Share This
Are We There Yet?
Not even close.
A friendly 'wheelrunner' rides through the Vondelpark in Amsterdam
In Australia we have a very healthy sports cycling culture but we do not have a healthy bicycle-for-transport culture. The modal share for trips made by bicycle in Australia is between 1-2% (with the exception of the NT – more ‘utility’ cyclists).
It is interesting to note that this is almost the same proportion of the Dutch population that are ‘wheelrunners’ – the dutch word for sport cyclists, quite distinct from a ‘cyclist – and just like in Australia, you see them in great numbers here on weekends.
The reality is that until we see more leadership from Government & more demands from the public in how transport money is spent we will never see significant change. We need to spend more on active transport (cycling & walking) & public transport (particularly rail). Spending ratios need to reflect where we want to be in the future – and I mean beyond an election cycle – rather than being based on current or past behaviour. We also need to remove obstacles to everyday cycling.
How do we know when our society has accepted the bicycle as a normal method of transport?
Here are some clues…
These photos were taken during the tour of Houten by Mark Wagenbuur. Veronika & I sat on a wall eating strawberries and I photographed the passing ‘cyclists’. A few things struck me about what we saw. There were more women than men and many children, particularly girls, riding independently from adults.
Isn’t it time we started creating a world for which subsequent generations will thank us?
Great collection of photos! Can’t wait till Los Angeles looks like this too! Though according to our LA Bike Plan we’re only aiming for 5% of trips by bike by 2030.
Tell them to aim higher!!
Have you ever seen this collection of photos made by an American “tourist” some years ago?
http://www.ski-epic.com/amsterdam_bicycles/
Yes. An interesting persepective and some lovely photographs.
As you know Paul, I agree completely. You make the case very eloquently. These are especially good photos. I’m not clear whether you too them yourself or mark took them. Cheers, Mike
Paul took the pictures, I saw him do it. In about 15 minutes all these people passed.
Yes, I took them. I have hundreds more! What is beautiful is that this is so normal they wonder why on earth I’m taking photos. It would be like standing in them middle of the Pitt St mall and photographing “walkers”….
Please enjoy this superb piece of writing about about riding a bike does for one’s view of surroundings.
http://sustainablecitiescollective.com/nextamcity/25116/real-reason-why-bicycles-are-key-better-cities?nocache=1#comment-4958
Excellent article, Mike. In fact, I have a link to that in my last post!
First thing that struck me in the photos : nobody (except wheelrunner) is wearing a helmet…
Is the street that safe ?
The Netherlands is the safest country in the world for cycling. The risk of putting people off cycling by pushing helmets is too great to take when the health advantages of cycling are taken into account.
Even in much more dangerous countries, like the USA, people regularly take part in much more dangerous activities than cycling without wearing helmets.
I whole-heartedly agree, David. It is such a pity that Australia took a step backwards (compulsory bicycle helmets). We are now finding it very difficult to take a step forward… most cyclists that remain are apathetic to the issue as they’re essentially ‘wheelrunners’, who would wear them anyway. We’ve seriously damaged ‘cycling for the masses’ in Australia.
The Dutch realise that wearing bicycle helmets doesn’t make them any safer if the threat is from motor vehicles. If the threat is from their own cycling style (ie. racing, mountain biking… or just plain hopeless) then they will wear one. I’m yet to see a hopeless Dutch cyclist – they don’t fall off their bikes much at all (unlike most Australians it would seem based on all the anecdotes I’m subjected to regularly).
Bicycle helmet promotion (and compulsory wearing) is attacking the safety issue for cyclists (and pedestrians) from the wrong angle. The consequences for motor vehicle drivers should be equal to the damage they cause… I’m getting really sick and tired of this ‘blaming the victim’ approach to road ‘safety’ where the most vulnerable are expected to be bubble-wrapped and if they’re not they were somehow asking for it…
The images give a very misleading impression of Houten, which in fact looks mostly like this…
http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=52.013231,5.186319&spn=0.017539,0.057635&t=h&z=15&layer=c&cbll=52.013322,5.186269&panoid=kT6LZRv_oY02yfxtwMAkZQ&cbp=12,89.48,,0,1.94
or like this…
http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=52.024455,5.18456&spn=0.017534,0.057635&t=h&z=15&layer=c&cbll=52.023838,5.18642&panoid=edtzEDD_QDpyAyaiAAW2cg&cbp=12,211.87,,0,-0.94
or this…
http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=52.026636,5.143738&spn=0.002192,0.007204&z=18&layer=c&cbll=52.026636,5.143738&panoid=RNuwrcdJHfoof5wI2RCkMw&cbp=12,340.94,,0,-0.54
i.e cars everywhere and no pedestrians or cyclists. Even the spot where the photos were taken, the square at the centre of the old village of Houten
http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=52.026979,5.162309&spn=0.000274,0.000901&t=h&z=21&layer=c&cbll=52.026979,5.162309&panoid=qUudNpSQlwLqsY8lzfKVAw&cbp=12,25.13,,0,10.39
is full of parked cars, as you can see if you pan around on Google Maps. Yes, some people cycle to work in Houten…
http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=52.021867,5.148811&spn=0.03507,0.115271&z=14&layer=c&cbll=52.021717,5.149113&panoid=nuoLChmZHIdJZHDb5qtTIw&cbp=12,4.09,,0,6.43
but most don’t, as you can see from the cars next to the bicycles.
There is an important lesson to be learnt here: Houten has abundant and excellent cycle paths, but they do not lead to more people cycling. (No matter what the municipal statistics say: they have an image to promote, after all). In particular, good cycle infrastructure does not induce people to abandon the car, as their main transport mode. However, if you come to see a cycling paradise in the Netherlands, and you look around selectively, then you will indeed get that impression. Much more can be said on this issue, but of course that is not the purpose of this website. However, for any real discussion of cycling policy in Australia, or most other countries, you need to look at the reality of cycling in the Netherlands, and not at the stereotype image.
Strange… those people on bicycles that rode by looked pretty real to me while I sat on that wall. Are you saying they only brought them out for the benefit of people like us? Most were heading for the nearby supermarket or shops. There were very few cars were driving past in comparison. We also saw dozens of children heading home by bicycle from hockey matches too.
Google aerial photographs of a single moment in time are hardly very realistic. Looking at the ‘street view’ images isn’t very helpful either. A single snapshot at an unknown time on an unknown day of the week. The same can be said of aerial photographs of Brisbane (Australia) – it doesn’t look like this most of the time either…
In the aerial photography of the old square there are as many bicycles as there are cars – but they’re harder to spot. The bicycle parking outside the supermarket appears full too.
If you think this is all bad then I welcome you to visit me in Australia and I’ll take you around town by bicycle. I guarantee that within a few hours you’ll be wanting to go home.
Yeah, Paul, haven’t you heard? All those people on bikes you saw these past ten days are actually actors, hired especially to fool you Aussies. ‘Wag the dog’ (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120885/) has nothing on us.
In fact, the Netherlands doesn’t exist. It got completely swallowed by the sea back in ’53, and I’ve got the internetpictures to prove it!
http://library.thinkquest.org/C001635F/wa1953.htm
You thought you were cycling in the Netherlands, but in fact, you were drugged on the plane and flown to a special Hollywood filmset, carefully reconstructing an imaginary ‘Netherlands’.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landing_conspiracy_theories
lollollol!
I think I saw ‘Paul’ on other cycling blogs as well (David Hembrow’s perhaps? David, do you rememberber this?), or at least someone with similar views, consisting of 1) cyclepaths are dangerous and cause more accidents than ‘vehicular cycling’ (citing a German report that doesn’t, in fact, state this) and 2) that the Netherlands does not, in fact, has a lot of cyclists, based on internet pictures selectively chosen to build his claim. When challenged he usually rallies with the same old ‘road warrior’ rallying cry of ‘cyclepaths mean being forced off the road by drivers’, etc. etc.
I wish the ‘Pauls’ of this world would do as you did and actually come and look at what they’re decrying before slinging mud.
Oh well…
I, for one, hugely enjoyed seeing my country through ‘foreign’ eyes and hope the bloggers in the group will download lots more in the weeks to come (when finally having time to upload all the photos and videos).
I think I saw the same cyclist go past twice… must have been a glitch in the Matrix!
Thanks for the comments and there will be much more to come from the other bloggers – particularly some interesting films.
The links are to Google street view images. If you see only the aerial view, then they are not working. The images of offices were taken on a normal working day, in working hours. That’s why the car park is full. The view of the square was during normal use too, there is a street market visible. The images of housing were probably taken in the evening or weekend, because the cars are parked at home. They are perfectly accurate images, that is what Houten looks like. Your photos (above) were taken in the only urban heritage in Houten, the centre of the old village. They are not fake, but that is simply not what the rest of Houten looks like. (It is a new town built in two main phases, in the last 30-40 years). They are not a representative sample, that’s the point.
The photos and videos you made, could tell you more about cycle use in the Netherlands, if you set aside your preconceptions. Cycling in the morning is done by children, as you have seen. Recreational cycling in the countryside is largely for over-50s. You did not upload photos of cycling in central Utrecht, but they will show mainly students.
So if you pause and stop to think, you would ask: where is the rest of the population? It is not enough to notice kids cycling to/from hockey matches. You need to ask: how do adults in the Netherlands get to their hockey club? The answer is by car, and quite often: by SUV.
If you pause and step back to think, what you have seen should give you a different picture of cycling in the Netherlands. It would suggest that cycle infrastructure policy has very little to do with cycle usage – cultural factors are more important. (More people cycle in Amsterdam than in Houten, despite more congestion and fewer cycle paths). In turn, that should tell you, that the problem in Australia is not so much the lack of cycle infrastructure, and more the culture and attitudes. (There is more to say about Houten in that respect too).
The only preconceptions I had before coming here were from David Hembrow’s blog were they’re really cleverly disguised as facts – with references to cleverly disguised articles & fake data!
I’m not sure why you aren’t proud of the cycling environment you have as, I presume, a native Dutchman (from your location information).
Paul, I suspect you are of the ‘vehicular persuasion’. But I am sure you have never visited Houten. Besides that, your google maps examples are utterly ridiculous. The first two are streets that don’t NEED paths or bicycle street features as they are designed as residential streets, aka VERY low volume of traffic and they DON’T serve as arterial/through roads. The third example is even sillier. There couldn’t be a more lively place for pedestrians and people on bikes then in the old center. So Google shot these images on a quiet market day (hence the trucks on the square).
How am I so sure of all this? I was born in Houten, saw it grow and its cycling increase. I would never have been able to cycle since 3 years old hadn’t it been for the gradual pro-cycling transformation the town pursued since the 70′s.
The stereotype image of NL as a cyling nation is a stereotype, because it’s 100% true. Why don’t you come over & I’ll show you around, wherever you wanna go.
I have cycled through Houten several times, including the bits where visitors would not normally go. The point is not that the residential streets have no cycle paths, the point is that they are lined with parked cars, often several per household. The council may tell foreign visitors that ‘everyone cycles here’, but they don’t. Cyclists are atypical for Houten, and for any of the other ‘new towns’ in the Netherlands.
When census data starts coming from ‘people who cycle through an area several times’, then I’ll listen to your opinion. The same goes for the voices in Australia that claim ‘cycling is booming!’ in Australia because lots of bicycles are being sold (they’re not ridden much but hey, let’s not ruin the numbers with important facts…)
The authorities in Houten never said everyone cycles here – not in those words. What they did say was that almost everyone cycles at some point during the week and that the modal share for cycling in Houten is in excess of 40% – that is all trips, not ‘commuting’ trips. Most people actually take the train to work from Houten and 60% of those who do arrive at the train station by bicycle.
We saw many more cyclists than vehicles during our time in Houten but I’m sure you’ll come up with some other explanation for the anomaly we observed!
@paul those google links look like a great cycling environment to me. Sure there are cars but did you notice that not a single car was being driven – they were all parked. NL has a very high rate of car ownership and there is nothing wrong with that, nor is that incompatible with cycling.
I haven’t seen anyone here arguing for people to abandon their cars. Rather, they seem to be arguing only for cyclists to be able to ride without fear for their lives. That means separated infrastructure where appropriate and some thought for the needs of cyclists and other people in the planning process.
What the Dutch seems to do well (and evident in all your links) is balance. Their freeways are just as clogged as any other country but by providing fantastic bike infrastructure, they allow people to ride shorter distances (hence their 30-40% bike mode share) and live in pleasant towns & cities. Designing towns for bikes doesn’t mean no cars, it just means choice.
Exactly!! The possesion of cars per capita in the Netherladns is about the same in the Netherlands, Britain, France, Germany and Belgium (around 450 cars per 1000 inhabitants). Australia has sligtly more cars, but not shockingly so (around 540 cars per 1000 inhabitants – I googled this
).
The point is not that the people in Houten don’t have cars, but that the infrastructure in Houten is deliberately thus so it’s easier to use the bike, and since people anywhere will do what is easier, the people of Houten will use their bikes a lot more than, say, in Sydney, where the infrastructure doesn’t include bicycles.
I can’t help but feel the need to comment on the ‘proof’ these images of Google Maps’ Streetview.
Links one and two clearly show a residential area; there are never cycle paths in residential areas! We, cyclists and motorists just pretend there are and act the same as if there was a cycle path on the right side of the road. Yes, there are parked cars because nearly every household has at least one car. What you don’t see is that every person in the Netherlands has at least one bike too; they often park them in the shed, back garden, hallway or something similar when at home. Google Streetview is a small car that can only travel the roads, it can’t see into people’s back gardens, sheds or houses.
Link three shows what we’d call an industrial park (or perhaps office/business park is more fitting here). There are still cycle paths around but these areas are often traveled to by car because they’re outside of the city center. The dirty yellowed structure next to the picnic bench is a parking space for bikes.
In link 4 you can actually see several rows of parked bicycles if you know where to look and the cars are there because it’s a parking zone set up like that, while the bikes are often placed in front of the stores themselves or taken to the marketplace by hand.
Link 5 is very similar to link three.
I’d also like to point out that the Streetview images are often made at times when there is hardly any traffic, like during work hours or on Monday morning in city centers when most shops are closed.
For a lot of people who are used to driving their car to work the weather is also a big factor; I know plenty of people who get out their bikes in sunny Spring or Summer days but take the car when it gets colder. When people do drive their cars, they often swing by the supermarket after work because they’re already on their way. When they go out shopping though, lots of people prefer to take their bikes because then they don’t have to pay (per 20/30 min or hour) and keep an eye on the clock in regards to parking.
Thanks Femke! It’s quite clear that ‘Paul’ doesn’t quite know what he’s talking about.
Is there anyone in the world who argues that having a larger proportion of the population cycling more often on safe cycling infrastructure would NOT be a good thing?
As we heard in our lecture in Utrecht, the benefits in reducing traffic congestion, making cleaner, quieter, friendlier, happier communities with improved public health are irrefutable.
It can be done anywhere. The Netherlands are flat, but also cold, wet and windy, full of old towns whose narrow cobbled streets are totally unsuitable for bikes. Yet, they did it somehow, and now they’re reaping the benefits.
For some people, it is an article of faith that the Netherlands must serve as a model for other countries’ cycling policy. That would be a serious mistake, because the policy is very bad. To recognise just how bad it is, you need to look at the reality, not at stereotypes and preconceptions. So to start with, a question to Paul Martin. Can you give the primary source (research paper, survey, census data) for these assertions:
“almost everyone in Houten cycles at some point during the week”
“the modal share for cycling in Houten is in excess of 40% – that is all trips, not ‘commuting’ trips”
“most people actually take the train to work from Houten”
“60% of those who do arrive at the train station by bicycle”.
It is important to check these things, even it is does not fit the ‘cycling advocacy’ profile. David Hembrow, for instance, is reluctant to give the primary sources for the statistics he quotes, and did indeed delete some comments, when I asked for them.
Readers in Australia may be mystified by all this, so here is some background. Houten was built as part of a deliberate policy, to move people out of high-density housing in cities, to low-density housing well outside the city. At the time the decisions were taken (late 1950s to 1960s), the environment was a minor issue, and social-democracy was about more cars for the workers. Building Houten was part of the same policy as mass demolition in Utrecht, the abandonment of its tram network, disinvestment in the rail network, and dispersal of employment into the surrounding region. Very similar attitudes continue to drive the growth of Houten: anti-urbanism, anti-environmentalism, anti-collectivism, and anti-statism. There is another factor on the demand side: lower-middle-class people moved to places like Houten, to get away from the Turkish and Moroccan immigrants taking over the cheaper housing in Utrecht. In addition, conservative Christians are over-represented in the population.
So Houten is a right-wing town, to put it politely. Not the place you would expect to see much cycling. You would expect to see white Dutch families who use cars, don’t use public transport, and don’t cycle except for recreation. So if such a place touts itself as a cycling paradise, that is somewhat suspicious. That’s why it is necessary to check the statistics…
You labour under the misconception that ‘white Dutch families’, even more precise ‘lower-middle-class’ (which apparently equal ‘rightwing’) Dutch people don’t use bicycles?!!
Darlin’, no matter what political party they vote for, no matter what class or ‘zuil’ they belong to, no matter what colour their skins have (although it must be said that immigrants – of whatever colour – do tend to cycle less because in their countries of origin there seems to be this weird notion that ‘only poor people that can’t afford a car ride bicycles’), in the Netherlands they ALL ride bicycles.
In fact, the more affluent they are (which in your ‘lingo’ would mean ‘white & middleclass’, right?) the more they cycle. It’s a Dutch thing.
Soooo…, based on your own faulty suppositions, you deducted that what other people reported, filmed and photographed, couldn’t *possibly* be right?
You know what’s really sad about all this? The only city in the world which ‘touts itself as a cycling paradise’ is Copenhagen. Well, looking at the photos and statistics of Copenhagen, *I* would say, “it’s a nice start, but not something to blow your trumpet over.”
Doe maar gewoon, dan doe je al gek genoeg, we Dutch say, and then go right ahead doing our own stuff and finding out, by trial and error, what works and what does not.
Houten never ‘touted itself a cycling paradise’. Houten is a city in which where the planners have tried since the ’70s to ‘prioritise cycling and demotivate driving’ (according to Wikipedia). The statistics (and Paul Martin’s photo’s) show that they have largely succeeded in this aim.
The white lower-middle-class in the Netherlands is indeed right-wing: they are the backbone of support for the secular right-wing parties (VVD,PVV) and the Christian parties. And that influences policy: they are likely to be explicitly pro-car, if not so explicitly ‘anti-cyclist’ as they might be in other countries.
Oh, by the way, Houten received the prize for ‘Most bicycle-friendly municipality of 2008′ from the Dutch Fietsersbond (the National Cycling Union).
Just saying…
“For some people, it is an article of faith that the Netherlands must serve as a model for other countries’ cycling policy. That would be a serious mistake, because the policy is very bad. To recognise just how bad it is, you need to look at the reality, not at stereotypes and preconceptions.”
Have you ridden a bike in Australia Paul?
If you think the Dutch bicycle policy is very bad then I’m guessing you haven’t cycled much outside of The Netherlands! The ‘reality’ is that I have not visited a country that is as safe and easy for riding a bike as The Netherlands. It is not perfect, but it is the best example in the World right now. Until we have another country that offers a better environment for cycling, I will happily look for inspiration from the country that offers in your words “very bad policy” yet delivers the highest rate of cycling in a 1st World nation.
I just had to comment on Paul’s grim vision of failed bicycle policies. The reason is that his comments seem so extremely detached from the reality that I experience every day. I’ve seen with my own eyes the investments over the past 20 years in cycle infrastructure and planning in my own hometown and in other places that I visit often and the positive effects on cycling because of this. I see with my own eyes the diverse use that is made of the cycling facilities. Just recently I had a conversation with an uncle of mine who works for the local government in his municipality and in a broader conversation he explained to me how much thought, planning and research there goes into the towns cycle policy, I remember it amazed me. Somehow I just alway took the cycling facilities for granted. Anyway just wanted to share my thoughts…
Thanks Marion, Dave & Martijn for the comments, confirming what we’ve observed during our two weeks here.
Dave, your point is important and is one I’ve hoped to get across in my posts & films. The dutch like cars as much as anyone but they have great choice in how they travel and for short trips the bicycle is the best way to do this. Many countries, including Australia, don’t have such a choice in reality – unless you count cycling in a car lane with cars travelling at 60km/h ‘choice’. And Marion, you are right when you say it is a status thing – the upper class are more likely to ride bicycles (and live in higher density areas).
We were given a presentation by the Fietsberaad which did include references and we will be sent a copy of the presentation in due course but the key points stood out. Forgive me for not having them all here but we have really had a whirlwind of a tour and it has been difficult finding time to put anything together for the site!
It won’t be able to convince ‘Paul’ as his distorted views are just too far from the truth. For everyone else who wants to see some ‘proof’ that designing for bicycles does help, there is this report: http://www.fietsberaad.nl/index.cfm?lang=en&repository=Planological+differences+between+Vinex+neighbourhoods+Veldhuizen+and+Houten
This is specifically about the South of Houten that is different from the North in the way that is has more car/cycling combined infrastructure, not only cycle paths (although there are still many separate cycle paths there too). Still that is obviously better than the other ‘new city neighbourhood’(Vinex location Veldhuizen) in Utrecht.
Of course we took the group there. And also to the area where all the town-wide facilities (fire department/swimming pool etc) are located. There is a large parking lot there that was a lot fuller on the Saturday when the group was there than when Google visited it.
http://maps.google.co.uk/?ie=UTF8&ll=52.022514,5.164025&spn=0,0.034246&z=16&layer=c&cbll=52.023081,5.160006&panoid=kj7rgi8epQ89tSZ7IPo1SA&cbp=12,263.78,,0,17.59
The point? We didn’t only show specific parts of Houten. Yes people own and use their cars in Houten. But they also use their bicycles in high numbers because it is made convenient for them to use a bicycle.
Cycling does not have a 40% modal share in Houten, nor in other Dutch cities. This and similar statistics, which you often see quoted on cycle advocacy blogs, are simply false. They are produced by selectively manipulating the data and especially the definitions. Typically, they equate trip share to modal share, and then often within a bounded area, thereby excluding longer trips which are more like to be in a car.
Local government officials in places like Houten, do indeed supply this kind of misleading statistics, and claim they ‘promote cycling’. They have a vested interest in doing so: they get national government subsidies for this, and some European Union funding. It’s also good for the image of the area, which is probably the main reason for Houten’s PR efforts.
The issue is not the presence of cycle infrastructure: Houten has excellent cycle paths. The issue is whether this is equivalent to a “larger proportion of the population cycling more often”, as Richard Tulloch claims. He claims there are benefits in “reducing traffic congestion” and in “making cleaner, quieter, friendlier, happier communities with improved public health”. However, that is not what is happening in Houten, or indeed in Assen, which David Hembrow holds up as an example.
Cycling in Houten is in long-term structural decline, as it is in the Netherlands as a whole. The main reason is that car ownership is relentlessly rising, and once people have a car they abandon other modes. Cycling, which was a means of transport in the 1950s, is being progressively concentrated into niche segments, as it is in other countries. Cycling to school, which David Hembrow often refers to, is an example or that erosion.
This is indeed related to income. Historically, poor people do indeed cycle. Or more correctly, poor people can’t afford cars. The historical evidence in the Netherlands is overwhelming: rising income leads to less cycling. Current preferences among middle-class graduates, who might indeed use a bike occasionally, can not be extrapolated into a long-term trend to more cycling as GNP rises. The evidence is overwhelming, that economic growth will ultimately lead to Californian rates of car ownership in the Netherlands. Inevitably cycling will end up in the same niche it has in California – or in Australia.
What Richard Tulloch implies is that cycling policy in Houten is reversing that trend. (That’s a major theme for David Hembrow too). But it isn’t. There is no evidence that proportion of the population which cycles is rising. The proportion of the population using a bike regularly for non-recreational purposes is also declining structurally, again because the share of car-owners in that population is rising. Cycle infrastructure in Houten has not reduced traffic congestion, and certainly not reduced traffic, which is rising continually. The money spent on roads in the Utrecht region is far, far in excess, of the money spent on cycling. Even if Houten spent 10 times as much on cycling, it would still have no impact on road traffic in the region.
There is no evidence that Houten has contributed to “cleaner, quieter, friendlier, happier communities with improved public health”. Houten has dramatically increased car commuting, compared to a hypothetical base scenario in which it had not been built, and people had lived in Utrecht instead. The car-based lifestyle which is typical of Houten is also unlikely to improve public health.
Some comments here imply that Houten’s policy of providing cycle infrastructure has led to increased cycling. That is the well-known “build and they will come” argument. The situation on the ground in Houten seems to suggest the opposite: no amount of high-quality cycle paths, will induce car users to abandon their cars and their automotive lifestyle.
So why are they building the cycle infrastructure? Partly for the image, as noted. Certainly, many of the cycle paths at the edge of Houten, in the business parks, seem to be there for the show. They are automatically included at the planning stage, as part of the landscaping. They are like the ponds and canals, which are also typical of Dutch business parks. Those are not put there for the fish – it’s just that firms and employees expect an urban-edge business park, to have grass and ponds and trees. So those cycle paths are not really there for cyclists, and they are hugely under-used.
Once again: if you come to the Netherlands determined to see a successful cycle policy, then you will. A certain amount of detachment is needed, however, to understand what is really happening.
A couple of points:
“Typically, they equate trip share to modal share”
This is precisely how mode share is defined. In Australia, 50% of car trips are less than 5km, 70% are less than 10km. Some trips, due to distance, will inevitably be made by car (or train). The data is from households’ travel patterns so I’m not sure how ‘a small defined area’ is going to give you inaccurate data. If mode share was defined by distance then perhaps space travel would have the highest figures!
“Or more correctly, poor people can’t afford cars.”
I’ve noticed there is still a very high car use in some of the outlying poorer areas of the cities (but they’re generally smokey old beaters (just like in Australia)…) and a very high scooter use (and they ride like maniacs) in this socio-economic group. This is just a personal observation though. In Australia these same people would rather live in a large house on the outskirts of the city and drive than have a small house (or unit) closer to the city. They then complain about fuel prices while they drive more and more.
“(Cycle paths) are automatically included at the planning stage, as part of the landscaping.”
I wish I had such things to complain about… We’re lucky to have footpaths.
Modal share is defined by passenger-kilometres. Using trip share greatly inflates apparent cycle usage, because the journeys are shorter. That is a fundamental distortion, and that’s why it is important to back up claims about “40% modal share” and such. The real modal split in the Netherlands is probably about 5%-10% for cycling, and in some parts of the country it might be as low as 2%, if you excluded children cycling to school.
No, I’m afraid it isn’t defined by passenger-kilometres at all. I’ve never, ever seen it defined as such either.
This use of distance as a metric really irritates me as it is used to justify how safe car use is compared to cycling – as the faster mode of transport always looks safer. If you use a ‘per trip’ metric, cycling appears safer and a ‘per hour’ metric, safer still… The last is the most appropriate as how long you’re exposed to a risk is important. See ‘Cycling, Safety & Health’ by Thomas Krag.
If we were to use distance as the metric for safety then space travel would look exceedingly safe… until you realise that 5% of astronauts have died.
Passenger-kilometres is a useful metric when looking at the efficiency of travel when comparing energy consumption (for example the comparisons made in the excellent book, “Without Hot Air“)
The mode’s share of total passenger-kilometres is the standard definition of modal split.
“The modal split of passenger transport is defined as the percentage share of each mode and is expressed in passenger-kilometres (pkm), which represent one passenger travelling a distance of one kilometre.”
European Union statistics agency Eurostat
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Passenger_transport_statistics
“Modal split of passenger transport: Share of each mode (passenger cars, buses and coaches, and trains) in total inland passenger transport, in passenger-km.”
United Nations
http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/natlinfo/indicators/methodology_sheets/consumption_production/modal_split_passenger_transport.pdf
Manipulating cycle use statistics is unfortunately common, and reason to suspect the motives of those who do it.
From the UN’s page to which you linked:
3. METHODOLOGICAL DESCRIPTION
(a) Underlying definitions and concepts: The indicator is defined as the percentage of each mode in total inland transport performance measured in passenger-km. Inland passenger transport includes transport by passenger cars, buses and coaches, and trains.
This has nothing to do with walking or cycling as a means of transport – particularly for short trips (which help unclog city streets). This is purely to compare the carriage of passengers long distances by motorised methods!. The words ‘bicycle’ or ‘cycling’ (or even ‘walking’) are not even mentioned in the UN document and it explicitly states that it is “to provide information on the relative importance of different modes of passenger transport at the global, regional and national levels.”
Both references you supplied apply only to inter-urban transport rather than intra-urban transport (I read them both in full). You are comparing apples with oranges. I’m sure our readers have also worked that out so this will be my last comment. I have never seen intra-urban modal share statistics written in any other way than as a ‘per trip’ metric. As I said, 70% of car trips in Australia are less than 10km. I can assure you that this is very much intra-urban…
As I know your formal qualifications & your career/business have nothing to do with transport (nor are you Dutch, despite living here), I still decided to include your posts, and not delete them, as discussion is important. I dislike censorship.
Having said that, this will be the end of this discussion. I invite you, ‘Paul’, to add a transport blog on your website so we may leave comments there.
Luckily we have YOU, ‘Paul’, to help us ‘understand what is really happening’.
And once AGAIN you spout a whole lot of impressive sounding stuff without a shred of evidence.
You, in fact, sound like a typical ‘road warrior’ who has never set foot on Dutch soil, and who is desperately afraid that rising demands for proper cycling infrastructure might ‘chase you of the roads’. It is very clear that you are not Dutch (claiming that people who own cars won’t cycle… What do you think we *do* with those 18 million bicycles?!) and it is so, *so* very clear that you have never set foot in the Netherlands, it’s laughable (using *Google Earth*, f’r chrissakes!)
Well, I’m done with the feeding of trolls. You’ve had too much attention already.
I invite Paul to share his knowledge about cycling and traffic policies with the local government of Houten. You can contact me by calling 030-6392611. At this moment we are rewriting our traffic policy, everyone is welcome to share his thoughts.
We don’t have a broad statistical agency, we have to fall back on national statistics, like CBS and interpreted by Fietsberaad:
It shows cycling does 22% of all trips and 37% of trips shorter than 7,5 kms. Combined trips (train + bicycle) are counted as a train trip.
Last year we did a survey that proved that in the morning 62% of train travelers came by bicycle. Never published, I didn’t have time. For an average day, 60% is also the number that NS uses for Houten in their secret books.
Today I made some calculations with some road countings on screen lines and combined them with numbers of NS (train operator) and Connexxion (bus operator). It showed roughly that from the external production of Houten in 2008, 77% was made by car, 10% by bicycle, 11% by train and 2 % by bus.
Car ownership in Houten is similar to Nieuwegein and Maarssen.
And interesting page 31, 1.5. 11 % of the population in Houten never cycles, 10 % never uses a car. 45 % cycles daily, 38 % uses a car on daily base.
For the government it is important that people may be active. That means a range of everyday amenities that are easily accessible. The way in which access is provided, is secondary. Traffic safety and existing regulations for noise and air quality are preconditions.
regards,
Herbert Tiemens
traffic policy advisor Houten
Thanks for your contribution, Herbert, and thanks also for the time you took to show us around Houten. While some people will never be impressed with such efforts, I would be happy to have just 10% of what you have done applied to my city. Keep up the great work.
In my post some links were lost:
http://www.fietsberaad.nl//index.cfm?lang=nl§ion=Kennisbank&mode=detail&repository=Cijfers+over+fietsgebruik+per+gemeente#Comments
and
https://www.houten.nl/fileadmin/user_upload/Over_gemeente_Houten/Pdf/FeitenCijfers2011/110405_Rapport_Leefbaarheidsmonitor_Houten_2010__4_april__DEFINITIEF.pdf
Hope this works!
One thing has struck me as I captured at these images (and all the slightly out-of-focus shots which weren’t included) was that almost ALL of the people on bicycles were SMILING!
Almost none of the drivers that went past were. That says a lot…
The aim of the Dutch Bicycle Masterplan was not to replace all car trips with bicycling and walking but to replace primarily the short local trips.
Having lived in The Netherlands for an aggregate two years or so I would contend that they have largely succeeded in this aim.
Paul Matin has picked up on an pertinent datum: the proportion of riders of racing-type bikes is pretty much the same proportion of the population as here. Having worked with the Fietsersbond (the Dutch Cyclists Union) it seemed to me that the population proportion of cycle activists was also a close parallel to Australia.
If you are encouraging cycling, it is important to understand that you need to attract ordinary people to riding a bike. Largely speaking, you are not going to be creating more “cyclists” as in people who identify with their mode of transport. You will be attracting people who regard the bike as handy, not people who revere the bike. You already have those people cycling because it takes a lot to deter them.
Many Australians are wedded to their mode of transport, whether they be Motorists, Cyclists or Walkers. My uncle seemed typical of many Dutch people in that he had a car that he liked a lot, but he would take the train to work, he would cycle into the local village, would take the bus to Amsterdam when he needed to go there. He would use the car on Sundays to visit his sister who lived in an area not easily accessed by public transport from his place. (it would have been a long trip into Amsterdam then out again). An achievement of Dutch planning policies is that people do think about their modes of transport and – more so than Australians – choose according to the needs of the trip.
John,
Thank you very much for the comments and I agree with your points. Sadly our cycling advocacy organisations (most of the big ones anyway) are not really interested in this sort of advocacy – ie. giving people options for travel so they make those choices. They just want cyclists to be ‘more like them’ so speak of things like ‘confidence courses’ and ‘skills training’, etc. while missing the point.
With 70% of car trips in Australia being less than 10km and 50% being less than 5km it is obscene to think that we aren’t being given the ability to make transport choices by our elected representatives. People will only ride if they feel safe. No amount of ‘training’ will fix this… they’re attacking the problem from the wrong end!
I’m quite looking forward to my next Dutch holiday!
Cheers,
Paul