M E M O / N O T E D E S E R V I C E |
|
|
To / Destinataire |
Chair and Members of Transportation Committee/Président et members du Comité des transport
|
ACS2010-ICS-PGM-0068 |
|
From / Expéditeur |
John L. Moser
General Manager/Directeur général
Planning and Growth Management
Department/Services de l’Urbanisme et Gestion de la croissance
|
Contact/Personne ressource: Vivi Chi,
Manager/Gestionnaire, Transportation Planning/ Planification des transports,
Planning and Growth Management/Urbanisme et Gestion de la croissance (613) 580-2424 x 21877,
Vivi.Chi@ottawa.ca |
|
Subject / Objet |
Transportation and Financial Advantages of Investing
in Bicycle Infrastructure/ Avantages financiers et en matière de transports
de l’investissement dans l’infrastructure pour les bicyclettes |
Date: 02 March 2010 Le 02 mars 2010 |
At the 6 January 2010 meeting of Transportation Committee, staff was directed to:
“review the presentations recently made by Inge
Molenaar (Cycling in The Netherlands and the Hague) and Roger Geller (The
Portland Story Benefiting from Bicycling) and report back to Committee on the
transportation and financial advantages of investing in bicycle infrastructure
that these cities have experienced.”
In accordance with Committee’s direction, this memorandum provides an
overview on cycling in these cities and the rationale behind their
success. Similar information has been
added on Copenhagen, Denmark, which is another internationally recognized
cycling city. This is followed by a section discussing the transportation
advantages of investing in cycling infrastructure and a separate section
discussing the financial advantages.
·
Population:
582,000
·
Area: 376 km2
·
Approximately
8% of the population travel by bicycle
·
In 1992,
Portland had 83 miles (134 km) of bikeways and 2,850 daily trips were made by
bicycle
·
By 2008
Portland had expanded its infrastructure to 274 miles (441 km) of bikeways.
16,711 daily trips were made by bicycle (nearly an increase of six times)
·
The City
of Portland has 13 staff dedicated to cycling (this includes seven staff in
education and outreach)
·
All buses
and LRT accommodate bikes
·
The gender
split of cyclists is currently 2:1 and is the target is to reach 1:1
·
Cycling
modal share target is 25% by 2030
·
Population:
480,000
·
Area: 85
km2
·
Of trips
made by residents, 25% are by bicycle, 9% are by public transit, 31% are by car
(20% drivers, 11% passengers)
·
The Hague
has 340 km of bicycle paths (segregated, for cyclists only and are not shared
with pedestrians) and 100 km of bicycle lanes (non-segregated, pavement
markings)
·
The city
contains a few thousand bicycle racks and 20 guarded bicycle parking stations
·
Around 60
staff members of the municipality of The Hague are involved with bicycle
projects.
·
The
following investments were made in cycling projects (in Canadian Dollars): $4
million in 2007, $6.4 million in 2008, and $16 million in 2009
·
Cycling
modal share target is 30% by 2020 and 50% by 2050
·
Population:
527,000
·
Area: 456
km2
·
The urban
form and feel of the city is very similar to downtown Ottawa
·
Of trips
made by residents to work and school, 37% are by bicycle, 28% by bus or train,
31% by car and 4% by walking
·
Copenhagen
has a total of 350 km of on-street segregated cycling lanes and 40 km of green
cycle routes (off-road pathways for cycling only, not shared with pedestrians)
·
Objectives
by 2015: to reach at least 50% cycling modal share for trips to work or school,
reduce the number of cycling fatalities and serious injuries by 50% compared to
2005 level, and have at least 80% of cyclists feel safe cycling.
Rationale For Their
Successes (as provided by the three cities):
·
A walkable city does not mean it is a bikeable city: cycling requires its own infrastructure.
·
Assuming suitable land use patterns, investing in
infrastructure is the most important thing a municipality can do to promote
increased cycling.
·
Cycling infrastructure must appeal to the average
person. Less than 10% of the population is enthusiastic and confident about
cycling in an urban environment, while about 50% are
interested in cycling, but are not confident enough to do so (i.e. they do
not feel safe enough to bike).
·
Make the cycling facilities bold and obvious and make
cycling visible on the streets and in people’s minds. This means cyclists are
also more visible to motorists, which makes cyclists safer.
·
Celebrate the successes (e.g. through promotional
events) and communicate new initiatives to the world. Communication is also used to gain even
greater support for cycling among citizens.
·
Innovation related to cycling infrastructure is
required. The pilot project concept is regularly used as a tool to find and
introduce new solutions.
Increases in the number of cyclists would mean fewer motor vehicles on
the road. This reduces vehicular congestion. Less congestion means that car
drivers and other road users are able to get to their destinations more
efficiently. Roadways can accommodate
higher capacities if travelers are on bicycles rather than in cars.
With greater numbers of cyclists, safety improves for both cyclists and
for car drivers. Countries like Holland with a high number of cyclists have the
fewest cyclist deaths per km traveled. As cycling increases, safety increases.
Between 1980 and 2005 both cycling traffic and car traffic has increased in the
Netherlands, but at the same time deaths for both groups have decreased
substantially.
In Portland there has been a significant decrease in the bike crash rate
due to the massive investment in cycling infrastructure and education. Between
1991 and 2008 the numbers of cyclists have increased nearly six times but the
number of reported crashes has stayed the same.
In Copenhagen between 1996 and 2006 the percentage of cyclists riding to
school or work increased from 30% to 37% and serious accidents were reduced by
65%.
Cycling complements public transit services and helps manage increased
demand for public transit service. Furthermore, cycling in combination with
public transit has been a very successful model in countries such as the
Netherlands and Denmark, encouraging travelers to use a bicycle/transit
combination instead of personal automobile.
Cycling offers freedom and flexibility. It is a more affordable option
for the traveler and may also be used by groups that are not able to drive
(e.g. children, or the elderly).
Increases in the number of cyclists would decrease the number of car
drivers, therefore less large infrastructure investments would be required such
as additional travel lanes or bridges. For example, Hawthorne Bridge in
Portland has experienced a 20% increase in traffic volumes between 1991 and
2008. Auto volume has only increased by
1% while the remaining 19% increase in volumes has been handled by an increase
in bicycle traffic.
Diverting some of the transportation demand from
transit to cycling means that expensive transit investments can be used more
effectively.
Cycling for moderate distances on a regular basis has positive health
and economic effects. It provides exercise, and can help reduce obesity rates
and associated medical costs. If more cyclists mean fewer accidents for both
cyclists and automobile users, it also means a reduction in health care and
societal costs attributed to accidents.
The City of Odense in Denmark has found that for every dollar invested
in cycling, they get a 200% return in reduced health care costs. The City
of Copenhagen found that children who cycle to school are almost 10% more
physically fit than their classmates who are driven by their parents. Also
adults who cycle to work or use a bicycle on an everyday basis have a 30% lower
mortality rate than others with a similar profile.
Based on numbers from Copenhagen, the cost of a bicycle is $0.07 (CAD)
per cycled kilometre, covering purchase price and maintenance. The equivalent
cost for a car is $0.44 (CAD) per driven kilometre, which is more than six
times as expensive.
Improving cycling infrastructure helps create cities that draw tourists
and tourist dollars. In Portland, investments in cycling have created a
cultural boom with winter bike-a-thons, city branding, bike fashion, and almost
100 bike-related special events annually. Cycling infrastructure can also
enable better access to tourism destinations, local retailers, and services.
Reduced transportation costs mean that individuals can spend more money
at local businesses. The citizens of the Portland region spend less than the
national average on automobiles (operating, purchasing, and maintenance). Out of the $1.2 billion saved annually, an
estimated $800 million circulates through the local economy that would have
otherwise left the region.
Cycling infrastructure enables more customers to access local businesses
more efficiently. Higher volumes of customers can access business areas if they
are on bike than in private automobile. Also, customers can more-easily park
close to shops, restaurants, and services.
Investing in cycling infrastructure promotes local business development.
In Portland, cycling-related businesses make up a $90 million industry that
employs between 850-1150 people through rentals, professional services,
manufacturing and distribution, races, rides, events and tours.
Cycling infrastructure and people-oriented cities draw people and
customers. Mixed-use areas, which are designed to be walking and cycling
friendly, are typically some of most desirable neighbourhoods to live in. These
areas also draw premium real estate prices.
Public investment in cycling encourages private investment. In Portland
significant public investment has encouraged voluntary private sector
investment. Bike parking spaces are becoming a marketing tool in new
developments and businesses are installing specialized bicycle parking spaces
outside their mainstreet and large format retail properties at their own cost.
Municipalities are facing increasing costs associated with CO2
emissions. Reducing emissions through investments in cycling infrastructure
could be part of the solution.
It is not typical to find hard cost-benefit
research and tools that can be used for cycling projects, however the City of Copenhagen has had a cycling assessment procedure devised
based on the method for calculating cost-benefit used by The Danish Ministry of
Transport. Copenhagen has tested the approach on two specific cycling projects
and will now use the procedure when assessing major cycle projects. Analysis
has been conducted on a cyclist/pedestrian bridge across the downtown harbour,
and the reconstruction of a major downtown intersection. In both cases from a
cost-benefit point of view the investments are particularly sound, giving an
equivalent or better rate of return than current road construction projects
such as the widening of an expressway and a new expressway
Copenhagen has found that society gains $0.24 (CAD) per kilometre when a
person chooses to cycle; whereas by car, society suffers a net loss of $0.14
(CAD) per kilometre.
Original
signed by
John L. Moser
Cc: Executive
Committee
Nancy Schepers, Deputy City Manager, Infrastructure
Services and Community Sustainability
Vivi Chi, Manager, Transportation Planning
Mona
Abouhenidy, Program Manager, Transportation Strategic Planning
Rosemary
Nelson, Transportation Committee Co-ordinator
