Vehicular Cycling (VC) - Sprawl and Cycling

It is a little too late in the evening for me to opine with any clarity. But I just checked another thread and it seems to be a topic of interest.

Let's keep the conversation at a high degree of civility. Humor as always is appreciated and permitted.

How about: Without Urban Sprawl, urban cyclists wouldn't have the opportunity for "Combat Century Rides";)

Personally, I don't see a problem with people wanting to own land, not live in congested cities, have close access to rolling hills and countryside, and all the other pleasures that go along with living in the suburbs.
But on the other hand, I dislike how everyhting out here is structured: shopping district, manufacturing district, fast food district, red light district... well, the last one is okay I guess.
I enjoy cycling in the burbs.

Urban sprawl is the product of democratic authoritarianism where the majority dictates what others may or may not do with their own private property. In particular, it is the use of zoning that limits population density that is the cause of urban sprawl that results in communities where people need a car to take their kids to school, or to get a loaf of bread.

Urban sprawl is the product of democratic authoritarianism where the majority dictates what others may or may not do with their own private property. In particular, it is the use of zoning that limits population density that is the cause of urban sprawl that results in communities where people need a car to take their kids to school, or to get a loaf of bread.

Replace "need" with "think they need" and you're post will be more acurate. ;)
But care to explain what you mean a little more, especially the part about the majority deciding what to do with private land?

Suburban sprawl and prevalent automobile use go hand-in-hand. They have a symbiotic relationship, each contributing to the other's continued success. Sprawl is what makes the automobile a necessity for so many people, because it renders all other transportation options less attractive by comparison for most.

I don't think sprawl will be reversed, but perhaps as people's preferences change, developers will think in different ways, choosing to build communities where people live closer to each other, to their jobs, and to shopping and entertainment. This is already happening in many places, Atlanta included, where housing in older intown neighborhoods is being renovated and resold to more well-to-do residents (which creates problems of it's own, admittedly, for the economically disadvantaged that had previously lived there, now that they are finding they can no longer afford to do so; no solution is without new problems.) There are benefits to living close in, and many people in Atlanta are choosing this option.

As for alternative transportation modes like cycling, or walking, or even mass transit, these new communities do make such methods of transport more attactive. Yet people often still use their car. However, my old boss (now retired) was able to afford an intown condominium because he didn't own a car, and didn't need one. He did not ride a bike, but it was a trade-off he made so he could live downtown. It worked for him. Others simply don't use their car as much. But the bottom line is that it's people's free choice that determines whether or not they will drive a car, or how much they will drive it, combined with the opportunity to have freedom of choice. Sprawl limits that freedom of choice to a large extent.

I live in a community that is typical of suburban sprawl. My 30 year-old neighborhood was constructed as a homeowner's association, about 4 square miles big, surrounded by fast arterial roads. I live about 15 miles from downtown Atlanta, about 4 miles from the nearest commuter train, and 1 mile from the nearest bus stop. My wife uses our car to commute about 18 miles to work, we work about 17 miles apart in different parts of town.

I chose to ride a bike to work for many reasons. Among those reasons are 1) I have the freedom to do it, 2) it's faster and more convenient than mass transit, 3) it's a money-maker because I don't own a second car. But maybe the best reason is I enjoy it tremendously.

As for combating sprawl, I am not well-informed enough to know how that is to be done, so I can't comment intelligently about that at the moment. It's certainly true, though, that you can't destroy all the green space around a city without consequences.

Urban sprawl is the product of democratic authoritarianism where the majority dictates what others may or may not do with their own private property. In particular, it is the use of zoning that limits population density that is the cause of urban sprawl that results in communities where people need a car to take their kids to school, or to get a loaf of bread.

There is a lot of truth in that statement. There was basically not much 'zoning' before WWII. You had cities with industry right next to housing (within walking distance). Nowadays, you can't build a factory anyplace near housing. Cheap land and cheap oil made the 'burbs possible (along with desegregation and it's stepsister -white flight). The resulting overall lose of population densities in older metro areas also helped killed off mass transit, especially surface rail (trolleys & street cars).

I'm not a fan of what sprawl is doing to the countryside, or the increased dependence on the automobile. But the fact that people still want to live way out there is keeping the close-in neighborhoods somewhat affordable. If everybody suddenly had to live within 5 miles of downtown, many of us wouldn't be able to live within 5 miles of downtown!

I used to live out in the country, on top of a mountain. I soon learned that you are not very close to nature that way because you spend most of your time driving. When I moved to the downtown area I could walk to get my errands done and doing so I could smell the flowers and feel the changing of the season. It was more natural. Very ironic.

Sprawl creates traffic congestion. Makes us dependent on getting our food shipped in from far off lands that probably don't have the same environmental regulations about pesticides and other things. Strengthens our dependence on oil. Makes them create food that will survive shipping rather than taste good. It is not sustainable in this way.

Eventually, developers locate places of employment in the exurbs and they soon become a new city center and people stop driving 60 mile commutes to the urban core. But this doesn't reduce the need for a car as things are still pretty spread out. The suburb is only 60 years old. It's neither inevitable nor the natural state of living.

It's a difficult subject. I live in a place that does not want any sprawl and also no development, and least of all dense development. So in effect, our sprawl is pushed into a neighboring county. It's a tough sell to people to make them understand that dense development does not mean something bad. Actually, I was single for a very long time and the only thing that made living downtown affordable for me was having a tiny apartment. Finding a good one can be hard. At the same time, people with families want big houses with yards.

But nobody wants the traffic. The kind of roads that sprawl creates cause bad traffic. The urban core usually has a grid network of streets. This is more efficient for traffic because traffic is spread out over a larger area. Also, the grid network is less isolating than cul-de-sacs and housing developments. I like the urban core because homes face the streets, you can wave to your neighbors as you take a walk. It's much more friendly. My life improved greatly when I moved downtown.

I truly believe the design of our cities is less about what people truly want and more about what makes developers and others the most money. Sure, it seems like we all want to drive a huge SUV 10 miles from our over-sized house that costs a fortune to heat in the winter and cool in the summer to Costco to by giant vats of food and 64 packs of toilet paper (you're gonna need it if you eat all that food) and turn into giant tubs of lard that have to take cholesterol medicine, diabetes medicine, and anti-depressants (because we'll never look good in a bathing suit again). I don't believe that's how we truly want to live. But somebody's benefitting from our living this way.

Urban sprawl is the product of democratic authoritarianism where the majority dictates what others may or may not do with their own private property. In particular, it is the use of zoning that limits population density that is the cause of urban sprawl that results in communities where people need a car to take their kids to school, or to get a loaf of bread.

I've generally found it to be quite the opposite - sprawl is what you get when you DON'T have zoning. People compare the badly-zoned suburbs to the denser city where you can throw a business wherever you want and say "See? This is better!" The problem is, that doesn't happen in the 'burbs anyway. Without any zoning, you would have more strip malls, as developers throw them up wherever they want. You'd have horrible traffic problems, layout would make no sense, etc. What you're talking about is what happens when the zoning comission lets developers do whatever they want.

On the other hand, some communities are very strict with zoning. This does curtail freedoms to some extent, but what you end up with is an absence of stripmalls and eyesores. Street layout makes more sense. Businesses are placed in areas that make sense for the community.

In the area I live in, there are two towns, side by side, one of which has incredibly strict zoning and one is in the pocket of developers. Guess which one has trees, parks, lakes, and trails, and which one has strip malls? Oddly enough, the town with the stricter zoning also has the better business/entertainment district because it was planned that way.

I do get what you mean about silly density caps, but don't assume that all zoning and 'democratic authoritarianism' inherently means low capped density. Our town has the place laid out with a high-density central business district with high rises, surrounded by low- to medium-density areas including townhouses and single-family homes. And this is a town of 50,000 people, so it's not like only big cities can do this.

some people eventually get tired of commuting in a car an hour a day. there's a point where it becomes a quality of life issue. but "way Out" is where the affordable housing is, anymore. we could not afford the house we live in today if we tried to buy it today. but, I am lucky, I only live 5 miles from work. not sure this adds much to the discussion... just some thoughts.

half of americans live five miles or less from work. the majoirty of car trips in america are a mile or less.

sprawl sucks. riding mile after mile of strip malls and suburban cul-de-sacs and 'gated' communities blows. exhaust from cars is the largest contributor of american pollution, not industry. the car is killing america in more than one way.

smart growth to limit auto use and reclaim useable, livable cities is an admirable goal, and one that is NOT predestined to failure, despite what autocentric fosterites consider inevitable.

americans can change course; american landscape can be reworked, sprawl is not the american destiny.

What about sprawl and cycling?

Nobody wants sprawl; but people do want the goodies associated with sprawl. A discussion on the negative aspects of sprawl and curtailing it without addressing the wants and desires of the population is incomplete at best. Moreover, the means for curtailing sprawl might be more onerous than the original problem.

Diane ... what do you have in your avatar?

-G

EDIT: I don't think I can squint my eyes any further ...

To address the new thread title, sprawl and cycling are not very compatible. The new development model focuses on cul-de-sacs, gated communities and low traffic on residential roads. This forces all the traffic onto the arteries, which happen to be the only roads that really go anywhere. The lack of interconnected streets forces cyclists onto the arteries, as many commuters can attest. The rec riders have to go further out to find quiet country roads on which to ride as well.

I am not sure if sparwl is a good thing or not.
Paratransit, Park and ride with Rapid transit, huge park, and close shops. about 75 percent Akwatukee (Phoenix) Arizona.
If not setup correctly like most of them it leads to dependance rather than independance. Queen Creek Arizona.

The biggest problem I see is transit. People want to be a million miles away or can't afford anything close, but not spend any time using mass transit or cycling or commit time to getting there when they purchase a new house. It creates autocentric sprawl which allows for, massive subdividsons, non-industrial zonning, stripmalls, anti pedestrian and bicycle facilities, and the basic blandness which comes with sprawl and cheap land.

what about sprawl and cycling?

" sprawl sucks. riding mile after mile of strip malls and suburban cul-de-sacs and 'gated' communities blows."

the experience is not enjoyable, a lot of exhaust fumes and speedy, distracted drivers on the "Sprawl speedway" give me downtown traffic jamming anyday.

of course, sprawling urban areas can be made more pleasant and expeditious for bicycling via the use of BIKE INFRASTRUCTURE.

To address the new thread title, sprawl and cycling are not very compatible. The new development model focuses on cul-de-sacs, gated communities and low traffic on residential roads. This forces all the traffic onto the arteries, which happen to be the only roads that really go anywhere. The lack of interconnected streets forces cyclists onto the arteries, as many commuters can attest. The rec riders have to go further out to find quiet country roads on which to ride as well.

I agree that dendtritic street topology with busy high-speed roads being the only useful through streets makes cycling unpleasant, particularly for family and casual cyclists.

With a different street topology, cycling becomes much more pleasant and useful, even with the same development density and land use distribution.

Cary, NC, where I live (and served 6 years on the P&Z Board) suffers from years of development according to a dendritic street topology. Much earlier, the streets were built well-connected close to downtown; more recently, collector roads are being planned to serve a greater role, and residential neighborhoods are required to have greater connectivity. There is also an effort to link isolated neighborhoods with greenways and short-cut path connections the planners call "chatwalks".

Besides homeowner preferance for streets with no through traffic, the primary barriers to increased street connectivity in the suburbs are: (1) streams, (2) freeways/limited access arterials, and (3) railroad tracks. Crossing each of these with grade separation is expensive, so usually they are only crossed by arterials that will carry heavy traffic. For environmental protection reasons, culvert stream crossings have been prohibited or discouraged in favor of much more expensive bridges; bike/ped bridges are more affordable, though. At-grade crossings of limited access arterials and railroads are strongly discouraged and thus consolidated to few points.

sprawl is bad for cycling because of the kinds of roads and/or facilities they build (or don't build) in and around the sprawl. the connectors tend to be high-speed roads that are crowded because they are the only ways to get anywhere. not too friendly or welcoming for any but the most VC of cyclists.

sprawl is bad for cycling because of the kinds of roads and/or facilities they build (or don't build) in and around the sprawl. the connectors tend to be high-speed roads that are crowded because they are the only ways to get anywhere. not too friendly or welcoming for any but the most VC of cyclists.

Here is an article I wrote several years ago:

http://www.ncbikeclub.org/documents/urban_traffic_rural_roads.htm

Urban Traffic on Rural Roads


....These "greenfield" urban developments are sometimes sited in rural areas because the land is cheap and there are fewer neighbors to generate political opposition compared to urban "infill" projects. Although land use decisions of this type have many important implications to consider, a primary concern for cyclists is transportation planning. Rural areas typically feature a sparse network of narrow roads designed for low traffic volumes. Urban development projects bring urban traffic volumes to these roads. In Green Level near Lake Jordan, development such as Cary Glen, Amberly, and the proposed White Oak Village will add tens of thousands of daily motor vehicle trips to area roads. This has a profound impact on traffic safety and comfort for cyclists.

I grew up in the suburbs but long ago gave up the 'burbs for the city. There's no reason why suburban design needs to be so auto-oriented. A lot of older suburbs that have since been swallowed by urban areas were laid out on a standard orthogonal street grid system, which gives cyclists many more route choices than modern cul-de-sac and arterial 'burbs. There's no reason we as a society have to accept the limitiations of the bad design choices that have been made by planners in the past. Routes designed specifically for non-motorized transportation, and dedicated non-motorized vehicle lanes on arterials are simply two ways to address the design flaws of modern auto-centric cul-de-sac and arterial suburbs.

Urban sprawl is the product of democratic authoritarianism where the majority dictates what others may or may not do with their own private property. In particular, it is the use of zoning that limits population density that is the cause of urban sprawl that results in communities where people need a car to take their kids to school, or to get a loaf of bread.

So-called "Euclidean" zoning is, indeed, a major contributor to sprawl development, and is a generally misguided practice. Public health and safety can be protected in less-intrusive ways, and better and richer neighborhoods can develop organically.

Also important are an ongoing series of public-policy decisions and programs promoting and advantaging autocentric development, stretching back to the late 1940s -- the Interstate Highway program; post-WWII VA loan programs for which new tract housing (e.g. the Levittowns) qualified, while older urban locations did not; "urban renewal" schemes which often dealt with "blighted" neighborhoods by simply razing them, sometimes converting them to surface parking for decades; long-standing American domestic and foreign policy aimed at keeping energy prices relatively low; and many more. The list is very long.

This is not to ignore or dismiss market economics, but to serve as a reminder that it has been anything but a "free" market.

Lower density development means.... more potential shortcuts? :D

Urban sprawl is the product of democratic authoritarianism where the majority dictates what others may or may not do with their own private property. In particular, it is the use of zoning that limits population density that is the cause of urban sprawl that results in communities where people need a car to take their kids to school, or to get a loaf of bread.

Replace "need" with "think they need" and you're post will be more acurate. ;)

I meant "need". If you live more than 5 miles from your kid's school, 30 miles from work, 5 miles from the nearest grocery store, etc., and you have a family of 4 or more, life as we know it is not possible without a lot of driving.



But care to explain what you mean a little more, especially the part about the majority deciding what to do with private land?
I was talking about zoning that restricts lots to have single family homes up to a certain square foot/lot-size ratio. Some suburban SD 'hoods restrict lots to one and even two acres! And I'm not talking 30 years ago... I'm talking about the 2000s.

If you look at high density places like NYC, San Francisco, Paris, Tokyo, etc., buildings are high and right next to each other. In typical southern CA sprawl, there are certain zones here and there where apartments or townhomes or commercial buildings are allowed, but for the most part you can't buy a few houses, tear them down, and build a 50 story apartment/condo tower on the same land to house 400 families instead of 4. I mean, you can buy the houses and probably get a permit to tear them down, but the democratic authoritarian government will not let you build the tower. So, 1,000,000 families in single family homes use up 100 times more land than the same number of families in high density housing. 100 times! That means X familes are sprawled out over 4,000 square miles instead of 40 square miles. That's why we have "car distances" instead of "bike/walk distances" with sprawl.

Lower density development means.... more potential shortcuts? :D

Only if you have knobbies on your tires ... ;)

Lower density development means.... more potential shortcuts? :D


Shaving a little time/distance from much longer trips?

I don't know. I've always thought of urban cycling as rich with potential shortcuts. And I'm certain the trips are shorter.

The are shortcuts downtown of course.

But the density around where I work is so low, on my mountain bike I can almost ride as the crow flies, especially in the big sprawling commercial/industrial plazas where there is much parking lot and little else.


Note: This is very NOT VC in the VC forum, but I'm trying to put a positive spin on a serious planning shortfall here

Diane ... what do you have in your avatar?

-G

EDIT: I don't think I can squint my eyes any further ...

That's me and chip and somebody's head skewered on the pitchfork.

The are shortcuts downtown of course.

But the density around where I work is so low, on my mountain bike I can almost ride as the crow flies, especially in the big sprawling commercial/industrial plazas where there is much parking lot and little else.


Note: This is very NOT VC in the VC forum, but I'm trying to put a positive spin on a serious planning shortfall here

I understand. I just note that autocentric development necessarily results in longer trips, simply because automobiles are relatively large and the space required to travel in them and store them in several places each day pushes origins and destinations farther apart than is the case in other environments.

On the other hand, new developments tend to have very nice, new, smooth, wide roads and not a lot of traffic... very nice for road bikes.

They could put in more bike paths in suburbia to soften the need to suffer and brave the high-speed arterials. Good ones that give you shortcuts and not just parallel to the main artery.

That's me and chip and somebody's head skewered on the pitchfork.

Ohhhhhhhhhhhh. Now I get it ...

That's me and chip and somebody's head skewered on the pitchfork.
i hope you've entered it in the contest

http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=281448

:)

I actually have little experience cycling in sprawl. Just a handful of rides outside the Beltway that were close enough to a population center and Albuquerque/Rio Rancho last October. Long story short, some of the areas outside the Beltway are only for those with nerves of steel whereas the Albuquerque area was very manageable for many that I met there. Even during the Balloon Fiesta madness.

My sense is that the final conclusion is going to sound a lot like the bicycle facilities debate. That is, well designed communities, even those that are relatively low density areas, will have bicycle friendly streets/facilities whereas poorly designed areas will not. (Duh! :D )

Related so some conversation involving ILTB, it seems to me that new construction actually has potential to have much better roads than urban areas since space for WOLs and other facilities is less expensive. Moreover, I gather that it is less expensive to build it correctly the first time than retro-fitting such facilities. Whether planners actually take advantage of this or not is another question.

I meant "need". If you live more than 5 miles from your kid's school, 30 miles from work, 5 miles from the nearest grocery store, etc., and you have a family of 4 or more, life as we know it is not possible without a lot of driving.


I was talking about zoning that restricts lots to have single family homes up to a certain square foot/lot-size ratio. Some suburban SD 'hoods restrict lots to one and even two acres! And I'm not talking 30 years ago... I'm talking about the 2000s.

If you look at high density places like NYC, San Francisco, Paris, Tokyo, etc., buildings are high and right next to each other. In typical southern CA sprawl, there are certain zones here and there where apartments or townhomes or commercial buildings are allowed, but for the most part you can't buy a few houses, tear them down, and build a 50 story apartment/condo tower on the same land to house 400 families instead of 4. I mean, you can buy the houses and probably get a permit to tear them down, but the democratic authoritarian government will not let you build the tower. So, 1,000,000 families in single family homes use up 100 times more land than the same number of families in high density housing. 100 times! That means X familes are sprawled out over 4,000 square miles instead of 40 square miles. That's why we have "car distances" instead of "bike/walk distances" with sprawl.

Thank you for the clarification. I can definately see the point you were wanting to make in your first post.
Speaking as a person who does live in suburbia America, I can say that I actually enjoy where I live for the most part, putting politics aside of course.
I can see why some cyclists dislike the suburbs, but, as is always mentioned here and other places, no one is forcing you to live there. (I'm saying "you" as in general, not "you" as in "you, Helmet Head")

Now for me to make a few points. Not to contradict what you believe in, or how you feel about it, just an observation on where I live and what I am used to and how I feel about the situation.
Living 12 miles from work, 4 miles from the schools, and several miles from the grocer and sundry stores, I find no problem with living a car free cyclists lifestyle. I'm sure that city dwellers that are used to having everyhting within 2 blocks of their home will disagree, but I enjoy the ride myself. I know how to budget my time accordingly. I like the idea that I can chose to live in a culd-de-sac enviroment, or on a two acre lot with more room for my kids to play safely.
It is now becoming clear to me why I have had issues with your asertations about vehicular cycling in situations where I would perfer the shoulder or bike path. When I have 10 miles ahead of me to get to my destination, I perfer the enviroment of a seperated path that allows me to roll along at my own pace. A well designed path can be quite pleasant. Now, when I am in the city, I do ride vehicularly. See, I don't "hate" VC, I do make use of it when necessary.

This all really boils down to the way a person was brought up and the beliefs they have created for themselves on comfort and convienience. I grew up in the country, living a farmboys life. I enjoyed that life for the most part but it was not for me. Living in the suburbs allows me to maintain certain aspects of that life (more land, quietness, neighbors that don't hear me fart when I'm on my porch) but allows me to also experience an internetworked style of city life when I chose just by pedaling for an hour.

As an amendum. I don't see the suburbs necessarily as being bad for our economy or how well we live our lives. some people, myself included, do not like the fast paced city life, but find some parts of it necessary for earning a living. Out here, housing is less expensive, life is a bit slower, and things are just plain more enjoyable... at least for me. I'm sure there are others out here who do not agree, but they are the ones with problems managing their time and feel that life is more bout what you own that what you experience.
Remember, no one is forcing us to live out here, we are making that choice for ourselves.

That's me and chip and somebody's head skewered on the pitchfork.

:D

...with the humor...

;)

...Living 12 miles from work, 4 miles from the schools, and several miles from the grocer and sundry stores, I find no problem with living a car free cyclists lifestyle. I'm sure that city dwellers that are used to having everyhting within 2 blocks of their home will disagree, but I enjoy the ride myself.
I'm not carfree, but I live 15 miles from work, and I also enjoy the ride quite a bit.

Though I do understand it's not for everyone...

I'm not carfree, but I live 15 miles from work, and I also enjoy the ride quite a bit.

Though I do understand it's not for everyone...

True, even cycling is not for everyone.
There's nothing quite like a peaceful 12 mile commute twice a day. Well, 9 miles of peace, the last 3 are pure hell :D

Thank you for the clarification. I can definately see the point you were wanting to make in your first post.
Speaking as a person who does live in suburbia America, I can say that I actually enjoy where I live for the most part, putting politics aside of course.
I can see why some cyclists dislike the suburbs, but, as is always mentioned here and other places, no one is forcing you to live there. (I'm saying "you" as in general, not "you" as in "you, Helmet Head")

Now for me to make a few points. Not to contradict what you believe in, or how you feel about it, just an observation on where I live and what I am used to and how I feel about the situation.
Living 12 miles from work, 4 miles from the schools, and several miles from the grocer and sundry stores, I find no problem with living a car free cyclists lifestyle. I'm sure that city dwellers that are used to having everyhting within 2 blocks of their home will disagree, but I enjoy the ride myself. I know how to budget my time accordingly. I like the idea that I can chose to live in a culd-de-sac enviroment, or on a two acre lot with more room for my kids to play safely.
It is now becoming clear to me why I have had issues with your asertations about vehicular cycling in situations where I would perfer the shoulder or bike path. When I have 10 miles ahead of me to get to my destination, I perfer the enviroment of a seperated path that allows me to roll along at my own pace. A well designed path can be quite pleasant. Now, when I am in the city, I do ride vehicularly. See, I don't "hate" VC, I do make use of it when necessary.

This all really boils down to the way a person was brought up and the beliefs they have created for themselves on comfort and convienience. I grew up in the country, living a farmboys life. I enjoyed that life for the most part but it was not for me. Living in the suburbs allows me to maintain certain aspects of that life (more land, quietness, neighbors that don't hear me fart when I'm on my porch) but allows me to also experience an internetworked style of city life when I chose just by pedaling for an hour.

As an amendum. I don't see the suburbs necessarily as being bad for our economy or how well we live our lives. some people, myself included, do not like the fast paced city life, but find some parts of it necessary for earning a living. Out here, housing is less expensive, life is a bit slower, and things are just plain more enjoyable... at least for me. I'm sure there are others out here who do not agree, but they are the ones with problems managing their time and feel that life is more bout what you own that what you experience.
Remember, no one is forcing us to live out here, we are making that choice for ourselves.
How many kids do you have?

How many kids do you have?
One that is mine and two that are in my care from an ailing relative.

How many kids do you have?
I understand your point, that people with kids might be more car-dependent. But asking, "How many kids do you have?" is kind of out of bounds.

I understand your point, that people with kids might be more car-dependent. But asking, "How many kids do you have?" is kind of out of bounds.

I see what direction he appears to be heading here, and I take no offense to it. In fact, I welcome the chance to inform someone who thinks it *is* difficult to live my lifestyle on how I go about it.
I can fully understand why some people think that us suburbanites *need* a car. The fact is, some people put themselves in the situation to where they actually do! But I would say that most of the people who *need* a car in actuality just *think they need* the car and could manage without if either forced to or had the desire.

They could put in more bike paths in suburbia to soften the need to suffer and brave the high-speed arterials. Good ones that give you shortcuts and not just parallel to the main artery.

I agree; I think there is a lot of potential for this.

Bike path bridges over streams, railroad tracks, freeways, etc. are much cheaper than building roadway bridges. One of the reasons that there isn't better street connectivity between neighborhoods in many places is the cost of building bridges over such things. This is especially the case with streams where I live; culvert crossings are generally not allowed here because of their impact on stream life. So, it's either a full-blown bridge, or nothing. I say, provide a bike/ped bridge!

BTW, here is John Allen's article on sprawl's effects on cycling:

http://www.bikexprt.com/bikepol/facil/sprawl.htm


The major impediment to use of the bicycle for transportation in sprawled suburbs is not sprawl itself. Think about it: people move to the suburbs because, among other things, they can imagine children riding bicycles there. The low traffic volume on the residential streets of sprawled suburbs makes them attractive for bicycling. The major impediment to use of the bicycle for transportation in sprawled suburbs is lack of connectivity.
...

Now, in the photo, suppose there were a short bicycling and walking trail connecting the housing development in the foreground with the one in the middleground. This simple and inexpensive improvement would open up a through route to the school, and would encourage people to walk and ride bicycles, because walking and bicycling distances to many destinations would be much shorter than the road distance.

That's an interesting picture, but when we were kids, they'd have to put in the trail by acquiring the access through the yards, since we'd already be cutting through the woods to get to school. They could just build that path where we made one by walking. I'm sure the property owners would be upset with us.

That's an interesting picture, but when we were kids, they'd have to put in the trail by acquiring the access through the yards, since we'd already be cutting through the woods to get to school. They could just build that path where we made one by walking. I'm sure the property owners would be upset with us.

Yes, retrofits are extremely difficult. My municipality is growing very quickly, making it possible for the city to require subdivision developers to include these paths as part of new development. To date, it is mostly longer recreational paths that have been required of developers, but the short-cut paths are a new subject of interest for connectivity.

Short-cut connector paths have been a tough sell because all the public paths in town are maintained by the Parks and Rec department, which has little to no vested interest in such small, isolated facilities that are not major recreational attractions. Riding on the roadway section of residential streets is outside Parks and Rec's scope; they aren't interested in short cut paths between disconnected streets unless the sidewalks on the roadway sections leading to or from the short cut are built and designated as multi-use paths as part of their off-roadway, as-contiguous-as-possible "greenway system".

The engineering department in charge of roads is interested in improving pedestrian facilities and bikability, but they don't do off-highway paths. Lastly, where short-cut paths have been built on private subdivision property per city requirement, the homeowners' associations have posted no-trespassing signs on them to exclude anyone not a resident of the subdivision.

i hope you've entered it in the contest

http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=281448

:)
I got a runner up!

I got a runner up!

:beer:

Only thing that I dont like about people living in the suburbs or rural areas is when taxpayers, who mostly live in the city, close to work, are asked to pay for roads to nowhere so that people can move out of the cities and developers can make a bunch of money, without making anything significantly better, except mabe getting more grass to mow.

So while 90 percent of road use occurs on city streets, the new connectors get a disproportionate chunk of the road dollars. People who choose to live in the suburbs are getting a subsidy to do so. Doesn't seem very free market to me. The entitlement for these roads runs deep.

As far as bikes are concerned, I think that the urban cyclist is better off, but not much.

Only thing that I dont like about people living in the suburbs or rural areas is when taxpayers, who mostly live in the city, close to work, are asked to pay for roads to nowhere so that people can move out of the cities and developers can make a bunch of money, without making anything significantly better, except mabe getting more grass to mow.

So while 90 percent of road use occurs on city streets, the new connectors get a disproportionate chunk of the road dollars. People who choose to live in the suburbs are getting a subsidy to do so. Doesn't seem very free market to me. The entitlement for these roads runs deep.

As far as bikes are concerned, I think that the urban cyclist is better off, but not much.

But the people who live in the suburbs could argue that they don't like their tax money going towards public transit in the city which they don't use, increased policing due to higher (statistically) crime rates in the city, etc... etc...
Double edged sword.

Another thing to consider, is that suburbanites pay more taxes (for the most part) due to larger homes, more land, and the like.

Another thing to consider, is that suburbanites pay more taxes (for the most part) due to larger homes, more land, and the like.

Is that right? I am trying to remember some figures from waaaaaay back when ... but tax rates vary across geography, commodity, and income type. NYC, Philly, and some other cities which escape my mind actually have their own municipal income taxes as well as property, sales, etc. taxes. Calculating tax liability is a problem with a high dimensionality. I thought that according to how you sliced the question, you could get very different results that vary according to region--assuming we are limiting the question to the US. The question gets really complicated if you try to figure out the net effects of government taxation/subsidies/services.

Anyway, this probably is not very relevant.