This is a conversation with Ruth Oldenziel, an emeritus professor at the Eindhoven University of Technology and an expert on the history of technology. Ruth is the program leader of the Cycling Cities Project, a research initiative to understand what has worked and what hasn't to make bike transportation a reality in cities across the globe. I wanted to talk to Ruth about that research, how some European cities have succeeded and others haven't, and to dispel the notion that the Dutch are genetically predisposed to create bike-friendly cities.

Avi Stopper (00:01)

Welcome to Bike Networks Now. I'm Avi Stopper, the founder of Bike Streets. Through a series of conversations with leaders in bike transportation and beyond, we're trying to answer a question: Why is bike transportation still not possible for most people in American cities, and how can we make it a reality? Despite voter support and billions of dollars of investment, there's no city in America where biking is a practical reality for people of all ages and abilities. Why is that? And how can we fix it so anyone can ride to the places they want to go today? These aren't just freewheeling conversations. We're in search of an answer. And that answer—a modern approach to innovation—is the topic of a book we're writing on how cities can make bike transportation possible today.

Avi Stopper (00:51)

This is a conversation with Ruth Oldenziel, an emeritus professor at the Eindhoven University of Technology and an expert on the history of technology. Ruth is the program leader of the Cycling Cities Project, a research initiative to understand what has worked and what hasn't to make bike transportation a reality in cities across the globe. I wanted to talk to Ruth about that research, how some European cities have succeeded and others haven't, and to dispel the notion that the Dutch are genetically predisposed to create bike-friendly cities.

Here's one to chew on: Amsterdam is a great city for cycling. Rotterdam, however, is not. If you've been involved in bike advocacy in the United States, you've probably had or witnessed a conversation in which someone waxes poetic about biking in Amsterdam. The eyes of the person receiving the poetry glaze over and they respond with a reflexive, "Yeah, well, this isn't Amsterdam."

That's true. Denver is not Amsterdam. Dallas is not Amsterdam. But Amsterdam itself wasn't always the Amsterdam we think of today. Ruth has a PhD from Yale, which is in New Haven, where we are currently making a low-stress bike map. So she's familiar with American cities and their transportation challenges. I think she's exceedingly well positioned to reflect on what European cities have done well and how American cities might be able to apply some of those lessons. Ruth, how did I do with that intro?

Ruth Oldenziel (02:26)

That's brilliant. I think we can start right off the bat because you went right to the central point of all our research. I remember Amsterdam, when I was growing up, was actually a dangerous place to cycle. People forget that. And well, I'm of that age—that's about half a century ago. And it took also that long of advocacy to make it happen. So yes, you can ultimately be Amsterdam. That's what we want to say, but it's just hard work.

Avi Stopper (03:12)

Let's talk a little bit in specific terms about the Amsterdam of maybe your youth, your childhood. What was it like in the sort of immediate post-war period?

Ruth Oldenziel (03:25)

Yeah, well, let's talk about the 1970s. That's the clearest image that I have. If you look at the modal split, it was also the absolute downfall of cycling rates from high numbers to low numbers and cars coming into the historic districts. And you had to navigate the exhaust fumes and very narrow spaces and a lot of conflicts in the streets. It was not pleasant and it was dangerous.

And that is actually also at that inflection point of history that people started to rebel against the unsafe conditions because there were many more accidents. And we see that over and over again. That is when people rise up and change is possible. But it came out of a situation where people no longer accepted unsafe conditions. And that is maybe compared to American cities where the mind has been occupied by automobility—there is still a lot of work to be done to de-occupy the mind.

Avi Stopper (04:44)

That mindset shift is fascinating. And I think that until I started doing this work eight to 10 years ago, I, like most people, just sort of assumed that the collateral damage of traffic violence was a de facto or required state of affairs. And I'm curious what, in your mind at least, started to change that on a significant scale. Obviously, in the United States, there are lots of transportation advocates who are no longer accepting the status quo and that collateral damage as an acceptable state of affairs. But that kind of mentality has not permeated society in any broad sense. There are 40,000 traffic deaths in the United States in a year, and people kind of accept the fact that that is just the cost of doing business. So how in the Netherlands did that mindset change on a broad scale so that it wasn't just a niche group of transportation-oriented folks?

Ruth Oldenziel (05:48)

Well, I think that in some ways the change happened in the generation from high levels of cycling to automobility being very aggressively promoted. And that caused a resistance because people remembered a street where kids would play. So it was that image of the past that inspired the future. That's one. So that might not be the same in the United States today. It's not comparable.

At the same time, it was also a very broad coalition. The movement—and we see that not only in Amsterdam but also in Basel and many other European cities—it was a coalition of public transit advocates together with pedestrian movements, children, parents, Parent-Teacher Associations, journalists. And so it was a very broad-based coalition and not a single-issue coalition. And I think that if there's a lesson to be learned, it is that maybe in the United States, the advocacy is very impressive in articulating in a very hostile environment. But the coalition building, I think, is where the advocacy can grow.

Avi Stopper (07:17)

It's very interesting to hear you say that because one of my observations, having gone to any number of public meetings and been involved in a broad array of conversations about different projects, both specific and broad bike plan types projects, is that it always seems to be the same group of people—a small, insular group of folks who are passionate, but I do see what you're saying and I think that has really, in many cases, hindered it. I'm thinking of my kids' elementary schools. Why is the parent-teacher association there not involved in this movement? Is that the kind of broad coalition that you're talking about?

Ruth Oldenziel (07:54)

Yeah, absolutely, absolutely. You need to have a broader conversation. And I think this is also in academic work that I do, where you have all these niche scholarships—people who are devoted to automobility and then people to pedestrianism and then to public transit. And somehow there's no crossover. And I think that that is unfortunate. And that's also why in our research, we always say the modal split figures are really important. You need to understand how cycling is related to walking and walking vis-à-vis public transit and automobility. You have to have that basic understanding of how people get from A to B—there's a relationship.

If a city has a lot of public transit, a good public transport system, there's probably also a lot of walking. And when there's a lot of strikes, people might choose a bicycle. It is not a struggle between two wheels and four wheels. In other words, cyclist versus automobility. That is usually how we frame what the advocacy is about. And that is only part of the story. It is true that if you look at money allocation and that kind of thing and a kind of cultural understanding, it's that division. But when you look at what people actually do, the options they have, the mobility alternatives, then you need to understand: Do people have a viable option to do public transit? Do they have a viable option to walk? Where does automobility belong in all of this?

We need to really understand the relationship and not focus on the wheels—two wheels, four wheels, or your legs or whatever. That needs to change because that is a kind of technological determinism, as we call it in our field.

Avi Stopper (09:59)

That is a really interesting point. And I think it's counterintuitive to me because so much of bike advocacy feels like it is an adversarial dynamic against auto-oriented infrastructure. But your point about understanding the full modal split and the relationships between the different modes—that strikes me as maybe a strategic shift and potentially a significant one. Can you describe a city that you've studied where maybe that plays out in a positive way?

Ruth Oldenziel (10:30)

Yeah, Vienna is actually a very good example where you have a very integrated public transit system and they do not compete, but they work together. So if you take, for example, the subway, you can take your bicycle on the subway to get to a place where you feel safe cycling. Or you take a train and then you continue on your bicycle. Or you have bike and ride kind of facilities. So there's an integration of multiple mobility systems.

And I think that that is what makes Vienna very successful. It's not just about the bicycle lanes, although they're very good. It's about understanding that people have multiple mobility needs and you need to serve those needs in an integrated way. And also, Vienna has done something very smart in terms of the politics of it. They have made public transit so good and so affordable that even people who own cars often choose to take public transit because it's more convenient.

So it's not about being anti-car. It's about providing better alternatives. And when you provide better alternatives, people will choose them. But if you're only fighting against cars without providing those alternatives, then you're in a much more difficult political position.

Avi Stopper (11:45)

That integration point is really fascinating. And it makes me think about some of the conversations that I've had with folks in bike advocacy where there's sometimes tension with transit advocates because there's a perception that they're competing for the same pot of money or the same political attention. But what you're describing in Vienna suggests that that tension might be misplaced.

Ruth Oldenziel (12:08)

Exactly. And that's why I think the coalition building is so important. Because when you have transit advocates and bicycle advocates and pedestrian advocates working together, you're much more powerful politically. You're representing a much larger constituency. And you're also providing a more coherent vision of what sustainable transportation looks like.

I think in the United States, one of the challenges is that these different advocacy communities often work in silos. And that makes them individually weaker and it also makes it harder to articulate a coherent alternative to car-dominated transportation.

Avi Stopper (12:45)

One of the things that I find really interesting about your research is that you've looked at cities that have not been successful in making this transition. Can you tell me about a city that maybe should have been successful given its circumstances but hasn't been, and what lessons we might draw from that?

Ruth Oldenziel (13:05)

Rotterdam is actually a very good example of this. Rotterdam was rebuilt after World War II, so they had a clean slate. They could have designed the city for cycling from the ground up. They had the same cultural background as Amsterdam—it's the same country, same political system, same everything. But they chose to rebuild Rotterdam as a car-oriented city. They built wide boulevards, they prioritized automobile access to the city center, and they made it very difficult and unpleasant to cycle.

And the result is that Rotterdam today has much lower cycling rates than Amsterdam, even though it's in the same country. So it really shows that this is not about culture or genetics or any of these deterministic factors. It's about choices. It's about political choices, planning choices, infrastructure choices.

And Rotterdam is now trying to catch up. They're now building cycling infrastructure and trying to promote cycling. But it's much harder to retrofit a car-oriented city than it is to build a cycling-friendly city from the beginning.

Avi Stopper (14:10)

That's a powerful example because it really does debunk the idea that there's something inherently Dutch about cycling success. If Rotterdam and Amsterdam can have such different outcomes in the same country, then clearly it's about policy and planning decisions, not cultural predisposition.

Ruth Oldenziel (14:28)

Exactly. And that's one of the main messages of our research. We want to demystify cycling success. It's not magic. It's not genetics. It's not culture in some essentialist sense. It's about political will, it's about good planning, it's about sustained advocacy, it's about making the right infrastructure investments.

And that means that other cities can do it too. American cities can do it too. But they need to understand what the key factors are and they need to be willing to make the necessary investments and changes.

Avi Stopper (15:00)

You mentioned sustained advocacy, and I think that's a really important point. In the American context, I think there's often an expectation that change should happen quickly. But your research suggests that this is really a long-term process. Can you talk about what sustained advocacy looks like and how long these transformations typically take?

Ruth Oldenziel (15:22)

Yeah, that's a really important point. In Amsterdam, as I mentioned, it took about half a century. The serious advocacy started in the 1970s, and you could argue that Amsterdam only really became the cycling city that we think of today in the 2000s or even later. So we're talking about 30 to 40 years of sustained effort.

And during that time, there were setbacks. There were political changes. There were budget cuts. There were periods when it seemed like the car lobby was winning. But the cycling advocates kept at it. They adapted their strategies, they built coalitions, they took advantage of opportunities when they arose.

I think in the American context, there's often this expectation that you can have a big victory—you get a bike lane built or you get a policy passed—and then the work is done. But actually, that's just the beginning. You need to maintain political support, you need to maintain the infrastructure, you need to keep building the network, you need to keep growing the coalition.

Avi Stopper (16:25)

That long-term perspective is really important. I think it also suggests that we need to be thinking about this work in terms of decades, not years or election cycles. Speaking of which, I'm curious about the role of political leadership in these transformations. Have you seen examples where individual political leaders have made a significant difference?

Ruth Oldenziel (16:47)

Absolutely. Political leadership is crucial. But what's interesting is that it's not just about having one champion. It's about building institutional support that can survive political transitions. In Copenhagen, for example, they've had cycling-friendly policies across different political parties and different mayors because cycling became institutionalized as part of the city's identity and planning approach.

But yes, individual leaders can make a huge difference. Jan Gehl in Copenhagen was instrumental, though he wasn't a politician—he was a planner and architect. In Paris, Anne Hidalgo has been very important in recent years. In Bogotá, Enrique Peñalosa was crucial in promoting cycling and Bus Rapid Transit.

What these leaders tend to have in common is that they're willing to take political risks, they understand the long-term benefits even if there's short-term resistance, and they're good at building coalitions and communicating a vision to the public.

Avi Stopper (17:45)

I want to talk about Paris for a moment because that seems like a city that has made dramatic changes relatively quickly. What can you tell us about the Paris transformation?

Ruth Oldenziel (17:57)

Paris is a really interesting case because they have moved very quickly, especially in recent years. The Vélib' bike-sharing system, which started in 2007, was really transformational. It made cycling visible and accessible to a much broader population. And then during the COVID pandemic, they accelerated their plans dramatically, building what they call "corona cycleways"—temporary bike lanes that in many cases have become permanent.

What's particularly interesting about Paris is how they've used cycling as part of a broader transformation of urban space. It's not just about transportation—it's about reclaiming street space for people, improving air quality, making the city more livable. And they've been very bold about taking space away from cars.

But this didn't happen overnight. There was a lot of groundwork laid over many years. There were advocacy groups working on this, there were planners developing the expertise, there were pilot projects testing different approaches. And then when the political moment was right, they were ready to act quickly.

Avi Stopper (19:00)

The Vélib' system is fascinating because it seems to have solved several problems at once—it made cycling more accessible, more visible, and it helped normalize cycling for people who might never have considered it before. Do you think bike-sharing systems are a crucial component of cycling transformations?

Ruth Oldenziel (19:20)

I think bike-sharing can be a very powerful tool, but it's not sufficient by itself. What Vélib' did was make cycling accessible to people who didn't own bikes, who didn't have secure storage, who were maybe intimidated by the maintenance aspects of bike ownership. It also made cycling much more visible on the streets, which helped normalize it.

But bike-sharing only works if you have the supporting infrastructure—safe bike lanes, places to park the bikes, integration with other transportation systems. And you need the right policies around pricing, accessibility, maintenance.

What I find interesting is that successful bike-sharing systems often become a catalyst for broader changes. Once you have thousands of people cycling around the city on shared bikes, the demand for better infrastructure becomes much more apparent. Politicians can see the demand, they can see that cycling is not just for a small niche of enthusiasts.

Avi Stopper (20:15)

You mentioned COVID-19 and the "corona cycleways." That seems like a really interesting natural experiment in rapid transportation change. What lessons do you think we can draw from that experience?

Ruth Oldenziel (20:29)

COVID was indeed a natural experiment, and it showed us several important things. First, it showed that rapid change is possible when there's political will and public support. Cities that would normally take years to build bike infrastructure were suddenly building it in weeks or months.

Second, it showed the importance of temporary or pilot projects. Many of these "corona cycleways" started as temporary measures—just paint and cones and barriers. But they allowed people to experience what cycling infrastructure could be like, and in many cases, that led to public support for making them permanent.

Third, it showed that crisis can create opportunities for change. The normal political constraints were relaxed because everyone understood that this was an emergency situation. But what's interesting is that many cities didn't revert back to the old ways once the emergency passed. People had experienced the benefits of having more space for cycling and walking, and they didn't want to give it up.

I think the lesson for advocates is to be ready for those moments when rapid change becomes possible. Have your plans ready, build your coalitions in advance, so that when the opportunity arises, you can act quickly.

Avi Stopper (21:40)

That readiness point is really important. It reminds me of something I heard once about policy advocates always needing to have their proposals ready because you never know when a crisis or political moment will create an opening. Let me shift gears a bit and ask about economic factors. How important is prosperity or economic development in these cycling transformations?

Ruth Oldenziel (22:03)

That's a really complex question because we see successful cycling cities across a wide range of economic conditions. Obviously, wealthy cities like Copenhagen and Amsterdam have advantages—they can afford high-quality infrastructure, they have the political stability to sustain long-term planning.

But we also see cycling success in cities that are not particularly wealthy. In our African cities research, we found places where cycling is thriving despite limited resources. In some Chinese cities, cycling remains important partly for economic reasons—it's an affordable form of transportation.

I think what matters more than absolute wealth is political prioritization and smart use of resources. You don't necessarily need expensive infrastructure to support cycling. Sometimes simple changes—traffic calming, better signage, secure parking—can make a big difference and don't require huge investments.

What is true is that cycling infrastructure is generally a very good return on investment. It's much cheaper per mile than highway infrastructure, it has health benefits, environmental benefits, economic benefits. But you need political leaders who understand that and are willing to make those investments.

Avi Stopper (23:15)

You've done research across different continents and very different cultural contexts. Are there universal principles that seem to apply to cycling success, or is it more contextual than that?

Ruth Oldenziel (23:29)

There are some universal principles, but they have to be adapted to local contexts. Safety is universal—people need to feel safe cycling or they won't do it. Connectivity is universal—you need to be able to get where you want to go by bike. Convenience matters everywhere—if cycling is more difficult than the alternatives, people won't choose it.

But how you achieve safety, connectivity, and convenience depends a lot on local context. In a wealthy Northern European city, you might build sophisticated separated bike lanes with traffic signals and weather protection. In a city in the Global South, you might focus more on traffic calming, secure parking, and integration with public transit.

Cultural context matters too. In some places, cycling is seen as a low-status activity, and you need to work to change that perception. In other places, cycling has more positive associations. In some places, gender is a big issue—women may face particular barriers to cycling. In others, age is more important—you need infrastructure that works for children and elderly people.

The key is understanding your local context but learning from successful examples elsewhere. Not to copy them exactly, but to adapt the principles to your own situation.

Avi Stopper (24:45)

That adaptation point is really important. I think sometimes there's a tendency to want to transplant successful models wholesale, but every city has its own constraints and opportunities. Speaking of context, I'm curious about your perspective on American cities specifically. What do you see as the biggest challenges and opportunities for cycling in the U.S.?

Ruth Oldenziel (25:08)

American cities face some particular challenges, but they also have some significant advantages. The challenges are pretty obvious—most American cities were developed in the automobile age, so they have very car-oriented infrastructure and land use patterns. The distances can be long, the density can be low. There's a cultural attachment to car ownership that's quite strong.

But the opportunities are also significant. American cities often have more resources than cities in other parts of the world. There's a growing environmental consciousness, especially in urban areas. There are health concerns about obesity and air quality that cycling can help address. And there's actually a lot of innovation happening in American cities—things like protected bike lanes, bike-sharing systems, electric bikes.

What I find interesting is that American cities often have more flexibility to experiment than European cities. European cities have more established ways of doing things, which can be both an advantage and a constraint. American cities can sometimes move more quickly when they want to.

The key is building political coalitions and changing the narrative around transportation. Instead of framing it as bikes versus cars, frame it as providing people with more choices, improving public health, addressing climate change, supporting economic development.

Avi Stopper (26:25)

That reframing point is interesting. Can you give me an example of how that might work in practice?

Ruth Oldenziel (26:32)

Sure. Instead of saying "we need bike lanes because cars are bad," you might say "we need to give people transportation choices so they can save money, get exercise, and spend less time stuck in traffic." Instead of talking about taking space away from cars, you talk about creating space for people and local businesses.

In New York, for example, the transformation of Times Square wasn't framed as anti-car. It was framed as creating a better pedestrian experience, improving safety, and supporting tourism and economic activity. The fact that it also reduced car traffic was presented as a side benefit, not the main goal.

I think this kind of reframing is crucial because it helps build broader coalitions. Business owners might not care about cycling ideology, but they do care about customer access and economic vitality. Parents might not be committed cyclists, but they do care about their children's safety and health.

Avi Stopper (27:25)

That makes a lot of sense. It's about finding shared values rather than trying to convert people to a particular transportation ideology. Let me ask about scale. Do you think it's more effective to start with small demonstration projects and build up, or to try for comprehensive system-wide change?

Ruth Oldenziel (27:44)

I think you need both, but probably starting with demonstration projects is more realistic in most American contexts. The demonstration projects serve several important functions. They show what's possible, they allow people to experience cycling infrastructure, they build political support for bigger investments.

But the demonstration projects need to be part of a larger strategy. If you just build isolated bike lanes that don't connect to anything, they won't be very successful and that can actually hurt the cause. You need to have a vision of a connected network and then build toward that vision strategically.

What often works well is to focus on areas where you're likely to succeed—places where there's already some cycling, where there are supportive businesses and residents, where the infrastructure changes are relatively straightforward. Then you can point to those successes when you're advocating for expansion.

But you also need to be working on the bigger picture—the policies, the funding mechanisms, the institutional changes that will allow you to scale up over time.

Avi Stopper (28:45)

That strategic approach makes sense. Build credibility and momentum with initial successes, then leverage that for bigger changes. I want to ask about something that's very specific to the work that we do at Bike Streets. We focus on identifying existing low-stress routes that are already relatively safe for cycling, even if they're not officially designated as bike infrastructure. Does that approach resonate with your research?

Ruth Oldenziel (29:10)

Oh, absolutely. I think that's a really smart approach because it recognizes that cycling infrastructure doesn't always have to be purpose-built. Sometimes the infrastructure that works for cycling already exists—it's just not recognized or marketed as cycling infrastructure.

This goes back to what I was saying earlier about understanding existing practices. People are often already cycling on certain routes because they feel safer or more comfortable. If you can identify those routes and then make small improvements—better signage, improved maintenance, connections to other routes—you can create a cycling network much more quickly and cheaply than if you're trying to build everything from scratch.

This approach also helps with the political challenges because you're not necessarily taking space away from cars. You're optimizing the use of existing space. And it helps with the cultural challenges because you're validating choices that people are already making rather than trying to get them to do something completely new.

I think this kind of approach could be particularly effective in American cities where resources are limited and political resistance to cycling infrastructure can be strong.

Avi Stopper (30:15)

That validation point is really important. I think sometimes people are cycling on certain routes but they feel a bit like they're breaking the rules or doing something unusual. If you can officially recognize and support those patterns, that can be quite powerful.

Ruth Oldenziel (30:31)

Exactly. And it also helps with what we call "social proof"—when people see others cycling on certain routes, it makes cycling seem more normal and acceptable. If you can make those routes more visible and official, that amplifies this effect.

This is something we saw in our research in African cities too. There were often established cycling patterns that weren't recognized by official planning. When planners started paying attention to these patterns and supporting them, cycling became much more viable and visible.

Avi Stopper (30:58)

I want to ask about data and evidence. How important is it to have good data about cycling patterns and infrastructure effectiveness? And what kind of data is most useful for advocacy?

Ruth Oldenziel (31:12)

Data is really important, but I think advocates sometimes get too caught up in having perfect data and not enough focused on telling compelling stories. You need both.

The data that's most useful for advocacy is data that shows impacts that decision-makers care about—safety improvements, economic benefits, health benefits, environmental benefits. Modal split data is useful for tracking progress over time. Usage counts can show that people will actually use cycling infrastructure if you build it.

But you also need to be strategic about how you present data. Sometimes a powerful story about one person's experience can be more persuasive than a lot of statistics. And sometimes you need to be prepared to act even when you don't have perfect data, especially when there are opportunities for pilot projects or temporary installations.

The other thing about data is that it needs to be accessible and understandable to non-experts. If your data requires a PhD in transportation planning to interpret, it's not going to be very useful for advocacy.

Avi Stopper (32:10)

That balance between data and storytelling is really important. Numbers can prove a point, but stories help people understand why it matters. Let me ask about a topic that's become quite prominent in recent years: electric bikes. Do you see e-bikes as a game-changer for cycling adoption?

Ruth Oldenziel (32:28)

I think e-bikes are potentially very significant, yes. They solve several important barriers to cycling—hills, distances, physical limitations, carrying cargo. They can make cycling accessible to people who might not otherwise consider it—older adults, people with mobility limitations, people who need to travel longer distances or carry heavy loads.

What's particularly interesting is how e-bikes can change the transportation calculation for people. If you can bike to work without arriving sweaty, if you can carry groceries or children, if you can maintain reasonable speeds even when you're not in great shape—that makes cycling competitive with driving for a much wider range of trips.

But e-bikes also raise some new challenges. They're more expensive than regular bikes, which could create equity issues. They require charging infrastructure. They're heavier and faster, which can create new safety concerns if the infrastructure isn't designed appropriately.

I think the key is to think about e-bikes as part of a broader transportation system, not as a magic solution by themselves. You still need safe infrastructure, you still need supportive policies, you still need cultural change.

Avi Stopper (33:35)

That system thinking is important. E-bikes might lower some barriers, but they don't eliminate the need for good infrastructure and supportive policies. Looking ahead, what are you most optimistic about regarding the future of urban cycling?

Ruth Oldenziel (33:50)

I'm optimistic about several things. First, I think there's growing recognition of the multiple benefits of cycling—not just transportation, but health, environment, economic development, quality of life. That's creating more diverse coalitions and more political support.

Second, I'm seeing more sophisticated approaches to cycling policy and planning. Twenty years ago, cycling advocacy was often quite amateur. Now there are professional planners who understand cycling, there are evidence-based best practices, there are established funding mechanisms in many places.

Third, I'm seeing more innovation—in infrastructure design, in bike technology, in policy approaches. Cities are learning from each other much more effectively than they used to.

And finally, I'm optimistic about the generational change that's happening. Younger people, especially in urban areas, often have different attitudes about car ownership and transportation choices. They're more open to cycling, more concerned about environmental issues, more interested in urban lifestyles that don't require owning a car.

Avi Stopper (34:50)

Those are encouraging trends. Let me ask about obstacles. What do you see as the biggest remaining barriers to cycling adoption in cities?

Ruth Oldenziel (35:00)

Safety is still the biggest barrier in most places. Until people feel safe cycling, most people won't do it. And safety is not just about infrastructure—it's about driver behavior, enforcement, cultural norms around sharing road space.

Political resistance is also still significant in many places. There are often vocal minorities who oppose cycling infrastructure, and politicians can be reluctant to take risks. Building broader coalitions helps with this, but it's still a challenge.

In many places, there are also practical barriers—lack of secure parking, lack of shower facilities at workplaces, concerns about weather, concerns about arrival appearance. Some of these can be addressed through infrastructure and services, others require cultural change.

And then there are equity issues. Cycling infrastructure often gets built first in affluent areas, and cycling advocacy is often dominated by privileged voices. If we want cycling to be truly transformative, it needs to work for everyone, not just the privileged.

Avi Stopper (35:55)

Those equity issues are really important. How can cycling advocacy and policy be more inclusive and equitable?

Ruth Oldenziel (36:04)

This is crucial, and I think it requires very intentional efforts. First, advocacy organizations need to be more diverse—in leadership, in membership, in the voices they center. That often means acknowledging that traditional cycling advocacy has not been very inclusive and making deliberate changes.

Second, infrastructure investments need to be more equitable. Instead of just building bike lanes in trendy neighborhoods, cities need to prioritize areas that have been underinvested in, areas where people might benefit most from transportation alternatives.

Third, we need to address the practical barriers that affect different communities differently. For example, bike theft can be a bigger issue in certain areas, and that affects people's willingness to cycle. Or certain communities might have different cultural norms around cycling that need to be understood and respected.

Fourth, we need to think about cycling as part of broader social and economic justice issues. For many people, transportation is a major expense and a major barrier to accessing opportunities. Cycling can be part of the solution, but only if it's approached in an inclusive way.

Avi Stopper (37:05)

That systemic approach to equity is really important. It's not just about building bike lanes—it's about understanding how transportation affects people's lives and opportunities differently. As we start to wrap up, I want to ask about lessons for American advocates. Based on all your research, what would be your top recommendations for people working on cycling advocacy in American cities?

Ruth Oldenziel (37:28)

I would say first, think long-term and be persistent. This is not quick work. Build relationships, build coalitions, be prepared to adapt your strategies as opportunities and constraints change.

Second, build broad coalitions. Don't just work with other cycling advocates. Work with transit advocates, pedestrian advocates, public health people, environmental groups, business groups, parent organizations—anyone who shares some of your goals even if they're not specifically focused on cycling.

Third, use demonstration projects strategically. Show what's possible, let people experience cycling infrastructure, but make sure your demonstrations are part of a larger strategic vision.

Fourth, frame your work in terms of shared values—safety, health, economic opportunity, environmental protection, quality of life. Don't make it about ideology or lifestyle choices.

Fifth, pay attention to equity from the beginning. Make sure your advocacy includes diverse voices and that your proposals will benefit everyone, not just privileged cyclists.

And finally, learn from other cities but adapt to your local context. Don't try to copy Amsterdam or Copenhagen exactly, but understand the principles behind their success and figure out how to apply those principles in your own situation.

Avi Stopper (38:40)

Those are excellent recommendations. They really emphasize the political and social dimensions of this work, not just the technical or infrastructure aspects. Before we finish, I promised at the beginning that I might ask you about visiting Rotterdam versus Amsterdam. For American advocates who have an opportunity to study successful cycling cities, would you recommend Rotterdam as an alternative to Amsterdam? And if so, why?

Ruth Oldenziel (39:05)

That's a great question. I would actually recommend visiting both, because the contrast is so instructive. Amsterdam shows you what's possible when you have a long history of cycling advocacy and sustained political support. But Amsterdam can feel a bit magical or unattainable to American visitors.

Rotterdam shows you both the challenges and the opportunities. It shows you that even in the Netherlands, cycling success is not automatic—it requires deliberate choices. But it also shows you that car-oriented cities can change. Rotterdam has been working to become more cycling-friendly in recent years, and you can see both the progress and the challenges.

If I had to choose just one, I might actually recommend a city like Copenhagen or even Paris, because they show more clearly that cycling transformation is possible in modern, car-oriented contexts. Copenhagen in particular has a very systematic, evidence-based approach to cycling policy that I think American cities could learn from.

But honestly, the most important thing is not which city you visit—it's how you approach the visit. Don't just look at the infrastructure. Talk to advocates, talk to planners, talk to politicians. Understand the history, understand the challenges, understand the politics. That's where the real lessons are.

Avi Stopper (40:15)

That's excellent advice. Look beyond the infrastructure to understand the political and social processes that created it. And I think your point about Copenhagen's systematic approach is really important—there are lessons there about how to build institutional support for cycling that could be very relevant in American contexts.

Ruth Oldenziel (40:35)

Exactly. And remember that what you're seeing in these successful cycling cities is the result of decades of work. It didn't happen overnight, and it wasn't easy. But it was possible, and that means it's possible elsewhere too.

Avi Stopper (40:48)

That's a really hopeful note to end on. The transformation is possible, but it requires sustained effort and smart strategy. Let me ask you about the demonstration projects that you mentioned. I think Denver's experience might be relevant here. We have a shared street called the 16th Street Mall that's been transformational for the city—not specifically for cycling, but for showing what's possible when you prioritize people over cars. Do you think those kinds of transformational spaces, even if they're not primarily about cycling, can be important for building support for cycling infrastructure?

Ruth Oldenziel (41:20)

I mean, it does. I really think it does. Because in Denver, you have already a social movement, right? And the image of cycling is not as negative. So you have already two factors right there. And the example of a kind of shared space is extremely important in showing that it can be done and that cycling can be a mobility alternative.

So yeah, I do think that this demonstration project comes back to where we started our conversation about New York, right? Times Square. I think that was transformational. Not only for New York, but for the rest of the world. Paris has that as well. Everybody wants to be Paris, so that's good.

Maybe I want to talk about another example. I was just in Dubai and Abu Dhabi. I mean Abu Dhabi is really interesting. It's an oil state, an oil state that is very much aware that there will be an end of oil and they're devising all kinds of policies for diversification. They also have now latched onto cycling and cycle lanes and it's just the most amazing, amazing infrastructure that's there. Not a cyclist in sight.

Now you could sort of dismiss this and say, okay, this is one of those pet projects of somebody who has too much money and that's not the way to go. Well, then I'm thinking that's how automobility also started, you know. And now I get to my second point. I also observed that there is actually cycling in Dubai and Abu Dhabi, but you have to go to the right neighborhoods.

And these neighborhoods are off the grid of everybody. And when you observe that there are bicycles near metro stations in Dubai—these construction workers, they have bicycles from far away places and then they take metro. Now, I think if you have those kind of infrastructural projects that are symbolic, they're performative, as you say, but at the same time, you're able to link that to the practices that are already there, I think that could be a winning combination and it's both interventionist, but you're also—and that's what I like from your project—that you use the experiences and the practice that's already there and reframe them, reinterpret them, right?

Your project is about mapping where people feel safe and recommending the right routes and that kind of local tested knowledge to make that visual and that's really great. But I think you need both. You need both the symbolic and the framing of infrastructure with these gleaming bicycle paths, but you also need to really look at the practices. Same in New Orleans. This was in the 1980s. People did cycle. You have to look around the Mississippi Delta area.

Avi Stopper (44:39)

We are actually in the process of making a low-stress bike map with the advocacy group Bike Easy in New Orleans at the moment. So I'm a little more familiar with the local geography than I was a few months ago. Okay, so one last question here. You actually anticipated my question about a more global perspective with the Dubai story. So I'm gonna pivot a little bit and return to Amsterdam. What do you think is a more effective way for advocates in the United States to talk about Amsterdam as opposed to the standard way that I think we do it now, which is "You should just see what it's like in Amsterdam" and then the person on the receiving end—their eyes just glaze over and they say "Yeah, sorry, Jack. This ain't Amsterdam." What is a more effective message to start to help people see that vision?

And it may not be talking points, it may be "go visit Amsterdam" because the former mayor of Denver was taken on a trip by a local business development group to Amsterdam. And as I understand it, and my hope is actually to get him on this podcast in one of the coming episodes, my understanding is that that was a transformational experience for him. And he saw that and experienced it and they rode all over the place. And then he came back and made, in his subsequent campaign, a pledge to build 125 miles of bike lanes in Denver over five years. And he, to his credit, accomplished that.

That notwithstanding, I think that this "it should just be like Amsterdam, or it could be like Amsterdam" point falls flat because people just roll their eyes and there's a lot of, of course, national pride and city pride and people say, "this is not Amsterdam." So have you thought about what's a more effective way for people to talk about cities that have been success stories and to use that as a way to galvanize interest and enthusiasm rather than just turn people off?

Ruth Oldenziel (46:43)

Well, go to Rotterdam. That has been one strategy, right, for a lot of Americans to go to Rotterdam rather than Amsterdam because they feel that that city looks more like an American city than Amsterdam. That might be strategically smart.

Secondly, I think you should also celebrate what you have in that sense that Philadelphia, for example, I knew that city in the 1980s. And lo and behold, there is cycling in Philadelphia, same in New York. So it's also about understanding that you're in for the long term, beyond the political cycles. It is hard work. It is really hard work. The Dutch cycling also has a hard time. It's also still at it every day. So it's not easy.

But to finally come to your example of the mayor on the bicycle in Amsterdam, ultimately it is that experiencing yourself that that is really very important. And I can tell you that in Africa, where we conducted many studies, we got the UN policy makers in African cities and said, you know, "Come with us on a bicycle tour in your city in Ghana." They looked at us. Well, they were making policy, but they no way did they want to go on a bicycle.

So there is still a lot to be done to get all those policy makers, even those dedicated to cycling, to get to cycle in their own city and then do the mapping that you're doing. I think that that is really—from the experience—you need to do both the policy from top down and bottom up.

Avi Stopper (48:36)

Well Ruth, thank you so much for your time and for your research. This has been a delight and I look forward to riding bikes with you someday.

Ruth Oldenziel (48:43)

Yeah, yeah. Can I pitch the Cycling Cities book series? You know, we have the Cycling Cities, the African Experience. We have 17 African cities from North, South, East, West, Francophone, Anglophone, Portuguese, Arab, and in 12 countries. I'm really proud of that.

Avi Stopper (48:48)

Of course. Have you ridden your bike in all 17?

Ruth Oldenziel (49:10)

Not all 17 because I visited only four or five—it's a collaborative effort with 25 authors. But those authors who are accustomed to thinking "cycling is no good, it's for poor people" and "walking is bad"—we're raising a new generation of African scholars who say "My god, cycling is actually a worthy topic. Let's do it."

Avi Stopper (49:39)

That's powerful and maybe the subject for another conversation. Thank you so much for your time. This has been great. Keep up the good work.

Ruth Oldenziel (49:42)

Yes, we will. Thank you.

Avi Stopper (49:48)

Thanks for listening. If you have questions, comments, or suggestions for guests you'd like to hear from, drop us a line at [email protected]. Bike Networks Now is a production of Bike Streets. Anyone should be able to ride a bike to any destination in their city today. You can learn more about our work at bikestreets.com.