Making America into Amsterdam

On 2018-06-29 20:11, jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, June 29, 2018 at 3:19:15 PM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-06-29 14:34, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/29/2018 10:11 AM, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-06-28 08:47, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/27/2018 7:56 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-06-27 14:55, Frank Krygowski wrote:


I think there are different cultural or social
expectations in Europe, most of which are influenced
by history. Europe seems to generally have much more
restrictive land use policies, and those policies
seem to promote "infill" development.

Example: In Britain, in Austria, etc. when we bicycle
toured, I was struck by the practicality of city
limits. There seemed to be a boundary around most
towns, with apartments, houses, shops etc. on one
side and little but fields and forests on the other
side. We saw almost no rural convenience stores or
gas stations, for example. People have been living
close for hundreds of years, and they're used to such
a system.


Except that such difference are not truly there. Think back
to when your relatives came from Europe. Probably not very
wealthy, they likely settled in an east coast town very
similar to a European one.

Joerg, I'm talking about present day geography, not that of
over 100 years ago.


So why did you ask about the age then? Makes no sense. I said
it doesn't matter and now you seem to say the same.

scratching head

I'm sorry you're confused again. I'll try to explain more
thoroughly.

European cities were typically founded in medieval times, often
when they were enclosed by walls and back when almost everyone
walked to get around. As a consequence, city blocks were and
still are small. Most streets were and still are narrow by U.S.
standards. And to a much higher degree than the U.S., that
original high density remains.


I suggest you visit Berlin, Duesseldorf, Frankfurt, Hannover or
Dortmund in Germany. All cities I spent lots of time in and they
are by no means small or resemble any of their characteristics from
their medieval times. With some cities that is because they were
thoroughly flattened in WW-II, others just razed the old city core
and only left historically valuable structure standing. Or what
they thought was valuable back then.


It looks like Frankfurt (the only city I checked) has land use and
zoning laws.
https://www.stadtplanungsamt-frankfu...94.html?psid=d


Bebaungsplan is not Zoning. It mostly regulates what building styles can
be used, how many stories, setbacks, how much parking must be provided,
and so on. The use is generally mixed like here in the inner city of
Frankfurt:

http://www.frank66furt.de/frankfurt/innen069.jpg

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...0_DSC_9367.jpg

On the ground floor it's shops, bars, restaurants and such. On the upper
floors you sometimes have apartments and sometimes office space. Often
even that is mixed where, for example, the 2nd floor has a dentist's
office and the 3rd floor is an apartment where the dentist's family or
someone else lives. The ones above are usually also apartment units.
That's how we lived in Duesseldorf, above a grocery store.

Many Germans do not find it very desirable to live in such city
quarters, hence the sprawl. In smaller towns that's different, there
more people like to live in the center. I lived smack dab in the middle
of a pop 5000 village in the Netherlands and really like it.


Buildings fill the cities to a much higher degree than the U.S.,
leaving little room for parking lots, again resulting in higher
density.


Duesseldorf is quite similar to Sacramento, for example. However,
no zoning laws so there are people living right in the center
whereas in Sacramento they mostly don't. Some other cities like
parts of Frankfurt become ghost towns at night but not because of
zoning, it's because people want to rather live in the suburbs.


... And it's still considered quite normal to have a residence
within the city, which makes destinations one might want to
access every day a relatively short distance away.


It could be the same here if we'd ditch the stupid zoning.

snip

Here as in Cameron Park? Or here as in the United States? Portland
is filled with multi-family housing over businesses.
https://d2bj656w1sqg1s.cloudfront.ne...t-1024x523.jpg


Sorry, I meant in general. I know we have some mixed use in US cities
but that typically ends in the suburbs. And therein lies the problem.
Because of stupid zoning laws people living in the suburbs which is
probably the majority of Americans are always in their cars even for teh
smallest errands. Unfortunately also for a pub visit.


It's SOP in many cities. My brother owned a building with
apartments over business in Denver. From an owner's perspective,
it's not a great risk since you lose a lot of cash flow if your
business tenants move. Its hard to fill a restaurant or other
specialty space.

Your gripe is not with zoning laws but with zoning in particular
towns, assuming that the development pattern was zoning driven rather
than market driven. It became hip to be in downtown PDX, so condos
and apartments popped up -- too many as a matter of fact. My commute
to work is through
hehttps://d2bj656w1sqg1s.cloudfront.ne...t-1024x523.jpg
Condos over business with OHSU offices. It used to be a shipyard. I
preferred that.


You accidentally posted the same link again.


snip

None, zilch. That wouldn't even get me to a church meeting.
However, my experience from the Netherlands is way different and I
have a hard time believing the country has changed so much for the
worse in 30 years. But maybe it has. We rode 30mi just to have a
particular Abbey Ale that was only available at a certain pub in
Belgium. That included climbs which I never liked.

Climbs? The Vaalserberg is less elevation gain than my ride home
through the West Hills. I guess you can find some elevation in
Belgium.


That's what I mean. The east of Belgium is up and down all the time. The
really good pubs were in tiny villages. Where nobody spoke Flemish or at
least they pretended not to.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

On 2018-06-29 20:53, jbeattie wrote:

[...]

Oh, I meant to say my commute was through he https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-T15XVEcsc


Oh horror ... I wouldn't even want to be buried there.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

On 2018-06-29 19:47, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/29/2018 6:19 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-06-29 14:34, Frank Krygowski wrote:

I'm sorry you're confused again. I'll try to explain more thoroughly.

European cities were typically founded in medieval times, often when
they were enclosed by walls and back when almost everyone walked to get
around. As a consequence, city blocks were and still are small. Most
streets were and still are narrow by U.S. standards. And to a much
higher degree than the U.S., that original high density remains.


I suggest you visit Berlin, Duesseldorf, Frankfurt, Hannover or
Dortmund in Germany. All cities I spent lots of time in and they are
by no means small or resemble any of their characteristics from their
medieval times. With some cities that is because they were thoroughly
flattened in WW-II, others just razed the old city core and only left
historically valuable structure standing. Or what they thought was
valuable back then.

Perhaps we need a referee to decide what we are talking about. Is it
your cherry-picked list of German cities, or is it the original point:
the differences between Dutch cities and American cities?


In this subthread we were comparing to European cities and I did not
cherry-pick. Those are examples of many, it's just that I happen to know
those cities quite well.

Ok, if you want a classic example of Dutch sprawl, here it is. I live
and worked there for a while, Hengelo, NL:

https://goo.gl/maps/YoZtpmMbSuR2


The article I cited
https://peopleforbikes.org/blog/best...h-hardly-bike/

said, for example: "Utrecht, the city in the first photo above, has
approximately the same metro-area population as Wichita. But because
most of its central city was built before the passage of laws that
required minimum lot sizes, maximum numbers of homes per lot and lots of
on-site car storage everywhere, everything in Utrecht is much closer to
everything else than anything is in Wichita."

So is that author wrong? If so, where's your proof?


And you haven't looked at teh sprawl around Utrecht?

https://goo.gl/maps/gugkjAjS8C52

Also, Utrecht is a special case. That city happens to be like Paris in
France when it comes to rail traffic. It's the big hub for the Dutch
railroad system so naturally it is desirable for a lot of urban dwellers
to want to live close in. That's not typical behavior for the country
though.


Duesseldorf is quite similar to Sacramento, for example. However, no
zoning laws so there are people living right in the center whereas in
Sacramento they mostly don't. Some other cities like parts of
Frankfurt become ghost towns at night but not because of zoning, it's
because people want to rather live in the suburbs.

Yes, I'm sure you can carefully choose some other German cities that fit
your argument. But note that Berlin, Munich and Stuttgart all beat any
U.S. city for population density in this list.
http://www.citymayors.com/statistics...nsity-125.html
And how many _Dutch_ cities (the real point of the article) can you
choose to prove your point?


Nearly all of them. Even Amsterdam, Rotterdam and so on. This is where
the expression "Randstad" comes from, they literally sprawled into each
other. The typical scenario is this: People live, dine and shop in the
city. But they live in the burbs and in the Netherlands often in those
ugly flats buildings which look like this:

http://resolver.kb.nl/resolve?urn=ur...ize =variable


... Public policy was able to prioritize mass transit,
which was and still is heavily used because of the density. That reduced
the need for private cars compared to the U.S. and contributed to
retaining higher densities.


And now for a dose of reality. This is Duesseldorf in Germany where I
lived as a kid:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKApZPEDb-M

One video of a freeway is supposed to be dramatic proof? Sorry, Joerg.
Anyway, Duesseldorf has a population density of 2800/km2, which beats
any U.S. city in this list:
http://www.citymayors.com/statistics...nsity-125.html


Forget it. You don't know. I lived there so I know.


... Most mass transit
systems like streetcars crashed early on. The car became the only way to
get around beyond a few blocks, and economics of scale plus cheap land
caused things like grocery stores to grow in size and grow huge parking
lots that further reduced density. And Americans soon decided that the
suburbs were the place to be, reachable only by the car that everyone
needed anyway.

So did the Europeans.

Um... then why is European mass transit is so tremendously common and
highly used compared to the U.S.? From Wikipedia: "Like many other
European countries, the Netherlands has a dense railway network,
totalling 6,830 kilometres of track,[27] or 3,013 route km, three
quarters of which has been electrified.[28] The network is mostly
focused on passenger transport[29] and connects virtually all major
towns and cities, counting as many train stations as there are
municipalities in the Netherlands."

Where do you find that in the U.S.?


Only on the East Coast. Now go visit Germany and ask people how they use
their cars. The surprise will not be a pleasant one. That's why they
have so many Diesel cars which cost higher taxes but it pans out for
people who commute a lot in them.

Even in the Netherlands the average yearly car kilometers are nowadays
shocklingly high for such a small country. One of the reasons at least
for Germany is the high cost of rail travel. I priced it out during a
2014 visit. Rail would have cost me way more than a rental car with
everything considered, rental costs, insurance and (expensive) fuel.
Plus I'd have been stranded at a lonely station in the middle of the
night twice.


Here's a list of 125 large cities ranked by density. Note how seldom USA
is mentioned, and how low on the list those U.S. cities tend to sit:
http://www.citymayors.com/statistics...nsity-125.html


The first European city on there is Athens and ranks a whopping 40th.
Before that it's all Asia, South America, Middle East and so on.

Right. But the U.S. cities are even farther down the list, which is my
point, and most of them fall off the list entirely.


There isn't all that much difference.


But back to the original point: Data shows people in Amsterdam average
about 2 miles of bicycling per day. If you restricted your mileage to
that figure, how many of your transportation needs could you satisfy by
bike?


None, zilch. That wouldn't even get me to a church meeting. However,
my experience from the Netherlands is way different and I have a hard
time believing the country has changed so much for the worse in 30
years. But maybe it has. We rode 30mi just to have a particular Abbey
Ale that was only available at a certain pub in Belgium. That included
climbs which I never liked.

You give an astounding amount of importance to what you claim are your
unique experiences. Unbiased data shows the Dutch averaging about two
bike miles per day, but since _you_ claim to have ridden farther for a
beer, the unbiased data must be wrong. That's just silly.


No, experience. I had lots of friends there.


It reminds me of all the times your life was saved because you have disc
brakes. Or all the times you didn't need a chain tool because you found
a convenient nail on your mountain bike trail. Or the times you fought
off the mountain lions with your bare teeth, or whatever.


I am now the proud owner of a Crankbrothers M19 tool so the hardened
steel nail and the steel nut could finally retire. Didn't really need it
but the M19 comes with a (pretty good) chain breaker.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

On 2018-06-30 11:57, sms wrote:
On 6/29/2018 3:19 PM, Joerg wrote:

I suggest you visit Berlin, Duesseldorf, Frankfurt, Hannover or
Dortmund in Germany. All cities I spent lots of time in and they are
by no means small or resemble any of their characteristics from their
medieval times. With some cities that is because they were thoroughly
flattened in WW-II, others just razed the old city core and only left
historically valuable structure standing. Or what they thought was
valuable back then.

Some people look at the entirety of the United States and proclaim that
we can never be like Amsterdam. They are absolutely correct. You're not
going to make the entire U.S. into Amsterdam, but you can increase the
bike percentage in a limited number of urban areas, which is sufficient.

The key is bicycle infrastructure. ...


You are one of very few people in this NG who understands this. In
America we will never achive a mode share much above 5% except in
"nerdy" areas such as Davis, CA. And that's ok. 5% is a lot. Even 1-2%
is when compared to almost zero. The health benefits alone offset all
the costs of the bicycle infrastructure.

It is sad when people say "Oh, if we can't be like Amsterdam, let's
forget about all that and do nothing". My hope is that such people will
never make it into public office.


... Yesterday I attended a forum on
trails along waterways. We have a great many of these in my county
because trails along creeks and rivers are easier to do because the
right-of-way is more easily available and there are often already
vehicle bridges over the creeks and rivers so a path without road
crossings is more practical. At some times of day, you might think you
WERE in Amsterdam with all the bicycle traffic.


I was on the Folsom South Canal Trail on Thursday afternoon, a time
where I am normally all alone there. I could not believe how many riders
were on it. There is a noticeable uptick in riders since Rancho Cordova
learned from Folsom how it's done right. This area isn't even urban but
that long bike path connects residential areas with business areas and
retail.

https://goo.gl/maps/KV23G1sAmvH2

And no speed limit on that one. Yeehaw!


Yesterday I was sitting next to a woman from our transit agency (VTA), a
hopelessly awful organization when it comes to running buses and trains,
but they also build some of the bicycle infrastructure. I pulled out my
phone and brought up Google Maps and showed her where we badly needed a
bicycle freeway over-crossing. She instantly recognized the location and
told me "it's in the bike plan." ...


For fiscal year 2072? :-)


... The problem of only major multi-lane
arterials crossing freeways and railroad tracks has resulted in isolated
areas that have poor bicycle connections.


It also affects patronage of businesses. A friend recommended a new
brewpub. If there was only multi-lane Hazel Avenue to get there I would
not consider but there is also a cycling/pedestrian bridge across
Highway 50 so now I am planning to visit.


In San Francisco, increases in bicycle infrastructure have resulted in a
large increase in bicycle commuting, and this was despite the fact that
several projects were delayed by a lawsuit so only unaffected projects
were constructed for four years!


Yes, all it sometimes takes is remedying one major bottleneck.

And a brewpub on the other side 8-)


I only half-jokingly suggested that it would be far more cost-effective,
in terms of number of single-occupancy vehicle reduction, to not build
any more light rail ($40 million/mile) or heavy rail ($1+ billion/mile)
and just buy a few hundred thousand electric bicycles to distribute with
certain caveats. Remember, those dollar figures are just the
construction costs for the track, and don't include equipment or
operations and maintenance.


It would be but we need to keep in mind the elderly and disabled. Also,
many Americans would never consider a bicycle even if they had a red
carpet all the way to the destination.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

On 6/30/2018 12:57 PM, Joerg wrote:

snip

It is sad when people say "Oh, if we can't be like Amsterdam, let's
forget about all that and do nothing". My hope is that such people will
never make it into public office.

Perhaps because I'm someone that now actually has to deal with the
reality of all of this, rather than an outsider looking in and
complaining that if infrastructure doesn't get 99% of people onto
bicycles then it's a waste of money.

The reality is that bicycle infrastructure is actually relatively
inexpensive, on a per trip basis.

We have a lot of Silicon Valley Cities with a bare majority in favor of
cycling. It can easily change. Ironically, developers are suddenly
pro-bike because they use it as a way to justify providing insufficient
parking. But the reality is that getting people to do transportational
cycling, at least some of the time, is not going to reduce the need for
parking at residential developments.

snip

Yesterday I was sitting next to a woman from our transit agency (VTA), a
hopelessly awful organization when it comes to running buses and trains,
but they also build some of the bicycle infrastructure. I pulled out my
phone and brought up Google Maps and showed her where we badly needed a
bicycle freeway over-crossing. She instantly recognized the location and
told me "it's in the bike plan." ...


For fiscal year 2072? :-)

No, no, but probably not for five more years.

snip

I only half-jokingly suggested that it would be far more cost-effective,
in terms of number of single-occupancy vehicle reduction, to not build
any more light rail ($40 million/mile) or heavy rail ($1+ billion/mile)
and just buy a few hundred thousand electric bicycles to distribute with
certain caveats. Remember, those dollar figures are just the
construction costs for the track, and don't include equipment or
operations and maintenance.


It would be but we need to keep in mind the elderly and disabled. Also,
many Americans would never consider a bicycle even if they had a red
carpet all the way to the destination.

We're only trying to get a modest percentage of people on bicycles.
Those unable to use a bicycle will have other options.

On Saturday, June 30, 2018 at 2:57:59 PM UTC-4, sms wrote:

Some people look at the entirety of the United States and proclaim that
we can never be like Amsterdam. They are absolutely correct. You're not
going to make the entire U.S. into Amsterdam, but you can increase the
bike percentage in a limited number of urban areas, which is sufficient.

Sufficient for what purpose? Small increases in bike mode share percentages in
a few urban areas will not significantly reduce pollution. It will not
significantly reduce health costs. It will not remove traffic congestion. It
will not have any of the other dreamy benefits that facilities fans see in
Amsterdam.

The key is bicycle infrastructure. Yesterday I attended a forum on
trails along waterways. We have a great many of these in my county
because trails along creeks and rivers are easier to do because the
right-of-way is more easily available and there are often already
vehicle bridges over the creeks and rivers so a path without road
crossings is more practical. At some times of day, you might think you
WERE in Amsterdam with all the bicycle traffic.

That's very Joergian. "If you look in this one location at a carefully chosen
time of day, it looks like Amsterdam!" But if you look at the overall metro
area, it looks very much the same. Cherry picking isn't good science.



Yesterday I was sitting next to a woman from our transit agency (VTA), a
hopelessly awful organization when it comes to running buses and trains,
but they also build some of the bicycle infrastructure. I pulled out my
phone and brought up Google Maps and showed her where we badly needed a
bicycle freeway over-crossing. She instantly recognized the location and
told me "it's in the bike plan." The problem of only major multi-lane
arterials crossing freeways and railroad tracks has resulted in isolated
areas that have poor bicycle connections.

I do agree that freeways and railroad tracks slice up neighborhoods and remove
travel connections for non-motorized travelers. That practice should be
changed, and some connections should be restored.

In San Francisco, increases in bicycle infrastructure have resulted in a
large increase in bicycle commuting, and this was despite the fact that
several projects were delayed by a lawsuit so only unaffected projects
were constructed for four years!

Again: San Francisco bike mode share increased 40% during a time when there
were essentially zero bike facilities built. That should prove that bike
facilities are not the most important factor. Fashion or trendiness is at least
as important as special facilities.

- Frank Krygowski

On Saturday, June 30, 2018 at 3:34:23 PM UTC-4, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-06-29 19:47, Frank Krygowski wrote:

And now for a dose of reality. This is Duesseldorf in Germany where I
lived as a kid:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKApZPEDb-M

One video of a freeway is supposed to be dramatic proof? Sorry, Joerg.
Anyway, Duesseldorf has a population density of 2800/km2, which beats
any U.S. city in this list:
http://www.citymayors.com/statistics...nsity-125.html


Forget it. You don't know. I lived there so I know.

But you can't seem to provide actual data that rebuts the initial point. That
point (from the article originally cited) was that Dutch people don't really
average long distances on their bikes. They use them almost entirely for very
short trips, and their bikes are useful for those because Dutch cities are
quite different from U.S. cities.

Your purported ride with buddies to a brewpub doesn't rebut the data. That's
just a weird argument. It's like claiming my decades of bike commuting prove
that most Americans get to work by bike.

- Frank Krygowski

On Saturday, June 30, 2018 at 3:56:44 PM UTC-4, Joerg wrote:

In America we will never achive a mode share much above 5% except in
"nerdy" areas such as Davis, CA. And that's ok. 5% is a lot. Even 1-2%
is when compared to almost zero.

So if you can't succeed in getting many Americans to ride bikes, the trick is
to just redefine success. "2%? Wow, that's GREAT!!!"

- Frank Krygowski

On 2018-06-30 14:26, sms wrote:
On 6/30/2018 12:57 PM, Joerg wrote:

snip

It is sad when people say "Oh, if we can't be like Amsterdam, let's
forget about all that and do nothing". My hope is that such people
will never make it into public office.

Perhaps because I'm someone that now actually has to deal with the
reality of all of this, rather than an outsider looking in and
complaining that if infrastructure doesn't get 99% of people onto
bicycles then it's a waste of money.

The reality is that bicycle infrastructure is actually relatively
inexpensive, on a per trip basis.

We have a lot of Silicon Valley Cities with a bare majority in favor of
cycling. It can easily change. Ironically, developers are suddenly
pro-bike because they use it as a way to justify providing insufficient
parking. But the reality is that getting people to do transportational
cycling, at least some of the time, is not going to reduce the need for
parking at residential developments.


In America generally not but it can reduce needed parking area, to a
degree. My wife and I are an example. We have one car each but that is
because I used to commute and drove it for errands. Since starting
cycling again about five years ago my car gets so little use now that it
had a hard time starting several times and I had to buy a trickle
charger for the battery. I keep the car because we have a big garage, it
doesn't cost much and we need one SUV for hauling heavy stuff. My wife
can't drive it because she can't reach the pedals. If we had to buy cars
today we'd only buy one, a less utilitarian SUV with seats that are more
adjustable and pedals that aren't spaced for army boots. That is because
most of my trips are now pedal-powered so no need for two cars. In the
rare event of a biz trip to the Bay Area I could always rent a car.

When we lived in Germany we had only one car and even that occasionally
sat in the garage for more than a month. Because of no zoning we could
walk almost everywhere.

[...]

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

On Saturday, June 30, 2018 at 11:31:14 AM UTC-7, sms wrote:
On 6/29/2018 8:26 AM, jbeattie wrote:

Eminent domain is taking by the government and not private development. Your wistful old man probably spent his money trying to prevent the development by challenging a zoning change that allowed PUDs or some sort of high density development.

In theory yes.

In practice, developers will try to exert pressure on government to
force a landowner to sell out to the developer by threatening various
actions.

We had a case like that in my city. We found out, through public records
requests, that a developer was trying to have the city put pressure on a
reluctant property owner to sell out. The property owner did eventually
sell, though there is no written evidence that the city complied with
the developer's request to force them to "play ball."

What kind of force? Was there a tax lien -- a leaking underground oil tank? Did he fail to get his sprinklers back-flow tested? I'm curious what the city did.

Around here, PDX just makes land use decisions that make people's lives miserable. Actually, people are making people miserable. There are too many people.

-- Jay Beattie.