3 ms·

Why are we giving advantage to the form of transport requiring external power again? So we can have even more wasteful urban design incentives? Maybe we should

Why are we giving advantage to the form of transport requiring external power again? So we can have even more wasteful urban design incentives? Maybe we should pay people to use gas lol. The idea that the "SF Bay Area" has a single way to design light cycle times is ridiculous. Each intersection is governed by a local city department that has its own guidelines around light placement, times, signal priority, signal synchronization, speed tables, etc. There's also added nuance around whether a particular road at the intersection is deemed a collector or an arterial. It's a fascinatingly complex topic but gesturing at the "SF Bay Area" and making a conclusion is senseless. Moreover most Bay Area cities are playing along to some level (some areas more than others) to Vision Zero plans which very much prioritize pedestrians over drivers.

hedora 4y ago
As implemented, Vision Zero is just extremist NIMBY-ism. They aren't improving transit (and the bike lane "upgrades" are clearly designed for traffic quiescence, not cyclist safety). As you say, it only prioritizes pedestrians, which basically means that the 99% of the population that doesn't live less than 5 blocks from work is screwed.
- Karrot_Kream 4y ago
  > As you say, it only prioritizes pedestrians, which basically means that the 99% of the population that doesn't live less than 5 blocks from work is screwed. I'm sorry that you don't walk or bike much but others do. Not everyone is a highly compensated, young knowledge worker. Some folks are students, who have more time than money. Some are active people who value active commutes. Some like to walk for recreation. Older folks may need to walk for their health. Most of these improvements are created based on community surveys. Even Fremont which is a very auto-oriented suburb, and has even called out auto-orientation in its planning documents, has run surveys that shows that there's latent demand to bike and walk if infrastructure exists. The number one reason Fremont residents cites that they don't walk or ride bikes is that they feel the streets are unsafe to bike or walk in. That you prioritize your speed over the demands of others is of no matter since you aren't the only one paying for the infrastructure.

hedora 4y ago

As implemented, Vision Zero is just extremist NIMBY-ism. They aren't improving transit (and the bike lane "upgrades" are clearly designed for traffic quiescence, not cyclist safety). As you say, it only prioritizes pedestrians, which basically means that the 99% of the population that doesn't live less than 5 blocks from work is screwed.

Karrot_Kream 4y ago
> As you say, it only prioritizes pedestrians, which basically means that the 99% of the population that doesn't live less than 5 blocks from work is screwed. I'm sorry that you don't walk or bike much but others do. Not everyone is a highly compensated, young knowledge worker. Some folks are students, who have more time than money. Some are active people who value active commutes. Some like to walk for recreation. Older folks may need to walk for their health. Most of these improvements are created based on community surveys. Even Fremont which is a very auto-oriented suburb, and has even called out auto-orientation in its planning documents, has run surveys that shows that there's latent demand to bike and walk if infrastructure exists. The number one reason Fremont residents cites that they don't walk or ride bikes is that they feel the streets are unsafe to bike or walk in. That you prioritize your speed over the demands of others is of no matter since you aren't the only one paying for the infrastructure.