Americans have been stripped of the right to walk

[crazy canuck]

A good friend of mine once spent a year in Savannah Georgia on a work assignment.  She did not own a car in Vancouver and was, and is, a determined walker.  But she found trying to get around Savannah on foot practically impossible and she was forced to lease a car for that year.  Apparently there is a distinct lack of sidewalks and crosswalks there.  Perhaps it was the area she was living in?

[Valmy]

A good friend of mine once spent a year in Savannah Georgia on a work assignment.  She did not own a car in Vancouver and was, and is, a determined walker.  But she found trying to get around Savannah on foot practically impossible and she was forced to lease a car for that year.  Apparently there is a distinct lack of sidewalks and crosswalks there.  Perhaps it was the area she was living in?

No she is basically correct. At least here. Not that getting around in a car is great or anything.

[Eddie Teach]

Not that getting around in a car is great or anything.

It beats the heck out of the alternative.

[Valmy]

Not that getting around in a car is great or anything.

It beats the heck out of the alternative.

Having a well designed road system able to handle the traffic? I guess I will have to disagree with you there.

[alfred russel]

Perhaps it was the area she was living in?

The southeast and most of the rest of the us? Then yes, i agree, just the area.

Probably the most pedestrian and public transport place in georgia is atlanta. Aside from poverty related reasons, everyone i know has a car. Occassionally a coworker moves to atlanta from overseas and thinks he can get by without one. Inevitably, within a few months, a car is obtained.

I cant speak to why parts of canada may be different, but if you look at growth in the southeast since 1920 or so, it has just exploded to the point everywhere has been effectively city planned in the era of the car. America was affluent enough that everyone worth planning for (ie, not black people) had a car.

[Eddie Teach]

Not that getting around in a car is great or anything.

It beats the heck out of the alternative.

Having a well designed road system able to handle the traffic? I guess I will have to disagree with you there.

The alternative to getting around in a car is completely redesigning the road system? Wow, you must have more pull in the government than I thought.

[Valmy]

The alternative to getting around in a car is completely redesigning the road system? Wow, you must have more pull in the government than I thought.

No the alternative to it not being horrible to get around in a car. As it is every form of transportation around Austin pretty much sucks ass.

[crazy canuck]

Perhaps it was the area she was living in?

The southeast and most of the rest of the us? Then yes, i agree, just the area.

Probably the most pedestrian and public transport place in georgia is atlanta. Aside from poverty related reasons, everyone i know has a car. Occassionally a coworker moves to atlanta from overseas and thinks he can get by without one. Inevitably, within a few months, a car is obtained.

I cant speak to why parts of canada may be different, but if you look at growth in the southeast since 1920 or so, it has just exploded to the point everywhere has been effectively city planned in the era of the car. America was affluent enough that everyone worth planning for (ie, not black people) had a car.

It was the same here but since about the early 90s civic planners have aggressively designed much more pedestrian and bike friendly infrastructure.  My own neighbourhood, which is a suburb of sorts, is crisscrossed with recently constructed bike and foot paths.  It is actually quicker to walk to some places then it is to take the car because a more direct route can be taken through the walking paths built independent of the road system.

[garbon]

Maybe it is just that Austin sucks ass?

[crazy canuck]

Perhaps it was the area she was living in?

The southeast and most of the rest of the us? Then yes, i agree, just the area.

Probably the most pedestrian and public transport place in georgia is atlanta. Aside from poverty related reasons, everyone i know has a car. Occassionally a coworker moves to atlanta from overseas and thinks he can get by without one. Inevitably, within a few months, a car is obtained.

I cant speak to why parts of canada may be different, but if you look at growth in the southeast since 1920 or so, it has just exploded to the point everywhere has been effectively city planned in the era of the car. America was affluent enough that everyone worth planning for (ie, not black people) had a car.

It was the same here but since about the early 90s civic planners have aggressively designed much more pedestrian and bike friendly infrastructure.  My own neighbourhood, which is a suburb of sorts, is crisscrossed with recently constructed bike and foot paths.  It is actually quicker to walk to some places then it is to take the car because a more direct route can be taken through the walking paths built independent of the road system.

One thing that might explain the difference is that since our health care is publicly funded there is a significant economic incentive for government to fund infrastructure that will get more people out of cars and more active.

[Valmy]

Maybe it is just that Austin sucks ass?

Um yes that is what I was saying. Our transportation scheme is a disaster. Do I need to repost this a few more times? 

[Jacob]

One thing that might explain the difference is that since our health care is publicly funded there is a significant economic incentive for government to fund infrastructure that will get more people out of cars and more active.

How do you think the causation works in this case?

[crazy canuck]

One thing that might explain the difference is that since our health care is publicly funded there is a significant economic incentive for government to fund infrastructure that will get more people out of cars and more active.

How do you think the causation works in this case?

One way to cut down on medical expense is prevention.  Getting people out of cars and onto their feet is a good way to improve the general health of the population.

As an example,

The authors examine the magnitude of health benefits from urban design characteristics that are associated with increased walking. Using geocoded travel diary data from Portland, Oregon, regression analyses give information on the magnitude and statistical significance of the link between urban design variables and two-day walking distances. From the coefficient point estimates, the authors link to the health literature to give information on how many persons would realize health benefits, in the form of reductions in mortality risk, from walking increases associated with urban design changes. Using a cost-benefit analysis framework, they give monetized estimates of the health benefits of various urban design changes. The article closes with suggestions about how the techniques developed can be applied to other cost-benefit analyses of the health benefits of planning projects that are intended to increase walking.

http://jpe.sagepub.com/content/27/3/341.abstract

[Jacob]

One thing that might explain the difference is that since our health care is publicly funded there is a significant economic incentive for government to fund infrastructure that will get more people out of cars and more active.

How do you think the causation works in this case?

One way to cut down on medical expense is prevention.  Getting people out of cars and onto their feet is a good way to improve the general health of the population.

As an example,

The authors examine the magnitude of health benefits from urban design characteristics that are associated with increased walking. Using geocoded travel diary data from Portland, Oregon, regression analyses give information on the magnitude and statistical significance of the link between urban design variables and two-day walking distances. From the coefficient point estimates, the authors link to the health literature to give information on how many persons would realize health benefits, in the form of reductions in mortality risk, from walking increases associated with urban design changes. Using a cost-benefit analysis framework, they give monetized estimates of the health benefits of various urban design changes. The article closes with suggestions about how the techniques developed can be applied to other cost-benefit analyses of the health benefits of planning projects that are intended to increase walking.

http://jpe.sagepub.com/content/27/3/341.abstract

Yeah I understand the health benefits part

What I meant was how do you figure the people making the planning decisions - primarily city planners and mayors I expect - were incentivized to prioritize walkable urban planning by the existence of universal healthcare? I have a hard time seeing the concrete motivation of those actors unless there were specific health based incentives for walkable urban planning?

[garbon]

Maybe it is just that Austin sucks ass?

Um yes that is what I was saying. Our transportation scheme is a disaster. Do I need to repost this a few more times? 

No, I meant on the whole  - not just transportation.