|
NihilismNow posted:SUV of the cycle path This reminds me of one of the more unusual vehicles on Dutch roads: the cargo moped. There are SOME on the Dutch roads, usually classic (i.e. old) things. Apparently they are popular in a certain region of Sweden. Rest of the world probably never heard of them (well, maybe 3rd world countries have 'unofficial' versions of them).  Netherlands. Sweden.
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 21:32
|
|
.
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 05:29 |
|
|
What are the laws about riding such things on the bike network? Mobility scooters are allowed but motorcycles not. Is it based on speed or engine power? Here a bunch of Lycra types are all up in arms over those power-assisted bikes because it's NOT REAL CYCLING and want them banned from the paths because something something slippery slope next there will be cars driving on the paths.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 22:06
|
|
|
In Denmark it's clear cut, motor-assisted bikes must not assist to speeds above 20 km/h, above that it's a scooter. Of course you can still pedal them faster than 20km/h but then all the power has to be supplied by pedaling.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 22:18
|
|
|
In the Netherlands it's similar, though we have two categories of scooter. Motor-assisted bikes can use their motor up to 25 km/h, then they count as normal bikes. The first category of scooter also has a max speed of 25 km/h, doesn't require a helmet, and can go on the bike paths everywhere. The second category can go up to 45 km/h, has to drive on roads in towns, and can drive on bike paths in the countryside. There are also motor-assisted bikes that can go up to 45 km/h which strangely count as the first category of scooters, and therefore don't require a helmet, although this will be changed in 2017.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 22:39
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:What are the laws about riding such things on the bike network? Mobility scooters are allowed but motorcycles not. Is it based on speed or engine power? Moped (45kph) used to ride on bicycle path everywhere but in most cities (50kph speed limit) they have been moved to the main road. Outside cities bicycles and mopeds often share the cycle path. There is another class of mopeds limited (officially) to 25kph and they are allowed on the cycle path. Except in Amsterdam which got permission to move them to the main road starting next year. Electric bicycles up to 25 kph use the cycle path, speed-elecs (up to 45kph) move to the main road inside cities next year (and mandatory helmet) but share the cycle path outside built up areas. E2: Extra complexity, there are 2 classes of bicycle path, the mandatory indicated by a round sign and the non-mandatory indicated by a rectangular sign with the word "fietspad". 45 kph mopeds can't go on the non-mandatory fietspad but 25kph ones can provided they turn of their internal combustion engine  .Electric bikes can go wherever. (E: beaten while i was typing this) NihilismNow fucked around with this message at 22:49 on Apr 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 22:43
|
|
|
Well, there is a special sign with two pictures, a bicycle and a scooter, for the paths where 45 km/h scooters are allowed. If you see that sign, scooters can go there. If you don't, they can't. It's quite straightforward.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 23:42
|
|
|
Carbon dioxide posted:This reminds me of one of the more unusual vehicles on Dutch roads: the cargo moped. There are SOME on the Dutch roads, usually classic (i.e. old) things. Apparently they are popular in a certain region of Sweden. Rest of the world probably never heard of them (well, maybe 3rd world countries have 'unofficial' versions of them). There are similar modified bikes, usually electric, common in certain parts of NYC and they're in a super legal grey area. Many local delivery things like couriers and takeout places make use of them. They tend to be standard bike frames with motor equipment bodged on, occasionally with a small bed in the back.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 02:27
|
|
|
Let's talk about road hierarchy for a bit! You can break roads down into classes based on their function. Freeways and principal arterials are all about moving people and goods from one place to another. Collectors distribute that traffic in smaller amounts. Local roads are the beginning and end points of most trips. A journey will typically use multiple classes of road. For example, driving from my place to my parents, it goes local - collector - arterial - freeway - arterial - collector - arterial - collector - arterial - freeway - collector - local. I could avoid freeways altogether if I didn't mind the drive taking 4 hours instead of 2. It's easy enough to make analogies to the veins in plants...  ... or the flow of information...  ... or the circulatory system.  The analogy goes beyond topology. You don't see capillaries growing out of the side of someone's aorta for the same reason you don't often see residential driveways on freeways: the higher pressure of the major vessel would completely overwhelm the smaller one. Likewise, if there's a bottleneck somewhere, like a clot stuck in an artery, circulation suffers throughout the network. A good road network, like the leaf show above, will have plenty of redundancy built in. Using the same color scheme as I showed in the first picture, I drew up a few schematic networks. A few of them are based on real cities, and you can probably guess which ones.          I have one question for everyone: which of these layouts would you most like to call home, and why? (Wait, is that two questions?)
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 22:50
|
|
|
I'd say European cities used to be a lot like the top left one, but at some point legislators got the idea that having a freeway splitting a city through the middle might not be the best idea. A lot of places are like the middle left one now. Although, often, it's like the middle left one, but as the city grew, the purple circle became less and less important, and as a replacement, they built a new major freeway as a full circle around the city. So another red circle surrounding the purple circle, with a few blue connections between them, and new green neighbourhoods also between them.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 23:45
|
|
|
So there was some pothole chat a couple pages ago. This just happened not far from me in protest of unpatched potholes.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 01:34
|
|
|
My sister succumbed to a trashed tire just this weekend from a pothole washout back in my hometown. They're coming to get us all!
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 01:54
|
|
|
I'd save bottom left since all the rest involve huge detours if you're walking. I don't care if your grid is all curvy, just give me lots of intersections and crossings.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 09:08
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:I'd save bottom left since all the rest involve huge detours if you're walking. I don't care if your grid is all curvy, just give me lots of intersections and crossings. Most of the others would need some pedestrian tunnels under main roads, of course. Nothing new there. But I don't see how bottom left could even work with all them blue roads. Looks like a dangerous clusterfuck to me where every single intersection could get you killed. It's called Manhattan isn't it?
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 09:39
|
|
|
Carbon dioxide posted:Apparently they are popular in a certain region of Sweden. For context, that is taken on an island where cars are not allowed. There are a handful of those. Too small for cars to be practical anyway, but not small enough that everything is a 5 minute walk away. You see a lot of people taking them down to the ferry stop, which is probably what you're seeing in the picture. You do sometimes see entire families crammed onto one of them heading for church. Only exceptions are usually an ambulance and a fire engine, if the island is big enough to warrant it. Example island: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Styrs%C3%B6 I have seen two or three "flakmoppar" outside those islands, but they are exceedingly rare nowadays. Hippie Hedgehog fucked around with this message at 10:30 on Apr 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 10:27
|
|
|
Carbon dioxide posted:Most of the others would need some pedestrian tunnels under main roads, of course. Nothing new there. Yeah, it's Manhattan, and it's probably where I'd most like to live (if I could get a job there and afford an apartment in a decent neighborhood).
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 17:34
|
|
|
Would you still want to live there if Robert Moses had gotten everything he wanted built? EXPRESSWAYS TEN STORIES IN THE AIR THROUGH BUILDINGS IN MIDTOWN WHEE! I'd like to be living in the top or bottom right. Good connectivity without tearing the heart out of the city. Sort of like Danbury with 84 skirting it to the north.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 22:46
|
|
|
If heMinenfeld! posted:Would you still want to live there if Robert Moses had gotten everything he wanted built? EXPRESSWAYS TEN STORIES IN THE AIR THROUGH BUILDINGS IN MIDTOWN WHEE! If Moses had simply gotten the Staten Island railroad to New York mainland via the Verrazano it would be ideal to live in Staten Island instead of New Jersey.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2015 01:09
|
|
|
Minenfeld! posted:Would you still want to live there if Robert Moses had gotten everything he wanted built? EXPRESSWAYS TEN STORIES IN THE AIR THROUGH BUILDINGS IN MIDTOWN WHEE! Was Robert Moses the same guy that also thought THIS would have been a good idea? 
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2015 01:14
|
|
|
Moses Was Right about the Lower Manhattan Expressway. Maybe with more depressed grade running for the connection.Ryand-Smith posted:If Moses had simply gotten the Staten Island railroad to New York mainland via the Verrazano it would be ideal to live in Staten Island instead of New Jersey. I prefer the technically still on the books plan to extend the R from Brooklyn to Staten Island, especially since the current day SIRT is pretty close to ready for direct subway connection. will_colorado posted:Was Robert Moses the same guy that also thought THIS would have been a good idea? It'd be better than LaGuardia.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2015 01:14
|
|
|
FISHMANPET posted:This amused me:
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2015 01:21
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:
This is not a hard bar to pass, it is a hard bar to find even with acoustic imaging of the substrate.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2015 01:35
|
|
|
Anias posted:This is not a hard bar to pass, it is a hard bar to find even with acoustic imaging of the substrate. Is it worse and/or more depressing than Newark? I really, REALLY try to avoid northeast airports, but hit this one, and it was terrible. The whole place was drenched in the stench of fear, depression, and anxiety. I had to change terminals and it was a painful experience, even with TSA precheck. Northeast Airports in order of Smell of Depression (largest first): Newark O'Hare Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport Baltimore Washington International El Paso ... a huge gap... Jacksonville Atlanta Albuquerque Phoenix Sky Harbor SeaTac Denver (tied with above) Charlotte Los Angeles ... a huge gap -- put these at the bottom of the list. Las Vegas -- they must have GREAT air purifiers. Burbank I've been to a bunch of other airports, but these really stick out. Overseas airports just smell like air freshener. Completely neutral. Germany, Italy, Japan, good job. You lost a war, but won in the "your airports aren't depressing."
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2015 02:07
|
|
|
babyeatingpsychopath posted:Is it worse and/or more depressing than Newark? I really, REALLY try to avoid northeast airports, but hit this one, and it was terrible. The whole place was drenched in the stench of fear, depression, and anxiety. I had to change terminals and it was a painful experience, even with TSA precheck. LaGuardia is very old, very tiny, and the only public transit out of it is a slow local bus while Newark and JFK both have airport transit that connected to commuter rail, and in JFK's case to the subway too.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2015 02:12
|
|
|
I stand by my statement. It was ranked the worst in america for several years running (2012, 2013, 2014, I stopped checking) and all signs point to that continuing. It's like 10th worst in the world. The worst is of course, Islamabad International (Pakistan) described charmingly as "This airport is worse than a central prison", and the eighth and ninth place finishers are compared only to a kind of dystopian torture, with a note that they'd merely need to be burned down/demolished and replaced entirely. Well if that's all it will take. LG is wretched. If you can fly out of anywhere else in that region, do so.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2015 02:24
|
|
|
LaGuardia is like stepping right into the 1950s when most of it was last renovated. The bad part of the 50s, the racism and poo poo that baby boomers like to pretend weren't there, not the happy surface.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2015 02:27
|
|
|
Isnt the very presence of La Guardia making air traffic worse around NYC? I remember reading a while ago that since its close to JFK and Newark airports the airspace that is kept clear for its takeoff/landings means other planes have to take odd and circuitous flight paths, and since the areas so busy planes moving off schedule cause huge ripple effects.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2015 03:23
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:LaGuardia is like stepping right into the 1950s when most of it was last renovated. The bad part of the 50s, the racism and poo poo that baby boomers like to pretend weren't there, not the happy surface. I've only been there once, and it was godawful. The windows in the men's bathrooms are set up so that, at night, you can see into all the other stalls. Edit: Some of my favorite historical plans for Manhattan were from back in the 20s when people thought the city would keep growing vertically forever. There were layers of transportation, segregated by mode, with specific floors for rail, cars, pedestrians, freight... it wasn't remotely cost-effective or well advised, but I'd love to see a movie or video game in that setting. Like Fifth Element but with all the skyways replaced by dozens of layers of streets, tracks, and sidewalks. Cichlidae fucked around with this message at 03:51 on Apr 19, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2015 03:43
|
|
|
Communist Zombie posted:Isnt the very presence of La Guardia making air traffic worse around NYC? I remember reading a while ago that since its close to JFK and Newark airports the airspace that is kept clear for its takeoff/landings means other planes have to take odd and circuitous flight paths, and since the areas so busy planes moving off schedule cause huge ripple effects. Doesn't sound likely. Airspace in general over most of New York City is off limits as all hell, especially since 9/11.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2015 03:49
|
|
|
Communist Zombie posted:Isnt the very presence of La Guardia making air traffic worse around NYC? I remember reading a while ago that since its close to JFK and Newark airports the airspace that is kept clear for its takeoff/landings means other planes have to take odd and circuitous flight paths, and since the areas so busy planes moving off schedule cause huge ripple effects. Yeah, this is a major issue right now. http://freakonomics.com/2009/05/14/want-to-fix-new-york-air-congestion-shut-down-laguardia/ Edit: Ok, actually reading that article: It is pretty poo poo. It doesn't mention anything about the runways basically all pointing directly across another's flightpath. There's an FAA article on it somewhere...but it's hiding. Well here's an NBAA one for now http://www.nbaa.org/events/amc/2011/news/presentations/1011-Tue/NBAA2011-NY-Airspace-Review.pdf Here's some info on the shuffles they have/are doing: http://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/news_story.cfm?newsId=13176&omniRss=fact_sheetsAoc&cid=103_F_S Bondematt fucked around with this message at 04:34 on Apr 19, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2015 04:14
|
|
|
Laguardia also has a relatively small part of the terminal as air-side past security, which is very boring.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 12:59
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:Let's talk about road hierarchy for a bit! I kind of feel like some of them might work, if you added an extra layer for pedestrian/bike only paths (preferably two layers, since the two don't actually mix too well!) As Baronjutter said, you want direct pedestrian connections, but as Carbon Dioxide said, you want that without every street being an expressway. I kind of like Vancouver's hierarchical grid with gradual phasing-in of diverters to turn the grid blocks into places that are easy to bike and walk through, but undesirable to use as a high-speed motor vehicle shortcut between the main roads.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 18:24
|
|
|
Top-right, middle-left, or middle-right I guess. With significant walking trail connections. Walking/biking not-on-the-roads is the best walking/biking. But I probably don't know what I'm talking about here.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 18:45
|
|
|
I've always liked layouts like this best. Basically a grid of smallish streets with at most some 4 lane streets or 2 lane with turning lanes here and there. The actual space for streets doesn't vary too much. The streets mostly just differ by either being 1-lane one-way streets with angle parking, 2 way streets with parallel parking, or 3-4 lane with no parking or parking only on one side. Most of the wider streets don't end up having more car lanes, they'll just have a tram with its own right of way (often shared with buses). Highways coming into the city simply turn into 4 lane one-way streets once again no wider than the established street grid and are quickly broken down into smaller and smaller streets so there are very few arterials or larger. Everything falls into the natural system of streets for the city so the city is never disrupted. People drive, traffic is slow but it's not that bad. Typical urban residential street.  What would be a 4 or 6 lane "stroad" in many places is instead just a 2-way with parking and a tram.  While the priority routes are generally just 2-4 lane one-ways, still not much wider from building front to building front than any of the other streets.  The mode share for all of Prague is 23% walking, 43% transit, and only 33% driving. 13th in the world for walking (as in pure walking, no transit involved). Paris is the king for walking at 61% , transit at 34% and private motoring at 9%, and they are investing hundreds of millions to bring that private motoring down even more, with an aim towards more bikes. Paris has 3% bike modeshare while Prague has a pathetic 1% compared to Amsterdam's 38%. But Amsterdam has 28% private motoring and only 7% walking. It seems in many cases cycle use "competes" most against walking and transit. But the main thing is having a low private motoring modeshare. I don't care if it's because everyone is walking, cycling, or taking transit, as long as your city works without driving it's a success. Even the dutch can gently caress up, Eindhoven, despite having a typical 25% bike modeshare has 65% modeshare of cars and the rest taking up by a tiny bit of walking and transit. Now compare this with US and Australian cities? Holy poo poo it's bad. The worst is Indianapolis at 92% private motoring and from there it's just a long list of US and Australian cities all in the 80's and 90's. "Progressive" wondercity Portland Or is at 70% private motoring with the rest taking up by transit, biking, and walking about evenly. The best US city is of course NY at about 30% private motoring, 55% transit, 10% bike (impressive!) and 1% walking. A lot of US cities are trying to fix this situation but man it's going to be hard. You can have a geographically wide city that has low car use, you just need good transit. But "good transit" needs enough people within walking distance of stations/stops to work. This of course isn't just a matter of raw density, but also connectivity. You need both the pool of commuters in the catchment area of the station, plus the streets needs to be able to safely and comfortably funnel those people to the station. If that station is surrounded by highways, people aren't going to be willing to walk as far to the station. When you have residential areas built along this strict vein and artery system they are extremely inflexible. It's very hard to add density to the, not just from local NIMBY's but the physical layout of the streets were designed to do one thing: funnel a very specific amount of cars onto increasingly larger and faster roads. These suburban networks were never designed for anything other than driving, and they were carefully designed by traffic engineers to handle the exact number of houses planned. You can't add much more density because traffic would become a poo poo show, but you can't add transit because the neighbourhood is functionally un-walkable. So the best you get are park and ride facilities, which take up massive amounts of land and studies keep showing are not very good investments. If Agenda 21 was real and a UN dictatorship took over north america they'd have a hard time fixing our cities. It would require decades and a lot of upheaval and rebuilding. Without a UN dictatorship? I think what we'll see more and more are a few US cities that "get it" building on that success and becoming more and more desirable with higher and higher prices while other cities continue to sprawl and suffer the consequences. The US's car dependency will further widen the gap between rich and poor, have and have not cities and regions. We'll see more Detroits and Atlanta's where the poor can't afford to drive but no other options exist to get around, but also more Seattles and San Fransisco's. Walkable transit friendly cities will become more and more attractive, attracting the high income jobs and workers, further boosting the city's budgets to grow on that success. Meanwhile car-dependent cities will see their tax bases continue to be stretched thin while infrastructure costs grow and grow. Either way it's going to be increasingly lovely for the working poor. Live in a walkable transit friendly area? You'll get gentrified further and further out. Live in a car-centric hellhole? Hope you can afford your car payments, insurance, and gas on your part time minimum wage job. The solution of course is to make sure every class has access to transit and walkable neighbourhoods. Make that form the urban norm, rather than a handful of in-demand cities. In Prague for instance it doesn't matter if you live in Prague 1 in a million dollar condo, or some old soviet apartment complex at the edge of the city, both will have a metro and or tram stop within a short walking distance. Both will have schools, shops, and services within a short walk. My only hope is that a lot of these LRT's and trams being built in the US will continue to expand until the entire city is covered, rather than existing as small novelties designed mostly to boost land values and help signal a good place to invest in gentrification. But the funding model really needs to change, they can't be seen as having a ROI based on the land value boost in the area, transit should be seen as having a ROI based on reducing the modeshare of cars (and thus needed budget on roads/highways) as well as providing increased mobility, specially to the working poor. Baronjutter fucked around with this message at 20:34 on Apr 21, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 20:27
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:The mode share for all of Prague is 23% walking, 43% transit, and only 33% driving. 13th in the world for walking (as in pure walking, no transit involved). Source your statistics.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 20:38
|
|
|
Koesj posted:Source your statistics. Ooops sorry! Lots of cool stats here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modal_share Obviously all the stats were taken by different agencies, but it's good to get ballpark comparisons. \/ I read the table wrong, 1% biking, 10% walking. That seems much more in line with newyork. I know the city's been making huge improvements in that regard but growing from almost nothing to 1% isn't that huge. I'm not sure if biking is a waste in NYC, even if it doesn't reduce car trips but instead takes pressure off the transit system it could be an overall win. In terms of costs needed to move people around, nothing is cheaper than walking, then cycling, then transit, then driving. Anything that moves people from a more expensive mode to a cheaper mod saves the city and society money (and land). The question though is the ROI. Once the bike infra is built though I can't see it costing more to maintain than a subway system per person moved. It's also really hard to find good stats or how to measure how much different types of mobility cost including externalities. Often people will compare the government's costs for highways vs a metro system but not include the cost of the cars/gas/insurance in the calculations for the highway. Add in parking costs too. Baronjutter fucked around with this message at 20:53 on Apr 21, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 20:43
|
|
|
I'm not sure where you're seeing biking at 10% for NYC, as of 2014 the census report was that 1.21% of the city's residents who commuted biked to work. And the number's even lower when you count everyone who commutes in, because most people will bike to the rail or bus station and take that in and walk when in the city if they bike at all for the commute. Frankly biking is obsoleted or made irrelevant for many sorts of trips you'll take in NYC due to the sheer transit availability, even with all the many improvements to bike infrastructure made over the years.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 20:45
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:If Agenda 21 was real and a UN dictatorship took over north america they'd have a hard time fixing our cities. It would require decades and a lot of upheaval and rebuilding. Without a UN dictatorship? I think what we'll see more and more are a few US cities that "get it" building on that success and becoming more and more desirable with higher and higher prices while other cities continue to sprawl and suffer the consequences. The US's car dependency will further widen the gap between rich and poor, have and have not cities and regions. We'll see more Detroits and Atlanta's where the poor can't afford to drive but no other options exist to get around, but also more Seattles and San Fransisco's. Walkable transit friendly cities will become more and more attractive, attracting the high income jobs and workers, further boosting the city's budgets to grow on that success. Meanwhile car-dependent cities will see their tax bases continue to be stretched thin while infrastructure costs grow and grow. Either way it's going to be increasingly lovely for the working poor. Live in a walkable transit friendly area? You'll get gentrified further and further out. Live in a car-centric hellhole? Hope you can afford your car payments, insurance, and gas on your part time minimum wage job. Most cities have a CBD that remains intact from the 19th & early 20th century when they relied on mass transit or pedestrian traffic. These would not be hard to reconfigure back to the way they were. Outlying suburban areas are another story but the first act of a dictatorship would be to level these areas and send those conservative inhabitants to the gulag. Following the Soviet path in the 1950s, those dead-end subdivisions would be replaced with large apartment blocks with high density.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 21:05
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:\/ I read the table wrong, 1% biking, 10% walking. That seems much more in line with newyork. I know the city's been making huge improvements in that regard but growing from almost nothing to 1% isn't that huge. I'm not sure if biking is a waste in NYC, even if it doesn't reduce car trips but instead takes pressure off the transit system it could be an overall win. In terms of costs needed to move people around, nothing is cheaper than walking, then cycling, then transit, then driving. Anything that moves people from a more expensive mode to a cheaper mod saves the city and society money (and land). The question though is the ROI. Once the bike infra is built though I can't see it costing more to maintain than a subway system per person moved. You can't fit a bike onto a bus or subway/commuter rail car during rush hours most of the time, like maybe 1 or 2 bikes in each commuter rail car if you're willing to stand by the doors for the whole trip. And from the stops to where you wanna go it's usually such a short distance that you wouldn't bother to bring your bike all the way out. Current city estimates are that about 50,000 people regularly commute by bike in the entire city of 8.4 million. Worth noting that a single day on the subway can have up to 6 million trips, the major commuter rail terminals seeing 650,000 rides a day, the major bus terminals from the suburbs seeing 200,000 a day, etc. Also "taking pressure off the transit system" is silly. Most of the overcrowding is due to relatively long distance trips along crowded corridors, where a bicyclist would have a hard time outpacing the transit.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 21:21
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:You can't fit a bike onto a bus or subway/commuter rail car during rush hours most of the time, like maybe 1 or 2 bikes in each commuter rail car if you're willing to stand by the doors for the whole trip. And from the stops to where you wanna go it's usually such a short distance that you wouldn't bother to bring your bike all the way out. Current city estimates are that about 50,000 people regularly commute by bike in the entire city of 8.4 million. Worth noting that a single day on the subway can have up to 6 million trips, the major commuter rail terminals seeing 650,000 rides a day, the major bus terminals from the suburbs seeing 200,000 a day, etc. Except in Copenhagen where carrying your bike on the commuter trains (S-trains) was made free several years back, popularity boomed, and in response they have now heavily increased bike carrying capacity. It's still stuffed, but taking your bike onto the train in rush hour is actually possible and encouraged. Unless you're getting on or off one of a few of the most central stations.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 21:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 05:29 |
|
|
e: ^^^ please don't get FishmechedBaronjutter posted:Ooops sorry! Lots of cool stats here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modal_share There's at least one big problem with the way you are presenting them: even the page itself states that these are not total modal share numbers, but that they only represent commutes. Freight, business, and leisure trips will seriously alter the total modal share in those cities. What bugs me about that Wiki page though is that they take the Amsterdam and Prague numbers from the old style Eurostat Urban Audit core city [urb_icity] dataset, but then produce a whole different source for Paris. That source is then a. currently a dead link but hey I found it again, b. using what I think are numbers for Paris 'proper' (ie within the Peripherique) instead of an aire urbaine or whatever the French statistics office uses as their lowest NUTS level for Urban Audit purposes, and b. holy poo poo counting total trips instead of just commutes - and gently caress me if I don't think it counts walking to and from the metro station as discrete 'trips' as well  Which is all really. loving. egregious. Within the same [urb_icity] set used with the other two cities, Paris goes from the stated '61%' walking share to 11%, PT goes from 27% to 68%, motor vehicle use from 9% to 18%. Don't use Wikipedia as your crutch. Also there's big problems with the Urban Audit itself 
Koesj fucked around with this message at 21:54 on Apr 21, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 21:34
|
|