noglider 

@Caliper, bike infrastructure doesn't cost much, so your theories don't lead us anywhere.

WizardOfBoz

That's actually a thing in urban planning*. You design a city (or a highway in the city, or some other capacity-related thing in the city) for X people, and 5X end up using it.

Brasilia is like that. 2.5 million people- and I think it was designed for a million.

*If my memories of discussions with my brother, who studied urban design, are accurate.

Lemond1985

Look no further than California. We are still using many roads built in 1970 or earlier, when the population was 19 million people, to transport some 40 million people (probably more than that) in 2019.

Many small towns have refused to upgrade massively-overcrowded local roads on the theory, "If you build it, they will come. So we just won't build it at all." Which is completely wrong, people will still come anyway, and suffer needlessly every day hitting potholes, and wasting minutes of their lives daily on overcrowded narrow roads that were built for traffic conditions that existed 75 years ago. Refusing to upgrade roads is a cowardly cheapskate (and completely ineffective) way of dealing with growth, IMO.

acidfast7

You guys should be looking into better public transport, especially for longer distances like what exists in the northeast US along the Northeast Megalopolis.

acidfast7

Acela Express is pretty solid.

acidfast7

But our Digswell Viaduct is better. (made out of individual bricks, my man)

acidfast7

reading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digswell_Viaduct

Caliper

It may cost less than car infrastructure, but a bike path will often run $250k - $1 million per mile and that's not cheap when most people won't be using them.

Consider that in America:
Only a small minority of adults regularly ride a bike.
Most adults would consider a ride as long as the average commute to be "really long".
For many of us, routine trips are prohibitively far for bike since they will take 2x-4x as much time as the same trip in a car.
Utility and commute riding is impractical for multiple months out of the year in large parts of the country. You're in NYC, are you really going to use a bike for most of your trips in winter?

Yes, I'd like to see more cycling and more infrastructure, but you have to consider realistic paths forward. Outside of very densely populated areas, it simply doesn't make sense to build Amsterdam-style bike infrastructure because there won't be the routine volume of traffic to justify it. In my area, the pie-in-the-sky planners have tried to bring in a bike path, but they wanted a large separation zone, wide bike lane, etc and ended up with a proposal that would have taken 12 feet out of everyone's front yard. This in an area where unless I am on a planned group ride, I'll see another cyclist maybe every third ride. Naturally, the proposal was shot down. So, the road stays as it was - two lanes at 55mph, pavement ends at the white line and then a gravel shoulder of varying size. Honestly, I would have been incredibly happy with a consistent 4 feet of pavement to the outside of the white line marked as a bike path.
Start with the smaller scale projects and recreational paths. First, we need to build a base of people who regularly ride bikes at all before there will be more people looking at riding for errands or commuting. With more cyclists, there will be more people willing to support the tax increases needed to fund these projects. The Dutch have been at it for something like 40 years?

noglider 

Fair points, @Caliper. But $250K is an extreme example. I lobbied my town representatives when I lived in Maplewood, a small suburb in New Jersey. I got them to pass a Complete Streets policy. It cost them nothing and bought them good will. Thereafter, when they paved or striped the streets, they added things for bikes. The cost there was close to zero. This is one step towards creating the critical mass of enough cyclists to justify real expenditures.

You're right that most commuting distances are too great to cycle. I don't agree that climate is a total deal breaker. Look at the accounts of Amsterdam. And NYC has a bad winter, but I do cycle in it, nearly every day. Not only that, the number of cyclists increases every winter, in my observation. One of the biggest obstacles to riding in bad weather is the belief that it's intolerable. The more you do it, the more you realize it's not a big deal. And I say that knowing it's not for everyone. I can't convince my wife to ride when it's cold. But many do. As they say in Minnesota, there's no bad weather, only bad clothing. I don't take that philosophy to an extreme. There are some conditions that are too hostile, but they don't occur every day.

A lot of what we need is better planning of communities. Before Maplewood, I lived in Edison, NJ. It was developed mostly in the 1970s. They had the idea that everyone could go everywhere in a car, so there is virtually no other way to get around. It's really stupid.

jefnvk

Works great, until you annoy one church (business, nonprofit, etc) with clout in a city by taking away their on-street parking: https://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rap...ne_church.html. Then, the cost is immediately too high, and the bike lanes go away.

Stadjer

I'm convinced spots of high density, usually cities, are good for the economy. Better even they are organized in way that allow a lot of mobility. But density makes bicycle infrastructure more expensive and difficult and the soil and all the water don't help either, draw bridges are expensive. There's even a cycling bridge that doesn't cross the canal but stands in it and follows it because both the land at both shores was too expensive. It's a matter of commitment, it's necessary for mobility so it's done. It's beyond political choice and debat for the largest part and it's a good investment.

Expats from anywhere tend to think the same thing about the Dutch biking in general and especially all year round. Despite whatever average, the weather is considered unpleasant for most of the year, especially for cycling. The Dutch would love to cycle in a mediterranean climate or something like Miami.

That's not how a parasitic corporation like airbnb works. It's all about the money so there a lots of little companies that do the key delivery and the cleaning, it's a whole industry. It's unfair competition for hotels who do have to pay tax, and it turns whole streets and neighbourhoods into a noisy mess of antisocial 24 h party people. It extracts housing from the people who need it and increases the costs of housing. It's also the main cause of overtourism, as hotels have a limited capacity. That causes all kinds of shops that cater to the tourists and not to the citizens. It's getting very difficult to get a decent piece of cheese in the centre of Amsterdam because tourists will pay double for anything jellow. Yes, tourists spend money but airbnb tends to attract the cheap kind that isn't capable of experiencing culture at all. The burden is not on the people who make the many, the business model of this tourism is based on throwing the real costs onto society.

In Barcelona tourist buses have been attacked. Venice is not a city anymore, 14 centuries of history and it came to a stop, just because it had to be turned into an open air museum for people stepping of a cruise ship for a short while. Airbnb is a sad phenomenon alltogether. In the 80's I went to Portugal with my parents, which was almost a developping nation back then, very poor and very cheap. We found out after a while that the old people we rented the house from were living in a garage for a while, we were a bit embarrassed by that and when my brother handed them a thank you and goodbye note in Portugese it turned out they were illiterate. Now Amsterdammers with a university education in one the richest cities on earth are doing the same thing and letting strangers into their house to pay for that house. That's not progress, people who do well in rich countries have guests because they enjoy that.

jefnvk

Yes, see below.

Not to mention, in areas where rent is controlled or not so high, or the tourism is booming, the displacement of residents in favor of converting housing into short term rental options: https://splinternews.com/airbnb-has-...-to-1793856969

I'm not against the practice entirely, but I am fully onboard with the notion that they must be run as any other hotel or hostel, if being rented on anything more than an infrequent basis.

Caliper

Actually, 250k seems to be on the low end for bike paths that aren't recreational. These guys: No, protected bike lanes do not need to cost $1 million per mile Put the cost for a protected bikeway at $445k/mile. Heck, a number of their protective measures cost >$250k/mi and that's not including the cost of widening the road and paving. Remember, most roads don't have a place for a bike lane right now in the first place. The protected paths are what everyone seems to be pushing for anyways? Suburbs like you worked with may have the wide roads that can have a striped-off bike lane without any additional paving and probably only cost the $8k-$16k per mile listed in the article.

I'm happy complete streets worked for you, but it has caused problems here in MI. The debacle I mentioned above that ended up going nowhere was a result of complete streets. Maybe "complete streets" means different things in different places but here it seems to be a step backwards because it doesn't seem to allow for the simple low cost things to be done. Kind of an all or nothing thing here and with the cost for "all in" we seem to get nothing. I think you and I are of a similar mindset that small things can be done to make roads more bike friendly with time. Unfortunately, too many are looking to skip straight to full Amsterdam tomorrow.

I did look up the weather in Amsterdam, check the link in post #71 . Or you can look up the monthly forecast on Accuweather and flip back through the recorded temps for the past year. Fairly stable temperature across the seasons, few days below freezing and virtually no snow or humidity compared to the US.
I totally agree that there's only the wrong clothing, I've ridden in weather down to 6F with wind. Are you talking recreational or utility riding though? I do see recreational riding in the winter getting more popular, it's quite fun. But for getting groceries or commuting, winter riding would be a hinderance. On the flip side, during the summer in the southern US, are people going to ride to get groceries in 90+F and humid weather? The greater seasonal swings in the US compared to Europe generally cause issues for utility biking that would mean dramatic lifestyle changes.


Yes, spots of higher density are good for the economy, but "dense" is relative. I think what most Americans call dense might not be the same for the Dutch.
Infrastructure in dense cities may cost more per mile, but remember that there are fewer miles needed in a smaller area and more people to spread the tax burden of construction between. For example, how many businesses or residences (ie: taxpayers) would 100m of bike path go past in Amsterdam? That's what makes it easier to construct. We have plenty of mobility in the US and our cities have been laid out to accommodate cars. Most cities base their revenue model on attracting people from outside the city to come there and spend money. Those people are coming from too far away to bike so making our cities unfriendly to cars stifles a large source of income for the cities.

Haha, I suppose the grass is always greener and everyone complains about the weather wherever they are... If it is considered so unpleasant for cycling, why do so many people in Amsterdam cycle so regularly? Either way, you saw the weather data from other places and you can see that whether Amsterdam is good or not, most places in North America are worse with larger swings in temperature across the year, more humidity, more rain and more snow (or if no snow, far hotter and more humid).

jade408

noglider 

@Caliper, I take mostly utilitarian trips on my bike in the winter, not recreational rides. The same is true for the cyclists I see. The weather does reduce the number of people making these trips, but it does not eliminate them, and the presence of the remaining cyclists proves that the weather isn't a deal breaker for all of us. The past few days, it has been 26-35º and very windy.

Stadjer

The staircases are famously narrow and steep to safe space, so it's certainly a fair point. But it's far from the whole story as cities tend to be more dense when they are bigger and have more high rising buildings when they are more modern. So I guess there must a lots and lots of Americans living in comparable density.

Mobility is also a matter of how much time a commute or shopping takes and whether people go out at night to spend money. Spending is important too. It's not very different here were I live, a city about the quarter of the size of Amsterdam and much more a cycling and cycling friendly city. It,s the city to go for city stuff for a very wide area even extending into Germany because it's the only city. Most shoppers come by car, the difference it that they park the car at the edge of the centre or even further out. They stay longer and spend more because it's a pleasant place to shop and enjoy sidewalk cafes because it's just bikes and pedestrians in the centre. That business model works great allthough the shop owners were seriously opposed to it for the same fears.

We got large swings across the day here. 90F is like pretty nice cycling weather here, just don't hurry. 15-20 F is also acceptable depending on the wind. The many people cycle that regularly because they want to go places and do stuff.

I'm certainly not trying to convince you that America could and should just copy Dutch cycling infrastructure. But pointing at the weather, the flatness and the density is a bit too easy. There are relevant differences but also less relevant ones and things in common that could benefit at least some American cities. I believe the main differences are political and cultural, and therefore changeable.

Every city has weed and hookers, the Dutch are just not in denial about it. In Amsterdam there's quite a lot of both because of the tourists, but I've lived right next to a red light street for more than 5 years (not in Amsterdam, they are in many cities), it never bothered me allthough I dislike prostitution. .

mr_bill

Meliou

I agree with you! I've been to Netherlands 4 times so far and now I am sure that I want to move there and to buy property in Amsterdam through Tranio. Just love there organization, bicycle roads, local food, even weather I enjoy. It's a perfect country for living in my opinion.

phile

biking anywhere near central amsterdam is kinda nerve wrecking bike patsh liek this are found throughout the netherlands .

phile

local food? uhm? really?
where are you from that the boring dutch cuisine seems great to you? i live here and have nothing particularly against the dutch cuisine but to call it a selling point, i mean damn what boring food did you grow up with?

Stadjer

The weather yes? We'll see about that.

Property prices are peaking right now in Amsterdam, probably not the best time to buy. In the long term you'll probably be fine but don't expect a great deal.

Don't you like Dutch classics like nasi goreng, kebab, chili con carne, roti and flemish fries?

Amsterdam is often a bit overpriced but I don't think it's as mediocre as it used to be. I can imigane people enjoying it, lots of choice in foreign foods of course but a lot of restaurants have stopped beeing pretentious and fancy and switched to fresh, local, pure and relatively simple. That's usually much more becoming.

phile

oh yeah loooove those "local" dishes. that said most places i've eaten here just lack so much flavor. I know and understand dutch culture i grew up in a colony after all, but i generally get upset/dissapointed at most places here.

it's like most people creating dishes at restaurants here have no understanding of how to season anything. even if they aren't dutch and are cooking cuisine from their background it's all a bland version of it made for dutch palate. I gave up on ever finding decent pulled pork here, and most places with buzz around em are slightly better than ok.

Caliper

LOL, you don't get it. I've not been to Amsterdam, but have been to Boston. It's a nice place to visit and all, but you couldn't pay me to live there. Far too crowded, there's always someone or something around. I enjoyed walking about and seeing the sights but was happy to get home where I could get some alone time. One of the reasons I bike is for alone time and I don't think I could get that in Eastern Massachusetts. I'm glad that you guys enjoy your cities, but just like bike saddle choice they aren't for everyone.

mr_bill

Totally. (Though there's nothing wrong with pretentiously naming a restaurant cabbage.)


Nobody goes there anymore. It's too crowded.

What does suck about these cities is it's expensive to live there. Something about "demand" I think?

It always amazes me that people can go to Amsterdam, walk a few blocks and gawk, and think they've been to a city. Similarly, "seeing the sights" on the Freedom Trail with the throngs, and never venture a couple of hundred yards away from the "sights."

But anyhow, a ride through "hell". The tourists start to disappear at 1:00, are gone by about 2:00, and then it's just townies. (Oh, During peak season, more tourists, but same number of townies.) Prepare to be totally bored:



-mr. bill

Caliper

Again, it's like saddles. You and I have a very different definition of not having many people around. That is definitely a nice place to visit but you're doing nothing to convince me that it's not densely populated.

Also, I don't recall saying "a ride through hell" you may be confusing me with someone else. But, that would not be a great ride for me if that were all I had available. Go and see things, sure, but too many people, cars and traffic to navigate for me to really relax and unwind there. I want a place where I can put my head down (not quite literally) and go for miles without touching the brakes or seeing another soul. In a typical ride around here I'll see very few cars and maybe a couple of people over 20-30 miles.

Anyways, this is all very beside my initial point that bike infrastructure requires a fairly dense population to use and pay for it. Most of the US is too sparsely populated for more than a paved shoulder to make any sense from a use and cost perspective.