Why can't all cities have bike bridges like Copenhagen's Cycle Snake? (2014) | Hacker News Reader

Why can't all cities have bike bridges like Copenhagen's Cycle Snake? (2014)

theguardian.com

71 pointsOsiris3056 comments

I personally avoid the bike bridge and take the long way around. It's a gimmicky solution. There are always pedestrians on the bridge, mainly due to bad integration in the preexisting infrastructure. Busy rush hour bike commuters and clueless tourist on a narrow, fenced off, bike lane is not a good combination.

The article even hints at the real interesting story about bike infrastructure in copenhagen - the super bike lanes. But I guess that the bright red snake brings in more clicks.

Yes, I was just wondering why it doesn't have a sidewalk.

Even in the short video you can see someone walk across it pushing a stroller/buggy. While I was watching I was actually thinking that it needed a pedestrian sidewalk.

Yeah, lack of a sidewalk is asking for trouble.

A comparable bridge in Amsterdam, the Nescio Bridge[1] across a major canal does have a sidewalk. Only at some point the pedestrian and cycle paths split and pedestrians are supposed to take the stairs, but some people still walk on the bike path. I guess the lesson is that you really do need sidewalk everywhere.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nescio_Bridge

To be fair, I often see tourists in amsterdam managing to walk themselves onto highways, ignoring the various no entry signs. At some point you'll have to educate road users instead of trying to make the roads more fool-proof.

On highways?! I've never seen that in Amsterdam. Tourists straying onto bike paths are sadly way too common, though.

Doing my driving lessons and my instructor is always ranting about cyclists. That they don't pay for all this infrastructure that is being built for them.

Mate, roads and bridges are being built from tax money and everyone pays for it.

Also each bike on the road takes a car off the road. The other problem in Toronto is that motorists think that petrol taxes cover roads. They don't even cover a quarter of the cost. So they get all indignant about it.

Indeed. In the US, infrastructure like roads is heavily subsidized.

This is my go-to article to share:

https://momentummag.com/free-rider-myth/

From TFA: What if I told you that by driving a car you become a freeloader, a drain on the economy? That people who bicycle instead are subsidizing a road system that they are largely not welcome on? In order to break even on the cost of roads and pay for every driver who uses them each year, we would need 54% of commuters using a bicycle as their sole means of transportation.

Nice article, thanks for sharing that! I also liked this tidbit from the linked paper (http://www.vtpi.org/whoserd.pdf):

> Critics sometimes argue that walking and cycling primarily provide recreational travel [...] “Why should I— either as a highway user-tax payer or a general taxpayer—have to pay for someone else’s hobby?”

> Travel surveys indicate that about half of all [cycling/walking] is “recreational,” including travel for exercise, sport and cultural events, and socializing (Kuzmyak and Dill 2012; Litman 2012), but so is more than half of all motor vehicle travel (BTS 2002). [emphasis mine]

That's very interesting. I'm somewhat in the outdoor industry, so the whole, ride-to-destination element of outdoor hobbies is a curious thing, in as much as the hobbies themselves - say, hiking, backpacking, mountain biking, are in National Forest (or similar) which have Leave No Trace Principles.

The companies in these industries really tout these eco/enviro-friendly activities as perhaps a alternative to four-wheel-drivin' or whatever. Preservation of these nature resources is another big topic these companies talk about.

But if one was to just zooms out, a significant amount of time/money is spent just getting to the place the hobby is done in, and there's certainly a lot of environmentally detrimental overhead associated with driving for hours in a car. It always leaves me scratching my head, really. Although we've done a good job with saying that some areas are important and need to be protected, we're also happy enough to put in vast ribbons of concrete roadway to get to them.

A bit of an aside, I apologize.

It's a great aside. And as the debate about over-crowding of the last remaining wildernesses is bound to develop, I wonder whether some "price/cost" which involves the effort expended to get to those places is appropriate.

It's going to be an interesting conversation, and I fear: a bit messy. One of the ways that you illustrate value in say, a Wilderness area or a National Park is by allowing visitation, so people can see first hand how unique an area is. If merely getting to the area is hard to do, these places won't be seen as so valuable to the general population (higher classes will have no problem getting to them, so it because a class issue all of a sudden).

At least in the States, what we desperately need is a lower impact mass transportation system. I've heard all the arguments against railways (etc), and I don't disagree there's good points in those arguments. But it's not something I see pro-environment special interest groups that are around the outdoor industry really push. One such is,

https://protectourwinters.org/

I actually don't know what these people do - they seem like they want to be lobbyists, but I think it's just grass-roots call of action type stuff to get people out to vote. Which I think is a fine idea, but there's so much more we can do.

Good observations. Personally though, I think this is kind of the "proper" usage of a passenger car: getting out of the city/town, but not going to another. There's no viable mass alternative to getting out to the woods -- this is the proverbial last-mile transport, even though in reality it's a lot of miles. And if you're driving a gasoline car, the cleanest way to do it is at a consistent high speed. Hybrids, of course, are even better. It's not really viable yet, as far as I know, to use a full electric for a weekend camping trip. Charging isn't widespread enough and takes too long. (I'd love to be corrected on this, though!)

It's also worth noting that some amount of infrastructure in these areas is necessary for caretakers: rangers/foresters and firefighters need roads. Resource extraction (logging) too. Except for the real high-volume locations like Yellowstone, I'd venture a guess that most of the roads in conservation areas were not built particularly for visitors.

Geography. They have a placid waterway in the middle of the city. It's only 220m long. It's not like there's a whole elevated bikeway system.

It's like Tokyo's Haneda monorail, built out over a waterway because it was empty space.

You're focusing too much on the particular spatial circumstances of this bridge (extended linear structure along a waterway).

The article is clearly calling for appealing, well-designed, grade-separated cycling infrastructure, not a literally identical solution in every city.

But where to put it? Access ramps have to be shallow and thus take up considerable street space. Ramps are as long as those for an elevated road; they're just narrower. Long spirals and zig-zags are a pain; few people use those things unless there's no alternative, such as a freeway overcrossing.

China has a 7km elevated bikeway.[1] But they already had an elevated busway on that route; the bikeway just hangs underneath. Los Angeles had a 9 mile elevated bicycle tollway in 1900, but it was unprofitable and was torn down.

Market St. in SF has an "elevated bikeway" test, but they mean elevation to curb height, not a few meters up.

[1] https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017/07/china-has-just-built-...

There are context-specific problems to be solved in every city, but the idea is that an innovative design process can help, or should at least be considered. It's not reasonable to expect an instant universal solution (that kind of universal modular solution, by the way, is what "infrastructure" often does end up looking like). This article is arguing for a cultural change; it's about fresh thinking and working with the particularity of local spatial conditions in a creative way. It takes a lot of determination.

Here are some examples of comparable projects:

In North America:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_D._Pfluger_Pedestrian_an... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibbs_Street_Pedestrian_Bridge https://www.oregonlive.com/expo/erry-2018/05/378c21c6dc8756/... https://www.ggnltd.com/lower-rainier-vista-and-pedestrian-la...

In Europe:

https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2017/04/11/the-dafne-schi... . https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoge_Brug https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nescio_Bridge https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hovenring https://www.duic.nl/algemeen/officiele-naam-rabobrug-bekend-... https://www.archdaily.com/295646/melkwegbrug-next-architects http://www.inzynierbudownictwa.pl/biznes,inwestycje,artykul,... https://www.fastcompany.com/3056028/from-the-dutch-a-pedestr...

Surprised that this article didn't mention that Copenhagen used to be a car-clogged city with lots of pollution. Over 30 years ago a decision was made to focus on bicycles as a way to improve quality of life. There was even a government organization dedicated to improving quality of life. So policy and government matter, and really do impact our lives.

I read an entire book about this topic, but I've forgotten the name.

Do you have any reference for that? I've been to Copenhagen many times and it is hard to image that the city ever had congestion problems.

I've read about it several times now - from several sources, so it seems to be common knowledge is some circles. There is a famous architect who was in charge of the "quality of life" government organization which was established in response, and he wrote a book which was translated into English. I've tried to remember his name - I know he had an entire Wiki page dedicated to him, but it's just been too many years.

Same for Amsterdam only when the oil crisis hit in the 70s did the city change (also thanks to "think of the children": they were killed by motorists and had nowhere to play)

Failure of imagination.

You may scoff but imagination has a huge part of it.

If you commute by bike then it doesn't take that long before you wish there was some magic pathway that just carried you over those congested, road-blocked areas.

In my dreams of such magic pathways I usually imagine something a little wider than this orange route with a more definite median and more substantial fences at the side to keep the wind at bay, plus a surface that reduces rolling resistance.

The thing is that I keep these thoughts to myself as I struggle along making it alive over and around really oppressive multi-lane highways. I feel as if I am the lone crazy idiot on some of these commutes. And I am. 99% of my fellow road users are in cars, genuinely too scared to ride a bike - and I don't blame them. From that stuck-in-a-box, sitting-in-traffic viewpoint the dreams are different (more lanes, setting off earlier, less traffic) and there just isn't that imagination going on to have a super bike highway when getting on a bike is unimaginable.

You don't share space with road traffic in Copenhagen anyway, as the bike lanes are completely separate.

The article asks why other cities can't have bike bridges.

My point is that if people can't imagine getting out of their tin box and onto a bike then they are not going to imagine having amazing bike highways as per the article.

In London a few years ago a footbridge across the Thames opened that had resonance problems that made it unsuitable for the task intended. The simple solution would have been to make it bicycles only and spend money on a new footbridge. Instead they spent a fortune upgrading a perfectly good bridge (for bikes) to make it a pedestrian bridge. The imagination was not there to just give it over to the cyclists and make it part of the cycle highway network that Ken Livingstone started (for Boris Johnston to take credit for).

In Copenhagen they do have the critical mass of cyclists for imaginative cycle highways to happen, other cities where people are stuck in tin boxes lack that because people can't even imagine cycling.

London has more than enough cyclists to support a cycle bridge, but unfortunately you'd have to cycle along the South Bank to get to the millennium bridge, which is a non starter in any case.

Auckland has one too, over one of the country's busiest motorway junctions:

https://www.stuff.co.nz/auckland/86702560/Aucklands-hot-pink...

However we are also looking forward to a new cycleway alongside the harbour bridge (skypath) and eventually around the harbour (seapath), but these wheels are turning very slowly:

http://www.skypath.org.nz/the-seapath/

Lots of factors, but I suspect at root it's just a matter of political will. Does a high enough proportion of all cities want bike bridges and do they have a responsive and resourced enough government to build them? I live in Boston, where commuting by bike is unfortunately still very dangerous in a lot of the city. Bike advocates are a small but vocal minority and the city has sort of responded to them, but is not moving very quickly to build out our bike infrastructure. It would take a lot more to make this happen anywhere in the ~five year frame.

There's a real chicken-and-egg problem, too. Safe, pleasant bike lanes would likely do a lot to boost bike ridership while at the same time, higher rates of bike ridership are needed to "justify" their construction.

Portland, OR, opened the Tilikum Crossing in 2015: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tilikum_Crossing

It's much bigger than this Cycle Snake but it carries pedestrians, personal vehicles like bikes, public transit, and emergency vehicles. The city is still adapting things to use it but it already carries 2000+ bikes per day, the new light rail line uses it, it completed the East-West streetcar loop, and various bus routes have moved or are being moved to it from the crowded regular bridges.

I can't speak for everyone but I think it has really benefited the city.

Because in most places the people planning new cycle ways drive cars and don’t cycle.

I think it should be mandatory that everyone rides a bike for some amount of time before getting a driver's license, and everyone in city planning should be required to use various forms of transit throughout the year.

The bicycle super highways connecting rural areas with Copenhagen are much more interesting because they aim to lower pollution of car commuters going into Copenhagen instead of those moving inside Copenhagen.

The space below the bridge will end up rather dark and ugly. Take a walk under a highway bridge to get a taste of it. If you think I exaggerate the effect due to larger size of the highway, take a walk under the monorail in Seattle. The monorail is roughly the size of the bike bridge and the space below is a place where no one wants to be.

A splendid idea otherwise though, so long as both minimal and maximum speeds are enforced.

The monorail corridor is developed with plenty of shops and apartments. The main issue is that the road under it is so wide and unpleasant to cross, as well as slightly dangerous due to the fact that it divides a one-way road in half. But this isn't really that bad: https://www.google.com/maps/@47.614548,-122.3406401,3a,60y,1...

If Fifth were two-way I would have a lot less of an issue with the monorail, though it would be nice if they added a stop in the vicinity of Denny Way.

Maybe the Scooter Revolution will result in new and better cycle/scooter infrastructure everywhere.

Well, because Utrecht has something like that as well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SPFgFoxeLCY

And Chicago's is almost complete. It's more than three times as long as the one in Copenhagen, and completes a nearly 19-mile-long bicycle path along Lake Michigan.

http://www.navypierflyover.com

Construction pictures:

https://www.chicagoarchitecture.org/2017/03/08/navy-pier-byp...

Why can't all cities have waterways clean enough for swimming like Copenhagen's Harbor Baths?

The short and simple answer is, Denmark is its own culture bubble and has a large amount of money in the treasury to throw at projects like this.

Articles like this really make me wonder if the the Guardian is becoming out of touch with the general public. With writing like this that fails to comprehend that every city is unique and nuanced in its problems and how it solves them.

I love Copenhagen and its culture, but its cycling concepts and other road rules wouldn't translate well in the UK.

Is this just clickbait trash?

Can you explain why you think this is the case? I've lived in Copenhagen and London, and it isn't apparent to me why the ideas applied in Copenhagen wouldn't work here.

The people to talk to about this are architects and town planners. They tend to be acutely aware of cultural differences between different countries, to the point that it starts to be a problem (because cultural stereotyping comes into play).

When I studied architecture in London, there was a lot of envy expressed toward continental urbanism (Copenhagen, but also Barcelona, Vienna, Zurich). In general, continental European cities are a bit more regimented in their design, compared to the traditionally liberal culture of the UK. Planning can be feel a bit more heavy-handed on the continent, and in the UK it tends to be more laissez-faire.

There is long-standing suspicion of continental European norms in the UK, as I'm sure you are aware. This is part and parcel of Brexit.

Somewhere extreme like Singapore manages to be extremely well organised and liveable at the price of being a bit paternalistic. I think that's the extreme "high organization" end of the spectrum, where the state can really make very large interventions.

Commenting on cycling is always fraught but here are a couple of observations. The population of NYC is 10x that of the city of Copenhagen. The population density of Manhattan is approximately 6x that of Copenhagen (corrected from earlier mistake). Solutions that work in small European cities do not necessarily scale in a manner that would be useful in other international metropolitan cities. Cycling advocates often point to successes in Northern European cities that represent entire different transportation landscapes from other larger cities around the world.

According to a quick web search, the population density of NYC is about 2.5x that of Copenhagen.

Apologies, Wikipedia list km2 first for one and mi2 for the other. I still land in the middle though with Manhattan being 6 and change more dense than Copenhagen. I apologize for my haste and error.

It’s true that Manhattan is considerably denser than Copenhagen. Manhattan probably needs more/different transportation infrastructure than Copenhagen does to cope effectively with the density: more public transit, less automobiles.

The population density of Copenhagen is comparable to the density of Queens.

There is also a significant cultural difference. In the US, the biggest bike commuters are high school and college students. In some countries, bicycles are used by a broad swath of the public.

I think even London has better cycling infrastructure than New York... Let's not say it can't be done.

Good thing NYC has more money with which to invest in more than one bicycle bridge.

If anything, a higher-density city should be more amenable to bicycles. Standard passenger cars are tremendously wasteful of physical space. You can fit half a dozen bikes in the road space that a car in the city requires (meaning, including following distance). Then there's the amount of space they take up when they're idle, and the extra space for them to maneuver past each other safely.

The mass of automobile usage has completely warped our civic spacetime in this country. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with cars per se -- they have important uses -- but they certainly don't help with density of all things.

Amenable means open and responsive to suggestion; easily persuaded or controlled. NYC is none of those things. Yes cars take physical space but I think you underestimate the diverse needs and populations that drive the use of cars vs. bikes. Commuters from Westchester county are not going to ride bikes. Frail elderly people and de-conditioned office dwellers are not going to ride bikes.

Comparisons with Northern European cities simply do not make sense however much people would like to force fit them

Public transit should be an important part of designing transit with bicycles too.

You are just not making any sense. There is a whole lot of car infrastructure and cars in NYC but little to no bike infrastructure despite the population density.

Not sure why the overall population matters here. Bicycle trips typically do not cover large distances in cities, that's what public transport is for. And when it comes to density, Paris has twice the density of NYC and still has cycling infrastructure that is in a whole different league than that of NYC. NYC could in fact do much much better.

Population size matters as does density because there are more people that need to fit in a smaller footprint. The original post states that other cities should employ Copenhagen like solutions but the room simply does not exist in NYC no matter how much we would wish it so.

But the population of Manhattan is within a stone's throw of Paris overall and the density is significantly greater in Manhattan. Overall population and density matter as the equate to more diverse needs in the population and more users in any transit space.

Then look at Paris? It's not as good as Copenhagen, but way better than anything in the US. It's a little bit less dense than Manhattan by population, but by removing cars, and with the wider space in between the buildings you can have a more successful bike town.

Europe's historically much higher petrol prices have created a long standing culture of smaller cars as well as smaller trucks competing for the same space. Massive Suburban's are among the most common car service vehicles in Manhattan.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com