Dutch cities are under pressure to rethink mobility. From 2025, zero-emission zones will ban polluting vehicles from many urban centres (Kieviet, 2025). This is not just about restricting cars; it’s about finding alternatives that make sustainable travel more convenient. Amersfoort offers a glimpse of how this might look: fewer parking spaces, more paid zones, and subsidies for Check’s shared bikes and scooters (Hardeman, 2025). These measures hint at a larger shift, where governments need to start embracing digital integration if they want carless mobility to become a realistic future.
At present, Check operates as a modular provider: its scooters and bikes are plug-and-play services that complement existing mobility options without dominating them. But government subsidies change this balance. By backing a commercial provider as a semi-public service, municipalities aren’t just supporting scooters; they’re steering mobility toward a digital ecosystem that could redefine how people move through cities.
The challenge is whether the Dutch context can support such integration. In China, super-apps like Ant or WeChat show how payments, shopping, and mobility can be seamlessly integrated. This creates powerful network effects that make private car ownership less necessary. However, in the Netherlands, strict privacy rules (GDPR), fragmented governance, and a strong culture of consumer choice make such centralisation far more difficult. Even the OV-chipkaart, a relatively simple attempt to unify ticketing across public transport, took more than a decade to implement, facing technical challenges and public resistance (Radar, 2024).
This suggests that while local steps like Amersfoort’s subsidy may help, fragmented efforts will not be enough. If the Netherlands truly wants to achieve its zero-emission ambitions, deeper digital integration will be essential, even if it challenges traditions of decentralisation and strict privacy.
Discussion question: Could a Chinese-style mobility ecosystem ever work in the Dutch context, and how would it look?
References
Radar. (2024, November 23). Overstap naar OVpay: waarom de OV-chipkaart nog niet verdwenen is. AVROTROS. https://radar.avrotros.nl/artikel/overstap-naar-ovpay-waarom-de-ov-chipkaart-nog-niet-verdwenen-is-61099
Kieviet, E. (2024, October 5). Kabinet legt zich neer bij de komst van uitstootvrije binnensteden. NOS. https://nos.nl/artikel/2539660-kabinet-legt-zich-neer-bij-de-komst-van-uitstootvrije-binnensteden
Interesting article, my take to your question is that an exact Chinese style mobility ecosystem would not be integrable one on one to the Dutch context. Some barriers that I think would occur is that the Dutch value things as autonomy, privacy and fairness. If you already look at the NS you can see that people were frustrated by a lack of transparency in pricing, let alone the lack of transparency they would feel within a deeper digital integration. I assume many would feel that their autonomy is being violated by reducing the choice options they have now in many different apps, basically forcing them to use on of the few options in a so called super app. To make it work it would require a trust based narrative, where there is transparancy about data use and visible consumer benefits. Another issue I think that would arise is the need of a highly centralized governance structure (as you touched upon) in such an idea combined with the Dutch consensus model would heavily slow down the development of political will and interorganizational trust. So how would it like for the Dutch adaptation is national standards while mantaining local autonomy and platforms that are interoperable rather than one dominant platform