagne, one way of conserving scarce urban space is by putting carless housing near in the areas with heaviest mass-transit service. "Without Stable Shelter" discusses a car-free development, among other options. I note that most of local-America's housing problems are caused by people making poor choices in municipal design.

>> How are they going to understand that "building more roads" doesn't mean "everybody has better transportation". <<

Listen to the mathematicians.