Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

sfchronicle.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 236 posts

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

#51

Post by Traster »

>His conclusion: When cities shut streets off to cars, people drive less. The myth of a “carmageddon”-style traffic jam is apparently overblown.

This seems to completely ignore the fact that what actually has occured here is that the reduction of drivers is a negative for those drivers. Those drivers now either have to cycle or use public transport instead of their cars or have to move. That might seem positive to the people who don't have to make those sacrifices, but it's a massive negative impact on the people effected by this.

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

#52

Post by lotsofpulp »

Traster wrote: post #51

>His conclusion: When cities shut streets off to cars, people drive less. The myth of a “carmageddon”-style traffic jam is apparently overblown. This seems to completely ignore the fact that what actually has occured here is that the reduction of drivers is a negative for those drivers. Those drivers now either have to cycle or use public transport instead of their cars or have to move. That might seem positive to th…

Yes, things have both pros and cons. Now list all the negative externalities of designing life around 5 passenger vehicles occupied by 1 person.

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

#53

Post by lotsofpulp »

eru wrote: post #37
aguyfromnb wrote: post #34

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'.

> the total amount of physical stuff churning through the US economy has declined since the 1930s (or so?) just in terms of sheer mass.

That’s an extraordinary claim to me, especially given population growth, and I would need some rigorous evidence to believe it. Cars are bigger, homes are bigger, people live further apart, and people travel more. How can the sheer mass not be more simply because of the mass of all the extra fuel?

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

#54

Post by flyinghamster »

Chicago tried this decades ago with the State Street Mall project [1]. It turned out to be an overall flop, with stores seeing reduced traffic, and by 1993 it was gone and good riddance. As a pedestrian, I hated it when I worked downtown.

Maybe they'll do something on Market Street that will work better, or perhaps it might be a better fit there than in Chicago, but I wish them luck, because they're going to need it.

[1] https://www.chicagotribune.com/opinion/commentary/ct-opinion...

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

#55

Post by thih9 »

flyinghamster wrote: post #54

Chicago tried this decades ago with the State Street Mall project [1]. It turned out to be an overall flop, with stores seeing reduced traffic, and by 1993 it was gone and good riddance. As a pedestrian, I hated it when I worked downtown. Maybe they'll do something on Market Street that will work better, or perhaps it might be a better fit there than in Chicago, but I wish them luck, because they're going to need it.…

> Unfortunately, our website is currently unavailable in most European countries. We are engaged on the issue and committed to looking at options that support our full range of digital offerings to the EU market. We continue to identify technical compliance solutions that will provide all readers with our award-winning journalism.

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

#56

Post by dbingham »

Traster wrote: post #51

>His conclusion: When cities shut streets off to cars, people drive less. The myth of a “carmageddon”-style traffic jam is apparently overblown. This seems to completely ignore the fact that what actually has occured here is that the reduction of drivers is a negative for those drivers. Those drivers now either have to cycle or use public transport instead of their cars or have to move. That might seem positive to th…

Well, and the externalities of the driver's carbon emissions are a massive negative impact on all of us. In a city as dense as San Francisco, transit, walking, or biking can easily cover most people's transportation needs. The more we build safe and effective infrastructure for those modes, the more people will use them. And that will be good - in the end - for the remaining few who do absolutely need to drive (though I believe that if we get creative, with things like bike rikshaws, we can even cover that segment with out cars).

If we don't change these sorts of habits, the climate will change them for us.

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

#57

Post by imgabe »

Traster wrote: post #51

>His conclusion: When cities shut streets off to cars, people drive less. The myth of a “carmageddon”-style traffic jam is apparently overblown. This seems to completely ignore the fact that what actually has occured here is that the reduction of drivers is a negative for those drivers. Those drivers now either have to cycle or use public transport instead of their cars or have to move. That might seem positive to th…

We're talking about one street. Is it seriously a "massive negative impact" to drive down the next street over?

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

#58

Post by Valgrim »

Traster wrote: post #51

>His conclusion: When cities shut streets off to cars, people drive less. The myth of a “carmageddon”-style traffic jam is apparently overblown. This seems to completely ignore the fact that what actually has occured here is that the reduction of drivers is a negative for those drivers. Those drivers now either have to cycle or use public transport instead of their cars or have to move. That might seem positive to th…

Massive? That's a pretty weak negative here. Cycling and walking feels good when there's no car around, public transport is a great time to relax, read a book or meet people. And it's only one street, people can still drive close to where they want to be.

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

#59

Post by lotsofpulp »

flyinghamster wrote: post #54

Chicago tried this decades ago with the State Street Mall project [1]. It turned out to be an overall flop, with stores seeing reduced traffic, and by 1993 it was gone and good riddance. As a pedestrian, I hated it when I worked downtown. Maybe they'll do something on Market Street that will work better, or perhaps it might be a better fit there than in Chicago, but I wish them luck, because they're going to need it.…

The weather in Chicago is markedly worse for being outside for half the year.

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

#60

Post by paulgb »

Traster wrote: post #51

>His conclusion: When cities shut streets off to cars, people drive less. The myth of a “carmageddon”-style traffic jam is apparently overblown. This seems to completely ignore the fact that what actually has occured here is that the reduction of drivers is a negative for those drivers. Those drivers now either have to cycle or use public transport instead of their cars or have to move. That might seem positive to th…

You're right that this will negatively affect some drivers, but it's not necessarily true that every driver removed from the road is worse off. Some of the 25% increase in cyclists may have been drivers who preferred to cycle but did not feel safe doing so.

Anecdotally, I feel that way here in NYC -- I'd almost always rather bike (and it's often faster), but will sometimes take an Uber/Lyft because I don't feel safe biking in traffic, thus becoming traffic myself and perpetuating the vicious cycle.

Post reply on HN