Copenhagen: City of Cyclists, Part 3 of 5 (ABB101)

[niningprasetya]

i am indonesian. copenhagen is so fantastic city...someday, i will go there

and please come to indonesia too.

[SoberHusky]

I wish politicians in Germany could at least speak proper English like they do in Denmark.

[KrunchyJD]

@ioanacondor Yeah great, (note sarcasm), I hate the way Australia is a car centred country. It would be great if the government taxed the crap out of cars especially those stupid SUV's people drive around the city in, so fewer people drove cars and more people went by bike.

[KrunchyJD]

@kkldk18 It is smart to make people pay more for cars, cars cause road deaths, pollution etc, bikes cause little or no damage, and are non polluting, as well as taking up less space.

[fixedgearforlife]

@KrunchyJD Sounds to me like you ought to move to Denmark. I'm considering it.

[KrunchyJD]

@fixedgearforlife I would if I could

[abestjundk]

I just wonder if there were festival for cyclists in Denmark. With marathon or exhibition to tour around the country. Or I just missed and did not found yet the posted video. I am just intrigue.

[Jesus45U]

@abestjundk

Well, I dunno about bike festivals per se ... but we have bicycle races, sure.

It's a sport here in denmark, just as it is in all other countries as well.

The real difference is that we use the bicycle a lot in real life as well, not just in sports. I'd say that's the real clincher, not the races or other happenings ... but the day to day uses.

Mind you, bicycle infrastructure is costly, and that's the main reason why it's not popular with city planners around the world.

[Draythur]

@abestjundk We have a cycle marathon called Post Danmark (i think)

[KrunchyJD]

That is so fantastic, why cant other cities be like this?

[Jesus45U]

It's a good question, but it's more diffcult than one might think.

Now, if you were building a new city, no problem, most of it is open space 'n' a bit of tarmac and paint.

But to modify an existing city, that is already suffering from a lot of cars to also accomodiate bicycle paths, is really, REALLY hard - and sometimes impossible.

If only we had known how much traffic we'd get back when our forefathers build our cities, things would have been much easier. :)

[KrunchyJD]

I agree, although why not take lanes away from cars and convert them to bike tracks on multi- lane roads?

[KrunchyJD]

Perhaps it is better to look st it another way? Why is it that the city is suffering from a lot of cars. Often in ciies when congestion occurs they simply add more lanes, or more roads, and just delay the problem. Its like a person who is overweight and getting fatter trying to solve the problem by buying a bigger belt to accomodate their increasing gut.

By giving people an alternative to a car you solve the problem. Why not accomodate the bicycle at the expense of the car?

[Jesus45U]

It's more complicated than that, I'm afraid.

If a city is build on having their worker commute in from outer districts, the distances travelled will often be more than can be covered on a bicycle, within any reasonable time.

In order for bicyclye traffic to work, you need a distributed workplace/homing in your city, or it'll fall trough.

That's why you can't always just take space from car lanes to bicycles. Also, you can still have congestion, even with bicycles.

[KrunchyJD]

You can incorporate trains with bicycles, to overcome big distances. It will take substantially longer for congestion to occur with bicycles because they take up much less room then cars.

It is true that you need to encourage higher density living amounst good public use of space, to encourage bicycles.

What do you call a reasonable time, I can go 30kms in 50 minutes on a bicycle. The same trip takes 40 minutes by car 10 minutes longer but no petrol, no polution.

[justinoz06]

Cycling is great, but we need the infrastructure and to make it safe... You get to work all sweaty so you really need a work place with a shower. In Melbourne (where I am) the cycle lanes often end abruptly and you are left to navigate intersections with cars and pedestrians (all in a bad mood hurrying or from work in rush hour) so we need dedicated cycle lanes that continue throughout the city. If it rains cycling is a bugger (it occasionally rains here")

[justinoz06]

but that is not really an infrastructure issue I guess:) Then you have to do something about all the fatties in Australia who wouldn't cycle unless you put a gun to their head (but pay some rediculous amount of money to do "boot camp" sessions instead (though they remain fat, strange that. Anyway, short story is that we will stop driving to and from around the block when the oil runs out, not sure what then... maybe slavery again? third worlders can carry us on their shoulder for a change :) lol

[KrunchyJD]

The fact that people travel in cars so much in Australia costs the country literally BILLIONS each year. Infrastructure, including showers pay for themselves quickly on that basis.

Forget about the greenhouse effect car pollution costs the country billions each year, so to does obesity. Cars are not even faster in dense urban peak hour traffic, so what is the good of them.

[justinoz06]

I agree with every word, makes not one wit of difference... The path of least resistance is to screw the planet, screw everything and do nothing (that is not meant literally... well sort of). You can try if you like, bang your head as hard as you like it will make no difference... the sloths will win, the meek will inherit the earth.

[Jesus45U]

I'd say that for the regular person, on a regular bike, in bad weather, any distances over 10 kilometers is probably silly. And should be doable in about half an hour or less.

In good weather both distance and travel time can go higher.

And even if you bicycle, there's still polution.

Tires, wheels, frames, etc. needs replacing every noe and then. Clothes gets worn a bit more too, and we consume more food when active.

Also, people expel more CO2 when they cycle.

[KrunchyJD]

Distanes are where you have a good pubic transport system.

In terms of pollution cars produce far more and are far more inefficent, Most of the energy in the car is used in moving the car, whereas the heaviest thing on a bike is the rider. If you look at their production, sure bicycles produce some pollution, and if you look at the food used by the rider in terms of calories, this applies. But it is nothing compared to the Dangerous cancer causing pollution put in the air by cars.

[KrunchyJD]

Urban sprawl is a big part of the problem. Cities are designed around the car rather then around people. I still say you can retro tit most places though, if you can provide good public transport coupled with cycling. Velomobiles are a part answer as they protect occupants from rain and are faster then bicycles, but still need people to pedal, their only downside is that because they are based on a trike design they take up a bit more space, but nowhere near the space of a car.

[Jesus45U]

Public transport is efficient only at peak hours, the rest of the time it's worse than a personal car.

The best thing we could do is rearrange the distribution of work/homing areas, so people don't have to travel so far. even a car isn't a big polluter if you only have to go one mile.

My point was, there isn't a single mode of transport which is zero-pollution. That is a pipe dream.

We need to cut down on travel and promote working from home, that's the ticket.

[KrunchyJD]

If you only have to go 1 mile a car is a stupid form of transport, and the only reason a person should use a car to go 1 mile is if they have to cart heaps of stuff or are crippled or frail.

Cars are more polluting when used for short trps.

Cars are NEVER as efficient as public transport in a city wide context. Ok 1 person may be SOMETIMES quicker in a car, but the amount of public space used to transport people in cars is far greater then it is for trains, on a per person per km basis.

[Jesus45U]

On a person per km basis, true.

But, the busses and trains have to keep driving, even when there are hardly any customers.

See it like this, a man drives to work and back again, taking 20 minutes each way in a car. the rest of the day, the car isn't used, because there's a shop nearby, so he just walk there to shop.

If he takes the bus/train, lets assume it takes roughly the same time, BUT, once he gets home, the bus/train is STILL running, using fuel, making pollution.

Not good.

[KrunchyJD]

On average, though and where encouraged, trains will always be more efficient at transporting people than cars and use less space on the road. Sure, given the worst case scenario for a train and the best case for a car, you are right, but it is more helpful to look at the average number of commuters, vs the average number of drivers in a day. From this you will find that considering space used and pollution per person the train always is ahead.

[Jesus45U]

Also, on the note on time, living in Copenhagen myself, I can say with great confidence that in 80% of the cases, a small city car will outpace any form of public transport we have here.

However, there's quite a few cases, where a bicycle is faster than both public transport and cars, since it can often take a while to find a parking place.

Offcourse, the reason it's hard to find a parking spot, is because of the bicycle paths. So it's bit of a Catch-22 on that one.

[KrunchyJD]

The only reason a small car will outpace public transport is either, your public transport is not good enough, OR because you have so many cyclists who are NOT TAKING UP SPACE IN CARS, you have less congestion. In dense cities where a vast majority of people drive and priority is given to cars, Bicycle riders are faster because cars simply form gridlock.

Do you really advocate giving up your cities bicycle culture? Do you really want sprawled out highway cities or cars in gridlock?

[KrunchyJD]

The other way to make cars the quickest with big cities, is to spread the city out with freeways or major roads connecting highway suburbs. Cars become the quickest, but because of the distances involved every journey takes longer. Do you really want that scenario?

I agree in having people live close to work, but supporting outlying areas has an opposite effect.

Cars actually produce more pollution on a per km bais over short distances, because the engine is not warm and less efficient.

[KrunchyJD]

A good comparison in ters of congestion is to compare Copenhagen to other cities, in terms of peak hour travelling speed of cars, compared to cities that favour cars. Peak hour travelling speed of cars in Copenhagen was almost double that of much more car based London. Further proof that supporting cycling is the right way to go. It even helps out motorists

[Jesus45U]

Trains might always be ahead in rushhour, but most travels are not by train only.

I don't want to give up on the bicycle, but rather build the cities to form less travel distance, which will reduce congestion in a major way, both for car and bicycle.

It's not a good idea to have massive public trabsport in ALL areas, some areas are just not made for it.

[Jesus45U]

And while you see an urban sprawl to be bad, it's only bad if they all have to go to the city center, I don't want that. Make them work in the outlying areas.

That way they only add traffic in the local area of the urban sprawl, which in turn will reduce congestion in the inner city.

But it takes political power to make companies move out to the outlying areas. Especially office companies should be moved out from city core and into the outlying regions.

[KrunchyJD]

Urban sprawl is bad, period. Trust a person who lives in a country where urban sprawl occurs. What your saying happens to some degree, but many people simply live in the more affordable "sub cities" or even in completely different cities or towns and then travel long distances to another sub city or town or even another completely different city all together to go to work. This is why bicycle commuting Australia wide accounts for around 1% of travel or less.

[Jesus45U]

Instead of having one city core with a huge Urban Sprawl around it, make it many smaller city cores, arounc one bigger one, this will make companies more interested in moving business out there, and also make obvious centers for mass transport scross the city, in form of trains, subways and metro's.

As I mentioned earlier, you have to distrubute both work and homing areas in a way that promotes shorter distances.

[KrunchyJD]

What your saying does happen with urban sprawl, BUT, what also happens is that people live in more affordable area's and then travel longer distances to where the work is. They then become car dependent and the bicycle goes out the window as a form of transport and is considered a play thing for exercise or sport, rather than transport. Urban sprawl also means what was once natural countryside, or good farming land gets eaten up by housing developments. Do you REALLY whant that?

[Jesus45U]

Offcourse, using only one mode of transport, will always be a massive failure.

You cannot center a big city around only one mode of transport. One have to support all of them and balance them out against eachother.

Otherwise, you'll one or more other modes of transport to the point where you get what I call "single sided vision problems", such as Gridlock with cars.

Or a break down of traffic rules, which is the case of some asian cycle "only" cities. Driving a car there is SCARY!!

[KrunchyJD]

WHY would even more bicycles be a MASSIVE failure?

The reason those countries you refer to have bicycles is because the people are poor, but they also dont have good bicycle design built into their city. That is why they have a breakdown in rules.

Making car driving SCARY? HUH, LOL In car centred countries riding a bike can be SCARY.

You wnat more cyclists and less car drivers. If you live further out get a velomobile, you dont get wet and can travel faster.

[Jesus45U]

Urban Sprawl can be turned into something resembling a sub city is all I'm saying.

As for farmland, feh ... we have enough arable farmland on the earth to feed ourselves 4-5 times, if it was used as well as it is in western europe.

And a well designed Urban Sprawl will not make you more dependant on cars than any other part of a metropolitan area. Unfortunately, most urban sprawls are poorly designed. That's why they need more development if they are outside the public transport mesh.

[Jesus45U]

I'm not sayinf that more cycles is a massive failure, I'm saying having ONLY cycles will end in a massive failure.

That, and they have so many cycles it's scary.

(bicycles, motorcycles, mopeds .. et al.)

And no mode of transport should ever be scary, no matter what you are using.

As for getting a velomobile, well, that has another problem .. no room for me kids.

[KrunchyJD]

OK, I think its time I sent in a video response to try to show you where I live. The population of Newcastle Australia, is around 500 K , not including Lake Macquarie (which basically is the same city, (because they built up towards each other), so its similar to Copenhagens.

Because the city has a low density it stretches more then 30kms into the suburbs. There is no real centre to Newcastle, Hardly anyone rides a bike, around 95% of the population travel by car. Do you really want that?

[Jesus45U]

And finally, there's cases where people simply doesn't have access to public transport in the area they live, which means they have to use a personal mode of transport.

And if the distance is great, a car *is* the right choice.

However, with buslanes, bicycle paths and whatnot, we have punished those people quite a bit, thus often delaying development in regions outside of the public transport mesh.

The question isn't black and white, that's why I promote shorter distances to work.

[KrunchyJD]

If people dont have access to public transport, this is an argument for more and better public transport access, not an argument for more cars. Government should put in more trains for them.

"delaying development in regions outside of the public transport mesh".

You must be crazy, why do you want Urban sprawl for? Why do you want to create development outside the city, you will just get sprawl and more pollution, YOU WONT GET SHORTER DISTANCES, The distances will become longer.

[KrunchyJD]

Don't get me wrong, I actually moved to another town a while back for personal reasons, and because of that I could not safely cycle to where my friends where and there was no train so I had to drive. So in this respect I sympathise with you.

But that is an argument for a train, not an argument for cars. If you go down the path you are suggesting cars will rule, and your cities charm will VANISH. People will say Copenhagen, just another city, NOT Copenhagen one of the best cycling cities.

[Jesus45U]

Video's are always welcome, if nothing else, then for seeing where people come from. :)

I live in Lyngby, a city 15 km north of Central copenhagen, but still sorta considered a part of greater copenhagen.

We still have bicycle paths here.

We have local shops, and local work, we con't have to go to copenhagen center to get work. That's sorta what I've been aiming at the whole time.

But i can also take a car, if that strikes my fancy.

I have choice, things are good!

[KrunchyJD]

What happens in Australia though is that people live in one city and travel to work in another. Personally I would not have a problem riding 15kms to work, particularly if the landscape is flat.

Can you ride from where you are to Copenhagen on a bicycle track? Is there a train going from where you are to Copenhagen?

Where I am we dont really have bicycle tracks, we have some shared paths which you share with pedestrians. I will show you our "bicycle lanes", you will see what I mean!

[Jesus45U]

There is indeed a bicycle track all the way to copenhagen .. a couple in fact, depending on what route I choose.

Also, any major roads have some space reserved for mopeds/bicycles/pedestrians, as a minimum, we have done that all over Denmark for about 40 years or so.

And yes, there's a train station about 1.5 km from where I live, and it does indeed have trains for copenhagen.

But then, I choose to live here, because I didn't have the money for a car back then, so that's no surprise.

[KrunchyJD]

A COUPLE, of bike tracks, that go 15 km into Copenhagen.. WOW!

Are they bike tracks or do you share them with pedestrians?

A train as well..

We are so backward where I live

[Jesus45U]

Proper bike tracks .. pedestrians go on the sidewalk offcourse. :)

Offcourse, it's even easier in a car, then I have two ringways and twomotorways to choose from, plus a couple of b-roads. All depending on what part of copenhagen I want to go to.

As I mentioned in another post .. you can look it up on google maps.

[Jesus45U]

On a sidenote, if you are curious about what it looks like where I live, go to google maps and search for "Denmark lyngby nybrovej 165" you'll see a sandy colored bungalow with a gray base if you zoom all the way in to street level view :)

Now, follow the bicycle path south until you reach a roundabout, grab a left turn, then go right when you get to the motorway ... that goes ALL the way into copenhagen.

See the road for yourself. :)

Awfully empty of bicycles, innit ?

[Jesus45U]

Oh, but there's more to copenhagen than just bicycling.

though it *is* getting a lot of coverage these days.

And yes, if I had to cover 30km, I'd probably take my car as well, maybe a train if it stops real close to my destination, because then I can read a book while travelling.

And it is possible to make an infra structure that can support both cars and bicycles.

[KrunchyJD]

I would love to go to Copenhagen if I could afford to travel there, and would like to. That would change if you became just another city. Copenhagen is considered to be one of the best cycling cities in the WORLD. Dont give that up!!

[justinoz06]

Come off it Krunchy, you won't even travel down the little road to Melbourne... Copenhagen indeed.

[KrunchyJD]

Yes I will. Melbourne isnt one of the cycling capitals of the world though!

[justinoz06]

No but it is supposed to be one of the better cities for cycling in Australia (though you won't believe it if you ever do come down and manage to not get killed cycling around the city). Maybe you could cycle the Hume:) it is just around the bleedin corner by crikey!

[stangtennis]

The cycle-track he is talking about making wider in the video has been made since the video was filmed...

They've closed a big part of the road for anything but busses and cyclists and made the cycle-track twice as wide which makes it about the same width as a countryroad. Very good! I love when I'm going somewhere on Nørrebro cause then i get to drive this large cycle-track :)

Great initiative! More of that please ;)

[degnaw]

The infrastructure is nice, but if this was in the US, thousands would be right-hooked at the intersections. No drivers here check backwards when turning right!

[shakiraluis]

jajaja yea

[Panrug]

Well, people have to take the necessary actions to prevent this happening. Educate the drivers first. And then create stricter regulation, for example, car driver defaulted guilty when hitting a cyclist (ie he should prove the biker responsible). Insurance companies not paying if you hit a biker. Etc.

[Dershnof]

Yeah for sure.

[motor1218]

6dollars plus tax

[Dershnof]

God i wish we had something like that here in Los Angeles, California; people here don't respect cyclists at all

[Dershnof]

Depends on where I go; usually around 3.20 a gallon.

[JanieXJones77]

Not really...I've never had any bad experiences with drivers...most are getting used to us riding around...i guess it depends where you ride...i live here in downtown so theyre used to us messengers riding all the time by now