[baiskeli]

@DismalScientist 9843 wrote:

Sorry, I was less than concise. I don’t know anyone who has to live in Loudoun. I would imagine people choose to live there given their relative valuation of commuting costs, relative amenities (lawn, lack of people riding carbon bikes in full kit when they can be riding a classic steel bike with shifters on the downtube as God intended, (OOPS, that came out?) etc), housing costs, job locations, etc.

Sure, and I’m saying that for some, the suburbs come out ahead because the alternatives are so rare. There isn’t much higher-density development to choose, and what is there is expensive for that reason. They may make the best choice for them given the choices, but the choices are limited.

I don’t see how smart growth lowers housing prices in Arlington so that people in Loudoun would choose differently.

You don’t see how someone living in an Apartment or condo in Arlington, perhaps not even owning or rarely using a car, could live cheaper than a standard home in Arlington?

If you mean that these people would choose to live in the high density areas afforded by smart growth, then there is a profit opportunity for high density development in Arlington and it doesn’t need to be encouraged by government.

Ah, but that goes right back to the point – development is inextricably linked to transportation. The government needs to provide the mode of transportation that makes high density development work. And of course there’s other things like zoning involved, to name just one of many factors. There is no pure free market involved here.

By the way, I’ve never debated a real economist and it’s scaring the hell out of me!

[baiskeli]

@WillStewart 9833 wrote:

Welcome to the destructive effect of the influence of money in politics. If you are chagrined by this as well, you may want to attend this event this Saturday.

I don’t think you understood his point.

Here’s how the voters can stop installing politicians who work against their interests: stop installing politicians who work against their interests!

Oh well, here I am dragged into this too.

[baiskeli]

@DismalScientist 9828 wrote:

“Smart growth” as you have defined it is a hybrid solution: increasing density in some places and letting development spill out in others.

No, I think it means when you increase density in one place, you don’t have to have as much development spill out, because the demand has gone down. For instance, some people who would have to live in Loudoun County can now live in Arlington if they want to.

I imagine opponents of Smart Growth would characterize it just increasing density.

You mean increasing density and STOPPING all other development? No, few would say that.

We shall see if the Silver line is a mistake or not. I don’t know what the ridership will look like, but with the tolls on the DTR increasing imposing a tax on drivers, it will be interesting to see the reaction. (I’m glad I don’t live off route 7!)

I hope it works.

[baiskeli]

@DismalScientist 9823 wrote:

Gee…. It seems mighty short-sighted of the voters out there to allow such politicians to be installed against the voters’ self interests.

Oh, boy, now you hit on another issue dear to me, but one with which I agree with you completely! But I’m not wading into this one.

[baiskeli]

@DismalScientist 9820 wrote:

True enough. Without increasing density, it is difficult to develop transit systems. The problem is that many people do not want to live in dense areas.

I’m not so sure about that.

Some people don’t, sure. But we don’t need all of them to for all of us to benefit. Certainly we have no trouble fillling the apartments and condos in the dense areas of Arlington, and elsewhere.

Do people want to limit geographic growth and bear the costs of increasing density; do people want to limit population growth in an area, thereby reducing economic opportunity and local asset values and forcing population growth issues to other areas; or do people want let things go on as they are and bear the increased congestion and infrastructure costs? I don’t think there is a political consensus in this area and I think proponent of various positions tend to discount these inherent tradeoffs.

I think you’re offering another false dilemma. We don’t have to force limits on growth or population. That’s why the term “smart growth” was coined. We can offer the choice of high density or not, with the choice of transportation modes that go with that, and let people choose what they want. Right now, we put far too many resources into the low-density, car-dependent side. Enough people will choose high-density, and this will benefit those who want to drive around too by getting them off the roads and easing development pressure in the hinterlands. And when it comes to public policy, that means not constantly throwing money at widening or building new highways all the time, for one thing.

We are building a huge Metro line along the I-66 corridor right now. That’s a good choice, and we’ve already made it.

[baiskeli]

@DismalScientist 9812 wrote:

But population growth almost implies per capita growth in person miles if all that growth means an expanded developed area (i.e. it is all not increased density). It’s hard to model, but as the developed area grows, the distance between home and some interesting destination for the average person must grow, implying greater travel per person.

Yes, that’s exactly what I’m saying. And that’s why as a city grows, cars and roads become a less sustainable mode of travel. Congestion increases, even if you try to accommodate it with new roads, because each additional person requires even more of a share of road capacity than the person before did. I think your dismal science term for it is “diminishing returns.”

So you have to start to change both the development and the transportation modes that serve it, which go hand in hand of course and feed into each other. If you just keep adding low-density, road-dependent development to meet population growth, you’d end up with suburbs stretching into West Virginia. Those people aren’t going to be able to get around by car any faster even without any congestion, simply because they live too damn far away. They’ll still spend an hour or two on the road every day, doesn’t matter if they are going 60 mph on congestion-free roads.

[baiskeli]

@DismalScientist 9807 wrote:

I’ll give my own cite: http://mobility.tamu.edu/files/2011/10/complete-data.xls

The data show that freeway lane miles per capita increased by 20% from 1982 to 1990 and have since fallen to 1982 levels Per capita arterial lane miles have fallen 30% from 1982 to 2010.

Hey! You beat me.

Okay, I did a little calculating too, and yes, it increased but then fell to 1982 levels – meaning overall it kept up with population growth since 1982, just as I said.

Yet congestion has greatly increased since 1982. So that discounts population growth outpacing roads as a cause of the increase in congestion in that period. (With the caveat that the DC data collection region has added a few outer counties in that time).

Now divide daily vehicle miles traveled by population for each year, giving you the average number of miles each person travels in a car. That has grown by 47% since 1982. That’s a huge increase.

So if I’m doing the math right, it looks to me like the problem isn’t population growth, but the fact that people simply drive more.

[baiskeli]

@DismalScientist 9801 wrote:

1) Cite please?

This is the report I got the data from:

http://mobility.tamu.edu/ums/

I don’t have what I extracted from it now though. If you’re interested you could look, but I won’t expect you to accept my assertion just by throwing you a link.

As I recall, the data showed major highway lanes growing at about the same rate as population over the last two decades, but with vehicle-miles traveled per person growing by more than 50%. I believe that this reflects development patterns – people live further out and have to drive further to get to their jobs, and the outer suburban developments are more car-dependent so they don’t have alternative modes to get to work or anywhere else. (It also probably reflects greater wealth.)

To be fair, the metro areas used to measure all these things changed over time, bringing outer, more rural counties into the data.

I will try to dig out my data, I saved it somewhere, or go find it again on this report. My data were from a couple years ago. You can download a spreadsheet with all the data and mess with it.

2) Not sure I agree with you on this, but it is a matter of opinion.

Yes. As long as we both know that we’re likely to get one or the other.

3) Exactly my point. I would much rather have a three lane traffic jam on I-66 than a two-lane traffic jam on I-66 and a traffic jam on Washington Blvd. The argument is even better if they don’t expand the bridges, because that way you don’t get added traffic from making easier to actually get from DC from Fairfax by car.

Sure, but it’s more complicated than that, for instance, we could deal with the problem by taking more cars off the road in the first place and not have to choose between those two. We are building a Metro line out to the west as we speak, for instance.

[baiskeli]

@DismalScientist 9799 wrote:

2) Stupidity and ignorance is observationally indistinguishable. I don’t want to argue that I am smarter or more informed than people making decisions in what I presume is their view of their self-interest.
The argument explicity states that people are not acting at the expense of others, but rather are acting against their own stated self-interest.

You’re right, your science is dismal!

All I mean to say is that what appears to be the best choice isn’t always the simplest or most intuitive. That’s not arrogant or superior. Problems can have objective solutions (thought maybe not this one) and nobody has perfect information or knowledge.

Also, people naturally think of solutions for themselves, but don’t factor in the fact that everyone else has the same idea, rendering their idea not so effective. People used to move to the suburbs to “escape traffic.” They forgot that everyone else was going to move there to escape too. And on top of that, now they’re all further from their jobs and living in places where it’s harder to get around without driving.

Thanks for providing a countervailing view on this interesting issue by the way – a bunch of people agreeing on everything would be boring as heck.

[baiskeli]

@StopMeansStop 9795 wrote:

Wheel is centered. Linky goes to brake

http://www.jensonusa.com/store/product/BR307B00-Tektro+Cr720+Cantilever+Brake.aspx

Ah, cantilever brakes.

The solution is to buy a new bike.

Failing that, does the cable that pulls them together (the straddle wire) connect with a bolt to the main cable, or is it loose and wrapped around a little metal yoke attached to the main cable? If it is attached by a bolt, adjusting the position of that bolt may do the trick. It doesn’t show the straddle wire in the picture, but in a review on that site, someone writes “straddlewire can be set not to slide on the clamp.” So it sounds like it can be done, maybe even if it uses a yoke.

Or does it look like this?

http://www.treefortbikes.com/images/raw/TFB10_BR7462-2.jpg

In this picture, the bolt on the right brake lets you adjust the length of the straddle wire and therefore the total space from rim to pads to work with. The top bolt adjusts brake tension, but that will also affect the spacing. The two lower ones hold the straddle wire in the place where you get the right space on each side. You’d probably need to keep working on all these bolts a few times to get it just right. Also, a pivot bolt may need to be loosened to tightened to equalize the tension when the brakes are resting – maybe one is simply stuck too tight. And the distance the pad sticks out from the brake arm may also be adjustable. To get the adjustment right, you may need to hold the other side of a bolt with a wrench, since the cable or arm may move as you turn it.

Best to adjust and then ride a little and squeeze the brakes, then adjust again if necessary, since they sometimes kind of settle into a new spot after use.

Hope I’m not telling you something you don’t already know.

[baiskeli]

@DismalScientist 9794 wrote:

The DC area has certainly not kept up with road building to match population growth.

Look at the numbers from the Texas Transportation Institute.

Not that I am advocating it do so. All I am saying is that expanding I-66 within the walls is the least-cost way (especially to Arlington) of expanding the transportation network. Furthermore, the deal restricting I-66 has only exacerbated its detrimental effects on Arlington.

Okay. I was just responding to your other comments.

As far are the development statement, I was responding to a comment suggesting that Westover would be destroyed by development caused by widening 66. baiskeli, you live across the freeway from me. Do you really think that development associated with widening the highway is a greater threat to neighborhood than the potential Clarendonation caused by development spurred by Metro?

No, I’m saying I’d much rather have more Clarendon than more freeway.

P.S. My house already is only a block from the highway. Traffic on Washington Blvd bothers me a lot more than traffic on I-66.

And I understand your point about traffic diversion. It’s a legitimate point, though I’m not sure it’s as big a factor as you do. And as I think someone mentioned, without systemwide improvements like widening the bridges, widening I-66 just moves the chokepoints so that you have a 3-lane traffic jam instead of a 2-lane one.

[baiskeli]

@DismalScientist 9788 wrote:

Given the apparent unanimity of opposition to my position, it must be obvious to all that relaxing restrictions on transportation networks only leads to greater congestion through induced demand.

We could keep going with arguments in the extreme though, like this: Arlington would be paradise if I-66 were 14 lanes wide.

Yet there are people from the outer suburbs that still advocate paving the world, even though this leads to less throughput. I can only infer from this series of arguments that people from the outer suburbs are inherently stupid. Or… Perhaps adding more pavement does not, in fact, increase net congestion.

False dilemma. They may not be stupid. They could be simply misinformed, or relying on faulty or incomplete knowledge, or acting on their own interests to the expense of others. And their views don’t prove anything anyway. Pavement affects congestion a certain way regardless of how people think it does or doesn’t.

As you know, individuals sometimes act in their own rational self-interest in ways that result in hurting their interests when their individual actions are taken collectively.

[baiskeli]

@dasgeh 9744 wrote:

@WillStewart: Love the waistband analogy. Mind if I use it?

Will “stole” it himself!

[baiskeli]

@DismalScientist 9737 wrote:

Growth in the area causes more traffic. If interchanges are available in areas where people want to get off and on a freeway, traffic is likely to be congested around those interchanges. Is this a function of the highway, or growth in commercial and residential areas with access to transportation? If growth is restricted in one area, will it just go to another area?

It’s not just growth that matters, it’s what kind of growth.

Car-dependent growth certainly adds more traffic. If you look at the numbers, the DC area has more or less kept up its road-building to match population growth. What has grown is miles traveled by car per person. That’s because they have to live further out and they live in car-dependent communities.

As far as houses being destroyed by development, it normally leaves the previous homeowners with a big wad of money in their pockets, so that is fine by me.

Sure, it’s not your house. But remember, if the house next to you goes but yours ends up next to a highway, you get nothing.

[baiskeli]

@StopMeansStop 9762 wrote:

My front brake pads are not equidistant from the rim. One pad is extremely close to the rim and buzzes all the time. My LBS seems unable or unwilling to do what it takes to correct this. I’d like to figure out how to fix this myself. Any suggestion on where I can take this and get me some education?

Thanks

We need to know what kind of brakes. Can you pick them out from here? There are pictures: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_brake#Types_of_rim_brakes

[Author]

Posts