Warning: include(/data/14/1/95/35/1258035/user/1342078/htdocs/fighterdiet/blog/wp-content/themes/classic/herbalus.php) [function.include]: failed to open stream: No such file or directory in /home/greatcit/public_html/wp-content/themes/blue-zinfandel-3column/header.php on line 51

Warning: include() [function.include]: Failed opening '/data/14/1/95/35/1258035/user/1342078/htdocs/fighterdiet/blog/wp-content/themes/classic/herbalus.php' for inclusion (include_path='.:/usr/lib/php:/usr/local/lib/php') in /home/greatcit/public_html/wp-content/themes/blue-zinfandel-3column/header.php on line 51

Apr

26

I ♥ Copenhagen

Filed Under Bicycling, Cities, Copenhagen, Sustainability, Transportation | Leave a Comment

Note: Ryan Miller is a Seattle University student majoring in Political Science. He is currently studying abroad in Copenhagen and will be writing blog posts for Great City about his experiences and impressions of the Danish Capitol (and possibly other locations around Europe).

Danes and the Dutch – So near, yet…..

I was privileged enough during my travels to visit Amsterdam – the “other” cycling capital of Europe. I was only there for a day, but my time there was enough to let me compare Copenhagen’s and Amsterdam’s policies in an attempt to see which city does a better job accommodating cyclists.
One of the first things I noticed when I arrived in Amsterdam was the sheer number of bicycles parked in the city. It was simply mind boggling. Although the number of people actually riding bikes seemed no different than Copenhagen, parked bicycles simply dominated the landscape in a way Copenhagen cannot match. In fact, the need for adequate parking in the city is so bad that I managed to find this 3-story bicycle parking garage filled to capacity within a few minutes exploring*.

*In the interests of full disclosure, this oft-photographed facility is immediately outside the main train station in Amsterdam, but even so the sheer number of bikes there was remarkable.

I was also struck (almost literally) by the way the Dutch ride. Unlike the Danes, with their immense respect for conformity and order (as documented earlier) which spills over into their cycling, the Dutch are a tad more, let’s say, “individualistic” in how they ride.

Basically, the Dutch ride bikes the way Romans drive Fiats….

As such, the kind of strict traffic rules the Danes have embraced are seemingly non-existent with the Dutch. For cyclists in Amsterdam, stoplights and pedestrians appear to be no more than mere suggestions to possibly slow down (maybe, if it is convenient). It is a remarkable, if not slightly terrifying, difference in cycling culture.

Perhaps as a result of this Dutch cycling culture, Amsterdam has a radically different infrastructure for their cyclists. As opposed to Copenhagen, which consists almost exclusively of paired, one-way cycle tracks, Amsterdam is filled to the gills with completely separated (2-way) bicycle pathways. I am not entirely certain of the rationale for these facilities other than to scare motorists and pedestrians into getting as far away as possible from bicycles, although the way the city is designed does leave the occasional clue.

Copenhagen, which despite being an old city still has rather wide streets, the vast majority of Amsterdam’s “streets” are no wider than the average sidewalk in Downtown Seattle. This narrowness undoubtedly contributes to making Amsterdam a cycling capital, because the streets themselves keep cars out, leaving residents little choice but to walk or ride bikes. Having no cars on these streets additionally makes it politically much easier to convert them to bicycle-only pathways.

Amsterdam, perhaps more so than Copenhagen, became a cycling city out of necessity. As such, I have an even harder time thinking that we can directly “export” their cycling policy to the United States any more than we can Copenhagen’s. Our cities are just too different. Even if American vehicles were to disappear (not likely), there is so much real estate left over that the Amsterdam approach doesn’t seem applicable. While there are many elements of both Dutch and Danish bicycle design practice worth looking at in the U.S., I feel it has to reflect both our physical setting and how Americans want to ride their bikes.

Still, the Dutch (unlike the Danes) don’t take all day to make a left turn – there’s something to be said about that.

Apr

23

I ♥ Copenhagen

Filed Under Bicycling, Cities, Copenhagen, Sustainability, Transportation | Leave a Comment

Note: Ryan Miller is a Seattle University student majoring in Political Science. He is currently studying abroad in Copenhagen and will be writing blog posts for Great City about his experiences and impressions of the Danish Capitol (and possibly other locations around Europe).


Left Behind at Lefts

Perhaps this is just me being picky, but I save a special brand of disdain for taking left hand turns (by bike) in Copenhagen. Unlike in the United States, where making a left hand turn merely involves signaling and turning, the Danes have adopted an entirely different system. In Denmark, one must cross the street as if you were going to proceed normally, signal, stop, manually back your bike out of the cycle-track, wait for the next light to change, and then finally continue normally (See illustration below.)

The Copenhagen Two-Step
Sketch credit to Between Yellow and Blue – http://betweenyellowandblue.wordpress.com/2009/04/08/copenhagen-to-two-wheels-part-1/

There are good reasons Copenhagen has adopted these measures, most notably that cycle-tracks and Danish traffic law do not allow cyclists to move over to the left turn lanes that cars use. As such, if they attempted the kind of left hand turn you are accustomed to in the States you would be darting across not only traffic moving in the opposite direction, but also any traffic moving in the same direction as you while you are in an intersection, which would be understandably unsafe and chaotic. However, this “two-stage” or “jug handle” turn does have its downsides.

First, you are waiting two cycles of a light to make a traffic maneuver that cars can accomplish in one cycle. It hardly seems like you are accommodating cyclists by forcing them to wait twice as long as cars to do a relatively simple maneuver.

Additionally, guess what the law in Copenhagen requires cyclists to do in intersections that have no cycle-tracks? The exact same thing. This bewilders me to no end. I can understand the practical problems cycle tracks create in regards to left hand turns which necessitate the two-stage turn, but when there is no cycle-track, why are cyclists still required to make this style of turn?

This style of turn is not even remotely useful for situations when a cyclist needs to make a left hand turn outside of a controlled intersection, especially when on a street with cycle tracks (for example, turning left onto a side street, notably one at a T intersection). The Copenhagen traffic code offers two possible remedies to the solution. One can either go to the next controlled intersection and make two separate two stage turns (although I have seen the maneuver made using only one by not crossing the street the first time) to make a U-turn or you can stop on the side of the cycle track and “wait until it is safe to proceed” then cross the street. Mind you, this second option is not feasible on larger, multi-lane streets, as there will rarely be a time when the lanes in both directions are clear.

The stopped bicyclist heading toward you in this photo must make a left turn by backing into the blue pocket on the left and waiting one aditional signal phase before proceeding. (Photo – Phil Miller)

Having waited for the second signal phase, these bicyclists continue on with the aid of an advanced signal. An American making this turn in the usual fashion would be a half mile away by now… (Photo – Phil Miller)

As a slight aside, when I was looking for a good illustration of what a “two stage” left looks like, I found this video from BikePortland.org describing how cyclists should adopt a Copenhagen style left hand turn in favor of the city’s plan to have riders do the EXACT SAME THING without crossing the street (Mind you, in the video, the creators claim the city’s plan requires riders to dismount their bicycles, later in the accompanying article it is clarified by Tri Met that they do not have to, contrary to what the video proclaims).

http://bikeportland.org/2009/03/03/oregonian-is-copenhagen-left-a-better-way-to-turn-on-portland-mall/

I find it interesting how the Oregonian paints the “wait” for the signal with the Tri Met (Portland) plan to be entirely unreasonable, yet the same waiting period with the “Copenhagen left” is strangely seen as just fine.

But I digress.

Surely I shall see the light soon. Maybe in about two signal cycles…

Feb

16

I ♥ Copenhagen

Filed Under Cities, Copenhagen, Events, Innovation, Sustainability, Transportation, walking | 2 Comments

Upcoming Event: Seattle’s Public Life – How it Can Become the Most Walkable City in America

Hell_SoholtGreat City is pleased to co-sponsor the following upcoming lecture by Helle Søholt of Gehl Architects in Copenhagen!

Time: 6:00pm

Date: Tuesday, February 23rd

Location: Seattle Art Museum (Enter at First & University Street in Downtown Seattle near the Hammering Man Sculpture (the main entrance will be closed). Click for Map

Cost: Free

RSVP: Please RSVP via email to info@i-sustain.org or PublicLife@downtownseattle.org

Seattle has just completed the most in-depth study of public spaces Downtown ever conducted in a U.S. city. Don’t miss this free forum about how to turn Down­town into a world-class pedestrian-friendly experience.

The forum will feature findings from nearly three years of re­search in Seattle presented by Helle Søholt, managing partner of Gehl Architects. The City of Seattle and the International Sustain­ability Institute retained Gehl to audit Downtown’s streets, alleys and public places with students from UW’s Green Futures Lab.

The Copenhagen-based Gehl firm has worked on every continent and in more than 400 cities around the world. Søholt is a founding partner with Jan Gehl and has extensive experience world-wide in urban design including master planning, public life surveys, urban quality analysis, development of strategy plans, public space plans and the design of public spaces.

Sponsored By: AIA Seattle, The City of Seattle, The Downtown Seattle Association, GEHL Architects, Great City, The International Sustainability Institute, The Scan|Design Foundation, and The University of Washington Green Futures Lab

Nov

3

I ♥ Copenhagen

Filed Under Bicycling, Cities, Copenhagen, Sustainability, Transportation | Leave a Comment

Creating a New Bicycle Culture

BikesCopenhagen

Continuing along with our recent theme of Copenhagen sustainability envy, we are posting another report written by our friends at International Sustainable Solutions (www.i-sustain.com), a local non-profit that strives educate urban professionals and decision makers about the best sustainability practices happening around the globe.

I-Sustain has loaned some reports documenting some best practices from their recent sustainability tours that took place in, Copenhagen. This report on the city’s bike infrastructure looks at what sorts of policies and programs Copenhagen has undertaken to achieve its phenomenal bicycle culture. Currently, 32% of the city’s workers commute to work by bike .

Here is a link to the report Creating a Bicycle Culture pdf-icon (small PDF).

Note: Copenhagen bikes photo from the Vancouver Sun

Oct

30

I ♥ Copenhagen

Filed Under Bicycling, Copenhagen, Sustainability, Transit, Transportation | 1 Comment

Note: Ryan Miller is a Seattle University student majoring in Political Science. He is currently studying abroad in Copenhagen and will be writing blog posts for Great City about his experiences and impressions of the Danish Capitol (and possibly other locations around Europe).

Drowning in the Green Wave

In my daily commute to and from school I have the great privilege of utilizing one of the prides of Copenhagen’s transportation system, the so called “green wave” streets. Streets on the “green wave” system have had their traffic light timings for rush hour adjusted so that a cyclist traveling at 20km/h will have nothing but green lights for their entire trip.

In theory, this system should create an environment which encourages cycling over other forms of transport during the times when traffic would be its worst. However, in practice, I find the green wave street I ride to be a mixed blessing at best. Perhaps I betray my racing roots a bit much when I say that 20km/h (12 mi/h) is a maddeningly slow pace for me to attempt to ride, especially when I’m running late to my economics mid-term. So what ends up happening is I set off from an intersection, get up to speed, and then come to a stop at every single intersection where I will put my foot down for 15 seconds as I wait for the timing to catch up with me. Conversely, when I do attempt to ride slowly I will constantly get stuck behind a cargo bike moving at 15 km/h and have the same problem in reverse.

That’s not to say there aren’t some benefits to the system, the closer I get to the city, the more congested the bike lanes are, and once just enough people are clogging the lane, the fast traffic will move at the 20km/h needed to get the timing right. And when that happens, riding in Copenhagen is pure bliss. However, you have to be very lucky for that to happen.

Despite my own personal objections to timings, I could not say they speak for the Danish population as a whole. My experience thus far is that the “average” Danish commuter is that they typically ride at closer to the correct pace than I do. So perhaps in time my riding style will become more accustomed to the green wave, and my annoying habit of getting stuck at every light will go away.

It is also important to remember that the people adversely affected by this light timing extend beyond the individual car traffic the system is supposed to inconvenience. One of my worst experiences with Copenhagen mass transit comes from attempting to ride a bus that was routed along a green wave route. The busses, having no dedicated lane on these streets, are stuck in the (planned) traffic jam that results from the green wave.

There are plenty of individuals who are unable to ride their bikes into work for a number of very valid reasons (e.g. the physically impaired), yet are still making the decision to not take their cars into the city. Why should they be punished in the same way car users are? I know that the street would have ample room for bus lanes if the on-street parking were removed. It seems to me that by giving these streets bus lanes instead of on-street parking you kill two birds with one stone. Not only are you avoiding the dilemma of punishing mass transit users, but you are also discouraging car use in an extremely effective manner.

Next Page →