I found that strange too. But I guess a lot of cities are so unwalkable there are no pedestrians. I think this data should be % of pedestrians hit by cars or something
Below a certain threshold, being a pedestrian is less a lifestyle choice and more the only way to get around. A lot of those cities have high poverty rates.
I wonder how it correlates with municipal spending per capita on public safety and walkability infrastructure. Lot of underfunded, red-state cities on that list; I imagine Republican cities in CA might similarly underfund their safety infrastructure.
I think that’s part of it but it’s also partly the legacy built environment. California leaned harder into auto-centric infrastructure than maybe anywhere else in the entire world. That’s starting to change but rebuilding an entire transportation system takes time.
Especially when public funds are scarce. Prop 13 does have a part here since tax increases generally require a supermajority of voter approval to be implemented.
Even here in Sacramento (we’re #20 on this list I believe) improvements have been slow despite there not being a single republican leader on the city council in recent memory. But they still won’t put real funding into solving these things, instead focusing on symbolic improvements that don’t address the problem.
Yeah spot on here too I think. We do have a light rail but its reach is limited, most people live in spaced out suburbs, and the mode share is overwhelmingly car dominated.
The density issue is really hard to fix. There’s been so much conversation and debate about a new light rail line and even as a public transit advocate I have to wonder if it makes sense when you’re serving such a spread out population. The number of people within walking distance of the stations is so low when it’s just single-story houses on 1/4 acre lots as far as the eye can see.
That’s why I’d rather focus on transforming the urban core into a really great car-lite destination. This is more physically and economically viable, but the issue is most voters in the suburbs won’t like this because it makes it harder for them to access. Our metro area is so huge that cars are really the only practical way to cover that distance, so I think we need to build more urban town centers in every suburb. But they won’t want to do so unless they can see a successful example, which they’re currently blocking. It’s a thorny issue.
Bizarre how bad so many CA cities are when CA is such a wealthy, educated state. You’d think we would fix these problems.
Not familiar with Riverside, but Fresno and Bakersfield are both pretty damn poor and considered the “armpit” and “asshole” of CA respectively.
I found that strange too. But I guess a lot of cities are so unwalkable there are no pedestrians. I think this data should be % of pedestrians hit by cars or something
Below a certain threshold, being a pedestrian is less a lifestyle choice and more the only way to get around. A lot of those cities have high poverty rates.
I was wondering how cities that are so terrible people just don’t walk them factors into it.
Honestly, a more walkable city might have more pedestrian deaths, just because more pedestrians means more chances for a pedestrian to be killed.
Yeah; I think this data is biased to only include places with a decent pedestrian culture
I wonder how it correlates with municipal spending per capita on public safety and walkability infrastructure. Lot of underfunded, red-state cities on that list; I imagine Republican cities in CA might similarly underfund their safety infrastructure.
I think that’s part of it but it’s also partly the legacy built environment. California leaned harder into auto-centric infrastructure than maybe anywhere else in the entire world. That’s starting to change but rebuilding an entire transportation system takes time.
Especially when public funds are scarce. Prop 13 does have a part here since tax increases generally require a supermajority of voter approval to be implemented.
Even here in Sacramento (we’re #20 on this list I believe) improvements have been slow despite there not being a single republican leader on the city council in recent memory. But they still won’t put real funding into solving these things, instead focusing on symbolic improvements that don’t address the problem.
That makes sense. I’m not familiar with CA policy specifically but in the southeast, all cities (at least, the ones I’m familiar with) have in common:
So, it’s political safer to just continually complain about it than to spend one’s capital on actually addressing the problem.
Yeah spot on here too I think. We do have a light rail but its reach is limited, most people live in spaced out suburbs, and the mode share is overwhelmingly car dominated.
The density issue is really hard to fix. There’s been so much conversation and debate about a new light rail line and even as a public transit advocate I have to wonder if it makes sense when you’re serving such a spread out population. The number of people within walking distance of the stations is so low when it’s just single-story houses on 1/4 acre lots as far as the eye can see.
That’s why I’d rather focus on transforming the urban core into a really great car-lite destination. This is more physically and economically viable, but the issue is most voters in the suburbs won’t like this because it makes it harder for them to access. Our metro area is so huge that cars are really the only practical way to cover that distance, so I think we need to build more urban town centers in every suburb. But they won’t want to do so unless they can see a successful example, which they’re currently blocking. It’s a thorny issue.