"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."
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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."
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.”
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.
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.
> 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.
"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.""
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.
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...
e.g. (from the article):
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.
It at least exists in a form that is usable. In the US, most people do not even live within a bus line that comes < 15 min frequency during the rush hour, let alone all day, or next to a rail line or something more substantial.
If the local bus only comes four times a day I'm much less likely to use it, since missing one means I am screwed for quite a while or then have to cough up money I wasn't planning on spending on a taxi.
Is it really worse than other big cities? Does it have a proven impact on bike usage? As some anecdata, it rains twice more in New York than in Paris 1,200mm vs. 600mm/year) and on more days (121 vs. 111/yr). Amsterdam, the well known bikes-everywhere city is colder and has more rain (900mm) than Paris. Berlin is well know for both frequent rains and a large bike usage.