Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Cycling Lessons Learned from Amsterdam

slowstreets.wordpress.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 72 posts

Re: Cycling Lessons Learned from Amsterdam

#11

Post by huuu »

chema wrote: post #2

These lessons are a constant part of dialogue here in the US, particularly in cities like SF and NY. I would even call them universal. The challenge is convincing folks that they are applicable to their street. Most people here are so attached to the car as the only viable form of transportation that they do not see bikes or transit as complete transportation alternatives, despite the best formed arguments.

That's why this is working in Amsterdam. There is no space to park your car. Parking will cost you up to 8€ an hour. Most streets are narrow so they will get jammed.

All in all going by bike is much faster. That's why this is working in Amsterdam and other Dutch cities.

Re: Cycling Lessons Learned from Amsterdam

#13

Post by chema »

huuu wrote: post #11
chema wrote: post #2

These lessons are a constant part of dialogue here in the US, particularly in cities like SF and NY. I would even call them universal. The challenge is convincing folks that they are applicable to their street. Most people here are so attached to the car as the only viable form of transportation that they do not see bikes or transit as complete transportation alternatives, despite the best formed arguments.

That's why this is working in Amsterdam. There is no space to park your car. Parking will cost you up to 8€ an hour. Most streets are narrow so they will get jammed. All in all going by bike is much faster. That's why this is working in Amsterdam and other Dutch cities.

All the same constraints apply to San Francisco! What little parking exists is expensive and traffic is so bad that getting around by bike is nine times out of ten faster than driving or even transit. That's why SF making (slow) progress.

The real challenge is outside of the dense urban areas, where most people biking are the poor or the undocumented. It's going to require a cultural shift.

Re: Cycling Lessons Learned from Amsterdam

#14

Post by logician76 »

Being dutch I think that the roads that share bikes and cars in the Netherlands are actually not by design but by necessity. Especially in Amsterdam where there simply is not enough space. If you look in rural areas if there is room, they are always seperated. In the cases where there is no room, the buildings and/or streets are usually historically protected as monuments and will not be demolish-able to make more room.

Re: Cycling Lessons Learned from Amsterdam

#15

Post by sliverstorm »

chema wrote: post #2

These lessons are a constant part of dialogue here in the US, particularly in cities like SF and NY. I would even call them universal. The challenge is convincing folks that they are applicable to their street. Most people here are so attached to the car as the only viable form of transportation that they do not see bikes or transit as complete transportation alternatives, despite the best formed arguments.

It's a chicken and egg problem. They aren't viewed as complete alternatives, because they aren't in many locations.

For example, you're going to have a hell of a time getting me to depend on my local bus network, which takes an hour to get me to work- a whole 6 miles away- and I still have to walk one mile. That's not complete.

I'm lucky to live in a bike friendly city with more public transit ambition than many other places, but people can't about-face tomorrow and depend on the public transit or bicycle infrastructure that isn't there, which I think you'll find informs policy.

Re: Cycling Lessons Learned from Amsterdam

#16

Post by URSpider94 »

chema wrote: post #13
huuu wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's why this is working in Amsterdam. There is no space to park your car. Parking will cost you up to 8€ an hour. Most streets are narrow so they will get jammed. All in all going by bike is much faster. That's why this is working in Amsterdam and other Dutch cities.

All the same constraints apply to San Francisco! What little parking exists is expensive and traffic is so bad that getting around by bike is nine times out of ten faster than driving or even transit. That's why SF making (slow) progress. The real challenge is outside of the dense urban areas, where most people biking are the poor or the undocumented. It's going to require a cultural shift.

The major difference being that Amsterdam is flat as a board, while SF is hella hilly. That does make cycling everywhere a little less of an equal-opportunity means of transport.

Re: Cycling Lessons Learned from Amsterdam

#17

Post by chema »

URSpider94 wrote: post #16
chema wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All the same constraints apply to San Francisco! What little parking exists is expensive and traffic is so bad that getting around by bike is nine times out of ten faster than driving or even transit. That's why SF making (slow) progress. The real challenge is outside of the dense urban areas, where most people biking are the poor or the undocumented. It's going to require a cultural shift.

The major difference being that Amsterdam is flat as a board, while SF is hella hilly. That does make cycling everywhere a little less of an equal-opportunity means of transport.

That's certainly a factor. Commercial corridors became commercial corridors in SF because they were more accessible for horse and carriage back in the 1850-90s since they were flat, the same reason why they are the ideal bike routes around the hills today.

We can't do anything about these geographic bottlenecks though and the fact is that people are biking more and more, despite the hills. Better transit is probably the key, but I have a tough time seeing cars as a long-term solution.

Re: Cycling Lessons Learned from Amsterdam

#18

Post by URSpider94 »

TulliusCicero wrote: post #3

"Only 50% of the cycling routes in the Netherlands are separated from vehicular traffic." Oh, ONLY 50%? Compare that to America, where, including protected bike lanes and bike trails, it's probably what, 5%, tops?

It may be 50% in Amsterdam, but I seriously doubt it's anywhere close to that high in the rest of the country. I've ridden extensively around Eindhoven, a mid-size city in the middle of the Netherlands, and you spend extremely little time in the street with cars.

The other thing that the author glosses over is that pedestrians and bikes don't share space either, and that pedestrians are equally deferential to cyclists. If you walk in the bike lane, you'll get a good shouting at.

That's something that shows extremely poorly here in the USA by comparison, after you've grown accustomed to it. Anywhere in the US there's a separate "bike path", it's really a multi-use path for bikers, rollerbladers, walkers (usually two or three abreast), kids on Razor scooters, horseback riding, you name it. Dutch bike paths are for BIKING (Ok, and for 50cc motor scooters).

Re: Cycling Lessons Learned from Amsterdam

#20

Post by 205guy »

I'm glad this article is looking at many factors that are involved in making cities cyclable and walkable. But it seems it is missing one huge factor: the average size of vehicles in the US. It works in Europe because city cars and delivery vans are small (as illustrated in the photos). Of course this is also because of the design and growth of the city predating motor vehicles. In the US, the sunk cost in oversized vehicles, as well as marketing and regulatory capture (CAFE exemptions) mean that everything has to bend to the will of the car culture.
Post reply on HN