What American Cities are Missing: Bikes by the Thousands

On Jun 5, 5:07 pm, John Kane wrote:
On May 29, 10:48 pm, Nobody wrote:



On 29 May 2007 13:57:53 -0700, John Kane wrote:

On May 28, 10:06 pm, Nobody wrote:
On Fri, 25 May 2007 13:16:20 -0700, (Tom Keats)
wrote:

In article ,
Nobody writes:

It simply is not practicable (note the use of adjective), either by
wish or function.

It is for me, and for many others.

Yeah, but what youse who like this "challenge" in transportation don't
seem to appreciate, you're not even in the slightest minority.

We have enough presence to show up in modal share statistics
for numerous North American cities.

I lke to go biking for exercise, enjoyment...but for basic
transportation to and from my place of employment 10 km away? Go jump
in the closest pond.

10 km might be a bit much for a beginning rider.
But it doesn't take long to be able to easily
and routinely ride that distance, and even further.

It just does not make sense for most of us. As I say, it is not
"practicable". (And that's different than beng practical.)

Who exactly /is/ "most of us"?

And why are you so vehement about discouraging people
from cycle-commuting by denying its practice-ability?

Bloody hell, what you're suggesting is a situation of "enthusiasts"
dictating what they believe the rest of humanity should be doing.

I'm not discouraging anybody from doing anything.

So, regardless of distance, let's say, I can (i.e. "am able to") ride
a bicycle to work. Um, urban size dictates that is gonna be a
time-consuming, and in weather-challenging conditions, rather
unpleasant.

Depends on where you live and work. In Canada the median commuting
distance is 7.2 km or perhaps 15-20 minutes by bike[1]. Given that
that is the median time it is likely that for a lot of people the
distance is significantly less. In fact for female commuters it is 6.4
km.

Here is a simple bar chart showing a rough breakdown of who commutes
how far
http://ca.geocities.com/jrkrideau/cycling/commute.png. Over 60% of
the Canadian working population have a less than 10 km (or 20-30
minute by bike) commute.

The way I see it there's lots of room for people to cycle (or even
GASP, walk) to work while some people clearly would find it difficult
or completely impractical.

John Kane, Kingston ON Canada

And how far are YOU going to cycle in Kingston in
December/January/February/March?

Well I only do about 1.5 km since I live near work. When working in
Ottawa my commute was 7.5 km and I did it all year round. Much
healthier and more relaxing than driving though I do recommend studded
tires for winter riding.

Sorry to take so long getting back to you. Next question?

John Kane, Kingston ON Canada



1. Commuting to Work, 2001 Census Catalogue no.: 97F0015XIE2001001
Unfortunately it does not give a breakdown by community size or
urban/rural split.

--clip ---

Must have been fun with an average 80 inches and 121 days of snow
cover

http://www.travelingo.org/north-amer...a/guide/72039/

In article , Chris
wrote:

I ran into an interesting situation the other day. A collage student,
going home for the summer was shipping all her belongings home, via the
post office. She priced it out, and it only cost her $250. A rental truck
and the gas were going to be over $500.

How are we going to get by when gas, doubles and/or triples in price?


As oil becomes more expensive, other production methods are more
economical. Brazil recently became a net oil producer due to deep level
sea drilling, but that is only economical if oil remains at a high price.

One news article about a year ago indicated that Venezuela actually has
larger proven oil reserves than the middle east does, but it is expensive
to get them. With oil at higher prices, Chavez becomes a more important
figure than he was previously.


Everyone blames those 'greedy' oil companies, but it is simply supply and
demand. Demand is up 3% in last 6 months, and supply is only up 1%. With
no new refineries being built in the US (I don't want that nasty thing in
my back yard) the price will continue to rise.

China is the main new demand.


There's also the issue of instability in oil producing countries. The
last little spike happened due to Nigeria's turmoil. With the fairly
significant number of deaths caused during that raid on the Chinese oil
platform in Ethiopia, and various other troubles in oil-producing African
nations, we can expect that to be an ongoing problem. Nigeria represents
8% of the world's oil production right now. With 1/3 of their production
shut down due to turmoil and other troubles, things don't look good for
oil or for Nigeria.

On the other hand, if you were an oil company executive and needed to
increase profits by increasing oil prices, it doesn't cost much to make
trouble in Africa. I know it sounds too much like a goofball conspiracy
theory, but if you could make $$billions from creating a little political
turmoil in Africa, I think you would find there are a fair number of
people that would accept whatever moral loss they might have.

--
-Glennl
The despammed service works OK, but unfortunately
now the spammers grab addresses for use as "from" address too!
e-mail hint: add 1 to quantity after gl to get 4317.

Pat wrote:
On Jun 5, 12:10 pm, "Amy Blankenship"
wrote:
"George Conklin" wrote in message

ink.net...





"Amy Blankenship" wrote in message
.. .
"Bolwerk" wrote in message
...
wrote:
In article , Bolwerk
wrote:
From what I understand, cycling is better on your joints than most
other forms of exercise.
Unless done on a sufficiently soft surface, jogging is horrible on
feet
and leg joints. Yet, there are people I see jogging on the sidewalks
every day.
Should we ban jogging on the sidewalks? Or should we convert all our
sidewalks to barkdust, which is a much less damaging surface to walk
or
jog on?
The debate raging right now is whether "abusive" things, including
"self-abuse," should all be banned.
George says yes. He wants to ban carpentry, automobile mechanics,
ditch
digging, sewer cleaning, NASCAR, and anything else that might have a
mild
occupational hazard.
Ballet, pro football, mining, sewing...
Pedicabs are abusive of labor and there is no point in bring third-world
horrors to the USA just because you planners have no ideas about what to
do.
So in other words, you have no valid objection to it. You just don't like
it.

I think that pedicabs are like a lot of things. Yeah, they probably
are abusive or whatever, but if you are poor and starving and living
in a slum somewhere, is it better to have a pedicab and maybe make
some money or is it better to starve.

George really must have a funny definition of "abuse." Let's say a
pedicab driver doesn't make too much. The typical pedicab driver is
probably a temporary job someone takes on in the summer (probably a
student) to make some cash. If they're making minimum wage plus tips,
they maybe aren't doing so badly.

Rather than being abusive, it's probably great exercise.

As for coming to America, who cares. We have lots of jobs, a minimum
wage, a permitting system, and things like OSHA. If a person doesn't
WANT to do it, then they don't HAVE to do it. It's a person's choice
or employment. If they want to do it, great. Why not? It beats the
heck out of a lot of other jobs out there.

I guess I see things in shades of gray, not in absolutes.

donquijote1954 wrote:
On Jun 3, 10:26 am, Bolwerk wrote:
Amy Blankenship wrote:
"Dane Buson" wrote in message
...
"This is why raising the drinking age to 21 amounts to cruel and unusual
punishment for people who have not done anything wrong--their only crime
is that they have not passed the arbitrary age we allow drinking at."
I hardly think that making a test harder and raising the fee counts as
cruel and unusual punishment. I'm getting our roles confused here,
aren't I supposed to be the bleeding heart liberal weenie?
You don't have to drink alcohol to live...
It helps sometimes.

And it's a great way to have fun with all those surplus grains we grow!


If MADD catches you saying that you'd be in deep ****. They seem to
have a way with the HP (via lawyers, who also get a cut in it), and
politicians (who can catch on the photo op) who otherwise look the
other way to no less dangerous driving like DUCP (driving under cell
phone influence) and DUSUV (driving under supersized unnecessary
vehicle influence).

Well, screw MADD.

Seriously, kudos to them for bringing attention to the drunk driving
issue back in the 1970s.

"OMG, officer, I'm so sorry! I was drunk!"
"Okay, I understand, get home safe."

However, since then they've done nothing but damage to this country.
They've produced an entire generation of now young adults who have no
idea how to handle a drink properly - these young adults make the news
sometimes when one of them manages to poison himself by downing his
first bottle of vodka on his 21st birthday. By making it illegal to
teach children how to drink moderately while still living with their
parents, they've gone so far as to make it illegal to be a responsible
parent in many places in America.

(I know, I know. There are cultural problems with how Americans handle
alcohol. I get annoyed when I go to bars and get made fun of for
drinking club soda - college professors have actually done this to me.
I drink alcohol if I feel like it, but there shouldn't be pressure to
drink or get drunk.)

Pat wrote:
On Jun 4, 12:44 pm, "Amy Blankenship"
wrote:
"Pat" wrote in message

oups.com...



On Jun 4, 9:49 am, "Amy Blankenship"
wrote:
"Joe the Aroma" wrote in
messagenews:_tKdnbr_7I5HD_7bnZ2dnUVZ_uiknZ2d@comca st.com...
Which is because most people do not want to live without a car. Seems
simple enough to me.
Simple is as simple does ;-)
Amy, I think Joe has a point. There is a difference between "need a
car" and "want a car".
There are some folk who live in, say Manhattan, and never venture far
from home. They can easily live without a car. Their entire world
might be just a few square miles. They have busses, and trains, and
cabs, etc.
Then there are folk like me (and probably you) who live off the beaten
path who really need cars. There's no public tranportation around and
not much of a population base to support lots of retail, etc., nearby
(thankfully). So a car is needed.
Interestingly, a 20 mile trip to the store may sound like a huge
distance to someone from Manhattan but it's only about 20 minutes,
which is what they are probably walking to their store. The distance
scales are very different.
But there is another set of "tweeners" who probably don't "need" a car
but really enjoy the freedom of owning one. They don't have to wait
for the bus or the cab or rent a car for a night out.
I'm not sure how much conjection or pollution difference it would be
if they all sold their cars, but I guess that's not for me to decide.
If they an afford one, that's their choice. The best gov't can/should
do it to provide them with other choices so that maybe they decide to
live without a car. But it's a person's decision.
That's all anyone here is advocating for. I've never figured out why people
would argue to remove people's choices to walk/bike/use transit, but there
are many who do.

-Amy

I'd say that they are morons who live in cities, but I fear that that
would be redundant. ;-)

These particular "morons" seem to live in the suburbs primarily, or
suburbanized rural areas anyway.

Funny enough, improving transit systems in cities and metropolitan areas
would probably only benefit rural areas. The energy savings alone would
be remarkable. Smog hurts the health of urban residents, but pollutants
also hurt the environment in rural areas.

Amy Blankenship wrote:
"george conklin" wrote in message
ink.net...
"Amy Blankenship" wrote in message
...
"george conklin" wrote in message
link.net...
...
Me? I don't really believe in banning things, unless you're talking
about over-the-counter sales of cyanide or something. I was just
taking your reasoning to its logical conclusion.
Nonsense.

Cycle-rickshaw pullers are among the most vulnerable section of the
urban poor
The work is very arduous and debilitating. Though the daily earning of
the puller would be about Rs 100-150 ($ 2-3),
We're talking about New York!

The physical abuse is the same.

Let's see. First you objected to pedicabs in New York because they are
abusive in India. Then it was pointed out to you that most pedicab
operators in New York are actually entrepreneurs, doing it quite by their
own choice. You then decided you were against it because a pedicab operator
might wear out his knees. It was pointed out to you that many other
professions in the US have a far greater potential for damage or injury to
the person involved in them than pedicab driver. You stated as clearly as
you ever state anything that you don't object to those other professions.
So obviously you *do not* object to damaging professions per se.

More recently, you're back to the argument that because the culture of India
makes the lot of a pedicab driver less than optimal, we should not have
pedicabs in New York. When I point out to you that the culture of India has
no effect on the pedicab drivers in New York, you're back to claiming that
the "physical abuse" is the basis of your objection. Since you've made it
clear that physical abuse in one's vocation per se is not something you
object to across the board, then what, specifically, is it about pedicab
drivers that you *really* object to?

Ha ha.

Seriously, that's the tactic George *always* uses. For whatever reason,
he decides he doesn't like something, makes up numerous reasons to
object to it, and then dodges any opportunity to offer a rational
explanation. He does it with transit too. He also did it with horse
farms.

He gets agitated when you ask him to support his positions, and then
accuses you of hating "real people," the "rural," and apple pie.

On Jun 6, 4:30 pm, Bolwerk wrote:
Pat wrote:
On Jun 4, 12:44 pm, "Amy Blankenship"
wrote:
"Pat" wrote in message

groups.com...

On Jun 4, 9:49 am, "Amy Blankenship"
wrote:
"Joe the Aroma" wrote in
messagenews:_tKdnbr_7I5HD_7bnZ2dnUVZ_uiknZ2d@comca st.com...
Which is because most people do not want to live without a car. Seems
simple enough to me.
Simple is as simple does ;-)
Amy, I think Joe has a point. There is a difference between "need a
car" and "want a car".
There are some folk who live in, say Manhattan, and never venture far
from home. They can easily live without a car. Their entire world
might be just a few square miles. They have busses, and trains, and
cabs, etc.
Then there are folk like me (and probably you) who live off the beaten
path who really need cars. There's no public tranportation around and
not much of a population base to support lots of retail, etc., nearby
(thankfully). So a car is needed.
Interestingly, a 20 mile trip to the store may sound like a huge
distance to someone from Manhattan but it's only about 20 minutes,
which is what they are probably walking to their store. The distance
scales are very different.
But there is another set of "tweeners" who probably don't "need" a car
but really enjoy the freedom of owning one. They don't have to wait
for the bus or the cab or rent a car for a night out.
I'm not sure how much conjection or pollution difference it would be
if they all sold their cars, but I guess that's not for me to decide.
If they an afford one, that's their choice. The best gov't can/should
do it to provide them with other choices so that maybe they decide to
live without a car. But it's a person's decision.
That's all anyone here is advocating for. I've never figured out why people
would argue to remove people's choices to walk/bike/use transit, but there
are many who do.

-Amy

I'd say that they are morons who live in cities, but I fear that that
would be redundant. ;-)

These particular "morons" seem to live in the suburbs primarily, or
suburbanized rural areas anyway.

Funny enough, improving transit systems in cities and metropolitan areas
would probably only benefit rural areas. The energy savings alone would
be remarkable. Smog hurts the health of urban residents, but pollutants
also hurt the environment in rural areas.

I live in the city, I just think nobody should subsidize anybody
else's transportation.

As for pollution, mandating pollution controls on cars can clean up
air quality without affecting anybody's transportation options.

rotten wrote:
On Jun 6, 4:30 pm, Bolwerk wrote:

Funny enough, improving transit systems in cities and metropolitan areas
would probably only benefit rural areas. The energy savings alone would
be remarkable. Smog hurts the health of urban residents, but pollutants
also hurt the environment in rural areas.

I live in the city, I just think nobody should subsidize anybody
else's transportation.

As for pollution, mandating pollution controls on cars can clean up
air quality without affecting anybody's transportation options.


So does that mean you want all the city office clones to move into the
city and make it all the more crowded. That sounds like your solution.
Chicago is kind of a model for this kind of thing with it's Metra rail
system that branches out of Chicago like the spokes of a wheel. There
are plenty of parking spots where the train picks up people, even in the
dead of winter and then takes them on a 79 MPH straight shot to the
city. Once there one can use the 'el and overground/underground subway
system. You can get off of that close enough for a short bus hop and
short walk to work. It works for Chicago but has merely spread the
suburbs out to a 50 mile plus radius of the center of the city.
To have all those office workers live in Chicago would be an absurdly
crowded situation.
No easy fix in sight.
I'll bet New York is about the same, even if not quite planned out as
well as Chicago.
Bill Baka

rotten wrote:
On Jun 6, 4:30 pm, Bolwerk wrote:
Pat wrote:
On Jun 4, 12:44 pm, "Amy Blankenship"
wrote:
"Pat" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Jun 4, 9:49 am, "Amy Blankenship"
wrote:
"Joe the Aroma" wrote in
messagenews:_tKdnbr_7I5HD_7bnZ2dnUVZ_uiknZ2d@comca st.com...
Which is because most people do not want to live without a car. Seems
simple enough to me.
Simple is as simple does ;-)
Amy, I think Joe has a point. There is a difference between "need a
car" and "want a car".
There are some folk who live in, say Manhattan, and never venture far
from home. They can easily live without a car. Their entire world
might be just a few square miles. They have busses, and trains, and
cabs, etc.
Then there are folk like me (and probably you) who live off the beaten
path who really need cars. There's no public tranportation around and
not much of a population base to support lots of retail, etc., nearby
(thankfully). So a car is needed.
Interestingly, a 20 mile trip to the store may sound like a huge
distance to someone from Manhattan but it's only about 20 minutes,
which is what they are probably walking to their store. The distance
scales are very different.
But there is another set of "tweeners" who probably don't "need" a car
but really enjoy the freedom of owning one. They don't have to wait
for the bus or the cab or rent a car for a night out.
I'm not sure how much conjection or pollution difference it would be
if they all sold their cars, but I guess that's not for me to decide.
If they an afford one, that's their choice. The best gov't can/should
do it to provide them with other choices so that maybe they decide to
live without a car. But it's a person's decision.
That's all anyone here is advocating for. I've never figured out why people
would argue to remove people's choices to walk/bike/use transit, but there
are many who do.
-Amy
I'd say that they are morons who live in cities, but I fear that that
would be redundant. ;-)
These particular "morons" seem to live in the suburbs primarily, or
suburbanized rural areas anyway.

Funny enough, improving transit systems in cities and metropolitan areas
would probably only benefit rural areas. The energy savings alone would
be remarkable. Smog hurts the health of urban residents, but pollutants
also hurt the environment in rural areas.

I live in the city, I just think nobody should subsidize anybody
else's transportation.

I don't know what it means for "nobody" to "subsidize anybody else's
transportation." Depending where you live and if you drive, your
transportation is probably subsidized by all kinds of people, places,
and funding schemes, ranging from gas taxes to direct federal
appropriations.

Even if you walk, you're probably using a subsidized sidewalk.

As for pollution, mandating pollution controls on cars can clean up
air quality without affecting anybody's transportation options.

Pollution controls on cars have thus far proven only so effective. In
any case, people often have only one option: private automobiles.
Expanding transit system might give many people at least two options.

Bill wrote:
rotten wrote:
On Jun 6, 4:30 pm, Bolwerk wrote:

Funny enough, improving transit systems in cities and metropolitan areas
would probably only benefit rural areas. The energy savings alone would
be remarkable. Smog hurts the health of urban residents, but pollutants
also hurt the environment in rural areas.

I live in the city, I just think nobody should subsidize anybody
else's transportation.

As for pollution, mandating pollution controls on cars can clean up
air quality without affecting anybody's transportation options.


So does that mean you want all the city office clones to move into the
city and make it all the more crowded. That sounds like your solution.
Chicago is kind of a model for this kind of thing with it's Metra rail
system that branches out of Chicago like the spokes of a wheel. There
are plenty of parking spots where the train picks up people, even in the
dead of winter and then takes them on a 79 MPH straight shot to the
city. Once there one can use the 'el and overground/underground subway
system. You can get off of that close enough for a short bus hop and
short walk to work. It works for Chicago but has merely spread the
suburbs out to a 50 mile plus radius of the center of the city.
To have all those office workers live in Chicago would be an absurdly
crowded situation.

I don't think it would be "absurdly" crowded. Say a half million of
these office workers come in every day (probably an overblown estimate).
Say they all moved to Chicago overnight. With just under 2.9 million
people today, that would bring Chicago's population to around 3.4
million. That's less than the population of Chicago in 1950 (3.6
million), when it peaked.

No easy fix in sight.
I'll bet New York is about the same, even if not quite planned out as
well as Chicago.

I think New York, a much bigger city, gets half a million a day, so
Chicago probably gets less. I don't have Excel here to check, but if
you're curious, urban daytime population increases are available at:
http://www.census.gov/population/www...aytimepop.html

New York also has a considerably higher number of rail commuters.