BENCHMARKING OF INFRASTRUCTURE FOR BIKING
Geert Thijssen
Goudappel Coffeng BV,
P.O. Box 161, 7400 AD Deventer, The Netherlands
tel: 00 31 570 666859, e mail: ~iisse~@~ou~appel.nl
Frank Borgman
Dutch cyclists union, The Netherlands
Mari~tte Kraan
Goudappel Coffeng BV,
1. INTRODUCTION
A flat country such as the Netherlands with its moderate climate is ideally
suited for a vehicle such as the bicycle. A lot of cycling is done in the Netherlands. Biking is cheap, causes no congestion, is environmentally friendly in
terms of environmental emissions and noise and needs little space for parking. The Dutch government has expressed the wish that even more use of the
bicycle will be made in the future. To increase the use of biking as a transport
mode the quality of the infrastructure for bikes should be high.
To stimulate local authorities to improve the infrastructure for bikes a benchmarking project has been started. In this project the quality of the infrastructure for biking will be compared between cities and with standards. The quality
will be measured by a set of criteria. Local authorities are stimulated to improve the quality of the infrastructure for bikes by using this information.
The contribution of this study to the literature is on two fronts. First, we develop a set of criteria and measurement instruments, which can be used to
measure the quality of the infrastructure for bikes. Second, a computer package is developed and applied to measure objectively the criteria and to compare the results between cities. The package is called Quick Scan Indicator
Bike-infrastructure (QSIF).
After a brief description of the Dutch bicycle policy in section 2, a set of criteria
to compare the quality of the infrastructure for biking between cities is presented in section 3. Section 4 describes how these criteria are measured. The
different measurement instruments (measure bike, video bike and car) used
are presented in section 5. The measured data are brought together in QSIF,
which is described in section 6. The QSIF is developed to measure objectively
the quality of the infrastructure for bikes. It is important that the results are in
line with the subjective judgements of the cyclists. In section 7 the results of
interviews among bike riders are compared with results of the QSIF. As an
illustration the results of the QSIF for Tilburg and Wageningen, two cities in
the Netherlands, are presented in section 8. Finally, in section 9, the main
findings of the study are summarized.
37
2. DUTCH BICYCLE POLICY
Until the seventies the Dutch bike policy was mainly aimed at traffic safety of
cyclists. To improve this safety, separate cycle paths with specific safety provisions were built at intersections. In the following years, bicycle policy was
gradually expanded. Attention was first paid to high-quality bike tracks, such
as in The Hague and Tilburg. Later is was realized that complete bike path
networks, as can be found in Delft, improve the quality level of bike facilities
even more. The current policy want to improve the competitive position of the
bike in relation to the car. In this respect, good facilities in terms of infrastructure and improvement of safe road use are not enough. The way in which cycling links up with public transport services must also be improved. The bike
plays an important role in access and egress of public transport. The policy
also aims at building more and more anti-theft parking facilities for bikes near
residences, commercial premises, shopping areas, railway stations and other
places where people congregates. For a more extended overview of Dutch
bicycle policy and a description of the use of the bike in the Netherlands, see
Facts about cycling in the Netherlands (1994) and Rietveld (1999a and b).
3. REQUIREMENTS AND CRITERIA
To measure the quality of the infrastructure CROW (1993) developed five requirements for the infrastructure for bikes:
Coherence:
bike infrastructure is a coherent set of bike lanes and
paths facilitated between all origins and destinations.
Directness:
bike infrastructure offers the cyclists the shortest way
from origin to destination.
Attractiveness:
bike infrastructure is designed and placed in the
environment such that biking is attractive.
Safety:
bike infrastructure quarantees a safe road use for
cyclists and other road users.
Comfort:
the bike infrastructure ensures a quick and comfortable
journey for cyclists.
It is not necessary and also practically impossible to judge all requirements
and the complete bike infrastructure of a city. Choices are made in building
the QSIF:
1. QSIF should be easy to apply;
2. measurement of the indicators should be cheap;
3. measurement should not be time consuming;
4. the variables should be objectively measured.
The QSIF will be applied by local bicycle organisations in many (about 50)
cities in the Netherlands, therefore the choices 1, 2 and 3 are required. The
last choice is required to ensure that the results of the QSIF have a policy impact.
38
Based on these restrictions the QSIF focuses on the requirements of directness and comfort. Only some attention is paid to the requirements coherence,
attractiveness, and safety, because the indicators related to these requirements are difficult to measure objectively. Table 1 gives an overview of the
criteria, which are measured per requirement.
Requirements
Coherence
Directness
Criterion in QSIF
Consistency in quality
Average speed
Delay
Devious distance
Travel time by bike versus car
Noise
Traffic congestion
Vibration
Traffic congestion
Number of stops
Attractiveness
Safety
Comfort
Table 1
Requirements and criteria of QSIF
in each city a sample of ten trips are selected from all potentially trips which
can be made. The trips are selected by drawing a circle with a radius of 2,5
kilometer around the main shop in the centre. On the edge of the circle four
places as origins are chosen, within the circle the five most important destinations of cyclists are chosen. Between these origins and destinations ten trips
are selected according to the main bike routes in the city. The total length of
the sample of selected trips is approximately 25 kilometers.
4. MEASUREMENT
OF CRITERIA
This section describes the method criteria are measured. For some of these
criteria the Dutch government (1990) and the CROW (1993) have developed
standards. These standards are given in brackets.
The requirement coherence is related to the necessity of the cyclist to reach
the destination. The chosen criterion is consistency in quality, which is measured by:
- the number of changes in road pavement (asphalt, tile, bricks-pavement,
other) per kilometer;
the share of bike path compared to other designs (relative to total route,
the standard is 70%).
The requirement directness is related to the travel time of the bike ride. If the
travel time of the bike ride is longer than for the car, the car will be mostly
preferred. As is shown in table 1 several criteria are used:
average speed is the ratio of distance and travel time ;
- delay is measured as the time in seconds per kilometer that travel spedd
drops below 4 km per hour (the standard is 15 seconds per kilometer);
39
-
devious distance is the ratio of distance biked and the distance in a
straight line (the standard is 1.2);
travel time ratio by bike versus car is the ratio of these two travel times in
seconds (the standard is 1).
The requirement attractiveness is related to the experience of the cyclist. In
the QSIF the following criterion is measured:
Noise heard by cyclists in decibel. Five 'noise' classes are developed.
Seconds of noise in each class is measured and the percentage of total
time in each class is calculated.
The requirement comfort is related to shortcomings in the bicycle infrastructure, which demands an additional effort of cyclist. Criteria are vibration, traffic
congestion (which also has a safety component) and number of stops. In
QSIF comfort is measured at the general level, level of road sections, crossings, and a the level of change of road pavement. A change in road metal is
defined by four seconds of the journey where the road pavement changes,
two seconds before the road pavement change and two seconds after the
road pavement change. The criteria are measured by:
Vibration is measured by the measure bike. Five 'vibration' classes are
developed. Metres in each class are measured and the percentage of total
distance in each class is calculated.
- Traffic congestion I is measured as the number of times per kilometer that
cyclists are forced to bike behind each other.
- Traffic congestion I1 is measured as the number of times per kilometer that
travel speed drops below 10 km per hour but not below 4 km per hour.
- Traffic congestion Ill is measured as the number of times per kilometer
that cyclists have no priority.
- Number of stops is measured per kilometer (the standard is 0.5).
5.
M E A S U R E M E N T I N S T R U M E N T S
The measurement instruments used are a 'measure bike', a video camera on
a separate bike and a car. The measure bike measures per second distance,
vibration, noise, speed and elapsed time. By combining time and speed traffic
congestion II is measured. In the same way low speed and number of stops
are measured. Combination of the measured vibration and the distance gives
the results for the vibration criterion. Combination of the measured noise and
the time gives the results for the noise criterion. Combination of the distance
and the straight distance gathered from a map gives the devious distance.
A bike with video camera is also riding the routes together with the measure
bike. If possible the two bikes ride beside each other. After the bike ride the
video is analysed and the following information is input to the QSiF:
- Clock time in seconds;
Road metal (asphalt, tile, bricks-pavement, other);
- Road design (car and bikes not separated, bike lane, bike path, bike path
with its own infrastructure);
4O
-
Design of-crossing (equal, priority cross-road, side-road, roundabout, traffic lights);
Movement on road section (biking behind each other, biking beside each
other);
Reason for biking behind each other (car, other bike, narrow road, other);
Movement across crossing (left, right, straight).
A car also drives the same route (as much as possible) to measure travel time
and travel distance by car.
6. STRUCTURE
OF QSIF
The structure of QSIF is presented in figure 1. For a city variables, described
in previous sections, are gathered by the measure bike, the video bike and a
car. The data are the input for the QSIF. The data of the measure bike are
transformed in a database. The data of the video bike are typed into the computer using a user friendly software package. Also the data on the basis of the
car ride are input for this program.
The next step is to link all this information based on the different measurement
instruments. This linking is done on the basis of (clock) time, the starting time
of the two bikes. On the video screen also the clock time is displayed. After
the linking of the different databases many calculations are carried out. Combination of the distance measured by the measure bike with several variables
measured by the video bike gives information on:
- Traffic congestion I, which is measured as the number of times per kilometer that the cyclists are forced to bike behind each other.
- Traffic congestion II, which is measured as the number of times per kilometer the travel speed drops below 10 km per hour but not below 4 km per
hour.
- Traffic congestion III, which is measured as the number of times per kilometer that cyclists have to give right of way.
- The number of road pavement changes per kilometer.
- Share of bike path compared to other designs.
Combination of the data makes it also possible to calculate noise, vibration,
and number of stops at different levels:
- Road section, crossing, road pavement change;
- Trip level;
City level.
Combination of the data of the measure bike and the car yields the travel time
ratio by bike versus car. An example of the results at city level will be shown in
section 8.
The ultimate goal of QSIF is the comparison of the results of different cities
with each other and comparison with the standards developed for the infrastructure for biking.
41
I
I
I
City 1
Variables
measured
by
measure bike
1
City 1
Variables
measured
by
video bike
I
City 1
Variables
measured
by
car
7
V
City 1
Linking by time the database of
the measure bike, video bike and car
City 1
Calculation of criteria on level
of road section ,crossing, road metal change,
trip level and city level
Benchmarking
Comparison of the results
between cities and the standards
Figure 1 Structure of QSIF
42
L
7. OBJECTIVE AND SUBJECTIVE MEASUREMENTS
The QSIF is used to measure objectively the quality of the infrastructure for
bikes. It is important that the results are in line with the subjective judgements
of the cyclists. In the city of Utrecht we interviewed bike riders about the quality of four road sections (1. Briljantlaan, 2. Catharijne singel, 3. Kanaal straat,
4. Leidseweg). In this section the results of the interviews will be compared
with the results of the QSIF.
In table 6.1 the objective and subjective judgements about the requirement
comfort are compared. Comfort is measured in one unit (the number of large
shocks) to make an easy comparison possible with the subjective judgment.
Cyclists of the four road-sections are asked about the comfort, they can
choose between five possibilities: very good, good, moderate, bad, and very
bad. In table 2 the percentage for each score are depicted. The first roadsection (Briljantlaan) is judged as good, this is also the outcome of the QSIF.
The fourth road-section (Leidseweg)) is judged as bad, this is also the outcome of the QSIF. The second and third road-sections take a middle position.
Objectively road-section 3 (Kanaalstraat) is better than road-section 2 (Catharijnesingel), but the cyclists have the opposite opinion. This can be caused
by the fact that the Kanaalstraat is a very busy road and that the cyclists take
this disadvantage into account in making a judgement about comfort.
Objective
Vibration
Subjective
Very good
Good
Moderate
Bad
Very bad
Table 2:
1. Bdliantlaan
Road-section
2. Cathariine singel 3. Kanaalstraat
4. Leidseweg
1.2
18.1
10.5
35.3
4.7 %
84.0 %
10.0 %
0.7 %
0.7 %
1.5 %
49.3 %
38.8 %
9.7 %
0.7 %
0.7 %
18.2 %
34.3 %
38.5 %
7.0 %
7.3 %
21.3 %
55.3 %
16.0 %
Objective and subjective judgement about comfort (vibration measured
as average number of large shocks))
The requirement directness is investigated objectively by: (i) delay and (ii) average speed. Table 3 compares the results with the judgements of the bike
riders about directness. Also for directness road-section 1 (Briljantlaan) the
subjective judgement is good, this is in line with the results of the QSlF (little
delay and high average speed). The subjective judgement for road-section 4
(Leidseweg) is also good, the results of the QSlF are even better than for the
Briljantlaan. The judgement of cyclists for road-section 3 (Kanaalstraat) is bad,
although the delay is little and the average speed is reasonable.
43
Road-section
1. BriljanUaan 2. Catharijne
Kanaalstraat
singel
Objective
Leidseweg
Delay (seconds per krn)
Average speed
3.4
6.9
3.35
0.0
17.32
15.17
16.30
19.90
Subjective
Very good
Good
Moderate
Bad
Very bad
4.0 %
76.0 %
13.3 %
4.0 %
2.7 %
1.5 %
41.8 %
29.9 %
23.1%
3.7 %
0%
13.3 %
26.6 %
47.6 %
12.6 %
0.7 %
73.3 %
21.3 %
4.0 %
0.7 %
Table 3: Objective and subjective judgement about directness
The general conclusion is that the subjective judgements are in agreement
with the objective measures for extreme cases. However, when the differences in the quality of the road sections are small, cyclists are unable to distinguish between the overall judgement and individual aspects. It is an important advantage of the QSIF that this instrument can make accurate judgements of the separate requirements. Another advantage is that not a large
sample of interviews have to be hold to measure the quality of the infrastructure for bikes.
8. AN EXAMPLE: WAGENINGEN COMPARED WITH TILBURG
The QSIF is applied in Wageningen and Tilburg. Wageningen is a small city of
40.000 inhabitants in the centre of the Netherlands. Tilburg is a moderate city
(180.000 inhabitants) in the south of the Netherlands. Both cities contain a
university. A lot of information is gathered by the three measurement instruments and the QSIF produce a mass of data using and combining this information. In this section only the main results will be shown.
Table 4 shows the results for the design criterion (share of bike path in total
desicjns / for directness. In Tilburg with its high-quality bike track the share of
own infrastructure for bikes is only 2% higher then in Wageningen. The differences between both cities are small, in both cities the proportion of special
bike infrastructure is over 55%. However the number of changes in road
pavement varies between the two cities. The number of road pavement
changes for Wageningen is equal to 0.6 times per kilometer, while for Tilburg
this number is equal to 1.9.
Wageningen
Tilburg
Table 4:
Not separated
Bike lane Bike path Own infrastructure
43
12
40
5
41
14
38
7
Coherence criterion (measured in % of total route) compared for
Wageningen and Tilburg
44
Table 5 shows the results for the criteria for directness. Also standards (partly
developed by the cyclist union) are shown. In both cities the devious distance
is larger than the standard developed by CROW (1993). The average distance
of the ten trips is 40% longer in a straight line. In Tilburg travel time by bike is
the same as for the car. In Wageningen the car is a little bit faster.
Devious distance
Travel time ratio by bike versus car
Average speed bike (krn/hour)
Average speed car (kin/hour)
Delay (sec/km)
Table 5:
Wageningen
1.38
1.12
16.78
20.41
14.40
Tilburg
1.40
1.00
16.30
19.70
19.00
Standard
1.20
1.00
15.60
35.40
15.00
Directness compared for Wageningen, Tilburg and the standards
On the other hand the time that a bike rider has to drive very slowly is much
larger in Tilburg than in Wageningen. In Wageningen, a small city with fewer
traffic lights, delay is even less then the standard developed by the CROW
(1993).
Table 6 shows the results for the criteria for comfort. The average number of
stops per kilometer is about the same for both cities, but much higher than the
standard. In Tilburg, a crowded city, the times that cyclists are forced to bike
behind each other is much higher than in Wageningen. The results for the
criterion 'slow speed' are about the same, but cyclists in Wageningen are
much more often confronted by 'no priority' than cyclists in Tilburg.
Number of stops
Biking behind each other
Slow speed
No priority
Table 6:
Wageningen
1.05
1.34
2.06
4.02
Tilburg
1.02
0.69
2.28
1.48
Standard
0.50
1.00
1.60
1.10
Comfort criteria (measured in times per kilometer) compared for
Wageningen, Tilburg and the standards
9. CONCLUSIONS
This study develops a benchmarking instrument and applies it to measure the
quality of the infrastructure for biking. The instrument is easy to apply and the
variables are objectively measured.
The instrument measures coherence, attractiveness, directness and comfort
of the infrastructure. Measurement instruments used are a 'measure-bike', a
video camera on a separate bike and a car. Because it is not possible to drive
all roads in a city a sample of the main biking routes in a city (about 25 kilometers) is selected.
45
Coherence is measured by two criteria: (i) the number of changes in the type
of road pavement and (ii) the share of bike path compared to other designs.
Directness is measured by (i) average speed, (ii) delay, (iii) devious distance,
(iv) travel time ratio by bike versus car. Attractiveness is measured by noise
heard by cyclists. Comfort is measured by (i) vibration, (ii) the number of times
per kilometer biking behind each other, (iii) low speed, (iv) number of stops.
The software package QSIF links the information gathered by the three
measurement instruments together through (clock) time. Based on this database criteria are calculated and compared between cities. An illustration is
presented in the paper for the Dutch cities Tilburg and Wageningen.
Next step is to measure the quality of infrastructure for 50 cities in the Netherlands and to carry out benchmarking between cities.
Bibliography
CROW (1993) Designing for the bike (in Dutch). Ede.
Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management (1990) Masterplan bike (in Dutch). The Hague.
Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management (1994) Facts
about cycling in the Netherlands. The Hague.
Rietveld, P. (1999a) Non motorised modes in transport systems: a multimodal
chain perspective for The Netherlands. Transportation Research 5d (1) 3136.
Rietveld, P. (1999b) The accessibility of railway stations: the role of the
bicycle in The Netherlands. Transportation Research 5d (1) 71-75.
46