Hacker News Reader

Comment by kibwen | Hacker News Reader

> Even if there was a will (which there is not) it is not clear if there is a way.

In Boston there's both a will and a way. I haven't owned a car for as long as I've lived here, and the bike lanes are so, so much better now than when I first arrived. Neighboring Cambridge now has laws on the books requiring bike lanes to be added any time that a road is rebuilt. The new light-rail extension through Somerville added a bike path alongside most of its length, connecting the paths along the downtown riverside to the Minuteman bikeway that runs 15 miles out to Bedford.

It can be done. But people have to organize and give a fuck.

View on HN

> It can be done

I live in Amsterdam which is arguably a few decades ahead in this process. It is both true that something can be done but also that we are nowhere close to actually closing this issue.

I don't mean to discourage people from switching where and when they can (or give anybody an excuse not to). There are tangible quality of life benefits that can be obtained each step along the way. So if car usage drops, say, from 90% to 60% thats hugely important.

But structural changes in the layout of urban environments are a wicked problem that will keep people busy (and procrastinating) for a long time.

Indeed, I visited Amsterdam for the first time recently and was in awe at what they've done. My dream is to make Boston's infrastructure as close to Amsterdam as we can, even though it will take more than my lifetime to get there.

Very much this. Two of my colleagues live in Boston, and they have sold their cars because it's easy to live without owning any.

That Somerville bike path is infamous in some circles as being a poor use of $100 million of transit funding, see:

https://pedestrianobservations.com/2021/07/23/the-leakage-pr...

The construction of the Somerville bike path predates me, so I can't comment on it or whatever funding snafu it might have resulted from, but I can say that the result has been absolutely fantastic, and has turned that area into the thriving heart of Somerville. Every time that I ride along it during the day it is a delight, thick with people going for walks, rollerblading, children out playing, climbing in the trees along the path or enjoying the gardens and art projects that line it. If that's what a boondoggle looks like, then I'll take that over most publicly-funded boondoggles.

A bit part of getting to better places is not worrying too much about the costs. You still need the departments monitoring for fraud, but otherwise once a decision is made you stick with it and move on to the next question. Over time that starts to snowball.

So how much has that cut down on car traffic inside Boston?

I don't have numbers, but I can tell you that the city government is serious about providing other alternatives to cars. For example, making buses free. [1]

[1] https://www.boston.gov/news/new-steps-reduce-vehicle-emissio...

The buses aren’t generally free though: https://www.mbta.com/fares/bus-fares

They are free on only 3 lines (plus SL1 leaving the airport) https://www.boston.gov/news/mayor-wu-takes-steps-expand-fare...

Free buses should not be considered in any city. Spend that money on more frequent routes. People will not use a free bus that only comes once an hour, or doesn't stop close to them. Until your city is covered with transit coming every 5 minutes you need to work on that not cost.

Not even the best transit cities have transit every 5 minutes all over the city. There is a lot of room to improve in them all

It'll only cut down on traffic if all the new arrivals in Boston do not use cars and many older Boston residents also give up their cars. Fundamentally, transit is an investment into infrastructure that has better scaling properties than car-centric development. It's there to absorb further growth in the region.

You don't need to give up the car - you just need to reduce car trips.

The easiest way to do that is reduce commuting trips, as those are very common, but you can reduce trips in other ways, such as allowing more gas stations/convenience stores. If it's a five minute drive to the grocery store but a two minute walk to a 7-11, some of those trips to the grocery store will be replaced with walks to the 7-11.

By "do not use cars" I meant replace car trips via walking or transit.

Traffic is worse than it ever was. I basically avoid going in for activities any longer. Which is fine. But it's mostly not worth going in to meet people in the city in the evening at this point.

Try taking the bus next time.

I actually live near commuter rail and will generally take a 90-120 minute total drive + train ride (every hour at most) + subway in for a 9-5 event. It makes zero sense for an evening event. I'll somewhat reluctantly do the 90 minute drive in and hour drive home now and then to go to the theater or some other thing I really want to do.

So it's not as simple as take the bus. (Which doesn't exist.) But that's fine. I mostly just don't go in.

The goal isn't to reduce traffic but to increase mobility.

That's good, but the context of this thread is redesigning urban areas to encourage reducing car traffic.

The ultimate goal is not to reduce "traffic" (however you define it), the goal is to produce dense, livable cities that don't require car ownership in order to live. The reduction in car-related negative externalities is merely one happy side effect of this.

The bike lanes mentioned above all, by physical necessity, come at the expense of cars, either by reducing parking lanes or reducing driving lanes. Even if there were the same amount of traffic, fewer cars would be on the road because there is less road to be on.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com