Less street
I’ve always felt that sidewalks are a necessity. Northfield is rewriting its Land Development Code, and I was extremely pleased that it will require full coverage (both sides) on all new streets.
But, after reading Traffic and Suburban Nation this summer, I realize that sidewalks are really a concession. They allow the public right of way to remain dominated by car. Suburban Nation also had a bit that I found really striking, of the American tendency to build for the apocalypse: heavy-duty everything, designed to handle the most ridiculous demands. Abbey Road East in Northfield is a perfect example of a “good” street built for the apocalypse. It’s lighted, has full sidewalk coverage, four inches of asphalt, 32 feet of width, and full storm-drain coverage.
What’s the result? It looks very tidy. It’ll last a long time. It’s safe for children, assuming that child never has to cross the street or interact with cars.
Now check this out. Bregneveien, near where I lived in Oslo when I was twelve:
Not wide enough for two cars to comfortably pass each other. No stormdrains. No sidewalks. The only thing it has more of than the American street is lighting (essential for pedestrian safety). But let’s look at this:
Pros:
- Way cheaper
- Less impervious surface, less right of way
- Despite absence of sidewalks, feels like a more ped-friendly environment
- Curves and (especially) narrowness encourage driver alertness
Cons:
- Slower
- Less fun to drive on
Obviously this does not work for a collector or arterial street, but for minor residential streets, why not?
