opening session thinkbike

THINKBIKE WORKSHOPSWASHINGTON, DC

Philosophy and measures for increasing bikeability

Cor van der Klaauw, senior advisor of the province of Groningen

member of the Dutch Bike Council

1maandag 15 november 2010

Royal cycling


Mainstream bicycling

How to achieve

3

?3maandag 15 november 2010

Benefits for society Sustainability Accessibility Health Liveability Economics

4


Of course: sustainability

No CO2-emission (Reduction in the Netherlands: 2.4 million tons)

Efficient Reduction of global footprint Alleviates global warming

5


Accessibility

Consequences in urban areas: More efficient use of transport infrastructure Better traffic flow in all Dutch towns Easier access to towns, business areas etc. Shorter travel times (the bike is the fastest means of transport in town) Less congestion Efficient parking (8 bicycles for 1 car)

6


Health

Cyclists versus non-cyclists

Increase of life expectancy by 3 years Age healthier (10 years) Decrease of diseases (e.g. obesity, heart and coronary diseases, Alzheimer) Less overweight children and more physically fit Independent and self-confident youth Reduction of healthcare costs Work absenteeism reduction (10-15%)

7


Liveability

Cycling brings more joy and happiness in everybody's life No traffic noise No fine particles and Nitro-oxides Social integration within town

8


Economics Reduction of commuting costs Less need to build expensive parking lots More efficient transport Sustainable economic growth Increase of sales in shops Reduction of 10-15% in work absenteeism Every mile by car costs $ 0.40 Every mile by bike gains $ 0.19

9


Netherlands: bicycling paradise10


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Joy Fear Anger Sadness Aversion

CarBicyclePublic Transport

Emotions linked to way of transport


0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

the N

etherl

ands

Denmark

German

y

Austria

Switzerl

and

Belgium

Sweden Ita

ly

France

Great B

ritain

2%

5%5%

7%8%

9%9%10%

19%

27%

12

Bicycling in European countries


0

0,20

0,40

0,60

0,80

1,00

1,20

the N

etherl

ands

Denmark

German

y

Sweden

Finlan

d

Belgium Ita

ly

Englan

d

Austria

France

Spain

0,18

0,340,400,40

0,450,50

0,630,67

0,770,83

1,11

13

Number of cycles per inhabitant


Source: RWS/AVV 2005 /MON 2005

0

1,75

3,50

5,25

7,00

0-12 12-16 16-18 18-20 20-25 25-30 30-40 40-50 50-60 60-65 65-75 >75 Avg

Dai

ly c

over

ed d

ista

nce

(km

)

WomenMen

14

Average daily distance by gender


Source: RWS/AVV 2005 /MON 2005

0

0,50

1,00

1,50

2,00

Age 0-12 12-16 16-18 18-20 20-25 25-30 30-40 40-50 50-60 60-65 65-75 >75 Avg

Dai

ly n

r. of

trip

s

WomenMen

15

Average daily number of trips by gender


16


•0

•200

•400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

Bic

ycle

km

ppp

y

0

10

20

30

40

50

Cyc

le fa

talit

ies

per b

illio

n bi

cycl

e km

Bicycle use safety

1950 –1975:

- Suburbanization- Car use- Transport policy

1975 - now:

- Suburbanization- Car use+ Transport policy+ Sustainability & Health

17


Trip mode

•0%

•10%

•20%

•30%

•40%

•50%

•60%

•70%

•80%

•90%

•100%• C

om

mute

r tr

avel

• Busi

nes

s tr

ips

• Ser

vice

s/per

sonal

• car

e

• Shoppin

g

• Educa

tion

• Vis

it/s

tay

• Soci

al• r

ecre

atio

nal

• Touring/h

ikin

g

• Oth

er

Tota

l

Car

Bicycle

18


19


Joy! Freedom, flexibility, being outside

It’s very convenient Relaxing Safe (Perceived safety) Cheap Health benefit The fastest way to go about

town Easy to combine with other

modes of transport [more]

20

What makes the Dutch cycle?


time

21

Cost-benefit-ratio

+

_0

Bristol 10 years

Davis, CA 40 years

Munich, Basel

Portland, OR 15 years

Washington, DC 15 years

Investment in time ➞

Amsterdam

Cost-benefit-ratio of cycling investments over time


22


Washington NLCycling part of everyone’s transport options √ √√Guidelines fit for promoting mainstream cycling √ √√Ability to bike (+cycling education) √ √√Cycling done by all ages √ √√Law enforcement and system to protect cyclists √Helmet use √√Bike safety √√Cycling to school √√√Political support for cycling √ √√√Image of cycling √ √√Image of cyclists √√Bike integrated in transport planning √√Bike-transit integration √ √√Space for more biking √√

23

Washington versus the Netherlands


24

Marketing of cycling in Washington is very good!


Road categorization

Mixed traffic, reduce speed differences

Bicycle infrastructure

Make bike infrastructure recognizable (color!)

Bicycle facilities

Protect cyclists by law enforcement

25

Dutch solutions


Main highwaysDistributor roadsAccess roads

26

Three road categories


No biking on highwaysDistributor roadsAccess roads

27

Bicycle traffic facilities


28

Cyclepath along highway


29

Separation: designated bike lane


Smooth surfacesMinimum stopsProtection against weather (wind)

30

Separate bike lanes


Cyclists protected by parked cars and road design – no dooring

31

A perfect example of separation


32

Recognizable infrastructure (color)


33


34


35


36


37


38

Contraflow cycling


39

Not everything is OK


40

Bicycle markings


41

Bike box and bike traffic lights


Speed bumps25 mph-zonesHome zones “woonerf”(10 mph)

42

Mixed traffic - less cars


Speed bump

43


Cycle routeCar stays behind bicycle

44

Bicycle street


45

Shortcuts for cyclists


Philosophy by Dutch enforcement:

Car driversshould take full responsibility for driving a car which

may cause death or injuryshould be aware of the capricious nature of cyclists (esp. children)are always liable when an accident happens

Cyclists should stick to traffic rules

46

Liability and enforcement


47

Education


48

Signposting


49

Make it convenient .. Parking


50

Make it convenient .. Bike-transit integration


51

Bike-transit integration


Cycling, a world to conquer

52


opening session thinkbike

News & Politics

cycling image

bike

cycling

transport

benefit

convenient

car

suburbanization