phoebeisis

Right
Many of our cities-are 1 story-not 3-4-10-20 like Europe or parts of NYNY.

I would be willing to bet Berlin Paris London are much denser than say NOLA- which is probably a typical 400,000 sized city
Perhaps I'll look that up

Paris 54,000 sq mile
London 12,000
Berlin 10,000
New Orleans 2000

Saving Hawaii

NOLA a typical city? It's a city notably in a long-term decline, which is fairly rare in the US. With the exception of some rust belt cities most American urban centers are growing rapidly; most of the country's population growth is focused in major metro areas right now. And it's a city whose long-term decline was exacerbated by a devastating hurricane. 25% of the population has left since 2005. NOLA is far from a typical city. It's slowly becoming a hollowed out husk. A quick glance at Wikipedia shows 131 US cities with a population density greater than Berlin (many of these are part of larger metro areas such as NYC suburbs; six are the core of their own metro area). 71 denser than London.

I think that simple "population/city limits miles^2" math is problematic and doesn't tell us much about actual density though. A city's density depends a lot on whether or not it's legally subjugated its suburbs. I think metropolitan and urban areas provide a lot more useful information though these have their limits too. I think it's pretty darn comedic when people do the "Europe is congested... America is huge... look at the Badlands... nobody can commute from their home in the Badlands to their job in Missoula by bike you crazy" thing. That's just silly. Most American cities are a little looser than European cities but it's not a night and day difference.

But NOLA is a bad example if you want to claim "typical". Cool city but a very special case.

phoebeisis

Saving Hawaii-perhaps I should have specified when I said TYPICAL CITY- I meant what most people think of when we say "city" meaning 250,000 or so population.
The 71 denser than London-a HUGE city of maybe 7,000,000( rank guess) or so-on wikipedia-are mainly what we would think of as towns or "little cities"

Your "most dense city" Guttenburg??? really dense 58,000 people/sq mile but just 11,000 PEOPLE in .2sq mile??
Your #11 Great Neck Plaza 21,000 sq mile- has just 6000 people**********
So while you post is "technically" not a lie -you took advantage of my assuming we all agreed we were talking about "big cities"
On the below list-only San Francisco(20) and Boston(51) are what most people here think of as Big Cities

And NOLA has been regaining population since a very low point just after Katrina.
We are staging a bit of a slow motion comeback.
More young people have been moving in lately-many well educated
Our low point-was probably in the mid late 1980's when A triple wammie hit us
1)Oil dropped to under $10/barrel-killed Louisiana's economy-
2) Crack epidemic-spiked our murder rate to near number one in nation-corrupt cops became more corrupt
3)HIV epidemic stressed healthcare and wiped out many gay men in their peak economic years

Yes you are right- the simple math doesn't tell the whole story-many of those "tiny towns" are just part of some megapolis -formerly suburbs maybe where the land was cheaper(but on a main roadway of waterway or railway)
Kenner a city of 50,000 or so - is part of metro NOLA- 8 miles upriver and on the rail line and on "river road" which is high ground so it would have been how you traveled if it was on a road.
It was a farming area originally-cheap fertile land-but easy to deliver goods-by river or road them by rail

Rank Incorporated place Metropolitan area State Population
(2010 census Population density land area (people per mi2)
1 Guttenberg New York City New Jersey 11,176 0.19 58,821
2 Union City New York City New Jersey 66,455 1.27 52,326.7
3 West New York New York City New Jersey 49,708 1.02 48,733.3
4 Hoboken New York City New Jersey 50,005 1.28 39,066.4
5 Kaser New York City New York 4,724 0.17 27,788.2
6 New York City New York City New York 8,175,133 302.6 27,016.3
7 Cliffside Park New York City New Jersey 23,594 0.96 24,577.1
8 East Newark New York City New Jersey 2,406 0.10 24,060
9 Maywood Los Angeles California 27,395 1.18 23,216.1
10 Passaic New York City New Jersey 69,781 3.11 22,437.6
11 Great Neck Plaza New York City New York 6,707 0.31 21,635.4
12 North Bay Village Miami Florida 7,137 0.33 21,627.2
13 Cudahy Los Angeles California 23,805 1.12 21,254.4
14 Huntington Park Los Angeles California 58,114 3.03 19,179.5
15 Somerville Boston Massachusetts 75,754 4.11 18,431.6
16 West Hollywood Los Angeles California 34,399 1.88 18,297.3
17 Irvington[b] New York City New Jersey 53,926 2.96 18,218.2
18 Poplar Hills Louisville Kentucky 362 0.02 18,100.0
19 Paterson New York City New Jersey 146,199 8.44 17,322.2
20 San Francisco San Francisco California 805,235 46.69 17,246.4
21 Bell Gardens Los Angeles California 42,072 2.49 16,896
22 Millbourne Philadelphia Pennsylvania 1,159 0.07 16,557.1
23 Sweetwater Miami Florida 13,499 0.82 16,461.2
24 East Orange New York City New Jersey 64,270 3.93 16,377.1
25 Central Falls Providence Rhode Island 19,376 1.29 16,146.7
26 Jersey City New York City New Jersey 240,055 14.92 16,093.7
27 Chelsea Boston Massachusetts 35,080 2.19 16,036.8
28 Lawndale Los Angeles California 31,711 1.98 16,036.7
29 Weehawken[b] New York City New Jersey 13,501 0.85 15,891.3
30 South Floral Park New York City New York 1,578 0.10 15,776.3
31 Cambridge Boston Massachusetts 101,355 6.43 15,766.1
32 Mount Vernon New York City New York 68,381 4.36 15,689.3
33 Fairview New York City New Jersey 13,255 0.85 15,585.5
34 Long Beach New York City New York 33,275 2.14 15,549
35 Hawaiian Gardens Los Angeles California 14,779 0.96 15,389.5
36 Stone Park Chicago Illinois 5,127 0.33 15,378.2
37 Hempstead New York City New York 56,554 3.68 15,366.1
38 Sunny Isles Beach Miami Florida 15,315 1.01 15,231.1
39 Orange[b] New York City New Jersey 32,868 2.21 14,903.7
40 Bell Los Angeles California 36,664 2.48 14,802.5
41 Cicero Chicago Illinois 85,616 5.85 14,645.2
42 Lynwood Los Angeles California 69,845 4.85 14,389.2
43 Palisades Park New York City New Jersey 17,073 1.21 14,112.4
44 Fort Lee New York City New Jersey 35,461 2.53 14,001.7
45 Garfield New York City New Jersey 29,786 2.13 13,976.0
46 Hawthorne Los Angeles California 84,112 6.06 13,879.4
47 Berwyn Chicago Illinois 54,016 3.89 13,876.2
48 Bay Harbor Islands Miami Florida 5,146 0.37 13,875.4
49 Daly City San Francisco California 103,621 7.56 13,703.8
50 Elmwood Park Chicago Illinois 25,405 1.91 13,328.4
51 Boston Boston Massachusetts 645,149 48.43 13,321.0
52 Conshohocken Philadelphia Pennsylvania 7,883 0.6 13,138.0
53 South Gate Los Angeles California 96,375 7.37 13,084.6
54 Manorhaven New York City New York 6,138 0.47 13,055.6
55 Mount Rainier Washington, D.C. Maryland 8,498 0.65 13,038.5
56 Hermosa Beach Los Angeles California 18,566 1.43 12,982.4
57 Woodlynne Philadelphia New Jersey

phoebeisis

Frankly the WHY of WHY we use bikes sooo little relative to Europe
probably has plenty to do with MUCH HIGHER car ownership costs
And post WW2 were were relatively MUCH more affluent
But that doesn't explain why we used bikes so little BEFORE WW2 during the depression( one member suggested-correctly I think-that bikes were EXPENSIVE before WW2)

In any case we-USA-E-INS use bikes for transportation less than many other countries
Some of that might be the BIKE THEFT problem-we have plenty of thieves-some violent thieves-and the fear of violence in the USA probably more than in Europe-(not many gums in europe-plenty in USA)
In any case oldsters riding bikes in the USA-isn't changing-transportation riders in the USA are young or young middle aged-except for some older black males some of whom ride for transportation but probably aren't counted.

genec

How about the simple "we are discouraged to cycle by the design of the roads." It really comes down to that. The design of the roads and the lack of proper cycling infrastructure simply discourage cycling in America. The overwhelming support of the motor vehicle, from readily available free parking, to the subsidies given to oil companies (even at the risk of polluted drinking water) all contribute to the overall heavy hand against cycling in America.

work4bike

I do wonder how much of the gas prices (and the economy in general) over the years has caused more people to ride, which inevitably will lead to more deaths, especially when you got some idiots who I've seen riding a bike. A pretty well-timed article, albeit from across the pond. BBC News - How safe is cycling?

enigmaT120

Would it be better it those people you call idiots were driving cars?

work4bike

The majority of them do and we all know the results.

On the rare occasion I do drive, I'm miffed at all the stupid things I see motorists do.

One simple example: When I see a light up ahead turn yellow I immediately take my foot off the pedal and some idiot comes barreling down the road right up to my bumper and then, because he's in such a hurry to stop , he changes lanes, then passes (yes, he hits the gas), just to stop at the light about 5-seconds before me

I do believe a significant number of the people that die on the roadways are very, very preventable "accidents", which means in reality they really are not accidents (hence the quotation marks), but it would be too much of a burden on the system to prove every case as something other than an accident.

I-Like-To-Bike

Who needs proof or facts if you believe something is true, eh?

work4bike

Proof and facts are what most of us want, but the fact of life is that they are very difficult to come by; the fact is we are all walking around blind to reality. Look at the issue of texting, it can be shown if the driver was texting at the time of the accident; however, there are tons of things drivers do that equally distract, but is not subject to proof. Look around at how people are driving too fast or tailgating or doing things and all the other stupid things you see out on the roads.

There's a reason why flying is safer than driving, because of the professionalism in the flying community. If drivers out on the roads were just to adopt a more professional attitude to driving, the accident rate would drop like a rock.



EDIT: Graphs and statistics are not proof of anything; actually they are very misleading on their own without background knowledge of all the factors. That's where much of the public gets fooled by them.

phoebeisis

No question-roads transportation-are designed for cars/trucks-
not for bikes.
The WHY is what we probably disagree on.
Cars are convenient-safe-comfortable-fast-and they were relatively cheap.
In Europe-cars-gas-ownerships costs-are MUCH HIGHER.
Heck you MIGHT say Europeans are elitist-affluent folks drive-the rest- take the bus -bike walk
The Republican push for Toll roads-is a step in this direction.

Keith99

I've got to wonder about the conclusion regarding separated paths.

Near me is the Orange line bike path. There must be over 50 street crossings. At each and every one is a sign saying bike path end. Yea the cyclist is safer on the path than near traffic, but I'd argue at increased risk at each crossing and guess what, if they get nailed at the crossing, which is where they will get nailed, it was not on a path!

Daniel4

Whenever I see statistics on bicycle safety, I ask for the equivalent statistics for motor vehicles.

This also reminds me of an interesting statistics of WWI. When metal helmets were used, reports of head injuries went way up.