Rethinking Streets for Bikes • Hacker News Board

Re: Rethinking Streets for Bikes

#31

Post by runarberg » Sun, Mar 24, 2019, 2:10 AM UTC

gotocake wrote: post #21

SECProto wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>We've had green bike lanes here for many years. I've never noticed any of them fade The key word in your post is "here". These things vary by location - for example, anywhere that uses snowplows, a superficial treatment (paint, even thermoplastic) will wear away in a very short period of time. Centrelines here are repainted every year or two (or ten, on roads that aren't considered very important).

Of course places such as the Northeast (USA) are also the worst candidates for the SF dream of bike dominance. Where I’m from (Colorado) the idea of bike-first is something we roll our eyes at, and generally rightly assume that the loudest advocates live somewhere else, don’t have families, and only go back and forth to work. That’s really not the whole country, no matter how much a minority of SV’ers want it to be.…

Cars do just fine in snowy places. I don’t see a reason why bikes shouldn’t. Just throw in the same effort that you do to keep car lanes open, and you’ll be fine. You can even put on pegged tires if the bikelanes tend to stay icy (like they do in Reykjavík), however be prepared to spend like 5x the effort when riding on pegged tires.

Re: Rethinking Streets for Bikes

#32

Post by syndacks » Sun, Mar 24, 2019, 2:11 AM UTC

crote wrote: post #6

I quickly read through this. Context: I'm Dutch and live in Utrecht, The Netherlands. This booklet has one massive flaw: it is constructed using American best-practices. At best, a couple of examples could be considered almost acceptable. Most of them were woefully inadequate and consist of little more than a blob of quickly-fading green paint in ill-considered positions. Worst of all, several examples are clearly fl…

I recently visited Amsterdam and was blown away by the cycling infrastructure there (I live in NYC and cycle daily).

I realized, though, that unlike many American cities, Amsterdam came of age way before the automobile. The US has a fetish with cars.

Therefore, it's impossible to compare the two countries' cycling infrastructures. The link you shared is so far beyond anything we have in the US; you can't simply say "this is how it should be done".

Instead, we have to start somewhere small and make incremental changes until a tipping point ocurrs. Add more bike lanes, introduce bike share programs, etc. Since I've lived in NYC the amount of cyclists has increased steadily. I'm hopeful this trend will occur as programs like OP are continually introduced.

Overall I agree with you, I just think the historical contexts are fundamentally different. American cities will approach Amsterdam...in a few hundred years :)

Re: Rethinking Streets for Bikes

#33

Post by bosie » Sun, Mar 24, 2019, 2:14 AM UTC

gotocake wrote: post #24

lifeisstillgood wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed - details matter a lot. For example many years ago, Camden in London put in green asphalt cycle paths - one was dangerously hilarious - you ran parallel to the main road, on a painted strip, on the side of a one way street - going against the traffic. However the new cycle "superhighways" in London are a big improvement but oddly now I find the biggest challenge is to change the attitude of the cyclists - we h…

At some point however we are going to face the fact that roads are a cheap form of transport because they are shared and so are dangerous - the UK has 4500 deaths a year Well that’s untrue. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reported_Road_Casualties_Gre... As you can see road casualties have been dropping for quite a while, and for the last 5+ years the rate is around 1,700. Deaths per year haven’t been near 4500 since…

Not trying to argue the 4500 death as that seems wrong according to your link. however, i never understood the focus on "killed" as that seems to be a combination of things, i.e. EMT, medical services, car safety for example. Why not measure the accident by impact (that would keep it consistent over time).

Also, what happened in 2010?

Re: Rethinking Streets for Bikes

#34

Post by ikawe » Sun, Mar 24, 2019, 2:15 AM UTC

gotocake wrote: post #21

SECProto wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>We've had green bike lanes here for many years. I've never noticed any of them fade The key word in your post is "here". These things vary by location - for example, anywhere that uses snowplows, a superficial treatment (paint, even thermoplastic) will wear away in a very short period of time. Centrelines here are repainted every year or two (or ten, on roads that aren't considered very important).

Of course places such as the Northeast (USA) are also the worst candidates for the SF dream of bike dominance. Where I’m from (Colorado) the idea of bike-first is something we roll our eyes at, and generally rightly assume that the loudest advocates live somewhere else, don’t have families, and only go back and forth to work. That’s really not the whole country, no matter how much a minority of SV’ers want it to be.…

Minneapolis is consistenly ranked one of the most bikeable cities in the states. Denver winters got nothing on them.

https://nextcity.org/daily/entry/these-are-the-most-bikeable...

Re: Rethinking Streets for Bikes

#35

Post by SECProto » Sun, Mar 24, 2019, 2:16 AM UTC

gotocake wrote: post #21

SECProto wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>We've had green bike lanes here for many years. I've never noticed any of them fade The key word in your post is "here". These things vary by location - for example, anywhere that uses snowplows, a superficial treatment (paint, even thermoplastic) will wear away in a very short period of time. Centrelines here are repainted every year or two (or ten, on roads that aren't considered very important).

Of course places such as the Northeast (USA) are also the worst candidates for the SF dream of bike dominance. Where I’m from (Colorado) the idea of bike-first is something we roll our eyes at, and generally rightly assume that the loudest advocates live somewhere else, don’t have families, and only go back and forth to work. That’s really not the whole country, no matter how much a minority of SV’ers want it to be.…

> Parts of the country are really spread out, parts are brutally cold, windy, and rainy, and yes some parts are lovely and sunny and packed to the gills.

Strongly agree on the spread out part, though that is (in part) a symptom of widely used planning doctrine in North America (parking minimums, maximum lot coverage, and very wide minimum lane widths). Cold, wind, and rain are all issues, but they can be overcome (and have been in some jurisdictions) - not for everyone, but if a few percentage do it it's better for everyone.

Most cycling activism I see focuses as much on advantages for drivers as anything. The North American population has been urbanizing at a high rate - for a few decades, that was accommodated with suburbs and car based transportation. Many cities are now at the point where key corridors are congested for hours morning and evening (and expanding these corridors, at great cost, would only buy a few years or a decade of congestion relief). Cycling (and transit) are both low capital cost methods to relieve congestion - get an extra 5% commuting by bike and another 10% going by bus, and you have a lot of growth room available for cars. But both these need density to be reasonable: if you have density to begin with (European and Asian cities), mass transit and cycling are obvious/sensible responses. If you're starting with a low density area, it takes incentives to get past some inflection point of density. (Or stop growing, but not many cities are doing that, and none willingly)

> The problem is that evangelists for Bike Jesus never seem to accept that, and there’s always one or two who claim to live in Antarctica with a family of 6, and all while only riding a bike.

Flamebaiting exaggerations like this really do no one any good, and are against the intention of this website. Check out the comment guidelines. [0]

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: Rethinking Streets for Bikes

#36

Post by screye » Sun, Mar 24, 2019, 2:22 AM UTC

burlesona wrote: post #30

crote wrote: post #6

I quickly read through this. Context: I'm Dutch and live in Utrecht, The Netherlands. This booklet has one massive flaw: it is constructed using American best-practices. At best, a couple of examples could be considered almost acceptable. Most of them were woefully inadequate and consist of little more than a blob of quickly-fading green paint in ill-considered positions. Worst of all, several examples are clearly fl…

I completely agree. There was an article here on HN about American infrastructure problems which described the “uncuriosity” of the US and Canada when it comes to infrastructure projects - apparently studies like this looking only at North American examples are the rule, not the exception. As an American I find that disappointing and concerning. Thanks for the links to the Dutch cycling site, that’s really cool!

From what has been told to me by my fellow architecture / urban design studying friends, American urban design is not looked upon very favorably around the world.

Re: Rethinking Streets for Bikes

#37

Post by gotocake » Sun, Mar 24, 2019, 2:22 AM UTC

bosie wrote: post #33

gotocake wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At some point however we are going to face the fact that roads are a cheap form of transport because they are shared and so are dangerous - the UK has 4500 deaths a year Well that’s untrue. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reported_Road_Casualties_Gre... As you can see road casualties have been dropping for quite a while, and for the last 5+ years the rate is around 1,700. Deaths per year haven’t been near 4500 since…

Not trying to argue the 4500 death as that seems wrong according to your link. however, i never understood the focus on "killed" as that seems to be a combination of things, i.e. EMT, medical services, car safety for example. Why not measure the accident by impact (that would keep it consistent over time). Also, what happened in 2010?

Per the same link all forms of injury have also dropped, from serious to minor. They’ve been dropping for decades, despite rising population, car ownership, and traffic rates (with the exception of 2010).

Re: Rethinking Streets for Bikes

#38

Post by Misdicorl » Sun, Mar 24, 2019, 2:23 AM UTC

csmeder wrote: post #27

Here is a moon shot idea for US cities, by 2050: 1. All car streets need to be under ground in tunnels 2. All vehicles must be 100% electric 3. Over ground traffic is limited to: walking, wheel chairs, bikes, scooters and wide load special permit vehicles. Forget Trump’s plan for going to the moon another time, can we do this instead?

The waste and cost of putting even a small percentage of road miles underground is truly astounding. This isn't comparable to going to the moon. It's comparable to turning every single family home into a thirty story skyscraper.

Re: Rethinking Streets for Bikes

#39

Post by screye » Sun, Mar 24, 2019, 2:26 AM UTC

gotocake wrote: post #21

SECProto wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>We've had green bike lanes here for many years. I've never noticed any of them fade The key word in your post is "here". These things vary by location - for example, anywhere that uses snowplows, a superficial treatment (paint, even thermoplastic) will wear away in a very short period of time. Centrelines here are repainted every year or two (or ten, on roads that aren't considered very important).

Of course places such as the Northeast (USA) are also the worst candidates for the SF dream of bike dominance. Where I’m from (Colorado) the idea of bike-first is something we roll our eyes at, and generally rightly assume that the loudest advocates live somewhere else, don’t have families, and only go back and forth to work. That’s really not the whole country, no matter how much a minority of SV’ers want it to be.…

> Of course places such as the Northeast (USA) are also the worst candidates for the SF dream of bike dominance

I would say the opposite.

Apart from the weather (which is a big part, but still), they are perfectly poised for biking.

North eastern cities dense, relatively flat and have no way of building more roads or accommodating new cars / parking spaces. Cycles also work very well in tandem with public transport ( when allowed on it).

On the other hand, I think SF and SV are not suited for bikes at all. Apart from last mile connectivity, everyone is still dependent on cars for every other task.

Re: Rethinking Streets for Bikes

#40

Post by analog31 » Sun, Mar 24, 2019, 2:32 AM UTC

ikawe wrote: post #34

gotocake wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course places such as the Northeast (USA) are also the worst candidates for the SF dream of bike dominance. Where I’m from (Colorado) the idea of bike-first is something we roll our eyes at, and generally rightly assume that the loudest advocates live somewhere else, don’t have families, and only go back and forth to work. That’s really not the whole country, no matter how much a minority of SV’ers want it to be.…

Minneapolis is consistenly ranked one of the most bikeable cities in the states. Denver winters got nothing on them. https://nextcity.org/daily/entry/these-are-the-most-bikeable...

Madison WI is also a great city for getting around by bike. Things have improved a lot since I moved here a couple decades ago.

The winter does deter people, simply as evidenced by seeing fewer fellow cyclists during my commute. One nice perk is that the city clears the bike paths quite promptly.