5 ms·

A full van is more space efficient than 12 bikes. I am a cyclist and I think there need to be safe routes to get everywhere in a city. Bikes aren't enough, thou

by natrius 11y ago

A full van is more space efficient than 12 bikes. I am a cyclist and I think there need to be safe routes to get everywhere in a city. Bikes aren't enough, though. The price doesn't adjust for future optimization. It adjusts for current optimization. Price-sensitive people like Grandma would go to the doctor for the same price she always does. She'd just share the ride with more people. This is exactly what a subway would do, except without the need for expensive infrastructure.

justizin 11y ago
> A full van is more space efficient than 12 bikes. Arguable, but buses are higher density than vans, trains are higher density than buses, and subways aren't subject to traffic. The bicycle isn't in competition with the subway, it's in harmony with it. > She'd just share the ride with more people. This is exactly what a subway would do, except without the need for expensive infrastructure. I don't think if you extrapolated the current ridership of BART just for people traveling within San Francisco that you would find it practical to run buses for all of them, and when a vehicle on the ground during rush hour (including buses) is rarely moving more quickly than a typical pedestrian, the subway has an obvious advantage. You can try to traffic engineer all day, but the fastest route between two points on earth is through the earth. :)
- natrius 11y ago
  With congestion pricing, nothing is subject to traffic. Buses move slowly because they're stuck in traffic and they stop all the time. Congestion pricing eliminates traffic. Ride hailing apps reduce the number of stops. Subways are better than buses. That doesn't mean we need subways. We can eliminate traffic all over the city for a much lower price, then we can build more subways when streets packed with full vans aren't enough to move people around.
  - s73v3r 11y ago
    It's still subject to traffic because there are still lots of people who do not have choice as to when they go. And taking Lyft/Uber isn't going to help, as those drivers are going to have to make enough to cover the congestion charge as well as profit, or they're not going to drive.
    - natrius 11y ago
      It is not subject to traffic. People don't have infinite money. There is a price at which few enough people are willing to pay that traffic flows freely. That is the price that will be set. People who don't have a choice of when to travel will share a ride to split the cost. Yes, the driver will need to be paid as well, but people often run carpools that only charge for the price of gas. The prevailing rate for a ride will be low because there are plenty of people heading in the same direction who just want to defray their costs. Regardless, the mechanics of congestion pricing guarantee that people will use alternatives to driving. The congestion price will go up until people start choosing to share rides, take transit, or do something else. Congestion pricing works. It's not an untested idea. It just isn't widely used. It should be, because it eliminates traffic. Ride hailing apps give even cities without great transit a great alternative to driving alone, which makes congestion pricing a universal solution to traffic.
      - MagnumOpus 11y ago
        Congestion pricing works to empty your roads. Without alternative transport modes, it will also work to crash the economy. The choice is not between paying $3000 a year in congestion charges (to pick a number that would plausibly dissuade) or spending 4 hours a day on a badly-run transit system - the obvious third choice is to move away to a place where commuting is cheaper and faster. This will make labour more scarce and expensive for the local corporates, who will also sooner or later move away to a saner place with cheaper labour. Presto, you've fixed all traffic problems by killing the city.
        natrius 11y ago
        The alternative transport mode is shared rides. Those are easy today with ride hailing apps. People who don't want to pay the full charge will pay a fraction of it instead.
- knorby 11y ago
  What's practical and what's cost effective aren't necessarily the same. Subways or really most any commuter train is only close to cost effective in some of the more extreme urban densities, and it is real energy hog if people aren't using it. It would likely make sense to build more subways, but there are a handful of spots in the US where it could be a solution at all. Options like buses and shared vans/cars are no one's preferred ride, but it is an infrastructure that's already scaled up for all of the US, and it ends up being very cheap. It takes less traffic reduction than you might think to make congested roads fast moving. It is also worth pointing out that SF essentially is building the infrastructure to replace the BART with buses right now...Buses from the new terminal will have a dedicated ramp on to the bay bridge, and I wouldn't be surprised if they end up getting a full lane for the full BRT experience. If you haven't noticed an impact from that construction, versus say the Chinatown subway messing up all of 4th street, then it really speaks to why buses are a pretty easy solution.

by natrius 11y ago

justizin 11y ago

> A full van is more space efficient than 12 bikes. Arguable, but buses are higher density than vans, trains are higher density than buses, and subways aren't subject to traffic. The bicycle isn't in competition with the subway, it's in harmony with it. > She'd just share the ride with more people. This is exactly what a subway would do, except without the need for expensive infrastructure. I don't think if you extrapolated the current ridership of BART just for people traveling within San Francisco that you would find it practical to run buses for all of them, and when a vehicle on the ground during rush hour (including buses) is rarely moving more quickly than a typical pedestrian, the subway has an obvious advantage. You can try to traffic engineer all day, but the fastest route between two points on earth is through the earth. :)

natrius 11y ago
With congestion pricing, nothing is subject to traffic. Buses move slowly because they're stuck in traffic and they stop all the time. Congestion pricing eliminates traffic. Ride hailing apps reduce the number of stops. Subways are better than buses. That doesn't mean we need subways. We can eliminate traffic all over the city for a much lower price, then we can build more subways when streets packed with full vans aren't enough to move people around.
- s73v3r 11y ago
  It's still subject to traffic because there are still lots of people who do not have choice as to when they go. And taking Lyft/Uber isn't going to help, as those drivers are going to have to make enough to cover the congestion charge as well as profit, or they're not going to drive.
  - natrius 11y ago
    It is not subject to traffic. People don't have infinite money. There is a price at which few enough people are willing to pay that traffic flows freely. That is the price that will be set. People who don't have a choice of when to travel will share a ride to split the cost. Yes, the driver will need to be paid as well, but people often run carpools that only charge for the price of gas. The prevailing rate for a ride will be low because there are plenty of people heading in the same direction who just want to defray their costs. Regardless, the mechanics of congestion pricing guarantee that people will use alternatives to driving. The congestion price will go up until people start choosing to share rides, take transit, or do something else. Congestion pricing works. It's not an untested idea. It just isn't widely used. It should be, because it eliminates traffic. Ride hailing apps give even cities without great transit a great alternative to driving alone, which makes congestion pricing a universal solution to traffic.
    - MagnumOpus 11y ago
      Congestion pricing works to empty your roads. Without alternative transport modes, it will also work to crash the economy. The choice is not between paying $3000 a year in congestion charges (to pick a number that would plausibly dissuade) or spending 4 hours a day on a badly-run transit system - the obvious third choice is to move away to a place where commuting is cheaper and faster. This will make labour more scarce and expensive for the local corporates, who will also sooner or later move away to a saner place with cheaper labour. Presto, you've fixed all traffic problems by killing the city.
      - natrius 11y ago
        The alternative transport mode is shared rides. Those are easy today with ride hailing apps. People who don't want to pay the full charge will pay a fraction of it instead.
knorby 11y ago
What's practical and what's cost effective aren't necessarily the same. Subways or really most any commuter train is only close to cost effective in some of the more extreme urban densities, and it is real energy hog if people aren't using it. It would likely make sense to build more subways, but there are a handful of spots in the US where it could be a solution at all. Options like buses and shared vans/cars are no one's preferred ride, but it is an infrastructure that's already scaled up for all of the US, and it ends up being very cheap. It takes less traffic reduction than you might think to make congested roads fast moving. It is also worth pointing out that SF essentially is building the infrastructure to replace the BART with buses right now...Buses from the new terminal will have a dedicated ramp on to the bay bridge, and I wouldn't be surprised if they end up getting a full lane for the full BRT experience. If you haven't noticed an impact from that construction, versus say the Chinatown subway messing up all of 4th street, then it really speaks to why buses are a pretty easy solution.