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

141–150 of 236 posts

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

#141

Post by [deleted] »

tom_mellior wrote: post #77
thih9 wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

There seems to be an alternative interpretation the State Steet project and its failure here: https://www.wbez.org/shows/dynamic-range/the-short-sad-life-... but you have to listen to the recording of a radio program for all the details, which I didn't do. Anyway, I live in Vienna where we have had pedestrianized shopping streets since 1971. Before every single project there is a huge discussion that this will kill a…

[deleted]

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

#142

Post by wpietri »

Traster wrote: post #90
dbingham wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 (thoug…

I'm not advocating for designing life around increasing car ownership. I'm pointing out that re-designing existing systems to disadvantage a specific group of commuters is more than a little problematic. Let's put it this way - how would you feel if we shut down your nearest train station and used the money saved to give everyone a tax break. We can also decrease carbon emissions by just shutting down every power sta…

Your point is that changes can be bad for some people while being good for others? I'm pretty sure everybody knows that.

Given that they spent 10 years planning this, and given the enormous infrastructural support cars get, I'm quite sure the city was aware.

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

#143

Post by Symbiote »

dublinben wrote: post #117
close04 wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you bother to build the cycling lane then differentiating it a bit more obviously from the sidewalk is not such a big expenditure. Loot at this [0] setup (just outside of Copenhagen). Simply having a few centimeters of difference in height between the 3 lanes (pedestrians, bikes, cars) makes them very obvious and a lot harder to accidentally cross them. It also allows treating the cycling lane as another traffic l…

Do drivers actually respect cycling lanes like the first one? In the US we have much more separated lanes which are routinely disrespected by drivers.

Delivery drivers park half-in-half-out of these lanes in the city sometimes.

Otherwise, they're respected. I don't think I've ever seen someone driving in one. It seems a strange question. Do American drivers not respect the sidewalk? It's the same construction.

I think the police would come down very heavily on anyone they caught driving in the cycle lane without a very good reason. The only good reason I can think of would be to move slowly aside to allow an emergency vehicle to pass -- and the same reason would justify pulling onto the sidewalk -- although either action is still illegal.

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

#144

Post by [deleted] »

Traster wrote: post #90
dbingham wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 (thoug…

I'm not advocating for designing life around increasing car ownership. I'm pointing out that re-designing existing systems to disadvantage a specific group of commuters is more than a little problematic. Let's put it this way - how would you feel if we shut down your nearest train station and used the money saved to give everyone a tax break. We can also decrease carbon emissions by just shutting down every power sta…

[deleted]

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

#145

Post by dwaltrip »

buzzkillington wrote: post #93
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.

Flat out wrong: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_the_United_States The US is today consuming less energy than it was in 1970.

Your linked Wikipedia article suggests that we may have shifted some of our energy usage to other countries (e.g. by making use of manufacturing done in another country).

Edit: Perhaps the actual total energy usage is lower. However, the article doesn't give the impression that this is obviously true.

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

#146

Post by ghaff »

dkarl wrote: post #112
half_way wrote: post #36

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.

I live in the U.S., and I've been surprised to hear from several people I know that their kids refused to learn to drive and get a driver's license. They all live in the suburbs, so it's utterly impractical and in every case took their parents completely by surprise. Their reasoning is, driving is harmful and passé and everybody knows we should live in dense cities and take public transit. They've never lived in a pl…

There have been some changes in attitudes. But give them a few years. Most kids in college don't have cars anyway. And, when they graduate, they may find not being able to drive rather limits job opportunities. Most people aren't in the position of some tech workers who can pretty much pick and choose based on where they want to live.

It's not just about owning a car. A lot of even white collar jobs depend on driving. (Think just about any sales job for example [that involves meeting with customers].) Leaving aside for a moment all the recreational and social activities I would have missed out over my life by not driving, I've had jobs where I absolutely needed to drive.

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

#147

Post by r_klancer »

ARandomerDude wrote: post #128

It would be awesome if you had something like a bicycle, only more comfortable that could hold you, a friend, and some of your things. You could enclose it to protect you from the weather, too. For longer distances, or people with disabilities, you could add some mechanical contraption in case you can't pedal that far. That'll be the day.

Some of those already exist! At increasing levels of car-like-ness:

* https://www.wired.com/gallery/best-electric-cargo-bikes/

* https://www.contemporist.com/5-examples-of-enclosed-bike-des...

* https://www.arcimoto.com/

(Studiously ignoring parent's intended snark)

In all seriousness, I'm expecting an explosion of these new light vehicle body types in the coming decades, as global trends of cheap electric drive + batteries, increasing urban congestion, and less car-oriented urban planning trends converge

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

#148

Post by estebank »

Symbiote wrote: post #143
dublinben wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do drivers actually respect cycling lanes like the first one? In the US we have much more separated lanes which are routinely disrespected by drivers.

Delivery drivers park half-in-half-out of these lanes in the city sometimes. Otherwise, they're respected. I don't think I've ever seen someone driving in one. It seems a strange question. Do American drivers not respect the sidewalk? It's the same construction. I think the police would come down very heavily on anyone they caught driving in the cycle lane without a very good reason. The only good reason I can think…

https://twitter.com/lorichung/status/1098411580130320384?s=1... https://twitter.com/richmintz/status/1225465820387725313?s=1... https://twitter.com/KostelecPlan/status/1232868760513470464?...

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

#149

Post by yCombLinks »

everyone wrote: post #70

A big traffic jam would be nothing like 'Carmageddon' An extremely popular series of computer games starting in 1997, where u race around smashing into other vehicles and running over pedestrians. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carmageddon Why do they keep saying carmageddon????

They're not talking about the game? The game didn't create the term, the incredibly simple adding of the letter C to the word Armageddon?

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

#150

Post by clairity »

jiofih wrote: post #95
brnt wrote: 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.

The curb is a hazard to cyclists, more so than a crash with inattentive pedestrians. The majority of Dutch cycle lanes are level with the sidewalk and how often do you hear of accidents (not caused by mopeds)?

> "The curb is a hazard to cyclists..."

not if the curb is sloped (american suburbs tend to have these), so that you could ride up (or down) it in a pinch.

i'd support such a little "mound curb" separating cars and bikes at the same grade, which would likely be less expensive to install than building 3 different grades for cars, bikes/scooters, and pedestrians (which i'd also support).

Post reply on HN