The Dutch Approach to Bicycle Mobility: Retrofitting Street Design for Cycling

Table of Contents

• Executive Summary
• 1 Introduction
  • 1.1 Framing the challenge
  • 1.2 Cycling in the Netherlands
  • 1.3 What is this report about
• 2 Historical perspective on Dutch cycling
  • 2.1 Background
    • 2.1.1 The early bicycle introduction 1860s – 1920s
    • 2.1.2 The bicycle as mass transport: 1920s – 1950s
    • 2.1.3 Mass-motorization: 1950s – 1970s
    • 2.1.4 Return of cycling on the political agenda: 1975 – 2000s
  • 2.2 Present Situation
• 3 Cycling Policies in the Netherlands
  • 3.1 Hardware
  • 3.2 Software
  • 3.3 Knowledge
    • 3.3.1 CROW Fietsberaad
    • 3.3.2 Fietstelweek – Bicycle count week
  • 3.4 Orgware
  • 3.5 Challenges
• 4 Case studies
  • 4.1 Retrofitting in urban areas
    • 4.1.1 Utrecht
    • Case 1: Overvecht
    • Case 2: Adriaen van Ostadelaan
    • 4.1.2 Amsterdam
    • Case 3: Overtoom
    • Case 4: Wibautstraat
  • 4.2 Retrofitting in sub-urban areas
    • 4.2.1 Hoofddorp
    • 4.2.2 Rhenen – Elst
• 5 Conclusion and lessons from the Netherlands
• 6 Appendix
  • Appendix 1 References & Additional readings
  • Appendix 2 technical details
  • Appendix 3 Further retrofitting examples

Preface

This report highlights techniques and strategies for retrofitting existing road infrastructures in order to improve safety, fix gaps and barriers in the pedestrian and bicycle network, improve transportation system efficiency, leverage investments, and meet local public demand. It draws from the experience and perspective of Dutch transportation practitioners, who have demonstrated success in developing a high-quality transportation system that meets the needs of all users.

This report was developed under the bilateral cooperation between the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Dutch Rijkswaterstaat, which is responsible for the design, construction, management and maintenance of the main infrastructure facilities in the Netherlands. This effort builds off of work done by FHWA under a Global Benchmarking Program (GBP) effort to learn how international transportation experts, primarily the Dutch, have created safer and more comfortable bicycle transportation networks. The GPB effort produced two reports, including:

• Bicycle Network Planning & Facility Design Approaches in the Netherlands and the United States (2016)
• Delivering Safe, Comfortable, and Connected Pedestrian and Bicycle Networks: A Review of International Practices (2015)

Through the bilateral cooperation, the FHWA continues to work with Dutch officials on bicycle transportation issues. The aim of the cooperation agreement is for the Dutch and United States practitioners to learn from each other and increase knowledge related to planning, designing, monitoring, and improving the performance of bicycle transportation networks. As noted above, this report provides examples of how the Dutch have retrofitted their infrastructure to better serve all road users.

Executive Summary

Over the last two decades, cycling is becoming increasingly relevant as daily transport mode around the world. On the one hand, policy-makers have acknowledged the growing demand for more and flexible mobility. On the other hand, the benefits of cycling on public health, the environment and the local economy are becoming widely evident. Hence, many local and national governments want to increase the share of trips made by this mode of transport, thereby contributing to more livable and sustainable urban areas.

Within this context, The Netherlands is regarded as an inspiring example when it comes to cycling for utilitarian purposes. The extensive, safe and high-quality bicycle network crisscrossing the Netherlands provides one of the safest cycling experiences in the world. As a result, more than a quarter of all trips are made by bicycle. This transport mode is embraced for any kind of purpose and by all social groups, including children. Given the safe conditions, more than two-thirds of (secondary) high school students commute to school by bicycle, while only 5% are taken by car. The high bicycle use not only reduces carbon emissions and prolongs the average life expectancy of six months, it also saves 19 billion euros (20 billion dollars) every year in healthcare costs^[1]. In addition, by providing an inexpensive alternative to both public transport and the car, the bicycle promotes social inclusion and access to jobs, services, and leisure in an efficient way. Investments on cycling do not come at the expenses of other road users. Evidence shows that policies to encourage bicycle users also benefit car drivers and the public transport network in terms of lower travel times, better accessibility and increased safety. For these reasons, cycling is included in multiple policy domains and the Netherlands keeps promoting bicycle use by investing in cycling projects, socio-technical innovations and behavioral campaigns.

Despite its long tradition in the field of cycling, it may come as a surprise to discover that the Netherlands has not always been the bicycle friendly country known today. Decades ago, Dutch cities struggled with the same problems that many European and American cities are facing today. Namely, alarming growth of traffic congestion, pollution, inefficient use of public space and safety issues. In the Netherlands, cycling declined dramatically between the 1950s and 1970s. Well-timed social movements, coupled with exogenous events such as the energy crisis and key political events, triggered a transport policy change. Policy-makers shifted their focus from promoting car use by expanding the supply of roads to prioritizing human safety, health, environmental quality and vibrant street life. This policy change reverted the declining bicycle use which is now growing again.

The report illustrates effective strategies and techniques that have contributed to this success. It unfolds with a historical perspective on the development of Dutch cycling policy and infrastructure, it describes the contemporary approach and it illustrates four U.S. relevant cases of retrofitting in both urban and sub-urban areas in the Netherlands that initially have been designed mainly for car use.

From both the analyzed cases and the general overview of the historical and contemporary bicycle policy perspective, several key findings emerge:

• Planning bicycle-friendly environments requires a broader understanding of the interaction between physical and psychological factors that influence travel behavior and mode choice.
  • Implementing an extensive, cohesive, safe, attractive, comfortable and direct network of bicycle infrastructure is an important factor to encourage bicycle use. Working towards a complete network is important, but this has to be accomplished one step at a time by following a coherent and logical method.
  • Planners must not only focus on the (quantitative) generalized costs of transport (namely travel time, travel costs, etc.) but also include (qualitative) aspects of the travel experience (comfort, perception of safety, attractive street design, level of noise, occasion of social interaction, presence of social activities, etc.).
• Retrofitting the road network should start with experimenting. For example, by testing intelligent traffic systems (i.e. green wave for cyclists).
• Promoting a cycling culture goes beyond the implementation of bicycle paths. It also requires integration with public transport. Integrating cycling with public transport by means of dedicated facilities (such as bicycle parking) at transport hubs to increase accessibility to distant locations^[2].
• Influencing the demand side of other modes of transport by means of physical interventions (narrowing streets to reduce speed, raised intersections or changes in the geometry of intersections), monetary incentives (such as road pricing) and behavioral campaigns (such as traffic education and communication campaigns, see paragraph 3.2).

The Netherlands has a holistic and comprehensive approach to cycling:

• Streets are designed on the basis of a systematic safety approach, as expressed by the Sustainable Safety policy (paragraph 3.4.1). Unlike the reactive approach (which focuses on identifying and fixing black spots in the road network), the Dutch system attempts to minimize all potential conflicts at their root by:
  • Unravelling (or unbundling) bicycle networks from car networks.
  • Employing specific road layouts and designs according to the function of the street, the volume and, the speed of traffic.
  • Diverting traffic from city centers and employing traffic calming measures systematically.
• Cycling is included in long-term policy plans and integrated into other policy domains: most important in spatial plans, but also in health and environmental policies.
• Dedicated budget allocations and clear competences between government agencies are also needed. At the regional level funds are used to enhance the homogeneity and continuity of (cycling) infrastructure across municipal boundaries. Municipalities are responsible to set their vision and implement cycling facilities at local level.
• Given the complexity and interconnectedness of mobility challenges, planning for cycling is a holistic discipline (which requires input and expertise from all domains including social science, economics, anthropology, geography, engineering, architecture, history, etc.) and the use of a wide variety of tools and techniques: from the direct observation of the phenomenon to the use of big data.
• Strong political will and commitment to long-term goals is a common denominator to any transformation.