3. A Right to Recreation: Provincial Policymakers Design Cycling Networks

Abstract

“Actually, the construction and maintenance of cycling paths is a government task for municipalities,” a journalist wrote in 1949. “It is fortunate that this Twente organization, founded on January 6, 1917, has taken this governmental work upon itself because otherwise, the condition of many cycling paths in Twente would almost certainly be a lot worse than it is now.”1 He praised the Twente cycling path organization for its valuable service to society – but also implicitly critiqued local government for ignoring a public task. Constructing 1,000 km of cycling paths in the eastern region of Twente had not been easy: local municipalities invested very little, and funding had to come from elsewhere. Both tourists and commuters were served: Twente had a signif icant textile industry, so to provide mobility options for its workers, major industrialists sponsored path construction through the Chamber of Commerce. The region also received small sums from the tourist organization (ANWB), the tourist board (VVV), the district water board, the farmers union, the agricultural loan bank, and dairy factories. The plethora of contributors reveals the broad support for cycling infrastructure in this prominent textile region. By the late 1940s, a growing chorus of voices called for local authorities to take up a larger role in cycling governance and not leave it all to the energy and initiative of others. Finally, the 1930 call from the Loosdrecht accountant with which our story started seems to resonate: building cycling path should be the government’s task. Some of the earliest policymakers to realize this were in the province of Drenthe. Wanting to take up the construction of cycling paths as a state task, policymakers decided to establish a cycling path organization in 1940. At their founding meeting, a key member of the successful sister organization in neighboring Twente (in the province Overijssel), L. Vincken, advised Drenthe “to concentrate not only on paths with a recreational interest, but also on utilitarian paths [utiliteitspaden] to obtain f inancial support from residents.”2 Vincken’s underlying strategy was opportunistic: get funding for recreational cycling paths by stressing cycling paths’ economic uses. Hendrik