Changes since congestion pricing started in New York

Car speed in the zone.. that graph is really telling, showing that in NYC cars never really travel faster than even the slowest bicyclist, and slower than a modest runner.

That alone tells you this is the right path. All that infrastructure and work for cars to not actually allow anyone to travel fast.

9mph is very very slow even for the weakest/most timid cyclist.

Cars are slow but you're less likely to get mugged (unlike pedestrians) or hit by cars (unlike cyclists). Also, bikes get stolen. These things happen rarely, but in the long run, the risk isn't negligible.

I avoid cars as much as I can and commute by bike in my European city. I used to live in NYC: I've been mugged there, and I've seen cyclists injured by cars. I don't want to cycle there and I do take cabs in the evenings or nights.

TLDR; speed isn't the only factor

It’s amazing how slow cars are in cities. I was recently beaten by a pedestrian over a 20 minute drive.

I support this policy and was a bike commuter for several years, but just to play devil's advocate: Speed is not the only reason people prefer a car over walking and biking.

* Some people have mobility issues and can't bike or walk but can drive.

* Cars give you environment isolation when it's freezing, sweltering, or pouring rain.

* Cars isolate you from other people, which can be important especially for groups that are more likely to be on the receiving end of unwanted interactions.

* Cars make it much easier to haul stuff around.

* You are much safer being in a car when hit by another car than when not being in a car. This is something a lot of bike commute advocates sweep under the rug. They talk about how biking is overall safe, but then you ask them if they've ever had an accident and so many have been hit by cars and broken bones.

I fully support more people biking and walking. But I think the optimal solution is multi-modal. Cars aren't bad, they're just one piece of the puzzle.

(The reason I'm not a bike commuter right now is because I slipped in a puddle biking to work and destroyed my ankle. Non-fatal accident statistics for cycle are actually pretty scary when you dig into them. People always point out that overall mortality statistics are better for cyclists, but you can still have a really fucking bad time without dying.)

Cars also let you carry stuff over distances that would be awkward/uncomfortable/impossible walking or cycling. They’re also more comfortable, particularly in inclement weather.

I’d absolutely love if I could get away with having no car. I can’t. My life would be markedly, instantly, and demonstrably worse. I feel like a lot of people in the “no cars” camp neglect these issues.

> * You are much safer being in a car when hit by another car than when not being in a car. This is something a lot of bike commute advocates sweep under the rug. They talk about how biking is overall safe, but then you ask them if they've ever had an accident and so many have been hit by cars and broken bones.

> (The reason I'm not a bike commuter right now is because I slipped in a puddle biking to work and destroyed my ankle. Non-fatal accident statistics for cycle are actually pretty scary when you dig into them. People always point out that overall mortality statistics are better for cyclists, but you can still have a really fucking bad time without dying.)

While true that injuries exist, halving your chance of early death is a pretty remarkable statistic, and would make me say that you are (if you are a statistically average person) much safer bike commuting than commuting by car: https://www.forbes.com/sites/carltonreid/2024/12/18/18-year-...

> You are much safer being in a car when hit by another car than when not being in a car.

The solution to this problem is not to have more cars, it is to have less (and probably stricter standards on obtaining and maintaining a driver's license).

Indeed safety is a very important consideration. But safety in different types of vehicles is determined by which type of infrastructure is emphasized.

If you design your city to be more pedestrian and biking friendly, there are more people walking and biking compared to cars, which naturally reduces the amount of mugging and car-bike accidents. For example, as number of cars on the road go down, police can invest resources into stopping muggings, instead of investing resources into catching car traffic violations.

> Cars aren't bad

Most people saying "cars are bad" are actually saying "cars are bad at their current rate of utilization"

This is like "black lives matter" usually means "black lives matter as well"

> Some people have mobility issues and can't bike or walk but can drive.

People with mobility issues have every right to use motorized forms of transport. That could be cars or other smaller vehicles (like motorized wheelchairs).

However, we should recognize that the number of people with mobility issues in a society where everyone grows up walking and biking a lot is less than one in which everyone travels by car. There are two opposing feedback loops here. In car-society there is feedback towards more mobility issues which cases even more motorized transport. In a walk-society there is a feedback toward less mobility issues leading to less motorized transport.

> Cars isolate you from other people, which can be important especially for groups that are more likely to be on the receiving end of unwanted interactions.

Does this refer to celebrities / public figures? Or what's the subtext here?

My assumption was that the OP meant “women traveling late at night”

I don't have data, but I'm pretty sure you're even safer in a low speed car-to-car accident than in a low speed bike-to-bike accident.

I currently have a mobility issue because I biked to work.

But, yes, obviously everyone generally being healthier because they walk more is good.

Yes, or rich people in poor areas, or gay and trans people in conservative areas, or Black people in racist areas, etc.

Anyone at a greater risk of being harrassed/mugged/assaulted/etc.

I wonder in NYC if elevated bike trails could be built economically that separate bikes from cars, or at least provide a "superhighway" for them. Maybe even a suspension scheme of sorts.

With e-bikes and e-scooter, I would actually argue that New York City should build underground tunnels, well, the overall goal of being able to enable these types of very efficient compact transportation to get from various parts of the major boroughs at an average speed of about 15 mph

I believe this will provide enormous livability benefits. Or you elevate the entire tunnel.

In every transit-heavy city that I have been to, you have both an extensive highway system AND an extensive public transit network.

But on the Internet, people are either BAN CARS or BLOCK TRANSIT.

In reality, I want both.

Bringing up these points when talking about improving urban transit is harmful.

These points always appear in reaction to urbanist policy and all of a sudden care about the minority transit user.

The problem is that the assigned proportion of road space is unfairly weighted to cars and is impossible to shift because people often say things like “cars make it easier to shift things around” and “some people have mobility issues”. Yes, this is true. What is also true is that people with mobility issues can more likely ride (cheaply) modified bikes than drive motor vehicles and people regularly haul heavy loads on cargo bikes (couches, refrigerators) in places where bike infrastructure makes it safe to do so.

If you care about speed in a densely populated city, you’d bike or walk. Flip it around; comfort isn’t the only reason why people prefer to use a car over walking or cycling. You said it yourself already, it’s because you can literally get hit by a car all because drivers won’t give up 1 lane out 4 for a segregated bike path that would stop you getting hit by a car.

> * You are much safer being in a car when hit by another car than when not being in a car. This is something a lot of bike commute advocates sweep under the rug. They talk about how biking is overall safe, but then you ask them if they've ever had an accident and so many have been hit by cars and broken bones.

Are you serious? That's a lot to type without realizing what you're saying at some point. You could not get a more backwards argument - so many cyclists have had crashes with cars, so lets have more cars. Wow.

> I fully support more people biking and walking. But I think the optimal solution is multi-modal. Cars aren't bad, they're just one piece of the puzzle.

Your idea of "more people" is clearly still massively lopsided towards cars. You're thinking on the order of increasing the current 1% of people walking&biking to maybe 5%, whereas you should be thinking 80%+. Completely wrong mindset.

The maths says unlikely.

Kinetic energy=0.5mv^2

The two variables are orders of magnitude smaller in one scenario, and the function grows quadratically.

You're even safer in a low speed tank-to-tank accident.

Which is the direction the car size and weight war is going anyway, after all "My family is safer in a massive SUV". Well then. Who cares about everyone else anyway. People outside of vehicles should just stop being poor and get one.

Thing is, the world as is is optimized 99% for cars, so BAN CARS, while not reasonable nor correct, is a proportional reaction.

Super expensive and not very convenient if you have to go up/downhill all the time just to get anywhere.

The point of bringing this up is that you won't convince anyone to stop driving by pointing out that biking isn't slower if speed isn't the reason they drive in the first place.

If you want to convince people, you need to understand their actual motivations.

Yes the energy is much larger in a car collision, but the fraction of that energy absorbed by the cars is also much larger.

My face doesn't have a few feet of crumple zones on it, just a couple of millimeters of skin over bone.

This kind of hyper-aggressive response is exactly what turns regular people off cycling.

I am a bike commuter. I biked to work for years. I fill up my gas tank about three times a year.

I'm on your side but you are so gung-ho about bikes that if I'm not as zealous as you, you think I don't even understand how "backwards" my argument is.

I never ever said there should be more cars. I said that if you want to get people out of their cars you need to understand why they are in them in the first place and speed is only a fraction of that answer.

> If you want to convince people, you need to understand their actual motivations.

Yes, but if we did that we would have to deconstruct the history behind the American fixation on private automobiles and, of course, the racism and "think of the children" rhetoric that comes with it.

It's a losing battle. I can't convince people driving is more dangerous than the subway even if all the stats in the world make it plainly true. This is a culture problem, and much like every single one of America's cultural problems, it stems from hundreds of years of systemic racism. It has to be brought down slowly and deliberately.

Right, we're not talking about going from 99% of zero percent. We're talking about going from 99% to 95%, which is still, decidedly, pro-car in every sense of the word. This outrage is fake.

> * Some people have mobility issues and can't bike or walk but can drive.

A simple bullet, but with many nuances buried. There is no single answer. Below are several observations. No one of these is intended to be an answer. But there are a panoply of choices a city can make that improve access and mobility for all.

Yes, and good bike/ped infra is good for them, too. Everything that makes a good bike lane (smooth pavement, wide enough for passing, minimal bumps and potholes, at grade without having to go up and down to cross streets) also makes a great place for a mobility scooters.

Not everyone uses a mobility scooter. Cities with extensive pedestrianized areas typically do not close these to deliveries, and many leave them open for pick-up/drop-off for those with mobility issues.

The items mentioned above are about stopping general car traffic either in portions of a street or on a whole street.

Not all traffic reduction necessarily means a reduction of car-navigable streets. Traffic reduction can take the form of reducing through-traffic. There are many implementation mechanisms for this. One mechanism is a modal filter, which allows through-traffic for non-motor vehicles, but prevents through-traffic for motor vehicles (side note, such filters can be constructed such that emergency vehicles can still pass through). Thus through-traffic is prevented, but door-to-door vehicle traffic is still possible.

But modal filters can make routes more circuitous. Yes. Optimizing a city does not mean optimizing just the transport infrastructure, and optimizing transport infrastructure does not mean just prioritizing a single mode above all others. That said, generally reducing traffic improves driving experience and reduces times, because there is less traffic. A more circuitous route can be made faster with sufficient traffic reduction.

But circuitous routes increase emissions. They increase emissions for those cars which make the trip, but save emissions based on all trips that are shifted to other forms of transportation. Even those marginally longer trips for the remaining cars may be emission-neutral (or at least not as bad as naively expected) based on reduced idling time and smoother travel.

Nothing above is to say cars should be banned. Just observations about design choices that are routinely made around the globe that are generally considered good urbanism and have not led to major negative outcomes. Nothing to stop you or any individual to choose a car, just design decisions that do not prioritize cars above all else.

> * Cars give you environment isolation when it's freezing, sweltering, or pouring rain.

Yes, so do all forms of public transit. Shelters are routine in good transit systems, and any form of metro or rail will typically have buildings or underground stations.

There is, of course, wait time for transit, which is all the more reason to optimize a system for frequent service with dedicated rights of way or grade-separation. Frequency is also one of the greatest drivers of ridership.

In urban areas it is common that a vehicle is not directly outside your front door or in a covered garage. Similarly, that parking at the destination may be some distance from the door of the destination. This is analogous to the walk to a transit station. Obviously this varies by person and situation.

Cars avoid the dwell time at a station, emphasizing the value of shelters and facilities at transit stations.

Certainly a car is more convenient than transit in inclement weather. This is not a reason to design transportation infrastructure optimizing solely for personal vehicles.

> * Cars make it much easier to haul stuff around.

The vast majority of day-to-day trips do not require hauling, unless that is part of your job. Certainly, if it is part of your job, you either have such a vehicle or it is provided by your employer.

Such hauling-based jobs are vastly improved by traffic reduction measures. Less traffic means better delivery times, and more importantly, more reliable time estimates for delivery. I know of no one in logistics who would decline to trade a small fee for improved times and reliability.

For personal use cases, as I mentioned hauling is rare. For the vast majority of people, the justification of hauling is better met financially by a van or truck rental as needed than by owning and maintaining a vehicle full time.

To be 100% clear, I am not saying, "you should not have a car, because vans are good at hauling." I am saying that "I occasionally need to haul things, so I need a car" is a specious argument. I am not saying you or anyone else should not have a car. I am simply pointing out that "occasional hauling" is not a good reason to own a car. If you want a car, have a car! If someone else wants a car, let them have a car! If you value the convenience of using your own vehicle for hauling at a per-use rate that is a large multiple of the rate of renting a van/truck, that is your own value judgment and you are welcome to it.

This is simply an observation that for the vast majority of people, the financial analysis suggests not a car, but a van/truck rental for hauling purposes. If you are not part of this majority, then please recognized that I am not trying to say that you are.

Hauling is a totally valid use case for vehicles and I've never seen anyone make an argument that the transportation of goods and stuff should be forbidden. Certainly I hope no one interprets my statements above as such an argument. The need to transport things, again, is not a good reason to build an entire transportation system in a city to optimize always for personal vehicles.

Again, a very common feature of reduced traffic, and even traffic-forbidden areas in cities is that they are close to most traffic, but still allow deliveries and mobility assistance vehicles.

And also, again, a reduction in traffic is a boon for those use cases.

...continued...

> * You are much safer being in a car when hit by another car than when not being in a car. This is something a lot of bike commute advocates sweep under the rug. They talk about how biking is overall safe, but then you ask them if they've ever had an accident and so many have been hit by cars and broken bones.

And you are much safer not having an accident in the first place. If we want to observe the world, there are cities that have done a great job at reducing all vehicle related fatalities and injuries: those injuries to drivers and passengers in any vehicle involved, and also those injuries to anyone outside of the vehicle.

There are two commonalities in these cities: 1) they have many viable options for transportation, including high quality bike infra, pedestrian areas, trains, buses, metros, trams, and personal vehicles; and 2) they reduce traffic and speed in all areas where personal vehicles are potentially in conflict with other forms of transportation.

You'll recognize in the first point the same refrain I have been repeating: optimizing a transportation system does not mean optimizing primarily on just one mode of transit. It's not about forcing one mode or banning another. It is about options. There is a near universal observation about transit times within and into/out of urban areas that the time for car travel tends toward the time for public transit. This is generally understood to be because humans optimize their transport, and if one option is faster or more convenient, enough people choose that until it is not.

The second thing those cities do, though, is the leading cause for the reduction in accident frequency, lethality, and severity of injury: the reduction in traffic quantity and speed.

The road-street distinction is very important here. If you are not familiar with it, the distinction is this: roads are high speed connections between places, optimizing for vehicle throughput; streets are complex environments where a wide assortment of destinations are, where living is done, businesses exist, and the general activities of life and city happen. If you want more detail, this video is a good primer (linked to a relevant portion: https://youtu.be/ORzNZUeUHAM?t=536); the video is coming from a very strong place of opinion. I am not asking you to accept all the opinions, but am simply sharing the video, because it provides lots of good real-world examples in laying out the distinction.

It is essential that, within a city, there are affordances for people out of cars and people in cars. This is simple reality. If we recognize this reality, and we understand that humans are imperfect and prone to failure, then the conclusion is that if we want to reduce the injuries and deaths associated with traffic, we must build systems that tend toward this outcome. The practical implementations of such systems that are proven to be effective in achieving this outcome are:

1. separate through-traffic 2. ensure mixed-mode areas force low volumes and speeds of cars

The first is by designing transportation networks that force through-traffic to roads designed for it.

The second takes many forms, generally known as traffic calming. I have mentioned a few already. You can search for more. The other side of this is recognizing that cities are for people (the people in the cars and the people out of the cars, though at some points the people in the cars become people out of cars). There must be areas where people want to go. And those areas where people are must minimize the risk of negative interactions with vehicles. Again, traffic calming and pedestrianizing.

Regarding injury: the most likely cause of death and severe injury for a shockingly wide swath of adults in the US is a car accident, whether in the car or out of it. I do not make this as an argument against cars. I make this as an argument for design of car infrastructure in ways that makes me safer regardless of which side of the steel I am on.