I've biked in Copenhagen and in Mountain View, and I'd say both are head and shoulders above my hometown of Los Angeles which is in turn lightyears ahead of most American cities. Between the great weather, bike boulevards, bike lanes, dedicated bike trails, and wide shoulders, Mountain View can hardly get any better. The difference to Copenhagen is in the cost of owning a car and the population density (i.e. average distance from home to work). I don't think adding more bike infrastructure is going to move the needle on ridership in silicon valley.
Google Wants to Make Silicon Valley as Bike-Friendly as Copenhagen
201–210 of 345 posts
Re: Google Wants to Make Silicon Valley as Bike-Friendly as Copenhagen
#202I applaude this effort. I think many people discount how capable they are of making the switch to commuting via bike to work. Almost any commute less then 10 miles can easily be done via bike, and making a "safe" route to connect the metro area is a great first step. The unfortunate situation is that if you are over 10 miles to your office ( which many are ) you will have a hard time making that commute in a acceptab…
> The unfortunate situation is that if you are over 10 miles to your office ( which many are ) you will have a hard time making that commute in a acceptable amount of time, unless you actually make an effort at going fast. OR, unless you get an eBike. Which, while more expensive than a regular bike, are still vastly cheaper to purchase and operate than a car. A good pre-built eBike will probably sell in the $1000-200…
The prices on ebikes are still ridiculous. They cost more than a lightly used 300cc motorcycle that can go 100 mph and sips gasoline.
Re: Google Wants to Make Silicon Valley as Bike-Friendly as Copenhagen
#203but who was amsterdam?
Re: Google Wants to Make Silicon Valley as Bike-Friendly as Copenhagen
#204Earlier quoted context omitted.
It snows quite heavily in Minnesota, so during much of the year those sidewalks would be unusable or hazardous.
As would the roads without the maintenance that everybody always seems to completely forget about .
Ah, but you see, roads are important. Sidewalks are for what, walking? So basically playing around.
Re: Google Wants to Make Silicon Valley as Bike-Friendly as Copenhagen
#205Earlier quoted context omitted.
> dismantlement of motorvehicle-related infrastructure. Whether it is turning car lanes into bike lanes, Yes, it turns out we overbuilt streets and under-built bike infrastructure so now we have to reclaim some car lanes to create bike lanes instead. This is not the end of the world. > reducing available parking in new constructions Reducing the required parking in construction doesn't eliminate parking in new constr…
The infrastructure issue isn't so simple. In my local we are in a real estate boom. There are many groups claiming that cars will not be so prominent in the near future. That view is taken onboard by zoning people when deciding on new buildings. Rather than demand sufficient parking spots and upgrades to roads and mass transit, developers are allowed pretend that a large number of residents will bike to work. That me…
> The infrastructure issue isn't so simple.
It's really not that complicated though
> In my local we are in a real estate boom.
Congrats.
> There are many groups claiming that cars will not be so prominent in the near future.
So say we all.
> That view is taken onboard by zoning people when deciding on new buildings.
Good
> Rather than demand sufficient parking spots and upgrades to roads and mass transit,
Define sufficient? Many municipalities have historically had rules requiring 1 parking spot per 2 bedrooms, minimum 1 per unit. This adds a strange externality which changes the types of developments that are built. Upgrading roads isn't under the purview of the developer. Upgrading mass transit is similarly under the purview of the local government, not the developer.
> developers are allowed pretend that a large number of residents will bike to work. That means larger condo blocks with poorer connections, harming bikes, cars and transit.
Again, this really isn't the developers fault.
> There are a few "green" office blocks around here without any parking spots. So employees park on the street, annoying local business who want those spots used by customers.
The local governments should start charging more for parking then. Clearly parking is under-priced if people can park their all day.
> This is similar to the "elder housing" theory
It's really not like that at all. The "theory" here is that people won't buy a car because owning a car will be unnecessary or too expensive.
> In fact, old people go to lots of appointments,
Appointments that they probably shouldn't be driving to
>have carers that don't live with them,
Which if scheduled correctly shouldn't require 1 parking space per resident.
> are often visited by large numbers of family members.
Again, this is more a scheduling problem. Every resident's family doesn't need a dedicated parking spot every day.
> It's just a scam by developers to squeeze more condos into a given space without upgrading infrastructure.
I'd say that drivers and car companies have been running a scam for the past 50 years. Everyone got so used to their underutilized highways and ample parking that everyone bought a car. Unfortunately, as the population grew and got more dense that's not a reasonable status quo anymore, so either, we have to figure out how to fit more cars into less space, or we have to accept that the heyday of cars cars cars is over and learn to live without them.
Re: Google Wants to Make Silicon Valley as Bike-Friendly as Copenhagen
#206I applaude this effort. I think many people discount how capable they are of making the switch to commuting via bike to work. Almost any commute less then 10 miles can easily be done via bike, and making a "safe" route to connect the metro area is a great first step. The unfortunate situation is that if you are over 10 miles to your office ( which many are ) you will have a hard time making that commute in a acceptab…
I don't want to show up to work sweaty. And I want the utility of a vehicle if my plans change. So I'll drive regardless.
You're welcome to your opinion. I bike 8 miles each way in Silicon Valley with a backpack on my back. I ride in a t-shirt and jeans (unless it's really hot, in which case I wear shorts).
I ride moderately hard, so I arrive with a bit of sweat on my body and on my face. Sometimes I wipe the sweat off my face with a paper towel.
10 mins in my air-conditioned cube and I'm back to normal temp, all dried off, and merino t-shirts don't smell.
Driving a car is convenient, sure. My bike commute to work takes about twice as long as driving on 101, though my commute home is often about the same, time-wise due to traffic.
I enjoy the bike ride more, for the most part. Occasionally I wish I had a car. Once I had vertigo so I called an Uber to take me to the urgent care. If I had a car, I would have driven, but that's probably not the best shape to be in while driving a motor vehicle.
So I suppose you'll trade sitting in traffic for the convenience of having a car on the rare occasion you need one. You're welcome to the choice.
I welcome the addition of more bike infrastructure.
Re: Google Wants to Make Silicon Valley as Bike-Friendly as Copenhagen
#207Earlier quoted context omitted.
I love this comment because it illustrates perfectly the cognitive dissonance going on. People everywhere talk about how drivers in their area are like, so, so bad, but nobody ever suggests that we halt investing in car infrastructure until they get better. And that's a good thing: you don't stop investing in a vital public good just because it's sometimes abused. That applies to bikes as much as cars.
I have far more problems with bikers in the area than cars - the close encounter rate is quite high, largely because a lot of bikers don't have good control over their bikes or because they don't care at all about pedestrians and are willing to run them over to force them out of the way. I'm quite amazed I haven't been hit by a biker yet to be honest, some even talking on their cellphones held in one hand while drivi…
> I'd be more sympathetic towards bikers if they didn't decrease the quality of getting from one place to another for pedestrians & harass when they decided to not follow laws & rules there for good reason.
Fine, but do you know how you get nice, polite cyclists like in Denmark or the Netherlands? You give them good infrastructure so it doesn't feel like they have to break the rules!
If there were no pedestrian signals and no sidewalks, do you think pedestrians would be as well-behaved as they are today?
> You act like being pedestrian friendly isn't a vital public good - I'd argue it is more important than being bike friendly, and if being bike friendly has a logical result in making it much more perilous for a pedestrian (and I'd fear for those with babies in baby carriages), one needs to consider that the current system does not work, and this problem needs to be solved either before or alongside the bike friendly problem.
Again, you have it backwards: Most people on bikes will gladly stay off the sidewalk if there is equivalently safe-feeling infrastructure available. But a painted bike lane does not feel safe, not unless it's a traffic-calmed street. Making better bike lanes means fewer collisions between pedestrians and cyclists, not more.
Re: Google Wants to Make Silicon Valley as Bike-Friendly as Copenhagen
#208I just biked last evening from downtown San Jose to the southern vicinity of the Google campus. There are two main options: Central Expressway or something close and parallel to it, which I've declined. Or trails near the bay shore, which is what I chose. Bad choice. The trails are for the most part unpaved. Riding my sleek, rigid road bike on those things was torture. Never again. If those trails were paved, that wo…
Man! You guys are a bunch of complainers! I second the get-an appropriate bike line of thinking. I have a basic CX bike with a steel fork and wider tires. Riding on gravel or dirt roads isn't as fast as paved roads, but I'd hardly call it torture.
> Man! You guys are a bunch of complainers! I second the get-an appropriate bike line of thinking.
This line of thinking got us fleets of gas guzzling SUVs and crumbling infrastructure because people didn't want to pay their road taxes after buying too much car.
Re: Google Wants to Make Silicon Valley as Bike-Friendly as Copenhagen
#209Earlier quoted context omitted.
It snows quite heavily in Minnesota, so during much of the year those sidewalks would be unusable or hazardous.
Are the roads unusable? I'm guessing not; you can clear sidewalks too - central European countries seem to use a small snowplough for the pavements (ie sidewalks), the snow is ploughed on to the road, the road plough lifts the snow to a truck and it's trucked away.
Here in the US it's typical for every house to be responsible for its own sidewalk. So everybody gets it done somehow, by hand, or with a gas powered snowblower, or they hire a service. The same people who mow lawns in the summer, clear snow in the winter. Where the land is public-owned, e.g., parks, the city brings a little machine that's the same width as the sidewalks. Its main attraction is a heated cabin for the driver.
We share a snowblower with our neighbor, but it takes a pretty good snowfall for the machine to be quicker than my shovel. The city plows the streets.
Re: Google Wants to Make Silicon Valley as Bike-Friendly as Copenhagen
#210Earlier quoted context omitted.
> dismantlement of motorvehicle-related infrastructure. Whether it is turning car lanes into bike lanes, Yes, it turns out we overbuilt streets and under-built bike infrastructure so now we have to reclaim some car lanes to create bike lanes instead. This is not the end of the world. > reducing available parking in new constructions Reducing the required parking in construction doesn't eliminate parking in new constr…
The infrastructure issue isn't so simple. In my local we are in a real estate boom. There are many groups claiming that cars will not be so prominent in the near future. That view is taken onboard by zoning people when deciding on new buildings. Rather than demand sufficient parking spots and upgrades to roads and mass transit, developers are allowed pretend that a large number of residents will bike to work. That me…
> So employees park on the street, annoying local business who want those spots used by customers.
The logical thing to do is to then price those street parking spots at a market rate. If there aren't enough, some enterprising developer will build off-street parking to make a profit. If that doesn't happen, it's likely because people in cars aren't actually willing to pay for a parking spot based on how valuable the land is.