4 ms·

At the intersection I'm looking at, it's around 2/3 for cars, 1/3 for peds, 0 dedicated for biking. However, SF is actually pretty good about this. There are tw

At the intersection I'm looking at, it's around 2/3 for cars, 1/3 for peds, 0 dedicated for biking. However, SF is actually pretty good about this. There are two "slow streets" within 1 block of me that are mostly car-free. There are also 2 streets within 3 blocks of me that have dedicated bike lanes with raised barriers.

TulliusCicero 4y ago
Sounds like what I'd expect in SF, as someone from the bay area. Much better than average for the US, but still a long ways to go.
sagarm 4y ago
It's not just land. Walking paths cost far less than and require less maintenance and drainage than smooth impermeable asphalt roads with curbs. "Intersections" for pedestrians are simply paths, with no signage or expensive signals required. Drivers rushing about at 20-30mph pose a danger to people on foot, on bikes, on scooters, in strollers, etc.
scoofy 4y ago
Slow Streets (also called open streets), and really a half measure as it stands. To make them fully low-car, they need to be one-way for cars, alternating directions, so that there is no reason to be on the street if it's not your final destination. It would also be helpful if the intersections were genuine roundabouts. I live in SF too, but calling our infrastructure "good" is really setting a low bar. We want about 10%-15% of the streets primarily serving bicycles, with pedestrians getting another 10% of roadways. That should be the goal.
- mgraczyk 4y ago
  I agree with you and the slow streets, that would be a better design. As for goals, what we currently have is good for me, where I live. There are many areas in the city where it would be impractical not to have a car. I believe the goal should be to make it possible to live without a car anywhere in the city. I don't really care about the specifics of proportions of infrastructure.
  - scoofy 4y ago
    >what we currently have is good for me, where I live. There are many areas in the city where it would be impractical not to have a car So, i see this as a bit myopic though. The combination of the rising developing countries and climate change mean that fuel should slowly increase in price over our lifetimes. We ought to prepare. Providing a network of about 10% of streets to be effectively car-free is a great way to plan for that, while allowing people to use cheaper (see: wealth building) alternatives in the meanwhile. I don't see the car going away in our lifetime, nor would i want it to, but as a low-car person myself, i feel that people should be able to bike most anywhere in town without needing to wear a helmet. Children should be able to bike to school. Grandmas should be able to bike. People don't bike because it's legitimately dangerous, even under current paradigms. It shouldn't be. A few slow streets and some bike lanes is vastly insufficient.
    - mgraczyk 4y ago
      That's not what I said. I said that right now not everyone can avoid car ownership and the goal should be to change that. I'm saying the goal should be to make it possible for nobody to need a car. I'm objecting to the 10% number, which seems arbitrary to me.
    - TulliusCicero 4y ago
      I think 10% is low, if anything. Something like the superblocks in Spain would be great.
addicted 4y ago
Can you imagine someone saying that a city is actually pretty good about driving because even though 75% of the houses are completely inaccessible by cars, there’s 1 road a block away that you can drive a car in and 2 more roads within 3 blocks of you? Most Americans don’t even realize how auto centric their entire thinking is.
- mgraczyk 4y ago
  No, that's not right and doesn't make sense. I can bike on the road in front, and I can even park a bike here. If the road were a block away, the driver would have to get out and walk a block to go home. And actually a lot of people do that with street parking and would say it's "pretty good"!

TulliusCicero 4y ago

Sounds like what I'd expect in SF, as someone from the bay area. Much better than average for the US, but still a long ways to go.

sagarm 4y ago

It's not just land. Walking paths cost far less than and require less maintenance and drainage than smooth impermeable asphalt roads with curbs. "Intersections" for pedestrians are simply paths, with no signage or expensive signals required. Drivers rushing about at 20-30mph pose a danger to people on foot, on bikes, on scooters, in strollers, etc.

scoofy 4y ago

Slow Streets (also called open streets), and really a half measure as it stands. To make them fully low-car, they need to be one-way for cars, alternating directions, so that there is no reason to be on the street if it's not your final destination. It would also be helpful if the intersections were genuine roundabouts. I live in SF too, but calling our infrastructure "good" is really setting a low bar. We want about 10%-15% of the streets primarily serving bicycles, with pedestrians getting another 10% of roadways. That should be the goal.

mgraczyk 4y ago
I agree with you and the slow streets, that would be a better design. As for goals, what we currently have is good for me, where I live. There are many areas in the city where it would be impractical not to have a car. I believe the goal should be to make it possible to live without a car anywhere in the city. I don't really care about the specifics of proportions of infrastructure.
- scoofy 4y ago
  >what we currently have is good for me, where I live. There are many areas in the city where it would be impractical not to have a car So, i see this as a bit myopic though. The combination of the rising developing countries and climate change mean that fuel should slowly increase in price over our lifetimes. We ought to prepare. Providing a network of about 10% of streets to be effectively car-free is a great way to plan for that, while allowing people to use cheaper (see: wealth building) alternatives in the meanwhile. I don't see the car going away in our lifetime, nor would i want it to, but as a low-car person myself, i feel that people should be able to bike most anywhere in town without needing to wear a helmet. Children should be able to bike to school. Grandmas should be able to bike. People don't bike because it's legitimately dangerous, even under current paradigms. It shouldn't be. A few slow streets and some bike lanes is vastly insufficient.
  - mgraczyk 4y ago
    That's not what I said. I said that right now not everyone can avoid car ownership and the goal should be to change that. I'm saying the goal should be to make it possible for nobody to need a car. I'm objecting to the 10% number, which seems arbitrary to me.
  - TulliusCicero 4y ago
    I think 10% is low, if anything. Something like the superblocks in Spain would be great.

addicted 4y ago

Can you imagine someone saying that a city is actually pretty good about driving because even though 75% of the houses are completely inaccessible by cars, there’s 1 road a block away that you can drive a car in and 2 more roads within 3 blocks of you? Most Americans don’t even realize how auto centric their entire thinking is.

mgraczyk 4y ago
No, that's not right and doesn't make sense. I can bike on the road in front, and I can even park a bike here. If the road were a block away, the driver would have to get out and walk a block to go home. And actually a lot of people do that with street parking and would say it's "pretty good"!