Cycling infrastructure is cheaper to build than not to build, part two. Features "old, inferior" infrastructure

I read a story today about how the route between Eindhoven and Valkenswaard in the Netherlands was to be improved. Interestingly, the author of the story put the case that while the new cycle-path would cost €2-3 M, the benefits greatly outweighed the costs. He put the benefits at a value of €8 M due to saving of time for existing commuters and the likelihood that the new route would attract more people to cycle. More cycling means reduced emissions, cleaner air, health benefits to individuals, society as a whole and also to employers.

The old, inferior route between Eindhoven and Valkenswaard for cyclists. The photo, with that caption, generated quite a lot of discussion on Twitter. I rode here with my family on holiday in 2003.

As well as retweeting the link, I also posted the photo above to twitter as an example of what the new improved cycle-path will allow people to avoid riding along. The benefit of the new path comes in part due to a more direct route for some users, but with my eyes now adjusted to living "40 years in the future" compared with other nations, I can now see how this cycle-path is inferior to best Dutch practice. Things have moved on in the last ten years. There is better infrastructure than this almost everywhere near where we now live.

Andre Engels provided this map.
The new path in orange takes a
different route, better for commuters
to the High Tech Campus. This is
the route of a disused railway line

In 2003 this cycle-path impressed me enough to take photos specifically so that I could show them to campaigners in the UK as the sort of thing we should have been campaigning for, rather than the compromises which we were campaigning for. Overall, I'd still be as happy to ride there now as I was in 2003. It's not "bad" as such. However, this path is also not ideal in 2014 in the Netherlands. Expectations have increased and in order that people will want to cycle for a larger proportion of their journeys than they currently do, the quality of the experience has to be better than is offered by this cycle-path.

The old cycle-path is not quite wide enough and it's alongside a busy road so can be noisy. Junction designs along here are not ideal and at some points the cycle-path is a bit too close to the road for comfort. There are also some stops along the way which increase journey time. While the photo shows a point at which the cycle-path is bidirectional, further along there are single direction paths on both sides of the road. This requires that people cross the road. Once again, not ideal.

The new route will avoid the problems of the old and because it will exist in parallel with the old route it offers people more choices and makes more journeys attractive for cycling. Not only will the different alignment of the route offer shorter distances for some cyclists, it is also expected to result in higher average speeds due to the relative lack of interruptions and higher surface quality.

Standards are improving all the time
The Netherlands is not standing still. The rate of change and improvement to cycling infrastructure here is still beyond that of other countries which sometimes talk of "catching up". You can never catch up by starting from behind and doing less. Catching up will only happen as a result of out-spending and out-planning the Netherlands. Low aspirations and politicians delaying tactics and broken promises will never result in adequate progress. Make sure that "Going Dutch" isn't just a slogan.

It's important to campaign for the highest standards. If you ask for less, you'll certainly achieve less. Falling further behind is the inevitable result.

Just because something can be found in the Netherlands, that doesn't automatically mean it's best practice. On our study tours we not only demonstrate the best infrastructure which should be emulated but also point out why some infrastructure which may look impressive actually falls below the best standards. Our aim to to avoid inspiration being taken from the merely adequate and mistakes being made.

Only low quality infrastructure has a cost
Cycling infrastructure which is of such a quality that it can be used by the masses has a huge positive effect on the economy. This infrastructure doesn't have a cost to society but provides a benefit. It is only infrastructure which is of such low quality that it does not encourage mass cycling which places a burden on the economy.

In the Netherlands, cycling infrastructure is a fiscal measure. It saves the country money. There are many reasons why it makes no sense at all for any nation to view cycling infrastructure as "too expensive" to build.

The subject of cycling infrastructure being cheaper to build than not to build has been discussed before. Read part one.

Turbo Roundabouts. Be careful what you wish for.

After writing about Bow Roundabout in London a week ago, I looked around and found other people had done the same. However, at least two had proposed what is very much the wrong solution. The idea of a "Turbo Roundabout" came up on both the Cyclists in the City and Pedestrianise London blogs. It's not the right solution.

Sometimes you have to be careful what you wish for. If you're not absolutely sure what a Turbo Roundabout is (in particularly, a "turbo-roundabout" as might be implemented by TfL) and not absolutely sure that it is what you want, then don't ask for one.


This video from the Fietsberaad shows a "Semi"-Turbo Roundabout in Hilversum. It initially appears to work quite well in the video designed to promote the idea, but this is merely a "semi-turbo" roundabout and in many ways actually more closely resembles normal Dutch roundabouts. I caution to look out for where there are two lanes of motor vehicles which need to be crossed at once by cyclists and pedestrians - a case which is excluded from the video:

The next video came up as a related video on youtube. It's a simulation of a Signalised Turbo Roundabout. It shows how motor-vehicles flow nicely around the roundabout, but there is no consideration of cyclists or pedestrians in the simulation:

Indeed, the whole point of the turbo roundabout is to "improve traffic flow". Turbo-roundabouts were never intended to make things better for cyclists or pedestrians. Cyclists don't much like them. The Fietsersbond (Cyclists' Union) in the Netherlands has complained about unacceptably long crossing delay times for cyclists at Turbo Roundabouts.

As I said before, "be careful what you wish for". Why ? You might end up with something similar to what is in the next video - a real, live, turbo roundabout in Eindhoven videoed by someone who isn't trying to sell the concept. The title is "Floraplein in Eindhoven very dangerous for cyclists":


Note how crossing double exit lanes causes trouble for cyclists.

So what's the alternative ? I didn't have any photos or videos of my own to show here because we don't have turbo roundabouts in this area. In fact I've documented before what all the roundabouts in Assen look like. None are turbo roundabouts, and none cause problems for cyclists.

Some other ideas are pointed to by the website set up by people who are campaigning to improve or replace the Floraplein turbo-roundabout. It includes a link to an interesting presentation about alternatives to turbo-roundabouts written by Peter Kroeze of Ligtermoet and Partners.

When observing from afar it can be difficult to tell what really works from what does not work. We've already seen both shared space and strict liability given far too much credit for the cycling conditions in the Netherlands. Let's not add Turbo Roundabouts to the list of things that are misunderstood.

If you want to know what real Dutch cycling infrastructure is really like, why it works, and why cycling is so popular and so safe here, please book a study tour. Not many people have the experience that we have of living and cycling in two countries as different as the UK and the Netherlands, and we can pass a lot of this knowledge on within a few days. Reading blogs like this, reading articles and looking at Google Streetview can only get you so far.

2013 update - Bedford in the UK building a turbo-roundabout 'for cyclists'
A year after posting this blog post, warning that Turbo Roundabouts, no matter how attractive the name sounded, were never intended to be used by cyclists, a story appeared about the "walking and cycling officer" of Bedford in the UK was proposing to use "Dutch experience to improve cycle safety" by building a turbo roundabout which is actually worse than the example from Eindhoven shown in the video above because there is to be no cycling infrastructure at all.

In Bedford cyclists will be asked to
give-way or dismount by these signs,
which have never been used before.
If changing the law, why not do it
for something more worthwhile ?

On the Bedford turbo roundabout, cyclists are supposed to either share the road with cars or to cross the road like pedestrians. They are branding this as "Dutch" even though it is something which you would absolutely never see in the Netherlands. Frankly, it's difficult to imagine a larger mistake than this.

This recalls an online conversation which I had in 2011 with another Bedfordshire planner. He also wanted to build a "Dutch" roundabout which omitted cycling infrastructure. Various reasons why were given, including the "difficulty" of combining existing on-road cycle-lanes with a Dutch style roundabout which had cycle-paths and his idea that "not all" Dutch roundabouts had separate cycle-paths.

The discussion with the Bedford planner prompted two blog posts from me to illustrate what I had said to him in email. One of these posts demonstrated that there is no problem at all in merging from an on-road cycle-lane onto a properly designed Dutch roundabout. The other post demonstrated how every single roundabout in Assen has separate facilities for cycling because that is the norm in the Netherlands. His concept of a "Dutch" roundabout without separate cycling infrastructure was not similar to real Dutch infrastructure.

Cycling infrastructure is not an optional extra on roundabouts. Where cyclists have to use the same roundabout junction, specific infrastructure must be provided.

It's disappointing that after having had this long conversation and tried to explain to one Bedford planner, another should still have similar misconceptions two years later. Note that the first Bedford planner also pushed through his flawed ideas, building a dangerous design of roundabout branded as "Dutch" in Cambridge.

Signed off by campaigners
Despite my warning and others, this project continued. Further investigation by myself in 2014 revealed that the Turbo Roundabout in Bedford had been signed off by representatives of several British cycle campaigning organisations: Tony Russell (Sustrans), John Franklin (Cycle Nation), Chris Peck (CTC), Ruth Jackson (British Cycling), Ralph Smyth (CfPRE) as well as Robert Semple (Transport for London).

It's extremely disappointing to find that campaigners have such low aspirations as to rubber stamp a proposal which is as dangerous for cyclists as this roundabout design.

Update 2015

No on-carriageway markings
Carriageway exit angle too sharp
Double Yellow Lines over c/w exit

A downloadable report is now available about this roundabout. One image, along with its caption, is shown on the right.

I recommend reading the report in full. Amongst other conclusions, it is said that "Arrangement of cycle crossings maximises possibility of conflict between cyclist and pedestrian"which shows the many problems caused by the design used in Bedford.

This mistake should not be repeated.

Find out about proper infrastructure designs.
We run cycling infrastructure study tours precisely in order to try to help councils like Bedford to not make such expensive and dangerous mistakes as this one. Planners need to be educated. They need to learn from the best examples and not just guess at what they think best practice might be. We'd be very happy to host a contingent from Bedford if they'd like to see what the Dutch really do so that future "Dutch" innovation in Bedford can be inspired by the real Dutch infrastructure.

2013 second update
The British arm of a Dutch based company has proposed turbo roundabouts for the UK which I believe would not be built in the Netherlands. Read a blog post about this, including pictures of real Dutch Turbo Roundabouts.

Also read a blog post which summarises several things which are "Dutch" but which should not serve as inspiration.

2014 update. Assen is building a turbo roundabout
Assen is building a turbo roundabout to serve a motorway junction in the south of the city. As such, it is correctly being built in a place where there are many motor vehicles but where neither pedestrians nor cyclists have any reason to go. Watch a video showing this roundabout and how difficult it is even to get near it by bicycle.

Car on the cycle path

After Friesland, now the province of Brabant is testing the quality of their cycle route network. They are using an instrumented car to drive along the regional cycle paths of the 21 councils in the Eindhoven region.

The survey will record the types of cycle facility (separate cycle path, bicycle street, parallel facility, cycle lane or other), and also such things as the type quality of the surface and the width.

Factors such as how obvious it is where cyclists belong, whether crossings give cyclists priority, priority at traffic lights and the speed of other traffic at crossings will also be recorded.

Also the region will gain an insight into the social safety for cyclists and the quality of directional signage.

GPS is being used to position photos of all cycling facilities on a map.

The total cost of this investigation is around €30000.

This type of work is needed periodically because when there are thousands of kilometres of cycling facility it's not easy to keep track of exactly what there is, where it is, or what quality it is. A couple of years later it was Drenthe's turn to analyze its cycle-paths in the same manner.

Public bicycle tool box

These photos are of public bicycle tool kits provided by the ANWB in the Netherlands. Both are on the outside walls of cafes, the first is near Assen (at the link you can see the beer company sponsored cycle parking and the nearby cyclepath as well as the toolbox).

If you need to use the tools inside you can get a key from the cafe owner.

The ANWB is the Dutch equivalent of the Automobile Association.

The letters ANWB stand for "Algemene Nederlandsche Wielrijders-Bond" or "General Dutch Cyclists Union". The organisation that rescues broken down drivers in the Netherlands is actually a cycling organisation. They also put up many of the cycle route signs. In the 1970s there was a lot of criticism of the ANWB for no longer representing cyclists enough, which lead to the formation of the similar named ENWB ("Eerste Enige Echte Nederlandse Wielrijdersbond (ENWB)" - "First and only real Dutch Cyclists Union") which later changed its name to Fietsersbond ("cyclists union") and today campaigns for cyclists rights.

The second photo shows another toolbox on the outside wall of a cafe near Eindhoven, in the province of Brabant several hundred kilometres from here. Note that this also has a "Fietscafe" (cycling cafe) sign. It's one of hundreds of fietscafes in the Netherlands. The province of Brabant, for example, has 200 Fietscafes.

There are photos of other small things like this on the blog.

If you ride your bike much you're soon going to need spare parts. Our webshop can sell you what you need, including the most common things required while out and about, such as spare inner tubes and the tools which are most useful to have while touring.

"Fiets" is one of two words for bicycle in Dutch. The other being "Rijwiel", hence the name "Rijwiel hulpkist" for the public tool box.