4 ms·

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

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).

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).