It makes perfect sense in theory. In the real world though space is limited. We cannot have separate spaces: there isn't enough room - unless you space things out so far that only only car transport makes sense, at which point why bother building paths for the other modes? Which is why suburbs don't have sidewalks: there is no place you can practically go by any mode other than car so why bother creating space for those modes.
My suburb had 2 very popular parks at either end -- as kids, we always walked or rode our bikes there... on the road since there were no sidewalks. Likewise when we went to a friends house we generally walked on the road (or cut through people's yards).
There are plenty of reasons to have sidewalks even if there's no commercial destination to get to, not everyone can drive everywhere they need to go. Of course, this was a time when kids were allowed some autonomy, nowadays maybe parents would drive us 2 blocks to the park.
The neighborhood still has no sidewalks, but I see speed bumps and "Slow down - watch for children signs", so seems that kids do still walk on the roadway and parents are worried for their safety.
I rode the school bus to school because the school was way too far to walk -- it wasn't until I was an adult that I realized that the school was only about half a mile away, but with no sidewalks, it wasn't realistically walkable despite the short distance. We spent more time waiting for the bus every morning than it would have taken to walk there.
At the time it seemed completely normal - why would anyone walk when they could drive!? But now I pay attention to walkability and bikeability and avoid driving when I can. (not just because it's good for the environment, but it's good for me too)
I used to live about 1 mile from my middle and high schools. There was a bus that most kids in my subdivision used, and I used it for a while, but eventually I realized that it took about as long to ride the bus to school as it did to just walk (I think I was actually slightly faster walking), and after getting tired of the nasty kids on the bus I just walked every day. Sometimes people driving in the morning felt sorry for me and gave me a ride.
However, one thing I do remember was that there were absolutely no sidewalks, so for a lot of people it probably didn't seem walkable.
My old neighborhood used to be like that - but based on the speed bumps and "Slow down" signs (both official signs and signs that parents put up) that I see in that neighborhood, the traffic has increased (looks like they filled in some former farmland with apartment buildings near the back of the development), and now it's less safe for children to play or walk in the street.
I've lived in different suburbs my whole life and all have had sidewalks. They don't get used as much as in cities obviously, but you still have kids walking to/from school, people walking their dogs, going on runs, etc.
The only places I've seen without sidewalks would be clearly classified as "rural".
> Nobody complained because why would you want to walk miles to the closest grocery store anyway?
I've been guests at a few different suburban neighborhoods in the US. I realize that some of these are so big and remote that it really is too far to walk to anything significant, but those I visited did have grocery stores and such within a walkeable distance, but that's not always the case, and still there's not much if any sidewalks. One did have sidewalks, but using it to get to stores was a detour compared to other roads. The other did not have any sidewalks. I walked anyway (didn't have a car) and I felt like people looked oddly at me for doing it.
In Norway, almost all suburban areas have wide sidewalks now, even if grocery stores and such are far away. Kids generally use sidewalks for biking, and many kids bike or walk to school, even for a mile or more (3 for my high school, although there was school bus that I used in winter). People take walks from just outside their house to.. wherever. There's usually some park or just a patch of woods within walking distance. Maybe a shared playground or soccer field for kids.
There are generally walking paths between houses at regular intervals, so houses don't act as impassable walls. If there are steep slopes and hills, there's often stairs you can walk down.
I'm really astonished that Americans don't do it the same way. My mother in law house could've been a 5 minute walk from a lovely beach and supermarkets and cafes if there was just a path/stair that went down a slope from their house between other properties. Instead it's a 30 minute+ walk, along a long and winding road with an extremely narrow sidewalk, where a 100m stretch of the road for some inexplicable reason is missing sidewalk altogether (if you ask for directions on Google Maps it'll avoid this stretch, which gives you a 1 hour walk instead)
> I'm really astonished that Americans don't do it the same way.
Americans tend to have strange ideas about walking. If they think about it at all, they tend to think of it as something that's only done in extremis.
I've discovered, for example, that, when I travel for work, it's generally useless to ask hotel staff if they can recommend any restaurants "within walking distance" when I'm staying in a suburban area. They will always say that there aren't any. Even when there are several within 500 meters of the hotel.
When I am visiting the main office (also in a suburban area) I stay about 1.5km away from the building. I choose to walk to get between there and the hotel. It's a lovely walk, all sidewalks, through a quiet neighborhood. My colleagues consider this to be very peculiar behavior. If someone recognizes me while I'm on the sidewalk, they'll stop, express concern, and ask me if I need a ride, and I generally have to assure them multiple times that I'm OK and I just prefer to walk.
I've grown the habit of telling people (in walking context) there are ultra marathons where people walk 5000 km and (in cycling contest) that I know low end cycling enthusiasts who do 300 km in a day - pushing as hard as they can. Their fitness is much closer to ours than to those winning the Tour de France.
In my mind that means looking up to 1.5 km walk or 10 km of cycling really says more about me and you than it says about the distance. The world walking record is 175 km in 24 hours. Think about it, that is much more than a hundred times 1.5km. Someone some day cycled.... over 900 km in a day! Climbing Mount Everest is only 20 km but it takes 55 days!
You have to be in terrible shape to look up to 1.5 km.
I screwed up the math. It's 28.6 days at the world record speed. I multiplied by 24 unnecessarily. Still a long time, but a lot more reasonable (and it agrees with your records).
Is that rue of all "Americans" (U.S. citizens) or is it just specific kins off places, like some suburbs? I have seen plenty of footage of people walking around large US cities. And what about rural places? Surely theree's nothing stopping people from taking long walks on the countryside if they live out in the boondocks, etc?
I find it's mostly a suburban and rural thing. Though, even large US cities can be quite suburban in their makeup. I found Phoenix to be surprisingly difficult to navigate on foot, for example.
There is recreational walking, but it can be odd. I have family members who live in areas without sidewalks, and they do regularly go for pleasure walks, but such outings tend to start with a car ride. Because the nearest place where space has been made for walking is several miles away.
Walking on country roads generally isn't pleasant. The roads are narrow, the traffic is fast, the drivers are discourteous and/or texting while driving, and the only place to put your feet where you're not in danger of being hit by a car is often a drainage ditch.
Cities out West in the States tend to be less dense because they were founded by people who generally had horses/wagons already to get there and because they were founded closer in time to the invention of the automobile, so their infrastructure was less solidified by the time it was introduced and thus they've adapted more to cars with a broader sprawl and less vertical buildup. Of course this isn't true of all cities in the Western US, but as a general trend it holds up.
In the suburbs I grew up in, walking, especially to accomplish practical tasks like grocery shopping, was seen a signal that you were "on welfare" - which was code for poverty.
Meanwhile, people drove to fitness clubs to walking miles on treadmills while slurping energy drinks.
>I have seen plenty of footage of people walking around large US cities.
Where, in the movies?
If you're talking about Manhattan, NYC, that place is absolutely nothing like the rest of America, except maybe for a few other large cities' downtown areas (DC, Boston, Portland, etc). These few places have entirely different lifestyles from the rest of rural and suburban America, where cars reign supreme.
You can walk in the countryside all you want, but you'll be walking on the asphalt roadway with vehicles zooming along at 70mph and limited sightlines, so you'll probably end up dead in a ditch by the side of the road if you make that a lifelong habit. The driver who killed you probably won't stop, and would not be punished by the legal system even if they did.
Hit by a car at 3pm, i.e. broad daylight. "Deputies ticketed Weaver for not being as far off the road as possible. The driver who hit him was not charged."
that's true for many countries in europe too, but we do have a lot more bike paths and drivers are generally more considerate towards cyclists than they are in the u.s.
with my road bike (i.e. no suspension) i usually prefer the road over adjacent bike paths (which is legal in my country), as the roads are usually in better shape.
I grew up in suburbs that did not have a consistent network of sidewalks. Some existed but you really need 100% of roads to have one or you're suddenly walking 2 miles extra to get around the missing link. Nobody complained because why would you want to walk miles to the closest grocery store anyway?
Former suburbs kid here. I lived about 4 miles from the nearest grocery store. I used the sidewalks in my area all the time.
If you think that a sidewalk in a purely residential area only goes to nowhere, you spend way too much time looking at screens. Get out, meet, and spend some time with your neighbors.
if it is 4 miles to the grocery store, then you can't walk anywhere. Your ice cream will melt before you get back home. There might be a continuous sidewalk all the way, but you have better things to do with your time than walk that far.
That is all. It doesn't count. Can you walk to work, church, the grocery store, other dry goods stores, restaurants, or even your friend from years ago who moved? In cities you can do all of the above in some form (meaning you might not like the store, but at least there is one)
Still not sure why they don't have more pedestrian catwalks in cities directly above the roads. That's a whole lot less expensive than elevated roadways (you have to support ~200 pound pedestrians instead of 80,000 pound trucks), separates the pedestrians from the cars, and doesn't require any additional land.
And then you could have second story pedestrian entrances to buildings, which already have elevators in them, so it wouldn't even be an issue for people who have trouble with stairs.
Making pedestrians go out of their way to get anywhere is a great way to discourage walking and treat it as a second class citizen to driving, when it should really be the other way around.
Plus, said catwalks need to be accessible, so how many elevators are you planning on putting in and maintaining now?
Pedestrian bridges flat-out suck. Better to get rid of as many vehicles as possible and slow the remaining ones waaaay the hell down so that people can walk along streets and across intersections safely.
Do you realize how catastrophically expensive it would be to build and maintain all of these bridges and pathways along with the four elevators per intersection? And how closed in and claustrophobic it would make the street level feel like from blocking out so much sun?
If this idea were viable, someone somewhere in the world would have already done it. But the closest I can think of is Las Vegas, and that's only along one road, and it's not even a full pedestrian pathway but instead just some bridges over intersections, and those are primarily there to prevent drunks from getting run over by cars.
Many cities in fact already have it. We call them skyways. The bridge is building to building. It is generally not on the corners, but in the middle of the block. Getting in is tricky because you need to find the elevator in the middle of the building, but once in you don't leave for a while so that isn't a big deal.
If driving is already so inconvenient why not just relegate it even further and prioritize walking over vehicles at intersections? Why should all the larger numbers of pedestrians be forced to take much longer to get where they're going on account of all these bridges to benefit a smaller number of vehicles?
Sure, improvements should be made. The pedestrian bridges themselves are improvements. People use them by choice, and not because they appreciate the exercise. It would be easy to underestimate just how many many vehicles and pedestrians are attempting to navigate the metro Manila area. Roads and other transit infrastructure are seriously lacking in Philippines, relative to that seen in more "developed" nations.
they actually do this in places like Minneapolis. mainly because it's just too cold to be outside for prolonged periods in the winter. my friend walks almost his entire commute without going outside.
Yeah, so that system is only 9.5 miles, and claims to be the largest such system of connected aerial sidewalks in the world. Meanwhile, NYC has 12,750 miles of sidewalks.
That's a several orders of magnitude difference between the capacity of the two systems.
Elevated pedestrian catwalks are a recurring architectural fad. They don't tend to work out very well outside of a few specific areas, though, as pedestrians traffic is most popular in situations where pedestrians also have access to lots of street-level homes and businesses.
Wouldn't the space and extra travel distance required for above-street ramps makes them impractical? If you want to rise 15 ft in the air at a 5% grade, you need 300 ft. Now imagine a ramp every block.
That depends, is there are network of them such that you can go a few km without going outside, or is it across one road. The latter is worthless for all the reasons you mention. For dense areas (downtown) they are fairly common, office workers can go several buildings over to lunch without going outside, and things are heated in winter.
The closest thing I can think of is a series of connected pedestrian tunnels that you see in some Canadian cities like Montreal and Toronto. Those primarily exist for a different reason; winter is months-long and so cold that you don't want to step foot outside at all. Pedestrian bridges don't accomplish this goal.
Des Moines IA. Minneapolis MN are two that I know of. They are fully enclosed, building to building. They exist in part because of winter, but have took on a life of their own.
Sure, it should take 15 minutes and several flights of stairs to walk across a single street, why not?
Quite a few cities do do this (Florida, I'm looking at you!). It's a terrible design, might as well have a machine that punches all pedestrians in the face as they go by.
If there is a large network building owners will happily install and maintain them. In some places the expensive store fronts are on the second floor where all the people are: they take those cat walks from building to building without putting a coat on.
Suburbs don't have sidewalks because the real estate developers got out before the newly formed city government wrote regulations defining what a house had to include in order to be sold. Since then, it has been "traditional" to subject pedestrians to the dangers of auto traffic.
