Progress on Germany's 200 mile long bicyclebahn

On Sun, 03 Jul 2016 08:06:55 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

On 2016-07-01 17:37, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 01 Jul 2016 12:46:57 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

On 2016-07-01 00:41, John B. wrote:

[...]

Here, in Bangkok, there are no, or at least none I've seen, specially
constructed bike paths, whether MUPs or MUTs. or MICe".


Venture out to the airport maybe?

Yup. and as I said "there are no, or at least none I've seen". And
yes, I am aware that they that they painted the airport perimeter road
green and let bicycles use it, but it was not specifically built for
bicycles. Very much like the so called "bicycle paths" that do exist
in the city. They paint a line down a sidewalk an erect a sign with a
bicycle painted on it.


However the numbers of bicycles I see on my Sunday ride has noticeably
increased over the past years. I did mentioned it at my favorite bike
shop and the sales manager said that, "yes they were selling more
bikes now".

My own guess is that numbers of bicycles and frequency of use is not
specifically related to availability of bike paths, under whatever
name.


Could projects like this have something to do with it?

http://www.ttrweekly.com/site/2014/0...ns-bike-track/

https://saltymom.net/2014/03/25/bang...o-urban-oasis/

https://www.flickr.com/photos/uwebkk...n/photostream/

This one is going to be a tight squeeze:

http://www.newmandala.org/wp-content.../bike-path.jpg

It's not anything like we have in the Sacramento Valley but it's a
start. We saw some new bike shops popping up over the last years and the
only thing that changed (improved) was the cycling infrastructure.


None of those so called bike paths are "projects" nor they built
specifically for bicycles. Exactly as I said. Here is another one:
http://www.bangkok.com/sport-parks--...pini-park.htm#
A major park in the center of Bangkok. The page I reference even has
pictures of a girl riding a bicycle and you can see the painted line
outlining the "bicycle path".


We were talking about MUP, meaning multi-use, not just cycling. Most of
those paths in your area do not provide a commute route but they can
foster bicycle sales, which in turn can foster cycling in other areas.
At least it did here. Bike infrastructure was only built over 10mi away
from us and almost zilch in our town. Yet it helped bicycle sales in our
town.

[...]

But, as I understand it MUP, as used here, means multi user by
bicycles, pedestrians, people walking dogs, etc. As I mentioned, the
airport road is the perimeter road around the airport and certainly
was not built for cyclists and in that is no different than any
privately constructed highway in the country.

The "new" airport has been a very contentious subject since 1973 when
the swamp was purchased by the government and corruption has been
continually suggested from the original purchase right up to today and
it is possible that the "green road" is simply another effort to "make
things look good".
--
cheers,

John B.

Am 02.07.2016 um 12:56 schrieb Sir Ridesalot:
On Saturday, July 2, 2016 at 6:21:29 AM UTC-4, Duane wrote:
Sir Ridesalot wrote:
No, I'm simply stating why he irks me and a lot of others plus a
lot of others who've given up and left this newsgroup.


That's what kill files are for.

True, but unfortunately they don't remove the disease from the
newsgroup.

From my point of view, the disease of this newsgroup are the big
"ad-hominem" quarrels.

You might wish to take some statistics on how many posts lack content
other than criticizing somebody else for his honest opinion, and then
firmly grab your own nose.

http://velonews.competitor.com/2016/...r-bikes_392106

When was the idea first placed in motion ?

1.8 mill/km

Am 02.07.2016 um 05:55 schrieb jbeattie:
On Friday, July 1, 2016 at 8:45:35 PM UTC-7, sms wrote:
On 7/1/2016 5:59 PM, Joy Beeson wrote:
On Fri, 1 Jul 2016 10:34:41 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

Because railroads have been burned many times by "My innocent
little Johnny got hurt after he cut a hole in your chain-link
fence -- you should have built a stronger fence!", and are
extremely unwilling to allow people who aren't railroad employees
onto their property.

This was considered. A bad idea.

http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Bike-path-by-CalTrain-called-dangerous-idea-3133379.php

Gawd. Fussy, fussy, fussy.
http://bikeportland.org/2014/10/23/f...le-line-112594

My regular commute also parallels 100 mph rail line
https://goo.gl/maps/QHqxZ4KUgiD2 what's so special about that?

As you might see, in Germany they're not even required to fence them in.

On 07-02-2016 17:42, Phil W Lee wrote:
It is far more likely that YOU'LL drive me off - I'm sure I wouldn't
be the first either, and from the complaints we can see about YOUR
behaviour, it is YOU that is more damaging to the group.

Not Frank.
You.
Either your comprehension skills are well below those of my 10 year
old son, or you deliberately misinterpret everything Frank says so
that you can attack him over it.

That's what I was trying to tell him, but I guess I was too nice/subtle.

--
Wes Groleau

On 04/07/2016 3:51 AM, Rolf Mantel wrote:
Am 02.07.2016 um 12:56 schrieb Sir Ridesalot:
On Saturday, July 2, 2016 at 6:21:29 AM UTC-4, Duane wrote:
Sir Ridesalot wrote:
No, I'm simply stating why he irks me and a lot of others plus a
lot of others who've given up and left this newsgroup.


That's what kill files are for.

True, but unfortunately they don't remove the disease from the
newsgroup.

From my point of view, the disease of this newsgroup are the big
"ad-hominem" quarrels.


Yep.

You might wish to take some statistics on how many posts lack content
other than criticizing somebody else for his honest opinion, and then
firmly grab your own nose.

Well I think there are two sides to every story but if you find someone
that you can't take, rather that endlessly fighting with them, I think
it's better to ignore them. And I say that as someone who wasted way
too much time and bandwidth arguing here.

On 7/4/2016 8:17 AM, Duane wrote:
On 04/07/2016 3:51 AM, Rolf Mantel wrote:
Am 02.07.2016 um 12:56 schrieb Sir Ridesalot:
On Saturday, July 2, 2016 at 6:21:29 AM UTC-4, Duane wrote:
Sir Ridesalot wrote:
No, I'm simply stating why he irks me and a lot of others plus a
lot of others who've given up and left this newsgroup.


That's what kill files are for.

True, but unfortunately they don't remove the disease from the
newsgroup.

From my point of view, the disease of this newsgroup are the big
"ad-hominem" quarrels.


Yep.

You might wish to take some statistics on how many posts lack content
other than criticizing somebody else for his honest opinion, and then
firmly grab your own nose.

Well I think there are two sides to every story but if you find someone
that you can't take, rather that endlessly fighting with them, I think
it's better to ignore them. And I say that as someone who wasted way
too much time and bandwidth arguing here.

There a few here who "can't take" people who have brought facts and data
to the discussion, when those facts and data disprove cherished
opinions. Those few tend to respond with ad hominems, then switch to
kill files.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Fri, 1 Jul 2016 00:19:31 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

What becomes available for MUP rights of way are failed railroad lines
in either distant suburbs or rural areas. Those routes seldom have
significant numbers of nearby residents or businesses. They therefore
become used almost exclusively by those who drive there to offload their
bikes and ride back and forth. Management changes wouldn't affect that.

Yep. We have one of those rail and trail things growing in my area:
http://sccrtc.org/projects/multi-modal/monterey-bay-sanctuary-scenic-trail/
About 96% of the 32 mile path has sufficient width to support a
parallel railroad and a MUP. However, that 1.3 miles of property that
needs to be acquired is currently estimated to cost about $8 million,
mostly in widening bridges, overcrossing, or establishing bypasses.
Even the most optimistic calculations of the MUP based on per-user
costs result in unacceptable costs and long term financial burdens.
Current construction costs are at about $2 million per mile.
http://sccrtc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Current_Projects_May_2016.pdf

When the project began, the plan was driven by Eccles & Eastern
Railroad, which wanted to revive the old railroad lines.
http://www.santacruztrains.com/2010/07/eccles-eastern-railroad.html
They started with a commuter and freight train plan over a 2500ft
mountain range separating Santa Cruz from Silicon Valley. Since much
of the old right of way was overbuilt, this was not going to be easy.
So, they switched to reviving the aforementioned coastal route. The
problem was that it went from nowhere to nowhere. Some informal
ridership surveys indicated that there would never be enough riders to
fund the operating costs, much less the amortized construction costs.
So, they looked to public funding, and did quite well. Depending on
which way the wind blew, it was going to haul freight, commuters,
cyclists, excursions, tourists, etc. The county has taken over the
project with the simple expediency of never mentioning who will be
riding on the rails, ignoring the lack of ridership, and emphasizing
the parallel MUP path as the primary user.

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Monday, July 4, 2016 at 11:44:42 AM UTC-4, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Fri, 1 Jul 2016 00:19:31 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

What becomes available for MUP rights of way are failed railroad lines
in either distant suburbs or rural areas. Those routes seldom have
significant numbers of nearby residents or businesses. They therefore
become used almost exclusively by those who drive there to offload their
bikes and ride back and forth. Management changes wouldn't affect that.

Yep. We have one of those rail and trail things growing in my area:
http://sccrtc.org/projects/multi-modal/monterey-bay-sanctuary-scenic-trail/
About 96% of the 32 mile path has sufficient width to support a
parallel railroad and a MUP. However, that 1.3 miles of property that
needs to be acquired is currently estimated to cost about $8 million,
mostly in widening bridges, overcrossing, or establishing bypasses.
Even the most optimistic calculations of the MUP based on per-user
costs result in unacceptable costs and long term financial burdens.
Current construction costs are at about $2 million per mile.
http://sccrtc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Current_Projects_May_2016.pdf

When the project began, the plan was driven by Eccles & Eastern
Railroad, which wanted to revive the old railroad lines.
http://www.santacruztrains.com/2010/07/eccles-eastern-railroad.html
They started with a commuter and freight train plan over a 2500ft
mountain range separating Santa Cruz from Silicon Valley. Since much
of the old right of way was overbuilt, this was not going to be easy.
So, they switched to reviving the aforementioned coastal route. The
problem was that it went from nowhere to nowhere. Some informal
ridership surveys indicated that there would never be enough riders to
fund the operating costs, much less the amortized construction costs.
So, they looked to public funding, and did quite well. Depending on
which way the wind blew, it was going to haul freight, commuters,
cyclists, excursions, tourists, etc. The county has taken over the
project with the simple expediency of never mentioning who will be
riding on the rails, ignoring the lack of ridership, and emphasizing
the parallel MUP path as the primary user.

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

rebuild https://goo.gl/lrjHeJ ? no kidding ?

http://goo.gl/hDlqa1

any relation tween Eccles n Ecclestone ?

I dunno how long ago the Cruss Mtn train went kaput or costs for low grade mant to now from then but the commuter advantage stuns if those hard fact$ are uh obfuscated.

'like' the maglev chimera is bandied and ridiculed for magbuck$ what's the Cruss Mtn fraction of that boondoggle ?

off course no sooner rejuvenated than a quake would slide the RR into the Pacific