1nterceptor

Read the full article here:
https://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/31/op...read.html?_r=1

Geography partly explains the difference: America is spread out, while European cities predate the car. But Boston and Philadelphia have old centers too, while the peripheral sprawl in London and Barcelona mirrors that of American cities.

More important, I think, is mind-set. Take bicycles. The advent of bike lanes in some American cities may seem like a big step, but merely marking a strip of the road for recreational cycling spectacularly misses the point. In Amsterdam, nearly everyone cycles, and cars, bikes and trams coexist in a complex flow, with dedicated bicycle lanes, traffic lights and parking garages. But this is thanks to a different way of thinking about transportation.

To give a small but telling example, pointed out to me by my friend Ruth Oldenziel, an expert on the history of technology at Eindhoven University, Dutch drivers are taught that when you are about to get out of the car, you reach for the door handle with your right hand — bringing your arm across your body to the door. This forces a driver to swivel shoulders and head, so that before opening the door you can see if there is a bike coming from behind. Likewise, every Dutch child has to pass a bicycle safety exam at school. The coexistence of different modes of travel is hard-wired into the culture.

reducedfatoreo

I'll definitely use the right-hand trick next time I'm driving a car, even though I'm always checking for oncoming traffic––pedestrians, cyclists, and cars alike. Makes me happy to read that Ms. Jacobs had a deep impact somewhere, even though Mr. Moses for the most part won out on this side of the Atlantic!

genec

I think the key to the whole thing is this: Dutch drivers are taught

Bekologist

the first paragraph is very telling....

Roughstuff

while the peripheral sprawl in London and Barcelona mirrors that of American cities.


Which proves it has nothing to do with 'cheap gasoline' and 'subsidies to build roads and highways,' since gas is expensive in those places and transit is available. The occurence of sprawl and lack of small, pedestrian friendly shopping in residential areas is more a function of zoning and 'planning' agencies at the local level which prevent multifamily housing and apartments; restrict or prevent shops and stores, and require minimum lot sizes, frontages on streets, and square footage for housing.

roughstuff

UberGeek

Another thing the OP points out that is key: The intermingling of all modes of transportation.

Bikes - Cars - Trains - Buses - Car Rentals/Shares - Airplanes - Ferries

All of these have a place in the transportation infrastructure, and they all need to be intermingled, and planned for.

Bike lanes on roads will do very little good on their own. Park & Rides at central locations can entwine the Car, Bike, Plane, Train, and Rental/Share programs together; as an example.

Bikes on mass transit put the two systems together.

The US needs to start planning everything to account for multi-modal transport. I should be able to start my journey in any mode, and finish in any mode; while using the appropriate modes throughout the trip.

ie, I'm leaving tomorrow for Chicago.

I should be able to bring my luggage and bike to my airport via car, park in the lot, jump on the plane with my bags and bikes, debark at in O'Hare, grab my rental, drive to where I need to go (Or, hop on the El), and voila!

It's not so easy.

Or, inner city transport: Take my bike with me on the bus/train to work, and use my bike while I'm at work for lunch-time runs, etc.

I-Like-To-Bike

What is preventing you from doing that now? Your own car can have a rack, rent a car big enough to fit your bike or bring your bike rack (or get a folder). Voila... it IS easy.

UberGeek

You ever try to bring a bike on a plane?

Maybe a better choice would have been:

"Take the NFTA to the airport" as a start. Fat chance doing that with a bike and luggage. Or, a different city as the destination, say, Killeen, TX.

Not all cities are up there in transportation unity.

genec

Did it easily in Mexico... was a royal PITA in the states. You have to have a packing box or container in the US. (went to a bike shop and had the bike "packed.")

In Mexico, they threw it in the cargo hold and took it out at my destination (still in Mexico). I only had to let the air out of the tires... easily refilled with a pump.

BTW this was all pre 9-11... I have no idea what might happen today.

alhedges

Like ILTB said, you can do this with a folding bike. And people do this all the time; it's one of the main reasons for getting one. Earlier this summer, I: put my bike in its suitcase; drove the airport; checked the suitcase (no additional charge); flew to New Orleans; took a bus to my hotel; unpacked my bike; biked around for a week; repacked my bike; took a taxi to the airport; checked my bike; and flew home.

I-Like-To-Bike

Yes I have but it was in the 70's so there were less difficulties. Rode my Raleigh 3 speed to the Philadelphia Airport, turned the handlebars and pedals and checked the bike as a piece of baggage. Picked it up at baggage claim at O'Hare, readjusted the pedals and handlebars and rode right to the Loyola campus. I'm sure there are charges now but it can be done one way or the other at most major airlines and airports. It just may not be as convenient as you would like. And perhaps every aircraft, airline and airport in the country hasn't been modified to accommodate the dozen or so people clamoring to carry their personal bike with them on every flight.

BTW, take a guess how many people in a year would want to take a bike with them when they fly to or from Ft Hood. Two, three? Anyone who wants their bike shipped to or from there is probably getting it shipped commercially by the government.

Stubby

Getting back to the OP. If you build an infrastructure where driving a motor vehicle is the easiest and best way to get around in an urban area, then people are going to drive. It's not rocket science. If you build an infrastructure where there are choices, and all of them are cheaper then driving, lots of folks will use other methods to get around.

It's easy to get around on a bike in Denmark so people make the rational choice and use bikes. Their bicycle infrastructure is far above even the best of what we have in the USA.

Many urban areas in the USA have lousy public transportation and lousy bike infrastructure. What real choices are their if you actually need to get some where. We have what we have by design. In urban areas that are creating better conditions for bike users bike use is up. Who knew. Things are changing. Look at NYC and Chicago as up and coming bike cities, along with a bunch of other urban areas.

UberGeek

There's only a dozen or so, because it's a royal PITA... And, yes, the extra charges.

I would have taken my bike from Ft. Eustis to Ft. Hood by plane. Too much of a PITA, so I sold it in Eustis, and bought a new one in Hood. But, how about visitors? Central Texas is a gorgeous place to do mountain biking, or even just touring. No visitor will bother with the hassle.

The whole point is that people will do what is easiest. The public transportation systems in most areas of the nation are archaic, if existent at all. There is little-to-no intermingling of multi-modal transport (We seem to think in the US each system is separate).

So, it boils down to these options for travelers: Drive car to airport, park in long-term parking, get on plane, rent car at destination.

Because the other options are too much of a PITA to do.

genec

While I tend to agree with you... there are a whole bunch of bike riding folks that think that "motor vehicle infrastructure" is just fine and dandy for cyclists too and they tend to balk at any "cyclist specific infrastructure" as it is generally "substandard" and may cause legislation that removes their "right" to ride on any rode they chose.

One of these anti "cyclist specific infrastructure" folks is a gent named John Forester, who has himself declared the motor vehicle "one of the greatest inventions of the century." His method of Effective Cycling is that cyclists should act and be treated as drivers of vehicles and avail themselves of the roadways as they exist.

geo8rge

Nope. In the US of A high density living is actually illegal in most places due to zoning laws.

genec

And yet dense down town areas exist, condo buildings exist, apartment buildings exist... perhaps the only places such zoning laws are in effect is in suburbs.

mikeybikes

Denver's zoning code used to include maximum densities for different neighborhood contexts. They have since removed the maximum density, but you would still need to rezone a property to tear down a house and build condos.

In addition, there are very few properties that are zoned to allow ADUs (accessory dwelling units). You know, the "guest" house in the back yard or the apartment above the garage.

P_M

That was a great article.

I wish it would inspire more change here, but that's reaching for a rainbow isn't it?

As it points out, every Dutch child has to pass a bicycle safety exam at school. It's probably inherent to remember those lessons during driver education which I would imagine too focuses on sharing the road with other forms of transportation.

From a safety standpoint, many drivers here seem to have no clue that a bicycle, according to the laws were I live, is a vehicle. I'd like to see LEOs out educating (i.e. ticketing) drivers who don't respect that. At best that might help cyclists feel better about getting out on the road. But I have a sinking doubt that it would really make a difference to the general population.

And the tip on reaching across to open the door - it does seem intuitive then to look back. That's not something I was taught in driving school. I've used my mirror in the past but that introduces some delay between looking and opening.

bjorke

also, American media always casts cyclists as losers: e.g. the 40-year-old virgin.

Stubby

Forester is right, and he is wrong. He's right in that if you live in an area with no cyclist-specific infrastructure then VC is the best way to get around on a bike. Him and his ilk are wrong in that we will never get any meaningful percentage of people using bikes for transportation without cycle-specific infrastructure. The better quality it is the more people will use it. The great majority of people simple don't want to mix it up with high volume or high speed traffic. By high speed I mean anything over 25 mph. Of course if you actually want to get somewhere in an urban area that is what you will have to do, hence very low cycle rates.

You're right in that much of the bike-specific infrastructure has been second rate, but that to is changing as urban areas have learned what works and what doesn't. The push now is to go beyond the bike lane into protected cycle tracks. This is what is happening in NYC and Chicago.

The motor vehicle industry loves John Forester and his gang. They have helped to keep cycling rates at pathetically low rates in the USA. He sounds so logical, until you actually think about it.

genec

It is the logic that really doesn't work... if that logic about road rules and all really functioned right, no one would ever be in an automobile collision as they would strictly adhere to the laws and no collisions would occur. As we know that this is not the case, then other methods must apply.

Anyone proposing other methods such as cycling specific infrastructure or limited motor vehicle access is typically labeled "anti-motorist" and "incompetent" by Forester... never mind that his vehicular cycling and followers have never succeeded in increasing cycling modal share anywhere... (of course attempting to increase cycling modal share is also "anti-motoring... )

Roughstuff

Correct. Zoning laws are a classic example of goody-two-shoe reforms which come back to haunt the reformers. Every shibboleth in the envirowhacko arsenal---huge lots, big houses, miles to shopping---is a direct result of zoning and planning laws which mandate frontages, acreages, floor space minimums, acreage/housesize ratios, and so on.

Forester is being modest when he calls the automobile one of the greatest inventions of the century. BY liberating citizens from the need to count on government transport, and unshackling them from a hub and spoke system of trains, buses and trolleys, it has greatly increased the efficiency of use of space and time. No longer must you live in some urban miasma to have opportunity. In fact, because the latter make individual transport so expensive, they have been dying for decades. If suburbs would loosen up and allow mimimall developments locally and smaller houses and acreages, there would be no reason to go into the cities at all.


roughstuff

Roughstuff

This will sure go a long way in eliminating the 'loser' stereotype....

genec

What you propose is a series of villages... oh, like many European countries... funny thing that, eh?

009jim

This is a great idea.