14 ms·

Rethinking Streets for Bikes

159 points by dsego 8y ago

inamberclad 8y ago
Looks like the full text is behind a paywall
- crote 8y ago
  For "Rethinking streets with bikes": Fill in any values on the form, they are for tracking purposes only. No mail confirmation or payment required. For "Rethinking streets": The download link sends you to a registration form, but you can fill in any random email address - no confirmation is sent and it directs you to the download page at http://www.rethinkingstreets.com/download.html http://www.rethinkingstreets.com/download.html .
jdavis703 8y ago
This might sound pedanatic but I hate when transportation choices are framed as for cars or for bikes. Transportation is for people. Talking about and designing our street infrastructure as if it’s designed for machines like cars and bikes leads us to designing systems that aren’t very friendly to humans (one needs to look no further than the ever increasing incidents of deaths for people walking or riding a bike).
- devmunchies 8y ago
  >I hate when transportation choices are framed as for cars or for bikes. Transportation is for people. To add, choices should be more holistically focused on generations of people into the future and the environment. This isn’t the Wild West anymore. We got to start thinking long term.
- cletus 8y ago
  I'm not sure what the point of your comment is to be honest. Transportation choices are made between different modes of transportation all the time. There's no universally good option. Take NYC where light changes happen about every 45 seconds. This is necessary for pedestrians to be able to get anywhere and because the blocks are fairly narrow (in the north-south direction) in Manhattan. I've visited the Bay Area many times and it's a nightmare as a pedestrian. You need to cross, say, Castro and El Camino Real and you might be waiting 3+ minutes for the light change to cross those 6 lanes of traffic (and you probably have to be on your guard for inattentive drivers turning right at red lights even when you have right-of-way. I used to walk back to Mountain View from the Google campus along Shoreline in the afternoons. That's where the on ramp is onto 101 South and it uses a light-less system (I don't believe it's a full clover leaf?). Crossing that on ramp to continue down Shoreline was essentially an exercise in waiting for some driver to take pity on you to let you cross. Clearly a choice has been made in favour of cars. Urban planners also go out of their way to restrict traffic to 20mph in pedestrian-heavy areas by narrowing lanes and decreasing distances between lights because there's a huge increase in injuries and death to pedestrians by going 30mph. So a choice is made in favour of pedestrians here.
  - jdavis703 8y ago
    Examples of bad design thinking from the report: * Decorative bike racks that make securing a bike more difficult. * An expectation that people will feel comfortable riding feet away from vehicles traveling 35-40 MPH * Shrugging off increased injuries on one redesigned street.
  - shereadsthenews 8y ago
    The peninsula is a car-choked hellscape however on a population-weighted basis I guess it is a little better. Many more people live in the walkable places than in the others.
  - lpghatguy 8y ago
    Some of the other 101 crossings in the Bay Area (3rd Ave/101 in San Mateo, Hillsdale Blvd/101 in San Mateo at least) are lightless and are really dangerous for both cyclists and pedestrians.
ilaksh 8y ago
Designing to accommodate bikes is the right direction but I wonder if a city could be designed to have a actual physical separation between large vehicles and small ones. Just because of the physics people on bikes are likely to be injured or killed by much larger cars in the event of a collision.
- twblalock 8y ago
  The places where people ride bikes en masse, like Amsterdam, have physical separation. Very few people want to have cars whizzing by a few feet from their elbows. If you want people to seriously consider cycling as anything other than a hobby you need physical separation of bicycles from cars. Unfortunately cycling advocacy organizations in the United States tend to be opposed to physical separation.
  - ams6110 8y ago
    Why is that? I've seen that: dedicated, separated bike paths are unused, and cyclists continue to ride in the street with the cars.
    - bsder 8y ago
      I suspect practicality. The US simply isn't going to tear up a significant chunk of streets in any city and lay down enough bicycle-only infrastructure any time soon. So, it's a lot more effective to co-opt the existing infrastructure and lobby for speed limit changes, access changes, road humps, etc. > I've seen that: dedicated, separated bike paths are unused, and cyclists continue to ride in the street with the cars. Generally this is on bike paths that were put in to satisfy some "green initiative" but don't actually go anywhere useful. It also sometimes happens on "bike paths" that cross too many roads; you're better off riding on a parallel roadway that's actually optimized for traffic flow. I have rarely seen idle bike paths when they exist in a downtown where people work.
    - crote 8y ago
      Could you give an example of a bike path where this happens? For context, it should end up looking not unlike https://goo.gl/maps/MCzsE6vg1Sr https://goo.gl/maps/MCzsE6vg1Sr .
crote 8y ago
I quickly read through this. Context: I'm Dutch and live in Utrecht, The Netherlands. This booklet has one massive flaw: it is constructed using American best-practices. At best, a couple of examples could be considered almost acceptable. Most of them were woefully inadequate and consist of little more than a blob of quickly-fading green paint in ill-considered positions. Worst of all, several examples are clearly flawed, and to me seem even more dangerous than not having any infrastructure at all. If the goal is to show to unimaginative people that it is indeed physically possible to create something resembling bike infrastructure, then it will do fine. But if you're trying to actually create a good, safe, well-used cycling network, then this is not the way to do it. If you want good examples, go visit something like https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/ https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/ . This booklet almost reads as if it was written by someone who has only heard about cycling infrastructure, but never actually lived in a city which has it. The intention is there, but there's an even longer way to go. Some trivial stuff to change: - Add green dye to the asphalt instead of adding a layer of green paint. This means that it will not fade. - Color the whole cycle path, not just a few small parts of it. You're trying to create a continuous network, remember? - Don't use a zebra-crossing style striping at crossings. A continuous green bar would be way easier to see and interpret as something to stop for. - Don't create turn boxes. They are always in dangerous positions and there are better alternatives. But most important of all: don't just add cycle paths to your main car roads. You wouldn't add a sidewalk and crosswalk to an interstate, would you? Create the main cycle routes on secondary streets, and make them unattractive for cars.
- skookumchuck 8y ago
  Around here they create X crossings, where the bike lane and the right hand car lane cross each other in an X. This is sheer madness.
  - jessaustin 8y ago
    How would you handle locations where cars are turning right and cyclists are riding straight?
    - 8y ago
porlune 8y ago
Interesting, and a bit cyclical - roads were originally "smoothed" in the 19th century because of lobbying from cyclist organizations. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2011/aug/15/cyclists-paved-way-for-roads https://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2011/aug/1... Note: the obvious pun wasn't intentional, but I'm leaving it in because it's a pun.
cletus 8y ago
So when I last visited Perth, I bought a bicycle and rode around a lot. Google Maps was helpful here in showing where the bike paths are. While other people might feel fine riding in traffic I never have and probably never will. Honestly I just don't trust drivers, particularly in this era of smartphones. Anyway, there are vast differences in what people view as a bike path. Take Reid Highway as an example [1]. Those strips on either side of the road are the bike path. This is a highway with a speed limit of 90kph (~55mph), which probably means people are really going 120kph on what is essentially the hard shoulder. There's no way in hell I'd ride on that. Personally I considered something like this stretch of Morley Drive [2] to be a good standard of biking infrastructure, for several reasons: 1. Wide bike path separated from the road 2. The road has a wide median strip. I can't tell you how much this helps in crossing busy roads. 3. The bike path isn't right up against the walls of residential properties. This can be a real nightmare for visibility of cars pulling out. 4. Bike paths shouldn't be clogged with pedestrian traffic either as in if it's a busy pedestrian area, have a separate pedestrian path. Personally I just like to find long residential streets with minimal busy road crossings. You can fly down those things and don't have to second guess what cars are doing most of the time. As for America in particular, I've said it once and I'll say it again the most anti-cyclist (and anti-pedestrian) rule is the ability to turn right at a red light and it's almost universal in the country. Even in places where it's technically illegal (eg the five boroughs of NYC) you have people who either don't know or don't care (eg once I told some driver fairly calmly after they did it and stopped at the traffic 50 feet down the road that it was illegal in NYC they told me to go F myself). [1] https://goo.gl/maps/MfLB58HyZHJ2 https://goo.gl/maps/MfLB58HyZHJ2 [2] https://goo.gl/maps/wAnsF4HUqPA2 https://goo.gl/maps/wAnsF4HUqPA2
csmeder 8y ago
Here is a moon shot idea for US cities, by 2050: 1. All car streets need to be under ground in tunnels 2. All vehicles must be 100% electric 3. Over ground traffic is limited to: walking, wheel chairs, bikes, scooters and wide load special permit vehicles. Forget Trump’s plan for going to the moon another time, can we do this instead?
- Misdicorl 8y ago
  The waste and cost of putting even a small percentage of road miles underground is truly astounding. This isn't comparable to going to the moon. It's comparable to turning every single family home into a thirty story skyscraper.
- aisengard 8y ago
  Nice try, Elon.
- usrusr 8y ago
  Even if total troglodyting is far beyond moonshot: I applaud every investment in burying cars, because they are the only investments in car throughput that don't make driving more attractive. If you want to actually go faster and not just share the stop-and-go with even more peers, insist on the tunnel experience.
newshorts 8y ago
I drove to the office 5 days last year. My bicycle is my primary form of transportation and I have to say, it’s a wonderful way to live. I doubt the US or local states/cities will properly implement bicycle infrastructure anytime soon. Imaginative or not there’s just too much money to be made by having everyone purchase cars.
mises 8y ago
I appreciate a lot of the ideas of accommodating bikes, and think it's a laudable goal. But it's not practical everywhere. As an example, I have lived in Houston in the past for some time. It is huge - I commuted roughly 20 miles each way. That's not "bikeable". And not everyone goes to the same place. Some work downtown, but not nearly as many as you'd think. The energy corridor is in an entirely separate area. Many people work in the Woodlands. Some people have jobs out in Katy. Some work in the industrial areas or near the ship channel. And don't even get me started on the heat. Nobody wants to bike when it's 95 degrees out, even if you can shower once you reach your destination. Many of the proposed solutions are centered around cities like New York: small metropolitan areas to which everyone commutes with at least reasonable weather and with reasonable distances. It's also very difficult to design good public transportation for such a city as I described, especially since many of the places I listed are technically different cities. With that said, I would be interested in hearing ideas for how to solve a problem like this. I and friends of mine have debated how to solve such an issue before, and come away without an answer. If someone has an idea, let me know.
- provolone 8y ago
  The conditions you describe are bikable. A shower would be essential. Those who are willing need no special accommodations.
  - dbmikus 8y ago
    Technically bikeable: yes A long unpleasant bike ride for your daily commute: also yes I think biking works if it's either a last mile type of thing via bike share programs combined with public transit, or if you are biking in a denser city. In NYC with lane splitting, sometimes you can be faster than cars.
    - provolone 8y ago
      Some people enjoy might enjoy it. Even in suburban areas cycling can be faster than waiting for the bus.
- 8y ago
sunstone 8y ago
One of the issues here is that it's very likely that e-bikes will start to dominate regular bikes in near future. Because of their fast acceleration they may well be more suited to the roads that cars currently dominate than to the typical "bike lane" environment. Certainly the difference between an e-bike and a regular bike is much bigger than would be expected at first glance. Last year the Dutch bought more e-bikes than 'normal' bikes. And in terms of the euro total amount it was even much more. [1] [1]https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/mar/01/bike-country-n0-1-dutch-electric-record-numbers-e-bikes-netherlands https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/mar/01/bike-country-n...
- crote 8y ago
  The difference isn't that big in The Netherlands. Legally, e-bikes are limited to 15mph, and the electric motor can only provide assistance. Faster pedelecs are classified as mopeds and are mostly not allowed on bike paths for obvious safety reasons. In practice, I've not yet noticed this domination. Getting passed by an e-bike does happen, but it's not very common.
  - sunstone 8y ago
    It may seem contrary to common sense but e-bikes primarily replace a car, rather than a regular bike, for running chores within the range of about 10-15km. It's the range, and lack effort (sweat) that is compelling rather than its speed.
provolone 8y ago
Bike lanes in the US have always been in the areas where it is more dangerous to ride. The mere presence of a bike lane instead of an undecorated shoulder seems to confuse many as to what is possible or acceptable. Riding and moving at speed with traffic will always be safer than getting boxed in. Bike only trails are typically filled with weaving inline-skaters, people walking four abreast, and other hazards. Again, you're safer and faster when you stick to the roads. This typifies the attitude of "there aught to be a law" held by individuals (usually those who have no intention of cycling seriously) waiting for the state to take action and spend money to solve a non-problem. The self-starter's solution is to take action and build up your cycling skills.
maddyboo 8y ago
Dave Amos, one of the authors of this publication, has a YouTube channel called City Beautiful [1] in which he covers issues around urban planning. It is absolutely worth a watch. [1]: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCGc8ZVCsrR3dAuhvUbkbToQ https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCGc8ZVCsrR3dAuhvUbkbToQ
choeger 8y ago
Is anyone catching the irony that building cities for bikes is pretty much like building cities for cars, just in a somewhat smaller scale? You need fast lanes, parking lots, bad weather handling, crossings, cross roads, etc. Will we in 20 years have even denser cities and then try to ban the bikes? How about fighting the trend to ever denser cities? Allow for three or four story buildings and leave it at that. Demand lots of space between buildings. Build intelligent subways. And plant some effing trees now and then.
- crote 8y ago
  What is ironic about it? There are already pedestrian-only zones in many cities, aren't there? Ironically, the aim should be towards the opposite you're suggesting. By increasing the density and removing space between buildings, you are creating a city where it is more viable to use bikes or walking as your main mode of transportation. Subways are useless if your final destination isn't easily walkable from your stop. Your goal shouldn't be to create a city for cars, your goal should be to create a city where it is easy to get somewhere. I do mostly agree with the three or four story height, though. This is the proper height to use for most suburb-style developments, higher is only really needed in the CBD.
jonnycomputer 8y ago
so annoying that i have to register to download the pdf. ugh.
ListeningPie 8y ago
Why do journalists continue to compare American cities to Copenhagen or Amsterdam when it comes to bicycle infrastructure and safety? I argue it is primarily the climate followed by size. In Denmark the climate is mild, with few hot summer days and even fewer snow days that would make bicycling impossible. Comparing Boston average temperatures to Copenhagen, Jan-Feb on average are 4 degrees C lower and July-Aug are 7 degrees C hotter [1][2] in Boston. Then there are lists of America's worst bicycling cities ranking Dallas, TX at the top, where average July-Aug highs are 15 degrees higher than in Copenhagen [3]. Climate wise the cities are very different. If you can't bike to work everyday because of the weather then infrastructure of bikes cannot replace car infrastructure. In Denmark bicycle infrastructure can replace car infrastructure because the climate makes it possible to bike work every month of the year. In even mild climate cities like Boston it becomes much harder to be dependent on bicycles with hotter summers and colder winters. That's looking at the climate. Next, the Boston Urban area is 4.600 sq km with 4 million people, whereas Copenhagen is only 606 sq km with 1.6 million people [Wikipedia]. Some back of the napkin calculations would make average travel distances 3 times greater in Boston. Because of the differences in climate, size and population between Copenhagen and Boston, I do not consider bicycles a viable solution for Boston's transport challenges and I extend this line of thinking to most American Metropolitan centers. [1] https://www.weatherbase.com/weather/weather.php3?s=90527&cityname=Boston-Massachusetts-United-States-of-America https://www.weatherbase.com/weather/weather.php3?s=90527&cit... [2] https://www.weatherbase.com/weather/weather.php3?s=8160&cityname=Copenhagen--United-States-of-America https://www.weatherbase.com/weather/weather.php3?s=8160&city... [3] https://www.weatherbase.com/weather/weather.php3?s=95227&cityname=Dallas-Texas-United-States-of-America https://www.weatherbase.com/weather/weather.php3?s=95227&cit...
- desas 8y ago
  > Why do journalists continue to compare American cities to Copenhagen or Amsterdam when it comes to bicycle infrastructure and safety? I argue it is primarily the climate followed by size. Because they're the world leaders and something to aspire too
provolone 8y ago
How safe does 80mph freeway traffic feel for novice drivers? Cycling is incredibly dangerous according to many here, but is it more dangerous than heart disease?

159 points by dsego 8y ago

inamberclad 8y ago

Looks like the full text is behind a paywall

crote 8y ago
For "Rethinking streets with bikes": Fill in any values on the form, they are for tracking purposes only. No mail confirmation or payment required. For "Rethinking streets": The download link sends you to a registration form, but you can fill in any random email address - no confirmation is sent and it directs you to the download page at http://www.rethinkingstreets.com/download.html http://www.rethinkingstreets.com/download.html .

jdavis703 8y ago

This might sound pedanatic but I hate when transportation choices are framed as for cars or for bikes. Transportation is for people. Talking about and designing our street infrastructure as if it’s designed for machines like cars and bikes leads us to designing systems that aren’t very friendly to humans (one needs to look no further than the ever increasing incidents of deaths for people walking or riding a bike).

devmunchies 8y ago
>I hate when transportation choices are framed as for cars or for bikes. Transportation is for people. To add, choices should be more holistically focused on generations of people into the future and the environment. This isn’t the Wild West anymore. We got to start thinking long term.
cletus 8y ago
I'm not sure what the point of your comment is to be honest. Transportation choices are made between different modes of transportation all the time. There's no universally good option. Take NYC where light changes happen about every 45 seconds. This is necessary for pedestrians to be able to get anywhere and because the blocks are fairly narrow (in the north-south direction) in Manhattan. I've visited the Bay Area many times and it's a nightmare as a pedestrian. You need to cross, say, Castro and El Camino Real and you might be waiting 3+ minutes for the light change to cross those 6 lanes of traffic (and you probably have to be on your guard for inattentive drivers turning right at red lights even when you have right-of-way. I used to walk back to Mountain View from the Google campus along Shoreline in the afternoons. That's where the on ramp is onto 101 South and it uses a light-less system (I don't believe it's a full clover leaf?). Crossing that on ramp to continue down Shoreline was essentially an exercise in waiting for some driver to take pity on you to let you cross. Clearly a choice has been made in favour of cars. Urban planners also go out of their way to restrict traffic to 20mph in pedestrian-heavy areas by narrowing lanes and decreasing distances between lights because there's a huge increase in injuries and death to pedestrians by going 30mph. So a choice is made in favour of pedestrians here.
- jdavis703 8y ago
  Examples of bad design thinking from the report: * Decorative bike racks that make securing a bike more difficult. * An expectation that people will feel comfortable riding feet away from vehicles traveling 35-40 MPH * Shrugging off increased injuries on one redesigned street.
- shereadsthenews 8y ago
  The peninsula is a car-choked hellscape however on a population-weighted basis I guess it is a little better. Many more people live in the walkable places than in the others.
- lpghatguy 8y ago
  Some of the other 101 crossings in the Bay Area (3rd Ave/101 in San Mateo, Hillsdale Blvd/101 in San Mateo at least) are lightless and are really dangerous for both cyclists and pedestrians.

ilaksh 8y ago

Designing to accommodate bikes is the right direction but I wonder if a city could be designed to have a actual physical separation between large vehicles and small ones. Just because of the physics people on bikes are likely to be injured or killed by much larger cars in the event of a collision.

twblalock 8y ago
The places where people ride bikes en masse, like Amsterdam, have physical separation. Very few people want to have cars whizzing by a few feet from their elbows. If you want people to seriously consider cycling as anything other than a hobby you need physical separation of bicycles from cars. Unfortunately cycling advocacy organizations in the United States tend to be opposed to physical separation.
- ams6110 8y ago
  Why is that? I've seen that: dedicated, separated bike paths are unused, and cyclists continue to ride in the street with the cars.
  - bsder 8y ago
    I suspect practicality. The US simply isn't going to tear up a significant chunk of streets in any city and lay down enough bicycle-only infrastructure any time soon. So, it's a lot more effective to co-opt the existing infrastructure and lobby for speed limit changes, access changes, road humps, etc. > I've seen that: dedicated, separated bike paths are unused, and cyclists continue to ride in the street with the cars. Generally this is on bike paths that were put in to satisfy some "green initiative" but don't actually go anywhere useful. It also sometimes happens on "bike paths" that cross too many roads; you're better off riding on a parallel roadway that's actually optimized for traffic flow. I have rarely seen idle bike paths when they exist in a downtown where people work.
  - crote 8y ago
    Could you give an example of a bike path where this happens? For context, it should end up looking not unlike https://goo.gl/maps/MCzsE6vg1Sr https://goo.gl/maps/MCzsE6vg1Sr .

crote 8y ago

I quickly read through this. Context: I'm Dutch and live in Utrecht, The Netherlands. This booklet has one massive flaw: it is constructed using American best-practices. At best, a couple of examples could be considered almost acceptable. Most of them were woefully inadequate and consist of little more than a blob of quickly-fading green paint in ill-considered positions. Worst of all, several examples are clearly flawed, and to me seem even more dangerous than not having any infrastructure at all. If the goal is to show to unimaginative people that it is indeed physically possible to create something resembling bike infrastructure, then it will do fine. But if you're trying to actually create a good, safe, well-used cycling network, then this is not the way to do it. If you want good examples, go visit something like https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/ https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/ . This booklet almost reads as if it was written by someone who has only heard about cycling infrastructure, but never actually lived in a city which has it. The intention is there, but there's an even longer way to go. Some trivial stuff to change: - Add green dye to the asphalt instead of adding a layer of green paint. This means that it will not fade. - Color the whole cycle path, not just a few small parts of it. You're trying to create a continuous network, remember? - Don't use a zebra-crossing style striping at crossings. A continuous green bar would be way easier to see and interpret as something to stop for. - Don't create turn boxes. They are always in dangerous positions and there are better alternatives. But most important of all: don't just add cycle paths to your main car roads. You wouldn't add a sidewalk and crosswalk to an interstate, would you? Create the main cycle routes on secondary streets, and make them unattractive for cars.

skookumchuck 8y ago
Around here they create X crossings, where the bike lane and the right hand car lane cross each other in an X. This is sheer madness.
- jessaustin 8y ago
  How would you handle locations where cars are turning right and cyclists are riding straight?
  - 8y ago

porlune 8y ago

Interesting, and a bit cyclical - roads were originally "smoothed" in the 19th century because of lobbying from cyclist organizations. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2011/aug/15/cyclists-paved-way-for-roads https://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2011/aug/1... Note: the obvious pun wasn't intentional, but I'm leaving it in because it's a pun.

cletus 8y ago

So when I last visited Perth, I bought a bicycle and rode around a lot. Google Maps was helpful here in showing where the bike paths are. While other people might feel fine riding in traffic I never have and probably never will. Honestly I just don't trust drivers, particularly in this era of smartphones. Anyway, there are vast differences in what people view as a bike path. Take Reid Highway as an example [1]. Those strips on either side of the road are the bike path. This is a highway with a speed limit of 90kph (~55mph), which probably means people are really going 120kph on what is essentially the hard shoulder. There's no way in hell I'd ride on that. Personally I considered something like this stretch of Morley Drive [2] to be a good standard of biking infrastructure, for several reasons: 1. Wide bike path separated from the road 2. The road has a wide median strip. I can't tell you how much this helps in crossing busy roads. 3. The bike path isn't right up against the walls of residential properties. This can be a real nightmare for visibility of cars pulling out. 4. Bike paths shouldn't be clogged with pedestrian traffic either as in if it's a busy pedestrian area, have a separate pedestrian path. Personally I just like to find long residential streets with minimal busy road crossings. You can fly down those things and don't have to second guess what cars are doing most of the time. As for America in particular, I've said it once and I'll say it again the most anti-cyclist (and anti-pedestrian) rule is the ability to turn right at a red light and it's almost universal in the country. Even in places where it's technically illegal (eg the five boroughs of NYC) you have people who either don't know or don't care (eg once I told some driver fairly calmly after they did it and stopped at the traffic 50 feet down the road that it was illegal in NYC they told me to go F myself). [1] https://goo.gl/maps/MfLB58HyZHJ2 https://goo.gl/maps/MfLB58HyZHJ2 [2] https://goo.gl/maps/wAnsF4HUqPA2 https://goo.gl/maps/wAnsF4HUqPA2

csmeder 8y ago

Here is a moon shot idea for US cities, by 2050: 1. All car streets need to be under ground in tunnels 2. All vehicles must be 100% electric 3. Over ground traffic is limited to: walking, wheel chairs, bikes, scooters and wide load special permit vehicles. Forget Trump’s plan for going to the moon another time, can we do this instead?

Misdicorl 8y ago
The waste and cost of putting even a small percentage of road miles underground is truly astounding. This isn't comparable to going to the moon. It's comparable to turning every single family home into a thirty story skyscraper.
aisengard 8y ago
Nice try, Elon.
usrusr 8y ago
Even if total troglodyting is far beyond moonshot: I applaud every investment in burying cars, because they are the only investments in car throughput that don't make driving more attractive. If you want to actually go faster and not just share the stop-and-go with even more peers, insist on the tunnel experience.

newshorts 8y ago

I drove to the office 5 days last year. My bicycle is my primary form of transportation and I have to say, it’s a wonderful way to live. I doubt the US or local states/cities will properly implement bicycle infrastructure anytime soon. Imaginative or not there’s just too much money to be made by having everyone purchase cars.

mises 8y ago

I appreciate a lot of the ideas of accommodating bikes, and think it's a laudable goal. But it's not practical everywhere. As an example, I have lived in Houston in the past for some time. It is huge - I commuted roughly 20 miles each way. That's not "bikeable". And not everyone goes to the same place. Some work downtown, but not nearly as many as you'd think. The energy corridor is in an entirely separate area. Many people work in the Woodlands. Some people have jobs out in Katy. Some work in the industrial areas or near the ship channel. And don't even get me started on the heat. Nobody wants to bike when it's 95 degrees out, even if you can shower once you reach your destination. Many of the proposed solutions are centered around cities like New York: small metropolitan areas to which everyone commutes with at least reasonable weather and with reasonable distances. It's also very difficult to design good public transportation for such a city as I described, especially since many of the places I listed are technically different cities. With that said, I would be interested in hearing ideas for how to solve a problem like this. I and friends of mine have debated how to solve such an issue before, and come away without an answer. If someone has an idea, let me know.

provolone 8y ago
The conditions you describe are bikable. A shower would be essential. Those who are willing need no special accommodations.
- dbmikus 8y ago
  Technically bikeable: yes A long unpleasant bike ride for your daily commute: also yes I think biking works if it's either a last mile type of thing via bike share programs combined with public transit, or if you are biking in a denser city. In NYC with lane splitting, sometimes you can be faster than cars.
  - provolone 8y ago
    Some people enjoy might enjoy it. Even in suburban areas cycling can be faster than waiting for the bus.
8y ago

sunstone 8y ago

One of the issues here is that it's very likely that e-bikes will start to dominate regular bikes in near future. Because of their fast acceleration they may well be more suited to the roads that cars currently dominate than to the typical "bike lane" environment. Certainly the difference between an e-bike and a regular bike is much bigger than would be expected at first glance. Last year the Dutch bought more e-bikes than 'normal' bikes. And in terms of the euro total amount it was even much more. [1] [1]https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/mar/01/bike-country-n0-1-dutch-electric-record-numbers-e-bikes-netherlands https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/mar/01/bike-country-n...

crote 8y ago
The difference isn't that big in The Netherlands. Legally, e-bikes are limited to 15mph, and the electric motor can only provide assistance. Faster pedelecs are classified as mopeds and are mostly not allowed on bike paths for obvious safety reasons. In practice, I've not yet noticed this domination. Getting passed by an e-bike does happen, but it's not very common.
- sunstone 8y ago
  It may seem contrary to common sense but e-bikes primarily replace a car, rather than a regular bike, for running chores within the range of about 10-15km. It's the range, and lack effort (sweat) that is compelling rather than its speed.

provolone 8y ago

Bike lanes in the US have always been in the areas where it is more dangerous to ride. The mere presence of a bike lane instead of an undecorated shoulder seems to confuse many as to what is possible or acceptable. Riding and moving at speed with traffic will always be safer than getting boxed in. Bike only trails are typically filled with weaving inline-skaters, people walking four abreast, and other hazards. Again, you're safer and faster when you stick to the roads. This typifies the attitude of "there aught to be a law" held by individuals (usually those who have no intention of cycling seriously) waiting for the state to take action and spend money to solve a non-problem. The self-starter's solution is to take action and build up your cycling skills.

maddyboo 8y ago

Dave Amos, one of the authors of this publication, has a YouTube channel called City Beautiful [1] in which he covers issues around urban planning. It is absolutely worth a watch. [1]: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCGc8ZVCsrR3dAuhvUbkbToQ https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCGc8ZVCsrR3dAuhvUbkbToQ

choeger 8y ago

Is anyone catching the irony that building cities for bikes is pretty much like building cities for cars, just in a somewhat smaller scale? You need fast lanes, parking lots, bad weather handling, crossings, cross roads, etc. Will we in 20 years have even denser cities and then try to ban the bikes? How about fighting the trend to ever denser cities? Allow for three or four story buildings and leave it at that. Demand lots of space between buildings. Build intelligent subways. And plant some effing trees now and then.

crote 8y ago
What is ironic about it? There are already pedestrian-only zones in many cities, aren't there? Ironically, the aim should be towards the opposite you're suggesting. By increasing the density and removing space between buildings, you are creating a city where it is more viable to use bikes or walking as your main mode of transportation. Subways are useless if your final destination isn't easily walkable from your stop. Your goal shouldn't be to create a city for cars, your goal should be to create a city where it is easy to get somewhere. I do mostly agree with the three or four story height, though. This is the proper height to use for most suburb-style developments, higher is only really needed in the CBD.

jonnycomputer 8y ago

so annoying that i have to register to download the pdf. ugh.

ListeningPie 8y ago

Why do journalists continue to compare American cities to Copenhagen or Amsterdam when it comes to bicycle infrastructure and safety? I argue it is primarily the climate followed by size. In Denmark the climate is mild, with few hot summer days and even fewer snow days that would make bicycling impossible. Comparing Boston average temperatures to Copenhagen, Jan-Feb on average are 4 degrees C lower and July-Aug are 7 degrees C hotter [1][2] in Boston. Then there are lists of America's worst bicycling cities ranking Dallas, TX at the top, where average July-Aug highs are 15 degrees higher than in Copenhagen [3]. Climate wise the cities are very different. If you can't bike to work everyday because of the weather then infrastructure of bikes cannot replace car infrastructure. In Denmark bicycle infrastructure can replace car infrastructure because the climate makes it possible to bike work every month of the year. In even mild climate cities like Boston it becomes much harder to be dependent on bicycles with hotter summers and colder winters. That's looking at the climate. Next, the Boston Urban area is 4.600 sq km with 4 million people, whereas Copenhagen is only 606 sq km with 1.6 million people [Wikipedia]. Some back of the napkin calculations would make average travel distances 3 times greater in Boston. Because of the differences in climate, size and population between Copenhagen and Boston, I do not consider bicycles a viable solution for Boston's transport challenges and I extend this line of thinking to most American Metropolitan centers. [1] https://www.weatherbase.com/weather/weather.php3?s=90527&cityname=Boston-Massachusetts-United-States-of-America https://www.weatherbase.com/weather/weather.php3?s=90527&cit... [2] https://www.weatherbase.com/weather/weather.php3?s=8160&cityname=Copenhagen--United-States-of-America https://www.weatherbase.com/weather/weather.php3?s=8160&city... [3] https://www.weatherbase.com/weather/weather.php3?s=95227&cityname=Dallas-Texas-United-States-of-America https://www.weatherbase.com/weather/weather.php3?s=95227&cit...

desas 8y ago
> Why do journalists continue to compare American cities to Copenhagen or Amsterdam when it comes to bicycle infrastructure and safety? I argue it is primarily the climate followed by size. Because they're the world leaders and something to aspire too

provolone 8y ago

How safe does 80mph freeway traffic feel for novice drivers? Cycling is incredibly dangerous according to many here, but is it more dangerous than heart disease?