Urban Transport Benchmarking Initiative – year three CYCLING WORKING GROUP REPORT Experts: Oliver...

Urban Transport Benchmarking Initiative Urban Transport Benchmarking Initiative – year three– year three

CYCLING WORKING GROUP REPORTCYCLING WORKING GROUP REPORT

Experts: Oliver Hatch & Pascal van den Noort Velo Mondial

Rapporteurs: Neil Smith, TTR (Yr2) Katherine McWilliam, TTR (Yr3)

Ben Smith, TTR (Yr3)

Year three – Participating citiesYear three – Participating cities

Six cities; Brescia, Copenhagen, Glasgow / Six cities; Brescia, Copenhagen, Glasgow / Cycling Scotland, The Hague, London, & MalmCycling Scotland, The Hague, London, & Malmöö

Six cities; Brescia, Copenhagen, Glasgow / Six cities; Brescia, Copenhagen, Glasgow / Cycling Scotland, The Hague, London, & MalmCycling Scotland, The Hague, London, & Malmöö

Timeline of ActivitiesTimeline of Activities

Year three Cycling Working Group Year three Cycling Working Group conferences and site visitsconferences and site visits

• Brussels (All) 22nd September 2005• Santander (Joint) 1st - 2nd December 2005• The Hague (Joint) 23rd - 24th March 2006• Malmö (Cycling) 8th – 9th May 2006• Budapest (All) 16th June 2006

Brussels (All) 22Brussels (All) 22ndnd September 2005 September 2005

Santander (Joint) 1Santander (Joint) 1stst - 2 - 2ndnd December 2005 December 2005

The Hague (Joint) 23The Hague (Joint) 23rd rd - 24 - 24thth March 2006 March 2006

MalmMalmö (Cycling) 8ö (Cycling) 8thth – 9 – 9thth May 2006 May 2006

Budapest (All) 16Budapest (All) 16thth June 2006 June 2006

Obstacles to more cyclingObstacles to more cycling

Many issues – no one single messageMany issues – no one single message

• Attitudes and perceptions

• Adequate road space & facilities

• Excessive car speeds & illegal parking

• Lack of information & signage

• Weather and gradients

Year 3 - Research Questions & IndicatorsYear 3 - Research Questions & Indicators

1.1. How can Cities Monitor and Evaluate How can Cities Monitor and Evaluate Cycling?Cycling?

2.2. How to Encourage Intermodality for How to Encourage Intermodality for Cyclists and Public Transport Users so Cyclists and Public Transport Users so that Both can Benefit?that Both can Benefit?

Q1. How can Cities Monitor and Evaluate Cycling?Q1. How can Cities Monitor and Evaluate Cycling?

This Question was split up into 4 main topics This Question was split up into 4 main topics with indicators describing them…with indicators describing them…

•I.1 – Cycling policy •I.2 – Promotion of new cycle use •I.3 – Opinions of the usefulness and the difficulty in collecting certain indicators•I.4 – Projects using these indicators

Q2. How to Encourage Intermodality for Cyclists and Q2. How to Encourage Intermodality for Cyclists and

Public Transport Users so that Both can Benefit?Public Transport Users so that Both can Benefit?

This Question was split up into 8 main titles with This Question was split up into 8 main titles with indicators describing them…indicators describing them…•J1 - Cycles on public transport •J2 - Cycle parking sufficiency•J3 - Cycle hire•J4 - Local authority incentives for employers to

encourage sustainable transport use by staff

Q2. How to Encourage Intermodality for Cyclists and Q2. How to Encourage Intermodality for Cyclists and Public Transport Users so that Both can Benefit? Public Transport Users so that Both can Benefit?

Continued…Continued…

• J5 - Requirements for employers to provide cycle parking

• J6 - Personalised journey planning services

• J7 - Innovative approaches to integrating cycling and public transport

• J8 - Coordination between Public transport operators and city cycling departments in

planning public transport facilities

UTBI Benchmarking – Practical ChallengesUTBI Benchmarking – Practical Challenges

Key issues encountered in year 3Key issues encountered in year 3

• No budget for participants

• Limited time for participating cities

• Definitions and availability of indicators

• Depth, direction and analysis of qualitative answers

Key Findings – Q1. How can Cities Monitor Key Findings – Q1. How can Cities Monitor and Evaluate Cycling?and Evaluate Cycling?

Qualitative indicators…Qualitative indicators…

• All cities have a cycling policy, but focus it differently• All cities regard monitoring as important, & implement it• Most cities promote new cycle use, but in different ways• Most projects to promote use are successful

Key Findings – Q1. How can Cities Monitor Key Findings – Q1. How can Cities Monitor and Evaluate Cycling? Continued…and Evaluate Cycling? Continued…

UsefulnessUsefulness

Bre

scia

Cop

enh

agen

Th

e H

agu

e

Lon

don

Malm

o

Gla

sgow

/Cycl

ing S

cotl

an

d

Bre

scia

Cop

enh

agen

Th

e H

agu

e

Lon

don

Malm

o

Gla

sgow

/Cycl

ing S

cotl

an

d

Bre

scia

Cop

enh

agen

Th

e H

agu

e

Lon

don

Malm

o

Gla

sgow

/Cycl

ing S

cotl

an

d

Bre

scia

Cop

enh

agen

Th

e H

agu

e

Lon

don

Malm

o

Gla

sgow

/Cycl

ing S

cotl

an

d

Mode share (% of trips) x x x x x xRisk (KSI/trip length) x x x xCycle accidents x x x x x xNetwork length x x x x x xCordon counts x x x x x xBridges/tunnels for bikes x x x x xSigning strategy x x x x x xCycle parking x x x x x xUse of cycle parking x x x x x xEngaging schools x x x x x xEngaging employers x x x x x x% of children received cycle training x x x x x xCycle theft x x x x x xCycle shops x x x x x xCycle training programme x x x x x xBehaviour surveys x x x x x xRisk (KSI per trip) x x x xCycle training x x x x x

Cycling indicators Usefulness (please cross) Essential Very Useful Nice to have Not useful


Initial difficultyInitial difficulty

to researchto research

Ave

rage

Bre

scia

Cop

enh

agen

Th

e H

agu

e

Lon

don

Mal

mo

Gla

sgow

/Cyc

lin

g S

cotl

and

Cycle shops 1.50 1 1 2 3 1 1Cycle accidents 1.83 1 1 4 1 2 2Network length 2.00 2 3 2 3 1 1Cycle training programme 2.20 1 2 2 4 2Cycle parking 2.33 4 2 1 3 3 1Bridges/tunnels for bikes 2.33 1 4 2 4 1 2Engaging employers 2.42 2 3 4 1.5 2 2Signing strategy 2.50 1 4 3 3 2 2Engaging schools 2.75 3 5 3 1.5 2 2Cycle training 2.75 3 2 4 2Mode share (% of trips) 3.00 3 3 4 2 3 3Cordon counts 3.17 4 3 4 1 3 4Use of cycle parking 3.33 4 4 2 3 4 3Behaviour surveys 3.58 4 4 4 1.5 5 3Cycle theft 3.67 4 3 4 4 3 4Risk (KSI per trip) 3.70 5 3 4.5 3 3% of children received cycle training 3.70 3 3 3.5 5 4Risk (KSI/trip length) 4.08 5 5 3 4.5 2 5

Initial Difficulty to Research on a scale od 1 - 5 (1-easy to 5-difficult)

Cycling indicators


Ranked by usefulness then by difficultyRanked by usefulness then by difficulty

Bre

scia

Cop

enh

agen

Th

e H

agu

e

Lon

don

Malm

o

Gla

sgow

/Cycl

ing S

cotl

an

d

Bre

scia

Cop

enh

agen

Th

e H

agu

e

Lon

don

Malm

o

Gla

sgow

/Cycl

ing S

cotl

an

d

Bre

scia

Cop

enh

agen

Th

e H

agu

e

Lon

don

Malm

o

Gla

sgow

/Cycl

ing S

cotl

an

d

Bre

scia

Cop

enh

agen

Th

e H

agu

e

Lon

don

Malm

o

Gla

sgow

/Cycl

ing S

cotl

an

d

Cycle accidents x x x x x x 1.83Network length x x x x x x 2.00Mode share (% of trips) x x x x x x 3.00Risk (KSI/trip length) x x x x 4.08Cycle parking x x x x x x 2.33Bridges/tunnels for bikes x x x x x 2.33Engaging employers x x x x x x 2.42Signing strategy x x x x x x 2.50Engaging schools x x x x x x 2.75Cordon counts x x x x x x 3.17Use of cycle parking x x x x x x 3.33% of children received cycle training x x x x x x 3.70Cycle shops x x x x x x 1.50Cycle training programme x x x x x x 2.20Behaviour surveys x x x x x x 3.58Cycle theft x x x x x x 3.67Cycle training x x x x x 2.75Risk (KSI per trip) x x x x 3.70

Initial Difficulty to Research on a scale of 1 - 5 (1-easy to 5-difficult)

Cycling indicators Usefulness (please cross) Nice to have Not usefulVery UsefulEssential


• Qualitative indicators…Qualitative indicators…Partial correlation between usefulness - initial difficulty to collect

• ESSENTIAL - cycle accidents, network length, % of trips by mode & KSI/trip length

• VERY USEFUL - cycle parking, bridges/tunnels for bikes, engaging employers, signing strategy, engaging schools, cordon counts, use of cycle parking & % children cycle training

• NICE TO HAVE - % children cycle training, cycle shops, cycle training programme, behaviour surveys, & cycle theft

Key Findings – Q2. How to Encourage Intermodality Key Findings – Q2. How to Encourage Intermodality for Cyclists and Public Transport Users so that Both for Cyclists and Public Transport Users so that Both

can Benefit?can Benefit?

• On Q2, the cycling group and the ‘Behavioural and Social Issues in Urban Transport’ groups both answered the same questions.

• Part of a valuable cooperative working on common issues, and with joint meetings during the year

• Cycling group agreed that this had been very useful process, but that there is much more work to be done on intermodality


can Benefit?can Benefit?

• Cycles cannot be taken on most buses, & some trains

• No, or limited, cycle parking at transport interchanges

• Most cities have cycle hire schemes - either subscription or a coin mechanism


can Benefit? Continued…can Benefit? Continued…

• Most cities incentivise employer’s sustainable transport• Most cities have a journey planner – 2 included cycling• Most are planning innovative cycle parking • Limited coordination between transport organisations

and city administrations• However, promising ideas for the future

Advice for cities collecting indicatorsAdvice for cities collecting indicators

Essential points when collecting indicatorsEssential points when collecting indicators• Care must be taken using indicators• Indicators should be clearly defined• Mix of indicators for a comprehensive picture

Links to findings from year 1 of UTBILinks to findings from year 1 of UTBI

We looked at indicators on;We looked at indicators on;• How mainstreamed is cycling policy and practise

in the cities• The part that infrastructure and marketing play

in achieving current cycle usage,

Cities learnt a lot about best practise, and Cities learnt a lot about best practise, and discussed its transferability.discussed its transferability.

They wanted to develop the indicators and focus They wanted to develop the indicators and focus on other areas in year two, such as public on other areas in year two, such as public transport, marketing and health…transport, marketing and health…

Cycle / health promotion in ManchesterCycle / health promotion in Manchester

Links to findings from year 2 of UTBILinks to findings from year 2 of UTBI

So, in year 2 we looked at indicators on;So, in year 2 we looked at indicators on;• Measuring and monitoring effects of cycle policy• Marketing for specific audiences• Integrating cycling and public transport to

mutual benefit

Data for policy review is gathered piecemeal.Data for policy review is gathered piecemeal.

Diversity of marketing in cities gave excellent Diversity of marketing in cities gave excellent opportunities for shared learning, and cities opportunities for shared learning, and cities wanted to do more on thiswanted to do more on this

First joint meeting of working groups – success!First joint meeting of working groups – success!

Cycle / Public transport promotion in Cycle / Public transport promotion in BrusselsBrussels

Recommendations for further studiesRecommendations for further studies

• Analysis of city cycle hire schemes

• Cycle parking at interchanges

• Parking distances from interchanges

• Funding staffed cycling facilities

• Promotion of cycle parking facilities

• Foldable bicycles

• Bicycles on trains

The Future?!!!The Future?!!!

Urban Transport Benchmarking Initiative – year three CYCLING WORKING GROUP REPORT Experts: Oliver...

Documents

Transcript of Urban Transport Benchmarking Initiative – year three CYCLING WORKING GROUP REPORT Experts: Oliver...