Look behind to see the future?

[gixxerjasen]

I'm down on the Seagoville side but commute up to the Galleria area.

Now that you mention it...there's a lot of cities where this could be easily implemented though. Cleveland perhaps. I lived there for 13 months. They already have the heavy tax structure and most of that city needs to be razed anyway.

However, I do have to give our city here some credit. The Dart Rail system is pretty amazing for being such a new system. Most cities with a train system have had them for ages. I think the DART system is like 14 years old. When I lived in Cleveland in 08, the DART rail was like 10 years old and had two to three times the reach as the old rail system in Clevleand, and they've added onto it big time in the years since and are still adding to it. The bicycle community HAS spoken and been listened to by DART as well. Most busses have bike racks and the retrofit to the trains to better accommodate wheelchairs also incorporated better facilities for bicyclists as well.

 

[timk]

Years of too much drugs leads to that.

 

[Fred W]

Years of too much drugs leads to that.

Leads to what?

...and you say that like it would be a bad thing?

 

[Pepperell]

I'm late to the party...again.

Sidewalks in Massachusetts are paid for by the landowner adjacent to the sidewalk, as are "improvements" like town sewerage lines. ($20k+ for the 150' of pipe under the road that I now "own". And that doesn't include the line to my house from the street!)

In Cambridge, MA I believe they still shut down Memorial Drive on Sundays in the summertime. It's a little strange walking around on a road that is normally impossible to cross without dying. It's a lot quieter Sunday as well.

There are right-of-ways that might be used for bike lanes; former railbeds, gas lines, electric, etc. In cities, alleys and street lanes with creative parking restrictions could be dedicated to bike use on certain rotating days of the week. This might not have a large impact on the motorized vehicles, either.

 

[painman]

I could paint my FJR ugly green and I'd have one of them green vehicles. Or we could just keep the current pres and just stay home and live off food stamps. But if you really want to survive to and from work is leave the bicycle and the motor cycle home what with all the crazies trying to kill you each day. And take the SUV just for protection. Who really has any money to build bike paths anyway? P.M.

 

[Fairlaner]

I was in Amsterdam in May of this year and i gotta tell you there are bikes everywhere and you need eyes in your *** or you will be run over......They don't seem to give a **** about the pedestrians and most of them are flying....

Kinda cool though as there is no smog at all....

Would i go back there......**** yes they have ***** in there windows and pot in there bars........not that i am interested in either.

R

 

[SkooterG]

NO POLITICS!!! painman you've been around here long enough to know that! :angry:

 

[Ignacio]

NO POLITICS!!! painman you've been around here long enough to know that! :angry:

Many people need to get back to FJRs on this thread. :angry:

 

[FJRGuy]

There are definitely way too many full size trucks and SUVs out there with a single occupant clogging up the commute to our city core. Unfortunately with the urban sprawl, riding a bicycle to work is unrealistic for most. Lets hope the future holds something better for us.

 

[Fred W]

I've recently begun to see more of what looks like a bicycle, but has a small 1 cylinder engine fitted to it. They don't move at interstate highway speeds, but seem to zip along at 20-30 mph pretty well. Maybe that is something we will see more of?

I was just reading the latest issue of Motorcyclist and there is a short blurb that claims that >50% of the world's population now lives in urban areas. BMW's marketing group believes that the big seller in those areas will be scooters, not traditional motorcycles. Maybe they are right? Of course a lot of the rest of the world isn't as spread out as things are in this continent.

A few different people have said that their commute is too far for a bicycle. I guess my question is, how far is too far? It is the norm today for a commuter to spend 45 minutes in the car each way to and from work. Then they pay for a gym membership and spend another hour there each day.

 

[jcyuhn]

I've recently begun to see more of what looks like a bicycle, but has a small 1 cylinder engine fitted to it. They don't move at interstate highway speeds, but seem to zip along at 20-30 mph pretty well. Maybe that is something we will see more of?

I was just reading the latest issue of Motorcyclist and there is a short blurb that claims that >50% of the world's population now lives in urban areas. BMW's marketing group believes that the big seller in those areas will be scooters, not traditional motorcycles. Maybe they are right? Of course a lot of the rest of the world isn't as spread out as things are in this continent.

A few different people have said that their commute is too far for a bicycle. I guess my question is, how far is too far? It is the norm today for a commuter to spend 45 minutes in the car each way to and from work. Then they pay for a gym membership and spend another hour there each day.

Fred, I think the motorized bicycle is a kit which can be purchased and retrofitted to a standard road bicyle. I've seen them around here as well. Don't know anything about them; they do sound like a ~50cc 2 stroke when they buzz by. From what I understand, they are actually not road legal, at least here in Texas. It's no longer a bicycle because it's motorized, but doesn't meet the legal requirements in terms of lights and such to be a moped.

In my trips to Europe, scooters outnumber motorcycles at least 10 to 1.

I have ridden a bicycle to work on and off for 30 years. A big part of my motovation goes directly to your statement - it is a very time efficient way to get some exercise into your day. Like riding a motorcycle to work, it's not necessarily cheaper than driving - you'll find yourself acquiring a bicycle, then some cycling clothes, then a nicer bicycle, then a lighting system... You get the idea.

 

[Fred W]

Ha ha!! Yes, I see your point about the expenses. I have noticed that anything bicycle related seems very highly prized by its sellers. And the cost spirals out of sight when you can make things lighter, even just by a few grams.

I am definitely an atypical cyclist. I still own and (occasionally) ride my old Peugeot Mohave (non-suspension) mountain bike and steel framed Fuji Team road bike. Definitely not up-to-date by today's trendy standards, though they do have excellent Shimano component packages from their day (DX on the Peugeot and Ultegra on the Fuji). I always figured that just riding a little harder would eventually cut much more weight off of my bikes than buying titanium hardware. More so now than ever.

 

[TomInPA]

A major change in our transportation choices would be an integral part of a coherent national energy policy; which is sorely lacking in the U.S. Whether the future holds vehicles powered by humans, natural gas or electricity, is something that will take tremendous investment, planning and leadership...BTW also lacking. This is not a political statement, because the fact petroleum based surface transportation is unsustainable from a supply standpoint, as well as who we have to pay to buy our petroleum fuels. The Netherlands made a decision 40 years ago when the first gas crisis occurred, and they have the legacy of that decision in the form of alternatives to private automotive transit, including bikes, trains and buses, as well as the high taxes and extraordinary cost of taxed petroleum fuels that goes with it. The U.S. has staunchly defended a transit system dependent on inexpensive fuel and private vehicles. It may not be sustainable, but most of us are pretty fat and happy with what we have and the freedom to go where we want, when we want at a fast speed and reasonably low cost.

Fred, I don't know if a bicycle future is the BEST solution, but I do know we need to start planning for a cleaner, sustainable transportation system that depends on an energy source we actually have a lot of...natural gas. The recent shale plays have brought us a domestic energy source that will be available for hundreds of years, and is even less polluting, if we have the foresight to create a LNG infrastructure to use it. This makes a LOT more sense than trying to convert this massive country into a bicycle state or change the basic character of fiercely independent U.S. people to accept public transit. The capital cost of eliminating petroleum fuels in favor of LNG is also much lower than the cost of a national public transit network. A genuine energy policy that embraces that inevitable change, and provides for bicycle pathways as a part of that future is the only way we will see this progress. Unfortunately, even though the solution is at hand, we lack the leadership to make it happen.

 

[Bugman]

Anything that reduces the traffic in front of the FJR is a good thing. Bicycles, Busses, Whatever! Just get people off the road. I especially wish that the Ford Excursion driven by the woman with the cell phone and the big gulp that pulled into my lane will definitely take public transportation if she’s not going to pay attention while she drives. For everyone out there that has a tough commute, here is what you need:

https://www.conquestvehicles.com/knight-xv.html

Check out that last image (40 of 40) for a size comparison with an H2 Hummer.

 

[Pepperell]

A major change in our transportation choices would be an integral part of a coherent national energy policy; which is sorely lacking in the U.S. Whether the future holds vehicles powered by humans, natural gas or electricity, is something that will take tremendous investment, planning and leadership...BTW also lacking. This is not a political statement, because the fact petroleum based surface transportation is unsustainable from a supply standpoint, as well as who we have to pay to buy our petroleum fuels. The Netherlands made a decision 40 years ago when the first gas crisis occurred, and they have the legacy of that decision in the form of alternatives to private automotive transit, including bikes, trains and buses, as well as the high taxes and extraordinary cost of taxed petroleum fuels that goes with it. The U.S. has staunchly defended a transit system dependent on inexpensive fuel and private vehicles. It may not be sustainable, but most of us are pretty fat and happy with what we have and the freedom to go where we want, when we want at a fast speed and reasonably low cost.

Fred, I don't know if a bicycle future is the BEST solution, but I do know we need to start planning for a cleaner, sustainable transportation system that depends on an energy source we actually have a lot of...natural gas. The recent shale plays have brought us a domestic energy source that will be available for hundreds of years, and is even less polluting, if we have the foresight to create a LNG infrastructure to use it. This makes a LOT more sense than trying to convert this massive country into a bicycle state or change the basic character of fiercely independent U.S. people to accept public transit. The capital cost of eliminating petroleum fuels in favor of LNG is also much lower than the cost of a national public transit network. A genuine energy policy that embraces that inevitable change, and provides for bicycle pathways as a part of that future is the only way we will see this progress. Unfortunately, even though the solution is at hand, we lack the leadership to make it happen.

I think the alternate fuel issue is separate from the maxed out road capacity issue. Nat gas does nothing to increase road capacity. It also releases CO2 into the atmosphere similar to gasoline.

 

[TomInPA]

Nat Gas has the lowest CO2 emissions of fuels available for internal combustion engines. Hardly zero, but a significant improvement, and the important point is that it is a domestic product, not imported. Using it helps our economy rather than contributing to deficits and funding terrorists. Maxed out road capacity is mainly an urban issue, where I agree public transit and bicycles would make a lot of sense. Even with an outstanding cycling and pedestrian infrastructure, I'm not optimistic you can get enough people out of their cars. The real point of my post is that no vision of what our national transportation goals should be has replaced the vision conceived in the 1950s of an Interstate Freeway system. It's not necessarily bad, and it's what we have...we just can't fuel it with gasoline much longer.

Pounds of CO2 emitted per million Btu of energy for various fuels (source):

Coal (anthracite) 227 Coal (bituminous) 205 Coal (lignite) 215 Coal (subbituminous) 213 Diesel fuel & heating oil 161 Gasoline 156 Propane 139 Natural gas 117