Live data from Hacker News

No ‘carmageddon’ on auto-free Market Street: study shows bikes and buses benefit

sfchronicle.com

41–50 of 236 posts

Re: No ‘carmageddon’ on auto-free Market Street: study shows bikes and buses benefit

#41
post #39
post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You fix it over time, by allowing (but not forcing!) people to build taller. Also check out http://urbankchoze.blogspot.com/2014/04/japanese-zoning.html

And get rid of parking minimums.

Compare 'The High Cost of Free Parking'. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_High_Cost_of_Free_Parking

Re: No ‘carmageddon’ on auto-free Market Street: study shows bikes and buses benefit

#42
post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep. Physicists laugh at economists, but this is the same underlying structure that explains how even though everything we use is now more energy efficient, we use more energy overall.

What time in the past are you talking about? Funny enough, the total amount of physical stuff churning through the US economy has declined since the 1930s (or so?) just in terms of sheer mass. Btw, your observation sounds much less surprising when you say 'transistors got cheaper since the 1970, yet we are spending more in total on transistors than ever'.

This is generally called Jevons paradox: When you make something more efficient, demand rises because it is more efficient, which in the end leads to using more of the base resource (but getting a lot more for it).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox#

Re: No ‘carmageddon’ on auto-free Market Street: study shows bikes and buses benefit

#43
post #25
post #2

Just the fact that riding a bicycle got more attractive and 25% more people are using their bicycles now means that there will be less people left stuck in traffic in their cars. Not to mention the people who are exercising by using their bicycles will have health benefits as well.

> more people are using their bicycles now means that there will be less people left stuck in traffic in their cars It doesn't follow though More people using bikes is not a direct consequence of less people using cars It could be, but there is no cause-effect relationship For example in Milan where I live more people are using bikes because many people moved in recently and owning a car is expensive here and the wea…

> Most of them don't even hold a driving license

This is absolutely not true in the UK, and probably not in most major cities. The overwhelming proportion of cyclists here are adults, and many have decided to take up cycling after already going through the normal rite-of-passage of learning to drive.

Base on data from the national travel survey, it's estimated that 83% of cyclists hold a driving license in the UK[1]. Given that figure, an increase in cycling traffic will definitely cause a proportional decrease in motorised traffic.

1. https://www.cyclinguk.org/statistics

Re: No ‘carmageddon’ on auto-free Market Street: study shows bikes and buses benefit

#44
post #33
post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I live in Graz and I'm hard of hearing. Hearing aids make locating where some kinds of sounds come from difficult, so I miss a lot of acoustic cues that pedestrians use to navigate their way through busy places. I've been run down once by a bicyclist and once by a skateboarder while I was walking on mixed use pathways. The skateboarder took a harder fall than I did, still helped me up, and sincerely apologized. I fra…

Bikes shouldn't share the lane with pedestrians any more than they should share it with cars. In an ideal world they would look more like Danish ones, with all 3 separated by at least a small kerb. This helps pedestrians, cyclists, and drivers alike. Cycling in Denmark was the best cycling experience I ever had relative to the way bike lanes are designed (definitely not related to the cyclists that were sometimes fal…

There's (literally) one street in a nearby city that, during a redesign a few years back, basically embedded a bike lane in the sidewalk. It's sort of a hazard. It's moderately busy for both pedestrians and bikes and, given that this is an extremely atypical configuration, pedestrians are simply not used to looking out for bikes zipping down this bike lane (sometimes even in the direction that they're supposed to be traveling on a given side and maybe with lights on at night). I'm there often enough that I'm careful but I've still come closer to being hit a couple of times as a pedestrian than I'd like.

Re: No ‘carmageddon’ on auto-free Market Street: study shows bikes and buses benefit

#45
post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a Dutchie blunders like the one you mention are so stupifying... Takes you a ten minute visit to NL to figure out why you need to separate modalities consistently, yet even as close as Germany and France cities are designed so obviously by people who never ever bike.

Same in Austria, we simply grew accustomed to bikes sharing the road with cars, busses and trams which I'm sure would be terrifying to someone from NL. The problem is, after the post war boom, the cities were planned for cars and now there's simply no space left for cycling lanes unless we ban cars which as much as I wish for will never happen in my lifetime.

I'm a Dutchie who's also spent time in Salzburg and the percentage of people riding bikes is different. If Salzburg had to support the scale of bicycles that Utrecht does it would require a radical redesign of the roads in Salzburg.

Can't speak for other Austrian cities other than Salzburg, though.

Re: No ‘carmageddon’ on auto-free Market Street: study shows bikes and buses benefit

#46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Most of them don't even hold a driving license Maybe true in Milan, but not anywhere in the US. Driving is near imperative in all areas of the country, unfortunately even in big cities, meaning everyone who can get a license, does.

Is driving an imperative even in cities like NY and SF? Where would you even be driving to or from in cities like that? Where would you be parking? I wouldn’t attempt to drive in NY in a million years.

NY (Manhattan and certain areas of Brooklyn in particular) somewhat uniquely don't really require a car. Partly it's because owning a car is a pain/expensive and partly because of transit. But it's also because there's a general mindset that as a professional 30 year old, you're not really expected to have a car and activities and people's expectations are set accordingly.

In other cities--and there are other cities that have better transit options than SF which is actually fairly poor--you can get by without a car. But Uber, Zipcar, rentals, etc. only take you so far for weekend activities and visiting the friends who probably don't live on transit lines. You can manage but you adjust activities accordingly. [ADDED: Also, lots of jobs are actually outside the city and you mostly need a car to get to them.]

FWIW, I know a couple who live in SF who don't own a car. But they make heavy use of Uber and car rentals of various types. Short-term rental and rideshares make not owning a car more practical for a certain class of urban dweller than it used to be. But not even having a license reduces your options, including both work and recreational options, a lot.

Re: No ‘carmageddon’ on auto-free Market Street: study shows bikes and buses benefit

#47
post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same in Austria, we simply grew accustomed to bikes sharing the road with cars, busses and trams which I'm sure would be terrifying to someone from NL. The problem is, after the post war boom, the cities were planned for cars and now there's simply no space left for cycling lanes unless we ban cars which as much as I wish for will never happen in my lifetime.

I live in Graz and I'm hard of hearing. Hearing aids make locating where some kinds of sounds come from difficult, so I miss a lot of acoustic cues that pedestrians use to navigate their way through busy places. I've been run down once by a bicyclist and once by a skateboarder while I was walking on mixed use pathways. The skateboarder took a harder fall than I did, still helped me up, and sincerely apologized. I fra…

I also live in Graz now and as much as it loves to advertise itself as a bike friendly city, outside of the inner city center and student quarters biking here is very dangerous due to poor infrastructure cyclists have to share with pedestrians, cars or trams and cyclists not respecting any rules (crossing on red lights, never hand signaling a turn or a stop, etc.).

Compared to the Netherlands or Denmark, biking culture and infrastructure in Austria is a national embarrassment.

Re: No ‘carmageddon’ on auto-free Market Street: study shows bikes and buses benefit

#48
post #44
post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bikes shouldn't share the lane with pedestrians any more than they should share it with cars. In an ideal world they would look more like Danish ones, with all 3 separated by at least a small kerb. This helps pedestrians, cyclists, and drivers alike. Cycling in Denmark was the best cycling experience I ever had relative to the way bike lanes are designed (definitely not related to the cyclists that were sometimes fal…

There's (literally) one street in a nearby city that, during a redesign a few years back, basically embedded a bike lane in the sidewalk. It's sort of a hazard. It's moderately busy for both pedestrians and bikes and, given that this is an extremely atypical configuration, pedestrians are simply not used to looking out for bikes zipping down this bike lane (sometimes even in the direction that they're supposed to be…

The Rue de la Loi is Brussels is notorious for this. They removed a lane of traffic a few years ago and added a bike lane at the same level as the sidewalk. Incredibly dangerous to pedestrians and cyclists.

https://www.google.com/maps/@50.8445626,4.3736092,3a,75y,270...

Re: No ‘carmageddon’ on auto-free Market Street: study shows bikes and buses benefit

#49
post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is driving an imperative even in cities like NY and SF? Where would you even be driving to or from in cities like that? Where would you be parking? I wouldn’t attempt to drive in NY in a million years.

NY (Manhattan and certain areas of Brooklyn in particular) somewhat uniquely don't really require a car. Partly it's because owning a car is a pain/expensive and partly because of transit. But it's also because there's a general mindset that as a professional 30 year old, you're not really expected to have a car and activities and people's expectations are set accordingly. In other cities--and there are other cities…

[deleted]

Re: No ‘carmageddon’ on auto-free Market Street: study shows bikes and buses benefit

#50
post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's (literally) one street in a nearby city that, during a redesign a few years back, basically embedded a bike lane in the sidewalk. It's sort of a hazard. It's moderately busy for both pedestrians and bikes and, given that this is an extremely atypical configuration, pedestrians are simply not used to looking out for bikes zipping down this bike lane (sometimes even in the direction that they're supposed to be…

The Rue de la Loi is Brussels is notorious for this. They removed a lane of traffic a few years ago and added a bike lane at the same level as the sidewalk. Incredibly dangerous to pedestrians and cyclists. https://www.google.com/maps/@50.8445626,4.3736092,3a,75y,270...

This is actually even worse than that. Because of trees, the bike lane sort of goes down the middle of the sidewalk.

https://www.google.com/maps/@42.358207,-71.0988444,3a,75y,20...

Post reply on HN