[HN Gopher] We're using our streets wrong [video]
___________________________________________________________________
We're using our streets wrong [video]
Author : mooreds
Score : 29 points
Date : 2023-02-27 16:12 UTC (6 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.youtube.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.youtube.com)
| bigyikes wrote:
| I'm a pro-car, pro-liberty kind of American, and I just arrived
| back from a few minutes ago from a trip to Amsterdam.
|
| God. Damn.
|
| They're doing something right there. Didn't use a car a single
| time, and was better off for it.
|
| I love my car and the open road, but I think I might prefer
| walkable cities...
|
| It feels like a more natural way to live. America feels very
| rigid and disconnected by comparison.
| GaryNumanVevo wrote:
| Did you go to any of the rural areas around Amsterdam? It's
| insane how connected they are to Centraal, you can take a bus
| for 20 minutes and be out in idyllic countryside north of
| Amsterdam
| dangoor wrote:
| Totally agreed. I went to Copenhagen last summer and it was
| _really nice_.
| rexreed wrote:
| The closest you'll get to that European-style city in the US is
| Boston. It's very walkable, high density public transport, and
| quite a bit of charm in my opinion. Also cars are clearly an
| after-thought in Boston proper.
| jandrese wrote:
| I would have thought New York City would also qualify.
| rexreed wrote:
| NYC definitely has urban density and good public transport,
| but it's much bigger than Boston, and more car-friendly
| than Boston.
| throw0101c wrote:
| > _I love my car and the open road, but I think I might prefer
| walkable cities..._
|
| The more people that have walking, cycling, and transit as an
| option, the fewer people may drive, reducing congestion for the
| folks that have no choice to drive (e.g., deliveries, service
| techs, etc), or those that may need/want to drive only
| occasionally.
|
| Not Just Bikes (of course) had a video "The Best Country in the
| World for Drivers":
|
| > _The Netherlands is famous for bicycles, and putting walking,
| cycling, and public transit ahead of cars. Yet paradoxically,
| it 's the best place in the world to be a driver._
|
| * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8RRE2rDw4k
|
| Further, by having higher density (and not even the Manhattan-
| levels that some folks think when they hear "urban"), you need
| less land, which means you don't have to pave over rural areas
| as much and you get more _actual nature_.
| jandrese wrote:
| You might want to take a look at biking again. Most people
| think "oh no, I live in a suburb it will be impossible", but
| once you really give it a shot you might be surprised at how
| many places you can reach on a bike.
|
| A 5 mile bike commute sounds like it will be impossible, but it
| only took me about a month to acclimate to it and I'm hardy a
| fitness nut. Now I only drive when the weather is particularly
| nasty or there is too much ice on the ground. Also, the
| selection of affordable e-Bikes has absolutely exploded over
| the past couple of years and they can seriously open up
| opportunities if you're willing to try. Just because people say
| that American suburbs require a car doesn't make it true.
| BrianHenryIE wrote:
| I agree people don't realise how easy and useful a bike can
| be for them.
|
| People's main regret is not trying it sooner!
| Gualdrapo wrote:
| And versatile. From getting your groceries to exploring
| those places you'd never been before. Not even speaking
| about the benefits for your health.
|
| Here in Latin America we somehow imported the car-centric
| culture from the USA but slowly people has been realizing
| it just don't fit too well our own complexities. Things
| like the Ciclovia[1] here in Bogota came to be in part of
| that - people didn't liked how we surrended that much space
| for cars, and people wanted to do some workout. Why can't
| we take some of that space for that, at least temporarily?
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ciclovia
| twblalock wrote:
| The real question is how you would like to live in one of the
| rowhouses there, compared to what you can get in America.
| jswrenn wrote:
| I, for one, would very much so like to live in a row house,
| but they're nigh illegal to construct in my city.
| GaryNumanVevo wrote:
| Having lived in both SF / NYC and Amsterdam, the Dutch flats
| have a much higher standard for everything, lighting / heat /
| appliances. Good luck finding a place in NYC that's not a
| renovation nightmare hiding under a thin coat of paint
| andrewxdiamond wrote:
| NYC is a poor comparison since it too is a quite walkable
| city. A better comparison might be Cleveland or Chicago,
| which are much more Americanly unwalkable commuter cities
| DoneWithAllThat wrote:
| [flagged]
| dang wrote:
| Please don't do this here.
| jvolkman wrote:
| This video gives off strong us vs. them vibes, but doesn't really
| recognize that the cars are also people - either directly as
| passengers or indirectly as services for people.
| kitkat_new wrote:
| How could it happen that we haven't thought of these problems
| before we turned everything into car infrastructure?
| u801e wrote:
| We never turned everything into car infrastructure. Other than
| controlled access highways like interstates that are restricted
| to motor vehicles that can maintain a minimum speed, all other
| roads are shared infrastructure that can be legally used by
| those who are walking or are using vehicles other than cars.
|
| The fact that some people think we need to separate different
| modes of transportation is the reason why people aren't trying
| alternative modes of transportation like cycling. Legally,
| there's a single set of rules of movement that apply to all
| vehicle drivers:
|
| 1. Keep to the right side of the road 2. Yield to through
| traffic before entering a roadway 3. Yield to oncoming traffic
| when making a left turn 4. Make right turns from as close as
| practicable to the right edge of the roadway 5. Make left turns
| from as close as practicable to the center of the roadway 6.
| The vehicle in front has the right of way over the vehicle
| behind (first come, first served).
|
| Follow those rules no matter what vehicle you're using and
| there really aren't any issues. I've ridden tens of thousands
| of miles over nearly 20 years on roads and never had a problem
| by riding in a predictable manner, signaling my intentions in
| advance, and following those rules.
| Johnny555 wrote:
| _all other roads are shared infrastructure that can be
| legally used by those who are walking or are using vehicles
| other than cars._
|
| Try walking on the road in any business district and see how
| long it is until you get a ticket for jaywalking or illegally
| walking in the road.
|
| And while a rural highway with little to no shoulder may be
| _legally_ open to pedestrians and bikes, it 's _practically_
| inaccessible since sharing a road with 50 mph traffic (which
| means real-life 60+ mph speeds) is risky.
| u801e wrote:
| > Try walking on the road in any business district and see
| how long it is until you get a ticket for jaywalking or
| illegally walking in the road.
|
| What law are you referring to that makes it illegal for
| pedestrians to walk on the road facing traffic on a road in
| a business district.
|
| > since sharing a road with 50 mph traffic (which means
| real-life 60+ mph speeds) is risky.
|
| I've done it plenty of times and motorists simply change
| lanes to pass me. Most motorists are only comfortable going
| 60 mph of they're able to see at least 700 feet or more in
| front of them. That gives then at least 7 seconds to see a
| cyclist and the cyclist that much time to see them in their
| mirrors. That's enough time to tell whether the motorist is
| slowing down or changing lanes to pass. If they aren't,
| then you can ride off road to avoid a collision.
|
| In my years of experience riding on roads with 50 mph+
| speeds, every motorist either changed lanes or slowed down
| well before they caught up with me based on what I could
| see in my mirrors.
| dangoor wrote:
| Not Just Bikes has a good series on this topic:
| https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLJp5q-R0lZ0_FCUbeVWK6...
|
| It ties into the whole suburban experiment. Lots of single
| family detached homes on their own pieces of land spread things
| out, raising the need for cars to get anywhere. Those homes
| were sold as "the American Dream". Of course, once people are
| in those homes, they not only need to drive to stores to buy
| stuff but also to work or to other activities happening in the
| city proper, thus requiring more roads to build up to get
| there. Plus the whole stroad thing rose up as well to meet the
| demands of people in suburbia.
|
| Not Just Bikes also covers interesting bits about how this
| whole thing is also on financially shaky footing given how much
| the infrastructure costs to get services out to spread out
| hoomes.
| bena wrote:
| I imagine it's a problem of creep as well.
|
| In 40 years, we've added a touch over 3 billion people to the
| planet. That's nearly double the population in under one
| lifetime. Everyone alive then and born within the next 24 years
| of 1983 are all old enough to own and operate a motor vehicle
| today.
|
| Roughly 2/3 of the population is 16+. Just assuming that holds
| throughout history (and it probably doesn't, but for argument's
| sake let's pretend), there were about 3 billion potential
| vehicles then and 5 billion now. (Using 4.5b and 7.5b for the
| population counts for easier math. The real totals are a bit
| over).
|
| We've nearly doubled the number of potential cars on the road.
|
| But we didn't do that overnight. We did that over 40 years. And
| every 5 years or so, it may seem reasonable to make a few more
| adjustments for car infrastructure. Until we're here, today.
| And it's not until we look back that we see how much we've
| given over to car infrastructure at the expense of everything
| else.
| jeffbee wrote:
| If you understand that white people assumed black folks would
| never get to own cars and it would be their privilege to drive
| into the city, park for free, and drive home at night then it
| makes way more sense.
| groby_b wrote:
| 14% of Americans are black. Without debating that the US is
| full of systemic racism: Do you really think anybody believed
| "well, with 14% less cars, this works"? And this isn't even
| accounting for the fact that white people buy significantly
| more cars.
|
| We can add that 34% of black people use public transit, and
| only 14% of white people do. The problem really isn't black
| people having cars, or the missing assumption of black people
| having cars.
| dav_Oz wrote:
| Well, one major player on shaping the streets was the emerging
| car industry itself. Not the only factor of course but
| nevertheless a very interesting story [0] to tell from that
| perspective where pedestrians not obeying the new strict rules
| began to be called jaywalkers.
|
| [0]https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=oOttvpjJvAo
| jasonwatkinspdx wrote:
| It made more sense to me watching historic footage of when
| freeway expansion was happening in the US in the 50s and 60s.
|
| Congestion was very low. If you're one of a small number of
| cars, where you never see traffic jams, there's always an empty
| parking space waiting for you, then it all looks quite
| pleasant. In other words, it was a luxury that couldn't scale
| to higher densities.
|
| And if you think like an anthropologist you see this same
| dynamic popping up in neighboring contexts. Why do we have
| houses with grassy yards? Because this echos the estates of
| aristocrats in centuries past, where only the wealthy could
| afford to have land maintained as purely aesthetic gardens
| rather than some practical agricultural purpose. Suburbia
| essentially offered everyone the chance to live like a royal of
| days past. Except because it doesn't scale, that offer ended up
| being a trap many places.
|
| Thinking of it like this, as status symbols that didn't scale,
| lots of things like the trend towards McMansions makes more
| straightforward sense.
|
| And to be clear, I'm not some sort of density zealot. I just
| think the options should be more diverse, rather than the
| current system in the US which prioritizes cars at the cost of
| everyone else, even in contexts where it clearly simply does
| not work.
| kfarr wrote:
| Sometimes I think of cars as a classic prisoner's dilemma. If
| everyone has cars, everyone is worse off than if we all agreed
| not to have them. But individuals in isolation will always
| choose to have a car if they even slightly benefit. In most
| first-world countries now anyone of nearly any socioeconomic
| status can get access to a car, so we've hit maximum saturation
| which decreases quality of life for everyone.
|
| The negativity of car infra was very slow to appear and for a
| long time cars appeared to be a miracle. For some it's obvious
| in retrospect that we've over-invested in motor vehicle
| infrastructure, but for many the negative externalities are
| still not clear and/or ignored by the training of societal
| norms.
| oezi wrote:
| > But individuals in isolation will always choose to have a
| car if they even slightly benefit.
|
| Car ownership is a terrible economic decision in many, many
| cases. It is just metal rusting motionless most of the time.
| They are a perfect example of irrational behavior. Many
| people would be financially better off to rent cars for long
| trips and rely on public transport otherwise (most rural
| settings aside).
| blowski wrote:
| This argument works less well for families living in less
| urban areas.
| kfarr wrote:
| Yes it is a fact for most people when you run the numbers
| all inclusive (not just car payments but insurance, gas,
| tolls, tickets, repairs, parking, oil changes, etc) they
| just don't pencil out. In fact Uber and Lyft knew this and
| part of their "success" was in leveraging sunk cost fallacy
| that car owners want to "make extra money" with an
| underwater asset whose depreciation from making said "extra
| money" is not included in the calculation of most drivers.
| sublinear wrote:
| This is important to major metro areas in the USA, but I'm
| struggling to determine who watches this kind of video apart from
| those already convinced?
|
| The way this is presented is a bit tone deaf and stuck in the mid
| 2010s. No practical examples are ever given for the replacement
| of aging infrastructure or reuse of still perfectly good
| infrastructure. Costs are never broken down either nor are
| timelines given.
| Johnny555 wrote:
| _No practical examples are ever given for the replacement of
| aging infrastructure or reuse of still perfectly good
| infrastructure_
|
| It did mention how things took a step forward with the uprising
| of parklets and on-street dining during the COVID pandemic. My
| town still has much of the on-street parking replaced by
| outdoor dining spaces, making an area that would have served a
| couple cars for the evening into an area enjoyed by a dozen
| people.
|
| Change is possible if we want to make the change.
| pastage wrote:
| Of course we have cost estimate and comparisons. What do you
| want to know? The biggest hurdle is that every car centric
| project will at least double the cost for other uses of the
| city/land. That is just for the investment in infra, but car
| infrastructure is also extremely expensive to maintain so there
| is less money available for other modes of transport.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-02-27 23:02 UTC)