5 ms·

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

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).
      - bequanna 4y ago
        > Where I live, public transit is faster than driving 90% of the time, the same speed 5% of the time, and slower the rest. Despite the benefits that you cite, you’re still selling something most people don’t want. Or, if they do use it they dislike it and still use a car for the majority of their other travel.
        woodruffw 4y ago
        Do you have any numbers to substantiate this? Most people in NYC like the subway, even the ones who express grievances about cleanliness, crime, &c. It's a cornerstone of the city's convenience and culture. At the turn of the century, most people didn't want cars on their city streets; that's what the article we're discussing is all about. What the average American (not just NYer) wants changes over time; I consider my support for public transit to be merely an investment in a perceptual shift that's already taking place.
        bequanna 4y ago
        > Most people in NYC like the subway It may come as a surprise to people in NYC that, in fact, most people don't live in NYC. Seriously tho, if you asked most people in the US who utilize public transit they would tell you they do so out of necessity, not choice.
- cycomanic 4y ago
  > What percentage of the US lives in these urban, super dense areas where this is even possible? > 1-2%? >100M people live in the top 10 metropolitan areas in the US (all over 4M people) [1]. Rural people in the US vastly overestimate their own importance. [1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/183600/population-of-metropolitan-areas-in-the-us/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/183600/population-of-met... > 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. You have sen the videos of people in Finnland commuting by bike in winter? Living in a nordic country I can tell you it is easily possible to bike all year round even here.
  - bequanna 4y ago
    Metro area != urban Good luck without a car in pretty much any suburb. Your time has to be worth nothing to make biking or public transit work for your needs. You essentially need to be in a hyper dense, urban area to live without a car. Most Americans have no interest in living like that. > You have sen the videos of people in Finnland commuting by bike in winter? Living in a nordic country I can tell you it is easily possible to bike all year round even here. And I live in MN where biking in the snow would be possible (and fun!), but again, only as a novelty. The percentage of people who would be willing to commute in the manner this is so low you could round it to 0.
    - addicted 4y ago
      Most Americans “prefer” that because it’s all they’ve seen. In reality, most Americans prefer European cities over anything they have themselves. Which is a huge reason why they spend tons of money to live in little hotel rooms in the middle of well run European cities. Also, countries like Switzerland, Netherlands, etc have suburbs and excellent mass transit connecting those suburbs. Sure, mass transit isn’t possible in American style suburbs because American style suburbs have literally been designed around cars.
- TulliusCicero 4y ago
  So much wrongness to unpack here. 1. Part of the way we built around cars is exactly the kind of zoning that resulted in super spread out, super low density living. This isn't an accident of geography, this is an intended outcome of these government regulations. This is also fixable over time through rezoning. 2. Even with minimal changes to existing zoning, biking would be highly practical for many trips for many, perhaps most people within the US, with good bike infrastructure. Most Americans don't live in rural areas, they live in urban or suburban areas. There are usually some things within bikeable distance of a few miles from where people live, there just aren't good bike lanes or paths to get there. 3. As Germans would say, no bad weather, only bad clothing.
  - bequanna 4y ago
    > biking would be highly practical for many trips for many, perhaps most people within the US, with good bike infrastructure. I don’t disagree with your idea, it’s just that you’re selling something no one wants. Replacing a car lane with a bike lane is insanity and destroys something functional to create a cute novelty for a small group of people.
    - TulliusCicero 4y ago
      It's a cute novelty now precisely because it's impractical and unsafe. Having good infrastructure changes that. In places with good bike infra, it's a great way to get around.
  - addicted 4y ago
    We just had a classic example of the ridiculous car centric US govt. They are about to pass a bill to reduce emissions. It gives EVs $7500 in tax credits and it extends the amount of tax credits companies like Tesla and GM can get. But they eliminated the tax credit (which was set upto $900) for eBikes. I cant think of a more backwards action.
c22 4y ago
I'm not suggesting anything except that given two roads in a spherical universe, both going to same hypothetical place, I'd expect the one built for cars to be larger than the one built for bikes due to basic logic. Your response, and several of its ridiculous peers are just stuffing words into my mouth. Yes, I am acutely aware that many parts of the US have some shitty bike infrastructure, but in the parts that have good/improving bike infrastructure I still observe a slow uptake of bicyclists. As to the OP's point, we reap what we sow.

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).
    - bequanna 4y ago
      > Where I live, public transit is faster than driving 90% of the time, the same speed 5% of the time, and slower the rest. Despite the benefits that you cite, you’re still selling something most people don’t want. Or, if they do use it they dislike it and still use a car for the majority of their other travel.
      - woodruffw 4y ago
        Do you have any numbers to substantiate this? Most people in NYC like the subway, even the ones who express grievances about cleanliness, crime, &c. It's a cornerstone of the city's convenience and culture. At the turn of the century, most people didn't want cars on their city streets; that's what the article we're discussing is all about. What the average American (not just NYer) wants changes over time; I consider my support for public transit to be merely an investment in a perceptual shift that's already taking place.
        bequanna 4y ago
        > Most people in NYC like the subway It may come as a surprise to people in NYC that, in fact, most people don't live in NYC. Seriously tho, if you asked most people in the US who utilize public transit they would tell you they do so out of necessity, not choice.
cycomanic 4y ago
> What percentage of the US lives in these urban, super dense areas where this is even possible? > 1-2%? >100M people live in the top 10 metropolitan areas in the US (all over 4M people) [1]. Rural people in the US vastly overestimate their own importance. [1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/183600/population-of-metropolitan-areas-in-the-us/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/183600/population-of-met... > 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. You have sen the videos of people in Finnland commuting by bike in winter? Living in a nordic country I can tell you it is easily possible to bike all year round even here.
- bequanna 4y ago
  Metro area != urban Good luck without a car in pretty much any suburb. Your time has to be worth nothing to make biking or public transit work for your needs. You essentially need to be in a hyper dense, urban area to live without a car. Most Americans have no interest in living like that. > You have sen the videos of people in Finnland commuting by bike in winter? Living in a nordic country I can tell you it is easily possible to bike all year round even here. And I live in MN where biking in the snow would be possible (and fun!), but again, only as a novelty. The percentage of people who would be willing to commute in the manner this is so low you could round it to 0.
  - addicted 4y ago
    Most Americans “prefer” that because it’s all they’ve seen. In reality, most Americans prefer European cities over anything they have themselves. Which is a huge reason why they spend tons of money to live in little hotel rooms in the middle of well run European cities. Also, countries like Switzerland, Netherlands, etc have suburbs and excellent mass transit connecting those suburbs. Sure, mass transit isn’t possible in American style suburbs because American style suburbs have literally been designed around cars.
TulliusCicero 4y ago
So much wrongness to unpack here. 1. Part of the way we built around cars is exactly the kind of zoning that resulted in super spread out, super low density living. This isn't an accident of geography, this is an intended outcome of these government regulations. This is also fixable over time through rezoning. 2. Even with minimal changes to existing zoning, biking would be highly practical for many trips for many, perhaps most people within the US, with good bike infrastructure. Most Americans don't live in rural areas, they live in urban or suburban areas. There are usually some things within bikeable distance of a few miles from where people live, there just aren't good bike lanes or paths to get there. 3. As Germans would say, no bad weather, only bad clothing.
- bequanna 4y ago
  > biking would be highly practical for many trips for many, perhaps most people within the US, with good bike infrastructure. I don’t disagree with your idea, it’s just that you’re selling something no one wants. Replacing a car lane with a bike lane is insanity and destroys something functional to create a cute novelty for a small group of people.
  - TulliusCicero 4y ago
    It's a cute novelty now precisely because it's impractical and unsafe. Having good infrastructure changes that. In places with good bike infra, it's a great way to get around.
- addicted 4y ago
  We just had a classic example of the ridiculous car centric US govt. They are about to pass a bill to reduce emissions. It gives EVs $7500 in tax credits and it extends the amount of tax credits companies like Tesla and GM can get. But they eliminated the tax credit (which was set upto $900) for eBikes. I cant think of a more backwards action.

c22 4y ago

I'm not suggesting anything except that given two roads in a spherical universe, both going to same hypothetical place, I'd expect the one built for cars to be larger than the one built for bikes due to basic logic. Your response, and several of its ridiculous peers are just stuffing words into my mouth. Yes, I am acutely aware that many parts of the US have some shitty bike infrastructure, but in the parts that have good/improving bike infrastructure I still observe a slow uptake of bicyclists. As to the OP's point, we reap what we sow.