Making America into Amsterdam

On Thursday, July 5, 2018 at 7:09:14 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-07-04 14:53, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, July 4, 2018 at 1:06:03 PM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-07-04 12:29, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/4/2018 10:10 AM, Joerg wrote:
When cyclists pick a pub or restaurant in this area they
generally prefer those near bike paths. Most cyclists have
sufficient disposable income so they don't just order a
Budweiser and chips.

There are times when proximity to a bike path can improve things
for a business. That's also true of proximity to any other kind
of park - and again, most bike paths are really just linear
parks.

But don't over-generalize. That doesn't mean that a bike path
will generate economic prosperity along most of its length. We
have two main rail-trail bike paths in my area, one about 10
miles long, the other about 75 miles long. The short one has not
had any detectable economic effect. There's one bar and one
convenience shop along its route, both within a little village.
I've seen no evidence that cyclists comprise even a tiny
percentage of their patrons.


Then check out Folsom and Rancho Cordova in California. Heckle Ale
House in Folsom even gives cyclists a 10% discount.

http://visitfolsom.com/attraction/he...se-and-eatery/

Yesterday as I was sipping a Pilsener at Fort Rock Brewing I got to
chat with the guy next to me. Sure enough he was there on his MTB.


The longer path passes through nine municipalities worthy of the
name. One has a bike shop that might not be there without the
path. Another has a coffee shop. It used to have a bike shop next
door, but that bike shop moved to a busier commercial location
and is doing much better. The two largest cities that the path
passes through show absolutely zero commercial benefit.

Cyclist mode share will always be a drop in the bucket in
America. The question is whether that drop is worthwhile and
from me that gets an enthusiastic yes.

Yes, we know that _you_ believe this. But your personal beliefs
don't justify spending millions of dollars, especially on
projects with questionable design - which applies to most of the
bike facilities currently being touted.


Folsom sure has smart leaders who understand the benefits of bike
paths. The result is a bustling business scene and home values that
reflect the desire of people wanting to move there. I personally
met several people who bought a house in Folsom because of the
Willow Creek bike path system which connects to the larger systems
in the area.

By now it doesn't even matter much where in Folsom you buy an
house. They have a rule that every new development must have bike
facilities. If large enough it must be class I for the main
thoroughfares. In any case it must connect to the system. The
developer is responsible for making that happen or they won't get
permits.

Damned zoning and development rules! Fascist Folsom government. No
wonder it's a prison community. It's funny how the wild-west
libertarian loves zoning if it involves dedicating land for bike
paths.


That is not zoning, it is the usual road infrastructure built by
developers through a new neighborhood. After all, you can't sell many
homes if people don't have garages and can't drive up to their house,
and the moving truck can't either. So, logically, Folsom's leaders are
of the opinion that cyclists are equally valuable and also provide
infrastructure for them. Which is rewarded by increased interest in
these development, which increases home price, which increases tax
revenue, which gives Folsom money for even more such cycling
infrastructure. And that shows.


Pfff. Zoning! Developers are not putting in bike paths because it sells houses or because they are cycling fans.
To be specific, the Folsom subdivision code, which is often called the development code in other cities provides: http://www.codepublishing.com/CA/Fol.../Folsom16.html

16.32.010 Dedications of streets, alleys and other public right-of-way or easements.

A. As a condition of approval of a tentative map, the subdivider shall dedicate or make an irrevocable offer of dedication of all parcels of land within the subdivision that are needed for streets and alleys, local transit facilities, public access easements, including access rights and abutters’ rights, drainage, public greenways, bicycle paths, trails, open space easements, sunlight easements, landscape easements, scenic easements, public utility easements and other public easements. In addition, the subdivider shall improve or agree to improve all streets and alleys, including access rights and abutters’ rights, drainage, public greenways, bicycle paths, trails, public utility easements and other public easements.

B. All dedications and/or all irrevocable offers of dedications shall be necessary to ensure consistency and/or implementation of the general plan, or any applicable specific plan.

C. Improvements shall be in accordance with Chapter 16.36 of this title. (Ord. 702 § 1 (part), 1991)

Go develop some property in Folsom, and you'll get a taste of the plan or "map" approval process and endless hoop-jumping. Wait until you get to the environmental regulations. The reason there are bike paths is because developers have been compelled to dedicate the paths as part of plan approval. No paths, no development. It's totally un-American. Next they'll be taking our guns!

-- Jay Beattie.

On 2018-07-05 09:00, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, July 5, 2018 at 7:09:14 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-07-04 14:53, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, July 4, 2018 at 1:06:03 PM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-07-04 12:29, Frank Krygowski wrote:

[...]

The longer path passes through nine municipalities worthy of
the name. One has a bike shop that might not be there without
the path. Another has a coffee shop. It used to have a bike
shop next door, but that bike shop moved to a busier
commercial location and is doing much better. The two largest
cities that the path passes through show absolutely zero
commercial benefit.

Cyclist mode share will always be a drop in the bucket in
America. The question is whether that drop is worthwhile
and from me that gets an enthusiastic yes.

Yes, we know that _you_ believe this. But your personal
beliefs don't justify spending millions of dollars,
especially on projects with questionable design - which
applies to most of the bike facilities currently being
touted.


Folsom sure has smart leaders who understand the benefits of
bike paths. The result is a bustling business scene and home
values that reflect the desire of people wanting to move there.
I personally met several people who bought a house in Folsom
because of the Willow Creek bike path system which connects to
the larger systems in the area.

By now it doesn't even matter much where in Folsom you buy an
house. They have a rule that every new development must have
bike facilities. If large enough it must be class I for the
main thoroughfares. In any case it must connect to the system.
The developer is responsible for making that happen or they
won't get permits.

Damned zoning and development rules! Fascist Folsom government.
No wonder it's a prison community. It's funny how the wild-west
libertarian loves zoning if it involves dedicating land for bike
paths.


That is not zoning, it is the usual road infrastructure built by
developers through a new neighborhood. After all, you can't sell
many homes if people don't have garages and can't drive up to their
house, and the moving truck can't either. So, logically, Folsom's
leaders are of the opinion that cyclists are equally valuable and
also provide infrastructure for them. Which is rewarded by
increased interest in these development, which increases home
price, which increases tax revenue, which gives Folsom money for
even more such cycling infrastructure. And that shows.


Pfff. Zoning! Developers are not putting in bike paths because it
sells houses or because they are cycling fans. To be specific, the
Folsom subdivision code, which is often called the development code
in other cities provides:
http://www.codepublishing.com/CA/Fol.../Folsom16.html

16.32.010 Dedications of streets, alleys and other public
right-of-way or easements.

A. As a condition of approval of a tentative map, the subdivider
shall dedicate or make an irrevocable offer of dedication of all
parcels of land within the subdivision that are needed for streets
and alleys, local transit facilities, public access easements,
including access rights and abutters’ rights, drainage, public
greenways, bicycle paths, trails, open space easements, sunlight
easements, landscape easements, scenic easements, public utility
easements and other public easements. In addition, the subdivider
shall improve or agree to improve all streets and alleys, including
access rights and abutters’ rights, drainage, public greenways,
bicycle paths, trails, public utility easements and other public
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

And that's exactly the point, bicycle paths.


... easements.

B. All dedications and/or all irrevocable offers of dedications
shall be necessary to ensure consistency and/or implementation of the
general plan, or any applicable specific plan.

C. Improvements shall be in accordance with Chapter 16.36 of this
title. (Ord. 702 § 1 (part), 1991)

Go develop some property in Folsom, and you'll get a taste of the
plan or "map" approval process and endless hoop-jumping. Wait until
you get to the environmental regulations.


Then why do you think this is happening right now?

https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article154936164.html

It's just one example. There is another development ongoing north of Hwy
50 which will ultimately (finally!) result in a road with bike lanes
connecting El Dorado Hills and Folsom. What was un-American before and
has remained so up to now was that decades ago they put in a Highway and
simply mounted signs "No pedestrians, bicycles and mopeds". IOW saying
"If you want to go to the next town use your car instead".


... The reason there are bike
paths is because developers have been compelled to dedicate the paths
as part of plan approval. No paths, no development. ...


Yup. That's what I said and that's good. In the same way developers are
and should be held accountable to provide gridlock remedy. Which can
mean that larger new developments require the developer to pay for an
additional freeway lane and ramps. Do you think this is right or wrong?


... It's totally un-American.


It's not. When you take away someone's travels paths by, for example,
building a main road across it, you must make amendds for that. That is
very American. We are a society where you can't easily take away one's
rights and get away with it.


... Next they'll be taking our guns!


In California they always try to but that ain't gonna work.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

On Thursday, July 5, 2018 at 9:43:35 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-07-05 09:00, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, July 5, 2018 at 7:09:14 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-07-04 14:53, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, July 4, 2018 at 1:06:03 PM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-07-04 12:29, Frank Krygowski wrote:

[...]

The longer path passes through nine municipalities worthy of
the name. One has a bike shop that might not be there without
the path. Another has a coffee shop. It used to have a bike
shop next door, but that bike shop moved to a busier
commercial location and is doing much better. The two largest
cities that the path passes through show absolutely zero
commercial benefit.

Cyclist mode share will always be a drop in the bucket in
America. The question is whether that drop is worthwhile
and from me that gets an enthusiastic yes.

Yes, we know that _you_ believe this. But your personal
beliefs don't justify spending millions of dollars,
especially on projects with questionable design - which
applies to most of the bike facilities currently being
touted.


Folsom sure has smart leaders who understand the benefits of
bike paths. The result is a bustling business scene and home
values that reflect the desire of people wanting to move there.
I personally met several people who bought a house in Folsom
because of the Willow Creek bike path system which connects to
the larger systems in the area.

By now it doesn't even matter much where in Folsom you buy an
house. They have a rule that every new development must have
bike facilities. If large enough it must be class I for the
main thoroughfares. In any case it must connect to the system.
The developer is responsible for making that happen or they
won't get permits.

Damned zoning and development rules! Fascist Folsom government.
No wonder it's a prison community. It's funny how the wild-west
libertarian loves zoning if it involves dedicating land for bike
paths.


That is not zoning, it is the usual road infrastructure built by
developers through a new neighborhood. After all, you can't sell
many homes if people don't have garages and can't drive up to their
house, and the moving truck can't either. So, logically, Folsom's
leaders are of the opinion that cyclists are equally valuable and
also provide infrastructure for them. Which is rewarded by
increased interest in these development, which increases home
price, which increases tax revenue, which gives Folsom money for
even more such cycling infrastructure. And that shows.


Pfff. Zoning! Developers are not putting in bike paths because it
sells houses or because they are cycling fans. To be specific, the
Folsom subdivision code, which is often called the development code
in other cities provides:
http://www.codepublishing.com/CA/Fol.../Folsom16.html

16.32.010 Dedications of streets, alleys and other public
right-of-way or easements.

A. As a condition of approval of a tentative map, the subdivider
shall dedicate or make an irrevocable offer of dedication of all
parcels of land within the subdivision that are needed for streets
and alleys, local transit facilities, public access easements,
including access rights and abutters’ rights, drainage, public
greenways, bicycle paths, trails, open space easements, sunlight
easements, landscape easements, scenic easements, public utility
easements and other public easements. In addition, the subdivider
shall improve or agree to improve all streets and alleys, including
access rights and abutters’ rights, drainage, public greenways,
bicycle paths, trails, public utility easements and other public
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

And that's exactly the point, bicycle paths.


... easements.

B. All dedications and/or all irrevocable offers of dedications
shall be necessary to ensure consistency and/or implementation of the
general plan, or any applicable specific plan.

C. Improvements shall be in accordance with Chapter 16.36 of this
title. (Ord. 702 § 1 (part), 1991)

Go develop some property in Folsom, and you'll get a taste of the
plan or "map" approval process and endless hoop-jumping. Wait until
you get to the environmental regulations.


Then why do you think this is happening right now?

https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article154936164.html

It's just one example. There is another development ongoing north of Hwy
50 which will ultimately (finally!) result in a road with bike lanes
connecting El Dorado Hills and Folsom. What was un-American before and
has remained so up to now was that decades ago they put in a Highway and
simply mounted signs "No pedestrians, bicycles and mopeds". IOW saying
"If you want to go to the next town use your car instead".


... The reason there are bike
paths is because developers have been compelled to dedicate the paths
as part of plan approval. No paths, no development. ...


Yup. That's what I said and that's good. In the same way developers are
and should be held accountable to provide gridlock remedy. Which can
mean that larger new developments require the developer to pay for an
additional freeway lane and ramps. Do you think this is right or wrong?


... It's totally un-American.


It's not. When you take away someone's travels paths by, for example,
building a main road across it, you must make amendds for that. That is
very American. We are a society where you can't easily take away one's
rights and get away with it.


... Next they'll be taking our guns!


In California they always try to but that ain't gonna work.

O.K., brief recap -- you hate zoning, then you say that bike paths are not required by zoning, and then you zip by the cited Folsom subdivision code requiring the dedication of bike paths -- which is a zoning/building requirement. First things first. The bike lanes you love are the result of the zoning you hate.

You also hate government appropriation of personal property. The town of Folsom is telling people -- good Amer-y-cun developers -- that they have to give up land in order to obtain plan approval. That land could provided 10-20% more lots. That's regulatory taking of land. You should be up in arms, leading a MAGA parade against the Draconian land use laws that steal property from hard-working developers. You are clearly a land socialist -- or even communist, taking other people's land for your bicycle paths. Welcome comrade!

Yes, developments will continue. There is so much dirt in your neck of the woods and so many people will to buy POS mini-McMansions that developers can give up a bunch for a park or bike path or school. They also pay development costs related to wider infrastructure needs, but never enough -- which is why there are often goat roads going into these mega developments. My father lived in Roseville Sun City post-retirement, and it was a perfect example -- big development with narrow arterials outside the development. Oh, more of the sprawl you hate.

And as for taking away travel paths, if that travel path is across private property, the property owner has absolutely no obligation to create a new path for erstwhile trespassers. Maybe an adjacent landowner could claim an easement by necessity or adverse possession, but not some dope on a bike who had his favorite trail cut-off.

If its a public road that is abandoned, there is no obligation to create a new road. Abandoned roads revert to the land owner who gets a bigger front yard, or gets his front yard back, depending on how you look at it.

What ever happened to property rights and doing whatever you want on your property? Why should developers have to pay for your bike path? They already pay for roads. They should be able to build 10X10 shacks and stack them on top of each other. https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/k...ity/index.html Live free or die!


You want the beer, you should pay for the bike path. Folsom should toll the bike paths and throw in a special tax on beer consumed by bicyclists so they pay their fair share.

-- Jay Beattie.

On 2018-07-05 10:59, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, July 5, 2018 at 9:43:35 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-07-05 09:00, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, July 5, 2018 at 7:09:14 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-07-04 14:53, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, July 4, 2018 at 1:06:03 PM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-07-04 12:29, Frank Krygowski wrote:

[...]

The longer path passes through nine municipalities worthy
of the name. One has a bike shop that might not be there
without the path. Another has a coffee shop. It used to
have a bike shop next door, but that bike shop moved to a
busier commercial location and is doing much better. The
two largest cities that the path passes through show
absolutely zero commercial benefit.

Cyclist mode share will always be a drop in the bucket
in America. The question is whether that drop is
worthwhile and from me that gets an enthusiastic yes.

Yes, we know that _you_ believe this. But your personal
beliefs don't justify spending millions of dollars,
especially on projects with questionable design - which
applies to most of the bike facilities currently being
touted.


Folsom sure has smart leaders who understand the benefits
of bike paths. The result is a bustling business scene and
home values that reflect the desire of people wanting to
move there. I personally met several people who bought a
house in Folsom because of the Willow Creek bike path
system which connects to the larger systems in the area.

By now it doesn't even matter much where in Folsom you buy
an house. They have a rule that every new development must
have bike facilities. If large enough it must be class I
for the main thoroughfares. In any case it must connect to
the system. The developer is responsible for making that
happen or they won't get permits.

Damned zoning and development rules! Fascist Folsom
government. No wonder it's a prison community. It's funny how
the wild-west libertarian loves zoning if it involves
dedicating land for bike paths.


That is not zoning, it is the usual road infrastructure built
by developers through a new neighborhood. After all, you can't
sell many homes if people don't have garages and can't drive up
to their house, and the moving truck can't either. So,
logically, Folsom's leaders are of the opinion that cyclists
are equally valuable and also provide infrastructure for them.
Which is rewarded by increased interest in these development,
which increases home price, which increases tax revenue, which
gives Folsom money for even more such cycling infrastructure.
And that shows.


Pfff. Zoning! Developers are not putting in bike paths because
it sells houses or because they are cycling fans. To be specific,
the Folsom subdivision code, which is often called the
development code in other cities provides:
http://www.codepublishing.com/CA/Fol.../Folsom16.html



16.32.010 Dedications of streets, alleys and other public
right-of-way or easements.

A. As a condition of approval of a tentative map, the
subdivider shall dedicate or make an irrevocable offer of
dedication of all parcels of land within the subdivision that are
needed for streets and alleys, local transit facilities, public
access easements, including access rights and abutters’ rights,
drainage, public greenways, bicycle paths, trails, open space
easements, sunlight easements, landscape easements, scenic
easements, public utility easements and other public easements.
In addition, the subdivider shall improve or agree to improve all
streets and alleys, including access rights and abutters’ rights,
drainage, public greenways, bicycle paths, trails, public utility
easements and other public
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

And that's exactly the point, bicycle paths.


... easements.

B. All dedications and/or all irrevocable offers of
dedications shall be necessary to ensure consistency and/or
implementation of the general plan, or any applicable specific
plan.

C. Improvements shall be in accordance with Chapter 16.36 of
this title. (Ord. 702 § 1 (part), 1991)

Go develop some property in Folsom, and you'll get a taste of
the plan or "map" approval process and endless hoop-jumping. Wait
until you get to the environmental regulations.


Then why do you think this is happening right now?

https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article154936164.html

It's just one example. There is another development ongoing north
of Hwy 50 which will ultimately (finally!) result in a road with
bike lanes connecting El Dorado Hills and Folsom. What was
un-American before and has remained so up to now was that decades
ago they put in a Highway and simply mounted signs "No pedestrians,
bicycles and mopeds". IOW saying "If you want to go to the next
town use your car instead".


... The reason there are bike paths is because developers have
been compelled to dedicate the paths as part of plan approval.
No paths, no development. ...


Yup. That's what I said and that's good. In the same way developers
are and should be held accountable to provide gridlock remedy.
Which can mean that larger new developments require the developer
to pay for an additional freeway lane and ramps. Do you think this
is right or wrong?


... It's totally un-American.


It's not. When you take away someone's travels paths by, for
example, building a main road across it, you must make amendds for
that. That is very American. We are a society where you can't
easily take away one's rights and get away with it.


... Next they'll be taking our guns!


In California they always try to but that ain't gonna work.

O.K., brief recap -- you hate zoning, then you say that bike paths
are not required by zoning,...


Huh? Where did I say that?


... and then you zip by the cited Folsom
subdivision code requiring the dedication of bike paths -- which is a
zoning/building requirement. First things first. The bike lanes you
love are the result of the zoning you hate.


Bike paths have nothing to do with zoning. They are for reaching homes,
retail, restaurants, parks and work places. All of the above, not just
one of the above. That's how Folsom's city leaders see it and that's how
I see it.


You also hate government appropriation of personal property. The
town of Folsom is telling people -- good Amer-y-cun developers --
that they have to give up land in order to obtain plan approval.
That land could provided 10-20% more lots. That's regulatory taking
of land. You should be up in arms, leading a MAGA parade against the
Draconian land use laws that steal property from hard-working
developers. You are clearly a land socialist -- or even communist,
taking other people's land for your bicycle paths. Welcome comrade!


Not at all. With any development there are requirments. This is not Fort
Zinderneuf in the desert, this is urban California. So a developer needs
to inquire _before_ buying the land what's required to turn this in
homes and thus lots of profit. Just like you can't buy a swatch of land
and then decide "Oh, let's take a lot of dynamite and get rid of that
ridge over there".


Yes, developments will continue. There is so much dirt in your neck
of the woods and so many people will to buy POS mini-McMansions that
developers can give up a bunch for a park or bike path or school.
They also pay development costs related to wider infrastructure
needs, but never enough -- which is why there are often goat roads
going into these mega developments. My father lived in Roseville Sun
City post-retirement, and it was a perfect example -- big development
with narrow arterials outside the development. Oh, more of the sprawl
you hate.


Where did I say I hat sprawl? It'll always happen, it's the people's
right, we just have to manage it right.


And as for taking away travel paths, if that travel path is across
private property, the property owner has absolutely no obligation to
create a new path for erstwhile trespassers. Maybe an adjacent
landowner could claim an easement by necessity or adverse possession,
but not some dope on a bike who had his favorite trail cut-off.


The government does have that obligation if they cut off access by means
of building a freeway restricted to motor vehicles.


If its a public road that is abandoned, there is no obligation to
create a new road. Abandoned roads revert to the land owner who gets
a bigger front yard, or gets his front yard back, depending on how
you look at it.


Again, Highway 50 was not abandoned, it was _built_ and then in our area
restricted to motor vehicles.


What ever happened to property rights and doing whatever you want on
your property? Why should developers have to pay for your bike path?


Because they must abide by city code. Else they should buy on the
outskirts of Fort Zinderneuf, build and then pound sand while waiting
for buyers.


They already pay for roads. They should be able to build 10X10 shacks
and stack them on top of each other.
https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/k...ity/index.html
Live free or die!


Not sure what's free about that. Let there be sprawl, that "city" would
have needed it. Just imagine someone on the 1st floor has a major
incident involving a gas stove, a deep fryer and lots of grease. Or a
6.0 temblor rolls through.



You want the beer, you should pay for the bike path. Folsom should
toll the bike paths and throw in a special tax on beer consumed by
bicyclists so they pay their fair share.


Nope. I already pay enough in taxes. Bike paths receive federal funding
so even people not living there pay for them.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

On Tuesday, June 26, 2018 at 2:24:55 PM UTC-4, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-06-26 08:57, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Interesting article, with data, about how much the Dutch actually ride
their bikes.

https://peopleforbikes.org/blog/best...h-hardly-bike/


Turns out they average, oh, maybe a mile or two per day.


That was quite different when I lived in the Netherlands in the 80's.
Whenever I asked friends "Hey, want to have a few beers and a cheese
platter in the Kaaskelder?" the answer was usually "YES!". That meant
40mi round trip with the return part in the night yet everyone naturally
assumed we'd bike there. The decision was greatly helped by an almost
seemless bike path from A to Z.


That works for them because their cities are so dense that many
destinations are less than a mile away. That comes from having cities
that were founded in medieval times.


No, that comes from not having the stupid zoning laws we have. If I
needed groceries or nearly anything else I could walk. As in "just
across the street" which is, for example, where the grocery store was.
The bank was immediately next door, literally. The post office was
diagonally across the street. The next church was less than 500ft away.
And so on.


... When things are more than a couple
miles away, they tend to leave the bike and use other modes.

So we can get Dutch bike mode shares if we start work on our cities
early enough. Like, back in 1400 AD or so.


Last time I was there I had the impression cycling wasn't quite as
popular as in the 80's. New generations? Who knows.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

If everything is/was so great in Europe then why do/did so many Europeans emigrate to the U.S.A. and/or Canada?

Cheers

On 2018-07-07 08:29, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Tuesday, June 26, 2018 at 2:24:55 PM UTC-4, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-06-26 08:57, Frank Krygowski wrote:

[...]


... When things are more than a couple miles away, they tend to
leave the bike and use other modes.

So we can get Dutch bike mode shares if we start work on our
cities early enough. Like, back in 1400 AD or so.


Last time I was there I had the impression cycling wasn't quite as
popular as in the 80's. New generations? Who knows.

-- Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

If everything is/was so great in Europe then why do/did so many
Europeans emigrate to the U.S.A. and/or Canada?


Because not everything is/was so great in Europe. While they typically
do not have stupid zoning laws the business climate in some countries
can be much worse than in the US. That matters because one has to
generate an income. And believe it or not, compared to the US the German
bike paths (not the Dutch or Danish ones) are the pits.

Once you've lived in several countries you become able to compare. But
only after truly living there, not just a couple of weeks of vacation.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

On Saturday, July 7, 2018 at 12:02:22 PM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-07-07 08:29, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Tuesday, June 26, 2018 at 2:24:55 PM UTC-4, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-06-26 08:57, Frank Krygowski wrote:

[...]


... When things are more than a couple miles away, they tend to
leave the bike and use other modes.

So we can get Dutch bike mode shares if we start work on our
cities early enough. Like, back in 1400 AD or so.


Last time I was there I had the impression cycling wasn't quite as
popular as in the 80's. New generations? Who knows.

-- Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

If everything is/was so great in Europe then why do/did so many
Europeans emigrate to the U.S.A. and/or Canada?


Because not everything is/was so great in Europe. While they typically
do not have stupid zoning laws the business climate in some countries
can be much worse than in the US. That matters because one has to
generate an income. And believe it or not, compared to the US the German
bike paths (not the Dutch or Danish ones) are the pits.

Once you've lived in several countries you become able to compare. But
only after truly living there, not just a couple of weeks of vacation.

Be specific. What stupid zoning laws are you talking about? Every home-rule town in the US has its own zoning code. You seem to like the Folsom zoning code, which is responsible for the awesome bike paths to the brew pub.

Go shopping for zoning you like. You could always move to Leavenworth Washington and live in the synthetic old world! http://leavenworth.org/ No state income tax and great riding. You can wear your Tyrolean hat and lederhosen.. I know you have a pair or two.

-- Jay Beattie.

On 2018-07-07 16:00, jbeattie wrote:
On Saturday, July 7, 2018 at 12:02:22 PM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-07-07 08:29, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Tuesday, June 26, 2018 at 2:24:55 PM UTC-4, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-06-26 08:57, Frank Krygowski wrote:

[...]


... When things are more than a couple miles away, they tend
to leave the bike and use other modes.

So we can get Dutch bike mode shares if we start work on our
cities early enough. Like, back in 1400 AD or so.


Last time I was there I had the impression cycling wasn't quite
as popular as in the 80's. New generations? Who knows.

-- Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

If everything is/was so great in Europe then why do/did so many
Europeans emigrate to the U.S.A. and/or Canada?


Because not everything is/was so great in Europe. While they
typically do not have stupid zoning laws the business climate in
some countries can be much worse than in the US. That matters
because one has to generate an income. And believe it or not,
compared to the US the German bike paths (not the Dutch or Danish
ones) are the pits.

Once you've lived in several countries you become able to compare.
But only after truly living there, not just a couple of weeks of
vacation.

Be specific. What stupid zoning laws are you talking about?


I have described it ad nauseam. Zones for industrial, zones for
commercial/retail, zones for residential with strictly zero retail or
restaurants/bars. This result in the need for almost all people to be in
their cars for every little errand. Mama runs out of flour, mama or
someone else sits in the car driving to the store because there is none
in the area. It is the typical scenarios you find in most American towns.

... Every
home-rule town in the US has its own zoning code. You seem to like
the Folsom zoning code, which is responsible for the awesome bike
paths to the brew pub.


Folsom's zoning is quite screwed up as well but there is one major
difference: You can easily get from residential zones to commercial ones
and even industrial (meaning to your work place) via bike path.

Since Folsom's city leaders are way smarter than those of most other
cities they are willing to learn, and have learned:

https://www.folsom.ca.us/city_hall/d...on/default.asp

Quote " A central feature of the FPASP is mixed-use town and
neighborhood centers intended to create walkable neighborhoods, reduce
automobile use, and encourage more internal trips. The FPSP calls for
the entitlement of 11,461 housing units, 2.8 million square feet of
office and commercial uses, three public schools, ..."

Needless to say, that new development will also have a complete bike
path network. There is a beneficial snowball effect from Folsom's
planning capabilities. Neighboring cities such as Rancho Cordova are now
going a similar route. For example, their new Stone Creek development
has shops and stuff right at its perimater. Even if you run out of wood
glue or deck screws you can hop on your bike and cycle to Lowe's, on
bike paths.


Go shopping for zoning you like. You could always move to Leavenworth
Washington and live in the synthetic old world!


Most of the world has this in a non-synthetic version. Actually, one of
my cycling buddies and his wife are contemplating moving to Bavaria (the
real one) for a year or so. Sometimes we speak German during rides just
for kicks or for training.


http://leavenworth.org/ No state income tax and great riding.


And Trumpybear could ride along in back :-)


... You can
wear your Tyrolean hat and lederhosen. I know you have a pair or
two.


I only had one pair as a kid. Ruined in just a few days, mom was livid
about that because Lederhosen are expensive.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

On Mon, 2 Jul 2018 07:10:58 -0500, Doug Cimperman
wrote:

If you wanted more people in the US to bicycle, I'd think you'd have
to give them e-bikes to do it. And then you'd only add a few younger
guys, if the distance was short and the weather was fairly nice.

99.99% of women old enough to 'need' makeup simply won't do it, riding
inside a motor vehicle is just the expected level of luxury. If you
are a bicycle activist in the US, you might as well forget about them.
Women would only try it if they had no other choice except walking.
(and US e-bikes don't even require you to pedal at all)

I don't know if your "99.99%" number is correct, but I see a lot of
women out on bikes who sure look like they're going to work or class.
But as a rule of thumb around here, I would bet that 1% of commuters
ride a bike to work, school or for errands. And that's an uptick- a few
year back when gas topped $4 per gallon, there was an immediate bump in
people appearing to be riding to work. Interestingly it seems that a
lot of those folks continued commuting by bike when the price of gas
dropped. Must be enjoying themselves.

I usually ride to work one day a week, but it is also the shortest
commute of my work week (I work in 8 locations a week, from less than 1
mile from home 8-10 miles from home to 30 miles from home; also anywhere
from two blocks to 15 miles between work sites). With nowhere to change
at work, I ride in my work clothes so on warm to hot days commuting by
bike presents problems with turning up drenched in sweat. Call it
vanity if you wll, but my clients probably wouldn't appreciate me
stinking.

European cities have some tendency to be more compact with shorter rides
(1-2 km) for work and errands. American urban areas tend to be spread
out so that we can all have our half acre of lawn or more. We really
don't want to have to get to know our neighbors (while decrying the
deterioration of civil society).

On 7/9/2018 12:12 AM, Tim McNamara wrote:

European cities have some tendency to be more compact with shorter rides
(1-2 km) for work and errands. American urban areas tend to be spread
out so that we can all have our half acre of lawn or more.

Where I live, a 2 km ride will get me to and from the library, our
dentist, the post office, the pharmacy and one convenience/beer store.
Hardware, groceries, restaurants, credit union or anything else is
further. I'm fine with that, but most Americans (probably like most
Europeans) will never ride 10 miles to get to and from their credit union.

We really
don't want to have to get to know our neighbors (while decrying the
deterioration of civil society).

That is a sad truth. It's changed greatly from when I was a kid, long
ago. It's changed even since we moved into this house, over 35 years ago.

The neighborhood recently went through some churning, with several
long-time residents either dying or moving out. The dude who moved in
across the street showed no interest in anything more than "Oh, hi" when
I went over to welcome him to the neighborhood. Tellingly, when he
arrived, a new wireless router appeared in the menus. It's named
"badassmotherf**cker". Charming.

Other new couples give no more than a nod as we walk or bike past. One
nice young couple moved in and were friendly, but moved back out after
less than three years. It generally seems to take about three or four
years to get past the "Oh hi" stage and into real conversations and
social contact.

I have to believe that when people had front porches and sidewalks, when
people traveled without being locked in a glass and steel box,
neighborhood relationships happened more quickly and more often.


--
- Frank Krygowski