beijing 2014

Cycling as everyday mobility Experiences in The Netherlands and

potential lessons for China

Luca Bertolini University of Amsterdam

Cycling, why bother?

• Together with walking most environmentally sustainable transport mode

• Clean, quiet, space efficient • Contributes to, rather than detracts from the

quality of public space • Inexpensive, for both the individual and the

public • Healthy • Fun • Cool

Share of cycling as percentage of all trips in 14 countries (Buehler and Pucher, 2012)

To see what a world where cycling is a significant part of everyday mobility would look like , The Netherlands

is the place to go

27%

Amsterdam streets

Weekday rush-hour

Saturday shopping

Out on a date

Walking the dog

‘Sports Utility Vehicle’

‘Station Wagon’

‘Pick Up Truck’

Whatever the age

Whatever the age

Whatever the weather

Whatever the weather

In Amsterdam, 31% of all trips are by bike – and the share is growing, mostly at the expense of

the car

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

1986-1991

1994-1997

1998-2000

2001-2004

2005-2008

2011 2013

walkingcyclingPTcar

(O+S Amsterdam)

walking 28%

PT 17%

cycling 31%

car 20%

• Gaining insight-1: who, what for, and where is cycling in the Netherlands?

Who?

• No major differences by: – Sex – Household composition – Income – Education levels

The share of cycling is high among children, peaks at teen-age, then declines and stabilizes, and falls past 75

Age group Cycling share Total 27 0–11 years 39 12–17 years 63 18–29 years 21 30–39 years 19 40–49 years 22 50–64 years 23 65–74 years 20 ≥ 75 years 13

Share of cycling in total trips by age group (NTS 2010/2011)

Cycling share growing among the younger and the older generations

Changes in cycling share by age group 1985–2007 (NTS 1985-2007)

Migrants cycle less than natives, those with a non-western background much less

Cycling share

Total 27

Native Dutch 28

Western migrant 25

Non-Western migrant 18

Share of cycling in total trips by ethnic background (NTS 2010/2011)

Growing, possibly because of diminished car-orientation, studying longer, forming a family later How to maintain?

Low, possibly because of lack of habit and status How to stimulate?

Growing, possibly because of better health, more active lifestyle How to facilitate?

What for?

Cycling share

Total 27

Work 25

Education 46

Shopping 29

Leisure 23

Dutch cycle for all purposes, but (much) more for education, and (somewhat) less for leisure

Share of cycling by trip purpose (NTS 2010/2011)

Where?

Cycling share Total 27 Very highly urbanized 27

Highly urbanized 26

Moderately urbanized 28

Less urbanized 27

Not urbanized 23

Dutch cycle in all spatial contexts, more in urbanized than in non urbanized areas

Share of cycling by urbanization rate (NTS 2010/2011)

In cities, the share of cycling is growing, in rural areas it is declining

Urban Rural 1994-96 2007-09 1994-96 2007-09

Cycling share

25% 27% 27% 25%

Changes in cycling share by urbanization rate 1994–2009 (NTS 1994-2009)

Differences in cycling volumes are becoming much greater

Cycling volumes by urbanization rate 1994–2012 (NTS 2012 / Statistics Netherlands 1994–2012)

Growing, because of more, and younger people moving to cities, or staying there longer How to accommodate the growth?

Declining, because of people leaving, especially young people, and because jobs and services are thinning out How to stem the decline?

Beyond the general patterns, large differences at the individual city level

Cycling share in medium sized Dutch cities, 2010-2012 (NTS 2010-2012)

• What explains individual differences? • Gaining insight-2: what is the role of policy in

the performance of cycling in The Netherlands?

Conceptual model

Performance measures (change in) Cycling share Cycling safety Perception of cycling conditions

Critical success factors (change in) Hardware - pull conditions Hardware - push conditions Software conditions Orgware conditions Social context Spatial context

-Changes since 2000 -In 22 mid sized cities -By means of Rough Set Analysis

Hardware - pull conditions Cycling network quantity Cycling network quality Cycling network safety Cycling network facilities (parking) Hardware - push conditions Cycling network speed relative to car Car parking tariffs Area size with car parking regulation

Software conditions Educating children Educating adults Marketing campaigns with incentive Marketing campaigns without incentive

Orgware conditions Formulation of policy goals Implementation of policy measures Financial sources for cycling policy Allowing scope for experimental measures Policy adaptability Institutional arrangement of cycling policy Involvement of actors outside policy arena Relationship between actors inside and outside policy arena Levels of citizen participation Leadership

Social context Population size Number of households Composition of households Spatial context Number of destinations within 3 km

• Cycling shares have been increasing in cities characterized by… Hardware - an increase in the speed of bike trips relative to car trips Orgware - successful in implementing most of the proposed interventions - high levels of citizen participation - a combination of the above factors

• Cycling safety has been increasing in cities characterized by… Hardware - an increase of on-street car parking tariffs and enlargement of the area of paid on-street car parking - an increase in #crossings where cyclists have priority - an increase in % asphalt/tarmac on bike paths Software - giving much attention to cycling education for children Orgware - high degree of flexibility in policy - authoritative (or charismatic) leaders

• The perception of cycling conditions has been improving in cities characterized by… Hardware - enlargement of the area of paid on-street car parking - an increase in the supply of bicycle parking facilities at stations areas Orgware - high levels of citizen participation - successful in implementing most of the proposed interventions - authoritative (or charismatic) leaders - much scope for experimental interventions

• Overall, adding to the literature: – Both pull (pro-bike) and push (anti-car) hardware – Not only hardware – Combinations important

Also for China?

The potential benefits seem evident, but can it be done?

• Chinese cities now, reminding of cities in Western Europe in the 1960s

Share of cycling in all trips in selected European cities, 1920-1995

(Bruheze & Veraart, 1999)

Amsterdam 1969: modernizing the city, facilitating the car

46

“Stop the child murder” “Safe pedestrian and bike paths”

“Stay out our neighborhood” ““Together with the neighborhoods we can also

make plans!”

Amsterdam, 2013: street priorities reassessed

Amsterdam, 2013: the urban fabric/mix preserved

Not only in the centre: Amsterdam, main cycle network

Not only in the centre: Amsterdam, functional mix at street level

Services Employment Residential

Also in new developments: e.g. Houten new town

Houten: main cycle network

Cycle paths Shared roads Main roads Railways

(Zhao, 2014)

China, reversing the trend? Share of cycling in all trips in major Chinese

cities, 1986-2011

China: reassessing priorities on streets?

Guangzhou

China: preserving the urban fabric/mix?

Guangzhou

China: also out of centre & in new developments?

?

“Not for Chinese cities” • “Trips too long”

– Many trips are within bike range (3-6 km at leisurely pace)

– And: more trips can be brought within bike range (by mixing functions)

– Innovations and combinations can expand the spatial reach of the bike

Innovation-1: the e-bike

Innovation-1: the e-bike

• In The Netherlands, by now around half of the bike-km of those aged 65 or more are by e-bike

Innovation-2: bike highways

potential

existing

potential under development potential potential potential potential

Combination: bike-train

47%

Combination: bike-train

12%

• Why so successful? • Train fast, bike flexible

– Faster than walk-train – More flexible than bus/tram-train

• Competitive with car – Not bike alone, too slow – Not train alone, too rigid

• NB: train in the Netherlands � metro in Chinese cities

Combination: bike-train

• “Not enough space” – Bike 7 x more space efficient than car (10 x when

parked) – Bike 1,5 more space efficient than bus

• “Air too polluted” – Not cycling, but pollution is the problem – Pollution problem for everybody, not only cyclists – Cycling can be a part of the solution

• “Too unsafe” – It is not, when infrastructure, laws, attitudes and

numbers are there

Risk of death from traffic accidents in The Netherlands 2010-2012

Deaths per Bike Car

billion trips 32,6 37,4

billion mins 1,9 1,2

(Institute for Road Safety Research, Statistics Netherlands)

Thanks, let’s discuss!

Bike friendly urban form & streets Amsterdam

Urban district form (illustrative)

Transport: pedestrians, bicycles, cars, freight, urban public transport Land use: mixed, continuous commercial plinth, some fully commercial buildings

Transport: pedestrians, bicycles, cars and freight with restrictions (e.g. one way, speed limit, time windows) Land use: mixed, continuous commercial plinth, mainly residential upper floors

Urban district form (illustrative)

Transport: pedestrians, bicycles, cars & freight exceptional (e.g. for moving or construction) Land use: mixed, plinth alternating residential and commercial, residential upper floors

Urban district form (illustrative)

Transport: pedestrians, bicycles with restrictions (one way, speed limit) Land use: residential (but including working from home)

Urban district form (illustrative)

Bike friendly urban form & streets Guangzhou

Transport: pedestrians, bicycles, cars, freight, urban public transport Land use: mixed, continuous commercial plinth, some fully commercial buildings

Urban district form (illustrative)

Transport: pedestrians, bicycles, cars and freight with restrictions (e.g. one way, speed limit, time windows) Land use: mixed, continuous commercial plinth, mainly residential upper floors

Urban district form (illustrative)

Transport: pedestrians, bicycles, cars & freight exceptional (e.g. for moving or construction) Land use: mixed, plinth alternating residential and commercial, residential upper floors

Urban district form (illustrative)

Transport: pedestrians, bicycles with restrictions (one way, speed limit) Land use: residential (but including working from home)

Urban district form (illustrative)

(Zhao, 2014)

China, reversing the trend? Share of the car in all trips in major Chinese

cities, 1986-2011

China, reversing the trend? Transportation mode share in total trips - excluding

walking - in Beijing City

62,7

38,5

30,3

23 20,3 18,1 16,4

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1986 2000 2005 2007 2008 2009 2010

Private CarBusSubwayBikeTaxi

Share: %

(Beijing Transportation Research Centre)