Originally Posted by
Roughstuff
Vast amounts of public space in our cities are dedicated to moving motor vehicles, and we need to shift this balance back to prioritizing biking and walking.”
The crux of his whole argument, and worthless drivel. As long as roadways are going to be needed for delivery vehicles (trucks, etc), emergency vehicles such as firetrucks, etc, and buses buses buses buses buses buses buses! Did i forget to mention buses, the luddite answer to all commuting problems? , roadways will need to be as wide as they are now, and go to as many places as they do now. Ergo, there will be just as much space dedicated to motor vehicles.
roughstuff
Wrong. Take a walk "downtown" if you have one. You'll notice that the streets vary in width from something similar to a 3 lane to a 5 lane. You won't find many 6 lane roads with extra median space for a left turn only lane.
The next thing you'll notice is the lack of flat parking lots.
Next you'll notice that the signs and shops are spaced closely together. So close, that even at 25mph you can't keep up and read each sign. In your typical motor vehicle commercial lot you'll be able to read every sign at 35 mph. The space that parking doesn't take up is added to with "green space." Of course, "green" is code for turf.
But I agree with your main point: It's worthless drivel. The roadways a city has will flow naturally from the way the city is built and the way people want to get around that city. If you build a dense city with lots of apartments and little parking you'll see pedestrians. You could give the pedestrians absolutely no sidewalks and they'll takeover the streets: Your trucks and buses will suffer then. If you give them sidewalks they'll happily use them. You will still need fairly wide streets for just what you said: Moving stuff and moving people. You won't need as wide of roads since you won't be transporting as many cars around: Buses simply take up a lot less space, even if the bus system is run by an incompetent idiot.