Re:Dock-less bike share is ready to take over U.S. cities
by dsfyu404ed on Friday December 22, 2017 @12:53PM
(#15989405)
>People always assume a city full of cars as the "default", that has to be accepted. Yet in large cities, a quarter to half of all people (and far more in Manhattan) live good lives without owning a car. Imagine how quality of life would skyrocket if more people made the responsible choice: you'd win back 1/3 of public space that is currently used for parking. Possibly another 1/6th by converting most streets to one-ways, as would be possible if the remaining traffic is just public transport, deliveries & the elderly. With less traffic, most intersections could function without traffic lights.
I don't understand this attitude.
You can't solve transportation problems by reducing supply of A and increasing supply of B. You need to increase supply over-all. An over crowded subway, bike lane and highway all suck. Which you prefer to endure is only a matter of personal taste.
If you make transportation via one method expensive (time, money or some other metric) people will do less of that and more of something else but the net result is harm because the cost of physical distance increases and that has a negative impact on quality of life because people are forced to use the wrong tool for the job. Examples include commuting via car or carrying groceries on a bike.
The "food desert" issue is a good example of how a high cost of getting from A to B hurts people. People can't buy good food because they can't afford to go where they can afford to buy it. Sure you could ride your bike 10mi to get groceries but that's not a time/money/quality trade-off most people are ok with (they'd rather eat junk food).
Another example, there's a bunch of clothes that I've been meaning to donate to charity but haven't because my schedule, my SO's schedule and the business hours of the thrift store need to sync up so one of us can circle the block or donating said clothes will cost $8 of parking. If so many people biked or public transit was so good that one of us could find free/cheap parking the thrift store would have the clothes by now.
I don't understand this attitude.
You can't solve transportation problems by reducing supply of A and increasing supply of B. You need to increase supply over-all. An over crowded subway, bike lane and highway all suck. Which you prefer to endure is only a matter of personal taste.
If you make transportation via one method expensive (time, money or some other metric) people will do less of that and more of something else but the net result is harm because the cost of physical distance increases and that has a negative impact on quality of life because people are forced to use the wrong tool for the job. Examples include commuting via car or carrying groceries on a bike.
The "food desert" issue is a good example of how a high cost of getting from A to B hurts people. People can't buy good food because they can't afford to go where they can afford to buy it. Sure you could ride your bike 10mi to get groceries but that's not a time/money/quality trade-off most people are ok with (they'd rather eat junk food).
Another example, there's a bunch of clothes that I've been meaning to donate to charity but haven't because my schedule, my SO's schedule and the business hours of the thrift store need to sync up so one of us can circle the block or donating said clothes will cost $8 of parking. If so many people biked or public transit was so good that one of us could find free/cheap parking the thrift store would have the clothes by now.