4 ms·

Sounds like a chicken or the egg issue to me. Why are the bike paths unmaintained? Because they aren't used as often as in a country like the Netherlands. But h

Sounds like a chicken or the egg issue to me. Why are the bike paths unmaintained? Because they aren't used as often as in a country like the Netherlands. But how can we increase biking in Norway if the roads are unmaintained? The only answer is radically changing the way we view walking in biking in cities. They are the base of all transportation, and we should treat them as the most important mode of transport for that reason. If we do that, maybe Norway will plow their bike paths. Maybe California will drop their obsession with adding "just 1 more lane" to their freeways. Maybe high-speed rail could become a thing in the US as it is in so much of Europe.

lb1lf 3y ago
Also, keep in mind that The Netherlands has a population density some 20 times that of Norway, while being largely, uh, flat, which lots of Norway definitely isn't. There's no doubt maintained bike paths would make cycling more viable, and in the cities great progress have been made in that respect, from what I can see. However, for a significant part of the population, that simply isn't much of an option as roads and bicycle paths alike are used by such a small (relatively speaking) number of people that keeping both maintained basically would ensure we all worked with maintaining the network!
- kiba 3y ago
  Population density across the whole nation can be misleading, because we're summing wild area, rural area, and urban area. What matters more is the amount of supportable infrastructure a given area could support, which is the population density for that specific area. From what I googled, Norway's urban population is about 83%, so cycling infrastructure should go a long way. It also shouldn't be terribly expensive to support rural cycling infrastructure either due to the lack of wear and tear that such infrastructure experienced compared to roads for cars and other vehicles.

lb1lf 3y ago

Also, keep in mind that The Netherlands has a population density some 20 times that of Norway, while being largely, uh, flat, which lots of Norway definitely isn't. There's no doubt maintained bike paths would make cycling more viable, and in the cities great progress have been made in that respect, from what I can see. However, for a significant part of the population, that simply isn't much of an option as roads and bicycle paths alike are used by such a small (relatively speaking) number of people that keeping both maintained basically would ensure we all worked with maintaining the network!

kiba 3y ago
Population density across the whole nation can be misleading, because we're summing wild area, rural area, and urban area. What matters more is the amount of supportable infrastructure a given area could support, which is the population density for that specific area. From what I googled, Norway's urban population is about 83%, so cycling infrastructure should go a long way. It also shouldn't be terribly expensive to support rural cycling infrastructure either due to the lack of wear and tear that such infrastructure experienced compared to roads for cars and other vehicles.