Why tunnels are better than bridges for cycling

A couple of weeks ago a campaigner from Cambridge in the UK asked me a question about bridge parapet heights in the Netherlands especially with regard to clearing railway lines. He'd realised that he'd not had any problems due to climbing bridges in this country and assumed that the Dutch had standards which were more suitable for cyclists than the UK.

However, the answer to this question turned out to be more involved than just heights of bridges. Actually, in the Netherlands there are not many high bridges. Cyclists in the Netherlands use tunnels and underpasses far more often than bridges. There are very good reasons for this which I'll explain below, but first a graphic showing the facilities which exist in both Cambridge and Assen to cross railway tracks and major roads which would otherwise form barriers to cycling:

Crossings marked with an X are cycle and pedestrian exclusive crossings. Note that all but three of the combined crossings for cyclists and motor vehicles in Assen have separate cycling infrastructure. Crossings of the river Cam and canals in Assen are not included though they make much the same point.  There are many canal bridges in Assen - mainly cycling specific flat opening bridges which do not require riding uphill and none have obstacles upon them. Assen's many crossings form important links in the fine grid of high quality cycling facilities required for a high cycling modal share.

The diagram above does not include
bridges over rivers and canals. No
bridges in Assen require dismounting
like this example in Cambridge.

As you can see, in both cities, the railway line cuts the eastern part of the city from the western part while major roads have a similar effect on the western parts of the cities.

The maps show crossings of motorways and ring-roads only, excluding rivers and canals as well as roads closer to the centre.

Comparison of crossings in Assen and Cambridge
It's immediately obvious that there are far more green crossings (tunnels) in Assen than there are red (bridges). The reverse is true in Cambridge. What's more,

The railway has a similar effect on both cities, cutting off people in the east from the centre. More people live east of the railway in Cambridge than is the case in Assen.  Note that in Assen all the most commonly used crossings are either tunnels or level crossings while in Cambridge the majority of crossings are bridges.

It's a similar story with major roads. Both cities have a motorway running north-south west of the city. Cambridge also has a dual carriageway (a road built to motorway standard) running west-east across the north of the city, while Assen has a partial ring-road which runs around the west of the city. These roads are crossed almost entirely by tunnel or level in Assen while they are crossed by bridges in Cambridge.

All crossings in Assen can be used
without slowing down. This is one
of the many cycle and pedestrian
crossings of a major road in Assen.
Four metre wide cycle-path, separate
pedestrian path, gentle inclines, well
lit and we can see right through for
 good social safety. Built in the 1970s
well maintained: last resurfaced 2012

Note also that in Assen the crossings mostly have an X which indicates that they are cycle-specific crossings. There are also crossings shared with cars, but these include separate infrastructure for cycling.

In Assen it is rare for a cyclist to use a bridge, common to use tunnels, and very often we cross on infrastructure which is cyclist specific so that cars are rarely seen. In Cambridge the crossings are mostly bridges, usually along the same routes as used by cars, and in several cases you have to cycle on the road to cross major roads or the railway line.

Dutch standards for Tunnels and Bridges

CROW still recommend maximum
of 5% incline and that's what this
tunnel has. Complaints from some
local cyclists have led to this Assen
underpass being redesigned at 3.5%.

The CROW Design Manual for Bicycle Traffic includes many details of how both bridges and tunnels should be designed to make cycling over and through them safe and convenient. I'm not going to repeat all of their recommendations here but will include some important points.

1. The incline to a bridge or tunnel should be less than 1 in 20 (5%)
2. Upward inclines: "Upward inclines require cyclists to make an extra effort and should be avoided where possible in the design of a bicycle friendly infrastructure."
3. Downward inclines: "On long declines, attention should focus on the speed of the descending cyclist". It is suggested that planners should expect  "35 to 40 km/h" and that there should be "plenty of free deceleration space at the bottom of inclines, with no intersections, sharp bends or other obstacles in the way".
4. Absolute minimum width of cycle-paths should be 3 m. That's permissible only if there's a separate 1 m minimum walking path on both sides of the cycle-path. Without a separate walking path (i.e. where no pedestrians are expected, this isn't shared use) the minimum width becomes 4.15 m, made up of 3.5 m cycle-path plus 0.325 m clearance between each side of the cycle-path and any railings or wall.

All the examples in Assen meet all these requirements except for one tunnel built in the 1960s which is a little too narrow.

Generally speaking, it is better that cyclists do not have to climb to cross roads or railway tracks. It is better to have cyclists continue on flat infrastructure and that powered vehicles should climb.

Only three bridges in Assen have a
significant inclines for cyclists. Most
are completely flat like this example.

Advice for bridges

1. Gradients should not be constant all the way up the incline. Cycling speed diminishes when climbing. For relatively short inclines (height less than 10 m), the highest section should be less steep than the lowest section to enable cyclists to maintain an almost steady speed uphill.
2. If a height over 5 m must be climbed, 'resting places' in the form of a horizontal section about 25 m in length should be provided before cyclists must to climb again.
3. Wind nuisance is greatly increased on an exposed bridge so this should be taken into account. Climbs against the prevailing wind should compensate by being less steep. Wind barriers can be installed on bridges to reduce the nuisance to cyclists.
4. It should be possible to cycle onto and over a bridge. Cyclists should never be required to dismount. Escalators or lifts to access the bridge are OK as a last resort measure.

Problems with bridges
The following are given as specific problems with bridges:

1. There are often longer inclines than with a tunnel (because of greater height difference in order to clear railway lines, for instance - precisely the parapet height question which prompted this blog post)
2. There is a possibility of fear of heights with a high bridge
3. Bridges must be designed to keep height difference to be overcome by cyclists as small as possible
4. Suggestion that with a cycle-bridge across the road: if necessary the road should be lowered to make the cycle-bridge less high.

CROW ideal tunnel impression. Short
open, well lit, separate pedestrian path
also of good width. Splayed out sides

Advice for tunnels

1. Steeper gradients can be used than with a bridge because cyclists going into a tunnel first ride downhill and pick up speed which can be used to climb back out of the tunnel.
2. Tunnels can be made less deep by moving roads and railways above them upwards.
3. Social safety issues should be addressed by making it possible to see out of a tunnel before you enter, and by avoiding long tunnels.
4. A "semi-buried" design can work well, with the road above rising by about two metres, effectively a small bridge. This makes the tunnel into an open structure and reduces the change in height required of cyclists.
5. Tunnels require good drainage (often pumped) and should be designed to be easy to clean.
6. Tunnel height should never be less than 2.5 m and width should be no less than 1.5 x the height in order that the tunnel feels comfortable to use.
7. Lights and light colours are preferable in a tunnel to make it appear as 'open' as possible. The time spent in a tunnel should be minimised and sides should be splayed outwards.

Some of the suggestions refer to social safety issues. In short, infrastructure should not lead to a feeling of unease, especially after dark.

All the tunnels were retrofitted to
Assen. The process continues. This
tunnel dates from 2008. Note that this
is an example of where the road rises
slightly as the cycle-path drops.

Why tunnels are preferred
CROW consider that tunnels are "often more favourable". They make many points including:

1. Tunnels have a smaller height difference than bridges. Only need clearance for the height of a cyclist, not for trucks or trains plus electric lines.
2. Tunnels take up less space than a bridge because inclines are shorter
3. Tunnels are easier to fit into an existing landscape.
4. Tunnels offer protection from wind and rain
5. Tunnels offer faster journeys than bridges due to less climbing
6. In rural areas tunnels can also be useful for wildlife

There are also other advantages which may seem to be quite small such as that tunnels naturally provide shelter when it rains.

Tunnel disadvantages
A possible disadvantage is low social safety. It is important that cyclists can see out of a tunnel before they enter it. There should be no turns within the tunnel, no-where for a potential mugger to hide. Obviously tunnels should also be well lit.

Drainage is very important in tunnels. The Netherlands has many tunnels which are below the water table and require pumps. Nevertheless, it is rare that tunnels become flooded.

The best tunnel in Assen is a bridge

Conceptually, this is an incline-less
tunnel for cyclists, not a bridge for
cars. It provides part of a direct and
uninterrupted route by bike from a new
suburb to the centre of Assen. This
bridge has no benefit at all for drivers,
only for cyclists. Re-opening the canal
for tourism was a side-benefit. This
replaced a large flat road junction.

If possible, it's best that cyclists don't have to change level at all. If motor vehicles can be sent into a tunnel or over a bridge then they no longer hinder cyclists.

In 2007, there was a traffic light junction at this location in Assen. For cyclists to use the road to travel directly into the city they had to stop at a traffic light. By 2008 this bridge had been built. It severs the pre-existing link by motor vehicle into the city, leaving the direct route as a bicycle road which excludes through motor traffic.

This bridge has no utility for drivers. It actually reduces their options as it is now impossible for a car travelling over the bridge to turn left of right as used to be possible.

Instead of building this bridge to carry four lanes of motor vehicles, a much smaller and less expensive bridge could have been built to take cyclists over the road, a small tunnel could have been excavated to take them under the road or a signal controlled crossing could have been installed on the level. However all these other options would have meant a reduction in speed and convenience for cyclists due to inclines for bridge or tunnel and delays at traffic lights for a level crossing. There could also have been social safety issues. The solution, to ensure the best possible service for cyclists was this bridge. Cyclists now have a smooth, level uninterrupted route which is well lit at night and has good sight lines in all directions.

Just as recommended by CROW, motor vehicles have to use inclines in this example rather than cyclists.

Short note about funneling

Illustration of how high cycle counts can indicate
a problem: A lack of bridges or tunnels to cross
railways, roads, rivers or canals can force people
onto the same crowded route. High cycle counts
are not a symbol of success when they result from
detours and traffic-jams for cyclists. A proper
comprehensive grid of infrastructure keeps counts
down. Not so good for photographers who want
to see lots of bikes but good for individual cyclists.

Unless enough pleasant routes are provided, excess numbers of cyclists are likely to be seen on the few remaining routes. It can be especially a problem where there are too few crossings of railway lines, major roads or rivers. Such funneling can make for great promotional headlines ("N bicycles per day pass this point") but actually it's not good news for cyclists at all because this actually means a detour onto overcrowded cycle-paths and conflict.

It is far better for cyclists that there should be more available routes so that more people can make direct journeys and there is less of a need to detour to find a comfortable route. Detours should be minimised by providing extra cycle crossings of large roads, railway lines, rivers and canals. This makes cycling more viable for more people and therefore more attractive. This principle should not only be applied for what are considered to be practical routes - CROW state that "recreational routes can also form reason enough to remove barriers".

Reducing funneling in Groningen
Groningen has many students, making up a relatively transient population who while they are more likely to cycle are also likely not to know the local area well. The city used specific marketing to encourage people to choose a selection of other routes which would serve them better. However, it's important to note that this was only possible because a very comprehensive grid of cycling infrastructure already existed.

It comes down to having a proper grid
I've often railed against hype about exceptional pieces of infrastructure. They're nice to see, but not really very important. The fact is that a few impressive bridges or tunnels are of relatively little use unless they form part of a comprehensive grid of good quality infrastructure. The grid is really the exceptional achievement of the Netherlands. The grid is the thing which should inspire and be copied elsewhere.

Tunnels are less photogenic than bridges, but they are preferable for the reasons explained above. However, whether tunnels or bridges are built it is most important that there are enough of them, that they are of high enough quality and that they link everything else together.

Find out more
Both tunnels and bridges feature on our study tours.

The Cambridge map does not include the Newmarket road roundabout underpasses as they do not cross railway or motorway. Nearly at the geographic centre of the map above, these underpasses are right not well loved. They are bad examples for a number of reasons include low social safety and sharp turns at the bottom of inclines. It also does not include the Northfield avenue underpass for similar reasons. This is flawed mainly due to dangerous railings within it. There are also many bridges in Assen which are not included on the map because they don't cross main roads or the railway, but all those which have a significant incline in Assen are on the map. The point of the maps is not to show all bridges and tunnels but to show red vs. green. i.e. emphasis on bridges in the UK vs. emphasis on tunnels in the Netherlands.

"Alpe d'Huez" in Groningen and what this means for London and the rest of the world

My mother and the rest of the family
riding through a nearby village

We've had a few very busy weeks. First my Mother came to stay and cycle with us, and then several different cycling visitors have come to see us and find out what's been achieved for cyclists in this area.

As a result, we've done several short tours and because we've been doing things for other people I've mostly not been able to take photos or make video for myself or this blog.

However, an opportunity did arise yesterday when I rode to Groningen with Clarence Eckerson Jr. On our study tours we make a point of showing people the worst as well as the best infrastructure and to explain why the less good parts are considered to be a problem. Cherry-picking of a few highlights might be possible in a few hours it takes a lot more time to give an accurate impression of what cycling in the Netherlands is about and we try to do this even with people who have less time than the three days of our usual tours.

Streetfilms in The Netherlands
 Clarence and I rode between
Assen and Groningen

Clarence and I talked about many things including how despite having the highest cycling modal share in the world, Groningen missed out on winning the Dutch "Cycling City of 2011" award. It's still a wonderful place to cycle, but the city had not invested enough in making it better. In particular, two pieces of infrastructure were picked out by campaigners as a stick with which to beat the city and I was keen to show Clarence what "bad" was in this context. Cor van de Klaauw from Groningen city visited both of them with us and discussed the problems. Some time ago I wrote and made a video about one of these points: the most dangerous junction in the Netherlands. Yesterday I had the opportunity to video the other: a new bridge which is steeper than cyclists would like it to be. It's considered to be "a challenge like Alpe d'Huez" for elderly people. By international standards it's not actually very steep and the cycling provision on both sides of the road over the bridge is actually very good. However cycling has a very wide demographic in The Netherlands and there are very many elderly people riding bikes here. This bridge genuinely does cause some difficulties for some of them as you can see in a previous post.

Here's the controversial bridge. In any other country new infrastructure of this quality this would likely have been the subject of boastful press-releases:


This bridge, which provides a new good quality link for cyclists and drivers alike, is considered to be not quite good enough to win a "cycling city" award. It's one of the things which was used to criticise Groningen in 2011.
And then we return to earth with a bump...
Sadly, the problems in London have continued with more deaths of cyclists on the roads. I have criticized London's absurdly named "superhighways" since they were first announced in 2009 because even then they were obviously not up to the job of creating an environment in which mass cycling could take place in safety. These "superhighways" have a far grander name than anything else, but they are not even remotely close to the quality of infrastructure which is the subject of criticism in the Netherlands. London's more recent plans are equally lacklustre.

For decades, British politicians have pacified cyclists by making vague promises about future change, producing impressive looking press-releases and plans, hyping up projects which divert attention to the wrong things, using lots of words to describe remarkably little, and making endless promises of jam tomorrow while not actually starting the process of change at all.

In the past, the votes of cyclists have been captured by making these vague promises and relying on the short collective memory of cyclists so that people will believe the same story yet again. Due to the frequency with which people give up cycling in the UK, there is a high churn rate amongst cyclists and this has assisted the very short collective memory of what has happened before. The internet offers the potential of allowing younger campaigners to benefit from the experience of those who have already seen these things happen. It has the potential to make the collective memory of campaigners longer.

More people are waking up now to the fact that plans made by London are simply inadequate. The death of 65 cyclists during Boris Johnson's term of office is a high price to pay for incompetence. If you don't click on any of the other links in this post, please do read that last link to a post by Markbikeslondon and this one from an obviously angry Voleofspeed.

There's yet another protest in London today. I urge any of you who are there or near by to try to get to it.

September 2013 update - nothing stands still in NL
The Berlagebrug is being changed. The last two study tour groups which I took to Groningen saw some of the works going on around this area, cycling conditions are improving.

A still from July taken from the video above compared with the situation in September when the cycle-paths were being reworked.

On-road cycle-lane being replaced by off-road cycle-path on
adjacent road.

At the end of the video above, after the bridge, I turned right onto one of few roads which still had just a cycle-lane. This is being upgraded into a proper segregated cycle-path and the cycle-paths leading right up onto the bridge are being improved. I don't know as yet whether this will decrease the slope. However campaigning in Groningen about the quality of the Berlagebrug will in any case have paid off. The bridge will work far better for cyclists after these works are complete than it did immediately after the bridge was built.

Nothing stands still in the Netherlands and this is why no-one can "catch up" by doing less.

Readers from places other than London: Please realise that there is nothing to be gained by any other place trying to copy London's policies which consist almost entirely of hype and hot air. If you want to achieve mass cycling in your country, emulate the best example. This means The Netherlands. Take a study tour.

A triple bicycle bridge in Groningen

The explanatory captions on this video are only visible if you watch the video on a computer and not on a mobile device. Another video provides a different view of this bridge.

The Korrebrug, or Gerrit Krol-brug, is the busiest bridge for cyclists in Groningen. Over 14000 cyclists pass over this bridge every day. We took last week's study tour to see the bridge.

While the bridge is open, the cycle and pedestrian bridges
can be used to cross without waiting.

It's a good example of the Netherlands going to extraordinary lengths for cyclists. It's over a busy shipping route to the city, so sometimes, this bridge has to open to let ships through. This caused a huge tailback of bicycles each time it happened until the council came up with an excellent solution.

There's a choice. If you don't mind waiting, there is no need
to climb the other bridges.

Two smaller bridges (one for each direction of travel) we provided in 1995 to allow cyclists bypass the main bridge when it is open. They are higher, and require taking your bike along wheel guides over steps, but of course they are optional to use. If you're in a hurry, take the smaller bridges. If you don't mind waiting, are transporting a heavy cargo on your bike, or don't want to or are unable to climb steps, wait a few minutes for the main bridge to close again.

For some people, waiting is a
social occasion

The main bridge is shared between drivers and cyclists. However, cars are vastly outnumbered by bikes. Drivers of course don't have the option of taking the smaller bridges in the event of the main bridge being open.

This solution to a problem for cyclists is almost certainly unique in the whole world. During last week's study tour, I said this to a pair of youngsters who were unable to work out why people had come to take photos of their bridge, which they cross every day on the way to and from school, and which is utterly normal to them.

Now let's go over that again. There was an existing bridge, already mainly used by cyclists. This has been bypassed by not one, but two, extra bridges, both of which are only used by cyclists, and then only for the few minutes of each day when the main bridge is open.

And what does the world know about this ? Very little. There are lots of examples of exceptional engineering for cyclists all across the Netherlands. These things are planned and built without hype and fanfare. There are many cycle bridges in Groningen which would seem exceptional elsewhere, and that goes for all Dutch cities.

Gerrit Krol is a locally born author. In 1998, he wrote a story "de oudste jongen" in which he revisited places where he went as a child. The opening passage of this story describes how when returning from a long cycle ride and passing the sign for "Groningen", he felt that it could just as well have read "Gerrit Krol" because he was now home. The bridge displays this passage on a plaque.
Sadly, Gerrit Krol passed away on the 24th of November 2013

Why this bridge isn't so important as you might think Exceptional infrastructure like this is always interesting to see, but what causes people to cycle in large numbers is the very tight network of everyday, but high quality, cycle routes.

Space under and over bridges

This is one of the very first photos of infrastructure which I took in the Netherlands, back in 2001. Coming from the UK, I was amazed at the allocation of space under the bridge. Two arches are for bikes and pedestrians, only the arch in the middle is for cars.

I used that photo in a recent article for the Cycling Embassy of Great Britain, and it made me think of other examples. It's not rare that cyclists are treated well under and over bridges in the Netherlands. Sometimes there isn't a lot of space, but the need to keep cyclists safe isn't ignored.

Here are some other examples:

A few km north of here on a road connecting a village to a small town. Drivers have to negotiate a gap big enough for just one car at a time, while cyclists have a bidirectional cyclepath.

A main route into Groningen passes under a motorway. Here the cycle paths on both sides of the road are well apart from the motor vehicles.

This example appeared in a recent post about noise, but it is also an example of where a cycle path is well separated from a road under a bridge.

Another recent photo from a holiday a couple of weeks ago. On this bridge in a small fishing village near the coast motorists have to negotiate for the one car width space on the road while cyclists have a degree of separation.

I found the existing way over this bridge, a narrow service road to the left of the main lanes, safe enough when I rode across there a few years ago. However it wasn't considered to be good enough and therefore a new separate cycle bridge was built alongside the main bridge.

Is this common ?
Such consideration for cyclists at bridges is the norm in the Netherlands. There are hundreds, perhaps thousands, of examples of this type of thing. I doubt anyone has ever counted them. Here are six more examples just from my commuting route on or under bridges with widely varying traffic levels:

Grotere kaart weergeven


Grotere kaart weergeven


Grotere kaart weergeven

There's nothing unusual or difficult about this. Bridges don't have to cause problems for cyclists whether they're going over or under a bridge.

Why is this important ?
Any bridge, or any other point, which causes a problem and makes people feel unsafe forms another small barrier to cycling. This reduction in subjective safety causes a slight reduction in the number of people who are willing to cycle. Lots of bad examples add up so that the majority would eventually not feel safe cycling anywhere, because the chance of coming across such a thing is great.

And then there's Blackfriars...
So what's going on in London ? Why is one bridge, Blackfriars, causing such an enormous amount of trouble. Why are Transport for London planning to make conditions worse for cyclists on this bridge when the city is in theory trying to encourage people to cycle ? Why are so many people having to protest about it in order to try to prevent this degradation of standards ?

For most people considering cycling, a bridge which doesn't feel safe to cross by bike may as well not exist at all. This should be in the minds of planners at all times. It's not impossible to do. It's not difficult to do. The Netherlands provides examples across the whole country, at junctions large and small, with high and low volumes of traffic.

Many London bloggers have written about this issue. They're quite rightly outraged. You can find in-depth Blackfriars coverage, here, here, here, here, here, and here. Also in my later post about the problems at Blackfriars, including a Dutch example.

Another new bridge

The Fietsberaad reports that a new large cycle bridge has been opened in parallel with the existing Muiderbrug which crosses the Amsterdam-Rijnkanaal and carries the A1 motorway.

"The cycle path between Muiden and Diemen is an important route for commuters, school-children and recreational use. This new bridge is a crucual link in regional and national cycle route networks, as it is one of the few places to cross the Amsterdam-Rijnkanaal by bike."



I have cycled over the existing bridge. You didn't have to cycle on the motorway, there was already a parallel road for local slower traffic on the bridge. However, this wasn't for bicycles only and it will be a big improvement to have a separate path. A big boost to subjective and actual safety.

The new bridge is 318 metres long and 4.6 metres wide. It is 9 metres above the water, enough that container ships can pass beneath the bridge. Built of steel and to match the existing bridge, the new bridge cost 21 million euros.

There are several other stories about bridges, including one about another big bridge in Nijmegen and a somewhat shorter bridge in New Zealand that cyclists are banned from.

One way streets in the UK and the Netherlands

This excellent bridge is one of many small bridges which provide cyclists in Assen with a more direct route than they would have by travelling by car. As you can see, it's the usual width for cycle facilities here, giving 4 metres width for bicycles and an additional 2 metres for pedestrians.

This bridge is a small facility in itself, and it's what has been done with the residential roads which link with it which I find really special.

While there are quite a lot of resident's cars parked along these streets, there are very few moving cars. These streets only provide through routes for cyclists, not for drivers.

You would only travel by car along these streets for access to properties on them.

The one way system exists in order to give cyclists greater permeability through the city. It makes cyclists journeys shorter and more convenient, and bridges such as the one shown help to make sure that only cyclists and pedestrians can benefit from these shorter routes.

There is no "rat running" in a location like this because driving here leads to longer and slower journeys by car. These roads do of course all have 30 km/h speed limits.

Due to the almost total lack of motor vehicles, the effect is of a segregated cycling experience without any actual separate cycle paths.

The map shows how it is useful. My marks in red show a cycle path which is part of my route in the top left corner and the bridge at the bottom. The pinkish line shows part of my route that day on these residential roads. You'll see that virtually every one of these small roads is one-way to motor vehicles. Every single one has an exception for bicycles. While there very many roads which are one-way for motor vehicles in this city, I have yet to find a single one which has the same restriction on cyclists.

This shows a fundamental difference in the thinking behind one way systems in the Netherlands vs. that in the UK. I can't claim to have seen every Dutch one-way system, but I've seen a few now. And they don't have the same emphasis that I've seen in Britain.

Rather, British one-way systems tend to look like this one, which was sometimes part of my cycle commuting route when I lived in Cambridge:

This is a race-track for cars. While it's right in the middle of the city, this is an A road - the busiest classification of road in the UK except for motorways.

There are several sets of traffic lights, the speed limit is 30 mph / 50 km/h and high levels of acceleration are the norm. There are always at least two lanes heading in any one direction, and as many as four at the North Eastern corner. It was difficult to ride around this on a bicycle at a sufficient speed not to feel in danger when changing to whichever lane you might need for whichever direction you were heading in.

A few skimpy cycle lanes around it didn't do much for cyclists. You can zoom in on the map and take a look for yourself. Or indeed, have the thrill of "cycling" along it yourself using Google's street view. Remember to turn right into Croft Holme Lane, and right again into Victoria Road. Look out for pot-holes as you go, as well as the cyclist in the terrifyingly narrow cycle lane outside the Portland Arms:

View Larger Map

Lately there was an addition of a way to cycle on the pavement through the middle of this mess in a North-South direction, which I found quite relaxing after years of negotiating the roads. However, it is far from perfect. It manages to increase an 80 m straight line route to about 110 m in length, and it includes no fewer than 3 traffic light controlled crossings (+ one zebra which pedestrians have priority at, but not cyclists) and a couple of rather too tight bends into this short distance. What's more, the part of the pavement marked for cyclists to use varies between 1.5 and a maximum of about 2 metres in width even though it's for bidirectional use. This is very far from adequate.

There is another type of one-way street in the UK. The type which exists in residential areas. An example from Cambridge is below. It may initially seem similar to what happens in the Netherlands, but it is not:


The emphasis here is on maximising car parking space at the expense of pedestrians. Cars are encouraged to park half on the already narrow sidewalk, leaving little space for pedestrians. Such streets have to be one-way for drivers as clearly there isn't room for cars to travel in both directions. However, they are also generally one-way for cyclists - meaning that cycle journeys to these houses are longer than they should be. In any case, travelling in the opposite direction on a bike leads to conflict with oncoming drivers. It is again an example of a one-way system which is designed to convenience drivers, and while this particular street has a 20 mph speed limit, drivers frequently exceed it.

On such a road it is no longer possible for pedestrians to comfortably walk on the sidewalk. People pushing babies in prams often have to walk in the road due to the obstruction of the sidewalk.

In the UK, permission has only just been granted for "except cyclists" signs to be tried out on one-way streets (follow the link and read the comments beneath to get a flavour of the usual anti-cycling vitriol which accompanies any such small step forwards). However, while road design remains biased towards motoring, this change will not be as useful as it should be.

The crossing shown in the first photo never makes cyclists or pedestrians wait more than 8 seconds. If I cycle this way into the city centre, this maximum 8 second delay is the only traffic light that I meet.

More temporary bridges for cyclists

If people are put off cycling, even temporarily, they may not return. For this reason, much effort is expended to make sure that cyclists are not endangered or inconvenienced by road works in the Netherlands. This film by Mark Wagenbuur shows two different examples of temporary bridges being built to maintain cycle routes in 's-Hertogenbosch.

See the labels below for more bridges, more from Den Bosch, more from Mark and more coverage of what happens to cyclists when there are road works.

A small bridge in Assen

A few weeks back I covered a big bridge for cyclists in Nijmegen. It's nice to see such exceptional examples of infrastructure but their importance is often over-stated. The many small bridges which make links in the comprehensive grid of good quality infrastructure in the Netherlands make a bigger difference for cyclists. This blog post is about one of those small bridges in Assen.

This example is on the bicycle road which takes cyclists from the western side of Assen to the city centre. The bollards at this point are one of several reasons why motorists can't use the road as a through route. As a result, the bicycle road remains almost completely car free, except for people accessing their own homes along the road and this road provides a fantastic direct route for cyclists.

Stand for just a few minutes here watching and you'll see all types of people on bikes.

The cars rarely move. They belong to people who live along the road and are parked in residential car parking spaces.

The historical end of the road is surfaced with old fashioned looking tiles in keeping with the buildings, but they're actually an updated version which give a smoother ride for cyclists.

The red and white bollard prevents drivers from using this as
a through route by car

Cycling makes for 41% of all journeys in this city. While it's not the highest cycling rate in the Netherlands, it's a higher rate of cycling than in any city outside the Netherlands.

The extremely high subjective safety for cyclists in Assen makes it possible for children to have a much higher rate of independent personal mobility than is the case elsewhere.

Look in the opposite direction and it's a similar tale. All sorts of cyclists, many children making their way to the very centre of the city on their own bikes.


It's very common for young (and sometimes not so young) couples to travel two to a bike. It's also a good way of collecting children, or to pick up friends from the railway station.


Outside the more historical part of the city the bicycle road takes a slightly different form with tarmac for the majority of the surface with a raised and less smooth centre which discourages fast overtaking by drivers.

The rules remain the same. Cyclists have priority, and drivers may not park on the road. In effect it is a 5.5 m wide cycle path, and a very pleasant place to cycle. The motor vehicle through route is on the other side of the canal, which is also good for cycling.

In total, this bicycle road provides part of a 3.5 km direct line route right into the city centre from the west of Assen.

The bridge is not new. Actually, it's an historical bridge in Assen which had pretty much fallen into dis-use. Two years ago it looked as shown in this photo. It was moved a short distance and turned around to take its new place in the city, providing an important link for cyclists.


You can tell from the weather that this post was written a few weeks back. The bridge looks a bit different at the moment.

This bicycle road has featured several times before on my blog. Apart from the post about the direct route that it creates for cyclists, it was also in a post about how cycling should not be like an extreme sport, showing access to the city centre by bike on a Saturday, and as a demonstration of how cycle routes can be separate from driving routes.

Before and after photos of this location can be seen in another blog post. This bridge can also be seen on Streetview.

Update January 2015
This bridge has been replaced by a much narrower bridge which will cause conflict.

Cycling over Auckland Harbour Bridge

I lived in New Zealand from 1974 until 1981, my family returning to the UK when I was 15.

I crossed the Auckland Harbour Bridge on many occasions - but always by car. The original plans for the bridge were to have included paths for pedestrians, but these were dropped as an austerity move. It is still not possible to cross this bridge either by bike or on foot.

Bridges ought to provide a link for cyclists. However, in this case it's a barrier. The detour by road to cross the harbour is about 40 km in length.

There is now a campaign, www.getacross.org.nz, trying to get permanent access to this bridge, as the detour by road is a considerable distance. Auckland cyclists have said they are willing to pay a toll to cross the bridge - even though drivers do not currently pay a toll.

The main span of Auckland Harbour Bridge is 243 m - just 8 metres longer than the main span of a bridge for cyclists in Nijmegen in the Netherlands that I covered a few weeks back. That bridge, like all I've seen for cyclists in the Netherlands, is free of charge.


The Auckland harbour bridge also appears in Google Street View

In New Zealand, like all English speaking countries, only around 1% of journeys are by bike. If you want to know why this is, read other blog posts about cycling in New Zealand. There are also several other blog posts about bridges for cyclists as well as about tunnels, which often work better for cyclists than bridges.

Nijmegen's big bridge for cyclists

Sometimes a really big link is required to make cycling convenient. This huge cycle bridge in Nijmegen is one of them, complete with escalators to help cyclists take a short cut.

Note the width of the bridge. It is wide enough to prevent conflict between cyclists travelling in opposite directions.

The bridge is known as the "snelbinder". This is a play on words. The elastic bungie straps that many Dutch people have to attach luggage to their bicycles racks are also called snelbinders, and the word suggests that it is something that provides a quick link. The main span is 235 metres long and the bridge reaches 26 metres in height.

There is a wikimedia photo on the left showing the escalator for bicycles. Click for a larger version. There are also some more photos of the bridge here.

Nijmegen is considered to be the oldest city in the Netherlands. The city has an urban population of 280000 people.

I previously featured a video showing town centre cycle parking in Nijmegen. Nijmegen is also the location of the largest bicycle museum in the Netherlands.

There are also escalators for bikes which run beside steps for people. However, the closest I've been able to find to a video showing these in use is this.

This blog post features one of Mark Wagenbuur's excellent videos

Why this isn't so important as you might think Exceptional infrastructure like this is always interesting to see, but what causes people to cycle in large numbers is the very tight network of everyday, but high quality, cycle routes.

What separation of cycle routes really means

Explanatory captions on this video are only visible when it is viewed on a computer and not on a mobile device.

This video shows a location very near our home. Cyclists completely separated from motor traffic. It's not an aberration, but something quite common. It is possible to cycle here and barely see cars. Cars are mostly elsewhere.

The cycle routes you see in this video have few cars for several reasons. Some are cycle paths along which cars are not allowed. Others are roads open to all, but along which there is no destination for drivers, so they are not at all useful as a through road by car. No road sign will tell a driver that these small roads are route. They are directed onto the main road that you also see in the video. What's more, rat-running doesn't work here. Those roads which have been prioritised for cyclists really don't make a useful alternative for drivers.

This location looked quite different three years ago. The motivation for this transformation was to make sure that there was a direct and easy route to the city centre from a new housing estate on the western side of the city. The blue bridge carrying the cars over the cycle path was built to give cyclists a direct route without any stops and with maximum social safety.

This change was amongst those which helped the city to raise its cycling rate from around 37% to the new figure of 41% of all journeys by bike.

If you imagine going under the blue bridge in this video, you can get all the way into the city centre on the bicycle road, and the last bit looks like this

The video was shot from an artificial hill which stands where the red spot is in this photo:
The photo is from Microsoft Bing Maps birds eye view. I would have embedded it if I could work out how (it's much easier with Google Maps...).

A video view of the entire bicycle road route between the city centre and the new housing development is in another blog post. There is also another view from this hill.