Bicycle infrastructure in the United States lags far behind European countries like the Netherlands. Pucher gives statistics showing how a tiny share of trips in the US are done on bicycles whereas the cycling comes close to rivaling motor vehicles for trip share in the Netherlands. The idea that the Dutch cycle more because of their culture, landscape, or any feature inherent to the Netherlands is refuted by the fact that some cities in the United States have cycle shares comparable to European cities. Davis Colorado has a cycle share of 15 percent, which is 30 times the national average and matches European cities like Rotterdam or Berlin. I think what Pucher is trying to prove with these statistics is that bicycling increases in cities that produce good cycling infrastructure.
The Dutch method of infrastructure design tends to separate cyclists from vehicles anywhere where vehicles are moving above a comfortable cycling speed. US designers have historically treated bicycles the same as vehicles and encouraged both to use the same roads without any formal separation. John Forester claimed this policy of ‘Vehicular Cycling’ was safer than separation of bikes and cars. According to him, separation led motorists to be less aware of bicycles and therefore more likely to get into accidents at intersections. He tended to ignore studies showing lower accident rates where bikes were separated from cars and when he could no longer ignore the statistics, he claimed that the increased safety came at the cost of inconvenience for cyclists at intersections. I think Forest’s ideas focus too much on the most confident cyclists at the expense of the majority of people who want to cycle but aren’t confortable riding in the same lane as cars. Separated cycling lanes are provably safer and usable by a much wider demographic of people.
Pucher lists numerous ways that public transportation can act in conjunction with cycling infrastructure. Light rail or busses can greatly extend a cyclists range or act as a replacement on days when weather prevents biking. Of course, cyclists are much more likely to take advantage of public transport if there is adequate bike parking at public transport stops and if cycling paths link these stops with the rest of the cycling infrastructure in a city. Many European cities fulfill these needs for cyclists. Another amenity that can help cyclists is allowing them to take their bikes on busses and trains. Pucher notes that this is one place where American cites tend to outperform European cites. Most American busses provide free bike rack usage and many trains allow bikes onboard for free. In Europe it is not as common to allow bikes on busses and taking a bike on a train tends to require a fee. I disagree that this is a real win for American cities because free bike passage on trains and busses is only possible because hardly anyone uses the service. Buses can only accommodate 2 or 3 bikes, and trains don’t tend to have specific spaces for bikes. If as many bikes were taken on Marta trains as there are on European trains with dedicated bike storage cars, American bikers would be banned or required to pay a fee just like Europeans. There are exceptions, like San Franscisco, but I suspect that in general these benefits rely on limited usage to be sustainable.