Most active commenters
  • vladvasiliu(3)

←back to thread

437 points Vinnl | 24 comments | | HN request time: 0.834s | source | bottom
1. choeger ◴[] No.43992350[source]
I wonder if this will eventually lead to increased density and if that then leads to congested bike lanes. Will the cities of tomorrow regulate traffic between individual buildings?

Make no mistake, bikes are much, much, better for urban centers than cars. But the overall problem isn't cars, it's individual traffic in densely populated areas.

Certain policy here in Europe simply assumes that people stay in their surroundings ("15 minute city") and rarely, if ever, visit parts that are farther away individually.

Public transportation, however, is naturally biased. It can be much quicker to get 10km north-south than 5km east-west, or the other way around, depending on the city. And, of course, public transportation is often lacking quality compared to individual traffic. (Taking a bike across a bicycle road vs. getting into a crammed subway train in July, for instance.)

replies(13): >>43992403 #>>43992506 #>>43992515 #>>43992640 #>>43992684 #>>43992779 #>>43993186 #>>43993255 #>>43993455 #>>43993817 #>>43995605 #>>43996326 #>>44010287 #
2. egypturnash ◴[] No.43992403[source]
Less cars + overflowing bike lanes = hey what if we mark more of the street as being for bikes. (Possibly with an interim step of "the cyclists have already claimed pretty much the entire street for bikes".)
replies(1): >>43995788 #
3. vladvasiliu ◴[] No.43992506[source]
> And, of course, public transportation is often lacking quality compared to individual traffic. (Taking a bike across a bicycle road vs. getting into a crammed subway train in July, for instance.)

Well, it doesn't have to be like that. Riding a bike in July is atrocious where I live, even with an electrical one. I'll end up drenched after my 20-minute commute, even though it's mostly flat.

Cars didn't use to have AC, either, now they do. Newer metro lines where I live also started having AC a few years ago. This can be improved. They also automated some lines, and we now have trains every other minute during rush hour. They're still full to the brim.

What's missing, however, is some kind of reasonable policy. But not only of the government kind.

Why do we all have to commute at the same exact time? Yeah, some people have kids and need to get them to school on time. Others need to absolutely be physically at their work place at a given time.

But huge swathes of the population are not in this situation. Why do they insist on taking the metro at the same exact time as the others? When Covid was still a thing, the government tried asking the people who could, to move their work schedules a little before or a little after rush hour, so as to lower density. Nobody cared. I had already doing this before covid: the commute was much shorter; I had ample seating available. Yet I didn't see any change after this recommendation.

replies(3): >>43992572 #>>43993846 #>>43995921 #
4. duncanfwalker ◴[] No.43992515[source]
The skew you mention for mass transit exists for individual vehicles too. In New York it's baked in that the avenues, running north-south, are wider than the east-west streets and have longer greens at intersections.

The 15-minute city idea is now a real trigger issue. It's originally urban planning concept so I understand it's more about design the city in such a way that you /can/ live most of your life within a 15mins journey rather than assuming that's already the case (or worse as some conspiracy theories assume).

5. lazide ◴[] No.43992572[source]
It doesn’t have to hurt when I hit my hand with a hammer. In fact, there are hammers out there that if I hit my hand with them wouldn’t hurt!

But damn, every time I hit my hand with the hammer I have, it hurts like hell.

replies(1): >>43993472 #
6. lukas099 ◴[] No.43992640[source]
> But the overall problem isn't cars, it's individual traffic in densely populated areas.

I disagree; it’s cars.

7. BlackFly ◴[] No.43992684[source]
Bikes just don't take up nearly as much space as cars and don't really block each other as much: gridlock is a problem for cars but not really for bikes. In the Netherlands there are a number of famous intersections where there are no signs nor right of way rules and people on bikes and pedestrians just pass through each other by slowing down and taking turns. These intersection rules were chosen because of the high density: individuals in them can simply deal with the conditions better than formulated timeslots for right of way that waste time while changing priority. Some of these intersections also permit cars but the number of cars in such areas is generally small or limited to buses.

There is a natural limit to how far people want to bike (in a statistical sense, as the distance increases the number of people willing to bike that far drops). The highest density ends up occurring around train stations which is a focal point for foot and bicycle traffic and necessitates large bike parking lots. Those people then switch to trains although they might pick up a bike on the other side. Some people prefer bike rental for these reasons, since when you drop off your bike someone coming the other direction can take it and you can pick up another one at the end of the train ride.

replies(1): >>43993348 #
8. chgs ◴[] No.43992779[source]
https://danielbowen.com/2012/09/19/road-space-photo/

Bike and bus take the same amount of space. Cars take up far more.

9. pjc50 ◴[] No.43993186[source]
"15 minute city" is the most misinterpreted policy of our times. The idea is to try to make sure that there are enough services near enough to residential areas that short trips are possible, not to enforce this. It's just the oppposite of "simcity mode" where a huge area is zoned as only housing.

That combined with some anti-rat-run measures in Oxford (and any anti car measure ever) into outraged paranoia.

10. HPsquared ◴[] No.43993255[source]
The other problem with public transport is anyone wanting to go from, say, the northeast to the southeast outskirts of a city. Public transport will tend to take everyone via the centre whereas a direct route would be much shorter.
replies(1): >>43993340 #
11. presentation ◴[] No.43993340[source]
That’s a problem if the public transit system is solely geared towards sending people to the center. As a counter example there are lines in Tokyo that take different paths, like JR Musashino and Nambu lines, which do a big arc in the outskirts, or the Tokyu Oimachi Line, that does a line through southern suburbs, to name a few. Buses also fill in connections between lines that lack a direct rail connection (or you can go with scooter/bike shares)
12. HPsquared ◴[] No.43993348[source]
How are e-bikes doing in NL?
replies(1): >>43993457 #
13. Vinnl ◴[] No.43993455[source]
There are a couple of places in the Netherlands with congested bike lanes, which is a great problem to have. It's crazy to imagine all those people in individual cars; we'd have reached congestion so much sooner. (Note that this is after decades of continuously improving bicycle infrastructure; basically everywhere else won't run into this problem any time soon.)

The problem isn't so much density (I think NYC is much denser), as much as it is the existence of really popular destinations; you'll see this close to some big train stations in rush hour, for example. Solutions are smarter road layout, and providing more and more attractive alternative routes, and alternative destinations (e.g. more train stations nearby).

14. Vinnl ◴[] No.43993457{3}[source]
They're really popular as well, and indeed increasing the distance people are willing to cycle.
15. vladvasiliu ◴[] No.43993472{3}[source]
I get your point, but mine is that transit isn't all that bad. For my needs, it works better than private transportation. I don't have space to store a bike at work nor at home, and theft is rampant where I live. Bike sharing is nice, but it can be hit and miss, especially if you need to get somewhere at a specific time. I also sometimes like to grab a drink with colleagues after work and would rather not ride a bike afterwards.

I'm not saying there should only be transit and no bikes. I think each means has its own merits, but my point is that these should be improved such that we can take full advantage of them. Just like bikes require infrastructure, or else they're much too dangerous, so do trains require maintenance and being kept up to date, or else they're a PITA to use.

16. ben_w ◴[] No.43993817[source]
> Certain policy here in Europe simply assumes that people stay in their surroundings ("15 minute city") and rarely, if ever, visit parts that are farther away individually.

I think you have causality backwards there — 15 minute cities are to make it possible to live a life where going further is rare by ensuring it is not necessary.

To quote the wikipedia page: "The 15-minute city (FMC[2] or 15mC[3]) is an urban planning concept in which most daily necessities and services, such as work, shopping, education, healthcare, and leisure can be easily reached by a 15-minute walk, bike ride, or public transit ride from any point in the city."

I was born and raised in a place that matches this description: Havant, on the south coast of the UK. 15 minutes from there is the entirety of not just Havant itself, but also most of the surrounding towns and villages including the majority of Portsmouth island. A lot of the people I grew up with, never moved out of the area — but they can all travel whenever they want to.

My dad's commute 20-30 years ago would have been something like this: https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Havant,+UK/BAE+Systems+Broad...

I now live in Berlin, which is likewise. The "work" part is mostly dependent on the specific employer, and perhaps even if they're happy with WFH, because the travel time between any two randomly selected points of the city is about 45 minutes; but all the other stuff is replicated so much all around the city that I have five stand-alone supermarkets a building supplies store and two shopping malls, a couple of schools, five doctors (GP/Hausarzt), an entire hospital, some historical sites, a huge lake, a beach, several hotels, lots of woodland that's great for pleasant walks and cycling, and a few public parks within that travel time — and that despite being in one of the quiet backwater parts near the city limits.

As far as I can tell, any two places in Davis CA are within 15 minutes of each other, so for people who both live and work there, that too would be a "15 minute city".

17. Tade0 ◴[] No.43993846[source]
People have been doing this, but the majority doesn't have this sort of flexibility[0]. Particularly any customer-facing job is going to require being there at a certain hour.

[0] Those who do typically could well be working remotely instead.

replies(1): >>43994185 #
18. vladvasiliu ◴[] No.43994185{3}[source]
I think it doesn't need to be a majority for the situation to be a net improvement.

Among my colleagues (~20 people) nobody has a customer-facing job, and only one needs to manage children. The others either don't have kids at all, or the kids are old enough to manage on their own. They all come in the office around 9:30 AM. We rarely schedule meetings before 10 AM and after 5 PM. I'm pretty sure that if even 10% of the people would change their schedules a bit, comfort would improve for everybody. It's the same thing with lunch. Everybody goes down at 1 PM on the dot and complains about there being too many people. I go around 12:30 and never have to wait in line for ages.

Of course, WFH would be even better, but I understand not all people like it. The company I work for is actually quite flexible, but the people do tend to prefer working from the office. I, personally, prefer WFH (which is what I do generally). But my point isn't to push a particular working arrangement, rather to point out that even when there is some inherent flexibility in the system, people seem to choose not to use it.

19. stevenwoo ◴[] No.43995605[source]
Paris and London have already done things to lower car usage in urban core and they do not have your hypothesized "problem". Someone else already posted about London https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-solutions/2025/04/12/...
20. returningfory2 ◴[] No.43995788[source]
They've already started doing this in NYC - the new 10th ave bike lane is double the width of normal bike lanes.
replies(1): >>43997511 #
21. int_19h ◴[] No.43995921[source]
It would be nice to have some kind of government policy that would force companies to prefer WFH except where it's really necessary to be in the office. Maybe some kind of tax on non-remote employees.

But US cities today actually push back against this because more people coming to work at the office from suburbs = more sales tax for the city.

22. rsynnott ◴[] No.43996326[source]
> I wonder if this will eventually lead to increased density and if that then leads to congested bike lanes.

I mean, there's only so much more dense you can make Manhattan.

> Certain policy here in Europe simply assumes that people stay in their surroundings ("15 minute city") and rarely, if ever, visit parts that are farther away individually.

... Eh? Which country is that? Like, in any city with any sort of mass transit system, that is presumably not any sort of policy, because the mass transit system is explicitly for going to places that you can't easily get to. The idea with the "15 minute city" thing is that you don't _need_ to travel far from home for essentials, not that you don't travel far from home. Like, I live within 15 minute walk of all essentials, but I often go places which are further away.

23. egypturnash ◴[] No.43997511{3}[source]
Oh FUCK YEAH! I am envious. Not enough to leave New Orleans for NYC but still envious.
24. greggyb ◴[] No.44010287[source]
Bike lane congestion is wholly unlike car congestion. It happens, and for busy routes, you do need affordances in the bike lanes and infrastructure.

That said, I've never missed a light cycle while bicycling, even in rush hour in major metro areas with many people on bikes. The busiest bike intersection in the world, in Copenhagen, devotes less space to bikes than most US streets devote to one lane of vehicle traffic.

Every single US city I have seen has ample space for bicycle infrastructure. Many have lots of roads with sufficient space for dedicated transit lanes, and bicycle lanes, and widened sidewalks while still maintaining space for personal vehicles.

Even if we take your hypothetical to the extreme, with only bicycles and no personal vehicles, every US city has enough space for the bike traffic on its existing streets.