How Dutch Expertise is Transforming Austin’s Streets

We sat down with Richard ter Avest of Goudappel to discuss his team’s work in the United States to help improve the cycling landscape and using ThinkBike workshops to spark inspiration for a shift in mobility. In such a car-dependent country, ter Avest shares how his experience has led to surprising shifts in people’s desires to move in new ways, such as by bike, and how residents and city officials are beginning to realize there’s a growing need to rethink mobility to be less car-centric and more people-oriented.   

How did you get involved in this project and what was the initial situation like in Austin before the 2012 Thinkbike workshop?  

2012 was the second year of the DCE ThinkBike workshops. The first year (2011), I went to Los Angeles and San Francisco. It started with groups that came from the US to visit the Netherlands. In my city, Deventer, they took the bike, and they said, “Wow, this is what we need”, or “This is so inspiring”, or “It’s like cycling through a postcard”.  

A group of four people from the city of Austin visited in September, including former commissioner Chris Riley, who unfortunately passed away this year. Riley was a strong advocate for prioritizing active mobility over car-centricity in the city. Annick Beaudet, an urban planner, was particularly enthusiastic about the Deventer innovation we presented previously. Also present were a few department heads. It was a great team from Austin.  

We first had a two-day workshop in 2012 where we brought together Dutch knowledge and ideas. Then, a group of nearly 50 city workers collaborated on practical cases. From the previous year, they began designing infrastructure by applying their new perspectives from the workshop. Their initial idea was to place bicycle lanes along the water; however, we advised for them to examine the results of the Move Meter, which illustrated where the shortest trips, only three miles from downtown, were mostly made by car. For example, one of the largest American universities is in Austin with 50,000 students, and it’s only three miles from the downtown area, of which a large majority of people were driving. So, we advised investment in the north-south corridors. For example, Guadalupe and other north-south streets introduced separate bike lanes, less car lanes, and more space for buses and for walking. Two years after implementing the designs, cycling on that corridor rose from 2% to 10%.  

In the 2012 workshop, we asked them to sketch the car & transit networks to understand the daily pattern of trips and neighbourhood borders. We asked them to draw some circles around the stations. It became clear that the university lacked access to transit.  

To make an effective mix, they had to balance and overlay three networks: bike, car and transit. In school areas, a priority for cycling was needed, whereas job-dense areas prioritized public transit. The second phase involved designing one of the two corridors and making network-level decisions.  

Replacing short trips was another focus. How can the network be built to make Austin residents choose the bike for short trips? These kinds of trips are often low hanging fruit and something that’s important to address.  

Does it make a difference working in a city that’s growing so fast?  

With more cars and people in Austin, congestion increases. We showed that without investing in cycling, a new $50 million highway bridge would be needed to address the influx of people. Instead of building the bridge, they chose to invest that $50 million in cycling infrastructure. This had a far greater impact that not only improved the transition from car to bike, but also street crossability, road safety, and reducing barriers between neighbourhoods. Economically, more people walking and cycling led to increased spending at restaurants and shops. As a result, other streets wanted similar improvements. 

Did you notice a change in the environment that you’re working in, in 2012 compared to the second workshop in 2022?  

They work very hard to design all the streets and to realise these projects. They had more resources than we do in Europe for this kind of infrastructure project. That being said, it still starts with inspiration and good examples. 

Within two years, they finished the whole planned cycle-network of the city, which is four times bigger than the whole region of Amsterdam. They not only work hard for hardware, but also orgware, which is the organisation together with the state of Texas, which is not easy, because of the political differences between Austin and Texas as a whole. Austin also wants to invest in a light rail system between the airport and downtown. They already have one to the north. So, the combination of cycling and transit is also developing well. 

What difference can a good transit system make?  

In the Netherlands, 50% of train travelers are cyclists. Therefore, choosing a bike over walking expands the rail catchment area by 15 times. Trains are for longer trips and single routes, while bikes are for shorter, cross-town connections. Combining both allows you to access all destinations within the city and region. With the most efficient train system in the world and a strong cycling culture, investing in high-density housing and jobs near train stations leads to fewer cars in the future. 

When cycling is made safer with proper, protected bike lanes, more people ride. They find it fun, safe, and fast. That’s how it works. Dutch people cycle because it’s practical, not really for environmental reasons. It’s cheaper and quicker. A key factor is creating an all-age, all-ability bike network. 

What do you have to take into account to build infrastructure that’s inclusive for everyone in such a city?  

That’s a good question. In the Netherlands, we’re focusing on inclusive cities, not only how to reach people in wheelchairs, but also young people, & families with young children. An NGO helped identify what’s important for these groups to ensure safety. At the neighbourhood level, this means slowing speeds from 35 mph to 20 mph (30 km/h), like we do in the Netherlands. It also involves improving street crossability. If a road has more than 4,000 cars per day, crossing becomes difficult.  

How do you future proof these kind of bicycle networks? 

Make bike lanes wide enough and consider categorizing routes by priority. In some neighborhoods, bike lanes aren’t always necessary. In a plan for North London, we found that 75% of bike routes were through neighborhoods, where protected lanes aren’t needed. In these areas, London uses 20 mph zones to slow traffic. For areas where separate, protected bike lanes are needed, we aim for a width of about 2 meters (6-7 feet). 

It was really nice to get to learn a little bit more of the project. Are you still active in in Austin?  

Yes, we still have contact (Laura Dierenfield and Nathan Wilkes) and have had another meeting. They’ll likely return to the Netherlands for the next phase, which could inspire other projects. Austin is also a member of NACTO, which is great. In the U.S., young people have a lot of influence and push for experimentation, incorporating it into NACTO guidelines. In contrast, Germany, and even the Netherlands are sometimes hesitant to experiment. But Austin’s involvement in NACTO is inspiring for other cities.