Originally Posted by
genec
The density of cities is what is doing that push back... cars just take too much room and money to support if the distances aren't there to demand the speed.
Cities like Copenhagen, London and even NYC are all realizing that the auto has negatives as well as positives. I understand Baltimore did a study not too long ago and realized that more downtown space was devoted to parking than to revenue producing businesses.
While the auto does offer some nice features, the fact is that a single occupant is moving around one heck of a lot of mass and "empty space" when they drive alone. In open territory like the western US, that space is no big thing, but in a crowded city starting to resemble the walking cities at the turn of the century, that "empty space" is something of a liability... unless one is actually living in their car. There are places in NYC where parking can cost as much as a modest single family home.
In North American cities about 50% of the surface area is devoted to roads and parking. Been that way for decades. But people don't think in terms of statistics. If they ask themselves at all, they think about cost and time. I have a home office, but my major business destination is about 2 miles away. I get there in 5 minutes by motorcycle, about 8 by bicycle. I've never thought to calculate the cost in $, but the deciding factor for most would be time. Certainly some would opt for the bike because of exercise or politics.
Psychological inertia is a big factor too. It takes a lot to get people to make rational changes. I imagine as our cities become more congested, parking and gasoline gets more expensive, more and more will opt for public transport and bicycles. These are natural forces that will exert their inexorable push. I suppose we can reduce psychological inertia by education, and bike infrastructure effects some, but time and cost will be the major influences.