Aalborg Universitet Bike Infrastructures Report Silva, Victor ... - VBN

Aalborg Universitet 

Bike Infrastructures Report 

Silva, Victor; Harder, Henrik; Jensen, Ole B.; Madsen, Jens Chr. Overgaard 

Publication date: 

2012 

Link to publication from Aalborg University 

Citation for pulished version (APA): 

Andrade, V., Harder, H., Jensen, O. B., & Madsen, J. C. O. (2012). Bike Infrastructures Report. Aalborg 

University: Departmental Working Paper Series, Dept. of Architecture, Design and Media Technology. 

General rights 

Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners 

and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. 

• Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research. 

• You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain 

• You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal ? 

Take down policy 

If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us at vbn@aub.aau.dk providing details, and we will remove access to 

the work immediately and investigate your claim. 

Downloaded from vbn.aau.dk on: December 20, 2013

BIKE 

INFRASTRUCTURES 

Edited by 

VICTOR ANDRADE 

HENRIK HARDER 

OLE B. JENSEN 

JENS MADSEN

TITLE 

BIKE INFRASTRUCTURES 

EDITORS 

Victor Andrade 

Henrik Harder 

Ole B. Jensen 

Jens Madsen 

EDITORIAL COORDINATION 


RESEARCH COORDINATION 

Henrik Harder 


CONTRIBUTORS 


Henrik Harder 

Ole B. Jensen 

Jens Madsen 

Tom Godefrooij 

Kees van Goeverden 

RESEARCH TEAM 

Kristian Overby 

Luke Lorimer Baylis 

Niels Thuesen 

Anders Simonsen 

Nina K. Bregendahl 

Ann Sofie Grimshave Christensen 

LAYOUT 



COVER LAYOUT 



COVER PICTURES 


PICTURES 


Kristian Overby 


bike 

infrastructures 

MAPS AND DRAWINGS 



Niels Thuesen 

PUBLISHER 

Architecture and Design Department 

Aalborg University 

ARCHITECTURE AND DESIGN 

ISSN: 1603-6204 

Volume: 69

CONTENTS 

INTRODUCTION 

SECTION 1: Danish National Survey 

SECTION 2: Bike Infrastructures Case Studies 

SECTION 3: The Dutch Reference Study. Cases of Interventions 

in Bike Infrastructure Reviewed in the Framework of 

Bikeability 

SECTION 4: recommendations

Introduction 

VICTOR ANDRADE

INDRODUCTION 

Increased transition of person transport from automobiles 

to bicycles is generally regarded as gain for society, most 

profoundly in terms of reduced emission and enhanced 

public health. However, the mode-share of cycling has 

decreased in recent years, leading to the conclusion by 

the Danish Government that conditions for cycling must 

be enhanced to increase the use of the bicycle for transportation 

(Regeringen et al 2009). 

This research project departs from this conclusion and 

focuses on the preconditions for cycling; the possible effects 

of changes of the urban environment and cycling 

infrastructure; and methodologies for assessment of 

changes to existing cycling infrastructure based on microlevel 

spatially explicit data. This way the strategic focus of 

the project is how to enhance bike-ability of urban areas. 

This report presents the result of the research project 

titled Interventions to the bicycle infrastructure. This research 

is under the umbrella of a major project called 

Bike-ability: cities for zero emission and public health 

which consists of 5 interrelated work packages focusing 

on different scales and aspects of the analysis of cycling 

in relation to urban structure and cycling infrastructure. 

It is the overall objective of the Bike-ability project to increase 

the level of knowledge in relation to cycling based 

transport and thereby to contribute to more efficient and 

qualified urban planning and management. It is the specific 

societal/commercial objective to enable planners of 

urban areas to a) promote as high bike-ability of urban areas 

as possible; b) predict cycling flows in planned or renewed 

cycling infrastructures; and c) facilitate exchange 

of the Danish know how with respect to bicycle transport 

internationally. 

The project Interventions to the bicycle infrastructure is 

divided in 3 research packages – Bike Infrastructures, 

National Survey and Dutch References. 

Firstly, the package titled Bike Infrastructures is a comparative 

case study of 3 bike infrastructures with different 

typologies and in 3 Danish municipalities. The study aims 

to reveals recent experiences of implementation of bike 

infrastructures and their effects. 

The package National Survey is an inventory of bike infrastructures 

implemented in all Danish municipalities between 

1978 and 2009. Plus, it is investigate the structure 

and capacity of the municipalities to deal with implemen- 

tation of bike infrastructures. The inventory is based on 

a web-based questionnaire which was sent to all Danish 

municipalities. 

Finally, the research package Dutch References is a 

study of selected cycling interventions in the Netherlands, 

focusing on bicycle infrastructure cases that helped increase 

local bicycle traffic significantly. This reference 

study will be based on considerations related to the classic 

study “Sign up for the Bike: Design Manual for a Cycle 

friendly Infrastructure” and these considerations will be 

compared to more recent studies from the Netherlands. 

The primary purpose of this report is to provide policy 

makers, architects, urban designers or traffic engineers 

among others with a synthesis of information on bike infrastructures. 

The main objective of this study is to analyze bike infrastructure 

cases in the Danish municipalities; their implementation; 

and significance in terms of contribution to the 

promotion of cycling; and finally identify infrastructure and 

design elements that can help promote cycling significantly. 

Having said that, it is not the ambition of this report to 

fix a precise frame of techniques for interventions to bike 

infrastructures. It is however an intention to identify and 

debate critical topics that represent challenges facing the 

design and implementation of bike infrastructures and 

how they could enhance cycling. 

The report is divided in 4 sections – Bike Infrastructures, 

National Survey, Dutch References and Recommendations. 

The first 3 sections are dedicated to the 3 research packages 

that compose the Interventions to the bicycle infrastructure 

project. The Bike Infrastructure and National 

Survey sections include scientific articles which enhance 

a discussion and highlight critical themes. 

The latter section presents general recommendations 

which assemble the results from the national survey and 

comparative case studies for cross reading and analytical 

generalization, and in cooperation with planners from 

the projects case areas, provide recommendations for 

promotion of cycling through interventions to the cycling 

infrastructure.

SECTION ONE: DANISH NATIONAL SURVEY 

ENCOURAGING BIKE TRANSPORT AT THE MUNICIPAL LEVEL: 

RESULTS FROM A NATIONAL WEB QUESTIONNAIRE 

Jens Madsen 


Ole B. Jensen 

Henrik Harder

INDRODUCTION 

As part of work package 4 a web questionnaire was carried 

out amongst the Danish Municipalities as these are a 

vital actor in the implementation of bike infrastructure projects. 

The aim of the survey was to describe infrastructural 

“Bikeability” projects and the municipal level in terms of 

both activity level, the nature of the projects and the motives 

behind the implementation of bike-projects. Furthermore, 

the municipalities were asked to evaluate the bike 

promoting and the safety potentials related to given types 

of bicycle projects. In terms of estimating the Bikeabilityeffects 

of investments in bicycle infrastructure a main aim 

of the questionnaire was to map the extent to which the 

municipalities have done before/after registrations in relation 

to implemented bike-infrastructure projects as these 

are required in order to perform such evaluations. 

The findings from the national web questionnaire amongst 

the municipalities are reported below 

Background 

At the moment large investments are made in bicycle infrastructure 

at the municipal level. The higher investment 

level is primarily initiated by the “Cycling Fund” (Danish: 

Cykelpuljen), which is administered from the state level by 

the Danish Road Directorate. Through the Danish Cycling 

Fund it is possible for the municipalities to obtain financial 

support from the Danish State, when it comes to financing 

bike promoting projects; the level of financial support 

from the state level may be as high as 50%. According 

to the Danish act on Green Transport Policy – passed 

by the Danish parliament – the goal of the Cycling Fund 

is to support projects specifically and actively aiming at 

improving the conditions for cycling (Transportministeriet, 

2009). Over a period of 5 years 1 billion Danish Kroner 

will allocated Bike-promoting projects through the Cycling 

Funds with the expectation that the project partners will 

contribute with at least a corresponding investment. 

Alongside the passing of the Cycling Fund, the Strategic 

Research Council decided to offer substantial financial 

support to the research project: ”Bikeability: Cities for 

zero emission travel and public health”, which focuses on 

producing scientifically based knowledge as to how socio-economics, 

geography, road environment and investments 

in bicycle infrastructures affects the use of the bike 

in daily transport. 

Knowledge of this kind is vital to the Danish municipalities 

in order for them to identify ways of increasing the use 

of the bicycle in daily transport. More specifically knowledge 

and documentation on the effects of different kinds 

of bike-promoting projects are in demand in order to provide 

tools that enables the municipalities to systematically 

prioritize the projects relevant to them. 

Purpose 

As part of the Bikeability project it was decided to perform 

a questionnaire amongst the Danish Municipalities. The 

main purposes of this questionnaire can be described as 

follows: 

• To describe the bicycle initiatives implemented at the 

municipal level in Denmark in the period 1/1 2007 until 

the summer 2011 with special focus upon the formulation 

of goals and plans for improving cycling, investment 

level and the nature and the character of the implemented 

projects. 

• To map the primary motives amongst the municipalities 

when it comes to the background for implementing bikepromoting/bike-friendly 

projects. 

• To get the municipalities assessment of given assumed 

bike-promoting/bike-friendly projects potential for actually 

promoting the use of the bike and the projects potential 

for actually improving bicycle safety respectively. 

• To map the extent to which the municipalities perform 

before-after registrations in relation to local bicycle-projects 

which allows for evaluations of the effects of the project 

in terms of bicycle use and traffic safety. 

The main reasons as why to conduct a municipal survey 

is reflected in the purpose of the questionnaire. Primarily, 

the questionnaire is performed in order to ensure that 

the research activities are in accordance with the goals, 

knowledge, initiatives and ideas at the municipal level, as 

it is a general priority for the Bikeability project as a whole 

that the research results are relevant and applicable to 

the central parties involved in increasing Bikeability at all 

levels. Hence the importance of mapping goals, motives 

and the implemented type of projects as well as the mapping 

of potentials, as the latter may serve as an indicator 

in terms of the projects that the municipalities may be inclined 

to implement in the future. 

Secondly, the mapping of municipal projects with before/ 

after registrations serves to document the extent to which 

it is possible to perform classic before/after evaluations of 

bicycle effects (use of bike; safety of cyclists). 

Methodology 

In preparing the questionnaire for the municipalities it 

was decided to apply a standardized and structured 

design applying a uniform formulation of questions and 

well-defined answering categories. This design holds 

the advantage that it is possible to compare the answers 

from the municipalities and it allows for statistical 

analysis to be applied to the comparison of answers. 

The downside to the design is that it leaves the respondents 

with rather limited possibilities when it comes to 

motivate, elaborate and introduce light and shade on 

their answers. 

Furthermore, it was decided to perform the questionnaire 

as a web-based questionnaire. The primary reason as 

why to apply this technique was that the questionnaire 

has a conditional answering structure, in the sense that 

the relevance of some of the later questions relies on the 

answers to earlier questions. By opting for a web-based 

questionnaire, it is possible to apply a dynamic design 

structure to the questionnaire, which makes it possible to 

skip questions irrelevant to the respondent (Madsen og 

Lahrmann, 2002). 

In this case the application of the web-based design 

proved to have the weakness that it was hard for some of 

the municipalities to gain a full overview of the questionnaire, 

which proved to be a problem to them in terms for 

them to able to identify the person best suited for answering 

specific questions included in the questionnaire. 

In order to ensure good quality answers to the questionnaire, 

it was decided to direct the questionnaire to the 

person(s) responsible for the cycling planning, activities 

and projects in each of the 98 Danish municipalities. 

These persons were identified by consulting Bicycle networks, 

the participation lists from the annual Danish Bike 

Conference and by studying bicycle related planning documents 

from the municipalities. For these persons email 

addresses were retrieved and stored in a database. Accordingly, 

a personal email containing a link to the questionnaire 

was sent to each of the contact persons. 

The questionnaire was conducted in the summer 2011 

(June, July and August). 

Participation 

From the 98 Danish Municipalities, approximately 70 municipalities 

responded. 20 municipalities replied that they 

did not have the resources needed to fill out the questionnaire. 

50 municipalities activated the web questionnaire 

and 41 municipalities completed the questionnaire. This 

amounts to an answering rate of 42%. 

Smaller as well as larger municipalities have completed 

the questionnaire. The answer rate is highest for the 

Southern Region of Denmark (68%). However, the questionnaire 

is dominated by the larger urban municipalities. 

9 out of the 10 municipalities with the highest number of 

inhabitants have completed the questionnaire. In general 

there is also a high answering rate amongst the Capital 

area Municipalities. 

The fact that questionnaire is dominated by the larger 

urban municipalities is likely to reflect that the questionnaire 

has appealed especially to urban municipalities with 

an outspoken tradition for focussing upon bicycle transportation. 

This represents a bias in the results from the 

survey; they are not likely to reflect the general “Danish 

Picture” on all aspects, as the results indicate variations 

in the answers obtained from the larger urban municipalities 

on the one hand side and the “rural” municipalities 

on the other hand side. Another contributing reason as to 

why the larger urban municipalities are overrepresented 

may be that they to a larger extent have the resources to 

participate in this kind of survey. 

Goals, initiatives and motives 

Bicycle traffic is in general highly ranked on the agenda 

amongst the municipalities, who have completed the 

questionnaire. 75% municipalities state that the have 

specific goals on enhancing the use of the bike amongst 

the inhabitants, while 83% state that they have improved 

conditions for the cyclists as a specific municipal goal. 

In terms of planning and prioritizing tools one out three 

of the participating municipalities have made a specific 

cycling action plan in order to promote the use of bike. 

Furthermore 20% of the municipalities are in the process 

of making a cycling action plan. These plans typically 

contains a goal for promoting cycling and a description of 

applied strategies and concrete initiatives that the municipalities 

are planning to implement in order to fulfil the formulated 

goals, e.g. campaigns, education, investments in 

bike infrastructure.

Furthermore, 85% of the municipalities have made or are 

in the process of making plans for the provision of pedestrian 

and bicycle friendly infrastructure (footpaths, walkways, 

bicycle lanes, bicycle tracks, traffic calmed routes 

etc.). 

Both the formulation of goals and the rather high level of 

cycling related plans indicate that cycling is a focus area 

amongst the participating municipalities. This also shows 

in the fact that 88% of the participating municipalities within 

the last five years (2007-2011) have implemented initiatives 

aiming at improving the conditions for the cyclists. 

83% of the municipalities have indicated that they have 

implemented projects specifically aiming at increasing the 

use of the bike amongst the inhabitants. 

Approximately 25% of the municipalities have invested 

more than 10 million DKK in cycling projects and initiatives 

from 2007 till 2011, including bicycle tracks, bicycle 

lanes, bicycle parking, cycling plans, developing cycling 

action plans etc. Only 14% of the participating municipalities 

have invested less than 1 million DKK in cycling projects 

and initiatives. 

The majority of the invested funds have in fact been spent 

on actual bicycle infrastructure. More than half of the municipalities 

state that at least 80% of the invested funds 

has been invested in bicycle tracks, bicycle lanes, bicycle 

parking and at intersections, the latter with the focus on 

increasing cyclists safety. More specifically the municipal 

activities have mainly been focussed upon expanding 

the bicycle infrastructure. In that context the municipalities 

have prioritized the implementation of actual bicycle 

tracks to the implementation of the cheaper solutions; 

bicycle lanes and the appointing of bicycle routes along 

local roads, the latter not including significant changes to 

the existing infrastructure. In the Copenhagen Area focus 

has also been on the implementation of cycling commuter 

routes, which includes significant improvements to the 

bicycle infrastructure, including establishing separate bicycle 

tracks and out-of-level crossing of larger roads, thus 

ensuring fast connectivity between the suburbs and the 

capitol area of Copenhagen. 

57% of the municipalities answer that they have not or 

only to a limited extent have applied solutions such as; 

speed reduction of cycling routes even though this measure 

will reduce accident risks and make the cyclist feel 

safer in traffic (Greibe et al., 2000). One third of the participating 

municipalities are though, to a large extent, working 

actively with speed management. Most of the municipalities 

are focussed upon improving the conditions for 

the cyclists at intersections, with most of them focussing 

upon safety issues rather than improving the cyclist flow 

at the intersections. 

Improving the possibilities of combining the use of bike 

and public transport by improving the transfer between 

the two modes of transport, has only been implemented 

by a minority of the municipalities and only to a limited 

extent in the municipalities where this measure has been 

implemented. 

In general there is a large variation in the extent to which 

the municipalities have invested en better parking facilities. 

This initiative has mainly been implemented by the 

larger urban municipalities. Improved bathing and changing 

facilities at work places has been seen as a possible 

way of increasing the use of the bike when commuting. 

However, this initiative has by and large not been implemented 

by the municipalities in Denmark. 

In recent year there has been a specific focus upon the 

transport behaviour amongst children. It has been a growing 

concern that more and more children are driven by car 

to school by their parents rather than walking and cycling 

themselves. The concern is that this will have a negative 

impact on their travel behaviour as adults as they may 

grow increasingly in favour of travelling by car than by 

cycle in their adult life. Steps have been taken in order 

to get more school children to travel by bike, predominantly 

by investing in safer school routes. This is also reflected 

in the questionnaire as 80% of the municipalities 

to some extent have invested in safer school routes, e.g. 

by implementing bicycle tracks, employing traffic calming 

schemes, pedestrian crossings etc.). 

Summing up on the characteristics of the implemented 

projects and initiatives, it can be concluded that the municipalities 

generally prefers to invest in bicycle tracks, 

although this solution is relatively expensive. The questionnaire 

does not shed light upon why this is the case. 

However, it is likely that the preference towards bicycle 

tracks is due to the fact that it holds a highly symbolic 

value, “we encourage cycling”, it is perceived as a good 

solution in terms of both connectivity and safety and there 

is documentation that the construction of bicycle tracks 

increase the level of cycling (Jensen, 2006). Finally, and 

equally important, bicycle tracks is a solution often in demand 

amongst the cyclists. 

Motives 

When it comes for the municipalities motives for investing 

in bicycle projects and initiatives the primary driving 

force is actually to reduce the accident risks amongst the 

cyclists as well as to improve cyclist security; the latter expressing 

the notion of traffic safety/accident risk amongst 

cyclists. As opposed to accident risk, which is the objective 

measure of traffic safety, security expresses the subjective 

measure of traffic safety. Focussing upon the level 

of security is relevant in the sense that if people feel safer, 

they are more likely to use the bike, in which case the traffic 

safety issue becomes relevant in terms of increasing 

the use of the bike. 

Other dominant motives for the municipalities to invest 

in bicycle transport is a desire to enhance public health 

and to improve connectivity, and thereby the mobility of 

the cyclists. The latter may also prompt more car-users 

to opt for the bike at the expense of the bike in the future. 

However, in comparison, the desire to move bike-users to 

the car in order to reduce environmental strains as well 

as congestion problems is to a lesser extent stated as a 

specific motivation by the municipalities. 

However, in regards to having environmental strains and 

congestion problems as motivators for wanting to transfer 

car trips into bicycle trips there is a large variation between 

the municipalities. The larger urban municipalities 

especially states environmental concerns and congestion 

problems as a primary motivator, whereas the rural municipalities 

does it to a lesser extent. In comparison the 

safety and security issue is stated as a primary motivation 

by both urban and rural municipalities. The reason 

as to why this is the case is likely to boil down to the fact 

that the problems in relation to congestion and the environmental 

strains are evident in the urban municipalities, 

whereas the safety issue is a general concern and problem 

no matter the size of the municipality. 

Potentials for increasing the use of 

the bike 

When it comes to increasing the use of the bike in daily 

transport, the municipalities state that the largest potential 

is related to projects that aim at improving the safety and 

security level along the school routes. This reflects the 

assumption that if the school routes are perceived as safe 

by the parents, the more likely it is that they will allow their 

kinds to go to school by bike. Given that increased use of 

bike as a child and youngster will led to a higher use of the 

bike as an adult the rationale holds. 

Besides improving the routes to and from school the municipalities 

in general point to improvements of the bicycle 

infrastructure as the most promising way of enhancing the 

use of bike. The largest potential for promoting the use 

of the bike is in the eyes of the municipalities attached to 

the construction of bicycle tracks. As bicycle tracks are 

perceived as a secure solution this indicates that projects 

that seeks to improve both the perception of safety as well 

as the level of connectivity are seen as promising projects 

by the municipalities. 

In assessing the potential for increasing the use of bike 

in general it seems as if the perceived potentials seem 

to fade with the visibility and clarity of the project. Project 

that clearly signals improvements of connectivity and 

safety/security are deemed to hold a larger potential than 

those with a lesser explicit focus on the cyclists. Specifically, 

general speed management at the municipal level 

and speed reduction schemes along cycling routes are 

deemed to hold a lesser potential than the provision of 

cyclist specific infrastructure such as bicycle tracks and 

bicycle lanes. The latter seems somewhat surprising in 

the sense that the car speed level has significant impact 

upon the perceived safety level amongst pedestrians and 

cyclists and furthermore it is well-documented that speed 

reductions significantly reduces both accident and injury 

risks amongst vulnerable road users, including cyclists 

(Madsen et al., 2008; Greibe et al., 2000). Based upon 

these facts, one could argue that reduced speed levels 

would enhance the use of the bike due to actually improved 

safety and security levels. 

Newer Danish research have documented a 10% increase 

in the number of cyclists – in a Copenhagen context 

– when new bicycle tracks are constructed in an urban 

environment (Jensen, 2006). In order to be able to 

prioritize between projects, it would be highly fruitful to set 

up evaluation studies aiming at documenting the effects 

of speed reductions on the use of the bike. Traditionally 

evaluations of speed reductions focus on the safety effects 

only. 

Potentials for improving traffic 

safety for cyclists 

When asked to assess the potential for improving traffic 

safety amongst cyclists the municipalities again primarily 

points to the construction of bicycle tracks. This is somewhat 

worrying as Danish research projects have shown 

that the construction of bicycle tracks does not significant-

ly improve the traffic safety level amongst cyclists (Agerholm 

et al., 2006). The results show that the number of 

accidents involving cyclists and the number of cyclists 

injured tend to fall on the road stretches, where bicycle 

tracks are implemented, but unfortunately the number of 

injured cyclists increases significantly at the intersections 

after the construction of bicycle tracks (Jensen, 2006). 

In comparison the municipalities indicate that the safety 

potential related to speed reduction initiative holds a 

lower potential, when it comes to improving cyclist safety 

than the construction of various types of bicycle tracks 

and bicycle tracks. This despite the fact that there is comprehensive 

documentation that speed reductions significantly 

reduces accident and injury risks, see e.g. Elvik 

(2004). 

This misconception of safety potentials is highly unfortunate 

from a safety point of view, as municipalities may opt 

for the construction of safety-inefficient bicycle tracks with 

the desire to promote safety rather than safety-efficient 

traffic calming schemes. Furthermore, the result highlights 

the importance of clearly communicating the results 

of traffic research projects to the municipalities. 

such as the provision of various types of bicycle tracks 

and lanes on the one hand side and more general traffic 

calming projects on the other hand side. 

Given the investment in bike promoting projects and initiatives 

in Denmark, scientifically sound evaluations of the 

effects; being safety effects as well as cycling effects, are 

hard to come by. Therefore the municipalities were asked, 

if they do counts of cyclists before and after the implementation 

of cycling projects. Half of the participating municipalities 

actually stated that they had done before-after 

counts, which was actually more than expected. The survey 

does not reflect, if they have done before-after counts 

in relations to one project only or if they do before-after 

counts in all cases. However, when asked if the before-after 

counts could be made available for a scientific beforeafter 

evaluation of cycling effects, only 8 municipalities 

responded positive. 

In order to provide further knowledge of the effects of bicycle 

promoting projects this reflects that it would be fruitful 

to provide further incentives for doing relevant beforeafter 

registrations at the municipal level as well as setting 

up a common set of guidelines for performing evaluations 

of bike-promoting projects and initiatives. 

References 

Agerholm, N., Caspersen, S., Lahrmann, H. og Madsen, J. C. O., 2006, Cykelstiers Trafiksikkerhed: En før-efterundersøgelse 

af 46 nye cykelstiers sikkerhedsmæssige effekt, Article in ”Dansk Vejtidsskrift”, Vol 83, no. 12, p.p. 52-57 

Elvik, R., Christensen, P. and Amundsen, A., 2004, Speed and Road Accidents: An evaluation of the Power Model, TOI 

Report 740/2004, Institute of Transport Economics 

Greibe, P., Nilsson, P. K. og Herrstedt, L., 2000, Håndbog i Hastighedsplanlægning for Byområder, Vejdirektoratet, Rapport 

194 

Jensen, S. U., 2006, Effekter af Cykelstier og Cykelbaner: Før-og-efter evaluering af trafiksikkerhed og trafikmængder ved 

anlæg af ensrettede cykelstier og cykelbaner i Københavns Kommune, Trafitec 

Madsen, J. C. O. og Lahrmann, H., 2002, Webbaserede Spørgeskemaer i Transportundersøgelser, Paper ”Trafikdage på 

Aalborg Universitet 2002”, Trafikforskningsgruppen, Aalborg Universitet 

Madsen, J. C. O. og Søbjærg, S., 2008, Trafikfarlige skoleveje – udpegning og vurdering, Vejforum 2008 

Transportministeriet, 2009, Aftale mellem regeringen (Venstre og De Konservative), Socialdemokraterne, Dansk Folkeparti, 

Socialistisk Folkeparti, Det Radikale Venstre og Liberal Alliance om: En grøn transportpolitik, Transportministeriet. 

The need for further evaluations 

of effects 

The results from the questionnaire generally reflect that 

the municipalities favour the provision of bicycle tracks. 

It can be documented that the number of cyclists increases 

when new bicycle tracks (and bicycle lanes) are 

constructed, whereas there is no documentation that the 

provision of bicycle tracks in urban areas will improve the 

safety level. Recent research seems to reflect that the 

number of injured cyclists is in fact likely to increase (Jensen, 

2006; Agerholm et al., 2006). 

By consequence the municipalities should only opt for 

the construction of bicycle tracks, if the aim is to increase 

the level of cycling. If the aim is to improve cyclist safety, 

the municipalities are likely to do better, if traffic calming/ 

speed reducing schemes is implemented. In terms of the 

latter, there is a need for evaluations that investigate how 

traffic calming and speed reducing schemes affect the 

level of cycling. Documented knowledge on the effects 

upon cycling will generally improve the grounds for prioritizing 

between dedicated bike infrastructure projects

Tables/illustrations 

Indicated levels of investment in bicycle projects and initiatives amongst the participating municipalities (2007-2011). 

Activity 

Not To a limited To some To a large To a very 

implemented extent extent extent large extent 

Campaigns 15 % 15 % 41 % 20 % 9 % 

Provision of bicycle 8 % 9 % 17 % 43 % 23 % 

tracks 

Provision of bicycle lanes 34 % 20 % 40 % 6 % - 

Provision of bicycle 

routes along local roads 

57 % 31 % 6 % 6 % - 

Provision of bike 

commuter routes 

59 % 12 % 17 % 6 % 6 % 

Speed reduction of 

bicycle 

routes 

(with/without bicycle 

34 % 23 % 32 % 11 % - 

facilities) 

General 

speed 

management schemes 27 % 31 % 9 % 24 % 9 % 

applied 

Better traffic flow for 

cyclists at intersections 

20 % 28 % 29 % 20 % 3 % 

Improvement of cyclist 

safety at intersections 

6 % 17 % 37 % 29 % 11 % 

Improved transfer 

between bike and public 47 % 21 % 24 % 6 % 3 % 

transport (bus/train) 

Improved parking 

facilities for bicycles 

29 % 29 % 21 % 18 % 3 % 

Improved changing and 

bathing facilities at 

80 % 10 % 10 % - - 

Safety improvements of 

school routes 

9 % 11 % 40 % 23 % 17 % 

Extent to which, the municipalities indicate to have implemented various cycling related activities 

in the period 2007 – 2012. 

No potential 

Limited 

potential 

Potential 

Large 

potential 

The municipalities’ assessment of bike use promoting potentials of given projects and initiatives. 

Huge 

potential

No potential 

Limited 

potential 

Potential 

Large 

potential 

Huge 

potential 

The municipalities’ assessment of bike safety promoting potentials of given projects and initiatives.

SECTION TWO: BIKE INFRASTRUCTURES 

VICTOR ANDRADE 

HENRIK HARDER 

OLE B. JENSEN 

JENS MADSEN

CONTENTS 

1.0 INTRODUCTION 6 

2.0 METHODOLOGY 8 

3.0 CASES 14 

3.1 CASE 1: SHARED SPACE VESTERGADE VEST AND MAGELØS 16 

3.1.1 ODENSE 16 

MUNICIPALITY VISION 16 

BICYCLE NETWORK 18 

3.1.2 VESTERGADE VEST AND MAGELØS 20 

BEFORE AND AFTER 22 

THE COSTS OF VESTERGADE VEST AND MAGELØS 22 

DESIGN CHARACTERISTICS AND STREETSCAPE 24 

CYCLIST COUNTINGS 36 

THE WEB SURVEY 38 

MAIN FINDINGS 39 

RESIDENTIAL LOCATION OF RESPONDENTS 39 

DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS 42 

RELATIONS BETWEEN SOCIO-DEMOGRAPHIC VARIABLES AND WEB-SURVEY ANSWERS 48 

3.2 CASE 2: BICYCLE TRACK HANS BROGES GADE 64 

3.2.1 ÅRHUS 64 



3.2.2 HANS BROGES GADE 68 


THE COSTS OF HANS BROGES GADE 68 







RELATIONS BETWEEN SOCIO-DEMOGRAPHIC VARIABLES AND WEB-SURVEY ANSWERS 96 

3.3 CASE 3: BICYCLE BRIDGE BRYGGEBRO 112 

3.3.1 COPENHAGEN 112 



3.3.2 BRYGGEBRO 118 


THE COSTS OF BRYGGEBRO 118 







RELATIONS BETWEEN SOCIO-DEMOGRAPHIC VARIABLES AND SURVEY ANSWERS 152 

4.0 GENERAL COMPARISON 168 

5.0 CONCLUSION 174 

REFERENCES 176 

LIST OF FIGURES 180 

LIST OF TABLES 187 

ANNEX 196

1.0 INTRODUCTION 

Decisions on transportation projects are typically based 

on the potential for the project to contribute to broad public 

policy goals. Danish urban design solutions and urban 

policies effort aim to increase bike-ability. To make the 

best use of transportation funds there is a critical need for 

better information about two important considerations relating 

to bicycle infrastructure: the cost of different bicycle 

infrastructure and the effects of such investments have on 

bicycle use, which includes the resulting environmental, 

economic, public health, and social benefits. Therefore, 

information on how determined bicycle infrastructure enhances 

cycling will help decision makers to develop better 

design solutions. 

The achieved knowledge will be used to contribute to 

more efficient and qualified urban planning and management 

– promoting a better quality bike-ability of urban 

structures as possible and assess potential effect of investments 

in bicycle infrastructure. 

Therefore, this research project will inform urban designers 

and planners in the context of Danish municipalities 

by identifying opportunities and barriers for cycling in the 

physical environment. Bridging research and policy, the 

findings of this research project can also support bike 

friendly design and planning, and cyclist advocacy. 

This research project picks up from this conclusion and 

focuses on the possible effects of changes to the cycling 

infrastructure, investigating and analyzing cycling motivation 

related to distinct bike infrastructure typology characteristics. 

This research aims to identify bicycle infrastructure typologies 

and design elements that can help promote cycling 

significantly. The study was structured as a study 

case based research where there were three cycling infrastructures 

with distinct typologies – Vestergade Vest in 

Odense (shared-use space in the core of the city); Hans 

Borges Gade in Aarhus (an extension of a bicycle route 

linking the suburb to Aarhus Central station) and Bryggebro 

in Copenhagen (a bridge for cyclists and pedestrians 

crossing the harbor) – were analyzed and compared. 

In order to achieve this goal, the study got a more detailed 

insight in what design characteristics are relevant for cyclists 

when riding a bike and how cyclists do evaluate a 

cycling infrastructure based on these characteristics. 

To achieve this goal, this report is organized as follows. 

First, there is a debate in regards to the main concepts 

and notions used in this research. In section 2, the research 

method is explained. This section is followed by 

a description of the research sample. In section 3, the 

analysis of each of the three cases is presented. A comparative 

analysis between the three cases is described in 

section 4. Finally, the report ends with conclusions and 

suggestions for future research and also for urban designers, 

planner and engineers. 

Figure 1.1: Cyclist riding his bike at Bryggebro. 

6 7

2.0 METHODOLOGY 

The report presents a methodology and tools for mapping 

and evaluating the potential benefits of the implementation 

of bicycle infrastructure. The results will help to better 

understand what characteristics from a bicycle infrastructure 

are relevant to enhance cycling. Consequently, the 

findings will also help urban designers and planners to 

develop more effective bicycle infrastructures. 

There is also an effort to better understand how relevant 

socio-demographic variables are in relation to the individuals` 

perception of bicycle infrastructures and to possible 

influential design characteristics on the decision to ride 

a bike. 

Through ex-post studies of three bicycle infrastructures 

with distinct typologies, this research aims to identify design 

characteristics that can enhance bicycling. The studies 

are based on the impact of the bicycle infrastructures 

on cyclists` travel behavior and the cyclists` views upon 

the design characteristics of the infrastructures. 

Moreover, the report has a brief description of the implementation 

process of the selected bicycle infrastructures 

and the local government context that regards cycling 

network and campaigns. 

THE CASE STUDIES AND SELECTION 

CRITERIA 

First of all, it is relevant to mention that this research does 

not intent to represent an exhaustive analysis of all typologies 

of infrastructure and neither all new infrastructures 

implemented in Danish cities in the last 5 years. 

While some critical analysis was done to select the particular 

three case studies analyzed in this report, their inclusion 

depended to a great extent on three criteria: recently 

implemented infrastructures (less than 5 years); distinct 

typologies between the cases; and located in municipalities 

which were interested and willing to share detailed 

information about the interventions. 

The infrastructure should be less than 5 years old, presenting 

a reasonable time to individuals that ride their bicycles 

there to remember their travel habits before and 

after the intervention. 

Three interventions with distinct typologies were subjected 

to ex-post studies: Vestergade Vest and Mageløs in 

Odense (shared-use space in the core of the city); Hans 

Broges Gade in Aarhus (improvement of a section of an 

existing bicycle corridor that links the suburbs to the core 

of the city) and Bryggebro in Copenhagen (a bridge for 

cyclists and pedestrians crossing the harbor). 

ÅRHUS 

ODENSE 

Figure 2.1: Location of the cities from the three case studies 

COPENHAGEN 

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS 

The project applies a multi-disciplinary approach to research 

on bicycle infrastructure, correlating quantitative 

determinants and qualitative knowledge types. 

Both primary and secondary data have been employed. 

For each infrastructure, the data was collected through 

a questionnaire based on a web survey, counting of cyclists, 

local observation, diary of the daily flow and atmosphere 

and image collection, interviews and exchange of 

e-mails with key actors, review of reports, official documents, 

newspaper articles and press releases. 

According to Denzin (1978), a triangulation method can 

be defined as "the combination of methodologies in the 

study of the same phenomenon”. Considering the geometric 

characteristics of a triangle, it can be assumed that 

distinct viewpoints allow for greater accuracy. 

BICYCLE COUNT 

The bicycle count is a strategic tool to better understand 

how changes in an infrastructure either encouraged or 

discouraged cycling. The bicycle count from Hans Broges 

Gade and Bryggebro was provided by respectively Aarhus 

municipality and Copenhagen Municipality. 

In the case of Vestergade Vest and Mageløs, a manual 

count was done on the Tuesday the 12th of September 

2010. The manual count is defined as a count where one 

or more data collectors register the volume of traffic (Vejdirektoratet, 

2004). 

The data collectors used counting boards with manual 

click counters fitted to them and they recorded their 

counts on a paper sheet at the counting board after each 

thirty minute periods. In addition, the counting sheet also 

included the following information: date, day of the week, 

weather condition and data collector`s name. 

The count can be conducted manually or with automatic 

count technologies; having both advantages and disadvantages. 

Because the counts were done manually, it 

was possible to have two categories – cyclists riding a 

bike and cyclists walking and pushing their bikes. 

The data collected was the number of cyclists riding a 

bike and cyclists walking with their bikes in each direction 

on the midpoint of Vestergade Vest and Mageløs. The 

counts were done by a team of three field data collectors. 

There was always one data collector for each direction 

at the counting point from 7am until 7 pm. A third counter 

functioned as a backup, making possible for every data 

collector have a break every hour. 

The count was taken over a 12-hour period between 7 

a.m. and 7 p.m on a Wednesday of September. And following 

the recommendations of the Vejdirektoratet (2004), 

the data collectors that developed the counting were 

placed in a spot that did not interfere with the traffic flow. 

In order to minimize the chance of external interferences 

– weather, sport events, manifestations – in the data collected, 

the date of the counting was carefully picked. 

The Vejdirektoratet (2004) suggests that the count should 

be taken on Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday in September. 

Due to their sporadic travel patterns, Monday and 

Friday should be avoided for not being representative of 

a typical weekday. 

In parallel of the count activity, a diary was written describing 

the different flow patterns, speed and atmosphere of 

the infrastructures through the day. 

DATA ANALYSIS 

After the data collection, an ex-post analysis of the counting 

figures was implemented. Moreover, it developed a 

relation between the count figures and the diary with the 

description of the different flow patterns, speed and atmosphere 

of the infrastructures through the day. 

The data was compiled and displayed on graphs to make 

comparisons that are useful for analytical purposes. A 

graph with the results was also used to develop a comparison 

with the diary of the infrastructure and images 

taken during the day. 

AN ANALYSIS OF BIKE INFRASTRUC- 

TURE PERFORMANCE THROUGH THE 

LENGHTS OF 

CYCLISTS 

The bicycle is an important and strategic means of transport 

in urban areas. In Danish cities, the traffic system 

already offers a large amount of bicycle infrastructures 

– e.g. bicycle lanes with special pavement, bicycle tracks, 

green corridors, shared spaces – and cycling policies, 

campaigns and cyclist friendly traffic regulations. 

In this context, it emerges a need to measure the impact 

on travel behavior of the new bicycle infrastructures implemented 

in urban areas. Having three case studies, this 

report expands on how these assessments can be done. 

The web based survey was conducted aiming to define 

how much the implementation of the bicycle infrastructure 

had enhanced cycling, to identify influential design factors 

in the decision to cycling and to assess the bicycle infrastructure 

through the lengths of the cyclists. 

In order to analyze bicycle infrastructures through the 

lengths of cyclists, the web survey targeted the cyclists as 

potential respondents. The web survey involved designing 

a questionnaire to find out the cyclists perception of 

cycling infrastructures and what characteristics of these 

infrastructures have encouraged or discouraged cycling. 

Relevant questions in the context of cyclists perception 

and evaluation of cycling infrastructure are ‘what design 

characteristics do cyclists mostly observe/perceive while 

they are using the cycling infrastructure?’ and ‘how do cy- 

8 9

clists evaluate these design characteristics?’. 

However, there are several studies focusing in the cyclists 

perception of the physical environment where they are 

travelling through and most of them conclude that cyclists 

have a small knowledge of the physical environment their 

used to travelling through (Bovy et al, 1990; Landis et al, 

1997; Noël et al, 2003). 

Despite this small knowledge cyclists have, it is important 

both to identify which design characteristics from a 

bicycle infrastructure are relevant for them when they are 

riding a bicycle and to develop an assessment of a cycling 

infrastructure based on the cyclists perspective. 

Taking in consideration social demographic characteristics 

– gender, age and educational level – the study 

also aims to better understand how relevant socio-demographic 

variables are in relation to the individuals` perception 

of cycling infrastructures and to possible influential 

characteristics on the decision to ride a bike. 

WEB SURVEY 

There is an increasing number of web-based surveys, being 

important to highlight the specific design characteristics 

of this tool. Manfeda et al. (2002) comments that 

“Since there is no help from an interviewer for the respondent 

taking a Web survey, the design of self-administered 

Web questionnaires is even more important in order to 

achieve high data quality. Question wording, form and 

graphic layout of the questionnaire are particularly important.” 

The web survey has a great advantage to get the data 

already in an electronic format and the electronic format 

can also eliminate data entry errors. Moreover, the web 

survey made it possible to do a non stop flow of cyclists 

in the studied infrastructures. Through the distribution of 

web-cards, we have achieved our target group and, at the 

same time, we did not disturb their routine. 

Through comparative studies between responses rate of 

web surveys to other survey modes, Lozar (2001) highlights 

that web surveys usually obtain lower response 

rates. Complementing, Gonzalez-Bañales and Adam 

(2007) indicates that response rate for web surveys is 

around 10% or lower. 

In order to optimize the number of respondents, complex 

questions should be avoided and the web survey should 

only be closed after six weeks from the distribution of the 

web card. (Gonzalez-Bañales and Adam, 2007) 

The web survey design, implementation and analysis 

were divided in five phases: planning the survey; writing 

the questionnaire; designing the web questionnaire and 

web cards; distributing the web cards; and data treatment 

and analysis. 

It should be considered that of the studied population 

could be unwilling to devote much time to a web survey. 

In order to optimize the response rates and the number of 

completions, it was needed to make the survey as short 

as possible but still enabling to gather all the relevant information. 

The use of incentives can additionally contribute to attract 

respondents. As a strategy to attract more respondents, a 

lottery having a bicycle – with the value of 3500DKK – as 

price is presented in the web cards and web page. All the 

respondents participated in the lottery. 

At the web page, there was an image of the cycling infrastructure 

being analyzed by the respondents and the logo 

from Aalborg University. Moreover, it provided information 

about the research project and goals, contact for further 

inquiries, information about the lottery and an explanation 

about the privacy policy in regards to the respondents. 

QUESTIONNAIRE 

The questionnaire was designed aiming to find the demographic 

profile of the cyclists, the relevant design characteristics 

for the cyclists and which extended the implementation 

of the infrastructure enhancing cycling. Cyclists 

were asked to indicate which cycling infrastructure characteristics 

they had observed during their trip. They were 

also asked to evaluate the observed cycle infrastructure 

characteristics. In addition, respondents were invited to 

make comments about the infrastructure (see model of 

the questionaire on page 198). 

In order to develop the survey – especially the questionnaire 

– journal articles and research reports in the area of 

urban cycling studies were reviewed to identify consistent 

infrastructure characteristics that could enhance cycling 

– e.g. safety, aesthetics, accessibility, fast connectivity 

(Pikora, T. et al, 2003; Kweon, B.S. et al, 2004). At the 

end of the questionnaire, there was a space for general 

comments. 

Figure 2.2: Screen print view from the Vestergade Vest`s questionnaire. 

FLYER DISTRIBUTION 

For every studied infrastructure, the distribution of the flyers 

occurred from 7am until 7 pm in one weekday (Tuesday, 

Wednesday or Thursday) with good weather conditions 

(no rain or heavy wind) in the month of September. 

From 7am until 7pm, web cards were offered to every cyclist 

riding a bicycle in the infrastructure in both directions. 

The flyers were distributed on the same day of the count 

survey. For each of the cases, the web survey was available 

from the date of the web card distribution until four 

weeks later (see model of the flyer on page 197). 

Vestergade Vest and Hans Broges Gade 

Bryggebro 

Mageløs 

Flyers distribution & web survey opening September 14/Tuesday September 2/Thursday September 1/Wednesday 

Web survey closing October 12 October 1 September 30 

Table 2.1: Date of flyers distribution, web survey opening and web survey closing for 

the three case studies. 

SVAR PÅ SPØRGSMÅLENE 

VIND EN NY CYKEL 

PILOT WEB SURVEY 

ØNSKER DU EN 

BEDRE CYKELBY? 

VI ER MIDT I ET FORSKNINGSPROJEKT OM CYKELBYEN OG 

MANGLER NETOP DIN HJÆLP TIL AT FORBEDRE DEN. 

DET GØR DU VED AT SVARE PÅ FÅ SPØRGSMÅL PÅ: 

www.detmangfoldigebyrum.dk/vestergade/ 

For yderligere information om projektet: 

vsil@create.aau.dk 

VESTERGADE VEST & MAGELØS 


Figure 2.3: Flyer distributed to individuals riding a bike at Vestergade Vest and 

Mageløs on the 2nd of September 2010. 

VIND EN NY CYKEL ØNSKER DU EN 





A pilot web survey was carried out under the same conditions 

than the real survey. The pilot web survey was 




held in the street named Vesterbro (Aalborg) in August of 

2010. VESTERGADE The pilot VEST web & MAGELØS survey functioned as a review of the 



questionnaire and the associated data collection methodology. 

After the pilot web survey, the necessary modifications 

in the questionnaire were made accordingly. 

THE STUDIED POPULATION AND 

SAMPLE SIZE 

Respondents of the survey are bicyclists that have at 

least once ride a bicycle in the studied infrastructure. 

Despite of the consideration that part of the studied population 

would be unable to access the Internet, the Internet 

users are becoming more and more similar to the general 

population because the accelerate increase in internet 

usage (Pastore, 2001). 

Vestergade Vest Hans B. Gade Bryggebro 

and Mageløs 

Total no bicycle trips/ day 6446 1251 7352 

Estimated n o bicyclists/ day 4189 813 4778 

(65% of total) 

Flyers handed 1328 605 3020 

Respondents 298 163 290 

Table 2.2: Number of bike trips, cyclists, flyers handed out and a number of respondents 

for the three case studies. 

DATA ANALYSIS 

The data analysis aimed to better understand the impact 

of the examined infrastructures in the bicycling activity. 

The data collected was examined and uncover relationships 

among the data were highlighted. 

Data collected from the questionnaires were entered into 

the statistical software Statistical Package for Social Science 

(SPSS) for analysis and then statistical tests were 

applied to identify describe the results and level of dependency 

between variables. 

Table and graphics are also used for displaying the data 

in a variety of formats in order to identify patterns and differences 

among the results set. 

The collected data from the web survey was analyzed 

in the four different stages and using a distinct statistical 

treatment. 

Firstly, the residential location of the respondents was 

spatially identified and then analyzed in relation to the 

distance to the infrastructure. In a second stage, Descriptive 

statistics were applied to describe collected data and 

highlight singular characteristics and relevant patterns. 

Socio-demographic patterns of the respondents were 

identified and the distribution of the answers was described 

with patterns. 

Finally, the Chi2 test was applied to identify possible relations 

between socio-demographics (independent variables) 

and the variables originated from the web survey 

questions (dependable variables). Considering the nature 

of the studied variables – the majority of them are nominal 

– the Chi2 test was selected to this analysis. 

10 ØNSKER DU EN 

11 

BEDRE CYKELBY?

INTERVIEW AND ELETRONIC 

CORRESPONDENCE WITH KEY 

ACTORS 

Through non-structured interviews and electronic correspondence, 

personal opinion and information about 

the studied infrastructures were also gathered from both 

technicians from the studies municipalities and cyclists. 

DATA ANALYSIS 

A data basis was developed in the Excel with all the interviews 

and questionnaires. This data base identifies relevant 

information to be used in the report. The interviews 

and electronic correspondence functioned as support information 

to the count figures and web survey findings. 

FIELD OBSERVATIONAL SURVEY AND IM- 

AGE COLLECTION 

Observation is a major source in the field research, the 

three infrastructures were analyzed in loco, local conditions 

during the day were observed and a diary was writing. 

The observation aimed to identify possible design 

characteristics of the infrastructures that may affect people’s 

traveling behavior. 

The design detail characteristics analyzed in loco were: 

infrastructure typology, pavement material and lay out, 

on-street parking facilities, priority signs at crossings, hierarchy 

of the modes of transport (pedestrians, cyclists, 

car drivers), traffic calming solutions, public art, signage, 

greenery, lightning (day and night) bicycle paths and 

lanes. 

DATA ANALYSIS 

An image data base was implemented and the material 

was used in several sections of the report to visually 

exemplify findings. Moreover, images took from the site 

were used to compare with the counting and illustrate the 

local conditions throughout the day. 

The descriptions from the diary were also a strategic data 

used to be compared with the count figures and the web 

survey findings. 

Figure 2.4: Member of the research team delivering flyers to cyclists at Vestergade Vest and Mageløs on September 14th 2010. 

12 13

3.0 CASES 

ODENSE 

SHARED SPACE 

VESTERGADE VEST AND MAGELØS 

AARHUS 

BICYCLE TRACK 

HANS BROGES GADE 

COPENHAGEN 

BICYCLE BRIDGE 

BRYGGEBRO

3.1 CASE1 

shared space vestergade vest and magelØs 

3.1.1 ODENSE 

Odense is the third largest Danish municipality and has a 

population of 188777 inhabitants in 2010 (Statistikbanken, 

2010). The municipality is located in the island of Funen 

and it is part of the South Denmark Region. 

ODENSE 

Figure 3.1.1: Geographical location of Odense. 

MUNICIPALITY VISION 

In December 1993, the Danish government presented 

a strategic plan for sustainable transportation – named 

Traffic 2005 – aiming to create a balance between economic 

development and environment based on principles 

of sustainable growth. One of the main objectives was to 

increase the share of cyclists in overall individual transportation 

in the country until 2005 (Trafikministeriet, 2000) 

In order to achieve this objective, 4% of individual transportation 

should be moved from private automobile to bicycle 

or walking. In practice, it means that all trips shorter 

than three kilometres should start to be made by private 

motorized vehicles to healthier and environmentally 

friendly modes – cycling and walking. 

In that context, Odense was selected to function as a lab 

for new solutions and became the National Bike City and 

it was name “Odense Bike City”. The main goal was to 

increase 2% of trips made by bike in the period from 1999 

until 2002. 

The Danish Ministry of Traffic and the Danish Road Directorate 

financially supported Odense with ten million 

Danish krones to implement solutions aiming to enhance 

cycling. The Odense counterpart was ten million Danish 

krones. A broad range of projects were implemented, 

ranging from campaign activities to physical interventions 

in the built environment. 

In 2002, the Odense municipality achieved the projects 

main goal, increasing more than 2% the share of cyclists 

in comparison with figures from 1999. In 2008, Odense 

municipality decided to revitalize its policies towards cycling 

and started to promote itself as the Cyclists` City and 

presented this vision for its own future: 

“Odense must be a city where cyclists have the best 

conditions because Odense makes the experience of cycling 

easier, safer, more comfortable and more exciting” 

(Odense Municipality, 2010f). 

Currently, 25% of all commuting trips – to work or study 

– are made cycling in Odense (Odense Municipality, 

2010d). The goal within the vision is to increase the 

amount of trips on bike 25% in 2012 to have reached a 

total increase of 35% in 2020 in relation to the 2007 numbers. 

Further 10% more cyclists should feel safe in traffic 

(Odense Municipality, 2010c). 

According to Figure 3.2, 25% of the trips made in Odense 

have a bike as a transportation mode. The amount of bike 

trips peeked with 27% of the total in 2000 – during the 

period of the National Cyclists City policies – and then 

went down to 24% in 2006. In 2008, the starting year of 

its new vision as the Cyclists’ City, the amount was 25%. 

Therefore, Odense municipalitys goal is to achieve a ratio 

of 32,5% of bike trips from the overall traffic count. 

Currently, all the cyclist related campaigns from Odense 

municipality are organized under the umbrella of the vision 

named Cyklisternes By – or Cyclists` city. The decision 

to change the title of its vision from “Odense Bicycle 

City” to “Odense Cyclists` City” was based on the intention 

of change the focus from the bikes towards their cyclists. 

A webpage has been launched for the new branding with 

news, information, cyclist maps etc. The Odense Cyclists` 

city campaign also has a weekly column in the local newspaper 

– Fyens Stiftstidende – every Thursday since July 

2010 (Odense municipality, 2010g). 

In the international level, Odense municipality has built its 

own stand on the 2010 Shanghai Expo where there the 

image of city is represented by both its bike infrastructure 

and cyclists and the fellow-townsman Hans Christiansen 

Andersen (Odense Municipality, 2010h). 

According to the interview with Dorthe Råby and Rune 

Bugge Jensen, one of the challenges that Odense municipality 

faces is to convince commuters living 5 kilometres 

away from the core of the city to use their bikes as 

main transportation mode to go work or study. Tackling 

this challenge, Odense Municipality has launched a campaign 

in the spring 2010 where it lent 100 electric bikes 

during a period of six months to car users living more than 

5 kilometres away from the centre. A new round of the 

campaign started in autumn 2010. 

Another strategic action towards enhancing cycling was 

to implement monitors in the main bike infrastructures of 

the municipality counting and displaying the amount of 

cyclists riding their bikes per day and per year (Odense 

municipality, 2010e). 

100% 

80% 

60% 

40% 

20% 

0% 

13% 

8% 

15% 

55% 52% 48% 

24% 

6% 

27% 

22% 22% 17% 

4% 

26% 

1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 

Figure 3.1.2: Distribution of the trips by transport modes within Odense Municipality 

from 1998 until 2008. Source: Danmarks Statistik. 

7% 

47% 

24% 

OTHER PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION CAR BICYCLE 

3% 

55% 

25% 

16 17

BICYCLE NETWORK 

The majority of the streets in Odense are bike friendly 

and bikes have the same hierarchy than motorized vehicles. 

Moreover, Odense municipality has a total of 510 

kilometres of bicycle tracks and lanes (Odense municipality, 

2010a). 

In comparison to Copenhagen municipality, Odense municipality 

has approximately more 110 kilometres of bike 

tracks and lanes. It means that Odense municipality has 

2,7 metres per inhabitant of bike lanes and tracks, while 

Copenhagen municipality has 0,77 metres of cycle track 

per Inhabitant. (Statistikbanken, 2010). 

MAGELØS 

Signaturforklaring 

Seværdigheder 

Cykelpumper 

Cykelparkering 

Asfalterede stier 

Grusstier 

Cykelring 

Rekreative grusstier 

Banegård 

Turistinformation 

N 

VESTERGADE VEST 

Points of interest 

Bicycle pumps 

Bicycle parking 

Paved paths 

Unpaved paths 

Bicycle route in the city 

Nature paths 

Railway station 

Tourist information 

N 

Figure 3.1.3: Map of the main bike tracks and lanes in Odense`s inner city. 

Source: Odense Municipality. 

Figure 3.1.4: Ortophoto of Vestergade Vest and Mageløs. Modified from original picture from Google Earth 

N 

18 19

3.1.2 VESTERGADE VEST AND MAGELØS 

The intervention in Vestergade Vest and Mageløs was 

completed on the 19th of August 2010. The former crowded 

street by motorized vehicles was transformed in a 

shared-used space for pedestrians, cyclists and a future 

central electrical bus ring – being allowed the access for 

cargo-carrying motorized vehicles. All the buses were rerouted 

to parallel streets nearby. (Odense municipality, 

2009i). 

The transformation of Vestergade-Vest and Mageløs is 

part of an overall plan to improve quality of urban life within 

the core of Odense described in the Traffic and Mobility 

Plan 2008 (Odense municipality, 2009i). 

During the first 14 days after the street was closed for 

for vehicles, several elements were inserted in the 

streetscape – plastic guiding markers, bicycle parking 

racks, ping pong tables, etc – and then Vestergade Vest 

and Mageløs started to look more like flexible and informal 

space and open for different experiences. 

The former car lane and sidewalk pavements were kept. 

During the 14 days intervention, several drawings were 

made in the pavements. These drawings have diverse 

functions where some of them indicate the beginning of 

the shared-user space and others have a more playful 

purpose. 

And on the 15th of September, the main editor of the Fyens 

Stiftstidende wrote “Bicycles must be out of pedestrian 

streets” (Fyens Stiftstidende, 2010c). Both articles 

were questioning if it is possible to have a schared-use 

space environment for pedestrians and cyclists. 

A study conducted from Gehl Architects indicated that the 

amount of pedestrians in the core of the city was decreasing. 

One of the pointed reasons is the increasing competition 

between street based retail and large commercial 

centres located in the outskirts of Odense – for example 

the shopping centre named Rosengårdscenteret that has 

a 100.000 m2 of stores. 

In that context, the municipality has been implementing 

several physical interventions towards a more lively urban 

core in the near. According to the interview with Dorthe 

Råby and Rune Bugge Jensen, one of the main targets 

of these interventions is the improvement to the quality of 

the experience of walking and cycling. 

On the first of August 2010, Vestergade Vest and Mageløs 

were closed for motorized vehicles traffic and the urban 

transformation began. The approach to change the street 

was done in a rather untraditional way. Due to low budget, 

it was decided to try to change the street through minimal 

interventions with temporary elements that would be easy 

to rearrange things that did not work out properly. 

The Vestergade Vest and Mageløs can be seen as a lab 

where temporary interventions were made in order to understand 

how the population would react to new experiences 

and the public space. The pavements and levels of 

the former street were kept and elements were inserted 

in the streetscape to indicate pedestrian only paths along 

facades and shared space in the middle of the road. 

The entire urban transformation took only 14 days and the 

official opening was on the 14th of August 2010. But the 

project is not finalized yet and the intention is exactly that: 

to be a designing in process space. More elements will be 

added over time as well as evaluations of the space might 

change the layout over time. 

The intervention made possible to implement new changes 

with a low cost. After the first month, the technicians 

from the municipality had feedback from users – pedestrians, 

cyclists, shopkeepers, people dining, etc – and then 

rearrangements were made with the mobile equipments 

and plastic markers were relocated. 

Rune Bugge Jensen – landscape architect from Odense 

Municipality and responsible for the design solution at 

Vestergade Vest and Mageløs – has emphasized how 

important is to improve urban life experience in the core 

of Odense. In regards the intervention at Vestergade Vest 

and Mageløs, he mentioned 

“I wanted to push the limits from what experiences people 

have in the public space and I also wanted to make them 

start to question and reflect for what a public space could 

be used for… It has been very provocative to put ping 

pong tables on the former motorized vehicle lanes… It 

has been a challenge to reinvent the former motorized vehicle 

lanes into a space for urban life, play and exercise” 

(interview with Rune Bugge Jensen, 2th of September, 

2010). 

The new layout promotes walking, cycling, shopping, 

playing and eating. It also offers the opportunity to promote 

products outside shops and to have outdoor seating 

for cafes and restaurants. 

Since the opening of the new shared-use space, there 

has been quite some media attention on the street. On 

the 13th of September, the local newspaper – Fyens 

Stiftstidende – wrote an article with the headline “Chaos 

plagues the new pedestrian street” (Fyens Stiftstidende, 

2010b). 

Figure 3.1.5: Article with the title “Bicycles must be out of pedestrian streets”, published 

on 15th of September in the newspaper Fyens Stiftstidende (Fyens Stiftstidende, 

2010c). 

Figure 3.1.6: Article with the title “Chaos in the pedestrian streets”, published on 15th 

of September in the newspaper Fyens Stiftstidende (Fyens Stiftstidende, 2010b). 

20 21

BEFORE AND AFTER 

BEFORE 

Formerly, Vestergade Vest and Mageløs had more than 

two hundred buses passing every day causing noisy 

pollution, air pollution and also inhibiting a more friendly 

space for pedestrians, cyclists and other potential activi- 

AFTER 

After the urban transformation, the public space changed 

its profile completely – enhancing walking, cycling, shopping, 

eating, playing, etc. According to the interview with 

Dorthe Råby and Rune Bugge Jensen, the urban transformation 

has been enhancing a discussion about public 

domain and also has regenerated the image of Vestergade 

Vest and Mageløs towards a lively spot. 

THE COST OF VESTERGADE VEST AND 

MAGELØS PROJECT 

Due to the municipality short budget, the technicians 

had to develop a proposal with a cost of only five hundred 

Danish krones. The challenge was rewarding and 

the technicians came up with a creative solution, using 

temporary elements that made it possible to rethink the 

design concept through the time. 

Currently, the Technical Department from Odense Municipality 

is applying for more than three hundred Danish 

krones for further improvements in Vestergade Vest and 

Mageløs. 

Figure 3.1.7: View of Vestergade Vest from the 10th of May 2010. Source: Odense Municipality 

Figure 3.1.8: View of Vestergade Vest from the 2nd of September 2010. 

22 23

DESIGN CHARACTERISTICS 

DESIGN CONCEPT 

Vestergade Vest and Mageløs is a very funky and diverse 

space encompassing cafés, entertainment, restaurants, 

shops, and playful elements. The street was originally a 

stream of cars infiltrating into the core of the city, it has 

now being closed off and strictly reserved for everyone 

from cyclists to pedestrians, families and youths. It is a 

very progressive shared user space created on a very 

low budget of only 500,000 krones, which has pushed the 

imagination even further into a fusion of creativity. It is 

also a very temporary and flexible space where experimentation 

can take place. Technically the street it is about 

240 metres long and 15 metres wide consisting of one 

lane in the middle with sidewalks on both sides of the 

street. Fundamentally it is a continuation of the pedestrian 

and shopping street Vestergade. 

TECHNICAL DRAWINGS 

Since this project was completed on a very low budget no 

technical drawings were done. 

SURFACE AND FLOW STRUCTURE 

The flow of cyclists and pedestrians at Vestergade Vest 

and Mageløs moves in multiple directions with the main 

flow of cyclists through the middle of the street. Sidewalks 

are reserved solely for pedestrians with the lane in the 

middle of the street shared equally by pedestrians and 

cyclists. Traffic flow in the morning is relatively calm as no 

pedestrians are congesting the space allowing cyclists to 

flow freely through. Cyclists are focused and know exactly 

how to navigate and avoid other cyclists. 

In the afternoon the street transforms into a multiple 

shared space, therefore the flow is a bit more congested. 

The pedestrians begin to occupy the shared space in the 

middle of the street thus disturbing the flow of eager cyclists. 

Conversely there are many pedestrians crossing 

the street while cyclists and pedestrians are diverting into 

many directions creating a complex situation. 

The flow structure in the afternoon is then completely different 

from the morning flow. In the evening the shops 

close down at 6 pm and people begin to bounce around 

the space in multiple directions crowding the infrastructure, 

some going out for dinner, some going out to get 

drunk. At the same time cyclists are eager to ride fast 

through the street creating a complex and chaotic zone 

where cyclists need be weary of crossing pedestrians, 

and pedestrians need to be weary of fast moving cyclists 

(Figure 3.1.10). 

Pedestrian 

path 

Bike path 

Pedestrian 

crossing 

Bike path 

Figure 3.1.10 Section and plan of Vestergade Vest and Mageløs. 

Pedestrian 

path 

Legend 

Blue: Shared Space 

Green: Safe Space 

Turquoise: Cycle Parking 

Pink: Outdoor Cafe 

Yellow: Playground 

Figure 3.1.9 Draft of the design concept of Vestegade Vest and Mogeløs. Source: Odense Municipality. 

24 25

PAVING MATERIAL DESIGN 

VELOCITIES 

The pavement in the street utilises a flagstone material. 

The sidewalks are in a light color in contrast to the lane 

in the middle of the street which is in a darker color. Between 

the lane and the sidewalk there is a line made of 

the same flagstones turned in the other direction. The 

lane is lowered by 10 cm and together with the opposite 

stones it marks the border between the two speed levels. 

(Figure 3.1.11) 

To slow down the speed of the cyclists there is a speed 

bump placed in one of the most critical points of the street 

where many programs like a café, ping pong tables and 

shops are placed side by side (Figure 3.1.12). In the 

morning cyclists are trying to avoid the speed bump by 

taking a detour at the sidewalk instead of continuing the 

lane. In the afternoon it is more difficult for the cyclists to 

avoid the speed bump because of the crowded pedestrian 

flow on the sidewalks (Figure 3.1.13) 

Figure 3.1.12: Speed hump at Vestergade Vest 

CYCLIST AVOIDING 

SPEED HUMP 

SPEED HUMP 

In the morning the street is not occupied by shop signs or 

café tables like it is in the afternoon making it possible for 

the cyclists and delivery vans to move swiftly unobstructed 

through the street. On contrary to the afternoon when 

the street is more crowded producing a more congested 

and chaotic flow. However cyclists still persist to ride at 

high speeds, but they are disturbed by pedestrians moving 

in multiple directions and at slower paces. It means 

that the cyclists sometimes have to brake suddenly or 

come to a complete stop and carry their bike through the 

space. 

In the evening the street is calmer and there are not as 

many people on the street so cyclists can go a lot faster. 

To restrict cyclists going to too fast a speed hump has 

been built into the street, although as previously mentioned 

many cyclists go onto the pedestrian path to avoid 

the speed hump (Figure 3.1.15). 

Figure 3.1.15: Speed hump 

On the sidewalks there are blue plastic guides integrated 

in the pavement showing where the shops are allowed 

to place their signs and articles see Figure 3.16. This 

solution is good for the pedestrians because it ensures 

that they have enough room for walking. The guides help 

give the shop owners borders for their signs, however 

some shops like Superbrugsen challenge the signage 

and place their signs into in the middle of the street which 

creates less room for the cyclists and pedestrians. The 

surface of the street is generally in a good condition and it 

has not been modified at all. Also there are no cracks and 

potholes which mean that it is safe for the users to move 

on the street (Figure 3.1.14). 

FLAGSTONE 

Figure 3.1.13: Cyclists avoiding speed hump. 

BLUE PLASTIC GUIDES 

VEHICLES 

Vehicles are not allowed to enter the street, but it’s possible 

for delivery vans with an errand to enter the street 

during the day, but they must take the cyclists and pedestrians 

into consideration. Also from 10pm to 6am, taxis 

are permitted in the area. 

When a delivery van or a cargo truck is driving through the 

street it blocks the street and it is not easy for the cyclists 

and pedestrians to access the street in their usual way. 

They have to find another way to get through the street 

and sometimes the cyclists have to get off their bike. 

There is also a big problem with the mopeds, which disturb 

the street because of their speed and noisy sounds. 

Figure 3.1.16: Cargo trucks 

LIGHTER 

DARKER 

Figure 3.1.14: Blue plastic guides at Vestergade Vest. 

Figure 3.1.17: Bikes and motorized vehicles 

Figure 3.1.11: Pavement material. 

26 27

BICYCLE PARKING 

TREES AND LANDSCAPING DESIGN 

One of the main elements in the shared space is the bike 

parking racks, which makes it possible for the cyclists to 

park their bikes right in the center of the pedestrian shopping 

area. In the afternoon the racks are full and occupy a 

major part of the shared user space and congest the room 

of pedestrian flow. In the morning and evening time there 

is not so many bicycles parked in the racks thus freeing 

up the space more (Figure 3.1.18 and Figure 3.1.19). 

Even though there are many bicycle racks a large amount 

of bikes are parked in front of the shops and lean against 

signs, taking up a lot of the space on the sidewalks thus 

making it difficult for the pedestrians to move unobstructed 

(Figure 3.1.20 and 3.1.21). 

Figure 3.1.19: Bike parking racks 

The most dominating greenery in the streetscape are the 

trees. Different kinds of trees exist but the most common 

is the marble tree, which is placed in the centerline of the 

sidewalks (Figure 3.1.22). 

Additionally there are different kind of green elements, like 

small flower bowls and green fences, which are used by 

the shops and cafés to define the entrances or the private 

space for café tables. In one spot there are a couple of big 

flower bowls placed between the lane and the sidewalk. 

The placement and existence of the green elements produces 

a warm and inviting atmosphere (Figure 3.1.23). 

Figure 3.1.22: Trees and landscaping design 

Figure 3.1.18: Bike parking racks. 

Figure 3.1.20: Parked bikes in front of shops 

Figure 3.1.23: Trees and landscaping design 

Figure 3.1.21: Parked bikes in front of shops 

28 29

STREET FURNITURE 

Technical elements 

Garbage bins are placed at the sidewalks and have different 

shapes and characters. Some of them are standing 

on the ground and some are lifted up from the ground by 

rods. And several of them have special notes to make 

people use them. In front of all the entrances and the 

backyards to the street small poles have been erected to 

prevent vehicles from entering the space. 

STREET LIGHTS 

In the evening the street is lit up by hanging street lamps 

from the middle of the street and by lamps placed on the 

sidewalks. Additionally the shop windows light up the 

street creating a more inviting night atmosphere (Figure 

3.1.27). 

Urban elements 

There are no benches in the street and if people want to 

sit down they must go to a café or to the benches at the 

pedestrian shopping streets. 

Figure 3.1.24 Street games painted in the pavement. 

The street also contains colorful playful elements which 

include a couple of ping pong tables and a letter game 

which is drawn on the ground (see Figures 3.1.24 and 

3.1.26). In the afternoon the street is usually very crowded 

and it is difficult to use the playful elements, but in the 

morning and evening it is calmer creating more access 

to use them. The playful elements supply the street with 

a more lively and relaxed atmosphere and enhance the 

concept of a shared user space (Figure 3.1.25). 

GAMES 

BIKE SYMBOL 

CAFE 

SPACE 

TABLE TENNIS 

SHOP SIGNS 

Figure 3.1.25: Layout of streetscape. 

Figure 3.1.27: Street lights 

Figure 3.1.26: Street furniture 

30 31

SIGNAGE 

The street offers different kinds of signs which give information 

about various subjects. The most dominating 

signs in the street are the shop signs which are placed at 

the entrances or at the front of the shops (Figure 3.28). 

These signs are very noticeable due to their use of the 

colorful graphics and design. Other signage includes information 

by municipality dictating different rules about 

the traffic flow and other transportation modes that are 

allowed to enter the street (Figure 3.1.29). Some of them 

also give information about attractions in the city that may 

be interesting to visit. They designed to look old and lead 

you to different parts of the city such as cultural sites like 

squares, theaters, museums and other exciting places 

(Figure 3.1.31). The last category of signs is those which 

are integrated into the design of the street. These signs 

give information about the use of the space in a more 

playful way and is indicated by the symbol of a footprint 

and bicycle wheels painted onto the pavement (Figure 

3.1.30) 

Figure 3.1.28: Shop signs. 

In general there are no signs in the street telling you about 

speed and behavior, but that is also the concept of shared 

space. The signage is functional because it both gives 

information about legal and cultural issues relating to the 

city. 

Figure 3.1.29: Signage dictating rules about how to use the space. 

Figure 3.1.30: Playful sign informing the transportation modes allowed. 

Figure 3.1.31: Signage designed to look old. 

32 33

PUBLIC ART OR OTHER UNIQUE 

FEATURES 

The street pavement hosts some kind of art in the form 

of painted words which gives synonymous of the street 

name; Mageløs. This is located only at one spot in the 

street and does not repeat in other places (Figure 3.1.32). 

Compensating for the minimum byways is a series of 

small corridors through and between buildings opening 

up for cyclists and pedestrians to enter the street. The 

entrance from east is in a cross of two pedestrian streets 

in eastern direction, Vestergade-east, and northern direction, 

Kongensgade, and the continuous shared space between 

cyclists and pedestrians in the southern direction 

in the street Mageløs. The link between the two streets 

has been marked with a curve, signalising that this is only 

road to enter for cyclists. The link is paved with cobbled 

stones, different from both the pavement on Vestergade 

and in the pedestrian streets (Figure 3.1.33 and 3.1.34). 

BUILT ENVIRONMENT AND USES 

The street is faced by buildings with two to four stories. 

The ground floor is primarily used for commercial activity 

with shops, cafes and food vendors. The higher stories 

are used for residences. 

The buildings facing the street are part of a medieval 

structure with various different building volumes behind 

them. The blocks are not enclosed block structures, rather 

small open networks within the blocks. Many people 

enter the street through building corridors coming from 

the spaces behind the buildings facing the street (Figure 

3.1.35) 

Figure 3.1.32: Painted words in the pavement. 

ACCESSIBILITY AND INTERSECTIONS 

The street is accessed from the intersection of Vesterbro 

and Ny Vestergade on the western end, from a crossing 

of two pedestrian streets, Vestergade(east) and Kongensgade, 

and from Mageløs which is a shared cyclist 

and pedestrian street, in the eastern end. 

Where Vestedgade Vest and Mageløs meet there is a 

change in the materials which marks that you have to 

slow down and be aware of the street. Entrance from 

Vesterbro is marked with a shift from asphalt paving continuing 

around a curve and the pedestrian sidewalk continuing 

in a similar curve. This facility was probably made 

to signal no entry for cars in the former one-way street 

in Vestergade. Entering the street happens from a dedicated 

bicycle path. When leaving, a bicycle path does not 

appear until approximately 300 meters later. 

Only one byway is entering the street. The street, Pantheonsgade, 

is located 70 meters from the exit in western 

end. The entrance to Vestergade is made with no regulations, 

but like mentioned earlier a path of special pavement 

has been implemented in Vestergade to signal the 

beginning of the byway. 

Figure 3.1.33: Crossing point paved with cobbled stones. 

Figure 3.1.34: Intersection between Vestergade Vest and Mageløs. 

Figure 3.1.35: Built environment around Vestergade Vest and Mageløs. 

34 35

NO. OF CYCLISTS PER HOUR ON SEPTEMBER 14TH 2010 

NO. OF PEDESTRIANS WITH BIKES PER HOUR ON SEPTEMBER 14TH 2010 

500 

50 

400 

40 

300 

30 

200 

20 

100 

10 

CYCLIST COUNTINGS 

NUMBER OF CYCLISTS 

7-8 

8-9 9-10 10-11 11-12 12-13 13-14 14-15 15-16 16-17 17-18 18-19 

AGAINST VESTERGADE 

FROM VESTERGADE 

7-8 

8-9 9-10 10-11 11-12 12-13 13-14 14-15 15-16 16-17 17-18 18-19 

AGAINST VESTERGADE 

FROM VESTERGADE 

1000 

800 

600 

400 

200 

0 

7-8 

8-9 9-10 

10-11 11-12 

12-13 

13-14 14-15 15-16 

16-17 17-18 18-19 

7-8 

700 bikes 

Bicycles in high speed. No other transportation 

modes 

Figure 3.1.36: Cyclists counting and traffic flow at Vestergade Vest and Mageløs. 

9-10 

350 bikes 

Cargo hour and lowest numbers in 

morning. 

12-13 

500 bikes 

Different transportation modes 

and uses in the street. 

15-16 

850 bikes 

Large number of cyclists and pedestrians. 

Different transportation modes 

and uses in the street. 

18-19 

380 bikes 

Street gets empty and cyclists riding 

their bikes in high speed 

36 37

THE WEB SURVEY 

The web survey analysis is divided in four sections. Firstly, 

main findings are presented. The second section describes 

the spatial distribution of the residential location 

of the respondents. Thirdly, it is presented a descriptive 

statistic to analyze all the answers. In search of finding relationships 

between socio-demographic variables and the 

web survey answers, the last section presents a statistical 

analysis using the Chi2 test. 

A total of 298 individuals that were riding a bike at Vestergade 

Vest on September 14 answered the questionnaire 

in the period between September 14 and October 12. 

From the count done in September 14, there were 6446 

bicycle trips at Vestergade Vest from 7am until 7pm – including 

both directions. Estimating that 35% of these cyclists 

ride their bikes at least once per day in the infrastructure, 

it was stipulated a total of 4189 individuals ride 

a bike at Vestergade Vest per day. 

A total of 1328 web flyers were distributed to individuals 

riding their bikes in the infrastructure from 7am until 7pm 

and from these total 298 answered the questionnaire. 

Based on these figures, the respondents represents 

7,12% of the total of individuals riding a bike per day in 

the infrastructure and 22,43% of individuals that collected 

the flyer on September 14 while riding a bike. 

MAIN FINDINGS 

In conclusion the data from the survey reveals a picture 

of Vestergade Vest as a piece of infrastructure used for a 

balanced distribution of purposes (39% to work, 34% to 

shopping, 15% educational institutions and 12% to others 

destinations). The figures are directly connected to the 

built environment were the infrastructure is located – the 

core of the city with several working places, shops and 

educational institutions in the surroundings. 

After the Chi2 test was applied, the results highlight that 

most of the answers do not have a relation with socio-demographic 

conditions. However, some representative relations 

between the independent variables – gender, age 

and educational level – and the questionnaire answers 

were identified. 

There is a relation between the main trip purpose when 

riding a bike at Vestergade Vest and both gender, age and 

educational level. 

The impact of the intervention in Vestergade Vest in the 

individuals` decision to ride a bike more often has also a 

relation both with gender, age and educational level. 

The findings highlight that gender is a strategic variable 

which has a relation with the satisfaction with the design 

solution for Vestergade Vest, safety and signage conditions 

at the infrastructure. 

Finally, age seems to have a relation with the frequency 

that individuals ride a bike at Vestergade Vest and their 

opinion on regards obstacles against cyclists riding at the 

infrastructure. 

The following section provides the actual data for each of 

the questions asked. 

RESIDENTIAL LOCATION OF 

RESPONDENTS 

The residential addresses of the respondents – individuals 

riding a bike at Vestergade Vest and Mageløs on 

September 14 – were registered and geo-referenced in 

order to produce a map (see Figure 3.37). According to 

the Table 3.43, the majority of the respondents (65,9%) 

live within a radius of 2 kilometer and 92,6% of them living 

within 5 kilometers distance from the infrastructure. 

Respondents living more than 5 kilometers from the infrastructure 

correspond to 7,4% of the total and from this 

amount only 14,2% are living more than 10 kilometers 

away of the infrastructure. 

0-1 KM 1-2 KM 2-3 KM 3-4 KM 4-5 KM 5-10 KM 10-15 15-20 20 KM< 

KM KM 

NO. DWELLINGS 134 62 42 20 17 19 1 2 1 

% DWELLINGS 45,0% 20,8% 14,1% 6,7% 5,7% 6,4% 0,3% 0,7% 0,3% 

Table 3.1.1: Absolute and percentage distribution of respondents according to the distance of their residential location from Vestergade Vest and Mageløs. 

38 39

10 km 

30 km 

5 km 

20 km 

4 km 

15 km 

3 km 

10 km 

2 km 

5 km 

1 km 

N 

N 

Figure 3.1.37: Spatial distribution of the respondents according to their residential location – 5km map. 

Figure 3.1.38: Spatial distribution of the respondents according to their residential location - 20km map 

40 41

DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS 

AGE 

AGE 

40% 

35% 

30% 

25% 

20% 

EDUCATION LEVEL 

40% 

35% 

30% 

25% 

20% 


HOW OFTEN DO YOU GO ON VESTERGADE WITHOUT 

WALKING AT VESTERGADE BIKE? VEST 

35% 

30% 

25% 

20% 

HOW OFTEN DO YOU USE THE BIKE FOR THE PURPOSE 

IN THE PREVIUS QUESTION AFTER THE OPENING OF 

FREQUENCY OF TRIPS TO THE MAIN PURPOSE 

VESTERGADE? 

3% 2% 

8% 

7% 

6% 

NO ANSWER 

MORE RARELY 

15% 

10% 

5% 

0% 

NO 00 - 10 

ANSWER YEARS 

11 - 20 

YEARS 

21 - 30 

YEARS 

31 - 40 

YEARS 

41 - 50 

YEARS 

51 - 60 

YEARS 

61 - 70 

YEARS 

71 - 80 

YEARS 

81 - 90 

YEARS 

15% 

10% 

5% 

0% 

NO ANSWER 

PUBLIC 

SCHOOL 

VOCATIONAL 

EDUCATION 

HIGH 

SCHOOL 

SHORT 

HIGHER 

EDUCATION 

MEDIUM 

HIGHER 

EDUCATION 

LONG 

HIGHER 

EDUCATION 

15% 

10% 

5% 

0% 

NO ANSWER 6-7 DAYS OF 

WEEK 

5 DAYS OF 

WEEK 

3-4 DAYS OF 

WEEK 

1-2 DAYS OF 1-3 DAYS OF 

WEEK MONTHS 

MORE 

RARELY 

74% 

NOT AS OFTEN 

JUST AS OFTEN AS BEFORE 

MORE OFTEN 

MUCH MORE OFTEN 

Figure 3.1.39: Distribution of the respondents by age groups. 

Figure 3.1.41: Distribution of the respondents by educational level. 

Figure 3.1.43: Distribution of the respondents by the frequency they walk at Vestergade 

Vest and Mageløs. 

Figure 3.1.45: Distribution of the respondents by the frequency they ride a bike in 

Vestergade Vest and Mageløs for the main purpose mentioned in the Figure 3.1.44 

after the intervention in the site. 

The majority of the respondents at Vestergade Vest and 

Mageløs are between 21-30 years of age (36%), followed 

by respondents aged 31-40 (14%), 41-50 aged (15%), 

and 51-60 aged (17%). Older respondents range from 

61-70 years old (9%). Younger respondents were aged 

between 11-20 (6%), and 3% gave no answer. This results 

shows that Vestergade Vest and Mageløs mainly is 

used by the younger generation of 21-30 years old followed 

by a more even distribution of people between the 

A large majority of respondents answered that they have 

a medium and long high education (35%), followed by 

a long, higher education (21%). 11% respondents answered 

that they had attended higher education for a 

short amount of time, and another 11% respondents answered 

a vocational education. 13% of the respondents 

had a gymnasium education, 6% had receiving a public 

school education, and 2% giving no answer. The majority 

of the respondents using Vestergade Vest therefore have 

a medium higher education followed by a long higher education. 

Respondents were asked if they walk or stay at Vestergade 

Vest and Mageløs without bike. The three main 

groups of respondents answered 1-2 days of week (29%), 

1-3 days of months (27%) or rarely without bike (19%). 

11% answered 3-4 days a week, 7% answered 5 days a 

week, 5% 6-7 days of week and 3% gave no answer. The 

results show that cyclists do also use Vestergade Vest 

and Mageløs for walking. 

Respondents were asked, how often they used the bike 

for their main purpose as answered in the previous question 

after the opening of Vestergade Vest and Mageløs. 

74% of respondents answered that they travel for that 

purpose just as often as before. 6% of respondents stated 

that they bike for that purpose more often and 8% said 

much more often. 7% answered that they traveled less 

often and 2% much less often. 3% gave no answer. This 

data indicates that the opening of Vestergade Vest and 

Mageløs has had a very small impact on the amount of 

travelers. 14% in total traveling more often and 9% in total 

GENDER 

GENDER 

2% 

44% 

54% 

Figure 3.1.40: Distribution of the respondents by gender 

NO ANSWER 

MAN 

WOMEN 

RIDING A BIKE AT VESTERGADE VEST 

35% 

30% 

25% 

20% 

15% 

10% 

5% 

0% 

NO ANSWER 

HOW OFTEN DO YOU BIKE ON VESTERGADE? 

6-7 DAYS OF 

WEEK 

5 DAYS OF 

WEEK 

3-4 DAYS OF 

WEEK 

1-2 DAYS OF 

WEEK 

1-3 DAYS OF 

MONTHS 

Figure 3.1.42: Distribution of the respondents by the frequency they ride a bicycle at 

Vestergade Vest and Mageløs. 

MORE 

RARELY 

MAIN TRIP PURPOSE 

34% 

WHAT IS YOUR PURPOSE ON VESTERGADE? 

15% 

4% 

2% 

3% 

3% 

39% 

NO ANSWER 

TRANSPORTATION TO AND FROM 

WORK 

RECREATION / LEISURE 

VISIT FAMILY / FRIENDS 

PURCHASING / SHOPPING 

TRANSPORTATION TO AND FROM 

SCHOOL 

OTHERS 

Figure 3.1.44: Distribution of the respondents according to the main trip purpose 

when riding a bike at Vestergade Vest and Mageløs. 

SATISFACTION WITH VESTERGADE VEST 

HOW SATISFIED ARE YOU WITH VESTERGADE? 

32% 

8% 

3% 

21% 

9% 

Figure 3.1.46: Distribution of the respondents by the level of satisfaction with the 

design of Vestergade Vest and Mageløs. 

27% 

NO ANSWER 

VERY DISSATISFIED 

DISSATISFIED 

NEUTRAL 

SATISFIED 

VERY SATISFIED 

When asked about their gender, 54% (160) of the respondents 

were women and 44% (132) were men, with 2% (6) 

giving no answer. 

When asked how often they bike at the site, a majority 

of the respondents said that they use Vestergade Vest 5 

days per week (33%) or 6-7 days per week (27%). 17% 

of the respondents used the site 3-4 days per week, 13% 

answered 1-2 days per week, 6% answered 1-3 days per 

month and only 1% rarely ride a bike at Vestergade Vest. 

The figures highlight that the site is a place where people 

bike many days of the week. 

When asked for what purpose the respondents use 

Vestergade. 39% answered that they use the infrastructure 

for commuting to and from work. 34% used Vestergade 

for shopping, 15% used it to commute to school, 3% 

answered to see friends or family, 3% for recreation, 4% 

said other and 2% gave no answer. This figure shows 

that Vestergade Vest and Mageløs mainly is an urban 

space used for commuting and shopping. 

When asked how satisfied the respondents were with 

Vestergade Vest and Mageløs 32% said they were satisfied 

and 27% were very satisfied. 21% were neutral, 8% 

were dissatisfied and 9% very dissatisfied. 3% gave no 

answer. This figure shows that only a little more than half 

(59%) of the respondents are satisfied with urban space 

and 17% of the users have issues with the design. Therefore 

there are issues that need to be improved to get a 

higher level of satisfied people. 

42 43

VESTERGADE VEST AND MAGELØS’ DESIGN 

AND SAFETY 

SAFETY 

35% 

30% 

25% 

VESTERGADE VEST AND MAGELØS’ DESIGN AND 

AESTHETICS AESTHETICS / BEAUTY 

40% 

35% 

30% 

CONFLICT EXCEEDING BETWEEN THE BOUNDARIES DIFFERENT OF BICYCLE TRANSPORT 

PATHS, 

SIDEWALKS AND LANES 

MODES 

25% 

3% 

9% 

NO ANSWER 

PAVEMENT PROBLEMS 


5% 4% 4% 

6% 

NO ANSWER 

20% 

15% 

10% 

5% 

25% 

20% 

15% 

10% 

19% 

18% 

26% 

NOT PROBLEMATIC 

A BIT PROBLEMATIC 

PROBLEMATIC 

QUITE PROBLEMATIC 

MAJOR PROLEM 

26% 

55% 



PROBLEMATIC 


MAJOR PROLEM 

0% 

5% 

NO ANSWER VERY BAD BAD NEUTRAL GOOD VERY GOOD 

Figure 3.1.47: Distribution of the respondents according to their opinion about how 

the Vestergade Vest`s design fulfilled the bicyclist safety aspect. 

0% 



the Vestergade Vest and Mageløs’ design fulfilled the aesthetics aspect. 


problematic is the conflict between different transport modes at Vestergade Vest and 

Mageløs. 


problematic the pavement is at Vestergade Vest and Mageløs. 

Users were asked about the quality regarding the safety 

needs of the infrastructure. The largest amount of respondents 

(31%) thought the design did a bad job and 18% 

stated that it did a very bad job. 20% were neutral on the 

issue, and only 6%% answered it did a very good job and 

21% that it did a good job. 3% gave no answer. This result 

thereby shows that there are great problems with the perception 

of cyclists in regards safety at safety Vestergade 


VESTERGADE VEST AND MAGELØS’ DESIGN AND 

FAST CONNECTIVITY 

35% 

30% 

25% 

20% 

15% 

10% 

5% 

0% 

FAST CONNECTION 

The respondents were asked about the aesthetics of the 

design of Vestergade Vest and Mageløs, and the majority 

of respondents stated that it either did very good (36%) 

or a very good (9%) job. A great part of the respondents 

were neutral (96) in regards to beauty and aesthetics. 

14% said it did a bad job and 5% said a very bad job. 

3% were giving no answer. The figure shows that there 

is room for improving the aesthetics of the space even 

though the largest amount people are satisfied. 

ILLEGALLY PARKED BICYCLES 

35% 

8% 


5% 

3% 3% 

46% 

NO ANSWER 



PROBLEMATIC 


MAJOR PROLEM 

Respondents having conflicts between bicyclists, pedestrians 

and motorized vehicle drivers. Only 18% saying 

it was not a problem. 26% stated that is was a bit of 

a problem, 18% claimed it was problematic, 19% said it 

was quite a problem, and 25% responded that said it was 

a major problem. 3% gave no answer on whether passing 

space was an issue. A large amount of 25% saying 

that the boundaries of the bike lanes are a major problem 

clearly indicates that this is an area where the design can 

be improved. 

OBSTACLES 

19% 

21% 

3% 

OBSTACLES 

19% 

23% 

NO ANSWER 



PROBLEMATIC 


MAJOR PROLEM 

When asked whether they thought surface issues like potholes 

were a problem on Vestergade Vest and Mageløs, 

55% of the responses said it was not a problem. 26% 

stated that it was a small problem, 6% claimed it was 

problematic, 5% it was quite problematic and 4% is was 

a major problem. 4% gave no answer. This figure shows 

Vestergade Vest and Mageløs has been maintained, and 

therefore has a great percentage of satisfied users in this 

area compared with the other problems the site is facing. 

CRACKS IN RAMPS AND INTERSECTIONS 

CRACKS AND RAMPS ON INTERSECTIONS 

12% 

7% 

27% 

6% 

3% 

45% 

NO ANSWER 



PROBLEMATIC 


MAJOR PROLEM 


15% 


the Vestergade Vest and Mageløs` design fulfilled the fast connectivity. 

Respondents were asked if they thought the design of 

Vestergade Vest and Mageløs was facilitating fast connections. 

The majority responded said it did a good job 

(31%) or were neutral (28%). 7% thought it did a very 

good job, 20% said it did a bad job, and 11% said a very 

bad job. 3% respondents gave no answer. From this figure, 

it is clear that Vestergade Vest and Mageløs can be 

improved in regards to the speed of the bikers. 


problematic illegal parking of bicycles is at Vestergade Vest and Mageløs. 

Users were asked if they thought that illegally parked 

bicycles were a problem on the Vestergade Vest and 

Mageløs. 46% of the responses said that they were not a 

problem, 35% said it was a small problem, 8% said it was 

problematic, 5% said it was quite problematic, and 3% 

said it was a major problem. 3% gave no answer. This 

figure shows that illegally parked bicycles are a problem 

at Vestergade Vest and Mageløs for the main part of the 

users. 


problematic the existence of obstacles is against the cyclists at Vestergade Vest and 

Mageløs. 

Respondents were asked whether they thought obstacles 

at Vestergade Vest and Mageløs were an issue. 

Only 19% of the respondent stated that obstacles were 

not a problem. 23% stated that is was a small problem, 

15% claimed it was problematic, 19% quite problematic 

and 21% saying it is a major problem. 3% gave no answer. 

This figure shows that the majority of users also 

see obstacles as being an issue at Vestergade Vest and 

Mageløs. 


problematic the existence of cracks in ramps and intersections is at Vestergade Vest 

and Mageløs. 

Users were asked whether they thought cracks were a 

problem on ramps and intersections. 45% of the responses 

said it was not a problem. 27% thought that it was a 

small problem, 12% claimed it was problematic, 7% said 

it was quite a problem and 6% said it was major problem. 

3% gave no answer. These results show that cracks in 

ramps and intersections are a small problem, one that 

could be fixed with maintenance. 

44 45

AWARENESS OF PEDESTRIANS AND MOTORIZED 

VEHICLE LACK DRIVERS OF AWARENESS FOR FOR CYCLISTS 

THE SURROUNDING PEOPLE 

26% 

3% 

10% 

NO ANSWER 


SCENIC 

12% 

6% 

5% 4% 

POOR GREENERY 

NO ANSWER 


QUALITIES INFLUENCING TO RIDE A BIKE 

30% 

25% 

20% 

15% 

IF YES, WHAT QUALITIES ABOUT VESTERGADE HAS 

INFLUENCED YOUR CHOICE OF BIKING MORE OFTEN? 

STREET HOW DESIGN IMPORTANT INFLUENCING IS STREET DESIGN TO (GREEN RIDE A AREAS, BIKE 

LIGHTING, ETC.) FOR YOUR DECISION TO TAKE THE 

BIK E? 

30% 

25% 

20% 

17% 

20% 


problematic the lack of awareness of pedestrians and motorized vehicle drivers is for 

people riding a bike at Vestergade Vest and Mageløs. 

24% 


PROBLEMATIC 


MAJOR PROLEM 

24% 


problematic scenic and greenery is at Vestergade Vest and Mageløs. 

49% 


PROBLEMATIC 


MAJOR PROLEM 

10% 

5% 

0% 

SAFETY 

A GOOD EXPERIENCE 

FASTER CONNECTION 

WIDER BIKE LANES 

GREENER AREAS 

FASTER BIKE LANES 

GREEN WEDGE 

ATTRECTIVE LANDSCAPE 

BETTER SIGNPOSTING 

BIKE MAPS 

MAINTENANCE OF BIKES 

BIKE PARKING 

Figure 3.1.59: Among the respondents that said yes in the previous question (Figure 

3.1.58), what qualities has influenced their choice to ride a bike more often after the 

intervention in Vestergade Vest and Mageløs. The respondents could choice more 

than one option. 

15% 

10% 

5% 

0% 

NO ANSWER NOT AT ALL NOT 

IMPORTANT 

IMPROTANT 

NEUTRAL IMPORTANT 

VERY 

IMPORTANT 

IMPROTANT 

Figure 3.1.60: Distribution of respondents according to their opinion about the importance 

of street design (lightning, pavement material, greenery, etc) in the decision to 

ride a bike. 

Respondents were asked whether they thought lack of 

awareness of pedestrians and motorized vehicle drivers 

for cyclists was an issue. For the greatest part of 

the respondents (26%) the lack of awareness for cyclists 

was a major problem. 24% said it was a small problem, 

20% stated it was problematic and 17% said it was quite 

a problem. Only 10% of the respondents said it is not a 

problem. And 3% gave no answer. This figure shows that 

cyclists perceive a problem in regards the awareness of 

pedestrians and motorized vehicle drivers for cyclists. 

SIGNPOSTING AND ITS INTERPRETATION 

POOR SIGNPOSTING AND INTERPRETATION 

2% 

When asked whether they thought poor greenery and 

scenic landscaping was an issue at Vestergade Vest, 

49% of the responses said it was not a problem, 24% said 

it was a small problem, 12% stated it was problematic, 6% 

said it was quite a problem, and 4% responded that this 

was a major problem. 4% gave no answer. This figure 

shows that greenery can be a problem and that the lack 

of it is noticed by some users but also that almost 50% of 

the users are satisfied with the situation as it is. 

ARE YOU BIKING MORE OFTEN AFTER THE OPENING OF 

BIKING MORE OFTEN AFTER VESTERGADE 

VESTERGADE? 

VEST AND MAGELØS’ INTERVENTION 

3% 

Respondents were asked what aspect of the intervention 

make them ride their bike more often, the largest portion 

of users stated that faster connections (25%) made the 

largest impact. 16% responded saying bike parking was 

a good experience and influenced bikeability. 15% stated 

wider bike lanes made an impact for them and 7% said 

faster bike lanes made the difference for them. Important 

factors that influenced the amount users rode were therefore 

a faster connection and the space for bike parking. 

The good experience and the width of the lanes was also 

some of the factors that played a key role for the choice 

of biking. 

Users were asked, how important is street design in your 

decision to ride your bicycle. The largest portion (25%) 

of respondents answered saying that they were neutral 

to the question. 19% said it was important and 7% said it 

was very important. 22% said it was not important, and 

23% said it was not important at all. 4% did not answer. 

This figure shows that the majority of respondents do not 

think that the design of Vestergade Vest and Mageløs is a 

very important factor for the bikeability of the site. 

STREET WHAT DESIGN DO YOU SOLUTIONS THINK OF THE AT DESIGN VESTERGADE 

SOLUTIONS 

VEST ND MAGELØS 

THAT ARE APPLIED TO VESTERGADE (GREEN AREAS, 

L IGHTING, ETC.)? 

17% 

6% 

50% 

45% 

NO ANSWER 

40% 

10% 

37% 



NO ANSWER 

35% 

30% 

PROBLEMATIC 

YES 

25% 

13% 

21% 


MAJOR PROLEM 

91% 

NO 

20% 

15% 

10% 

5% 

0% 


problematic signposting and its interpretation is at Vestergade Vest and Mageløs. 

When asked whether poor signage was an issue, 37% 

of the responses said it was not a problem, 21% said it 

was a small problem, 13% stated it was problematic, 10% 

said it was quite a problem and 17% said it was a major 

problem. 2% gave no answer. This figure shows that 

signage is also a problem for the bikers at Vestergade 

Vest and Mageløs, which thereby could be made more 

clearly to the user. 

Figure 3.1.58: Distribution of the respondents based on starting to ride a bike more 

often, or not, after the intervention at Vestergade Vest and Mageløs. 

When asked whether they bike more often after the opening 

of Vestergade Vest and Mageløs, 91% said they have 

not biked more while only 6% said that they where biking 

more often that before. 3% gave no answer. This figure 

shows that the opening of Vestergade Vest and Mageløs 

has not change the use of bikes in the area. The reasons 

of this can be the problems showed in the previous questions 

that indicate that there are issues such as insensitivity, 

poor maintaining and problems with the design that is 

dissatisfying for the bikers. 


Figure 3.1.61 Distribution of respondents according to their opinion about the street 

design solutions (lightning, pavement material, greenery, etc) used in the intervention 

at Vestergade Vest and Mageløs. 

When asked for their opinion on the design solution applied 

to Vestergade Vest and Mageløs, most respondents 

replied that they were neutral (44%) in that question. 28% 

said it is a good solution and 3% believed it was a very 

good design solution. 17% thought it was poor, 5% responded 

very poor, and 3% gave no answer. This figure 

shows that many of the respondents were neutral in their 

opinion of the design. This could reflect that the design 

is not very noticeable and that they take it for granted. 

There is also a great part that think the design is good 

which also reflects that there are only small problems with 

the design. 

46 47

RELATIONS BETWEEN SOCIO-DEMOGRAPHIC VARIABLES AND 

WEB-SURVEY ANSWERS 

The Chi2 test was applied to identify possible relations between the socio-demographics (independent variables) of the 

sample and their answers from the web survey (dependable variables). Considering the nature of the studied variables 

– the majority of them are nominal – the Chi2 test was selected to this analysis. 

The Chi2 test is about finding out if there is a connection between the variables. It is about testing the nul hypothesis. 

H0 says that the variables are statistic independent and HA says the variables are statistic dependent. To the test we 

set a α-level at 0,05. In the case of the p-value is under that, we can not reject the nul hypothesis. 

SOCIO-DEMOGRAPHICS AND WALKING AT VESTERGADE VEST AND MAGELØS 

6-7 DAYS/ 

WEEK 

5 DAYS/ 

WEEK 

3-4 DAYS/ 

WEEK 

1-2 DAYS/ 

WEEK 

1-3 DAYS/ 

MONTHS 

MORE 

RARELY 

TOTAL 

MALE 7 8 19 38 32 25 129 

FEMALE 8 13 14 48 47 30 160 

TOTAL 15 21 33 86 79 55 289 

Table 3.1.5: Distribution of the respondents by gender according to the frequency they walk at Vestergade Vest and Mageløs. 

Out of the Table 3.1.5, the SPSS calculated the Chi2 to be 3,192 with a degree of freedom (df) 5 and the missing values 

are 9. P is bigger than 0,250. Therefore, the variables are independent. 

SOCIO-DEMOGRAPHICS AND RIDING A BIKE AT VESTERGADE VEST AND MAGELØS 

6-7 DAYS/ 

WEEK 

5 DAYS/ 

WEEK 

3-4 DAYS/ 

WEEK 

1-2 DAYS/ 

WEEK 

1-3 DAYS/ 

MONTHS 

MORE 

RARELY 

TOTAL 

MALE 33 43 29 16 8 1 130 

FEMALE 47 55 22 22 10 3 159 

TOTAL 80 98 51 38 18 4 289 

Table 3.1.2: Distribution of the respondents by gender according to the frequency they ride a bicycle at Vestergade Vest and Mageløs. 



6-7 DAYS/ 

WEEK 

5 DAYS/ 

WEEK 

3-4 DAYS/ 

WEEK 

1-2 DAYS/ 

WEEK 

1-3 DAYS/ 

MONTHS 

MORE 

RARELY 

TOTAL 

PUBLIC SCHOOL 1 4 0 4 4 6 19 

VOCATIONAL EDUC. 1 3 2 8 10 8 32 

HIGH SCHOOL 1 5 8 12 7 7 40 

SHORT HIGHER EDUC. 0 2 6 10 7 6 31 

MEDIUM HIGHER EDUC. 6 3 10 33 27 25 104 

LONG HIGHER EDUC. 6 4 7 19 23 4 63 

TOTAL 15 21 33 86 78 56 289 

Table 3.1.6: Distribution of the respondents by educational level according to the frequency they walk at Vestergede Vest and Mageløs. 

Out of the Table 3.1.6, the SPSS calculated the Chi2 to be 35,657 with a degree of freedom (df) 25 and the missing 

values are 9. P is between 0,100 and 0,050. Therefore, the variables are independent. 

6-7 DAYS/ 

WEEK 

5 DAYS/ 

WEEK 

3-4 DAYS/ 

WEEK 

1-2 DAYS/ 

WEEK 

1-3 DAYS/ 

MONTHS 

MORE 

RARELY 

TOTAL 



HIGH SCHOOL 16 11 8 4 1 0 40 




TOTAL 80 97 52 38 18 4 289 

Table 3.1.3: Distribution of the respondents by educational level according to the frequency they ride a bicycle at Vestergade Vest. 



6-7 DAYS/ 

WEEK 

5 DAYS/ 

WEEK 

3-4 DAYS/ 

WEEK 

1-2 DAYS/ 

WEEK 

1-3 DAYS/ 

MONTHS 

MORE 

RARELY 

TOTAL 

01-20 YEARS 0 2 3 6 4 1 16 

21-30 YEARS 5 10 14 37 30 9 105 

31-40 YEARS 4 1 6 11 9 10 41 

41-50 YEARS 3 3 5 8 15 11 45 

51-60 YEARS 3 4 2 14 14 13 50 

61-90 YEARS 0 1 3 7 5 10 26 

TOTAL 15 21 33 83 77 54 283 

Table 3.1.7: Distribution of the respondents by age groups according to the frequency they walk at Vestergade Vest and Mageløs. 



6-7 DAYS/ 

WEEK 

5 DAYS/ 

WEEK 

3-4 DAYS/ 

WEEK 

1-2 DAYS/ 

WEEK 

1-3 DAYS/ 

MONTHS 

MORE 

RARELY 

TOTAL 

01-20 YEARS 8 3 4 0 0 1 16 

21-30 YEARS 34 30 21 15 5 0 105 

31-40 YEARS 7 12 11 6 4 0 40 

41-50 YEARS 15 18 4 3 4 1 45 

51-60 YEARS 13 23 4 6 2 2 50 

61-90 YEARS 2 9 7 7 2 0 27 

TOTAL 79 95 51 37 17 4 283 

Table 3.1.4 Distribution of the respondents by age groups according to the frequency they ride a bicycle at Vestergade Vest and Mageløs. 


values are 15. P is between 0,025 and 0,010. Therefore, the variables are dependent. 

SOCIO-DEMOGRAPHICS AND MAIN TRIP PURPOSE 

TRANS. TO 

VISIT 

TRANS. TO 

RECREATION / 

PURCHASING 

AND FROM 

FAMILY / 

AND FROM 

LEISURE 

/ SHOPPING 

WORK 

FRIENDS 

SCHOOL 

OTHERS TOTAL 

MALE 47 7 7 45 50 6 130 

FEMALE 73 2 3 55 23 5 130 

TOTAL 117 9 10 100 43 11 290 

Table 3.1.8: Distribution of the respondents by gender according to the main trip purpose when riding a bike in Vestergade Vest and Mageløs. 


are 8. P is between 0,250 and 0,100. Therefore, the variables are independent. 

48 49

TRANS. TO 

AND FROM 

WORK 

RECREA- 

TION / 

LEISURE 

VISIT 

FAMILY / 

FRIENDS 

PURCHA- 

SING / 

SHOPPING 

TRANS. TO 

AND FROM 

SCHOOL 

OTHERS 



HIGH SCHOOL 13 2 2 9 13 1 40 




TOTAL 116 9 10 100 43 12 290 

TOTAL 

Table 3.1.9: Distribution of the respondents by educational level according to the main trip purpose when riding a bike at Vestergade Vest and 

Mageløs. 



MORE RARELY 

NOT AS OFTEN 

JUST AS 

OFTEN AS 

BEFORE 

MORE OFTEN 

MUCH MORE 

OFTEN 

01-20 YEARS 0 1 9 3 3 16 

21-30 YEARS 2 8 78 13 3 104 

31-40 YEARS 0 4 30 1 6 41 

41-50 YEARS 3 3 35 1 3 45 

51-60 YEARS 0 3 52 0 5 50 

61-90 YEARS 0 1 23 0 3 27 

TOTAL 5 20 217 18 23 283 

Table 3.1.13: Distribution of the respondents by age groups according to the frequency they ride a bike at 

Vestergade Vest and Mageløs for the main purpose mentioned in the Figure 3.1.44, after the intervention at 



TOTAL 

TRANS. TO 

AND FROM 

WORK 

RECREA- 

TION / 

LEISURE 

VISIT FAMILY 

/ FRIENDS 

PURCHA- 

SING / 

SHOPPING 

TRANS. TO 

AND FROM 

SCHOOL 

OTHERS 

TOTAL 

01-20 YEARS 1 2 2 3 7 1 16 

21-30 YEARS 32 2 6 30 31 4 105 

31-40 YEARS 21 1 0 18 1 0 41 

41-50 YEARS 29 2 2 9 0 3 45 

51-60 YEARS 28 1 0 18 2 1 50 

61-90 YEARS 3 1 0 18 2 3 27 

TOTAL 114 9 10 96 43 12 284 

Table 3.1.10: Distribution of the respondents by age groups according to the main trip purpose when riding a bike at Vestergade Vest and 

Mageløs. 


values are 14. P is under 0,001. Therefore, the variables are dependent. 

SOCIO-DEMOGRAPHICS AND SATISFACTION WITH VESTERGADE VEST AND MAGELØS 

VERY 

DISSATISFIED 

DISSATISFIED NEUTRAL GOOD VERY GOOD TOTAL 

MALE 13 25 31 43 18 130 

FEMALE 13 56 31 54 5 159 

TOTAL 26 81 62 97 23 289 

Table 3.1.14: Distribution of the respondents by gender according to the level of satisfaction with the design of Vestergade Vest and Mageløs. 


values are 9. P is close to 0,001. Therefore, the variables are dependent. 

SOCIO-DEMOGRAPHICS AND FREQUENCY OF TRIPS TO THE MAIN PURPOSE 

MORE 

RARELY 

NOT AS 

OFTEN 

JUST AS 

OFTEN AS 

BEFORE 

MORE OFTEN 

MUCH MORE 

OFTEN 

MALE 1 5 97 13 14 130 

FEMALE 4 15 123 6 11 159 

TOTAL 5 20 220 19 14 289 

Table 3.1.11: Distribution of the respondents by gender according to the frequency they ride a bike at Vestergade Vest and Mageløs 

for the main purpose mentioned in the Figure 3.1.44, after the intervention at Vestergade Vest and Mageløs. 



TOTAL 

VERY DIS- DIS- 

SATISFIED SATISFIED 

NEUTRAL GOOD VERY GOOD TOTAL 

PUBLIC SCHOOL 3 4 5 3 4 19 

VOCATIONAL EDUC. 2 8 13 8 1 32 

HIGH SCHOOL 3 8 9 15 5 40 

SHORT HIGHER EDUC. 3 10 4 10 3 30 

MEDIUM HIGHER EDUC. 10 28 20 40 7 105 

LONG HIGHER EDUC. 6 22 11 20 4 63 

TOTAL 27 80 62 97 23 289 

Table 3.1.15: Distribution of the respondents by educational level according to the level of satisfaction with the design of Vestergade Vest and 

Mageløs. 


values are 9. P is bigger than 0,250. Therefore, the variables are independent. 

MORE 

RARELY 

NOT AS 

OFTEN 

JUST AS 

OFTEN AS 

BEFORE 

MORE 

OFTEN 

MUCH MORE 

OFTEN 



HIGH SCHOOL 0 5 23 7 5 40 


MEDIUM HIGHER 

EDUC. 

1 8 88 3 5 105 


TOTAL 5 20 220 19 25 289 

Table 3.1.12: Distribution of the respondents by educational level according to the frequency they ride a bike at Vestergade Vest 

and Mageløs for the main purpose mentioned in the Figure 3.1.44, after the intervention at Vestergade Vest and Mageløs. 



TOTAL 

VERY 

DISSATISFIED 


01-20 YEARS 0 2 4 6 4 16 

21-30 YEARS 10 25 17 46 7 105 

31-40 YEARS 6 12 7 14 2 41 

41-50 YEARS 2 16 9 12 5 44 

51-60 YEARS 7 17 14 9 3 50 

61-90 YEARS 2 7 8 8 2 27 

TOTAL 27 79 59 98 23 283 

Table 3.1.16: Distribution of the respondents by age groups according to the level of satisfaction with the design of Vestergade Vest and 

Mageløs. 



50 51

SOCIO-DEMOGRAPHICS AND OPINION ABOUT THE IMPACT OF VESTERGADE VEST AND MAGELØS` DE- 

SIGN ON SAFETY 

VERY BAD BAD NEUTRAL GOOD VERY GOOD TOTAL 

MALE 14 38 28 39 11 130 

FEMALE 40 54 33 24 7 158 

TOTAL 54 92 61 63 18 288 

Table 3.1.17: Distribution of the respondents by gender according to their opinion about how the Vestergade Vest and Mageløs` design 

fulfilled the bicyclist safety aspect. 


values are 10. P is close to 0,001. Therefore, the variables are dependent. 




HIGH SCHOOL 4 10 15 8 3 40 




TOTAL 33 60 82 91 21 287 

Table 3.1.21: Distribution of the respondents by educational level according to their opinion about how the Vestergade Vest and 

Mageløs` design fulfilled the fast connectivity. 






HIGH SCHOOL 6 12 9 11 2 40 




TOTAL 55 91 61 63 18 288 

Table 3.1.18: Distribution of the respondents by educational level according to their opinion about how the Vestergade Vest and 

Mageløs` design fulfilled the bicyclist safety aspect. 




01-20 YEARS 0 5 7 1 3 16 

21-30 YEARS 12 22 29 36 6 105 

31-40 YEARS 4 10 10 16 1 41 

41-50 YEARS 7 5 13 14 4 43 

51-60 YEARS 6 13 13 15 3 50 

61-90 YEARS 3 3 7 9 4 26 

TOTAL 32 58 79 91 21 281 

Table 3.1.22: Distribution of the respondents by age groups according to their opinion about how the Vestergade Vest`s design fulfilled the fast 

connectivity. 




01-20 YEARS 0 5 5 5 1 16 

21-30 YEARS 17 28 22 30 8 105 

31-40 YEARS 11 13 5 9 3 41 

41-50 YEARS 10 11 10 10 3 44 

51-60 YEARS 12 22 11 4 0 49 

61-90 YEARS 4 10 5 5 3 27 

TOTAL 54 89 58 63 18 282 

Table 3.1.19: Distribution of the respondents by age group according to their opinion about how the Vestergade Vest and Mageløs’ 

design fulfilled the bicyclist safety aspect. 



SOCIO-DEMOGRAPHICS AND OPINION ABOUT VESTERGADE VEST AND MAGELØS AESTHETICS 


MALE 5 20 41 49 15 130 

FEMALE 11 22 55 58 12 158 

TOTAL 16 42 96 107 27 288 

Table 3.1.23: Distribution of the respondents by gender according to their opinion about how the Vestergade Vest and Mageløs’ 

design fulfilled the aesthetics aspect. 



SOCIO-DEMOGRAPHICS AND OPINION ABOUT THE IMPACT OF VESTERGADE VEST AND MAGELØS` DE- 

SIGN ON FAST CONNECTIVITY 


MALE 12 23 39 43 12 129 

FEMALE 20 37 43 49 9 158 

TOTAL 32 60 82 92 21 287 

Table 3.1.20: Distribution of the respondents by gender according to their opinion about how the Vestergade Vest and Mageløs’ design 

fulfilled the fast connectivity. 






HIGH SCHOOL 2 4 14 16 4 40 




TOTAL 16 43 95 107 27 288 

Table 3.1.24: Distribution of the respondents by educational level according to their opinion about how the Vestergade Vest and Mageløs’ 




52 53


01-20 YEARS 0 1 6 5 4 16 

21-30 YEARS 2 12 33 45 13 105 

31-40 YEARS 3 6 17 13 2 41 

41-50 YEARS 2 9 15 14 4 44 

51-60 YEARS 7 12 13 17 1 50 

61-90 YEARS 1 2 9 11 3 26 

TOTAL 15 42 93 105 27 282 

Table 3.1.25: Distribution of the respondents by age groups according to their opinion about how the Vestergade Vest and Mageløs’ design 

fulfilled the aesthetics aspect. 



SOCIO-DEMOGRAPHICS AND OPINION ABOUT CONFLICT BETWEEN DIFFERENT TRANSPORT MODES 

NOT 

A BIT 

QUITE 

PROBLEMATIC 

PROBLEMATIC PROBLEMATIC 

PROBLEMATIC 

MAJOR PROBLEM TOTAL 

MALE 15 37 27 21 28 128 

FEMALE 13 39 26 35 46 159 

TOTAL 28 76 53 56 74 287 

Table 3.1.29: Distribution of the respondents by gender according to their opinion about how problematic is the conflict between different transport 

modes at Vestergade Vest and Mageløs. 



SOCIO-DEMOGRAPHICS AND OPINION ABOUT ILLEGALLY PARKED BICYCLES 

NOT 

A BIT 

QUITE 

PROBLEMATIC 


PROBLEMATIC 


MALE 71 38 11 6 4 130 

FEMALE 65 66 13 9 5 158 

TOTAL 136 104 24 15 9 288 

Table 3.1.26: Distribution of the respondents by gender according to their opinion about how problematic illegal parking of bicycles is at Vestergade 




NOT PROBLE- 

MATIC 

A BIT 

PROBLE- 

MATIC 

PROBLE- 

MATIC 

QUITE 

PROBLE- 

MATIC 

MAJOR 

PROBLEM 



HIGH SCHOOL 4 12 8 6 9 39 




TOTAL 28 76 53 55 75 287 

Table 3.1.30: Distribution of the respondents by educational level according to their opinion about how problematic is the conflict between different 

transport modes at Vestergade Vest and Mageløs. 



TOTAL 

NOT PROBLE- 

MATIC 

A BIT 

PROBLE- 

MATIC 

PROBLE- 

MATIC 

QUITE 

PROBLE- 

MATIC 

MAJOR 

PROBLEM 



HIGH SCHOOL 21 11 3 4 1 40 




TOTAL 137 103 24 15 9 288 

Table 3.1.27: Distribution of the respondents by educational level according to their opinion about how problematic illegal parking of bicycles is 




TOTAL 

NOT 

A BIT 

QUITE 

MAJOR 

PROBLEMATIC 


PROBLEMATIC PROBLEM 

TOTAL 

01-20 YEARS 2 5 4 2 3 16 

21-30 YEARS 13 25 17 22 26 103 

31-40 YEARS 2 9 8 9 13 41 

41-50 YEARS 3 12 8 9 13 45 

51-60 YEARS 2 11 11 9 16 49 

61-90 YEARS 6 10 5 3 3 27 

TOTAL 28 72 53 54 74 281 

Table 3.1.31: Distribution of the respondents by age groups according to their opinion about how problematic is the conflict between different 

transport modes at Vestergade Vest and Mageløs. 



NOT 

A BIT 

QUITE 

MAJOR 

PROBLEMATIC 



TOTAL 

01-20 YEARS 9 5 1 1 0 16 

21-30 YEARS 60 37 4 2 2 105 

31-40 YEARS 19 12 4 5 1 41 

41-50 YEARS 30 17 4 1 3 45 

51-60 YEARS 17 19 8 2 2 48 

61-90 YEARS 8 12 3 3 1 27 

TOTAL 133 102 24 14 9 282 

Table 3.1.28: Distribution of the respondents by age groups according to their opinion about how problematic illegal parking of bicycles is at 




SOCIO-DEMOGRAPHICS AND OPINION ABOUT OBSTACLES AGAINST CYCLISTS 

NOT 

A BIT 

QUITE 

PROBLEMATIC 


PROBLEMATIC 


MALE 30 38 18 19 24 129 

FEMALE 26 30 28 38 38 160 

TOTAL 56 68 46 57 62 289 

Table 3.1.32: Distribution of the respondents by gender according to their opinion about how problematic is the existence of obstacles against 

the cyclists at Vestergade Vest and Mageløs. 


values are 9. P is between 0,050 and 0,025, but close to 0,050. The variables are independent. But with errors in the 

sample is p-value is so close that they may well be dependent. 

54 55

NOT PROBLE- 

MATIC 

A BIT 

PROBLE- 

MATIC 

PROBLE- 

MATIC 

QUITE 

PROBLE- 

MATIC 

MAJOR 

PROBLEM 

TOTAL 



HIGH SCHOOL 4 6 11 9 10 40 




TOTAL 56 68 46 56 63 289 

Table 3.1.33: Distribution of the respondents by educational level according to their opinion about how problematic is the existence of obstacles 

against the cyclists at Vestergade Vest and Mageløs. 



NOT 

A BIT 

QUITE 

MAJOR 

PROBLEMATIC 



TOTAL 

01-20 YEARS 13 2 0 1 0 16 

21-30 YEARS 61 30 7 5 1 104 

31-40 YEARS 25 8 1 4 3 41 

41-50 YEARS 24 11 5 1 3 44 

51-60 YEARS 25 15 4 1 4 49 

61-90 YEARS 13 8 2 1 0 24 

TOTAL 160 75 19 13 11 278 

Table 3.1.37: Distribution of the respondents by age groups according to their opinion about how problematic is the pavement at Vestergade 




SOCIO-DEMOGRAPHICS AND OPINION ABOUT CRACKS IN RAMPS AND INTERSECTIONS 

NOT 

A BIT 

QUITE 

MAJOR 

PROBLEMATIC 



TOTAL 

01-20 YEARS 3 1 8 2 2 16 

21-30 YEARS 18 23 20 27 17 105 

31-40 YEARS 5 13 6 7 10 41 

41-50 YEARS 12 9 5 7 11 44 

51-60 YEARS 5 10 6 11 18 50 

61-90 YEARS 12 8 1 2 4 24 

TOTAL 55 64 46 56 62 283 

Table 3.1.34: Distribution of the respondents by age groups according to their opinion about how problematic is the existence of obstacles 

against the cyclists at Vestergade Vest and Mageløs. 


values are 15. P is smaller than 0,001. Therefore, the variables are dependent. 

NOT 

A BIT 

QUITE 

PROBLEMATIC 


PROBLEMATIC 


MALE 67 39 11 6 6 129 

FEMALE 67 42 22 16 12 159 

TOTAL 137 81 33 22 18 288 

Table 3.1.38: Distribution of the respondents by gender according to their opinion about how problematic is the existence of cracks and ramps 



are 10. P is between 0,250 and 0,100, but very close to 0,100. Therefore, the variables are independent. 

SOCIO-DEMOGRAPHICS AND OPINION ABOUT THE PAVEMENT 

NOT 

A BIT 

QUITE 

PROBLEMATIC 


PROBLEMATIC 


MALE 79 29 8 11 3 130 

FEMALE 86 47 11 3 8 155 

TOTAL 165 76 19 14 11 286 

Table 3.1.35: Distribution of the respondents by gender according to their opinion about how problematic is the pavement at Vestergade Vest 

and Mageløs. 


values are 13. P is between 0,050 and 0,025, but close to 0,050. The variables are independent. But with errors in the 

sample is p-value is so close that they may well be dependent. 

NOT PROBLE- 

MATIC 

A BIT 

PROBLE- 

MATIC 

PROBLE- 

MATIC 

QUITE 

PROBLE- 

MATIC 

MAJOR 

PROBLEM 



HIGH SCHOOL 21 10 4 3 2 40 




TOTAL 134 81 33 22 18 288 

Table 3.1.39: Distribution of the respondents by educational level according to their opinion about how problematic is the existence of cracks 

and ramps at Vestergade Vest and Mageløs. 



TOTAL 

NOT PROBLE- 

MATIC 

A BIT 

PROBLE- 

MATIC 

PROBLE- 

MATIC 

QUITE 

PROBLE- 

MATIC 

MAJOR 

PROBLEM 



HIGH SCHOOL 27 8 1 3 1 40 




TOTAL 165 76 18 14 11 284 

Table 3.1.36 : Distribution of the respondents by educational level according to their opinion about how problematic is the pavement at Vestergade 




TOTAL 

NOT 

A BIT 

QUITE 

MAJOR 

PROBLEMATIC 



TOTAL 

01-20 YEARS 11 3 0 1 1 16 

21-30 YEARS 51 28 15 6 4 104 

31-40 YEARS 19 14 1 4 3 41 

41-50 YEARS 18 14 3 5 5 245 

51-60 YEARS 21 11 8 4 5 49 

61-90 YEARS 10 10 6 1 0 27 

TOTAL 130 80 33 21 18 282 

Table 3.1.40: Distribution of the respondents by age groups according to their opinion about how problematic is the existence of cracks and 

ramps at Vestergade Vest and Mageløs. 



56 57

SOCIO-DEMOGRAPHICS AND OPINION ABOUT AWARENESS OF PEDESTRIANS AND MOTORIZED VEHICLE 

DRIVERS FOR CYCLISTS 

NOT 

A BIT 

QUITE 

PROBLEMATIC 


PROBLEMATIC 


MALE 18 36 25 22 29 130 

FEMALE 11 36 35 30 46 158 

TOTAL 38 72 60 52 75 288 

Table 3.1.41: Distribution of the respondents by gender according to their opinion about how problematic is the lack of awareness of pedestrians 

and motorized vehicle drivers for people riding a bike at Vestergade Vest and Mageløs. 



NOT PROBLE- 

MATIC 

A BIT 

PROBLE- 

MATIC 

PROBLE- 

MATIC 

QUITE 

PROBLE- 

MATIC 

MAJOR 

PROBLEM 



HIGH SCHOOL 15 9 4 1 11 40 




TOTAL 110 61 39 30 50 290 

Table 3.1.45: Distribution of the respondents by educational level according to their opinion about how problematic is signposting and its interpretation 




TOTAL 

NOT PROBLE- 

MATIC 

A BIT 

PROBLE- 

MATIC 

PROBLE- 

MATIC 

QUITE 

PROBLE- 

MATIC 

MAJOR 

PROBLEM 



HIGH SCHOOL 3 7 11 9 10 40 




TOTAL 27 72 60 52 75 288 

Table 3.1.42: Distribution of the respondents by educational level according to their opinion about how problematic is the lack of awareness of 

pedestrians and motorized vehicle drivers for people riding a bike at Vestergade Vest and Mageløs. 



TOTAL 

NOT 

A BIT 

QUITE 

MAJOR 

PROBLEMATIC 



TOTAL 

01-20 YEARS 8 3 2 1 2 16 

21-30 YEARS 47 18 12 12 16 105 

31-40 YEARS 15 5 7 3 11 41 

41-50 YEARS 14 8 10 4 9 45 

51-60 YEARS 14 5 3 8 10 50 

61-90 YEARS 9 9 5 2 2 27 

TOTAL 107 58 39 30 50 284 

Table 3.1.46: Distribution of the respondents by age groups according to their opinion about how problematic is signposting and its interpretation 




NOT 

A BIT 

QUITE 

MAJOR 

PROBLEMATIC 



TOTAL 

01-20 YEARS 2 2 4 7 1 16 

21-30 YEARS 12 23 22 18 30 105 

31-40 YEARS 5 11 8 4 13 41 

41-50 YEARS 4 12 10 8 11 45 

51-60 YEARS 3 12 11 9 13 48 

61-90 YEARS 3 10 4 4 6 27 

TOTAL 29 70 59 50 74 282 

Table 3.1.43: Distribution of the respondents by age groups according to their opinion about how problematic is the lack of awareness of 

pedestrians and motorized vehicle drivers for people riding a bike at Vestergade Vest and Mageløs. 



SOCIO-DEMOGRAPHICS AND OPINION ABOUT SCENIC 

NOT 

A BIT 

QUITE 

PROBLEMATIC 


PROBLEMATIC 


MALE 72 26 13 8 10 129 

FEMALE 74 44 22 11 6 157 

TOTAL 146 70 35 19 16 286 

Table 3.1.47: Distribution of the respondents by gender according to their opinion about how problematic is the scenic at Vestergade Vest and 

Mageløs. 



SOCIO-DEMOGRAPHICS AND OPINION ABOUT SIGNPOSTING AND ITS INTERPRETATION 

NOT 

A BIT 

QUITE 

PROBLEMATIC 


PROBLEMATIC 


MALE 64 21 14 12 19 130 

FEMALE 46 40 25 18 31 160 

TOTAL 110 61 38 30 50 290 

Table 3.1.44: Distribution of the respondents by gender according to their opinion about how problematic is signposting and its interpretation at 



values are 8. P is very close to på 0,010. Therefore, the variables are dependent. 

NOT PROBLE- 

MATIC 

A BIT 

PROBLE- 

MATIC 

PROBLE- 

MATIC 

QUITE 

PROBLE- 

MATIC 

MAJOR 

PROBLEM 



HIGH SCHOOL 24 11 2 1 2 40 




TOTAL 147 67 35 19 16 286 

Table 3.1.48: Distribution of the respondents by educational level gender according to their opinion about how problematic is the scenic at 




TOTAL 

58 59

SOCIO-DEMOGRAPHICS AND OPINION ABOUT STREET DESIGN AS INFLUENTIAL FACTOR TO RIDE A BIKE 

NOT 

A BIT 

QUITE 

MAJOR 

PROBLEMATIC 



TOTAL 

01-20 YEARS 11 4 1 0 0 16 

21-30 YEARS 57 25 8 8 5 103 

31-40 YEARS 20 12 3 1 5 41 

41-50 YEARS 25 9 6 3 2 45 

51-60 YEARS 20 9 13 4 3 49 

61-90 YEARS 12 10 3 1 0 26 

TOTAL 146 69 34 17 15 280 

Table 3.1.49: Distribution of the respondents by age groups according to their opinion about how problematic is the scenic at Vestergade Vest 

and Mageløs. 



SOCIO-DEMOGRAPHICS AND BIKING MORE OFTEN AFTER VESTERGADE VEST AND MAGELØS` OPENING 

YES NO TOTAL 

MALE 14 115 129 

FEMALE 5 155 160 

TOTAL 19 270 289 

Table 3.1.50: Distribution of the respondents by gender based on starting to ride a bike 

more often, or not, after the opening of Vestergade Vest and Mageløs. 


values are 9. P is very close to 0,010. Therefore, the variables are dependent. 

NOT AT ALL NOT 

VERY 


IMPORTANT IMPORTANT 

IMPORTANT 

TOTAL 

MAN 38 20 37 26 7 128 

FEMALE 31 45 37 31 13 157 

TOTAL 69 65 74 57 20 285 

Table 3.1.53: Distribution of respondents by gender according to their opinion about the importance of street design (lightning, pavement material, 

greenery, etc) in the decision to ride a bike. 


are 13. P is between 0,100 and 0,050. But very close to 0,050. Therefore, the variables are independent. 


VERY 



IMPORTANT 

TOTAL 



HIGH SCHOOL 15 4 7 11 3 40 




TOTAL 13 19 14 8 5 285 

Table 3.1.54: Distribution of respondents by educational level according to their opinion about the importance of street design (lightning, pavement 

material, greenery, etc) in the decision to ride a bike. 



YES NO TOTAL 

PUBLIC SCHOOL 3 16 19 

VOCATIONAL EDUC. 2 30 32 

HIGH SCHOOL 9 31 40 

SHORT HIGHER EDUC. 1 30 31 

MEDIUM HIGHER EDUC. 3 101 104 

LONG HIGHER EDUC. 1 62 63 

TOTAL 19 270 289 

Table 3.1.51: Distribution of the respondents by educational level based on starting to 

ride a bike more often, or not, after the opening of Vestergade Vest and Mageløs. 


values are 9. P is smaller than 0,001. Therefore, the variables are dependent. 


01-20 YEARS 0 2 5 8 1 16 

21-30 YEARS 2 11 51 34 6 104 

31-40 YEARS 0 9 18 14 0 41 

41-50 YEARS 4 11 18 10 2 45 

51-60 YEARS 4 14 21 10 0 49 

61-90 YEARS 3 3 14 7 0 27 

TOTAL 13 50 127 83 9 282 

Table 3.1.55: Distribution of respondents by age groups according to their opinion about the importance of street design (lightning, pavement 




YES NO TOTAL 

01-20 YEARS 5 11 16 

21-30 YEARS 9 96 105 

31-40 YEARS 2 38 40 

41-50 YEARS 1 44 45 

51-60 YEARS 2 48 50 

61-90 YEARS 0 27 27 

TOTAL 19 264 283 

Table 3.1.52: Distribution of the respondents by age groups based on starting to ride a 

bike more often, or not, after the opening of Vestergade Vest and Mageløs. 


values are 10. P is between 0,005 and 0,001, but very close to 0,001. Therefore, the variables are dependent. 

SOCIO-DEMOGRAPHICS AND OPINION ABOUT VESTERGADE VEST AND MAGELØS DESIGN SOLUTION 


MALE 3 19 60 43 4 129 

FEMALE 10 32 72 40 5 159 

TOTAL 13 51 132 83 9 288 

Table 3.1.56: Distribution of respondents by gender according to their opinion about the street design solutions (lightning, pavement material, 

greenery, etc) used in Vestergade Vest and Mageløs. 



60 61




HIGH SCHOOL 1 6 16 17 0 40 




TOTAL 14 51 131 83 9 288 

Table 3.1.57: Distribution of respondents by educational level according to their opinion about the street design solutions (lightning, pavement 

material, greenery, etc) used in Vestergade Vest and Mageløs. 



NOT AT ALL 

NOT 

VERY 



IMPORTANT 

TOTAL 

01-20 YEARS 8 1 3 3 1 16 

21-30 YEARS 23 20 26 28 7 104 

31-40 YEARS 13 13 9 3 3 41 

41-50 YEARS 12 9 13 7 3 44 

51-60 YEARS 8 13 14 10 3 48 

61-90 YEARS 4 7 8 5 3 27 

TOTAL 68 63 73 56 20 280 

Table 3.1.58: Distribution of respondents by age groups according to their opinion about the street design solutions (lightning, pavement material, 

greenery, etc) used in Vestergade Vest and Mageløs. 



Figure 3.1.62: Vestergade Vest streetscape. 

62 63

3.2 CASE2 

BICYCLE TRACK HANS BROGES GADE 

3.2.1 AARHUS 

Aarhus is the second largest Danish municipality and 

had a population of 307.119 inhabitants in 2010 (Statistikbanken, 

2010). The municipality is located in the east 

side of the peninsula named Jutland and it is part of the 

Central Jutland Region. 

better bicycle parking facilities, to optimize the combined 

use of cycling and public transport in order to expand the 

bicycle outreach and to improve dialog between cyclists 

and municipality (Aarhus Municipality, 2010a). 

Differently from the municipalities of Copenhagen and 

Odense, Aarhus does not have a determined rate of cyclists 

to be achieved. According to the interview with Pablo 

Celis a civil engineer at Aarhus municipality, the Aarhus 

vision is to focus on a carbon neutral city and one of the 

main strategies for that is the increasing of the bike as 

transportation mode. 

ÅRHUS 

Aarhus Bicycle City functions as an umbrella for all the 

municipality initiatives in regards cycling – e.g. city bikes, 

campaigns and events to promote a bicycle culture. The 

Aarhus Bicycle City webpage – www.aarhuscykelby.dk 

– includes news about new bicycle projects, campaign 

s and a forum where people can make suggestions and 

proposals related to the Aarhus bike infrastructure. 

Figure 3.2.2: Screen print of Aarhus Bicycle City webpage - www.aarhuscykelby.dk. 

Figure 3.2.1: Geographical location of Aarhus. 

On the 10th of April 2010, the Aarhus Bicycle City transformed 

the City Hall square in a “bicycle`s Mecca” where 

people could have diverse experiences with their bikes 

and also see different ways of experiencing cycling (Aarhus 

Cykelby, 2010a). 


In the Municipal Plan 2009, Aarhus municipality announced 

its new vision as an environmental and energy 

sustainable city. Within its vision, there is a goal to become 

carbon neutral by the year 2030 (Aarhus Municipality, 

2009b). 

In order to achieve this goal, the Aarhus Traffic Plan aims 

to offer in the year 2030 this scenario: 

Inspired by the postal number of Aarhus – 8000 – another 

campaign launched by Aarhus municipality was the “8000 

benefits of cycling”. Where 8000 citizens were asked 

about the benefits cycling brought to them. The results 

of the campaign are posted on the Aarhus Bicycle City 

webpage and there is also a movie in the internet about 

the campaign. Aarhus municipality has also implemented 

bicycle countings in the main bike corridors. The automatic 

cyclist counters and monitors are very informative 

and they are also used as an active element that inspires 

the population. 

Figure 3.2.3: Automatic cyclist count at Hans Broges. 

“Aarhus Municipality`s infrastructure offers optimal conditions 

for both cyclists and the public transportation. Moreover, 

Aarhus municipality is known internationally as a 

bicycle city” ”(Aarhus Municipality, 2009b). 

At the Aarhus Bicycle Action Plan 2007, six main focus areas 

for development of bike infrastructures are described. 

The major one is the development of a coherent bicycle 

network, making this network more permeable. Other 

focus areas are: to make road intersections more bike 

friendly, to improve safety conditions, to create more and 

At the latest campaign, Aarhus Bicycle City promoted a 

competition between every street – with an automatic bicycle 

count installed with the winner being the one that 

increased the number of cyclists. The counting was made 

based on existing counts over a period of two weeks. Using 

already installed automated counters in the different 

neighbourhoods it was possible to register which of the 

neighbourhoods had the highest increase. The winning 

street was Hans Broges Gade. The street won the competition 

with an increase of 41% in the number of bicycle 

rides during the two weeks of the competition (Aarhus 

Stiftstidende, 2010). 

Figure 3.2.4: Aarhus City Hall square transformed in a “bicycle`s Mecca”. Event 

promoted by the Aarhus Bicycle City on the 10th of April 2010. 

Source: Aarhus Municipality. 

Figure 3.2.5: Aarhus City Hall square transformed in a the “bicycle`s Mecca”. Event 

promoted by the Aarhus Bicycle City on the 10th of April 2010. 

Source: Aarhus Municipality. 

64 65


Aarhus municipality has approximately 450 kilometres of 

bicycle tracks and lanes. Considering its 307.119 inhabitants 

(Danske Kommuner, 2009), Aarhus municipality has 

1,46 metres of bicycle lanes and tracks per inhabitant. 

The Aarhus` rate of bicycle tracks and lanes per inhabitant 

is the double from Copenhagen and slightly smaller 

than Odense. 

Aarhus has a coherent bicycle network plan which consists 

of seven bicycle routes linking the core of the city to 

the suburbs. The main focus has been to improve permeability 

and improvement of safety. It is expected to cost 

100 million Danish krones to implement the plan (Aarhus 

Municipality, 2010a). From this amount, seventy million 

Danish crowns have been granted (Aarhus Municipality, 

2010a). 


Hans Broges Gade – our case study – is part of the Holme 

bicycle corridor which connects the suburbs of Holme to 

the core of Aarhus city. The entire improvement of the 

Holme corridor has a budget of 14 million Danish krones. 

Figure 3.2.6: The seven main bicycle connections between the core of Aarhus and 

suburbs. Source: Cykelhandlingsplan – En plan for fremtidens cyklist forhold i Århus 

Kommune. Source: Aahus Municipality 

Figure 3.2.7: The bicycle network of Aarhus municipality. 

Source: Aahus Municipality 

Figure 3.2.8: Ortophoto of Hans Broges Gade. Modified from original picture from Google Earth 

N 

66 67

3.2.2 HANS BROGES GADE 

Hans Broges Gade is located in the Aarhus` inner city 

ring, in a dense neighbourhood composed by block structures 

up to five stories high from the early 20th century. 

The neighbourhood is on outskirts of the city and the majority 

of its buildings has residential use. However some 

buildings have mixed use where shops and offices are 

located in the ground floor. 

In this scenario, the street functions as an important link 

between the suburbs and the core of the city. Moreover 

there is a pedestrian life from mostly local residents that 

use the local commerce. 

The purpose of the intervention at Hans Broges Gade 

was to improve a bicycle route connecting southern suburbs 

of Holme to the centre of the city to become one of 

seven main bicycle corridors of the bicycle network plan. 


Hans Broges Gade used to be a street with broad lanes 

for motorized vehicles and car parking facilities in both directions 

just next to the sidewalks. There were only bicycle 

tracks at the beginning of the street in the side facing 

Marcelis Boulevard for the first 100 meters. Along the rest 

of the street, cyclists had to ride their bikes on the outside 

of the rows of parked cars together motorized vehicles, 

especially busses. 

With long blocks of up to 150 metres, cyclists with their 

bikes parked in the sidewalk had difficulty to access the 

road because of the row of parked cars. During the field 

observation several elderly residents mentioned it to be 

unsafe to walk on the sidewalks because cyclists preferred 

to ride their bikes on them, and consequently becoming 

unsafe for the pedestrians. 

In order to give space to implement bicycle tracks in both 

directions of the street, one of the car parking rows was 

removed. 

THE COSTS OF HANS BROGES GADE 

The construction work of Hans Broges Gade was conducted 

between the 1st of December 2009 and the 15th 

of July 2010. The construction was delayed for several 

months due to a harsh winter and from road construction 

diggings for reinstalling main cables. 

Aarhus municipality hired the counting firm for Grontmij 

Cal Bro to develop the project and manage the construction, 

consulting engineers for project design and construction 

management. 

The overall cost of the project was 2,8 million Danish krones. 

At the project end maintenance became part of regular 

municipality maintenances with no costs specified. 

After the opening, the maintenance costs of the infrastructure 

were estimated by the municipalities assumption 

costs and there is no information about specific costs. 

Figure 3.2.9: Hans Broges Gade view before the intervention, in September 2009. Source: Google street view 

Figure 3.2.10: Hans Broges Gade view after the intervention, in September 2010 

68 69

DESIGN CHARACTERISTICS AND 

STREETSCAPE 



Han Broges Gade is part of the Holme corridor which 

links the city core to the Holme suburbs. The infrastructure 

aimed to improve biking conditions in the corridors. 

(Figure 3.2.11 and 3.2.12). The area is predominantly 

residential with some commercial buildings. The sidewalk 

has been divided into a shared space between bike 

parking, a pedestrian path, bike path and a grassed area 

which separates the bike path from the road where cars 

are parked. The street is around 430 metres long, and 

contains a garden square with some shops and residential 

apartments. 

Figure 3.2.11 Hans Bro Gade bike path 

Figure 3.2.12 Traffic calming at crossing. 

Figure 3.2.13 Technical drawings from Hans Bro Gade. Source: COWI. 

70 71


The flow of cyclists and pedestrians at Han Broges Gade 

is going in both directions on either side of the road. Looking 

south down the streetscape the sidewalk is divided into 

three spaces. Beginning from the building across there is 

a space for bike parking and shop signs. The pedestrian 

path lies directly next to the bike path divided by a small 

drainage gutter. The grass area separates cyclists from 

the parked cars and the street. On the opposite side of the 

street there is no car parking and no grass area dividing 

the cars from the cyclists (Figure 3.2.14 and 3.2.15). 

The flow of traffic in the morning is quite busy as people 

are heading into the city for work or school. Cyclists are 

very eager to get to their destinations and understand 

how to navigate the bike path with other cyclists and on 

coming pedestians in the sidewalk next to them. The 

pedestrians walking on the sidewalk do not disturb the 

flow of cyclists. The cyclists have to navigate around the 

curved bend in the bike path which slows them down and 

makes them aware to look for cars passing over the bike 

path, however cars must give way to the flow of cyclists 

crossing the road. Complications can arise when the cars 

do not give way to the flow of cyclists therefore possibly 

PEDESTRIAN 

SIDEWALK 

BIKE PATH 

CAR PARKING 

STREET 

BIKE PATH 

PEDESTRIAN 

SIDEWALK 

Hans Broges Gade 

BIKE PARKING/ 

SIGNS 

DRAINAGE GUTTER 

GRASS AREA 

Figure 3.2.14: Hans Broges Gade section. 

Figure 3.2.16: Crossing at Hans Broges Gade 

Figure 3.2.15: Hans Broges Gade plan. 

72 73

PAVEMENT 

The sidewalk and bike path is a combination of concrete 

tiles, stone tiles and asphalt. The sidewalks are a lighter 

colour in contrast to the dark bike path creating a clear 

division between the spaces. The sidewalks are divided 

by stone tiles separating pedestrians from each other. 

To guide the cyclists in the correct lane a white symbol of 

a bike has been painted at the road crossings, which also 

alerts car drivers that this is a lane dedicated to cyclists 

(Figure 3.2.17 and 3.2.18). A small asphalt ramp has 

been applied to the gutter so the cars and cyclists can 

drive over the bike path and pedestrian sidewalk. 

HIERARCHY OF USERS 

The car needs to go up to the level of the cyclist to cross 

the cyclist path. The cyclist has priority for crossing the 

road therefore the car must give way to the in coming flow 

of cyclists and pedestrians (Figure 3.2.19). 

VELOCITIES 

Since the bike path is solely dedicated to cyclists they 

can go quite fast, they are also able to ride comfortably 

next to each other while having a conversation see Figure 

3.2.23. Hans Broges Gade has high and low peaks 

of traffic during the day. Peak hours where the bike path 

is most populated is in the morning from 7am to 10am 

when people are on their way to work or school. Other 

peak hours are in the afternoon/evening from 4pm till 

7pm when people are on their way home from work and 

school. During these times it is more difficult for cyclists to 

go very fast as the bike path is more crowded. However 

during off peak times cyclists can go faster as there are 

less cyclists, these times are from 10am till 3pm, 7pm till 

7am and on the weekends. 

Figure 3.2.19: Hierarchy of transport modes 

Cyclists can ride consistent speeds along the bike path 

however they must slow down at the curves in the path 

where they cross the side street (Figure 3.2.21 and 

3.2.22). Walkers do not present any problems to the infrastructure 

as they are moving so slowly but they do have 

to pay a lot of attention to fast moving cyclists and cars 

at the intersections. Conflicts can arise when people are 

riding slowly or cyclists with kids that are riding slowly, this 

can become unsafe with fast riding cyclists that try to ride 

around them into the pedestrian path. 

Figure 3.2.21: Cyclist riding down while entering the bike lane. 

Figure 3.2.17: Bike path and sidewalk. 

PEDESTRIAN PATH 

Figure 3.2.22: Cyclist slowing down at the crossing. 

BIKE PATH 

CAR MUST GIVE WAY TO CYCLISTS 

Figure 3.2.18 Crossing section 

BIKE PATH 

CURVE HUMP 

Figure 3.2.20: Individual riding his bike at a high speed 

Figure 3.2.23: Two individuals riding their bikes next to each other and talking. 

74 75

PARKING 

TREES AND LANDSCAPING DESIGN 


Hans Broges Gade includes parking for bikes and cars. 

People tend to park their bikes along the front of residential 

buildings and shops. While cars have designated 

parks cut out of the greenery areas keeping them well organised 

into the streetscape (Figures 3.2.24 and 3.2.25). 

There is no car parking on the other side of the road. 

The area along Hans Broges Gade is sprinkled with two 

small areas of garden landscape. The first is a triangular 

garden that sits above a car park servicing a block of 

apartments (Figure 3.2.28). The second is a pretty garden 

square that houses rows of trees in a concrete paved 

landscape (Figure 3.2.27 and 3.2.29). Bordering the bike 

path and the street is a strip of grassed area separating 

the cyclists from the street. However on the opposite side 

of the street there is no grass strip. 

SEATING 

There are a few pieces of street furniture in the area. 

They are all chairs and reside in front of and in the garden 

square (Figure 3.2.30). 

MISSING 

SEATING 

GARDEN SQUARE 

Figure 3.2.30: Bench at Tietgens Square. 

GRASS 

STRIP 

SEATING 

STREET LIGHTS 

Figure 3.2.24: Car parking at Hans Broges Gade. 

Figure 3.2.27: Greenery at Hans Broges Gade. 

Lamps hang above the middle of the road (Figure 3.2.31). 

Figure 3.2.31: Street lamp. 

Figure 3.2.25: Bike and car parking. 

Figure 3.2.28: Front garden at Hans Broges Gade. 

PUBLIC ART 

At the Tietgens Square stands a statue in honor 

to Hans Broge. Hans Broges Gade was opened 

in 1901 and named after the renowned merchant 

and city counciler Hans Broge (1822-1908) (Figure 

3.2.32). 

Figure 3.2.26: Hans Broges Gade plan. 

Figure 3.2.29: Tietgens Square. 

Figure 3.2.32: Statue in honor to Han Broge. 

76 77

SIGNAGE 

Signage includes the counting meter which calculates 

the amount of cyclists that travel on the bike path (Figure 

3.2.33). There are a few car parking signs indicating when 

and where you can park your car. 

Other signage includes the bike symbol on the bike path 

itself and at the areas where cyclists can cross the road 

(Figure 3.2.34). However the bike symbol is visually 

not evident enough as you see below in Figure 3.2.35 

and 3.2.36 a car has parked over the bike symbol and 

at the same time blocking the bike ramp where cyclists 

can cross. The bike symbol is also located at the curved 

crossing as you can see in Figure 3.2.37. 

Figure 3.2.33: Cyclist counting meter 

Figure 3.2.35: Car covering bike signage 

Figure 3.2.34: Bike signage. 


Figure 3.2.37: Bike symbol located on the bike path curve and intersection 

78 79

CROSSINGS, INTERSECTIONS 

There are a few crossings and intersections that cyclists 

must navigate to ensure a safe ride. These include the 

main entrance where the path begins and the curved intersections 

which act as a bridge over the side streets. 

Also the small bike ramps which enable cyclists to leave 

the path and cross the road. 

As previously discussed cyclists must be weary of cars 

passing through the bike path even though the cyclist 

has priority when crossing the path. A big problem as discussed 

in signage is when cars park over the bike symbol 

making it difficult for the cyclist to cross the road as 

he can not see the bike ramp or the bike symbol (Figure 

3.2.38). Also sometimes there are no ramps for cyclists to 

cross therefore they are not even able to cross the road, 

this leads to cyclists riding up the wrong side of the road. 

The Figure 3.2.39 highlights a few problems where there 

is either no signage or the signage and ramp has been 

covered by parked cars. 

Figure 3.2.40 Cyclist riding his bike in the car lane 

Other problems include locating the ramp on the curved 

path only in the middle, as cyclists then have to always 

ride back into the half circle to enter the bike path and turn 

left. This leads to cyclists taking short cuts and riding up 

the road instead (see Figure 3.2.40). 

Figure 3.2.38: Bike signage and ramp covered and cyclist crossing in an alternative 

way 

Figure 3.2.39: Sequency of images of a cyclist crossing the 

street in an inappropriate way. 

Figure 3.2.41: Cyclist riding his bike in the sidewalk. 

80 81

ACCESSIBILITY 

To access the new bike path coming from the suburbs you 

must cross a main road at the southern end of Hans Broges 

Gade then enter the bike path (Figure 3.2.42). The 

bike path also has multiple access points via side streets 

horizontally conversing over the bike path. At the end of 

Hans Broges Gade in the direction of the city, the bike 

path is at the northern end where it dissovles into the road 

(FIgure 3.2.43). 

BUILT ENVIRONMENT AND USE 

The street was constructed with a light curve which was 

one of the major ideas under the concept of creating a 

more diverse streetscape and living experience. The plan 

of the street thereby rejects the monotony that was part of 

the landscape at that time The surrounding area around 

Hans Broges Gade mostly consists of residential apartments 

with some commercial business centers with some 

parks and gardens scattered in between them. Hans Broges 

Gade acts as a main traffic corridor filtering a flow 

of cars, cyclists and pedestrians into the core of the city. 

(Figure 3.2.44). 

The planned effect of greater diversity becomes visible 

when passing through the street. The curved facade line 

limits the visibility, but when moving through the street 

new perspectives gradually open up to new experiences. 

The majority of the buildings at Hans Broges Gade is four 

stores and which were erected between 1900 and 1910. 

Most of the buildings are designed with facade detailsincorporating 

bay windows together with corner towers 

and spines. 

Figure 3.2.42: Cyclists entering from the suburbs. 

Figure 3.2.44: Built environment at Hans Broges Gade. 

Figure 3.2.43: Entrance form the city centre 

82 83

Total number of cyclists in a day in September from 2006 to 2010 

1500 

1000 

Total number of cyclists per hour in a day in September from 2006 to 2010 

160 

140 

120 

2006 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

500 

100 

80 

60 

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 

40 



20 

6-7 

7-8 

8-9 9-10 10-11 11-12 12-13 13-14 14-15 15-16 16-17 17-18 18-19 

160 

140 

120 

100 

80 

60 

40 

20 

0 

6-7 

7-8 

8-9 

9-10 10-11 11-12 

12-13 

13-14 14-15 15-16 16-17 

17-18 18-19 

HOURS 

6-7 

8-9 

11-12 

30 Bikes 130 Bikes 60 Bikes 

16-17 

18-19 

140 Bikes: 70 Bikes 

Figure 3.2.45: Cyclist countings at Hans Broges Gade 

Source: Aarhus municipality 

84 85





of the respondents. Thirdly, it is presented a descriptive 

statistic to analyze all the answers. In search of finding relationships 

between socio-demographic variables and the 

web survey answers, the last section presents a statistical 

analysis using the Chi2 test. 

A total of 163 individuals that were riding a bike at Hans 

Broges Gade on September 2 answered the questionnaire 

in the period between September 2 and October 1. 

Based on the Aarhus municipality count done in September 

2009, on average there are 15 out of 1251 bicycle 

trips at Hans Broges Gade from 7am until 7pm – including 

both directions – on weekdays. Estimating that 35% of 

these cyclists ride their bikes at least once per day in the 

infrastructure, it was stipulated a total of 813 individuals 

ride a bike at Hans Broges Gade per day. 

A total of 605 flyers were distributed to individuals riding 

their bikes in the infrastructure from 7am until 7pm and 

from these total 163 answered the questionnaire. 

Based on these figures, the respondents represent 



the flyer while riding a bike in the infrastructure on the 

2nd of September 2010. 

MAIN FINDINGS 

The data from the survey reveals a picture of Hans Broges 

Gade as a piece of infrastructure used by the majority 

of the cyclists for commuting (45%). However, the main 

purpose of the trips from the other 55% of cyclists is very 

diverse (19% shopping, 13% educational institutions 6% 

recreational, 4% visiting family and friends and 13% others). 

The figures are directly connected to the built environment 

were the infrastructure is located – and main 

streets in a residential based neighborhood next to the 

city core. 


most of the answers do not have a relationship with sociodemographic 

conditions. However, some representative 

relations between the independent variables – gender, 

age and educational level – and the questionnaire answers 


There is a relationship between the main trip purpose 

when riding a bike at Hans Broges Gade including both 

age and educational level. Moreover, the opinion about 

how the design solution of the infrastructure impacted 

fast connectivity also has a relationship with both age and 

educational level. 

Regarding the satisfaction with the design solution for 

Hans Broges Gade, it seems to have a relationship between 

the answers and educational level. 

Finally, gender has a relationship with both the opinion 

about the awareness of pedestrians for cyclists and their 

opinion about the scenic and greenery quality of Hans 

Broges Gade. 



RESIDENTIAL LOCATION OF USERS 


riding a bike at Hans Broges Gade on September 2 – 

were registered and geo-referenced in order to produce a 

map (see Figure 3.2.46 and 3.2.47). According to the Table 

xx, the majority of the respondents (68,1%) live within 

a radius of 1 kilometer and 91,9% of them living within 5 

kilometers distance from the infrastructure. 


correspond to 8,1% of the total and from this 

amount only 15% are living more than 10 kilometers away 

of the infrastructure. 


KM KM 

NO. DWELLINGS 111 11 7 16 4 10 2 0 2 

% DWELLINGS 68,1% 6,7% 4,3% 9,8% 2,5% 6,1% 1,2% 0,0% 1,2% 

Table 3.1.1: Absolute and percentage distribution of respondents according to the 

distance of their residential location from Hans Broges Gade. 

86 87

10 km 

30 km 

5 km 

20 km 

4 km 

15 km 

3 km 

10 km 

2 km 

5 km 

1 km 

N 

N 

Figure 3.2.46: Spatial distribution of the respondents according to their residential location – 5km 

Figure 3.2.47: Spatial distribution of the respondents according to their residential location - 20km 

88 89


SOCIO-DEMOGRAPHICS 

AGE 

35% 

30% 

AGE 


40% 

35% 


HOW OFTEN DO YOU GO ON HANS BROGES GADE 

WALKING AT HANS BROGES WITHOUT BIKE? GADE 

30% 

HOW OFTEN DO YOU USE THE BIK E FOR THE PURPOSE 


FREQUENCY OF TRIPS TO THE MAIN PURPOSE 

HANS BROGES GADE? 

1% 1% 2% 

25% 

20% 

15% 

30% 

25% 

20% 

15% 

25% 

20% 

15% 

16% 

7% 

NO ANSWER 

MORE RARELY 

NOT AS OFTEN 

10% 

10% 

10% 

JUST AS OFTEN AS BEFORE 

5% 

5% 

5% 

MORE OFTEN 

0% 

NO 00 - 10 

ANSWER YEARS 

11 - 20 

YEARS 

21 - 30 

YEARS 

31 - 40 

YEARS 

41 - 50 

YEARS 

51 - 60 

YEARS 


61 - 70 

YEARS 

71 - 80 

YEARS 

81 - 90 

YEARS 

The majority of the respondents at Hans Broges Gade 

are between 21-30 years (30%), followed by respondents 

aged 31-40 (19%) and aged 41-50 (15%). Older respondents 

range from aged from 51-60 (12%), age 61-70 (9%) 

and age 71-80 (2%). Younger respondents were in the 

aged 11-20 (6%) and age 0-10 (1%). No answer 3%. This 

shows that Hans Broges Gade is used mostly by younger 

people but also that the site is use by a wide ranges of 

ages. 

0% 

NO ANSWER 

PUBLIC 

SCHOOL 

VOCATIONAL 

EDUCATION 

HIGH 

SCHOOL 

SHORT 

HIGHER 

EDUCATION 


MEDIUM 

HIGHER 

EDUCATION 

LONG 

HIGHER 

EDUCATION 

The large majority of respondents answered that they 

have a long higher education (34%), or a medium long, 

higher education (32%). 7% respondents answered that 

they had attended higher education for a short amount of 

time, and another 7% respondents answered a vocational 

education. 12% of the respondents had a gymnasium 

education, 6% had receiving a public school education, 

and 2% giving no answer. It can thereby be concluded 

that the users of Hans Broges Gade overall have a high 

education level. 

0% 


WEEK 

5 DAYS OF 

WEEK 

3-4 DAYS OF 

WEEK 


WEEK MONTHS 

Figure 3.2.52: Distribution of the respondents by the frequency they walk at Hans 

Broges Gade. 

MORE 

RARELY 

Respondents were asked if they walk at Hans Broges 

Gade without bike. A majority responded traveled rarely 

without bike (26%). However, 21% answered to walk in 

the site 6-7 days a week (21%). 13% said 1-3 days a 

month, 17% said 1-2 days a week, 13% said 3-4 days a 

week, 7% stated 5 days a week and 2% gave no answer. 

This data shows that individuals that ride their bikes at 

Hans Broes Gade also walk in the site without their bikes. 

73% 

MUCH MORE OFTEN 


Hans Broges Gade for the main purpose mentioned in the Figure 3.2.53 after the 

intervention in the site. 

Respondents were asked, how often they use the bike 

for their main purposed as answered in previous question 

after the opening of Hans Broges Gade. 73% of respondents 

answered that they travel for that purpose just 

as often as before. 16% of respondents stated that they 

bike for that purpose more often and 7% said much more 

often. Only 2 % in total answered that they traveled less 

often and 1 % much less often. 1 % gave no answer. This 

data indicates that the opening of Hans Broges Gade 

have had an small impact on the amount of travelers, The 

opening have therefore had a impact on the bikeability of 

the city. 

GENDER 

GENDER 

RIDING A BIKE AT HANS BROGES GADE 

HOW OFTEN DO YOU BIKE ON HANS BROGES GADE? 


WHAT IS YOUR PURPOSE ON HANS BROGES GADE? 

SATISFACTION HOW SATISFIED WITH ARE YOU HANS WITH BROGES HANS BROGES GADE GADE? 

52% 

4% 

44% 

NO ANSWER 

MAN 

WOMEN 

35% 

30% 

25% 

20% 

15% 

10% 

13% 

19% 

11% 

2% 

45% 

NO ANSWER 

TRANSPORTATION TO AND 

FROM WORK 




33% 

3% 

14% 

11% 

1% 

NO ANSWER 


DISSATISFIED 

NEUTRAL 

SATISFIED 

Figure 3.2.49: Distribution of the respondents by gender. 

5% 

0% 


WEEK 

5 DAYS OF 

WEEK 

3-4 DAYS OF 

WEEK 


WEEK MONTHS 

MORE 

RARELY 


Hans Broges Gade. 

4% 

6% 


FROM SCHOOL 

OTHERS 

Figure 3.2.53: Distribution of the respondents by main trip purpose when riding a bike 

in Hans Broges Gade. 

38% 


Figure 3.2.55: Distribution of the respondents by the level of satisfaction with the 

design of Hans Broges Gade 

When asked about their gender, 52% of the respondents 

were women and 44% were men, with 4% giving no answer. 

When asked how often they bike at the site, the majority 

50% of the respondents said that they use the bridge 5 

days per week (22%) or 6-7 days per week (31%). 20% 

of the respondents used the site 3-4 days per week, 12% 

said 1-2 days per week, 10% said 1-3 days per month and 

only 4% said that they rarely ride a bike that. The figures 

highlight that the site is a place where young people bike 

many days of the week. 

When asked for what purpose the respondents use Hans 

Broges Gade, 45% answered that they use the infrastructure 

for commuting to and from work. A great percentage 

19% also used Hans Broges Gade for shopping, 13% 

used it to commute to school, 4% answered to see friends 

or family, 6% for recreation, 11% said other purpose and 

2% gave no answer. This figure shows that Hans Broges 

Gade is as infrastructural element used for commuting 

but the street also has other infrastructural purposes. 

When asked how satisfied the respondent were with Hans 

Broges Gade 71% in total of them where satisfied (38%) 

or very satisfied (33%) with the new infrastructure. 11% 

were neutral, 1% were dissatisfied and 15% were very 

dissatisfied. 3% gave no answer. This figure shows that 

the majority likes the urban space wail a small majority of 

15% that have issues with Hans Broges Gade. 

90 91

HANS BROGES GADE’S DESIGN AND SAFETY 

SAFETY 

60% 

50% 

HANS BROGES GADE`S DESIGN AND AESTHETICS 

AESTHETICS / BEAUTY 

60% 

50% 

CONFLICT BETWEEN DIFFERENT TRANSPORT 

EXCEEDING THE BOUNDARIES OF BICYCLE PATHS, 

MODES 

SIDEWALK S AND LANES 

3% 2% 2% 



0% 

3% 

0% 1% 

40% 

30% 

40% 

30% 

9% 

NO ANSWER 


11% 

NO ANSWER 


20% 



10% 

0% 

-10% 


20% 

10% 

0% 


33% 

51% 

PROBLEMATIC 


MAJOR PROLEM 

85% 

PROBLEMATIC 


MAJOR PROLEM 


the Hans Broges Gade`s design fulfilled the bicyclist safety aspect. 


the Hans Broges Gade`s design fulfilled the aesthetics aspect. 


problematic is the conflict between different transport modes at Hans Broges Gade. 


problematic is the pavement at Hans Broges Gade. 

Users were asked about the quality of the safety needs 

of the infrastructure. The largest portion of respondents 

thought the design did a good job. 32% answered it did a 

very good job and 47% that it did a good job. 13% were 

neutral on the issue, only 5% said that they thought it did 

a bad job and 1% a very bad job. 2% gave no answer. 

These responses are therefore very satisfied with the 

safety issues at Hans Broges Gade. 

The respondents where asked about the aesthetics of the 

design of Hans Broges Gade, the majority of respondents 

stated that it either did a good (53%) or a very good (23%) 

job. A smaller part of the respondents were neutral (18%) 

in regards to beauty and aesthetics. A few said it did poorly 

(2%), or gave no answer (4%). This figure shows that 

people are satisfied with the aesthetics of the site. 

Respondents were if there were issues with boundaries of 

bicycle paths, sidewalks and lanes. A little over half of the 

respondents 51% said it was not a problem. 33% stated 

that is was a bit of the problem, 9% claimed it was problematic, 

3% said it was quite a problem, and 2% responded 

that it was a major problem. 2% gave no answer on 

whether passing space was an issue. This range shows 

that sidewalks can be a confusing space, and that almost 

half of the respondent saw it as problematic. 


were a problem on Hans Broges Gade, 85% of the 

responses said it was not a problem. 11% stated that it 

was a small problem, 3% claimed it was problematic. 1% 

gave no answer. This figure shows Hans Broges Gade 

has been well maintained, and therefore has a great percentage 

of satisfaction. 

HANS BROGES GADE’S DESIGN AND FAST 


CONNECTIVITY 

60% 

50% 

40% 

30% 



1% 1% 1% 

4% 

13% 

NO ANSWER 



OBSTACLES 

22% 

0% 

2% 

4% 

OBSTACLES 

3% 

NO ANSWER 




CRACK S AND RAMPS ON INTERSECTION S 

2% 0% 2% 

2% 

19% 

NO ANSWER 



20% 

PROBLEMATIC 

PROBLEMATIC 

PROBLEMATIC 

10% 

0% 

80% 


MAJOR PROLEM 

69% 


MAJOR PROLEM 

75% 


MAJOR PROLEM 



the Hans Broges Gade`s design fulfilled the fast connectivity. 


problematic illegal parking of bicycles is at Hans Broges Gade. 


problematic is the existence of obstacles against the cyclists at Hans Broges Gade. 


problematic is the existence of cracks and ramps at Hans Broges Gade. 


Hans Broges Gade was facilitating as a fast connections, 

and the majority responded that it did a good job (51%) or 

a very good job (29%). 15% respondents were neutral on 

the issue and very few stated that it did poorly (2%). 3% 

respondents gave no answer. From this figure, it is clear 

that Hans Broges Gade does a very good job of facilitating 

fast connections. 

Users were asked if they thought that illegally parked bicycles 

were a problem on the Hans Broges Gade. 80% 

of the responses said that they were not a problem, 13% 

said it was a small problem, 4% said it was problematic, 

1% said it was quite problematic, and 1% said it was very 

problematic. 1% gave no answer. This figure shows that 

illegally parked bicycles are not a big problem at the site. 


at Hans Broges Gade were an issue. The majority of the 

respondent stated that obstacles were not a problem 

69%. 22% stated that is was a small problem, 4% claimed 

it was problematic, 2% quite problematic, 3% gave no answer. 

This figure shows that only a small majority of users 

see obstacles as being an issue in using the Hans Broges 

Gade. 


problem in ramps and intersections. 75% of the responses 

said it was not a problem. 19% thought that it was a 

small problem, 2% claimed it was problematic, 2% said it 

was quite a problem. 2% gave no answer. These results 

show that cracks in ramps and intersections can be a 

small problem, one that could be fixed with maintenance. 

92 93

AWARENESS OF PEDESTRIANS AND MOTORIZED 

VEHICLE DRIVERS FOR CYCLISTS 

LACK OF AWARENESS FOR THE SURROUNDING PEOPLE 

SCENIC 

POOR SCENIC AND GREENERY 

QUALITIES INFLUENCING TO RIDE A BIKE 

IF YES, WHAT QUALITIES ABOUT HANS BROGES GADE HAS 


STREET HOW DESIGN IMPORTANT INFLUENCING IS STREET DESIGN TO RIDE (GREEN A AREAS, BIKE 


BIK E? 

2% 1% 

7% 

2% 

NO ANSWER 

2% 2% 

10% 

1% 

NO ANSWER 

30% 

25% 

20% 

15% 

10% 

30% 

25% 

20% 

26% 

62% 



PROBLEMATIC 


MAJOR PROLEM 

25% 

60% 



PROBLEMATIC 


MAJOR PROLEM 

5% 

0% 

SAFETY 




GREENER AREAS 


GREEN WEDGE 



BIKE MAPS 


BIKE PARKING 

15% 

10% 

5% 

0% 


IMPORTANT 

IMPROTANT 


VERY 

IMPORTANT 

IMPROTANT 


problematic is the lack of awareness of pedestrians and motorized vehicle drivers for 

people riding a bike at Hans Broges Gade. 


awareness of pedestrians for cyclists was an issue. Most 

users 62% thought it was not a problem or a small problem 

26%. 7% stated it was problematic, 2% said it was 

quite a problem, and 1% responded that this was a major 

problem. 2% gave no answer. This figure shows that 

cyclists perceive a problem in regards the awareness of 

pedestrians and motorized vehicle drivers for cyclists. 



1% 0% 

2% 

2% 


problematic is scenic and greenery at Hans Broges Gade. 

When asked whether they thought poor greenery and 

scenic landscaping was an issue at Hans Broges Gade, 

60% of the responses said it was not a problem, 25% said 

it was a small problem, 10% stated it was problematic, 

2% said it was quite a problem, and 2% responded that 

this was a major problem. 1% gave no answer. This figure 

shows that greenery can be a problem and that the lack 

of it is noticed by some users. 


BIKING MORE OFTEN HANS BROGES AFTER GADE? HANS BROGES GADE 

INTERVENTION 

1% 



intervention in Hans Broges Gade. The respondents could choose more than one 

option. 



of users stated that safety (24%) was an important 

factor. 20% responded saying wide bicycle lanes made 

them ride more, and 13% stated that maintenance made 

an impact for them. 11% stated they rode more because 

Hans Broges Gade was a nice experience, and because 

faster bike lanes made the difference for them. The most 

important factors for the bikeability at Hans Broges Gade 

is therefore safety issues and the conditions of the bike 

lanes such as the proportions of the lane and the maintenance 

of it. 



ride a bike. 

Users were asked, how important street design is in your 

decision to ride your bicycle. 25% of the respondents 

were neutral on the issue, 25% said it was not important, 

and 23% said it was important. 20% respondents stated 

that it was not important at all and 7% that is was very 

important factor for them. This figure shows that while 

streetscape is not a critical factor in bicycle use, they are 

still important and noticed by users. 

WHAT DO YOU THINK OF THE DESIGN SOLUTIONS 

STREET DESIGN SOLUTIONS AT HANS BROGES 

THAT ARE APPLIED TO HANS BROGES GADE (GREEN 

GADE 

AREAS, LIGHTING, ETC.)? 

50% 

15% 

NO ANSWER 



PROBLEMATIC 


13% 

NO ANSWER 

YES 

NO 

45% 

40% 

35% 

30% 

25% 

20% 

15% 

80% 

MAJOR PROLEM 

86% 

10% 

5% 

0% 



problematic is signposting and its interpretation at Hans Broges Gade. 

When asked whether poor signage was an issue, 80% 

of the responses said it was not a problem, 15% said it 

was a small problem, 2% stated it was problematic, 1% 

said it was quite a problem. 2% gave no answer. This figure 

shows that signage is not a major issue and that the 

design conveys how it should be used clearly to the user. 


often, or not, after the intervention at Hans Broges Gade. 

When asked whether they bike more often after the opening 

of Hans Broges Gade, 86% said they have not biked 

more while 13% said yes. 1% gave no answer. A small 

amount of the respondents are biking more often after 

the opening of Hans Broges Gade, which thereby states 

that the new design have improved that bikeability of the 

site and the amount of bikers. 

Figure 3.2.70: Distribution of respondents according to their opinion about the street 

design solutions (lightning, pavement material, greenery, etc) used in the intervention 

at Hans Broges Gade. 


to Hans Broges Gade, most respondents replied that 

it was a good solution (47%) or that they were neutral on 

the issue (28%). 21% believed it was a very good design 

solution, only 2% thought it was bad, and 2% gave no 

answer. This figure shows that many believe that lighting 

and green scape at Hans Broges Gade is very well done. 

94 95

RELATIONS BETWEEN SOCIO-DEMOGRAPHIC VARIABLES AND WEB- 

SURVEY ANSWERS 






set a α-level at 0,05. In the case of the p-value is under that, we can’t reject the nul hypothesis. 

SOCIO-DEMOGRAPHICS AND WALKING AT HAND BROGES GADE 

6-7 DAYS/ 

WEEK 

5 DAYS/ 

WEEK 

3-4 DAYS/ 

WEEK 

1-2 DAYS/ 

WEEK 

1-3 DAYS/ 

MONTHS 

MORE 

RARELY 

TOTAL 

MALE 15 5 9 13 8 21 71 

FEMALE 20 5 11 15 14 19 84 

TOTAL 35 10 20 28 22 40 155 

Table 3.2.5: Distribution of the respondents by gender according to the frequency they walk at Hans Broges Gade. 

Out of the table 3.2.5, the SPSS calculated the Chi2 to be 1,715 with a degree of freedom (df) 5 and the missing values 


SOCIO-DEMOGRAPHICS AND RIDING A BIKE AT HANS BROGES GADE 

6-7 DAYS/ 

WEEK 

5 DAYS/ 

WEEK 

3-4 DAYS/ 

WEEK 

1-2 DAYS/ 

WEEK 

1-3 DAYS/ 

MONTHS 

MORE 

RARELY 

TOTAL 

MALE 20 19 15 7 7 3 71 

FEMALE 29 17 15 11 9 3 84 

TOTAL 49 36 30 18 16 6 155 

Table 3.2.2: Distribution of the respondents by gender according to the frequency they ride a bicycle at Hans Broges Gade. 



6-7 DAYS/ 

WEEK 

5 DAYS/ 

WEEK 

3-4 DAYS/ 

WEEK 

1-2 DAYS/ 

WEEK 

1-3 DAYS/ 

MONTHS 

MORE 

RARELY 

TOTAL 



HIGH SCHOOL 3 0 4 6 4 3 20 




TOTAL 35 11 22 28 22 40 158 

Table 3.2.6: Distribution of the respondents by educational level according to the frequency they walk at Hans Broges Gade. 

Out of the table 3.2.6, the SPSS calculated the Chi2 to be 29,062 with a degree of freedom (df) 25 and the missing 


6-7 DAYS/ 

WEEK 

5 DAYS/ 

WEEK 

3-4 DAYS/ 

WEEK 

1-2 DAYS/ 

WEEK 

1-3 DAYS/ 

MONTHS 

MORE 

RARELY 

TOTAL 



HIGH SCHOOL 5 5 5 4 0 1 20 




TOTAL 50 36 32 18 16 6 158 

Table 3.2.3: Distribution of the respondents by educational level according to the frequency they ride a bicycle at Hans Broges Gade. 



6-7 DAYS/ 

WEEK 

5 DAYS/ 

WEEK 

3-4 DAYS/ 

WEEK 

1-2 DAYS/ 

WEEK 

1-3 DAYS/ 

MONTHS 

MORE 

RARELY 

TOTAL 

01-20 YEARS 1 0 2 5 3 2 13 

21-30 YEARS 13 5 12 6 4 8 48 

31-40 YEARS 6 1 4 6 5 9 31 

41-50 YEARS 6 2 2 5 3 6 24 

51-60 YEARS 4 1 1 1 4 9 20 

61-90 YEARS 4 1 1 3 3 6 18 

TOTAL 34 10 22 26 22 40 154 

Table 3.2.7: Distribution of the respondents by age groups according to the frequency they walk at Hans Broges Gade. 



6-7 DAYS/ 

WEEK 

5 DAYS/ 

WEEK 

3-4 DAYS/ 

WEEK 

1-2 DAYS/ 

WEEK 

1-3 DAYS/ 

MONTHS 

MORE 

RARELY 

TOTAL 

01-20 YEARS 4 2 2 4 1 0 13 

21-30 YEARS 13 11 16 3 3 3 49 

31-40 YEARS 7 7 8 2 5 1 30 

41-50 YEARS 7 9 3 3 2 0 24 

51-60 YEARS 11 3 1 3 2 0 20 

61-90 YEARS 7 3 2 3 2 1 18 

TOTAL 49 35 32 18 15 5 154 

Table 3.2.4: Distribution of the respondents by age groups according to the frequency they ride a bicycle at Hans Broges Gade. 




TRANS. TO 

AND FROM 

WORK 

RECREA- 

TION/ 

LEISURE 

VISIT 

FAMILY/ 

FRIENDS 

PURCHA- 

SING/ 

SHOPPING 

TRANS. TO 

AND FROM 

SCHOOL 

OTHERS 

MALE 31 6 4 11 9 9 70 

FEMALE 41 4 3 18 11 8 85 

TOTAL 72 10 7 29 20 17 155 

Table 3.2.8: Distribution of the respondents by gender according to the main trip purpose when riding a bike in Hans Broges Gade. 



TOTAL 

96 97

TRANS. TO 

AND FROM 

WORK 

RECREA- 

TION/ 

LEISURE 

VISIT 

FAMILY/ 

FRIENDS 

PURCHA- 

SING/ 

SHOPPING 

TRANS. TO 

AND FROM 

SCHOOL 

OTHERS 

TOTAL 



HIGH SCHOOL 7 0 1 4 6 2 20 




TOTAL 73 10 7 31 20 17 158 

Table 3.2.9: Distribution of the respondents by educational level according to the main trip purpose when riding a bike in Hans Broges Gade. 



MORE RARELY 

NOT AS OFTEN 

JUST AS 

OFTEN AS 

BEFORE 

MORE OFTEN 

MUCH MORE 

OFTEN 

01-20 YEARS 0 1 8 4 0 13 

21-30 YEARS 0 2 33 12 2 49 

31-40 YEARS 0 0 24 4 3 31 

41-50 YEARS 1 0 20 2 1 24 

51-60 YEARS 1 0 11 4 4 20 

61-90 YEARS 0 0 16 0 2 18 

TOTAL 2 3 112 26 12 155 

Table 3.2.13: Distribution of the respondents by age groups according to the frequency they ride a bike in Hans Broges Gade for the main 

purpose mentioned in the Figure 3.2.53, after the intervention in Hans Broges Gade. 



TOTAL 

TRANS. TO 

AND FROM 

WORK 

RECREA- 

TION/ LEISURE 

VISIT 

FAMILY/ 

FRIENDS 

PURCHA-SING 

/SHOPPING 

TRANS. TO 

AND FROM 

SCHOOL 

OTHERS 

TOTAL 

01-20 YEARS 2 0 0 1 7 3 13 

21-30 YEARS 16 6 2 11 12 2 49 

31-40 YEARS 15 2 2 7 1 4 31 

41-50 YEARS 18 0 1 1 0 4 24 

51-60 YEARS 12 1 1 6 0 0 20 

61-90 YEARS 6 1 1 5 0 4 17 

TOTAL 69 10 7 31 20 17 154 

Table 3.2.10: Distribution of the respondents by age groups according to the main trip purpose when riding a bike in Hans Broges Gade. 


values are 9. P is less than 0,001. Therefore, the variables are dependent. 

SOCIO-DEMOGRAPHICS AND SATISFACTION WITH HANS BROGES GADE 

VERY 

DISSATISFIED 


MALE 13 0 6 29 21 69 

FEMALE 10 1 11 31 31 84 

TOTAL 23 1 17 60 52 153 

Table 3.2.14: Distribution of the respondents by gender according to the level of satisfaction with the design of Hans Broges Gade. 




MORE RARELY 

NOT AS OFTEN 

JUST AS 

OFTEN AS 

BEFORE 

MORE OFTEN 

MUCH MORE 

OFTEN 

MALE 0 2 52 10 7 71 

FEMALE 2 1 62 15 5 85 

TOTAL 2 3 114 25 12 156 

Table 3.2.11: Distribution of the respondents by gender according to the frequency they ride a bike in Hans Broges Gade for the main purpose 

mentioned in the Figure 3.2.53, after the intervention in Hans Broges Gade. 



TOTAL 

VERY 

DISSATISFIED 




HIGH SCHOOL 4 0 2 13 1 20 




TOTAL 23 1 17 62 53 156 

Table 3.2.15: Distribution of the respondents by educational level according to the level of satisfaction with the design of Hans Broges Gade. 


values are 7. P is between 0,050 and 0,025 but close to 0,050. Therefore, the variables are dependent. 

MORE 

RARELY 

NOT AS 

OFTEN 

JUST AS 

OFTEN AS 

BEFORE 

MORE OFTEN 

MUCH MORE 

OFTEN 



HIGH SCHOOL 0 0 14 6 0 20 




TOTAL 2 3 116 26 12 159 

Table 3.2.12: Distribution of the respondents by educational level according to the frequency they ride a bike in Hans Broges Gade for the main 

purpose mentioned in the Figure 3.2.53, after the intervention in Hans Broges Gade. 



TOTAL 

VERY 

DISSATISFIED 


01-20 YEARS 2 4 6 1 13 

21-30 YEARS 9 3 20 17 49 

31-40 YEARS 3 4 16 8 31 

41-50 YEARS 5 3 7 8 23 

51-60 YEARS 2 2 5 11 20 

61-90 YEARS 1 1 6 8 16 

TOTAL 22 17 60 53 153 

Table 3.2.16: Distribution of the respondents by age groups according to the level of satisfaction with the design of Hans Broges Gade. 


values are 11. P is between 0,250 and 0,100, but close to 0,250. Therefore, the variables are independent. 

98 99

SOCIO-DEMOGRAPHICS AND OPINION ABOUT THE IMPACT OF HANS BROGES GADE`S DESIGN ON SAFETY 


MALE 0 4 8 39 19 70 

FEMALE 1 4 11 37 31 84 

TOTAL 1 8 19 76 50 154 

Table 3.2.17: Distribution of the respondents by gender according to their opinion about how the Hans Broges Gade`s design fulfilled the 

bicyclist safety aspect. 



BAD NEUTRAL GOOD VERY GOOD TOTAL 

PUBLIC SCHOOL 2 0 5 1 8 

VOCATIONAL EDUC. 0 1 3 8 12 

HIGH SCHOOL 0 3 11 5 19 

SHORT HIGHER EDUC. 1 1 6 4 12 

MEDIUM HIGHER EDUC. 0 6 31 13 50 

LONG HIGHER EDUC. 1 12 27 15 55 

TOTAL 4 23 83 46 156 

Table 3.2.21: Distribution of the respondents by educational level according to their opinion about how the Hans Broges Gade`s design fulfilled 

the fast connectivity. 






HIGH SCHOOL 1 3 2 11 2 19 




TOTAL 1 8 20 77 51 157 


the bicyclist safety aspect. 




01-20 YEARS 1 1 9 2 13 

21-30 YEARS 1 4 30 12 47 

31-40 YEARS 0 7 18 6 31 

41-50 YEARS 0 5 13 6 24 

51-60 YEARS 0 2 5 12 19 

61-90 YEARS 1 4 6 7 18 

TOTAL 3 23 81 45 152 

Table 3.2.22: Distribution of the respondents by age groups according to their opinion about how the Hans Broges Gade`s design fulfilled the 

fast connectivity. 


values are 11. P is between 0,100 and 0,050, but very close to 0,050. The variables are independent, but are very close 

to be dependent. If there is a bit of uncertainty the variables could be dependent. 


01-20 YEARS 0 1 4 6 2 13 

21-30 YEARS 0 0 7 26 15 48 

31-40 YEARS 1 1 3 20 6 31 

41-50 YEARS 0 3 2 9 10 24 

51-60 YEARS 0 1 2 5 11 19 

61-90 YEARS 0 1 1 9 7 18 

TOTAL 1 7 19 75 51 153 

Table 3.2.19: Distribution of the respondents by age group according to their opinion about how the Hans Broges Gade`s design fulfilled the 

bicyclist safety aspect. 



SOCIO-DEMOGRAPHICS AND OPINION ABOUT HANS BROGES GADE`S AESTHETICS 


MALE 2 15 37 14 68 

FEMALE 2 13 47 22 84 

TOTAL 4 28 84 36 152 

Table 3.2.23: Distribution of the respondents by gender according to their opinion about how the Hans Broges Gade`s design fulfilled the 

aesthetics aspect. 



SOCIO-DEMOGRAPHICS AND OPINION ABOUT THE IMPACT OF HANS BROGES GADE`S DESIGN ON FAST 

CONNECTIVITY 


MALE 2 9 37 21 69 

FEMALE 1 14 45 24 84 

TOTAL 3 23 82 45 153 

Table 3.2.20: Distribution of the respondents by gender according to their opinion about how the Hans Broges Gade`s design fulfilled the fast 

connectivity. 










TOTAL 4 29 85 37 155 


the aesthetics aspect. 



100 101


01-20 YEARS 1 3 7 2 13 

21-30 YEARS 1 11 29 6 47 

31-40 YEARS 2 5 18 6 31 

41-50 YEARS 0 1 14 9 24 

51-60 YEARS 0 3 7 9 19 

61-90 YEARS 0 5 9 3 17 

TOTAL 4 28 84 35 151 

Table 2.3.25: Distribution of the respondents by age groups according to their opinion about how the Hans Broges 

Gade`s design fulfilled the aesthetics aspect. 




NOT 

A BIT 

QUITE 

MAJOR 

PROBLEMATIC 



TOTAL 

MALE 32 28 5 4 1 70 

FEMALE 48 25 9 1 2 85 

TOTAL 80 53 14 5 3 155 

Table 3.2.29: Distribution of the respondents by gender according to their opinion about how problematic is the conflict between different 

transport modes at Hans Broges Gade. 




NOT 

A BIT 

QUITE 

MAJOR 

PROBLEMATIC 



TOTAL 

MALE 56 10 4 1 0 71 

FEMALE 71 11 1 1 1 85 

TOTAL 127 21 5 2 1 156 

Table 2.3.26: Distribution of the respondents by gender according to their opinion about how problematic illegal parking of bicycles is at Hans 

Broges Gade. 


values are 7. P is bigger than 0,250. Therefore, the variables are independent 

NOT PROBLE- 

MATIC 

A BIT 

PROBLE- 

MATIC 

PROBLE- 

MATIC 

QUITE 

PROBLE- 

MATIC 

MAJOR 

PROBLEM 



HIGH SCHOOL 5 11 1 2 1 20 




TOTAL 82 54 14 5 3 158 





TOTAL 

NOT PROBLE- 

MATIC 

A BIT 

PROBLE- 

MATIC 

PROBLE- 

MATIC 

QUITE 

PROBLE- 

MATIC 

MAJOR 

PROBLEM 



HIGH SCHOOL 18 2 0 0 0 20 




TOTAL 130 21 5 2 1 159 




values are 4. P is between 0,250 and 0,100. Therefore, the variables are independent 

TOTAL 

NOT 

A BIT 

QUITE 

MAJOR 

PROBLEMATIC 



TOTAL 

01-20 YEARS 5 5 2 1 0 13 

21-30 YEARS 28 14 5 1 1 49 

31-40 YEARS 10 16 2 1 2 31 

41-50 YEARS 15 7 2 0 0 24 

51-60 YEARS 12 4 2 2 0 20 

61-90 YEARS 11 5 1 0 0 17 

TOTAL 81 51 14 5 3 154 





NOT 

A BIT 

QUITE 

MAJOR 

PROBLEMATIC 



TOTAL 

01-20 YEARS 12 1 0 0 0 13 

21-30 YEARS 37 8 3 1 0 49 

31-40 YEARS 26 5 0 0 0 31 

41-50 YEARS 22 2 0 0 0 24 

51-60 YEARS 17 1 0 1 1 20 

61-90 YEARS 12 4 2 0 0 18 

TOTAL 126 21 5 2 1 155 






NOT 

A BIT 

QUITE 

PROBLEMATIC 


PROBLEMATIC 

TOTAL 

MALE 49 16 3 1 69 

FEMALE 60 19 4 2 85 

TOTAL 109 35 7 3 154 

Table 3.2.32: Distribution of the respondents by gender according to their opinion about how problematic is the 

existence of obstacles against the cyclists at Hans Broges Gade. 



102 103

NOT PROBLE- A BIT PROBLE- 

QUITE PROBLE- 

PROBLE-MATIC 

MATIC 

MATIC 

MATIC 

TOTAL 







TOTAL 112 35 7 3 157 

Table 3.2.33: Distribution of the respondents by educational level according to their opinion about how problematic is the 




NOT 

A BIT 


PROBLEMATIC TOTAL 

01-20 YEARS 10 2 1 13 

21-30 YEARS 41 5 8 49 

31-40 YEARS 26 5 0 31 

41-50 YEARS 23 1 0 24 

51-60 YEARS 18 2 0 20 

61-90 YEARS 15 2 1 18 

TOTAL 133 17 5 155 

Table 3.2.37: Distribution of the respondents by age groups according to their opinion about 

how problematic is the pavement at Hans Broges Gade. 




NOT 

A BIT 

QUITE 

PROBLEMATIC 


PROBLEMATIC 

TOTAL 

01-20 YEARS 9 3 0 1 13 

21-30 YEARS 30 12 5 1 48 

31-40 YEARS 24 5 1 1 31 

41-50 YEARS 20 3 1 0 24 

51-60 YEARS 15 5 0 0 20 

61-90 YEARS 10 7 0 0 17 

TOTAL 108 35 7 3 153 

Table 3.2.34: Distribution of the respondents by age groups according to their opinion about how problematic is the 




NOT 

A BIT 

QUITE 

PROBLEMATIC 


PROBLEMATIC 

TOTAL 

MALE 57 9 3 2 71 

FEMALE 61 21 1 1 84 

TOTAL 118 30 4 3 155 

Table 3.2.38: Distribution of the respondents by gender according to their opinion about how problematic is the 

existence of cracks and ramps at Hans Broges Gade. 




NOT 

A BIT 


PROBLEMATIC Total 

MALE 63 6 2 71 

FEMALE 71 11 3 85 

TOTAL 134 17 5 156 

Table 3.2.35: Distribution of the respondents by gender according to their opinion about how 





QUITE PROBLE- 

PROBLE-MATIC 

MATIC 

MATIC 

MATIC 

TOTAL 







TOTAL 121 30 4 3 158 

Table 3.2.39: Distribution of the respondents by educational level according to their opinion about how problematic is the 





MATIC 

MATIC 

PROBLE-MATIC TOTAL 

PUBLIC SCHOOL 7 2 0 9 

VOCATIONAL EDUC. 9 3 0 12 

HIGH SCHOOL 16 4 0 20 

SHORT HIGHER EDUC. 11 0 1 12 

MEDIUM HIGHER EDUC. 41 8 2 51 

LONG HIGHER EDUC. 53 0 2 55 

TOTAL 167 17 5 159 

Table 3.2.36: Distribution of the respondents by educational level according to their opinion about how 




NOT 

A BIT 

QUITE 

PROBLEMATIC 


PROBLEMATIC 

TOTAL 

01-20 YEARS 12 1 0 0 13 

21-30 YEARS 31 13 4 1 49 

31-40 YEARS 25 5 0 1 31 

41-50 YEARS 22 2 0 0 24 

51-60 YEARS 15 4 0 0 19 

61-90 YEARS 13 4 0 1 18 

TOTAL 118 29 4 3 154 

Table 3.2.40: Distribution of the respondents by age groups according to their opinion about how problematic is the 




104 105

SOCIO-DEMOGRAPHICS AND OPINION ABOUT AWARENESS OF PEDESTRIANS AND MOTORIZED VEHICLE 

DRIVERS FOR CYCLISTS 

NOT 

PROBLEMATIC 

A BIT 

PROBLEMATIC 

PROBLEMATIC 

QUITE 

PROBLEMATIC 

MAJOR 

PROBLEM 

MALE 43 15 8 3 2 71 

FEMALE 54 27 3 0 0 84 

TOTAL 97 42 11 3 2 155 


and motorized vehicle drivers for people riding a bike at Hans Broges Gade. 



TOTAL 


QUITE 

PROBLE-MATIC 

MATIC 

MATIC 

PROBLE-MATIC 

TOTAL 







TOTAL 128 25 4 1 158 

Table 3.2.45: Distribution of the respondents by educational level according to their opinion about how problematic is 

signposting and its interpretation at Hans Broges Gade. 



NOT PROBLE- 

MATIC 

A BIT 

PROBLE- 

MATIC 

PROBLE- 

MATIC 

QUITE 

PROBLE- 

MATIC 

MAJOR 

PROBLEM 



HIGH SCHOOL 12 5 2 1 0 20 




TOTAL 100 42 11 3 2 158 


pedestrians and motorized vehicle drivers for people riding a bike at Hans Broges Gade. 



TOTAL 

NOT 

A BIT 


PROBLEMATIC TOTAL 

01-20 YEARS 9 4 0 13 

21-30 YEARS 38 7 3 48 

31-40 YEARS 24 6 1 31 

41-50 YEARS 22 2 0 24 

51-60 YEARS 17 3 0 20 

61-90 YEARS 15 3 0 18 

TOTAL 125 25 4 154 

Table 3.2.46: Distribution of the respondents by age groups according to their opinion about 

how problematic is signposting and its interpretation at Hans Broges Gade. 



NOT 

A BIT 

QUITE 

MAJOR 

PROBLEMATIC 



TOTAL 

01-20 YEARS 8 4 1 0 0 13 

21-30 YEARS 33 9 5 1 0 48 

31-40 YEARS 19 7 2 1 2 31 

41-50 YEARS 13 11 0 0 0 24 

51-60 YEARS 13 5 1 1 0 20 

61-90 YEARS 11 5 2 0 0 18 

TOTAL 97 41 11 3 2 154 


pedestrians and motorized vehicle drivers for people riding a bike at Hans Broges Gade. 


values are 9. P is between 0,250 and 0,100, but close to 0,250. Therefore, the variables are independent. 


NOT 

A BIT 

QUITE 

MAJOR 

PROBLEMATIC 



TOTAL 

MALE 33 23 11 3 1 71 

FEMALE 61 16 5 1 2 85 

TOTAL 94 39 16 4 3 156 

Table 3.2.47: Distribution of the respondents by gender according to their opinion about how problematic is the scenic at Hans Broges Gade. 




NOT 

PROBLEMATIC 

A BIT 

PROBLEMATIC 

PROBLEMATIC 

QUITE 

PROBLEMATIC 

MAJOR 

PROBLEM 

MALE 43 15 8 3 2 71 

FEMALE 54 27 3 0 0 84 

TOTAL 97 42 11 3 2 155 





TOTAL 

NOT PROBLE- 

MATIC 

A BIT 

PROBLE- 

MATIC 

PROBLE- 

MATIC 

QUITE 

PROBLE- 

MATIC 

MAJOR 

PROBLEM 



HIGH SCHOOL 14 3 2 0 1 20 




TOTAL 97 39 16 4 3 159 

Table 3.2.48: Distribution of the respondents by educational level gender according to their opinion about how problematic is the scenic at Hans 

Broges Gade. 



TOTAL 

106 107


NOT 

A BIT 

QUITE 

MAJOR 

PROBLEMATIC 



TOTAL 

01-20 YEARS 8 3 1 1 0 13 

21-30 YEARS 26 15 4 2 2 49 

31-40 YEARS 13 11 5 1 1 31 

41-50 YEARS 17 6 1 0 0 24 

51-60 YEARS 18 1 1 0 0 20 

61-90 YEARS 11 3 4 0 0 18 

TOTAL 93 39 16 4 3 155 

Table 3.2.49: Distribution of the respondents by age groups according to their opinion about how problematic is the scenic at Hans Broges 

Gade. 



SOCIO-DEMOGRAPHICS AND BIKING MORE OFTEN AFTER HANS BROGES GADE`S OPENING 

YES NO TOTAL 

MALE 11 60 71 

FEMALE 9 76 85 

TOTAL 20 136 156 

Table 3.2.50: Distribution of the respondents by gender based on starting to ride a bike 

more often, or not, after the opening of Hans Broges Gade. 




VERY 



IMPORTANT 

TOTAL 

MAN 11 18 17 21 4 71 

FEMALE 21 20 21 16 7 85 

TOTAL 32 38 38 37 11 156 






VERY 



IMPORTANT 

TOTAL 



HIGH SCHOOL 4 8 4 4 0 20 


MEDIUM HIGHER 

EDUC. 

11 12 15 11 2 51 


TOTAL 32 39 39 38 11 159 





YES NO TOTAL 







TOTAL 21 138 159 

Table 3.2.51: Distribution of the respondents by educational level based on starting to 

ride a bike more often, or not, after the opening of Hans Broges Gade. 



NOT AT ALL 

NOT 

VERY 



IMPORTANT 

TOTAL 

01-20 YEARS 1 4 5 3 0 13 

21-30 YEARS 10 12 9 15 3 49 

31-40 YEARS 5 6 9 8 3 31 

41-50 YEARS 7 9 4 2 2 24 

51-60 YEARS 6 2 5 4 3 20 

61-90 YEARS 2 3 7 6 0 18 

TOTAL 31 36 39 38 11 155 




values are 8. P is bigger than 0,250. Therefore, the variables are independent 

YES NO TOTAL 

01-20 YEARS 2 11 13 

21-30 YEARS 9 40 49 

31-40 YEARS 4 27 31 

41-50 YEARS 1 23 24 

51-60 YEARS 2 18 20 

61-90 YEARS 2 16 18 

TOTAL 20 135 155 

Table 3.2.52: Distribution of the respondents by age groups based on starting to ride 

a bike more often, or not, after the opening of Hans Broges Gade. 



SOCIO-DEMOGRAPHICS AND OPINION ABOUT HANS BROGES GADE`S DESIGN SOLUTION 


MALE 2 15 39 13 69 

FEMALE 1 28 34 22 85 

TOTAL 3 43 73 35 154 

Table 3.2.56: Distribution of respondents by gender according to their opinion about the street design solutions (lightning, 

pavement material, greenery, etc) used in Hans Broges Gade. 



108 109








TOTAL 3 43 76 35 157 

Table 3.2.57: Distribution of respondents by educational level according to their opinion about the street design solutions 

(lightning, pavement material, greenery, etc) used in Hans Broges Gade. 




01-20 YEARS 0 5 7 1 13 

21-30 YEARS 2 16 20 11 49 

31-40 YEARS 0 10 14 7 31 

41-50 YEARS 0 3 13 8 24 

51-60 YEARS 0 4 10 5 19 

61-90 YEARS 1 5 9 2 17 

TOTAL 3 43 73 34 153 

Table 3.2.58: Distribution of respondents by age groups according to their opinion about the street design solutions 

(lightning, pavement material, greenery, etc) used in Hans Broges Gade. 



Figure 3.2.71: Cyclist meter at Hans Broges Gade. 

110 111

3.3 CASE3 

BICYCLE BRIDGE BRYGGEBRO 

3.3.1 COPENHAGEN 

Copenhagen is the Danish national capital and the largest 

municipality of Denmark with a population of 503.699 inhabitants. 

The Copenhagen metropolitan area has a population 

of 1.901.789 inhabitants (Statistikbanken, 2010). 

The municipality is located in the islands of Zealand and 

Amager. 

Moreover, the amount of serious injuries against cyclists 

has now gone from 118 in year 2005 to 121 in year 2008. 

Finally, 51% of the cyclists were feeling confident and 

safe while riding their bikes in year 2008 (Copenhagen 

Municipality, 2009b). 

According to a traffic behaviour study conducted by Danish 

Technical University, 30% of all trips in Copenhagen 

are travelled on bike, 17% on foot, 16% in public transport 

and 30% in private cars (figure 3.3.2). 

DISTRIBUTION OF THE TRIPS BASED ON TRANSPORTATION MODES 

100% 

1% 

1% 

1% 

1% 

1% 

2% 

22% 

22% 18% 

17% 

17% 

16% 

80% 

25% 31% 37% 

28% 

31% 

30% 

60% 

COPENHAGEN 

40% 

30% 

26% 

27% 

29% 

30% 

30% 

20% 

22% 20% 22% 

25% 

21% 

22% 

0% 

Figure 3.3.1: Geographical location of Copenhagen. 

1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 

OTHER PUBLIC TRANSPORT CAR BICYCLE PEDESTIAN 


Figure 3.3.2: Distribution of trips according to transportation mode within Copenhagen 

municipality from 1998 until 2008. Source: Copenhagen Municipality 

Copenhagen has a vision to become World`s Eco-metropolis 

in year 2015 (Copenhagen Municipality, 2009b) 

and a list of thirteen goals has been set up to achieve this 

objective. 

There are two goals directly related to cycling: to reduce 

carbon emissions by 20% from the amount emitted in 

2005 and to become the world`s best city for cyclists. 

In order to become the world`s best city for cyclists, the 

Copenhagen municipality defined three main objectives 

to be achieved before 2050: to have more than 50% of 

its population riding their bikes to go to work or to study, 

to improve the cyclists perception of safeness in the traffic 

and to decrease the number of injuries by half of the 

amount from 2007 (Copenhagen Municipality, 2009b). 

Currently, 37% of Copenhageners that are working or 

studying commute riding a bike (Copenhagen Municipality, 

2010b). 

Figure 3.3.3: Cover of the publication “city of cyclists” with general information about cycling in Copenhagen, history and targets for the future. 

Source: Copenhagen Municipality. 

112 113

To improve the overall air quality of Copenhagen, a new 

law established Copenhagen as Environmental Zone. In 

2008, the first step was took when the core of the city of 

Copenhagen and the municipality of Frederiksberg were 

defined as an Environmental Zone. In 2009, the Environmental 

Zone was extended to the entire Copenhagen municipality. 

The Bike Secretary coordinates all the bicycle campaigns 

developed by Copenhagen Municipality. The Bike Secretary 

is part of the Centre for Traffic which is under the 

Technical and Environmental Department of Copenhagen 

Municipality. 

To improve the discussions between the government and 

cyclists, there is a virtual community – www.ibikecph.dk – 

that functions as an arena to debate cycling in Copenhagen. 

Moreover, cyclists are asked to report any problems 

related to bike infrastructures – holes, cracks, etc. – and 

also to bring up suggestions about how to improve cycling 

conditions in Copenhagen. 

23,966 residents of Copenhagen municipality participated 

in the national campaign “We bike to work”. Copenhagen 

municipality was the one with most participants and most 

cycled average kilometres per participant. 

In both Summer 2009 and Spring 2010, a campaign 

against bike robbery took place in Copenhagen municipality. 

5300 tracking chips were handed out, making possible 

to track stolen bicycles. Parking guards equipped 

with special scanners had registered 250 chipped bicycles 

of which two had been reported stolen. 

Copenhagen Municipality has also recently created a 

board of two hundred children from six different schools 

named Children´s Traffic Council. The board has been 

created to hear bicycle ideas and problems from children’s 

perspective. The board had their first top meeting 

on September 22nd 2010 where major problems were 

discussed and ideas were proposed for the Technical and 

Environmental Secretary of Copenhagen. 

In a study conducted by Copenhagen Municipality about 

safety when riding a bike, 43% of the respondents reported 

to feel unsafe because of other cyclists. In that context, 

Copenhagen Municipality and the Danish Cyclists Society 

made a campaign to address this problematic in September 

2010. The campaign was based in two ideas: “to 

improve karma among cyclists” and “to think more about 

others when cycling”. A series of events took place from 

September 6th till September 12th 2010 – open-air theatre, 

lounge music in the streets, free apples and water 

for cyclists and guided cycle-trip. 

Figure 3.3.4: Logo of the campaign Ibikecph. 

Source: Copenhagen Municipality 

Figure 3.3.5: Cyclists and pedestrians crossing Bryggebro bike bridge. 

114 115

LANGEBRO 


Copenhagen municipality has 340 kilometres of bicycle 

tracks, 20 kilometres of bicycle lanes and 40 kilometres 

of green bicycle routes. At total of 503.699 inhabitants, 

Copenhagen has 0,8 meters of bicycle track, lane or trail 

per inhabitant. 

Bryggebro is part of the University corridor – Universitetsruten 

– which is one of main corridors of the Copenhagen 

network of bicycles and footpaths. 

The University corridor links the two sides of the Copenhagen 

harbour. It provides a shortcut for students travelling 

from Vesterbro to Amager where Copenhagen University 

campuses and the IT University in Ørestad are located. It 

also provides a fast connection for Amager residents to 

shopping facilities and the S-trains and for residents from 

Vesterbro to access green areas like Amager Park and 

Islands Brygge waterfront (CPHX 2009). 

KNIPPELSBRO 

Utterslevruten 

S 

Det gr nne cykelrutenet 2009 

Realiserede og planlagte ruter 

Ryvangsruten 

S 

realiserede ruter og ruter 

under anlÊg 

cykelmulighed langs S erne 

BRYGGEBRO 

S 

Vestvoldruten 

S 

Frederiksbergruten 

Hareskovruten 

S 

S 

S 

S 

Svanemølleruten 

S 

planlagte ruter 

alternativ linief ring 

ruter udenfor kommunen 

cykelforbindelser til Regionen 

N 

kommunegrÊnse 

0 500m 1.000m 

TEKNIK- OG MILJÿFO RVALTNINGEN 

D. 20.05.10 

Nørrebroruten 

S 

S 

n 

Grø dalsruten 

S 

S 

S 

Søruten 

S 

S 

Refshaleruten 

Christiansh avnruten 

Vigerslevruten 

S 

S 

S 

S 

S 

S 

Carlsbergruten 

S 

S 

S 

Havneruten 

Amagerruten 

S 

Valbyruten 

Universitetsruten 

S 

S 

S 

S 

Kastrup Fort ruten 

Hvidovreruten 

Lufthavnsruten 

Ørestadsruten 

Kalvebodruten 

SJÆLLANDSBRO 

Figure 3.3.6: Copenhagen Bicycle Network. Source: Copenhagen Municipality. 

Figure 3.3.7: The four bridges of Copenhagen Harbour. Modified from original picture from Google Earth 

116 117 

N

3.3.2 BRYGGEBRO 

In 2006, it was inaugurated the first exclusively dedicated 

pedestrian and cyclist bridge of Copenhagen: Bryggebro. 

Bryggebro is a 190 meter long, six and a half meters wide, 

swing bridge connecting Kalvebod Brygge over Havneholmen 

to Islands Brygge (CPHX, 2009 and Grontmij- 

Carlbro, 2010). 

Bryggebro links the two sides of Copenhagen Harbor 

and complements the other three connections across the 

Copenhagen harbour. Differently from the other connections, 

Bryggebro is exclusively dedicated for cyclists and 

pedestrians. On the north direction, there is Langebro – 1 

kilometer from Bryggebro – and Knippelsbro – 2 kilometers 

from Bryggebro. On the south direction, there is Sjællandsbroen 

which is 3 kilometers distant from Bryggebro 

(Figure 3.3.7). 

When inaugurating Bryggebro, the politician Klaus Bondam 

mentioned: 

“To bridge the gap between the two wharfs is much more 

than the tangible construction, we use the term “to bridge 

the gap between” in many connections. To bridge a gap 

equals cooperation and dialogue, it equals overcoming 

gaps and obstacles – it is often about creating closeness 

and understanding between people…. It is my hope, that 

this new connection will give rise to new initiatives and 

that cooperation will occur – that this will also be a symbolic 

bridge between the two areas.” 

In 2000, Carl Bro and Sjælsø Group presented to the 

Copenhagen municipality a proposal to build up a bike 

bridge – named Bryggebro – at the Copenhagen harbour. 

Copenhagen municipality accepted the proposal and the 

project was then developed (Grontmij- Carlbro, 2010). 

Bryggebro was designed by the architect office 

DISSING+WEITLING which won for this project the 

”Foreningen til hovedstadens forskønnelse” award 2006 

(Dissing+Weitling, 2010). 

Carl Bro functioned as consulting engineer for Copenhagen 

municipality and developed the technical drawings 

and carried the management and supervision of the construction 

(Grontmij- Carlbro, 2010). 

The construction started in 2005 and was completed in 

September 2006. Bryggebro was officially opened on the 

14th of September 2006. However, construction sites in 

the bridge surroundings and temporary accesses to the 

bridge were present until 2009 (Copenhagen Municipality, 

2010c). 


The construction of Bryggebro improved the accessibility 

between the two sides of Copenhagen Harbor. 

THE COSTS OF BRYGGEBRO 

The total amount spent with the construction of Bryggebro 

was 47.600.000 Danish krones. 

The maintenance costs are expected to be 1.5% of the 

construction costs after 25 years of the opening. Until 

2031, the maintenance costs are expected to rise every 

year 1/25 of 1,5% of the total cost of the bridge. 

In addition, the operational costs of lighting, cleaning, 

anti graffiti, inspection of machinery are estimated to be 

300.000 Danish crowns per year (COWI, 2010 and CPHX 

2009). 

Figure 3.3.8: Bryggebro opening on the 14th of September. Source: Copenhagen Municipality. 

Figure 3.3.9: Image of Bryggebro from Islands Brygge side of the harbor. 

118 119

DESIGN CHARACTERISTIC AND 

STREETSCAPE 


Bryggebroen has an iconic character and functions as a 

landmark in the landscape. It is a 190 meter long by six 

and a half meters wide swing bridge connecting Kalvebod 

Brygge over Havneholmen to Islands Brygge (CPHX 

2010, Grontmij- Carlbro, 2010). It is the first bridge built 

in Copenhagen Harbour in 50 years and the first bridge 

ever built in Copenhagen reserved solely for cyclists and 

pedestrians. 

The bridge is divided equally between cyclists and pedestrians 

connecting workers and students travelling from the 

west part of the city to the Amager based side of Copenhagen. 

It has now made a statement in the area and has 

become an iconic bridge within the neighbourhood. 

Figure 3.310: View of Havneholmen from Bryggebro. 

Figure 3.3.12: View of Bryggebro from Island Brygge to the Havneholmen side. 

Figure 3.3.11: Access to Bryggebro from Havneholmen. 

Figure 3.3.13: Havneholmen and Bryggebro in the background. 

Figure 3.3.14: Bryggebro in the foreground and Islands Brygge in the background. 

120 121


189448 

Figure 3.3.15: Plan and Section of Bryggebro. Source: Copenhagen Municipality. 

Figure 3.3.16: Elevation of the bridge seen from the side and cross section of the bridge. The pedestrian side on the left and cyclist on the right separated by a 60cm high 1.2 

metres wide girder. Source: Copenhagen Municipality. 

122 123


PAVEMENT 

The flow of cyclists and pedestrians at Bryggebro is going 

in both directions on either side of the bridge and at either 

ends of the bridge. Looking at a section of the bridge it is 

divided into three spaces. Beginning from the left there is 

a two way pedestrian path going in both directions, alongside 

this is an 80 centimetre high concrete girder that 

separates the two-directional cycling path from the walking 

path without obstructing eye contact between passing 

pedestrians and cyclists (Figures 3.3.17 and 3.3.18). 

PEDESTRIAN PATH 

BIKE PATH 

The bridge itself is a combination of concrete, steel and 

asphalt. The colour of the cyclist and walking path is black 

asphalt which appears to be a light grey colour. The middle 

concrete girder and steel handrails are a very similar 

shade of grey. At one end of the exits the asphalt path 

meets a large granite paved rectangular area (Figure 

3.3.19 and 3.3.20). At the other end the bridge meets a 

large granite paved footpath (Figure 3.3.22 and 3.3.23). 

To guide the cyclists in the correct lane a white dashed 

line has been placed down the centre of the path. Upon 

entering the bridge there are some metal path guides 

screwed into the concrete paving directing cyclists into 

the correct path. 

Figure 3.3.19: Access to Bryggebro from Islands Brygge. 

Figure 3.3.22: Access to Bryggebro from Havenholmen 

Along the Islands Brygge side of the bridge there is a 

cobble stone road where everyone tends to ride along 

the smooth paved lanes to avoid the slow and rough ride 

along the cobblestones. This creates and defines a good 

separation between the walkers and the cyclists (Figure 

3.3.21). 

N 

ISLANDS BRYGGE 

RECTANGULAR GRANITE 

AREA 

The surface on the bridge and on the entry and exits is in 

a good condition and there is no cracks or potholes which 

means that it is safe for cyclists and pedestrians to use. 

However when it rains the cobblestones and plastic path 

guides would become slippery for cyclists and possibly 

cause accidents. 

WALKNG PATH 

CYCLIST PATH 

SMOOTH PAVED LINES 

HAND RAIL 

Figure 3.3.17: Bryggebro section. 

CONCRETE 

GIRDER 

Figure 3.3.20: Access to Bryggebro from Islands Brygge side. 

COBBLE STONES 

HAVNEHOLMEN 

6.5 m 

N 

CONCRETE 

GIRDER 

HAND RAIL 


WALKING PATH 

CYCLIST PATH 

190 m 

Figure 3.3.21: Islands Brygge promenade 

Figure 3.3.18: Bryggebro plan. 

124 125

HIERARCHY OF USERS 

VELOCITIES 

The users on the bridge have equal priority for crossing 

the bridge. However the cyclists have slightly more space 

which they require to ride comfortably opposite each other 

(Figure 3.3.24). 

The cyclists also demand more space at each end of the 

bridge as they are consistently swooping in and out of the 

bridge at high speeds whilst navigating around pedestrians. 

This can cause some conflicts and clashing between 

pedestrians and cyclists (Figure 3.3.25). 

The bridge has high and low peaks of traffic during the 

day. Peak hours where the bridge is most populated is 

in the morning from 7am to 10am when people are on 

their way to work or school (Figure 3.3.26). Other peak 

hour times are in the afternoon/evening from 4pm till 

7pm when people are on their way home from work and 

school. During these times it is more difficult for the cyclists 

to go very fast as the bridge is crowded. However 

during off peak times cyclists can go faster as there is less 

traffic, these times are from 10am till 3pm, 7pm till 7am 

and on the weekends (Figure 3.3.27). 

PEDESTRIANS 

CYCLISTS 

Some problems can arise when exiting the bridge onto 

the Islands Brygge side. The bridge becomes quite steep 

allowing cyclists to gain a lot of speed making exiting the 

bridge somewhat unsafe. This becomes a problem as 

they then have to make a sharp turn left or right into an 

on coming traffic of pedestrians and cyclists entering the 

bridge. Pedestrians walking do not present any problems 

to the infrastructure as they are moving slowly but they 

do have to pay a lot of attention of fast moving cyclists at 

each exit as do pedestrians running (Figure 3.3.28). 

Figure 3.3.26: Joggers and cyclists crossing. 

Figure 3.3.24: Hierarchy between transport modes. 

HAVNEHOLMEN 


N 

Figure 3.3.27: Cyclists riding fast out of the exit of the bridge. 

CLASHING AREA BETWEEN CYCLISTS AND 

PEDESTRIANS 

Figure 3.3.25: Bryggebro plan and representation of transport mode conflicts. 

EVEN AREA 

CLASHING AREA BETWEEN CYCLISTS AND 

PEDESTRIANS 

Figure 3.3.28: Walkers have to pay attention from fast moving cyclists exiting. 

126 127

PARKING 

There is no illegally parked bikes at Bryggebro. However, 

they can be found in the surrounding area (Figures 3.3.29 

and 3.3.30). 


There are no benches or planters on the bridge. Close to 

the exits of the bridge bins can be found. 

STREET LIGHTS 

To avoid people feeling unsafe when crossing the bridge 

at night the bridge is lit up on the paths of the bridge as 

well as on the bottom of the bridge, guiding cyclists and 

pedestrians across the bridge in the safest manner possible 

(Figure 3.3.31 and 3.3.32). The bridges central spine, 

the girder down the middle, is illuminated by light fixtures 

incorporated into each of the hand railings. The built in 

light in the handrail was chosen as opposed to light poles 

or posts in order to provide an unobtrusive, hidden illumination 

source. Besides the white light illuminating the top 

of the bridge there is a coloured light scheme beneath 

the bridge. 

In the lead up to the bridge along the side of the cobblestone 

road there are also lamp posts guiding you to the 

bridge (Figure 3.3.33). Lighting up the bridge not only creates 

a safe environment for users but also looks pretty 

glowing and reflecting across the water. The bridge is not 

lit up at the exits, which could prove to be dangerous for 

some night users (Figure 3.3.34). 

Figure 3.3.29: A stray bike parked nearby the bridge. 

Figure 3.3.31: Bryggebro illumination. 

Figure 3.3.33: Lamp posts. 

Figure 3.3.30: Bikes parked under stairs. 

Figure 3.3.32: Bryggebro illumination. 

Figure 3.3.34: Bridge exit in the night. 

128 129

SIGNAGE 

There is signage on both sides of the bridge indicating 

where the walkers path entrance is and where the cyclists 

entrance path is, although both utilise good and bad approaches 

to this communication. 

On the Islands Brygge side there is one sign in the middle 

indicating that cyclists enter to the left of the sign (Figure 

3.3.35). On the same side of the bridge to the right there 

is a sign indicating that walker’s enter the bridge to the 

left of the sign (Figure 3.3.36). This can appear somewhat 

confusing to some pedestrians and cyclists as you can 

see in Figure 3.3.35, where a cyclist has taken the wrong 

path and has had to turn backwards to the correct path. 

PUBLIC ART OR OTHER UNIQUE 

FEATURES 

Graffiti can also be found along the bridge, however it 

seems to be more of an eye sore than adding character 

to the bridge (Figure 3.3.39 and 3.3.40). 

However the Havneholmen side of the bridge utilises a 

good example of signage, placing the cyclist and walker 

signs either side of the bridge clearly indicating and defining 

the entrances. (Figure 3.3.37). These signs also require 

maintenance, as they are often damaged through 

graffiti as you can see in Figure 3.3.38 where the arrow 

has been sprayed over. 

Figure 3.3.36: Access from Islands Brygge side. 

Figure 3.3.39: Graffiti at Bryggebro. 

Figure 3.3.37: Bryggebro access from Havneholmen. 

Figure 3.3.35: Cyclist has wrongly entered into the pedestrian lane. 

Figure 3.3.38: Damaged sign. 

Figure 3.3.40: Graffiti at Bryggebro. 

130 131

Love padlocks are a custom by which sweethearts affix 

padlocks to a fence or similar public fixture to symbolise 

their love. The most common place of love padlocks 

are on the railings of the bridges. It is suggested that the 

custom of 'locking a padlock and throwing away the key' 

probably originated in China. Many can be seen along 

Bryggebro giving the bridge some cultural and artistic 

character. 

Figure 3.3.41: Love padlocks 




Figure 3.3.45: Love padlocks. 

132 133

CROSSINGS, INTERSECTIONS 

The main intersections and crossings occur at the either 

end of the bridge where the bridge meets the rectangular 

granite landing which borders a cobblestone road 

or a granite tiled surface. The intersections function as 

shared-use spaces. The solution brings conflicts between 

cyclists and pedestrians. The conflicts are mostly caused 

by the higher speed of cyclists when approaching the 

shared -use area. 

ACCESSIBILITY 

The majority of the problems experienced were in the 

accessibility of driving to the bridge and entering it. As 

slow moving pedestrians mixed with fast moving cyclists 

could create conflicts at the entry and exits (Figure 3.3.48, 

3.3.49, 3.3.50). 

The entry point of the bridge on both sides is made as a 

shared space. The shared spaces include multiple directions 

for cyclists and pedestrians (figures from file). The 

bridge has been built to let small boats, canoes and the 

harbour ferries pass underneath it. This creates a need 

for free height underneath the bridge and this has been 

resolved by creating a rise from both sides towards the 

middle of the bridges. This makes people exiting the 

bridge in both directions drive in high speeds from a dedicated 

bike lane into the shared spaces at the end of both 

sides of the bridge. 

This creates situations where cyclists have to react quite 

quickly to avoid collisions with other drivers, and makes 

pedestrians vunerable to enter and exit the bridge. 

Figure 3.3.48: Bryggebro’s access at Islands Brygge side. 

Figure 3.3.46: Intersection at Islands Brygge. 

Figure 3.3.47: Intersection at Havneholmen 

The landing on the Amager side is a shared space on 

a field of approximately 7x14 meters paved with granite 

tiles. Because of its relatively small size people makes 

their turn towards their new direction within the field. Two 

directions of dedicated bicycle path on the bridge spreads 

to four directions on the small shared space landing. This 

creates crossing of cyclists with no indication of where to 

drive. On top of that there is a layer of pedestrians entering 

and leaving the bridge and strolling along the recreational 

grounds of Islands Brygge. 

Further than avoiding collisions with other cyclists and pedestrians, 

the cyclists also have to read the sign of where 

to drive. The signs are not oriented towards the cyclists 

from their entrance paths on the Amager side. They are 

oriented out in direction of the shared space. When cyclists 

has to do a 90 degree turn in only a few meters 

while still observing other cyclists, it can be hard to read 

the signs at the same time. For most it was not a problem, 

probably as a result of having used the facility before, 

but for some it resulted in choosing the wrong side of the 

bridge and having to drive back. 


Figure 3.3.50: Bryggebro’s acces at Islands Brygge side. 

134 135

There is a connection between the shared space landing 

at the end of the bridge and surrounding bicycle network 

in the promenade paved with cobblestone. Two narrow 

paths has been inserted into the cobble stone to make it 

more accessible for cyclists, but these paths were probably 

not designed to handle the amount of flow over bridge. 

The cobble stone pavement limits cycling to the two 

paved lanes. These two tracks are shared between cyclists, 

people with crafts, woman in high heels, disabled 

people and the elderly with walkers. Furthermore they 

are placed very close to one another making it difficult to 

share a path together (Figure 3.3.51). 

Cyclists trying to overtake other cyclists on these paths 

are forced onto the cobblestones, this creates a bumpy 

ride and whilst observing quite a few chains fell off bikes. 

When leaving the two narrow paths to enter the connected 

bicycle networks, the most commonly used route 

is to cross a privately owned parking lot. The parking lot 

is paved with gravel stone (Figure 3.3.53). A temporary 

asphalt path has been constructed in the middle of the 

parking lot to increase the accessibility. People tend to 

drive the shortest way across the gravel stone parking 

lot when they are leaving from the bridge, while people 

approaching the bridge tend to use the asphalt path. That 

makes good sense, as the asphalt path is connected to 

the bicycle tracks in the facing street. 

Figure 3.3.51: Cyclists on the smooth paved lanes. 

Figure 3.3.52: Pavement detail fron Islands Brygge side. 

When entering the side of Havneholmen there is a choice 

of two routes to go on from (Figure 3.3.54 and 3.3.55). A 

route around Fisketorvet shopping center on a municipal 

road and a route passing by in front of it in private land. A 

lot of people are using the road in front of Fisketorvet as 

a shortcut through the site even though the path brings a 

series of obstacles. The shortcut is paved with stones and 

shared with pedestrians. On the way it has two 90-degree 

turns. With no directions or marked roadways, the cyclists 

have to be careful not to collide with other cyclists or pedestrians. 

The shortcut ends in a staircase connecting Havneholmen 

to Dybbølsbro (Figure 3.3.54). In a counting conducted on 

the municipality of Copenhagen on Monday September 

7th of September 2009 they found that 3208 would drag 

their bicycles up and down the stairs. The study does not 

include how many of these people actually travel over the 

bridge, but we assume that this was the purpose for the 

majority of the bikers based on our observations. 

The other route around Fisketorvet is around 800 metres 

long compared to the shortcuts around 300 metres (Figure 

3.3.55). That is approximately 2 minutes extra when 

travelling at 16km/h, but this is relative as the cyclist has 

to ride up a 250 metre slope to reach same destination 

as you would reach when using the stairs. This physical 

challenge could be the reason why so many are willing 

to step off their bikes and drag them up the stairs (Figure 

3.3.54 and 3.3.55). 

Figure 3.3.54: Bike route linking to the staircases. 

Figure 3.3.55: Longer bike route avoiding staircases. 

For people traveling in southern direction this route easy 

to use, but for people traveling the same destinations that 

the shortcut is fitted for it makes. The route is on proper 

road with asphalt pavement. It has green grass and trees 

under way and great view conditions. The road is constructed 

to be a distribution road for buildings in Havneholmen. 

Cargo bikes are forced to take this route, as they 

are not suited for dragging up and down stairs (Figure 

3.3.57 and 3.3.58). 

Figure 3.3.53: Privately owned parking lot. 

136 137

On the Havneholmen side of the bridge there is a granite 

tiled area in front of a cooperate headquarters. The 

area is privately owned with the entrance to the bridge 

being privately funded (Figure 3.3.56). This solution could 

indicate that a higher emphasis has been set on aesthetics 

for its own headquarter than on creating good bicycle 

conditions. 

The bicycle path indicates that there is only one way out 

of the area one leading to the commercial co financer of 

the bridge and the shopping center Fisketorvet. People 

driving to the road around Fisketorvet has to cross this 

main flow with no indication of direction marked or entrance 

points. 

Figure 3.3.56: Bryggebro entering from the Havneholmen side. 

BUILT ENVIRONMENT AND USES 

The surrounding areas of Bryggebro includes a mixture of 

residential and commercial buildings. The Islands Brygge 

mostly residential side comprises of mostly urban living 

with some commercial buildings. However the Havneholmen 

side is residential and commercial comprising 

of mostly commercial buildings and Dybbølsbro which is 

one of the main train stations in the core of the city (Figure 

3.3.59). 

Figure 3.3.57: Foot bridge to make the trip shorter. 

Figure 3.3.58: Cyclists pushing their bikes up the stairs. 

Figure 3.3.59: Built environment surrounding Bryggebro on the Islands Brygge side. 

138 139

Total number of cyclists in a day in September from 2006 to 2010 

8000 

6000 

Total number of cyclists per hour in a day in September from 2006 to 2010 

2006 

2007 

1200 

2008 

2009 

2010 

1000 

800 

4000 

600 



1200 

2000 

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 

400 

200 

6-7 

7-8 

8-9 9-10 11-12 

10-11 12-13 13-14 14-15 15-16 16-17 17-18 18-19 

1000 

800 

600 

400 

200 

0 

7-8 

8-9 

9-10 10-11 11-12 

12-13 

13-14 14-15 15-16 16-17 

17-18 18-19 

HOURS 

7-8 

8-9 

13-14 

700 bikes 1190 bikes 350 bikes 

16-17 

18-19 

1150 bikes 500 bikes 

Figure 3.3.60: Cyclist countings. Source: Copenhagen Municipality. 

140 141





of the respondents. Thirdly, a descriptive statistic to analyze 

all the answers. In search of finding relationships between 

socio-demographic variables and the web survey 

answers, the last section presents a statistical analysis 

using the Chi2 test. 

A total of 290 individuals that were riding a bike at Bryggebro 

on the 1st of September answered the questionnaire 

in the period between September 1st and October 31st. 

Based on the count done in Copenhagen municipality in 

September 2009, there are an average of 7352 bicycle 

trips at Bryggebro from 7am until 7pm from both directions 

on weekdays. Estimating that 35% of these cyclists 

ride their bikes at least once per day in the infrastructure, 

it was stipulated that a total of 4778 individuals ride a bike 

at Bryggebro per day. 

A total of 3020 flyers were distributed to individuals riding 

their bikes in the infrastructure from 7am until 7pm and 

from these a total of 290 answered the questionnaire. 

Based on these figures, the respondents represents 



the flyer on September 1st whilst riding a bike in the infrastructure. 

MAIN FINDINGS 

In conclusion the data from the survey reveals a picture of 

Bryggebro as a piece of infrastructure used by the majority 

of the cyclists for commuting to work (69%) and to study 

(8%). However, the main purpose of the trips from the left 

23% is very diverse (19% shopping, 3% recreational, 6% 

visiting family and friends and 4% others). The figures are 

directly connected to the built environment were the infrastructure 

is located – a main streets in a residential based 

neighborhood next to the city core. 


most of the answers do not have a relation with socio-demographic 

conditions. However, some representative relations 

between the independent variables – gender, age 

and educational level – and the questionnaire answers 


There is a relation between the main trip purpose when 

riding a bike at Bryggebro and age and educational level. 

The impact of the opening of Bryggebro in the individuals 

decision to ride a bike more often has also a relation 

educational level. Finally, educational level also seems to 

have a relation with the individuals` answers on regards 

their opinion about conflicts between the different transportation 

modes in the infrastructure. 

Finally, there is a relation between gender and individuals`s 

opinion about the lack of awareness of pedestrians for cyclists 

in the infrastructure. 



RESIDENTIAL LOCATION OF 

RESPONDENTS 


riding a bike at Bryggebro on September 1 – were 

registered and geo-referenced in order to produce a map 

(see Figures 3.3.60 and 3.3.61). According to the Table 

3.3.1, the majority of the respondents (59,7%) live within 

a radius of 2 kilometres and 90% of them living within 5 

kilometres distance from the infrastructure. 


correspond to 10% of the total and from this 

amount 30% are living more than 10 kilometres away of 

the infrastructure. 


KM KM 

NO. DWELLINGS 95 78 43 29 16 19 5 4 1 

% DWELLINGS 32,8% 26,9% 14,8% 10,0% 5,5% 6,6% 1,7% 1,4% 0,3% 

Table 3.3.1: Absolute and percentage distribution of respondents according to the distance of their residential location from Bryggebro. 

142 143

10 km 

30 km 

5 km 

20 km 

4 km 

15 km 

3 km 

10 km 

2 km 

1 km 

5 km 

N 

N 



144 145


AGE 

35% 

AGE 


50% 


HOW OFTEN DO YOU GO ON BRYGGEBROEN WITHOUT 

WALKING AT BRYGGEBRO BIKE? 

70% 

HOW OFTEN DO YOU USE THE BIKE FOR THE PURPOSE 


FREQUENCY OF BRYGGEBROEN? 

TRIPS TO THE MAIN PURPOSE 

1% 1% 1% 

56% 

30% 

25% 

20% 

15% 

10% 

5% 

45% 

40% 

35% 

30% 

25% 

20% 

15% 

10% 

5% 

60% 

50% 

40% 

30% 

20% 

10% 

28% 

13% 

No answer 

More rarely 

Not as often 

Just as often as before 

More often 

Much more often 

0% 

NO 

ANSWER 

00 - 10 

YEARS 

11 - 20 

YEARS 

21 - 30 

YEARS 

31 - 40 

YEARS 


41 - 50 

YEARS 

51 - 60 

YEARS 

61 - 70 

YEARS 

0% 

NO ANSWER 

PUBLIC 

SCHOOL 

VOCATIONAL 

EDUCATION 

HIGH 

SCHOOL 

SHORT 

HIGHER 

EDUCATION 


MEDIUM 

HIGHER 

EDUCATION 

LONG 

HIGHER 

EDUCATION 

0% 


WEEK 

5 DAYS OF 

WEEK 

3-4 DAYS OF 

WEEK 


WEEK MONTHS 

MORE 

RARELY 

Figure 3.3.67: Distribution of the respondents by the frequency they walk at Bryggebro. 


Bryggebro for the main purpose mentioned in the Figure 3.3.68 after Bryggebro’s 

opening. 

The majority of the respondents at Bryggebro are between 

31-40 years old (32%), followed closely by respondents 

aged 21-30 (24%) and aged 41-50 (21%). Older respondents 

ranged from 51-60 years old (14%) and 61-70 

years old (5%). Younger respondents were aged between 

11-20 (2%). There were no respondents aged between 

0-10 years old. 2% of the respondents gave no answer. 

A large majority of respondents answered that they have 

attended a high education, for either a long high education 

(46%) or medium high education (31%). 8% of the 

respondents answered that they had attended a higher 

education for a short amount of time, and another 7% of 

respondents answered they had a vocational education. 

3% had receiving a public school education. 1% of the respondents 

gave no answer. Bryggebro’ cyclists therefore 

seems to be commuting to jobs that require a high level 

of education. 

Respondents were asked how often they walk at Bryggebro 

without bike. A majority of respondents answered less 

than once per month (59%). 22% walked on Bryggebro 

1-3 days a month, 9% answered 1-2 days a week, 7% 

answered 3-4 days a week. Finally, 2% stated that they 

walked across the bridge 6-7 days a week. This data 

highlights that most of Bryggebro’s cyclists do not use the 

site for walking. 

Respondents were asked how often they use their bikes 

for the purpose in the previous question after Bryggebro’s 

opening. 56 % of the respondents answered just as often 

as before. Notably 29% of respondents stated that they 

bike for that purpose much more often than before and 

13% said more often than before. Only 2 % answered 

to travel less often or much less often 1 % of the respondents 

gave no answer. This data indicates that Bryggebro 

has had an impact on the amount of travelers, and 

has generated more bike trips, proving the latent demand 

of the bridge. . 

GENDER 

1% 

GENDER 

RIDING A BIKE AT BRYGGEBRO 

45% 

40% 

HOW OFTEN DO YOU BIKE ON BRYGGEBROEN? 

WHAT IS YOUR PURPOSE ON BRYGGEBROEN? 


1% 

NO ANSWER 

HOW SATISFIED ARE YOU WITH BRYGGEBROEN? 

SATISFACTION WITH BRYGGEBRO 

2% 

50% 

49% 

NO ANSWER 

MAN 

WOMEN 

35% 

30% 

25% 

20% 

15% 

10% 

3% 

6% 

9% 

8% 4% 


FROM WORK 




56% 

8% 

1% 4% 

29% 

NO ANSWER 


DISSATISFIED 

NEUTRAL 

SATISFIED 

5% 

0% 


WEEK 

5 DAYS OF 

WEEK 

3-4 DAYS OF 

WEEK 


WEEK MONTHS 

MORE 

RARELY 

69% 


FROM SCHOOL 

OTHERS 




Bryggebro. 

Figure 3.3.68: Distribution of the respondents by main trip purpose when riding a bike 

in Bryggebro. 

Figure 3.3.70: Distribution of the respondents by the level of satisfaction with Bryggebro’s 

design. 

When asked about their gender, 50% of the respondents 

were women and 49% were men, with 1% giving no answer. 

When asked how often they ride a bike at the site, a majority 

of the respondents said that they use the bridge 5 

days per week (39%). 19% used the site 6-7 days per 

week, 18% said 3-4 days per week, 10% said 1-2 days 

per week and 8% said 1-3 days per month. Finally, 4% 

answered that they ride a bike at the site less than once 

per month. 2% of the respondents did not answers. 

When asked for what purpose the respondents use 

Bryggebro, 69% answered they use the infrastructure 

for commuting to and from work. 9% use Bryggebro for 

shopping, 8% use it to commute to school, 6% answered 

to see friends or family, 3% for recreation, 4% said other 

purposes. 1% of the respondents gave no answer. This 

figure again solidifies Bryggebro’s purpose as infrastructure 

mostly used for commuting. 

When asked how satisfied they were with Bryggebro, 

56% responded to be very satisfied with the infrastructure. 

29% stated to be satisfied, and 4% were neutral. 

Of the rest, 1% said they were dissatisfied and 8% said 

they were very dissatisfied. 2% of the respondents gave 

no answer. This figure shows that most cyclists appreciate 

Bryggebro, but there are a few users who have major 

concerns with the design. 

146 147

BRYGGEBRO`S DESIGN SAFETY AND SAFETY 

70% 

60% 

50% 

40% 

30% 

BRYGGEBRO`S DESIGN AESTHETICS AND / AESTHETICS 

BEAUTY 

70% 

60% 

50% 

40% 

30% 

CONFLICT 

EXCEEDING 

BETWEEN 

THE BOUNDARIES 

DIFFERENT 

OF BICYCLE 

TRANSPORT 

PATHS, 

SIDEWALK S AND LANES 

MODES 

1% 

9% 

12% 

35% 

NO ANSWER 





2% 

7% 4% 

9% 

NO ANSWER 



20% 

10% 

20% 

10% 

15% 

PROBLEMATIC 


MAJOR PROLEM 

16% 

62% 

PROBLEMATIC 


MAJOR PROLEM 

0% 



the Bryggebro`s design fulfilled the bicyclist safety aspect. 

0% 


-10% 


the Bryggebro`s design fulfilled the aesthetics aspect. 

28% 


problematic is the conflict between different transport modes at Bryggebro’s accesses. 


problematic is the pavement at Bryggebro. 

Users were asked about the quality regarding the safety 

needs of the infrastructure. A majority of respondents answered 

that the design did a good job (49%) and 23% 

thought it did a very good job. 16% were neutral on the 

issue. 10% stated that it did a bad job and only 1% said 

the safety was very bad. 1% of the respondents gave no 

answer. These responses appear to say that while users 

are satisfied with the design of Bryggebro, the safety 

could only be better to a small degree. 

When asked about the beauty of Bryggebro’s design, the 

majority of respondents stated that it either did a very 

good (36%) or a good job (46%). 13% answered they 

were neutral on the design. Few of the respondents said 

it did poorly (2%), very poorly (1%). And 1% of the respondents 

gave no answer in regards to beauty. This figure 

indicates that users do notice the design of the bridge, 

and believe it adds to the cityscape. 

The responses covered a wide range. 35% of the respondents 

answered that it was not a problematic. However, 

28% stated it was a bit problematic, 15% claimed it was 

problematic, 12% said it was quite a problem, and 9% 

responded that it was a major problem. 1% of the respondents 

gave no answer. This range shows that the shared 

sidewalks can be a confusing space, and the majority of 

respondents see it as somewhat problematic. 


were a problem at Bryggebro, 62% of the responses 

said it was not a problem. 16% stated that it was a 

small problem, 9% claimed it was problematic, 7% said it 

was quite a problem, and 4% responded that it was a major 

problem. 2% of the respondents gave no answer. This 

figure shows that cyclists are satisfied with the pavement 

material from Bryggebro and the infrastructure has been 

well maintained, but conditions will have to be monitored 

as the structure ages. 

BRYGGEBRO`S DESIGN AND FAST CONNECTIVITY 

70% 

60% 

50% 

40% 

30% 

20% 

10% 

0% 




the Bryggebro`s design fulfilled the fast connectivity. 



7% 

1% 1% 

3% 

86% 

2% 

NO ANSWER 



PROBLEMATIC 


MAJOR PROLEM 


problematic illegal parking of bicycles is at Bryggebro. 

OBSTACLES 

10% 

10% 

24% 

5% 

2% 

OBSTACLES 

49% 

NO ANSWER 



PROBLEMATIC 


MAJOR PROLEM 


problematic is the existence of obstacles against cyclists at Bryggebro. 

CRACK S AND RAMPS ON S 


2% 

11% 

12% 

11% 

25% 

39% 

NO ANSWER 



PROBLEMATIC 


MAJOR PROLEM 


problematic the existence of cracks in ramps and intersections is at Bryggebro. 


Bryggebro was facilitating as a fast connections, and the 

majority responded that it did a very good (59%) or a good 

job (32%). 4% respondents were neutral on the issue. 

Very few stated that it did a bad job (3%) or a very bad 

(1%). 1% of the respondents gave no answer. From this 

figure, it is clear that Bryggebro does a good job of facilitating 

fast connections across the harbour. 

Users were asked if they thought that illegally parked bicycles 

were a problem at Bryggebro. A majority of respondents 

(86%) said that they were not a problem. On 

the other hand, 7% said it was a small problem, 3% said 

it was problematic, 1% said it was quite problematic, and 

1% said it was very problematic. 2% of the respondents 

gave no answer. This figure shows that the design mitigate 

the problems with illegally parked bicycles. 


at Bryggebro were an issue. The responses again covered 

a wide range, with the largest percentage of respondents 

(49%) saying it was not a problem. 24% stated that 

is was a small problem, 10% claimed it was problematic, 

10% said it was quite a problem, and 5% responded that it 

was a major problem. 2% of the respondents gave no answer. 

This figure shows that 48% of users see obstacles 

as being an issue to some degree at Bryggebro. 


problem in ramps and intersections. 39% of the responses 

said it was not a problem at Bryggebro. 25% thought 

that it was a small problem, 12% claimed it was problematic, 

11% said it was quite a problem, and another 

11% responded that this was a major problem. 2% of the 

respondents gave no answer. These results show that 

cracks in ramps and intersections are a concern for the 

majority of users of Bryggebro, one that could be fixed 

with maintenance. 

148 149

AWARENESS OF PEDESTRIANS FOR PEOPLE 

LACK OF AWARENESS FOR THE SURROUNDING PEOPLE 

RIDING A BIKE 

13% 

8% 

30% 

5% 

3% 

3% 2% 

41% 


NO ANSWER 



PROBLEMATIC 


MAJOR PROLEM 

Figure 3.3.79: Distribution of the respondents according to their opinion about 

how problematic is the lack of awareness of pedestrians for people riding a bike at 

Bryggebro. 


awareness of pedestrians for cyclists was an issue. A 

majority of respondents thought it was not a problem 

(41%) or it was a small problem (30%). 13% stated it 

was problematic, 8% said it was quite a problem, and 5% 

responded that this was a major problem. 3% of the respondents 

gave no answer. This figure shows that for the 

majority of users lack of awareness by other users was 

somewhat of an issue. 


SCENIC 

23% 

8% 

5% 

3% 2% 

2% 

POOR GREENERY 

59% 

NO ANSWER 



PROBLEMATIC 


MAJOR PROLEM 


problematic is the scenic at Bryggebro. 

When asked whether they thought poor scenic landscaping 

was an issue at Bryggebro, 59% of the responses 

said it was not a problem. However, 23% said it was a 

small problem, 8% stated it was problematic, 5% said it 

was quite a problem, and 3% responded that this was a 

major problem. 2% of the respondents gave no answer. 

The figure shows a great coherence with previous question 

of poor signposting and interpretation. 


BIKING MORE OFTEN AFTER BRYGGEBRO INTER- 

VENTION 

BRYGGEBROEN? 

QUALITIES IF YES, INFLUENCING WHAT QUALITIES ABOUT TO RIDE BRYGGEBROEN A BIKEHAS 


45% 

40% 

35% 

30% 

25% 

20% 

15% 

10% 

5% 

0% 

SAFETY 




GREENER AREAS 


GREEN WEDGE 



BIKE MAPS 


BIKE PARKING 



opening of Bryggebro. The respondents could choice more than one option. 



of users stated that faster connections (41%) made the 

largest impact. 13% responded saying fast bicycle lanes 

made them ride more often, and 9% stated attractive 

landscaping made an impact for them. 34 stated they 

ride more often at Bryggebro because the pleasant experience 

and 4% replied wide bike lanes made the difference 

for them. From this data the most important factors 

that influenced the amount users ride was the faster trips 

that resulted from the infrastructure. 

35% 

30% 

25% 

20% 

15% 

10% 

5% 

0% 

45% 

HOW IMPORTANT IS STREET DESIGN (GREEN AREAS, 


BIK E? 

STREET DESIGN INFLUENCING TO RIDE A BIKE 


IMPORTANT 

IMPROTANT 


VERY 

IMPORTANT 

IMPROTANT 



ride a bike. 

Users were asked, how important is street design in your 

decision to ride your bicycle. The largest portion of respondents 

answered saying that street design was important 

(33%), 29% were neutral on the issue, 20% said 

it was not important, and 11% said it was not important 

at all. Only 17% respondents stated that it was a very 

important factor for them. This figure shows that while 

streetscapes are not a critical factor in bicycle use, they 

are still important and noticed by users. 

STREET DESIGN SOLUTIONS AT BRYGGEBRO 

WHAT DO YOU THINK OF THE DESIGN SOLUTIONS 

THAT ARE APPLIED TO BRYGGEBROEN (GREEN AREAS, 

L IGHTING, ETC.)? 

23% 

8% 

5% 

59% 

NO ANSWER 



PROBLEMATIC 


MAJOR PROLEM 

68% 

30% 

NO ANSWER 

YES 

NO 

40% 

35% 

30% 

25% 

20% 

15% 

10% 

5% 

0% 



problematic is signposting and its interpretation at Bryggebro. 

When asked whether poor signage was an issue at 

Bryggebro, 59% of the responses said it was not a problem. 

On the other hand, 23% said it was a small problem, 

8% stated it was problematic, 5% said it was quite a problem, 

and 3% responded that this was a major problem. 

2% of the respondents gave no answer. 


often, or not, after the opening of Bryggebro. 

When asked whether they bike more often after Bryggebro 

opened, 68% said they have not biked more often. 

However, 30% of the respondents said that they were biking 

more often after the bridge opened. 2% of the respondents 

gave no answer. This figure shows that Bryggebro 

has increased ridership for a third of all users. This is evidence 

of a strong impact dedicated cycling facilities that 

enhance fast connectivity can have on trip generation. 

Figure 3.3.85: Distribution of respondents according to their opinion about the street 

design solutions (lightning, pavement material, greenery, etc) used in Bryggebro. 


to Bryggebro, most respondents replied that it was 

a good solution (42%) or that they were neutral on the 

issue (36%). 11% believed it was a very good design 

solution. On ther other hand, 7% thought it was poor and 

4% responded very poor. 1% of the respondents gave no 

answer. 

150 151

RELATIONS BETWEEN SOCIO-DEMOGRAPHIC VARIABLES AND WEB- 

SURVEY ANSWERS 






set a α-level at 0,05. In the case of the p-value is under that, we can’t reject the nul hypothesis. 

SOCIO-DEMOGRAPHICS AND WALKING AT BRYGGEBRO 

6-7 DAYS/ 5 DAYS/ 3-4 DAYS/ 1-2 DAYS/ 1-3 DAYS/ MORE 

WEEK WEEK WEEK WEEK MONTHS RARELY 

TOTAL 

MALE 2 1 8 12 24 9 139 

FEMALE 3 0 11 14 37 78 143 

TOTAL 2 1 19 26 61 170 282 

Table 3.3.5: Distribution of the respondents by gender according to the frequency they walk at Bryggebro 


are 8. The P value is bigger than 0,250. Therefore, the variables are independent. 

SOCIO-DEMOGRAPHICS AND RIDING A BIKE AT BRYGGEBRO 

6-7 DAYS/ 5 DAYS/ 3-4 DAYS/ 1-2 DAYS/ 1-3 DAYS/ MORE 

WEEK 

WEEK WEEK WEEK MONTHS RARELY 

TOTAL 

MALE 27 53 24 15 12 7 138 

FEMALE 26 57 28 14 12 4 141 

TOTAL 53 110 52 29 24 11 279 

Table 3.3.2: Distribution of the respondents by gender according to the frequency they ride a bicycle at Bryggebro. 



6-7 

DAYS- 

/WEEK 

5 DAYS- 

/WEEK 

3-4 DAYS 

/WEEK 

1-2 DAYS 

/WEEK 

1-3 

DAYS/ 

MONTHS 

MORE 

RARELY 

TOTAL 



HIGH SCHOOL 0 0 2 1 1 8 12 




TOTAL 5 1 19 26 61 171 283 

Table 3.3.6: Distribution of the respondents by educational level according to the frequency they walk at Bryggebro 



6-7 DAYS/ 

WEEK 

5 DAYS/ 

WEEK 

3-4 DAYS/ 

WEEK 

1-2 DAYS/ 

WEEK 

1-3 DAYS/ 

MONTHS 

MORE 

RARELY 

TOTAL 



HIGH SCHOOL 4 3 3 1 0 1 12 




TOTAL 54 110 52 29 24 11 280 

Table 3.3.3: Distribution of the respondents by educational level according to the frequency they ride a bicycle at Bryggebro. 



6-7 

DAYS/ WEEK 

5 

DAYS/ WEEK 

3-4 

DAYS/ WEEK 

1-2 

DAYS/ WEEK 

1-3 

DAYS/ 

MONTHS 

MORE 

RARELY 

TOTAL 

01-20 YEARS 0 0 1 1 1 3 6 

21-30 YEARS 2 0 5 4 16 40 67 

31-40 YEARS 2 0 5 11 24 51 93 

41-50 YEARS 1 1 3 3 11 43 62 

51-60 YEARS 0 0 3 5 2 29 39 

61-90 YEARS 0 0 2 2 5 5 14 

TOTAL 5 1 19 26 59 171 281 

Table 3.3.7: Distribution of the respondents by age groups according to the frequency they walk at Bryggebro 



6-7 DAYS/ 

WEEK 

5 DAYS/ 

WEEK 

3-4 DAYS/ 

WEEK 

1-2 DAYS/ 

WEEK 

1-3 DAYS/ 

MONTHS 

MORE 

RARELY 

TOTAL 

01-20 YEARS 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 

21-30 YEARS 14 21 19 5 3 2 64 

31-40 YEARS 15 41 16 14 5 3 94 

41-50 YEARS 11 27 8 5 8 2 61 

51-60 YEARS 8 13 4 4 7 2 38 

61-90 YEARS 4 6 4 0 0 1 15 

TOTAL 53 109 52 29 24 11 278 

Table 3.3.4: Distribution of the respondents by age groups according to the frequency they ride a bicycle at Bryggebro. 




TRANS. TO 

AND FROM 

WORK 

RECREATION / 

LEISURE 

VISIT 

FAMILY / 

FRIENDS 

PURCHASING 

/ SHOPPING 

TRANS. TO 

AND FROM 

SCHOOL 

OTHERS 

MALE 104 4 4 13 7 7 139 

FEMALE 92 5 14 13 16 4 144 

TOTAL 196 9 18 26 23 11 283 

Table 3.3.8: Distribution of the respondents by gender according to the main trip purpose when riding a bike in Bryggebro. 



TOTAL 

152 153

TRANS. TO 

AND FROM 

WORK 

RECREA- 

TION/ 

LEISURE 

VISIT 

FAMILY/ 

FRIENDS 

PURCHA- 

SING/ 

SHOPPING 

TRANS. TO 

AND FROM 

SCHOOL 

OTHERS 

TOTAL 



HIGH SCHOOL 6 1 0 1 4 0 12 




TOTAL 196 9 18 27 23 11 284 

Table 3.3.9: Distribution of the respondents by educational level according to the main trip purpose when riding a bike in Bryggebro. 



TRANS. TO 

AND FROM 

WORK 

RECREA- 

TION/ 

LEISURE 

VISIT 

FAMILY/ 

FRIENDS 

PURCHA- 

SING/ 

SHOPPING 

TRANS. TO 

AND FROM 

SCHOOL 

OTHERS 

TOTAL 

01-20 YEARS 0 1 0 1 3 1 6 

21-30 YEARS 39 1 8 3 15 0 66 

31-40 YEARS 70 2 4 12 4 2 94 

41-50 YEARS 53 1 3 2 0 3 62 

51-60 YEARS 27 2 2 5 1 2 39 

61-90 YEARS 5 2 1 4 0 3 15 

TOTAL 194 9 18 27 23 11 282 

Table 3.3.10: Distribution of the respondents by age groups according to the main trip purpose when riding a bike in Bryggebro 


values are 8. P is less than 0,001. Therefore, the variables are very dependent. 

MORE RARELY 

NOT AS OFTEN 

JUST AS 

OFTEN AS 

BEFORE 

MORE OFTEN 

MUCH MORE 

OFTEN 



TOTAL 

01-20 YEARS 1 0 4 0 1 6 

21-30 YEARS 0 1 39 12 15 67 

31-40 YEARS 0 1 53 8 31 93 

41-50 YEARS 1 0 35 5 21 62 

51-60 YEARS 1 0 19 8 11 39 

61-90 YEARS 0 0 9 3 3 15 

TOTAL 3 2 159 36 82 282 

Table 3.3.13: Distribution of the respondents by age groups according to the frequency they ride a bike in Bryggebro for the main purpose 

mentioned in the Table 3.3.68, after the intervention in Bryggebro. 


values are 8. is between 0,100 and 0,050, but very close to 0,100. Therefore, the variables are independent. 

SOCIO-DEMOGRAPHICS AND SATISFACTION WITH BRYGGEBRO 

MORE RARELY NOT AS OFTEN 

JUST AS 

MUCH MORE 

OFTEN AS MORE OFTEN 

OFTEN 

BEFORE 

TOTAL 

MALE 2 1 85 19 32 139 

FEMALE 1 1 75 17 50 144 

TOTAL 3 2 160 36 82 283 

Table 3.3.14: Distribution of the respondents by gender according to the level of satisfaction with the design of Bryggebro. 


MORE RARELY 

NOT AS OFTEN 

JUST AS 

OFTEN AS 

BEFORE 

MORE OFTEN 

MUCH MORE 

OFTEN 

MALE 2 1 85 19 32 139 

FEMALE 1 1 75 17 50 144 

TOTAL 3 2 160 36 82 283 

Table 3.3.11: Distribution of the respondents by gender according to the frequency they ride a bike in Bryggebro for the main purpose mentioned 

in the Table 3.3.68, after the intervention in Bryggebro. 



TOTAL 

VERY DIS- DIS- 

SATISFIED SATISFIED 








TOTAL 22 4 10 83 163 282 

Table 3.3.15: Distribution of the respondents by educational level according to the level of satisfaction with the design of Bryggebro. 



MORE 

RARELY 

NOT AS 

OFTEN 

JUST AS 

OFTEN AS 

BEFORE 

MORE OFTEN 

MUCH MORE 

OFTEN 







TOTAL 3 2 160 36 83 284 

Table 3.3.12: Distribution of the respondents by educational level according to the frequency they ride a bike in Bryggebro for the main purpose 

mentioned in the Table 3.3.68, after the intervention in Bryggebro. 



TOTAL 

VERY 

DISSATISFIED 


01-20 YEARS 0 0 0 0 6 6 

21-30 YEARS 5 1 3 25 32 66 

31-40 YEARS 10 1 1 28 54 94 

41-50 YEARS 3 2 3 17 36 61 

51-60 YEARS 2 0 3 10 24 39 

61-90 YEARS 2 0 0 3 9 14 

TOTAL 22 4 10 83 161 280 

Table 3.3.16: Distribution of the respondents by age groups according to the level of satisfaction with the design of Bryggebro. 



154 155

SOCIO-DEMOGRAPHICS AND OPINION ABOUT THE IMPACT OF BRYGGEBRO`S DESIGN ON SAFETY 


MALE 3 14 18 69 36 140 

FEMALE 0 14 29 69 31 143 

TOTAL 3 28 47 138 67 283 

Table 3.3.17: Distribution of the respondents by gender according to their opinion about how the Bryggebro`s design fulfilled the cyclist safety 

aspect. 










TOTAL 3 8 12 94 167 284 

Table 3.3.21: Distribution of the respondents by educational level according to their opinion about how the Bryggebro`s design fulfilled the fast 

connectivity. 


values are 6. P is between 0,100 and 0,050, but very close to 0,100. Therefore, the variables are independent. 








TOTAL 3 28 47 139 67 284 

Table 3.3.18: Distribution of the respondents by educational level according to their opinion about how the Bryggebro`s design fulfilled the 

cyclist safety aspect. 




01-20 YEARS 0 0 0 2 4 6 

21-30 YEARS 1 3 5 21 37 67 

31-40 YEARS 2 2 4 33 53 94 

41-50 YEARS 0 1 2 25 33 61 

51-60 YEARS 0 2 1 10 26 39 

61-90 YEARS 0 0 0 2 13 15 

TOTAL 3 8 12 93 166 282 

Table 3.3.22: Distribution of the respondents by age groups according to their opinion about how the Bryggebro`s design fulfilled the fast connectivity. 




01-20 YEARS 0 0 0 4 2 6 

21-30 YEARS 1 8 10 30 18 67 

31-40 YEARS 1 10 15 48 20 94 

41-50 YEARS 1 4 13 29 14 61 

51-60 YEARS 0 3 7 22 7 39 

61-90 YEARS 0 3 2 6 4 15 

TOTAL 3 28 47 139 65 282 

Table 3.3.19: Distribution of the respondents by age group according to their opinion about how the Bryggebro`s design fulfilled the cyclist 

safety aspect. 



SOCIO-DEMOGRAPHICS AND OPINION ABOUT BRYGGEBRO`S AESTHETICS 


MALE 1 3 22 63 50 139 

FEMALE 1 3 15 70 54 143 

TOTAL 2 6 37 133 104 282 

Table 3.3.23: Distribution of the respondents by gender according to their opinion about how the Bryggebro`s design fulfilled the aesthetics 

aspect. 

Out of the Table3.3.23, the SPSS calculated the Chi2 to be 1,790 with a degree of freedom (df) 4 and the missing values 


SOCIO-DEMOGRAPHICS AND OPINION ABOUT THE IMPACT OF BRYGGEBRO`S DESIGN ON FAST CONNEC- 

TIVITY 


MALE 0 4 4 45 87 140 

FEMALE 3 4 8 48 80 143 

TOTAL 3 8 12 93 167 283 

Table 3.3.20: Distribution of the respondents by gender according to their opinion about how the Bryggebro`s design fulfilled the fast connectivity. 










TOTAL 2 6 38 133 104 283 

Table 3.3.24: Distribution of the respondents by educational level according to their opinion about how the Bryggebro`s design fulfilled the 

aesthetics aspect. 



156 157


01-20 YEARS 0 0 2 2 2 6 

21-30 YEARS 2 0 6 31 28 67 

31-40 YEARS 0 1 20 45 28 94 

41-50 YEARS 0 2 5 34 20 61 

51-60 YEARS 0 3 4 14 18 39 

61-90 YEARS 0 0 1 7 6 14 

TOTAL 2 6 38 133 102 281 

Table 3.3.25: Distribution of the respondents by age groups according to their opinion about how the Bryggebro`s design fulfilled the aesthetics 

aspect. 




NOT 

A BIT 

QUITE 

PROBLEMATIC 


PROBLEMATIC 


MALE 56 37 20 12 13 138 

FEMALE 44 44 21 23 12 144 

TOTAL 100 81 41 35 25 282 

Table 3.3.29: Distribution of the respondents by gender according to their opinion about how problematic is the conflict between different 

transport modes at Bryggebro. 


are 8. P is between 0,250 and 0,100, but very close to 0,250. Therefore, the variables are independent. 


NOT 

A BIT 

QUITE 

PROBLEMATIC 


PROBLEMATIC 


MALE 123 12 2 1 1 139 

FEMALE 124 8 6 1 3 142 

TOTAL 247 20 8 2 4 281 

Table 3.3.26: Distribution of the respondents by gender according to their opinion about how problematic illegal parking of bicycles is at Bryggebro. 



NOT PROBLE- 

MATIC 

A BIT 

PROBLE- 

MATIC 

PROBLE- 

MATIC 

QUITE 

PROBLE- 

MATIC 

MAJOR 

PROBLEM 







TOTAL 101 81 41 35 25 283 




values are 7. P is between 0,050 and 0,025. Therefore, the variables are dependent 

TOTAL 

NOT PROBLE- 

MATIC 

A BIT 

PROBLE- 

MATIC 

PROBLE- 

MATIC 

QUITE 

PROBLE- 

MATIC 

MAJOR 

PROBLEM 



HIGH SCHOOL 10 2 0 0 0 12 




TOTAL 247 20 8 3 4 282 


at Bryggebro. 



TOTAL 

NOT 

A BIT 

QUITE 

MAJOR 

PROBLEMATIC 



TOTAL 

01-20 YEARS 3 2 1 0 0 6 

21-30 YEARS 20 23 9 8 7 67 

31-40 YEARS 38 27 8 14 6 93 

41-50 YEARS 23 17 14 3 5 62 

51-60 YEARS 9 11 5 10 4 39 

61-90 YEARS 7 1 3 0 3 14 

TOTAL 100 81 40 35 25 281 




values are 9. P is between 0,250 and 0,100, but very close to 0,100. Therefore, the variables are independent. 

NOT 

A BIT 

QUITE 

MAJOR 

PROBLEMATIC 



TOTAL 

01-20 YEARS 5 1 0 0 0 6 

21-30 YEARS 57 6 2 0 2 67 

31-40 YEARS 87 2 2 1 1 93 

41-50 YEARS 55 5 1 1 0 62 

51-60 YEARS 29 6 2 0 1 38 

61-90 YEARS 12 0 1 1 0 14 

TOTAL 245 20 8 3 4 280 


Bryggebro. 




NOT 

A BIT 

QUITE 

MAJOR 

PROBLEMATIC 



TOTAL 

MALE 74 28 16 14 7 139 

FEMALE 66 42 11 14 9 142 

TOTAL 140 70 27 28 16 281 

Table 3.3.32: Distribution of the respondents by gender according to their opinion about how problematic is the existence of obstacles against 

the cyclists at Bryggebro. 



158 159

NOT PROBLE- 

MATIC 

A BIT 

PROBLE- 

MATIC 

PROBLE- 

MATIC 

QUITE 

PROBLE- 

MATIC 

MAJOR 

PROBLEM 

TOTAL 







TOTAL 141 70 27 28 16 282 

Table 3.3.33: Distribution of the respondents by educational level according to their opinion about how problematic is the existence of obstacles 

against the cyclists at Bryggebro. 



NOT 

A BIT 

QUITE 

MAJOR 

PROBLEMATIC 



TOTAL 

01-20 YEARS 3 2 1 0 0 6 

21-30 YEARS 38 12 6 7 3 66 

31-40 YEARS 68 8 9 4 3 92 

41-50 YEARS 39 11 7 3 2 62 

51-60 YEARS 21 9 2 3 3 38 

61-90 YEARS 7 2 2 2 1 14 

TOTAL 176 44 27 19 12 278 

Table 3.3.37 Distribution of the respondents by age groups according to their opinion about how problematic is the pavement at Bryggebro. 




NOT 

A BIT 

QUITE 

MAJOR 

PROBLEMATIC 



TOTAL 

01-20 YEARS 3 3 0 0 0 6 

21-30 YEARS 25 17 10 10 5 67 

31-40 YEARS 52 17 10 10 4 93 

41-50 YEARS 35 16 4 3 3 61 

51-60 YEARS 19 13 2 3 2 39 

61-90 YEARS 5 4 1 2 2 14 

TOTAL 139 70 27 28 16 280 

Table 3.3.34: Distribution of the respondents by age groups according to their opinion about how problematic is the existence of obstacles 

against the cyclists at Bryggebro. 



NOT 

A BIT 

QUITE 

MAJOR 

PROBLEMATIC 



TOTAL 

MALE 56 37 16 14 14 137 

FEMALE 57 33 18 17 19 144 

TOTAL 113 70 34 31 33 281 

Table 3.3.38: Distribution of the respondents by gender according to their opinion about how problematic is the existence of cracks in ramps 

and intersectios is at Bryggebro. 




NOT 

A BIT 

QUITE 

PROBLEMATIC 


PROBLEMATIC 


MALE 88 21 13 11 6 139 

FEMALE 89 23 14 8 6 140 

TOTAL 177 44 27 19 12 279 

Table 3.3.35: Distribution of the respondents by gender according to their opinion about how problematic is the pavement at Bryggebro. 



NOT PROBLE- 

MATIC 

A BIT 

PROBLE- 

MATIC 

PROBLE- 

MATIC 

QUITE 

PROBLE- 

MATIC 

MAJOR 

PROBLEM 







TOTAL 113 71 34 31 33 282 

Table 3.3.39: Distribution of the respondents by educational level according to their opinion about how problematic is the existence of cracks in 

ramps and intersections is at Bryggebro. 



TOTAL 

NOT PROBLE- 

MATIC 

A BIT 

PROBLE- 

MATIC 

PROBLE- 

MATIC 

QUITE 

PROBLE- 

MATIC 

MAJOR 

PROBLEM 







TOTAL 178 44 27 19 12 280 

Table 3.3.36: Distribution of the respondents by educational level according to their opinion about how problematic is the pavement at Bryggebro. 



TOTAL 

NOT 

A BIT 

QUITE 

MAJOR 

PROBLEMATIC 



TOTAL 

01-20 YEARS 2 4 0 0 0 6 

21-30 YEARS 20 20 5 10 10 65 

31-40 YEARS 48 14 15 8 9 94 

41-50 YEARS 25 17 7 8 5 62 

51-60 YEARS 13 12 6 2 5 38 

61-90 YEARS 4 3 1 3 4 15 

TOTAL 112 70 34 31 33 280 

Table 3.3.40: Distribution of the respondents by age groups according to their opinion about how problematic is the existence of cracks in 

ramps and intersections is at Bryggebro. 



160 161

SOCIO-DEMOGRAPHICS AND OPINION ABOUT AWARENESS OF PEDESTRIANS FOR PEOPLE RIDING A BIKE 

NOT 

A BIT 

QUITE 

MAJOR 

PROBLEMATIC 



TOTAL 

MALE 56 37 16 14 14 137 

FEMALE 57 33 18 17 19 144 

TOTAL 113 70 34 31 33 281 


for people riding a bike at Bryggebro. 



NOT PROBLE- 

MATIC 

A BIT 

PROBLE- 

MATIC 

PROBLE- 

MATIC 

QUITE 

PROBLE- 

MATIC 

MAJOR 

PROBLEM 







TOTAL 170 66 23 13 8 280 

Table 3.3.45: Distribution of the respondents by educational level according to their opinion about how problematic is signposting and its 

interpretation at Bryggebro. 



TOTAL 

NOT PROBLE- 

MATIC 

A BIT 

PROBLE- 

MATIC 

PROBLE- 

MATIC 

QUITE 

PROBLE- 

MATIC 

MAJOR 

PROBLEM 







TOTAL 118 85 37 22 16 278 


pedestrians for people riding a bike at Bryggebro. 



TOTAL 

NOT 

A BIT 

QUITE 

MAJOR 

PROBLEMATIC 



TOTAL 

01-20 YEARS 3 3 0 0 0 6 

21-30 YEARS 40 9 11 6 1 67 

31-40 YEARS 54 24 6 5 3 92 

41-50 YEARS 38 17 4 0 2 61 

51-60 YEARS 23 11 1 2 1 38 

61-90 YEARS 10 2 1 0 1 14 

TOTAL 168 66 23 13 8 278 

Table 3.3.46: Distribution of the respondents by age groups according to their opinion about how problematic is signposting and its interpretation 

at Bryggebro. 



NOT 

A BIT 

QUITE 

MAJOR 

PROBLEMATIC 



TOTAL 

01-20 YEARS 4 0 1 0 0 5 

21-30 YEARS 21 26 8 7 4 66 

31-40 YEARS 45 31 11 3 3 93 

41-50 YEARS 30 13 8 6 4 61 

51-60 YEARS 13 10 6 5 3 37 

61-90 YEARS 5 4 2 1 2 14 

TOTAL 118 84 36 22 16 276 


pedestrians for people riding a bike at Bryggebro. 




NOT 

A BIT 

QUITE 

MAJOR 

PROBLEMATIC 



TOTAL 

MALE 75 39 16 5 4 138 

FEMALE 93 28 7 9 5 142 

TOTAL 168 66 23 14 9 280 

Table 3.3.47: Distribution of the respondents by gender according to their opinion about how problematic is the scenic at Bryggebro. 




NOT 

A BIT 

QUITE 

MAJOR 

PROBLEMATIC 



TOTAL 

MALE 89 30 8 7 3 137 

FEMALE 80 36 15 6 5 142 

TOTAL 169 66 23 13 8 279 


Bryggebro. 



NOT PROBLE- 

MATIC 

A BIT 

PROBLE- 

MATIC 

PROBLE- 

MATIC 

QUITE 

PROBLE- 

MATIC 

MAJOR 

PROBLEM 







TOTAL 168 66 23 15 9 281 

Table 3.3.48: Distribution of the respondents by educational level gender according to their opinion about how problematic is the scenic at 

Bryggebro. 



TOTAL 

162 163


NOT 

A BIT 

QUITE 

MAJOR 

PROBLEMATIC 



TOTAL 

01-20 YEARS 3 1 1 1 0 6 

21-30 YEARS 40 19 1 4 2 66 

31-40 YEARS 53 24 8 4 3 92 

41-50 YEARS 41 12 7 1 1 62 

51-60 YEARS 23 8 4 3 1 39 

61-90 YEARS 6 2 2 2 2 14 

TOTAL 166 66 23 15 9 279 

Table 3.3.49: Distribution of the respondents by age groups according to their opinion about how problematic is the scenic at Bryggebro. 




VERY 



IMPORTANT 

TOTAL 

MAN 18 25 44 47 6 140 

FEMALE 13 32 39 48 11 143 

TOTAL 31 57 83 95 17 283 





SOCIO-DEMOGRAPHICS AND BIKING MORE OFTEN AFTER BRYGGEBRO`S OPENING 

YES NO TOTAL 

MALE 41 97 138 

FEMALE 45 97 142 

TOTAL 86 194 280 

Table 3.3.50: Distribution of the respondents by gender based on starting to 

ride a bike more often, or not, after the opening of Bryggebro. 




VERY 



IMPORTANT 

TOTAL 





MEDIUM HIGHER 

EDUC. 

12 24 23 27 5 91 


TOTAL 31 57 83 96 17 284 





YES NO TOTAL 







TOTAL 86 195 281 

Table 3.3.51: Distribution of the respondents by educational level based on 

starting to ride a bike more often, or not, after the opening of Bryggebro. 


values are 9. P is between 0,050 and 0,025, but close to 0,050. Therefore, the variables are dependent. 

NOT AT ALL 

NOT 

VERY 



IMPORTANT 

TOTAL 

01-20 YEARS 0 0 3 2 1 6 

21-30 YEARS 12 14 18 19 4 67 

31-40 YEARS 12 19 20 39 4 94 

41-50 YEARS 2 16 23 16 5 62 

51-60 YEARS 3 5 14 15 2 39 

61-90 YEARS 2 3 4 4 1 14 

TOTAL 31 57 82 95 17 282 





YES NO TOTAL 

01-20 YEARS 4 2 6 

21-30 YEARS 15 52 67 

31-40 YEARS 26 66 92 

41-50 YEARS 23 39 62 

51-60 YEARS 12 27 39 

61-90 YEARS 5 8 13 

TOTAL 85 194 279 

Table 3.3.52: Distribution of the respondents by age groups based on starting 

to ride a bike more often, or not, after the opening of Bryggebro. 



SOCIO-DEMOGRAPHICS AND OPINION ABOUT BRYGGEBRO`S DESIGN SOLUTION 


MALE 7 10 56 53 14 140 

FEMALE 3 10 49 68 17 144 

TOTAL 10 20 102 121 31 284 

Table 3.3.56: Distribution of respondents by gender according to their opinion about the street design solutions (lightning, pavement material, 

greenery, etc) used in Bryggebro. 



164 165








TOTAL 11 20 102 121 31 285 

Table 3.3.57: Distribution of respondents by educational level according to their opinion about the street design solutions (lightning, pavement 

material, greenery, etc) used in Bryggebro. 




01-20 YEARS 0 1 2 1 2 6 

21-30 YEARS 3 3 27 26 8 67 

31-40 YEARS 3 8 33 44 6 94 

41-50 YEARS 3 2 22 28 7 62 

51-60 YEARS 0 3 13 16 7 39 

61-90 YEARS 2 3 4 6 0 15 

TOTAL 11 20 101 121 30 283 

Table 3.3.58: Distribution of respondents by age groups according to their opinion about the street design solutions (lightning, pavement material, 

greenery, etc) used in Bryggebro. 



166 167

4.0 GENERAL COMPARISON 

AGE 

40% 

AGE 

MAIN PURPOSE FOR BIKING 

35% 

30% 

80% 

70% 

60% 

25% 

50% 

20% 

15% 

10% 

BRYGGEBROEN 


VESTERGADE 

40% 

30% 

20% 

10% 

Bryggebroen 


Vestergade 

5% 

0% 

0% 

NO 

ANSWER 

00 - 10 

YEARS 

11 - 20 

YEARS 

21 - 30 

YEARS 

31 - 40 

YEARS 

41 - 50 

YEARS 

51 - 60 

YEARS 

61 - 70 

YEARS 

71 - 80 

YEARS 

81 - 90 

YEARS 

NO ANSWER 

TRANSPORTATION 

TO AND FROM 

WORK 

RECREATION / 

LEISURE 

VISIT FAMILY / 

FRIENDS 

PURCHASING / 

SHOPPING 

Figure 4.2: Distribution of the respondents in accordance to the main trip purpose when riding a bike at the infrastructure. 

TRANSPORTATION 

TO AND FROM 

SCHOOL 

OTHERS 

Figure 4.1: Distribution of the respondents by age 

In comparison to Hans Broges Gade and Vestergade 

Vest and Mageløs, respondents from Bryggebro have the 

highest average age with 32% of them between 31 and 

40 years old. 

The average age from the respondents can be related 

to their educational level. Respondents with the highest 

average age at Bryggebro also have a higher educational 

level – 77% of them have a medium or longer high education. 

GENDER 

The distribution of respondents by gender is very balanced 

in Bryggebro where 50% of the respondents are 

males and 49% are females. The other two infrastructures 

present a larger difference between males and females. 

In Hans Broges Gade, 52% of the respondents are male 

and 44% are female. Finally, 54% of the Vestergade Vest 

and Mageløs` respondents are male and 44% are female. 

There are several studies about gender and cycling behavior 

developed outside Denmark and the results highlight 

that gender has a predominant role over the individual 

decision to ride a bike (Moudona et al, 2005). 

However, the results from the three web surveys developed 

in this research indicate that there is not a significant 

relationship between gender and how often an individual 

ride a bike. One of the reasons that gender is not a predominant 

factor in Denmark could be that bike culture is 

so wide spread across the country. 

MAIN PURPOSE FOR BIKING 

Bryggebro has the largest amount of respondents riding 

their bikes for commuting purposes. Among Bryggebro`s 

respondents, 70% ride their bikes at Bryggebro to go to 

work and 8% to go to study. 

In contrast to Bryggebro, respondents from Vestergade 

Vest and Mageløs and Hans Broges Gade present a 

more balanced distribution of trip purpose when riding a 

bike at the infrastructures. 

39% of the respondents from Vestergade Vest and 

Mageløs have said they ride a bike mostly to go to work 

and 13% going to study. It is still a high percentage of 

commuters, but the infrastructure also has another representative 

amount of respondents (33%) riding their bikes 

to go to shopping. 

WALKING WITHOUT BIKE 

In regards to the frequency that respondents walk in the 

studied infrastructures, the results from Figure 4.3 highlights 

that Bryggebro has a different profile in comparison 

to Hans Broges Gade and Vestergade Vest and Mageløs. 

The built environment and uses where the infrastructures 

are located seems to have an influence in the use of 

them. Hans Broges Gade has the largest percentage of 

respondents (68%) living in a radius of 2 kilometres and 

the local residents both use the infrastructure for cycling 

and walking. On the other hand, 

Bryggebro is mainly used for commuting and the majority 

of the respondents live more than 2 kilometres from the 

infrastructure. Therefore, it seems that most of individuals 

that ride a bike in Bryggebro do not use the infrastructure 

for walking. 

168 169

70% 

WALK ING WITHOUT BIK E 

SATISFACTION WITH THE SITE 

60% 

SATISFACTION WITH THE SITE 

60% 

50% 

40% 

30% 

20% 

10% 

Bryggebroen 


Vestergade 

50% 

40% 

30% 

20% 

10% 

Bryggebroen 


Vestergade 

0% 


WEEK 

5 DAYS OF 

WEEK 

3-4 DAYS OF 

WEEK 


WEEK MONTHS 

Figure 4.3: Distribution of the respondents in accordance to how often they ride a bike in the infrastructure. 

MORE 

RARELY 

0% 

NO ANSWER 

VERY 

DISSATISFIED 

DISSATISFIED NEUTRAL SATISFIED VERY 

SATISFIED 

Figure 4.4: Distribution of the respondents in accordance to their satisfaction with the infrastructure design solution. 

CYCLING MORE OFTEN AND QUALITY 

INFLUENCING TO BIKE MORE OFTEN 

Comparing the results from the three web surveys, the 

implementation of Bryggebro influenced the most quantity 

of respondents (30%) to start to ride a bike more often. In 

this context, it is important to take in consideration that the 

opening of Bryggebro created a new link between the two 

sides of Copenhagen harbor. 

When respondents who started to bike more often after 

the intervention were asked for their motivations, there 

was a different pattern of answers in the three infrastructures. 

45% of Bryggebros’ respondents said that fast connectivity 

was the main reason that made them to start to ride a 

bike more often. Moreover, 91% of Bryggebros respondents 

said to be satisfied with the design solution of the 

infrastructure in regards fast connectivity. However, only 

38% of respondents from Vestergade Vest and Mageløs 

were satisfied with it. 

Enhancing fast connectivity, Bryggebro has a dedicated 

high speed lane connecting the two sides of the harbor. 

On the other hand, Vestergade Vest and Mageløs function 

as a shared-used space where cyclists need to negotiate 

the space with other transport modes during most 

of the day. 

Despite the challenges faced by cyclists at Vestergade 

Vest and Mageløs, the majority of respondents that started 

to ride a bike more often after the intervention have 

mentioned fast connectivity as a main factor. And 33% 

of respondents were satisfied with the design solution in 

regards to fast connectivity. 

In the case of Hans Broges Gade, respondents that started 

to bike more often after the intervention had mentioned 

safety as the main reason. 

SATISFACTION WITH THE 

INFRASTRUCTURE 

While the rate of respondents from Bryggebro and Hans 

Broges Gade who were dissatisfied with the infrastructures 

was respectively 1% and 8%, the rate of Vestergade 

Vest and Mageløs respondents dissatisfied was much 

higher (14%). 

The different infrastructure typologies might have an influence 

in the result. Bryggebro and Hans Broges Gade 

design solutions segregated the different transport modes 

and present dedicated lanes for cyclists. 

The intervention in Vestergade Vest and Mageløs is 

based on the concept of shared-use space where there 

are no dedicated bike lanes and the cyclists need to ne- 

gotiate the space with pedestrians. The data collected 

from the count, local observation and newspapers articles 

indicate that Vestergade Vest and Mageløs function as 

a more challenging space, especially between 3pm and 

5pm were the there is a large amount of both cyclists and 

pedestrians sharing the same space. 

A shared-use space challenges the cyclists to learn how 

to negotiate their space with pedestrians and induces the 

cyclists to ride their bikes at a lower speed. 

In general, the satisfaction of the respondents about the 

design solution of the infrastructures in regards to safety, 

conflict between travel modes, aesthetics and parking are 

similar to their satisfaction with the overall design. 

SATISFACTION WITH DESIGN SOLUTION 

AS REGARDS SAFETY 

The majority of the respondents from Bryggebro and 

Hans Broges Gade were satisfied with the infrastructures 

design in regards to safety. However, 11% and 7% of the 

respondents respectively from Bryggebro and Hans Broges 

Gade were very unsatisfied with the infrastructures. 

At Vestergade Vest and Mageløs, half of the respondents 

were not satisfied with the infrastructure design in regards 

to safety. The negative response could be partially influenced 

by the profile of the infrastructure as a shared-use 

space. Vestergade Vest and Mageløs were not designed 

with dedicated bike lanes. It is a space where cyclists and 

pedestrians need to negotiate the space. 

LACK OF AWARENESS FOR THE SUR- 

ROUNDING CYCLISTS 

According to 87% of respondents from Vestergade Vest 

and Mageløs, the lack of awareness of pedestrians for 

cyclists is problematic. 

There is also a problem presented among Bryggebro`s 

respondents. 56 % of the respondents pointed out the 

lack of awareness of pedestrians for cyclists as a problem. 

Considering the design of the infrastructure and the 

field observation, the main problem might be the bridges 

gates that function as shared-use spaces. 

There is an abrupt rupture between the dedicated bike 

lanes at the bridge and the gates functioning as shareduse 

spaces. The cyclists ride their bikes faster at the dedicated 

lanes. But when they enter the shared-use space, 

they are forced to slow down the speed. 

170 171

RESIDENTIAL LOCATION OF RESPONDENTS 

RESIDENTIAL LOCATION OF BIKERS 

80% 

70% 

60% 

50% 

BIKING MORE OFTEN BIKING MORE AFTER OFTEN THE INTERVENTION? 

AFTER THE INTERVENTION? 

40% 

30% 

20% 

Byggebro 


Vestergade Vest 

100% 

90% 

80% 

70% 

60% 

50% 

40% 

30% 

20% 

10% 

0% 

NO ANSWER YES NO 

Figure 4.5: Distribution of the respondents in accordance to biking more often after the opening of the infrastructure. 

CONFLICTS BETWEEN TRAVEL MODES 

78% of the respondents from Vestergade Vest and 

Mageløs have also mention to be unsatisfied with conflicts 

between travel modes. 

Vestergade Vest and Mageløs attract both cyclists and 

pedestrians who often have conflicting needs. At the 

shared-used space, cyclists need to slow down the velocity 

and be more aware of the surroundings. On the other 

hand, pedestrians are also affected by cyclists, who travel 

at higher speed and they also need to be more aware of 

the surroundings. 

However, the conflicts on shared-use spaces are especially 

significant for people who cannot react quickly to 

hazards, such as elderly cyclists or cyclists with children. 

To improve the shared-use spaces experience for all users, 

designers must be aware of potential conflicts and 

implement innovative design solutions. 

According to McMillen (2001), potential conflicts in 

shared-used spaces can be reduced by: providing information, 

especially signage, that clearly indicates permitted 

users and activities and ensuring that the space has 

sufficient width and an appropriate surface for everyone. 

SATISFACTION WITH AESTHETICS 

Bryggebroen 


Vestergade 

82% of the respondents considered the design of Bryggebro 

to be good or very good. The infrastructure is iconic and it 

functions as a landmark in the harborscape. These characteristics 

probably make cyclists more aware of the aesthetic 

quality of the infrastructure. Being an icon in the habourscape, 

the aesthetic of the infrastructure is probably recognized by 

cyclists and assumed as part of the city identity. 

ILLEGALLY PARKED BIKES 

More than half of the respondents (51%) from Vestergade 

Vest and Mageløs are dissatisfied with illegally parked bikes. 

The infrastructure concentrates a large amount of commercial 

establishments and the current amount of bike racks are 

not enough. 

In the case of Hans Broges Gade, 19% of the respondents 

were dissatisfied with illegally parked bikes. The infrastructure 

does not have bike racks and all the bikes are just 

parked next to the facades. There is not a large concentration 

of bikes, but during the field observation there were several 

local residents complaining about bikes parked next to their 

facades. 

10% 

0% 

0 km - 1 

km 

1 km - 2 

km 

2 km - 3 

km 

3 km - 4 

km 

4 km - 5 

km 

5 km - 10 

km 

10 km - 

15 km 

Figure 4.6: Distribution of the respondents in accordance to the distance from their residence to the infrastructure. 

The spatial distribution of the residential location of the 

respondents suggests how far cyclists ride their bikes on 

their daily trips. In all the three cases, more than 80% 

of the respondents live less than 4 kilometres from the 

infrastructure where they were riding a bike. On the other 

hand, less than 5% of the respondents live more than 5 

kilometres away from the infrastructure where they were 

riding a bike. 

Hans Broges Gade has the highest concentration of respondents 

living within a 1 km radius (68%), while Bryggebro 

has the lowest (33%). These figures could be related 

to the profile of the infrastructures and their location. 

Bryggebro is a strategic commuting link in Copenhagen 

harbor and it could be seen as an in-between zone infrastructure 

– not having a neighborhood based character. 

Being part of the bike Holme corridor, Hans Broges Gade 

also functions as a commuting infrastructure. However, it 

has a much stronger neighborhood based character than 

Bryggebro. 

15 km - 

20 km 

20 km < 

RELATION BETWEEN SOCIO-DEMO- 

GRAPHICS AND THE WEB-SURVEY AN- 

SWERS 

At the three infrastructures, the findings highlight a relationship 

between socio-demographics and trip purpose 

when riding a bicycle. 

Despite distinct typologies and surroundings, the statistical 

treatment of the collected data using the Chi2 presented 

a strong similarity. The majority of the Chi2 test 

results indicated that socio-demographic factors would 

not be related to the individuals answers in regards to the 

design characteristics and satisfaction. 

Neither was it possible to establish a relationship between 

socio-demographic variables and the relevance of design 

characteristics nor the satisfaction with the infrastructures. 

One of the possible motives to the independency between 

socio-demographic factors and the respondents 

answers is the high level of subjectivity of the questions 

which deals with satisfaction and perception. 

172 173

5.0 CONCLUSION 

The decision to use a web survey and flyers as main 

method to collect data had both advantages and disadvantages. 

The data was efficiently transferred to the data 

basis and the distribution of flyers was an efficient mode 

to contact cyclists without interrupting the flow of traffic. 

On the other hand, the web survey based questionnaire 

did not allow for a very comprehensive questionnaire. 

Therefore, we had a limited number of questions. 

In the three case studies, the majority of respondents answered 

that they ride a bike in their respectively infrastructures 

with the main purpose to go to work. The result indicates 

that different typologies or a conjugation of typologies 

can be efficiently used for commuting. What seems to be 

important is how fast the infrastructure connects the cyclists 

and how safe it is to ride a bike in the infrastructure. 

The study aimed to give an overview in regards to what 

design characteristics would be relevant to individuals’ 

decision to ride a bike. The quantitative analysis – mainly 

used in this study – provided indications of possible relevant 

design factors and also relations between sociodemographic 

factors and how design characteristics influence 

the individual decision to ride a bike. 

The findings highlight important factors as such the relevance 

of fast connectivity and safety for cyclists. The 

results suggest that both fast connectivity and safety are 

strategic dimensions of a design solution that must be 

taken in consideration by architects, planners and engineers. 

Based on the comparison between the three case studies, 

the shared-used space seems to present more challenges 

for the cyclists who need to ride their bikes and, 

at the same time, negotiate their space with pedestrians. 

Shared-use spaces are not common in Denmark, but they 

can be an alternative way to create more lively cities enhancing 

a variety of experiences. 

The findings indicate that purpose-built bicycle-only facilities 

are perceived by cyclists as safer environments to 

ride a bike. 

The three studied typologies have both advantages and 

disadvantages and there is not one better than another. 

When deciding to implement or improve a bike infrastructure, 

the particular qualities and potentials of each typology 

should be analyzed in order to decide what kind of bike 

infrastructure would be appropriate to be implemented. 

Figure 5.1: Cyclists and pedestrians at Vestergade Vest. 

174 175

REFERENCES 

Aarhus Cykelby (2010a) 8000 fordele ved at cykle. In: 

http://www.aarhuscykelby.dk/StandardPage.asp?PgID=71 

Aarhus Municipality (2010a) Cykelhandlingsplan – En plan for fremtidens cyklist forhold i Århus Kommune. In: http:// 

www.aarhuskommune.dk/borger/trafik/Trafik--og-anlaegsplaner/Cykelhandlingsplan.aspx 

Aarhus Municipality (2009b) Kommuneplan 2009 Hovedstruktur 

Aarhus Stiftstidende (2010) Det cykler for Hans Broges Gade. In: http://stiften.dk/article/20101012/AAS/710129950 

Boogaard, H.; Borgman, F.; Kamminga, J.; Hoek, G. (2009) Exposure to ultrafine and fine particles and noise during 

cycling and driving in 11 Dutch cities. Atmosphere and Environment 

Bovy, P.; Stern, E. (1990) Route Choice: Way Finding in Transport Networks, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 

The Netherlands. 

Cavill, N.; Kahlmeier, S.; Rutter, H.; Racioppi, F.; Oja P. (2008) Economic analyses of transport infrastructure and policies 

including health effects related to cycling and walking: A systematic review. In: Transporty Policy. 

Copenhagen Municipality (1996) På cykel til og fra arbejde. In: Arbejdspladsundersøgelsen. Vejafdelingen. 

Copenhagen Municipality (2009a) Samfundsøkonomiske analyser af cykeltiltag - metode og cases. 

Copenhagen Municipality (2009b) COPENHAGEN’S GREEN ACCOUNTS. 

Copenhagen Municipality (2010a) Grønne cykelruter. In: http://kk.dk/Borger/ByOgTrafik/CyklernesBy/KonkreteProjekter/OevrigeProjekter/GroenneCykelruter.aspx 

Copenhagen Municipality (2010b) Cykeltal. In: 

http://kk.dk/Borger/ByOgTrafik/CyklernesBy/VidenOgTal/Cykeltal.aspx 

Copenhagen Municipality (2010c) Målsætning. In: 

http://kk.dk/Borger/ByOgTrafik/CyklernesBy/PolitikOgStrategi/Maalsaetning.aspx) 

Copenhagen Municipality (2010d) Bryggebroen. In: 

http://www.kk.dk/Borger/ByOgTrafik/Anlaegsprojekter/UdfoerteProjekter/Bryggebroen.aspx 

Copenhagen Municipality (2010e) Indvielse. In: 

http://www.kk.dk/Borger/ByOgTrafik/Anlaegsprojekter/UdfoerteProjekter/Bryggebroen/Indvielse.aspx 

COWI, Copenhagen Municipality (2009) Samfundsøkonomiske analyser afcykeltiltag - metode og cases. 

COWI (2010) Brygge Bridge, swing bridge in the harbour of Copenhagen. 

CPHX (2009) FIRST BRIDGE IN 50 YEARS. In: 

http://www.cphx.dk/index.php?language=uk#/29190/ 

Danske kommuner (2009) Danske kommuner nyhedsmagasinet. In: 

http://www.danskekommuner.dk/ 

Denzin, N. (1978) The Research Act, 2nd ed. New York: McGraw 

Dissing+Weitling (2010) Bryggebroen. In: 

http://www.dw.dk/dk/projekter/bryggebroen.aspx 

Fyens stiftstidende (2010a) 200 busser forsvinder søndag fra centrum – Karsten Hüttel – Fyens Stiftstidende 30.07.2010 

Fyens Stiftstidende (2010b) Kaos plager ny gågade – Rune H. Blickfeldt – Fyens Stiftstidende 13.09.2010 

Fyens Stiftstidende (2010c) Cyklerne Skal ud af gågaden – Esben Seerup - Fyens Stiftstidende 15.09.2010 

Gonzalez-Bañales, D.; Adam, M. (2007) Web Survey Design and Implementation: Best Practices for Empirical Research. 

In: Proceedings of European and Mediterranean Conference on Information Systems 2007 (EMCIS2007), 

Polytechnic University of Valencia, Spain. 

Gordon-Larsen, P.; Boone-Heinonen, J.; Sidney, S., Sternfeld, B.; Jacobs, R.; Lewis, C. (2009) Active commuting and 

cardiovascular disease risk. In: Arch Intern Med 

Grontmij- Carlbro (2010) BRYGGEBRO OVER SYDHAVNEN KLAR TIL BRUG. In: 

http://www.grontmij-carlbro.com/da/Menu/Aktuelt/Nyheder/BryggebroSydhavnen.htm 

Landis, B.; Vattikuti, V.; Brannick, M. (1997) Real Time Human Perceptions: Towards a Bicycle Level of Service. Transportation 

Research Record, Washington DC. 

Lindström, M. (2008) Means of transportation to work and overweight and obesity. A population-based study in southern 

Sweden. In: Prev Med. 

Lozar, K. (2001) Web survey errors. Ph.D. dissertation. Ljubljana : Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Ljubljana. 

Manfreda, K.; Batagelj, Z.; Vehovar, V. (2002) Design of Web Survey Questionnaires: Three Basic Experiments. In: 

Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication. 

McMillen; B. (2001) Designing Sidewalks and Trails for Access. Best Practices Design Guide. 

Noël, N.; Leclerc, C.; Lee-Gosselin, M. (2003) CRC INDEX: Compatibility of Roads for Cyclists in Rural and Urban 

Fringe Areas. Compendium of Papers CD-ROM of the 82nd Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, 

Washington DC. 

Odense Municipality (2010a) Cyklisternes By - Cykelstier. In: http://www.odense.dk/web4/cyklisternesby/service/cykelstier.aspx 

Odense Municipality (2010b) Odense modtager Vejprisen 2010. In: 

http://www.odense.dk/home/Presse/Pressemeddelelser/Pressemeddelelser/Pressemeddelelser%202010/ 

Odense%20modtager%20Vejprisen%202010.aspx 

Odense Municipality (2010c) Cyklisternes By – Odense. In: 

http://www.odense.dk/web4/cyklisternesby/~/media/BKF/Bymiljø/Cykelby/Strategi%20maj.ashx 

Odense Municipality (2010d) City of Odense at EXPO 2010 in Shanghai. In: 

176 177

http://www.odense.dk/web4/cyklisternesby/cycle%20city%20odense/expo%202010.aspx 

Odense Municipality (2010e) Flere cykeltællere i Odense. In: 

http://www.odense.dk/WEB4/CyklisternesBy/Det%20sker/NyhederNy/Flere%20cykeltaellere%20i%20Odense.aspx 

Odense Municipality (2010f) Cyklisternes By - Mål for Cylisternes By. In: 

http://www.odense.dk/web4/cyklisternesby/vision%20og%20maal.aspx 

Odense Municipality (2010g) Cyklisternes By – Klummer. In: 

http://www.odense.dk/home/WEB4/CyklisternesBy/Det%20sker/Klummer.aspx 

Odense Municipality (2010h) EXPO 2010. In: 

http://www.odense.dk/home/Topmenu/Borger/ByMiljoe/EXPO%202010.aspx 

Odense Municipality (2009i) Trafik og mobilitetsplan. In: 

http://www.odense.dk/Topmenu/Borger/ByMiljoe/Planlaegning/Trafikplan.aspx 

Pastore, M. (2001) Online consumers now the average consumer. The Cyber Atlas newsletter. In: http://cyberatlas. 

internet.com/big_picture/demographics/article/0,5901_800201,00.html. 

Pikora, T.; Giles-Corti, B.; Bull, F.; Jamrozik, K,; Donovan R. (2003) Developing a framework for assessment of the 

environmental determinants of walking and cycling. In: Social Science & Medicine, No. 56 

Poindexter, G.; Krizek, K.; Barnes, G.; Thompson, K. (2007) Guidelines for Benefit Cost Analysis of Bicycle Facilities. 

Transportation Research Board, Washington D.C. 

Räsänen, M.; Koivisto, I.; Summala, H. (1999) Car Drivers and Bicyclist Behavior at Bicycle Crossings under Different 

Priority Regulations. In: Journal of Safety Research 

Regeringen (2009) Aftale mellem regeringen (Venstre og De Konservative), Socialdemokraterne, Dansk Folkeparti, 

Socialistisk Folkeparti, Det Radikale Venstre og Liberal Alliance om: En grøn transportpolitik. 

Reynolds, C.; Harris, M.; Teschke, K.; Cripton, P.; Winters, M. (2009) The impact of transportation infrastructure on 

bicycling injuries and crashes: a review of the literature. In: Environmental Health.. 

Saelensminde, K. (2004) Cost-benefit analyses of walking and cycling track networks taking into account insecurity, 

health effects and external costs of motorized traffic, Transporty Policy 

Statistikbanken (2010) Folketal pr. 1. januar fordelt på byer. In: 

http://www.statistikbanken.dk/BEF44 

Trafikministeriet, København (2000) Trafik 2005: Problemstillinger, mål og strategier. København 

Vejdirektoratet (2004) Trafiktællinger Planlægning, udførelse og efterbehandling Vejledning. Rapport nr. 289 

Woodcock, J.; Banister, D.; Edwards, P.; Prentice, A.; Roberts, I. (2007) Energy and health 3: energy and transport. 

Youtube (2010) Aarhus by Bike. In: 

http://www.youtube.com/user/aarhuscykelby 

178 179

LIST OF figures 


Figure 1.1: Cyclist riding his bike at Bryggebro. 


Figure 2.1: Location of the cities from the three case studies 

Figure 2.2: Print scream view from the Vestergade Vest`s questionnaire 

Figure 2.3: Flyer distributed to individuals who were riding a bike at Vestergade Vest and Mageløs on 2nd 

of September 2010. 

Figure 2.4: Member of research team delivering flyers to cyclists at Vestergade Vest and Mageløs on 

September 14th 2010. 

3.1 VESTERGADE VEST AND MAGELØS 

Figure 3.1.1: Geographical location of Odense. 

Figure 3.1.2: Distribution of the trips by transport modes within Odense Municipality from 1998 until 2008. 

Figure 3.1.3: Map of the main bike tracks and lanes in Odense`s inner city. 

Figure 3.1.4: Ortophoto of Vestergade Vest and Mageløs. 

Figure 3.1.5: Article with the title “Bicycles must be out of pedestrian streets”, published on 15th of September 

in the newspaper Fyens Stiftstidende. 

Figure 3.1.6: Article with the title “Chaos in the pedestrian streets”, published on 15th of September in the 

newspaper Fyens Stiftstidende (Fyens Stiftstidende, 2010b). 

Figure 3.1.7: View of Vestergade Vest from the 10th of May 2010. 

Figure 3.1.8: View of Vestergade Vest from the 2nd of September 2010. 

Figure 3.1.9: Draft of the design concept of Vestegade Vest and Mogeløs. 

Figure 3.1.10: Section and plan of Vestergade Vest and Mageløs. 

Figure 3.1.11: Pavement material 

Figure 3.1.12: Speed hump at Vestergade Vest. 

Figure 3.1.13: Cyclist avoiding speed hump. 

Figure 3.1.14: Blue plastic guides at Vestergade Vest. 

Figure 3.1.15: Speed hump. 

Figure 3.1.16: Cargo trucks. 

Figure 3.1.17: Bikes and moterized vehicles. 



Figure 3.1.20: Parked bikes in front of shops. 

Figure 3.1.21: Parked bikes in front of shops. 

Figure 3.1.22: Trees and landscaping design. 

Figure 3.1.23: Trees and landscaping design. 

Figure 3.1.24: Street games painted in the pavement. 

Figure 3.1.25: Layout of the streetscape. 

Figure 3.1.26: Street furniture. 

Figure 3.1.27: Street lights. 

Figure 3.1.28: Shop signs. 

Figure 3.1.29: Signage dictating rules about how to use this space. 

Figure 3.1.30: Playful sign informing transportation modes allowed . 

Figure 3.1.31: Signage designed to look old. 

Figure 3.1.32: Painted words in the pavement. 

Figure 3.1.33: Crossing point paved with cobblestones. 

Figure 3.1.34: Intersection between Vestergade Vest and Mageløs. 

Figure 3.1.35: Built environment around Vestergade Vest and Mageløs. 

Figure 3.1.36: Cyclists counting and traffic flow at Vestergade Vest and Mageløs. 



7 

8 

11 

11 

13 

16 

17 

18 

19 

21 

21 

23 

23 

24 

25 

26 

26 

26 

26 

27 

27 

27 

28 

28 

28 

28 

29 

29 

30 

30 

30 

31 

32 

32 

32 

33 

34 

34 

34 

35 

36 

37 

41 




Figure 3.1.42: Distribution of the respondents by the frequency they ride a bicycle at Vestergade Vest 

and Mageløs. 

Figure 3.1.43: Distribution of the respondents by the frequency they walk at Vestergade Vest and 

Mageløs. 

Figure 3.1.44: Distribution of the respondents according to the main trip purpose when riding a bike at 


Figure 3.1.45:Distribution of the respondents by the frequency they ride a bike in Vestergade Vest 

and Mageløs for the main purpose mentioned in the Figure 3.1.44 after the intervention in the site. 

Figure 3.1.46:Distribution of the respondents by the level of satisfaction with the design of Vestergade 


Figure 3.1.47: Distribution of the respondents according to their opinion about how the Vestergade 

Vest`s design fulfilled the bicyclist safety aspect. 


Vest`s design fulfilled the fast conectivity. 


Vest`s design fulfilled the aesthetics aspect. 

Figure 3.1.50: Distribution of the respondents according to their opinion about how problematic illegal 

parking of bicycles is at Vestergade Vest and Mageløs. 

Figure 3.1.51: Distribution of the respondents according to their opinion about how problematic is the 

conflict between different transport modes at Vestergade Vest and Mageløs. 


existence of obstacles against the cyclists at Vestergade Vest and Mageløs. 


pavement at Vestergade Vest and Mageløs. 


existence of cracks and ramps is at Vestergade Vest and Mageløs. 

Figure 3.1.55: Distribution of the respondents according to their opinion about how problematic the 

lack of awareness of pedestrians and motorized vehicle drivers is for people riding a bike at Vestergade 


Figure 3.1.56: Distribution of the respondents according to their opinion about how problematic signposting 

and its interpretation is at Vestergade Vest and Mageløs. 

Figure 3.1.57: Distribution of the respondents according to their opinion about how problematic scenic 

and greenery is at Vestergade Vest and Mageløs. 

Figure 3.1.58: Distribution of the respondents based on starting to ride a bike more often, or not, after 

the intervention at Vestergade Vest and Mageløs. 

Figure 3.1.59: Among the respondents that said yes in the previous question (Figure 3.1.58), what 

qualities has influenced their choice to ride a bike more often after the intervention in Vestergade Vest 

and Mageløs. The respondents could choice more than one option. 

Figure 3.1.60: Distribution of respondents according to their opinion about the importance of street 

design (lightning, pavement material, greenery, etc) in the decision to ride a bike. 

Figure 3.1.61: Distribution of respondents according to their opinion about the street design solutions 

(lightning, pavement material, greenery, etc) used in the intervention at Vestergade Vest and 

Mageløs. 

Figure 3.1.62: Vestergade Vest streetscape. 

42 

42 

42 

42 

43 

43 

43 

43 

44 

44 

44 

44 

45 

45 

45 

45 

46 

46 

46 

46 

47 

47 

47 

63 

180 181

3.2 HANS BROGES GADE 

Figure 3.2.1: Geographical location of Aarhus. 

Figure 3.2.2: Print screen of Aarhus Bicycle City webpage - ww.aarhuscykelby.dk 

Figure 3.2.3: Automatic cyclist count at Hans Broges Gade. 

Figure 3.2.4: Aarhus City Hall square transformed in a the “bicycle`s Mecca”. Event promoted by the Aarhus 

Bicycle City on the 10th of April 2010. 

Figure 3.2.5: Aarhus City Hall square transformed in a the “bicycle`s Mecca”. Event promoted by the Aarhus 

Bicycle City on the 10th of April 2010. 

Figure 3.2.6: The seven main bicycle connections between the core of Aarhus and suburbs. Source: 

Cykelhandlingsplan – En plan for fremtidens cyklist forhold i Århus Kommune 

Figure 3.2.7: The bicycle network of Aarhus municipality. 

Figure 3.2.8: Ortophoto of Hans Broges Gade 

Figure 3.2.9: Hans Broges Gade view before intervention in September 2009. 

Figure 3.2.10: Hans Broges Gade view after the intervention in September 2010. 

Figure 3.2.11: Hans Broges Gade bike path 

Figure 3.2.12: Traffic calming at crossing 

Figure 3.2.13: Technical drawings from Hans Broges Gade 

Figure 3.2.14: Hans Broges Gade section 

Figure 3.2.15: Hans Broges Gade plan 

Figure 3.2.16: Crossing at Hans Broges Gade 

Figure 3.2.17: Bike path and sidewalk. 

Figure 3.2.18: Crossing section 

Figure 3.2.19: Hierarchy of transport modes 

Figure 3.2.20: Individual riding his bike at a high speed 

Figure 3.2.21: Cyclist riding down road while entering the bike lane 

Figure 3.2.22: Cyclist slowing down at the crossing 

Figure 3.2.23: Two individuals riding their bikes next to each other and talking 

Figure 3.2.24: Car parking at Hans Broges Gade 

Figure 3.2.25: Biking and car parking 

Figure 3.2.26: Hans Broges Gade plan 

Figure 3.2.27: Greenery at Hans Broges Gade 

Figure 3.2.28: Front garden at Hans Broges Gade. 

Figure 3.2.29: Tietgens Square 

Figure 3.2.30: Bench at Tietgens Square 

Figure 3.2.31: Street lamp 

Figure 3.2.32: Statue in honor to Hans Broge 

Figure 3.2.33: Cyclist counting meter 

Figure 3.2.34: Bike signage 



Figure 3.2.37: Bike symbol located on the bike path curve and intersection 

Figure 3.2.38: Bike signage and ramp covered and cyclist crossing in an alternative way 

Figure 3.2.39: Sequency of images of a cyclist crossing the street in an inappropriate way 

Figure 3.2.40: Cyclist riding his bike in the car lane 

Figure 3.2.41: Cyclist riding his bike in the sidewalk. 

Figure 3.2.42: Cyclists entering from the suburbs 

Figure 3.2.43: Entrance from the city centre 

Figure 3.2.44: Built environment at Hans Broges Gade 

Figure 3.2.45: Cyclist counting at Hans Broges Gade 

Figure 3.2.46: Spatial distribution of the respondents according to their residential location – 5km map 

Figure 3.2.47: Spatial distribution of the respondents according to their residential location - 20km map 


64 

65 

65 

65 

65 

66 

66 

67 

69 

69 

70 

70 

71 

72 

72 

73 

74 

74 

74 

75 

75 

75 

75 

76 

76 

76 

76 

76 

76 

77 

77 

77 

78 

78 

78 

78 

79 

80 

80 

81 

81 

82 

82 

83 

84 

88 

89 

90 

Figure 3.2.49: Distribution of the respondents by gender 


Figure 3.2.51: Distribution of the respondents by the frequency they ride a bicycle at Hans Broges 

Gade. 

Figure 3.2.52: Distribution of the respondents by the frequency they walk at Hans Broges Gade. 

Figure 3.2.53: Distribution of the respondents by main trip purpose when riding a bike in Hans Broges 

Gade. 

Figure 3.2.54: Distribution of the respondents by the frequency they ride a bike in Hans Broges Gade 

for the main purpose mentioned in the Figure 3.2.53, after the intervention in Hans Broges Gade. 

Figure 3.2.55: Distribution of the respondents by the level of satisfaction with the design of Hans Broges 

Gade. 

Figure 3.2.56: Distribution of the respondents according to their opinion about how the Hans Broges 

Gade’s design fulfilled the bicyclist safety aspect. 


Gade’s design fulfilled the fast connectivity. 


Gade’s design fulfilled the aesthetics aspect. 


parking of bicycles is at Hans Broges Gade. 


conflict between different transport modes at Hans Broges Gade. 




pavement at Hans Broges Gade. 


existence of cracks in ramps and intersections at Hans Broges Gade. 


lack of awareness of pedestrians for people riding a bike at Hans Broges Gade 

Figure 3.2.65: Distribution of the respondents according to their opinion about how problematic is scenic 

and greenery at Hans Broges Gade. 

Figure 3.2.66: Distribution of the respondents according to their opinion about how problematic is 

signposting and its interpretation at Hans Broges Gade. 


the intervention at Hans Broges Gade. 


qualities has influenced their choice to ride a bike more often after the intervention in Hans Broges 

Gade. The respondents could choose more than one option. 




(lightning, pavement material, greenery, etc) used in the intervention at Hans Broges Gade. 

Figure 3.2.71: Cyclists meter at Hans Broges Gade 

3.3 BRYGGEBRO 

Figure 3.3.1: Geographical location of Copenhagen. 

Figure 3.3.2: Distribution of trips according to transportation mode within Copenhagen municipality 

from 1998 until 2008. 

Figure 3.3.3: Publication with general information about bicycling in Copenhagen, history and targets 

for the future. 

Figure 3.3.4: Logo of the campaign Ibikecph 

Figure 3.3.5: Cyclists and pedestrians crossing Bryggebro bike bridge 

90 

90 

90 

91 

91 

91 

91 

92 

92 

92 

92 

93 

93 

93 

93 

94 

94 

94 

94 

94 

95 

95 

111 

112 

112 

113 

114 

115 

182 183

Figure 3.3.6: Copenhagen Bicycle Network 

Figure 3.3.7: The four bridges of Copenhagen Harbour. 

Figure 3.3.8: Bryggebro opening on the 14th of September. 

Figure 3.3.9: Image of Bryggebro from Islands Brygge side of the harbour. 

Figure 3.3.10: View of Havneholmen from Bryggebro 

Figure 3.3.11: Access to Bryggebro from Havneholmen 

Figure 3.3.12: View of Bryggerbro from Island Brygge the Havneholmen side 

Figure 3.3.13: Havneholmen and Bryggebro in the background 

Figure 3.3.14: Bryggebro in the foreground and Islands Brygge in the background 

Figure 3.3.15: Plan and Section of Bryggebro 

Figure 3.3.16: Elevation of the bridge seen from the side and Cross section of the bridge. The pedestrian 

side on the left and cyclist on the right separated by a 60cm high 1.2 metres wide girder. 

Figure 3.3.17: Bryggebro section 

Figure 3.3.18: Bryggebro plan 

Figure 3.3.19: Access to Bryggebro from Islands Brygge 

Figure 3.3.20: Access to Bryggebro from Islands Brygge side 

Figure 3.3.21: Islands Brygge promenade 

Figure 3.3.22: Access to Bryggebro Havneholmen 

Figure 3.3.23: Access to Bryggebro from Havneholmen side 

Figure 3.3.24: Hierarchy between transport modes 

Figure 3.3.25: Bryggebro plan and representation of transport mode conflicts 

Figure 3.3.26: Joggers and cyclists crossing 

Figure 3.3.27: Cyclists riding fast out of the exit of the bridge 

Figure 3.3.28: Walkers have to pay attention from fast moving cyclists exiting 

Figure 3.3.29: A stray bike parked nearby the bridge 

Figure 3.3.30: Bikes parked under stairs 

Figure 3.3.31: Bryggebro illumination 

Figure 3.3.32: Bryggebro illumination 

Figure 3.3.33: Lamp post 

Figure 3.3.34: Bridge exit the night 

Figure 3.3.35: Cyclist has wrongly entered into the pedestrian lane. 

Figure 3.3.36: Access from Islands Brygge side 

Figure 3.3.37: Bryggebro access from Havneholmen 

Figure 3.3.38: Damaged sign 

Figure 3.3.39: Graffiti at Bryggebro 

Figure 3.3.40: Graffiti at Bryggebro 






Figure 3.3.46: Intersection at Islands Brygge. 

Figure 3.3.47: Intersection at Havneholmen. 




Figure 3.3.51: Cyclists on the smooth paved lanes. 

Figure 3.3.52: Pavement detail fron Islands Brygge side. 

Figure 3.3.53: Privately owned parking lot. 

Figure 3.3.54: Bike route linking to the staircases. 

Figure 3.3.55: Longer bike route avoiding staircases. 

116 

117 

119 

119 

120 

120 

120 

120 

121 

122 

123 

124 

124 

125 

125 

125 

125 

125 

126 

126 

127 

127 

127 

128 

128 

129 

129 

129 

129 

130 

130 

130 

130 

131 

131 

132 

132 

132 

132 

133 

134 

134 

135 

135 

135 

136 

136 

136 

137 

137 

Figure 3.3.56: Bryggebro entering from the Havneholmen si 

Figure 3.3.57: Foot bridge to make the trip shorter. 

Figure 3.3.58: Cyclists pushing their bikes up the stairs. 

Figure 3.3.59: Built environment surrounding Bryggebro on the Islands Brygge side. 

Figure 3.3.60: Cyclist countings. 


map. 





Figure 3.3.66: Distribution of the respondents by the frequency they ride a bicycle at Bryggebro 

Figure 3.3.67: Distribution of the respondents by the frequency they walk at Bryggebro. 

Figure 3.3.68: Distribution of the respondents by main trip purpose when riding a bike in Bryggebro. 

Figure 3.3.69: Distribution of the respondents by the frequency they ride a bike in Bryggebro for the 

main purpose mentioned in the Figure 3.3.68 after Bryggebro’s opening. 

Figure 3.3.70: Distribution of the respondents by the level of satisfaction with Bryggebro’s design. 

Figure 3.3.71: Distribution of the respondents according to their opinion about how the Bryggebro`s 



design fulfilled the fast connectivity. 




parking of bicycles is at Bryggebro. 


conflict between different transport modes at Bryggebro’s accesses. 


existence of obstacles against cyclists at Bryggebro. 


pavement at Bryggebro. 

Figure 3.3.78: Distribution of the respondents according to their opinion about how problematic the 

existence of cracks in ramps and intersections is at Bryggebro. 


lack of awareness of pedestrians for people riding a bike at Bryggebro. 

Figure 3.3.80: Distribution of the respondents according to their opinion about how problematic is 

signposting and its interpretation at Bryggebro. 


scenic at Bryggebro. 


the opening of Bryggebro. 


qualities has influenced their choice to ride a bike more often after the opening of Bryggebro. The 

respondents could choice more than one option. 




(lightning, pavement material, greenery, etc) used in Bryggebro. 

138 

138 

138 

139 

140 

144 

145 

146 

146 

146 

146 

147 

147 

147 

147 

148 

148 

148 

148 

149 

149 

149 

149 

150 

150 

150 

150 

151 

151 

151 

184 185

4.0 GENERAL COMPARISON 

Figure 4.1: Distribution of the respondents by age. 

Figure 4.2: Distribution of the respondents in accordance to the main trip purpose when riding a bike at 

the infrastructure. 

Figure 4.3: Distribution of the respondents in accordance to how often they ride a bike in the infrastructure. 

Figure 4.4: Distribution of the respondents in accordance to their satisfaction with the infrastructure design 

solution. 

Figure 4.5: Distribution of the respondents in accordance to biking more often after the opening of the 


Figure 4.6: Distribution of the respondents in accordance to the distance from their residence to the infrastructure. 

5.0 CONCLUSION 

Figure 5.1: Cyclists and pedestrians at Vestergade Vest. 

168 

169 

170 

171 

172 

173 

175 

LIST OF tables 


Table 2.1: Date of flyers distribution, web survey opening and web survey closing for the three case 

studies. 

Table 2.2: Number of bike trips, cyclists, web flyers handed and a number of respondents for the 

three case studies 

3.1 VESTERGADE VEST AND MAGELØS 

Table 3.1.1: Absolute and percentage distribution of respondents according to the distance of their 

residential location from Vestergade Vest and Mageløs. 

Table 3.1.2: Distribution of the respondents by gender according to the frequency they ride a bicycle 


Table 3.1.3: Distribution of the respondents by educational level according to the frequency they ride 

a bicycle at Vestergade Vest and Mageløs. 

Table 3.1.4 Distribution of the respondents by age groups according to the frequency they ride a bicycle 


Table 3.1.5: Distribution of the respondents by gender according to the frequency they walk at Vestergade 


Table 3.1.6: Distribution of the respondents by educational level according to the frequency they walk 

at Vestergede Vest and Mageløs. 

Table 3.1.7: Distribution of the respondents by age groups according to the frequency they walk at 


Table 3.1.8: Distribution of the respondents by gender according to the main trip purpose when riding 

a bike at Vestergade Vest and Mageløs. 

Table 3.1.9: Distribution of the respondents by educational level according to the main trip purpose 

when riding a bike at Vestergade Vest and Mageløs. 

Table 3.1.10: Distribution of the respondents by age groups according to the main trip purpose when 

riding a bike at Vestergade Vest and Mageløs. 

Table 3.1.11: Distribution of the respondents by gender according to the frequency they ride a bike at 

Vestergade Vest for the main purpose mentioned in the Figure 3.1.44, after the intervention at Vestergade 



a bike at Vestergade Vest for the main purpose mentioned in the Figure 3.1.44, after the intervention 

at Vestergade Vest. 

Table 3.1.13: Distribution of the respondents by age groups according to the frequency they ride a 

bike at Vestergade Vest for the main purpose mentioned in the Figure 3.1.44, after the intervention at 

Vestergade Vest. 

Table 3.1.14: Distribution of the respondents by gender according to the level of satisfaction with the 

design of Vestergade Vest and Mageløs. 

Table 3.1.15: Distribution of the respondents by educational level according to the level of satisfaction 

with the design of Vestergade Vest and Mageløs. 

Table 3.1.16: Distribution of the respondents by age groups according to the level of satisfaction with 

the design of Vestergade Vest and Mageløs. 

Table 3.1.17: Distribution of the respondents by gender according to their opinion about how the 

Vestergade Vest`s and Mageløs design fulfilled the cyclists safety aspect. 


the Vestergade Vest`s and Mageløs design fulfilled the cyclists safety aspect. 

Table 3.1.19: Distribution of the respondents by age group according to their opinion about how the 

Vestergade Vest`s and Mageløs design fulfilled the cyclists safety aspect. 


Vestergade Vest`s and Mageløs design fulfilled the fast connectivity. 

11 

11 

39 

48 

48 

48 

49 

49 

49 

49 

50 

50 

50 

50 

51 

51 

51 

51 

52 

52 

52 

52 

186 187


the Vestergade Vest and Mageløs design fulfilled the fast connectivity. 

Table 3.1.22: Distribution of the respondents by age according to their opinion about how the Vestergade 

Vest and Mageløs design fulfilled the fast connectivity. 

Table 3.1.23: Distribution of the respondents by gender according to their opinion about how the Vestergade 

Vest and Mageløs design fulfilled the aesthetics aspect 


the Vestergade Vest and Mageløs design fulfilled the aesthetics aspect. 

Table 3.1.25: Distribution of the respondents by age groups according to their opinion about how the 

Vestergade Vest and Mageløs design fulfilled the aesthetics aspect. 

Table 3.1.26: Distribution of the respondents by gender according to their opinion about how problematic 

illegal parking of bicycles is at Vestergade Vest and Mageløs. 


problematic illegal parking of bicycles is at Vestergade Vest and Mageløs. 

Table 3.1.28: Distribution of the respondents by age groups according to their opinion about how problematic 

illegal parking of bicycles is at Vestergade Vest and Mageløs. 


is the conflict between different transport modes at Vestergade Vest and Mageløs. 


problematic is the conflict between different transport modes at Vestergade Vest and Mageløs. 


is the conflict between different transport modes at Vestergade Vest and Mageløs. 


is the existence of obstacles against the cyclists at Vestergade Vest and Mageløs. 


problematic is the existence of obstacles against the cyclists at Vestergade Vest and Mageløs. 


is the existence of obstacles against the cyclists at Vestergade Vest and Mageløs. 


is the pavement at Vestergade Vest and Mageløs. 


problematic is the pavement at Vestergade Vest and Mageløs. 


is the pavement at Vestergade Vest and Mageløs. 


is the existence of cracks in ramps and interesections at Vestergade Vest and Mageløs. 


problematic is the existence of cracks in ramps and intersecitons at Vestergade Vest and Mageløs. 


is the existence of cracks in ramps and intersections at Vestergade Vest and Mageløs. 


is the lack of awareness of pedestrians and motorized vehicle drivers for people riding a bike at Vestergade 



problematic is the lack of awareness of pedestrians and motorized vehicle drivers for people riding a bike 



is the lack of awareness of pedestrians and motorized vehicle drivers for people riding a bike at 


53 

53 

53 

53 

54 

54 

54 

54 

55 

55 

55 

55 

56 

56 

56 

56 

57 

57 

57 

57 

58 

58 

58 


is signposting and its interpretation at Vestergade Vest and Mageløs. 


problematic is signposting and its interpretation at Vestergade Vest and Mageløs. 

Table 3.1.46: Distribution of the respondents by age groups according to their opinion about how 

problematic is signposting and its interpretation at Vestergade Vest and Mageløs. 


is the scenic at Vestergade Vest and Mageløs. 

able 3.1.48: Distribution of the respondents by educational level gender according to their opinion 

about how problematic is the scenic at Vestergade Vest and Mageløs. 


problematic is the scenic at Vestergade Vest and Mageløs. 

Table 3.1.50: Distribution of the respondents by gender based on starting to ride a bike more often, or 

not, after the opening of Vestergade Vest and Mageløs. 

Table 3.1.51: Distribution of the respondents by educational level based on starting to ride a bike 

more often, or not, after the opening of Vestergade Vest and Mageløs. 

Table 3.1.52: Distribution of the respondents by age groups based on starting to ride a bike more often, 

or not, after the opening of Vestergade Vest and Mageløs. 

Table 3.1.53: Distribution of respondents by gender according to their opinion about the importance of 

street design (lightning, pavement material, greenery, etc) in the decision to ride a bike. 

Table 3.1.54: Distribution of respondents by educational level according to their opinion about the 

importance of street design (lightning, pavement material, greenery, etc) in the decision to ride a bike. 

Table 3.1.55: Distribution of respondents by age groups according to their opinion about the importance 

of street design (lightning, pavement material, greenery, etc) in the decision to ride a bike. 

Table 3.1.56: Distribution of respondents by gender according to their opinion about the street design 

solutions (lightning, pavement material, greenery, etc) used in Vestergade Vest and Mageløs. 

Table 3.1.57: Distribution of respondents by educational level according to their opinion about the 

street design solutions (lightning, pavement material, greenery, etc) used in Vestergade Vest and 

Mageløs. 

Table 3.1.58: Distribution of respondents by age groups according to their opinion about the street 

design solutions (lightning, pavement material, greenery, etc) used in Vestergade Vest and Mageløs. 

3.2 HANS BROGES GADE 

Table 3.2.1: Absolute and percentage distribution of respondents according to the distance of their 

residential location from Hans Broges Gade. 

Table 3.2.2: Distribution of the respondents by gender according to the frequency they ride a bicycle 



a bicycle at Hans Broges Gade. 



Table 3.2.5: Distribution of the respondents by gender according to the frequency they walk at Hans 

Broges Gade 

Table 3.2.6: Distribution of the respondents by educational level according to the frequency they walk 

at Hans Broges Gade 



Table 3.2.8: Distribution of the respondents by gender according to the main trip purpose when riding 

a bike in Hans Broges Gade. 

Table 3.2.9: Distribution of the respondents by educational level according to the main trip purpose 

when riding a bike in Hans Broges Gade. 

58 

59 

59 

59 

59 

60 

60 

60 

60 

61 

61 

61 

61 

62 

62 

87 

96 

96 

96 

97 

97 

97 

97 

98 

188 189

Table 3.2.10: Distribution of the respondents by age groups according to the main trip purpose when riding 

a bike in Hans Broges Gade. 

Table 3.2.11: Distribution of the respondents by gender according to the frequency they ride a bike in 

Hans Broges Gade for the main purpose mentioned in the Figure 3.2.53, after the intervention in Hans 

Broges Gade. 

Table 3.2.12: Distribution of the respondents by educational level according to the frequency they ride a 

bike in Hans Broges Gade for the main purpose mentioned in the Figure 3.2.53, after the intervention in 


Table 3.2.13: Distribution of the respondents by age groups according to the frequency they ride a bike 

in Hans Broges Gade for the main purpose mentioned in the Figure 3.2.53, after the intervention in Hans 

Broges Gade. 

Table 3.2.14: Distribution of the respondents by gender according to the level of satisfaction with the design 

of Hans Broges Gade 


with the design of Hans Broges Gade. 

Table 3.2.16: Distribution of the respondents by age groups according to the level of satisfaction with the 

design of Hans Broges Gade. 

Table 3.2.17: Distribution of the respondents by gender according to their opinion about how the Hans 

Broges Gade’s design fulfilled the bicyclist safety aspect. 


the Hans Broges Gade’s design fulfilled the bicyclist safety aspect. 

Table 3.2.19: Distribution of the respondents by age group according to their opinion about how the Hans 

Broges Gade’s design fulfilled the bicyclist safety aspect. 


Broges Gade’s design fulfilled the fast connectivity. 


the Hans Broges Gade’s design fulfilled the fast connectivity. 


Hans Broges Gade’s design fulfilled the fast connectivity. 


Broges Gade’s design fulfilled the aesthetics aspect. 


the Hans Broges Gade’s design fulfilled the aesthetics aspect. 


Hans Broges Gade’s design fulfilled the aesthetics aspect 


illegal parking of bicycles is at Hans Broges Gade. 


problematic illegal parking of bicycles is at Hans Broges Gade. 


illegal parking of bicycles is at Hans Broges Gade. 


is the conflict between different transport modes at Hans Broges Gade. 


problematic is the conflict between different transport modes at Hans Broges Gade. 


is the conflict between different transport modes at Hans Broges Gade. 


is the existence of obstacles against the cyclists at Hans Broges Gade. 

98 

98 

98 

99 

99 

99 

99 

100 

100 

100 

100 

101 

101 

101 

101 

102 

102 

102 

102 

103 

103 

103 

103 






is the pavement at Hans Broges Gade. 




problematic is the pavement at Hans Broges Gadet. 


is the existence of cracks in ramps and intersections at Hans Broges Gade 


problematic is the existence of cracks in ramps and intersections at Hans Broges Gade. 


problematic is the existence of cracks in ramps and intersections at Hans Broges Gade. 


is the lack of awareness of pedestrians and motorized vehicle drivers for people riding a bike at 



problematic is the lack of awareness of pedestrians and motorized vehicle drivers for people riding a 

bike at Hans Broges Gade. 


problematic is the lack of awareness of pedestrians and motorized vehicle drivers for people riding a 

bike at Hans Broges Gade. 


is signposting and its interpretation at Hans Broges Gade. 






is the scenic at Hans Broges Gade 

Table 3.2.48: Distribution of the respondents by educational level gender according to their opinion 

about how problematic is the scenic at Hans Broges Gade 


problematic is the scenic at Hans Broges Gade 


not, after the opening of Hans Broges Gade 

Table 3.2.51: Distribution of the respondents by educational level based on starting to ride a bike 

more often, or not, after the opening of Hans Broges Gade 


or not, after the opening of Hans Broges Gade 



Table 3.2.54 Distribution of respondents by educational level according to their opinion about the importance 





solutions (lightning, pavement material, greenery, etc) used in Hans Broges Gade. 

104 

104 

104 

104 

105 

105 

105 

105 

106 

106 

106 

106 

107 

107 

107 

107 

108 

108 

108 

108 

109 

109 

109 

109 

190 191

Table 3.2.57: Distribution of respondents by educational level according to their opinion about the street 

design solutions (lightning, pavement material, greenery, etc) used in Hans Broges Gade. 

Table 3.2.58: Distribution of respondents by age groups according to their opinion about the street design 

solutions (lightning, pavement material, greenery, etc) used in Hans Broges Gade. 

3.3 BRYGGEBRO 

Table 3.3.1: Absolute and percentage distribution of respondents according to the distance of their residential 

location from Bryggebro. 

Table 3.2.2: Distribution of the respondents by gender according to the frequency they ride a bicycle at 

Bryggebro. 


bicycle at Bryggebro. 


at Bryggebro. 

Table 3.3.5: Distribution of the respondents by gender according to the frequency they walk at Bryggebro 

Table 3.3.6: Distribution of the respondents by educational level according to the frequency they walk at 

Bryggebro 


Bryggebro 

Table 3.3.8: Distribution of the respondents by gender according to the main trip purpose when riding a 

bike in Bryggebro. 

Table 3.3.9: Distribution of the respondents by educational level according to the main trip purpose when 

riding a bike in Bryggebro. 

Table 3.3.10: Distribution of the respondents by age groups according to the main trip purpose when riding 

a bike in Bryggebro. 

Table 3.3.11: Distribution of the respondents by gender according to the frequency they ride a bike in 

Bryggebro for the main purpose mentioned in the Figure 3.3.68, after the intervention in Bryggebro. 


bike in Bryggebro for the main purpose mentioned in the Figure 3.3.68, after the intervention in Bryggebro 

Table 3.3.13: Distribution of the respondents by age groups according to the frequency they ride a bike in 

Bryggebro for the main purpose mentioned in the Figure 3.3.68, after the intervention in Bryggebro. 

Table 3.3.14: Distribution of the respondents by gender according to the level of satisfaction with the design 

of Bryggebro. 


with the design of Bryggebro. 

Table 3.3.16: Distribution of the respondents by age groups according to the level of satisfaction with the 

design of Bryggebro. 

Table 3.3.17: Distribution of the respondents by gender according to their opinion about how the Bryggebro’s 



the Bryggebro’s design fulfilled the bicyclist safety aspect. 

Table 3.3.19: Distribution of the respondents by age group according to their opinion about how the 

Bryggebro’s design fulfilled the bicyclist safety aspect. 

Table 3.3.20: Distribution of the respondents by gender according to their opinion about how the Bryggebro’s 

design fulfilled the fast connectivity. 


the Bryggebro’s design fulfilled the fast connectivity. 


110 

110 

143 

152 

152 

152 

153 

153 

153 

153 

153 

154 

154 

154 

154 

155 

155 

155 

156 

156 

156 

156 

157 

157 

Bryggebro’s design fulfilled the fast connectivity. 


Bryggebro’s design fulfilled the aesthetics aspect. 


the Bryggebro’s design fulfilled the aesthetics aspect. 


Bryggebro’s design fulfilled the aesthetics aspect. 


illegal parking of bicycles is at Bryggebro. 






is the conflict between different transport modes at Bryggebro. 


problematic is the conflict between different transport modes at Bryggebro. 


problematic is the conflict between different transport modes at Bryggebro. 


is the existence of obstacles against the cyclists at Bryggebro. 


problematic is the existence of obstacles against the cyclists at Bryggebro. 


problematic is the existence of obstacles against the cyclists at Bryggebro. 


is the pavement at Bryggebro. 






is the existence of cracks and ramps at Bryggebro 


problematic is the existence of cracks in ramps and intersections is at Bryggebro. 


problematic is the existence of cracks in ramps and intersections is at Bryggebro. 


is the lack of awareness of pedestrians for people riding a bike at Bryggebro. 


problematic is the lack of awareness of pedestrians for people riding a bike at Bryggebro. 


problematic is the lack of awareness of pedestrians for people riding a bike at Bryggebro. 


is signposting and its interpretation at Bryggebro. 





Table 3.3.47: Distribution of the respondents by gender according to their opinion about how problem- 

157 

157 

158 

158 

158 

158 

159 

159 

159 

159 

160 

160 

160 

160 

161 

161 

161 

161 

162 

162 

162 

162 

163 

163 

163 

192 193

Table 3.3.48: Distribution of the respondents by educational level gender according to their opinion about 

how problematic is the scenic at Bryggebro 


is the scenic at Bryggebro. 


not, after the opening of Bryggebro. 

Table 3.3.51: Distribution of the respondents by educational level based on starting to ride a bike more 

often, or not, after the opening of Bryggebro. 


or not, after the opening of Bryggebro. 



Table 3.3.54: Distribution of respondents by educational level according to their opinion about the importance 





solutions (lightning, pavement material, greenery, etc) used in Bryggebro. 

Table 3.3.57: Distribution of respondents by educational level according to their opinion about the street 

design solutions (lightning, pavement material, greenery, etc) used in Bryggebro. 

Table 3.3.58: Distribution of respondents by age groups according to their opinion about the street design 

solutions (lightning, pavement material, greenery, etc) used in Bryggebro. 

163 

164 

164 

164 

164 

165 

165 

165 

165 

166 

166 

194 195

FLYER DELIVERED TO CYCLISTS 

ANNEX 



ØNSKER DU EN 





www.detmangfoldigebyrum.dk/hansbrogesgade/ 





ØNSKER DU EN BED- 

VI ER MIDT I ET FORSKNINGSPROJEKT OM CYKELBYEN OG MANGLER NETOP 

DIN HJÆLP TIL AT FORBEDRE DEN. 


WWW.SURVEY-CYKEL.DK 

BRYGGEBROEN 




ØNSKER DU EN 






VESTERGADE VEST & MAGELØS 



196 197

SURVEY ACCESSED ON THE WEBSITE 

DO YOU WISH A 

BETTER CITY FOR 

CYCLING? 

We are in the middle of a research project 

about cycling in the city and need your help. 

The only thing you have to do is answer a few 

questions. Answer now and you have the 

chance to win a new bike valued at 3500 

DKK. The entries will be drawn on the 31th of October 2010 with the 

winner contacted by e-mail. 

For further information about the project you can contract vsil@create.aau.dk 

01 Home address 

02 Email address 

03 Age 

04 Gender 

Male 

Female 

05 Level of education 

Primary school 

Vocational education 

High school 

Short high education 

Medium high education 

Long high education 

06 How often do you ride a bicycle at Hans 

Broges Gade? 

6-7 days of week 

5 days of week 



1-3 days of months 

More rarely 

07 How often do you walk at Hans Broges 

Gade? 


5 days of week 



1-3 days of months 

More rarely 

08 What is your main purpose at Hans Broges 

Gade? 

Transportation to and from work 

Recreation / leisure 

Visiting family / friends 

Purchasing / shopping 

Transportation to and from school 

Others 

198 199

09 How often do you use the bike for the 

purpose in question 08 after the opening of 

Hans Broges Gade? 

More rarely 

Not as often 

Just as often as before 

More often 

Much more often 

10 How satisfied are you with Hans Broges 

Gade? 

Very dissatisfied 

Dissatisfied 

Neutral 

Satisfied 

Very satisfied 

11 How do you think the design solution has 

fulfilled the following parameters of the 

infrastructure? 

Safety Very bad Bad Neutral Good Very good 

Fast connection Very bad Bad Neutral Good Very good 

Aesthetics / beauty Very bad Bad Neutral Good Very good 

12 Evaluate how problematic the following 

situations are when cycling at Hans Broges 

Gade? 

Illegally parked bicycles 

Not 

problematic 

A bit 

problematic 

Problematic 

Quite 

problematic 

Major 

problem 

Conflicts between bicycle 

paths, sidewalks and 

traffic lane 

Obstacles 

Holes in the pavement 

Cracks in ramps and 

where different path and 

roads meet 

Lack of awareness from 

other biking people 

biking 

Poor signposting and 

interpretation 

Lack of scenic and 

greenery 

Not 

problematic 

Not 

problematic 

Not 

problematic 

Not 

problematic 

Not 

problematic 

Not 

problematic 

Not 

problematic 

A bit 

problematic 

A bit 

problematic 

A bit 

problematic 

A bit 

problematic 

A bit 

problematic 

A bit 

problematic 

A bit 

problematic 

Problematic 

Problematic 

Problematic 

Problematic 

Problematic 

Problematic 

Problematic 

Quite 

problematic 

Quite 

problematic 

Quite 

problematic 

Quite 

problematic 

Quite 

problematic 

Quite 

problematic 

Quite 

problematic 

Major 

problem 

Major 

problem 

Major 

problem 

Major 

problem 

Major 

problem 

Major 

problem 

Major 

problem 

13 Are you biking more often after the opening 

of Hans Broges Gade? 

Yes 

No 

14 If yes, what are the main qualities about 

Hans Broges Gade that have affected your 

choice to bike more often? 

Safety 

A good experience 

Faster connection 

Wider bike lanes 

Greener areas 

Faster bike lanes 

Green wedge 

Attractive landscape 

200 201

Better signposting 

Bike maps 

Maintenance of bike lanes 

Bike parking 

15 How important is street design (greenery, 

lightning, pavement etc.) for your decision to 

ride here? 

Not at all important 

Not important 

Neutral 

Important 

Very important 

Thank you for answering this questionnaire. 

Please, push the bottom below to end. 

16 What is your opinion about Hans Broges 

Gade design solution (greenery, lightning, 

pavement etc.)? 

Very bad 

bad 

Neutral 

Good 

Very good 

17 Would you like to add any comments to this 

questionnaire? 

202 203

SECTION THREE: THE DUTCH REFERENCE 

STUDY 

CASES OF INTERVENTIONS IN BICYCLE INFRASTRUCTURE 

REVIEWED IN THE FRAMEWORK OF BIKEABILITY 

Kees van Goeverden 

Tom Godefrooij

CONTENTS 


2.0 DEVELOPMENTS IN CYCLING IN THE NETERLANDS 

3.0 THE DEMOSTRATION PROJECTS IN TILBURG AND THE HAGUE 

3.1 POLITICAL CONTEXT 

3.2 THE ROUTE DESIGNS 

3.2.1 TILBURG 

3.2.2 THE HAGUE 

3.3 ORGANISATION AND IMPLEMENTATION 

3.3.1 TILBURG 

5 

7 

11 

11 

12 

12 

13 

16 

16 

5 SHARED SPACE IN HAREN 

5.1 DESIGN 

5.2 Organisation and implementation 

5.3 Evaluation 

5.3.1 Use of shared space 

5.3.2 Safety 

5.3.3 Perception of shared space 

5.3.4 Economy 

5.3.5 Conclusion 

59 

59 

59 

59 

60 

60 

61 

61 

61 

3.3.2 THE HAGUE 

16 

3.4 THE COSTS 

3.5 SET-UP OF THE EVALUATIONSTUDIES 

3.6 THE IMPACTS 

3.6.1 BICYCLE USE 

17 

17 

18 

18 

6 Bicycle street in Haarlem 

6.1 Design 


63 

63 

63 

3.6.2 ROAD SAFETY 

3.6.3 PERCEPTION OF CYCLING QUALITY 

3.6.4 DESIGN ASPECTS 

3.6.5 ECONOMY 

3.7 DISCUSSION 

4.0 THE DELF BICYCLE PLAN 

19 

20 

22 

26 

26 

29 

7 Interurban highway for cyclists 

7.1 Context 

7.2 Design 


7.4 The costs 


67 

67 

67 

67 

67 

67 

4.1 POLITICAL CONTEXT 

4.2 DESIGN 

4.2.1 THE NETWORK 

4.2.2 THE PROJECTS 

29 

30 

30 

30 

8 Synthesis of Dutch findings and implementation in 

other countries 

8.1 Conclusions 

69 

69 

4.3 ORGANISATION AND IMPLEMENTATION 

31 

4.4 THE COSTS 

32 

4.5 ONE SINGLE PROJECT: THE PLANTAGEBRUG 

33 

4.6 SET-UP OF THE EVALUATION STUDIES 

34 

4.7 THE IMPACTS OF THE UPGRADING THE NETWORK 

35 

4.7.1 TRAVEL BEHAVIOUR 

35 

4.7.2 SAFETY 

46 

4.7.3 PERCEPTION OF CYCLING QUALITY 

48 

4.7.4 ECONOMY 

50 

4.8 THE IMPACTS OF BUILDING THE PLANTAGEBRUG 

50 

4.8.1 POTENTIAL OF THE BRIDGE 

51 

4.9 DISCUSSION 

55

1 INTRODUCTION 

Increased transition of person transport from automobiles 

to bicycles is generally regarded as gain for society, 

most profoundly in terms of reduced emission and enhanced 

public health. However, in Denmark a decrease 

in mode-share of cycling has been observed, leading to 

the conclusion by the Danish Government that the conditions 

for cycling must be enhanced to increase the use 

of the bicycle for transportation. She launched the Bikeability 

research project that departs from this conclusion 

and focuses on the preconditions for cycling; the possible 

effects of changes of the urban environment and 

cycling infrastructure; and methodologies for assessment 

of changes to existing bicycling infrastructure based on 

micro-level spatially explicit data. This way the strategic 

focus of the project is how to enhance bike-ability of urban 

areas. 

It is the overall objective of the project to increase the 

level of knowledge in relation to bicycle based transport 

and thereby to contribute to more efficient and qualified 

urban planning and management. The project activities 

are divided into 5 interrelated workpackages (WP’s): 

WP1: Cycling behaviour and its preconditions will analyse 

the determinants for cycling behaviour of individuals, 

such as motives, lifestyles, opportunities and constraints. 

WP2: Environmental determinants for bike-ability will link 

GIS data with objective and subjective measures of cycling 

in relation to the conditions of selected neighbourhoods 

to develop a validated bike-ability index tailored to 

the Danish urban context, but applicable in other regions. 

This report describes the Dutch cases that are studied in 

the context of WP4. The Netherlands have a long tradition 

of high bicycle usage, bicycle promotion by policy makers, 

and research in the field of cycling. Cycling experience, 

evaluated policy interventions, and other research 

created a wealth of knowledge. A substantial part of the 

knowledge is not accessible for non-Dutch speaking 

persons and it is valuable to report the findings from a 

number of Dutch evaluated cases in the framework of the 

Bikeability-project. 

The structure of the report is as follows. First, in Chapter 

2, a brief overview of cycling, bicycle policy, and research 

on cycling in the Netherlands will be given. Then, in the 

next five chapters seven case studies are described. 

Chapters 3 and 4 discuss the three ‘classical’ cases of 

large scale improvements in bicycle infrastructure that 

were implemented and evaluated some decades ago: 

the construction of high quality urban bicycle routes and 

the upgrade of the bicycle network in one city. Chapter 4 

deals in addition with a single project that is part of the 

network upgrade and that has been evaluated separately. 

Chapters 5 to 7 describe the evaluations of the application 

of three recently developed typologies of infrastructure 

design: shared space, bicycle streets, and bicycle 

‘highways’. Finally, Chapter 8 summarises the results and 

provides recommendations. 

WP3: Choice modelling for simulation of bicyclist behaviour 

develops an agent based modelling approach to 

simulate the flow of individual bicyclists in urban areas as 

a response to changes to the urban environment and the 

level of and attitude to bicycle transport. 

WP4: Interventions to the bicycling infrastructure will 

analyze bicycle infrastructure cases in the Danish municipalities 

and the Netherlands; their implementation and 

significance in terms of contribution to the promotion of 

cycling, and finally identify infrastructure and elements of 

interventions that can help promote cycling significantly. 

WP5: Planning Guidance and Dissemination serves the 

purpose of presenting the project’s methodological advances, 

tools, and conclusions to policy-makers, planners 

and traffic engineers, as well as maintaining the dialog 

and interaction with end-users from the municipalities. 

4 5

2 DEVELOPMENTS IN CYCLING IN THE NETHERLANDS 

In the Netherlands and in many other countries bicycle 

usage increased continuously in the first half of the 20th 

century and reached a maximum in about 1950. Then 

bicycle usage started to decline due to the increasing 

competition of the car. In some countries, like England, 

the bicycle nearly disappeared, in other countries, like the 

Netherlands and Denmark, the bicycle survived as a frequently 

used mode. Figure 2.1 depicts the development 

of cycling in the Netherlands since 1950. 

The 1970’s marked a paradigm shift in the Dutch thinking 

about traffic. Whereas in the 1950’s and 1960’s traffic and 

transport policies were characterised by straightforward 

attempts to make room for the rapidly increasing motorisation, 

in the 1970’s people started to see the downsides 

of mass motorisation. The number of fatal road casualties 

peaked in 1972 and raised a lot of public dissatisfaction. 

The foundation in 1973 of the civil society group called 

‘Stop de Kindermoord’ (Stop the Murder of Children) was 

a protest against the high number of road accidents with 

young children and the priority generally given to motorised 

traffic. Upon that the report of the Club of Rome 

on the limits to growth in 1972 had a major impact on the 

public debate in the Netherlands, and triggered a more 

critical thinking about environmental aspects of the ongoing 

motorisation. Additionally, the oil crises of 1973 demonstrated 

the vulnerability of motorised transport. In 1975 

the Fietsersbond (Dutch Cyclists’ Union) came into existence. 

Municipal officials in Delft invented the ‘woonerf’ 

concept: residential areas in which cars had to slow down 

to a walking pace so as to accommodate other uses of the 

public space than only traffic. 

Figure 2.1: Development of bicycle kilometres per person per day in the Netherlands in the period 1950-2009 (sources: 

Ministry of Transport and Public Works, 1993, and national travel survey data 1980-2009) 

After 1950, bicycle use fell from nearly 5 km per person 

per day to less than 2 km in the mid 1970’s. Then it increased 

again to 2.5 km, and this level has been retained 

until today. 

Bicycle promotion became permanently an issue in policy, 

and research on the effectiveness of measures for improving 

cycling conditions started as well. In the late 1970’s 

two ‘demonstration bicycle routes’ were implemented in 

The Hague and Tilburg. In the 1980’s the bicycle network 

in the medium-sized city of Delft was upgraded in order to 

create a comprehensive and integral network that meets 

certain standards of quality. These three projects were 

evaluated extensively and got the status of classical case 

studies in bicycle interventions; the studies are discussed 

in Chapters 3 and 4. 

6 7

In the 1990’s the central government initiated a large 

number of projects and studies in the framework of the 

“Masterplan Fiets”. Research and active policy continued 

in the new century. New concepts were developed that 

aimed at humanizing traffic and utilising the potential of 

active modes as cycling, like ‘bicycle streets’, ‘shared 

space’, ‘driving slowly goes faster’ and ‘bicycle highways’. 

These concepts did not change the city overnight, 

but helped to improve the urban transport system and to 

sustain the existing levels of cycling. 

The figure demonstrates that a) the bicycle share is by 

far highest for teenagers (about 60%!), and b) the developments 

of the shares are highly stable. The stability is 

remarkable because the average trip distance increased, 

inducing a relative decrease of trips where the bicycle 

is a feasible mode. The Ministry of Transport and Public 

Works (1998) argued that the competitiveness of the bicycle 

has increased. Other studies show that the cycling 

culture in the Netherlands has gained strength and acceptation 

in all parts of the population compared to three 

decades ago (DHV et al, 1980, Goudappel en Coffeng 

and Rijkswaterstaat, 1980, Mobycon et al, 2009). 

In contrast to the stability of bicycle use for regular trips, 

usage of the bicycle for access and egress to and from 

public transport increased spectacular. The number of 

this kind of trips increased from about 0.02 in the early 

1980’s to about 0.05 today. Most of these trips are feeder 

trips for the train. The increase can partly be explained by 

a general increase in train use and party by an increase of 

the bicycle share in the access and egress modes. 

Figure 2.2: Share of the bicycle for regular trips by age class (source: national travel survey data 1979-2008) 

Corresponding to the growth in bicycle use, the market 

share of use of the bicycle increased since the mid 1970’s 

until the level of 28% in the early 1980’s. Since then this 

level has been remarkably constant. Figure 2.2 shows the 

development of market shares of bicycle use for regular 

trips, separately for three age classes: young children < 

12 years old, teenagers from 12-18, and adults >= 18 

years old. Regular trips exclude bicycle use for just go for 

a ride and feeder trips to and from public transport. Data 

for young children are available only from 1994. 

Figures collected by the Fietsersbond (2010) show that 

the most important purposes for bicycle use are shopping 

(22% of all bicycle trips), education (18%), work (16%), 

leisure (14%, excluding just go for a ride that has a share 

of 6%), and visit family or friends (11%). The number of 

bicycle trips is comparable for men and women except 

for ages from 30-60 where women make significantly 

more trips. Non-natives make considerably less bicycle 

trips than natives. The difference is most striking for nonnatives 

from Mediterranean countries. 

8 9

3 The demonstration projects in 

Tilburg and The Hague 

3.1 Political context 

In chapter 2 we shortly described the paradigm shift of the 

1970’s in the thinking about traffic, resulting in more attention 

for (the safety of) cycling and walking. In this atmosphere 

of growing awareness a budget line for subsidizing 

cycling facilities in urban areas was introduced for the 

first time in the Multi Annual Plan for Persons Transport 

1976-1980 of the Ministry of Transport, Public Works and 

Water Management. Such facilities were meant to stimulate 

bicycle use. Municipal projects to improve cyclists’ 

safety were eligible for a 80% subsidy. 

As the construction of such facilities – in those days – appeared 

to be not that simple, the minister took up the plan 

to implement two so called ‘demonstration bicycle routes’ 

in The Hague and Tilburg as an example for other municipalities 

to follow suit. These demonstration routes would 

be funded 100% by the national government. 

Both Tilburg and The Hague were chosen because these 

municipalities had formulated policies to improve cycling 

conditions in line with the aims of the government. These 

cycling policies were meant to slow down the increase of 

motorised traffic and to strengthen the (at that time deteriorating) 

position of cycling (and also public transport). 

As the available budget was supposed to be spent in 

1976 there was little time for preparation and design. The 

ministry was keen on making the demonstration route 

available as soon as possible in order to stimulate other 

municipalities to follow the given example. 

And at the same time there was an ambiguity in the 

character of these projects: on the one hand they should 

show the feasibility of dedicated bicycle routes, and on 

the other hand these projects had to contribute to an increased 

knowledge and understanding of the effects of 

certain interventions, which implied systematic before 

and after studies. Thus the routes included some (at that 

time) experimental solutions which effectiveness had to 

be assessed. The result of this ambiguity was (amongst 

other things) that the implementation of the routes took 

a bit more time than anticipated, and also resulted in an 

extensive research to the effects of the implemented facilities 

on bicycle use, road safety, the appropriateness of 

certain designs and the experiences of the users. 

10 11

3.2 The route designs 

3.2.1 TILBURG 

Figure 3.1: Tilburg is located in the southern part of the 

Netherlands. 

Tilburg is a city in the south of the Netherlands. After 

the industrial revolution it became a centre for textile industries, 

and because of the increase of the population 

Tilburg absorbed the adjacent villages. Thus Tilburg is 

an agglomeration rahter than a mono centric city. In the 

1960’s and 1970’s the textile industry lost its prominent 

position and many industrial sites were redeveloped. At 

that time Tilburg had a population of about 150.000 inhabitants. 

(In 2010 this number has increased to 204.000 

inhabitants.) 

Tilburg is also a university city with an emphasis on social 

and economic sciences. Although Tilburg is the sixth city 

of the Netherlands, its urban form reflects a rather recent 

development of its urban status. 

The design 

The demonstration bicycle route was designed as one 

stretched route connecting the outskirts of the built-up 

area in the west and the east with the city centre. 

Figure 3.2: Bicyle route in Tilburg. 

In the eastbound direction the route was extended to 

neighbouring villages Berkel-Enschot and Oisterwijk. 

Thus this route has also a rural section. At relevant points 

(mainly in the city centre) the project included some (relatively 

short) transverse connections to open up the area. 

And the connection with the villages in the east looks like 

an ongoing alignment to Oisterwijk with two transverse 

connections to Berkel-Enschot. 

Figure 3.3: Main route (above) and transverse connections (below) inside the city of Tilburg. 

12 13

3.2.2 The Hague 

The design 

Just as in Tilburg the demonstration route in The Hague 

was intended to be one stretched route (through the urban 

fabric parallel between two main arterials for motorised 

traffic) connecting the south-west of the city (Waldeck) 

and the north east part (Mariahoeve) via the city centre. 

Figure 3.4: Extension of the bicycle route to the villages of Oisterwijk and Berkel-Enschot. 

Main features of the project (Gemeente Tilburg 1975; Ministerie van Verkeer en Waterstaat 1977): 

• Segregated cycling facilities, mostly a two directional path at one side of the main carriageway; 

• Redesigned narrow streets in the city centre with restricted access for cars, and related to that a number of changes in 

the circulation in the inner-city, such as changes of direction in one way streets; 

• Intersection redesign so as to give priority to cyclists on the bicycle route as much as possible; 

• Much effort is put into showing the continuity of the bicycle route across the intersections by using red coloured road 

surface for the bicycle route. 

• ‘Humps and bumps’ in the road pavement were used as an experimental feature at intersections to influence the manoeuvring 

of car drivers. 

 

Figure 3.5: The Hague is located in the west of the Netherlands 

and part of the metropolitan conurbation called 

‘Randstad’. 

The Hague is the residence city of the Netherlands government 

(Amsterdam being the capital). Government 

has been residing in The Hague since the 16th century. 

The Hague is the third city in the Netherlands with about 

500.000 inhabitants. As the The Hague territory is fully 

utilised, the number of inhabitants is now smaller than 

30 years ago, but the increase of population is absorbed 

by neighbouring municipalities. The agglomeration Haaglanden, 

consisting of The Hague and its neighbour municipalities 

has over 1 million inhabitants. And again this 

agglomeration is part of the larger Randstad, the metropolitan 

area in the west of the Netherlands including also 

Amsterdam, Rotterdam and Utrecht. 

The Hague is situated at the North Sea and well connected 

with the other parts of the country by highways and rail 

connections. The Hague is also called the capital of international 

justice, being the residence of the International 

Court and International Criminal Court. 

Figure 3.6: Bicycle route in The Hague 

But the planned route through the city centre and the east 

part met so much opposition that the city centre part was 

only decided upon after the evaluation study, and the 

east part of the route was cancelled altogether. So the 

bicycle route that was subject of the evaluation study is 

only connecting Waldeck, a neighbourhood in the South- 

West part of The Hague in North East direction with the 

city centre. The urban density in The Hague is somewhat 

higher than in Tilburg. Most parts of the route were designed 

as a one sided two directional cycle path, with priority 

of the cycle route at most of the intersections. 

Some parts are one way streets with cyclists mixing with 

motorised traffic and a contra flow cycling path in the 

other direction. Main feature in The Hague is the design 

of intersections with right of way for cyclists on the demonstration 

route. As in Tilburg the continuity of the route 

was made visible by the use of (red) coloured pavement. 

The experimental feature in The Hague was the design of 

‘priority intersections’ that provided right of way to cyclists 

on the demonstration bicycle route. The bicycle route is 

aligned over a road hump so as to make sure that crossing 

car drivers are slowing down when approaching the 

bicycle route. (Dienst der Gemeentewerken ’s-Gravenhage, 

1978). 

14 15

projects. (See also the organization chart below.) The decision 

making on the project implementation was at the 

municipal level. 

3.3.1 Tilburg 

In reality the (urban part of the) bicycle route in Tilburg 

was implemented between March 1976 and November 

1977 (Ministerie van Verkeer en Waterstaat, 1977) 

after approval of the plans by the municipal council on 

1 December 1975. The extensions to the neighbouring 

municipalities Berkel-Enschot and Oisterwijk were only 

decided in 1977, and these parts of the route are outside 

the scope of the evaluation studies. 

Given the pressure of time there was limited room for 

information to and consultation of the population. Information 

and consultations sessions were organised per 

neighbourhood and with some stakeholder groups like 

the Chamber of Commerce and the association of shop 

owners. Comments made could only be taken into account 

as far as they were within the boundary conditions 

of the project. This wasn’t always to the satisfaction of the 

people involved in this consultation process. 

The technical preparation and supervision on the implementation 

was commissioned to some consultancies, 

with the final responsibility at Tilburg Public Works department. 

Project group 

design 

The Hague 

Project group 

design 

Tilburg 

Ministry of 

Transport, Public 

Works and Water 

Management 

Project 

implementation 

Bicycle 

use 

Steering 

group 

The Hague 

Steering 

group 

Tilburg 

Cyclists’ 

perceptions 

Road 

safety 

5 thematic research groups 

Municipality of 

The Hague 

Municipality of 

Tilburg 

Plenary 

Research 

Group 

Design 

aspects 

Accompanying 

research 

Shop 

sales 

3.3 Organisation and 

implementation 

Both demonstration projects stem from the desire of the 

national government to demonstrate the feasibility of well 

designed urban cycling infrastructure. As explained in 

paragraph 3.1 the Multi Annual Plan for Persons Transport 

1976-1980 had (for the first time) a budget line to 

subsidize urban cycling facilities. But as municipalities 

obviously found it difficult to qualify for these subsidies, 

these demonstration routes had to show them the way. 

Because of the time frame of the multi-annual plan the 

ministry wanted the projects to be implemented rather 

quickly. The original idea was that the implementation of 

both routes would be finalized in 1976. 

For both projects there was a steering group of municipal 

officials and the (national) Department of Waterways 

and Public Works. Thereupon there was a ‘plenary study 

group’ with 5 subgroups for a proper evaluation of the 

3.3.2 The Hague 

In The Hague the implementation process was less 

straight forward than in Tilburg. The original idea was that 

the municipal council would approve the plans for the entire 

bicycle route in one decision. But because of the opposition 

(mainly coming from shop keepers) the council 

decided to take separate decisions for 5 different route 

sections. For each route section ‘information evenings’ 

were organised, and the plans for some sections raised 

substantial opposition, which resulted in serious delays 

for these sections. The route section in the historic city 

centre got only approved in 1983 after the evaluation 

studies were finished, and the north east section was ultimately 

cancelled altogether. 

The technical preparation was in the hands of the Department 

of Public Works of The Hague whereas the political 

management of the project was a shared responsibility 

of the town clerk’s office and the department of Public 

Works. 

3.4 The costs 

Figure 3.8: Chart of organisation and implementation of the two projects (Van den Broecke and 

Rijkswaterstaat, 1981) 

It doesn’t seem very worthwhile to go very deep into the 

costs of projects that were implemented more than 30 

years ago. The reporting on this issue (Instituut voor Zintuigfysiologie, 

TNO and Rijkswaterstaat 1982) concludes 

that cost estimates were reasonably in line with the real 

costs, that it was difficult to establish a general applicable 

unit price for sections and intersections, that larger constructions 

such as bridges and underpasses do have a 

large impact on the total costs of such a project, and that 

costs are relatively low when the bicycle facilities can be 

implemented between the existing curbs of the carriageway. 

Reconstruction of the cross section ‘from façade to 

façade’ is obviously and understandably more expensive. 

This was also the main explanation why the bicycle route 

in The Hague was cheaper than the route in Tilburg: the 

route in The Hague could be implemented between the 

existing curbs, whereas in Tilburg the entire cross section 

was reconstructed. In the case of the two projects preparation 

and supervision of the construction of the bicycle 

routes took a substantial part of the budget. 

3.5 Set-up of the 

evaluation studies 

The demonstration projects were not only intended to 

show the feasibility of the implementation of cycling facilities, 

but also to get a better understanding of the effects of 

such facilities. For this reason the project was accompanied 

by a number of studies to evaluate the bicycle routes 

16 17

and to conclude whether the goals and objectives of the 

projects were achieved. The research was organised in 5 

thematic sub researches researching the impacts or effects 

of the bicycle routes on (1) bicycle use, (2) perceptions 

(appreciation) of the quality of the route and its elements, 

(3) road safety, (4) design aspects, and (5) shop 

sales. 

These groups were supervised by a plenary research 

group as shown in the organization chart in par. 3.3. 

As for the information and consultation process also the 

determination of the research questions was done rather 

quick and dirty. As a consequence the research questions 

of the 5 research groups didn’t fit in optimally to policy issues. 

Also the researches weren’t optimally geared to one 

another, which hampered the drawing of integral conclusions. 

An integral evaluation was done on the technical 

aspects (building on the results of the 5 sub groups) and 

on the process aspects of the project (evaluating project 

organisation, implementation and demonstration). The 

next paragraphs will shortly explain the research questions, 

used methods and results of all evaluation studies. 

3.6 The impacts 

3.6.1 Bicycle use 

With regard to bicycle use the research questions were: 

• Did the construction of the bicycle route result into additional 

trips? 

• Did the construction of the bicycle route result into a 

modal shift? 

• Is the bicycle route attracting cyclists from parallel 

routes? 

• What is the size of the area of influence of the bicycle 

route? 

• Do cyclists using the bicycle route judge differently 

about time losses as a consequence of detours than cyclists 

using other routes? (Or to phrase it differently: are 

cyclists prepared to accept longer detours because of a 

high quality bicycle route?) 

•How do cyclists experience certain design aspects? 

(DHV et al,1980) 

These questions were answered on the basis of counts 

of volumes of cyclists on the demonstration routes and 

parallel routes before (October 1975) and after (October 

1977, April 1978, October 1978 and October 1979) the 

implementation of the bicycle routes, and on the basis of 

a survey (after implementation) amongst cyclists on the 

bicycle routes and in the vicinity of these routes. 

The counts and surveys have been identically executed 

in The Hague and Tilburg. Also moped users were surveyed, 

but as the number of moped users decreased 

substantially between 1975 and 1977 (15% in The Hague 

and 30% in Tilburg) the analyses of the surveys was only 

done with the cyclists’ responses. It is good to note here 

that the majority of cyclists surveyed (75% in Tilburg and 

81% in The Hague) had no car available for their trips. (It 

is likely that today – 2011 – much higher percentages of 

cyclists have a car available.) 

The counts in both cities have been done on two corridor 

cross sections, including the bicycle route and the parallel 

routes on both sides. In both cities the volume of cyclists 

on the newly implemented route increased dramatically at 

the cost of the volumes of the parallel routes. The increase 

of volumes on the bicycle routes were highest in Tilburg 

(146% in 1978 and 140% in 1979 – both compared with 

the volumes as counted in 1975) but also in The Hague 

they were considerable (54% in 1978 and 76% in 1979). 

40% of the users in The Hague and 67% of the users in 

Tilburg are coming from parallel routes. 

At the same time cyclists don’t appear to be prepared to 

make detours. The average detour distance (defined as 

the difference between ‘the distance as the crow flies’ and 

‘the distance over the road’) is on the bicycle route in The 

Hague only 90 m longer than on the parallel routes; and 

in Tilburg the bicycle route is the shortest route anyway 

for most cyclists. The latter fact can be an explanation of 

the larger increase in use of the bicycle route in Tilburg: 

the shift in route choice in Tilburg can be explained because 

of an improved directness offered by the bicycle 

route. In case of a similar directness (no or minor detours 

compared to other routes) the shift in route choice can be 

explained by the better cycling quality of the route. 

Obviously cyclists in The Hague are prepared to accept 

an average additional detour of only 90 m to use the better 

quality bicycle route. (DHV et al, 1980) Goudappel en 

Coffeng and Rijkswaterstaat (1981, 1) suggest that travel 

time could be an explaining factor for this. The perception 

study revealed that cyclists appreciate the feeling of being 

able to get on smoothly, and that the absence of traffic 

lights on the demonstration route could result in a shorter 

travel time even if the distance is a bit larger. 

The total volume of cyclists in the corridor had increased 

as well. The increase was larger on the bicycle routes 

than on the parallel routes. In the survey cyclists indicated 

that they made more cycling trips for so called ‘non obligatory’ 

(or ‘voluntary’) trips (as opposed to ‘obligatory’ or 

‘non voluntary’ trips like commuting to school or to work, 

which were not expected to increase). Cyclists stated to 

make more cycling trips to shops, family visits and recreational 

purposes than before the implementation of the 

bicycle route. 

On the other hand the implementation of the demonstration 

bicycle routes had only a modest impact on modal 

choice. In 1977 cyclists (on the demonstration routes and 

on parallel routes) were asked what mode of transport 

they used in 1975. Most cyclists (90%) already cycled before 

(as most of them had no car available for their trip) 

and there was no difference in this respect between cyclists 

on the demonstration routes and on parallel routes. 

There is hardly any impact on public transport use in both 

cities (that had very different levels of service). There is 

a small shift from car to bicycle (5-8% of the cyclists that 

own a car – which is only 20-25% of all cyclists – indicated 

that they used to use their car in 1975), and it can be concluded 

very cautiously that the (autonomous) shift from 

bicycle to other modes (i.e. modal shift as a consequence 

of changes in a person’s personal situation) is smaller for 

cyclists using the demonstration route than for those using 

parallel routes. (Goudappel en Coffeng and Rijkswaterstaat 

1980, DHV et al, 1980) 

With regard to the area of influence of the demonstration 

route an analysis was made of the origins and destinations 

of the surveyed cyclists. It appeared that those 

having their origin and/or destination within 250 m of the 

route will use the route rather frequently, but when origin 

and destination are further away, the use of the route 

becomes rapidly very small. It could not be shown that 

the area of influence of these demonstration routes was 

larger than the area of influence of other routes. However, 

if trip distances are more or less equal (i.e. no detour as 

a consequence of using the route) cyclists do choose the 

demonstration route more often. 

In general the users of the demonstration bicycle routes 

are positive about the routes. Satisfaction was larger in 

Tilburg than in The Hague, although some design aspects 

also raised some criticism. (See also 3.6.3 Perception of 

cycling quality.) 

3.6.2 Road safety 

With regard to road safety the researchers made a distinction 

between ‘objective’ road safety which can be 

measured by the number of personal injury accidents and 

facilities, and the ‘perceived’ or ‘subjective’ road safety: 

how safe do cyclists feel to be. This paragraph is mainly 

dealing with the objective road safety effects of the demonstration 

routes: in how far has the implementation of 

these routes resulted in a decrease of personal injury or 

fatal accidents. The perceived or subjective road safety is 

dealt with in the next paragraph about the perceived quality 

of the bicycle route. 

The main research questions with regard to road safety 

effects of the demonstration routes were: 

• What is the influence of the implemented demonstration 

routes on the (objective) road safety within the area of 

influence of the routes? 

• What is the influence of geometric design and traffic 

light adjustments of the newly implemented facilities on 

the road safety on the routes? 

The first question was elaborated in a number of subquestions 

so as to compare road safety for motorised and 

non motorised road users in the area of influence at large 

with a control area, and subsequently to compare the cycle 

route road sections and intersections with other road 

sections and intersections within the area of influence. 

The second question was also elaborated in a number of 

more detailed research questions but eventually handed 

over to the research group looking into design aspects. As 

the number of accidents per location (fortunately) are too 

rare to enable good conclusions on the basis of accident 

data, other methods of analysis had to be applied. See 

for design related road safety conclusions also paragraph 

3.6.4. 

The road safety impacts in this paragraph are based on 

an analysis of accident data before and after the implementation 

of the bicycle route. (Goudappel en Coffeng 

and Rijkswaterstaat, 1981, 3 and 4). 

With regard to the development of road safety for all road 

users there appeared to be no difference in the areas of 

influence of the bicycle routes in comparison with the control 

areas. 

Different results were found when looking at the accidents 

at sections and intersections of the bicycle route 

compared to other road sections and intersections within 

the influence areas. On the road sections and intersections 

of the bicycle routes single personal injury accidents 

and personal injury accidents with only cyclists involved 

are more frequent, and on intersections this is also true 

for cyclist x motorist personal injury accidents. However, 

18 19

that the risk of personal injury on the bicycle route is lowest 

on the bicycle route. This can be explained by the 

absence of cyclist x motorists accidents on the bicycle 

route because of the segregated facilities. One could say 

that there was a shift from cyclist x motorist accidents to 

cyclist x cyclist accidents, cyclists x pedestrian accidents 

and single cycling accidents. The latter types of accidents 

are on average of course less serious than the cyclist x 

motorist accidents. 

In general the researchers concluded that the demonstration 

bicycle routes had no measurable impact on the number 

of accidents with personal injury, and this was a disappointing 

conclusion. There was no clear positive effect 

of the bicycle routes on (objective) road safety (Dienst der 

Gemeentewerken ’s-Gravenhage, 1984). 

3.6.3 Perception of cycling quality 

One of the researches was meant to determine how cyclists 

and other road users perceive (and experience) the 

bicycle routes and the various applied design elements, 

and to which extent the perception (and experience) of 

cycling in the city is being improved by the construction of 

a dedicated bicycle route. The character of this research 

was mainly qualitative. 

amongst three important target groups within the (expected) 

areas of influence of both demonstration routes. 

These target groups were: 

• Employees from adjacent residential areas having their 

jobs in the city centre, who don’t need a car for their job 

and could or do use the bicycle for their commuting; 

•Housewives from the same residential areas who could 

or do cycle; 

•Students of schools in the vicinity of the bicycle route. 

There were also surveys amongst control groups, consisting 

out of similar employees and housewives from 

similar neighbourhoods but outside the areas of influence 

of the bicycle routes. It appeared necessary to replenish 

the panels that had been surveyed in the before study for 

the after study, especially in The Hague: because of the 

delays in implementation the existing panels appeared to 

be depleted substantially at the time of the after study. 

Even more so because a considerable part of the demonstration 

route in The Hague (the north-east section) had 

not been implemented, and as a consequence the concerning 

part of the before study panel wasn’t relevant for 

the after study. 

(83%) than cyclists in Tilburg (68%). Also more cyclists in 

The Hague were (in 1978) positive about the suggestion 

for more bicycle routes than cyclists in Tilburg (68%). Explanation 

for this could be that firstly the need for improvement 

of cycling conditions was perceived as more urgent 

in The Hague than in Tilburg, and secondly that higher 

expectations can be easier disappointed. 

The next research question was how cyclists compare the 

use of the bicycle route with the before situation without 

the bicycle route. Generally they feel safer than before, 

they can cycle more undisturbed and they can get on 

more smoothly. 

Spontaneously mentioned elements as being ‘well 

thought of’ were the (redish) coloured pavement of the bicycle 

route, the segregation from the motor traffic and the 

right of way at intersections. On the question what they 

disliked cyclists mentioned dangerous (priority) intersections, 

some narrow sections, mopeds on the bicycle route 

and a number of very diverse other objections. 

When directly asked to assess certain quality aspects as 

being improved or deteriorated these were the results: 

The most striking difference between the two cities is the 

relative larger improvement of the directness in Tilburg. 

ees and 7% of the housewives in The Hague, and 9% of 

the employees and 13 % of the housewives in Tilburg. 

Changes in modal choice for commuting are minor, for 

other motives slightly higher but still very modest: 5%. In 

line with the results of the research to travel behaviour is 

that cyclists indicate only to use the route if it provides a 

direct connection between origin and destination. 

When it comes to the appreciation of certain design aspects 

of the bicycle routes the following observations can 

be made: 

• A positive appreciation of the design correlates with the 

extent of segregation and the width of the facilities. Cyclists 

are obviously less positive when facilities are not 

segregated and/or too narrow. 

• There is also a correlation between the perception of 

safety and the enjoyability of cycling, although the perception 

of safety is systematically more positive than the 

perception of enjoyability. One could conclude that perceived 

safety is a precondition for enjoyable cycling, but 

obviously there is more to it. 

• Intersections are perceived as less safe than road sections, 

and a bit more so in case of intersections without 

traffic lights. 

Research questions were: 

• How do the various groups of road users appreciate/ 

assess the current (implemented) bicycle route, and what 

are the reasons for a positive or a negative assessment? 

• How do bicycle and moped users perceive the use of 

the bicycle route in comparison with cycling in the before 

situation? 

• What can be said on a qualitative level about the effects 

of the bicycle route on the level of bicycle use and on 

route choice? 

• How are the various design elements (design components) 

of the bicycle routes being perceived by the users? 

• How do motorists (i.e. car drivers) perceive the priority 

intersections in the bicycle route as they have been designed 

and implemented? 

To answer these questions a survey was executed before 

and after the implementation of the bicycle routes 

The surveys consisted out of an extensive list of questions, 

and the results of the before study were also used 

for drafting the questions for the after study. 

In general the respondents (both users and non-users of 

the routes) assessed the implementation of the bicycle 

routes positively. Non-users included both cyclists from 

other areas and non-cyclists, and also the majority of noncyclists 

were positive. The positive judgements (in 1978) 

were more frequent in Tilburg (82%) than in The Hague 

(62%). Main reasons for the positive appreciation were 

improved perceived (!) road safety and more room for cycling 

because of the provision of segregated road space. 

Additionally the cyclists in Tilburg mentioned that the bicycle 

route made the city centre better (faster) accessible by 

bicycle. Those in The Hague who were negative in their 

assessment of the bicycle route mentioned mainly insufficient 

road safety or even called the route dangerous. In 

Tilburg the negative assessments were mainly explained 

by the nuisance that the bicycle route created for other 

road users. 

Striking is that with regard to the positive expectations in 

the before study in 1976 it was just the other way around: 

cyclists in The Hague were more positive about the plans 

The effect of the bicycle routes on bicycle use and route 

choice were already studied in another research (see 

3.6.1), and the results in this study to the perceptions of 

cyclists are in line with those results. Only small percentages 

of the cyclist respondents indicate to cycle more 

often because of the bicycle routes: 2% of the employ- 

• The two grade separated crossings in Tilburg are in general 

appreciated, although the (specific) design of one underpass 

had also some critical remarks. 

• The bumps in the road surface at some intersections in 

Tilburg to steer the manoeuvres of car drivers are mainly 

improved 

deteriorated 

Quality aspect The Hague Tilburg The Hague Tilburg 

More pleasant cycling 71% 82% 10% 1% 

Safer cycling 66% 78% 12% 4% 

Getting on more 

smoothly (i.e. improved 57% 79% 5% 4% 

directness) 

More attractive route 43% 56% 7% 4% 

Table 3.1: Perceived changes in quality 

20 21

• Coloured pavement to visually distinguish the space for 

cycling and to underline the coherence and continuity of 

the route are generally appreciated. 

• Cyclists prefer an asphalt pavement above tile paving. 

3.6.4 Design aspects 

An important question is how the results of the researches 

in the previous paragraphs cohere with specific designs 

applied in the bicycle routes. Upon that it is important 

to know to which extent the behaviour of road users 

is in accordance with the intentions of the designers. To 

a certain extent these questions have been answered in 

the research on the perceptions of road users. A specific 

research was done to evaluate the design of intersections, 

and more particularly the intersections without traffic 

lights where cyclists have the right of way. 

At these intersections and a number of control intersections 

observations were done to the behaviour of the various 

road users with regard to their speed, manoeuvres 

and interaction with other road users. Behaviour was registered 

and subsequently analysed. The gravity of interactions 

or conflicts was assessed by calculating the ‘time 

to collision’ (i.e. the collision that would happen if road 

users continue their course with unchanged speed; van 

der Horst and Sijmonsma, 1978). 

This observation method was also applied to complement 

the road safety analysis based on accident data. 

On each individual location the number of accidents was 

too rare to draw any specific conclusion with regard to 

the safety of the location in relation to the applied design. 

As near misses happen much more frequently than real 

accidents, observations of those near misses can provide 

a data base that is considered to a good proxy for road 

accident data bases as basis for an in depth road safety 

analysis. 

Conclusions at route level: 

• Given the fact that cyclists are hardly prepared to make 

detours, the design of bicycle routes should offer as direct 

as possible connections between origin and destination. 

And combined with the preference of cyclists for segregated 

facilities the implication is that if a heavily used arterial 

is providing the shortest connection for cyclists, these 

arterials should have segregated cycle tracks. 

• However, routes along arterials have some disadvantages, 

such as the experience of noise and emissions, 

traffic lights that often aren’t well adjusted to the needs of 

cyclists, and the risk of collisions with turning motor traffic. 

So if direct connections can be made through traffic 

calmed areas, this is the preferred option. 

• Another finding of the research was the importance of a 

logical tracing of the various links of the bicycle route. If 

the tracing of the route is unclear, cyclists get ‘lost’. Thus 

is coherence an important requirement for cycling infrastructure. 

Findings and conclusions with regard to road sections: 

• In both bicycle routes the bicycle facilities were as much 

as possible segregated from the carriageway for motor 

traffic, and cyclists appear to appreciate this. 

• The route in Tilburg was better appreciated than the 

route in The Hague. In The Hague the emphasis was on 

creating safety, whereas in Tilburg the emphasis was on 

getting on more smoothly (improving directness) through 

traffic restrained streets. 

• In case of a lack of space to apply the desired width, in 

some streets the designers chose for compromised solutions. 

Narrowing down the width for all road users with 

only visual separation between the lanes was appreciated 

by none of the categories of road users: the design wasn’t 

comfortable for any of them. A better option seems to design 

the concerning street as a habitat street with limited 

access for motor traffic and a mixed profile. Yet this is not 

ideal for a main bicycle route. 

• Both in The Hague and in Tilburg one sided two directional 

bicycle tracks were predominantly applied. The research 

showed that for the level of use this hardly makes 

any difference compared with two sided one directional 

tracks. These one sided two directional bicycle tracks 

have a big advantage with regard to road management: 

overall these one sided facilities are cheaper and require 

less space than two sided one directional tracks. For cyclists 

they have only advantages when most origins and 

destinations are on the same side of the road, as in those 

cases there is less need for cyclists to cross the main carriageway. 

But there are also serious disadvantages: the 

perception of safety by cyclists is less for those riding in 

the ‘wrong’ direction (which is understandable as they are 

closest to the head on motor traffic). 

And at intersections on this one sided facilities there are 

more conflicts and accidents, again with these cyclists in 

the ‘wrong’ direction being the ‘unexpected direction’ for 

other road users. Also the overtaking by mopeds on these 

two-directional tracks is perceived as less safe and comfortable. 

The overall conclusion is that in urban environments 

two sided one directional tracks are in general the 

most preferred bicycle facilities. One sided two directional 

tracks should only be applied if it is clear that the advantages 

of a decreased need for crossing the main carriageway 

exceed the described disadvantages. 

• The interaction with crossing pedestrians is asking for 

attention as well. As this often happens unexpectedly 

and all along the route, this requires some extra width 

for avoiding manoeuvres. An additional width of 0.50 m 

of the bicycle track is recommended at locations where 

many crossing pedestrians can be expected (Instituut 

voor Zintuigfysiologie 1981). In general and particularly 

at dedicated pedestrian crossings it is important that pedestrians 

can see where and from which directions they 

can .expect cyclists. The coloured pavement enhancing 

the recognisability of the bicycle track contributes to this. 

Findings and conclusions with regard to the intersection 

designs: 

The research into the design aspects of ‘unregulated 

priority crossings’, i.e. intersections without traffic lights 

providing right of way to the cyclists on the bicycle route, 

is probably the most significant research about design aspects 

of cycling facilities of these projects. Therefore we 

will go into a bit more detail on the aspects of intersection 

design. 

• In both bicycle routes intersection designs were implemented 

that intended to have an impact on the speed, 

manoeuvring and interaction by the road users. Main purpose 

was to accomplish that car drivers would approach 

the bicycle route with low speeds and that they would be 

alerted to the presence of cyclists so as to give them right 

of way. For this purpose bumps and road humps were 

applied as well as road narrowings of the side streets just 

before the crossing with the bicycle route. Also the designers 

applied at some intersections areas with more or 

less uneven cobble stones to influence the manoeuvring 

of (personal) cars. The idea was that the discomfort of 

driving over the cobble stones would make that car drivers 

would avoid riding over these cobblestones (thus forced 

to make the intended manoeuvre across the intersection 

with a smaller turning radius and to cross the bicycle track 

in a right angle) whereas larger vehicle (needing more 

space) still could make their manoeuvres across the intersection 

using the area with the uneven pavement. Find 

below a few examples of intersection designs applied in 

The Hague. 

• The observation study systematically distinguished all 

possible interactions between one or two directional bicycle 

tracks on the one hand and one or two directional 

crossing motor traffic on the other hand. A further distinction 

was made to situations in which motor traffic would 

only cross the bicycle route; would cross the bicycle route 

and subsequently the main carriageway; or would first 

cross the main carriageway and then the bicycle route. 

By systematic zoning of the intersection the behaviour of 

road users in each zone could be analysed. In an ideal 

situation before and after studies would have been done, 

but this wasn’t possible as the research method was 

only developed after the bicycle routes had been implemented. 

Therefore some control intersections have been 

selected in order to determine the effects of the applied 

design elements. 

22 23

• Manoeuvre behaviour: The intended effect of the applied 

areas with cobblestones did only occur when they 

were paved very uneven. Visually marked areas with a 

smooth surface were less effective to enforce the intended 

manoeuvre behaviour. The project in Tilburg showed 

that extreme bumps to steer manoeuvre behaviour can 

also be counterproductive: if the intended manoeuvre appears 

too difficult or uncomfortable car drivers might try to 

avoid these bumps in other ways, sometimes by invading 

the bicycle track. 

Figure 3.11: An intersection with 5m distance between 

ramps and the edge of the bicycle track 

Figure 3.9: Four examples of intersection designs 

The speed behaviour of drivers coming from zone 7 or 4, 

i.e. the cars approaching the bicycle route from the other 

direction, was observed as well. Although the minimum 

speeds measured were higher than the speeds of cars 

coming from zone 1, the speed was still significant lower 

than in cases without speed humps. The difference was 

least for cars making a right turn to cross the bicycle route. 

Next behavioural elements to analyse were identified: 

• Speed behaviour upon approaching the bicycle route 

(mainly in zone 1; 

• The lining up behaviour in case of traffic on the main 

carriageway parallel to the bicycle route (mainly in zone 

2 and 3); 

• Manoeuvre behaviour and interactions with cyclists on 

the bicycle route. 

• Speed behaviour: The application of road humps (or 

table crossings) over which the bicycle route was aligned 

in combination with narrowings of the side streets just 

before the crossing appeared to work quite well. As car 

drivers would slow down anyway when approaching the 

main carriageway, the deceleration was larger in case of 

the hump or table crossing. But the most significant effect 

was the location of the deceleration. Without a speed 

hump the cars would slow down just before the main carriageway, 

whereas in the case of the road hump or table 

crossing with the bicycle route they would slow down before 

crossing the bicycle route. Having the ramp 5 m before 

the edge of the bicycle route had significant better effects 

than having the ramp just at the edge of the bicycle 

route. So the effect of the humps was that car drivers will 

slow down more and earlier. 

Figure 3.10: Zoning categories: in zone 1 (or zone 7) traffic 

from the side way is approaching the bicycle route 

• Lining up behaviour: Also the lining up behaviour was 

positively influenced by the presence of the road humps. 

In case of humps or table crossings cars coming from 

zone 1 have clearly their minimum speed before the bicycle 

route when there are cyclists, whereas in cases 

without humps the minimum speed is on or even beyond 

the bicycle route. The lining up in this direction, however, 

hasn’t been analysed explicitly. The lining up in zone 2 

and 3 is looked at in case they hadn’t to give way to cyclists 

but had to wait for cars on the main carriageway. 

The desired lining up would be in zone 3 without blocking 

the bicycle route in zone 2. Here the position of the ramp 

of the road hump in combination with the available width 

of zone 3 appears to make a significant difference. Zone 

3 has to be wide enough to position the car, but even if 

this is the case it makes a difference whether the ramp is 

at the edge of the bicycle route or 5 m from the edge of 

the bicycle route (at the edge of the main carriageway). 

In the latter case cars are making significantly less stops 

blocking the bicycle route over 1 m or more. The reason 

for this is that in case the ramp is at 5 m from the edge of 

the bicycle route, they don’t have to worry about their rear 

wheels being at the ramp 

Figure 3.12 and figure 3.13: Cobble stone area and 

bump to steer manoeuvre behaviour. 

• Conflicts: the observation study also revealed that conflicts 

between cars and cyclists on a two directional bicycle 

track tend to be more serious between the car and 

the first stream of cyclists the car driver is crossing. And 

also that the number of serious conflicts is influenced by 

the most frequently occurring (directions of the) manoeuvres 

across the intersection. Clarity about the manoeuvres 

that can be expected helps, and intersections at the 

bicycle routes had less serious conflicts than the control 

intersections. 

24 25

• With regard to intersections with traffic lights it appears 

that cyclists hardly noticed any difference between traffic 

light adjustments on the bicycle route and at other intersections. 

What they liked most was that the number of intersections 

with traffic lights was diminished at the bicycle 

route and for that reason they had less delay. Again this 

underlines the importance of the requirement of directness. 

3.6.5 Economy 

With the implementation of the bicycle routes the position 

of shops was a big issue. Especially in The Hague shop 

keepers weren’t very happy with the implementation of 

the route (which was one of the first projects in their kind). 

The implementation of several parts of the route got seriously 

delayed because of the opposition of shop keepers 

and in the end some parts that had been planned were 

never implemented. The fear for loosing volume of business 

is only too understandable. Therefore a research 

was done on the impact of the bicycle route and its implementation 

on shop sales along the route. 

The research in The Hague compared the developments 

in the turnover of the shops along the bicycle route with 

the country wide average turnover developments and 

the development of a similar control group of comparable 

shops. For the shops in Tilburg it appeared impossible 

to compose a proper control group and thus only 

the comparison was made with the country wide trends. 

Nevertheless the findings in both cities were consistent 

with each other. 

In both cities the volume of business of shops along the 

bicycle routes was negatively affected in the construction 

phase: their turn over was below the country wide average 

for similar shops, although this effect was much lower 

for shops in the food sector that attracted their clients from 

the neighbourhood. After the construction the shops in the 

food sector very quickly caught up and performed actually 

better than the country wide average. Quite different was 

the turnover development of shops in the sector of durable 

consumer goods (that often attract their clients from 

a wider area): they performed far below the country wide 

trends, and also the number of shops closing down in this 

sector was relatively high. It should be noted though that 

there are large differences between sub-sectors and also 

that a number of these shops (especially in The Hague) 

were already marginal before the bicycle route was implemented. 

In conclusion one can say that the construction phase of 

public works will very likely cause some negative impacts 

on the development of turnovers of shops. Generally 

shops will catch up later and compensate for the losses 

in volume of business during the construction. But this is 

not true for all sectors. Especially shops in durable consumer 

goods seemed (at that time) to be more vulnerable 

for changes in the quality of their accessibility (e.g. 

because of the reduction parking space) than shops in 

the food sector. Explaining factor for this was the difference 

in catchment area for the different sectors: when clients 

come from the neighbourhood there was hardly any 

negative effect, whereas shops that got their clients from 

a wider area had more problems with their recovery. One 

could even say: there might be winners and their might be 

losers. In any case it is good to pay attention to specific issues 

that might have impact on the accessibility of shops 

for their existing clients (e.g. with regard to parking space, 

loading and unloading facilities etc) in order to minimise 

the disturbance of businesses. 

3.7 Discussion 

The ‘demonstration bicycle routes’ implemented in the 

late 1970’s in The Hague and Tilburg was the first well 

documented case study on the impact of cycling infrastructure. 

These projects can be seen as the first serious 

attempt to provide high quality infrastructure for cycling 

and to study the impacts extensively. Although the projects 

suffered from some ambiguity in their set up (trying to 

combine a demonstration of feasibility with experimental 

designs), the findings of the accompanying researches 

contain already many elements which were reflected in 

‘Sign up for the bike, design manual for cycle-friendly infrastructure’, 

published later in 1993 and updated in 2006 

under the title ‘Design manual for bicycle traffic’. 

The projects showed a number of things: 

• Cyclists do appreciate dedicated facilities for cycling. 

What they liked specifically in the two projects was the 

(perceived!) improvement of road safety, the experience 

of undisturbed cycling, improvements of directness (without 

detours and delays), and – with regard to design – the 

‘furnishing’ of the route: the red coloured pavement and 

other design elements that underlined the tracing, 

recognisability and continuity of the route. 

• Apart from providing the shortest connection between 

origin and destination the directness of a route can be 

improved by minimising delays: giving right of way to cyclists 

at intersections and minimise the number of traffic 

lights on the route. 

• However cyclists liked the design of the route, they were 

only to a very limited extent prepared to make detours to 

take full advantage of the improved cycling conditions. Although 

the demonstration routes attracted a great deal of 

cyclists from parallel routes, these new routes had more 

or less the same length as the earlier used routes or were 

shorter. 

• Although road safety is considered to be vital by both 

bicycle users and policy makers, there was a remarkable 

contrast between the impacts of the facilities on the 

factual and the perceived road safety: road safety data 

showed no or very minor impacts, whereas the perceived 

road safety improved substantially. Policy makers were 

disappointed about the marginal impact of the facilities on 

the ‘objective’ road safety figures. 

• The research also suggested that one should be careful 

with applying one-sided two directional bicycle tracks: 

this type of facility can have a negative impact on both 

factual (objective) and perceived (subjective) road safety 

of cyclists. Two sided one-directional bicycle tracks are on 

average experienced as more safe than one sided twodirectional 

cycle tracks. Thus one sided two-directional 

tracks should only be applied if there are clear advantages 

such as diminishing the need for crossing busy roads. 

• With regard to experimental design features the project 

provided better understanding of effective design of priority 

intersections for cyclists. Very instructive were the observations 

of road users’ behaviour at those intersections. 

• Furthermore the researchers did some theoretical analyses 

so as to shed light on what would be the ideal mesh 

width in a network of cycle routes. This provided the basis 

for the next demonstration project in this overview of 

case studies: the Delft bicycle network, implemented in 

the 1980’s. 

In general the bicycle route in Tilburg was better appreciated 

than the bicycle route in The Hague and this difference 

in appreciation appears to be reciprocal correlated 

with differences in expectations. Yet the The Hague cyclists 

were more in favour of extensions of the bicycle 

route than those in Tilburg. But also the opposition in The 

Hague appeared to be much stronger. It is a kind of irony 

that the municipality of Tilburg after the project started 

with the implementation of a comprehensive bicycle network 

(which was locally known as Tilburg’s ‘star network’) 

with a strong emphasis on radial connections with the city 

centre, whereas the municipality of The Hague did not 

continue its efforts to substantially improve the cycling 

conditions. Continuing complaints of shop keepers eventually 

even resulted in the dismantling of large parts of the 

bicycle route in The Hague. 

26 27

4 The Delft Bicycle Plan 

Delft is a medium-sized city in the highly urbanised western 

part of the Netherlands. It is located between the conurbations 

of Rotterdam and The Hague and on cycling 

distance to these two cities (Figure 4.1). 

The main infrastructure routes (railway, canal, and motorway) 

run north-south through or along the city. In the 

Middle Ages Delft was one of the largest cities in Holland. 

It has still a large medieval inner city. The city houses a 

technical university and a large technical research institute 

(TNO). It promotes itself as ‘knowledge city’. 

The historic city centre with a low accessibility for cars 

as well as the large share of student population gives 

Delft a high potential for the bicycle. In 1979 the Delft 

Bicycle Plan was launched that aimed at realising a coherent 

bicycle network all over the city. At that time, the 

city had 85,000 inhabitants. The plan was implemented 

in the 1980s and evaluated elaborately. The evaluation 

regarded both the whole network and some larger single 

projects. In the next sections the plan and the evaluation 

of both the network and one single project (the Plantagebrug) 

will be discussed. 

4.1 Political context 

In Section 2 is described that in the 1970s the Dutch national 

policy started to give high priority to promote cycling 

and improve cycling conditions. Besides, there was need 

for more knowledge on the impacts of interventions in bicycle 


The demonstration projects in Tilburg and The Hague 

were results of this policy. After these projects were finished, 

the national policy continued to promote cycling by 

providing subsidies for specific projects, and there was 

still demand for more knowledge. The demonstration 

projects proved that investments in single bicycle routes 

could enhance (the perception of) safety, but that the impacts 

on bicycle use are rather small. One assumed that 

improvement of a complete network would have a more 

significant impact on bicycle use (Ministry of Transport 

and Public Works, 1987; Wilmink, 1987). 

Figure 4.1: Location of Delft 

28 29

In the late 1970s, the medium-sized city of Delft developed 

a plan for a coherent bicycle network in the whole 

city and requested the central government for a significant 

subsidy. The subsidy was granted under the condition 

that the implementation would be evaluated elaborately. 

The Delft Bicycle Plan was included in the Dutch 

second Programme for Person Transport for the period 

1980-1984 as an evaluation project (Ministry of Transport 

and Public Works, 1986). 

The European Economic Community was interested in 

the evaluation results and contributed in financing a substantial 

part of the costs of the evaluation studies. The 

regional authority, the province of South-Holland, played 

a minor role in the project. It provided some subsidy for 

the implementation. So, four levels of authority were to a 

smaller or larger extent involved in the project: local, regional, 

national and supranational (Diepens en Okkema, 

1994). 

4.2 Design 

4.2.1 The network 

In the Delft Bicycle Plan, three networks on three hierarchical 

levels were defined: an urban network, a district 

network and a neighbourhood network. The networks 

have different functions, service qualities and densities. 

All networks have basically a grid-pattern. The existing 

infrastructure was basic in the network definition. The objective 

of the plan was to upgrade and extend the existing 

network in order to achieve a network that satisfies the 

requirements of the three defined sub-networks (Ministry 

of Transport and Public Works, 1987; Hartman, 1987). 

The defined urban network consists of the most important 

routes that traverse the entire town and connect to the 

regional bicycle system. The function is to accommodate 

the larger inter-district bicycle trips as well as the regional 

trips that go into or outside the city. It has high standards 

for capacity, velocity and convenience. Important barriers 

like canals, railways and main roads are crossed at a separate 

level. The link spacing is 400-600 m. Frequented facilities 

that serve the whole city like railway stations, secondary 

schools, and main shopping centres are directly 

connected to the network. 

The defined district network has two functions. It provides 

adequate infrastructure for bicycle trips inside districts 

and collects and distributes bicycle traffic to and from the 

urban network. The links are spaced 200-300 m. Facilities 

like primary schools and shops are connected to the 

network. 

The neighbourhood network connects the individual 

houses to the other networks. It comprises the remaining 

streets and shortcuts for the bicycle. The link spacing is 

about 100 m. 

Figure 4.2: The defined bicycle network 

In the before situation, 75% of the defined network already 

existed according to the Ministry of Transport and 

Public Works (1987). We assume that this figure relates 

only to the urban network; for the whole network the figure 

is likely to be in the order of 90%. For completion of the 

defined network a large number of different projects had 

to be executed. Not all defined projects were implemented, 

and others were implemented outside the framework 

of the bicycle plan. Some projects would only have been 

realised if planned new residential quarters had been 

developed, a few other expensive projects were subsidised 

separately and not considered to be part of the plan 

any more (Ten Grotenhuis, 1987). Diepens en Okkema 

(1994) assume that some projects were not implemented 

because of the high investment costs. 

4.2.2 The projects 

Plantagebrug 

Inner city 

Old districts (before 

WWII) 

Motorway 

Railway 

Canal 

University campus 

New districts (after 

WWII) 

Table 4.1 gives an overview of the numbers of implemented 

projects and the length of the infrastructure involved 

by project type and sub-network (Diepens en Okkema, 

1993). The table demonstrates that a large number of 

projects with quite varying natures are executed. Most effort 

is made for realising the urban and district networks, 

in particular the urban network that is highest in the hierarchy. 

The project investments covered the period 1979 

to 1991, but most of them were made between 1982 and 

1987. 


One of the lessons of the demonstration projects in Tilburg 

and The Hague was that good communication with 

urban 

network 

the residents is important for a successful project. In the 

Delft case this lesson has been taken to heart. Communication 

with interest groups and residents was essential 

in the project. 

Communication has been done at two levels. First, the 

bicycle plan was discussed with a number of general interest 

groups, like the Cyclists’ Union, the Traffic Safety 

Association, the Pedestrian Association, the Chamber of 

Commerce, the Shopkeepers Federation, schools, and 

homes for the elderly. These groups could comment on 

the plan and suggest adaptations. They had a positive 

attitude towards the plan, being bicycle improvements 

generally in their favour (ten Grotenhuis, 1987). 

district 

network 

intersections 

urban/district 

network 

neighbourhood 

network 

# of 

proj. 

length 

(km) 

# of 

proj. 

length 

(km) 

# of 

proj. 

length 

(km) 

# of 

proj. 

length 

(km) 

building new bicycle 19 10.5 4 1.3 

path 

reconstructing bicycle 1 1.8 

path 

making short cut 4 0.2 10 0.75 2 0.15 1 0.05 

defining bicycle lane, 3 1.9 2 1.7 

widening road 

abolish one way 4 1.8 10 1.55 12 1.65 

traffic for bikes 

phasing traffic lights 1 0 2 0 4 0 

installing traffic lights 3 0 2 0 4 0 

permitting cyclists a 

free right turn at 

traffic lights 

1 0 3 0 3 0 

reconstructing 6 0 1 0 6 0 

intersections 

providing crossover 4 0 3 0 1 0 

building bridge 3 0.15 4 0.2 

reconstructing bridge 1 0.05 

building tunnel 1 0.1 1 0.05 

providing bicycle 2 0 

stands at transit stops 

total 53 16.5 42 5.55 19 0.15 14 1.7 

Table 4.1: Number of projects and infrastructure length by type of project and network. 

30 31

Second, for the individual projects a discussion was organised 

with the residents living in the neighbourhood 

of a project. A positive attitude was less natural for them 

than for the interest groups. In communication with the 

residents, the strategy was not to start with informing 

them about the plan, but to ask what traffic-relating problems 

they were faced with. Starting from the problems 

mentioned, solutions were proposed that regarded bicycle 

infrastructure and that were in accordance with the 

bicycle plan. The discussions gave also cause for some 

adaptations of the plan. This strategy contributed to a 

general support of the citizens towards the plan: existing 

problems were solved (according to interviews conducted 

in the framework of Transecon, 2003). 

urban 

network 

4.4 The costs 

The estimated costs of the original plan were 70 million 

HFL (Dutch guilders). This amount was in the early 

1980’s equal to 25 million ECU (European Currency 

Unit, the precursor of the Euro). As mentioned in Section 

4.2.1, some expensive projects were not realised, or not 

realised in the framework of the bicycle plan. For that reason, 

the actual investments that were connected to the 

plan were considerably lower: nearly 30 million HFL (12 

million ECU). Table 4.2 gives an overview of these costs 

by type of project and sub-network (Diepens en Okkema, 

1993). For about 1 million HFL, 3% of the expenditures, 

the employment could not be found out afterwards. 

district 

network 

intersections 

urban/district 

network 

neighbourhood 

network 

building new bicycle 3.802 1.464 

path 

reconstructing bicycle 1.018 

path 

making short cut 258 888 109 0 

defining bicycle lane, 20 25 

widening road 

abolish one way traffic 40 105 89 

for bikes 

phasing traffic lights 0 0 6 

installing traffic lights 50 0 0 

permitting cyclists a free 25 213 62 

right turn at traffic lights 

reconstructing 

711 0 1941 

intersections 

providing crossover 213 407 7 

building bridge 4129 298 

reconstructing bridge 0 

building tunnel 9496 2796 

providing bicycle stands 138 

at transit stops 

total attached to projects 19900 6196 2118 96 

employment unknown 978 

total 29288 

Table 4.2: Investment costs in 1000 HFL by type of project and network. 

The municipality of Delft received subsidies of about 19 

million HFL. The sources of the subsidies could be found 

out for only a part of this amount: the national government 

paid 10 million HFL, the development company of Delft 

paid 4 million HFL, and the province of South-Holland 

paid 1 million HFL. The remaining 4 million HFL is likely 

to be paid mainly by the national government (Diepens en 

Okkema, 1994). 

In addition to the implementation of the project, costs 

have been paid for the evaluation. A large number of evaluation 

studies have been carried out that together cost 

3.46 million HFL (1.39 million ECU). About 50% of these 

costs were financed by the national government, 40% by 

the European Community, and the remaining 10% by the 

municipality of Delft (Diepens en Okkema, 1994). 

Market and 

main shopping 

area 

Figure 4.3: Location of the bridges spanning the Rijn-Schiekanaal 

4.5 One single project: the Plantagebrug 

One of the most expensive single projects is the Plantagebrug, 

the largest of the newly built bridges. This bridge is 

dedicated to cyclists and pedestrians. The Plantagebrug 

was evaluated separately and will be discussed in this 

report. 

Figure 4.2 indicates the location of the Plantagebrug within 

the city. The bridge is part of the urban bicycle network 

(network corridor II) and links the quarters in the northeastern 

part of the town with the inner city. The bridge 

spans the Rijn-Schiekanaal that encloses the inner city 

at the east and south sides. It is built halfway two other 

bridges, the Reineveldbrug and the Koepoortbrug, that 

have a mutual distance of about 1.2 km. Figure 4.3 shows 

the locations of the three bridges. 

Reineveldbrug 

Plantagebrug 

Koepoortbrug 

32 33

The Reineveldbrug is part of the main access road to 

Delft from the north. The bridge comprises four car lanes, 

a tramway, two bicycle lanes and one sidewalk. There is 

no physical separation between the car lanes or between 

the car and bicycle lanes. Car volumes are high (about 

17,000 in a 12 hours period in the time of the project) and 

cars move at rather high speeds. The bridge is high; the 

headroom is about 4 m. It was opened 15-20 times per 

day. 

The Koepoortbrug has a more local function. It links the 

eastern districts with the city centre. It was at the time a 

narrow bridge for mixed traffic and rather high car volumes: 

6,000 in a 12 hours period. It is a low bridge; the 

headroom is about 2.5 m. The bridge was opened about 

30 times per day. 

The Plantagebrug is built in order to: 

• adding a missing link to the urban network; 

• reduce the severance of the canal; 

• offer a more comfortable and safe connection for cyclists 

between the eastern districts and the centre. The Plantagebrug 

is more comfortable than the Reineveldbrug 

because there is no need to overcome long and steep 

slopes, and it is safer than the other bridges because car 

traffic is absent. 

The Plantagebrug is built exclusively for cyclists and pedestrians. 

The headroom is about 2.5 m, just like the Koepoortbrug. 

The width of the bicycle path on the bridge is 

about 4.5 m., and there are two sidewalks of about 1.5 

m. each. The length of the bridge is about 50 m. Opening 

and closing of the bridge are operated from the Koepoortbrug 

with the help of video equipment. The bridge was 

built from spring 1985 to summer 1986. The investment 

costs were 3,790,535 HFL (about 1.6 million ECU). 

In addition to building the bridge and access roads to 

the bridge, some measures for improving the network 

for cyclists that cross the bridge are implemented. These 

include a reconstruction of two crossovers east of the 

bridge, one at the Insulindeweg and the other at the van 

Miereveltlaan, and building a new route for cyclists west 

of the bridge, along the Kantoorgracht. 

4.6 Set-up of the evaluation studies 

The national government subsidised part of the project 

under the condition that the project would be evaluated 

elaborately. The evaluation should generate knowledge 

on the use and experience of urban bicycle networks that 

can be used for policy development by local governments. 

The studies should give answers on next questions: 

• Does the implementation of a comprehensive bicycle 

network lead to an increase in bicycle traffic? 

• Does the implementation of a bicycle network increase 

road safety? 

• In which way do cyclists use a comprehensive and integral 

bicycle network which is perceived as such, and what 

are their behavioural responses? 

The principal hypothesis was that a comprehensive and 

integral bicycle network affects bicycle use and its quality 

more than a number of single bicycle routes (Ministry of 

Transport and Public Works, 1987). 

The project evaluation has been done both for the network 

as a whole and in-depth for two separate parts of the 

network: the accessibility of the main railway station and 

the newly built Plantagebrug. In this report we discuss the 

set-up and results of evaluations of the whole network 

and the Plantagebrug. 

The evaluation of the whole network includes the impacts 

on travel behaviour (bicycle use, modal choice, origindestination 

pattern, and route choice), traffic safety for 

cyclists, and the perception of safety and comfort for cyclists. 

The evaluation of the Plantagebrug focuses on the 

impact on canal crossing cycling and the accessibility of 

the city centre. 

The impacts are investigated by before and after studies. 

For a number of impacts of the whole network, both 

a short-term and a long-term after study have been performed. 

The latter should give evidence to what extent 

initial impacts continue to be valid in the long run. The 

before studies were carried out between 1982 and 1983, 

the short-term after studies between 1985 and 1986, and 

the long-term after studies in the early 1990’s. 

For estimating the short-term network impacts on travel 

behaviour, two experimental areas and one control area 

are defined (Figure 4.4). The experimental areas are the 

Noordwest district, an older district west of the city centre, 

and the Tanthof district, a new residential area at the far 

southwest of the city. The control area is the Wippolder 

district, an older district southeast of the city centre. The 

Tanthof-district differs from the two other districts by a significant 

larger distance to the city centre (“centrum”) and 

by a significant younger population. The Tanthof residents 

were mainly young households with young children. 

Figure 4.3: Location of the bridges spanning the 

Rijn-Schiekanaal. 

In the two experimental areas the measures of the bicycle 

plan were implemented in the few years between the data 

collections for the before and after studies (1983-1985); 

data collection for the after studies started a half year 

after the implementation finished. In the control district 

implementation of the measures started after the data for 

the after studies had been collected (Katteler et al, 1984, 

1987). 

For the results on city level, the other medium-sized cities 

in the Netherlands functioned as control cities. These 

included all municipalities with 50,000 to 200,000 inhabitants 

(47 cities). 

4.7 The impacts of upgrading the 

network 

4.7.1 Travel behaviour 

Travel behaviour has a spatial and a temporal dimension. 

The spatial dimension regards the origin-destination pattern 

by mode and route. This is the result of choices regarding 

trip frequency, destinations, modes, and routes. 

The temporal dimension adds the time component to the 

spatial movements and is the result of choices regarding 

departure times and speeds. Both dimensions together 

explain volumes by network link, mode and time. The 

evaluation studies for the Delft bicycle project focus on 

the impacts on the spatial dimension of travel behaviour, 

in particular mode choice and route choice. 

Mode choice 

The impacts of the bicycle plan on modal choice have 

been investigated on both the short term and the long 

term. First the short-term analysis will be described. A 

short description of the long-term analysis is included at 

the end of the section. 

The short-term impacts of modal choice have been examined 

by descriptive surveys on travel behaviour and 

by in-depth interviews on the motivation why the bicycle 

or an alternative mode was chosen. The descriptive surveys 

were conducted before and shortly after the measures 

were implemented. For the before survey a sample 

of households from the two experimental areas and the 

control area was addressed. A number of households 

from the sample was selected for the in-depth interviews 

that were conducted in the before period as well. In the 

short-term after period, the selected households were addressed 

again for detailed questions about their changes 

in modal choice and changes in the perception of the 

quality of the bicycle network (see Section 4.7.3). Not all 

of them responded, partly because they had moved between 

the two periods. Those who did respond are indicated 

as the “panel”. For the descriptive after survey, a 

new sample was drawn. This sample included the panel 

as well as households that were not addressed in the before 

survey. 

34 35

Table 4.3 shows the gross and net samples of the descriptive 

before and after surveys in the three study areas. 

The sample was larger in the before period than in 

the after period. 

The samples of households that were selected for the indepth 

interviews and those that participated in the panel 

are displayed in Table 4.4. 

Descriptive analysis 

The descriptive surveys aimed to give a description of 

travel behaviour on working days in the before and shortterm 

after periods. The sample unit was the household. 

Household members were asked about personal characteristics 

and characteristics of the household. Those aged 

10 or older were additionally asked about activities outdoors 

and connected trips on a selected day. The questionnaires 

in the before and after periods were identical. 

The surveys were conducted in the autumns of 1982 (before 

period) and 1985 (after period). Both surveys cover 

a two weeks period from late October to early November 

with a continuation up to the end of November for late 

responses. The weather conditions were comparable in 

the first three to four weeks of both periods but diverged in 

late November, when in the after period the temperature 

became significant lower than in the before period (0 versus 

10 degrees Celsius). The difference in the last one 

to two weeks might have had just a minor effect on the 

results because it relates to only 5-10% of the response. 

The surveys produced results on person level and trip 

level. Table 4.5 shows general characteristics of person 

travel before and after by residents of the three study areas. 

The figures show some small differences between the 

three districts regarding travelling of their residents and 

differences between the before and after periods. Residents 

of the Tanthof have a slightly higher level of travelling 

(in frequency, duration and distance) than those 

of the other districts, while residents of Wippolder make 

the lowest trip numbers and trip kilometres. Changes between 

the before and after periods tend to reduce the differences 

between the districts. Trip frequency, duration 

and distance of Tanthof residents decrease somewhat, 

travelled distance of Wippolder residents increased. 

The study reports give no evidence about significance of 

the results. Assuming that the observed changes in Tanthof 

and Wippolder are significant, they might or might not 

be induced by the improved bicycle network. The reduced 

travel distance of Tanthof residents could be attributed to 

shortening bicycle routes to the city centre; the reduced 

travel speed could be due to modal shift from car to bicycle. 

However, other explanations can be given as well. 

Possibly, the orientation of the new suburb of the Tanbefore 

period 

short-term after period 

gross sample net sample gross sample net sample 

Noordwest 2800 1937 1190 798 

Tanthof 950 716 369 267 

Wippolder 950 602 396 231 

total 4700 3255 1955 1296 

Table 4.3: Sample sizes of the descriptive surveys (number of households) 

interview before period panel (before and after) 

Noordwest 398 232 

Tanthof 100 50 

Wippolder 100 59 

total 598 341 

Table 4.4: Sample sizes of the households that were interviewed in-depth 

Noordwest Tanthof Wippolder 

1982 1985 1982 1985 1982 1985 

persons going outside* 87.7% 88.6% 91.8% 91.0% 82.9% 81.7% 

trips per person per day 3.89 3.86 4.04 3.92 3.43 3.43 

travel time pppd 62 63 71 69 59 62 

(minutes) 

travel distance pppd (km) 19.8 20.6 25.4 23.0 16.6 18.9 

average speed (km/h) 19.2 19.6 21.5 20.0 16.9 18.3 

Table 4.5: Travel characteristics of persons >= 10 years old on working days 

*Persons that leave their home at least one time on the enquiry day 

1981 1982 1983 1984 

persons going outside 90.2% 90.0% 90.2% 90.7% 

trips per person per day 3.22 3.20 3.18 3.30 

travel time pppd (minutes) 58 58 57 58 

travel distance pppd (km) 23.7 24.2 23.2 23.8 

average speed (km/h) 24.4 25.0 24.6 24.6 

Table 4.6: Travel characteristics of Dutch residents of medium-sized cities >= 12 years old on working days 

thof shifted somewhat from the distant city centre to the 

own district, lowering the level of travelling. In the case of 

Wippolder that was deprived of infrastructural improvements 

in both the before the after periods, the increased 

distance could be attributed to the fact that the residents 

benefited from the improvements elsewhere in the town. 

However, there may be other factors that raise the initially 

low number of travel kilometres to a more normal level. 

The increased travel distance in the control region cannot 

be observed in national figures. Table 4.6 gives corresponding 

figures for travelling of Dutch residents of 

medium-sized cities (50,000 to 200,000 inhabitants) in 

the period 1981 to 1984. The source is the Dutch national 

travel survey (OVG). We selected 1981-1984 because 

in 1985 the survey set-up changed considerably making 

the outcomes of 1985 not comparable to those of former 

years. The national figures demonstrate a high stability of 

travel behaviour in the early 1980’s. 

The general travel figures give no clear evidence of impacts 

of the improved bicycle network. Focussing on the 

role of the bicycle might give more information. Table 4.7 

presents figures on bicycle use. The figures regard only 

the use of the bicycle as the main mode of a trip. 

36 37


1982 1985 1982 1985 1982 1985 

persons using a bike* 49.5% 50.0% 49.7% 50.8% 46.0% 44.4% 

trips per person per day 1.80 1.86 1.57 1.67 1.70 1.70 

travel time pppd 23 23 24 25 24 25 

(minutes) 

travel distance pppd (km) 4.1 4.5 4.7 5.3 4.2 5.2 

average speed (km/h) 10.7 11.7 11.8 12.7 10.5 12.5 

Table 4.7: Characteristics of bicycle travel by persons >= 10 years old on working days 

*Persons that use at least one time a bicycle on the enquiry day 

1981 1982 1983 1984 

persons using a bike 36.8% 36.9% 37.8% 40.0% 

trips per person per day 1.03 1.03 1.04 1.15 

travel time pppd (minutes) 14 14 14 16 

travel distance pppd (km) 2.9 2.9 2.9 3.2 

average speed (km/h) 12.1 12.4 12.1 11.9 

Table 4.8: Characteristics of bicycle travel by Dutch residents of medium-sized cities >= 12 years old on working 

days. 


1982 1985 1982 1985 1982 1985 

walk 25.8% 25.7% 17.6% 17.3% 23.0% 23.7% 

bicycle 40.5% 42.6% 35.7% 39.0% 41.0% 40.4% 

moped, 

1.8% 1.4% 1.9% 2.6% 2.0% 1.0% 

motorcycle 

car driver 21.0% 21.1% 31.9% 28.5% 21.3% 23.8% 

car passenger 4.5% 4.9% 5.4% 6.3% 5.2% 6.2% 

public transport 6.3% 4.3% 7.3% 6.3% 7.4% 4.9% 

other 0.1% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 

Table 4.9: Modal split (main modes) of trips of persons >= 10 years old on working days 

Comparing Tables 4.7 and 4.8, one could conclude that 

bicycle use in Delft was relatively high, even in the before 

period. However, one should be cautious. Both tables are 

based on travel surveys with different designs, and history 

learned that changes in the design of the Dutch national 

travel survey affected the outcomes regarding travel behaviour 

significantly. Bovy and Den Adel (1987) found that 

the number of bicycle trips per person per day by Delft 

residents reported in the national survey was close to the 

national average for medium-sized cities. 

Another indication for a possible impact of the bicycle network 

improvements is the development in the modal split. 

Table 4.9 shows an increase of bicycle share in the two 

experimental areas and no increase in the control area. 

This result suggests that the improvements encouraged 

bicycle use. The increase in bicycle use was at the expense 

of public transport use and (only in Tanthof) car use 

as a driver. Decrease of public transport patronage is also 

observed in the control area and might be independent 

of the bicycle improvements. In that case the bicycle network 

might have affected that not the car but the bicycle 

benefited from decreasing transit use. 

1981 1982 1983 1984 

walk 20.1% 20.6% 20.4% 20.3% 

bicycle 32.1% 32.3% 32.1% 34.3% 

moped, motorcycle 1.9% 2.0% 1.8% 1.4% 

car driver 29.1% 28.7% 30.2% 28.4% 

car passenger 10.7% 10.2% 10.2% 10.4% 

public transport 5.6% 5.8% 5.0% 4.8% 

other 0.4% 0.5% 0.3% 0.4% 

Table 4.10: Modal split (main modes) of trips of Dutch residents of medium-sized cities >= 

12 years old on working days. 

National figures support the finding of decreasing transit 

use by residents of medium-sized cities (Table 4.10). 

The figures are somewhat fuzzy regarding the modes that 

benefited from the lower transit share. The figures from 

1983 suggest an increase in car use as a driver while 

those from 1984 indicate that the bicycle is the only benefiter. 

Bovy and den Adel (1987) compared modal shares 

in the Dutch medium-sized cities and found significant 

negative correlations between transit use and car use on 

the one hand and transit use and bike use on the other 

hand. The correlation with bike use is a little stronger than 

that with car use. Therefore, it is likely that bicycle use in 

medium-sized cities increased in the period concerned. 

As a consequence, the increase in the two Delft experimental 

districts might partly be explained by other factors 

than the bicycle improvements. 

National figures support the finding of decreasing transit 

use by residents of medium-sized cities (Table 4.10). 

The figures are somewhat fuzzy regarding the modes that 

benefited from the lower transit share. The figures from 

1983 suggest an increase in car use as a driver while 

those from 1984 indicate that the bicycle is the only benefiter. 

Bovy and den Adel (1987) compared modal shares 

in the Dutch medium-sized cities and found significant 

negative correlations between transit use and car use on 

the one hand and transit use and bike use on the other 

hand. The correlation with bike use is a little stronger than 

that with car use. Therefore, it is likely that bicycle use in 

medium-sized cities increased in the period concerned. 

As a consequence, the increase in the two Delft experimental 

districts might partly be explained by other factors 

than the bicycle improvements. 

When modal splits in the Delft survey are compared for 

different person characteristics, the increase in the share 

of the bicycle in the two experimental areas is particularly 

large for men, middle-aged persons, retired persons, and 

employees. Regarding ownership of a drivers’ license the 

results differ in both districts. In Noordwest bicycle use 

increased substantially by non-owners of a license, while 

in Tanthof just the owners of a license used the bicycle 

more frequently. At trip level, the increase in the share of 

the bicycle is observed mainly in commuting trips to work 

or school and, only in Tanthof, in transporting/escorting 

persons. 

In-depth analysis 

A selection of the households that responded to the before 

survey was approached for an in-depth interview in 

the before period and, as far as they responded again, for 

the short-term after period as well. The before interviews 

should explain why people use or use not a bicycle for actually 

made trips and estimate the potential for increasing 

bicycle use. The after interviews should register changes 

in motives for bicycle use and its potential, and give information 

about modal shifts. 

The interview periods were September and October 1983 

(before period) and late 1985 + early 1986 (after period). 

The interviews were conducted with the household members 

aged 10 years or older in one setting. The interviewers 

were attentive to spontaneous responses and tried to 

generate these by encouraging interaction between the 

interviewed persons. The average duration of the interviews 

was 1.5 hours in the before period and 1.25 hours 

in the after period. The variation was large, partly dependent 

on the number of trips that were discussed and the 

number of participants. 

One of the results from the interviews is knowledge about 

hindrances for bicycle use. Starting from the trips that 

were not made by bicycle, a large number of reasons for 

38 39

not using the bicycle was reported. The reasons were 

classified into six categories: no opportunity for using a 

bike (for instance no bicycle was available, distance is too 

long); practical matters that hamper bicycle use (e.g. luggage 

transport) or force to use an alternative mode (e.g. 

one should have the car available at the destination); 

(perception of) travel time; (perception of) insufficient 

infrastructure and traffic situation; (perception of) inconvenience 

and insecurity of cycling; and personal preferences 

regarding use of the bicycle or other modes. There 

is a remaining seventh category consisting of non-bicycle 

trips with no hindrance for bicycle use. 

Table 4.11 shows the magnitude of the different hindrances 

in the before and after periods, starting from the most 

objective hindrances and going to the most subjective 

ones. The latest category shown is the category without 

any hindrance, indicated as ‘freedom of choice’. Two 

kinds of hindrances are distinguished: general hindrances 

that always are valid for a certain trip (for instance the distance 

is too large) and incidental hindrances that are valid 

only on the enquiry day (e.g. unlike on other days, the 

traveller was accompanied by grandmother who doesn’t 

cycle any more). 

Practical matters and travel time are the most important 

reasons for not using a bicycle. The magnitude of both 

hindrances decreased slightly between the before and after 

periods. A larger decrease is observed for each of the 

other hindrances. Especially infrastructure and traffic exhibit 

a relatively large decrease. This is not surprising because 

the bicycle plan aims predominantly to improve the 

infrastructural and traffic situation. However, in the before 

situation, this hindrance was marginal. Looking at Table 

4.11, other kinds of measures might be more efficient for 

increasing bicycle use. 

The large increase of the freedom of choice category for 

non-bicycle trips is mainly valid for trips where walking 

or car is the actual mode. For walking trips, the general 

freedom to choose the bicycle increased from 14% of all 

walking trips to 32%, for car trips the increase was from 

13% to 34%. A much smaller increase was observed for 

trips by public transport: from 29% to 36%. 

In addition to the freedom to choose the bike when actually 

another mode is used, there can be a freedom to 

choose another mode when actually the bicycle is used. 

Where the former are relevant for the potential for bicycle 

use, the latter indicate the vulnerability of bicycle use. 

Table 4.12 shows the hindrances for walking, car use, 

or public transport patronage for trips that actually are 

made by bicycle. The presented figures are the general 

hindrances; figures about the actual hindrances on the 

enquiry day (that have a lower freedom of choice) are not 

available. Divergent from Table 4.11, the accumulative 

impact of the hindrances on the bicycle trips that remain 

free of choice is displayed. In 1982, for 3% of the bicycle 

trips walking is no option, leaving 97% free of choice. 

Next, practical matters generate hindrances for a part of 

the remaining bicycle trips, which part equals 11% of all 

bicycle trips. Then 86% is still free of choice. After skinning 

the trips for all hindrances in this way, 17% remain 

where no hindrance is applicable in general (but might still 

be applicable on the enquiry day). 

hindrance 

before 

after 

general incidental total general incidental total 

bicycle no option 12.1% 1.6% 13.7% 6.7% 1.1% 7.7% 

practical matters 35.6% 10.6% 46.2% 23.8% 21.2% 44.9% 

travel time 45.4% 5.2% 50.6% 34.4% 9.4% 43.8% 

infrastructure and 0.8% - 0.8% - 0.3% 0.3% 

traffic 

inconvenience, 16.8% 4.8% 21.6% 7.9% 5.2% 13.0% 

insecurity 

personal preferences 17.4% - 17.4% 12.3% - 12.3% 

freedom of choice 15.7% - 3.0% 33% - 7% 

Table 4.11: Hindrances for bicycle use in percents of non-bicycle trips. 

hindrance 

walk car public transport 

1982 1985 1982 1985 1982 1985 

all bicycle trips 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 

mode no option -3% -0% -44% -42% -24% -13% 

practical matters -11% -15% -5% -12% -2% -4% 

travel time -49% -42% -8% -8% -23% -31% 

infrastructure and traffic -0% -0% -2% -1% -3% -2% 

inconvenience, 

-3% -2% -4% -6% -17% -21% 

insecurity 

personal preferences -17% -11% -11% -4% -21% -13% 

freedom of choice 17% 30% 25% 27% 10% 16% 

Table 4.12: Accumulative impact of general hindrances for other modes in percents of bicycle trips 

The main hindrance for walking is travel time; the main 

hindrance for car use is the unavailability of a car. For 

using public transport there are a number of larger hindrances: 

mode availability, travel time, inconvenience, 

and personal preferences. The freedom to shift from the 

bicycle to walking or public transport increased substantially. 

The (initially large) freedom to shift to the car is 

nearly unaffected. 

Figure 4.5 gives an overview of the potentials for shifting 

between bicycle, walk, car and transit in 1985. The 

modal percentages are percents of all trips made by the 

mode; the numbers in the arrows between the modes are 

percentages of all trips. For instance, 34% of car trips are 

vulnerable for shifting to the bicycle; this number is equal 

to 10% of all trips. The other way around, 27% of the bicycle 

trips are vulnerable for shifting to the car; these equal 

11% of all trips. Again, the figures represent the general 

freedom of choice, not the freedom of choice on the enquiry 

day. 

Next examined question is which modal shifts really took 

place as a result of the bicycle network improvements. 

The panel participants were asked about their modal use 

in both the before and after situations to activities that they 

continued to visit in the two periods. The distinguished 

activities were work, school, shopping, service, leisure. 

About 20% of the activities performed in 1982 were not 

continued in 1985 by the same respondents. These 20% 

are left out of the analysis. 

Figure 4.5: General intermodal potentials in 1985 

(source: Katteler et al, 1987) 

40 41

Tables 4.13 and 4.14 show the modal shifts between 

1982 and 1985 in trips for unchanged activities for the 

two experimental districts. Corresponding figures for the 

control area Wippolder are not available. 

Respondents that changed a mode were asked why they 

did so. The most frequent reported reason was destination 

change. The main reason for the large shift from walk 

to bicycle in particularly the Tanthof-district is the switch 

from primary school to the more distant secondary school. 

The shift from bicycle to moped in Tanthof might be explained 

by the increasing age of the panel respondents; 

some pupils that were too young for driving a moped were 

allowed to do so in 1985. 

Still, the figures for Noordwest hint that the improved bicycle 

network had a modest positive influence on bicycle 

use. Except for walking, the shifts from each alternative 

mode to the bicycle are larger than the other way around. 

The differences between the opposite shifts are especially 

large for the car, both car drivers and car passengers. 

The improved network seems to have tempted car users 

to shift to the bicycle. 

Long-term impacts 

The short-term analyses make plausible that the improvements 

in the bicycle network raised bicycle use somewhat. 

The question is whether the higher level of bicycle 

use is retained in the long run or possibly raised even further. 

Three kinds of descriptive analyses have been done 

for examining the long-term impacts (MuConsult, 1993). 

The first is a comparison between Delft and the other 

medium-sized cities in the Netherlands regarding the de- 

mode in 1985 mode in 1982 

share 

walk bicycle moped car 

driver 

car 

pass. 

public 

transp. 

other in 

1985 

walk 23.1% 0.5% - - - 0.1% - 23.7% 

bicycle 1.9% 39.3% 0.2% 0.6% 0.8% 0.3% - 43.1% 

moped 0.4% - 1.3% 0.1% - - - 1.8% 

car driver 0.1% 0.2% 0.1% 20.0% - 0.5% - 20.9% 

car passenger - 0.1% - 0.1% 3.5% 0.2% - 3.9% 

public 0.4% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.3% 5.2% - 6.5% 

transport 

other - - - - - - 0.4% 0.4% 

share in 1982 25.9% 40.3% 1.8% 21.0% 4.6% 6.3% 0.4% 100% 

Table 4.13: Modal shifts in travelling for unchanged activities by residents of the Noordwest district. 

mode in 1985 mode in 1982 

share 

walk bicycle moped car 

driver 

car 

pass. 

public 

transp. 

other in 

1985 

walk 11.6% - - - - - - 11.6% 

bicycle 5.9% 33.6% - 0.2% - - - 39.7% 

moped - 0.6% 2.0% 0.9% - - - 3.5% 

car driver - - - 30.2% - 0.6% - 30.8% 

car passenger - 0.2% - - 5.5% - - 5.7% 

public - 1.1% - 0.5% - 6.6% - 8.2% 

transport 

other - - - - - - 0.6% 0.6% 

share in 1982 17.5% 35.5% 2.0% 31.8% 5.5% 7.2% 0.6% 100% 

Table 4.14: Modal shifts in travelling for unchanged activities by residents of the Tanthof district. 

velopment in bicycle use in the period 1979-1991, based 

on the national travel surveys. The second is executing a 

new survey in the whole city of Delft in 1993 and comparing 

the results with those of the short-term after survey 

in 1985 that was executed in the two experimental areas 

and one control area. The third regards counts of passing 

cyclists at cordons around Noordwest and Wippolder in 

1993 and comparing these with counts in 1985. In the two 

analyses that are based on travel surveys, the impacts of 

several explanatory socio-economic variables on bicycle 

use are estimated in order to find out whether a significant 

impact of the bicycle plan remains after eliminating the 

impacts of the other factors. Unlike the short-term after 

studies, the analyses include both the impacts on bicycle 

trip numbers and bicycle kilometres. 

The analysis of bicycle use in Delft compared to that in 

other medium-sized cities gave no firm results regarding 

the long-term impact of the bicycle plan. There were two 

problems: a) the samples of Delft residents in the national 

travel surveys are too small for a good trend analysis of 

travel behaviour (100-150 persons annually), and b) in 

the period considered, investments in bicycle infrastructure 

were implemented in several other cities, partly encouraged 

by the success of the Delft bicycle plan. The 

improvements in other cities were not included in the 

analysis of the impacts of other socio-economic factors. 

The long-term after survey in Delft should give information 

on differences between developments in different 

mode 

indicator 

National surveys, 

development 1979-1991. 

Delft compared to: 

other 

mediumsized 

cities 

districts. The survey was organised in May and June 

1993. The sample was 785 households. The questionnaires 

were similar to those of the short-term after survey. 

However, the survey periods were different: May/June 

in the long-term after survey versus October/November 

in the short-term after survey. The impact of the different 

seasons is estimated using data of the national travel 

surveys. A significant impact was observed for the whole 

Dutch population but no impact could be found for the 

Delft residents. A complication in analysing the results of 

this survey is that the Wippolder district doesn’t function 

as control area in the long run. After the short-term after 

survey was organised, improvements in bicycle infrastructure 

were implemented in this district as well. 

The bicycle counts are carried out on a large number of 

spots on a Wednesday in May between 7:00 a.m. and 

7:00 p.m. Again, the season differs from the short-term 

after counts that were executed on a Wednesday in September. 

The main results are presented in Table 4.15 in a qualitative 

way. Presentation in this way is induced by the low 

reliability of most of the results. The table summarises the 

results of the three kinds of analysis, and includes the assumed 

impacts of the bicycle plan on both trips and trip 

kilometres made by bicycle, car as a driver, and car as a 

passenger. 

remaining 

country 

Delft survey, 

dev. 1985-1993. 

Noordwest 

compared to: 

Wippolder 

cycle counts, 

1985-1993. 

Noordwest 

compared to: 

Tanthof Wippolder 

bicycle trip numbers 0 0 0 0 (+) 

kilometres (+) (+) + 0 n.a. 

car driver trip numbers (-) 0 0 0 n.a. 

kilometres (-) (-) 0 0 n.a. 

car trip numbers (-) 0 0 0 n.a. 

passenger kilometres 0 0 0 0 n.a. 

Table 4.15: Long-term comparisons in developments of modal use 

42 43

The symbols ‘0’, ‘+’, and ‘-’ indicate no change, increase, 

and decrease respectively. Observed changes that are 

not statistically significant are put within brackets. The 

table shows only one statistically significant change: bicycle 

kilometres of Noordwest-residents increased significantly 

compared to those of Wippolder-residents. This 

result suggests a long-term impact of the bicycle plan on 

bicycle kilometres in addition to the short-term impact. 

However, interpretation of this result is complicated by 

the fact that the improvements in Noordwest were implemented 

before 1985 and those in Wippolder after 1985, 

in which period the growth is observed. The increasing 

difference between Noordwest and Wippolder could be 

either an additional long-term increase in Noordwest that 

exceeds a possible short-term increase in Wippolder, or 

a decrease in Wippolder (due to the implemented measures?). 

A policy-induced decrease in Wippolder is not 

plausible, because the analysis of Delft compared to the 

other medium-sized cities suggest a positive influence of 

infrastructural improvements on bicycle kilometres. 

The analyses give no evidence on impacts on bicycle trip 

numbers, except from a relative increase of counts of cyclists 

entering or leaving Noordwest compared to those 

entering or leaving Wippolder. Assuming that trip numbers 

increased somewhat in Wippolder after 1985 due 

to the implemented improvements, the increase before 

1985 that was observed in the other districts seems not 

to be followed by a decrease and might even be followed 

by a further increase. Therefore, it is likely that the initial 

short-term increase in bicycle trips has been retained in 

the long term. There might even have been an additional 

increase in the long run. However, this can only be small 

assuming the fact that the analysis with the national travel 

surveys that describes the development in the whole project 

period (1979-1991) gives no indication of any impact 

on bicycle trip numbers. 

Looking at the car, negative effects on car use are observed 

for the whole period 1979-1991 when Delft is compared 

to other medium-sized cities. These include both 

the short-term and the long-term effects. The large fluctuations 

in the annual results regarding car use of inhabitants 

of Delft due to the small Delft samples, give not the 

opportunity to do separate statements on short-term and 

additional long-term developments. Apart from that, the 

effects in the whole period are not statistically significant. 

Route choice 

1982 1985 

counts entering Noordwest 24912 26032 

counts leaving Noordwest 25291 27969 

on-street interview 4100 - 

questionnaire response 2200 3000 

In addition to the modal choice analysis, the short-term 

impacts on route choice are estimated. The route choice 

studies are performed in the experimental Noordwestarea. 

Both before (1982) and after (1985) the measures 

in Noordwest were implemented the number of cyclists 

that entered or left Noordwest were counted at a large 

number of spots at a cordon around this district. In addition, 

in 1982 a number of cyclists that left the Noordwestdistrict 

were interviewed about some personal and trip 

characteristics; registered variables were age, gender, 

origin and destination addresses, trip purpose, and time 

of the interview. To some of them questionnaires were 

handed out where they were asked to draw their route 

on a map. In 1985, the on-street interviews were skipped 

but again questionnaires including questions on personal 

and trip characteristics and the route were distributed 

among leaving cyclists. The decision to skip the on-street 

interviews is motivated by the high response on the distributed 

questionnaires in 1982 and hence a low added 

value of the on-street interviews. The counts, interviews 

and distribution of questionnaires were done on the latest 

Wednesdays in September between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 

p.m. Questionnaires were handed out only to persons 

whose assumed age was at least 12. Table 4.16 shows 

the number of counted cyclists and cyclists that were interviewed 

or responded to the questionnaire. 

Table 4.16: Number of counted and approached cyclists at the Noordwest-cordon 

For analysing the collected data, a data bank of link characteristics 

of the bicycle networks in the before and after 

periods was created. These data include coordinates of 

nodes, type of pavement, type of cycling infrastructure 

(mixed traffic, bicycle lane, bicycle path), slope, one/two 

way traffic, traffic lights, and other objects for delay (a 

bridge that can be opened, crossing with a railway line). 

Length and average travel time per link are calculated 

from these data. 

After the before data were collected, several analyses on 

route choice and utilisation of the bicycle network were 

executed (Bovy, 1984). In contrast to the studies on the 

demonstration projects in Tilburg and The Hague, both 

the impacts of travel distance and travel time on route 

choice are analysed. Regarding utilisation of the bicycle 

network, it is examined whether and to which extent cyclists 

are willing to travel longer distances if then they can 

make a shift from travelling on low level networks to the 

more comfortable high level networks. 

The analyses are partly based on detour factors. Two 

kinds of detour factors are defined: detour on link level 

and detour on route level. The detour on link level of an 

observed trip is defined as the ratio of the trip distance if 

the shortest route was chosen and the distance between 

origin and destination as the crow flies. The average detour 

on link level is 1.21 and is dependent on distance. 

The detour is highest for distances between 1000 and 

1500 meter (1.25). It decreases slowly at increasing 

distances, to an average value of 1.18. It decreases at 

decreasing distances too, first slowly, but at increasing 

speed at the very short distances. 

The detour on route level is calculated for both length and 

duration of trips. This factor equals the ratio of the actual 

trip length/duration and the length/duration of the shortest 

route (shortest in distance or time). Table 4.17 presents 

the frequency distribution of the two detour factors on 

route level and the average and median values. 

One may conclude from the table that cyclists mainly 

choose the shortest route or a route with only a small 

detour. Moreover, they are more inclined to choose the 

shortest route in time than the shortest route in distance. 

The latter observation is supported by a statistical analysis 

of factors influencing the route choice. Travel time 

proves to give a significant better explanation of the observed 

route choices than travel distance. 

In addition to route choice, the data gave information 

about network use. An analysis of the extent the actual 

routes overlap the shortest routes, demonstrated that cyclists 

prefer cycling on higher level roads. The average 

overlap of all trips is 56%. However, the overlap differs 

substantially by road type. The overlap is only 27% for 

residential roads, 39% for neighbourhood roads, 47% for 

district roads, and 64% for urban roads. Apparently cyclists 

are inclined to minimize the distance travelled on 

the lower level roads. 

class of detour length 

duration 

frequency cumulative freq. frequency cumulative freq. 

1.0 9% 9% 21% 21% 

1.01-1.05 35% 44% 30% 51% 

1.06-1.10 27% 71% 21% 72% 

1.11-1.15 13% 84% 10% 82% 

1.16-1.20 6% 90% 7% 89% 

1.21-1.25 4% 94% 4% 93% 

1.26-1.30 2% 96% 2% 95% 

1.31-1.35 1% 97% 1% 96% 

>1.36 3% 100% 4% 100% 

average 1.09 1.08 

median 1.06 1.05 

Table 4.17: Characteristics of detour factors on route level. 

44 45

The outcomes of the route analyses presented so far are 

just based on the before study. The after study (Gommers 

and Bovy, 1987) analysed to which extent the bicycle 

interventions influenced route choices. Comparing 

the routes of complete trips in the before and after periods 

was not possible because only very few trips had 

the same origin and destination. Therefore, the analysis 

was done for trip sections. A number of pairs of locations 

were selected that are passed by a lot of cyclists. The 

route choices before and after between these pairs were 

studied for all trips that passed both locations. The routes 

between 60 pairs of locations were analysed. Significant 

changes in the chosen routes were observed. New network 

links tempted a lot of cyclists to reroute their trips 

via these links. New bicycle paths along roads proved to 

be very attractive as well. The volume of cyclists on bicycle 

paths increased significantly while the volume on 

bicycle lanes (not physically separated from the road) 

and on roads with mixed traffic decreased. There was no 

change in the division of bicycle kilometres over the three 

networks: neighbourhood, district and urban. Absence of 

a change is not surprising because the measures were 

implemented at all networks. Route choice changes seem 

to take some time. A new bridge appeared to attract only 

a small part of the cyclists who could shorten their route 

by using this bridge. The reason could be that the bridge 

was brought into use just one week before the data for the 

route choice analysis were collected. 

Finally, the route choice studies suggest a large increase 

in bicycle use between the before and after periods (see 

the cycle counts in Table 4.16). Analysing the origins 

and destinations, the increase is mainly due to a huge 

increase (28%) in cyclists that traverse the Noordwestdistrict. 

Trip numbers of Noordwest-residents seem to 

have decreased somewhat, those of Noordwest-visitors 

increased a little. The decrease of trips by Noordwestresidents 

can be explained by demographic changes and 

one major change in land use: a secondary school moved 

from outside to inside the Noordwest-district. The large 

increase of traversing cyclists might suggest that the bicycle 

plan is particularly beneficial for the longer distances. 

Though it is likely that this happened, an alternative 

explanation is that cyclists shifted their routes from fully 

outside the Noordwest-district to partly crossing the district. 

The route shift could be induced either by the bicycle 

measures and is then still an indication of the attractiveness 

of the measures, or by other factors like traffic diversions 

due to maintenance works. 

4.7.2 Safety 

The impacts of the bicycle plan on traffic safety have been 

studied for both the short and the long run. Bovy and 

Gommers (1988) assume a priori that the measures will 

have two kinds of opposite impacts. Firstly, the measures 

increased use of the vulnerable bicycle mode that will 

have affected traffic safety negatively. Vulnerability of cyclists 

is apparent from Dutch statistics concerning casualties 

per million person kilometres (CBS, 1994, 1 and CBS, 

1994, 2). Both the number of fatalities and the number of 

injured persons among cyclists were in the early 1990’s 

about three times the average for all modes. Secondly, 

the measures made cycling safer and so affected safety 

positively. Nearly all accidents result from conflicts between 

road users. The measures reduced the number of 

conflicts due to building new bicycle paths that separate 

cyclists from motorized traffic, and installing traffic lights 

at some intersections that should make crossing safer. 

The vulnerability of cyclists compared to other road users 

is subject for debate. Certainly, the number of accidents 

and casualties per km are high for cyclists. However, 

related to travel time, the numbers are comparable for 

the different modes. Based on the finding in fundamental 

research that people tend to spend a constant part of 

their time budget on travelling (see for instance Schafer, 

1998), accidents and casualties per minute might be a 

better measure for vulnerability than numbers per km. In 

that case interventions that increase bicycle use will not 

directly increase the risk of accidents. 

Short-term impacts 

Between 1980 and 1986 the total number of accidents in 

Delft was stable. These were about 1500 annually, according 

to the (incomplete) registration by the police. The 

number of casualties decreased in the same period from 

about 310 to 260, a reduction of about 20% (Bovy and 

Gommers, 1988). The national figures show a similar decrease 

of annual casualties in this period despite a substantial 

increase in traffic volume: the number of fatalities 

decreased by 24%, the number of injured casulaties by 

21%. At first sight, the bicycle plan did not contribute to 

traffic safety on balance. However, a more detailed analysis 

of the figures gives different conclusions. 

The short-term decrease of traffic casualties in Delft can 

fully be attributed to the bicycle and moped modes. The 

number of cycle casualties decreased from about 100 in 

1980 to about 70 in 1986, that of the moped casualties 

from about 80 to about 60. The number of casualties by 

other modes remained stable. The decrease of about 

30% for cyclists and moped riders is larger than the national 

decrease of 20% for these modes. The national decrease 

for the car and most other modes is not observed 

in Delft. The relatively large decrease in casualties among 

cyclists and moped riders in Delft, both users of the bicycle 

infrastructure, is an indication of increased safety 

by the bicycle measures. One problem in the analysis is 

that the Delft numbers are too low for an accurate estimation 

of developments in a few-years period. The numbers 

by mode display rather large annual fluctuations. Still, the 

decrease in casualties of both cyclists and moped riders 

is statistically significant. 

The probability for cyclists to be involved in an accident 

depends on gender and age. The probability is particularly 

high for teenagers. No change of the relative probabilities 

is observed between the before and after periods. 

The relative decrease of bicycle casualties was similar for 

all gender and age classes. 

Most bicycle accidents happen by collision of vehicles. 

In most cases the collision ‘partner’ of a bicycle is a motor 

vehicle. The number of collisions with motor vehicles 

decreased somewhat from about 70% of all bicycle accidents 

to about 65%. The number of other kinds of bicycle 

accidents remained stable. One should note here that bicycle 

use increased and use of motorized modes (mainly 

car) did not change. 

The number of accidents where a bicycle is involved decreased 

in Delft by about 10%. This reduction is smaller 

than the relative decrease of cycle casualties, which can 

be explained by the relatively large decrease of collisions 

with motor vehicles. The decrease of bicycle accidents is 

fully due to a decrease of accidents at intersections. The 

number of bicycle accidents at intersections decreased 

by 25%, lowering its share in all bicycle accidents from 

55-60% to 45-50%. Still, intersections remain relatively 

unsafe for cyclists. For other modes the share of accidents 

at intersections is smaller, on average 35%. 

Considering type of road, the decrease of bicycle accidents 

is observed only on bicycle lanes. There was no 

change in accident numbers on bicycle paths and roads 

with mixed traffic. However, because of the large changes 

in bicycle traffic volumes on the different kind of roads, 

one could better compare the risk of involvement in an accident 

per million km. This risk decreased significantly on 

bicycle paths and bicycle lanes and increased a little on 

roads with mixed traffic. Bicycle paths, that were already 

the safest kinds of road, strengthened their position as 

safest road for cyclists, and bicycle lanes, that were by 

far the most unsafe kinds of road came close to the roads 

with mixed traffic but remained the most unsafe kind of 

road. The relatively high probability to be involved in an 

accident when cycling on bicycle lanes can be explained 

by the fact that bicycle lanes generally are designed along 

busy roads where dedicated bicycle infrastructure is desirable 

but room for separated bicycle paths is lacking. 

The observations mentioned before suggest that the bicycle 

plan had a positive influence on safety. Safety increased 

particularly for the cyclists, and the increase in 

safety is connected to infrastructural elements (relatively 

large on bicycle paths and lanes, and on intersections). 

An interesting additional observation for answering the 

question whether the improvements enlarged traffic 

safety is the development of safety in different districts, 

including the experimental and control areas. Figure 4.6 

shows the probability of involvement in an accident per 

million kilometres in the experimental area Noordwest, 

the southwest area of the city including the experimental 

Tanthof district, the control area Wippolder, the city 

centre, and the remaining city. In Noordwest the probability 

decreased significantly by 35-40%. This area lost its 

position as the most unsafe district of Delft for cyclists. 

In southwest only a small decrease is observed (about 

10%). In the control area Wippolder and the city centre 

the decrease is slightly larger (about 15%), and in remaining 

Delft, where the measures of the bicycle plan were 

partly implemented the decrease is comparable to that of 

Noordwest (about 35%). 

Figure 4.6: Probability of involvement in accidents 

by cyclists in different districts 

46 47

The relatively strong decrease in Noordwest suggests 

again an influence of the bicycle plan. The low decrease 

in Southwest that benefited from the measures as well 

suggests the opposite. A possible explanation of the deviant 

development in Southwest is that an increase in safety 

due to the measures is partly annulled by demographic 

factors. The southwest districts are new districts where 

many households had young children. The children got 

a few years older between the before and after situation 

and changed from walking to the primary school to cycling 

to the secondary school or from accompanied cycling by 

the parents to unaccompanied cycling. 

A statistical test on the differences in developments between 

the experimental Noordwest district and the control 

area Wippolder produced no significant results. Assuming 

a Poisson distribution of the probability to be involved in an 

accident, the observed decrease in number of accidents 

in Noordwest does not differ significantly from the smaller 

decrease in Wippolder. The main problem for the analysis 

is the small number of observations. Though there are 

strong indications that the bicycle plan increased safety, it 

can not be proved. 

Long-term impacts 

Statistics on traffic accidents and casualties in the period 

1985-1992 are analysed in order to gain knowledge about 

impacts of the bicycle plan in the long run (AGV, 1994). 

The long-term developments in Delft are compared to the 

national developments, developments in the province of 

Zuid-Holland where Delft is located, and developments in 

the other medium-sized cities. Additionally, some characteristics 

of the developments within Delft are discussed. 

In both The Netherlands and Zuid-Holland, the numbers 

of accidents and casualties per million person km decreased 

significantly between 1985 and 1992. The reductions 

are 15-20% for accidents with injured persons and 

30-35% for fatalities. In Delft no significant development 

can be observed. The main problem is the low numbers. 

The statistics suggest a small decrease of accidents in 

Delft as well, possibly between 0 and 10%. Regarding the 

number of fatalities nothing can be said. These fluctuate 

between 1 and 9 annually. Safety seems to have been developed 

in Delft less beneficial than in the whole province 

or the whole country. A possible explanation is that the 

safety increase was relatively small in medium-sized cities. 

It would be interesting to compare the development in 

Delft with that in other medium-sized cities. This has not 

been done in the evaluation study, except for the observation 

that the number of fatalities in the medium-sized cities 

increased a little between the periods 1983-1985 and 

1989-1992. This is an indication that the general increase 

in safety occurred mainly in the countryside and possibly 

in the large cities, too. This observation deprives us of the 

possibility to draw conclusions about the long-term influence 

of the bicycle measures on overall traffic safety. 

The evaluation pays additionally attention to developments 

of the safety of cyclists, but limits it to the short 

period 1990-1992. In this period both in the whole country 

and in the province of Zuid-Holland the numbers of bicycle 

accidents and casualties decreased. The decrease of accidents 

and casulaties per million km is at the same pace 

as the decrease for all modes. Safety in Delft seems to 

have been unchanged. However, the observed numbers 

are too low for a firm conclusion regarding the development 

in Delft. Comparison with the development in other 

medium-sized cities is limited to fatalities. The number of 

cyclists that died in the Netherlands due to an accident in 

medium-sized cities decreased between 1983-1985 and 

1989-1992. For Delft, the numbers are far too low for any 

conclusion on the development. 

Looking at the developments within Delft, some significant 

changes that were observed in the short run are partly 

cancelled out. The share of accidents at intersections 

that decreased significantly in the short run, increased in 

the long run to a level that is still somewhat lower than 

in the before period. The number of bicycle casualties in 

the experimental area Noordwest increases again, but 

remains in the long run significantly lower than in the before 

situation. There is one district where the decrease 

of casulaties continued: the city centre. The continuing 

decrease should probably be explained by implementing 

measures that limit car traffic in this district. 

The overall conclusion is that it is very difficult to say 

something about the long-term impact of the bicycle plan 

on traffic safety. There are indications that travelling has 

become safer in both the short and the long run, but that 

the long-term impact is smaller than the short-term impact. 

4.7.3 Perception of cycling quality 

safety 

velocity 

survey ability 

space for 

cyclists 

convenience 

not specified 

network 

specified 

spots 

network 

specified 

spots 

network 

specified 

spots 

network 

specified 

spots 

network 

specified 

spots 

network 

specified 

spots 

Noordwest 

positive 

assessment 

16% 

75% 

10% 

37% 

1% 

1% 

1% 

3% 

12% 

27% 

5% 

15% 

Participants of the panel that was convened for the indepth 

analysis of modal choice (Section 4.7.1) were 

asked in 1985, shortly after implementation of the measures, 

how they assessed the changes in the bicycle 

network. The assessment was asked both on household 

level, person level and trip level. Table 4.18 presents the 

results on household level for the two experimental areas. 

The households were asked to report improvements 

or deteriorations of the network for a number of quality 

aspects. The questions included both an assessment of 

the bicycle network as a whole and an assessment of individual 

spots where measures were implemented. 

The measures were assessed predominantly positively, 

in particular regarding safety, velocity and convenience. 

The positive assessment is generally larger for Tanthofhouseholds 

than for Noordwest-households. Interestingly, 

some measures of the bicycle project were assessed 

negatively. Outstanding was one intersection that was experienced 

to be worse after reconstruction. Based on the 

result of the interviews the municipality reconstructed this 

intersection again. 

negative 

assessment 

4% 

73%* 

2% 

8% 

0% 

22%* 

2% 

14% 

3% 

10% 

1% 

22% 

Tanthof 

positive 

assessment 

32% 

46% 

30% 

38% 

- 

6% 

- 

4% 

22% 

28% 

8% 

2% 

negative 

assessment 

0% 

38%* 

2% 

4% 

0% 

16% 

4% 

8% 

0% 

8% 

4% 

10% 

total 203% 161% 216% 94% 

Table 4.18: Assessment of network changes due to the bicycle project on household 

level 

* most relate to one intersection of major roads (Hugo de Grootstraat and Westplantsoen) 

The panel respondents were at least ten years old at the 

start of the panel and the figures presented so far exclude 

younger persons. An interesting question is to which extent 

the network raised the cycling quality for younger 

children, in particular safety. Therefore, households with 

children from 6-9 were asked whether cycling became 

safer for them on the route to school. From those households 

that answered that one or more measures were 

implemented on the route (72%), 54% answered that the 

implemented measures did not increase safety, and 46% 

answered that cycling on the route to school had become 

safer. 

The assessment on person level gave similar results in 

the sense that the assessment was predominantly positive 

and was significantly higher for Tanthof-residents 

than for Noordwest-residents. In contrast to the assessment 

on household level, the personal assessment is 

rather similar for the different quality aspects. 

On trip level, Noordwest-respondents reported that the 

quality was enlarged for 28% of the bicycle trips and reduced 

for 23% of the trips. For Tanthof-respondents the 

figures are 43% and 11%. The number of positive changes 

per trip was 0.39 and 0.81 for Noordwest- and Tanthof-residents 

respectively, and the number of negative 

changes per trip 0.25 and 0.11. The share of bicycle trips 

where one or more problems were encountered reduced 

from 45% to 34% for Noordwest-residents and from 51% 

to 30% for Tanthof-residents. The relatively bad results 

for Noordwest can partly be explained by the intersection 

mentioned in the note of Table 4.18. If problems with this 

intersection are left out of consideration, the share of trips 

where problems were encountered would be reduced 

from 45% to 28% in Noordwest. 

48 49

The general conclusion is that the measures gave a better 

perception of the quality of the bicycle network. The increase 

in perception is substantially higher for Tanthof, a 

new residential area some kilometres from the city centre, 

than for Noordwest, an old district close to the city centre. 

Another conclusion is that measures that are aimed to 

improve the bicycle network sometimes lower the perception 

of the quality of the network. 

4.7.4 Economy 

Economic impacts of the bicycle plan were not included 

in the evaluation studies. However, in the framework of 

the Transecon-project that analyses the socio-economic 

impacts of investments in urban infrastructure, afterwards 

an attempt to estimate the economic impacts of the Delft 

bicycle plan has been made (Transecon, 2003). The 

analyses include a quantitative estimation of the regional 

added value and opinions of key actors about socio-economic 

impacts. 

The estimation of the added value includes three indicators. 

The first is the regional GDP indicating production 

of goods and services in the region, the second is the 

regional income reflecting wealth of the people, and the 

third is the regional employment. The estimated values 

are limited to the construction phase of the project. These 

are estimated with an econometric model that use global 

and economic conditions and demographic factors as input, 

together with the investment cost of the project per 

economic sector and year (Schneider et al, 1988). The 

estimated added values per annum for the Delft project 

are: 

• GDP: 2.3 million ECU; 

• income: 1.5 million ECU; 

• employment: 29 persons. 

The construction phase covers the period 1979-1991. 

The average annual investment in this period on both the 

implementation of the measures and the evaluation studies 

was 1.02 million ECU. All mentioned ECU amounts 

are at current prices. As mentioned before, the calculated 

added values relate only to the construction phase. In the 

operating phase that follows the construction phase the 

improved infrastructure makes a city more attractive and 

may be beneficial for economic activities. Added values 

in the operating phase are on average about 3 times the 

values in the construction phase (Transecon, 2003). The 

factor 3 is argued for large infrastructural investments like 

a metro line that have significant impacts on land use and 

economic activity. It is doubtful whether it can be used for 

bicycle investments as well. According to the opinions of 

key actors, to be discussed next, the bicycle plan had no 

large long term economic impacts. 

A number of key actors were interviewed about the socio-economic 

impacts of the bicycle plan. The interviews 

gave qualitative information about the impacts. Some results 

of the interviews: 

• A state agent had the opinion that the measures of the 

bicycle plan “certainly” did not affect housing prices. 

• A bicycle mender assumed that the plan increased the 

demand for bicycles. He sold significantly more bicycles 

after implementation of the measures. However, there is 

an alternative reason for the increase. In the same period 

a number of other bicycle shops closed, raising the business 

of the remaining shops. 

• A number of the interviewed persons had the opinion 

that the economic position of the city centre was strengthened 

and that the economic decline of the centre that was 

observed in the period before the measures were implemented 

was reversed. In the time of the project old buildings 

in the inner city and at the edges of the inner city 

were redesigned and reconstructed as luxurious apartments. 

New apartments were built as well. The improved 

bicycle infrastructure could have played a role in this development. 

• The plan improved the perception of the city by its residents; 

it increased civic pride. 

The measures sometimes were beneficial for undesired 

economic activities, too. In a neighbourhood that is fully 

surrounded by water and that was accessible via just one 

bridge in the before situation, a second bridge for cyclists 

was built in the framework of the bicycle plan. Afterwards 

theft proved to increase. The assumed reason is that the 

new bridge created better opportunities to housebreakers 

for fleeing. 

4.8 The impacts of building the 

Plantagebrug 

In Section 4.5 the building of the Plantagebrug has 

been described. This bridge is built halfway between the 

Reineveldbrug and the Koepoortbrug (Figure 4.3). It is 

assumed that the Plantagebrug will attract many cyclists 

that otherwise would have used one of the two neighbouring 

bridges. Additionally, lowering the severance of 

the canal for cyclists might generate new trips and affect 

shifts of destination and mode. These impacts are examined 

with three studies. One study explores the potential 

of the Plantagebrug before it was actually built. This study 

is based on a household survey and interviews (Kropman 

and Neeskens, 1986). The two other studies collect data 

from bicycle counts at bridges and enquiries among passing 

cyclists in both the before and after situations in order 

to examine several kinds of impacts of the Plantagebrug 

(Gommers et al, 1985, and Veeke and Jansen, 1987). 

4.8.1 Potential of the bridge 

Before the Plantagebrug was built possible impacts on 

travel behaviour were investigated. The research questions 

were how the bridge would affect destination choice, 

modal choice, and route choice; and whether the bridge 

should contribute to perceived safety and comfort. 

The analysis is based on a travel survey and interviews 

about why observed travel choices are made. A sample 

of households was selected for both the travel survey 

and the interviews. Only households living in the residential 

districts at the east side of the canal and the bridges 

were approached. Therefore, the study is limited to the 

potential of the Plantagebrug for those who live in these 

districts. These are only part of all potential users. From 

161 addressed households 81 gave a full response. Interviews 

were conducted with 157 members of these 

households, only members that were 10 years or older. 

The travel survey and interviews were organised in June 

1984. First, household members were asked to report 

their trips on a certain working day, and a few days later 

they were interviewed. 

The travel survey gave the same kind of figures as the 

travel surveys in the three study areas (in particular the 

Tables 4.5 and 4.9). The results differ in a few respects. 

First, in the Plantagebrug survey nearly all respondents 

went outside on the enquiry day (99%). The shares in the 

other surveys range from 83% to 92% in the before situation. 

The explanation could be a possible selective sampling 

and the small sample size of the Plantagebrug survey. 

A related difference is the number of trips pppd: 4.9 

compared to 3.4 to 4.0 in the other surveys. The modal 

split was differenent as well. The high share of the bicycle 

is relatively high (46% versus 36% to 41% in the other 

surveys), that of car users as a passenger is high as well 

(9% versus 5%), and the share of car users as a driver is 

relatively low (16% versus 21-32%). 

The interviews aimed to give information about how 

people assess the new bridge, which hindrances they 

encounter when cycling to the inner city (crossing the canal), 

to which extent the hindrances could be removed 

by building the Plantagebrug; and which impacts can be 

expected on travel choices regarding destination, mode, 

and route. 

Assessment of the Plantagebrug 

A majority of the respondents has the opinion that building 

the new bridge is a good thing; 54% report only advantages, 

25% report both advantages and disadvantages, 

14% report only disadvantages, and the remaining 8% 

report nothing. The most reported advantages are better 

accessibility of the inner city, higher safety, and nicer and 

more varied routes. The most reported disadvantages 

are superfluity of the bridge, a waste of money if used for 

building, and hindrance for shipping and rowing. Based 

on the predominant opinions, 74% of the respondents can 

be indicated as supporters of the bridge and 23% as opponents. 

The respondents were asked to put forward measures 

that should accompany building the new bridge. They 

mentioned in total 270 different measures that mainly 

aimed to enlarge safety on the routes to the bridge. There 

was a large match between the mentioned measures and 

accompanying measures that were planned by the municipality 

(the respondents were ignorant of these). 

Hindrances for cycling to the inner 

city 

Starting from the reported trips in the travel survey, hindrances 

were encountered for 45% of the bicycle trips to 

the inner city. The most mentioned hindrances relate to 

safety, in particular traffic volume and speed, and problems 

when crossing roads. Interestingly, the two most frequently 

reported problematic spots are the two existing 

bridges, or more exactly: the Koepoortbrug and the road 

Vrijenbanselaan that leads over the Reineveldbrug. Addition 

of the Plantagebrug that is dedicated to cyclists and 

pedestrians 

50 51

to the two other bridges with high car volumes has a large 

potential for reducing hindrances. The number of trips 

with hindrances would be reduced from 45% to 34%. 

For trips that were not made by bicycle or not to the inner 

city, the respondents were asked why these were not 

made by bicycle to the inner city. The predominant reason 

(applicable for 40% of these trips) was that choosing 

the destination in the inner city is no option. The second 

most important reason is practical matters (22% of the 

trips), other reasons of some importance, all relating to 

13-15% of the trips, are inconvenience, travel time, and 

‘bicycle use no option’. Problems regarding the traffic situation 

were mentioned for only 2% of the trips. Freedom 

of choice for converting the trip into a bicycle trip to the 

inner city applies to 4% of the trips. These results assume 

a rather small potential of the Plantagebrug. The contribution 

of the Plantagebrug is mainly improvement of the 

traffic situation and reducing travel time. These kinds of 

hindrances are rather unimportant. Moreover, if these hindrances 

would be removed, or if the trips that were free 

of choice would be made by bicycle to the inner city, a 

limited number of the trips would use the Plantagebrug. In 

many cases routing via one of the other bridges is shorter. 

One should note that the reason “travel time” is valid for a 

much smaller proportion of trips (14%) than in Table 4.11 

that presents the reasons why the bicycle is not used for 

non-bicycle trips (51% in the before situation). Possibly, in 

the Plantagebrug survey the travel time hindrance relates 

mainly or only to trips to the inner city. For these trips the 

bicycle is generally competitive regarding travel time. 

Impacts on travel choices 

In order to get understanding about the impacts on travel 

choices, the respondents were asked whether and how 

they would change their trips if the Plantagebrug was 

built. From 767 observed trips, in just one case another 

destination would have been chosen (in the inner city instead 

of outside the inner city). The impacts on modal 

choice and route choice are summarized in Table 4.19. 

The figures concern numbers of round trips and share 

in all observed round trips (767). A round trip is the sequence 

of trips, starting at home, visiting one or more outdoors 

activities, and returning home. 

before 

after (via Plantagebrug) 

mode bridge walk bicycle moped 

walk 

no bridge* 

Koepoortbrug 

2 (0.3%) 

5 (0.7%) 

public transport Reineveldbrug 1 (0.1%) 

bicycle Reineveldbrug 

Koepoortbrug 

other bridge 

31 (4.0%) 

32 (4.2%) 

1 (0.1%) 

car (driver) Reineveldbrug 

other bridge 

5 (0.7%) 

1 (0.1%) 

public transport Koepoortbrug 2 (0.3%) 

moped Reineveldbrug 4 (0.5%) 

total 8 (1.0%) 72 (9.4%) 4 (0.5%) 

Table 4.19: Changes in modal choice and route choice 

*possibly trips that use two different bridges in the after situation 

Summarizing: the impact on destination choice is marginal 

(just one trip), the impact on modal choice is larger 

but still small (9 trips, about 1% of all trips), the impact 

on route choice is substantial (75 trips, 10% of all trips). 

Modal shifts are mainly from car to bicycle, and to a lesser 

extent from public transport to both bicycle and walk. 

Based on the reported number of 72 bicycle trips that will 

use the Plantagebrug, the total number of bicycle trips of 

residents of the districts at the east side of the canal that 

will use the bridge on a working day are estimated. The 

result is 1850 trips. This number regards single trips in 

two directions. Because it concerns only trips by residents 

that live east of the canal, the total number of cyclists using 

the Plantagebrug will probably be significantly higher. 

A more complete estimation can be made with data of the 

second before study that will be discussed next. 

4.8.2 Before and after studies 

For evaluation of the impacts of the Plantagebrug on use 

of the different bridges, accessibility, and safety a before 

and after study are performed. The after study pays in 

addition attention to familiarity with the new bridge. Data 

for the before study were collected by counts of cyclists at 

the Reineveldbrug and Koepoortbrug at a Wednesday in 

June 1984, and for the after study by counts at the same 

bridges as well as the Plantagebrug at a Wednesday in 

September 1986. The intention was to organize the after 

counts in June as well but a delay in building the bridge 

impelled to postpone these. The after counts were organized 

one month after the bridge was put into use. One 

of the complementary measures that should contribute to 

the attractiveness of the bridge, i.e. building a new route 

for cyclists along the Kantoorgracht west of the bridge, 

was not finished yet. Absence of this route and possible 

unfamiliarity of the new bridge due to the rather small period 

of operation will have made that the observed demand 

underspends the potential demand. 

Both the before and after counts were executed between 

7 a.m. and 7 p.m. In addition to the counts, questionnaires 

were handed out to a number of cyclists that travelled in 

the direction of the inner city (south or west). They were 

asked to report origin and destination addresses, travel 

purpose, residential municipality, normal use of the different 

bridges, possibility to use an alternative mode, 

and some personal characteristics. Moreover, they were 

asked to draw their route on a map. In the after enquiry, a 

question about familiarity of the Plantagebrug was asked 

to users of the two other bridges, and possible use of the 

alternative bridges was asked to users of the Plantagebrug. 

In the before situation 7475 cyclists travelling in the direction 

of the inner city were counted on both bridges, 4350 

questionnaires were handed out, and 1142 completed 

questionnaires were returned. The response was lower 

than expected and for that reason returned questionnaires 

without route information were used for the analysis 

as well (304 questionnaires). In the after situation 

6253 cyclists entering the inner city were counted on the 

three bridges, 4372 questionnaires were handed out and 

1417 completed questionnaires were returned. Now there 

was no need for using questionnaires without route information. 

The large difference in counted numbers can be 

explained by the difference in season. The before counts 

were on a hot day in June and included a lot of cyclists 

travelling to and from the recreation area Delftse Hout 

east of the city that is accessible via the Koepoortbrug. In 

the after counts only few cyclists travelled to or from the 

Delftse Hout. 

Use of the different bridges 

Based on the questionnaires, the numbers of cyclists that 

use the bridges during the enquiry periods are estimated 

by using projection factors. Table 4.20 shows the estimated 

figures for the three bridges in the before and after 

periods per direction. 

entering the inner leaving the inner city both directions 

city 

before after before after before after 

Koepoortbrug 4950 3341 5047 3225 9997 6566 

Reineveldbrug 2495 1906 2815 2159 5310 4065 

Plantagebrug 0 1006 0 831 0 1837 

all bridges 7445 6253 7862 6215 15307 12468 

Table 4.20: Cyclists crossing the bridges between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. on the enquiry days 

52 53

The Koepoortbrug functions mainly for local traffic. In the 

before situation 89% of the passing bicycles made local 

trips: both origin and destination were inside Delft. The 

Plantagebrug seems to have strengthened the local function 

of the Koepoortbrug: In the after situation the share of 

local bicycle traffic on this bridge increased to 91%. The 

Reineveldbrug is more important for cyclists that travel 

longer distances. The shares of local traffic were 61% 

(before) and 65% (after). The local function of this bridge 

seems to have been strengthened a little as well. The 

function of the Plantagebrug is between that of the two 

other bridges. The share of local bicycle traffic was 79%. 

Looking at travel purposes, two major differences were 

observed between the before and after enquiries. The 

number of leisure trips decreased significantly, that of 

school trips increased. For all bridges together, the share 

of leisure trips fell from 19% to 5%, and the share of 

school trips increased from 10% to 22%. The explanation 

for the fall in leisure trips has to do with the season and 

the weather. As mentioned before, the before enquiry was 

performed at a hot day in June, the after enquiry at a day 

in September. Why less pupils and students travelled to 

school during the before enquiry in June is not clear. If leisure 

and school trips are not considered, the distribution 

of purposes is similar in both periods, both for each of the 

two bridges that existed in the before period, and for the 

total of all bridges. The Koepoortbrug is mainly used for 

work and shopping and, in the before period, for leisure. 

The Reineveldbrug is mainly used for mandatory activities 

(work and education). The most practised activity by 

cyclists crossing the Plantagebrug is work. The shares of 

work and shopping are between the shares observed for 

the two other bridges, the share of education is equal to 

the low share of the Koepoortbrug, and the shares of the 

other distinguished purposes (visit family/friends, leisure, 

other) are higher than those of the two alternative bridges 

in the after situation. 

Familiarity with the Plantagebrug 

The after enquiry included questions about familiarity of 

the Plantagebrug and competition between the bridges. 

Table 4.21 summarizes the results. The first row mentions 

the shares of Koepoortbrug and Reineveldbrug users 

that were familiar with the Plantagebrug. The Plantagebrug 

is better known for Koepoortbrug users than for 

Reineveldbrug users. The second row reports the shares 

of Koepoortbrug and Reineveldbrug users that already 

used the Plantagebrug. Again, the share is higher for 

Koepoortbrug users. The two lowest rows indicate which 

alternative bridge Plantagebrug users would have used 

if the Plantagebrug had not been built. A majority would 

have used the Koepoortbrug (third row). However, if the 

numbers of those indicating that they alternatively would 

have used the Koepoortbrug or Reineveldbrug are compared 

to the actual bicycle users of these two alternative 

bridges, the figures are similar (fourth row). This suggests 

that the attractiveness of the Plantegebrug is similar for 

users of the two other bridges. Possible explanations for 

the difference in familiarity are a) that a relatively large 

share of Reineveldbrug users do not live in Delft and 

might be less familiar with projects that are implemented 

in Delft, and b) that the Plantagebrug is visible from the 

Koepoortbrug and not from the Reineveldbrug. 

Koepoortbrug Reineveldbrug other bridges 

familiar with Plantagebrug 82% 62% - 

use of Plantagebrug 51% 35% - 

alternative for Plantagebrug (1) 59% 40% 1% 

alternative for Plantagebrug (2) 18% 21% - 

(1): share of all Plantagebrug users 

(2): percentage of the actual users of the alternative bridge 

A general conclusion is that it can take some time before 

(nearly) all potential users of a new bridge or other infrastructural 

work are familiar with the project. 

Expected and observed use 

After collection of the before data, the number of cyclists 

crossing the Plantagebrug was predicted. The enquiry 

gave a lot of information about origins and destinations of 

trips by bicycle, and route choice. Using the network data 

in the before and after situation that were recorded in the 

data bank described in the route choice part of Section 

4.7.1 and the model that was calibrated on data regarding 

route choice of cyclists leaving the Noordwest district, 

4100 cyclists were estimated to use the Plantagebrug at 

a working day. This number could be in accordance with 

the estimated number of 1850 for only bicycle trips of 

residents living in the districts east of the canal (Section 

4.8.1). However, the observed number in the after study, 

about 1800 (Table 4.20), is considerably lower. Three 

reasons can be mentioned for the gap between predicted 

and observed numbers, though it is doubtful whether they 

can explain the whole difference. One reason is that in the 

before situation the overall number of cyclists was higher 

than in the after situation. This is mainly due to a large 

fall in leisure travel. The Plantagebrug proves to attract 

a relatively large part of leisure traffic and is likely to be 

more exposed to fluctuations in volume of this traffic than 

the other bridges. The second reason is the unfamiliarity 

of the Plantagebrug by a number of the potential users. 

The third reason is that, unlike it was assumed in the 

prediction, not all related projects that contribute to the 

attractiveness of the bridge were finished. This is particularly 

true for the bicycle route along the Kantoorgracht. 

Accessibility 

The Plantagebrug reduced the detours that had to be 

made by the canal crossing cyclists. The average detour 

factor on link level decreased from 1.23 to 1.21. For those 

using the Koepoortbrug in both the before and after situation, 

the decrease is from 1.25 to 1.24, for those using the 

Reineveldbrug the detour is constant at 1.17. For cyclists 

that use the Plantagebrug in the after situation, the detour 

factor fell from 1.30 to 1.22. Not surprisingly, the Plantagebrug 

attracted particularly cyclists that had to make 

a large detour in the before situation where the Plantagebrug 

offers a more direct route. The reduction in detour 

factors is mainly observed for the shorter distances. For 

canal crossing trips less than 1400 m, the detour factor 

reduced from 1.36 to 1.27, for trips between 1400 m and 

3600 m, the reduction was only from 1.23 to 1.22, and for 

longer trips no reduction was observed. 

Comparing the predicted travel times in the after situation 

with the before situation, the Plantagebrug would have 

saved 0.2 minute (2%) on average for all canal crossing 

bicycle trips. For trips starting in the residential districts at 

the east side of the canal, the average savings are 0.3-0.4 

minutes (3-4%). For trips that were predicted to use the 

Plantagebrug in the after situation, travel time would be 

reduced by 1.0 minute (8.5%). 

The Plantagebrug does not contribute to the accessibility 

of the most important destination of those living east of 

the bridge: the market and surrounding shopping area. 

The bridge connects with the less attractive northern side 

of the inner city while the market is in the southern part. 

Likewise, the new bridge does not improve the accessibility 

of the central train station that is located south west of 

the inner city. 

A third important destination is an industrial estate north 

of the inner city and about 1 km west of the Plantagebrug. 

The Plantagebrug improves the accessibility of this estate 

for people living east of the canal substantially and 

is used frequently by them in the after situation. The relatively 

large numbers using the Plantagebrug for travelling 

to the industrial estate explain the high share of workrelated 

trips. 

Safety 

Probably the Plantagebrug will have increased traffic 

safety for cyclists. Both the Koepoortbrug and the 

Reineveldbrug were experienced as unsafe because cyclists 

were not physically separated from the large numbers 

of cars crossing the bridges. A number of cyclists 

shifted their route from one of these unsafe bridges to the 

much safer Plantagebrug. This will have increased general 

safety. However, the impact on safety has not been 

studied. A study on differences in accidents would have 

been difficult because of the very low number of accidents 

in such a small area. 

4.9 Discussion 

The Delft bicycle plan had two objectives: to improve the 

infrastructural facilities for cyclists and generating knowledge 

about the impact of the upgrade of a whole cycle 

54 55

pality; the second mainly the objective of the national government. 

Regarding the second objective, next questions 

should be answered: 

• Does the implementation of a comprehensive bicycle 

network lead to an increase in bicycle traffic? The hypothesis 

was that providing a comprehensive and integral network 

affects bicycle use and its quality more than improving 

a number of single bicycle routes. 

• Does the implementation of a bicycle network increase 

road safety? 

• In which way do cyclists use a comprehensive and integral 

bicycle network which is perceived as such, and what 

are their behavioural responses? 

Do the evaluation studies give answers on the questions? 

In answering the questions one should consider that the 

upgrade of the Delft bicycle network concerned improvements 

of an existing network with initially a reasonably 

good quality in a city where the bicycle was already used 

frequently. The answers may not be valid for cities with 

initially a poor bicycle network and low bicycle use. 

The studies demonstrate that the measures induced 

a short term moderate increase in the number of bicycle 

trips and probably a larger increase in the distance 

travelled by bicycle. They suggest that the increase is 

retained in the long term, but due to problems relating 

to small samples and the influences of other factors, a 

firm conclusion regarding the long term effects can not 

be drawn. In addition, a significant increase in the perceived 

quality of the network was observed, in particular 

regarding safety, directness and convenience. A similar 

result was found for the demonstration projects of single 

bicycle paths described in Section 3. The impact on the 

perceived quality is more pronounced than the impact on 

actual bicycle use. 

Would the increase in bicycle use have been larger than 

in the case the same money was spent on improving a 

number of individual routes? The studies do not answer 

this question. We guess that the answer is negative, assuming 

that the alternative spending is in the most efficient 

way and that initially the network enables cyclists 

to move from each origin to each destination (as was the 

case in the studied Dutch cities). Considerations behind 

the guess are the rather small observed impacts of the 

Delft bicycle plan, and, for providing an integral grid network 

with a homogeneous quality, the need to employ part 

of the money for relatively large investments on routes 

with relatively low bicycle volumes. The Plantagebrug is 

an example of an expensive project in one of the main 

corridors of the defined grid network but outside the most 

extensive used bicycle routes. One should note however 

that if the money that is actually spent on upgrading an 

a priori defined network, would alternatively have been 

spent on improving individual routes in the same city, 

these routes are likely to form a network as well. The latter 

network may not be identical to the defined network for 

the upgrade, though both networks will have a number of 

links in common. 

The increase in the perception of safety is confirmed by 

an increase in safety itself. The studies give evidence of a 

clear increase of road safety in the short run, despite the 

growth of bicycle use, one of the more vulnerable modes. 

The long-term impact is less clear and could be smaller 

than the short-term impact. The main ingredient for the 

safety increase was separation of cyclists from motorized 

traffic. The separation is partly spatial by building off-road 

bicycle paths and partly temporal by installing traffic lights. 

Cyclists prove to assess the three sub networks on urban, 

district and neighbourhood level differently. They prefer 

use of higher order networks and are willing to make a 

detour if then a larger part of the route is travelled on a 

higher order network. Cyclists have a clear preference for 

off-road bicycle paths. The most important factor for route 

choice is travel time. New network links that shorten the 

distance (and duration) can be very attractive. 

Apart from answers on the three research questions, 

other interesting things can be learned from the Delft project. 

Firstly, good communication with interest groups and 

residents in an early phase is important for a wide support 

of the project and a successful implementation of measures. 

Secondly, the bicycle has the potential to attract 

car users; improving bicycle infrastructure is a possible 

measure for a policy that is directed at lowering car use. 

Thirdly, the most important reasons for not using the bicycle 

for a trip have to do with practical matters and travel 

time; infrastructural problems and the traffic situation are 

rarely reported reasons for not using the bicycle. These 

findings suggest that investing in bicycle infrastructure is 

not necessarily the most efficient way for enhancing bicycle 

use. Again, it should be noted that this result is valid 

for a city that had already a fairly good network. For other 

cities the result is likely to be different. 

The studies investigated the impacts in the short and the 

long run. Could something be said about the impacts in 

the very long run? The Dutch Cyclists Union (Fietsersbond) 

developed a method for assessing local cycling 

conditions for a number of aspects and applied it to a 

large number of Dutch cities. This method, called the “Fietsbalans”, 

enables to compare the cycling conditions in 

the examined cities. Because Delft is one of these cities, 

the more recent quality of the Delft bicycle network can 

be compared to the network qualities in other cities. The 

examination in 2000 (Fietsersbond, 2001) demonstrated 

that Delft, compared to other medium-sized cities, 

• ranked high regarding traffic safety of cyclists, 

• above the average regarding directness (measured by 

detour factors, delays at traffic lights and other obstacles, 

and speed), 

• below the average regarding inconvenience caused by 

other traffic (this includes the need to ride behind each 

other and exposure to traffic noise), 

• and very low regarding pavement. 

Generally, Delft takes a medium position between the cities. 

The bicycle plan gave Delft not an excellent position 

in the long run. One of the reasons is that in many other 

cities investments in bicycle infrastructure were made, 

partly encouraged by the positive results for Delft. The 

relatively good performance regarding directness in Delft 

may still be attributed to the bicycle plan. Possibly this is 

also true for the high score regarding safety. The very low 

score for pavement indicates that Delft did not maintain 

the bicycle infrastructure properly. The Delft soil conditions 

bring about a rather quick deterioration of the quality 

of the tile pavements and a good quality demands for 

rather extensive road maintenance. 

56 57

5 Shared space in Haren 

Shared space is defined as integrated use of public space 

by both motorized and non-motorized modes. It is evolved 

out of the ‘woonerf’ concept, which is a residential area 

with mixed use of traffic and other activities where cars 

have to slow down to a walking pace and so accommodate 

other usage of the public space. Shared space is 

the opposite of modal segregation. In the Netherlands, 

shared space is part of the concept of “duurzaam veilig” 

(sustainable safe) that aims to design traffic infrastructure 

such that it is inherently safe. Shared space impels drivers 

of motorized modes to take full account of the slow 

modes. This is assumed to lead to safer and socially responsible 

traffic behaviour. 

The municipality of Haren, one of the more wealthy municipalities 

in the agglomeration of Groningen that is the 

largest city in the north of the Netherlands, implemented 

and evaluated shared space in the Rijksstraatweg in 

2002. The Rijksstraatweg is the main road traversing the 

town and used to be the major road connecting Groningen 

to the south (“Rijksstraatweg” means national road). 

However, since a parallel motorway has been built, the 

function of the road is mainly local and to some extent 

regional. Still, it is the most heavily used road in Haren. 

In 2004 8,200 motor vehicles were counted on a working 

day. The road crosses the centre of Haren. Figure 5.1 

shows the location of Haren in relation to Groningen. The 

Rijksstraatweg is indicated in the figure. 

5.1 Design 

Starting point for the design was making the road an integral 

part of the centre. Before, the typical function of the 

road was facilitating through traffic and the road created 

severance inside the town. The measures to achieve the 

intended integration were: 

• Removing differences in height at the transverse section 

of the road. 

• Making the road optically narrower. 

• Installing street furniture that is typical for avenues. 

• Reducing the maximum speed from 50 km/h to 30 km/h. 


The municipality encouraged participation of citizens in 

developing the project. Experts and citizens together dis 

cussed about the new design. During the whole process 

from planning to completion interested parties were informed. 

This policy created a large support among the 

citizens for the project. The implementation of the project 

was in 2002. 


A few evaluation studies have been executed. These are 

summarized by van der Velde and Bos (2008). Evaluated 

topics are use of the road, the impact on safety, and the 

experience of users of shared space. 


Initially, cars were assumed to use the main lane in the 

middle of the road, pedestrians should use primarily the 

cussed about the new design. During the whole process 

from planning to completion interested parties were informed. 

This policy created a large support among the 

citizens for the project. The implementation of the project 

was in 2002. 


Figure 5.1: Location of Haren southeast of the city of 

Groningen. 

A few evaluation studies have been executed. These are 

summarized by van der Velde and Bos (2008). Evaluated 

58 59

topics are use of the road, the impact on safety, and the 

experience of users of shared space. 


Initially, cars were assumed to use the main lane in the 

middle of the road, pedestrians should use primarily the 

side lanes, and cyclists had no instruction about which 

lanes to use. One of the evaluation results was that usage 

of both the lane in the middle and the side lanes by 

cyclists gave an unclear situation and increased the perception 

of unsafety. Based on this result, the room for cyclists 

was restricted to the lane in the middle that they use 

together with cars. 

Regarding use of the shared space it was observed that: 

• Slow modes cross the road all over. These usually 

choose the most direct route to the destination at the other 

side of the road. Pedestrians frequently do not use the 

crosswalks, even if a crosswalk is close by. 

• Cars drive slowly and anticipate crossing pedestrians. 

They generally give priority to pedestrians that use the 

crosswalks, and sometimes to those that cross elsewhere. 

This implies a good social interaction. 

• Cars take account of bicycles riding before them. They 

usually stay behind when there is no good possibility for 

overtaking. 

• Car drivers generally give no priority to cyclists that enter 

from side streets, and the cyclists do not expect priority to 

be given. The reason might be different pavements that 

suggest that one road has priority to the other. This unintended 

result did not create conflicts. 

• The volume of motor vehicles on the Rijksstraatweg did 

not change noticeably. 

5.3.2 Safety 

Increasing safety is a main objective of shared space. 

The impact on safety is examined by comparing the numbers 

of accidents and casualties in the periods before and 

after the implementation of shared space. 

In the before period (1994-2001) the average number of 

annual accidents was nearly 11. The number fluctuated 

between 6 and 14. In the after period (2003-2007) the 

annual average was 5 with fluctuations from 3 to 9. The 

highest number of 9 accidents was observed in 2003, 

shortly after the implementation. Possibly users need 

time to become familiar with the new situation. Despite 

Figure 5.2: Two sections of the road before (left) and after (right) implementing 

shared space (source: van der Velde and Bos, 2008) 

the low absolute numbers, there is clear evidence that 

safety increased significantly. 

An even stronger decrease is observed for the number of 

casualties. In the before period the annual average was 

about 2.5 and the number fluctuated between 1 and 5. In 

the after period only one casualty was registered in the 

whole 5-year period. 

The nature of the accidents changed somewhat. In the 

before situation the most observed category of accidents 

were those related to insufficient distance to vehicles in 

front (26% of all accidents); rear-end collision was a typical 

accident. In the after situation the most observed accidents 

were those related to not giving priority, wrongly 

turning a corner, and driving too far to the right (for 20%, 

12%, and 12% of the accidents respectively). 

In both the before and after periods most accidents were 

due to collisions between cars. The numbers of collisions 

between cars and bicycles and collisions between bicycles 

were relatively small and remained to be relatively 

small. The change from segregated infrastructure with 

separated bicycle paths to shared space with mixed use 

of the main lane by cars and bicycles did not increase the 

relative unsafety of cyclists. In connection with the overall 

increase in safety, the absolute numbers of all types of 

collisions decreased. 

5.3.3 Perception of shared space 

A number of residents were interviewed by phone about 

their opinion on changes due to the redesign of the Rijksstraatweg. 

Corresponding with the observed changes, 

the respondents have the opinion that vehicle speeds 

lowered, traffic volume is unchanged, and road users take 

more account of each other. In contrast with the observed 

statistics, the respondents felt a decrease of safety. This 

feeling was mainly due to the unclear position of the bicycle 

that was allowed to use both the main lane in the 

middle of the road and the side lanes. After adapting the 

rules the feeling of unsafety might have been reduced. 

According to the respondents, the centre looks better 

and has become more attractive. The Rijksstraatweg is 

considered to be more integrated in the centre. The Rijksstraatweg 

used to be an important barrier inside the 

town and the centre, but after implementation of shared 

space the severance reduced substantially. Lowering of 

the severance was one of the main objectives of shared 

space. 

Figure 5.3: Use of the shared space (source: van der 

Velde and Bos, 2008) 

5.3.4 Economy 

One of the results reported in the preceding section was 

an increase of attractiveness of the city centre. Nevertheless, 

the respondents indicated not to visit the centre 

more frequently. Possibly, the centre benefits from more 

visits by people from outside Haren; however, this has not 

been studied. 

5.3.5 Conclusion 

Shared space can be highly beneficial. It has the potential 

to increase safety significantly and lower the severance 

of a road. The increase in safety is remarkable, because 

modes that have quite different speeds in normal use are 

mixed. The main explanation for the increased safety is 

that the design tempts the faster vehicles to drive with 

low speeds. The example of Haren proves that shared 

space can be applied for roads with a rather high volume 

of motor vehicles. 

However, it should be stressed that ‘shared space’ has 

its specific contextual conditions of application. The public 

space should have a substantial ‘habitat’ function. And 

the concept is likely to be more successful if adjusted driving 

behaviour is already part of the local traffic culture. 

60 61

6 BICYCLE STREET IN HAARLEM 

A bicycle street is a street for mixed traffic (bicycles and 

cars) where the bicycle is the main user and the car is 

guest. The concept of the bicycle street was first applied 

some decades ago in both a few German and Dutch cities. 

Recently, in the Netherlands it evolved to be a general 

frequently applied concept. The main function of 

bicycle streets in the Netherlands is provision of bicycle 

routes through residential areas that are part of the main 

bicycle network. Bicycle streets offer alternative routes for 

the main roads. The benefits for the cyclists are that they 

are not exposed to the polluting emissions of the cars, 

may have a more direct route, and can avoid traffic lights. 

In the case that no bicycle paths are provided along the 

main roads, an additional benefit is avoidance of the inconvenient 

and unsafe mixed use of roads with high car 

volumes (Andriesse and Hansen, 1996). 

Bicycle streets are links in the main bicycle networks and 

should meet high quality standards for cyclists. Hindrance 

by cars using the streets should be minimal. For that: 

width of the later should not exceed 1.1 m. Cyclists are 

assumed to use only the comfortable roadway, the side 

lanes make that room for cars is sufficient. 

Many bicycle streets have been recently built in the Netherlands, 

but only few are evaluated. One of these is the 

Venkelstraat in the city of Haarlem. Haarlem is a city of 

about 150,000 inhabitants located 20 km west of Amsterdam. 

The Venkelstraat is a street through a residential 

area and part of a main bicycle route to the city centre 

(Figure 6.1). The street is reconstructed as a bicycle street 

and became the first bicycle street in the city. Design and 

use of this street have been evaluated (Kho, 2006). 

• Through car traffic should be inhibited; only local cars 

preferably use the streets. 

• The number of cyclists should be large compared to the 

number of car users. 

• Cyclists have priority; they don’t need to go aside in order 

to allow a car behind them to overtake. 

• The design of the street clarifies that the street is a bicycle 

street and not a main road for cars. Bicycle streets 

should not be too wide. In the Netherlands, bicycle streets 

usually are paved with red asphalt that is typically used 

for bicycle paths. 

The number of cyclists of a bicycle street should be high 

but not too high. If the number of cyclists exceeds 600 per 

hour and per direction, there is hardly room for car users. 

In that case cars should be admitted only for a short road 

section, no longer than 300 m (Andriesse and Hansen, 

1996). 

Andriesse and Hansen recommend allowing cars to use 

a bicycle street in only one direction (unlike the bicycles). 

The corresponding transverse section is 3.5 to 4 m (Andriesse 

and Ligtermoet, 2006). If cars are allowed to 

move in both directions, the proposed width is about 4.5 

m. Generally, Dutch bicycle streets exist of a roadway in 

the middle paved with red asphalt and additional narrow 

lanes at each side that could be paved with bricks; the 

Figure 6.1: Location of the bicycle street Venkelstraat. 

6.1 Design 

The Venkelstraat has the typical design for Dutch bicycle 

streets. There is a wide lane with red asphalt in the middle 

of the road and there are two narrow side lanes at each 

side, paved with bricks. Cyclists are assumed to use the 

red lane in the middle, the side lanes give cars enough 

space to come across each other (Figure 6.2). The street 

is accessible in both directions to both cars and cyclists. 


The evaluation is restricted to the design and the way the 

62 63

street is used by both car drivers and cyclists. Impacts on 

travel behaviour like modal choice are not studied. Questionnaires 

were distributed to people living at or near the 

Venkelstraat and to pupils and employees of the Rudolf 

Steinerschool, a school for both primary and secondary 

education. The school is located at the southern end of 

the Venkelstraat. The number of distributed questionnaires 

was 1500: 750 to residents of the street and surroundings, 

and another 750 to pupils and employees of 

the school. The number of returned questionnaires was 

335, about 200 from the residents and about 130 from 

those connected to the school. Most questions in the 

questionnaire were multiple-choice, though there was 

room for additional remarks and suggestions. 

The results demonstrate that people generally are satisfied 

with the bicycle street; 58% of the respondents 

reported that they were satisfied or very satisfied, 16% 

was dissatisfied or very dissatisfied. The remaining respondents 

had no clear opinion. An even higher share 

of respondents was satisfied with the look of the street 

(72%), where only 10% was dissatisfied. A majority had 

the opinion that noise nuisance was not affected, while 

more respondents that felt that noise nuisance decreased 

(21%) than increased (6%). According to most respondents 

current provisions regarding speed ramps and lighting 

are sufficient. 

The respondents were asked whether they use the street 

as a car driver or as a cyclist. Something less than a half 

(42%) report using the street as a car driver, a large majority 

(91%) indicate that they use the street as a cyclist 

or moped rider. Both car drivers and cyclists were asked 

about the way they use the street. 

Most car drivers (82%) are aware that cyclists have priority 

and need not to go aside for overtaking cars. Interestingly, 

a large share of cyclists (61%) answer that they 

actually go aside when a car approaches on the back. 

Nearly half of the car drivers (44%) cannot conclude from 

the design of the street that cyclists have priority. Most of 

the car drivers (61%) use the street wrongly: they drive 

fully on the red lane in the middle. The share of cyclists 

that know that the red asphalt is dedicated for them is 

smaller, only 55%. These results indicate that many users 

do not know how the bicycle street should be used. 

This can be explained by the fact that 67% of the respondents 

had not read information about the bicycle street. 

Both communication and design of the street should be 

improved. 

A number of respondents suggested that marking the 

middle of the street would increase clarity about function 

and usage. The street gets the look of a bicycle path and 

gives car drivers the feeling that they have to ride at the 

right side of the road. The municipality complied with this 

suggestion and put road signs informing that the street 

is a bicycle street. Figure 6.3 displays the situation after 

marking and signposting. 

General conclusions from the Venkelstraat evaluation 

are that a good communication with users is important; 

that users generally are satisfied with the street; that the 

way the street has to be used is not self-evident; and that 

marking the middle of the street and signposting increase 

clarity about how the street should be used. 

With respect to marking the middle of the street, it should 

be added that a number of bicycle streets in the Netherlands 

are provided with a spherical median that can be 

driven over by vehicles. 

Figure 6.3 Venkelstraat Haarlem after marking and signposting 

(source: Ligtermoet, 2006) 

Figure 6.2: Venkelstraat in Haarlem (source: Kho, 2006) 

64 65

7 Interurban highway for cyclists 

7.1 Context 

Rather recent are initiatives to promote interurban cycling 

as a means to relieve the congestion on motor highways. 

In the Dutch pattern of urbanisation there is a large share 

of interurban commuting on distances below 20 km. If 

these commuters go by car they use the motor highway 

system, and congestion on these highways has been a 

growing problem for years. Regional car trips (on relatively 

short distances) appear to contribute substantially 

to the congestion problems. Now the idea is that by making 

high quality bicycle connections in some highway corridors 

a number of commuters would be prepared to shift 

to cycling to avoid the congestion on the highways. This 

type of projects is implemented within the framework of 

the project ‘Fiets filevrij’ (Cycle Congestion Free), and 

combines infrastructural improvements of interurban bicycle 

infrastructure with promotion activities to seduce 

‘short distance’ car drivers to shift to cycling. 

and using highway A13. 


Fiets Filevrij is one of the 40 projects of the ministerial 

programme ‘File proof’ (Congestion proof). The project is 

coordinated by the Fietsersbond (Dutch Cyclists’ Union) 

and provides a framework for co-operation of road authorities 

that are relevant in the specific situation (municipalities, 

provinces, national government if applicable) and 

interested other organisations to jointly implement the 

interurban bicycle highway, including a dedicated marketing 

programme to seduce car drivers to shift to cycling for 

one or more times per week. 

7.4 The costs 

In principle all road authorities will pay the costs of interventions 

on their own roads. The national government is 

prepared to pay 20% of the costs of the project. 


Figure 7.1: Map showing in green the implemented bicycle 

highways, in blue the planned ones and in ochre 

those for which a feasibility study is going on. 

7.2 Design 

Figure 7.2: Bicycle highway Rotterdam – Delft 

We take as an example the route between Rotterdam and 

Delft. The route is a direct and ‘fast’ bicycle route. The 10 

km route is for the most part implemented as an off road 

bicycle track, and it has only a few intersections and no 

traffic lights at all. So cyclists will have no delay, even 

more so because at the few remaining intersections the 

cyclist has right of way. The bicycle track is two directional 

and for most parts conveniently wide and paved with 

(smooth) asphalt. It provides an alternative (by bicycle) 

for motorists commuting between Rotterdam and Delft 

In a recent model study Goudappel Coffeng (2011) calculated 

that investments in fast bicycle routes will have societal 

benefits with regard to mobility, economy, health and 

climate. The calculation was done for the 27 planned and 

implemented bicycle highway projects shown in Figure 

7.1, covering 675 km in 8 provinces. These projects will 

create fast and undisturbed bicycle connections between 

(sometimes a chain of) towns and villages. The calculations 

are executed by Goudappel’s National Transport 

Model and based on the assumption that the average cycling 

speed increases from 15 km/h to 18 km/h. A summary 

of the most striking model outcomes suggests that the 

construction of these bicycle highways would result into: 

• 0.7% less trips by car and 1.3% more trips by bicycle in 

the Netherlands at large, suggestion and put road signs 

informing that the street is a bicycle street. Figure 6.3 displays 

the situation after marking and signposting. 

• Decreased car use resulting in an annual reduction of 80 

million kg CO2 emission. 

• Improved public health resulting in yearly savings of € 

100 million on health care and avoidance of premature 

deaths. 

• A decrease of travel delay in rush hours of 15,000 h per 

day, which would result in savings of € 40 million per year. 

Bicycle highways are very suitable for the relatively fast 

electric bicycles (type pedalec) which are becoming increasingly 

popular. The study calculates that if 50% of 

the bicycles would be pedalecs, the effects would have 

been two- to threefold, based on the assumption that the 

average speed of these pedalecs would increase from 

20 km/h on regular bicycle tracks to 24 km/h on bicycle 

highways. 

66 67

8 Synthesis of Dutch findings and implementation in other 

countries. 

The Netherlands have a tradition of high bicycle usage 

and a long history of policies that promote cycling. Because 

the intention to promote the bicycle raised the demand 

for knowledge on the effectiveness of alternative 

policy measures, a large number of studies in the field of 

cycling have been undertaken. These created a wealth 

of knowledge that is partly inaccessible for non-Dutch 

speaking persons. It is valuable to transfer this experience 

and knowledge to other countries and to provide 

recommendations for a good cycling policy. 

Recommendations for good cycling policies that are 

based on the Dutch research are limited in one respect. 

The bicycle research carried out in the Netherlands was 

conducted when adequate cycling facilities and networks 

as well as a bicycle ‘culture’ already existed all over the 

country. Consequently, studies on the effectiveness of 

policy measures give information that is valid in this situation 

and may not be (fully) applicable for countries where 

the bicycle is hardly used. Other differences between 

the contexts in other countries and the contexts in The 

Netherlands may reduce the transferability of the Dutch 

results. 

This section gives an overview of the main conclusions 

that can be drawn from the Dutch experience and research 

and which recommendations can be given to other 

countries. 

8.1 Conclusions 

General conclusions are: 

1. Policies influence bicycle use and can be effective in 

sustaining high levels of cycling and strengthening cycling 

culture. 

The influence of policy measures is evident from many 

studies. One of the most influential of these studies is 

the benchmark study of the Dutch Cyclists’ Union that 

showed a positive correlation between bicycle use and 

the quality of cycling facilities in Dutch cities. 

The interesting question what the preconditions are for a 

cycling culture as far as they are in the sphere of policy 

can not be answered fully by the reviewed studies. Certainly, 

the ‘technical’ requirements that a) the locations 

people visit generally are accessible by bicycle and b) 

there is an infrastructure for selling and repairing bicycles 

are preconditions. We assume that a proper level of safety 

is another one. The strong decline of bicycle usage in 

some countries after the increase in car usage, leaving a 

marginal role for the bicycle, might be explained by the 

fact that cycling became too risky due to the increasing 

car volumes or that at least the perception of the risk discouraged 

people to continue cycling. 

In the Netherlands, generally five main requirements for a 

good bicycle network are considered: coherence, directness, 

attractiveness, safety, and comfort. These are directly 

derived from findings of the extensively evaluated 

projects in The Hague, Tilburg, and Delft. 

Sometimes the bicycle benefits from restrictive policies 

applied to alternative modes. Most notably are car restraint 

policies in the centres of many Dutch cities, and a 

severe parking policy. We know little about the effects on 

bicycle use for urban trips, but these could exceed occasionally 

the impacts of bicycle-directed policy. 

If there is a cycling culture, policy and culture will influence 

each other. Infrastructure design is both part of building a 

‘traffic culture’ and the expression of that culture. The cycling 

culture has obviously many more elements to it than 

only the infrastructure: bicycle parking facilities, bicycle 

related services, good transfer facilities to accommodated 

cycling as a feeder mode to the rail system, cycling 

people on adds for very diverse products (showing the 

normality of cycling), the relative absence of ‘dressed up’ 

cyclists in lycra, etc. Yet the ‘Dutch school’ road design is 

clearly a substantial part of the Dutch ‘cycling-inclusive’ 

traffic culture. The provision of good quality bicycle infrastructure 

is partly because bicycle use is high, and bicycle 

use is high because there is a good cycling infrastructure. 

2. Investments in bicycle infrastructure have generally a 

larger impact on the qualitative perception than on measurable 

quantities. 

This conclusion is valid for both safety and bicycle use. 

Generally, the perceived improvement of safety was 

significant but was not (fully) reflected by the observed 

decrease in accidents and casualties. Correspondingly, 

the general appreciation of improved infrastructure is 

substantial (not in the least because of the improved perceived 

safety), while the observed increases of bicycle 

use are moderate. 

The main reason why the studies never show a large 

increase in bicycle use is that the investments brought 

about improvements of infrastructure that was already 

adequate. The improvements occur gradually, even in the 

case of a city-wide project like the Delft bicycle network. 

68 69

Additionally, habitual behaviour may hamper behavioural 

changes, at least in the short run. It is general thought that 

habituated travel behaviour is reconsidered only after a 

significant change in relevant conditions, and the gradual 

improvements in bicycle conditions (that are often implemented 

step by step) individually might be too limited. 

3. Involvement of citizens and interest groups in an early 

phase of a project creates civic support and enlarges the 

probability of successful implementation. 

The demonstration projects in Tilburg and The Hague had 

to be completed in a short time frame due to political reasons 

and there was limited time for informing and consulting 

citizens and interest groups. Insufficient involvement 

of these was an important reason why the planned bicycle 

route in The Hague never has been completed and even 

completed parts of the route later were abolished. In the 

Delft project, a good example of early involvement, the 

project had a wide support and large a number of measures 

could be implemented without severe opposition. 

4. Travel time is the most important explanatory variable 

for route choice. 

Cyclists are strongly motivated to minimize travel times 

(for utilitarian trips). Travel time has a significantly larger 

impact on route choice than does travel distance. Consequently, 

cyclists will take a longer route if the travel time is 

(expected) to be shorted. 

age experienced as more safe than one sided two-directional 

cycle tracks. 

Cyclists on two directional tracks cycling closest to head 

on car traffic felt significantly less safe than cyclists cycling 

near the sidewalk. Upon that, at intersections car 

drivers tend to overlook cyclists coming from the ‘wrong’, 

i.e. unexpected direction. 

References 

AGV (1994) Evaluatie fietsroutenetwerk Delft, thema verkeersveiligheid, 

Adviesgroep voor verkeer en vervoer, 

Nieuwegein. 

Andriesse, H.C., I.A. Hansen (1996) De fietsstraat, 

Onderzoek naar fietsverbindingen door verblijfsgebieden, 

Technische Universiteit Delft, Delft. 

Andriesse, R., D. Ligtermoet (2006) Fietsstraten in hoofdfietsroutes, 

toepassingen in de praktijk, CROW-publicatie 

216, Ede. 

Boggelen, O. van, R. Becht (2001) De Fietsbalans, Gemeentelijk 

Fietsbeleid Vergeleken, Verkeerskunde 52 (9). 

Bovy, P.H.L (1984) Evaluatie fietsroutenetwerk Delft, 

Routekeuzegedrag en netwerkgebruik, vooronderzoek, 

Delft. 

Bovy, P.H.L., D.N. den Adel (1987) Evaluatie fietsroutenetwerk 

Delft, Mobiliteit in middelgrote steden, Delft. 

Bovy, P.H.L., M.J.P.F. Gommers (1988) Evaluatie fietsroutenetwerk 

Delft, Voor- en nastudie verkeersonveiligheid, 

Delft. 

CBS (1994, 1) De mobiliteit van de Nederlandse bevolking 

in 1993, Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek, Heerlen. 

Diepens en Okkema (1993) Evaluatie fietsroutenetwerk 

Delft, thema 1 en 2, rapport 93.158/221, Delft. 

Diepens en Okkema (1994) Evaluatie fietsroutenetwerk 

Delft, eindrapportage, rapport 93.181/258-2, Delft. 

Economisch Instituut voor het Midden- en Kleinbedrijf, Rijkswaterstaat 

(1981) Onderzoek winkelomzetten demonstratie-fietsroutes 

Den Haag – Tilburg, Eindrapport. 

Fietsersbond (2001) Eindrapport Fietsbalans, Delft, 

Utrecht. 

Fietsersbond (2010) Fietsen in cijfers, Utrecht. 

Gemeente Tilburg (1975) Tilburgers op de fiets, een 

demonstratieproject deel 1, Tilburg. 

Gemeente Tilburg (1977) Tilburgers op de fiets, een 

demonstratieproject deel 2, Tilburg. 

Goeverden, C.D. van, T. Godefrooij (2010) Ontwikkeling 

van het fietsbeleid en -gebruik in Nederland, Proceedings 

Colloquium Vervoersplanologisch Speurwerk, Delft. 

Gommers, M.J.P.F., P.H.L. Bovy (1987) Evaluatie fietsroutenetwerk 

Delft, Routekeuzegedrag en netwerkgebruik, 

eindrapport, Delft. 

Goudappel en Coffeng, Rijkswaterstaat (1980) Gebruiksonderzoek 

demonstratie-fietsroute Tilburg. 

5. There is a positive relationship between the continuity 

and recognisability of bicycle facilities and the appreciation 

of these facilities by cyclists. 

With regard to the demonstration bicycle routes in The 

Hague and Tilburg it were the elements underlining the 

recognisability and continuity (like the red coloured pavement) 

that were mentioned spontaneously by cyclists as 

‘being a very good idea’. 

6. Cyclists have a clear preference for undisturbed and 

convenient cycling conditions. 

Also the possibility of safe and undisturbed cycling (by 

providing segregated facilities) was mentioned spontaneously 

by many respondents as a big advantage of the 

routes in The Hague and Tilburg. 

7. Two sided one-directional bicycle tracks are on aver- 

CBS (1994, 2) Statistisch jaarboek 1994, SDU, ’s-Gravenhage. 

CROW (1993) Sign Up for The Bike, Design manual for a 

cycle-friendly infrastructure, CROW, Ede. 

CROW (2006) Design Manual for Bicycle Traffic, CROW, 

Ede. 

DHV, Goudappel en Coffeng, Rijkswaterstaat (1980) Gebruiksonderzoek 

demonstratie-fietsroutes Den Haag – 

Tilburg, Samenvattend rapport. 

Dienst der Gemeentewerken ’s-Gravenhage (1978) 

Voorlichtingsbrochure ‘Demonstratie-fietsroute Den Haag 

1975-1979’, Den Haag. 

Dienst der Gemeentewerken ’s-Gravenhage (1984) Evaluatie 

demonstratie-fietsroute, Den Haag. 

Goudappel en Coffeng, Rijkswaterstaat (1981, 1) Technische 

evaluatiestudie demonstratie-fietsroutes Den 

Haag – Tilburg, Eindrapport. 

Goudappel en Coffeng, Rijkswaterstaat (1981, 2) Technische 

evaluatiestudie demonstratie-fietsroutes Den 

Haag – Tilburg, Bijlagen. 

Goudappel en Coffeng, Rijkswaterstaat (1981, 3) Onderzoek 

verkeersveiligheid demonstratie-fietsroute Tilburg, 

Eindrapport. 

Goudappel en Coffeng, Rijkswaterstaat (1981, 4) Onderzoek 

verkeersveiligheid demonstratie-fietsroute Den 

Haag, Eindrapport. 

Goudappel Coffeng (2011) Fietssnelwegen 1 maart: Wat 

levert het op, Toelichting berekeningen, Goudappel Coffeng, 

Deventer. 

70 71

Grotenhuis, D.H. ten (1987) The Delft Cycle Plan – 

Characteristics of the concept, Proceedings Velocity 87, 

CROW, Ede. 

Hartman, J.B. (1987) How to provide a cycle network of 

good quality, when minimizing costs, Proceedings Velocity 

87, CROW, Ede. 

Horst, A.R.A. van der, R.M.M. Sijmonsma (1978) Gedragswaarnemingen 

op de Demonstratie Fietsroutes in Den 

Haag en Tilburg, 1.: De ontwikkeling van een meetinstrument, 

Instituut voor Zintuigfysiologie TNO, Soesterberg. 

Instituut voor Zintuigfysiologie TNO, Rijkswaterstaat 

(1981) Onderzoek vormgeving demonstratie-fietsroutes 

Den Haag – Tilburg, Samenvatting, conclusies en aanbevelingen. 

Instituut voor Zintuigfysiologie TNO, Rijkswaterstaat 

(1982) Onderzoek vormgeving demonstratiefietsroutes 

Den Haag – Tilburg Eindrapport. 

Katteler, H., O. Förg, W. Brög (1984) Evaluatie fietsroutenetwerk 

Delft, Verplaatsingsgedrag, vooronderzoek, Instituut 

voor toegepaste sociologie & Sozialforschung Brög, 

Nijmegen. 

Katteler, H., O. Förg, W. Brög (1985) Evaluatie fietsroutenetwerk 

Delft, Marges voor het fietsgebruik, vooronderzoek, 

Instituut voor toegepaste sociologie & Sozialforschung 

Brög, Nijmegen. 

Katteler, H., E. Erl, O. Förg, W. Brög, J. Kropman (1987) 

Evaluatie fietsroutenetwerk Delft, Vervoermiddelgebruik 

en keuzebeperkingen, Instituut voor toegepaste sociale 

wetenschappen & Sozialforschung Brög, Nijmegen. 

Kho, P.J. (2006) Fietsstraat Venkelstraat, Uitslag gebruikersonderzoek, 

Gemeente Haarlem, Haarlem. 

Kropman, J., J. Neeskens (1986) Evaluatie fietsroutenetwerk 

Delft, Plantagebrug, verwachte effecten, Instituut 

voor toegepaste sociale wetenschappen, Nijmegen. 

Ligtermoet, D. (2006) Fietsstraten, het modieuze voorbij, 

Een overzicht van nieuwe toepassingen, Fietsverkeer nr. 

14. 

Ministerie van Verkeer en Waterstaat (1977) Demonstratie-project 

fietsroute Tilburg, The Hague. 

Ministerie van Verkeer en Waterstaat (1998) Eindrapport 

Masterplan Fiets, Samenvatting, evaluatie en overzicht 

van de projecten in het kader van het Masterplan Fiets, 

1990-1997, The Hague. 

Ministry of Transport and Public Works (1986) Evaluation 

of the Delft Bicycle Network, Summary report of the 

before-study, The Hague. 

Ministry of Transport and Public Works (1987) Evaluation 

of the Delft Bicycle Network, Final summary report, The 

Hague. 

Ministry of Transport and Public Works (1993) Facts 

about cycling in the Netherlands, The Hague. 

Mobycon, Fietsberaad, Ligtermoet & Partners, Ministerie 

van Verkeer en Waterstaat (2009), Cycling in the Netherlands. 

MuConsult (1993) Lange termijn effecten fietsroutenetwerk 

Delft, Mobiliteitseffecten: Samenvatting, Utrecht. 

Rijkswaterstaat Dienst Verkeerkunde, Instituut voor Zintuigfysiologie 

TNO (1980) Demonstratie-fietsroutes Den 

Haag / Tilburg – Studiegroep vormgeving, Eindrapport 

gedragsobservaties. 

Schafer, A. (1998) The global demand for motorized mobility, 

Transportation Research A. 32 (6), pp. 455-477. 

Schneider, F., P. Mayerhofer, J. Kiesewetter (1988) Ein 

Simulationsmodell für Oberösterreich: Eine Untersuchung 

wirtschaftspolitischer Massnahmen anhand eines 

nach Sektoren disaggregierten ökonometrischen Regionalmodells, 

Universitätsverlag Rudolf Trauner, Linz. 

Transecon (2003) Deliverable 5, Socio-Economic Impact 

Assessment, Newcastle. 

Van den Broecke, Rijkswaterstaat (1980) Belevingsonderzoek 

demonstratie-fietsroutes Den Haag – Tilburg, 

Samenvattend rapport. 

Van den Broecke, Rijkswaterstaat (1981) Evaluatie van 

opzet, organisatie, uitvoering, demonstratie demonstratie-fietsroutes 

Den Haag – Tilburg, Amsterdam. 

Velde, R.R. van der, E. Bos (2008) Shared space Haren, 

Evaluatie en integratie, Concept, Grontmij, Haren. 

Wilmink, A. (1987) The effects of an urban bicycle network, 

results of the ‘Delft project’, Proceedings Velocity 

87, CROW, Ede. 

72 73

SECTION FOUR: RECOMMENDATIONS

The recommendations are divided in 3 sections which 

represent the research packages developed in the project 

Interventions to the Bicycle Infrastructure. 

Bike Infrastructures 

The results indicate that fast connectivity, attractive landscape 

and safety – in this order of relevance – are strategic 

dimensions of a design solution that must be taken in 

consideration by architects, planners and engineers. 

Statistic analysis re¬veals how the relationship between 

age group and travel purpose can further enhance future 

biking infrastructures, for example younger cyclists are 

more likely to be travel¬ing to study or school, whereas 

the older cyclists are trav¬eling to work. Therefore future 

infrastructures could cater for this division creating faster, 

safer and less congested bike lanes. 

When deciding to implement or improve a bike infrastructure, 

the particular qualities and potentials of different 

bike typologies should be analyzed in order to decide 

what kind of bike infrastructure would be appropriate to 

be implemented. 

Different typologies or a conjugation of typologies can be 

ef¬ficiently used for commuting. Again, what seems to be 

important is how fast the infrastructure connects the cyclists, 

how attractive is the landscape and how safe it is to 

ride a bike in the infrastructure. 

National Survey 

For the period 2010-2014 it is expected that more than 

2 billion Danish kroner will be invested in bike-promoting 

initiatives in Denmark. Some projects are inventive by 

testing out new initiatives and the magnitude of projects 

alone represents a golden opportunity to obtain valuable 

knowledge upon the cycling effects of various bikepromoting 

initiatives. This could significantly improve the 

basis for the future prioritizing of bike-promoting projects. 

Performing such evaluations requires that before/after 

registrations on relevant parameters is performed. 

The national questionnaire indicates that the municipalities 

only to a limited extent perform before/after registrations 

that allow scientifically based before-after studies of 

effect to be performed. Consequently, it seems relevant to 

build an incentive structure that ensures that the municipalities 

make such registrations – especially when initiatives 

with little or none existing documentation of effects 

are implemented. 

The national Cycling Fund holds promise of such an incentive 

structure, as those receiving financial support 

from the funds must make evaluations of the effects of 

the supported projects. However, in this case it is highly 

unfortunate that no systematic evaluation program/ 

scheme has been implemented. Setting up standards 

for the evaluations would allow for comparison of effects 

between projects and furthermore it would enable the application 

of meta-analysis to uniform projects. The latter 

would significantly improve the quality of the evaluations 

and the estimates of the effects, making it possible to test 

whether or not the effects are significant. Furthermore, it 

also makes it possible to test, if the effects of given projects 

are homogenous, thus producing knowledge reflecting 

if the effects varies with local characteristics, project 

details, geography etc. 

Consequently, it can be recommended: 

1. That an incentive structure for performing evaluations 

of effects is implemented, e.g. by demanding that projects 

which receive financial support from the government are 

implemented, alike test projects requiring dispensation 

from current legislation such as allowing right turn for cyclists 

in the red-phase at signalized intersections. 

2. That a systematic evaluation scheme is implemented 

ensuring that meta-analysis can be applied in order to 

estimate the likely effects of given treatments, the significance 

of effect and the homogeneity of effects. 

Consequently, it can be recommended: 

1. That an incentive structure for performing evaluations 

of effects is implemented, e.g. by demanding that projects 

which receive financial support from the government are 

implemented, alike test projects requiring dispensation 

from current legislation such as allowing right turn for cyclists 

in the red-phase at signalized intersections. 

2. That a systematic evaluation scheme is implemented 

ensuring that meta-analysis can be applied in order to 

estimate the likely effects of given treatments, the significance 

of effect and the homogeneity of effects. 

Dutch References 

From the Dutch experience and research a number of 

recommendations can be given to other countries. 

1. The promotion of bicycle use is only credible and successful 

if cycling is a practical, relatively fast and convenient 

mode of transport. We recommend the five main 

requirements for planning and designing bicycle infrastructure 

that are generally adopted by the Dutch professionals: 

coherence, directness, attractiveness, safety, 

and comfort. 

2. Promotion of the bicycle should include improving the 

perception of the conditions by (potential) cyclists. Improving 

the perception of conditions results in increased 

bicycle use beyond the increases associated with improving 

the actual conditions. 

3. Minimizing travel times between origins and destinations 

is important in designing bicycle infrastructure. First, 

the detours compared to crow-fly distances should be 

small, implying a high density of the cycle network. Second, 

the average speed that cyclists can achieve should 

be high and delays at traffic lights and other bottlenecks 

should be minimized, for instance by bicycle-friendly 

phasing of traffic lights and giving right of way to cyclists 

at intersections. 

4. Urban bicycle routes should preferably be traced 

through traffic restrained areas because cyclists prefer 

undisturbed and convenient cycling conditions. 

5. The Dutch studies give information about when segregation 

of cycling facilities is preferable and when not. 

There is an ongoing international debate on the usefulness 

and need of segregated facilities. It is well known 

that a certain type of (often masculine) assertive cyclist 

activists, mainly in Anglo Saxon countries, challenge the 

need of segregation, often with road safety arguments. 

The lessons from the Dutch studies on this point are: 

• Generally, segregation is preferred if there are large differences 

between the speeds of the different road users 

and traffic volumes are fairly high. In particular, off-road 

bicycle paths are highly desirable for busy main roads, 

both for safety reasons and undisturbed travelling. The 

bicycle paths should be comfortable and have sufficient 

capacity for uncongested cycling. In urban conditions, 

two sided one directional cycle tracks are generally preferred 

to one sided two directional tracks. Only when one 

sided two directional tracks substantially reduce the need 

to cross busy roads, should this be considered the best 

solution. 

• In the urban context bicycle and motorized modes can 

be mixed on condition that traffic volume is not too high 

and speeds are harmonized (i.e. car speeds are limited 

to the speed of the bicycles). Bicycle streets and shared 

space solutions are good examples of mixed facilities that 

meet the quality requirements for cycling. 

6. A good design of intersections is essential. Intersections 

are the most important cause for delays and most 

accidents where cyclists are involved happen at intersections. 

Specific design elements such as table crossings 

are recommended to accommodate safely the right 

of way for cyclists. The ramps of these crossings should 

be about 5 m from the edge of the cycle track so as to 

promote a proper interaction between car drivers and cyclists.

BIKE INFRASTRUCTURES 

Edited by VICTOR ANDRADE, HENRIK HARDER, OLE B. JENSEN, JENS MADSEN

Aalborg Universitet Bike Infrastructures Report Silva, Victor ... - VBN

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?