Hacker News Reader

Comment by briefcomment | Hacker News Reader

Nope, the article says

"Accordingly, says Milan Mayor Beppe Sala, the city plans to maintain its metro system’s capacity at less than two-thirds of its pre-pandemic activity. Instead of the 1.4 million average trips it saw daily before the pandemic, it will accommodate a maximum daily ridership of 400,000."

Instead, they're focusing on supporting walking and cycling.

"As a result, Milan is going big on cycling and walking. Over the summer, the city core will be partly remodeled to give over 22 miles (35 kilometers) of road space previously used by cars to bikes and pedestrians. Those cars that are allowed into the center must adhere to a new reduced 30 kilometers per hour speed limit. The aim is to make traffic more fluid and give pedestrians more space to spread out safely."

View on HN

> the city plans to maintain its metro system’s capacity at less than two-thirds of its pre-pandemic activity.

As a resident of Milan, I find this rather displeasing. I don't own a car (and have no plans to own one), and I exclusively depend on the metro + trains to get to work, which is too far away for serious walking or even cycling. FTR: it's actually far easier to go there (at least from where I live) with public transport than walking , cycling, and even with a car.

Even at full capacity trains are already packed, and I'm afraid that this will make matters worse than before (example: at some point last month metro lines cut rides to < 50%, and were hastily pushed above that again because trains were too crowded even for the decreased ridership, people who could not work from home and had to go to work instead).

Also, what happens if it rains?

> Also, what happens if it rains?

I'm from Copenhagen. Almost two thirds of us use our bikes to get around. The weather is incredibly shifty on this island and during autumn and winter it rains pretty much every day. Not always all day, but there's a high chance it will rain during your daily commute.

So what do all the people here do? To cope with the weather we have developed advanced technology that negates the effects of rain. It's called: the raincoat.

Not all of Europe is Copengahen when it comes to climate, quite the contrary (even though that is very hard to understand even for some of the people I talk to here in Bucharest). Not sure about how rain manifests itself in Milan but summer rains here in Bucharest can be quite the thing, one minute you're minding your own business and two minutes later you can soaking wet if you had dared stay in said summer rain for too long. Something like this [1] or this [2]

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AYtYcV-S_0M

[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5e4dxzpZCZ0

There's plenty of heavy showers during summer in Denmark too.

Also, what happens if it rains?

That is a cultural dislike. Seriously.

I was born in the states - Indiana. NO one walked when it rained unless you were poor. When you did walk, you probably had an umbrella. Being female meant that sometimes, people would offer me rides randomly.

I moved to Trondheim, Norway. There is a saying here - "There is no bad weather, only bad clothes". Which, you know, is only half correct. I do not drive here. I walk. I take public transport. I do this regardless of whether in general. I do tend to avoid walking if it is really heavy rain, but not so much in normal rain. People bike with snow and ice on the ground (I'm not that brave). And yes, clothes make a big difference (though they do not turn weather 'good). You simply get used to it and get over it.

Some back of envelope estimates: 75 minutes of walking to get to the workplace. Approximately 50 minutes if I go via bicycle (directions are not straightforward for many reasons). This is regardless of weather and/or traffic if on the road. 30-40 minutes if I go via metro + train (the actual trips take 10ish minutes each).

Unless forced to do differently, the most efficient choice is evident. I'm also lucky enough to live inside the city. Commuters that can't work from home have it even rougher, since they live outside and they take up to an hour or more with public transport.

Sure, that's out of reasonable walking distance: Depending on your day, the occasional bicycle isn't out of question. Even in rain. (To be fair, I'll walk daily anywhere that is 30-45minutes most days).

But honestly, the bicycle is cultural as it would be better to prioritize bikes so it is faster. Same for public transportation. Car-first infrastructure and lack of pedestrian/bicycle/mass transit are political decisions.

In fact, people are actually using bike sharing a lot already here since they were first put into practice several years ago (there are stations where you can hop on close to many spots with high traffic).

They've been expanding the bike share things here. I nearly used them last year, but they are even more so now. I suspect I'll bike this summer.

They've had some for years, mind you - but they were really more in the tourist spots. Now they are putting them in next to a fair amount of regular bus stops.

This is misleading - the city controls supply, not demand.

By cutting service in specific routes, they're probably just going to increase density on them.

The issue is less about 'net capacity / ridership' as much as literally density on each ride.

Paradoxically, reducing density comes with increasing capacity.

Cities/central planners do this kind of thing all the time, they change some thing over here and think that people's behaviour will change. Sometimes it does - but people still need to get to work, pick up their kids, etc. and if the choice is not public transport, it's often 'car'.

Again, creating 'more supply' of biking routes may move the needle but it doesn't change the fact you live 12km from the office and biking is not practical for many people in those circumstances.

There is nothing in the article to suggest they're reducing service. There's also nothing in your comment to suggest you read the article, so I don't think you're aware of what's planned.

> the floors of metro cars and buses will be marked out with circles showing passengers the right level of distance to maintain. If the system looks like it will exceed the passenger numbers that makes this level of distancing possible, station entrances will be temporarily closed until congestion eases.

+ school times changed, shops open later, etc.

"There is nothing in the article to suggest they're reducing service"

Is literally from the article and the comment I was responding to.

Please read the article before complaining to others that they may not have read the article.

> By cutting service in specific routes

You invented that bit.

It is perhaps clearer in the original announcement from the head of the Milanese transport authority:

"Our metro carried around 1,400,000 people every day. To maintain a distance of one meter, while keeping the maximum service, as in the height of the winter season, this number will have to drop to 25-30%."

https://www.radiolombardia.it/2020/04/21/granelli-a-milano-p...

> This is misleading - the city controls supply, not demand.

Well. Relevant quote from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_demand

"Trying to cure traffic congestion by adding more capacity is like trying to cure obesity by loosening your belt."

Shitty quote. Induced demand is a lazy intellectual concept that fails to realize that congestion follows a standard supply and demand curve and the price is just being hidden because the monetary cost is usually free for everyone so it’s all based on time cost.

So you add supply, you capture more of the demand that has been there at a lower cost. You didn’t induce shit. You will eventually add enough supply that everyone will be satisfied (see every road not suffering from congestion issues).

”Trying to cure a toilet paper shortage by producing more toilet paper is like trying to cure obesity by loosening your belt.”

Because we don’t charge for roads, users “pay” in congestion delays, so as we widen roads more drivers can use the road at the same “price” measured in minutes of delay. In some cases You might say that increased capacity induced hesitant drivers to drive.

That is the point. There are people who want to go somewhere but congestion is making them not go. Eventually you get a head of it and things are free flowing while everyone gets where they want to go. In middle of nowhere rural area everything is this way. In big dense cities you would need 30+ levels of bridges (at much great expense per user than rural gravel roads).

I will fully agree that cities should build something other than bridges and parking garages. However induced demand is not a factor because cities that are not ahead of so called induced demand are leaving behind (part of) the great advantage of a cities over rural areas: the vast amount of different places you can get to in a short time.

One way of looking at it is to consider the area of road required per citizen during transportation. If a car consumes 10 square meters of road and a bike only consumes 2 square meters of road, converting a car lane into two bike lanes should immediately reduce traffic congestion. If and only if, of course, enough people are able and willing to do so.

Cars can go a lot faster than a bicycle (assuming safety is a concern, there is a reason I don't have a motorcycle - which isn't to say cars are safe) thus per unit time you can get more distance in a car. Which is back to my point: you are throwing away the point of the city with that argument. I realize parking takes more space, but it will be ages before the city rebuilds to the new reality and until then it isn't functioning like it should.

Yes, decreasing the cost to capture more of the demand curve doesn’t need a special term. That’s why “induced demand” is so dumb. The demand was always there, the busy road was just too high a cost.

It still doesn't work, because the places where the roads ultimately end up, cities, cannot add more roads. It has to stop somewhere.

But they can add more roads via tunnels, bridges, etc. People just don’t want to pay the cost but instead of just saying that they handwave with stupid crap like “induced demand” to pretend it’s an intractable problem.

Also, tons of people give no fucks about going to the city. It’s not some grand final destination. Some of the worst congestion points in the Bay Area aren’t anywhere near dense city.

12 Km is nothing by bike

12km is 30-35 mins on a bike. If you're elderly or less fit you can buy an electrical bike.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com