Promotion of cycling as a public transport mode ( from an NGO point of view )

PSWE

Promotion of cycling as a public transport

mode (from an NGO point of view)

Promotion of cycling as a public transport

mode (from an NGO point of view)

Gdańsk, 8th May 2008

Dr Piotr Kuropatwiński

COPYRIGHT © 2007 PSWE – WSZELKIE PRAWA ZASTRZEŻONE

2AGENDA

Author’s profileAuthor’s profile

Perception of cyclingPerception of cycling

Dilemmas of urban cycling policy Dilemmas of urban cycling policy

Cycling and public transport – carrying and/or parkingCycling and public transport – carrying and/or parking

Principal challengesPrincipal challenges

PSWE

Author’s profile


4AUTHOR’S PROFILE

Dr of economics (specialised i.a. in economics of transition and change management strategies)

Dr Piotr Kuropatwiński

Pomeranian Association Common Europe

Polish Ecological Club (East Pomeranian Branch)

University of Gdańsk Department of Economic Policy

Attended 5 Velocity congresses on cycle planning (Graz-Maribor, Edinburgh-Glasgow, Paris, Dublin, Munich)

Member of the Steering Committee of the Gdansk Cycling Investment and Promotion Project

Responsible for preparation of the Pomeranian Cycling Strategy

One of the first five certified BYPAD auditors in Poland

(Bicycle Policy Audit recognised by the European Cyclists Federation)

PSWE

Perception of cycling


6sport and not tranSPORT

Marginally important

Unsafe and risky (for pedestrians and decent motorists) recreational gadget

Should be kept off the carriageways

Costly (low benefit to cost ratios)

Vehicle for the poor no-hopers

Increases in cycling levels will be achieved only at the expense of walking traffic


7 CHANGING PERCEPTION OF CYCLING IN EUROPE

Cycling is irrelevant for urban transport (like walking…)

Cycling as recreation acceptable

Cycling and cyclists a problem

Cycling (an irrelevant part of the solution) but cyclists a nuisance

Cycling and cyclists invited to solve the problem(s)


8 URBAN PROBLEMS THAT CYCLING HELPS TO SOLVE

Congestion/envir. pollution/noise

Lack of car parking spaces

Traffic safety/ public security

Social exclusion

Urban sprawl

Civilisational diseases resulting from a sedentary life style

PSWE

Dilemmas of urban cycling policies


10 WHAT SHOULD WE STRIVE TO MAXIMISE?

Length of dedicated cycling routes in km

No. of supporters of cycling network construction (no. of those who vote for „us”?)

Share of cycling trips in the modal split?

Number of people who understand the sense of sustainable urban mobility policies that include not only honey but also vinegar, make reasonable transport choices and house location decisions?


11 WHOSE „SPACE” DO WE USE CREATING CYCLING FACILITIES

The users of:

walkways?

carriageways?

car parking places?

green areas?

areas used for other purposes?


12 PRIORITIES ?

Build dedicated cycle tracks (separated from all other traffic)?

Take into account the interests of pedestrians and cyclists at all transport and hydrotechnical investment projects ?

Improve ways of overcoming the ‘barrier effect’ of fast/intensive road traffic for non-motorised users ?

Audit the cycling infrastructure and policy with the participation of daily cyclists and certified cycling policy auditors ?


13CONCLUSIONS

maximise the number of people understanding the use of honey and vinegar measures for varioustransport options and infrastructure decisions

Use resources for audit, promotion and construction of key elements of infrastructure for non-motorised users and not only for the construction of dedicated cycle routes

PSWE

Cycling and public transport – carrying


15

Buses

Local trains

Long distance trains

commuters and promotion but subject to European restrictions (in USA very popular and financed partially from public funds)

commuters and recreational users

valuable cycling tourists: (*) above average incomes (*) above average education(*) above average spending in local economy

BIKES ON BOARD


16BIKE&RIDE FACILITIES

Reduce the risk of theft

May be financed from Park&Ride fees

Anchor the traffic calmed, non-motorised traffic zone

Promote sustainable urban transport plans

Attract European funding


17BIKE&RIDE FACILITIES IN AND NEAR MUNICH

0

60 000

Munich(in 04/2005)

Region (in 12/2002)

Total

10 000

20 000

30 000

40 000

50 000

54 870

46 370

8 500

3 800

28 270

24 47026 600

4 700

21 900

No. of B&R stands in and around Munich

TOTAL

PLANNED

CURRENT


18100 CYCLE STATIONS IN NRW 1/2

Hamm

Münster

Gütersloh


19100 CYCLE STATIONS IN NRW 2/2

Currently in Germany there are 69 cycle stations => 52 are located in NRW

They offer 16,400 auarded and weather-proof cycle parking stands

(www.radstation.de)


20100 CYCLE STATIONS IN PADUA (ITALY), 350,000 INHABITANTS


21General level of cycle traffic in comparison to commuters to rail stations

Bike journeys as % all trips

TOTAL

UKHolland Denmark UK aim to 2012

1%

10%

8%

2%

18%

22%

32%

27%

TO STATION


22AVERAGE NO. OF KM TRANSFERRED FROM OTHER TRANSPORT MODES FOR VARIOUS SERVICES

Average annual no. of km for each service


23FREE GUARDED CYCLE PARKING FACILITIES

offered in Apeldoorn (NL) since1998

Quantitative aim: + 30%

Other goals:

Alternative for cars

Elimination of abandoned bikes

Reduction of theft

Less acidents caused by the drunk


24RESULTS AFTER TWO YEARS

Increase in use by 120%

21% less abandoned bikes

25% less cases of cycle theft

11% changes from cars to bicycles

insufficient no. of places in 2 locations

Parked Bikes

X 1000


25

Serviced by subsidised workers – formerly unemployed

FINANCING

Annual cost about € 200,000

Financed from car parking revenues


26POTENTIAL OF THE B&R IN THE TRICITY

WALKING

BIKE RIDE


27PUBLIC BIKE SYSTEMS

Increasingly popular in former low-cycling countries (e.g. France, Spain, Luxemburg)

Often managed by street furniture and advertising companies (e.g. JCDecaux, ClearChannel, DBahn)

Quality of management of utmost importance

2.000 bicycles in Lyon (F)

PSWE

Principal challenges


29

Over-protective, uncertainty avoidance attitudes among traffic planners preventing innovation

Insufficient experience in partnership co-operation among NGOs and public transport operators

Low level of trust and short – term attitudes

MENTAL BARRIERS


30RECOMMENDATIONS

Learn from a plethora of internet and IT sources (www.ecf.org)

Nominate a cycling officer (with an NGO experience)

Take part in a Velocity congress (Brussels, May 2009)

Visit a cycle friendly agglomeration

Initate a BYPAD process

PSWE

Thank you for your kind attention


32THIS PRESENTATION WAS PREPARED BY :

ANDRZEJ B. PIOTROWICZ +48 502 200 559 [email protected]

NAME :

MOBILE:

EMAIL :

Dr PIOTR KUROPATWIŃSKI +48 501 069 616 [email protected]

Promotion of cycling as a public transport mode ( from an NGO point of view )

Documents

Transcript of Promotion of cycling as a public transport mode ( from an NGO point of view )