Transcript Geen diatitel - Velo Mondial

How Bicycle Friendly is your city?
Bronze, Silver, Gold or Platinum
4 Steps to
Bicycle Friendliness
•
Sign the charter for Bicycle Friendly Communities
•
Benchmark your city/community with the Velo.Info tool
•
Be granted a bronze, silver, gold or platinum status
•
Be involved in steps for improvement and take action
Why Bicycle Friendly?
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
accessibility & mobility
young people
economics
transport
environment
health
promotion
planning
safety
education and training
urban efficiency
leisure & tourism
Sign the charter
Charter signed by:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Beerse, Belgium
Berlin, Germany
Brentwood, USA
Bursa, Turkey
Cannes, France
Cape Town, RSA
Carrollton USA
Copenhagen, Denmark
Dar es Salaam, Tanzania
Dublin, Ireland
Edinburgh, UK
Gdansk, Poland
Helsinki, Finland
Metuchen, USA
New Orleans, USA
Oulu, Finland
Plovdiv, Bulgaria
Salem, USA
Sandnes, Norway
Schaumburg, USA
Udine, Italy
Winterthur, Switzerland
The Benchmark tool is about:
• Preparing cycling policy
• Planning cycling policy
• Implementation of cycling policy
• Monitoring & Evaluation of cycling policy
Preparing cycling policy
Background Information
•
None collected
•
Data gathered from secondary sources or existing information. Data used may be old or minimal
however.
•
Up-to-date data is collected from primary sources as required by specific projects. No systematic
collection.
•
Up-to-date data is collected regularly (perhaps every five years) on all aspects of cycling, stored
and readily available to city officers. Large quantity of data collected.
•
Data is collected and updated regularly and systematically, perhaps biannually or even more
frequently. Data collected is comprehensive and documented in deliverables, e.g. reports. Data is
collected not only relating to cycling but also in relation to other relevant issues (health, traffic,
environment etc.). Data is collected both generally and relating to specific categories - for
example covering cycle use in general, as well as commuting, cycling for leisure, education,
social trips etc. Data includes a temporal element, perhaps collected according to seasonal
fluctuations and/or by weekday/weekend. Both quantitative (distance of trips, use of bikes carried
by public transport, cycle theft, parking and storage etc.) and qualitative data (why people do/do
not cycle, perceptions of cycling, reasons for not cycling, what might persuade them to cycle
more etc.) is collected.
Preparing cycling policy
Consultation
•
No consultation.
•
No information gathered on user needs.
•
Existing information is gathered from secondary sources incidentally.
•
Information is gathered from primary sources only when specifically needed for a project or when
a concern arises. Passive collection.
•
Good active programme of collation. Information on user needs gathered readily from primary
sources to inform cycling policy.
•
Good, active and widely-based programme. Information is collected actively, regularly and
systematically using a multitude of methods such as surveys, consultation and discussions with
user groups. Information is widely gathered and grouped into different target groups (e.g.
children, commuters, leisure cyclists). Information is used to inform cycling policy.
Preparing cycling policy
Partnership Building
•
No communication.
•
Ad-hoc communication. Low level of consultation taken place. One-way dialogue often common.
Meet only occasionally.
•
Medium level of consultation by senior internal officers, e.g. internal working group. Free flowing
dialogue.
•
Regular cooperation at a senior level with external and internal agencies. Free flowing dialogue.
Partners meet regularly.
•
Regular cooperation and a formal partnership between agencies, sectors and users. Free flowing
dialogue. Partners meet regularly.
Preparing cycling policy
Political Leadership
•
Responsibility for cycling not clear.
•
Led by low level officers.
•
Led by senior officers.
•
Led by top tier of politicians.
•
Led by top tier of politicians in partnership with top tier of officers. There is clear evidence of
political commitment to cycling. Commitment is consistent and sustained and has been wellestablished over several years, both in terms of specific cycling elements and in terms of the
impact of cyclists on wider transport policy, town planning, highway planning and traffic
management.
Preparing cycling policy
Policy Framework
•
Nothing defined - no objectives.
•
Some policy and objectives defined, e.g. road safety related, but nothing comprehensive.
Objectives not prioritised or classified into short-/long-term.
•
Policy and objectives agreed and published but focusing only on transport/cycling - no
consideration of other related issues and no links to other policy areas.
•
Policy objectives agreed, published and have action plan. Clear objectives, both long-term and
short-term. Some indicators set. Defined policy framework.
•
Policy agreed, published and has genuine support of senior officers. Clearly defined policy. Wideranging policy with links between different policy areas recognised (e.g. health, transport,
environment, urban planning). Explicit consideration of the impact of cyclists in wider transport
policy, town planning, highway planning, traffic management policy aims and components. Clear
determination to promote cycling as an integral part of policies in many related areas including air
quality improvement, local environmental quality, traffic-calming, traffic restraint, leisure, tourism,
health promotion, road safety, cyclist training, employer kilometrage reduction and commuter
plans/ Objectives are set, prioritised and defined as long-/short-term. Both numerical and
qualitative targets set. Must be clear evidence of the involvement of a range of users in the
development of the policy framework. Plan shows clear identification of problems and clear set of
realistic objectives produced, consistent with other policy targets. Clear recognition of what is
achievable in both the long term. Prioritisation of objectives. Hierarchy of objectives. Evidence of
review of existing strategy. Action Plan developed that is consistent with other guidance and
transport policies more generally. Clear link between broader objectives and specific measures in
Action Plan. Consideration of Plan's potential links with other strategies - ongoing co-ordination
between strategies.
Planning
Develop Action Plan
•
No plan
•
Efforts underway to develop and produce plan.
•
Plan is in early stages.
•
Plan is currently being developed and has reached middle stages.
•
Plan has been developed but not implemented.
•
Plan has been developed and is clearly defined. It is being implemented. It is ongoing and
constantly evolving - it is not a static process. Plan is connected to other policies/plans and helps
feed and meet other targets. Plan has clear set of targets and activities to be achieved. Must be
clear evidence of the involvement of a range of users in all stages of the development and
implementation of the plan. Plan is realistic about available resources.
Planning
Define Communication and Marketing Plan
•
No communication or marketing plan.
•
Basic communication and marketing plan. Infrequent dissemination of information and occasional
marketing for specific projects only.
•
Regular communication with public using some forms of media only (leaflets/websites).
Marketing on a broad level - not targeted to groups/topics.
•
Regular communication and marketing in most forms of media. Some targeting.
•
Systematic, continuous communication and marketing to all as well as targeted marketing to
specific groups (children/commuters) and specific topics (health/environment). Marketing and
communication focuses both on the general public as well as experts in the field and occurs
through various/all media forms: conferences, leaflets, advertising, awards, competitions etc.
Clear evidence of the involvement of a range of users and on a regular basis.
Planning
Timetable
•
No timetable defined.
•
Basic timetable outlined.
•
Timetable outlined but with emphasis on short-term. Little long-term focus.
•
Clear stipulated timetable indicating priorities and short/long-term objectives.Timetable has clear
prioritised objectives which are both short- and long-term.
•
Timetable is continually monitored and evaluated to assess these timescales and priorities. Clear
idea of continual progress. Potential challenges and problems are systematically considered and
pre-empted in the timetable. Clear evidence of involvement of users in considering potential
challenges and problems, with provision for obtaining feedback from a variety of users including
more and less confident/experienced utility and leisure cyclists, pedestrian and disability groups,
etc. Contains contingency plans. Partners commitment is clearly set out.
Planning
Secure Funding
•
No funding secured.
•
General baseline funding available but not sufficient to do what is needed and not systematically
available.
•
Funding available and secured for cycling schemes but may not be reliable or regular and hence
cannot meet needs. Limited budget for one-off ideas.
•
Sufficient, dedicated and regular funding secured for cycling. Funding can be utilised at the
officer's discretion.
•
Sufficient resources secured. Dedicated budget for plan secured. Funding is reliable, regular,
covers the long-term and supports all aspects of the action plan. All transport projects consider
cycling as part of their development. Recognition that everything that is done can contribute to
the objective of increasing cycling. Additional money available to support new ideas and
innovative projects.
Planning
Consultation
•
No consultation - no involvement of other agencies in the development of implementation of the
plan.
•
City agencies and user groups are invited to comment on ideas for specific tasks or projects
occasionally. Their involvement is not structured.
•
Occasional structured involvement of city agencies and user groups in a commentary role.
•
Regular structured involvement of city agencies and user groups in consultation at the later
stages of the decision making process. Predominantly a commentary role.
•
Other agencies are involved permanently and continually and have a role in consultation in the
early stages of plan and policy development. Advisory and steering role.
Implementation
Staff Structure
•
No one responsible for cycling or responsibility allocated randomly.
•
Have a single junior cycling officer working alone.
•
Have either team of junior officers or a junior officer in several relevant departments across the authority or
a single senior cycling officer working alone.
•
Have a senior level team of officers.
•
Have a senior level team which is distributed across a number of departments at senior level. Every officer
understands that contributing to cycling is part of their objectives. Active cooperation of departments.
Implementation
Staff Training
•
Staff receive no training.
•
There is no structured training although personnel may engage in self-teaching through experience, word of
mouth of colleagues and/or reference to manuals.
•
Staff engage in self-teaching and occasionally attend training and education courses to supplement this.
General training (e.g. project management/finance).
•
Staff regularly attend training and education courses. Training is specifically related to cycling.
•
Staff regularly attend informative courses and conferences. Education is not static but ongoing in an
evolving learning process. Staff are involved and participate in cycling events, user groups and working
parties. There may be an allocated budget for training needs.
Implementation
Tools
•
No tools available.
•
Some tools are available to staff but are not used.
•
Some tools are available for use but are only used by the cycling officer.
•
A large variety of tools are available for use but these are used by the cycling officer only.
•
A large variety of tools are available and are used by all staff, including the cycling officer.
Implementation
Project Delivery
•
Plan is not being implemented.
•
Plan is being implemented, but slowly and with little success.
•
Plan is being successfully implemented but is not meeting timetable.
•
Plan is being successfully implemented and meeting timetable objectives and targets.
•
Plan is a success and is exceeding targets.
•
Plan is running either ahead of, or well to, timetable.
Implementation
Partnership Maintenance
•
No one is pushing it forward.
•
Minimal effort by individuals to ensure maintenance of partnerships and regular communication. Some
partners may not be doing what they are responsible for.
•
Occasional effort is made by a range of agencies to ensure regular communication and co-operation.
Passive.
•
Concerted effort made to ensure partnerships continue to flourish and that communication is regular.
•
Regular, concerted effort by a range of agencies to ensure that all partners stick to their responsibilities,
communication is regular and the partnership flourishes.
Monitoring Evaluation
Monitoring
•
No data is collected for monitoring.
•
Data is collected for specific problems or initiatives only.
•
Data is collected regularly on all aspects of the plan and supplemented by the collection of data for specific
measures.
•
General data is collected systematically on all aspects of the plan and supplemented by the collection of
data on the effectiveness of specific measures. Data is collected in a form enabling accurate monitoring of
plan. Pre and post monitoring.
•
General data is collected permanently on all aspects of the plan and supplemented by data collected on a
wide range of strategic measures that have been implemented. Continual, systematic collection and
monitoring. Wide range of strategic and local indicators used. Data collected in a form suitable for accurate
monitoring of plan and benchmarking with cities. Data collected is widely available in the public domain.
Trends are monitored. Progress is monitored over time. Pre and post monitoring. Clearly defined indicators
for measuring progress against objectives. clear link between proposed performance indicators and
objectives.
Monitoring Evaluation
Evaluate Action Plan
•
No evaluation.
•
Evaluation of some data regarding specific measures but no overall evaluation. No assessment of the data
in the context of the action plan and its original targets. No relationship of the data to the action plan.
•
Evaluation of the plan as a whole supplemented by evaluation of specific measures. Evaluation of most
measures using the data. Some relationship of data to action plan and original objectives.
•
Evaluation of the plan as a whole supplemented by evaluation of specific measures. Evaluation of the data
against the plan's initial targets and objectives. Pre/post evaluation of measures.
•
A thorough evaluation of all aspects of the plan - both the plan as a whole and specific measures. All
aspects are evaluated and checked against their original targets and objectives. Constant quality control.
Constant evaluation both in the short- and long-term. Analysis and evaluation is used to inform and create
recommendations as to the next stage and general future progression of the plan. Plan and guidance is
updated according to the results of the evaluation. Pre/post evaluation. Data evaluated is used directly to
feed into review of action plan and monitoring of action plan. Results are provided and used to engage in
benchmarking initiatives with other cities.
Monitoring Evaluation
Reporting
•
No reporting.
•
Basic reporting of results evaluation.
•
Some tools are available for use but are only used by the cycling officer.
•
Data gathered and evaluated and presented in reports which are widely available in the public domain.
Monitoring Evaluation
Review Action Plan
•
No review.
•
Review of plan is published yet predominantly ignored and not used to feed into future ideas.
•
Review of plan is published and regularly updated but is not used to inform new ideas or develop new
actions.
•
Review of plan is regularly updated and informs new ideas.
•
Review is regularly updated following close and regular monitoring and evaluation of the action plan. New
actions and timescales regularly come out of the review.
Total Result
Current status for: ‘your city’
Total score: pending
Date: 02-06-2005
Benchmark Check by Accredited Consultants
Award Ceremony
2005 Awards
•
•
•
•
•
•
Rome
Brussels
Helsinki
Derry
Odense
Malmö
Bronze
Silver
Gold
Gold
Platinum
Platinum
steps for improvement
Preparation
•
Background Information
•
Consultation
•
Partnership Building
•
Political Leadership
•
Policy Framework
Planning
•
Develop Action Plan
•
Define Communication and Marketing Plan
•
Timetable
•
Secure Funding
•
Consultation
Implementation
•
Staff Structure
•
Staff Training
•
Tools
•
Project Delivery
•
Partnership Maintenance
Monitoring and evaluation
•
Monitoring
•
Evaluate Action Plan
•
Reporting
•
Review Action Plan