The City of Haarlem Trials Car Lane Closure to Make More Space for Cyclists and Pedestrians

For one month, the city of Haarlem closed two car lanes at a junction on a major road connecting Zandvoort and Amsterdam. This area experiences heavy traffic, so the city aimed to reduce car space to make cycling to the train station easier and safer, and to create a more livable environment. The challenge was to divert traffic away from areas where high levels of traffic are undesirable.

We spoke with Rik Froma, the city’s road planning advisor on the project ‘stationsgebied’, to learn more about its execution and why such trials can act as catalysts for change.

What prompted the trial at Kennemerplein?

This is one of the busiest junctions in the city because it’s one of the main roads that goes from east to west. The N205 connects Bloemendaal with the highway. Every car from Bloemendaal to the highway will pass the Central Station, and of course that’s not ideal because a station should be a place for pedestrians and bikes, and now it’s just kind of a sewer for cars.

The Google Maps screenshot [Image 1] is taken when it was not too busy, but in reality it’s a really congested road. The lights at the junction collect the data to see how many cars take what direction. I checked the data and most of the cars go from east to west and from west to east, but there are not many cars that go from north to west and from west to north.

There’s an entire lane dedicated to right turning cars [from north to west], and the same for left turning cars [from west to north] (Image 3). It’s an enormous amount of space for just a couple of cars that take the turns. And so we decided to run a trial for a duration of a month and close the two turning lanes (Image 4).

What steps were taken before the trial began?

We wanted to find out what would happen if we closed the lane, so we ran a computer simulation to get an idea of the expected outcomes. The model showed that some cars might use an alternative east-west route instead: the Schotersingel, Frans Halsstraat or Saenredamstraat. Specifically, the Schotersingel is a road next to the water where people live and kids play. This is not a road where we want to have too many cars.

We were worried that more cars would divert to Schotersingel, and therefore we monitored the car traffic on these alternative routes before and during the trial. If the data from the trial shows only a minimal increase in the neighbourhood on the other side of the water, then the trial can be considered a success.

Was it difficult to get the trial approved?

That went pretty smooth, I would say. I think the good thing about it is it’s not expensive. So the only expenses that we had were basically you have to adjust the software of the lights, and you have to put the barriers so cars cannot take turns.

First, I spoke to the cops. We have an advisor from the police who is helping us with these kinds of things. He asked for a ‘Verkeersbesluit’ [a formal traffic request] and for six weeks people can object or ask questions. We didn’t get many formal complaints which was good. We also have to go through the debuty mayor and get the approval. Because it’s a test, and as long as you make it clear that test can fail or succeed and that it’s short-term to help for the longer term, then it’s all fine. These trials don’t happen often in Haarlem, and I think it’s going to happen more often because policy has been changing away from cars to more bikes. In the past it was cities always have to be reachable for cars. It makes sense to take cars from the city and use the space for bicycles.

What was the reaction the first day of the trial?

Unfortunately there was a mishap and the letters that communicated the trial to the locals were never delivered. Therefore they found out on the day that it started and of course people were surprised as it was unexpected. I explained that you can still get around with the car. It’s just from some places you have to take a slight detour, but it’s not far. I think the furthest detour according to Google Maps was roughly a two minutes detour.

Also, the company that were placing the barriers up didn’t place the barriers correctly and misplaced the turning lane bariers. We specifically communicated it, however, somehow it was missed. If I could do the trial over again, I would make sure to be there on the first day because I assumed that they would place the barriers according to the plan we provided.

How did the rest of the trial go?

I spoke to some cyclists, and they were very happy with the test because their waiting time at the intersection decreased significantly. If the test succeeds, we will have more space for cyclists and pedestrians. Of course, car drivers were not as pleased, but that was expected. We also had meetings with five representatives of the local residents to explain the trial and receive feedback. We will hold another meeting with them once the results are in.

Although the data isn’t publicly available yet, the increase in traffic has been minimal, indicating the trial was a success. My recommendation will be to implement these changes in the future design.

What would the future of Kennemeplein look like?

Right now, the bicycle lane is only from north to south [one direction], and we also want to make it from south to north, so a two-way lane. One of the purposes of the trial is to see if we can close the car lanes and make space for a bi-directional bicycle lane.

Currently there’s a Kiss and Ride [drop off/pick up zone] on both sides of the Kennemeplein and we would move them further away. If we count all the lanes at the moment there are 5 “lanes” (Image 6). Our plan is to remove the two Kiss and Rides and the west to north turning lane, which brings us to two lanes and gives a lot more to space in front of the station. There would be more space to make, for example, a square. A living space for people to meet.

What is your golden advice for a city looking to conduct a similar trial?

Well, I think we need to stop taking it for granted that every part of the city has to be perfectly accessible by cars. In the US, for example, many cities are built with a priority for car roads and parking. However, I believe cities should be built for people. Policymakers shouldn’t be afraid to upset car drivers if it makes the city a better place to live. Another piece of advice is to communicate clearly that a trial is a test, that it’s temporary, and that it might fail. This way, people don’t feel that the government is imposing changes permanently. A trial, like ours in Haarlem, can be a game changer for creating changes that people or politicians might be wary of.