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

#231

Post by chinesempire » Mon, Mar 02, 2020, 4:05 PM UTC

eru wrote: post #223

chinesempire wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't fix the problem of having to drive 40kms a day to go to work and the fact that many people don't live in the city because it's more expensive. So now you have two problems: you have to convince them to bike and to live in smaller houses spending more money

I don't see how that follows? If anything, we'd be suggesting bigger houses. Tall and with nice and large flats in them. In the city centres where that makes commercial sense. Just allow tall buildings, and let developers worry about whether they _should_ build tall.

> In the city centres where that makes commercial sense. Just allow tall buildings

You have to consider that we in Europe live in very old cities where what you're advocating for is impossible and even if it was possible, it would be crazy.

I live in Italy, Rome, Milan, Florence, Bologna, Naples, can't build taller in the city centre without ruining the city forever.

Turin is not Rotterdam.

Milan does it a little, but a skyscraper can't solve the problem of the literally thousands of people working for the big companies (mainly banks) that are building them.

They can at best concentrate _some_ of the commuters by concentrating the higher level managers in the same place.

That's it! And it took Milan 10 years to get it started by renovating areas of the city close to the stations and not too far from the centre that were once almost abandoned.

With the renovations going on prices have skyrocketed, so more people go to live further away, that's why the larger companies have offices near the highways, where it's easier to gather people scattered on a large territory and build giant parking spots and that's why people in the end need cars.

There is also a large number of people that could use the public transport, but are not using it.

They are not going to bike anyway.

So housing is only part of a larger problem that is not context neutral.

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

#232

Post by sporkland » Mon, Mar 02, 2020, 4:13 PM UTC

u801e wrote: post #201

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 shouldn't share the lane with pedestrians any more than they should share it with cars. Bicycles are vehicles with wheels just like motorcycles and cars. Drivers are supposed to follow the same rules of the road regardless of what type of vehicle they use. That is, stay on the correct side of the road, signal intention to change lanes or turn. Make left turns while keeping to the left of same direction traffi…

As a cyclist this "bikes are cars" myth leads to a very unsafe experience for cyclists. I know it's what the current laws say, but I can't comprehend how folks don't see how false it is. A bike is much closer to a really big person running down a sidewalk than a car or motorcycle. You basically take the person add twenty pounds to them and 12 mph. Versus a car you take a person and add 2000lbs to them and 40+ mph.

I'm not advocating for bikes on sidewalks, but it seems less ludicrous to me than bikes on streets with cars. I'm for the standard line of though that bikes and friends belong in a 3rd flow of traffic like the Dutch do it.

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

#233

Post by chinesempire » Mon, Mar 02, 2020, 11:49 PM UTC

bloogsy wrote: post #229

chinesempire wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where does op says they are not adults? My fiance is an adult and she doesn't have a driving license. Because public transport allowed her to move without driving

You are misunderstanding my point - I'm saying that because the majority of cyclists are adults, who got into cycling after they turned 18, the majority of them have learned to drive (at least from my experience), not that the cyclists OP is talking about aren't adults. I do not hold a driving license either, aged 29, but I am in the minority. I am also learning to drive this year, to stop burdening my friends and fa…

My point is that in modern cities you are not a minority anymore, or not by a large margin.

I have a driving license, I've been driving for 20 years, but I gave up on cars 3 years ago.

Now I use other means of transport, mainly the subway and my feet. I walk a lot, but I don't use a bike because

- I don't like biking when it rains and in Milan it rains a lot

- I don't mind the cars, but I avoid sharing the road with trams and their rails, and Milan has a lot of them

- I mostly go out at night and I think biking at night it's too dangerous, even if there were no cars around

- Milan is very flat, it makes it good for biking, but also for walking, which I prefer

There are a lot more bikes in Milan then in Rome, but the people that are biking to replace the car entirely are a small minority, they either live a few minutes away from their workplace, are students or use it as a way to do sports, not to commute

Finally, air quality is bad and biking make it much worse

One thing I noticed is electric scooters are having a boom because they are easier to drive, transport and are less messy (if you're a woman in a dress or a man in a suite biking can be very challenging)

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

#234

Post by chinesempire » Tue, Mar 03, 2020, 12:12 AM UTC

eru wrote: post #222

chinesempire wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Are you saying high cost of parking is why cars are attractive?

I'm saying people are willing to pay the price and the state makes a compromise: discourage its use without making it impossible

Prices can only go up to a point, if they go up too much, you'll get street riots, like in France.

People would perceive them as another social injustice that favours reach people that can pay for the access or parking, while probably not needing it.

Bikes are cool, but are for bikers, and it's better like that

I've seen so many people almost kill themselves just because they thought they were good enough at it, but biking is not really an easy thing to do

Of course without cars there are less incidents between bikes and cars

In Netherlands cycling fatalities make up 30% of all the road deaths, which is a lot

In most cities we should promote public transport, which is not optimal for the single individual, but it's easier to deploy and really makes a difference for the community

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

#235

Post by CraneWorm » Wed, Mar 04, 2020, 9:27 AM UTC

SirLJ wrote: post #230

CraneWorm wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You'd be surprised if you tried cycling at -20. I have, it beats cycling in 30+C. Just don't forget cold protection and you'll be fine.

on ice? spiked tires or chains?

Ice is not that bad in the city.

In winter you want to change your breaking habits. Your rear break can become an insta-lose-your-traction lever; front break is safer (your mileage may vary, obviously).

It's when things start to melt that you may consider not biking: melting snow on ice creates a nasty surprise!

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

#236

Post by eru » Sat, Mar 07, 2020, 12:59 PM UTC

chinesempire wrote: post #231

eru wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see how that follows? If anything, we'd be suggesting bigger houses. Tall and with nice and large flats in them. In the city centres where that makes commercial sense. Just allow tall buildings, and let developers worry about whether they _should_ build tall.

> In the city centres where that makes commercial sense. Just allow tall buildings You have to consider that we in Europe live in very old cities where what you're advocating for is impossible and even if it was possible, it would be crazy. I live in Italy, Rome, Milan, Florence, Bologna, Naples, can't build taller in the city centre without ruining the city forever. Turin is not Rotterdam. Milan does it a little, bu…

I thought more about adding a few stories on average everywhere, and less a few skyscrapers.

What does temperature have to do with skyscrapers, though? Those Italian cities you mention ain't colder than London, New York or Chicago (or Beijing); and they build tall building just fine.