4 ms·

They have introduced 30km/h limits in my city center (Christchurch, New Zealand). Also introduced synchronized lights to reduce traffic speed. Plus techniques

They have introduced 30km/h limits in my city center (Christchurch, New Zealand). Also introduced synchronized lights to reduce traffic speed. Plus techniques to take traffic away from city center. And reducing parking. Traffic is now far more congested - as must have been expected by the planners. And people are avoiding going to the city center for shopping/meals/etcetera. AFAIK the planners do not measure outcomes: intention of changes is A/B/C but do they measure that A/B/C occurred? I think one major aim is reducing the number of cars hitting cyclists and pedestrians. No idea whether that is being achieved. The one council planner I know is a cycling nut! It is "interesting" watching the results of expensive cycling upgrades. On a per cycling trip basis (per person using the upgrades), the changes appear to me to be hidiously overpriced. Let's see how it pans out over the decades. I cycled to work every day for a while through the city center so I do understand some of the needs.

whazor 3y ago
I work next to a road in Amsterdam where cars are currently driving 50 and will have to drive 30. My view is that the cars always have to wait at the traffic lights, because it is too busy with traffic. So essentially they speed up to 50 just to stop again moments later. Therefore I think the time difference will not be very big.
- robocat 3y ago
  Perhaps, perhaps not. Depends on the timing phases of the lights. Certainly the new 30km/h and modified phases has caused noticable congestion where previously traffic flowed very well. Sure to be safer for pedestrians and cyclists because the traffic is now mostly at a standstill. On some roads you could race the phases and go 60 to 70 in a 50 zone. I would be interested to see a measure for the improvement in safety. People were careful on those roads, and can now be more cavalier e.g. cyclists lane splitting and pedestrians jaywalking through dense standstill traffic.
jochem9 3y ago
Cycling infrastructure is much cheaper than car infrastructure. Way less material needed (narrower paths, less foundation) and much lower maintenance costs. Initial investment per cyclist might seem high, but you need to build it before they come. And they come. Just look at Amsterdam (became a cycling city in the 70s) or Paris (started investing heavily in cycling infra a little less than 10 years ago).
- robocat 3y ago
  > cheap No way is it cheap. Figures for Christchurch: Building 101km of cycleways across Christchurch to cost $301m population 405000, So that is $750 per person, which is about 1% of median earnings for a year. Yes the spending is over many years, but so what. 3% of trips are by bicycle, so this is a pretty shitty deal for the other 97%: https://greaterchristchurch.org.nz/our-work/indicators/urban/travel-modetrip-length https://greaterchristchurch.org.nz/our-work/indicators/urban... People are not voting for this with their bicycle trips. This is just local government spending public money for rather unpopular outcomes.
  - Tomis02 3y ago
    Your reply is in really bad faith. The person said "cheaper", not "cheap".
    - robocat 3y ago
      Fair enough. The points I made are just as relevant to "cheaper". costs/benefits need to be compared against population usage. You are not arguing against the data I gave.
      - jochem9 3y ago
        If you build cycling infrastructure, you get more cyclists. 'Build it and they will come' turned out to be true in the examples I gave (and there are many other examples out there). The question is if you want increase that 3%. For me it's a no-brainer, given the benefits.

whazor 3y ago

I work next to a road in Amsterdam where cars are currently driving 50 and will have to drive 30. My view is that the cars always have to wait at the traffic lights, because it is too busy with traffic. So essentially they speed up to 50 just to stop again moments later. Therefore I think the time difference will not be very big.

robocat 3y ago
Perhaps, perhaps not. Depends on the timing phases of the lights. Certainly the new 30km/h and modified phases has caused noticable congestion where previously traffic flowed very well. Sure to be safer for pedestrians and cyclists because the traffic is now mostly at a standstill. On some roads you could race the phases and go 60 to 70 in a 50 zone. I would be interested to see a measure for the improvement in safety. People were careful on those roads, and can now be more cavalier e.g. cyclists lane splitting and pedestrians jaywalking through dense standstill traffic.

jochem9 3y ago

Cycling infrastructure is much cheaper than car infrastructure. Way less material needed (narrower paths, less foundation) and much lower maintenance costs. Initial investment per cyclist might seem high, but you need to build it before they come. And they come. Just look at Amsterdam (became a cycling city in the 70s) or Paris (started investing heavily in cycling infra a little less than 10 years ago).

robocat 3y ago
> cheap No way is it cheap. Figures for Christchurch: Building 101km of cycleways across Christchurch to cost $301m population 405000, So that is $750 per person, which is about 1% of median earnings for a year. Yes the spending is over many years, but so what. 3% of trips are by bicycle, so this is a pretty shitty deal for the other 97%: https://greaterchristchurch.org.nz/our-work/indicators/urban/travel-modetrip-length https://greaterchristchurch.org.nz/our-work/indicators/urban... People are not voting for this with their bicycle trips. This is just local government spending public money for rather unpopular outcomes.
- Tomis02 3y ago
  Your reply is in really bad faith. The person said "cheaper", not "cheap".
  - robocat 3y ago
    Fair enough. The points I made are just as relevant to "cheaper". costs/benefits need to be compared against population usage. You are not arguing against the data I gave.
    - jochem9 3y ago
      If you build cycling infrastructure, you get more cyclists. 'Build it and they will come' turned out to be true in the examples I gave (and there are many other examples out there). The question is if you want increase that 3%. For me it's a no-brainer, given the benefits.