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
  #251  
Old July 21st 18, 02:58 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,271
Default Making America into Amsterdam

On 7/20/2018 10:53 AM, sms wrote:


I was astounded to learn that "almost ALL trail users in almost all
areas use a car to haul their bike to the trail."

Seriously, some people need to learn that life exists outside their own
neighborhood, and that not all areas of the country are exactly the
same, so they don't make statements that generalize based on their own
limited experiences. Certainly people from Silicon Valley and the Bay
Area, that have never experienced the eastern U.S., experience culture
shock when they go back east, or to the deep south.



Here's a link to survey data from 20 trails in Pennsylvania and New Jersey:
https://www.railstotrails.org/resour...in al_Rev.pdf

"Purpose of Trail Use: Health 56% Recreation 38% Training 3% Other
2% Commuting 1%"

That's not "my own neighborhood." That's the next state over, and the
one past that. 20 trails. Ten years of surveys.

Why no comment on the data, Stephen? Joerg?


--
- Frank Krygowski
Ads
  #252  
Old July 21st 18, 04:00 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Joerg[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,507
Default Making America into Amsterdam

On 2018-07-20 18:58, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/20/2018 10:53 AM, sms wrote:


I was astounded to learn that "almost ALL trail users in almost all
areas use a car to haul their bike to the trail."

Seriously, some people need to learn that life exists outside their
own neighborhood, and that not all areas of the country are exactly
the same, so they don't make statements that generalize based on their
own limited experiences. Certainly people from Silicon Valley and the
Bay Area, that have never experienced the eastern U.S., experience
culture shock when they go back east, or to the deep south.



Here's a link to survey data from 20 trails in Pennsylvania and New Jersey:
https://www.railstotrails.org/resour...in al_Rev.pdf


"Purpose of Trail Use: Health 56% Recreation 38% Training 3% Other
2% Commuting 1%"

That's not "my own neighborhood." That's the next state over, and the
one past that. 20 trails. Ten years of surveys.

Why no comment on the data, Stephen? Joerg?


Because it is either wrong or you picked a trail with hardly any
connections to destinations where people need to go. Want to have an
example where this worked most excellently? Voila:

https://www.sanjoseca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/61031

Quote "The Guadalupe River Trail is used more frequently for active
transportation, with 35.4% reporting commuting to/from work".

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/
  #253  
Old July 21st 18, 04:25 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
SMS
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,323
Default Making America into Amsterdam

On 7/20/2018 2:33 PM, Duane wrote:

snip

Not to mention that blinding the idiot heading straight for you may not be
the best plan...


Proper lights don't blind people. They make vehicles more conspicuous.

A light and a ding-bell are both useful on bike paths where there are
distracted pedestrians that are oblivious to other path users. "Idiot"
is unhelpful. "Oblivious" is better, unless they are looking at their
phone and not at their surroundings.

On the paths around here, there are usually only very limited parts of
the path that have many people with strollers or kids on tricycles, once
you're a half mile away from easy access points there is little problem.
Runners are not a problem. Some of these paths have a lot access points
from surrounding neighborhoods and commercial areas, and at each
neighborhood access point there will be a short distance where you get
the strollers, tricycles etc..

The path I use the most, the Stevens Creek Trail, somehow forgot to put
in the required parking lots at each end, that are apparently a
necessary component of every bicycle path in some other parts of the
country, though in neighborhoods there is usually some street parking
available.

Where the Stevens Creek Trail ends, where the creek ends and empties
into the bay, you can continue to the right or left on other trails,
one of which goes through Shoreline Park and on to Palo Alto. There is a
big parking lot in Shoreline Park. There is a parking lot at the Palo
Alto Baylands, though that's not the end of the trail either. All the
parking lots were in existence long before the path, there were not
added to serve path users.
  #254  
Old July 21st 18, 09:57 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
SMS
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,323
Default Making America into Amsterdam

On 7/21/2018 8:00 AM, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-07-20 18:58, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/20/2018 10:53 AM, sms wrote:


I was astounded to learn that "almost ALL trail users in almost all
areas use a car to haul their bike to the trail."

Seriously, some people need to learn that life exists outside their
own neighborhood, and that not all areas of the country are exactly
the same, so they don't make statements that generalize based on their
own limited experiences. Certainly people from Silicon Valley and the
Bay Area, that have never experienced the eastern U.S., experience
culture shock when they go back east, or to the deep south.



Here's a link to survey data from 20 trails in Pennsylvania and New
Jersey:
https://www.railstotrails.org/resour...in al_Rev.pdf



"Purpose of Trail Use: Health 56%*** Recreation 38%*** Training 3% Other
2%** Commuting 1%"

That's not "my own neighborhood." That's the next state over, and the
one past that. 20 trails. Ten years of surveys.

Why no comment on the data, Stephen? Joerg?


Because it is either wrong or you picked a trail with hardly any
connections to destinations where people need to go. Want to have an
example where this worked most excellently? Voila:

https://www.sanjoseca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/61031

Quote "The Guadalupe River Trail is used more frequently for active
transportation, with 35.4% reporting commuting to/from work".


I don't see Frank's posts, but based on the past, his "data" is usually
either totally fabricated, or he finds obscure web references that are
not necessarily related to the question at hand.

The link he provided is a prime example. Trails for "Rails to Trails"
are often recreational trails, not the same as Multi-Use-Trails in urban
and suburban areas which have been designed to tie together residential
and commercial areas. I have ridden one such "rail to trail"
http://www.ridethehiawatha.com/. There are definitely parking lots.
It's not an area where anyone lives, it's purely recreational.

As an elected official I recently attended a "Trails and Waterways
Summit" where we discussed overcoming obstacles to continuing to develop
the trails network along creeks and rivers. The only real hope of
relieving traffic congestion is to at least slightly increase the bike
mode. Even a small increase would have an effect on congestion
https://valleywaternews.org/2018/07/16/first-trails-summit-is-a-success/.
I don't know of ANY of the county's creek and river trails where they
installed parking lots for people to drive to the beginning of the trail
and then bike, but perhaps there are some.

Where do all these waterways go past? Intel. Cisco. Google. Facebook.
Microsoft. Kaiser. Apple. Levi's Stadium. The ones that already have
paths are primarily commute routes during the week. Some see heavy
recreational use on weekends, but some do not. Since the water district
does not allow lighting, good lighting is needed to use them at night.
  #255  
Old July 22nd 18, 02:11 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
JBeattie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,371
Default Making America into Amsterdam

On Saturday, July 21, 2018 at 1:57:44 PM UTC-7, sms wrote:
On 7/21/2018 8:00 AM, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-07-20 18:58, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/20/2018 10:53 AM, sms wrote:


I was astounded to learn that "almost ALL trail users in almost all
areas use a car to haul their bike to the trail."

Seriously, some people need to learn that life exists outside their
own neighborhood, and that not all areas of the country are exactly
the same, so they don't make statements that generalize based on their
own limited experiences. Certainly people from Silicon Valley and the
Bay Area, that have never experienced the eastern U.S., experience
culture shock when they go back east, or to the deep south.


Here's a link to survey data from 20 trails in Pennsylvania and New
Jersey:
https://www.railstotrails.org/resour...in al_Rev.pdf



"Purpose of Trail Use: Health 56%*** Recreation 38%*** Training 3% Other
2%** Commuting 1%"

That's not "my own neighborhood." That's the next state over, and the
one past that. 20 trails. Ten years of surveys.

Why no comment on the data, Stephen? Joerg?


Because it is either wrong or you picked a trail with hardly any
connections to destinations where people need to go. Want to have an
example where this worked most excellently? Voila:

https://www.sanjoseca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/61031

Quote "The Guadalupe River Trail is used more frequently for active
transportation, with 35.4% reporting commuting to/from work".


I don't see Frank's posts, but based on the past, his "data" is usually
either totally fabricated, or he finds obscure web references that are
not necessarily related to the question at hand.

The link he provided is a prime example. Trails for "Rails to Trails"
are often recreational trails, not the same as Multi-Use-Trails in urban
and suburban areas which have been designed to tie together residential
and commercial areas. I have ridden one such "rail to trail"
http://www.ridethehiawatha.com/. There are definitely parking lots.
It's not an area where anyone lives, it's purely recreational.

As an elected official I recently attended a "Trails and Waterways
Summit" where we discussed overcoming obstacles to continuing to develop
the trails network along creeks and rivers. The only real hope of
relieving traffic congestion is to at least slightly increase the bike
mode. Even a small increase would have an effect on congestion
https://valleywaternews.org/2018/07/16/first-trails-summit-is-a-success/.
I don't know of ANY of the county's creek and river trails where they
installed parking lots for people to drive to the beginning of the trail
and then bike, but perhaps there are some.

Where do all these waterways go past? Intel. Cisco. Google. Facebook.
Microsoft. Kaiser. Apple. Levi's Stadium. The ones that already have
paths are primarily commute routes during the week. Some see heavy
recreational use on weekends, but some do not. Since the water district
does not allow lighting, good lighting is needed to use them at night.


If you have a river with a bunch available dirt and willing tax-payers, go for it. MUP it! Depending on where it's located, it may get a few cars off the road for at least part of the day. We have some useful MUPs. I just don't think they're the best bang for the tax-buck, and cyclists need to learn road skills and particularly how to cope with auto traffic. Even in the NL, people have to leave the cycle-tracks to get places. You'll never have a bicycle Habitrail to your doorstep. http://www.bldgblog.com/wp-content/u...city_web-1.jpg

The notion that physically separated facilities are absolutely necessary to increase bike mode share is also proved wrong every day in PDX. Yes, the east side Springwater gets a lot of traffic -- but its closed for repairs, and the traffic is now on the streets. People continue to ride. And much of the traffic from the close-in east side is on traffic calmed streets and ordinary bike lanes or neither of the above. And BTW, bicycle traffic is traffic, and on physically separated facilities, it can be like getting stuck in a conga line, and then you throw in walkers and dogs, etc.
Physically separated facilities have a variety of problems like cleaning, blockage by cars, etc. https://bikeportland.org/2013/04/22/...ike-path-85780 Those problems can be overcome, but it takes a higher degree of diligence by the entity with jurisdiction over the facility. If you build it, you better be prepared to take care of it -- and from a municipal budget standpoint, I don't know if you can tap your gas tax allocation or have to use general funds, which are always tight.

-- Jay Beattie.




  #256  
Old July 22nd 18, 03:07 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,271
Default Making America into Amsterdam

On 7/21/2018 11:00 AM, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-07-20 18:58, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/20/2018 10:53 AM, sms wrote:


I was astounded to learn that "almost ALL trail users in almost all
areas use a car to haul their bike to the trail."

Seriously, some people need to learn that life exists outside their
own neighborhood, and that not all areas of the country are exactly
the same, so they don't make statements that generalize based on their
own limited experiences. Certainly people from Silicon Valley and the
Bay Area, that have never experienced the eastern U.S., experience
culture shock when they go back east, or to the deep south.



Here's a link to survey data from 20 trails in Pennsylvania and New
Jersey:
https://www.railstotrails.org/resour...in al_Rev.pdf



"Purpose of Trail Use: Health 56%*** Recreation 38%*** Training 3% Other
2%** Commuting 1%"

That's not "my own neighborhood." That's the next state over, and the
one past that. 20 trails. Ten years of surveys.

Why no comment on the data, Stephen? Joerg?


Because it is either wrong or you picked a trail with hardly any
connections to destinations where people need to go.


Good grief, Joerg, are you really that bad at reading? I didn't pick "a
trail." That was a survey of _20_ trails in two states. If I _had_
picked just one trail could certainly be cherry picking - that is,
finding a rare example that agreed with my point. I did the opposite!

Want to have an
example where this worked most excellently? Voila:

https://www.sanjoseca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/61031

Quote "The Guadalupe River Trail is used more frequently for active
transportation, with 35.4% reporting commuting to/from work".


Ah! Good example of picking a rare example that agreed with your point!

Since you are so often confused, try to read upthread to review: My
original point was not talking about just one trail. I was talking about
the general case for bike trails across the U.S. Almost all use is
recreation, NOT transportation. Even a dozen carefully cherry picked
examples do not disprove that fact.

--
- Frank Krygowski
  #257  
Old July 22nd 18, 03:24 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,271
Default Making America into Amsterdam

On 7/21/2018 4:57 PM, sms wrote:
On 7/21/2018 8:00 AM, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-07-20 18:58, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/20/2018 10:53 AM, sms wrote:


I was astounded to learn that "almost ALL trail users in almost all
areas use a car to haul their bike to the trail."

Seriously, some people need to learn that life exists outside their
own neighborhood, and that not all areas of the country are exactly
the same, so they don't make statements that generalize based on their
own limited experiences. Certainly people from Silicon Valley and the
Bay Area, that have never experienced the eastern U.S., experience
culture shock when they go back east, or to the deep south.


Here's a link to survey data from 20 trails in Pennsylvania and New
Jersey:
https://www.railstotrails.org/resour...in al_Rev.pdf



"Purpose of Trail Use: Health 56%*** Recreation 38%*** Training 3% Other
2%** Commuting 1%"

That's not "my own neighborhood." That's the next state over, and the
one past that. 20 trails. Ten years of surveys.

Why no comment on the data, Stephen? Joerg?


Because it is either wrong or you picked a trail with hardly any
connections to destinations where people need to go. Want to have an
example where this worked most excellently? Voila:

https://www.sanjoseca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/61031

Quote "The Guadalupe River Trail is used more frequently for active
transportation, with 35.4% reporting commuting to/from work".


I don't see Frank's posts, but based on the past, his "data" is usually
either totally fabricated, or he finds obscure web references that are
not necessarily related to the question at hand.

The link he provided is a prime example. Trails for "Rails to Trails"
are often recreational trails, not the same as Multi-Use-Trails in urban
and suburban areas which have been designed to tie together residential
and commercial areas. I have ridden one such "rail to trail"
http://www.ridethehiawatha.com/. There are definitely parking lots.
It's not an area where anyone lives, it's purely recreational.


Yes, and its website even gives driving directions to the trail. The use
of that trail is in line with the use of most of the bike trails across
the country, no matter whether they are urban, suburban or rural.

As an elected official I recently attended a "Trails and Waterways
Summit" where we discussed overcoming obstacles to continuing to develop
the trails network along creeks and rivers. The only real hope of
relieving traffic congestion is to at least slightly increase the bike
mode. Even a small increase would have an effect on congestion
https://valleywaternews.org/2018/07/16/first-trails-summit-is-a-success/.
I don't know of ANY of the county's creek and river trails where they
installed parking lots for people to drive to the beginning of the trail
and then bike, but perhaps there are some.


As to what you know or don't know - ignorance isn't bliss in your case;
instead, ignorance is hubris. But I don't expect you to know everything.
In fact, I no longer expect you to know much at all.

The nearest "creek and river" trail to me is about seven miles away. It
has parking lots at both ends, plus toward the middle. The next closest
"creek or river" trail is about 20 miles away. It has a parking lot at
its northern end and street parking at its southern end, plus a parking
lot near its middle. Both of those are used 100% for recreation, at
least within reasonable limits for rounding.

Before moving here I lived near the center of a city that had a
riverside bike trail. Since that trail was dead center of the city, it
may have had a few percent using it for transportation. But the trail
had such tiny use that it probably didn't matter. On a typical day, I
doubt 20 people rode on it.

Now, about trails and traffic congestion: Can you document, with
official data, a case where traffic congestion or average daily traffic
on nearby roadways dropped as a result of a bike path being installed?
It wouldn't take much more than ADT counts before and after the bike
trail was put in.

What? No such data?

I thought not.


--
- Frank Krygowski
  #258  
Old July 22nd 18, 03:44 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
SMS
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,323
Default Making America into Amsterdam

On 7/21/2018 6:11 PM, jbeattie wrote:

snip

The notion that physically separated facilities are absolutely necessary to increase bike mode share is also proved wrong every day in PDX. Yes, the east side Springwater gets a lot of traffic -- but its closed for repairs, and the traffic is now on the streets. People continue to ride. And much of the traffic from the close-in east side is on traffic calmed streets and ordinary bike lanes or neither of the above. And BTW, bicycle traffic is traffic, and on physically separated facilities, it can be like getting stuck in a conga line, and then you throw in walkers and dogs, etc.
Physically separated facilities have a variety of problems like cleaning, blockage by cars, etc. https://bikeportland.org/2013/04/22/...ike-path-85780 Those problems can be overcome, but it takes a higher degree of diligence by the entity with jurisdiction over the facility. If you build it, you better be prepared to take care of it -- and from a municipal budget standpoint, I don't know if you can tap your gas tax allocation or have to use general funds, which are always tight.


The big increases around here came from a combination of infrastructure
and financial incentives like "we'll pay you $5 a day to not drive to
work." Combine employer-subsidized transit with infrastructure that
makes bicycle commuting possible and financially beneficial, and you can
have a BIG increase. The businesses get to provide less parking and use
more of the land for buildings. While they could have also done
underground parking, doing so is extremely expensive, the subsidies are
cheaper.

I also suggested, only have jokingly, that we would be better off buying
everyone that agrees to use one x number of days per year, a $2000
electric bicycle. We could buy 20,000 of them for the construction cost
of one mile of light-rail track.
  #259  
Old July 22nd 18, 06:02 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Joerg[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,507
Default Making America into Amsterdam

On 2018-07-21 13:57, sms wrote:
On 7/21/2018 8:00 AM, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-07-20 18:58, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/20/2018 10:53 AM, sms wrote:


I was astounded to learn that "almost ALL trail users in almost all
areas use a car to haul their bike to the trail."

Seriously, some people need to learn that life exists outside their
own neighborhood, and that not all areas of the country are exactly
the same, so they don't make statements that generalize based on their
own limited experiences. Certainly people from Silicon Valley and the
Bay Area, that have never experienced the eastern U.S., experience
culture shock when they go back east, or to the deep south.


Here's a link to survey data from 20 trails in Pennsylvania and New
Jersey:
https://www.railstotrails.org/resour...in al_Rev.pdf



"Purpose of Trail Use: Health 56% Recreation 38% Training 3% Other
2% Commuting 1%"

That's not "my own neighborhood." That's the next state over, and the
one past that. 20 trails. Ten years of surveys.

Why no comment on the data, Stephen? Joerg?


Because it is either wrong or you picked a trail with hardly any
connections to destinations where people need to go. Want to have an
example where this worked most excellently? Voila:

https://www.sanjoseca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/61031

Quote "The Guadalupe River Trail is used more frequently for active
transportation, with 35.4% reporting commuting to/from work".


I don't see Frank's posts, but based on the past, his "data" is usually
either totally fabricated, or he finds obscure web references that are
not necessarily related to the question at hand.

The link he provided is a prime example. Trails for "Rails to Trails"
are often recreational trails, not the same as Multi-Use-Trails in urban
and suburban areas which have been designed to tie together residential
and commercial areas. I have ridden one such "rail to trail"
http://www.ridethehiawatha.com/. There are definitely parking lots.
It's not an area where anyone lives, it's purely recreational.

As an elected official I recently attended a "Trails and Waterways
Summit" where we discussed overcoming obstacles to continuing to develop
the trails network along creeks and rivers. The only real hope of
relieving traffic congestion is to at least slightly increase the bike
mode. Even a small increase would have an effect on congestion
https://valleywaternews.org/2018/07/16/first-trails-summit-is-a-success/.
I don't know of ANY of the county's creek and river trails where they
installed parking lots for people to drive to the beginning of the trail
and then bike, but perhaps there are some.

Where do all these waterways go past? Intel. Cisco. Google. Facebook.
Microsoft. Kaiser. Apple. Levi's Stadium. The ones that already have
paths are primarily commute routes during the week. Some see heavy
recreational use on weekends, but some do not. Since the water district
does not allow lighting, good lighting is needed to use them at night.



Similar in our area. Intel, Micron, Kaiser and so forth can be reached
via bicycle infrastructure. So can my former employer by now because
Rancho Cordocva learned from Folsom even though that took many years.
Some people understand this stuff and some don't. Then there are the
glass-half-empty folks.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/
  #260  
Old July 22nd 18, 06:07 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
SMS
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,323
Default Making America into Amsterdam

On 7/22/2018 10:02 AM, Joerg wrote:

snip

Similar in our area. Intel, Micron, Kaiser and so forth can be reached
via bicycle infrastructure. So can my former employer by now because
Rancho Cordocva learned from Folsom even though that took many years.
Some people understand this stuff and some don't. Then there are the
glass-half-empty folks.


It's more than that, you have people that find a web reference for some
rails to trails paths and then extrapolate that onto the rest of the
country, even though the rails to trails effort has a completely
different goal than the effort to add urban and suburban infrastructure.
It's dishonest, but it's typical. Find some unrelated data, or make up
your own data, and then insist that others respond to that nonsense.

 




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 8th 12 11:40 PM
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 04:26 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2018 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.