[palotasb]

As someone living in Amsterdam, Netherlands, I don't understand the resistance. I agree with the article and I think it is advocating for the right thing, so it's the right kind of propaganda.

Maybe there is more common ground between you and Strong Towns than you'd think? They don't just advocate for "bike bros." Here everyone bikes from kids in elementary school to their grandparents. The key is having separate car infrastructure (roads, highways) and biking/pedestrian infrastructure (streets, bike lanes, pedestrian-only areas).

The net effect is that many people here choose non-car transport (public transport, biking, walking), which reduces traffic. This also makes getting around by car more efficient, for destinations where you need to use a car, because there is less traffic.

If you want to live in a single-family home in the suburbs and own a car, you can do that here too. It's fine because there are roads to get around the country. Not stroads though, so no need to worry about pedestrians or cyclists when you're on a road, so they allow moving faster.

If you want to live in an apartment in the city without owning a car, you can do that here too. It's fine because there is public transport, proper bike lanes and streets to get around the city. Not straods though, so no need to worry about cars.

I'd say it's both nicely looking and quite efficient. Not sure by what metric would an American city be more efficient, but generally I wouldn't want to trade places.

[cyberax]

As I said, I lived in Amsterdam.

> Maybe there is more common ground between you and Strong Towns than you'd think? They don't just advocate for "bike bros."

Yes, they do. They literally do. All their "solutions" just accidentally ALWAYS make traffic worse and push people into dense cities.