Advertise on Bikeforums.net



User Tag List

Page 1 of 8 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 193
  1. #1
    Part-time epistemologist invisiblehand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    My Bikes
    Jamis Nova, Bike Friday NWT, STRIDA, Austro Daimler Vent Noir, Haluzak Horizon, Salsa La Raza, Hollands Tourer
    Posts
    5,149
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    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.

  2. #2
    The Site Administrator: Currently at home recovering from a couple of strokes,please contact my assistnt admins for forum issues Tom Stormcrowe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    South Florida
    My Bikes
    Techna Wheelchair and a Sun EZ 3 Recumbent Trike
    Posts
    16,007
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)
    How about: Without Urban Sprawl, urban cyclists wouldn't have the opportunity for "Combat Century Rides"
    on light duty due to illness; please contact my assistants for forum issues. They are Siu Blue Wind, or CbadRider or the other 3 star folk. I am currently at home recovering from a couple of strokes. I am making good progress, happily.


    . “He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.”- Fredrick Nietzsche

    "We can judge the heart of a man by his treatment of animals." - Immanuel Kant

  3. #3
    pj7
    pj7 is offline
    On Sabbatical
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    1,543
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    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.
    I am a sig Virus. Please put me in your sig so that I can continue to replicate.

  4. #4
    Banned. Helmet Head's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    13,075
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    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.

  5. #5
    pj7
    pj7 is offline
    On Sabbatical
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    1,543
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Helmet Head
    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?
    I am a sig Virus. Please put me in your sig so that I can continue to replicate.

  6. #6
    Sumanitu taka owaci LittleBigMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Posts
    8,945
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    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.
    Last edited by LittleBigMan; 03-29-07 at 07:45 AM.
    No worries

  7. #7
    Banned. galen_52657's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Towson, MD
    My Bikes
    2001 Look KG 241, 1989 Specialized Stump Jumper Comp, 1986 Gatane Performanc
    Posts
    4,020
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Helmet Head
    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).

  8. #8
    Senior Member cooperwx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Asheville, NC
    My Bikes
    Trek 7.5 FX
    Posts
    389
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    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!
    06 Trek 7.5 FX

  9. #9
    Dominatrikes sbhikes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Still in Santa Barbara
    My Bikes
    Catrike Pocket, Lightning Thunderbold recumbent, Trek 3000 MTB.
    Posts
    4,920
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    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.
    ~Diane
    Recumbents: Lightning Thunderbolt, '06 Catrike Pocket. Upright: Trek Mountain Bike.
    8.5 mile commute. I like bike lanes.

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Reston, VA
    My Bikes
    2003 Giant OCR2
    Posts
    2,369
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Helmet Head
    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.

  11. #11
    Senior Member rando's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Tempe, AZ
    Posts
    2,967
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    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.
    "Think of bicycles as rideable art that can just about save the world". ~Grant Petersen

    Cyclists fare best when they recognize that there are times when acting vehicularly is not the best practice, and are flexible enough to do what is necessary as the situation warrants.--Me

  12. #12
    totally louche Bekologist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    A land that time forgot
    My Bikes
    the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes
    Posts
    18,012
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    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.
    "Evidence, anecdote and methodology all support planning for roadway bike traffic."

  13. #13
    Part-time epistemologist invisiblehand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    My Bikes
    Jamis Nova, Bike Friday NWT, STRIDA, Austro Daimler Vent Noir, Haluzak Horizon, Salsa La Raza, Hollands Tourer
    Posts
    5,149
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    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.

  14. #14
    Part-time epistemologist invisiblehand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    My Bikes
    Jamis Nova, Bike Friday NWT, STRIDA, Austro Daimler Vent Noir, Haluzak Horizon, Salsa La Raza, Hollands Tourer
    Posts
    5,149
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Diane ... what do you have in your avatar?

    -G

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

  15. #15
    Senior Member cooperwx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Asheville, NC
    My Bikes
    Trek 7.5 FX
    Posts
    389
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    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.
    06 Trek 7.5 FX

  16. #16
    Senior Member wheel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Crystal MN
    Posts
    2,147
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    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.
    My Youtube Cycling Videos Here

  17. #17
    totally louche Bekologist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    A land that time forgot
    My Bikes
    the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes
    Posts
    18,012
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    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.
    "Evidence, anecdote and methodology all support planning for roadway bike traffic."

  18. #18
    Senior Member sggoodri's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Cary, NC
    My Bikes
    1983 Trek, 2001 Lemond, 2000 Gary Fisher
    Posts
    3,068
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by cooperwx
    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.

  19. #19
    Senior Member rando's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Tempe, AZ
    Posts
    2,967
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    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.
    "Think of bicycles as rideable art that can just about save the world". ~Grant Petersen

    Cyclists fare best when they recognize that there are times when acting vehicularly is not the best practice, and are flexible enough to do what is necessary as the situation warrants.--Me

  20. #20
    Senior Member sggoodri's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Cary, NC
    My Bikes
    1983 Trek, 2001 Lemond, 2000 Gary Fisher
    Posts
    3,068
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by rando
    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/...ural_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.

  21. #21
    Senior Member randya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    in bed with your mom
    My Bikes
    who cares?
    Posts
    13,696
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    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.

  22. #22
    Senior Member kalliergo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    SF Bay
    My Bikes
    Trek Valencia+, Dutch cargo bike, Karate Monkey, etc.
    Posts
    712
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Helmet Head
    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.

  23. #23
    Former Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    dropmachine.com
    Posts
    4,061
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Lower density development means.... more potential shortcuts?

  24. #24
    Banned. Helmet Head's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    13,075
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by pj7
    Quote Originally Posted by Helmet Head
    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.

  25. #25
    Part-time epistemologist invisiblehand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    My Bikes
    Jamis Nova, Bike Friday NWT, STRIDA, Austro Daimler Vent Noir, Haluzak Horizon, Salsa La Raza, Hollands Tourer
    Posts
    5,149
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by ghettocruiser
    Lower density development means.... more potential shortcuts?
    Only if you have knobbies on your tires ...

Page 1 of 8 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •