What American Cities are Missing: Bikes by the Thousands



B

Bolwerk

Guest
Pat wrote:
> On Jun 5, 12:10 pm, "Amy Blankenship"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> "George Conklin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>> news:[email protected]
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> "Amy Blankenship" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]
>>>> "Bolwerk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> news:[email protected]
>>>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>> In article <[email protected]>, Bolwerk
>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>> From what I understand, cycling is better on your joints than most
>>>>>>> other forms of exercise.
>>>>>> Unless done on a sufficiently soft surface, jogging is horrible on
>>>>>> feet
>>>>>> and leg joints. Yet, there are people I see jogging on the sidewalks
>>>>>> every day.
>>>>>> Should we ban jogging on the sidewalks? Or should we convert all our
>>>>>> sidewalks to barkdust, which is a much less damaging surface to walk
>>>>>> or
>>>>>> jog on?
>>>>> The debate raging right now is whether "abusive" things, including
>>>>> "self-abuse," should all be banned.
>>>>> George says yes. He wants to ban carpentry, automobile mechanics,
>>>>> ditch
>>>>> digging, sewer cleaning, NASCAR, and anything else that might have a
>>> mild
>>>>> occupational hazard.
>>>> Ballet, pro football, mining, sewing...
>>> Pedicabs are abusive of labor and there is no point in bring third-world
>>> horrors to the USA just because you planners have no ideas about what to
>>> do.

>> So in other words, you have no valid objection to it. You just don't like
>> it.

>
> I think that pedicabs are like a lot of things. Yeah, they probably
> are abusive or whatever, but if you are poor and starving and living
> in a slum somewhere, is it better to have a pedicab and maybe make
> some money or is it better to starve.


George really must have a funny definition of "abuse." Let's say a
pedicab driver doesn't make too much. The typical pedicab driver is
probably a temporary job someone takes on in the summer (probably a
student) to make some cash. If they're making minimum wage plus tips,
they maybe aren't doing so badly.

Rather than being abusive, it's probably great exercise.

> As for coming to America, who cares. We have lots of jobs, a minimum
> wage, a permitting system, and things like OSHA. If a person doesn't
> WANT to do it, then they don't HAVE to do it. It's a person's choice
> or employment. If they want to do it, great. Why not? It beats the
> heck out of a lot of other jobs out there.
>
> I guess I see things in shades of gray, not in absolutes.
>
 
B

Bolwerk

Guest
donquijote1954 wrote:
> On Jun 3, 10:26 am, Bolwerk <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Amy Blankenship wrote:
>>> "Dane Buson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]
>>>> "This is why raising the drinking age to 21 amounts to cruel and unusual
>>>> punishment for people who have not done anything wrong--their only crime
>>>> is that they have not passed the arbitrary age we allow drinking at."
>>>> I hardly think that making a test harder and raising the fee counts as
>>>> cruel and unusual punishment. I'm getting our roles confused here,
>>>> aren't I supposed to be the bleeding heart liberal weenie?
>>> You don't have to drink alcohol to live...

>> It helps sometimes. ;)
>>
>> And it's a great way to have fun with all those surplus grains we grow!

>
>
> If MADD catches you saying that you'd be in deep ****. They seem to
> have a way with the HP (via lawyers, who also get a cut in it), and
> politicians (who can catch on the photo op) who otherwise look the
> other way to no less dangerous driving like DUCP (driving under cell
> phone influence) and DUSUV (driving under supersized unnecessary
> vehicle influence).


Well, screw MADD.

Seriously, kudos to them for bringing attention to the drunk driving
issue back in the 1970s.

"OMG, officer, I'm so sorry! I was drunk!"
"Okay, I understand, get home safe."

However, since then they've done nothing but damage to this country.
They've produced an entire generation of now young adults who have no
idea how to handle a drink properly - these young adults make the news
sometimes when one of them manages to poison himself by downing his
first bottle of vodka on his 21st birthday. By making it illegal to
teach children how to drink moderately while still living with their
parents, they've gone so far as to make it illegal to be a responsible
parent in many places in America.

(I know, I know. There are cultural problems with how Americans handle
alcohol. I get annoyed when I go to bars and get made fun of for
drinking club soda - college professors have actually done this to me.
I drink alcohol if I feel like it, but there shouldn't be pressure to
drink or get drunk.)
 
B

Bolwerk

Guest
Pat wrote:
> On Jun 4, 12:44 pm, "Amy Blankenship"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> "Pat" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>> news:[email protected]
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jun 4, 9:49 am, "Amy Blankenship"
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> "Joe the Aroma" <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>> messagenews:[email protected]
>>>>> Which is because most people do not want to live without a car. Seems
>>>>> simple enough to me.
>>>> Simple is as simple does ;-)
>>> Amy, I think Joe has a point. There is a difference between "need a
>>> car" and "want a car".
>>> There are some folk who live in, say Manhattan, and never venture far
>>> from home. They can easily live without a car. Their entire world
>>> might be just a few square miles. They have busses, and trains, and
>>> cabs, etc.
>>> Then there are folk like me (and probably you) who live off the beaten
>>> path who really need cars. There's no public tranportation around and
>>> not much of a population base to support lots of retail, etc., nearby
>>> (thankfully). So a car is needed.
>>> Interestingly, a 20 mile trip to the store may sound like a huge
>>> distance to someone from Manhattan but it's only about 20 minutes,
>>> which is what they are probably walking to their store. The distance
>>> scales are very different.
>>> But there is another set of "tweeners" who probably don't "need" a car
>>> but really enjoy the freedom of owning one. They don't have to wait
>>> for the bus or the cab or rent a car for a night out.
>>> I'm not sure how much conjection or pollution difference it would be
>>> if they all sold their cars, but I guess that's not for me to decide.
>>> If they an afford one, that's their choice. The best gov't can/should
>>> do it to provide them with other choices so that maybe they decide to
>>> live without a car. But it's a person's decision.

>> That's all anyone here is advocating for. I've never figured out why people
>> would argue to remove people's choices to walk/bike/use transit, but there
>> are many who do.
>>
>> -Amy

>
> I'd say that they are morons who live in cities, but I fear that that
> would be redundant. ;-)


These particular "morons" seem to live in the suburbs primarily, or
suburbanized rural areas anyway.

Funny enough, improving transit systems in cities and metropolitan areas
would probably only benefit rural areas. The energy savings alone would
be remarkable. Smog hurts the health of urban residents, but pollutants
also hurt the environment in rural areas.
 
B

Bolwerk

Guest
Amy Blankenship wrote:
> "george conklin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
>> "Amy Blankenship" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]
>>> "george conklin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]
>>> ...
>>>>> Me? I don't really believe in banning things, unless you're talking
>>>>> about over-the-counter sales of cyanide or something. I was just
>>>>> taking your reasoning to its logical conclusion.
>>>> Nonsense.
>>>>
>>>> Cycle-rickshaw pullers are among the most vulnerable section of the
>>>> urban poor
>>>> The work is very arduous and debilitating. Though the daily earning of
>>>> the puller would be about Rs 100-150 ($ 2-3),
>>> We're talking about New York!
>>>

>> The physical abuse is the same.

>
> Let's see. First you objected to pedicabs in New York because they are
> abusive in India. Then it was pointed out to you that most pedicab
> operators in New York are actually entrepreneurs, doing it quite by their
> own choice. You then decided you were against it because a pedicab operator
> might wear out his knees. It was pointed out to you that many other
> professions in the US have a far greater potential for damage or injury to
> the person involved in them than pedicab driver. You stated as clearly as
> you ever state anything that you don't object to those other professions.
> So obviously you *do not* object to damaging professions per se.
>
> More recently, you're back to the argument that because the culture of India
> makes the lot of a pedicab driver less than optimal, we should not have
> pedicabs in New York. When I point out to you that the culture of India has
> no effect on the pedicab drivers in New York, you're back to claiming that
> the "physical abuse" is the basis of your objection. Since you've made it
> clear that physical abuse in one's vocation per se is not something you
> object to across the board, then what, specifically, is it about pedicab
> drivers that you *really* object to?


Ha ha.

Seriously, that's the tactic George *always* uses. For whatever reason,
he decides he doesn't like something, makes up numerous reasons to
object to it, and then dodges any opportunity to offer a rational
explanation. He does it with transit too. He also did it with horse
farms.

He gets agitated when you ask him to support his positions, and then
accuses you of hating "real people," the "rural," and apple pie.
 
R

rotten

Guest
On Jun 6, 4:30 pm, Bolwerk <[email protected]> wrote:
> Pat wrote:
> > On Jun 4, 12:44 pm, "Amy Blankenship"
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> "Pat" <[email protected]> wrote in message

>
> >>news:[email protected]

>
> >>> On Jun 4, 9:49 am, "Amy Blankenship"
> >>> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>> "Joe the Aroma" <[email protected]> wrote in
> >>>> messagenews:[email protected]
> >>>>> Which is because most people do not want to live without a car. Seems
> >>>>> simple enough to me.
> >>>> Simple is as simple does ;-)
> >>> Amy, I think Joe has a point. There is a difference between "need a
> >>> car" and "want a car".
> >>> There are some folk who live in, say Manhattan, and never venture far
> >>> from home. They can easily live without a car. Their entire world
> >>> might be just a few square miles. They have busses, and trains, and
> >>> cabs, etc.
> >>> Then there are folk like me (and probably you) who live off the beaten
> >>> path who really need cars. There's no public tranportation around and
> >>> not much of a population base to support lots of retail, etc., nearby
> >>> (thankfully). So a car is needed.
> >>> Interestingly, a 20 mile trip to the store may sound like a huge
> >>> distance to someone from Manhattan but it's only about 20 minutes,
> >>> which is what they are probably walking to their store. The distance
> >>> scales are very different.
> >>> But there is another set of "tweeners" who probably don't "need" a car
> >>> but really enjoy the freedom of owning one. They don't have to wait
> >>> for the bus or the cab or rent a car for a night out.
> >>> I'm not sure how much conjection or pollution difference it would be
> >>> if they all sold their cars, but I guess that's not for me to decide.
> >>> If they an afford one, that's their choice. The best gov't can/should
> >>> do it to provide them with other choices so that maybe they decide to
> >>> live without a car. But it's a person's decision.
> >> That's all anyone here is advocating for. I've never figured out why people
> >> would argue to remove people's choices to walk/bike/use transit, but there
> >> are many who do.

>
> >> -Amy

>
> > I'd say that they are morons who live in cities, but I fear that that
> > would be redundant. ;-)

>
> These particular "morons" seem to live in the suburbs primarily, or
> suburbanized rural areas anyway.
>
> Funny enough, improving transit systems in cities and metropolitan areas
> would probably only benefit rural areas. The energy savings alone would
> be remarkable. Smog hurts the health of urban residents, but pollutants
> also hurt the environment in rural areas.


I live in the city, I just think nobody should subsidize anybody
else's transportation.

As for pollution, mandating pollution controls on cars can clean up
air quality without affecting anybody's transportation options.
 
B

Bill

Guest
rotten wrote:
> On Jun 6, 4:30 pm, Bolwerk <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> Funny enough, improving transit systems in cities and metropolitan areas
>> would probably only benefit rural areas. The energy savings alone would
>> be remarkable. Smog hurts the health of urban residents, but pollutants
>> also hurt the environment in rural areas.

>
> I live in the city, I just think nobody should subsidize anybody
> else's transportation.
>
> As for pollution, mandating pollution controls on cars can clean up
> air quality without affecting anybody's transportation options.
>


So does that mean you want all the city office clones to move into the
city and make it all the more crowded. That sounds like your solution.
Chicago is kind of a model for this kind of thing with it's Metra rail
system that branches out of Chicago like the spokes of a wheel. There
are plenty of parking spots where the train picks up people, even in the
dead of winter and then takes them on a 79 MPH straight shot to the
city. Once there one can use the 'el and overground/underground subway
system. You can get off of that close enough for a short bus hop and
short walk to work. It works for Chicago but has merely spread the
suburbs out to a 50 mile plus radius of the center of the city.
To have all those office workers live in Chicago would be an absurdly
crowded situation.
No easy fix in sight.
I'll bet New York is about the same, even if not quite planned out as
well as Chicago.
Bill Baka
 
B

Bolwerk

Guest
rotten wrote:
> On Jun 6, 4:30 pm, Bolwerk <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Pat wrote:
>>> On Jun 4, 12:44 pm, "Amy Blankenship"
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> "Pat" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> news:[email protected]
>>>>> On Jun 4, 9:49 am, "Amy Blankenship"
>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>> "Joe the Aroma" <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>>>> messagenews:[email protected]
>>>>>>> Which is because most people do not want to live without a car. Seems
>>>>>>> simple enough to me.
>>>>>> Simple is as simple does ;-)
>>>>> Amy, I think Joe has a point. There is a difference between "need a
>>>>> car" and "want a car".
>>>>> There are some folk who live in, say Manhattan, and never venture far
>>>>> from home. They can easily live without a car. Their entire world
>>>>> might be just a few square miles. They have busses, and trains, and
>>>>> cabs, etc.
>>>>> Then there are folk like me (and probably you) who live off the beaten
>>>>> path who really need cars. There's no public tranportation around and
>>>>> not much of a population base to support lots of retail, etc., nearby
>>>>> (thankfully). So a car is needed.
>>>>> Interestingly, a 20 mile trip to the store may sound like a huge
>>>>> distance to someone from Manhattan but it's only about 20 minutes,
>>>>> which is what they are probably walking to their store. The distance
>>>>> scales are very different.
>>>>> But there is another set of "tweeners" who probably don't "need" a car
>>>>> but really enjoy the freedom of owning one. They don't have to wait
>>>>> for the bus or the cab or rent a car for a night out.
>>>>> I'm not sure how much conjection or pollution difference it would be
>>>>> if they all sold their cars, but I guess that's not for me to decide.
>>>>> If they an afford one, that's their choice. The best gov't can/should
>>>>> do it to provide them with other choices so that maybe they decide to
>>>>> live without a car. But it's a person's decision.
>>>> That's all anyone here is advocating for. I've never figured out why people
>>>> would argue to remove people's choices to walk/bike/use transit, but there
>>>> are many who do.
>>>> -Amy
>>> I'd say that they are morons who live in cities, but I fear that that
>>> would be redundant. ;-)

>> These particular "morons" seem to live in the suburbs primarily, or
>> suburbanized rural areas anyway.
>>
>> Funny enough, improving transit systems in cities and metropolitan areas
>> would probably only benefit rural areas. The energy savings alone would
>> be remarkable. Smog hurts the health of urban residents, but pollutants
>> also hurt the environment in rural areas.

>
> I live in the city, I just think nobody should subsidize anybody
> else's transportation.


I don't know what it means for "nobody" to "subsidize anybody else's
transportation." Depending where you live and if you drive, your
transportation is probably subsidized by all kinds of people, places,
and funding schemes, ranging from gas taxes to direct federal
appropriations.

Even if you walk, you're probably using a subsidized sidewalk.

> As for pollution, mandating pollution controls on cars can clean up
> air quality without affecting anybody's transportation options.


Pollution controls on cars have thus far proven only so effective. In
any case, people often have only one option: private automobiles.
Expanding transit system might give many people at least two options.
 
B

Bolwerk

Guest
Bill wrote:
> rotten wrote:
>> On Jun 6, 4:30 pm, Bolwerk <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Funny enough, improving transit systems in cities and metropolitan areas
>>> would probably only benefit rural areas. The energy savings alone would
>>> be remarkable. Smog hurts the health of urban residents, but pollutants
>>> also hurt the environment in rural areas.

>>
>> I live in the city, I just think nobody should subsidize anybody
>> else's transportation.
>>
>> As for pollution, mandating pollution controls on cars can clean up
>> air quality without affecting anybody's transportation options.
>>

>
> So does that mean you want all the city office clones to move into the
> city and make it all the more crowded. That sounds like your solution.
> Chicago is kind of a model for this kind of thing with it's Metra rail
> system that branches out of Chicago like the spokes of a wheel. There
> are plenty of parking spots where the train picks up people, even in the
> dead of winter and then takes them on a 79 MPH straight shot to the
> city. Once there one can use the 'el and overground/underground subway
> system. You can get off of that close enough for a short bus hop and
> short walk to work. It works for Chicago but has merely spread the
> suburbs out to a 50 mile plus radius of the center of the city.
> To have all those office workers live in Chicago would be an absurdly
> crowded situation.


I don't think it would be "absurdly" crowded. Say a half million of
these office workers come in every day (probably an overblown estimate).
Say they all moved to Chicago overnight. With just under 2.9 million
people today, that would bring Chicago's population to around 3.4
million. That's less than the population of Chicago in 1950 (3.6
million), when it peaked.

> No easy fix in sight.
> I'll bet New York is about the same, even if not quite planned out as
> well as Chicago.


I think New York, a much bigger city, gets half a million a day, so
Chicago probably gets less. I don't have Excel here to check, but if
you're curious, urban daytime population increases are available at:
http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/daytime/daytimepop.html

New York also has a considerably higher number of rail commuters.
 
R

rotten

Guest
On Jun 7, 10:52 am, Bolwerk <[email protected]> wrote:

> I don't know what it means for "nobody" to "subsidize anybody else's
> transportation." Depending where you live and if you drive, your
> transportation is probably subsidized by all kinds of people, places,
> and funding schemes, ranging from gas taxes to direct federal
> appropriations.


User fees as much as possible.

> > As for pollution, mandating pollution controls on cars can clean up
> > air quality without affecting anybody's transportation options.

>
> Pollution controls on cars have thus far proven only so effective. In
> any case, people often have only one option: private automobiles.
> Expanding transit system might give many people at least two options.


No they don't. If you want transit, move to a city. We shouldn't have
mass transit in areas with low population density, just to give people
a choice. I'm pro-choice, but I'm also realistic. I'd like to live in
the country, but I don't expect a city-like nightlife. People who live
in the outskirts shouldn't expect transit.
 
B

Bolwerk

Guest
rotten wrote:
> On Jun 7, 10:52 am, Bolwerk <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> I don't know what it means for "nobody" to "subsidize anybody else's
>> transportation." Depending where you live and if you drive, your
>> transportation is probably subsidized by all kinds of people, places,
>> and funding schemes, ranging from gas taxes to direct federal
>> appropriations.

>
> User fees as much as possible.
>
>>> As for pollution, mandating pollution controls on cars can clean up
>>> air quality without affecting anybody's transportation options.

>> Pollution controls on cars have thus far proven only so effective. In
>> any case, people often have only one option: private automobiles.
>> Expanding transit system might give many people at least two options.

>
> No they don't. If you want transit, move to a city. We shouldn't have
> mass transit in areas with low population density, just to give people
> a choice. I'm pro-choice, but I'm also realistic. I'd like to live in
> the country, but I don't expect a city-like nightlife. People who live
> in the outskirts shouldn't expect transit.


Um, I live in a pretty large city as cities go, and I was talking about
cities.

And no, we shouldn't have mass transit in areas with low population
density. Mass transit should absolutely be built where it will be most
effective.
 
B

Bill

Guest
Bolwerk wrote:
> Bill wrote:
>> rotten wrote:
>>> On Jun 6, 4:30 pm, Bolwerk <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Funny enough, improving transit systems in cities and metropolitan
>>>> areas
>>>> would probably only benefit rural areas. The energy savings alone
>>>> would
>>>> be remarkable. Smog hurts the health of urban residents, but
>>>> pollutants
>>>> also hurt the environment in rural areas.
>>>
>>> I live in the city, I just think nobody should subsidize anybody
>>> else's transportation.
>>>
>>> As for pollution, mandating pollution controls on cars can clean up
>>> air quality without affecting anybody's transportation options.
>>>

>>
>> So does that mean you want all the city office clones to move into the
>> city and make it all the more crowded. That sounds like your solution.
>> Chicago is kind of a model for this kind of thing with it's Metra rail
>> system that branches out of Chicago like the spokes of a wheel. There
>> are plenty of parking spots where the train picks up people, even in
>> the dead of winter and then takes them on a 79 MPH straight shot to
>> the city. Once there one can use the 'el and overground/underground
>> subway system. You can get off of that close enough for a short bus
>> hop and short walk to work. It works for Chicago but has merely spread
>> the suburbs out to a 50 mile plus radius of the center of the city.
>> To have all those office workers live in Chicago would be an absurdly
>> crowded situation.

>
> I don't think it would be "absurdly" crowded. Say a half million of
> these office workers come in every day (probably an overblown estimate).
> Say they all moved to Chicago overnight. With just under 2.9 million
> people today, that would bring Chicago's population to around 3.4
> million. That's less than the population of Chicago in 1950 (3.6
> million), when it peaked.
>
>> No easy fix in sight.
>> I'll bet New York is about the same, even if not quite planned out as
>> well as Chicago.

>
> I think New York, a much bigger city, gets half a million a day, so
> Chicago probably gets less. I don't have Excel here to check, but if
> you're curious, urban daytime population increases are available at:
> http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/daytime/daytimepop.html
>
> New York also has a considerably higher number of rail commuters.



I just pulled up that excel sheet and what a surprise, New York goes up
and down by about 563,000 each day compared to Chicago's measly 142,000.
Houston is third with 403,000 and L.A. with 128,000. I've been to L.A.
and Chicago recently and somehow these numbers don't add up to the
horrendous traffic jams that occur every day.
It is quite possible that a majority of cars clogging the roads are
short commuters that could use alternate transportation but choose not
to. That might explain some of the lard ball office workers I have had
to sit next to. L.A. might only have a population change of 128,000 but
I have tried to drive through it, starting at about 5 A.M. down by
Anaheim and not getting to the north of San Fernando valley until 10
A.M. and that was back in 1973.
L.A. is now on my 'places to avoid' list.
Bill Baka
 
B

Bolwerk

Guest
Bill wrote:
> Bolwerk wrote:
>> Bill wrote:
>>> rotten wrote:
>>>> On Jun 6, 4:30 pm, Bolwerk <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Funny enough, improving transit systems in cities and metropolitan
>>>>> areas
>>>>> would probably only benefit rural areas. The energy savings alone
>>>>> would
>>>>> be remarkable. Smog hurts the health of urban residents, but
>>>>> pollutants
>>>>> also hurt the environment in rural areas.
>>>>
>>>> I live in the city, I just think nobody should subsidize anybody
>>>> else's transportation.
>>>>
>>>> As for pollution, mandating pollution controls on cars can clean up
>>>> air quality without affecting anybody's transportation options.
>>>>
>>>
>>> So does that mean you want all the city office clones to move into
>>> the city and make it all the more crowded. That sounds like your
>>> solution.
>>> Chicago is kind of a model for this kind of thing with it's Metra
>>> rail system that branches out of Chicago like the spokes of a wheel.
>>> There are plenty of parking spots where the train picks up people,
>>> even in the dead of winter and then takes them on a 79 MPH straight
>>> shot to the city. Once there one can use the 'el and
>>> overground/underground subway system. You can get off of that close
>>> enough for a short bus hop and short walk to work. It works for
>>> Chicago but has merely spread the suburbs out to a 50 mile plus
>>> radius of the center of the city.
>>> To have all those office workers live in Chicago would be an absurdly
>>> crowded situation.

>>
>> I don't think it would be "absurdly" crowded. Say a half million of
>> these office workers come in every day (probably an overblown
>> estimate). Say they all moved to Chicago overnight. With just under
>> 2.9 million people today, that would bring Chicago's population to
>> around 3.4 million. That's less than the population of Chicago in
>> 1950 (3.6 million), when it peaked.
>>
>>> No easy fix in sight.
>>> I'll bet New York is about the same, even if not quite planned out as
>>> well as Chicago.

>>
>> I think New York, a much bigger city, gets half a million a day, so
>> Chicago probably gets less. I don't have Excel here to check, but if
>> you're curious, urban daytime population increases are available at:
>> http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/daytime/daytimepop.html
>>
>> New York also has a considerably higher number of rail commuters.

>
>
> I just pulled up that excel sheet and what a surprise, New York goes up
> and down by about 563,000 each day compared to Chicago's measly 142,000.
> Houston is third with 403,000 and L.A. with 128,000. I've been to L.A.
> and Chicago recently and somehow these numbers don't add up to the
> horrendous traffic jams that occur every day.
> It is quite possible that a majority of cars clogging the roads are
> short commuters that could use alternate transportation but choose not
> to. That might explain some of the lard ball office workers I have had
> to sit next to. L.A. might only have a population change of 128,000 but
> I have tried to drive through it, starting at about 5 A.M. down by
> Anaheim and not getting to the north of San Fernando valley until 10
> A.M. and that was back in 1973.
> L.A. is now on my 'places to avoid' list.


Well, don't forget this is about the urban population as defined by
what's contained within its political boundaries. Much of that traffic
clogging L.A. probably originates within L.A.

This isn't telling you how people utilize their automobiles within their
respective cities. Most large cities have cabs, livery vehicles,
commuters from periphery areas (effectively suburbanites, but legally
live in the city), municipal vehicles, etc. In N.Y., a cab strike means
smooth flowing traffic for a day or so.

L.A. may only be worse off because automobiles are so integrated into
life that there aren't many chores that could be achieved without them.
 
J

John Kane

Guest
On Jun 5, 6:54 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
wrote:
> On Jun 5, 5:07 pm, John Kane <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On May 29, 10:48 pm, Nobody <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> > > On 29 May 2007 13:57:53 -0700, John Kane <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> > > >On May 28, 10:06 pm, Nobody <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > >> On Fri, 25 May 2007 13:16:20 -0700, [email protected] (Tom Keats)
> > > >> wrote:

>
> > > >> >In article <[email protected]>,
> > > >> > Nobody <[email protected]> writes:

>
> > > >> >>>> It simply is not practicable (note the use of adjective), either by
> > > >> >>>> wish or function.

>
> > > >> >>>It is for me, and for many others.

>
> > > >> >> Yeah, but what youse who like this "challenge" in transportation don't
> > > >> >> seem to appreciate, you're not even in the slightest minority.

>
> > > >> >We have enough presence to show up in modal share statistics
> > > >> >for numerous North American cities.

>
> > > >> >> I lke to go biking for exercise, enjoyment...but for basic
> > > >> >> transportation to and from my place of employment 10 km away? Go jump
> > > >> >> in the closest pond.

>
> > > >> >10 km might be a bit much for a beginning rider.
> > > >> >But it doesn't take long to be able to easily
> > > >> >and routinely ride that distance, and even further.

>
> > > >> >> It just does not make sense for most of us. As I say, it is not
> > > >> >> "practicable". (And that's different than beng practical.)

>
> > > >> >Who exactly /is/ "most of us"?

>
> > > >> >And why are you so vehement about discouraging people
> > > >> >from cycle-commuting by denying its practice-ability?

>
> > > >> ***********, what you're suggesting is a situation of "enthusiasts"
> > > >> dictating what they believe the rest of humanity should be doing.

>
> > > >> I'm not discouraging anybody from doing anything.

>
> > > >> So, regardless of distance, let's say, I can (i.e. "am able to") ride
> > > >> a bicycle to work. Um, urban size dictates that is gonna be a
> > > >> time-consuming, and in weather-challenging conditions, rather
> > > >> unpleasant.

>
> > > >Depends on where you live and work. In Canada the median commuting
> > > >distance is 7.2 km or perhaps 15-20 minutes by bike[1]. Given that
> > > >that is the median time it is likely that for a lot of people the
> > > >distance is significantly less. In fact for female commuters it is 6.4
> > > >km.

>
> > > >Here is a simple bar chart showing a rough breakdown of who commutes
> > > >how far
> > > >http://ca.geocities.com/jrkrideau/cycling/commute.png. Over 60% of
> > > >the Canadian working population have a less than 10 km (or 20-30
> > > >minute by bike) commute.

>
> > > >The way I see it there's lots of room for people to cycle (or even
> > > >GASP, walk) to work while some people clearly would find it difficult
> > > >or completely impractical.

>
> > > >John Kane, Kingston ON Canada

>
> > > And how far are YOU going to cycle in Kingston in
> > > December/January/February/March?

>
> > Well I only do about 1.5 km since I live near work. When working in
> > Ottawa my commute was 7.5 km and I did it all year round. Much
> > healthier and more relaxing than driving though I do recommend studded
> > tires for winter riding.

>
> > Sorry to take so long getting back to you. Next question?

>
> > John Kane, Kingston ON Canada

>
> > > >1. Commuting to Work, 2001 Census Catalogue no.: 97F0015XIE2001001
> > > > Unfortunately it does not give a breakdown by community size or
> > > >urban/rural split.

>
> > > >--clip ---

>
> Must have been fun with an average 80 inches and 121 days of snow
> cover
>
> http://www.travelingo.org/north-america/canada/guide/72039/


I cannot get that link to show me the stats but they sound about
right. What's so difficult about a little bit of snow? The plows
remove it or it melts. After a big snowstorm the main streets are
usually back to bare pavement within 24 hours, less in most cases.

I was once stuck in Detroit for 3 days when it got hit by a 20 inch
snowstorm. When I finally got out, I took the train back to Ottawa
where they had had about 18 inches the night before. Except for the
higher-than-usual snow banks you would not have known that there had
been a storm. Detroit is, quite reasonably, not prepared for such
storms, Ottawa, equally reasonably, is prepared.

The only time I didn't ride to work because of weather was the day
that the temperature was -59 C (with the wind chill, probably -45
without) and I found the bicycle was freezing up on me: The pawl was
taking 10-15 seconds to fall if I back-pedalled.



John Kane, Kingston ON Canada
 
B

Bill

Guest
Bolwerk wrote:
> Bill wrote:
>> L.A. is now on my 'places to avoid' list.

>
> Well, don't forget this is about the urban population as defined by
> what's contained within its political boundaries. Much of that traffic
> clogging L.A. probably originates within L.A.
>
> This isn't telling you how people utilize their automobiles within their
> respective cities. Most large cities have cabs, livery vehicles,
> commuters from periphery areas (effectively suburbanites, but legally
> live in the city), municipal vehicles, etc. In N.Y., a cab strike means
> smooth flowing traffic for a day or so.
>
> L.A. may only be worse off because automobiles are so integrated into
> life that there aren't many chores that could be achieved without them.


There is public transit but it is really sub-standard, so the poor
planning is probably the root of the mess there. The last time I flew on
a commercial flight down there the pilot just couldn't resist saying
"That bowl of brown air is our destination.", meaning of course L.A.
Once a flight I was on was 'smogged out' and had to land at the
Hollywood-Burbank airport instead. Living there and breathing that mud
has to be very bad for the health, which makes a good reason to live
somewhere else. I think it is up to a critical mass thing where there
are just plain too many people living in a natural smog bowl.
Bill Baka
 
D

Dane Buson

Guest
In rec.bicycles.misc rotten <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Jun 7, 10:52 am, Bolwerk <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> I don't know what it means for "nobody" to "subsidize anybody else's
>> transportation." Depending where you live and if you drive, your
>> transportation is probably subsidized by all kinds of people, places,
>> and funding schemes, ranging from gas taxes to direct federal
>> appropriations.

>
> User fees as much as possible.


So, you're talking about $7-13 a gallon gas? Or perhaps every road will
become a toll road? Of course we could also install a GPS box and tax
you for miles driven. Alternately we could charge people based on
odometer readings when you register every year. [1]

I also look forward to the Sneaker Tax. Of course this will have to be
built into the cost of the shoes. Perhaps we'll call it something like
Very Appreciable Travel and tack it onto the cost of all travel related
goods.

[1] I'm sure no one will stop their odometer, falsify it, or fail to
register their car to avoid paying...

--
Dane Buson - [email protected]
The world really isn't any worse.
It's just that the news coverage is so much better.
 
J

Jeremy Parker

Guest
"rotten" <[email protected]> wrote in

[snip]

> No they don't. If you want transit, move to a city. We shouldn't
> have
> mass transit in areas with low population density, just to give
> people
> a choice.


[snip]

There's a solution to that. It's generally reckoned that the
catchment area for a transit station is a ten minute trip to get to
the station. For a pedestrian that's about half a mile.

However, for a cyclist, the distance is four times as much, about two
miles. The population served goes up with area served, which goes up
as the square of the distance to the station.

Thus a transit station could serve sixteen times as many customers,
if those customers were cyclists, as it could serve if the customers
were pedestrians.

There's more. With the two mile feeder, the stations can be further
apart. Actually, the stations may well have been built far apart
anyway. Many commuter rail lines were originally built to run steam
trains. Because steam trains are slow at accelerating and
decelerating, the stations were originally built a considerable
distance apart, and so don't serve well even the population alongside
the tracks, unless that population rides bikes.

Stopping at stations wastes time, if those stations are not your
station. Cut down on the station stops, and all trains become
expresses

Jeremy Parker
 
R

rotten

Guest
On Jun 7, 1:25 pm, Dane Buson <[email protected]> wrote:
> In rec.bicycles.misc rotten <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 7, 10:52 am, Bolwerk <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> >> I don't know what it means for "nobody" to "subsidize anybody else's
> >> transportation." Depending where you live and if you drive, your
> >> transportation is probably subsidized by all kinds of people, places,
> >> and funding schemes, ranging from gas taxes to direct federal
> >> appropriations.

>
> > User fees as much as possible.

>
> So, you're talking about $7-13 a gallon gas? Or perhaps every road will
> become a toll road? Of course we could also install a GPS box and tax
> you for miles driven. Alternately we could charge people based on
> odometer readings when you register every year. [1]
>
> I also look forward to the Sneaker Tax. Of course this will have to be
> built into the cost of the shoes. Perhaps we'll call it something like
> Very Appreciable Travel and tack it onto the cost of all travel related
> goods.
>
> [1] I'm sure no one will stop their odometer, falsify it, or fail to
> register their car to avoid paying...
>
> --
> Dane Buson - [email protected]
> The world really isn't any worse.
> It's just that the news coverage is so much better.


Calm down little man, I don't think it's reasonable to charge for
walking or whatever, obviously on a local level not everything will be
able to be paid for on that basis. Sheesh, people get so angry.
 
D

Dane Buson

Guest
In rec.bicycles.misc rotten <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Jun 7, 1:25 pm, Dane Buson <[email protected]> wrote:
>> In rec.bicycles.misc rotten <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > On Jun 7, 10:52 am, Bolwerk <[email protected]> wrote:

>>
>> >> I don't know what it means for "nobody" to "subsidize anybody else's
>> >> transportation." Depending where you live and if you drive, your
>> >> transportation is probably subsidized by all kinds of people, places,
>> >> and funding schemes, ranging from gas taxes to direct federal
>> >> appropriations.

>>
>> > User fees as much as possible.

>>
>> So, you're talking about $7-13 a gallon gas? Or perhaps every road will
>> become a toll road? Of course we could also install a GPS box and tax
>> you for miles driven. Alternately we could charge people based on
>> odometer readings when you register every year. [1]
>>
>> I also look forward to the Sneaker Tax. Of course this will have to be
>> built into the cost of the shoes. Perhaps we'll call it something like
>> Very Appreciable Travel and tack it onto the cost of all travel related
>> goods.
>>
>> [1] I'm sure no one will stop their odometer, falsify it, or fail to
>> register their car to avoid paying...

>
> Calm down little man, I don't think it's reasonable to charge for
> walking or whatever, obviously on a local level not everything will be
> able to be paid for on that basis. Sheesh, people get so angry.


Angry? I'm sorry if I came off that way. I was being mildly sarcastic,
but not at all angry. Perhaps I should have added the odd ;-) in there.

I'm actually in favour of user fees in many cases, especially roads
which have historically been subsidized heavily by property tax and
general funds. Of course the problem with user fees is getting people
to agree to cough up the money up front.

When you have to pay the full cost at every use, people often balk. You
can see the same effect in many places in life.

ex. Someone who would hesitate if you made them pay $1000 for a year of
coffee has no problem with paying $3-4 multiple times a week.

--
Dane Buson - [email protected]
The penalty for laughing in a courtroom is six months in jail; if it
were not for this penalty, the jury would never hear the evidence.
-- H. L. Mencken
 
R

rotten

Guest
On Jun 7, 5:30 pm, Dane Buson <[email protected]> wrote:
> In rec.bicycles.misc rotten <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jun 7, 1:25 pm, Dane Buson <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> In rec.bicycles.misc rotten <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> > On Jun 7, 10:52 am, Bolwerk <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> >> >> I don't know what it means for "nobody" to "subsidize anybody else's
> >> >> transportation." Depending where you live and if you drive, your
> >> >> transportation is probably subsidized by all kinds of people, places,
> >> >> and funding schemes, ranging from gas taxes to direct federal
> >> >> appropriations.

>
> >> > User fees as much as possible.

>
> >> So, you're talking about $7-13 a gallon gas? Or perhaps every road will
> >> become a toll road? Of course we could also install a GPS box and tax
> >> you for miles driven. Alternately we could charge people based on
> >> odometer readings when you register every year. [1]

>
> >> I also look forward to the Sneaker Tax. Of course this will have to be
> >> built into the cost of the shoes. Perhaps we'll call it something like
> >> Very Appreciable Travel and tack it onto the cost of all travel related
> >> goods.

>
> >> [1] I'm sure no one will stop their odometer, falsify it, or fail to
> >> register their car to avoid paying...

>
> > Calm down little man, I don't think it's reasonable to charge for
> > walking or whatever, obviously on a local level not everything will be
> > able to be paid for on that basis. Sheesh, people get so angry.

>
> Angry? I'm sorry if I came off that way. I was being mildly sarcastic,
> but not at all angry. Perhaps I should have added the odd ;-) in there.
>
> I'm actually in favour of user fees in many cases, especially roads
> which have historically been subsidized heavily by property tax and
> general funds. Of course the problem with user fees is getting people
> to agree to cough up the money up front.
>
> When you have to pay the full cost at every use, people often balk. You
> can see the same effect in many places in life.
>
> ex. Someone who would hesitate if you made them pay $1000 for a year of
> coffee has no problem with paying $3-4 multiple times a week.
>
> --
> Dane Buson - [email protected]
> The penalty for laughing in a courtroom is six months in jail; if it
> were not for this penalty, the jury would never hear the evidence.
> -- H. L. Mencken


User fees for roads would not even be close to $7-$8 per gallon, I
remember seeing that existing gas taxes already cover around 50% of
the cost of roads, with tolls and excise taxes making up around half
of the rest.
 
J

Joe the Aroma

Guest
"Bill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]

> So does that mean you want all the city office clones to move into the
> city and make it all the more crowded. That sounds like your solution.
> Chicago is kind of a model for this kind of thing with it's Metra rail
> system that branches out of Chicago like the spokes of a wheel. There are
> plenty of parking spots where the train picks up people, even in the dead
> of winter and then takes them on a 79 MPH straight shot to the city. Once
> there one can use the 'el and overground/underground subway system. You
> can get off of that close enough for a short bus hop and short walk to
> work. It works for Chicago but has merely spread the suburbs out to a 50
> mile plus radius of the center of the city.
> To have all those office workers live in Chicago would be an absurdly
> crowded situation.
> No easy fix in sight.
> I'll bet New York is about the same, even if not quite planned out as well
> as Chicago.
> Bill Baka


Um no, I expressly do not want anyone to have to move where they do not want
to, provided they have the means.