This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Has there ever been a case of a successful project in any large Western city to build a network of lanes exclusively for cyclists, scooter-riders and Walmart/mobility scooters?
Define large. Bordeaux and it's surrounding towns (more like suburbs but the French are strict about keeping them separate) has some roads like that. They work pretty well but for reasons of space it's mostly mixed cycle and bus lanes, cycle lanes next to cars, cycle lanes on wide footpaths and mixed pedestrian/cycling areas.
That seems sort of dangerous. And yes, I'm sure Bordeaux counts as large.
I don't know how dangerous it really is but it feels pretty safe. Drink driving and aggressive driving in general is worse in France than back in Ireland so bus drivers are trustworthy in comparison.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
In short I'd say: Very few. It's not easy.
I'm biased because I'm living in a city with one, but I think greenway networks (a la the Atlanta Beltway) that allow cyclists "highways" to only certain parts of urban landscapes, while requiring the traditional gruelingly slow || dangerous approach we're used to only in short bursts is a good model.
3 modes of transportation is a lot to support, your question illuminates how truly difficult it is, and so it's the best of many bad options that I've personally experienced.
More options
Context Copy link
Peachtree, GA has a rather famous network of golf cart paths, but I suppose it's not "large" per se.
More options
Context Copy link
The Netherlands would be the obvious case study. I'm not sure how exclusive their bike lanes are in relation to cars and pedestrians, but the bicycle is by far the fastest way to get around most Dutch towns and is the primary method of commuting to school or work for around a third of the population. Even the countryside has very polished and accessible lanes: since the country is geographically small, casually biking from a village to a major city is completely doable for many people.
All in all, I think bikeable cities are a no-brainer as long as there's competent central urban planning involved - its cheaper, faster, requires little space, and has health benefits. I personally hate biking in large cities, but I grew up in Vienna where bike lanes where mainly an afterthought and often set up in risky, high-traffic areas. From my visits to the Netherlands, it seems to be a totally different game there, since bike lanes dominate urban planning concerns more than cars.
@2rafa commented on this very aspect negatively in this thread.
More options
Context Copy link
Bike lanes were separated by curbs from the main roads throughout all but the oldest part of Amsterdam when I was there. They had separate signals which all the locals generally followed (on foot or on wheels) and the tourists seemed to get the picture by about the second or third near miss.
I stayed in a deeply suburban part of town (outside the ring road), and at the subway stations the many bike racks were completely full after the morning rush.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Dutch cities in the 70s.
And currently car centric Oslo is transitioning to be a cycling city:
https://youtube.com/watch?v=zmp09Fd07oc
And of course Paris:
https://youtube.com/watch?v=woFlJx7Rv78
Yt comment:
It is a bit counterintuitive, but every bike ride is one less car ride, and this means a great cycling city has less congested traffic for cars. And fewer cars also cause less dedicated bicycle infrastructure. Typically no bike lanes are needed in low car streets.
In my experience, a cyclist on the road causes more delay for cars than another car would. Even though the bike is smaller than a car, it effectively blocks the same amount of space: the safety distance behind is the same, and that dominates the physical length. Being thinner is balanced by 2x+ the sideways distance for passing, plus for passing it usually doesnt matter how much of you sticks in the next lane, just if at all. And then they still are slower and often less predictable.
More options
Context Copy link
This depends on the existing mode share in your city. If you start with a high enough public transport share (true for journeys into or within Manhattan but nowhere else in the US, also true for the cores of European cities including London and Paris) then improved cycling infrastructure is taking people off busses and trains, not cars.
But the basic point that replacing a car lane with a lane which moves more people than the car lane (whether on bikes, busses, trams, or anything else) will tend to speed car traffic up.
I would disagree with this. Bicycles are far closer to an individual mode of transportation than a subway, much less a bus. This is why delivery drivers are using them instead of shuttles and hub-spoke models. For a door-to-door journey an individual vehicle is the best option.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link