What American Cities are Missing: Bikes by the Thousands

On May 29, 10:17 am, "Amy Blankenship"
wrote:
"Baxter" wrote in message

...



-
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Software - Baxter Codeworkswww.baxcode.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Bolwerk" wrote in message
.. .

That there's disproportionate poverty in rural areas is well known, and
nobody is denying it, near as I can tell. The point was that George
blames urban areas for failings of rural economies. Many of these
failings go back generations.

And then when richer people move to the rural area and buy up the
property, George complains again - railing about "horse farms". In short,
all George has to offer is jealousy and NO solutions.

Tsk, tsk. You are totally not paying attention to what George says. He is
completely ok with people who have more money than the rural people buying
up the property so that they can build subdivisions and the area is no
longer rural. So then the _rest_ of the rural area is poor, and he still
has something to complain about. I think if George got everything he
advocates (impossible, since he's so logically inconsistent), he' do a
complete 180 so he'd have more to complain about.

Why don't you-all go back to the city, ride your transit, live in your
towers, walk your busy sidewalks, eat at your funky cafe's, make your
big paychecks, ride your bikes, and leave me (and maybe Amy) alone in
the rural areas. I live in the middle of nowhere because I want to
live in the middle of nowhere. When you discover it and make it
"somewhere", I'll have to move again.

I want my swimming pool in my yard next to my BBQ. I want my minivan
in my driveway next to my wife's car. I want to look out my back door
and see trees (a.k.a. indefensible space) and mountains.

I don't want a "lifestyle" because I have a family. I don't want
culture because I get my entertainment watching my kids in sports and
concerts and stuff. I don't want "new urbanism" or "smart growth"
because I don't want any urbanism and only a bit of growth.

I don't want to be politically correct because I don't like "mind
police". There are Indians on the Rez, not aboriginals and seldon
Native Americans. They play on the Warriors football team and the
Allegany Arrows lacrosse. So do the Indians and no one minds the
names. And the lacrosse team just played the "Braves" from another
Reservation.

I think my philosophy is consistant but I don't care if it isn't.

I'm glad you all love your bikes and ride them through the rain and
snow and sleet and shine. I'm glad you love your "lifestyle" as much
as I love not having one. But please, stay in the cities and we'll
all like it better. I'll be right back. I want to go check on my
tomato plants.

"donquijote1954" wrote in message
oups.com...
On May 25, 4:04 pm, "George Conklin"
wrote:

Under that logic, you should start by banning 53-foot trailers and
tandems.-

They know how to drive. The avarage semi driver is well above the
average Joe SUV.

When there is an accident with an 18-wheeler, the car driver is 9 times
more
likely to be killed.-

If it is 16 times for an SUV vs. car, it must be like 160 times more
deadly in a semi vs. car. Imagine what it would be if semi drivers
were as poorly trained and as careless as SUV drivers. Probably worse
than Iraq.

Are there a lot of SUV drivers in Iraq?

"Pat" wrote in message
oups.com...
On May 29, 10:17 am, "Amy Blankenship"
wrote:
"Baxter" wrote in message
Tsk, tsk. You are totally not paying attention to what George says. He
is
completely ok with people who have more money than the rural people
buying
up the property so that they can build subdivisions and the area is no
longer rural. So then the _rest_ of the rural area is poor, and he still
has something to complain about. I think if George got everything he
advocates (impossible, since he's so logically inconsistent), he' do a
complete 180 so he'd have more to complain about.

Why don't you-all go back to the city, ride your transit, live in your
towers, walk your busy sidewalks, eat at your funky cafe's, make your
big paychecks, ride your bikes, and leave me (and maybe Amy) alone in
the rural areas. I live in the middle of nowhere because I want to
live in the middle of nowhere. When you discover it and make it
"somewhere", I'll have to move again.

I want my swimming pool in my yard next to my BBQ. I want my minivan
in my driveway next to my wife's car. I want to look out my back door
and see trees (a.k.a. indefensible space) and mountains.

I don't want a "lifestyle" because I have a family. I don't want
culture because I get my entertainment watching my kids in sports and
concerts and stuff. I don't want "new urbanism" or "smart growth"
because I don't want any urbanism and only a bit of growth.

I don't want to be politically correct because I don't like "mind
police". There are Indians on the Rez, not aboriginals and seldon
Native Americans. They play on the Warriors football team and the
Allegany Arrows lacrosse. So do the Indians and no one minds the
names. And the lacrosse team just played the "Braves" from another
Reservation.

I think my philosophy is consistant but I don't care if it isn't.

I'm glad you all love your bikes and ride them through the rain and
snow and sleet and shine. I'm glad you love your "lifestyle" as much
as I love not having one. But please, stay in the cities and we'll
all like it better. I'll be right back. I want to go check on my
tomato plants.

What you don't get, though, is that New Urbanism is probably our greatest
hope in rural areas. Because it is very much about containing growth and
trying to encourage that if there *is* growth in area A that that growth
will house more people than would otherwise happen under conventional
suburban sprawl. If area A has twice as many residents that wanted to move
into the locality than otherwise would, then Area B does not have to absorb
such a large population influx, and can remain more rural than it otherwise
would have. If Area B *does* have to grow, if it encourages that most of
that growth is concentrated in a relatively small area and applies zoning
and other controls to discourage growth in areas that the community has
decided should be protected, then Area B may be able to somewhat maintain
its character.

What New Urbanism is about is for a community to be able to decide what
future it wants for itself and take some steps to try to encourage that
future to come about, while at the same time realizing that in some areas
you can't stick your fingers in the dike to prevent a flood of new
residents. Sometimes those steps do not have the desired results.
Sometimes things get derailed by other political and economic realities.
Sometimes the results turn out to be the opposite of what you intended. But
then sometimes bugs eat your tomatoes. One thing's for sure. You seldom
get tomatoes if you don't plant any in the first place.

-Amy

On May 29, 1:41 pm, "Amy Blankenship"
wrote:
"Pat" wrote in message

oups.com...



On May 29, 10:17 am, "Amy Blankenship"
wrote:
"Baxter" wrote in message
Tsk, tsk. You are totally not paying attention to what George says. He
is
completely ok with people who have more money than the rural people
buying
up the property so that they can build subdivisions and the area is no
longer rural. So then the _rest_ of the rural area is poor, and he still
has something to complain about. I think if George got everything he
advocates (impossible, since he's so logically inconsistent), he' do a
complete 180 so he'd have more to complain about.

Why don't you-all go back to the city, ride your transit, live in your
towers, walk your busy sidewalks, eat at your funky cafe's, make your
big paychecks, ride your bikes, and leave me (and maybe Amy) alone in
the rural areas. I live in the middle of nowhere because I want to
live in the middle of nowhere. When you discover it and make it
"somewhere", I'll have to move again.

I want my swimming pool in my yard next to my BBQ. I want my minivan
in my driveway next to my wife's car. I want to look out my back door
and see trees (a.k.a. indefensible space) and mountains.

I don't want a "lifestyle" because I have a family. I don't want
culture because I get my entertainment watching my kids in sports and
concerts and stuff. I don't want "new urbanism" or "smart growth"
because I don't want any urbanism and only a bit of growth.

I don't want to be politically correct because I don't like "mind
police". There are Indians on the Rez, not aboriginals and seldon
Native Americans. They play on the Warriors football team and the
Allegany Arrows lacrosse. So do the Indians and no one minds the
names. And the lacrosse team just played the "Braves" from another
Reservation.

I think my philosophy is consistant but I don't care if it isn't.

I'm glad you all love your bikes and ride them through the rain and
snow and sleet and shine. I'm glad you love your "lifestyle" as much
as I love not having one. But please, stay in the cities and we'll
all like it better. I'll be right back. I want to go check on my
tomato plants.

What you don't get, though, is that New Urbanism is probably our greatest
hope in rural areas. Because it is very much about containing growth and
trying to encourage that if there *is* growth in area A that that growth
will house more people than would otherwise happen under conventional
suburban sprawl. If area A has twice as many residents that wanted to move
into the locality than otherwise would, then Area B does not have to absorb
such a large population influx, and can remain more rural than it otherwise
would have. If Area B *does* have to grow, if it encourages that most of
that growth is concentrated in a relatively small area and applies zoning
and other controls to discourage growth in areas that the community has
decided should be protected, then Area B may be able to somewhat maintain
its character.

My problem is that almost all zoning is fundimentally flawed. Instead
of being a blueprint for the future, it is a compilation of past
mistakes in the community. Instead of being fair and open, it is rife
with politics and intrigue. There is no zoning that money cannot
change.


What New Urbanism is about is for a community to be able to decide what
future it wants for itself and take some steps to try to encourage that
future to come about, while at the same time realizing that in some areas
you can't stick your fingers in the dike to prevent a flood of new
residents. Sometimes those steps do not have the desired results.
Sometimes things get derailed by other political and economic realities.
Sometimes the results turn out to be the opposite of what you intended. But
then sometimes bugs eat your tomatoes. One thing's for sure. You seldom
get tomatoes if you don't plant any in the first place.

True, but the same cannot be said for zucchini.


-Amy

On May 24, 2:15 pm, Pat wrote:

I rather keep fit in my SUB (smart utility bike). Well, rethinking my
strategy in light of the Darwinian roads where I'm forced to drive.
Even smaller cars put me at the wrong end of the food chain. I guess
only buses protect me from the big predators out there.

I am in a small town in the middle of nowhere. In the last two weeks,
we have had two bus incidents. One was a lacrosse bus (that my son
was on) that his a mogal in the road so hard that it ripped the kid-
gate off the front of the bus. A couple of kids hit the ceiling.
Then last week, a bus (with the lights flashing) was slowing down to
drop off kids and it was rear-ended by a tractor trailer. 3 kids and
the driver hurt. Nothing too serious. 4 kids okay. Busses are safe,
but maybe not as safe as I had thought.-

Though nothing is absolutely safe, they are the only ones that don't
bow to SUVs or at least the only ones where you don't feel like a
sitting duck...

You know how I feel in any other vehicle out there???

http://www.cartoonstock.com/lowres/cga0264l.jpg

Yes, I feel like that, and not even walking you are safe from the
ARROGANT, CARELESS SUV DRIVERS. Case in point, as I was walking down
the sidewalk last Friday (transferring buses, with a heavy box to
boot), an SUV with a young lady at the wheel starts turning into this
driveway to the shopping center, cutting me off in the process
(something kind of usual in this Darwinian city where I live, #1 in
the nation), and I respond by knocking on her window. She then shows
the phone: She's gonna call the police! And I shout at her, "Go ahead
and call the police!" OK, she changed her mind, but she still stopped
some feet further to shout something at me.

So, under this TERROR we must live. I guess it's normal in the jungle.
Like the sitting duck said, "Never sit down during the hunting
season..."

On May 29, 3:24 pm, donquijote1954
wrote:
On May 24, 2:15 pm, Pat wrote:

I rather keep fit in my SUB (smart utility bike). Well, rethinking my
strategy in light of the Darwinian roads where I'm forced to drive.
Even smaller cars put me at the wrong end of the food chain. I guess
only buses protect me from the big predators out there.

I am in a small town in the middle of nowhere. In the last two weeks,
we have had two bus incidents. One was a lacrosse bus (that my son
was on) that his a mogal in the road so hard that it ripped the kid-
gate off the front of the bus. A couple of kids hit the ceiling.
Then last week, a bus (with the lights flashing) was slowing down to
drop off kids and it was rear-ended by a tractor trailer. 3 kids and
the driver hurt. Nothing too serious. 4 kids okay. Busses are safe,
but maybe not as safe as I had thought.-

Though nothing is absolutely safe, they are the only ones that don't
bow to SUVs or at least the only ones where you don't feel like a
sitting duck...

You know how I feel in any other vehicle out there???

http://www.cartoonstock.com/lowres/cga0264l.jpg

Yes, I feel like that, and not even walking you are safe from the
ARROGANT, CARELESS SUV DRIVERS. Case in point, as I was walking down
the sidewalk last Friday (transferring buses, with a heavy box to
boot), an SUV with a young lady at the wheel starts turning into this
driveway to the shopping center, cutting me off in the process
(something kind of usual in this Darwinian city where I live, #1 in
the nation), and I respond by knocking on her window. She then shows
the phone: She's gonna call the police! And I shout at her, "Go ahead
and call the police!" OK, she changed her mind, but she still stopped
some feet further to shout something at me.

So, under this TERROR we must live. I guess it's normal in the jungle.
Like the sitting duck said, "Never sit down during the hunting
season..."

A guy I knw who rode a motorcycle always wore "gauntlet" gloves that
covered the wrist. He grometed a spike on the outside of each glove.
If someone got too close, he swung at them. It's hard to break a
windshield but I guess side windows are pretty easy ;-) And
scratching paint is easier. He said he took out a few windows in his
day.

Where I live, EVERYONE drives a SUV or a pickup. But we're pretty
rural and very snowy. Hummers and Cadilac Espensades (or whatever
they are called) are an obsession on the Rez.

Most bicycles stay on the sidewalks around here.

On my motorcycle, SUVs aren't as big of a concern as tractor
trailers. Their wind blasts can move you quite a bit. I ride a
heavy, touring bike for better visibility, use pre-emptive honking,
and keep the CD on the trucker channel to talk to them. Rocks coming
out of dump trucks is the worst. Take a #2 crushed stone to the body
at 70mph and you feel it. Even sand stings a bit.

BTW, school gets out 1/2 hour early tomorrow for the funeral of a 15-
year-old who was killed in a single-car accident on Friday. A dog
jumped from the back seat to the front seat and distracted the
driver. She swerved, over-corrected and hit a bank. The girl who was
killed was ejected from the car during the rollover. Too many people
in the car and an inexperienced driver.

"Pat" wrote in message
ups.com...
...
I don't want a "lifestyle" because I have a family. I don't want
culture because I get my entertainment watching my kids in sports and
concerts and stuff. I don't want "new urbanism" or "smart growth"
because I don't want any urbanism and only a bit of growth.

I don't want to be politically correct because I don't like "mind
police". There are Indians on the Rez, not aboriginals and seldon
Native Americans. They play on the Warriors football team and the
Allegany Arrows lacrosse. So do the Indians and no one minds the
names. And the lacrosse team just played the "Braves" from another
Reservation.

I think my philosophy is consistant but I don't care if it isn't.

I'm glad you all love your bikes and ride them through the rain and
snow and sleet and shine. I'm glad you love your "lifestyle" as much
as I love not having one. But please, stay in the cities and we'll
all like it better. I'll be right back. I want to go check on my
tomato plants.

What you don't get, though, is that New Urbanism is probably our greatest
hope in rural areas. Because it is very much about containing growth and
trying to encourage that if there *is* growth in area A that that growth
will house more people than would otherwise happen under conventional
suburban sprawl. If area A has twice as many residents that wanted to
move
into the locality than otherwise would, then Area B does not have to
absorb
such a large population influx, and can remain more rural than it
otherwise
would have. If Area B *does* have to grow, if it encourages that most of
that growth is concentrated in a relatively small area and applies zoning
and other controls to discourage growth in areas that the community has
decided should be protected, then Area B may be able to somewhat maintain
its character.

My problem is that almost all zoning is fundimentally flawed. Instead
of being a blueprint for the future, it is a compilation of past
mistakes in the community. Instead of being fair and open, it is rife
with politics and intrigue. There is no zoning that money cannot
change.

This is true. My problem sith tomatoes is that they get fusarium wilt and
tobacco mosaic.

What New Urbanism is about is for a community to be able to decide what
future it wants for itself and take some steps to try to encourage that
future to come about, while at the same time realizing that in some areas
you can't stick your fingers in the dike to prevent a flood of new
residents. Sometimes those steps do not have the desired results.
Sometimes things get derailed by other political and economic realities.
Sometimes the results turn out to be the opposite of what you intended.
But
then sometimes bugs eat your tomatoes. One thing's for sure. You seldom
get tomatoes if you don't plant any in the first place.

True, but the same cannot be said for zucchini.

I didn't plant any zucchini this year, yet surprisingly I don't have any
either :-). However, there is a tomato I didn't plant behind the chicken
coop. Just goes to show...

On May 28, 10:06 pm, Nobody wrote:
On Fri, 25 May 2007 13:16:20 -0700, (Tom Keats)
wrote:



In article ,
Nobody writes:

It simply is not practicable (note the use of adjective), either by
wish or function.

It is for me, and for many others.

Yeah, but what youse who like this "challenge" in transportation don't
seem to appreciate, you're not even in the slightest minority.

We have enough presence to show up in modal share statistics
for numerous North American cities.

I lke to go biking for exercise, enjoyment...but for basic
transportation to and from my place of employment 10 km away? Go jump
in the closest pond.

10 km might be a bit much for a beginning rider.
But it doesn't take long to be able to easily
and routinely ride that distance, and even further.

It just does not make sense for most of us. As I say, it is not
"practicable". (And that's different than beng practical.)

Who exactly /is/ "most of us"?

And why are you so vehement about discouraging people
from cycle-commuting by denying its practice-ability?

Bloody hell, what you're suggesting is a situation of "enthusiasts"
dictating what they believe the rest of humanity should be doing.

I'm not discouraging anybody from doing anything.

So, regardless of distance, let's say, I can (i.e. "am able to") ride
a bicycle to work. Um, urban size dictates that is gonna be a
time-consuming, and in weather-challenging conditions, rather
unpleasant.

Depends on where you live and work. In Canada the median commuting
distance is 7.2 km or perhaps 15-20 minutes by bike[1]. Given that
that is the median time it is likely that for a lot of people the
distance is significantly less. In fact for female commuters it is 6.4
km.

Here is a simple bar chart showing a rough breakdown of who commutes
how far
http://ca.geocities.com/jrkrideau/cycling/commute.png. Over 60% of
the Canadian working population have a less than 10 km (or 20-30
minute by bike) commute.

The way I see it there's lots of room for people to cycle (or even
GASP, walk) to work while some people clearly would find it difficult
or completely impractical.

John Kane, Kingston ON Canada

1. Commuting to Work, 2001 Census Catalogue no.: 97F0015XIE2001001
Unfortunately it does not give a breakdown by community size or
urban/rural split.

--clip ---

In article . com,
donquijote1954 wrote:

http://www.cartoonstock.com/lowres/cga0264l.jpg

Yes, I feel like that, and not even walking you are safe from the
ARROGANT, CARELESS SUV DRIVERS. Case in point, as I was walking down
the sidewalk last Friday (transferring buses, with a heavy box to
boot), an SUV with a young lady at the wheel starts turning into this
driveway to the shopping center, cutting me off in the process
(something kind of usual in this Darwinian city where I live, #1 in
the nation), and I respond by knocking on her window. She then shows
the phone: She's gonna call the police! And I shout at her, "Go ahead
and call the police!" OK, she changed her mind, but she still stopped
some feet further to shout something at me.

So, under this TERROR we must live. I guess it's normal in the
jungle. Like the sitting duck said, "Never sit down during the
hunting season..."

Stop being such a self-victimizing drama queen. Jeez. The people
around you are oblivious of you, whether they are walking, driving,
eating dinner, riding their bikes, whatever. They are not going to
accommodate your presence. It's not a jungle, people are not out to get
you, it's just life going on. Stop personalizing it and acting like you
expect to be the center of the universe.

On 29 May 2007 13:57:53 -0700, John Kane wrote:

On May 28, 10:06 pm, Nobody wrote:
On Fri, 25 May 2007 13:16:20 -0700, (Tom Keats)
wrote:



In article ,
Nobody writes:

It simply is not practicable (note the use of adjective), either by
wish or function.

It is for me, and for many others.

Yeah, but what youse who like this "challenge" in transportation don't
seem to appreciate, you're not even in the slightest minority.

We have enough presence to show up in modal share statistics
for numerous North American cities.

I lke to go biking for exercise, enjoyment...but for basic
transportation to and from my place of employment 10 km away? Go jump
in the closest pond.

10 km might be a bit much for a beginning rider.
But it doesn't take long to be able to easily
and routinely ride that distance, and even further.

It just does not make sense for most of us. As I say, it is not
"practicable". (And that's different than beng practical.)

Who exactly /is/ "most of us"?

And why are you so vehement about discouraging people
from cycle-commuting by denying its practice-ability?

Bloody hell, what you're suggesting is a situation of "enthusiasts"
dictating what they believe the rest of humanity should be doing.

I'm not discouraging anybody from doing anything.

So, regardless of distance, let's say, I can (i.e. "am able to") ride
a bicycle to work. Um, urban size dictates that is gonna be a
time-consuming, and in weather-challenging conditions, rather
unpleasant.

Depends on where you live and work. In Canada the median commuting
distance is 7.2 km or perhaps 15-20 minutes by bike[1]. Given that
that is the median time it is likely that for a lot of people the
distance is significantly less. In fact for female commuters it is 6.4
km.

Here is a simple bar chart showing a rough breakdown of who commutes
how far
http://ca.geocities.com/jrkrideau/cycling/commute.png. Over 60% of
the Canadian working population have a less than 10 km (or 20-30
minute by bike) commute.

The way I see it there's lots of room for people to cycle (or even
GASP, walk) to work while some people clearly would find it difficult
or completely impractical.

John Kane, Kingston ON Canada

And how far are YOU going to cycle in Kingston in
December/January/February/March?


1. Commuting to Work, 2001 Census Catalogue no.: 97F0015XIE2001001
Unfortunately it does not give a breakdown by community size or
urban/rural split.

--clip ---