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

Designing transport for humans, not econs

behavioralscientist.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–18 of 18 posts

Re: Designing transport for humans, not econs

#11

Post by kristjansson »

reidjs wrote: post #10
sokoloff wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’d agree with that to a point. It breaks down when the difference in time is greater than an hour. I’m not leaving Boston on a train to Las Vegas or a boat to Aruba. It also breaks down when the alternative transportation (typically an alternative to a car in the US) doesn’t provide a key function that the car provides. If I’m going to play a round of golf or softball game after work, my car doubles as a secure (eno…

How would you feel about public lockers near high traffic areas as a potential solution to that? I know that there is the potential these will get robbed anyways, but cars get robbed all the time anyways (SF). There is definitely maintenance and cultural expenses for public lockers, but there’s no way it’s anywhere near as expensive or time consuming as maintaining roads.

Not public, but gyms/athletic clubs fit this description in some cities. If you have a private, permanent locker at a gym/club close to your office, you can stash clothes, equipment etc. to avoid hauling everything back and forth on transit.

Doesn't really solve for sports like softball and golf that GP mentioned since those are in lower-traffic areas basically by necessity.

Re: Designing transport for humans, not econs

#12

Post by sokoloff »

reidjs wrote: post #10
sokoloff wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’d agree with that to a point. It breaks down when the difference in time is greater than an hour. I’m not leaving Boston on a train to Las Vegas or a boat to Aruba. It also breaks down when the alternative transportation (typically an alternative to a car in the US) doesn’t provide a key function that the car provides. If I’m going to play a round of golf or softball game after work, my car doubles as a secure (eno…

How would you feel about public lockers near high traffic areas as a potential solution to that? I know that there is the potential these will get robbed anyways, but cars get robbed all the time anyways (SF). There is definitely maintenance and cultural expenses for public lockers, but there’s no way it’s anywhere near as expensive or time consuming as maintaining roads.

If would depend on the details whether or not they were competitive with a car’s trunk.

Can they fit a golf bag? Can I know that I’ll get one when I show up? Is it roughly on the way? If I’m wanting to go home to office to golf to dinner/drinks to home in a day, how different is it to go home to transit to transit/locker to work to locker/transit to transit to golf to locker to dinner to locker to home?

Before kids, I’d play sports 4-5 nights a week. These fields often take up a lot of space (it’s obviously hard to fit a golf course in a high density area) meaning public transit would never be robust to get to them.

Re: Designing transport for humans, not econs

#13

Post by davidw »

cultofmetatron wrote: post #7

I've been watching a channel that really opened my eyes on how terrible urban planning is in america. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8RRE2rDw4k&ab_channel=NotJu...

The Strong Towns group also has a ton of material on the subject, including the latest book by the founder: https://www.confessions.engineer/

A local group set up an event where he spoke, so I was lucky to get a signed copy.

Re: Designing transport for humans, not econs

#14

Post by ebiester »

SkeuomorphicBee wrote: post #4
reidjs wrote: post #2

I strongly agree with "The greatest fallacy is that travel time is wasted time, so the only option is to speed it up or cut it out." Most people probably don't mind spending extra time traveling somewhere, especially if: - They can zone out, use their phone, or talk to friends while traveling. - They feel safe and strangers won't bother them - Comfortable climate (heating/cooling) - It is clear how to get to the dest…

I also strongly agree (with the original statement, and your own items). It is incredible how many urban planers and/or transport engineers subscribe to that fallacy, and consequently how the tides of consensus in planing forums/reddits/... are turning towards sub-optimal solutions. One thing that irks me on those forums is the resurgence of the idea of focusing on buses (as opposed to rail) in urban mass transport.…

Are they talking about dedicated roads like Istanbul? I would take their metrobus system (bridge-excepted) over an equivalent light rail that shares the road with cars like the green line in Boston.

The key, to me, is dedicating space for public transit rather than a shared system.

Re: Designing transport for humans, not econs

#15

Post by xyzzy21 »

cultofmetatron wrote: post #7

I've been watching a channel that really opened my eyes on how terrible urban planning is in america. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8RRE2rDw4k&ab_channel=NotJu...

The other way: travel internationally to Asia or Europe and see what a functional transit/transport system looks like.

The short answer: nearly the opposite of everything that the US does. :-(

Re: Designing transport for humans, not econs

#16

Post by mint2 »

agumonkey wrote: post #8
tuatoru wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The best transport is no transport. The rules for residential zones need to change to require sidewalks, playgrounds, and parks, and to encourage low-traffic service businesses such as co-working spaces, professional services (e.g. accountants, lawyers, real estate offices, ...), convenience stores and small cafes (up to 10 seat). And then there are lot size, lot coverage, and off-street parking rules to be abolished…

Beware, what you described sounds a lot like what France and other places did with projects in the 70s. Every thing was in reach, but for some obscure reason it collapsed in less than 20 years. Not saying it's a bad idea, but it's sociologically subtle.

Because then one is forced to go to what we dentist is there, whatever handful of restaurant are there, the grocery store that is there. No one wants zero or relative few choices like that, so trying to build mini self contained ecosystems isn’t going to work well

Re: Designing transport for humans, not econs

#17

Post by agumonkey »

mint2 wrote: post #16
agumonkey wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Beware, what you described sounds a lot like what France and other places did with projects in the 70s. Every thing was in reach, but for some obscure reason it collapsed in less than 20 years. Not saying it's a bad idea, but it's sociologically subtle.

Because then one is forced to go to what we dentist is there, whatever handful of restaurant are there, the grocery store that is there. No one wants zero or relative few choices like that, so trying to build mini self contained ecosystems isn’t going to work well

Nobody was forced but somehow something was missing, i tried to find reasons why these failed, it's a complex blend of mild poverty, mass social dynamics (same problems as in other neighborhood except it's not in higher concentrations and become unmanageable quick, broken window + reputation + tribalism). It devolved too fast to be handled. Even though on paper, they had best in class standards of living for average citizen (at that time my aunt lived in flat in Paris without toilets, it was the way for old building in her paris area; a year later she had electric kitchen appliance and her own toilet/bathroom).

Re: Designing transport for humans, not econs

#18

Post by sokoloff »

ebiester wrote: post #14
SkeuomorphicBee wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I also strongly agree (with the original statement, and your own items). It is incredible how many urban planers and/or transport engineers subscribe to that fallacy, and consequently how the tides of consensus in planing forums/reddits/... are turning towards sub-optimal solutions. One thing that irks me on those forums is the resurgence of the idea of focusing on buses (as opposed to rail) in urban mass transport.…

Are they talking about dedicated roads like Istanbul? I would take their metrobus system (bridge-excepted) over an equivalent light rail that shares the road with cars like the green line in Boston. The key, to me, is dedicating space for public transit rather than a shared system.

Worth noting for non-locals that a large part (maybe the majority of rail-miles but surely the majority of people-miles) of the green line is on dedicated rail not shared with cars.
Post reply on HN