Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Well everyone feels different ways about these things.

The winding streets slow traffic down, making it safer to cycle around when compared to the fast and wide roads of New York. They also block wind meaning we don't get driving rain along straight avenues.

The lack of large squares and piazzas reduces the distance you have to walk between places, which is very important in a damp environment. It takes ages to get anywhere on foot in Mexico City for example whereas you can walk all the way across central London in a couple of hours. I routinely walk to meetings around the city and it rarely takes more than 20 minutes.

Rather than try and spread the city out planners are working on removing the cars and lorries. New pollution taxes, electric and autonomous vehicles, and pedestrianization of key roads like Oxford Street, are all going to work really well in the London model of a dense core whereas they won't add nearly as much to a city which is more spread out.



> The winding streets slow traffic down, making it safer to cycle around when compared to the fast and wide roads of New York.

I think the way to provide safe cycling is not to slow the traffic down, but to separate cyclists and cars.

I looked for stats. Death rates in NYC and London are similar, but I couldn't find much comparable data on the number of cyclists or usage.

> They also block wind meaning we don't get driving rain along straight avenues.

That's a fair point, but presumably having well-designed streets still allows for this, e.g. by staggering roads?

I agree that electric vehicles will greatly reduce pollution, you'll still be walking through dense standing traffic in many areas.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: