On 6/29/2018 6:19 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-06-29 14:34, Frank Krygowski wrote:

I'm sorry you're confused again. I'll try to explain more thoroughly.

European cities were typically founded in medieval times, often when
they were enclosed by walls and back when almost everyone walked to get
around. As a consequence, city blocks were and still are small. Most
streets were and still are narrow by U.S. standards. And to a much
higher degree than the U.S., that original high density remains.


I suggest you visit Berlin, Duesseldorf, Frankfurt, Hannover or Dortmund
in Germany. All cities I spent lots of time in and they are by no means
small or resemble any of their characteristics from their medieval
times. With some cities that is because they were thoroughly flattened
in WW-II, others just razed the old city core and only left historically
valuable structure standing. Or what they thought was valuable back then.

Perhaps we need a referee to decide what we are talking about. Is it
your cherry-picked list of German cities, or is it the original point:
the differences between Dutch cities and American cities?

The article I cited
https://peopleforbikes.org/blog/best...h-hardly-bike/
said, for example: "Utrecht, the city in the first photo above, has
approximately the same metro-area population as Wichita. But because
most of its central city was built before the passage of laws that
required minimum lot sizes, maximum numbers of homes per lot and lots of
on-site car storage everywhere, everything in Utrecht is much closer to
everything else than anything is in Wichita."

So is that author wrong? If so, where's your proof?

Duesseldorf is quite similar to Sacramento, for example. However, no
zoning laws so there are people living right in the center whereas in
Sacramento they mostly don't. Some other cities like parts of Frankfurt
become ghost towns at night but not because of zoning, it's because
people want to rather live in the suburbs.

Yes, I'm sure you can carefully choose some other German cities that fit
your argument. But note that Berlin, Munich and Stuttgart all beat any
U.S. city for population density in this list.
http://www.citymayors.com/statistics...nsity-125.html
And how many _Dutch_ cities (the real point of the article) can you
choose to prove your point?

Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* ... Public policy was able to prioritize mass transit,
which was and still is heavily used because of the density. That reduced
the need for private cars compared to the U.S. and contributed to
retaining higher densities.


And now for a dose of reality. This is Duesseldorf in Germany where I
lived as a kid:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKApZPEDb-M

One video of a freeway is supposed to be dramatic proof? Sorry, Joerg.
Anyway, Duesseldorf has a population density of 2800/km2, which beats
any U.S. city in this list:
http://www.citymayors.com/statistics...nsity-125.html

Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* ... Most mass transit
systems like streetcars crashed early on. The car became the only way to
get around beyond a few blocks, and economics of scale plus cheap land
caused things like grocery stores to grow in size and grow huge parking
lots that further reduced density. And Americans soon decided that the
suburbs were the place to be, reachable only by the car that everyone
needed anyway.

So did the Europeans.

Um... then why is European mass transit is so tremendously common and
highly used compared to the U.S.? From Wikipedia: "Like many other
European countries, the Netherlands has a dense railway network,
totalling 6,830 kilometres of track,[27] or 3,013 route km, three
quarters of which has been electrified.[28] The network is mostly
focused on passenger transport[29] and connects virtually all major
towns and cities, counting as many train stations as there are
municipalities in the Netherlands."

Where do you find that in the U.S.?

Here's a list of 125 large cities ranked by density. Note how seldom USA
is mentioned, and how low on the list those U.S. cities tend to sit:
http://www.citymayors.com/statistics...nsity-125.html


The first European city on there is Athens and ranks a whopping 40th.
Before that it's all Asia, South America, Middle East and so on.

Right. But the U.S. cities are even farther down the list, which is my
point, and most of them fall off the list entirely.

But back to the original point: Data shows people in Amsterdam average
about 2 miles of bicycling per day. If you restricted your mileage to
that figure, how many of your transportation needs could you satisfy by
bike?


None, zilch. That wouldn't even get me to a church meeting. However, my
experience from the Netherlands is way different and I have a hard time
believing the country has changed so much for the worse in 30 years. But
maybe it has. We rode 30mi just to have a particular Abbey Ale that was
only available at a certain pub in Belgium. That included climbs which I
never liked.

You give an astounding amount of importance to what you claim are your
unique experiences. Unbiased data shows the Dutch averaging about two
bike miles per day, but since _you_ claim to have ridden farther for a
beer, the unbiased data must be wrong. That's just silly.

It reminds me of all the times your life was saved because you have disc
brakes. Or all the times you didn't need a chain tool because you found
a convenient nail on your mountain bike trail. Or the times you fought
off the mountain lions with your bare teeth, or whatever.

--
- Frank Krygowski