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

The Stroad

strongtowns.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 351 posts

Re: The Stroad

#311

Post by asdff »

mcv wrote: post #216
asdff wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's no cognitive dissonance here really. People are just self interested. They don't want a bunch of bars because that means people will drive drunk and piss and puke all over their property stumbling back after last call. They don't want fewer lanes because its just going to turn their commute from work into even more of a bottleneck. They don't want a mall built near them because of the traffic bottlenecks it w…

If they're afraid that a mall will create traffic bottlenecks, maybe build those malls so they're easy to reach on foot, by bike, or with public transport. That way you don't get that traffic bottleneck.

People buy shopping carts worth of stuff at malls. That's not exactly easy to schlep on a bike or a bus for most people especially if you are in poor shape. A lot of people in the U.S. today live in walkable areas, but opt to just take a climate controlled car with a spacious trunk 5 mins to the grocery store vs walk 15 minutes one way and back with 25 pounds of groceries in poor weather.

Re: The Stroad

#312

Post by asdff »

noobermin wrote: post #201
asdff wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's no cognitive dissonance here really. People are just self interested. They don't want a bunch of bars because that means people will drive drunk and piss and puke all over their property stumbling back after last call. They don't want fewer lanes because its just going to turn their commute from work into even more of a bottleneck. They don't want a mall built near them because of the traffic bottlenecks it w…

The "less lanes means bottle neck" bit is not even true due to induced demand. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_demand

It's definitely true in certain cases, induced demand is not some law of physics. Take a one lane road and a two lane road. It's pretty common for one lane roads to end up clogged up due to left turning traffic that's unable to clear intersections fast enough. On a two lane road, traffic that goes straight or right will have room two maneuver around the left turning traffic. And on top of that, planners for highways are really planning for throughput rather than commuting times. When you widen a freeway, speeds don't change or might even go down, but total throughput goes up accordingly and that's whats important when you have a mile of trucks backed up at your port.

Re: The Stroad

#313

Post by znowcone »

hef19898 wrote: post #211
znowcone wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doesn't sound like a lot to be honest. This is what I'm used to in Germany, say around 1km radius, everything walkable: * 1x big REWE, 3x small REWE, 1x Real, 1x Netto, 2x ALDI, 3x LIDL, 1x Turkish grocery store, 1x Asian grocery store * Too many kiosks too count (tobacco, drinks, snacks, maybe like a convinience store) * Too many bakeries to count * 2 tram/metro stations, soon to be 3 * 5 bus stations (not counting…

That does sound like the Ruhrpott if I had to guess!

I feel like it could be an elaborate social engineering attack, but yes bingo :)

Re: The Stroad

#314

Post by tomjakubowski »

hef19898 wrote: post #227
wffurr wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The center turning lane isn't there to avoid rear end collisions, which are only problematic due to too-high speeds in a commercial area. They are about improving throughput. What makes them dangerous, particularly in the five lane configuration, is the poor visibility for crossing uncontrolled intersections of multiple traffic lanes.

Center turning with five lanes? wow, that's crazy...

Commonplace in suburban Chicago.

Re: The Stroad

#315

Post by acdha »

zip1234 wrote: post #207
xmprt wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What were the reasons your friend gave for not wanting to live in SF? The common reasons I see are often that it's too expensive, there's too much crime and homeless people, and it's noisy and full of traffic. All of these are solvable problems. Cost is fixed by building more housing and traffic is solved by making the Bay Area less car centric (public transportation in the Bay Area isn't terrible but it can still be…

Yes, the funny thing is that because cities allow so many cars in the city center, congestion, pollution, and noise are everywhere, which makes people want to move to the suburbs, which means they have to drive to get anywhere, which makes congestion, pollution, and noise everywhere in the suburbs, which makes them want to move further out...

It makes a lot more sense when you look at the history. American suburbs exploded in popularity after the successes of the civil rights movement started cutting into the ability of white people to live in a city without having to share public spaces with black people. Public pools were closed around the country, tons of people moved into suburbs which had barriers of various levels of subtlety where they could create a de facto segregated school system, etc.

Since that was the class of people with the most money and significant political power, city planning departments were heavily dominated by the idea that the people who mattered the most weren't actually residents for many decades, especially since it's always easier to continue a direction than radically reconsider the approach.

I saw a good example of that here in DC a couple of years ago when our pedestrian safety project was being led by an older traffic engineer who could not stop talking about cars per hour as his primary metric. It was very clear that this was a deeply engrained way of thinking, and that it had never been subject to much critical analysis. When he retired and a much younger replacement got the job, they treated neighborhood safety as their top priority — and since they actually ran simulations rather than relying on their gut, it turned out to have almost no impact on overall commute speeds because all the reckless drivers were doing was getting to the next backup slightly faster.

Re: The Stroad

#316

Post by Karrot_Kream »

refurb wrote: post #163
Karrot_Kream wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you have the average 2 children with the average ~ 3 years between children, then these concerns are only relevant for roughly 21 years of life. If the average person lives to 80 and becomes an adult at 18, then you have 62 years as an adult. Only about a third of that time is spent caring for your children. That's still 40 years remaining. None of that has to happen on a place with large lot sizes and good school…

Clearly children are a driver for a suburban lifestyle but it's not the only driver. Plenty of kid-less people choose to live in the suburbs.

Sure and plenty of them live in the city as well. Many of my friends' parents moved back to cities a decade or so ago when my cohort was going to college. I'm merely saying that having kids may increase demand for suburban housing by folks who otherwise would be interested in urban housing, but that doesn't permanently shift demand toward suburban housing.

Re: The Stroad

#317

Post by mcv »

wffurr wrote: post #177
timvdalen wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had to look up a 'center turning lane'. Is this[1] it? That looks incredibly dangerous. [1]: https://www.wikihow.com/Use-the-Center-Turning-Lane

That's exactly it, except with businesses with parking lots on each side and lots of cars pulling in and out. Also a 55 mph speed limit that's routinely ignored unless there's enough traffic to slow everyone down. Colloquially called a "suicide lane".

The way it's shown on that page, it looks like every part of that lane can be used in both directions. In Netherland we do have separate lanes to turn left, but only before an intersection, and only to be used in the direction towards that intersection. People turning left in the other direction will be on the other side of the intersection. There will be lines on the road directing you where you're supposed to go. The left-turning lane will have a very limited length, only existing near the intersection that it's for. Also, I think there are usually traffic lights ensuring safe crossing for left-turners.

Having just a general all-purpose two-directional left-turning lane looks incomprehensibly dangerous to me.

Re: The Stroad

#318

Post by mcv »

closeparen wrote: post #279
mcv wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But American suburbia seems entirely designed around cars. Exactly because there are no shops nearby, you need to take the car for everything. If there were shops around the corner, there would be far less need for cars in these streets. When I go to the shop, I walk or take my bike. And even here, the shops aren't in my street, but there's a small shopping center (with two supermarkets, a pharmacy, two drugstores, a…

It is designed around pushing cars away from houses . The thing about walkable neighborhoods is that they’re nice to visit. If you live near one, those visitors will be near your home. To a suburbanite this is unacceptable.

Where I live, every neighbourhood is walkable. There's nothing special about it. Sure, people walk past our house. They're our neighbours and we say hi.

Re: The Stroad

#319

Post by jmacc1 »

timvdalen wrote: post #151
wffurr wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every time I end up on a five lane road with the center turning lane and tons of curb cuts and cross streets and abutting parking lots, I remind myself that it's one of the most dangerous places I am likely to be in.

I had to look up a 'center turning lane'. Is this[1] it? That looks incredibly dangerous. [1]: https://www.wikihow.com/Use-the-Center-Turning-Lane

A common thing I see drivers in my city do is pull into the center turning lane and then merge into their intended lane when doing a left turn. It's super illegal afaik, but I see it done all the time, I've even seen police do it. Of course, the alternative to this maneuver is waiting a very long time until both lanes are clear before turning because the stroad you're turning left on is extremely congested (though not extraordinarily congested in my cities case)

Re: The Stroad

#320

Post by knorker »

bluGill wrote: post #309
knorker wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I agree that induced demand is nonsense It's not. This is a fact. It sounds like you are trying to reason about this from pure logic, and are not aware that this is an empirical fact. You can only go so far armchair guessing about how city planning "ought to" work. > Demand either exists or it doesn't. To get to the place, yes. To get to the place in a car , no. If you double the capacity of a road network, that me…

Why are you assuming you have to use a car to solve the problem. The problem is people want to get someplace in your city and currently it is inconvenient for them to do so. If people leave your transit system for a car it is because your transit system sucks. Fix that problem. (hint, trains can easily reach speeds 3x faster than cars, stops should not take too long, and there should always been a train almost here f…

> Why are you assuming you have to use a car to solve the problem.

That's the opposite of what I'm doing.

> The problem is people want to get someplace in your city and currently it is inconvenient for them to do so.

I agree. And we already know that "add more lanes" is a very costly (especially maintenance forever. Again, see Not Just Bikes), and we already know it doesn't even help.

> If people leave your transit system for a car it is because your transit system sucks.

No, not sucks. They just have to be subjectively a better choice for the individual.

So yes, then we agree. Money should be spent on improving alternative transport, not car infrastructure.

Post reply on HN