Car brains are out in force for this thread, lol.
Apparently, if you can’t transit products by car or truck, directly to the front-door of every business, the city will collapse.
That there are cities that have actually done this doesn’t seem to stop them insisting it’s impossible.
Something I think is sort of ironic is that in my neighborhood most of the last mile delivery happens on bike. This isn’t because of a lack of automobile infrastructure but because there are too many automobiles. Nowhere to park or even idle the van for a short time.
I do also suspect it’s more convenient for the delivery person to hop off a bike at each stop than it would be to park a car and get out etc.
If I were a city planner I’d integrate that system into my strategy. Ripping out every road is of course hyperbole and clickbait, but ripping out every other road seems like a no brainer. But I seriously doubt converting 3/4 or more of the roads for autos into pedestrian/bike/tram/greenspace would shake things up too bad. Just make sure to keep main arteries open for automobiles and ensure there’s centralized parking garages (street parking is a blight) within a decent walking distance and I think people who need to have a car in the city will get used to it fast.
Name five, with populations higher than 50,000.
You know there are dozens of major cities that have converted major roads, and entire precincts, to foot traffic only… right?
Turns out it’s pretty easy to transport inventory in hand trolleys a few blocks as most major cities, especially business districts, are flat as fuck.
“converted major roads” is very different from “ripped out completely”
entire precincts, to foot traffic only
I actually live next to a few places that have done this… with one or two streets for about 3 blocks in a downtown area… and they all have streets on the backsides to handle cargo delivery and trash pickup… so again, not “ripped out completely”.
The great thing about FOOT traffic, is you don’t need roads. You only need paths (e.g. the sidewalk) to bike or trolley inventory around.
How about YOU provide evidence of ANYWHERE converting blocks of a suburb or city to parkland, and suddenly facing the supply chain crisis you hypothesise? If you can’t, then your argument is imaginary and based on nothing but your own biases… and maybe you should support change until there’s reasonable evidence that it doesn’t work… and no, a sample size of one is not evidence.
There isn’t any township of any appreciable size (>50k pop) that has completely ripped out road infrastructure that I know of. I can’t prove a negative.
Do you have an example of a location that has done so?
Point me to where someone is suggesting this? Sounds like a strawman
You’ve bought into a strawman if you believe the intention is to remove all road infrastructure from an entire city. No city on earth would ever do that.
Imagine if every second parallel street were a grass strip, instead of a road. Fire trucks, ambulances, vans, etc could still drive down them as needed, and nowhere would be more than a couple of blocks from a road, but regular traffic capacity would be cut by 50%, and so would pollution.
Fuck_cars on Lemmy is great, I feel like I’m really fighting for the future every time I come here.
On Reddit it was just people trying to out meme each other
Fuck_cars on Lemmy is great, I feel like I’m really fighting for the future every time I come here.
Lol
I worry more about emergency services access…
Emergency services have a lot of problems delivering care in current city traffic.
Sure, but if they don’t have any roads to travel on what then?
But I’ve seen another comment mentioning the distinction between roads and streets so I guess that might explain why I can’t imagine how that would be realistic.
I think it’s silly to get rid of all roads.
But, a quick, easy solution is have those barricade pole things that can drop down and let a car through If needed in emergency situations.
What is your proposed alternative solution for logistics in any moderately dense urban area? Like never mind New York, you couldn’t make this work in Little Rock.
Why don’t you read the article? It’s all spelled out right there.
Oh, this lie?
Nearly a quarter (23 per cent) of car journeys were under two miles and 60 per cent under five miles. “You could really walk two miles. By the time you get in the car, parked it, you have arrived there in the same time,” said Dr Fuller.
Yeah that’s totally going to get people to charge their behavior and not piss them off.
By the time you get in the car, parked it, you have arrived there in the same time,” said Dr Fuller.
This lie?
Speaking solely for myself here: I used to have a mental block that prevented me from calculating travel time by different modes equitably. If it was a 10 minute drive, or a 20 minute walk, my calculation was anchored to the 10-minute drive as the “real” amount of time, and so the 20 minute walk always felt like a waste of 10 minutes. I think it’s easy to fall into this trap, especially when our lives are busy and we’re trying to save time anywhere we can. But a 20 minute walk is 20 minutes less I have to go to the gym, and 10 minutes less that I have to be hyper alert and driving a 2T vehicle around other people.
Additionally, this mental block existed for me around time spent parking and walking from my car to my destination. Obviously I had to walk from my car, so my brain saw that as +0 minutes. But when I calculated it, I found that I was often spending meaningful amounts of time on this leg:
My urban office is 6 miles from my suburban home (metro area approx 2.5MM people). Even with a highway for half the trip (which gets clogged with commuter and freight traffic during rush hours) the drive is approximately 20-25 minutes during light traffic, or as long as 40 minutes if traffic is particularly heavy. I have to park in a garage, which involves circling for a spot, and then have a 15 min walk to my office. On a good day, 35 minutes. On a bad day, almost an hour.
But taking my ebike (which I only bought because of the many steep hills between me and work) through back roads and sidestreets, it’s 35-40 minutes door to door. Now I get 35-40 minutes of exercise without having to go to the gym, and my vehicle is parked right at thr exit to my building. Plus, I can charge the ebike with company electricity instead of having to pay for gas for my car.
Yeah that’s totally going to get people to charge their behavior and not piss them off
It pisses a lot of people off when they can’t park right next to their destination. But that already happens. There is a limited amount of space at places people want to be, so someone will always have to park farther away. Circling the nearby streets for parking is also annoying as fuck, and a huge waste of time.
What? No it isn’t.
No part of the article discusses replacing the logistics function of cargo vehicles, but it does propose ripping out the road infrastructure they run on.
Apparently, you are unaware that cargo bikes are a thing.
Right… and how many such bikes would you need to replace the carrying capacity of a single 18-wheeler?
This is not a practical solution.
Also, not discussed in the article and not relevant to my previous comment.
18 wheelers are not last mile delivery vehicles and have no business being in cities to begin with.
Um, yes they are? 18 wheelers deliver goods to stores all the time. How are you even trying to make this argument? What kind of vehicle do you think usually pulls up to a loading dock?
Currently, no. But with mixed zoning, it would become more amenable to change over time.
This is a fantasy. It can’t be implemented in large scale in any practical sense.
Centralization of distribution and centralization of production is always more efficient. You aren’t going to put dairy farms next to apartment buildings next to orchards next to paper manufacturing plants next to microchip fabricators next to restaurants next to family homes next to waste water treatment next to hospitals next to bookstores next to power generators next to garbage incinerators next to grocery stores…
These things get separated from each other for good reason, and running rail lines to all of them will never be practical. There will always be a need to fill the gap with small, independently powered vehicles for cargo transport.
You know, for someone who complains about other people making strawman of them, you sure do seem fond of it yourself.
Someone: “We should reduce our dependency on cars and shift our infrastructure planning toward other modes of transport wherever possible.”
You: “SO YOU WANT TO TEAR OUT ALL ROADS EVERYWHERE AND EXECUTE PEOPLE FOR OWNING CARS?!?1!?!1?”
“We should reduce our dependency on cars and shift our infrastructure planning toward other modes of transport wherever possible.”
This is not what the article says.
SO YOU WANT TO TEAR OUT ALL ROADS EVERYWHERE
This is closer to what the article says.
A government adviser has called for roads in cities to be “ripped out completely” to combat air pollution.
This is the first paragraph of the article.
…and then you actually read the article past the misleading click bait, right? The Telegraph is a conservative paper, they have an interest in smearing anyone who challenges the status quo.
Up to 80 per cent of people living on arterial routes in urban areas did not own cars, with most of the pollution being caused by motorists driving into and through their communities.
Pointing to the “greening” of city centres such as Seoul and Utrecht, he said: “We should start changing our cities and actually start thinking about ripping out road infrastructure and turning them into green spaces or green transport corridors. We have to look beyond traffic.”
That is not something a reasonable person would interpret as ripping out 100% of roads. Especially since he references real projects like Seoul.
ripping out road infrastructure
K
ITT: trolls seizing upon a clickbait headline and out-of-context quote in order to make blatantly delusional strawman arguments.
It’s literally two idiots contorting into ludicrous shapes just to stay mad about this. It’s wild.
WHAT ABOUT THE TRUCKS??? I am going to quote one clause of the article over and over to prove I didn’t read it and get mad at people who suggest that anything could change in any way, ever! Trucks are part of human DNA and the moment an 18 wheeler can’t smog up your back yard is when we have all lost our freedumb!!!
People not realising the Telegraph is one step up from shitty xenophobic racist shitrags like The S*n
Ok, then why was an article from this source even posted to this community in the first place, and why is it popular enough to be at the top of the community right now?
If it’s such a bad article and source and does not represent the values of this community, shouldn’t it have a lot more down votes? And also fewer community members defending the content of the article?
I upvote it because I see a headline like this and go “damn, based” and then I move on with my life without reading the article or the comments. I think that’s what most people do, man. It’s a coincidence that I noticed the votes to comments ratio and decided to check it out because when its this even it’s usually a shitstorm worth reading.
If it’s such a bad article and source and does not represent the values of this community, shouldn’t it have a lot more down votes? And also fewer community members defending the content of the article?
I get the impression that the Lemmy “fuck cars” communities have a much larger percentage of concern trolls (case in point: you, frankly, who inspired the comment at the top of this chain in the first place!) than the R*ddit one did. It might be a function of smaller community size + relative ease of reaching “All” [what’s a good way of notating that for Lemmy, BTW?]. It could also be a difference in moderation zealousness and/or priorities, although I feel like I’ve noticed the same phenomenon across both [email protected] and [email protected], so maybe not (I haven’t been paying close enough attention to be sure, though).
So basically, this community is an echo chamber that will upvote any drivel which supports the prevailing narrative no matter how poorly written or thought out, and shout down any dissenting opinions or critical voices and dismiss them as “trolling” (which I am obviously not doing, as I am directly addressing the content of the article that was posted).
Also ITT: a lot of people who didn’t actually read the article and are instead making arguments based on their feelings.
Story of humanity.
Yeah, I’m sure the quote is completely out of context and the guy who’s also
called for people to limit the use of “personal care products”, “computers” and “printers” in their homes which he said were contributing to pollution.
isn’t just one of those “back-to-monkee, comfort is unnecessary” types.
Not sure what his beef is with computers, but to be fair, laser printers and aerosol products like hair spray and deodorant really are pretty bad for indoor air quality.
laser printers
Hot paper smells so nice though 😮
I mean… it’s not a particularly in-depth article. Do you have a better source with more context for Dr. Fuller’s comments?
The burden of providing better context is on the people who support this point of view, not on the people criticizing what the article says.
I can’t read the article (paywall), but it seems to me that there might be a distinction between road and street that some people in this thread don’t know about.
I’ll quote the main bit, standard problems and he’s not wrong about the solutions. Why should London residents put up with rich out of London drivers polluting where they live? There is a tube and train already. Cutting down the number of routes for through traffic and turning the old roads into parks would be great. And exactly what is already happening in places with ltns
"He cited a north London councillor who described traffic as an “invasive species” that “swamps all other types of transport”. Up to 80 per cent of people living on arterial routes in urban areas did not own cars, with most of the pollution being caused by motorists driving into and through their communities.
Pointing to the “greening” of city centres such as Seoul and Utrecht, he said: “We should start changing our cities and actually start thinking about ripping out road infrastructure and turning them into green spaces or green transport corridors. We have to look beyond traffic.”
This needed to be combined with a drive to get people out of their cars and into walking, cycling and using public transport, which would not only help tackle climate change but also improve health and so reduce pressures on the NHS."
Pointing to the “greening” of city centres such as Seoul and Utrecht
Gentle reminder: This site is basically a tabloid at this point and should not be used as a serious source. If you have to, at least use an archived version.
Not a horrible idea if you have solid, simple, and actionable plans to replace them with robust, simple, and effective public transport options. Otherwise… yeah, a bit too far.
Uh huh, and what about material delivery to stores, restaurants, &etc in the city? What about postal service?
We should absolutely invest more in public transit, but light rail and buses are not logistics solutions.
Trains carry cargo all the time. I don’t think it’s too crazy to suggest light rail be adapted to do the same.
Sorry. Good luck transporting a washing machine or full kitchen on public transport.
Delivery of a full kitchen is not something that makes up the majority of traffic. I don’t think anyone is saying you can’t use a van for the “last mile” in such edge cases.
Even washing machines can be delivered by cargo bike/trike though.
How would you ‘use a van’ if the roads are “ripped out completely”?
You do understand nobody is talking about ripping out all roads everywhere, right?
Right?
It’s literally the title.
I can’t even understand down voting this, unless you’re delusional.
Have a look at the Netherlands friend. I’ve seen people towing dishwashers behind their bikes more than once while living there.
A dishwasher isn’t that heavy. A washing machine is.
We primarily use small vans. Eg. Utrecht, the example mentioned in the article:
And that’s fine. You can have almost no cars, but still use vans when they’re required.
Hell, do like the small Swiss town in that Tom Scott video. Abolish cars for private individuals or the able bodied. But you’ll still need (small, electric) cars and vans to transport the heavy stuff.
That and tradespeople often use their van as a mobile workplace. Tablesaw, semi-complete inventory of parts they may need, etc.
And we’re going to build rails to every store, restaurant, and other business that needs cargo pickup & delivery? And run a train to each of them, every day? And you think that would end up being more efficient/environmentally friendly than trucks?
Every store? Obviously not. Running cargo trams through major business or industrial districts, though? More plausible, if the will exists.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/CarGoTram
Something like that, but as a public service.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/CarGoTram
The main route went from the logistics center in Friedrichstadt via Postplatz and Grunaer Straße to Straßburger Platz and finally on to the factory.
This went from one logistics center to one production facility. It is insane to think that this could be a scalable solution.
Wow, a train line goes defunct in a country that heavily subsidizes car infrastructure and actively works against other modes of transportation. I’m shocked, really. Shocked.
I didn’t say anything about it going defunct. That has to be one of stupidest attempts at a straw man I’ve ever seen.
I pointed out that it only ever carried material from one location to one other location, and that such a system would not be scalable to serving an entire city.
Did you even read my comment?
Who said we were abandoning all of them?
Street vs Road.You can totally have delivery vehicles for stores on a street, but no other cars are allowed.
This is different from “ripped out completely”, which is what is proposed in the article. So the answer to your question is that Dr. Fuller said that.
Paywall.
I think the ideal is an alternating block structure
Pedestrian Street,
Road,
Pedestrian Street,
Transit only Lane,
Pedestrian Street,
Road,
Pedestrian Street,
Transit Only Lane,
…
Where Pedestrian streets cross roads, have car traffic enter a roundabout sunk below the pedestrian path, when they cross transit lanes, have a gate bridge that closes off the lane whenever a tram or bus isn’t near the crossing, same deal when car traffic crosses a tram or bus lane
Voila, maximum restriction of cross interaction between three separate modes of transport, a full 75% of which is dedicated to pedestrian and transit use, and the last quarter there mostly just for the benefit of last mile package delivery and emergency services, as well as the odd profession that legit has to use automobile transport for whatever reason.
Where do bikes fit in your overall design?
On pedestrian streets like in Amsterdam, apparently they’re less aggro when they aren’t sharing the road with 2 ton death machines
@PhlubbaDubba @throws_lemy I think it’s very sad that you think that “road” is synonymous with cars.
I mean it literally is, like the highway regulators literally use it as a byword for “car only lane”
Eh, keep some for emergency & delivery vehicles, public transport and bicycles.
They don’t actually rip up roads but just put retractable bollards there that are lowered for emergency vehicles and cargo delivery with a permit.
They do rip up roads, just not quite literally all of them. You’ll always have at least one lane, depending on the location. But the rest, including parking spaces, can be replaced with something else like greenspaces instead.
Pothole’s Paradise like in parts of Africa
Wow, post is getting a lot of traction. Wish some of the actual actionable ones had the same level of activity
Internet is for radicalization, not reasonable-ization
Have fun keeping up economic output.
Fuck economic output, I want to be happy and healthy and live in a world that I’d actually want kids to grow up in.
I want to be happy and healthy
This is dependent on the economic output that you consider expendable.
For instance, there will be no modern medicine without microchip fabrication, and really the entire global electronics industry from top to bottom. Without that extraordinarily complex production system woven through our economy, you’re basically back to 1940s medicine.
Yes, it’s impossible to do things differently. If there were no roads, all chip fabs would be demolished along with their custom local power plants they usually create on site.
But maybe they could keep some production going so that the chips for security tags could still be produced. With no roads, how would the police chase all the shop lifters.
Nothing says abject stupidity like taking an argument to its extremes no matter the cost.
Tearing out extra lanes that do nothing but encourage more traffic, adding protected cycling lanes or reducing road speed are seen as extreme by those that made the decisions that have created the infrastructure we have. In reality these are compromises.
‘Share the road’ is not a compromise. Sharrows are not a compromise. Jaywalking laws are not a compromise. Victim blaming is not a compromise. Media dehumanising pedestrians is not a compromise.Nobody ever fucking considered anything else but cars, drivers and the car lobby when installing these things.
Now tearing it out city centers to focus on humans and humanity is extreme?
You would absolutely not rip them out of you want bike lanes, buses etc.
You don’t need 4+ lanes for that.
Let me quote: “ripped out completely”. That means completely ripped out. Not only 2 out of 4 lanes.
Yes, you’re right: the conservative media outlet blatantly spinning the quote is being abjectly stupid.
Well, you sure know what you’re talking about, you-need-to-allow-white-pride… 🙃
So if a downtown business needs a new copy machine? a restaurant needs a pallet of vegetables? a hospital needs a new MRI system? what are grocery stores supposed to do to receive freight? Gonna build light rail to every loading dock in the city? Have an Amazon drone fly it in? Maybe we could drop frozen food off with horse drawn wagons.
Why is logistics an afterthought for… anyone with more than 2 brain cells?
Cargo trucks are the economy. Nobody has a replacement yet.
People are down voting, but nobody has a competent counterargument. Pathetic.
Have any of you ever tried to carry a box of books more than 10 meters?
Why is logistics an afterthought for… anyone with more than 2 brain cells?
People with more than 2 brain cells acknowledge that people aren’t advocating to remove service vehicles such as emergency or delivery ones, or public transport like busses. So thank you for this incredible self own. That’s what car brain does to you.
A government adviser has called for roads in cities to be “ripped out completely” to combat air pollution.
First paragraph.
Maybe read a little more than just the first paragraph next time around. But thanks for proving my point, 2 cells.
Pointing to the “greening” of city centres such as Seoul and Utrecht, he said: “We should start changing our cities and actually start thinking about ripping out road infrastructure and turning them into green spaces or green transport corridors. We have to look beyond traffic.”
This needed to be combined with a drive to get people out of their cars and into walking, cycling and using public transport, which would not only help tackle climate change but also improve health and so reduce pressures on the NHS.
ripping out road infrastructure
Holy shit dude. Maybe it’s more like 1 cell.
This needed to be combined with a drive to get people out of their cars and into walking, cycling and using public transport
I don’t get the point of highlighting “public transport”. Maybe you’re not explaining your point very well, or not understanding mine.
My point is that no public transport options are practical as logistics solutions, especially for last-mile delivery, and therefore ripping out the roads completely (as proposed in the article) will never be practical. There will always be a need for small, independently powered vehicles to fill the gaps.
What the fuck do you think buses are driving on? Christ almighty. This entire fucking topic is about private cars, not service vehicles. You’re needlessly obtuse.
So what did we do before we had widespread cargo trucking? Did we just not deliver any cargo ever? Everyone just wandered around dropping limes all over the place 'cause they’d only figured out how to carry them with their bare hands, until Henry Ford invented gas station sushi and revolutionized transportation forever?
Well, in the interest of not wasting everybody’s time, I’ll tell you: they organized their towns and cities around rail. This happened right here in the United States, with the stated example being in Philadelphia. Even the old West Coast cities were organized in much the same way for a long time. That was the only way they had available to them, and somehow, they still managed to have an economy.
We have a lot of retrofitting to do to regain that ideal. But it’s possible.
Trucks were invented in 1890s. By 1900 the world’s population was 1.6 billion, 5 times smaller than it is now.
But population numbers aren’t the only thing that has changed since then.
A hundred some years ago FDA didn’t exist. You could buy eggs, meat, etc. from your local farmers and butchers. Now, you need licenses and to comply with a whole bunch of different codes. Fewer people can comply with those, so the average distance things need to be shipped has increased.
There’s, also, a lot more things nowadays that were never possible to produce locally (or even just close by) to begin with. Semiconductors, medications, even fine fabrics for clothing require fairly complex processes and logistics. You can’t just plop a fab or a lab in every large-ish city - that is going to be even more of a nightmare to supply with resources necessary to keep it running, than shipping final product from somewhere else far away.
All of those are phenomenal arguments for heavily reinvesting in our freight rail.
Rail can’t realistically be connected to everyone’s house. You always need a solution for that final mile.
For smaller stuff, a (cargo) bike is a perfect solution.
For heavier stuff, like a mobile work place or a 40ft steel beam, you will always need something else. Right now the best option is a (small, electric) van or truck. For that you will need at least some roads. You can prevent them from being accessible to anything but professionals who absolutely need access. But you will still need a limited amount of them.
Perfect is the enemy of good. Being a zealot about this, is self-defeating and won’t convince enough people.
Trains are great and they’re definitely underutilized in the modern world, but the thing they excel at is getting stuff from point A to point B (like a warehouse), not spreading it around across thousands of different destinations.
Building a light railway to each and every walmart, target, 7eleven, etc. it’s just not practical in any way:
My city, for example, has a relatively extensive tram system. You can get around most of the city by it and there’s quite a few stores that are right next to tracks, so, theoretically, something like that could be used to deliver goods within a city.
However, it’s, both, way louder than cars and trucks (I used to live right next to a railway) and every time a tram or its powerline break, the entire line stops. You can’t, exactly, drive around a broken tram when you’re on rail.
So what did we do before we had widespread cargo trucking?
Agrarian society - wagons and hand carts.
they organized their towns and cities around rail
Towns and cities were significantly smaller and less complex. Rail does not scale. Adding new rail spurs is prohibitively time-consuming and inflexible.
Seriously, how would you propose to handle citywide garbage/recycling collection with light rail and no motorized vehicles? (Just for instance).
Your history is wrong. We had begun industrializing about 100 years before trucks were invented and more like 160 before they really became dominant.
And are you literally arguing that building rail is more cost prohibitive, time consuming, and inflexible than building roads? Like actually? Unironically? I’m sorry, buddy, but when you start getting into numbers, that’s my territory and you’re out of your depth. https://alankandel.scienceblog.com/2014/01/11/rails-vs-roads-for-value-utilization-emissions-savings-difference-like-night-and-day/
If only we properly invested in history education in this country. Then maybe people wouldn’t be embarrassing themselves by making arguments like yours.
We had begun industrializing about 100 years before trucks were invented and more like 160 before they really became dominant.
We enslaved, hurt, and killed millions of horses.
This only addresses passenger transit and none of the logistics issues which have been my actual argument.
This is not practical for transporting cargo around a moderately sized urban area. It never will be.
What you’ve been failing to consider, which I think I may have been taking as read to my detriment, is that the way our cities are organized plays a big role in determining which mode of shipping is more effective. The denser of a center you have, the more businesses you have concentrated in one place, the more you need capacity and the less you need flexibility. That inverts as things get more spread out and stuff needs to get to more different places. When you have a city organized around its rail infrastructure rather than a sprawling car-dependent mess, that rail infrastructure absolutely kills at supplying the place, significantly reducing the severity of the last-mile problem.
I will also note that even the most anti-car places still rightfully allow for delivery vehicles, and neither I nor I think any other person who doesn’t like cars would begrudge that. I personally just think that pretty much any shipping done by big rig when it could be done by rail is a missed opportunity.
Here are a few additional links for you to consider:
Trucking is heavily subsidized
The interstates are increasingly a metaphorical financial albatross around our collective neck
Just to offer one possible alternative: cargo bikes/trikes are a thing.
Are you fucking kidding me? Have you ever had to transport anything jeavor or large in real life?
Lol, lightweight cargo 😁
Of course they haven’t. That’s something for the help or their parents to worry about.
Ah, there it is: the Shroedinger’s cyclist. Every cyclist is simultaneously broke and privileged until the car-brain decides which is more convenient for his current argument!
TIL we never actually moved my girlfriend’s whole household by bike (and cart) when we moved in together.
Why is it that you think your anecdote can be broadly applied to all cargo transit needs?
Do you think a wind turbine could be carried by bicycle?
Ah yes, wind turbines which are famously delivered to locations in dense urban centers.
A fair point.
But also, isn’t it pretty obvious that there’s a lot of large, heavy cargo that gets moved around inside cities that could not possibly be transported effectively by bicycle?
So when people say I have obviously no experience moving heavy things, my personal experience matters. But when it turns out I have that experience, it magically stops mattering? Plus I never said that my experience is of importance, that’s something infreq and Hyperreality brought up.
No, the point is that an individual experience is not broadly applicable.
One sample is bad statistics.
Oh great, how many cargo bikes would we need to carry a pallet of milk cartons to the local grocery store? How many would we need to replace one truckload?
Doesn’t matter because you also need a refrigeration system to keep the milk from spoiling. Good luck putting that on a bike.
Someone got lucky https://www.kleuster.com/en/produits/refrigerated-cargo-bike/
200 kilos load and 1.3 m3 useful storage
OK, so to carry the same payload as one standard reefer trailer… we’ll use the lightweight value of 49000 lbs (22226 kg)… we’ll only need… 111 refrigerated cargo bikes.
Oh yeah, that’s practical. That will definitely be a workable, scalable solution.
–
You all are down voting facts? So sorry that reality doesn’t fit your fantasy.
Who besides rich boys can afford to ride their bikes to work?
Single mothers getting their kids to elementary and middle schools?
The elderly going to their doctors appointments?
Working stiffs who can’t afford to live in downtown?
What do you think will happen to rents when is forced to get an apartment in one of the existing blocks?
Ah, yes. Rich people and their… *checks notes* Bicycles…? lol
You seem to be under the impression that a bicycle is more expensive to buy and run than a car. I’d love to see your working for this.
Renting a home close enough to your workplace to make biking every day practical is usually more expensive than owning a car and living further away - especially if you have a family and need more than a studio apartment. In that sense, owning a bicycle and not a car is more expensive.
That said, this could be fixed with better public transit.
And better zoning laws, allowing mixed zoning (within reason).
The average US commute is about 30 minutes.
That distance on bike in a city is about
102.5 hours.In a city you can go about 5 miles in 30 minutes on a bike
I live in a city with an MSA of, let’s call it 2 million people.
What is it going to cost to cram 2 million people into a 5 mile circle and not have roads to bring in food?
The average US commute distance is 20 miles one-way. That’s about 2 hours by bike at a slow-ish pace (10 mph). Did you accidentally calculate a walking pace (2 mph) which would take the 10 hours you suggested?
I think you are correct. Good Catch.
Before COVID, I used to often have a 45 minute commute by car or a 35 minute commute by bicycle. It’s an 8 mile bike trip that is easy enough for me, a not particularly fit 56 year old, or a 9 mile car journey with 25 minutes of sitting in traffic. An electric bike would make it even easier to go further.
So, I’d question your numbers.
Who besides rich boys can afford to ride their bikes to work?
i bike to work in no small part because i can’t afford to drive there
Single mothers getting their kids to elementary and middle schools?
in civilized countries, they can use a cargo bike (what the dutch call a bakfiets) to carry the kids. or the kids can ride their own bikes.
The elderly going to their doctors appointments?
many elderly people can still cycle. you may even see electric assist tricycles on the bike path in civilized countries. and of course elderly people also benefit from accessible and convenient public transit.
Working stiffs who can’t afford to live in downtown?
this is a real concern and i absolutely share your desire to build large-scale dense public housing developments in downtown around transit stations, as well as doing the same around more outlying transit stations such that taking public transit also becomes a viable option.
What do you think will happen to rents when is forced to get an apartment in one of the existing blocks?
wait, i thought you wanted to build public housing to address housing affordability? was that just me offering a solution, and not you? that’s weird
That is not a solution, it is a communist fantasy.
How are you supposed to have busses without roads?
So all we have to do is get rid of rent and make everyone live in government housing,
Magically levitate supplies into the stores,
Get my 90 year old parents and people with sick infants to bike in to the doctors in the snow and rain,
So these lawyers on their $2,000 carbon fiber Trek bicycles can win their argument at city hall.
So these lawyers on their $2,000 carbon fiber Trek bicycles can win their argument at city hall.
Speaking of fantasy, you certainly have some interesting thoughts bouncing around in your head.
Next time there is someone whining about this at your city council look at who it is. It will be a rich white boy.
Next time someone on a bike is blocking rush hour traffic even though there is a bike lane, look who it is.
It will be a rich guy on an expensive bicycle.
“Communist fantasy”? Oh my god. Are you for real? You sound insane.
When you know you are wrong, you can always switch to ad hominem attacks
Saying dense urbanism with plentiful public housing is a “communist fantasy” is literally too dumb to dignify with a response.
Meet me in Vienna and I’ll buy you a beer.
