Session 12- "The Potential of Cycling in the USA: Pursuing Opportunities and Overcoming Challenges"...

8/6/2019 Session 12- "The Potential of Cycling in the USA: Pursuing Opportunities and Overcoming Challenges" by John Pucher

1/22

Potential of Walking and Cycling:Pursuing Opportunities and Overcoming Challenges

John Pucher, Rutgers University

http://policy.rutgers.edu/faculty/pucher.html


2/22

Walking and Cycling:the MOSTsustainable transport modes

MOST environmentally friendly:

>Virtually no pollution at all

>Almost no nonrenewable resources used

MOST equitable:>Financially affordable by virtually everyone

>Physically possible by all but the severelydisabled

MOST economical:>Minimal private and public costs

>Although they take more time, they provideexercise that reduces medical costs and greatlyextends our healthy life expectancy


3/22

Potential benefits of more walking and cycling:

More daily physical activity and better personal health

Reduced medical costs for everyone, directly and indirectly

Improved traffic safety and more livable neighborhoods

Better Environment: Reduced air, water, and ground pollution; lessnoise; less disruption of natural ecosystems

Reduced Greenhouse Gases and global warming

Improved accessibility and increased social and economicintegration of all groups

Reduced traffic congestion, parking needs, energy use


4/22

35

2.7 5 7

913

1916

2124

22

16

22 23 23 22

45

11

1

2

3 8

42

4 15

99 9

25

5

0.4

0

10

20

30

40

50

USA

(2006)*

Australia

(2006)*

Canada(2001)*

USA

(2001)

Irelan

d(2006)

France(1994)

Belgium

(1999)

Austria(2005)

UK(2006)

Norway(2001)

Denmark(2003)

Finland(2005)

Germ

any(2002)

Sweden

(2006)

Spain

(2000)

Netherlands(2006)

Switzerland(2005)

Source: Latest available national travel surveys for each individual countryNote: Surveys include all trip purposes, except where asterisk indicates worktrips only

PercentofTri

Bike

Walk

Walk & Bike

Walking and cycling in

USA compared toother high-income

countries


5/22

70% less less energy use per capita for personal transport

40% lower household expenditures on transport

60% lower obesity rate

3 years longer life expectancy

Less than half the expenditures on health care

65% lower traffic fatality rate

Huge consequences for sustainability: Germany vs. USA


6/22

7% 5% 6%

17%12% 14%

19%0.5% 0.3%

0.2%

9%

11%

7%

30%

24%

48%

23%

39%

4%

13%

1.0%

10%

19%22%

25%

24%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

16-24

25-39

40-64

65+

18-44

45-64

65-74

75+

18-24

25-39

40-64

65-74

75+Age

Bicycle

Walking

The Netherlands

Germany

USA

Source: Pucher and Dijkstra, Promoting Safe Walking and Cycling to Improve Public Health: Lessons from the Netherlands and Germany,American Journal of Public Health, September 2003, Vol. 93, No. 9, pp. 1509-1516.

Walking and Bicycling Shares of Urban Travel by Age

Group in the USA, Germany and The Netherlands


7/22

Pro-car policies in European cities in

1950s and 1960s caused huge decline inwalking and cycling

Dramatic policy turn-around since 1970s

to limit car use and promote cycling,walking, and public transport in Dutch,

Danish, and German cities

Public Policies Crucial

to Walking and Cycling


8/22

Lrrach, Turmstrasse 1953 Source: Archives, City of Lrrach

Transformation of German Urban Planning and Transport

Policies since 1950s

In 1953, prior to

massive car use

Lots of cycling and few cars in city center


9/22

Lrrach, Turmstrasse 1972 Source: Archives, City of Lrrach

In 1972, just

before urban

planning andtransport

reforms

Car-dominated ugliness


10/22

Lrrach, Turmstrasse 2006

In 2006,

after car-restrictive

reforms

Return to civility, keeping outcars completely and reserving

city center for pedestrians and

cyclists


11/22

Bridge in Freiburg BEFORE and AFTER reforms


12/22

Typical residential

street in Freiburg

BEFORE traffic

calming reforms

Typical residential

street in Freiburg

AFTER traffic calming

reforms


13/22


14/22

German Cycling Boom Engineered by Explicit

Shifts in Transport Policy in 1970s

City Time PeriodChange in BicycleModal Split Share

Percentage Increasein Bicycle Share

Munich 1976 to 1996 6% to 13% +117%

Nuremberg 1976 to 2001 4% to 9% +125%

Cologne 1976 to 1998 6% to 12% +100%

Freiburg 1976 to 1998 12% to 19% +58%

Stuttgart 1976 to 2000 2% to 6% +200%

Bremen 1976 to 1997 16% to 21% +31%

Muenster 1976 to 2001 29% to 35% +21%

Average for all

urban areas in

Western Germany

1972 to 2002 8% to 10% +25%

Sources: Broeg and Erl, Mobilitaet und Verkehrsmittelwahl. Muenchen: Socialdata, 2003; Deutsches Institut fuerWirtschaftswissenschaften,Mobilitaet in Deutschland, 2002. Berlin: Bundesministerium fuer Verkehr, 2004.


15/22


16/22

Lame or legitimate excuses for low

levels of walking and cycling?Climate

Topography

Trip distance

Trip chainingOverall time cost

Safety


17/22

Percentage of Short Trips Made by Walking

and Cycling in Germany and the USA

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0-1 km 1-2 km 2-5 km 0-1 km 1-2 km 2-5 km

Source: Ralph Buehler, "Travel Behavior in Germany and the USA"

Walk

Bike

Germany

USA


18/22

17

5.2

1.1

21

8.2

1.6

14

4.4

2.5

7.2

3.2

2.02.1

0.7 0.3

1.6

0.4

25

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Pedestrian Fatality Rates per 100 Mln Trips

Bicyclist Fatality Rates per 100 Mln Trips

Pedestrian Fatality Rates per 100 Mln Km Traveled

Bicyclist Fatality Rates per 100 Mln Km Traveled

Pedestrian Injury Rates per 500 000 Km Travelled

Bicyclist Injury Rates per 500 000 Km Travelled

USA

Germany

The Netherlands

Source: Pucher and Dijkstra, Promoting Safe Walking and Cycling to Improve Public Health: Lessons from the Netherlands and Germany,American Journal of Public Health, September 2003, Vol. 93, No. 9, pp. 1509-1516.

Walking and Cycling CANbe made very safe,

as in the Netherlands

Walking and

cycling are

TEN times

safer in the

Netherlands

than in the

USA!!


19/22

Obstacles to walking and cycling in the USA:

#1: The Car: Competitor for funds, space, traffic priority, andtrips, and main source of traffic danger for pedestrians and

cyclists

#2: Low-density, car-dependent sprawl: Increases average trip

lengths, esp. for work, school, and shopping trips

#3: Perceived and actual danger of walking and cycling: Both

traffic safety concerns and exposure to crime

#4: Extremely low taxation of car ownership and use: Motoristsbear only a fraction of the full social costs of driving

#5: Provision of vast amounts of free or underpriced car parking

#6: Excessive car speeds in residential neighborhoods


20/22

#7: Deficient motorist training: Very little attention paid to

avoiding endangerment of pedestrians and cyclists

#8: Lack of training in safe walking and cycling: Few schoolsoffer traffic safety lessons for children

#9: Refusal of police and courts to enforce legal rights of cyclists to

ride on roads and the rights of pedestrians to cross roads

#10: Lack of fully integrated, complete network of bike lanes,

paths, and on-road bike routes that actually serve useful,

practical, daily destinations as opposed to recreational trails

#11: Lack of sufficient, secure, sheltered, convenient bike parking

#12: Lack of good, clean, convenient and safe sidewalks and

crosswalks for pedestrians


21/22


22/22

Session 12- "The Potential of Cycling in the USA: Pursuing Opportunities and Overcoming Challenges"...

Documents

Transcript of Session 12- "The Potential of Cycling in the USA: Pursuing Opportunities and Overcoming Challenges"...