4 ms·

> The e-scooters that clutter up pavements may seem like a new thing, but a hundred years ago, there were already people zooming around London on powered scoote

by hylaride 10mo ago

> The e-scooters that clutter up pavements may seem like a new thing, but a hundred years ago, there were already people zooming around London on powered scooters. The problem is that we've given so much space to automobiles that there's no room for anything else (bikes, scooters, etc). Pedestrians have been given a sliver only because drivers need to walk between parking and their destination. This is true even in cities where the majority of people don't even drive!

sheepscreek 10mo ago
Probably cause modern logistics, especially last mile logistics, is dependent on trucks/delivery vans/etc. So even though folks in a local area might like to walk around, their groceries won’t make it to the stores and packages won’t get to their homes without a robust road network. I think Bacerlona hits a good compromise. The city has the concept of a superblock, which is a few city blocks grouped into one calm zone. Most car traffic stays on the streets around the outside, the perimeter of the superblock. Inside, driving is restricted and only at low speeds where allowed, so people and bikes get the space. So deliveries and residents can still but only slowly. That’s far from the only example - many cities in Asia follow a similar model.
- ajb 10mo ago
  London is edging in that direction with the introduction of "low traffic neighbourhoods". Basically this involves preventing vehicles using them as a through route, by limiting some connections to only emergency vehicles. The problem is that it's also annoying for residents as it means the allowed entry/exit routes aren't necessarily in the direction you need to go. Does Barcelona have a smarter method?
  - alistairSH 10mo ago
    Isn’t the presumption that residents walk/bike/transit far more often than drive?
    - hylaride 10mo ago
      There is still pushback. I live in Toronto and when central businesses are canvassed about streetscape changes they overwhelmingly are against removing parking, access for cars, etc. They assume that 90% of their customers drive to them, but it turns out that it is closer to 10% for most of them.
    - ajb 10mo ago
      That's unevenly distributed. Lots of people in London do walk or use public transport, but you still need many delivery drivers, tradespeople, etc and it doesn't make sense for them all to live outside the city. And people who don't usually drive occasionally need to use a vehicle, and then it's more stressful because you aren't used to having to know where the vehicular entrances are. It's too simplistic to just make provision for the majority and assume that it doesn't matter what the second order effects are.
      - dpark 10mo ago
        > and then it's more stressful because you aren't used to having to know where the vehicular entrances are “I rarely drive and so I am stressed when I do” is not an issue that needs to be solved.
      - coryrc 10mo ago
        So if you make it safe and pleasant for everybody who doesn't need a truck as part of their job, then the remaining roads are available for the small minority that "must" use them. But maybe rethink whether they "need" to and whether said vehicles must live in dense residential neighborhoods. https://news.medill.northwestern.edu/chicago/window-washers-on-wheels-do-the-dirty-work/ https://news.medill.northwestern.edu/chicago/window-washers-... https://www.velove.se/ https://www.velove.se/
    - michaelt 10mo ago
      In the most central (and expensive) parts of London - “Zone 1”, where all the famous landmarks are - that is indeed a safe assumption. But go to a less central area, like Hendon and you’re still very much within London, but every street is lined on both sides with parked cars.
  - bluescrn 10mo ago
    LTNs and pedestrianised areas are great for criminals on illegal high-powered e-bikes. Purpose-built getaway routes.
    - tim333 10mo ago
      I'm not that convinced pedestrianised areas make it easier for them. At least you can spot the thieves if bikes are not supposed to be there.
    - dpark 10mo ago
      lol. People will try to paint anything they don’t like as bad because criminals can also use it.
      - bluescrn 10mo ago
        It’s about actively blocking police and other emergency vehicles while allowing a new class of problem vehicles, illegal e-motorbikes, to pass unimpeded. As a motorist, the war on cars (and milking of motorists for tax revenue) would be less infuriating if we didn’t have the rising broad-daylight lawlessness of illegal e-bikes and scooters doing 30mph+ with no pedaling, no tax, and no insurance. Often with corporate branding in the form of Deliveroo or Just Eat bags. Sometimes balaclava-clad and engaging in dodgier activities. (Would be in favour of regulating and policing these bikes and scooters rather than outright prohibition, but the UK government chooses to stick to prohibition and very inconsistent policing)
        dpark 10mo ago
        Sorry, this doesn’t make any sense. If the problem were that criminals have high powered e-bikes, the obvious answer would be to give high powered e-bikes to the police. What you’re actually griping about isn’t criminals using e-bikes as getaway vehicles, but the presence of these unsafe e-bikes at all. You’re basically saying “how come I can’t drive my unsafe machine but they can drive theirs?” And yeah, I don’t want people zipping by at 30mph on scooters either, but the problem isn’t that the cars are gone.
    - 10mo ago
- hylaride 10mo ago
  > Probably cause modern logistics, especially last mile logistics, is dependent on trucks/delivery vans/etc. So even though folks in a local area might like to walk around, their groceries won’t make it to the stores and packages won’t get to their homes without a robust road network. Totally. Banning automobiles is usually a bad idea, especially for residential zones. Years ago, I remember seeing a presentation about redeveloping a bad public housing block that was built in the 1960s with no auto-access (the assumption being poor people don't have cars), but it turns out that it meant they couldn't even get pizza.
  - potato3732842 10mo ago
    >the assumption being poor people don't have cars Some number of the people at the time likely noticed the lapse and thought to themselves "good, this will make it inconvenient for them to get a car that lets them easily get far from their designated area on a whim" so they kept their mouths shut.
  - otterley 10mo ago
    At least in New York City and outside the U.S., I regularly see pizzas being delivered frequently by bicycle, moped, and motorcycle. I also see deliveries being done with small trucks (Kei style) and vans that fit in alleyways.
- h2zizzle 10mo ago
  Smaller trucks. Japan makes due with one-lane alleys. (Not one in each direction. One. Deliveries and vehicular traffic are so uncommon, and the tightness of the space so inconducive to speeding, that it's safe for trucks and cars to go down them in whichever direction they need to.)
  - jamiek88 10mo ago
    Makes do not due. A common error that seems to be increasing.
    - Chris2048 10mo ago
      Probably meant "make do", as in, able to manage with limited means available.
      - jamiek88 10mo ago
        Yes. That’s exactly what I said.
        Chris2048 10mo ago
        What you said exactly is "makes", not "make".
        jamiek88 9mo ago
        It is the do that is wrong not the makes. He makes do. He made do. He can make do. All correct. Makes do is not.
- jetrink 10mo ago
  > their groceries won’t make it to the stores and packages won’t get to their homes without a robust road network. A road network isn't the only solution. In the early 20th century, for example, there was a separate narrow-gauge tunnel network beneath Chicago dedicated to freight. Deliveries were made directly to businesses via subbasements or elevator shafts. The network had stations at rail and ship terminals for accepting freight arriving from outside the city. At its height in 1929, the network had 150 locomotives pulling 10 to 15 cars per train. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Tunnel_Company https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Tunnel_Company
  - dpark 10mo ago
    This is neat but also seems like an insane solution to the problem of “I don’t like seeing service trucks”. How many such tunnels and elevators would it take to supply the buildings in a typical city’s downtown area? And what else could we do with that investment?
    - randunel 10mo ago
      I wonder how many people such an automated freight system would kill per year, compared to cars in the same cities. Once we have some numbers, you would probably reconsider the use of "insane" there.
      - dpark 10mo ago
        The context here is not cars but delivery trucks. The tunnels in question also did not transport pedestrians and were essentially focused on coal delivery and ash removal.
        randunel 10mo ago
        Sure, let's restrict statistics to any automobile used to transport merchandise. What do you think, ready to imagine such a comparison?
- zaptheimpaler 10mo ago
  I live in Vancouver, and we have plenty of both roads and bike lanes. Its not hard to fit a bike lane that's usually 1/4th the width of a lane onto a road or allow bikes to share with cars on smaller roads. We have trucks and vans and lots of deliveries too. The reason most cities are oriented around cars is because we designed them that way and it's difficult to change - there's no logistical constraint, its just politics and cost.
  - clickety_clack 10mo ago
    I lived in Vancouver for many years, and it’s an outlier in terms of ease of bike lane installation. The city is quite new, and as it grew in the 50s and 60s the roads were designed for a future with more cars than there are now in the city. That means that there’s super wide boulevards and streets everywhere. Cities that were designed for horses and carts barely have room for cars as it is, so there’s almost no room for anything else next to them.
- oblio 10mo ago
  Last mile delivery can be done with large cargo ebikes capable of carrying up to 250-500kg. Trucks or delivery vans should only be allowed on roads farther apart than 1-2km, with some exceptions (supermarkets, regular markets, etc). We have all the technical tools needed, this is about political will.
- thescriptkiddie 10mo ago
  it takes surprisingly few trucks to keep stores stocked. most of the trucks you see driving around are either delivering packages or hauling bulk cargo that used to go by rail
crazygringo 10mo ago
> This is true even in cities where the majority of people don't even drive! I dunno... in New York City there are an awful lot of bike lanes now: https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7355559,-73.9921499,13z/data=!5m1!1e3?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MTIwOS4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7355559,-73.9921499,13z/data... There's still room for a lot more, but plenty of space has been taken away from automobiles precisely for bikes, scooters, etc. It's trending in the right direction. Especially now that bike lanes are increasingly being designed with parking between the bike land and vehicle lanes.
- coryrc 10mo ago
  Per capita that's table scraps.
  - crazygringo 10mo ago
    I don't even know what that means. Residential streets with little traffic don't even need bike lines. But many of the busiest avenues have them. NYC could always do better, but there's nothing "table scraps" here? It's massively improved my cycling experience. And it gets better every year.
    - coryrc 10mo ago
      How much surface land does public transit occupy per primary transit user? How much does pedestrian-first and bicycle-first occupy per primary walking/cyclists? Now how much land does car-first take per person primarily using car for mobility? The last is far, far higher than the others. Depending on the city, cats get dedicated infrastructure covering 25-75% of all land! Add buildings and parks and you get scraps for everything not cars.
      - crazygringo 10mo ago
        > you get scraps for everything not cars. In a place like Manhattan, the sidewalks are wide and, like I said, plenty of space has been made, and continues to be made, for bike lanes. The good thing is that space for pedestrians and cyclists doesn't actually require taking away that much space from cars as a percentage. There's plenty of room, you just knock out a lane, as NYC has been doing. So I don't really know what you're arguing? It's not "table scraps". You certainly don't need the width of a 4-lane highway just for pedestrians and cyclists.
reactordev 10mo ago
But this has been true every hundred years or so as technology changes and those that are building infrastructure know nothing else. 2000s : Damn these cars clogging up the road! 1900s : Damn these buggies clogging up the road! 1800s : Damn these carriages clogging up the road! 1700s : Damn these horses clogging up the road! 1600s : Damn these " " " " " 100BC : Damn these romans clogging up the road!
- Zambyte 10mo ago
  You really think the idea of anything like bumper to bumper traffic existed more than a hundred years ago? Everything before 2000s (though surely car traffic existed in the 1900s) seems like a dramatization.
  - ndsipa_pomu 10mo ago
    The number of horses in London was causing problems at the end of the 19th century - they don't scale well when you need to provide stables, food and of course leave piles of dung everywhere.
  - jmclnx 10mo ago
    100 years ago was 1925 :) I would think in some places there was bumper to bumper for short distances. I would expect in parts of NYC it existed. I think it was in the 1920s when traffic lights started to appear. But 110 years ago, I agree with you on this.
  - reactordev 10mo ago
    How pedestrian. Cities like NYC, London, Paris, LA, Chicago, Denver, Seattle all had traffic problems with cars in 1925. In 1825 it was carriages and horse and buggy leaving horse manure all over the cobblestone or pavers. In 1725 it was horses and heavy hooves turning the dirt road into mud and clay muck. In 1625 it was much the same. We had a large population centralized in cities long before the Industrial Revolution. My point is there’s always some person complaining about the X on the road (as if their presence on the road isn’t somehow the opposite). https://www.history101.nyc/5th-avenue-street-scene-1925 https://www.history101.nyc/5th-avenue-street-scene-1925
echelon 10mo ago
Despite city dwellers hating on cars and wanting complete streets, cars are poised to win even bigger when self driving becomes widespread. Our roads and highways will metamorphose into logistics corridors and optimal public transit systems. Everything will be delivered same hour. The cost of this will drop and entire new business models will be built on top of the "direct to you" model. Self-driving cars will replace public transit. They connect every destination on demand. Short hops, cross-country long-haul. Waymo alikes will become cheaper than the city bus. Van life will accelerate. People will live in their automated vans and SUVs. They'll become luxury and status items for knowledge workers who are constantly conveying themselves coast to coast, from cozy fire pits by the sea to hidden mountain getaways. Life in America will become one of constant travel, because we can take our life with us without lifting a finger. People will have large home bases in the affordable suburbs - possibly one on each coast. They'll wine and dine in the city, then be off to hike the next day. Life will turn into adventure and it'll be accessible to almost everyone. Rich, poor. Young, old. Busy, retired. Nobody will lift a finger for any of this. We're going to want more roads. Bikes don't stand a chance. They're inequitable. Old people, pregnant people, sick people, and children are all left out. They suck in the rain and the snow. You can't move anything of size or scale. Automated self driving cars will win.
- agenticfish 10mo ago
  > Bikes don't stand a chance. They're inequitable. Old people, pregnant people, sick people, and children are all left out. They suck in the rain and the snow. You can't move anything of size or scale. I would invite you to come and have a look in the Netherlands. It’s very common for octogenarians to cycle. My wife cycled up to the day of the birth of our daughter. Children have more independence because they can cycle to football practice on their own. Bike lanes are great for mobility scooters. It rains here, a lot! And it snows. I picked up our Christmas tree with our cargo bike. When I need to transport anything larger I will book a carshare, which are dotted around our neighbourhood. And the result? People are happy and healthy.
  - echelon 10mo ago
    European weather is still mild relative to the US. It will be so long as the Gulf Stream doesn't shut down. Americans are fatter and less healthy. Americans are busy and work longer and harder. ("Work hard, play hard.") Americans buy more stuff. Big stuff. Lots of stuff. Frequently. (This is actually a superpower of our consumer economy.) We have invested hundreds of trillions of dollars in our infrastructure. We might be able to put in a bike land here or there in a majorly dense city or two, but we're not changing all of this. And more than anything else, America is fucking huge. I know you Europeans love your model, but it doesn't apply to us. The proponents in the US trying to make it happen misunderstand the fundamental differences. Just five years ago I would have said you were selling a monorail fantasy or sight to the blind to us. And an unfortunate few in the US were lapping it up as something we could actually do. Now that self driving is finally arriving, what I'm saying is that our future is even brighter than most countries. We have the road infra to really make this magic. I can wake up one day, make my coffee, hop into my car with my wife, and through no effort of my own, wind up at a mountain resort. No security checkpoints. No hassle packing. No screaming babies. We can listen to music, read, cuddle. It's our own space taking us wherever we want at complete and total leisure, affordably, comfortably, privately. We can even detour for food or whatever. It's going to be pure magic. As big a revolution as the internet was.
tim333 10mo ago
In central London the cars are restricted quite a bit. In places like Soho and Oxford St they are more cluttered with pedestrians than cars.
Sam6late 10mo ago
The same case was in Italy, and calendars of Vespa were awesome back in the 70s ''Piaggio (maker of Vespa) had had its Pontedera (Italy) factory (where they used to make bomber planes) bombed during the conflict. Italy had it’s aircraft industry restricted to a great extent as part of the ceasefire agreement with the allies. Enrico Piaggio, son of the founder of the company Rinaldo Piaggio, decided to leave the aeronautical field behind and address the people’s need for an economic mode of transport. The idea was to make a scooter utilitarian and appealing enough to the masses. Till that time, scooters were mainly used by the military for quick on-ground transportation (you might have seen this in some Call of Duty games). So, two Piaggio engineers, Renzo Spolti and Vittorio Casini, took to their whiteboard and designed the first-ever Vespa, or maybe not quite. Mr. Piaggio was disappointed with the initial scooter. The scooter was named Paperino, and looking at the photo, you can understand Mr. Piaggios disappointment.' https://www.vespalicious.com/gallery/ https://www.vespalicious.com/gallery/
wakawaka28 10mo ago
I'm sure they went away because it's a fad or the costs/benefits don't balance, not because there is no space for them. This is evident by the fact that we have scooters in abundance now!
hexbin010 10mo ago
For real. Loads of places in the UK are in desperate need of wider paths. Some probably haven't changed for 100 years except for making them narrower with stupid full height advertising screens (a travesty and civic vandalism by the councils)
k4rli 10mo ago
Problem isn't the cars. Stop buying uselessly oversized SUVs, and trucks in case of muricans. A Fiat 500/Panda is perfectly fine in cities.
- Scoundreller 10mo ago
  I’d like to see the calculation of the reduction you get in roadway throughput by making the vehicles larger. If people stay further away from tractor trailers, they’ll stay further away from SUVs too. Even in an urban environment, if you stop X feet of distance from the back of the vehicle in front, if that vehicle is longer… Anyways, street parking should be paid by the square foot * 1.25 to account for getting in/out/around parked vehicles.
- AmbroseBierce 10mo ago
  Start charging taxes based on the number of square feet a car occupies and the problem will solve itself.

sheepscreek 10mo ago

Probably cause modern logistics, especially last mile logistics, is dependent on trucks/delivery vans/etc. So even though folks in a local area might like to walk around, their groceries won’t make it to the stores and packages won’t get to their homes without a robust road network. I think Bacerlona hits a good compromise. The city has the concept of a superblock, which is a few city blocks grouped into one calm zone. Most car traffic stays on the streets around the outside, the perimeter of the superblock. Inside, driving is restricted and only at low speeds where allowed, so people and bikes get the space. So deliveries and residents can still but only slowly. That’s far from the only example - many cities in Asia follow a similar model.

ajb 10mo ago
London is edging in that direction with the introduction of "low traffic neighbourhoods". Basically this involves preventing vehicles using them as a through route, by limiting some connections to only emergency vehicles. The problem is that it's also annoying for residents as it means the allowed entry/exit routes aren't necessarily in the direction you need to go. Does Barcelona have a smarter method?
- alistairSH 10mo ago
  Isn’t the presumption that residents walk/bike/transit far more often than drive?
  - hylaride 10mo ago
    There is still pushback. I live in Toronto and when central businesses are canvassed about streetscape changes they overwhelmingly are against removing parking, access for cars, etc. They assume that 90% of their customers drive to them, but it turns out that it is closer to 10% for most of them.
  - ajb 10mo ago
    That's unevenly distributed. Lots of people in London do walk or use public transport, but you still need many delivery drivers, tradespeople, etc and it doesn't make sense for them all to live outside the city. And people who don't usually drive occasionally need to use a vehicle, and then it's more stressful because you aren't used to having to know where the vehicular entrances are. It's too simplistic to just make provision for the majority and assume that it doesn't matter what the second order effects are.
    - dpark 10mo ago
      > and then it's more stressful because you aren't used to having to know where the vehicular entrances are “I rarely drive and so I am stressed when I do” is not an issue that needs to be solved.
    - coryrc 10mo ago
      So if you make it safe and pleasant for everybody who doesn't need a truck as part of their job, then the remaining roads are available for the small minority that "must" use them. But maybe rethink whether they "need" to and whether said vehicles must live in dense residential neighborhoods. https://news.medill.northwestern.edu/chicago/window-washers-on-wheels-do-the-dirty-work/ https://news.medill.northwestern.edu/chicago/window-washers-... https://www.velove.se/ https://www.velove.se/
  - michaelt 10mo ago
    In the most central (and expensive) parts of London - “Zone 1”, where all the famous landmarks are - that is indeed a safe assumption. But go to a less central area, like Hendon and you’re still very much within London, but every street is lined on both sides with parked cars.
- bluescrn 10mo ago
  LTNs and pedestrianised areas are great for criminals on illegal high-powered e-bikes. Purpose-built getaway routes.
  - tim333 10mo ago
    I'm not that convinced pedestrianised areas make it easier for them. At least you can spot the thieves if bikes are not supposed to be there.
  - dpark 10mo ago
    lol. People will try to paint anything they don’t like as bad because criminals can also use it.
    - bluescrn 10mo ago
      It’s about actively blocking police and other emergency vehicles while allowing a new class of problem vehicles, illegal e-motorbikes, to pass unimpeded. As a motorist, the war on cars (and milking of motorists for tax revenue) would be less infuriating if we didn’t have the rising broad-daylight lawlessness of illegal e-bikes and scooters doing 30mph+ with no pedaling, no tax, and no insurance. Often with corporate branding in the form of Deliveroo or Just Eat bags. Sometimes balaclava-clad and engaging in dodgier activities. (Would be in favour of regulating and policing these bikes and scooters rather than outright prohibition, but the UK government chooses to stick to prohibition and very inconsistent policing)
      - dpark 10mo ago
        Sorry, this doesn’t make any sense. If the problem were that criminals have high powered e-bikes, the obvious answer would be to give high powered e-bikes to the police. What you’re actually griping about isn’t criminals using e-bikes as getaway vehicles, but the presence of these unsafe e-bikes at all. You’re basically saying “how come I can’t drive my unsafe machine but they can drive theirs?” And yeah, I don’t want people zipping by at 30mph on scooters either, but the problem isn’t that the cars are gone.
  - 10mo ago
hylaride 10mo ago
> Probably cause modern logistics, especially last mile logistics, is dependent on trucks/delivery vans/etc. So even though folks in a local area might like to walk around, their groceries won’t make it to the stores and packages won’t get to their homes without a robust road network. Totally. Banning automobiles is usually a bad idea, especially for residential zones. Years ago, I remember seeing a presentation about redeveloping a bad public housing block that was built in the 1960s with no auto-access (the assumption being poor people don't have cars), but it turns out that it meant they couldn't even get pizza.
- potato3732842 10mo ago
  >the assumption being poor people don't have cars Some number of the people at the time likely noticed the lapse and thought to themselves "good, this will make it inconvenient for them to get a car that lets them easily get far from their designated area on a whim" so they kept their mouths shut.
- otterley 10mo ago
  At least in New York City and outside the U.S., I regularly see pizzas being delivered frequently by bicycle, moped, and motorcycle. I also see deliveries being done with small trucks (Kei style) and vans that fit in alleyways.
h2zizzle 10mo ago
Smaller trucks. Japan makes due with one-lane alleys. (Not one in each direction. One. Deliveries and vehicular traffic are so uncommon, and the tightness of the space so inconducive to speeding, that it's safe for trucks and cars to go down them in whichever direction they need to.)
- jamiek88 10mo ago
  Makes do not due. A common error that seems to be increasing.
  - Chris2048 10mo ago
    Probably meant "make do", as in, able to manage with limited means available.
    - jamiek88 10mo ago
      Yes. That’s exactly what I said.
      - Chris2048 10mo ago
        What you said exactly is "makes", not "make".
        jamiek88 9mo ago
        It is the do that is wrong not the makes. He makes do. He made do. He can make do. All correct. Makes do is not.
jetrink 10mo ago
> their groceries won’t make it to the stores and packages won’t get to their homes without a robust road network. A road network isn't the only solution. In the early 20th century, for example, there was a separate narrow-gauge tunnel network beneath Chicago dedicated to freight. Deliveries were made directly to businesses via subbasements or elevator shafts. The network had stations at rail and ship terminals for accepting freight arriving from outside the city. At its height in 1929, the network had 150 locomotives pulling 10 to 15 cars per train. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Tunnel_Company https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Tunnel_Company
- dpark 10mo ago
  This is neat but also seems like an insane solution to the problem of “I don’t like seeing service trucks”. How many such tunnels and elevators would it take to supply the buildings in a typical city’s downtown area? And what else could we do with that investment?
  - randunel 10mo ago
    I wonder how many people such an automated freight system would kill per year, compared to cars in the same cities. Once we have some numbers, you would probably reconsider the use of "insane" there.
    - dpark 10mo ago
      The context here is not cars but delivery trucks. The tunnels in question also did not transport pedestrians and were essentially focused on coal delivery and ash removal.
      - randunel 10mo ago
        Sure, let's restrict statistics to any automobile used to transport merchandise. What do you think, ready to imagine such a comparison?
zaptheimpaler 10mo ago
I live in Vancouver, and we have plenty of both roads and bike lanes. Its not hard to fit a bike lane that's usually 1/4th the width of a lane onto a road or allow bikes to share with cars on smaller roads. We have trucks and vans and lots of deliveries too. The reason most cities are oriented around cars is because we designed them that way and it's difficult to change - there's no logistical constraint, its just politics and cost.
- clickety_clack 10mo ago
  I lived in Vancouver for many years, and it’s an outlier in terms of ease of bike lane installation. The city is quite new, and as it grew in the 50s and 60s the roads were designed for a future with more cars than there are now in the city. That means that there’s super wide boulevards and streets everywhere. Cities that were designed for horses and carts barely have room for cars as it is, so there’s almost no room for anything else next to them.
oblio 10mo ago
Last mile delivery can be done with large cargo ebikes capable of carrying up to 250-500kg. Trucks or delivery vans should only be allowed on roads farther apart than 1-2km, with some exceptions (supermarkets, regular markets, etc). We have all the technical tools needed, this is about political will.
thescriptkiddie 10mo ago
it takes surprisingly few trucks to keep stores stocked. most of the trucks you see driving around are either delivering packages or hauling bulk cargo that used to go by rail

crazygringo 10mo ago

> This is true even in cities where the majority of people don't even drive! I dunno... in New York City there are an awful lot of bike lanes now: https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7355559,-73.9921499,13z/data=!5m1!1e3?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MTIwOS4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7355559,-73.9921499,13z/data... There's still room for a lot more, but plenty of space has been taken away from automobiles precisely for bikes, scooters, etc. It's trending in the right direction. Especially now that bike lanes are increasingly being designed with parking between the bike land and vehicle lanes.

coryrc 10mo ago
Per capita that's table scraps.
- crazygringo 10mo ago
  I don't even know what that means. Residential streets with little traffic don't even need bike lines. But many of the busiest avenues have them. NYC could always do better, but there's nothing "table scraps" here? It's massively improved my cycling experience. And it gets better every year.
  - coryrc 10mo ago
    How much surface land does public transit occupy per primary transit user? How much does pedestrian-first and bicycle-first occupy per primary walking/cyclists? Now how much land does car-first take per person primarily using car for mobility? The last is far, far higher than the others. Depending on the city, cats get dedicated infrastructure covering 25-75% of all land! Add buildings and parks and you get scraps for everything not cars.
    - crazygringo 10mo ago
      > you get scraps for everything not cars. In a place like Manhattan, the sidewalks are wide and, like I said, plenty of space has been made, and continues to be made, for bike lanes. The good thing is that space for pedestrians and cyclists doesn't actually require taking away that much space from cars as a percentage. There's plenty of room, you just knock out a lane, as NYC has been doing. So I don't really know what you're arguing? It's not "table scraps". You certainly don't need the width of a 4-lane highway just for pedestrians and cyclists.

reactordev 10mo ago

But this has been true every hundred years or so as technology changes and those that are building infrastructure know nothing else. 2000s : Damn these cars clogging up the road! 1900s : Damn these buggies clogging up the road! 1800s : Damn these carriages clogging up the road! 1700s : Damn these horses clogging up the road! 1600s : Damn these " " " " " 100BC : Damn these romans clogging up the road!

Zambyte 10mo ago
You really think the idea of anything like bumper to bumper traffic existed more than a hundred years ago? Everything before 2000s (though surely car traffic existed in the 1900s) seems like a dramatization.
- ndsipa_pomu 10mo ago
  The number of horses in London was causing problems at the end of the 19th century - they don't scale well when you need to provide stables, food and of course leave piles of dung everywhere.
- jmclnx 10mo ago
  100 years ago was 1925 :) I would think in some places there was bumper to bumper for short distances. I would expect in parts of NYC it existed. I think it was in the 1920s when traffic lights started to appear. But 110 years ago, I agree with you on this.
- reactordev 10mo ago
  How pedestrian. Cities like NYC, London, Paris, LA, Chicago, Denver, Seattle all had traffic problems with cars in 1925. In 1825 it was carriages and horse and buggy leaving horse manure all over the cobblestone or pavers. In 1725 it was horses and heavy hooves turning the dirt road into mud and clay muck. In 1625 it was much the same. We had a large population centralized in cities long before the Industrial Revolution. My point is there’s always some person complaining about the X on the road (as if their presence on the road isn’t somehow the opposite). https://www.history101.nyc/5th-avenue-street-scene-1925 https://www.history101.nyc/5th-avenue-street-scene-1925

echelon 10mo ago

Despite city dwellers hating on cars and wanting complete streets, cars are poised to win even bigger when self driving becomes widespread. Our roads and highways will metamorphose into logistics corridors and optimal public transit systems. Everything will be delivered same hour. The cost of this will drop and entire new business models will be built on top of the "direct to you" model. Self-driving cars will replace public transit. They connect every destination on demand. Short hops, cross-country long-haul. Waymo alikes will become cheaper than the city bus. Van life will accelerate. People will live in their automated vans and SUVs. They'll become luxury and status items for knowledge workers who are constantly conveying themselves coast to coast, from cozy fire pits by the sea to hidden mountain getaways. Life in America will become one of constant travel, because we can take our life with us without lifting a finger. People will have large home bases in the affordable suburbs - possibly one on each coast. They'll wine and dine in the city, then be off to hike the next day. Life will turn into adventure and it'll be accessible to almost everyone. Rich, poor. Young, old. Busy, retired. Nobody will lift a finger for any of this. We're going to want more roads. Bikes don't stand a chance. They're inequitable. Old people, pregnant people, sick people, and children are all left out. They suck in the rain and the snow. You can't move anything of size or scale. Automated self driving cars will win.

agenticfish 10mo ago
> Bikes don't stand a chance. They're inequitable. Old people, pregnant people, sick people, and children are all left out. They suck in the rain and the snow. You can't move anything of size or scale. I would invite you to come and have a look in the Netherlands. It’s very common for octogenarians to cycle. My wife cycled up to the day of the birth of our daughter. Children have more independence because they can cycle to football practice on their own. Bike lanes are great for mobility scooters. It rains here, a lot! And it snows. I picked up our Christmas tree with our cargo bike. When I need to transport anything larger I will book a carshare, which are dotted around our neighbourhood. And the result? People are happy and healthy.
- echelon 10mo ago
  European weather is still mild relative to the US. It will be so long as the Gulf Stream doesn't shut down. Americans are fatter and less healthy. Americans are busy and work longer and harder. ("Work hard, play hard.") Americans buy more stuff. Big stuff. Lots of stuff. Frequently. (This is actually a superpower of our consumer economy.) We have invested hundreds of trillions of dollars in our infrastructure. We might be able to put in a bike land here or there in a majorly dense city or two, but we're not changing all of this. And more than anything else, America is fucking huge. I know you Europeans love your model, but it doesn't apply to us. The proponents in the US trying to make it happen misunderstand the fundamental differences. Just five years ago I would have said you were selling a monorail fantasy or sight to the blind to us. And an unfortunate few in the US were lapping it up as something we could actually do. Now that self driving is finally arriving, what I'm saying is that our future is even brighter than most countries. We have the road infra to really make this magic. I can wake up one day, make my coffee, hop into my car with my wife, and through no effort of my own, wind up at a mountain resort. No security checkpoints. No hassle packing. No screaming babies. We can listen to music, read, cuddle. It's our own space taking us wherever we want at complete and total leisure, affordably, comfortably, privately. We can even detour for food or whatever. It's going to be pure magic. As big a revolution as the internet was.

tim333 10mo ago

In central London the cars are restricted quite a bit. In places like Soho and Oxford St they are more cluttered with pedestrians than cars.

Sam6late 10mo ago

The same case was in Italy, and calendars of Vespa were awesome back in the 70s ''Piaggio (maker of Vespa) had had its Pontedera (Italy) factory (where they used to make bomber planes) bombed during the conflict. Italy had it’s aircraft industry restricted to a great extent as part of the ceasefire agreement with the allies. Enrico Piaggio, son of the founder of the company Rinaldo Piaggio, decided to leave the aeronautical field behind and address the people’s need for an economic mode of transport. The idea was to make a scooter utilitarian and appealing enough to the masses. Till that time, scooters were mainly used by the military for quick on-ground transportation (you might have seen this in some Call of Duty games). So, two Piaggio engineers, Renzo Spolti and Vittorio Casini, took to their whiteboard and designed the first-ever Vespa, or maybe not quite. Mr. Piaggio was disappointed with the initial scooter. The scooter was named Paperino, and looking at the photo, you can understand Mr. Piaggios disappointment.' https://www.vespalicious.com/gallery/ https://www.vespalicious.com/gallery/

wakawaka28 10mo ago

I'm sure they went away because it's a fad or the costs/benefits don't balance, not because there is no space for them. This is evident by the fact that we have scooters in abundance now!

hexbin010 10mo ago

For real. Loads of places in the UK are in desperate need of wider paths. Some probably haven't changed for 100 years except for making them narrower with stupid full height advertising screens (a travesty and civic vandalism by the councils)

k4rli 10mo ago

Problem isn't the cars. Stop buying uselessly oversized SUVs, and trucks in case of muricans. A Fiat 500/Panda is perfectly fine in cities.

Scoundreller 10mo ago
I’d like to see the calculation of the reduction you get in roadway throughput by making the vehicles larger. If people stay further away from tractor trailers, they’ll stay further away from SUVs too. Even in an urban environment, if you stop X feet of distance from the back of the vehicle in front, if that vehicle is longer… Anyways, street parking should be paid by the square foot * 1.25 to account for getting in/out/around parked vehicles.
AmbroseBierce 10mo ago
Start charging taxes based on the number of square feet a car occupies and the problem will solve itself.