1) The document discusses how to integrate biking into urban development in the Netherlands by learning from their approach. 2) It outlines three mobility environments - A, B, C - that separate bike, public transit, and car infrastructure depending on the area's density and location within or outside the city center. 3) Environment A prioritizes bikes and public transit in the city center by reducing car traffic and redistributing public space from parking to cycling. B and C also separate modes but allow some car access in less dense areas.

1. 1
Love cycling Go Dutch
Planning urban development- think
people, think bike in the Netherlands
How to integrate biking in our cities and urban developments?
5 november 2013
Newcastle
Bas Govers
bgovers@goudappel.nl

2. 2
Structure: how to…
 1) More then cycle infrastructure!
 2) Urban trends: more cycling to come!
 3)The example of Utrecht: giving the city
back to the people
 4) Cycle highways
▪ The power of highways
▪ Solutions in a urban environment
▪ Solutions in a suburban environment
 5) Conclusions

3. 3
1

More then cycle
infrastructure

4. 4
Policy: spatial planning
1950
1960
2e No
t
groei a RO:
stede
n
1970
1980
3e No
t
groei a RO:
kerne
n
1990
2000
VINE
X:
wijke
n
2010

5. 5
The ‘vinex’ developments (1990 – 2010)
based on cycling!
 Concentrating new urban developments
around the cities; enforcing the level of
service in the city
 Large enough for elementary daily services
on a short distance (5.000 houses)
 Full separation from the main carstructures
 Around railway-stations; bike and PTfacilities
 On cycling-distance from the city

6. 6
And in the residential areas, Houten cycling city

7. 7
School areas
Hart

8. 8
Policy: shopping, schools, medical
care in the neigbourhood

9. 9
Policy: sustainable road safety

10. 10
2

Urban trends: more cyling to
come!

11. 11
The revival of the city: attractiveness
as a economic tool
 Winners: historical inercities,
mixed areas, high ‘experiencevalue’
 Utrecht, Groningen, Maastricht, Den
Haag, Rotterdam, Amsterdam
(Centrum, De Pijp, Oud-West)
 Losers: suburban areas,
monofunctional offices and
shoppingcentres
▪ Almere, Purmerend, Zoetermeer,
Spijkenisse

12. 12
Trends: new urban inhabitants
-
Young families
Highly educated
Urban lifestyle

13. 13
Trends: new urban inhabitants in
‘Zuid’ and ‘West’, not in ‘noord’.

14. 14
Trends: healthy living
Effects on health of cycling regularly (Univ.Utrecht):
+ 250 dgn more by fysical exercise
-
2 dgn less by risk of accidents
10 dgn less by poor air-quality

15. 15
Some facts
In Amsterdam:
1990: bikeshare 33%, cars 39%
2010: bikeshare 47% cars 31%
1990: 6% bike to station
2010: 40% bike to station
In Utrecht:
22.000 parkingplaces for bikes
In the stationsarea in 2020

16. 16
Trends: more cycling!




Revival of the city, new inhabitants
Healthy living
Sustainability: rising costs of mobility
‘Experience’ and ‘attactiveness as an economic tool
Conclusion:
▪ Intensifiing cities
▪ Need for attractive environments
▪ Cycling is playing a key role
How can we manage this?
Let’s have a closer look at Utrecht

17. 17
3

The example of Utrecht: giving the
city back to the people!

18. 18
This is Utrecht
Uit: Magazine Utrecht Stad van Kennis & Cultuu
“City of knowledge and
culture”

19. 19
Protests to enlarging the Ringroad
(national project)

20. 20
Air-quality enforces hard measures but no
solutions

21. 21
No more newtowns;
but intensifiing the city leads to more traffic
Locaties uit het Stadsdebat Dynamisch Stedelijk Masterplan
(www.stadsdebatutrecht.nl)

22. 22
New deal: making Utrecht no 1 cycling city
Collegeprogramma Mobiliteit
 “Dit college gaat van Utrecht de OV- en fietsstad van Nederland maken”

“…om de stad ook in de toekomst duurzaam bereikbaar te houden”

“…aantrekkelijke alternatieven voor de automobiliteit van, naar en binnen
Utrecht”

“Een schaalsprong in het openbaar vervoer is daarbij een even
onvermijdelijk als wenselijk perspectief”

“…samen met het Rijk, het bestuur regio Utrecht (BRU) en de NS”

“Voor een gezonde, leefbare en duurzame ruimte neemt het college
maatregelen die alternatieven bieden voor de huidige groei van de
automobiliteit”

23. 23
Utrecht Attractive and Attainable
(2030 ten opzichte van 2010)

24. 24
Redistributing the public space!
Road capacity (TU Delft, people per lane of 3,5 m)

25. 25

26. 26
3 mobility environments
A
B
C

27. 27
3 mobility environments
A
B
C

28. 28
Car-acces: giving people choices
A
B
C
C
B
A

29. 29
The principles of the A-environment
 Attractivity as a leading principle
 Reducing car traffic, destination only
 Redistributing public space
 from cardominated parking ring to
attractive cycling ring
 Redesigning the barriers for cyclists
 In the innercity: cycling for destination

30. 30

31. 31

32. 32
ar
re
he
“t
es
ik
b
e
ve
e
he
yw
r
e”
r

33. 33

34. 34

35. 35

36. 36
Streets for people

37. 37
4
Cycle-highways in to the

city

38. 38

39. 39
Sterroutes Den Haag
F12 en F44 – C-zone

40. 40
Accessibility/Economy The
Hague
E-bikes go 50% to 75% faster, widening the catchment area by 75%.

41. 41
Change of modal choice
100
fiets
90
auto
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
tot 2.5 km
2.5-3.7 km
3.7-5 km
5-7.5 km
7.5-10 km
10 km >
Beoogde
verschuiving

42. 42
B –environment: Urban solutions

43. 43
Next to main road or through
the neighborhoods?

44. 44
Attractive cycling roads as a tool
Route 1 Leidseweg
Route 2 Weg der VN

45. 45
Attractive cycling roads as a tool
 Route 1 = 1,8 km
 Route 2 = 1,6 km
 82% choses route 1
 15% choses route 2

46. Reden
Leukste/prettigste
/mooiste
Sneller in tijd
Korter in afstand
Percentage
46
Reden keuze route
70
60
50
40
30
Route 1
Route 2
20
10
0

47. 47
Verdeling ingeschatte reistijd
10
9
8
7
Aantal
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
5
6
7
8
10
Ingeschatte reistijd in minuten
15
20

48. 48
Cycle-streets (width 4 meter)

49. 49
Roundabout: nonstop

50. 50

51. 51
Urban-environment: quality of places

52. 52
Principles of the urban environment
(B)
Cycling highways: attractive, fast and safe
No massive carroads (max 15.000 per day)
Only inside-ringroad traffic allowed
Attractive boulevards, spatial continuity
Balance of modes: easy crossing in the
whole area
 Quality of places






53. 53
Suburban environments (C)

54. 54

55. 55

56. 56
Principles of the C-environment
 Keeping bicycles away from the
carenvironment
 Cycling highways: fast and easy
 Car-, PT and biking structures on separate
tracks
 In centres: quality of public spaces

57. 57
Cycle highways: using railwaytracks
Width profile: minimum 4 x 1 meter = 4 m
(speed 10 – 40 km/h)

58. 58
Design: Priority Cycleway along the railway

59. 59
Meeliften: Hanzespoorlijn Zwolle

60. 60
Attractive view -> water
old railway – San Remo Italy

61. 61
Own Identity
( F35 in 2011 in Twente NL)

62. 62
Intersections
source : www.fietssnelwegen.nl

63. 63
Nonstop in 2 levels

64. 64
Taking cycling to the next level




Giving the city back to the people
Attractiveness as a leading principle
Redistribution of public space: A, B, C
Clear principles for car traffic
▪ A: no trough-traffic; car as guest
▪ B: no high intensities; balance
▪ C: seperate structures