Vehicular Cycling (VC) - Foreign cycling infrastructure

I know that not all self described vehicular cyclists hate cycling specific infrastructure and I'm not trying to start some kind of bike lane/no bike lane thing. I'm just wondering what the VC elite think about all the great bike specific lanes, streets, etc in non U.S. cities, like Amsterdam for example.

I know that not all self described vehicular cyclists hate cycling specific infrastructure and I'm not trying to start some kind of bike lane/no bike lane thing. I'm just wondering what the VC elite think about all the great bike specific lanes, streets, etc in non U.S. cities, like Amsterdam for example.

I suppose, with some reason, that you are asking for a reply from me. You mention Amsterdam, obviously because this is the most famous of the installations, but there are many others of similar nature. So consider these remarks as referring most strongly to the old city of Amsterdam. The authorities were faced with what they recognized would be an enormous increase in automobile motoring on a street system that had not been designed for any motoring at all, and was being used by large amounts of pedestrian, bicycle, motor delivery truck, and, at least in recent memory, horse-drawn vehicles (I remember seeing horse-drawn vehicles on British city streets in the 1930s). The authorities desired to accommodate this foreseen automobile traffic, and they decided that they would separate pedestrian and bicycle traffic from motor traffic. Nowadays, many people assert that the purpose of the separation was to protect the bicycle traffic, but the more reasonable explanation is that the purpose of the separation was to allow more free passage of the motor traffic through the slower mix on narrow streets. So they produced bikeways in whatever form could be squeezed in, some being lanes, some being sidepaths, with very little appreciation for the implications of these facilities. They found, for instance, that their sidepaths were very dangerous unless they installed more traffic signals with three separate phase systems, one each for motorists, cyclists, and pedestrians, which delayed everybody more than would a system with only two phase systems.

The Amsterdam system is highly praised by bicycle advocates because a large fraction of the pre-motoring bicycle transportation has been preserved, at a low rate of fatal accidents. There are several reasons for being suspicious of this claim. The first is that there is no method of determining what would have occurred had the bikeways not been installed but that the streets had been improved for cycling instead. An equally important reason is that both motoring and cycling are horribly inconvenient in Amsterdam, but motorists are far more inconvenienced than are cyclists. Motoring is slow, parking is extremely inconvenient, distances are short. Under these circumstances any mode that is just a bit faster than walking has an enormous competitive advantage, and that is the place of bicycle transportation in Amsterdam.

The argument is being frequently made that we would achieve similar mode mix if we adopted the Amsterdam bikeways system. That's nonsense. In Amsterdam, cycling competes against walking, to its advantage. Here, cycling has to compete against motoring, in which competition it has only a niche place. Furthermore, the Amsterdam system is used at speeds only a little more than walking, with many delays. If most American cyclists were limited to such slow travel, extremely few of the present cyclists would use bicycle transportation.

I know that not all self described vehicular cyclists hate cycling specific infrastructure and I'm not trying to start some kind of bike lane/no bike lane thing. I'm just wondering what the VC elite think about all the great bike specific lanes, streets, etc in non U.S. cities, like Amsterdam for example.

Do you really think that they are great? Just curious. I have never been there and, obviously, never rode a bicycle there.

You can get some interesting critiques here regarding facilities here.

http://www.bikexprt.com/bikepol/index.htm
http://www.truewheelers.org/cases/vassarst/index.htm

Do you really think that they are great? Just curious. I have never been there and, obviously, never rode a bicycle there.

You can get some interesting critiques here regarding facilities here.

http://www.bikexprt.com/bikepol/index.htm
http://www.truewheelers.org/cases/vassarst/index.htm
I've been there, many times during the ten years I lived in Europe. Yes it is great and not just Amsterdam but in the numerous other Dutch cities. I liked the cycling conditions almost as well in Germany where I lived and visited.

You find John Allen's critiques of more interest than I. Of course, I view Mr. Allen, with his sloppy use of "crash rates" to prove vehicular cycling effectiveness and "dangers" of bike lanes as John Forester's Number One Protégé/Disciple.

Never been to Europe.

Pictures I have seen of Amsterdam and Copenhagen show cycling as a totally different beast than around here. People wear normal clothes, dresses, suits with coats. They bikes have little guards to prevent your clothes from getting caught in the spokes and stuff like that. People ride bikes to go out on dates, to run errands and everything. It's not like it's a separate aspect to society like it is here.

So their facilities makes sense to the way cycling is integrated into their daily lives. The facilities actually facilitate the cycling they do.

The problem with all the bickering around here is that the facilities facilitate the riding that many people do around these parts, but not the type of riding that a lot of the anti-facilities people prefer.

Places like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rwwxrWHBB8
seem more fun/safe (ie. great) than this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUa3uxKHJBc

Never been to Europe.

Pictures I have seen of Amsterdam and Copenhagen show cycling as a totally different beast than around here. People wear normal clothes, dresses, suits with coats. They bikes have little guards to prevent your clothes from getting caught in the spokes and stuff like that. People ride bikes to go out on dates, to run errands and everything. It's not like it's a separate aspect to society like it is here.

So their facilities makes sense to the way cycling is integrated into their daily lives. The facilities actually facilitate the cycling they do.

The problem with all the bickering around here is that the facilities facilitate the riding that many people do around these parts, but not the type of riding that a lot of the anti-facilities people prefer.

The Amsterdam facilities do not "facilitate" the cycling done there. That is the superstition believed by some in America. The cycling being done in Amsterdam would be done in the same way, by the same people, wearing the same clothes, were there no bikeways. That is because the urban pattern in Amsterdam facilitates that kind of cycling. The characteristics of that city make slow, short-distance cycling useful, because it is slightly faster than walking, which would be the competitor.

Places like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rwwxrWHBB8
seem more fun/safe (ie. great) than this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUa3uxKHJBc

The coolest things in the first video were the 33% of all trips by bike even in cold Copenhagen... and in the Neatherlands... the instruction system at the elementary school that used a painted traffic circle for kids to practice on in the school yard. I loved that!!! :D What a brilliant idea for teaching kids how to ride bikes in a traffic system... Make it a playground game. Dammit, why can't we do that here in the US?

Integrated transportation system... bikes and walkers can get directly to where they need to go, but autos have to take a round about method to get there... what a great humanizing way to make a city.

Never been to Europe.

Pictures I have seen of Amsterdam and Copenhagen show cycling as a totally different beast than around here. People wear normal clothes, dresses, suits with coats. They bikes have little guards to prevent your clothes from getting caught in the spokes and stuff like that. People ride bikes to go out on dates, to run errands and everything. It's not like it's a separate aspect to society like it is here.

So their facilities makes sense to the way cycling is integrated into their daily lives. The facilities actually facilitate the cycling they do.

The problem with all the bickering around here is that the facilities facilitate the riding that many people do around these parts, but not the type of riding that a lot of the anti-facilities people prefer.
SB, You are right on with your comments about North European urban cycling.

Some of the anti-facilities types are more interested in preserving their rights to paceline on their training rides from any imaginary threat, than for advocating for any cycling that they don't consider "Serious." Or their chief concern when determining how cyclists "fare best" is the need for maximum speed.

The Amsterdam facilities do not "facilitate" the cycling done there. That is the superstition believed by some in America. The cycling being done in Amsterdam would be done in the same way, by the same people, wearing the same clothes, were there no bikeways. That is because the urban pattern in Amsterdam facilitates that kind of cycling. The characteristics of that city make slow, short-distance cycling useful, because it is slightly faster than walking, which would be the competitor.

I've never been to Amsterdam, but I have ridden a lot in Odense and Copenhagen. I find that I can average 20-25kmh, including waiting at lights, which usually* don't slow me down more than they would a car. That is way faster than walking. In Odense, it is quite easy to get around by car, though parking is not always easy. Yet a large percentage bike to work, etc. Maybe they ride slower in Amsterdam, but here, cycling is an alternative to both walking and driving.

In fact, in my test case from this thread: (http://bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=241073), I was limited more by not wanting to sweat more than anything else. I find it hard to believe that I could go much faster with no cars on the road what-so-ever. I averaged 20kmh, starting in the heart of town and going out tot he university.

Also in that thread is a link to a 'ride report' of my old commute. In it one can see the common styles of bike facilities: from open, separate paths to a thin slice of asphalt hacked out of a narrow street. There is so much difference in culture and city design, it is impossible to compare to the US, but Odense has built a lot of infrastructure for bikes, and it has a significantly higher percentage of commuters than other comparably sized Danish cities. There is a report here: http://www.cykelby.dk/pdf/cykel_inet.pdf, with a summary in English. The short version: ridership is up 20%, accident rates are down 20%**, or thereabouts over a multi-year campaign at the turn of the millenium.

*there are a few three-way light cycles here

**Interesting that they only mention 'multi-vehicle' accidents in the report. My only two crashes _ever_ were when I caught the stupid raised edge of a couple of bike lanes when I was distracted -- a 'single-vehicle' accident.

Speaking of Amsterdam, picture from last week.
http://i104.photobucket.com/albums/m169/umneydurak/euro_trip341.jpg

Some of the anti-facilities types are more interested in preserving their rights to paceline on their training rides from any imaginary threat, than for advocating for any cycling that they don't consider "Serious." Or their chief concern when determining how cyclists "fare best" is the need for maximum speed.
First, I have to say that if ILTB likes cycling in Amsterdam, more power to him. That's really none of my business, besides, I've never even been there. So his point about those kinds of bike facilities being suitable for the people there is a point I can't take issue with, nor do I desire to. I have no more right to tell somebody else what they should prefer any more than they have the right to tell me what I should prefer.

As to ILTB's comments above, that's a stereotype. Pacelines while commuting? I ride alone, and "need for speed" cyclists would see me as a slow-moving Fred who rides a funny bike, wears ugly clothes, and stops unnecessarily at stop signs. I just can't wear the garment ILTB is displaying.

I prefer not to use particular bicycle facilities because they are so frustratingly inferior to the roads I've become accustomed to. Yes, it is my preference not to have to stop at "toy stop signs" posted next to driveways, cross intersections in crosswalks (motorists often don't pay any attention to that zebra-striped zone, they often roll into it as if it's not even there) or cross against traffic on the left side of the street, battle for space with bus patrons at bus stops, etc. I like a relatively uninterrupted ride on the street, similar to when I drive my car, same right-of-way rules.

But if "the need for maximum speed" means getting to work or home again in an hour instead of two hours, then I guess I fall into that category. :D (The trip home isn't as much of a problem, I sometimes take intentional detours to take in a longer ride, but I still use the road.)

First, I have to say that if ILTB likes cycling in Amsterdam, more power to him. That's really none of my business, besides, I've never even been there. So his point about those kinds of bike facilities being suitable for the people there is a point I can't take issue with, nor do I desire to. I have no more right to tell somebody else what they should prefer any more than they have the right to tell me what I should prefer.

As to ILTB's comments above, that's a stereotype. Pacelines while commuting? I ride alone, and "need for speed" cyclists would see me as a slow-moving Fred who rides a funny bike, wears ugly clothes, and stops unnecessarily at stop signs. I just can't wear the garment ILTB is displaying.

I prefer not to use particular bicycle facilities because they are so frustratingly inferior to the roads I've become accustomed to. Yes, it is my preference not to have to stop at "toy stop signs" posted next to driveways, cross intersections in crosswalks (motorists often don't pay any attention to that zebra-striped zone, they often roll into it as if it's not even there) or cross against traffic on the left side of the street, battle for space with bus patrons at bus stops, etc. I like a relatively uninterrupted ride on the street, similar to when I drive my car, same right-of-way rules.

But if "the need for maximum speed" means getting to work or home again in an hour instead of two hours, then I guess I fall into that category. :D (The trip home isn't as much of a problem, I sometimes take intentional detours to take in a longer ride, but I still use the road.)

What ILTB is alluding to is that both Forester and HH mention the need for speed in their quest for use of the roads. Forester particularly mentions it in his piece to the ADC (http://americandreamcoalition.org/forester.pdf), where he states:
Since one of the joys of cycling is the pleasure of moving along as fast as one wants, cyclists choose routes that allow them to maintain their desired speeds with few delays.
HH has stated that speed is clearly an issue for his weekend peloton rides.

Now while speed is indeed enjoyable on a bike (can't fault Forester for that) commuting routes are often not chosen for their cycling speed, but their utility to allow the cyclist to arrive safely at the office. The actual riding speed of many commuters is not the key to their trip. In fact I personally find I become somewhat careless with traffic when I focus on speed vice safety in my commute. Speed is best left to roads with minimal motor traffic.

ILTB is simply pointing out that practical cycling does not mean cycling fast, nor is that a key to practical cycling... most commuters in places like China or Amsterdam are riding in their work clothes... and would hardly want to arrive at work all covered in sweat from pushing their ride to their highest possible speed. With this in mind, suitable routes that are not geared for high speed probably serve just fine... much the "path" that Forester found so unsuitable in his past "testing."

Never been to Europe.

Pictures I have seen of Amsterdam and Copenhagen show cycling as a totally different beast than around here. People wear normal clothes, dresses, suits with coats. They bikes have little guards to prevent your clothes from getting caught in the spokes and stuff like that. People ride bikes to go out on dates, to run errands and everything. It's not like it's a separate aspect to society like it is here.

So their facilities makes sense to the way cycling is integrated into their daily lives. The facilities actually facilitate the cycling they do.

The problem with all the bickering around here is that the facilities facilitate the riding that many people do around these parts, but not the type of riding that a lot of the anti-facilities people prefer.

I agree, completely from second-hand stories from foreign buds, that it works for them. It would be nice to "diddy" around by bike.

I think that it is obvious that most cyclists--measured by the person not by mile--here are not wearing the tight shorts and clipless shoes (although I sense that a growing percentage are wearing helmets). But given that the underlying city structure and lifestyle is different, I suspect that the corresponding optimal strategy will be different as well.

You find John Allen's critiques of more interest than I. Of course, I view Mr. Allen, with his sloppy use of "crash rates" to prove vehicular cycling effectiveness and "dangers" of bike lanes as John Forester's Number One Protégé/Disciple.

Here in the Beltway, one sees stuff like this all of the time. And you see people use prove/proof in far too many instances when an analysis is more descriptive. But whether you agree or not with the analysis, ideas, conclusions, or font size, writing down an opinion along with supporting statistics is a big step forward. It forms a basis for a discussion and a starting point for one's own thoughts. Moreover, sometimes reading an alternative opinion keeps things fresh and, perhaps, forces one to re-evaluate conclusions.

This is probably the reason why things are so stale at Chainguard. There is little to no dissenting opinion. Hence why there are so many more posts here.

Regarding the thread about "maximum" speed ...

I recall references to cycling at speed or at the same speed as on the neighboring road (when cycling on a bike path), but there are a few interpretations of "maximum" speed that are probably inappropriate with respect to the VC position as I understand it.

If maximum speed means as fast as I would travel while on the road following traffic laws with the corresponding level of safety, then I think it is accurate.

... running off to a meeting.

-G

Here in the Beltway, one sees stuff like this all of the time. And you see people use prove/proof in far too many instances when an analysis is more descriptive.
When a salesman claims that the product he is promoting/selling has reduced accidents (and presumably risk) by an incredible 80% for its previous customers, and will do so for future customers, I like to see real proof or at least credible evidence of this success, not hare brained analysis of cherry picked factoids and fabrications, manipulated to create a false picture of success.

...most commuters in places like China or Amsterdam are riding in their work clothes... and would hardly want to arrive at work all covered in sweat from pushing their ride to their highest possible speed...

See UmneyDurak's picture above. I guarantee those people are going as fast as they want to.

What ILTB is alluding to is that both Forester and HH mention the need for speed in their quest for use of the roads. Forester particularly mentions it in his piece to the ADC (http://americandreamcoalition.org/forester.pdf), where he states:
HH has stated that speed is clearly an issue for his weekend peloton rides.

I won't argue that.

My point was that ILTB was stereotyping, painting everyone the same color, as if life really existed that way. It doesn't. I am a unique individual, just as you are, and just as ILTB is, and want to be recognized as such.

But unique individuals don't fit convenient stereotypes when arguing political issues.

If he would like to assume that we are all like John Forester or Helmet Head (as if they are also identical, which he has repeatedly claimed of all "VC acolytes/discples,") he may, but I can't swallow it. Who could, except those who also desire a convenient stereotype?

I won't argue that.

My point was that ILTB was stereotyping, painting everyone the same color,
Your point was in error. I am merely noting the current threads where JF and his disciple/worshiper HH, drone on about JF's legal accomplishments in battling his enemies who want to pass laws that might somehow really hurt cyclists -namely somehow affect their precious right to paceline and race on public roads. And now, funnier yet, protect cyclists from police harassment over the depth of their tire threads. Nobody is stereotyping you; unless you behave like HH, and parrot and electronically high five every silly statement and claim of JF. JF's previous proclamations about the chief priorities for Real Cyclists (like his asociates) being speed, and its close relative, efficiency are numerous and can be dredged up if really necessary.

Here's what I know. At my last job I worked with a guy who lived in Schiphol. I asked him if he rides his bike to get around. He said, "of course." I asked him, what if you go on a date with a girl, do you ride your bike then? He looked at me with amusement and said, "of course." Silly question.

What they have in Holland facilitates this lifestyle. John Forester may not see it that way, but his opinion isn't based upon observation.

Holland has an urban environment filled with cycling facilities. They have an urban environment that was not designed around the automobile. As a result, they have an urban environment filled with bicyclists.

We in the US have an urban environment lacking in cycling facilities in many places, and lacking in decent ones in many others. It was designed around the automobile. So we have an urban environment filled with motorists.

What they don't have in Holland are strident Vehicluar Cyclist spouting nonsense about how "we don't need no stinkin' bike paths" and cyclist making a statement by "taking the lane" and riding in critical mass rides to protest "our rights" as vehicles on the roads.

What are you going to believe? What you can see with your own eyes? Or what a small group of discredited cyclists take as a matter of faith with little real life, real world evidence to back up their claims?

Your point was in error.
I have re-read your post and note that you said, "...some of the anti-facility types..."

I stand corrected. But I'm still a little gun-shy from all the labeling and mass generalizations you have made in the past. Many of your posts still carry a tone that suggests you lump "VC idealogues" into the same stereotype.

By your labeling, you seem to suggest that anyone who claims any association with "VC'ists" is guilty of complete ignorance.

What ILTB is alluding to is that both Forester and HH mention the need for speed in their quest for use of the roads. Forester particularly mentions it in his piece to the ADC (http://americandreamcoalition.org/forester.pdf), where he states:
HH has stated that speed is clearly an issue for his weekend peloton rides.

Now while speed is indeed enjoyable on a bike (can't fault Forester for that) commuting routes are often not chosen for their cycling speed, but their utility to allow the cyclist to arrive safely at the office. The actual riding speed of many commuters is not the key to their trip. In fact I personally find I become somewhat careless with traffic when I focus on speed vice safety in my commute. Speed is best left to roads with minimal motor traffic.

ILTB is simply pointing out that practical cycling does not mean cycling fast, nor is that a key to practical cycling... most commuters in places like China or Amsterdam are riding in their work clothes... and would hardly want to arrive at work all covered in sweat from pushing their ride to their highest possible speed. With this in mind, suitable routes that are not geared for high speed probably serve just fine... much the "path" that Forester found so unsuitable in his past "testing."

Note carefully what I wrote: "Since one of the joys of cycling is the pleasure of moving along as fast as one wants, cyclists choose routes that allow them to maintain their desired speeds with few delays." I specifically stated "as fast as one wants". So stop misinterpreting what I have written to suit your antagonism.

Now inject a bit of commonsense into this discussion, painful though you might find it. A facility that is suitable for fast cycling is also suitable for slow cycling, but the converse is false. One should not design a facility that is unsuitable for the faster cyclists, partly because if you do, they will motor instead.

Now consider another effect, that of climate. One can ride quite reasonably in Holland without working up a sweat, but the same level of exertion in most parts of the USA for much of the year would leave you dripping wet.

Now consider another extremely important effect, that of urban pattern. Slow cycling for short distances is useful in places such as Amsterdam. There's no need for a lengthy discussion of life styles; it just happens to be so. However, in the USA we have different conditions, one of which is the much longer distances to be traveled. One's primary resource in this life is time; we live only so long, and we should get as much satisfaction out of our time as is reasonably possible. When discussion bicycle transportation, that means that if the trip will take too much time any person is likely to switch to a quicker mode. So, to maximize the amount of bicycle transportation that will be chosen, one needs to have the ability to travel as fast as one wants with as few delays as practical.

The antagonism to fast cycling, and its complementary advocacy of slow cycling, is directly contrary to the interests of cyclists, and, strange to say, contrary to the interests of those who argue for those positions. As always in bicycling affairs, there is so much illogicality in the arguments of the bicycle advocates that some explanation needs to be discovered.

By your labeling, you seem to suggest that anyone who claims any association with "VC'ists" is guilty of complete ignorance.
Nope, just those who blithely parrot Forester's so-called scientific basis and psycho babble as great truths or "best evidence", and proselytize for the programs evolved from that body of work from that piece of work.

Here's what I know. At my last job I worked with a guy who lived in Schiphol. I asked him if he rides his bike to get around. He said, "of course." I asked him, what if you go on a date with a girl, do you ride your bike then? He looked at me with amusement and said, "of course." Silly question.

What they have in Holland facilitates this lifestyle. John Forester may not see it that way, but his opinion isn't based upon observation.

Holland has an urban environment filled with cycling facilities. They have an urban environment that was not designed around the automobile. As a result, they have an urban environment filled with bicyclists.

We in the US have an urban environment lacking in cycling facilities in many places, and lacking in decent ones in many others. It was designed around the automobile. So we have an urban environment filled with motorists.

What they don't have in Holland are strident Vehicluar Cyclist spouting nonsense about how "we don't need no stinkin' bike paths" and cyclist making a statement by "taking the lane" and riding in critical mass rides to protest "our rights" as vehicles on the roads.

What are you going to believe? What you can see with your own eyes? Or what a small group of discredited cyclists take as a matter of faith with little real life, real world evidence to back up their claims?

sbhikes, you obviously cannot understand what I write in such a literate manner. Why you cannot is your problem, not ours.

You wrote: "Holland has an urban environment filled with cycling facilities. They have an urban environment that was not designed around the automobile. As a result, they have an urban environment filled with bicyclists. We in the US have an urban environment lacking in cycling facilities in many places, and lacking in decent ones in many others. It was designed around the automobile. So we have an urban environment filled with motorists. What they have in Holland facilitates [their] lifestyle. John Forester may not see it that way, but his opinion isn't based upon observation."

Your observations, except your blindness about me, are exactly correct. That is the whole point of what I have been writing for decades and also right in this discussion group. Slow bicycle transportation works in Holland because of the urban structure, which goes back to medieval and renaissance times, and the social pattern which had developed to suit that structure. Slow bicycle transportation is not very useful in America because American cities have developed to suit the automobile, as have our social patterns. If you want to participate usefully in this discussion, then read what is written.

Mr. Forester talks of autocentric cities in the US as a given. For those of us who are not so old, this doesn't have to be the given that Mr. Forester assumes it is. I see two things that bicycling advocacy needs to accomplish. 1) it needs to teach cyclists to ride within the constraints of the present day city. 2) it needs to work with urban planners to make cities more liveable. Note that this doesn't mean that streets necessarily need to be dug up or buildings moved. It is primarily an exercise in zoning and street/traffic flow design. Moreover, it is already happening in some cities.

Mr. Forester talks of autocentric cities in the US as a given. For those of us who are not so old, this doesn't have to be the given that Mr. Forester assumes it is. I see two things that bicycling advocacy needs to accomplish. 1) it needs to teach cyclists to ride within the constraints of the present day city. 2) it needs to work with urban planners to make cities more liveable. Note that this doesn't mean that streets necessarily need to be dug up or buildings moved. It is primarily an exercise in zoning and street/traffic flow design. Moreover, it is already happening in some cities.

Agreed... Mr Forester also seems to believe that the auto was key in the layout of American cities, which would be an interesting historical feat as many cities were laid out long before the auto was invented. The direction of later changes to these cities (Boston as an example) was auto centric, but that is only due to the urban planning in force at the time. As Brian points out, there is a new trend in urban design that is of the mind that auto centricity tends to dehumanize cities. Many years ago I studied "garage door dominate designs" and how that style has lead to isolated neighborhoods that are subject to crime due to the lack of porches and windows overlooking the streets. Clearly dehumanizing neighborhoods for the sake of the auto has it's drawbacks, and other solutions should be the focus of the future.

Agreed... Mr Forester also seems to believe that the auto was key in the layout of American cities, which would be an interesting historical feat as many cities were laid out long before the auto was invented. The direction of later changes to these cities (Boston as an example) was auto centric, but that is only due to the urban planning in force at the time. As Brian points out, there is a new trend in urban design that is of the mind that auto centricity tends to dehumanize cities. Many years ago I studied "garage door dominate designs" and how that style has lead to isolated neighborhoods that are subject to crime due to the lack of porches and windows overlooking the streets. Clearly dehumanizing neighborhoods for the sake of the auto has it's drawbacks, and other solutions should be the focus of the future.

And now, I just saw recently on the news or in a newspaper (I forgot where), the ranch style house is on it's way out in favor of houses with a more prominent facade and multiple stories.

Mr. Forester talks of autocentric cities in the US as a given. For those of us who are not so old, this doesn't have to be the given that Mr. Forester assumes it is. I see two things that bicycling advocacy needs to accomplish. 1) it needs to teach cyclists to ride within the constraints of the present day city. 2) it needs to work with urban planners to make cities more liveable. Note that this doesn't mean that streets necessarily need to be dug up or buildings moved. It is primarily an exercise in zoning and street/traffic flow design. Moreover, it is already happening in some cities.

Ah, so Brian reduces the cyclist interest in urban design to zoning and street design. That's a great reduction from his remark about urban renewal somewhat earlier.

Well, what zoning changes can cyclists produce that will further their interests? Of course, there are two issues, changes of zoning in built-up areas, and zoning for areas to be built-up. I suppose that there are about four or five kinds of zoning area concern: homes, employment, services, schools, recreation. The present system separates homes from employment and many services. Schools are necessary, but to some degree are more like employment centers than true neighborhood schools, particularly at the secondary levels. I understand that one current aim of urban planners is to produce areas in which homes, employment, and services are closely linked, so that people will not have to travel so much. Indeed, these are sometimes called villages, and they have all the disadvantages of villages, in that the residents have to be satisfied with the jobs and services there present. The older great city, such as New York's central areas, beat that problem by very high density, but at costs (financial and other) that many people chose not to bear, or just plain could not afford.

Suppose that such a village came to pass. Just what do you think is the probability that your current employer will move his plant or office to within cycling distance of your house? And what happens when your promotion gets taken by a competitor, and you want to seek another employer?

So, you are back to the little issues of street design to suit cyclists. That, I grant you, is a valid interest and one in which cyclists might have some effect.

Suppose that such a village came to pass. Just what do you think is the probability that your current employer will move his plant or office to within cycling distance of your house? And what happens when your promotion gets taken by a competitor, and you want to seek another employer?

Why do you assume the employer moves?

You are right, to an extent, that the "village model" has disadvantages. But it is not all about cycling - I'd wagger it is only in the US where "bicycle commuters" are "hardcore" and willingly ride their bicycles long distances; I do it, and I'll freely admit that I bike for reasons other than for pure transportation - the "wrong" reasons, so to speak. Grouping zoning in small areas doesn't necessarily make the workplace closer together, but it does make stores and shops closer to residential areas. Also, if done right, it can make mass transit for traveling longer distances to the workplace more efficient, since these villages can be linked by transit and the interior of the village can be made practical for cycling in the 2 or 3 mile radius that most people would be willing to take up. Property values rise with urban renewal simply because those places are in demand (for all the right reasons) and there is little of it currently - but this is just a transient flux.

This ties in with mass transit. The California suburb type of city is extremely inefficient for mass transit because, to make the daily rounds, one has to plan out round trips to hit all the necessary zoning areas which contain the workplace, the babysitter, the barber, the grocery store, etc. A car is absolutely necessary in this environment because there is no other method of transportation, even the bicycle which is a distant second, which offers the type of freedom to make these irregular round trips. If zoning were done in a way to create villages, then there is only a there-and-back trip to work. Everything from grocerys to the barber is at either destination. Round trips don't have to be planned, so bicycles (for short range flexibility) coupled with mass transit (for long distance trips between villages) works. Arguably, this works better and is more efficient time wise than the Califonia style suburban environment.

What it is not, though, is efficient for companies. With the village model, you tend to get smaller shops, and probably somewhat higher cost of living. A big box store such as a walmart cannot survive in this environment very well, except by tearing it apart and putting everyone back on the streets in their cars and making round trips again. So the cost of living ends up slightly higher, but I would guess that the lack of a need to maintain a car would more than offset this increase in cost.

Suppose that such a village came to pass. Just what do you think is the probability that your current employer will move his plant or office to within cycling distance of your house? And what happens when your promotion gets taken by a competitor, and you want to seek another employer?



Imagine instead of a village, a series of villages where travel and distances within the village are easily serviced by walking and cycling, and the area outside of the villages is best suited to auto travel... The goal being that auto travel does not have to be the dominate form within the village, but is well suited for longer range travel between villages or clusters of villages. Clusters of villages can become cities.

Currently the design of cities does not focus on a village like mentality, but instead provides for a central core (downtown) surrounded by widely spaced housing and isolated industry, designed with the auto in mind to accomplish all the transit requirements. This however removes the human scale from the environment and adds a dependency on the auto.

The mall and box store are the result of the auto centric environment... distributed shopping at a neighborhood level is the antithesis of the auto centric mall system. Gross purchasing power can still be achieved by moving product to the neighborhood level vice moving the neighborhood (each via their own vehicle) to the large box store. The result is that the distribution system does not have to be co-located in an ideal living space, and the neighborhood village environment is retained.

All of this retains the auto for longer trips, for which it is best suited, but scales the neighborhood to induce travel by foot or bicycle for the majority of daily needs.

With the product that my company makes, you can work from home...

virtually everything I could possibly need is within 2 miles of me. work is five miles away. but I'm lucky that way. I use the truck for longer trips I have to make.

With the product that my company makes, you can work from home...
I have to show up on my job 15 miles away. It's a great bike ride, though.

Hey, I live in America, and I go to dates on MY bicycle. Sport coat, tie, dress shoes, the whole bit.


Many cities around the world are more 'bikeable' by higher percents of their citizens than American cities. Infrastructure plays a BIG part in cities' bikeability index, if we can consider it that way.

Speaking of Amsterdam, picture from last week.
http://i104.photobucket.com/albums/m169/umneydurak/euro_trip341.jpg
OMG, I see cyclists cycling vehicularly in the MV lane in Amsterdam!!!

:)

"garage door dominate designs"
Snout houses.

See UmneyDurak's picture above. I guarantee those people are going as fast as they want to.

And I don't see much in the way of "great" facilities. Bike lane clogged on one side of the street, No BL on the other side (those cyclists are "taking the lane")

So from the picture I would have to surmise that it isn't the facilities "facilitating" the cycling culture.

[edit]

And Peds standing in the BL OMG!

-D

And I don't see much in the way of "great" facilities. Bike lane clogged on one side of the street, No BL on the other side (those cyclists are "taking the lane")

So from the picture I would have to surmise that it isn't the facilities "facilitating" the cycling culture.

[edit]

And Peds standing in the BL OMG!

-D
You see what you want to see. A VC ideologue sees a scene of cycling horror - too many "incompetent" cyclists who would interfere with his speed and efficiency.

I see a lot of bicyclists riding down a street. Having been in Amsterdam and other Dutch cities it is easy to see that this picture represents typical cycling numbers, equipment and attire. Facilities vary from street to street. The positive cycling culture is uniform.

And I don't see much in the way of "great" facilities. Bike lane clogged on one side of the street, No BL on the other side (those cyclists are "taking the lane")

So from the picture I would have to surmise that it isn't the facilities "facilitating" the cycling culture.

[edit]

And Peds standing in the BL OMG!

-D



I lived and worked in Rotterdam for about a month and rode a bike everywhere (helmetless!:eek:). Not only did I ride all through the city but also off to Delft and The Hague on day long jaunts on bike paths. There were open air markets that sold tons of cycling related gear- I bought a briefcase-like pannier for about 10 euros ($15) that was better than anything I'd seen in the US for 4x's the price.

I rode all over Amsterdam with my wife sitting side saddle on the back rack of my rental bike.

Bikes rule over there. Not only do cars pay deference to you in an almost disconcerting way (at least until you get used to it) but pedestrians give you right of passage as well.

Until you've ridden there and tried it (if possible with an open mind) you might think twice before knocking it.

I suppose one could argue whether the "facilities are facilitating" the cycling or not but they are a part of the infrastructure and part of the culture- the same culture that sells a good practical commuting pannier for 1/4 the price we'd sell it here. In that way I would say that the cultural norm is to encourage cycling and the cycling facilities undoubtedly do just that

What I noticed upon returning to the US was that cycling was discouraged by the autocentric design of our transportation infrastructure and I could feel the constant need to assert my right to my legal use of that infrastructure, something I seldom, if ever, felt in The Netherlands.

That is because the urban pattern in Amsterdam facilitates that kind of cycling. The characteristics of that city make slow, short-distance cycling useful, because it is slightly faster than walking, which would be the competitor.
Amsterdam must be a terrible place for cycling if it is only slightly faster than walking. Around here, it is at least three times faster than walking at the same level of effort.

Paul

What I noticed upon returning to the US was that cycling was discouraged by the autocentric design of our transportation infrastructure and I could feel the constant need to assert my right to my legal use of that infrastructure, something I seldom, if ever, felt in The Netherlands.
This is primarily cultural, and results primarily from motorist reeducation and enightened motorist attitudes, something the Foresterologists don't seem particularly interested in persuing.

Amsterdam must be a terrible place for cycling if it is only slightly faster than walking. Around here, it is at least three times faster than walking at the same level of effort.

Paul


I'm uncertain when I read a post like this if you are being facetious, naive, deliberately obtuse and argumentative or just plain ignorant. So my apologies if my response seems blatantly obvious or somewhat caustic.

#1- If Amsterdam were such a terrible place to cycle why would so many people there do it? And why would so many of us who visit this great city rave about cycling there?

#2- I rode an average of 30 miles or so per day commuting and sightseeing. And as I said in my previous post took long journeys to other cities in the Netherlands via an integrated network of bikepaths. The flat terrain and smooth, relatively uninterrupted bike paths between Rotterdam and Delft, for example, meant I travelled at an excellent pace (17-21 mph)- certainly faster than walking.

#3- In the city of Amsterdam the pace of all travel is slower by choice not by circumstance. When I first visited the city I whipped around there on the bike pretty much the way I would in Boston there was nothing to stop me. But I was subjected to the Dutch equivalent of the "WTF?" look though the translation there might be "Where's the Fire?" as opposed to the American "What the F***?"

It's a different culture- some of us adapt and some of us learn things, which we bring home with us and feel might improve the quality of life in our own communities.

Imagine instead of a village, a series of villages where travel and distances within the village are easily serviced by walking and cycling, and the area outside of the villages is best suited to auto travel... The goal being that auto travel does not have to be the dominate form within the village, but is well suited for longer range travel between villages or clusters of villages. Clusters of villages can become cities.

Currently the design of cities does not focus on a village like mentality, but instead provides for a central core (downtown) surrounded by widely spaced housing and isolated industry, designed with the auto in mind to accomplish all the transit requirements. This however removes the human scale from the environment and adds a dependency on the auto.

The mall and box store are the result of the auto centric environment... distributed shopping at a neighborhood level is the antithesis of the auto centric mall system. Gross purchasing power can still be achieved by moving product to the neighborhood level vice moving the neighborhood (each via their own vehicle) to the large box store. The result is that the distribution system does not have to be co-located in an ideal living space, and the neighborhood village environment is retained.

All of this retains the auto for longer trips, for which it is best suited, but scales the neighborhood to induce travel by foot or bicycle for the majority of daily needs.

We have seen several descriptions of urban designs that their proponents think preferable to what exists in America, or to the later parts of what exists. But at this time, these are no more than dreams. But to achieve any of these would require enormous amounts of effort on many fronts. I suggest that nothing that cyclists could do would either contribute significantly to the large-scale product or to the process of achieving it. The subject is largely irrelevant to the issue of how best cyclists should operate.

Ironically, with this talk about auto-centric sprawl and inhibited cycling...

When the safety bicycle was being promoted, one of the key advertising points was that it increased your travel range over those that were readily available to the working man. So you could live farther from work, and pay less rent then in the city center...

I rode all over Amsterdam with my wife sitting side saddle on the back rack of my rental bike.

Bikes rule over there. Not only do cars pay deference to you in an almost disconcerting way (at least until you get used to it) but pedestrians give you right of passage as well.

Until you've ridden there and tried it (if possible with an open mind) you might think twice before knocking it.

I suppose one could argue whether the "facilities are facilitating" the cycling or not but they are a part of the infrastructure and part of the culture- the same culture that sells a good practical commuting pannier for 1/4 the price we'd sell it here. In that way I would say that the cultural norm is to encourage cycling and the cycling facilities undoubtedly do just that

What I noticed upon returning to the US was that cycling was discouraged by the autocentric design of our transportation infrastructure and I could feel the constant need to assert my right to my legal use of that infrastructure, something I seldom, if ever, felt in The Netherlands.
What is the cultural and practical norm in the Netherlands seems to be in stark contrast to the norm where I live in the US. While I am treated with respect by motorists, for the most part, I am more of an intruder upon the autocentric system. It's cultural, reinforced by the practical nature of our transportation system that motorists dominate.

My feeling (though it's only a feeling, not a proven assumption,) is that to pattern the US cycling infrastructure model after that in Amsterdam would result in reinforcing the dominance of motorists on our existing roads. But as I said, I can't prove that assumption, just a gut feeling. After all, you can adopt the Dutch system, but you can't transplant it's culture.

While I understand the simple reasons why so many Americans would prefer a Dutch model for cyclists, the fact is that our culture is so dominated by motoring that I think it would not create more respect for cyclists, but the opposite. I would prefer that any cycling infrastructure we implement in the US is paralleled by an equally concerted effort to establish the rights of cyclists to use any road we choose with equal status to motorists (I say "equal status," that does not necessarily mean "equal numbers" or "equal abilities.")

We have seen several descriptions of urban designs that their proponents think preferable to what exists in America, or to the later parts of what exists. But at this time, these are no more than dreams. But to achieve any of these would require enormous amounts of effort on many fronts. I suggest that nothing that cyclists could do would either contribute significantly to the large-scale product or to the process of achieving it. The subject is largely irrelevant to the issue of how best cyclists should operate.

I'm already seeing some of this being built into the cities surrounding Portland. Most new residential developments carry with them some sort of "marketplace" where there is a grocery store, barber, insurance, carwash, oil change, coffee, numerous restaurants, etc. If you are claiming that has to happen tomorrow or not at all, I think you are being a bit close minded.

This is largely relevent to cycling. Your version of vehicular cycling is aimed at a certain type of person, namely the commuter who commutes for the wrong reasons (not morally wrong, economically wrong - it costs the person more in money and/or time to commute by bicycle, the aim is for fitness and personal growth, not economics). New development means there will be more cyclists who will be open to commute for the right reasons. Those cyclists are not necessarily going to be the enthusiasts who you cater to exclusively now. They will demand an environment which is more suitable to cycling than what we have now. If that enviroment is provided, then they can be helped economically by cycling.

Ironically, with this talk about auto-centric sprawl and inhibited cycling...

When the safety bicycle was being promoted, one of the key advertising points was that it increased your travel range over those that were readily available to the working man. So you could live farther from work, and pay less rent then in the city center...

that IS ironical.

But at this time, these are no more than dreams. But to achieve any of these would require enormous amounts of effort on many fronts. I suggest that nothing that cyclists could do would either contribute significantly to the large-scale product or to the process of achieving it. The subject is largely irrelevant to the issue of how best cyclists should operate.
I contend that all of our biggest changes start as mere "dreams".

Of course it would take enormous amounts of money and effort. But corporations are more then willing to contribute both if a market demand entices them with the promise of a profit. Why do you see so many cities experiencing redevelopment of city centers into more pedestian-friendly, interactive models? Aren't planners and developers just seeing that only some demographics prefer the strip mall, arterial, gated garage community model, and many others prefer something very different?

John, I understand that the current model (of arterials, suburbs, strip malls) is often conducive to rapid service and short travel times. Both of these I am sure are high priorities to traffic engineers, who naturally would be against inefficiency and delays.

But "pipe dream" argument aside. Do you feel that this development model is good for society? What do you think of claims such as that it enables the stifling of freedom of speech and deters people from acting like active citizens, by forcing them away from street-level face-to-face interaction, basically isolating them. Do you think this argument has any merit?

I think what we see is local developments being adapted to what developers (with their investments) believe will be profitable. Many Atlanta developers have been investing heavily in older, often defunct downtown properites, turning them into expensive condominium developments, complete with nearby shopping, close to the city center. You can pay to a quarter to a half-million for one of these, and skip the ever-increasing, ridiculously long commute from far away cities.

Where I live, these new neighborhoods are just as good for cycling as before, even better, due to repaving of roads and the elimination of some run-down areas. Also, the slower speed limits and residential nature of these neighborhoods makes cycling better than in some other areas, but that has not changed much since before the new developments were introduced. But is does make it better for cycling for those who move there from more traditional suburban areas.

One thing that can happen is more crowded on-street parking by residents, since some of the older, newly-refurbished neighborhoods (not the condos, but the single-family dwellings) have very limited driveway space. So there is some additional competition for road space, sometimes, in places where all available space has already been used.

But overall, I think these developments add much flavor to the city. (Unfortunately, older, poorer residents are displaced to who-knows-where.)

Amsterdam must be a terrible place for cycling if it is only slightly faster than walking. Around here, it is at least three times faster than walking at the same level of effort.

Paul
What makes you think Forester's guesstimate about typical cycling/walking speed relationship in Amsterdam or anywhere else has any more value than a WAG? If he's ever been in The Netherlands he's kept it a secret. Perhaps one of his "associates" told him an anecdote; then just as likely, he made up the statistic.