|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#251
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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%Â*Â*Â* Recreation 38%Â*Â*Â* Training 3% Other 2%Â*Â* 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
|
|||
|
|||
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%Â*Â*Â* Recreation 38%Â*Â*Â* Training 3% Other 2%Â*Â* 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
|
|||
|
|||
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%Â*Â*Â* Recreation 38%Â*Â*Â* Training 3% Other 2%Â*Â* 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
|
|||
|
|||
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%Â*Â*Â* Recreation 38%Â*Â*Â* Training 3% Other 2%Â*Â* 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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 |