The importance of the mundane, why the mundane must go everywhere and why "mundane" must be very good.

Chatting in safety on "just average"
Dutch cycle-path. 4 m wide and widely
separated from the road. Excellent
junction designs along here.

Occasionally we've covered exceptional examples of cycling infrastructure on this blog. It is not only this blog, or only the Netherlands that produces such infrastructure. Such projects, big and impressive, often large bridges, tunnels or cycle-parking facilities, are photogenic and prestigious. They can also be the subject of press releases from the city in which they are built, or the designers and they're very popular amongst bloggers, on facebook and twitter. However, an emphasis on such things paints a false image.

Riding to school. No hands required on
the sort of mundane infrastructure you
can expect to see everywhere. 3.5 m
wide and widely separated from the
road with good junction designs

It can be a pleasure to use exceptional pieces of infrastructure, but I'm uneasy about the amount of attention which such things achieve. The whole world doesn't look like the exceptions, not even to a cyclist in the Netherlands. After all, the very word exceptional means "deviating widely from a norm". By definition, almost all infrastructure is not exceptional but is actually just average and most journeys will be made for the most part on that average infrastructure.

Boringly average infrastructure. Four
metres wide, great junction design and
kept clear of ice in winter.

Prestige projects are very popular with politicians who want to make a name for themselves, and they can be great to have as an extra. However, it is the quality of design of the everyday, mundane infrastructure which forms the largest part of most peoples' journeys which is most important to encourage a high cycling modal share. This is what most people will use for most of their journeys.

Similarly, some places make quite a lot of noise about having a few good cycle paths, or a network which covers part of a city. Nice photos can be taken on those cycle paths and they seem good so long as we gloss over the problems which occur at junctions and that they don't take people to all their destinations. Giving too much credit to a place which has an inadequate network also misses the point. A proper finely spaced grid of high quality routes which cover everyone's journeys is a prerequisite for a high cycling modal share. Exceptional pieces of infrastructure spread spread thinly across the country are only useful to a minority for some of their journeys and if the "good" cycle-paths are exceptional enough to be noteworthy, they're in the same category.

Not a "superhighway", just a cycle-path
3.5 metres wide providing a direct route
between city centre and suburb. It is
very important that cyclists get to use
direct routes. Good quality is far more
important than a flashy name.

So let's hear it for mundane, common, ordinary, unexceptional and boring infrastructure. Forget the exceptional stuff, it is the mundane which needs to be good and it's the mundane and good stuff which needs to go everywhere.

How much extremely good infrastructure do you need ? That depends on how much cycling you want to see. It should be no surprise that expenditure on cycling is proportional to modal share.

The truly exceptional thing about Dutch cycling infrastructure is that in this country, "mundane" infrastructure is of extremely high quality, is excellently maintained and is absolutely ubiquitous. This mundane infrastructure in the Netherlands is what makes the high modal share possible because it keeps cyclists away from cars and trucks for all of every journey. This very high quality infrastructure is available to everyone so that they can make a large proportion of their journeys by bicycle without any nasty surprises, ever. This extremely high quality grid of cycling routes is kept open even during road works or when there has been snow. Anyone who wants to cycle is enabled to do so as much as they wish to. This maximises the modal share for cycling, whatever the demographic mix of any particular area. Old, young, rich, poor, locally born people and immigrants all cycle in the Netherlands.

High quality routes can also be roads
if cars are removed from them by
unravelling motor and bicycle routes

The importance of having a tight grid of high quality routes to encourage the use of bicycles was a lesson learnt way back in the late 1970s and early 1980s and still just as valid today. Don't let your city get away with offering just a few prestige projects or just a few particularly good routes. Don't let them get away with offering indirect routes which don't go to all destinations efficiently. Such proposals may sound good, they're great for boasting about, they're great for photo shoots and publicity purposes and politicians love to have their names associated with big projects. However, a few pieces of exceptional infrastructure cannot cause an appreciable change because for most people making most journeys in other parts of the same city, the experience of cycling will remain the same as it was before they were built.

One of thousands of small bridges
for cyclists doing what it needs to do

Average Dutch infrastructure is what is featured most on this blog. It's also what we demonstrate most on our Study Tours to show how the infrastructure works and why it enables cycling so much. We take the routes that normal people take to destinations that normal people go to. We use the infrastructure that normal people use. There is no point in cherry picking a few particularly good pieces of infrastructure as this only creates a false image. It wouldn't show how people actually cycle on a daily basis and what is important to make this high rate of cycling normal.

So what is this "grid", then ?
It's simple in concept. Within a few pedal strokes of home, everyone needs to be able to reach infrastructure on which they not only will be safe but on which they will feel safe. It must take the cyclist to every destination in a convenient manner and it must be contiguous. No stops and starts, no need to "take the lane" to cross large junctions.

Main cycle-routes should be separated from each other by no more than 500 metres. Secondary routes fill in between to get the spacing down to about 250 m and neighbourhood routes fill in the gaps where needed.

Conceptual version of "the grid". Cover
your whole country like this.
Red = main cycle routes 500 m apart,
green = secondary, blue = local links.

In practice, the grid is of course not arranged on strict North-South / East-West lines, but curves with the landscape, runs alongside canals and rivers with bridges to cross periodically, goes across the countryside and through the towns and cities that people live in.

However, the everyday experience is as if it were such a strict grid. For instance, from our home we have less than 200 metres to cycle in a quiet culdesac (30 km/h limit) to reach either of two high quality four metre wide cycle-paths which take us to every possible destination by bike. See the actual map of primary and secondary cycle-routes in Assen in a previous post about "the grid".

The first Fietsroute+ in Groningen

Not all major cycle-routes are given a particularly grand name in the Netherlands. While other countries use terms such as "superhighway" for mere cycle-lanes, in this country, more modest terms are used for very good and direct cycle-paths. One of these terms is "Fietsroute+", favoured by the Groningen-Assen region.

My mother helping me to demonstrate
the Assen-Rolde Fietsroute+

The first Fietsroute+ was constructed in 2007 to cover the 10 km distance between Assen and Vries. For a couple of years, this featured on my commute, and the wonderful smooth surface and continuity of the path helped with riding at high enough average speeds that a 60 km round trip was quite feasible. This particular routes has also featured in several blog posts including about the required standards for a Fietsroute+ (worth reading) and how it is used by many secondary school students. Another Fietsroute+ heads East out of Assen, covering the 6 km distance between Rolde and Assen.

However, both of these are in Drenthe, not in Groningen and this post is about the First Fietsroute+ in the province of Groningen.

Two years ago, Wilfred took some photos of the construction of a new Fietsroute+ to make the 13 km distance between his home in Zuidhorn and Groningen more attractive to cyclists. This cycle-path was finally completed and officially opened in May as the first Fietsroute+ in Groningen. The local government produced a publicity film for it in which the entertainer Arno Van Der Heyden introduces the new fietsroute+, demonstrates how to cycle along the route, and interviews the burgemeester of Zuidhorn, a passer by, and the cycling project leader about the new cycle-path:


Like the other Fietsroute+ routes, as well as other major routes without that designation, it's designed to be safe, wide to avoid conflict, and smooth and direct to cope with higher speeds than an average cycle-path. The combined population of Zuidhorn and surrounding smaller villages is only around 18000, yet 1500 people per day cycle along this route. Their numbers are boosted by people for whom this section is part of a longer route. It is hoped that the quality of the new cycle-path will attract yet more people out of cars.

However, this wasn't the only publicity. There was another event, an opening "race":

The winner of this "race" was professional cycle racer Bauke Mollema. Bauke Mollema grew up in Zuidhorn and rode to Groningen each day to go to school. He tells an amusing anecdote about how when he made his school journeys along the old path, they would ride with two students next to each other and it too cramped for three, while with the new improved path five abreast will be possible. I've seen how school children and students cycle, and I've no doubt that this will happen.

Bauke is a local hero. This year he took part in the Tour de France, though sadly he had to stop after the 11th stage due to problems from injuries suffered on the sixth stage. Better luck next time !

Progress continues to be made so that cycling becomes steadily safer, faster and more attractive. Seven routes are currently shown as either completed or in progress on the Groningen-Assen website, and another fietsroute+ is also planned to be built along the line of the railway to Winsum, some 15 km North of Groningen:

It is only by continual improvement that cycling can be expected to grow. Standards are so high as they are in the Nnetherlands because they need to be higher here than elsewhere merely to preserve the modal share which already exists, let alone to make it grow. While it is relatively easy to convince the first few percent of the population to cycle because they are the least demanding, if the modal share is to become higher, it becomes steadily more difficult because the target is no longer "low lying fruit". Rather, to maintain and build on a high modal share for cycling, the target audience is necessarily those people who are not easy to convince to ride a bike. They may have longer journeys, be more easily scared off from cycling, come from from demographic groups who are less likely to cycle, or perhaps they simply more likely to prefer an alternative such as driving a car.

This is why development of ever better cycling facilities is not a luxury but a necessity not only in the Netherlands but also elsewhere. Campaigners can make no progress by asking only for what is good enough for themselves. Such campaigners are themselves the low-lying fruit and they are already riding. For progress, the standards have to improve and this isn't achieved by aiming low. The benefit of good quality cycling facilities is for everyone, even professional cycle-racers.



In related news, Bauke became a father last week. Gefeliciteerd Bauke en Jane !

Groningen. Not Fietsstad 2011.

A few weeks ago, Mark wrote about how 's-Hertogenbosch had won the Fietsstad 2011 competition. Groningen had also entered in the competition. However, many locals didn't think it was good enough to be called a "cycling city". The local TV news carried the following video, titled "Still much work for Groningen Cycling City":



In this video:

• 0:00 : Groningen wants to become the most cycle friendly city in the Netherlands once again.
• 0:10 : But is the city really so cycle friendly ? The local government has much work to do to get the title.
• 0:20 : "For pensioners, the new Berlage bridge is a test like the Alpe d'Huez". There are many complaints.
• 0:30 : Fietsersbond representative: "The incline is too steep"
• 0:45 : Further, consideration is needed that the most dangerous junction in the Netherlands is within Groningen. The crossing by the Rodeweg, Boterdiep and Korreweg (see earlier post about this junction)
• 1:00 : Interview with people talking about the danger of the junction. "People come along quickly and it's difficult to see"
• 1:15 : It's not obvious and therefore it's dangerous. "I need eyes in the back of my head and in both sides", "students come along here in a hurry and don't look. The junction is dangerous."
• 1:40 : In 2002, Groningen got the award Fietsstad 2002, but how about this time ?
• 1:52 : Fietsersbond representative: "I think it's impossible this time"
• 1:57 : The Fietsersbond also see problems in other areas of the city, including by the railway station.
• 2:00 : Local politician: "I've not heard of this problem of the bridge being too steep but I'll take a look"

I covered the most dangerous junction in the Netherlands a few months back. 14 injuries amongst all types of road users were reported here in three years, a better record than junctions in London and Cambridge.

A test like the Alpe d'Huez ? Read more discussion of this bridge including a video of riding over it.

As for the steepness of the new bridge, which of course includes separated cycling infrastructure as do all bridges, I think many readers from outside this country wouldn't see the problem here either.

How space is allocated on that
"problem" bridge. This would be
cause for celebration in any
other country.

Oh to have such "problems". But this is quite illustrative of what has made the Netherlands the leading country in cycle usage. Nothing is ever finished. Groningen may have won "Cycle City 2002", but that doesn't mean that they can sit in their laurels and expect to win "Cycle City 2011". Many improvements have been made in Groningen in the last 9 years, but they were not enough. Other cities have done more. It's a brave person who talks of any Dutch city as a "Cycling City", as they'll soon have someone pointing out the defects, which even if they might be minor elsewhere, are of great concern here.

The correct decision was made
's-Hertogenbosch has a few lower cycling modal share than does Groningen. It's actually relatively low for any city in the Netherlands, nothing special indeed. However, what 's-Hertogenbosch has done in recent years is to make bold plans and to achieve real growth. For this reason it is far better than 's-Hertogenbosch won the prize than Groningen. Groningen has more cycling than any other place in the Netherlands, indeed than any other place in the world. But the city also has too much dated and lack-lustre infrastructure. Groningen has work to do.

Meanwhile, exaggeration continues elsewhere
In Britain and America, things are entirely different. For example, in Dumfries and Galloway with a cycling modal share of approximately 3%, the local transport strategy says "Overall, cycling and walking infrastructure is considered to be of a good standard and the council consequently considers that only incremental improvements to existing networks will be required in the short term".

Meanwhile, in the USA, some people think that Portland "has a great infrastructure" and that with a 4% modal share for bikes, it is second only to Amsterdam. The same "second to Amsterdam" claim was made by Cambridge in the 1990s.

To make such a claim is absurd for both these cities. There's nothing wrong with positive speaking. However, they some grounding in fact is needed. While the Dutch are modest and have frustrating reluctance even to call Groningen a "cycling city" even though it has the highest cycling modal share in the world, other places in the world are keen to exaggerate relatively small achievements.

For a model of what is possible, the best place to look remains the Netherlands. Campaigners in the Netherlands set their sights high and rather than hyping their cities they make clear what is not good enough and work towards fixing it. Campaigners elsewhere must also make sure that they don't set their sights too low and that they don't overly praise actions taken which not entirely positive. Doing so results in a distinct lack of progress, as seen in most other places in the world.

Counting bikes in Groningen

The moment that a cyclist is counted on a cycle-path in Groningen

In order to gather good statistics on cycling rates, there are many cycle counters in the Netherlands. All around the country, small grey boxes are chained to lamp-posts, a rubber lead from them stretching across the adjacent cycle path.

The boxes count cyclists who pass over the lead. They're left in place for a year, and the cycle count for the route is given as the number of times that the box has counted a bike, divided by 365. The counts produced are a true average over the whole year, not the result of counting on a sunny day in September just after the students have returned.

Any automated count like this has a margin of error. The boxes will always miss some cyclists. For instance, when cyclists pass side by side (even four abreast isn't all that uncommon with school-children), only one will be counted. When there is ice or snow, or perhaps due to leaves in Autumn, the box will also miss some bikes. However, the raw data is used because by consistently counting in the same way, figures are collected which can be compared from year to year. This is not a marketing exercise. There are no signs on the streets telling people how many have been counted.

This video has explanatory captions which are visible only if you view it on a computer. You won't get to see the point of the video on a mobile device.

The route shown in the photo and video is Zonnelaan in Groningen, where on average over 14000 cyclists pass each day. The busiest street which is currently counted in Groningen is Antonius Deusinglaan with over 19000 cyclists per day. These are large numbers for a city of just 190000.

Due to the high level of cycling all the way across the Netherlands, even small cities manage impressive counts. For instance, even though Assen's population is just 67000, an average of almost 9000 cycles per day pass through Nieuwe Huizen.

High counts are not in themselves a measure of success
Very high counts are often the result of a funneling effect where cyclists are forced to all go along the same route because of a lack of alternatives. Due to the cycle network in the Netherlands being designed as a very dense grid of high quality facilities it is usually possible to find a direct route which is not overly busy as a result of funneling. Zonnelaan also features in a later blog post showing how the local government has worked to reduce the number of people taking this route by making a faster parallel route known to students who made up much of the cycle traffic along this road.