351–360 of 764 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In the US nearly 30 percent of trips are a mile or shorter, 40 percent are two miles or shorter and 50 percent are three miles or shorter.[0] These distances can be easily covered on foot or bike with minimal change in infrastructure. [0] https://www.bikeleague.org/content/national-household-travel...
Wouldn't those three mile or less trips usually be for transporting cargo that wouldn't fit on a bike?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They're minor investments practically, and major investments politically. As you say, for many motorists, giving up space on even some roads to cyclists is treated like some sort of war crime. There's very much of attitude of, "we can't just have a majority of the road space -- we need nearly all of it!"
Spoken like someone who's never driven in a city. City streets are narrow and extremely uncomfortable to drive on as it is.
Only when cities completely ban car travel will cycling increase. Cars are currently first class road users. They get extra protection and sympathy from the police. All infrastructure is built for them with cycling infrastructure being laughable and often regressive. On top of that, most people are just too fat and lazy to cycle by choice.
Switching from gas to electric is something I can do all on my own. Switching from gas car to cycling is something that would require major investments from my city and developers. Both are noble goals, but let's not let perfect be the enemy of good. Switch to electric now, and also encourage new roads and new developments to be bike friendly, so that switching to a bike is something that will be viable in 20 or 30 y…
Doesn't it worry you to live in a city whose infrastructure is not compatible with global emission goals? Within the next decades either of too scenarios will realize: a) your home will loose most of its market value as nobody will be able to live there, OR b) we are all royally f*ked. Neither sounds too good.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hey, without cars we would need no lanes.
How will good be moved? How will the infirm get around? I admire the cyclist ideal that they are fixing the problems of the world by not driving/owning cars... but it seems like a very superficial, quasi-moralistic solution that's really not likely to have the impact that is desired/needed.
Switching from gas to electric is something I can do all on my own. Switching from gas car to cycling is something that would require major investments from my city and developers. Both are noble goals, but let's not let perfect be the enemy of good. Switch to electric now, and also encourage new roads and new developments to be bike friendly, so that switching to a bike is something that will be viable in 20 or 30 y…
Doesn't it worry you to live in a city whose infrastructure is not compatible with global emission goals? Within the next decades either of too scenarios will realize: a) your home will loose most of its market value as nobody will be able to live there, OR b) we are all royally f*ked. Neither sounds too good.
It does. I'm constantly pushing to rezone the entire city as multi-use and multi-dwelling. The city council has ignored me, and most of my fellow citizens vehemently disagree, as they believe that would devalue their property.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you're just used to regular US cities, this is hard to grasp. Average US cities -- even bigger ones -- the public transport is slow, sparse, and unreliable; biking is uncomfortable and dangerous; and everything is so spread out that walking is mostly impractical. When you're thinking in that context and imagine switching modes...it just sounds terrible. Because it is. That doesn't mean the solution is everyone dri…
Also cycling in 100+ degree weather is rough in Texas, Arizona, etc
That's great. Assuming the following: - Your commute is sufficiently short - You have facilities to shower and dress at work - You have sufficient time to shower and dress at work - You don't have to bring kids or sizable cargo - Weather is sufficiently good - You're sufficiently healthy
Combining cycling with other forms of public transport (e.g. trains) enables much longer-distance commutes, and effectively increases the "catchment area" of (e.g.) train stations. Other sibling comments have addressed the other points.
Cycling is not only good for the environment, but for cities in general. During the last confinement, when car traffic completely stopped, I realised that cars are the single biggest reason why living in the city can be unpleasant. People may not realise it consciously, but when they move out of the city, what they are looking for is a place with not as much cars driving around. Cars destroy cities by making a viciou…
I look at European city centers where cars often times get thrown out now and: they don’t agree. Profits were way down even before COVID. Even if you offer people the option to not use their car, they will avoid it. No form of transportation will ever be as pleasant to use. Cars don’t make cities unpleasant, cities themselves are unpleasant. No matter if cars exist or not. Bikes, pedestrians and cars must be properly…
Switching from gas to electric is something I can do all on my own. Switching from gas car to cycling is something that would require major investments from my city and developers. Both are noble goals, but let's not let perfect be the enemy of good. Switch to electric now, and also encourage new roads and new developments to be bike friendly, so that switching to a bike is something that will be viable in 20 or 30 y…