How can you stand the lopsided car infrastructure?

[Ezekiel]

Most roads need to be redone approximately every twenty years. That's typically the time to build more balanced. You do it area by area instead of all at once. Zones can be mixed sooner, inexpensively. The new houses that we badly need in the spread out suburbia that Satinavian rightfully criticized can be built more densely now, another decision that we don't do because of policy, not because it's more expensive. It would actually be cheaper, since there wouldn't be so much land to pay for and road to maintain.

 

[Ag3ma]

<snip>

Those that pay the most money call the shots. Car drivers comprehensively outspend cyclists overall so they think that they've got a right to rule the roads, and the government takes one look at the economics of transport and basically agrees with them.

 

[Elvis Starburst]

So what exactly is your point if you took the time to post this cartoon while acknowledging that it's not pertinent to the conversation? I didn't say his criticisms don't have merit, simply that they are self-imposed. Not saying he should just drive everywhere, simply that he shouldn't be disappointed that the world hasn't conformed to what most conveniently accommodates him.

I'll admit I worded my part somewhat poorly, but I said what I said because I foresaw the possibility of people going "ah but we're not talking about society we're talking about cars so your post is irrelevant" and I wanted to cut that off at the pass.

Ezekiel is correct that you did miss the point, as the cartoon is taking a jab at your argument. The argument you used ultimately dismisses any criticism that the other person is trying to make, even if you yourself don't entirely deny the validity of said criticism. It speaks to a point of "this world was built this way and the status quo will continue, so anything bad that comes to you for trying to survive within it is entirely your fault and not the fault of things being made the way they are." It dismisses that change is necessary and valuable in order to benefit more people that cannot survive within the status quo as it exists currently and tells you to adapt or die; whether you realistically can or not is irrelevant.
While I understand where this argument comes from, I wouldn't say it's a particularly good one

 

[I can't enter my old name]

If I were some sort of Stalinist dictator, I would just ban personal cars and force everyone to use motorcycles, mopeds, and bicycles. This has nothing to do with the environment, it's because I could theoretically prevent 1 million deaths worldwide every year. That's Malaria-tier casualties, easily preventable because it's caused by consumer choice while something like Malaria requires billions of dollars every year to eradicate.

There's no particular reason you need to travel 80mph in a 2 ton siege weapon projectile, except for comfort and safety, and by safety I mean the illusion of safety, because the soundproof isolation helps obfuscate the fact if you turn or brake 1 second too late you are turned to mincemeat. Personally I don't see a need for having kamikaze trebuchets.

 

[Drathnoxis]

If I were some sort of Stalinist dictator, I would just ban personal cars and force everyone to use motorcycles, mopeds, and bicycles. This has nothing to do with the environment, it's because I could theoretically prevent 1 million deaths worldwide every year. That's Malaria-tier casualties, easily preventable because it's caused by consumer choice while something like Malaria requires billions of dollars every year to eradicate.

There's no particular reason you need to travel 80mph in a 2 ton siege weapon projectile, except for comfort and safety, and by safety I mean the illusion of safety, because the soundproof isolation helps obfuscate the fact if you turn or brake 1 second too late you are turned to mincemeat. Personally I don't see a need for having kamikaze trebuchets.

You're going to prevent deaths by forcing everybody to drive motorcycles? Maybe you can also eliminate papercuts by replacing paper with razor blades.

 

[Elvis Starburst]

You're going to prevent deaths by forcing everybody to drive motorcycles? Maybe you can also eliminate papercuts by replacing paper with razor blades.

Right? Spoken by someone who doesn't understand that many motorcyclists are just as much of a danger to themselves as they are to others, if not more so

 

[Gordon_4]

If I were some sort of Stalinist dictator, I would just ban personal cars and force everyone to use motorcycles, mopeds, and bicycles. This has nothing to do with the environment, it's because I could theoretically prevent 1 million deaths worldwide every year. That's Malaria-tier casualties, easily preventable because it's caused by consumer choice while something like Malaria requires billions of dollars every year to eradicate.

There's no particular reason you need to travel 80mph in a 2 ton siege weapon projectile, except for comfort and safety, and by safety I mean the illusion of safety, because the soundproof isolation helps obfuscate the fact if you turn or brake 1 second too late you are turned to mincemeat. Personally I don't see a need for having kamikaze trebuchets.

Cars aren’t soundproof, their safety measures are not illusionary and I wouldn’t have been able to take my children home from hospital - or indeed anywhere thereafter - on a Harley or a Vespa.

Try again.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

No, you don't stand it just fine, you put up with traffic, spend more time commuting and pay more for gasoline because of how zoning is split and because of the lack of density in properties owed to cars.

How is my commute longer when driving vs riding a bike? And that diagonal line on the bike route is literally a bike path completely separate from actual streets. And I'm the sucker driving to work everyday to save 2 hours of commuting? Not only do I save 2 hours but I don't arrive sweating my ass off in the summer or have to bundle up in the winter or get rained on when it rains.

 

[Xprimentyl]

I'll admit I worded my part somewhat poorly, but I said what I said because I foresaw the possibility of people going "ah but we're not talking about society we're talking about cars so your post is irrelevant" and I wanted to cut that off at the pass.

Ezekiel is correct that you did miss the point, as the cartoon is taking a jab at your argument. The argument you used ultimately dismisses any criticism that the other person is trying to make, even if you yourself don't entirely deny the validity of said criticism. It speaks to a point of "this world was built this way and the status quo will continue, so anything bad that comes to you for trying to survive within it is entirely your fault and not the fault of things being made the way they are." It dismisses that change is necessary and valuable in order to benefit more people that cannot survive within the status quo as it exists currently and tells you to adapt or die; whether you realistically can or not is irrelevant.
While I understand where this argument comes from, I wouldn't say it's a particularly good one

My argument is dealing in reality. I'm not dismissing that infrastructural change could help, but asking why municipalities aren't allocating funds and resources for a niche population of enthusiasts is ridiculous as the answer is obvious. The question was posed, verbatim: "How can you stand the lopsided car infrastructure?" The answer? Because it was designed for MOST people's needs and we HAVE to. Because most of us live in the real world where the convenience of an automobile and the roads designed to optimize the use of them, for better or worse, works. I can get in my car a drive where I choose when I choose; I'm not dependent on the 20-minute bike ride to the train station to catch the strict 3:04pm departure to get to the next station 30 minutes away to rent a scooter to make my 4:00pm meeting 6 blocks away. Oh, and then I have to do that all in reverse to get home.

If I or anyone chooses to cycle, then complain that it's not as cyclist-friendly as we'd prefer, well, get in the infinitely-long line for complaining about not getting your way. It's not my thread to criticize, but perhaps a better title would have been "Why don't more people choose to cycle instead of drive?" That's a more direct question, and a more intentional discussion.

 

[Satinavian]

If I or anyone chooses to cycle, then complain that it's not as cyclist-friendly as we'd prefer, well, get in the infinitely-long line for complaining about not getting your way. It's not my thread to criticize, but perhaps a better title would have been "Why don't more people choose to cycle instead of drive?" That's a more direct question, and a more intentional discussion.

The Answer to that is easy :

Many people don't cycle because the current infrastructure and city planning makes it inconvenient and dangerous. If that is changed and cycling becomes both safe and convenient, people will do. As seen in many European cities that took appropriate measures.


Now the question obviously remains : Do we want more people to forsake private cars in favor of bikes ? And the Answer should obviously be "yes". It is healthier, cheaper on the household income, cheaper for road maintenance (yes, heavy vehicles do cause more wear and tear), requires less space because bikes are smaller and, most importantly, helps getting CO2 emissions under control.

 

[Ezekiel]

How is my commute longer when driving vs riding a bike? And that diagonal line on the bike route is literally a bike path completely separate from actual streets. And I'm the sucker driving to work everyday to save 2 hours of commuting? Not only do I save 2 hours but I don't arrive sweating my ass off in the summer or have to bundle up in the winter or get rained on when it rains.

If you don't wanna sweat, get an electric, but that wasn't my point. I never told anyone to ride a bicycle. The point is that when give people the infrastructure to ride bicycles, including mixing of zones and building denser (though that separated path you posted is good too), and when you improve public transit, which moves way more people than cars, more people will ride bicycles and take public transit, which will remove cars from the road. I see enough slow traffic all the time to know that the majority of you drivers don't put up with this lopsided system just fine.

 

[Ezekiel]

helps getting CO2 emissions under control.

Also, pavement traps more heat, which warms the towns and cities. It takes gargantuan amounts of pavement to accommodate so many private cars. Lower temperatures slow chemical reactions that create smog and drive down energy usage from people using air conditioners. You also need to run energy lines and pipes farther when you build almost exclusively for cars instead of on a more human level. Expensive.

 

[Elvis Starburst]

My argument is dealing in reality. I'm not dismissing that infrastructural change could help, but asking why municipalities aren't allocating funds and resources for a niche population of enthusiasts is ridiculous as the answer is obvious. The question was posed, verbatim: "How can you stand the lopsided car infrastructure?" The answer? Because it was designed for MOST people's needs and we HAVE to. Because most of us live in the real world where the convenience of an automobile and the roads designed to optimize the use of them, for better or worse, works.

If I or anyone chooses to cycle, then complain that it's not as cyclist-friendly as we'd prefer, well, get in the infinitely-long line for complaining about not getting your way.

Yes, it works that way because it was built for it specifically. The only reason alternatives are "niche" is because things aren't being built for the alternative, much like what Satinavian said. Yet it's funny that other parts of the world (Europe for example) got it figured out differently and somehow, shocker, it works and everyone's needs are met and supported. But here in North America everything is intentionally built to be so far spread apart and so only one method of transportation is convenient.

I can get in my car a drive where I choose when I choose; I'm not dependent on the 20-minute bike ride to the train station to catch the strict 3:04pm departure to get to the next station 30 minutes away to rent a scooter to make my 4:00pm meeting 6 blocks away. Oh, and then I have to do that all in reverse to get home.

The type of location doesn't make this any better either. My brother lives in a city that has public transit buses for each stop every 10-20 minutes, and there's at least a dozen routes so nothing is too far apart. It's easy enough to get on one bus and transfer to another. However, where I live there's maybe half a dozen routes that are heavily spread out so transfers aren't as easy, and the bus arrivals are spaced out once per hour. If you miss one, you're stuck for a long time. I'd walk or bike ride a lot more if my town's transit infrastructure was better supported, but lo and behold, we didn't build for that because vehicles were easier to build for and the alternative options suffer because of it.
We only recently started adding some bike lanes as well, and even then those are limited and some aren't entirely well designed for the roads they're being put on. There's still tons of gaps across many roads in town and some of the bike lanes just end and you're in the middle of traffic again.
Funny that when things aren't built for other transportation methods they're not particularly useful or safe

 

[Phoenixmgs]

If you don't wanna sweat, get an electric, but that wasn't my point. I never told anyone to ride a bicycle. The point is that when give people the infrastructure to ride bicycles, including mixing of zones and building denser (though that separated path you posted is good too), and when you improve public transit, which moves way more people than cars, more people will ride bicycles and take public transit, which will remove cars from the road. I see enough slow traffic all the time to know that the majority of you drivers don't put up with this lopsided system just fine.

How are you not gonna sweat in 70s/80s in the morning with the sun hitting you and humidity at 90+% for 1 hour+ ride (regardless if pedaling or not)? The weather in the midwest doesn't make biking something you can do most of the year. I don't have any problem with public transportation but everyone knows driving somewhere is faster because you obviously don't have to make any stops along the way nor do you have to wait for the train or bus to come around either. Even if say public transport was 10mins faster than driving, you may have to leave 10mins earlier to catch that train/bus that gets you to work 10mins faster because taking the next one would make you late so you haven't really gained any time. Chicago's main problem (at least coming from the southside) is that there are only 2 main arteries going into the city (94 and Lake Shore Drive) so if either one gets an accident, tons of traffic on the other one or if they both do, then it's just fubar as every single side street has a stop sign on every corner so you're not getting anywhere taking "back" roads. For me, if there was a better system for some public transport/bikes/whatever, it might save me like 2mins or so to get to work with less car traffic but that's kinda it.

 

[Xprimentyl]

Yes, it works that way because it was built for it specifically.

That's exactly what I've been saying!

The only reason alternatives are "niche" is because things aren't being built for the alternative, much like what Satinavian said. Yet it's funny that other parts of the world (Europe for example) got it figured out differently and somehow, shocker, it works and everyone's needs are met and supported. But here in North America everything is intentionally built to be so far spread apart and so only one method of transportation is convenient.

Is it really the "only reason?" Correct me if I'm wrong, but the bicycle preceded the automobile by a few decades, so it hasn't been anything new since its inception, and cycling still hasn't taken off as the preferred method of transportation for most people. So no, I disagree that the only thing holding swaths of people back from preferring cycling over driving a car is the lack of accommodations to do so. Ask the mother of three children strapped in the backseat with $250-worth of groceries in her trunk, and oh, she's late for her OBGYN appointment 25 miles away. If only she had a bike lane! She might have spent more time cycling instead of procreating!

The type of location doesn't make this any better either. My brother lives in a city that has public transit buses for each stop every 10-20 minutes, and there's at least a dozen routes so nothing is too far apart. It's easy enough to get on one bus and transfer to another. However, where I live there's maybe half a dozen routes that are heavily spread out so transfers aren't as easy, and the bus arrivals are spaced out once per hour. If you miss one, you're stuck for a long time. I'd walk or bike ride a lot more if my town's transit infrastructure was better supported, but lo and behold, we didn't build for that because vehicles were easier to build for and the alternative options suffer because of it.
We only recently started adding some bike lanes as well, and even then those are limited and some aren't entirely well designed for the roads they're being put on. There's still tons of gaps across many roads in town and some of the bike lanes just end and you're in the middle of traffic again.
Funny that when things aren't built for other transportation methods they're not particularly useful or safe

Okay, and? Your brother lives in a city where public transit is feasible and you don't; got it. Your city has added bike lanes; got it. I'm sure the number of cyclist in your area grew exponentially overnight.

Listen, folks, I'm not anti-cycling. If it works for you and fits your lifestyle, then by all means, live your best life; pedal to your hearts' content. Here's hoping you never need to get anywhere far away quickly. But lamenting that the place you live doesn't make it convenient is pissing in the wind. I might as well start a thread titled "How can you stand making less than a billion dollars a year?" then follow it up with a sob story about gophers digging up my life savings I had buried in my backyard because I don't trust money management utilities that are lopsided towards traditional banking systems.

Other than that, you lot have simply been positing "coulda-woulda-shoulda," which is fine, but doesn't do much in the way of substantive discussion. Reality is, no municipality is about to throw millions of dollars into substantial, city-wide construction for the few cyclists it might benefit, not when they're already using the roads with abandon. Sorry it's not perfect for them.

 

[Ezekiel]

How are you not gonna sweat in 70s/80s in the morning with the sun hitting you and humidity at 90+% for 1 hour+ ride (regardless if pedaling or not)? The weather in the midwest doesn't make biking something you can do most of the year. I don't have any problem with public transportation but everyone knows driving somewhere is faster because you obviously don't have to make any stops along the way nor do you have to wait for the train or bus to come around either. Even if say public transport was 10mins faster than driving, you may have to leave 10mins earlier to catch that train/bus that gets you to work 10mins faster because taking the next one would make you late so you haven't really gained any time. Chicago's main problem (at least coming from the southside) is that there are only 2 main arteries going into the city (94 and Lake Shore Drive) so if either one gets an accident, tons of traffic on the other one or if they both do, then it's just fubar as every single side street has a stop sign on every corner so you're not getting anywhere taking "back" roads. For me, if there was a better system for some public transport/bikes/whatever, it might save me like 2mins or so to get to work with less car traffic but that's kinda it.

Okay, not sweat as much.

Yeah, having to catch the one bus or train for that wide segment of time (or the service not operating on the weekends/Sundays or late is night) is one of the reasons few people here take public transit. It should be more frequent, even if that costs the city more. It's a public service; it doesn't have to make a profit. You make that sacrifice because having a system that's frequent in more areas attracts riders and benefits everyone by getting more cars off the road. Then when you no longer have so many cars you can rebuild parts of the city that have to be repaired/updated to a more human scale. Another reason few people here take public transit is because it still has to travel through jammed car traffic and traffic lights in most areas and gets no priority (despite often carrying more commuters). I used to try to catch the light rail on my way home from work, but stopped when I realized that with all the traffic lights it barely saved me any time. Once I even outran the light rail, was ahead by almost half a mile when I finally had to make my turn, and I wasn't going that fast.

 

[Elvis Starburst]

Is it really the "only reason?"

Ok, obviously not, my bad for wording things incorrectly.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the bicycle preceded the automobile by a few decades, so it hasn't been anything new since its inception, and cycling still hasn't taken off as the preferred method of transportation for most people. So no, I disagree that the only thing holding swaths of people back from preferring cycling over driving a car is the lack of accommodations to do so.

Infrastructure changed along with the times to accommodate the growing automobile industry, and in turn one became more prevalent in the way cities and towns were laid out. Not to mention the large amount of spacing between houses, districts, and businesses. This isn't even getting into lobbying that helped cause things to turn out the way they have to begin with.
When two options are available, and the way things are designed leans heavily in favour of one over the other, then most people are going to lean towards the one most convenient and accommodated for... especially if the alternative doesn't get much care or attention for it to be feasible as an option.

Ask the mother of three children strapped in the backseat with $250-worth of groceries in her trunk, and oh, she's late for her OBGYN appointment 25 miles away. If only she had a bike lane! She might have spent more time cycling instead of procreating!

I'm not saying that biking as a transportation alternative needs to be accommodated for to the point that driving a vehicle is no longer an option, or that bikes should be used for everybody regardless of whether or not it fits their individual needs or circumstances.
You're bordering on a straw man here. Dial it back a notch, smartass.

Listen, folks, I'm not anti-cycling. If it works for you and fits your lifestyle, then by all means, live your best life; pedal to your hearts' content. Here's hoping you never need to get anywhere far away quickly. But lamenting that the place you live doesn't make it convenient is pissing in the wind. I might as well start a thread titled "How can you stand making less than a billion dollars a year?" then follow it up with a sob story about gophers digging up my life savings I had buried in my backyard because I don't trust money management utilities that are lopsided towards traditional banking systems.

Other than that, you lot have simply been positing "coulda-woulda-shoulda," which is fine, but doesn't do much in the way of substantive discussion. Reality is, no municipality is about to throw millions of dollars into substantial, city-wide construction for the few cyclists it might benefit, not when they're already using the roads with abandon. Sorry it's not perfect for them.

Not sure if I like the tone of your stance overall, especially here.
The original name of the thread and the framing of its topic could've been different, sure. However, at its core it still has plenty of discussion value and tons of good points have been made. I find you're coming at it with a vibe of "the reality is that this is the world we live in, so suck it up, conform to it, and get over it" which in of itself doesn't bring much discussion value. It shuts it down, if anything

 

[Bedinsis]

Reality is, no municipality is about to throw millions of dollars into substantial, city-wide construction for the few cyclists it might benefit, not when they're already using the roads with abandon.

Your comment made me curious what the cost for accommodating cyclists actually are. I ran across this article which linked this study that put the figure for doing that at between $5,360-$536,680 per mile. The article also suggested that one could implement rather inexpensive temporary setups, just to see if people actually want to bike before committing to any major infrastructure change, though they came with the caveat that once implemented cyclists can be vocal about keeping them there.

 

[Satinavian]

Other than that, you lot have simply been positing "coulda-woulda-shoulda," which is fine, but doesn't do much in the way of substantive discussion. Reality is, no municipality is about to throw millions of dollars into substantial, city-wide construction for the few cyclists it might benefit, not when they're already using the roads with abandon. Sorry it's not perfect for them.

1) A lot of municipalities wordwide did. And every single one is seen as a success story by inhabitants.
People actually do like having less car traffic where they live and being able to bike and walk.

2) If one wants to improve the situation, one must complain about the status quo. You might have a point it it was just complaining about having a solution ready. But the solutions do exist. The only thing left is convincing city planners and local gouvernment to actually implement them.

 

[Drathnoxis]

put the figure for doing that at between $5,360-$536,680 per mile.

That's a pretty big range.