Ride an SUB not an SUV

On 27 Mar 2007 13:07:13 -0700, "donquijote1954"
wrote:

Are you trying to imply that biking in America is impractical because
it's such a mountainous country? What percentage of America is such?
How about the rest?

"Mountains cover 54% of Asia, 36% of North America, 25% of Europe, 22%
of South America, 17% of Australia, and 3% of Africa. As a whole, 24%
of the Earth's land mass is mountainous."

Don't think that was his point at all, but he can answer that. The
amount of mountains is rarely the issue - the steepest hills are
often, perhaps usually, those too short to cause a problem for cars.
Most mountain roads are long and can't be that steep for long. Cars
and trucks would have a probelm going up and trucks a real problem
coming down.

OTOH, Franklin or Forrest in Monterey, CA are short and can pretty
much be as steep as they want - not long enough to cause a problem for
the cars. There is one near Monterey that I can't remember anymore,
where on some bikes you have a problem seeing the roadway in front at
one point. I've been on plenty of 'high hills' in Connecticut that
were steep enough for cars to routinely start sliding down from a dead
stop when snow fell. I would map a daily commute to avoid those if
possible. None would qualify as mountains.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

donquijote1954 wrote:
On Mar 26, 10:46 am, Bill wrote:
Let's hope the USA will before we are overrun with freeway parking lots
at rush hour.
Bill Baka- Hide quoted text -

I think traffic planners should plan their vacations to Curitiba or
Copenhagen. Not simply Caribbean Cruises.

100% agreement. Nobody ever learned anything on a cruise ship. I can't
imagine spending $5,000 to spend my 2 weeks vacation on a boat....?
Give them an extra week if they spend it hopping known good towns and
taking notes?
Bill Baka

donquijote1954 wrote:
On Mar 26, 5:21 pm, (Matthew T. Russotto)
wrote:

Additionally, I have seen cyclists going *faster* than the speed limit (30
mph) on extreme slopes in Texas. great view from behind, let me tell you.
Presumably on the downslope. I've seen cyclists go 50mph down a hill
in Philadelphia. But the route to the top of that hill isn't called
"the Wall" for nothing. It's a hard climb. There are hills around
me which I can do 40+mph on, but again, it's a hard climb to get up to
them. They're easier than the one on my path to work; I've climbed
that one a few times, and doing it twice every day is just not practical.

It doesn't take an extreme slope to hit 50 MPH, only about 12% if my
guesstimate is correct. I have hit 50 MPH on the downhill on a highway
that I had to earn the 50 MPH by pedaling up. 50' elevation to 950' in
about 3 miles of rollers.

Are you trying to imply that biking in America is impractical because
it's such a mountainous country? What percentage of America is such?
How about the rest?

"Mountains cover 54% of Asia, 36% of North America, 25% of Europe, 22%
of South America, 17% of Australia, and 3% of Africa. As a whole, 24%
of the Earth's land mass is mountainous."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountain

But don't tell to mountain bikers that they are incompatible with
mountains...

Mountains are good things to have around. Or big hills.
Bill Baka

In article ,
Amy Blankenship wrote:

"Matthew T. Russotto" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Amy Blankenship wrote:

"Matthew T. Russotto" wrote in message
news:d7SdnSpHJ4AguZXbnZ2dnUVZ_qGjnZ2d@speakeasy .net...

I've been to Denmark. For cycling, it has one overriding feature that
much of the United States lacks: flatness. Not false flatness like
the US plains, but real table-like flatness.

That's *flat* silly. *Many* areas of the US have *way* more flatness than
Denmark. My British husband was commenting on how nice it was to see
actual
hills in Denmark compared to here.

We talking about the same Denmark? North part of Europe, lots of
windmills? Highest natural point 171m (561 feet) above sea level?
It's flat.

Not compared to some parts of the US. The highest point in Florida is 345
feet.

Florida's flat, but the 90+ degree weather and high humidity are a
problem. I've gone inline skating in Florida, in August, and even at
night it's miserable.

The highest point in Louisiana is 535 feet.

Same issues with weather.

The highest point in Delaware is 448 feet.

Wilmington still has more hills than Aalborg or Copenhagen. The
Delmarva is flat, of course, for much the same reason Denmark is.

Additionally, I have seen cyclists going *faster* than the speed limit (30
mph) on extreme slopes in Texas. great view from behind, let me tell you.

Presumably on the downslope.

Nope. Up a hill my car was struggling with. It was pretty amazing.

I'm not buying it, unless they were just coming off a downslope. I've
seen pro bikers climb difficult hills, and even they don't do 30+mph up
them. Either that or your car really sucks.

There used to be a hill on my way to school (I went to college in one of the
hillier parts of Mississippi) that just killed me the first couple of months
I did it. But since I had no other means of getting to school I figured it
out eventually.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that you did not climb a 4-block
18% grade (which is the worst part of the Manayunk Wall; it's actually
longer than that, but not as steep in the other sections) on a bike every day.

Even if you did, it wouldn't be viable for most people. Anyone in
halfway decent shape can ride a bike around a flat, cool place
like Denmark. Try it in Florida or Misssissipi in August and people
will be dropping from heat exhaustion left and right. Try it in any
place with hills and a lot of people simply won't be able to do it.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

In article ,
Baxter wrote:

"Matthew T. Russotto" wrote in message
et...
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.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

In article ,
Doc O'Leary wrote:
In article ,
(Matthew T. Russotto) wrote:

In article
,
Doc O'Leary wrote:

No, I'm just not going to bother with them because your focus remains on
what is wrong currently rather than being open to making changes to get
things working right.

You got nothing. You're bluffing.

Rather I realize I have nothing you want to hear.

You've got nothing at all.

How about this: I concede. It is not true that moving just the
people *must* take more time than moving the people *and* their cars.

Now: show me a practical system which relies on this fact to actually
move the people faster than their cars move.

Other's have already provided links to cities outside the US that have
more reasonable transit planning, but let me say your fixation on
"faster" is also painting you into an unreasonable corner.

Ah, so you know no such system exists, and have no idea how to produce
one.

"Faster" was the criterion that YOU claimed cars were not better at.
Now it appears you can't produce.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

In article ,
Curtis L. Russell wrote:
On 27 Mar 2007 13:07:13 -0700, "donquijote1954"
wrote:

Are you trying to imply that biking in America is impractical because
it's such a mountainous country? What percentage of America is such?
How about the rest?

"Mountains cover 54% of Asia, 36% of North America, 25% of Europe, 22%
of South America, 17% of Australia, and 3% of Africa. As a whole, 24%
of the Earth's land mass is mountainous."

Don't think that was his point at all, but he can answer that. The
amount of mountains is rarely the issue - the steepest hills are
often, perhaps usually, those too short to cause a problem for cars.
Most mountain roads are long and can't be that steep for long. Cars
and trucks would have a probelm going up and trucks a real problem
coming down.

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.
--
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 message

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.

Unfortunately to get between two points in NYC you often have to take the
train into Manhattan and then back out to where you want to go. It takes
forever and ever to do this. Try Brooklyn/Queens by train. Then try the
same trip by car. No comparison.

Curtis L. Russell wrote:
On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 19:57:47 -0500, "Amy Blankenship"
wrote:

Additionally, I have seen cyclists going *faster* than the speed limit (30
mph) on extreme slopes in Texas. great view from behind, let me tell you.
Presumably on the downslope.
Nope. Up a hill my car was struggling with. It was pretty amazing.

That would be an unusual speed for a pro peloton, to go up a hill at
30mph that caused a car to struggle. I've been impressed by the speeds
that the pro pack went up some of the hills in northen Maryland during
the Tour de Trump/Du Pont, but it wasn't 30 mph. And I've talked to
the motors about the speeds at the Tour de Toona/International
whatever it is called now - same thing, it isn't anywhere near 30 mph
when the gradient goes steep. Unless they decided to put a finish on
the slope and even then that would be a reach.

Steep rollers maybe. Any hill of any length, no.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

Hey,
It was Texas.
Maybe he got behind Lance doing some stealth hill training.
Who else in Texas would even remotely be capable of that?
And, yeah, rollers and not sustained.
Bill Baka

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.