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

Amsterdam Switches to 30 Km/h on 80% of its Roads

amsterdam.nl

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 202 posts

Re: Amsterdam Switches to 30 Km/h on 80% of its Roads

#191

Post by r00fus »

ElijahLynn wrote: post #7

The "quieter" aspect is no joke. For the first time in my life, I moved into an apartment near a busy road, the noise is very difficult and I have to wear silicone ear plugs/pillows at night just to sleep because of car noise, especially people with loud motorcycles and trucks and cars that think everyone wants to hear them at 2am. Outside of that over-the-top "flex" noise, just the car noise is fatiguing. One can sa…

The move to EVs has made my neighborhood in silicon valley a lot quieter over the past 10 years.

We live near a private school so some mornings the line of cars gets long - since about 2020 a large number of these are Teslas or other EVs. The line is annoying but the noise and emissions aren't a big deal anymore.

Re: Amsterdam Switches to 30 Km/h on 80% of its Roads

#192

Post by robocat »

Tomis02 wrote: post #171
robocat wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> cheap No way is it cheap. Figures for Christchurch: Building 101km of cycleways across Christchurch to cost $301m population 405000, So that is $750 per person, which is about 1% of median earnings for a year. Yes the spending is over many years, but so what. 3% of trips are by bicycle, so this is a pretty shitty deal for the other 97%: https://greaterchristchurch.org.nz/our-work/indicators/urban... People are not…

Your reply is in really bad faith. The person said "cheaper", not "cheap".

Fair enough.

The points I made are just as relevant to "cheaper". costs/benefits need to be compared against population usage. You are not arguing against the data I gave.

Re: Amsterdam Switches to 30 Km/h on 80% of its Roads

#193

Post by robocat »

eesmith wrote: post #172
robocat wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> cheap No way is it cheap. Figures for Christchurch: Building 101km of cycleways across Christchurch to cost $301m population 405000, So that is $750 per person, which is about 1% of median earnings for a year. Yes the spending is over many years, but so what. 3% of trips are by bicycle, so this is a pretty shitty deal for the other 97%: https://greaterchristchurch.org.nz/our-work/indicators/urban... People are not…

So, $3 million/km? How much does a road cost? "The 2km stretch of the Bayfair to Baypark upgrade on SH2 south of Tauranga was already costing $70 million per kilometre - two to three times more than usual." https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/425683/highway-costing-7... That's about $25 million per km in the usual, or about 10x more expensive than this bike path. "The cost to build a new road link in Christchurch’s w…

Arguing that roads are more expensive is roger irrelevant.

> 10x more expensive than this bike path.

And faaar less than 1/10th of trips goes to bike paths. Cost per actual trip is what matters. What I see is a few busy bike lanes (say city centre). And some virtually unused bikelanes e.g. there are very nice expensive cycle lanes next to the Southern Motorway - but their cost per trip is surely much much higher than the cost of the Motorway per trip costs. I.e. your argument isn't just wrong, it's likely wrong in the wrong direction.

And some of that expensive road costs are for cyclists e.g. a costly ROAD intersection designed for bikes (near a university). The new redesign to fix the cockup is more $$$. One intersection - and designing for bikes was the cause for the costs (the externalities were also high). https://i.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/123202841/traffic-light...

Cyclelanes get road barriers e.g. road to Lyttelton has a new one. Fairly accounting for costs added to roads matters.

> NZ$317

Aaaaand just where do you think those government taxes come from eh? You are trying to imply that the difference between $750 and $317 is free money not paid for by Christchurch tax payers.

My bigger point is that the reality needs to be rationally acknowledged. Ignoring usage is putting head in sand.

Re: Amsterdam Switches to 30 Km/h on 80% of its Roads

#195

Post by eesmith »

robocat wrote: post #193
eesmith wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, $3 million/km? How much does a road cost? "The 2km stretch of the Bayfair to Baypark upgrade on SH2 south of Tauranga was already costing $70 million per kilometre - two to three times more than usual." https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/425683/highway-costing-7... That's about $25 million per km in the usual, or about 10x more expensive than this bike path. "The cost to build a new road link in Christchurch’s w…

Arguing that roads are more expensive is roger irrelevant. > 10x more expensive than this bike path. And faaar less than 1/10th of trips goes to bike paths. Cost per actual trip is what matters. What I see is a few busy bike lanes (say city centre). And some virtually unused bikelanes e.g. there are very nice expensive cycle lanes next to the Southern Motorway - but their cost per trip is surely much much higher than…

It's also incorrect to compare this bike path, which seems to be more expensive than most, to the average road cost. I quoted several road projects which were much more expensive than average.

Is the average comparison price comparison more like 30x? If so, that's what you would expect for 3% of the population, yes?

> Cost per actual trip is what matters.

Then work out and present the numbers, rather than feelings.

Every person biking is a car off the road, and the car on the road requires a LOT more space than a bike. Bikes also take far less space to store, so you don't need a much space dedicated to parking instead of housing or businesses.

Your secondary effects should include reduced pollution (EVs don't have exhaust, but still release tire/brake particulates) and improved general health (by people biking instead of driving).

Try digging up the planning study which justified this work, and see what it reports. That should include the "rationally acknowledged" details you seek.

> You are trying to imply that the difference between $750 and $317 is free money not paid for by Christchurch tax payers.

No, I was pointing out that your math - "that is $750 per person" - is wrong. If that simple calculation is wrong, how well can you/I trust your analysis?

Re: Amsterdam Switches to 30 Km/h on 80% of its Roads

#196

Post by robocat »

eesmith wrote: post #195
robocat wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Arguing that roads are more expensive is roger irrelevant. > 10x more expensive than this bike path. And faaar less than 1/10th of trips goes to bike paths. Cost per actual trip is what matters. What I see is a few busy bike lanes (say city centre). And some virtually unused bikelanes e.g. there are very nice expensive cycle lanes next to the Southern Motorway - but their cost per trip is surely much much higher than…

It's also incorrect to compare this bike path, which seems to be more expensive than most, to the average road cost. I quoted several road projects which were much more expensive than average. Is the average comparison price comparison more like 30x? If so, that's what you would expect for 3% of the population, yes? > Cost per actual trip is what matters. Then work out and present the numbers, rather than feelings. E…

You're off on some other tangents...

The government money for the cycle lanes comes mostly from car and fuel taxes:

https://www.nzta.govt.nz/planning-and-investment/national-la...

Roads are mostly paid for by car users - so their relative expense is fucking irrelevant.

It is perfectly valid to complain about the costs of cycle lanes when they are being paid for by people that are not using them. Sure non-cyclists do get some benefits - but nowhere near the amount that non-cyclists are paying.

I couldn't find any figures on cross-regional tax imbalances. But as a first estimate I think it is fair to assume Christchurch government taxes are approximately the same as government expenditure on Christchurch. Not quite right e.g. we hear a lot of complaints that Auckland roading infrastructure is subsidised by the rest of the country.

I'm only quoting public info - this is not an area I care that much about. I'm just interested in some estimates given the issues I perceive around the city.

Re: Amsterdam Switches to 30 Km/h on 80% of its Roads

#197

Post by 28304283409234 »

gumballindie wrote: post #176
28304283409234 wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because the tarmac is empty does not mean the people and nature living around the roads are gone. Whenever resource sharing with other living creatures pops up in America it somehow gets turned into a 'blind policital statement'.

If you want to reduce the number of cars on roads - which is a sensible approach - you reduce the need for cars. The easiest is to not mandate people to work in offices where not needed. By slowing vehicles down you achieve a placebo effect since said vehicles would be slow anyway when there’s traffic, while they’d be needlessly slow when there is none. Spending more time driving slowly means the same amount of noxio…

uhm. Driving slower increases mileage as it lowers gas usage.

Re: Amsterdam Switches to 30 Km/h on 80% of its Roads

#198

Post by clnq »

ignormies wrote: post #139
clnq wrote: post #103

Wouldn’t this cause more pollution? Lower fuel efficiency, increased congestion, more half-clutch inching, more stopping, more time spent by each vehicle on each road… …At least assuming the number and routes of travels stay constant. I used to drive a 2010 Diesel VW Golf, about 55kW, in Central Europe. It would take 4l/100km at 70kph and closer to 11l/100km when maneuvering slowly. 2.75x pollution diff per km in the…

Not in Amsterdam where - there are more bicycles than people [1] - only 27% of trips are done via car [2] - people travel half as many miles per day than the US [3] Unlike most cities, especially in the US but also elsewhere in Europe, other forms of transportation are actually dependable and more convenient alternatives to driving. Making driving less convenient will actually entice mode shift in Amsterdam, rather t…

I don't think the three points you made are a consequence of speed limits or making cars inconvenient. They are a consequence of city planning and making public transit and bicycle transit convenient.

I think cars are in quite inelastic demand for many people who use them in Amsterdam. There are people with cardiovascular conditions, people who need to transport others, carry heavy items, and so on.

Incentivizing works better than punishing generally.

Re: Amsterdam Switches to 30 Km/h on 80% of its Roads

#199

Post by jochem9 »

robocat wrote: post #192
Tomis02 wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your reply is in really bad faith. The person said "cheaper", not "cheap".

Fair enough. The points I made are just as relevant to "cheaper". costs/benefits need to be compared against population usage. You are not arguing against the data I gave.

If you build cycling infrastructure, you get more cyclists. 'Build it and they will come' turned out to be true in the examples I gave (and there are many other examples out there).

The question is if you want increase that 3%. For me it's a no-brainer, given the benefits.

Re: Amsterdam Switches to 30 Km/h on 80% of its Roads

#200

Post by eesmith »

robocat wrote: post #196
eesmith wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's also incorrect to compare this bike path, which seems to be more expensive than most, to the average road cost. I quoted several road projects which were much more expensive than average. Is the average comparison price comparison more like 30x? If so, that's what you would expect for 3% of the population, yes? > Cost per actual trip is what matters. Then work out and present the numbers, rather than feelings. E…

You're off on some other tangents... The government money for the cycle lanes comes mostly from car and fuel taxes: https://www.nzta.govt.nz/planning-and-investment/national-la... Roads are mostly paid for by car users - so their relative expense is fucking irrelevant. It is perfectly valid to complain about the costs of cycle lanes when they are being paid for by people that are not using them. Sure non-cyclists do…

> The government money for the cycle lanes comes mostly from car and fuel taxes:

My experience from the US is no doubt leading me astray.

However, you have mischaracterized your source. It says "Revenue in the NLTF comes from two main sources – fuel taxes and road user charges."

The entry for "Road user charges (net)" says "$6 billion End customers of freight carriers in the prices paid for goods and services. Light diesel vehicle owner payments."

It does not give a breakdown for just cars, and even people without a car pay for goods and services which are transported over roads.

Furthermore, the National Land Transport Fund is not the only organization which funds roads. It took a while to find it, but I see that "Council receive Transport related revenue from several operating streams. These are rates, borrowing and the National Land Transport Fund (NLTF) subsidy, via the National Land Transport Programme (NLTP) which Waka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency administer on behalf of the Government." at https://ccc.govt.nz/assets/Documents/The-Council/Plans-Strat... .

You therefore need to include rates and borrowing into the total budget sources.

According to https://www.nzta.govt.nz/planning-and-investment/national-la... , for example, the "Total for Canterbury › Christchurch City Council › Local road maintenance" for the "The total cost of the activity’s phase for all years, including local share" is NZ$ 548,783.1 while the NLTF funding is 32,772.9+35,390.3+40,024.8 = 108,188 or less than 20% of the total cost - if I understand it correctly.

If I understand "Total for Canterbury › Christchurch City Council › Local road improvements" correctly, under 10% is from NLTF funding.

The main entry point to this statistics is https://www.nzta.govt.nz/planning-and-investment/national-la...

That sure seems like far less than half the funding for roads in Christchurch come from car and fuel taxes.

Can you find a better breakdown?

Lastly, look at the breakdown of NLTP funding. "In 2021–24, $24.3 billion of funding is forecast to be managed under the NLTP" of which $910m is "to walking and cycling improvements".

That is 3.7% for walking and cycling.

You wrote that in Christchurch "3% of trips are by bicycle".

Are those numbers pretty proportionate?

Especially given the growth in cycle traffic in Christchurch over the last few years? ("with the city seeing a 30% increase in cycling over the last five years" says https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/300918660/back-to-the-cyclo... ).

Post reply on HN