[sustran] Local cycling environment indicators: More on . . .

Eric Britton (Fr) eric.britton at free.fr
Tue Jun 5 17:30:20 JST 2007


Slight apologies to all, but based on the very good feedback received thus
far on my yesterday’s note (see below for a sample), I am afraid that my
introductory comments to the note on the proposed conditions checklist for
your comments were not clearly enough explained.  Let me try this again.

What I am proposing here for your attention and comments is not, I need to
stress, intended as a set of criteria for general cycling safety and
well-being in the city, but rather looks specifically for this new-ish
phenomenon which we call “city bikes”, or public bikes if you wish. We
define them as follows in both the “Reinventing transport in cities” volume
on New Mobility in Paris, and the second volume  currently in process on
city bike systems:

“City Bike” -  City-wide public bicycle systems Definition:. 24/7 service,
mainly for people living and working in city.  Fully automated.
Street-based system. Requires partnership with local government. Pick
up/drop off at many convenient locations. Open to all registered clients.
Free or almost free for very short periods (i.e., half hour or enough for a
fast hop).

So with this in front of us and in the interest of clarity and usefulness, I
have now recast the benchmarks into two groups, the first set aiming at
guiding future city bike projects, and the second more generally a reminder
based on our experience both here in Paris and in other cities about some of
the key factors that it takes to make city cycling work for all.   In this
we need to bear in mind that our target user is the “ordinary cyclist” who
uses her/his two wheels to get around in the city, and not the leisure or
sports cyclist.

I.          Quick introduction – Preparing for a city-wide public bike
program:

Cycling in cities has until very recently, and in almost all cities world
wide, been considered barely a detail as a daily mobility form. But, and
suddenly and strange enough for most of us, it is starting to pierce into
the mainstream of transportation, let’s call it new mobility policy and
practice. In a fast expanding number of cities, it is no longer trivial, and
because of rapid evolution in terms of our knowledge of what needs to be
done to create safe cycling environments as well as new forms of
organization and intermodal collaboration, we now are seeing its emergence
as significant means of getting around in our cities in our day to day
lives.

Are you going to be ready for a city-wide public bike program? Does your
city offer a good prospective environment for public bikes of the sort that
has recently come into plan in the world of new mobility and whose potential
transformation potential is something that I believe we are only now
starting to scratch with the new 20,000 free bikes Paris Velib’ project that
is to open on 15 July.

My thought is that if we can work up something along the following lines and
then share it and make it known, we will have a small but possibly useful
tool to advance the cycling agenda in our cities. That would be a great
thing to help make happen.


II          City Cycle System Checklist – (w/ my Paris scorecard, ver. 1.0)

1.	City size/density:  2.1 million people living in 105 sq. kms, with more
than half a million more pouring in from the suburbs every working day, and
most often by public transport:  – i.e., yielding a compact central city
that is as such potentially well suited to cycling.  If we were to put it on
a quasi-arbitrary scale of 1-5, I would give it close to 5.
2.	Mixed use:  The city must offer a good diversity of land uses and
desirable and cycle-convenient destinations. Paris does very well here: 5 of
5.
3.	% city easily cyclable (mainly topography): ca. 90% (my personal
estimate, to be cross checked with more informed sources) So call it between
4 and 5.
4.	Cyclable days /year: ca. 90% (personal estimate), ditto, between 4 and 5.
5.	Cycle paths, protected space: 370 (planned to 500 kms). I’d give it
something between 3 and 5. (But that said it’s the kind of situation that
most North American cities can for now only dream about)
6.	Vandalism/public facilities: Not too bad, with some exceptions in
troubled areas. Let me go for 3+ for now, and we will know a lot more about
it after a year of Velib’.
7.	Public information program: Must be on continuing basis. Aimed at
improving skill levels of cyclists, motorists, truckers, transit – and
pedestrians – to behave positively in a more complex, tighter multimodal
mobility environment.  Guessing 2 out of 5.
8.	Image/cool: t a necessary condition of success. The image of cycling,
long poor, has gone way upbeat in the last few years. I’d say we are at 3
moving toward 4.

If your city does pretty well in these six areas (and let me know if
anything here is missing or wrong), then you will probably do well to have a
closer look.  But before you rush off, you may want to have a look at the
following additional points which while they have their main relevance in
terms of cycling programs of all sorts, are important to keep in your sites
as you plan, implement and maintain you public bike program.

III.         Other important cycling success points, criteria:

1.	Transit system coverage: Excellent/dense. (Sure this is subjective, but I
an neither selling nor abusing the city, so let’s try for  4.5 in this
important bikeability context)
2.	Cars:  ca. 0.5 per household – Nice. Maybe 3.5 and working on it.
(Availability of carsharing might be another good car indicator. After all
if you share you are not likely to own and that makes you a prime candidate
for other ways for getting around in the city.  However in Paris we are
still in early days. But fast developing. 1.5 out of 5.)
3.	Slow streets or zones: ?? kms. (got to find it) – and expanding quite
rapidly.  2 out of 5 for now, but fast gaining.
4.	Driver skills: Gradually getting better as the density of cyclists
increased, but still plenty room for improvement. At best 2 eventually going
on 3.
5.	Safe cycle parking: 29,000 places currently available and increasing
steadily at about 1000/year.  If you cannot leave your bike safely and near
to your destination (schools, stations, work, shopping, leisure), you just
won’t take it. Current supply may look ample, but with expansion of cycling
supply is not keeping up with demand.  Guessing it at 2.5
6.	Cycle services: Purchase, repairs. Not too bad. I’d give it a 3.
7.	Cycle clubs/voice: Strong/active, plugged in to policy. 3 close to 4 I
would say, not least because of their role and performance in the Mobilien
and Velib’ projects)
8.	Police on bikes (and skates) –Great feedback mechanism for city. I’d say
3 going on 4.
9.	Continuity: And this is the essential shared condition for success in all
cases . We must never lose sight of is that for all this to work and for
cycling to take its full place in our cities, everything on this list needs
to be followed closely, executed and fine-tuned every day.  Continuing of
attention and effort is the key. Much like bringing up a family. After all,
the city is our family

IV.        Selection of comments received since yesterday on this:

From: Michael Koucky [mailto:michael.koucky at koucky.se]
Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 12:17 PM
Subject: Re: Local cycling environment indicators: Let's have a look at ..

Hello Eric

The indicators look ok, what I’m missing though is an indicator for cycle
parking facilities for comfortable and (reasonably) theft safe cycle
parking. The lack of safe cycle parking is a major deterrent for cycling in
many cities.

Michael Koucky [mailto:michael.koucky at koucky.se]
Koucky & Partners AB - http://www.koucky.se/ <http://www.koucky.se/>
Consultants for Sustainable Development
Arvid Hedvalls Backe 4 b
SE-411 33 Göteborg Sweden
Ph.: +46-31-20 76 83 Cell: +46-702-10 12 17
---------------------------------------------

From: Saskia [mailto:snmhermans at hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 2:10 PM
Subject: Re: Local cycling environment indicators: Let's have a look at . .
.

Hello Eric,

Thank you for your inspiring mail! I would like to react on your bikeability
indicators, as a Dutch urban designer specialized on cycling and cycling
infrastructure.
1.       City size and density: In the Netherlands we reckon that medium
sized towns and cities ( 50.000 to 200.000 people) are more bikeable than
big cities. In big cities the urban transport tends to get that well that it
becomes a serious competitor for cycling (which means less cyclists, which
often leads to less infrastructure etc). In that respect I would give Paris
a 3 to 4. The same holds good for density I guess, as soon as a city is
dense enough public transport can flourish and people can "avoid" cycling.
2.       Cars: Nice indicator but what about bicycles?? In Holland as a
whole we do have more bicycles (almost 20 Million) then people ( 17
Million), and about 7.2 Million cars. In terms of households in Holland we
do have 77.3% with a car, but we do cycle a lot more than the average
Parisian.
3.       Transit system coverage: If you mean public transport in Paris it
certainly is a 5! But like I said, public transport is a competitor to
cycling so should you give it a 5 in this context as adding to bikeability?
4.       Kms of cycle path, protected space: Important BUT let's not forget
that every trip has a starting point and a destination. If there are no
parking facilities they are of little use. The chain is as strong as the
weakest part! So I would like to add Bicycle Parking facilities as an
indicator, both at home and at destination points (at schools, stations, at
work, shops etc). In Holland 45% of the people sometimes do not use their
bike because they are afraid it will be stolen.
5.       Slow streets or zones: maybe to take together with the km of cycle
paths?

On the following six points I would say that you know Paris better then I
do. They seem reasonable indicators to me

1.	% city area easily cyclable:
2.	Cyclable days /year: ca. 90% (personal estimate), ditto, between 4 and 5.
3.	Cycle clubs/voice: Strong/active, plugged in to policy. 3 close to 4 I
would say, not least because of their role and performance in the Mobilien
and Velib’ projects)
4.	Vandalism/public facilities: Not too bad, with some clear exceptions in
troubled areas. Let me go for 3+ for now, and we will know a lot more about
it after a year of the Velib’.
5.	Driver skills: Gradually getting better as the density of cyclists
increased, but still plenty room for improvement. At best 2-3.
6.	Police on bikes (and skates) – Yes, and a great feedback mechanism for
the city. I’d say 3 going on 4.

An other point to add might be cycle services. In the south of France where
I live it is difficult to find a place where you can buy a decent bike, let
alone have it repaired or get spare parts. This discourages people to invest
in cycling here. You have to be part of an in-crowd to be able to find the
right places, if they exist at all.  Just think of cycling as of car
driving; without parking facilities or mechanics you would not use your car
either.

A last indicator to add might be Sexiness of cycling or Image if you like.
Again, cars are a lot about image and status, so is clothing and your
address or house. It is not so different for bicycles. In Holland we do have
several ministers that do cycle to work, five generations of Royalty by
bike. At the Eurotop in Amsterdam Wim Kok, then our Prime minister, gave
away bikes to Tony Blair, Chirac, etc in Amsterdam. The picture went all
over the world. The sales of bikes had been stagnating for a long time in
the 70 and 80, but began to pick up when you finally could choose between
more models, notable the all terrain bike, and between more colours then
black, brown and blue. As long as cycling is seen as a poor mans solution to
travel, the great masses will not be attracted to it.

You are all welcome to comment on my reaction,

Saskia Hermans

---------------------------------------------

From: Andy Clarke [mailto:Andy at bikeleague.org]
Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 4:09 PM
Subject: RE: Local cycling environment indicators: Let's have a look at .

Eric et al

Yes, I read the report you sent a week or so ago and understood the goals –
and I agree that it will be important for cities to have a few key
indicators in place for a city bike program to work well.

I have always had the same thought in relation to TravelSmart or
inidividualized marketing programs – there are a lot of cities in the US
where such a program would be a disaster because there just isn’t the
infrastructure (transit, bike lanes and trails, even sidewalks) to make it
work.  But equally there are some where it would work well.

In the US I think one of the key factors for city bikes is having a well
defined geographic area that is intuitive and well-engrained already in
people’s minds. Our metro areas are so spread out a system for the DC metro
area, for example, would be incredibly hard – but a system might work in the
Mall area or Monumental Core, or Old Town Alexandria, provided the
boundaries are well established and easy to identify or know. European
cities are typically so much better defined with a real edge to them.
Maybe these existing tools will be of some assistance to you:
1.       Bikeability checklist. Pretty basic, but a good start and great for
getting people to do self-assessments of their community or neighborhood.
http://www.bicyclinginfo.org/cps/checklist.cfm
2.       Bicycle Friendly Community program (US version) – more detailed
survey with about 75 questions spread over engineering, education,
enforcement, encouragement and evaluation topics.
http://www.bikeleague.org/programs/communities/
3.       Bicycle Friendly Community program (European version) – self
assessment tool for cities focused on planning and policy elements.
http://www.goudappelcoffeng.nl/Velo/InfoIndex.php
4.       BFC Action Plan – a more political statement with ten key elements
outlined. http://www.bicyclefriendlycommunity.org/symp_actionplan.htm

Andy Clarke

---------------------------------------------

On Behalf Of Chris Bradshaw
Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 5:16 PM
Subject: Local cycling environment indicators: Let's have a look at . . .

Eric,

> Bikeability indicators - Quick introduction:

Since I don't think we are leaders in this field, I think it would be useful
to look at the 'bikeability' scales that have already been developed, both
to get ideas and perhaps to see if we might wholly import.

*	http://www.velomondial.net/ has a four-level system -- based more on
municipal policy than on on-the-ground results -- for "bicycle
friendliness". They also have an on-line "city characteristics
questionnaire" that cities can fill in. They also discuss a concept called
'car-sparse areas.'

*	www.bicyclinginfo.org/de is a site of the Washington DC-based National
Center for Bicycling and Walking. It uses the term "bicyclability" and has
an equal interest in walking (although the group started out as a cycling
org.).

*	http://www.bicyclefriendlycommunity.org/ is the site of the League of
American Biocyclists (was League of Am. Wheelmen). It has an award program
for qualifying Am. cities.

> Parking

I find bike parking missing from your list. How much? How do bylaws support
it?

> City size/density:

Size is not as important as density, but to keep trips short (to bicycle
distances, without the cyclist, as you point out, having to be an
'enthusiast'), land use is also a factor. Are neighbourhood retail sectors
strong? And are such neighbourhoods 'complete'? (as in do they have a full
set of destinations to support living on at least a daily-weekly scale? This
implies a planning process that is pro-active, such at as property becomes
available locally, first consideration is given to what local area _needs_
as to what land use should be chosen to locate there)

Chris Bradshaw
Ottawa

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20070605/002c4120/attachment.html


More information about the Sustran-discuss mailing list