Fietspad Final Chapter: North America’s Dutch Todo List
The final chapter of fietspad not only summed up the findings of that trip, it was the starting point to explore other Dutch ideas, beyond the protected bike lanes, protected intersections and continuous sidewalks that are already gaining traction.
I’ve spoken to a few of these things previously. In fact, previous blog posts came from the follow up trip after writing fietspad to explore some things in greater detail and collect photographs of more examples.
This list could be considered as somewhat of an agenda or todo list of things to explore on future projects, be those mine or others. The more chance we have of getting these ideas implemented on at least one project, the easier it becomes to have them on every project.
Beyond the book and blog posts, I’m now actively pursuing a deeper review of all these elements with a working group within the Transportation Association of Canada that will also help raise awareness, consider how they might work in Canada, and document any nuances or legal differences that might preclude some options in the Canadian context. In that regard, if you’re aware of North American examples of anything you read below that are already being planned or implemented, please reach out using the contact form. Equally, if there’s something else i’m missing from the list, let me know.
The final chapter with all the findings may be provided below, but you should still think about buying fietspad. There’s many more examples than you’ll see here. But let’s dive in, text is copied and pasted, so please read in the context of it being the closing chapter of a 400+ page book…
Things we don’t need...
Heading back home, I read through my notes and scroll through the photos with the intent of summing up nearly a months worth of observations. While there are many, my hope was that there would be things that we could bring to North America, but first, let’s get the bad out of the way...
Ok, there’s nothing really too bad, but there are examples we wouldn’t want to take back. Door zone bike lanes are the most obvious thing we already have enough of and don’t need any more of. They may be less of an issue in the Netherlands, as most people cycle and are conscious that they need to look out for people on bicycles when opening their car door. They even have a way to open the car door - the Dutch reach - to make this safer. Even in the Netherlands, I’d be surprised if they build these today. I suspect, or at least hope, it is a legacy standard that is no longer used. We need to remember that the Netherlands standards have evolved over time, just as North American standards are now. I do wonder though, how active they are in removing their door zone bike lanes.
Even in the Netherlands, drivers park on the bike paths, even those behind the curb, and even those behind a boulevard, requiring you to pass on the sidewalk usually. Maybe this is less annoying when you have an entire network, and this is the only minor inconvenience you encounter along your way. It’s in part due to curb management, as often there is nowhere else to park to service a building in some way. The same problem exists for pedestrians throughout the country too, with many vehicles parking on the sidewalk. Maybe in North America, when we only have a few safe routes, and those routes are blocked, it’s much more frustrating. Maybe it’s also worse with so many quick build facilities in North America having high curbs at either side, it takes more effort to just nip by on the sidewalk.
Advisory bike lanes with traffic calming chicanes were witnessed only twice, but that was enough to know we don’t need these. Don’t design traffic calming that encourages drivers to enter the bike lane when they don’t need to.
A problem we don’t have right now is people on motorized scooters buzzing you in the bike lane, but this is a growing concern as micromobility options of varying capability increase in popularity. At least there might not be the annoying engine whine chattering away behind you, but still, bike lanes are no longer just bike lanes. Space to pass is becoming increasingly necessary.
While there are some aspects of Dutch cycling infrastructure that we don't need in North America, there are many that we do if we’re to create safer, more accessible routes for everyone.
Things we’re not ready for...
The node network is a pretty clever solution to wayfinding, but its transferability to North America may be limited, at least for now. The reason I say that, is that in North America, we don’t yet have such an expansive network of bike facilities that there’s a lot of route choice.
I feel like typical signposting to nearby town’s or amenities is still the most relevant approach in North America, and of course, the Netherlands do this in addition to the node network. In fact their red bicycle wayfinding signs are the equivalent to the typical green signage in North America, but much more plentiful.
The Netherlands have the fietsstraat where North America has neighbourhood bikeways. But for the most part, a fietsstraat features only red asphalt and a stencil on the ground that tells drivers that they are guests. Some local streets do feature traffic calming elements such as speed humps, but I didn’t really encounter these on a fietsstraat.
On the contrary, a neighbourhood bikeway is a heavily traffic calmed road in North America, or at least it should be. Unfortunately, in North America, drivers need to be calmed.
In the Netherlands, drivers just seem to be a lot more respectful of their environment and other road users. The red asphalt is enough. I also felt the narrow urban streets might have been a factor at one point, but we also rode some rural fietsstraat’s and our experience was similarly as comfortable as on those urban streets.
Could we bring this to North America? I’m not sure it would work, and the red asphalt isn’t as synonymous with bicycle facilities as it is in the Netherlands. More so bus priority. For now, neighbourhood bikeways are probably still the better approach in North America and should continue to be heavily traffic calmed.
One element we could, or should adopt is the replacement of the sharrow with better messaging. Just as the Dutch tell car drivers ‘auto te gast’ we can tell North American drivers that they are a guest on this street and bicycles have priority. Maybe we can also rebrand neighbourhood bikeways, more simply as bicycle streets. It’s less of a mouthful.
Things we do need…
This book is called fietspad, again, bike path in English, and of course we have bike paths or protected bike lanes in North America. The most notable thing about the bike paths though, was the extent of the bicycle network that they form, which kept surprising me right up until the end of the trip. Everywhere we went, there were safe facilities to ride on - everywhere! We have such a long way to go in North America, but we have to start somewhere, and while not anywhere near as extensive, cities like Vancouver and Victoria in Canada are getting to the point where you can navigate much of the city in relative safety by bicycle.
Complete connectivity between more isolated communities may be more challenging in North America with far greater distances between communities, and steep mountainous terrain in places. But in our metro areas at least, there’s no reason each municipality within the larger metro area should not be connected to each other with safe bicycle infrastructure, and within each municipality itself, you should be able to get around safely by bicycle without taking circuitous routes. While we can’t just magic a complete network out of thin air, our bicycle network plans should aspire to Dutch levels of connectivity.
Back onto the bike paths specifically, the Netherlands has many examples of uni and bi-directional bike paths separated from traffic in many ways. I think most people are on the same page in terms of such facilities being necessary to enable more people to ride a bicycle. Most bike paths are located behind the curb, some are separated in elevation from the sidewalk in various ways, but some are at the same grade. Most are wide enough to comfortably ride side by side or pass others, even if they’re riding cargo bikes. They exist literally everywhere. Sometimes in rural areas pedestrians might use them too...
Where you cross minor streets, there are continuous sidewalks and bike paths that are just beginning to make their way into North America. Check out Canmore, Alberta and Nanaimo, British Columbia where you’ll find some great North American examples. It’s still early days, but many more are in the works. The most interesting thing about continuous sidewalks and bike paths might be the sheer number of different examples, including paving type, yield controls, elevations between road and sidewalk, degree of bend-in, bend-out and no bend, and tactile information. I think I only saw one example that included tactile information per the CROW manual. We’ve been working to define some ideals for Canada. I think my lesson here is that like all guidance, ideals are a great starting point, but there are many ways to make it work. A less than ideal continuous sidewalk and bike path is still better than a conventional local street intersection with curb returns.
While we’re on continuous sidewalks or raised elements, continuous sidewalks are most often located at an intersection with roads of a lower and higher classification. What do we do where local roads intersect? Raised intersections are the simple solution here, and help keep traffic on residential streets at a speed that is safe for everyone. They are common throughout residential neighbourhoods, and often have no intersection controls.
Onto protected intersections which are also already being used in North America of course. Maybe not in huge numbers yet, but they are becoming the default wherever we’re building a complete street with bike paths behind the curb. The one challenge we have in North America, is that in an effort to roll out new bike lanes quickly, we do have a lot of quick build projects that don’t have the luxury of budget or space to incorporate protected intersections, and instead resort to adding two-stage turn boxes to accommodate left turns from the cross-street.
While protected intersections help manage left turns, there can still be conflicts with turning traffic, which I think is an area we can improve safety on in North America. We came across a few ways to improve safety, some of which we also do in North America already. Starting with the easiest one, protected left turns should be the default as they stop traffic turning left across bicycle traffic going through in the opposing direction. This is even more important with bi-directional bike facilities when drivers might not be monitoring all approaches sufficiently. Protected vehicle turns also improve general traffic safety, so the only argument to not have protected only left turns is traffic capacity which should be a lower priority than safety.
What about right turns? There are a few ways the Netherlands do this better than North America that we can learn from. A big one is no-right-turn-on-red. That’s just how it is, and pretty common outside of North America. Our desire to remove all traffic delays at the expense of safety really is a problem we need to undo. Restricting drivers turning right on a red benefits people walking and cycling as cars don’t creep forward and block crosswalks and crossrides along the major street. Again, even more important with bi-directional bike lanes.
But there’s more, separate right-turn lanes are common in the Netherlands, meaning through traffic and bicycles have a green light while right-turning traffic has it’s own separate phase, maybe going at the same time as the left-turn traffic from the cross-street. We do this in North America too, but I’d say less often. It of course needs more space for turn lanes which can be a challenge, especially when we’re trying to squeeze protected bike lanes in without upsetting too many people. Maybe if we can increase bicycle mode-share we can repurpose through lanes for turn lanes on multi-lane streets. That’s a bit of a chicken and egg situation though.
So what about when we don’t have separate right-turn lanes. The Netherlands have thought of that too. I saw two different approaches using digital signs or traffic signals to better convey the need for right-turning drivers to yield to people on bicycles. The digital right-turn yield signage lights up to explicitly tell people to yield, while another approach was to have a separate amber right-turn arrow to urge caution when turning right across a bike path. While we have the right-turn yield signage in North America, something lit or flashing would be more apparent to drivers, and improve safety where we have vehicles crossing the path of people on bicycles.
The first time I noticed the digital signage, I also noticed induction loops for bicycle detection. I wasn’t sure if this activated the sign. I should have spent more time watching the signal working as people approached to better understand what these loops were doing, but I believe, the signals can also adapt to bicycle presence, as well as cars, and transit to optimize the timings. There’s no reason we can’t do better bicycle detection in North America, especially with more and more intersections relying on video. Just a case of the manufacturers sorting their algorithms to better detect people on bicycles, and then having the will to prioritize those people.
The final method that removes conflicts entirely is the all bicycle movements signal phase which we only saw in two cities, Groningen and Haarlem. Think of it like a pedestrian scramble but for bicycles. Separate bike phases remove all conflicts with other modes and let you turn left in a single movement. You will have to manage conflicts with cross-bicycle traffic, but in theory such conflicts should be much more manageable than any you might have had with motor vehicles. The bike phase doesn’t have to last too long either, as bikes will clear the intersection much faster than pedestrians would. People on bicycles might wait a little longer at the intersection on red, but the benefit is no conflicts. As you don’t have to make a two-stage left turn, there’s no need for protected corners, so this would work well for the quick build facilities we often implement in North America, at the cost of needing dedicated bicycle signals rather than relying on the vehicle or pedestrian signals.
I’ve spoken to the benefits of additional turn lanes for vehicles actually reducing conflicts with bicycles. Turn lanes for bike paths are common too, more so in urban locations where demands are so high that bicycles need to be better organized through an intersection. We have a few bicycle turn lanes in North America. I hope one day we need more.
Countdown timers for bike signals was also something we don’t have in North America. We of course have them for pedestrian signals, but only after the signals changes for you to walk. The bicycle countdown timers let you know when to get ready to cross, providing a little bit of extra efficiency by reducing lost time, important when so many people ride a bicycle. These countdown timers are necessary due to the near side signal pole location for both the car and bicycle signals. In North America, you can typically look to the cross- street signal turning amber to know when it’s time to go. You can’t do that when all the signals are near side. There is interest in near side signals in North America, so this is one thing to consider. Such efficiencies become more important as demand increases.
The main advantage of near-side signals for vehicles is to stop cars creeping forward and blocking crosswalks which is easy to do when you can still see the light on the far side. If the signal is on the near side, a car driver won’t know when to go if they creep forward. Combined with the no-right-turn-on-red, crosswalks or crossrides should always be clear when using near-side signals.
There’s much debate in North America on the bend-in and bend-out distance of a bike path where it crosses an intersection. I see so much varying guidance on what’s reasonable, so it was interesting to see that in the Netherlands, despite also having guidance on ideals, they often have to make-do with the space they have available, and this means sub-optimal offsets between the travel lane and bike path. It’s good to have guidelines, but a facility separated from traffic even if not ideal, is still better than no facility. From my observations, the grey area of three metres which reflects a parking stall width and door zone buffer is still better than smaller offset’s. Sometimes there just isn’t space to bend-out further, or the trade-offs of making that space are too great. I also think drivers rely on turning their head to check, rather than rely on their side mirrors, so three metres is better than one metre in that respect.
As an alternative to traffic signals, and like many other European countries, the Netherlands make considerable use of roundabouts. But if we’re talking Dutch roundabouts, then we’re talking roundabouts with bike paths around the perimeter. Surprisingly, some Dutch roundabouts include an unprotected painted bike lane around the perimeter, but a true Dutch roundabout will have a protected bicycle path, typically, although not always, offset about a car length from the edge of the vehicle circulating lane. These are already making their way to North America, but I still hear hesitation with giving people on bicycles the right of way. The Netherlands mix that up, with slower urban roundabouts typically asking car drivers to yield, while higher volume, higher speed roundabouts often requiring the person riding a bicycle to yield. Not always comfortable on a bicycle when it’s busy. I’d never thought about a bi-directional bike path around a roundabout before, but those exist too. I could see a lot of resistance to these in North America due to the additional driver workload, but the conflicts are no different than a roundabout with a multi-use path around the perimeter. Unrelated to bicycles, the Dutch usually find creative ways of improving flow through roundabouts or providing priority to transit by allowing them to pass straight through the centre. Few cities in North America have really embraced roundabouts. I have two near my home, and I still occasionally see people driving the wrong way around them...
Bicycle highways are just catching on in North America, but I feel not everyone might appreciate what they actually are in the Netherlands. They might see one image of a wide bike path, and assume that’s the norm. Really, the Netherlands don’t call them bicycle highways, they use the term fast cycle routes, and they can be a mix of facility types, from dedicated bike paths to shared pathways, and even shared roadways. In fact, while most pedestrian and bicycle facilities are separated in urban areas, in rural areas, while a pathway might be called a fietspad, they are effectively pathways for everyone including those on foot. A multi-use pathway you might say...
Multi-use pathways often generate a lot of criticism when used in North America, but in some contexts they are still the most practical solution. One big difference in the Netherlands is that people typically ride at a slower more relaxed pace on upright bikes. Whereas in North America, there’s still many that are heads-down, going as fast as they can, which of course, can cause issues. I think as we build more safer infrastructure in North America, we’re seeing more people riding at a relaxed pace. We just need those old school “avid cyclists” to ride with a bit more respect on shared facilities. Maybe that’s too much of a culture shift. Of course there’s still such cyclists in the Netherlands, but I feel there’s less us versus them between all modes in the Netherlands. It’ll take a long time for culture to shift, but I think as the amount of safe infrastructure grows, that will slowly happen.
We have talked about fietsstraats or bicycle streets, but really the beauty of the Netherlands are all the small streets, that fly in the face of North America guidance for wide lanes and clear zones. Compact human scaled streets are a pleasure to walk or bike along, and while you can’t drive fast along them, you’re probably less stressed because of that also. We need slower streets and slower cities!
We never really felt at risk in the Netherlands. The separated infrastructure is an obvious reason, but another is that drivers tend to give you more respect. Most people, including drivers, regularly also ride a bicycle, and whether they realize it or not, are immersed in a culture where the bicycle is a normal way to get around.
It also helps that the laws are more favourable to the most vulnerable road users. While laws vary across North America, in British Columbia, Canada, we might have the worst, at the time of writing at least, with the provincial insurance company implementing a no-fault policy for all collisions. If you’re riding a bicycle and struck by someone in a vehicle, you might well be billed for it unless you make a fuss through social media. Not much I can do here other than plan and design infrastructure where you’re less likely to be struck by a vehicle.
The train network is just as good as the bike network. Wherever a day trip was too long by bicycle, we did part by train and part by bike. A few of the trains were awkward to get our bikes on and off, but I’m sure in time, stock will be replaced with modern low floor open carriages. We then just need to encourage the passengers without bicycles to get out of the bike carriage.
With respect to bike parking, the Netherlands is a very different world, in that most bikes are cheap, and leaving them outside without being locked to something is normal. There’s so many bikes, your bike gets lost in the sea of bikes and the chances of it being stolen are small. But even with that, the Netherlands provides so many bike parkades, likely to avoid clogging up the streets with bicycles. I’d love to see this become more common in North America, especially with people often having more expensive bikes. It wouldn’t even take much, if every car parkade, just allocated a few spaces for bike parking with a security patrol, people would be much less worried about bike theft. I believe Victoria, BC has a few city parkades that have a bicycle section, but it’s not common as far as I know.
I haven’t mentioned advisory bike lanes yet. There’s been examples in North America, and I’ve tried to propose them in a few instances, but the thought of opposing vehicles sharing a lane is too much for many at this time. Maybe they should feature in things we’re not ready for yet. I don’t have strong feelings about them, vehicles still pass you with no physical separation, they’re not a whole lot better than a painted lane, except for sending a message that bicycles are welcome on this street or road.
I also haven’t mentioned Woonerf’s, and by Woonerf’s I mean real Dutch Woonerf’s. They are remarkable only because of how unremarkable they are. A real Dutch Woonerf is a simple low speed residential street with narrow lanes, parking, shifts in the alignment, and vegetation. Woonerf literally translates as residential area. In North America, Woonerf’s are often our showcase commercial streets. Rather that just a Woonerf on their main street, many Dutch cities are largely pedestrianized in their centres, and control car access using rising bollards. In North America, we should start utilizing Woonerf techniques on our residential streets. A Woonerf like design combined with a ‘Bicycle Street’ stencil might be the ultimate neighbourhood bikeway in North America.
Lastly, I liked the signage Utrecht installed to showcase the then and now. Its hard to argue with parks and trees versus a sea of concrete and asphalt, or a family happily cycling instead of a queue of faceless vehicles. We should showcase our infrastructure better, show people it wasn’t always this way, and that other streets can be reshaped in similar ways.
To that end we also need to build infrastructure that’s worthy of being showcased. We need to build infrastructure that attracts tourists.
To Conclude...
To conclude, after almost a month spent riding bicycles throughout the Netherlands, right up to the last day, we continued to be amazed at how widespread the infrastructure was. They have made it so easy and safe to ride a bicycle around the entire country, that it has become the preferred choice for so many to get around.
As North American cities continue to densify, it’s just not possible, practical, or sustainable for so many people to drive for every trip. We need mode shift and many people want to shift mode. People want to improve their health and happiness, people want to reduce their emissions and impact on the climate, people want to reduce the financial burden of car ownership, to name just a few reasons. People need safe bicycle infrastructure to do so. The only thing stopping us is political will.
During the first month back in Canada, the lack of infrastructure and the impatience of drivers was a pretty tough adjustment. My first commute along a neighbourhood bikeway was downright depressing.
To get around so comfortably by bicycle, and see so many others doing the same was, as I said on the first page, like we landed in utopia. We started planning another trip before we were even home... There are many examples of great infrastructure in this book, but I feel like I just scratched the surface.
My hope is that this book will inspire interest in Dutch ideas for safer streets in more communities around the world.