MORE parking--Ugh
09-27-18, 09:49 AM
#26
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 7,384
Mentioned: 49 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 800 Post(s)
Liked 218 Times
in
171 Posts
My employer pays a portion of the transit pass, which is generous. I'm only six miles away, so I cycle through the seasons along mostly quiet neighbourhood streets. I'll have a bus pass for January / February for truly hazardous winter days.
The majority of my colleagues live in the distant suburbs or way out of town in the middle of nowhere. I can't imagine driving an hour to work and then an hour home each day. I'd rather have a leisurely breakfast and read or have time for errands without feeling rushed.
Being able to walk to groceries, hardware stores, library, and the LBS and just downtown amenities is fantastic. 'We' really screwed up the development of the continent's city transport networks since the 1950s. Imagine if we hadn't all torn up our tram lines and replaced them with GM buses...
The majority of my colleagues live in the distant suburbs or way out of town in the middle of nowhere. I can't imagine driving an hour to work and then an hour home each day. I'd rather have a leisurely breakfast and read or have time for errands without feeling rushed.
Being able to walk to groceries, hardware stores, library, and the LBS and just downtown amenities is fantastic. 'We' really screwed up the development of the continent's city transport networks since the 1950s. Imagine if we hadn't all torn up our tram lines and replaced them with GM buses...
I often tout Boston as the epitome of LCF/LCL in America, not to brag, but illustrate the possibilities. When I take visitors on a 4-5 mile walking tour of downtown Boston, I introduce it with this explanation:
Several years ago, the architectural critic of the Boston Globe, Robert Campbell, was visiting Southfield, Michigan, a town I know well, and described it as the “City of Towers and Cars” (including “busy highways and vast parking lots" [and tall office buildings, and sprawling office and retail parks]).
In his article, he contrasted that that to the “City of Outdoor Rooms” (Boston) which is visited as one would visit a person’s home, passing through the various portals, from room to room, admiring the furnishings within.
That’s the motif I use on my tours as we start in the Back Bay, and pass through the Public Garden, Boston Common, Washington St and Quincy Market, the North End, Beacon Hill and back to Back Bay.
Several years ago, the architectural critic of the Boston Globe, Robert Campbell, was visiting Southfield, Michigan, a town I know well, and described it as the “City of Towers and Cars” (including “busy highways and vast parking lots" [and tall office buildings, and sprawling office and retail parks]).
In his article, he contrasted that that to the “City of Outdoor Rooms” (Boston) which is visited as one would visit a person’s home, passing through the various portals, from room to room, admiring the furnishings within.
That’s the motif I use on my tours as we start in the Back Bay, and pass through the Public Garden, Boston Common, Washington St and Quincy Market, the North End, Beacon Hill and back to Back Bay.
People walk a lot more in places where there is somewhere to walk. But in much of the US, housing is relatively far from anywhere people want to go. And if you want to walk from your home to a nearby restaurant and that involves crossing a six lane highway and walking across a large parking lot, the journey is much less appealing.
Some cities are seeing revitalization of urban neighborhoods that allow people to walk to shops and restaurants. But these will never accommodate more than a small percentage of the population
The best way to encourage people to do things without a car is to put those things closer to their homes. But the US has developed in such a way that it's now much harder to do that.
Some cities are seeing revitalization of urban neighborhoods that allow people to walk to shops and restaurants. But these will never accommodate more than a small percentage of the population
The best way to encourage people to do things without a car is to put those things closer to their homes. But the US has developed in such a way that it's now much harder to do that.
Some cities never lost those neighborhoods, like Boston. It seems to me that in order to be an attractive place to support a variety of restaurants and shops to which to walk (and not drive to visit that neighborhood…the basic premise of this thread) a neighborhood must be a large area with a substantial, dense population living there, likely that evolved in the pre-automotive era.
I think a lot of urban revitalization projects tend to create enclaves as driving destinations to walk around in such large cities like in my native Detroit.
One of my greatest complaints about the automotive industry/culture is that by by intent, or just popular acceptance, previously vitalized neighborhoods just whithered away, and deprived the citizens of the choice to Live Car Free.
I think a lot of urban revitalization projects tend to create enclaves as driving destinations to walk around in such large cities like in my native Detroit.
One of my greatest complaints about the automotive industry/culture is that by by intent, or just popular acceptance, previously vitalized neighborhoods just whithered away, and deprived the citizens of the choice to Live Car Free.
…Last edited by Jim from Boston; 09-27-18 at 09:52 AM.
09-27-18, 09:53 AM
#27
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Alpharetta, GA
Posts: 15,280
Bikes: Nashbar Road
Mentioned: 71 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2934 Post(s)
Liked 341 Times
in
228 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by wphamilton 
You're implying that the "bike commuting" population may be self-selected more due to the local environment than for particular health/fitness reasons. That's a good, valid point in my opinion.
You're implying that the "bike commuting" population may be self-selected more due to the local environment than for particular health/fitness reasons. That's a good, valid point in my opinion.
Originally Posted by Jim from Boston
Well said. I have frequently posted:
Location, location, location
Location, location, location
Although I go on to say that the non-cyclists tend to perceive their location as more difficult and dangerous than it really is. You need the experience to realistically judge the location, but you don't get that without being a commuter in the first place. So the self-selection of bike commuting is based more on misconceptions than on what seasoned commuters want.
09-27-18, 11:24 AM
#28
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 7,384
Mentioned: 49 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 800 Post(s)
Liked 218 Times
in
171 Posts
…Another lucky aspect of my commute is that while Manhattan has brutal traffic in the streets, I don't take the streets. I take the Hudson River Greenway and need to deal with hardly any motor vehicles, so it's safe and stress free. The scenery is gorgeous and always changing.
So clearly for me, bike commuting has the most benefits of all possible commute modes available to me. I'm very lucky to have it as an opportunity. It's not advisable or practical in other places.
So clearly for me, bike commuting has the most benefits of all possible commute modes available to me. I'm very lucky to have it as an opportunity. It's not advisable or practical in other places.
You're implying that the "bike commuting" population may be self-selected more due to the local environment than for particular health/fitness reasons. That's a good, valid point in my opinion.
I often tout Boston as the epitome of LCF/LCL [Living Car Free / Car Light] in America, not to brag, but illustrate the possibilities…
Location, location, location
Location, location, location
Although I go on to say that the non-cyclists tend to perceive their location as more difficult and dangerous than it really is.
You need the experience to realistically judge the location, but you don't get that without being a commuter in the first place.
So the self-selection of bike commuting is based more on misconceptions than on what seasoned commuters want.
You need the experience to realistically judge the location, but you don't get that without being a commuter in the first place.
So the self-selection of bike commuting is based more on misconceptions than on what seasoned commuters want.
Thanks for the reply. My first understanding of that post, on the thread, “Commute by bike? But that's dangerous!”was a seemingly double negative proposition: self-selected (? inexperienced) bicycle commuters choose based on miconceptions (? of the dangers), rather than what seasoned (experienced) commuters want (? perceived advantages, benefits, protections).
I inferred that people decide likely NOT to cycle commute based on those (negative) misperceptions.
You wrote further on that post:
…My brother considered and rejected it because of a dicey street and intersections, in the large city where he lives. If I moved there, knowing what I know now, I'd do it without hesitation. Jumping into it cold, with no experience, probably not.
Yet it's a shame that he didn't logically follow through with the reasoning, that genetically, mentally and physically equivalent, with the major difference being long-term experience, that the experience should supersede the fear.
I don't necessarily agree with you [@noglider]
that there are many situations where it is inadvisable or impractical, but no question they do look that way to a non-cyclist.
Yet it's a shame that he didn't logically follow through with the reasoning, that genetically, mentally and physically equivalent, with the major difference being long-term experience, that the experience should supersede the fear.
I don't necessarily agree with you [@noglider]
that there are many situations where it is inadvisable or impractical, but no question they do look that way to a non-cyclist.
Generally I get kudos or just indifference towards my cycling, mostly as a year-round commuter here in Metro Boston, even after my serious accident four years ago. The most hostile remarks, particularly in Winter, are from those drivers who fear for themselves to hit me.
Of course I contend with their fears using many of those talking points as mentioned above ["Once again: Health VS Cycling Accidents" (link)]. One soft argument I read on Bikeforums is that cycling in traffic really does look dangerous to car drivers ensconced in their vehicles.
Personally I feel pretty safe, well-lit, with unlimited vision with mirrors, and pretty nimble on my bike. Nonetheless, I’m totally attentive to the cars around me, and I have a number of safety aphorisms in my mind to keep me alert (link; e.g., “Like a weapon, consider every stopped car loaded, with an occupant ready to exit (from either side).”)
Once though, I was standing on a busy intersection (Massachusetts and Commonwealth Aves) one Saturday night watching some happy-go-lucky student-type cyclists on Hubway Bike Share bikes, no helmets, riding along and laughing in traffic, and I thought to myself that really does look dangerous.
Of course I contend with their fears using many of those talking points as mentioned above ["Once again: Health VS Cycling Accidents" (link)]. One soft argument I read on Bikeforums is that cycling in traffic really does look dangerous to car drivers ensconced in their vehicles.
Personally I feel pretty safe, well-lit, with unlimited vision with mirrors, and pretty nimble on my bike. Nonetheless, I’m totally attentive to the cars around me, and I have a number of safety aphorisms in my mind to keep me alert (link; e.g., “Like a weapon, consider every stopped car loaded, with an occupant ready to exit (from either side).”)
Once though, I was standing on a busy intersection (Massachusetts and Commonwealth Aves) one Saturday night watching some happy-go-lucky student-type cyclists on Hubway Bike Share bikes, no helmets, riding along and laughing in traffic, and I thought to myself that really does look dangerous.
Frankly, I have posted that I would not be inclined to encourage, unless by example (nor discourage) someone to cycle-commute, but if they so chose, I would freely and gladly give any advice...
Public exhortations to cycle-commute, or utility cycle are well and good with no individual responsibility for bad outcomes, but I would not want the recriminations of a personal endorsement if something bad happened.
Also, with regards to “recreational cycling,” actual organizing, promoting, or similar, may entail IMO a liability beyond a personal guilt trip if something goes wrong….
Public exhortations to cycle-commute, or utility cycle are well and good with no individual responsibility for bad outcomes, but I would not want the recriminations of a personal endorsement if something bad happened.
Also, with regards to “recreational cycling,” actual organizing, promoting, or similar, may entail IMO a liability beyond a personal guilt trip if something goes wrong….
Last edited by Jim from Boston; 09-27-18 at 12:38 PM. Reason: added quote by noglider
09-27-18, 12:56 PM
#29
Been Around Awhile
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Posts: 29,965
Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked 1,530 Times
in
1,042 Posts
Perhaps you should take a peek at this article and read how public transit did evolve in the land of your youth. https://www.citylab.com/transportati...ransit/568825/
Of course you are still free to imagine that none of it is true and that trams would have continued to successfully provide convenient public transit to the commuters of the U.S. as if it were still 1918.
09-27-18, 03:40 PM
#31
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Alpharetta, GA
Posts: 15,280
Bikes: Nashbar Road
Mentioned: 71 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2934 Post(s)
Liked 341 Times
in
228 Posts
Hi @wphamilton ,
Thanks for the reply. My first understanding of that post, on the thread, “Commute by bike? But that's dangerous!”was a seemingly double negative proposition: self-selected (? inexperienced) bicycle commuters choose based on miconceptions (? of the dangers), rather than what seasoned (experienced) commuters want (? perceived advantages, benefits, protections).
I inferred that people decide likely NOT to cycle commute based on those (negative) misperceptions.
You wrote further on that post: seeming to confirm my impression. I have posted previously about impressions and the decision to cycle commute, including on that particular thread:
Thanks for the reply. My first understanding of that post, on the thread, “Commute by bike? But that's dangerous!”was a seemingly double negative proposition: self-selected (? inexperienced) bicycle commuters choose based on miconceptions (? of the dangers), rather than what seasoned (experienced) commuters want (? perceived advantages, benefits, protections).
I inferred that people decide likely NOT to cycle commute based on those (negative) misperceptions.
You wrote further on that post: seeming to confirm my impression. I have posted previously about impressions and the decision to cycle commute, including on that particular thread:
So in effect, we often decide in the beginning on cycle commuting based on local conditions, so yes that is self-selected on conditions. But then, after we stick with it, we learn that those same conditions that we were concerned about aren't necessarily impediments after all and we're NOT selecting based on local conditions. It's a kind of dichotomy.
09-27-18, 03:53 PM
#32
Banned
Why would running trams in the middle of the street, rather than bus service have led to that result?
Perhaps you should take a peek at this article and read how public transit did evolve in the land of your youth. https://www.citylab.com/transportati...ransit/568825/
Of course you are still free to imagine that none of it is true and that trams would have continued to successfully provide convenient public transit to the commuters of the U.S. as if it were still 1918.
Perhaps you should take a peek at this article and read how public transit did evolve in the land of your youth. https://www.citylab.com/transportati...ransit/568825/
Of course you are still free to imagine that none of it is true and that trams would have continued to successfully provide convenient public transit to the commuters of the U.S. as if it were still 1918.
09-27-18, 05:39 PM
#33
Been Around Awhile
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Posts: 29,965
Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked 1,530 Times
in
1,042 Posts
The huge sunk cost of trams/trolleys (rails and electric generators/wires) was money already spent. There was nothing to be gained by retaining an obsolete system and throwing more money after bad in order to keep street rail's lack of flexibility in routing which you perversely consider an advantage.
09-28-18, 02:43 AM
#34
Banned
The huge sunk cost of trams/trolleys (rails and electric generators/wires) was money already spent. There was nothing to be gained by retaining an obsolete system and throwing more money after bad in order to keep street rail's lack of flexibility in routing which you perversely consider an advantage.
What suggested benefit am I missing.
Leave my country of birth out of the discussion as it's materially irrelevant.
09-28-18, 11:46 AM
#35
Been Around Awhile
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Posts: 29,965
Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked 1,530 Times
in
1,042 Posts
Well as a person who has lived under both conditions (where the teams have stayed in place since their origin and where they've been removed and replaced by auto and/or bus), it's simply superior to live in the former. I don't see any advantage by removing existing tram lines. Most cities run buses in the same physical space.
What suggested benefit am I missing.
Leave my country of birth out of the discussion as it's materially irrelevant.
What suggested benefit am I missing.
Leave my country of birth out of the discussion as it's materially irrelevant.
You can't see any benefits to flexibility in routing public transit service to allow for frequent traffic obstructions/street and utility construction, let alone account for long term shifts in locations of population densities, business and residential movement, and traffic/roadway alternatives?
Fine, those were the good old days weren't they?
I used to take the Rt. 6 trolley to Willow Grove Park via its own right of way through Glenside as a youth.
And crush pennies on the tracks of the Rt. 52 trolley ½ block from my house.
When I turned 16 take my grandmother by car to the 5th Godfrey turn around for the Rt 47 trolley where she could wait in the car for its full trip to the other end of the line which was a block from her house in South Philadelphia.
If only life were still so simple that reminiscing about the good old days would bring them back!
09-28-18, 03:20 PM
#36
Banned
Where in the U.S. have the tram lines stayed in place since their origin and allowed superior living conditions to thrive or even exist? West Philadelphia is one area where you can find a tram system (known locally as subway surface trolleys since they use Market Street subway for the Center City section of their routes) that includes more than one or two lines serving an area for something other than tourism. It will be hard to make a case that this existing tram line is any kind of factor on the living conditions in West Philadelphia. perhaps New Orleans and Boston still have a working legacy tram system but I am not familiar them.
You can't see any benefits to flexibility in routing public transit service to allow for frequent traffic obstructions/street and utility construction, let alone account for long term shifts in locations of population densities, business and residential movement, and traffic/roadway alternatives?
Fine, those were the good old days weren't they?
I used to take the Rt. 6 trolley to Willow Grove Park via its own right of way through Glenside as a youth.
And crush pennies on the tracks of the Rt. 52 trolley ½ block from my house.
When I turned 16 take my grandmother by car to the 5th Godfrey turn around for the Rt 47 trolley where she could wait in the car for its full trip to the other end of the line which was a block from her house in South Philadelphia.
If only life were still so simple that reminiscing about the good old days would bring them back!
You can't see any benefits to flexibility in routing public transit service to allow for frequent traffic obstructions/street and utility construction, let alone account for long term shifts in locations of population densities, business and residential movement, and traffic/roadway alternatives?
Fine, those were the good old days weren't they?
I used to take the Rt. 6 trolley to Willow Grove Park via its own right of way through Glenside as a youth.
And crush pennies on the tracks of the Rt. 52 trolley ½ block from my house.
When I turned 16 take my grandmother by car to the 5th Godfrey turn around for the Rt 47 trolley where she could wait in the car for its full trip to the other end of the line which was a block from her house in South Philadelphia.
If only life were still so simple that reminiscing about the good old days would bring them back!
I'm using England as the control group.
09-28-18, 05:44 PM
#37
Been Around Awhile
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Posts: 29,965
Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked 1,530 Times
in
1,042 Posts
09-29-18, 12:25 AM
#38
Banned
09-29-18, 01:47 AM
#39
☢
Top, left of the attachment is the view from my office. I've worked here since 2003 and our parent company has owned the field, out front (and still does). It was said that they purchased the extra land to keep others from putting a competing building next door.
Over the past several years, our parent company encouraged three other research/marketing agencies to sell their buildings and move into ours (we had the space). Our two-and-a-half-level parking lot has become rather crowded, or so I'm told, (I'm a daily bicycle commuter).
Just last year, Dallas Area Rapid Transit put a bus stop, literally, at the end of our driveway. There are several folks who have started using that. However, no companies within our building have done anything to encourage its use. They've done nothing to promote car-pooling or any other alternative transportation. Nope. They are just tearing up the field to build another parking lot, so now I'll get to look out the window at a bunch of cars.
I'm not looking for advice or solutions--I've done all I can do. I'm just venting. Thanks for listening.
Over the past several years, our parent company encouraged three other research/marketing agencies to sell their buildings and move into ours (we had the space). Our two-and-a-half-level parking lot has become rather crowded, or so I'm told, (I'm a daily bicycle commuter).
Just last year, Dallas Area Rapid Transit put a bus stop, literally, at the end of our driveway. There are several folks who have started using that. However, no companies within our building have done anything to encourage its use. They've done nothing to promote car-pooling or any other alternative transportation. Nope. They are just tearing up the field to build another parking lot, so now I'll get to look out the window at a bunch of cars.
I'm not looking for advice or solutions--I've done all I can do. I'm just venting. Thanks for listening.
10-02-18, 08:04 PM
#40
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: South Carolina Upstate
Posts: 2,105
Bikes: 2010 Fuji Absolute 3.0 1994 Trek 850
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 762 Post(s)
Liked 555 Times
in
322 Posts
people here (US) ruin mass transit. They believe they are entitled to do anything they want (eat, sleep, master-bate, drink alcohol, commit crimes, talk loudly on the phone, play their music too loud, shave etc.)
the reason it works in some places is because those places have what is called a society where the members feel some responsibility to conform to agreed upon norms and customs. The people even strive to be good members of their society and contribute in a positive manner. We have jumped the shark in that department in the U.S.
the reason it works in some places is because those places have what is called a society where the members feel some responsibility to conform to agreed upon norms and customs. The people even strive to be good members of their society and contribute in a positive manner. We have jumped the shark in that department in the U.S.
10-03-18, 02:01 AM
#41
Banned
I'm OK with it as long as it doesn't affect my personal space or physically threaten me/my family. (all of those things are normal everyday things.)
Sometime I think that Americans are too coddled/sheltered from real life.
Committing a crime isn't cool ... and I haven't seen that one as I doubt people on the train/bus would stand for it. You'd have to be quite braven to commit such a crime with 30 other people in the same car/wagon/bus.
10-03-18, 03:15 AM
#42
☢
people here (US) ruin mass transit. They believe they are entitled to do anything they want (eat, sleep, master-bate, drink alcohol, commit crimes, talk loudly on the phone, play their music too loud, shave etc.)<br /><br /><font size="+2"><span style="color:brown;">the reason it works in some places is because those places have what is called a society where the members feel some responsibility to conform to agreed upon norms and customs.</span></font> The people even strive to be good members of their society and contribute in a positive manner. We have jumped the shark in that department in the U.S.
10-03-18, 06:27 AM
#43
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: South Carolina Upstate
Posts: 2,105
Bikes: 2010 Fuji Absolute 3.0 1994 Trek 850
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 762 Post(s)
Liked 555 Times
in
322 Posts
That's pretty common over here too. especially eating, drinking, self-/multi-person affection, talk loudly, play music, etc...
I'm OK with it as long as it doesn't affect my personal space or physically threaten me/my family. (all of those things are normal everyday things.)
Sometime I think that Americans are too coddled/sheltered from real life.
Committing a crime isn't cool ... and I haven't seen that one as I doubt people on the train/bus would stand for it. You'd have to be quite braven to commit such a crime with 30 other people in the same car/wagon/bus.
I'm OK with it as long as it doesn't affect my personal space or physically threaten me/my family. (all of those things are normal everyday things.)
Sometime I think that Americans are too coddled/sheltered from real life.
Committing a crime isn't cool ... and I haven't seen that one as I doubt people on the train/bus would stand for it. You'd have to be quite braven to commit such a crime with 30 other people in the same car/wagon/bus.
It's just a different place, I'm not going to speculate on if we are sheltered from life as you call it. There are some pretty rough places over here
10-03-18, 10:06 AM
#44
Banned
maybe you're right, I'm not sure. England is the size of a very small state over here. Would be fairly easy to have and regulate a comprehensive transportation system in such a small place. I imagine there are advancements galore that make our systems pale in comparison
It's just a different place, I'm not going to speculate on if we are sheltered from life as you call it. There are some pretty rough places over here
It's just a different place, I'm not going to speculate on if we are sheltered from life as you call it. There are some pretty rough places over here
The southeast is somewhat organised (with about 25 to 30M people) in a circle with a 100 mile radius.
6 major airports with 160M passengers / year are also connected to the system.
It's OK but could be better.
