6 ms·

Just the fact that riding a bicycle got more attractive and 25% more people are using their bicycles now means that there will be less people left stuck in traf

by Tepix 7y ago

Just the fact that riding a bicycle got more attractive and 25% more people are using their bicycles now means that there will be less people left stuck in traffic in their cars. Not to mention the people who are exercising by using their bicycles will have health benefits as well.

TheSpiceIsLife 7y ago
Will 25% more cyclists have much of an impact on the number of cars on the road? 25% more of a small number is still a small number.
- abyssin 7y ago
  It will have an impact on congestion. For instance in Brussels, a 10% reduction in number of cars on the road translates to a 40% percent reduction in traffic jams.
  - bagacrap 7y ago
    Which seems like it would translate to at least 10% more people being willing to drive...
    - rcMgD2BwE72F 7y ago
      And yet, even more will discover than riding a bike is more pleasant than driving a car once the city has been designed that way. I'm one of them, and many of my friends are just waiting for the infrastructure to be further improved to make the switch. More space, better markings (…), just more reasons to drop the expensive, polluting, stressing space-taking cars and take a breath of fresh air while commuting.
      - u801e 7y ago
        > And yet, even more will discover than riding a bike is more pleasant than driving a car once the city has been designed that way. Most people aren't going to find cycling more pleasant than driving in inclement weather, cold weather, hot weather, low traction conditions, uphill, or carrying cargo.
- loa_in_ 7y ago
  As the number of cars drops below critical saturation, the flow can transition to intermittent to smooth
  - eru 7y ago
    Of course, that makes car use more attractive again.
    - aguyfromnb 7y ago
      Yep. Physicists laugh at economists, but this is the same underlying structure that explains how even though everything we use is now more energy efficient, we use more energy overall.
      - eru 7y ago
        What time in the past are you talking about? Funny enough, the total amount of physical stuff churning through the US economy has declined since the 1930s (or so?) just in terms of sheer mass. Btw, your observation sounds much less surprising when you say 'transistors got cheaper since the 1970, yet we are spending more in total on transistors than ever'.
        tpxl 7y ago
        This is generally called Jevons paradox: When you make something more efficient, demand rises because it is more efficient, which in the end leads to using more of the base resource (but getting a lot more for it). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox# https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox#
        ClumsyPilot 7y ago
        Not true at all, like all paradoxes its loosely defined and not quantified, so should not be taken too seriously. Demand I crease assumes that demand is perfectly elastic, which it isnt for ant real world case - price of shoes dropping 100x would not result in demand for shoes going up by same amount. In fact many demands are totally inelastic, I.e. food consumption does not change much, because people have to eat the same amount of calories. Secondly the price of a good is made up of more than its base resource, it's people's time, arketing, opportunity cost etc. So a 2x increase in resource efficiency of shoes manufacturing does not result in shoe price dropping 2x.
- _jal 7y ago
  There are public bike counters along Market St. with displays. If you live here you can go and look at the numbers yourself, there's one not far from Twitter's office. I don't know what the overall daily ride count is now. About 5 years ago it was something like 90K trips/day, and had been on a more or less linear growth path.
- wpietri 7y ago
  Market Street is a busy cycling route. During rush hour I'd often ride in a pack of 20 or 3 cyclists. According to MUNI, cyclists peaked at 650/hour before the change. That's in contrast to 400 cars per hour. https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Car-free-Market-What-happens-to-the-side-14999923.php https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Car-free-Market-...
asjw 7y ago
> more people are using their bicycles now means that there will be less people left stuck in traffic in their cars It doesn't follow though More people using bikes is not a direct consequence of less people using cars It could be, but there is no cause-effect relationship For example in Milan where I live more people are using bikes because many people moved in recently and owning a car is expensive here and the weather has improved since climate change started showing its effects But they are people that weren't driving before, they used public transport Most of them don't even hold a driving license
- half_way 7y ago
  > Most of them don't even hold a driving license Maybe true in Milan, but not anywhere in the US. Driving is near imperative in all areas of the country, unfortunately even in big cities, meaning everyone who can get a license, does.
  - chrisseaton 7y ago
    Is driving an imperative even in cities like NY and SF? Where would you even be driving to or from in cities like that? Where would you be parking? I wouldn’t attempt to drive in NY in a million years.
    - ghaff 7y ago
      NY (Manhattan and certain areas of Brooklyn in particular) somewhat uniquely don't really require a car. Partly it's because owning a car is a pain/expensive and partly because of transit. But it's also because there's a general mindset that as a professional 30 year old, you're not really expected to have a car and activities and people's expectations are set accordingly. In other cities--and there are other cities that have better transit options than SF which is actually fairly poor--you can get by without a car. But Uber, Zipcar, rentals, etc. only take you so far for weekend activities and visiting the friends who probably don't live on transit lines. You can manage but you adjust activities accordingly. [ADDED: Also, lots of jobs are actually outside the city and you mostly need a car to get to them.] FWIW, I know a couple who live in SF who don't own a car. But they make heavy use of Uber and car rentals of various types. Short-term rental and rideshares make not owning a car more practical for a certain class of urban dweller than it used to be. But not even having a license reduces your options, including both work and recreational options, a lot.
darkstar999 7y ago
I don't think it implies that 25% more people are using bicycles. It looks like bike traffic on this particular road increased 25%.

by Tepix 7y ago

TheSpiceIsLife 7y ago

Will 25% more cyclists have much of an impact on the number of cars on the road? 25% more of a small number is still a small number.

abyssin 7y ago
It will have an impact on congestion. For instance in Brussels, a 10% reduction in number of cars on the road translates to a 40% percent reduction in traffic jams.
- bagacrap 7y ago
  Which seems like it would translate to at least 10% more people being willing to drive...
  - rcMgD2BwE72F 7y ago
    And yet, even more will discover than riding a bike is more pleasant than driving a car once the city has been designed that way. I'm one of them, and many of my friends are just waiting for the infrastructure to be further improved to make the switch. More space, better markings (…), just more reasons to drop the expensive, polluting, stressing space-taking cars and take a breath of fresh air while commuting.
    - u801e 7y ago
      > And yet, even more will discover than riding a bike is more pleasant than driving a car once the city has been designed that way. Most people aren't going to find cycling more pleasant than driving in inclement weather, cold weather, hot weather, low traction conditions, uphill, or carrying cargo.
loa_in_ 7y ago
As the number of cars drops below critical saturation, the flow can transition to intermittent to smooth
- eru 7y ago
  Of course, that makes car use more attractive again.
  - aguyfromnb 7y ago
    Yep. Physicists laugh at economists, but this is the same underlying structure that explains how even though everything we use is now more energy efficient, we use more energy overall.
    - eru 7y ago
      What time in the past are you talking about? Funny enough, the total amount of physical stuff churning through the US economy has declined since the 1930s (or so?) just in terms of sheer mass. Btw, your observation sounds much less surprising when you say 'transistors got cheaper since the 1970, yet we are spending more in total on transistors than ever'.
      - tpxl 7y ago
        This is generally called Jevons paradox: When you make something more efficient, demand rises because it is more efficient, which in the end leads to using more of the base resource (but getting a lot more for it). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox# https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox#
        ClumsyPilot 7y ago
        Not true at all, like all paradoxes its loosely defined and not quantified, so should not be taken too seriously. Demand I crease assumes that demand is perfectly elastic, which it isnt for ant real world case - price of shoes dropping 100x would not result in demand for shoes going up by same amount. In fact many demands are totally inelastic, I.e. food consumption does not change much, because people have to eat the same amount of calories. Secondly the price of a good is made up of more than its base resource, it's people's time, arketing, opportunity cost etc. So a 2x increase in resource efficiency of shoes manufacturing does not result in shoe price dropping 2x.
_jal 7y ago
There are public bike counters along Market St. with displays. If you live here you can go and look at the numbers yourself, there's one not far from Twitter's office. I don't know what the overall daily ride count is now. About 5 years ago it was something like 90K trips/day, and had been on a more or less linear growth path.
wpietri 7y ago
Market Street is a busy cycling route. During rush hour I'd often ride in a pack of 20 or 3 cyclists. According to MUNI, cyclists peaked at 650/hour before the change. That's in contrast to 400 cars per hour. https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Car-free-Market-What-happens-to-the-side-14999923.php https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Car-free-Market-...

asjw 7y ago

> more people are using their bicycles now means that there will be less people left stuck in traffic in their cars It doesn't follow though More people using bikes is not a direct consequence of less people using cars It could be, but there is no cause-effect relationship For example in Milan where I live more people are using bikes because many people moved in recently and owning a car is expensive here and the weather has improved since climate change started showing its effects But they are people that weren't driving before, they used public transport Most of them don't even hold a driving license

half_way 7y ago
> Most of them don't even hold a driving license Maybe true in Milan, but not anywhere in the US. Driving is near imperative in all areas of the country, unfortunately even in big cities, meaning everyone who can get a license, does.
- chrisseaton 7y ago
  Is driving an imperative even in cities like NY and SF? Where would you even be driving to or from in cities like that? Where would you be parking? I wouldn’t attempt to drive in NY in a million years.
  - ghaff 7y ago
    NY (Manhattan and certain areas of Brooklyn in particular) somewhat uniquely don't really require a car. Partly it's because owning a car is a pain/expensive and partly because of transit. But it's also because there's a general mindset that as a professional 30 year old, you're not really expected to have a car and activities and people's expectations are set accordingly. In other cities--and there are other cities that have better transit options than SF which is actually fairly poor--you can get by without a car. But Uber, Zipcar, rentals, etc. only take you so far for weekend activities and visiting the friends who probably don't live on transit lines. You can manage but you adjust activities accordingly. [ADDED: Also, lots of jobs are actually outside the city and you mostly need a car to get to them.] FWIW, I know a couple who live in SF who don't own a car. But they make heavy use of Uber and car rentals of various types. Short-term rental and rideshares make not owning a car more practical for a certain class of urban dweller than it used to be. But not even having a license reduces your options, including both work and recreational options, a lot.

darkstar999 7y ago

I don't think it implies that 25% more people are using bicycles. It looks like bike traffic on this particular road increased 25%.