The requirement is the problem. Why would you force someone who cannot use a parking spot to pay for one? It’s a waste of money and resources that could go into many other things, like buying a bigger condo!

Storage pods don’t make up for it, and it’s illegal for good reasons (fire and health hazard).

Instead of developing a car spot only to redevelop it for another use, just build what you want at the start.

So you’d rather force blind, epileptic, vertigo, mobility impaired and many other suffering people to pay more on essential living needs for utilities that they cannot ethically or legally use?

Don’t worry. Gas taxes have gone up, but it’s for cars. Gov. Newsom doesn’t want paths for walking and biking.

https://www.calbike.org/californias-transportation-spending-has-the-wrong-priorities/

I completely agree. A fool and their money are soon parted. :)

This bike doesn’t exist yet. The pictures are renders and for marketing, like this article. Heck, maybe that’s why there’s a press release. They’re getting public feedback without locking in specific design details.

Given they have Gary Fisher onboard, I’d be very surprised if they launch without any method to mount accessories.

They probably don’t mention range because it’s not possible to know, particularly with bleeding edge battery tech, without a pre-production run and testing. Although I wouldn’t expect it to be shorter than typical ebike distance. Solid-state batteries promise really good energy density. Also short range at a $3k price tag would be a very hard sell.

Fast charging would be useful in touring and bikepacking; a lunch stop becomes a fresh battery. Already the one-wheel community run rides where they adapt car chargers to outlets mid-ride for their group’s one-wheels.

A new gas motorbike in Vietnam is less than 1,000 USD. Used ones go for a few hundred USD. Or at least it was when I was visiting Vietnam last year.

Ray Delahanty has a slightly different take (“reductive” is what he calls the above). It’s worth a watch/listen if this topic intrigues you.

$200 to Escape Suburban Sprawl for a Day

I drop by Pike Place on a regular basis. Even before the current car ban, it was near impossible to drive through. Pedestrians would flow out onto the street because the sidewalks and inside of the market was packed. Sometimes even due to lines for some of the popular shops. And sometimes it was me blocking your drive because screw that noise, I’m walking here!

This summer with the car ban it has been even more popular and crowded, with fewer shoulders and elbows getting in the way. IMHO, this project has already been successful. Great job, Seattleites! :)

Also new in the area is the rebuild of Alaskan Way. It’s much nicer than ever before, plus the aquarium got a new building.

So long as you don’t die from that fistful of rat poison, correlating to a economy that survives to another day, then yes, you could eat that poison! It would be very bad idea and may leave you maimed, but it would be possible. Furthermore, it’s more poison than you are currently consuming (at least I hope you’re not eating rat poison). I’m not sure why one would but if someone paid you to eat some poison, you certainly could do that transaction and I could say there’s been an increase of rat-poison-eater supply.

Economics may be strange but it’s not a value judgement on what we do. It’s just a way of modeling and understanding how a society handles goods and services. Invoking economic arguments like the tragedy of the commons requires understanding consumption of public resources and what that does to the resources. Parking doesn’t fit the argument because the supply curve does not change over time due to the pressure of strong demand. Parking can be refurbished, unlike a common livestock pasture. Parking supply can be increased by building on infertile land, up, or down, where a common livestock pasture cannot. A common livestock pasture can be consumed to the point where it cannot supply anymore (becoming infertile). A parking spot does not get consumed beyond a point to where it no longer functions as a parking spot.

Parking is not subject to the tragedy of the commons.

In an economic sense, it’s not limited. Land is limited and there are oh so many negative externalities*, but we haven’t paved over everything, there’s more than enough bitumen and agate to level the world, and you can always dig or go up. We are nowhere near close to being unable to build one more parking spot. It’d be a hellscape, but it’d be one with plenty of parking.

• Some more unfun things when building parking: heat island effect, surface permeabilities, strip mining for agate, drilling for bitumen, carbon emissions in moving it all, unfair and unsafe construction practices in this country, and the list goes on.

Parking is not a finite and limited resource. Road surfaces can, and regularly are, refurbished and established. That’s why parking is not a tragedy; it’s not a resource that is lost forever.

I think you do bring up a good point though: who pays for parking lots and street parking when it does need help? Is it only the home owner in front of the street or is it a general fund expense from local sales taxes? Double points if you can answer who is then allowed to park in that publicly-paid parking spot.

Tragedy of the commons doesn’t apply to parking because the parking still exists after exploitation. The public utility must degrade (the parking spots disappear after using them) for the tragedy of the commons to apply.

DrunkEgnineer is correct: in a free market with two prices for the same item, the one with the lowest price will be sold first. There was plenty of free on-street parking, so the paid parking was not preferentially picked.

Parking rules can also be enforced with money and not who owns the private property next to the public property. That is, charge for street parking at the supply-demand equilibrium.

Go Colorado! It’s a lovely place with good brews and views alike.

Meanwhile, California…

Is still fucking it up. Here’s a recent near-screw-up near me: Mike Swire fought highway widening, so asphalt-addicted bullies want him kicked off the San Mateo Transportation Authority Community Advisory Committee.

Just a reminder that good infrastructure is not an engineering problem. It’s a political one.

If Dallas Texas can abolish parking mandates to improve housing and small business, so can you!

Removing roads decreases congestion: Braess’ paradox

Roads for private cars are generally overbuilt and run directly into Braess’ paradox. E.g. Five years after Sepulveda Pass widening, travel times on the 405 keep getting worse.

That’s great to know. I’ll keep that in mind when I need a new set of tires.

Not taking advantage of free street parking is crazy. Think of all that extra storage and space in your garage when you don’t have to park in it!

Only 500Wh with two tanks? That’s, at most, parity with a single lithium-ion battery e-bike; for the same weight too.

The 38 tires should really help on the rougher paths. Maybe I’ll pick them up when I wear out my current set.

I haven’t tried the front rack yet. Not out of dislike but because I usually pack nothing or way too much. 🤣

Same goes with fenders. I haven’t installed them, and probably won’t. It’s too sunny where I’m from.

The frame is made in Vietnam. The quality is alright, not amazing but certainly appropriate for the price point. No issues with it so far and better than some frames I’ve seen from the PRC.

It can roll without a rolling rack, but not easily. Good enough for a few feet here and there. I suggest going for the rolling rack if you want to push it around train platforms and such. The saddle is padded on the underside though. It’s nice when going up stairs.

One more thing: the drive train is exposed when folded. Watch out for dirty chains and be careful when loading it into a car. It’s easy to damage the derailleur hanger or disk brake if it tips over. Support the bike with a box or tie it down when transporting it.