Matt Yglesias

Copenhagen Bicycle Identity Crisis

(cc photo by NicestAlan)

Today I got to go on a bicycle tour of Copenhagen guided by two representatives from the Dansk Cyklist Forbund (Danish Bicycle Federation). It was a great way to learn about Copenhagen’s bike infrastructure by actually riding around and experience it, stopping periodically to have things explained. I’d been to European cities with impressive bicycle infrastructure before—Berlin and Stockholm very recently—but those places seemed like a difference in degree compared to the United States. Copenhagen was a difference in kind. There’s just not—at all—a sense of danger or even competition with the automobile. On streets that are heavily trafficked, there are bike lanes, and the lanes are usually physically separated from the road. On streets where there aren’t bike lanes, there isn’t much traffic. And most of all there are tons of people on bikes wherever you go. Thirty-seven percent of Copenhagen commuters use bikes. And given that presumably some people are walking to work, some people are using the bus, some people are using the Metro, and some people are using the S-Tog the resulting situation is one in which cyclists and drivers are really equals.

It’s actually impressive to a degree that’s somewhat unsettling. Regular bicycle commuting in the United States is, among other things, a somewhat meaningful identity category. Initially it’s thrilling to see so many of “your people” everywhere. But looking closer you start to see exactly what was explained to me—the whole reason you have so many people biking around is that cycling is totally mainstream in Copenhagen and doesn’t constitute an identity at all.

From a policy perspective, what you’re basically seeing in Denmark is path-dependency on steroids. Back in the 1970s there were a substantial number of cyclists in what I guess you would call the “pre car” mode where people ride bikes because the country is too poor for everyone to afford a car. Then came the oil crisis and driving got even more expensive. And alternative policies started to be explored where for the first time the country started consciously trying to encourage bicycling. And the policy was never really dropped. So you have lots of cyclists which creates a constituency for more infrastructure which leads to more cycling which creates a constituency for more infrastructure. Denmark is the country with the highest share of GDP going to taxes, and part of that is very high taxes on cars and on gasoline so even though Denmark is a very rich country today lots of families still have a strong financial incentive to limit car ownership and car use.

I think you can already see embryonic versions of this positive reenforcement cycle in some American cities—New York and Washington to name two—but it still looks very different and I think something dramatic would have to happen to really change the path dependence dynamic. Then again I think that if you look at where oil prices were before the financial crisis hit it’s not all that unlikely that something dramatic will happen, comparable to the oil crisis of the seventies. At any rate, the current center-right government in Denmark hadn’t actually been very interested in bike-promotion over the past eight years (the Copenhagen city government is another matter) but no they’ve changed their tune and are appropriating about $200 million in competitive grants to municipalities for bike projects.

Dutch-Style Commuter Bikes

Despite the recent increase in popularity of bicycling as a mode of urban transportation, American cycling is still predominantly viewed as a kind of sport. Consequently, the vast majority of bikes you see here are either mountain bikes (for mountains), road bikes (for racing), or hybrid bikes (a blend of the two). In Europe, by contrast, it’s more common to see bikes that are specifically designed for use as urban commuter vehicles. Seth Stevenson explains the basic elements of the urban bike:

1) Upright posture. You sit with your back perpendicular to the ground instead of hunched forward over the handlebars. It’s a far more comfortable and relaxed position. Because your head is up high, it’s easier to see over car roofs in traffic. It’s also easier for the cars to see you.

2) Fenders. These semicircular arcs hover just above the tops of the bike’s tires. They prevent any up-splash when you ride through puddles and also lend the bike a rather dignified appearance.

3) Fully covered chains. Greasy metal links are hidden far out of sight, behind a chain case, meaning you can ride to work in a suit without schmutzing your trouser cuffs.

Jamis Commuter 3.0

He then goes on to discuss several different brands of actual Dutch bicycles. But they’re all very expensive. I paid much less money than that for a “Dutch-style” American bike, the Jamis Commuter 3.0. I’ve never actually owned any other bike, but I like it quite a lot and it definitely delivers on the main virtues of European-style cycling—less speed, more comfort and convenience—something to use to get around town faster than you could on foot, but not actually race with.

The Biking Contrast

Reader V.S. recommends this brief article contrasting the bike-commuting experience in the Netherlands from the much-inferior one here in the United States. I’m largely in agreement with the sentiments expressed therein, though I do think things are changing in many American jurisdictions. I will note, however, that geography is a real factor here — Amsterdam is a lot flatter than Washington, DC which makes it a more appealing cycling venue.

Is Bicycling Transportation?

Apparently Mary Peters thinks it isn’t. And she’s Secretary of Transportation, so her opinion counts for a lot. Thus, her department’s plans for improving transportation in the United States includes a proposal to cut funding for bike trails in order to free up money to be spent on good old fashioned highways.

Now clearly it’s true that a lot of people bike for recreational purposes. That said, I got to work today by . . . riding my bike. And I got to work Friday by . . . riding my bike. Indeed, I commute to work on my bike most every day. And to buy groceries. I use it, in other words, to transport myself from place to place. That sounds a lot like transportation to me. And encouraging people, at the margin, to substitute cycling for some of their driving trips would be good for the environment and good for public health. So I don’t see a really compelling case for shifting funding further in the direction of highways.