Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

We Should Be Building Cities for People, Not Cars (2016)

devonzuegel.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 344 posts

Re: We Should Be Building Cities for People, Not Cars (2016)

#171

Post by drb91 »

AcerbicZero wrote: post #130

It seems this discussion comes up fairly often, and the solution is almost always some variation of "make driving too expensive and/or too inconvenient, to force people to use public transit". On the surface that kind of makes sense, using a large stick to strongly encourage change, but I think at its core it misses a huge portion of the problem, which is that bad public transit is 10x worse than just sitting in a bi…

> bad public transit is 10x worse than just sitting in a bit of traffic, or dropping a few bucks on an Uber/Lyft.

How can this be true? Public transit allows your attention to wander and typically is much, much faster than traffic. Adding uber/lyft will get two of the worst attributes: traffic and high cost, although you’ll be able to do something else simultaneously.

Furthermore, it’s not clear how parking fees affect low income families: for my commute (between east bay and SF), public transit is an order of magnitude less expensive than driving, especially if you consider parking.

Finally, it’s not clear what homeless people have to do with this. The cost of affordable transit is interacting with your neighbors. If you don’t like your neighbors, please don’t screw them over by investing in car-oriented transit.

Re: We Should Be Building Cities for People, Not Cars (2016)

#172

Post by kasey_junk »

bunderbunder wrote: post #167
paulryanrogers wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is still the time loss. Private vehicles usually save time and have maximum schedule flexibility. Bicycles a scooters could help with the last mile, if they can be managed well. Of course everyone has different thresholds. But I'd guess most people work hard to earn enough for their own time saving luxuries, even if the external costs will hurt their children later in life.

This seems to me like one of those issues that has way too many variables to make a reasonable guess at how things will really compare in the counterfactual situation. If you've got a city that really is dense enough to be pedestrian-friendly, I think it's likely to be the case that the time situation is shifted considerably. Not only will it take less time to walk and bike places, but you probably find that the kind…

I’d love to see a study on this.

Anecdata: there are 3 grocery stores within a 5 minute walk from me. But I live there because of that.

Re: We Should Be Building Cities for People, Not Cars (2016)

#173

Post by epicureanideal »

drb91 wrote: post #171
AcerbicZero wrote: post #130

It seems this discussion comes up fairly often, and the solution is almost always some variation of "make driving too expensive and/or too inconvenient, to force people to use public transit". On the surface that kind of makes sense, using a large stick to strongly encourage change, but I think at its core it misses a huge portion of the problem, which is that bad public transit is 10x worse than just sitting in a bi…

> bad public transit is 10x worse than just sitting in a bit of traffic, or dropping a few bucks on an Uber/Lyft. How can this be true? Public transit allows your attention to wander and typically is much, much faster than traffic. Adding uber/lyft will get two of the worst attributes: traffic and high cost, although you’ll be able to do something else simultaneously. Furthermore, it’s not clear how parking fees affe…

As the GP said, there are people who are drunk, high, smelling of bodily fluids, etc. There are people who are rude, loud, etc. If this were stopped, then it might be better than being in a car.

Re: We Should Be Building Cities for People, Not Cars (2016)

#174

Post by drb91 »

epicureanideal wrote: post #173
drb91 wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> bad public transit is 10x worse than just sitting in a bit of traffic, or dropping a few bucks on an Uber/Lyft. How can this be true? Public transit allows your attention to wander and typically is much, much faster than traffic. Adding uber/lyft will get two of the worst attributes: traffic and high cost, although you’ll be able to do something else simultaneously. Furthermore, it’s not clear how parking fees affe…

As the GP said, there are people who are drunk, high, smelling of bodily fluids, etc. There are people who are rude, loud, etc. If this were stopped, then it might be better than being in a car.

It already is better than a car. It has a higher throughput and lower cost. If you value luxury, pay more for private transit. This isn’t contrary to a city that invests in public transit. SF is practically undrivable during the week rush hour because people prioritize comfort over economy. So the only knob a city has is to increase expense of driving, or to make public transit more comfortable. I don’t see any humanitarian route to the latter, so I am emphatically for the former.

Re: We Should Be Building Cities for People, Not Cars (2016)

#175

Post by sopooneo »

peterwwillis wrote: post #166
btingle wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do I look like, mother Theresa? It's not my job to solve the city's homelessness problem. Do you mean to say that politicians/public officials/etc should be dealing with the problem?

No, I'm saying citizens should solve the problem. And I know it's not your job. It's nobody's job. That's why nothing has been done. I mean, the stupidest thing about this is this isn't that hard a problem to solve. Homeless people are just regular people with a problem and no resources to fix it. You provide them resources and help and they are no longer homeless and no longer a nuisance. Instead, people see them li…

Like me, many people I know started out believing what you wrote. But now that I'm a bit older, most that I know who have actually worked to alleviate homelessness would agree that a large portion of the visible homeless have severe mental health or addiction issues. That is not to say the they are undeserving of compassion, rather they are deserving and in need.

But to say that simply providing resources will fix the problem is naive. It's hard, and heartbreaking. I believe there are solutions that we can and will work toward, but they're not simple.

Re: We Should Be Building Cities for People, Not Cars (2016)

#176

Post by pchristensen »

paulddraper wrote: post #143
cimmanom wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Other people have mentioned picking up a day's worth of groceries on the way home from work. And now and then when you need to buy more than you can carry? You use one of these: https://cdn.instructables.com/FP2/EECN/FRXUSVAV/FP2EECNFRXUS... And I think part of the point is that for a city we should be building for dense apartments, not single-family residences.

City . I live in a city (to be precise Lehi City, Utah [1] population 65k). If we're talking large cities, say pop 400k+ (San Fran is 870k), then sure assume apartments. I didn't see any qualifiers; it seems the author is advocating these ideas for all cities. And 70% of Americans live in city/town/village/hamlet/whatever of less than 100k. [2] (Perhaps that is solely because of the aforementioned urban planning issu…

Saying that you live in Lehi, a small town, without mentioning that it's near the geographic center of a region of nearly 2 million is a little disingenuous. You're talking like you live in Logan, a similar sized town that's geographically and economically distant. Lehi is, in all ways but politically, a subdivided neighborhood of SLC-Provo. Given the businesses around I-15 and the train stations, it would definitely benefit from allowing (not mandating) denser development in and around the central areas. But those can't be built regardless of whether people want them or not, due to zoning.

40% of the US population lives in the 48 largest metro areas, and 80% live in "urban areas" - https://www.citylab.com/equity/2012/03/us-urban-population-w.... Just because your municipality has a low population doesn't mean you live in a small town.

Re: We Should Be Building Cities for People, Not Cars (2016)

#177

Post by pchristensen »

takk309 wrote: post #68
spraak wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you have a city of single-family residences (and three quarters of Americans do live in single-family residences), it's really hard to not build for cars. Yes, and how those cities are designed are a big part of the problem.

Development standards rarely satisfy everyone's needs/wants. It is more efficient to build at a high density, but that may not necessarily mean that we should all conform to that mentality. A lot of us don't want to live in dense urban environments.

In 99% of America (including many dense cities), it's illegal to build dense urban environments. So you cannot claim that the built environment reflects how most people want to live.

Re: We Should Be Building Cities for People, Not Cars (2016)

#178

Post by brandonmenc »

gremlinsinc wrote: post #141

I'd just like one small change to cities. Sidewalk escalators/treadmill of varying speeds. It would make commutes so much easier, plus people could actually get some modicum of a workout while commuting. I mean, it worked on the Jetson's, right?

They could at least try it! They never try anything!

Re: We Should Be Building Cities for People, Not Cars (2016)

#179

Post by abdullahkhalids »

wrycoder wrote: post #150
paulryanrogers wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is still the time loss. Private vehicles usually save time and have maximum schedule flexibility. Bicycles a scooters could help with the last mile, if they can be managed well. Of course everyone has different thresholds. But I'd guess most people work hard to earn enough for their own time saving luxuries, even if the external costs will hurt their children later in life.

In addition, if you are doing shopping which involves any significant volume of goods or groceries, carrying it on public transit is a real problem. The tendency is to buy small amounts frequently at higher prices. If there are two or more in a small car, it's also usually less expensive. If the parking problem were forthrightly addressed, this, along with the increasing use of efficient Uber/Lyft/taxi, would greatly…

Not really.

1. You can always get wheeled carts to carry your groceries. I take transit everyday and see a lot of senior citizens doing their groceries this way. If those frail 80 year olds who need sometimes a minute to get off the bus because they are so slow are happily doing it, it shouldn't be a problem for most other people.

2. In a walkable city, your shopping habits and life change. I live in the walkable (not downtown) part of my city. Usually I get off the train back from work, walk 5 min to the grocery store, buy 2-3 days of groceries easily carried in resuable bag and walk 10 min back to my home. This has been an excellent change over my past life because I am always able to cook with fresh ingredients and barely have to freeze anything or eat processed foods.

Re: We Should Be Building Cities for People, Not Cars (2016)

#180

Post by Karrot_Kream »

thereisnospork wrote: post #123
Karrot_Kream wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point is, in a walkable city, nobody needs the speed. What's the point of driving at 40mph in a 10x10mi city vs using a scooter at 15mph? You'll probably hit a stoplight after hitting 20mph, and then waste braking to stop again. Electric mobility scooters are, per-mile, much much cheaper than cars, and cost much less to purchase.

In your example a corner to corner trip would take ~90 minutes by scooter, considering the 20 mile Manhattan distance + stoplights. A ring highway would get you there in 15-20 minutes. Even a set of properly timed lights would allow 35mph traffic to cross the width in ~20 minutes - which notably can't be (or just never are?) efficiently timed for pedestrians/scooters. for the extra hour+ that scooter would take (give…

In a walkable city you don't need to go from one end of the city to the other. 10 mi. is insanity. You should be able to go a maximum of 2 mi. and find what you're looking for. I'm in a biking-density neighborhood, and have multiple grocery stores, convenience stores, restaurants, and furniture stores within 1 mi. of me. In a walking density neighborhood, I would expect that to all be available within 0.5 mi. of me.
Post reply on HN