1. Cycling as everyday mobility
Experiences in The Netherlands and
potential lessons for China
Luca Bertolini
University of Amsterdam
2. Cycling, why bother?
• Together with walking most environmentally
sustainable transport mode
• Clean, quiet, space efficient
• Contributes to, rather than detracts from the
quality of public space
• Inexpensive, for both the individual and the
public
• Healthy
• Fun
• Cool
3. Share of cycling as percentage of all trips in 14 countries
(Buehler and Pucher, 2012)
To see what a world where cycling is a significant part
of everyday mobility would look like , The Netherlands
is the place to go
27%
16. In Amsterdam, 31% of all trips are by bike – and
the share is growing, mostly at the expense of
the car
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
1986-
1991
1994-
1997
1998-
2000
2001-
2004
2005-
2008
2011 2013
walking
cycling
PT
car
(O+S Amsterdam)
walking 28%
PT 17%
cycling 31%
car 20%
19. • No major differences by:
– Sex
– Household composition
– Income
– Education levels
20. The share of cycling is high among children, peaks at
teen-age, then declines and stabilizes, and falls past 75
Age group Cycling share
Total 27
0–11 years 39
12–17 years 63
18–29 years 21
30–39 years 19
40–49 years 22
50–64 years 23
65–74 years 20
≥ 75 years 13
Share of cycling in total trips by age group
(NTS 2010/2011)
21. Cycling share growing among the younger and
the older generations
Changes in cycling share by age group 1985–2007
(NTS 1985-2007)
22. Migrants cycle less than natives, those with a
non-western background much less
Cycling share
Total 27
Native Dutch 28
Western migrant 25
Non-Western migrant 18
Share of cycling in total trips by ethnic background
(NTS 2010/2011)
23. Growing, possibly because of
diminished car-orientation,
studying longer, forming a
family later
How to maintain?
Low, possibly because of lack of
habit and status
How to stimulate?
Growing, possibly because of
better health, more active
lifestyle
How to facilitate?
25. Cycling share
Total 27
Work 25
Education 46
Shopping 29
Leisure 23
Dutch cycle for all purposes, but (much) more
for education, and (somewhat) less for leisure
Share of cycling by trip purpose
(NTS 2010/2011)
27. Cycling share
Total 27
Very highly urbanized 27
Highly urbanized 26
Moderately urbanized 28
Less urbanized 27
Not urbanized 23
Dutch cycle in all spatial contexts, more in
urbanized than in non urbanized areas
Share of cycling by urbanization rate
(NTS 2010/2011)
28. In cities, the share of cycling is growing,
in rural areas it is declining
Urban Rural
1994-96 2007-09 1994-96 2007-09
Cycling
share
25% 27% 27% 25%
Changes in cycling share by urbanization rate 1994–2009
(NTS 1994-2009)
29. Differences in cycling volumes are becoming
much greater
Cycling volumes by urbanization rate 1994–2012
(NTS 2012 / Statistics Netherlands 1994–2012)
30. Growing, because of
more, and younger
people moving to cities,
or staying there longer
How to accommodate
the growth?
Declining, because of
people leaving,
especially young people,
and because jobs and
services are thinning out
How to stem the
decline?
31. Beyond the general patterns, large differences at
the individual city level
Cycling share in medium sized Dutch cities, 2010-2012
(NTS 2010-2012)
32. • What explains individual differences?
• Gaining insight-2: what is the role of policy in
the performance of cycling in The
Netherlands?
33. Conceptual model
Performance measures
(change in)
Cycling share
Cycling safety
Perception of cycling
conditions
Critical success factors
(change in)
Hardware - pull conditions
Hardware - push conditions
Software conditions
Orgware conditions
Social context
Spatial context
-Changes since 2000
-In 22 mid sized cities
-By means of Rough Set Analysis
34. Hardware - pull conditions
Cycling network quantity
Cycling network quality
Cycling network safety
Cycling network facilities (parking)
Hardware - push conditions
Cycling network speed relative to car
Car parking tariffs
Area size with car parking regulation
38. • Cycling shares have been increasing in
cities characterized by…
Hardware
- an increase in the speed of bike trips relative to car
trips
Orgware
- successful in implementing most of the proposed
interventions
- high levels of citizen participation
- a combination of the above factors
39. • Cycling safety has been increasing in
cities characterized by…
Hardware
- an increase of on-street car parking tariffs and
enlargement of the area of paid on-street car parking
- an increase in #crossings where cyclists have priority
- an increase in % asphalt/tarmac on bike paths
Software
- giving much attention to cycling education for
children
Orgware
- high degree of flexibility in policy
- authoritative (or charismatic) leaders
40. • The perception of cycling conditions
has been improving in cities
characterized by…
Hardware
- enlargement of the area of paid on-street car parking
- an increase in the supply of bicycle parking facilities
at stations areas
Orgware
- high levels of citizen participation
- successful in implementing most of the proposed
interventions
- authoritative (or charismatic) leaders
- much scope for experimental interventions
41. • Overall, adding to the literature:
– Both pull (pro-bike) and push (anti-car) hardware
– Not only hardware
– Combinations important
58. “Not for Chinese cities”
• “Trips too long”
– Many trips are within bike range (3-6 km at
leisurely pace)
– And: more trips can be brought within bike range
(by mixing functions)
– Innovations and combinations can expand the
spatial reach of the bike
64. • Why so successful?
• Train fast, bike flexible
– Faster than walk-train
– More flexible than bus/tram-train
• Competitive with car
– Not bike alone, too slow
– Not train alone, too rigid
• NB: train in the Netherlands � metro in
Chinese cities
Combination: bike-train
65. • “Not enough space”
– Bike 7 x more space efficient than car (10 x when
parked)
– Bike 1,5 more space efficient than bus
66. • “Air too polluted”
– Not cycling, but pollution is the problem
– Pollution problem for everybody, not only cyclists
– Cycling can be a part of the solution
67. • “Too unsafe”
– It is not, when infrastructure, laws, attitudes and
numbers are there
68. Risk of death from traffic accidents in
The Netherlands 2010-2012
Deaths per Bike Car
billion trips 32,6 37,4
billion mins 1,9 1,2
(Institute for Road Safety Research, Statistics Netherlands)
72. Urban district form (illustrative)
Transport: pedestrians, bicycles, cars, freight, urban public
transport
Land use: mixed, continuous commercial plinth, some fully
commercial buildings
73. Transport: pedestrians, bicycles, cars and freight with
restrictions (e.g. one way, speed limit, time windows)
Land use: mixed, continuous commercial plinth, mainly
residential upper floors
Urban district form (illustrative)
74. Transport: pedestrians, bicycles, cars & freight exceptional (e.g. for
moving or construction)
Land use: mixed, plinth alternating residential and commercial,
residential upper floors
Urban district form (illustrative)
75. Transport: pedestrians, bicycles with restrictions (one way,
speed limit)
Land use: residential (but including working from home)
Urban district form (illustrative)
77. Transport: pedestrians, bicycles, cars, freight, urban public
transport
Land use: mixed, continuous commercial plinth, some fully
commercial buildings
Urban district form (illustrative)
78. Transport: pedestrians, bicycles, cars and freight with
restrictions (e.g. one way, speed limit, time windows)
Land use: mixed, continuous commercial plinth, mainly
residential upper floors
Urban district form (illustrative)
79. Transport: pedestrians, bicycles, cars & freight exceptional (e.g. for
moving or construction)
Land use: mixed, plinth alternating residential and commercial,
residential upper floors
Urban district form (illustrative)
80. Transport: pedestrians, bicycles with restrictions (one way,
speed limit)
Land use: residential (but including working from home)
Urban district form (illustrative)
