> public transports must be designed to transport not only pedestrians but their bikes too.
If we are talking about metro transportation, and not intercity trains and such, I strongly disagree. A bike takes up the space of multiple standing people, is dirty and hard and is not easily moved during an emergency where a stampede is a very real risk. Bicycles belong in bike parking, which there should be plenty of, but you can take public transportation between parkings. Bringing everybody's bikes on a tram or metro train during rush hour in a city of any meaningful size is a bad idea.
Devil's advocate: The same could be said for a baby buggy. Filthy things, taking up all that space. Noisy too! And those inconsiderate people with their luggage trying to get the airport. And don't get me started on old people with their zimmer frames.
Me speaking: So where do you draw the line? On your personal preferences or where the outcome achieves the goal? ie. getting more people to stop using their cars. Bicycles are already allowed on most suburban London trains, but are sometimes limited during rush hour. It's a win-win for everyone without having an outright ban.
(I apologise for weird response, but couldn't find a better way to get my point across.)
> Devil's advocate: The same could be said for a baby buggy.
I don't disagree with you, but I can be more sympathetic to the need for a baby buggy over that of a bike, because there aren't baby buggy parkings, and it's a lot harder to move your baby back and forth than it is to park a bike. The same goes for your semi-absurd comparison with zimmer frames -- obviously senior citizens have a place in public transportation and they need to be catered to. It's not the same thing as the convenience of not having to park your bike and walking.
> Bicycles are already allowed on most suburban London trains, but are sometimes limited during rush hour. It's a win-win for everyone without having an outright ban.
I already explicitly said "If we are talking about metro transportation, and not intercity trains and such" -- meaning I also recognize the need to transport bikes on "suburban trains", but for inter-city transportation with sufficient bike parking I don't see the need to cater for bikes on trains seeing the negative downsides they bring.
Also, baby buggies are already prohibited in many metro systems, and I have never advocated them to be anything else. There are better ways to transport your baby around, such as an on-body baby carrier.
In my city’s bus system baby buggies and bicycles have 0 priority. If you live in a city you really should have a collapsible one. But if you do bring one aboard a packed bus the most will get is a scorned look. Basically, no one wants to be the one to kick a parent and child off the bus.
Bicyclists on the other hand have no excuse and get no compassion. If the bike rack is full you wait for the next bus.
> Bringing everybody's bikes on a tram or metro train during rush hour...
Everybody's? You're awfully misrepresenting how it works in practice.
As someone who lived in Amsterdam, I've never experienced more than like five people doing that. There's a special section in each cart that can fit like two or three bikes. If they're taken, you wait for the next metro on your line. Too many bikes want to go in? Increase the bike ticket to reduce that number. Scared about rush hours? Ban them during rush hours, not all the time.
It exists as an option (as it should), but that option is far from being used by everyone.
In Copenhagen's Metro, bikes are not permitted during rush hour. They are at other times of the day, but require an additional ticket. The S-Train, which spreads out into the suburban area, bikes are free to bring aboard, and allowed during all hours of the day. Except one train station (Nørreport) during rush hour.
In other words: let's just keep using cars? Cars are already more convenient than taking a bike on a train, metro or bus. Without this possibility, however, you're saying that cars are the only thing we have.
Cars are convenient to the user because their externalities (noise, pollution, inefficient use of space) only affect those people on the streets who don't use cars.
They affect car users too, but those seem to view these problems as a force of nature, e.g., "the parking is so bad here" vs. "there are too many people like me who consciously decided to try to park here".
>Cars are convenient to the user because their externalities (noise, pollution, inefficient use of space) only affect those people on the streets who don't use cars.
If cars magically made no noise or pollution would demand drop?
I can see some substance behind the assertion that their use of space is what makes cars convenience but saying that people like them because they make noise and pollute is just needlessly extremist.
Moving people through town one by one and 20 feet apart burning 95% of the fuel just to move the vehicle is not efficient. Busses cram like 60 people in the space of 2-3 cars on the road and with a per person mpg of over 300.
I'm not saying it's a good idea, but don't forget that these bikes may reduce other nuisance. If this could reduce traffic, pollution, noise in the city centers, it could be worth it.
Actually the Netherlands already offers an alternative of a bike that is cheap that you can rent at most train stations by swiping your travel card. Usually very fast and simple. And also people who commute constantly like this can leave a bike locked at the station they commute to.
The key point is (while avoiding as much inconvenience as possible) - that everyone should be able to complete the journeys they need to complete - the fact you need to move luggage / a bike / a pram... That shouldn't be an exception / excuse / reason for car or taxi.
My favorite part of the Netherlands bike on trains system, is the ticket for your bike is more expensive than renting one of theirs at a station. That is deliberate. Reduce bikes on trains, but not the option of biking the last mile.
I’ve been taking my skateboard on public transport and its been a boon for me. You cut walking time in half which is huge, and I can stick it in between my legs on a cramped bus and take up no more space than if I didn’t have it. My neighborhood is pretty flat and skateable, but if you had more hills the electric skateboard market is pretty saturated now with a lot of deals second hand.
If we are talking about metro transportation, and not intercity trains and such, I strongly disagree. A bike takes up the space of multiple standing people, is dirty and hard and is not easily moved during an emergency where a stampede is a very real risk. Bicycles belong in bike parking, which there should be plenty of, but you can take public transportation between parkings. Bringing everybody's bikes on a tram or metro train during rush hour in a city of any meaningful size is a bad idea.