Cycling, An Essential Part of Sustainable Transport

1,679 views

Published on

Tom Godefrooij'in 7 Nisan 2011 günü Sürdürülebilir Ulaşım 2011 Kocaeli'de yaptığı sunum.
Presentation done by Tom Godefrooij on 7 April 2011 during Sustainable Transport 2011 Kocaeli, Turkey

Published in: Sports, News & Politics
0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,679
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
134
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
45
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Cycling, An Essential Part of Sustainable Transport

  1. 1. Cycling, an essential part of y g, p sustainable transportTom GodefrooijInterface f Cycling Expertise I-CE f for li itom.godefrooij@cycling.nlKocaeli, 7 April 2011 p
  2. 2. Contents• Cycling C li & transport planning l i• Cycling in historical perspective• Some statistics: the potential• Benefits and co benefits co-benefits• The way ahead• It I can be done: experiences b d i• Conclusions
  3. 3. • Cycling & transport planning• Cycling in historical perspective• Some statistics: the potential• Benefits and co-benefits• The Th way ahead h d• It can be done: experiences• Conclusions
  4. 4. Problematic trends• I Increasing urbanisation i b i i• Increasing motorisation• Policies to accommodate this growth • Lack of money • Lack of space • NNegative impacts i i
  5. 5. What is transport all about? pMobility,M bili travel, transport, access… l• Quality ≠ maximizing km’s and speeds travelled• Quality: the extent to which mobility accommodates participation• T Transport and mobilty: enabling activity d bil bli i i
  6. 6. Travel market Transport (trips) market• A ti it Activity (transport Traffic patterns systems) market• Spatial distribution • Availability (flows)• Spread in time • Effectiveness • Routes• … • Efficiency • Speeds • Status • Manoeuvres • Costs • Congestion • … • S f t Safety • …
  7. 7. Transport planning• To meet transport needs • Individuals & society• Maximising contribution of transport to social & economic well being• Minimising adverse effects • Road safety • Liveability • Environment • Climate • …
  8. 8. Tactical goals• Goals on travel market • Minimise need for travelling• Goals on transport market • Optimal mode choice • Short trips: Cycling and Walking p y g g • Longer trips: Public transport• Goals on traffic market • Adequate road design, including bicycle facilities
  9. 9. Role of various modes• Analysis of strengths and weaknesses• Assess appropriateness modes / transport systems for types of trips • i utilise strengths i.e. tili t th• Provide alternatives for problematic use • Not fit for the trip • Too many adverse effects for society
  10. 10. Looking for the optimal mix g p
  11. 11. Cycling, j t another mode of tC li just th d f transport…? t ?
  12. 12. • Cycling t C li & transport planning t l i• Cycling in historical perspective• Some statistics: the potential• Benefits and co-benefits• The Th way ahead h d• It can be done: experiences• Conclusions
  13. 13. Historical perspective p p• C and bicycle technology equally Car d bi l t h l ll modern• Both based on the invention of ball bearing in 19th century• Cycling the dominant mode of transport in y the first half of the 20th century
  14. 14. Decline after World War 2• Fast F growing population i l i• Growing income• Rapid motorisation in 1960’s• Size built up areas 2,9 times enlarged 29• Cycling considered as ‘bound to disappear’• Mopeds M d peaking around 1970 ki d
  15. 15. ….and renaissance of cycling y g• Awareness car related problems • Road safety • E i Environment & oil crisis il i i • Liveability • Seizure of space motor traffic (who s (who’s road is it anyway?)• Emerging civil society • C li ’ organisations Cyclists’ i i
  16. 16. Cycling in European cities in the y g p20th century
  17. 17. What marked this revaluation?• Roads for all • Invention of ‘woonerf’ (early 1970’s) (Traffic calmed residential areas) • 30 km/h zones (early 1980’s) • Residential function vs arterial function as basis for urban traffic planning• Attention to urban quality • Cities for people, not for cars!
  18. 18. • Cycling t C li & transport planning t l i• Cycling in historical perspective• S Some statistics: the potential t ti ti th t ti l• Benefits and co-benefits• The Th way ahead h d• It can be done: experiences• Conclusions
  19. 19. Mobility in the Netherlands• N th l d high car density/km2 Netherlands, hi h d it /k 2• On 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 0 1 trip other• In Top-5 most road-safe countries
  20. 20. Mobility in The Netherlands504540353025 Netherlands20 Delft15 Amsterdam10 5 0 Car Public Bicycle Walking Transport (1995)
  21. 21. Modal split development in Amsterdam
  22. 22. Modal split trips according to distance (km’s) < 7,5 7,5-15 > 15 overallCar 36% 73% 81% 48% Driver 23% 51% 54% 32% Passenger 12% 21% 25% 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%
  23. 23. Most trips are short p• UK: • 1/3 all trips < 1 m ll t i • Average trip length = 7 m • A Average car trip length = 8,5 m i l h 85• 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
  24. 24. Safety by numbers y y
  25. 25. Conclusions so far…• M problems i cities Most bl in i i• Majority of trips within cycling distance• Walking, cycling and public transport are complementary modes p y
  26. 26. • Cycling t C li & transport planning t l i• Cycling in historical perspective• Some statistics: the potential• Benefits and co-benefits• The Th way ahead h d• It can be done: experiences• Conclusions
  27. 27. Why cycling policies?• Giving cyclists fair share of road space• Improving road safety• Offering affordable transport options• Improving quality public space• Solving congestion l i i • Substitue car trips, traffic demand management • Traffic management• Air quality management• Mitigating climate change• ….
  28. 28. Relation with public transport p p• M More efficient option on shorter distances ffi i i h di • Shorter travel times door-to-door • Cost-efficient (≠ cheap!!!)• Feeder mode • Enlarging catchment area PT • Improving door-to-door travel time p g • Requires transfer facilities
  29. 29. Promotion of cycling contributes to theefficiency of the (urban) transport systemInvestments in cycling have a profitablecost/benefit ratioInvestments in cycling serve all segments ofthe population
  30. 30. • Cycling t C li & transport planning t l i• Cycling in historical perspective• Some statistics: the potential• Benefits and co-benefits• The way ahead• It can be done: experiences• Conclusions
  31. 31. Cycling inclusive• More than adding cycle facilities to the y road system• Change of entire traffic system • Re-allocation of road space Re allocation • Re-allocation of budgets
  32. 32. What it takes…• Many good reasons for promoting cycling… • Environment E i • Health • Equity • …• … but ultimately people only will do so if it is • Safe • Practical • Convenient
  33. 33. Transport planning at 3 levels p p g• Overall transport p p planning g • Integrated approach (vision!!) • Change of traditional p g priorities• Network planning & design • Coherent network • Connecting origins & destinations• R dd i Road design • Meeting needs of cyclists • …where the cyclists are!!!
  34. 34. …and• O Organise public & political support i bli li i l• Involve stakeholders• Create a cycling culture • Awareness campaigns p g • Promotion• Provide services • Bicycle parking • Bicycle repair • Public bicycles
  35. 35. QQuality requirements y qcycling infrastructure• Coherence• Directness• Attractiveness• Safety y• Comfort
  36. 36. Basic safety p y principles p• Mi i i conflicts Minimise fli • High speeds & volumes: segregation• Minimise outcome of conflicts • No segregation: traffic calming g g g• Allow for interaction between road users • Make sure they see each other, eye contact other • Avoid complexity
  37. 37. • Cycling t C li & transport planning t l i• Cycling in historical perspective• Some statistics: the potential• Benefits and co-benefits• The way ahead y• It can be done: experiences• Conclusions
  38. 38. Bogotá g• 350 k cycle routes km l• Increase cycling share from 0,5 to 4%• Improved quality of public space
  39. 39. Santiago de Chile g• F ll participation in all segments of Full i i i i ll f society• Adoption of ‘cycling’ law• Plan for 690 km cycling routes y g• 250 km implemented• Cycling a presidential priority
  40. 40. Sevilla• I l Implemented 120 km cycling network d k li k• Increase modal share from 0,2 to 6,6% in 4 years• Target 2015: share of 15% g
  41. 41. Turkish cities• S k Sakarya, A l & E ki hi Antalya Eskişehir • Developing pilot projects • First step towards cycling-inclusive p policies
  42. 42. • Cycling t C li & transport planning t l i• Cycling in historical perspective• Some statistics: the potential• Benefits and co-benefits• The way ahead y• It can be done: experiences• Conclusions
  43. 43. Conclusions• C li planning = transport planning Cycling l i l i• 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
  44. 44. If other cities can do it, then th iti d it th w y o your city? why not you c y?

×