What American Cities are Missing: Bikes by the Thousands

"rotten" wrote in

[snip]

No they don't. If you want transit, move to a city. We shouldn't
have
mass transit in areas with low population density, just to give
people
a choice.

[snip]

There's a solution to that. It's generally reckoned that the
catchment area for a transit station is a ten minute trip to get to
the station. For a pedestrian that's about half a mile.

However, for a cyclist, the distance is four times as much, about two
miles. The population served goes up with area served, which goes up
as the square of the distance to the station.

Thus a transit station could serve sixteen times as many customers,
if those customers were cyclists, as it could serve if the customers
were pedestrians.

There's more. With the two mile feeder, the stations can be further
apart. Actually, the stations may well have been built far apart
anyway. Many commuter rail lines were originally built to run steam
trains. Because steam trains are slow at accelerating and
decelerating, the stations were originally built a considerable
distance apart, and so don't serve well even the population alongside
the tracks, unless that population rides bikes.

Stopping at stations wastes time, if those stations are not your
station. Cut down on the station stops, and all trains become
expresses

Jeremy Parker

On Jun 7, 1:25 pm, Dane Buson wrote:
In rec.bicycles.misc rotten wrote:

On Jun 7, 10:52 am, Bolwerk wrote:

I don't know what it means for "nobody" to "subsidize anybody else's
transportation." Depending where you live and if you drive, your
transportation is probably subsidized by all kinds of people, places,
and funding schemes, ranging from gas taxes to direct federal
appropriations.

User fees as much as possible.

So, you're talking about $7-13 a gallon gas? Or perhaps every road will
become a toll road? Of course we could also install a GPS box and tax
you for miles driven. Alternately we could charge people based on
odometer readings when you register every year. [1]

I also look forward to the Sneaker Tax. Of course this will have to be
built into the cost of the shoes. Perhaps we'll call it something like
Very Appreciable Travel and tack it onto the cost of all travel related
goods.

[1] I'm sure no one will stop their odometer, falsify it, or fail to
register their car to avoid paying...

--
Dane Buson -
The world really isn't any worse.
It's just that the news coverage is so much better.

Calm down little man, I don't think it's reasonable to charge for
walking or whatever, obviously on a local level not everything will be
able to be paid for on that basis. Sheesh, people get so angry.

In rec.bicycles.misc rotten wrote:
On Jun 7, 1:25 pm, Dane Buson wrote:
In rec.bicycles.misc rotten wrote:
On Jun 7, 10:52 am, Bolwerk wrote:

I don't know what it means for "nobody" to "subsidize anybody else's
transportation." Depending where you live and if you drive, your
transportation is probably subsidized by all kinds of people, places,
and funding schemes, ranging from gas taxes to direct federal
appropriations.

User fees as much as possible.

So, you're talking about $7-13 a gallon gas? Or perhaps every road will
become a toll road? Of course we could also install a GPS box and tax
you for miles driven. Alternately we could charge people based on
odometer readings when you register every year. [1]

I also look forward to the Sneaker Tax. Of course this will have to be
built into the cost of the shoes. Perhaps we'll call it something like
Very Appreciable Travel and tack it onto the cost of all travel related
goods.

[1] I'm sure no one will stop their odometer, falsify it, or fail to
register their car to avoid paying...

Calm down little man, I don't think it's reasonable to charge for
walking or whatever, obviously on a local level not everything will be
able to be paid for on that basis. Sheesh, people get so angry.

Angry? I'm sorry if I came off that way. I was being mildly sarcastic,
but not at all angry. Perhaps I should have added the odd ;-) in there.

I'm actually in favour of user fees in many cases, especially roads
which have historically been subsidized heavily by property tax and
general funds. Of course the problem with user fees is getting people
to agree to cough up the money up front.

When you have to pay the full cost at every use, people often balk. You
can see the same effect in many places in life.

ex. Someone who would hesitate if you made them pay $1000 for a year of
coffee has no problem with paying $3-4 multiple times a week.

--
Dane Buson -
The penalty for laughing in a courtroom is six months in jail; if it
were not for this penalty, the jury would never hear the evidence.
-- H. L. Mencken

On Jun 7, 5:30 pm, Dane Buson wrote:
In rec.bicycles.misc rotten wrote:



On Jun 7, 1:25 pm, Dane Buson wrote:
In rec.bicycles.misc rotten wrote:
On Jun 7, 10:52 am, Bolwerk wrote:

I don't know what it means for "nobody" to "subsidize anybody else's
transportation." Depending where you live and if you drive, your
transportation is probably subsidized by all kinds of people, places,
and funding schemes, ranging from gas taxes to direct federal
appropriations.

User fees as much as possible.

So, you're talking about $7-13 a gallon gas? Or perhaps every road will
become a toll road? Of course we could also install a GPS box and tax
you for miles driven. Alternately we could charge people based on
odometer readings when you register every year. [1]

I also look forward to the Sneaker Tax. Of course this will have to be
built into the cost of the shoes. Perhaps we'll call it something like
Very Appreciable Travel and tack it onto the cost of all travel related
goods.

[1] I'm sure no one will stop their odometer, falsify it, or fail to
register their car to avoid paying...

Calm down little man, I don't think it's reasonable to charge for
walking or whatever, obviously on a local level not everything will be
able to be paid for on that basis. Sheesh, people get so angry.

Angry? I'm sorry if I came off that way. I was being mildly sarcastic,
but not at all angry. Perhaps I should have added the odd ;-) in there.

I'm actually in favour of user fees in many cases, especially roads
which have historically been subsidized heavily by property tax and
general funds. Of course the problem with user fees is getting people
to agree to cough up the money up front.

When you have to pay the full cost at every use, people often balk. You
can see the same effect in many places in life.

ex. Someone who would hesitate if you made them pay $1000 for a year of
coffee has no problem with paying $3-4 multiple times a week.

--
Dane Buson -
The penalty for laughing in a courtroom is six months in jail; if it
were not for this penalty, the jury would never hear the evidence.
-- H. L. Mencken

User fees for roads would not even be close to $7-$8 per gallon, I
remember seeing that existing gas taxes already cover around 50% of
the cost of roads, with tolls and excise taxes making up around half
of the rest.

"Bill" wrote in message
et...

So does that mean you want all the city office clones to move into the
city and make it all the more crowded. That sounds like your solution.
Chicago is kind of a model for this kind of thing with it's Metra rail
system that branches out of Chicago like the spokes of a wheel. There are
plenty of parking spots where the train picks up people, even in the dead
of winter and then takes them on a 79 MPH straight shot to the city. Once
there one can use the 'el and overground/underground subway system. You
can get off of that close enough for a short bus hop and short walk to
work. It works for Chicago but has merely spread the suburbs out to a 50
mile plus radius of the center of the city.
To have all those office workers live in Chicago would be an absurdly
crowded situation.
No easy fix in sight.
I'll bet New York is about the same, even if not quite planned out as well
as Chicago.
Bill Baka

Um no, I expressly do not want anyone to have to move where they do not want
to, provided they have the means.

rotten wrote:
On Jun 7, 5:30 pm, Dane Buson wrote:
In rec.bicycles.misc rotten wrote:



On Jun 7, 1:25 pm, Dane Buson wrote:
In rec.bicycles.misc rotten wrote:
On Jun 7, 10:52 am, Bolwerk wrote:
I don't know what it means for "nobody" to "subsidize anybody else's
transportation." Depending where you live and if you drive, your
transportation is probably subsidized by all kinds of people, places,
and funding schemes, ranging from gas taxes to direct federal
appropriations.
User fees as much as possible.
So, you're talking about $7-13 a gallon gas? Or perhaps every road will
become a toll road? Of course we could also install a GPS box and tax
you for miles driven. Alternately we could charge people based on
odometer readings when you register every year. [1]
I also look forward to the Sneaker Tax. Of course this will have to be
built into the cost of the shoes. Perhaps we'll call it something like
Very Appreciable Travel and tack it onto the cost of all travel related
goods.
[1] I'm sure no one will stop their odometer, falsify it, or fail to
register their car to avoid paying...
Calm down little man, I don't think it's reasonable to charge for
walking or whatever, obviously on a local level not everything will be
able to be paid for on that basis. Sheesh, people get so angry.
Angry? I'm sorry if I came off that way. I was being mildly sarcastic,
but not at all angry. Perhaps I should have added the odd ;-) in there.

I'm actually in favour of user fees in many cases, especially roads
which have historically been subsidized heavily by property tax and
general funds. Of course the problem with user fees is getting people
to agree to cough up the money up front.

When you have to pay the full cost at every use, people often balk. You
can see the same effect in many places in life.

ex. Someone who would hesitate if you made them pay $1000 for a year of
coffee has no problem with paying $3-4 multiple times a week.

--
Dane Buson -
The penalty for laughing in a courtroom is six months in jail; if it
were not for this penalty, the jury would never hear the evidence.
-- H. L. Mencken

User fees for roads would not even be close to $7-$8 per gallon, I
remember seeing that existing gas taxes already cover around 50% of
the cost of roads, with tolls and excise taxes making up around half
of the rest.

What are you including in the "cost of roads"? Just maintenance? How
about emergency services? Patrol? Externalities? Only major highways?
What about ancillary routes? Local roads? New construction?

If you pick all of the above, I doubt $7-8 would cover it really.

On Jun 7, 10:52 am, Bolwerk wrote:
rotten wrote:
On Jun 6, 4:30 pm, Bolwerk wrote:
Pat wrote:
On Jun 4, 12:44 pm, "Amy Blankenship"
wrote:
"Pat" wrote in message
legroups.com...
On Jun 4, 9:49 am, "Amy Blankenship"
wrote:
"Joe the Aroma" wrote in
messagenews:_tKdnbr_7I5HD_7bnZ2dnUVZ_uiknZ2d@comca st.com...
Which is because most people do not want to live without a car. Seems
simple enough to me.
Simple is as simple does ;-)
Amy, I think Joe has a point. There is a difference between "need a
car" and "want a car".
There are some folk who live in, say Manhattan, and never venture far
from home. They can easily live without a car. Their entire world
might be just a few square miles. They have busses, and trains, and
cabs, etc.
Then there are folk like me (and probably you) who live off the beaten
path who really need cars. There's no public tranportation around and
not much of a population base to support lots of retail, etc., nearby
(thankfully). So a car is needed.
Interestingly, a 20 mile trip to the store may sound like a huge
distance to someone from Manhattan but it's only about 20 minutes,
which is what they are probably walking to their store. The distance
scales are very different.
But there is another set of "tweeners" who probably don't "need" a car
but really enjoy the freedom of owning one. They don't have to wait
for the bus or the cab or rent a car for a night out.
I'm not sure how much conjection or pollution difference it would be
if they all sold their cars, but I guess that's not for me to decide.
If they an afford one, that's their choice. The best gov't can/should
do it to provide them with other choices so that maybe they decide to
live without a car. But it's a person's decision.
That's all anyone here is advocating for. I've never figured out why people
would argue to remove people's choices to walk/bike/use transit, but there
are many who do.
-Amy
I'd say that they are morons who live in cities, but I fear that that
would be redundant. ;-)
These particular "morons" seem to live in the suburbs primarily, or
suburbanized rural areas anyway.

Funny enough, improving transit systems in cities and metropolitan areas
would probably only benefit rural areas. The energy savings alone would
be remarkable. Smog hurts the health of urban residents, but pollutants
also hurt the environment in rural areas.

I live in the city, I just think nobody should subsidize anybody
else's transportation.

I don't know what it means for "nobody" to "subsidize anybody else's
transportation." Depending where you live and if you drive, your
transportation is probably subsidized by all kinds of people, places,
and funding schemes, ranging from gas taxes to direct federal
appropriations.

Even if you walk, you're probably using a subsidized sidewalk.

The impact that walkers have on the budget is minimal, so I don't care
about them. Are you saying my opinion is that we should tax walkers?
Talk about carrying something to an extreme conclusion.

As for pollution, mandating pollution controls on cars can clean up
air quality without affecting anybody's transportation options.

Pollution controls on cars have thus far proven only so effective. In
any case, people often have only one option: private automobiles.
Expanding transit system might give many people at least two options.

That's right, and if they want another choice, they can move to
somewhere that doesn't require automobiles, like into a city center
where more transportation options are available.

"rotten" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Jun 7, 10:52 am, Bolwerk wrote:
rotten wrote:
On Jun 6, 4:30 pm, Bolwerk wrote:
Pat wrote:
On Jun 4, 12:44 pm, "Amy Blankenship"
wrote:
"Pat" wrote in message
legroups.com...
On Jun 4, 9:49 am, "Amy Blankenship"
wrote:
"Joe the Aroma" wrote in
messagenews:_tKdnbr_7I5HD_7bnZ2dnUVZ_uiknZ2d@comca st.com...
Which is because most people do not want to live without a car.
Seems
simple enough to me.
Simple is as simple does ;-)
Amy, I think Joe has a point. There is a difference between "need
a
car" and "want a car".
There are some folk who live in, say Manhattan, and never venture
far
from home. They can easily live without a car. Their entire
world
might be just a few square miles. They have busses, and trains,
and
cabs, etc.
Then there are folk like me (and probably you) who live off the
beaten
path who really need cars. There's no public tranportation around
and
not much of a population base to support lots of retail, etc.,
nearby
(thankfully). So a car is needed.
Interestingly, a 20 mile trip to the store may sound like a huge
distance to someone from Manhattan but it's only about 20 minutes,
which is what they are probably walking to their store. The
distance
scales are very different.
But there is another set of "tweeners" who probably don't "need" a
car
but really enjoy the freedom of owning one. They don't have to
wait
for the bus or the cab or rent a car for a night out.
I'm not sure how much conjection or pollution difference it would
be
if they all sold their cars, but I guess that's not for me to
decide.
If they an afford one, that's their choice. The best gov't
can/should
do it to provide them with other choices so that maybe they decide
to
live without a car. But it's a person's decision.
That's all anyone here is advocating for. I've never figured out
why people
would argue to remove people's choices to walk/bike/use transit,
but there
are many who do.
-Amy
I'd say that they are morons who live in cities, but I fear that
that
would be redundant. ;-)
These particular "morons" seem to live in the suburbs primarily, or
suburbanized rural areas anyway.

Funny enough, improving transit systems in cities and metropolitan
areas
would probably only benefit rural areas. The energy savings alone
would
be remarkable. Smog hurts the health of urban residents, but
pollutants
also hurt the environment in rural areas.

I live in the city, I just think nobody should subsidize anybody
else's transportation.

I don't know what it means for "nobody" to "subsidize anybody else's
transportation." Depending where you live and if you drive, your
transportation is probably subsidized by all kinds of people, places,
and funding schemes, ranging from gas taxes to direct federal
appropriations.

Even if you walk, you're probably using a subsidized sidewalk.

The impact that walkers have on the budget is minimal, so I don't care
about them. Are you saying my opinion is that we should tax walkers?
Talk about carrying something to an extreme conclusion.

As for pollution, mandating pollution controls on cars can clean up
air quality without affecting anybody's transportation options.

Pollution controls on cars have thus far proven only so effective. In
any case, people often have only one option: private automobiles.
Expanding transit system might give many people at least two options.

That's right, and if they want another choice, they can move to
somewhere that doesn't require automobiles, like into a city center
where more transportation options are available.


I am not sure that having only one option: the subway, is "choice." You can
use a cab almost anywhere, so that does not count.

rotten wrote:
On Jun 7, 10:52 am, Bolwerk wrote:
rotten wrote:
On Jun 6, 4:30 pm, Bolwerk wrote:
Pat wrote:
On Jun 4, 12:44 pm, "Amy Blankenship"
wrote:
"Pat" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Jun 4, 9:49 am, "Amy Blankenship"
wrote:
"Joe the Aroma" wrote in
messagenews:_tKdnbr_7I5HD_7bnZ2dnUVZ_uiknZ2d@comca st.com...
Which is because most people do not want to live without a car. Seems
simple enough to me.
Simple is as simple does ;-)
Amy, I think Joe has a point. There is a difference between "need a
car" and "want a car".
There are some folk who live in, say Manhattan, and never venture far
from home. They can easily live without a car. Their entire world
might be just a few square miles. They have busses, and trains, and
cabs, etc.
Then there are folk like me (and probably you) who live off the beaten
path who really need cars. There's no public tranportation around and
not much of a population base to support lots of retail, etc., nearby
(thankfully). So a car is needed.
Interestingly, a 20 mile trip to the store may sound like a huge
distance to someone from Manhattan but it's only about 20 minutes,
which is what they are probably walking to their store. The distance
scales are very different.
But there is another set of "tweeners" who probably don't "need" a car
but really enjoy the freedom of owning one. They don't have to wait
for the bus or the cab or rent a car for a night out.
I'm not sure how much conjection or pollution difference it would be
if they all sold their cars, but I guess that's not for me to decide.
If they an afford one, that's their choice. The best gov't can/should
do it to provide them with other choices so that maybe they decide to
live without a car. But it's a person's decision.
That's all anyone here is advocating for. I've never figured out why people
would argue to remove people's choices to walk/bike/use transit, but there
are many who do.
-Amy
I'd say that they are morons who live in cities, but I fear that that
would be redundant. ;-)
These particular "morons" seem to live in the suburbs primarily, or
suburbanized rural areas anyway.
Funny enough, improving transit systems in cities and metropolitan areas
would probably only benefit rural areas. The energy savings alone would
be remarkable. Smog hurts the health of urban residents, but pollutants
also hurt the environment in rural areas.
I live in the city, I just think nobody should subsidize anybody
else's transportation.
I don't know what it means for "nobody" to "subsidize anybody else's
transportation." Depending where you live and if you drive, your
transportation is probably subsidized by all kinds of people, places,
and funding schemes, ranging from gas taxes to direct federal
appropriations.

Even if you walk, you're probably using a subsidized sidewalk.

The impact that walkers have on the budget is minimal, so I don't care
about them. Are you saying my opinion is that we should tax walkers?
Talk about carrying something to an extreme conclusion.

I was just pointing out that it gets kind of hairy to make claims that
something that governments have been doing throughout history should not
be done (arguably, transportation might be the reason governments became
as complex as they did). Not that I even entirely even disagree with
you, but the impact of what you're proposing (direct user fees) could be
extremely far-reaching, as I and others have mentioned before.

Also, I would probably disagree that sidewalks are a small matter. It's
like with roads: maintaining one may be a drop in a bucket, but you
multiply them out across a large city or country and you see there's a
massive budget(s?) for maintaining them. Of course, in some cases,
individuals do maintain them, however.

In any case, I expect you might be able to get a busy highway to pay for
itself. I doubt you could get the whole road system to pay for itself,
at least not directly.

As for pollution, mandating pollution controls on cars can clean up
air quality without affecting anybody's transportation options.
Pollution controls on cars have thus far proven only so effective. In
any case, people often have only one option: private automobiles.
Expanding transit system might give many people at least two options.

That's right, and if they want another choice, they can move to
somewhere that doesn't require automobiles, like into a city center
where more transportation options are available.

That sounds like giving up to me. On top of that, what you're proposing
has the potential to drive up the transportation costs for suburbanites
by leaps and bounds. It might force people of certain income levels
into cities.

They can move, or transit could be built in places where it would be
effective.

rotten wrote:
On Jun 7, 10:52 am, Bolwerk wrote:
As for pollution, mandating pollution controls on cars can clean up
air quality without affecting anybody's transportation options.
Pollution controls on cars have thus far proven only so effective. In
any case, people often have only one option: private automobiles.
Expanding transit system might give many people at least two options.

That's right, and if they want another choice, they can move to
somewhere that doesn't require automobiles, like into a city center
where more transportation options are available.

Sanity check.
Nobody in their right mind is going to give up a house in the burbs
complete with a little patch of lawn to move into a shack of an
apartment in the middle of the city.
That would require selling the weekend boat, lawnmower, cars, and all
the things people are now working to have the elusive "American Dream".
Not going to happen.
Bill Baka