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

81–90 of 90 posts

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

#81

Post by toomuchtodo »

egypturnash wrote: post #73
toomuchtodo wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm not speaking of city tracks, where the rails are integrated with the pavement. I'm talking about tracks where they have ties in the center, and using concrete in the center between the rails to create a path.

Also, I'm not implying using it for high-speed trains and bike trails at the same time. I'm suggesting being able to go back to use of the paths for trains, and not tearing the tracks out.

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

#82

Post by mturmon »

riffic wrote: post #35
zevyoura wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As an LA motorcyclist, I can tell you that almost no one would want to bike 10-15 ft. from the edge of the freeway. It's extremely loud and unpleasant, and there's a significant amount of debris that would need frequent removal.

The L.A. River bicycle path is at times right in between I-5 and the river. I'm sure there are other paths adjacent to a freeway.

Yes. That's the best example in LA that I know of, of a bike path right adjacent to a freeway. Here's the rose-colored glasses description:

http://thelariver.com/guide/biking/glendale-narrows-elysian-...

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

#83

Post by Retric »

burntsushi wrote: post #80
swift wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Your also assuming an ether or situation if you drive less having a cheaper car seems more reasonable. I bought a 30k car back when I spent 2 hours a day in it, now that I drive ~2 hours a week and kind of wish I had bought a Honda civic instead.

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

#84

Post by tirant »

pmahoney wrote: post #68
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…

I've been lucky to work in areas where theft isn't a huge issue. My biggest problem is the weather. In the hot, humid summers, I wish my building had a shower, or at least some area to change clothes larger and less smelly than a bathroom stall. When it rains, there isn't always an appropriate place to hang dripping, often muddy clothes (and I hope they dry off before the ride home). I'm also lucky to not need to wea…

If you are commuting, you don't need to cycle as hard as if you were training/racing. Just use a regular pace, like when you walk in the street instead of running. The same energy you use when walking normally will translate to long distances in a bike, because of the energy-efficiency of biking.

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

#85

Post by pmahoney »

tirant wrote: post #84
pmahoney wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been lucky to work in areas where theft isn't a huge issue. My biggest problem is the weather. In the hot, humid summers, I wish my building had a shower, or at least some area to change clothes larger and less smelly than a bathroom stall. When it rains, there isn't always an appropriate place to hang dripping, often muddy clothes (and I hope they dry off before the ride home). I'm also lucky to not need to wea…

If you are commuting, you don't need to cycle as hard as if you were training/racing. Just use a regular pace, like when you walk in the street instead of running. The same energy you use when walking normally will translate to long distances in a bike, because of the energy-efficiency of biking.

That's a good point. I'm young(ish) and tend to race my past self (while following traffic laws). On one hand, what's the point of biking if I can't get to work faster than by bus? But on the other, a more leisurely pace would surely leave me less sweaty while still providing some exercise benefit.

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

#86

Post by brewdad »

Al-Khwarizmi wrote: post #51
cpprototypes wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

In Europe, when we only need to cover a short distance like a mile, we typically use an antique means of transport called "walking".

In Europe they have these paths from a bygone era commonly known as sidewalks. In the US, we frequently have ditches which drivers treat as roadside garbage dumps.

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

#87

Post by [deleted] »

Al-Khwarizmi wrote: post #51
cpprototypes wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

In Europe, when we only need to cover a short distance like a mile, we typically use an antique means of transport called "walking".

[deleted]

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

#88

Post by zasyatkin »

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…

As a parent who grew up in Suburbia, I think the best thing that I can do for my child is to move to an urban bike-friendly city, because the number one cause of deaths by far for teenagers in the US is motor vehicle crashes.

"In 2010, seven teens ages 16 to 19 died every day from motor vehicle injuries." - http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/teen_drivers/teendrive...

In 2012 we took a long road trip through the most bike friendly cities in the US, and settled on Portland. Our first choice was actually Vancouver, BC but its hard for American citizens to emigrate there unless you have a sponsor.

We considered staying in Atlanta and fighting for the type of changes it needs to become a real livable city, but ultimately we decided that it wasn't worth risking our lives and that our energy could be much better spent cultivating the critical mass needed to reach a tipping point in Portland's low-car lifestyle.

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

#90

Post by burntsushi »

Retric wrote: post #83
burntsushi wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Your also assuming an ether or situation if you drive less having a cheaper car seems more reasonable. I bought a 30k car back when I spent 2 hours a day in it, now that I drive ~2 hours a week and kind of wish I had bought a Honda civic instead.

> Your also assuming an ether or situation if you drive less having a cheaper car seems more reasonable.

Where did I assume that? This isn't about whether you have a $30K car or a Civic, just that you have a car...

Post reply on HN