4 ms·
I can do that in my American city too.
by RandallBrown 6y ago
I can do that in my American city too.
- dijit 6y agoOh! Which one? I can only think of NYC but that’s really inhospitable to cyclists too. :/
- RandallBrown 6y agoSeattle. I have 3 major grocery stores (Safeway, QFC, Target) within 15 minutes walking from me. And at least 20 bars and restaurants within the same distance. Public transportation to downtown takes about 35 minutes, which isn't great, but it's okay. Uber works well if you need to be faster.
- owowow 6y agoBallard is pretty isolated, constrained by the Ballard Bridge or going over to Fremont to get to Downtown. Bike access is poor, either risking death on the sidewalks of the Ballard Bridge, taking the lane on the bridge or doing a large detour to Fremont. Wedgewood, Fremont, Queen Anne & Freelard all successfully resisted the mass redevelopment that Ballard has seen, compared to 15 years ago Ballard looks completely different while the aforementioned neighborhoods have not seen that same level of mass demolition.
- RandallBrown 6y agoNot too surprising you guessed it was Ballard. Depending on where you live and where you're going, crossing the locks is a great way to bike downtown. Also sometimes the Fremont bridge route is going to be shorter. I hate riding my bike over the Ballard bridge, but I'm not sure I'd call riding on it "risking death". Bike access within Ballard is pretty great since the hills are a bit more manageable than in other parts of the city. All that aside, it's pretty easy to live in Seattle and not have a car, being able to walk to groceries, bars, restaurants, parks, etc.
- loeg 6y agoThe Locks aren't great because cyclists must dismount for the entire length of the federal facility. This is a nuisance for platform pedals and conventional shoes and obnoxious for clipless pedals and cleated shoes. I would highly encourage avoiding the Ballard Bridge. IMO it's very dangerous. Walkability in Ballard is pretty good. We're within 15 minutes walking distance of QFC and the bar/restaurant area south of Market. That said, I prefer to drive to the grocery store so I can go infrequently and buy more at once.
- loeg 6y agoI'm also in Ballard and tend to agree about it being isolated. Also, there are a lot of Ballard drivers that hate cyclists — that first/last mile to access the Burke is by far the most dangerous. I get some anti-cyclist vitriol, honking, or aggressive passing almost every time I ride. And I am fast enough to keep up with the speed of traffic! Some drivers just see bikes and think "I should be in front." I really don't mind the short jaunt to the Fremont bridge, but it does add some extra travel time. Never ride on the Ballard bridge; it just doesn't have anywhere for bikes to be. The sidewalks are too narrow and unprotected from traffic, and the primary traffic lanes are going 40+ mph. That whole thing needs to be replaced for the 21st century, although there may be some resistance as it's a nationally registered "historic place."
- biztos 6y agoTotally doable in San Francisco, Santa Monica, and Downtown Los Angeles, just to name three I know well enough in California to know that about them.
- teloli 6y agoI’m only familiar with San Francisco, but every time I’m there I see that most people use Uber and Lyft instead of the bus.
- curryst 6y agoBuses are under-utilized, but walking and various forms of wheeled transportation (motorized longboards, those one wheel things, bikes, scooters, etc) are popular. San Francisco is only about 7 miles wide. You can walk from one side of the city to the other in about 2 hours. When I lived there, I walked almost everywhere. The only times I did otherwise was when it was a really long walk (over 45 minutes), or I needed to be somewhere fast. The bus will not get you anywhere fast, it's only about twice as fast as walking. I think that's why a lot of people use Lyft. The buses are actually quite nice inside imo, they're just slow. Plus the stigma that only poor people ride the bus.
- Jommi 6y agoYou're lucky if you are able to live and work in SM or DTLA. Majority of people do not.
- porknubbins 6y agoWhat is bad about NYC in particular? I’ve rented bikes in lots of European and US cities and have been thousands of miles in NYC and haven’t found it that much more dangerous than somewhere like Paris or London, except for certain large Avenues.
- megablast 6y agoChicago, San Francisco. Even la has a decent bus system.
- teloli 6y agoYou cannot compare San Francisco with Amsterdam, Berlin, Copenhagen, etc. SF is so unsafe that most people avoid public transportation and use Uber instead.
- bjelkeman-again 6y agoI don’t think unsafe is my main issue, with saying SF is comparable. Having lived in SF, Stockholm, London and worked for years in Amsterdam, SF just doesn’t have the density of public transport. Let’s us Stockholm as an example: 100 metro stations and 170+ suburban rail stations, 60 light rail stops, on 2.3 million people in 6,519.3 km2 (2,517.1 sq mi). San Francisco (Nine county, Bay Area), 33 metro stations, plus 87 additional metro stops about 200 station (ACE, Amtrak, BART, Caltrain, SMART, and VTA), on 7.75 million people, In 6,966 sq mi (18,040 km2). The station density is nearly 2.5 times higher and on less than half the population. Data from Wikipedia.
- Jommi 6y agoLA has a decent bus system? Are you serious? Have you ever lived in LA, and lived in a european city? LA has no unified bus system. It has multiple ones and its super confusing. Each bus makes a stop nearly every minute, making every ride impossibly long. Lack of bus lanes make for shitty traffic stuck trips as well.
- andykx 6y agoYeah, LA is probably the worst (large) city in the US when it comes to public transport.
- killtimeatwork 6y ago> Each bus makes a stop nearly every minute, making every ride impossibly long. It's the same in London. That's why for longer rides you take the tube. Buses are for shorter rider or from getting from/to tube station.