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

311–320 of 344 posts

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

#311

Post by rmc »

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 think the USA has (a) much more homeless people and (b) much less buses than random places in the UK. (I remember reading a stat from ~5 or 10 years ago that San Francisco had more homeless people than England).

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

#312

Post by Doctor_Fegg »

MR4D wrote: post #39
davidw wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My wife is from a small town in Italy. It doesn't have transit, but it's quite possible to get around it on foot or by bike, because it's compact.

I think your point gets missed by many people. Europeans tend to have cities that have been around much longer than cars have, and you can see it in the design - they were built back when horses were the fastest mode of transportation. Many small American towns were built after the introduction of the automobile (or at least significant chucks of the towns were). Trying to undo history, or even taking a new mode of d…

> Trying to undo history, or even taking a new mode of design is extraordinarily difficult

"The best time to plant a tree was 20 years ago. The second best time is now."

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

#313

Post by seekingcharlie »

YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #192
epicureanideal wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>> As the GP said, there are people who are drunk, high, smelling of bodily fluids, etc. There are people who are rude, loud, etc. Excuse me, but- where does that happen? I mention in another comment that I live in a town in England, where I've never had any problems with homeless people in public transport. I also work in London, travel by rail across Europe and often use public transport in three different European…

It is a huge problem in the US. I've lived in SF, Seattle, LA, and Houston.

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

#314

Post by CaptainZapp »

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…

"make driving too expensive and/or too inconvenient, to force people to use public transit"

Zurich did just that in 1973 after a public referendum killed a projected metro.

The city figured out long and hard what makes public transport attractive and determined that it's not necessarily the time that you spend to get from A to B, but more importantly the expectation of time needed.

Consequently trams (streetcars) were provided independent tracks wherever possible and trams and buses were granted priority at all signals.

Additionally the attractiveness of roads for private vehicles was reduced and parking was restricted. In 1996 the "historical compromise" was reached to restict the number of parking spaces on the level of 1990 [1].

Another important factor was the creation of the S-Bahn (regional rail transport system, comparable with Paris' RER). Combined with that an integrated ticketing and fare system for the entire canton was introduced. Except taxis you can use any mode of transport within your tickets validity.

I think calling it a roaring success and extremely visionary is not an exaggeration.

Now if the city would only become more bike friendly it would just be about perfect in all respects of public transportation.

With a more leftwing government chances are that there's finally more movement in that direction.

Sure, that model is not easily transferable to other cities and it took decades to grow to what it is now. But there certainly are other shining examples of successful public transport implementations in (mostly) Asian and European cities.

It's not impossible once the fetish for cars and parking (which is heavily related) is put aside.

[1] (https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2012/08/lessons-zuric...)

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

#315

Post by bluGill »

rmc wrote: post #311
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…

I think the USA has (a) much more homeless people and (b) much less buses than random places in the UK. (I remember reading a stat from ~5 or 10 years ago that San Francisco had more homeless people than England).

San Francisco probably does have more homeless than England, but that is a likely a case of lieing with statistics. Which is to say there are external factors that make homeless likely to migrate to San Francisco meaning you will find other places "near" San Francisco with much less homeless.

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

#316

Post by nojvek »

We don’t want cars, horses, trains, buses and things. They are all means to an end. The means of being able to move from place A to B quickly and in relative comfort.

People select whatever gets that means satisfied at the price they can afford. It’s a demand supply curve.

I take a bus to Seattle everyday even though it slower, but it’s way more confortable than driving. I always get a seat and I can read a book / get work done.

I wouldn’t take a crowded bus though. 545 is so crowded you can smell people’s sweat. I’d go back to driving. I love driving and bobbing my head to good music.

But most of the days, we don’t give a shit. We just want to get to work in morning and get back home in evening. We chose whatever means gets the job done!

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

#317

Post by rmc »

bluGill wrote: post #315
rmc wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the USA has (a) much more homeless people and (b) much less buses than random places in the UK. (I remember reading a stat from ~5 or 10 years ago that San Francisco had more homeless people than England).

San Francisco probably does have more homeless than England, but that is a likely a case of lieing with statistics. Which is to say there are external factors that make homeless likely to migrate to San Francisco meaning you will find other places "near" San Francisco with much less homeless.

Yes, I'm sure the social welfare system in San Francisco is better than England.

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

#318

Post by peterwwillis »

yellowapple wrote: post #305
peterwwillis wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But they do have that responsibility. They're supposed to wash their hands. That's the #1 way to stop the spread of viruses and bacteria. We also require they put their garbage into garbage cans and out to the street every week, so that the streets aren't literally covered in contaminated waste, like they were a century ago. We also require they call the police when a crime is occurring. And the fire department when…

"In many cities in America, it is illegal for a citizen to give a sandwich to a homeless person." Which cities? This is the first I've ever heard of this.

https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2014/10/22/357846415/mo...

http://www.newsweek.com/illegal-feed-criminalizing-homeless-...

https://blogs.findlaw.com/law_and_life/2016/06/is-feeding-th...

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

#319

Post by coryfklein »

DrScump wrote: post #292
jacques_chester wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> since they largely solve most of the problems of cars, while still being cars They solve air pollution and some of noise pollution. But they don't magically cause people to carpool. And even if they did, net passenger density for buses is higher, rail substantially higher again. An NYC subway R160 carriage can, in the space of about 4-5 car lengths, carry about 250 people, meaning those trains move a thousand or mo…

They solve air pollution They displace air pollution to wherever the generation plant is, except for rare areas served by 100% nuclear/hydroelectric/solar/geothermal.

This is a false dichotomy. Certainly it is true that reducing air pollution is better than not, and certainly effective public transit reduces total air pollution both by being more efficient, and because power sources are never 100% fossil fuel powered.

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

#320

Post by TheCoelacanth »

mwfunk wrote: post #127
coldtea wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> However, most people (US) would not prefer to live in such a town. Citation needed. Most people in the US were never given the chance to live in such a town (all other things being equal, like them being able to afford to live there). And there's also the cultural conditioning. Besides, there are rich areas in the US too, with little to no cars and lotsa walking and jogging, and people go live there just fine, payi…

Well, either that or you're the one who's been culturally conditioned. You're posting on HN after all. :) I would personally prefer to live someplace like Manhattan than amongst suburban sprawl, but I'm in the minority of basically everyone I've known all my life (which is also anecdotal of course).

The relative prices of urban vs suburban housing pretty definitively shows that more people want to live in urban settings than can currently be accommodated. The free market clearly wants more urban housing but is prevented from supplying it by government intervention.
Post reply on HN