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

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.

Consistent, Convenient, High Quality Cycle-Paths Encourage Cycling

To achieve a high degree of subjective safety and through this convince the whole population to cycle, cyclists need to be kept away from motor vehicles. A comprehensive network of cycle-paths, as seen here in Assen, is a particularly good way to do this.

The first underpass runs top right to left
on this image, completely avoiding this
Roundabout on the ring road - previously
shown when I wrote about all
roundabouts in Assen)

In the video we cross the ring-road around Assen (there are many other crossings including here, here and here), go throught a residential area and leave the city by crossing the path of a motorway until we reach the edge of the first village (which featured in an earlier blog post). The cycle-path is continuous. In fact, this is only a very small part of it, and it's continuous for a long distance both before and after that shown.

This infrastructure is not named a "superhighway". In fact, it's not named in any special way at all as no-one thought it significant enough to put their name to it. It's "just" a standard Dutch cycle-path, one of many which make up the comprehensive grid which criss-cross the city and make mass cycling possible for everyone.

 It is normal to cycle to school even at a
temperature of -8 C with snow on
the ground.

En-route, you'll see many children on bikes. Also we pass a school entrance. You can't see the extent of the parking at this school from this video. Click on the link on the right to see more.

Speed limits on the roads nearby vary. At first we parallel a 50 km/h road. The ring-road which we cross has a speed limit of 70 km/h. All roads in the residential area have a speed limit of 30 km/h, and even though traffic is light because there are no through roads in this area there is still a cycle-path which provides continuity and directness for cyclists. The motorway has a speed limit of 120 km/h and then we ride parallel with a main road in the country which has a 60 km/h speed limit before the speed limit reduces to 30 km/h in the village. There is a separate cycle-path through the village too.

The route in the video is from A to B taking the blue line which is direct and provides consistent high quality inside and outside the city. Cars must take the red route, 3.5 km long and including a crossing which prioritizes cyclists.
Read more blog posts about how cyclists in the Netherlands make more direct journeys than drivers by avoiding traffic lights, or more about cycle-paths, or about how segregation is possible without cycle-paths, about school travel or many other things (see links to articles on particular themes on the right of every page, tags for posts at the bottom of every page).

This video resulted from running a camera as I rode around the route of the last study tour a few days before it started. However, I thought it showed enough interesting stuff to be worth showing here.

Benelux Cycling Tunnel, Rotterdam

Benelux cycling tunnel is a 2002 cycling tunnel under the Nieuwe Maas (New Meuse). It is a connection between the municipalities of Vlaardingen and Schiedam to the Rotterdam suburbs of Pernis and Hoogvliet and the town of Spijkenisse. The large area of petrochemical industry in the port area of Rotterdam is also easily reached through this tunnel.

Benelux Tunnel is one of the few crossing possibilities of the New Meuse in the Rotterdam Port area.

The original Beneluxtunnel was a tunnel for motorised traffic only, that was completed in 1967. It was built to the west of Rotterdam to relieve the older Maastunnel in the centre. Cyclists kept their ferry from Vlaardingen to the area of the petrochemical industry to the south of the river. The Royal Dutch Shell oil refinery near Pernis is the largest refinery in Europe and one of the largest in the world. With the expansion the old tunnel really became a system of different tunnel tubes for motorised traffic, a metro-line and one tube for cyclists and pedestrians.

North entrance for cyclists and pedestrians

There was no room for an elaborate entrance building, in fact the entrance could only have the width of the cycling tunnel tube itself. So the escalators and the elevators were not placed next to each other but behind each other in line with the tunnel. To make the entrance stand out in the enormous scale of the port area it has concrete columns which are a lot higher than necessary. So cyclists can use it as a point of orientation. The entrance is kept open on three sides to make sure people do not use it for other purposes. The roof is made of glass so a lot of light floods into the tunnel but it is still shielded from rain and snow. The glass plates span 4 meters, a larger span for horizontal glass than ever used before.

A lot of attention was given to the inside of the tunnel as well. For a better atmosphere which enhances the feeling of social safety, the tunnel was finished with high quality materials. The curved ceiling is lighted from below. A mirror of polished steel on one side gives the impression the tunnel is twice as wide as it really is. A poem was integrated in the tiles of the tunnel walls. This gives cyclists and pedestrians not only some ‘entertainment’ while using the tunnel it also gives them a sense of how far in the tunnel they are.

Inside Benelux Cycling Tunnel. To the right a fragment of the poem.

The poem is nicknamed ‘the longest poem in the world’ and it spans the full length of the tunnel which is over 800 meters (half a mile) long. It was written by contemporary Rotterdam poet Jules Deelder and it can be read going from south to north. (In bold the letters you can see on the above picture.)

Lieve Ari	Dear Ari
Wees niet bang	Don’t be afraid
De wereld is rond	The world is round
en dat istie al lang	and it has been for long
De mensen zijn goed	The people are good
de mensen zijn slecht	the people are bad
Maar ze gaan allen	But they all go
dezelfde weg	the same road
Hoe langer je leeft	The longer you live
hoe korter het duurt	the shorter it takes
Je komt uit het water	You come from the water
en gaat door het vuur	and go through the fire
Daarom lieve Ari	Therefore dear Ari
Wees niet bang	Don’t be afraid
De wereld draait rond	The world turns around
en dat doettie nog lang	and it will do for long

And of course: my blog post wouldn't be complete without a video.


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.

Maastunnel Rotterdam

The oldest traffic tunnel in the Netherlands can be found in Rotterdam. It connects the two banks of the River ‘Nieuwe Maas’ (New Meuse). The first talks of creating a tunnel date back as far as 1899. Since Rotterdam has always been an important port (from 1962 to 2004 it was even the busiest port in the world) a bridge on this location would have had to be constructed too tall to allow sea ships passage. After long debates the decision to construct the tunnel was finally taken in 1933.

Maastunnel South Ventilation Tower and SS Rotterdam

The tunnel was built from 1937 to 1942. It consists of a set of pre-fabricated tubes that were sunken into a trench that was dug in the river floor. This technique had never been used in Europe before. Two adjacent tubes are for motorised traffic (2x2 lanes). Right next to those there are two stacked tubes. One for pedestrians, on top of which there is one for cyclists. Motorised traffic reaches the tubes via long access roads. Pedestrians and cyclists enter their tunnel from an entirely different location by escalators. Therefore, as a cyclist you could be unaware there even is a tunnel for motorised traffic.

In yellow: cyclist's access to the tunnel

Construction of the tunnel started in 1937. When World War II reached the Netherlands in May 1940, Rotterdam was heavily bombed. The entire historic city centre was wiped flat. However, the tunnel was spared and it was completed during the Nazi occupation. On the 14th of February 1942 there was a secret opening ceremony without Nazi participation.

Prime example of separate cycle infrastructure

The tunnel is a magnificent and early example of elaborate separate infrastructure for cyclists and pedestrians versus motorised traffic. The visible ventilation towers with copper dome roofs are of high architectural quality. With the tunnel they have been a landmark for Rotterdam for almost 70 years now. About 75,000 vehicles and about 4,500 cyclists still use this tunnel daily. In the 1950s a staggering 40,000 cyclists used the four escalators on either side of the tunnel every day. In the morning three were used in the direction of the centre and in the evening it was the other way around. Nowadays there are far less cyclists. Partly due to the decline of cycling in the 1960s and 1970s but also because there are more bridges and tunnels now.

The video shows a ride through the tunnel

The actual bicycle tunnel is 585 meters (640 yards) long and the deepest point of the tunnel is 20 meters (66Ft) below the surface.

After the first bridge in 1878, the Maastunnel was only the second permanent connection across the river. Since the tunnel was built several other bridges and tunnels were constructed. Reducing the importance of this first tunnel. Besides more tunnels for motorised traffic outside the city centre, there are now also a railway tunnel and a metro tunnel. Cyclists wanting to cross the river in the city centre have a choice nowadays between the Maastunnel and two bridges. The 1981 replacement of the original 1878 bridge and the Erasmus bridge aka the Swan from 1996. But they can also use the elaborate regional "waterbus" network. On the waterbus bicycles can be taken for free.

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.

Apeldoorn's moped free cycle tunnel

In a story which sounds implausible, but is actually true, The Fietsberaad reports on a cycle only tunnel in Apeldoorn which detects the sound of mopeds, photographs their number plates and automatically fines the riders. For cyclists, this is much much better than any sort of anti-moped gate.

"This is an approximately 90 metre-long underpass connecting Apeldoorn-Noord and Apeldoorn-Zuid. There are sunken squares on either end of the underpass. The underpass is an integral part of the station environment. The reason for barring mopeds is local authorities’ fear that the large differences in speed may cause dangerous traffic situations. In addition, the resounding mopeds sometimes scare other traffic participants stiff. Moreover, this is an attempt to reduce nuisance for residents on the approach routes. There are plenty of alternatives, anyway. Mopeds may also use the underpasses meant for cars. This is the first time this type of system is employed."

The system is intended to increase social and subjective safety of cyclists.

In general, small mopeds, known as bromfietsen, are allowed to use rural cycle paths but not urban ones. This is actually beneficial to cyclists as it requires that rural cycle paths are designed to accommodate the 45 km/h legal speed of bromfietsen.

Access to paths where they are not allowed is generally not enforced by any kind of infrastructure such as gates. This enforcement using a camera is quite novel.

I wrote before about how, around here at least, I don't find these bromfietsen to be any problem at all. They are not as common here as in some Dutch cities, and they're generally ridden very carefully.

A video showing the tunnel. This was on "blik op de weg" - a TV programme about errant road users. Note how people are pushing their mopeds through the tunnel to avoid being caught:

The bicycle cathedral

In the west of the Netherlands the A12 motorway is being rebuilt. Part of the rebuild will require a cycle tunnel under the motorway.

The Fietskathedraal is being built to ensure a pleasant route for cyclists. It's to be an underpass which is 53 metres long, 16 metres wide and 6.5 metres high - roomy and as a result with a good degree of social safety.


One of the unusual things being done to make the tunnel as attractive as possible to cyclists is an unusual method of lighting. Blue LED lighting will be used to make the tunnel the tunnel look even more roomy.



The Fietskathedraal is to be one of the largest corrugated steel constructions in Europe. The cycle route is to be open by around the end of this year followed by the road in October next year.

This is far from the cheapest option, but who said that maintaining and growing the world's highest cycling rate was cheap ?

Details of the fietskathedraal came from here and here

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.

More Railway Tunnels

Railway lines often form a barrier to cyclists. That's just as true here in the Netherlands as in other countries.

As reported recently by the Fietsersbond, Minister Eurlings has made 117 million euros available to build tunnels under railway lines. These can reduce the distance that cyclists need to travel, and increase the popularity of cycling.

Tunnels for cyclists cost between one and 5 million euros to build and this new funding will cover a quarter of the cost for any individual tunnel. The new the funding is therefore enough to support building of around 150-200 average tunnels over the next couple of years, and these will be spread between the 26 towns targeted by the funding.

There are already quite a large number of crossings of railway lines for cyclists. One of those in Assen itself is shown in the video below:


And here's another, 30 km North, which provides a short cut on my commute to Groningen. Note how pedestrians and cyclists are separate in both cases, with a four metre wide cycle path and a two metre wide sidewalk:

Read more about bicycle tunnels in the Netherlands, including details of standards for width, slopes etc.

Remember that the Netherlands has a population of just 16 million people. This new funding works out as around 7 Euros per person, just for extra railway tunnels. There is plenty of funding elsewhere for other things to do with cycling (e.g. Assen spends about 27 euros per person per year on new cycling infrastructure). Quoting just absolute figures can be misleading. It's the spending per capita which is really important.

Underpass for bikes and cars together

In the East of Assen there is an underpass which dates to the 1960s which goes under the railway track and a road. There are several underpasses in the city for cyclists and pedestrians - this is the only one which accommodates cars as well.

The cycle paths are narrow by modern standards at only 2.5 m wide for a bidirectional path, but other features of this underpass are rather good.

1. It separates cyclists from pedestrians as well as from motor vehicles.
2. The tunnel goes deeper for motor vehicles than for cyclists because motor vehicles (e.g. trucks) can be taller than bikes. This means that cyclists don't have to go so deep and so the gradient to climb at the other side is easier.
3. The path is bidirectional on both sides of the road, meaning that for a lot of journeys cyclists don't need to cross the road at all.

There are other posts about cycle only underpasses.

Not stopping at red traffic lights

Here's a great example of where Dutch cyclists don't have to stop at red traffic lights.

The first photo shows a road junction between our home and the city centre from as close as I usually get to it.

Instead of stopping at these red traffic lights, cyclists have a cycle path which goes through an underpass, making cycle journeys quicker as well as more pleasant than they would be by stopping at the lights.

The cycle path is four metres wide and there is a separate pavement for pedestrians just over 2 metres wide.

The second photo shows what the road looks like. There are five lanes in one direction and two in the other at this junction. Not really a very pleasant place to cycle... but you never have to cycle here so it doesn't matter. Also note the noise barriers which, combined with the 70 km/h speed limit and quiet road surface, keep noise levels to a whisper for those who live near the road. This is also a bus-stop. The bus stop is built into the noise barrier and provides somewhere dry to wait for a bus.

Here's a video showing riding through the tunnel, how you get from the bus stop in the second photo to the cycle parking for the bus stop on the other side, and the cycle path which parallels the main road:

Explanatory captions on this video are visible only if you view it on a computer and not on a mobile device

This is the road which we avoided having to cross by using the tunnel:

Grotere kaart weergeven

There are many examples of where Dutch cyclists get to dodge traffic lights.

My bike is the one in the cycle parking which has lots of plastic bottles in the rear basket, left over from the kid's halloween party. They're there because there is a deposit on them and I'm on the way to the supermarket to return them for the deposit.

Traffic calming the countryside

In the Netherlands, rural roads are also a pleasure for cyclists. The reason is that there are very few cars using them. Many rural roads only offer convenient through routes by bicycle. Drivers are encouraged to take other routes.

The signpost to the left stands in the village of Peize, which has just over 5000 residents. It is fairly typical for rural areas. Note that there are directions given to 9 different places by bike (the red writing on a white background), but drivers are offered only "all directions" (white writing on a blue background).

What happens if the drivers try to follow the cycling route ? Well, it's not easy. Fairly frequently these routes are not passable at all if you're driving a car. For that reason, drivers are better off using the directions indicated for them, even if it will mean a detour. On the way into this village I used the route indicated left on this sign to Eelde-Paterswolde. That means the road shown in this video:


On the way out of the village, in the direction the camera is pointing in the photo at the top, I used this one:



There are 29000 km of cycle path in the Netherlands and 130000 km of road. What is often not understood outside this country is how much of the "road" is also (almost) only for bikes. Motorists can only follow the motoring routes, not the cycling routes. As a result, the majority of country roads are almost like cycle paths in all but name. The experience of riding along them is almost completely free of cars.

There are many other examples of smooth cycle paths next to (deliberately) rough roads.

Not just the towns, but also the countryside has to a large extent been "traffic calmed". Sections of road joined by cycle path make through routes for cyclists, not for drivers. It makes cycling a pleasure.