1. Cycling, an essential part of
y g, p
sustainable transport
Tom Godefrooij
Interface f Cycling Expertise I-CE
f for li i
tom.godefrooij@cycling.nl
Kocaeli, 7 April 2011
p

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. • 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. 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. What is transport all about?
p
Mobility,
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. 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. 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. 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. 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. Looking for the optimal mix
g p

11. Cycling, j t another mode of t
C li just th d f transport…?
t ?

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. 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

15. 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

16. ….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

17. Cycling in European cities in the
y g p
20th century

18. 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!

19. • 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

20. 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

21. Mobility in The Netherlands
50
45
40
35
30
25 Netherlands
20 Delft
15 Amsterdam
10
5
0
Car Public Bicycle Walking
Transport
(1995)

22. Modal split development in Amsterdam

23. Modal split trips according to distance
(km’s) < 7,5 7,5-15 > 15 overall
Car 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%

24. 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

25. Safety by numbers
y y

26. 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

27. • 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

28. 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
• ….

29. 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

31. Promotion of cycling contributes to the
efficiency of the (urban) transport system
Investments in cycling have a profitable
cost/benefit ratio
Investments in cycling serve all segments of
the population

32. • 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

33. 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

34. 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

35. 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!!!

36. …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

37. Q
Quality requirements
y q
cycling infrastructure
• Coherence
• Directness
• Attractiveness
• Safety
y
• Comfort

38. 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

39. • 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

40. Bogotá
g
• 350 k cycle routes
km l
• Increase cycling share from 0,5 to 4%
• Improved quality of public space

44. 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

47. 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

50. Turkish cities
• S k
Sakarya, A l & E ki hi
Antalya Eskişehir
• Developing pilot projects
• First step towards cycling-inclusive
p
policies

53. • 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

54. 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

55. If other cities can do it, then
th iti d it th
w y o your city?
why not you c y?