A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Techniques
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Making America into Amsterdam



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #91  
Old July 4th 18, 03:10 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Joerg[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,016
Default Making America into Amsterdam

On 2018-07-03 09:33, jbeattie wrote:
On Monday, July 2, 2018 at 11:58:42 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-07-01 22:36, sms wrote:
On 7/1/2018 8:47 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/30/2018 4:26 PM, sms wrote:
On 6/30/2018 12:57 PM, Joerg wrote:


[...]

I only half-jokingly suggested that it would be far more
cost-effective, in terms of number of single-occupancy
vehicle reduction, to not build any more light rail ($40
million/mile) or heavy rail ($1+ billion/mile) and just
buy a few hundred thousand electric bicycles to
distribute with certain caveats. Remember, those dollar
figures are just the construction costs for the track,
and don't include equipment or operations and
maintenance.


It would be but we need to keep in mind the elderly and
disabled. Also, many Americans would never consider a
bicycle even if they had a red carpet all the way to the
destination.

We're only trying to get a modest percentage of people on
bicycles. Those unable to use a bicycle will have other
options.


"The reality is that bicycle infrastructure is actually
relatively inexpensive, on a per trip basis."

When compared to the $12 toll on the George Washington Bridge
maybe.
When compared to the cost of light rail or heavy rail. Even
above ground, light rail is about $40 million/mile if you already
have the ROW. Heavy rail 10X that at least. Creekside bicycle
infrastructure is a bargain compared to that. Again, we're mot
trying to get 50%-100% of people on bicycles. Just 10% would halp
unclog the roads.


It's not just about unclogging. Aside from the health benefits even
a small increase in mode share has a multiplier effect of business
revenue. That turns into higher local taxes - ka-ching.

https://www.fastcodesign.com/1682022...on-a-bike-lane



Much of my discretionary spending happens at businesses with a
reasonable bike path network connection and bike policy. This also
means that related tax dollars are generated in Folsom instead of
in El Dorado County where I live. Some of which are plowed back
into the bike path system, which result in more business, which
...


The fact that you spend your money at one place instead of another
has no effect on over-all economic activity.



It does when more and more people behave that way and many do. When
cyclists pick a pub or restaurant in this area they generally prefer
those near bike paths. Most cyclists have sufficient disposable income
so they don't just order a Budweiser and chips.


... The correct question is
whether bike paths promote economic activity rather than redistribute
it.



They do. It has clearly been evidenced in Manhattan where they
investigated that effect in more detail. In our area they haven't but
when visiting pubs and restaurants it becomes clear very quickly which
ones derive a lot of revenue from cyclists and are thus quite busy even
during the day and which ones don't.

It results in new business as well. For example, "The Grind" is usually
just a coffee shop like Starbucks. The one next to Folsom Bike with easy
access from the bike trail to Beal's Point on Folsom Lake has now
started to serve real brews. Guess why?


... Keep in mind that the PU drivers are probably boycotting the
bike-access pubs or going there for bumper target practice. They
should go after these guys: https://vimeo.com/178540882 They're a
menace.


The video doesn't run for me but I don't see those rolling bars as a menace.


Increased bike use certainly promotes the sale of bikes and bike
consumables, which you should buy locally instead of off FleaBay. I
hope you feel shame when you ride by Sam's Town Cyclery.


Hey, I bought my whole MTB at a local bike shop which cost me $100 more
versus online. No problem, got to support the local guy. However, I am
not paying 8x (eight!) the price for wear and tear items. 2x yes, but
not 8x.


OTOH, promoting cycling decreases gas sales and infrastructure may
decrease economic activity to the extent there are fewer roads and
more difficulty getting goods to market. Bicycle infrastructure may
be killing our economy! MAGA! Get rid of bike facilities!

This is all very complex. Who knew?


Not really. Cyclist mode share will always be a drop in the bucket in
America. The question is whether that drop is worthwhile and from me
that gets an enthusiastic yes. Yesterday I saw a very fat guy inching up
a hill on a bike path. You could see that he had a hard time but he did
not give up. That is a step in the right direction.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/
Ads
  #92  
Old July 4th 18, 05:13 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
JBeattie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,870
Default Making America into Amsterdam

On Wednesday, July 4, 2018 at 7:10:07 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-07-03 09:33, jbeattie wrote:
On Monday, July 2, 2018 at 11:58:42 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-07-01 22:36, sms wrote:
On 7/1/2018 8:47 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/30/2018 4:26 PM, sms wrote:
On 6/30/2018 12:57 PM, Joerg wrote:


[...]

I only half-jokingly suggested that it would be far more
cost-effective, in terms of number of single-occupancy
vehicle reduction, to not build any more light rail ($40
million/mile) or heavy rail ($1+ billion/mile) and just
buy a few hundred thousand electric bicycles to
distribute with certain caveats. Remember, those dollar
figures are just the construction costs for the track,
and don't include equipment or operations and
maintenance.


It would be but we need to keep in mind the elderly and
disabled. Also, many Americans would never consider a
bicycle even if they had a red carpet all the way to the
destination.

We're only trying to get a modest percentage of people on
bicycles. Those unable to use a bicycle will have other
options.


"The reality is that bicycle infrastructure is actually
relatively inexpensive, on a per trip basis."

When compared to the $12 toll on the George Washington Bridge
maybe.
When compared to the cost of light rail or heavy rail. Even
above ground, light rail is about $40 million/mile if you already
have the ROW. Heavy rail 10X that at least. Creekside bicycle
infrastructure is a bargain compared to that. Again, we're mot
trying to get 50%-100% of people on bicycles. Just 10% would halp
unclog the roads.


It's not just about unclogging. Aside from the health benefits even
a small increase in mode share has a multiplier effect of business
revenue. That turns into higher local taxes - ka-ching.

https://www.fastcodesign.com/1682022...on-a-bike-lane



Much of my discretionary spending happens at businesses with a
reasonable bike path network connection and bike policy. This also
means that related tax dollars are generated in Folsom instead of
in El Dorado County where I live. Some of which are plowed back
into the bike path system, which result in more business, which
...


The fact that you spend your money at one place instead of another
has no effect on over-all economic activity.



It does when more and more people behave that way and many do. When
cyclists pick a pub or restaurant in this area they generally prefer
those near bike paths. Most cyclists have sufficient disposable income
so they don't just order a Budweiser and chips.


... The correct question is
whether bike paths promote economic activity rather than redistribute
it.



They do. It has clearly been evidenced in Manhattan where they
investigated that effect in more detail. In our area they haven't but
when visiting pubs and restaurants it becomes clear very quickly which
ones derive a lot of revenue from cyclists and are thus quite busy even
during the day and which ones don't.

It results in new business as well. For example, "The Grind" is usually
just a coffee shop like Starbucks. The one next to Folsom Bike with easy
access from the bike trail to Beal's Point on Folsom Lake has now
started to serve real brews. Guess why?


... Keep in mind that the PU drivers are probably boycotting the
bike-access pubs or going there for bumper target practice. They
should go after these guys: https://vimeo.com/178540882 They're a
menace.


The video doesn't run for me but I don't see those rolling bars as a menace.


Increased bike use certainly promotes the sale of bikes and bike
consumables, which you should buy locally instead of off FleaBay. I
hope you feel shame when you ride by Sam's Town Cyclery.


Hey, I bought my whole MTB at a local bike shop which cost me $100 more
versus online. No problem, got to support the local guy. However, I am
not paying 8x (eight!) the price for wear and tear items. 2x yes, but
not 8x.


OTOH, promoting cycling decreases gas sales and infrastructure may
decrease economic activity to the extent there are fewer roads and
more difficulty getting goods to market. Bicycle infrastructure may
be killing our economy! MAGA! Get rid of bike facilities!

This is all very complex. Who knew?


Not really. Cyclist mode share will always be a drop in the bucket in
America. The question is whether that drop is worthwhile and from me
that gets an enthusiastic yes. Yesterday I saw a very fat guy inching up
a hill on a bike path. You could see that he had a hard time but he did
not give up. That is a step in the right direction.


The issue was whether separated bicycle facilities have any effect on the economy, which is probably "no." Building better roads and highways has a far greater impact on the economy because bikes are not used to move significant cargo including all the Chinese brake pads you buy from FleaBay and that are delivered by UPS or USPS. The idea that significant population growth and traffic pressures can be handled with bike paths is dopey. It's nice to have the facilities, and I do not dispute that some facilities increase ridership and commuting modal share, but dealing with large metropolitan areas, you need to be able to move cars and trucks. IMO, we should work on roads with adequate bike facilities and then physically separated facilities where it makes sense, like along existing barriers -- rivers, highways, transmission lines, abandoned rail right-of-ways, etc. I also see no problem on prioritizing road building and repair since I spend far more time on roads than paths.

-- Jay Beattie.

  #93  
Old July 4th 18, 05:21 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Duane[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 401
Default Making America into Amsterdam

On 04/07/2018 12:13 PM, jbeattie wrote:

On Wednesday, July 4, 2018 at 7:10:07 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:

On 2018-07-03 09:33, jbeattie wrote:

On Monday, July 2, 2018 at 11:58:42 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-07-01 22:36, sms wrote:
On 7/1/2018 8:47 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/30/2018 4:26 PM, sms wrote:
On 6/30/2018 12:57 PM, Joerg wrote:


[...]


I only half-jokingly suggested that it would be far more
cost-effective, in terms of number of single-occupancy
vehicle reduction, to not build any more light rail ($40
million/mile) or heavy rail ($1+ billion/mile) and just
buy a few hundred thousand electric bicycles to
distribute with certain caveats. Remember, those dollar
figures are just the construction costs for the track,
and don't include equipment or operations and
maintenance.


It would be but we need to keep in mind the elderly and
disabled. Also, many Americans would never consider a
bicycle even if they had a red carpet all the way to the
destination.

We're only trying to get a modest percentage of people on
bicycles. Those unable to use a bicycle will have other
options.


"The reality is that bicycle infrastructure is actually
relatively inexpensive, on a per trip basis."

When compared to the $12 toll on the George Washington Bridge
maybe.
When compared to the cost of light rail or heavy rail. Even
above ground, light rail is about $40 million/mile if you already
have the ROW. Heavy rail 10X that at least. Creekside bicycle
infrastructure is a bargain compared to that. Again, we're mot
trying to get 50%-100% of people on bicycles. Just 10% would halp
unclog the roads.


It's not just about unclogging. Aside from the health benefits even
a small increase in mode share has a multiplier effect of business
revenue. That turns into higher local taxes - ka-ching.

https://www.fastcodesign.com/1682022...on-a-bike-lane




Much of my discretionary spending happens at businesses with a

reasonable bike path network connection and bike policy. This also
means that related tax dollars are generated in Folsom instead of
in El Dorado County where I live. Some of which are plowed back
into the bike path system, which result in more business, which
...

The fact that you spend your money at one place instead of another
has no effect on over-all economic activity.



It does when more and more people behave that way and many do. When
cyclists pick a pub or restaurant in this area they generally prefer
those near bike paths. Most cyclists have sufficient disposable income
so they don't just order a Budweiser and chips.



... The correct question is
whether bike paths promote economic activity rather than redistribute
it.



They do. It has clearly been evidenced in Manhattan where they
investigated that effect in more detail. In our area they haven't but
when visiting pubs and restaurants it becomes clear very quickly which
ones derive a lot of revenue from cyclists and are thus quite busy even
during the day and which ones don't.

It results in new business as well. For example, "The Grind" is usually
just a coffee shop like Starbucks. The one next to Folsom Bike with easy
access from the bike trail to Beal's Point on Folsom Lake has now
started to serve real brews. Guess why?



... Keep in mind that the PU drivers are probably boycotting the
bike-access pubs or going there for bumper target practice. They
should go after these guys: https://vimeo.com/178540882 They're a
menace.



The video doesn't run for me but I don't see those rolling bars as a menace.



Increased bike use certainly promotes the sale of bikes and bike
consumables, which you should buy locally instead of off FleaBay. I
hope you feel shame when you ride by Sam's Town Cyclery.



Hey, I bought my whole MTB at a local bike shop which cost me $100 more
versus online. No problem, got to support the local guy. However, I am
not paying 8x (eight!) the price for wear and tear items. 2x yes, but
not 8x.



OTOH, promoting cycling decreases gas sales and infrastructure may
decrease economic activity to the extent there are fewer roads and
more difficulty getting goods to market. Bicycle infrastructure may
be killing our economy! MAGA! Get rid of bike facilities!

This is all very complex. Who knew?



Not really. Cyclist mode share will always be a drop in the bucket in
America. The question is whether that drop is worthwhile and from me
that gets an enthusiastic yes. Yesterday I saw a very fat guy inching up
a hill on a bike path. You could see that he had a hard time but he did
not give up. That is a step in the right direction.


The issue was whether separated bicycle facilities have any effect on the economy, which is probably "no." Building better roads and highways has a far greater impact on the economy because bikes are not used to move significant cargo including all the Chinese brake pads you buy from FleaBay and that are delivered by UPS or USPS. The idea that significant population growth and traffic pressures can be handled with bike paths is dopey. It's nice to have the facilities, and I do not dispute that some facilities increase ridership and commuting modal share, but dealing with large metropolitan areas, you need to be able to move cars and trucks. IMO, we should work on roads with adequate bike facilities and then physically separated facilities where it makes sense, like along existing barriers -- rivers, highways, transmission lines, abandoned rail right-of-ways, etc. I also see no problem on prioritizing road building and repair since I spend far more time on roads than paths.



Is there any place that is seriously looking at bike infrastructure to
increase revenues?

Here the motivation is to reduce the number of cars in a city that can't
handle much more traffic. Cycling is treated in much the same way as
public transit. The city wants to reduce motor vehicle traffic in town.

  #94  
Old July 4th 18, 06:04 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Joerg[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,016
Default Making America into Amsterdam

On 2018-07-04 09:13, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, July 4, 2018 at 7:10:07 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-07-03 09:33, jbeattie wrote:


[...]



OTOH, promoting cycling decreases gas sales and infrastructure
may decrease economic activity to the extent there are fewer
roads and more difficulty getting goods to market. Bicycle
infrastructure may be killing our economy! MAGA! Get rid of bike
facilities!

This is all very complex. Who knew?


Not really. Cyclist mode share will always be a drop in the bucket
in America. The question is whether that drop is worthwhile and
from me that gets an enthusiastic yes. Yesterday I saw a very fat
guy inching up a hill on a bike path. You could see that he had a
hard time but he did not give up. That is a step in the right
direction.


The issue was whether separated bicycle facilities have any effect on
the economy, which is probably "no."



On the economy of a whole country? Not that much. On the local economy,
yes, if done right. See Manhattan.


... Building better roads and
highways has a far greater impact on the economy because bikes are
not used to move significant cargo including all the Chinese brake
pads you buy from FleaBay and that are delivered by UPS or USPS. The
idea that significant population growth and traffic pressures can be
handled with bike paths is dopey. It's nice to have the facilities,
and I do not dispute that some facilities increase ridership and
commuting modal share, but dealing with large metropolitan areas, you
need to be able to move cars and trucks. IMO, we should work on roads
with adequate bike facilities and then physically separated
facilities where it makes sense, like along existing barriers --
rivers, highways, transmission lines, abandoned rail right-of-ways,
etc. I also see no problem on prioritizing road building and repair
since I spend far more time on roads than paths.


The economy is not just about transport. It is also about discretionary
spending. If there is a nice bike path or at least a bike lane system
more people are willing to head into town for dinner. Even though it's
not right most people believe that while it isn't ok to have two or
three beers as a car driver it is ok as a cyclist if not using roads. If
there isn't a suitable bike infrastructure they stay at home.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/
  #95  
Old July 4th 18, 06:36 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Joerg[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,016
Default Making America into Amsterdam

On 2018-07-04 10:04, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-07-04 09:13, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, July 4, 2018 at 7:10:07 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-07-03 09:33, jbeattie wrote:


[...]



OTOH, promoting cycling decreases gas sales and infrastructure
may decrease economic activity to the extent there are fewer
roads and more difficulty getting goods to market. Bicycle
infrastructure may be killing our economy! MAGA! Get rid of bike
facilities!

This is all very complex. Who knew?


Not really. Cyclist mode share will always be a drop in the bucket
in America. The question is whether that drop is worthwhile and
from me that gets an enthusiastic yes. Yesterday I saw a very fat
guy inching up a hill on a bike path. You could see that he had a
hard time but he did not give up. That is a step in the right
direction.


The issue was whether separated bicycle facilities have any effect on
the economy, which is probably "no."



On the economy of a whole country? Not that much. On the local economy,
yes, if done right. See Manhattan.


... Building better roads and
highways has a far greater impact on the economy because bikes are
not used to move significant cargo including all the Chinese brake
pads you buy from FleaBay and that are delivered by UPS or USPS. The
idea that significant population growth and traffic pressures can be
handled with bike paths is dopey. It's nice to have the facilities,
and I do not dispute that some facilities increase ridership and
commuting modal share, but dealing with large metropolitan areas, you
need to be able to move cars and trucks. IMO, we should work on roads
with adequate bike facilities and then physically separated
facilities where it makes sense, like along existing barriers --
rivers, highways, transmission lines, abandoned rail right-of-ways,
etc. I also see no problem on prioritizing road building and repair
since I spend far more time on roads than paths.


The economy is not just about transport. It is also about discretionary
spending. If there is a nice bike path or at least a bike lane system
more people are willing to head into town for dinner. Even though it's
not right most people believe that while it isn't ok to have two or
three beers as a car driver it is ok as a cyclist if not using roads. If
there isn't a suitable bike infrastructure they stay at home.


P.S.: My wife and I are good examples. We'd go out a lot more often for
lunch/dinner if it was possible to walk there safely. I just will not
have a couple of beers and get behind the wheel because that's not safe.
It is also not safe to walk a dark road on the fog line at night.
Therefore, we generally invite people to our house instead and barbecue.
While living in Europe we went out much more because we could walk to
all the places.

Considering that restaurants these days aren't exactly rolling in dough
that would be important for the economy.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/
  #96  
Old July 4th 18, 08:08 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,538
Default Making America into Amsterdam

On 7/4/2018 12:13 PM, jbeattie wrote:
IMO, we should work on roads with adequate bike facilities and then physically separated facilities where it makes sense, like along existing barriers -- rivers, highways, transmission lines, abandoned rail right-of-ways, etc. I also see no problem on prioritizing road building and repair since I spend far more time on roads than paths.


Physically separated facilities are almost always built where
right-of-way acquisition is easy. If the intent is switching people from
cars to bikes, that usually does not make sense. This country has
hundreds of miles of bike paths - usually on former railroad
right-of-ways - that run from nowhere to nowhere. They function as
linear parks and actually increase, rather than decrease, car miles.

I agree that there are some places where separated bike ways would be
more practical as transportation facilities. It's too bad parallel bike
paths were not put in place along many interstate miles, especially
inside metro areas. But that ship has sailed.

But since the existing roads go to all the places I want to ride, I'm
more in favor of maintaining the existing roads. IME, a smooth road of
adequate width is a joy to ride. Ten or fifteen years later, that same
road is a moonscape of potholes and patches and an ugly riding experience.

As mentioned before, I'm also in favor of bicycle boulevards. These have
many benefits. They are generally less expensive than special-built
segregated facilities. They don't require lots of crazy and dangerous
exceptions to normal traffic laws. They benefit the residents of those
routes by decreasing cut-through traffic.

Sadly, they don't satisfy the contingent that thinks it's suicidal to
ride on any normal road. And they're not spectacular enough for the
Streetsblog people or the big "let us design your segregated facilities"
firms.


--
- Frank Krygowski
  #97  
Old July 4th 18, 08:12 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,538
Default Making America into Amsterdam

On 7/4/2018 12:21 PM, Duane wrote:

Is there any place that is seriously looking at bike infrastructure to
increase revenues?


I doubt that any rational city officials see that as likely. But it is
part of the propaganda thrown out by certain bike facility promoters.
They'll say anything to push their agenda.
Here the motivation is to reduce the number of cars in a city that can't
handle much more traffic.Â* Cycling is treated in much the same way as
public transit. The city wants to reduce motor vehicle traffic in town.


I'd like to see data on vehicle miles traveled vs. bike infrastructure
miles constructed for various metro areas. If there is a significant
drop in VMT, I'd be shocked.

--
- Frank Krygowski
  #98  
Old July 4th 18, 08:19 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,538
Default Making America into Amsterdam

On 7/4/2018 1:36 PM, Joerg wrote:


P.S.: My wife and I are good examples. We'd go out a lot more often for
lunch/dinner if it was possible to walk there safely. I just will not
have a couple of beers and get behind the wheel because that's not safe.
It is also not safe to walk a dark road on the fog line at night.
Therefore, we generally invite people to our house instead and barbecue.
While living in Europe we went out much more because we could walk to
all the places.


And returning to the original theme: You pretend you did that in Europe
simply because of the bike facilities? Even though you were walking?

As the original cited article explained, it's much more likely you did
that because of fundamental differences in the cities. When we visited
Paris, we could walk from our hotel to probably a dozen restaurants. We
could do it any time of day or night. It wasn't because of bike
facilities - the few we encountered were many blocks away. But the city
had sidewalks everywhere, zero distance between adjacent buildings,
short blocks, narrow streets that discouraged and/or slowed car traffic,
pedestrians out at all hours for a feeling of safety, etc. You can't
replicate that in a typical American city.

--
- Frank Krygowski
  #99  
Old July 4th 18, 08:29 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,538
Default Making America into Amsterdam

On 7/4/2018 10:10 AM, Joerg wrote:
When cyclists pick a pub or restaurant in this area they generally prefer
those near bike paths. Most cyclists have sufficient disposable income
so they don't just order a Budweiser and chips.


There are times when proximity to a bike path can improve things for a
business. That's also true of proximity to any other kind of park - and
again, most bike paths are really just linear parks.

But don't over-generalize. That doesn't mean that a bike path will
generate economic prosperity along most of its length. We have two main
rail-trail bike paths in my area, one about 10 miles long, the other
about 75 miles long. The short one has not had any detectable economic
effect. There's one bar and one convenience shop along its route, both
within a little village. I've seen no evidence that cyclists comprise
even a tiny percentage of their patrons.

The longer path passes through nine municipalities worthy of the name.
One has a bike shop that might not be there without the path. Another
has a coffee shop. It used to have a bike shop next door, but that bike
shop moved to a busier commercial location and is doing much better. The
two largest cities that the path passes through show absolutely zero
commercial benefit.

Cyclist mode share will always be a drop in the bucket in
America. The question is whether that drop is worthwhile and from me
that gets an enthusiastic yes.


Yes, we know that _you_ believe this. But your personal beliefs don't
justify spending millions of dollars, especially on projects with
questionable design - which applies to most of the bike facilities
currently being touted.


--
- Frank Krygowski
  #100  
Old July 4th 18, 08:48 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Joerg[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,016
Default Making America into Amsterdam

On 2018-07-04 12:19, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/4/2018 1:36 PM, Joerg wrote:


P.S.: My wife and I are good examples. We'd go out a lot more often
for lunch/dinner if it was possible to walk there safely. I just will
not have a couple of beers and get behind the wheel because that's not
safe. It is also not safe to walk a dark road on the fog line at
night. Therefore, we generally invite people to our house instead and
barbecue. While living in Europe we went out much more because we
could walk to all the places.


And returning to the original theme: You pretend you did that in Europe
simply because of the bike facilities? Even though you were walking?


In Germany I did it because of walking facilities. In the Netherlands I
did it because of bike facilities and this greatly extended the
available travel distance. I lived in both countries and Germany largely
does not have a nice bike path network.


As the original cited article explained, it's much more likely you did
that because of fundamental differences in the cities. When we visited
Paris, we could walk from our hotel to probably a dozen restaurants. We
could do it any time of day or night. It wasn't because of bike
facilities - the few we encountered were many blocks away. But the city
had sidewalks everywhere, zero distance between adjacent buildings,
short blocks, narrow streets that discouraged and/or slowed car traffic,
pedestrians out at all hours for a feeling of safety, etc. You can't
replicate that in a typical American city.


You could if they'd finally give up the stupid zoning. Because of
zoning, in America you really need bike paths to convince more people to
an evening out. Plenty of examples where it worked.

https://www.triplepundit.com/2013/12...iness-revenue/

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Looking like Amsterdam Alycidon UK 23 August 15th 15 06:45 PM
A bicycle not wood, Black & Decker's feeble attempts at making bicycletools and tire-not-making Doug Cimperman Techniques 7 December 9th 12 12:40 AM
Tire-making, episode {I-lost-track} --- making inner-tubes DougC Techniques 1 September 11th 10 03:43 PM
TT: 1. Deutschland Uber Alles 2. America 3. America Ted van de Weteringe Racing 4 September 25th 08 07:26 PM
These mp3 interviews -Air America -Know why there is about to be civil war in America. A MUST LISTEN harbinger Australia 17 June 4th 06 12:16 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:58 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.