4 ms·

Even in those parts of the US where we live at similar or higher density versus the Netherlands, biking is far less common because the motoring community has se

Even in those parts of the US where we live at similar or higher density versus the Netherlands, biking is far less common because the motoring community has seized most of our streets for car storage, crowding out the kind of bike infrastructure that's required for most people to feel comfortable cycling short trips. (Banning cars would also be a solution, as 'bike infrastructure' is really infrastructure to protect bikes from cars, but it's not necessary when there's large amounts of street space that could be repurposed from car storage) US rail stations also generally have less, and less secure, bike parking versus equivalent stations in the Netherlands, reducing their catchment areas to a mile-wide 'walkshed' rather than a few-mile-wide 'bikeshed'.

earthboundkid 7y ago
I live in Baltimore and for many of the trips in my daily life a bike is faster than a car because I don't get stuck in traffic and I don't have to look for parking, but biking has other disadvantages. Most seriously, the safety of biking is highly questionable, since there are very few bike lanes, so you end up weaving among cars that do not give one crap about your safety. In addition, since Baltimore is harbor town, there's a pretty good slope and going up hill is no fun. That said, I see a fair number of rent-a-scooters every day. It seems like they could become popular enough to force the creation of more protected lanes.
- PopeDotNinja 7y ago
  In San Francisco there's a good chance your destination will not have a safe, designated place for biking. That increases the chances of it getting stolen by quite a bit.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - on_and_off 7y ago
    I am in San Francisco, last mile vehicles are a good solution to the theft problem since you are going to carry them with you. It does nothing for the fact that the roads are often in a pretty bad state and more importantly that you share the streets with cars. I already had an asshole bump his car on my legs apparently voluntarily. I know that some riders wear gopro constantly in order to document this kind of occurrences. And even aside from these extreme morons, inattentive drivers are pretty dangerous. I can't wait for the day where there will be a dedicated segregated bike lane on market. That will be a good start.
- kiliantics 7y ago
  > so you end up weaving among cars that do not give one crap about your safety Well it's not really possible for cars to give a crap. It's the drivers we need to point out here. And drivers are people. People who are literally okay with other humans dying from the one tonne machines they drive around at high momentum and with recklessly little attention (texting, etc.) This behaviour should be rightfully vilified as psychotic, rather than normalised through statements about "cars". The media almost always uses language that absolves humans of their chosen actions that lead to tragic incidents.
TheMinorityGuy 7y ago
> motoring community has seized most of our streets for car storage Streets are supposedly built from the taxes the car owner pay. How much taxes do bikers pay ?
DoreenMichele 7y ago
This is not an either/or problem. Obviously, you need many pieces of the puzzle to come together to get the kind of results the Dutch have. But this piece highlights an oft overlooked piece of the puzzle and it's a critical element. You can willy nilly add all the bike racks and other infrastructure you want, it's not going to result in people flooding out onto the streets on their bikes if there's nothing within a reasonable distance. American policies actively make it outright illegal to build the kind of dense urban fabric crucial to the Dutch success with fostering bike culture.
- JohnFen 7y ago
  > American policies actively make it outright illegal to build the kind of dense urban fabric crucial to the Dutch success with fostering bike culture. This is changing. The last three cities I've lived in had strong growth boundaries specifically intended to prevent the cities from sprawling any further.
  - DoreenMichele 7y ago
    An urban growth boundary is not a policy that fixes this problem. We require streets to be very wide to accommodate car traffic. We require homes to be a certain minimum size. We mandate lots of parking. We have minimum lot sizes. We have set backs from the lot line. This means you can't build row houses. We have places where if you buy an empty lot, you can build a row house matching the ones on either side. If you buy an old building, you can't tear it down and build new because it is grandfathered in and a new building would have to conform to a different set of rules. We do seem to be lightening up on parking requirements in some cities, but many of these other issues are not being aggressively addressed. You mostly can't build walkable neighborhoods in the US. This has been true a long time. The New Urbanism movement was about trying to do exactly that and they frequently had to do a lot of research and find loopholes to try to create anything akin to their vision. Their plans were usually denied the first time they were submitted and then they would go through zoning codes very carefully and start renaming things on their drawings to a conforming use that largely preserved their intended layout.
Alupis 7y ago
This only works if you live, work, and shop in a few mile radius. I commute 30 miles a day each way (60 total) from my house to work. Even a crazy fitness nut likely wouldn't cycle that many miles every day. My commute isn't even long compared to some people's... Trains aren't the answer either. The US is just too spread out on average. Yes, they'll work in dense cities... but not in the suburbs or rural areas - ie, where majority of the country lives. People living in big, dense cities are too quick to forget most people don't live that life. Out here, a car is pretty necessary.
- mauflows 7y ago
  To me the solution here would be public rail stretching into the suburbs with lots of car parking
- inopinatus 7y ago
  Here lies the danger of arguing from a position of zero knowledge. > Even a crazy fitness nut likely wouldn't cycle that many miles every day Speaking as a crazy fitness nut, I have to tell you no, sorry, 30 miles is my warm up/recovery distance. > People living in big, dense cities are too quick to forget most people don't live that life 80% of the US population lives within an urban area. > Out here, a car is pretty necessary I live in the suburbs. When I have an early meeting, I ride to the train station. I do have a car, but I still don't have to use it. To sum up: car dependency is a self-fulfilling prophecy based on a combination of wilful ignorance and unwillingness to change.
  - Alupis 7y ago
    > Here lies the danger of arguing from a position of zero knowledge. > 30 miles is my warm up/recovery distance That's absurd and you know it. Possibly spoken from someone that doesn't actually cycle, or is greatly exaggerating. You ride 1-2 hours for a warm-up/cool-down? You expect regular people to ride 1-2 hours to work each day? You expect to maintain 20-30mph pacing with stop signs, street lights, riding on regular city streets? Completely absurd and out of touch with reality. That's insane pacing - that's race pacing. Most cyclists will do 20-30 miles for an entire ride. Sometimes exceeding that, but certainly not doing 60 miles a day (3-4 hours a day) 5 days a week. That is, unless, you're training for something... which a daily commuter going to an office job isn't. Not to mention if you're someone doing that kind of mileage, you likely own a bike that costs as much as a car, but is far harder to "park" securely, doesn't work well in the rain, and requires you to carry work clothing, laptops, paperwork, groceries, and more on your back. > 80% of the US population lives within an urban area. Source? If you're citing the WaPo article which cites Census data - they're lumping Suburban and Urban together and calling it just Urban - that's super disingenuous. Most people live in suburban areas. There are certainly dense population areas in true urban areas (SF, NY, Seattle, LA, etc), but that's not 80% of the nation. Not even close. > I live in the suburbs. When I have an early meeting, I ride to the train station. You probably work at an area near the train station then - perhaps a Downtown location or similar. What if this commute required multiple trains hops, with distance between the train stations because you're commuting 3 cities over for work each day? Feasible? Sure... but now you've taken an hour long commute and turned it into 3 hours each way. That's not feasible for most people. This narrative falls flat when faced with actual working circumstances for many people... outside the ideal "just take the train" scenario. What if there's not even a train?

earthboundkid 7y ago

I live in Baltimore and for many of the trips in my daily life a bike is faster than a car because I don't get stuck in traffic and I don't have to look for parking, but biking has other disadvantages. Most seriously, the safety of biking is highly questionable, since there are very few bike lanes, so you end up weaving among cars that do not give one crap about your safety. In addition, since Baltimore is harbor town, there's a pretty good slope and going up hill is no fun. That said, I see a fair number of rent-a-scooters every day. It seems like they could become popular enough to force the creation of more protected lanes.

PopeDotNinja 7y ago
In San Francisco there's a good chance your destination will not have a safe, designated place for biking. That increases the chances of it getting stolen by quite a bit.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- on_and_off 7y ago
  I am in San Francisco, last mile vehicles are a good solution to the theft problem since you are going to carry them with you. It does nothing for the fact that the roads are often in a pretty bad state and more importantly that you share the streets with cars. I already had an asshole bump his car on my legs apparently voluntarily. I know that some riders wear gopro constantly in order to document this kind of occurrences. And even aside from these extreme morons, inattentive drivers are pretty dangerous. I can't wait for the day where there will be a dedicated segregated bike lane on market. That will be a good start.
kiliantics 7y ago
> so you end up weaving among cars that do not give one crap about your safety Well it's not really possible for cars to give a crap. It's the drivers we need to point out here. And drivers are people. People who are literally okay with other humans dying from the one tonne machines they drive around at high momentum and with recklessly little attention (texting, etc.) This behaviour should be rightfully vilified as psychotic, rather than normalised through statements about "cars". The media almost always uses language that absolves humans of their chosen actions that lead to tragic incidents.

TheMinorityGuy 7y ago

> motoring community has seized most of our streets for car storage Streets are supposedly built from the taxes the car owner pay. How much taxes do bikers pay ?

DoreenMichele 7y ago

This is not an either/or problem. Obviously, you need many pieces of the puzzle to come together to get the kind of results the Dutch have. But this piece highlights an oft overlooked piece of the puzzle and it's a critical element. You can willy nilly add all the bike racks and other infrastructure you want, it's not going to result in people flooding out onto the streets on their bikes if there's nothing within a reasonable distance. American policies actively make it outright illegal to build the kind of dense urban fabric crucial to the Dutch success with fostering bike culture.

JohnFen 7y ago
> American policies actively make it outright illegal to build the kind of dense urban fabric crucial to the Dutch success with fostering bike culture. This is changing. The last three cities I've lived in had strong growth boundaries specifically intended to prevent the cities from sprawling any further.
- DoreenMichele 7y ago
  An urban growth boundary is not a policy that fixes this problem. We require streets to be very wide to accommodate car traffic. We require homes to be a certain minimum size. We mandate lots of parking. We have minimum lot sizes. We have set backs from the lot line. This means you can't build row houses. We have places where if you buy an empty lot, you can build a row house matching the ones on either side. If you buy an old building, you can't tear it down and build new because it is grandfathered in and a new building would have to conform to a different set of rules. We do seem to be lightening up on parking requirements in some cities, but many of these other issues are not being aggressively addressed. You mostly can't build walkable neighborhoods in the US. This has been true a long time. The New Urbanism movement was about trying to do exactly that and they frequently had to do a lot of research and find loopholes to try to create anything akin to their vision. Their plans were usually denied the first time they were submitted and then they would go through zoning codes very carefully and start renaming things on their drawings to a conforming use that largely preserved their intended layout.

Alupis 7y ago

This only works if you live, work, and shop in a few mile radius. I commute 30 miles a day each way (60 total) from my house to work. Even a crazy fitness nut likely wouldn't cycle that many miles every day. My commute isn't even long compared to some people's... Trains aren't the answer either. The US is just too spread out on average. Yes, they'll work in dense cities... but not in the suburbs or rural areas - ie, where majority of the country lives. People living in big, dense cities are too quick to forget most people don't live that life. Out here, a car is pretty necessary.

mauflows 7y ago
To me the solution here would be public rail stretching into the suburbs with lots of car parking
inopinatus 7y ago
Here lies the danger of arguing from a position of zero knowledge. > Even a crazy fitness nut likely wouldn't cycle that many miles every day Speaking as a crazy fitness nut, I have to tell you no, sorry, 30 miles is my warm up/recovery distance. > People living in big, dense cities are too quick to forget most people don't live that life 80% of the US population lives within an urban area. > Out here, a car is pretty necessary I live in the suburbs. When I have an early meeting, I ride to the train station. I do have a car, but I still don't have to use it. To sum up: car dependency is a self-fulfilling prophecy based on a combination of wilful ignorance and unwillingness to change.
- Alupis 7y ago
  > Here lies the danger of arguing from a position of zero knowledge. > 30 miles is my warm up/recovery distance That's absurd and you know it. Possibly spoken from someone that doesn't actually cycle, or is greatly exaggerating. You ride 1-2 hours for a warm-up/cool-down? You expect regular people to ride 1-2 hours to work each day? You expect to maintain 20-30mph pacing with stop signs, street lights, riding on regular city streets? Completely absurd and out of touch with reality. That's insane pacing - that's race pacing. Most cyclists will do 20-30 miles for an entire ride. Sometimes exceeding that, but certainly not doing 60 miles a day (3-4 hours a day) 5 days a week. That is, unless, you're training for something... which a daily commuter going to an office job isn't. Not to mention if you're someone doing that kind of mileage, you likely own a bike that costs as much as a car, but is far harder to "park" securely, doesn't work well in the rain, and requires you to carry work clothing, laptops, paperwork, groceries, and more on your back. > 80% of the US population lives within an urban area. Source? If you're citing the WaPo article which cites Census data - they're lumping Suburban and Urban together and calling it just Urban - that's super disingenuous. Most people live in suburban areas. There are certainly dense population areas in true urban areas (SF, NY, Seattle, LA, etc), but that's not 80% of the nation. Not even close. > I live in the suburbs. When I have an early meeting, I ride to the train station. You probably work at an area near the train station then - perhaps a Downtown location or similar. What if this commute required multiple trains hops, with distance between the train stations because you're commuting 3 cities over for work each day? Feasible? Sure... but now you've taken an hour long commute and turned it into 3 hours each way. That's not feasible for most people. This narrative falls flat when faced with actual working circumstances for many people... outside the ideal "just take the train" scenario. What if there's not even a train?