How the Dutch got their cycle paths

True story: I moved from southern California to Holland in no small part because of how amenable the country is to cycling. People like to think that cycling is popular here naturally because the country is flat and densely populated. However, it's easy to forget that during the postwar boom years, a major shift toward cars happened and it took a concerted effort of willful resistance and politically non-expedient measures to bring back the bike paths ( this video ). Clearly, 1897 was not the last chance the Dutch had to fix their transit system, and with the groundwork they've laid over the years, it now costs only €30 per person in funding annually! ( link ) Yet I see very little chance of this happening in California, not because cyclists lack a voice, but because we need to create more dis incentives to driving. This obviously is a political no-go considering that motorists are by far the majority demographic. It's saddening, though, that there is so much willful ignorance (or apathy) with regard to how we've externalized the true cost of driving, whether it's in the form of: - damage to the environment - subsidy to cheap gas prices by the DoD budget (and body count) for controlling the world's oil flow - casualties from motor vehicle accidents - health problems resulting from sedentary lifestyles - zoning rules that require abundant free parking to be available in communities. We'd probably have to see gas hit $10/gallon and parking lots charge $50/day before Americans st

From what I understand, we actually did transform into a much more suitable country for cycling during the 70s (~10 years before I was born). I'll try to look up the video that explains. Ah found it: this video

I dont know if its april fools, but this is how all bike lanes are in the Netherlands, it works and already has for tens of years.. this video

Two things make your objection less relevant. First, Amsterdam had similar problems to the US in the post-war era until the 1970s. That is, the cities were being rebuilt for cars, bicycling infrastructure became worse, and traffic deaths rose. The city had to be re-engineered to get where it is now. See this video for a video. Second, and concerning topology, look to Trondheim, Norway as an example of a bike-friendly city with hills. And from what I've read, Portland, Oregon is also pretty bike friendly, with similar topology to Seattle. So, why can't Seattle be more like Portland in this respect?

Actually, in the 70s Netherlands was very much a car-first country. The current cycling infrastructure is a very hard won victory, with thousands dead along the way [1]. [1] this video

To the best of my knowledge, you are correct that every US city is horrible in this regard. This was not by accident. To your comment "If we know it works how come no one has done it? " - 1) We have done it. Amsterdam fought like hell for it this video . Now they have one of the finest cities in the world in which to move about. Copenhagen at rush hour handles loads of people well because they have built systems that move people efficiently and safely. And pleasantly. Even driving there is nice, paradoxically. link 2) People fight it because they believe they should be able to drive anywhere they like, for free, and without interruption - and then even store their car for free as well! The ideal situation is to be the only driver, but of course that only works if driving is very expensive (something I support). In LA people are so furious at the idea of not being able to drive everywhere they shout down (almost) anything resembling progress. Things like Elon's tunnel are used as ammunition in these fights. After all, why should we build bike lanes when we're getting these kickass tunnels!?? This is part of why I left LA. As for your latter point - yes, it is very much my concern. We have similar views regarding Facebook and Co. but given that Elon's tunnels are unlikely to actually make life better (note my earlier comment regarding induced demand) this is taking resources from actual solutions we could do right now, cheaply, and that we know work.

Pretty much the case every single time. It's how cycling infrastructure finally got taken seriously in the Netherlands too - this video

Yes, ultimately infrastructure is the real solution here. Take the Netherlands for example. We interviewed folks from nearly every country on this, and the response in the Netherlands was heartwarming: Every person we talked to had never even heard of someone being hit by a car while riding a bike (or walking). And after the interview, they interviewed a bunch of their friends/family/etc. and came back to us with those results: Still the same, not a single story of an accident. And this all goes back to the way the Dutch design infrastructure. A ton has been written/filmed/etc about this, but here's an example: this video

Any city old enough wasn't built around cars, because they didn't exist yet. There, car infrastructure was built on what existed - not on a blank slate. Likewise in the Netherlands bike infrastructure was built around what existed. Not on a blank slate. this video Change is possible.