3 ms·

Suburban Copenhagen has very good bike lanes. Actually separate roads for bikes. [1] Granted, this took years to build. [1] E.g. https://www.google.co.uk/maps/

by nextos 11y ago

Suburban Copenhagen has very good bike lanes. Actually separate roads for bikes. [1] Granted, this took years to build. [1] E.g. https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Sjælsø,+Denmark/@55.8628868,12.4684614,3a,75y,1.51h,70.98t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sx-Z-LQhxJ0qCeCuQug74hg!2e0!6s//geo1.ggpht.com/cbk?panoid=x-Z-LQhxJ0qCeCuQug74hg&output=thumbnail&cb_client=maps_sv.tactile.gps&thumb=2&w=203&h=100&yaw=110.6162&pitch=0!7i13312!8i6656!4m2!3m1!1s0x4652489fbcd21df3:0xd58b8b781d558dca?hl=en https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Sjælsø,+Denmark/@55.8628... (yes, that thing on the left is a bike lane!)

dogma1138 11y ago
We are still talking about an area much smaller than SV with a much lower population density.
- bryanlarsen 11y ago
  Rural areas in Denmark have awesome cycling infrastructure and a much lower population density than Silicon Valley. Urban areas have awesome cycling infrastructure and a much higher population density.
  - dogma1138 11y ago
    Lower population density areas are easier to make bike friendly, less people which means that taking off road lanes or making sidewalks slightly narrower has a smaller impact. It also means that other bike infrastructure like parking is easier to build (need less of it). Construction is also easier when you either do need to move buildings at all, or you are moving 2-3 story buildings instead of huge complexes. Fixing public transportation is more important than fixing biking at this moment, especially in California. When more people move with cars than with public transportation it's harder to allocate the needed resources for bikes, the impact of public transportation improvement is also quicker and bigger than improving bike lanes. Not saying that having a bike / walk to work alternatives isn't important, but jumping straight to it when everything else isn't even remotely close to being right is a foolish mission in my book.
    - jrock08 11y ago
      You're posing a false choice between biking and public transit. Biking and public transit can be improved together since, when properly designed, biking to public transit is a very easy way to extend the effective "bikeable" commute distance. Why do you think creating bike infrastructure would be more expensive than improving public transit?

by nextos 11y ago

dogma1138 11y ago

We are still talking about an area much smaller than SV with a much lower population density.

bryanlarsen 11y ago
Rural areas in Denmark have awesome cycling infrastructure and a much lower population density than Silicon Valley. Urban areas have awesome cycling infrastructure and a much higher population density.
- dogma1138 11y ago
  Lower population density areas are easier to make bike friendly, less people which means that taking off road lanes or making sidewalks slightly narrower has a smaller impact. It also means that other bike infrastructure like parking is easier to build (need less of it). Construction is also easier when you either do need to move buildings at all, or you are moving 2-3 story buildings instead of huge complexes. Fixing public transportation is more important than fixing biking at this moment, especially in California. When more people move with cars than with public transportation it's harder to allocate the needed resources for bikes, the impact of public transportation improvement is also quicker and bigger than improving bike lanes. Not saying that having a bike / walk to work alternatives isn't important, but jumping straight to it when everything else isn't even remotely close to being right is a foolish mission in my book.
  - jrock08 11y ago
    You're posing a false choice between biking and public transit. Biking and public transit can be improved together since, when properly designed, biking to public transit is a very easy way to extend the effective "bikeable" commute distance. Why do you think creating bike infrastructure would be more expensive than improving public transit?