In his opinion piece for The New York Times, Russell Shorto gives a strong defence of the value of designing cities not for cars but for people by planning for bicycles as a major form of normal daily transport for everyone. Shorto compares his experience as an American with the contrast he has found in European cities, especially Amsterdam, where he has lived for several years. According to Shorto, it isn't enough to simply add bicycle lanes to a few roads, what is required is a change of cultural attitude so that company "C.E.O.’s cycle to work, and kids cycle to school" (2011, ¶ 6). Shorto argues that major differences in mind-sets, the culturally built in attitudes, between Americans and Europeans explains much of the difference, especially Americans' "famed individualism [which] breeds an often healthy distrust of the elite" (¶ 10), making it difficult to impose the bicycle parking places, extensive bicycle lane systems, penalties for car use and other changes needed to redesign cities to favour bicycles over cars for personal transportation. However, Shorto is also optimistic that the " practical, no-nonsense" (¶ 8) will come to realise that accepting the social and political change to allow cities to be made bicycle friendly actually leads to "an expansion of ... individual freedom" (¶ 11).
Short's short article raises so many issues that I don't know which is best to start with. Perhaps the first thing that occurred to me as I read was the stupid bicycles lanes in Bangkok. I agree with Shorto that bicycle lanes are an excellent idea, but whatever politicians were responsible for them in Bangkok (I can't remember which former Bangkok governor) managed to take an excellent idea, and turn it into something that is truly stupid. If you walk from AUA to either Lumpini Park or Rajadamri BTS, you see the fading bicycle lanes on footpath. That's right, they are not on the road where wheeled transport vehicles belong, but on the footpaths, which, as the name clearly says, are for people travelling on foot, for people walking. Even weirder, when you follow the lanes towards Lumpini Park, when they come to obstacle on the road, such as a bus stop shelter, the lanes do not go around it, they just stop at one end and start at the other! Perhaps the politicians and planners thought the bicycle riders could some how use quantum tunnelling or other clever technology to get from one side of the obstacle to the other without going around it, or perhaps they just believe strongly in magic. But I think even Harry Potter would probably go around. But in Bangkok the silly idea of putting bicycle lanes on footpaths rather than on roads is much worse because it encourages the already awful habit of motor cycles, especially motor cycle taxis and their lazy customers, to ride on the footpaths, making them even less appealing for sensible, decent people who realise that footpaths are for walking and who want to use them for that purpose. Bicycle lanes belong on roads, not on footpaths.
The bread. (Yes, that's a two word sentence without a verb in sight - and it would even be OK in a TOEFL exam.) One of the best bits of Shorto's article are his comments on bread, which he uses as an example of the sorts of benefits that come from the change in cultural attitudes that bicycling and public transportation can bring about. Since people no longer have cars to carry numerous bags of groceries home from once a week shopping expeditions, they must instead shop daily, and that means they get better quality food, and I think also enjoy a better quality of life. I could relate this to my own life: I either walk home every day through Lumpini Park, dodging the motor bikes on the bicycle lanes, or take the BTS. Either way, I almost always pop into Tops Supermarket at Silom Complex to buy some food for the day - salad at the salad bar, and usually some fresh baked bread. Their cakes are pretty awful, but the Tops bakery near the exit makes a variety of very tasty breads, including excellent, very buttery croissants, which I love with my afternoon coffee. And now I'm hungry again. But because I never drive I have to buy fresh food daily, and I'm sure that not only tastes better, but is healthier.
Finally (I think), I can't agree with Shorto's approval of excessive government control and interference to bring about these highly desirable changes. And I don't think that is necessary. It would be fair for car users, including taxis, to pay road tolls to cover the cost of combating the pollution, noise, and infra-structure costs that they impose, so simply putting fair tolls on every road, say 100 Baht to enter Silom Road, every time, including for people who live there, would be a fair but effective way of encouraging people to think twice before driving there. And private enterprise could be trusted to build bicycle parking centres if they thought it would be profitable - I have great faith in morally informed private enterprise, and share the very healthy American distrust of controlling, interfering, dictatorial governments, politicians, bureaucrats and officials forcing people to do things - that sort of communist thinking leads to serious human rights violations, as we see all to commonly in such things as the awful social order campaign forced on Bangkok by the immoral Purachai Piumsomboon when he was in Thaksin's previous government.
__________
References
As you will quickly notice, the standard of writing in The New York Times is far more academic than that of the BBC, but I think the BBC is OK to start with. In fact, academics often write for The New York Times. It is what you should be aiming to read, but I suggest starting with the BBC, which is a bit easier. Perhaps in a couple of weeks, we'll all switch to the NYTimes.
ReplyDelete