View/hide extracted text (may have errors)
1 2 It appears that cycling has received increasing attention from planners and decision makers in 3 recent years. For example, the EU commission’s Green Paper “Towards a new culture for 4 urban mobility” (European Commission, 2007) states that “More attention should be paid to 5 the development of adequate [bicycle] infrastructure”. On the face of it, this should not be 6 surprising, considering the many advantages of the bicycle compared to other modes of 7 transport. It is fast, inexpensive and available to nearly everyone; it is space-efficient, both 8 while moving and while parked; it causes hardly any negative external effects such as noise, 9 emissions or accidents; and investments in cycling infrastructure are usually comparatively 10 cheap. So it is not surprising that the cycle provides an excellent option for a traffic planner 11 looking for ways to promote accessibility to a low cost. 12 13 What is surprising, though, is that bicycle-promoting measures are so often advocated using 14 indirect effects. Rather than invoking positive effects on travel costs and travel times – as 15 planners would do for other modes of transport – cycling measures are often motivated by 16 reduced negative externalities of car traffic (congestion, emissions, accidents) or improved 17 population health (reducing overweight, heart diseases etc.). These effects may be significant 18 in some circumstances (we will return to this below), but what is peculiar with this line of 19 argument is that it silently presupposes that the cycle’s advantages in itself, as a mode of 20 travel, are not enough to make it competitive. Moreover, the “indirect effects” argument 21 disregards cyclists as travellers. Cyclists are only important to the extent that they have 22 become “non-fat non-motorists”. 23 24 We would argue that this is a weak and possibly self-defeating way to argue for cycle 25 investments – and further, that it also implicitly reveals a discriminating view of different 26 traveller groups, where some travellers’ travel times, costs and comfort are more important 27 than others’. It is as if cycling improvements are only worthwhile to the extent that it entices 28 former motorists and non-active people to start cycling – as if solely reducing the generalized 29 cost of cycling has no value. This is in stark contrast to how we motivate and evaluate 30 improvements of other travel modes. Reducing car travel times by reducing road congestion is 31 of course a value in itself. Improving the reliability or comfort of public transport travel is 32 motivated by the benefits for public transport travellers – not because of the value to motorists 33 in reducing road congestion. Resorting to the “indirect effect” line of argument is hence, in 34 its extreme form, discriminating against cyclists. It tacitly assumes that benefits in the form of 35 lower travel times, better comfort or increased road safety for existing cyclists have no value 36 – in contrast to how benefits for travellers with other modes of transport would be viewed. 37 38 One reason for the “indirect effects” argument may be lack of self-confidence of cycle 39 promoters: cycling investments can only be important to the extent that they benefit others – 40 motorists (in the form of reduced congestion), urban residents in general (in the form of 41 reduced emissions) or even the healthcare system (in the form of reduced obesity-related 42 diseases). It may have its origin in planning paradigms mainly focused on motorized modes, 43 in particular road transport. This would explain the seemingly pervasive under-investment in 44 cycling infrastructure. Indeed, it seems as if cycling infrastructure does not receive the amount 45 of funding and attention it deserves based on its cost-efficiency compared to other transport 46 modes. 47 48 Perhaps one of the reasons for the failure for the bicycle to achieve its rightful position within 49 the transport planning agenda is that bicycle promoters use the wrong arguments: instead of 50 strong, verifiable, “standard” arguments such as short travel times, low transport and TRB 2013 Annual Meeting Paper revised from original submittal.
