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

271–280 of 344 posts

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

#271

Post by Karrot_Kream »

mrep wrote: post #232
Bekwnn wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There was an anecdote from a woman in Vancouver about how she would never again use public transit. She described being groped a dozen times in private places, and being followed off the bus by men on 3 occasions or more. I dont see how anyone could blame young women who go through that for refusing to use transit. Just as a man riding on the same transit system, I totally believe that level of frequency and wouldn't…

My girlfriend experiences the same thing which is why she refuses to take public transportation without me. It is a huge problem that nobody here has claimed a solution for nor really talked about (not too surprising since HN is composed of 94.6% males according to [0]). Just google search "public transportation women" or use this link [1] to read into it more. It is one of the reasons we plan to move to suburbia onc…

Not doubting your experience at all, but my SO feels more comfortable on public transit than on an Uber/Lyft, where she feels like she has no control over what the driver chooses to do.

She also avoids the last hour of transit.

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

#272

Post by jimmaswell »

pm90 wrote: post #98
earlz wrote: post #47

I do a lot of traveling for business and staying in a city like Dallas, St. Louis, or some suburbia part of the bay area is absolutely my least ideal place to stay almost always. I love that uber exists, but my favorite part about traveling is walking around and doing photography so that I'm not just sitting in a depressing hotel. If everything interesting is at least 2 miles apart, it's hard to enjoy a city. And esp…

Texan cities are all very car friendly and pedestrian unfriendly. It is just not possible to get anywhere without a car, and people will look at you strangely even if you walk down to the grocery store a mile away or so. One fine Houston morning, my friends and I decided to walk down to the strip mall for lunch after a night out; the sidewalks were unmaintained and cracking, but also... we were the only ones walking!…

You say a mile like it's nothing. That's 20 minutes at an average walking speed vs 2-3 minutes at most by car.

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

#273

Post by hvidgaard »

YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #189
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…

>> 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". It's more like the other way around: the idea is to make public transport cheap and efficient enough that it's a reasonable alternative to driving everywhere. >> For example I live in a very public transit friendly city, but…

I agree 100%. Where I live they "restructured" the bus routes, which was a different word for "we're trying to save money". The result was that we went from 4 buses every hour, to 2 during the day and from 2 to 1 in the evening. I used to take the bus when I had to go to the city, but the waiting times have more than doubled and I'll just take the car instead. It's more expensive, but there is always parking and it's significantly faster now. I vastly prefer to take the bus, so I don't have to worry much if I grab a beer or 2, but I'm not waiting hours to catch the bus.

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

#274

Post by sethrin »

calohorn wrote: post #222
YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> 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". It's more like the other way around: the idea is to make public transport cheap and efficient enough that it's a reasonable alternative to driving everywhere. >> For example I live in a very public transit friendly city, but…

>> If homeless people on buses are a problem where you live, that has nothing to do with public transport in general. When you hear of people being aggressive, high, inconsiderate, or here in Portland two people had their throats slit on the light rail recently near my house, it makes the public not feel comfortable using the public transportation. Since it's called public transportation and these things effect the p…

People can get their throats slit in public, anywhere which is public. There is nothing to suggest that the Portland light rail is any more dangerous than walking the streets, and to be honest, as someone who uses the MAX almost exclusively, the implication is somewhat offensive.

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

#275

Post by pg314 »

2trill2spill wrote: post #153
Zarath wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How much can you condense a city if you have no roads at all? What I mean is that walking/biking/scootering in a city with no roads is probably twice, if not more, times more efficient.

How are you suppose to move goods around if you have no roads? On bike?, on foot?, by rail? Biking and on foot would be impractical for large items or many items, and if we used rail it would have to be all over the city, so your back to the same problem with roads but instead of cars and roads its trains and rail.

Cargo bikes? Something like an Urban Arrow Tender [1] can transport up to 350 kg. How often do you need something heavier?

[1] https://www.treehugger.com/bikes/urban-arrow-e-cargo-bike-re...

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

#276

Post by mac01021 »

mrep wrote: post #260
egypturnash wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

America continues to collect the wonderful, wonderful dividends of Ronald Reagan's decision to cut the funding for mental health to the bone.

That and the war on drugs...

I'm no fonder of the war on drugs than anyone else. It promotes violent crime and places an enormous burden on the state.

But how does it cause there to be more homeless addicts?

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

#277

Post by jesperlang »

massysett wrote: post #142

The very title is as ridiculous on its face as is the underlying idea. It suggests that the car is a being of its own that the city was built for. It doesn't occur to the author that each car has at least one person in it. Almost always that person is driving so she may interact with other people, work with other people, or transact business with other people, or he is himself driving for a business that is doing wor…

I see this point coming up a lot. But if you consider the car a medium of transport for the individual and how it affects the collective it makes more sense. Think of it as "build cities for people, not individuals"

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

#278

Post by woolvalley »

YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #189
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…

>> 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". It's more like the other way around: the idea is to make public transport cheap and efficient enough that it's a reasonable alternative to driving everywhere. >> For example I live in a very public transit friendly city, but…

It's probably because you have the NHS and socialized medicine, which would probably house the mentally ill homeless in some sort of mental hospital? I'm guessing the OP post lives in SF or maybe LA, where the mental hospitals were dismantled because of scandals in the 70s or 80s.

There are 2 kinds of homeless, normal people down on their luck, and people who need psychiatric or addiction care. The normal people go use the bathroom in an alleyway or a bush somewhere, the ones off their rocker piss themselves while sleeping on the train. There are far more 'normal' homeless vs. mental homeless, and it's the mental homeless that cause the problems.

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

#279

Post by woolvalley »

terenia wrote: post #255
Bekwnn wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There was an anecdote from a woman in Vancouver about how she would never again use public transit. She described being groped a dozen times in private places, and being followed off the bus by men on 3 occasions or more. I dont see how anyone could blame young women who go through that for refusing to use transit. Just as a man riding on the same transit system, I totally believe that level of frequency and wouldn't…

As a women who uses transit as part of her daily commute, it comes down to time of day and route. As well as being aware of your surroundings and understanding when there is a one-off situation occurring. Skytrain - yes, you sometimes have the one off homeless guy, who jumped the compass gates, on the train who makes it awkward for all riders. 98% of the time during the normal commute it's peaceful. Last few trains o…

Oh god the skytrain is miles better than the situation with BART & Muni in SF.

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

#280

Post by woolvalley »

epicureanideal wrote: post #226
drb91 wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, that’s the rational consumer side of you. What about the side of you that’s a member of a community—how do you start caring about externalities?

Theoretically that's what our elected officials should be dealing with. I've tried to intervene with loud or aggressive passengers before and I'll end up being the only person in 40 people on a BART car to do so, and after a couple experiences where I saw that nobody was going to back me up, I decided I should not risk my life over such things. I'd rather drive my car to work and make sure I get home to my children.

I agree, if elected officials want to reduce traffic, they would put barrier separated bike lanes and keep the trains clean and safe.

But the bay area local governments are self-sabotaging parody where it's difficult for anything like that to get done.

Post reply on HN