More walkable neighborhoods means more childhood freedom. This should be a concern for conservatives and liberals alike.
In Focus delivers deeper coverage of the political, cultural, and ideological issues shaping America. Published daily by senior writers and experts, these in-depth pieces go beyond the headlines to give readers the full picture.
You can find our full list of In Focus piecesconcern. Specifically, conservatives ought to help parents have more kids and help kids have lower-tech childhoods with more freedom. Neighborhoods where kids canOn the flipside, those who work on walkability ought to think more about children and parents. You could spend all day reading urbanism and walkability literature and come across a hundred mentions of commuting to work or walking to a cocktail bar without ever seeing the word “child.
”are collapsing, and parenthood seems more daunting. We desperately need a world where kids can be let loose in a neighborhood and told to come home for dinner. That requires more walkable places, which in turn requires a fuller and smarter discussion about walkability.walk far less than they used to, largely because American parents give them far less freedom to roam.
Less freedom and less walking means more scrolling, less exercise, and less socialization, leading to more anxiety and probably fewer babies.by the Institute for Family Studies. Most 14-year-olds may not leave their street. Most 17-year-olds may not leave their neighborhood. When kids walk less, that often means parents drive more.
Modern suburban parenting means hours and hours stuck in car hell: buckling and unbuckling the baby so you can pick up the toddler on the way to dropping off the oldest at her friend’s house. Also, when every get-together needs to be scheduled, and when free-time isn’t spent wandering, kids end up less well-adjusted.
, “is a decline over decades in opportunities for children and teens to play, roam, and engage in other activities independent of direct oversight and control by adults. ” Parental fear is a major cause of decreased childhood mobility, but the built environment is surely a factor. At the very least, a more walkable neighborhood can be part of the solution. Family Unfriendly , on the cultural forces arrayed against parents and kids.
My argument: Parents will have more kids if they’re not forced to drive them around as much. More broadly, when childhood is more fun parents will enjoy it more — and maybe have more kids.that walkability yields fecundity, or even childhood flourishing. Admittedly, the famously walkable cities of Mediterranean Europe have shockingly low birthrates, and U.S. birthrates are higher in rural areas, where a car or truck is mandatory.
Lyman Stone of the Institute for Family Studies denies that walkability even affects children’s freedom to roam. Stone relies on the “Walkability Index” published by the federal government. That’s an official measure, but it’s also an awful measure.whose cover is illustrated with a photo of a D.C. intersection. The photo has almost everything: A Metro stop, a car, crosswalks, racial minorities, a woman with a cane, a man in a wheelchair.
What you don’t see is any children or even one parent pushing a stroller. Inside this paper, the words “child” and “parent” appear only once each, in a quotation from the AARP. These omissions reflect the poor methodology. The EPA calculates the walkability of every “block group” in America with four measures:In other words, smaller blocks and a grid design are rewarded along with bus stops and subway stations.
Also, the EPA calls a neighborhood more walkable if homes are near businesses, and especially near a bunch of different kinds of businesses. The EPA doesn’t care if there are sidewalks or walking trails in a neighborhood. Crossing a six-lane road with a 50-mph speed limit is just as “walkable” in the EPA’s methodology as crossing a small, 20-mph street with bumped-out curbs. When talking about walkability, one needs to ask “walkable to what?
” The EPA measures walkability to places of employment, ideally, places of many different types of employment. This isn’t merely a measure ofThese are fine considerations, but they are too adult-centric. Kids mostly need to walk to school and the basketball court. A playground or park counts for nothing in the EPA’s measure.
In fact, a park is a negative in the EPA’s calculus because it offers neither employment nor road intersections. Studies have consistently found two factors affect safety for children walking: The volume of car traffic and the speed of car traffic. As one recentput it: “The two most common traffic variables that have a negative relationship with traffic safety for children, and thus a positive relationship with collisions involving children were high traffic speed and high traffic volume.
” When kids are less at risk from getting run over, parents give them more freedom, and they walk more: Slower and fewer cars yields more children walking. Department of Transportation. The volume and speed of traffic should be the most heavily weighted factors, along with the presence of sidewalks and trails. Proximity and accessibility of schools and parks should be next.
Finally, commerce and short blocks matter, so they should be included. Also, the Transportation Department should actively work to make more places kid-walkable. DOT should steer state walkability initiatives towards considering families and kids first. Any federal road spending should be made in the light of whether it makes a walkable place less walkable, especially for kids.
Any federal spending for bike and pedestrian trails should also explicitly aim for kids’ safe passage around neighborhoods. Two shifts of mindset are needed here: First, the people who think about walkability need to think about family and children before they think about workers or shoppers.
Second conservatives need to start thinking about walkability, even when that means inconvenience for drivers. Where people, especially children, would want to walk, cars should go slower and roads should have fewer lanes. This is a sacrifice for drivers. Don’t think of this as a sacrifice for the sake of lycra-clad bicyclists.
Instead, it’s for the sake of an 8-year-old walking to her friend’s house, a 12-year-old walking to Little League practice, and a few 14-year-olds wandering the neighborhood until the street lights come on.
Please follow us on Google to support us United States Latest News, United States Headlines
Similar News:You can also read news stories similar to this one that we have collected from other news sources.
How the wrong tyre means you're spending more money on fuelWe marvel at thermal efficiency and hybrid tech, yet overlook the basics of tyres
Read more »
State Pension Age Increase: What It Means for Your Retirement PlanningThe UK government's proposal to increase the state pension age to 68 has sparked concerns and prompted early retirement planning. With a Pensions Commission reviewing the timetable, the debate around life expectancy, healthy retirement years, and financial preparedness continues. This article explores the potential impacts of changes to the state pension age and the importance of long-term investing for retirement security.
Read more »
State Pension Age Increase: What It Means for Retirement Planning and Investment StrategiesTwenty years after the UK government proposed raising the state pension age to 68, the debate over retirement planning and investment strategies has intensified. With a Pensions Commission reviewing the current timetable, potential changes could impact millions nearing retirement. This article explores the implications of a later state pension age, the importance of early investment, and the long-term benefits of stock market investments over cash savings.
Read more »
What Having Flat Feet Really Means For Your Health, According To ExpertsJillian Wilson is the senior wellness reporter at HuffPost, where she covers mental health, physical health and debunks the health misinformation that's so rampant online.
Read more »