My pre-Assignment was the analysis and reflection of videos by a Canadian living in the Netherlands. He explores Dutch bicycle infrastructure through the eyes of someone new to the country. I think his perspective is very similar to mine and others on the trip because Canada has similar levels of infrastructure to the US. Key infrastructure he focused on, and that spoke to me, were parking, Ontvlechten, and overall seamless design.
Parking infrastructure is rather complicated, I discovered. The main goal of parking infrastructure is to safely store the bike and be convenient. Some Dutch cities have run into issues with convenience due to the sheer number of riders. This has led to the construction of large biking garages, which can be inconvenient. I hope during this trip we can explore various parking methods.
Ontvlechten is the Dutch word for unraveling and describes the process of decoupling bicycle routes and car routes. This is an important aspect of Dutch design and I am excited to see it in person. Preventing interactions between automobiles and cyclists is the main goal of this design. This creates more efficient transit for cyclists and is safer for them as well. It is done through completely limiting cars from some routes or giving cyclists and public transit priority. Some examples of Ontvlechten infrastructure include, bicycle only streets, underground tunnels, separate lanes for transit, prioritizing bicyclists at intersections, and creating direct bicycle routes between common locations.
My pre-Assignment highlighted the various forms of diverse bicycle infrastructure and how incorporating multiple design methods and technologies can create an interconnected and permeable bicycle transit network. The content in the videos highlighted that the cornerstone of Dutch bicycle infrastructure are Safety, aesthetic, and efficiency. Understanding how these are created and why they are important is key to understanding sustainable bicycle transit and infrastructure.
I was surprised by how different the biking infrastructure and experience was in Malmö. The vibe on the streets was significantly less busy then the Copenhagen streets but the infrastructure seemed comparatively underdeveloped in some parts. However, the pedestrian infrastructure was extremely developed and I noticed that, in the city center at least, people tended to park their bikes and traverse on foot even if bicycles were allowed in the area. One comparison I found interesting was the differing opinions between the intensity of drivers in Copenhagen vs Malmö. Cass found the Malmö drivers more intense and I found them tame compared to the Danish. I found people were generally more forgiving of small mistakes, such as stopping without putting your hand up, lingering in the crosswalk, or biking through a yellow. The bike lines are much more entangled than they are in Copenhagen, which is an aspect that I did not like. The intersection we stopped at before our last stop, with two...
Comments
Post a Comment