A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Techniques
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Making America into Amsterdam



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old June 29th 18, 09:54 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Lama99
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1
Default Making America into Amsterdam

On Tuesday, June 26, 2018 at 8:57:17 AM UTC-7, 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 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. 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.

--
- Frank Krygowski



Impossible making any American city like Amsterdam or Copenhagen. American is the last nation ride bike as commuter unless the nation completely destroyed itself and born again..

Ads
  #52  
Old June 29th 18, 10:34 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,538
Default Making America into Amsterdam

On 6/29/2018 10:11 AM, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-06-28 08:47, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/27/2018 7:56 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-06-27 14:55, Frank Krygowski wrote:


I think there are different cultural or social expectations in
Europe,
most of which are influenced by history. Europe seems to generally
have
much more restrictive land use policies, and those policies seem to
promote "infill" development.

Example: In Britain, in Austria, etc. when we bicycle toured, I was
struck by the practicality of city limits. There seemed to be a
boundary
around most towns, with apartments, houses, shops etc. on one side
and
little but fields and forests on the other side. We saw almost no
rural
convenience stores or gas stations, for example. People have been
living
close for hundreds of years, and they're used to such a system.


Except that such difference are not truly there. Think back to when
your relatives came from Europe. Probably not very wealthy, they
likely settled in an east coast town very similar to a European one.


Joerg, I'm talking about present day geography, not that of over 100
years ago.


So why did you ask about the age then? Makes no sense. I said it doesn't
matter and now you seem to say the same.

scratching head


I'm sorry you're confused again. I'll try to explain more thoroughly.

European cities were typically founded in medieval times, often when
they were enclosed by walls and back when almost everyone walked to get
around. As a consequence, city blocks were and still are small. Most
streets were and still are narrow by U.S. standards. And to a much
higher degree than the U.S., that original high density remains.
Buildings fill the cities to a much higher degree than the U.S., leaving
little room for parking lots, again resulting in higher density. And
it's still considered quite normal to have a residence within the city,
which makes destinations one might want to access every day a relatively
short distance away. Public policy was able to prioritize mass transit,
which was and still is heavily used because of the density. That reduced
the need for private cars compared to the U.S. and contributed to
retaining higher densities.

Even before 1900, most U.S. cities were not quite as dense as those in
Europe. They were not walled in at their founding, so there was simply
more room. But starting in the early 1900s, the automobile took over
here far sooner and far more thoroughly than it did in Europe.
Construction from that point on was even less dense. Most mass transit
systems like streetcars crashed early on. The car became the only way to
get around beyond a few blocks, and economics of scale plus cheap land
caused things like grocery stores to grow in size and grow huge parking
lots that further reduced density. And Americans soon decided that the
suburbs were the place to be, reachable only by the car that everyone
needed anyway. The metro areas came to be dominated by the suburbs, so
even when the density of the inner city was relatively high, the density
of the metro area was low - low enough that one could not practically
walk to where one needed to go.

Here's a list of 125 large cities ranked by density. Note how seldom USA
is mentioned, and how low on the list those U.S. cities tend to sit:
http://www.citymayors.com/statistics...nsity-125.html

You (even you) can look up the population density of the U.S. vs.
northern European countries. You can look up the population density of
metropolitan areas both here and there, or typical home sizes, etc.
There can be no question that the U.S. sprawls more in every way.


As is evident in the examples I brought from Ireland and you brought
from the US, sprawl is almost identical.


A) It's not. An unbiased person looking at the city you chose would say
it's far different from most American cities.

Except in the US many people
have (had) larger lots.


So the U.S. is just as dense, except that it has larger lots that make
it less dense?
Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* ... And the suburbs, where almost all new
development happens, are all car-oriented. It's not only that business
owners expect that everyone will arrive by car; it's also that their
preferences and local regulations usually demand huge parking lots.
Those big parking lots force tremendous reductions in density.


That is indeed a major difference between America and most of the world.
Sprawl isn't different though, it's just that in US people used to want
larger properties. That is changing and now it looks more and more like
Europe, sometimes the density is even higher like he

https://goo.gl/maps/sJn6YgExy1K2

The car orientation is often still there but that has to do with
laziness. "Well, for starters a bicycle doesn't have an A/C button and
it's hot out!"


Yes, climate is another factor. We'll have heat indexes near or above
100 Fahrenheit for the next week. How often does Netherlands get that?

But back to the original point: Data shows people in Amsterdam average
about 2 miles of bicycling per day. If you restricted your mileage to
that figure, how many of your transportation needs could you satisfy by
bike?

--
- Frank Krygowski
  #53  
Old June 29th 18, 10:44 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,538
Default Making America into Amsterdam

On 6/29/2018 4:54 PM, Lama99 wrote:
On Tuesday, June 26, 2018 at 8:57:17 AM UTC-7, 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 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. 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.

--
- Frank Krygowski



Impossible making any American city like Amsterdam or Copenhagen. American is the last nation ride bike as commuter unless the nation completely destroyed itself and born again..


I agree. But there are plenty of starry-eyed dreamers who say "If only
we build enough protected bike lanes..."


--
- Frank Krygowski
  #54  
Old June 29th 18, 11:19 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Joerg[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,016
Default Making America into Amsterdam

On 2018-06-29 14:34, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/29/2018 10:11 AM, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-06-28 08:47, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/27/2018 7:56 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-06-27 14:55, Frank Krygowski wrote:


I think there are different cultural or social expectations in
Europe,
most of which are influenced by history. Europe seems to generally
have
much more restrictive land use policies, and those policies seem to
promote "infill" development.

Example: In Britain, in Austria, etc. when we bicycle toured, I was
struck by the practicality of city limits. There seemed to be a
boundary
around most towns, with apartments, houses, shops etc. on one
side and
little but fields and forests on the other side. We saw almost no
rural
convenience stores or gas stations, for example. People have been
living
close for hundreds of years, and they're used to such a system.


Except that such difference are not truly there. Think back to when
your relatives came from Europe. Probably not very wealthy, they
likely settled in an east coast town very similar to a European one.

Joerg, I'm talking about present day geography, not that of over 100
years ago.


So why did you ask about the age then? Makes no sense. I said it
doesn't matter and now you seem to say the same.

scratching head


I'm sorry you're confused again. I'll try to explain more thoroughly.

European cities were typically founded in medieval times, often when
they were enclosed by walls and back when almost everyone walked to get
around. As a consequence, city blocks were and still are small. Most
streets were and still are narrow by U.S. standards. And to a much
higher degree than the U.S., that original high density remains.



I suggest you visit Berlin, Duesseldorf, Frankfurt, Hannover or Dortmund
in Germany. All cities I spent lots of time in and they are by no means
small or resemble any of their characteristics from their medieval
times. With some cities that is because they were thoroughly flattened
in WW-II, others just razed the old city core and only left historically
valuable structure standing. Or what they thought was valuable back then.


Buildings fill the cities to a much higher degree than the U.S., leaving
little room for parking lots, again resulting in higher density.



Duesseldorf is quite similar to Sacramento, for example. However, no
zoning laws so there are people living right in the center whereas in
Sacramento they mostly don't. Some other cities like parts of Frankfurt
become ghost towns at night but not because of zoning, it's because
people want to rather live in the suburbs.


... And
it's still considered quite normal to have a residence within the city,
which makes destinations one might want to access every day a relatively
short distance away.



It could be the same here if we'd ditch the stupid zoning. When I lived
in the Netherlands my apartment was on top of a pub, with several others
within less than 3min walking distance. An ice cafe with pretty girls
next door. I had a blast! Of course, this also resulted in, ahem, less
than stellar grades at university.


... Public policy was able to prioritize mass transit,
which was and still is heavily used because of the density. That reduced
the need for private cars compared to the U.S. and contributed to
retaining higher densities.


And now for a dose of reality. This is Duesseldorf in Germany where I
lived as a kid:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKApZPEDb-M


Even before 1900, most U.S. cities were not quite as dense as those in
Europe. They were not walled in at their founding, so there was simply
more room.



Neither were most European cities. In those that were walled the walls
were soon ignored and torn down or sometimes preserved as museum pieces.
Heck, they even had a full-blown racetrack inside Berlin.


... But starting in the early 1900s, the automobile took over
here far sooner and far more thoroughly than it did in Europe.
Construction from that point on was even less dense.



What was less dense about New York back then?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histor...37u_edit.j pg


... Most mass transit
systems like streetcars crashed early on. The car became the only way to
get around beyond a few blocks, and economics of scale plus cheap land
caused things like grocery stores to grow in size and grow huge parking
lots that further reduced density. And Americans soon decided that the
suburbs were the place to be, reachable only by the car that everyone
needed anyway.



So did the Europeans.


... The metro areas came to be dominated by the suburbs, so
even when the density of the inner city was relatively high, the density
of the metro area was low - low enough that one could not practically
walk to where one needed to go.

Here's a list of 125 large cities ranked by density. Note how seldom USA
is mentioned, and how low on the list those U.S. cities tend to sit:
http://www.citymayors.com/statistics...nsity-125.html


The first European city on there is Athens and ranks a whopping 40th.
Before that it's all Asia, South America, Middle East and so on.


You (even you) can look up the population density of the U.S. vs.
northern European countries. You can look up the population density of
metropolitan areas both here and there, or typical home sizes, etc.
There can be no question that the U.S. sprawls more in every way.


As is evident in the examples I brought from Ireland and you brought
from the US, sprawl is almost identical.


A) It's not. An unbiased person looking at the city you chose would say
it's far different from most American cities.


Sorry, I disagree, it's largely the same.


Except in the US many people have (had) larger lots.


So the U.S. is just as dense, except that it has larger lots that make
it less dense?



No, it simply means that a suburb with 10,000 inhabitants in the US is
several time larger than in Europe but it's just as detached from the
city as the other. As I pointed out with current examples that is
changing or already has in many places in the US. Lot sizes are of
similar size as Euopean ones, often smaller.


... And the suburbs, where almost all new
development happens, are all car-oriented. It's not only that business
owners expect that everyone will arrive by car; it's also that their
preferences and local regulations usually demand huge parking lots.
Those big parking lots force tremendous reductions in density.


That is indeed a major difference between America and most of the
world. Sprawl isn't different though, it's just that in US people used
to want larger properties. That is changing and now it looks more and
more like Europe, sometimes the density is even higher like he

https://goo.gl/maps/sJn6YgExy1K2

The car orientation is often still there but that has to do with
laziness. "Well, for starters a bicycle doesn't have an A/C button and
it's hot out!"


Yes, climate is another factor. We'll have heat indexes near or above
100 Fahrenheit for the next week. How often does Netherlands get that?


Rarely but what's the big deal? My rides are usually 35-45mi these days.
It doesn't matter whether it's 30F, 90F or 110F. At 110F I just carry
more water and maybe have a 2nd beer along the route.


But back to the original point: Data shows people in Amsterdam average
about 2 miles of bicycling per day. If you restricted your mileage to
that figure, how many of your transportation needs could you satisfy by
bike?


None, zilch. That wouldn't even get me to a church meeting. However, my
experience from the Netherlands is way different and I have a hard time
believing the country has changed so much for the worse in 30 years. But
maybe it has. We rode 30mi just to have a particular Abbey Ale that was
only available at a certain pub in Belgium. That included climbs which I
never liked.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/
  #55  
Old June 30th 18, 03:44 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
JBeattie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,870
Default Making America into Amsterdam

On Friday, June 29, 2018 at 10:31:00 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/29/2018 10:26 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, June 29, 2018 at 7:21:00 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:

snip

Yes, lord over them and drive up the land value. Larry Cameron made
a bundle off a cow pasture. To create a CSD, you have to have buy-in
from the existing residents -- so apparently, the one resident
business -- a cow pasture -- was not complaining.


You bet they were. While on a bike ride I saw a old man gazing at a new
development. I wanted to check it out as well so we got to talk. He was
born and raised here and his family dates way back to before this area
was built out. He was ****ed that he had to shell out north of $30k in
lawyer fees and still lost his eminent domain case. In fact, in the end
his lawyer suggested to pull the plug.

The eastern part of Cameron Park has plenty of such families because
that was a properous freight transfer location in the gold rush. When
Larry wasn't born yet.


Eminent domain is taking by the government and not private development. Your wistful old man probably spent his money trying to prevent the development by challenging a zoning change that allowed PUDs or some sort of high density development.

-snip snip-

Maybe back in the old country, where I was born, not now:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-108.ZS.html

Try to keep up


That's still eminent domain. Joerg is talking about ordinary planning decisions. Condemnation for urban renewal is controversial, but its still condemnation. Planning and zoning for developments is different. The planning jurisdiction does not forcibly buy the property but rather requires the developer to dedicate property as a condition of plan approval -- and usually not enough. Large scale developers always over-burden existing infrastructure.

And then we get into the whole 5/14th Amendment arguments over down-zoning, and that is yet another thing. And then we get into CERCLA, RCRA, Clean Water, etc., etc. Many complaints to go around.

-- Jay Beattie.
  #56  
Old June 30th 18, 03:47 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,538
Default Making America into Amsterdam

On 6/29/2018 6:19 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-06-29 14:34, Frank Krygowski wrote:

I'm sorry you're confused again. I'll try to explain more thoroughly.

European cities were typically founded in medieval times, often when
they were enclosed by walls and back when almost everyone walked to get
around. As a consequence, city blocks were and still are small. Most
streets were and still are narrow by U.S. standards. And to a much
higher degree than the U.S., that original high density remains.



I suggest you visit Berlin, Duesseldorf, Frankfurt, Hannover or Dortmund
in Germany. All cities I spent lots of time in and they are by no means
small or resemble any of their characteristics from their medieval
times. With some cities that is because they were thoroughly flattened
in WW-II, others just razed the old city core and only left historically
valuable structure standing. Or what they thought was valuable back then.


Perhaps we need a referee to decide what we are talking about. Is it
your cherry-picked list of German cities, or is it the original point:
the differences between Dutch cities and American cities?

The article I cited
https://peopleforbikes.org/blog/best...h-hardly-bike/
said, for example: "Utrecht, the city in the first photo above, has
approximately the same metro-area population as Wichita. But because
most of its central city was built before the passage of laws that
required minimum lot sizes, maximum numbers of homes per lot and lots of
on-site car storage everywhere, everything in Utrecht is much closer to
everything else than anything is in Wichita."

So is that author wrong? If so, where's your proof?

Duesseldorf is quite similar to Sacramento, for example. However, no
zoning laws so there are people living right in the center whereas in
Sacramento they mostly don't. Some other cities like parts of Frankfurt
become ghost towns at night but not because of zoning, it's because
people want to rather live in the suburbs.


Yes, I'm sure you can carefully choose some other German cities that fit
your argument. But note that Berlin, Munich and Stuttgart all beat any
U.S. city for population density in this list.
http://www.citymayors.com/statistics...nsity-125.html
And how many _Dutch_ cities (the real point of the article) can you
choose to prove your point?

Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* ... Public policy was able to prioritize mass transit,
which was and still is heavily used because of the density. That reduced
the need for private cars compared to the U.S. and contributed to
retaining higher densities.


And now for a dose of reality. This is Duesseldorf in Germany where I
lived as a kid:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKApZPEDb-M


One video of a freeway is supposed to be dramatic proof? Sorry, Joerg.
Anyway, Duesseldorf has a population density of 2800/km2, which beats
any U.S. city in this list:
http://www.citymayors.com/statistics...nsity-125.html

Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* ... Most mass transit
systems like streetcars crashed early on. The car became the only way to
get around beyond a few blocks, and economics of scale plus cheap land
caused things like grocery stores to grow in size and grow huge parking
lots that further reduced density. And Americans soon decided that the
suburbs were the place to be, reachable only by the car that everyone
needed anyway.


So did the Europeans.


Um... then why is European mass transit is so tremendously common and
highly used compared to the U.S.? From Wikipedia: "Like many other
European countries, the Netherlands has a dense railway network,
totalling 6,830 kilometres of track,[27] or 3,013 route km, three
quarters of which has been electrified.[28] The network is mostly
focused on passenger transport[29] and connects virtually all major
towns and cities, counting as many train stations as there are
municipalities in the Netherlands."

Where do you find that in the U.S.?

Here's a list of 125 large cities ranked by density. Note how seldom USA
is mentioned, and how low on the list those U.S. cities tend to sit:
http://www.citymayors.com/statistics...nsity-125.html


The first European city on there is Athens and ranks a whopping 40th.
Before that it's all Asia, South America, Middle East and so on.


Right. But the U.S. cities are even farther down the list, which is my
point, and most of them fall off the list entirely.

But back to the original point: Data shows people in Amsterdam average
about 2 miles of bicycling per day. If you restricted your mileage to
that figure, how many of your transportation needs could you satisfy by
bike?


None, zilch. That wouldn't even get me to a church meeting. However, my
experience from the Netherlands is way different and I have a hard time
believing the country has changed so much for the worse in 30 years. But
maybe it has. We rode 30mi just to have a particular Abbey Ale that was
only available at a certain pub in Belgium. That included climbs which I
never liked.


You give an astounding amount of importance to what you claim are your
unique experiences. Unbiased data shows the Dutch averaging about two
bike miles per day, but since _you_ claim to have ridden farther for a
beer, the unbiased data must be wrong. That's just silly.

It reminds me of all the times your life was saved because you have disc
brakes. Or all the times you didn't need a chain tool because you found
a convenient nail on your mountain bike trail. Or the times you fought
off the mountain lions with your bare teeth, or whatever.

--
- Frank Krygowski
  #57  
Old June 30th 18, 04:11 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
JBeattie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,870
Default Making America into Amsterdam

On Friday, June 29, 2018 at 3:19:15 PM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-06-29 14:34, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/29/2018 10:11 AM, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-06-28 08:47, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/27/2018 7:56 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-06-27 14:55, Frank Krygowski wrote:


I think there are different cultural or social expectations in
Europe,
most of which are influenced by history. Europe seems to generally
have
much more restrictive land use policies, and those policies seem to
promote "infill" development.

Example: In Britain, in Austria, etc. when we bicycle toured, I was
struck by the practicality of city limits. There seemed to be a
boundary
around most towns, with apartments, houses, shops etc. on one
side and
little but fields and forests on the other side. We saw almost no
rural
convenience stores or gas stations, for example. People have been
living
close for hundreds of years, and they're used to such a system.


Except that such difference are not truly there. Think back to when
your relatives came from Europe. Probably not very wealthy, they
likely settled in an east coast town very similar to a European one.

Joerg, I'm talking about present day geography, not that of over 100
years ago.


So why did you ask about the age then? Makes no sense. I said it
doesn't matter and now you seem to say the same.

scratching head


I'm sorry you're confused again. I'll try to explain more thoroughly.

European cities were typically founded in medieval times, often when
they were enclosed by walls and back when almost everyone walked to get
around. As a consequence, city blocks were and still are small. Most
streets were and still are narrow by U.S. standards. And to a much
higher degree than the U.S., that original high density remains.



I suggest you visit Berlin, Duesseldorf, Frankfurt, Hannover or Dortmund
in Germany. All cities I spent lots of time in and they are by no means
small or resemble any of their characteristics from their medieval
times. With some cities that is because they were thoroughly flattened
in WW-II, others just razed the old city core and only left historically
valuable structure standing. Or what they thought was valuable back then.



It looks like Frankfurt (the only city I checked) has land use and zoning laws.
https://www.stadtplanungsamt-frankfu...94.html?psid=d




Buildings fill the cities to a much higher degree than the U.S., leaving
little room for parking lots, again resulting in higher density.



Duesseldorf is quite similar to Sacramento, for example. However, no
zoning laws so there are people living right in the center whereas in
Sacramento they mostly don't. Some other cities like parts of Frankfurt
become ghost towns at night but not because of zoning, it's because
people want to rather live in the suburbs.



... And
it's still considered quite normal to have a residence within the city,
which makes destinations one might want to access every day a relatively
short distance away.



It could be the same here if we'd ditch the stupid zoning.


snip

Here as in Cameron Park? Or here as in the United States? Portland is filled with multi-family housing over businesses. https://d2bj656w1sqg1s.cloudfront.ne...t-1024x523.jpg

It's SOP in many cities. My brother owned a building with apartments over business in Denver. From an owner's perspective, it's not a great risk since you lose a lot of cash flow if your business tenants move. Its hard to fill a restaurant or other specialty space.

Your gripe is not with zoning laws but with zoning in particular towns, assuming that the development pattern was zoning driven rather than market driven. It became hip to be in downtown PDX, so condos and apartments popped up -- too many as a matter of fact. My commute to work is through hehttps://d2bj656w1sqg1s.cloudfront.ne...t-1024x523.jpg Condos over business with OHSU offices. It used to be a shipyard. I preferred that.


snip

None, zilch. That wouldn't even get me to a church meeting. However, my
experience from the Netherlands is way different and I have a hard time
believing the country has changed so much for the worse in 30 years. But
maybe it has. We rode 30mi just to have a particular Abbey Ale that was
only available at a certain pub in Belgium. That included climbs which I
never liked.


Climbs? The Vaalserberg is less elevation gain than my ride home through the West Hills. I guess you can find some elevation in Belgium.

-- Jay Beattie.
  #58  
Old June 30th 18, 04:53 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
JBeattie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,870
Default Making America into Amsterdam

On Friday, June 29, 2018 at 8:11:06 PM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, June 29, 2018 at 3:19:15 PM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-06-29 14:34, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/29/2018 10:11 AM, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-06-28 08:47, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/27/2018 7:56 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-06-27 14:55, Frank Krygowski wrote:


I think there are different cultural or social expectations in
Europe,
most of which are influenced by history. Europe seems to generally
have
much more restrictive land use policies, and those policies seem to
promote "infill" development.

Example: In Britain, in Austria, etc. when we bicycle toured, I was
struck by the practicality of city limits. There seemed to be a
boundary
around most towns, with apartments, houses, shops etc. on one
side and
little but fields and forests on the other side. We saw almost no
rural
convenience stores or gas stations, for example. People have been
living
close for hundreds of years, and they're used to such a system.


Except that such difference are not truly there. Think back to when
your relatives came from Europe. Probably not very wealthy, they
likely settled in an east coast town very similar to a European one.

Joerg, I'm talking about present day geography, not that of over 100
years ago.


So why did you ask about the age then? Makes no sense. I said it
doesn't matter and now you seem to say the same.

scratching head

I'm sorry you're confused again. I'll try to explain more thoroughly.

European cities were typically founded in medieval times, often when
they were enclosed by walls and back when almost everyone walked to get
around. As a consequence, city blocks were and still are small. Most
streets were and still are narrow by U.S. standards. And to a much
higher degree than the U.S., that original high density remains.



I suggest you visit Berlin, Duesseldorf, Frankfurt, Hannover or Dortmund
in Germany. All cities I spent lots of time in and they are by no means
small or resemble any of their characteristics from their medieval
times. With some cities that is because they were thoroughly flattened
in WW-II, others just razed the old city core and only left historically
valuable structure standing. Or what they thought was valuable back then.

  #59  
Old June 30th 18, 07:31 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
SMS
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,477
Default Making America into Amsterdam

On 6/29/2018 8:26 AM, jbeattie wrote:

Eminent domain is taking by the government and not private development. Your wistful old man probably spent his money trying to prevent the development by challenging a zoning change that allowed PUDs or some sort of high density development.


In theory yes.

In practice, developers will try to exert pressure on government to
force a landowner to sell out to the developer by threatening various
actions.

We had a case like that in my city. We found out, through public records
requests, that a developer was trying to have the city put pressure on a
reluctant property owner to sell out. The property owner did eventually
sell, though there is no written evidence that the city complied with
the developer's request to force them to "play ball."
  #60  
Old June 30th 18, 07:57 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
SMS
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,477
Default Making America into Amsterdam

On 6/29/2018 3:19 PM, Joerg wrote:

I suggest you visit Berlin, Duesseldorf, Frankfurt, Hannover or Dortmund
in Germany. All cities I spent lots of time in and they are by no means
small or resemble any of their characteristics from their medieval
times. With some cities that is because they were thoroughly flattened
in WW-II, others just razed the old city core and only left historically
valuable structure standing. Or what they thought was valuable back then.


Some people look at the entirety of the United States and proclaim that
we can never be like Amsterdam. They are absolutely correct. You're not
going to make the entire U.S. into Amsterdam, but you can increase the
bike percentage in a limited number of urban areas, which is sufficient.

The key is bicycle infrastructure. Yesterday I attended a forum on
trails along waterways. We have a great many of these in my county
because trails along creeks and rivers are easier to do because the
right-of-way is more easily available and there are often already
vehicle bridges over the creeks and rivers so a path without road
crossings is more practical. At some times of day, you might think you
WERE in Amsterdam with all the bicycle traffic.

Yesterday I was sitting next to a woman from our transit agency (VTA), a
hopelessly awful organization when it comes to running buses and trains,
but they also build some of the bicycle infrastructure. I pulled out my
phone and brought up Google Maps and showed her where we badly needed a
bicycle freeway over-crossing. She instantly recognized the location and
told me "it's in the bike plan." The problem of only major multi-lane
arterials crossing freeways and railroad tracks has resulted in isolated
areas that have poor bicycle connections.

In San Francisco, increases in bicycle infrastructure have resulted in a
large increase in bicycle commuting, and this was despite the fact that
several projects were delayed by a lawsuit so only unaffected projects
were constructed for four years!

I only half-jokingly suggested that it would be far more cost-effective,
in terms of number of single-occupancy vehicle reduction, to not build
any more light rail ($40 million/mile) or heavy rail ($1+ billion/mile)
and just buy a few hundred thousand electric bicycles to distribute with
certain caveats. Remember, those dollar figures are just the
construction costs for the track, and don't include equipment or
operations and maintenance.

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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 9th 12 12:40 AM
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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:43 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.