Ride an SUB not an SUV

nash wrote:
"Bill" wrote in message
. ..
donquijote1954 wrote:
Seventy-five percent of all city travel is done by transit - the
world's highest usage. But Curitiba didn't ban cars. Over two decades
it gradually made transit cheaper, faster and more convenient than
driving.

Instead of spending money on that huge overpass, the Lerner
administration invested in public transit. And in Curitiba, that meant
buses.

Modern transit usually means subways or light rail trains. But all
Curitiba could afford was a short light rail line that would do little
to solve the overall traffic problem. Buses were the only way to go -
but they would only work if they weren't stuck in traffic. So the
local government set out to create a very fast transit system based on
buses.

This idea has become known worldwide as Bus Rapid Transit (BRT).

Planners decided that existing roads would work just fine and
reallocated them in groups of three: one avenue for traffic into the
city, one avenue for traffic out, and one avenue for a two-way bus-
only road called a canaleta.

more...

http://www.sustainabletimes.ca/artic...ibaecocity.htm

Went there and read that and it looks like they got it 99% right.
I noticed in the few pictures that there were no really fat people either
so the enforced walking a few blocks to your final destination is a good
thing too. It appears to be an older article since they referred to Los
Angeles, 2005, in the future tense.
Now if we could only get our city planners to spend a week there on a
working vacation to see how it should be done.
At least some countries are looking to follow a good example.
Let's hope the USA will before we are overrun with freeway parking lots at
rush hour.
Bill Baka

People here already have to walk a few blocks to the bus stop. I do not
know where
that would not be the case.
4 roads or whatever is not going to cover it. ??? We have shuttles too
that just cover the populated, denser areas like downtown. Always have.
Yours may be a special situation.

Yours looks special, specially nice. My situation is probably that of
most American's. I moved out of the city about 5 years ahead of the
surge of people who got the same idea. It was about 10,000 when I moved
here and now it is 35,000, mostly a bedroom community for people who
work in the city 45 miles to the south of here (Sacramento).

Is the pop really small perhaps? You should see a map of the GVRD.
(Greater Vancouver Regional District) Includes at least 10 cities all on
one delta and river valley.
POP may be around 2.7 M but I have been known to be wrong.
Sounds like a great place for a tourist though.

This used to be that until unplanned growth messed it up. The local
planners can't see beyond their terms in office, I'm afraid.

I think free buses is the way to go to get everyone using the bus. They do
it in Sweden don't they? They really need to do something about this LA
haze we are copying.


The LA haze is becoming global. I heard commentators saying things like
even on Mount Everest where you used to be able to see forever there is
now a noticeable haze. Smog has already gone global.
Bill Baka

On Mar 26, 10:46 am, Bill wrote:
http://www.sustainabletimes.ca/artic...ibaecocity.htm

Went there and read that and it looks like they got it 99% right.
I noticed in the few pictures that there were no really fat people
either so the enforced walking a few blocks to your final destination is
a good thing too. It appears to be an older article since they referred
to Los Angeles, 2005, in the future tense.
Now if we could only get our city planners to spend a week there on a
working vacation to see how it should be done.
At least some countries are looking to follow a good example.
Let's hope the USA will before we are overrun with freeway parking lots
at rush hour.
Bill Baka- Hide quoted text -

I think traffic planners should plan their vacations to Curitiba or
Copenhagen. Not simply Caribbean Cruises.

On Mar 26, 5:21 pm, (Matthew T. Russotto)
wrote:

Additionally, I have seen cyclists going *faster* than the speed limit (30
mph) on extreme slopes in Texas. great view from behind, let me tell you.

Presumably on the downslope. I've seen cyclists go 50mph down a hill
in Philadelphia. But the route to the top of that hill isn't called
"the Wall" for nothing. It's a hard climb. There are hills around
me which I can do 40+mph on, but again, it's a hard climb to get up to
them. They're easier than the one on my path to work; I've climbed
that one a few times, and doing it twice every day is just not practical.

Are you trying to imply that biking in America is impractical because
it's such a mountainous country? What percentage of America is such?
How about the rest?

"Mountains cover 54% of Asia, 36% of North America, 25% of Europe, 22%
of South America, 17% of Australia, and 3% of Africa. As a whole, 24%
of the Earth's land mass is mountainous."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountain

But don't tell to mountain bikers that they are incompatible with
mountains...

On 27 Mar 2007 13:07:13 -0700, "donquijote1954"
wrote:

Are you trying to imply that biking in America is impractical because
it's such a mountainous country? What percentage of America is such?
How about the rest?

"Mountains cover 54% of Asia, 36% of North America, 25% of Europe, 22%
of South America, 17% of Australia, and 3% of Africa. As a whole, 24%
of the Earth's land mass is mountainous."

Don't think that was his point at all, but he can answer that. The
amount of mountains is rarely the issue - the steepest hills are
often, perhaps usually, those too short to cause a problem for cars.
Most mountain roads are long and can't be that steep for long. Cars
and trucks would have a probelm going up and trucks a real problem
coming down.

OTOH, Franklin or Forrest in Monterey, CA are short and can pretty
much be as steep as they want - not long enough to cause a problem for
the cars. There is one near Monterey that I can't remember anymore,
where on some bikes you have a problem seeing the roadway in front at
one point. I've been on plenty of 'high hills' in Connecticut that
were steep enough for cars to routinely start sliding down from a dead
stop when snow fell. I would map a daily commute to avoid those if
possible. None would qualify as mountains.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

donquijote1954 wrote:
On Mar 26, 10:46 am, Bill wrote:
Let's hope the USA will before we are overrun with freeway parking lots
at rush hour.
Bill Baka- Hide quoted text -

I think traffic planners should plan their vacations to Curitiba or
Copenhagen. Not simply Caribbean Cruises.

100% agreement. Nobody ever learned anything on a cruise ship. I can't
imagine spending $5,000 to spend my 2 weeks vacation on a boat....?
Give them an extra week if they spend it hopping known good towns and
taking notes?
Bill Baka

donquijote1954 wrote:
On Mar 26, 5:21 pm, (Matthew T. Russotto)
wrote:

Additionally, I have seen cyclists going *faster* than the speed limit (30
mph) on extreme slopes in Texas. great view from behind, let me tell you.
Presumably on the downslope. I've seen cyclists go 50mph down a hill
in Philadelphia. But the route to the top of that hill isn't called
"the Wall" for nothing. It's a hard climb. There are hills around
me which I can do 40+mph on, but again, it's a hard climb to get up to
them. They're easier than the one on my path to work; I've climbed
that one a few times, and doing it twice every day is just not practical.

It doesn't take an extreme slope to hit 50 MPH, only about 12% if my
guesstimate is correct. I have hit 50 MPH on the downhill on a highway
that I had to earn the 50 MPH by pedaling up. 50' elevation to 950' in
about 3 miles of rollers.

Are you trying to imply that biking in America is impractical because
it's such a mountainous country? What percentage of America is such?
How about the rest?

"Mountains cover 54% of Asia, 36% of North America, 25% of Europe, 22%
of South America, 17% of Australia, and 3% of Africa. As a whole, 24%
of the Earth's land mass is mountainous."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountain

But don't tell to mountain bikers that they are incompatible with
mountains...

Mountains are good things to have around. Or big hills.
Bill Baka

In article ,
Amy Blankenship wrote:

"Matthew T. Russotto" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Amy Blankenship wrote:

"Matthew T. Russotto" wrote in message
news:d7SdnSpHJ4AguZXbnZ2dnUVZ_qGjnZ2d@speakeasy .net...

I've been to Denmark. For cycling, it has one overriding feature that
much of the United States lacks: flatness. Not false flatness like
the US plains, but real table-like flatness.

That's *flat* silly. *Many* areas of the US have *way* more flatness than
Denmark. My British husband was commenting on how nice it was to see
actual
hills in Denmark compared to here.

We talking about the same Denmark? North part of Europe, lots of
windmills? Highest natural point 171m (561 feet) above sea level?
It's flat.

Not compared to some parts of the US. The highest point in Florida is 345
feet.

Florida's flat, but the 90+ degree weather and high humidity are a
problem. I've gone inline skating in Florida, in August, and even at
night it's miserable.

The highest point in Louisiana is 535 feet.

Same issues with weather.

The highest point in Delaware is 448 feet.

Wilmington still has more hills than Aalborg or Copenhagen. The
Delmarva is flat, of course, for much the same reason Denmark is.

Additionally, I have seen cyclists going *faster* than the speed limit (30
mph) on extreme slopes in Texas. great view from behind, let me tell you.

Presumably on the downslope.

Nope. Up a hill my car was struggling with. It was pretty amazing.

I'm not buying it, unless they were just coming off a downslope. I've
seen pro bikers climb difficult hills, and even they don't do 30+mph up
them. Either that or your car really sucks.

There used to be a hill on my way to school (I went to college in one of the
hillier parts of Mississippi) that just killed me the first couple of months
I did it. But since I had no other means of getting to school I figured it
out eventually.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that you did not climb a 4-block
18% grade (which is the worst part of the Manayunk Wall; it's actually
longer than that, but not as steep in the other sections) on a bike every day.

Even if you did, it wouldn't be viable for most people. Anyone in
halfway decent shape can ride a bike around a flat, cool place
like Denmark. Try it in Florida or Misssissipi in August and people
will be dropping from heat exhaustion left and right. Try it in any
place with hills and a lot of people simply won't be able to do it.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

In article ,
Baxter wrote:

"Matthew T. Russotto" wrote in message
et...
In article ,
Baxter wrote:


"Matthew T. Russotto" wrote in message
et...
In article
,

Prove it. Demonstrate that moving just the people *must* take more
time
than moving the people *and* their cars.

The burden of proof is on you to show a system where it doesn't.
Because in most real life as-they-are-today systems, transit takes
longer.

Plenty of trips in Portland are quicker using transit than by using car -
especially when you factor in finding a parking spot.

That's Portland, where the planners went out of their way to make life
difficult for drivers.

That's bull**** - said only for effect.

Will *every* trip by transit be shorter? No, not any more than every
trip
by car will be shorter.

The truth of those two statements don't mean the modes are
equivalent.

Progress, of a sort. 'Till now you've adamantly refused to acknowledge this
truth.

Most trips are faster by car.

Depends entirely on your catchment area. So your claim is meaningless.

No, it's not meaningless. Outside of Manhattan, you have to
cherry-pick viciously to find an area where most trips are faster by
transit.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

In article ,
Doc O'Leary wrote:
In article ,
(Matthew T. Russotto) wrote:

In article
,
Doc O'Leary wrote:

No, I'm just not going to bother with them because your focus remains on
what is wrong currently rather than being open to making changes to get
things working right.

You got nothing. You're bluffing.

Rather I realize I have nothing you want to hear.

You've got nothing at all.

How about this: I concede. It is not true that moving just the
people *must* take more time than moving the people *and* their cars.

Now: show me a practical system which relies on this fact to actually
move the people faster than their cars move.

Other's have already provided links to cities outside the US that have
more reasonable transit planning, but let me say your fixation on
"faster" is also painting you into an unreasonable corner.

Ah, so you know no such system exists, and have no idea how to produce
one.

"Faster" was the criterion that YOU claimed cars were not better at.
Now it appears you can't produce.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

In article ,
Curtis L. Russell wrote:
On 27 Mar 2007 13:07:13 -0700, "donquijote1954"
wrote:

Are you trying to imply that biking in America is impractical because
it's such a mountainous country? What percentage of America is such?
How about the rest?

"Mountains cover 54% of Asia, 36% of North America, 25% of Europe, 22%
of South America, 17% of Australia, and 3% of Africa. As a whole, 24%
of the Earth's land mass is mountainous."

Don't think that was his point at all, but he can answer that. The
amount of mountains is rarely the issue - the steepest hills are
often, perhaps usually, those too short to cause a problem for cars.
Most mountain roads are long and can't be that steep for long. Cars
and trucks would have a probelm going up and trucks a real problem
coming down.

I wasn't talking about real mountains at all. Merely hills. Anyone
can commute on a bike in Denmark, even with the three-speeds which are
common there. It's easier than walking, and faster. On a bike,
climbing up and over a small ridge line which merely looks scenic in
your car is much more difficult.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.