European Union Backs Cycling
[addendum: seems cnn site is down now and then. Here's the link to the page with the film on CNN World Report.]
The European Parliament is now upping the stakes to increase funding for cycling in the EU. The European Cyclists Federation would like to see €1 out of every €10 spent on European urban infrastructure funding used for bicycle friendly initiatives. A group of Members of the European Parliament have now hopped on board.
Considering the fact that the European Union is the world's largest economy, you'd think that there was enough money to accommodate more bicycle infrastructure and projects. The European Cyclists Federation, which features in the piece, is Europe's premier cycling organization with 60 member organizations in 37 countries.
They are active in promoting cycling positively throughout Europe. In August 2009 they sent a response to the European Commission regarding the public consultation on the Evaluation and Revision of the Action Plan for Energy Efficiency.
The ECF asked the Commission to take into account the potential of cycling in the reduction of CO2 emissions instead of focusing mainly on car technology. It has been calculated that an increase of cycling modal share from 5 to 15% in Europe could save almost 50 million tonnes of CO2.
It's worth mentioning that while Brussels, featured in the film, is a hellhole for cyling, there are many cities and towns in Belgium that are lightyears ahead.
Via: CNN World Report.
18 thinking out louds:
Totally agree with the reporter. Cycling here in Madrid is a suicide and it'd be a dream came true if the Parliament spent 1/10 € in cycling infrastructures.
Because Madrid can. And an Olympics candidate city should promote cycling as the best way to move in the city instead of cars.
Kind regards, Mika.
Sam.
Video link isn't working...
It's a pity that one can be sure that all that money will be spent on anti-cycling infrastructure such as bike paths or bike lanes. Or on fear mongering campaigns for helmets...
What we really would need is free access to the streets (the end of the obligation to use separate paths) and the obligation to provide sufficient bike parking facilities as it is a standard for cars in many european countries since many decades.
Ingo: you should come to Melbourne, Australia. Here we have free access to the streets so we can play with the big boys (the cars). Get down here Ingo, and ride your bike on our streets, in the gutter, with cars zooming past at 70kmh, half a metre from your handlebar. And parked cars on the other side, throwing their doors open in front of you. It's really fun and it really makes everyone want to get out there and see if they can make it to their destination without a crash...
/Martin
Martin: What you describe is dangerous cycling indeed and exactly the type of cycling that is nourished by the use of bike lines. For some really bad examples see e.g. http://www.mystrobl.de/ws/fahrrad/rwbilder/hausdorffstr/index.html
You do not belong to the gutter! You are driving a vehicle so stay where the other vehicles are driving, i.e. your wheels should be in line with the wheels of the car in front of you. Also stay away from car doors! A minimal distance of 1m should keep you save.
What most people also forget is that bike lanes are a space restriction for cyclists. A standard bike lane that does not permit passing within the lane restricts the usage to about 100 cyclists per hour - that may seem high for some, however when you get to a modal share above 10% it starts getting important. I have witnessed a bike lane lowering the number of cyclists per hour from well over 300 to below 100...
then we should build bicycles lanes that are wide enough, like in cities all over the world.
bicycle lanes and separated infrastructure are as old as the bicycle itself.
they work, they're safe and there is no alternative that has been proven to work.
Hi Mikael,
I just saw that your favourite Mayor :-) is coming to Reykjavík, Iceland. The theme is greener transport, so ties in with your posting.
The thing is, he is not, it seems, going to be promoting cycling. At least the venue he has accepted to come to is called "Driving Sustainability" , which flags the incompetence of the folks behind it. The important and high -hanging word sustainability is being usurped by the car industry.
Here is the announcement about his participation, using his accolades which are related to cycling, without mentioning that cycling, not "greener" cars is the forte of Copenhagen it.
http://drivingsustainability.org/BlogRetrieve.aspx?BlogID=2781&PostID=67023
( OK, You would think people knew about cycling and Copenhagen, but some people, even in influential positions, are badly misinformed )
But, although Klaus Bondam will probably be asked to talk about the initiatives in Copenhagen to promote "alternative fuels", lets hope that he will make it very clear that the bicycle is a far superior solution to electric/biogas/hydrogen/hybrid cars when it comes to greener transport in cities. And the health benefits, and enormous efficiency and fiscal benefits, still increases the lead if factored in. I am not saying that electric cars etc are bad, it is just that they are being so vastly oversold, while cycling is being undersold. ( Hope my English makes sense :-)
Mikael : are you on talking terms with Klaus ?
Or should I try point out to him on his blog that it is almost a crime if he does not push cycling at least as a powerful sidenote in his presentation in Reykjavik ?
On the theme of segregated facilities, I think that is a very interesting and important topic for debate.
It is true, ( as far I know ) that all "western" cities with substantial usage of bikes have segregated facilities. The larger the modal share the more "complete" networks, and better designed junctions. Or was it the other way around ? What is the chicken and what is the egg ?
If we downplay the chicken-and-egg argument, the evidence from Europe, and some cities elsewhere seems compelling.
But what about other parts of the world ? Certainly it seems some cities in Latin America have been following the lead of Denmark and the Netherlands, with OK results.
Lots of info on the merits of segregated facilities are available in reports from Pucher and others. (Pointers at worldstreets.org as far as I recall ).
I think we need more info on how this was in China before the modal split of bicycles dropped there. I seem to recall bicycle modal splits way above Amsterdam or Copenhagen and even Groningen.
I also seem to recall pictures and accounts of bicycle boulevards etc, but I do not know how widespread they were.
Also, even though we might come to the conclusion that segregated facilities were the prime reason why cycling is so popular in Copenhagen etc, and "the only proven" method, it does not mean that other methods are doomed to fail. But perhaps what decides in the end is not what the best solution is, but rather what is politically viable in a car-dominated society. The car-dominance might be lessened by factors such as the climate crisis, oil price hikes, increasing knowledge of efficiency in cities etc.
I'll put some ideas for alternative /additional approaches in my next reply...
This is an important and not straight-forward debate.
So I think that open-mindedness, and a sceptical stance towards received truths would be good ideals in the issue of segregated facilities. That is, until the evidence and arguments have been well considered. In some ways, perhaps, there are parallels to the helmet compulsion (etc) issue.
Here are some ideas for somewhat different approaches, many of which have been used alongside segregated facilities.
We could include many ideas from Denmark and The Netherlands, as well as other places (London, Paris/SanFran etc):
* traffic calming, by changing the "atmosphere" of streets
* instead of separating traffic, explicitly design residential streets for cycling and walking. Cars are "guests". Must drive at 15 km/h or slower. (Wonerf sp?, NL)
* high quality bicycle parking facilities
* maps with suggestions for convenient routes with low car traffic volumes, clearly showing different classes of streets and lanes/cycleways etc.
* lay off helmet promotion for a good number of years
* Bike-and-Chevron / Sharows (Share-the-road) markings on selected streets to remind car-drivers and cyclists that the roads should be shared. ( Paris, San-Francisco, etc etc)
* cycle to work campaigns and lots of other initiatives to make cycling visible as a viable option for many citizens
* stricter rules and enforcement of speeding, texting while driving, driving while intoxicated etc
* courses for cyclist, so that they learn to take the space they need, in a similar manner to what motorcyclists are taught, especially regarding visibility and behaviour at junctions and going past car-dooors, plus avoing the gutter. (Bikeability, UK ++ and just starting in Iceland )
* information campaigns for the public/drivers and in driving lessons about the rights of cyclists, and why they take control of the lane at junctions
* Stricter rules and enforcement regarding parking on sidewalks/pavement
* Stricter rules and enforcement regarding misleading ad/or very large advertising for cars
* change of laws regarding responsibility of drivers in accidents (NL+DK)
* parking restrictions and move from subsidies for parking to green on taxation (DK partly)
* bar "superstores" from subsidising parking
* congestion charging
* green taxation of cars based on manufacture and disposal as well as use (make economic externalties visible and active in the economy),
* financial incentives for cyclists (UK)
* stop/outlaw inequality regarding payment from employer depending on how one travels (Norway, some civil servants)
* strong and positive campaigns for cycling
* Transport Demand Planning/Management (UK and several other countries, beginning even in Iceland)
* Like cigarette packages, car advertisements should carry warnings (second hand smoke, sedentary lifestyle, unsustainability etc ) from the national health and environmental authorities.
The world is not black and white. I think many that are sceptical to segregated facilities "everywhere" in city centres and in suburbs, agree that segregated facilities are useful / crucial at other places :
* High quality segregated bicycle "highways" (or quieter roads) as alternatives to roads where there are long stretches between intersections, and/or traffic volumes are high. And... where it is not practical or politically feasible to bring down speeds....
Perhaps these methods, if combined could yield results quicker than constructing hundreds of kilometres of (mediocre?) facilities. Those facilities might subsequently superfluous if we make the right choice and reduce speeds in cities and reduce driving of private cars by, say, 70%.
(continued)
I feel I should also mention that several authorities and transport "experts" have pointed to examples of facilities having been built, without cycling increasing. So at the very least, facilities are not some sort of magic wand. Especially if they are not planned by people that understand cycling, or badly designed and/or implemented and/or poorly maintained. This is even the case in DK and NL at times. Even if the facilities are OK, perhaps a failure to advertise them is a recipe for failure. I think authorities must advertise both the existence of a net, and/or advertise the viability of cycling, to yield a better return on investment. I have seen this view propagated also by others that have read extensively on the subject. The approach of Odense, the official Danish bicycle city, ( 1994-1999 ?) was exactly along those lines : A comprehensive package of both campaigns, incentives, paths/lanes, green waves for cyclists, parking facilities, air for the tyres at convenient places etc.
Finally I'll just mention that cyclists, and transport experts have found that segregated facilities generally ( not universally) increase risk at junctions. And that cumulative (sum of) risk between junctions is in general cases much lower than at junctions. The mere existence of segregated facilities will make car-drivers or even authorities want to ban cycling on the adjacent road. Regardless of how low the quality of the lane/path/cycleway is and how inconvenient it is. Thus the cyclist is often forced or coerced to put himself in more danger than on the road.
But on the other hand we can be quite sure that segregated facilities _feel_ safer and more pleasant to most people and especially those that need some encouragement. They may even take cyclists past cars in traffic jams in a very satisfying way. All this works to make cycling more accessible. And because more cyclists, means safer cyclists, (safety in numbers), DK and NL end up having the lowest figures for fatalities for cyclists per km. (And consequently it is also safer to cycle for 1000 hours in DK+NL than in any other country)
Sorry this text grew so long, and for language peculiarities. I hope using bullet points made it a bit more readable.
I think Morten has covered all bases there. A very comprehensive overview!
I find it's quite a complex subject, but personal experience and available surveys have convinced me that segregated facilities make junctions more hazardous, and that seems to be the evidence from Denmark as well:
http://www.ecf.com/files/2/12/16/070503_Cycle_Tracks_Copenhagen.pdf
The construction of cycle tracks in Copenhagen has resulted in an increase in cycle
traffic of 18-20% and a decline in car traffic of 9-10%. The cycle tracks constructed
have resulted in increases in accidents and injuries of 9-10% on the reconstructed
roads.
If the increase in cycling mentioned here was a direct result of the creation of the facilities, then perhaps it's a worthwhile trade-off.
Dermot
Dermot, the intiatives that were launched on the back end of that now rather outdated report have shown massive improvements.
For example intersections have been made safer through pre-greens and pulling stop lines back for cars.
At Denmark's most dangerous intersection 15 serious accidents a year involving bikes has now fallen to 1. For example.
Thanks very much Mikael,
That's interesting to know. It does show that facilities really require expertise and hard work on the part of the authorities.
And it's important not to "fix" the inevitable contention at junctions by giving motorised traffic right of way (as is done in Ireland, for example).
I must visit Copenhagen sometime to get first-hand experience of the facilities. It could well alleviate my scepticism.
Kind regards,
Dermot
Interesting, Mikael.
I'll pass this on to the City of Reykjavik. So that they will have the possibility of not repeating mistakes that others have made, but instead construct bicycle facilities that take the (safety) issues at junctions seriously. My fear is that cyclist safety will not measure up to catering for the convenience of car drivers. So they will construct poor quality facilities, and spend 20 years doing it. On streets with less traffic, they will probably continue testing out bike-and-chevron / sharrow markings on streets, which I think can work quite well, reminding car-drivers and bicycle-drivers to share the road. It needs better publcising though. As of today, even the Public Road Administration is confused about what they are ...
When visiting Sweden (I haven't been to Amsterdam or Copenhagen), I also found the narrow sidepaths to be frustrating, as they often prevented me from passing slower riders. I also didn't like the inability to make vehicular left turns. That said, I have found that most people I talk to are much more willing to ride a bike on something resembling a trail over the street. Additionally, I also visited Goteborg, and found that their cyclepaths were almost as wide as a traffic lane, thus resolving the issue of passing slower riders.
I am not sure that the cyclepath infrasture of Holland and Denmark can easily be transferred to North America, as the post-war design of our cities would likely make them both less effective and less safe. Unlike the streets of Amsterdam, our main arterial streets are full of driveways and parking lot entrances -- a cyclepath on such streets would subject cyclists to right hooks and left crosses multiple times a block. For a cyclepath to work here, it would involve a considerable retrofitting of the urban environment that is not likely to happen. Even without the myriad driveways that North American streets have, Amsterdam still had to modify the signal lights and even the basic design of all intersections in order to reduce the danger of right hooks. For such infrastructure to work, it really cannot be half-assed.
At least for North America, I think standard on-street bike lanes, bike boulevards, MUPs and short trail connections between dead end streets and across highways and railroad tracks are a better solution.
To Anonymous : I suppose MUP = Multi-use paths ?
There are many problems with those:
* They are often too narrow
* The rules of trafic on the paths are often unclear
* Solutions at junctions are poor, as a general rule
* Sometimes things are made worse by dividing the path
* The paths are seldom contructed for cycling at speeds like 30 km and hour or above. Tight bends with greenery, walls and fences close to the path, and other "blind spots"
* The paths are often called cyclepaths ( and politicians say we built you these nice paths out of out goodness ) in spite of all the above deficiencies
But where traffic volumes are low, and it is far between junctions, they can work pretty well. If traffic increases they need widening, and often other improvements.
In reply to Morten from Iceland, I agree with some of your criticisms, but such paths need not be curvy and narrow. In Portland and Eugene, Oregon, there are paths that run along highways and rivers that are relatively straight, wide, and allow for fast speeds. They recently reopened a stretch of the I-205 path after completing the construction of a light-rail line that runs along the same freeway, and now the path goes over a couple of bridges over major streets. There are areas where you have to cross busy streets, but median strips allow you to do it in increments.
I would actually like to see nice wide bike paths along every highway, rail line and river/coastline within every metropolitan area.
Post a Comment