Cycling and Road Infrastructure in Delft

1. Car-free bridges for connectivity: Plantagebrug 

This footbridge right outside the center of Delft was constructed in the 1980s to fill gaps under the Delft Plan of 1980. The plan called for the 500-meter spacing of all bike lanes. Plantagebrug is one of many footbridges that enhances connectivity, as the canal, a natural barrier, becomes crossable for both cyclists, moped-drivers, and pedestrians. Unlike some of the older bridges in Delft, in which staircases block commuters on wheels from easily crossing over, this footbridge allows for all forms of non-car transport. Right around the corner is a rather complicated vehicle and tram crossing, which is suitable for the 'strong and fearless' participants in traffic. Due to the complicated markings and lack of a cycle track, this crossing intimidated me more than some in my hometown of Miami (and I'm not even a cycling novice). In fact, I'm pretty certain I crossed it incorrectly as a cyclist and confused the drivers. Plantagebrug offers a much safer alternative, especially for cyclists who prefer low-stress environments. I highly recommend taking this route to connect to neighborhoods across the canals bordering Delft Centrum to the north and east.

Plantagebrug helps reinforce a continuous grid structure despite canal barriers

Tracks with concrete barriers separate pedestrian traffic and moped/ bicycle traffic 

Mopeds, electric bikes, and bikes share a path

2. Multifunctionality and Self-enforcing design: Ruys de Beerenbrouckstraat

Tucked in the quiet neighborhood across Phoenixstraat, this street ought to earn the gold star of traffic planning for its multi-functionality and safety. Contrary to official Dutch street guidelines, which try to simplify the functionality of streets and to the province's desires to make this a through street for 50 km/h traffic for better access to shops, residents wanted to preserve their neighborhood and maintain speed limits of 30 km/ h. The street, as photographed below, is clearly the result of a compromise between residents and the province. The road improvement on Ruys de Beerenbrouchkstraat demonstrates achievement of the following critical success factors for a safe cycling system

• cohesion
• directness 
• attractiveness 
• safety 
• comfort

According to the CROW 2007 Dutch Bicycle Design Manual, separated bicycle tracks
 must be constructed for higher speed roads of 50 km/ h. A pull out bus route prevents
buses from blocking traffic while stopping for smooth traffic flow. 

Self-enforcing design, such as elephant feet, warn approaching drivers to lower their speeds and be aware of cyclists crossing the road. This also functions as ROW for cyclists. The square pavement works as a visual cue as well. 

The median in the middle keeps cars within their lanes and moderates speeds.
Parallel parking also produces side friction, so cars cannot zip through.  

Most of the time, we consider it impossible for higher speeds to be compatible with road safety. Despite its through street function and speed limit of 50 km/ h, it has managed to become a safe street through intense traffic calming measures. Road widths were reduced, cycle tracks on each side were constructed, and bus pullouts enable continuous traffic flow. Crosswalks are well marked with a different color and texture differences using bricks, zebra lines, and mild road raising. Raised barriers separate the lanes on the two-way road. Traffic can pass through easily, but road speeds are reduced automatically. Redundant signage, such as yield signs, and pedestrian and bicycle crossing and path signs ensure that drivers watch out for cyclists. It would be phenomenal to see something like this added to more through streets and their intersections in North America. 

Water Management in the Netherlands: Visit to the Maeslantkering Sea Walls

Water Management in the Netherlands

How is it possible for a country to exist when two-thirds of it lies below sea level? The Dutch are the experts, as they have managed to hold back the sea and settle more than five million people on land that would not exist without human innovation and technology. Based on their delta management plan, massive steel sea barriers,  and green-frastructure for natural flood control, the Dutch have adjusted their technology and methods to past failures and have learned to adopt new designs and technologies on the job.

In the Netherlands, the attitude toward water management is that they have little choice but to invest money in flood and storm surge protection. In addition, excess water must be dealt with, using parking garages or river beds as reservoirs and even compensating farmers to flood their land.  Although it seems everything is under control, the Dutch continuously face challenges when keeping the ocean at bay. Saltwater intrusion is an increasing concern, as it threatens drinking water quality. River dykes can crack causing floods, especially when the peatland gets too dry due to excessive draining. With increasing urbanization, a changing climate which will bring more rainfall, and sea level rise, there are fewer porous surfaces for the water to infiltrate and a greater volume of water to manage. In addition, much of the Dutch population wants to live by the water, and so, displacement of people triggers concern among water management experts. Soft infrastructure is becoming an ever popular option (i.e., coastal wetland reclamation), but other large-scale solutions are required.

The majority of Dutch land is vulnerable to flooding from storm surges and sea level rise

Sea Wall Technology Design  and Operation 

These tubes fill with water enabling the wall to sink and provide extra weight to hold back the ocean

 The farthest right sea wall design was selected among multiple submissions by private companies

According to our tour guide, a trained civil engineer at the Maeslantkering sea walls west of Rotterdam, in 2050, rivers will have to discharge three times more water. In addition, the Netherlands will see higher flow over a shorter period of time. Therefore, infrastructure systems must manage water at peak moments. The sea wall site we visited consisted of 15,000 tons of steel on each side of the gate, which is the double the weight of the Eiffel Tower. What's really important is investing a lot in the very beginning. Construction costs and maintainability are important when choosing the design. To avoid 700 billion damages cost from one catastrophe, Dutch water managers and engineers invest 1 billion annually in their sea gate technology. After all, these sea gates help protect at least half a million people. These workers bear a lot of responsibility in keeping major urban centers in Western and Southern Holland safe. In emergency situations, workers are provided with food, coffee, and tea, but no beer. 

A miniature model of the Keringhuis sea walls shows the complex design involved 

The thickness of hollow tube surfaces is 54 cm 

The design chosen for its innovative features, which won over multiple designs submitted by companies, consists of tubes, which fill up with sea water so that they can be lowered into the water and add extra weight to hold back the sea. Safety is a major concern. While the ball joint was made "with the precision of a watchmaker", according to our tour guide, the computer systems also represent a vital component of the sea gates for their ability to calculate when the next high tide will come. Even the Titanic's sinking in 1912 serves as a failure that can be learned from; all compartments on the gates are now water-tight, not just the ones at the bottom. The hydraulic engine has worked for 40 years, and due to the circular electric grid, even in the case of power failure, the technology should operate when needed. When asked about impending sea level rise, our tour guide appeared nonchalant. "This is easy" he said, "all that must be done is raising the concrete pad below the gates. It isn't a cheap construction project, but the Dutch have little choice but to find answers through constant experimenting with engineering and design.

Coming from Miami, FL, part of a metropolitan region with five million people, I know that sudden sea level rise and flooding is a serious concern. Copying and pasting the Dutch solution of sea barriers is definitely unreasonable, as Miami's land surface consists of porous limestone. Pretty simply, it is a sponge which will soak up all the water from the ocean. In this case, even a full-proof sea barrier cannot keep back the ocean. I asked our tour guide if Dutch water managers have worked with other cities on the issue of sea level rise. He said that Dutch technical institute students can work with students from other cities (Galveston, Texas is one such place where such a partnership unfolds as we speak) to create place-based solutions based on experimental water management approaches. Just like the Dutch have to, each locality has a unique situation and its people must learn what works and what doesn't while on the job. Miami, in my opinion, might be able to consult the Dutch on creating floating cities, although it might only be used to buy some time before the city becomes uninhabitable. Nonetheless, if there's one thing we can learn in Miami from the Dutch, it's that we must learn to live with water, since we cannot always fight it.

How to improve i-Thrive

Throughout this blog, I discuss how to build sustainable communities in a broader sense, but is it possible to quantify improvements to ensure design characteristics match up with those of a thriving 'sustainable' neighborhood? iThrive is one such method. As a growth management excel-based tool, it can help engineers and planners assess the sustainability benefits of development by a land use and transportation design evaluation. The Excel document contains three sheets: metrics, guidelines, and a summary page.

The metrics measure the following:

• degree of land-use mix 
• density 
• proximity to services 
• street connectivity 
• land use evaluation
• road network and sidewalk 
• parking 
• aesthetics and human scale 

We visited a suburb of the Hague, Ypenburg, a master- planned development on airport land from the 1990s, and applied these criteria. Although the neighborhood felt denser than your average suburban neighborhood in North America, it did not fulfill my image of a thriving neighborhood. The neighborhood, to put it bluntly, lacked any form of vibrancy and excitement. Even the Dutch professional mobility planners we spoke to considered it to be boring.

The neighborhood of Ypenburg would do well on iThrive metrics for its floor area ratio (FAR) and units per hectare (UPH), and proximity to transit, services, and greenspace

iThrive, though comprehensive, does miss a few important details which define a sustainable community. For instance, CPTED (crime prevention through environmental design) ought to be a valued factor. In addition, the metrics miss social equity, such as how much social housing or social mix a neighborhood has, as well as how diverse it is racially, culturally, or by age. Economic factors might also be left out; how can one ensure that commercial development is sustainable, especially since traffic patterns can impact how well local businesses are frequented?

In devising mobility and land use designs for a neighborhood in Kelowna, British Columbia, different groups applied iThrive metrics to their projects. Our scores ranged from 60% (at lowest) to 75% (at highest). All of our designs had something unique to them, and I would consider each a thriving sustainable community model. However, the iThrive score depends on subjective evaluation of performance on metrics and could contain biases based on the individual inputting the data. Some might be more optimistic about meeting the requirements, while others are critical. iThrive is a valuable assessment tool, but it needs to improve in its metric valuation system or be paired with other assessment tools such as EIA and Healthy Community indicators. 

Does pop-up urbanism really work?

This weekend, I had the chance to travel to some temporary/DIY/pop up/experimental urbanism sites in Amsterdam and Rotterdam where tactical architecture and urbanism is practiced and alternative futures are envisioned. FabCity, a month-long ecovillage innovation exhibition on Jawa Eiland in Amsterdam, DeCeuvel, a brownfield- shipyard converted to a cafe and cultural incubator, and the International Architecture Biennale Rotterdam- The Next Economy exhibit were among the three major visitations. At the IABR- The Next Economy, I attended a debate concerning the value of informal, coined 'pop up', urbanism and architecture interventions in shaping our lifestyles and the urban fabric. FabCity and DeCeuvel are examples of the plus and downsides of pop-up urbanism. The former might be criticized for being completely idealised consisting of various unrelated projects, such as a site for 3D printing, shipping container and modular housing exhibitions, solar technology, guerilla gardens, and biodigesters, with only a few weeks to generate any lasting impact in the city. The latter has been the result of occupying old industrial land in a relatively overlooked neighborhood in North Amsterdam under a ten-year lease.

Spatially reimagining the city- IABR: The Next Economy 

IABR visual exhibitions envision how we will deal with today's urban problems

Pop up projects around the world are exhibited at IABR- The Next Economy

Based on the concerns raised by Rene Boer, the urban researcher behind Failed Architecture, a participant in the IABR Pop Up City debate and my own observations at FabCity, I understand that pop-up urbanism as a solution to many of our urban problems is a bit naive. Rene claims that we must be cautious not to praise pop-up urbanism too often, as projects are often only of temporary, incidental nature  that cannot be scaled and rather symbolic of receding government responsibility to actively deal with urban problems. Pop up interventions can sometimes facilitate further gentrification of a neighborhood, especially when in the form of 'politically correct hipster pastoralism', as a member of the audience noted. Is pop-up ethically correct? Does it reflect the interests of the community when an outside architect comes in to start the project? Can pop-up interventions, like the shipping container homes on display at FabCity really make a difference in an increasingly unaffordable city where more density and smaller living might be required, or is this just a band-aid solution? Does pop-up urbanism inherently entail class bias, in which those with more resources and capacity (i.e., those from middle-income backgrounds), can start and continue a project because funding for these is usually limited and distributed from a variety of sources?

Shipping container experiments at FabCity

Although we cannot remain uncritical of pop-up interventions, there was consensus among the debate participants that pop-up (which they preferred to refer to as informal urbanism), has value in improving participation in the city, establishing new networks where ones didn't previously exist, and rethinking the process of planning in the city beyond simply placemaking.

3D printer technology on display at FabCity  

Founders of the DeCeuvel project from Delva Landscape Architects and Space and Matter, claimed that pop up was a political exercise that enabled creating a new imaginary for an industrial area in Amsterdam. The temporary and experimental occupation and re-envisioning has led the brownfield shipyard to be converted to a cultural incubator, in which houseboats are now used as workspaces for small-scale architecture collectives with a walking path connecting them to each other and to the De Ceuvel cafe and a "workship" in which daily cultural activities like yoga and storytelling are held. Meanwhile, phytoremediation has been adopted to deal with the contamination.

Converted houseboats to workspaces for small architectural collectives at DeCeuvel

For the leader of Hotel Transvaal, a project in which ethnic groups helped reshape vacant areas in a neighborhood helped fill the gaps of a master plan, reimagine the neighborhood in a way that was reflective of its cultural diversity, activate its business networks, and raise knowledge about the area's ethnicities, signals that pop-up inventions are a tool for improving participation to facilitate urban improvement. This stands in contrast with bottom-line driven urban development and bulldozing urban renewal.

Lastly, a representative of an office development project claimed that pop-up urbanism can affect the way spreadsheets are handled by real estate development. For instance, his projects help identify the multiple potential social services of a project beyond just the economic benefits that can be reaped. It enriches our understanding of process and methodology so that we can avoid dividing communities in favor of suppporting inclusivity in urban development.  Pop up urbanism is part of a bigger story in planning and architecture, in which we question how we 'do planning', who the city belongs to, and question our current business and ownership models that dictate spatial use and distribution in our built environments. Normally, urban imaginaries are fed by fear and neoliberalism, but pop-up urbanism, although no panacea, is refreshing in that brings different stakeholders and enables us to rethink what is possible. 

The Role of Impact Assessment for Infrastructure Planning

After hearing from Dr. Michelle Angeles, an environmental impact assessment (EIA) expert at TU Delft and the UNESCO-IHE Institute for Water Education, I was reminded of the complexity and importance of mitigating adverse social and ecological effects of infrastructural improvement projects while taking advantage of the positive ones. Even a bicycle path project, which may seem to have good intentions, can produce negative impacts. Through impact assessment, these effects can be controlled so that noise pollution and other impacts from construction and waste are held to a tolerable level. The decision on where to place infrastructure can also produce hostility from those using or living nearby the site, especially if their daily life patterns are suddenly changed; for instance, through a traffic detour, expropriation of certain land parcels, or disturbance of wildlife and plant habitat.

Project managers must realize that effects from a project are not only direct, but also indirect, and often cumulative. Interactions occur, and uncertain consequences ensue. Thus, the process of impact assessment amounts to valuing not only economic outcomes and other predictable outcomes and impacts but also positive and negative social and ecological ones. Developing a problem tree, often used in the evaluation phase of development projects, can be a helpful exercise. Mediation and negotiation with involved or impacted stakeholders also enhance the planning and construction process to ensure more desired outcomes. Although this incremental process can be slow, repeating stakeholders' concerns to stakeholders who disagree with a project due to its impacts can clarify underlying fears by those stakeholders about the project. This could lead them to reconsider their negative opinions on a project to avoid excessive NIMBYISM. In addition, the impact assessment process requires one to value not only monetary outcomes, but also consider the positive social and ecological ones. For example, a project that may have an unquantifiable social benefit of health and wellbeing or an overall cost reduction in health-related expenditures.

Big Data and Visualization for Mobility Network Planning

When we think of large-scale transit systems, consisting of heavy rail, light rail, tram, and bus, and cycling traffic, we might think solely of the vehicle fleet and stations, but big data is what has enabled systems in the Netherlands to grow increasingly full-proof and customer-driven. After visiting the headquarters of HTM, the company tasked with providing bus and tram services to the Hague and its surrounding areas, transit planners exposed to us the ability of big and open-source data to increase accountability for service quality and transparency for transit users. 

By using AVL and EBS data, HTM is able to compare actual arrival times to nominals, as well as constantly monitor and record information on system punctuality, lost trips, service level, operating speed, and infrastructure interactions at utmost precision. Their information, obtained through sensors, is updated on ovradar.nl, an open data platform. Using this information MDRH, the transit authority for the Hague which appoints HTM as a service deliverer can fine it in case expectations are not met, as well as set benchmarks for system performance. The OV-chip card, a Netherlands-wide SmartCard system, record important and detailed user information from every trip with a unique identification number. This provides valuable information about volumes, turnover, capacity, distance travelled and forecasts so that HTM can make adjustments to their services accordingly. Data collected is also represented visually through maps, such as heat maps to visualize the frequency and capacity to adapt the system. 

While every transit system has something unique to offer to the world of transit improvement and no system is without flaws, cities around the world ought to investigate the Dutch transit system's quality control, transparency, and accountability through its advanced data collection methods. 

HTM trams run frequently and punctually, as capacity and information about arrivals are constantly monitored 

Houten, NL: The "Complete Community" Suburb?

After taking a train ride a third of the way across Holland eastward, a few stations past Utrecht Centraal, we arrived in a small 50,000 person 'suburb' known as Houten. Houten exhibits the features of a 'complete community' , with around 5,000-10,000 of the working age population commuting and about the other half remain in Houten as working age adults- mixed age community. The neighborhood provides the very amenities Americans and Canadians might expect for their family-friendly suburb, with higher density housing and more mixed-use commercial development. In addition, within a ten-minute train ride (or 5 miles), one can conveniently reach the center of Utrecht.

Urban Form

Cauliflower Model of Neighborhood Design

Unlike the American suburb bounded by the superblock, Houten consists of a cauliflower neighborhood design and represents the ideal example for self-containment. Car traffic circles around the neighborhood, while a bike path forms an access route directly through the neighborhood north to south, perpendicular to the train route which runs west to east. The main train station forms a higher density, commercial development. The bike path that intersects this center transitions into medium density residential areas, around 40 dwelling units/ acre, well above the 'sustainable community' density targets outlined in Canada (around 33 du/acre). Smaller walking paths and sidewalks form a complex grid pattern within the circle. According to a City Lab article on the neighborhood, non-car travel dominates with approximately 66% of commuting being made multi-modally by car, bike, or transit. No wonder it seemed as though more cars were parked than driven! In fact, the park ones looked like they had barely ever been driven.

Unlike the American model of suburban development, in which commercial trip development and cul de sacs block connectivity, Houten sets an example by enabling permeability and connectivity through small archways in commercial midrise buildings, narrow pedestrian walkways, tunnels, and stairwells/ramps. Architecturally and landscape design wise, these also form interesting blocks and paths. For cyclists and pedestrians, that means there is rarely a dull moment while out and about in this neighborhood.

Along the main bike route access road, car traffic is occassionally prohibited

Stairwells are equipped with cycle ramps to enable cyclists' mobility 

Green and Stormwater Management Features

Landscape architects, behold: Houten's streets and sidewalks are the creme de la creme for managing stormwater in the most natural methods possible. Most sidewalks contain permeable pavements, through crevices, so that rainwater can seep through the cracks, removing most pollutants. In addition, natural infiltration prevents fish kill, as stormwater does not move rapidly and at high temperatures through the conventional storm drainage system. It also ensures the rainwater ends up in groundwater systems. Many streets lack curbs. Rain-gardens border them. This way, water that does not infiltrate through the pavement cracks can feed into the nearby vegetation. Rather than using asphalt as the primary pavement material, grass and gravel are popular materials, enabling better infiltration.

The neighborhood, while more compact than the American suburb, is well-endowed in green open space. Unlike many of the suburban parks in North America, many of the children and parents in this neighborhood actually frequent the various patches of open space. In addition, the open space  is more than just a bland field of grass. It contains a small basketball court, a sand pit for soccer games, and a miniature playground. On all sides, it is surrounded by multi-family row housing. Eyes on the street clearly enable its surveillance. 

The residential streets are bordered by abundant green space. 

 permeable pavements and curb-less streets enable best infiltration practices 

Housing Types, Architectural Features, and Transit 

A labeled mixed use building containing 'workspaces", "lounge and food" , housing and a bank. 

Closer to the train station, commercial development consists of mixed-use midrise housing of around four or five stories. Some buildings consisted of labeled multiple uses, such as a restaurant, shops, and housing. Multi-functionality has evolved as an important trend in Dutch planning practice in response to land scarcity in the Randstad area, an agglomeration of four cities (Amsterdam, The Hague, Rotterdam, and Utrecht). 

Throughout the rest of the neighborhood, more row and duplex housing, in addition to a few semi-detached homes, creates residential neighborhood density. The residential neighborhoods are connected to the city not only by bike but also by bus. The bus station is equipped with a good electronic signage post, resembling the higher-tech transit system improvements at Maple Ridge, BC, a newer community in Metro Vancouver.

Bike routes are demarcated through color-coding

Electronic Schedule Display at a Houten bus stop

Signage exists at every major intersection to provide orientation 

Although our group of Canadian civil engineering and planning students appreciated the efforts of Houten, we all wondered if these ideas could be transferred to North American communities. Given the rarity of such a neighborhood in North America, a neighborhood with these Dutch design elements would appeal to many people, especially families. This, in turn, would hike up the housing prices. In a place as unaffordable as Vancouver, how can such communities be designed or existing suburbs retrofitted so as to remain inclusive? When bringing these ideas over to our continent, we should keep affordability in mind.  

Read more on the Houten case study and sustainable suburban communities here

Scheveningen, NL Case Study: Creating Connectivity for a Recreational Bike Path

Overview

The Scheveningen area along the North Sea, provides valuable assets to the local economy of the Hague by attracting around 16 million visitors per year. Attractive recreational facilities exist along the beach; for example, the Strandweg, a separated bicycle path along the beach strip and the Westduinpark, a sand dune area along the shore. Currently, the Strandweg cycling path to the south of the roundabout ends abruptly at the Buitenhaven, a harbor access route for large ships. Across the harbor to the south is the Westduinpark, a unique natural reserve which provides protected habitat for both plants and animals. With a total area of approximately 245 hectares, this makes it one of the largest green spaces in the Hague. Activities which people engage in at the Westduinpark include bicycling, walking/hiking, horse riding, and enjoying the beach. Linking this natural park with the Scheveningen strip would be important as it would enlarge the recreational area on the beach and would make it easier to get between the two attractions.  Currently, a clear link between Vissershavenweg, a major boulevard perpendicular to the Strandweg, and this sand dune park is missing. Construction of a crossing across the harbor would be one possibility. The other option would be to clarify a bicycle route along the harbor past the multi-modal marina promenade.

Introduction and Scope

Our aim is to create a smooth continuation of the recreational bike path to the south. We are tasked with connecting the path that currently starts at the roundabout on Vissershaven Boulevard around or across the harbor to the other Westduinpark, an expansive sand dune park, on foot on the side of the harbor. The challenge in connecting the Strandweg path to the Westduinpark is that a link would either require construction via a direct crossing, or clearing up a longer route along existing bike routes around the marina with signage and cycling path improvements. The access channel to the port of Scheveningen is utilized by large fishing vessels and tall ships, making it difficult to construct a bike and pedestrian crossing spanning this channel. However, getting around the 80-metre channel via bike path, as opposed to constructing a crossing, would require a detour of approximately 10 minutes by bike.

Impacted Future Developments

The future land use plans of Scheveningen Haven harbour indicate development of ZuidDuin. This development would include both apartment buildings and single family townhouses. The development would be situated in the pink shaded area of the picture below. This development aims to convert part of the harbour into a mixed living area for living, while still maintaining the fishing community. The estimated construction dates are 2018 and beyond. Equipping this development with safe cycling infrastructure is a must.

Options for Development

Option A: Crossing Construction Across Buitenhaven Linking Strandweg end to Westduinpark

Crossing construction from Strandsweg bicycle path to the Westduinpark across the port entrance channel, Boutenhaven, which spans approximately 80 metres (Google Earth, 2016), would be the quickest and most direct way to link both recreational facilities.

Pros

• This option is in line with distance, destination, and direction, three important planning principles to ensure connectivity in a transport network.
• Constructing either a bridge or gondola system would provide a landmark feature for the Scheveningen beach strip, which may attract more locals and tourists to the site and encourage use of the crossing of the north-south connection
• Applying striking architectural design could be done through a pivoting, drawbridge, or a vertical-lift bridge, like Rotterdam’s Old Bridge. This would also enable a comfortable, flat path and views for cyclists;
• A gondola connection might be cheaper to construct with compartments large enough to hold a few bicycles at a time and could attract attention as a unique design solution.

Cons

• A bridge or gondola is costly and time-consuming to construct and maintain;
• For the bridge option, challenges might be faced during planning and construction phases, especially when determining the appropriate kind and dimensions to enable large and tall ships to pass through;
• A gondola connection has rarely been done across waterways, and thus might require more research into structural engineering methods. 

  
  

  Option B: Emphasizing Existing Paths around Buitenhaven Marina from Vissenhavn Boulevard Roundabout to Westduinpark

The second option would consist of emphasizing the existing bike connection from the Strandweg around the whole port to the Westduinpark. Currently, cyclists must resort to taking isolated bike paths to arrive at the park, but as we observed, the route is poorly marked and lacks consistent, safe, and well-defined cycling infrastructure.

Starting from the roundabout that intersects Strandsweg and Vissershavenweg, cyclists must follow a bicycle lane outside of the parking lane. This lane renders cyclists vulnerable, as they must ride between the traffic flow and parked vehicles and face risks such as dooring and side-swipe collisions. In addition, a portion of the cycling route between Schokkersweg through Zeeluisweg and the promenade along Dr. Lelykade is missing. A continuation is blocked by the presence of a stairwell, which deters cyclists. A ramp could be added instead. Beside this missing link, the portion along Schokkersweg lacks a two-way cycle track, where eastbound cyclists must ride on the roadway with cars. Next along the proposed route, cyclists can safely travel along a promenade beside the port’s marina. After the promenade, the cyclists can follow a path of two-way bicycle tracks all the way to the entrance of Westduinpark.

This is a satellite image of the Buitenhaven, with the proposed bicycle route included. The green area on the left is the Westduinpark. The following various colours represent the current states of the route: Blue - A bicycle lane between traffic flow and parallel parking along Vissershavenweg; Yellow – On road cycling eastbound, bicycle lane westbound, turning into a set of stairs; Green – A wide multi-use promenade between Doctor Lelykade road and the marina, and Pink – Two- way bicycle tracks along various roads from the promenade to the Wieringsestraat access to the Westduinpark.

Pros

• This would be a more comprehensive, lower cost, and lower risk option as a major construction project would not be required;
• Improving connectivity around the marina could enhance the tourist attractiveness of a larger area of Scheveningen, especially bringing more visitors to the promenade;
• Cycling improvements would enhance safety and wellbeing of cycle paths and thus, could prevent collision-related injuries that might already occur in this area on a regular basis.

Cons

• This option is less direct for cyclists and would take as much as ten minutes longer to arrive at the Westduinpark through this cycle route than if a bridge or gondola were to be constructed;
• The roadway improvement along this longer cycle route might warrant additional and unexpected costs, in case certain roadways might require larger alterations;
• There are no significant architectural features that could be used to market Scheveningen on a national, regional, or even global scale, compared to a crossing construction approach;

• Since there is no bridge for the residents of the ZuidDuin community, connection to the wrap around bike route would be mandatory. This could be done quite easily, as perhaps the new bike path could go right through the ZuidDuin development.

Criteria for Final Option Evaluation and Selection

Based on our two options, we arrived at our final decision for the plan to link cycling routes in southern Scheveningen beach strip on the following four criteria: direct and indirect (construction and maintenance) cost, safety of cyclist users, access time, and cyclist capacity. We concluded that Option B would likely do better on most accounts. We broke our set of criteria into two categories based on priority:

Criteria

USER PREFERENCE	ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES
CONSTRUCTION+MAINTENANCE COST	CONSTRUCTION TIME PERIOD
SAFETY OF ROAD USERS (Cyclists/Pedestrians)	CYCLIST/PEDESTRIAN CAPACITY AND ACCESS

Most important criteria:

1. Construction and maintenance costs for Option B would be lower than option A. Option B would require less construction and more maintenance whereas Option A would require both.
2. Safety of Cyclist users would be ensured through Option B as the longer cycling route does not protect cyclists sufficiently and roadway improvement.
3. Capacity and amount of time to access Westduinpark would be about equal for both options. Although Option A would ensure cyclists could get to the Westduinpark from the Strandweg quickest, this is not the case if ships pass through the Buitenhaven frequently, in the case of a movable bridge. With a gondola, during busy times of year, it could take a while to cross due to limited compartment capacity. Option B is also time-consuming on a predictable basis due to the distance required to cycle around the harbor, but improved roadway should absorb high capacity without significant interruption.

Relevant but less important criteria:

5. architectural features

6. user preference

7. construction time period

Conclusion  

After thorough analysis of the various options already mentioned, we have decided that the rejuvenation and clarification of the Buitenhaven bypass bicycle route would be the best solution. This option entails adding better bicycle infrastructure along sections and cleared signage at all junctions and unclear points along the route.

Scheveningen beach has a very user-friendly and scenic boardwalk with separated walking path, two-way bicycling track, on street diagonal parking and a two-way vehicle access road.

This is the boardwalk along the Scheveningen beach.

Above is the Buitenhaven access channel where a vertical lift bridge or gondola would cross

This is an example of a ship utilising the port in Buitenhaven. This ship is very tall at its highest point and would require high clearance and therefore a high gondola

The first section of the bicycle route around Buitenhaven is currently a hazardous bicycle lane bordering on-street parking.