A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Techniques
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Making America into Amsterdam



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #81  
Old July 2nd 18, 07:59 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Joerg[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,016
Default Making America into Amsterdam

On 2018-07-01 22:36, sms wrote:
On 7/1/2018 8:47 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/30/2018 4:26 PM, 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.

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.


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


When compared to the $12 toll on the George Washington Bridge maybe.

When compared to the cost of light rail or heavy rail. Even above
ground, light rail is about $40 million/mile if you already have the
ROW. Heavy rail 10X that at least. Creekside bicycle infrastructure is a
bargain compared to that. Again, we're mot trying to get 50%-100% of
people on bicycles. Just 10% would halp unclog the roads.


It's not just about unclogging. Aside from the health benefits even a
small increase in mode share has a multiplier effect of business
revenue. That turns into higher local taxes - ka-ching.

https://www.fastcodesign.com/1682022...on-a-bike-lane

Much of my discretionary spending happens at businesses with a
reasonable bike path network connection and bike policy. This also means
that related tax dollars are generated in Folsom instead of in El Dorado
County where I live. Some of which are plowed back into the bike path
system, which result in more business, which ...

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/
Ads
  #82  
Old July 2nd 18, 08:57 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,538
Default Making America into Amsterdam

On 7/2/2018 1:36 AM, sms wrote:
Again, we're mot trying to get 50%-100% of
people on bicycles. Just 10% would halp unclog the roads.


First, please do let us know when you've achieved 10% bicycle mode share.

Second, please follow it up with average daily traffic data on the roads
- data now, compared to data after you achieve 10% biking.

Absent massive societal shocks or economic trauma, I think 10% bike mode
share is unlikely for almost all U.S. cities. But if it is achieved
without those sorts of disasters, I suspect you'll find ADT have risen
despite the bike increase.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/M12MTVUSM227NFWA

The best way to reduce car mileage is to throw a good recession.

--
- Frank Krygowski
  #83  
Old July 2nd 18, 09:11 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,538
Default Making America into Amsterdam

On 7/2/2018 12:49 PM, Joerg wrote:

I lived over a pub for more than five years. While I never frequented
that particular one I never regretted living above it for one minute.
There were several more pubs within minutes walking.


When one of my best friends first married, he and his wife bought a
charming older house next to a pub. Except back then, those places were
called bars.

They sold it at a loss a few years later. They were tired of putting up
with loud music at night, police car lights flashing in their windows in
response to parking lot brawls, guys urinating in their yard, etc.

Maybe if the place was a "pub" instead of a "bar" it might have been
different. But then, what _is_ the difference?


--
- Frank Krygowski
  #84  
Old July 2nd 18, 09:20 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Joerg[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,016
Default Making America into Amsterdam

On 2018-07-02 13:11, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/2/2018 12:49 PM, Joerg wrote:

I lived over a pub for more than five years. While I never frequented
that particular one I never regretted living above it for one minute.
There were several more pubs within minutes walking.


When one of my best friends first married, he and his wife bought a
charming older house next to a pub. Except back then, those places were
called bars.

They sold it at a loss a few years later. They were tired of putting up
with loud music at night, police car lights flashing in their windows in
response to parking lot brawls, guys urinating in their yard, etc.

Maybe if the place was a "pub" instead of a "bar" it might have been
different. But then, what _is_ the difference?


You've got to know what you want _before_ buying. I've witnessed my
share of saloon fights and brawls in the street before our pub. Par for
the course.

The upside of such life is easy access to everything. The downside is
noise and, in my case, distraction. Often I was supposed to study for a
difficult exam. Around 7pm I heard TCHK .. TCHK .. *BOOM* and my
learning motivation went straight to zero. Five minutes later I was
where that music came from, beer in hand, and returned home by, oh, 2pm.
Or not.

In that town you could always move to a hsue a little farther out and it
was totally quiet. That meant a 5min bike ride versus a 5min walk.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/
  #85  
Old July 3rd 18, 04:00 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
SMS
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,477
Default Making America into Amsterdam

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

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.


I'm sure that there are already some people like that in public office.
The reality is that to "make America into Amsterdam" is not possible,
there are too many differences. We can (and have) accomplished increased
bicycle mode-share in specific areas, but even in those areas the steps
needed to move to the next level are occurring slowly, if at all.

Separated infrastructure is a big part of it, and in one sense the
easiest part. Implementing incentives to bike are easier to implement
than disincentives to drive. Disincentives to drive would be Europe-like
fuel prices, no more free parking at residential, commercial, and retail
locations, higher vehicle license fees, and per-mile fees. These
disincentives are unlikely to happen in all but the most dense cities.

In San Jose, the downtown Safeway, and other nearby establishments, were
forced to end validated free parking due to a change in ownership of the
attached parking garage. It has already caused lost business to some
places, and at least one has closed. If you're in a car, you'll drive a
short distance to other, often better, stores and restaurants if the
parking cost is excessive
https://www.mercurynews.com/2016/07/20/why-downtown-san-jose-shoppers-lost-this-validated-parking/.
I would sometimes buy something at that Safeway just to get the
validated free parking when having to go to downtown for a short time,
so it actually produced business for the Safeway that they otherwise
would not have received.

One thing that is occurring is that cities are allowing businesses to
provide less parking than would normally be required in exchange for a
commitment to reduce solo vehicle use. The businesses are providing cash
incentives to employees to not drive, and they are significant. Combine
$5 a day cash incentive with free transit passes and free vanpools and
they are seeing a huge reduction in solo vehicle travel. There's a big
benefit to the businesses as well. Parking garages cost about $50,000
per space so $5 a day translates to 10,000 days, or about 30 years (not
counting maintenance and operation. Plus the land that would have been
used for a parking lot, or parking garage, can now be used for revenue
producing buildings. However this scheme only works when there are
viable alternatives to driving. Bicycling is one such alternative but
you need the infrastructure. Transit is another alternative. The main
user of this program so far has been Stanford. It works well there
because employee schedules at the university and the hospital are pretty
well fixed, there is good bicycle infrastructure, and good mass transit
available.
  #86  
Old July 3rd 18, 05:33 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
JBeattie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,870
Default Making America into Amsterdam

On Monday, July 2, 2018 at 11:58:42 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-07-01 22:36, sms wrote:
On 7/1/2018 8:47 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/30/2018 4:26 PM, 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.

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.


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

When compared to the $12 toll on the George Washington Bridge maybe.

When compared to the cost of light rail or heavy rail. Even above
ground, light rail is about $40 million/mile if you already have the
ROW. Heavy rail 10X that at least. Creekside bicycle infrastructure is a
bargain compared to that. Again, we're mot trying to get 50%-100% of
people on bicycles. Just 10% would halp unclog the roads.


It's not just about unclogging. Aside from the health benefits even a
small increase in mode share has a multiplier effect of business
revenue. That turns into higher local taxes - ka-ching.

https://www.fastcodesign.com/1682022...on-a-bike-lane

Much of my discretionary spending happens at businesses with a
reasonable bike path network connection and bike policy. This also means
that related tax dollars are generated in Folsom instead of in El Dorado
County where I live. Some of which are plowed back into the bike path
system, which result in more business, which ...


The fact that you spend your money at one place instead of another has no effect on over-all economic activity. The correct question is whether bike paths promote economic activity rather than redistribute it. Keep in mind that the PU drivers are probably boycotting the bike-access pubs or going there for bumper target practice. They should go after these guys: https://vimeo.com/178540882 They're a menace.

Increased bike use certainly promotes the sale of bikes and bike consumables, which you should buy locally instead of off FleaBay. I hope you feel shame when you ride by Sam's Town Cyclery.

OTOH, promoting cycling decreases gas sales and infrastructure may decrease economic activity to the extent there are fewer roads and more difficulty getting goods to market. Bicycle infrastructure may be killing our economy! MAGA! Get rid of bike facilities!

This is all very complex. Who knew?

-- Jay Beattie.
  #87  
Old July 3rd 18, 06:15 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
SMS
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,477
Default Making America into Amsterdam

On 7/3/2018 9:33 AM, jbeattie wrote:

snip

OTOH, promoting cycling decreases gas sales and infrastructure may decrease economic activity to the extent there are fewer roads and more difficulty getting goods to market. Bicycle infrastructure may be killing our economy! MAGA! Get rid of bike facilities!

You are 100% wrong.

Gasoline is an extremely low-margin product, at least at the retail
level. For example, Arco was "encouraging" the per-gallon retail price
to be set at 10¢ over the wholesale price, which is why credit card
sales aren't accepted at most Arco stations, and why other stations
usually charge more for credit. When you have a fixed dollar amount as a
margin, rather than a percentage of the retail price, the higher the
price of the item the less the retailer makes.

A cyclist is using much less concentrated, and much more expensive fuel
than a vehicle driver. A decent beer, bought by the case at Costco, is
about $1 per bottle. That's nearly $11 per gallon, though the
consumption rate per mile is less. At a pub or a bar the cost is at
least 5x. Add in the cost of food and it's clear that cyclists are
spending far more per mile than solo vehicle drivers. It's harder to
calculate the relative economic activity for tandems versus two-occupant
vehicles. The latter uses about the same amount of fuel as a
solo-occupant vehicle, while two tandem riders don't use much less fuel
than two solo occupant cyclists.

Less commuter traffic on roads will make getting goods to market easier,
saving fuel and time.

I'm sure that Frank will demand a double-blind study involving 50,001
cyclists in 57 countries to prove these points but alas no entity
appears willing to fund such a research project.
  #88  
Old July 3rd 18, 06:56 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
JBeattie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,870
Default Making America into Amsterdam

On Tuesday, July 3, 2018 at 10:15:43 AM UTC-7, sms wrote:
On 7/3/2018 9:33 AM, jbeattie wrote:

snip

OTOH, promoting cycling decreases gas sales and infrastructure may decrease economic activity to the extent there are fewer roads and more difficulty getting goods to market. Bicycle infrastructure may be killing our economy! MAGA! Get rid of bike facilities!

You are 100% wrong.

Gasoline is an extremely low-margin product, at least at the retail
level. For example, Arco was "encouraging" the per-gallon retail price
to be set at 10¢ over the wholesale price, which is why credit card
sales aren't accepted at most Arco stations, and why other stations
usually charge more for credit. When you have a fixed dollar amount as a
margin, rather than a percentage of the retail price, the higher the
price of the item the less the retailer makes.

A cyclist is using much less concentrated, and much more expensive fuel
than a vehicle driver. A decent beer, bought by the case at Costco, is
about $1 per bottle. That's nearly $11 per gallon, though the
consumption rate per mile is less. At a pub or a bar the cost is at
least 5x. Add in the cost of food and it's clear that cyclists are
spending far more per mile than solo vehicle drivers. It's harder to
calculate the relative economic activity for tandems versus two-occupant
vehicles. The latter uses about the same amount of fuel as a
solo-occupant vehicle, while two tandem riders don't use much less fuel
than two solo occupant cyclists.

Less commuter traffic on roads will make getting goods to market easier,
saving fuel and time.

I'm sure that Frank will demand a double-blind study involving 50,001
cyclists in 57 countries to prove these points but alas no entity
appears willing to fund such a research project.


O.K., who has greater annual profits -- Exxon or InBev? Bike facilities take up road surface, and separated facilities attract homeless. Do you know that over half of the arrests in Portland are of homeless people? Thus, bike paths and lanes impede the consumption of gas, consume public resources and ruin the economy.

Separate bike facilities also promote ICE protests. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LM-eWYfjorA Go to 1:44. That's my f****** bike lane in to work (going the opposite direction). I just blew through the tent screaming at the dopey low-life campers Friday. This week, I went around on a crappy, fast traffic no-shoulder street. My son didn't want me screaming at the protesters again.

I don't care about politics. Get the f*** out of my bike path! And get a job while you're at it.

-- Jay Beattie.

  #89  
Old July 4th 18, 01:05 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,511
Default Making America into Amsterdam

On Tuesday, July 3, 2018 at 1:15:43 PM UTC-4, sms wrote:
On 7/3/2018 9:33 AM, jbeattie wrote:

snip

OTOH, promoting cycling decreases gas sales and infrastructure may decrease economic activity to the extent there are fewer roads and more difficulty getting goods to market. Bicycle infrastructure may be killing our economy! MAGA! Get rid of bike facilities!

You are 100% wrong.

Gasoline is an extremely low-margin product, at least at the retail
level. For example, Arco was "encouraging" the per-gallon retail price
to be set at 10¢ over the wholesale price, which is why credit card
sales aren't accepted at most Arco stations, and why other stations
usually charge more for credit. When you have a fixed dollar amount as a
margin, rather than a percentage of the retail price, the higher the
price of the item the less the retailer makes.

A cyclist is using much less concentrated, and much more expensive fuel
than a vehicle driver. A decent beer, bought by the case at Costco, is
about $1 per bottle. That's nearly $11 per gallon, though the
consumption rate per mile is less. At a pub or a bar the cost is at
least 5x. Add in the cost of food and it's clear that cyclists are
spending far more per mile than solo vehicle drivers. It's harder to
calculate the relative economic activity for tandems versus two-occupant
vehicles. The latter uses about the same amount of fuel as a
solo-occupant vehicle, while two tandem riders don't use much less fuel
than two solo occupant cyclists.

Less commuter traffic on roads will make getting goods to market easier,
saving fuel and time.

I'm sure that Frank will demand a double-blind study involving 50,001
cyclists in 57 countries to prove these points but alas no entity
appears willing to fund such a research project.


There was so much nonsense in that post that no researcher worth his/her salt
would want to touch it.

- Frank Krygowski
  #90  
Old July 4th 18, 02:52 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Joerg[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,016
Default Making America into Amsterdam

On 2018-07-03 08:00, sms wrote:
On 6/30/2018 12:57 PM, Joerg wrote:

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.


I'm sure that there are already some people like that in public office.
The reality is that to "make America into Amsterdam" is not possible,
there are too many differences. We can (and have) accomplished increased
bicycle mode-share in specific areas, but even in those areas the steps
needed to move to the next level are occurring slowly, if at all.

Separated infrastructure is a big part of it, and in one sense the
easiest part. Implementing incentives to bike are easier to implement
than disincentives to drive. Disincentives to drive would be Europe-like
fuel prices, no more free parking at residential, commercial, and retail
locations, higher vehicle license fees, and per-mile fees. These
disincentives are unlikely to happen in all but the most dense cities.


It is also IMO the wrong way. Punishment is not a good method of governance.


In San Jose, the downtown Safeway, and other nearby establishments, were
forced to end validated free parking due to a change in ownership of the
attached parking garage. It has already caused lost business to some
places, and at least one has closed. If you're in a car, you'll drive a
short distance to other, often better, stores and restaurants if the
parking cost is excessive
https://www.mercurynews.com/2016/07/20/why-downtown-san-jose-shoppers-lost-this-validated-parking/.
I would sometimes buy something at that Safeway just to get the
validated free parking when having to go to downtown for a short time,
so it actually produced business for the Safeway that they otherwise
would not have received.


They will also lose scores of shoppers who buy by the cart load there. I
know only very few people who are willing to cart all that in a bike
trailer. Aside from the fact that parking such a rig outside is iffy
because you never know whether it'll still be complete when you come
back. Or whether it'll be there at all.


One thing that is occurring is that cities are allowing businesses to
provide less parking than would normally be required in exchange for a
commitment to reduce solo vehicle use. The businesses are providing cash
incentives to employees to not drive, and they are significant.



Incentves are perfectly ok and a good thing.


... Combine
$5 a day cash incentive with free transit passes and free vanpools and
they are seeing a huge reduction in solo vehicle travel. There's a big
benefit to the businesses as well. Parking garages cost about $50,000
per space so $5 a day translates to 10,000 days, or about 30 years (not
counting maintenance and operation. Plus the land that would have been
used for a parking lot, or parking garage, can now be used for revenue
producing buildings. However this scheme only works when there are
viable alternatives to driving. Bicycling is one such alternative but
you need the infrastructure.



That is exactly the point. If the only venue is the same old street with
bustling car traffic hardly anyone will be convinced to cycle.


... Transit is another alternative. The main
user of this program so far has been Stanford. It works well there
because employee schedules at the university and the hospital are pretty
well fixed, there is good bicycle infrastructure, and good mass transit
available.



In our area they aren't always smart with public transport. Yes, we have
some and El Dorado Transit has added nice bus routes. However, a ticket
into Sacramento is five bucks, no senior discount on that one, and that
doesn't easily get people out of their cars. Local routes are lower
cost, usually $1.50 per trip or half if over 60. The biggest blooper
seems to be the Connect Card. It allows use on different systems which
is a good idea. One common ticket would be a better idea. However, they
have different ages for senior discount and when you want one you must
get a card at the headquarters of your muni. That also means it does not
get you a senior discount and any of the other munis. Duh!

Sacramento RT has poor quality ticket machines. Once I checked them at a
station and none of them had a screen that was readable. No tickets sold
on the light rail cars. So unless you are a frequent rider you cannot
really use it.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Looking like Amsterdam Alycidon UK 23 August 15th 15 06:45 PM
A bicycle not wood, Black & Decker's feeble attempts at making bicycletools and tire-not-making Doug Cimperman Techniques 7 December 9th 12 12:40 AM
Tire-making, episode {I-lost-track} --- making inner-tubes DougC Techniques 1 September 11th 10 03:43 PM
TT: 1. Deutschland Uber Alles 2. America 3. America Ted van de Weteringe Racing 4 September 25th 08 07:26 PM
These mp3 interviews -Air America -Know why there is about to be civil war in America. A MUST LISTEN harbinger Australia 17 June 4th 06 12:16 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:50 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.