Cycling mobility in The NetherlandsAn overviewTom Godefrooij > Sofia, 5 February 2013
Content>   Dutch context: some statistics>   Cycling-inclusive policy development>   Bicycle parking>   Intermodality>   O...
Dutch context: some statistics
Dutch context> Traditional high levels of cycling> Decrease of cycling 1950 – 1975> Revaluation of cycling from 1970’s on>...
Cycling in European cities in the 20th century
Mobility in the NetherlandsNetherlands, high car density/km2On average 3.2 trips per day:>     1 trip   car driver>   0.8 ...
Mobility in The Netherlands   50   45   40   35   30   25                                         Netherlands   20        ...
Modal split development in Amsterdam
Modal split trips according to distance               (km’s)     < 7,5   7,5-15   > 15    overallCar driver               ...
Mode choice bicycle / car (< 7,5 km)                  Never Sometimes     Never                   car      car,      bicyc...
Faqs and figures > NetherlandsModal split according to distances   Source: RWS/AVV 2005 /MON 2005
Safety and bicycle use                                                                           1975 - now:              ...
Safety: fatalities and risk                        600     60                        500     50                           ...
Safety by numbers
Faqs and figures > NetherlandsNumber of cycles per inhabitant  1,2        1,11   1                             More bicycl...
th     e         N          et                                   0%                                             5%        ...
Cycling-inclusive policy development
Legal context> High way code (RVV)  > Traffic signs  > Behaviour road users> Administrative regulations (BABW)  > Procedur...
EssentialHierarchy of plans                           policy                                           elements Mobility P...
Essential policy elements> Stimulate use of bicycles (7,5 km)> Bicycle route networks  > Meet quality requirements> Approp...
Corner stones of Dutch cycling policies> Cycling: fully fledged mode of transport> Looking for the optimal mix  > Utilizin...
Looking for the optimal mix
Why cycling?Distinguish between> Society  > Policy makers / politicians> Individuals
Policy makers / politiciansSocietal benefits:> Urban quality> Easing congestion> Improving accessibility    > for all cate...
Return on urban transportinvestments, bicycle versus PT                                                                   ...
Individuals> …dont cycle for the environment!!> Practical, efficient and convenient (and fun!)> Safety perception  > Might...
So the challenge is…> …to make cycling  > Convenient  > Practical  > Safe
More quality infra, more cycling                                      0                                    -0,2quality of ...
Content>   Functional design principles>   Basic information>   Networks and routes>   Road sections>   Intersections>   D...
Bicycle parking
Why a bicycle parking policy?> No cycling without parking  > Provide service to existing cyclistst> Good facilities on the...
Quality requirementsUser needs>   At the right spot (close to home or destination)>   Easy to use (ergonomics)>   Not hurt...
Offer various options> Secured  > Guarded  > Lockers  > Automatic systems> Free parking> Users can trade off pros and cons...
Quality requirementsManagerial considerations> Efficient use of space> Easy maintenance> Esthetics of public domain
Space efficiency can be an issue!
Secured bicycle parkingIndoorguarded
Guarded parking
Secured bicycle parking                          Renovated                          facilities:                          B...
SecurityLockers and boxes
Weather protection
Quality markbicycle parking systems
Someexamplesofapprovedsystems
Intermodality
Quality in door-to-door service
Bicycle & Public TransportComplementary modesOnly combined strengths can compete withprivate motorised traffic
Cycling system characterisicsStrengths                    Weaknesses> Flexible                   > Limited radius of actio...
Public Transport system characterisicsStrengths                   Weaknesses> High people carrying      > Inflexible  capa...
Concept of ‘trip chain’> People travel door-to-doorEach PT trip is achain…...with at least threelinks
Feeder trip to NL railway stations                   Access trip        Egress trip                   (home – station)   (...
Enlargement of catchment area                     On the bicycle        2500 m.            500 m.                         ...
Links to look at access      > Access trip transfer    > Transfer bicycle > public transport               > Parking      ...
A chain is as strong as its weakestlink!!    Improving           Strengthening     cycling &            each and  public t...
Services to accommodateintermodality> Right mix of bicycle parking facilities  > Free  > Secured> Bicycles on the train  >...
OV-fiets (PT-bicycle)>   National public bicycles system>   More than 100,000 subscribers>   More than 1,000,000 trips>   ...
Other aspects of Dutch cycling culture
The Dutch
Wide variety of accessories
ConclusionThe Netherlands> Tradition of cycling….> …needs to be fostered> Supported by policies> Cycling infrastructure> G...
Dutch Cycling EmbassyWhat can we do for you?
Who we areThe Dutch Cycling Embassy is a comprehensivenetwork of:> private companies: traffic and infrastructure  consulta...
What can we do for you?> Access to Dutch Knowledge Base> Liaising with extensive Dutch network for:  >   research  >   pla...
Cycling mobility in the Netherlands, Tom Godefrooij
Cycling mobility in the Netherlands, Tom Godefrooij
Cycling mobility in the Netherlands, Tom Godefrooij
Cycling mobility in the Netherlands, Tom Godefrooij
Cycling mobility in the Netherlands, Tom Godefrooij
Cycling mobility in the Netherlands, Tom Godefrooij
Cycling mobility in the Netherlands, Tom Godefrooij
Cycling mobility in the Netherlands, Tom Godefrooij
Cycling mobility in the Netherlands, Tom Godefrooij
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Cycling mobility in the Netherlands, Tom Godefrooij

514 views
367 views

Published on

Развиване на велосипедния транспорт в Кралство Нидерландия. Презентация на Том Ходефрой по време на работното ателие "Мисли велосипедно", 5-6.02.2013г., гр. София. Част от проекта "Всички на колела"

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
514
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
43
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Ordering-Bicycle-Public Transport-combination2. Public Transport: Efficient when there is high demand (high capacity) demand and capacity are not really equal are they?
  • Is this on a repeat of slide 4 or is it talking more abt PT
  • Really cool slide…I hope jeroen says that increasingly in developing countries we are using cars even to make a trip of this distance
  • Cycling mobility in the Netherlands, Tom Godefrooij

    1. 1. Cycling mobility in The NetherlandsAn overviewTom Godefrooij > Sofia, 5 February 2013
    2. 2. Content> Dutch context: some statistics> Cycling-inclusive policy development> Bicycle parking> Intermodality> Other aspects of Dutch cycling culture
    3. 3. Dutch context: some statistics
    4. 4. Dutch context> Traditional high levels of cycling> Decrease of cycling 1950 – 1975> Revaluation of cycling from 1970’s on> National transport strategy 1989 > Equilibrium accessibility, safety and livability > Bicycle Master Plan> Cycling-inclusive planning > Integral part of local and regional transport planning > Re-confirmed in National Transport Strategy 2006
    5. 5. Cycling in European cities in the 20th century
    6. 6. Mobility in the NetherlandsNetherlands, high car density/km2On average 3.2 trips per day:> 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 otherIn Top-5 most road-safe countries
    7. 7. Mobility in The Netherlands 50 45 40 35 30 25 Netherlands 20 Delft 15 Amsterdam 10 5 0 Car Public Bicycle Walking Transport
    8. 8. Modal split development in Amsterdam
    9. 9. Modal split trips according to distance (km’s) < 7,5 7,5-15 > 15 overallCar driver 35% 74% 79% 48% Driver 23% 50% 54% 32% Passenger 12% 24% 25% 16%Public Transport 2% 7% 14% 5% Train 0% 1% 9% 2% Bus/tram/metro 2% 6% 5% 3%Bicycle 35% 15% 3% 27%Walking 26% 0% 0% 18%Other 2% 3% 4% 2%Share distance 70% 12% 18%
    10. 10. Mode choice bicycle / car (< 7,5 km) Never Sometimes Never car car, bicycle sometimes bicycleShopping 12% 59% 30%Transporting 6% 70% 24%childrenSports & visits 28% 41% 30%Going out 12% 48% 39%Commuting 29% 40% 31%
    11. 11. Faqs and figures > NetherlandsModal split according to distances Source: RWS/AVV 2005 /MON 2005
    12. 12. Safety and bicycle use 1975 - now: 1800 Development in time - Suburbanisation - Car use 50 1600 + Transport policy + Clean & Healthy 1400 40 Cycle fatalities per billion bicycle km 1200 Bicycle km pppy 1000 30 800 20 600 1950 –1975: •400 - Suburbanisation - Car use 10 - Transport policy •200 - Old fashioned •0 0 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 Bicycle use Bicycle fatalities
    13. 13. Safety: fatalities and risk 600 60 500 50 Number of fatalities/billion km Number of fatalities 400 40 Number of cycle fatalities 300 30 Number of fatalaties/billion km 200 20 100 10 0 0 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 00 05 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 20 20
    14. 14. Safety by numbers
    15. 15. Faqs and figures > NetherlandsNumber of cycles per inhabitant 1,2 1,11 1 More bicycles than people 0,83 0,8 0,77 0,67 0,63 0,6 0,50 0,45 Number of cycles per inhabitant 0,40 0,40 0,4 0,34 0,2 0,18 0
    16. 16. th e N et 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% he rla nd s 27% D en m ar k 19% G er m an y 10% Au st ri a 9% Sw i tz er la nd Be 9% lg i um 8% Sw ed en 7% Ita ly 5% Fr an ce G 5% re at Br i ta in 2% Bicycle share in European countries
    17. 17. Cycling-inclusive policy development
    18. 18. Legal context> High way code (RVV) > Traffic signs > Behaviour road users> Administrative regulations (BABW) > Procedures for road authorities> Planning law traffic and transport > Defines relationship between national, provincial and local transport plans
    19. 19. EssentialHierarchy of plans policy elements Mobility Policy Document (national) Provincial traffic and transport plan Regional traffic and transport plan Municipal traffic and transport policy
    20. 20. Essential policy elements> Stimulate use of bicycles (7,5 km)> Bicycle route networks > Meet quality requirements> Appropriate parking facilities > Location & quality> New developments well connected> Reduction of bicycle theft> Be alert for new barriers
    21. 21. Corner stones of Dutch cycling policies> Cycling: fully fledged mode of transport> Looking for the optimal mix > Utilizing strengths of each mode of transport > Providing alternatives for problematic use
    22. 22. Looking for the optimal mix
    23. 23. Why cycling?Distinguish between> Society > Policy makers / politicians> Individuals
    24. 24. Policy makers / politiciansSocietal benefits:> Urban quality> Easing congestion> Improving accessibility > for all categories of road users> Environment & climate> Public health costs> Economy> …
    25. 25. Return on urban transportinvestments, bicycle versus PT With In ves tm e n t E c . Benef its 400 S oc i al Be nefi ts E nv. I mpr ovem ents 300 Im pac t ( i n r ate uni ts ) 200 100 0 A TH B RU HE L LYO N M AD VI T& W S TU ZCH M AN VAL B RA DE L FT me tro S -B a h n tra m b icycle Source: Transecon-project
    26. 26. Individuals> …dont cycle for the environment!!> Practical, efficient and convenient (and fun!)> Safety perception > Might be an obstacle> Health and fitness> (Cheap)
    27. 27. So the challenge is…> …to make cycling > Convenient > Practical > Safe
    28. 28. More quality infra, more cycling 0 -0,2quality of bicycle infrastructure -0,4 -0,6 -0,8 -1 -1,2 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 bicycle share (%)
    29. 29. Content> Functional design principles> Basic information> Networks and routes> Road sections> Intersections> Design, maintenance and furnishings> Bicycle parking> Evaluation and management
    30. 30. Bicycle parking
    31. 31. Why a bicycle parking policy?> No cycling without parking > Provide service to existing cyclistst> Good facilities on the right spot> Quality of public space> Prevention of theft and vandalism> Modal shift > Good facilities: more people cycling
    32. 32. Quality requirementsUser needs> At the right spot (close to home or destination)> Easy to use (ergonomics)> Not hurting the user> …or damaging the bicycle> Protection against theft> Protection against vandalism> Weather protection> Durable> Preferably for free or at low cost
    33. 33. Offer various options> Secured > Guarded > Lockers > Automatic systems> Free parking> Users can trade off pros and cons > Costs, walking distance, protection
    34. 34. Quality requirementsManagerial considerations> Efficient use of space> Easy maintenance> Esthetics of public domain
    35. 35. Space efficiency can be an issue!
    36. 36. Secured bicycle parkingIndoorguarded
    37. 37. Guarded parking
    38. 38. Secured bicycle parking Renovated facilities: Better ergonomics
    39. 39. SecurityLockers and boxes
    40. 40. Weather protection
    41. 41. Quality markbicycle parking systems
    42. 42. Someexamplesofapprovedsystems
    43. 43. Intermodality
    44. 44. Quality in door-to-door service
    45. 45. Bicycle & Public TransportComplementary modesOnly combined strengths can compete withprivate motorised traffic
    46. 46. Cycling system characterisicsStrengths Weaknesses> Flexible > Limited radius of action> High penetration ability (access to individual addresses)> Fast on short distances> Uses little space for parking
    47. 47. Public Transport system characterisicsStrengths Weaknesses> High people carrying > Inflexible capacity > Low penetration ability> Proper for longer trips > Requires feeder systems> Space efficient
    48. 48. Concept of ‘trip chain’> People travel door-to-doorEach PT trip is achain…...with at least threelinks
    49. 49. Feeder trip to NL railway stations Access trip Egress trip (home – station) (station- destination)Walking 24,2 % 47,7 % > 60%Bicycle 38,9 % 12 %Bus 23,2 % 26 %Passenger of Car 5,9 % 7,7 %Car Motorist 7,2 % 2,3 %Others 0,4 % 3,4 %Taxi 0,5 % 1%total 100 % 100 %
    50. 50. Enlargement of catchment area On the bicycle 2500 m. 500 m. 1000 m. 5000 m. On foot
    51. 51. Links to look at access > Access trip transfer > Transfer bicycle > public transport > Parking > ‘Roll on roll off’ public transport ride > Public transport ride transfer > Transfer public transport > bicycle egress > Egress trip
    52. 52. A chain is as strong as its weakestlink!! Improving Strengthening cycling & each and public transport every link of competiveness the chain
    53. 53. Services to accommodateintermodality> Right mix of bicycle parking facilities > Free > Secured> Bicycles on the train > Outside rush hours > Folding bicycles for free> OV-fiets services (public transport bicycles) > Egress trips are largest challenge
    54. 54. OV-fiets (PT-bicycle)> National public bicycles system> More than 100,000 subscribers> More than 1,000,000 trips> Improved availabilty bicycles for egress trips
    55. 55. Other aspects of Dutch cycling culture
    56. 56. The Dutch
    57. 57. Wide variety of accessories
    58. 58. ConclusionThe Netherlands> Tradition of cycling….> …needs to be fostered> Supported by policies> Cycling infrastructure> Growing attention for bicycle parking> Public transport gains from cycling> Bicycles and accessories reflect utilitarian nature
    59. 59. Dutch Cycling EmbassyWhat can we do for you?
    60. 60. Who we areThe Dutch Cycling Embassy is a comprehensivenetwork of:> private companies: traffic and infrastructure consultants and manufacturers> NGOs, universities and research institutions> national and local governments
    61. 61. What can we do for you?> Access to Dutch Knowledge Base> Liaising with extensive Dutch network for: > research > planning > policy-making > product development > manufacturing > construction or building> Help you to find the best possible partners.

    ×