One of the biggest differences in transportation design and planning between the U.S. and the Netherlands is the policies regarding separating bicycles from traffic. In the United States, there is no criteria for when traffic and cyclists should be separated1. Often, this leads to cyclists riding in heavy motorized traffic. This is justified by the assumption cyclists care more about speed and direct routes than being separated from motor traffic1. Also, by having cyclists use bike lanes on the shoulder of the road the government saves money. While separated facilities are never required in the U.S., different facilities like bike lanes and cycle tracks are optional and gaining popularity. This policy sharply constants with that of the Netherlands. The Netherlands have very clear policies for separating bicycles from heavy traffic to ensure safety and comfort of cyclists1. In urban areas, cycle tracks are expected to physically separate the two modes of transportation on any road with more than two lanes or speed limits over 50km/hr1. Bike lanes are only recommended in Dutch design when roads only have two lanes and no parking lanes1. Bike lanes not part of new road designs in the Netherlands and the old ones are being converted to cycle tracks1. These separation policies are mimicked in Denmark, Germany and the United Kingdom1.
Dramatically different biking trends seem to follow the divide of the design policies. The bike share of trips in the United States is only about 1%, compared to about 26% in the Netherlands2. The difference is also seen in distance biked per day per capita, with the United States averaging only .1km and the Netherlands averaging 2.5km2. Even the most bike friendly cities in the US have a smaller bike share of trips than the least bike friendly cities in the Netherlands2. Trip purpose differs between the two countries as well and I believe it can be argued that the design policies play a role in that. In the Netherlands, biking is mainly a practical activity. It is a popular method of transportation to commute to work and school or go shopping, which combined make up 54% of bike trips there2. On the other hand, utilitarian trips are not as popular in the States, only making up 25% of bike trips2. Only 27% of trips in the Netherlands are recreational, as compared to over 60% in the U.S.2. I think this directly relates to the policies the countries have regarding cyclist separation. In the Netherlands, cyclists feel comfortable and safe biking to go to work or go shopping because they are not mixed into the general population of cars. Because they have cycle tracks lining the streets, they can follow direct routes they would take in a car, making commuting by bicycle convenient. In the U.S. a lot of the separated trails, where most bikers feel comfortable, are only useful for recreation, like in parks. Most parks, like Piedmont Park, are closed to motorized traffic, but those paths aren’t useful to commute anywhere. This just encourages people in the U.S. to not rely on bikes as a convenient and safe form of transportation, only a source of recreation.
After reading through all the literature and articles regarding bike design in the Netherlands, I am so excited to go see it for myself! The benefits of cycling are obvious, including that it’s healthier, more sustainable, has zero emissions and more space efficent3. Biker safety increases with number of bikers, and number of bikers increases with implementation of pro-bike policy3. Despite the cultural and topographical changes, I hope the U.S. starts following in the footsteps of the Netherlands.
- City Cycling, Chapter 12, Pucher and Buehler, 2012
- City Cycling, Chapter 12, Pucher and Buehler, 2012
- Dutch Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management (2009) Cycling in the Netherlands".
