Pants-of-dog wrote:Yes, I made that point earlier. Since then I have developed it a bit by pointing out that bicycles have a series of advantages and drawbacks that are particularly suited for urban centres. The main drawback is carrying capacity, but as I already pointed out, the number of times a person has to do some heavy hauling, (s)he can hire a professional or rent a vehicle.
Other drawbacks were mentioned earlier: exposure to the elements and physical exertion.
There are some other drawbacks related to haulage. For instance, it is much more convenient to purchase non-perishables in bulk, in which case you need cargo capacity. I purchase my non-perishables in large quantities at discount big box retailers like Costco, which saves me time and money. Granted, you could still rent a vehicle for this. U-Haul rents cargo vans for $20 a day and 99 cents a mile, and most car rental companies will rent you a car for less than $30 a day with no mileage charges on weekends.
It basically all comes down to convenience v. costs, both personal (cost of a car, gas, maintenance, etc.) and social.
Pants-of-dog wrote:Montreal has a population density similar to New Orleans. Los Angeles has a much higher population density. Why does everyone drive there?
From Wikipedia
MontrealDensity 4,439/km2 (11,496/sq mi)
New OrleansDensity 1,965/sq mi (759/km2)
(no metro density listed)
Los AngelesDensity 8,205/sq mi (3,168/km2)
Montreal is 40% denser than Los Angeles and nearly six times denser than New Orleans.
The difference in transit patterns between Montreal and LA are therefore more interesting, given that the difference isn't enormous. I believe it is because LA was originally laid out as a street car city, which transitioned like other street car cities into an auto-oriented city. Lately density has increased due to the huge, unplanned population growth since 1970 in LA.
Pants-of-dog wrote:The theatres were clearly listed on the website.
Right, but it's not one of the cultural services you originally named. You omitted it from your original point, so I wasn't thinking of it even though it is a cultural service.
Pants-of-dog wrote:Unless you live in a seismically active area, most developers will not include resilient mechanical separations in the floor structure due to cost reasons.
Naturally, but fortunately we have regulations. Resilient mechanical separations should become standard practice in urban building codes to increase livability and enhance the amount of building stock which would remain usable in the event of a military attack.
Pants-of-dog wrote:Staying with the motif of urban transportation, I notice that many suburbs have no sidewalks. I also notice that many suburban teenagers like to drive fast because they finally have a car and can go do things other than watch TV or get driven to a friend's house.
Do you think that teenagers driving fast and kids playing (literally) on the street is a good mix?
Suburbs have less need of sidewalks due to their much lower traffic flow. Fast driving teens and kids playing in the street aren't a good mix, but it really doesn't seem to be that big of a problem. In any case, some suburbs address this with traffic calming techniques like speed bumps and serpentine roads (which are also more aesthetically pleasing).
Pants-of-dog wrote:No. I am saying that cars cause the same problems for pedestrians as pedestrians cause for cars, as well as other problems.
I never disputed that and even spelled it out (pollution).
Pants-of-dog wrote:Add in the number of major illnesses and fatalities due to car pollution and I bet the number of major and fatal injuries and illnesses is higher than the number of minor injuries.
What is a minor fatality?
I didn't say minor fatality, and I am surprised you would take the statement, "major injuries and fatalities" to mean major fatalities even though that is a grammatically correct interpretation.
Everything you believe is wrong. Yes,
you!Boom. You just got Dave'd. -Bramlow