|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#81
|
|||
|
|||
Build it and they won't come
On 2017-09-29 09:05, sms wrote:
On 9/29/2017 7:30 AM, Joerg wrote: snip Over 1% which is a lot for the US, a society that unfortunately is car-centric and not very keen on more healthy modes of transportation. Best of all we now have some longhaul riders like myself, people who cycle to places like Intel despite each trip being two-digit miles. Before they bnuilt out bike lanes on the county road towards the west the number of cyclists there was close to zero. Now you always see cyclists and despite the significantly higher number there has not been one new cross with a spoke wheel in front. I clearly see that among neighbors and friends. "Hey, you've got a nice bike in the garage. Want to ride?" ... "Nah, too dangerous" ... "How about we truck them to the trail head and ride from there?" ... "Yes!" Bringa trail head to their neighborhood and they'll ride a lot more, without first using their cars. The city of Folsom has proven it. During rush hour some of segregated their bike paths are now so full that I avoid going through that area during the evening hours. Bike paths are a good thing. Last night we had a "Transportation Seminar" in my city. I had voted against spending $25,000 for a series of "seminars" because I knew that they would be packed with faux consultants and developer hacks, and I was not disappointed. Bicycles must have been mentioned ten times. I was also amazed to hear these consultants mention Frank, Lou, and Jay. Summary. 1. Increase density, or "Build it and we'll figure out later how to get them to come and go." First build high-density housing, and when the traffic congestion becomes unbearable then maybe someone will build mass transit, with non-existent money. I don't think that a single person in the room believed this tripe, yet there are YIMBY groups that promote this approach. What HAS worked in this area, and which the single experienced person on the panel explained, is to build mass transit and then wait for higher density housing and commercial office to be built next to it, but it takes several decades for this to happen, and building mass transit is enormously expensive. I do not believe in that philosophy at all. ... In Silicon Valley, the old tilt-up one and two story buildings along rail lines are coming down, and higher buildings are replacing them, but it took decades of terrible ridership numbers before this happened. 2. Spend billions of dollars of non-existent money on mass transit. Exactly the point. It should not be done. Either the money is there or it isn't. When it isn't, do not build. "There's no more land for freeways so we can take the billions of dollars we would have spent on freeways and spend it on mass transit." What?! Where are those billions of dollars coming from? They don't exist! This reminds me of checking out at Safeway where the cashier is required to tell you "how much you saved." You saved fifteen dollars and forty-five cents today Mr. Scharf." I reply, "well give it to me then," and, not sure if I'm serious, they begin to explain how I'm not actually getting that money, it's just money that I didn't spend, and now I have it to spend on other things, even though it's money I never actually had. When the faux consultant said this, you could see people in the audience looking at each other in bewilderment. 3. Bike mode share has doubled. Okay, fair enough, but going from 1% to 2% is not exactly a big accomplishment. For America it is! ... In an area with mild weather, and where most large employers provide shower facilities and secure parking, the share should be much higher. But there are good reasons why more people don't bicycle to work, especially people with young children where both parents work. As empty nesters, we bicycle a lot, but when our kids were young we had to rush from work to pick them up from after-school care. That was very different in Europe where we lived for decades. No parent in their right mind would become soccer mom or dad unless you had a kid with disabilities. As kids we either used public transit with rather sub-optimal connections or our bikes. After one year of riding the transit bus I switched to my road bike. To school and everywhere else. Rain or shine, sleet, snow, ice, all the time. In America we have to ween ourselves off of helicopter-parenting. 4. Uber/Lyft. These faux consultants think that Uber/Lyft are the solution to "the last mile" between mass transit (trains, since no one will take public buses). Yet they don't understand, or won't admit, that the Uber/Lyft business model of subsidizing 50-60% of the cost of each ride (or even 25%) can't continue indefinitely, and once these services have to end predatory pricing, and price their product so they can at least break even, their product will have a much smaller market. Uber and Lyft also causes more traffic congestion and hurts mass transit ridership. If you have to pay for a Lyft or Uber ride for the last mile, four times a day, plus pay the train fare, you're just going to drive. In San Francisco, there used to be privately-owned jitneys that took people to the train station, but those disappeared, but are now coming back http://www.sfexaminer.com/sf-planning-first-kind-laws-jitney-private-bus-system-chariot/. "Oh, we'll just sell some more bonds!" :-) 5. The panel was moderated by someone from the San Jose Planning Commission, which is adopting plans that will greatly increase traffic congestion by adding massive amounts of housing and commercial space along corridors with no mass transit, and she previously worked for the Silicon Valley Leadership Group, which has been instrumental in preventing any taxes on their member businesses to pay for transit, instead lobbying for extremely regressive sale taxes to fund mass transit, with most of the money going just to San Jose. She is also the director of the Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition. Not an impartial moderator, and she carefully picked the questions that were submitted by the public to advance the agenda of those that selected her. 6. Electric bicycles. As Lou pointed out, and was pointed out last night, electric bicycles are extremely popular in Europe and Asia but not in the U.S.. Electric bicycles extend the distance that non-hard-core riders are willing to commute, from 5-6 miles to 10-15 miles. This could actually increase the bicycle mode percentage by a few percent when coupled with better bicycle infrastructure, which is comparatively cheap to build, compared with freeways or light rail lines. Maybe employers could subsidize the cost of electric bicycles, or buy a fleet of them for employees to use. As the cost of electric bicycles continues to fall, I think the adoption rate in the U.S. will go up. If you could buy a quality electric bicycle for under $1000, and there's no reason this is not doable, they would sell better, but now we're seeing prices of $2000-5000 for good electric bicycles in the U.S.. Risky. Those things will becomes faster, be souped up by youngsters, and essentially become powerful motor vehicles on bike paths. Not good. 7. Buses on shoulders. OMG, this insanity is spreading. The idea is that since the HOV lanes are congested with Teslas, plug-in hybrids, Leafs, and solo drivers willing to pay to use these lanes, we should allow buses to drive on the left shoulder of freeways. Well this actually might help Google, Apple, Facebook, Yahoo, etc. buses, but it's not going to get the remaining commuters onto public buses. 8. I about fell out of my chair when they mentioned Frank. Well not by name. One of the panelists said that we should be happy that we have so much traffic congestion because it was caused by a healthy economy, and that cities like Youngstown Ohio would love to have the problems that we have, and he put up a slide of traffic in that area (none). Nuts. I thought that it was in poor taste because the struggles of post-industrial cities are not a joking matter, and what really needs to happen is that the tech companies need to stop putting every new job in Silicon Valley, and spread out across the country. There are plenty of tech workers that would love to live in a place where they can afford a house instead of paying $3.5K per month for a one bedroom apartment. Yes, but companies will not move to areas that are non-right-to-work or under any other union stranglehold. Then there is the critical mass thing. You need to have a certain pool of talent available without having to move everyone out there. 9. They also talked about Jay in Portland, and how the bicycle mode share has increased, and how well mass transit is working. No one must have told them about declining mass transit ridership in Portland http://www.oregonlive.com/commuting/index.ssf/2017/09/trimet_report_rising_housing_c.html. And while Portland has a very high bicycle commuting share, they recently reduced their goal of bicycle commuting from 25% to 15%. Though that's excellent for the US. 10. Self-driving cars and ZOVs (Zero Occupancy Vehicles). Uber and Lyft believe that the key to profitability is in eliminating having to pay drivers, which is why they are willing to lose billions of dollars of investors money in the short term. But self-driving cars will only add to congestion. Instead of parking at the destination, the self-driving car will go back on the road empty, and either drive to the outskirts of a city where there is sufficient free parking, or will just drive around empty until it is summoned by another user. In large cities, Uber and Lyft are greatly increasing traffic congestion, not just by drivers aimlessly driving around waiting for a fare, or parking illegally, but because the subsidized fares are taking people off of mass transit. They could have also considered a self-flying SkyCar ... The real solution was never mentioned of course. There are two things that have been proven to work: A. Fast rail transit to outlying areas with more land for housing. There is actually slow rail transit that was started to do this, the ACE train but it's a long ride because they are using very old rail infrastructure with diesel locomotives. And like all mass transit, every additional train requires more subsidies, so there is a reluctance to expand or improve the service. Caltrain runs only four of their trains a day (two in the morning and two in the evening) to the outlying areas of Morgan Hill and Gilroy, and the last evening train leaves San Jose too early for most tech workers. B. Reducing demand. It's heresy to ever say that perhaps not every new tech job needs to be in Silicon Valley. Cities love commercial office buildings because of the taxes they receive, while taxes on housing don't cover the cost of providing services. All my own tech jobs are ... right here. I have a Zoom account and that suffices to do even most diagnostic jobs across cyberspace. More and more instruments such as oscilloscopes can be web-connected and can even be remotely operated. Last year was the first year where the number of business flights for me was zero. It works. Oh, and it was also the first year my car mileage dropped below 1000mi/year. -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ |
Ads |
#83
|
|||
|
|||
Build it and they won't come
On Thursday, September 28, 2017 at 9:05:50 AM UTC-5, wrote:
Since I paid $55 for two flank steaks (which is a cheap cut of meat for the uninformed), two market steaks (a cheap sort of New York cut) and two boneless pork chops and everyone here treated it as some sort of lie or again some outrageously priced high end place instead of a normal butcher shop one can only assume that none of you actually shop or cook. Based on your writing, I will assume you paid $55 (MY GOD!!!) for four steaks and two pork chops. Six pieces of meat. Assume each is half pound, so three pounds of meat total. Three pounds of meat for $55!!!! May I suggest that you stop going to a "butcher" shop and just go to the local grocery store. They have a meat department too. They will sell you the same meat you bought at the butcher shop. I'm sure you will not have to pay $18.33 per pound for your meat at the local grocery store. Stop using the butcher shop. Save your family some money. |
#84
|
|||
|
|||
Build it and they won't come
On 29/09/2017 3:07 PM, wrote:
On Thursday, September 28, 2017 at 9:05:50 AM UTC-5, wrote: Since I paid $55 for two flank steaks (which is a cheap cut of meat for the uninformed), two market steaks (a cheap sort of New York cut) and two boneless pork chops and everyone here treated it as some sort of lie or again some outrageously priced high end place instead of a normal butcher shop one can only assume that none of you actually shop or cook. Based on your writing, I will assume you paid $55 (MY GOD!!!) for four steaks and two pork chops. Six pieces of meat. Assume each is half pound, so three pounds of meat total. Three pounds of meat for $55!!!! May I suggest that you stop going to a "butcher" shop and just go to the local grocery store. They have a meat department too. They will sell you the same meat you bought at the butcher shop. I'm sure you will not have to pay $18.33 per pound for your meat at the local grocery store. Stop using the butcher shop. Save your family some money. Beef has been expensive here lately. Loblaws is a grocery store, not a butcher. https://www.loblaws.ca/search/150671...~selected/true But still $18/lb is a lot for flank steak and pork chops. |
#85
|
|||
|
|||
Build it and they won't come
|
#86
|
|||
|
|||
Build it and they won't come
Duane wrote:
On 29/09/2017 3:07 PM, wrote: On Thursday, September 28, 2017 at 9:05:50 AM UTC-5, wrote: Since I paid $55 for two flank steaks (which is a cheap cut of meat for the uninformed), two market steaks (a cheap sort of New York cut) and two boneless pork chops and everyone here treated it as some sort of lie or again some outrageously priced high end place instead of a normal butcher shop one can only assume that none of you actually shop or cook. Based on your writing, I will assume you paid $55 (MY GOD!!!) for four steaks and two pork chops. Six pieces of meat. Assume each is half pound, so three pounds of meat total. Three pounds of meat for $55!!!! May I suggest that you stop going to a "butcher" shop and just go to the local grocery store. They have a meat department too. They will sell you the same meat you bought at the butcher shop. I'm sure you will not have to pay $18.33 per pound for your meat at the local grocery store. Stop using the butcher shop. Save your family some money. Beef has been expensive here lately. Loblaws is a grocery store, not a butcher. https://www.loblaws.ca/search/150671...~selected/true But still $18/lb is a lot for flank steak and pork chops. I should point out that the CAD/US exchange rate is currently .8009. -- duane |
#87
|
|||
|
|||
Build it and they won't come
On 9/29/2017 1:03 AM, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 28 Sep 2017 23:24:54 -0500, Tim McNamara wrote: On Thu, 28 Sep 2017 09:46:04 +0700, John B wrote: I've a good friend who is from Perth, Western Australia, who tells me that nearly all the vegetables sold in Perth are actually Chinese grown and shipped to Australia via refrigerated containers, as they are cheaper then veggies grown in Australia. Slave labor saves money, keeps costs down *and* boosts profits: http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...josh-gelernter http://content.time.com/time/world/a...635144,00.html If we get rid of enough government regulation, maybe we can do that in the US too! Hey, wait, we've got a start on that already: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2...invisible-army http://tinyurl.com/ya4w4ojz Well, given that the U.S. has a prison population of 693/100,000 population while China has 116/100,000 it appears that just maybe the Chinese are doing something right. -- Cheers, John B. Summary executions may have some downsides here that the Chinese don't fear there. -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org/ Open every day since 1 April, 1971 |
#88
|
|||
|
|||
Build it and they won't come
On 9/29/2017 11:37 AM, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-09-29 08:14, wrote: On Thursday, September 28, 2017 at 3:29:02 PM UTC-7, Joerg wrote: On 2017-09-20 20:57, Tim McNamara wrote: On Wed, 20 Sep 2017 21:47:25 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote: Build it and they will come? Sorry, no. Here's a new article dispelling the myth that segregated facilities generate tremendous bike mode share. https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2...ped-stevenage? Unless motoring is actively dissuaded, almost all people who have cars will drive cars. I remember seeing period BBC footage about this, describing the innovations in place at the time. Now, maybe it's what you're used to; I grew up in a very bikeable suburb of Chicago and all us kids just got around on bikes. So I looked at infrastructure like this and was puzzled as to why. Apparently I wasn't alone. In the Minneapolis-St Paul area we have been building out both on-street and separated bike facilities. While I find much of the design of the on-street facilities to be objectionable and even downright stupid, there has been a noticeable increase in bike riding. Most of them are young uns and are not wearing the pseudo-pro clown suits (I'm still wearing mine, although I've reached an age and a body composition where that's probably ill-advised). The separated facilities- which are pretty extensive- get a whole lot of use; the on-street facilities seem to get a lot of use too although not quite as much. But this doesn't seem to work everywhere. Denmark made it work by taxing cars at an astonishing rate- owning a car is an economic hardship for many if not most Danes due to the tax structure- and pairing that with extensive on-street bike facilities. There would be no way to accomplish something like that in the US, where owning a car and having cheap fuel is effectively part of the Bill of Rights. That is what many people who never lived there think but that isn't the way it is. Nearly all adult Danes own cars, just like the Dutch, the Germans, and so on. All countries where car ownership isn't cheap but you've got to have one. They generaly have smaller more economical cars. Not a monstrous SUV with a 5-liter engine but a compact car with a 1.5-liter engine. Why do people ride bikes there? Mainly because of the cycling facilities. Another reason is health, Europeans are on average less obese that Americans and there are reasons for that, one of them being cycling. My wife and I lived in Europe for decades so we know a thing or two about it. Here in the US we have two cars. In Europe we had only one and sometimes it sat in the garage for more than a month without having rolled one lone kilometer. Build it and they will come, it has been proven time and again. Pointing to some examples where they screwed up as Frank likes to do isn't going to change that fact. Now that they are (finally!) building out the bicycle infrastructure in this area I notice a significant uptick in rider numbers but only in areas where cycle paths are built, not in the others. Personally I was down to 757 miles total on my car including business use for 2016, dropping further. About 4000 miles between the road bike and the MTB. I do not even remember the last time I bought gas and the tank is still at more than 3/4. Of course, now I am gong through MTB tires like popcorn. The US is an EXTREMELY healthy country. The problem is that immigrants both legal and illegal pull the average health down. The fact is that the life expectancy of the white anglo-saxon race is longer than most others. Only the Japanese exceed them. This is NOT because of health services because this has always been the case throughout history. Huh? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3020302/ Quote "During 1991–2008, obesity prevalence for US-born adults increased from 13.9 to 28.7%, while prevalence for immigrants increased from 9.5 to 20.7%". Nothing good about that but there are fatter populations. http://www.worldatlas.com/articles/2...the-world.html Mexico's socialist health scheme is suffering an inundation of obesity, heart disease and diabetes with serious fiscal consequences: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_3567772.html -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org/ Open every day since 1 April, 1971 |
#89
|
|||
|
|||
Build it and they won't come
On 2017-09-29 15:12, AMuzi wrote:
On 9/29/2017 11:37 AM, Joerg wrote: On 2017-09-29 08:14, wrote: On Thursday, September 28, 2017 at 3:29:02 PM UTC-7, Joerg wrote: On 2017-09-20 20:57, Tim McNamara wrote: On Wed, 20 Sep 2017 21:47:25 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote: Build it and they will come? Sorry, no. Here's a new article dispelling the myth that segregated facilities generate tremendous bike mode share. https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2...ped-stevenage? Unless motoring is actively dissuaded, almost all people who have cars will drive cars. I remember seeing period BBC footage about this, describing the innovations in place at the time. Now, maybe it's what you're used to; I grew up in a very bikeable suburb of Chicago and all us kids just got around on bikes. So I looked at infrastructure like this and was puzzled as to why. Apparently I wasn't alone. In the Minneapolis-St Paul area we have been building out both on-street and separated bike facilities. While I find much of the design of the on-street facilities to be objectionable and even downright stupid, there has been a noticeable increase in bike riding. Most of them are young uns and are not wearing the pseudo-pro clown suits (I'm still wearing mine, although I've reached an age and a body composition where that's probably ill-advised). The separated facilities- which are pretty extensive- get a whole lot of use; the on-street facilities seem to get a lot of use too although not quite as much. But this doesn't seem to work everywhere. Denmark made it work by taxing cars at an astonishing rate- owning a car is an economic hardship for many if not most Danes due to the tax structure- and pairing that with extensive on-street bike facilities. There would be no way to accomplish something like that in the US, where owning a car and having cheap fuel is effectively part of the Bill of Rights. That is what many people who never lived there think but that isn't the way it is. Nearly all adult Danes own cars, just like the Dutch, the Germans, and so on. All countries where car ownership isn't cheap but you've got to have one. They generaly have smaller more economical cars. Not a monstrous SUV with a 5-liter engine but a compact car with a 1.5-liter engine. Why do people ride bikes there? Mainly because of the cycling facilities. Another reason is health, Europeans are on average less obese that Americans and there are reasons for that, one of them being cycling. My wife and I lived in Europe for decades so we know a thing or two about it. Here in the US we have two cars. In Europe we had only one and sometimes it sat in the garage for more than a month without having rolled one lone kilometer. Build it and they will come, it has been proven time and again. Pointing to some examples where they screwed up as Frank likes to do isn't going to change that fact. Now that they are (finally!) building out the bicycle infrastructure in this area I notice a significant uptick in rider numbers but only in areas where cycle paths are built, not in the others. Personally I was down to 757 miles total on my car including business use for 2016, dropping further. About 4000 miles between the road bike and the MTB. I do not even remember the last time I bought gas and the tank is still at more than 3/4. Of course, now I am gong through MTB tires like popcorn. The US is an EXTREMELY healthy country. The problem is that immigrants both legal and illegal pull the average health down. The fact is that the life expectancy of the white anglo-saxon race is longer than most others. Only the Japanese exceed them. This is NOT because of health services because this has always been the case throughout history. Huh? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3020302/ Quote "During 1991–2008, obesity prevalence for US-born adults increased from 13.9 to 28.7%, while prevalence for immigrants increased from 9.5 to 20.7%". Nothing good about that but there are fatter populations. http://www.worldatlas.com/articles/2...the-world.html Mexico's socialist health scheme is suffering an inundation of obesity, heart disease and diabetes with serious fiscal consequences: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_3567772.html AFAIK it was customary in the Pacific Islands to regard someone with a major belly a rich person, they could always eat as much as they wante, and did. Still, the fact remains that immigrants do not pull down the average health. We do that all by ourselves, with generous help from fast food places and such. Habits are another problem. It's not just that most people won't consider cycling even if you ran a red-carpeted class-I bike path right to their house. Often when we go to a store with several people in a car and I suggest to walk over to this other store where Joe wants to buy new earphones for his MP3 player ... "Walk?! Why? Let's drive over there". Hoofing it seems to be a very foreign concept to most people. -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ |
#90
|
|||
|
|||
Build it and they won't come
On Friday, September 29, 2017 at 9:15:00 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-09-29 08:49, wrote: On Friday, September 29, 2017 at 8:28:37 AM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote: On Friday, September 29, 2017 at 7:30:45 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote: On 2017-09-28 18:17, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 9/28/2017 6:29 PM, Joerg wrote: Why do people ride bikes there? Mainly because of the cycling facilities. Another reason is health, Europeans are on average less obese that Americans and there are reasons for that, one of them being cycling. Build it and they will come, it has been proven time and again. In the U.S., it's been proven time and time again that "build it, and maybe 1.5% will come, if you're lucky and cycling is fashionable in your area." In some areas a lot more came but 1.5% is a respectable number for the US. To repeat your own words: Calculate the longterm health benefits from that 1.5% increase in Dollar numbers. We can't calculate the health benefit. How would you even do that? You assume that there is this magical group of couch potatoes just waiting for a bike path -- and when it appears, they materialize in droves -- clearing out their arteries and living for decades longer in perfect health. We could put ear tags on them and follow their every move to determine their outcomes -- maybe get a control group of couch potatoes. Alternate and more likely reality is that some people decide to ride around on the new bike path, and if it goes in the general direction of their work, they may even ride a few days a week instead of going to the gym. They may run into each other and get hurt, strain a knee -- who knows. Medical usage may rise or fall. There have been many systematic studies confirming the health benefit of cycling. http://www.peoplepoweredmovement.org...eview_2011.pdf There are also some that quantify the cost savings to health care systems but the ones I read unfortunately behind a (steep) paywall because published in high-class medical journals. You don't get to publish in those unless your underlying data has been properly vetted. Nobody is denying the health benefit of cycling -- or at least some health benefit from cycling. That's different from tying a health benefit to a particular piece of infrastructure. For example, my health has not improved any since the Broadway and S.W. Moody cycle tracks went in. I don't ride a single mile more or less. I ride slower on the cycle tracks, so they produce less of a cardiovascular work-out for me. They make me fat and slow and hasten my death. Also, I crashed two years ago on an snowy, icy street car track in a bicycle facility, so that facility worsened my health. I defended a case where a guy broke his neck when a dog leash got stuck in his front wheel while riding on a MUP and another one where a guy did a face plant going over a transition on to an elevated bike lane. Bike lanes are murder! But anyway, proving that some two mile bike path or some other piece of infrastructure is producing health benefits sufficient to justify the expense is basically impossible. You have to take it on faith. European cities are different. People live close to work.... I lived in Europe. My distance to school was only 5mi but in my university days the distances to the various places I had to go often exceeded 10mi, sometimes 20mi. Most of the people I knew didn't think twice before hopping on the bicycle, even if they had cars. An evening in town in Maastricht was 40mi round trip and we did that at the spur of the moment. The trip to my sports club in Belgium was more than 60mi round trip and I can't remember anyone saying that was excessive (I had to schlepp a heavy parachute, spare, boots, helmet and whatnot for that). It's msotly the mindset that is different in Europe. You were a statistical outlier: http://www.cycling-embassy.dk/wp-con...ng-in-DK-1.pdf Denmark does not knock my socks off: http://www.cycling-embassy.dk/wp-con...om-Denmark.pdf NL: https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2...ger-distances/ Not dissing NL and Denmark, but both are dead flat and people live near work. We have people around here who live near work, and they ride too -- generally not in separate facilities. As for the 'burbs, nobody is going to lug some 30lb 'fiet over the West Hills and travel ten plus miles from Beaverton. It's never going to happen. Copenhagenization stops at the hills, which are a stone's throw from my office. This is literally the view out of my office window, although I'm 10 stories higher: https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7286/1...d422079d_b.jpg Nike, Intel, etc., etc. is over those hills. They are steep. Now we get lots of people on the flat east side. https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7613/2...6661f837_b.jpg Mostly on-street bike lanes and bike boulevards. No fancy tracks required. -- Jay Beattie. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Can Women Build Big Muscles? Why Women Cant Build Big Muscles Easily | [email protected] | UK | 0 | February 16th 08 09:41 PM |
Anyone looking to build a bc? Free hazard hub with a Stockton build! | Evan Byrne | Unicycling | 5 | September 14th 06 09:59 AM |
Anyone looking to build a bc? Free hazard hub with a Stockton build! | Evan Byrne | Unicycling | 0 | August 25th 06 11:05 PM |
Disc Wheel Build Build Suggestions | osobailo | Techniques | 2 | October 5th 04 01:55 PM |
? - To build or not to build -- a bike - ? | Andrew Short | Techniques | 16 | August 4th 03 04:12 AM |