4 ms·
Thank you so much. That video basically addressed my exact confusion! The internet is amazing. I think I'm correct in thinking this paradox does apply to other
by kypro 5y ago
Thank you so much. That video basically addressed my exact confusion! The internet is amazing.
I think I'm correct in thinking this paradox does apply to other modes of transport such as subways, but that by itself doesn't mean that we should therefore build more roads because in general infrastructure spending would be better allocated to other modes of transport for numerous reasons. I do agree with that argument, but it seems there would be nuances there. I'd agree it's generally more efficient in the inner city, but less so as population density decreases. In areas with low population density the car is probably by far the best mode of transportation and there its use should probably be accepted.
I think my confusion comes from how it's often sold as a black and white thing politically where, `car=bad` because this clearly isn't true as general rule. If the argument is simply that within densely populated areas the use of public transportation should be promoted over extra capacity for cars then I completely agree, but where I live I would argue some questionable city planning decisions have been made. Specifically, lanes have been removed from roads to make way for bike lanes and speed limits have been reduced almost universally. While I'm all for promoting cycling these bike lanes go almost entirely unused because it's very hilly and things are too far away for cycling to be a practical mode of transportation in most cases here. In this case the pros and cons don't appear to add up and I suspect the city planners are probably just out of touch with the differing transportation requirements between where they are in the inner city and in areas such as mine.
- MereInterest 5y agoI think that frequently, a city will be so optimized for cars that (1) no other infrastructure can effectively work around it, and (2) any changes away from that optimized solution feel aggressive toward cars. For example, consider curb radius at intersections. The smoother the curve, the nicer the experience for cars. If you can take the turn at 35 mph, then you don't even need to slow down. The car behind you doesn't need to slow down as you turn, and it's altogether more enjoyable to drive. But that means that the intersection is much larger, to accommodate the smoother turn. That means cars are making a right turn at higher speeds, leading to more dangerous collisions with pedestrians. And this happens for pretty much every tradeoff. That might be why you see it as an impasse between different groups, because either tradeoffs need to be made, or the overall cost goes up significantly (e.g. moving all parking spaces underground). * Bike lanes are adjacent to car traffic, decreasing usage. We could have separated bike lanes, but that space was already used for more car lanes. * Bike lanes take circuitous routes, increasing distance. We could have more direct routes, but that space was already used for wide roads. * There's no walkable area in the city center, because the shops have large set-backs, and are spaced far from each other. We could have storefronts closer together, but that wouldn't allow for as much parking space. * Bike parking is rare, and typically pretty far from your destination. We could have bike parking at every storefront, but that would require cars to be parked further away. (Though, given that you can fit 10-15 bicycles into a single car spot, the impact even there would be minimal.)