Promotion of cycling as a public transport mode

(from an NGO point of view)

Dr Piotr Kuropatwinski Polish Ecological Club (East Pomeranian Branch) University of Gdansk Department of Economic Policy May 2008

Contents

      Author’s profile Perception of cycling Dilemmas of urban cycling policy Cycling and public transport – carrying and/or parking Principal challenges Recommendations

Author’s profile

   

Dr of economics (specialised i.a. in economics of transition and change management strategies) Attended 5 Velocity congresses on cycle planning

(Graz-Maribor, Edinburgh-Glasgow, Paris, Dublin, Munich) Member of the Steering Committee of the Gdansk Cycling Investment and Promotion Project Responsible for Pomeranian Cycling Strategy

Perception of cycling (sport and not tranSPORT)

      Marginally important Unsafe and risky (for pedestrians and decent motorists) recreational gadget Should be kept off the carriageways Costly (low benefit to cost ratios) Vehicle for the poor no-hopers Increases in cycling levels will be achieved only at the expense of walking traffic

Changing perception of cycling in non-cycling Europe

     Cycling is irrelevant for urban transport (like walking…) Cycling as recreation acceptable Cycling and cyclists a problem Cycling (an irrelevant part of the solution) but cyclists a nuisance

Cycling and cyclists invited to solve the problem(s)

Some urban problems that cycling helps to solve

      Congestion/envir. pollution/noise Lack of car parking spaces Traffic safety/ public security Social exclusion Urban sprawl

Civilisational diseases resulting from a sedentary life style

Dilemmas of urban cycling policies

    Certain basic questions (areas where dilemmas are identified) Possible solutions Arguments for non-intuitive solutions Conclusions

    

What to maximise while realising a cycling policy in an agglomeration?

Length of dedicated cycling routes in km No. of supporters of cycling network construction (no. of those who vote for „us”?) Share of cycling in the modal split?

?

Number of people who understand the sense of sustainable urban mobility policies that include not only honey but also vinegar, who make reasonable transport choices and house location decisions

Whose „space” do we use while creating cycling infrastructure:

The users of:      walkways?

carriageways?

car parking places?

green areas?

areas used for other purposes?

The means that we have at our disposal we use first of all to:

    Build dedicated cycle tracks (separated from all other traffic) Take into account the interests of pedestrians and cyclists at all transport and hydrotechnical investment projects Improve ways of overcoming the ‘barrier effect’ of fast/intensive road traffic for non-motorised users Audit the cycling infrastructure and policy with the participation of daily cyclists and certified cycling policy auditors ?

Conclusions

  While realising cycling policies we maximise the number of people who understand the use of honey and vinegar measures for various transport options, infrastructure and spatial planning decisions Dedicated resources should be devoted for audit, promotion and construction of key elements of infrastructure (low hanging fruit) for non-motorised users (pedestrians, cyclists and eco-mobility chain users) and

not only

for the construction of dedicated cycle routes

Cycling and public transport – carrying

   Buses – commuters and promotion but subject to European restrictions (in USA very popular and financed partially from public funds) Local trains – commuters and recreational users Long distance trains – valuable cycling tourists – above average incomes, above average education, above average spending in local economy

Bike&Ride facilities

     Reduce the risk of theft May be financed from Park&Ride fees Anchor the traffic calmed, non motorised traffic zone Promote sustainable urban transport plans Attract European funding

Bike&Ride facilities in and near Munich No. of B&R stands in and around Munich 60000 50000 40000 30000 20000 10000 0 21900 4700 26600 Munich (in 04/2005) 24470 28270 3800 Region (in 12/2002 ) 46370 8500 Total 54870

current

planned

Total

27 % 32 %

General level of cycle traffic in comparison to commuters to rail stations

22 % Total to station 18 %

8 % 10 % Holland

Denmark

2 % 1 % UK.

UK aim to 2012

Results after two years • Increase in use by 120% • 21% less abandoned bikes • 25% less cases of cycle theft • 11% changes from cars to bicycles • insufficient no. of places in 2 locations

700 600 500 400

Parked bikes

300 200

X 1000

100 0 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

Potential of the B&R in the Tricity

10 min Piechotą R = 0.8 km 10 min Rowerem R = 3.2 km

Public bike systems

   Increasingly popular in former low cycling countries (e.g. France, Spain, Luxemburg) Often managed by street furniture and advertising companies (e.g. JCDecaux, ClearChannel, Nextbike, DBahn) Quality of management of utmost importance

Lyon

2.000 bicycles

Principal challenges

   Over-protective, uncertainty avoidance attitudes among traffic planners preventing innovation Insufficient experience in partnership co-operation among NGOs and public transport operators Low level of trust and short – term attitudes

Recommendations

     Learn from a plethora of internet and IT sources ( www.ecf.org

) Nominate a cycling officer (with an NGO experience) Take part in a Velocity congress (Brussels, May 2009) Visit a cycle friendly agglomeration Initiate a BYPAD process

Thank you for your kind attention  [email protected]