If You Build It, They Will Ride (Part 3)

A more recent and, to these North American eyes, stunning example of public commitment to facilitating rather than waiting for demand is the construction of a new series of inter-urban bikeways in the Netherlands called “Snelfietsroutes” (fast bike paths), designed to make it easier, faster, and safer for cyclists to commute between and through cities. One of these bike superhighways opened in July of 2015 and runs between the cities of Arnhem and Nijmegen, close to the German border and not far from Wageningen (where I was living during 2016-2017). The F325 route (F is for “fiets” or bike) called the “RijnWaalpad” is like no bike path you have ever ridden, unless, of course, you are Dutch. It is two lanes wide with a dotted line down the middle, but the lanes can easily accommodate two bikes riding side by side in both directions. It is buttery smooth, surfaced with a special red tarmac that makes you feel happy in places we don’t talk about. The path is also lit along its entire 17.7 km length with specially designed lights in the shape of bicycle chain links. The path features very few intersections en route (and only one that I could find where bikes do not have the priority over cars). The F325 is so much fun to ride that it makes you want to turn around and go back as soon as you get to the end.

RijnWaalpad (https://www.snelfietsroutesgelderland.nl/Actueel/april/Snelfietsroute-wordt-snelle-fietsroute.html)

I asked one of my friends from the Toerclub Wageningen cycling club if the use of government money to pay for the F325 path had been controversial. After all, it did cost 1 million euros per km of path! Yet, he did not seem to understand my question. And why should he? A comparable stretch of automobile highway would cost 40 to 50 times as much! Imagine such a path connecting, say, York University in the north of Toronto to the downtown campus of the University of Toronto, a comparable distance. It is an unlikely dream. Such is the sad state of normalcy in the North American urban imaginary when it comes to cycling infrastructure, and, I would say, for public transit as well.

In the Netherlands, with infrastructure investments like the new fast bike paths, it is small wonder that mode share for bicycles, at least for commuters and particularly in more densely urbanized parts of the country, has actually been on the increase in recent decades. According to a report by the Dutch Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management, bicycle trips account for about one quarter of all trips nationwide.[1] For trips less than 7.5 km in length, that figure jumps to 35 percent. Looking at trends specific to commuters, mode share for bicycle trips increased between the early 1980s and the mid-1990s for all distances under 10 km.[2] This points to another influence of infrastructure: urban planning that reigns in sprawl. Less sprawl means less driving and more pedalling. Amsterdam, Einhoven and Enschede are among those cities that continue to show upward trends in overall cycling use rates. Meanwhile, the incidence of traffic deaths has been on a steady decline for years (and the number of cycling deaths has remained relatively constant).

None of this is an accident. It has taken consistent commitment over time to actively encourage cycling use as a matter of public policy, commitment that extends beyond infrastructure building toward a highly integrated and multi-faceted approach to urban and regional planning. Perhaps most importantly, it has taken an ethos that sees cycling as a legitimate, normal, viable mode of transportation, that is, more than a merely leisure pursuit for (mostly) affluent white guys in tights (not that there is anything wrong white guys in tights…). The latter is, sadly, how cycling is often perceived in cities like Toronto. But hopefully that is changing (albeit far too slowly).

We have seen, time and again, battles over dedicated urban cycling infrastructure contested by those fearful of sacrificing a centimetre of city space to the almighty automobile. Too often, opponents argue that the level of cycling simply does not warrant building more or better infrastructure. Frustrated cycling advocates express exasperation that the very the lack of infrastructure is what keeps people off their bikes and in their cars (or on overloaded buses, trains, and streetcars). We need not make such arguments on faith alone. In the Netherlands, everywhere one looks, there is evidence that infrastructure does indeed induce demand. They built it. And they ride.

[1] “Cycling in the Netherlands”, published by the Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management together with the group Fietsberaad. Available at http://www.fietsberaad.nl/library/repository/bestanden/CyclingintheNetherlands2009.pdf.

[2] The Dutch Bicycle Master Plan: Description and Evaluation in an Historical Context, 1999, Directorate General for Passenger Transport, Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management. See Table 23.