Hacker News Reader

Comment by fnimick | Hacker News Reader

I had a conversation recently with someone lamenting that we didn't have roads like LA here in Boston. Saying their ideal road was 3 lanes, plus a bike lane, plus a bus lane in each direction. Imagine being a pedestrian trying to cross that!

I really don't understand someone who looks at that traffic disaster and wants to build the same thing here at home.

View on HN

They're a car-centric person who wants the "nuisance" of bikes and busses out of their way while still pretending to have progressive values. People who only drive from garage to shopping center and back, never having to experience the dehumanizing impact of 6+ lanes affecting other transport modes.

I feel like the more modes of transportation you mix together the worse the cognitive load on people. And it get rapidly worse the higher the density.

Inside of a mall where there are only pedestrians is very safe. Freeways are fairly safe. Protected bike lanes are safe. Light rail is safe.

Mix all of those on a strode, rail, buses, trucks, cars, bicycles, pedestrians, not safe.

I'd consider Amsterdam, where many kinds of transportation are carefully weaved together

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Schiphol+Amsterdam+Airport...

In that area you will find highways, surface streets, bike paths, pedestrian walkways, trams, commuter trains and other kinds of transportation in a way that comes across as elegant, at least to me.

I think they still keep them as fairly separate networks, even if they highly overlayed and so have many intersections.

> strode

Stroad.

This seems pretty counter intuitive but this is often the other way around. The safest streets in Europe are where cars, bikes and pedestrian mix together. It force focus on the driving task instead of doing something else. If you are interested, Freakonomics have an episode: "Why the U.S. so good at killing pedestrian". It's an interesting discussion with no simple answer.

As an equal-parts driver, biker, e-scooter rider and pedestrian, this is horrible. Yes, you have to focus on the driving, or walking, or scooting, but you're in constant stress because you can accidentally hit someone coming from any direction. Or they can hit you.

It's far better to have separate spaces, and cross only when you really have to.

Maybe you should be stressed? The point might be that environments where you're not stressed because they lull you into a false sense of security tend to kill more pedestrians.

You're moving tons of metal at high speeds. Don't get too comfortable doing that.

Yet some cyclists have no issue going with high speed through children on those streets.

What is the point here?

We shouldn't build roads that are proven to be safer... because some cyclists are idiots?

I have also seen cars go 60+ km/h through traffic-calmed cul-de-sacs where children were playing on the street. Are you saying that only cyclists emulate Carmageddon in real life?

Why do you assume I'm the driver in this case? I'm stressed as a pedestrian too.

You really think it's healthy to be stressed all the time?

I live in Israel and we've had pro-democracy demonstrations in a main intersection in Tel Aviv, every Saturday for the past 30 weeks. There are people and bikes all around but no cars and no motorcycles. It's ridiculous how calming it is to be on the street and not have to worry about hitting someone or getting hit.

Also, when I'm on the freeway, though I'm moving tons of metal are even higher speeds, I'm somehow less stressed. I'm alert, I'm actively driving, but less stressed - because the frequency of surprising events happening is low. In the city there are jaywalkers, kids, tiny bikes with no lights, e-scooters, buses pulling in and out of stations, gas scooters cutting you off. It's completely different.

It's because US streets are designed much wider than equivalent European streets. US design standards have wider LOS than Europe so they design for faster vehicle travel and higher throughput, which puts pressure on slower modes. This comes at a financial costs (better pavement, wider roads) but the US gladly pays a fortune for roads.

> the worse the cognitive load

Or maybe better the cognitive load? There are various studies that show removing white lines and navigation furniture to make junctions more of a puzzle, decreases speeds and increases attention and safety.

That's someone who's never actually had to drive in LA traffic. I only had to visit once for the experience of 3 straight hours of gridlock traffic just to get across the city to be seared into my brain.

I’ve lived in LA for five years now and lived in Boston for seven years prior. They’re both uniquely terrible.

LA’s roads are easy to imagine because it’s synonymous with huge interstates, congestion, and long commutes.

Boston is terrible because it’s layout makes zero intuitive sense and looks like spaghetti when viewed from the sky. Of course Boston predates the automobile, so I understand why.

I do enjoy the prevalence of bike culture in Boston. It’s just the right size to pedal most places and there are fairly good accomodations for cycling, like bike lanes.

But hey, at least I don’t live in Philadelphia. By far the worst driving experience each time I visit. :)

> Of course Boston predates the automobile, so I understand why.

New York City's grid plan far predates the automobile: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commissioners%27_Plan_of_181...

Grids are sometimes but not always caused by cities being designed for cars.

It's the opposite, no? Cities / suburbs that were built after 1950 often don't have a grid system.

I think this is exactly what Seattle is building at it's already awful waterfront

Austin too.

https://twitter.com/kelseyhuse30/status/1684337210760241152

Reply on news.ycombinator.com