I've said it before. Putting sidewalks right next to vehicle traffic is stupid. I suggested to a friend that putting walkways through the back yards in a suburban neighborhood would be a better idea. You'd also have half as many because they'd run between two properties. He said oh yeah, they do it that way in... I think it was Texas?
That planning decision articulates to the drivers and pedestrians that the cars will encounter few or no hazards, and that the pedestrians are not welcome near roadways. It also supports things like large safety areas (25 ft) on either side of the road that allow drivers to be minimally injured if their cars leave the road. It tells everyone, "cars have margin of error to wander out of their space" and, following from that, "pedestrians shouldn't feel overly confident about not encountering cars in pedestrian space." That's a pretty good way to do highways.
The alternative is the reverse, where pedestrians wander, and drivers know not to get too comfortable even in their own spaces. This arrangement supports commerce and community and vitality.
You can't have it both ways. You're either moving cars, or you're building places. Both have their place, but they are separate places.
They've started doing exactly that in a couple of the newer developments here in Gilroy (California). The roads within the development are significantly narrower, but there are now bike lanes separated from the traffic by actual curbs instead of just a painted line, and the sidewalks are a bit wider, too. The biggest walkability boost is that all cul-de-sacs now have walkways at the top of the 'bubble', so that foot and bicycle traffic can pass straight on through. Also, roundabouts have replaced stoplights.
On the more negative side, the other feature of these development is the size of the lots vs. the size of the homes on them. The houses are close enough that you could probably reach out a window and hand something to your neighbor without much effort, and while each house does have a (small) garage, there is very limited on-street parking.
I have mixed feelings about whether it will succeed, simply because the locations chosen for these developments are many miles away from the nearest stores, so anyone who lives there is going to need to drive most of the time anyway. Some of this is just the chicken/egg problem, some of it unchangeable without completely flattening and rebuilding the city. It will be interesting to see how it goes. I personally am glad not to live in such a place, as it as cramped as any city dwelling, but without the positives that dense cities provide.
Yeah, that is probably my favorite aspect of the entire system. The slow road speeds and open space that allow kids to safely play outside, but close to the walkability of a grid.
