KS1248

December 5, 2017

Choosing the Road Less Traveled:

How Cycling Took Hold in Copenhagen
Denmark is a small country—5.6 million people in a land roughly the size of the state of Maryland—
but in the first two decades of the 21st century, to the bemusement of many Danes, the country vaulted
to international celebrity. First, Denmark was proclaimed the world’s “happiest” country in three of fivea
United Nations surveys taken between 2012 and 2017.1 Then there was the craze for hygge, the Danish
version of cozy bonhomie, which made the Oxford Dictionary’s word-of-the-year shortlist in 2016 and
inspired a raft of articles, books, and online pronunciation guides (HOO-geh).2 Meantime, Denmark’s
capital city, Copenhagen, was several times named the world’s “most livable” city,3 inspiring visits from
curious delegations of municipal leaders from across the world and giving rise to a new verb in the ur-
ban planning lexicon: “Copenhagenize.”

To urban designers and environmentalists, however, perhaps no feature of the Copenhagen city-
scape captured the imagination as profoundly as its cycling culture, supported by extensive and cleverly
designed bicycle infrastructure and amenities. Copenhagen’s cycle tracks—one on each side of the
street, separated from cars and trucks by curbs—were a signature feature of the city’s bike landscape
and set Copenhagen apart from most other municipalities. But Copenhagen had gone farther, with a
network of “Green Cycle” routes along waterways and through parks; bike-and-pedestrian bridges to
connect neighborhoods and bike routes separated by canals and other obstacles; the “Green Wave,” to
coordinate stoplights on bike-congested streets for cyclists instead of cars; changes in the design of in-
tersections intended to protect bicyclists from right-turning trucks, the cause of most cyclist fatalities;
and metro-area bike “superhighways,” allowing seamless, nonstop bike travel from suburbs to the city
center. By the early 2010s, some had declared Copenhagen the world’s number one city for cycling; cer-
tainly, it ranked in the top few. Copenhagen’s bicycle ridership statistics were remarkable:4

 63% of Copenhageners, commuting to work or school within the city, traveled by bike

a
Denmark came in second place and third place, respectively, in the other two.

This case was written by Pamela Varley, Senior Case Writer, in collaboration with Quinton Mayne, Associate Professor of Public
Policy, for use at the Harvard Kennedy School. Research assistance was provided by Daniel Reinish and Christine Hwang. Fund-
ing for this case was provided in part by a grant from the U.S. Department of Transportation’s New England University Trans-
portation Center, a research consortium led by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Cases are not intended to serve as
endorsements, sources of primary data, or illustrations of effective or ineffective management.KS1248

Copyright © 2017 President and Fellows of Harvard College. No part of this publication may be reproduced, revised, translated,
stored in a retrieval system, used in a spreadsheet, or transmitted in any form or by any means without the express written
consent of the Case Program. For orders and copyright permission information, please visit our website at case.harvard.edu or
send a written request to Case Program, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, 79 John F. Kennedy Street,
Cambridge, MA 02138.
  45% of all people who commuted to work or school in Copenhagen (whether they lived in
the city or in a surrounding suburb) traveled by bikeb
 58% of Copenhagen children cycled to school
 75% of cyclists reported cycling year-round

British journalist Helen Russell reported in 2015 that “Danes are so bike-obsessed that you can even opt
for a tricycle hearse to end the cycle of life.”5

There was no denying that certain elements of the city’s DNA lent themselves to biking. Copenhagen
is compact; the entire municipality is 33 square miles and the downtown area is especially dense. The
center city area is flat and can be cycled by young and old, parents carting children, and commuters in
their work clothes. And the weather in this part of northern Europe is temperate; the average tempera-
ture in the coldest month, January, is 32˚F (0˚ C) and in the warmest, July, is 67˚F (19˚ C).6

But what about the politics of biking in Copenhagen? Did the city—dominated politically for a centu-
ry by the center-left Social Democrats—turn itself into a biking mecca easily, without much debate or
conflict? Well… no, according to Copenhagen biking advocates. “We have the same discussions, the
same arguments, as in other cities,” says Andreas Røhl, Copenhagen’s Bicycle Program Director from
2007 to 2013.7 “Forty years ago, Copenhagen was just as car-clogged as anywhere else,” observes the
pro-cycling Copenhagenize blog.8 And while the city’s biking culture appears to be well-entrenched, cy-
cling proponents have never taken it for granted—and still don’t. “You shouldn’t look at Copenhagen in
2017 and say, ‘Oh, we’re not there. We’ll never be as good as Copenhagen,” says Morten Kabell, Copen-
hagen’s Technical and Environmental Mayor. “Copenhagen has never been as good as Copenhagen is
today—and we’re still a work in progress.”9

Post-War Copenhagen Falls for the Car

As in the rest of northern Europe, in the early part of the 20th century, Copenhageners relied heavily
on the bike to get around their city and, by the 1950s, had constructed some 200 kilometers of dedicat-
ed cycle tracks.10 Cars did appear on the scene, numbering 100,000 nationwide by 1930, but they re-
mained a luxury, out of reach for most Danes, and their presence faded during World War II, when pe-
troleum was scarce.

After World War II, that pattern began to change. Like many European industrial cities, Copenhagen
was struggling economically, and—seen through modern, post-war eyes—appeared worn down, damp,
and unwholesome. Copenhageners became enamored of the popular new vision emanating from Amer-
ica: suburban living at a distance from the city in new-built, larger houses; cars to take breadwinners
back and forth to their jobs in the city; and networks of highways to accommodate a large volume of
cars. “There was a very strong urge to get out of the city,” says Klaus Bondam, Copenhagen’s Technical
and Environmental Mayor from 2006 to 2009.11 “The car industry was very good at grabbing that, selling

b
The percentage in this category in both 2013 and 2015 was 41 percent, so some Copenhageners questioned the 45 percent
finding for 2014.

Choosing the Road Less Traveled 2 of 20 Case Number 2113.0

the car as the machine that gave you freedom.” Between 1950 and 1992, the city’s population saw a
decline of almost 40 percent, falling from 768,000 to 465,000.12 In the late 1950s, highway engineers set
to work designing an extensive beltway, or ring-road, system to accommodate the rapid increase in car
traffic in metro Copenhagen.

The Car Romance Falters

But even as suburbanization continued, Copenhagen began to veer away from other aspects of the
American model. Some accounts of Copenhagen’s transportation history point to the 1973 Middle East
oil embargo as the turning point, but others argue that public opinion in the city had already begun to
divide over the car in the 1960s. For example, the Copenhagen City Council opted to pedestrianize a ma-
jor downtown shopping street, Strøget, in 1962.c At the time, the move was highly controversial. Copen-
hagen’s then-Mayor for Planning Alfred Wassard, a member of the Conservative Party, reportedly re-
ceived death threats over the project and, on opening day, cars ringed Strøget on side streets and
honked to signal their disapproval, while supporters danced and celebrated on the newly car-free
streets, amid police presence to keep the peace.13 (Strøget was soon deemed an urban planning success,
however, made famous by Copenhagen architect Jan Gehl, the influential godfather of the livable cities
movement, in his first book, Life between Buildings, published in Danish in 1971.)

In addition, blueprints for Copenhagen’s expansive new Lake Ring highway system and City West ur-
ban renewal plan ran into heavy resistance from Copenhageners. These projects—approved by the Co-
penhagen City Council in 1967 after reportedly “hectic debate”14—would have dramatically transformed
the city. The Lake Ring highway system would have partly covered a series of three manmade lakes, a
focal point of the city for centuries, with a 12-lane thoroughfare. The City West urban renewal plan
would have demolished Vesterbro, an old city neighborhood viewed by many as a slum, in order to build
new motorways and high-rise developments. The plans “created an enormous public uproar in Copen-
hagen,” says Bondam, now director of the Danish Cyclists Federation. The lakes, in particular, were
viewed with great affection by local residents as one of the city’s nicest recreation areas, he says: “Peo-
ple were really upset about it.”

In the end, only a small piece of the highway project was ever constructed—a six-lane elevated
highway called Bispeengbuen opened in 1972. Budget constraints led the national government to with-
draw financial support for the heart of the projects in 1972-73, and—facing both local opposition and
the prospect of funding them alone—the City of Copenhagen effectively abandoned both the highway
and urban renewal projects in 1974. In Copenhagen history, this retreat was a political watershed, ac-
cording to Røhl, now an associate at Gehl Architects. “It showed the citizens that if we speak up, we can
actually change these plans for the city, and how engineers and planners are planning it.”

What’s more, as middle-class families left the city for the suburbs, the population of Copenhagen
was increasingly made up of students and those who could not afford to leave—the old and poor, most

c
Strøget was closed to cars on a trial basis in 1962, and closed permanently to cars in 1964.

Choosing the Road Less Traveled 3 of 20 Case Number 2113.0

of whom could not afford cars, which were not only costly to buy but were heavily taxed in Denmark.
While not personally enjoying the conveniences of car travel, they saw their public squares gobbled up
by parking lots, and they lived with increased noise, congestion, air pollution, and traffic fatalities as
suburbanites made their daily migration in and out of the city.

Throughout this period, most city residents walked and—after the last of the city’s tram lines was
dismantled in 1972—rode the bus to get about town, but a group of hardy Copenhageners continued to
bicycle. Even at its nadir in 1972, 10 percent of city travel took place by bike.15 (By comparison, this was
a higher modal share than in even the bike-friendliest U.S. cities in the 2010s.16) Copenhagen retained
most of the cycle tracks built up in the first half of the 20th century, but some had been narrowed to
make more room for cars, and some had been shortened, stopping in advance of intersections to make
way for right-turning vehicles. In addition, new thoroughfares were often built without cycle tracks. Bi-
cyclists still traveled on Copenhagen’s congested roads and made their way through jammed intersec-
tions, slaloming in and around the cars, but accidents and bike fatalities were common. “You have a
problem when you mix bicycle and car traffic,” says Jens Loft Rasmussen, former director of the Danish
Cyclists Federation. “We had a lot of [crashes].”17 In fact, the Danish Council on Road Safety had long
argued that bicycles should no longer be allowed to use major roads, on safety grounds.

During the 1973-74 oil embargo (a protest by the Organization of Arab Petroleum Exporting Coun-
tries against U.S. support for Israel), Denmark—which relied on foreign oil for 80 percent of its energy
needs—was hit particularly hard. Danes were encouraged to drive less and to conserve fuel, and Den-
mark passed a law forbidding most car travel on Sundays. Far from experiencing Sundays as privation,
however, many Copenhageners experienced them as a relief. “People realized that the car-free Sunday
was the best day of the week,” says Rasmussen.18 Bondam recalls enjoying the oil embargo Sundays as a
child: “I was nine years old. I remember walking those streets with my mom—streets that were empty
of cars—and it was kind of amazing! It showed that there was an alternative.”

Bondam believes that the bike-free Sundays revived a kind of nostalgia for bicycling, which had been
a rite of passage for most Danish children in the previous generation. “If you talk to a group of Danes—
and I do this test very often—and you ask them to remember how they felt when they were cycling as a
child, you always see they start smiling [and say], ‘Yeah, yeah, that was fantastic.’”

Taking It to the Streets

Against the backdrop of revived interest in cycling, the Danish Cyclists Federation, which had grown
all but moribund in the 1960s, attracted a new crop of young members. The activist newcomers were
feistier than the older members, and more inclined to see cars as the enemy, but both new and old
members were united in seeking better and safer bicycle infrastructure in the city. They staged mass
protests in the late 1970s and early 1980s; one, in front of City Hall, reportedly attracted 150,000 peo-
ple. They also painted white crosses in places where bicyclists had died in car accidents, and staged
street actions—for example, “playing golf” around potholes, to underscore poor road conditions, espe-
cially hazardous for cyclists.19

Choosing the Road Less Traveled 4 of 20 Case Number 2113.0

 “Copenhagen was lucky that the turnaround in the politics happened before cycling was completely
squeezed out,” observes Røhl. “That seems to be the challenge in many cities, for example, in England or
the U.S., I believe. It’s like a bonfire. It’s a lot easier to get it burning again if you’ve got some sparks, but
if it’s completely wiped out, it’s a lot of tough work to get it going again.”

But while the protestors won some support from smaller leftwing parties, they did not make much
headway at winning the hearts and minds of the mainstream politicians or urban planners at City Hall,
where the prevailing view held that bicycling was fine as recreation but impractical as a mode of trans-
portation. “I think that was pretty much the consensus view on all this cycling stuff—that it wasn’t real
transport, that it wasn’t the future, that it was something that had to go,” says Røhl.

In the mid-1970s, the Copenhagen City Council did reintroduce speed limits, in one attempt to bring
down the accident rate. City leaders also urged bicyclists not to try to compete with cars on busy streets
but to plan out their routes on quieter, less traveled side streets.20 But the bike commuters were having
none of that. They wanted to be able to ride the most direct and efficient routes, including retail streets,
where bicyclists liked to stop and shop, for example, on the way home from work or school.21 What they
wanted were more cycle tracks, separated from car traffic by a curb, and wide enough to ride comforta-
bly. Curb-separated bicycle tracks were undoubtedly safer than mixed car and bike travel with a painted-
on bike path, but in a tight urban landscape, they also took up space—and that space was currently oc-
cupied by cars in the form of driving lanes or on-street parking. Motorists already complained that the
roads were too congested and parking, insufficient; they would not be happy to lose space to bikes.

Though most leading politicians and city administrators viewed biking as a decided side issue in the
1980s, Copenhagen’s political system did create an opening to do something for the cyclists—a modest
beginning, but one that would prove consequential.

Copenhagen Politics and Biking in the 1980s

Under Copenhagen’s proportional representation system,d municipal elections were held every four
years. In each election, a wide range of political parties, from left to right, fielded candidates who were
elected citywide to fill the council’s 55 seats. On average, six or seven parties won enough votes to hold
at least one seat on the council. In Copenhagen, the Social Democrats had long been the leading party,
winning the plurality in every election since the creation of the system in 1938. But under Denmark’s
multi-party system, it was necessary for the Social Democrats to form coalitions with other parties in
order to command a voting majority. These coalitions shifted, depending on the issue. For example, the
Social Democrats and left-leaning parties typically joined forces to support housing legislation, while the
Social Democrats and right-leaning parties typically joined together to support additional parking facili-
ties for cars.

d
There are different varieties of proportional representation, but the fundamental tenet of such a system is that all
political groups in society should be represented in the legislative body (in this case, the 55-member Copenhagen
City Council) in proportion to their strength in the electorate.

Choosing the Road Less Traveled 5 of 20 Case Number 2113.0

 Despite the mass protests of the late 1970s and early 1980s, the concerns of bicyclists were not, at
the time, a mainstream political issue in Copenhagen. “During the ‘80s, the Social Democrats were not
that interested in cycling,” believes Røhl. Small leftwing parties, like the Socialist People’s Party or Left
Socialist Party, were aligned with biking interests, however—and the Social Democrats periodically
needed their support to pass their own legislation. In the scheme of things, making a modest improve-
ment to bike infrastructure may have seemed a fairly easy concession for the Social Democrats to grant
to their left-leaning allies, and one with a measure of support from city planners. For one thing, there
was significant popular support behind making biking safer. For another, building a curb-separated bicy-
cle track was a relatively inexpensive thing to do, and thus unlikely to arouse opposition on budgetary
grounds. Even decades later, in the mid-2010s, “you can do a lot of bicycle projects for just 100 million
DKK (U.S. $14.5 million),” Røhl observes. (For example, he notes, the cost of building one kilometer of
cycle track on both sides of the street was about 16 million DKK [U.S. $2.4 million] while, as a point of
comparison, building one kilometer of Copenhagen’s underground metro cost more than 1 billion DKK
[U.S. $145 million].)

Such bike improvements could be done in an incremental way—and that is how they began: one
stretch of cycle track at a time, one road at a time. Thus, over the course of the 1980s and early 1990s,
Copenhagen slowly built up its bicycle infrastructure, gradually adding cycle tracks to all the major roads
leading to the city center. “Copenhagen created gradually a situation where cycling became the most
convenient mode of transport for more and more trips within the city,” says Røhl. Commuters noticed
the changes and responded. Between 1980 and 1995, the percent of commuters traveling by bicycle to
work or school in Copenhagen increased from 10 to 30 percent. It was a shift driven almost entirely by
pragmatism, bicycle advocates contend. “If you ask Copenhageners why they use their bicycles, about
60 percent will say, ‘Because it’s by far the most fast and convenient way to get around,’” says Bondam.
“You don’t hear answers like, ‘Oh, it’s because I’m especially eco-friendly.’” For the City Hall planners, “I
think the key probably was that they could see, when they started doing these things during the 1980s,
that it was popular with the citizens,” says Røhl. “They could see a pretty fast increase in cycling where
they built these facilities. And that gave, of course, a motivation to do more.”

As more and more commuters chose to cycle, the variety of people on bicycles broadened. “Manag-
ing directors and dishwashers will wait at the traffic light, side by side on their bikes on their way to
work,” notes journalist Helen Russell. “There’s no social stigma to biking, and cycling is seen as another
of Denmark’s great equalizers.”22 Røhl notes that, making the same practical calculus as other commut-
ers, conservative politicians cycled, too, and as they did so, they noticed the same weaknesses in bike
infrastructure that bothered other cyclists, and began to support improvements.

Mid- to Late-1990s: Encouraging More People to Bike

Cycling experts in Copenhagen report that, to a degree, bicycle infrastructure remained under the
radar, politically, in Copenhagen for the 1980s, 1990s, and early 2000s, but in the mid- to late-1990s, the
Copenhagen Planning Department took a subtle turn. At first, the addition of bike infrastructure had

Choosing the Road Less Traveled 6 of 20 Case Number 2113.0

been seen as a political concession granted to a special interest group. But when officials saw a steady
ridership increase in response to the new infrastructure, they began to view the situation differently.

For one thing, after years of economic struggle and diminishing population, Copenhagen was expe-
riencing a turnaround. Urban renewal and the development of new good-quality housing had been de-
liberately designed to encourage middle-income families to move to the city and to persuade young pro-
fessionals to stay in the city after completing their university studies. The strategy was beginning to suc-
ceed and, once ensconced, the newcomers began to push for more public spaces—parks and play-
grounds—where they could take their young families. Former public squares, which had been turned
into parking lots during the 1960s and 1970s, were reclaimed for public spaces. At the same time, the
new residents, unlike their poorer urban counterparts—students, the elderly, and the unemployed—
could afford to buy cars, and the city suddenly faced a conundrum: more people, more cars—and less
space than ever to drive or park those cars in the city. In its 1997 Traffic and Environment Plan, the City
of Copenhagen acknowledged rising transportation needs in the city but stated unequivocally that the
city could not accommodate more motor traffic. With a new metro system still in the planning stages,
that meant that more Copenhageners had to be persuaded to take the bus—slow on congested city
streets and not a popular option with younger residents—or ride their bikes. To that end, the City
Council approved a “Cycle Track Priority Plan” in 1997.

Meanwhile, in 1995, the Planning Department had undertaken an experiment to survey Copenha-
geners about ridership, accidents, attitudes about cycling, and satisfaction with biking infrastructure.
The following year, it institutionalized the practice, publishing a “Bike Account,” or census, every two
years beginning in 1996. While the city’s construction of cycle tracks along major thoroughfares had
brought the modal share of bike commuters from 10 to 30 percent over 20 years, other data indicated
much room for improvement. For example, in 1995, there were 231 serious cycling casualties in Copen-
hagen and, on a 10-point scale, survey respondents rated their sense of cycling security at a middling
“6.” Further analysis would yield the discovery that the cycle tracks had improved cycling safety—except
at intersections, where they seemed to have made things even worse, perhaps by giving cyclists a false
sense of security.

The surveys also identified marked dissatisfaction with the maintenance of both cycle tracks and
smaller roads, where cyclists typically traveled alongside cars before reaching the main thoroughfares.
In 1995, survey respondents rated maintenance quality for both cycle tracks and roads at “2” on a 10-
point scale. Neither were they impressed with the ease of combining public transport and biking (“4”
out of 10) nor the adequacy of bicycle parking downtown (also “4” out of 10).23

2001: Setting Ambitious Goals for Improvement

Between 1995 and 2000, the share of people commuting by bicycle to work or school in Copenha-
gen edged up from 30 to 34 percent, and the city boasted 300 kilometers of its signature cycle tracks. In
2001, the City Council enacted a wide-ranging cycle policy “to draw attention to the fact that cycling is

Choosing the Road Less Traveled 7 of 20 Case Number 2113.0

an environmentally desirable and effective means of transport and also to coordinate initiatives for im-
provements of cycling conditions.”24

In this 10-year planning document, the city laid out five ambitious goals for 2012, a target year later
shifted to 2015:

 For all commuters (from inside or outside Copenhagen) to Copenhagen work places or
schools, an increase in bicycle commuting from 34 to 50 percent
 A 50 percent reduction in cyclists’ risk of death or serious injury
 An increase in cyclists’ self-reported sense of safety while cycling in the city from 57 to 80
percent
 A 10 percent increase in cyclists’ travel speed on trips over 5 kilometers
 A decrease from 10 to 5 percent of cycle track surfaces deemed unsatisfactory

At first, progress against these goals was fairly modest. Between 2000 and 2004, the share of those
commuting by bicycle to Copenhagen work places or schools had inched a little higher, from 34 to 36
percent. In many communities, this kind of modal share would be headline news, the topic of avid dis-
cussion and analysis. But in Copenhagen—outside a small world of bike policy wonks—it had not at-
tracted particular notice. “My impression was that to a degree, however strange it might seem, [cycling]
was still a bit invisible,” says Røhl. “It was not something key decision-makers, politicians were very in-
terested in, or very aware of.” Cycling had somehow moved from the marginal to the commonplace
without making much of a splash. Everyone cycled, from Parliamentarians to store clerks, from CEOs to
janitors, from grandparents to grandchildren. Yet biking was not yet, to Copenhageners themselves or to
mainstream decision-makers, central to the city’s identity. Says Røhl, “I think it was considered so nor-
mal, you hardly saw it. It was just there.”

As further evidence of this doctrine of bike normalcy, Copenhageners did their commuting in their
regular clothes, not—as in many cities—in sporty Lycra that marked out biking as an athletic endeavor.
A Copenhagen-based blog appeared in the early 2000s called “Copenhagen Cycle Chic,” which featured
photographs of cyclists in regular, often stylish, street clothes. Its slogan: “Dress for your destination,
not your journey.”e

But if cycling remained determinedly low key in the 1990s and early aughts, it abruptly moved to
center stage in the 2005 City Council election and in the four-year administration that followed.

e
Though ostensibly intended to promote the idea of biking-for-regular-people, the blog
(http://www.copenhagencyclechic.com/, retrieved March 26, 2017) did attract controversy, especially in its early years, for
featuring an allegedly inordinate number of photos of attractive young women in stylish attire. See also “A Critique of Cycle
Chic,” on the Taking the Lane blog by Elly Blue, July 24, 2012, http://takingthelane.com/2012/07/24/a-critique-of-cycle-chic-tm/
retrieved March 26, 2017.

Choosing the Road Less Traveled 8 of 20 Case Number 2113.0

 A Primer on Negotiating Leadership Roles in Copenhagen Municipal Government
Every four years, immediately after the city election, Copenhagen’s winning parties form coalitions
to determine which parties will control each of seven mayoralties for the next four years. These seven
mayors, drawn from among the 55 City Councilors, are the city’s only full-time politicians.

The most important of the seven is the Lord Mayor, controlled by the coalition with the largest vot-
ing share, and virtually always claimed by the leading candidate from the party with the most votes in
the election. Ever since 1938, the Lord Mayor has been a Social Democrat. The Lord Mayor chairs the
City Council meetings and also presides over the Council’s most important committee, the 13-member
Finance Committee, which oversees the work of the city’s Finance Administration. (The city’s adminis-
trative departments are staffed by professional, permanent staff and do not change much from one
council term to another.)

Each of the other six Mayors sits on the Finance Committee and presides over one of the Council’s
six other major committees: Technical and Environmental, Children and Youth, Health and Care, Em-
ployment and Integration, Social Services, and Culture and Leisure. Each committee has 11 members
and oversees the work of the corresponding branch of city administration. Deciding which party will
control which mayoralty is a matter of post-election negotiation, within certain parameters. The general
rule of thumb is that if a party wins at least seven seats on the City Council, it is entitled to a mayoralty.
(Likewise, if a party wins 14 seats, it is entitled to two mayoralties.) The overall voting strength of each
respective coalition is also keenly important, as it determines (through a mathematical formula) the or-
der in which the top parties may choose the mayoralties they prefer. Ever since the Planning and Envi-
ronment Administrations were merged, in a 2005 reorganization, into the Technical and Environmental
Administration, this Mayoralty has been the most sought-after, chosen first among the six. (It is general-
ly followed by Children and Youth, which includes city schools.)

Under this system, each Mayor has strong autonomy over his/her particular area. The Lord Mayor
also plays an overall agenda-setting role. But there is an important check in the system: neither the Lord
Mayor nor individual Mayors can go very far without the budget appropriations to support his/her initia-
tives—and these are controlled by a voting majority of the City Council. [For more on the parties, see
Appendix 1.]

2005-2009: A Political Shift

Although the Social Democrats had long been the dominant political party in Copenhagen, the party
comprised both a left-leaning wing and a centrist wing. In 2005, a prominent member of the left-leaning
wing, Ritt Bjerregaard, who had served several stints in the Danish national parliament and on the Euro-
pean Commission, led the Social Democrats’ slate for City Council. Under Bjerregaard, the party won
nearly 38 percent of the votes, a landslide victory that made her Lord Mayor—the first woman to serve

Choosing the Road Less Traveled 9 of 20 Case Number 2113.0

in this post.25 The Social Democrats won 21 of the City Council’s 55 seats that year, a gain of five seats
over the 2001 election. The center-right Liberal party came in second with eight seats and the centrist,
pro-environment Social Liberal party came in third with seven seats. During the post-election negotia-
tions to select the political leadership cadre for the next four years, Bjerregaard and Klaus Bondam,
leader of the Social Liberal party, forged an alliance and Bondam landed the plum role of Technical and
Environmental Mayor (sometimes nicknamed the “Bike Mayor”) for the 2006-2009 government.

In her campaign, Bjerregaard had promised to address “ordinary people’s ordinary problems,” in
particular, affordable housing for those of modest income and—somewhat to the surprise of bike advo-
cates across the city—improvements to bike infrastructure.26 Bjerregaard was a regular cyclist herself
and “in her campaign, she launched some big initiatives in cycling, pointing out 10 places in Copenhagen
and saying, if I’m going to be the Lord Mayor, I will make sure there is a new bicycle track here,” says
Bondam. It was the sort of thing that, in the past, only a leftwing or green party would have advocated,
“but she was from the Labor Party [i.e., the Social Democrats]. Prior to that, they really hadn’t engaged
in that debate. Of course, there had been investments, but it wasn’t really top of the agenda. But she
really put it on top of the agenda.”

Bondam was quick to recognize a chance to make a mark in Copenhagen. “Having a Lord Mayor who
was very focused on the safety for cyclists—that was a gold opportunity for me, and I basically grabbed
it,” he says.

Bigger Projects, Faster Pace

As they began their four-year term, Bjerregaard and Bondam had inherited a bike infrastructure
that, however slowly it had been built over the last 25 years (and, indeed, over the 20th century), now
consisted of 332 km of cycle tracks, 39 km of “Green Cycle” routes, through parks and along waterways.
The value of the network, in 2006, was an estimated 3 billion DKK (U.S. $420 million). It was, in other
words, already an impressive network by the standards of most cities, functional enough to lead 36 per-
cent of Copenhagen workers and students to choose to make their daily commutes by bicycle. But Co-
penhagen’s cycling network had been built in bits and pieces, as opportunity and political will had al-
lowed. Thus, from the perspective of a cyclist who wanted to get from any-Point-A to any-Point-B in the
city, seamlessly, safely, and efficiently, it was incomplete, missing cycle tracks here and there, and miss-
ing connections from one part of the network to another. In addition, the increase in ridership had cre-
ated new problems—congestion and bottlenecks in some areas and a widespread problem of inade-
quate bicycle parking, especially in the downtown area, which resulted in bikes being plunked down on
walkways, sometimes blocking the way for wheelchairs and strollers and creating a simmering anti-bike
annoyance.

To achieve the city’s newly-revived goal of persuading 50 percent of Copenhagen workers and stu-
dents to give up their cars and commute into and around the city by bicycle by 2015, Bondam and Bjer-
regaard believed that, ultimately, they needed another policy in place: congestion pricing, in the form of
a toll paid by cars entering and leaving the city. But this was opposed by conservative parties and was an

Choosing the Road Less Traveled 10 of 20 Case Number 2113.0

idea that would not win easy approval, especially from the Danish national parliament. In the meantime,
Bondam worked hard to increase the pace of bicycle improvements in the city. He began by laying the
groundwork with the 11 councilors, from various political parties, who sat on the Technical and Envi-
ronmental Committee that oversaw his work. Bondam’s idea was to create a common understanding
about the city’s broad goals, “so that when we talk about urban life, we mean the same things. I think
that’s very important.” These conversations were not conducted in the midst of a heated debate, but
through quiet internal diplomacy, “making sure that [everyone] agrees that it’s nicer to have a nice
square where people can play football, where children can enjoy themselves, where the café can serve
coffee, and where old people can sit on a bench and relax and enjoy the sun—that is much nicer than
having parked cars there. And the funny thing is that when you really talk that through with people, ur-
ban life doesn’t have a political color.”

Bondam also commissioned analysis to demonstrate that investments in improved cycling infra-
structure and conditions—which were, in the scheme of government expenditures, relatively modest—
would pay off handsomely in benefits to the city. For example, a 2006 study turned up the discovery
that on average, when a kilometer of cycle track was built on a busy road, bicycle ridership there in-
creased 20 percent, on average, while car traffic decreased 10 percent. Other studies, meanwhile, quan-
tified assorted health related benefits to cycling, resulting in reduced health care costs, increased annual
productivity, and longer working lives. Increasing ridership would also result in more cycling accidents,
but such costs were outweighed seven-fold by the benefits, according to analysts. In all, the municipally-
sponsored research calculated a net gain to the city worth 633,000 DKK for every km of cycle track con-
structed. It also calculated a 1.22 DKK gain to society for every kilometer cycled in the city, and a 0.69
DKK loss for every kilometer driven by a car.

With help from Bjerregaard, Bondam was able to increase the biking budget in order to make faster
progress on completing an additional 65 kilometers of cycle tracks and 71 kilometers of Green Cycle
routes, many of them already in the city’s 10-year plan for improved cycling anyway. He also prioritized
expanded bicycle parking, adding thousands of new spaces and creating the “cycle vulture” program to
pick up abandoned bicycles that were hogging precious bike parking. Building on the city’s biennial Bicy-
cle Accounts, which had been tracking ridership, accidents, and attitudes about biking for several years,
Bondam focused his efforts on tackling the areas that seemed to make Copenhageners uncomfortable
about cycling.

Safety. One of these was concern about safety. In fact, cycling accident statistics had been improv-
ing markedly over the last several years. In 2006, there were 96 serious bike accidents, down from 252
in 1996, and the number of serious-casualties-per-million-kilometers-cycled had declined from .79 in
1995 to .22 in 2006. But citizens’ sense of safety while cycling had not seen a commensurate rise—in
fact had fallen from 60 percent in 1996 to 53 percent in 2006. In part, Bondam thought this was because
public awareness of safety issues had grown. A recent spate of media stories had reported accidents in
which cyclists had been killed at intersections by trucks turning right (the cause of four out of five cyclist
fatalities).

Choosing the Road Less Traveled 11 of 20 Case Number 2113.0

 There were several things that citizens talked about with respect to safety: dangerous intersections,
the inadequate width of cycle tracks on some streets during peak cycling hours, and the presence of
potholes, debris, or snow and ice on cycle tracks and on smaller roads without cycle tracks.

On his watch, the city redesigned or rebuilt several problem intersections. It also added pulled-back
stop lines for cars and trucks at 117 intersections, to improve cyclists’ visibility to motorists. At a range
of intersections, bicycles were given a four-second pre-green bicycle light, to get a head-start. In addi-
tion, the city painted bright blue bike paths through the intersections, to show where bicycles had the
right-of-way. Toward the end of Bondam’s term, the Technical and Environmental Administration had
moved to test solutions using ITS technology such as added sensors with LED lights at several problem
intersections, to alert truck drivers when bicyclists were approaching to their right.

Cycle track maintenance also received a budget boost, for improved cleaning and repair, and the city
added an online tip-line, where cyclists could report problem spots. Pre-commute snow removal was
also made a priority along cycle tracks.

Wider cycle tracks, to accommodate the increase in cyclists and new, bulky “cargo bikes,” used, of-
ten in place of cars, to cart about young children and shopping purchases, was a frequent item on cy-
clists’ wish lists, but a harder one to grant politically, as it generally meant taking even more road space
away from car traffic or car parking. But the city did redesign one cycle track and widened another. Bon-
dam argued that it was a matter of simple fairness: “You look at how people transport themselves on a
certain route. There were maybe 30 percent going in buses, 35 percent on bicycles, 10 percent in cars,
15 percent walking. And then of course you ask yourself, ‘Is it fair that the 10 percent going by car take
up 40 percent of the space?’ I don’t think so. I basically don’t think so.”

That said, Bondam admits that “if you come into a community saying, OK, we’re going to take away
15 parking spaces because we’re going to construct a bicycle track, there are always big big big fights.”
Even the success of past projects that prioritized pedestrians and bicycles over cars has not inoculated
the city against debates over similar future projects because, says Røhl, there is always the fear that Co-
penhagen will go too far: With any new project, “you can always argue, that’ll be the tipping point!”

One particularly controversial project concerned badly-congested Nørrebrogade, a major shopping

street that, in the average 24 hours, saw 40,000 bus passengers, 33,000 cyclists, 27,000 persons in cars,
and uncounted thousands of pedestrians. Bondam made a politically risky decision to close Nørrebro-
gade to through-traffic. He also introduced a cycling efficiency experiment, called the “Green Wave,” on
Nørrebrogade.

Efficiency. The idea behind the Green Wave was to synchronize traffic lights—not, as in the past, for
the benefit of car and bus traffic, but to accommodate bicycles. Thus, if a cyclist kept a steady pace of 20
km per hour, s/he should encounter green lights at each intersection, and not have to stop. Deemed a
success on Nørrebrogade, the Green Wave was expanded to three other major streets.

Choosing the Road Less Traveled 12 of 20 Case Number 2113.0

 Minding the gaps. Situated on a harbor, with neighborhoods divided by assorted canals and water-
ways, Copenhagen’s bicycle network of 2006—extensive as it was—was also full of obstacles to efficient
movement about town. Plans for the city’s first bicycle/pedestrian bridge across the harbor were al-
ready underway when Bondam arrived, and it was completed in 2006. During Bondam’s tenure, a sec-
ond bridge was built across a canal. In addition, he set the wheels in motion for the construction of
three other bridges, recruiting private donations to help in financing them. For some of the city’s large
companies, Bondam says, making charitable contributions to the funding of these bridges became a
popular way of showing community spirit, as the bridges were visible, durable, and popular. Because
they did not take space away from cars, the bridges were, in fact, less controversial than the city’s cycle
tracks.

Small touches. In addition to the big ticket items, like bridges and pedestrianized roads, the Copen-
hagen Bicycle Department experimented with smaller niceties during Bondam’s tenure that made biking
a little easier and showed the cyclists the city was looking out for them. For example, at busy intersec-
tions, the city set up hand rails with angled foot rests, allowing a cyclist to pause for the red light with-
out dismounting. Similarly, in a few locations, garbage bins, angled to face the bike paths, allowed cy-
clists to toss away trash without dismounting. And locked bins were strategically located, providing pro-
tected parking for four cargo bikes apiece.

Superhighways. In an effort to persuade more suburban motorists to swap out their car keys for the
bicycle, Copenhagen entered into agreements with surrounding cities to extend the city’s existing bicy-
cle network outward, creating 13 metro-area “superhighways” for bicyclists (a program later expanded).
The target for this initiative was the group of 100,000 suburbanites with a commute of 4 to 15 kilome-
ters into Copenhagen. About 15,000 of those were currently bicycling. The other 85,000 were driving, or
taking the bus or train. The idea was to make the routes direct and efficient, with service stations along
the way with air pumps and tools, and bike paths wide enough that two cyclists could ride together and
chat while a third could pass them.27

Hosting the Climate Talks

In 2007, midway through Bjerregaard’s and Bondam’s four-year term, the United Nations an-
nounced that its 2009 international Climate Conference would be hosted in Copenhagen. “Leading up to
it, I remember the Lord Mayor of Kyoto told us we really have to use that as a city,” Bondam recalls—
that the conference provided an opportunity for “strong city branding.”

Copenhagen decided to set out its own ambitious goal: to become the environmental capital of Eu-
rope, entirely carbon-neutral by 2025, and to become the “best cycling city in the world.” Though envi-
ronmental concerns, per se, had not been the driver behind Copenhagen’s evolving bicycle culture, city
analysts now calculated that if Copenhagen succeeded in bringing its modal share for commuters from
36 to 50 percent, as planned back in 2001, it would reduce the city’s CO₂ emissions by 80,000 tons per
year. Meantime, Copenhagen—which coined the name “Hopenhagen” for the conference—hosted a
meeting of city leaders in parallel to the UN talks. “The national governments—they were arguing about

Choosing the Road Less Traveled 13 of 20 Case Number 2113.0

quotas and technical support and all these things,” says Bondam. “Cities were the ones who were actu-
ally delivering on the sustainability agenda, the CO₂-reduction agenda.”

And that made sense, argued Bjerregaard in comments to fellow city leaders. According to the In-
ternational Energy Agency, the world’s cities consumed two-thirds of the world’s primary energy and
were responsible for more than 70 percent of all energy-related CO₂ emissions—a number that was ex-
pected to grow to 76 percent by 2030.28 Cities should be leading the charge to change that, and Copen-
hagen was happy to show off its environmentally-friendly centralized heating system, a waste-
management system focused on re-use and electricity-generation, its commitment to a healthy lifestyle
for its residents, lively public spaces, accessible parks and waterways, and, of course, its visible biking
infrastructure and 150,000 daily riders. The idea was to show that—far from being a dreary sacrifice—
creating a more environmentally sustainable city could be done in a way that also created a vibrant and
economically thriving city. “Working with CO₂ emissions in an urban context is also about making the
city more livable,” says Bondam. The message resonated. The Copenhagen approach—and in particular
its biking culture—were featured in dozens of international media stories.

Copenhagen bicycle advocates now look back on the 2006-2009 City Council term as a special time
for moving the city’s biking agenda forward. “Those two politicians, they were both living in Copenha-
gen, they were both cycling,” reflects Røhl. “I think they saw, there’s something here that affects peo-
ple’s daily lives. There’s something here that’s very cheap compared to most other election promises.
And there’s something here that makes sense to focus on more. So they lifted it up, shook it a bit, and
used it. And then realized, oh, this has good results. The citizens enjoy it. And all this international atten-
tion!”

2010 to the Present: Continued Gains, but Political Challenges

The Dynamic Duo of Bjerregaard as Lord Mayor and Bondam as “Bike Mayor” came to an end in
2009. Frustrated at the unreliability of securing a solid City Council majority behind some of her key pri-
orities—including affordable housing—Bjerregaard decided not to run for re-election in 2009.29 The new
leader of the Social Democrats, Frank Jensen, was from the centrist wing of the party. He became Lord
Mayor in 2010.

Bondam did run for re-election in 2009, but several issues, including lingering upset over the Nør-
rebrogade project, led to a drop in his vote total, compared to 2005. Through some fancy political foot-
work, he did secure the position of Employment and Integration Mayor after the 2009 election, but re-
signed from the Council in 2011 to take a position as director of the Danish Cultural Institute in Brussels,
Belgium. In 2014, he became director of the Danish Cyclists Federation.

The Technical and Environmental mayoralty in 2009 went to Bo Asmus Kjeldgaard of the left-leaning
Socialist People’s Party, also a strong advocate for biking, and passed within the party to Ayfer Baykal in
2011. During the next four years, the funding for cycling remained high and improvements in bike infra-
structure continued, including the opening of a new bike-and-pedestrian bridge in 2012. In addition,
Danish Railways began allowing cyclists to bring their bicycles onboard commuter trains for free in 2010.

Choosing the Road Less Traveled 14 of 20 Case Number 2113.0

But Jensen also joined with City Council conservatives to create 1,700 new parking spaces for cars in Co-
penhagen, and announced his support for a controversial tunnel for cars beneath the Copenhagen Har-
bor.30 In addition, the Danish national parliament put an end to Copenhagen’s proposed congestion pric-
ing idea, for cars driving into Copenhagen, in February 2012.

In the run-up to the 2013 election, the center-right Liberal Party and the leftwing Red-Green Alliance
squared off over traffic policy. (The Socialist People’s Party stumbled, for reasons unrelated to cycling,
and lost support during this election season.) The Liberal Party argued for a better “balance” between
the interests of motorists and cyclists, while the Red-Green Alliance argued that from a policy point of
view, cars belonged at the back of the transportation queue, behind bicycles and public transport. There
were rumors afloat that the Social Democrats might make a deal with the center-right Liberal Party, put-
ting it in charge of the Technical and Environmental mayoralty.31 But in the end, no such deal material-
ized. Jensen became Lord Mayor, and Morten Kabell, of the Red-Green Alliance, became Technical and
Environmental Mayor.

During Kabell’s tenure, a few more bike-and-pedestrian bridges, already in the pipeline, opened for
business, including Copenhagen’s iconic “Cycle Snake,” a striking orange squiggle that became an instant
hit in Copenhagen for its bold design and for the practical shortcut it afforded cyclists. (Before it had
opened, cyclists had been obliged either to take a roundabout route or to dismount and carry their bicy-
cles up or down a steep flight of stairs.)

Progress was not as swift as when Bjerregaard was Lord Mayor, Kabell says. “There’s no doubt that
the Social Democrats in Copenhagen and in Denmark in general have never been green. Or should I say,
they were green for four years—Lord Mayor Ritt Bjerregaard was quite green, quite active in pushing a
bicycle and transport agenda as well as the climate agenda. Otherwise, we have had to push the Social
Democrats into carrying through green policies.”

Still, the percent of all people commuting to work or school in Copenhagen by bicycle had risen to
more than 40 percent by 2014. What’s more, among Copenhagen residents who commuted to work or
school in the city, that figure was 63 percent. Officials conceded that such numbers might be temporari-
ly inflated by metro system construction in the city, which made car travel especially onerous. And some
officials, Kabell included, suspected that some commuters would shift to the metro, once that system
was entirely operational. But Kabell did not believe the city would ever go so far as to remove bicycle
infrastructure the way that, for example, Toronto, a city once thought to be one of North America’s
bike-friendliest had done in 2012. (Addressing an increase in cycling accidents in Toronto, outspoken
Mayor Rob Ford acted to remove bicycle lanes, arguing that “roads are built for buses, cars, and trucks,
not for people on bikes.” He compared cycling in a bike lane to “swimming with the sharks—sooner or
later you’re going to get bitten.”32)

“I can’t see that happening in Copenhagen, I must say,” says Kabell. Even the conservatives in Co-
penhagen have not argued against the bicycle, he notes; they’ve argued for “balance” between cars and
bikes. The question for Copenhagen, he believes, is whether the city will keep supporting new bicycling

Choosing the Road Less Traveled 15 of 20 Case Number 2113.0

initiatives—important to keep cycling viable as its popularity rises. The big need in the city at present, he
says, is for widening cycle tracks. “Many streets have capacity problems. I live on a street where, in the
morning, I look out on 8, 10, 12 cars waiting for a red light, but I see 300 bicycles waiting for a red light.”
At rush hour, cyclists might have to wait through three light changes to get through the intersection, he
adds. But the battle for how much space should be allotted to cars and how much to bicycles on Copen-
hagen streets is a perennial difficulty, he adds. “Even though 60 percent commute by bicycle, it’s still
controversial. I get angry mail from car owners telling me that I’m hating cars,” Kabell says. “Oh yeah.
It’s controversial.”

Choosing the Road Less Traveled 16 of 20 Case Number 2113.0

 f
Appendix 1. Municipal Government in Copenhagen

Parties in City Council as of 2013 (from Largest to Smallest) 33

Social Democrats: Nearly 150 years old and currently the largest party in Danish parliament,34
the Socialdemokraterne advocate for equality, social welfare, and environmental and economic
sustainability with an eye towards global solidarity.35 The party is considered left of center in
ideology. [16 seats]

Red-Green Alliance: Situated toward the far left of the Danish political spectrum, the Red-Green
Alliance is firmly anti-capitalist in its stance, epitomized in its slogan, “People not profit”; oppos-
es the European Union; and aims to include human rights and environmental stewardship as
core tenets.36 [11 seats]

Liberal Party: Though the party’s Danish name, Venstre, literally translates to “Left,” its stance is
generally right of center. While supportive of many progressive ideals, the party’s platform leans
toward free market solutions and private enterprise rather than government mandates.37 [7
seats]

Social Liberal Party: Originally formed from a split with the Liberal Party, Radikale Venstre (or
“Radical Left”) sits squarely at the center of Denmark’s political spectrum.38 [6 seats]

Socialist People’s Party: While it is less radical in stance than the Red-Green Alliance, the Social-
ist People’s Party similarly believes in the importance of environmental stewardship and fighting
inequality.39 [6 seats]

Danish People’s Party: Like many of the above parties, Dansk Folkeparti is a strong supporter of
social welfare; however, it presents a far more nationalistic brand of populism with a particular
focus on stricter immigration policy and Danish independence.40 It is the second largest party in
Danish parliament.41 [4 seats]

Conservative People’s Party: Not quite as far right as DPP, the Conservative party’s free-market
agenda aligns more closely with the Liberal Party. Konservative advocates for stricter immigra-
tion policies, a tougher approach to crime, a stronger national defense, and increased invest-
ment in renewable energy.42 [3 seats]

Liberal Alliance: One of Denmark’s newest political parties and more libertarian in stance, the
Liberal Alliance believes in strengthening the economy and social wellbeing by cutting taxes, re-
ducing bureaucracy, and increasing freedom of choice (e.g. in education, healthcare, etc.).43 [2
seats]

f
This appendix was prepared by Daniel Reinish.

Choosing the Road Less Traveled 17 of 20 Case Number 2113.0

Copenhagen City Council Makeup44

Notes

1
“The World Happiness Report” website, a project of the United Nations Sustainable Development Solutions Network,
http://worldhappiness.report/, retrieved April 4, 2017.
2
“The Year of Hygge, the Danish Obsession with Getting Cozy,” by Anna Altman, The New Yorker, December 18, 2016,
http://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/the-year-of-hygge-the-danish-obsession-with-getting-cozy, retrieved March
17, 2017.
3
In its Livable Cities Index, published annually since 2006, Monocle Magazine ranked Copenhagen at the top of its list in 2008,
2013, and 2014.
4
“Copenhagen, City of Cyclists, Bicycle Account 2014,” Technical and Environmental Administration, http://www.cycling-
embassy.dk/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Copenhagens-Biycle-Account-2014.pdf, retrieved April 4, 2017.
5
From Chapter 4, The Year of Living Danishly: Uncovering the Secrets of the World’s Happiest Country, by Helen Russell, Icon
Books, January 2015.
6
The Copenhagen page of holiday-weather.com, http://www.holiday-weather.com/copenhagen/averages/, retrieved March
23, 2017.
7
Unless otherwise noted, all comments from Andreas Røhl were taken from a telephone interview with Pamela Varley and
Quinton Mayne on March 8, 2017.
8
Introductory text on “The Blog,” by Copenhagenize Design Co., http://www.copenhagenize.com/, retrieved April 8, 2017.

Choosing the Road Less Traveled 18 of 20 Case Number 2113.0

9
Unless otherwise noted, all comments from Morten Kabell were taken from a telephone interview with Pamela Varley on
March 7, 2017.
10
“Cycling in Copenhagen,” by Simon Batterbury, Roskilde University, Denmark, personal website, 2002,
www.simonbatterbury.net, retrieved April 9, 2017.
11
Unless otherwise noted, all comments from Klaus Bondam were drawn from a telephone interview with Quinton Mayne and
Pamela Varley on March 6, 2017.
12
“The Traffic Development in Copenhagen, 1950-2015,” draft, January 30, 2016, CREATE, a research project funded by the
European Commission from 2015-2018, to tackle the problem of urban traffic congestion, http://www.create-
mobility.eu/create/home, retrieved April 9, 2017.
13
“Strøget was Opened with a Death Threat against the Mayor,” by Anders Hjort, Politiken, August 31, 2012, as translated
through Google Chrome, http://politiken.dk/kultur/art5451711/Str%C3%B8get-blev-indviet-med-mordtrusler-mod-
borgmesteren, retrieved April 4, 2017.
14
“The Traffic Development in Copenhagen, 1950-2015,” draft, January 30, 2016, CREATE, a research project funded by the
European Commission from 2015-2018, to tackle the problem of urban traffic congestion, http://www.create-
mobility.eu/create/home, retrieved April 9, 2017.
15
“How Copenhagen Became a Cycling City,” by Neils Jensen, City of Copenhagen, Technical and Environmental Administration,
Autumn 2009,
http://esteast.unep.ch/phocadownload/jensen%202009%20how%20copenhagen%20became%20a%20cycling%20city.pdf,
retrieved April 11, 2017.
16
“Danish History: How Copenhagen became bike-friendly again,” by John Greenfield, Grid Chicago, blog on sustainable trans-
portation in Chicago, December 9, 2012, http://gridchicago.com/2012/danish-history-how-copenhagen-became-bike-friendly-
again/, retrieved March 23, 2017.
17
“Danish History: How Copenhagen became bike-friendly again,” by John Greenfield, Grid Chicago, blog on sustainable trans-
portation in Chicago, December 9, 2012, http://gridchicago.com/2012/danish-history-how-copenhagen-became-bike-friendly-
again/, retrieved March 23, 2017.
18
“Danish History: How Copenhagen became bike-friendly again,” by John Greenfield, Grid Chicago, blog on sustainable trans-
portation in Chicago, December 9, 2012, http://gridchicago.com/2012/danish-history-how-copenhagen-became-bike-friendly-
again/, retrieved March 23, 2017.
19
Personal email, Niels Jensen to Quinton Mayne, November 18, 2016.
20
“Lanes and Limits Come and Go as the City’s Cyclists Go To and Fro,” by Mark Walker, The Copenhagen Post, May 2, 2016,
http://cphpost.dk/history/lanes-and-limits-come-and-go-as-the-citys-cyclists-go-to-and-fro.html, retrieved April 9, 2017.
21
“Lanes and Limits Come and Go as the City’s Cyclists Go To and Fro,” by Mark Walker, The Copenhagen Post, May 2, 2016,
http://cphpost.dk/history/lanes-and-limits-come-and-go-as-the-citys-cyclists-go-to-and-fro.html, retrieved April 9, 2017.
22
From Chapter 4, The Year of Living Danishly: Uncovering the Secrets of the World’s Happiest Country, by Helen Russell, Icon
Books, January 2015.
23
“Copenhagen, City of Cyclists, Bicycle Account 2004,” Building and Construction Administration, June 2005.
24
“Cycle Policy 2002-2012,” City of Copenhagen, Building and Construction Administration, July 2002.
25
“Capital Gets Its First Woman Mayor,” US Fed News, November 16, 2005, via Factiva News Service.
26
“S Shelves Ritt Victorious,” Politiken, November 15, 2005, as translated from Danish through Google Chrome,
http://politiken.dk/indland/art4866551/S-hylder-Ritt-som-sejrherre, retrieved April 11, 2017.
27
“Bicycle Commuter Superhighways in Copenhagen,” Copenhagenize blog, August 18, 2009,
http://www.copenhagenize.com/2009/08/bicycle-commuter-superhighways-in.html, retrieved April 9, 2017.
28
“From Bike Lanes to Wood Chips, Mayors from Cities Worldwide Compare Notes at Climate Talks,” Waterloo Chronicle, De-
cember 14, 2009, from the Factiva News Service.
29
“Ritt: I Cannot Achieve My Goals,” by Jens Peter Houe, Politiken, March 23, 2009, as translated from Danish through Google
Chrome, http://politiken.dk/indland/politik/art5705381/Ritt-Jeg-kan-ikke-opn%C3%A5-mine-m%C3%A5l, retrieved April 10,
2017.
30
“The Copenhagen Election 2013—Cars vs. Bikes,” Copenhagenize blog, November 4, 2013,
http://www.copenhagenize.com/2013/11/copenhagen-election-2013-cars-vs-bikes.html, retrieved April 9, 2017.

Choosing the Road Less Traveled 19 of 20 Case Number 2113.0

31
“The Copenhagen Election 2013—Cars vs. Bikes,” Copenhagenize blog, November 4, 2013,
http://www.copenhagenize.com/2013/11/copenhagen-election-2013-cars-vs-bikes.html, retrieved April 9, 2017.
32
“Cyclists Accuse Toronto Mayor Ford of ‘War on Bikes,’” by Jason Margolis, PRI’s The World, May 3, 2012,
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-17914504, retrieved April 10, 2017.
33
Discussion of parties’ relative position on the political spectrum adapted from: Jan-Erik Lane and Svante Ersson. “The Nordic
Countries: Compromise and Corporatism in the Welfare State,” in Comparative European Politics, ed. Josep M. Colomer (New
York: Routledge, 2008), 260.
34
“The Danish Social Democrats,” Danish Institute for Parties and Democracy, accessed February 27, 2017,
http://dipd.dk/about/danish-political-parties/danish-social-democrats/.
35
“Vores politik,” Socialdemokratiet, accessed February 27, 2017, http://www.socialdemokratiet.dk/da/politik/.
36
“The Red-Green Alliance,” Enhedslisten, accessed February 27, 2017, http://org.enhedslisten.dk/red-green-alliance-0.
37
“Venstre mener,” Venstre, accessed February 27, 2017, http://www.venstre.dk/politik/venstre-mener.
38
“The Danish Social-Liberal Party (Radikale Venstre),” Danish Institute for Parties and Democracy, accessed February 27, 2017,
http://dipd.dk/about/danish-political-parties/social-liberal-party/.
39
“Vi bliver rigere uden grådighed,” Socialistisk Folkeparti, accessed February 27, 2017, http://sf.dk/det-vil-vi/det-vil-vi.
40
“Mærkesager,” Dansk Folkeparti, accessed February 27, 2017, http://www.danskfolkeparti.dk/M%C3%A6rkesager.
41
“The Danish People’s Party (Dansk Folkeparti),” Danish Institute for Parties and Democracy, accessed February 27, 2017,
http://dipd.dk/about/danish-political-parties/danish-peoples-party/.
42
“Mærkesager,” Det Konservative Folkeparti, http://konservative.dk/politik/maerkesager/.
43
“Liberal Alliances 2025-plan,” Liberal Alliance, accessed February 27, 2017, https://www.liberalalliance.dk/2025plan/.
44
"Kronologisk liste med København Kommunes borgmester fra 1847 og frem," Københavns Biblioteker, accessed March 7,
2017, https://bibliotek.kk.dk/raadhusbibliotekets-online-resurser/borgerrepraesentationen/borgmestre.
“København Kommune: Den nye Kommunalbestyrelse,” 2001, accessed March 7, 2017,
http://www.kmdvalg.dk/kv/2001/km025101.htm.
“København Kommune: Den nye Kommunalbestyrelse,” 2005, accessed March 7, 2017,
http://www.kmdvalg.dk/kv/2005/am400101.htm.
“København Kommune: Den nye Kommunalbestyrelse,” 2009, accessed March 7, 2017,
http://www.kmdvalg.dk/kv/2009/km84982101.htm.
“København Kommune: Den nye Kommunalbestyrelse,” 2013, accessed March 7, 2017,
http://kmdvalg.dk/kv/2013/km84982101.htm.

Choosing the Road Less Traveled 20 of 20 Case Number 2113.0