Lessons on Cycling Infrastructure from Holland's Most Progressive City

Hamilton can't become Groningen and it shouldn't try to be, but it could benefit by considering some of the sensible policy choices that have been employed here.

By David Van Beveren
Published April 22, 2009

Commentary

Using a bicycle for daily transportation remains an anomaly for most Hamiltonians, barring the hardy few, despite slow movement from the city to develop cycling as a greater component of its Transportation Master Plan.

As Hamilton continues along this process with a Spring 2009 update to its Shifting Gears policy document, it may be helpful to look to other jurisdictions for an idea of where our city could be going on this issue and what we might aspire to.

Groningen, in the north of the Netherlands, is a typical Dutch city in that its residents have long relied on bicycles as a primary mode of transportation. What is striking about Groningen, though, is the degree to which cycling infrastructure has been so wholly incorporated into the city's transportation planning.

Indeed, it is considered to be one of the cycling capitals of the world, with 50 percent of trips within the city taken using this mode of transportation.¹ Groningers love, and live on, their bikes.

Reasons for the appeal are obvious. Roads feature dedicated lanes for cyclists, surfaced in red asphalt or bordered by separate curbs, and intersections have bike-specific signaling that fully integrates cyclists into the traffic flow. The result is a city-wide network that makes cycling safe and easy and offers a rational alternative to motorized forms of transport.

Faster, More Practical

In most instances, hopping on a bike is simply faster and more practical than traveling through the city by car or bus.

This accessibility is liberating in many ways, for it permits an escape from dependence on the personal automobile or the limitations of public transit service. Proper cycling infrastructure serves to improve mobility for those who can't afford or choose not to use other modes of transport.

Having spent a few months here, I've observed that well-developed infrastructure has the remarkable effect of shrinking the distance traveled by bike. Not having to battle aggressive drivers, navigate dangerous intersections or follow circuitous routes makes journeys far less onerous than they would be in less bike-friendly cities.

It's amazing how easily a moderate distance can be covered, even for those who wouldn't consider themselves to be the cycling kind. After a brief time, anything under 5km is done without a thought.

Cycling is an Equalizer

There's also a fascinating egalitarian quality to cycling that becomes apparent when observing the traffic in Groningen. Everyone is the same on a bike and most everyone can afford one, and the network of cycling lanes brings residents of all types together into shared public space.

Time spent watching the morning commute reveals labourers and office workers, groups of students on their way to school and elderly women out for their daily shopping, all pedaling alongside of each other in measured rhythm.

Needless to say, this generates positive expectations for community and social cohesion. It has obvious benefits for public health, the environment, and urban quality of life, too.

In an era when each of these issues are regarded as critical, it's difficult to believe that a city like Groningen isn't better positioned to avoid or mitigate the effects of such problems because of its progressive policies on transportation.

Lessons for Hamilton

Hamilton can't become Groningen and it shouldn't try to be, but it could benefit by considering some of the sensible policy choices that have been employed here. It might consider how a similarly comprehensive approach, already articulated in city planning documents², could be applied.

It's important to note that the cycling infrastructure didn't emerge in Groningen overnight, but rather was the result of long-term implementation along an agreed upon policy path.

In the 1970s, as increased use of the personal automobile began to create congestion problems in the city centre, Groningen council adopted the development of enhanced cycling infrastructure as part of its long-term transportation strategy.³ It committed to administering its subsequent budget resources, annual maintenance and development guidelines along that plan.

The result, 35 years later, is an urban area that offers an enviable degree of mobility and quality of life to its residents. Hamiltonians should assert their interest in enjoying a similar standard of urban living.

References

OECD (1995). Urban Travel and Sustainable Development. Paris. (back)
See: City of Hamilton (2007). Cycling Network Strategy. (back)
Bloemkolk, Marcel (2001). Groningen: Integrated Town Planning and Traffic Policy. European Academy for the Urban Environment (back)

David Van Beveren is a Hamilton native. He grew up in Ancaster and now lives in Ward 1.

16 Comments

Read Comments

By LL (registered) - website
Posted April 22, 2009 12:08:36

Nice article, David.

45% or so less car trips. Think of how much space that saves. Think of how much space 45% of Hamilton's cars take up and how much potential quality of life they subract.

I have advice for Hamiltonians who are at least reasonably fit. Don't wait for bike utopia. Just ride. If you map your route out in advance and get in a few defensive habits (like going fast and taking a full lane on a main st.), it's usually not very dangerous.

I ride 12 months of the year. With a few essential items of relatively inexpensive equipment, it's not as scary or taxing as people think. Most trips in Hamilton are only slightly longer timewise by bike than they are by car. And you don't have to take yet another car trip and more time out of your day to "do cardio". It's done. And exercising in the winter air boosts immunity and acclimatizes you to the season. Winter is EASIER to deal with physically.

I'll admit I first thought about ditching my car in response to global ecological issues. But a pure cost-benefit is what keeps me going. The financial freedom of not owning a car (or of being a one-car family instead of two) is well worth it.

Comment
Screen Name
What do you get if you divide 12 by 3?

Leave This Field Blank

Raise the Hammer