You question my characterizations of cities:

No, I questioned your concept of a "typical American city". As you've very graciously pointed out yourself there seem to be more exceptions to the idea of a "typical American city" than cities that fit might any such description.

Cyclists have no more needs in one place than in the other, either.

Really? So those of us in the snowy Northeast have the same needs of transportation infrastructure as southern Florida? So ₤em in Pa, who once lived in Vermont, has no change in needs in cycling infrastructure in West Palm Beach? Well, you're the expert...

You remark that NYC is very large and very dense, so that what it does will influence the rest of the nation's cities. You evidently do not know that Los Angeles area has higher population density than does NYC area.

Yes, you're right- I pointed out that New York City was densely populated. I made no comparison between NYC population density to that of LA's. So you are incorrect that I "do not know that Los Angeles area has higher population density than does NYC area". Rather than assuming you do not know that there is a difference between the LA/NYC areas and the comparison of the cities I'll assume you do know, of course, that the actual population densities of the cities themselves (not the areas surrounding the cities) show NYC to have a much greater population density. What you are describing is the density of urban "sprawl" not a comparison of urban center density.

Originally Posted by 2006 UCLA Urban Planning Study
Comparing The City of Los Angeles to New York City:
The City of Los Angeles is approximately 472 square miles in size, with a population of 3,694,820. The City of New York is 304 square miles in size, and has a population of 8,008,278. Based on this data, the City of New York is more than 3 times as dense as the City of Los Angeles, with population densities of 26,343 and 7,828 people per square mile, respectively.

New York, particularly Manhattan, is crowded. While, Los Angeles does have a few areas of its own with higher population concentrations (particularly in the Macarthur Park area just west of downtown Los Angeles), these concentrations are not even half as large as those found in New York.

The City of Los Angeles simply does not exhibit the high-density patterns that one associates with the City of New York.

New York has more square miles of high density than Los Angeles

If we look only at the land area within each city that has a population density greater than 15,000, New
York wins again. More than half of the land area of New York City exhibits a population density greater
than 15,000. In the City of Los Angeles, only about 15 percent of the area meets this density level.

You claim that NYC has a bicycle component of its transportation plan. Again, so what? Since that is a requirement to obtain federal funds in the transportation area, every major area has such. You also claim that this bicycle component is being strongly supported to accommodate a larger modal share of cyclists and you speculate that "If cycling becomes a mainstay of NYC transportation" then the rest of the nation will be affected.

Bicycling a mainstay of NYC transportation? Most unlikely. People quitting using the subway to ride a bicycle? Rather unusual, that, in NYC.

Hey, whatever you say...but here comes the future, John, and I don't see anything about "VC" in the Master Plan.

Originally Posted by Transportation Alternatives
The City’s official “Bicycle Master Plan” by 2010 with the goal of putting every New Yorker within a half-mile of the bike network. Adopt and apply stronger design principles (e.g. more protected street space and time at intersections for cyclists, more visibly buffered and physically separated bike lanes) for routes making up the network, starting with access to bridge and greenway paths and improved stenciling and signage. Publicly review the progress of and update all projects and policies described in Plan by June of 2006.
Originally Posted by John Forester
You remark that NYC is very large and very dense, so that what it does will influence the rest of the nation's cities.


Only a very few American cities are still characterized by the streetcar pattern of growth and remaining dependence on rail mode. I did not provide a complete list, but Chicago has always been so considered. Try some other attack, buzzman.

You are trying to assert without seeming to assert that the road needs of cyclists in Vermont are different than the road needs of cyclists in Florida because of the difference in climate. Certainly the road authorities in Vermont have need of snow removal equipment, while those in Florida probably do not possess any such, but the equipment needed by the highway departments is not the subject of this discussion. The discussion concerns different designs for cycling on the road, if there is any material in that subject.

As for densities, I carefully quoted not the areas within the city limits but the metro areas, using the phrases NYC area and LA area. As far as transportation is concerned from the user's viewpoint, the city limits are relative unimportant.

You criticize me for not seeing the future. However, I never suggested that NYC would not carry out much of its bicycle plan; I don't know enough about NYC politics to predict its future. What I did criticize is your belief that implementing that plan will cause bicycle transportation to become a mainstay of NYC transportation and markedly reduce motoring. After all, there have been many great planning disasters before this. All that I suggested is that I do not see that many of the existing motorists will find it advantageous to switch to bicycle transportation. And I think much the same of those now using the subway system. I base my opinion on the existing, and long standing, patterns of transportation in the NYC area.