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"

1. Cycling mobility in The Netherlands
An overview
Tom Godefrooij > Sofia, 5 February 2013

2. Content
> Dutch context: some statistics
> Cycling-inclusive policy development
> Bicycle parking
> Intermodality
> Other aspects of Dutch cycling culture

3. Dutch context: some statistics

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. Cycling in European cities in the 20th century

6. Mobility in the Netherlands
Netherlands, high car density/km2
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 trip other
In Top-5 most road-safe countries

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. Modal split development in Amsterdam

9. Modal split trips according to distance
(km’s) < 7,5 7,5-15 > 15 overall
Car 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. Mode choice bicycle / car (< 7,5 km)
Never Sometimes Never
car car, bicycle
sometimes
bicycle
Shopping 12% 59% 30%
Transporting 6% 70% 24%
children
Sports & visits 28% 41% 30%
Going out 12% 48% 39%
Commuting 29% 40% 31%

11. Faqs and figures > Netherlands
Modal split according to distances
Source: RWS/AVV 2005 /MON 2005

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. 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. Safety by numbers

15. Faqs and figures > Netherlands
Number 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. 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. Cycling-inclusive policy development

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. Essential
Hierarchy of plans policy
elements
Mobility Policy Document (national)
Provincial traffic and transport plan
Regional traffic and transport plan
Municipal traffic and transport policy

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. 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. Looking for the optimal mix

23. Why cycling?
Distinguish between
> Society
> Policy makers / politicians
> Individuals

24. Policy makers / politicians
Societal benefits:
> Urban quality
> Easing congestion
> Improving accessibility
> for all categories of road users
> Environment & climate
> Public health costs
> Economy
> …

25. Return on urban transport
investments, 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. Individuals
> …don't cycle for the environment!!
> Practical, efficient and convenient (and fun!)
> Safety perception
> Might be an obstacle
> Health and fitness
> (Cheap)

27. So the challenge is…
> …to make cycling
> Convenient
> Practical
> Safe

28. More quality infra, more cycling
0
-0,2
quality of bicycle infrastructure
-0,4
-0,6
-0,8
-1
-1,2
20 25 30 35 40 45 50
bicycle share (%)

30. Content
> Functional design principles
> Basic information
> Networks and routes
> Road sections
> Intersections
> Design, maintenance and furnishings
> Bicycle parking
> Evaluation and management

31. Bicycle parking

33. 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

34. Quality requirements
User 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

35. Offer various options
> Secured
> Guarded
> Lockers
> Automatic systems
> Free parking
> Users can trade off pros and cons
> Costs, walking distance, protection

36. Quality requirements
Managerial considerations
> Efficient use of space
> Easy maintenance
> Esthetics of public domain

37. Space efficiency can be an issue!

38. Secured bicycle parking
Indoor
guarded

39. Guarded parking

40. Secured bicycle parking
Renovated
facilities:
Better
ergonomics

41. Security
Lockers and boxes

42. Weather protection

43. Quality mark
bicycle parking systems

44. Some
examples
of
approved
systems

45. Intermodality

46. Quality in door-to-door service

47. Bicycle & Public Transport
Complementary modes
Only combined strengths can compete with
private motorised traffic

48. Cycling system characterisics
Strengths Weaknesses
> Flexible > Limited radius of action
> High penetration ability
(access to individual
addresses)
> Fast on short distances
> Uses little space for
parking

49. Public Transport system characterisics
Strengths Weaknesses
> High people carrying > Inflexible
capacity > Low penetration ability
> Proper for longer trips > Requires feeder systems
> Space efficient

50. Concept of ‘trip chain’
> People travel door-to-door
Each PT trip is a
chain…
...with at least three
links

51. 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 %

52. Enlargement of catchment area
On the bicycle
2500 m.
500 m.
1000 m. 5000 m.
On foot

53. 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

54. A chain is as strong as its weakest
link!!
Improving Strengthening
cycling & each and
public transport every link of
competiveness the chain

55. Services to accommodate
intermodality
> 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

60. 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

61. Other aspects of Dutch cycling culture

64. The Dutch

65. Wide variety of accessories

66. Conclusion
The 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

67. Dutch Cycling Embassy
What can we do for you?

68. Who we are
The Dutch Cycling Embassy is a comprehensive
network of:
> private companies: traffic and infrastructure
consultants and manufacturers
> NGOs, universities and research institutions
> national and local governments

69. 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.