Amsterdam cycling city – Sargasso
It is not only the tourists that make the historic center of Amsterdam impassable. The work on the bridges and quays is slightly less serious, but not yet negligible. The explanation for the major maintenance is quite simple: for decades it has been allowed in the city center and so the streets along the canals have now subsided and are broken in other ways.
It won’t be anyone who reads the first chapters Bicycle city Amsterdam. How Amsterdam became the cycling capital of the world by Fred Feddes and Marjolein de Lange. For years, the city council defined the accessibility of the city center as accessibility for car traffic. In the mid-1960s, men openly dreamed of a six-lane road on the site of today’s Singelgracht. There was no room for cyclists. They were too fast, too elusive for the planners. That is why the IJtunnel has no bicycle paths and there is still no fast bicycle connection between the two banks of the IJ. What Feddes and De Lange do not mention is that the central government position stimulated motorism by allowing as many conscripts as possible to have a driving license.
Heritage
Yet Amsterdam has not become a car city. Instead, you can now enjoy a pleasant ride on your bike. Not as fast as possible, because there are still tourists and broken streets, but still. Feddes and De Lange explain how this came about and that results in a smooth book. One factor is that urban infrastructure does not lend itself to car traffic. Modifying the canal belt so that you can easily pass through it by car, asphalting on a large scale, destroying an attractive city center. The heritage sector took a stand against the car.
The real opening to cars would have been if non-motorists switched massively to public transport. That probably didn’t happen. After all, the bicycle was and is often faster within the city. If Amsterdam has not become a car city, it is because it had become impossible.
Action and consultation
A second factor: the preparation of cyclists to take action – hard if necessary. You can think of Provo and action committees with names such as “Stop the infanticide”. The Nieuwmarkt riots, although not directly aimed at promoting bicycle use, also illustrate the willingness to take action. And some actions were of course simply caused, such as the White Bicycle Plan, which offered a solution to a problem that no one experienced.
It wasn’t just action. Feddes and De Lange mention in Amsterdam cycling city often the Fietsersbond, which was always willing to consult and wrote good notes, where aldermen such as Michael van der Vlis positive rec. an urban cycling network is slowly but surely growing. in short, cyclists are taken into account in almost every infrastructural project. It goes without saying that even the savage rudeness the Rijksmuseum believed that it could claim the bicycle tunnel under the museum, was insufficient. Feddes and De Lange fail to mention that the Rijksmuseum, having been completely traffic accidents.
Cycling capital?
Amsterdam is therefore also there for cyclists. Well, almost always then. I regularly cycle from Buitenveldert to the Kinkerbuurt and that has been almost impossible in recent weeks. Buitenveldertselaan and Beethovenstraat were demolished at the same time. And a while ago we had this rare incident: a municipal department that came to their request, another municipal department that pointed out that something was not allowed and a municipal department that took them away. Holland at its smallest.
So I wouldn’t call Amsterdam a bicycle capital for a long time. That’s not possible either. There will always be cars and trams. And that’s not bad either.
[Oorspronkelijk verschenen op de Mainzer Beobachter.]