> "Walking and biking environments result in ghettoes"
I must admit this viewpoint is one I have never seen before! Instead I've heard many arguments that bike lanes and pedestrianization are forms of gentrification, but resulting
"ghettoes?" +1 for creativity!
Yes? Bikes are an incredibly segregating means of transport. They are inherently limited in range, and they are largely incompatible with any other transit mode.
So you create an environment where all the housing within bike range from good jobs is unaffordable for most people.
And the most democratic mode of transport? Cars. They provide far greater accessibility.
You are spot on about segregation. Yes, walking and biking are for undesirables. The suburbs are built for cars and cars only. Poor people (African, etc) can't afford the large lots, the minimum size of residence, the HOA and lawn maintenance, car required to go anywhere. This is how you can do segregation without violating any laws. Usually, most people don't admit that these are the real goals. I'm surprised that you are openly admitting that segregation is what we want. I guess times are changing!
So you're saying that bicycles have caused our land use patterns to be inequitable? I would say I agree that transportation modes have made land use allocations in western society problematic, but again you are very novel in being the first person I've ever met who attributes those issues to people riding bicycles.
No, bicycles are more of a symptom. They are not the sole cause, of course.
The actual root cause is over-centralization, where the only jobs worth having are concentrated in downtowns of a dwindling number of cities. These downtowns are always congested, and bike lanes are one way to make it more tolerable. But if you can afford an apartment, of course.
Bike lanes near Wall Street are an iconic example. If you're using them, then it's highly likely that you're a multi-millionaire. Or maybe you inherited a rent-controlled apartment.
Cars historically were a great equalizer. Sure, your CEO was likely driving a better car, and living in a better house. But they were stuck in the same traffic along with you. And this _was_ a factor when deciding on the next office location: "Hm. I really hate the commute, perhaps our next office should be in a bit less congested location?"
And this is reflected in actual research: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4938093/ - "For the USA, we observe an exponent βUSA ≈ 0 indicating that the density of jobs is independent from the skill level in the USA. For the UK and Denmark, we observe a non-zero exponent with βUK ≈ 1/2 for the UK and a larger value for Denmark βDK ≈ 0.8. These results indicate that the density of jobs decreases with the skill level, more in Denmark than in the UK."
Ok most of what you're saying makes sense, but having gone to bike lanes in lower manhattan it seems like it's a lot of food delivery people 24/7 with the normal new yorkers you'd see on the subway during commuting hours. From a humanistic perspective it seems like it's a good thing to ensure that delivery drivers aren't killed by motor vehicles and have the ability to not conflict with sidewalk pedestrians? As a driver I would prefer they're not in my lane.
> Cars historically were a great equalizer.
I suppose we'll agree to disagree on this one, there's like a bajillion books that assert the opposite so I will let those and the intertubes do the talking.
As it relates to the study, I'm a little confused how it relates to the above discussion. Is this a good or bad thing to have density of jobs relate to skill level? Wouldn't the historic development of these cities with thousands of years of human civilization in Europe vs. relatively recently developed US cities be a confounding factor in exploring land use patterns?
> Ok most of what you're saying make sense, but having gone to bike lanes in lower manhattan it seems like it's a lot of food delivery people
Yes, I should have mentioned that I specifically meant people using bike lanes for commutes. Bike lanes for work or for recreation are a totally different story, and I have nothing against them.
However, in this case it still reinforces my point: delivery by bike is a luxury good. It still is something that makes living in an utterly unaffordable area more bearable for people who have money.
> I suppose we'll agree to disagree on this one, there's like a bajillion books that assert the opposite so I will let those and the intertubes do the talking.
I'm actually not saying anything that is not an accepted fact in urbanism.
> As it relates to the study, I'm a little confused how it relates to the above discussion. Is this a good or bad thing to have density of jobs relate to skill level?
No, it's not good. This means that good jobs force people to move closer to the centers of their concentration. This automatically reduces opportunities for other people.
> Bikes are an incredibly segregating means of transport.
A bike costs on the order of a few hundred dollars; there's essentially no barrier to entry.
Comparing them with cars on this metric is laughable. Must be 18 or so and able bodied, obtain an expensive license, purchase the actual very expensive vehicle, pay for constant upkeep in insurance, fuel, repairs, and risk serious accidents. All of this is an insane barrier to entry.
> They are inherently limited in range
Yeah, to like a radius of 5km or so, on the low end. That's quite a bit in a city.
> and they are largely incompatible with any other transit mode.
Kind of, but not really? Between e-scooters, rental bikes, and bike garages at train stations, this really is just a matter of proper infrastructure in the end. I don't get the relevance of this anyway.
> So you create an environment where all the housing within bike range from good jobs is unaffordable for most people.
And where exactly is this place you describe where everyone commutes exclusively by bike? Ooops, right, it doesn't exist, never has, probably never will. So you're just making stuff up.
I mean, it is a cute little theory, but it has zero relevance to the world we've built or ever plan to build.
Or maybe it's a strawman, implying that someone somewhere has claimed that we should only commute by bike? Again, cute, but nobody says that. Adding public transportation to the equation neatly eradicates your entire made up theory.
> And the most democratic mode of transport? Cars. They provide far greater accessibility.
I adore your conversational technique of adding positively charged words like "democratic" and "accessibility" without any justification or explanation, just to make it seem like you have an argument. "The democratic, accessible and green coal power plants." I'll add this technique to my list of common fallacies, thanks.
> Comparing them with cars on this metric is laughable. Must be 18 or so and able bodied, obtain an expensive license, purchase the actual very expensive vehicle, pay for constant upkeep in insurance, fuel, repairs, and risk serious accidents. All of this is an insane barrier to entry.
Just wait until you hear how much transit costs!
> And where exactly is this place you describe where everyone commutes exclusively by bike? Ooops, right, it doesn't exist, never has, probably never will. So you're just making stuff up.
Who said anything about exclusivity? Please point out with a hyperlink.
> I adore your conversational technique of adding positively charged words like "democratic" and "accessibility" without any justification or explanation, just to make it seem like you have an argument.
I provided a link in this thread. Go on, dispute it.
What a ridiculous take. There are many, many cities and towns worldwide that are primarily walk/bike friendly and they seem to do very well in terms of quality of life.
Well, do they have easily affordable housing for poor people? Or do they self-segregate into high-income areas surrounded by a halo of low-income areas?
