3 ms·

I'm not sure what you're saying here. I've no doubt that you love walking and biking, but if your neighbors felt the same way, they wouldn't need to be coerced

I'm not sure what you're saying here. I've no doubt that you love walking and biking, but if your neighbors felt the same way, they wouldn't need to be coerced into it by car-unfriendly design.

enoch_r 10y ago
One could just as easily say "I have no doubt that you love traveling the speed limit through your neighborhood, but if your neighbors felt the same way, they wouldn't need to be coerced into it by enforcement and design." Even when I drive safely, there are costs borne by others when I drive--if nothing else, I make the street less pleasant and useful for my neighbors and their children and I make transportation more dangerous/stressful for cyclists and pedestrians. Second, this is a bizarre way to use the word "coercion." It isn't like our existing infrastructure is some neutral ideal and I prefer "car-unfriendly" designs--spending $1.1 billion to add lanes to the 405 freeway in LA isn't a gift from god, it's a government subsidy for a particular behavior. Living in Orange County without a car, getting around involved walking or biking along busy, unpleasant multilane arterials with 45+mph speed limits (quieter streets were inevitably cul de sacs that spit you right back out into the meat grinder). I didn't think "hm, I find driving pleasant, so I will drive." I decided that driving would be dramatically less likely to result in my sudden death than riding--on streets like that. People in Amsterdam choose to bike because they feel it's better than the alternatives. People in LA choose to drive for the exact same reason. If you think the difference is the amount of "coercion" they face, then you need to be able to explain why my current neighbors are being "coerced" while my former neighbors in OC are not.
- chris_7 10y ago
  > spending $1.1 billion to add lanes to the 405 freeway in LA isn't a gift from god Is this a thing they're actually doing? Surely induced demand is well-known by now?
- superuser2 10y ago
  Okay, I guess >we'd be even happier if we could coordinate non-driving was more central to what you were getting at. I've never really thought of the presence of other drivers as a primary or even ancillary reason to also drive. Far more important are things like the weather, duration of the trip, physical exertion, cargo capacity, do I want to be sweaty and tired when I get there, is there a locker room with a shower, etc. In Milwaukee, Chicago, and Berkeley I've always felt like the separation of pedestrians and bikes from cars was pretty good. There are places where it's dangerous to bike in the Milwaukee and Chicago metros, but they were also the kind of places you'd never visit unless you lived in them, and I didn't. It sounds like LA could solve your problem with better sidewalks and bike lanes at much lower net cost to everyone else. I guess people in LA are being coerced to drive, but plenty of other places facilitate driving, cycling, and walking safely at the same time. The more interesting tension (to me) is between density and parking, where my basic argument is that parking inhibits density but is also inclusive of a much larger land area (and therefore people paying lower rents), while dense areas without parking are great for their residents but coercive to the people who can't or don't want to pay the rents in them.

I'm not sure what you're saying here. I've no doubt that you love walking and biking, but if your neighbors felt the same way, they wouldn't need to be coerced into it by car-unfriendly design.

enoch_r 10y ago

One could just as easily say "I have no doubt that you love traveling the speed limit through your neighborhood, but if your neighbors felt the same way, they wouldn't need to be coerced into it by enforcement and design." Even when I drive safely, there are costs borne by others when I drive--if nothing else, I make the street less pleasant and useful for my neighbors and their children and I make transportation more dangerous/stressful for cyclists and pedestrians. Second, this is a bizarre way to use the word "coercion." It isn't like our existing infrastructure is some neutral ideal and I prefer "car-unfriendly" designs--spending $1.1 billion to add lanes to the 405 freeway in LA isn't a gift from god, it's a government subsidy for a particular behavior. Living in Orange County without a car, getting around involved walking or biking along busy, unpleasant multilane arterials with 45+mph speed limits (quieter streets were inevitably cul de sacs that spit you right back out into the meat grinder). I didn't think "hm, I find driving pleasant, so I will drive." I decided that driving would be dramatically less likely to result in my sudden death than riding--on streets like that. People in Amsterdam choose to bike because they feel it's better than the alternatives. People in LA choose to drive for the exact same reason. If you think the difference is the amount of "coercion" they face, then you need to be able to explain why my current neighbors are being "coerced" while my former neighbors in OC are not.

chris_7 10y ago
> spending $1.1 billion to add lanes to the 405 freeway in LA isn't a gift from god Is this a thing they're actually doing? Surely induced demand is well-known by now?
superuser2 10y ago
Okay, I guess >we'd be even happier if we could coordinate non-driving was more central to what you were getting at. I've never really thought of the presence of other drivers as a primary or even ancillary reason to also drive. Far more important are things like the weather, duration of the trip, physical exertion, cargo capacity, do I want to be sweaty and tired when I get there, is there a locker room with a shower, etc. In Milwaukee, Chicago, and Berkeley I've always felt like the separation of pedestrians and bikes from cars was pretty good. There are places where it's dangerous to bike in the Milwaukee and Chicago metros, but they were also the kind of places you'd never visit unless you lived in them, and I didn't. It sounds like LA could solve your problem with better sidewalks and bike lanes at much lower net cost to everyone else. I guess people in LA are being coerced to drive, but plenty of other places facilitate driving, cycling, and walking safely at the same time. The more interesting tension (to me) is between density and parking, where my basic argument is that parking inhibits density but is also inclusive of a much larger land area (and therefore people paying lower rents), while dense areas without parking are great for their residents but coercive to the people who can't or don't want to pay the rents in them.