What American Cities are Missing: Bikes by the Thousands

On Jun 7, 10:52 am, Bolwerk wrote:

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.

User fees as much as possible.

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.

No they don't. If you want transit, move to a city. We shouldn't have
mass transit in areas with low population density, just to give people
a choice. I'm pro-choice, but I'm also realistic. I'd like to live in
the country, but I don't expect a city-like nightlife. People who live
in the outskirts shouldn't expect transit.

rotten wrote:
On Jun 7, 10:52 am, Bolwerk wrote:

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.

User fees as much as possible.

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.

No they don't. If you want transit, move to a city. We shouldn't have
mass transit in areas with low population density, just to give people
a choice. I'm pro-choice, but I'm also realistic. I'd like to live in
the country, but I don't expect a city-like nightlife. People who live
in the outskirts shouldn't expect transit.

Um, I live in a pretty large city as cities go, and I was talking about
cities.

And no, we shouldn't have mass transit in areas with low population
density. Mass transit should absolutely be built where it will be most
effective.

Bolwerk wrote:
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.


I just pulled up that excel sheet and what a surprise, New York goes up
and down by about 563,000 each day compared to Chicago's measly 142,000.
Houston is third with 403,000 and L.A. with 128,000. I've been to L.A.
and Chicago recently and somehow these numbers don't add up to the
horrendous traffic jams that occur every day.
It is quite possible that a majority of cars clogging the roads are
short commuters that could use alternate transportation but choose not
to. That might explain some of the lard ball office workers I have had
to sit next to. L.A. might only have a population change of 128,000 but
I have tried to drive through it, starting at about 5 A.M. down by
Anaheim and not getting to the north of San Fernando valley until 10
A.M. and that was back in 1973.
L.A. is now on my 'places to avoid' list.
Bill Baka

Bill wrote:
Bolwerk wrote:
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.


I just pulled up that excel sheet and what a surprise, New York goes up
and down by about 563,000 each day compared to Chicago's measly 142,000.
Houston is third with 403,000 and L.A. with 128,000. I've been to L.A.
and Chicago recently and somehow these numbers don't add up to the
horrendous traffic jams that occur every day.
It is quite possible that a majority of cars clogging the roads are
short commuters that could use alternate transportation but choose not
to. That might explain some of the lard ball office workers I have had
to sit next to. L.A. might only have a population change of 128,000 but
I have tried to drive through it, starting at about 5 A.M. down by
Anaheim and not getting to the north of San Fernando valley until 10
A.M. and that was back in 1973.
L.A. is now on my 'places to avoid' list.

Well, don't forget this is about the urban population as defined by
what's contained within its political boundaries. Much of that traffic
clogging L.A. probably originates within L.A.

This isn't telling you how people utilize their automobiles within their
respective cities. Most large cities have cabs, livery vehicles,
commuters from periphery areas (effectively suburbanites, but legally
live in the city), municipal vehicles, etc. In N.Y., a cab strike means
smooth flowing traffic for a day or so.

L.A. may only be worse off because automobiles are so integrated into
life that there aren't many chores that could be achieved without them.

On Jun 5, 6:54 pm, "
wrote:
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/

I cannot get that link to show me the stats but they sound about
right. What's so difficult about a little bit of snow? The plows
remove it or it melts. After a big snowstorm the main streets are
usually back to bare pavement within 24 hours, less in most cases.

I was once stuck in Detroit for 3 days when it got hit by a 20 inch
snowstorm. When I finally got out, I took the train back to Ottawa
where they had had about 18 inches the night before. Except for the
higher-than-usual snow banks you would not have known that there had
been a storm. Detroit is, quite reasonably, not prepared for such
storms, Ottawa, equally reasonably, is prepared.

The only time I didn't ride to work because of weather was the day
that the temperature was -59 C (with the wind chill, probably -45
without) and I found the bicycle was freezing up on me: The pawl was
taking 10-15 seconds to fall if I back-pedalled.



John Kane, Kingston ON Canada

Bolwerk wrote:
Bill wrote:
L.A. is now on my 'places to avoid' list.

Well, don't forget this is about the urban population as defined by
what's contained within its political boundaries. Much of that traffic
clogging L.A. probably originates within L.A.

This isn't telling you how people utilize their automobiles within their
respective cities. Most large cities have cabs, livery vehicles,
commuters from periphery areas (effectively suburbanites, but legally
live in the city), municipal vehicles, etc. In N.Y., a cab strike means
smooth flowing traffic for a day or so.

L.A. may only be worse off because automobiles are so integrated into
life that there aren't many chores that could be achieved without them.

There is public transit but it is really sub-standard, so the poor
planning is probably the root of the mess there. The last time I flew on
a commercial flight down there the pilot just couldn't resist saying
"That bowl of brown air is our destination.", meaning of course L.A.
Once a flight I was on was 'smogged out' and had to land at the
Hollywood-Burbank airport instead. Living there and breathing that mud
has to be very bad for the health, which makes a good reason to live
somewhere else. I think it is up to a critical mass thing where there
are just plain too many people living in a natural smog bowl.
Bill Baka

In rec.bicycles.misc rotten wrote:
On Jun 7, 10:52 am, Bolwerk wrote:

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.

User fees as much as possible.

So, you're talking about $7-13 a gallon gas? Or perhaps every road will
become a toll road? Of course we could also install a GPS box and tax
you for miles driven. Alternately we could charge people based on
odometer readings when you register every year. [1]

I also look forward to the Sneaker Tax. Of course this will have to be
built into the cost of the shoes. Perhaps we'll call it something like
Very Appreciable Travel and tack it onto the cost of all travel related
goods.

[1] I'm sure no one will stop their odometer, falsify it, or fail to
register their car to avoid paying...

--
Dane Buson -
The world really isn't any worse.
It's just that the news coverage is so much better.

"rotten" wrote in

[snip]

No they don't. If you want transit, move to a city. We shouldn't
have
mass transit in areas with low population density, just to give
people
a choice.

[snip]

There's a solution to that. It's generally reckoned that the
catchment area for a transit station is a ten minute trip to get to
the station. For a pedestrian that's about half a mile.

However, for a cyclist, the distance is four times as much, about two
miles. The population served goes up with area served, which goes up
as the square of the distance to the station.

Thus a transit station could serve sixteen times as many customers,
if those customers were cyclists, as it could serve if the customers
were pedestrians.

There's more. With the two mile feeder, the stations can be further
apart. Actually, the stations may well have been built far apart
anyway. Many commuter rail lines were originally built to run steam
trains. Because steam trains are slow at accelerating and
decelerating, the stations were originally built a considerable
distance apart, and so don't serve well even the population alongside
the tracks, unless that population rides bikes.

Stopping at stations wastes time, if those stations are not your
station. Cut down on the station stops, and all trains become
expresses

Jeremy Parker

On Jun 7, 1:25 pm, Dane Buson wrote:
In rec.bicycles.misc rotten wrote:

On Jun 7, 10:52 am, Bolwerk wrote:

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.

User fees as much as possible.

So, you're talking about $7-13 a gallon gas? Or perhaps every road will
become a toll road? Of course we could also install a GPS box and tax
you for miles driven. Alternately we could charge people based on
odometer readings when you register every year. [1]

I also look forward to the Sneaker Tax. Of course this will have to be
built into the cost of the shoes. Perhaps we'll call it something like
Very Appreciable Travel and tack it onto the cost of all travel related
goods.

[1] I'm sure no one will stop their odometer, falsify it, or fail to
register their car to avoid paying...

--
Dane Buson -
The world really isn't any worse.
It's just that the news coverage is so much better.

Calm down little man, I don't think it's reasonable to charge for
walking or whatever, obviously on a local level not everything will be
able to be paid for on that basis. Sheesh, people get so angry.

In rec.bicycles.misc rotten wrote:
On Jun 7, 1:25 pm, Dane Buson wrote:
In rec.bicycles.misc rotten wrote:
On Jun 7, 10:52 am, Bolwerk wrote:

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.

User fees as much as possible.

So, you're talking about $7-13 a gallon gas? Or perhaps every road will
become a toll road? Of course we could also install a GPS box and tax
you for miles driven. Alternately we could charge people based on
odometer readings when you register every year. [1]

I also look forward to the Sneaker Tax. Of course this will have to be
built into the cost of the shoes. Perhaps we'll call it something like
Very Appreciable Travel and tack it onto the cost of all travel related
goods.

[1] I'm sure no one will stop their odometer, falsify it, or fail to
register their car to avoid paying...

Calm down little man, I don't think it's reasonable to charge for
walking or whatever, obviously on a local level not everything will be
able to be paid for on that basis. Sheesh, people get so angry.

Angry? I'm sorry if I came off that way. I was being mildly sarcastic,
but not at all angry. Perhaps I should have added the odd ;-) in there.

I'm actually in favour of user fees in many cases, especially roads
which have historically been subsidized heavily by property tax and
general funds. Of course the problem with user fees is getting people
to agree to cough up the money up front.

When you have to pay the full cost at every use, people often balk. You
can see the same effect in many places in life.

ex. Someone who would hesitate if you made them pay $1000 for a year of
coffee has no problem with paying $3-4 multiple times a week.

--
Dane Buson -
The penalty for laughing in a courtroom is six months in jail; if it
were not for this penalty, the jury would never hear the evidence.
-- H. L. Mencken