What inspires Americans ?

Riding in the Netherlands from Bikes Belong on Vimeo.
Bikes Belong in the USA recently visited the Netherlands on a study trip and produced this film as well as an article entitled A Week of Biking Joyously.

On the resulting blog posts says of the statistics which surround cycling in the Netherlands that: Upon hearing these statistics it’s tempting to casually dismiss the entire Dutch cycling experience as irrelevant to our own, as if some exotic alien technology beyond our comprehension were responsible. I’m no biologist, but I’m pretty sure there is no unique bicycling gene only present in Dutch nationals that compels them to ride bikes way more than anyone else.

On the contrary, most of the factors that enable high levels of bicycle use in the Netherlands can be traced to deliberate (and replicable) human decisions. Consistent investment in high-quality infrastructure over the past four decades, policies favoring compact and diverse land use, comprehensive traffic safety education, economic and legal incentives; all of these work together make bicycling the fastest, easiest, cheapest and most logical way move around for short trips.

You’d be crazy not to ride a bike.

They also wrote other things after their return, such as how they'd seen bicycling being normal and how bikes are the right tool for the job, and there is also a very attractive presentation about the visit.

Click for cycling infrastructure study tour details

There is much work to be done in normalizing cycling in the USA. We have to hope that these people will help to keep the country on the right path.

America - land of the bicycle (or, do the Dutch cycle because they're Dutch ?)

Two quotes from bicycle history publications:

"The bicycle industry thrived in the United States at the end of the 19th century. As many of ten percent of all Americans owned a bicycle. In 1896, 250 bicycle factories manufactured around one million bicycles in the USA - nearly half of total world production."

"1896 was the year in which cycling soared to a height of popularity among the middle classes of the motherlands of cycling. Britain and France had about a million cyclists each, Germany had half a million, and estimates from the USA range from two to four million."

At the beginning, the Netherlands was rather behind in bicycle usage. The first cycle path in the Netherlands was built quite early but the organisation behind it came into existence only after an Englishman who moved to the Netherlands found there wasn't an existing club to join.

It looks like a modern "Dutch bike" but actually it's an
American bicycle built in 1904. It's never really possible
or helpful to say that something with as many contributors
to its design came from one just one country. Important
innovations in bicycle design were made in many
countries.

Once upon a time, the USA was the world leader in cycling. Many of the features of Modern Dutch utility bicycles can be seen on the bicycle to the left, made in the USA in 1904, and now displayed in an excellent bicycle museum here in the Netherlands.

The Netherlands was quick to embrace the bicycle, but as you can see, it was not always the case that it was a leader in cycling. After the Second World War, policy in the Netherlands became dominated by catering for motor vehicles. In some places, existing cycle paths were removed to make more space for cars. The cycling rate in this country dropped precipitously, and the downward spiral would have continued had it not been turned around after protests which were not about 'cycling' but about the safety and rights of children.

There is nothing about the culture of the Dutch that makes them cycle. It's the environment which invites people to ride bikes. Dutch people who emigrate give up cycling and foreigners who settle in The Netherlands cycle far more than they did in the country they came from.

Many places in the Netherlands were transformed twice during the 20th century: First to accommodate motor vehicles and then to exclude them again (1 2 3 4).

The Netherlands' modern day success in cycling came not by accident or because "the Dutch have always cycled". Rather, it came through continued deliberate effort in policy, campaigning and infrastructure design.

The first paragraph is paraphrased from page 12 of the Dutch Bicycle Master Plan 1999, one of several interesting documents linked to from here. The second paragraph is similarly paraphrased from page 122 of "On Your Bicycle" by Jim McGurn.

A secondary cycling route in Utrecht

Sometimes people think we only show major roads outside the cities’ built up area which makes it ‘logic’ that there is room for wide good quality cycle paths. But people even say that from videos shot in the center of a city.

Yes, it is true that we usually show the main cycle grid, and there are of course lesser important routes too, so why not have a look there now.

The above video shows a secondary route in Utrecht that is not part of one of the designated main cycle routes. In an earlier post David has already pointed out that a city cannot only have a few main cycle routes, there has to be a tight secondary grid too, so distances to the grid are never too big.

As becomes clear, a secondary cycling route is more varied than a main cycle route. This is true for the surface as well as for the types of lanes and separate paths (tracks). There are also more “twists and turns”. It is striking however, that even on a secondary route the cyclist never merges with motorised traffic (apart from a few service roads where only residents drive). To show everything as clear as possible the video is not sped up. It is also one long shot, no editing at all. Somehow the camera didn’t only record the wind this time either, so the sound is all ‘real’ too!

The route is almost 4km (about 2.5 miles) for which I took 12 minutes, so the average speed is 20kph (about 12.5mph). It is possible to cycle faster, but not while holding a camera in one hand. Routeplanners state a car would also take 12 minutes for almost the same route (they have to make a detour twice).

The start is in the old center of Utrecht, Vredenburg square, where a market is held twice a week and all the major shops can be found. The video ends in Zuilen, a former municipality now suburb, where incidentally my father was born.

Gilbert Road in Cambridge / Groningerstraat in Assen

"Cycling Campaigners surveying options
in Gilbert Road." I'm second from the left.
As you'll see, there is really no lack of
space in Gilbert Road.

Several times I've written on the blog about Groningerstraat in Assen, and sometimes mentioning the way that this street shows how Gilbert Road in Cambridge, a road which used to be part of my cycle commuting route when I lived in the city, ought to have been developed.

The similarities are many:

The interesting section of Groningerstraat is 1 km long, while Gilbert Road is about 100 m longer. Both are main routes for cyclists. There is a secondary school (age 11-17) on both roads. Both are on routes to primary schools (age 5-10). Both are also used as through routes for cars.

Most importantly, the widths of both roads are almost exactly the same. So what is done in one could so easily also be done in the other.

I wrote an article about it for the Cambridge Cycling Campaign newsletter, and they published it a couple of days ago, edited for length, though space was found for three other articles which disagree with me. I have to say that it does amuse me a little that Martin makes a case that removing trees would especially have been a problem in Cambridge. There is no reason why this should be so. In fact, it seems that roads in the Netherlands always become greener when they are transformed. Assen has a policy of maintaining green spaces which has no equivalent in Cambridge.

My piece gives a potted history of what has happened in campaigning on Gilbert Road. As it was edited down, I've repeated it below with the removed paragraphs in italics:

Gilbert Road is a missed opportunity

Cambridge has a higher cycling rate than any other city in the UK. What Cambridge does is followed by other cities, and what Cambridge's campaigners do is followed by other campaigners.

The Cambridge Cycling Campaign has recognized that Gilbert Road is a problem for a very long time.

In August 1999, Kevin Bushell wrote of being a "long suffering user" of the road in an article in which he thanked the council for that years minor improvement - the addition of advanced stop boxes.

In the same article, Clare Macrae discussed the possibility of making the existing advisory cycle lanes mandatory "in the hope of stopping cars parking in the lanes just when they are most needed."

Two newsletters later, Clare reported on the outcome of a meeting to discuss Gilbert Road: "One thing was very clear – many, many people are very concerned about the increased speed and volume of traffic on Gilbert Road. Towards the end, councillors held a vote on whether people were in favour of improving cycle safety, by making the cycle lane mandatory. The response was overwhelmingly in favour, with only four 'no's. However, people seemed to want more imaginative solutions to their traffic problems than just mandatory cycle lanes."

"Advisory cycle lane on Gilbert Road
with a much improved width". One
blogger calls this "Great for cycle
campaigners, maybe not so great
for cyclists"

Fast forward to 2011 and what do we see ? The "more imaginative solution" is no-where to be seen. The advisory lanes are a little wider, though still advisory. There is a car parking restriction now and some people have reported that this makes road much better for cycling now.

However, how effective this measure actually will be is something we will only really know in the future. In other places in Cambridge parking is a long term problem despite it being illegal, including outside the shops in Milton Road just around the corner from Gilbert Road.

The problem with this scheme is its lack of ambition. The campaign asked for little more than was built. No-one really ever asked for a "more imaginative solution" as discussed 11 years earlier.

What's more, a lot of time and energy was expended in opposition with local residents who didn't want to lose their on-road car-parking spaces. The last thing that cyclists need is to be placed in opposition with motorists and residents, who actually we could do with having on our side when redevelopment is called for.

So, could it have been done different ? I think so

In 2008 we hosted a Study Tour in Assen which was attended by several campaigners from Cambridge. I showed them a street here in Assen, Groningerstraat, which is striking in its similarity with Gilbert Road. It has traffic lights at either end and another set in the middle. There is a secondary school part way along, as well as it being on the route to primary schools. It is also a popular commuting route by bike.

Groningerstraat in Assen. It's the same
width, but space has been found for
pedestrians, cyclists, car-parking and
driving down the road.

However, the similarities end when you see what has been done with the road. In Assen we have a segregated cycle path on both sides of the road, 2.5 m wide in most places, 4 m wide in some places. Cyclists are kept apart conflict with both pedestrians and drivers, increasing both actual and subjective safety for everyone. At junctions, cyclists have priority over every side-road. At the traffic lights, the junctions allow cyclists to save time by safely and legally making right turns on a red light (equivalent of left on red in the UK), and two out of three of them also use the "simultaneous green" system for cyclists. This lights up green twice as often for cyclists on the cycle paths as for motorists on the road. The result is that you can make much more efficient journeys by bike than by car along this road.

What's more, on-road car parking was preserved for a large proportion of residents, avoiding planning conflict with residents, or creation of an "us and them" attitude between motorists and cyclists.

Yes, there is room for all this. It was achieved in a road was measured by Cambridge Cycling Campaign committee members as being almost exactly the same width. And yes, it's affordable too. It cost less from Assen's cycling budget to transform Groningerstraat than it cost in Cambridge to do the much less ambitious work in Gilbert Road - though perhaps the different contractors used for the two jobs have some influence on that.

I have blogged several times about the features of this road, and you can read all about it here:

http://hembrow.blogspot.com/search/label/groningerstraat

No conflict on Groningerstraat.

I'm left with wondering why it is that photos and videos of this road, which provides an excellent live example of what Gilbert Road could have become, were not used for campaigning in Cambridge. This type of infrastructure has many benefits for cyclists, pedestrians and drivers. For the Netherlands it's fairly ordinary, but in the UK it would certainly have been a "more imaginative solution". Why were horizons limited to just different versions of quite narrow on-road cycle lanes ? Why was a conflict with residents over car-parking spaces ever an issue ?

What has been achieved in Gilbert Road is an incremental improvement, but not nearly the best possible outcome. If progress is to be made in cycling then campaigners need to start asking for the best, not watering down their proposals before even approaching the council. Publicity and support are required. If the schools, residents, cycling campaign members, the CEN, the councillors etc. had all been shown a proposal which would keep cyclists safe, keep school children safe, preserve car-parking spaces, and also result in a neat and tidy appearance, who would have been against ? The campaign could have included visiting the model for the proposed road here in Assen so that people could experience it for themselves, on a bike, by foot and in a car. Why not ?

If any place in the UK can make the move towards a higher standard of infrastructure design for cyclists, it is surely Cambridge where there is the highest rate of cycling in the UK. However, the ambitions of British cyclists, and of the Cambridge Cycling Campaign, simply are not high enough. As a result, cycling remains a minority pursuit in the UK. It simply won't achieve the status of "normality" amongst the majority of the population until it is made as easy, as convenient and as safe (both subjectively and in actuality) as it is in the Netherlands.

I welcome the start of the Cycling Embassy for Great Britain, as this group will complement the existing campaign groups in the UK while also campaigning for real change in the way that infrastructure is viewed.



And that's the end of the article. There is a difference here in what is considered to be the best way forward. I have argued for many years that there needs to be a more strategic view amongst cycling campaigners. That people need to be shown what is best so that a decision can be made with more information. Campaigners need to have vision. Fighting little battles over minor issues repeatedly does not make progress. In the worst cases, inadequate improvements can set bad precedents. There are already people posting photos of cars parked or driving in the cycle lanes in Gilbert Road, after the ban. Not to mention that buses can stop in the cycle lane.

The Dutch approach has been extremely successful. It's worth trying to emulate. However, while campaigners are too timid to even ask for best practice, there is no chance of achieving it.

June update
I recently wrote more about not aiming too low when campaigning, and also about that issue of trees.

I should make it clear that I don't think there was any subterfuge involved in editing out selected paragraphs of my article. Space is limited in a printed newsletter, perhaps more so than usual in this issue of the newsletter which included three articles to disagree with my edited text.

Other blog posts explain why on-road cycle-lanes are not a good solution for cyclists.

Holland... in England

The Fens in the East of England have often been compared with the Netherlands. The landscape of the Fens is low-lying and there are very few hills.

Many of the engineers and labourers who drained the Fens and made them inhabitable brought their experience of how to do this from The Netherlands, just 200 km away across the North Sea. Many people of Dutch descent stayed in the area. Not only is the landscape incredibly similar to a lot of the Netherlands, but Fen people actually have a genetic connection with the Dutch.

What's more, part of the area is actually officially called South Holland. The local council of this area has a tulip as part of their logo.

Several years ago, Jonathan Meades made a very amusing programme called "Double Dutch", pointing out (amongst other things) the similarities between Holland and "Holland":

You can also see parts 2 and 3 on youtube.

But, there is also a big difference. While cycling rates in this area of the country are not as low as in some other parts, they are still incredibly low compared with the Netherlands.

When we lived in the area, I would sometimes cycle the 90 mile distance between our home in Cambridge and my in-laws home in a rural Lincolnshire village. On these journeys I'd ride through this "Dutch" landscape past dykes and canals and windmills, with no hills to climb. However, I'd rarely see other cyclists. Such a lack of cyclists would be unthinkable on a similar journey in similar landscape here in the Netherlands.

So what's causes this difference ? As well as not seeing other cyclists there are also next to no cycle paths. None at all on my route, which is entirely different to when I make journeys of the same length here in the Netherlands and have decent quality infrastructure the whole way. As ever, how much people cycle comes down to the infrastructure. Good quality infrastructure creates both actual and subjective safety. There is a reason why you don't see large groups of cyclists out and about by bike, or pensioners or children going places by bike in Lincolnshire on anything like the scale that you do in the Netherlands. The difference comes about because nearly all cycling in this area is on roads and no good alternative routes are provided with cycle-paths. Some of the roads that cyclists have to use are really quite nasty, such as the A16 and A17 with their 100 km/h speed limits. Not everyone gave me quite so much space when they passed as they give the Google Maps car in this image:


View Larger Map


View Larger Map

When I crossed the Fosdyke bridge (in the second photo) this road bridge was the only method for many km across this river, and cyclists had no alternative but to ride on this very busy road. It's part of Sustrans' NCN 1, and the British part of the North Sea Route. Cycling tourists are actually encouraged to come here, and the tourism board even creates Dutch language literature which compares the possibilities of cycling in Lincolnshire (as well as other parts of the UK) favourably with The Netherlands.

The reason why "Holland" and Holland are not the same comes down to the rather more successful policies, campaigning and infrastructure design on this side of the North Sea.

In The Netherlands it feels, and is, safe to cycle even when there is fog.

See also blog posts about the strange and very non-Dutch pedestrianized zone in Boston, Lincolnshire and about how the same traffic calming concept is implemented in villages in Lincolnshire as in Dutch villages, but how it differs greatly in practice from the same idea as actually built in The Netherlands

Britain reduces the cost of motoring, battles the cost of obesity

This week in Britain:
Fuel duty curbs are multibillion pound tax cut for drivers.


£4.2 billion is spent on obesity every year by the NHS.

Rotterdam remedies a lower cycling rate

Rotterdam in the province of South-Holland, is the second largest city in the Netherlands. It is best known for its important port, the busiest in Europe. The cycling rate, although very high compared to any other country, is low for the Netherlands. About 25% of all trips in Rotterdam is by bicycle. This is much lower than Amsterdam, where that figure hovers around 40% or Groningen where it is almost 60%. This may have to do with the fact that Rotterdam is very different from most other cities in the Netherlands.

Rotterdam sky line

Rotterdam is younger than most larger Dutch cities. It started off as a fishing village when around 1270 a dam was built in the river Rotte. Only after the railways and a waterway to the North sea were finished in 1872 the port could really develop. It soon made Rotterdam a proud and important city. A city that was able to build Europe’s first skyscraper and tallest office building in 1898. But Rotterdam lost its historic heart in World War II, when in May 1940 the Nazis bombed away the entire city centre to make the Dutch surrender.

The Centre of Rotterdam in 1940

When the city was rebuilt from the late 1940s the city planned to do that 'according to the demands of modern fast traffic' and after the example of US cities. This resulted in wide multi-lane city boulevards right through the centre and big high rises, on a scale unknown in any other Dutch city. This is the reason that especially visitors from the US can relate to Rotterdam better than to any other city in the Netherlands.

But the 1940s Rotterdam planners also came up with something entirely new: the main shopping area was created as the world's first pedestrianised street. When it was finished in 1953 it soon served as an example for numerous car-free shopping streets around the world.

Luckily a long standing Dutch tradition was also not forgotten and the new wide streets were built including separate bicycle infrastructure. But just building infrastructure has proven not to be enough.
First and foremost the city wanted to strengthen the regional cycle network. It needed to better connect suburbs where people live to the centres where they need to go to do their shopping, go to school and work and stay for leisure etc. It also wanted to create two longer-distance high quality regional routes to Delft/the Hague and to Dordrecht. These should be completely finished by 2013.

Cycle grid Rotterdam: the routes in red were sub-standard

In recent years the city was not satisfied with the current relatively low rate of cycling. Investigations revealed the following possible reasons:

• The quality of the cycle network was not up to modern standards.
• There was a lack of bike parking possibilities with homes.
• There is lower interest in cycling among the non-Dutch/new-Dutch residents.
• The city has exceptionally good public transport (metro/tram/bus/train).

To increase the modal share of cycling the city’s cycling policy and action plan for the years 2007-2011 set a number of goals:

• To make cycling more attractive by making cycle routes safer, faster and of a higher quality.
• To increase the parking possibilities at both beginning and end of cycle journeys.
• To target specific groups to get them to cycle more (youth, working people and immigrants).

Concrete measures to make a cycle route faster involve giving cyclists right of way more often, making short cuts, shorten red times at junctions and making the surface of cycle paths smoother.

Video showing cycling in Rotterdam

Apparently a number of the goals of the policy were met. By looking around the city most of the cycle network seems to be up to standards now and the rate of cycling is rising. This results in more and more cyclists visibly riding on good quality infrastructure in the streets of Rotterdam.

Most of the background data came from the ‘Actieplan Rotterdam fietst’ (Action plan Rotterdam cycles) by the council of Rotterdam on the site of Fietsberaad (in Dutch only).

An article on the fast cycle route between Rotterdam and Delft is available in English.