Business Parks Suck (but they don't have to)

This video might be relevant to your described scenario: ▶ this video Notice how in The Netherlands, despite making bikes, transit, and pedestrians welcome in this suburban business park near the airport, you can still drive there if you want. Yes, if you lived in The Netherlands, you could drive to this business park shown in the video in your personal vehicle. There's a parking garage right there, and even though the infrastructure is pedestrian and bicycle focused and prioritized, the cars don't have to wait long at the traffic signal or endure crazy traffic. Why is that? Because there are fewer cars. Why are there fewer cars? Because there are viable alternatives. Essentially, having better public transit, pedestrian, and cycling infrastructure actually makes life better for drivers, too! The thing is, in North America, in most places you don't actually have any sort of choice on whether you want to drive or not. If you don't drive, your entire environment is hostile to your very existence, and public transit is just for the poor and desperate. You must buy a car whether you want to or not. That's not really choice or freedom. You're saying that you would choose a personal vehicle, but does that choice have the potential to change if the surrounding circumstances change? So, it's perfectly fine that you'd prefer to own an automobile. You're free to pay the close to $10,000 a year it costs for the average person to own a new car according to AAA. I personally wouldn't make that

This "Not Just Bikes" video[1] recently on YouTube makes a similar case for generic concrete business parks in the USA and Canada compared to one in the Netherlands. That nobody with any choice wants to live or work there, that they are full of hostile in-between space and strictly segregated from housing and shopping by 6-lane roads, and inhuman feeling. Designed with car access as the priority and bus access as an afterthought and without pedestrian or cycle access at all, as if the only reasons to be 'outside' at all are driving or parking. The Netherlands one in the video has dedicated roads for busses which get priority over cars at traffic lights, dedicated paths for bikes and pedestrians which get priority over busses and cars at traffic lights and are separate from the roads so people aren't walking right by vehicles, and a train station. It has narrow car lanes with both directions separated with an easier pedestrian crossing experience, floodwater management integrated as a nice looking canal feature rather than as a storm drain by a road; pretty building design and path design to make a more pleasant environment to walk in, and buildings having large and accessible entrances for pedestrians without forcing them to cross bits of mud or large expanses of car park. [1] ▶ this video

Or, you know, DO put offices in dense city cores, say within 5-15 minutes of a train station. (that or telecommute). ▶ this video And, a lot more stations are within say a 15 minute reach if you use a bike O:-) link

Eh, that's a pretty big vehicle. Does that still actually count as a _car_? ;-) It's fine for regular European or Japanese vehicles, of course. But... people do drive American trucks like that out in the countryside as utility vehicles. Where there's a bit of room to maneuver, it can be done. And of course, outside Amsterdam city center: you've got all-paved-roads even in the countryside (well maintained with few potholes), reasonable speed limits, highways that stay dry even when it rains, traffic lights that let you through the moment they see you coming (at an empty intersection at least), traffic jam detector systems, highway entrances and exits that you can take on cruise control -as opposed to trying to kill you- (I'm looking at you, Germany ;-) ), and much much more! * ( link "The Best Country in the World for Drivers" ) * ▶ this video (business parks... people in the comments were kind of riled up about this particular traffic light. Would work fine with an F150 ;-) )

> Public transit is no good. It's easy and convenient: • ▶ this video • link > I don’t want to walk to a station and then share the space with other people. I don’t want to lug grocery bags around. Alright, use a bicycle then. I hear ebikes are pretty good these days. Or use a micro car if you must: link . > I want to make pit stops. A bicycle is better than a car for this. > I want to go off road. Bicycle again, but if you really wanna use a car the few times a year you may wanna go off road, go ahead. > Want to live in the suburbs or semi rural areas so I can have a lot of land. By all means, go ahead. Just as long as you pay in full for all the negative externalities you inflict on everyone else by doing so.

So the actual challenge is to convince those car drivers that they really should be pushing for more bike lanes, since it really is in their best interest. O:-) For more arguments than can fit in this margin, see: link "The Best Country in the World for Drivers" (edit: +if you don't have time for an entire video, just watch this one traffic light for single example that exemplifies the story: ▶ this video ... comments on that video are good too!)

Well, I'm not saying "go ahead and build parking the exact same size as a Walmart parking lot right behind everything and all our problems are solved." And I'm advocating for a holistic solution here: doing things like restricting the location/size of parking in addition to other measures. They all work together. Nobody's going to walk/cycle if all the pieces aren't in place. Remember this also: You don't have to eliminate cars to reduce trips and lessen dependency. The choice on whether to use a vehicle can be left up to the individual, but if there is no realistic choice then the end result will be that the spaces we see in our lives will be maximized for vehicular use rather than a more balanced paradigm. Great example is this business park in the Netherlands, where it's really obviously built quite well for cars with ample parking, it's nowhere near the city center, but it doesn't exclude people from getting there other ways. So, there's still a lot of space used for car-based infrastructure, but it's not anywhere near 100% car usage like you'd see in an American suburban business park: ▶ this video Let's say that Walmart builds 500 parking spaces when there is no realistic hope of walking, but what if there was a frequent bus line stopping right in front of it, housing in close proximity, and separated bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure that felt safe and inviting. Would they build those same 500 parking spaces on their own free will (with more of them sitting empty) or wo

They're going quite a few miles on bike alone. 30-60 min commutes are not uncommon. Kids, Adults, Seniors. Hot or cold, rain or shine. The time culture is similar to Germany: you have to be punctual. This means you need to leave on time in order to arrive on time. As a general rule in real-world traffic: Speeding might not actually help you arrive all that much quicker, you just feel like you do. An objective instrument (such as a GPS) may well inform you otherwise. Also, on a bike: if you're traveling longer distances, you need to pace yourself, lest you run out of steam half-way. The infrastructure is good though, in municipal zones the cycle distance (and time!) can often be shorter than the car-distance; because bikes can take more short-cuts and are easier to park. And for longer distances it's possible to eg. park your bike at a station and continue by bus or train. link <- bike parking. ▶ this video <- start of video narrates a commuting trip (bike+train) to a business park near Amsterdam. [edit] link <- a commute with more biking in it