What Can North America Learn from the Best Dutch Cycling Cities?

By now, it's becoming widely known that the cycling culture of the Netherlands doesn't end at the edges of cities like Amsterdam, Utrecht, and Groningen. In fact, across the country, one quarter of all trips are made by bicycle, meaning towns and communities - big and small - are all using the bicycle for transportation on a regular basis.

Isn't it interesting, then, that a country which seems to have "figured out" cycling still goes to the effort of ranking and selecting its best cycling community each year?

In a recent post on his blog Bicycle Dutch, Mark Wagenbuur shared that the town of Veenendaal, population 65,500, won the coveted title of Cycling City 2020 in the Netherlands. The top internationally-known cycling cities mentioned above didn't even come close. How is this possible? And what can we learn from how the Dutch score their cities for cycling? A closer look at the criteria used to award the Cycling City title reveals that the Dutch are having very different conversations about bicycle planning than the ones we're having here in North America.

Below, I share each Cycling City criterion in bold (kindly translated to English by Mark Waagenbur), followed by a brief discussion on their implications for North American bicycle planning efforts.

8-80 – Vulnerable road users: A scale that tells something about how it is to cycle in this municipality as a more vulnerable cyclist, think of 8-year-olds and 80-year-olds.

Right off the bat, we see a strong focus on perceived safety and comfort, with a focus not on the fit-and-able middle-aged adult, but rather the "more vulnerable" cyclists. From a comfort standpoint, it follows that if children and older adults are comfortable cycling here, then surely most of the remaining population will be as well.

Experience: How do people experience cycling in this municipality, is it stressful or relaxing to cycle here?

Immediately we see a shift away from the North American basic focus of making cycling safe, and moving onto the experience of cycling. Experience is influenced by urban design, the presence of trees, and how close people have to ride to cars (and how fast those cars are going). Aside from big trail projects, it's pretty rare to hear people discuss the experience of cycling when making decisions on allocating roadway space in North American cities.

Maintenance: Is the infrastructure well maintained? Think of aspects such as drainage and potholes in the surface, but also snow clearing and the removal of leaves.

In North American cities that get snow, winter snow removal from bike infrastructure is a relatively new practice, and is usually limited to key routes in a network. Trails seen as "recreational" often don't make the cut.

Network quality: Is the cycling network chosen logically, can you easily find your route and are there not too many detours?

Now we're really getting into what the Dutch do really well: put cyclists first in the design of transport networks. This ranking criterion speaks to the fact that in the best cycling cities, riding a bike to get somewhere is intuitive, direct and easy, regardless of where you're doing. In fact, it's quite similar to how we treat cars in North America today.

Infrastructure quality: How is the infrastructure management; is there sufficient comfortable pavement; are there enough good quality parking spaces?

All people who ride bikes, regardless of where they live, know how uncomfortable a rough riding surface can be. Bumps that are easily absorbed by a car's suspension must be absorbed in a cyclist's wrists and body. The Dutch know that a cycling route with a quality smooth surface is one that will make cyclists happy.

Detour/Directness factor: If we plan trips from a central point to points that are 1 km away as the crow flies, how much more should we cycle than that one km?

The directness of a cycling network is weakened by barriers like rivers, freeways, railways, and even the built form of the city. Tangles of freeways and interchanges with no consideration for cycling crossings often lead to cycling distances being many times longer than "as the crow flies", discouraging cycling. Sometimes something as simple as a bridge or an underpass can radically improve the connectivity of a community, or even make cycling faster than other modes.

Roundabouts: Are the roundabouts in the municipality designed to give cycling priority over motor traffic?

The Dutch are highly skilled at building roundabouts, and the national government recommends that the ones built in urban settings give priority to cyclists. When this consistent approach is applied everywhere, drivers know what to expect, and cyclists travel through comfortably with with a high level of service.

Separation on 50 km/h streets: What percentage of the 50 km/h roads within the built-up area does not have separated cycling infrastructure?

Humans are fragile creatures, and easily injured by cars travelling at speeds higher than 30 km/h. Streets designed for vehicle throughput, with more lanes and higher speeds, are no place for a cyclist to be. Rather than ignoring the cyclist in these contexts though, the Dutch ensure that these roads have comfortable, separated cycling infrastructure, to increase the safety for everyone.

Urban density: The score is a comparison of the municipality with other municipalities of a similar size.

Finally, the kicker - a stat that has seemingly nothing to do with the cycling infrastructure itself. The denser the municipality's built-up area, the more destinations are within cycling reach. Interestingly, Mark notes that many smaller towns actually receive better density scores than the bigger cities. This all stems from the close relationship between active transportation planning and city planning in the Netherlands. When we think of density in North America, we think of the downtowns of big cities, but in the Netherlands, density is used as a tool to improve walkability and bikeability in communities of all sizes. Even recently-built suburb communities like Houten are exceptionally well-designed for walking, cycling and public transport.

So What?

So what can we learn from how the Dutch score their top cycling cities?

• Design for everyone: make sure the network is safe and comfortable for even the most vulnerable members of the population.
• Provide a great experience: go beyond a simple strip of asphalt and create streets and routes that are inviting and immersive. But do make sure that strip of asphalt is smooth!
• Make it easy, comfortable, and direct: don't let major barriers limit the success of the cycling network. Plan and build direct connections through neighbourhoods and to destinations.

North America's first wave of cycling infrastructure focused on simply making it possible for a subset of the population to ride bikes, with simple painted lanes and limited treatments at intersections. The second wave (currently underway) is focused on making that infrastructure safe and comfortable for a wider range of users, with separated bike lanes and protected intersections. We're now on the cusp of the third wave, where we will start to ask questions like "what would improve the experience of cycling here?" and "how do we help cyclists travel faster along this corridor?" The Dutch have known for years that this is the key to unlocking the cycling city, and slowly but surely, we're getting there.