LESSONS FROM ABROAD
REGIONAL TRAVEL IN DENMARK AND THE NETHERLANDS
Warning: long, text heavy post! As I told people about this trip I received multiple comments along the lines of "Corvallis is not Copenhagen," "the United States is not Europe," "the socialist countries pay more taxes so their budgets are different/bigger," etc. And a good friend of mine who is also a planner and following along posed a number of questions related to similarities, land use densities, suburbs, public processes, etc. So, I thought I would take some time to address as many of those assumptions and questions as possible in hopes of providing context and convincing folks there are more similarities than differences. Or at the very least, applicable lessons. So tackling these one by one, I give you Zach's questions:
I will be speaking with Dutch officials later this week, so this post is mostly focused on what I learned about Denmark/Copenhagen. For sources, I used World Population Review, which I haven't verified but using some spot checking I think it's close enough for comparison. 1. Are there Dutch/Danish suburbs? 3. How are land uses and densities different in downtown Copenhagen v Portland or Corvallis? The density question. Copenhagen proper has a population density of 12,000-15,000 people per square mile, which is significantly higher than many US cities (somewhere between Boston and San Francisco). However, when you get outside the city limits and into the urbanized region (i.e. US equivalent of an MPO region), the population density drops to approximately 5,000 people per square mile. This is very similar to Portland, Oregon which has 4,800 people per square mile, and not far above the population density of Corvallis at approximately 3800 people per square mile. And in a direct answer to the question, yes, Copenhagen has suburbs, AND homes with off-street parking (see photos below). 2. How do they accommodate cycling in the less dense outer areas? The connections question. Regional connections are addressed in multiple ways. First, you can read my previous post about regional bikeway connections to cities as far as 30 miles from Copenhagen. Closer to the city, the region works together to develop Cycle Superhighways that travel along the major arterials into the center city. They are predominantly one way curb separated bikeways 6'-8' wide (in photos). On low volume streets, they use traffic calming to make cycling feel comfortable where a facility will not fit. This is all paired with an extensive regional transit system which a) not only allows but accommodates bikes and b) train stations provide large covered bicycle parking. The double decker covered bike parking garage is located near a train station in a city of 50,000 people (Helsignor). I mention the transit accommodations in some earlier posts. Onto two more, closely related questions.
4. Parking. How, what, why? 5. What did public process look like in Netherlands/Denmark as they shifted from auto centric to cycling in the 70s? It was hard to get the full details behind Copenhagen's transformation, but from what we did hear, it was a very deliberate choice to implement bicycyle infrastructure back in the 70s, but it was due to two things: the residents were tired of automobile congestion and using their public plazas as parking lots; and the city was broke. In this sense, they saw the best way to reduce vehicle congestion and the need for parking was to build a network of bicycle facilities. The fact that it has both environmental and social benefits was simply a bonus. And this network was not build overnight. The city of Copenhagen's revenue is funded through property tax and income tax, which results in an approximate effective tax rate of 32% all inclusive. When adding property and income tax in Oregon, this is not entirely different. What is different is where the money is invested: once Copenhagen began implementing the bicycle network, they realized it was much less expensive than expanding roads for motor vehicles. Over the last 30 plus years, the entire cycle network in Copenhagen was built for approximately $320 million US dollars. They simply chose to invest in a bicycle network as opposed to expanding their roadway network. Which brings us to parking. As you'll notice in the city, there is little off street parking and no surface parking lots as the land is used for housing. While car ownership is lower than the United States, this places on-street parking at a much higher premium. As we talked with city officials, they told us over time it became harder to take parking away from residents and businesses, and so they removed travel lanes instead. And this is evident if you travel about the city. The only roads with more than one lane in each direction were 3 or 4 major arterials (state routes if you will). This was learned through public processes for each facility. However, they had a master transportation plan that called for a bicycle network and they implemented it over time. 6. As one of the most bikable cities/countries in the world, are they still innovating? Why/why not? While Copenhagen started constructing bicycle facilities to reduce congestion in a cost effective manner, they have continued to learn, expand and revise existing facilities. Currently, 60% of all city trips are by bicycle, and 49% of urban trips are by bicycle (note this is all trips, not just commuting). They do not remain stagnant however, and are committed to becoming the greenest and most climate change resilient city in the world. They continue to build new bridges for cyclists where needed, continue to add wider facilities where needed and revise facilities that don't work. While there are still many differences between Denmark/Oregon and Copenhagen/Corvallis, they are not as different as many people make them out to be, and many lessons they have learned over the past 30 years could be applied to the Corvallis region and beyond. I hope to include some more photos and drawings of intersections, but for the next few days look for photos of Amsterdam and Utrecht!
1 Comment
Jerry Sorte
7/16/2019 10:38:03 am
Thanks for your posts Nick. Keep the pictures coming. What I see is a menu of choices for the Corvallis community to implement. So many of the street designs seem like they could be retrofitted into our existing street network.
Reply
Leave a Reply. |