Session 9- "The position of nonmotorized transportation in Dutch multimodal planning – An examination of key policy issues" by Jos Arts

8/6/2019 Session 9- "The position of nonmotorized transportation in Dutch multimodal planning An examination of key policy issues" by Jos Arts

1/24

8 mei2008

The position of non-motorized transportation

in Dutch transport planning.Key policy issues

Non-motorized Transportation session #139

88th Annual Meeting Transport Research Board

11 January 2009, Washington DC

Jos ArtsStrategic Advisor Infrastructure & Environment,

Rijkswaterstaat

Professor Infrastructure & Environmental Planning,

University of Groningen


2/24

2

Contents

Mobility in the Netherlands (modal split)

Walking and cycling in NL: facts and figures

Focus on the bicycle (why so much biking in NL?)

Issues: safety, health, environment

Policies: land-use planning, network management, mobility management

Conclusions: lessons learned


3/24

3

Mobility in the Netherlands

Number of trips per mode in 2007

Tot

l

of t

i

on foot

Tot

l numberbof tri

by

bi

ycle

ublicTransport

Ot

ermodes

Mobility (travel kms) in 2007

Total distancecoveredon foot in

2007

Total distancecoveredby

bicyc le in2007

PublicTransport

Ot

ermodes

growt (x billion travellers kilometres/year)

Modal split

Modal split todistance


4/24

4

Mobility in the Netherlands

Type of journeys by means of transport and motive in 2005


5/24


6/24

6

Bicycle iets

Most important groups: students, women (decreasing) Most important motives: school, shopping, otherwise

Distance: on average < 7.5 km

Per year:

600 trips

1800km

140 hrs Risk: 200 death, 7000 hospitalised casualties

Huge impact of bicycle theft


7/24

7

Bicycle:

International co arison

!

"

#

$

%

&

'

(

%

)

( &

)

0 1 0 0

2

1

3

32

1 772

1

672

1

63

2

1

4 2

2

1

44

2

1 42 2

1 42

2

1

34

2

1 0

3

5

5 6

7

5 6

4

5 6 6

5 6 8

9

9 6

7

teet

erlan

s

Den

ar

Ger

any

Swe e

n

Finlan

Belgi Ital

y

Englan

Astri

a

Franc

e

Saon

@ A B C

D

E

F

G

H I H D Q

R

D

E

T U

V

C

W

V

T

W

The etherland the nly E ropean ountry

w th ore yclesthanpeople

t X e Y e t X e r l a n

sD e n

a

a rb

G e ra

a n yA

c

str iaSwi tzer lan

B e l g ic

a

S w e

e nItaly

F r a n c eG r e a t B r itain

0 %

5 %

1 0 %

1 5 %

2 0 %

2 5 %

3 0 %

2 7 %

1 9%

1 0 %9% 9%

8 %7 %

5 % 5 %

2 %

NB: Totalshareofnon-caruse quitesimilarin EU

share ikesespeciallyhighinNL


8/24

8

Bicycle: Local di erences

Bicycle share differs considerably locally

Some cities up to 38%!


9/24

9

Situation in the Netherlands is favourable:

Geophysical situation: flat country,

Moderate climate favourable for walking / cycling

Compact cities, long tradition of spatial planning (strategic operational)

Calvinistic (design) culture: functionality & sobriety

Political situation: much more left-winged than the US

Relatively strong government

Relatively good pedestrian, bicycle and public transport facilities

Mobility characteristics: 46% of all trips non motorized

Good safety record,

but still 43% of victims are non-motorized travellers

Why so ch bi in ?


10/24

joy fear anger sadness aversioncar bike Public transport

car bike public transport

Comfort

No hindrance

Easy

Calm

Vo delays

Cheap

Always on time

Being on ones

own

Speed

Pleasant

Safe

Independency

Flexible

Emotions linked with modes of transport:

Why so ch bi in ?

Judgement on aspects of travelling:


11/24

Ar ents ro al in and cyclin

most sustainable transport modes (140x more sustainable than cars)

clean (no air pollution)

cheap and efficient (space, energy)

biking fastest transport mode in urban areas(provided there is good bike infrastructure)

healthy (less obesity, less work absenteeism)

strong instrument against poorness in physical exercise contributes to more liveable towns

=> Social value of non-motorized transport (importance to society):

sustainability

health

quality of life of urban areas

traffic flow in urban areas

economy


12/24

C 2-emission per mode of transport:

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Cars Public transport Bicycle

Cars

Public transport

Bicycle

ther emissions:

the zero emission vehicle

has already been invented

(no Nox , fine particles, noise).

Ar ents ro cyclin

Traffic flow:

Bicycles are the best urban means transport (average car speed


13/24

13

Policies: non- otori ed trans ort

Door-to-door conceptpre- and post- transportation related to public transport => walking, cycling(NB: also true for car => parking policies)

Close relationship between non-motorized transport and public transport

(this combination car-use) => mobility management

Reliability: car, public transport bicycle, pedestrians

Area-oriented approach, cooperation between parties

Instruments:

Land-use policy Network policy

Site policy

Mobility management


14/24

1945- mid 70s: Bicycles seen as nuisance for cars

mid 70s: revival of cycling policy (reasons: safety, congestion, environment, politics)

80s and 90s: Masterplan fiets

Currently (after Masterplan fiets): highly decentralized policy

Municipality at the core (bicycling policy is deeply rooted in decentralized authorities)

Provinces and city area: distribution of subsidies

State: Support for decentralized policy

Framework for decentralized authorities

Issues only to be arranged at a national level

Funding

Support with research, knowledge and dissemination

Institutionalisation: Fietsberaad (Bike-council)Supports decentralized authorities with knowledge, experience and, exchange andresearch and co-ordinates separate actions

Investments in cycling. E.g. Amsterdam: about 0.5% of the total budget (invested bystate, province, region and town in any traffic or transport project)

Policies: e. . bicycle


15/24

15

I ortant iss es in non- otori ed trans ort

Safety (road victims) => children, elderly, handicapped

Health (obesity)

Environment (air, noise etc.)

Climate change (C 2 etc.)

Careful spatial planning (reducing distances)

Close relationship non-motorized transport and public transport


16/24


17/24

17

I ortant iss e: a ety

The more bicycling, the safer:

Discussion on cycle helmets in NL:

Pro:

Less damage when an accident happens

Contra:

- Mainly for unilateral accidents (helmets are hardly of use when collision with a car)

- Thus: only with high speed (so racers should wear helmets)

- More accidents happen with cyclists wearing helmets

- Counterproductive to cycle use: less casual use, uncomfortable, diminishing feeling of freedom


18/24

18

Spatial plannin and non- otori ed tra ic

Creating favourable spatial conditions:

Large walkable neighbourhoods

Nearness of essential destinations

Compact housing mixed with other land use

combining urban functions (offices, shops, schools, university, sport facilities etc.)

Strategic location of functions

situate new residential areas near existing town,situate offices (high employment density) near existing public transportsituate recreational facilities centrally and accessible by Public Transport

Clear distinction between through traffic and residential land use

Example of new-town of Houten:

Example of Groningen:


19/24

19

Net or desi n eas res

Sidewalks are standard Cycle paths / lanes along most main town roads and rural arterial roads

Road classification (adequate facilities all along the most important routes),

Separation of cyclists and pedestrians, scooters from cycle paths

Separate rural tourist cycle path network (incl. guiding signs)

Measures at intersections/crossings: fly-overs, special right-of-way-measures,traffic lights common practice, shared space concept

Where cars and cycles come together: car speed max 30 km/h; speed ramps etc.

Fietsstraat: Cycle street, designed for cycles, where cars are guests

Cycle parking facilities at focal points (e.g. train stations)

Attention to comfort: red asphalt replaces tiles

Coherent network of cycling routes of high quality (independent of traffic flow by cars)


20/24


21/24

21

Exa ple: Public transport bi e OV- iets

What is V-fiets?

Public Transport Rental Bicycle Self Service bike rental system

Supplement to public transport

Door-to-door public transport

Bicycle in the Dutch transport chain

7% of all travelled distance 8% of all distance is travelled by train

40% train commuters by bike to the station

nly 10% proceed by bike

V-fiets fills this gap! Door-to-door transport

Potential market share:20% of all train passengers Frequent users: commuters, business and leisure Less environmental effects / parking problems

Possible modal shift: car => train/bike

Dutch familiar with bicycles (children, education)


22/24

Cycle infra in cycle developing countries: chicken and egg problem:- No investment in cycling because hardly anyone cycles

- Not much growth in - cycling because of lack in infrastructure

- Difference in actual safety and experienced safety

- Dont wait until countermeasures become unaffordable.

- Invest in cycle infra is best way if you want to undertake governmental action.

- Cascade approach needed; dont focus on technical gadgets.- Integral / implicit approach.

- Attitude: yes we can!

What cant be done:

- Change habits overnight

- Cycle policy needs stamina and endurance

- Raise awareness with car drivers

- Reduce the status of a car

- Tackle the problem of bad air quality for cyclists

Conclusions: lessons learned


23/24

Ho reali ed in NL?

Much effort in safety measures: functionality, homogeneity (traffic calming)

Spatial planning: compact city, ABC-locations policies

Network policies: coherent network of cycling routes of high quality,lots of separate cycle paths and measures at intersections

Road categorization: (limited number) roads for traffic flow; connectors and vast

majority ofaccess roads

Traffic circulation to avoid through-traffic by cars and to make cycling faster Mobility management: public transport bike, commuter biking, road works

Door-to-door transport: combination bike public transport

Education

- Primary schools: Terms on traffic to fulfil; freedom of methods- Campaigns for safer school environment: route, crossings

- School parents coordinate involvement


24/24

Than you or your attention !

Questions?

Contact info:

Jos ArtsCentre forTransport and Navigation, Rijkswaterstaat

P. . Box 5044, 2600 GA Delft, The Netherlands

phone: ++31 88 7982338

e-mail: [email protected]

More facts and figures:www.fietsberaad.nl

(Contains a lot of English-language information)

Hans Voerknecht +31 10 2825818 [email protected]

Documents

Session 9- "The position of nonmotorized transportation in Dutch multimodal planning – An examination of key policy issues" by Jos Arts