3 ms·

> When given a choice between grade-separated level bike lanes, and an equally good road network, people overwhelmingly prefer cars. > Bikes are a freaking _mi

> When given a choice between grade-separated level bike lanes, and an equally good road network, people overwhelmingly prefer cars. > Bikes are a freaking _miserable_ transportation mode. Try biking in subzero temps, or during rain/snow. Your entire argument seems to revolve around car vs bikes. I am arguing for prioritizing human-centric infrastructure over car-centric infrastructure. This simply means not prioritizing cars above other modes of transit. For urban environments (high density areas) cars are sub-optimal at best and other alternatives like rail, buses, bikes, and trams are simply better. Granted, sometimes cars are appropriate, but I would not use those minority of cases as an argument to justify having a city designed around cars. > Another example is China, it had bikes as the main transportation mode in many cities, but it abandoned them as soon as they could. Because Chinese cities now have better public transit. Just look at the size and ridership of their suburban rail and metro networks.

cyberax 1y ago
> I am arguing for prioritizing human-centric infrastructure over car-centric infrastructure And here comes the propaganda. Why is your (failed, btw) idea of infrastructure is called "human-centric"? What makes it _human_? I fail to see anything human in dense cities like Tokyo or Manhattan. > Granted, sometimes cars are appropriate, but I would not use those minority of cases as an argument to justify having a city designed around cars. If cars lead to better outcomes (and they do, once self-driving is deployed), then why not? Why force people into densified anti-human hellscapes? > Because Chinese cities now have better public transit. Just look at the size and ridership of their suburban rail and metro networks. Yes. And once people can, they opt out of transit as well.
- ekunazanu 1y ago
  > Why is your (failed, btw) idea of infrastructure is called "human-centric"? What makes it _human_? Great question. No strict definition as such for me, but in the context of transportation, it loosely means that it must be 'easy' for most people to get from point A to point B, using the least amount of time. Ideally it must must be accessible for all people (so teens without a licenses, legally blind people, or anyone without the means to get a car etc). From a non-transportation context (just adding, not very relevant to the answer), places with no loud traffic noise and just a nice general atmosphere of people around. Think streets with trees, and lively public spaces for people to hang out. > If cars lead to better outcomes (and they do, once self-driving is deployed), then why not? Why force people into densified anti-human hellscapes? No one is being forced. If anything, these measures only makes the cities with high urban density more livable for people. The 'hellscapes' have more to do with the housing crisis and zoning laws than transit infrastructure. Idk why most people think urban density is a problem to be solved (using tech like self driving for eg), because it ultimately always circles back to the fact that density is the only sustainable way for cities to develop and grow in the long run. Even if it is not perfect. > I fail to see anything human in dense cities like Tokyo or Manhattan. It would be even more dystopian if Tokyo didn't have a great metro and people had to wait in traffic for hours. Imagine the increased stress, lesser free time, and lower quality of life from all the noise and pollution. > Yes. And once people can, they opt out of transit as well. When exactly will most people have the option to opt-out, and how likely and how exactly will it happen? I also feel like you're arguing just for the argument's sake. If not, we probably have fundamentally different views on what's 'better' and I don't think any amount of convincing will change either of our minds.
  - cyberax 1y ago
    > it loosely means that it must be 'easy' for most people to get from point A to point B OK. Drop 10 random points in a city and then map routes between them using transit, cars, and bikes. You'll find that cars are around 3 times _faster_ than anything else on average. Even in dense cities. I'm going to call this "Cyberax's constant"! > Ideally it must must be accessible for all people (so teens without a licenses, legally blind people, or anyone without the means to get a car etc). This means that bikes are right out, they're horribly anti-human. And transit is barely OK. > From a non-transportation context (just adding, not very relevant to the answer), places with no loud traffic noise and just a nice general atmosphere of people around. So, EVs are perfect? They are quieter than buses. > No one is being forced. People are. By economic forces. Japan is a GREAT cautiounary tale here. > If anything, these measures only makes the cities with high urban density more livable for people. No, they make it more inescapable. > It would be even more dystopian if Tokyo didn't have a great metro and people had to wait in traffic for hours. Wrong. A Tokyo without transit wouldn't have become so dense. > I also feel like you're arguing just for the argument's sake. If not, we probably have fundamentally different views on what's 'better' and I don't think any amount of convincing will change either of our minds. You simply have never thought about the _effects_ of urbanism. Go on, think about it and actually investigate your assumptions. I got my driving license at the age of 27 and I lived in multiple dense cities.
    - ekunazanu 1y ago
      > I got my driving license at the age of 27 and I lived in multiple dense cities. This gives off "I have experience, so I must be right." vibes. There's no reason you can't be, but this goes against what most other urban planning experts and studies have to say. > Go on, think about it and actually investigate your assumptions. I feel like _you_ are the one who is only addressing the points that are the easiest to argue using unverified numbers and hypotheticals that would never be practical, just to support your claims, instead of addressing the argument as a whole. > OK. Drop 10 random points in a city and then map routes between them using transit, cars, and bikes. You'll find that cars are around 3 times _faster_ than anything else on average. Even in dense cities. I'm going to call this "Cyberax's constant"! I would like to see you prove it. Even if true, no one is actually going from a random point to another random point. Most people have overlapping commute routes, which are anything but random. It is proven mass transit reduce collective travel times, and which is why I mentioned the least amount of time for _most_ people, which you conveniently didn't account for. > This means that bikes are right out, they're horribly anti-human. And transit is barely OK. Again I never argued for _only_ bikes, you're dragging your own assumptions and hatred for bikes into the argument. I also don't know why you think bikes more anti-human than cars. Anyway, how is a city that needs cars to get around better than a city that doesn't, better in terms of accessibility? And again, "transit is barely OK", but you conveniently did not mention about the accessibility of cars. > So, EVs are perfect? They are quieter than buses. EV buses have all the advantages of being an EV and none of the disadvantages of being private cars (aka more efficient, cheaper, and more accessible). Idk why you would use EV for cars, but not do the same for buses when comparing them (if not just for pushing your agenda). If anything, I would guess the percentage of EV-to-ICE ratio for buses is higher than for passenger cars in most high-density cities (except for the US, ig idk). > People are. By economic forces. Japan is a GREAT cautiounary tale here. Economic forces will always end up pushing for more and more density. Pushing for car dependent cities may mitigate this to a point, but it does not create better cities. Good zoning laws have a much higher probability doing that. > No, they make it more inescapable. As mentioned, I fail to see how good public infrastructure is stopping a person from leaving a city more than other economic forces, if it is so insufferable. > Wrong. A Tokyo without transit wouldn't have become so dense. Great point. It would have become LA. Where your ideas (at least from what I understand about your ideas) have already been implemented. A place known for zero traffic, that consistently comes on top for best cities to live. I think I am done with this, have a good day bro

cyberax 1y ago

> I am arguing for prioritizing human-centric infrastructure over car-centric infrastructure And here comes the propaganda. Why is your (failed, btw) idea of infrastructure is called "human-centric"? What makes it _human_? I fail to see anything human in dense cities like Tokyo or Manhattan. > Granted, sometimes cars are appropriate, but I would not use those minority of cases as an argument to justify having a city designed around cars. If cars lead to better outcomes (and they do, once self-driving is deployed), then why not? Why force people into densified anti-human hellscapes? > Because Chinese cities now have better public transit. Just look at the size and ridership of their suburban rail and metro networks. Yes. And once people can, they opt out of transit as well.

ekunazanu 1y ago
> Why is your (failed, btw) idea of infrastructure is called "human-centric"? What makes it _human_? Great question. No strict definition as such for me, but in the context of transportation, it loosely means that it must be 'easy' for most people to get from point A to point B, using the least amount of time. Ideally it must must be accessible for all people (so teens without a licenses, legally blind people, or anyone without the means to get a car etc). From a non-transportation context (just adding, not very relevant to the answer), places with no loud traffic noise and just a nice general atmosphere of people around. Think streets with trees, and lively public spaces for people to hang out. > If cars lead to better outcomes (and they do, once self-driving is deployed), then why not? Why force people into densified anti-human hellscapes? No one is being forced. If anything, these measures only makes the cities with high urban density more livable for people. The 'hellscapes' have more to do with the housing crisis and zoning laws than transit infrastructure. Idk why most people think urban density is a problem to be solved (using tech like self driving for eg), because it ultimately always circles back to the fact that density is the only sustainable way for cities to develop and grow in the long run. Even if it is not perfect. > I fail to see anything human in dense cities like Tokyo or Manhattan. It would be even more dystopian if Tokyo didn't have a great metro and people had to wait in traffic for hours. Imagine the increased stress, lesser free time, and lower quality of life from all the noise and pollution. > Yes. And once people can, they opt out of transit as well. When exactly will most people have the option to opt-out, and how likely and how exactly will it happen? I also feel like you're arguing just for the argument's sake. If not, we probably have fundamentally different views on what's 'better' and I don't think any amount of convincing will change either of our minds.
- cyberax 1y ago
  > it loosely means that it must be 'easy' for most people to get from point A to point B OK. Drop 10 random points in a city and then map routes between them using transit, cars, and bikes. You'll find that cars are around 3 times _faster_ than anything else on average. Even in dense cities. I'm going to call this "Cyberax's constant"! > Ideally it must must be accessible for all people (so teens without a licenses, legally blind people, or anyone without the means to get a car etc). This means that bikes are right out, they're horribly anti-human. And transit is barely OK. > From a non-transportation context (just adding, not very relevant to the answer), places with no loud traffic noise and just a nice general atmosphere of people around. So, EVs are perfect? They are quieter than buses. > No one is being forced. People are. By economic forces. Japan is a GREAT cautiounary tale here. > If anything, these measures only makes the cities with high urban density more livable for people. No, they make it more inescapable. > It would be even more dystopian if Tokyo didn't have a great metro and people had to wait in traffic for hours. Wrong. A Tokyo without transit wouldn't have become so dense. > I also feel like you're arguing just for the argument's sake. If not, we probably have fundamentally different views on what's 'better' and I don't think any amount of convincing will change either of our minds. You simply have never thought about the _effects_ of urbanism. Go on, think about it and actually investigate your assumptions. I got my driving license at the age of 27 and I lived in multiple dense cities.
  - ekunazanu 1y ago
    > I got my driving license at the age of 27 and I lived in multiple dense cities. This gives off "I have experience, so I must be right." vibes. There's no reason you can't be, but this goes against what most other urban planning experts and studies have to say. > Go on, think about it and actually investigate your assumptions. I feel like _you_ are the one who is only addressing the points that are the easiest to argue using unverified numbers and hypotheticals that would never be practical, just to support your claims, instead of addressing the argument as a whole. > OK. Drop 10 random points in a city and then map routes between them using transit, cars, and bikes. You'll find that cars are around 3 times _faster_ than anything else on average. Even in dense cities. I'm going to call this "Cyberax's constant"! I would like to see you prove it. Even if true, no one is actually going from a random point to another random point. Most people have overlapping commute routes, which are anything but random. It is proven mass transit reduce collective travel times, and which is why I mentioned the least amount of time for _most_ people, which you conveniently didn't account for. > This means that bikes are right out, they're horribly anti-human. And transit is barely OK. Again I never argued for _only_ bikes, you're dragging your own assumptions and hatred for bikes into the argument. I also don't know why you think bikes more anti-human than cars. Anyway, how is a city that needs cars to get around better than a city that doesn't, better in terms of accessibility? And again, "transit is barely OK", but you conveniently did not mention about the accessibility of cars. > So, EVs are perfect? They are quieter than buses. EV buses have all the advantages of being an EV and none of the disadvantages of being private cars (aka more efficient, cheaper, and more accessible). Idk why you would use EV for cars, but not do the same for buses when comparing them (if not just for pushing your agenda). If anything, I would guess the percentage of EV-to-ICE ratio for buses is higher than for passenger cars in most high-density cities (except for the US, ig idk). > People are. By economic forces. Japan is a GREAT cautiounary tale here. Economic forces will always end up pushing for more and more density. Pushing for car dependent cities may mitigate this to a point, but it does not create better cities. Good zoning laws have a much higher probability doing that. > No, they make it more inescapable. As mentioned, I fail to see how good public infrastructure is stopping a person from leaving a city more than other economic forces, if it is so insufferable. > Wrong. A Tokyo without transit wouldn't have become so dense. Great point. It would have become LA. Where your ideas (at least from what I understand about your ideas) have already been implemented. A place known for zero traffic, that consistently comes on top for best cities to live. I think I am done with this, have a good day bro