cycling, an essential part of sustainable transport

Cycling, an essential part of y g, psustainable transport

Tom Godefrooijf f li iInterface for Cycling Expertise I-CE

tom.godefrooij@cycling.nl

Kocaeli, 7 April 2011p

Contents

C li & l i• Cycling & transport planning• Cycling in historical perspective • Some statistics: the potential• Benefits and co-benefitsBenefits and co benefits• The way ahead

I b d i• It can be done: experiences• Conclusions

• Cycling & transport planning• Cycling in historical perspective • Some statistics: the potential• Benefits and co-benefits

Th h d• The way ahead• It can be done: experiences• ConclusionsConclusions

Problematic trends

I i b i i• Increasing urbanisation• Increasing motorisation• Policies to accommodate this growth

• Lack of moneyLack of money • Lack of space

N i i• Negative impacts

What is transport all about?p

M bili lMobility, travel, transport, access…

• Quality ≠ maximizing km’s and speeds travelled

• Quality: the extent to which mobilitythe extent to which mobility accommodates participationT d bil bli i i• Transport and mobilty: enabling activity

Travel marketmarket(trips)

A ti it

Transport market

• Activitypatterns

• Spatial

(transport systems)

Trafficmarket

• Spatialdistribution

• Spread in time

• Availability

• Effectiveness

(flows)• RoutesSpread in time

• … • Efficiency

• Status

• Speeds

• ManoeuvresStatus

• Costs

Manoeuvres

• Congestion

S f t• … • Safety

• …

Transport planningTransport planning• To meet transport needsTo meet transport needs

• Individuals & society• Maximising contribution of transportMaximising contribution of transport

to social & economic well being• Minimising adverse effects• Minimising adverse effects

• Road safety• Liveability• Liveability• Environment• ClimateClimate• …

Tactical goals

• Goals on travel market• Minimise need for travelling

• Goals on transport market• Optimal mode choice• Short trips: Cycling and Walkingp y g g• Longer trips: Public transport

• Goals on traffic marketGoals on traffic market• Adequate road design, including bicycle

facilitiesfacilities

Role of various modesRole of various modes

• Analysis of strengths and weaknesses• Assess appropriateness modes /Assess appropriateness modes /

transport systems for types of tripsi tili t th• i.e. utilise strengths

• Provide alternatives for problematic use• Not fit for the trip• Too many adverse effects for societyToo many adverse effects for society

Looking for the optimal mixg p

C li j t th d f t t ?Cycling, just another mode of transport…?

C li & t t l i• Cycling & transport planning

• Cycling in historical perspective • Some statistics: the potential• Benefits and co-benefits

Th h d• The way ahead• It can be done: experiences• Conclusions• Conclusions

Historical perspectivep p

C d bi l t h l ll• Car and bicycle technology equally modern

• Both based on the invention of ball bearing in 19th century

• Cycling the dominant mode of transport in the first half of the 20th centuryy

Decline after World War 2

F i l i• Fast growing population• Growing income• Rapid motorisation in 1960’s• Size built up areas 2 9 times enlargedSize built up areas 2,9 times enlarged• Cycling considered as ‘bound to disappear’

M d ki d 1970• Mopeds peaking around 1970

….and renaissance of cyclingy g

• Awareness car related problemsAwareness car related problems• Road safety

E i & il i i• Environment & oil crisis• Liveability• Seizure of space motor traffic

(who’s road is it anyway?)(who s road is it anyway?)• Emerging civil society

C li ’ i i• Cyclists’ organisations

Cycling in European cities in the y g p20th century

What marked this revaluation?

• Roads for allRoads for all• Invention of ‘woonerf’ (early 1970’s)

(Traffic calmed residential areas)(Traffic calmed residential areas)• 30 km/h zones (early 1980’s)• Residential function vs arterial function as• Residential function vs arterial function as

basis for urban traffic planning• Attention to urban quality• Attention to urban quality

• Cities for people, not for cars!

C li & t t l i• Cycling & transport planning• Cycling in historical perspective

S t ti ti th t ti l• Some statistics: the potential• Benefits and co-benefits

Th h d• The way ahead• It can be done: experiences• Conclusions• Conclusions

Mobility in the NetherlandsMobility in the Netherlands

N th l d hi h d it /k 2• Netherlands, high car density/km2• On average 3.2 trips per day:

• 1 trip car driver• 1 trip car driver• 0.8 trip bicycle• 0.6 trip walking• 0.5 trip car passenger• 0.2 trip public transport• 0 1 trip other• 0.1 trip other

• In Top-5 most road-safe countries

Mobility in The NetherlandsMobility in The Netherlands

404550

25303540

Netherlands

101520 Delft

Amsterdam

05

Car PublicTransport

Bicycle Walking

(1995)

Modal split development in Amsterdam

Modal split trips according to distance(km’s) < 7,5 7,5-15 > 15 overall

Car 36% 73% 81% 48%Driver

Passenger23%12%

51%21%

54%25%

32%16%

Public Transport 2% 6% 15% 4%Train 0% 1% 11% 2%

Bus/tram/metro 2% 6% 4% 2%

Bicycle 34% 18% 2% 27%Walking 26% 0% 0% 19%Other 2% 3% 2% 2%Share distance 70% 12% 18%

Most trips are shortp• UK:

1/3 ll t i < 1• 1/3 all trips < 1 m• Average trip length = 7 m

A i l h 8 5• Average car trip length = 8,5 m• USA:

• ¼ all trips < 1 m• Almost ½ < 3 m

• India• 56-72% urban trips < 5 km• Delhi: 45% car trips and 38% PT < 5 km

Safety by numbersy y

Conclusions so far…

M bl i i i• Most problems in cities• Majority of trips within cycling distance• Walking, cycling and public transport are

complementary modesp y

C li & t t l i• Cycling & transport planning• Cycling in historical perspective • Some statistics: the potentialSome statistics: the potential

• Benefits and co-benefitsTh h d• The way ahead

• It can be done: experiences• Conclusions• Conclusions

Why cycling policies?Why cycling policies?

• Giving cyclists fair share of road space• Improving road safety• Offering affordable transport options• Improving quality public space

l i i• Solving congestion• Substitue car trips, traffic demand management• Traffic management• Traffic management

• Air quality management• Mitigating climate changeMitigating climate change• ….

Relation with public transportp p

M ffi i i h di• More efficient option on shorter distances• Shorter travel times door-to-door• Cost-efficient (≠ cheap!!!)

• Feeder mode• Enlarging catchment area PT• Improving door-to-door travel timep g• Requires transfer facilities

Promotion of cycling contributes to the efficiency of the (urban) transport system

Investments in cycling have a profitable cost/benefit ratio

Investments in cycling serve all segments of the population

C li & t t l i• Cycling & transport planning• Cycling in historical perspective • Some statistics: the potentialSome statistics: the potential• Benefits and co-benefits

• The way ahead• The way ahead• It can be done: experiences• Conclusions• Conclusions

Cycling inclusiveCycling inclusive

• More than adding cycle facilities to the road systemy

• Change of entire traffic system• Re-allocation of road spaceRe allocation of road space• Re-allocation of budgets

What it takes…• Many good reasons for promoting cycling…

E i• Environment• Health• Equity• Equity• …

• … but ultimately people only will do so if it is• Safe• Safe• Practical • Convenient• Convenient

Transport planning at 3 levelsp p g

• Overall transport planningp p g• Integrated approach (vision!!)• Change of traditional prioritiesg p

• Network planning & design• Coherent network• Coherent network• Connecting origins & destinationsR d d i• Road design• Meeting needs of cyclists• …where the cyclists are!!!

…and

O i bli & li i l• Organise public & political support• Involve stakeholders• Create a cycling culture

• Awareness campaignsp g• Promotion

• Provide services• Bicycle parking• Bicycle repair• Public bicycles

Quality requirements Q y qcycling infrastructure

• Coherence• Coherence• Directness• Attractiveness• Safetyy• Comfort

Basic safety principlesy p p

Mi i i fli• Minimise conflicts• High speeds & volumes: segregation

• Minimise outcome of conflicts• No segregation: traffic calmingg g g

• Allow for interaction between road users• Make sure they see each other eye contactMake sure they see each other, eye contact• Avoid complexity

C li & t t l i• Cycling & transport planning• Cycling in historical perspective • Some statistics: the potentialSome statistics: the potential• Benefits and co-benefits• The way aheady

• It can be done: experiences• Conclusions• Conclusions

Bogotág

350 k l• 350 km cycle routes• Increase cycling share from 0,5 to 4%• Improved quality of public space

Santiago de Chileg

F ll i i i i ll f• Full participation in all segments of society

• Adoption of ‘cycling’ law• Plan for 690 km cycling routesy g• 250 km implemented • Cycling a presidential priority• Cycling a presidential priority

Sevilla

I l d 120 k li k• Implemented 120 km cycling network• Increase modal share from 0,2 to 6,6% in

4 years• Target 2015: share of 15%g

Turkish cities

S k A l & E ki hi• Sakarya, Antalya & Eskişehir• Developing pilot projects• First step towards cycling-inclusive

policiesp

C li & t t l i• Cycling & transport planning• Cycling in historical perspective • Some statistics: the potentialSome statistics: the potential• Benefits and co-benefits• The way aheady• It can be done: experiences

• ConclusionsConclusions

Conclusions

C li l i l i• Cycling planning = transport planning• Turkey could learn from the mistakes in

Europe and the USA• Substantial potential for cycling…p y g• …if it is made safe and convenient• Examples show that it is possible• Examples show that it is possible

If th iti d it thIf other cities can do it, then why not your city?w y o you c y?