Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> On Thu, 26 May 2005 06:59:01 -0400, "Ken"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> The Bicycle Coalition estimates that up to 40,000 people regularly
>> commute by bicycle in San Francisco
>
> Compare with London: 650,000 regular cyclists, 100,000 bike commuters.
> Population about 750,000. LA population is, what? ten million for the
> county?
Who said anything about LA? SF is 400 miles away.
Also, I believe greater London is at least the same size as greater LA. In a
practical sense London is a bigger city. LA has patches of high density,
interspersed with low-mid density. Over the same area, London has relatively
high density throughout.
In central London, motorized traffic moves slowly enough that cycling is almost
always faster. Even with heavy traffic, this is not often true in LA. Not to
mention faster traffic is intimidating to most cyclists. Also, London is as
flat as a billiard table, which facilitates cycling for everyone -- not just the
young and fit. LA is a lot hillier than most people think.
> You're right, that is pathetic!
That I agree with!
If it's any consolation, I've noticed a huge increase in the number of bike
commuters in Orange County, CA. What was once a trickle of cyclist commuters on
major throughfares has become a steady stream. I think this is due to a
combination of things -- a rapid increase in driving commute times; a
time-pressed, but health conscious population that wants to get their exercise
in; and a sudden, tremendous increase in the cost of living and driving, w/o
increases in pay -- especially for the working poor.
To an even greater degree, the latter is probably a factor in SF cycling too.
When people can hardly afford their rent anymore, they can no longer afford to
keep a car on the road.
Matt O.