Montreuil, France
2019
In 2019, the Dutch Cycling Embassy and experts Stefan Bendiks (Artgineering) and Bas Govers (Goudappel) travelled to Montreuil, France for a ThinkBike Workshop.
Situated in the eastern suburbs of Paris, Montreuil is home to 110,000 residents. Its density of 12,000 people per square kilometer makes it the fourth most populous suburb in Paris.
The workshop primarily focused on hardware improvements, complemented by a public screening of the enlightening film “Why We Cycle”, presentations and a panel discussion led by the Dutch experts. These additional events aimed to foster community involvement in the development of cycling infrastructure.
We had the opportunity to speak with Stefan Bendiks to delve deeper into how the ThinkBike Workshop paved the way for the creation of a Dutch-inspired cycle path in Montreuil.
The ThinkBike Workshop began with an important talk by representatives from the local government. They explained how the neighbourhood, which wasn’t initially wealthy, experienced an increase in prices due to a large number of residents moving in, leading to socioeconomic disparities.
There were big infrastructure projects happening too, like extending a tramway line and a new metro line. These changes made it easier for people to move in, but it also hiked up prices and increased the population.
They realized they couldn’t accommodate all that growth simply by focusing on cars. There was a need to rethink the mobility system in response to population growth and demographic change, with a particular focus on migrants and families.
In addition to those challenges, of course, there were the more general issues of congestion, a lack of parking space, and air pollution. All of these issues were also relevant to Montreuil and Paris in general at that time.
I remember they were really interested in very specific solutions. They came with a list of roads they wanted to have design solutions for. It was almost like a shopping list, and for a two-day workshop, it was quite extensive. They really wanted to jump right into the solution of a specific road or crossing and wanted to have it the ‘Dutch way’.
Together with Bas, we encouraged them to first consider what kind of city they aimed to create and asked them to assess the types of areas they had. With the participants of the workshop, we used Goudappel’s ABC system to designate zones: those with minimal car traffic, the intermediate zones where car traffic still plays a role but cycling and walking are prioritized, and the outer circle where car presence is more accepted.
We helped them shift focus away from specific solutions and encouraged them to think with us: How could we develop an overall urban strategy for Montreuil, along with a mobility plan to support it? Then, once we had that, we can go back and figure out the specific solutions for different roads and crossings.
This surprised them at first, and there was some resistance because they didn’t expect it. In the end, they were really happy that we went through this exercise, and later it also got an important role in the final report. I think it gave them a clear idea to think of mobility questions based on a broader vision of their municipality.
They also had an exercise to look beyond the borders of the municipality and consider connections to other municipalities. We stressed the fact it’s not enough to focus solely on their own municipality. Instead, they needed to include the municipalities around them and determine how they could connect in a useful way. We asked them to think about who they needed to work with to establish relevant relationships and so on. I think that was something that they didn’t really ask for, but it was necessary.
During the workshop, we made it clear we didn’t want them to simply copy Dutch solutions. Instead, we talked about using Dutch principles as inspiration and adjusting them as needed to fit their situation.
We collaborated closely with the civil servants. During the ThinkBike Workshop, they came up with solutions, and we gave feedback. It was important for us to share Dutch principles and explain how we would approach things. Then, they took the lead, sketching out crossings. Sometimes, when we suggested a different approach than what they were used to, they said it wouldn’t work due to certain reasons. This process of brainstorming together and letting them take charge led to solutions tailored to their local needs.
This process of brainstorming together and letting them take charge led to solutions tailored to their local needs.
One major difference we suggested, which Dutch people wouldn’t do, is putting posts in the middle of the cycle paths. We knew they had this issue in France. Without the posts, people would park on the bicycle path or even drive on it, which would require a lot of policing. It’s not ideal, and I’m not a fan of bollards everywhere, but it might be necessary until things change. The main difference lies in the mobility culture. In the Netherlands, you park where you’re allowed to. In France and Belgium, people tend to assume they can park wherever there’s space. It might take some time for this mindset to shift.
One very great change is that the new bicycle lane in Montreuil is made of colored asphalt, just like in the Netherlands, which improves visibility for cyclists. It really adds a Dutch-style atmosphere!
The Director of the of the Department of Public Space and Public Works and Mobility, Medy Sejai, was really the driver behind this project. He had a great leadership, and ensured that the important people, would join the workshop for the two days. He also managed to convince some politicians come. That was amazing! I thought that was really good. We’ve had other workshops, for example, where we didn’t have the feeling that the politicians supported or there were some doubts in the administration.
And as I said, besides some details, I can imagine when you’re cycling there, that it really feels like a Dutch solution. Cyclists are separated from car traffic, there’s continuity, a feeling of safety, some green space. It looks like something where you would allow your kid to cycle to school alone. I think that’s really amazing, because that’s something I didn’t feel when I was there during the workshop. It was still the kind of “survival of the fittest” feeling.
I was also impressed by how they repurposed car lanes. They removed one car lane consistently to create bidirectional cycle paths. When I reviewed the results of the workshop, we had proposed four different models back then: bidirectional bike paths on one side, one-way paths on both sides, and different locations for the strip of trees. But they didn’t just choose one of it. Instead, they combined elements from two solutions to create something even better.
Their solution is actually better than what was proposed back then. We initially favoured one-way paths on both sides, as it seemed more natural to us. But we understand that bidirectional paths save space.
The fact that they didn’t just pick one of the solution, I think is a success of this workshop. We empowered them to continue the process on their own and come up with a solution that truly meets their needs. It’s their solution in the end. So it’s really impressive that they managed to come up with something even better. They did this based on what they discussed and learned with us during the workshop. This shows their ability to further develop a Dutch solution independently. It was truly impressive.