4 ms·

One way is to stop the war on cars. I see many cities basically making driving purposely bad. Super low speed limits, speed bumps, unnecessary bike lanes, poorl

One way is to stop the war on cars. I see many cities basically making driving purposely bad. Super low speed limits, speed bumps, unnecessary bike lanes, poorly timed traffic lights, no right turn on red, etc. It’s all the typical pro bike anti car stuff but it hurts traffic. They never measure travel times in a transparent way as they make these destructive changes.

halostatue 3mo ago
The only way to stop congestion is to get cars off the road. Cars are the congestion. There is no other definition, and no other solution. HOW you get cars off the road is worthy of debate. Pretending that there's a "war on cars" is not and never has been. Cars and their drivers have been subsidized for more than a century, never paying the full cost of the damage that they do to the environment, the roads, etc. 1. Car taxes / registrations should be based on weight and energy usage inefficiency and ratchet up quickly for personal vehicles that are larger than some sensible size based on pedestrian safety at no more than 30 kph. (Drivers of modern pickup trucks and SUVs cannot see pedestrians shorter than ~1.7m at ~5m, and the fact that their fronts are basically walls mean that those pedestrians are more likely to be killed on impact or bounced under the tires.) 2. There should absolutely be congestion pricing to enter downtown locations during the day or other times when vehicular traffic will be high. Yes, that means that most deliveries by transport truck would need to be staged into smaller vehicles and delivered to the businesses needing them, or delivered overnight. 3. Uber, Lyft, and Waymo are part of the problem and should be treated as such. 4. There should be more investment in public transit. Paid for by increased registrations and congestion pricing, preferentially. Fares should be reduced, ideally to free. More use of public transit makes it safer and incentivizes making it faster. 5. There should absolutely be more bike lanes in pretty much every city. It's called induced demand and once the infrastructure is safe, you will see increased usage by all sorts of alternative mobility users (but mini e-motorcycles should be licensed just like regular motorcycles and should not be using the mobility infrastructure). 6. Pedestrian and wheelchair users matter first and foremost over any other road user (bikes, scooters, cars, etc.). We've had 50+ years of Robert Moses being proved wrong. It's time to design cities around people, not around cars. Call that a war on cars if you want, but it's not: it's a war for peoples' quality of life. Cars can be part of the solution, but they need to be treated like the problem they are first.
- SilverElfin 3mo ago
  Wrong. Cars are high utility and should remain on roads. They increase quality of life by giving you a fast way to get to exactly where you want on your own schedule. And designing for cars IS designing for people, obviously. Who do you think is inside cars?
  - evandale 3mo ago
    Designing for public transit and cycling benefits far more people than designing exclusively for single passenger cars. Who do you think are on bikes and in buses?
    - xnx 3mo ago
      > designing exclusively for single passenger cars What is design for single passenger cars? Most cars can fit 5 people and roads also carry buses, ambulances, and trucks that carry every single product* in the economy. * Probably with the exception of coal and some mining materials.
      - chriswarbo 3mo ago
        > Most cars can fit 5 people So you agree that most cars are far larger and heavier than required? First search result for "average car occupancy"[1]: > In 2022 the Average Number of Occupants Per Trip for Household Vehicles in the United States Was 1.5 This discrepancy is the reason for car pooling, ride-sharing, etc. (Note that Uber, Lyft, etc. are taxi services, not "ride sharing"; since the drivers themselves are not typically intending to travel the routes they drive) > roads also carry buses Yes, which is why cars should be removed from such roads, to avoid slowing down buses. > ambulances Emergency vehicles can drive in places where cars are forbidden (cycle paths, pedestrianised roads, etc.) > trucks that carry every single product* in the economy. Again, you're undermining your own argument: the subsidies given to private car infrastructure are so large, that freight companies exploiting that infrastructure can end up more cost-effective than those which use rail; despite rail being more efficient not only in terms of fuel, but also in terms of labour (since so many trucks would be required to do the job of a single freight train, and each of those trucks require a separate driver). Also note that heavier vehicles degrade the road infrastructure disproportionately; which is even more reason to reduce the number of trucks as far as possible. [1] https://www.energy.gov/cmei/vehicles/articles/fotw-1333-march-11-2024-2022-average-number-occupants-trip-household https://www.energy.gov/cmei/vehicles/articles/fotw-1333-marc...
tom_vidal 3mo ago
No. The reason cities are working so hard to build these kinds of safety measures is that cars are horrendously dangerous for people walking and biking. The “war on cars” is a war for the safety and dignity of everyone outside of cars.
- SilverElfin 3mo ago
  They aren’t dangerous. Road fatalities are still very low per mile driven and are falling over time. Cars are getting safer all the time with their sensors and intelligent features like automatic braking. The war on cars is an irrational safetyism campaign driven by selfish bicyclists more than anyone else. And the goal vision zero proposes makes no sense because it doesn’t account for the benefit of cars.

halostatue 3mo ago

The only way to stop congestion is to get cars off the road. Cars are the congestion. There is no other definition, and no other solution. HOW you get cars off the road is worthy of debate. Pretending that there's a "war on cars" is not and never has been. Cars and their drivers have been subsidized for more than a century, never paying the full cost of the damage that they do to the environment, the roads, etc. 1. Car taxes / registrations should be based on weight and energy usage inefficiency and ratchet up quickly for personal vehicles that are larger than some sensible size based on pedestrian safety at no more than 30 kph. (Drivers of modern pickup trucks and SUVs cannot see pedestrians shorter than ~1.7m at ~5m, and the fact that their fronts are basically walls mean that those pedestrians are more likely to be killed on impact or bounced under the tires.) 2. There should absolutely be congestion pricing to enter downtown locations during the day or other times when vehicular traffic will be high. Yes, that means that most deliveries by transport truck would need to be staged into smaller vehicles and delivered to the businesses needing them, or delivered overnight. 3. Uber, Lyft, and Waymo are part of the problem and should be treated as such. 4. There should be more investment in public transit. Paid for by increased registrations and congestion pricing, preferentially. Fares should be reduced, ideally to free. More use of public transit makes it safer and incentivizes making it faster. 5. There should absolutely be more bike lanes in pretty much every city. It's called induced demand and once the infrastructure is safe, you will see increased usage by all sorts of alternative mobility users (but mini e-motorcycles should be licensed just like regular motorcycles and should not be using the mobility infrastructure). 6. Pedestrian and wheelchair users matter first and foremost over any other road user (bikes, scooters, cars, etc.). We've had 50+ years of Robert Moses being proved wrong. It's time to design cities around people, not around cars. Call that a war on cars if you want, but it's not: it's a war for peoples' quality of life. Cars can be part of the solution, but they need to be treated like the problem they are first.

SilverElfin 3mo ago
Wrong. Cars are high utility and should remain on roads. They increase quality of life by giving you a fast way to get to exactly where you want on your own schedule. And designing for cars IS designing for people, obviously. Who do you think is inside cars?
- evandale 3mo ago
  Designing for public transit and cycling benefits far more people than designing exclusively for single passenger cars. Who do you think are on bikes and in buses?
  - xnx 3mo ago
    > designing exclusively for single passenger cars What is design for single passenger cars? Most cars can fit 5 people and roads also carry buses, ambulances, and trucks that carry every single product* in the economy. * Probably with the exception of coal and some mining materials.
    - chriswarbo 3mo ago
      > Most cars can fit 5 people So you agree that most cars are far larger and heavier than required? First search result for "average car occupancy"[1]: > In 2022 the Average Number of Occupants Per Trip for Household Vehicles in the United States Was 1.5 This discrepancy is the reason for car pooling, ride-sharing, etc. (Note that Uber, Lyft, etc. are taxi services, not "ride sharing"; since the drivers themselves are not typically intending to travel the routes they drive) > roads also carry buses Yes, which is why cars should be removed from such roads, to avoid slowing down buses. > ambulances Emergency vehicles can drive in places where cars are forbidden (cycle paths, pedestrianised roads, etc.) > trucks that carry every single product* in the economy. Again, you're undermining your own argument: the subsidies given to private car infrastructure are so large, that freight companies exploiting that infrastructure can end up more cost-effective than those which use rail; despite rail being more efficient not only in terms of fuel, but also in terms of labour (since so many trucks would be required to do the job of a single freight train, and each of those trucks require a separate driver). Also note that heavier vehicles degrade the road infrastructure disproportionately; which is even more reason to reduce the number of trucks as far as possible. [1] https://www.energy.gov/cmei/vehicles/articles/fotw-1333-march-11-2024-2022-average-number-occupants-trip-household https://www.energy.gov/cmei/vehicles/articles/fotw-1333-marc...

tom_vidal 3mo ago

No. The reason cities are working so hard to build these kinds of safety measures is that cars are horrendously dangerous for people walking and biking. The “war on cars” is a war for the safety and dignity of everyone outside of cars.

SilverElfin 3mo ago
They aren’t dangerous. Road fatalities are still very low per mile driven and are falling over time. Cars are getting safer all the time with their sensors and intelligent features like automatic braking. The war on cars is an irrational safetyism campaign driven by selfish bicyclists more than anyone else. And the goal vision zero proposes makes no sense because it doesn’t account for the benefit of cars.