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

Europe’s cities are making less room for cars after coronavirus

citylab.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 246 posts

Re: Europe’s cities are making less room for cars after coronavirus

#41

Post by SECProto »

daenz wrote: post #23

Anecdotally, where I live in Seattle, the people who are still driving are driving like maniacs...speeding, ignoring stop signs, lights, etc. There may be more room for cyclists, but it doesn't really feel safer.

> Anecdotally, where I live in Seattle, the people who are still driving are driving like maniacs...speeding, ignoring stop signs, lights, etc

This is likely similar everywhere. Traffic controls idiots speeding. For another anecdote, check out these statistics from Toronto [1], approx 460% year-over-year increase in stunting charges ("stunting" being the charge when someone is going more than 50km/hr over the speed limit.) One person recently was going 270km/hr in a 100km/hr zone (cops caught them because a tire blew).

[1] "Between March 16 and April 22, police have issued 6,978 speeding tickets and 224 stunt driving charges. In the same period last year, police issued 5,504 speeding tickets and 40 stunt driving charges." https://www.toronto.com/news-story/9960534-toronto-police-ch...

Re: Europe’s cities are making less room for cars after coronavirus

#42

Post by eloisius »

daenz wrote: post #23

Anecdotally, where I live in Seattle, the people who are still driving are driving like maniacs...speeding, ignoring stop signs, lights, etc. There may be more room for cyclists, but it doesn't really feel safer.

I'm in Atlanta and noticed the exact same thing today. Biking here is usually hairy, but I was almost hit twice by people making a rushed left turn in the course of a 20 mile ride. I wonder if it's because people are driving less, and their skills have fallen off, or if people are living some kind of zombie apocalypse fantasy.

Re: Europe’s cities are making less room for cars after coronavirus

#43

Post by RcouF1uZ4gsC »

This seems really short-sited given the reality of pandemics. Walking or biking or high utilization of public transport implies high density. In a pandemic, the more people you encounter, the higher the chance of contracting the disease. Cars decrease density by increasing the effective area where people can work/shop/live. The area accessible grows as the square of the distance you can travel. In addition, in a car, increased travel time does not increase exposure. With walking or public transport, your exposure increases the longer you travel.

Re: Europe’s cities are making less room for cars after coronavirus

#44

Post by tobylane »

SECProto wrote: post #38
IAmEveryone wrote: post #29

This (specifically car/bike traffic) may be the first real-life example of a Giffen Good I've come across: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giffen_good You'd think that people avoiding public transport would result in increased car traffic. But in a scenario where the roads were already at or near capacity, that's impossible. Not only would a number equivalent to those switching from public transport have to use bikes.…

I'm having a lot of trouble trying to conceptualize how "car/bike traffic" could be a giffen good. "A product that people consume more of as the price rises". Raising/creating tolls for cars decreases usage. Raising bus prices also discourages use. Could you help clarify what you meant? As for road space usage, generally bike lanes are added by adjusting street parking, narrowing lanes, etc. Eg I worked on a recent p…

London’s Embankment from Westminster to Blackfriars (and the rest of CS3 on other roads) added a bike lane by removing car capacity despite it being full every rush hour. The road as a whole has higher throughput now.

https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-cycle-lane-superhighway-em...

Re: Europe’s cities are making less room for cars after coronavirus

#45

Post by Barrin92 »

jasonv wrote: post #11

I'm perplexed by the comments here. Some cities have seen greater business increases on pedestrian and bike converted through-ways because people in cars weren't just passing by. Bikers and pedestrians stopped and shopped in the areas they were traveling through. I, for one, look forward to making a choice to move to a place where I can live car-free and hope more cities accelerate plans like this.

I never even got a drivers license and have lived just fine so I'm also always shocked by the comments here in transport-related threads when people talk about not having a car as if this is somehow a fantasy utopian vision.

And this also I might add includes families with children. While I don't have any I know a lot of parents who don't rely on cars either.

Re: Europe’s cities are making less room for cars after coronavirus

#46

Post by renewiltord »

jasonv wrote: post #11

I'm perplexed by the comments here. Some cities have seen greater business increases on pedestrian and bike converted through-ways because people in cars weren't just passing by. Bikers and pedestrians stopped and shopped in the areas they were traveling through. I, for one, look forward to making a choice to move to a place where I can live car-free and hope more cities accelerate plans like this.

American cities are not capable of running good public transit because they mostly use it as a combination of a jobs program and a poor-people access program. I was car-free for seven years in San Francisco (supposedly one of the relatively high performers) but my standard of living jumped significantly after I bought my car. Overall, I think I might even come out ahead.

I don't think I'm going to take public transit in San Francisco ever again. They are missing:

* Speed - BART is relatively fast, all Muni is very slow

* Frequency - BART is low frequency, Muni is also low frequency

* Coverage - BART coverage in SF is limited, Muni coverage is reasonably extensive

* Reliability - BART unannounced delays and breakdowns were a frequent occurrence. Unlike Tube delays (which were also frequent) I could not route alternatively because there is only one BART tube in SF. Muni does not have arrival times.

* Usability - You cannot tell before you pass the turnstiles at a BART station whether the lines are delayed or when they will arrive. One exception I know if is Montgomery St. Station but that's the only one.

Re: Europe’s cities are making less room for cars after coronavirus

#47

Post by spodek »

btilly wrote: post #39
bootloop wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There was so much fear-making in Vienna when they pushed for a pedestrian-first shopping mile in the city center. It would destroy economy.. People wouldn't come anymore with there car to buy stuff.. And what happened? A lot more people came, people going just for walks etc. Business increased substantially and now the chamber of commerce (which was heavily lobbying against it) wants even more "Begegnungszonen" as th…

Reminds me of bars in NYC back when smoking bans were implemented. They all thought they would lose business. They gained it instead as new customers who had been avoiding bars because of the smell of smoke flocked there instead.

Moreover, Hoboken had to ban smoking too to regain its residents preferring smoke-free bars and restaurants in the city -- the opposite of naysayers' expectations.

It will happen with cars and plastic here (NYC) too. I hope the polluters don't resist as much.

Re: Europe’s cities are making less room for cars after coronavirus

#48

Post by anigbrowl »

San Francisco and Oakland have implemented a 'slow streets' initiative, gradually closing off some streets to through traffic (residential/emergency vehicles only) to allow more room for exercise. Predictably people have begun to deploy street furniture of their own (flower planters and so on) to make it more permanent. Nobody wants all the traffic and associated pollution back. Hard to predict how this will pan out as the necessity for social distancing recedes.

Re: Europe’s cities are making less room for cars after coronavirus

#49

Post by esoterica »

RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: post #43

This seems really short-sited given the reality of pandemics. Walking or biking or high utilization of public transport implies high density. In a pandemic, the more people you encounter, the higher the chance of contracting the disease. Cars decrease density by increasing the effective area where people can work/shop/live. The area accessible grows as the square of the distance you can travel. In addition, in a car,…

I don’t think density matters as much as you think it does. The evidence seems to be that people are mostly contracting the virus in indoor spaces like offices, restaurants, theaters and churches, and people in low density areas go to offices, restaurants, theaters and churches that are just as crowded as the ones in cities. In high density areas people live in smaller apartments that are stacked on top of one another, but it’s not like the virus is percolating through the walls and ceilings of your dwellings. The only real difference in exposure to the virus is public transit.

Re: Europe’s cities are making less room for cars after coronavirus

#50

Post by bluGill »

chriswphoto wrote: post #36
kortilla wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Shitty quote. Induced demand is a lazy intellectual concept that fails to realize that congestion follows a standard supply and demand curve and the price is just being hidden because the monetary cost is usually free for everyone so it’s all based on time cost. So you add supply, you capture more of the demand that has been there at a lower cost. You didn’t induce shit. You will eventually add enough supply that eve…

Because we don’t charge for roads, users “pay” in congestion delays, so as we widen roads more drivers can use the road at the same “price” measured in minutes of delay. In some cases You might say that increased capacity induced hesitant drivers to drive.

That is the point. There are people who want to go somewhere but congestion is making them not go. Eventually you get a head of it and things are free flowing while everyone gets where they want to go. In middle of nowhere rural area everything is this way. In big dense cities you would need 30+ levels of bridges (at much great expense per user than rural gravel roads).

I will fully agree that cities should build something other than bridges and parking garages. However induced demand is not a factor because cities that are not ahead of so called induced demand are leaving behind (part of) the great advantage of a cities over rural areas: the vast amount of different places you can get to in a short time.

Post reply on HN