California Politics: Madame Senator, this is a morgue

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > California Politics: Madame Senator, this is a morgue

«‹›958 »

computer parts: Nov 18, 2010; PLEASE CLAP

Also fwiw in China hardly anyone bikes anymore but there's plenty of motorcycles or their equivalents, and that's a country thats much more similar to the US than a small European nation.

# ? Sep 15, 2015 17:57

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 27, 2024 09:28

GenderSelectScreen: Mar 7, 2010; I DON'T KNOW EITHER DON'T ASK ME; College Slice

ComradeCosmobot posted:

It won't work if you've got more than two bags, but they do make panniers for a reason.

Edit: Won't work in some of the cases mentioned above either (buying in bulk, avoiding weather) but it's not like there aren't ways to bring groceries home in some cases.

If I'm only buying two bags worth of groceries I've wasted my time.

# ? Sep 15, 2015 18:01

spf3million: Sep 27, 2007; hit 'em with the rhythm

Get a bike trailer?

# ? Sep 15, 2015 18:08

e_angst: Sep 20, 2001; by exmarx

Facebook has been blowing up with articles about the Sierra Nevada snowpack being at a 500-year low.

http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-snowpack-20150911-story.html

Given how things are looking for snowpack this winter, it seems like things are only gonna get worse.

# ? Sep 15, 2015 18:15

TildeATH: Oct 21, 2010; by Lowtax

e_angst posted:

Facebook has been blowing up with articles about the Sierra Nevada snowpack being at a 500-year low.

http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-snowpack-20150911-story.html

The 500-year figure is a bit misleading, because California has been in a 500-year wet period, so it's not really a 500-year low, it's more of a "Return to the historically dry climate typical of California during the last 10,000 years".

# ? Sep 15, 2015 18:17

BattleHamster: Mar 18, 2009

Hitlers Gay Secret posted:

If I'm only buying two bags worth of groceries I've wasted my time.

Copperhound linked the solution to your grocery problem like 10 posts up.

Here it is again: http://www.christianiabikes.com/en/

# ? Sep 15, 2015 18:18

hell astro course: Dec 10, 2009; pizza sucks

BattleHamster posted:

Copperhound linked the solution to your grocery problem like 10 posts up.

Here it is again: http://www.christianiabikes.com/en/

Ok, but how are you gonna keep all your frozen pizzas cold until you get home?

# ? Sep 15, 2015 18:23

BattleHamster: Mar 18, 2009

Space-Bird posted:

Ok, but how are you gonna keep all your frozen pizzas cold until you get home?

You can put a cooler in the box and then put the pizzas in the cooler.

# ? Sep 15, 2015 18:25

GenderSelectScreen: Mar 7, 2010; I DON'T KNOW EITHER DON'T ASK ME; College Slice

My only issue with that bike is what the hell do I do when I have to go downhill with my groceries. :ohdear:

That bike might work in Denmark, but not in the Rocky Mountains.

# ? Sep 15, 2015 18:28

CopperHound: Feb 14, 2012

You're moving the goal posts. A vast majority of population centers in the US are relatively flat.

# ? Sep 15, 2015 18:31

ComradeCosmobot: Dec 4, 2004; USPOL July

BattleHamster posted:

You can put a cooler in the box and then put the pizzas in the cooler.

But what if you also have to stop off at Chick-Fil-A and need to keep those chicken sandwiches all warm and toasty too? Surely you can't keep those frozen pizzas cool AND keep those chicken sandwiches warm!

# ? Sep 15, 2015 18:36

hell astro course: Dec 10, 2009; pizza sucks

I can't believe I have to wait for the fedex man to ride his Schwinn from New Jersey to Sevastopol to make good on my amazon order. These cyclists have gone too far.

# ? Sep 15, 2015 18:37

GenderSelectScreen: Mar 7, 2010; I DON'T KNOW EITHER DON'T ASK ME; College Slice

CopperHound posted:

You're moving the goal posts. A vast majority of population centers in the US are relatively flat.

But I don't live in those population centers.

# ? Sep 15, 2015 18:41

Cicero: Dec 17, 2003; Jumpjet, melta, jumpjet. Repeat for ten minutes or until victory is assured.

Bikes won't replace cars entirely, that's dumb. But in any area that's not exurban or rural they can be a good way to get around for a large percentage of trips. The aim is to balance transportation modes, not obliterate the ones we don't personally like.

FCKGW posted:

ok but what if im fat

If only there was a way to lose weight while also doing something functional, like transporting yourself to work or to the store. Oh well.

Leperflesh posted:

We live in a Wal*Mart country. The vast majority of people buy in bulk to save money. You are talking about a lifestyle that is much more expensive than the American standard.

Europe is far more densely concentrated around city centers, and those city centers are more oriented towards small-scale retail. Most Americans are pretty ignorant of how people live in other countries, that's very true and a big issue for us culturally and politically... but bicycles are a sideshow.

Eliminating the use of big SUVs in favor of more efficient people transport (like minivans and wagons), improving light rail and commuter rail options, gradually shifting employment centers back towards concentrated city centers (which can be better served by public transport), an increase in telecommuting, gradually improving fuel economy for all vehicles, gradually falling cost of hybrid and electric vehicles (especially on the used market), and - most achievable of all - gradually shifting to non-fossil-fuel electricity generation. That's how we're going to resolve the greenhouse gas crisis and reverse climate change... if we're going to to it at all.

I'm all for encouraging bicycle use but in America, no realistic plan produces more than a drop in the very large bucket of routine daily transportation for the vast majority.

This is false. You're exaggerating how low-density most of America is. Most people don't live 5+ miles away from any shops or schools. People in exurbs or rural areas might, but that's not most Americans. Biking for a good percentage of trips is realistic for most Americans, even given existing density, IF there was good infrastructure.

Arsenic Lupin posted:

It's worth pointing out that Holland is flat. That means grandmas don't have to go up 30-degree hills with their sacks of groceries. It is also much more thickly settled than much of the U.S. People in, say, Atlanta outer-ring suburbs, don't live near a supermarket, thanks to zoning. They don't live near their work thanks to urban sprawl. Most American cities as of 2015 are designed for long-distance travel with cars. It's not as straightforward as "build protected bike lanes and they will come". There is also the issue of winter travel. Until global warming does away with snowstorms, a slushy Tahoe street turned to glare ice is more unsafe for a bike than for a much-heavier car. A car is much, much more comfortable for travelling through a pelting (assuming El Nino does its thing) California winter rainstorm.

These are bad excuses. Nobody is suggesting this will change overnight. Building infrastructure takes time. The only really problematic issue here is hills for some cities, and even then you could just, like, build bike infrastructure for the parts of the city that don't have huge hills. Just because some parts of a city aren't bikeable doesn't mean you should just throw up your hands and give up on the whole area. Weather isn't really a problem, people in the Netherlands still bike in the snow, sprawl is an issue but you could still have a much higher bike mode share than currently even with existing density.

Hitlers Gay Secret posted:

If I'm only buying two bags worth of groceries I've wasted my time.

Cargo bikes are a thing.

Space-Bird posted:

Ok, but how are you gonna keep all your frozen pizzas cold until you get home?

How is this different from car trips?

Germany has a mode share for bikes of ~10%, I think that would be a healthy number to aim for in the US.

edit: Even in SF, there are plenty of parts of the city where the hills aren't that bad: https://www.google.com/maps/place/S...076adff!5m1!1e4

Cicero fucked around with this message at 18:47 on Sep 15, 2015

# ? Sep 15, 2015 18:41

Trabisnikof: Dec 24, 2005

CopperHound posted:

You're moving the goal posts. A vast majority of population centers in the US are relatively flat.

Are we talking about California in the California thread? Why I never!

# ? Sep 15, 2015 18:43

Cicero: Dec 17, 2003; Jumpjet, melta, jumpjet. Repeat for ten minutes or until victory is assured.

Trabisnikof posted:

Are we talking about California in the California thread? Why I never!

What hills we talking about here? It seems like for the bay area and LA the really hilly areas are the low-density bits for rich people, with most people living in the flatter parts.

# ? Sep 15, 2015 18:50

Leperflesh: May 17, 2007

Cicero posted:

This is false. You're exaggerating how low-density most of America is. Most people don't live 5+ miles away from any shops or schools. People in exurbs or rural areas might, but that's not most Americans. Biking for a good percentage of trips is realistic for most Americans, even given existing density, IF there was good infrastructure.

OK. I don't have easily-accessible data on this (which leads me to believe you don't either). I think it's fine and good that you love bicycles but I think your laser-like focus on bicycles as an important solution to reducing California's CO2 output (which is where we got started, remember: legislation mandating a huge reduction in transportation fuel use) is unhelpful. Our infrastructure, including the way our urban and suburban environments are designed, doesn't support bicycling the same way that European infrastructure does. We should add bike lanes where they make sense, and do what we can to encourage bringing bikes on commute rail (except that commute rail systems operating at capacity, like BART, simply don't have room for bicyclists to bring their bikes on board during commute hours), and so forth.

But it's not going to help very much. Improving fuel economy by like 10% would be far more effective.

# ? Sep 15, 2015 19:13

Cicero: Dec 17, 2003; Jumpjet, melta, jumpjet. Repeat for ten minutes or until victory is assured.

Leperflesh posted:

OK. I don't have easily-accessible data on this (which leads me to believe you don't either). I think it's fine and good that you love bicycles but I think your laser-like focus on bicycles as an important solution to reducing California's CO2 output (which is where we got started, remember: legislation mandating a huge reduction in transportation fuel use) is unhelpful.

Did you actually read my posts?

quote:

50% in 15 years does sound too aggressive, but I think 25% in 15 years could be doable between fuel efficiency improvements (including electric cars) and transit/bike improvements.

I mentioned four things. That means three of the things I mentioned are not bikes! I only elaborated on bike infrastructure later because someone brought up gas prices as something that could improve biking numbers, which then turned into "lol no biking is impossible in America, give up now" from other posters.

I'm well aware that serious CO2 reduction will require attacking the problem from multiple angles. It sounds like you're arguing with a strawman.

# ? Sep 15, 2015 19:19

Trabisnikof: Dec 24, 2005

Here's some info on SNAP users:

quote:

For example, among SNAP households, the nearest store was, on average, 2.0 miles from the household, but the store primarily used for grocery shopping was, on average, 3.4 miles from the household. Similar patterns hold for WIC participating and food-insecure households and for households that use someone else�s car or other forms of transportation to get to the grocery store.

quote:

The vast majority of households, 88 percent, use their own vehicle to get to the store where they do their main grocery shopping. The percentage of SNAP and food-insecure households who use their own vehicle to get to the grocery store is lower.

� While 95 percent of higher income, nonparticipating households (above 185 percent of the Federal poverty line) use their own vehicle to get to the store where they usually shop for groceries, only 68 percent of SNAP households use their own vehicle. About 19 percent
of SNAP households use someone else�s car or ride with someone else, compared with 2 percent of higher income households. Another 13 percent of SNAP households walk, bike, or take public transit or a shuttle to the store.

� Similarly, 91 percent of food-secure households use their own vehicle to get to their primary food store but only 70 percent of food-insecure households use their own vehicle.

� Eighty-seven percent of WIC participating households use their own vehicle to do their grocery shopping. This is less than the share of higher income, nonparticipating households that use their own vehicle
(98 percent).

Despite differences in transportation modes, households do not necessarily shop at the store that is closest to them.
� Overall, households are, on average, 2.1 miles from the nearest SNAP-authorized supermarket or super- center, but their usual store is 3.8 miles away.

� Even households that do not drive their own vehicle to shop for groceries tend to shop around. Those who usually walk, bike, or take public transit or another mode of transportation shop at stores farther from their house than the nearest store. These households are, on average, 0.5 mile from the nearest SNAP-authorized supermarket or supercenter, but do their primary shopping at a store that is 0.9 mile away, on average.

� SNAP households are, on average, just under 2 miles from the nearest SNAP-authorized supermarket or supercenter but travel 3.4 miles, on average, to the store where they do their primary shopping. About 89 percent of households do their primary grocery shopping at supermarkets or supercenters. The types of stores used for food shopping do not vary greatly by SNAP participation or food security status. However, households with at least one member participating in WIC are more likely to use supercenters as their primary shopping store than higher income non-WIC households.

Makes sense to me, because I know I don't go to the "nearest" 4 grocery stores because they suck even worse than the safeway further away.

# ? Sep 15, 2015 19:22

Cicero: Dec 17, 2003; Jumpjet, melta, jumpjet. Repeat for ten minutes or until victory is assured.

quote:

Overall, households are, on average, 2.1 miles from the nearest SNAP-authorized supermarket or super- center, but their usual store is 3.8 miles away.

quote:

SNAP households are, on average, just under 2 miles from the nearest SNAP-authorized supermarket or supercenter but travel 3.4 miles, on average, to the store where they do their primary shopping.

3.4/3.8 miles isn't that bad of a biking distance. That's what, 15-20 minutes? Also, if it's a mean, then it's going to be skewed by the really long trips, with a shorter median. And some people might prefer to go to the closer stores on bikes vs far stores in cars if the infrastructure made it safe.

You also have to figure that, if we did support further transit/biking improvements, along with that you would gradually see average density go up and average store distance fall. We're not stuck with current levels of density forever.

Cicero fucked around with this message at 19:29 on Sep 15, 2015

# ? Sep 15, 2015 19:27

Trabisnikof: Dec 24, 2005

Cicero posted:

3.4/3.8 miles isn't that bad of a biking distance. That's what, 15-20 minutes? Also, if it's a mean, then it's going to be skewed by the really long trips, with a shorter median. And some people might prefer to go to the closer stores on bikes vs far stores in cars if the infrastructure made it safe.

You also have to figure that, if we did support further transit/biking improvements, along with that you would gradually see average density go up and average store distance fall. We're not stuck with current levels of density forever.

Lets do that math. Lets say that you can fit everything your family needs for the week in only 2 loads on a bike (that's very very pro-bike I doubt most families with kids could do it in 2 loads). 20 minutes each way rather than 5, so an half-hour in transit alone each trip. Plus you've got to add a second trip, and being crazy generous that you only spend 1 hour in the store, that comes to and extra 2 hours on groceries each week.

I can see a lot of families that would have to sacrifice parts of their limited free time to buy groceries via bike. That and/or go to a store that they prefer less (and potentially missing ingredients) just to reduce a tiny, tiny, tiny fraction of co2 emissions.

Talking about increasing density and moving stores closer in neighborhoods is sadly a pipe dream for many communities and would still take 20+ years.

On another topic, what did this thread think of the Redevelopment Agencies before they were dissolved?

# ? Sep 15, 2015 19:38

Cicero: Dec 17, 2003; Jumpjet, melta, jumpjet. Repeat for ten minutes or until victory is assured.

Trabisnikof posted:

Lets do that math. Lets say that you can fit everything your family needs for the week in only 2 loads on a bike (that's very very pro-bike I doubt most families with kids could do it in 2 loads). 20 minutes each way rather than 5, so an half-hour in transit alone each trip. Plus you've got to add a second trip, and being crazy generous that you only spend 1 hour in the store, that comes to and extra 2 hours on groceries each week.

It makes no sense to include the extra hour from the second bike trip, presumably if you were doing it in 1 car trip vs 2 bikes trips you would just have to spend twice as long in the store (unless you're suggesting that biking to the store makes you shop more slowly once inside?). So yeah you lose an hour for that week, I think that's fair. Low-density areas are always going to have cars as faster. But you can't just look at the downside, you have to factor in the upsides:

- During that hour that you 'lost', you're exercising, something most Americans desperately need.
- Bikes are cheaper than cars. Relying on bikes more means you can save more money, and an emergency fund is also something most Americans desperately need.

quote:

(that's very very pro-bike I doubt most families with kids could do it in 2 loads)

Depends, really. If you only have 1 or 2 kids I think a regular trip is definitely doable with panniers/backpack. We use our car for Costco trips but then it's easy to bike to the nearby Lucky for other stuff.

quote:

I can see a lot of families that would have to sacrifice parts of their limited free time to buy groceries via bike. That and/or go to a store that they prefer less (and potentially missing ingredients) just to reduce a tiny, tiny, tiny fraction of co2 emissions.

I'm not saying they would do it mainly to reduce CO2 emissions, I'm thinking of that as a useful bonus to society, with the motivating factor for the individual actors being that biking is cheaper, healthier, and potentially more pleasant, with that last bit obviously depending very heavily on infrastructure.

quote:

Talking about increasing density and moving stores closer in neighborhoods is sadly a pipe dream for many communities and would still take 20+ years.

Oh, I don't dispute that major change would take a long time. But you could say the same thing about building out rail networks; that stuff can't be made quickly. All the more reason to get started ASAP.

Cicero fucked around with this message at 19:56 on Sep 15, 2015

# ? Sep 15, 2015 19:52

Arsenic Lupin: Apr 12, 2012; This particularly rapid💨 unintelligible 😖patter💁 isn't generally heard🧏‍♂️, and if it is🤔, it doesn't matter💁.

Cicero posted:

These are bad excuses. Nobody is suggesting this will change overnight. Building infrastructure takes time. The only really problematic issue here is hills for some cities, and even then you could just, like, build bike infrastructure for the parts of the city that don't have huge hills.

Just how much of California's housing structure are you planning to rebuild? You're gonna have to nuke the Bay Area to rebuild it in a bike-friendly way, with shopping and jobs* near everybody's homes. Maybe after the Big One.

"the parts of the city that don't have huge hills" Have you been to San Francisco? Or Berkeley? Or looked at a contour map of the Bay Area?

* How often do people typically change jobs nowadays? I'm in high-tech, so my viewpoint is skewed.

" biking is cheaper, healthier, and potentially more pleasant,"
Again, rainy winters. For some people, snowy winters. Heat waves. The Hell I'd have ridden a bicycle last week, with temperatures in the 90s-100s, and that's only one week out of the summer. Leaving aside the health issues, most employers don't provide showers for funky post-exercise employees. If I commuted by bicycle, I would also need a car to get me from place to place on all the days when the weather is unfavorable. We have now upped the money requirement to a bike *and* a car.

Mass transit infrastructure helps a lot more people than bicycling infrastructure. Bicycling infrastructure, although awesome as a thing, doesn't help the disabled, the elderly and fragile, the children. Many, many places no longer have neighborhood schools you can easily bike to; my kids' middle school was 2 miles uphill from our home. If you really want to maximize people's carless access to the world they live in, put in a reliable bus system with frequent stops, feeding a rail system on decent tracks. Which costs $$$$$.

Arsenic Lupin fucked around with this message at 20:08 on Sep 15, 2015

# ? Sep 15, 2015 19:58

Leperflesh: May 17, 2007

What percentage of an average American's driving is grocery shopping, anyway? Surely far more miles are driven for commuting, and - on weekends - every other sort of shopping, entertainment trips, and vacation driving?

# ? Sep 15, 2015 20:04

Bip Roberts: Mar 29, 2005

I like how people think the only way to reduce miles is to stop driving altogether. I bike to work but I drive to do errands that require hauling stuff because cars are very well suited for that.

# ? Sep 15, 2015 20:07

Cicero: Dec 17, 2003; Jumpjet, melta, jumpjet. Repeat for ten minutes or until victory is assured.

Arsenic Lupin posted:

Just how much of California's housing structure are you planning to rebuild? You're gonna have to nuke the Bay Area to rebuild it in a bike-friendly way, with shopping and jobs* near everybody's homes.

You really don't. There are lots of things you can do that don't require nukes. For example, you don't need to add bike lanes on local residential roads; just reducing the speed limit can have a big impact, assuming it's enforced enough (speed cameras can help there if that's a problem). For arterials that already have painted bike lanes and no on-street parking, you can just slap some kind of divider down; even plastic posts make a big perceptual difference. When areas are redeveloped, you can require developers to add walk- and bike-friendly infrastructure improvements. For the other areas, the city can do road diets or major changes gradually, starting with the areas that make the most sense in terms of density, hills, major thoroughfares, etc. and then branching out from there.

quote:

"the parts of the city that don't have huge hills" Have you been to San Francisco? Or Berkeley? Or looked at a contour map of the Bay Area?

Yes? Look man, I'm not saying every city could hit Amsterdam-levels of biking. I'm just saying they could do a lot more than they currently do. Even SF has plenty of flat or only slightly inclined areas that could be made to be bike-friendly. I mean, we haven't even hit the low-hanging fruit of bike infrastructure in the flat parts, why are we arguing over the hilly parts?

As for Berkeley, it looks like the majority of the more densely-populated areas are relatively flat: https://www.google.com/maps/place/B...675e993!5m1!1e4

# ? Sep 15, 2015 20:10

Trabisnikof: Dec 24, 2005

Cicero posted:

Yes? Look man, I'm not saying every city could hit Amsterdam-levels of biking. I'm just saying they could do a lot more than they currently do. Even SF has plenty of flat or only slightly inclined areas that could be made to be bike-friendly. I mean, we haven't even hit the low-hanging fruit of bike infrastructure in the flat parts, why are we arguing over the hilly parts?

As for Berkeley, it looks like the majority of the more densely-populated areas are relatively flat: https://www.google.com/maps/place/B...675e993!5m1!1e4

I'd honestly rather my police start enforcing property crime laws before they start enforcing speed limits on every street, but that's just me.

Also, I'm pretty sure the reason more people aren't biking in Mission Bay isn't because they need more bike lanes.

# ? Sep 15, 2015 20:17

Cicero: Dec 17, 2003; Jumpjet, melta, jumpjet. Repeat for ten minutes or until victory is assured.

Leperflesh posted:

What percentage of an average American's driving is grocery shopping, anyway? Surely far more miles are driven for commuting, and - on weekends - every other sort of shopping, entertainment trips, and vacation driving?

Sure. Biking is good for local trips to stores, restaurants, schools, that kind of thing. Transit is better for commuting and longer-distance trips. But both of those are generalizations; plenty of people could bike to work with good infrastructure, plenty of people would take the bus or train to go shopping.

Different modes of transportation complement each other. The reason why biking is worth it isn't because it could replace more total miles of driving than a good rail network, but because it can still replace a substantial number, and bike infrastructure is much, MUCH cheaper than good transit infrastructure like rail. For the cost of one subway line you could probably blanket a city's entire network of collector and arterial roads in protected bike lanes. Bike infrastructure is extremely cost-effective, has a number of benefits besides CO2 reduction, and is also good at complementing transit, with people biking to or from transit stations for the first or last mile.

# ? Sep 15, 2015 20:17

Trabisnikof: Dec 24, 2005

Cicero posted:

For the cost of one subway line you could probably blanket a city's entire network of collector and arterial roads in protected bike lanes.

And you would still fail to capture any of the commuter traffic that the subway would.

You're insane if you think we'd be better off with a dedicated bike line on the 880 and a bike tunnel rather than the BART.

# ? Sep 15, 2015 20:18

Cicero: Dec 17, 2003; Jumpjet, melta, jumpjet. Repeat for ten minutes or until victory is assured.

Trabisnikof posted:

I'd honestly rather my police start enforcing property crime laws before they start enforcing speed limits on every street, but that's just me.

Speed cameras can enforce speed limits, so you don't need officers.

quote:

Also, I'm pretty sure the reason more people aren't biking in Mission Bay isn't because they need more bike lanes.

Bike lanes in SF are still mostly painted. People rightly regard painted bike lanes as unsafe. You need protected bike lanes for people of all stripes to feel comfortable, otherwise the bike demographic will remain young, fit, and male.

Trabisnikof posted:

And you would still fail to capture any of the commuter traffic that the subway would.

An entire city's network of protected bike lanes could probably be numbers-competitive with a single subway line.

quote:

You're insane if you think we'd be better off with a dedicated bike line on the 880 and a bike tunnel rather than the BART.

What is with the anti-bike crowd here thinking in binaries constantly, like you gotta pick one or the other? I reiterate again and again I'm for both transit and bike improvements, and then doofs like you respond with "How could you possibly be for biking OVER transit you monster????" We don't need to pick both, because bike improvements are actually pretty cheap. The new Orange MAX line in Portland is a good example of what I'm talking about. As a part of running new rail, they included pedestrian and bike improvements:

quote:

The 7.3-mile light rail line opening next year through the South Waterfront, Southeast Portland and downtown Milwaukie will, of course, build a new car-free bridge across the Willamette, the biggest such crossing in the country.

But even if you don�t count the full $135 million bridge, the Portland-Milwaukie Light Rail project will also include more than $40 million in bicycling and walking facilities on nearby streets.

For comparison: in 2008, the city estimated the value of its entire bikeway network at $60 million.

http://bikeportland.org/2014/03/20/the-orange-line-might-secretly-be-portlands-biggest-bike-project-ever-103213

Cicero fucked around with this message at 20:27 on Sep 15, 2015

# ? Sep 15, 2015 20:24

Sydin: Oct 29, 2011; Another spring commute

People are never going to substitute biking for driving on a large scale. It's not just an infrastructure or population spread problem, it's a cultural one. People drive in the US, it's what we do. In California, the problem is exacerbated doubly so. "Freeway culture" is a very real thing. It's dumb, but it's reality. Driving isn't just about practicality, it's culturally associated with personal independence, a sense of freedom, and status. No exec is going to bike to work when their peer rolls up in a Mercedes, because it makes them look inferior. Again, this is loving stupid, but it's a very real way people perceive status.

You can certainly build out biking & public infrastructure, and this will increase use of both to a point, but at the end of the day there are a lot of folks who just aren't going to stop driving. If anything is going reduce CO2 emissions from traffic, it's going to be the gradual phasing out combustion engine based cars for hybrids/FEV's, and proliferation of renewables for energy generation (otherwise FEV's will just push the emissions along the line to coal).

# ? Sep 15, 2015 20:26

Aeka 2.0: Nov 16, 2000; Have you seen my apex seals? I seem to have lost them.; Dinosaur Gum

Try throwing kids in the mix. At least I got a wagon and not an SUV. And with the ever gentrification of California, people will still need to commute, and because of the layout of things the metro gets nowhere near my job. I've checked the bike route and its a death trap, not to mention if I need to work overtime it gets more complicated. California's infrastructure sucks and it isn't going to improve because of the way people think around here.

I don't mind better fuel efficient cars, electric, gas, whatever, as long as I can still get one with some punch, because a gutless car is a dangerous car. Cars aren't going anywhere, they will be better, and they continue to be so. Look at Los Angeles in the 80s, you couldn't breath.

# ? Sep 15, 2015 20:32

Cicero: Dec 17, 2003; Jumpjet, melta, jumpjet. Repeat for ten minutes or until victory is assured.

Arsenic Lupin posted:

Mass transit infrastructure helps a lot more people than bicycling infrastructure. Bicycling infrastructure, although awesome as a thing, doesn't help the disabled, the elderly and fragile, the children.

The handicapped and fragile I'll grant you, but biking is still beneficial to many elderly* (I saw plenty of older people biking in Germany and Denmark), and it's MASSIVELY beneficial for children, are you kidding me? Kids in the US are hamstrung in their independence because of how car-dependent their neighborhoods are. It's amazing how many kids I saw independently biking around in even lowish-density suburbs in Germany. Dutch kids have the highest well-being in the world, and their bike infrastructure is part of that.

Sydin posted:

People are never going to substitute biking for driving on a large scale. It's not just an infrastructure or population spread problem, it's a cultural one. People drive in the US, it's what we do.

This is flat out wrong. We don't bike because our infrastructure blows. If you build good infrastructure, people WILL use it. You just need people to feel that biking is safe (convenient also helps): http://bikeportland.org/2012/07/18/psu-research-delves-deeper-into-four-types-of-cyclists-74938

quote:

You In California, the problem is exacerbated doubly so. "Freeway culture" is a very real thing. It's dumb, but it's reality. Driving isn't just about practicality, it's culturally associated with personal independence, a sense of freedom, and status. No exec is going to bike to work when their peer rolls up in a Mercedes, because it makes them look inferior. Again, this is loving stupid, but it's a very real way people perceive status.

This culture is already starting to change, with younger people favoring walk-, bike-, and transit-friendly areas moreso than previous generations. Actually investing in those things will accelerate the cultural change.

quote:

You can certainly build out biking & public infrastructure, and this will increase use of both to a point, but at the end of the day there are a lot of folks who just aren't going to stop driving. If anything is going reduce CO2 emissions from traffic, it's going to be the gradual phasing out combustion engine based cars for hybrids/FEV's, and proliferation of renewables for energy generation (otherwise FEV's will just push the emissions along the line to coal).

People are mostly rational actors when it comes to transportation choices. They don't bike because they correctly discern that biking in most of the US is fairly unsafe. They don't take transit because in most of the US it's much slower than a private car. Where transit is comparable in time to a car, people use it. Where biking is safe, people will bike.

Ironically, most of the irrationality around biking is mostly concentrated in discussions around bike infrastructure like this one, not how individual people decide to transport themselves given their environment.

*

quote:

[1] In The Netherlands and Germany, 50% of all trips made by people 75 and older is either by walking or bicycling. In The Netherlands, 25% of all trips made by such septuagenarians are by bicycle.

http://www.portlandoregon.gov/transportation/article/158497

# ? Sep 15, 2015 20:35

Cicero: Dec 17, 2003; Jumpjet, melta, jumpjet. Repeat for ten minutes or until victory is assured.

Aeka 2.0 posted:

Try throwing kids in the mix.

I have a kid. We transport him on a bike all the time. Child bike seats are a thing, bike trailers are a thing, cargo bikes are a thing.

quote:

I've checked the bike route and its a death trap, not to mention if I need to work overtime it gets more complicated. California's infrastructure sucks and it isn't going to improve because of the way people think around here.

It can change, and I think it already is changing, just slowly, and I wish it would go faster. As for death traps, well yeah, that's why I'm beating on the protected bike lane drum. I don't bike on El Camino where I live, I go onto the sidewalk (at jogging speed), because it's a death trap. I think they are planning on adding bike lanes as a part of bus improvements soonish, at least.

quote:

I don't mind better fuel efficient cars, electric, gas, whatever, as long as I can still get one with some punch, because a gutless car is a dangerous car. Cars aren't going anywhere, they will be better, and they continue to be so. Look at Los Angeles in the 80s, you couldn't breath.

Having better transit and biking doesn't mean cars go away. It just means they take a smaller number of trips. Germany has much better bike infrastructure and transit than the US overall, but cars are still the majority of trips there. It's just a slight majority rather than an overwhelming one.

# ? Sep 15, 2015 20:40

Aeka 2.0: Nov 16, 2000; Have you seen my apex seals? I seem to have lost them.; Dinosaur Gum

Cicero posted:

I have a kid. We transport him on a bike all the time. Child bike seats are a thing, bike trailers are a thing, cargo bikes are a thing.

My wife is alone with the kids, teaches piano at people's houses, takes them to activities, and pre school in a different county, not going to happen on her 150 mile daily trip.

I'd like to take a bike, I'd like to take the metro for myself, but it isn't fast enough, not close enough, and the bike routes to it are terrible. I personally drive 65 miles round trip daily, it gets expensive, I want a better option, but it isn't here.

# ? Sep 15, 2015 20:51

GenderSelectScreen: Mar 7, 2010; I DON'T KNOW EITHER DON'T ASK ME; College Slice

Can we please stop talking about how wonderful Europe is with their bikes and whatnot? California is not Europe and has a lot of issues that make bike riding a bigger chore than it should be. From lovely routes to travel times California is too sprawled out to make such a large transition.

Most of my friend's work an hour away from where they live because the job market is piss. Plus the fact that most jobs would probably fire you if you came in smelling like BO at 9am.

# ? Sep 15, 2015 20:56

hell astro course: Dec 10, 2009; pizza sucks

Hitlers Gay Secret posted:

Can we please stop talking about how wonderful Europe is with their bikes and whatnot? California is not Europe and has a lot of issues that make bike riding a bigger chore than it should be. From lovely routes to travel times California is too sprawled out to make such a large transition.

Most of my friend's work an hour away from where they live because the job market is piss. Plus the fact that most jobs would probably fire you if you came in smelling like BO at 9am.

You really seem to hate the idea of people riding bicycles places. not everyone is a cyclist fanatic. I live in SF, and I would probably bike if I felt safer. I don't feel safe on a bike. high density urban areas, and suburban areas would do well to have more bike paths... I don't get why you're so threatened by this.

# ? Sep 15, 2015 21:11

Cicero: Dec 17, 2003; Jumpjet, melta, jumpjet. Repeat for ten minutes or until victory is assured.

Aeka 2.0 posted:

My wife is alone with the kids, teaches piano at people's houses, takes them to activities, and pre school in a different county, not going to happen on her 150 mile daily trip.

Well duh. Obviously 150 miles is far, far beyond what is reasonable to bike around. Again, the bike naysayers here are arguing against ridiculous strawmen. No one is suggesting that 150 mile trips are reasonable for a bike. Luckily, relatively few people travel 150 miles as part of their daily routine; those that do will probably have to stick with cars. Biking is useful for local trips. Even most suburbs still have stores and schools and libraries and parks and restaurants that people go to that aren't that far away from home.

Hitlers Gay Secret posted:

Can we please stop talking about how wonderful Europe is with their bikes and whatnot? California is not Europe and has a lot of issues that make bike riding a bigger chore than it should be. From lovely routes to travel times California is too sprawled out to make such a large transition.

Actually California's sprawl really isn't that bad overall. The suburb of Munich that I stayed at, Haar, has a density 33% lower than my current city of Sunnyvale, and you saw tons of people biking around, way more than in the states. Obviously there are more sprawled out cities than Sunnyvale, which is why it makes the most sense to start with areas that aren't very low density.

quote:

Most of my friend's work an hour away from where they live because the job market is piss. Plus the fact that most jobs would probably fire you if you came in smelling like BO at 9am.

That sounds like a problem for housing or transit or both.

Cicero fucked around with this message at 21:24 on Sep 15, 2015

# ? Sep 15, 2015 21:16

H.P. Hovercraft: Jan 12, 2004; one thing a computer can do that most humans can't is be sealed up in a cardboard box and sit in a warehouse; Slippery Tilde

As a transportation engineer who practices in the bay area, I'm very pro-bike infrastructure. When we moved here, I was blown away at how well dedicated (Type 2) bike lanes were integrated into the local roadway systems, and even some of the larger collector roads in order to facilitate bike commutes. For example, it's possible to bike from SF to Redwood City via type 2 and type 1 (trails) bike facilities, as well as from San Carlos to San Jose. I'm also pleasantly surprised at the level of bicycle education required as part of the California driver's exam, and even lately the step up in bicycle traffic enforcement.

I jump at the chance to include bicycle accommodations and improvements into my roadway designs, and try to do everything that I can to make cyclists feel as safe as possible out there in order to encourage this mode of transportation. It's a big part of the reason why I do what I do, and I would be very happy to eliminate as many car travel lanes as I could, given the opportunity for any kind of road dieting.

That said, bicycle advocates are THE WORST. They are worse than NIMBY business owners who want no roadway work done whatsoever near their storefronts, and worse than neighborhood councils and HOAs who oppose light rail and bus line expansion into their areas. They continuously undermine their own efforts by pushing for bicycle facility expansion to the exclusion of literally everything else, including pedestrian facilities.

Right now I have a project wherein we are improving a set of highway interchanges (on/off ramps), which are near a neighborhood on a larger collector road. Although there are currently no bike lanes here, and our preliminary plans include adding them in along with widened sidewalks to serve the bus route for the neighborhood here, the bicycle advocates are currently screaming bloody murder because we are merely narrowing the existing car travel lanes in order to accommodate the minimum widths for these improvements. They want us to close off entire lanes that feed these arterial roads in order to provide wider, separated type 1 bike trails.

Nevermind that we're literally closing and rerouting one of the smaller intersecting local roads to allow for a bike/ped shared path onto this collector road; they don't like that were it comes out leads onto a signalized intersection where they'll have to dismount and wait/walk like peds in order to cross and rejoin the bike path - they want an overhead crossing bridge here, damnit!

I really want to empathize with these pathletes, but they really seem to be fanatics about it to the exclusion of literally every other mode of transportation.

H.P. Hovercraft fucked around with this message at 21:21 on Sep 15, 2015

# ? Sep 15, 2015 21:19

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 27, 2024 09:28

Cicero: Dec 17, 2003; Jumpjet, melta, jumpjet. Repeat for ten minutes or until victory is assured.

One of the problems with bike advocacy is that the people who would be most served by expanding safe biking facilities are people who don't already bike. And the flip side of that is that many of the most passionate existing cyclists are of the hardcore, lycra-wearing, fancy road bike riding variety that care more about speed than safety. They would probably hate the bike lanes that I saw in Germany, which were basically an extension of the sidewalk, because it means you usually have to cross streets like a pedestrian, rather than like a car.

I think cyclists that are...not that, are usually pro-pedestrian and pro-transit improvements as well.

Cicero fucked around with this message at 21:28 on Sep 15, 2015

# ? Sep 15, 2015 21:23

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > California Politics: Madame Senator, this is a morgue

«‹›958 »