Originally Posted by
John Forester
The discussion has concerned traffic operations. If you want to introduce oil as the subject, go right ahead. But I suspect that much of your argument relating urban planning to instability in the price of oil is without evidence. I don't know how you reach the conclusion that I have blamed the structure of Copenhagen on "fiscal policy changes in reaction to oil shortage in the 70's". What I have written, repeatedly, is that the structure and operation of such cities goes back to the pre-automotive era, which is a direct disproof of your claim about my argument.
As for the % of motor-vehicle ownership by the residents of a city being a measure of its degree of motorization, that's just plain hokum. NYC's problem with motor traffic is not that generated by its residents but by the daily influx from outside.
Last years Bike Summit in DC had a speaker from Copenhagen and up to the oil crises in the 70's Copenhagen dependence on cars mirrored that of the US. To the best of my recollection the reasons they stated why Copenhagen started promoting bikes and building more bike paths had nothing to do with how the city was built. I got the impression it was more like they adopted a Robert Moses like attitude but in regards to bikes not cars.
So in order to prove that NYC is more motorized then Copenhagen we have to exclude NYC residents. Oh look most non-Copenhagen residents drive in too. Wow, shocking difference.
