9 ms·

Why does the amount of money and land spent influence the behavior of individuals? Cars are larger than bicycles, so I would expect their infrastructure to take

by c22 4y ago

Why does the amount of money and land spent influence the behavior of individuals? Cars are larger than bicycles, so I would expect their infrastructure to take up more space.

mgraczyk 4y ago
People are less likely to bike if there aren't protected bike lanes. People are less likely to walk if there are no sidewalks, etc
- rainsford 4y ago
  This is really noticeable in places in the US where things are close enough together to walk or bike but nearly every trip is still made by car because there's no safe way to do anything else. There's actually quite a bit of stuff within easy biking distance of where I live, but up until recently there was no safe way to actually bike there because all the infrastructure was high-speed, multi-lane streets without even a shoulder. Recently the city has been investing more in wide, separated paths for biking and walking places and it's starting to make a difference.
  - Tade0 4y ago
    Unfortunately having a safe path is not enough - there's a significant cultural component. I'm currently residing in a house on the outskirts of a small (population 50k) town. The other day we were visited by a friend from around here - she drove to our place. The way to her home is 1,5km - half of which goes through the main district, with sidewalks and exclusively single-lane streets, and the other along a 30km/h street with detached houses and very little traffic.
    - californical 4y ago
      It’s also worth keeping in mind that most of her trips are likely not as easy or safe as that one. I wouldn’t expect her to get used to riding a bike when 95% of the time it’s infeasible or unsafe. It’s not worth the mental effort for most to say “is this specific trip a bike trip?” and “which are the safe routes to get there, which are probably different than my driving routes?” Most people just never try at all because there aren’t enough opportunities to make it worthwhile, and not enough safe roads to know how to navigate. If it was possible for more of her daily needs to be met by bike, with comfortable and safe infrastructure, I’d bet she’d be more open to the idea.
    - supertrope 4y ago
      In Seattle non-single occupancy vehicle transportation is encouraged by the government. The bus system is good (relative to the United States as a whole). The city controls sprawl by refusing to extend I think water or sewer outside a line drawn in the 90s. Even with this official backing, they have maxed out the proportion of alternative commuters at 50%. This is similar to Stanford University's experience of alternative commuters reaching a maximum of 50%.
      - TulliusCicero 4y ago
        It is in no way "maxed out". Seattle has better non-car options than average for the US, but it still has a looooong way to go before one could say that the transit or biking options are good; they're still quite bad on average. Only one subway line, a handful of bus-only lanes, and a handful of protected bike lanes, maybe one or two protected intersections? Seattle has a lot of passable design, but very little that's good.
      - mjmahone17 4y ago
        Seattle has mediocre transit. The buses are fine, but they’re inherently limited in how fast their average speeds can be. Seattle could greatly increase transit usage by: - expanding the subway/light rail network. - provide more than two commuter rail lines (right now you can only commute by rail North-South, from Lakewood to Everett). - run more than 4 daily trains to/from Everett (at least one per hour for 16 hours is needed for consistent commutes). - electrify the Sounder corridor to improve acceleration. I suspect the tracks are shared with freight, in which case create dedicated electrified passenger tracks so you can have smaller trains that run more often and at higher speeds. - through run trains so they don’t have to dwell at a Seattle terminus (which means you could run all 16 of the daily Lakewood trains to Everett as well). - add 2-4 more Seattle city stops so people getting off the train are closer to where they need to be (this should be done in combination with through running the trains, so the sum of the dwell times at all 5 Seattle stations is no more than the total dwell time at the terminus now).
supertrope 4y ago
Trillions of dollars and the majority of our urban land have been dedicated to making driving easy and biking hard. The government built toll-free highways, and mandates builders of housing, retail, and offices to include excessive amounts of parking (parking minimums). Once all of this subsidized infrastructure is built each individual's rational choice is to drive in 30 min instead of risking death by biking or ride a bus for two hours.
TulliusCicero 4y ago
The point is whether it's a fair comparison or not. If you allocate enormously more land and money to one mode of transport, no shit it'll probably end up more attractive. If there were as few dedicated, reasonably safe car lanes as there are bike lanes in the US, hardly anyone would drive, either, unless they really had to. > Cars are larger than bicycles, so I would expect their infrastructure to take up more space. That's just an inherent disadvantage for cars, just like being slower is an inherent disadvantage for bikes or walking. You're basically suggesting that we should forcibly remove the car disadvantage, while of course the disadvantage for walking and biking has to stay. It should be obvious why this makes for an unfair comparison.
- bequanna 4y ago
  > hardly anyone would drive, either, unless they really had to. What percentage of the US lives in these urban, super dense areas where this is even possible? 1-2%? Also, weather. Most of the US does not have mild weather like California and has to contend with conditions that make bicycle travel a “fair weather”, novelty activity.
  - woodruffw 4y ago
    A little bit over 6% of the US's population lives in the NY metro area alone, so it's significantly more than that. Nobody (reasonable) is talking about making cycling the sole form of travel. It's one of many modes, including all forms of mass transit.
    - bequanna 4y ago
      It’s just a ridiculous conversation. Cars are popular because they solve a real problem for the overwhelming majority of people in the US. Biking is a novelty in most climates and public transit is only an option if your time is worth very little.
      - woodruffw 4y ago
        > Cars are popular because they solve a real problem for the overwhelming majority of people in the US. To be clear: that "real problem" is a manufactured one. The overwhelming majority of people in the US live near urban centers, and could be served not just adequately but well by mass transit. That's how they were served a century ago, when we were a far less urbanized country; the numbers are even further in our favor now. Where I live, public transit is faster than driving 90% of the time, the same speed 5% of the time, and slower the rest. Cycling is also generally faster than driving, and is perfectly comfortable with the right clothes throughout the year. And that's before we even consider the "fringe" benefits (like being able to read wherever I go, not having to find short- or long-term parking, and not polluting the neighborhood I live in).
vallassy 4y ago
Because the infrastructure spend and land allocation is not evenly spread. In most places, there is a dedicated lane for cars heading each way, possibly with parking or at least a decent shoulder on either side of the road. The same cannot be said for sidewalks and bike lanes, which may be non-existent or poorly maintained, and certainly never take precedence over the almighty asphalt.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- c22 4y ago
  I agree that we should build sidewalks and (protected) bike lanes to go everywhere cars can go. If we do this, I still expect it to cost less than the corresponding road network built for cars. I also don't think in this utopian hypothetical that people would choose to drive their car every time simply because the road cost more.

by c22 4y ago

Why does the amount of money and land spent influence the behavior of individuals? Cars are larger than bicycles, so I would expect their infrastructure to take up more space.

mgraczyk 4y ago

People are less likely to bike if there aren't protected bike lanes. People are less likely to walk if there are no sidewalks, etc

rainsford 4y ago
This is really noticeable in places in the US where things are close enough together to walk or bike but nearly every trip is still made by car because there's no safe way to do anything else. There's actually quite a bit of stuff within easy biking distance of where I live, but up until recently there was no safe way to actually bike there because all the infrastructure was high-speed, multi-lane streets without even a shoulder. Recently the city has been investing more in wide, separated paths for biking and walking places and it's starting to make a difference.
- Tade0 4y ago
  Unfortunately having a safe path is not enough - there's a significant cultural component. I'm currently residing in a house on the outskirts of a small (population 50k) town. The other day we were visited by a friend from around here - she drove to our place. The way to her home is 1,5km - half of which goes through the main district, with sidewalks and exclusively single-lane streets, and the other along a 30km/h street with detached houses and very little traffic.
  - californical 4y ago
    It’s also worth keeping in mind that most of her trips are likely not as easy or safe as that one. I wouldn’t expect her to get used to riding a bike when 95% of the time it’s infeasible or unsafe. It’s not worth the mental effort for most to say “is this specific trip a bike trip?” and “which are the safe routes to get there, which are probably different than my driving routes?” Most people just never try at all because there aren’t enough opportunities to make it worthwhile, and not enough safe roads to know how to navigate. If it was possible for more of her daily needs to be met by bike, with comfortable and safe infrastructure, I’d bet she’d be more open to the idea.
  - supertrope 4y ago
    In Seattle non-single occupancy vehicle transportation is encouraged by the government. The bus system is good (relative to the United States as a whole). The city controls sprawl by refusing to extend I think water or sewer outside a line drawn in the 90s. Even with this official backing, they have maxed out the proportion of alternative commuters at 50%. This is similar to Stanford University's experience of alternative commuters reaching a maximum of 50%.
    - TulliusCicero 4y ago
      It is in no way "maxed out". Seattle has better non-car options than average for the US, but it still has a looooong way to go before one could say that the transit or biking options are good; they're still quite bad on average. Only one subway line, a handful of bus-only lanes, and a handful of protected bike lanes, maybe one or two protected intersections? Seattle has a lot of passable design, but very little that's good.
    - mjmahone17 4y ago
      Seattle has mediocre transit. The buses are fine, but they’re inherently limited in how fast their average speeds can be. Seattle could greatly increase transit usage by: - expanding the subway/light rail network. - provide more than two commuter rail lines (right now you can only commute by rail North-South, from Lakewood to Everett). - run more than 4 daily trains to/from Everett (at least one per hour for 16 hours is needed for consistent commutes). - electrify the Sounder corridor to improve acceleration. I suspect the tracks are shared with freight, in which case create dedicated electrified passenger tracks so you can have smaller trains that run more often and at higher speeds. - through run trains so they don’t have to dwell at a Seattle terminus (which means you could run all 16 of the daily Lakewood trains to Everett as well). - add 2-4 more Seattle city stops so people getting off the train are closer to where they need to be (this should be done in combination with through running the trains, so the sum of the dwell times at all 5 Seattle stations is no more than the total dwell time at the terminus now).

supertrope 4y ago

Trillions of dollars and the majority of our urban land have been dedicated to making driving easy and biking hard. The government built toll-free highways, and mandates builders of housing, retail, and offices to include excessive amounts of parking (parking minimums). Once all of this subsidized infrastructure is built each individual's rational choice is to drive in 30 min instead of risking death by biking or ride a bus for two hours.

TulliusCicero 4y ago

The point is whether it's a fair comparison or not. If you allocate enormously more land and money to one mode of transport, no shit it'll probably end up more attractive. If there were as few dedicated, reasonably safe car lanes as there are bike lanes in the US, hardly anyone would drive, either, unless they really had to. > Cars are larger than bicycles, so I would expect their infrastructure to take up more space. That's just an inherent disadvantage for cars, just like being slower is an inherent disadvantage for bikes or walking. You're basically suggesting that we should forcibly remove the car disadvantage, while of course the disadvantage for walking and biking has to stay. It should be obvious why this makes for an unfair comparison.

bequanna 4y ago
> hardly anyone would drive, either, unless they really had to. What percentage of the US lives in these urban, super dense areas where this is even possible? 1-2%? Also, weather. Most of the US does not have mild weather like California and has to contend with conditions that make bicycle travel a “fair weather”, novelty activity.
- woodruffw 4y ago
  A little bit over 6% of the US's population lives in the NY metro area alone, so it's significantly more than that. Nobody (reasonable) is talking about making cycling the sole form of travel. It's one of many modes, including all forms of mass transit.
  - bequanna 4y ago
    It’s just a ridiculous conversation. Cars are popular because they solve a real problem for the overwhelming majority of people in the US. Biking is a novelty in most climates and public transit is only an option if your time is worth very little.
    - woodruffw 4y ago
      > Cars are popular because they solve a real problem for the overwhelming majority of people in the US. To be clear: that "real problem" is a manufactured one. The overwhelming majority of people in the US live near urban centers, and could be served not just adequately but well by mass transit. That's how they were served a century ago, when we were a far less urbanized country; the numbers are even further in our favor now. Where I live, public transit is faster than driving 90% of the time, the same speed 5% of the time, and slower the rest. Cycling is also generally faster than driving, and is perfectly comfortable with the right clothes throughout the year. And that's before we even consider the "fringe" benefits (like being able to read wherever I go, not having to find short- or long-term parking, and not polluting the neighborhood I live in).

vallassy 4y ago

Because the infrastructure spend and land allocation is not evenly spread. In most places, there is a dedicated lane for cars heading each way, possibly with parking or at least a decent shoulder on either side of the road. The same cannot be said for sidewalks and bike lanes, which may be non-existent or poorly maintained, and certainly never take precedence over the almighty asphalt.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
c22 4y ago
I agree that we should build sidewalks and (protected) bike lanes to go everywhere cars can go. If we do this, I still expect it to cost less than the corresponding road network built for cars. I also don't think in this utopian hypothetical that people would choose to drive their car every time simply because the road cost more.