Originally Posted by John Forester
(Post 15474527)
I repeat the argument that I have been making for a long time. The Dutch cycled a lot because their situation was such that walking and cycling were very useful and suited their low income relative to other European nations. Sure, the arrival of mass motoring reduced the amount of cycling, but, in the older areas the characteristics that suited cycling still existed. That enabled the Dutch to return to much of their historical cycling pattern.
Consider the American contrast. America never had a cycling society during the automotive era; membership in the League of American Wheelmen collapsed in 1898. The urban development since then, shall we say during all of the era of American economic power, was based on either the existing rail transit or the newer automotive pattern. How about the Brits? You know, they used to bike quite a lot. The development of Holland would probably have been totally parallel to GB, had the Dutch not chosen otherwise in the 70's. As would the development of Copenhagen etc. The disaster was very close, really... |
Originally Posted by hagen2456
(Post 15475085)
What's the contrast suposed to tell us? That Americans are somehow genetically different? That Americans can't bike?
How about the Brits? You know, they used to bike quite a lot. The development of Holland would probably have been totally parallel to GB, had the Dutch not chosen otherwise in the 70's. As would the development of Copenhagen etc. The disaster was very close, really... As for Americans, you need to realize that their then existing rail mass transit and their growing automotive transportation met their travel needs quite well. Their bike boom up to 1898 was fashionable, not utilitarian, which is why it collapsed in 1898. They didn't need to cycle, so they didn't. As for the British, I am a fourth-generation British cyclist, and Britain has its own unique cycling history. The British fashionable cycling boom collapsed during World War I. However, British cycling revived because at the end of that war British workers first had a two-day weekend, thus giving skilled workers the time and money to cycle on very good bicycles, custom-made bicycles. That enabled George Herbert Stancer to revive the Cyclists' Touring Club, so that Britain had a lively cycling society through the 1920s and 1930s and until the end of the recovery from World War II. (Not that there ever was a complete recovery from the two disasters of the two world wars.) The first survey, of road traffic, in 1951, showed that 25% of the vehicle miles on British roads were by bicycle. However, because of her earlier industrial supremacy, Britain had the world's most extensive system of mass rail transit and, until government action in 1947, it was able to produce many automotive-based suburban areas. As a result, the British had less need to cycle than did people of some other nations, so cycling declined. |
...........automotive-based suburban areas. As a result, the British had less need to cycle........... CURIOUS logic! John must think he's flooring the crowd with his assertions building sprawling, auto-addled cities makes cycling less feasible and attractive. Yawn. It isn't news, and doesn't merit laudations by a erstwhile cycling educator. Something furtive drives that apologist prattle. Curious how the bleating echoes a fondness of motordom and sprawl, rather than the brilliance of the bicycle. |
Originally Posted by Bekologist
(Post 15476405)
:rolleyes:
CURIOUS logic! John must think he's flooring the crowd with his assertions building sprawling, auto-addled cities makes cycling less feasible and attractive. Yawn. It isn't news, and doesn't merit laudations by a erstwhile cycling educator. Something furtive drives that apologist prattle. Curious how the bleating echoes a fondness of motordom and sprawl, rather than the brilliance of the bicycle. |
Originally Posted by hagen2456
(Post 15477282)
AND it doesn't take into account the link posted above, showing that Amsterdam and Copenhagen share the sprawl that VC apologists are so fond of thinking is an American particularity; or British, or Australian, or whereever cycling is marginal.
I argue that the high bicycle mode share in the old core part of Amsterdam is because the pattern of that area makes for useful walking and cycling trips. The old core part developed as a walking city, so that all of its society's operations were located, to each other, within the range of walking and cycling trips. Those characteristics existed right up to the advent of mass motoring in the urban core. They had to, or the city could not have existed. The time between the arrival of mass motoring in the urban core and its dismissal was too short for the city's pattern to have changed. Therefore, after that dismissal, those characteristics remained, so that cycling was still as useful as before. It is not only density, although that is part of it; it is the pattern of activities so located that they can be participated in by trips suitable for walking or cycling that is the most important part. That's my argument. I don't see why Hagen is so disposed to try to disprove it, but attempting to do so by advancing the density statistics for wide suburban areas is irrelevant. As Wendell Cox states in New Geography, when discussing Amsterdam, for the Netherlands in total 85% of personal travel is by car. |
Originally Posted by hagen2456
(Post 15474333)
Strict liability is an after-the-fact thing. And I doubt that it has very much to say in the context of mass biking. Traffic calming is mostly used in residential areas.
|
Originally Posted by spare_wheel
(Post 15478059)
oh bollocks. mode share started growing well before most of that fancy new infrastructure was built. moreover, the idea that holland's bike infrastructure has anything to do with its high mode does not explain mode share in the 50s, 40s, 30s, 20s, etc.
The only person you're cheating is yourself. |
Originally Posted by John Forester
(Post 15477747)
That link does not distinguish between core cities, or old core cities, and much larger areas of suburbs. Certainly, in those widespread areas travel patterns are much more like those in America. Wendell Cox, in New Geography, discussing Amsterdam, states that in the Netherlands as a whole, 85% of personal travel is by car.
I argue that the high bicycle mode share in the old core part of Amsterdam is because the pattern of that area makes for useful walking and cycling trips. The old core part developed as a walking city, so that all of its society's operations were located, to each other, within the range of walking and cycling trips. Those characteristics existed right up to the advent of mass motoring in the urban core. They had to, or the city could not have existed. The time between the arrival of mass motoring in the urban core and its dismissal was too short for the city's pattern to have changed. Therefore, after that dismissal, those characteristics remained, so that cycling was still as useful as before. It is not only density, although that is part of it; it is the pattern of activities so located that they can be participated in by trips suitable for walking or cycling that is the most important part. That's my argument. I don't see why Hagen is so disposed to try to disprove it, but attempting to do so by advancing the density statistics for wide suburban areas is irrelevant. As Wendell Cox states in New Geography, when discussing Amsterdam, for the Netherlands in total 85% of personal travel is by car. |
Originally Posted by hagen2456
(Post 15479464)
Cycling is not only a thing of the medieval "walking city" city cores in neither Amsterdam nor Copenhagen. Bike trips are in average much, much longer than in the USA etc. Because it's safe, easy, convenient etc. And it's safe, easy, convenient etc. because of the bike infrastructure.
|
I'm still waiting to hear how the medieval "walking city" of London failed to go the way of other medieval "walking cities" like Copenhagen and Amsterdam. I am especially curious about London as John has told us that people used to bike there in his youth...
Even Paris was a medieval "walking city," and while the French do embrace cycling, they don't do it at the same high rate as the folks in Copenhagen. Makes me wonder if there was perhaps "something else" besides being a medieval "walking city" that made the difference. |
Originally Posted by John Forester
(Post 14960828)
Is is possibly that motorists are more likely to feel that hitting a small cyclist is less likely to damage their car?
Do you really believe that drivers are thinking it's OK to run over children (likely killing them) because it would be "less likely to damage their cars"? Even being "small", I'd hazard to guess that it still would be mightily inconvenient to run them over. |
Originally Posted by Bekologist
(Post 15463061)
Simply pre-car isn't enough, it must be 'medieval' so as to exclude New Amsterdam and Boston from consideration of cities laid out prior to the motorcar.
|
Originally Posted by hagen2456
(Post 15475085)
What's the contrast suposed to tell us? That Americans are somehow genetically different? That Americans can't bike?
Not that long ago, many typical Europeans could manage without a car. If you don't have a car, it isn't remarkable to consider using a bicycle. If you have a car and it's convenient to use (what's been the situation in the US for 70+ years), it's not likely that many people are going to consider using a bicycle. That is, the US is/was different than Europe. What would be interesting is to see the automobile usage compared to bicycle use in the Netherlands and Denmark over the past 100 years.
Originally Posted by hagen2456
(Post 15479459)
Bullocks yourself. Mode share dived dramatically with increasing car traffic and car-related cyclist fatalities. Biking increased again with the dedicated infrastructure. It's as simple as that.
|
Originally Posted by genec
(Post 15480252)
I'm still waiting to hear how the medieval "walking city" of London failed to go the way of other medieval "walking cities" like Copenhagen and Amsterdam. I am especially curious about London as John has told us that people used to bike there in his youth...
Even Paris was a medieval "walking city," and while the French do embrace cycling, they don't do it at the same high rate as the folks in Copenhagen. Makes me wonder if there was perhaps "something else" besides being a medieval "walking city" that made the difference. Paris was probably the second city to make that transition. |
Originally Posted by John Forester
(Post 15480637)
As I have already written, London has the greatest extent of rail mass transit of any city or urban area in the world. London was the first city to make the transition from walking city to rail mass transit city. Of course, as in any other city, Londoners continued to walk, and the combination of walking and rail mass transit provided the personal transportation required for The City area to function.
Paris was probably the second city to make that transition. |
Originally Posted by njkayaker
(Post 15480623)
Cycling (as far as I know) was ever a large proportion of the means of getting around in the US. In the US, cars were (are) much less expensive than they are in Europe. That, the related push to build-out suburbs (which increased after WWII, and the "urban flight" of the middle class (among other things), assured that automobiles (and commuter mass transit) would become the dominant form of transport in the US.
Not that long ago, many typical Europeans could manage without a car. If you don't have a car, it isn't remarkable to consider using a bicycle. If you have a car and it's convenient to use (what's been the situation in the US for 70+ years), it's not likely that many people are going to consider using a bicycle. That is, the US is/was different than Europe. What would be interesting is to see the automobile usage compared to bicycle use in the Netherlands and Denmark over the past 100 years. So, bicycling was prevalent before "diving dramatically". It was never prevalent in the US. |
Originally Posted by genec
(Post 15480704)
But cycling and rail were prevalent in London before the car was prevalent...
People moved around London before cycling. In the case of NYC, many people commute in/out using mass transit. A fair number drive (mind boggles). The distances and traffic make bicycling generally inconvenient. People using bikes in the city are ever concerned that they will be stolen or damaged. And there's a good subway and an OK bus system in place (at the mercy of heavy surface traffic). And there are a fair number of hills. It would not surprise me if some of these things pertained to London. If there's no option, people will (maybe) cycle. The Netherlands and Denmark are unusual. Amsterdam, for inexplicable reasons, doesn't have a subway.
Originally Posted by genec
(Post 15480704)
so how did the car shove cycling and rail aside and become so prevalent in London? Motoring in London is now becoming even more expensive... now with the Congestion Charge.
People really like cars. We are seeing it in China and India (at a time where the problems of automobiles is well-known). How do you propose getting people to take up cycling to replace something they really like? ============================= http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com...ample-but.html |
Originally Posted by njkayaker
(Post 15480778)
It would not surprise me if some of these things pertained to London. If there's no option, people will (maybe) cycle. The Netherlands and Denmark are unusual. Amsterdam, for inexplicable reasons, doesn't have a subway.
Who is driving these cars? Is it city dwellers? If it's people in the suburbs commuting, the alternative isn't going to be bicycling. How do you propose getting people to take up cycling to replace something they really like? ============================= http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com...ample-but.html |
Originally Posted by John Forester
(Post 15480173)
The convenience exists because of the spatial relationships between desired activities, so that the desired trips are within the convenient distance for walking and cycling trips.
Oh, and bikeways make cycling pleasurable. Someone choosing between using the car for a three-mile ride or using the bike, might well choose the gas-saving bike if biking is safe and easy. As it is on Dutch-style bike paths. Today, I took a shortish ride (some 35 miles), most of it on bike paths on the roads north of Copenhagen. On the short stretches of minor country roads without bike infrastructure, I was buzzed three times. THAT's unpleasant. And unsafe. |
Originally Posted by genec
(Post 15480704)
But cycling and rail were prevalent in London before the car was prevalent... so how did the car shove cycling and rail aside and become so prevalent in London? Motoring in London is now becoming even more expensive... now with the Congestion Charge.
As for the claim that motoring pushed aside London's mass rail transit, it didn't. London's mass rail transit is still being expanded and its trains are running full. I have used them recently. Motoring simply added to London's transportation mix, and, so far as the center area is concerned, the motorists largely come from the far suburbs. |
Originally Posted by njkayaker
(Post 15480778)
Amsterdam, for inexplicable reasons, doesn't have a subway.
I know I took a subway while in Amsterdam. I looked it up. It does. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8pyFtDEI0SA |
Originally Posted by I-Like-To-Bike
(Post 15481151)
Seems pretty explicable to me, perhaps the water table has something to do with it, doncha think?
|
Originally Posted by njkayaker
(Post 15481166)
:rolleyes: So, how obvious does obvious sarcasm need to be for you to get it.
|
Originally Posted by I-Like-To-Bike
(Post 15481180)
Get what? You made an incorrect statement for some inexplicable reason. I corrected it. You are are trying to get the last word. Whatz there to get?
|
Originally Posted by I-Like-To-Bike
(Post 15481180)
Get what? You made an incorrect statement for some inexplicable reason. I corrected it. You are are trying to get the last word. Whatz there to get?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City_Subway NYC: Population: 7 million. Subway 1.65 billion rides (in 2012). A factor of 235 (rides per capita). Amsterdam. Population 820,000. Subway: 290,000 passengers (in 2009) A factor of 0.35 (rides per capita). (It's not clear how much of it is actually underground.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amsterdam_Metro The subway in NYC is used a factor of 672 times per capita than in Amsterdam. People likely use the subway in NYC, London, Paris in a very different manner than they do in Amsterdam, "doncha think"? (Never mind.) One might gather that the reasons the Amsterdam system isn't bigger is due, in part, to the canals. |
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:34 AM. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.