For the past decade, I have been criticizing the frequent and almost-official argument that producing Amsterdam-style bikeways in American cities will produce a large switch from motor transport to bicycle transport, and I have been roundly criticized by those who make that argument. My criticism is based on two arguments. Making bikeways safe delays and limits all traffic. Large bicycle modal shares occur only in cities that developed as walking cities. My criticisms are based on the inherent characteristics of bicycle and motor traffic, when both are equally available.
The Dutch, themselves, agree with my views, as they express themselves in "Cycling in the Netherlands", issued by the Dutch Department of Public Works, 2009 issue. Note that in 1.2, they state that the largest bicycling shares occur in large cities that never have had a "properly functioning" mass transit system, and that one reason that Manchester never had a large bicycle share is that it had an early "properly functioning" mass transit system. That is a distinction that I did not know. Consider the other characteristics of a large city that prevented the development of a mass transit system, and how the urban functions had to be arranged. No wonder that walking, and its speedier sister, bicycling, work well there. Note that in all the other sections, the Dutch emphasize high-density, concentrated development with short travel distances. And, rather remarkable, because the Dutch recognize (in 3.2) that, outside these areas, bicycle transport is not generally time-competitive with motor transport, they are considering building bicycle freeways to assist in reducing the time penalty.
These are quotations from "Cycling in the Netherlands" issued by the Dutch Department of Public Works, 2009 issue.
>From 1.2, Dutch bicycle use in a European perspective
Apart from the general parallels in the trend lines, we immediately find very striking differences. Differences in the level on which this general continuous movement takes place and differences in the strength in the rise and fall of the bicycle use share.
A high bicycle share (more than 30%) for Amsterdam, Eindhoven, Enschede and Copenhagen -- cities that never saw the arrival of a bicycle-use devouring public transport system and where bicycle traffic had always had always been a regular component of traffic policy. Accepting the cyclist as a 'normal' traffic participant with equal rights in the '50s and '60s has been a crucial factor in these cities.
An average bicycle share (approx. 20%) for South-East Limburg and Hanover. Here the rise of the car coincided with a more manifest pro-car policy and a spatial structure that was more in line with the car.
A low bicycle share (approx. 10% or below) for Antwerp, Manchester and Basel. Here it is especially the car-oriented traffic policy that explains matters, and the manifest influence of an early, properly functioning public transport system (Manchester). The decline which was the result of the arrival of the motor car continues uninterrupted and without 'brakes', because all relevant influencing factors are pointing in the same direction: a negative collective picture on cycling, a strong car-oriented policy, realization of a large-scale car infrastructure, strong suburbanization.
==========
>From 1.7 Bicycle policy works
It is regularly asked why there is so much cycling in the Netherlands. A difficult question -- although the answer clearly lies in a combination of factors. Morphological and spatial factors are obviously involved: cycling is easier on a flat polder than in a hilly area. And in the compact Dutch cities many trips can more easily be covered by bicycle because of the short distance. Historical-cultural factors also play a major role. Cycling is so embedded in the Netherlands that virtually every child gets the first bicycle around the fourth birthday -- and
learns to use it.
====================
>From Example A: Groningen: consistent policy
In Groningem the spatial policy is focused strongly on a compact city. The spatial structure exhibited strong compression around 2000, and the 1980 outline of the city is maintained. The municipality has worked on its policy with clear vision and persistence over some two or three decades. As a consequence, among other things, most traveling distances are easily covered by bicycle. Some 78% of the inhabitants live within a radius of 3km from the city centre, and 90% of all jobs are located
here; almost all major buildings are within 5km radius.
In 1977 this perception produced the traffic circulation plan which divided the city into four sectors. It was no possible to travel between sectors by car, but it was possible by bicycle and bus. Passing car traffic was kept outside the inner city ...
=======================
>From 3.2 Cycling to work
Most people believe that half-an-hour's traveling time to and from work is acceptable. Cyclists can certainly cover some 7.5 km in this time. This is an interesting figure, because of all those working in the Netherlands, half live within 7.5 km of work. ... All over the country there is interest in cycle routes for longer distances. [Routes in the form of bicycle freeways] As a result, distances of up to 15 km are achievable with cyclists able to reach speeds of 25-30 km/hour. This means that cyclists are not much slower than other modes of transport and in congested areas they may be much faster.
--
John Forester, MS, PE
Bicycle Transportation Engineer
www.johnforester.com
When reading the above, it's important to remember that the Dallas area has the lowest population density of any statistical metropolitan area in the world, and that our commute distances are among the longest.
0 comments:
Post a Comment