|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Yeah, if we are designing America from a blank slate you’d make that. But in the real world as it exists there are places your choices are a gasoline powered bus or an electric car powered by hydroelectric or geothermal or nuclear. In the real world buses are powered by diesel or (in China) electricity Electric buses have had way more impact than teslas or any other type of electric car: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-04-23/electric-buses-are-hurting-the-oil-industry
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2018 13:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 11:59 |
|
|
boner confessor posted:you only had to dig back nine months for that one huh Even better it still mentions having cars, so it's a complete failure.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2018 14:47
|
|
|
Roads predate cars (and in the Roman case, predate and still function with cars) for a reason.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2018 15:03
|
|
|
poopinmymouth posted:Even leaving existing car ownership rates, just moving to using a bike on gorgeous days or short trips, if multiplied times all the people currently using their cars, would have a measurable difference in congestion, pollution, road wear, and a nation's health. There are like 50 people living in Iceland, stop using it as a comparison to US cities.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2018 15:11
|
|
|
poopinmymouth posted:
I just looked it up, July IS the nicest month and it's average high temperature is 57. aye aye aye
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2018 15:14
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:I just looked it up, July IS the nicest month and it's average high temperature is 57. aye aye aye The weather keeps the riffraff away.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2018 15:16
|
|
|
Jose Valasquez posted:There are like 50 people living in Iceland, stop using it as a comparison to US cities.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2018 15:33
|
|
|
Cicero posted:I mean if anything that means biking there is harder. Biking generally benefits from having at least moderate population density. That's how Tokyo manages to get a fairly high bike rate even with having very little bike infrastructure. A third of Iceland's population lives in Reykjavik, and it's ridiculously bikeable. It's not a very spread-out country. Basically, Iceland has some freakish ideal situation for cycling. It's like the Netherlands, but tiny and super-concentrated.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2018 15:37
|
|
|
a foolish pianist posted:A third of Iceland's population lives in Reykjavik, and it's ridiculously bikeable. It's not a very spread-out country. So use it as a model for all the small towns/cities with almost identical profiles?
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2018 15:40
|
|
|
Total Meatlove posted:So use it as a model for all the small towns/cities with almost identical profiles? there's nothing but models for how cities should be built. they're all over the place. urban planners trip on them. they're stacked to the rafters the problem is governance, and viable regional planning in the united states is and has been deliberately crippled since the inception of the united states, because this country was founded on the idea that people should live spread across the landscape and not stacked up in cities (which was a halfway decent idea in the late 18th century which rapidly became a really bad idea as the 19th century unfolded and industrial capitalism became the dominant economic paradigm)
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2018 15:55
|
|
|
Kerning Chameleon posted:Here's a good example: What exactly do you find wrong with the quote? Leveraging the efficiencies inherent to dense urban centers while improving the means of separating pedestrian and motorized traffic is literally the core of modern urban planning philosophy.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2018 16:01
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:this country was founded on the idea that people should live spread across the landscape and not stacked up in cities (which was a halfway decent idea in the late 18th century which rapidly became a really bad idea as the 19th century unfolded and industrial capitalism became the dominant economic paradigm) Makes sense, considering that 18th century large cities were crime-ridden plague pits.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2018 16:02
|
|
|
Cicero posted:I mean if anything that means biking there is harder. Biking generally benefits from having at least moderate population density. The thing about it is, despite Reykjavik being a small city, only 123,000 or so with another 94,000 in the total metro area around it, it's also the focus of national spending since it's thereby 35% of the whole country in the city and adding on the metro makes for 62% of the population. On top of that, although the population density for the city itself looks rather low at 1170 per square mile, around 75% of the city's area is hinterlands of next to no population on the outskirts of the developed area. As such the rest of it's rather denser. Total Meatlove posted:So use it as a model for all the small towns/cities with almost identical profiles? You're not going to find many such places that have the ability to direct their entire country's budget. Perhaps the capital of Liechtenstein.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2018 16:06
|
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:Makes sense, considering that 18th century large cities were crime-ridden plague pits. That, and the rise of cash crops combined with a colonial period dominated by trade guilds/companies fed by cash crops, ensured that land owners were ensconced as the modern aristocracy.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2018 16:08
|
|
|
a foolish pianist posted:A third of Iceland's population lives in Reykjavik, and it's ridiculously bikeable. It's not a very spread-out country. quote:Basically, Iceland has some freakish ideal situation for cycling. It's like the Netherlands, but tiny and super-concentrated. My god, I've heard so many stupid, bullshit excuses from people who hate biking or treat it as a toy: this city's weather is too hot, it's too cold, it's too rainy, it's too snowy, it's too dense, it's not dense enough, it's too hilly, it's too humid, it's too old, it's too new, my city didn't get blown up in WW2, people here weren't trained on biking in the womb like the Dutch, it goes on and on and on.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2018 16:09
|
|
|
Cicero posted:My god, I've heard so many stupid, bullshit excuses from people who hate biking or treat it as a toy: this city's weather is too hot, it's too cold, it's too rainy, it's too snowy, it's too dense, it's not dense enough, it's too hilly, it's too humid, it's too old, it's too new, my city didn't get blown up in WW2, people here weren't trained on biking in the womb like the Dutch, it goes on and on and on. It is really funny watching people treat the tiniest levels of perceived discomfort as insurmountable obstacles to attempting incremental changes in their ridiculously privileged lives made possible through exploiting the suffering of invisible others.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2018 16:17
|
|
|
Wait I have the answer. How about an uber but they just toss you in a bike sidecar or burley and a person pedals for you. Rickshawsome! or Bike Taxiomatic! Technology fixes another problem 
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2018 16:21
|
|
|
Cicero posted:lol, so first its advantage was that it's very low-density, now its advantage is the opposite? Make up your mind. Reykjavik is still low density, but in terms of Icelands population Reykjavik it is the densest part. For comparison, Pittsburgh is about half the size of Reykjavik (58sq mi vs 108 sq mi), but Pittsburgh's density is 5,482/sq mi and Reykjavik's is 1,169/sq mi. Topeka, which is closest to Reykjavik in population has a density of 2100/sq mi. Reykjavik is really low density for a city. Driving around it feels more like a big town than a city.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2018 16:22
|
|
|
Cicero posted:lol, so first its advantage was that it's very low-density, now its advantage is the opposite? Make up your mind. quote:This is utter nonsense. Iceland is cold, which isn't a dealbreaker for biking but hardly ideal, and having a small or big population has almost nothing to do with how hard it is to get people biking. What exactly is it about Iceland having a smaller total population that gives them an advantage? What exactly are they doing that would be so difficult to replicate in the US? Here's another thing. Iceland isn't cold. Detroit is colder in the winter (and hotter in the summer). Reykjavik sits in a really extraordinary band of great cycling temperatures year round.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2018 16:24
|
|
|
fishmech posted:The thing about it is, despite Reykjavik being a small city, only 123,000 or so with another 94,000 in the total metro area around it, it's also the focus of national spending since it's thereby 35% of the whole country in the city and adding on the metro makes for 62% of the population. On top of that, although the population density for the city itself looks rather low at 1170 per square mile, around 75% of the city's area is hinterlands of next to no population on the outskirts of the developed area. As such the rest of it's rather denser. Iceland's bike mode share isn't even that good: quote:The "Holy Grail" when it comes to measuring cycling is modal share. Yet Iceland for the moment doesn't really have any reliable figures to go by. Up until recently the authorities didn't really have much interest in measuring cycling. Thankfully, things are changing That number is, sadly, still several times higher than the US overall rate, but it's also much lower than the number in the Netherlands or Denmark or Germany or Japan, all countries with much larger populations than Iceland. Germany's bike mode share, at 10%, is more than 3x as high as Iceland's, and this in a country where the automotive industry is practically a part of the national identity. Cue a poster telling me that while Iceland is freakishly good for cycling, Germany is, like, super freakishly double-plus-good for it, in a way that makes it impossible for the US to take any lessons. No, don't look at Portland or Minneapolis or Davis, it'll never happen in the US okay?
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2018 16:26
|
|
|
a foolish pianist posted:Here's another thing. Iceland isn't cold. Detroit is colder in the winter (and hotter in the summer). Reykjavik sits in a really extraordinary band of great cycling temperatures year round. And I'm guessing that Japan, which has a bike mode share multiple times higher than Iceland, also exists in a "really extraordinary band of great cycling temperatures year round", right? I can't wait to hear how Tokyo's average August high of 30C/87F is actually perfect for biking. And I bet the humidity really helps too! You're either totally clueless of biking around the world, or addicted to excuses.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2018 16:32
|
|
|
Cicero posted:Ohhh my god, this is amazing. I've seen so many people claim that Seattle is "just too cold" for biking to work there in the winter, nobody wants to bike in those near-freezing lows you see, and now Iceland actually has great cycling temps year around, even during January and February when the mean temp is 0C. This is fantastic. I don't know what you think I'm arguing. I'm just correcting your dumb misconceptions about Iceland. It's a great biking area with a moderate climate. I don't know what else to tell you.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2018 16:37
|
|
|
a foolish pianist posted:I don't know what you think I'm arguing. quote:Iceland has some freakish ideal situation for cycling
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2018 16:38
|
|
|
Except it does. Great climate with few cold days and no hot days, lots of flats, a single really dense major city. I'm not arguing numbers of cyclists existing, just that it's one of the areas that lends itself best to cycling, even compared to the Netherlands or Tokyo. Maybe you've got me conflated with someone else? Or you have hosed up ideas about what kinds of conditions are good for bikes? EDIT: Cicero posted:Freakishly ideal would be, like, the south sf bay area, or maybe Hawaii. Too hot and trafficky. You've clearly never been to Reykjavik.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2018 16:41
|
|
|
a foolish pianist posted:Except it does. Great climate with few cold days and no hot days, lots of flats, a single really dense major city. I'm not arguing numbers of cyclists existing, just that it's one of the areas that lends itself best to cycling, even compared to the Netherlands or Tokyo. quote:Maybe you've got me conflated with someone else? Or you have hosed up ideas about what kinds of conditions are good for bikes? Now, for super hardcore bikers cruising at 20+ mph all the time, maybe those cold temps are good, but for the average person, biking around in 40F weather is less than fun. People may still do it when other bike-related conditions are good, but it's definitely worse than biking around when it's in the 60's or 70's. If you don't realize this, you're either delusional or haven't paid attention to bike patterns. As one example, here in Munich, you get way more people biking around everywhere when temps are in the 60's and 70's than in the 30's and 40's. It's really not even close. quote:Too hot and trafficky. You've clearly never been to Reykjavik.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2018 16:51
|
|
|
Reykjavik's location is also specifically one of the best in Iceland for the full weather moderating effects of the ocean, combined with transferred heat from the ocean currents, while also having among the most minimal storms coming off the ocean. It's why that one rather small area of the country is where almost everyone lives now.Cicero posted:This: Very few people bike in the other 99% of Iceland's area, the biking is heavily focused on the 1% of the land area that is Reykjavik's built up parts and immediately bordering suburbs' built up parts that haven't yet annexed into the city (as others have been over time particularly since independence). The population size means that area can demand and implement the funding for proper infrastructure in a way that's pretty unusual, given the population at stake. It's also why that level of funding control hasn't resulted in building any sort of rail system instead, because the costs are just too high for such a small population. Cicero posted:Are we talking about the same Rejkavik? It barely breaks 1,000/sq mi. In what universe is that "really dense"? 75% of Reykjavik's land area is outright wilderness and farmlands on the outskirts. That really brings the average down, since the populated areas would be over 4000 people per square mile fishmech fucked around with this message at 16:56 on Apr 27, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2018 16:53
|
|
|
iceland is an outlier nation in many ways and a bad example to hold up for anything unless we want to talk about hypothetical other small island nations in the north atlantic
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2018 16:56
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Reykjavik's location is also specifically one of the best in Iceland for the full weather moderating effects of the ocean, combined with transferred heat from the ocean currents, while also having among the most minimal storms coming off the ocean. It's why that one rather small area of the country is where almost everyone lives now. quote:Very few people bike in the other 99% of Iceland's area, the biking is heavily focused on the 1% of the land area that is Reykjavik's built up parts and immediately bordering suburbs' built up parts that haven't yet annexed into the city (as others have been over time particularly since independence). But they generally don't, because the US has systems and a culture set up to spend tons of money on cars. It could easily be the same way for bikes, Americans just don't care about bikes very much. It's not that our system of governance and population distribution is bad for bikes, it's that culturally nobody gives a poo poo about bikes. fishmech posted:75% of Reykjavik's land area is outright wilderness and farmlands on the outskirts. That really brings the average down, since the populated areas would be over 4000 people per square mile poo poo, I grew up in Santa Clara, an area -- the south bay -- frequently derided by D&D'ers as "a giant, sprawly suburb", and it has a population density 70% higher than your Reykjavik estimate. Cicero fucked around with this message at 17:03 on Apr 27, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2018 16:58
|
|
|
Jose Valasquez posted:There are like 50 people living in Iceland, stop using it as a comparison to US cities. There's also the horribly inappropriate comparison of an Actual Civilized Nation and the Randian Utopia known as the US.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2018 17:00
|
|
|
But are techno-hot dogs DRM'd sandwiches?
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2018 17:04
|
|
|
a foolish pianist posted:I don't know who you're talking to here, but it's not me. lol, garbage. I routinely had to cycle through multiple inches of snow, driving wind and rain. I need to use rain pants and shoe covers to get to work without my lower body being drenched at least once a week. I backed off my claim that Iceland is as intense as anywhere in the USA, but the idea it's "great cycling temperatures year round" is utter hogwash From at least August to March I have to put nail tires on my bike lest I crash on the ice every 10 feet. Biking as your full time transport here requires dedication and a bit of masochism. poopinmymouth fucked around with this message at 17:12 on Apr 27, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2018 17:07
|
|
|
Guys what about Singapore
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2018 17:08
|
|
|
Cicero posted:Sure, but it's still a relatively cold place. Not quite painfully cold overall, but hardly ideal for biking. I'm not sure what you aren't understanding here. Reykjavik has a very specific alignment of factors that result in it having a ton more funds to hand than you'd expect for a city/metro of its size, but also means it can't really build any effective public transit beyond buses. Hence, the choice to massively expand cycling facilities there.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2018 17:33
|
|
|
You're trying to portray it as this governmental/geographic destiny, but the bike rate isn't actually even that high; there are a handful of US cities with comparable or higher bike rates, though the US lags behind overall. Basically everything you've said about biking here has been wrong or irrelevant. "They have tons more funds"? Bike infrastructure like they have is cheap as hell compared to what American cities build and maintain for cars all day erry day. That they've put it towards bikes is very obviously not because they just happen to have more money than American cities. "it can't really build any effective public transit beyond buses."? The enemy of bikes when it comes to expanded facilities in western European and American cities isn't transit, it's cars, so their advantage isn't because of a lack of resource competition with transit. You're very obviously clueless on biking, just like when you tried to tell actual Dutch people that the reason their country bikes so much is that they just used to be too darn poor for cars.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2018 18:11
|
|
|
It helps that they have significantly fewer cars driving around to hit cyclists.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2018 18:19
|
|
|
fishmech posted:I'm not sure what you aren't understanding here. Reykjavik has a very specific alignment of factors that result in it having a ton more funds to hand than you'd expect for a city/metro of its size, but also means it can't really build any effective public transit beyond buses. Hence, the choice to massively expand cycling facilities there. Maybe if we did that people in North Dakota still wouldn't bike in the winter or whatever, but the fundamental existence of "bicycle infrastructure" is not a thing that is in anyway dictated by density or temperature or anything other than political will.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2018 18:20
|
|
|
twodot posted:You think they have more funds than the United States of America government? Favoring car infrastructure over bicycle infrastructure (or more importantly favoring military spending over literally everything else) is clearly a political choice. If there was a desire to prop up a bicycle industry and the sort of lifestyles afforded by regular biking we would just do it. The United States government isn't going to drop a bunch of funds for say Lowell, Massachusetts to get comprehensive bikeways built, for a comparison of an urban area of similar size. And if they were in the mood to do such a thing they're far more likely to spend some extra money to build better public transit in it, probably teeing it off from the current connections down to Boston. It's not that Iceland particularly wanted bikes either, it's just the thing that makes more sense for improving the infrastructure in Reykjavik due to its unique local conditions. Cicero posted:You're trying to portray it as this governmental/geographic destiny, but the bike rate isn't actually even that high; there are a handful of US cities with comparable or higher bike rates, though the US lags behind overall. You sure love arguing against strawmen. I never said the biking rate is very high, just that Reykjavik has been choosing to massively expand their infrastructure over the past little while, mostly since 2000. They already have a bunch of road infrastructure too so I'm not sure why you think that's any kind of argument? They're building bike infrastructure on top of it and beside it, and it does cost money to do that. Also again, yes, they can't do much with public transit beyond buses, there's not really a way to make adding in rail to the country for the first time since the old docks railways close be financially sustainable due to all the costs associated with it, and the density not being particularly high . You're clueless as hell and just seem to be raging against the very idea of Iceland daring to build bike infrastructure in one particular corner of the country, and I don't know why that is.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2018 18:32
|
|
|
fishmech posted:The United States government isn't going to drop a bunch of funds for say Lowell, Massachusetts to get comprehensive bikeways built, for a comparison of an urban area of similar size. And if they were in the mood to do such a thing they're far more likely to spend some extra money to build better public transit in it, probably teeing it off from the current connections down to Boston. We can have a discussion on whether the lack of will is smart or good, but pretending like physical reality is impeding us from building infrastructure can't be part of the conversation. twodot fucked around with this message at 18:56 on Apr 27, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2018 18:46
|
|
|
I lived in a city that has elevated roads with bus only lanes and it was really nice. Indistinguishable from an ell train for passengers but quieter and the car can take itself to a yard anywhere in the city when needed.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2018 18:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 11:59 |
|
|
Yo've kept arguing that there's some "special factors" at work here letting them build stuff for bikes, but it's very obviously false.quote:Reykjavik has a very specific alignment of factors that result in it having a ton more funds to hand than you'd expect for a city/metro of its size quote:The population size means that area can demand and implement the funding for proper infrastructure in a way that's pretty unusual, given the population at stake. quote:The United States government isn't going to drop a bunch of funds for say Lowell, Massachusetts to get comprehensive bikeways built quote:Seattle will officially receive a stack of Federal cash to build protected bike lanes downtown and on Broadway (we reported on the recommendation earlier this month). The city has also received nearly $400,000 to help low-income residents access Pronto bike share (I will write more about this in a future post, so stay tuned). --well that's probably just a one-off, it's probably not part of a pattern or anyth-- quote:The Federal Highway Administration wants to clear the air: Yes, state and local transportation agencies should use federal money to construct high-quality biking and walking infrastructure. Now, this is a somewhat recent development, things like protected bike lanes used to be not taken seriously. But again, that's just a cultural/political thing about caring about bikes in general, not because a difference of governance or funding or density or anything like that. Iceland is an unusual country, but there's nothing about it that makes it unusually well-suited for bikes, nor is there anything they've done that would be impossible or even particularly challenging for the US to do. Your arguments about funding are utterly nonsensical garbage. quote:(edit: Thanks to Cicero, this is apparently completely wrong, but also not relevant to my point) Cicero fucked around with this message at 18:59 on Apr 27, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2018 18:54
|
|