1 / 32

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 ). Dr Piotr Kuropatwiński. Gdańsk, 8th May 2008. Author’s profile. Perception of cycling. Principal challenges. Dilemmas of urban cycling policy.

malise
Download Presentation

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

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Promotion of cycling as a public transport mode (from an NGO point of view) Dr Piotr Kuropatwiński Gdańsk, 8th May 2008

  2. Author’s profile Perception of cycling Principal challenges Dilemmas of urbancyclingpolicy Cycling and public transport – carrying and/or parking AGENDA

  3. Author’s profile

  4. AUTHOR’S PROFILE Dr of economics (specialised i.a. in economics of transition and change management strategies) 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 Auditrecognised by the EuropeanCyclists Federation) Dr Piotr Kuropatwiński • Pomeranian Association Common Europe • Polish Ecological Club (East Pomeranian Branch) • University of Gdańsk Department of Economic Policy

  5. Perception of cycling

  6. 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 sport and not tranSPORT

  7. 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) CHANGING PERCEPTION OF CYCLING IN EUROPE

  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

  9. 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 walkways? carriageways? car parking places? green areas? areas used for other purposes? The users of:

  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 ?

  13. maximise the number of people understanding the use of honey and vinegar measures for various transport 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 CONCLUSIONS

  14. Cycling and public transport – carrying

  15. Buses Local trains Long distance trains BIKES ON BOARD 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

  16. BIKE&RIDE FACILITIES Reduce the risk of theft Anchor the traffic calmed, non-motorised traffic zone Attract European funding Promote sustainable urban transport plans May be financed from Park&Ride fees

  17. BIKE&RIDE FACILITIES IN AND NEAR MUNICH No. of B&R stands in and around Munich 60000 54 870 CURRENT 50000 46 370 PLANNED 40000 TOTAL 28 270 30000 26 600 24 470 21 900 20000 8 500 10000 4 700 3 800 0 Region (in 12/2002) Munich(in 04/2005) Total

  18. 100 CYCLE STATIONS IN NRW 1/2 Gütersloh Münster Hamm

  19. 100 CYCLE STATIONS IN NRW 2/2 Currently in Germany there are 69cycle stations=> 52are located in NRW They offer 16,400auarded and weather-proof cycle parking stands (www.radstation.de)

  20. 100 CYCLE STATIONS IN PADUA (ITALY), 350,000 INHABITANTS

  21. General level of cycle traffic in comparison to commuters to rail stations 32% 27% Bike journeys as % all trips 22% 18% 10% 8% TOTAL 2% 1% TO STATION UK aim to 2012 Holland Denmark UK

  22. AVERAGE NO. OF KM TRANSFERRED FROM OTHER TRANSPORT MODES FOR VARIOUS SERVICES Average annual no. of km for each service

  23. offered in Apeldoorn (NL) since1998 Quantitative aim: + 30% Other goals: FREE GUARDED CYCLE PARKING FACILITIES Alternative for cars Elimination of abandoned bikes Reduction of theft Less acidents caused by the drunk

  24. RESULTS 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 Annual cost about € 200,000 Financed from car parking revenues FINANCING

  26. POTENTIAL OF THE B&R IN THE TRICITY WALKING BIKE RIDE

  27. PUBLIC 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)

  28. Principal challenges

  29. MENTAL BARRIERS 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

  30. RECOMMENDATIONS 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

  31. Thank you for your kind attention 

  32. MOBILE: EMAIL : NAME : ANDRZEJ B. PIOTROWICZ Dr PIOTR KUROPATWIŃSKI +48 502 200 559 +48 501 069 616 apiotrowicz@pswe.org pkuropatwinski@pswe.org THIS PRESENTATION WAS PREPARED BY:

More Related