A hmmm thought on a friday night

[bmccasland]

If you look at the spread of the sub-urbs, post-WWII, especially in those countries that weren't directly affected (I.e. USA), I would say ....

Oh crap, now I re-read your original question and I'm confused. I need more coffee.

Society has evolved around transport. You'd be hard pressed to get most of us Norte Americanos out of our cars.

Are you asking about over time in general - from the horse cart era through railroads - think about how rail roads affected the settling the western US. I'm not so sure about Australia. Don't you have RR towns - that existed because there's fuel/water? Farmers and ranchers bring their stock to the closest RR town?

I noticed when I was on a trip across the Sierra Madres in northern Mexico that there were no power lines, or rail roads to link the little villages - and how time seemed to have stood still. Where my experience with American History was that there was still a unifying effort to link the country. And I didn't see that in Mexico.

[TsPoet]

round transport. You'd be hard pressed to get most of us Norte Americanos out of our cars.

.

I think that's how I'd approach the question - compare NA to EU to Africa - NA personal transportation (cars), EU personal but more public (yes?), Africa - mostly public. So, what does that say about those societies? Did the form of transportation lead to the society or visa versa? (I know, that's the original question), but I think looking at different combos from different parts of the world might sort of give an answer.
Then there's the Amish in the US - I'd say in their case the transport evolved around the society. But, I think you look at LA and the society evolved around the transport!
Where I live we have a huge beautiful bus transportation center built right on the bypass. they built it for a gazillion dollars right before I moved here 11 years ago. It has never opened. At least it's parking lot has become a good place for car and motorcycle training classes.

[nolemom]

I would have to say transport evolved as a result of technology. Society evolved around the new opportunities provided by transport. Entire regions thrived or withered away based on the location of railroad tracks or later, interstate highways. The women's movement was impacted by the bicycle and the freedom of movement it provided to women. In order to ride the bike, new styles of clothing became acceptable, etc. I love a thought-provoking question right after a long, hard ride. I hope I am making some sense.

[OakLeaf]

I'm going to say transport evolved around society.

The USA was founded on individual transport. Families set off all on their own, or maybe with small groups of a few other families, each in their own wagon, to settle on isolated homesteads from which they'd need individual transport to have any contact (social or business) with other human beings.

Our means of transport may have gotten much faster and dirtier, but the idea that we all need individual transport has been stable over the centuries, I think.

From what I've seen of Italy and the Netherlands, they simply have a more collectivist way of going about things, transport included. Farmers seem to live in small villages, of which there are many, and travel a short distance to work their land. An arrangement that's probably been in place since feudal times. Other than that, people simply don't have the idea in their heads that they need individual transport for every journey.

Other countries, I have no idea.

I don't think the Amish are a good example (because their transport is dictated by church dogma, not by "evolution"), but even so, the reason they rely on horse and buggy is specifically to keep the communities united - to make it difficult for people to travel and interact outside of the sphere in which they themselves are directly affected - so that would be another example of transport being dictated by society and not the other way around.

[SadieKate]

Both over time, but the beginnings were "Society around Transport". Societies that evolved faster and further had domesticated (or domesticatible) beasts of burden.

May I recommend Jared Diamond's The Third Chimpazee? See Chapter 14.

[TsPoet]

I don't think the Amish are a good example (because their transport is dictated by church dogma, not by "evolution"), but even so, the reason they rely on horse and buggy is specifically to keep the communities united - to make it difficult for people to travel and interact outside of the sphere in which they themselves are directly affected - so that would be another example of transport being dictated by society and not the other way around.

mmm - didn't you just prove my point? Transportation has evolved around the Amish society, not the other way around. Exactly what you said. I think they are a perfect example of society driving transport, I can't think of any other case where it is that clear-cut. Every other case I can think of is a mix, at least in the 21st century.
Which is another point - if you asked this question 100 years ago, would the answer be different?

[spokewench]

I'm going to say transport evolved around society.

The USA was founded on individual transport. Families set off all on their own, or maybe with small groups of a few other families, each in their own wagon, to settle on isolated homesteads from which they'd need individual transport to have any contact (social or business) with other human beings.

Our means of transport may have gotten much faster and dirtier, but the idea that we all need individual transport has been stable over the centuries, I think.

From what I've seen of Italy and the Netherlands, they simply have a more collectivist way of going about things, transport included. Farmers seem to live in small villages, of which there are many, and travel a short distance to work their land. An arrangement that's probably been in place since feudal times. Other than that, people simply don't have the idea in their heads that they need individual transport for every journey.

Other countries, I have no idea.

I don't think the Amish are a good example (because their transport is dictated by church dogma, not by "evolution"), but even so, the reason they rely on horse and buggy is specifically to keep the communities united - to make it difficult for people to travel and interact outside of the sphere in which they themselves are directly affected - so that would be another example of transport being dictated by society and not the other way around.

I'm not really sure that the Amish use horses for transportation to keep their community people isolated. It is more of a choice, i.e. like buying locally grown food, and living a simple life and riding a bike rather than a car. The choice is not driven by technological advances. Not such a bad choice in many ways.

But, I do agree that this is an example of society driving transportation choice. I think this is sort of a chicken before the egg concept. Transportation is first chosen by society or driven by technological advances. However, then you have the reverse reaction of a certain choice causing a society to grow in a certain way; so then the choice drives a change in the society, i.e. for instance, the development of the suburbs in America.

spoke

[OakLeaf]

I'm not really sure that the Amish use horses for transportation to keep their community people isolated.

No, not isolated. To keep them from becoming alienated. Like the chapter in Animal, Vegetable, Mineral, remember? Which talked about using horses for farmwork, not transport, but same thing: if you plow faster than horses can walk, you can't see what's going on in the soil. If you do business or have regular social interactions farther away than a horse can travel round trip in a day, you're having effects in a community that might not redound to yourself.

And maybe it's the horse-and-buggy Mennonites who make it so explicit that that's the reason for their form of transport, more than the Old Order Amish, who forego much more technology; but I think it's both.

[crazycanuck]

Sk-i'll see if the Curtin library has that book.

Have any of you read " The Geography of Nowhere"?

I'm on my way out but a large part of our uni tutorial discussion yesterday was from a video called " End of Suburbia", should you feel like finding it.

[SadieKate]

Have any of you read " The Geography of Nowhere"?

That's the second time in 2 days I've heard it mentioned. Hmm.