Many are complaining about a new study that says if we cycled like the Dutch, carbon emissions would drop by more than all of Canada's emissions. But it wouldn't be so hard.
2. During a 20 mile round-trip bicycle ride to visit my daughter's family, I do a Costco stop and strap the 48 rolls of toilet paper to the rear carrier on my bicycle. Incidentally, for those who a thinking they are too old to bicycle, I'll be 77 years old in September.
People shouldn't be whining about being told to cycle like the Dutch, they should be demanding cycling infrastructure like the Dutch have to save themselves a fortune!
"I am turning the comments back on here because, notwithstanding a few who criticize everything that I write"
There is a difference between criticizing (which, truth be told, I have done so in the past at TH) and challenging. I get both all the time. Frankly, I learn from both but the latter is far more fun to engage with readers holding viewpoints that are not mine.
TH - speaking of which: I'm betting that your former "heads of state" are wondering why its readership has plummeted as it has become "HGTV Lite" (the comment VB left bemoaning the paucity of "hard Eco stuff" that DEMANDED commenting upon). They should never have let you and Sami go as it has now turned into a feminist enclave, devoid of any of the stuff that made us THINK (and then, of course, comment) in discussing your main points AND with other commenters.
The posts themselves, as I hold over at my place, should just be the "jumping off" place - the commenting area should be a loud, boisterous, and rambunctious on the differences of opinions.
I certainly had my share that mostly didn't agree with me - it forced me to sharpen my thoughts, logic, and presentation to debate better. It was a LOT of fun while it lasted.
Some really good points here. Where I think Mr. Steinberg's Dutch lessons fall short is in the application to the North American context, which has vastly different land use patterns than Europe. You cannot ignore existing land use patterns when discussing whether investments in alternative infrastructure make sense. Obviously it makes sense to convert streets in dense cities to prioritize pedestrians and bicyclists. But most North American cities do not have anything approaching that level of density. The thing is, our entire development model, to use the rhetoric of the Strong Towns group, is a giant Ponzi scheme and is essentially bankrupt. There is very little money to invest in streetscape redesign because we can barely maintain the existing auto-oriented infrastructure we have. The low-density development model doesn't pay for itself, and communities come to rely on new growth to pay for existing liabilities. I totally agree that we need to invest more in bicycling infrastructure, but in the North American context I think it's a little more complicated from a budgetary perspective. We don't have the economically productive land use patterns that they have in Europe and we're poorer for it.
Thanks for an excellent crib sheet that anyone can use to counter the inevitable push back from a car obsessed society whenever someone tries to promote other less damaging. The infrastructure cost argument is always one that gets me wound up. The appalling waste of resources that goes into constructing and maintaining infrastructure for the automobile (not to mention the environmental damage it causes) needs to be curtailed now and the resources redirected to activities that will begin to undo the damage to the planet that our love affair with cars has already done.
Love it Lloyd. A rational presentation. We can attest first hand that the Netherlands had a car culture like North America in the 70's and it took decades (still happening) to build out the change to make that 28% modal share possible. fyi there are parts of The Netherlands in the south that border Belgium that have hills and the culture there is no different than in the North. In many of NL's urban centres it's actually preferable to commute by bike in terms of time and cost. Imagine if Toronto had the same bike infrastructure as Utrecht NL. By car it currently takes about 40 minutes to travel across Adelaide St from Bathurst to Sherbourne in rush hour. By bike its only 15 minutes. Like those who refused to believe the world was not flat, it will be an uphill battle to make change for those who can't see the possibility for change. You have to want to change in the first place. Any smart person knows you have to "be the change you want to see" (Mahatma Gandhi)
I think it's highly disingenuous to compare the Netherlands, with a population density of 508 per km-2, to that of the U.S. (36 per km-2) or Canada (4 per km-2) and then expect those other countries to be able to scale up bike riding accordingly.
As Mark Twain famously said, "There are lies, damned lies, and statistics"—but so often I read articles like this that ignore IMPORTANT statistics that underpin a viewpoint. Can Americans ride bikes more than they do now? Sure. But there are three things that guarantee we don't ever come close to matching the Netherlands' cycling level:
1. Areal footprint; the U.S. land area is 9,833,520 km², while the Netherlands' is a miniscule 41,543 km² … or a whopping 236x smaller than the United States (which plays into that whole population density argument I outlined above), and …
2. Existing infrastructure, largely revolving around moderate density suburban residential housing. We are not going to condemn and bulldoze vast swaths of American suburbia to recreate a much more urbanized, dense housing infrastructure, so anyone who says we can adapt the Netherlands' infrastructure and biking culture HERE is simply lying; and ...
3. Much wider climatological variation, thanks to our globally unique geography, compared to the Netherlands' Gulf Stream moderated mild climate.
Unless and until someone can adequately explain how American dispersed housing, lower population density, and geography can be matched to that of the Netherlands', this is a non-starter from a practical application perspective.
3. Many "adverse" comments can be simply explained as "don't accept the overwhelming need to promptly minimize greenhouse gas emissions, and therefore have no incentive to focus on the feasibility of the solution". For "progress", attempt to direct conversation to gaining acceptance of need to promptly minimize greenhouse gas emissions.
1. Comments ON - good choice.
2. During a 20 mile round-trip bicycle ride to visit my daughter's family, I do a Costco stop and strap the 48 rolls of toilet paper to the rear carrier on my bicycle. Incidentally, for those who a thinking they are too old to bicycle, I'll be 77 years old in September.
3.
Glad you turned the comments back on Lloyd. Did you see this article about car payments? https://www.theglobeandmail.com/investing/personal-finance/article-car-payments-high-interests/
People shouldn't be whining about being told to cycle like the Dutch, they should be demanding cycling infrastructure like the Dutch have to save themselves a fortune!
"I am turning the comments back on here because, notwithstanding a few who criticize everything that I write"
There is a difference between criticizing (which, truth be told, I have done so in the past at TH) and challenging. I get both all the time. Frankly, I learn from both but the latter is far more fun to engage with readers holding viewpoints that are not mine.
TH - speaking of which: I'm betting that your former "heads of state" are wondering why its readership has plummeted as it has become "HGTV Lite" (the comment VB left bemoaning the paucity of "hard Eco stuff" that DEMANDED commenting upon). They should never have let you and Sami go as it has now turned into a feminist enclave, devoid of any of the stuff that made us THINK (and then, of course, comment) in discussing your main points AND with other commenters.
The posts themselves, as I hold over at my place, should just be the "jumping off" place - the commenting area should be a loud, boisterous, and rambunctious on the differences of opinions.
I certainly had my share that mostly didn't agree with me - it forced me to sharpen my thoughts, logic, and presentation to debate better. It was a LOT of fun while it lasted.
Some really good points here. Where I think Mr. Steinberg's Dutch lessons fall short is in the application to the North American context, which has vastly different land use patterns than Europe. You cannot ignore existing land use patterns when discussing whether investments in alternative infrastructure make sense. Obviously it makes sense to convert streets in dense cities to prioritize pedestrians and bicyclists. But most North American cities do not have anything approaching that level of density. The thing is, our entire development model, to use the rhetoric of the Strong Towns group, is a giant Ponzi scheme and is essentially bankrupt. There is very little money to invest in streetscape redesign because we can barely maintain the existing auto-oriented infrastructure we have. The low-density development model doesn't pay for itself, and communities come to rely on new growth to pay for existing liabilities. I totally agree that we need to invest more in bicycling infrastructure, but in the North American context I think it's a little more complicated from a budgetary perspective. We don't have the economically productive land use patterns that they have in Europe and we're poorer for it.
Thanks for an excellent crib sheet that anyone can use to counter the inevitable push back from a car obsessed society whenever someone tries to promote other less damaging. The infrastructure cost argument is always one that gets me wound up. The appalling waste of resources that goes into constructing and maintaining infrastructure for the automobile (not to mention the environmental damage it causes) needs to be curtailed now and the resources redirected to activities that will begin to undo the damage to the planet that our love affair with cars has already done.
Love it Lloyd. A rational presentation. We can attest first hand that the Netherlands had a car culture like North America in the 70's and it took decades (still happening) to build out the change to make that 28% modal share possible. fyi there are parts of The Netherlands in the south that border Belgium that have hills and the culture there is no different than in the North. In many of NL's urban centres it's actually preferable to commute by bike in terms of time and cost. Imagine if Toronto had the same bike infrastructure as Utrecht NL. By car it currently takes about 40 minutes to travel across Adelaide St from Bathurst to Sherbourne in rush hour. By bike its only 15 minutes. Like those who refused to believe the world was not flat, it will be an uphill battle to make change for those who can't see the possibility for change. You have to want to change in the first place. Any smart person knows you have to "be the change you want to see" (Mahatma Gandhi)
I think it's highly disingenuous to compare the Netherlands, with a population density of 508 per km-2, to that of the U.S. (36 per km-2) or Canada (4 per km-2) and then expect those other countries to be able to scale up bike riding accordingly.
As Mark Twain famously said, "There are lies, damned lies, and statistics"—but so often I read articles like this that ignore IMPORTANT statistics that underpin a viewpoint. Can Americans ride bikes more than they do now? Sure. But there are three things that guarantee we don't ever come close to matching the Netherlands' cycling level:
1. Areal footprint; the U.S. land area is 9,833,520 km², while the Netherlands' is a miniscule 41,543 km² … or a whopping 236x smaller than the United States (which plays into that whole population density argument I outlined above), and …
2. Existing infrastructure, largely revolving around moderate density suburban residential housing. We are not going to condemn and bulldoze vast swaths of American suburbia to recreate a much more urbanized, dense housing infrastructure, so anyone who says we can adapt the Netherlands' infrastructure and biking culture HERE is simply lying; and ...
3. Much wider climatological variation, thanks to our globally unique geography, compared to the Netherlands' Gulf Stream moderated mild climate.
Unless and until someone can adequately explain how American dispersed housing, lower population density, and geography can be matched to that of the Netherlands', this is a non-starter from a practical application perspective.
Full stop.
3. Many "adverse" comments can be simply explained as "don't accept the overwhelming need to promptly minimize greenhouse gas emissions, and therefore have no incentive to focus on the feasibility of the solution". For "progress", attempt to direct conversation to gaining acceptance of need to promptly minimize greenhouse gas emissions.