Bike paths in the news.

wrote:
wrote:
I'm trying to talk about MUPs in general, as they are usually promoted
and usually implemented.

Yes, and then you make blanket statements that happen
to be false. You should stick to speaking about the
MUPs that you actually have first-hand knowledge of,
and stop trying to draw generalizations from them.

The MUPs I have first hand knowledge of are those in ... let's see ...
Toronto, DC, Cumberland, Pittsburgh, York, Youngstown, Akron, Columbus,
Dayton, Zanesville, Portland, Des Moines, Walla Walla, Bismarck, and
many others. (I _think_ I'm associating the right cities with the
right memories.) Those are the ones in or very near those cities.
I've also tried many that are out in various rural areas. I've not
ridden in Denver, so I can't comment on those first hand.

I'm also basing my opinions on MUP grant applications I've reviewed.

My "generalizations" are not based on a small sample. And after seeing
the same problems time and time again, and hearing of similar problems
reported by others, I think the generalizations are justified.

It's you who seems to be attempting to use the case of one specific
city to disprove the generalizations reported by many others - as in
"Here's one good MUP, so people should not complain about most MUPs."
That's hardly logical!

And it's interesting that the article quoted tends to disagree with
your assessment of your "good" MUP.

It's obvious that many of your generalizations are
directly contradicted by the first-hand experience
of others.

:-) Do you understand why certain posters use the abbreviation "FMUP"?


By the same token, you should not pretend that _most_ of them are not,
and function mostly as parks.

That may be true. I don't know.

That's OK. I do know, based on experience. That's riding experience
and grant review experience. (I forget how many grant applications I
slogged through on that committee. It was either 54 or 74. As I
recall, only three or four had any legitimacy as "transportation.")

So the generalization stands. The likelihood that the next proposed
mile of MUP will be truly valuable for transportation is very low,
indeed. The likelihood is overwhelming that it will be used almost
entirely by people who haul their bikes on their cars, park, ride some
distance for recreation, pack back up and drive home.

If that's what people want to spend money on, fine. All I'm asking is
that people call it what it is.

- Frank Krygowski

"The Wogster" wrote in message
.. .

Canada and the US benefitted, in the 20th century by having relatively
cheap labour, high protectionist tariffs and expensive international
shipping costs. Two major wars, which required high manufacturing
capacity, at little domestic cost, also helped to build capacity. Shipping
costs dropped, high tariffs were challenged, and labour costs skyrocketed.
However people wanted to consume more and more, which is why Americans
have the highest debt to GDP in the civilized world. They also consume the
most resources, and create the most pollution and waste of any nation on
earth.

Not surprising since the USA has the largest economy of any nation on earth.
I think you'll find a direct correlation between those things you mention
and GDP, no matter which nation you choose to examine. As GDP goes up, so
does consumption of resources and waste production. The point is, the
automobile is a central piece to the size of the economy, despite the
drawbacks you mention in the previous post. There are drawbacks, but there
are drawbacks to any transit system. The value placed on them is a function
of the political process. You need to separate your politics from your
economic analysis.


Cities, provinces, and governments don't pay for anything. It is
taxpayers that pay for things. Government is the collection agent and
executor of the funds, but that's all topic for another day. My original
point, which I'm sure you'll agree with, is that "free" metro fare
doesn't mean "no cost." It just means that someone else picks up the
direct cost. How or if that happens is a political decision. Many
people can rightly maintain many different views on what's valuable and
what should be subsidized.

You need to remember something, government is a company that is contracted
to run the city, province, state or nation, citizens are the shareholders,
and they are charged taxes in order to pay for the services that the
government is contracted to provide. The metro has a cost no dispute
there, however if everyone uses it, then it can be cheaper if you don't
need to print and sell tickets, sort tokens and change, and print and
distribute and account for transfers. You can also save the costs of
having fare collectors and automated fare machines..... The cost of the
metro becomes a line item on the cities expense sheet, if it costs $900
million a year to provide it, for a city of 2.5 million, that's $360 a
person. Figuring the total cost of the car, is considerably harder to
calculate, because it's cut into so many different pieces. Some borne by
drivers, some borne by employers, some by store and mall owners, some by
the city, some by the province or state and some by the Feds, although
that is very little in Canada.

Again, I think you have a great image. The truth is in the numbers and
whether people are willing to pay for it through their elected government.
The fact is, the calculation of cost of a car versus it's utility is made at
the individual level (at least in the US and I suspect Canada too), unlike a
metro system. I tend to favor individual liberty. You would distribute
the cost of the metro across the entire community, whether people ride it or
not. That's fine if it's what folks vote for and doesn't violate any basic
foundational laws or principles in the community where it is instituted. I
would also suggest that it is only a feasible concept in a high density
urban environment, otherwise it's costs are not sustainable. Cars have
their place, and always will until the market finds a more effective
alternative. Wanting it to be a metro because you personally value it won't
make it so.

Personally I'm of the opinion that, to the maximum extent possible, those
those who benefit from something should bear the brunt of the direct
costs. I bike because I like it and it saves on gas money. I don't
pretend it's good for everyone, though I'll recommend it to all.

There is a point, where the majority of the population benefits, and then
it becomes cheaper to provide a service on a group level, then it does to
provide the same service on an individual basis.

Greatest good for the greatest number. That presumes there is no basis for
individual calulation of benefit. What's good is what's determined by
government or the majority. Fine if that's what your political system is
designed to do. I've noticed Canadian are a bit more accepting of a
socialist system. I tend to lean toward the greatest liberty for the
greatest number.

I bike for exersize, and because I want to get into better shape, as I get
older. It also saves money on gas, and car repairs. Personally I would
rather live car free, and either walk, bike or take transit everywhere,
but the city isn't designed to work that way.....


I've got three bikes and two cars. I love my bikes and hate my cars.
Unfortunately the alternatives to car ownership are not to my liking. I'm
glad I have the ability to make the choice. I'd love to live in an area
where a metro system is sufficiently useful to preclude the use of the car,
but that brings up other quality of life issues. There are very few urban
areas where I would want to live. Crime, school quality, cost of living,
crowds in general, are all problems in every major city around the globe --
at least for my taste. For me, the benefits paying for gas, repairs,
insurance, taxes, and capital depreciation are worth the utility I get from
owning/operating the vehicles. That's America, Brother.

Tom

OK

1. These paths are perfectly fine for commuting during typical
commuting hours, and are widely used for that purpose.

2. These paths are great for recreation and typical bicycling during
weekdays.

3. On weekends, they can become very congested, and are not suitable
for anything but low speed bicycling, especially during the afternoons.
This is mostly when the accidents occur.

tcmedara wrote:
"The Wogster" wrote in message
.. .

Canada and the US benefitted, in the 20th century by having relatively
cheap labour, high protectionist tariffs and expensive international
shipping costs. Two major wars, which required high manufacturing
capacity, at little domestic cost, also helped to build capacity. Shipping
costs dropped, high tariffs were challenged, and labour costs skyrocketed.
However people wanted to consume more and more, which is why Americans
have the highest debt to GDP in the civilized world. They also consume the
most resources, and create the most pollution and waste of any nation on
earth.


Not surprising since the USA has the largest economy of any nation on earth.
I think you'll find a direct correlation between those things you mention
and GDP, no matter which nation you choose to examine. As GDP goes up, so
does consumption of resources and waste production. The point is, the
automobile is a central piece to the size of the economy, despite the
drawbacks you mention in the previous post. There are drawbacks, but there
are drawbacks to any transit system. The value placed on them is a function
of the political process. You need to separate your politics from your
economic analysis.


I wasn't talking politics, essentially I was talking economic greed,
mostly driven by marketing, which forces people to be more wasteful, all
trying to outdo the Joneses. This has resulted in the typical American
being over stressed, over weight and over worked. The car and the
television have both helped to make this a bigger problem then it should be.

This is getting away from my original track though, so if you don't
mind, lets pull it back on topic.


Cities, provinces, and governments don't pay for anything. It is
taxpayers that pay for things. Government is the collection agent and
executor of the funds, but that's all topic for another day. My original
point, which I'm sure you'll agree with, is that "free" metro fare
doesn't mean "no cost." It just means that someone else picks up the
direct cost. How or if that happens is a political decision. Many
people can rightly maintain many different views on what's valuable and
what should be subsidized.

You need to remember something, government is a company that is contracted
to run the city, province, state or nation, citizens are the shareholders,
and they are charged taxes in order to pay for the services that the
government is contracted to provide. The metro has a cost no dispute
there, however if everyone uses it, then it can be cheaper if you don't
need to print and sell tickets, sort tokens and change, and print and
distribute and account for transfers. You can also save the costs of
having fare collectors and automated fare machines..... The cost of the
metro becomes a line item on the cities expense sheet, if it costs $900
million a year to provide it, for a city of 2.5 million, that's $360 a
person. Figuring the total cost of the car, is considerably harder to
calculate, because it's cut into so many different pieces. Some borne by
drivers, some borne by employers, some by store and mall owners, some by
the city, some by the province or state and some by the Feds, although
that is very little in Canada.


Again, I think you have a great image. The truth is in the numbers and
whether people are willing to pay for it through their elected government.
The fact is, the calculation of cost of a car versus it's utility is made at
the individual level (at least in the US and I suspect Canada too), unlike a
metro system. I tend to favor individual liberty. You would distribute
the cost of the metro across the entire community, whether people ride it or
not. That's fine if it's what folks vote for and doesn't violate any basic
foundational laws or principles in the community where it is instituted. I
would also suggest that it is only a feasible concept in a high density
urban environment, otherwise it's costs are not sustainable. Cars have
their place, and always will until the market finds a more effective
alternative. Wanting it to be a metro because you personally value it won't
make it so.

The metro can be part of it, and probably will be, because any increase
personal motorized vehicles means more traffic, the cheapest and most
efficient, is to have everything relatively close at hand. If you look
at cities designed before cars, they were divided into little
neighbourhoods, each neighbourhood being largely independant of the
other neighbourhoods. Using todays transit technology it's possible to
connect these neighbourhoods together.

The question becomes, how big would such a neighbourhood be, well not as
big as you might think, according to www.carfree.com, their reference
design contains 12,000 residents, similar to a small town or a large
village. Heck the whole neighbourhood could go to a hockey game at the
Air Canada Centre, and there would be plenty of empty seats (it holds
18,800 - I checked).

Personally I'm of the opinion that, to the maximum extent possible, those
those who benefit from something should bear the brunt of the direct
costs. I bike because I like it and it saves on gas money. I don't
pretend it's good for everyone, though I'll recommend it to all.

There is a point, where the majority of the population benefits, and then
it becomes cheaper to provide a service on a group level, then it does to
provide the same service on an individual basis.


Greatest good for the greatest number. That presumes there is no basis for
individual calulation of benefit. What's good is what's determined by
government or the majority. Fine if that's what your political system is
designed to do. I've noticed Canadian are a bit more accepting of a
socialist system. I tend to lean toward the greatest liberty for the
greatest number.


There is a point, where so many people see something as a benefit, that
they demand it as a group, sometimes cities though see things as a way
of resolving a problem. For example suppose your problem is that
Highway X which runs through town is over crowded, expanding it, is
impossible because it would require destroying a popular landmark, so
maybe getting people off the highway is the solution. The city in this
case might decide that offering "free" transit would get people out of
their cars. It would probably work too.

I bike for exersize, and because I want to get into better shape, as I get
older. It also saves money on gas, and car repairs. Personally I would
rather live car free, and either walk, bike or take transit everywhere,
but the city isn't designed to work that way.....



I've got three bikes and two cars. I love my bikes and hate my cars.
Unfortunately the alternatives to car ownership are not to my liking. I'm
glad I have the ability to make the choice. I'd love to live in an area
where a metro system is sufficiently useful to preclude the use of the car,
but that brings up other quality of life issues. There are very few urban
areas where I would want to live. Crime, school quality, cost of living,
crowds in general, are all problems in every major city around the globe --
at least for my taste. For me, the benefits paying for gas, repairs,
insurance, taxes, and capital depreciation are worth the utility I get from
owning/operating the vehicles. That's America, Brother.


I have one car, and one bike, and for some trips, use transit as well,
it's a balance thing, in many cases the car isn't really worth it, any
more.... Now I need to go to the store, wish I had a bike light though,
then I could go to a different store, guess I'll walk to the one...

W

"Many cities see bike paths as one
solution to road congestion and higher
gas prices, and are eager to expand
these networks. But the current debate
shows that cities' success in getting
more bikers off the road and onto cycling
paths has created a whole new set of
challenges."

That section alone is bount to stretch this into one hell of a thread.
And it's really what many drives for bike path are about, isn't it?

- -

Chris Zacho ~ "Your Friendly Neighborhood Wheelman"

"May you have the winds at your back,
And a really low gear for the hills!"

Chris'Z Corner
http://www.geocities.com/czcorner

Chris Zacho "The Wheelman" wrote:
"Many cities see bike paths as one
solution to road congestion and higher
gas prices, and are eager to expand
these networks. But the current debate
shows that cities' success in getting
more bikers off the road and onto cycling
paths has created a whole new set of
challenges."

That section alone is bount to stretch this into one hell of a thread.
And it's really what many drives for bike path are about, isn't it?

Apparently so, in many people's minds. I've certainly heard "Get on
the bike path!" often enough.

And there are many cyclists who are seduced by the idea. "If I just
had nice bike paths everywhere, I wouldn't have to ride on the roads."
Eventually, you may be substituting "be able to" for "have to."

Unfortunately, ISTM we have fewer and fewer cyclists who are willing to
fight to maintain our rights to the roads.

- Frank Krygowski

On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 17:11:39 -0700, frkrygow wrote:

Apparently so, in many people's minds. I've certainly heard "Get on
the bike path!" often enough.

We've all heard it from the odd crank, who, if not that, would have
yelled something else.

Matt O.

In article ,
Matt O'Toole wrote:

On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 17:11:39 -0700, frkrygow wrote:

Apparently so, in many people's minds. I've certainly heard "Get on
the bike path!" often enough.

We've all heard it from the odd crank, who, if not that, would have
yelled something else.

Matt O.

I'm still not sure what exactly the last clown yelled at me as I
ascended Snake Hill (about 1km of climbing that peaks somewhere over a
10% grade; it's my commute route), but boy was he surprised when he
found out that the traffic backup at Broadway and North, 2 km beyond the
hill, was so great that I was able to catch up to him and invite him to
complete his "thought."

He seemed rather shocked,

--
Ryan Cousineau http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos

wrote:

Unfortunately, ISTM we have fewer and fewer cyclists who are willing to
fight to maintain our rights to the roads.

How do you know who is willing to fight and
who is not if there is no real threat to
our rights to the roads?

R

wrote:

The MUPs I have first hand knowledge of are those in ... let's see ...
Toronto, DC, Cumberland, Pittsburgh, York, Youngstown, Akron, Columbus,
Dayton, Zanesville, Portland, Des Moines, Walla Walla, Bismarck, and
many others. (I _think_ I'm associating the right cities with the
right memories.) Those are the ones in or very near those cities.
I've also tried many that are out in various rural areas. I've not
ridden in Denver, so I can't comment on those first hand.

And you think your memory of these bad paths in decades
past is a preponderance of evidence when stacked against
the (contemporary) experience of those who have recently
testified to the usefulness of their MUPs in NYC, Boston,
Seattle, Denver, Tuscon, Minneapolis, San Diego--MUPs
that you have never ridden or seen.

I'm also basing my opinions on MUP grant applications I've reviewed.

My "generalizations" are not based on a small sample. And after seeing
the same problems time and time again, and hearing of similar problems
reported by others, I think the generalizations are justified.

You seem to only hear what you want to hear.

It's you who seems to be attempting to use the case of one specific
city to disprove the generalizations reported by many others - as in
"Here's one good MUP, so people should not complain about most MUPs."
That's hardly logical!

When your generalizations don't hold true for several
entire metropolitan areas each with millions of people,
there might be something interesting there for you to
look at. Your assumptions are in need of review.

And it's interesting that the article quoted tends to disagree with
your assessment of your "good" MUP.

It doesn't mention 'my' MUP. It implies that
the south metro MUPs are 'congested,' and therefore
dangerous. They are not, in my experience.


It's obvious that many of your generalizations are
directly contradicted by the first-hand experience
of others.

:-) Do you understand why certain posters use the abbreviation "FMUP"?

Do you understand why certain posters do not?

That's OK. I do know, based on experience. That's riding experience
and grant review experience. (I forget how many grant applications I
slogged through on that committee. It was either 54 or 74. As I
recall, only three or four had any legitimacy as "transportation.")

According to you, Captain Anti-MUP. It would be
interesting to review those and see what you determine
to be a useless project.

It seems we have an unfortunate situation in some
places where the only people involved in making decisions
about MUPs are people who, like you say, love any
project that removes cyclists from roads, or people
who are ideologically opposed to the concept of separate
facilities. Real everyday cyclists get caught in the
middle of this war between idiots.

So the generalization stands.

Just like that! See how easy that is? One big
sweep of the arm from Captain Anti-MUP. THE
DISCUSSION IS OVER. There are no specific cases
of useful MUPs that are worth our time discussing
and we certainly wouldn't want to poison our
minds with thoughts that it may be possible to
copy these useful MUPs in other cities.

The likelihood that the next proposed
mile of MUP will be truly valuable for transportation is very low,
indeed. The likelihood is overwhelming that it will be used almost
entirely by people who haul their bikes on their cars, park, ride some
distance for recreation, pack back up and drive home.

Wow, you must live in a real hell-hole for cyclists.

If that's what people want to spend money on, fine. All I'm asking is
that people call it what it is.

All i'm asking is that people crawl out of their holes
and look around.

Robert