This paper investigates how bicycling can be promoted as a safe and feasible means of transport for everyone and for all trip purposes. The policies and programs needed to encourage a broad spectrum of social groups to cycle are the same policies and programs that encourage high overall levels of cycling: extensive systems of separate cycling facilities, intersection modifications and priority bicycle traffic signals, traffic calming of neighborhoods, safe and convenient bike parking, coordination and integration of cycling with public transport, traffic education and training for both cyclists and motorists, and traffic laws that favor cyclists and pedestrians. To show how this multifaceted, coordinated approach actually works, the paper focuses on cycling trends and policies in the Netherlands, Denmark, and Germany. The national-level comparative analysis is supplemented with case studies of large and small cities in each country.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
European Conference of the Ministers of Transport.National Policies to Promote Cycling. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, Paris, 2004.
2.
National Bicycling and Walking Study: Ten-Year Status Report.FHWA, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C., 2004.
3.
National Household Travel Survey, 2001.FHWA, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C., 2003.
4.
German Federal Travel Survey 2002 (MiD). German Federal Ministry of Transport, Berlin, 2003.
5.
Dutch Ministry of Transport.Cycling in the Netherlands. Public Works, and Water Management, Rotterdam, Netherlands, 2006.
6.
Dutch Bicycling Federation.Continuous and Integral: The Cycling Policies of Groningen and Other European Cities. Fietsberaad, Amsterdam, Netherlands, 2006. www.fietsberaad.nl. Accessed Oct. 20, 2007.
7.
TolleyR. Ed. Sustainable Transport: Planning for Walking and Cycling in Urban Environments.Woodhead Publishing Ltd., Cambridge, United Kingdom, 2003.
8.
McClintockH.Planning for Cycling: Principles, Practice, and Solutions for Urban Planners.Woodhead Publishing Ltd., Cambridge, United Kingdom, 2002.
9.
European Cycling Federation.Bicycle Research Reports.www.ecf.com/37_1. Accessed Oct. 20, 2007.
10.
ZegeerC.FHWA Study Tour for Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety in England, Germany, and the Netherlands.FHWA, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C., 1994.
11.
KunertU.KloasJ. and KuhfeldH.. Design Characteristics of National Travel Surveys: International Comparison for 10 Countries. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1804, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2002, pp. 101–116.
12.
National Travel Statistics.National Statistical Office, Copenhagen, Denmark, 2005.
City of Berlin.Urban Transport in Berlin: Focus on Bicycling. Senatsverwaltung fuer Stadtentwicklung, Berlin, 2003.
15.
Hass-KlauC.The Pedestrian and City Traffic.Belhaven Press, New York, 1990.
16.
PucherJ.Bicycling Boom in Germany: A Revival Engineered by Public Policy. Transportation Quarterly, Vol. 51, No. 41997, pp. 31–46.
17.
LangenbergP.Cycling in Amsterdam: Developments in the City.Velo Mondial, Amsterdam, Netherlands, 2000.
18.
Ride Your Bike: National Bicycle Plan.German Federal Ministry of Transport, Berlin, 2002.
19.
International Road Traffic Accident Database. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, Paris, 2007. www.bast.de/htdocs/fachthemen/irtad. Accessed Oct. 20, 2007.
20.
JacobsenP.Safety in Numbers: More Walkers and Bicyclists, Safer Walking and Bicycling. Injury Prevention, Vol. 9, 2003, pp. 205–209.
21.
The Dutch Bicycle Master Plan.Ministry of Transport, Public Works, and Water Management, The Hague, Netherlands, 1999.
22.
Promoting Safer Cycling: A Strategy.Danish Ministry of Transport, Copenhagen, Denmark, 2000.
23.
NolandR. B.Perceived Risk and Modal Choice: Risk Compensation in Transportation Systems. Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 27, 1994, pp. 503–521.
24.
AndersenT. Odense: The National Cycle City of Denmark. Presented at Bicycling Federation of Australia Annual Conference, Brisbane, Australia, 2005.
25.
PucherJ. and DijkstraL.. Promoting Safe Walking and Cycling to Improve Public Health: Lessons from the Netherlands and Germany. American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 93, 2003, pp. 1509–1516.
JensenS.RosenkildeC. and JensenN.. Road Safety and Perceived Risk of Cycle Facilities in Copenhagen. Trafitec Research Center, Copenhagen, Denmark, 2007. www.Trafitec.dk.
33.
WebsterD. C. and MackieA. M.. Review of Traffic-Calming Schemes in 20-mph Zones. TRL Report 215. Transport Research Laboratory, Crowthorne, United Kingdom, 1996.
34.
MorrisonD.ThomsonH. and PetticrewM.. An Evaluation of the Health Effects of a Neighbourhood Traffic-Calming Scheme. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, Vol. 58, 2004, pp. 837–840.
35.
HerrstedtL.Traffic-Calming Design—A Speed Management Method: Danish Experiences on Environmentally Adapted Through Roads. Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 24, 1992, pp. 3–16.
36.
Impacts of 20-mph Zones in London Boroughs.Transport for London, London, 2003.
37.
Public Transportation Fact Book.American Public Transportation Association, Washington, D.C., 2007.
38.
NivolaP. S.Laws of the Landscape: How Policies Shape Cities in Europe and America.Brookings Institution Press, Washington, D.C., 1999.
39.
PucherJ.Urban Passenger Transport in the United States and Europe: A Comparative Analysis of Public Policies. Part 1. Travel Behavior, Urban Development and Automobile Use. Transport Reviews, Vol. 15, 1995, pp. 99–117.
40.
BanisterD.Unsustainable Transportation.Routledge, New York, 2005.
41.
BratzelS.Conditions of Success in Sustainable Urban Transport Policy: Policy Change in “Relatively Successful” European Cities. Transport Reviews, Vol. 19, 1999, 177–190.
42.
Special Report 257: Making Transit Work: Insights from Western Europe, Canada, and the United States.TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2001.
43.
SchmidtS. and BuehlerR.. The Planning Process in the U.S. and Germany: A Comparative Analysis. International Planning Studies, Vol. 12, 2007, pp. 55–75.
