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

211–220 of 236 posts

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

#211

Post by asdff »

Tiktaalik wrote: post #186
Steltek wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did Vancouver's experience result in a shift in transportation priorities long term? Or after the Olympics, were people eager to go back to the prior status quo?

The funding went away so things went back to normal. Of course with any available roadspace, it will be filled up and used. Later on with a new government transit funding increased and transit has subsequently been seeing double digit growth. The entire exercise makes me feel pretty confident that you can close off road space and so long as you're funding viable alternatives things are fine.

It's really just a question of efficiency. People don't take the subway in nyc because its fun; it can still take an hour one way if everything is working out for the mta that day. They take it because driving in would take two hours.

People take whatever is easiest, so in cities like LA it's no suprise that millions of people would rather sit in traffic hell for 45 minutes one way a day when their transit trip would be an hour and a half, if everything works.

If you want less people driving, then you need to provide a better alternative beyond transit just being the civically minded thing to do. It also doesn't help when its not perceived to be the most safe alternative, in terms of crime and harassment.

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

#212

Post by brnt »

ehnto wrote: post #207
labawi wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 d…

I want to be clear, I'm talking about the city metro areas. Not commuting from suburbia. We should have fully separated bike paths for longer distance commute bike traffic, because mixed speed traffic with cars just doesn't work when cars are going faster, and unprotected bike lanes are just a bandaid solution to that problem. But once you're in the metro area, everyone should slow right down. The dominant traffic in…

There is no difference between city centers and suburbia in much of Europe. Apart from that, the Netherlands has a few bike highways now to cater to faster intercity transport.

What you want to do is enable fast biking everywhere (so a bike first infra) and seperate modalities for safety and comfort. Any urban transport research will show that bikes in foot traffic is a Very Bad Idea(tm).

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

#213

Post by labawi »

ehnto wrote: post #207
labawi wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 d…

I want to be clear, I'm talking about the city metro areas. Not commuting from suburbia. We should have fully separated bike paths for longer distance commute bike traffic, because mixed speed traffic with cars just doesn't work when cars are going faster, and unprotected bike lanes are just a bandaid solution to that problem. But once you're in the metro area, everyone should slow right down. The dominant traffic in…

Former discussion was about sidewalks, so I wanted to be explicit that having a 40km/h speed limit for cars while sending cyclists to a shared cyclepath/sidewak at 10km/h is not a solution.

I fully agree with displacing cars. If a street has 20km/h limit for cars, I would not mind if it applied for bicycles as well (even though they are safer at the same speed).

Yes, foot traffic should be a priority. For longer distances you need something faster - mass transit, bikes, those e-scooters, maybe longboards, or even segways (there are nice 1-wheel versions), but you don't need fast paths on every street. Cars take too much space to go in significant numbers even near city centers.

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

#215

Post by kqr »

paradox101 wrote: post #199
kqr wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you might be underestimating the size of a modern car -- they're huge !

By small car I meant Smart ForTwo, or Fiat 500. These not-a-car trikes/quads have comparable footprint to these cars. Which isn't small enough to fit in-between 2 lanes.

Sure, but those are exceptions to the modern car size, and the median car size on the street is far bigger than that. If everyone would switch to Fiat 500 sized cars, that would be an amazing start.

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

#216

Post by u801e »

ehnto wrote: post #207
labawi wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 d…

I want to be clear, I'm talking about the city metro areas. Not commuting from suburbia. We should have fully separated bike paths for longer distance commute bike traffic, because mixed speed traffic with cars just doesn't work when cars are going faster, and unprotected bike lanes are just a bandaid solution to that problem. But once you're in the metro area, everyone should slow right down. The dominant traffic in…

> because mixed speed traffic with cars just doesn't work when cars are going faster

Why doesn't it work? I frequently commute by bicycle by traveling at speeds ranging from 10 to 40 km/h (averaging around 18 to 20 km/h) amongst motorized traffic moving at 25 to 80 km/h without any issues. I do something very similar on interstate highways (motorways) where I drive 110 to 130 km/h amongst tractor-trailers moving at 60 to 100 km/h.

> unprotected bike lanes are just a bandaid solution to that problem.

Bike lanes don't solve anything and they cause problems for cyclists at intersections because they direct cyclists to pass traffic on the wrong side when traffic plans to turn.

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

#217

Post by u801e »

ehnto wrote: post #208
u801e wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Bikes can certainly share pedestrian areas, they just need to ride slower That significantly reduces the utility of the bicycle in terms of transportation. If one can't ride at a pace that much faster than walking, then using a bicycle provides no advantage in terms of time. It's also more awkward to control a bicycle at slower speeds and you're more likely to fall and injure yourself compared to hist Ealing at the…

I didn't make it clear, but I'm talking about metro areas. Longer distance commuting would be better catered for with separated bike paths. My city is almost there, with separated bike paths for commuting, but then it reverts to car-dominant in the city, which doesn't make any sense. But you can totally ride faster than walking on footpaths provided they're big enough, and it's easy enough to get on and off the path…

> But you can totally ride faster than walking on footpaths provided they're big enough,

That really depends on how many pedestrians are using the foot path. Plus, why use the footpath when I can use the road and ride at commute speed? Similarly, when I drive my car, I prefer taking the highway/motorway since I can drive faster than I can using surface streets.

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

#218

Post by u801e »

swiley wrote: post #86
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.

IMO: you don’t to see that, you just need to have ever driven a car with other cars on the road to understand why vehicles going different speeds shouldn’t share the same lanes.

Which is why drivers typically change lanes to pass. Unfortunately, most bike paths are rather narrow and preclude that possibility when you get stuck behind a slower cyclist or pedestrian.

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

#219

Post by closeparen »

wpietri wrote: post #130
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.

As somebody who cycled Market Street every day for a few years, I beg to differ. Private cars were always my biggest safety worry. Per the MTA, it was 200-400 cars per hour during morning commutes. That's half what's on Mission, but it was still plenty to contend with.

I cycled Market every day too. Far and away the scariest thing is a bus on my tail. Far and away the most frustrating thing is a bus in front of me. I switched to Howard because the trucks forcing me to weave in and out of the bike lane were less of a hassle. Excited that Market is eventually getting a dedicated bike lane as part of this project, though.

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

#220

Post by burfog »

Xylakant wrote: post #72
pleasecalllater wrote: post #67

I'm always wondering what about people with disabilities, older people with problems with walking, pregnant women, families with four kids, etc. Sometimes the public transport for such people is problematic and using taxi all the time is too expensive. Total banning cars makes a great space for the healthy ones, the rest is happily ignored. And this is sad. I like decreasing the number of cars, not forbidding them at…

> I like decreasing the number of cars, not forbidding them at all. No one plans to. That aside, cars also pose major problems to all those groups you mention. Elderly people feel unsafe driving and unsafe walking because of cars. They're the primary victims of car-caused accidents. Elderly people in bad health can also be a danger to others when driving. Kids cannot go anywhere on their own - in large parts because…

With or without traffic, those groups do not feel safe out on the streets of San Francisco. They are easy prey for bad people. They don't handle the hills well; they might fall and break a hip.

Public transportation isn't safe either, even before the latest elderly-killing virus. Cars work. People too weak to drive can have family members drive them around.

Post reply on HN