Hacker News Reader

Comment by throwawaysea | Hacker News Reader

This would be incredibly frustrating to me as a car driver. I don’t think having shared roads for a vocal minority of bikers makes sense. It basically slows down everyone to bike speed, which I realize is the unspoken strategy of bike activists, and it is also why I am against supporting bike-friendly policies in their current form. It makes more sense to have cities build raised biking/walking lanes outside of the traffic (on pillars). Why aren’t cities exploring such strategies to accommodate those who like the fast point to point benefits of cars alongside those who are OK taking it slow or going out for a bike ride?

View on HN

Have you ever spent time in BCN? Unless you're way out in the suburbs of Badalona, there's very little reason to use a car for commuting. Secondly, raised lanes are horrendously expensive, ugly, and reduce street level light. Any city where they're the default is going to be a city where bike infrastructure effectively doesn't exist.

Cities should serve people, not cars.

I have spent a lot of time in Barcelona, and love the city, although I’ve only had short stays (~weeks) and haven’t resided there in the traditional sense. I think increasing car hostility makes it less hospitable and accessible to many people away from the core. There’s also a tradeoff which isn’t being acknowledged here. A city that manages its density appropriately will have faster travel times via cars compared to public transit or biking (BCN may be past this inflection point). You can see this in cities like Seattle - it’s not even a close comparison, as driving is at least twice as fast as any alternate mode. That time saved is very valuable, and necessary for anyone who wants to live a rich, fulfilled lifestyle with room for activities, families, and friends.

> Secondly, raised lanes are horrendously expensive, ugly, and reduce street level light.

Having bikes in roads is expensive too. It costs everyone time, which is money. Ugly is subjective. And as for street level light - maybe. That depends on the exact parameters like road width. On a wider arterial road a raised greenway on pillars wouldn’t cast a shadow on the street level sidewalks. Chicago has an elevated rail system for example, and it doesn’t cause streets to feel dark.

> Cities should serve people, not cars.

Respectfully, this is an empty slogan. You could just as well say “cities should serve people, not bikes”. Cities serve people better by accommodating cars. People are who chose to raise taxes and spend money on roads for cars.

Are you suggesting Seattle has a better commute situation than Barcelona? Respectfully, that's insane. Moreover, large parts of the city were designed prior to motorized vehicles and encourage frequent mode mixing. High speed is simply not on the table for discussion. The choice is between low speed, low density car traffic, or mixed mode. The latter is clearly much better for neighborhoods and the city as a whole.

Yes Seattle has a better commute situation than Barcelona. It is easy to get from a suburb to the core or to cross the city by car. Even if you live right on a rapid bus line or light rail stop, simply not having to wait for the next bus/train means the car commute is significantly faster. I'm not sure what you find 'insane' in my claim. Certainly Seattle is changing, because the recent local governments have been pushing controversial zoning changes that increase city density - but even in 2021 a public transit commute in the Seattle metro area is far worse than private car commute. No public transit system in the world can offer a similar travel time as a car in a city like Seattle, since the cars are moving through much of that distance at speeds greater than 60 mph (100 kmh).

Average daily commute in Barcelona is 48 minutes-ranking along with the best cities in US where minimum is 44, and you don't need a car in Barcelona to achieve it.

If there is no high speed how are people supposed to get in from out of the city in some timely fashion? You say better for neighborhoods and the city without considering all the outer neighborhoods that often house more people than the inner ones.

Barcelona has a functional public transit system, including fairly far reaching metros. It's pretty unusual to find a trip that's more than a hour at any time of day.

> A city that manages its density appropriately will have faster travel times via cars compared to public transit or biking

This seems like nonsense. Surely public transport has more capacity than cars, or at least it is not guaranteed that cars have more.

I intentionally claimed "faster travel times", not more capacity for people. Low to mid density cities in the US have fast travel times for drivers. They are a significantly better option in terms of travel time than even the best public transit in the world, simply because you are going directly from point to point, at relatively high speed, with no stops, no wait times, and so on. The time savings alone are a big benefit but it also means you can live to fit your own schedule (not needing to plan too much), transport cargo/other people at will, use that car to go to places away from what public transit covers, etc.

> I intentionally claimed "faster travel times", not more capacity for people

If faster travel times means shorter commute time, surely public transport with more capacity improves the average time for the average person going to the average places.

> They are a significantly better option in terms of travel time than even the best public transit in the world, simply because you are going directly from point to point, at relatively high speed, with no stops, no wait times

I believe the problem with this reasoning is that cars take space, and roads too. Lots of roads and parking will make a place less dense, and will increase distances.

The best public transit in the world covers the areas where on average most people go (thus serving the most people), has better energy efficiency (a single bus consumes less per passenger than a car), and removes the need for lots of parking infrastructure. Everything else being equal, public transport is the most efficient, and provides faster travel times on average for the average person (I concede, not for everyone).

In a place not built for cars (like Barcelona), rush hour is a nightmare where cars hardly move (take the tram in Diagonal in the morning and you will move faster than the cars next to you). Most people there take the metro/bus/ride a bike + walk for less than 30 minutes. As an example, a 30min ride on the L1 red line metro (without changing lines) will bring you from Hospitalet de Llobregat (metropolitan area of Barcelona) to the city center.

I might be biased in favor of cities made to walk, instead of made for cars. What I do not concede is that cars provide faster travel times than the best public transport. I would be happy to get some data that supports your assertion.

That said, I agree with your other usages (cargo, transport people, go to places far away, independence).

It is also true that while traveling on public transport you can read, and by walking/riding a bike you improve your health compared to sitting in a car. A city with less cars is also more walkable. More "walkability" might be better for shops, maybe even improve safety. These advantages need to be weighted against cars too :)

I don't own or use a bike, I am a car driver. Personal cars are absurdly inefficient on many levels. They take up precious urban space (roads and parking lots), they injure and kill people, they are extremely expensive, they are a major source of pollution.... Every time I've been stuck in five lanes of gridlock I've thought to myself, "This is one of the dumbest infrastructure issues that modern humans have to put up with." Bikes and public transportation just make way more sense in urban areas on so many levels, it's not even close. Cars are a blight on the urban landscape. The only reason I drive one daily is because our infrastructure leaves me no other choice. It sucks.

Most bike activists don't have an unspoken strategy of slowing people down. They want to be able to use their bike to get places safely and quickly and they want others to feel able to do that too.

It doesn't make sense to create biking / walking lanes raised up on pillars because a) that introduces artificial hills and b) it increases effort to get places - you'll only be able to get on or off the raised system at a ramp, which might be inconvenient.

In London the average car speed is 11-12 mph, and then you'll have to walk to / from a car park. Cars aren't always fast and point to point

>Why aren’t cities exploring such strategies to accommodate those who like the fast point to point benefits of cars alongside those who are OK taking it slow or going out for a bike ride?

Because everybody wants to get from point to point fastest and safest way possible and doing it by car is not the answer which scales.

Car pollute, are extremely dangerous to other road users, and take a lot of space on the road. Cars in city should be the exception, not the rule.

> pollute

I consider the level of pollution to be minimal. It’s not even noticeable in many US cities. Plus this is also always improving, particularly with increasing popularity of hybrids and electric cars.

> extremely dangerous to other road user

First off, “extremely dangerous” is hyperbole. The number of fatalities on roads is very low, and it will keep getting lower as safety features like blind spot monitoring become standards. Roads are already incredibly safe - in the US the fatality rate is something like 1 per 100 million vehicle miles.

But safety is also why roads should be reserved for motorized vehicles. Your assertion also seems very one sided. Safety is a two way thing - a substantial portion of bikers put themselves in danger by riding where they really shouldn’t.

> take a lot of space on the road

They also provide a lot of utility, which is why taxpayers funded roads and parking spaces to begin with. I, and I suspect most people, don’t mind using space for things that are high value, like cars.

> I consider the level of pollution to be minimal. It’s not even noticeable in many US cities.

Transport is one of the highest contributors to greenhouse gases in the US with light vehicles being the largest contributor to that sector https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=P10127TU.pdf

>The number of fatalities on roads is very low,

Road traffic crashes are a leading cause of death in the United States for people aged 1–54 https://www.cdc.gov/injury/features/global-road-safety/index...

> and it will keep getting lower as safety features like blind spot monitoring become standards.

The rate has been pretty stagnant for the last 10 years https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in...

> the US the fatality rate is something like 1 per 100 million vehicle miles.

This is true, but this number needs context. Average US driver covers 13k a year * by a lifetime of driving your over 1/2 a million miles per person, so the number you should be presenting is 1 in 200 chance to die. And thats just fatalities, when you consdier serious injury as well, the number isn't great.

> I suspect most people, don’t mind using space for things that are high value, like cars.

Was with you until "like cars". Cars waste a lot of space. They take up space in city centres, parked, while you're working/shopping, when you're actually in them they're still using a lot of space for typically one person. I think we'll see a lot more of this in the coming decades: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freeway_removal

>take a lot of space on the road

That's the point, cars deliver a lot of personal space & comfort that really make it attractive vis a vis public transport.

Try Cambridge in England just once. The commuter gridlock is appalling. On a bicycle you could just zip by the madness, and you don't even need much fitness.

Cambridge is hardly a modern city, with any form of space anyway.

In Cambridge there are housing estates from the mid-19th century, and there are housing estates developed this century. That statement is just not true.

I'm an urban cyclist. I get around town by bike whenever I can, though my family does still own cars for longer trips or moving large objects. I certainly don't try to slow everybody down. Getting into the main traffic lane has that effect, but it's a side effect, and I don't do it very often or for very long. In most cases, I could probably make a safe bet that dipping into the traffic lane isn't slowing down anybody's actual travel time by any appreciable amount.

But I greatly prefer to choose routes that avoid fast, congested car traffic. This also appears to be the approach of my city when developing new or improved roadways.

But truth be told, the major thing slowing cars down is other cars. Trying to increase traffic flow through a given area will eventually cause it to slow down to a crawl, bikes or no bikes.

Agreed on the shared roads, but in cities it is better to put the cars on pillars. Removing cars from roads does wonders and makes neighborhoods look much nicer. Instead of the pillars you can remove cars from most roads and have limited one-way roads that are fast and without traffic lights. The cars can park in a parking garage and continue on foot/bike/tram. I believe this is faster for the cars as well.

> Removing cars from roads does wonders and makes neighborhoods look much nicer.

Certainly not when you bury them under pillars for cars. Or is there any example where the area beneath the raised highway isn't the worst part of town? What you'd need to do is bury the cars. Side effect: less car traffic, because people tend to not really enjoy driving in tunnels. Unfortunately, it's very expensive and much of the underground space in cities is already spoken for.

When I say removing cars, I prefer banning them or making it very difficult.

The bikers are a minority because the roads are dominated by cards. If you want to change that, you have to start somewhere.

Is it possible? Yes. Please come to the Netherlands and see for yourself.

Or watch the video's on this channel: https://www.youtube.com/c/NotJustBikes

Traffic already slows everyone down, no need for bike activists to do that.

Don't live in a city then. I don't anymore and it's the best thing I've ever done. This kind of performative assertion of space doesn't exist outside highly dense urban areas.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com