We Should Be Building Cities for People, Not Cars (2016) • Hacker News Board

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

#261

Post by wahern » Fri, Jun 29, 2018, 3:35 AM UTC

peterwwillis wrote: post #230

homonculus1 wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most of them are addicts who don't want help. You could give them a job and a free house and they'd end up right back where they are now.

This attitude is the reason this problem isn't getting solved.

Fatalism is a big part of the problem. But what he says is also largely true, particularly when it comes to long-term homeless. So another big part of the problem is people denying that truth.

We do need to provide "free homes" but we also need to coerce acceptance of assistance.

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

#262

Post by wahern » Fri, Jun 29, 2018, 3:58 AM UTC

jimmaswell wrote: post #137

cup-of-tea wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I wonder if all these sour grapes about cars will simmer down if a generation comes along that can more easily afford them again. In the UK you could afford a car on minimum wage. I have a car. I still don't think cities should be designed for cars. How can anyone look at one of those pictures of American five-lane highways of bumper-to-bumper traffic and think that is in any way sane?

I'm saying there are probably unexplored good solutions to that kind of congestion. Another I just thought of is the city motivating companies to make shifts not so centered around 9-5. Spread the rush with shifts of 8-4, 10-6, etc.

The 9-5 work schedule went away a long time ago. In places like the Bay Area rush hours are roughly 6-10AM in the morning and 3-7PM in the evening precisely because of differing schedules[1]. And that's for white collar work. Factories and service work have much more varied schedules.

[1] There's a long tail, too. IME traffic becomes noticeably heavy around 6AM and 3PM, but there's a long tail after 10AM and 7PM.

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

#263

Post by wahern » Fri, Jun 29, 2018, 4:07 AM UTC

pm90 wrote: post #101

joshuaheard wrote: post #55

Visiting the Leonardo Da Vinci museum, I saw an exhibit where Leonardo did an urban design plan. In it, he made the street level pedestrian only. Under the street was another level for horses and wagons (cars and busses today), where each building had an underground entrance to this level through an underground garage. This seems like an elegant solution in an urban area from the man who invented the helicopter, para…

Except that it would also be ridiculously expensive. If construction costs reduce in the future due to automation though, might be workable.

Tunneling costs will come down, almost certainly through automated tunneling. Not because of the demands of urban transit, but because suburbia is fundamentally not economically viable unless the cost of running utilities and paving roads drops dramatically. American society is too wedded to suburban culture to move away from it to any significant extent, so sheer necessity will drive technological innovation. It helps that the costs of suburbia are largely hidden, so either the technology emerges or America continues to descend into a paved-over hellscape.

Like many things America will end up paying 10x to solve problems with sophisticated, overwrought technology that could have been solved through simple social and cultural shifts, but at least we'll get fancy new tools out it.

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

#264

Post by Franciscouzo » Fri, Jun 29, 2018, 4:22 AM UTC

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…

Sounds similar to Smeed's prediction:

> Smeed also predicted that the average speed of traffic in central London would always be nine miles per hour, because that is the minimum speed that people tolerate. He predicted that any intervention intended to speed traffic would only lead to more people driving at this "tolerable" speed unless there were any other disincentives against doing so.

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

#265

Post by wahern » Fri, Jun 29, 2018, 4:23 AM UTC

AcerbicZero wrote: post #128

ProfessorLayton wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we actually billed those that actually caused road damage appropriately, then no it would not cost $5 to drive 30min to work. Semis are incredibly damaging to roads, they cause 1,400x more wear than cars! [1] — The very same semis city dwellers and anybody who buys anything relies on. Cars currently subsidize other, much more damaging vehicles' road damage, seeing as they're not paying 1,400x more in fuel tax. Any…

Agreed. It's amazing how much damage medium single axled, and heavy multi-axled vehicles do to the roads, and while emissions from those vehicles are better than they once were, its still not great.

You can't ignore the reason the trucks exist in the first place. The trucks exist because towns and commercial spaces are spread out, and they're so spread out because of cars.

It's sort of like saying that cars don't emit CO2, burning gasoline does. The gasoline is burnt to operate the cars. Trucks deliver products to our car-centric landscape. If everybody lived in cities we'd only need a fraction of the trucks.

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

#266

Post by icanhackit » Fri, Jun 29, 2018, 4:42 AM UTC

batteryhorse wrote: post #254

toomanybeersies wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a problem in Melbourne. Although not as bad as America from what I've read here. Trains are mostly fine, but I won't take a bus or a tram if I can avoid it. If I can get somewhere by train or bus, and the train would be 10 minutes slower, I'll take the train. The other day on the tram I had to deal with drunk ex-con listening to his bluetooth speaker and verbally abusing a poor Asian lady to the point she had to…

Just as another data point, I currently live in Sydney (used to live in Melbourne), and I haven't noticed any of these problems here. Trains are much more pleasant to ride compared to Melbourne. Ferry is the best option though. Sundays get you unlimited transport for $2.60, it's great. Perhaps it's because of the sunshine?

> Trains are much more pleasant to ride compared to Melbourne.

Sydneysider here. I didn't realise the trains were bad in Melbourne. I travel to Melbourne regularly but rely on cabs when my legs won't suffice i.e. to/from the domestic airport. The MEL CBD is very walkable thanks to being a grid.

Do you think trains are more affordable in Melbourne, thus a good option for the homeless? I can't figure out what the difference might be, but I imagine the Opal card system here might be a barrier to people with little money.

> Ferry is the best option though.

Being able to enjoy a beer/wine/cider on the ferry is great. That you can tap your credit card to pay the fare is cool too.

> Perhaps it's because of the sunshine?

I always thought Melbournians were more artsy (for lack of a better word) because of the cooler weather. Just as in Europe the colder climates encourage quieter pursuits (philosophers, poets and thinkers) while the Mediterranean caters to hedonistic pleasures.

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

#267

Post by wahern » Fri, Jun 29, 2018, 4:42 AM UTC

dbatten wrote: post #67

dsfyu404ed wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Rather than trying to force some particular vision of "the good life" on people, what if we tried to price transportation and other things appropriately? I agree with this at least. >For example, get rid of the gas tax. Toll all state and federally funded roads... Lets do this with public transit too. Ticket sales should cover the full price of the ride. People who walk and bike shouldn't have to subsidize public tr…

You've basically just described a libertarian economic philosophy. We can have an intelligent conversation about whether that's a good idea or not, but it's a very serious political philosophy that lots of very intelligent people subscribe to...

Libertarianism may be a serious economic philosophy but it's a poor political philosophy. It completely ignores issues like path dependency, importance of culture and socialization, etc.

Don't you find it odd that societies that exemplify the sort of globally optimal yet individually rational choices such as in Japan or Nordic countries have laws and norms more often than not in direct contradiction to Western Libertarian thinking? Libertarianism can only work if people have already strongly internalized a communitarian ethos. Without that ethos (internalized directly by the people or indirectly through its institutions) civilization cannot exist; basic game theory proves that. Pervasive non-kin selflessness is the defining characteristic that uniquely separates humans from every other species in existence.[1]

The paradox is that we can get rid of coercive economic policies only once the Koch Brothers and Paul Ryans are replaced by hippies, or at least people substantially less motivated by bald self-interest.

[1] We still don't understand how it arose, and so IMO all modern economic theories (libertarian or otherwise) are fundamentally handicapped unless and until we can throughly answer that question.

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

#268

Post by toomanybeersies » Fri, Jun 29, 2018, 5:02 AM UTC

icanhackit wrote: post #266

batteryhorse wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just as another data point, I currently live in Sydney (used to live in Melbourne), and I haven't noticed any of these problems here. Trains are much more pleasant to ride compared to Melbourne. Ferry is the best option though. Sundays get you unlimited transport for $2.60, it's great. Perhaps it's because of the sunshine?

> Trains are much more pleasant to ride compared to Melbourne. Sydneysider here. I didn't realise the trains were bad in Melbourne. I travel to Melbourne regularly but rely on cabs when my legs won't suffice i.e. to/from the domestic airport. The MEL CBD is very walkable thanks to being a grid. Do you think trains are more affordable in Melbourne, thus a good option for the homeless? I can't figure out what the diffe…

GP here.

I don't think that trains are bad in Melbourne, although I haven't been to Sydney to compare, it's the buses and trams that have the anti-social behaviour. Having cops at all the train stations at night definitely helps keep the trains in a better state.

Affordability doesn't factor in at all here. The people who cause trouble on public transport don't pay for public transport. I'm not sure what it's like in Sydney, but most train stations don't have gates and the driver doesn't do anything if you don't tap on on the bus.

Ironic that you say that warmer weather caters to hedonistic pleasures when all the clubs in Sydney close at 3, meanwhile Melbourne is one of the few cities in the world that still has 24 hour clubs.

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

#269

Post by Johnny555 » Fri, Jun 29, 2018, 5:18 AM UTC

IneffablePigeon wrote: post #146

philwelch wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US also has a ton of land. I stayed with family in a British suburb once, and everything was still neatly squished in together, even single-family houses, compared to the expansive yards of American suburbs. Kids could walk to school and everything.

The fact that kids walking to school is surprising really highlights the difference. Growing up in the UK, people who got driven to school were the odd ones (depending somewhat on the area).

When I was in middle school, we were picked up by bus, any time my parents had to go to school, we drove -- walking was never an option (which I assumed at the time was because it was too far to walk).

I recently looked it up on a map, and school was 0.7 miles from home -- a 15 minute walk. The worst part of the walk was that it crossed a 4 lane road, but it had a traffic light.... there were no sidewalks in our neighborhood, but that didn't stop us from walking to the bus stop.

Ironically, our neighborhood bus stop was 2 blocks from home in the opposite direction of the school, so I walked 0.3 miles away from school to take the bus... so in reality, the bus "saved" 10 minutes of walking time, though I spent more time than that waiting for the bus.

Now that I'm older and wiser (?) I seek out bike friendly commutes (through housing and job choices) and commute 15 miles by bike even though I have transit and car options. And I'll take a longer commute route to stay away from schools, seems that kids still aren't walking to school much, and my community has decided not to offer regular bus transportation so parents drive their kids, and it's like a car war-zone near the school

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

#270

Post by icanhackit » Fri, Jun 29, 2018, 5:42 AM UTC

toomanybeersies wrote: post #268

icanhackit wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Trains are much more pleasant to ride compared to Melbourne. Sydneysider here. I didn't realise the trains were bad in Melbourne. I travel to Melbourne regularly but rely on cabs when my legs won't suffice i.e. to/from the domestic airport. The MEL CBD is very walkable thanks to being a grid. Do you think trains are more affordable in Melbourne, thus a good option for the homeless? I can't figure out what the diffe…

GP here. I don't think that trains are bad in Melbourne, although I haven't been to Sydney to compare, it's the buses and trams that have the anti-social behaviour. Having cops at all the train stations at night definitely helps keep the trains in a better state. Affordability doesn't factor in at all here. The people who cause trouble on public transport don't pay for public transport. I'm not sure what it's like in…

> most train stations don't have gates

Minor stations lack gates, popular stations have them. We still get people avoiding fares, homeless people sleeping on seats, people who leave a lot of rubbish etc. But Sydney's modern Waratah trains would be the best I've tried compared to trains in Japan and France...well the Shinkansen is pretty cool but it's not your average commuter train.

> all the clubs in Sydney close at 3

Depends on where you are. The CBD has lockout-laws but a lot of the nightlife migrated to areas like Newtown where pubs and bars can close at 5am. I've noticed Melbourne is very CBD centric, whereas Sydney is similar to LA in that there are many satellite cities/communities that are the cultural hubs. I'd say some of the most boring areas in Sydney are the tourist traps, i.e. CBD/Circular Quay.