How much do the Dutch really cycle ? How is it is measured ? Which are really the top ten cycling cities of the world ?

Lists are popular on the internet. As a result, there are often attempts to make lists which rank such things as cycling cities. Such lists are always false. There is no common methodology between different countries and so there is no reliable way to make a ranking. In reality it's quite difficult even to pin down the "correct" figure for one city in one country, let alone to find comparable figures for a range of cities in different countries. I've intended to write about this problem for several years but a recent online discussion led me to a Dutch language article about methodologies for measuring modal split in the Netherlands which made a very good start towards an explanation so I asked the Fietsberaad if I could translate it. Beneath the article you'll find an additional summary from me.

Do Appingedammers make 18%, 30%, 38% or 53% of their journeys by car?

Modal split figures show the relatively popularity of different transport modes. Modal splits can be measured in a number of different ways. The modal split usually shows the proportions either of kilometres travelled or of journeys made as car drivers, car passengers, by train, bus / subway or tram, bicycle, moped and by walking. The statistics often make use of OViN, a statistics from the BCS, based on a survey of a representative sample of residents of the area being measured. The accuracy of this technique is known to have limitations.

In this article we give a picture of the differences that exist in the modal split figures due to:

• the different units used to measure the modal split
• the method in which modal split is measured
• the different groups or time periods which the modal split covers.
• the error margin.

Units
The modal split is often given as a single figure, an unambigious concept. However there are several types of modal split in circulation, amongst which the most used are:

• the modal split determined from number of journeys per mode
• the modal split according to the number of kilometers traveled per mode.

In our example, we'll look at the modal split of Appingedam (a town of 12000 people in the province of Groningen). These are the figures from OViN 2010-2013 for the number of journeys made per mode in Appingedam:

Car driver	Car passenger	Train	Bus/Tram/ Subway	Bicycle	Walking	Total
28%	14%	2%	1%	33%	22%	100%

But by kilometres travelled the numbers look like this:

Car driver	Car passenger	Train	Bus/Tram/ Subway	Bicycle	Walking	Total
53%	28%	4%	2%	9%	4%	100%

Because journeys by car, train, bus, tram, and subway are on average longer than journeys by bicycle or by walking, their share of the modal split becomes when figures are given per kilometre travelled rather than per journey.

Method

There are many methods to gather data to calculate a modal split. For example through counters on the street or through surveys. in the future there will perhaps be more use made from other sources of information, for example details from mobile telephones or from public transport subscriptions cards.

When there is no data available from local sources, use is often made of the OViN data (onderzoeks verplaatsinsgeddrag in Nederland - Dutch travel behaviour survey) or one of its predecessors (OVG, MON). This is a survey by the CBS using a representative sample of the Dutch population. The data is collected in such a way that modal split figures can be given. As an example, here are the CBS figures for Rotterdam:

	Number of journeys per person per day
	Car driver	Car passenger	Train	Bus/Tram/ Subway	Bicycle	Walking	Total
OViN 2010-2013	0,57	0,31	0,07	0,26	0,46	0,65	2,31
modal split	25%	13%	3%	11%	20%	28%	100%
MON 2004-2007	0,66	0,34	0,07	0,28	0,49	0,61	2,46
modal split	27%	14%	3%	12%	20%	25%	100%

From these figures we draw a conclusion that the modal split changes very little and that the number of cycling journeys has stayed the same.

The local government's own figures show a different picture. For 15 years, Rotterdam has counted cycle usage at fixed points in the city and found consistent growth in cycling while the car traffic in and around the inner city has stayed the same.

Figure: Development in car traffic around cordons (1986=100)

(Binnenkordon = inner city area)

source: Rotterdamse Mobiliteitsagenda 2015-2018

Figure: Cycling intensity around the fixed counting points (work days, saturday, sunday):

bron: Rotterdamse Mobiliteitsagenda 2015-2018

Rotterdam therefore concludes:

Cycling traffic around the city centre of Rotterdam has grown by around 60% in the last ten years.

According to the traffic counts, cycling has grown significantly in the inner city. However, we would draw a totally different conclusion from looking at figures from OViN for the entire council area:

	Number of kilometres travelled per person per day
	Car driver	Car passenger	Train	Bus/Tram/ Subway	Bicycle	Walking	Total
OViN 2010-2013	10,23	5,17	2,97	2,07	1,87	1,08	23,39
modal split	44%	22%	13%	9%	8%	5%	100%
MON 2004-2007	11,38	5,87	3,14	2,66	1,68	0,78	25,52
modal split	45%	23%	12%	10%	7%	3%	100%

According to the figures for kilometres travelled (table above) cycling kilometres have grown by 11% while the growth for all transport modes is 7%. This could indicate that people are now more willing to travel for longer distances. When we look at the error margins (see below) we find that these differences are not significant: but there could still be growth in the numbers of journeys or distance being made by bicycle.

The smaller city of Delft also shows a good improvement. According to the CBS figures, the share of journeys per bicycle has grown by 6% between 2004-2007 and 2010-2013. The bicycle share is therefore now 39% in Delft, placing it amongst leading cities such as Groningen, Zwolle and Leeuwarden. Considering the high proportion of public transport (10%) this is a good result. The share of car usage fell bv 4% over the same period. What's more, the error margins from the CBS data are relatively good (13% for bicycle to 45% for bus and tram), and Delft's cordon counts appear to confirm this result:

Figure: Cordon counts for car traffic in Delft, index 2002=100

(Delft = whole city, Buitenring = outer ring, Binnen ring = inner ring)

Source: Gemeente Delft

Groups and periods

In the previous examples, not only are the methods used different (cordon counting vs. surveys) but also the groups of people counted differ. Rotterdam has counted how many people pass a cordon around the inner cty while the OViN figures measure the entire city. We also need to consider the lengths of bicycle journeys being made: if cycling distances double then the change of an individual cyclist being counted can also double. It's important to plan in advance what we wish to measure. Visitors or only residents ? Which year ? Which period (rush hour, morning rush, whole day ?)

These distinctions naturally produce different results. These are the 2004-2008 figures for modal split for all traffic in, from and to Appingedam:

Car driver	Car passenger	Public transport	Bicycle	Walking	Other	Total
38%	17%	2%	22%	19%	2%	100%

While these are the figures for nearly the same period (2004-2007) but just for residents of Appingedam::

Car driver	Car passenger	Train	Bus/ Tram/ Subway	Bicycle	Walking	Total
30%	18%	1%	0%	24%	27%	100%

That cars are used more in the first example than the second can be easily explained in that fewer people make the longer journeys between towns by walking and cycling.

Another distinction is in the presentation of the figures. The second example separated train travel from other public transport.

The following figure shows modal splits reported by the city of ’s-Hertogenbosch in 2014, showing modal splits for 2004-2006, for 2010-2011 and their ambition for 2015. Note that car passengers and drivers are combined and walking is omitted:

Auto=car passengers and drivers combined, OV=public transport, Fiets=cycling. Walking share omitted (it's around 20%)

Below are figures from a different methodology for a slightly different period:

	's-Hertogenbosch modal split by journey
	Car driver	Car passenger	Train	Bus/Tram/ Subway	Bicycle	Walking	Total
2010-2013	33%	16%	3%	1%	27%	20%	100%
2004-2007	34%	18%	3%	1%	25%	19%	100%

modal split by distance travelled
	Car driver	Car passenger	Train	Bus/Tram/ Subway	Bicycle	Walking	Total
2010-2013	51%	24%	12%	1%	9%	3%	100%
2004-2007	51%	28%	11%	2%	7%	2%	100%

Not only is the period different but also the data sources differ. The tables make use of the new set of OViN data which used the same methodology as in previous years. Walking was missed out from the city's own figures. It's a significant part of the total and missing this out made cycling, public transport and driving seem more significant than the reality.

Note that totals again add up to 100%, even though the categories of "mopeds" and "others" are omitted. These are extremely small percentages and are often omitted because they affect the figures rather less than does omitting walking. The figure below shows the modal split for the entire country including mopeds (bromfietsen) at just 1% of the total:

Modal Share for the whole of the Netherlands by journeys and distance

Modal split for the whole of the Netherlands. Source: KiM, Mobiliteitsbalans 2013
auto=car, trein=train, fiets=cycling,lopen=walking,bromfiets=moped, overig=other

Error margins

To finish, we have error margins. Figures are often presented as if they represent an absolute truth, but that it very often not the case. Any sample or measurement will not only have some errors, but also they can never represent all journeys made. In sampling people typically aim for a 95% confidence interval. Such a confidence level indicates that we have a high degree of confidence that our result is relevant. It means that we are 95% certain that the true figure is within the intervals given. Note that is can say nothing about any individual sample nor can we say that 95% of samples are within the interval (the language of the Dutch original is slighty confusing).

Such an error margin also applies to the OVin figures. But how can you express that in modal split ? As an example again take the proportions of journeys per mode for Appingedam and take the minimum and maximum values according to the error margins:

	Number of journeys per person per day - Appingedam
	Car driver	Car passenger	Train	Bus/Tram/ Subway	Fiets	Walking	Total
OViN 2010 t/m 2013	0,72	0,35	0,04	0,01	0,85	0,56	2,54
Average modal split	28%	14%	2%	1%	33%	22%	100%
Relative error margin (95%)	25 %	36 %	139 %	340 %	24 %	34 %	14 %
All minima modal split	31%	13%	-1%	-2%	37%	21%	100%
All maxima modal split	27%	14%	3%	2%	31%	23%	100%
Car minima* modal split	18%	16%	3%	2%	35%	25%	100%

*) In this table the modal split calculated for journeys by car is reduced by considering the effect of the error margins for other modes. There are many possible variations. This example is given to show the sensitivity of modal split data.

In Appingedam there are few journeys by public transport. This is also a small town and therefore the sample size is small. These factors result in a large margin of error. The relatively high error margin makes meaningful comparison with other towns difficult. For public transport it's impossible.

A large city like Amsterdam, which also has higher usage of public transport, gives us a larger sample and therefore much lower error margins for all modes. Therefore we have relatively trustworthy modal splits for this city:

	Number of journeys per person per day - Amsterdam
	Car driver	Car passenger	Train	Bus/Tram/ Subway	Bicycle	Walking	Total
OViN 2010 t/m 2013	0,44	0,24	0,10	0,27	0,85	0,66	2,56
Average modal split	17%	9%	4%	11%	33%	26%	100%
Relative error margin (95%)	7%	9%	11%	9%	5%	6%	3%
All minima modal split	17%	9%	4%	10%	34%	26%	100%
All maxima modal split	17%	10%	4%	11%	33%	26%	100%
Car minima* modal split	15%	10%	4%	11%	33%	26%	100%

*) Here the modal split is calculated for car journeys is reduced by adjusting all the other modes to their maximum values using the relative error margin. There are many possible variations as to how this could be done. the idea is to demonstrate the sensitivity of the figures to the error margins.

Under registration
Beside the inaccuracy due to sampling, there is also another source of error due to how correspondents to surveys under record their shorter journeys. For instance, people forget about the short walked journeys from the front door of their home to their car and between car parks and shops. From research is is become apparent that due to under-reporting figures for walked journeys should be 1.57 times higher than they are reported.

Conclusion
The examples given above demonstrate that there is no single modal split figure. Readers must always look at how the statistics were gathered and what they relate to. On the basis of the CBS figures shown above, we can answer the original question by saying that Appingedam residents make 18, 27, 28, 30, 31, or 38 % of their journeys as the driver of a car. Or by saying that 53% of the distance that Appingedammers travel is as the driver of a car.

Dutch data, Dutch modal split, my summary
All of the above relates to how the Dutch collect data about modal split in the Netherlands. As you see above, there can be significant variations in figures even from one methodology, but even here there are actually different methodologies which result in different results and those results can have different interpretations. As a result, different figures can be found for the same Dutch town, and this means it is difficult to reliably compare different towns. i.e. it's difficult to make sensible comparisons even within this country. However, at least within this country it is usually possible with a bit of effort to find data which has been collected in the same way in different places, though even when we are comparing Dutch cities with each other we must still be careful about error margins as they can be more significant than the apparent reported differences in modal splits.

What is good about (most) Dutch methodologies
Dutch methodologies as shown above (especially OViN) usually can be expected to take into account the modal split for the entire population being considered. By this I mean the entire town or city which is being considered and everyone of every age group within that location (group). They also usually take the entire year (i.e. winter and summer) into consideration (period). For instance, anonymous looking bicycle counters in the Netherlands are typically put in place for a year in order to gather counts which will not be unduly influenced by the weather on one day vs. another. These Dutch methodologies are used to build so accurate a picture as possible so that while the results cannot always be compared very meaningfully with other towns, they should be comparable over time within the same location. This makes it possible to build up a picture of progress over time.

Other statistics and why I criticize them
Unfortunately, statistics are sometimes gathered for entirely different reasons. For instance it's quite common to see published figures which are for commuters only. On some occasions this is because statistics are traditionally collected about commuters in that location but on other occasions these figures are used because it makes it possible to report higher and more impressive sounding figures than would be the case otherwise. The problem with counting only commuters is that only adults of working age (for whom subjective safety is relatively unimportant relative to children or older people) will be counted. This creates a false

Other ways in which figures can be collected so that they are not times you'll find figures quoted which relate only to journeys in part of a city. I've also seen examples of counts performed only on sunny days, or on peak days for student traffic, or where part day counts are extrapolated as if they relate to the whole day (all those things and more in one instance). Such figures are more applicable to use for politicians to placate local cyclists or to boast about what they claim to have achieved, or for marketing people to sell their city to cycling tourists.

Lastly, there's a tendency in some places to publish targets aggressively and it is sometimes the case that people go on to re-publish targets as if they have been met. Anyone can set a target. Achieving it is something quite different.

Whatever caused the confusion, presenting figures in a way which inflates them does not help to further understanding. It hides problems and does nothing to further cycling. Having figures from inconsistent methodologies or which do not cover the entire population makes it difficult to tell whether real progress is being made.

In the past I've criticized the use of modal split statistics gathered elsewhere and I'll probably continue to do so. For instance, I've written about how statistics from Cambridge, New York, London, and of course Copenhagen (multiple times) have been published and used in a way which confuses rather than enlightens. Copenhagen is an extreme case because while in reality somewhere around 1/5 to 1/4 of all trips are genuinely by bike in the city this has been reported by various means as anything up to 40%.

Sadly, the Dutch don't always publish useful figures either. I've criticized figures from Amsterdam (38% pushed to 47%) and Groningen (50% reported as 59%) in the past when they missed out walking from their statistics to produce a higher figure to present internationally, showing a higher cycling share than exists in reality. The figures produced by 's-Hertogenbosch used as examples in the article above show more of the same (actual 27% reported as a range of figures stretching up to 44%). These figures have also been reported elsewhere as fact and indeed I once reproduced that claim myself.

We all need to be skeptical about claims, especially when they are made in a way which could be seen as promotional.

Why ranked comparisons of cities make no sense at all
Even modal-split data which appears to cover the same group and period in different countries, and which is gathered in a reliable and consistent manner will vary so much in methodology that comparisons made are largely meaningless. In reality, figures from different countries vary greatly in group and period and this makes the comparisons completely unreliable. As result, any ranking produced on the basis of the results of such a comparison will be meaningless.

While I have on occasion quoted figures from Dutch or other cities, you won't ever read a "top ten cycling cities" list on this blog. I've never ranked cities in this way because it wouldn't mean anything. Such a ranking this could only create a false impression of having more information than actually exists and this would mislead readers. People who produce lists of "top cycling cities" do so either out of ignorance about how these statistics cannot be compared or for commercial reasons. i.e. to sell something.

How much cycling is there in the Netherlands ?
The overall figure for cycling in the Netherlands as a percentage of trips has not varied appreciably in many years. According to the graph above, 27% of all trips in the Netherlands are by bicycle. This is the highest figure for any country in the world (certainly amongst relatively wealthy nations where people have a choice of transport modes). If we're interested in green modes of transport, we can add on the 16% of journeys made by walking and note that relatively prosperous Dutch people make a massive 43% of their journeys by human power - a reasonably reliable statistic which is something truly to be proud of.

Using a different methodology, the Flash Eurobarometer came to a similar conclusion about the overal cycling and walking share of the Netherlands, left, in orange.

This is great news, however we should always also recognise the flip side. If 27% of journeys are by bike and 43% of journeys are by the two genuinely green modes (walking and cycling), then that still means that 73% of journeys are not by bicycle and 57% are by non-green motorized forms of transport. If we look at trips by distance, this gets worse. The Dutch cover 73% of their distance travelled by private car alone.

While what has been achieved in the Netherlands is wonderful, there is still more that can be achieved. What's more, what has so painstakingly been achieved could still quite easily be lost. There is no space for complacency.

The Grid. The most important enabler of mass cycling, but a cycling concept which is often misunderstood.

The need for a very fine grid of high quality, safe and efficient cycling routes is something I've been writing about for many years. Since 2008 on this blog, for instance. It may seem simple and obvious, but this concept is often misinterpreted and very often watered down.

Does your city have an airport ? If not, pretend that it does for a moment. Think of a truly amazing airport with a dozen modern terminal buildings, three long runways which can accommodate the largest and fastest passenger jets, huge hangers for maintenance. But then imagine that your city has the only airport in the world. How useful is it now ? How many passengers use it ? Where do they go to ? Without linking to other places, your airport can never reach its potential. You may have a few flights for joy riders, a few enthusiastic air enthusiasts may fly off and land in fields, but flying as mass transport will never happen. To reach its potential, your airport must link to places where people want to go to.

Just as with our hypothetical airport, an individual cycle-path is only as useful as the rest of the grid of routes to which it connects. Even exceptional pieces of bicycle infrastructure are almost entirely useless on their own. They only reach their potential when they are part of a very finely spaced grid of routes which connects to all destinations. To be suitable for all people, this must provide a high quality level of service to all of those destinations. The average quality of service experienced by cyclists dictates how many people will cycle.

Example of a real, successful, cycling grid

Primary (red) and secondary (blue) bicycle routes in Assen. Grey lines are mainly residential streets almost completely free of motor traffic, green are recreational routes. Primary routes are never more than 750 m apart, but note that all the space between them is also available by bike. There are no real gaps in this grid and it leads right from villages outside the city to the city centre. Total map width approximately 6.5 km.

Part of Assen's primary cycling grid.
There are lots of cycle-paths like this.

Assen's bicycle route grid as shown in the map above deserves some explanation. The city has well over 100 km of cycle-path completely separate from the road. These paths are built to an extremely high standard. Most of the red and blue lines on the map show this type of cycle-path, though some high quality cycle-paths are not counted as either primary or secondary routes so are not shown as such.

Four metres wide smooth concrete but
this is merely a green recreational path

Recreational routes shown in green are also usually separate cycle-paths but because these are intended for recreational use they can be of lower quality. That shouldn't be taken to imply that these are of lower quality.

Many recreational paths are of equivalent quality to main routes.

Residential street in the Netherlands. Re-built so that it is
unusable as a through route by motor vehicle.

Most cycling in Assen takes place on the blue or red lines because these are the route segments which provide useful direct routes for everyone to take to their destinations. However the cycling grid really also includes all those grey lines as well and their total length greatly outnumbers the length of cycle-paths.

The grey lines on the map show every street which lies between main roads and main cycle-routes. These are perhaps the most interesting and certainly the most misunderstood part of the grid. Many of the grey lines are residential streets or shopping streets. Almost all these grey streets have 30 km/h speed limits, but the importance of the low speed limits is very often over-emphasized. These streets are civilized to an extent by low speeds, but what really makes a difference is that there are almost no cars moving at any speeds. While these grey streets offer many through routes by bicycle, they do not offer through routes by car and therefore cyclists rarely have to concern themselves with cars when riding on those streets. Drivers are directed around residential streets so almost none have any motorized traffic on them at all and any cars which you might meet are most likely to be driven by residents accessing their own street.

To summarise: Assen's cycling grid goes everywhere, it has many high quality cycle-paths, but no "sharrows" and very few routes marked by relatively in-effective painted on-road cycle-lanes. Inferior junction designs such as advanced stop lines (aka bike boxes), central cycle-lanes and multi stage turns have been eliminated, while good roundabout and traffic light junction designs are common. Many one-way restrictions help to prevent drivers from using residential streets as through routes, but none of them apply to cyclists. Note that average speeds for cyclists are relatively high because stops are infrequent. Due to cyclists being unravelled from motorists they are often directed around large and time consuming junctions because they are needed only on motor routes.

Assen's grid is successful. More than 40% of all trips are made by bicycle here.

An effective grid must go everywhere

Living or working near to a cycle-path is not enough. Building a cycle-path only in a new suburb, or next to a school or through a recreational area is not enough. True mass cycling requires that people be given the option of making all their journeys by bicycle with a high degree of subjective safety.

Where children can ride no-hands and
unaccompanied to and through city centre
streets, that's real safety.

For a truly high level of cycling, the grid of cycling infrastructure needs to go everywhere. For instance, the grid must reach:

1. all homes
2. all schools
3. all workplaces
4. all shops
5. all sport facilities
6. all religous buildings

Feel free to add on any other category of destination that you can think of. Everything needs to be on the grid. It is only when the grid goes everywhere and to everything that it has a chance of serving for the entire population to make a proportion of all their journeys by bicycle. It is only by making cycling available to the entire population that it is possible for a high share of all journeys, for all purposes, to be made by bicycle.

Planning of a grid must be undertaken on a grid scale. No single road, street, cycle-path or road junction stands by itself. If streets are considered individually then it is almost impossible to achieve a good result because it is impossible to emphasize different usages if the usage is expected to remain the same. Attempts to change streets while leaving them with exactly the same usage as before are a common reason why people think they have "not enough space" to change.

Good conditions for cycling are created primarily not by moving cyclists away from where the traffic is, but by moving traffic away from where the cyclists are.

It's essential that it's possible to cycle to all locations. The high quality grid of infrastructure for cycling must go everywhere and it does no harm to allow cyclists to have through routes very nearly everywhere. On the other hand, while drivers also need to be able to access everywhere, through routes by motor vehicle need to be controlled because through motor traffic does cause harm. i.e. it is the routes for motor vehicles which need to be moved to places where they cause least harm.

Fake grids (half a grid isn't a grid)

The Netherlands achieved a level of cycling nearly double that of the second place nation by providing a high degree of both safety and convenience for anyone who cycles on every journey that they choose to make by bike. This requires a high density grid as shown above, which exists not just within particular cities but which goes absolutely everywhere. It is only by providing this level of service that cycling is made accessible and acceptable to all segments of society. Children can ride their own bicycles to Dutch city centres in safety because of the continuous high quality infrastructure.

The term "grid" has been adopted in many places, but it's quite often the case that the ambition is at a far lower level than is required for success.

London's "grid"

This proposal for London looks superficially similar to the grid
of cycle-routes in Assen, but it is not similar. The purple lines
are in most cases not even comparible with the grey on the
Assen map. Even these "include main roads". Only the blue
lines are "superhighways" and the quality of those is suspect.

For example, London's proposed grid of cycle routes is shown on the left. This looks superficially similar to the map of Assen above but there are several very important differences.

The area covered by the London map is approximately 4x as large as Assen, yet there are fewer cycle routes indicated by differently coloured lines. Note that even these lines are deceiving:

Only the blue lines on the map are "Cycle Superhighways". The grand name unfortunately hides that many of these routes are of surprisingly low quality.

The purple lines shown on the map are merely "quietways".

Update 2016: I was too generous to London. It turns out
that the dark lines show the true extent of the grid in
London in 2016, save for one cycle-path.

Unfortunately, the importance of unravelling modes has still not been fully understood in London and so even these "quietways" are not comparable with normal streets in Assen (grey lines on map above) because these will largely remain busy through roads. What's more, using these quietways won't result in cyclists being able to make direct journeys because they have in large part been selected as the routes to put cyclists onto in order to achieve minimum disruption to other modes, rather than because they are where cyclists need to go. As a result, these "quietways" mostly appear on back streets which don't lead to many destinations.

Further reading: Quietways have been criticized elsewhere for not being providing particularly quiet or direct routes for cyclists and being meaningless due to poor junction designs.

Note also the second map added in 2016. For all the noise made by London with regard to cycling, it's sobering to see what the true extent of decent quality cycling provision in the city actually looks like. These paths do represent progress over what was there before but far too few decent cycle-paths exist for them to make any real difference to the modal share of the city. Compare with the map at the top of this piece which shows the extent of the network over the whole area of a small Dutch city.

Toronto's #minimumgrid
Another currently popular theme is the idea of the "minimum grid". I'm not a fan. I don't see the point in talking about building anything down to a "minimum", especially when we know that minimum is not enough. It seems to be a popular meme at the moment and many places have discussed the minimum grid idea, but this still makes no sense for any of the places where I've seen it discussed.

Toronto's current cycling infra map. This is a very long way
from being continuous and covering the whole city.
#minimumgrid means not nearly adequate to effect change.

Toronto is a huge city of 2.6 million people where the minimum grid idea seems to have taken hold. There is currently very little cycling infrastructure and the quality of what exists now in Toronto is the subject of many complaints. Nevertheless, the call here is for a mere 100 km of cycle-path. That's less than we have in Assen but to serve a population 40 times as large.

This is not even close to enough cycling infrastructure. Why is the aim so low ? I also have to wonder what the quality will be. Two years have passed since I criticized the Ontario Bicycle Facilities manual and it doesn't seem like much has changed. The solutions on offer remain both primitive and old-fashioned and there are proposals to adopt such inconvenient and proven dangerous ideas as mixing zones, two stage turns and bike boxes. Scope for improvement is limited to only a few streets and to a low quality standard so this again can't come close to enabling cycling for everyone.

There is very much which can be learnt from the Netherlands with regard to building better infrastructure for cycling so I was rather disappointed to find that one of the most prominent references to Dutch practice on a Toronto website about a new design was about nothing more than a possible pattern of tiles on a street. The big picture has somehow been missed. The important messages ignored.

Campaign for #maximumgrid!
There is no low minimum standard which is worth campaigning for. We know this because city scale Dutch research in the 1970s already demonstrated what is required to encourage cycling. Very high quality but sparsely built cycle-paths did not lead to significantly more cycling. For a grid of routes to enable cycling it must be high density and go everywhere. This has been known for 40 years so why are people still fighting for less ?

Forget the "minimum grid" and campaign for a "maximum grid". i.e. a grid which goes everywhere, for everyone. This is proven to work.

Less is never more for cycling. Cycling never suffers from infrastructure which is too well designed, nor does it suffer from a grid of routes which offers people too many safe choices, or from people being able to make all of their journey in safety instead of just some of it. There is only a problem where infrastructure is poor or non-existent and when people are given attractive places to cycle.

Plan a little and you'll only build a little, build a little and you'll achieve only a little. To achieve great things you need great plans. The more infrastructure that you have and the better the quality of that infrastructure, the better the result will be.

There is no tipping point
There is no minimum level of cycling infrastructure above which cycling will definitely grow. There is no tipping point, no avalanche effect where by reaching a particular level of cycling, growth becomes inevitable. There is simply no evidence at all to support these ideas. However, there is plenty of historical evidence from all countries in the world that a decline is possible from any level if cycling conditions decline.

There was more cycling almost everywhere worldwide 60 years ago than there is now. That includes the Netherlands. The Netherlands has more cycling now than any other country in the world but has been hard to achieve this position. The Dutch are no more tolerant of unpleasant cycling conditions than people of any other nation. The high modal share here relies on there being very good conditions for cycling. Cycling declined precipitously in the Netherlands between 1950 and 1975 when planners were most interested in motor vehicles and though there have been steady increases since the 1970s, cycling is still less popular here now than it was in the 1950s. This country now has the best infrastructure in the world and this makes it possible for anyone in the Netherlands to cycle as much as they wish to with a fewer problems than occur elsewhere. But it's still not perfect, still not at a level which causes no problems at all to anyone.

Just as in other countries, people will cycle on the pavement

in the Netherlands if conditions are not conducive to safety

This harms cycling even in the world's leading cycling city.

Where does unsafe infrastructure fit in ?

Just as in any other place, unsafe infrastructure in the Netherlands damages the grid by creating a gap which will put people off cycling if it creates too much danger or too much inconvenience. A high cycling modal share is a very fragile thing. Everyday cycling should never feel akin to taking part in an extreme sport. If people are put off due to danger and they stop cycling then it can be difficult to convince them ever to start again. While the Netherlands has a more comprehensive grid of cycling infrastructure than anywhere else, this country is certainly not perfect and we find that where there is bad infrastructure, the Dutch react in much the same way as people anywhere else: They either cycle in such a way that they avoid the problem (e.g. by dismounting and walking or riding on the pavement) or they don't cycle at all for journeys which take them through problem areas.

If areas where people feel unsafe and under pressure are small and while they are easily avoidable, their total effect on cycling modal share is small because working around the problems isn't too difficult. However if problematic infrastructure is widespread and there is no way to avoid dangerous areas then the obstacles becomes insurmountable for most people by bike and a reduction in cycling modal share is assured. This is a difference between a proper grid and the fake grids referred to above.

Recent mistakes in Assen led to increased pavement cycling.
on a few streets where cycling is not as safe as it should be.

The city of Groningen features on our study tours in large part because it allows us to demonstrate how cycling has a particular demographic in this student oriented city more than it does in other Dutch cities. Unattractive and unsafe infrastructure particularly affects how often vulnerable people cycle, though the high rate of cycling by the student population masks this effect. We have seen similar localized increases in pavement cycling here in Assen too where recent mistakes have been made in this city.

What works to make cycling more popular ?

I write quite often about problems in the Netherlands but just as with the infrastructure highlights, the problems need to be put in context. Bad infrastructure here causes the same problems as it would elsewhere however it should always be remembered that the worst of the problem infrastructure in the Netherlands covers a very small part of the total area of the country while the grid of good to excellent infrastructure covers the whole country. Examples of dangerous infrastructure have relatively little effect on the excellent Dutch cycling safety record because they are rare.

Discover what works to make cycling attractive to and safe for everyone. Book a study tour to have this all put in context. The next open study tour takes place in June 2015.

Assen on Monday afternoon. When there's a big event in the city, thousands of bicycles are parked everywhere. Note the very small child cycling to the city centre on his own bike. We would like all children to have this degree of freedom.

Related issues

While writing this piece, two related issues came up which I think require a little more explanation.

I've a collection of cycling route maps
from places I've been. I worked on the
Cambridge map and I believe the short
recreational routes that I wrote up are
still part of the latest edition. Cycling
specific maps are not necessary in
places with a proper grid for cycling.

Cycling route maps
Most Dutch cities do not have cycling route maps. This may seem surprising when all Dutch cities have high levels of cycling compared with other nations. Cycling route maps are actually a symptom of a problem. One of the things which becomes unnecessary when there is a proper high density grid for cyclists is consideration of where people should cycle in order to maximize their safety.

Note that I am not saying that there's anything wrong with cycling route maps. They can be a very useful tool for people who live in an area where cycling doesn't necessarily feel safe for people riding anywhere where they want to go. They can be useful for advising people about where they can cycle in safety. These maps can also be a useful campaigning tool if they are used to help to point out to officials where there are problems.

However when you can cycle safely everywhere and take the most direct routes to all locations by bicycle, there is simply no more need for advice about the best detours around direct routes to avoid dangerous areas and obtain a degree of safety unavailable on the direct route. When this has been achieved, cycling route maps simply are not needed any more.

Residential streets

There's often chalk on the street where
we live. Children at play.

Directing motor vehicles around residential streets rather than through them doesn't only provide benefits when cycling.

Because they are so quiet, both in terms of traffic and noise levels, Dutch residential streets almost always meet the requirements for socially connected living and children use them as playgrounds.

On the first edition of the Cambridge cycling route map we missed out some of the council's preferred routes on purpose to make a point about how we thought much of the infrastructure was not good enough. For later editions, our work on the map was handed to the council (who could afford to print them). They put the substandard infrastructure back on the map, but they didn't fix the infrastructure...

Edisonstraat in Hoogeveen. A road redesign which had fatal consequences. What lessons can be learnt ?

On the tenth of February, a 63 year old employee of the Fokker aircraft company in Hoogeveen was seriously wounded at 7:30 in the morning while cycling to work as a result of a collision with a car driven by a 19 year. The next day, he passed away in hospital. Shortly afterwards, one of his colleagues contacted me and asked that I take a look at recent changes in and around Edisonstraat where the collision occurred.

Edisonstraat was redesigned a few years ago as part of an attempt to improve the flow of motor vehicles on the ring-road to the east of Hoogeveen, especially to benefit car commuters who had suffered from congestion in the past. Particularly of importance to this blog post, a main road through a mainly industrial area was re-aligned because traffic jams formed there. It is quite possible that the new design which resulted has met that primary aim, however for cyclists the new arrangement is undoubtedly less safe than before.

It would be unfair to say that cyclists were completely forgotten during the new works because fresh red asphalt cycle-paths are evidence of there having been some thought about those who cycle. However the quality of design for cyclists is poor. The end result is requiring cyclists to take a detour if they wish to remain safe, or to use roads which are more dangerous now then they used to be if they wish to make an efficient journey.


What's went wrong with Edisonstraat ?
The cycle-paths which used to run alongside Edisonstraat provided a direct route to work for many people in Hoogeveen. In particular, they led directly to and from one of the biggest employers, Fokker, at Edisonstraat 1. Not only did these cycle-paths offer a direct route for cyclists, they were had also proven to be extremely safe. There are no recorded incidents involving cyclists on the ongelukkenkaart.

Unfortunately, when main roads in this area were re-aligned to increase capacity for more motor vehicles the cycle-paths were removed along Edisonstraat leaving cyclists to have to ride on the road amongst motor vehicles.

Cyclists have little choice but to travel on the right side of right
turning vehicles at this junction. That is the only way to
reach the cycle-path which runs left-right in this photo

In addition, a roundabout which had a perfect safety record was removed and replaced by a junction which gives east-west traffic priority. A roundabout with consistent priority on each arm has been replaced by a square junction which gives cyclists priority across one arm, no priority across a third arm, and no crossing at all on the fourth arm. The roundabout particularly improved safety for cyclists because as drivers were made to divert from a straight line this naturally slowed the traffic. The new junction design encourages far higher speeds than before

Green line - original route. Red line - new route

The original direct north-south cycle-route has been replaced by a route which involves a detour and two sets of traffic lights. In a distance of just 200 m, these two sets of traffic lights can easily add more than a minute to journey times.

Unsurprisingly, there is evidence from tyre marks on the ground around the junction that many people on bikes avoid using the new longer route but find more direct routes which follow a line similar to the older faster route even if these are in some cases dangerous. It's clear from watching the way people use this road and junction that not just a few but many people choose not to take the suggested detour. Most of them do so by riding on the "wrong" side of the road across the junction following the route that I take in the last part of of the video above. Unfortunately, the new road design makes even this relatively dangerous.

The fatal collision occurred on a part of Edisonstraat where cycle-paths had been removed. If those cycle-paths had not been removed then the same collision could not have happened. Therefore it is very difficult to come to any conclusion which doesn't include removal of this safe cycling infrastructure as at the very least a contributory factor.

The blue line shows a possible relatively safe new route.

A new route should be constructed which restores safe cycling on the direct north-south line. This could be constructed on the west side of Edisonstraat. There is plenty of space. In addition, action needs to be taken at the new crossing to reduce traffic speeds and make crossing the road safer than it is now.

However my suggestion of restoring one of the cycle-paths only addresses some of the issues. Re-building the roundabout and restoring cycle paths on both sides of the road around that roundabout would be the best way of restoring the previous high level of safety in this location. Note that it is known that the design of roundabout which was used in Edisonstraat previously reduces the injury rate for cyclists by 87% over an un-signaled junction. Better examples of a similar roundabout design appear to be rather safer again, while this particular un-signaled junction has proven itself to be dangerous.

Old design vs. new design
Because this part of Edisonstraat is no longer the ring-road of Hoogeveen, it's clear that planners thought this meant it no longer required a cycle-path for safety. This has been disproven by unfortunate recent events. The road still carries a lot of through traffic from the industrial area of which it is a part. This includes many trucks as well as a lot of commuting traffic. The space where the cycle-paths used to exist has not been re-used for anything else and it would still be relatively easy to re-instate the cycle-path in order to make cycling safe once again on Edisonstraat.

In each case the top photo is the old situation and the bottom photo shows what exists now:

There's still plenty of space on both sides of the road for cycle-paths. Still plenty of traffic which cyclists would be better off avoiding.

The corner of Edisonstraat and Siemensstraat is a relatively good place for a cyclist priority crossing. Drivers will in any case already naturally slow down for the corner and this can be encouraged further by good crossing design with a raised table and obvious cyclist priority. There is plenty of space here to ensure good sight-lines.

Other obvious problems with the new design

Desire lines should not be ignored by planners. The huge number of tyre marks in the grass here show where people actually want to cycle, but the designer of this cycle-path has decided to send them on a detour instead.

Unfinished path edges and sharp corners on the path increase danger, especially at times with low visibility.

As they leave the city, riders of mopeds limited to 45 km/h are required to join the cycle-path at this point. Cycling infrastructure in rural areas should be suitable for moped speeds. The standard of design for moped infrastructure is often poor across the Netherlands. I don't believe it to be safe to leave a 50 km/h stream of traffic safely at this point and successfully negotiate these kerbs, narrow path and sharp corners at speed. Note that while the budget for this project didn't stretch to sufficiently safe cycling infrastructure, it does seem to have been adequate to pay for a house sized folly.

"Take care! Dangerous crossing".
Any junction which needs a sign like
this is not well designed. Note that the
signs were in place for at least a year
before the fatal collision occurred.

Safe road designs do not require warning signs
That those responsible for the new road and junction felt they had to install signs to tell people that it is dangerous does not inspire much confidence. Perhaps drivers might be careful when they first drive past such a sign, but human beings don't remain in a constant state of alertness over long periods of time. After a short time, signs like this simply become part of the scenery and are ignored.

Signs do not solve the root problem of a junction being of a dangerous design. The real solution for dangerous roads is to redesign the road, not to install signs.

Note that this new junction design is not only dangerous for cyclists, but for all road users. There have also been crashes between cars at this junction. However the consequences are always more serious when vulnerable road users come into contact with motor vehicles.

Good infrastructure design is important.
Bad cycling infrastructure design isn't merely an aesthetic problem. It's not something which matters only to fussy campaigners. Badly designed infrastructure kills people.

There are many aspects of what makes up good infrastructure, and nice new red asphalt is but one of them. An efficient direct route with an older surface is far more useful to a cyclist than a super smooth detour which is designed to look nice. Unfortunately, the new design in Hoogeveen scores well so far as minor issues are concerned (smooth red asphalt, countdown timers on traffic lights) but less well on the important issues (direct route, not waiting at traffic lights). Removing the existing direct and safe route by bike and replacing it with a choice of indirect and safe or direct and dangerous presents people with a choice which no-one should have to make. i.e. get to work on time vs. perhaps not get to work at all.

Never present a choice of efficient but dangerous vs. inefficient but safe. Everyone will find themselves tempted by the fast but dangerous route at some point in time. Usually cautious adults late for a meeting, reckless children fearful of arriving late at school, and anyone who simply gets fed up with extra delays will opt for the dangerous route. Design should always take real human behaviour into account. The path through the grass illustrates that not only is the more dangerous route popular, but also that the designed corner radii at the junction between cycle-paths is far too small.

What works

There are many posts on this blog which illustrate the types of infrastructure which work best to make cycling efficient and safe. Much of the Dutch success is based on building of good cycle-paths everywhere they are required. Unfortunately, mistakes like this are made. It's important not to assume that cycling infrastructure is good just because it's Dutch.