A Tour of a Whole Country That Has 'Transformed Itself for Cycling' | Hacker News Reader

A Tour of a Whole Country That Has 'Transformed Itself for Cycling'

theatlanticcities.com

43 pointshollerith46 comments

I spent three weeks in the Netherlands with my family this summer. The cycling experience is truly magical. To add to some other comments made in this thread:

-- Roel appears to have knowledge in this area, so I don't want to contradict him, but it does seem that the Dutch went at least part-way down the path towards a car-focused society and successfully pulled back. Read http://www.roadswerenotbuiltforcars.com/netherlands/ for more history.

-- The "bike path" in my town that we celebrate as amazing would be derided as complete crap in Holland. It's too narrow, not well paved, not lit at night, and it's mixed-use, which means you have to dodge pedestrians, roller bladers, dog walkers, etc. Bike paths in the Netherlands are BIKE ONLY. Not only are you separated from cars, but also from pedestrians. One of the worst crimes as a pedestrian (and a sure sign of a tourist) is to stand in the bike lane.

-- Cycling is not just a fair weather activity. Nearly all bikes are equipped with dynamos to power lights, which are legally mandated for riding at night and are useful in the fall/winter fog and gloom. Yes, people ride in the rain, and even in the snow. For most people, biking is the one and only way to get around, so it's not an option, it's a requirement.

-- It's hard to comprehend how thoroughly bikes are integrated into society. Every office has a bike parking shed with racks and locks. Apartment buildings have storage rooms in the basement, with special ramps built into the stairways so you can roll bikes down the hill. Train stations have massive bike storage areas, and most stations have both bike rentals and also repair stations. For an extra 6 Euros, you can take your bike on the train with you to go anywhere in the country, and if you have a folding bike (very common), you can take it on the train for free.

-- Cycling is integrated into daily life. No Lycra and clipless pedals -- you cycle in street clothes. Bikes are upright and comfortable. Nobody wears helmets, even kids (our kids went nuts because we made them wear them ...) People ride at a good clip, 10-12 mph, fast enough to get there, but not so fast that they get sweaty or out of breath. When you run across a friend or co-worker on the bike path, you'll typically pull up next to them and ride two-abreast (the paths are wide enough) so that you can talk and ride.

My favorite thing: you'll often see older couples riding side by side holding hands.

Man, I would love to see this take hold in the US, but it will take a major change not just in public opinion, but also in city planning and infrastructure investment.

The lycra thing is important. When you've only got keep fitters in lycra riding bikes, it seems to de-normalise it for everyone else.

Actually we haven't transformed, we've never accomodated cars much at all. A big difference.

That is not quite true. In some cases, the idea of building for cars was abandoned before it got fully executed, but that didn't always happen.

Examples:

In Amsterdam, the Vijzelgracht was turned into a highway into the centre of town (it's hard to imagine, but about half of Amsterdam's waterways have been filled in to make room for traffic (much of this predates car traffic). Even as late as the '50s, there was a plan to fill many canals to make room for parking garages).

Utrecht had plans to fill its outer moat to make room for a ring road. Part of the Catharijnesingel was filled in 1970 or thereabouts to build 'the shortest highway in the Netherlands', but afterwards, the plan was luckily abandoned (the Catharijnesingel will be dug again in a few years)

Residential neighborhoods built in the '60s were designed first for cars (http://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2013/08/08/making-a-1960s-...)

Rotterdam, after the bombing in 1940, rebuilt its city plan to accommodate for cars.

Yes I know, of course, and obviously there are ways for cars to get to places, but the mere fact that you can name specific counterexamples confirms my point that in general most places were not designed around wide spread car ownership and -use, and car use was retrofitted where needed.

Not to be an asshole about it but I'm a Dutch planning professional, I've lectured and published about the effects of transport infrastructure on urban planning.

Roel, since you're an expert -- can you help shed light on the history? From what I've read, other demographically and geographically similar countries in Europe have much lower rates of cycling. These other countries were undoubtably also not designed for cars, they were designed for horses and pedestrians (as I can attest from having driven in Europe). The source materials that I've read suggest that there was a major inflection point in the 1970's where bike transport share stopped declining and started increasing, and also that the linear miles of bike path have increased dramatically (3x?) in the past 20 years.

That's from http://bicycledutch.wordpress.com (http://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/index-by-theme is an excellent entry point, too)

My layman's view is that both sides are right. Most city centers date from before 1900, so they weren't designed for cars (Amsterdam wasn't even designed for carriages). Up to ~end of World War two~, cars weren't common enough to build 'cars first; all others enter at your own risk' neighborhoods (for example, the first river car tunnel, the Maastunnel in Rotterdam (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maastunnel), built in 1937-1942 has separate tubes for cyclists and pedestrians. Traffic jams formed at its escalators in the fifties)

After World War Two, there was a period when the USA seemed to show the future. That led to ideas that cities such as LA were the future of city building. Some ideas/attempts to reshape cities were formed/made, but those were abandoned or at least seriously adjusted really soon. For example, the Bijlmer (1968; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bijlmer) was designed as a paradise for cars, but also as one for pedestrians. In the same period, Ommoord also is very car friendly. Yet, its neighborhoods also have the typical dead end streets that make streets safer for kids to play in, and it has a metro connection to the center of Rotterdam.

Almere (1978; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almere) already shows a trend away from 'cars first'. Later, we got Houten (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Houten)

So, yes, there was a trend towards 'cars first', and there was a turn, but that turn was made very early. That made the turn relatively easy. Changing LA into a 'cars are guests' city would be a challenge on a different scale.

From what I understand, we actually did transform into a much more suitable country for cycling during the 70s (~10 years before I was born). I'll try to look up the video that explains.

Ah found it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XuBdf9jYj7o

The Netherlands are at the forefront of thinking for a lot of different social/environmental issues and everybody recognizes that in Europe, but the funny thing is that the Dutch I've talked to have a hard time recognizing that themselves.

The Dutch are relaxed about sex and drugs, but they are actually a very conservative people with deep and cherished traditions. It's only in America that "conservative" implies prudish, everywhere else it just means that people want to go on living the way they always have.

Dallas, where I live now, is about as far away from this as one can imagine.

For that matter, so is the European country I'm originally from (Malta). My brother is an avid cyclist there and gets sneered at by local-redneck-equivalent motorists pretty much everywhere he goes.

I used to do the wind/rain/snow type commuting, and I probably should again, but your brother's experience in Malta is similar to mine in the US. You're definitely doing something that most people regard as a nuisance. I've heard of other cities where it's not like that, but I've just never ridden in them. I live in Atlanta now, and it's almost suicidal riding a bike. Obs my sample size of cities is small, but hey, there it is for what it's worth.

The video also made me think, "Man, I'd love to cycle in the places, but I'd have to seriously rearrange my US cycling survival skills and attitude toward a less hostile environment."

I was there in June, and I have to say that riding around on a bike there really changed my perspective. Riding there was a joy. The "Share the Road" programs here in Utah are a joke.

The bike lanes there were amazing. Most roads I saw there were dark brick, the "lines" were usually white bricks, and the bike lanes were red brick and were wide where they weren't actually separate altogether.

The other best part? There were no angry SUV drivers swerving around you at 60 MPH. People were courteous.

What do people do when it rains or snows? Do people walk instead, take mass transit, or drive?

I think the reality of what people are arguing for is for people to live more closely together. That makes biking, mass transit, and even walking more viable.

Some people like it, some don't. Part is what you are used to. People coming from rural areas think that the Bay Area is crowded but the East Coast is more crowded, parts of Europe are more crowded still, and then parts of Asia are more crowded still.

Put on some fenders, rain pants, a rain coat, and ride! Or take transit.

Living closer together is great, but cycling infrastructure matters too to get people onto bikes.

That's a new difference between US and UK English for me - "fenders" here are things that are used to stop boats/ships bumping into things, across here we call them "mudguards".

Having said that, I know some people who could benefit from fenders (UK) on their bikes...

> What do people do when it rains or snows? Do people walk instead, take mass transit, or drive?

I live in Northern Germany and for the last 20 years I used my bike to first drive to school, then to university and now to my workplace. On average I drive about 10 to 15 km a day for commuting and perhaps another few km for shopping and going out in the evening.

I can not remember a single day were I did not drive bike because the weather bad. Even two or three winters ago when the streets were covered with ice for 4 weeks driving to work with a bike was not a problem at all.

Some stuff I learned:

* buy high quality mudguards

* use a hub dynamo (Shimano or SON) and not these horrible cheap one which touch the wheels

* invest 80 euro in a really really good LED front light (I am a big fan of Busch & Müller, those things are really bright and switch on automatically when it is getting dark)

* for snow and ice buy some spike tires. If you are a bit careful and experienced you can drive over pure ice without any problems. They cost 60 euro per piece but you can use them for 3 or 4 winters

* for normal weather buy some tires with protection against glass and other sharp objects. I have a pair of Schwalbe Marathon Plus and I never had a flat tire in the last 6 or 7 years

* buy the most expensive lock you can find (Abus or Kryptonite) and always lock your bike to something

* always have a set of dry clothing at your workplace just in case the rain is really bad.

* some people buy special rain pants but I personally don't like/need them

* buy and wear a helmet

* install a fender rack to which you can install some bike bag (I am a big fan of everthing from Ortlieb)

With the right gear driving in bad weather is not a problem. Sometimes it isn't fun but I am grateful that I am not dependent on a car!

But what matters most is the infrastructure. Driving bike in Germany is really nice most if the time. But when I lived in the midwest in the US in a smallish town I was one of very few ciclyst in town and driving bike there sucked a lot.

They ride. No, really. Pretty much all bikes have fenders, so you don't get the rooster-tail of mud up your back. I was there two weeks ago, and it rained pretty much every day, yet I rode the 2 miles to the office each day with my raincoat on.

It is ace, but I wonder if you'd get cycling as mainstream anywhere else. That country is almost uniquely and famously flat.

sigh

Every time people post about great cycling cities, the immediate reaction is a pile of reasons why it would never work here because I live in a place that's completely different and special.

There are challenges in every task. Either you overcome them or you wimp out. These are not unsolved problems. Montreal literally means Mount Royal - it's a city built around a mountain. They manage to have great cycling infrastructure.

Even worse is the moaning about winter cyclists - almost every one of the great cycling cities have bitter winters.

You're always going to have an excuse not to do something.

Cycling in Chongqing would be a bit hard; even when China was the "bicycle" kingdom people rarely peddled in one of the world's hilliest cities.

I'm not looking for an excuse not to cycle, I'm a pretty fit cyclist and spend at least 10 hours a week on a bike. I'm saying that holding this up as an example that others can follow isn't ideal as they have a big natural advantage over practically anywhere else. Unless you can overcome the issues of terrain and climate, it's just not going to become mainstream like it has there. Look at the bikes they're riding, big heavy comfortable clunkers. Most people simply couldn't get those up the hills surrounding my town, they'd have to push.

As a cyclist, I'm sure you already know this.

Properly geared, bikes aren't hard to get up hills - they're just slow.

I think the ultimate solution long-term are assisted electric bicycles. They aren't fully electric, you always have to pedal, but when you're going up hill you can enable the assistance to help you go up the hill faster.

Think of it like gym bands to aid you doing pull ups.

If the bike could charge itself through pedaling that would be a double plus.

A lot of people don't cycle because it's slow, and they may not care about the exercise benefits. If commuting they don't want to wear special attire or be sweaty when they show up to work. However, they would probably be cool with an assisted electric bicycle if they could get up hills faster without breaking a sweat.

Perhaps, but it's a tough sell to get someone to ride a £2k electric bike instead of buying a car.

Yet San Francisco is one of the best cities for cycling in the United States? Flatness is plainly not crucial.

There used to be a chap who commuted by unicyle through central Edinburgh - he cycled up the Mound, a hill linking the New and Old towns.

Given how hilly Edinburgh is and how popular cycling is here (and getting noticeably more popular each year) I don't think having hills is really an excuse for nobody cycling.

[Need I also point out how unpredictably miserable the weather can be here...]

Best by US standards. It's hardly mass adoption compared to the Netherlands is it?

Please note that if you add a small electric motor to your bike and use that as a help getting up hills, you can bike mostly anywhere, flat or not.

I'm someone else who would love to cycle, but live in a very hilly area ...

Some problems with this: Electric bikes are expensive (like £2000 vs £200). UK Government regulations make the status of electric bikes dubious, particularly the more powerful ones needed to ride up hills. If no one else can afford to cycle or is allowed to cycle, this prevents a mass of cyclists which would make the road a bit safer.

I'd really love for there to be both government will and a solution to the price problem here.

A mayor-supported electric bike hire scheme for Muswell Hill in London suggests that they're legally ok: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-24651760

No, the laws on higher powered electric bicycles are not clear:

http://www.atob.org.uk/electric-bikes/electric-bike-legislat...

http://www.bikeradar.com/gear/article/electric-bikes-and-the...

(Edit, better link)

Almost seems utopic. Rather than look for excuses as to why it won't work in the U.S., what would it take (years, dollars, planning, infrastructure) to convert a reasonably sized (large, but not top 10) American city built for cars (say Austin, Indianapolis, Columbus, Denver), into a cycling focused city?

Is there car access to the houses? for emergency services for example?

Yes. In the Netherlands for example, bi-directional bike paths have to be 4 meters wide, which is sufficient for emergency vehicles.

This is pretty, pretty awesome!

That would work really well here in Texas. My job takes me nearly an hour to reach by car. You can basically fit all of Europe in Texas with a little rearrangement. Scale matters.

Does the scale matter? I can see the availability of space putting pressure on such projects, because lower property costs will take precedence over something that is considered a fringe lifestyle, but I thought the usual reason it is impossible to bike in Texas was the weather.

With less snide, I don't see why a bike friendly neighborhood would cause any extra problems for a Texan.

Supposing weather wasn't a factor, yes scale matters a lot. The metro area I live and work covers something like over 10,000 square miles (>25,000 square km or about 12.5 times the area of the Amsterdam metro area or more than half of all of the area of the Netherlands) and almost 10 million people. Jobs and living locations rarely intersect for more than a year or two at a time, plus my wife has her own career and work locations. I do not live near even a top-20 U.S. city.

The job I work today has multiple work locations right now, 10.5 miles, 35 miles and 60 miles from my home. The 10.5 mile site, while possible for biking distance-wise, is also the site of my customer's management. Showing up in a sweaty suit from an 17 km ride on a bike simply won't work and it's not like there's a shower and changing area for me there.

My previous job had two locations, 5 miles and 15 miles away from my home, but in completely different directions than this one.

My next job might have completely different work locations 20 or 30 miles in any different direction. I can't simply pick up my entire family and move a reasonable bike ride away from my work site. Or the contracts I perform work on might change and my work sites will change drastically even with the current job.

My wife also works and has her own location dynamics, 12 miles, and 25 miles away. If I were to move close to one of my work sites, it would drastically increase hers.

Right. So do you think living in a bike friendly neighborhood would make owning a car more difficult, or the existence of a bike friendly neighborhood would have a huge impact on a car necessary suburb?

I do understand that people react to the 'way forward' tone of such articles.

> living in a bike friendly neighborhood

I don't think it would matter. (to put it into perspective, the average U.S. commute is about the equivalent of Rotterdam to Amsterdam, about a 3 and a half hour bike ride).

I actually live in a pretty bike friendly suburb right now. We have something like 10-12 miles of trails in my neighborhood and nearby links to a very nice and flat 35 mile dedicated bike trail right now -- we even have a very nice bike shop I can comfortably walk to.

You see people biking around on weekends and nice weather evenings. But for what I need to do to live here (hold down a job) biking to work is so far from a possibility that even thinking of it seems absurd. On that days I telecommute, I don't need to bike, and when I'm not telecommuting a 40-120 mile round trip on hard high speed highway with cars moving at over 60mph is a suicide mission. The infrastructure is simply not there and I'd estimate it would take hundreds of billions of dollars to reform even small high density parts of the metro area to accommodate mass biking in any sort impactful numbers.

In one of the major city centers here, there is a big bike movement, but my friends who live there describe it as "dodging bullets in Iraq or NYC bike courier" in terms of rider safety.

So if I had a shower and a changing area at the closest work site, I'd still need about 11 miles of dedicated bike lane to get there instead of riding on a very dangerous shoulder and my trip would take about twice to three times as long. Looking at how expensive it is to get minor road widenings done around here, I'd estimate the infrastructure cost of just that one short leg to be in the $100-200 million dollar range.

The differences in the U.S. to accommodate Netherlands style biking are unbelievably vast. Painting some bike lane markers is not really even remotely a solution.

The principal problem is that fundamentally people don't really live where they work. There's lots of reasons for this, but that's where we're at. Average commute distance and time in the U.S. is tremendous. It seems insane, and in many ways it is. But that's just how the society developed. To really solve the problem will require vast sociological shifts in very big parts of the country. Having very few pre-car cities is another.

There's hope, one of the high density commercial areas is currently being redeveloped due to 4 new subway stops to better accommodate walkability and biking. The plan will take about 40 years. Nobody knows how much it will cost, but the current estimate just for some of the transport infrastructure is around $9 billion. The area has a population of under 20,000 people. The work will allow for 80,000 more residents to live there.

If anybody wants to get a good look at what it takes to reform even a small part of a modern American area, they should give the comprehensive plan a good read through. http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/dpz/comprehensiveplan/area2/tys...

Another nearby center is also very walkable/bikeable. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reston,_VA

Eventually both of those two centers will be linked by the same subway system and then, just possibly, we might have one of the better bikeable areas in the U.S. But it's a very long way off still.

"You can basically fit all of Europe in Texas with a little rearrangement."

That's a bit puzzling as Europe has a larger area (10,180,000 km2) than the United States (9,826,675 km2). Did you mean the EU - which still has an area (4,381,376 km2) that is way larger than Texas (696,241 km2).

Even if you restrict yourself to Western European countries (whatever that means, it's pretty much a relic of the long dead Cold War): Texas ~= France + Greece, leaving quite a lot left over...

Even places of similar scale and population density in the U.S. fare poorly. New Jersey is half the size of The Netherlands, with a similar population density, but is very car-oriented anyway.

Shh, you're interfering with their wimpy excuses that they use to conceal the fact that they just really don't like cycling.

"My job takes me nearly an hour to reach by car."

I read this a lot but I think, in order for the U.S. to transition to bicycle friendly towns, you long-distance commuters are going to be initially excluded.

Most people are not commuting your distance. Most people live in a town, and work in the town. Most people commute at most 16 KM (10 miles) or less.

We need to focus on bike infrastructure in each town first, and then think about building bike highways to connect towns. (My idea has always been put protected bike lanes parallel freeways/highways)

People do this in the Netherlands, but not as many. They cycle to the train station, take the train, and then cycle to work at the other end. Long-distance trains move along pretty well -- it takes two hours to drive from Eindhoven to Amsterdam (assuming you don't hit one of the notorious traffic jams), but only 1:20 by train. As I mentioned in another comment, people either keep a bike at both stations, or they buy a folding bike and carry it on the train with them.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com