|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Build it and they won't come
On 9/21/2017 3:35 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
I don't know what went wrong in Stevenage. In any other town, such dedicated bicycle paths would be infested with joggers, baby carriages, radio controlled racers, skateboarders, push carts, electric powered assault transports etc, which suggests that nobody is using the paths using any means of transport. That's too strange to not have an obvious cause. The paths might be going from nowhere to nowhere, the weather is chronically uncooperative, there are undesirables lurking along the paths, or something else that might discourage its use. It's incorrect to say that in every other town, the paths would be heavily used. Stevenage is not the only "new town" that was built in Britain with designed-in bike facilities. Milton Keynes is similar, with similar failure of bike mode share. There are others as well. Also, don't judge the quality of an idea by its first attempt. Again, this wasn't the only attempt in Britain or elsewhere. And on a smaller scale, one can look at lesser networks of bike lanes or bike paths in many other towns and see very little use. One town I visit at least weekly has bike lanes on at least three of the four main highways approaching the town. (They are two-lane highways.) I've driven there regularly for probably 8 years. In all those years, I've seen a total of perhaps 15 cyclists on those bike lanes. I think that in those U.S. cities where cycling mode share is a bit more than 2%, the main factor is simply fashion. The city itself, for whatever reason, attracts a population tuned to trendiness, and bicycling somehow becomes a fashionable trend. (Remember that San Francisco had a big surge in bike mode share during a time when a lawsuit prevented installation of ANY bike facilities.) In other places (like Amsterdam and Copenhagen) bike mode share is helped by a cluster of other influences: flat terrain, mild climate, short travel distances, etc. coupled with a history of utility biking. And to further boost bike share (as well as transit share) the government takes a critical step: they dissuade motoring. If you don't dissuade motoring, people will buy cars, and people who buy cars will drive them. -- - Frank Krygowski |
Ads |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Build it and they won't come
On Thu, 21 Sep 2017 18:57:12 -0500, AMuzi wrote:
But another factor is that even within a city there are neighborhoods with virtually zero new bike sales and others with very heavy purchases year after year. Sure, but I think I can make a fairly simple assumption. 13 bicycle dealers in a town of 85,000 is going to take some level of sales to keep them in business. The sales are not going to be uniform in both number of bicycles or gross revenue. I don't know exactly what those numbers might be, but with 13 stores, it must be substantial enough to fill the local infrastructure with bicycles, and not produce a ghost town devoid of bicycles. People ride those bicycles somewhere. If not the dedicated cycleways, then where do they ride? The Stevenage bicycle paths were built in the late 1970's making them about 37 years old. https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2017/sep/19/britains-1960s-cycling-revolution-flopped-stevenage http://www.stevenage.gov.uk/52710/ http://www.stevenage.gov.uk/content/15953/16118/33198/Stevenage-Cycling-Map-with-Key.pdf However, there are older dedicated bicycle paths in UK such as those built in the 1930's: "A 5-minute journey on a kerb-protected British cycleway ... built in 1937" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lIGM6yVVrkg (4:53) So maybe the problem is not unique to Stevenage? -- Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Build it and they won't come
On Fri, 22 Sep 2017 07:26:07 +0700, John B.
wrote: Comparing traffic between Singapore and Smog Angeles: https://www.numbeo.com/traffic/compare_cities.jsp?country1=United+States&country2 =Singapore&city1=Los+Angeles%2C+CA&city2=Singapore Bicycle as the main means of transportation: L.A. = 2.90%, Singapore = 2.35% From the section "Average when primary using Bike" it would seem that L.A. bicycle riders use cars, trains, and buses on part of their rides, while Singapore riders use none of these facilities. You apparently missed the part where it said that: Bus/Trolleybus (LA) 2.90% (SNG)29.41% and: Train/Metro (LA)1.45% (SNG)28.24% Or to put it another way, 57.65% of Singapore commuters use public transportation. Sure. L.A. is a disaster from the standpoint of public transit. I used to live there. It's also much larger than Singapore making a car a necessity. Under the same "Main Means of Transportation" heading: Car (LA) 79.71% (SNG) 17.65% I'm not sure what "main" really means. Is it the sole means of transport meaning that one does not own an automobile or bicycle? Or is it just which means of transport used most often or for the longest distance? I couldn't find a definition on the web site. -- Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Build it and they won't come
On Thu, 21 Sep 2017 20:33:12 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
wrote: On Fri, 22 Sep 2017 07:26:07 +0700, John B. wrote: Comparing traffic between Singapore and Smog Angeles: https://www.numbeo.com/traffic/compare_cities.jsp?country1=United+States&country2 =Singapore&city1=Los+Angeles%2C+CA&city2=Singapore Bicycle as the main means of transportation: L.A. = 2.90%, Singapore = 2.35% From the section "Average when primary using Bike" it would seem that L.A. bicycle riders use cars, trains, and buses on part of their rides, while Singapore riders use none of these facilities. You apparently missed the part where it said that: Bus/Trolleybus (LA) 2.90% (SNG)29.41% and: Train/Metro (LA)1.45% (SNG)28.24% Or to put it another way, 57.65% of Singapore commuters use public transportation. Sure. L.A. is a disaster from the standpoint of public transit. I used to live there. It's also much larger than Singapore making a car a necessity. Way back in the very late 1960's and very early 1970's I lived in Riverside and I remember that L.A. in at least two elections proposed a bond issue to fund a proper public transportation system... which the voters turned down twice. After all, it would have resulted in an increase in taxes to redeem the bonds and to pay the interest. Under the same "Main Means of Transportation" heading: Car (LA) 79.71% (SNG) 17.65% I'm not sure what "main" really means. Is it the sole means of transport meaning that one does not own an automobile or bicycle? Or is it just which means of transport used most often or for the longest distance? I couldn't find a definition on the web site. Having lived in Singapore for a number of years I can assure you that the bulk of the population goes to work by public transportation which in Singapore is comprised of bus routes and a subway (SMRT) system that allows travel over the entire island. In addition there are very large numbers of taxi's. Additionally there is essentially no parking on the streets in the business districts and parking lots are monitored by the police and failure to pay the parking fee... in the range of $1.00 an hour is rather severely dwelt with, a $50 fine for first offense. -- Cheers, John B. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Build it and they won't come
On 9/21/2017 11:44 PM, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 21 Sep 2017 20:33:12 -0700, Jeff Liebermann wrote: On Fri, 22 Sep 2017 07:26:07 +0700, John B. wrote: Comparing traffic between Singapore and Smog Angeles: https://www.numbeo.com/traffic/compare_cities.jsp?country1=United+States&country2 =Singapore&city1=Los+Angeles%2C+CA&city2=Singapore Bicycle as the main means of transportation: L.A. = 2.90%, Singapore = 2.35% From the section "Average when primary using Bike" it would seem that L.A. bicycle riders use cars, trains, and buses on part of their rides, while Singapore riders use none of these facilities. You apparently missed the part where it said that: Bus/Trolleybus (LA) 2.90% (SNG)29.41% and: Train/Metro (LA)1.45% (SNG)28.24% Or to put it another way, 57.65% of Singapore commuters use public transportation. Sure. L.A. is a disaster from the standpoint of public transit. I used to live there. It's also much larger than Singapore making a car a necessity. Way back in the very late 1960's and very early 1970's I lived in Riverside and I remember that L.A. in at least two elections proposed a bond issue to fund a proper public transportation system... which the voters turned down twice. After all, it would have resulted in an increase in taxes to redeem the bonds and to pay the interest. Under the same "Main Means of Transportation" heading: Car (LA) 79.71% (SNG) 17.65% I'm not sure what "main" really means. Is it the sole means of transport meaning that one does not own an automobile or bicycle? Or is it just which means of transport used most often or for the longest distance? I couldn't find a definition on the web site. Having lived in Singapore for a number of years I can assure you that the bulk of the population goes to work by public transportation which in Singapore is comprised of bus routes and a subway (SMRT) system that allows travel over the entire island. In addition there are very large numbers of taxi's. Additionally there is essentially no parking on the streets in the business districts and parking lots are monitored by the police and failure to pay the parking fee... in the range of $1.00 an hour is rather severely dwelt with, a $50 fine for first offense. Singapore wouldn't know an authoritarian regime if it bit them in the ass: http://theexpiredmeter.com/2008/09/p...ng-in-chicago/ -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org/ Open every day since 1 April, 1971 |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Build it and they won't come
On Fri, 22 Sep 2017 08:22:52 -0500, AMuzi wrote:
On 9/21/2017 11:44 PM, John B. wrote: On Thu, 21 Sep 2017 20:33:12 -0700, Jeff Liebermann wrote: On Fri, 22 Sep 2017 07:26:07 +0700, John B. wrote: Comparing traffic between Singapore and Smog Angeles: https://www.numbeo.com/traffic/compare_cities.jsp?country1=United+States&country2 =Singapore&city1=Los+Angeles%2C+CA&city2=Singapore Bicycle as the main means of transportation: L.A. = 2.90%, Singapore = 2.35% From the section "Average when primary using Bike" it would seem that L.A. bicycle riders use cars, trains, and buses on part of their rides, while Singapore riders use none of these facilities. You apparently missed the part where it said that: Bus/Trolleybus (LA) 2.90% (SNG)29.41% and: Train/Metro (LA)1.45% (SNG)28.24% Or to put it another way, 57.65% of Singapore commuters use public transportation. Sure. L.A. is a disaster from the standpoint of public transit. I used to live there. It's also much larger than Singapore making a car a necessity. Way back in the very late 1960's and very early 1970's I lived in Riverside and I remember that L.A. in at least two elections proposed a bond issue to fund a proper public transportation system... which the voters turned down twice. After all, it would have resulted in an increase in taxes to redeem the bonds and to pay the interest. Under the same "Main Means of Transportation" heading: Car (LA) 79.71% (SNG) 17.65% I'm not sure what "main" really means. Is it the sole means of transport meaning that one does not own an automobile or bicycle? Or is it just which means of transport used most often or for the longest distance? I couldn't find a definition on the web site. Having lived in Singapore for a number of years I can assure you that the bulk of the population goes to work by public transportation which in Singapore is comprised of bus routes and a subway (SMRT) system that allows travel over the entire island. In addition there are very large numbers of taxi's. Additionally there is essentially no parking on the streets in the business districts and parking lots are monitored by the police and failure to pay the parking fee... in the range of $1.00 an hour is rather severely dwelt with, a $50 fine for first offense. Singapore wouldn't know an authoritarian regime if it bit them in the ass: http://theexpiredmeter.com/2008/09/p...ng-in-chicago/ I think that "city sticker" is a great idea. How about a "bicycle sticker" to defray the cost of building these bicycle lanes I read about. -- Cheers, John B. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Build it and they won't come
AMuzi wrote:
:http://theexpiredmeter.com/2008/09/p...ng-in-chicago/ That's horribly out of date. All of the fines and fees have gone up, but the restrictions on parking non-commerical trucks on residential streets is gone. -- sig 106 |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Build it and they won't come
On 9/24/2017 8:48 AM, David Scheidt wrote:
AMuzi wrote: :http://theexpiredmeter.com/2008/09/p...ng-in-chicago/ That's horribly out of date. All of the fines and fees have gone up, but the restrictions on parking non-commerical trucks on residential streets is gone. Thanks for that. I know a little about this from customers and relatives in The City That Doesn't Work but that link was all I could find in a quick search. -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org/ Open every day since 1 April, 1971 |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Build it and they won't come
On 9/24/2017 9:48 AM, David Scheidt wrote:
AMuzi wrote: :http://theexpiredmeter.com/2008/09/p...ng-in-chicago/ That's horribly out of date. All of the fines and fees have gone up, but the restrictions on parking non-commerical trucks on residential streets is gone. OK, let's talk about parking on streets. So when society builds a street, isn't it generally intended for the movement of people and goods? So how is it that someone gets to store their personal property on it for free? And if that somehow makes sense, why is that permission limited only to motor vehicles? If (say) a person moves out of one apartment but has to wait a month before moving into his next apartment, why isn't he allowed to store all his furniture in a "parking place"? -- - Frank Krygowski |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Build it and they won't come
AMuzi wrote:
:On 9/24/2017 8:48 AM, David Scheidt wrote: : AMuzi wrote: : : :http://theexpiredmeter.com/2008/09/p...ng-in-chicago/ : : : That's horribly out of date. All of the fines and fees have gone up, : but the restrictions on parking non-commerical trucks on residential : streets is gone. : : : :Thanks for that. I know a little about this from customers :and relatives in The City That Doesn't Work but that link :was all I could find in a quick search. In my experience, most people parking illegally have made an economic decision that the risk of getting caught is small enough that it's cheaper to take it than to pay for legal parking. And given that I could write 20 parking tickets on my ride to work, every day, they're probably right. -- sig 86 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Can Women Build Big Muscles? Why Women Cant Build Big Muscles Easily | [email protected] | UK | 0 | February 16th 08 09:41 PM |
Anyone looking to build a bc? Free hazard hub with a Stockton build! | Evan Byrne | Unicycling | 5 | September 14th 06 09:59 AM |
Anyone looking to build a bc? Free hazard hub with a Stockton build! | Evan Byrne | Unicycling | 0 | August 25th 06 11:05 PM |
Disc Wheel Build Build Suggestions | osobailo | Techniques | 2 | October 5th 04 01:55 PM |
? - To build or not to build -- a bike - ? | Andrew Short | Techniques | 16 | August 4th 03 04:12 AM |