|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#91
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 |