3 ms·

I cannot help but witness the effects of traffic calming: > a taxi trip in 2017 took 17% longer than the same trip in 2009. > The same regression applied to

I cannot help but witness the effects of traffic calming: > a taxi trip in 2017 took 17% longer than the same trip in 2009. > The same regression applied to Citi Bikes shows no such slowdown over time, in fact Citi Bikes got slightly faster. Obviously when you dedicate more street space from cars towards bikes, bikes get faster and cars get slower. The article goes to mention this, but also downplays it. What the article seems to ignore on a major scale is the effect of traffic calming, or traffic impeding. By civilizing traffic to the appropriate rules and procedures via hardscapes, you make vehicle travel more unbearable and a test of patience. If the intentions behind doing this weren't derived from anti-car sentiments, I could respect this move. But Janet Sadik-Khan is a bicycling enthusiast and after her appointment, car travel became really bad.

addicted 9y ago
Actually the article points to the fact that other studies have shown that bikes have either no effect, or improve traffic speeds, because one of the biggest misconceptions in traffic planning is the solution is to increase roadways, when in reality, the answer is usually to reduce. Actual relevant reasons may be the growth of Uber, the change of speed limits, and/or the increase in population.
macNchz 9y ago
As I understand it traffic has gotten demonstrably worse in NYC over the past few years at least in part because there are so many cars on the road driving for Uber et al: http://nyc.streetsblog.org/2017/02/27/its-settled-uber-is-making-nyc-gridlock-worse/ http://nyc.streetsblog.org/2017/02/27/its-settled-uber-is-ma... There have been some pedestrian safety changes made in Manhattan but traffic is really the biggest impediment. Most cars are moving less than the speed limit much of the day because of all the traffic.
dionidium 9y ago
If the intentions behind doing this weren't derived from anti-car sentiments New York City isn't nearly anti-car enough! It's the only place in the U.S. that has any chance of reclaiming its streets for pedestrians and it should absolutely do so. Those who like to drive can choose literally any other U.S. city and, without exception, it'll cater to that preference. But New York City should be implementing all kinds of car-hostile policies, including an all-out ban on private vehicles in some parts of Manhattan.
awakeasleep 9y ago
I was thinking about your post, and was trying to imagine the difference between anti-car and pro-human-life. Cars provide a lot of benefit, but without 'traffic calming' or anti-car architecture, there are more and more of them going faster and faster, killing pedestrians, cyclists, and other drivers. It's a balancing act, but I think there is not a big city in the USA that would be considered to actually favor pedestrians and cyclists over cars. (yet.)

addicted 9y ago

Actually the article points to the fact that other studies have shown that bikes have either no effect, or improve traffic speeds, because one of the biggest misconceptions in traffic planning is the solution is to increase roadways, when in reality, the answer is usually to reduce. Actual relevant reasons may be the growth of Uber, the change of speed limits, and/or the increase in population.

macNchz 9y ago

As I understand it traffic has gotten demonstrably worse in NYC over the past few years at least in part because there are so many cars on the road driving for Uber et al: http://nyc.streetsblog.org/2017/02/27/its-settled-uber-is-making-nyc-gridlock-worse/ http://nyc.streetsblog.org/2017/02/27/its-settled-uber-is-ma... There have been some pedestrian safety changes made in Manhattan but traffic is really the biggest impediment. Most cars are moving less than the speed limit much of the day because of all the traffic.

dionidium 9y ago

If the intentions behind doing this weren't derived from anti-car sentiments New York City isn't nearly anti-car enough! It's the only place in the U.S. that has any chance of reclaiming its streets for pedestrians and it should absolutely do so. Those who like to drive can choose literally any other U.S. city and, without exception, it'll cater to that preference. But New York City should be implementing all kinds of car-hostile policies, including an all-out ban on private vehicles in some parts of Manhattan.

awakeasleep 9y ago

I was thinking about your post, and was trying to imagine the difference between anti-car and pro-human-life. Cars provide a lot of benefit, but without 'traffic calming' or anti-car architecture, there are more and more of them going faster and faster, killing pedestrians, cyclists, and other drivers. It's a balancing act, but I think there is not a big city in the USA that would be considered to actually favor pedestrians and cyclists over cars. (yet.)