kickstart

Not much to say, I think it's awesome and would like to see it here in US city centers.

My only concern is when it seems that some suggest it should be universal, or that communities where it won't work should be alienated or punitively restricted.

kickstart

While I agree the "cult of global warming alarmism".....and its abuse for marketing and graft.....is entirely out of control, that doesn't mean there aren't legitimate concerns that need to be addressed.

As with most debatable issues, the truth is likely to be found between the extremes.

cooker

Can you quote where you got that from?

Roody

If you mean we should all agree with each other, it ain't going to happen. And you seem to be someone who gets pretty frustrated around here! Presumably we are all here as partisans of LCF (except for two verbose individuals), since this is an LCF forum. But that doesn't mean we agree on reasons for, or implications of being carfree. As cooker suggested, it would be pretty boring if we did all agree on everything!

Roody

BTW. more on-topic-- Oslo is progressing nicely on it's carfree plans, but it should be remembered that carfree city centers were announced as being planned for ALL cities within the EU. More accurately, it is a goal of the EU to have carfree city centers, IIRC, by 2050.

I'm not a big fan of centralized city planning. I would rather have each city decide locally about carfree zones, etc. But I do agree with the underlying premise that cars are undesirable in city centers. In general, it's a good idea to phase out automobile infrastructure in these areas.

wolfchild

There is no middle ground on this forum...This list has for a long time been dominated by few individuals who hold very extreme anti-car views, it's "us vs them"... Declaring a war on car and declaring war on all things modern is the foundation of LCF ideology on this list...Some individuals even advocate going back to an old 1800s lifestyle with hopes of saving the arctic ice and controlling the world temperature...This forum can be very hostile and unwelcoming to people. Sometimes people come here and start threads to discuss practical aspects of transportational cycling and all they get is a bunch of impractical advice and opinions which would never work in real life. It's no wonder that this list has such a small following.

cooker

That has never actually happened.
Sure, the guy who came here to talk about electric cars got a mixed reception, but anybody who actually wanted ideas or advice about LCF or utility biking got excellent advice. If those kinds of threads do go south, it's usually because some longstanding participant uses it as an excuse to snipe at other regulars.

kickstart

No, I'm not interested in playing that game. In my opinion some of what's said gives that impression, take it or leave it.

kickstart

It isn't about agreeing or disagreeing, its about the dismissive misrepresentations, and treating those who disagree with some of the LCF partisan ideals like the "verbose individuals".
As someone who is moderate, I see lots of intolerance on both sides.

kickstart

While there can be some such undercurrents, that's a dishonest misrepresentation, and generalization. Being part of the problem isn't the solution.

tandempower

What do you mean by alienation and punitive restriction? The fact is that is the affordability of LCF vs. driving/sprawl was allowed to flourish, it would attract people and investors away from more driving-dependent areas because 'bang for the buck' in LCF areas would be greater.

In many ways, an economic culture of normal-extravagance has evolved along with the automobile's pervasiveness. This was intentional, because cars and sprawl were viewed positively as facilitators of more investment, development, shopping, and therefore industrial demand. So for a while the economic growth that came with driving/sprawl and suburbs seemed like it would be sustainable. Once economic problems started emerging, there was cultural resistance to change because adopting a better alternative would mean a loss of faith in the previous model, and thus economic pressure to change.

If you call the natural economic pressure to change when something better comes along 'alienation' or 'punitive restriction' against those who resist such change, that's not fair because it suggests that a lighter economy should have to subsidize heavier economies instead of reforming them, or rather expecting them to reform to keep up.

This is your characterization and it misrepresents my view. There are many technologies I welcome that were invented since the 1800s. Steel-reinforced concrete, for example, could be used judiciously to build more environmentally-friendly buildings and infrastructure, but it just happens to be used currently in ways that are environmentally destructive and unsustainable, because that is an established norm with concrete and stone since long before 1800.

For some reason, if I say that technological innovations can be used to reduce environmental harm, restore ecology, reduce economic burdens and increase free time, etc., you always spin my view as being anti-modern, anti-progress, anti-capitalism, etc. All I'm saying is that technological progress can be used to achieve environmental progress and increase human freedom from paid/managed time use. Basically, people would have more time to walk, bike, hike, and engage in other unpaid activities if they could achieve economic goals in less time. You just have to demonize my view because in your mind it is a threat to the booming industrial social-capitalist rat-race you think is absolutely critical to survival.

Threads can include both practical suggestions and more pie-in-the-sky thoughts about what could be possible in the future, etc. You don't have to be so negative about it. The real negativity is posts like this that spit on the broader POVs that forum users bring to discussions.

tandempower

I would hardly call it moderate to attack pro-LCF views as being partisan. If anything it is extreme to politicize LCF in this way in order to demand a shift away from being pro-LCF.

StanSeven

Ok, this thread is moving towards a discussion of political and economic issues. Those talks belong in P&R. Please keep posts here to LCF only.

Stan

cooker

One of the things I was surprised by is how vehemently the Scandinavian poster "oslomyths" (LOL) wanted to go after Oslo for not having as good or safe facilities as Copenhagen - sort of a car-free euro-city internecine war. It would be great if our cities were as competitive. It's probably that Oslo has lagged behind and is rushing to catch up or even leapfrog other cities, and in their haste, there are a few design wrinkles to iron out, and some driver and cyclist attitudes that need to be adjusted.

Dahon.Steve

I created a number of threads from the early 1900s using YouTube as a source. They were nothing more than to illustrate how society lived and prospered without motor transport 100 years ago. We can use the past to see our future because it seems many cities are slowly coming around and creating walk-able cities.

On a separate note, I'm glad this post reached six pages. I must have touched a nerve.

tandempower

It's really not that hard to think of ways to organize communities using any number of technologies for transportation and otherwise. People just tend to think in terms of the status quo and avoid thinking 'from the ground up' in terms of community planning. Obviously there are problems with actually building a community from the ground up, because you'd either have to clear a bunch of natural land or you'd have to redevelop an existing community. Plus people have established patterns and habits of migrating around an area in various ways for various reasons, and they consider their reasons more important than the reasons for changing transportation habits.

But technically there's no reason it would be difficult to create a small walkable community and service it with a grocery store or one-stop shop, etc. The challenge would be to have sufficient economic opportunities there to prevent the need to commute away from the community for work. The other challenge would be connecting the community with other areas that people would drive to. As soon as you think about how people migrate around a local area, regionally, and globally, you run into the issue of when people are going to drive or use other transportation, and how often.

Then, of course, there's the strange issue of bicycling. Biking can easily move people five miles in about a half hour, or more at that speed; but then you run into cultural expectations and habits that block the choice to bike. Very little would have to change about currently driving-dominant areas for biking to grow to a much larger share of transportation, but whenever I try to explore the factors that bias people against such change, I encounter aggressive defensiveness and resistance from people who are apparently hell-bent on protecting the automotive culture against any loss of dominance. So it's pretty obvious to me that politics are obstructing what would otherwise be a natural evolution toward a mode of transportation that would be less burdensome in terms of infrastructure-demand and congestion, but who knows how long it will take for the global economy to adjust to commerce where the automobile is a sometimes-used option instead of a dependency as it is now for so many.

oslomyths

@ cooker:

Not sure what your intention is by saying "wanting to go after". I am simply stating the facts and linked to others describing the same. They have ignored bikes and bike infrastructure since approx ww2 and then suddenly start going on about being an example for copenhagen and others. THAT atitude is what I am going after. I am also saying (and linked to others saying the same) that with the atitude amongst both car drivers and cyclists it is going to take a loong time before Oslo can call its self a proprer "bike city". Like I said this is about peopel parking and driving in the bikelanes and not being punished for it.

this last year we have had two serious accidents on MUPs. Scool children killed in both acidents. One truck reversing on a MUP early in the morning, just as children was going to school. Why?? No idea. Maybe he decided it was much easyer for him to use that nice MUP for his driving.

One more just a month or two ago. Same thing. Somebody decided it was a good idea to park a mobil crane on a MUP just as the children was going to school in the morning. Cranes brakes failed plus it was several tonns heavyer than it was supposed to be. Killed a child. the mother plus sister managed to escape.

There is approx 5 mill peopel in this small country. Two accidents like that in a year is crazy.

Where I live farmers drive huge tractors on the MUP all the time. No reaction. I have started taking pictures when I see it but it is difficult to do it when driving. I need a dash mounted camera to do it properly.


Somebody was commenting on why they make this change in Oslo. It is much about air polution, but also about traffic and available space. This winter there was some days when diesel cars was not allowed to drive in Oslo at all becouse of pollution. Also this is an old city, a lot of established houses and roads and even if they WANT to spend a lot of money on new roads (as they have been doing for years and years) there is limited space. They have also realised that building more roads will only increase the traffic so you just ca`nt win.

cooker

Of course it is tragic when anyone dies and especially children. Hopefully one of the results of this rapid transformation of Oslo, even with these counterexamples, will be a large reduction in traffic mortality.

wolfchild

Are you sure there was no motor transport during early 1900s ??

Dahon.Steve

Actually, that picture was probably after 1922 when the Model T was constructed. The videos I posted from Youtube were before 1910 and placed on trolley cars.

I-Like-To-Bike

FYI, Model T production began in 1908 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_M...and_production
Year Production
1909 10,666
1910 19,050
1911 34,858
1912 68,773
1913 170,211
1914 202,667
1915 308,162
1916 501,462
1917 735,020
1918 664,076
1919 498,342
1920 941,042
1920 463,451
1921 971,610
1922 1,301,067
1923 2,011,125
1924 1,922,048
1925 1,911,705
1926 1,554,465

Also for your info and more importantly, despite what you seem to have learned from your selective viewing of YouTube videos, not every body was having a gay old time back in those good old carefree days of Living Car Free in the City:

cooker

Gridlock on the world's most expensive road.
Gridlock on Boulevard of the Allies, the nation?s most expensive road

The road was built in the 1920s and soon "clogged with Model T's at rush hour".

The view is looking east from Woods St. from the top of the two story section of Lawrence Hall. Fire Engine Company #1 firehall is visible beside a large vertical drug store sign on the right side of the street, and 4 or 5 buildings beyond it is the ghosty tower of the Art Institute of Pittsburgh. The drugstore is now an adult video store. Even farther back, beside the bridge, you can see a huge warehouse which is now student housing for the Art Institute.

It's interesting that so many buildings from the 1920s or earlier are still there. Depending on whether 432 Boulevard of the Allies is the original building (refaced) or not, and you count the porn shop as 2 buildings, there is something like 9 original buildings in a row from the fire hall east.

https://www.google.ca/maps/@40.43851...7i13312!8i6656
https://www.google.ca/maps/@40.43802...7i13312!8i6656

cooker

If only they had had cars.

McBTC

Back in the day, LCF was certainly never carefree and obviously, much of what the LCF lifestyle takes for granted when in an old European city that is many hundreds of years old and originally designed around the horse and buggy (for those who could afford them) is the result of the wealth and wellbeing accruing to the masses as a result of the benefits of industrialization, personal computers and personal transportation in the modern world.

cooker

Those pre-industrial cities weren't designed for horse and buggy - only a few rich people had them - and in fact even in Julius Caesar's time, Rome had to restrict downtown carriage traffic because it was causing too much congestion. That's why historic European cities can so easily revert to a downtown car-free model - they were never designed for vehicular traffic in the first place.

But fortunately, thanks to industrial progress, we don't have to walk everywhere either. Modern, highly space- and energy-efficient and clean conveniences like bicycles, electric bikes, trams and LRTs can easily be accommodated where car traffic doesn't work very well. And we can also walk if we want to.