[BrenBarn]

> I live in an area that has a lot of walkable and bikeable things nearby. There are a lot of people who drive anyway.

The less warm and fuzzy part of this urban-design approach is that it can't just be about making things easier to walk to, it also has to be about making them harder to drive to. For instance, by making parking limited and/or expensive. People tend not to like that idea, although I think there's a good likelihood they'd actually be happy with it if not for the meta-awareness of having "lost" parking.

[Aurornis]

People don't like that idea because it's highly exclusionary.

It only sounds good to younger people who don't have any disabilities, kids, grandparents who want to come along, or any number of other valid reasons to walk.

It's also highly indicative of the weather where you're from. Forcing people to bike and walk everywhere sounds a lot better if you're in a moderate climate where bad weather means you need to pack a light jacket and wait for the light rain to stop. Move somewhere with harsh winters and the moralizing about people driving places stops making sense quickly.

[jackvalentine]

What you've just said is a common refrain, if you haven't already seen it please take a look at these two videos that attempt to address part of what you're saying. I found them very interesting when I came across them years ago and it changed my view of what's possible or even good!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSGx3HSjKDo "Who else benefits from the Dutch cycling infrastructure" (old people, disabled people)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uhx-26GfCBU "Why Canadians Can't Bike in the Winter (but Finnish people can)" (frozen Finnish winters)

[alamortsubite]

> People don't like that idea because it's highly exclusionary.

I disagree with you here- you have it backwards. It's cars that are exclusionary. Kids can't be around car traffic unsupervised, because car traffic is very dangerous. Old people become fat and frail only because they're robbed of exercise by a car-centric lifestyle. Blind people can't drive. Kids can't drive. Old people can't drive. By shaping cities around cars we doom the vast majority for the sake of a very small number of people, and many of them would probably be healthier and safer getting a little exercise and enjoying the excellent public transport that results from shifting a massive budget for car infrastructure to public transport.

[Herring]

This might sound reasonable, but it's a solved problem in Europe. They have plenty of old/disabled people and harsh winters there too. Many parts are de-emphasizing cars.

[BrenBarn]

I think you're confusing a walkable city with a nonwalkable city in which people are forced to walk anyway. As other commenters mentioned, in many ways making a city more walkable benefits the groups you describe.

[fusslo]

When I was in SF, the coworkers who drove in were those who lived outside of the city who were trying to save money and raise family. Buying a home in the city is impossible for these people (and me). Mostly less prestigious jobs, like cleaners, technicians, office managers. Not the App guys making 300k living in the Marina.

It's often an unintended tax on the poor.

IDK maybe there's some middle ground where we beef up public transport while beefing up parking at stations.

[Mawr]

Calling everything but cars exclusionary is mildly hilarious.

First of all, you're simply forgetting about public transport. That's needed too and pretty much covers all your concerns.

However...

1. The disabled? How many of those do you think are disabled in just the right ways to still be able to drive? You know "disabled" doesn't just mean "missing a limb", right?

So uh, if the only option is to drive and someone's disabled and therefore can't drive, what do they... do?

Anyhow: [1]

2. Kids? How many kids do you see driving cars around?

You know 10+ year olds can just... bike on their own, right? Like, to school, etc.? [2] [3] [4]

Below that age, just bike them around? [5] ;)

> Forcing

You know nobody's forcing you to do anything, right? Like, you can still own and use your car, there are some very valid use cases best served by them.

For example, around half of the Dutch own a car. They just don't use them as much for really dumb purposes, like driving 5km to a grocery store, because the nearest one is within walking or cycling distance.

The problem is that driving has been so heavily subsidized, that we've come to take it for granted and are now truly shocked when asked to pay more to even somewhat offset the real costs. And I'm afraid there's no viable path forward that doesn't involve eventually paying in full.

> Forcing people to bike and walk everywhere sounds a lot better if you're in a moderate climate where bad weather means you need to pack a light jacket and wait for the light rain to stop.

Yeah, the Netherlands is quite known for its good weather...

> Move somewhere with harsh winters and the moralizing about people driving places stops making sense quickly.

I'm there. And? Literally the only issue is that the pedestrian/cycling infrastructure just does not get snow plowed either at all or at 1% of the priority the roadway gets. Seriously, the asphalt in winter looks basically the same as during summer but the sidewalks and cycle ways are full of snow, often literally pushed there from the roadway!

So yeah, you won't see many cyclists cycling around in 15+ cm of snow, since it's literally impossible. Cycling on ice is quite risky too. But, as evidenced by snowprints, some people cycle regardless!

[1]: https://youtu.be/xSGx3HSjKDo?t=42

[2]: https://youtu.be/oHlpmxLTxpw?t=18

[3]: https://youtu.be/gpRO7vIM_VQ?t=638

[4]: https://youtu.be/UpyfmB1aKfk?t=308

[5]: https://youtu.be/rQhzEnWCgHA?t=84