Live data from Hacker News

Why Amsterdam Works So Well for Bikes

citylab.com

91–100 of 107 posts

Re: Why Amsterdam Works So Well for Bikes

#91
post #85
post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not a "social disorder," it's a bootstrapping problem caused by American cities being very different in nature that European cities. Look at Amsterdam: https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Amsterdam/52.3683298,4.89550... . It's a little bundle of urbanization about 4-5 miles in radius, surrounded by farms. Compare Washington, D.C., which is a smaller city: https://www.google.com/maps/place/Washington,+DC/@38.914686,.…

The thing is, Amsterdam in the 70s looked a lot like DC does today, with no protected bike lanes and cars parking all over the place. So change is possible, as evidenced by Amsterdam and Copenhagen, but any shift away from driving and cars requires better alternatives, including bikes but also including trains and buses and metros. And DC isn't doing to great with that last one.

Did Amsterdam go from a 50/50 urban/suburban configuration to a 90/10 urban/suburban configuration? Or did it just do a better job of managing it's already 90/10 population?

Re: Why Amsterdam Works So Well for Bikes

#92
post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Call me cynical, but: Anything that threatens the current way of life, the current status quo, or is representative of a school of thought that clashes with the aforementioned can cause cognitive dissonance. Simple as that. Many people don't really believe that driving is wrong, or harmful. But supporting radical infrastructure changes to accommodate an alternative means admitting to that to a further extent that mos…

Nothing wrong with driving. Just drive appropriately. Car sharing. Taxi / Uber. Hybrids. Electric cars. Self driving cars. The freedom to transport yourself is a powerful force for good, and socialized public transport and bikes are not a real solution in many / most places. (am a biker, love biking, only commute by bike to work 3 months of the year)

> (am a biker, love biking, only commute by bike to work 3 months of the year)

Living somewhere where I commute by bike (or run!) every single workday, I'm curious as to what limits you to 3 months.

Re: Why Amsterdam Works So Well for Bikes

#93
post #18
post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Montreal is one of North America's top city for biking and has one of the worst climates for it. People adjust in all kinds of ways. It's mostly about density and culture IMO.

Cold is much easier to handle on a bike than heat/humidity. You can wear warmer clothes and take them off at work, but you usually can't shower and change into a new set of clothes.

What I've learned is that each one is its own beast. There are certainly more cyclists on the bike path during the summer than during the winter, but oddly enough, I see more cyclists on the coldest days, than when it's raining.

Cold also comes with dark, which may factor into the equation.

For whatever reason, I'm blessed with a body that doesn't sweat very much. So I handle the extremes pretty well.

Re: Why Amsterdam Works So Well for Bikes

#94

How come none of these are about how absolutely flat Amsterdam is? I have never been to a more flat place in my life than the Netherlands. That definitely played into the decision for us to bike around everywhere while we were there, but continued to be uninterested at home.

Cities tend to be on coasts and coastal areas are flat more often than not. It's not very unusual.

Re: Why Amsterdam Works So Well for Bikes

#96
post #90
post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bike lanes are a result not the reason of having so many people driving bicycles in Amsterdam. Being a shitty town to drive in let alone parking even when the car was still king really helped pushing people towards bicycles, but you can't retroactively apply medieval road structures and canals to US cities. On the other hand Rotterdam has a post war road structure and still a lot of people use their bicycle, perhaps…

It had nothing to do with annoyance. The real reason for separate lanes is safety. There is so much attention for traffic safety amongst the Dutch, especially towards kids in traffic. 50 years ago traffic in the Netherlands was not unlike the US now. Until in the 70s an action group called Stop de Kindermoord (“stop the child murder”) succeeded in getting the government to pay attention and make a turnaround. I remem…

Of course it's about safety as well. Several of the children I knew when I grew up were killed in traffic, all roads it happened on have separate bike lanes now. But sharing the roads with kids that go to school can also be an annoyance, tending to ride with three kids next to eachother and making sudden movements because they're fighting/playing.

Re: Why Amsterdam Works So Well for Bikes

#98
post #91
post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing is, Amsterdam in the 70s looked a lot like DC does today, with no protected bike lanes and cars parking all over the place. So change is possible, as evidenced by Amsterdam and Copenhagen, but any shift away from driving and cars requires better alternatives, including bikes but also including trains and buses and metros. And DC isn't doing to great with that last one.

Did Amsterdam go from a 50/50 urban/suburban configuration to a 90/10 urban/suburban configuration? Or did it just do a better job of managing it's already 90/10 population?

Amsterdam has plenty of suburbs, they just look different from US suburbs because of the different land-use and planning approach that they have in the Netherlands. Interestingly, Amsterdam actually does have urban freeways, though they run in a ring a couple miles out rather than right through the urban center. But they've also invested a lot in their train network and most people commute that way. I wish I had more to say about Dutch land use planning, but unfortunately I just don't know most of the details.

Re: Why Amsterdam Works So Well for Bikes

#99
post #98
post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did Amsterdam go from a 50/50 urban/suburban configuration to a 90/10 urban/suburban configuration? Or did it just do a better job of managing it's already 90/10 population?

Amsterdam has plenty of suburbs, they just look different from US suburbs because of the different land-use and planning approach that they have in the Netherlands. Interestingly, Amsterdam actually does have urban freeways, though they run in a ring a couple miles out rather than right through the urban center. But they've also invested a lot in their train network and most people commute that way. I wish I had more…

> Amsterdam has plenty of suburbs, they just look different from US suburbs because of the different land-use and planning approach that they have in the Netherlands.

> But they've also invested a lot in their train network and most people commute that way.

Most people in say D.C. don't commute by train not because D.C. hasn't invested enough in it, but because the suburbs "look different." D.C., for example, has invested a ton in its train network. As I mentioned above, despite being a smaller city, D.C.'s subway has four times as many miles of track as Amsterdam's. But most people still commute by car, because D.C., like most U.S. cities, is only a small portion of its larger metro area. Washington, D.C. has under 700,000 people, but is just one part of a metro area of 5 million people. Amsterdam has over 850,000 people, and dominates its urban area of 1.6 million people.

That urban/suburban mix drives people to car use. Jobs in the D.C. metro area are scattered all over. For example, most of the technology jobs "in D.C." are actually in Virginia, e.g. Google is mainly in Reston, which is 25 miles outside the city. If you draw a 25-mile ring around Amsterdam, you'll mostly hit farmland. Around D.C., you're actually hitting many of the major population and economic centers in Virginia and Maryland.

The dispersed nature of the jobs makes building transit very hard. Reston has a train station. Many people opposed it, however, not because of "social disorder," but because it was a $6-billion project that wasn't useful to them. You see, the train really only goes to D.C. But not that many people go between Reston and D.C. Aside from a handful of yuppies who might want to live in D.C. and commute to Reston, people who work in Reston drive in from Ashburn or Great Falls, or one of the other nearby suburbs. There is no rail network that connects these places, nor would it be practical to build one.

Building cities around cars didn't just result in people who are conditioned to drive rather than take transit. It created patterns of housing and employment that make it really hard to build transit after the fact. Fairfax County, a suburban county to the west of D.C., has more residents and almost as many jobs as D.C. itself. But the rail system is designed to get people from Fairfax County into D.C.--it does nothing to get people to all the jobs located in Fairfax County.

Loudon County, still further west from D.C., has almost half of D.C.'s population. There is no rail in Loudon. Nor would extending rail from D.C. be all that useful. Only 10,000 people from Loudon commute to D.C. (and almost nobody does the reverse commute). Meanwhile,65,000 commute to Fairfax County. Another 31,000 commute to another county within 20-40 miles. Try convincing people in Loudon to spend the money to build rail into D.C. when it would only benefit 10% of the commuters.

Re: Why Amsterdam Works So Well for Bikes

#100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nothing wrong with driving. Just drive appropriately. Car sharing. Taxi / Uber. Hybrids. Electric cars. Self driving cars. The freedom to transport yourself is a powerful force for good, and socialized public transport and bikes are not a real solution in many / most places. (am a biker, love biking, only commute by bike to work 3 months of the year)

> (am a biker, love biking, only commute by bike to work 3 months of the year) Living somewhere where I commute by bike (or run!) every single workday, I'm curious as to what limits you to 3 months.

Weather. Boston for example has three months that the casual commuter would find tolerable.
Post reply on HN