The myth of the "standard Dutch junction"

Before starting his own blog, Mark Wagenbuur made videos for some of my posts and then became a regular guest blogger here. Some of the blog posts and videos that he made for this blog are still quite popular.

In April 2011, Mark wrote a blog post in which he criticized a dangerous junction design suggested by the then new and claimed to be "state of the art" US NACTO design guide. I thought this to be a very good blog post. At that time we would discuss posts before publication and the only thing that I asked to be changed was that the article should include a reference to other types of junction such as the more modern simultaneous green design. That was added before anyone read the post.

Mark's approximation of Dutch ideas
applied to a hypothetical US junction
seems to have been misinterpreted as
a design which should be copied.

Mark tried to demystify how traffic light junctions in the Netherlands worked and he sketched out how Dutch ideas could be applied to the mock-up American junction from NACTO in a video. The object was not to design a real junction. His approximation consisted of on-screen graphics based upon the dimensions of the original NACTO graphic in order to try to show that a safer type of junction could be built within the same dimensions.

Many people misinterpreted what Mark had written about and between us we wrote some additional notes which were added to the blog post in order to try to explain.

This confusion continued so Mark wrote a second post to follow the first a month later in an attempt to explain yet more misconceptions. This again included information about more modern solutions, referring to the simultaneous green design and the use of roundabouts instead of traffic lights.

Sadly, the confusion continues
I've re-read both of Mark's blog posts and I still see nothing wrong as such with what he said. Perhaps the problem is what he didn't say. Somehow people keep reading something other than what was written. Rather than seeing Mark's sketch as an approximation of a Dutch junction created with the aim of dissuading NACTO from promoting a dangerous design, people now appear to be using his sketch as a design guide in itself.

At first sight, this looks remarkably
similar to Mark's sketch: A design
proposed for Christchurch in New
Zealand, heralded as "safe",  but they
have misunderstood. Cyclists are not
supposed to stop at the same stop line
as cars and traffic lights need to be
positioned so that they are visible to
cyclists making the second part of a
right turn. Also, the geometry is wrong.
This would require sharp turns.

Versions of this junction "design" now pop up everywhere. They've even reached the opposite side of the planet.. Unfortunately, as the idea that this is somehow a good design has taken hold, many of the key points of the real design and of Mark's argument were lost. What's more, alternatives that are more common in the Netherlands, safer and more convenient for cycling are being ignored in favour of pursuing this one design.

In Christchurch, New Zealand, a design which superficially looks similar to Mark's sketch is referred to as "the Dutch intersection", though their design departs in several ways from any real Dutch intersection through which I've cycled.

Is this just a matter of language ? Has this design been picked up so widely for no reason other than that Mark referred to this as "Dutch standard junction design" ? Was the confusion caused by a matter of English usage ? Junctions which look similar to his sketch are not "standard" in the sense of being "to a standard" but "standard" in the sense of being unexceptional. i.e. there's nothing special about this in the Netherlands. It may even be inferior.

Is it because people view the video in isolation from reading the related blog posts so don't ever see the explanations ? Why are engineers and planners trying to design infrastructure based on what they've read on blogs, watched on Youtube and looked at through Google Streetview when it is possible to come and see the real thing being used in a real context ?

I think some explanation is required of why the emphasis on this design is wrong:

Junctions like this are neither common nor desirable
In Assen we have no junctions at all which are of this design.

The closest thing we have to this type of junction in Assen is
here by the railway station. It was built in the 1980s and
is now planned to be removed in the very near future.

Only one junction near the railway station has a strong resemblance to this design. This is pictured to the right. This is the only junction in Assen where a commonly used left turn requires use of two traffic lights, both of which are likely to delay you. The design dates from the late 1980s when the existing railway station was built.

Part of the plan for the new railway
station area. The through road is going
underground. Cyclists will not longer be
faced with delays due to traffic lights

Over time, many traffic lights have disappeared in Assen and this one will be next. Plans are very well advanced for the replacement railway station and as part of this work through motor traffic is to be redirected through a tunnel which will make these traffic lights superfluous. In future, the cycle-route between the railway station and the centre of the city will have no traffic lights on it.

I have to cycle quite a long way to find a junction which is really similar to Mark's sketch. About 40 km South of here in Hoogeveen there are some older junctions which have not yet been reworked. One of them is known to me because it is one of two slightly inconvenient points for me, where I am slowed and delayed on a route which I have cycled fairly frequently to visit a friend who lives 100 km south from here.

Older designs simply are not so good as newer designs and they should be where inspiration for other nations comes from. If you are inspired by the Netherlands, take your inspiration from the good stuff.

There is no "Dutch Standard Junction Design"
There is not really such a thing as a standard Dutch junction. In fact, every junction is designed to fit a particular space and is designed with the needs of the traffic in that space. Another blog post shows every traffic light in Assen so you can see the great variety of designs used. In the 1980s it may be been acceptable to expect cyclists to make slow two stage turns but that is a last resort measure now.

The best junction for cyclists at any particular location is whatever can keep cyclists safe while not causing slowing, deviation from a straight line or stopping. In practice, this is achieved in Assen by unravelling routes for drivers from those used by cyclists so that cyclists do not have to interact with traffic lights installed to manage motor vehicles. Where cyclists do have to use the same junctions as drivers, they are often provided with simultaneous green traffic light designs (the safest and most convenient option) or roundabouts.

Junctions between large roads in the Netherlands often don't need to cater for cyclists at all. These include traffic light junctions where cyclists have another route and "turbo roundabouts" which provide convenience for drivers. This special type of roundabout is entirely designed around driving and cyclists have other routes.

The most common junction design in the Netherlands is almost nothing at all

A better contender for the term "Standard
Dutch Junction" is something like this.
Much more common than any traffic
light junction, this is in a residential
area, has a 30 km/h speed limit, raised
table, small corner radii, and most
importantly it's not a through route for
motor vehicles.

Most junctions in the Netherlands are on residential streets or in town centres where low speed limits, raised tables, special surfacing, small corner radii and one-way systems which apply to drivers only make them unattractive to drivers. These do not operate as through streets for motor vehicles. On such streets, you meet very little motorized traffic and these junctions do not require traffic lights on them.

Not one option, but many
Where cyclists and motorists do have to use the same junctions, there are many options, not just one. Roundabouts with separate infrastucture for cyclists are very commonly used, for instance.

We demonstrate a wide range of solutions on our cycling infrastructure study tours.

Update. www.protectedintersection.com
A few days after I published this post, a new website authored by Nick Falbo appeared which promotes a variation on the same design of junction as Mark described three years ago. The main feature of the website at this time is this very well made video which describes Nick's interpretation of a Dutch traffic light junction design:

Not only does this video show a junction design, it also includes car parking in the right place relative to cycle-paths, so there are good aspects to this.

It's late as I type this. I've just watched the new video and these are my first impressions. While watching the video, I kept expecting the author to trip up at some point or another, but he does seem to have almost everything covered. Overall, I'm impressed. The video necessarily covers much of the same ground as did Mark's video and I'm very pleased to see that Nick acknowledges that debt. I'm also quite pleased to see that he acknowledges influence from this blog and other sources.

I had to look through old local government
publications to find an example of what is
now being proposed as a "protected
intersection" elsewhere. This junction in
Assen was rebuilt as something much better
in 2007. Don't be taken in. Copy what the
Dutch really do now, not a knock-off of
what they used to do.

The incorporation of simultaneous green into this junction is not quite right from a Dutch point of view because the geometry of real simultaneous green traffic light junctions is different to this junction. The "corner refuge" will get in the way of the most efficient use of the junction where diagonals are allowed. However, in my view this wouldn't stop the junction being able to work at all in that way and of course we do have to proceed in steps. If the US can start to install civilized junctions based on this design then we will perhaps see variations including more Dutch style simultaneous green in future.

Apart from the 6 m (car length) setback for where cyclists cross the street (itself an important detail), there are no dimensions on the video nor in the accompanying text. This brings me to my concerns:

The devil is very often in the details of implementation. If dimensions are adequate, traffic light timings are adequate, if cyclists have separate traffic lights and motorists can be prevented from making right turns on red (which I know many US motorists expect to be able to do) then I think the design will work well. However, that's quite a list of details. Quite a list of things which could be got wrong if the junction can't be built to the standard that it needs to be built to. I hope that Nick can prevent that from happening.

There is also the not so small matter that this design represents an Americanized version of just one of the many tools used by Dutch planners. This design of junction is only used at a minority of intersections in many Dutch towns. It is certainly an advance for the USA if this type of junction can be built, but please also look to the other interventions taken in the Netherlands but it should not be over-applied. Most of the places where we could have a junction like this in Assen, for instance, are now places without traffic lights at all. Understandably, it may take a little time for those other ideas also to be imported to the USA.

For cyclists, well designed Simultaneous Green junctions are more convenient than every having to make a two stage turn. Roundabouts are also more convenient. However, it's most convenient of all to have no traffic lights or other major junctions which need to be negotiated when cycling.

It's the "second revolution". i.e. getting rid of through traffic in cities and therefore also being able to get rid of the traffic lights and wide roads required to control motorized traffic which has done much to civilize Dutch city centres. This is more of philosophical approach than merely moving concrete, and it's perhaps too much of a leap to make immediately. But this where the big prize is.

Few Dutch people would now vote for a return to what streets looked like in the 1970s.

Another possible pitfall
John Pelletier pointed out another possible pitfall in email: "One thing that I noted he missed and mentioned in the comments is the issue of drivers not stopping at the stop line and blocking either the bike lane and/or ped crossing.  In the US the standard is to put traffic lights at the opposite side of an intersection, I am sure this contributes quite a bit to folks not stopping at the stop bar.  I notice in many instances the Dutch bring the traffic lights close to the stop bar so that going past the bar means you have no idea if the light is red or green, this confusion forces folks to more likely stop behind the bar".

In the Netherlands, the traffic lights for cars are always just beyond the stop line, not on the opposite side of the road. If drivers pass the stop line then they can't see whether the light is green or red.

Has Alta altered ?
On of the reasons why I am enthusiastic about this video is that Nick works for Alta Planning and Design. I've criticised this company in the past because they were involved in design standards and plans which I consider to be inadequate (e.g. Ontario and Los Angeles). Alta were also involved in work for NACTO which prompted Mark's video and blog post to which this is a reply.

Nick's video criticizes older, more dangerous intersection designs (e.g. two stage turns and merging right turning cars with cyclists) which Alta appears to have supported in the past. These same designs as were also criticized by Mark and myself amongst others. If Nick is the new face of Alta, and this type of design is the sort of thing that we can expect the company to advocate in the future then that's a very good thing. Alta would appear to have altered its recommendations in the light of what has been learnt. I hope to find that Alta will from now on pursue this better design and not merely advocate it alongside the inferior designs.

This could be a very good first step for America... but you do eventually also need to do the other things.

Update 21 Feb 2014
NACTO appear to have adopted Nick Falbo's design. I asked NACTO to let me know whether the new design will replace existing, less safe and convenient, junction designs in their standard or whether it will appear beside these inferior ideas.

While it is an advance for NACTO to adopt this design, there is a risk that this design could well end up being the best option alongside a range of inferior options in the toolbox available to American planners.

In the Netherlands, junctions like this are an average option offered alongside several superior options in the Dutch toolbox.

My concerns about this type of junction being over applied are still valid.

Is this for countries outside North America ?
There is no reason for countries outside North America to seek to emulate the NACTO guidance. With the adoption of this design, NACTO's best solution for cyclists is a copy of an average solution in the Netherlands. Come directly to the source.

Update May 2015

Salt Lake City design.

There is now a proposal for a real implementation of the "protected intersection" in Salt Lake City in the USA. Unfortunately, this departs from the the best recommendations of Nick Falbo's video. One of the most important things missing from the Salt Lake City design is that there are to be no separate traffic lights for cyclists. This creates a dangerous conflict between drivers turning right and cyclists going straight on or turning left. This is similar what occurs in "mixing zones" which have proven to have fatal outcomes elsewhere.

The drawing also makes it appear as if the kerb lines on the cycle-paths are intended to impede cyclists. This is not a feature of Dutch junctions where widths and radii are quite generous on cycle-paths to ensure that people can cycle efficiently.

In my view it is still unfortunate that the superior simultaneous green design wasn't adopted for this experiment. That is far more efficient for cyclists and avoids all the dangerous conflicts.

Update June 2015
Austin in Texas is also jumping on the "protected intersection" bandwagon. Here are pictures of two of their examples. In both examples there is no separate set of traffic lights for cyclists so motorized traffic is expected to magically stop in the face of a cyclist. But the problems with these two examples are greater than that. The geometry of the crossings seems to include pinch points for cyclists and very tight corner radii. The other problems isolated to each individual design are in the comments under each picture:

In this example there is no safe way of exiting the junction to head East or North. The buffer only gets in the way of cyclists and makes it difficult for them to join the road in those directions  forcing two 90 degree turns where there would otherwse be no requirement to turn at all (for a cyclists going straight on through the junction). It is possible to join segregated junctions with roads which don't have segregated infrastructure in a seamless and safe manner, but no attempt at all has been made to do that at this intersection. The only direction in which cyclists are actually protected by the buffer is if they proceed from the west and turn right. i.e. this "protected intersection" protects cyclists from motor vehicles in only one of the twelve different directions in which it can be used by cyclists. 1/12.

This example is on a huge road which certainly requires separation of cyclists from motorists by use of separate traffic lights. Cyclists who are late in crossing the road have absolutely no refuge between eight lanes of traffic. No do pedestrians have a refuge. Cyclists heading South and wishing to go straight on or left have a dramatic diversion from a straight line which they have to negotiate before finding themselves in front of motor vehicles which were making a right turn with a far more generous corner radius, leading to higher speeds around that corner. Cyclists coming from the west and wishing to continue North are first placed in conflict with one lane of right turning cars heading south and then placed in conflict with two lanes of cars going in a straight line towards the East. In this case, right turns are protected by the buffer in all four cases, but neither straight on or left turning cyclists have any protection at all. 4/12.

These appear to be nothing more than "cargo cult" copies of Dutch designs. The subtleties of the real designs have not been understood at all and some ideas from a third-hand half-remembered idea which could perhaps have worked at a relatively small intersection with little traffic have been scaled up to form the basis of a design for a completely different context. This seems to have happened without any real thought as to how it will work in practice. These intersections are not genuinely similar to Dutch intersections - they merely look superficially similar to designs which work at some places in the Netherlands.

At a real-life large scale Dutch intersection with many lanes on the road, the cycling facilities are completely separate from the driving lanes. Cyclists are assured absolute safety because they use completely separate traffic lights which remove all conflict between cyclists and drivers. This example would have made a far more suitable starting point for the Texas intersections than the design for much smaller intersections which they tried to scale up. If they'd sent people here, or even just asked sensible questions, we would have shown them this.

Before wasting more asphalt, before putting people in danger through bad design, come and see how real intersections in the Netherlands work.

In both these cases I've given directions relative to the pictures, assuming that North is at the top of the picture.

Mark criticized just one feature of the NACTO design guidelines. Read my longer critique of Ontario's design guide, which shares many similarities as well as authorship with the NACTO guidelines.

Ontario Traffic Manual "Bicycle Facilities" draft edition. How not to design for cycling

Someone just sent me a link to the "final draft" of Ontario's new Bicycle Facilities manual. This is book 18 of the Ontario Traffic Manual, covering all aspects of design for all modes of transport. I have not read the other manuals and can only hope they are better than this one because unfortunately from the front cover page onward the manual for bicycle facilities demonstrates a remarkably low aspiration for cycling.

The good bit
Early in the manual people are divided into four potential types of cyclist and the authors recognize that 60% are "Interested but Concerned". This is a reflection of a lack of subjective safety, a theme covered many times on this blog.

It is a good thing that Ontario has identified that future cyclists can only come from that part of the population who do not currently cycle. In order for cycling to grow, the experience of cycling has to become more acceptable to the masses who do not currently cycle. This is why subjective safety is important. Cycling has to not only be safe but it must also feel safe. For this to happen requires the frequency of conflicts between cyclists and motor vehicles to be reduced. It requires this to happen no matter where the cyclist is riding from or to.

It is also necessary for cyclists' journeys to be efficient. It is often possible for cyclists to make shorter journeys than would be necessary by car or to have to stop less frequently for traffic lights than they would by car. It is possible for cyclists' journeys to take direct routes which are not in the same places as those taken by motor vehicle. It is possible for cycling journeys to be pleasant free of stress. That's the reality that we live in and it's what this blog tries to present to the world.

But does Ontario actually intend to take this on, or are their proposed interventions too minor to make a difference ?

What the document actually says...
The language of the document is slippery. Some of it sounds quite reasonable on an initial reading, but when you look closely it becomes obvious that the authors have rather low aspirations for cycling. There is an expectation that cyclists can share the roadway when both speeds and traffic volumes are at higher levels than we would experience. The authors think that it is only necessary to "consider" building an on-road cycle lane even with speeds of up to 100 km/h. The language of the document betrays the lack of ambition for cycling.

Diagrams like this have been produced across the world. However, to encourage cycling the bands need to be adjusted so that cyclists have their own infrastructure at far lower speeds and smaller traffic volumes than suggested here.

A passage which considers the needs of "Experienced cyclists (commuter or other utilitarian)" reads: "This group generally prefers direct, continuous facilities with minimal delay as is generally provided by the arterial road Experienced cyclists (commuter or network. Experienced cyclists may be comfortable on shared use other utilitarian) roadways with low motor vehicle volumes and speeds. However, users in this group typically prefer on-street bike lanes or separated facilities where the context warrants it." This sounds just fine until you consider what they're talking about. Our 85 year old neighbour's 80 years of experience is surely enough and her regular trips to the shops by bike are definitely utilitarian but I have never heard her express a preference for riding on arterial roads rather than the more direct, safer and more pleasant cycle-paths that we all use. Riding on road is equated falsely within this manual with making journeys which are direct and continuous and have minimal delay. There is no need whatsoever for that to be the case. There is a reason why fast cyclists in the Netherlands ride on the cycle-paths.

Similarly, when writing about "child cyclists" the authors say "This group generally requires separated facilities free of conflicts with motor vehicle traffic. Separated facilities should be considered near schools, parks and neighbourhoods. Children under the age of 11 should be permitted to cycle on sidewalks since they may not have the cognitive ability or experience to ride on roads with motor vehicles by themselves." This also sounds almost reasonable until you realise how restricting this is. The need that childrens have for separated facilities is to be considered only near these specific locations. The freedom of children is thus to be restricted to routes between places that the road designers have decided in advance that they might like to go to. Canadian children "under the age of 11" supposedly need to ride on sidewalks because they lack some unknown cognitive ability while Dutch children regularly make school trips by bike from a far younger age. Indeed, my daughter rode 150 km out into the countryside on a school cycle-camping trip at the age of 11. Nothing special - almost all Dutch primary schools do this.

There is actually no need for this compartmentalism. Children benefit most from exactly the same infrastructure as fast and experienced cyclists benefit from most. i.e. that which allows direct and convenient journeys to be made in safety.

These two passages demonstrate the lack of ambition of the plans for Ontario. But this was just scraping the surface. Just look at some of their recommended designs for infrastructure...

Is this bike really in a safe
place relative to the car ?

Sharrows
Something I've been meaning to write about for a long time is the strange North American fixation with painting "Shared lane markings" on streets.

This is not infrastructure, it's just paint. What's more, it's not even paint which attempts to give cyclists their own space. Sharrows do not place any physical object in the way of drivers. They don't even suggest that drivers should steer clear of cyclists. Sharrows are merely a tokenistic attempt to pacify cyclists. They are not a feature of roads in countries which have a high cycling modal share. Sharrows give the appearance that something has been done but without any real change having been made to the road environment.

In Ontario, as shown in this picture, cyclists are to be encouraged to ride no further than 1 m from the kerb and drivers are actually to be encouraged to overtake cyclists within the same lane. The manual explains this in black and white: "if the travel lane width is 4.0 metres or greater, passing may be possible". And what type of road would this be ? "roads with higher traffic volumes, low to moderate speeds (40 to 60 km/h) and frequent intersections or driveways."

Inferior to on-road cycle-lanes but sharing many of the same problems, sharrows are not the route to mass cycling.

Faith in signage

It's neither safe nor pleasant for a cyclist to be passed within the lane by a vehicle travelling at a considerably higher speed. So how does Ontario propose to deal with this problem ?

Please pass cyclists
within the lane...

Answer: erecting signs which read "share the road" alongside the sharrows.

This does nothing to improve the subjective or actual safety of cyclists.

For narrower roads with less than 4 m lane widths, Ontarian planners suggest that the sharrows should be further out and cyclists be used as mobile traffic calming devices behind which motorists will have to wait until they can pass in safety. This on roads with 50 km/h speed limits. i.e. a speed which only a small fraction of the population can maintain for any period of time (the world one hour record for a reasonably normal bike is still under 50 km).

If you have the guts to want to do it, then perhaps it is marginally safer to ride in front of frustrated drivers than to encourage them to pass within the lane. However it is unlikely to be a pleasant experience.

Drivers who are in a hurry, stuck behind a bike and tooting their horns haven't necessarily seen a sharrow and don't necessarily understand why you are obstructing them. In any place where cyclists are used as traffic calming devices the dream of mass cycling will remain a dream. This is not the hassle free cycling that is required to encourage the entire population to ride bikes. This experience will do nothing to convert the 60% of the population which Ontario has identified as being "Interested but Concerned" into regular cyclists.

Paved shoulders
The document refers to "paved shoulders". The recommendations for widths are vague: "should typically have shoulders between 1.5 and 2.0 metres of pavement width depending on the volume, speed and mix of vehicular traffic" is followed in the same paragraph by "practitioners may consider providing a minimum paved shoulder width of 1.2 metres after applying good engineering judgement and consideration of the context specific conditions." The lower minimum is available to anyone who thinks they have a "constrained corridor", but of course as we all know already, every place in the world claims to have "not enough space" and that includes Canada.

Sometimes they make it too easy to criticise. Of the three examples that Ontario provides of real paved shoulders, two have a car parked in them.

I'm happy to say that we don't have "paved shoulders" in the Netherlands. Or at least we don't have them as cycling facilities. The idea that cycling is made attractive by providing nothing more than a stripe of asphalt at the side of a road which may carry large volumes of high speed traffic is quite remarkable. It takes more than this. The optional separation by buffer of width 0.5 to 1.0 m is inadequate to lead to a high degree of subjective safety.

On Road Cycle lanes
We move on now to on-road cycle-lanes. These do exist in the Netherlands but they're generally older facilities and are not nearly so common as properly segregated cycle-paths (just 5500 km exist vs. 37000 km of segregated paths). You would expect to see such lanes in the Netherlands mostly on streets with fewer vehicles or occasionally in places which simply haven't yet been updated to remove them. They are found infrequently on busy roads or with frequently used parking because they are not suitable provision in such areas.

In Ontario such lanes are to be "1.8 metres wide, measured to the face of the curb or, in its absence, the edge of the roadway. Practitioners may provide a 2.0 metre facility on roadways with higher bicycle volumes to facilitate overtaking within the bicycle lane." and "bike lanes are typically no wider than
this so that they are not misinterpreted as being for general traffic use."

However, the diagram later on shows a slightly different idea. The desired width for a bicycle lane next to parked cars somehow shrinks to just 1.5 m, with a 1 m buffer (which may be reduced to 0.5 m) to protect from "dooring". This is simply inadequate. There also appears here a mention of the oft-mooted idea of cycle-lanes between lanes of cars. These apparently need to be just 1.8 m minimum in width.

However, on the subject of cycle-lanes, the drawings of proposed road layouts provide the most entertainment. Almost every one of their examples is flawed from the point of view of cyclist safety and most of these flaws are obvious at the first glance:

Problems caused by this arrangement include:
1. dooring due to opening of doors of parked cars
2. cars passing being too close.
3. cars wishing to park swerving across the cycle-lane
4. cars turning the corner swerving across the cycle-lane
5. Nothing is done to protect cyclists at the junctions - the most dangerous places for riding.
6. How does a cyclist make a safe left turn at these junctions ?

Added red and blue lines show how the paths of cyclists and drivers clash at a junction designed like this. It's just not good enough for lanes to disappear and signage isn't enough to prevent the problem.

In this example a cycle-lane disappears right at the most dangerous point - where the roadway narrows. The Ontarian designers place all emphasis on avoiding a collision on a cyclist who can turn his head by 180 degrees and judge the safe moment to pull left into other traffic. This is simply not a safe arrangement. I've added a blue triangle to show how kerbs on the road could be used to make this merging safer by forcing drivers to pull to the left.

Another example of designing in conflict. Cyclists heading straight on should not expect drivers turning right to merge into their lane. This arrangement of lanes requires both cyclists and drivers to be able to see behind themselves to avoid colliding with one another while they change lane while they must also look forwards to see what vehicles in front of them are doing as they may be adjusting their speed to merge or slowing for a red traffic light.

From the point of view of sustainable safety  this design is extraordinarily bad because it relies on everyone behaving perfectly at all times. For this to work without injuries, no-one must ever be tired or distracted. It's the precise opposite of the Dutch principles which seek to make roads safer despite their users' misbehaviour or mistakes and self-explanatory so that users do the right thing without having to take notice of excessive signage.

These examples were all found within the first third of the manual. There are far more examples of bad design which I have skimmed over and while it would be amusing to go through all of them this would also be very time consuming so I'm stopping here (unless Ontario wants to sponsor me to continue, that is).

Conclusion - please think again
I've read a few design manuals in my time and unfortunately I have to say that this is one of the very worst. The examples above come just a third of the document. Flipping through more of the pages reveals seemingly an endless stream of material which is just as bad and in some cases obviously worse than that above.

It appears that no stone was left un-turned in seeking out bad ideas. Amongst these further bad ideas are two stage turns, bike boxes, cycle-lanes in the middle of the road, "jug handles" to make left turns, recommendations for separated paths to be too narrow, bus stops on cycle-paths, paths shared with pedestrians, awful ideas about what to do with cyclists at roundabouts, junction design which very probably will be proven to be "to die for" and the suggestion of signs, signs and more signs to try to explain the whole mess to the users of the infrastructure

Take advice from people with experience. Learn from best practice.
Ontario: don't accept this document as your future guide to building bicycle facilities. It is inadequate to the task in more ways than I have time to document.

If your aim is to achieve a higher cycling modal share, encourage a wider range of the population to cycle and to improve the safety of your cyclists then you desperately need to start again on your manual.

Instead of seeking out only inexpensive "solutions" or inventing new ideas, and instead of being influenced by countries which have similarly low cycling modal shares to your own, please take a look first at what has been achieved here in the Netherlands. It makes absolutely no sense at all to ignore the most successful practices.

A good start would be to buy copies of the CROW manuals and read them thoroughly. These are the best documents that you'll find anywhere about cycling infrastructure. However, don't stop at just reading books and websites and be aware that the real life experience is only hinted at by what you'll read. You also need to know how it feels to use the best cycling infrastructure in the world and you'll find out how the best infrastructure explains itself and does not need the number of signs that you are planning to install.

You need to aim high in order to achieve future success. This is the reason why we offer cycling infrastructure study tours - so that professionals such as yourselves can see what best practice is and avoid making expensive mistakes.

A pattern...
A few days after writing this, I realised that the same consulting company was involved as had been paid to put together another inadequate plan. Not every organisation which claims expertise actually has it.

I really am willing to go through the rest of the manual for a fee. It could be instructive to point out all the problems. However, I think time would be better spent by Ontario setting about writing a proper manual for cycling facilities.

Los Angeles has a plan, but is it enough ?

Los Angeles has experienced some significant growth in cycling in recent years. 13000 people in the city now commute by bike. The growth is something that Los Angeles is proud of, and quite rightly so.

However, this is a large city. 3.8 million people live in the city itself and almost 15 million people live in the urban area. That's very nearly the same population as the whole country of the Netherlands, but Angelenos live with much higher density¹ so there is much less to be done.

Are the numbers actually impressive or not ?
Despite the density, very few people cycle in LA. 13000 commuters may sound like a large number, it's not. This is a huge city with a huge number of potential cyclists. If it were an average Dutch city, over 3 million journeys would be made each day by people who lived in Los Angeles itself, and 12 million journeys each day by residents of the urban area of Los Angeles. There would be a million journeys per hour by bike through the working week. When cycling is truly successful as a mode of transport, it is something done by everyone, all the time. Even though cycling has grown in Los Angeles, the result is a cycling modal share of around 0.3% of journeys. This is orders of magnitude lower than average in the Netherlands.

So what's happening about it ?
When looking up another story which mentioned Los Angeles a few days ago, I came across the city's bicycle plan (also here). This is quite an interesting document in many ways.

The plan describes a proposal for "an ambitious 1,684 mile bikeway system". This number is clearly important as it appears in particularly large print in the document. Apparently this will "build off the existing 334 miles that have been installed over the past thirty plus years". Does that indicate that the rate of cycle path building over the last thirty years has been 10 miles per year ? Well, actually, no it doesn't. I first thought that a "bikeway" was a cycle path separate from the road, but actually it's not. A "bikeway" can be almost anything. Most of the "bikeway system" actually refers to on-road treatments of one kind or another. Of the existing 334 miles, only 49 miles are "Green Paths" segregated from the road. Of the proposed new 1350 miles of "bikeway", only a further 90 miles of "Green Paths" are proposed.

The surprising photo chosen by the authors of the bicycling plan to
represent "Green paths" in L.A. Narrow and enclosed, with a bad
surface, weeds and concrete surroundings, "enhanced" with barbed
wire. I hope it doesn't all look like this.²

And what do these off road "Green paths" look like ? I've not seen them myself, but to the left is the example chosen by the authors of the plan to illustrate them. Presumably this was chosen because it's a good example, however to my eyes it is very much an example of doing the wrong thing. If conditions even on the "Green paths" of L.A. resemble this photo, then I think we can see why it is that so few people cycle there².

The photo shows an example of design with no regard at all for social safety. It's not a very inviting place to be in the daytime, and very many people would avoid this in the dark. It looks like a mugger's alley and will not attract the average person to cycle.

The plan's discussion about the "bikeways" includes a bit of history. While only 334 miles exist now, the 1977 plan actually promised 600 miles, and the 1996 plan promised 742 miles. Previous plans were not even half implemented: 408 out of 742 miles of the "bikeway network" that should exist by now simply does not exist. While it is true that the new plan "exceeds its predecessors substantially in its commitment to bikeways", can we have any confidence that this plan will be followed any more closely than the previous ones were ?

Sadly, the time-scales allocated make this almost inevitable. On page 107 the plan says that the extra 1350 miles of "bikeway", and 90 miles of separate "green paths", are to be built over the next 35 years. Yes, 35 years. Now that's a long term plan ! If it all goes to plan, and this network actually gets built, then Los Angeles will in 35 years time be able to claim to have built an average of 2.5 miles per year of extra "green path", or perhaps 39 miles per year of on-road paint and other tweaks. This really is not impressive at all. This policy document leaves all the decisions for future office holders, who may or may not go through with the plan. History tells us that they likely won't build more than half of what is planned. Luckily for those who made this lack-lustre plan, setting such a long term target means that most people involved now will be retired before anyone asks them to answer for what they've done, or perhaps more likely, what they've not done.

It's been known in Los Angeles since the 1950s
that building more roads didn't solve the problem
of increased traffic.

The Netherlands, which remember only has a population slightly larger than the urban area of Los Angeles, now has 35000 km of high quality completely separate cycle path. In addition there is an unknown length of lesser quality touristic separated paths, 5000 km of on road cycle lane and many thousands of kilometres of roads which have been prioritized for bikes. Infrastructure here is being built at a rate many times higher than that in Los Angeles, and what is being built is to a much higher standard. Los Angeles can only continue to fall behind if it makes plans like this.

Bicycle parking
Under the title of "Equity: parking", the authors say that "Safe, visible and accessible bicycle parking is essential to encourage greater levels of bicycling activity." In this, I think they're right. There must be enough parking spaces. So what has the city done ? Currently there are "over 3600" cycle parking spaces, and "bicycle parking must be provided at a ratio of two percent of the number of auto parking spaces" at some kinds of developments. Is 2% an aspirational target ? And can 3600 spaces on street shared between four million people who live in the city be seen to be anything better than scraping the surface of what is required ? 3600 doesn't even come close to supporting a 2% modal share, let alone true mass cycling.

By way of contrast, and bear in mind that this is for a very similar population to Los Angeles, there are literally millions of cycle parking spaces in the Netherlands. Over 300000 cycle parking spaces for bikes have been provided at railway stations alone, and this figure grows by 25000 per year. To keep up current growth rates in cycling, Groningen, a city with one twentieth of the population of LA is currently adding 500 spaces each year to just one of its cycle-parks. Residential properties in the Netherlands must provide an area for secure bike parking which is 6.5% of the floor area of the home. i.e. Enough space for the family's bikes to be stored in safety.

And what else does the LA document say ? Well, they make a point of dividing cyclists into three categories - Advanced / Experienced, Basic / less confident, Children with or without their parents. There is a suggestion that parallel facilities will be built for these different types of cyclists.

This is a fundamental error. To build down for inexperienced cyclists is a waste of time. Good cycling infrastructure suits all types of cyclists. Infrastructure which isn't good enough for the experienced to use for efficient journeys without problems definitely is not good enough for the inexperienced to use either. This is doubly ridiculous when there clearly isn't enough of a budget to build one good network, let alone three.

A call for action
Angelenos ! You're being fed a line !

There are a lot of expensive consultants' words in that document, but this is not how real progress is made. The Dutch also had a bicycle master plan back in 1990 but they set high targets and since that time, they followed policies which resulted in real change. That is the reason why a population just slightly larger than that of the L.A. urban area now make an extraordinary proportion of their journeys by bike, whatever their age. The same could perhaps be achieved in L.A., but the current plan isn't even scratching the surface of what is required to make it a reality.

People elsewhere ! Don't expect too much just because a lot of words appear in a plan. You need to make sure that any plans written up actually make sense. Be wary when the same consultants are involved as helped with other lacklustre plans. Make sure to keep to the very highest standards.

¹: 2570 people per square km in Los Angeles vs. 402 per square km in the Netherlands. Nowhere in the Netherlands compares with the high population densities of large US cities.

²: While reviewing this article I was sent this link to a discussion about one of green paths in Los Angeles. A couple of quotes: "The consensus is that this path might be one of the nicest in town, however, check the comments below, because some cyclists think it goes through some pretty bad neighborhoods, while others don’t. But, if you can feel safe (e.g. with a group), it’s a nice, pretty, breezy ride...", "It is generally a nice ride during the day, though I would recommend avoiding it after dark (no lights and bad neighborhoods are potential problems). I occasionally come across “less than upstanding looking citizens” on the way", "It certainly isn’t all that bad. Of couse, you wouldn’t want to ride it at night, but that’s because the path isn’t lit, and there’s no barrier between the path and the canal....", "some punks have been breaking glass bottles along the route lately, and it doesn’t appear that the city does much to maintain the path". Another path description says "Sadly, like so many of the bike trails described here, large sections of this path are incredibly run-down, virtually junkyards.", and another is "not very highly recommended, unless you’re into gangs and graffitti". Not everyone agrees, of course. Some people are always more sensitive than others. However, there is clearly a problem with social safety on these paths.

I know there are problems with money in L.A. but it's a false economy to ignore cycling because of this. Cycling infrastructure is cheaper to build than not to build.