...even though it is an urban street, with a rather dense mixture of uses, my measurements on Google Maps show that from a cross-section of the street, 68% of it is dedicated solely to cars with the remainder dedicated to trees, bus shelters, benches, and finally, walking. How can we say that our design does not influence behaviour when clearly 68% of the street has been designed just for cars? This is what I call a 'biased' street, because it is biased towards a particular mode of transportation.



Even though Hoboken is a very walkable city and somewhat of an exception, I ran out and took this photo to prove a point that there is still, in America's most walkable city, a heavy bias towards cars. Is it possible to make a street that is unbiased? What would an unbiased street look like?



And, while we are at it, would it be possible to build a system where, if you do not drive, not a cent of your tax dollars goes into any car infrastructure (asphalt, traffic lights, stop signs), and vice versa for railroads and other transit? Would it be possible to create a system that allows all transportation modes to compete fairly on a level playing field - with no cross subsidization?



Yes. I believe that it would be possible to build such a city, and as a thought experiment, I will write about how I think such as system could look like, but it will require exploring what a 'street' is - which is quiet different to the conventional American definition.

Separating Streets and Roads

First, we need to understand that streets and roads are two very different things. Let's start with roads. Roads have a defined purpose - they get you from A to B. To be safe and convenient, they need to be relatively free-flowing and clear from obstructions. Roads may be small...