A Tale of Two Cities - Parliamentary Cycling Trip to Belgium

A dozen delegates led by Lord Berkeley and Adam Coffman visited Belgium. With its impeccable political connections and eclectic mix of Associate members from the world of cycling, the All Party Parliamentary Cycling Group (APPCG) reaches people and places that other technical tours cannot, and this always ensures that discussions explore political, technical, social, legal and financial aspects of cycling. Our party this year included parliamentarians, consultants, Police, a cycle safety equipment inventor and cycle campaigners. 

picking up the hire bikes - look at the width of the cycle track!

 

Belgium regards itself as Europe’s third cycling nation (behind the Netherlands and Denmark) although there is a marked difference in utility cycling which is split largely between the Flemish speaking north of the country and the French speaking southern part of the country. Cycling is the national sport of Belgium, exciting a similar degree of passion and participation as football does in the UK.

 

the Lion of Flanders, a familar site to cycle racing fans

 

One purpose of the trip was to compare and contrast the cities of Brugge (Bruges) and Brussels. These cities are very different. Bruges is a compact small city of 120,000 people known primarily as a tourist attraction.  Brussels is Europe’s capital and one of its busiest multi-cultural cities, attracting residents and visitors from around the world. One is historic, compact, picturesque and flat, the other has expanded beyond its historic mediaeval core area into a sprawling metropolis, home to over 1 million people as well as attracting a large commuter population each day. It is not surprising therefore that cycling in each city is a markedly different experience.

residential cycle parking lockers, Bruges

Our visit started in the historic city of Bruges, famed for its attractive canals, market squares and cobbled streets.  Immediately outside the station was a large secure Fietsenstalling (cycle park) from where we picked up our rental bikes. Around 20% of rail travellers use a bike to access the rail system in Belgium, and over 77,000 cycle parking spaces are provided at stations.

The hire bikes are ‘Blue Bikes’ a national station-based cycle hire scheme inspired by the OV-Fiets system in neighbouring Holland. The bikes can be hired from over 40 locations throughout Belgium for €3.00 per day. The sturdy bikes come with 3 speed gears and a handy basket on the rear rack.

The other immediate impression was that the 5.0m wide two-way cycle track outside the station was considerably wider than the adjacent one-way drop-off lane for car traffic, and it was surfaced in immaculately smooth red tarmac.

We set off on a short journey through the suburbs to meet the Mobility Minister for Flanders (Hilde Crevitz) and other officials from Bruges and the Flanders region. Our journey involved a ‘mix’ of infrastructure, including cycle tracks, shared use paths, cycle lanes and quiet streets. Not everything was perfect. There were some poor surfaces and restricted width in places, but there was a great sense of ‘continuity’ and crucially the busiest intersections were grade separated or had separate signalled crossings.

Patrick D’Haese gave a short presentation about cycling in the region. Some key facts include:

·         Annual cycling budget for 2014-15 is €100m (up from €60m) within an overall transport budget of €3bn. The Flanders population is 6 million people. i.e. €16.6 spent on cycling per head of population.

·         Cycling mode share is currently 12.9%. There has been an increase in city cycling but a decrease in rural areas.

·         Cycling deaths have fallen from 122 in 2000 to 64 in 2012. There are about 1000 serious injury accidents to cyclists each year, a 7% annual decrease.

·         1750km of new or refurbished cycle routes created in Flanders since 2009

·         The Integrated Cycling Investment Programme has identified a future potential network stretching 12,000km. This will include facilities delivered via new developments as well as government funding. Changes have been made to planning policy to facilitate cycle track construction.

·         Cycle track standard is 5.0m preferred width, 4.0m minimum

·         Broad aim is to separate cycling from other modes. General design criteria is <30kph mix with traffic, <50kph cycle lanes, >50kph cycle tracks.

·         There are 72 grade separated cycle crossings (bridges and underpasses) in the regions and many of these are developed as ‘landmark’ projects.

·         Other innovations include a specialist machine for analysing cycle track surface quality and special equipment for snow clearance and winter maintenance of cycle tracks.

Following lunch, we cycled to one of the landmark bridges, the impressive ‘Y Brugge’ a forked bridge over the N31 on the outskirts of Bruges. The impressive structure offers a safe crossing over a busy road intersection. It was installed in 2013 at a cost of €4m.

the Forked Bridge, Bruges

 

Returning to the city centre, we learned that around 60% of traffic entering the ancient walled city area is bicycles. There are 3,500 public cycle parking spaces in the centre, including a section of an underground car park in the central square. In addition, 600 ‘mobile’ parking spaces are available for events such as the Tour of Flanders cycle race which took place the day before our visit. We also noted some on-street cycle parking shelters within the residential areas so that people living in terraced housing with no outside space are able to securely store bicycles.

 

entrance to underground cycle park and car park, Bruges

 

Our trip to Brussels was hosted by Kevin Mayne of the European Cyclists Federation (ECF). We picked up our Blue Bikes from the central station and pedalled to the ECF headquarters through some of Brussels quieter streets in order to avoid the busiest roads during the rush hour. The experience was very familiar to those of us used to riding in UK cities, mixed traffic, lots of parked cars, busy roads to cross and the need to ‘take the lane’ in order to turn left (right in UK). It was hard to keep together as a group in the intensity of traffic and with differing ability to cope with the hills, so there were frequent stops to regroup.

contraflow cycle lane outside parking bays, Brussels

 

Brussels is a useful city to look at for UK planners. It has no inherent ‘cycling culture’. Cycling is more popular among the expat population (about 11% cycle regularly) than the local population (around 3% regular cyclists). Cycling in Brussels currently accounts for about 4% mode share, an increase from just 1% in 2007.

At the ECF we learned about their work with cycling organisations throughout Europe. Their major initiatives include:

·         The Euro-Velo network of Europe-wide cycle routes

·         The Velo-City conference which has become the most prestigious event for cycle planners attracting over 1400 delegates.

·         Involvement in various research projects funded by the European Union as a way to raise the political profile and lever more funding for cycling.

·         Working to influence policy decisions across all relevant sectors within the European parliament.

The ECF has a unique Europe-wide perspective on cycling. It’s aim is to help countries to work towards an average 15% mode share for cycling across the EU by 2020. It is estimated that the current economic benefits of cycling are worth €217bn across the 27 European countries. The UK does not always fully exploit opportunities for funding for cycling from the EU. 6bn There is a target for €6bn funding for cycling during the period 2014-20. Currently countries such as Hungary, Poland, Czech Republic and Germany are all receiving over €100m for cycling projects from Europe. UK politicians can do more to ensure that our partnership agreement and operational programmes incorporate cycling to ensure that funding is made available.

We were also given a brief introduction to cycling in the Brussels region by Frederik Depoortere. Some of the key facts he shared include:

·         Brussels has an €11m annual cycling budget for a population of 1.1m people (i.e. approx. €10 per head).

·         There is 60% car ownership across the region (relatively high).

·         There is >100m height difference across the city including hills in the central area.

·         A 265km network of 19 strategic routes has been identified at approx. 400m spacing. Mainly signed routes on quieter streets.

·         A public bike system (similar to the London scheme) operates in the city centre.

·         Due to the topography of the city with a lack of direct alternatives, a high proportion of cycle trips is on the main roads.

·         Around 80% of one-way streets have unsegregated contraflow, around 400km in all. These streets have a good safety record.

·         Non infrastructure interventions include a ‘3 day bike buddy’ where a motorist is paired with an experienced cyclist, resulting in 80% success in permanent change of mode. Around 400 people per year are involved.

·         There is an annual Car Free Sunday event.

At the European Parliament we met Brian Simpson, Chair of the European Transport Committee. He was able to update us on the European Infrastructure Safety Directive and in particular progress on HGV design (passed by Parliament on 15^th April) to make them safer for pedestrians and cyclists.

 

the politicians pose for the Het Nieuwsblad photographer

Local politicians joined us for lunch, and were able to talk to them at length about how cycling was perceived locally, and how progress was achieved through general consensus among the main parties. We rounded off the afternoon with a visit to some of the cycle infrastructure that has been introduced in recent years. This includes cycle contraflow lanes alongside parking bays, adjacent cycle tracks at footway level, ‘cycle streets’ where cars are required to wait behind cyclists and cycle lanes to the offside of right-turn lanes to help reduce conflict from ‘right hook’ turns (left hook in UK). There is some tension between regional level government and city level. An example of this is that a cycle lane was painted overnight (replacing a traffic lane) on a road administered by regional government to avoid discussion about capacity with the city officials!

 

cycle lane through junction to offside of right turn lane, Brussels

 

shared use cycle contraflow with signal control crossing, Brussels

 

The study offered an excellent contrast between what is possible where cycling becomes more fully established and accepted as a main mode of transport and the challenges of introducing cycling to congested cities where space is at a premium and cycling is regarded as a fringe activity.

A DNS on the start sheet

Spring can be a bittersweet time for many people. The end of the dark winter days, warmer weather, spring flowers and lambs in the fields. It should be a great time of optimism, indeed a time to put a spring into your step.

For me the site of daffodils often reminds me of a day 20 years ago this year when I decided to take my own life. It was a beautiful crisp bright day, cold and sunny with that hint of a smell of summer to come in the air. The daffodils in question were all over the grassy banks below York's historic city walls. I was in the midst of a lengthy and protracted break up with my girlfriend of 5 years, we were squabbling over the sale of our house, my work was going badly and as often happens in a divorce, friends thought it might be helpful to 'take sides'. I didnt want them to be nasty about my ex, and I was stunned how some people reacted to me when she and I were attempting to part as amicably as we could. Slowly but surely I withdrew from the world, only maintaining the social contact required of my job. I wasn't particularly feeling sorry for myself, it was more that I was determined (in the words of Simon and Garfunkel) that I would be a 'rock' - cos a rock feels no pain. The line from that bloody song I am a rock, I am an island, cos a rock feels no pain, and an island never dies was almost an internal mantra throughout that time. It is surprisingly easy to become isolated. Say no to invitations a few times and soon the phone no longer rings, probably more so if you are a divorce bore or just plain miserable!

That day I realised that I was feeling nothing, there was no pleasure to be had from the spring sunshine. There was nobody to share it with. Thanks to a quick witted passer by, a community psychiatric nurse and the Samaritans I lived to tell the tale. It wasnt the best time in my life, but during that recovery I could feel myself getting mentally stronger.  But like many people I kept it quiet, didn't tell my family what happened, told work I was ill for a week and then went straight back. Just one person knew about it. I often wonder how many people go through these dramatic events completely unremarked.

Last night, as I sat in a hotel room in Belgium I had a phone call. My best friend, a cycling buddy that I've known since I was 15, was found in a lonely part of Halifax with deep cuts to his wrists and legs. He's still in the intensive care ward but he is going to pull through. We've been on some pretty brutal hard bike rides together over the years, through all that the Yorkshire hills and winters can throw at us. I know that together we can always keep going.

I should have seen the signs.    He stopped cycling, then stopped going to the pub, then I hadn't  heard anything for a few weeks. But of course I was busy, and that day I rode past his house without stopping I was training for an event, and then I was working away a lot,  and well, yes he just hasn't been as much fun the last few times we went out.....

I'm visiting him tomorrow. Making time for that visit that I didn't make a few weeks ago. Because   he's important to me now.  He won't be lining up with me this Sunday morning for our local spring audax ride, but he should be. I'm going to make sure we are both there next year.

Cycling is a great way to keep the 'Black Dog' at bay, but everybody  needs a little extra help from friends at times. We should never forget that, and we should talk about it.

Time for Cycling

With Dr Who back on the TV this weekend it’s a good excuse to be all timey wimey. Cycling requires travel in both space and time after all. There are two elements to every journey, the distance and the time it takes. In cycle racing the one who gets there quickest is usually the winner. People generally want an easy life and will happily choose to cycle if it is as safe and convenient as driving, because in most towns and cities cycling is already quicker and more enjoyable.

So what has this got to do with infrastructure? Well, the battle over ‘space for cycling’ is well understood. It’s pretty clear that squeezing onto a narrow road or busy junction with fast moving cars and HGVs is unappealing to many people. Physical separation by getting rid of excessive traffic in town centres and residential streets, or by creating cycle tracks and crossing facilities where traffic speeds and volumes can’t be addressed, is the solution.

However physical segregation presently comes at a price when cyclists cross the path of other traffic. Many cyclists won’t use existing cycle tracks because they involve lots of stopping and starting.  There is an advantage in staying on the carriageway where you can keep moving. The penalty for increased separation is decreased convenience, additional effort to stop and start, and therfore additional journey time through delays at junctions. It doesn’t have to be that way, but to take full advantage of more space for cycling we also have to win more time for cycling. Dedicated time is one of the ways in which cyclists and pedestrians can be physically separated from vehicles turning across their path.

It only takes cyclists and pedestrians 5-10 seconds to cross a road or junction from a standing start. Most people no matter how young or old can lap the Manchester Velodrome in less than 30 seconds, but if you’re good, you can do it in half that time.  You’d think that traffic signals would be set to cater for the average, rather than the Olympian, to pass through a junction without other traffic bearing down on them. However time for motor traffic is regarded as sacrosanct by engineers keen to avoid (or not exacerbate) delay to drivers so if you’re a pedestrian or cyclist, you have to be quick off the mark. 

Similarly delay while waiting to cross a junction is invariably passed to the pedestrian and cyclist because you can of course ‘stack’ hundreds of pedestrians and cyclists in to far less space than is taken by a few queuing cars, and then force them to sprint across the road. As well as creating chaotic and unpleasant conditions for pedestrians (and ideal conditions for city pick pockets), these delays are especially disproportionate given that people are usually only walking and cycling short distances and could easily spend half of their journey time standing still watching moving traffic. Living Streets are highlighting this in their current #timetocross campaign because for an increasing elderly population, running across the road in a crowd of people is impossible as well as unpleasant, but all that could be resolved with just 3 more seconds for pedestrians at crossings. For cyclists, a 3 second head start would be enough to avoid many 'left hook' collisions where a vehicle turns left into cyclists going straight on at traffic lights.

Unfortunately, even relatively minor junctions such as supermarket exits usually feature a ‘pedestrian refuge’. That tiny, cramped island fortress of guardrail in the middle of every busy junction. Is it really a safety feature? Or is it there to enable traffic to have the maximum time at the junction, while pedestrians and cyclists scurry across in the gaps between.  The ‘staggered’ refuge that requires a sharp turn and an unpleasant rest in the middle of the road is entirely to serve ‘capacity’ requirements of motor traffic and is invariably unsuitable for conversion to a toucan crossing, which is one of the only legal options for creating segregated cycle crossings in the UK. However, making this into a straight across that is convenient for cyclists and pedestrians is often refused by traffic engineers and network managers because it would require additional crossing time and delay motor vehicles. If we are to have more segregated cycle infrastructure in the UK, we have to have direct crossings, with separate flows of cycles and pedestrians able to cross a carriageway in one single movement. Current UK legislation doesn’t even cover how to sign and mark these parallel crossings hence the DfT is unable to publish design guidance!  

The target for the number of stops per kilometre at junctions on a main cycle route in the Netherlands is zero. Of course in a big city this target is never achieved, but it is an indication of the absolute priority given to pedestrians and cyclists in the design principles and in transport policy.

In the 1950s, 60s and 70s British engineers did at least give some thought to this by providing bridges and subways for pedestrians in New Towns and in ring road systems, just that they got it the wrong way round.  The cars should have been made to go up and down and the pedestrians and cyclists stay at ground level. Or at least there should have been a halfway house compromise, to avoid the damp, dark, indirect, crime ridden subways  and bridges that have given the concept of grade separation a bad name among pedestrians and cyclists.

There really is no excuse for the paucity of time allocated to non-motorised users. It is possible to design traffic lights that offer a ‘green wave’ to cyclists in just the same way that we currently do with SCOOT for motor vehicles.  A detection loop on a cycle track can trigger the lights to change on the approach to a junction so that when the cyclist gets there they have a green light amd don’t lose momentum, and this can have a push-button  back up system in case the loop doesnt detect that snazzy carbon fibre bike of yours.

It is possible to design side-road , junctions with ‘tight’ geometry – angular kerbs, speed tables and narrow entrances, so that cyclists and pedestrians can be given priority and turning vehicles have to wait until they can safely manoeuvre. It is possible to continue the footway and cycle track over a side road entrance and make vehicles give way and bump up and down to cross it, instead of always making pedestrians and cyclists do the crossing no matter how minor the junction.

 It is possible to give right-turning cyclists a safe space to wait on the nearside and a dedicated time to cross, avoiding the need to cross moving traffic lanes and wait in the middle of the road.

All of these things are possible, but crucially they require time.

There is still a possibility to get this right in new road schemes. For existing junctions in busy towns and cities however, cyclists and pedestrians need to engage in the Time War to ensure that safe space for cycling also means a similar level of priority and convenience for cyclists as is offered to motor traffic. That takes political courage and a recognition that its time to treat cycling and walking as legitimate modes of transport that can achieve the objective of efficiently moving people (not just vehicles) around congested towns and cities.

Are you the right kind of cyclist?

Last weekend I gave a talk at the CycleNation conference in Leeds Civic Centre. At this event local cycle campaigners from across the UK gather to catch up and exchange ideas.  I'm not a regular stalwart attendee but have been going intermittently since the early 1990s.  My talk was about cycle infrastructure - surprisingly enough as I'm the world's greatest bore on the subject!  I'd been asked to speak in my capacity as infrastructure adviser to British Cycling.

My talk was billed as a workshop so there was a fair amount of interaction, questions and inputs from the audience. In my final slide I concluded that it was important that infrastructure improvements went hand in hand with other measures to encourage cycle use such as Bikeability training, route mapping, skills training for engineers, publicity, led social rides and events such as Sky Ride.

This latter point seemed to be surprisingly controversial. The opening gambit from a member of the audience being 'I don't see what riding about on closed roads in helmets and hi viz has to do with everyday cycling'. It seems, that in the opinion of at least one campaigner, the thousands of people inspired to turn up to such events are in some way 'less worthy' than others.  On the one hand I can sympathise with this, apart from racing and a few local CTC events I tend to avoid most forms of 'organised cycling'. To me it seems a bit of a waste of money to pay £25 to ride a sportive when you can just go and ride the same roads for free and have money for beer and cakes instead. On the other hand (and this was reinforced by my experience of working with the Cycling Towns for Cycling England and more recently sitting with the LSTF team in Birmingham Council), cycling is an alien and scary concept to many people.  They really do want the reassurance of closed roads and an organised event, and of course most of us get some sort of 'buzz' from taking part in something with lots of other people.  Most of all its a fun day, and the underlying message is that you could have this much fun on a regular basis.  Sky Ride may only yield a small number of new regular commuter cyclists per event, but it is raising the profile of cycling and attracting large numbers of riders in a way that smaller events can't, and for one day a year streets that are normally full of cars are given over to the bicycle, which can't really be a bad thing can it?

Cyclists seem particularly prone to division. We have the various 'national bodies' British Cycling, CTC, Sustrans most prominently, but also the Road Time Trials Council which pre-dates the controversial re-birth of massed start road racing in the UK in the 1950s which eventually led to the formation of British Cycling from the warring factions of the British League of Racing Cyclists and the National Cyclists Union. Families and clubs were split asunder by those who wanted to join the 'League' and be like the continentals, and the modest black-clad secretive British world of early morning time trials. Similarly the Clarion movement offered a socialist alternative to the 'gentleman's club' types in the early CTC. My neighbour, a rabid mountain biker, has a deep suspicion of 'roadies'. Asked whether he'd consider cyclo cross he said, "Really, to me that's just sitting on the fence, you're neither a roadie or a mountain biker!" Cycle campaigners also seem to fall into those who want more people to cycle, and therefore reach out to non/novice cyclists and those who want to make things better for existing cyclists, as well as divisions about what is required to achieve their aims. Obviously we need all types of campaigner, so this shouldn't be seen as a problem.

My own cycling activity since August. What type of cyclist am I? Two weeks cycle camping tour, 6 mile round trip to the railway station most days, 8-10 hours training on local roads, bridleways or extended commute rides each week, racing in the local cyclo cross league and Three Peaks race, doing site visits and travel to meetings as part of my consultancy work and often picking up some shopping on my way home.  This weekend I covered 50 miles on Friday working in London on a site visit, an hour on local bridleways on Saturday and just got in from a 2 hour road ride today (Sunday).  Is any one of these activities really 'better' than others. For most the alternative would be a car trip or sitting around doing something 'sedentary' but then I drive to races so that's arguably an extra car trip, and its one of the few times we actually use a car in our household.

The economic benefits of cycling derive from improved health (around 65% of benefit), reduced pollution, improved air quality and reductions in congestion.  In theory, my recreational cycling has a lower value to the economy (Because I'm only really getting the health benefits) but of course living 1000 ft up in hilly West Yorkshire I wouldn't logically choose to ride my bike for all those utility trips as it is easier and faster to drive.  The bottom line is, I mainly cycle to keep fit enough to be able to enjoy my leisure cycling, but the only time I can do this is by combining it with 'utility' trips.  This seems to be the case for most club riders that I know. They may view themselves primarily as sports cyclists but their training run is often the daily commute.  That's OK, but what about all the money given to National Parks through LSTF and Cycle Ambition? That money is purely for leisure cycling.  Wouldn't it be better spent elsewhere in towns and cities? People only drive into the area, go for a ride on a trail and drive out again.  Well, these people will still be getting some of the health benefits of regular cycling. Work funded by Cycling England found that many of the leisure cyclists surveyed were regular visitors from nearby. Anecdotal evidence from cycle hire/sales firms in national parks also suggests that people make 2 or 3 visits to hire a bike before returning to actually buy a bike on their 3rd or 4th trip.  It was clear from the research that 'occasional' cyclists were becoming more regular cyclists, if not everyday cyclists.  More importantly for rural economies there is a substantial weight of evidence that cyclists generally spend more (compared to car borne visitors who typically park, spend just 20 - 40 minutes in a place and then move on to the next place), supporting local businesses, especially if they prolong their stay overnight, which they will do if there is a network of leisure routes to explore.  Cycling as the sole purpose of a leisure visit, or as a means of access and transport to other attractions in the countryside is therefore important in boosting rural economies and keeping visitors occupied, and therefore not driving their cars.  In short, yes we should be investing in rural leisure cycling because its one of the ways in which people get introduced to more regular cycling and because it contributes to sustainable tourism.

Leeds Civic Centre is the venue where my own paid career as a consultant started. In 1996 I went to a talk at an open evening of the Leeds Cycle Campaign entitled 'Segregation or Integration'. After the talk, the speaker, a former member of the cycle campaign, offered me 6 weeks temporary work to go and help him write a local authority cycling strategy. I took a chance that it might lead to something more and luckily it did!

Unsurprisingly, in 1996 the cycle campaigning world was split. Some people loved the Dutch system and thought this was the way forward. The Danes in particular were embarking on major infrastructure improvements and Safe Routes to School at the time and I worked on a Sustrans pilot project to try to copy this approach in Leeds. Others (the majority in those days) felt that really we needed to remove motor traffic and reduce speeds so that cyclists would feel safe on the roads.  This is the key to 'sustainable safety', reducing traffic danger to make the roads safer for all users.

It is thoroughly depressing that some people still take these 'sides' when its clear (and entirely consistent with Dutch and now Danish experience) that we need to do both. The 'segregation' countries only put cycle tracks where they are needed, and use a variety of measures to manage demand and reduce speeds to enable cyclists to safely share the roads in residential areas, town and city centres.  They also do a lot of promotion and training. The Danes for example ran the successful  'Bikebusters' project where participants were given bicycles, locks, waterproof clothing, training and other support to take away every 'excuse' for not cycling. Even in their flat country with lots of infrastructure they had to work to build the number of cyclists. The 2012 edition of 'Collection of Cycle Concepts' details many other ways in which the Danes use training and promotion to increase cycling.  The Colombians and Brazilians offer the 'Cyclovia' events to turn over the roads to cyclists, skaters and pedestrians on a Sunday. The Dutch offer cycle training to children, and specialist schemes to assist immigrant populations for whom cycling isn't a natural cultural choice.

The important thing is that all measures to increase cycling, whether through traffic reduction, training, mass participation events, inspirational Olympic success or building separate infrastructure help to broaden, strengthen and increase the cycling community. Lets not worry about what kind of cyclist we are, or whether we wear Lycra, Paul Smith, Laura Ashley or tweed. Vive le Difference!

The Proof of the Appelgebakken

It’s well known that there are more bicycles than people in the Netherlands. It’s not surprising.  Many people own a grubby ‘station bike’ that can be parked all day at the local railway station, a nicer ‘town bike’ for doing local shopping trips.  The Dutch are not a nation of ‘cyclists’ however, they just use bikes, along with trains, buses, trams and cars as a mode of transport.  The vast majority of trips (72%) are short local trips under 5km, half of these are less than 2.5km, and only 8% over 7.5km.  The bike replaces both walking and driving as a mode of transport for short journeys compared to UK behaviour.  Cakes (especially apple cake), beer and coffee play a key role in fuelling local transport.  Imagine how pleasant our towns would be if petrol stations were gradually replaced by cake and coffee shops!

I have been fortunate to attend a number of ‘technical tours’ to the Netherlands since the 1990s, and my Masters degree was administered by the NHL University in Leeuwarden, home of the Shared Space Institute.  I have spent very little time as a casual visitor so this year I took the opportunity to catch up with some Dutch friends and take a two-week tour covering over 500 miles and taking in towns, cities and national parks around the country (I visited Den Haag, Delft, Utrecht, Houten, Amsterdam, Arnhem, Nijmegen as well as the Utrecht Ridge, Hoog Veluwe and Zeeland national parks).  I promised my wife not to bang on too much about infrastructure but here's a few observations and lessons for the UK.

 I started off by riding up the coast to Den Haag via the Hook of Holland. The vast Europort is a bit of a maze but the route to the foot ferry to the Hook of Holland is clearly signed and uses a mix of cycle tracks and quieter roads.  At Hook of Holland there was a Dutch ‘traffic jam’ as maybe 50 cyclists were waiting to get on a ferry designed to carry up to 20 bikes!

Dutch traffic jam!

This is part of the North Sea Cycle Route ‘LF1’ similar to our National Cycle Network.  For the most part it’s what the Dutch call a ‘Fietspad’ and what in Britain we would call ‘a shared use route’.  The traffic free coastal route passes through the dunes and alongside beaches and promenades is typically 4.0m wide with either a concrete or tarmac surface.  Priorities are clearly marked at road junctions, sometimes the cycle route has priority, but at the busier beach car park access roads cyclists are expected to stop for cars if necessary.  Pedestrians using the route are heavily outnumbered by cyclists and people tend to always walk or cycle on the right, moving right to let faster cyclists pass. It’s all good natured, conducted with a ping on the bell, a ‘hi’ or a wave, although a bell is very much the preferred way and the Dutch weren’t impressed that our touring bikes didn’t have them.

 

Fietspad:  A ‘Fietspad’ is the most basic form of provision in the Netherlands. It is not compulsory to use them, but they can offer a short-cut or quiet scenic route.  They can be anything from an unsurfaced single track footpath, a farm track, a 1.5m – 2.0m surfaced strip alongside a dirt track, or a full 3.0m or 4.0m wide two-way cycle path.  They are almost always shared with pedestrians, but there are few pedestrians because most people are on bikes.  In rural areas the surface is often gravel or sandy tracks - not great for UK style touring bikes laden with luggage but fine for big tyre Dutch bikes.

I entered Den Haag along tree-lined avenues where one side of the road was given over to a two-way cycle track, with a narrow 1.0m footway alongside it and a wider footway on the other side of the road.  This arrangement is quite typical on the main routes into towns and cities, and even in central Amsterdam cycle contraflows are provided on what used to be the canal side ‘footway’ while pedestrians use the footway on the side of the road next to buildings.  It works perfectly well, pedestrians seem to accept it and tourists who stray onto the cycle track soon learn some Dutch swear words. Would it work in the UK where there are more pedestrians than cyclists? Would it even get beyond public consultation? I’m not sure but we can only learn by trying. The Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco has one side reserved for pedestrians, the other for cyclists and on the whole it works, even in a car-centric culture such as the USA. 

 

Cycle tracks: Cycle tracks are provided alongside most busy and high speed roads in the Netherlands and in such circumstances it is mandatory to use the track and illegal to use the carriageway.  The cut off point in Netherlands design guidance for providing cycle tracks is about 3000 vehicles per day.  If this rule of thumb is applied in the UK most roads require separate cycle tracks!  The cycle track will sometimes take a different and more circuitous route than the carriageway, occasionally three sides around a field or away from a big junction.  It is not uncommon for the cycle track to swap from one side of the road to another at an uncontrolled crossing point running diagonally across the road.  The tracks are generally 4.0m wide for two way use or 2.0m for one way use but older ones are narrower.  They always have a sealed surface of concrete or tarmac but concrete block paving is also widely used in urban areas, which can be slippery and uneven.  The riding surfaces are generally good, but sometimes inferior to the adjacent carriageway tarmac.

 

Cycle tracks are provided along busier roads and cycling is not permitted on the carriageway. 

 

There is usually no footway in rural and suburban areas so pedestrians (and mopeds) also use this surface. Centre line markings help to indicate two-way use. The amount of space available to the verge and cycle track is as wide as the carriageway (the Dutch guidelines recommend verge width of 4.5m to 6.0m in rural areas, 1.0m in residential areas), so cyclists are well away from fast moving traffic and bus stops, filling stations etc don't cause conflict points.  Side road crossings can be set back from the junction mouth. In the UK the highway boundary is usually not so generous and a cycle track by a major road is often just 0.5m from the carriageway which is noisy, unpleasant and potentially hazardous especially at side roads.  On motorways and trunk roads in the Netherlands, the cycle route will typically run alongside a parallel quiet road used for residential and farm access linked with short sections of cycle track at any discontinuities.  The ‘Non-Motorised User Audit’ in the UK offers the opportunity to develop this kind of approach when building or improving UK trunk roads and other major infrastructure such as High Speed rail but it requires sufficient land allocation right from the start of the design process to accommodate the cycle track.  It should be mandatory to provide this standard of track as part of the recently announced road building programme.

 

Junctions

Turning left (right in UK) on busy roads is usually achieved by way of a two-stage turn, crossing one arm of the junction and then the other. This is often done with a push button signal control, and the cyclist may have to wait up to 30-40 seconds at each arm at busy locations during peak traffic.  This can be frustrating at dual carriageways and major intersections where what could be achieved in a single movement on the carriageway is replaced by 3 or 4 separate moves, but this is the only way to avoid mixing with the traffic.  In Amsterdam and some other cities there are count-down displays at the signals to help discourage red light jumping by cyclists. One feature that differs from the UK is that the cycle (and pedestrian) crossing operates at the same time as the green for turning motor traffic, which is obliged to give way to pedestrians and cyclists on the crossings.  This helps reduce delay at the signals but it can be a bit worrying to see an HGV turning into your path as you cross the road. The traffic does (nearly) always stop though!  This type of signal phasing needs to be trialled in the UK as it is not currently used and would require a national driver awareness programme.

At smaller signalled junctions and at less busy periods, the cyclist is detected by an induction loop in the cycle track that triggers the light automatically so it changes to green as you approach, or the cycle track has priority over the carriageway.  This works well for cyclists because on the whole you can keep moving at most junctions.  It avoids much of the ‘stop start’ effort associated with segregated facilities where they are provided in the UK.  Keeping the cyclist moving is a big part of Dutch design. The additional effort required for each stop/start on a bike is equivalent to adding 200m to the journey, significant when most journeys by bike are very short. It also helps to eliminate problems of 'red light running' by eliminating the need to stop unnecessarily (e.g. for UK equivalent of turning left out of a side road there is usually no requirement to stop as the whole turn is done within separate cycle tracks and stopping is only required to cross motor traffic lanes).

At minor road junctions it is a requirement to give way to traffic from the right, even when travelling straight ahead, so drivers and cyclists generally take more care (than in the UK) when there are other vehicles in the vicinity of a junction.

 

Minor Roads

Outside urban  centres the volume of motor traffic on all roads is appreciably less than in the UK.  I think this is due to several factors:

·         Nearly all short local journeys are on bike, so trips to the pub, the beach, to see friends and relations don’t generate as much suburban and rural traffic. In particular many older and younger people use bikes, so there are relatively few young drivers in ‘hot hatches’ on the road, fewer people taking kids to school and activities by car, and fewer elderly ‘Sunday driver’ types.

·         There are more quiet roads and paths available for cycling – much of the Netherlands is on a grid pattern, either in city streets or field boundaries with paths along dykes, canal banks, farm tracks, minor roads and paths alongside large rivers all forming parts of urban and rural cycle routes.  There are therefore many routes to choose from compared to hilly areas of the UK where transport is concentrated into narrow corridors, so there is a dispersal effect on traffic;

 

·         There is relatively little ‘out of town’ development compared to the UK, with few large supermarkets and shopping malls.  Life still revolves around compact town and city centres with the larger stores placed at the edge of the core area rather than completely separated .

·         The Netherlands has a population of under 17m (404 per sq km), much of which is concentrated in the conurbations around Amsterdam, Rotterdam and Utrecht.  The UK population is 63m, largely concentrated in England, particularly the south-east. London’s population density is 5,200 per sq km compared to 3,500 per sq km in Amsterdam and its total population is over three times greater.  The Netherlands second largest city, Rotterdam, has a population of 600,000, considerably less than Leeds, Manchester, Liverpool, Birmingham etc. 

·         Traffic is concentrated on the motorways and ‘A’ roads that provide good inter-urban connections.  The lower categories of road generally do not provide good direct routes for cars, and this pattern is reinforced by limited crossing points of major rivers such as the Rhine and Maas as ferry services have limited capacity for cars and don’t carry HGVs.

 

·         The Netherlands primary industry is agriculture which generates relatively few trips.

 

·       There is a much higher capacity of suburban rail services to enable bike-rail commuting.

 

The default provision along most minor roads with speed limits up to 60kmh is cycle lanes or a shared road with no markings at all.  The width of such roads is usually insufficient to allow a centre line and cycle lanes, so the centre line has been removed and replaced with the cycle lanes, effectively changing the road from a double traffic lane to a single lane.  This treatment is widely applied on roads with up to 300 pcu per hour (roughly 3,000 vehicles per 12 hour period) but becomes unacceptable due to the number of oncoming vehicle conflicts on roads with over 400 pcu per hour. 

The replacement of the centre line with cycle lanes makes a huge difference to the look and feel of the roads and helps reduce traffic speeds

 

If there is insufficient width for cycle lanes, edge of carriageway markings are sometimes provided to visually narrow the carriageway to a single lane as this helps reduce vehicle speeds.  At danger points such as bridges, crests and blind corners and sometimes at  junctions the centre line is kept and the cycle lanes are discontinued. 

The cycle lanes are often only 1.0m wide, but this is less of an issue than in the UK due to lower traffic volumes and speeds.  These roads are rarely bounded by kerbs, and the concrete surface drainage is designed to enable vehicles to over-run it on narrower roads.  This gives the cyclist a greater sense of space and separation compared to a UK road of similar width that is bounded by kerbs and walls, often with drainage gulley grates in the carriageway.

 

 

 

 

 

Even on narrow roads cycle lanes are used to give clear dedicated space

On block paved roads through central and residential areas the speed limit is almost always 30kmh and the cycle lane is marked by a change in the pattern of the blockwork, but rarely with any paint or signs. These are ‘virtual’ cycle lanes with no legal meaning.  They are usually narrow (as the whole road width is typically 5 – 7 m) and may run directly alongside parallel or echelon parking with no separating margin.  It’s clear that they can have no real impact on safety, but offer a sense of continuity and sometimes a smoother surface than the all purpose lane.  They are also used where cyclists are allowed to contraflow on one-way streets, which is virtually every one way street.

The key to success of these roads is adherence to low traffic speed limits and the low flows of traffic so that cyclists rarely feel threatened by passing vehicles.   Opposing vehicles move from the centre of the road into the cycle lanes to pass one another.  On the whole, Dutch drivers seem more content to hang back and wait until it’s safe to pass although at busy times there is close overtaking and cutting in as in the UK.

There are many minor roads throughout the UK where this type of provision could be introduced. It works well on quiet roads and in central areas of towns and villages with low (30kmh) speed limits.  It is of less benefit if there is extensive kerbside parking or high traffic flows.

 

Conclusion

It is difficult to know whether the Netherlands is really much 'quieter' than the UK or whether the fact that a mode share of 25% for cycling simply eliminates a high proportion of local car traffic making the roads so much more pleasant.  I spent the last few days of my holiday in Zeeland, a popular holiday destination for Belgian and German tourists with poor rail connections.  There was much more traffic on the roads and faster, more aggressive driving.  The 'fietspads' were full of pedestrians instead of cyclists and suddenly the infrastructure that had seemed so ideal for the previous 10 days was not quite working so well. Similarly in some of the hilly areas around Nijmegen, highway space was constrained and consequently the quality of cycle infrastructure was compromised by the topography.  There was some infrastructure just about everywhere, and consistently lower speed limits on roads where cyclists share the carriageway, so the almost daily UK experience of a 'near miss' when out cycling is a rarity in the Netherlands.  Dutch cyclists are pretty poor at signalling, but they do 'look' carefully and interact with each other and drivers.  There is rarely a requirement to move into the centre of the carriageway and 'take the lane' but on the other hand drivers seem to take extra care and be prepared to stop around junctions in the anticipation that cyclists will turn. This is in contrast to the UK where you may do everything correctly and still find yourself being undertaken/driven at by some outraged purple face motorist who 'pays road tax'!

 

The main lesson for the UK is that safety is not just about separate cycle tracks, its about the whole system of sustainable safety and minimising delays to cyclists, treating them with the same dignity and priority as other road users.  There is no 'hierarchy of users' in the Netherlands. Bicyclists and pedestrians are not deemed 'more important' than cars and buses, but all users are considered in road design and the ideal solution takes account of the function of the road, the mix of traffic and the role of the route in the wider transport network.

 

 

The cycle tracks alongside the coast road in Zeeland fill up with pedestrians from nearby campsites in the summer.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Marginal Gains for Cycle Planning?

I work in cycle planning, but my heart lies in cycle sport. Can we replicate the British Cycling and Sky team success story in cycle facility planning?

In 1995 I attended a taster session at the shiny new Manchester Velodrome.  Two things stick in my mind:

1. I was the only person who actually cycled to the velodrome (and there was nowhere secure to park my bike!) and,

2. Despite being involved in cycle racing since 1980, this was the first time I had ever received any ‘coaching’.

 The completion of the velodrome was the start of a journey that led ultimately to the world dominance of our track cyclists, to Wiggo’s Tour win and the London Olympics. In my personal dealings with British Cycling there is a noticeable culture of excellence and clarity, as if every member of staff and every communication has been personally vetted by David Brailsford. When you walk into the extended velodrome and British Cycling HQ nowadays, even on a normal working day, there is a ‘buzz’ about the place.

It wasn’t always so. In the 1980s the British Cycling Federation as an organization was not well regarded, had a fraction of its current membership and consistently failed to tap into the knowledge and experience of successful British cyclists such as Robert Millar. Britain was not considered a leading cycle racing nation and our remaining outdoor cycling tracks were ancient and dilapidated. 

The velodrome provided a world class venue for coaching staff to work with a new generation of riders, exemplified by Chris Boardman. Instead of simply copying traditional customs and practice they looked to other sports such as Formula 1 for inspiration. They trained in a far more structured way, learning from results and experiments, and dismantling the act of cycling into its component parts to enhance performance.  The benefits of this are immense, for example a 16 year old Jess Varnish was able to come and explain sprint starting technique to Halesowen schoolchildren after receiving coaching on the Olympic Development Squad.  Within 20 minutes a group of kids benefitted from 10 years work of coaching staff to perfect the action. For young racing cyclists nowadays there is a whole regional network of coaches offering anything from basic Go-Ride and Bikeability training through to elite level performance coaching.  But sadly of course, the majority of UK children are not allowed to cycle on roads so their cycling often begins and ends with a car journey.

Back to 1995 and I was embarking on my career in cycle planning, with some research about whether on-road cycle skills training led to more people cycling to school. A survey of 4000 children suggested that yes it did lead to more cycling, but many didn’t cycle to school due to traffic danger and fear of bike theft. In 1996 the National Cycling Strategy was launched, promising to tackle such issues and double levels of cycling by 2002. While the policy and extensive research base was recognized internationally as ‘best practice’ the money didn’t follow and local authorities prepared ambitious strategies but with no finance to build decent facilities. By 2002 most places had seen a decline in cycling since 1996 (although many still don’t have the means in place to record the amount!). The English Regions Cycling Development Team was set up in 2003 to review what was being done for cycling in each local authority and ‘reward’ the best with additional funding in their Local Transport Plan settlement.  This was a successful but expensive exercise, ended by ministers in 2005 just when it was beginning to show results. Cycling England (2006 – 2011) offered a more focused approach through a series of successful funding initiatives that led to local increases in cycling, the aim being to steadily build on this success by replicating the projects in different circumstances and to spread knowledge of this good practice using a website of case studies and a team of expert advisors available to work with local authorities. Since 2012 we have had the Local Sustainable Transport Fund, with an emphasis on projects that will be delivered in 3 years and help stimulate economic growth but no guarantee of money beyond 2015.  There is no leadership or expertise offered on a national basis due to the philosophy of ‘localism’. A short bicycle ride in just about any UK town illustrates that skills and expertise are not always available locally.

 Leadership and Investment

 It is immediately obvious from the above that while British Cycling has undergone enormous change it has (at least since the late 1990s) had a fairly consistent approach to the pursuit of excellence. Increasing elite success since the 2000 Olympics has resulted in increasing funding for the sport from the National Lottery for individual riders, and from external private sector sponsors and the increased funding has enabled growing participation in grass roots cycling.  Young riders are selected for the national squad and nurtured over several years before entering the four-year run up to the Olympics.  There is a clear pathway from beginner to national team rider for anyone with the inherent skills and ability.  Despite all of the problems and reputational risk associated with professional cycling, Sky were willing to invest because they recognised that the positive aspects far outweigh the negative.

In contrast, the period since 1996 has seen a very inconsistent approach to cycling from government, with a series of short-term initiatives typically on a three-year cycle between Treasury spending reviews and changes of government.  This leads to a pattern of short term ‘fixed contract’ employment for people delivering cycling projects.  Despite much work to establish a sound business case for sustained investment, and the eminent success of nations such as the Netherlands, Denmark and Germany with long term investment strategies, it seems that every few years or change of transport minister cycling policy starts once again at year zero. Unlike British Cycling (or most businesses), there is no formal and routine mechanism for learning from success (or failure) in transport planning. Talented individuals that manage successful projects to increase cycling as transport are not rewarded with more funding or promotion, at best they may get another short-term contract to do it all again, but often they leave the industry altogether. Consequently we see the same tired ideas revamped every few years and serious political debate about cycling is often marred by negative comments about cyclists behaviour rather than consideration of the positives.

Skills Training

To be a British Cycling coach, even at the most basic level, requires a 3 day residential course, many hours of private study, and evidence of organizing several sessions of observed practice in the company of other coaches. When I did my coaching course it was attended by a number of ex-olympic and professional riders as well as ordinary club riders and school teachers. It doesn’t matter who you are or how much you know about cycling, to qualify as a British Cycling coach you do the same course.

In contrast, I hold a Masters degree in transport planning but have never been formally taught anything about planning and designing cycle facilities, even within the context of highway design. Planners and engineers have to make a special effort to learn about cycling, so the quality of provision to some extent depends on the personal enthusiasm of the designer and unless they ride a bike, they will not appreciate ‘dynamic’ qualities such as stopping and starting and sharp bends that make a big difference to comfort and convenience. It is still the case that cycling is considered as an 'add-on' to new roads and developments rather than an integral part of overall street design.

Vision and Ambition

Another important lesson from cycle sport is that of ‘goal setting’. If Dave Brailsford had turned up at the Velodrome in 1995 with a goal to win the Tour de France within ten years he would have been laughed out of Manchester. Even in 2010 people were dubious that Team Sky would be successful.  Yet with no investment plan or interim goals, the National Cycling Strategy set out to quadruple cycle use. At the moment there is a strong movement to ‘Go Dutch’ but in places where cycling has a mode share of less than 5% is this type of infrastructure a realistic ambition? Do we have the political appetite for Dutch congestion and high car parking prices that also play a part in boosting cycling? Have we seen the kind of popular anti-car public protests in Manchester, Leeds and Liverpool that were seen in the Netherlands in the 1970s?

British Cycling set modest and achievable goals to start with, and concentrated on events such as the pursuit, where there were few external factors such as crashes that would affect performance and progress could be easily measured. Pursuiters just need to learn to ride a fixed distance in the fastest time possible.  In cycle planning the equivalent is cycle parking facilities, uncontroversial, easy to implement and monitor. Similarly measures to encourage cycling to school by improving road safety, installing cycle parking and providing skills training should be relatively easy and uncontroversial.

British Cycling then looked at sprinting. There are two elements to sprinting, setting a fast qualifying time (easy to measure and control) and then the unpredictable rough and tumble of match sprinting. This is like advanced stop lines and cycle lanes, there may need to be a bit of negotiation and elbowing to release road space, but with skill it can be painlessly executed.

If you can pedal fast in a straight line and beat the opposition in a sprint, then it’s a small step to bunch racing on the track or road. There are some additional skills because success requires getting into the right place in the bunch at the right time, mixing safely with other riders and having a game plan for the duration of the race. One of the best ways to learn this is to observe successful riders.  Look at where they ride in the bunch and how they move up for the win.  In cycle planning terms this is equivalent to the holy grail of continuous facilities linked into a whole network, forming part of an integrated transport system working alongside other modes. We have seen from Team Sky that success doesn’t come from simply copying existing teams, but from taking the best elements (sometimes from other sports or areas of life such as business) and putting them together. In cycle planning we can’t just copy the Dutch but we can undoubtedly take a lot from them, but also from the successful shared public spaces of Denmark and Germany, from the intense land use in Tokyo, from the USA such as Portland and Seattle and parts of Manhatten and from cities such as Hull, Bristol and Cambridge that have developed their own innovative ways to increase cycling within a UK context. 

Conclusion

There are perhaps no surprises in my conclusion. The success of British Cycling can be attributed to well known factors:

•          Clear vision and long term strategy;
•          Starting small with modest achievable goals but big long term ambitions;
•          High quality skills training;
•          A feedback mechanism to constantly learn and improve;
•          Sustained and increasing financial investment to maintain momentum;
•          Rewarding success;
•          Attention to detail and marginal gains;
•          Learning from the best but improving on their ideas.

If we can learn from this model the work of the cycle planning profession could have the same pride, sense of purpose, professionalism and excellence that we see in our Olympic athletes. If we don’t change, we’ll continue to have the odd Robert Millar facility that succeeds despite the system rather than because of it!