Originally Posted by
tandempower
You seem to be focusing on people and your assumptions about them instead of infrastructure. Your general orientation here seems to be negative, as if to criticize faults instead of focusing on solutions.
Maybe we got off on the wrong foot because I was in a hurry to discuss what in my view are the shortcomings of the analysis in this video and forgot to praise the rest of it. Sorry about that, I didn't realize it would come across negatively.
I think it's a great presentation video, full of great insights, very funny and open minded. The funny thing with people who observe (cultural) differences well is that they also tell a lot about the culture or viewpoint of the observer, so it learns me a lot about cycling in that part of the USA. You also learn about your own culture through a viewpoint from the outside. An exchange like this not only a window into eachother's culture but also a mirror for both sides of the Atlantic. Cultural differences never stop to please and amuse me, generally I think they are funny and something to be enjoyed.
Where cycling is concernded, I feel lucky and privileged. And I have to admit a feel a bit of pride for achievements I had no part in other than just cycling around, but I'm afraid that's quite normal.
Maybe, but that doesn't mean transportation reforms can't be achieved in various situations. You're implying that the Dutch case is exceptional, and while I have noticed that Dutch exceptionalism is as typical (or perhaps atypical) as US exceptionalism, there's no benefit in calling Dutch cycling infrastructure a perfect storm that can't be replicated. Again, there's no focus on any Dutch here for the sake of worshiping or otherwise defining it historically or otherwise. It's just a source of information for potential transportation reforms.
Well, you have to because many people will only consider biking if the infrastructure is friendly. Plus, if you allow popularity to sway the political decision to support infrastructure reforms, then automotive interests will attempt to buy off and dissuade people from LCF in an effort to undermine demand. The reality is that automotive sprawl growth has already passed the point of sustainability so reforms are necessary. It's just a question of how to achieve them, both in terms of reforming infrastructure and in terms of stimulating people to shift from driving to other modes. The future simply won't work otherwise, without horrible population interventions.
That's the question I hurried to, becaus imo that the most interesting and difficult one. I'm not saying Dutch cycling is the result of a perfect storm, If it hadn't happened at that moment something simular would have happened later. But if you want to learn from how the Dutch got their cycling back, you have to take in consideration that the cyclists and the traffic engineers are in constant interaction, and that in the achievement of the cycling infrastructure, in general the cyclists are leading and the city planners were following most of the time. If you want to do that the other way around, and let the traffic engineering lead and the cyclists follow, you probably will have to adjust the infrastructure to that leading role.
In my opinion the number of cyclists is very important to make infrastructure work. In the video was an example of a biking lane that was used by pedestrians, so it didn't work. But people wouldn't walk on a biking lane if there were bikes all over it. In the USA in general you have more space, greater distances and less cyclists, so to me it seems like a challenge to get it going. I assume there's a tipping point, that's why I like the name of the 'critical mass' movement, that once in an area you have reached a certain density of cyclists, it will take off almost autonomously from there, and the first and greatest challenge seems to me to reach that point.
You're right about more people shifting away from driving. When the demand for closer destinations grows, then more businesses and jobs will emerge within bikeable/walkable reach. But in order to create the demand, there have to be both infrastructure improvements/reforms AND incentives to avoid driving, such as congestion-corridor permits/fees that make it cheaper to take the bus or walk than pay for a permit to drive on congested routes during peak times.
I would concentrate on incentives to start cycling as a means of transportation, first use it to have people move around more. That's great for local businesses and the general vibe of a city. Fights have to be fought and toes have to be stepped on, but the main part should probably seduction. The bike friendly city is a great 'product', great for business, great for children, great for health, great for air quality, great for atmosphere, great for noise, great for social interaction, great for motorists, but it won't sell itself. You'll have to pay first and wait years for the real benefits to take effect.
I think you could discuss the interactions you're talking about. Maybe if you just mentioned specific points instead of generalizing about the Dutch situation as a specific case different than others, it would help. Sometimes I make general claims in threads based on social patterns I've observed without specifying where they've happened. I do this to avoid discussions of how people in one area are different than people in another. E.g. I've noticed people accusing transportation-reformists of "forcing people out of their cars." Presumably no one says this in Dutch discourse, though maybe they do, even though in many ways you could say that Dutch policies punish people for driving in order to make cycling more convenient. The point is that wherever you are, you may note social or political patterns that you can express in a general way and others elsewhere may or may not benefit from what you share. All you can do is share and try not to offend, and when you do offend, try to empathize, apologize, and reconsider why you considered your offensive statement to be a worthy contribution to discussion and explain that, maybe in a way that avoids whatever it was that someone found offensive in the first place.
To me it seems arrogant and condescending to just say 'do as we did, we got all worked out and you're just late and our formula will work perfectly for you, unchanged'. I see cycling as walking with mechanically enhanced speed, it's what people and communities will do in their own way, with little control from authorities needed or possible. Cycling in Seattle will be different from cycling in New York, just because it is shaped by the locals.
I don't think driving in general is punished here, I think quite a large part of it's costs to society are paid for by the drivers instead of by every taxpayer. It encourages to consider alternatives, but more as a choice for a specific occasion than as a lifestyle, it's more about not using the car than not having one to use. The competition is not really between the bike and the car, but between the train and the car, and the train has lost about a 15 years ago. But against the bike the car never really stood a chance after the turning point in the seventies started to take effect in the early nineties. No one likes traffic jams, no one wants to drive around to find a parking space, no one wants to live in or go shopping in a city that has all it's historical buildings flattened to make space for roads to accomodate cars. Then you can drive but there's nothing left that's worth driving to. Of course a lot of motorist would like to drive in the city, as long as they are one to few cars, but everyone understands it doesn't work like that. But thanks to cycling, cities ar still accessible by car.
Also in the video, the button cyclists can activite the traffic light with and cycling lanes are portrayed as cycling friendly infrastructure. But they're not, their car friendly infrastructure. Without the button the traffic light would be activated even if there wasn't a cyclist, so it prevents cars from having to stop and wait without necessity. Bicycle lanes seperate speeds, not vehicles, and allows cars to speed up and go much faster than the traffic that surrounds them, that's motorist friendly infrastructure. And no one wants to kill a kid on a bike, so the other 'cycling infrastructure' is helping them too.
Imo, Dutch cities can still benefit from more reforestation, and from what I read there are big economic challenges that have been created throughout the history of social-democracy. Consumption-reforms are very difficult where middle-class egalitarianism and entitlement feelings are strong. This is not a uniquely Dutch problem, but I think it is strong with that culture. Even though people claim egalitarianism, they don't really consider whether their standards of consumption are attainable for 9 billion people globally. There are many purchases for the sake of keeping up with fashion, or decorating, or gift-giving, etc. that drive commerce but maybe aren't ultimately good for the environment or for people. Dependencies form in areas like social-work where people expect to be paid for just caring for each other, and economic recession results in massive protests and interventions to protect work and incomes. Amazing that so much economic dependency could still exist in a region where practically everything is bikeable/walkable in terms of distance, but there are many social problems and differences that prevent anyone from wanting to live in just any area and housing prices get driven very high by demand for that and other reasons, ranging from aesthetic desirability of neighborhoods to proximity to family/friends, etc. Dutch bike infrastructure may be sufficient but there are enough other problems to solve.
Social democracy is becoming more an more something that has to operate between smaller margins set by international neoliberalism. And within those margins, there also has been a shift towards right wing policies. But that has little to do with cycling, the right wing has acknowledged a long a time ago that cycling is a big part of the future of transportation.
Also you shouldn't assume a widespread egalitarian spirit just because getting poor kids educated is good for their productivity and there's more money to made off them. If a succesfull business man is biking on old beater it's not because he's very egalitarian, it's just practical and it shows (whether he cares or not about showing) that he can afford to live in the city where bikes get stolen and were not caring about the bike you ride as long as it has two wheels is just a 'cool' attitude. If people get kids they often move out to villages near the city so they can afford space and a garden, and it often it's a bit too far to bike, but you're not admired for not beeing able to have a drink because you have to drive back home. If you had done better in life you could have a few drinks and bike to your home nearby.
Not everything is bikeable, in the countryside you really need a car to get around. And cycling certainly doesn't get the economy to a standstill as you seem to hope. It spurs the economy, and to me that's a good thing. If people can get from A to B easily they will go to C also, and spend money there. But it shifts spending from buying to own to paying for enjoyment, Bars, restaurants, exhibitions, cinema's, musea, theatres, sports etc.