On Thu, Feb 06, 2003 at 08:04:30PM -0800, Paul Johnson wrote: > On Thu, Feb 06, 2003 at 06:14:11PM -0600, DvB wrote:
> > (advocacy of public transport which I totally agree with) > > Of course, this isn't necessarily an easy thing to do in many places > > where most of the growth has happened according to current zoning > > standards (like the southern US). > > I'm so glad that Portland realises it's way behind the game when it > comes to urban planning. I'd rather be playing catchup with Northern > European cities than having Portland become another Los Angeles or > Seattle (a Los Angeles victim itself). Trouble is British cities, at least, seem to be playing catchup with American ones. Everything is designed on the assumption that everyone has a car and will use it for everything. New shopping centres are built outside the town, so it's a long way there and you have to drive. And the Government is quite happy to subsidise private transport to the hilt (expenditure on roads >> revenue from road and fuel tax) but moans like buggery about subsidising public transport. There's the "New Town", Milton Keynes, which is totally designed around the car. It is _huge_ (by British standards). It is possible to get from one side to the other in about the same time as for a traditional British city, but that's because it is both legal and practical to do 70mph most of the way. If you live in Milton Keynes and you haven't got a car, you're buggered. The fact that everybody hates the place hasn't stopped lots of other towns building Milton-Keynes-esque urbomas around the outside. British town centres are still pretty close to the medieval street plan, and it's impossible to do anything about that without razing the place to the ground. As more and more people drive around, the town centres become gridlocked for several hours a day. It is therefore much quicker and much less frustrating to ride a bicycle. The trouble here is (a) you get wet and (b) most car drivers think that the normal physical rules about two objects not being able to occupy the same space at the same time cease to apply when the two objects concerned are a car and a cyclist. Cycling is also seen as "infra dig" for some reason. It's for kids who aren't old enough to drive and nerdy types in Lycra shorts and crash helmets shaped like a Yorkshireman's cap. If you're old enough to drive, you have to have a car, even if you can't afford it. People think it's very strange when I turn up to fix their TV with my tools strapped to the back of my bike. A bicycle is an ideal accompaniment to a train journey as it provides a great solution to the problem of the station at the other end being some distance from where you want to be. Here again, Britain is moving backwards; as old trains are replaced by new ones which are half the length and don't have a guard's van to put your bike in, it is becoming increasingly hard to take a bike on the train. The American writer Bill Bryson comments that he cannot understand the British obsession with cars given that there is not a single aspect of driving in Britain that has anything pleasurable about it. I must say I rather agree with him. Pigeon -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
