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

Eric Britton (Fr) eric.britton at free.fr
Wed Jun 6 15:06:26 JST 2007


-----Original Message-----
From: Chris Bradshaw [mailto:c_bradshaw at rogers.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2007 4:30 PM

Eric,

Good that you remind us (and yourself) that we are looking as
bike-sharing-ability, not the more generic bike-ability.

First, bike parking is built in for shared-bike programs (SBP), since these
are the 'docking stations' where bikes are picked up and dropped off.  Poor
bike parking generally will _help_ SBP, since the latter has parking that
normal private bikes don't.  On that point, watch out that the stations are
located so as not to take away sidewalk space where there is little to give,
so that pedestrians don't go to the media to complain (it is best for the
stations to be carved off from street -- parking -- space).

Second, given this focus, what about a cursory look at cities that have
SBPs, to surmise what they have in common -- and likewise what distinguishes
cities that don't have them.

[I note the Andy Clark has pointed you to two of the three sites I
mentioned]

As to the 'market' for SBPs, I would play up two of them: 1) workers who,
having come by transit or been dropped off by a driver-partner or rideshare
provider, is without transportation until the end of the workday, and 2)
tourists/business travellers who also don't have a car with them during
their stay in the city.  For this latter group, good maps of the streets
with common destinations clearly marked are important, perhaps even on
streetside signage.

> Vandalism/public facilities:

This is also a factor, like parking, that helps SBPs, since the latter
provide more secure parking, AND the distinctive (and utilitarian) design of
the bikes makes them less 'steal-able.'

> 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.

I generally agree.

> 2.       Cars: Nice indicator but what about bicycles??

North America also has surprisingly high bike-ownership levels.  But they
are taken out very infrequently, mostly for leisure trips, and very often
the first few kms are as cargo being carried in/on a car.

> 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?

The No. Am. penchant for putting racks on buses can be replaced by providing
bikes at destinations, meaning that there might be an increased demand for
bike parking at bus stops at the other end of the bike trips.

> 4.       Kms of cycle path, protected space:

I would downplay this, since most of the use of the bikes will be for
utilitarian purposes, which makes it much less likely that these separate
R-O-Ws will be used.  Pathways are too often lacking direct access to
adjacent properties.

> 5.       Slow streets or zones: maybe to take together with the km of
> cycle paths?

Increased bicucle will slow streets by itself, and the kinds of people using
these bikes (and because the bikes will take a bit of adjusting to) will
mean they will have more impact on street use than the person using their
own bike.  Cyclists are an important part of 'traffic calming.'  And
remember my idea for CURBBBBs, Cars Under Restraint for Bikes, Blades,
Boards, and Bus Boardings, where the right-most through lane has a speed
limit half that of the other lanes.

Chris Bradshaw
Ottawa






More information about the Sustran-discuss mailing list