> The reason people like high speed roads is that it saves time, and time matters. Biking and public transit are both slow compared to cars
*Cities build streets primarily around cars*
You: Look! Cars are more convenient!!
This isn't some iron law of the universe, that cars are faster even for basic errands happens because we choose to make it that way. When I was living on the outskirts of Munich, many short trips to grocery stores and the like would take a similar amount of time for biking and driving, because they design their streets and roads for cars AND bikes AND walking, not mainly just cars like in the US.
I keep hearing this line about how cars are faster because cities 'choose' to make it that way. This isn't a convincing argument to me. Cars are fundamentally a faster mode of transportation. Just like walking cannot realize a maximum speed similar to bicycles, neither walking nor biking can realize a maximum speed similar to cars (at least safely). Driving is faster, first and foremost, because cars are faster and not because cities are making other modes slower. The faster travel times that cars unlock is a massive boost to quality of life that many, many people enjoy and take advantage of. That inherent value is why people are willing to pay taxes to fund roads for cars, and why cities have developed road infrastructure. It's not some kind of conspiracy theory to bring down bikes - the reality is that bikes are simply slower and there isn't some deeper level of insight beyond that.
High speed trains and planes both have a higher top speed than cars. Does that mean trains and planes are by default a faster way to get around for all trips?
No, of course not. How infrastructure is built around them matters just as much. Obviously there are trips in which they are indeed faster than cars, but plenty too where they’re impractical, or slower.
Cars have a higher top speed than bikes, sure, but they also demand far more space. Given equal space between cars and bikes, bikes will often end up fastest for trips under a mile or two — simply because drivers are more likely to get stuck in traffic. Especially since it’s easy to have walk bike cut-throughs.
Which, I know, you’ll object to as unfair, but it’s unfair in the sense that walking and biking being banned on the freeway is unfair: it’s actually just what’s suited to the transportation mode. A walk/bike cut through is a cheap, easy thing to slot in, much more so than the car equivalent.
Car speed relies on being given far more total space and money than other modes. Remove those advantages, and car utility would sink, while the utility of walking and biking would rise dramatically. Especially if zoning was loosened to allow — not force the way things are forced to the car’s advantage now, but simply allowed — higher density and mixed use areas.
Or consider an indoor mall vs a strip mall. One uses cars more heavily, one uses walking. Which one is more efficient to visit and browse stores?
The thing about car dominant spaces is that they force things to spread out, which reduces efficiency. That efficiency reduction is then ‘solved’ with the same thing that caused it: with cars. Which works out okay for cars, but everything else works horribly in that context, which is why US cities usually have extreme car dominance, with other options being hilariously ineffective. And some people cheer on this lack of choices, even as their waistlines expand and government budgets explode.
> The thing about car dominant spaces is that they force things to spread out, which reduces efficiency.
In an already built city (or neighborhood), removing space for cars isn't going to snuggle the existing buildings together. It will rarely permit another building to be built between existing buildings where that's not possible today.
Now we have a set of existing conditions. Including a set of conditioned people, many of whom have arranged their life in light of those conditions.
I think where a lot of proponents of density go wrong is they ignore telling the story of how the transition will work (meaning “not suck”). It’s the urban planning equivalent of skipping step two and just writing down “3. Profit”
“It could all be better once we’ve completed these massive changes.” I agree that’s possible, but while a lot of people have existing conditions that they understand and are basically comfortable with (or even comforted by), I think proponents still have some convincing to do that “their way will be better” and a whole lot of convincing on “and here’s what that would look like in 2023, 2028, 2033, and 2038”.
“First we take away the parking and make these particular roads slower.” “Ok, then what?” “Then it’s ‘better’.”
Sure, it’s hard to get from A to B. But you can have plenty of incremental improvement along the way.
> “First we take away the parking and make these particular roads slower.” “Ok, then what?” “Then it’s ‘better’.”
Vancouver added a ton of protected bike lanes over a handful of years and doubled their bike mode share. It obviously made a big difference in how nice it was to bike there.
You generally don’t remove parking for nothing, you replace it with something else, like a bike or bus lane. Ideally, you have a coordinated plan, so that you don’t end up with one-off infra improvements that have little impact on the network as a whole.
*Cities build streets primarily around cars*
You: Look! Cars are more convenient!!
This isn't some iron law of the universe, that cars are faster even for basic errands happens because we choose to make it that way. When I was living on the outskirts of Munich, many short trips to grocery stores and the like would take a similar amount of time for biking and driving, because they design their streets and roads for cars AND bikes AND walking, not mainly just cars like in the US.