Live data from Hacker News

Changes since congestion pricing started in New York

nytimes.com

661–670 of 735 posts

Re: Changes since congestion pricing started in New York

#661

Car speed in the zone.. that graph is really telling, showing that in NYC cars never really travel faster than even the slowest bicyclist, and slower than a modest runner. That alone tells you this is the right path. All that infrastructure and work for cars to not actually allow anyone to travel fast. 9mph is very very slow even for the weakest/most timid cyclist.

I support this policy and was a bike commuter for several years, but just to play devil's advocate: Speed is not the only reason people prefer a car over walking and biking. * Some people have mobility issues and can't bike or walk but can drive. * Cars give you environment isolation when it's freezing, sweltering, or pouring rain. * Cars isolate you from other people, which can be important especially for groups tha…

Bringing up these points when talking about improving urban transit is harmful.

These points always appear in reaction to urbanist policy and all of a sudden care about the minority transit user.

The problem is that the assigned proportion of road space is unfairly weighted to cars and is impossible to shift because people often say things like “cars make it easier to shift things around” and “some people have mobility issues”. Yes, this is true. What is also true is that people with mobility issues can more likely ride (cheaply) modified bikes than drive motor vehicles and people regularly haul heavy loads on cargo bikes (couches, refrigerators) in places where bike infrastructure makes it safe to do so.

If you care about speed in a densely populated city, you’d bike or walk. Flip it around; comfort isn’t the only reason why people prefer to use a car over walking or cycling. You said it yourself already, it’s because you can literally get hit by a car all because drivers won’t give up 1 lane out 4 for a segregated bike path that would stop you getting hit by a car.

Re: Changes since congestion pricing started in New York

#662

Car speed in the zone.. that graph is really telling, showing that in NYC cars never really travel faster than even the slowest bicyclist, and slower than a modest runner. That alone tells you this is the right path. All that infrastructure and work for cars to not actually allow anyone to travel fast. 9mph is very very slow even for the weakest/most timid cyclist.

I support this policy and was a bike commuter for several years, but just to play devil's advocate: Speed is not the only reason people prefer a car over walking and biking. * Some people have mobility issues and can't bike or walk but can drive. * Cars give you environment isolation when it's freezing, sweltering, or pouring rain. * Cars isolate you from other people, which can be important especially for groups tha…

> * You are much safer being in a car when hit by another car than when not being in a car. This is something a lot of bike commute advocates sweep under the rug. They talk about how biking is overall safe, but then you ask them if they've ever had an accident and so many have been hit by cars and broken bones.

Are you serious? That's a lot to type without realizing what you're saying at some point. You could not get a more backwards argument - so many cyclists have had crashes with cars, so lets have more cars. Wow.

> I fully support more people biking and walking. But I think the optimal solution is multi-modal. Cars aren't bad, they're just one piece of the puzzle.

Your idea of "more people" is clearly still massively lopsided towards cars. You're thinking on the order of increasing the current 1% of people walking&biking to maybe 5%, whereas you should be thinking 80%+. Completely wrong mindset.

Re: Changes since congestion pricing started in New York

#663

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You are much safer being in a car when hit by another car than when not being in a car. The solution to this problem is not to have more cars, it is to have less (and probably stricter standards on obtaining and maintaining a driver's license).

I don't have data, but I'm pretty sure you're even safer in a low speed car-to-car accident than in a low speed bike-to-bike accident.

The maths says unlikely.

Kinetic energy=0.5mv^2

The two variables are orders of magnitude smaller in one scenario, and the function grows quadratically.

Re: Changes since congestion pricing started in New York

#664
post #448

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re kind of proving the point here. NYC has fewer car owners and yet NYC doesn’t have a single pedestrian street or street closed to through traffic. Sounds like a city that can’t imagine itself without cars even though it’s completely realistic.

There is a street in Williamsburg that has been pedestrianized. I cant remember which one. Broadway has had large expansions to its curbing from the flatiron building to union square. Its a slow process but its getting there.

> There is a street in Williamsburg that has been pedestrianized. I cant remember which one.

One street in a city the size of NY?

I thought you were joking when I read that reply. I thought it might have been straight out of a Monty Python sketch. ;)

On that note, if you want to get an idea what pedestrianization does to cities, enter "Barcelona Superblocks" into your fav. search engine.

Re: Changes since congestion pricing started in New York

#665

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You are much safer being in a car when hit by another car than when not being in a car. The solution to this problem is not to have more cars, it is to have less (and probably stricter standards on obtaining and maintaining a driver's license).

I don't have data, but I'm pretty sure you're even safer in a low speed car-to-car accident than in a low speed bike-to-bike accident.

You're even safer in a low speed tank-to-tank accident.

Which is the direction the car size and weight war is going anyway, after all "My family is safer in a massive SUV". Well then. Who cares about everyone else anyway. People outside of vehicles should just stop being poor and get one.

Re: Changes since congestion pricing started in New York

#666

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I support this policy and was a bike commuter for several years, but just to play devil's advocate: Speed is not the only reason people prefer a car over walking and biking. * Some people have mobility issues and can't bike or walk but can drive. * Cars give you environment isolation when it's freezing, sweltering, or pouring rain. * Cars isolate you from other people, which can be important especially for groups tha…

In every transit-heavy city that I have been to, you have both an extensive highway system AND an extensive public transit network. But on the Internet, people are either BAN CARS or BLOCK TRANSIT. In reality, I want both.

Thing is, the world as is is optimized 99% for cars, so BAN CARS, while not reasonable nor correct, is a proportional reaction.

Re: Changes since congestion pricing started in New York

#667

Car speed in the zone.. that graph is really telling, showing that in NYC cars never really travel faster than even the slowest bicyclist, and slower than a modest runner. That alone tells you this is the right path. All that infrastructure and work for cars to not actually allow anyone to travel fast. 9mph is very very slow even for the weakest/most timid cyclist.

I wonder in NYC if elevated bike trails could be built economically that separate bikes from cars, or at least provide a "superhighway" for them. Maybe even a suspension scheme of sorts. With e-bikes and e-scooter, I would actually argue that New York City should build underground tunnels, well, the overall goal of being able to enable these types of very efficient compact transportation to get from various parts of…

Super expensive and not very convenient if you have to go up/downhill all the time just to get anywhere.

Re: Changes since congestion pricing started in New York

#668

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most of the US population lives in metro areas of large cities. You are an outlier, that’s fine for rural areas.

I would not call ~20% of the US population an outlier. It's a very different situation from urban areas, but just as valid And even cities in the US are vast sprawls compared to organically grown very old cities in other parts of the world. That makes a huge difference for walkability.

Yes, designing a city for cars will make cars the most convenient way to get around. That is part of the whole "americans love their cars" thing.

Re: Changes since congestion pricing started in New York

#669

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re kind of proving the point here. NYC has fewer car owners and yet NYC doesn’t have a single pedestrian street or street closed to through traffic. Sounds like a city that can’t imagine itself without cars even though it’s completely realistic.

I don't think they were trying to disprove the point. They admit that the US is largely car centric EXCEPT NYC, which is why congestion pricing has worked well. Also, car ownership rates are probably extremely correlated with density/efficiency of public transportation. There is probably no other city in the US where you can truly eschew car ownership (this includes metro "dense" regions like San Francisco, Washingto…

You could eschew car ownership in NYC because the public transport network is better than in the rest of the country but it's still shite compared to what is considered 'barely ok' outside the US.

E.g. I. Berlin metro timing is about 5mins between trains and that is long compared to Tokyo metro timing.

But when it comes to density/how direct a public public transport connection exists between two arbitrary points in the city, Tokyo and Berlin are very close (and far ahead of NYC btw.).

What I'm saying is that the feasibility public will be seen as a real alternative or even improvement over using a car only if both topological as well as temporal improvements are blatantly obvious to commuters.

Re: Changes since congestion pricing started in New York

#670

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's curious but unsurprising that privatization of public transport is considered an answer to congestion when existence of good (or great) public transport is the working answer one can find in many places around the world. When I visited NYC two years ago, I was blown away by how unbelievably bad public transport infrastructure is. The most flabbergasting thing was the absence of Metro ring lines around the center…

I live ~33 miles away, round trio, from the nearest grocery store. No trains, no uber, no bus. The US is massive. It doesn't look like it on the mercator projection, but the US is massive. It takes days to drive across it at highway speeds. I tire of "you guys just love your cars too much". I've lived in several states and only when I lived in Los Angeles county was there ever a bus within "walking distance" - but st…

> I live ~33 miles away, round trio, from the nearest grocery store.

So you've explicitly chosen to live far away from everything, in effect you've chosen to have to own a car. What bearing does this have on anything?

> The US is massive. It doesn't look like it on the mercator projection, but the US is massive. It takes days to drive across it at highway speeds.

Unless you drive across the US on a regular basis, this point has precisely zero relevance.

Post reply on HN