# A City For People Not For Cars



## archphips (Mar 31, 2013)

The really effective solutions for our transportation quagmire (i.e. demand for mobility is growing much faster than the resources to build traditional transportation supply systems) come from essentially doing the opposite of the predictable response which has been done for decades. Not building more transportation capacity but reducing demand. Shifting from quantity to quality. Not faster and further, more lane-miles, more riders. Instead, enjoyable shorter trips, fewer of them, more social interaction, more observation and awareness, doubling up or tripling the purpose of a trip. Biking for getting places, seeing things and get exercise in the process. Build more surface streetcars and light rail than subway lines so riders can look around, rain in daylight and have easier access: Less rat, more human. Just a dream?

The answers don't lie where we expect it, they are outside the box. Turns out, the city is the best answer to our transportation woes we ever had. Congestion and all. The very place the last few generations were busy fleeing from, creating the transportation conundrum in the process.

The big re-think has already begun. 

Urban designers and planners who bemoaned how the seemingly hard science of intersection design, signal warrants, capacity calculations and the grades of intersection performance ("this intersection performs at level F!") trumped the much less quantitative criteria of urban design every time, are now asked to "make places". Memorable, identifiable and unique instead of interchangeable and cookie cutter.Authentic instead of mass produced.

Architects and urban designers trained on parking as the beginning and end of every project because the size and scale of development was defined by the local parking codes are asked to design one of a kind live-work and play spaces, to turn old mills and factories into lofts, to create an experience rather than just an escape. Instead of asking how many cars can fit and how the "sight-lines", the street access, turn and "deceleration lanes", the "stacking spaces" perform, designers are now asked to create vistas, green roofs, pocket parks, community and beer gardens, maybe a Zip Car spot, bike parking, showers for the riders and definitely proximity to transit. A new world opens up, one where the zoning code has parking caps instead of a minimum of required spaces, where the code exempts whole sections of town from required parking, where developers look back to their last development and, seeing the empty parking spaces, groan, if I only hadn't built all this parking! 

This world where design is fun again, it is emerging right in front of us. Sure, in many places it may still sound like a dream rather than reality, but the trends point there.
Read more


----------



## AltinD (Jul 15, 2004)

More like la-la-land phantasies


----------



## El_Greco (Apr 1, 2005)

Hardly. Some people just think that taking the bus or train is below them. 

Cities are indeed for people. What we need is de-suburbanisation. More dense urban housing, more investment in public transport and more pedestrian-friendly policies.


----------



## Pansori (Apr 26, 2006)

Poeple talk this kind of stuff when they take LSD. :weird:


----------



## CNB30 (Jun 4, 2012)

Pansori said:


> Poeple talk this kind of stuff when they take LSD. :weird:



If you think we are going to continue to construct these auto centric hells, then you might be the one on this stuff. The changes are already happening as demand for living in urban spaces increases, and new urban ism gains popularity.


----------



## Pansori (Apr 26, 2006)

CNB30 said:


> If you think we are going to continue to construct these auto centric hells, then you might be the one on this stuff. The changes are already happening as demand for living in urban spaces increases, and new urban ism gains popularity.


A city does not have to be centric-anything. It has to have sufficient capacity for private cars, public transit, parking spaces as well as open pedestrian space.

What comes to my mind here? Singapore, Shenzhen, Hong Kong (maybe), and more classical examples in Europe like Munich.

Btw, what do you mean by auto-centric hells? Where are they? US I suppose? Then you may have a point. On the other hand US doesn't really have issues with land availability (unlike, say, China) which means there is no urge to dive into that post-modern 'cities for the people, not cars' rhetoric. America is fine as it is. The rest of the world (Europe and China at the very least) seem to be doing fine too i.e. at least trying to pursue sustainable development which includes development of multiple modes of urban transport).


----------



## poshbakerloo (Jan 16, 2007)

A city is for people...and the people like to drive cars.


----------



## El_Greco (Apr 1, 2005)

Pansori said:


> A city does not have to be centric-anything.


It doesnt, but more often than not it ends up being centric-something, and that centric is often the car. 

The car brings with it all sorts of problems, pollution, of course, being the most obvious one, that have a negative impact on cities and quality of life of its inhabitants.


----------



## Pansori (Apr 26, 2006)

El_Greco said:


> It doesnt, but more often than not it ends up being centric-something, and that centric is often the car.
> 
> The car brings with it all sorts of problems, pollution, of course, being the most obvious one, that have a negative impact on cities and quality of life of its inhabitants.


But that applies to US only. There is no such problem in Europe or rapidly urbanizing China.


----------



## El_Greco (Apr 1, 2005)

Car-centrism? I think China is very much car-centric, perhaps not as much as the Middle East where they dont even bother developing public transport, but still car-centric. 

Europe is largely car-centric as well. Theres a handful of places that try to do it differently (ie Freiburg), but car is still the dominant mode of transport and cities reflect this.


----------



## Pansori (Apr 26, 2006)

El_Greco said:


> Car-centrism? I think China is very much car-centric, perhaps not as much as the Middle East where they dont even bother developing public transport, but still car-centric.
> 
> Europe is largely car-centric as well. Theres a handful of places that try to do it differently (ie Freiburg), but car is still the dominant mode of transport and cities reflect this.


China is implementing largest ever in history public transit projects as well as have draconian taxes and duties for car buyers which are unheard of in Europe let alone US. Therefore I would disagree that it's car centric. It most certainly isn't. But yes it does have good car infrastructure.


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

^^ Which is a good thing. China clearly has the density that makes great PT networks possible and possibly even totally necessary. Their cities seem to drown in cars already today.

Sadly their newly built neighbourhoods look like they are very much designed for cars, not for people, at least if you leave your block.


----------



## Pansori (Apr 26, 2006)

Slartibartfas said:


> ^^ Which is a good thing. China clearly has the density that makes great PT networks possible and possibly even totally necessary. Their cities seem to drown in cars already today.
> 
> Sadly their newly built neighbourhoods look like they are very much designed for cars, not for people, at least if you leave your block.


We must keep in mind that development of public transit systems even in the first tier cities is still very much a work in progress. Therefore I would not hurry with conclusions yet. 

To my best understanding the idea of good urban planning is largely about having as many alternative ways to move from A to B as possible. China has been doing a colossal job here be it metro systems, buses, HSR, airports or every other imaginable mode of contemporary public transport. I don't think that at this time it is possible to do a better job than China is doing.

Being a tourist who can barely say a word in Mandarin I was using urban and inter city (HSR) transport in China and I was totally blown away. I didn't know it is THAT good and convenient. And pretty much none of that even existed 10 years ago.


----------



## El_Greco (Apr 1, 2005)

Pansori said:


> China is implementing largest ever in history public transit projects as well as have draconian taxes and duties for car buyers which are unheard of in Europe let alone US. Therefore I would disagree that it's car centric. It most certainly isn't. But yes it does have good car infrastructure.


So it does, but the streets are still filled with cars. Besides is the car-infrastructure of this size actually a good thing? New roads, no matter how wide or long they are, are almost immediately filled with more and more traffic, requiring continual expansion. Moscow, for instance, has 3 ring roads (+ one more in the planning) and some truly wide streets but it still suffers from traffic jams. I dont think more and wider roads is the answer.


----------



## Pansori (Apr 26, 2006)

El_Greco said:


> So it does, but the streets are still filled with cars. Besides is the car-infrastructure of this size actually a good thing? New roads, no matter how wide or long they are, are almost immediately filled with more and more traffic, requiring continual expansion. Moscow, for instance, has 3 ring roads (+ one more in the planning) and some truly wide streets but it still suffers from traffic jams. I dont think more and wider roads is the answer.


Not all cities in China are that bad once it comes to Traffic. Beijing is probably the most notable case but I wouldn't say other cities (Shanghai, Guangzhou, Shenzhen) are too bad. It's a temporary thing anyway as public transport (metro and suburban rail) are still underdeveloped in comparison with road infrastructure which is largely complete.

For instance, the metro route length of Beijing and Shanghai are about to double by 2020 to around 1000km each from current 430km. In Guangzhou and Shenzhen it's about to triple from their current length. Streets and expressways, on the other hand, are to stay pretty much the same as they are today. Taxing on cars and other curbs will probably be increased too as they have been for the past few years.

So all in all the trend is very clear: more people will be using public transport relative to private cars. The current situation is a temporary and short-term phenomena.


And i don't buy the "streets will get filled up" argument. It's typically used and abused by hippie-neo-urban donkeys who smoke too much weed. 

The answer is diversification of modes of transport which *among other things* includes building many *wide roads and expressways*. As well as comprehensive heavy rail networks. As well as comprehensive bus and BRT systems, tramways (for local neighborhood transit), bicycle routes, etc.

In other words, it should be _more of everything_ (i.e. roads, metro lines, buses) instead of _less of something_ (e.g. roads). This is the strategy that has been implemented in Singapore and anyone who is not a weed-smoking neo urban hippie, knows that nobody can **** with Singapore's urban strategy. China has been emulating that very same model with relatively good success. And that's what everyone should be doing instead of dreaming of some neo-urban bullshit nonsense.

yep, THIS is what is a well-planned, well-connected, efficient and effective urban planning which will dominate the 21st century.






And those who are rambling about some neo-urban colorful facades with narrow lanes, no cars and organic food shops can go and f*** themselves with their pseudo smart 'people freindly' and 'this is the future' rhetoric.


----------



## El_Greco (Apr 1, 2005)

Ja, China is doing it right. However "more of everything" while desirable is unrealistic. Not everywhere has the resources of China. Also, in many places there simply isn't political will for this and the inhabitants themselves are often set against any kind of change. Just look at the kind of battles the British government has to fight to get HS2 through.

I'm still not convinced that we need Chinese style car-infrastructure. Motorways were all the rage in the 60s and when you go to places like Birmingham or Glasgow you realise these were not such a great idea. In Birmingham the ring road acts as a barrier separating the centre from the rest of the city. It takes 15 minutes to walk the short distance from the bus station to the centre thanks to it. Glasgow too is split in half by a huge motorway. In London we have Euston Road and Victoria Embankment/Lower Thames Street - major choke points and amongst the most polluted places in the city. Indeed thousands die in London every year as a direct result of pollution.

Even if you don't buy the "induced demand" argument, the projections are that World population will continue increasing. And with countries of the so called "developing world" getting wealthier many of their citizens will want a car too (a car and a house in the suburbs is something most people still aspire to), which means the existing infrastructure will have to be expanded. More roads and more sprawl?


----------



## Pansori (Apr 26, 2006)

Inability to build roads by the British does not indicate that roads are bad. Perhaps it's just the planners of those cities that didn't do it properly. Take German cities or Singapore as an example. There are even more roads and motorways and they do not cause problems you have mentioned.


----------



## Manila-X (Jul 28, 2005)

Major cities around South East Asia tends to be more car centric and this also includes Singapore despite having good, modern public transport.

Especially Jakarta in which most of it's residents depend on automobiles to get from Point-A to Point-B. And this includes the city centre. 

It is a city built for automobiles, not for pedestrians.


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

Pansori said:


> And i don't buy the "streets will get filled up" argument. It's typically used and abused by hippie-neo-urban donkeys who smoke too much weed.


Well, its only half the truth, not more but also not less.
Investments in mobility infrastructure also induce demand. That is more less the case for any option (may it be roads, rail or whatever). Of course a lot of other factors play a role as well but that one is an essential one. 

It is true, not every city layout is prone to traffic congestion. Some of the great master planned new cities from the middle of last century actually mastered to be car driver's paradise without getting congested while reaching some substantial sizes. The only tiny problem is that those cities are also the least popular places to live nonetheless. Why? Because you need enormous amounts of space to create such a car paradise and not only due to distances but also because of tons of obstacles these cities are almost hostile towards pedestrians. Effectively those places have sacrificed their urban qualities for the car. 

Of course, you don't have to go to such extremes, and most cities won't but that also means that you have to accept a certain extend of traffic jams. You have to limit road infrastructure below the point that the car would need for friction less transit. Now, if you have it severely limited and you build a highway extension to relieve the worst bottlenecks, what will happen? The offered capacity will be used to some extend (either because of new car oriented developments along that new highway or because you can spend one dollar only once and if more is invested in roads less is invested in alternatives) which will make traffic jams worse at those pieces that were not extend and will become even worse bottlenecks. 

... and you can't get rid of all bottlenecks unless you are fine with ending up with a city like Brasilia. So what is a better choice to relieve traffic congestion? To invest in PT or in car infrastructure? I dare to claim by doing the former, not the latter. Car infrastructure tends to be fairly extensive in industrialized countries at least and you do not only have to accept that you can't resolve certain bottle necks but you also have to know that more cars are a big drain on quality of living due to bad air, noise etc.


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

Pansori said:


> Inability to build roads by the British does not indicate that roads are bad. Perhaps it's just the planners of those cities that didn't do it properly. Take German cities or Singapore as an example. There are even more roads and motorways and they do not cause problems you have mentioned.



PT increases the value of property nearby, the more the higher its capacity. Road infrastructure decreases the value of property nearby for most uses other than industrial and maybe commerce. Just to give you an example, if the Belt road in Vienna (a picture of it:http://www.foto-julius.at/wien11/W6040+.jpg) had been turned into a highway, half of the dense city would have been degraded beyond repair because of traffic jams, noise, pollution and the consequent abandonment of the quarter around by everything that could leave. It was never turned into a highway instead, it remained a road with heavy traffic but an urban road. In the last decade it actually sharply recovered, it turned into a center of nightlife with many interesting clubs various interesting locations an with buildings around it getting renovated again etc... That would have been impossible to do if that road had been turned into a highway.


----------



## Pansori (Apr 26, 2006)

Slartibartfas said:


> PT increases the value of property nearby, the more the higher its capacity. Road infrastructure decreases the value of property nearby for most uses other than industrial and maybe commerce. Just to give you an example, if the Belt road in Vienna (a picture of it:http://www.foto-julius.at/wien11/W6040+.jpg) had been turned into a highway, half of the dense city would have been degraded beyond repair because of traffic jams, noise, pollution and the consequent abandonment of the quarter around by everything that could leave. It was never turned into a highway instead, it remained a road with heavy traffic but an urban road. In the last decade it actually sharply recovered, it turned into a center of nightlife with many interesting clubs various interesting locations an with buildings around it getting renovated again etc... That would have been impossible to do if that road had been turned into a highway.


Has the value of property decreased around Yan An elevated urban (including that totally badass stack junction next to People's Square) expressway in Shanghai once it was constructed in the mid 90's? What was the dynamic of real estate prices around that and other urban expressways in Shanghai during 1990-2013? How did the prices and attractiveness of those areas changed before and after building the urban expressways?

Also, is there any empirical evidence of wider (i,.e, not just local) economic consequences of that road in Vienna being vs not being turned into a highway? Not that I'm saying it wouldn't have degraded that area but I think it requires some numbers and evidence to show that it actually would have been like this and not the opposite.


----------



## zaphod (Dec 8, 2005)

Given the population of East Asian cities any reasonable person would expect them to have very high capacity infrastructure.

But it's important to recognize big cities the world over have always sought progressive solutions to improve the quality(not just standard) of living for their residents. Last time I checked, Shanghai's greening itself up with parks, Seoul is demolishing elevated freeways, etc, etc.

Yes, cities should be built for people, not cars. There are ways of wrangling the demand of auto travel in a city.



> and anyone who is not a weed-smoking neo urban hippie.... And those who are rambling about some neo-urban colorful facades with narrow lanes, no cars and organic food shops can go and f*** themselves with their pseudo smart 'people freindly' and 'this is the future' rhetoric.


I don't really why you are so immature and have use to vulgar language? Doesn't help your argument. Also you don't understand the context.

You're really exaggerating things when you think "neo-urbanists" want to create some kind of Disneyland. Maybe you're confused by the things the development industry has invented and labelled as "neo-urbanism", like tarted up shopping malls? Obviously cheesy private developments are always touted as a model for the future by academics and writers for publications, money talks and you know what walks, after all. Is that so hard to understand?

I would say the interest in what could best be called traditional urbanism by ordinary citizens in the United States and Europe is motivated by witnessing serious urban problems and is an offshoot of concern for other things like crime, pollution, etc. Being forced to need a car in a city with no real transit, not enough places for independent businesses, and the real destruction that constructing urban highway infrastructure caused without generating much return are all real not just perceived failings. 

This not relevant to Asian cities at all because of the vast differences. Your argument is really strange anyways, last time I checked Asian cities put a lot of priority into transit, suburbs have independent shops in malls, and Singapore and Hong Kong have preserved city centers with narrow streets and interesting buildings. Obviously it is far more practical to build new housing as apartment blocks, nobody said that was wrong.

I think you'd be surprised by what liberal, western, "neo urbanists" actually value. Look at some new "green" development plan, take away the architectural flair needed to market it, consider how demand influences how big the buildings are, etc. What you are left with is something that is not really different from anything new in Asia, right?


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

Pansori said:


> Has the value of property decreased around Yan An elevated urban (including that totally badass stack junction next to People's Square) expressway in Shanghai once it was constructed in the mid 90's? What was the dynamic of real estate prices around that and other urban expressways in Shanghai during 1990-2013? How did the prices and attractiveness of those areas changed before and after building the urban expressways?


I don't know Asia but I know a bit about Europe. I could guess, that in Shanghai well accessible sort of central real estates are a limited good. So much that people accept living in terrible places, like for examples right next to some highways. 

Mind you, I am not talking about those areas in safe noise distance to the highway, but those in direct vicinity. You can turn it as you want, thats not a nice place to live, it might be a well accessible location but thats something different. 

Of course you can plan accordingly, that nothing is directly next to the highways and developments just start beyond a buffer zone. That just further inflates the needed space and makes a layout hostile towards pedestrians even more hostile because everything is even further apart. 



> Also, is there any empirical evidence of wider (i,.e, not just local) economic consequences of that road in Vienna being vs not being turned into a highway? Not that I'm saying it wouldn't have degraded that area but I think it requires some numbers and evidence to show that it actually would have been like this and not the opposite.


How should there? We can't study alternative realities. But the road's history gives already a clear indication. It started out as a good address with lots of beautiful buildings, a popular location for the bourgeoisie. Then came the car age. The increasing traffic was accommodated by "optimizing" the road pushing back all other means of transportation. The area started to be neglected because of noise and pollution and the area degraded to a poor red light district. 

1-2 decades ago a counter trend was initiated. Not the car was put even further above all other possible uses but the other uses were made possible again or made more attractive. This only worked, because it was not turned into a highway, several things would have been just impossible to realize, had the road turned into a highway. And it is utterly impossible to even imagine how you could turn that area into a lively urban neighbourhood if that road were a highway. 

Among the many things that happened was that the arches of the U6 were conquered by many different clubs, a bicycle path was created being a major artery for cycling traffic in central Vienna, pedestrian spaces were increased and improved, that includes better and new crossing opportunities. Where possible new park like features have been created on the middle strip. ... and this process is still going on. 

Because of all of this students settled in that area ... to suggest all of this, which helped recover the area again, would have been possible with a highway is hilarious.


----------



## Pansori (Apr 26, 2006)

zaphod said:


> Given the population of East Asian cities any reasonable person would expect them to have very high capacity infrastructure.
> 
> But it's important to recognize big cities the world over have always sought progressive solutions to improve the quality(not just standard) of living for their residents. Last time I checked, Shanghai's greening itself up with parks, Seoul is demolishing elevated freeways, etc, etc.
> 
> ...


I don't think you interpret my comment in a right way. I gave examples of good urban strategy. Yet you portray my view as being car centric. That is ridiculous. And yes what I meant by neo urbanism is the developer led urban Disneylands without adequate infrastructure and suggestions to travel less instead of building up the infrastructure. I have clearly expressed that urban planning must involve high capacity infrastructure in mind before building anything else. That means not just roads and highways but urban rail, greenery and relevant amenities. In other words, Singapore is a perfect example of that. 

The problem with neo urban hippies is that they are unable to see beyond a colorful facade and this is what I'm criticizing here. Not anything else.


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

I don't think your view is car centric but I think you have the wrong idea that one could possibly fully accommodate all modes of mobility at once. But that is not possible because if you create a traffic jam free road network, you can't have a pedestrian oriented city and the same is the case the other way round. You have to make tough choices either way. You have to set priorities, or try to accommodate all mobility choices with equal priority (that would mean cutting down on car infrastructure compared to status quo however, as cars certainly have in most developed city the priority).

And yes, making distances shorter to get to the same amenities is a valid goal, that comes automatically with making a city more pedestrian friendly.

I can't comment on your Singapore example, simply because I don't know that city myself, nor do I know how pedestrian, bicycle, car, PT ... friendly it is and how its like to live there.

PS: "Colourful facades" as you call it, ie a good appearence is an urban quality. Its by no way sufficient by itself but it has its justification. Function alone is not everything, if it looks terrible, grey and depressing for example.


----------



## Galro (Aug 9, 2010)

Slartibartfas said:


> PS: "Colourful facades" as you call it, ie a good appearence is an urban quality. Its by no way sufficient by itself but it has its justification. Function alone is not everything, if it looks terrible, grey and depressing for example.


Aesthetics is a function.


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

Galro said:


> Aesthetics is a function.


That's also a way one can see it. But functionalism usually denies that. Functionalism is not wrong in what it deems important, only in what it ignores and thats as you say that aesthetics is essential as well.


----------



## Galro (Aug 9, 2010)

Slartibartfas said:


> That's also a way one can see it. But functionalism usually denies that. Functionalism is not wrong in what it deems important, only in what it ignores and thats as you say that aesthetics is essential as well.


Functionalism is also aesthetics. However they usually say the aesthetics should be based on the perceived function of the piece and they therefore put much effort into making the functions obvious through the aesthetics.


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

Thanks for the definition, through the eyes of a layman I have to say however that many pieces of functionalist architecture rather look like they simply neglect aesthetics as a whole, or at least a remotely pleasant aesthetic.


----------



## Pansori (Apr 26, 2006)

Slartibartfas said:


> I don't think your view is car centric but I think you have the wrong idea that one could possibly fully accommodate all modes of mobility at once. But that is not possible because if you create a traffic jam free road network, you can't have a pedestrian oriented city and the same is the case the other way round. You have to make tough choices either way. You have to set priorities, or try to accommodate all mobility choices with equal priority (that would mean cutting down on car infrastructure compared to status quo however, as cars certainly have in most developed city the priority).
> 
> And yes, making distances shorter to get to the same amenities is a valid goal, that comes automatically with making a city more pedestrian friendly.
> 
> ...



Nothing can ever be perfect but there are examples which are not far from a real-world urban perfection. Again, I must mention Singapore which I'd like to portray as an example of what a good planning is. It is enough to have a thorough look at the Google Maps (including street view) to realise what I mean: http://goo.gl/maps/b7TDh

You will see a comprehensive network of wide avenues, service streets AND urban expressways (sometimes underground, sometimes elevated) servicing virtually any location within the island. It is a very very impressive road system with few, if any, equals on a global scale. It is true that having a car there is expensive which resulted in low ownership rates at around 150 cars per 1000 inhabitants (hence there are no traffic jams as such) but there were no compromises made once it comes to building actual infrastructure which is far superior to virtually any developed city on earth even if they have car ownership rates 5x higher than Singapore.

At the same time there is arguably world's best public transit network which is efficient and affordable (for those who can't afford a car).

And once it comes to pedestrian friendliness and accessibility I don't think I have seen a better designed place in this respect too. 

Not many colorful facades though (although those highrise apartments look neat and tidy).

Your last sentence...


> You have to set priorities, or try to accommodate all mobility choices with equal priority (that would mean cutting down on car infrastructure compared to status quo however, as cars certainly have in most developed city the priority).


probably suits the case rather well. However it is not the car infrastructure per say that was cut in Singapore (you will hardly find a city which has a more extensive, comprehensive and no-nonsense car infrastructure and relevant policies... if there is a need for a flyover or an expressway you can be bloody sure it WILL get built and it will be decided by those who have professional competence to do so). Instead the curbs are put on ownership by making it expensive by high taxes and duty charges. The whole point is that Singapore, unlike some other cities (such as London), are not making compromises with infrastructure itself and build up roads and expressways for a MUCH higher capacity than it will probably ever need instead of simply trying to suppress demand once the streets get filled and ignore the need of physical infrastructure. The main argument in such places then becomes "but hey, the streets will fill up with cars anyway and there will be jams". Singapore has taken a radically different approach and built all necessary infrastructure with very high capacity but instead takes control of car ownership in order not to allow for that capacity to be reached in the first place. This is a very good policy because if you DO have a car there, you can be sure you will never get caught in a traffic jam (because there aren't any be it morning or evening rush) and will always get from one place to any other place in the city in no more than 20-30 minutes. Same applies to those who take taxis (which are very affordable too).

At the same time public transit occupies a very important place making Singapore one of the best PT connected places on earth which is not only very effective but also very cheap by most standards.


What's the point of writing all this? It _is_ possible to diversify the modes of transport to a much higher extent than some are claiming and Singapore is a showcase of that. Even if not to an unlimited extent but Singapore is probably the best example demonstrating to what extent it can be done and what others should be doing too instead of looking for simple ways out and ridiculous excuses like "roads are alienating" or "new expressways will just fill up". I.e. not scaling down on roads (on the contrary, scaling up!) but making sure that every possible mode of transport has largest possible capacity with making as little compromises with any other aspect of urban living as possible.

This is the future of high-density urban planning and not some neo-urban villages with colorful facades, no cars and everyone working within walking distance from their homes. Right now and for another 20 years the world's biggest urban playground and trend-setter will be China and its cities are emulating (surprise surprise!) Singapore with almost a copy-paste accuracy in some cases. I.e. building many and big roads. A LOT of them. As well as building public transit systems and pedestrian amenities which have capacity to accommodate for more people than there currently are in many cases. All at once, all at huge cost but it is getting done and there are no excuses or delusional neo-urban rambles about aesthetics (which is very subjective to begin with) and car-free walkways.


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

Pansori said:


> Nothing can ever be perfect but there are examples which are not far from a real-world urban perfection. Again, I must mention Singapore which I'd like to portray as an example of what a good planning is. It is enough to have a thorough look at the Google Maps (including street view) to realise what I mean: http://goo.gl/maps/b7TDh


Again, I don't dare to judge a city I know so little, even if I've seen it on google maps. From a first glance however I would say that the city is cut into bits and pieces by big city highways. Those highways appear to be a tremendous obstacle for the other means of mobility. Dense neighbourhoods are built right next to those highways, I'd rather not live there but I guess I could not even afford those apartments there. On the other hand there seem to be substantially sized intact quarters in between. So I have no idea how pedestrian friendly it is, how well connected by PT and if the climate allows cycling at all. Based on the city's reputation I'd expect that the infrastructure should be great but also that the city gives car traffic more priority than I would prefer. 

PS: If there are no traffic jams, the system appears to be overdimensioned because then, not even extraordinary peak usage leads to overload, meaning money that could be much more efficiently spent elsewhere is wasted on road over-capacities. 

You always have to choose. I am skeptical that Singapore managed to "cheat" and get it all without giving one aspect priority over the other. 

I give you an example. In most parts of Vienna and basically the entirety of the dense centre I never ever feel out of place or pushed aside as a pedestrian (I can basically walk across the whole thing and have already done so). I am hardly anywhere pushed underground because roads have to have priority and don't allow for at level crossings or to climb a lot of stairs to get over highway overpasses etc. I consider that part of the quality of life in a city. 

Btw, you pointed out yourself why it works in Singapore. The number of cars are limited *and* as it is a city-state it can control influx of cars from outside (and here is your answer why the streets can't simply fill up with cars, due to induced demand). The latter is simply no option for most cities in the world. Most cities on earth have considerable suburbs and even commuters from further away. But anyway, you seem to be dead against "scaling down on roads" but scaling down on cars, like Singapore is doing is ok. But you see, that in both cases you limit car traffic even if (induced) demand would actually be higher, right? 

My cautious conclusion: Singapore is probably a great place with great infrastructure but even if I could have turned my city into a Singapore, mobility-wise, I think I would not want it. 



> This is the future of high-density urban planning and not some neo-urban villages with colorful facades, no cars and everyone working within walking distance from their homes. Right now and for another 20 years the world's biggest urban playground and trend-setter will be China and its cities are emulating (surprise surprise!) Singapore with almost a copy-paste accuracy in some cases. I.e. building many and big roads. A LOT of them.
> 
> As well as building public transit systems and pedestrian amenities which have capacity to accommodate for more people than there currently are in many cases. All at once, all at huge cost but it is getting done and there are no excuses or delusional neo-urban rambles about aesthetics (which is very subjective to begin with) and car-free walkways.


I am not sure what "car-free walkways" are supposed to be, but pedestrian zones are a very good thing. For the rest, sidewalks and a general rule of at-level crossing is perfectly enough. Cities of different sizes need of course different solutions but aesthetics are not only subjective but important. Maybe you don't care about it but I get depressed if there is no beauty in nothing. I don't want a Disneyland but a liveable environment that is not grey and drab only. Thats not delusional rambling, its part of what people call "quality of life".


----------



## Pansori (Apr 26, 2006)

Slartibartfas said:


> But you see, that in both cases you limit car traffic even if (induced) demand would actually be higher, right?


Right. However there is one fundamental difference. A city which does not build infrastructure (such as London) must rely on suppressing the demand. The result is that the streets are at capacity (or just above it) and for being able to drive in such conditions you must pay. Traffic is still slow and infrastructure is inadequate or only meets minimum requirements.

In Singapore's case the infrastructure is well over what the demand would require and is kept so artificially which renders the "money could be spent elsewhere" redundant because this was the idea in the first place. There simply is a very different understanding of adequacy and efficiency of road traffic. If it is acceptable to take 1 hour for 10 miles in London then in Singapore the acceptable time would probably be 15 minutes. In order to drive at maximum speed at all times the roads need to be free from any kind of congestion at any time and this is what Singapore seems to be aiming for. Not just to avoid standstill congestion as is in most other cities. That is a different philosophy and it works there so well.

Now what is the end result? Yes, there are few cars in Singapore and they are expensive. Streets look empty compared to most other places I have been to. However those who really need a car or who can afford it are able to use the infrastructure in a much more efficient manner and do not have to stay in congested streets like in London where running a car is probably just as expensive yet the infrastructure is inadequate. In both cases the demand is suppressed but in one case the infrastructure is neglected and inadequate while in other case the infrastructure is kept at a state of the art and adequate. 


Oh yeah, the difference is that in Singapore, unlike here, the decision making is a prerogative of urban planners who are trained professionals. Not urban developers (whose sole aim is profit) or neo-urban hippies who represent the 'public opinion' and have zero clue about what urban planning is and why context is important.



> My cautious conclusion: Singapore is probably a great place with great infrastructure but even if I could have turned my city into a Singapore, mobility-wise, I think I would not want it.


That is a bold (and to me rather comical) statement.  





> I am not sure what "car-free walkways" are supposed to be, but pedestrian zones are a very good thing. For the rest, sidewalks and a general rule of at-level crossing is perfectly enough. Cities of different sizes need of course different solutions but aesthetics are not only subjective but important. Maybe you don't care about it but I get depressed if there is no beauty in nothing. I don't want a Disneyland but a liveable environment that is not grey and drab only. Thats not delusional rambling, its part of what people call "quality of life".


Of course. However some seem to assume that this is the only thing that a city has to be i.e. one pedestrian zone with pretty oild-school facades, coffee shops and organic grocery stores. Infrastructure and such are not important because looking nice and shiny is more important. 
The reality is that without adequate infrastructure which _among other things_ includes urban expressways, big roads and sufficient capacity for cars that is going nowhere. Without that your quality of life is not going very far too. There is a reason behind those urban highways in Singapore and extensive network of tunnels, flyovers and grade-separated junctions and it is sanctioned and implemented by those who are top of the range professionals in their field who are not influenced by developers or neo-urban hippies with their 'public opinion'.


----------



## El_Greco (Apr 1, 2005)

Pansori said:


> Now what is the end result? Yes, there are few cars in Singapore and they are expensive. Streets look empty compared to most other places I have been to. However those who really need a car or who can afford it are able to use the infrastructure in a much more efficient manner and do not have to stay in congested streets like in London where running a car is probably just as expensive yet the infrastructure is inadequate. In both cases the demand is suppressed but in one case the infrastructure is neglected and inadequate while in other case the infrastructure is kept at a state of the art and adequate.
> 
> 
> Oh yeah, the difference is that in Singapore, unlike here, the decision making is a prerogative of urban planners who are trained professionals. Not urban developers (whose sole aim is profit) or neo-urban hippies who represent the 'public opinion' and have zero clue about what urban planning is and why context is important.


I like the sound of this and especially the last paragraph. But how would this work in a place like London or any other European city? Wouldnt it involve mass demolitions?


----------



## Pansori (Apr 26, 2006)

El_Greco said:


> I like the sound of this and especially the last paragraph. But how would this work in a place like London or any other European city? Wouldnt it involve mass demolitions?


In London it would be rather hard and perhaps rather impossible to achieve anything even remotely as efficient and effective as in Singapore.

However at the very least the North and South Circular roads could be fully completed. There is absolutely no rationale behind leaving it as it is at the moment. Some other improvements could be done. Such as increasing the number of lanes on some streets, removing useless traffic islands and many other little things which could improve the flow of traffic.

As for other European cities there are rather good examples too: Munich, Prague and probably a number of other cities which have not neglected their road infrastructure by simply discounting it altogether (like London did).

Again I must stress that I am NOT for a car-centric city and not even for road domination over other means of transport. I'm for adequacy, efficiency and practicality which includes diversification of modes of transport as well as maximizing capacity and buildup and maintenance of all necessary infrastructure in order to achieve that. And that DOES include roads. This is why I mention Singapore because, in my opinion, it has implemented solutions which are far better than anywhere else in the world resulting in smooth, efficient and stress-free use of transportation system be it roads, urban rail or pedestrian spaces.

There are a couple of very informative and interestign videos on SG's traffic management. What is most important is that it all works exactly as designed and intended to work.






and






I say well done Singapore kay:. Something others only dream about.


----------



## Svartmetall (Aug 5, 2007)

I honestly don't think that Singapore is the best model of all to be honest. Whilst the city-state facilitates movement of vehicles very well in general, it does, however, completely lack a cycling portion (partly due to weather, but mostly due to the fact it is very difficult to cycle in Singapore and there are few provisions for them), and pedestrian facilities are underdeveloped in many suburbs. The arterial roads championed here are great at moving cars due to their width and the limited number of intersections on them. This, as I said, is great for cars and buses as they zoom down them and can get everywhere very quickly, however, it is not so great for pedestrians and, again, cyclists. Crossing the road in Singapore is particularly difficult in the suburbs and often requires a long and unintuitive walk to a crossing. Even in the city centre crossings can be inconveniently located and it can be difficult to cross the road. Timings on such crossings also heavily favour cars too. 

Here is one example from my time in Singapore that stands out. This is on Orchard Road - the principle shopping street of the city centre. As one can see, this is not particularly the nicest solution for pedestrians, though I should state that I was last in Singapore a couple of years ago so things might have changed drastically. 

Unlike in Japan on small side streets where cars are cut down to one lane, in Singapore they are given two lanes but little to no pedestrian facilities. This makes it incredibly dangerous to walk around these side streets despite lower volumes of traffic. 

Here is an example where getting to the other side of the road involves a mad dash across the arterial or a long diversion to find a crossing. This is frequently the case. 

All of these examples above are replicated across the city, though I was careful to select examples I know here (and that are clustered around Orchard). I would not say that Singapore is a city for pedestrians, but it is certainly a transport city both public and private. I can't fault the buses and trains generally, but I can fault the lack of thought to pedestrians and cyclists as it can be downright hostile to both. This is from mine and my colleagues experiences in the city state (and a number of my colleagues are Singaporeans). Funnily enough my Professor is still based in Singapore for now too. 

Of all Asian countries, I prefer Japan - or should I say the large Japanese cities in terms of feeling more "friendly" to all modes.


----------



## Pansori (Apr 26, 2006)

Svartmetall said:


> I honestly don't think that Singapore is the best model of all to be honest. Whilst the city-state facilitates movement of vehicles very well in general, it does, however, completely lack a cycling portion (partly due to weather, but mostly due to the fact it is very difficult to cycle in Singapore and there are few provisions for them), and pedestrian facilities are underdeveloped in many suburbs. The arterial roads championed here are great at moving cars due to their width and the limited number of intersections on them. This, as I said, is great for cars and buses as they zoom down them and can get everywhere very quickly, however, it is not so great for pedestrians and, again, cyclists.


Criticizing lack of convenience for cyclists where daytime tempratures range between +33 +35 degrees Centigrade 365 days a year sound like a bit of a joke. I can barely walk there let alone cycle. This is despite that cycling conditions in Singapore are actually rather good and drivers are conscious. Oh and I'm a cyclist myself. 



> Crossing the road in Singapore is particularly difficult in the suburbs and often requires a long and unintuitive walk to a crossing. Even in the city centre crossings can be inconveniently located and it can be difficult to cross the road. Timings on such crossings also heavily favour cars too.


Crossings in Singapore are very logical and intuitive. If there is a street and a necessity to cross it for sufficiently large amounts of pedestrians then it means there will be a crossing somewhere in the nearest vicinity. Traffic lights have countdown timers which give a good idea how long you will have to wait. Crossing the streets in SIngapore is as convenient and efficient as it can possibly get.





> Here is one example from my time in Singapore that stands out. This is on Orchard Road - the principle shopping street of the city centre. As one can see, this is not particularly the nicest solution for pedestrians, though I should state that I was last in Singapore a couple of years ago so things might have changed drastically.


I am very much familiar with the location. The Junction has underground pedestrian crossings and existing ones have been extended recently (you can see the construction work in Street view images too. It may be well part of that). If you're looking for examples of flawed infrastructure solutions in Singapore then this is not it.




> Unlike in Japan on small side streets where cars are cut down to one lane, in Singapore they are given two lanes but little to no pedestrian facilities. This makes it incredibly dangerous to walk around these side streets despite lower volumes of traffic.


I really doubt those who live in that street ever walk anywhere. Remember, around 90% of Singaporeans live here rather than what's shown in your picture. It's called rationality.



> Here is an example where getting to the other side of the road involves a mad dash across the arterial or a long diversion to find a crossing.


Which makes perfect sense. Just look from the above. Why would you want five intermediate crossings from a school campus occupying almost the entire plot to a nearby highrise block with a dozen or so buildings? There isn't that much pedestrian movement in those directions to rationalize additional pedestrian crossings and either obstruct traffic or spend money on building underground/elevated walks. That is irrational and this is why it's not there. Everything makes perfect sense. What would be irrational a pedestrian crossing every few meters where it is not necessary. Again, a bad example.



> All of these examples above are replicated across the city, though I was careful to select examples I know here (and that are clustered around Orchard). I would not say that Singapore is a city for pedestrians, but it is certainly a transport city both public and private. I can't fault the buses and trains generally, but I can fault the lack of thought to pedestrians and cyclists as it can be downright hostile to both. This is from mine and my colleagues experiences in the city state (and a number of my colleagues are Singaporeans). Funnily enough my Professor is still based in Singapore for now too.


Even though I haven't lived in Singapore but I have been there at least 6 times and am very much familiar how pedestrian and street integration works there. I must say I have never witnessed a more sensible, rational and logical approach to those issues anywhere else in the world. I have never been to Japan and therefore would love to compare it to Singapore. You may be right.


----------



## Svartmetall (Aug 5, 2007)

Pansori said:


> Criticizing lack of convenience for cyclists where daytime tempratures range between +33 +35 degrees Centigrade 365 days a year sound like a bit of a joke. I can barely walk there let alone cycle. This is despite that cycling conditions in Singapore are actually rather good and drivers are conscious. Oh and I'm a cyclists myself.


Well yes, that's why I said it's partly due to the weather and partly due to the lack of thought given to cyclists. Despite the weather there are citizen groups advocating cycling and people do want it to be more popular. Unlike Japan (like I mentioned above) cycling on the pavement (sidewalk) is illegal in Singapore, though many do risk the fine due to safety concerns on the road. As blogs like I linked to show, there is pressure and the government is starting to do things about off-street trails, but not quite enough with regards to it being a serious mode of transportation. 



Pansori said:


> Crossings in Singapore are very logical and intuitive. If there is a street and a necessity to cross it for sufficiently large amounts of pedestrians then it means there will be a crossing somewhere in the nearest vicinity. Traffic lights have countdown timers which give a good idea how long you will have to wait. Crossing the streets in SIngapore is as convenient and efficient as it can possibly get.


I think here we disagree. A pedestrian is often kept waiting for a long time at intersections and to cross diagonally can take a long time in places. Having signalised crossings is okay, but there is a distinct lack of un-signalled crossings that are great for pedestrian movement. This is why I said Singapore is great for vehicles (both public and private) as it increases their speed, but it provides a hindrance to peds. 



Pansori said:


> I am very much familiar with the location. The Junction has underground pedestrian crossings and existing ones have been extended recently (you can see the construction work in Street view images too. It may be well part of that). If you're looking for examples of flawed infrastructure solutions in Singapore that this is not it.


That's fair enough and I'm glad they improved it from the last time I was there, though underground crossings again are still not ideal for pedestrians. Forcing them underground and to come back up is not a good strategy - as many urban planners state in numerous journals when I give the academic literature a quick browse. 



Pansori said:


> I really doubt those who live in that street ever walk anywhere. Remember, around 90% of Singaporeans live here rather than what's shown in your picture. It's called rationality.


Well, not really no. I know that most Singaporeans live in high rise blocks, but it does illustrate the point that pedestrians aren't necessarily thought about. If it is a low traffic situation then you can narrow the road and create a walkway on one side of the road. The very presence of a place to walk encourages walking so one has to ask if "no one walks" in such an environment is it chicken or egg? No one walks because the infrastructure isn't there? The infrastructure isn't there because no one walks? I wouldn't say it's rationality to simply exclude a mode. 

Also, to use your example - where are pedestrians meant to cross? This is exactly what I was talking about. Look at the street environment at the screencap you posted. What provisions are there for people on the right hand side to reach the bus stop on the left? One has to either run across 4 lanes of road or walk all the way to the intersection and all the way back up. The distance between the two crossings there is 350m - far too long for a street with bus stops.



Pansori said:


> Which makes perfect sense. Why would you want five intermediate crossings from a school campus occupying almost the entire plot to a nearby highrise block with a dozen or so buildings? There isn't that much pedestrian movement in those directions to rationalize additional pedestrian crossings and either obstruct traffic or spend money on building underground/elevated walks. That is irrational and this is why it's not there. Everythign makes perfect sense. What would be irrational a pedestrian crossing every few meters where it is not necessary. Again, a bad example.


Better example for you? There is a massive, massive barrier effect on this road. When you compare what other countries do in such a situation with such a high density of people around, one can see that the speed of the vehicles has been favoured over all else in such an arrangement. You call this rationality, I call it a hostile environment to those not in a vehicle. A comparable density in Tokyo (for example) has an at-grade crossing every 180m or so, so at every block intersection. These are smaller than those seen in Singapore - which the minimum distance in the example I give is 280m - a full 100m more than my Japanese example and note, one of those crossings in the Singapore example is a bridge rather than at-grade adding to the barrier effect of the road. Also of note there are few pedestrian provisions at intersections. The Singaporean traffic law is a little vague on whether pedestrians have right of way at an intersection. Again, this makes things off-putting for many. This is in contrast to my Asian gold standard in Tokyo (again) where one can clearly see where pedestrians are allowed to cross at intersections whether or not these crossings are controlled by lights or simply as free pedestrian crossings (zebra crossings). 



Pansori said:


> Even though I haven't lived in Singapore but I have been there at least 6 times and am very much familiar how pedestrian and street integration works there. I must say I have never witnessed a more sensible, rational and logical approach to those issues anywhere else in the world. I have never been to Japan and therefore would love to compare it to SIngapore. You may be right.


What makes you feel it is so sensible, rational and logical? To me it seems that speed of the vehicle outweighs pedestrian convenience and that was how I felt each time there too. This is actually quite in line with modernist planning in Europe (and in fact Stockholm in the past) which has largely fallen out of favour in favour of more urban planning with closed city grids and frequent accessways for pedestrians. 

To illustrate, here are two examples from where I live now. Alby in Stockholm follows a similar kind of planning where cars are separated from squishy people and allowed uninterrupted flow. A myriad of pedestrian walkways link up neighbourhoods inside the roads. It was found that the pedestrian pathways were circuitous, uninviting and generally not as convenient as the time-honoured system of people being able to cross "at the block" so with newer areas being built, the focus shifted. Here is Hammarby Sjöstad. Here pedestrians are well catered for with frequent crossings at every city block (between 90m and 120m). There are far more walkers, cyclists and public transport users in this district compared to the modernist districts because this kind of city planning encouraged it. 

That said, I'm willing to concede that we might simply have differing notions on what is pedestrian friendly and generally wanted in a transport system. For me, a minor inconvenience to a car is far more desirable than having a pedestrian slog an extra 200m to an intersection and back up simply to catch a bus on the other side of the road. For some the speed of vehicles is the most important thing and as long as pedestrians are catered for, that's all that matters.


----------



## Pansori (Apr 26, 2006)

You should love places like (I guess) Dhaka or Lagos. You can freely mix with car traffic and cross anywhere you want. 
But yeah I guess we agree to disagree on urban ideology.


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

Pansori, while you claim you are in favour of a balanced treatment of all modes of transportation, it seems to me, based on your ideas for pedestrian facilities, that you support a rather hostile policy towards non-motorized modes of mobility. It seems only highly frequented routes have the right to have somewhat pedestrian friendly ways and even than that might merely mean being forced through under- or overpasses. 

In Vienna it was a sign of a shift in policies away from anti pedestrian concepts from the 60ies, when instead of increasing the number of underpasses, they were only chosen where people really want to go underground (at subway stations) and no where they merely want t cross a street. There are still underpassings, but first of all, they are almost all barrier free (featuring a lift if there are stairs) and except for few exceptions with an option for at level pedestrian crossing, where people have to wait at traffic lights. People usually prefer taking the traffic light, even if that means waiting times. 

Of course, if you create hostile paths, frequency will go down severly, which you can use as new argument why to reduce pedestrian facilities even more. Using this circular logic towards public transportation, many American cities managed to almost completely abolish their entire PT systems. But if there is will for good solutions for pedestrians you can find them and not only unattractive ones, that are great for car drivers but a hassle for pedestrians. Optional traffic lights are an example how you can create a flexible system.


But these are things one can discuss, what is beyond that point is to sacrifice sufficient side walks to uphold a dogma of two-way streets. That is obviously giving car drivers all the priority and making it outright dangerous and totally unattractive to walk there. If two lanes and sufficient side walks don't fit on the road, you either need to reduce the lanes to one, or make the whole thing a 20 or 30 km/h zone.

PS: Straw men arguments don't help your case when you are saying the alternative to Singapore is Dakar. You should be well aware that this is wrong. There are lots of alternative options.


----------



## Pansori (Apr 26, 2006)

One crucial point which is being ignored by the so-called advocates of urban pedestrian friendliness (note, the idea itself is legit and I support it myself) is the negative externality that has been mentioned in one of the videos.

It is true that some big streets in SIngapore (or cities like Shenzhen) do not have level pedestrian crossings every 20 meters or so. They portray it as a negative in respect of 'pedestrian friendliness'. This is utterly ridiculous.

Why not to point out that railways or airports are also obstacles for pedestrian friendliness? Let's limit the development of them!

The point that has been implemented in Singapore and that is being attempted (and I would say rather successfully so far) in a number of big Chinese cities (primarily Shenzhen) is not about irrationally picking out one mode (usually it happens to be pedestrians) and glorify it as some sort of supreme and ueber-important factor in making a good urban environment. Why? Just because they think so. 

Such logic is so flawed in principle and here is why. Imagine all those streets and expressways in Singapore which currently ensure smooth and uninterrupted flow of traffic be dotted with level pedestrian crossings, more traffic lights, traffic islands occupying entire lane and other supposedly 'pedestrian friendly' attributes. The only noticeable result would be slowing down the traffic. Whereas the positive impact would be negligible and arguably would not even be there. All in all this would result in what has been very well described in the video on Singapore's traffic management i.e. externalities occurring due to slow traffic. 

The irrational 'pedestrian freindly' advicates will then scream "but what about negative externalities due to worsened pedestrian access and rare pedestrian crossings? How do I walk 200 meters to a bus stop instead of walking 20 meters?". The answer is simple. It is much easier for pedestrians to plan and organize movement. Very few people in Singapore actually walk long distances due to hot climate. Hence walking a few meters away in order to reach a bus stop merely means a couple of minutes of extra time for those who are affected (most aren't affected anyway). Apart from that there is no air pollution (unless you count extra oxygen needed for walking those extra meters). Meanwhile, removing those externalities would mean shifting them on car traffic which would friendly result in considerable economic loss, air pollution and falling quality of life.

The 'pedestrian friendly advocates' then will say "but hey, you are just saying let's make it all for cars and nothing for pedestrians. You evil motorhead". Which is, of course, an invalid argument because above everything it must be looked at the wider context and not just one mode of transport or someone's personal feelings or idea of good urban planning. The current system in Singapore ensures the most effective, efficient and rational transportation (including pedestrian) system that could be achieved mathematically in the given context and by balancing rather than outright prioritizing. This ensures the most efficient use of land and resources as well. The guys who are designing and building infrastructure there are clearly not dumb and use numbers and formulas to achieve this and not populist political rhetoric which is so prevalent in the Western countries where uneducated and often irrational 'public opinion' matters more than scientific formulas and rationalization provided by trained professionals in the field... the problem with the latter is that it doesn't give votes during elections, hence is not important.

What does matter more than irrational view of 'pedestrian friendliness' is maximizing the efficiency of the system while ensuring good balance in respect of every mode of transport _including_ pedestrian friendliness. Only here is where the term 'pedestrian friendliness' should come into picture. In Singapore's case it has been achieved better than anywhere else by ensuring the most efficient use of resources and minimizing negative externalities and basing it on professional rationalization as opposed to anything else.


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

AmoreUrbs said:


> Almost pure "utopia".. they can plan whatever they want, but hardly going to have success (along with similar things like squeezing 8 milion people in 100km, for example..); let's say this, overuse of the car is surely not a good thing, but it's what almost everyone will need for something (I hope soon power based cars will be improved and have more success instead of oil), and transports, as good as the might be, are not always able to serve for everything one needs, sadly..


Most people do not have to rely on a car for most of their trips, if the alternatives are available and the city designed accordingly. Of course, for various jobs you need a car, thats a different thing and its not what floods our infrastructure beyond its limits. As a matter of fact there are many people here living perfectly fine lives without owning a car at all and they are not necessarily poor. Am I living in "utopia" or how is that possible if you were right?

Sure, electric cars would be great for cities because car exhaust is a major issue and reducing quality of life as well as health but some other basic issues are the same for them like for the cars we have today: They are terribly space inefficient. Thats true when they are driven, but much more so when they are merely standing around, which they are most of the time.


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

Pansori said:


> I think it is misleading to put difficulties in car ownership as the main reason for low usage. Public transport in Singapore is state of the art. Simply as good as it can possibly get. It is really beyond me why anyone would even think of using anything but public transport there. It's ridiculously cheap, clean, quiet and simply the best. Maybe it's got something to do with the fact that 15 or so % of Singaporean population are US$ millionaires and therefore can actually afford cars regardless of anything. You do see unusually high amount of very expensive cars there compared to most other cities. I guess it is seen as a matter of lifestyle and luxury rather than just transport as elsewhere.


So you prefer being forced walking vast detours, a road network that is in parts (especially outside the center) challenging or even outright dangerous for pedestrians over a perfectly safe and comfortable pedestrian layout, just because its not a perfectly straight forward street layout?

Are you European? If not I am fascinated that you have not gotten used to it after a whole decade and if you are I am fully blown away. Navigating in a European city is not as hard if you are used to it. And if you really are going where you have never been before, you can either simply give it a try, or if you want to get the best way right from the start, have a short look at the map or use a tool beforehand. I prefer that over having big obstacles I can not evade or partially outright dangerous streets, any day. 



> I don't see what's wrong with it? Small pedestrian walks for even smaller numebr of people? That's just rationality and not wasting space for something that is not needed.


Its getting farcical. Those "small pedestrian walks" are making that road even more dangerous than a road without any side walk at all. You are considering that perfectly fine, yet at the same time you are claiming you are not in favour of pedestrian hostile policies? But may I ask you one thing? That road he linked to before looked not only to be not very frequented by pedestrians but also not by cars. So why do cars have two lanes even though the width is only broad enough for one but pedestrians got effectively no place at all? 




> If you want to see how screwed up pedestrian infrastructure in London I suggest taking a walk in the City (say, Fenchurch street or nearby main streets) in the daytime (let alone peak time). People are walking on the street (where cars are driving) because there is no space on the pavement. Literally. Same goes for pretty much all of London i.e. consistent and chronic lack of usable pedestrian space anywhere you go. Maybe my brainds have formed in some different way but I just don't understand how the hell this is 'pedestrian friendly' in any way? To me it just looks screwed up and nothing else.


London is not perfect indeed. There are various central streets where pedestrians should get more space, even if that means the loss of car lanes.


----------



## Pansori (Apr 26, 2006)

dj4life said:


> Why? Almost every argument you mentioned can be applied to many other cities. The low prices is a good argument for the clients, but there already are cities where the public transportation is free, i.e. subsided by the governemnt (hint: Tallinn, Estonia). Couldn't Singapore afford that?


The main reason is because I believe I have seen sufficiently many PT systems and tried them in person. That includes London, Paris, Munich, Frankfurt, Milan, Helsinki, Hong Kong, Shanghai, Guangzhou, Shenzhen, Kuala Lumpur, and some others which are not in a league of 'good public transport' such as Bangkok. Given that none of them even come close to Singapore (only exception _maybe_ being Hong Kong) I have reasonably good case of thinking that other cities including Stockholm aren't much better than the cities I mentioned.


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

Pansori said:


> The main reason is because I believe I have seen sufficiently many PT systems and tried them in person. That includes London, Paris, Munich, Frankfurt, Milan, Helsinki, Hong Kong, Shanghai, Guangzhou, Shenzhen, Kuala Lumpur, and some others which are not in a league of 'good public transport' such as Bangkok. Given that none of them even come close to Singapore (only exception _maybe_ being Hong Kong) I have reasonably good case of thinking that other cities including Stockholm aren't much better than the cities I mentioned.


I wonder what is supposedly making the Singapore PT system better than the one I am using regularly. Well, I believe you when you say its great (even though you also say that pedestrians are catered very well in Singapore when this is apparently only partly true) but I am still wondering. I would really appreciate if you could elaborate on that.


----------



## Pansori (Apr 26, 2006)

Slartibartfas said:


> So you prefer being forced walking vast detours, a road network that is in parts (especially outside the center) challenging or even outright dangerous for pedestrians over a perfectly safe and comfortable pedestrian layout, just because its not a perfectly straight forward street layout?


What detours? Walking a couple of minutes is not exactly a 'vast detour' unless you are physically incapacitated. Then again, even getting up from bed may be considered a 'vast detour'. There are designated spots for crossing the street safely and it makes perfect sense. it is beyond me why some present this as a negative and argue that it is more 'pedestrian friendly' to cross the street anywhere. It's a bit like allowing plane passengers jump off the plane with parachutes instead of disembarking at the airport. There are spaces for cars (streets) and sspaces for pedestrians. They can cross each other at designated places which ensures safety and 'friendliness' in every respect. That's how it should be done and that's how it's done in Singapore and this is just brilliant. 







> Its getting farcical. Those "small pedestrian walks" are making that road even more dangerous than a road without any side walk at all. You are considering that perfectly fine, yet at the same time you are claiming you are not in favour of pedestrian hostile policies? But may I ask you one thing? That road he linked to before looked not only to be not very frequented by pedestrians but also not by cars. So why do cars have two lanes even though the width is only broad enough for one but pedestrians got effectively no place at all?


Pedestrians get enough space to ensure smooth and uninterrupted movement ensuring maximum efficiency and avoiding negative externalities. Same applies for cars. This is given the limited resources that Singapore has (i.e. available land). Resources are used in the most efficient and rational panner possible. This is a huge positive and not a negative in any way.

It's funny, however, how the very same advocates of the imaginary 'pedestrian friendliness' are arguing against vast pedestrian walks (which are often bigger than the actual demand would suggest) and green spaces in Shenzhen as being pedestrian unfriendly. Or open green spaces and parks in Shanghai's Pudong. Make your mind up for Christ's sake! 
To me it just looks like those advocates simply protest against anything that does not include slowing down the traffic and making driving a nightmare _regardless_ whether it makes pedestrian life better or not. That is just... odd.


----------



## dj4life (Oct 22, 2009)

Pansori said:


> The main reason is because I believe I have seen sufficiently many PT systems and tried them in person. That includes London, Paris, Munich, Frankfurt, Milan, Helsinki, Hong Kong, Shanghai, Guangzhou, Shenzhen, Kuala Lumpur, and some others which are not in a league of 'good public transport' such as Bangkok. Given that none of them even come close to Singapore (only exception _maybe_ being Hong Kong) I have reasonably good case of thinking that other cities including Stockholm aren't much better than the cities I mentioned.


Sorry for such a remark, but it seems that you are simply Asia-addict.


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

Pansori said:


> What detours? Walking a couple of minutes is not exactly a 'vast detour' unless you are physically incapacitated.


I can only wonder if you missed my response to that above. I said already before that its not about being lazy but about my range being reduced substantially by detours. Even you will concede that the pedestrian range is not limitless and the length of the detour is what you have to deduct from your limit (and the longer the way, the more detours you will encounter, and I sad already before that they are probably a considerable part of your entire distance). In other words, bad design reduces the places you can reach in an acceptable time on your feet substantially. That of course reduces the usefulness of walking as a mobility option. This is a serious issue even if you talk it away with people being lazy or whatever. I have walked all across my city already, and I mean that literally, have you too? 




> Pedestrians get enough space to ensure smooth and uninterrupted movement ensuring maximum efficiency and avoiding negative externalities. Same applies for cars. This is given the limited resources that Singapore has (i.e. available land). Resources are used in the most efficient and rational panner possible. This is a huge positive and not a negative in any way.


We have seen photo evidence that there are streets in Singapore where pedestrians are given no space at all. Even various American suburbs or exurbs seem to have better pedestrian access than what was seen on that picture. 



> It's funny, however, how the very same advocates of the imaginary 'pedestrian friendliness' are arguing against vast pedestrian walks (which are often bigger than the actual demand would suggest) and green spaces in Shenzhen as being pedestrian unfriendly. Or open green spaces and parks in Shanghai's Pudong. Make your mind up for Christ's sake!
> To me it just looks like those advocates simply protest against anything that does not include slowing down the traffic and making driving a nightmare _regardless_ whether it makes pedestrian life better or not. That is just... odd.


Its not that hard is it? There are various factors that make a city pedestrian friendly or not: Safety, completeness of the network, connections, obstacles and distances. All of them are critical. If a city fares well in all of them its probably pedestrian friendly.


----------



## Pansori (Apr 26, 2006)

dj4life said:


> Sorry for such a remark, but it seems that you are simply Asia-addict.


I reeeeeeealy (with al those "e" s) doubt that any city in the Americas can boast anything remotely as good as the good PT systems in Asia or Europe. I can't think of other European cities, besides the ones I mentioned, with truly amazing PT systems either. Perhaps Stockholm being the only one? What else? _Maybe_ Vienna? Amsterdam? Berlin? I don't want to sound like an asshole but I probably already have seen the best that there is be it Europe or Asia (except Tokyo). 
Therefore there simply aren't that many candidates to be contrasted with Singapore that I haven't seen yet.


----------



## Pansori (Apr 26, 2006)

Slartibartfas said:


> I can only wonder if you missed my response to that above. I said already before that its not about being lazy but about my range being reduced substantially by detours. Even you will concede that the pedestrian range is not limitless and the length of the detour is what you have to deduct from your limit (and the longer the way, the more detours you will encounter, and I sad already before that they are probably a considerable part of your entire distance). In other words, bad design reduces the places you can reach in an acceptable time on your feet substantially. That of course reduces the usefulness of walking as a mobility option. This is a serious issue even if you talk it away with people being lazy or whatever. I have walked all across my city already, and I mean that literally, have you too?


If you watched those videos on Singapore's PT the standards of mobility are measured not against time of the journey using a single mode of transport but _door-to-door_ which is walking inclusive. Therefore it wouldn't make sense to abandon pedestrian accessibility as such. And despite picking out a couple of examples where one has to make a 'detour' of a 100 meters your negative point in Singapore's lack of pedestrian friednliness remains unproven.






> We have seen photo evidence that there are streets in Singapore where pedestrians are given no space at all. Even various American suburbs or exurbs seem to have better pedestrian access than what was seen on that picture.


And yet pedestrian modal share is higher than such supposedly pedestrian friendly cities like Stockholm? I fail to connect the dots here. Or perhaps such 'evidence' is nothing but someone's imagination using phantom examples taken out of context without any researching.





> Its not that hard is it? There are various factors that make a city pedestrian friendly or not: Safety, completeness of the network, connections, obstacles and distances. All of them are critical. If a city fares well in all of them its probably pedestrian friendly.


Which is what I've been saying from the beginning. Just to add that it all has to be measured against the resources that are available in order to maximize the efficiency and rational use of those resources. If someone's got an odd and subjective perosnal idea of 'pedestrian friendliness' then I suppose it's their problem and not a problem of Singapore's urban planners.


----------



## Galro (Aug 9, 2010)

Svartmetall said:


> To illustrate, here are two examples from where I live now. Alby in Stockholm follows a similar kind of planning where cars are separated from squishy people and allowed uninterrupted flow. A myriad of pedestrian walkways link up neighbourhoods inside the roads.


I'm sorry, but such a depressive place can never become pedestrian friendly. The only thing I'm thinking of when I see it, is how to get as far as possible as fast possible from it, and cars are simply much better fit for that kind of needs.


----------



## CNB30 (Jun 4, 2012)

Galro said:


> I'm sorry, but such a depressive place can never become pedestrian friendly. The only thing I'm thinking of when I see it, is how to get as far as possible as fast possible from it, and cars are simply much better fit for that kind of needs.


Or you can bulldoze it to ground zero, and build a place people will enjoy.


----------



## Svartmetall (Aug 5, 2007)

Pansori said:


> If you watched those videos on Singapore's PT the standards of mobility are measured not against time of the journey using a single mode of transport but _door-to-door_ which is walking inclusive. Therefore it wouldn't make sense to abandon pedestrian accessibility as such. And despite picking out a couple of examples where one has to make a 'detour' of a 100 meters your negative point in Singapore's lack of pedestrian friednliness remains unproven.


Well, again I direct you to those sources I listed from both academia and city planners indicating best practice (there were five on the previous page). They show from modelling that pedestrians are turned off by things such as poor street scape (including scale of roads and speed of traffic as well as volume of traffic), poor street layout (including lane widths for both vehicles and space for pedestrians, location of crossings, forcing grade shifts in movement i.e going under or over a road), and poor placement of other items such as light poles. Numerous examples of these detraction factors were present in the examples from Singapore including light poles in the middle of the pedestrian walkway (rather than to the edge), narrow walkways, large roads without a significant pedestrian buffer, and lots of traffic (even on street view one can see steady streams of vehicles). Thus it only takes a moment of extrapolation to see that numerous negatives as defined in literature are fulfilled by the Singaporean pedestrian street scape. 



Pansori said:


> And yet pedestrian modal share is higher than such supposedly pedestrian friendly cities like Stockholm? I fail to connect the dots here. Or perhaps such 'evidence' is nothing but someone's imagination using phantom examples taken out of context without any researching.


What you failed to do with such an analysis is lump "unmotorised" vs "motorised" together. Stockholm has a larger degree (not by a significant percentage, mind) of unmotorised mobility (cycling + pedestrian) compared to Singapore (cycling + pedestrians) in a less dense city with a lower population so that rather negates that point. It simply means more pedestrians choose to cycle here rather than walk and that they have the ability to do so due to better bike infrastructure. 



Pansori said:


> Which is what I've been saying from the beginning. Just to add that it all has to be measured against the resources that are available in order to maximize the efficiency and rational use of those resources. If someone's got an odd and subjective perosnal idea of 'pedestrian friendliness' then I suppose it's their problem and not a problem of Singapore's urban planners.


It's not just subjective and odd - it's established and studied elsewhere in the world and has proven to be the case in a number of different countries. You have to also understand that there is a lot of "greenwash" or similar "wash" added to such media as you posted - that is to make something appear to service all but actually chiefly benefit one. Greenwash has been used a number of times - especially in terms of air pollution and maximising traffic flow for example whilst simultaneously ignoring induced demand.



Galro said:


> I'm sorry, but such a depressive place can never become pedestrian friendly. The only thing I'm thinking of when I see it, is how to get as far as possible as fast possible from it, and cars are simply much better fit for that kind of needs.


Agreed, modernism is depressing. But then how different is that Alby example from this except for the fact that one can cross the road more easily in Alby.


----------



## Pansori (Apr 26, 2006)

Svartmetall said:


> Well, again I direct you to those sources I listed from both academia and city planners indicating best practice (there were five on the previous page). They show from modelling that pedestrians are turned off by things such as poor street scape (including scale of roads and speed of traffic as well as volume of traffic), poor street layout (including lane widths for both vehicles and space for pedestrians, location of crossings, forcing grade shifts in movement i.e going under or over a road), and poor placement of other items such as light poles. Numerous examples of these detraction factors were present in the examples from Singapore including light poles in the middle of the pedestrian walkway (rather than to the edge), narrow walkways, large roads without a significant pedestrian buffer, and lots of traffic (even on street view one can see steady streams of vehicles). Thus it only takes a moment of extrapolation to see that numerous negatives as defined in literature are fulfilled by the Singaporean pedestrian street scape.


The fact is, more people choose to walk in Singapore than in Stockholm. _Despite_ unfavorable climate. This can only suggest one thing - Singapore is more pedestrian friendly and has better developed pedestrian spaces and infrastructure. The reason why there is little bicycle transport in Singapore because it is an extreme to cycle in this weather. Even walking may be uncomfortable at the very least and hazardous at the most. Unless you're an athlete cycling there is unviable. 





> What you failed to do with such an analysis is lump "unmotorised" vs "motorised" together. Stockholm has a larger degree (not by a significant percentage, mind) of unmotorised mobility (cycling + pedestrian) compared to Singapore (cycling + pedestrians) in a less dense city with a lower population so that rather negates that point. It simply means more pedestrians choose to cycle here rather than walk and that they have the ability to do so due to better bike infrastructure.


Why? Bicycles are wheeled means of transport and are closer to cars or motorbikes than pedestrians. Many cities (including London) either do not allow bicycles on pedestrian paths or discourage that at the very least. In either case it doesn't really matter because ragardless of anything very few people would ever think of cycling when it's +33C outside 365 days a year.





> It's not just subjective and odd - it's established and studied elsewhere in the world and has proven to be the case in a number of different countries.


And yet it all works better in Singapore despite ignoring those 'studies'? Makes sense. Perhaps a bit like Singapore Airlines showing a middle finger to IATA back in the days and becoming world's most desirable airline? 
I would love to see a study which proves that optimal and rational use of resources and ensuring smooth and uninterrupted function of all modes of transport is worse than what you describe as 'pedestrian friendliness' which, from your definition, seems to mean slowing down the traffic and making buses and cars stuck at unregulated pedestrian crossings without gaining anything in return.



> Agreed, modernism is depressing. But then how different is that Alby example from this except for the fact that one can cross the road more easily in Alby.


Perhaps another major difference is that Alby looks more like Chernobyl inhabited by benefit scroungers than an actual modern city district? :|


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

Pansori said:


> If you watched those videos on Singapore's PT the standards of mobility are measured not against time of the journey using a single mode of transport but _door-to-door_ which is walking inclusive. Therefore it wouldn't make sense to abandon pedestrian accessibility as such. And despite picking out a couple of examples where one has to make a 'detour' of a 100 meters your negative point in Singapore's lack of pedestrian friednliness remains unproven.
> 
> ...
> 
> And yet pedestrian modal share is higher than such supposedly pedestrian friendly cities like Stockholm? I fail to connect the dots here. Or perhaps such 'evidence' is nothing but someone's imagination using phantom examples taken out of context without any researching.


You are contradicting yourself. Singapore is not pedestrian hell and I never claimed it but parts of the city at least seem to basically inaccessible for pedestrians if they don't want to walk on dangerous streets due to the lack of side walks. A city with a good pedestrian infrastructure can't afford to have even limited areas of that sort. The completeness of pedestrian infrastructure is an essential aspect of the overall quality of the network. 

But lets make something clear. I don't think Singapore is a bad place in general for pedestrians and it certainly has the density to support a lot of pedestrian activity as well. Together with cars being almost a luxury it is not hard to see why pedestrian share is high. That said, pedestrian infrastructure is obviously far from perfect and the city could be a much nicer place for pedestrians if priorities would be more balanced. Singapore can do whatever it likes and its a fairly efficient city. Certainly autocratic as well, but the city seems to be well managed. I have to agree with other posters before however that Tokyo appears to be more balanced in its offers for all modes of transportation. Thats my two cents.



> Which is what I've been saying from the beginning. Just to add that it all has to be measured against the resources that are available in order to maximize the efficiency and rational use of those resources. If someone's got an odd and subjective perosnal idea of 'pedestrian friendliness' then I suppose it's their problem and not a problem of Singapore's urban planners.


The problem seems to be the evaluation of those criteria then, not the criteria themselves. Pedestrian mobility is the by far most efficient mode of mobility. Frequent and comfortable (that means, direct, short and fast) crossings are essential. Over and underpasses are 2nd rate in these regards. They are better than nothing and a sufficient minimum but far from good, especially if they force people to long detours. And a road in a residential area that has not a single pedestrian crossing for more than half a km for example is not something to show off in terms of quality of pedestrian accessibility either. 


I can definitely rule out that I would like to have the Singapore concept implemented in the city I live in. I prefer the one we have here. I am fine with it if you disagree with that and like the one in Singapore more.


----------



## Pansori (Apr 26, 2006)

Slartibartfas said:


> What I can definitely rule out is that I would like to have the Singapore concept implemented in the city I live in. I prefer the one we have here.


I guess this is where it all bumps into philosophy-based ideology of Calculated and numbers-based rationalization vs. subjective and psychology-based tradition. A bit like science vs. religion I suppose.


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

Pansori said:


> I guess this is where it all bumps into philosophy-based ideology of Calculated and numbers-based rationalization vs. subjective and psychology-based tradition. A bit like science vs. religion I suppose.


BS. It depends on the priorities in your calculations. What pushes Singapore's numbers positively is the fact that it lacks suburbs that haunt almost any other major urban agglomeration. It has a high average density and is by natural and political factors limited in its expansion. On top of that infrastructure is good, yet somewhat biased against non-motorized modes of mobility. 

Most European cities don't have Singapore's density even if you ignore the suburbs. But they are often better places for pedestrians in all but one point, density. 

Btw, Vienna has a stronger non-motorized share and a lower car share than Singapore - not by a lot but somewhat (even though Vienna has not the possibility to control the number of cars as its not an island city state and it does not make car traffic prohibitively expensive). I am also pretty confident that on top of that walking and cycling is a much more comfortable thing to do than in Singapore. But I don't want to make this city vs city. The point is that I don't think that Singapore is not the only well planned city on earth and that other mobility concepts can be as well planned or in aspects even better. And I am talking about rational argumentation not some fluffy utopian concepts.

PS: according to naked numbers, Tokio is the best city in terms of its mobility mix. I don't know a lot about that city either but we should have a closer look in how they have organized traffic there.


----------



## Svartmetall (Aug 5, 2007)

Pansori said:


> The fact is, more people choose to walk in Singapore than in Stockholm. _Despite_ unfavorable climate. This can only suggest one thing - Singapore is more pedestrian friendly and has better developed pedestrian spaces and infrastructure. The reason why there is little bicycle transport in Singapore because it is an extreme to cycle in this weather. Even walking may be uncomfortable at the very least and hazardous at the most. Unless you're an athlete cycling there is unviable.


But it's not extreme to cycle in snow and ice? Also, why would there be such a groundswell of support for cycling infrastructure in Singapore if people didn't want to cycle? Look at all the blogs out there regarding it (just google cycling in Singapore). And no, correlation does not equal causation with regards to walking modal split. This is why I said one must consider un-motorised vs. motorised transport due to density differences between Singapore and Stockholm if you are to compare the two, but as Slartibartfas says, this is getting a little city vs. city. 



Pansori said:


> Why? Bicycles are wheeled means of transport and are closer to cars or motorbikes than pedestrians. Many cities (including London) either do not allow bicycles on pedestrian paths or discourage that at the very least. In either case it doesn't really matter because ragardless of anything very few people would ever think of cycling when it's +33C outside 365 days a year.


Mostly addressed above. Bikes are not motorised and therefore counted with pedestrians generally. 



Pansori said:


> And yet it all works better in Singapore despite ignoring those 'studies'? Makes sense. Perhaps a bit like Singapore Airlines showing a middle finger to IATA back in the days and becoming world's most desirable airline?
> I would love to see a study which proves that optimal and rational use of resources and ensuring smooth and uninterrupted function of all modes of transport is worse than what you describe as 'pedestrian friendliness' which, from your definition, seems to mean slowing down the traffic and making buses and cars stuck at unregulated pedestrian crossings without gaining anything in return.


See, we want different things. I don't think Singapore "works" so well compared to Hong Kong (for example of another Asian city close by). And Hong Kong is not a master of pedestrian amenity either, but due to the great degree of push factors towards non-motorised transport there, there is a critical mass that ensures its success. 



Pansori said:


> Perhaps another major difference is that Alby looks more like Chernobyl inhabited by benefit scroungers than an actual modern city district? :|


Now you're just being silly. Aesthetically other than the quality of the images, what are the differences between the HDB blocks I showed and Alby? There are in fact very few once you remove the more lush greenery (a product of a more favourable tropical climate). 

Also, FYI, Alby is one of the poorest districts in Sweden. Despite that, the unemployment rate is only slightly above the national average, so one cannot call it a district inhabited by "benefit scroungers". You've lived in the UK too long, clearly. 

This discussion is pointless though. You are so rose-tinted towards Asia, in particular China and Singapore, that you cannot see that just as Slartibartfas and I point out, there is literature and a wealth of examples showing that this kind of favouritism towards "free flow" actually impedes mobility. I would argue the modal split of your gold standard is despite policy rather than due to policy and that the density and restrictions towards car ownership are the only reason that one sees such a favourable split. The fact that there are still as many car journeys as Stockholm, (a far smaller and much less dense city than Singapore), less in Berlin, less in Vienna etc. despite car ownership being far easier in all of those cities and despite those cities not being a self-contained city state (IE they're connected to the rest of the country and encounter intercity transport far more than Singapore does between Malaysia and Singapore) shows that the Singaporean model is actually probably not as wonderful as you make out.

Tokyo is the city we should be looking at in Asia due to the wealth of Japan being similar, it not being a self-contained city state, it having cheap cars available, it being a city in a nation of car producers, it possessing mostly single-family dwellings and it being the city that has a far better modal split than any other developed city - and better than the majority of developing cities too.


----------



## Pansori (Apr 26, 2006)

You got the numbers and rationale behind them. You advocate putting obstacles to traffic without benefiting anyone, you oppose rational and calculated use of resources and portay some vague and immeasurable personal idea of 'pedestrian friendliness' above that and yet call me 'rose tinted'. I suppose I''ll just refrain from calling you anything. 

Regarding Ably, I didn't say it was what I described. I merely observed what it looks like. Certainly unappealing and certainly not having much in common with what you see in Singapore. It looks much more like the pipe dream development from the 70s. We have plenty of those in the former Soviet bloc and yes it kinda sucks. The ideas were indeed similar but implementation and urban amenities seem worlds apart which is why it never really worked in Europe yet works like a charm in Singapore and other locations in Asia (namely Hong Kong and Mainland China).


----------



## Svartmetall (Aug 5, 2007)

Pansori said:


> You got the numbers and rationale behind them. You advocate putting obstacles to traffic without benefiting anyone, you oppose rational and calculated use of resources and portay some vague and immeasurable personal idea of 'pedestrian friendliness' above that and yet call me 'rose tinted'. I suppose I''ll just refrain from calling you anything.


Please, you can call me or another member whatever you like, but then I'd have to issue an infraction for insulting members as that isn't tolerated here. 

As for the numbers - we proved earlier that different sources list different modal splits as those numbers are primarily generated by surveys that might not have the statistical power required to generate significance to results. That was my fault for bringing that up, I'll concede. 

As for rational and calculated, I refer you back to this:



Svartmetall said:


> I have a number of different sources in academic or referenced sources to back up my claims about the street network being incredibly important in not only safety but encouraging people to walk.


There are a number of different sources there for you, many of which are academic sources that back up my claims about the requirements for pedestrian friendliness and the positive impact it can have on pedestrian movement when all other external forces are equal (IE no price barriers or other control mechanisms in place to force ones hand). This was just from doing a very quick literature search on the subject. You have done nothing but show us two propaganda/promotional videos for Singapore infrastructure development, your own personal experiences in Singapore, modal split analysis that we both can acknowledge is probably not the best, and used that as evidence to support why you, personally, feel Singapore is the gold standard for the world. 

If you are not willing to have a proper, constructive debate on this issue, that's fine. We'll just end it here and agree to disagree.



Pansori said:


> Regarding Ably, I didn't say it was what I described. I merely observed what it looks like. Certainly unappealing and certainly not having much in common with what you see in Singapore. It looks much more like the pipe dream development from the 70s. We have plenty of those in the former Soviet bloc and yes it kinda sucks. The ideas were indeed similar but implementation and urban amenities seem worlds apart which is why it never really worked in Europe yet works like a charm in Singapore and other locations in Asia (namely Hong Kong and Mainland China).


No, there are also significant cultural differences too that you're excluding there. It isn't simply provision of amenities as I can assure you Alby has a lot there for its population as well as good transport links both by road and rail etc. The difference is cultural, but this is a discussion for another thread.


----------



## Pansori (Apr 26, 2006)

I did read your sources and I do agree with what's described in F.Jaskiewicz's study. That with few exceptions almost tip top sounds like Singapore and most of the policies are indeed as described there. I'll take a closer look to it because that's a good piece on pedestrian friendliness.

You on the other hand pick out a few rare and unusual examples from a city that you have little clue about and use it as a standard definition of a city's urban layout in order to contradict the study. Which US, if course absurd, let alone primitive and misleading.


----------



## Svartmetall (Aug 5, 2007)

Pansori said:


> I did read your sources and I do agree with what's described in F.Jaskiewicz's study. That with few exceptions almost tip top sounds like Singapore and most of the policies are indeed as described there. I'll take a closer look to it because that's a good piece on pedestrian friendliness.
> 
> You on the other hand pick out a few rare and unusual examples from a city that you have little clue about and use it as a standard definition of a city's urban layout in order to contradict the study. Which US, if course absurd, let alone primitive and misleading.


It's called a case study. It doesn't have to be a city I, personally, am familiar with for the findings of the study to be applicable in other situations. 

Since we're talking about that study which you like, I'd like to point out a few things that aren't applicable to Singapore.

_#1. Narrow lane widths, i.e., 10- to 11-foot lanes as opposed to 12- to 14-foot lanes._

This isn't the case in Singapore where the road network is over-dimensioned. 

_#2. Narrow overall paved widths. In general, two-lane roadways are more pedestrian friendly than six-lane roadways, though careful attention to design can largely offset this inherent disadvantage of high-volume thoroughfares. The effect of a bicycle lane is largely negligible, since it adds to overall paved width but at the same time provides additional separation (buffer) between pedestrians and automobiles._

This isn't the case in Singapore as most arterial roads are wide and high volume. There is also little buffer from the traffic for most of the walkways along such roadways.

_#3. Treatment at pedestrian crossings. Special treatment at pedestrian crossings, such as bulb-outs and textured paving, can encourage motorists to drive with caution by increasing their awareness that pedestrians might be present._

No. This doesn't happen in the majority of places. 

_#4. Roadway design speed, not posted speed, is the most influential factor in
determining roadway operating speed._

The design speed for Singapore's roads is faster than the posted speed by a LONG way. 

_#5. The presence of a “buffer zone” between pedestrians and moving vehicles greatly enhances pedestrian safety and comfort. Buffer improves actual safety through the placement of solid objects between moving vehicles and people, reducing the likelihood that a collision involving a pedestrian will occur._

This happens on some roads in the centre, but not others. There is often only a grass strip between the pavement and the road, and that isn't much of a physical barrier at all for such dimensioned roads. 

_#6. Storefronts and houses add interest to the pedestrian experience through the varied application of materials, design, color, and décor. The best examples are found in historic town centers and close-in neighborhoods where structures were originally designed to appeal to slow-moving pedestrians rather than to high-speed automobile traffic, since walking was for a very long time the dominant form of transportation between homes and businesses._

Having active frontage to streets means that it instantly slows cars down. On the majority of arterial roads, there are no active frontages and apartments are set back from the road. 

_#7. A complete/complex path network furnishes pedestrians with numerous route choices between origins and destinations. In other words, a complex path network ensures a high degree of connectivity between activity centers and residential units. Without a complex path network, pedestrians are often held hostage to the same route day after day, making even the most pleasant of paths very tiresome._

This is one of the key points I've made. Singapore heavily limits the number and variation of routes a pedestrian can take in most cases. 

_#8. A poorly connected path network, in addition to its failure to provide adequate alternate routes, in many cases funnels pedestrians onto a single circuitous path that does not typically represent the shortest distance between two points. Unfortunately, when public infrastructure is not designed to preserve a reasonable density of pathways through an area, the shortest distance, and all tolerable approximations thereof, are often cut off by private property. Such a condition is very frustrating to pedestrians and, for obvious reasons, does not encourage walking as a viable alternate form of transportation._

Again, this comes down to crossing placement and availability of crossings. Long diversions to cross a road discourage walking and this is exactly what I have been saying. 

So do you think that my sources are disingenuous now? These excerpts have been taken from a study that you liked from my list. Can you show me examples of each of the points that I've given?


----------



## Pansori (Apr 26, 2006)

It's not your sources. It's your flawed application of their criteria and argument picking things out of a wider context and discussing a city which you seemingly have a very limited knowledge of.


----------



## Svartmetall (Aug 5, 2007)

Pansori said:


> It's not your sources. It's your flawed application of their criteria and argument picking things out of a wider context and discussing a city which you seemingly have a very limited knowledge of.


Look, you've just degenerated into insults now. You were quite happy to offer your opinions on Vienna and Stockholm but I am not allowed to offer opinions on Singapore - a city which I have most definitely spent time in and have connections to, simply because I do not live there? Or is it more that I don't quite see what you see when I visit there?

I don't think I'm picking things out of context at all - I've even pasted the related segments from the paper for everyone to read (as well as links to the whole article too so that people can read the whole thing themselves and make up their own mind). These points were all covered in that paper that you said you liked. I have presented a few points I feel are not addressed in Singapore and its urban planning and you retort with ad hominem attacks. Evidently you cannot handle a serious debate or to have your views challenged in a constructive manner, which is a shame. Nothing I have said here is a personal attack - other than perhaps saying you are a little rose-tinted in your analysis (something that other users have said too). 

You don't like me or my arguments, fine just stop debating as I don't want to make any of this personal...


----------



## Pansori (Apr 26, 2006)

Sorry if you found my remarks insulting. I didn't find your remarks about me insultong though. Just in case if you were wondering. It was certainly not intentional from my side. Let's leave it as it is then.


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

I think neither Svartmetal and certainly not me consider Singapore's infrastructure to be bad. It is the opposite of that. But also good systems have flaws and I think Svartmetal pointed out, quite in detail and in a pretty convincing way that Singapore's design has serious weaknesses when it comes to pedestrian infrastructure. If you want to contest that I'd suggest you respond to some of the points he wrote above with rational arguments. I'd be eager to read them.


----------



## Pansori (Apr 26, 2006)

Slartibartfas said:


> I think neither Svartmetal and certainly not me consider Singapore's infrastructure to be bad. It is the opposite of that. But also good systems have flaws and I think Svartmetal pointed out, quite in detail and in a pretty convincing way that Singapore's design has serious weaknesses when it comes to pedestrian infrastructure. If you want to contest that I'd suggest you respond to some of the points he wrote above with rational arguments. I'd be eager to read them.


All the responses were made with numbers and rationale. Perhaps it's a bit like Keynesianism vs Austrian school. It goes beyond arguments but rather about ideology and understanding of what a good practice is.


----------



## ukiyo (Aug 5, 2008)

This isn't a debate just about "philosophies" but simple a city made for people (walking and or bicycles)...and that is not very subjective. I'd say I personally overall agree with all of svartmetall's points and I would also like to see a rational response to the points in post #81.

As for cities not made for cars but for people off the top of my head my first thought is Tokyo, but I think many people won't agree with the so called "lack of sidewalks" on many of the small residential streets (instead there is just a white line on both sides) but there's basically never cars on these streets :dunno:. As for the city centers on the weekends many of them entirely shutdown the streets and people can even bring umbrellas and tables in the middle of the road (IIRC some european cities do this to?)

If you go to 3:40 in this videos you can see an example of how pedestrians dominate many streets in Tokyo. At 5:10 you can see an example of a street shutdown for people to use.






Here's 2 of my own videos riding bicycle in residential Tokyo (not suburban), while there aren't "sidewalks" per se in the residential streets (but there are on the main streets) you can see there is a white line for people to walk..but in reality it doesn't matter because essentially the overwhelming majority of people in Tokyo walk/bicycle/train to work/school so there's never any cars on the residential streets anyway (people mostly use cars on the weekends [grocery, shopping, travel etc]).





^^ At 3:20 is one of the main streets and you can see the sidewalk.


----------



## particlez (May 5, 2008)

This thread started off on a bad note.

ULI is a developer-sponsored think tank. As such, the editorial's objectivity is most likely compromised. 



archphips said:


> The really effective solutions for our transportation quagmire (i.e. demand for mobility is growing much faster than the resources to build traditional transportation supply systems) come from essentially doing the opposite of the predictable response which has been done for decades. Not building more transportation capacity but reducing demand. Shifting from quantity to quality. Not faster and further, more lane-miles, more riders. Instead, enjoyable shorter trips, fewer of them, more social interaction, more observation and awareness, doubling up or tripling the purpose of a trip.


What do you expect from a ULI connected editorial? The Urban Land Institute is a major Think Tank (aka Public Relations organization) for the various developers, financiers, and land owners. They wield the clout in urban planning. Architects, and urban planners join the ULI to grovel at the feet of their overlords and to occasionally land jobs. 

It sounds well-intentioned and pragmatic, but it's not. He's writing about Baltimore--how many would argue that Baltimore has had too much infrastructure investment? The writer's entire blog is filled with similar high-sounding suggestions, and hints that Baltimore's urban problems would be solved if they were heeded. All talk about bike lanes and walkability--very little about more substantive issues.

Just like many other post-industrial places, Baltimore's developers (whose perspective is reflected in ULI) effectively control the urban planning. As such, it is set up for maximum yield on investment--often at the expense of the urban environment. it's infrastructure has been subject to benign neglect. 

Baltimore isn't a small place. Thus all the happy talk about cycling is just that--talk. Bike paths aren't going to change autocentrism. In larger cities, biking rarely goes beyond a single digit modal share, and bike trips tend to be short. It could work in some hamlet, but not in a larger center. Biking still seems to be a developer favored cause though. It's a high profile, high-sounding, but ultimately incremental investment.

Throughout his webpage, the writer omits mention of more substantive urban planning policies. 

-legislate higher densities in new development
-tax windfall land value gains from greenfield development
-invest in actual grade-separated transit

Anyone in the development industry will know about these ideas, but since they run counter to the profit margin, they aren't mentioned.


----------



## ukiyo (Aug 5, 2008)

^ I think for the US, Germany and Scandinavia seem to be the best examples to follow. I've never been to those countries but from what I have read they are quite "suburban" too and yet have high bicycle usage and relatively good PT.



> -legislate higher densities in new development
> -tax windfall land value gains from greenfield development
> -invest in actual grade-separated transit


I wonder if Svartmetall knows about tax policies/legislation in Sweden for urban planning.


----------



## particlez (May 5, 2008)

Slartibartfas said:


> I think neither Svartmetal and certainly not me consider Singapore's infrastructure to be bad. It is the opposite of that. But also good systems have flaws and I think Svartmetal pointed out, quite in detail and in a pretty convincing way that Singapore's design has serious weaknesses when it comes to pedestrian infrastructure. If you want to contest that I'd suggest you respond to some of the points he wrote above with rational arguments. I'd be eager to read them.


LOLZ @ the cycling argument. 

Cycling would be okay if you lived in a hamlet. Unless your population has no other choice (e.g. Beijing circa 1979), biking's modal share will be in the single digits. In big cities, the distances are going to be longer too. The bike trips are often for leisure, and for shorter distances. Bike trails aren't going to replace the car, and they're not a substitute for public transit.

The funny thing is, there are bike trails in Singapore, with more being built too.


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

Pansori said:


> All the responses were made with numbers and rationale. Perhaps it's a bit like Keynesianism vs Austrian school. It goes beyond arguments but rather about ideology and understanding of what a good practice is.


I don't see where you addressed the very interesting points from post #81 specifically in any way. I'd like to hear some rational directed arguments against them as I can't see any so far. If there is nothing coming of that sort I am strongly inclined to subscribe to those points myself.


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

particlez said:


> LOLZ @ the cycling argument.
> 
> Cycling would be okay if you lived in a hamlet. Unless your population has no other choice (e.g. Beijing circa 1979), biking's modal share will be in the single digits. In big cities, the distances are going to be longer too. The bike trips are often for leisure, and for shorter distances. Bike trails aren't going to replace the car, and they're not a substitute for public transit.
> 
> The funny thing is, there are bike trails in Singapore, with more being built too.


You've never been to cities like for example Copenhagen, have you?


----------



## particlez (May 5, 2008)

Slartibartfas said:


> You've never been to cities like for example Copenhagen, have you?


yeah, compare a temperate climate with a hot, utterly muggy one. how long are those distances? how would biking compare with longer private vehicle or mass transit trips?

ever go to the tropics? 

The original article was a shill. *Don't invest in public infrastructure and pedal and bike and meet your neighbors.* Sounds like something out of Margaret Thatcher or Ronnie Reagan. Then you guys pick it up and take it SERIOUSLY.


----------



## particlez (May 5, 2008)

ukiyo said:


> ^ I think for the US, Germany and Scandinavia seem to be the best examples to follow. I've never been to those countries but from what I have read they are quite "suburban" too and yet have high bicycle usage and relatively good PT.
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder if Svartmetall knows about tax policies/legislation in Sweden for urban planning.


NOT gonna happen. Real estate is the largest sector of any economy, and in the US (and many other places) it has the biggest influence on municipal politics. Thus there are occasional references to bike paths and rarely used light rail lines--but NO references to any policies that substantively impact their profit margin. 

In the end, it's ALWAYS about the money. Neglecting public infrastructure may be deleterious to society as a whole, but it means fewer taxes on the developers. Then it gets sidetracked to stuff like the width of a road, or bicycles. The real estate industry loves it when the focus is taken off them.

*The whole thread started off dumb when the original article cited an over-investment in infrastructure!*


----------



## ukiyo (Aug 5, 2008)

It doesn't really matter how the thread started people can discuss their own views entirely separate from the article. For example I didn't even read the OP, I am more interested in the forummers replies...but if the OP is suggesting there is an over investment in infrastructure in the US than my reply to that is :rofl:



particlez said:


> LOLZ @ the cycling argument.
> 
> Cycling would be okay if you lived in a hamlet. Unless your population has no other choice (e.g. Beijing circa 1979), biking's modal share will be in the single digits. In big cities, the distances are going to be longer too. The bike trips are often for leisure, and for shorter distances. Bike trails aren't going to replace the car, and they're not a substitute for public transit.
> 
> The funny thing is, there are bike trails in Singapore, with more being built too.


Bicycles are useful in cities with high PT usage (such as Japan)...many people can ride bicycle to the train station (where there's bicycle parking lots with several floors) and then hop on the train. I think in many european cities people use bicycles exclusively or also for hopping on the train. BTW as for the tropical argument it kind of makes sense...but even singaporean forummers on SSC who post in Japan forum have noted how ridiculously humid and hot Japan's summers are. Some SE Asians even claimed that Japan summers are more humid than SE Asia (I don't know about that). If the temperature is like that yearly your body acclimatizes and nobody in Tokyo stops using bicycles just because it's summer.


----------



## Svartmetall (Aug 5, 2007)

particlez said:


> *The whole thread started off dumb when the original article cited an over-investment in infrastructure!*


I think we'd all branched a long way off the original topic with our discussion and I don't think the original article has been supported (other than the premise of people not cars) or referenced in later discussions at all. 

As for bikes not being important - well, tell that to Tokyo where bikes are used frequently despite also being a sub-tropical city in climate. Bikes are highly efficient for distances between 5 and 10km, and that covers a substantial amount of ground in many cities - even major ones. So I don't think pooh poohing the idea of using bikes as part of an integrated transport system is valid either.


----------



## particlez (May 5, 2008)

Ukiyo: Look at the ULI's list of sponsors and participants. Notice the developers and financiers? Wouldn't they have a conflict of interest when it comes to urban development? It's akin to reading the tobacco companies' PR releases.

Again with the bike lanes. They actually exist in Singapore (and a whole bunch of other places too), and they're being expanded. Tokyo =/= Singapore. Tokyo in the summer is hell, and cycling wouldn't be a plausible option. Singapore is always hell. 

It still dances around the fact. Talk about bike lanes or road width or ___________ still detracts from the original shill article. Baltimore doesn't suffer from infrastructure over-investment. The premise is so detached from reality, I'm surprised anyone would even take his side.


----------



## Svartmetall (Aug 5, 2007)

particlez said:


> Ukiyo: Look at the ULI's list of sponsors and participants. Notice the developers and financiers? Wouldn't they have a conflict of interest when it comes to urban development? It's akin to reading the tobacco companies' PR releases.
> 
> Again with the bike lanes. They actually exist in Singapore (and a whole bunch of other places too), and they're being expanded. Tokyo =/= Singapore. Tokyo in the summer is hell, and cycling wouldn't be a plausible option. Singapore is always hell.
> 
> It still dances around the fact. Talk about bike lanes or road width or ___________ still detracts from the original shill article. Baltimore doesn't suffer from infrastructure over-investment. The premise is so detached from reality, I'm surprised anyone would even take his side.



Ukiyo is from Tokyo, she knows what it's like and whether people cycle in summer. 

As for bike paths existing in Singapore - they're mostly recreational rather than a real transport option.

EDIT: Well, not from Tokyo, but from Kansai and lived in Tokyo.


----------



## particlez (May 5, 2008)

Oh great, someone who gave a thumbs up for the original article.

You CAN bike in Singapore, but would you want to? Just like you can bike in a whole bunch of places, but most people would choose other options. 

How do you cite that boneheaded study about road width? You do realize road width affects vehicle speed, which is fine if you want to slow down the private cars in a suburb. But the same narrow lane widths serve to hinder the speed of service vehicles. It sounds like an awesome lab experiment, but neglects other factors.

Pansori had a good point about Singapore. Despite other qualms you'd have about its laws or its bike lanes, its urban planning is actually carried out by URBAN PLANNERS. The original article is a prime example of how developer-led/market democracy/neoliberal urban planning results in a mess. Baltimore isn't a mess because it lacks bike lanes, it's a mess because infrastructure has been neglected for a generation and because low density sprawl continues to be built.


----------



## Svartmetall (Aug 5, 2007)

ukiyo said:


> I wonder if Svartmetall knows about tax policies/legislation in Sweden for urban planning.


I'll gladly answer this tomorrow or something when I have a bit more time to find detailed information for you. 

The thing with Sweden when it comes to urban planning in major cities is that transit oriented development has existed for a long time now. In Stockholm many suburbs are laid out as "pearls on a necklace" along the rail lines (in particular around the tunnelbana) so we already have a proclivity towards transit use. This makes it difficult to make it applicable to the US except for planning new suburbs as part of TOD arrangements.


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

particlez said:


> yeah, compare a temperate climate with a hot, utterly muggy one. how long are those distances? how would biking compare with longer private vehicle or mass transit trips?


In Vienna I'd say cycling pays off for trips of below 10 km. Unless you are competing with a metro running directly along your track you can compete with public transportation. I have also seen it that I was even slightly faster than a friend by car on a distance of about 5 km. If you don't need to go all the way across the city, from one side to the completely other one, its a fine choice and therefore a real option for the majority of trips done in this city. Sadly, Vienna has for a long time ignored bikes as serious option which is why its modal share is only 6% so far. 



> ever go to the tropics?
> 
> The original article was a shill. *Don't invest in public infrastructure and pedal and bike and meet your neighbors.* Sounds like something out of Margaret Thatcher or Ronnie Reagan. Then you guys pick it up and take it SERIOUSLY.



That was not your argument. Your argument was that no wealthy bigger city anywhere could feature double digit bike shares. You were obviously wrong.

I am well aware of the climate in Singapore. I am cautious about the potential of cycling in that city therefore. The very unattractive infrastructure certainly does not help though. But as I said, because of the climate Singapore got a fair excuse.

PS: And as ukiyo has mentioned above, bikes are a great complementary means of transportation to PT. You can't use cars as feeders for metros. Cars are simply far to wasteful of space, so even with large P+R facilities cars can only contribute a small share of riders. But bikes are multiple times more efficient in space usage and therefore can therefore work as feeder much better.


----------



## particlez (May 5, 2008)

LOLZ 

Copenhagen isn't very big. And it's certainly smaller than Singapore and way smaller than Baltimore. Plus bicycling trips don't substitute for roads or rail.

You fell for a shill. The guy had the audacity to argue that Baltimore suffered from wasteful infrastructure.

Then your second paragraph alludes to aesthetics. LOLZ again. Now you're a fashionista?


----------



## Svartmetall (Aug 5, 2007)

particlez said:


> Oh great, someone who gave a thumbs up for the original article.
> 
> You CAN bike in Singapore, but would you want to? Just like you can bike in a whole bunch of places, but most people would choose other options.


Other than being overtly offensive in your replies (I'll overlook that) I can think of a number of reasons why you would want to bike rather than walk or take the bus/train for short distances - cost, health reasons, ease of door to door transport without the costs of parking associated with private cars. 

Also, the article got a thumbs up simply due to the premise rather than the details. I thought it was an interesting topic for debate, good grief you can't invalidate my points simply due to that. 



particlez said:


> How do you cite that boneheaded study about road width? You do realize road width affects vehicle speed, which is fine if you want to slow down the private cars in a suburb. But the same narrow lane widths serve to hinder the speed of service vehicles. It sounds like an awesome lab experiment, but neglects other factors.


You call it boneheaded, from what context? It seems perfectly reasonable and seems to highlight a lot of policies that have been embraced in a number of developed nations, particularly EUropean countries. 



particlez said:


> Pansori had a good point about Singapore. Despite other qualms you'd have about its laws or its bike lanes, its urban planning is actually carried out by URBAN PLANNERS. The original article is a prime example of how developer-led/market democracy/neoliberal urban planning results in a mess. Baltimore isn't a mess because it lacks bike lanes, it's a mess because infrastructure has been neglected for a generation and because low density sprawl continues to be built.


So? Just because it's carried out by urban planners it doesn't mean their focus isn't misplaced. Urban planners will only work within the brief they are presented with. Urban planners design neighbourhoods in numerous places around the world - Hammarby Sjöstad in Stockholm was designed by urban planners in a technocratic manner but it looks markedly different to the urban layout of Singapore mainly due to the focus being very different for that district. 

I agree that developer-led and neoliberal urban planning can be a total mess, but it sounds like you're mostly speaking from the context of an American rather than the rest of the world.


----------



## Svartmetall (Aug 5, 2007)

particlez said:


> LOLZ
> 
> Copenhagen isn't very big. And it's certainly smaller than Singapore and way smaller than Baltimore. Plus bicycling trips don't substitute for roads or rail.
> 
> ...


I'm sorry but you come across as a troll with responses like this - especially with banal replies such as "LOLZ" and resorting to put-downs and ad hominems to make your point. If you're attempting to justify believing in the Singaporean model of development you're being a bad spokesperson at the moment.


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

Because some here apparently can't imagine how a wealthy city could possibly look like if bikes were a serious means of transportation I've post how it actually looks like:


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

particlez said:


> Copenhagen isn't very big. And it's certainly smaller than Singapore and way smaller than Baltimore. Plus bicycling trips don't substitute for roads or rail.


Of course its smaller than Singapore. You did not say though, that you are only talking about cities with 10+ mio inhabitants. Copenhagen has 1.2 mio inhabitants in its urban area and 2 mio in its metropolitan area. That might not be huge but it is certainly not small. It is also not vastly different to the size of Baltimore.


----------



## particlez (May 5, 2008)

right..  might as well thumbs up a tobacco industry PR release.

Now, the narrow road-width studies serve a similar purpose to countless equilibrium graphs in economics; they focus attention on a narrow variable and divert attention away from more pressing ones. And just like other flawed studies, it concentrates on a narrow variable while omitting real-life factors. 

Thus wide roads and the relative lack of cyclists serve as evidence of flawed urban planning, in this case Singapore. Yet why haven't the same arguments been used against Paris or Barcelona? 

"Hey look, wide roads with few cyclists! These places are compromised!"

-said by no one

Narrow roads make the traffic slower. You'd want slower traffic for private vehicles, but not for service vehicles

Narrow roads divert traffic. But they don't actually reduce the number of car trips--especially for places with lousy transit/low density

Plus in larger, higher density areas, you'd actually want some wider roads. Buses? Utility trucks?

Yet why would the studies regarding narrow roads get so much attention? The development industry loves them. They can explain away urban ills by citing the positive impact of narrow roads and bike lanes. These solutions are cheap. Except of course, they're mostly incremental answers. Similarly, why would you agree with the original poster's contention against public infrastructure spending?

Developer-led planning doesn't just occur in America. Sadly it's becoming the norm in most places. *Singapore is an exception to the rule. But instead of acknowledging this important fact, you and Slart complain about its bike lanes. You see any irony?*


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

particlez said:


> Thus wide roads and the relative lack of cyclists serve are evidence of flawed urban planning, in this case Singapore. Yet why haven't the same arguments been used against Paris or Barcelona?


I am not sure about Barcelona but Paris is certainly not a very bike friendly place. Thats a flaw, yes. 



> Narrow roads make the traffic slower. You'd want slower traffic for private vehicles, but not for service vehicles


Do you see that many more people dying in the streets of Vienna or houses burning to the ground because emergency services are too slow reaching their destination? Actually a city with less cars can be more compact and distances that they have to drive to reach the accident are much shorter. 



> Narrow roads divert traffic. But they don't actually reduce the number of car trips--especially for places with lousy transit/low density


Oh, really? Where do they divert it to if there is nowhere to divert to? And how comes that Vienna has no more traffic jams than much more car friendly cities with loads of wide roads?

But anyway, if you build wider roads nonetheless, then it is especially important that you add cycling lanes, sufficiently frequent crossings and sidewalks as well.


----------



## Svartmetall (Aug 5, 2007)

particlez said:


> right.. might as well thumbs up a tobacco industry PR release.
> 
> Now, the narrow road-width studies serve a similar purpose to countless equilibrium graphs in economics; they focus attention on a narrow variable and divert attention away from more pressing ones. And just like other flawed studies, it concentrates on a narrow variable while omitting real-life factors.
> 
> ...


Okay, now we're getting down to the nitty-gritty, good. Much more constructive. 

#1. Wide roads without cycling in Paris and Barca - well, Paris is now extensively encouraging cycling now after decades of neglect (Velib works well), but also, a number of those factors I mentioned such as physical barriers between the road and pavement, wide and suitable pavements, frequent crossings, convenient crossings, active frontages to the roads and other such measures are present in a big way in both places. 

#2. They divert traffic only if there is suitable infrastructure to support them and absolutely no alternatives to the cars. Tokyo has amazingly narrow back streets with large avenues with full pedestrian/cyclist amenities, frequent crossings etc etc... But because there are suitable alternatives to cars there, this "push" factor is a definite influence to peoples modal choice. You also have to consider induced demand by building oversized roads as they do encourage their use due to better travel times. There are ways to improve service vehicle flow too by having high capacity transit lanes, or HGV lanes, or bus lanes that can be utilised by emergency vehicles. As far as lorries and HGV's go - staggered delivery times can ease the problem. A number of cities restrict lorry movement during peak hours already. 

#3. I never agreed with the premise of no public infrastructure. I told you I liked the post because it would stimulate debate rather than me agreeing with it. I'm not interested in urban planning in the States particularly except for "planning worst practice 101". We haven't talked about density as increasing density in Singapore isn't really an issue so why mention it? We all advocate denser, more urban cities (if you see my posts elsewhere I deride sprawl and do actively support the traditional closed-block developments and developments that will provide a more urban atmosphere coupled with means to improve the modal split towards unmotorised transport and public transport as seen in places like Hammarby Sjöstad in my city). Using this to invalidate what I've said about Singapore and assuming that I think Baltimore is over-invested in (despite me saying that nowhere in the thread) simply based upon a thumbs up on the first post is really a cop out for not reading the debate fully. 

#4. Developer-led planning is generally something I don't want to see but that's another topic.


----------



## LtBk (Jul 27, 2004)

I live near Baltimore, and the only type of infrastructure that is "over-invested" is the road network, which is crumbling in many parts of the city.


----------



## particlez (May 5, 2008)

Again... Slart--not only are you a snob, you also have a limited scope of urban planning. You've continually alluded to aesthetics and incremental issues, but you don't mention more substantive issues like density and the need to build infrastructure. In short, your points are the same as the developers' watered down NU. It could work in smaller, stable, and already well developed Copenhagen and Vienna. But there's no way these concepts make sense in Baltimore. The bus is already underfunded. The guy advocates bike lanes instead of investment, and you fall for it.

Vienna, Copenhagen etc. all have their share of vehicle infrastructure. They have been pushed away from the core, but they're still there. NO developed place can reasonably exist without accommodating service vehicles. You continually allude to smaller Central European cities, and favorably compare them to larger centers. 

Not every road in Vienna is narrow, and certainly not the roads carrying service vehicles. 
Paris and Barcelona have very wide roads. But they're well used, and vehicles aren't slowed down. Not that I want to dredge up yet another city; but London IS a large city and has a good transit system. Yet its very narrow roads are clogged--fine for personal vehicles, bad for service vehicles.


----------



## particlez (May 5, 2008)

LtBk said:


> I live near Baltimore, and the only type of infrastructure that is "over-invested" is the road network, which is crumbling in many parts of the city.


LOLZ 

QFT


----------



## Pansori (Apr 26, 2006)

Slartibartfas said:


> I don't see where you addressed the very interesting points from post #81 specifically in any way. I'd like to hear some rational directed arguments against them as I can't see any so far. If there is nothing coming of that sort I am strongly inclined to subscribe to those points myself.


The prior discussion well explained most of those points. 

Of course if you start with lane widths and proactive limitations to traffic flow (narrowing lanes, reducing the number of lanes etc.) you'll be getting hard time fitting Singapore into such a frame.

The argument is that the resources should be used to maximize efficiency, speed and convenience to all modes of transportation which is where Singapore's advantages are obvious. 

Some of the points are valid if you rely on the study as the sole source of _correct_ plannignideology but, as mentioned numerous times before, it's not about prioritizing a single mode but looking for an optimal balance which in Singapore's case has been achieved more successfully than perhaps anywhere else in the world without compromising any area (i.e. mode of transport).

The argument of cycling is not even worth continuing because it is just silly. I'm a cyclist and I'm commuting to work on a daily basis for more than 10km each way and I am very well aware (probably more than most here) what cycling is, what it's not and what it says or doesn't say about city's urban policies and priorities.

I would also pay some attention to what particlez has mentioned about developer influence. Some from the Academia haven't been left behind but rather taken on board by the guys with the cash. Singapore is a bit of a perpetrator which has gone a very different way and gave the green light not to developers and their sponsored studies but to urban planners who have a luxury of not being influenced by anything or anyone but urban logic and common sense. Therefore it's a 'bad' policy because it's expensive, it does not generate direct profit and it merely cares about some _actual_ public well being as opposed to a quick buck. It is cheaper to narrow down the street and slow down the traffic than to actually make the entire system work and serve the public interest. A few studies here and there don't cost nearly as much as creating efficient and working infrastructure.


----------



## Svartmetall (Aug 5, 2007)

^^ Just a note here about academia. All conflicts of interest for any study published in a peer reviewed academic journal has to be stated explicitly on the paper in the vast majority of journals - certainly those owned by Elsevier (and ScienceDirect is and so any journal featured on there has to comply). I am a published scientific author (drug-discovery cancer biologist myself) so I know academia very well indeed.

Also, you are making the assumption that Singapore and its urban planners are all about the public good. Singapore is probably one of the most hyper capitalist states out there and so everything there will be about efficiency and maximising return with minimum expenditure in different ways. Whilst it isn't about lining the pockets of developers, it is naive to assume that the Singaporean government is designing these districts solely for the betterment of its population.

EDIT: I, too, am a cyclist in Stockholm and by far enjoy it more than being on public transport (which in turn I enjoy far more than driving). I just don't cycle in winter for obvious reasons!


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

@particlez

No need for harsh words. I don't know what I've done to you but I actually support a healty density in urban planning. Vienna is not smaller than Baltimore btw. It is probably denser though. 

The situation in American cities is quite delicate and hard to resolve I guess. In many cases the functioning dense, mixed use centres (if they exist at all) are tiny compared to the rest of relatively spread out, highway oriented suburbs. Baltimore is certainly one of those American cities that is a lot better than others in that regard, also when it comes to mobility options as such. 

Those cities without much of any high capacity PT system at all (Baltimore has one as far as I can see so I am talking about others) are probably best advised trying to rebuild one again. The relatively popular light rail projects seem a good way to start. It is those that could possibly rebuild denser mixed use axis through suburban style cities. But the way to rebuilding alternatives to the car and also density is a very long one. 

One thing is certain, Singapore is a bright shining model compared to almost any American cities even those with a decent PT system and density. I doubt however that the place I live in could benefit a lot from trying to be like Singapore. Actually I think it would do more harm than good. 



> Vienna, Copenhagen etc. all have their share of vehicle infrastructure. They have been pushed away from the core, but they're still there. NO developed place can reasonably exist without accommodating service vehicles. You continually allude to smaller Central European cities, and favorably compare them to larger centers.


I refuse to accept the term "smaller Central European cities" for cities of close to 2 mio. Thats not huge but a whole load of cities around the world are of comparable size. 

If you like to compare to great model cases of huge cities, look at Tokyo. 



> Not every road in Vienna is narrow, and certainly not the roads carrying service vehicles.


No, but most are and those that aren't often feature very narrow lanes. Like the main road artery of western Vienna, the Gürtel. Vienna of course does have highways as well, but only one crosses the dense area and only in its eastern periphery. Almost all other large roads in Vienna are designed in a way to be compatible with pedestrian demands, especially possibilities to cross them.


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

Pansori said:


> The argument is that the resources should be used to maximize efficiency, speed and convenience to all modes of transportation which is where Singapore's advantages are obvious.


We are going in circles. Singapore is doing a fine job but it is certainly not offering "maximized efficiency, speed and convenience" to pedestrians. So its wrong to say it does so "to all modes of transportation" as walking is a mode of transportation. 



> The argument of cycling is not even worth continuing because it is just silly. I'm a cyclist and I'm commuting to work on a daily basis for more than 10km each way and I am very well aware (probably more than most here) what cycling is, what it's not and what it says or doesn't say about city's urban policies and priorities.


I don't know where you live, but in many cities living somewhat centrally is unaffordable. Thats why its part of a good transportation policy to make sure that well connected and central living space remains at least somewhat affordable, so that people have at least the chance to live somewhat close to where they work. I am aware that huge cities are going to feature larger distances, hence me mentioning the combination bike + PT which is in many cases a great one.


----------



## Pansori (Apr 26, 2006)

Svartmetall said:


> Also, you are making the assumption that Singapore and its urban planners are all about the public good. Singapore is probably one of the most hyper capitalist states out there and so everything there will be about efficiency and maximising return with minimum expenditure in different ways. Whilst it isn't about lining the pockets of developers, it is naive to assume that the Singaporean government is designing these districts solely for the betterment of its population.


What is it developing them for then? Aliens from other planets? 
Singapore, no matter how cliché and incredible it may sound, actually does put people above else unlike most other countries. It is very wrongful to call it a 'hyper capitalist'... certainly not a country which has effectively eliminated the banking system (=mortgages) from the housing market and instead builds and sells flats to the population by itself without intention to get direct profit out of it. So resulting in having one of the highest home-ownership rates in the world. Sounds more like communism, right? And what about the full employment policy and virtually guaranteed jobs to everyone even if they're not exactly productive or needed (by Western standards at least)? Singapore does have rather extreme forms of capitalism (no benefits, no minimum pay) but on the other hand is very much socialist (government is building almost all the housing, no banks involved, jobs for all). It's a hybrid system which could be called political rationalism.




> EDIT: I, too, am a cyclist in Stockholm and by far enjoy it more than being on public transport (which in turn I enjoy far more than driving). I just don't cycle in winter for obvious reasons!


Which is why you should understand why cycling in Singapore is a very doubtful idea.


----------



## Galro (Aug 9, 2010)

LtBk said:


> I live near Baltimore, and the only type of infrastructure that is "over-invested" is the road network, which is crumbling in many parts of the city.


That does not sound like over-investing, but rather wrongly investing.


----------



## ukiyo (Aug 5, 2008)

Slartibartfas said:


> Because some here apparently can't imagine how a wealthy city could possibly look like if bikes were a serious means of transportation I've post how it actually looks like:


I liked seeing the snow there, in my own experience bicycling in the winter in Tokyo (which is not as bad as northern europe but still quite cold) is much worse than the summer...even wearing scarf and gloves the extremities of the bodies due to the wind chill feel like they're dead for an hour and you're cold for the rest of the day. Sometimes it might just be better to walk (if the distance isn't too large anyway). Anyway despite this millions still walk and bike in that weather.


----------



## Svartmetall (Aug 5, 2007)

Pansori said:


> What is it developing them for then? Aliens from other planets?
> Singapore, no matter how cliché and incredible it may sound, actually does put people above else unlike most other countries. It is very wrongful to call it a 'hyper capitalist'... certainly not a country which has effectively eliminated the banking system (=mortgages) from the housing market and instead builds and sells flats to the population by itself without intention to get direct profit out of it. So resulting in having one of the highest home-ownership rates in the world. Sounds more like communism, right? And what about the full employment policy and virtually guaranteed jobs to everyone even if they're not exactly productive or needed (by Western standards at least)? Singapore does have rather extreme forms of capitalism (no benefits, no minimum pay) but on the other hand is very much socialist (government is building almost all the housing, no banks involved, jobs for all). It's a hybrid system which could be called political rationalism.


The HDB apartments that you are alluding to are incredibly difficult to get and the system by which one gets them is confusing and convoluted. Rentals through HDB are only for certain income brackets with certain criteria (even down to your race too so that there are no one ethnicity ghettoes). Have you ever looked at getting an HDB apartment? As an Ang Mo (紅毛), you'd struggle somewhat I can assure you of that. Plus, the rental prices on the open market and apartment prices for resale HDB flats in Singapore have shot up dramatically and have fast become unaffordable to your average worker as many will attest to. The new builds are of excellent quality, but they are incredibly expensive and/or difficult to get. 

Please feel free to provide a rebuttal to this if you like, though. 



Pansori said:


> Which is why you should understand why cycling in Singapore is a very doubtful idea.


No, not being able to cycle because the paths are gritted and icy and one doesn't want to slip is a bit different to heat and humidity being a barrier. There is quite a difference. I can cycle in heat and humidity so long as I wear appropriate clothes, take it more slowly and bring plenty of rehydration (not water) but cycling on ice - I value my neck!


----------

