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

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

#161

Post by ClumsyPilot » Fri, Feb 28, 2020, 6:40 PM UTC

lotsofpulp wrote: post #53

eru wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

If its measured in pure mass, I would assume construction, concrete and coal consumption to have biggest effects. iPhones don't weigh much.

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

#162

Post by labawi » Fri, Feb 28, 2020, 6:41 PM UTC

ehnto wrote: post #94

close04 wrote: 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…

Bikes can certainly share pedestrian areas, they just need to ride slower, the walkways need to be wide, and the walkways should be easy to enter and exit in the case you need to ride around groups of people (shallow curbs you ride up and down). Look at Osaka, you have almost free reign on a bicycle there. Bikes are slow, cars are slow, but it all flows. Bikes even join foot traffic in shopping precints. But when it'…

Cars can certainly share cycle paths, they just need to ride slower, the paths need to be wide, and they should be easy to enter and exit in the case you need to ride around groups of cyclists.

Pedestrian areas, yes - people usually don't commute through there. Sidewalks vs. cycle paths vs. car lanes - not a good idea.

When people propose path sharing among pedestrians and cyclists, they often mean cyclists slowing down to speeds (e.g. 10km/h, or even 5-7km/h), which they would find unacceptable for cars, even if multiplied x3 (try telling drivers to go 30km/h so they share with cyclists going 15-30 km/h).

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

#163

Post by chinesempire » Fri, Feb 28, 2020, 6:41 PM UTC

clairity wrote: post #151

adrianN wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And get rid of parking minimums.

you really only need to price it properly. one approach would be to require landlords to list the cost of parking separately in their lease agreements, and allow renters to opt out of that cost independent of the rest of the lease. edit: oh, and have city-wide permit parking as well, so that municipal street parking is priced properly too.

Roads are public spaces in Italy, only the state (the city) can charge for public parking

And major cities are already charging as much as they can

That's why people with kids usually move out, that's why they need cars, that's why telling them to go by bike is unimaginable

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

#164

Post by chinesempire » Fri, Feb 28, 2020, 6:44 PM UTC

re-actor wrote: post #64

asjw wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You live in a flat country, were cities are quite densely populated and you don't have to travel a lot. Mine is not.

The flatness is almost entirely canceled out by the relentless 20km/h+ wind

You get pretty strong winds in southern Europe as well, without the flatness

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

#165

Post by ClumsyPilot » Fri, Feb 28, 2020, 6:51 PM UTC

ghaff wrote: post #146

dkarl wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Its not so much about owning a car, as it is about using it daily for commute. And cities should be designed in such a way that it's not necessary - all residential areas in prague, including suburbs, are covered by public transport. It is much cheaper to use, than owning and maintaining a car.

That what the whole planning process is for.

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

#166

Post by gok » Fri, Feb 28, 2020, 6:55 PM UTC

The main problem with Market Street for pedestrians is the heroin and poop, not cars.

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

#167

Post by Tiktaalik » Fri, Feb 28, 2020, 6:56 PM UTC

closeparen wrote: post #100

Market St. has never been a significant thoroughfare for private cars. Of course there’s no traffic impact. Try the same thing on Mission, Howard, Folsom, Harrison, Geary, Van Ness, etc. and you’ll see a very different story.

You'd be surprised.

Vancouver shut down its core arterial streets to traffic during the 2010 olympics (Broadway, Hastings) and spiked transit funding to compensate. Nothing bad happened and people shifted their behaviour pretty easily.

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

#168

Post by eindiran » Fri, Feb 28, 2020, 7:05 PM UTC

Symbiote wrote: post #3

The linked article (1) says the redesign will have "sidewalk level bike lanes". If there's a way for local people to comment on this, please encourage these to be changed to in-between-road-and-sidewalk level. (Or road level with a continuous kerb in between). This makes it much, much easier for pedestrians not to accidentally wander into the lane. (2) 1 https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Car-free-Market-...…

San Francisco has a few areas with the "sidewalk level bike lanes", especially near the waterfront from the Embarcadero towards The Marina. I've walked in there as a pedestrian and have ridden a bike in that area, and honestly the area has wide-enough sidewalks that that style of bike lane isn't too bad for pedestrians or cyclists, at least in my opinion. I imagine what's envisioned for Market Street will end up being similar, though the sidewalk along the sections of Market I see regularly (around the Powell Street Bart) is narrower than in the waterfront areas.

But I tend to agree with you overall: with (most^) cars taken out of the equation, a street level bike lane is probably better for everyone.

^ I still see people mistakenly turning on to Market sometimes.

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

#169

Post by darkstar999 » Fri, Feb 28, 2020, 7:23 PM UTC

Tepix wrote: 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.

I don't think it implies that 25% more people are using bicycles. It looks like bike traffic on this particular road increased 25%.

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

#170

Post by scarejunba » Fri, Feb 28, 2020, 7:23 PM UTC

_jal wrote: post #109

eru wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a bit weird that some people (not you) single out Uber and Lyft when talking about congestion. A congestion charge would solve the problem in a principled way, with no need for exceptions for special vehicles. Buses and even fire engines and ambulances could just pay the congestion charge, too.

If you have a nearly full cup, and someone dumps a bunch more water at it, who do you blame for the mess?

The logical fallacy comes from the implicit nature of it being your cup rather than a shared cup. This is more like "if the park is crowded and a big family decided to celebrate their birthday there crowding it even more, who do you blame for the crowd?"

Or "If you've got four bicycle stands and four of you bike to work but then a new guy joins and he bikes to work too".

Of course you can still apportion blame/responsibility based on idle time, personal v commercial use, but who came first is less convincing when equal rights apply.