Monitoring bicycle policy 1996-1999

Soort:Onderzoeksrapporten
Uitgever:AVV
Datum:08-12-2005

A report about the results of the bicycle policy 1996-1999 and the lessons which can be learned. [AVV - 2000]

The Bicycle Monitor focuses on bicycle policy in the period 1996-1999 and thus links up with the Bicycle Masterplan evaluation. The data collection took place in 2000, meaning that the latest data used are from 1999. Because the implementation and effect of bicycle policy often continue over a longer period, in some cases developments before 1996 are studied.
For the Bicycle Monitor, CBS data on the mobility of the Dutch population was used. Other diverse sources provided more insights into developments in traffic safety, bicycle theft and social safety. In order to evaluate the progress of the implementation of measures, surveys were held among municipalities, provinces and Framework Act areas. The Cycling Association’s Bicycle Balance was also used in the monitor, which determines the detailed situation relating to bicycles in municipalities for the year 2000. This was a one-off measurement.

Developments in bicycle use
With respect to developments in bicycle use over the period 1991-1999, it was determined that this was fairly stable. Per person, bicycle use declined slightly in numbers of kilometres and was stable in numbers of journeys. Over the whole population, bicycle use rose slightly in terms of numbers of journeys, partly through the growth of the population, and was stable in terms of numbers of kilometres.
- Classified according to distance s, the bicycle retains its share for short distances (up to 2.5 kilometres), although it is losing ground to the car. For medium long distances (2.5-5 kilometres), the bicycle is losing some ground, mainly to the car. For longer distances (5-7.5 kilometres), the bicycle retained its share compared with the car;
- An important group where the bicycle is losing ground is the group of young adults. This means that the trend already established by the Bicycle Masterplan in this target group is being continued;
- In commuter traffic, the bicycle has managed to retain its share. In recreational traffic, the bicycle is losing some ground with regard to other modes of transportation, particularly the car;
- The number of journeys whereby the bicycle is used as a link with public transport and for onward journeys is increasing. This applies to both bicycle-train and bicycle-bus combinations.

The Bicycle Monitor shows that social developments without supplementary policy should have resulted in a reduction in bicycle use per person, both in terms of journey distances and in terms of numbers of journeys. The decline in bicycle use per person is estimated at around 5% over the period 1991-1998. Important factors which play a role in the declining bicycle use in a limited policy environment are:
- Demography: the decline in under 35 year olds and aging result in reduced bicycle use;
- Car ownership: increased car ownership results to reduced bicycle use;
- Economy: growing income and employment has a negative effect on cycling;
- Spatial: increase in commuter distances and facilities result in reduced bicycle use.

Bicycle policy
In order to maximise the potential of the bicycle, municipalities, provinces and Framework Act areas apply a range of measures. During the monitoring period, the following appeared:
- the policy intentions of municipalities regarding cycling have increased. In particular, big and many mid-sized municipalities, provinces and Framework Act areas have defined policy goals aimed at increasing bicycle use, improving the safety of cyclists in traffic, reducing the number of thefts and improving social safety.
- Municipalities, provinces and Framework Act areas have reserved resources for bicycle policy. Here too there seems to be growth. Decentralisation has not reduced the attention for cycling;
- Big and mid-sized municipalities (over 100,000 inhabitants) are working on creating bicycle networks, often according to the CROW guidelines of 1993. This has resulted in an expansion of the networks, whereby the infrastructure becomes more attractive for cyclists. However an assessment of the actual situation in 1999 shows that further implementation of this policy is necessary. Fast implementation of the plans is a problem in many municipalities due to procedures, a lack of capacity and more focus on bigger projects by contractors;
- For cyclists, safe bicycle parking facilities are very important. Often these are guarded. Many bigger municipalities are trying to create these facilities, at both public transport terminals and in the centres. In recent years, this has produced extra capacity. Those involved see the limited availability of bicycle parking facilities as a major problem, particularly in the big cities. From the big discrepancy between the supply and demand, it can be concluded that considerable investments will have to be made in the coming years. On the basis of the available information, it is difficult to say whether the current plans are sufficient;
- In their policy implementation, most municipalities do not in fact give the priority allocated to bicycles in their policy plans. Ultimately, the car and public transport often have priority. For example, little is done to give cyclists right of way/priority above other types of traffic. In choices about the design of residential areas, plans for the centre, etc., many municipalities continue to give the car and public transport the leading role;
- With regard to spatial planning, developments are still not very favourable. In the integral consideration of interests in spatial policy, the car and public transport are ultimately too often used as controlling elements, partly as a result of social pressure by developers. When locating facilities in the district and planning the traffic infrastructure, a stronger focus on the bicycle could produce bigger, substantial effects;
- Bicycle policy is currently largely focused on civil engineering projects. There is much less focus on communication concerning cycling. Both the image of the bicycle and information services to cyclists (signposting, etc) should be improved.

Based on the above, the conclusion can be drawn that attention for the bicycle is growing at local and regional level. If bicycle measures have effects on other modalities or affect other policy areas (spatial planning, urban economy), choices may not favour the bicycle. In a number of mid-sized municipalities (>100,000 inhabitants), additional steps have been taken in recent years aimed at strengthening bicycle use. From the developments in bicycle use in these municipalities, it can be concluded that integral policy whereby the bicycle has a full place could be successful.

The Bicycle Monitor focuses on bicycle policy in the period 1996-1999 and thus links up with the Bicycle Masterplan evaluation. The data collection took place in 2000, meaning that the latest data used are from 1999. Because the implementation and effect of bicycle policy often continue over a longer period, in some cases developments before 1996 are studied.
For the Bicycle Monitor, CBS data on the mobility of the Dutch population was used. Other diverse sources provided more insights into developments in traffic safety, bicycle theft and social safety. In order to evaluate the progress of the implementation of measures, surveys were held among municipalities, provinces and Framework Act areas. The Cycling Association’s Bicycle Balance was also used in the monitor, which determines the detailed situation relating to bicycles in municipalities for the year 2000. This was a one-off measurement.

Developments in bicycle use
With respect to developments in bicycle use over the period 1991-1999, it was determined that this was fairly stable. Per person, bicycle use declined slightly in numbers of kilometres and was stable in numbers of journeys. Over the whole population, bicycle use rose slightly in terms of numbers of journeys, partly through the growth of the population, and was stable in terms of numbers of kilometres.
- Classified according to distance s, the bicycle retains its share for short distances (up to 2.5 kilometres), although it is losing ground to the car. For medium long distances (2.5-5 kilometres), the bicycle is losing some ground, mainly to the car. For longer distances (5-7.5 kilometres), the bicycle retained its share compared with the car;
- An important group where the bicycle is losing ground is the group of young adults. This means that the trend already established by the Bicycle Masterplan in this target group is being continued;
- In commuter traffic, the bicycle has managed to retain its share. In recreational traffic, the bicycle is losing some ground with regard to other modes of transportation, particularly the car;
- The number of journeys whereby the bicycle is used as a link with public transport and for onward journeys is increasing. This applies to both bicycle-train and bicycle-bus combinations.

The Bicycle Monitor shows that social developments without supplementary policy should have resulted in a reduction in bicycle use per person, both in terms of journey distances and in terms of numbers of journeys. The decline in bicycle use per person is estimated at around 5% over the period 1991-1998. Important factors which play a role in the declining bicycle use in a limited policy environment are:
- Demography: the decline in under 35 year olds and aging result in reduced bicycle use;
- Car ownership: increased car ownership results to reduced bicycle use;
- Economy: growing income and employment has a negative effect on cycling;
- Spatial: increase in commuter distances and facilities result in reduced bicycle use.

Bicycle policy
In order to maximise the potential of the bicycle, municipalities, provinces and Framework Act areas apply a range of measures. During the monitoring period, the following appeared:
- the policy intentions of municipalities regarding cycling have increased. In particular, big and many mid-sized municipalities, provinces and Framework Act areas have defined policy goals aimed at increasing bicycle use, improving the safety of cyclists in traffic, reducing the number of thefts and improving social safety.
- Municipalities, provinces and Framework Act areas have reserved resources for bicycle policy. Here too there seems to be growth. Decentralisation has not reduced the attention for cycling;
- Big and mid-sized municipalities (over 100,000 inhabitants) are working on creating bicycle networks, often according to the CROW guidelines of 1993. This has resulted in an expansion of the networks, whereby the infrastructure becomes more attractive for cyclists. However an assessment of the actual situation in 1999 shows that further implementation of this policy is necessary. Fast implementation of the plans is a problem in many municipalities due to procedures, a lack of capacity and more focus on bigger projects by contractors;
- For cyclists, safe bicycle parking facilities are very important. Often these are guarded. Many bigger municipalities are trying to create these facilities, at both public transport terminals and in the centres. In recent years, this has produced extra capacity. Those involved see the limited availability of bicycle parking facilities as a major problem, particularly in the big cities. From the big discrepancy between the supply and demand, it can be concluded that considerable investments will have to be made in the coming years. On the basis of the available information, it is difficult to say whether the current plans are sufficient;
- In their policy implementation, most municipalities do not in fact give the priority allocated to bicycles in their policy plans. Ultimately, the car and public transport often have priority. For example, little is done to give cyclists right of way/priority above other types of traffic. In choices about the design of residential areas, plans for the centre, etc., many municipalities continue to give the car and public transport the leading role;
- With regard to spatial planning, developments are still not very favourable. In the integral consideration of interests in spatial policy, the car and public transport are ultimately too often used as controlling elements, partly as a result of social pressure by developers. When locating facilities in the district and planning the traffic infrastructure, a stronger focus on the bicycle could produce bigger, substantial effects;
- Bicycle policy is currently largely focused on civil engineering projects. There is much less focus on communication concerning cycling. Both the image of the bicycle and information services to cyclists (signposting, etc) should be improved.

Based on the above, the conclusion can be drawn that attention for the bicycle is growing at local and regional level. If bicycle measures have effects on other modalities or affect other policy areas (spatial planning, urban economy), choices may not favour the bicycle. In a number of mid-sized municipalities (>100,000 inhabitants), additional steps have been taken in recent years aimed at strengthening bicycle use. From the developments in bicycle use in these municipalities, it can be concluded that integral policy whereby the bicycle has a full place could be successful.

Relevantie

Terug naar 'Kennisbank'

Monitoring bicycle policy 1996 1999

Document uploaden

Monitoring bicycle policy 1996-1999

Monitoring fietsbeleid 1996-1999

Relevantie

Monitoring bicycle policy 1996 1999