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

New bike path



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #71  
Old March 17th 18, 03:12 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Joerg[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,507
Default New bike path

On 2018-03-17 08:06, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-03-17 01:28, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 14 Mar 2018 08:36:45 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

On 2018-03-13 18:08, John B. wrote:



[...]

After all, bicycles comprise about 2% of all road accidents and
studies I've seen state that nation wide bicycles make up about 1% of
the total traffic.

Doesn't spend substantial portions of the tax budget on a group that
comprises only 1% of the road users seem a bit one sided?


So why don't we start by spending 1%? That's plenty.


From what you write it appears that you believe that if only someone
would build bicycle paths that the percentage of bicycle traffic would
rise and I'm not sure that is correct at all.



I know that it works in most areas. It is clearly evidenced by the
reaction of people. Instead of "Nah, I am not going to join you cycling
back on Green Valley Road" (this is one of my usual rounds) they say
"Oh, there is a bike path? How about Sunday afternoon?". Other times I
talked with client engineers when I visited. Many times they have bike
racks on their cars and helmets in the trunk. Those are the real outdoor
kind of people, the ones where it's not just talk. However, then they
say they'd love to cycle to work but the bike path system doesn't
connect there.


... Or perhaps not correct
is assumed to be an all encompassing argument.


There will always be areas where it doesn't work or, like in Milton
Keynes, the design gets largely messed up and then people don't use it.
Other places might have too much inclement weather. For example, I doubt
one would get a lot of people onto bikes in a town in Northern Siberia.


I recently read an article about cycling in the Netherlands. The
number of cyclists in the large cities is increasing but in rural
areas it is decreasing. Given that Holland has perhaps the largest
amount of cycle paths (compared with motorways) and rural bicycle use
is decreasing the argument that building bikeways is going to result
in some significant increase in cycle use is probably wishful
thinking.


Absolutely not. I lived there for years. Though this has been decades
ago they probably have a similar trend as we do in the US where many
kids aren't interested in any sort of transportation. They don't even
want to achieve a driver's license. Probably because the virtual world
and smart phones are sufficient for them. I can't understand it.

You also have to keep in mind that they have a substantial public
transport system. In essence many people wouldn't need any kind of vehicle.


It is probably also worth saying that the percentage of trips made by
Dutch cyclists is 27% of all trips and the number has remained static
for the past 30 years.


I guess the number of available bike path kilometers has also largely
remained constant. When I lived in the Netherlands in the 80's the bike
path system was rather complete. They did add some bicycle highways but
most of those had already been there in large stretches, just with the
fluff and signage.



I meant without the fluff and signage.


... For example, I cycles the F35 bike highway route a
lot because I couldn't stand the soft Dutch bread. It got me close
enough to ther German border to hop over and buy some real bread. Tens
of miles just for a loaf of bread was not a big deal over there because
I more of less put my bike in 12th gear and kept pedaling until I was
there. It was the same down south where my permanent residence was,
cycling to Maastricht for a beer and some cheese was a simple spur of
the moment decision. 20mi or 30km each way but easy peasy because all
bike path. In fact, it was so peaceful versus lane riding that I once
fell into "micro-sleep" on the road bike on the way back. A tree woke me
up the hard way ...


In closing let me say that one of my high school classmates took his
girl to the Junior Prom in his Dad's dump truck (there is a long story
there) but no one in living memory ever took his girl to the prom on a
bicycle :-)


Well ...

http://tubulocity.com/?p=118



--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/
Ads
  #72  
Old March 17th 18, 03:15 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
JBeattie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,369
Default New bike path

On Saturday, March 17, 2018 at 1:28:54 AM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 14 Mar 2018 08:36:45 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

On 2018-03-13 18:08, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 13 Mar 2018 13:26:50 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

On 2018-03-13 13:21, AMuzi wrote:
On 3/13/2018 2:58 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-03-13 12:23, jbeattie wrote:
On Tuesday, March 13, 2018 at 7:36:16 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:

[...]


Scramento has a huge homeless problem and especially so
along the
American River bike path. To the point where it isn't
always safe
riding there anymore. It is largely a homemade problem.
The mayor
they have now doesn't understand that with all his
throwing moeny
and resources at this he is enticing ever more homeless
to move to
Sacramento. Free stuff! When he started this I could
notice a
substantial drop in the number of homeless I see along
the El
Dorado Trail yet the guy does not get it.

I've been buying bus tickets to Sacramento for the dudes
camped along
our giant MUP, the Springwater Corridor. I'm glad to see
its paying
off -- that and the periodic "sweeps."
http://pamplinmedia.com/go/42-news/3...ingwater-sweep



I was riding back from the Gorge on Sunday and cut over
on the 205
bike path and hit a spot under an over-pass where I could
barely
squeeze by all the tents -- and garbage and needles, etc.,
etc.
F****** incredible pigsty.

Let me know if you come up with a solution. I sure don't
have one --
at least one that doesn't sound like something out of the Old
Testament, or perhaps a modern book on recycling organic
matter.


The solution would be our country becoming more
conservative. Work requirements for welfare, less
unconditional free stuff, and so on. The difference in the
rate of homelessness in liberal versus conservative states
is striking and Oregon looks worse than even California
(which I hadn't thought was possible).

http://nlihc.org/article/ten-highest...ess-state-2012



Nevada is kind of an exception, probably because a lot of
hermits and loners live there. They chose that lifestyle and
the low amount of regulations and little enforcement allows
them to spend their days baking in a dilapidated trailer out
in the desert.

The other solution is to starve the beast (big government).
High tax states make housing so expensive that too many
people are forced to drop out into the streets. California
is a prime example of that. Try getting a building permit
out here, let alone pay for it. Socialism does not work.



Who are you and what have you done with The Real Joerg, who likes high
taxes for expensive elaborate kiddy paths paid for by the long suffering
working man?


I never liked high taxes. All I want is that taxes are invested wisely.
Investment in bikes paths and bike lanes is wise, investment in a bullet
train to nowhere is not.

I see, you feel that building expensive bike paths for an almost
infinitesimal portion of the road users is wise investment?


It is, because

1. They are not expensive. The bullet train just went to $68B and I am
sure when t's all said and done it will be north of $150B or a whole
year's state budget.

2. The number is not infinitesimal. If you provide proper infrastructure
they will come:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipfuxptI2uU


After all, bicycles comprise about 2% of all road accidents and
studies I've seen state that nation wide bicycles make up about 1% of
the total traffic.

Doesn't spend substantial portions of the tax budget on a group that
comprises only 1% of the road users seem a bit one sided?


So why don't we start by spending 1%? That's plenty.


From what you write it appears that you believe that if only someone
would build bicycle paths that the percentage of bicycle traffic would
rise and I'm not sure that is correct at all. Or perhaps not correct
is assumed to be an all encompassing argument.

I recently read an article about cycling in the Netherlands. The
number of cyclists in the large cities is increasing but in rural
areas it is decreasing. Given that Holland has perhaps the largest
amount of cycle paths (compared with motorways) and rural bicycle use
is decreasing the argument that building bikeways is going to result
in some significant increase in cycle use is probably wishful
thinking.

It is probably also worth saying that the percentage of trips made by
Dutch cyclists is 27% of all trips and the number has remained static
for the past 30 years.

In closing let me say that one of my high school classmates took his
girl to the Junior Prom in his Dad's dump truck (there is a long story
there) but no one in living memory ever took his girl to the prom on a
bicycle :-)


California is certainly spending more than 1% of its transportation budget on bicycle infrastructure. The ATF alone is approximately 1% of the California transportation budget. http://www.calbike.org/funding_sources In fact the reviled Governor Moonbeam, hated by all conservatives, is proposing an increase in the ATF. https://cal.streetsblog.org/2017/01/...ver-ten-years/

Joerg also needs to read-up on current and past federal transportation financing -- ISTEA, SAFETEA-LU, MAP-21 and note that the Orange Overlord is gutting federal transportation funding -- shifting costs onto the states for the huge, incredible, the bestest infrastructure projects ever! Most of the big bicycle projects in Oregon were funded in large part by the feds. There was also state and local funding under the Oregon Bicycle Bill. https://www.huffingtonpost.com/rex-b...b_3861490.html


-- Jay Beattie.
  #73  
Old March 17th 18, 04:25 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Joerg[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,507
Default New bike path

On 2018-03-17 08:15, jbeattie wrote:
On Saturday, March 17, 2018 at 1:28:54 AM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 14 Mar 2018 08:36:45 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

On 2018-03-13 18:08, John B. wrote:


[...]


After all, bicycles comprise about 2% of all road accidents
and studies I've seen state that nation wide bicycles make up
about 1% of the total traffic.

Doesn't spend substantial portions of the tax budget on a group
that comprises only 1% of the road users seem a bit one sided?


So why don't we start by spending 1%? That's plenty.


From what you write it appears that you believe that if only
someone would build bicycle paths that the percentage of bicycle
traffic would rise and I'm not sure that is correct at all. Or
perhaps not correct is assumed to be an all encompassing argument.

I recently read an article about cycling in the Netherlands. The
number of cyclists in the large cities is increasing but in rural
areas it is decreasing. Given that Holland has perhaps the largest
amount of cycle paths (compared with motorways) and rural bicycle
use is decreasing the argument that building bikeways is going to
result in some significant increase in cycle use is probably
wishful thinking.

It is probably also worth saying that the percentage of trips made
by Dutch cyclists is 27% of all trips and the number has remained
static for the past 30 years.

In closing let me say that one of my high school classmates took
his girl to the Junior Prom in his Dad's dump truck (there is a
long story there) but no one in living memory ever took his girl to
the prom on a bicycle :-)


California is certainly spending more than 1% of its transportation
budget on bicycle infrastructure. The ATF alone is approximately 1%
of the California transportation budget.
http://www.calbike.org/funding_sources In fact the reviled Governor
Moonbeam, hated by all conservatives, is proposing an increase in the
ATF.
https://cal.streetsblog.org/2017/01/...ver-ten-years/



A dose of reality for you regarding Moonbeam: The bullet train to
nowhere was just upped to $70B. Yes, billion. And that does not include
any of the road projects, union boondoggles, et cetera. That 1% is fake
news.


Joerg also needs to read-up on current and past federal
transportation financing -- ISTEA, SAFETEA-LU, MAP-21 and note that
the Orange Overlord is gutting federal transportation funding --
shifting costs onto the states for the huge, incredible, the bestest
infrastructure projects ever! Most of the big bicycle projects in
Oregon were funded in large part by the feds. There was also state
and local funding under the Oregon Bicycle Bill.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/rex-b...b_3861490.html


Just open some government land (which they are now doing) and let people
ride their MTB there. That solves a lot of the missing bike links. For
example, thanks to Arnold Schwarzenegger we've got this connector from
Lotus to Folsom:

https://s3-media4.fl.yelpcdn.com/bph...rXV2vLEQ/o.jpg

Before that the ride was much longer and quite hazardous (I almost got
clipped by a motorcyclist there). Now the ride is like a mini-vacation
but you do need a serious MTB. Rim brakes like in the photo are not
recommended on this route.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/
  #74  
Old March 17th 18, 09:06 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
JBeattie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,369
Default New bike path

On Saturday, March 17, 2018 at 9:25:02 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-03-17 08:15, jbeattie wrote:
On Saturday, March 17, 2018 at 1:28:54 AM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 14 Mar 2018 08:36:45 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

On 2018-03-13 18:08, John B. wrote:


[...]


After all, bicycles comprise about 2% of all road accidents
and studies I've seen state that nation wide bicycles make up
about 1% of the total traffic.

Doesn't spend substantial portions of the tax budget on a group
that comprises only 1% of the road users seem a bit one sided?


So why don't we start by spending 1%? That's plenty.

From what you write it appears that you believe that if only
someone would build bicycle paths that the percentage of bicycle
traffic would rise and I'm not sure that is correct at all. Or
perhaps not correct is assumed to be an all encompassing argument.

I recently read an article about cycling in the Netherlands. The
number of cyclists in the large cities is increasing but in rural
areas it is decreasing. Given that Holland has perhaps the largest
amount of cycle paths (compared with motorways) and rural bicycle
use is decreasing the argument that building bikeways is going to
result in some significant increase in cycle use is probably
wishful thinking.

It is probably also worth saying that the percentage of trips made
by Dutch cyclists is 27% of all trips and the number has remained
static for the past 30 years.

In closing let me say that one of my high school classmates took
his girl to the Junior Prom in his Dad's dump truck (there is a
long story there) but no one in living memory ever took his girl to
the prom on a bicycle :-)


California is certainly spending more than 1% of its transportation
budget on bicycle infrastructure. The ATF alone is approximately 1%
of the California transportation budget.
http://www.calbike.org/funding_sources In fact the reviled Governor
Moonbeam, hated by all conservatives, is proposing an increase in the
ATF.
https://cal.streetsblog.org/2017/01/...ver-ten-years/



A dose of reality for you regarding Moonbeam: The bullet train to
nowhere was just upped to $70B. Yes, billion. And that does not include
any of the road projects, union boondoggles, et cetera. That 1% is fake
news.


Joerg also needs to read-up on current and past federal
transportation financing -- ISTEA, SAFETEA-LU, MAP-21 and note that
the Orange Overlord is gutting federal transportation funding --
shifting costs onto the states for the huge, incredible, the bestest
infrastructure projects ever! Most of the big bicycle projects in
Oregon were funded in large part by the feds. There was also state
and local funding under the Oregon Bicycle Bill.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/rex-b...b_3861490.html


Just open some government land (which they are now doing) and let people
ride their MTB there. That solves a lot of the missing bike links. For
example, thanks to Arnold Schwarzenegger we've got this connector from
Lotus to Folsom:

https://s3-media4.fl.yelpcdn.com/bph...rXV2vLEQ/o.jpg

Before that the ride was much longer and quite hazardous (I almost got
clipped by a motorcyclist there). Now the ride is like a mini-vacation
but you do need a serious MTB. Rim brakes like in the photo are not
recommended on this route.


Oh, so tax payers should be paying for your "serious MTB" route? That's dopey. Government should be installing infrastructure to reduce inner-city and suburban congestion -- and providing useful connectors for ordinary cyclists and not the super-gnarly mountain biker mountain-lion tamers. Focus on the topic: "bike paths" and not super-awesome, scary mountain bike trails.

-- Jay Beattie.
  #75  
Old March 17th 18, 09:35 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Joerg[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,507
Default New bike path

On 2018-03-17 14:06, jbeattie wrote:
On Saturday, March 17, 2018 at 9:25:02 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-03-17 08:15, jbeattie wrote:


[...]

Joerg also needs to read-up on current and past federal
transportation financing -- ISTEA, SAFETEA-LU, MAP-21 and note
that the Orange Overlord is gutting federal transportation
funding -- shifting costs onto the states for the huge,
incredible, the bestest infrastructure projects ever! Most of the
big bicycle projects in Oregon were funded in large part by the
feds. There was also state and local funding under the Oregon
Bicycle Bill.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/rex-b...b_3861490.html




Just open some government land (which they are now doing) and let people
ride their MTB there. That solves a lot of the missing bike links.
For example, thanks to Arnold Schwarzenegger we've got this
connector from Lotus to Folsom:

https://s3-media4.fl.yelpcdn.com/bph...rXV2vLEQ/o.jpg



Before that the ride was much longer and quite hazardous (I almost got
clipped by a motorcyclist there). Now the ride is like a
mini-vacation but you do need a serious MTB. Rim brakes like in the
photo are not recommended on this route.


Oh, so tax payers should be paying for your "serious MTB" route?
That's dopey. Government should be installing infrastructure to
reduce inner-city and suburban congestion -- and providing useful
connectors for ordinary cyclists and not the super-gnarly mountain
biker mountain-lion tamers. Focus on the topic: "bike paths" and not
super-awesome, scary mountain bike trails.


People out here are different and that may be hard to understand for
city folk. For example, when I came back from Placerville on the usual
route (singletrack) a bunch of kids and their dad came by. Dad had to
drop off the car for service, they loaded all their MTBs and rode back.
Just a normal day in paradise. They sure rode like they know how to
handle MTBs.

And here is the real benefit: Many of these trails are maintained by
volunteers, not the taxpayer.

http://www.fatrac.org/

As a user you can either participate in maintenance work or donate, or
both. One of my regular watering holes contributes $1 per pint from
certain brews. The pub owner is a hardcore MTB rider.

Last time I was at Intel about 90% of the bikes parked there were MTB,
many of them scraped and worn.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/
  #76  
Old March 18th 18, 12:53 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
JBeattie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,369
Default New bike path

On Saturday, March 17, 2018 at 2:35:10 PM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-03-17 14:06, jbeattie wrote:
On Saturday, March 17, 2018 at 9:25:02 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-03-17 08:15, jbeattie wrote:


[...]

Joerg also needs to read-up on current and past federal
transportation financing -- ISTEA, SAFETEA-LU, MAP-21 and note
that the Orange Overlord is gutting federal transportation
funding -- shifting costs onto the states for the huge,
incredible, the bestest infrastructure projects ever! Most of the
big bicycle projects in Oregon were funded in large part by the
feds. There was also state and local funding under the Oregon
Bicycle Bill.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/rex-b...b_3861490.html




Just open some government land (which they are now doing) and let people
ride their MTB there. That solves a lot of the missing bike links.
For example, thanks to Arnold Schwarzenegger we've got this
connector from Lotus to Folsom:

https://s3-media4.fl.yelpcdn.com/bph...rXV2vLEQ/o.jpg



Before that the ride was much longer and quite hazardous (I almost got
clipped by a motorcyclist there). Now the ride is like a
mini-vacation but you do need a serious MTB. Rim brakes like in the
photo are not recommended on this route.


Oh, so tax payers should be paying for your "serious MTB" route?
That's dopey. Government should be installing infrastructure to
reduce inner-city and suburban congestion -- and providing useful
connectors for ordinary cyclists and not the super-gnarly mountain
biker mountain-lion tamers. Focus on the topic: "bike paths" and not
super-awesome, scary mountain bike trails.


People out here are different and that may be hard to understand for
city folk. For example, when I came back from Placerville on the usual
route (singletrack) a bunch of kids and their dad came by. Dad had to
drop off the car for service, they loaded all their MTBs and rode back.
Just a normal day in paradise. They sure rode like they know how to
handle MTBs.


Pfff. You move to a airpark-golf-course community and make it sound like you're the Donner Party crossing the Sierra. You are city folk. If you can ride to Costco, you're not in the middle of nowhere.

I'm not impressed by someone who hauls his kids in a car, gets out and then goes trail riding. I can do that around here, too (assuming I still had small kids) -- but it's not relevant to transportation planning in general. Do the awesome mountain bike kids ride to school? I would find that more impressive. Living near the hills give you easy access to trails, and maybe even makes them relevant connectors, but your mythical person who would ride if there were infrastructure is not going to be dragging his or her ass over dirt trails to get somewhere.

-- Jay Beattie.



  #77  
Old March 18th 18, 03:05 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,271
Default New bike path

On 3/17/2018 8:53 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Saturday, March 17, 2018 at 2:35:10 PM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-03-17 14:06, jbeattie wrote:
On Saturday, March 17, 2018 at 9:25:02 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-03-17 08:15, jbeattie wrote:


[...]

Joerg also needs to read-up on current and past federal
transportation financing -- ISTEA, SAFETEA-LU, MAP-21 and note
that the Orange Overlord is gutting federal transportation
funding -- shifting costs onto the states for the huge,
incredible, the bestest infrastructure projects ever! Most of the
big bicycle projects in Oregon were funded in large part by the
feds. There was also state and local funding under the Oregon
Bicycle Bill.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/rex-b...b_3861490.html




Just open some government land (which they are now doing) and let people
ride their MTB there. That solves a lot of the missing bike links.
For example, thanks to Arnold Schwarzenegger we've got this
connector from Lotus to Folsom:

https://s3-media4.fl.yelpcdn.com/bph...rXV2vLEQ/o.jpg



Before that the ride was much longer and quite hazardous (I almost got
clipped by a motorcyclist there). Now the ride is like a
mini-vacation but you do need a serious MTB. Rim brakes like in the
photo are not recommended on this route.

Oh, so tax payers should be paying for your "serious MTB" route?
That's dopey. Government should be installing infrastructure to
reduce inner-city and suburban congestion -- and providing useful
connectors for ordinary cyclists and not the super-gnarly mountain
biker mountain-lion tamers. Focus on the topic: "bike paths" and not
super-awesome, scary mountain bike trails.


People out here are different and that may be hard to understand for
city folk. For example, when I came back from Placerville on the usual
route (singletrack) a bunch of kids and their dad came by. Dad had to
drop off the car for service, they loaded all their MTBs and rode back.
Just a normal day in paradise. They sure rode like they know how to
handle MTBs.


Pfff. You move to a airpark-golf-course community and make it sound like you're the Donner Party crossing the Sierra. You are city folk. If you can ride to Costco, you're not in the middle of nowhere.

I'm not impressed by someone who hauls his kids in a car, gets out and then goes trail riding. I can do that around here, too (assuming I still had small kids) -- but it's not relevant to transportation planning in general. Do the awesome mountain bike kids ride to school? I would find that more impressive. Living near the hills give you easy access to trails, and maybe even makes them relevant connectors, but your mythical person who would ride if there were infrastructure is not going to be dragging his or her ass over dirt trails to get somewhere.


Exactly. Joerg is all about anecdotes, and believes his "I saw one
guy..." tales trump all data.

When he does deal with data, it's to say "Well, 1% bike mode share is
excellent for America." Or "Well, all those facilities don't work
because they're built wrong. It's the _next_ facility that will perform
miracles."


--
- Frank Krygowski
  #78  
Old March 18th 18, 03:11 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,271
Default New bike path

On 3/17/2018 11:06 AM, Joerg wrote:

There will always be areas where it doesn't work...


Well, THERE'S a statement I can agree with! I'd say it applies to
countless areas!

or, like in Milton
Keynes, the design gets largely messed up and then people don't use it.


Very few people claim that Stevenage's and Milton Keynes' designs were
"messed up." They (or at least Stevenage, which I'm more familiar with)
were state of the art, matching or exceeding what was done in the
Netherlands at the time.

The "messed up" part was the automobile facility system. It was too
good. Since motoring was not dissuaded, people chose to drive cars.
It's thoroughly explained he www.roadswerenotbuiltforcars.com/stevenage/


--
- Frank Krygowski
  #79  
Old March 18th 18, 10:04 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
John B.[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,967
Default New bike path

On Sat, 17 Mar 2018 23:11:05 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 3/17/2018 11:06 AM, Joerg wrote:

There will always be areas where it doesn't work...


Well, THERE'S a statement I can agree with! I'd say it applies to
countless areas!

or, like in Milton
Keynes, the design gets largely messed up and then people don't use it.


Very few people claim that Stevenage's and Milton Keynes' designs were
"messed up." They (or at least Stevenage, which I'm more familiar with)
were state of the art, matching or exceeding what was done in the
Netherlands at the time.

The "messed up" part was the automobile facility system. It was too
good. Since motoring was not dissuaded, people chose to drive cars.
It's thoroughly explained he www.roadswerenotbuiltforcars.com/stevenage/


I think that the point is that people are inherently lazy, for want of
a better description.

Think of all the overweight people in the U.S. The National Center for
Health Statistics has it that 70.7% of the U.S. population is either
obese or overweight.

Does anyone walk to work/school? Or anywhere?

Granted that lack of exercise is not the only reason that Usians are
obese, but still....
--
Cheers,

John B.

  #80  
Old March 18th 18, 02:46 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,271
Default New bike path

On 3/18/2018 6:04 AM, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 17 Mar 2018 23:11:05 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 3/17/2018 11:06 AM, Joerg wrote:

There will always be areas where it doesn't work...


Well, THERE'S a statement I can agree with! I'd say it applies to
countless areas!

or, like in Milton
Keynes, the design gets largely messed up and then people don't use it.


Very few people claim that Stevenage's and Milton Keynes' designs were
"messed up." They (or at least Stevenage, which I'm more familiar with)
were state of the art, matching or exceeding what was done in the
Netherlands at the time.

The "messed up" part was the automobile facility system. It was too
good. Since motoring was not dissuaded, people chose to drive cars.
It's thoroughly explained he www.roadswerenotbuiltforcars.com/stevenage/


I think that the point is that people are inherently lazy, for want of
a better description.


Yes, most people are inherently lazy.

Joerg claims that if the government puts in lots of bike paths, people
will use their cars a lot less. They'll take to bicycling in droves.

Perhaps he also thinks that if building designers would just put in
extra stairways, people would stop using elevators.

I taught at a university. I had two offices, one on the third floor and
one on the fourth. Yes, I usually used the stairs. But I usually had
them to myself. And there were many times I saw people use the elevator
to go up or down just one floor.

--
- Frank Krygowski
 




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
Rockslide onto bike path Joerg[_2_] Techniques 0 January 24th 17 11:31 PM
Shared cycle path - auditorially distracted pedestro-kretins stepping into the path of cycles Light of Aria[_2_] UK 59 March 9th 09 06:17 PM
Saying Hi on the Bike Path Jorg Lueke General 54 November 3rd 08 10:13 PM
Southbank path connecting to Docklands path Jules[_2_] Australia 1 June 26th 08 01:03 PM
PER: bike path re-opens DeF Australia 4 March 18th 06 01:39 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:47 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2018 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.