3 ms·

Whether intended or not, these images and their derivatives are a daft oversimplification of a complex problem. What's the problem we're trying to solve here?

Whether intended or not, these images and their derivatives are a daft oversimplification of a complex problem. What's the problem we're trying to solve here? Is it that our city streets are too narrow for cars? I guess not, I'm assuming that the problem is the more general one: how best to organise transportation, particularly commuting. The picture seems to imply "cars are big, and therefore bad", which is facile, because it looks at a single parameter in isolation within a very complex problem. Here's some other factors that need to be considered: routes (Do people originate from the same points? Do they head to the same destination?), city planning (we can shape the commutes that people have to make), government policy, the need to be present in the workplace, the time of working shifts, the relative economic cost of oil, environmental issues, transport subsidy, investment, political ideology, cultural norms, social cohesion, the education system, weather, inequality, health, physical geography (hilly? wet? cramped?), population density, network effects, communication between commuters, mechanisms for sharing public spaces...and so much more. I use public transit all the time, but for the love of god let this meme die.

JoeAltmaier 11y ago
Did you list 'speed' in there? Because that's the biggest fallacy. Its not just about square feet; multiply that by how long the space is occupied per journey. Bicycles can be 1/3 to 1/10 the speed of a car. Then add in the congestion factor. Bicycles on the road impede cars. We like to ignore that, bicyclist can be militant about their right to use roads. But the sad fact is, they get in the way of cars. Which reduces cars to the speed of bikes in city driving. That's just a tremendous waste. I know, everybody should be on bikes. But in the mean time, the most efficient vehicles in terms of road use Min(sq ft X time spent on the road) are being squandered. I mean cars.
- andygates 11y ago
  There's a caveat here: in urban journeys, the average speed of just about everything is 'teen mph. The speed argument applies when traffic is free-flowing, but not during congestion.
  - JoeAltmaier 11y ago
    Absolutely. But as bicycle use increases we hit, not a sweet spot, but a 'crap spot' where nobody wins. Need a transition plan. Separate bicycle lanes might work.
- braythwayt 11y ago
  In my town (Toronto), we have bike lanes on some streets. On the days when I ride to work, I zip right past cars that are standing still, gridlocked. But only during “rush hour.” The rest of the time, cars are way faster than bikes on streets with bike lines, and honestly, outside of rush hour they’re just fine on streets where they have to share the road. My observation is that sharing the road with bikes is not a problem for cars, it’s that once the amount of traffic exceeds the capacity of the road, cars go from ziiiiip to standing still. At those moments when drivers are fuming about traffic, I’m sure sharing the road with bikes is very annoying. But then again, I observe that many drivers don’t like sharing the road with buses that go just as fast as cars, or street cars, or other drivers. Let’s face it: During rush hour, cars impede each other to such an extent that nobody is happy. Outside of rush hour, it’s a different story, and things like bike lanes, High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes, &c. are huge wins for everyone.
- randomsearch 11y ago
  No, I didn't, nor distance, but it's a good point. I'd like to hear how people go about solving these problems. I once knew a computer scientist working for a city council, she spent her days simulating the effects of changes to transport infrastructure. It was quite enlightening to hear that adding a bus stop could have a knock-on effect that would cause gridlock elsewhere in the city. It was a very hard problem.

JoeAltmaier 11y ago

Did you list 'speed' in there? Because that's the biggest fallacy. Its not just about square feet; multiply that by how long the space is occupied per journey. Bicycles can be 1/3 to 1/10 the speed of a car. Then add in the congestion factor. Bicycles on the road impede cars. We like to ignore that, bicyclist can be militant about their right to use roads. But the sad fact is, they get in the way of cars. Which reduces cars to the speed of bikes in city driving. That's just a tremendous waste. I know, everybody should be on bikes. But in the mean time, the most efficient vehicles in terms of road use Min(sq ft X time spent on the road) are being squandered. I mean cars.

andygates 11y ago
There's a caveat here: in urban journeys, the average speed of just about everything is 'teen mph. The speed argument applies when traffic is free-flowing, but not during congestion.
- JoeAltmaier 11y ago
  Absolutely. But as bicycle use increases we hit, not a sweet spot, but a 'crap spot' where nobody wins. Need a transition plan. Separate bicycle lanes might work.
braythwayt 11y ago
In my town (Toronto), we have bike lanes on some streets. On the days when I ride to work, I zip right past cars that are standing still, gridlocked. But only during “rush hour.” The rest of the time, cars are way faster than bikes on streets with bike lines, and honestly, outside of rush hour they’re just fine on streets where they have to share the road. My observation is that sharing the road with bikes is not a problem for cars, it’s that once the amount of traffic exceeds the capacity of the road, cars go from ziiiiip to standing still. At those moments when drivers are fuming about traffic, I’m sure sharing the road with bikes is very annoying. But then again, I observe that many drivers don’t like sharing the road with buses that go just as fast as cars, or street cars, or other drivers. Let’s face it: During rush hour, cars impede each other to such an extent that nobody is happy. Outside of rush hour, it’s a different story, and things like bike lanes, High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes, &c. are huge wins for everyone.
randomsearch 11y ago
No, I didn't, nor distance, but it's a good point. I'd like to hear how people go about solving these problems. I once knew a computer scientist working for a city council, she spent her days simulating the effects of changes to transport infrastructure. It was quite enlightening to hear that adding a bus stop could have a knock-on effect that would cause gridlock elsewhere in the city. It was a very hard problem.