In a broad sense, transportation planning and design in the Netherlands is based on an overall system-wide perspective. The country’s Summary National Policy Strategy for Infrastructure and Spatial Planning states that the comprehensive vision for Netherlands in 2040 is to make it “competitive, accessible, livable, and safe”. This goal does not specifically single out any one mode of transportation; rather, it views the country as a whole, with different parts (e.g. the bicycle transportation network) that interact to make the system function. This is one of the main reasons why the overall transportation system of the Netherlands has been so successful—each part of the transportation network is analyzed with other parts in mind, and, as a result, the different parts cooperate well with each other. This can be juxtaposed with traditional planning strategies in the United States, where, at least in the past, each part of the transportation network has largely been developed in isolation of other parts. For example, here in the United States, the AASHTO Green Book is the prevailing guide for designing roadways. While it does discuss bicycle facilities to a certain extent, AASHTO has also produced a separate guide, the Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities, which focuses specifically on bicycle infrastructure. Even though these two modes interact frequently, they are covered in separate design guides.
A wonderful example of integrating two modes of transportation is the Netherland’s interface of bicycling and public transit, as detailed in chapter 8 of Pucher and Buehler’s City Cycling. To start, bicycle parking is present at most, if not all, train stations in the Netherlands. The country had 325,000 bicycle parking spots at train stations as of 2012 (Pucher and Buehler), and has been increasing that number ever since. Bicycle parking can range in terms of protection from the weather and security from theft. In 2012, the Netherlands had 85,000 guarded bicycle parking spaces (Pucher and Buehler), which offer protection from theft via a parking lot attendant. Bike lockers are also common in the Netherlands, with 15,500 in 2012 (Pucher and Buehler). Additionally, bike rental programs are also common in the Netherlands. These are called OV-Fiets, and they allow users to rent bikes at a train station to get to their final destination.
Integrating bicycles and public transit solves both the problems of first/last mile movement as well as bicycling for longer trips. The problem of first/last-mile movement is that there aren’t always viable methods available when a transit user needs to get from their origin to a transit stop or from a transit stop to their destination. The aforementioned integration of the two modes provides quick and easy transfers between bicycles and transit, allowing bicycles to be the viable method for most users. Additionally, one drawback of bicycling is that longer trips can be difficult for some users, due to the physical strain of riding for extended periods of time. By utilizing transit, riders can now make longer trips with their bicycle, and avoid the need for car ownership.
Integrating bicycles and public transit, is a great way of promoting the comprehensive vision that the country has set out to achieve. The economic gains of having bikeable and walkable cities make the country very competitive. Transit creates accessibility for citizens both in terms of socioeconomics as well as ability, and bicycling is accessible from a socioeconomic standpoint. Livability increases dramatically when bicycling makes up a significant mode share. And, lastly, the design of bicycle facilities ensures the safety of riders and other road users.
References
Pucher, J. R., & Buehler, R. (2012). City Cycling. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Ministry of Infrastructure and Water Management . (2018). Cycling Facts [Brochure]. The Hague, Netherlands. Lucas Harms and Maarten Kansen.
Summary National Policy Strategy for Infrastructure and Spatial Planning (Publication). (2011). The Hague, Netherlands: Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment.
The cycling share in the Netherlands is a massive 29%, and this is evident by the planning efforts and motions put in place. A central component of the Dutch national policy for infrastructure planning is assuring connection between transport modes and maintaining of safety and culture, all while reducing congestion and environmental impacts (Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment, 2013).
Looking at the actual design, the Dutch favor standalone paths; these are the ideal mode for cyclists, but they are generally restricted to parks, waterways, or areas with enough right of way to support them. The most common bicycle facility in the Netherlands is cycle tracks, which are separated from main traffic, but still follow the same path as the main roadway. Cycle tracks are enjoyable for users who only have to worry about interactions with vehicles at intersection; even then, the Dutch use signage, driveway conversion, and pocketing to help with this. Traffic calming has also become popular, especially in cities like Houten, where vehicular traffic is restricted to an outer rim of the downtown; this not only improves cyclist comfort and mobility, but acts as an incentive for increased cycling.
Bike integration with public transportation is also quite notable: quickly looking at the facts, there are 325,000 bike parking stations at train stations, 15,546 bike lockers, and 84,660 spots at full service bike stations in the Netherlands. There is a mutual relationship between the two – bicycles support getting to stations, and stations support long bike trips; for many, a daily commute consists of both transportation modes. In fact, 39% of Dutch rail users get to the station by bicycle (Harms & Kansen, 2018).
Dutch cycling is extremely inclusive; 56% of cyclists are women, and cyclists under the age of 17 have become a core group in infrastructure design. Education is key – this comes in the form of mandatory bicycle training programs for kids. Growth hasn’t stagnated either; the Dutch have seen an increase in cycling for work and leisure trips, as well as growth in urban areas. Additionally, there has been increased use in both under 30 and over 60 demographics. The Dutch believe cycling not only diversifies infrastructure, supports the environment, and saves money, but also actually improves people: their health, happiness, and mobility (Harms & Kansen, 2018).
Comparing the United States
The United States has a much different planning approach to cycling, and there is very little guidance in AASHTO and other design manuals about specific cycling infrastructure requirements. This has resulted in bike infrastructure becoming more of an afterthought in most design aspects, with exceptions in cities such as Davis, Portland, and Washington. Obviously, the diverse geographical and social climate of the US means that cycling is not advantageous everywhere, but there are some clear instances where necessary biking infrastructure must be improved.
Where the Dutch thrive with cycle tracks, standalone paths, and traffic calming, the United States prefers methods like bike lanes and sharrows. Bike lanes are effective in distinguishing a clear line between vehicles, however there are many fundamental issues, like right hook conflicts and car doors hitting cyclists. Another popular method is sharrows, which are very easy to add to an existing corridor without much change to vehicle capacity; the problem is the lack of control these arrows offer to cyclists, who are pushed far to the side of the centerline, and have limited ability to influence vehicular behaviors. Looking at public transportation, the US is far behind the Netherlands in bike facilities; only 38,280 spots in the whole United States (compared to the 325,000 in the Netherlands) (Harms & Kansen, 2018). In part, this is due to the large network of transportation facilities already in the Netherlands; most bike routes already connect to stations. The United States has to be more intentional about location, as most cycle paths are not near the stations to begin with.
Fundamental Difference and the Implications
The fundamental difference between cycling in the Netherlands versus the United States is the juxtaposition with road traffic; the Dutch see a “need for separation from fast, heavy traffic” while Americans support “a policy of integrating bikes with traffic” (Pucher & Buehler, 2012). This idea has become the critical juncture in policy planning in the two countries. The Dutch have very strict separation guidelines, based on their bicycle facility selection matrix; bicycling is only mixed with vehicles at low ADTs, and even then, low speed limits are required – full cycle tracks are always favored over simple bicycle lanes (CROW, 2017). Meanwhile, the United States suffers from a lack of criteria regarding bicycle infrastructure – no limit to traffic, speed, or number of lanes. Cycling in the US is regarded as a problem that cannot really be solved, with preference to the vehicular cycling theory as opposed to separated bike paths; the Netherlands proves against this theory.
Although behind compared to Europe, the United States has begun the process of better cycling integration. Adding bicycle holding facilities on buses and allowing bikes on rail support city bike use (despite the flaws during capacity). Additionally, car-free promotion programs have taken off; for example, the Atlanta Streets Alive events temporarily closes off main streets to allow for increased biking and pedestrian usage (Atlanta Bicycle Coalition, 2019). The problem of low cycling popularity in the US is quite a simple paradox: there are few bikers, so little infrastructure is needed; because there is little infrastructure, the cycling community will not expand. So, in the words of the great film Field of Dreams: “If you build it, they will come.”
I find it fascinating that some of the best biking towns in the United States, for example Davis, California, were developed by individuals who spent time in the Netherlands. Learning this makes me even more excited about traveling to the Netherlands in less than a month! Cycling leads to a longer and healthier life, is quieter than vehicles, and offers greater independence when biking infrastructure is readily available (Harms and Kansen 2018). Currently the percentage of trips taken by bicycle in the Netherlands is 26% and is less than 1% in the United States (Pucher and Buehler 2012). So why is it that biking is much more prevalent in the Netherlands than in the US? Let’s dive in.
Transportation Policies and Planning
To understand how cycling infrastructure looks today, we first must look at policies and how funding is received for transportation planning and design. Since the 1970s, the Netherlands’ policies shifted to favor cycling over motorized traffic because of roadway congestion, traffic injuries and fatalities, and environmental pollution. Because the public voiced their concerns over safety, policies still today at the local level recognize and address safety. The Dutch have done more than in the US to restrict car use and make it more expensive. Some examples include establishing car-free zones, traffic-calmed neighborhoods, and raising taxes and other charges on car ownership, use, and parking (Pucher and Buehler 2012).
The Dutch central government’s main goals include creating a safe environment which is pleasant to live, strengthening its spatial infrastructure, and securing space for accessibility (Dutch 2013). The national government mandates national cycling policies, dedicates funding, and coordinates the dissemination of information practices and planning tools. Local jurisdictions develop their own bicycle plans, determine policies such as speed limit and traffic calming of residential streets (Pucher and Buehler 2012).
Planning Approaches for Cyclists
Both countries have similar transportation goals. A fundamental difference in planning approach is the way both countries classify cyclists. The US distinguishes users that value efficiency (getting from point A to point B), and users that value separation from motor traffic for safety. The Dutch do not separate users, and so design for most people that want the most direct path for cycling separate to motor traffic. This approach favors cyclists over motorists. The US has pursued policies of bike and motor traffic integration designing for speed, whereas specific criteria considering traffic volume and speed are used to determine biking infrastructure design in the Netherlands (Pucher and Buehler 2012). A simple version of their bike standards from low traffic volume and low speed to high traffic volume and high speed is:
Mixed traffic bike lanes cycle tracks
Mixed traffic is where cyclists share the street with motor traffic with no dedicated cycling space. Bike lanes are typically striped and recommended for roads with two lanes and no parking lanes. Cycle tracks are physically separated from moving motor traffic by a barrier such as a curb or parked cars, and are distinct from the sidewalk.
Separated bike paths are never recommended in US guidelines, and no criteria is provided for when cyclists should be separated from fast or heavy moving traffic. This means that roadways with six lanes of traffic going approximately 65 mph are acceptable for cyclists. Mixed traffic on multilane roads is never acceptable in the Netherlands (Pucher and Buehler 2012).
To dive further into design differences, let’s compare design in city centers. For traffic calming in city centers, the Dutch have used ring roads, such as the figure eight road in Houten, that wraps around the outside of the city and have many access points for low stress riding in the city, not open to cars. This design approach incentivizes cycling since streets are more accessible by bike. It also improves air quality and the use of public space in city centers as bike parking takes up 1/10 the space of car parking (Harms 2018).
Figure 1: Houten City Center Ring Road (Source: Google Maps)
In the US, several cities have a grid network of roads that are advantageous in making selected streets “bicycle boulevards” which are often low speed and most optimum for biking infrastructure. This makes bike routes just as direct as motor vehicle routes to satisfy users getting from point A to point B (Pucher and Buehler 2012).
Figure 2: Atlanta City Center Grid Network (Source: Google Maps)
Next Steps
Development of bicycling infrastructure has been hindered in the US by popular interests, national engineering guidance biased in favor of vehicular cycling and funding for bikeway improvements. Recent bicycle ridership programs in the Netherlands have spawned more people riding in urban areas. Growth of bicycle ridership in the US can create public pressure and a political climate that makes additional funding possible (Harms and Kansen 2018). Just as the Dutch made children’s safety and traffic safety a major public concern, when safety is coupled with bicycle infrastructure in the US, it is possible that funding for bicycling infrastructure will be secured. Maybe then we will start to see prevalent bike infrastructure in city centers.
At this point in our class, and probably long before now, it’s strikingly evident that the Dutch model of bike infrastructure far outpaces that of the United States. But the readings from Ralph Buehler and John Pucher provide a larger contextual lens to view other societies through. Unsurprisingly, the Netherlands still takes the cake compared to other countries; however, Buehler and Pucher examined other cities in Germany, Denmark, Canada, Australia, and the United States to get a full picture of where the West is in terms of sustainable transportation. Overall, the Europeans, particularly Denmark, Germany, and the Netherlands, are strides ahead of Canada, Australia, and the United States. Their combinations of policies, built environments, and cultural values have made them the prime example of how a country can revolutionize its transportation systems. Not only do these countries focus on roadway design as part of their bike integration method; they use programming to educate their citizens on safety; they provide proper infrastructure for parking and maintaining bikes; they even implement policies to discourage people from buying and using automobiles. With the effort that our European engineering and policy-making counterparts put into bicycling, it’s no wonder why their citizens do it so much more frequently. In the United States, bike trips account for 1% of the total trips taken by commuters. In the Netherlands, it’s 26% (Pucher and Bueler 2012). 26%! Talk about a stark contrast. So, what can the United States learn from our friends across the Atlantic?
How do they do it?
There is a vast number of pages that the United States can take from the Europeans’ metaphorical bicycle playbook. The first is safety. It’s difficult to properly emphasize just how much a cycling experience improves when people feel safe. One way that some European countries emphasize safety is by building it into the curriculum of grade school. German school children must take and pass a course on bicycle safety as part of their coursework (Pucher and Bueler 2012). By educating its citizens early, Germany not only gives people the right tools and knowledge to be able to ride bikes; it also emphasizes bike-riding from an early age. This can help influence culture in a way that makes commuters more inclined to select two wheels. Additionally, the design of roadways in European countries allows riders to feel confident in their own personal safety. Separated cycle tracks allow for a more comfortable cycling experience. Traffic calming devices like speed bumps make cars go slower. More inclusive intersection designs make the most dangerous points in commutes easy to navigate (see my second post for more details!). The increased levels of safety have a few important effects. One is that they reduce the risk of serious injury to people on bikes. Riders in the United States are nearly 20 times more likely to be injured while on a bike than are riders in the Netherlands (Pucher and Bueler 2012). Another effect, and one that might not be as obvious as the former, is that safety increases the number of bike-riders. If someone feels safer riding a bike, they are more likely to do so!
Another way that some of these European countries work to increase the number of bike riders is by integrating bikes into their public transport options. For instance, the Netherlands uses large bike parking facilities located near train stations to allow for commuters to store their bike safely while they take a train to their destination. This allows longer trips, which could be made in a car, to be made instead with a combination of biking and riding transit. In contrast, the United States tries to directly integrate bikes with transit by allowing for bikes on certain train cars and by using bike racks on buses. While these policies are progressive in that they enable commuters to take their bikes with them, it is limited in how many bikers it can truly accommodate. While a train station bike parking facility in the Netherlands could have over 3000 spaces, a bus rack can only carry a tiny fraction of that (Pucher and Bueler 2012).
In addition to making biking safe and integrating bikes into transit, another tactic European countries implore to increase cycling is by making automobile usage and ownership less economical than biking. To do this, they implement large taxes on the purchase of cars. While taxes on car purchases are low in the US (usually around 10-20%), they can reach up to 180% in the Netherlands (Pucher and Bueler 2012). That’s a staggering difference, and it makes it clear why cars aren’t more popular among the Dutch. Along with making purchasing a vehicle more expensive, the Dutch and other European countries also use taxes on fuel to make driving more of a financial burden. By making fuel almost twice as expensive as it is in the US, cycling emerges as an extremely economic alternative for transportation. It’s a financial no-brainer! This is yet another example of how simple policy changes can lead to a better, more sustainable transportation network.
Takeaways
In the past 50 years, the cultures of Europe and the United States have had very different approaches to cycle integration into their respective transportation infrastructure. While Forester’s “antibikeway philosophy” of smaller, more unsafe shared bike lanes prevailed in the United States for a few decades, policies far more progressive, like protected cycle tracks, won out in Europe (Pucher and Bueler 2012). As a result, major US cities are far behind major Dutch, German, and Danish cities in terms of bike usage. For instance, Portland has the highest percentage of bike trips of any major US city at 6%, but that’s equal to the German city with the lowest percentage, Stuttgart. In the Netherlands overall, that number is 27% (Harms and Kansen 2018)! Clearly, there is a great deal of ground to be made up if the US ever wants to have transportation as progressive and integrated as the Europeans’. Luckily, there have been great strides in the past 15 years to progress towards that goal. Cycle tracks have become much more prevalent in cities; municipalities have increasingly recognized the need to integrate bikes into other transit options; proper design policies have even crept their way into design manuals for engineers. There are even companies and initiatives that have been created in the past two years that are accelerating the rate of bicycle infrastructure development like city-wide shared bike programs and Uber’s Jump bike initiative. The fact that we as civil engineers even get to take a class like this is evidence of the growing awareness of the need for sustainable infrastructure. Overall, what’s most exciting to me is that there were numerous leaders in American sustainable transport who had been specifically influenced by time spent in the Netherlands. Maybe that could be one of us! What is certain, though, is that if the United States' plan is even half as ambitious as the Dutch vision laid out in the National Policy Strategy for Infrastructure and Spatial Planning, we'll be well on our way to meaningful change.
Harms, L., & Kansen, M. (2018, April 1). Cycling Facts 2018. Retrieved from https://www.government.nl/ministries/ministry-of-infrastructure-and-water-management/documents/reports/2018/04/01/cycling-facts-2018
Summary National Policy Strategy for Infrastructure and Spatial Planning. (2013, July 24). Retrieved from https://www.government.nl/ministries/ministry-of-infrastructure-and-water-management/documents/publications/2013/07/24/summary-national-policy-strategy-for-infrastructure-and-spatial-planning
The readings presented a lot of ideas that were logical, and a few that made me double check the statistics. Cycling has been growing in most major cities since the turn of the century, but the Netherlands is on another level from the U.S. in terms of spending, use, and knowledge. The Dutch have figured out the most effective ways to balance motor traffic with cyclists and pedestrians, keep everyone safe, and incentive sustainable transportation. Americans are beginning to recognize the environmental and health benefits of cycling, but there is a long way to go before it is reasonably safe for all cyclists.
I was particularly surprised by the discussion of helmets in the safety chapter of City Cycling. Helmets have always been praised in the U.S. for making cycling safe, but safety really depends on infrastructure and separation from vehicles. Helmets are often used to compensate for a lack of cycling skill and people are more likely to take safety risks when wearing them. Laws enforcing helmet use do more to reduce cycling than reduce head injuries, which ultimately makes cycling less safe (Pucher 2012). I will continue to wear a helmet when cycling in the U.S., but I am looking forward to cycling without one in the Netherlands and feeling the difference.
Differences Between Netherlands and U.S.
John Forester’s vehicular cycling policy has set back American cycling infrastructure as the Dutch have excelled and developed. Forester convinced Americans that cyclists are most safe when they act as and are treated as vehicles because that is how drivers notice them (Pucher 2012). The Netherlands has proven the opposite, with greater safety for cyclists when they are separated from cars, especially at high speeds. The Dutch separate cyclists from cars on any road above 20 mph, and they have the highest use and lowest injury rates of any country in the world (Pucher 2012). The figure below shows the percentage of trips taken by bicycle for several countries, and the Netherlands leads the pack by a comfortable margin (Harms 2018). The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), still does not endorse or aid in the design of separated bike paths. Some U.S. cities have taken advice from the Dutch, and incorporated cycle tracks and separated paths into their biking networks. The National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) has released an Urban Bikeway Design Manual with specific guidance for U.S. cities attempting to design Dutch-style cycle infrastructure (Pucher 2012).
Figure 1: Bike Share by Country (Harms 2018)
There are also striking differences in bicycle-related policy between the United States and the Netherlands. Schools in the Netherlands provide safe cycling training for children so that they know how to interact with other travelers and interpret road signs. Dutch driver education also covers interactions with cyclists and pedestrians and makes vulnerable modes of travel a priority. Such programs in the U.S. focus only on the drivers and their safety in relation to other drivers. The Netherlands also has laws that make drivers responsible for all collisions with children and elderly cyclists (Pucher 2012). People of all ages and abilities ride bikes in the Netherlands because of their safe systems, as opposed to the U.S. where most cyclists are fit adult males. Government spending on cycling is also much higher in the Netherlands. Portland, one of the most pro-cycling cities in America, spends about 10 times less per resident per year than Amsterdam (Pucher 2012).
Impact of Differences
The Dutch have created a beautiful model for how cycling can help a country. A switch from cars to bikes decreases air and noise pollution, makes people healthier, and costs less for infrastructure than cars. American cities are beginning to recognize the importance of cycling and incorporate Dutch systems into new infrastructure projects, but many areas of the country still have poor or no cycling systems. There will need to be a cultural shift, a dedication to funding, and most importantly an acceptance of Dutch methods in the United States. Many Americans will likely retaliate against increased taxes on drivers, reduced travel speeds, and more space dedicated to cycling, but it is important to consider the greater good and the long-term benefits of increased cycling. If the U.S. dedicates time and money to cycling, they could slowly approach Dutch levels of sustainability in transportation.
Sources
Harms, L., & Kansen, M. (2018, April). Cycling Facts: Netherlands Institute for Transport Policy Analysis.
Pucher, J. R., & Buehler, R. (2012). City Cycling. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Summary National Policy Strategy for Infrastructure and Spatial Planning. (2011). Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment.
Contrasting American and Dutch Transportation Design
You are a doctor. A sick patient enters your office and asks what illness they have. What is the first question you ask?
“What are your symptoms?”
A similar approach can be used to evaluate transportation planning practices across countries. We must first evaluate the impacts of the differences, and then determine what caused the impacts.
Transportation System Impacts
When asked to contrast the transportation planning and design priorities and processes between the Netherlands and the United States, Figure 1 tell us all we need to know about the final symptoms of each country regarding bicycling. The United States has a 1% and 0.5% bike mode share for all trips and work trips, respectively. The Netherlands experiences 26% bike mode share. With deeper analysis, we find that even the most bike-centric cities in the United States (Davis, CA 15.5%) hardly rival the least bike-oriented cities in the Netherlands (Rotterdam 16%) (Pucher, 2012).
Figure 1: Percent Bike Trips by Country (Harms, 2018)
Transportation Policies and Culture
We must ask ourselves, what caused such a disparity in bike usage between these two countries? Of course we can point to geographic differences. The United States is both more expansive and, in general, hillier than the Netherlands. However, it is necessary to look deeper at the design of Dutch transportation and the transportation policies and culture as it contrasts to the United States’. We often draw a link between car ownership and car-centricity, but the Netherlands disproves that theory. Almost all Dutch households have cars, similar to the United States, but the bike usage numbers are drastically different (Pucher, 2012). In the United States, we see car ownership as a status symbol, whereas the Netherlands does not buy into that culture. They use cars for utility, but if a bike ride serves the same purpose, then a user is not seen as inferior. The higher gasoline retail prices in the Netherlands (about three times the United States’ cost) probably contributes to the higher bike usage as well (Pucher, 2012). European policies also make driving more expensive in concert with the provision of bike infrastructure to drive the shift from car to bike. Safety, a major influencer of a person’s decision to bike, is a priority in the Netherlands, shown by 1/5 as many cyclist fatalities as the United States (Pucher, 2012). Cars and bikes often contradict each other from a safety perspective. If there are more cars nearby, we are less likely to ride our bikes. That is why the United States primarily bikes for pleasure, often driving our cars to secluded trails just to bike. Cycling training for all Dutch children in school contributes to the overall safety of the biking system.
Physical System Design
The Dutch see the separation of modes as a “fundamental principle” to their transportation system, a view that the United States does not share. This has various positive implications like increased safety for both parties, traffic calming measures, and more efficient bike throughput. To summarize the difference, the Dutch bikeway design manual almost never recommends a bike lane in the street with vehicular traffic. In contrast, AASHTO’s Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities does not provide criteria for separated facilities, and often rely on narrow bike lanes, sharrows, and signage to accommodate the biking population (Pucher, 2012). AASHTO asserts that comfort and speed of bikers are mutually exclusive. In fact, AASHTO has followed John Forrester’s vehicular cycling (VC) theory, which suggests that bikers are safer in the mix with vehicular traffic rather than separated. Their proclivity to build on street bike infrastructure is a testament to their dedication to the VC principle, as well as the associated budgetary savings (Pucher, 2012). The Dutch do not abide by that theory and design their infrastructure accordingly. Aside from purely providing a safe and comfortable path from point A to B, the Dutch prioritize the integration of their bike network with public transit. From the sea of bike parking at transit stations and ample storage space on busses and trains to the ability to rent bikes at transit stations, the Dutch continuously make it easier to ride a bike (Pucher, 2012). While the United States has progressed in on-transit bike storage in recent years, it is nowhere near the volume to make a significant difference.
Overall, the differences between Dutch and American bikeway design and culture are significant deterrents to bike usage here in the states. But it's better late than never! Some of the more progressive and bike-oriented cities in the United States have started to employ Dutch principles and have seen success and growth in their biking population. We should see those successes as a pilot program and institutionalize changes in our design manuals to better accommodate biking as a real mode of transportation. Once the physical design allows for safe and comfortable travel, our culture will shift.
As transportation planners, we can be the doctors treating our sick patient, the potential for biking in America. We know the symptoms and the causes of the sickness, now we have the opportunity to prescribe a solution.
References
Harms, L. & Kansen, M. (2018). Cycling Facts [PDF file]. Ministry of Infrastructure and Water Management. Retrieved from https://www.government.nl/documents/reports/2018/04/01/cycling-facts-2018
Pucher, J. & Buehler, R. (2012). City Cycling. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
This week, we were tasked with reading a few chapters of a book called City Cycling and a couple of reports from the Dutch government. These are a few of my initial thoughts, though I had many other thoughts while reading.
When reading about bicycle policy in the Netherlands compared to the United States, it immediately struck me that the Dutch are willing to put money into bike infrastructure and that they give preference to bikes over cars in situations where money or space does not allow for cycle tracks, such as in their advisory bike lanes, shown in the picture below. It is also clear that the United States’ policy regarding bicycle infrastructure has been misguided and misled into the practice of blaming bicycle riders for their lack of skill rather than blaming a lack of safe infrastructure for the embarrassingly low numbers of cyclists on the roads. Cities like Davis, CA, and Portland, OR, where planners were inspired by European biking, are of the few in the United States that have taken a more Dutch approach to bicycle infrastructure. Those cities where the infrastructure is built, have seen increases in biking. This goes to show that the Dutch have the right ideas when designing for the “traffic intolerant” bicyclists. (Pucher & Buehler, 2012)
What I mean about the Dutch way of designing is that they do not tolerate bicyclists having to share the road with motorized vehicles unless speeds are extremely low (less than 20 mph), no centerline is painted on the roadway, and no parking is along the roadway (Pucher & Buehler, 2012). This is the equivalent to riding a bike in a suburban neighborhood in the United States. In almost all other situations in the Netherlands, the bike infrastructure is separated with a curb or barrier from both motorized traffic and pedestrian traffic.
One of the main reasons the United States justifies putting bicyclists in the road with motorized vehicles is because of the threat of a vehicle not seeing a bicyclist at an intersection when the driver is turning right and the bicyclist is continuing forward. The Dutch fix this problem at minor intersections by having the cycle track raised, so that the presence of bicyclists is brought to the attention of the driver. At major intersections, the Dutch implement roundabouts, have cycle tracks continue around the corner to provide space for queuing, grade-separate vehicles and bikes, or have bike-specific signalization. The Dutch city of Houten, a city we will be visiting in the Netherlands, has gone so far as to prohibit vehicles in the center of the city, providing bicyclists free reign of the area with no fear of intersections with motorized vehicles. (Pucher & Buehler, 2012)
Last, what really hit me was that the Dutch have the greatest number of bicycle riders (27% of trips in the Netherlands are made on a bike) and the lowest fatalities per kilometer cycled (1.1 cyclists killed for every 100 million km cycled) (Harms & Kansen, 2018; Pucher & Buehler, 2012). This shows that there is safety in numbers and that the Dutch designs work to keep cyclists safe and comfortable riding. What I also see from the Dutch cycling planning is a chicken and egg situation, but with an answer. If you ask yourself “what comes first, the cyclist or the infrastructure?” the answer is the infrastructure. If the infrastructure is built for cycling, then the cyclists will come. We, as transportation planners, cannot wait for a sudden surge in cycling in U.S. cities to start designing and building infrastructure for cycling because then the population will never start to cycle.
References
Harms, L. & Kansen, M. (2018). Cycling Facts [PDF file]. Ministry of Infrastructure and Water Management. Retrieved from https://www.government.nl/documents/reports/2018/04/01/cycling-facts-2018
Pucher, J. & Buehler, R. (2012). City Cycling. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
In advance of our upcoming trip to the Netherlands, we’ve been tasked with reading several chapters of John Pucher and Ralph Buehler’s book, City Cycling. City Cycling covers several topics related to biking, from infrastructure to policy, and gives a general overview of the state of cycling in the United States, the Netherlands, and beyond. For this week’s post, I’ve picked some key passages that help paint the differences between the cycling scene in the United States and the Netherlands:
Cycling as a transportation mode-choice
“The Dutch, Danes, and Germans cycle for much higher percentages of trips than Americans and Britons over all distance categories” (Pucher & Bueler 2012).
For trips under 2.5 km (~1.6 miles): Across all modes of transportation, this trip distance makes up approximately 40% of trips in the Netherlands compared to 30% of trips in the US. Given this distance, Americans will use their bikes 2% of the time, compared to the Dutch using their bikes 29% of the time.
For trips between 2.5 & 4.5 km (~1.6 miles – 2.8 mi): Americans choose their bikes for just under 2% of these trips, compared to the Dutch who use their bikes 35% of the time.
“More than 60 percent of bike trips in the United States are for recreational purposes, compared to 27 percent in the Netherlands” (Pucher & Bueler 2012).
The statistics above reveal that cycling is truly thought of as a mode of transportation in the Netherlands. This is due to the thorough connectivity of bicycle infrastructure in the Netherlands. In the US, getting from point A to point B using bicycle-specific infrastructure takes serious planning. There is no “get up and go,” but instead, there is a carefully mapped out route that most likely still has gaps where cyclists are traveling alongside high-speed traffic.
Cycling Infrastructure:
The Netherlands: “In many European countries, including the Netherlands, cyclists’ need for separation from fast, heavy traffic is considered a fundamental principle of road safety. This policy has led to systematic traffic calming on local streets, and along busier streets, the provision of a vast network of cycle tracks” (Pucher & Bueler 2012).
The US: “AASHTO has no criteria regarding when cyclists should be separated from fast or heavy traffic. There is no limit to the traffic speed or number of lanes for which a road may have bike lanes or even be designated as a “shared roadway” (Pucher & Bueler 2012).
Note: AASHTO is the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials and is responsible for establishing design guidelines for roadways throughout the US.
In the Netherlands, any two-lane roadway with speeds over 19 mph requires a bike lane or cycle track. Furthermore, any four-lane roadway over 19 mph requires a complete separation from vehicular traffic. Not only does the Netherlands have policies for establishing bicycle infrastructure on every street, but the Netherlands also releases their design manual (called the CROW Manual) in several languages as guidance for other countries who may want to follow suit.
Although the Dutch design manuals are beneficial, without guidance from US agencies like AASHTO, engineers have a hard time justifying innovative bicycle infrastructure. As a design engineer in Detroit, I was at times guilty of “blindly” following roadway manuals, but I would counter that a manual has been standardized for just that purpose. National support will help provide a foundation to garner local support, and the current outlook of such support in the US is bleak. That’s not to say some improvements haven’t already taken place. The National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) released new design guides for bicycle-appropriate infrastructure that mimic Euro-style infrastructure. AASHTO is set to release additional guidelines for bicycle-specific infrastructure in their next design handbook as well.
Integration with transit
City Cycling goes on to discuss the importance of integration between transit and cycling. Cycling is simply not feasible for some trips, but by linking transit with cycling, people can ditch their cars for alternate modes of transportation. What does it mean to integrate transit use with bikes? Below are some examples:
Add bike parking at rail and bus stops
Establish provisions for taking bikes on board trains and buses
Offer bike rental facilities near public transportation stops
Coordinate bike routes with public transportation
Some cities in the US are already following some of these steps. Chicago is offering a plethora of bicycle parking at transit stops and San Francisco has incorporated “bike-only” transit cars for cyclists. The Netherlands, however, has incorporated nearly all of these elements rather than picking and choosing between integration techniques.
Lastly, some food for thought:
“Cities with the highest bike mode shares have the safest cycling; and cities with the lowest bike mode shares have the most dangerous cycling. It is likely that causation runs in both directions: safer cycling encourages more cycling, and more cycling encourages greater safety” (Pucher & Bueler 2012)
Cities such as Portland, OR or Davis, CA, have shown that people do want to cycle in the US when proper infrastructure is in place. Almost any city that features European-like bicycle infrastructure has seen increases in cycling participation. We do not have to get rid of our cars, but instead, we must prioritize bicycle infrastructure. Cities can only do so much to advocate for cycling without national support. The Netherlands implemented bicycle policies country-wide, and after acceptance became widespread, best practice for cycling infrastructure became law. Given the issues cities face today (equity, transportation congestion, vehicular emissions and lack of funding for major infrastructure projects), we have very little to lose by implementing more bicycle infrastructure.
Sources:
Pucher, J.R., & Bueler, R. (2012). City cycling. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
The language the Dutch (and other Northern European countries) have been speaking for years is finally beginning to be understood by the United States; cycling is beneficial in reducing motorist traffic, carbon emissions, and nonrenewable resource consumption, and increasing daily physical activity and the ease of transportation. Through coordinating infrastructure, programs, and policies, the Dutch view cycling as a very practical, efficient, and healthy means of transportation (Pucher & Bueler 2012). Land use and car-restrictive policies contribute to the inclination of the Dutch to cycle. Mandatory training courses and a separation between cyclist and motorist contributes to the perception that cycling is safe and a welcome alternative to driving. These factors create a society of people that choose to bike and find immense joy in cycling (Harms & Kansen 2018). The Dutch value this ability to get to and from on a bicycle, no matter what age or gender you are, and no matter where you’re headed. The United States has a lack of separation between motorist and cyclist, and a generally unfamiliar relationship between most people and cycling; two very different pictures are painted when comparing the two nations. Urban sprawl and government policies encourage a car-centric trend for design and roadway use, and biking is viewed as a recreational activity, done by either children or only very serious, confident cyclists. With that, a few major cities in the U.S. have seen increases in biking populations and have attempted to alter the infrastructure so that the trend continues, such as Portland and Minneapolis. Large U.S. cities especially could really benefit from adopting the Dutch ideas; biking is attainable close to city centers where commerce is more localized, universities with large populations of students more interested in biking exist, and where the topography supports cycling. To fully adopt Dutch ideas, training programs must change (such as enhancing Drivers’ Education), and more people must start biking. For cycling to become a daily activity that is safe, it must become more prevalent.
Infrastructure:
Something I had never considered before was the transition from the old issue with cycling – the lack of actual pavement – to the current – a proliferation of fast and frequent motor vehicles (Pucher & Bueler 2012). In response to the influx of cars in major cities and a desire to push cycling onto the general population, the European policy included creating a separation between cyclists and motorists, traffic calming techniques, and cycle tracks. On the contrary, the United States chose to integrate cars and bikes. The Dutch believe that there should be physical separation on any street with 2+ lanes, any urban street with the speed limit exceeding 50 km/hr, and any rural road with speeds exceeding 60 km/hr. The only situation in which bikes are mixed in with vehicular traffic is for slow speeds, low ADTs, and when there are no car lane markings. The Dutch prioritize the cyclists, and it shows through their infrastructure design. The United States, on the other hand, does not offer any source of relief for cyclists no matter the speed or number of vehicles. AASHTO believes it cannot please every type of cyclist, and therefore should not try to create guidance that would only please the slower, leisurely cyclist or the serious, confident cyclist. This mindset wonderfully correlates with the low-cost that comes along with markings and signage rather than cycle tracks and raised cycle paths. Claiming Dutch facilities to be inconvenient and indirect, John Forester’s idea that “cyclists fare best when treated as vehicles” has contributed to the lack of progress. Recently, with the creation of the Urban Bikeway Design Manual and an interest in different types of facilities (standalone paths, cycle tracks, contraflow, and local streets as bike routes), there appears to be progress towards shifting the American infrastructure more towards the Dutch. That said, for real change to occur, interest must increase along with a dedicated coordination between planning, regulations, and funding.
Safety:
One of the most important takeaways from Pucher and Buehler’s analysis is the relationship between the amount of cycling and how safe cycling is. Cycling is fundamentally a safe, healthy activity that almost anyone can (and should!) be able to do. However, the average American questioning whether or not to cycle to work will inevitably choose not to, and the lack of perceived safety is often cited as the prominent reason why. This perception only aggravates the issue, because with fewer cyclists riding on the roadway, there is less awareness. In my eyes, this fear is founded; vehicular motorists don’t view cyclists as equal, valid roadway users, despite our limited infrastructure reminding us we should be through Sharrows and equally insufficient signage stating “Share the Road”. With recent advances in infrastructure design, such as the inclusion of cycle tracks, cycling can be seen as safer, since most of the injuries associated with cycling are due to interaction with motor vehicles.
When examining cycling injuries and accidents, there are three usual suspects: the road design, motorists, and the cyclist. In the States, the infrastructure sets up the cyclist to frequently interact with motorists that may or may not be aware of the cyclist. In the Netherlands, safety when deciding whether or not to bike is hardly a second thought. Two of the three situations that a cyclist is injured are eliminated; the infrastructure allows for minimal interaction between the motorist and the cyclist. The road design purposefully places cyclists out of harm’s (motorists’) way. Helmets, seen as a prudent option worn by the safest of cyclists in the United States, can be seen as an insult to the infrastructure the Dutch have carefully crafted for optimal safety. Cycling through Dutch streets, you will rarely see anyone wearing a helmet; instead, men and women of all ages cycle effortlessly and casually (Wagenbuur 2009).
Impacts of These Differences
The difference in how the Dutch and U.S. governments view cycling’s importance, exemplified through emphasis on training programs, safety, policymaking, and, most prominently, infrastructure, has led to a great disparity within the two countries. In the Netherlands, women actually cycle more than men (Pucher & Bueler 2012). Somewhat more surprisingly, growth of cyclists in the 65+ group has drastically increased, mainly using e-bikes (Harms & Kansen 2018). Contrasted to this range in both age and gender, the United States does not share a similar demographic of cyclists; the majority of bikers are male and relatively young. There is a mindset here that only fit people wearing spandex can bike, especially because the average American views biking for utilitarian purposes as dangerous (rightfully so). The Dutch are very proud of their cycling culture, and believe that cycling evokes joy and positive feelings. In addition to this sentiment, facts support the notion that cycling is physically healthy; the daily exercise provided by cycling can extend one’s life up to over a year. It also cuts down on obesity levels and promotes social interaction. Not to say that if the United States introduced cycling into the forefront that our obesity problem would disappear and people would become substantially happier, however there is truth to the idea: cycling promotes healthy behavior. It will take changes in leadership, funding, and objectives for the central government to promote cycling, and even more time and direction for local municipalities to accept it.
References:
Harms, L., & Kansen, M. (2018, April 1). Cycling Facts 2018. Retrieved from https://www.government.nl/ministries/ministry-of-infrastructure-and-water-management/documents/reports/2018/04/01/cycling-facts-2018
Summary National Policy Strategy for Infrastructure and Spatial Planning. (2013, July 24). Retrieved from https://www.government.nl/ministries/ministry-of-infrastructure-and-water-management/documents/publications/2013/07/24/summary-national-policy-strategy-for-infrastructure-and-spatial-planning
US DOT Strategic Plan for FY 2018-2022. (2018, May 8). Retrieved from https://www.transportation.gov/administrations/office-policy/dot-strategic-plan-fy2018-2022
Cycling Trends & Differences in Netherlands and America
The Netherlands and the United States have vastly different cycling trends. Not only does the Netherlands have a much higher percentage of routine bicyclists in their country, they also have a much lower bicycle fatality and injury rate. According to travel surveys, in 2008 approximately 26% of the Netherland population biked to work, while only 0.5% of Americans biked to work in 2009. Further data shows that cycling fatality rates in the U.S. are five times greater than the cycling fatality rates in the Netherlands. Additionally, cycling is common among all demographic groups and age distributions in the Netherlands (Pucher & Buehler). The Dutch Women and the elderly are much more likely to bike within their country than their American counterparts. These characteristics are attributed to the Netherlands’ superior bike infrastructure. America lacks the quality of biking seen in the Netherlands because of its the prominent vehicular cycling ideology as well as the large geographic scale of country. The large area of America contains more urban sprawl and more pockets of lower density populations than Western European countries. However, even the most bike-oriented cities in America such as Davis California, Boulder Colorado, and Portland Oregon still have lower levels of cycling than the least bike-friendly cities in the Netherlands. Other reasons for the far greater percentage of cyclists in the Netherlands may be due to the high fees and expenses to obtain a drivers license and own a car in Europe. The Netherlands also enforces cycling training and testing for children in school, which is not a requirement in American education systems (Pucher & Buehler). For these reasons, the bicycle infrastructure in the Netherlands is drastically different than in American because of the differences in perspective and culture toward bicycling.
Transportation Design & Planning
In many Western European countries, such as the Netherlands, the fundamental principle of road safety is to separate bicyclists and pedestrian (those who are most vulnerable) from fast, heavy traffic. Along with a high level of separation from traffic stress, the Dutch also require bicycle facilities to access direct routes for its users with as few stops as possible. Whereas, the United States has mainly pursued a policy of integrating bicyclists with motorized vehicles on the road. This anti-separation, known as the vehicular cycling ideology, requires bicyclists to ride in the streets with heavy, and often dangerous, traffic. These differences are important to note because it has hindered American cities from adopting safe bicycle infrastructure for its citizens. Although, in recent years many American communities have been shying away from this old perspective. Widespread change is seen within progressive American cities as European-style infrastructure is beginning to take root. Additionally, American cities have placed more emphasis on facilitating bikes on board public transportation, either by installing bike racks on buses or permitting them in railway cars. Similarly, the Netherlands is focusing on increasing the quantity and quality of bike parking at public transportation stations in hopes of better integrating cycling with public transportation. In this case, both the Netherlands and the United States recognizes the importance of bicycle accessibility and integration with other modes of urban transportation. While there are several differences between America and the Netherlands, the recent similarities show a change in mindset of American city planners towards safer and more integrated bicycle infrastructure.
Cycling Impacts & Benefits
All countries should encourage bicycling by improving the infrastructure conditions and safety. Not only is bicycling a practical mode of urban transportation, but it is also economical, environmentally friendly, and healthier. Owning and maintaining a bicycle is far less expensive than purchasing a car or paying daily public transportation fees. It consumes far fewer nonrenewable resources than any form of motorized transportation (Pucher & Buehler). And cycling contributes to daily physical activity, which evokes positive feelings and leads to a longer, healthier life (Harms & Kansen). These are just a few of the many benefits attributed to bicycling.
References
Pucher, J. & Buehler, R. (2012). City Cycling. Massachusetts: MIT Press.
Harms, L. & Kansen, M. (2018). Cycling Facts. Retrieved from https://www.government.nl/documents/reports/2018/04/01/cycling-facts-2018
Netherlands’ Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment. (2011). Summary National Policy Strategy for Infrastructure and Spatial Planning. Retrieved from https://www.government.nl/documents/publications/2013/07/24/summary-national-policy-strategy-for-infrastructure-and-spatial-planning
bike lanes 
