|
|
|
|
|
|
by labawi
2135 days ago
|
|
|
To be clear, I don't want to displace public transit -> bicycles. I was talking about cars -> bicycles. Densest cities are best served on foot - the places nobody would dare convert to car transit. As I emphasized, cars -> bikes is not 100 -> 60, but 100 -> 10. Meaning not 1.5x nor 2.5x but 10x density. A moderately priced double-decker staggered height bicycle parking comfortably fits 20+ bikes in the place of a single car. The only places that require comparatively large bicycle parking areas are large transport hubs, and in the example, the added distance for pedestrians is less than going between platforms, if any at all. In a typical not-overly-dense places, bike travel is technically faster than foot if you're going more than about 50m + about 120% of distance to parking (if not along the way). > U.S. solution .. 157 acres of free parking That is truly foolish, and would fit over a million bicycles even without racks. |
|
|
Everything requires comparatively large bicycle parking areas. Here https://newworldeconomics.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/osa... is perhaps 5-10% of the visitors bike parking, making the street 30-40% blocked and 30-40% wider for everyone.
Here https://newworldeconomics.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/gak... are maybe 10-20 bikes clogging up the path for thousands of people.
> I was talking about cars -> bicycles. Densest cities are best served on foot
Right, so if you're redesigning smaller and denser, why on earth would you build so everyone needs bikes, instead of building so everyone doesn't?
And if you're not redesigning smaller, and distances are still car-suburb distances, they're still too far for bikes for most people and most journeys. You might have to do a 20 mile round trip to get into Houston center and back, for example, that's 1.5-2hrs biking. Way outside what you could expect most people to want to do regularly compared to say a 15 minute walk.
45k people live in https://newworldeconomics.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/gak... this photo with a ~10 minute walk to all of those places including a train station with lots of regular large trains.
> The only places that require comparatively large bicycle parking areas
All bicycle parking areas are comparatively large for the people who don't have bikes. "The space of a single car" is ~3 meters. You only need 30 of those to push your walking commute, trip to the shops, visit to your friends, out by +1km and +2km after a round trip. Building for the 10% of bikers compared to the 90% of non-bikers is insanity.
> That is truly foolish, and would fit over a million bicycles even without racks.
If it did, it would still be 157 acres of non-place nobody wants to go to, spend time in, and resent having to get to the other side of. The foolishness is having that much inhuman space dedicated to metal storage, not that it's dedicated to fossil fuelled vehicles instead of pedal powered vehicles.