Aalborg Universitet Bike Infrastructures Report Silva, Victor ... - VBN

Furthermore, 85% of the municipalities have made or are
in the process of making plans for the provision of pedestrian
and bicycle friendly infrastructure (footpaths, walkways,
bicycle lanes, bicycle tracks, traffic calmed routes
etc.).
Both the formulation of goals and the rather high level of
cycling related plans indicate that cycling is a focus area
amongst the participating municipalities. This also shows
in the fact that 88% of the participating municipalities within
the last five years (2007-2011) have implemented initiatives
aiming at improving the conditions for the cyclists.
83% of the municipalities have indicated that they have
implemented projects specifically aiming at increasing the
use of the bike amongst the inhabitants.
Approximately 25% of the municipalities have invested
more than 10 million DKK in cycling projects and initiatives
from 2007 till 2011, including bicycle tracks, bicycle
lanes, bicycle parking, cycling plans, developing cycling
action plans etc. Only 14% of the participating municipalities
have invested less than 1 million DKK in cycling projects
and initiatives.
The majority of the invested funds have in fact been spent
on actual bicycle infrastructure. More than half of the municipalities
state that at least 80% of the invested funds
has been invested in bicycle tracks, bicycle lanes, bicycle
parking and at intersections, the latter with the focus on
increasing cyclists safety. More specifically the municipal
activities have mainly been focussed upon expanding
the bicycle infrastructure. In that context the municipalities
have prioritized the implementation of actual bicycle
tracks to the implementation of the cheaper solutions;
bicycle lanes and the appointing of bicycle routes along
local roads, the latter not including significant changes to
the existing infrastructure. In the Copenhagen Area focus
has also been on the implementation of cycling commuter
routes, which includes significant improvements to the
bicycle infrastructure, including establishing separate bicycle
tracks and out-of-level crossing of larger roads, thus
ensuring fast connectivity between the suburbs and the
capitol area of Copenhagen.
57% of the municipalities answer that they have not or
only to a limited extent have applied solutions such as;
speed reduction of cycling routes even though this measure
will reduce accident risks and make the cyclist feel
safer in traffic (Greibe et al., 2000). One third of the participating
municipalities are though, to a large extent, working
actively with speed management. Most of the municipalities
are focussed upon improving the conditions for
the cyclists at intersections, with most of them focussing
upon safety issues rather than improving the cyclist flow
at the intersections.
Improving the possibilities of combining the use of bike
and public transport by improving the transfer between
the two modes of transport, has only been implemented
by a minority of the municipalities and only to a limited
extent in the municipalities where this measure has been
implemented.
In general there is a large variation in the extent to which
the municipalities have invested en better parking facilities.
This initiative has mainly been implemented by the
larger urban municipalities. Improved bathing and changing
facilities at work places has been seen as a possible
way of increasing the use of the bike when commuting.
However, this initiative has by and large not been implemented
by the municipalities in Denmark.
In recent year there has been a specific focus upon the
transport behaviour amongst children. It has been a growing
concern that more and more children are driven by car
to school by their parents rather than walking and cycling
themselves. The concern is that this will have a negative
impact on their travel behaviour as adults as they may
grow increasingly in favour of travelling by car than by
cycle in their adult life. Steps have been taken in order
to get more school children to travel by bike, predominantly
by investing in safer school routes. This is also reflected
in the questionnaire as 80% of the municipalities
to some extent have invested in safer school routes, e.g.
by implementing bicycle tracks, employing traffic calming
schemes, pedestrian crossings etc.).
Summing up on the characteristics of the implemented
projects and initiatives, it can be concluded that the municipalities
generally prefers to invest in bicycle tracks,
although this solution is relatively expensive. The questionnaire
does not shed light upon why this is the case.
However, it is likely that the preference towards bicycle
tracks is due to the fact that it holds a highly symbolic
value, “we encourage cycling”, it is perceived as a good
solution in terms of both connectivity and safety and there
is documentation that the construction of bicycle tracks
increase the level of cycling (Jensen, 2006). Finally, and
equally important, bicycle tracks is a solution often in demand
amongst the cyclists.
Motives
When it comes for the municipalities motives for investing
in bicycle projects and initiatives the primary driving
force is actually to reduce the accident risks amongst the
cyclists as well as to improve cyclist security; the latter expressing
the notion of traffic safety/accident risk amongst
cyclists. As opposed to accident risk, which is the objective
measure of traffic safety, security expresses the subjective
measure of traffic safety. Focussing upon the level
of security is relevant in the sense that if people feel safer,
they are more likely to use the bike, in which case the traffic
safety issue becomes relevant in terms of increasing
the use of the bike.
Other dominant motives for the municipalities to invest
in bicycle transport is a desire to enhance public health
and to improve connectivity, and thereby the mobility of
the cyclists. The latter may also prompt more car-users
to opt for the bike at the expense of the bike in the future.
However, in comparison, the desire to move bike-users to
the car in order to reduce environmental strains as well
as congestion problems is to a lesser extent stated as a
specific motivation by the municipalities.
However, in regards to having environmental strains and
congestion problems as motivators for wanting to transfer
car trips into bicycle trips there is a large variation between
the municipalities. The larger urban municipalities
especially states environmental concerns and congestion
problems as a primary motivator, whereas the rural municipalities
does it to a lesser extent. In comparison the
safety and security issue is stated as a primary motivation
by both urban and rural municipalities. The reason
as to why this is the case is likely to boil down to the fact
that the problems in relation to congestion and the environmental
strains are evident in the urban municipalities,
whereas the safety issue is a general concern and problem
no matter the size of the municipality.
Potentials for increasing the use of
the bike
When it comes to increasing the use of the bike in daily
transport, the municipalities state that the largest potential
is related to projects that aim at improving the safety and
security level along the school routes. This reflects the
assumption that if the school routes are perceived as safe
by the parents, the more likely it is that they will allow their
kinds to go to school by bike. Given that increased use of
bike as a child and youngster will led to a higher use of the
bike as an adult the rationale holds.
Besides improving the routes to and from school the municipalities
in general point to improvements of the bicycle
infrastructure as the most promising way of enhancing the
use of bike. The largest potential for promoting the use
of the bike is in the eyes of the municipalities attached to
the construction of bicycle tracks. As bicycle tracks are
perceived as a secure solution this indicates that projects
that seeks to improve both the perception of safety as well
as the level of connectivity are seen as promising projects
by the municipalities.
In assessing the potential for increasing the use of bike
in general it seems as if the perceived potentials seem
to fade with the visibility and clarity of the project. Project
that clearly signals improvements of connectivity and
safety/security are deemed to hold a larger potential than
those with a lesser explicit focus on the cyclists. Specifically,
general speed management at the municipal level
and speed reduction schemes along cycling routes are
deemed to hold a lesser potential than the provision of
cyclist specific infrastructure such as bicycle tracks and
bicycle lanes. The latter seems somewhat surprising in
the sense that the car speed level has significant impact
upon the perceived safety level amongst pedestrians and
cyclists and furthermore it is well-documented that speed
reductions significantly reduces both accident and injury
risks amongst vulnerable road users, including cyclists
(Madsen et al., 2008; Greibe et al., 2000). Based upon
these facts, one could argue that reduced speed levels
would enhance the use of the bike due to actually improved
safety and security levels.
Newer Danish research have documented a 10% increase
in the number of cyclists – in a Copenhagen context
– when new bicycle tracks are constructed in an urban
environment (Jensen, 2006). In order to be able to
prioritize between projects, it would be highly fruitful to set
up evaluation studies aiming at documenting the effects
of speed reductions on the use of the bike. Traditionally
evaluations of speed reductions focus on the safety effects
only.
Potentials for improving traffic
safety for cyclists
When asked to assess the potential for improving traffic
safety amongst cyclists the municipalities again primarily
points to the construction of bicycle tracks. This is somewhat
worrying as Danish research projects have shown
that the construction of bicycle tracks does not significant-