5 ms·

I have spent a lot of time in Barcelona, and love the city, although I’ve only had short stays (~weeks) and haven’t resided there in the traditional sense. I th

I have spent a lot of time in Barcelona, and love the city, although I’ve only had short stays (~weeks) and haven’t resided there in the traditional sense. I think increasing car hostility makes it less hospitable and accessible to many people away from the core. There’s also a tradeoff which isn’t being acknowledged here. A city that manages its density appropriately will have faster travel times via cars compared to public transit or biking (BCN may be past this inflection point). You can see this in cities like Seattle - it’s not even a close comparison, as driving is at least twice as fast as any alternate mode. That time saved is very valuable, and necessary for anyone who wants to live a rich, fulfilled lifestyle with room for activities, families, and friends. > Secondly, raised lanes are horrendously expensive, ugly, and reduce street level light. Having bikes in roads is expensive too. It costs everyone time, which is money. Ugly is subjective. And as for street level light - maybe. That depends on the exact parameters like road width. On a wider arterial road a raised greenway on pillars wouldn’t cast a shadow on the street level sidewalks. Chicago has an elevated rail system for example, and it doesn’t cause streets to feel dark. > Cities should serve people, not cars. Respectfully, this is an empty slogan. You could just as well say “cities should serve people, not bikes”. Cities serve people better by accommodating cars. People are who chose to raise taxes and spend money on roads for cars.

AlotOfReading 5y ago
Are you suggesting Seattle has a better commute situation than Barcelona? Respectfully, that's insane. Moreover, large parts of the city were designed prior to motorized vehicles and encourage frequent mode mixing. High speed is simply not on the table for discussion. The choice is between low speed, low density car traffic, or mixed mode. The latter is clearly much better for neighborhoods and the city as a whole.
- throwawaysea 5y ago
  Yes Seattle has a better commute situation than Barcelona. It is easy to get from a suburb to the core or to cross the city by car. Even if you live right on a rapid bus line or light rail stop, simply not having to wait for the next bus/train means the car commute is significantly faster. I'm not sure what you find 'insane' in my claim. Certainly Seattle is changing, because the recent local governments have been pushing controversial zoning changes that increase city density - but even in 2021 a public transit commute in the Seattle metro area is far worse than private car commute. No public transit system in the world can offer a similar travel time as a car in a city like Seattle, since the cars are moving through much of that distance at speeds greater than 60 mph (100 kmh).
  - _v7gu 5y ago
    Average daily commute in Barcelona is 48 minutes-ranking along with the best cities in US where minimum is 44, and you don't need a car in Barcelona to achieve it.
- collegeburner 5y ago
  If there is no high speed how are people supposed to get in from out of the city in some timely fashion? You say better for neighborhoods and the city without considering all the outer neighborhoods that often house more people than the inner ones.
  - AlotOfReading 5y ago
    Barcelona has a functional public transit system, including fairly far reaching metros. It's pretty unusual to find a trip that's more than a hour at any time of day.
mejutoco 5y ago
> A city that manages its density appropriately will have faster travel times via cars compared to public transit or biking This seems like nonsense. Surely public transport has more capacity than cars, or at least it is not guaranteed that cars have more.
- throwawaysea 5y ago
  I intentionally claimed "faster travel times", not more capacity for people. Low to mid density cities in the US have fast travel times for drivers. They are a significantly better option in terms of travel time than even the best public transit in the world, simply because you are going directly from point to point, at relatively high speed, with no stops, no wait times, and so on. The time savings alone are a big benefit but it also means you can live to fit your own schedule (not needing to plan too much), transport cargo/other people at will, use that car to go to places away from what public transit covers, etc.
  - mejutoco 5y ago
    > I intentionally claimed "faster travel times", not more capacity for people If faster travel times means shorter commute time, surely public transport with more capacity improves the average time for the average person going to the average places. > They are a significantly better option in terms of travel time than even the best public transit in the world, simply because you are going directly from point to point, at relatively high speed, with no stops, no wait times I believe the problem with this reasoning is that cars take space, and roads too. Lots of roads and parking will make a place less dense, and will increase distances. The best public transit in the world covers the areas where on average most people go (thus serving the most people), has better energy efficiency (a single bus consumes less per passenger than a car), and removes the need for lots of parking infrastructure. Everything else being equal, public transport is the most efficient, and provides faster travel times on average for the average person (I concede, not for everyone). In a place not built for cars (like Barcelona), rush hour is a nightmare where cars hardly move (take the tram in Diagonal in the morning and you will move faster than the cars next to you). Most people there take the metro/bus/ride a bike + walk for less than 30 minutes. As an example, a 30min ride on the L1 red line metro (without changing lines) will bring you from Hospitalet de Llobregat (metropolitan area of Barcelona) to the city center. I might be biased in favor of cities made to walk, instead of made for cars. What I do not concede is that cars provide faster travel times than the best public transport. I would be happy to get some data that supports your assertion. That said, I agree with your other usages (cargo, transport people, go to places far away, independence). It is also true that while traveling on public transport you can read, and by walking/riding a bike you improve your health compared to sitting in a car. A city with less cars is also more walkable. More "walkability" might be better for shops, maybe even improve safety. These advantages need to be weighted against cars too :)

AlotOfReading 5y ago

Are you suggesting Seattle has a better commute situation than Barcelona? Respectfully, that's insane. Moreover, large parts of the city were designed prior to motorized vehicles and encourage frequent mode mixing. High speed is simply not on the table for discussion. The choice is between low speed, low density car traffic, or mixed mode. The latter is clearly much better for neighborhoods and the city as a whole.

throwawaysea 5y ago
Yes Seattle has a better commute situation than Barcelona. It is easy to get from a suburb to the core or to cross the city by car. Even if you live right on a rapid bus line or light rail stop, simply not having to wait for the next bus/train means the car commute is significantly faster. I'm not sure what you find 'insane' in my claim. Certainly Seattle is changing, because the recent local governments have been pushing controversial zoning changes that increase city density - but even in 2021 a public transit commute in the Seattle metro area is far worse than private car commute. No public transit system in the world can offer a similar travel time as a car in a city like Seattle, since the cars are moving through much of that distance at speeds greater than 60 mph (100 kmh).
- _v7gu 5y ago
  Average daily commute in Barcelona is 48 minutes-ranking along with the best cities in US where minimum is 44, and you don't need a car in Barcelona to achieve it.
collegeburner 5y ago
If there is no high speed how are people supposed to get in from out of the city in some timely fashion? You say better for neighborhoods and the city without considering all the outer neighborhoods that often house more people than the inner ones.
- AlotOfReading 5y ago
  Barcelona has a functional public transit system, including fairly far reaching metros. It's pretty unusual to find a trip that's more than a hour at any time of day.

mejutoco 5y ago

> A city that manages its density appropriately will have faster travel times via cars compared to public transit or biking This seems like nonsense. Surely public transport has more capacity than cars, or at least it is not guaranteed that cars have more.

throwawaysea 5y ago
I intentionally claimed "faster travel times", not more capacity for people. Low to mid density cities in the US have fast travel times for drivers. They are a significantly better option in terms of travel time than even the best public transit in the world, simply because you are going directly from point to point, at relatively high speed, with no stops, no wait times, and so on. The time savings alone are a big benefit but it also means you can live to fit your own schedule (not needing to plan too much), transport cargo/other people at will, use that car to go to places away from what public transit covers, etc.
- mejutoco 5y ago
  > I intentionally claimed "faster travel times", not more capacity for people If faster travel times means shorter commute time, surely public transport with more capacity improves the average time for the average person going to the average places. > They are a significantly better option in terms of travel time than even the best public transit in the world, simply because you are going directly from point to point, at relatively high speed, with no stops, no wait times I believe the problem with this reasoning is that cars take space, and roads too. Lots of roads and parking will make a place less dense, and will increase distances. The best public transit in the world covers the areas where on average most people go (thus serving the most people), has better energy efficiency (a single bus consumes less per passenger than a car), and removes the need for lots of parking infrastructure. Everything else being equal, public transport is the most efficient, and provides faster travel times on average for the average person (I concede, not for everyone). In a place not built for cars (like Barcelona), rush hour is a nightmare where cars hardly move (take the tram in Diagonal in the morning and you will move faster than the cars next to you). Most people there take the metro/bus/ride a bike + walk for less than 30 minutes. As an example, a 30min ride on the L1 red line metro (without changing lines) will bring you from Hospitalet de Llobregat (metropolitan area of Barcelona) to the city center. I might be biased in favor of cities made to walk, instead of made for cars. What I do not concede is that cars provide faster travel times than the best public transport. I would be happy to get some data that supports your assertion. That said, I agree with your other usages (cargo, transport people, go to places far away, independence). It is also true that while traveling on public transport you can read, and by walking/riding a bike you improve your health compared to sitting in a car. A city with less cars is also more walkable. More "walkability" might be better for shops, maybe even improve safety. These advantages need to be weighted against cars too :)