3 ms·

Cycling increases your reasonable travel radius substantially. In a dense city with good transit this might be less of a big deal, but outside of cities in spra

Cycling increases your reasonable travel radius substantially. In a dense city with good transit this might be less of a big deal, but outside of cities in sprawling suburbs it’s more important. School isn’t the only place a kid might want to go; their friends might live further away, there might be a park that would take quite a while to walk to but is an easy bike ride, etc.

Tade0 4y ago
Perhaps it's my commie block upbringing talking, but as a child I never saw bike paths as necessary to get around. Sure, I cycled, but for leisure, not transport.
- ryukafalz 4y ago
  As I said it depends on the area. Where I live right now (Philadelphia) you can get by on foot and via transit pretty easily. Although I do wish it were more bikeable; I could get to my local hackerspace in about 20 minutes by bike vs. 40 minutes by transit. I’m about to move somewhere slightly less dense though, with no local transit to speak of. From my house to the local high school is 27 min on foot vs. 7 by bike. From the high school to the neighboring town is 41 minutes on foot vs. 12 by bike. From there back home is again 41 minutes on foot or 12 by bike. You can probably see how this might make an after-school trip possible that wouldn’t be otherwise.
  - Tade0 4y ago
    To me those estimates seem to assume a slow walker or a really fast cyclist. How long is that in kilometres?
    - ryukafalz 4y ago
      1.93 for the first distance, 3.06 for the other two. So probably would be a fast cyclist given that’d be an average of 15 km/h. That speed is totally doable on a bike, but there’s some time taken up at intersections so top speed would need to be higher to make up. (Although the main roads on these routes don’t have many signaled intersections, so maybe not too much faster.)

3 ms·

Cycling increases your reasonable travel radius substantially. In a dense city with good transit this might be less of a big deal, but outside of cities in spra

by ryukafalz 4y ago

Tade0 4y ago
Perhaps it's my commie block upbringing talking, but as a child I never saw bike paths as necessary to get around. Sure, I cycled, but for leisure, not transport.
- ryukafalz 4y ago
  As I said it depends on the area. Where I live right now (Philadelphia) you can get by on foot and via transit pretty easily. Although I do wish it were more bikeable; I could get to my local hackerspace in about 20 minutes by bike vs. 40 minutes by transit. I’m about to move somewhere slightly less dense though, with no local transit to speak of. From my house to the local high school is 27 min on foot vs. 7 by bike. From the high school to the neighboring town is 41 minutes on foot vs. 12 by bike. From there back home is again 41 minutes on foot or 12 by bike. You can probably see how this might make an after-school trip possible that wouldn’t be otherwise.
  - Tade0 4y ago
    To me those estimates seem to assume a slow walker or a really fast cyclist. How long is that in kilometres?
    - ryukafalz 4y ago
      1.93 for the first distance, 3.06 for the other two. So probably would be a fast cyclist given that’d be an average of 15 km/h. That speed is totally doable on a bike, but there’s some time taken up at intersections so top speed would need to be higher to make up. (Although the main roads on these routes don’t have many signaled intersections, so maybe not too much faster.)