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

In 1897, a Bicycle Superhighway Was the Future of California Transit

motherboard.vice.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 90 posts

Re: In 1897, a Bicycle Superhighway Was the Future of California Transit

#71

Post by ams6110 »

jaibot wrote: post #65
brokentone wrote: post #64

The biggest problem with bicycle transport isn't how to get from A-B but what to do with your bike once you arrive. In NYC there are decent bike lanes around (although the tourists stepping out into them make them difficult in certain areas). Do I lock my bike to a pole and hope it doesn't get stolen? Do I use a bike share system (starting roll out now), and walk way out of my way at the start and destination of my j…

The bike sharing system in DC is sufficiently dense that I can usually just go to my destination and spend a minute finding the nearest station when I arrive.

How do they avoid theft? My town tried bike sharing and within weeks all the bikes were gone or destroyed.

Re: In 1897, a Bicycle Superhighway Was the Future of California Transit

#72

Post by jaibot »

ams6110 wrote: post #71
jaibot wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The bike sharing system in DC is sufficiently dense that I can usually just go to my destination and spend a minute finding the nearest station when I arrive.

How do they avoid theft? My town tried bike sharing and within weeks all the bikes were gone or destroyed.

Specialized biked and specialized docks - when you park a bike in a dock, a heavy bolt locks it into place. This is done within an enclosure that covers much of he front wheel, and the only way to get at the lock would be to dismantle the entire apparatus. The bikes themselves have no detachable parts and are _extremely_ distinctive with a street value of "You have the right to remain silent".

Re: In 1897, a Bicycle Superhighway Was the Future of California Transit

#73

Post by egypturnash »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #69
mtowle wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You could also take unused railroad tracks and pave over them. It's been done elsewhere. Nice, long, straight bike paths.

Are there any concepts where you can pave down the center and on the sides of tracks? To keep the track useful for later use, but to still allow cyclists to use them?

This strikes me as a terrible idea for two reasons.

1. Slim bike tires getting stuck in the grooves left for the train tracks.

2. Big trains with a ton of inertia running at ~50-60 mph using the same route as cyclists going at ~10-20 mph.

Re: In 1897, a Bicycle Superhighway Was the Future of California Transit

#74

Post by jschneier00 »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #67
CoreDumpling wrote: post #63

True story: I moved from southern California to Holland in no small part because of how amenable the country is to cycling. People like to think that cycling is popular here naturally because the country is flat and densely populated. However, it's easy to forget that during the postwar boom years, a major shift toward cars happened and it took a concerted effort of willful resistance and politically non-expedient me…

I visited Amasterdam (from Chicago) in November of last year, and fell in love with the cycling-centric environment in Hollad. How difficult is it to pick up and move to Holland from the US?

Interestingly the US has a special treaty with the Netherlands for starting a business called the DAFT (Dutch-American Friendship Treaty)[1] that gives Americans preferential treatment compared to other non-EU nationals. I have no idea about the other legal hurdles.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DAFT_(treaty)

Re: In 1897, a Bicycle Superhighway Was the Future of California Transit

#75

Post by jchrisa »

CoreDumpling wrote: post #63

True story: I moved from southern California to Holland in no small part because of how amenable the country is to cycling. People like to think that cycling is popular here naturally because the country is flat and densely populated. However, it's easy to forget that during the postwar boom years, a major shift toward cars happened and it took a concerted effort of willful resistance and politically non-expedient me…

I moved from Mountain View to Portland for basically the same reason. While Portland isn't anywhere near Dutch levels of biking, the city government takes it seriously enough that I hope it will be nice by the time my daughter is old enough to not drive.

I agree with your assessment that we "need to create more disincentives to driving" and that is the part that is getting the most resistance.

I think the best arguments we can make are selfish ones. Safety, and the damage cars do to communities by taking humans off the streets. Health. Cost.

Re: In 1897, a Bicycle Superhighway Was the Future of California Transit

#76

Post by burntsushi »

CoreDumpling wrote: post #63

True story: I moved from southern California to Holland in no small part because of how amenable the country is to cycling. People like to think that cycling is popular here naturally because the country is flat and densely populated. However, it's easy to forget that during the postwar boom years, a major shift toward cars happened and it took a concerted effort of willful resistance and politically non-expedient me…

Respectfully, I think your analysis is overly simplistic. You ignored the elephant in the room: the geography of the US.

Cycling makes a ton of sense if you live in and around an urban area---particularly when most of your interactions with other people are in that same small area. Despite my love for driving, if I fit that mold, I'd happily adopt cycling as my main mode of transportation. But there are a couple of very common scenarios in the US that maybe aren't so common in other countries:

* Living in a suburb/rural area that is more than a half-hour drive from your place of work (in no traffic). There's a high price to pay in terms of time that cycling would entail.

* Traveling throughout the US. And I don't just mean across the country where trains or buses are appropriate---I mean visiting your friend several towns over. For instance, my friend that I frequently visit is about 30 minutes away by car but is about 100 minutes away by bicycle (back-roads, no traffic, data from Google Maps). Similarly for my parents.

I think both of these scenarios strongly militate toward owning a car in favor of a bicycle. I also think tons of people in the US fit this mold---certainly more so than smaller countries with a much denser overall population. Most of the people in the US live in cities---but the overall population density of the US is much lower than most other countries, which suggests that even if you live in or around a city, you have a much higher chance of having connections with people who live in more suburban or rural areas (than similar folks in denser countries). When that happens, a car is typically the most sensible form of transportation.

Of course, it's certainly plausible that we could own cars that we rarely use but cycle to work every day, for example. But I think that's a more complex dynamic and I don't think I have the tools to properly analyze it.

I also find your enthusiasm for passing laws to legislate your cost/benefit analysis on everyone else to be deeply disturbing, but I'll leave that one be.

Re: In 1897, a Bicycle Superhighway Was the Future of California Transit

#77

Post by EEGuy »

cpprototypes wrote: post #40
mjn wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

LA is slowly improving its transit situation from what it used to be, though unevenly. A light-rail line from downtown to Pasadena was opened in 2003, and the subway system is finally being extended, it seems, through some of the more densely populated area of the westside: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purple_Line_Extension The Metrolink commuter-rail system also runs 500 miles of track, and is now a reasonable optio…

The biggest issue with public transit in LA for commuting is the last mile problem. It's similar to the "last mile" problem of fast fiber optic cables to slow copper wires to homes. Here the issue is efficient and fast rail transit to extremely inefficient bus system for that last few miles from stations to work. I once tried to plan my commute using public transit and here's what I found: 1) Drive to rail station fo…

LA's MTA has a bike locker rental program, find out here [1]. It's worked for me; stash a beater bike at the "work end" of the train commute and ride the "last mile".

If the "work end" is in Burbank, here's the info on their bike locker rental program [2].

There may be a wait list.

-------------

[1] http://www.metro.net/riding_metro/bikes/images/locker_rental...

[2] http://www.burbankca.org/transportation/resources_lockers/lo...

Re: In 1897, a Bicycle Superhighway Was the Future of California Transit

#78

Post by jchrisa »

pkulak wrote: post #43
mtowle wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You could also take unused railroad tracks and pave over them. It's been done elsewhere. Nice, long, straight bike paths.

Yes, that is a fantastic option, and why Minneapolis has such great bike path, I believe. But, you've got to have the tracks first, and I'm not sure many cities do. And even then, you can't choose where your paths go.

Or the train company owns it and expects to use it "someday" so they stonewall.

Re: In 1897, a Bicycle Superhighway Was the Future of California Transit

#79

Post by swift »

burntsushi wrote: post #76
CoreDumpling wrote: post #63

True story: I moved from southern California to Holland in no small part because of how amenable the country is to cycling. People like to think that cycling is popular here naturally because the country is flat and densely populated. However, it's easy to forget that during the postwar boom years, a major shift toward cars happened and it took a concerted effort of willful resistance and politically non-expedient me…

Respectfully, I think your analysis is overly simplistic. You ignored the elephant in the room: the geography of the US. Cycling makes a ton of sense if you live in and around an urban area---particularly when most of your interactions with other people are in that same small area. Despite my love for driving, if I fit that mold, I'd happily adopt cycling as my main mode of transportation. But there are a couple of v…

> Living in a suburb/rural area that is more than a half-hour drive from your place of work (in no traffic).

That this situation is so common is a symptom of the fact that our cities and towns have been designed around driving. The geography of the US is a comparatively small factor, since (as you mention) most people here live in cities or suburbs.

> When that happens, a car is typically the most sensible form of transportation.

For these sorts of occasional needs, car sharing services work well.

> I also find your enthusiasm for passing laws to legislate your cost/benefit analysis on everyone else to be deeply disturbing, but I'll leave that one be.

This assumes that the status quo doesn't already constitute legislating one group's cost/benefit analysis on everyone else.

Re: In 1897, a Bicycle Superhighway Was the Future of California Transit

#80

Post by burntsushi »

swift wrote: post #79
burntsushi wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Respectfully, I think your analysis is overly simplistic. You ignored the elephant in the room: the geography of the US. Cycling makes a ton of sense if you live in and around an urban area---particularly when most of your interactions with other people are in that same small area. Despite my love for driving, if I fit that mold, I'd happily adopt cycling as my main mode of transportation. But there are a couple of v…

> Living in a suburb/rural area that is more than a half-hour drive from your place of work (in no traffic). That this situation is so common is a symptom of the fact that our cities and towns have been designed around driving. The geography of the US is a comparatively small factor, since (as you mention) most people here live in cities or suburbs. > When that happens, a car is typically the most sensible form of tr…

> That this situation is so common is a symptom of the fact that our cities and towns have been designed around driving.

I live outside Boston. Which was most certainly not designed for driving. And yet, my analysis holds there too.

> The geography of the US is a comparatively small factor, since (as you mention) most people here live in cities or suburbs.

I think you've taken what I said out of context. I went on to qualify that by saying those people, due to the lower overall population density, have a decent chance of knowing people in suburbs/rural areas that they visit.

> For these sorts of occasional needs, car sharing services work well.

In urban areas, yes. In suburb/rural areas, no. My friend had a similar dilemma, and her solution was to rent a car. Plausible, but is of varying pain depending upon use cases. Her use case was "I need a car infrequently but for long stretches of time."

> This assumes that the status quo doesn't already constitute legislating one group's cost/benefit analysis on everyone else.

No it doesn't. I said nothing about the status quo. I didn't even argue in favor of the status quo.

Do you acknowledge that geography plays a big role in the viability of cycling as a primary mode of transportation? From your response, I can only assume that you don't. If my assumption is right, then I suggest we focus the conversation on that.

Post reply on HN