Walking from Village to Village, and Village to Town
| | | |

Walking from Village to Village, and Village to Town

Byrichard

The conversation is too often about designing cities to be car-free, but I would argue that designing the countryside to require less frequently would be more advantageous. The reason for this is that walking from village to village, and from villages to towns eliminates the need for, and appeal of the car. If the need for a car is mooted by making the sides of roads pleasant for pedestrians and cyclists, we reduce the allure of the car.


From March to June I walked around one million eight hundred and fifty thousand steps between villages according to the pedometer++ app. In that time I have walked through rain, wind, mud, and streams. In the process, I have come to the conclusion that the grass on the sides of roads needs to be cut more frequently.


When the grass at the side of the road is not cut we are forced to walk through increasingly longer grass from week to week. On a dry day this doesn’t matter so much but on a rainy it does. On a rainy day if the grass is cut regularly you’d get wet from the rain over a period of time.


When the grass is long you get soaked within a few steps. Rainwater goes from the grass, to your shoes, and onto your trousers, and other time it works its way down to the soles of your feet and up your trousers, through to your t-shirt and beyond. By the end of a walk you’re drenched through.


If the grass had been cut you’d be wet, but it would take longer. If you’ve been drenched from walking through long grass frequently enough the idea of getting soaked yet again encourages you to walk on the side of the road, rather than the grass bank. This affects traffic fluidity because a pedestrian on the road has to be avoided. If they’re in the grass then the problem is resolved.


When I drive along narrow roads and I see pedestrians or cyclists I slow down to the speed at which I would like to be passed, if I was the one walking. This is also true of cyclists. Drivers seldom understand the effect that their speed and proximity has on vulnerable road users.


When you’re walking between villages you sometimes have to walk on the road because hedges and other vegetation make it impossible to walk off of the road. In some cases, when walking at the side of the road I have come across thorny plants. Walking into them, without knowing that they were thorny is a one time mistake. After that you walk on the road.


We could walk along agricultural roads but there are two issues with agricultural roads. The first is that people drive cars down them at speed so it’s no better than walking by the side of the road, but the second is people with dogs.


When you’re afraid of dogs it’s more interesting to walk in the grass by the side of the road than agricultural roads.


I should add some context. I walk along the sides of roads, rather than agricultural paths because I like to walk for two to three hours at a time. To walk for two to three hours I need at least ten to fifteen kilometres of paths and routes to walk along. I could get in a car, drive for an hour or two and walk in the mountains, but over the last two years I have found that I can get the same workout without the use of the car.


I have found that there are plenty of nice things to see, without burning fossil fuels.


The reason for which people do not walk or cycle between villages, and from villages to towns, is that they see roads as dangerous. Drivers too often, see pedestrians and cyclists, as a nuisance. If the grass at the side of the road was kept short enough for pedestrian trails to form and be used, then the need for cars would be reduced. If the need for cars between towns and villages is reduced, so is the need within towns. Urban planners, before removing cars from towns, should think about getting people into the habit of walking between villages and towns. If you get people out of that habit, then it is easier to get them into the habit of catching the train.

Banning Traffic from Cornavin

Byrichard

Although this article is two years old La Tribune de Genève wrote again about it and it appeared in my Google Newsfeed. I am not opposed to making cities pedestrian because I love to walk more than I like buses, trains, or other forms of transport.


I actually do like trains. When I lived in London I liked to take the tube everywhere. I wish someone had encouraged me to try cycling in London because I would have used a bike to get everywhere. I already walked instead of using buses.


If the square in front of Cornavin becomes pedestrian then this will be great for when we walk in Geneva because it means that it will no longer be one of the rare places where we really have to stop and wait for the light for pedestrians to turn green. On frequent Geneva walks it’s one of the most frustrating places. I often skipped the lights by going underground through the galleries. I’m sneaky when it comes to such things.


One of my reservations about blocking traffic through Cornavin is that it is one of the rare routes from Vaud towards Place Plainpalais without getting stuck on the Autoroute de Contournement. It will reduce traffic through the centre of Geneva but force a traffic increase on other roads.


I rarely go to the other side of the lake by car because of how terrible traffic is and I’d be even less likely to go to the area around Plainpalais after that route is blocked.


In my opinion, if you want to dissuade people from using cars, and if you want to reduce traffic the best method is to make public transport more appealing. I use the scooter and walk rather than taking the bus because buses are once an hour and the walk is 20 minutes whatever the departure time from my village to Nyon.


If we take the car to Geneva one of the best routes, depending on the time of day, is via Cornavin, and if that route is removed then the time it takes to get into Geneva will be even longer, and so will the time to get out. When I walked around. Geneva’s centre I saw that even more cinemas have been closed down. Only small cinemas remain, and even some of those are closed down.


After spending around three and a half weeks in Geneva I came to the conclusion that I wanted to have the scooter, not because I was too lazy to walk from Paquis to Meyrin or from Paquis to Carouge but because if you’re shopping for food and you want to get things to the fridge within 15 minutes walking speed is sub-optimal. I also believe that shops in the centre of Geneva have a mediocre selection of products and that because of this people are forced to range further, with a car or other form of transport, to avoid exceeding the 15 minute time between shop fridge to home fridge.


If you want to reduce car use you need to make everything available within a 15-minute walk. Beyond fifteen minutes the duration is too long. I don’t trust buses and trams so I used the scooter.


The last time I cycled with shopping I fell and broke my arm so I’m less inclined to do that again. I was using an old bike and I think the brake jammed, but it demonstrated why it might be safer for me to keep using the scooter. I think a cheap bag with side bags would be just as effective.


I went off topic but I think that making squares pedestrian is not enough. Geneva needs to ensure that people no longer need cars to get from A to B. Cycling needs to be made safer and finally public transport, and especially trains, should be increased so that you never have to wait 20 minutes or more for a train to get in or out of Geneva. I think that placing a pedestrian square there is illogical unless you pedestrianise the streets from the lakeside to Cornavin. Imagine walking from Cornavin to Perle Du Lac without stopping at a traffic light, or from Cornavin to Place Des Nations or Place Plainpalais. That would make taking the train into Geneva appealing if it was possible every ten minutes.