Paige
10-18-02, 06:20 AM
Not once is cycling mentioned as a solution.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002-10-17-traffic_x.htm
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002-10-17-traffic_x.htm
Commuting - Traffic nightmares beginning to cost cities
Bikeforums.net is a forum about nothing but bikes. Our community can help you find information about hard-to-find and localized information like bicycle tours, specialties like where in your area to have your recumbent bike serviced, or what are the best bicycle tires and seats for the activities you use your bike for.Merriwether
10-18-02, 08:37 AM
It is strange. Cycling has the greatest advantages in congested areas. You aren't caught in long lines of stopped cars, you can park while others cannot, and in a pinch you can walk along an otherwise impassible stretch. You would think it would be in precisely such areas that cycling would catch on the most.
But congestion makes the exaggerated fear of traffic most intense, discouraging many people from trying. (Even in Manhattan, in which many people have caught on to cycling, far fewer people brave traffic than could practically do.)
The funniest bit in the article is the mention of busses, as if anyone who has a choice is going to use them. Can you imagine anything worse than sitting in traffic jams on a bus?
But congestion makes the exaggerated fear of traffic most intense, discouraging many people from trying. (Even in Manhattan, in which many people have caught on to cycling, far fewer people brave traffic than could practically do.)
The funniest bit in the article is the mention of busses, as if anyone who has a choice is going to use them. Can you imagine anything worse than sitting in traffic jams on a bus?
Paul L.
10-18-02, 09:02 AM
Actually, on my rest days I love to sit on the bus with a good book and just have some me time. No one can call me on the phone, my bike sits on the front rack and I get to still have a short bike ride to the bus stop. Of course it is also fun to people watch on the bus there are some rather interesting folks that ride the bus. Every once in awhile I will see one of the other bicycle commuters on the bus and can talk about routes. Anyway, I am surprised at how full the buses are here in Phoenix. I think they do have their place, even for a bike commuter who is only riding one way on a day to rest his/her legs. BTW my commute is 18 miles one way so rest days are important to me.
Chris L
10-18-02, 07:04 PM
We've known about this around here for a long time. Although we don't have massive traffic problems in this little corner of the world, there is a lot of concern about pollution and so on driving tourists away. They have even mentioned things like capping the population to prevent this problem from spiralling, but again cycling gets a limited mention.
Having said that, the local council have at least made a rudimentary effort to make things safer for us. I have on occasions seen flashing signs on roads displaying "cyclists are road users, too". However, I think this is more of a knee-jerk reaction to the cyclist deaths we had earlier in the year rather than looking at a viable transport alternative.
Having said that, the local council have at least made a rudimentary effort to make things safer for us. I have on occasions seen flashing signs on roads displaying "cyclists are road users, too". However, I think this is more of a knee-jerk reaction to the cyclist deaths we had earlier in the year rather than looking at a viable transport alternative.
mike
10-19-02, 06:50 AM
This article focuses mainly on Atlanta which has some of the worst or non-existant transportation and road planning I have ever seen. It must have been modeled after Bankok, Thailand.
They have these long main roads that shaft out into the burbs and then these little nodules of housing developments that link to the main road, but have no other access to any other road or artery. Anybody that wants to get anywhere has to get onto the main road and drive endlessly to hook up to roads that will intersect and actually get you somewhere.
Atlanta has world-class traffic jams. Though not unique, Atlanta certainly provides a model for the sour ramifications of unplanned urban sprawl.
They have these long main roads that shaft out into the burbs and then these little nodules of housing developments that link to the main road, but have no other access to any other road or artery. Anybody that wants to get anywhere has to get onto the main road and drive endlessly to hook up to roads that will intersect and actually get you somewhere.
Atlanta has world-class traffic jams. Though not unique, Atlanta certainly provides a model for the sour ramifications of unplanned urban sprawl.
Spire
10-19-02, 07:22 AM
The problem is city density. Everybody wants to have their 1/4 acre of land out in the suburbs and they think life will be better for their little children if they shuttle them around the burbs.
Lets take a look an European city. I'll use London as an example. London has over 12 million people living in it. But it is only slighly bigger than Montreal (which including surrounding areas has about 3.5, that is Montreal + Laval + North Shore + South Shore). So it has about 4 times the population in the same space. That makes public transport that much more attractive. Sure there are traffic problems in the city center (about 8 months ago a 5 pound toll idea was passed to enter the city center). Roads just take up less of the city is another one of the reasons for London's higher density. That is our problem, people are willing to drive and pollute their way to their little land plot out of the city.
Lets take a look an European city. I'll use London as an example. London has over 12 million people living in it. But it is only slighly bigger than Montreal (which including surrounding areas has about 3.5, that is Montreal + Laval + North Shore + South Shore). So it has about 4 times the population in the same space. That makes public transport that much more attractive. Sure there are traffic problems in the city center (about 8 months ago a 5 pound toll idea was passed to enter the city center). Roads just take up less of the city is another one of the reasons for London's higher density. That is our problem, people are willing to drive and pollute their way to their little land plot out of the city.
MichaelW
10-19-02, 10:26 AM
London also has a massive commuting catchment area, 200miles in diameter, with trains that are packed to capacity, the network always on the brink of failure due to decades of under-investment.
The roads in London seem to be in total gridlock in the inner area that and there is a lack of anywhere to park,which puts a few people off car use,
The daily toll of £5 is for the very central area, where car commuters account for well under 10% of the workforce. The mayor is a bit of a maverick with no party backing, so if it all goes FUBAR, the politicians can blame Ken.
The shape of London's suburbs really developed in response to the tube system, so most people are withing walking or bus distance of a station. I dont think you can take a city designed around the premise of total car use, and convert it to public transport or cycle based transportation, the whole architetcture of the place is wrong.
The roads in London seem to be in total gridlock in the inner area that and there is a lack of anywhere to park,which puts a few people off car use,
The daily toll of £5 is for the very central area, where car commuters account for well under 10% of the workforce. The mayor is a bit of a maverick with no party backing, so if it all goes FUBAR, the politicians can blame Ken.
The shape of London's suburbs really developed in response to the tube system, so most people are withing walking or bus distance of a station. I dont think you can take a city designed around the premise of total car use, and convert it to public transport or cycle based transportation, the whole architetcture of the place is wrong.
Brains
10-19-02, 05:13 PM
US Cities could be converted to operate with a public transportation system, bikes etc.
After all the European cities did not have a public transportation system that we would recognise until about 1850.
So the the Yanks start now, they could have something pretty good by say 2050
After all the European cities did not have a public transportation system that we would recognise until about 1850.
So the the Yanks start now, they could have something pretty good by say 2050
Brains
10-19-02, 05:17 PM
Just a thought - how many Americans would be prepared to pay 5 pounds/8 bucks just to drive to the center of town, as we will have to in London after Christmas ?
(That is after they they have paid US$8 a gallon for petrol)
The real way to get people out of their cars is to make a public transportation systemthat is faster, cheaper, and 'better' than the car. This is just about possible in Europe, but very difficult in the 'new' world
(That is after they they have paid US$8 a gallon for petrol)
The real way to get people out of their cars is to make a public transportation systemthat is faster, cheaper, and 'better' than the car. This is just about possible in Europe, but very difficult in the 'new' world
Big Johnson
10-19-02, 09:15 PM
I've never been to Europe, so I can't really compare transit systems over there to those in place here. What I have observed, especially in the western U.S., is that public transportation is not an efficent means of getting around. In my city, the busses run on what is known as a hub and spoke system. What that means is that busses run from downtown to outlying areas and back forcing riders to transfer from bus to bus at the central depot. Also, the bus will not necessarily drop you off anywhere near where you want to be. Riders are still faced with a long walk( not that having to walk is necessarily bad). The biggest problem is city design, especially areas built after WWII. There is very little east-west mobility in my hometown, forcing drivers onto relativley few arterial roads which were designed around 1950's traffic volume levels. One thing I will never understand though is why people choose to live as far as possible from their jobs. The vast majority of new housing development in Colorado Springs is on the extreme east side of town while most employers (high tech anyway) are on the west side. In my view, people who choose to do this deserve the problems they create for themselves, This is why I ride. An interesting idea being tried here is urban renewal and co housing communities. I don't believe this would be a solution for everyone, as out west we tend to enjoy our privacy and space, but is a sound concept nonetheless. The only problem is in it's implementation. These developments are priced way out of the reach of the average person and therefore are not selling very well. Make it more affordable, and it may catch on.
Chris L
10-19-02, 09:46 PM
I have said this before. Public transport is not efficient in many places because never has there been a proper effort made to make it efficient. The train system between the Gold Coast and Brisbane is excellent and used by many commuters between the two cities. This is because the State Government actually put some $ into making the thing work. However, in many places, governments would rather sink $ into private transport (i.e. subsidising private cars) than making that effort.
MichaelW
10-20-02, 02:56 AM
Traditional cities are based on most people working in the centre and living in a ring of suburbs, so journy patterns are radial.
Modern sprawl cities have no defined centre, so the transport patterns are far more random. Fewer people share the same routes. People in the east travel to the west to work, and people who live in the west travel to the east of the city. To support this transport pattern you need large multi-lane freeways between locations, so you have to spread locations out to leave room for the roads. People are using cars, like any other resource, to the point of inefficiency.
In the US, some large companies with several branches have realized how inefficient this is, so are starting to let people work at the branch closest to their home !!
Modern sprawl cities have no defined centre, so the transport patterns are far more random. Fewer people share the same routes. People in the east travel to the west to work, and people who live in the west travel to the east of the city. To support this transport pattern you need large multi-lane freeways between locations, so you have to spread locations out to leave room for the roads. People are using cars, like any other resource, to the point of inefficiency.
In the US, some large companies with several branches have realized how inefficient this is, so are starting to let people work at the branch closest to their home !!
Spire
10-20-02, 06:04 AM
Originally posted by MichaelW
London also has a massive commuting catchment area, 200miles in diameter, with trains that are packed to capacity, the network always on the brink of failure due to decades of under-investment.
I know what you mean! I got on a train at Warwick Parkway headed for London making a few stops, it became obvious that people commut to London from near Birmingham. The number people commuting from Bambury was insane! I can't believe that people come it from so far away!
London also has a massive commuting catchment area, 200miles in diameter, with trains that are packed to capacity, the network always on the brink of failure due to decades of under-investment.
I know what you mean! I got on a train at Warwick Parkway headed for London making a few stops, it became obvious that people commut to London from near Birmingham. The number people commuting from Bambury was insane! I can't believe that people come it from so far away!
pforbes
10-20-02, 08:04 PM
Living in a concrete jungle like Houston, it's frustrating that cycling is only an afterthought. However, we do have a columinist in our local paper who's an avid cyclist. When our beloved Houston Texans (a brand new NFL team) had their debut back in August, it was absolute gridlock getting to the game. It took some people 3-hrs to go about 10 miles!!! Here's what the columnist did...
Aug. 28, 2002, 8:20PM
Car-tastrophe at Stadium Avoidable
By KEN HOFFMAN
Copyright 2002 Houston Chronicle
You want to ride straight to Reliant Stadium with no traffic jams, no headaches, and park your vehicle -- for free -- in the best parking lot at the stadium?
Just ride your bike.
That's what I did last week. I left my sprawling estate in West U. at 3:30 p.m. and got to the stadium in exactly (I timed it) 12 minutes.
I zipped past all those cars stuck in neutral, going nowhere, polluting the air by burning gas to keep their air conditioners blasting. Drivers and their cars had something in common that day. They were both fuming.
I parked my bike at the first parking lot I saw, chained it to a fence and was eating a hot dog by 4 p.m.
A few days later, I grabbed Texans vice president Steve Patterson and said, "How about putting up some bike racks at the stadium? It won't solve the traffic problem totally, but it will take some cars off the road." Plus, imagine how thirsty bike-riding fans will be when they get to the game. Think beer sales! Patterson's reply: "Good idea. I rode my bike to a David Bowie concert once back in the '70s." Everybody's a comedian.
Patterson made some calls, pulled some strings and now he's the two-wheeler's best friend at Reliant Stadium. Starting this week, in time for Friday's game against Tampa Bay, there will be bicycle racks in the Teal parking lot.
Sorry for the long post, but maybe there's a glimmer of hope here in Houston!
Aug. 28, 2002, 8:20PM
Car-tastrophe at Stadium Avoidable
By KEN HOFFMAN
Copyright 2002 Houston Chronicle
You want to ride straight to Reliant Stadium with no traffic jams, no headaches, and park your vehicle -- for free -- in the best parking lot at the stadium?
Just ride your bike.
That's what I did last week. I left my sprawling estate in West U. at 3:30 p.m. and got to the stadium in exactly (I timed it) 12 minutes.
I zipped past all those cars stuck in neutral, going nowhere, polluting the air by burning gas to keep their air conditioners blasting. Drivers and their cars had something in common that day. They were both fuming.
I parked my bike at the first parking lot I saw, chained it to a fence and was eating a hot dog by 4 p.m.
A few days later, I grabbed Texans vice president Steve Patterson and said, "How about putting up some bike racks at the stadium? It won't solve the traffic problem totally, but it will take some cars off the road." Plus, imagine how thirsty bike-riding fans will be when they get to the game. Think beer sales! Patterson's reply: "Good idea. I rode my bike to a David Bowie concert once back in the '70s." Everybody's a comedian.
Patterson made some calls, pulled some strings and now he's the two-wheeler's best friend at Reliant Stadium. Starting this week, in time for Friday's game against Tampa Bay, there will be bicycle racks in the Teal parking lot.
Sorry for the long post, but maybe there's a glimmer of hope here in Houston!
Big Johnson
10-20-02, 08:14 PM
Sounds familiar. Sitting in Denver traffic one day is what got me thinking about riding a bike again. I remembered how in high school, I could allways arrive faster than the kids who rode the bus. In some wierd way gridlock actually turned out to be a good thing. It made a convert out of me:D
Andy Dreisch
10-20-02, 09:25 PM
Folks, don't you get it?
We don't want a whole bunch of cyclists. We want the road (or at least our portion of the road) to ourselves.
Screw the motorist; let 'em sit. But one thing's for sure: I don't want a whole bunch of rookie cyclists clogging up my lanes like some kind of wimpy bike trail on a weekend at the park. I like being the 1-in-100,000.
We don't want a whole bunch of cyclists. We want the road (or at least our portion of the road) to ourselves.
Screw the motorist; let 'em sit. But one thing's for sure: I don't want a whole bunch of rookie cyclists clogging up my lanes like some kind of wimpy bike trail on a weekend at the park. I like being the 1-in-100,000.
Dahon.Steve
10-20-02, 10:47 PM
>>> "Nationally, travel on interstates and other federal highways increased 38% from 1990 to 2000, from 606 billion annual vehicle miles to 839 billion. Over the same period, the total number of freeway lane miles grew just 8%, from 232,436 miles to 250,315, according to a TRIP analysis of Federal Highway Administration data. That means the rate of growth is five times higher for travel than it is for new freeway lanes."<<<<<<<
This is amazing. In ten short years, travel on highways increased almost 40%. We are increasing total annual vehicle miles of about 233 million every ten years. Can you imagine how much traffic there will be on american highways 40 years from now? The numbers are insane.
I just don't get it. The article's only solution is to build more highways and put more buses on those same roads. This is a lose, lose situation. You can't cure Atlanta's traffic problems any more than you can LA's by building more roads. This city was built on a car culture and to change that would cost hundrds of billions of dollars. Yet no one wants to raise taxes to do this so they are stuck.
This is amazing. In ten short years, travel on highways increased almost 40%. We are increasing total annual vehicle miles of about 233 million every ten years. Can you imagine how much traffic there will be on american highways 40 years from now? The numbers are insane.
I just don't get it. The article's only solution is to build more highways and put more buses on those same roads. This is a lose, lose situation. You can't cure Atlanta's traffic problems any more than you can LA's by building more roads. This city was built on a car culture and to change that would cost hundrds of billions of dollars. Yet no one wants to raise taxes to do this so they are stuck.
bikerider
10-21-02, 02:18 AM
Originally posted by Andy Dreisch
Folks, don't you get it?
We don't want a whole bunch of cyclists. We want the road (or at least our portion of the road) to ourselves.
Screw the motorist; let 'em sit. But one thing's for sure: I don't want a whole bunch of rookie cyclists clogging up my lanes like some kind of wimpy bike trail on a weekend at the park. I like being the 1-in-100,000.
Despite the tackiness of 'me too' postings in general, I have to say that I agree wholeheartedly with you on this!
Folks, don't you get it?
We don't want a whole bunch of cyclists. We want the road (or at least our portion of the road) to ourselves.
Screw the motorist; let 'em sit. But one thing's for sure: I don't want a whole bunch of rookie cyclists clogging up my lanes like some kind of wimpy bike trail on a weekend at the park. I like being the 1-in-100,000.
Despite the tackiness of 'me too' postings in general, I have to say that I agree wholeheartedly with you on this!
Chris L
10-21-02, 05:00 AM
Originally posted by Andy Dreisch
Screw the motorist; let 'em sit. But one thing's for sure: I don't want a whole bunch of rookie cyclists clogging up my lanes like some kind of wimpy bike trail on a weekend at the park. I like being the 1-in-100,000.
And I take it yuo were never a rookie cyclist at any stage.
:D
Screw the motorist; let 'em sit. But one thing's for sure: I don't want a whole bunch of rookie cyclists clogging up my lanes like some kind of wimpy bike trail on a weekend at the park. I like being the 1-in-100,000.
And I take it yuo were never a rookie cyclist at any stage.
:D
nathank
10-21-02, 06:07 AM
Originally posted by Andy Dreisch
Screw the motorist; let 'em sit. But one thing's for sure: I don't want a whole bunch of rookie cyclists clogging up my lanes like some kind of wimpy bike trail on a weekend at the park. I like being the 1-in-100,000.
So Andy, i don't know, maybe things are great for you, but i think the advantages to having more cyclists greatly outweigh the disadvantages of a few more bikes on the road. I'd rather thave 10 bikes more for every car removed from the road...
IF half the people out there were on bikes instead of cars, we'd have MORE places to ride, not less...
and an additional question: aren't there times when b/c of the lack of infrastructure/support for/attitude towards cycling you pretty much HAVE to drive? going to work for a meeting somewhere across or out of town? or taking your kid somewhere? and what about pollution? or are you an ex-smoker and you miss that burning in your lungs...
as far not wanting new cyclists or cyclists who are less physically strong... uh, well, you're kind of sounding like either a snob or a biggot... i'm a really strong "extreme" cyclist but i don't look down on others who ride a little more relaxed or more slowly...
i've lived and in places where cyclists are rare (Houston, Dallas, Massachusetts) and places where cycling is much more common (Portland OR and Munich Germany) and i enjoy cycling in the latter FAR more... drivers are more likely to watch for cyclists and know how to react/behave, planners think about cyclists since they're actually a sizeable number of the population. etc...
Screw the motorist; let 'em sit. But one thing's for sure: I don't want a whole bunch of rookie cyclists clogging up my lanes like some kind of wimpy bike trail on a weekend at the park. I like being the 1-in-100,000.
So Andy, i don't know, maybe things are great for you, but i think the advantages to having more cyclists greatly outweigh the disadvantages of a few more bikes on the road. I'd rather thave 10 bikes more for every car removed from the road...
IF half the people out there were on bikes instead of cars, we'd have MORE places to ride, not less...
and an additional question: aren't there times when b/c of the lack of infrastructure/support for/attitude towards cycling you pretty much HAVE to drive? going to work for a meeting somewhere across or out of town? or taking your kid somewhere? and what about pollution? or are you an ex-smoker and you miss that burning in your lungs...
as far not wanting new cyclists or cyclists who are less physically strong... uh, well, you're kind of sounding like either a snob or a biggot... i'm a really strong "extreme" cyclist but i don't look down on others who ride a little more relaxed or more slowly...
i've lived and in places where cyclists are rare (Houston, Dallas, Massachusetts) and places where cycling is much more common (Portland OR and Munich Germany) and i enjoy cycling in the latter FAR more... drivers are more likely to watch for cyclists and know how to react/behave, planners think about cyclists since they're actually a sizeable number of the population. etc...
hayneda
10-21-02, 09:09 AM
This situation is a national issue in the US. Solutions to this issue will not occur (and there are many workable possiblities) until the mindset of the average American has been changed.
In the meantime, I think a good start would be a $2-3/gallon additional fuel tax to help support the huge military investment we maintain just to keep the oil flowing for the mideast. Once people have to start really paying for motoring 20 miles from their 'estate' in the suburbs, they might start to consider things a little differently.
Dave
In the meantime, I think a good start would be a $2-3/gallon additional fuel tax to help support the huge military investment we maintain just to keep the oil flowing for the mideast. Once people have to start really paying for motoring 20 miles from their 'estate' in the suburbs, they might start to consider things a little differently.
Dave
Andy Dreisch
10-21-02, 09:22 AM
Originally posted by Chris L
And I take it yuo were never a rookie cyclist at any stage.
Never. I started as a pro and only got better. ;)
And I take it yuo were never a rookie cyclist at any stage.
Never. I started as a pro and only got better. ;)
nathank
10-21-02, 10:02 AM
Traditional cities are based on most people working in the centre and living in a ring of suburbs, so journy patterns are radial.
Modern sprawl cities have no defined centre, so the transport patterns are far more random. Fewer people share the same routes. People in the east travel to the west to work, and people who live in the west travel to the east of the city. To support this transport pattern you need large multi-lane freeways between locations, so you have to spread locations out to leave room for the roads. People are using cars, like any other resource, to the point of inefficiency.
yeah, the U.S. will be increasingly facing major transportation issues... but because of numerous reasons i don't think will get better for a while:
* as stated above, most US cities (exceptions for older cities mostly on the East Coast) and are designed amlost exculsively for the automobile with sprawled homes and jobs and often very small percentage of businesses downtown
* the cheap gas and lack of good public transit perpetuates the cycle as people have few good options other than driving - so we put all money into auto infrastrcuture and don't "waste" money on public transit so it only get worse
* most Americans think "density" is a bad evil thing b/c they want thier big open land in the suburbs (of course it's just an illusion for most as they spend so much time in traffic)
although there are many great things about the automobile, as a basic transportation device for every person that has virtually replaced all other modes of transportation such as walking or public transit the negatives increase: pollution, people being injured and killed, traffic, etc... but the American people will effictively ignore the pollution and continue to happily waste energy and pave and pave and pave... but, some time soon (say 15-25 years) TRAFFIC will be so bad that the automobile will no longer be a viable solution for most people as it takes 2 hours or more to get to work or to school... i believe once a city or region reaches this "critical mass" point, solutions such as some new form of public transit or mass telecommuting or whatever will be developed very quickly... (assuming we can handle the costs)
until we get to this point, raising the gas price (or at least not heavily subsidizing the auto system) would help to moderate the damage of "designing for cars" and make it easier for when this day eventually arrives... as well as helping to reduce the pollution and environmental damage or driving SO many miles and paving so much of the U.S. land
of course there is also a danger that we have some kind of energy crisis (say an oil supply disruption from war or terrorism) in which case the U.S. would be in a bad position b/c our entire economy depends so heavily on oil: how can companies transport thier goods and people get to work w/o oil?
with all the conservative types in the U.S. worried about the threats to the U.S. and the economy it baffles me that we continue to allow this weakness to increase -- and just holding more oil in the reserves is a VERY short-term solution -- what if the oil supply were limited for 6 months? and with even a slight shortage oil prices would skyrocket as demand would continue to be high as almost everyone is SO dependent on oil...
given the past of things like flying 2 planes into the World Trade Center, i don't think it's too unlikely that terrorists could SERIOUSLY distrupt the planet's oil supply - not for days, but for months - by destroying numerous pipelines, ships and oils fields...
but the average American doesn't want to do ANYTHING to reduce his God-given right to drive his huge multi-thousand pounds of steel to wherever he wants and get free parking... pay more for gas! "waste" money on public transit! ride a bike!
there are many solutions that could greatly help, but [vitually] no one wants to...
Modern sprawl cities have no defined centre, so the transport patterns are far more random. Fewer people share the same routes. People in the east travel to the west to work, and people who live in the west travel to the east of the city. To support this transport pattern you need large multi-lane freeways between locations, so you have to spread locations out to leave room for the roads. People are using cars, like any other resource, to the point of inefficiency.
yeah, the U.S. will be increasingly facing major transportation issues... but because of numerous reasons i don't think will get better for a while:
* as stated above, most US cities (exceptions for older cities mostly on the East Coast) and are designed amlost exculsively for the automobile with sprawled homes and jobs and often very small percentage of businesses downtown
* the cheap gas and lack of good public transit perpetuates the cycle as people have few good options other than driving - so we put all money into auto infrastrcuture and don't "waste" money on public transit so it only get worse
* most Americans think "density" is a bad evil thing b/c they want thier big open land in the suburbs (of course it's just an illusion for most as they spend so much time in traffic)
although there are many great things about the automobile, as a basic transportation device for every person that has virtually replaced all other modes of transportation such as walking or public transit the negatives increase: pollution, people being injured and killed, traffic, etc... but the American people will effictively ignore the pollution and continue to happily waste energy and pave and pave and pave... but, some time soon (say 15-25 years) TRAFFIC will be so bad that the automobile will no longer be a viable solution for most people as it takes 2 hours or more to get to work or to school... i believe once a city or region reaches this "critical mass" point, solutions such as some new form of public transit or mass telecommuting or whatever will be developed very quickly... (assuming we can handle the costs)
until we get to this point, raising the gas price (or at least not heavily subsidizing the auto system) would help to moderate the damage of "designing for cars" and make it easier for when this day eventually arrives... as well as helping to reduce the pollution and environmental damage or driving SO many miles and paving so much of the U.S. land
of course there is also a danger that we have some kind of energy crisis (say an oil supply disruption from war or terrorism) in which case the U.S. would be in a bad position b/c our entire economy depends so heavily on oil: how can companies transport thier goods and people get to work w/o oil?
with all the conservative types in the U.S. worried about the threats to the U.S. and the economy it baffles me that we continue to allow this weakness to increase -- and just holding more oil in the reserves is a VERY short-term solution -- what if the oil supply were limited for 6 months? and with even a slight shortage oil prices would skyrocket as demand would continue to be high as almost everyone is SO dependent on oil...
given the past of things like flying 2 planes into the World Trade Center, i don't think it's too unlikely that terrorists could SERIOUSLY distrupt the planet's oil supply - not for days, but for months - by destroying numerous pipelines, ships and oils fields...
but the average American doesn't want to do ANYTHING to reduce his God-given right to drive his huge multi-thousand pounds of steel to wherever he wants and get free parking... pay more for gas! "waste" money on public transit! ride a bike!
there are many solutions that could greatly help, but [vitually] no one wants to...
Andy Dreisch
10-21-02, 10:57 AM
Originally posted by nathank
with all the conservative types in the U.S. worried about the threats to the U.S. and the economy it baffles me that we continue to allow this weakness to increase ... there are many solutions that could greatly help, but [vitually] no one wants to...
Conservative "types" wanted to open a sliver of Anwar (the vast desert in Alaska) to drilling. Many promote nuclear energy. Two of the more obvious alternatives that liberal "types" oppose in favor of demonstrated non-solutions like light rail, commuter lanes, and solar cells.
As to "but [virtually] no one wants to..." This is because America is a democracy. People vote. Those that people vote for hold office. Those that don't get the people's vote are out on their keester.
Apparently, then, your case has yet to be made to the American public, or the case does not exist, or it's deemed only important enough to rank maybe 100th on the top issues list. It's got to be one of the above.
with all the conservative types in the U.S. worried about the threats to the U.S. and the economy it baffles me that we continue to allow this weakness to increase ... there are many solutions that could greatly help, but [vitually] no one wants to...
Conservative "types" wanted to open a sliver of Anwar (the vast desert in Alaska) to drilling. Many promote nuclear energy. Two of the more obvious alternatives that liberal "types" oppose in favor of demonstrated non-solutions like light rail, commuter lanes, and solar cells.
As to "but [virtually] no one wants to..." This is because America is a democracy. People vote. Those that people vote for hold office. Those that don't get the people's vote are out on their keester.
Apparently, then, your case has yet to be made to the American public, or the case does not exist, or it's deemed only important enough to rank maybe 100th on the top issues list. It's got to be one of the above.
Big Johnson
10-21-02, 09:45 PM
Nathank I am one of the conservative types you mention. However, I believe one of the best ways to make our nation more secure is to reduce our dependence on oil PERIOD. I believe, to quote the old cliche, that necessity is the mother of invention. As such, alternative energy will only be developed in earnest when oil becomes scarce and expensive. Rest assured as it is painfully obvious that we cannot continue to consume petrolium products at our present rate, we will eventually have no other choice but to use other energy sources. Unfortunately, it may be a long while before we do. When that day comes, our economy will no longer be at the mercy of the middle east. We will have fewer and fewer reasons to interfere in the affairs of foriegn powers, and we can focus on conditions here at home.
Chris L
10-21-02, 09:48 PM
Originally posted by Big Johnson
Nathank I am one of the conservative types you mention. However, I believe one of the best ways to make our nation more secure is to reduce our dependence on oil PERIOD. I believe, to quote the old cliche, that necessity is the mother of invention. As such, alternative energy will only be developed in earnest when oil becomes scarce and expensive.
Something tells me that oil would be much more expensive than it is now if it wasn't so heavily subsidised.
Nathank I am one of the conservative types you mention. However, I believe one of the best ways to make our nation more secure is to reduce our dependence on oil PERIOD. I believe, to quote the old cliche, that necessity is the mother of invention. As such, alternative energy will only be developed in earnest when oil becomes scarce and expensive.
Something tells me that oil would be much more expensive than it is now if it wasn't so heavily subsidised.
Spire
10-22-02, 05:56 AM
Originally posted by Chris L
Something tells me that oil would be much more expensive than it is now if it wasn't so heavily subsidised.
How much is it subsidized? Is there documentation around?
Also, remember that if oil doubles in price, then the price of most goods will go up due to increased transportation costs!
Something tells me that oil would be much more expensive than it is now if it wasn't so heavily subsidised.
How much is it subsidized? Is there documentation around?
Also, remember that if oil doubles in price, then the price of most goods will go up due to increased transportation costs!
Paige
10-22-02, 06:59 AM
Originally posted by Spire
How much is it subsidized? Is there documentation around?
Also, remember that if oil doubles in price, then the price of most goods will go up due to increased transportation costs!
I posted this on another thread a couple days ago:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2336539.stm
How much is it subsidized? Is there documentation around?
Also, remember that if oil doubles in price, then the price of most goods will go up due to increased transportation costs!
I posted this on another thread a couple days ago:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2336539.stm
nathank
10-22-02, 07:28 AM
Big Johnson
Nathank I am one of the conservative types you mention. However, I believe one of the best ways to make our nation more secure is to reduce our dependence on oil PERIOD.
yes, that's exactly what i'm saying... i.e. i get the impression that most of the "conservative types" are very concerned about national security yet as a group tend to do nothing to wean us from our foreign oil dependence which is one of our greatest risks... (it's no secret that our economy is currently VERY dependent on oil and if there is a shortage or major price spike the effects on the economy could be very negative)
so Big Johnson, why isn't the opinion that you express a Priority #1 for this group? i.e. it is clear that some such as yourself think so -- or am i just confusing the "conservative" as in "protect self, family and America first" types and the "conservative" as in "anything for money, keep government out of business" types like say, Dick Cheney??
i completely agree that the U.S. and companies and people are very capable of developing new alternative energy to replace oil... but as long as oil is plentiful and cheap these other options receive little investment and effort as the potential financial payoffs are not clear... implementing a structured gas tax (i.e. small increases EVERY year) would cause little stress on the current system while providing business incentive to invest b/c of future potential as oil becomes more expensive -- car companies develop more fuel-efficeint or alternate fuel vehicles, wind, solar, hydrogen (fuel cell)...
Nathank I am one of the conservative types you mention. However, I believe one of the best ways to make our nation more secure is to reduce our dependence on oil PERIOD.
yes, that's exactly what i'm saying... i.e. i get the impression that most of the "conservative types" are very concerned about national security yet as a group tend to do nothing to wean us from our foreign oil dependence which is one of our greatest risks... (it's no secret that our economy is currently VERY dependent on oil and if there is a shortage or major price spike the effects on the economy could be very negative)
so Big Johnson, why isn't the opinion that you express a Priority #1 for this group? i.e. it is clear that some such as yourself think so -- or am i just confusing the "conservative" as in "protect self, family and America first" types and the "conservative" as in "anything for money, keep government out of business" types like say, Dick Cheney??
i completely agree that the U.S. and companies and people are very capable of developing new alternative energy to replace oil... but as long as oil is plentiful and cheap these other options receive little investment and effort as the potential financial payoffs are not clear... implementing a structured gas tax (i.e. small increases EVERY year) would cause little stress on the current system while providing business incentive to invest b/c of future potential as oil becomes more expensive -- car companies develop more fuel-efficeint or alternate fuel vehicles, wind, solar, hydrogen (fuel cell)...
nathank
10-22-02, 07:32 AM
Andy Dreisch
Conservative "types" wanted to open a sliver of Anwar (the vast desert in Alaska) to drilling. Many promote nuclear energy. Two of the more obvious alternatives that liberal "types" oppose in favor of demonstrated non-solutions like light rail, commuter lanes, and solar cells.
nuclear... ok, there you can make a case for national security although i personally as well as the majority of Americans (i believe) feel that the safety and environmental dangers are too great...
but as to the oil drilling in the Alaskan wildlife area... this is a drop in the bucket for what we use in a given year, much less for an extended period of time. furthermore, even if we started today "pull-all-stops" drilling in Alaska, this oil wouldn't be available for some time (building rigs, pipelines, etc) -- i.e. it's like you're driving from NYC to LA as fast as possible in your Ford Excursion (appr. 12 MPG) and you're low on gas money, so you decide to drive by your long lost 3rd cousin's house and build a siphoning system to drain the gas tank of his Geo Metro into yours. you have to make a detour, search for his house, stop for a half day and build the tube system and then drain the tank. then after all the work and time you only get an extra 1/2 tank of gas... does it really solve the problem? ... drilling in Alaska would only provide a temporarily improvement (actually barely even noticeable). i forget the exact numbers but i think over a 10-year period the gains would be greater from increasing average US fuel economy by 1MPG than from drilling and bringing all the oil in Alaska to market. (of course some oil men would still make a killer profit)
conservation, solar cells, wind power, hydrogen... there are lots of options to explore and set the US industry on the forefront of energy technology in the future but our administration wants to continue pumping all the government dollars into maintaining the current system and at the same time stifling new innovations (by keeping oil prices/taxes so low)
Conservative "types" wanted to open a sliver of Anwar (the vast desert in Alaska) to drilling. Many promote nuclear energy. Two of the more obvious alternatives that liberal "types" oppose in favor of demonstrated non-solutions like light rail, commuter lanes, and solar cells.
nuclear... ok, there you can make a case for national security although i personally as well as the majority of Americans (i believe) feel that the safety and environmental dangers are too great...
but as to the oil drilling in the Alaskan wildlife area... this is a drop in the bucket for what we use in a given year, much less for an extended period of time. furthermore, even if we started today "pull-all-stops" drilling in Alaska, this oil wouldn't be available for some time (building rigs, pipelines, etc) -- i.e. it's like you're driving from NYC to LA as fast as possible in your Ford Excursion (appr. 12 MPG) and you're low on gas money, so you decide to drive by your long lost 3rd cousin's house and build a siphoning system to drain the gas tank of his Geo Metro into yours. you have to make a detour, search for his house, stop for a half day and build the tube system and then drain the tank. then after all the work and time you only get an extra 1/2 tank of gas... does it really solve the problem? ... drilling in Alaska would only provide a temporarily improvement (actually barely even noticeable). i forget the exact numbers but i think over a 10-year period the gains would be greater from increasing average US fuel economy by 1MPG than from drilling and bringing all the oil in Alaska to market. (of course some oil men would still make a killer profit)
conservation, solar cells, wind power, hydrogen... there are lots of options to explore and set the US industry on the forefront of energy technology in the future but our administration wants to continue pumping all the government dollars into maintaining the current system and at the same time stifling new innovations (by keeping oil prices/taxes so low)
Spire
10-22-02, 07:35 AM
Originally posted by Paige
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2336539.stm
Good article, is that all the "subsidies" that go into it? Think of how much money that is over the year? The US uses what hundred of billions of barrels of oil a year? That means that trillions are being spent by the government to protect it, with everybody tax money!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2336539.stm
Good article, is that all the "subsidies" that go into it? Think of how much money that is over the year? The US uses what hundred of billions of barrels of oil a year? That means that trillions are being spent by the government to protect it, with everybody tax money!
nathank
10-22-02, 08:09 AM
yes, the biggest cost is military protection and governement protection of foregin oil business interests (in Iraq, Saudi Arabia, etc) plus fuel tankers and pipelines...
then you have mayn direct costs like road construction and maintenance...
then many indirect costs like highway patrol, police, ambulance, traffic signage (most cities now have signs or warning systems for traffic delays), damage and cleanup from auto accidents, etc.
then there are many related costs like from pollutions and safety problems associated health problems from unclear air, pollution from oil/gas/salt runoff, etc.
and before anyone mentions it, what the auto user pays does not begin to cover even the direct costs - the gas taxes and auto registration fees are incredibly small in comparision to the actual costs incured (most of the costs are paid by society with government tax dollars). in the spirit of a free market system (and to help national security, reduce pollution and increase safety) a higher portion of these costs should be passed on to the end user...
then you have mayn direct costs like road construction and maintenance...
then many indirect costs like highway patrol, police, ambulance, traffic signage (most cities now have signs or warning systems for traffic delays), damage and cleanup from auto accidents, etc.
then there are many related costs like from pollutions and safety problems associated health problems from unclear air, pollution from oil/gas/salt runoff, etc.
and before anyone mentions it, what the auto user pays does not begin to cover even the direct costs - the gas taxes and auto registration fees are incredibly small in comparision to the actual costs incured (most of the costs are paid by society with government tax dollars). in the spirit of a free market system (and to help national security, reduce pollution and increase safety) a higher portion of these costs should be passed on to the end user...
Andy Dreisch
10-22-02, 03:32 PM
Originally posted by Spire
...That means that trillions are being spent by the government to protect it, with everybody tax money!
Spire, have your elected officials change this. Have them lead the apparently unwashed masses with your proposals. Have them remove all subsidies while you're at it. Get the change accomplished by things that MATTER (votes, referenda, etc.) instead of harping in Bike Forums.
Maybe the unwashed masses don't think things are as dire as you suggest.
...That means that trillions are being spent by the government to protect it, with everybody tax money!
Spire, have your elected officials change this. Have them lead the apparently unwashed masses with your proposals. Have them remove all subsidies while you're at it. Get the change accomplished by things that MATTER (votes, referenda, etc.) instead of harping in Bike Forums.
Maybe the unwashed masses don't think things are as dire as you suggest.
Spire
10-22-02, 04:11 PM
Originally posted by Andy Dreisch
Spire, have your elected officials change this. Have them lead the apparently unwashed masses with your proposals. Have them remove all subsidies while you're at it. Get the change accomplished by things that MATTER (votes, referenda, etc.) instead of harping in Bike Forums.
Maybe the unwashed masses don't think things are as dire as you suggest.
I live in Canada, where I suspect that the actually amount of money going into the protection of the oil fields that in the US. Like some of the other members said, nothing is going to change until the general selfish, individualistic notion of personal travel in 2 ton steel cages changes. I for instance, walk/bike everywhere. I see this distance that some of my friends drive and it almost disgusts me. But the reality is that there really is not much of an alternative. In Montreal, we are fairly ahead for most cities in terms of public transport, but from certain parts of the city it simply takes forever to get in on it. One of the train lines is so full that people literally cannot get on it (this train is actually faster than driving a car from the train station to Central station downtown. The problem is that parts are covered well and other not very well. I am a strong advocate that it not necessarily necessary to make driving a car more expensive or more inconvient, but simply make the alternatives more attractive. A substantial investment into medium destinance train links and reseved bus lanes (so they are fast) and really make the difference. Many people here seem to believe that, I read time and time again that more roads is not the answer according to city engineers, and it is refreshing to read that as opposed to the US mentality of more roads. The number times they have decided to NOT build another bridge off the island is good. The only real complaint that I have is that not enough money goes into public transit, for some reason, they expect that the public transit turn a profit and the automobile need not (in terms of gas tax collected vs road works etc...)
Spire, have your elected officials change this. Have them lead the apparently unwashed masses with your proposals. Have them remove all subsidies while you're at it. Get the change accomplished by things that MATTER (votes, referenda, etc.) instead of harping in Bike Forums.
Maybe the unwashed masses don't think things are as dire as you suggest.
I live in Canada, where I suspect that the actually amount of money going into the protection of the oil fields that in the US. Like some of the other members said, nothing is going to change until the general selfish, individualistic notion of personal travel in 2 ton steel cages changes. I for instance, walk/bike everywhere. I see this distance that some of my friends drive and it almost disgusts me. But the reality is that there really is not much of an alternative. In Montreal, we are fairly ahead for most cities in terms of public transport, but from certain parts of the city it simply takes forever to get in on it. One of the train lines is so full that people literally cannot get on it (this train is actually faster than driving a car from the train station to Central station downtown. The problem is that parts are covered well and other not very well. I am a strong advocate that it not necessarily necessary to make driving a car more expensive or more inconvient, but simply make the alternatives more attractive. A substantial investment into medium destinance train links and reseved bus lanes (so they are fast) and really make the difference. Many people here seem to believe that, I read time and time again that more roads is not the answer according to city engineers, and it is refreshing to read that as opposed to the US mentality of more roads. The number times they have decided to NOT build another bridge off the island is good. The only real complaint that I have is that not enough money goes into public transit, for some reason, they expect that the public transit turn a profit and the automobile need not (in terms of gas tax collected vs road works etc...)
Andy Dreisch
10-22-02, 04:21 PM
Originally posted by Spire
...[A] But the reality is that there really is not much of an alternative....[B] The only real complaint that I have is that not enough money goes into public transit, for some reason, they expect that the public transit turn a profit and the automobile need not (in terms of gas tax collected vs road works etc...)
On [A], I agree. There's not much of an alternative to the dreaded internal combustion engine and the 2-ton crates they push around. This is because every alternative is, at least currently, uneconomical. Until you change this fact, nothing else matters.
On [B], how much money would you need to invest in public transportation for it to be an essentially even in terms of convenience, timeliness, geographic coverage, luxury, etc., as that provided by the dreaded internal combustion engine and the 2-ton crates?
...[A] But the reality is that there really is not much of an alternative....[B] The only real complaint that I have is that not enough money goes into public transit, for some reason, they expect that the public transit turn a profit and the automobile need not (in terms of gas tax collected vs road works etc...)
On [A], I agree. There's not much of an alternative to the dreaded internal combustion engine and the 2-ton crates they push around. This is because every alternative is, at least currently, uneconomical. Until you change this fact, nothing else matters.
On [B], how much money would you need to invest in public transportation for it to be an essentially even in terms of convenience, timeliness, geographic coverage, luxury, etc., as that provided by the dreaded internal combustion engine and the 2-ton crates?
Chris L
10-22-02, 09:20 PM
Originally posted by Spire
Also, remember that if oil doubles in price, then the price of most goods will go up due to increased transportation costs!
That's not as true as people think it is. The price of any good is determined first and foremost by the supply and demand for that good, and secondly by the prices set by competitors within that industry. If people decide they don't want to pay $5 for a loaf of bread, or if just one firm within that industry sells it for $3 a loaf, the price of bread won't be $5/loaf, irrespective of the price of fuel.
In any case, I can see the way this thread is heading as so many have headed the same way in the past. This isn't flogging a dead horse, it's flogging the dead descendent of a dead horse, and as a consequence, this debate is now closed as far as I am concerned unless someone has something new to offer it.
Also, remember that if oil doubles in price, then the price of most goods will go up due to increased transportation costs!
That's not as true as people think it is. The price of any good is determined first and foremost by the supply and demand for that good, and secondly by the prices set by competitors within that industry. If people decide they don't want to pay $5 for a loaf of bread, or if just one firm within that industry sells it for $3 a loaf, the price of bread won't be $5/loaf, irrespective of the price of fuel.
In any case, I can see the way this thread is heading as so many have headed the same way in the past. This isn't flogging a dead horse, it's flogging the dead descendent of a dead horse, and as a consequence, this debate is now closed as far as I am concerned unless someone has something new to offer it.
Big Johnson
10-22-02, 10:02 PM
Nathank, your questions about the priorities and definitions of conservatives are well posed. First, it is my opinion that most people, conservative, liberal, or otherwise simply do not investigate an issue thououghly enough. It is very easy to jump on a bandwagon or buy into popular rhetoric it is not as easy to do the research or critical thinking for one's self. I believe that most people believe gas comes from the pump, hamburger comes from the supermarket, and electricity comes from the outlet on the wall. In many ways this is true. Our technology has insulated us from reality. As such, the run of the mill conservative has no personal connection to the conditions in the Middle East and no understanding of how our over reliance on petrolium makes us vulnerable. Secondly, conservative does not necessarily equal Republican. Speaking for myself, I define a conservative as one who wishes to be free to live his life as he sees fit with a minumum of government intervention into his freedoms and liberties. Each of us is responsible for his own actions and quality of life. We must take responsibility for our living conditions and change them through our individual choices, rather than through government mandates. Yes, if you hadn't allready guessed, I'm a Libertarian.
LittleBigMan
10-23-02, 01:33 PM
Cities grow around their transportation systems and become dependent upon them. It's almost impossible for many people to do without a car these days, though both my grandmothers did so as long as I can remember.
I consider my use of the bicycle and of public transportation (or both) to be a living demonstration to people that cycling works. And in the meantime, I am reaping the benefits of not being a prisoner to the "system."
Yoohoo! :beer:
I consider my use of the bicycle and of public transportation (or both) to be a living demonstration to people that cycling works. And in the meantime, I am reaping the benefits of not being a prisoner to the "system."
Yoohoo! :beer:
cycletourist
10-23-02, 01:57 PM
Here is a great article by Bogata Columbia's former mayor that describes how that city is dealing with traffic by banning autos during certain times of the day and using buses with dedicated lanes, etc.
http://socrates.berkeley.edu:7001/Events/spring2002/04-08-penalosa/
http://socrates.berkeley.edu:7001/Events/spring2002/04-08-penalosa/
Spire
10-23-02, 02:30 PM
Originally posted by Andy Dreisch
On [A], I agree. There's not much of an alternative to the dreaded internal combustion engine and the 2-ton crates they push around. This is because every alternative is, at least currently, uneconomical. Until you change this fact, nothing else matters.
On [B], how much money would you need to invest in public transportation for it to be an essentially even in terms of convenience, timeliness, geographic coverage, luxury, etc., as that provided by the dreaded internal combustion engine and the 2-ton crates?
[A] I agree with you that there are not any alternatives, but one thing that we seem to forget is that cars are not economical either. Will all the money going to protect the oil supply, build roads, treat the injured from car accidents, cars use far more money than we pay in gas taxes. Why should other forms of transit, i.e. busses, trains, light rail etc... be expected to run at a profit. I think that the same should apply. It would be an investment for a better environment (and a way to help meet Kyoto, but that is another story)
[B] I'd say that what is needed is good planning, and intellegent use of money. If you took the amount of money that was needed to create the entire Interstate system as we currently know it, I would claim that there would be a pretty darn good alternative to driving a car. Either long distances or short.
On [A], I agree. There's not much of an alternative to the dreaded internal combustion engine and the 2-ton crates they push around. This is because every alternative is, at least currently, uneconomical. Until you change this fact, nothing else matters.
On [B], how much money would you need to invest in public transportation for it to be an essentially even in terms of convenience, timeliness, geographic coverage, luxury, etc., as that provided by the dreaded internal combustion engine and the 2-ton crates?
[A] I agree with you that there are not any alternatives, but one thing that we seem to forget is that cars are not economical either. Will all the money going to protect the oil supply, build roads, treat the injured from car accidents, cars use far more money than we pay in gas taxes. Why should other forms of transit, i.e. busses, trains, light rail etc... be expected to run at a profit. I think that the same should apply. It would be an investment for a better environment (and a way to help meet Kyoto, but that is another story)
[B] I'd say that what is needed is good planning, and intellegent use of money. If you took the amount of money that was needed to create the entire Interstate system as we currently know it, I would claim that there would be a pretty darn good alternative to driving a car. Either long distances or short.
Pete Clark
10-23-02, 06:10 PM
Originally posted by Andy Dreisch
There's not much of an alternative to the dreaded internal combustion engine and the 2-ton crates they push around. This is because every alternative is, at least currently, uneconomical. Until you change this fact, nothing else matters.
The only alternatives I know are bicycle, train and bus. The cheapest parking fees could buy me a new bike every year (or a really nice one every two years.) Unlimited access to public transit is far less even than that.
There's not much of an alternative to the dreaded internal combustion engine and the 2-ton crates they push around. This is because every alternative is, at least currently, uneconomical. Until you change this fact, nothing else matters.
The only alternatives I know are bicycle, train and bus. The cheapest parking fees could buy me a new bike every year (or a really nice one every two years.) Unlimited access to public transit is far less even than that.
Andy Dreisch
10-23-02, 06:31 PM
Originally posted by Pete Clark
The only alternatives I know are bicycle, train and bus. The cheapest parking fees could buy me a new bike every year (or a really nice one every two years.) Unlimited access to public transit is far less even than that.
Yup. As you know I'm a dedicated bike-commuter, too. Perhaps one of possibly 100 in all of San Jose. The light rail is also practically empty in San Jose, as are most of the buses.
So there must be something other than just those items you mention that factor into people's calculation of "economical" when it comes to cars versus the others. Perhaps time value? Sense of freedom? Availability? Luxury? Safety?
Whatever the combination of factors may be, it appears that people overwhelmingly "vote" the car.
The only alternatives I know are bicycle, train and bus. The cheapest parking fees could buy me a new bike every year (or a really nice one every two years.) Unlimited access to public transit is far less even than that.
Yup. As you know I'm a dedicated bike-commuter, too. Perhaps one of possibly 100 in all of San Jose. The light rail is also practically empty in San Jose, as are most of the buses.
So there must be something other than just those items you mention that factor into people's calculation of "economical" when it comes to cars versus the others. Perhaps time value? Sense of freedom? Availability? Luxury? Safety?
Whatever the combination of factors may be, it appears that people overwhelmingly "vote" the car.
Pete Clark
10-23-02, 07:11 PM
Originally posted by Andy Dreisch
As you know I'm a dedicated bike-commuter, too. Perhaps one of possibly 100 in all of San Jose.
Sounds a lot like me.
People in Atlanta overwhelmingly vote "car," too. But I'm glad I don't have to "vote" with the majority!
What would life be like without alternatives?
Bicycling transportation is Freedom, pure and simple.
As you know I'm a dedicated bike-commuter, too. Perhaps one of possibly 100 in all of San Jose.
Sounds a lot like me.
People in Atlanta overwhelmingly vote "car," too. But I'm glad I don't have to "vote" with the majority!
What would life be like without alternatives?
Bicycling transportation is Freedom, pure and simple.
Pete Clark
10-23-02, 08:47 PM
Originally posted by Andy Dreisch
So there must be something other than just those items you mention that factor into people's calculation of "economical" when it comes to cars versus the others. Perhaps time value? Sense of freedom? Availability? Luxury? Safety?
Time value? I get two hours of intense workouts when I bike to work. Driving to work would allow me about 20 minutes for working out.
Sense of freedom? Stuck in a traffic jam when you could be flying on your bike?
Availability? Bikes cost 1/20 the price of a car; how available is that?
Luxury? What's luxurious about being cramped up in a box, unable to see anything but the rear ends of other cars?
Safety? 40,000 Americans die inside cars every year. Compared with Americans killed in major wars, driving seems to be more dangerous than being a soldier.
So there must be something other than just those items you mention that factor into people's calculation of "economical" when it comes to cars versus the others. Perhaps time value? Sense of freedom? Availability? Luxury? Safety?
Time value? I get two hours of intense workouts when I bike to work. Driving to work would allow me about 20 minutes for working out.
Sense of freedom? Stuck in a traffic jam when you could be flying on your bike?
Availability? Bikes cost 1/20 the price of a car; how available is that?
Luxury? What's luxurious about being cramped up in a box, unable to see anything but the rear ends of other cars?
Safety? 40,000 Americans die inside cars every year. Compared with Americans killed in major wars, driving seems to be more dangerous than being a soldier.
Andy Dreisch
10-23-02, 11:57 PM
Originally posted by Pete Clark
Time value? ...
Sense of freedom? ...
Availability? ...
Luxury? ...
Safety? ...
You preacher, me choir. My point is that zillions of other people apparently don't make the same calculation as you (and me). I think this is because the car is perceived as being more economical than alternatives, like biking. For many, many people, I think this will be the case. For young, single types especially, there is no excuse.
Time value? ...
Sense of freedom? ...
Availability? ...
Luxury? ...
Safety? ...
You preacher, me choir. My point is that zillions of other people apparently don't make the same calculation as you (and me). I think this is because the car is perceived as being more economical than alternatives, like biking. For many, many people, I think this will be the case. For young, single types especially, there is no excuse.
mike
10-24-02, 03:21 AM
I know a bicycle enthusiast who lives only NINE MINUTES bicycle ride from work.
Still, he takes his car "just in case" he has to go far quickly like to pick up his child if his wife calls him out of the blue in an emergency.
Still, he takes his car "just in case" he has to go far quickly like to pick up his child if his wife calls him out of the blue in an emergency.
SteveE
10-24-02, 01:32 PM
Originally posted by Andy Dreisch
The light rail is also practically empty in San Jose, as are most of the buses.
Unfortunately, the light rail is slower than a car. I'm not normally a bike commuter but did it a few times when my car was in the shop. My route took me along the light rail route from Tasman/Fair Oaks to Tasman/Zanker. Never once did a light rail train pass me! I had been considering riding from home to Mtn View and catching light rail to the Tasman/Zanker station (Baypointe), but it doesn't seem to be worth it. I'm considering bike commuting again in the spring, 'tho. The west-east route from Cupertino to where I work isn't the greatest and I don't think I'm ready to start cycling in the dark yet..
The light rail is also practically empty in San Jose, as are most of the buses.
Unfortunately, the light rail is slower than a car. I'm not normally a bike commuter but did it a few times when my car was in the shop. My route took me along the light rail route from Tasman/Fair Oaks to Tasman/Zanker. Never once did a light rail train pass me! I had been considering riding from home to Mtn View and catching light rail to the Tasman/Zanker station (Baypointe), but it doesn't seem to be worth it. I'm considering bike commuting again in the spring, 'tho. The west-east route from Cupertino to where I work isn't the greatest and I don't think I'm ready to start cycling in the dark yet..
Merriwether
10-24-02, 02:00 PM
Originally posted by Spire
[A] I agree with you that there are not any alternatives, but one thing that we seem to forget is that cars are not economical either. Will all the money going to protect the oil supply, build roads, treat the injured from car accidents, cars use far more money than we pay in gas taxes. Why should other forms of transit, i.e. busses, trains, light rail etc... be expected to run at a profit. I think that the same should apply. It would be an investment for a better environment (and a way to help meet Kyoto, but that is another story)
[B] I'd say that what is needed is good planning, and intellegent use of money. If you took the amount of money that was needed to create the entire Interstate system as we currently know it, I would claim that there would be a pretty darn good alternative to driving a car. Either long distances or short.
If you mean by "economical" worth the cost to people who pay it, then cars are economical. This has nothing to do with my own feelngs about them, but the vast majority of people are willing to pay the costs associated with driving. Road costs, gas taxes, insurance, all of it. All you have to do is look around. Measures to tax driving more heavily to promote trains, or busses, or whatever are wildy unpopular. Very few areas, in the U.S. at least, can even contemplate putting forward a bond measure for , say, light rail. Most places it wouldn't have a prayer, and might well cost the office holders at the time their jobs.
Even places that have light rail find them little used. In the S.F. Bay Area is an expensive electric commuter train, that many adults in the area have never ridden. Ever. The reason?: it takes longer than in a car to get anywhere. And you have to drive to the parking lot anyway.
The subway in L.A. is an ongoing joke, made somewhat less funny by the astronomical cost of this little-used curiosity.
However, people do want road repairs, road widenings, new lights in heavy traffic, etc. They might complain about the cost, suspecting that they're being fleeced by the government, but there is no serious opposition to any of these things. And even with the high cost of new cars, insurance, tax, gas, all in, driving is as popular as it's ever been.
So what are you going to do?
You can coerce people out of their cars, by making it illegal for them to drive at certain places and times, or even by deciding to "spend money" on trains or whatever else. But I take it you're talking about realistic options. Except on a SimCity game, and maybe a couple of big cities, measures like these have absolutely no chance of happening in any American jurisdiction.
I'm all for advocating more practical cycling, but I think it always has to be aimed as a complement to motoring on existing roads. If it's seen as a front in the war against automobiles we'll never have any practical accomplishments other than out of the way bikepaths. Well, that and helmet laws.
I would like to see more care of, education about, and enforcement of cyclist's existing rights to the roadways. With that I'm with all of you here.
Cheers.
[A] I agree with you that there are not any alternatives, but one thing that we seem to forget is that cars are not economical either. Will all the money going to protect the oil supply, build roads, treat the injured from car accidents, cars use far more money than we pay in gas taxes. Why should other forms of transit, i.e. busses, trains, light rail etc... be expected to run at a profit. I think that the same should apply. It would be an investment for a better environment (and a way to help meet Kyoto, but that is another story)
[B] I'd say that what is needed is good planning, and intellegent use of money. If you took the amount of money that was needed to create the entire Interstate system as we currently know it, I would claim that there would be a pretty darn good alternative to driving a car. Either long distances or short.
If you mean by "economical" worth the cost to people who pay it, then cars are economical. This has nothing to do with my own feelngs about them, but the vast majority of people are willing to pay the costs associated with driving. Road costs, gas taxes, insurance, all of it. All you have to do is look around. Measures to tax driving more heavily to promote trains, or busses, or whatever are wildy unpopular. Very few areas, in the U.S. at least, can even contemplate putting forward a bond measure for , say, light rail. Most places it wouldn't have a prayer, and might well cost the office holders at the time their jobs.
Even places that have light rail find them little used. In the S.F. Bay Area is an expensive electric commuter train, that many adults in the area have never ridden. Ever. The reason?: it takes longer than in a car to get anywhere. And you have to drive to the parking lot anyway.
The subway in L.A. is an ongoing joke, made somewhat less funny by the astronomical cost of this little-used curiosity.
However, people do want road repairs, road widenings, new lights in heavy traffic, etc. They might complain about the cost, suspecting that they're being fleeced by the government, but there is no serious opposition to any of these things. And even with the high cost of new cars, insurance, tax, gas, all in, driving is as popular as it's ever been.
So what are you going to do?
You can coerce people out of their cars, by making it illegal for them to drive at certain places and times, or even by deciding to "spend money" on trains or whatever else. But I take it you're talking about realistic options. Except on a SimCity game, and maybe a couple of big cities, measures like these have absolutely no chance of happening in any American jurisdiction.
I'm all for advocating more practical cycling, but I think it always has to be aimed as a complement to motoring on existing roads. If it's seen as a front in the war against automobiles we'll never have any practical accomplishments other than out of the way bikepaths. Well, that and helmet laws.
I would like to see more care of, education about, and enforcement of cyclist's existing rights to the roadways. With that I'm with all of you here.
Cheers.
Andy Dreisch
10-24-02, 03:38 PM
Originally posted by SteveE
The west-east route from Cupertino to where I work isn't the greatest and I don't think I'm ready to start cycling in the dark yet..
(Little San Jose area shop talk here)
I will gladly trade an west-east route for my south-north route ANY DAY !!! You have many more choices than me ... and they don't involve Tasman.
Anyway, hope to see you truckin' along one day.
The west-east route from Cupertino to where I work isn't the greatest and I don't think I'm ready to start cycling in the dark yet..
(Little San Jose area shop talk here)
I will gladly trade an west-east route for my south-north route ANY DAY !!! You have many more choices than me ... and they don't involve Tasman.
Anyway, hope to see you truckin' along one day.
Dahon.Steve
10-25-02, 08:21 PM
1. "Even places that have light rail find them little used. In the S.F. Bay Area is an expensive electric commuter train, that many adults in the area have never ridden. Ever. The reason?: it takes longer than in a car to get anywhere."
I live in NJ and commute into Manhattan on rain days using the light rail that cost NJ Transit over 1.5 Billion dollars to make. Not only is the system successful but the train is packed to capicity every day during rush hour. It is standing room only after the second stop. I enjoy the light rail and it takes 17 minutes for the train to travel about 7 miles through city traffic. This is about as fast as a bike and about 2 to 5 minutes slower than car. The light rail enables me to catch the ferry and cross into Manhattan without having to drive and pay parking fees about $250.00 per month plus tolls of $12.00 a day.
2. "The subway in L.A. is an ongoing joke, made somewhat less funny by the astronomical cost of this little-used curiosity. "
Agreed. You must understand that LA did it all wrong and will pay for it in the very near future. The Santa Monica expressway is not going to get wider and it is a NIGHTMARE during rush hour and will get worse as traffic increases by 40% every ten years.
The same situation is not true in Manhattan. I take the 4 or 5 Lexington Avenue express which is PACKED FROM FRONT TO REAR with hundreds of commuters. I get on at Battery Park and exit at 42nd street in about 20 minutes. This would take you about 35 minutes by bike (if the taxie's don't kill you first) and about 45 - 50 minutes by car.
2. "You can coerce people out of their cars, by making it illegal for them to drive at certain places and times, or even by deciding to "spend money" on trains or whatever else. But I take it you're talking about realistic options. Except on a SimCity game, and maybe a couple of big cities, measures like these have absolutely no chance of happening in any American jurisdiction. "
Your kidding me right about the train situation never happening in any American jurisdiction. It's happening right here in NJ. The lightrail in NJ will eventually get extended over 45 miles along the coastline at the cost of BILLIONS! in the next few years. Towns across NJ are fighting for the light rail to stop in their town. It is a big time money maker and becoming a necessity as traffic across the Lincoln and Holland tunnels takes almost 40 to 60 minutes just to get through. Driving into Manhattan to work is no longer an option anymore since it is the most costly and time consuming way to enter New York City from New Jersey.
We have commuter trains that travel over 1 hundred miles into Manhattan. The state of NJ recently purchased a new express self propelling commuter train the cost of which is in the tens of millions. Several new ferries by New York Water are on the way and this new service has quickly become the fastest way into Manhattan.
Speaking of lower Manhattan. We are going to have a massive hub at the site of the World Trade Center Disaster with trains from Long Island, NJ, Queens and Brooklyn converging all in one place. New rail lines costing the city hundreds of millions are going to be spent in the not too distant future right here in downtown Manhattan.
Massive transit is a solution folks. It probably won't work for those towns and cities that have committed themselves to autos and road bulding. In fact, it's too late for you since the cost of converting over to rail transport would be in the billions. Your town at one time probably did have an extensive trolly system as most cities did, but they were torn down for auto traffic. It was a tremendous loss.
Trains do work folks.
I live in NJ and commute into Manhattan on rain days using the light rail that cost NJ Transit over 1.5 Billion dollars to make. Not only is the system successful but the train is packed to capicity every day during rush hour. It is standing room only after the second stop. I enjoy the light rail and it takes 17 minutes for the train to travel about 7 miles through city traffic. This is about as fast as a bike and about 2 to 5 minutes slower than car. The light rail enables me to catch the ferry and cross into Manhattan without having to drive and pay parking fees about $250.00 per month plus tolls of $12.00 a day.
2. "The subway in L.A. is an ongoing joke, made somewhat less funny by the astronomical cost of this little-used curiosity. "
Agreed. You must understand that LA did it all wrong and will pay for it in the very near future. The Santa Monica expressway is not going to get wider and it is a NIGHTMARE during rush hour and will get worse as traffic increases by 40% every ten years.
The same situation is not true in Manhattan. I take the 4 or 5 Lexington Avenue express which is PACKED FROM FRONT TO REAR with hundreds of commuters. I get on at Battery Park and exit at 42nd street in about 20 minutes. This would take you about 35 minutes by bike (if the taxie's don't kill you first) and about 45 - 50 minutes by car.
2. "You can coerce people out of their cars, by making it illegal for them to drive at certain places and times, or even by deciding to "spend money" on trains or whatever else. But I take it you're talking about realistic options. Except on a SimCity game, and maybe a couple of big cities, measures like these have absolutely no chance of happening in any American jurisdiction. "
Your kidding me right about the train situation never happening in any American jurisdiction. It's happening right here in NJ. The lightrail in NJ will eventually get extended over 45 miles along the coastline at the cost of BILLIONS! in the next few years. Towns across NJ are fighting for the light rail to stop in their town. It is a big time money maker and becoming a necessity as traffic across the Lincoln and Holland tunnels takes almost 40 to 60 minutes just to get through. Driving into Manhattan to work is no longer an option anymore since it is the most costly and time consuming way to enter New York City from New Jersey.
We have commuter trains that travel over 1 hundred miles into Manhattan. The state of NJ recently purchased a new express self propelling commuter train the cost of which is in the tens of millions. Several new ferries by New York Water are on the way and this new service has quickly become the fastest way into Manhattan.
Speaking of lower Manhattan. We are going to have a massive hub at the site of the World Trade Center Disaster with trains from Long Island, NJ, Queens and Brooklyn converging all in one place. New rail lines costing the city hundreds of millions are going to be spent in the not too distant future right here in downtown Manhattan.
Massive transit is a solution folks. It probably won't work for those towns and cities that have committed themselves to autos and road bulding. In fact, it's too late for you since the cost of converting over to rail transport would be in the billions. Your town at one time probably did have an extensive trolly system as most cities did, but they were torn down for auto traffic. It was a tremendous loss.
Trains do work folks.