Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That article says they get a "snow deck" 24 days per year on average. That's not much?
Not to me. Another quote, for those who won't open the link.
Traffic. Although there often isn’t a lot of snowfall at once Dutch don’t seem the handle weather changes well. The snow has a significant impact on social life and causes traffic problems. The police have been busy with a number of weather related accidents. Even Dutch rail networks can be severely affected and bus traffic goes down when snow fall is too heavy. The trams and the metros can’t possible run anymore, and the city likes to give the appearance of being unable to cope. You might think it is nice to get a real winter for a change, but the Dutch love to moan and groan about it.
And here is their definition of a "snow deck":
When snow stays we call it a snow deck. Officially there is a snow deck if half of the scanned area is covered with at least 0,4 inch (1 centimeter) of snow for 3 hours.
That article says they get a "snow deck" 24 days per year on average. That's not much?
The standards for snow deck are low:
Officially there is a snow deck if half of the scanned area is covered with at least 0,4 inch (1 centimeter) of snow for 3 hours.
If the Netherlands are similar to England, what that means is the near constant drizzle turns to light snow overnight creating a light coat of snow the next morning that melts quickly. If it's a significant accumulation, the locals are at a loss and apocalypse ensues. When I visited Amsterdam in January, frustrated, I asked a shopkeeper "does it rain every day?!" Response, "in the winter it does". To add to the winter gloominess, sun rises at 9 am and sets at 5 pm — not that you'd see the sun much during daytime anyway. If you bike there, you need fenders. But all bikes have fenders, anyway.
I lived in upstate NY. We got real snow. And I still biked in the winter, though a bit less.
Except that it rarely snows at all, it sounds a lot like Seattle. Dark And drizzle all winter. While not as nice as sunny and 70, it's perfectly acceptable for biking with fenders. And plenty do.
I saw a lot of winter cyclists in Chicago and I know that it's popular in Minneapolis as well. Obviously not as popular as summer, but those Midwesterners are tough!
I do not think winter is a reason not to invest in bicycle infrastructure.
Not to me. Another quote, for those who won't open the link.
Traffic. Although there often isn’t a lot of snowfall at once Dutch don’t seem the handle weather changes well. The snow has a significant impact on social life and causes traffic problems. The police have been busy with a number of weather related accidents. Even Dutch rail networks can be severely affected and bus traffic goes down when snow fall is too heavy. The trams and the metros can’t possible run anymore, and the city likes to give the appearance of being unable to cope. You might think it is nice to get a real winter for a change, but the Dutch love to moan and groan about it.
And here is their definition of a "snow deck":
When snow stays we call it a snow deck. Officially there is a snow deck if half of the scanned area is covered with at least 0,4 inch (1 centimeter) of snow for 3 hours.
That is not a lot of snow.
I freaking hated winter this year, I think we had maybe 6 or 7 medium to large snow days, snow on the ground maybe 40 days, in Michigan at least. I can't wait until the winter weather is over, people have been complaining here as well, you do get some who say the long winter is good for the crops here though and love it.
Ah, I see. Yes hotels in downtown DC can be a bit of a ripoff. You chose well!
I hope you pedaled on the C&O canal trail on your visit. Quite nice!
Bikeshare bikes are heav-EE! But very smooth and durable.
Yup, I saw some of the prices and it was shocking. My cousin went down for the weekend before I went and stayed at a pretty fancy place in Dupont Circle, though they stayed four to a room so it wasn't too bad for three nights. I was supposed to go with someone else, but *ahem* lets just say I took me, myself and I instead....and frankly, had a great time. I did not get a chance to bike the C&O canal trail, perhaps next time I will venture further out or maybe even bring my own bike down with me. I mainly milled about the national mall/museum area, specifically from 12th/Constitution to the Tidal Basin past Jefferson Memorial, then got lost on the riverfront area and ended up getting back via everyone on this forum's FAVORITE auto-centric wasteland of an urban renewal project, L'Enfant Plaza which was just a freaky but cool place. I plan on going down again later in the year, probably with a friend and am definitely gonna get a bike again.
Here's to show how close the Twinbrook metro station is to the hotel I stayed at, my room was one floor below the "Hilton" logo
Having the car was pretty clutch though, I drove into downtown late at night and parked near the mall for some interesting nighttime photo ops, especially using my car's fresh waxed roof as a reflection
To get back on topic though: speaking of this whole American cities being broken, I found that transportation wise, DC had a pretty sweet layout which a couple of other cities could probably benefit from. I liked the balance of both wide and comprehensive roads/highways to get into and out of downtown and around the region, combined with relatively high speed heavy rail: both serve their purpose, and prove that we don't have to give up one for the other in every instance.
To get back on topic though: speaking of this whole American cities being broken, I found that transportation wise, DC had a pretty sweet layout which a couple of other cities could probably benefit from. I liked the balance of both wide and comprehensive roads/highways to get into and out of downtown and around the region, combined with relatively high speed heavy rail: both serve their purpose, and prove that we don't have to give up one for the other in every instance.
You're right to some extent, but it isn't like they planned it that way. DC was supposed to be severed several times over by freeways, but the money was put into Metro Rail instead. If it wasn't for smart, empassioned, powerful residents, a lot of what you liked about DC wouldn't have been there. Not many cities had as much success resisting interstate destruction as DC.
From Wikipedia:
Due to the freeway revolts of the 1960s, much of the proposed interstate highway system through the middle of Washington was never built. Interstate 95, the nation's major east coast highway, therefore bends around the District to form the eastern portion of the Capital Beltway. A portion of the proposed highway funding was directed to the region's public transportation infrastructure instead.[189] The interstate highways that do continue into Washington, including Interstate 66 and Interstate 395, both terminate shortly after entering the city.
To get back on topic though: speaking of this whole American cities being broken, I found that transportation wise, DC had a pretty sweet layout which a couple of other cities could probably benefit from. I liked the balance of both wide and comprehensive roads/highways to get into and out of downtown and around the region, combined with relatively high speed heavy rail: both serve their purpose, and prove that we don't have to give up one for the other in every instance.
I agree with the sweet layout bit. In response to HandsUpThumbsDown, DC is hardly a triumph of anti-freeway ideas. Interstates 395 and 695 cut through just outside the core, and Interstate 395 tunnels through the heart of downtown. Furthermore, the area where motorists have to put-put on surface streets is small - from Interstate 66 on the Potomac River there is only a 5 mile stretch before the freeway section of US 50 is reached east of downtown.
Washington grades towards my ideal freeway system - an outer beltway so that inter-city routes bypass the city coupled with freeways that feed directly into downtown but don't bisect the city (for easy access into and out of the city). I'm also a fan of burying freeways if they have to cut through urban areas. Washington also has the Metro system and heavy rail connections, so as far as US cities go it's got a sweet layout. There's definitely a lot of room for improvement with regards to congestion, but I think they've got the basics right.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei
I didn't see anywhere where he suggested cutting transportation.
If some of these anti-car types that cry induced demand whenever a new road is proposed* have their way and freeways are torn down right and left we really will be recreating Calcutta. Even though the OP didn't suggest road diets** in this topic, he did previously agree with demolishing freeways, so I have no doubt that strangling transportation is a part of the future plan. We already know about pre-existing structural demand, and latent demand is obviously finite***, and will be satisfied with a certain number of lanes. The real evil is failing to account for it in transportation planning, which leads to roads that have insufficient capacity. I don't see latent demand as a negative thing; on the contrary, building a road people like to drive on is a good thing, and increasing the mobility of people and goods is the whole point of having a transportation system. Demolishing freeways and having less transportation infrastructure in the year 2113 would represent a huge step backwards. Instead I hope that 2113 will see more mobility, more individual autonomy, and less congestion (ideally no congestion, but sadly that likely will not be the case)
*Strangely enough I never hear induced demand being used as an argument against buses, cycleways, trains, or subways - the only things that are ever in the cross-hairs are roads, cars, and drivers. Those other systems are as vulnerable to latent demand as roads are.
**Putting a congested road on a diet is like putting a malnourished man on a starvation diet. The closest road equivalent to a fat man would be a 6-lane freeway through Denali, and even then leaving the lanes alone would be cheaper than ripping them out . This of course assumes that all other things remain equal; congestion will be reduced on roads if public transit is expanded (even then removing a lane will leave you with the same amount of congestion), and putting a side street on a diet can be very successful if capacity on adjacent arterials is beefed up.
***First, there's only a certain number of trips people could make even if they do nothing but drive on roads all day. Secondly, latent demand is finite because after a certain point people will not want or need to make additional trips. If it was infinite and there was no growth in structural demand NYC would function just fine with 2-lane roads, and Fairbanks would be just as congested as it is now even if 10-lane freeways dominated the city.
Last edited by Patricius Maximus; 04-05-2013 at 08:26 PM..
*Strangely enough I never hear induced demand being used as an argument against buses, cycleways, trains, or subways - the only things that are ever in the cross-hairs are roads, cars, and drivers. Those other systems are as vulnerable to latent demand as roads are.
Yes. It's certain the NYC "T" line will be packed the week it opens, but nobody will be crying "induced demand" then.
Quote:
This of course assumes that all other things remain equal; congestion will be reduced on roads if public transit is expanded (even then removing a lane will leave you with the same amount of congestion), and putting a side street on a diet can be very successful if capacity on adjacent arterials is beefed up.
When I see "road diets" and "traffic calming" and all that, it usually means capacity on arterials is cut down and speed bumps installed on side streets. The idea is to make all those people in cars just go somewhere else. The city of College Park, MD did it on _US 1_ for crying out loud.
LOL is it that far of a mental leap to realize that induced demand of one type might be very positive, while of another type very destructive?
Yes, I would say so because I don't see it that way.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I did not get a chance to bike the C&O canal trail, perhaps next time I will venture further out or maybe even bring my own bike down with me. I mainly milled about the national mall/museum area, specifically from 12th/Constitution to the Tidal Basin past Jefferson Memorial, then got lost on the riverfront area and ended up getting back via everyone on this forum's FAVORITE auto-centric wasteland of an urban renewal project, L'Enfant Plaza 
which was just a freaky but cool place. I plan on going down again later in the year, probably with a friend and am definitely gonna get a bike again.
. This of course assumes that all other things remain equal; congestion will be reduced on roads if public transit is expanded (even then removing a lane will leave you with the same amount of congestion), and putting a side street on a diet can be very successful if capacity on adjacent arterials is beefed up.
