Start local. Your local city counselors are generally receptive to feedback from their community (in my experience). Compared to national politics, they tend not to get as much feedback about local issues that people care about. Write a letter, even email, and you’ll be surprised. Then talk to your neighbors, and get them to do the same.

You then can live in a bike friendly city.

Biking's not my thing, but it's telling that surveys in the local MA area sometimes now say "aside from protected bike lanes, what would you most like to see?".

It is an indication that walk-and-bike interests are making good progress, and I'm glad to see it.

On the other hand, that's exactly how I would phrase the question if I wanted to prime the survey respondent to get a result biased toward freedoms for unprotected road users.

There's no good reason to phrase the question like that instead of filter the answers after the fact. The only reason is to get people thinking in a certain direction.

...they do that because if they don't, "protected bike lanes" will be the only thing they hear, and in Cambridge etc. the plans are in the works (slowly, but in the works) to implement them. They're looking for additional things, not the thing that's already in the works but takes time and the progress is non-obvious 'til it's done.

Then the item should say something to the effect of "You can make more than one suggestion." or even more concretely, "Please suggest your top five, or fewer if you can't think of that many."

I second this. And here’s proof it’s possible. It took a while, but we now have a part of the city that is designed around pedestrians: https://www.lenexa.com/government/departments___divisions/co...

I think the political hurdles would be far worse than any expense, especially here in America where the car-centric attitude is so deeply embedded.

I think it's more that any threat to auto sales would cause marketing and lobbying spend to go up accordingly. Those two things determine what information Americans get exposed to, and what gets subsidized and what gets regulated. The US car-centric attitude is about half t-shirt slogans, half the necessity to have a car in a place built for cars with hourlong commutes, so why not love them?

Regulations on marketing, campaign finance, and quid-pro-quo would go a long way in demolishing political hurdles between us and a lot of better things.

Yeah, in the US (from a distance), the political hurdle seems to be the hardest. In terms of actual effort, it's definitely possible to make big strides: https://twitter.com/z_a_c_h_k_a_t_z/status/14646977114422067...

Aren't there some student cities, etc. like that there?

Even Seattle and NYC had parts that were very walkable, especially compared to LA.

So does the majority of South Florida, every street has a sidewalk, you can walk across bridges, highways, etc. One of the best in the US.

If one of the best in the US means you have to walk across highways that sucks

I assumed it means there are either frequent bridges or tunnels that gets you to ither side of highway.

Why is there a highway in the middle of an area people are supposedly walking in

Cause there are houses on both sides.

You don't see the issue here?

In quite a lot of places, highway was first. So, no I don't see issues.

Highways exists. There are two options. First, they divide country into two parts you cant cross on foot without taking long hike. Or, you build tunnels and bridges.

Florida is the deadliest state, and South Florida is actually home to some of the highest pedestrian per capita death rates in the country. https://smartgrowthamerica.org/dangerous-by-design/#custom-t...

Only Americans would consider South Florida "walkable".

The 90 degrees and humidity make it very unwalkable

That and all the pedestrian deaths. Florida is the second most dangerous state for pedestrians. https://smartgrowthamerica.org/dangerous-by-design/#custom-t...

Seattle proper is very walkable. I lived in Belltown for years and it was great how I could walk to pretty much anywhere in the city I wanted. Queen Anne and downtown were very accessible. I suppose I was never a big Capital Hill-goer so the longer walk there wasn't relevant.

And that wasn't even the student part.

Pedestrians play second fiddle to cars in Seattle as a whole. The walkable areas of Seattle are great, but they are a small portion of the city and are poorly connected. Some very active parts of the city have 4 or 5 lane arterials cutting through them with cars completely ignoring cross signals and pedestrians. Other areas lack sidewalks altogether.

See the "Lake to Bay" project, connecting a decent walking path from Lake Union to Elliot Bay. It will involve crossing streets. It will feature additional benches/seating and improved lighting. The initial proposal by a local resident was extremely well done.

That’s the very small walkable part.

Go to SoDo, or parts of South Seattle, or North Seattle, and it’s much worse, and that’s just “Seattle proper.”

Complaining about SoDo not being walkable seems silly..

I guess people are being anti-car extremists in this thread, but still. SoDo? Land of concerts and events and dispensaries?

SoDo has the only free public COVID testing center in the central area of the city. I don’t think it’s that unreasonable that people without cars should be able to safely access a public service.

Not to mention plenty of cyclist deaths from people who have to cross SoDo to get where they’re going.

Belltown resident for decades chiming in. It really is extremely walkable, including to Pioneer Square and Pike Place Market as well as locations the previous post mentioned.

Bell St. is a park (albeit paved for vehicles), and it finally received signage about local-only car access:

https://mcusercontent.com/b6749cc9930b55a313056721e/images/2...

That image is from the latest Belltown United newsletter - https://www.belltownunited.org/

I'm a proud Belltown Community Council supporter/participant.

NYC fully meets the definition of walkable.

It's nowhere near Amsterdam I'm afraid. Biking in NYC is pretty scary and vast amounts of public space are given over to car parking.

(BTW, I am lumping in biking with "walkable". A better term is "active travel")

Yup. Except for some dedicated cycleways, not bike friendly at all. Unless you have a deathwish, like this guy:

https://youtu.be/WyV894c8oqI

In Tokyo it is possible to just randomly walk out onto most streets and expect cars to work around you. There are obviously a number of busy roads that would be dangerous but cars will still stop (for example if you were to misjudge crossing a street) and of course the highways are off limits (but there was a case recently of a man standing in the middle of a highway redirecting traffic who was hit by autopilot telsa).

> there was a case recently of a man standing in the middle of a highway redirecting traffic who was hit by autopilot telsa

Slef driving would probably make the car problem worse.

As a pedestrian and cyclist in NYC, "fully" is not accurate.

I’d like to see less permanent scaffolding, and a better trash management system so that it doesn’t take room from pedestrians (not to mention the hygienic benefits). And the city could crack down more on the drivers who blow through red lights or stop across crosswalks.

But it’s hard for me to think of a city I’d rather walk between to random points in.

> But it’s hard for me to think of a city I’d rather walk between to random points in.

In the US? Sure. Now imagine a place where there are hundreds, thousands of cities that walkable or better, and you don't have to be a gazillionaire to live in one.

> And the city could crack down more on the drivers who blow through red lights or stop across crosswalks.

Based on my recent visit to New York, the main traffic issue I saw was really bad light timing. This trains both pedestrians and drivers to ignore the traffic signals.