5 ms·

It’s hard to talk about the topic at very high level but for many American cities like Columbus where I live the answer lies at least partially converting surfa

It’s hard to talk about the topic at very high level but for many American cities like Columbus where I live the answer lies at least partially converting surface parking lots in downtown areas into economically productive assets like housing or businesses which are also not extractive to the local economy. This density makes it easier to walk and bike as well. Many cities, including Columbus, are expanding bus rapid transit and other bus related activities which is laudable, but to your point, and which I agree and would frame it slightly differently, the bus is a strictly worse version of the car in these kinds of cities and so you need category changes to change habits (trams, bikes, walking). I think we need to focus our efforts on cities like Columbus, or others, which do have the population to support rail development and solve for that and not get too worried about solving everything everywhere all at once. Most state departments of highways and cars (they are not departments of transportation) simply don’t fund alternative means of transportation. Leadership from the top down needs to change its focus. The mantra should be the best, safest car is the one you never get in. Instead it’s “we need to preserve going from here to there in 20 minutes without traffic surprises” as if not being stuck in traffic is a Constitutional right. It’s bankrupting us and it’s bad for business and wellbeing.

Maarten88 2y ago
> the bus is a strictly worse version of the car in these kinds of cities You can change that by giving them their own lane so they don't get stuck in traffic with the cars, let them go where cars may not go, give priority at traffic lights etc. That is what they do where I live.
- ericmay 2y ago
  It will change the habits of some but it’s not enough. We should continue to build out bus infrastructure and enhance bus rapid transit especially in the ways you mention, but those efforts won’t result in the large change we need to shift away from vehicle-based infrastructure.
  - pooper 2y ago
    > their own lane so they don't get stuck in traffic with the cars, let them go where cars may not go, give priority at traffic lights etc I feel like we are in agreement. It might not be enough but it is necessary. Problem is we don't even have enough political capital to enforce this. Bill deBalsio the ex mayor of New York came on a radio show and said (paraphrasing) he can't order cops to ticket cars and trucks that are loading or unloading in the bus lane. The bus lane is NOT a business' property for loading and unloading, especially not at busy hours. I'd you must do so, do it when there is no traffic in the middle of the night. How can we do more when we can't even do the bare minimum?
    - AnthonyMouse 2y ago
      > Problem is we don't even have enough political capital to enforce this. The problem is that you're proposing a new problem rather than a solution. Suppose there are two car lanes and they're somewhat congested. You suggest converting one to a bus lane to encourage people to take the bus. The result is to make the remaining car lane disproportionately more congested, because the bus lane gets 10% of people to take the bus and the other car lane is now 105% over capacity instead of 15% over capacity. Your theory is that this will cause enough people to take the bus to make this problem go away, but that theory only works if it doesn't. If people taking the bus relieves the congestion then the car lane is uncongested and there is no more reason to take the bus. So let the car lane be interminably congested, you say. Force people to take the bus. Only the bus doesn't service all destinations, or doesn't run there often enough (because if it did it would be empty), so the bus is no option for those people no matter how bad the car traffic gets. At which point they're prepared to boil you alive for making the traffic worse without giving them any viable alternative to it. You need to make their lives better, not worse, or you can't win.
      - kanbara 2y ago
        this entire monologue boils down to “people want cars and public transit is bad, so don’t improve it and prioritise access” which sounds a lot like you work for ford
- ohmyiv 2y ago
  A city next to me (L.A. area) has some dedicated bus lanes and bike lanes. Unfortunately, they dont have one of the other benefits that you mention, like banning cars in some areas. There are also connections to the train to go farther, but the buses are still mostly empty except for students and laborers who live outside the city. The buses themselves are typically faster and decent, as I ride them a lot. Meanwhile, the other traffic lanes are jam packed during rush hours. It is the L.A. area, so there's just a ton of people/drivers anyway. The last time I went through there driving, it took almost 20 mins to go 2-3 miles due to traffic (and stop lights), obviously during rush hour. The buses were still nearly empty (I wished I didnt have to drive that day). At a non-rush hour time, it takes me maybe 20 mins for my whole trip home which is about 9 miles. My point, I guess, is it's not always just having a free bus lane. There are a lot of people that need convincing to take buses and alternative transportation. A few of my coworkers wish they could take the bus/train, but having kids in school and other things make it a bit harder for them. Maybe one day...
  - angmarsbane 2y ago
    Culver City?
    - ohmyiv 2y ago
      Yes, exactly! Lol I take it you've been or live there? Afternoon traffic is ridiculous and even in surrounding areas like Palms and Mar Vista, which I think are people avoiding Culver City. Just way too many drivers here in general.
  - CalRobert 2y ago
    You are not wrong - this is where personal, private, transportation excels. And why Culver city desperately needs a quality network of safe, protected, bike infrastructure. Cars don't scale, but bikes do.
    - ohmyiv 2y ago
      I wholeheartedly agree with you. If there was safe and protected infrastructure, I feel a lot more people, including myself, would bike, especially with all the new e-bikes available. I will give Culver City some credit because they do have some dedicated bike lanes but they're not really protected.
- kjkjadksj 2y ago
  That only makes the bus beat the car if theres traffic on the roads. Cities like columbus don’t gridlock outside osu football games. Highways flow full speed even during rush hour which is actually less than an hour. Its a different planet than socal traffic where both sides of a highway are moving 20mph between 3-7pm
zdragnar 2y ago
> the answer lies at least partially converting surface parking lots in downtown areas into economically productive assets like housing or businesses which are also not extractive to the local economy. This density makes it easier to walk and bike as well. That only answers where new development should go. It does nothing whatsoever for the people who already live in neighborhoods with no (useful) access to public transit.
- ericmay 2y ago
  The increase in appropriate density tends to make public transit solutions more viable [1] and you also (with good zoning practices) can make small businesses more viable too so you walk 5 minutes down the street for your local cafe instead of driving 15 minutes to Starbucks to send profits to Seattle instead. [1] Car-only infrastructure isn’t viable economically but it’s hard to make that argument in this context because it’s the default and the costs are hidden.
kjkjadksj 2y ago
Columbus is one of those cities where the car experience is too nice, highway system built out and roads hardly congest (save for osu football games) . Say you live in worthington and work near downtown perhaps. You will probably be taking 315 or 71 there in like 15 minutes. Even if there was a train line 15 mins walk from your house that took you to downtown, it would probably double your commute at least. Not to mention when its raining or snowing that starts looking not so nice compared to your heated car a ten second walk from the door.
- ericmay 2y ago
  You’re not wrong! What I’m concerned about is with the new developments and population increases (I think it’ll be higher than expected) we should get ahead of our transit needs before we start to have really bad problems. This isn’t accounting for “political” concerns either like climate change.

Maarten88 2y ago

> the bus is a strictly worse version of the car in these kinds of cities You can change that by giving them their own lane so they don't get stuck in traffic with the cars, let them go where cars may not go, give priority at traffic lights etc. That is what they do where I live.

ericmay 2y ago
It will change the habits of some but it’s not enough. We should continue to build out bus infrastructure and enhance bus rapid transit especially in the ways you mention, but those efforts won’t result in the large change we need to shift away from vehicle-based infrastructure.
- pooper 2y ago
  > their own lane so they don't get stuck in traffic with the cars, let them go where cars may not go, give priority at traffic lights etc I feel like we are in agreement. It might not be enough but it is necessary. Problem is we don't even have enough political capital to enforce this. Bill deBalsio the ex mayor of New York came on a radio show and said (paraphrasing) he can't order cops to ticket cars and trucks that are loading or unloading in the bus lane. The bus lane is NOT a business' property for loading and unloading, especially not at busy hours. I'd you must do so, do it when there is no traffic in the middle of the night. How can we do more when we can't even do the bare minimum?
  - AnthonyMouse 2y ago
    > Problem is we don't even have enough political capital to enforce this. The problem is that you're proposing a new problem rather than a solution. Suppose there are two car lanes and they're somewhat congested. You suggest converting one to a bus lane to encourage people to take the bus. The result is to make the remaining car lane disproportionately more congested, because the bus lane gets 10% of people to take the bus and the other car lane is now 105% over capacity instead of 15% over capacity. Your theory is that this will cause enough people to take the bus to make this problem go away, but that theory only works if it doesn't. If people taking the bus relieves the congestion then the car lane is uncongested and there is no more reason to take the bus. So let the car lane be interminably congested, you say. Force people to take the bus. Only the bus doesn't service all destinations, or doesn't run there often enough (because if it did it would be empty), so the bus is no option for those people no matter how bad the car traffic gets. At which point they're prepared to boil you alive for making the traffic worse without giving them any viable alternative to it. You need to make their lives better, not worse, or you can't win.
    - kanbara 2y ago
      this entire monologue boils down to “people want cars and public transit is bad, so don’t improve it and prioritise access” which sounds a lot like you work for ford
ohmyiv 2y ago
A city next to me (L.A. area) has some dedicated bus lanes and bike lanes. Unfortunately, they dont have one of the other benefits that you mention, like banning cars in some areas. There are also connections to the train to go farther, but the buses are still mostly empty except for students and laborers who live outside the city. The buses themselves are typically faster and decent, as I ride them a lot. Meanwhile, the other traffic lanes are jam packed during rush hours. It is the L.A. area, so there's just a ton of people/drivers anyway. The last time I went through there driving, it took almost 20 mins to go 2-3 miles due to traffic (and stop lights), obviously during rush hour. The buses were still nearly empty (I wished I didnt have to drive that day). At a non-rush hour time, it takes me maybe 20 mins for my whole trip home which is about 9 miles. My point, I guess, is it's not always just having a free bus lane. There are a lot of people that need convincing to take buses and alternative transportation. A few of my coworkers wish they could take the bus/train, but having kids in school and other things make it a bit harder for them. Maybe one day...
- angmarsbane 2y ago
  Culver City?
  - ohmyiv 2y ago
    Yes, exactly! Lol I take it you've been or live there? Afternoon traffic is ridiculous and even in surrounding areas like Palms and Mar Vista, which I think are people avoiding Culver City. Just way too many drivers here in general.
- CalRobert 2y ago
  You are not wrong - this is where personal, private, transportation excels. And why Culver city desperately needs a quality network of safe, protected, bike infrastructure. Cars don't scale, but bikes do.
  - ohmyiv 2y ago
    I wholeheartedly agree with you. If there was safe and protected infrastructure, I feel a lot more people, including myself, would bike, especially with all the new e-bikes available. I will give Culver City some credit because they do have some dedicated bike lanes but they're not really protected.
kjkjadksj 2y ago
That only makes the bus beat the car if theres traffic on the roads. Cities like columbus don’t gridlock outside osu football games. Highways flow full speed even during rush hour which is actually less than an hour. Its a different planet than socal traffic where both sides of a highway are moving 20mph between 3-7pm

zdragnar 2y ago

> the answer lies at least partially converting surface parking lots in downtown areas into economically productive assets like housing or businesses which are also not extractive to the local economy. This density makes it easier to walk and bike as well. That only answers where new development should go. It does nothing whatsoever for the people who already live in neighborhoods with no (useful) access to public transit.

ericmay 2y ago
The increase in appropriate density tends to make public transit solutions more viable [1] and you also (with good zoning practices) can make small businesses more viable too so you walk 5 minutes down the street for your local cafe instead of driving 15 minutes to Starbucks to send profits to Seattle instead. [1] Car-only infrastructure isn’t viable economically but it’s hard to make that argument in this context because it’s the default and the costs are hidden.

kjkjadksj 2y ago

Columbus is one of those cities where the car experience is too nice, highway system built out and roads hardly congest (save for osu football games) . Say you live in worthington and work near downtown perhaps. You will probably be taking 315 or 71 there in like 15 minutes. Even if there was a train line 15 mins walk from your house that took you to downtown, it would probably double your commute at least. Not to mention when its raining or snowing that starts looking not so nice compared to your heated car a ten second walk from the door.

ericmay 2y ago
You’re not wrong! What I’m concerned about is with the new developments and population increases (I think it’ll be higher than expected) we should get ahead of our transit needs before we start to have really bad problems. This isn’t accounting for “political” concerns either like climate change.