Dahon.Steve

I wasn't terrified but more relived when the car was carried to the crusher. I was also depressed because it was my fathers car but it was no longer affordable with no income.

I had to look for answers to alternatives for auto mobility and this included walking and transit. A pair of good walking shoes gives you plenty of automatic mobility unfortunately, most of the population thinks it requires a combustion engine.

Roody

Good plans. I would add to change zoning/usage laws to allow mixed development, permit fewer parking spaces around buildings, and tax parking lots at a higher rate. Another possibility is to put in "permanent" transit (such as light rail) right along the busiest arterials, to assure developers that the corridor will still be travelled even when gas prices double or quadruple in the next few years.

gerv 

You know, all of this seems a little curious. Tokyo has a population of 33 million people at a density of 4,750 per sq. km. We've been talking about the severe crowding of a city like New York, population 17,800,000 with a density of 2050. New York is even less densely populated than Toronto, at 2650, which is also reputed to be a very bike-able city. And, as you say, Tokyo is not a bad place to travel by bike.

Something tells me that what makes a city pleasant to bike in -- and maybe liveable in other ways -- is a factor of local custom and respect, as much as infrastructure.... and it may have little to do with how dense the population is.

PS. I'm getting my population density figures from https://www.citymayors.com/statistics...nsity-125.html

bragi

I totally agree with you that local culture probably has more to do with it than any other factor, but population density might have a pretty significant impact on local attitudes in the long run. In my own city, Seattle, increased population density has created a lot of angry drivers, but it has also created a lot of bicyclists. Currently, density in Seattle is around 2774 people/ km2, which is apparently even more than Toronto or NYC, and so we may have actually reached the point where non-car options are more attractive for many people who live in the city itself. (If only drivers would notice..) In my own case, I'd much rather get myself around by bike than by car, and I recently rather easily proved to my girlfriend that going downtown by bus is actually cheaper, faster and easier than driving.

Pobble.808

FWIW, those numbers are kind of misleading: 17.8 million must be the population for all of NY State, or for some tri-state NY metropolitan area, much of it more suburban than urban, as NYC's population is less than 9 million. Similarly, I'm sure that 33 million is either the figure for Tokyo Prefecture, which includes more than the city of Tokyo proper, or some statistical area that includes urbanized parts of adjoining prefectures, and possibly even Yokohama which is a major city in its own right.

Having said that, Tokyo city probably still has a higher density than NYC and I agree that local cultural patterns and manners have a lot of influence on the cycling experience as well as overall quality of life.

As for the question of forcing behavior modifications on people, and specifically on drivers: a couple of years ago Honolulu, where I usually live, got very serious about making drivers stop for pedestrians in crosswalks. Apparently too many tourists were getting run over. To my surprise, it has been effective -- drivers almost never stopped before, but now they usually do, and without yelling or throwing stuff at the peds. Kind of a small step for mankind, admittedly, but it does show that there is hope...

vantassell

Hey, I just got this from the library and it's a great read so far. Thanks for letting me know about it

Roody

Interesting. According to that list, Los Angeles is the densest city in the USA, ahead of San Fransisco and New York. But Los Angeles is often described as too sprawled to be practical for bikes and public transit! And I've never heard it described as a bike-friendly city. Evidently, I've had a lot of misconceptions about population density that I'll have to reconsider.

(Or else the list is full of crap.)

gerv 

How can you say that? It's on the Internet.

This one -- from 1990 -- claims that New York is denser.... 9151 per sq. km. https://www.demographia.com/db-us90city100kdens.htm... so maybe you are right.

Here's another that claims the densest US cities are actually in New Jersey. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...lation_density

Oh my... I apologize for the noise.

Roody

Good gosh, they're all totally different! Good luck to anybody trying to make meaningful comparisons.

wahoonc

That is why I suggested city-data.com, it is based on US census figures so it will be quite accurate, you can chose whether you want the borough, the city, the county, the metro region or the state.

Aaron

Roody

Yes, I've been using city-data.com for years. But AFAIK it doesn't compile data across cities, so it's hard to compare different cities.

gerv 

Is there any data on population density?... I see all kinds of other info.

It would be nice to compare Tokyo's situation to New York's.... I'm wondering if these larger cities are really bike un-friendly. To me traffic congestion and slow-moving cars makes it easier to navigate streets by bicycle. When traffic moves efficiently, it's a nightmare for bikes.

contango 

Living in London some of the changes I've seen fairly recently in my home city (and the fact I bought my first bike in 20-odd years about 18 months back) have given me a fresh perspective on getting around.

Personally I'm not interested in arguments relating to things like global climate change. What I am interested in is the fact that a journey by bike is usually quicker and always cheaper than the same journey by any other mode of transport, as long as I'm fit enough to maintain a decent speed over the distance. Unless I'm taking the bike point-to-point along an established public transport route (when a bus may be faster), or travelling at silly times of the day (when a car will probably be faster), the bike is quickest. If traffic is stationary along a particular section then as long as it's wide enough I can zip past all the cars without any trouble at all.

What does pose a problem is bike security. At home I keep the bike indoors, but if I'm going out I want to know the bike is safe. One friend I visit lives three floors up in a small apartment, but has a balcony so I can carry the bike through. Another lives in a small apartment with no balcony and nowhere to secure the bike. If I go into town there are some places to secure bikes but I always tend to be a bit cagey about leaving it unattended for any length of time, even if just about every removable part is locked to something.

I think fundamentally some people just want to take their car everywhere, and the only way to stop them is to price them off the road. Unfortunately that has all sorts of other knock-on effects and so registers pretty heavily as a Bad Idea. I figure if people want to pay more to take longer to cover the same distance, then have to hunt for a parking space and pay through the nose to park, who am I to stand in their way? Just give me what I need - a safe place to ride my bike and somewhere safe to secure it - and I don't really care if someone else wants to pay for what could have been free.

bragi

I sort of agree with you, but not completely. The problem with driving is that while you privately pay more to indulge in it, others end up subsidizing it as well. The motorist might complain about the transit rider getting a subsidy, but, if you look at the larger picture, the motorist is more of a welfare case than any other type of user of the transportation infrastructure.

contango 

In the UK from what I recall (haven't seen figures for a while) taxes paid by motorists are significantly higher than what the government spends on the roads. I know that doesn't address the issues of exhaust emissions but from a financial perspective I think the British motorist does pay their way and then some.

Our fuel prices are currently around £1.24 per litre, so in your terms that's somewhere in the region of $7/gallon.

bragi

I applaud the balls of Brit politicians. If US politicians attempted to consider even a modest increase of our very low fuel taxes, they would be trounced at the next election. Apparently, a very large segment of our population has been brainwashed into thinking that all government is bad. Consequently, even very basic public services, such as road maintenance and education, are severely underfunded, with the result that the quality of life in the US is gradually approaching that of a third world country for all but the wealthy.

contango 

If your fuel prices went to the levels we've reluctantly grown used to the economy would all but stop I would imagine.

There may be a case for taxes higher than you currently pay (I don't know how US fuel prices break down into costs, profits and taxes), but when prices go too high it tends to hurt those least able to handle it. The fund manager who drives his Lamborghini half a mile from his luxury riverside apartment to his office, just because he can, doesn't care. The person living out of town because they can't afford to live in town gets it in the shorts.

To be honest if your government is anything like ours there are probably all sorts of so-called porkbarrel projects that could be cut to free up funds for more useful things without raising taxes on anything.

Roody

I agree about high fuel taxes hurting poorer people most. I'd like to see super-high fuel taxes that are revenue neutral. Make gas cost $8 a gallon but give everybody a reverse tax payment of $100 a week. Those who drive a lot will spend the $100 on gas, while us carfree folks will spend the $100 on whatever we want.

wahoonc

I open up multiple tabs (one for each city) and do my own comparisons. If I wasn't so lazy I could produce my own charts...

Aaron

wahoonc

Population Density is in there, usually just a single line somewhere around where it gives the ancestries and time zones. City-Data does not list anything outside of the US.

Aaron

gerv 

Thanks Aaron. One wikipedia entry I am leaning towards is this one. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._by_population If you click on the "Discussion" tab, you get to set various qualifications about the actual data. For example, the New York statistic appears to include a wider area than you might expect, which tends to reduce the actual density per sq km.

However, without a doubt, Tokyo is one of the largest cities in the world and a population density > New York's and still several posters here rate it here as bike friendly.

Toronto is also pretty crowded, as is Rotterdam, and these are also very bike-able cities.

bragi

Densely populated areas are, if anything, more appropriate for bicycling than less-densely populated areas. Los Angeles isn't very amenable to a car-free lifestyle, partly because of the culture itself (i.e., car-obsessed inhabitants), but also because everything is so sprawled out. More geographically compact, dense cities, on the other hand, like San Francisco, Seattle, central Portland, NYC, along with the usual Euro cities, seem to work out really well for cyclists.

electrik

Hong Kong is the densest city in the world, from what i've heard cycling there is quite insane and not that popular compared to transit . Not to mention the geography is a very limiting factor for cycling. I guess people are out of their cars though.

JPprivate

I've compiled some numbers, for cities I have used persons per sq mile for US and Europe.

I always thought that part of the problem was population density (better public transit in Europe etc), but at least for the major US cities that doesn't seem to be the case:

England 1023 sq mi
Belgium 918 sq mi
Germany 593 sq mi
Italy 519 sq mi
Denmark 334 sq mi
Poland 319 sq mi
France 301 sq mi
Austria 257 sq mi
Spain 231 sq mi

US states:
MA 810 sq mi
CT 703 sq mi
NY 408 sq mi
FL 350 sq mi
OH 250 sq mi
MO 87 sq mi
NM 16 sq mi

city (proper):

Paris 21,000 sq mi
London 12,450 sq mi
Vienna 10,693 sq mi
Berlin 10,000 sq mi
zurich 10,000 sq mi
amsterdam 9,080 sq mi
Hamburg 6,068 sq mi




Brooklyn 36,000 sq mi
san francisco 17,323
chicago 12,557 sq mi
philadelphia 11,457
washington dc 10,000 sq mi
seattle 7,361 sq mi
denver 4000 sq mi
charlotte, nc 3,000 sq mi
kansas city 1,538

gerv 

One thing I notice about the data is that New York must be the metropolitan area, which probably covers Connecticut too. It seems like trying to nail down this figure is like trying to compare apples and oranges. I am heartened though that really large cities like Tokyo are reasonably bike friendly. What does that tell you?