4 ms·
From an American perspective it could be. Amsterdam is the largest city in our country and it still pulls together walking, cycling and public transport in a wa
by smodo 3y ago
From an American perspective it could be. Amsterdam is the largest city in our country and it still pulls together walking, cycling and public transport in a way that doesn’t suck. Of course smaller towns have it easier in some ways because of the way Dutch towns are historically configured. What makes the large cities interesting is that they are somewhat metropolitan and still have the Dutch vibe.
- lionkor 3y agoDriving in Amsterdam sucks, parking costs you your leg per five minutes, bikes are very agressive, pedestrians fill the roads because there is more tourism than the city was designed for. Its one of the worst places in NL I've been, from a driving perspective.
- fragmede 3y agoGood. The fewer cars for frivolous purposes, the better
- smodo 3y agoI don’t like it either but it’s very easy to get around if you aren’t in a car. So a good example.
- Moldoteck 3y agoThat's the point. Maintaining car infra is expensive, so owning a car should be expensive and discouraged. That's why there using a car to get to a destination usually is much slower compared to a bike. Cars are still allowed for the people that either really need them or don't need them but are willing to pay extra But I agree that Utrecht is a better city bc of less tourists and even more bike infra
- lionkor 3y agoOf course, and I admire that, but its therefore not a good example of a city where cars, pedestrians and bikes coexist (because its not meant to be one)
- Moldoteck 3y agoWhy? All of them coexist and most efficient ones get preferential treatment, for example priority on intersections/semaphores, more direct/shorter paths for mass transit and bikes What's not that good is the train quality/frequency/price, for this Switzerland is much better (pricey but good quality and frequent), but NL is still ahead of many countries even in this regard