Are there any exemplary Bike AND Rail Trails?
Cycle America
rail trail that we can hold up as a model in getting such a system worked
effectively into place here in Santa Cruz County? Along these lines, does
anyone know of a web site for Rails *AND* Trails?
And we must move quickly as we endeavor to reverse a decision that
eliminated rail as one of the alternatives to moving people about in our
county. If you can believe it, widening our only highway was placed as a
number one priority in alleviating our problems with congestion....
If you would like to get on our mailing list for this:
http://www.onelist.com/subscribe/coastaltrolley
--
M a r t i n K r i e g
Attacking with Love
Coma, Paralysis, Clinical Death Survivor
'79 & '86 TransAm Vet, "Awake Again" Author
TransAm w/us in 2000: http://www.BikeRoute.com
N A T I O N A L B I C Y C L E G R E E N W A Y
geo...@cruzio.com
wrote:
>If you can believe it, widening our only highway was placed as a
>number one priority in alleviating our problems with congestion....
I can't believe it either, and I'm absolutely estatic that the
Transportation Commission has finally come to their senses.
--Geoffrey Wells
--geo...@cruzio.com
Unknown
wrote:
>Could anyone out there provide an example of a good working bike *AND*
>rail trail that we can hold up as a model in getting such a system worked
>effectively into place here in Santa Cruz County? Along these lines, does
>anyone know of a web site for Rails *AND* Trails?
>
>And we must move quickly as we endeavor to reverse a decision that
>eliminated rail as one of the alternatives to moving people about in our
>county. If you can believe it, widening our only highway was placed as a
>number one priority in alleviating our problems with congestion....
>
>If you would like to get on our mailing list for this:
>
> http://www.onelist.com/subscribe/coastaltrolley
Personaly I think that HWY 17 should be converted to a one lane dirt
road. Charge a toll of 10.00 to anyone coming into S.C. (leaving would
be free). I would hate to see any kind of development that would make
it any easier for the valley to get over here.
Pete
Widening a road to combat congestion is like buying a bigger belt to combat
obesity.
The owner of that sig will (I hope) forgive me for borrowing it. Apologies
if I got it a little wrong.
Pete
geo...@cruzio.com wrote in message <37966457...@cnews.newsguy.com>...
>On Wed, 21 Jul 1999 15:00:38 -0800, N...@BikeRoute.com (Cycle America)
>wrote:
>
>>If you can believe it, widening our only highway was placed as a
>>number one priority in alleviating our problems with congestion....
>
Stupid
wrote:
>Could anyone out there provide an example of a good working bike *AND*
>rail trail that we can hold up as a model in getting such a system worked
>effectively into place here in Santa Cruz County? Along these lines, does
>anyone know of a web site for Rails *AND* Trails?
I don't know if this meets your needs, but there is a proposed "limit
to limit" cross-city bike trail that will run alongside of the rail
lines through San Luis Obispo. About 1/3 of it is in place (from
Orcutt Road south), the second third will be built this summer (from
Marsh Street to Orcutt), and the last third is a pipe-dream which will
probably never happen.
Adrian Brandt
> Could anyone out there provide an example of a good working bike *AND*
> rail trail that we can hold up as a model in getting such a system worked
> effectively into place here in Santa Cruz County? Along these lines, does
> anyone know of a web site for Rails *AND* Trails?
I don't know if this fits the bill exactly, but you can try the "Rails to
Trails" folks at http://www.railstotrails.org.
--
Adrian Brandt
(408) 565-7291 / abr...@nortelnetworks.com
Mark
organization that can help you. http://www.railtrails.org/ An exemplary
rails to trails project can be found in Orange county Florida. Here is a
link to a consulting company that worked on the West Orange trail
http://www.pageplanet.com/greenways/index.html
Good luck
Cycle America wrote in message ...
>Could anyone out there provide an example of a good working bike *AND*
>rail trail that we can hold up as a model in getting such a system worked
>effectively into place here in Santa Cruz County? Along these lines, does
>anyone know of a web site for Rails *AND* Trails?
>
>And we must move quickly as we endeavor to reverse a decision that
>eliminated rail as one of the alternatives to moving people about in our
>county. If you can believe it, widening our only highway was placed as a
>number one priority in alleviating our problems with congestion....
>
>If you would like to get on our mailing list for this:
>
> http://www.onelist.com/subscribe/coastaltrolley
>
geo...@cruzio.com
wrote:
>From someone else's sig file....
>
>Widening a road to combat congestion is like buying a bigger belt to combat
>obesity.
Cute, but try the reality slogan on:
Widening a road to combat congestion is like having a coronary bypass
to combat atherosclerosis.
--Geoffrey Wells
--geo...@cruzio.com
Robert M. Lewis
No the reality is more like:
Widening a road to combat congestion is like having a coronary bypass
so you can go on eating greasy food and being a couch potato.
Robert M. Lewis
Curiouser and curiouser!
Steve Premo
M. Lewis) wrote:
Well, OK, but the problem is that refusing the bypass is not going to
convince us to stop eating greasy food.
In other words, there are two possible solutions to traffic
congestion: (1) more capacity for traffic, or (2) less traffic.
The second solution can be accomplished in two ways. You can either
convince people to voluntarily use their cars less, or you can use
various coercive techniques.
It has been local government policy for decades to convince people to
voluntarily drive less. Those policies have little effect. What
people *want* is a transportation system that will (1) get them where
they want to go quickly; (2) give them privacy, i.e., allow them to
travel only with persons of their own choosing; and (3) haul whatever
stuff the people want to bring with them. Convincing them to give up
those goals is difficult, and attempts to do so have not worked.
Then there are the coercive techniques. You might pass a law imposing
a $5 per gallon tax on gas, which will discourage poor people from
driving, or you could pass a law saying that you can only drive on
even-numbered days if you have an even-numbered license plate, etc.
The problem with these solutions is that they are highly oppressive.
Or you can try to increase congestion to the point where people don't
want to drive so much. The problem with that is that cars emit a
great deal more pollution when they're stuck in traffic than they do
when they're moving freely. So while people are driving less, they
are hurting the environment more.
On the other hand, adding a carpool lane would decrease congestion
and give people a tangible reason to drive less, without being
oppressive. Sounds ideal, doesn't it?
Steve Premo -- Santa Cruz, California
"Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum."
(A little song, a little dance, a little seltzer down your pants.)
http://www2.cruzio.com/~premo/steve.html
Tim May
> It has been local government policy for decades to convince people to
> voluntarily drive less. Those policies have little effect. What
> people *want* is a transportation system that will (1) get them where
> they want to go quickly; (2) give them privacy, i.e., allow them to
> travel only with persons of their own choosing; and (3) haul whatever
> stuff the people want to bring with them. Convincing them to give up
> those goals is difficult, and attempts to do so have not worked.
And the first thing "poor people" do as soon as they can afford to is *buy
a car*.
It lets them get from, say, Watsonville to Santa Cruz, in 15 minutes
instead of 90 minutes. It lets them pick their times of travel, instead of
being a slave to a bus schedule. It lets them take various side trips. It
lets them shop for groceries. It lets them catch a late movie or visit a
restaurant, without worry about bus schedules and when they stop running.
It lets them be safe (well, safer) in their cars than sitting exposed at a
bus stop late at night.
Advocates of mass transit should do the math. Anyone making over $7 an
hour can justify a car. Apparently they think so, too. Like I said, the
first thing a poor person does is to look for a second-hand car.
My brother in LA was telling me of how his landlord has a friend in Santa
Cruz. This guy is complaining that all the women he meets expect him, of
course, to have a car. According to the story, this guy asked a girl out.
She said "Do you have a car?" He supposedly said, "No, but I know all the
bus schedules." End of date.
(The punchline to the story was that the guy concluded "All the women in
Santa Cruz are lesbos." But that's another story, with another analysis.)
>
> Then there are the coercive techniques. You might pass a law imposing
> a $5 per gallon tax on gas, which will discourage poor people from
> driving, or you could pass a law saying that you can only drive on
> even-numbered days if you have an even-numbered license plate, etc.
Confiscatory taxes are seldom effective. Higher gas prices, as in Europe,
would likely lead to more use of motorcycles and scooters. Might help a
bit with traffic on 1, but with increased social costs due to head trauma.
(I ride a motorcycle, carefully. And I am well alware of the dangers and
costs. But when gas is super-expensive, poor people make do with
motorcycles and scooters, and simply pile on their groceries and
passengers as best they can. See Asia for examples.)
Even-odd is a loser from the starting blocks. Job demands, etc. Some
people, if this passes, would simply finagle to have two or more vehicles.
(Each with perhaps lesser maintenance.) No effect overall, I expect. Just
a ton of hassle.
(Speaking of work, notice how many jobs require a vehicle? We saw this
recently discussed here, with some prospective employer saying a vehicle
was required. The usual socialists argued that this was an unfair
requirement, blah blah.)
I know those engineers I worked with at Intel who were in car pools paid a
price in terms of success. Having to leave at 5 or 5:30 while your
coworkers stay late to finish a project....
> On the other hand, adding a carpool lane would decrease congestion
> and give people a tangible reason to drive less, without being
> oppressive. Sounds ideal, doesn't it?
See above.
--Tim May
--
"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice..." (BaAuH2O)
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
ComSec 3DES: 831-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
"Cyphernomicon" | black markets, collapse of governments.
Pete
Steve Premo <pr...@mail.cruzio.com> wrote in message
news:37989201...@cnews.newsguy.com...
>
> Well, OK, but the problem is that refusing the bypass is not going to
> convince us to stop eating greasy food.
>
> In other words, there are two possible solutions to traffic
> congestion: (1) more capacity for traffic, or (2) less traffic.
>
Everyone seems to be focusing on the commute problem. Yes..commuting does
cause most of the congestion. But a similar, if smaller benefit could be had
by not using the car for *every* trip.
Its too far for you to go to work on a bike? Ok...no problem. But is it also
too far to go to Blockbuster to return a tape? Do you REALLY need 3500 lb,
200 hp vehicle to haul a 12 oz tape back to the store? I think not...IF they
were accesible by other means, such as a bike.
Almost all of the adult population in this country views a bike as
recreation or sport, instead of something you can actually use for
transportation.
> On the other hand, adding a carpool lane would decrease congestion
> and give people a tangible reason to drive less, without being
> oppressive. Sounds ideal, doesn't it?
Until 18 months from now, when that extra carpool lane is already running at
capacity. "Ok...lets build another lane"
Pete
Steve Premo
<p...@nospamhere.visi.net> wrote:
>Steve Premo <pr...@mail.cruzio.com> wrote in message
>news:37989201...@cnews.newsguy.com...
>>
>> On the other hand, adding a carpool lane would decrease congestion
>> and give people a tangible reason to drive less, without being
>> oppressive. Sounds ideal, doesn't it?
>
>Until 18 months from now, when that extra carpool lane is already running at
>capacity. "Ok...lets build another lane"
And if the lane is not built, you think that traffic won't increase?
Pete
> >
> >Until 18 months from now, when that extra carpool lane is already running
at
> >capacity. "Ok...lets build another lane"
>
> And if the lane is not built, you think that traffic won't increase?
And at some point, people might get fed up enough to start looking for their
own solutions. Change jobs or move closer to work, or choose an alternative
method to get there. And in the interim, you have saved your community
millions of dollars in building that extra lane or two.
Pete
Marc VanHeyningen
>cause most of the congestion. But a similar, if smaller benefit could be had
>by not using the car for *every* trip.
The congestion benefit may be lower, since errand trips tend not to be
as bad in the everybody-trying-to-travel-via-the-same-route-at-the-same-time
front, but the air quality benefit can still be considerable.
>Its too far for you to go to work on a bike? Ok...no problem. But is it also
>too far to go to Blockbuster to return a tape? Do you REALLY need 3500 lb,
>200 hp vehicle to haul a 12 oz tape back to the store? I think not...IF they
>were accesible by other means, such as a bike.
Most are, of course, and though few offer secure bicycle parking, returning
a videotape doesn't really take enough time for this to be a factor.
>> On the other hand, adding a carpool lane would decrease congestion
>> and give people a tangible reason to drive less, without being
>> oppressive. Sounds ideal, doesn't it?
>
>Until 18 months from now, when that extra carpool lane is already running at
>capacity. "Ok...lets build another lane"
More likely, after 18 months the SOV drivers claim their civil liberties
are being infringed and the HOV restrictions on the lane are scaled back or
eliminated. If the carpool lane is too crowded, the standard fix is to
increase the number of occupants needed to qualify as a carpool (not
that this situation comes up very often.)
Tim May
> "Pete" <p...@nospamhere.visi.net> wrote:
>
> ...
> >Its too far for you to go to work on a bike? Ok...no problem. But is it also
> >too far to go to Blockbuster to return a tape? Do you REALLY need 3500 lb,
> >200 hp vehicle to haul a 12 oz tape back to the store? I think not...IF they
> >were accesible by other means, such as a bike.
> >
>
> One thing - we need more secure lockups. I for one don't
> relish the thought of carrying more weight in bicycle locks
> than the bike itself weighs (the old "all bikes weigh forty
> pounds joke...")
>
You're both off on the wrong track. For several reasons:
* Most people aren't driving "to Blockbuster to return a tape." They
combine the tape pick up or drop off at Blockbuster with other things. Ask
them. This is why "megastores" like Blockbuster and Hollywood Video have
largely replaced the earlier generation of Mom and Pop video rental
places. Selection, convenience to other shopping, etc.
(I know the point was largely a rhetorical one, with Blockbuster used as
an example. The point is that this analysis applies to Costco, Circuit
City, Office Depot, Stapler World, etc. Most people are not going to "hop
on a bicycle" as you folks think they will.)
* Continuing with the Blockbuster examples, the distances from the average
home to the average Blockbuster or Hollywood Video are probably something
like 5-10 miles, at least here in Santa Cruz County. While such a ride is
fine for some, fine for a nice Sunday afternoon, very few people will hop
on a bike and ride 8-10 miles each way down Soquel Drive, or Portola
Drive, or Corralitos Road to get to the nearest Blockbuster. Think about
it. Night riding on such roads is dangerous, and this is when of course
most tapes are going to be returned.
(Again, apply this to Pet Depot, Costco, Bookshop Santa Cruz as necessary.)
I could go on, but why bother?
Some hippy-dippy notion that people should be riding their bikes more
ignores the geography of our area, the distance between Aptos and 41st,
the distance between the West Side and Soquel, and so on. And it ignores
the issue of riding at night, riding in the rain, etc.
Get real.
sclos...@my-deja.com
cakes.
> From someone else's sig file....
>
> Widening a road to combat congestion is like buying a bigger belt to
combat
> obesity.
>
> The owner of that sig will (I hope) forgive me for borrowing it.
Apologies
> if I got it a little wrong.
>
> Pete
> geo...@cruzio.com wrote in message
<37966457...@cnews.newsguy.com>...
> >On Wed, 21 Jul 1999 15:00:38 -0800, N...@BikeRoute.com (Cycle America)
> >wrote:
> >
> >>If you can believe it, widening our only highway was placed as a
> >>number one priority in alleviating our problems with congestion....
> >
> >I can't believe it either, and I'm absolutely estatic that the
> >Transportation Commission has finally come to their senses.
> >
> >--Geoffrey Wells
> >--geo...@cruzio.com
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Pete
Tim May <tc...@got.net> wrote in message
news:tcmay-23079...@dyn-207-111-241-119.sjc.got.net...
> In article <381ec042....@news.supernews.com>, ru...@cadvision.com
wrote:
>
> > "Pete" <p...@nospamhere.visi.net> wrote:
>
> * Most people aren't driving "to Blockbuster to return a tape." They
> combine the tape pick up or drop off at Blockbuster with other things. Ask
> them. This is why "megastores" like Blockbuster and Hollywood Video have
> largely replaced the earlier generation of Mom and Pop video rental
> places. Selection, convenience to other shopping, etc.
>
And that convienince to other shopping makes it even 'more' appropriate to
use a bike. You only have to go to one strip mall or whatever. Get all your
stuff done in one place.
> (I know the point was largely a rhetorical one, with Blockbuster used as
> an example. The point is that this analysis applies to Costco, Circuit
> City, Office Depot, Stapler World, etc. Most people are not going to "hop
> on a bicycle" as you folks think they will.)
Quite true. And you know why? Bikes in this country are viewed as a
recreational vehicle. Not any type of actual transport.
Out for a quick training ride, or off in the hills for some MTBing. Never to
actually "go anywhere" or do anything.
Sad.
>
> * Continuing with the Blockbuster examples, the distances from the average
> home to the average Blockbuster or Hollywood Video are probably something
> like 5-10 miles, at least here in Santa Cruz County. While such a ride is
> fine for some, fine for a nice Sunday afternoon, very few people will hop
> on a bike and ride 8-10 miles each way down Soquel Drive, or Portola
> Drive, or Corralitos Road to get to the nearest Blockbuster. Think about
> it. Night riding on such roads is dangerous, and this is when of course
> most tapes are going to be returned.
>
So your example of 5-10 miles average holds true for the rest of the nation?
Not a chance. I probably have 6 Blockbuster/Hollywood Video stores within 4
miles of my house.
And as for 'nighttime', it seems to be summertime here. Stays light pretty
late at night.
For those of you who do not wish to use a bike for simple, appropriate
errands, its ALWAYS "too far/cold/hot/dark/insert your favorite excuse
here".
And thats ok. Just be honest with yourself why you choose to drive.
Pete
Glen Appleby
<p...@nospamhere.visi.net> wrote:
>And that convienince to other shopping makes it even 'more' appropriate to
>use a bike. You only have to go to one strip mall or whatever. Get all your
>stuff done in one place.
Nice theory, but sucks in practice.
Years ago, I used to ride a motorcycle. I drove it *everywhere*
and virtually every day, rain or shine. The bike had a fairly
spacious trunk on the back (well, spacious for a motorcycle,
anyway).
I still found that there were just too many times when I couldn't
carry all that I needed to carry on the bike. I had to take the
car, instead.
The motorcycle is great for transporting people who appreciate or
enjoy them, but it really sucks for any sort of real shopping.
Bicycles seem to be even worse in that respect.
--
Do not underestimate your abilities. That is your boss's job.
It is your job to find ways around your boss's roadblocks.
______________________________________________________________
Glen Appleby gl...@got.net <http://www.armory.com/~glena/>
Steve Premo
<p...@nospamhere.visi.net> wrote:
>
>Steve Premo <pr...@mail.cruzio.com> wrote in message
>news:379ab24e...@cnews.newsguy.com...
>> In <p02m3.80941$%f6.58...@firenze.visi.net>, "Pete"
>> <p...@nospamhere.visi.net> wrote:
>
>> >
>> >Until 18 months from now, when that extra carpool lane is already running
>at
>> >capacity. "Ok...lets build another lane"
>>
>> And if the lane is not built, you think that traffic won't increase?
>
>And at some point, people might get fed up enough to start looking for their
>own solutions.
Perhaps. But not until traffic reaches an absolute standstill, if
then. In any event, that approach does not seem to have worked so
far, particularly considering that the population continues to
increase, the number of cars per capita continues to increase, and the
use of cars continues to increase.
> And in the interim, you have saved your community
>millions of dollars in building that extra lane or two.
And cost your community lots of money in terms in increased commuting
time, increased shipping time for goods, increased air pollution, and
increased gas consumption per mile.
Brad Templeton
Steve Premo <pr...@cruzio.com> wrote:
>In <7n9s27$hi0$1...@coranto.ucs.mun.ca>, le...@morgan.ucs.mun.ca (Robert
>M. Lewis) wrote:
>congestion: (1) more capacity for traffic, or (2) less traffic.
I think the point you were missing behind the various slogans is that
there is evidence that "more capacity for traffic" leads, eventually,
but almost inevitably, to more traffic, until you have congestion again.
Ie. it's a temporary fix. It either causes more development around
the new highways or it causes more people to come in from outside.
>Then there are the coercive techniques. You might pass a law imposing
>a $5 per gallon tax on gas, which will discourage poor people from
Actually, there is an argument that this is not coercive, or at least not
as coercive as the current system.
Instead, what is coercive is you driving a car, burning gasoline and
ruining the air I breathe. You owe me (and everybody else) something in
exchange for this.
So in fact, it may make sense that in a more non-coercive system, you would
need to pay some amount per gallon -- $5 is not out of the question, in
order to get the permission of those whose air you are ruining.
Now it turns out that, if you already have a tax system in place, paying
$5 into the general tax fund is an efficient way to make this payment,
though unfortunately the assumption that this saves $5 in taxes for me
is generally false.
In a truly non-coercive system, you would not be allowed to cause
any harmful pollution without getting the consent of those harmed by the
pollution, and typically you would have to pay some fee to get that
consent.
In addition, using gas tax to pay for other driving infrastructure turns
out to be one of the fairest taxes there is (as much as any tax can be
fair) because gas consumption matches fairly closely with a combination of
road use and pollution caused.
Instead of forcing car companies to sell Zero Emission Cars, they should
just raise gas to the true cost it puts on the environment, and the hybrid
and electric cars would spring up like weeds.
--
Brad Templeton http://www.templetons.com/brad/
Daniel Veditz
>
> Thus said "Pete" <p...@nospamhere.visi.net>:
> >
> >Everyone seems to be focusing on the commute problem. Yes..commuting does
> >cause most of the congestion. But a similar, if smaller benefit could be had
> >by not using the car for *every* trip.
>
> The congestion benefit may be lower, since errand trips tend not to be
> as bad in the everybody-trying-to-travel-via-the-same-route-at-the-same-time
> front, but the air quality benefit can still be considerable.
Despite cross-posting far and wide "Cycle America" started this thread
by referring to local issues -- the Santa Cruz County (California)
Transportation Commission's decision to widen Hwy1 to reduce congestion,
over other options such as buying the existing RR right-of-way for a
combined rail-bike (or bus-bike) corridor.
In our community, trapped between mountain and sea, there are only two
real options for cross-town travel between downtown and neighborhoods to
the east ("south"): Hwy1 and the parallel Soquel Avenue. Even mid-day
there can be considerable congestion on Hwy1.
-Dan Veditz
Pete
Glen Appleby wrote in message <3798d636....@news.ihwy.com>...
>
>The motorcycle is great for transporting people who appreciate or
>enjoy them, but it really sucks for any sort of real shopping.
>
>Bicycles seem to be even worse in that respect.
Only if you think so. I lived carless for long periods. Went shopping, did
the laundry, got to work.
I'm not saying you have to be able to haul groceries for a family of 4 for a
week. (Although you CAN do it on a bike). But there are quite a lot of trips
that could be done on a bike instead of a car.
Pete
Pete
Steve Premo wrote in message <3798df6d...@cnews.newsguy.com>...
>>And at some point, people might get fed up enough to start looking for
their
>>own solutions.
>
>Perhaps. But not until traffic reaches an absolute standstill, if
>then. In any event, that approach does not seem to have worked so
>far, particularly considering that the population continues to
>increase, the number of cars per capita continues to increase, and the
>use of cars continues to increase.
Very true. But where does that ever increasing spiral end? When do we
*seriously* start to look at alternatives?
Number of cars per capita in my household went down last year. We went from
a 2 car family to a 1 car family. Amazingly, everyone gets to work, kids get
to school, shopping gets done.
Pete
Glen Appleby
<p...@nospamhere.visi.net> wrote:
>Glen Appleby wrote in message <3798d636....@news.ihwy.com>...
>
>>The motorcycle is great for transporting people who appreciate or
>>enjoy them, but it really sucks for any sort of real shopping.
>>
>>Bicycles seem to be even worse in that respect.
>
>Only if you think so. I lived carless for long periods. Went shopping, did
>the laundry, got to work.
You are, apparently, single. Fortunately, most people aren't.
Try taking a toddler and an infant on a bicycle (while the spouse
has trecked 40 miles to work on his/her bicycle) to go grocery
shopping.
>I'm not saying you have to be able to haul groceries for a family of 4 for a
>week. (Although you CAN do it on a bike). But there are quite a lot of trips
>that could be done on a bike instead of a car.
Yes, if we all lived in cities where all of the trips were a mile
or two, it might be fine for some. Heck, we could turn the
entire population of this country into another far eastern
country with a bunch of bicycles crashing into eachother if we
would all agree to live close to everything and eachother.
I know that the spokeheads just wet themselves at this prospect,
but it ain't gonna happen.
Glen Appleby
<p...@nospamhere.visi.net> wrote:
>Very true. But where does that ever increasing spiral end? When do we
>*seriously* start to look at alternatives?
"We" have been looking at "alternatives" for years. The
"alternatives" have just not included bicycles because they are
just too impracticle.
>Number of cars per capita in my household went down last year. We went from
>a 2 car family to a 1 car family. Amazingly, everyone gets to work, kids get
>to school, shopping gets done.
OK, so instead of using 2 cars to accomplish those things, you
used a single car and put exactly the same number of miles on it.
You saved yourself a little bit of money on the registration fees
and insurance.
Larry Schuldt
>On Sat, 24 Jul 1999 04:47:34 GMT, in scruz.general,"Pete"
><p...@nospamhere.visi.net> wrote:
>
>>Very true. But where does that ever increasing spiral end? When do we
>>*seriously* start to look at alternatives?
>
>"We" have been looking at "alternatives" for years. The
>"alternatives" have just not included bicycles because they are
>just too impracticle.
>
>>Number of cars per capita in my household went down last year. We went from
>>a 2 car family to a 1 car family. Amazingly, everyone gets to work, kids get
>>to school, shopping gets done.
>
>OK, so instead of using 2 cars to accomplish those things, you
>used a single car and put exactly the same number of miles on it.
>
>You saved yourself a little bit of money on the registration fees
>and insurance.
ptr,
You're looking at it too simplistically. My household did the same
thing; we got rid of a car. Sure we save on insurance and
registration. I don't understand your objecton to that.
Saying we put the same miles on a single car is not true, though,
because I now commute by bike. If I need to pick up groceries after
work, I do it by bike. So not only is there one less car on the road,
somewhere (I hope) resources to build one more car are NOT expended.
larry
Glen Appleby
scruz.general,lsch...@mc.net (Larry Schuldt) wrote:
>On Sat, 24 Jul 1999 10:57:17 GMT, gl...@ihwy.com (Glen Appleby) wrote:
>
>>OK, so instead of using 2 cars to accomplish those things, you
>>used a single car and put exactly the same number of miles on it.
>>
>>You saved yourself a little bit of money on the registration fees
>>and insurance.
>
>You're looking at it too simplistically. My household did the same
>thing; we got rid of a car. Sure we save on insurance and
>registration. I don't understand your objecton to that.
I mentioned it because it had *nothing* to do with saving on
traffic -- the concern that was mentioned by the previous poster.
Silly me, but I thought it would be obvious.
> Saying we put the same miles on a single car is not true, though,
>because I now commute by bike. If I need to pick up groceries after
>work, I do it by bike. So not only is there one less car on the road,
>somewhere (I hope) resources to build one more car are NOT expended.
Congratulations. You happen to be one of the Special Few (tm)
who lives close enough to work to be able to bicycle in and back.
As I said, though, unless you want everybody to live like
sardines, this just ain't gonna make it for most of us.
If you bicyclists want to keep moaning about how so few people
use bicycles as their primary mode of transportation ("I'm sure
that they would get it if we could just hammer it into their
heads"), go ahead, but recognize that most people have ridden
bicycles and are familiar with them, but have elected to use
cars. If you folks wish to continue to hammer away
(cross-posting to irrelevant newsgroups, for example), feel free.
Just recognize that you sure ain't gonna win many over by trying.
Instead, you will continue to alienate people to your cause.
TBO
"Pete" <p...@nospamhere.visi.net> wrote:
> Not a chance. I probably have 6 Blockbuster/Hollywood Video stores
> within 4 miles of my house.
You have my sincerest sympathies.
--- TBO
Me Again
wrote:
>In article <4D4m3.80979$%f6.59...@firenze.visi.net>,
> "Pete" <p...@nospamhere.visi.net> wrote:
>
>> Not a chance. I probably have 6 Blockbuster/Hollywood Video stores
>> within 4 miles of my house.
>
>You have my sincerest sympathies.
It is true of anyone who lives in a "city" rather than out in the
country.
There are =17= video rental establishments within a 5 mile
radius of the "center of Soquel" as determined by the mapping
software associated with yp.gte.net's "search by distance"
feature of their yellow pages listings:
Even Tim has several stores within ~5 miles including a
Blockbuster:
jc
Robert Crawford
>
I thimk that ther is one in the town nearby, only 70mi away. I know
that there is one in the next town, 178mi away.
> In article <4D4m3.80979$%f6.59...@firenze.visi.net>,
> "Pete" <p...@nospamhere.visi.net> wrote:
>
> > Not a chance. I probably have 6 Blockbuster/Hollywood Video stores
> > within 4 miles of my house.
>
> You have my sincerest sympathies.
t.net
www.snowcrest.net/robertc
Linux and vi, the choice powertools of the next century.
Tim May
Again) wrote:
> There are =17= video rental establishments within a 5 mile
> radius of the "center of Soquel" as determined by the mapping
> software associated with yp.gte.net's "search by distance"
> feature of their yellow pages listings:
>
>
http://yp10.superpages.com/listings.phtml?CID=57350291103&RR=5&C=video+rental&PG=L&RT=soquel&RLT=36988100&RLO=121955600&RS=ca&STYPE=D&R=D&NA=&PM=00000000&LC=17&PI=1&MC=1
>
> Even Tim has several stores within ~5 miles including a
> Blockbuster:
>
>
http://yp10.superpages.com/listings.phtml?CID=57350291103&RR=5&C=video+rental&PG=L&RT=watsonville&RLT=36988800&RLO=121806900&RS=CA&RE=browns+valley+road&STYPE=D&R=D&NA=&PM=00000000&LC=5&PI=1&MC=1
First, these "distances" are mostly bogus. For example, "Video USA
Seascape" is listed as being "4.7 miles" from whatever address was entered
into the form above (something "Browns Valley Road," presumably. Which
starts at the Corralitos Meat Market).
From my house to Highway 1 by the shortest possible route is 7.3 miles.
Then another couple of miles to Seascape.
Perhaps a bicycle-powered paraglider could make it, as the crow flies.
And from my house to the Blockbuster in Freedom is about 6 miles.
The only "bicycling distance" video rental place is "Winged Dragon," a
hole in the wall with about 5 shelves of tattered rentals.
I maintain that most Santa Cruz residents are an average of 5 miles or
more from a Blockbuster or Hollywood Video. The Mom and Pop rental places
are not viable alternatives.
The larger point being that the bike Nazis think we should be hopping on
our bikes to get to Blockbuster. Impractical.
Oh, and an extra lane on 1 would have no effect on the travel time to
rental places for me, or for many of us.
Bathsheba Grossman
>>
>>own solutions.
>
>Perhaps. But not until traffic reaches an absolute standstill, if
>then. In any event, that approach does not seem to have worked so
>far, particularly considering that the population continues to
>increase, the number of cars per capita continues to increase, and the
>use of cars continues to increase.
That just shows we haven't reached the point at which traffic is
self-limiting - when it becomes so intolerable that people will
actually drive less or move elsewhere in order to avoid it.
We will inevitably reach that point, and riding the exponential as we
are, it's not going to take long. The question is, do we want to have
any greenspace or elbow room left in Santa Cruz County when we do
reach it? If not, building more roads is the answer.
-Sheba
Bathsheba Grossman (831) 429-8224
Zoa Sculpture http://www.bathsheba.com
Me Again
wrote:
>First, these "distances" are mostly bogus. For example, "Video USA
>Seascape" is listed as being "4.7 miles" from whatever address was entered
>into the form above (something "Browns Valley Road," presumably. Which
>starts at the Corralitos Meat Market).
Yes. I didn't want to use your exact address (which I think I
have somewhere from when I attended your scruz.fest bbq, to avoid
interfering with your privacy).
>
>From my house to Highway 1 by the shortest possible route is 7.3 miles.
>Then another couple of miles to Seascape.
How far from your house to the meat market? Add that to these
mileage figures and you should get pretty close to the actual
distance.
>I maintain that most Santa Cruz residents are an average of 5 miles or
>more from a Blockbuster or Hollywood Video. The Mom and Pop rental places
>are not viable alternatives.
I showed that there are 17 places, including several large ones,
within 5 miles of the center of soquel. I'm fairly confident
that any address within the Santa Cruz city limits would find
similar results.
>The larger point being that the bike Nazis think we should be hopping on
>our bikes to get to Blockbuster. Impractical.
>
>Oh, and an extra lane on 1 would have no effect on the travel time to
>rental places for me, or for many of us.
I don't disagree with either of those statements, BTW. When I go
to return a video to the Hollywood Video store about a mile from
my home, it's on my way to work (a 13 mile ride, through an area
that does NOT have any suitable bike lanes or public
transportation). In fact, I can easily say that over 80% of my
driving is either to pickup or drop off stuff that can't be
carried by bike (such as gardening supplies, bags of compost,
boards, etc at the local Orchard Supply that is ~1 mile away) or
to places too distant to bike (more than 10 miles) and often with
return times that make biking unwise or unsafe (late at night).
I wish public transportation WERE more convenient. For instance,
I'd take CalTrain into SF more often if I could take it home late
at night. But when I go to SF I often stay till after 1 and the
last train has left by then. I'm not willing to change my
lifestyle *that* much to take public transportation.
jc
Tim May
Again) wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Jul 1999 19:08:28 -0700, tc...@got.net (Tim May)
> wrote:
>
> >First, these "distances" are mostly bogus. For example, "Video USA
> >Seascape" is listed as being "4.7 miles" from whatever address was entered
> >into the form above (something "Browns Valley Road," presumably. Which
> >starts at the Corralitos Meat Market).
>
> Yes. I didn't want to use your exact address (which I think I
> have somewhere from when I attended your scruz.fest bbq, to avoid
> interfering with your privacy).
> >
> >From my house to Highway 1 by the shortest possible route is 7.3 miles.
> >Then another couple of miles to Seascape.
>
> How far from your house to the meat market? Add that to these
> mileage figures and you should get pretty close to the actual
> distance.
Nope. I'm not dumb. Had that been the case, I would not have quibbled with
the distance figures.
1.2 miles.
9 miles (from my house to Seascape) minus 1.2 miles is a lot more than the
"4.7 miles" figure.
My point is that the estimates are either simply "wrong," or that they
used aerial distance, not surface distance.
And you didn't address the point that places like "Winged Dragon" and
"Moe's Liquor and Video" are not viable alternatives to the large chains.
In any case, the popularity for shopping of the two main centers, 41st
Avenue and Pacific Avenue, point to the utter fatuousness of the "just
ride a bike" nazism.
Eric S. Sande
Ya know, I'm about tired of hearing that "you this, you that" crap.
>...most people have ridden bicycles and are familiar with them...
Depends on how you define riding and familiarity.
>Instead, you will continue to alienate people to your cause.
Well, I don't have a cause, per se. I seriously doubt most cyclists
have a "cause" either, most that I know just like riding bicycles.
>Do not underestimate your abilities.
Now that is an excellent statement, you should take it to the bank.
--
_______________________ALL AMIGA IN MY MIND_______________________
------------------"Buddy Holly, the Texas Elvis"------------------
__________306.350.357.38>>cwhi...@texastwr.utaustin.edu__________
Glen Appleby
Sande" <esa...@erols.com> wrote:
>>If you bicyclists want to keep moaning...
>
>Ya know, I'm about tired of hearing that "you this, you that" crap.
Seems to me that if you aren't one of them, the statement should
be pretty irre4levant to you.
>>...most people have ridden bicycles and are familiar with them...
>
>Depends on how you define riding and familiarity.
Uh, oh -- another anal-retentive spokehead.
>>Instead, you will continue to alienate people to your cause.
>
>Well, I don't have a cause, per se. I seriously doubt most cyclists
>have a "cause" either, most that I know just like riding bicycles.
MotherphaquingChrist!
Methinks that I found another retarded one.
*If* you are not crossposting the half of the known universe (you
are) trying to convince people that bicycling is better than cars
and that cars are EVIL, why would you think that I was talking
about you?
It was specifically the spokeheads who *do* have The Cause (tm),
to which I was referring.
Pete
Glen Appleby wrote in message <3799afbc....@news.ihwy.com>...
>I mentioned it because it had *nothing* to do with saving on
>traffic -- the concern that was mentioned by the previous poster.
>
>Silly me, but I thought it would be obvious.
>
Silly me. I thought one less car on the road in front of you would be an
*obvious* reduction in traffic.
>> Saying we put the same miles on a single car is not true, though,
>>because I now commute by bike. If I need to pick up groceries after
>>work, I do it by bike. So not only is there one less car on the road,
>>somewhere (I hope) resources to build one more car are NOT expended.
>
>Congratulations. You happen to be one of the Special Few (tm)
>who lives close enough to work to be able to bicycle in and back.
Of 1200+ people that have worked at my company in the last two years, ~50%
live within 5 miles. Not an unreasonable distance once in a while.
>
>As I said, though, unless you want everybody to live like
>sardines, this just ain't gonna make it for most of us.
>
>If you bicyclists want to keep moaning about how so few people
>use bicycles as their primary mode of transportation ("I'm sure
>that they would get it if we could just hammer it into their
>heads"), go ahead, but recognize that most people have ridden
>bicycles and are familiar with them, but have elected to use
>cars. If you folks wish to continue to hammer away
>(cross-posting to irrelevant newsgroups, for example), feel free.
>Just recognize that you sure ain't gonna win many over by trying.
Most people gave up riding bikes when they got their license.
>
>Instead, you will continue to alienate people to your cause.
And you just keep your head in the sand as to the possibilities.
Pete
Pete
Glen Appleby wrote in message <37999caf....@news.ihwy.com>...
>>Only if you think so. I lived carless for long periods. Went shopping, did
>>the laundry, got to work.
>
>You are, apparently, single. Fortunately, most people aren't.
>
err...not by a long shot. Wife, 4 kids.
>Try taking a toddler and an infant on a bicycle (while the spouse
>has trecked 40 miles to work on his/her bicycle) to go grocery
>shopping.
>
You just love to speak in absolutes, don't you? No one has said you have to
completely and permanently give up cars. *I* wouldn't want to do a 40 mile
commute on a bike. OTOH, I wouldn't want to live 40 miles from work, either.
That 2 or 3 hours a day is far better spent elsewhere.
And as far as taking kids on a bike to the store......done that too.
*If* you want to, it can be done. If you don't want to, fine. Just don't
attempt to tell me it *can't* be done.
>>I'm not saying you have to be able to haul groceries for a family of 4 for
a
>>week. (Although you CAN do it on a bike). But there are quite a lot of
trips
>>that could be done on a bike instead of a car.
>
>Yes, if we all lived in cities where all of the trips were a mile
>or two, it might be fine for some. Heck, we could turn the
>entire population of this country into another far eastern
>country with a bunch of bicycles crashing into eachother if we
>would all agree to live close to everything and eachother.
>
So you're saying you have *no* grocery stores within a reasonable distanve
from your house? Ah well.....your choice.
Pete
Glen Appleby
<p...@nospamhere.visi.net> wrote:
>Silly me. I thought one less car on the road in front of you would be an
>*obvious* reduction in traffic.
Hell, I am on the road maybe once a day every two weeks or so.
If there is one less car on the road, no matter how often I
drive, how would I notice?
>>Congratulations. You happen to be one of the Special Few (tm)
>>who lives close enough to work to be able to bicycle in and back.
>
>Of 1200+ people that have worked at my company in the last two years, ~50%
>live within 5 miles. Not an unreasonable distance once in a while.
And this compares how to all of the people in Santa Cruz county
(many of which drive over to The Pit to work each day?
>Most people gave up riding bikes when they got their license.
And I just have to wonder why that is.
>>Instead, you will continue to alienate people to your cause.
>
>And you just keep your head in the sand as to the possibilities.
Ah, snappy retort. Unfortunately, you say that without a clue as
to how I view the possibilities.
I am just more than aware of the *probabilities*.
Glen Appleby
<p...@nospamhere.visi.net> wrote:
>Glen Appleby wrote in message <37999caf....@news.ihwy.com>...
>>Try taking a toddler and an infant on a bicycle (while the spouse
>>has trecked 40 miles to work on his/her bicycle) to go grocery
>>shopping.
>
>You just love to speak in absolutes, don't you?
Absolutes? I was just using, as an example, the average 'Muricun
household.
>No one has said you have to
>completely and permanently give up cars. *I* wouldn't want to do a 40 mile
>commute on a bike. OTOH, I wouldn't want to live 40 miles from work, either.
>That 2 or 3 hours a day is far better spent elsewhere.
Well, we are getting closer t that, as an average, all of the
time.
>And as far as taking kids on a bike to the store......done that too.
You have taken 2 kids on a single bicycle? Talk about a menace
to other drivers on the road!
>*If* you want to, it can be done. If you don't want to, fine. Just don't
>attempt to tell me it *can't* be done.
I can't be done safely. To encourage people to even attempt such
a stunt seems like asking for an accident.
>>Yes, if we all lived in cities where all of the trips were a mile
>>or two, it might be fine for some. Heck, we could turn the
>>entire population of this country into another far eastern
>>country with a bunch of bicycles crashing into eachother if we
>>would all agree to live close to everything and eachother.
>
>So you're saying you have *no* grocery stores within a reasonable distanve
>from your house? Ah well.....your choice.
Actually, anybody who would attempt to start a grocery store in
our area would be kinda stoopit. There are maybe 75 houses in
our entire area. Hardly enough to keep most stores going.
The closest store to our house is 20 minutes by car -- and all
uphill on the way home. Not a trip that I would suggest making
daily (especially with the high speed trafic on those roads) with
an infant and a toddler on the bike and trying to balance a weeks
worth of groceries at the same time.
Why ... that would be a prescription for disaster!
Come to think of it ... maybe more spokeheads *should* try that.
Pete
Glen Appleby wrote in message <379b3f0d....@news.ihwy.com>...
>On Sun, 25 Jul 1999 17:38:14 GMT, in scruz.general,"Pete"
><p...@nospamhere.visi.net> wrote:
>
>>Glen Appleby wrote in message <37999caf....@news.ihwy.com>...
>>>Try taking a toddler and an infant on a bicycle (while the spouse
>>>has trecked 40 miles to work on his/her bicycle) to go grocery
>>>shopping.
>>
>>You just love to speak in absolutes, don't you?
>
>Absolutes? I was just using, as an example, the average 'Muricun
>household.
The average commute, or trip to the store, is *much* shorter than you may
think.
>
>>No one has said you have to
>>completely and permanently give up cars. *I* wouldn't want to do a 40 mile
>>commute on a bike. OTOH, I wouldn't want to live 40 miles from work,
either.
>>That 2 or 3 hours a day is far better spent elsewhere.
>
>Well, we are getting closer t that, as an average, all of the
>time.
>
>>And as far as taking kids on a bike to the store......done that too.
>
>You have taken 2 kids on a single bicycle? Talk about a menace
>to other drivers on the road!
>
How is that being a menace? You driving skills are so bad you can't simply
go around a person on a bike?
>>*If* you want to, it can be done. If you don't want to, fine. Just don't
>>attempt to tell me it *can't* be done.
>
>I can't be done safely. To encourage people to even attempt such
>a stunt seems like asking for an accident.
>
Stunt?
>>>Yes, if we all lived in cities where all of the trips were a mile
>>>or two, it might be fine for some. Heck, we could turn the
>>>entire population of this country into another far eastern
>>>country with a bunch of bicycles crashing into eachother if we
>>>would all agree to live close to everything and eachother.
>>
>>So you're saying you have *no* grocery stores within a reasonable distanve
>>from your house? Ah well.....your choice.
>
>The closest store to our house is 20 minutes by car -- and all
>uphill on the way home. Not a trip that I would suggest making
>daily (especially with the high speed trafic on those roads) with
>an infant and a toddler on the bike and trying to balance a weeks
>worth of groceries at the same time.
>
"Honey, could you run down to the store and get a loaf of bread?"
"Sure. I'll be right back."
Now which vehicle do you choose to make this trip?
Getting a weeks worth of groceries is not (obviously) an daily occurrence.
You've chosen to focus on the big trips, whereas I choose to focus on the
trips that *are* possible by other means.
Keep your head in the sand, and you'll continue to see only more sand.
Pete
As I can see this conversation is going nowhere fast, I'll take that as my
cue to exit, stage right.
Tim May
<p...@nospamhere.visi.net> wrote:
> Glen Appleby wrote in message <379b3f0d....@news.ihwy.com>...
> >On Sun, 25 Jul 1999 17:38:14 GMT, in scruz.general,"Pete"
> ><p...@nospamhere.visi.net> wrote:
> >
> >>Glen Appleby wrote in message <37999caf....@news.ihwy.com>...
> >>>Try taking a toddler and an infant on a bicycle (while the spouse
> >>>has trecked 40 miles to work on his/her bicycle) to go grocery
> >>>shopping.
> >>
> >>You just love to speak in absolutes, don't you?
> >
> >Absolutes? I was just using, as an example, the average 'Muricun
> >household.
>
> The average commute, or trip to the store, is *much* shorter than you may
> think.
And so this "*much* shorter" trip makes the supposed environmental/traffic
savings of a bicycle over a car proportionately less.
The correlations are obvious. Longer trips, greater savings, but vastly
more energy expended/time taken/inconvenience.
Which is why most adults don't ride bicycles at all, except for weekend
neighborhood jaunts. And mostly not even then.
--
Glen Appleby
<p...@nospamhere.visi.net> wrote:
>Glen Appleby wrote in message <379b3f0d....@news.ihwy.com>...
>>Absolutes? I was just using, as an example, the average 'Muricun
>>household.
>
>The average commute, or trip to the store, is *much* shorter than you may
>think.
We are discussing this on scruz.general, not a group that is
frequented by city slickers who are a block away from all of the
stores where their needs can be met.
Actually, that information has been in every reply to you from
me.
Now, who is it that has their head in the sand (or that
particularly smelly orifice)?
>>You have taken 2 kids on a single bicycle? Talk about a menace
>>to other drivers on the road!
>
>How is that being a menace? You driving skills are so bad you can't simply
>go around a person on a bike?
Sure, if they are stationairy. But what happens if one of the
kids does something unusual and the driver of the bike grabs for
them and swerves into traffic?
>>I can't be done safely. To encourage people to even attempt such
>>a stunt seems like asking for an accident.
>
>Stunt?
Yeah, I just pointed out the obvious. Seems like stunt driving,
to me.
>>The closest store to our house is 20 minutes by car -- and all
>>uphill on the way home. Not a trip that I would suggest making
>>daily (especially with the high speed trafic on those roads) with
>>an infant and a toddler on the bike and trying to balance a weeks
>>worth of groceries at the same time.
>
>"Honey, could you run down to the store and get a loaf of bread?"
>"Sure. I'll be right back."
>
>Now which vehicle do you choose to make this trip?
Given that I only have one ...
Now, again, it is 20 minutes *by car* and all steeply uphil on
the way home. If I even owned a bicycle, you think that this
would be a Good Idea (tm) for a damned loaf of bread?
>Getting a weeks worth of groceries is not (obviously) an daily occurrence.
>You've chosen to focus on the big trips, whereas I choose to focus on the
>trips that *are* possible by other means.
Well you are mostly wasting your time, posting stuff like this to
this newsgroup, then. See, given how far many of us live from
places that we could reasonibly go on bicycle (and ignoring the
torrential rains that we *usually* get up here in the winter),
I'm guessing that there are few here that would be convinced by
your simple-minded thinking and the few that might have been
convinced may already be riding bicycles when it suits them.
>Keep your head in the sand, and you'll continue to see only more sand.
Now, see -- there you go, showing your simple-mindedness, again.
I thought, though, that from the first post, that would be
redundant.
>As I can see this conversation is going nowhere fast, I'll take that as my
>cue to exit, stage right.
Yes. Best to continue trying to convince the confirmed
spokeheads. After all, that's easy.
Tim May
Pierce) wrote:
> gl...@ihwy.com (Glen Appleby) wrote:
>
> >>And as far as taking kids on a bike to the store......done that too.
> >
> >You have taken 2 kids on a single bicycle? Talk about a menace
> >to other drivers on the road!
>
> sure, there's a very handy bike trailer called a "Burley" for exactly
> this purpose. Holds two kids and gear up to 100lbs total load. folds
> up flat for storage (even fits in the trunk of a subcompact car for
> long trips).
You mean those trailer things sometimes contain yard monkeys?
I sometimes see these trailer things, sticking out even further into the
traffic lane than normal bicycles do. It's been so tempting to just let my
Explorer not swerve quite far enough to avoid these trailers....and now
that I know some ankle biters might be in these things, it'll be even more
tempting.
--Tim May
John R Pierce
>>And as far as taking kids on a bike to the store......done that too.
>
>You have taken 2 kids on a single bicycle? Talk about a menace
>to other drivers on the road!
sure, there's a very handy bike trailer called a "Burley" for exactly
this purpose. Holds two kids and gear up to 100lbs total load. folds
up flat for storage (even fits in the trunk of a subcompact car for
long trips).
-jrp
Glen Appleby
Yes, I was aware of these trailers, but I didn't recognize that
it has the magical capabilities of keeping two
"terrorists-in-training" clam for the ride so that mom or dad
doesn't have to suddenly do something to prevent one from tossing
the other outta the trailer?
BTW, does anybody else see the irony of something that is
designed for a bicycle, but is also designed to be *transported*
in a car?
Yes, I know, but I stil enjoy the irony.
OTOH, considering the danger that bicyclists present when they
foolishly insist on ridding on the really narrow roads up here,
perhaps it would be best if bicycles, themselves, were
transported by car to some safe location, then taken out to be
driven around in a deserted parking lot.
Don Steiny
>On Wed, 21 Jul 1999 15:00:38 -0800, N...@BikeRoute.com (Cycle America)
>wrote:
>>If you can believe it, widening our only highway was placed as a
>>number one priority in alleviating our problems with congestion....
>I can't believe it either, and I'm absolutely estatic that the
>Transportation Commission has finally come to their senses.
That is for sure. This is the smartest thing I have seen them
do in many years.
Light rail is failing in Santa Clara. They did a study about adding
more and they believed it would be a waste of money. In Santa Cruz, where
the operative word is "should" there are still people who moan about
it. Read last month's Scientific American, this week's Economist and
other recent periodicals to discover that fuel cells are real and
cars will soon be non-polluting anyway.
-Don
--
Don Steiny - InfoPoint, Inc. - www.infopoint.com
125 Mission St #3 - Santa Cruz, CA 95060 - 831.471.1671 - fax: 831.471.1670
Reinventing business through the power of the Internet
Don Steiny
>Personaly I think that HWY 17 should be converted to a one lane dirt
>road. Charge a toll of 10.00 to anyone coming into S.C. (leaving would
>be free). I would hate to see any kind of development that would make
>it any easier for the valley to get over here.
Right, them damn city folks commin up hea with their high falutin ways
(I've always wondered why people that would be called "hicks" anywhere
else are called "progressives" in Santa Cruz).
Don Steiny
>And at some point, people might get fed up enough to start looking for their
>own solutions. Change jobs or move closer to work, or choose an alternative
>method to get there. And in the interim, you have saved your community
>millions of dollars in building that extra lane or two.
From everything I have seen about attempts to do what you are saying,
there is no evidence that what you say would happen would happen and I
believe that this is just wishful thinking on your part.
Don Steiny
>Almost all of the adult population in this country views a bike as
>recreation or sport, instead of something you can actually use for
>transportation.
Almost of all of the adult population in this county does not
have several extra hours per week to spend tooling around on a bicycle.
Don Steiny
>Quite true. And you know why? Bikes in this country are viewed as a
>recreational vehicle. Not any type of actual transport.
Because that is what they are.
Pete
Don Steiny wrote in message ...
>"Pete" <p...@nospamhere.visi.net> writes:
>
>
>>And at some point, people might get fed up enough to start looking for
their
>>own solutions. Change jobs or move closer to work, or choose an
alternative
>>method to get there. And in the interim, you have saved your community
>>millions of dollars in building that extra lane or two.
>
> From everything I have seen about attempts to do what you are saying,
>there is no evidence that what you say would happen would happen and I
>believe that this is just wishful thinking on your part.
>
Unfortunately, you are right. Wishful thinking, yes. But at some point, a
commute become 'too far'. 'Too much hassle'.
2 of my coworkers drive ~45 miles each way. Their weekly mileage equals my
yearly mileage. Personaly, I wouldn't want to do that. That 2.5 hours a day
they spend in the car is time I spend with my family.
Pete
Pete
>>recreational vehicle. Not any type of actual transport.
>
> Because that is what they are.
Only if you choose to see tham as such.
Pete
Pete
>>recreation or sport, instead of something you can actually use for
>>transportation.
>
> Almost of all of the adult population in this county does not
>have several extra hours per week to spend tooling around on a bicycle.
Too busy going to the gym to work out on the LifeCycles?
Pete
Robert Turnbull
>"Pete" <p...@nospamhere.visi.net> writes:
>>Almost all of the adult population in this country views a bike as
>>recreation or sport, instead of something you can actually use for
>>transportation.
> Almost of all of the adult population in this county does not
>have several extra hours per week to spend tooling around on a bicycle.
The average adult spends how much time each week watching televisiom
20 hours?
It just a matter of desires or priorities. If it's important to you time
will be found.
Bob
Nan
Laurel Highlands of Pennsylvania. You can find out more information at
www.dcnr.state.pa.us.
There is also a book that is quite informative called FREE WHEELING EASY IN
WESTERN PENNSYLVANIA by Mary Shaw and Roy Weil. They give specifics on who
and how to contact trail sponsors and organizers.
Nan
Adrian Brandt <abr...@americasm01.nt.com> wrote in message
news:37975CA6...@americasm01.nt.com...
> N...@BikeRoute.com (Cycle America) wrote:
> > Could anyone out there provide an example of a good working bike *AND*
> > rail trail that we can hold up as a model in getting such a system
worked
> > effectively into place here in Santa Cruz County? Along these lines,
does
> > anyone know of a web site for Rails *AND* Trails?
>
> I don't know if this fits the bill exactly, but you can try the "Rails to
> Trails" folks at http://www.railstotrails.org.
>
> --
>
> Adrian Brandt
> (408) 565-7291 / abr...@nortelnetworks.com
Steve Premo
(Don Steiny) wrote:
> Read last month's Scientific American, this week's Economist and
>other recent periodicals to discover that fuel cells are real and
>cars will soon be non-polluting anyway.
That's a technological solution to the pollution problem. A
technological solution to the congestion problem may include
computer-driven cars which follow magnetic "tracks" on the freeway.
You drive to the on-ramp, switch on the computer, and relax.
This allows cars to (1) move faster, (2) travel more closely together,
which reduces wind drag and increases fuel efficiency, and (3) travel
more safely, because the computer can respond more quickly than a
person. Such systems have been developed, and are being tested.
Even then the highway will eventually fill up, of course, but as time
goes on and it becomes more economically crucial to find solutions,
solutions will be found.
Right now, though, the solution is to add a lane to Highway 1
(although I agree with Bathsheba that the solution is not to build
more roads. We just need this one artery to be wider.)
Steve Premo -- Santa Cruz, California
"Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum."
(A little song, a little dance, a little seltzer down your pants.)
http://www2.cruzio.com/~premo/steve.html
Tim May
> In <wZ7n3.306$pg4....@typ11.nn.bcandid.com>, ste...@infopoint.com
> (Don Steiny) wrote:
>
> > Read last month's Scientific American, this week's Economist and
> >other recent periodicals to discover that fuel cells are real and
> >cars will soon be non-polluting anyway.
>
> That's a technological solution to the pollution problem.
It _may_ lessen some forms of pollution, but the energy to make the
hydrogen for the fuel cells still has to come from somewhere. And, much
more importantly, I wouldn't expect "and cars will soon be non-polluting
anyway."
Some cars are already non-polluting. Some are electrical (modulo the above
point about energy, and modulo the environmental effect of making and
disposing of car batteries), some are LNG/propane, some are solar (!!),
and some internal combustion engines are so well-designed that the
effluent is cleaner than the intake.
However, this does nothing about the vast majority of cars. Especially in
countries where buying a $40,000 Yuppie/tree hugger car is not an option.
Mexico City, for example. Bangkok, Seoul, Taipei, New Delhi...
> A
> technological solution to the congestion problem may include
> computer-driven cars which follow magnetic "tracks" on the freeway.
> You drive to the on-ramp, switch on the computer, and relax.
Not in my lifetime. Not in your lifetime, Steve.
Even if available as a technological demonstration, it won't happen on
public roads in our lifetimes. Besides the problems and costs of
deployment, there's that pesky problem of the hundreds of millions of
existing cars...as above.
Voters will simply not tolerate a project which costs $300 billion (or
whatever) to build and which then requires them to scrap their cars or
retrofit them at great expense.
And then there are the lawsuits...
(Scenario: Accidents will happen, as always. Except this time the maker of
the automatic pilot hardware and/or software will be pulled into the case.
This will happen thousands of times. And in some of those cases, with
almost complete certainty, it _will_ be the "fault" of the hardware or
software. This will bankrupt the company making the devices. Think about
it. Turning control of a 2-ton machine travelling at freeway speeds to a
machine, to a _product_, is the wellspring of ten thousand product
liability lawsuits.)
>
> This allows cars to (1) move faster, (2) travel more closely together,
> which reduces wind drag and increases fuel efficiency, and (3) travel
> more safely, because the computer can respond more quickly than a
> person. Such systems have been developed, and are being tested.
And you believe this?
Oh, I have no doubt that grad students at Dearborn College of Technology
or Tokyo Tech are in fact building such concept cars and tracks. They have
been for as long as cars have existed.
But deployment--outside of Epcott Center and Disneyland--will not happen
in our lifetimes, and probably not in the lifetimes of anyone now alive.
Tom Holub
Steve Premo <pr...@cruzio.com> wrote:
)In <wZ7n3.306$pg4....@typ11.nn.bcandid.com>, ste...@infopoint.com
)(Don Steiny) wrote:
)
)> Read last month's Scientific American, this week's Economist and
)>other recent periodicals to discover that fuel cells are real and
)>cars will soon be non-polluting anyway.
)
)That's a technological solution to the pollution problem. A
)technological solution to the congestion problem may include
)computer-driven cars which follow magnetic "tracks" on the freeway.
)You drive to the on-ramp, switch on the computer, and relax.
)
)This allows cars to (1) move faster, (2) travel more closely together,
)which reduces wind drag and increases fuel efficiency, and (3) travel
)more safely, because the computer can respond more quickly than a
)person. Such systems have been developed, and are being tested.
And they do nothing to help the congestion problem--in fact they make
it far worse. Every increase in freeway capacity brings with it new
traffic. A UC Berkeley study showed added capacity to freeways is
90% utilized within 5 years. So how does it help if you double the
capacity of the Bay Bridge--you just put twice as many single-occupant
cars onto the streets of San Francisco.
-Tom
Eric Holeman
>Right now, though, the solution is to add a lane to Highway 1
>(although I agree with Bathsheba that the solution is not to build
>more roads. We just need this one artery to be wider.)
Isn't Step 1 admitting that you have a problem?
--
-----
Eric Holeman Chicago, Illinois USA
Don Steiny
>> Almost of all of the adult population in this county does not
>>have several extra hours per week to spend tooling around on a bicycle.
>The average adult spends how much time each week watching televisiom
>20 hours?
>It just a matter of desires or priorities. If it's important to you time
>will be found.
But since it is obvious that it is not important to people, how
do you ever imagine that it will happen?
Don Steiny
>Don Steiny wrote in message ...
>>"Pete" <p...@nospamhere.visi.net> writes:
>>
>>>Almost all of the adult population in this country views a bike as
>>>recreation or sport, instead of something you can actually use for
>>>transportation.
>>
>> Almost of all of the adult population in this county does not
>>have several extra hours per week to spend tooling around on a bicycle.
>Too busy going to the gym to work out on the LifeCycles?
Paying mortages on $300,000.00 houses.
Tim May
> In article <379dd01f...@cnews.newsguy.com>,
> Steve Premo <pr...@cruzio.com> wrote:
...
> )This allows cars to (1) move faster, (2) travel more closely together,
> )which reduces wind drag and increases fuel efficiency, and (3) travel
> )more safely, because the computer can respond more quickly than a
> )person. Such systems have been developed, and are being tested.
>
> And they do nothing to help the congestion problem--in fact they make
> it far worse. Every increase in freeway capacity brings with it new
> traffic. A UC Berkeley study showed added capacity to freeways is
> 90% utilized within 5 years. So how does it help if you double the
> capacity of the Bay Bridge--you just put twice as many single-occupant
> cars onto the streets of San Francisco.
Exactly. There are no quick fixes without major unintended consequences.
There are two related studies of relevance, both involving Japan, interestingly:
1. The effects of building a rocket plane which could fly from the U.S. to
Japan in under an hour. (Or, less grandiosely, an SST which could do the
same in 4-5 hours.)
2. A novel scheme to allow cars to be parked more closely.
In the first case, the punchline is that such a one hour flight would be
nearly useless, even if cost were no object. Leaving one country during
the day would land one in the other in the middle of the night. And a
rocket plane landing strip would likely have to be far from major cities
(length of landing strip, etc.). I/O into and out of the rocketport would
likely dominate the travel time, as it often does today.
In the second case, it seems some Japanese automotive engineers came up
with a steering scheme which allowed a car to have its wheels turned 90
degrees from the normal direction. A car could drive up parallel to a
tight parking spot, engage the 90 degree rotation, then tuck itself into
the tight spot. 20-30% increase in parking density.
Ah, but if either the car in front or the car in back is _not_ one of
these 90 degree cars, that car is now trapped! "Duh."
So unless the entire population shifts to the new design, more or less
simultaneously, or unless unwieldy "separate parking rules zones" are
created, the new features cannot be used so long as old features are still
present in any nontrivial amount. (And even in trivial amounts, one can
imagine the reaction of a Delta 88 driver discovering his tuna boat has
been hemmed in by two econojap cars using their 90 degree wheels. Back up,
smash, forward, smash, backup, smash, etc.)
Arthur C. Clarke's wonderful story "Superiority" is worth reading.
Building a better mousetrip is often not the solution.
Doug Landauer
> his tuna boat has been hemmed in by two econojap cars using their
> 90 degree wheels. Back up, smash, forward, smash, backup, smash, etc.)
We call this "percussion parking".
--
Doug Landauer land...@apple.com (work)
land...@scruznet.com (not-work)
Don Steiny
>In <wZ7n3.306$pg4....@typ11.nn.bcandid.com>, ste...@infopoint.com
>(Don Steiny) wrote:
>> Read last month's Scientific American, this week's Economist and
>>other recent periodicals to discover that fuel cells are real and
>>cars will soon be non-polluting anyway.
>That's a technological solution to the pollution problem. A
>technological solution to the congestion problem may include
>computer-driven cars which follow magnetic "tracks" on the freeway.
>You drive to the on-ramp, switch on the computer, and relax.
Right. I pointed it out because it removes one more reason for
not using cars.
-Don
---
Tom Holub
Don Steiny <ste...@infopoint.com> wrote:
)"Pete" <p...@nospamhere.visi.net> writes:
)
)
)>Don Steiny wrote in message ...
)>>"Pete" <p...@nospamhere.visi.net> writes:
)>>
)>>>Almost all of the adult population in this country views a bike as
)>>>recreation or sport, instead of something you can actually use for
)>>>transportation.
)>>
)>> Almost of all of the adult population in this county does not
)>>have several extra hours per week to spend tooling around on a bicycle.
)
)
)>Too busy going to the gym to work out on the LifeCycles?
)
) Paying mortages on $300,000.00 houses.
Funny, I just bought a $300,000 house within biking distance of my
work. Not having a car gives me $5000-$10000 more per year to spend
on my mortgage.
-Tom
Steve Premo
wrote:
>And they do nothing to help the congestion problem--in fact they make
>it far worse. Every increase in freeway capacity brings with it new
>traffic. A UC Berkeley study showed added capacity to freeways is
>90% utilized within 5 years.
Many people have stated this as gospel, but few have described the
mechanism by which it works.
It seems to me that if you have a big, flat area which contains a
city, building a freeway guarantees that new development will be along
the freeway corridor. This would increase the traffic along that
corridor.
But here, we're talking about adding a lane to Highway 1 in Santa Cruz
County. New development occurs along that corridor for reasons
unrelated to the freeway. Most of the developable land in the county
is between the mountains and the sea. So development is concentrated
there whether the freeway capacity is increased or not.
It is possible that widening Highway 1 will lead to more development
by decreasing the commuting time to the Santa Clara Valley, but there
is still Highway 17, which limits the desirability of commuting over
the hill. And in any event, as much as I'd like to limit the
population, there is no legal way to stop people from moving here.
Until California secedes from the union, we can't stop people from
immigrating here from the east, and as long as California continues to
have such a good climate, people are gonna move here.
>So how does it help if you double the
>capacity of the Bay Bridge--you just put twice as many single-occupant
>cars onto the streets of San Francisco.
We're talking about Highway 1 in Santa Cruz County, not the Bay
Bridge.
Pete
Don Steiny <ste...@infopoint.com> wrote in message
news:Hzln3.435$pg4....@typ11.nn.bcandid.com...
> >> Almost of all of the adult population in this county does not
> >>have several extra hours per week to spend tooling around on a bicycle.
>
>
> >Too busy going to the gym to work out on the LifeCycles?
>
> Paying mortages on $300,000.00 houses.
Thank you for that tidit of information. I shall remember, the next time I
send my mortgage check out, that I must devote every waking minute to paying
for the house. Health and family be damned.
Pete
goodbye.
Tom Holub
Steve Premo <pr...@cruzio.com> wrote:
)In <7nkn88$9g2$1...@shell3.ba.best.com>, do...@best.com (Tom Holub)
)wrote:
)
)>So how does it help if you double the
)>capacity of the Bay Bridge--you just put twice as many single-occupant
)>cars onto the streets of San Francisco.
)
)We're talking about Highway 1 in Santa Cruz County, not the Bay
)Bridge.
The post I was replying to was talking about the general idea of "trains"
of single-occupant vehicles on freeways.
-Tom
Tim May
> In <7nkn88$9g2$1...@shell3.ba.best.com>, do...@best.com (Tom Holub)
> wrote:
>
> >And they do nothing to help the congestion problem--in fact they make
> >it far worse. Every increase in freeway capacity brings with it new
> >traffic. A UC Berkeley study showed added capacity to freeways is
> >90% utilized within 5 years.
>
> Many people have stated this as gospel, but few have described the
> mechanism by which it works.
>
> It seems to me that if you have a big, flat area which contains a
> city, building a freeway guarantees that new development will be along
> the freeway corridor. This would increase the traffic along that
> corridor.
>
> But here, we're talking about adding a lane to Highway 1 in Santa Cruz
> County. New development occurs along that corridor for reasons
> unrelated to the freeway. Most of the developable land in the county
> is between the mountains and the sea. So development is concentrated
> there whether the freeway capacity is increased or not.
Widening Highway 1 will have the effect of "opening up" South County.
(I'm gettting tired of the non-Santa Cruz people interjecting comments and
wondering where the hell Santa Cruz is, so I'm taking out the non-SC,
non-BA groups.)
The large, flat, agricultural areas of South County (and North County,
Monterey County) will become commuter bedroom communities for Santa Cruz.
A prime example of this is Castroville.
Drive into Castroville (I heartily recommend Central Texan for barbecue)
and see the condo developments, with prices amazingly below what Santa
Cruz has. I didn't make a mental note of it carefully the last time I was
there, but I think 2 BR/2 BA townhouses are going for $20-140K.
While Castroville may have some problems, or perceived problems, the draw
of affordable housing will draw Santa Cruz workers to live there. Just as
Silicon Valley workers are commuting in from Tracy, Los Banos, and other
Central Valley boomtowns.
A widened Highway 1 will result in more commuters living in Watsonville,
Castroville, Aromas, Prunedale, etc.
I am not taking a position for or against widening here, just noting that
Steve Premo's point about "for reasons unrelated to the freeway" is almost
certainly wrong. Widening the freeway will temporarily make the South
County and North County (Monterey) areas more attractive for commuters.
I watched this happen in the 1960s in Northern Virginia, as the building
and widening of highways (don't call them freeways) caused formerly small
towns to become bedroom communities. A pattern repeated in a hundred
cities.
Tim May
tc...@got.net (Tim May) wrote:
> Drive into Castroville (I heartily recommend Central Texan for barbecue)
> and see the condo developments, with prices amazingly below what Santa
> Cruz has. I didn't make a mental note of it carefully the last time I was
> there, but I think 2 BR/2 BA townhouses are going for $20-140K.
A typo. I meant to type "$120-140K."
Glen Appleby
scruz.general,turn...@coewl.cen.uiuc.edu (Robert Turnbull)
wrote:
>ste...@infopoint.com (Don Steiny) writes:
>
>> Almost of all of the adult population in this county does not
>>have several extra hours per week to spend tooling around on a bicycle.
>
>The average adult spends how much time each week watching televisiom
>20 hours?
>
>It just a matter of desires or priorities. If it's important to you time
>will be found.
So, now we are hearing from the broken spoke contingent that if
we happen to spend our otherwise free time in some manner that
doesn't involve bicycles, we have our priorities messed up?
Fascinating. I described how I live too far from most employers
and too far from the nearest store (that I elect not to use
anyway) to make using a bicycle practicle and I am told that I
*could* do it if I really wanted to.
Yeah, if I didn't want to sleep or get anything done around the
house, then I guess that I might manage a bicycle trip or two to
town, each week.
The question is, all things considered, why would I *want* to do
that instead of what I am doing, now?
I have no overwhelming need to save the dinasaurs. I already
live with plenty of huggable trees on my place and I am not
killing the local wildlife.
Perhaps the spokeheads would do best if they stuck with
converting their own.
--
Do not underestimate your abilities. That is your boss's job.
It is your job to find ways around your boss's roadblocks.
______________________________________________________________
Glen Appleby gl...@got.net <http://www.armory.com/~glena/>
Glen Appleby
scruz.general,tc...@got.net (Tim May) wrote:
>In the second case, it seems some Japanese automotive engineers came up
>with a steering scheme which allowed a car to have its wheels turned 90
>degrees from the normal direction. A car could drive up parallel to a
>tight parking spot, engage the 90 degree rotation, then tuck itself into
>the tight spot. 20-30% increase in parking density.
>
>Ah, but if either the car in front or the car in back is _not_ one of
>these 90 degree cars, that car is now trapped! "Duh."
Not only that but how would one get into or out of the vehicle?
Rocket packs?
Glen Appleby
<p...@nospamhere.visi.net> wrote:
>Pete
>goodbye.
You keep promising.
Seems kinda like the unfulfilled promises of most of the
spokeheads that I have heard from.
Glen Appleby
scruz.general,ru...@cadvision.com (Tom Ruta) wrote:
>gl...@ihwy.com (Glen Appleby) wrote:
>
>...
>>>Ah, but if either the car in front or the car in back is _not_ one of
>>>these 90 degree cars, that car is now trapped! "Duh."
>>
>>Not only that but how would one get into or out of the vehicle?
>>
>>Rocket packs?
>
>Most of us use the doors. ;=)
Spoken by a bicyclist. Is this intellect common among
spokeheads?
Frightening.
Don Steiny
scruz.general,tc...@got.net (Tim May) wrote:
>In the second case, it seems some Japanese automotive engineers came up
>with a steering scheme which allowed a car to have its wheels turned 90
>degrees from the normal direction. A car could drive up parallel to a
>tight parking spot, engage the 90 degree rotation, then tuck itself into
>the tight spot. 20-30% increase in parking density.
I believe people will endure almost endless congestion even with
public transportation available. I have a friend that lives near Kobe
(in Japan). He installed a lift that would elevate a car and fit another
one underneath it so both he and his wife could have cars in the incredibly
limited space in Japan.
Tim May
Appleby) wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Jul 1999 10:11:32 -0700, in
> scruz.general,tc...@got.net (Tim May) wrote:
>
> >In the second case, it seems some Japanese automotive engineers came up
> >with a steering scheme which allowed a car to have its wheels turned 90
> >degrees from the normal direction. A car could drive up parallel to a
> >tight parking spot, engage the 90 degree rotation, then tuck itself into
> >the tight spot. 20-30% increase in parking density.
> >
> >Ah, but if either the car in front or the car in back is _not_ one of
> >these 90 degree cars, that car is now trapped! "Duh."
>
> Not only that but how would one get into or out of the vehicle?
>
> Rocket packs?
>
When one is confused as you are, it helps to draw a picture.
Aaron Priven
In article <landauer-270...@landauer.apple.com>,
land...@apple.com (Doug Landauer) wrote:
>> ... one can imagine the reaction of a Delta 88 driver discovering
>> his tuna boat has been hemmed in by two econojap cars using their
>> 90 degree wheels. Back up, smash, forward, smash, backup, smash, etc.)
>
>We call this "percussion parking".
--
Aaron Priven, Oakland, California, USA
aa...@priven.sf.ca.us, http://www.priven.sf.ca.us/
Wasting time on Usenet since 1989
Aaron Priven
Even zero-emission cars still cause some pollution: particles from
tires, brake pads, etc., all end up washing out of the roads and
into storm sewers or streams. Lubricants also cause similar, and
worse, problems for those engines that require them.
And of course, it could be argued that the biggest problem with
cars is that they encourage the wholesale conversion of rural and
wild land to urbanized land, not the specific emissions from them.
But even if we unianimously wished to change car-based
development in this country (we may be building toward a consensus to
that end, but unanimous? never), we'd be stuck with the suburbs for
another hundred years, so any improvements are welcome, as long as we
don't go part of the way and think we're done.
Glen Appleby
On Tue, 27 Jul 1999 23:55:27 GMT, in
scruz.general,ste...@infopoint.com (Don Steiny) wrote:
> I believe people will endure almost endless congestion even with
>public transportation available. I have a friend that lives near Kobe
>(in Japan). He installed a lift that would elevate a car and fit another
>one underneath it so both he and his wife could have cars in the incredibly
>limited space in Japan.
Needn't even look that far. Just look at San Francisco.
Heck, I was born there and am still amazed at what people will
put up with just to park at their "homes".
Daniel D Scripture
Tim May <tc...@got.net> wrote:
>In article <379decf9...@cnews.newsguy.com>, pr...@cruzio.com wrote:
>
>> In <7nkn88$9g2$1...@shell3.ba.best.com>, do...@best.com (Tom Holub)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >And they do nothing to help the congestion problem--in fact they make
>> >it far worse. Every increase in freeway capacity brings with it new
>> >traffic. A UC Berkeley study showed added capacity to freeways is
>> >90% utilized within 5 years.
>>
>> Many people have stated this as gospel, but few have described the
>> mechanism by which it works.
>>
>> It seems to me that if you have a big, flat area which contains a
>> city, building a freeway guarantees that new development will be along
>> the freeway corridor. This would increase the traffic along that
>> corridor.
>>
>> But here, we're talking about adding a lane to Highway 1 in Santa Cruz
>> County. New development occurs along that corridor for reasons
>> unrelated to the freeway. Most of the developable land in the county
>> is between the mountains and the sea. So development is concentrated
>> there whether the freeway capacity is increased or not.
>
>Widening Highway 1 will have the effect of "opening up" South County.
>
>(I'm gettting tired of the non-Santa Cruz people interjecting comments and
>wondering where the hell Santa Cruz is, so I'm taking out the non-SC,
>non-BA groups.)
>
Doesn't _everyone_ know where SC is? ;-)
>The large, flat, agricultural areas of South County (and North County,
>Monterey County) will become commuter bedroom communities for Santa Cruz.
>A prime example of this is Castroville.
>
>Drive into Castroville (I heartily recommend Central Texan for barbecue)
>and see the condo developments, with prices amazingly below what Santa
>Cruz has. I didn't make a mental note of it carefully the last time I was
>there, but I think 2 BR/2 BA townhouses are going for $20-140K.
>
Yes, I've noticed this, too.
>While Castroville may have some problems, or perceived problems, the draw
>of affordable housing will draw Santa Cruz workers to live there. Just as
>Silicon Valley workers are commuting in from Tracy, Los Banos, and other
>Central Valley boomtowns.
>
I have a colleague (I teach at UCSC) who already commutes from Los
Banos, three days a week. Sometimes she stays with her parents, who
live in SC, but she and her husband live in Los Banos--only place they
could afford a house. Same reason I live in the part of Corralitos I
do--only place I could afford a house.
>A widened Highway 1 will result in more commuters living in Watsonville,
>Castroville, Aromas, Prunedale, etc.
>
Yup.
>I am not taking a position for or against widening here, just noting that
>Steve Premo's point about "for reasons unrelated to the freeway" is almost
>certainly wrong. Widening the freeway will temporarily make the South
>County and North County (Monterey) areas more attractive for commuters.
>
I'm with Tim on this one. The differential in housing costs has
already driven lots of folks out of SC, and widening the freeway will
only make that happen more--it is just one more plus. People who now
grit their teeth and pay rent in SC will buy a house somewhere south.
>I watched this happen in the 1960s in Northern Virginia, as the building
>and widening of highways (don't call them freeways) caused formerly small
>towns to become bedroom communities. A pattern repeated in a hundred
>cities.
>
Yes. I watched it happen in southern NH, or heard my brothers talk
about it, about the same time. Southern NH is now a suburb of Boston. It
goes like this:
The city folk move in to some little town. They go to town meeting
and say:
"Why is there no police protection?"
The locals say, "because we never had any before, and haven't needed
it until you guys arrived."
The city folk say,
"Why are there no sewers, garbage collection, or any municipal
services?"
The locals say, "because no one ever wanted any, until you arrived."
The city folk say, "why is the primary school in a building that was built in
1795?"
And the locals say, "because we like it that way."
Pretty soon, there are more city folk than locals, and they go to town
meeting and vote for all the things they had in the city and miss in
the country. Property taxes go up, the locals can no longer afford to
live in the town that their ancestors settled 350 years ago, so they
move north, out of commuting distance of Boston. Then a couple of
lanes are added to the Interstate, and "commuting distance" is
suddenly longer, and the locals move north again.
Tim's right.
Dan
Glen Appleby
scruz.general,ru...@cadvision.com (Tom Ruta) wrote:
>gl...@ihwy.com (Glen Appleby) wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 27 Jul 1999 22:33:23 GMT, in
>...
>>>>>Ah, but if either the car in front or the car in back is _not_ one of
>>>>>these 90 degree cars, that car is now trapped! "Duh."
>>>>
>>>>Not only that but how would one get into or out of the vehicle?
>>>>
>>>>Rocket packs?
>>>
>>>Most of us use the doors. ;=)
>>
>>Spoken by a bicyclist. Is this intellect common among
>>spokeheads?
>
>Please reread the statements, pal. I've seen no cars with
>doors that would be blocked by a car to the front or rear of
>the vehicle (unless you count crawling through the hatchback
>appropriate ingress).
The example given was a situation that allowed cars to park
closer to eachother by turning all of the wheels at 90% to the
vehicle.
Given the foggy thinking of people, it is only a short time
before they start using this ability in parking garages where
cars are parked side-by-side.
Don't even *suggest* that this isn't likely. Between people
suggesting that it would be more practicle for all of us to ride
bicycles and the fact that there are parking spaces that are
already too narrow, the next step is obvious.
>>Frightening.
>
>What is truly frightening is that you've let emotion rule
>over simple thinking.
Emotion? Hell, *I* don't care what is done about parking. My
van seldom leaves where it is parked.
>Especially considering that you drive so much....
Hello? I drive maybe once every week or two. That's "much"?
Boy -- talk about radical! You make Malcom X look like Santa.
melp...@cruzio.com
wrote:
>
>Don Steiny wrote in message ...
>>"Pete" <p...@nospamhere.visi.net> writes:
>>
>>>Quite true. And you know why? Bikes in this country are viewed as a
>>>recreational vehicle. Not any type of actual transport.
>>
>> Because that is what they are.
>
>Only if you choose to see tham as such.
>
>Pete
Not everyone is capable of riding a bike. I have two small children -
even supposing I get one of those trailers for the kids, where do the
groceries go? I suppose I could, if I wanted to, shop every day for
groceries. So then something I spend an hour a week on becomes
something I spend an hour a day on. Not gonna happen, sorry, I just
don't have time and I think those trailers are downright dangerous
(cars don't see them).
Elderly and disabled people often cannot ride bikes and why should
they be forced to even if they can?
What you're talking about here when you say that adding a lane to Hwy.
1 through Santa Cruz would be inviting more traffic is just bogus.
The traffic is already here. Growth happens and will continue to do
so. Look at the numbers. You seem to be advocating that people
follow a lifestyle that you enjoy and feel morally superior about and
that is just wrong. You might as well advocate Peoplemovers (tm) -
that's about as practical as saying "ride a bike."
Bikes can be used for transportation, but only are by poor people (in
other countries) and advocates (in this one). They are not serious
transportation.
--Mel
melp...@cruzio.com
melp...@cruzio.com
trimmed]
On Fri, 23 Jul 1999 10:16:50 -0700, tc...@got.net (Tim May) wrote:
>My brother in LA was telling me of how his landlord has a friend in Santa
>Cruz. This guy is complaining that all the women he meets expect him, of
>course, to have a car. According to the story, this guy asked a girl out.
>She said "Do you have a car?" He supposedly said, "No, but I know all the
>bus schedules." End of date.
>
>(The punchline to the story was that the guy concluded "All the women in
>Santa Cruz are lesbos." But that's another story, with another analysis.)
Tim, would you please tell the story and analysis? (Please forgive me
if you already did in scruz.general - I'm catching up from a few weeks
unplugged). TIA.
--Mel
melp...@cruzio.com
melp...@cruzio.com
>And they do nothing to help the congestion problem--in fact they make
>it far worse. Every increase in freeway capacity brings with it new
>traffic. A UC Berkeley study showed added capacity to freeways is
>90% utilized within 5 years. So how does it help if you double the
>capacity of the Bay Bridge--you just put twice as many single-occupant
>cars onto the streets of San Francisco.
> -Tom
Yes, but there's something to consider here - the traffic that will be
"added" to this particular highway (Highway 1 in Santa Cruz) already
exists - it just goes through residential neighborhoods.
Santa Cruz is built-out. People don't commute into Santa Cruz.
Traffic will not magically appear here from outside the community.
So, this study is meaningless to this discussion.
--Mel
melp...@cruzio.com
melp...@cruzio.com
On Tue, 27 Jul 1999 15:34:36 GMT, pr...@mail.cruzio.com (Steve Premo)
wrote (in part):
>Right now, though, the solution is to add a lane to Highway 1
>(although I agree with Bathsheba that the solution is not to build
>more roads. We just need this one artery to be wider.)
Well, there's one more road that I'd like to see, and that's an
eastern entrance to the University. Traffic on the westside is
substantially reduced in the summer, even though there is more tourist
traffic through town on 1.
King, High and Mission all become reasonable during the summer months.
If the city and U would build an eastern entrance, it would make
traffic on the westside much more pleasant.
Giving up a little bit of green for what was essentially promised and
planned (and paid for, right, Geoff?) twenty or thirty years ago seems
like a reasonable solution.
--Mel
melp...@cruzio.com
Steve Premo
>Santa Cruz is built-out.
We're talking about the whole Santa Cruz - Watsonville corridor, which
is not all built out yet.
Oh, welcome back from the land of the offline..
Oh, and HAPPY BIRTHDAY!!!!!!
Kent Fielden
week and get enough groceries for my family for a week using my trailer.
I can commute to work with less traffic backup and spend less than an
extra 10 minutes doing it.
I'll agree that they are not a significant method in the US. I also
agree people should not be forced to bike. But I also believe we should
build our roads to allow people to bike conveniently.
melp...@cruzio.com wrote:
> Bikes can be used for transportation, but only are by poor people (in
> other countries) and advocates (in this one). They are not serious
> transportation.
There were many well-to-do people in the Netherlands riding bikes
the last time I was there. I have also seen what appear to be poor
people in the US riding bikes. If I was to take a survey of bicyclists
on my way to work, I believe most would not describe themselves as
"advocates". So I cannot agree with your statement.
--
Kent Fielden, Intel Corporation, (408) 765-4987
kent.fielden _at_ intel.com
My opinions and those of Intel Corporation might not overlap at all.
Tom Morley
<kent.f...@intel.com> wrote:
In a department of about 50 mathematicians (Georgia Tech) I
count 5 (at least part time) bicycle commuters. Some are
probably advocates, but most are not.
Tom Morley | The scale does not measure
mor...@math.gatech.edu | fitness, and it does not
tmo...@bmtc.mindspring.com | measure beauty. It only
http://www.math.gatech.edu/~morley | measures gravitational pull.
ICQ: 24798603 (tmorley) | --Matt Madsen
Daniel Veditz
One worry about widening Hwy 1 is that less congestion might tempt
traffic going to San Jose from the south to take Hwy1/Hwy17 who might
otherwise go Hwy101. But the horrendous traffic on 101 during commute
hours probably already sends them our way. Only the fact that the 101
route is much shorter, and the Hwy17 portion of the commute saves us.
It might make Watsonville more attractive as a Sillicon Valley bedroom
community.
But Hwy1 traffic is bad outside of commute hours meaning a lot of the
problem is local cross-town traffic. Widening might help for a while.
Welcome back on-line, Mel!
-Dan Veditz
geo...@cruzio.com
>King, High and Mission all become reasonable during the summer months.
>If the city and U would build an eastern entrance, it would make
>traffic on the westside much more pleasant.
Yeah its nice. Also, the off campus parking (at least below mission)
has disappeared as well.
>
>Giving up a little bit of green for what was essentially promised and
>planned (and paid for, right, Geoff?) twenty or thirty years ago seems
>like a reasonable solution.
I don't think the eastern access road was ever funded. It was agreed
to be funded by the city as a condition of the campus locating here,
but they reneged on the deal.
--Geoffrey Wells
--geo...@cruzio.com
geo...@cruzio.com
<kent.f...@intel.com> wrote:
Of the 10 bicycles i have owned in the last 20 years, everyone
of them has been stolen and never recovered. AAA will not provide
road service for my bicycle. I can't hail a bicycle to take me to the
airport. bicycles and motor driven cycles are prohibited on freeways.
13 million daily commuters are not going to switch to bicycles.
Hence: bicycles are not serious transportation.
>Bikes are indeed serious transportion. I can bike to the store once a
>week and get enough groceries for my family for a week using my trailer.
>I can commute to work with less traffic backup and spend less than an
>extra 10 minutes doing it.
>
>I'll agree that they are not a significant method in the US. I also
>agree people should not be forced to bike. But I also believe we should
>build our roads to allow people to bike conveniently.
>
>melp...@cruzio.com wrote:
>> Bikes can be used for transportation, but only are by poor people (in
>> other countries) and advocates (in this one). They are not serious
>> transportation.
>
> There were many well-to-do people in the Netherlands riding bikes
>the last time I was there. I have also seen what appear to be poor
>people in the US riding bikes. If I was to take a survey of bicyclists
>on my way to work, I believe most would not describe themselves as
>"advocates". So I cannot agree with your statement.
>
>
>--
>Kent Fielden, Intel Corporation, (408) 765-4987
>kent.fielden _at_ intel.com
>My opinions and those of Intel Corporation might not overlap at all.
--Geoffrey Wells
--geo...@cruzio.com
Henry Fung
>Of the 10 bicycles i have owned in the last 20 years, everyone
>of them has been stolen and never recovered.
And the rate for cars *without* Lojack is?
> AAA will not provide
>road service for my bicycle. I can't hail a bicycle to take me to the
>airport. bicycles and motor driven cycles are prohibited on freeways.
>13 million daily commuters are not going to switch to bicycles.
>Hence: bicycles are not serious transportation.
Bicycles are serious transportation because:
* No license is required to drive a bicycle. Therefore, those who are
legally prohibited from driving (kids) can qualify.
* You can get a bike for $100 or less.
* Bicycles and motor driven cycles are allowed on "expressways" and on
freeways where there is no parallel transportation. Interestingly, pede-
strians are not.
* Bicycle parking is generally much more convenient than auto parking,
especially in dense areas. Even in suburbia, you can usually chain it
to a handicapped sign.
* Bicycles often beat auto traffic in dense areas, because they can fit
where cars can't.
The main downside is the danger of being hit, which can be greatly minimized by
riding safely, and being aware of what is going around you.
My mother is 47 years old and rides a bike to work, and has done so for the
past four years. She has a drivers' license, but chooses to bike because
it is a good way to get exercise and get to work without spending money for
a car.
I don't care whether or not 13 million commuters switch to bicycles.
That's their business. But, to say that bicycles aren't serious
transportation is incorrect. I would say that brooms and skateboards
aren't serious transportation, but not bicycles.
Charlie Channel
If a bike isn't serious transportation to you, it's because you can afford
something else. When the choice is walking or biking, a dollar to a
thousand, bikes become very serious. When you do have a choice, the
seriousness of biking is a personal choice. That you or others have a
choice depends on where you're at.
cc
Roj Avon
<kent.f...@intel.com> wrote:
>Bikes are indeed serious transportion. I can bike to the store once a
>week and get enough groceries for my family for a week using my trailer.
>I can commute to work with less traffic backup and spend less than an
>extra 10 minutes doing it.
>
>I'll agree that they are not a significant method in the US. I also
>agree people should not be forced to bike. But I also believe we should
>build our roads to allow people to bike conveniently.
>
I agree.
I'm new to cycling and the first time it was suggested to me that I
could use a bike in place of a car in some cases I completely
dismissed the idea.
I read some of the posts here and wondered what planet these people
lived on that they thought bike commuting is a serious alternative.
However as I've read and more importantly become vigilant in my own
life I've notices quite a few occasions where I could walk or ride a
mile or two instead of firing up the car. As I drive around lately
I've noticed that there really are alternate routes that would allow
me to avoid a lot of the traffic that I fear as a bike rider.
Honestly, I don't see myself riding to work anytime soon.....but
several of the things that I thought were obstacles are completely
surmountable or even non-existant. The main obstacle now is the
difficulty in transporting suitable clothing and the lack of
facilities at my workplace that would allow me to shower and change
before work.
But those on this newsgroup who encourage us to use bikes more have
not labored in vain. At least I'm not making those short trips in
the car anymore. I can walk to the post office, bookstore, and
almost any other place I really need to go safely and quickly...(and
once I save up for my bike I'll get there even faster)
If I can add one thing to what the above poster said I'd like to see
more companies provide CLEAN facilities (I work at a hote and I've
seen locker rooms I wouldn't bathe a dog in) that would allow bike
commuters to shower and change after a bike commute.
Roj Avon
"Sell crazy someplace else. We're all stocked up here."--Melvin Udall, "As Good As It Gets"
Children of Gallifrey
A Dallas/Fort Worth Doctor Who Viewing Club
http://www.geocities.com/area51/dimension/4814/dfwdwvs.html
Roj Avon
>On Mon, 02 Aug 1999 17:31:14 -0700, Kent Fielden
><kent.f...@intel.com> wrote:
>
>Of the 10 bicycles i have owned in the last 20 years, everyone
>of them has been stolen and never recovered. AAA will not provide
>road service for my bicycle. I can't hail a bicycle to take me to the
>airport. bicycles and motor driven cycles are prohibited on freeways.
True but one thing I've noticed is that quite often...in my area
anyway......there are service roads...many of them two lanes and
sparsely traveled....that run parallel to quite a few freeways. I at
first thought that for exactly the reason you stated that bikes were
impractical but the more I opened my eyes to more I realized that
there are alternate routes to get you almost anywhere.
Remember...in and around cities freeways were built to bypass
congested and outdated routes.....these streets still exist and
sometimes are safe and more conducive to bike traffic.
Daniel Veditz
> >of them has been stolen and never recovered.
>
In fifteen years I have not had a single car stolen. I have lost a
couple of bikes, one of them stolen out of my locked car. Neither was
recovered, of course.
Of the two people I know who have had cars stolen both were recovered
(minus valuables). You hear about stolen cars being found all the time
(yes, sometimes stripped). I don't know anyone and have not heard of
anyone who has *ever* had a stolen bicycle returned.
(which raises the question where the hell do all those stolen bikes go?
I haven't really noticed a huge used-bike market.)
-Dan Veditz
Jack Dingler
Didn't someone write once about how AAA came out and helped them with a bike
problem? Anyone remmeber that? Are you still around?
When I bike, I don't need a freeway. We have plenty of roads going
everywhere. Freeways are just a method reducing congestion and traffic
caused by cars. I don't drive on the freeway much. My wife is afraid to
drive on them at all. I find them mostly useless in my car.
More than 1 billion commuters use bikes. More people bike to work than
drive, hence, cars are not serious transportation.
But you don't have to bike to work, I won't try to force you.
geo...@cruzio.com wrote:
> On Mon, 02 Aug 1999 17:31:14 -0700, Kent Fielden
> <kent.f...@intel.com> wrote:
>
> Of the 10 bicycles i have owned in the last 20 years, everyone
> of them has been stolen and never recovered. AAA will not provide
> road service for my bicycle. I can't hail a bicycle to take me to the
> airport. bicycles and motor driven cycles are prohibited on freeways.
> 13 million daily commuters are not going to switch to bicycles.
> Hence: bicycles are not serious transportation.
>
> >Bikes are indeed serious transportion. I can bike to the store once a
> >week and get enough groceries for my family for a week using my trailer.
> >I can commute to work with less traffic backup and spend less than an
> >extra 10 minutes doing it.
> >
> >I'll agree that they are not a significant method in the US. I also
> >agree people should not be forced to bike. But I also believe we should
> >build our roads to allow people to bike conveniently.
> >
Jack Dingler
melp...@cruzio.com wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Jul 1999 03:24:41 GMT, "Pete" <p...@nospamhere.visi.net>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >Don Steiny wrote in message ...
> >>"Pete" <p...@nospamhere.visi.net> writes:
> >>
> >>>Quite true. And you know why? Bikes in this country are viewed as a
> >>>recreational vehicle. Not any type of actual transport.
> >>
> >> Because that is what they are.
> >
> >Only if you choose to see tham as such.
> >
> >Pete
>
> Not everyone is capable of riding a bike. I have two small children -
> even supposing I get one of those trailers for the kids, where do the
> groceries go? I suppose I could, if I wanted to, shop every day for
> groceries. So then something I spend an hour a week on becomes
> something I spend an hour a day on. Not gonna happen, sorry, I just
> don't have time and I think those trailers are downright dangerous
> (cars don't see them).
>
You must buy a huge quantity of groceries.
Have you run over any trailers with kids in them? If not, why not?
Like you, my wife doesn't want to ride a bike for transportation. I do,
and I can find lot's of reasons to do so. Your mileage may vary.
>
> Elderly and disabled people often cannot ride bikes and why should
> they be forced to even if they can?
>
We have some elderly people on this NG who ride bikes for transportation.
I don't think anyone has suggested that the disabled ride bikes. If most
Americans are disabled, then your argument is a good one. It's not a good
argument on why no one can use a bike for transportation.
>
> What you're talking about here when you say that adding a lane to Hwy.
> 1 through Santa Cruz would be inviting more traffic is just bogus.
> The traffic is already here. Growth happens and will continue to do
> so. Look at the numbers. You seem to be advocating that people
> follow a lifestyle that you enjoy and feel morally superior about and
> that is just wrong. You might as well advocate Peoplemovers (tm) -
> that's about as practical as saying "ride a bike."
>
Some societies still advocate beating women and owning slaves. Since it's
the status quo in those places, you have no right to feeling morally
superior, just because you don't.
China still uses slave and prison labor to create products that we all buy
in America. Since the're the ones doing this, and we're supporting it,
then we're condoning it. That makes it morally correct. Whatever society
says, is always correct. Right?
> Bikes can be used for transportation, but only are by poor people (in
> other countries) and advocates (in this one). They are not serious
> transportation.
>
They are serious transportation, you just don't consider them so. I do.
It sounds like you don't want people to ride bikes for transportation.
Why?
>
> --Mel
> melp...@cruzio.com
Jack Dingler