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

[Eric Britton (Fr)]

-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Yeates [mailto:michael at yeatesit.biz]
Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2007 4:15 AM

Thanks for the clarification(s) Eric ...

Can you forward this on to the relevant others you listed below as I felt
sure these addresses would reject my email or send it too widely?

Also pardon my delay but time-wise, out of synch being in Oz ... I hope this
is not too much ... and is seen as constructive and informative based on
some 15-20 years experience combining professional and advocacy roles in
cycling and disabled access (and by definition, including the newly
rediscovered mode of transport, walking).

I will position myself fairly and squarely by saying that far too many
people (tend to or inadvertently) ignore cycling because it is a real
problem ... whether in urban, suburban, rural or freeway road situations.
People forget bicycles are vehicles and in most places, are treated as such
by regulations but not by facility management, ie road management.

Cycling shows up the way pedestrians have been corralled into minimum space
and increasingly reduced in importance and priority. Cycling also shows up
how roads and streets have been given over almost totally to high speed
motorised transport whether car, motorbike, truck or bus and given over by
deliberate policy decisions. The consequence is that trying to segregate
cyclists by separating them from the roads (eg by paths or bike lanes shows
up the technical problems eg at turns at intersections) or from pedestrians
(eg by NOT permitting use of footpaths, verges, etc shows the inappropriate
mix with peds).

BOTH cyclists AND pedestrians are ALL potentially users of (i) the WHOLE
urban environment and (ii) ALL public transport ... from cradle to grave ...
(at http://www.yeatesit.biz/transresource.htm  see "Integrating urban
design: meeting the needs of people").

I strongly side with the view that the road environment should be
appropriate to its environment as implicit/explicit in Vision Zero ... so
urban roads and streets should ALWAYS be designed and/or if existing be
managed, to be almost 100% safe AND convenient for ALL inhabitants and road
users ... the convenience implying equity.  But out on a freeway is
definitely no place for peds and bikes so separate barrier-free
infrastructure facilities should also ALWAYS be present, still to preserve
equity of access and mobility "for people of all ages and abilities" (for
some of these phrases, see further on).

So cycling gets put in the "too hard" basket ... but therefore it is also at
great risk of being given the occasional token or "symbolic" gesture to give
politicians a warm feeling and to have something token to show to the others
(ie non-cyclists and cyclist-haters) when cyclists "complain" or advocate
change. And as we well know, the transport policy area is fraught with
different views and needs so anything at all marginal or able to be made
seem peripheral is quickly able to be ignored ... UNTIL ...

There are strong parallels with the discrimination against people with
disabilities ... rather than accepting individual differences and needs ...
which with a male dominant world view results in rather-too-macho
environments based on early to middle age male views of need ... the others
being to various extents, ignored or marginalised hence often far greater
proportion of male than female cyclists and pedestrians ...

Also being here in Oz (which is rapidly becoming the most car and oil
dependent country and producer of CO2 per capita and by export of coal on
the planet), I am acutely aware of the need to examine very closely the
extremely important differences between what I would call (mis)perceptions
and realities ... as viewed by a large range of types (or 'modes' if you
like) of cycling.

Increasingly I am therefore a bit suspicious (or put another way given my
academic experiences and training, prone to critical analysis) ....

I am also aware of the Parisian advocacy for cycling having visited and
stayed in Paris for a few days in 1995 before attending the Velo-city
Conference in Basel/Basle ... The Parisian cyclists were lobbying to host
V-C but lamenting that nothing was being done FOR cycling/cyclists in Paris
and all requests were being rejected ... yet in 1996, at the Velo-Australis
Conference held in Fremantle (Perth Western Australia), the Parisians were
delighted ... suddenly the Parisian government had changed its mind and had
installed a number of key bike lanes (and the advocacy had changed to trying
to resolve the badly designed bike lanes resulting from installing them in a
hurry without consulting the users ... I can elaborate on that aspect
separately). I can confirm the Parisian cyclists stories as I was there
again 1997 and have some photos ...

What happened to cause the 180 degree change in Paris?

In December 1995, the RER-Metro drivers (bus drivers too) went on strike and
people suddenly "discovered" the bike ... the shops sold out of them, old
bikes were restored to use from cellars, sheds and attics etc  ... and
people found just how convenient it was (despite the weather) esp when the
roads were congested with car drivers ...

To some extent, that may appear to be an exaggeration but would prefer to
take the cyclists view to that of non-cyclists esp anyone not now accepting
of the role of cycling ... if only to ensure (mis)perceptions don't colour
the perceptions and realities.

Message 1 ... TDM (ie induced congestion or road space reallocation or what
I call "endorsement" of the likely presence of cyclists "on the road") can
make any city safe(r) for cycling and ALWAYS more convenient once people
have a need or perception of a need to overcome the (mis)perceptions ...

Any city? Most are designed long before cars ... even most of the cities,
towns and villages in Australia (Canberra the exception being master planned
in the early 1900s) ... so road management has increasingly accommodated
more and faster motorised traffic to the detriment of walking and cycling
... but that CAN always be reversed, incrementally, at a rate to suit and in
areas where there is more support or logic in doing so. Inner city CBD areas
and tourist areas, university areas etc are prime examples ...

Message 2 ... Where to start ("reinventing" the urbs ... although I don't
really like the term as per email I sent to Eric) and why it is critical ie
in gaining support from currrent and potential users and others who gain as
well as having a stronger rationale that will encourage people to
(begrudgingly) agree in principle even if they themselves don't change ...
this is why "government "endorsement" of cyclists "on the road" is so
important ... as an increase in cyclists (and pedestrians) can change the
road management priorities eg towards the York hierarchy...

(Mis)perceptions seem to drive the opposition to cycling "on the road" ...
it is commonly considered too dangerous so detailed analysis and comparison
with other modes is essential as is similar analysis of the various costs
and benefits ... for me, Mayer Hillman's work (with others) on the
disbenefit of compulsory cycle helmet wearing and on the failure to ensure
cities have remained safe for children (eg school trips) and more recently
on CO2 as measures of how UNsafe and dangerous cities have "become" (in fact
this is the direct result of deliberate policy and road management
decisions) is particularly useful along with his argument that promoting
public transport as a solution to over-use of cars is NOT a solution at all
because it still encourages long(er) trips.

So from there, the EU booklets on "Kids on the move" and "Cycling: the way
ahead for towns and cities" (c1999 so nearly 10 years published and I assume
still on the web) provide useful info and rationale/justification for
support FOR cycling (and walking) ... in particular emphasising the need to
create a PERCEPTION of a safe enough environment "on the road" ...

Message 3 ... Needs sufficient justification and "endorsement" (ie marketing
support from government) to at least challenge and hopefully reduce/overcome
opposition including hypothetical opposition based on "but what if .......?"
type questioning.

The next issue is to address the (mis)perceptions of danger and UNsafety "on
the roads" ... I wrote about this in WTT some time back so a search there
will provide that view.. The key issue is to recognise that pedestrians
(noting that in Australia, the Pedestrian Council of Australia includes
people with disabilities as pedestrians) and cyclists mean a requirement to
provide what I call "safety+convenience" for people of all ages and
abilities (you can find the arguments at
http://www.yeatesit.biz/transresource.htm  at "My Papers" and at "My
Conference Papers" ). However you really need to scan through these papers
as they are a series of steps - each building the arguments encapsulated in
the titles of two of the papers viz  "Road safety: for all road users?" and
"Vision Zero: a Dream .... or a challenge?" ).

So what is a city environment like when it addresses these issues? To me ,
Graz wins hands down ... although by no means ideal, it is light years ahead
of most other cities I know (of) ... and having experienced it, can vouch
for it despite some inevitable grumbling that there has not been sufficient
support to achieve and ensure its goals ... the video from the City of Graz
(EU or EC funded) emphasises the point ... the essential being to ensure
integration of strategies (your list helps here) in particular in the case
of Graz, the decision to make 30km/h apply city-wide then use increased
speed limits only where appropriate and where no negative impacts on the
pedestrians and cyclists ...

You might consider trying to contact Prof Gerd Sammer who provided the
"research and evaluation" of the 30km/h concept ... sadly I found out that
the City Engineer who worked with and presumably facilitated the project has
since died. I have quite a few of his papers (in English) but only in paper
format as the work was carried out in the early-mid 1990s ... and it would
seem to me, appears to have been ignored or forgotten since.

Interestingly, both China and India (the latter subject to some excellent
research, not sure about the former although my experience there confirms
it) demonstrate that congested and/or slow speed traffic results in a mixed
traffic environment that is both safe and convenient for pedestrians and
cyclists ... a useful concept to draw from the "south" to the "north" ...!

Message 4 ... reducing speed limits is a key strategy to making ALL roads
safer ... but equally, it is the increased priority of pedestrians and
cyclists "of all ages and abilities" implied by (s)lower speed limits that
"endorses" their likely presence and allows them to be more assertive of
their entitlement to use the roads with increased safety+convenience" .

Next is to avoid what I call token or "symbolic" gestures ... ie "one off"
gestures NOT integrated (obviously this project is an implied concern in
your efforts here re the 'city bikes' ). These are too easily introduced for
political reasons then allowed to wilt through lack of integration AND
ongoing support and monitoring/evaluation to ensure any weaknesses are
addressed. Simply deciding to make 'city bikes' available could turn out to
be a dreadful failure and extremely counter-productive if for example, they
don't get used and nobody is responsible for finding out why and ensuring
the problem or (mis)perception is resolved.

Two examples ...

As you would be aware, Oz was very early if not first in the world in making
wearing of helmets mandatory (as distinct from promoting them as a public
health benefit) ... there is a whole issue there including the risk
compensation aspects but it would appear that the decision has been very
counter-productive (an issue for separate discussion if needed). We can't
for a highly relevant example ever expect 'city bikes' to work well as
helmets make hiring almost impossible and having to carry your own helmet in
case you decide to use a 'city bike' destroys the whole concept ...

It happens by a strange quirk of fate that our Lord Mayor (City of Brisbane
... the only large city-wide local authority in Oz ... pop 900,000) happened
to see the USA front mounted bike racks in Seattle or Portland not sure
which and from there, without checking the constraints, committed Brisbane
which runs its own buses to introducing them. Its a long story but in
principle, our design rules prevent them ... so to resolve the conflict and
back down, it was agreed to trial them ... not surprisingly (with >40,000 in
use in the USA), the trial concerns did not arise ... so the limited number
of services (only 3, one of which was a lemon) were allowed to deteriorate
ie with buses without racks turning up so confidence was destroyed ... and
just last week the current Lord Mayor has announced the end of the "trial"
(which I thought had officially ended several years ago) and the end of the
bike racks ... as the trial had not proved satisfactory ...

So although I don't know the current situation in Paris (and sadly missed
the Velo-city in Paris as I had decided not to travel overseas so much based
on the CO2 and other aspects of air travel ... Eric one question for you to
consider too as there are alternatives to be explored to model post-flying
at no real cost??), IF the road environment is not sufficiently friendly for
cycling and pedestrians, why would 'city bikes' be successful?

Again a question of (mis)perceptions and realities.

IF cycling has increased quite dramatically in Paris to the point where
"you" feel it is safe enough to cycle, then a couple more questions follow.

Have "you" actually taken up cycling as one of your mode choices either for
part or for whole of trip? And if not, why not?

Should the current cyclists and pedestrians be asked what it is that would
improve Paris for them? Care needed here to ensure a wide range of options
and don't forget about integration of them, both sequentially and
incrementally, to ensure maximum success (ie as more users) and minimum
opposition.

Although I have not been there, it is worth considering if the road
environment and "endorsement" of cyclists and pedestrians is similar in
terms of "safety+convenience" (but NOT necessarily in terms of facilities)
to say Copenhagen where the 'city bikes' have been most successful?

I say NOT in terms of facilities because Paris (as well as experiences in
Graz, and in India, China and any congested city) have shown that the
facilities in Copenhagen are NOT necessary ...

One could also cite Amsterdam to argue that the facilities there are NO
LONGER necessary ... but were necessary ONLY to preserve road space ... but
now we know that really is not necessary IF as Peter Newman et al, point
out, places like China don't give away the congested mixed use (but NOT
spare or wasted) road space to cater for more cars at the expense of
pedestrian and cycling modes ...

Message 5 ... Who is the target user and what is the road environment really
like? It does NOT have to be any more "pleasant" than trying to use the
other modes eg crowded, smelly, polluted, etc IF it is sufficiently
"safe+convenient" to compete for all or part of a trip. The picture post
card photos of bikepaths along rivers seem to me to be an unhelpful
distraction if not a fallacy given many were formed for horses ... and under
pretty limited (and to cyclists and pedestrians) almost totally irrelevant
design constraints ...!!! So IF the roads and streets ARE for personal
mobility (by whatever combinations of modes), then any reluctance to
"endorse" their increased use by pedestrians and cyclists needs to be
critically examined to ensure protecting and increasing "car dominance" is
not the hidden (whether intended or unintended) rationale or consequence.

Finally, having made use of the French train system bikes, 'city bike' is
just one option ... along with many others. So location of the 'city bike'
stations is incredibly important as is ensuring they are always available
when one needs one. It might be that without say means to cross the big
avenues (ie a lack of "endorsement" and integration), novices may not want
to use the 'city bikes' BUT clever marketing of the concept might
concentrate on say, increasing the use of the RER-Metro by emphasising the
benefit of using a 'city bike' to get to the RERT-Metro station rather than
waiting for a local bus or walking or driving ...

This is particularly important ()to the middle and outer rings of cities and
towns) as my efforts and experience here in Oz suggest there is a strong
reluctance to promote cycling "on the road" in the less dense sprawling
areas yet this is EXACTLY where it is needed AND it offers a 4-5 times
quicker means than walking but with the benefits of a car in terms of
personal convenience. So finding some locations for the 'city bikes' in the
middle and outer rings of Paris (selecting areas with a high probability of
relative success) would be vital to NOT having the 'city bikes' seen as ONLY
a CBD concept ...

Essentially a slogan used here in the late 1980s for Geelong Bike Plan in
the 1980s I think is relevant ... "every street is a cycling street"  ...
but must not then be ignored as the danger aspects of current road
management are used to NOT "endorse the likely presence of cyclists on the
road"...  Again this is why I have pursued the Denver USA concept of "BIKE"
symbols on the road to show ALL road users HOW to "Share the Road" (a common
road safety slogan to use an piggyback on) and to show WHERE "on the road"
to expect to come across cyclists ... more about this at
http://www.yeatesit.biz/transresource.htm ... under "My conference Papers"
and "BURG" ... This is an idea Paris might well consider as it is found (ie
literally 'discovered' ) in use in many locations but usually only after
people have seen our or the US examples and then they say, oh yes, I know
what you mean ... we have those ...

And despite its reputation for cycling facilities, ie "bike lanes" and "bike
paths", Amsterdam is another illustration of (mis)perceptions for there too,
the "BIKE" symbols are used as we use them here ... ;-)

I would like to try to ensure that issues such as the need to enjoy cycling
are not used to muddy the realities ... the facts are as follows:

Regarding transport (as distinct from say recreation, sport or in some cases
tourism), this is a TRANSPORT issue so do we really (need to) "enjoy" the
environment when driving or using trains or buses? Do we insist on an
enjoyable environment for the users before locating or building new roads? I
guess road tunnels would not fit this concept well so why not have cycling
and walking as little different to other modes?

How safe is sufficient compared to other modes esp if total "safety"
improves as in Graz?

How convenient is necessary or sufficient?

How can multi-mode options be best utilised to promote the benefits of
cycling part of the trip to gain a better outcome eg access to a high
frequency public transport service?

How can (or indeed how will) "localness" be promoted? The aim here is to
resolve better the Mayer Hillman dilemma re public transport and cars and
counter the effect of the fixed and in some cases increasing daily travel
time allowance combined with faster and better public transport and roads
such that the local precinct is emphasised rather than distant travel
encouraged.

Of course for bikes, "local" can be several kilometres EASY travel in say
10-15 minutes) such that "local" amenity, safety, etc is improved WITHIN big
cities many of which have forms of local government with an EASY cycling
scale (eg the Parisian arrondissements within the greater Paris of Ile de
France) although as in London, sometimes a bit small (eg some of the smaller
Boroughs) and where these have villages embedded in them? The worst cases
seem to be where one government controls the whole city and surrounds ..
unless an agreeable Lord Mayor is (or realistically, could be) elected...
;-) ... as the dominant majority view tends to be reflected in voting
(noting that the kids don't get to vote).

And above all to reiterate, how can any particular initiative be integrated
and supported/protected and evaluated until or such that future projects are
mutually supported over time?

Hope that is not all too much and too strong ... happy to discuss or flesh
out detail ... I would not bother if I did not consider it worth the effort
and potential outcomes.

regards ...

Michael Yeates
Convenor
Bicycle User Research Group
Cyclists Urban Speedlimit Taskforce
Public Transport Alliance
(these cover from very local to national and international ... drawing on
experience globally to inform locally and vice versa ..........)

At 06:30 PM 5/06/2007, Eric Britton \(Fr\) wrote:



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
<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
<mailto:michael.koucky at koucky.se> ]
Koucky & Partners AB - 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
<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
<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 <http://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/20070606/b97b6a2c/attachment.html