Ride an SUB not an SUV

In article ,
Bill wrote:
Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
I wasn't talking about real mountains at all. Merely hills. Anyone
can commute on a bike in Denmark, even with the three-speeds which are
common there. It's easier than walking, and faster. On a bike,
climbing up and over a small ridge line which merely looks scenic in
your car is much more difficult.

Yes, even an overpass can be a challenge in too high a gear, but is it
that hard to walk if you really can't pull the gear?

For an overpass? Maybe not. For half the journey? Then you're not
really biking, you're walking with a wheeled encumbrance.

A 3 speed should do
fine and is still better than riding in a polluting vehicle. Walking
gets you 3 MPH and a bike gets you 7 or 8 MPH with almost zero effort,

No. A bike gets you 7 or 8 MPH with no effort _provided the terrain
is flat_. Which is why they work fine in Denmark. Add any sort of
slope and you're working the whole time. All of e.g. West
Philadelphia is a slope. Most of the suburbs have hills and slopes.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
In article ,
Bill wrote:
Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
I wasn't talking about real mountains at all. Merely hills. Anyone
can commute on a bike in Denmark, even with the three-speeds which are
common there. It's easier than walking, and faster. On a bike,
climbing up and over a small ridge line which merely looks scenic in
your car is much more difficult.
Yes, even an overpass can be a challenge in too high a gear, but is it
that hard to walk if you really can't pull the gear?

For an overpass? Maybe not. For half the journey? Then you're not
really biking, you're walking with a wheeled encumbrance.

I agree with that part of it but on rolling hills you can build up speed
on the downhills and usually power up the next. My way of riding, so it
may not fit in with the area you are riding.

A 3 speed should do
fine and is still better than riding in a polluting vehicle. Walking
gets you 3 MPH and a bike gets you 7 or 8 MPH with almost zero effort,

No. A bike gets you 7 or 8 MPH with no effort _provided the terrain
is flat_. Which is why they work fine in Denmark.

Essentially what I meant.

Add any sort of
slope and you're working the whole time. All of e.g. West
Philadelphia is a slope. Most of the suburbs have hills and slopes.

Admit it, the downhills have to be some fun.
Bill Baka

"Pat" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Mar 28, 2:14 pm, "Amy Blankenship"
wrote:
"Matthew T. Russotto" wrote in
messagenews:wZudnWmR9sbKX5TbnZ2dnUVZ_rylnZ2d@speak easy.net...



In article ,
Baxter wrote:

"Matthew T. Russotto" wrote in message
news:8Yadna55UKHpoprbnZ2dnUVZ_veinZ2d@speakeasy. net...
In article ,
Baxter wrote:

"Matthew T. Russotto" wrote in
message
et...
In article

,

Prove it. Demonstrate that moving just the people *must* take
more
time
than moving the people *and* their cars.

The burden of proof is on you to show a system where it doesn't.
Because in most real life as-they-are-today systems, transit
takes
longer.

Plenty of trips in Portland are quicker using transit than by using
car -
especially when you factor in finding a parking spot.

That's Portland, where the planners went out of their way to make
life
difficult for drivers.

That's bull**** - said only for effect.

Will *every* trip by transit be shorter? No, not any more than
every
trip
by car will be shorter.

The truth of those two statements don't mean the modes are
equivalent.

Progress, of a sort. 'Till now you've adamantly refused to acknowledge
this
truth.

Most trips are faster by car.

Depends entirely on your catchment area. So your claim is
meaningless.

No, it's not meaningless. Outside of Manhattan, you have to
cherry-pick viciously to find an area where most trips are faster by
transit.

London, Copenhagen, Edinburgh, Orlando. And these are just the
ones I have
direct experience of.

Don't forget what is the highest volume mass transif system in the
country: Disney


Yes, the Disneyafacation of cities is well-known. He built downtowns about
90% of real size to make them more appealing and more "magical."

"Matthew T. Russotto" wrote in message
...
In article EBwOh.83473$zU1.14004@pd7urf1no,
nash wrote:
The burden of proof is on you to show a system where it doesn't.
Because in most real life as-they-are-today systems, transit takes
longer.


Wrong, CTV a local station is having a climate change week on the News.
They proved yesterday that in all the communities surrounding downtown
Vancouver that transit was just as fast or only 5 minutes difference than
with a car. rainy days would be even better for the bus or train or
skytrain because of traffic and hov lanes. (bus only lane) Cars had to
park and got in jams major reason.
Communities were up to 30 m or less away roughly.

Cherry picking. I can pick any two stations on the R5 (a commuter line
near Philadelphia) and pick a time when the train has just arrived,
and I can beat a car for the same journey.


Actually you do not because you did not count the time to get to the
station and waiting for the train to get there, and then walking or whatever
to get to your final destination.

On Mar 25, 6:56 pm, Dan wrote:
"donquijote1954" wrote groups.com:



On Mar 15, 12:27 pm, wrote:

And that's where the problem lies: the fake yuppies that want to
look
adventurous and tough. I think they are watching too many
commercials
and too little real life.

Some.

A person's vehicular choices should reflect their driving environment.
I'm a firm believer that form should follow function. I love the new
hybrids built by Toyota.

That's why I drive a Mormon stationwagon--the Astro compact van. It's
hard to beat its combination of functionalities, gas mileage, camping,
moving, towing, and low cost of ownership. Even a pick-up truck isn't as
good.

Still, I bicycle when I don't need any of its functions. I don't want an
economy car, because it is really only would compete with the function
that my bicycle already has.

It that the official Mormon policy? It sounds pretty good. I like
about them the fact that their kids go preaching on a bike. Still I
don't know whether it's policy or simply kids running on peanuts
(little money).

On Mar 25, 7:13 pm, (Matthew T. Russotto)
wrote:
In article ,
Doc O'Leary wrote:

In article ,
"Jack May" wrote:

A car does not have to stop and pick up people ever mile or so.

Neither does mass transit.

Again, you're getting caught up in the
current model of car-centric, bad transit planning. Stop bothering me
with things we all know are done wrong and lets move on to thinking how
they can be done right.

And again you've got no specifics.

Prove it. Demonstrate that moving just the people *must* take more time
than moving the people *and* their cars.

The burden of proof is on you to show a system where it doesn't.
Because in most real life as-they-are-today systems, transit takes longer.

You provide no evidence. I've asked for this before, but the very
minimum you can do is figure out your own door-to-door commute time and
distance. I think you will be very fortunate if you find your average
speed ends up exceeding a whopping 25mph. Are you really suggesting
that no other form of travel could possibly beat that?

Takes me 20-30 minutes to get to work in traffic. Distance is 9.5
miles, straight line. Sure enough, quite slow. But the road distance
is about 17 miles. So when are your mass-transit air vehicles going
to be available?

Taking transit, BTW, would be an exercise in futility. It's actually
possible, but it would be a three bus ride taking hours.

Maybe your problem is the sprawl, not public transportation. (Tip: use
public transportation and a bike and you may both save time and a
heart attack.)

Let me recycle this post...

--The sprawl isn't the problem. In a majority of the mass transit
options I have travelled in, the busses and trains are pretty dirty,
dingy and smell. They don't get you anywhere fast, and sometimes, it's
not cost effective. In some cases, public transportation is the option
of the poor, those who have lost a license, or don't have a car.--

Sprawl is indeed part of the problem. It creates a low density
population difficult to serve by buses. And since they, being
affluent, can afford an SUV, it becomes the vehicle of choice. Then
the public transportation system left behind in the inner city becomes
a reflection of the jungle where they operate. The monkeys that ride
them deserve no respect, neither good service.

In other words,

LIONS=SUVs
MONKEYS=poor public transportation and nonexistent bike facilities.

donquijote1954 wrote:

Let me recycle this post...

--The sprawl isn't the problem. In a majority of the mass transit
options I have travelled in, the busses and trains are pretty dirty,
dingy and smell. They don't get you anywhere fast, and sometimes, it's
not cost effective. In some cases, public transportation is the option
of the poor, those who have lost a license, or don't have a car.--

Sprawl is indeed part of the problem. It creates a low density
population difficult to serve by buses. And since they, being
affluent, can afford an SUV, it becomes the vehicle of choice. Then
the public transportation system left behind in the inner city becomes
a reflection of the jungle where they operate. The monkeys that ride
them deserve no respect, neither good service.

In other words,

LIONS=SUVs
MONKEYS=poor public transportation and nonexistent bike facilities.


Here's my interpretation:

MONKEYS = poor saps who can only ride a bike if they have dedicated bike
reservations.

LIONS = empowered bicycle drivers who are competent enough to consider
normal roads "bicycle facliities."

WATER BUFFALO = motorists.

SHEEP = short haul public transit users.

Wayne

"donquijote1954" wrote in message

Sprawl is indeed part of the problem. It creates a low density
population difficult to serve by buses.

Hatred of single-family housing is the core belief of planners.

"donquijote1954" wrote in
ups.com:

And that's where the problem lies: the fake yuppies that
want to look adventurous and tough. I think they are
watching too many commercials and too little real life.

Some.

A person's vehicular choices should reflect their driving
environment. I'm a firm believer that form should follow
function. I love the new hybrids built by Toyota.

That's why I drive a Mormon stationwagon--the Astro compact van. It's
hard to beat its combination of functionalities, gas mileage,
camping, moving, towing, and low cost of ownership. Even a pick-up
truck isn't as good.

Still, I bicycle when I don't need any of its functions. I don't want
an economy car, because it is really only would compete with the
function that my bicycle already has.

It that the official Mormon policy?

Caveat: I'm a born again Christian--not a Mormon. I'm not a Mormon. My
only qualifications for being a Mormon answerman are remarks by Mormon
friends of my brother when I was younger and some books I've read by ex-
Mormons who sharply differentiate the deeper of Morman teachings from
biblical Christianity.

To answer you question: I don't think so--at least not for those older
Mormons who are not on missions. For one thing, Chevy no longer makes the
Astro and--to my mind--its Chevy-designated replacement isn't as good at
all of the functions.

For older Mormons, I think it would be easy for them to organize things
like car pools for both work and church. I suspect that any such
organizing of money-saving and public relations endeavors could relate to
a general policy, but any that any specific project would be according to
what is helpful in the local culture of the local church.

It sounds pretty good.

I agree. It's a good example of right-sizing technology and resources.

I like
about them the fact that their kids go preaching on a bike.

I can imagine multiple advantages for that including financial and
psychological.

Still I
don't know whether it's policy or simply kids running on peanuts
(little money).

For younger Mormons, I am convinced that this is policy, but don't hold
me to it.

I think that going on bicycle and wearing the white shirt and slacks
uniform has a psychological effect on the young Mormons. I think that
that is the main purpose. The effect could make some of the better
teachings seem more real to them and thereby help hold them in the church
for life as well.

I think a secondary reason is that the white shirts, slacks, and bicycles
are less intimidating to the non-Morman public--even ingratiating. I
think that another secondary reason would be to save missions money.

On 29 Mar 2007 11:24:36 -0700, "donquijote1954"
wrote:

much snipped

--The sprawl isn't the problem. In a majority of the mass transit
options I have travelled in, the busses and trains are pretty dirty,
dingy and smell. They don't get you anywhere fast, and sometimes, it's
not cost effective. In some cases, public transportation is the option
of the poor, those who have lost a license, or don't have a car.--

Sprawl is indeed part of the problem. It creates a low density
population difficult to serve by buses. And since they, being
affluent, can afford an SUV, it becomes the vehicle of choice. Then
the public transportation system left behind in the inner city becomes
a reflection of the jungle where they operate. The monkeys that ride
them deserve no respect, neither good service.

While I have many gripes with New Jersey Transit, they manage to
provide normally clean buses (or at least did up until last year) with
cushioned seats. This includes routes that go through the Central
Ward of Newark, New Jersey. I have ridden them on the 34 Market and
21 Orange. It can be done and most of the riders do deserve the
respect. I am thinking especially of those who have to take long
reverse commutes to the suburbs for probably not fantastic pay.

In other words,

LIONS=SUVs
MONKEYS=poor public transportation and nonexistent bike facilities.