NON MOTORISED TRANSPORT
Vol. 1
Teaching &
Learning Materials – Update 2007 funded within the 6th Framework Programme of the EU as Specific Support Action www.eu-portal.net

NON MOTORISED TRANSPORT
Non Motorised Transport (NMT) includes
•
Walking, cycling, small-wheeled transport (e.g.skates, skateboards) and wheelchair travel
•
These modes provide both recreation and transportation
•
NMT are resource efficient travel modes
•
Can been seen as part of Mobility Management measures,
Transport Demand measures and Travel Awareness www.eu-portal.net

NON MOTORISED TRANSPORT
•
Know advantages and disadvantages of NMT
•
Know the different ways and techniques to improve NMT
•
Know different techniques to increase walkability
•
Know different techniques to improve cycling conditions
•
Be able to give advice when trying to increase NMT
•
Be able to provide examples of good practice in NMT www.eu-portal.net

NON MOTORISED TRANSPORT
Economic growth and urbanisations trends
 higher demand of public transport
 NMT should be taken into account to improve the efficiency of the public transport system
 Direct and indirect benefits of promoting NMT:
•
Increased safety
•
Economic viability
•
Environmental friendly
•
Health benefits
•
Transport options
 SUTP as method of supporting NMT www.eu-portal.net

NON MOTORISED TRANSPORT
Measuring has significant influence on transport planning
Conventional transport surveys only count primary mode
Many types of pedestrian activities are ignored www.eu-portal.net

NON MOTORISED TRANSPORT
Purpose
Personal business/shopping/errands
Recreation/exercise
To transit
To or from school
To or from work
Walk dog
Other
Totals
Frequency Mean Distance Median Distance Mean Duration
Percent
48%
20%
16%
7%
4%
3%
2%
100%
Mile
0.44
1.16
N/A
0.62
0.78
0.71
0.57
0.68
Mile
0.22
0.56
N/A
0.33
0.25
0.25
0.22
0.25
Minutes
11.9
25.3
19.6
13.3
14.1
19.0
14.8
16.4
NHTS Walking Trip Attributes (Weinstein and Schimek, 2005) www.eu-portal.net

NON MOTORISED TRANSPORT
Walk
Bicycle
Motorcycle/Moped
Car or Truck Driver
Car or Truck Passenger
Other private vehicles
Public Transit
Totals
Travel Travel Time Trips
Miles Percent Hours Percent Trips Percent
192
34
36
3,466
2.8%
0.5%
0.5%
51%
64
5
1
140
18%
1.3%
0.4%
39%
245
14
3
401
25%
1.5%
0.3%
41%
2,047
162
897
30%
2.4%
13%
6,833 100%
82
7
62
23%
1.9%
17%
361 100%
226
8
92
23%
0.8%
9.3%
990 100%
Average Annual Travel by Mode (DfT, 2003) www.eu-portal.net

NON MOTORISED TRANSPORT
Factors
Land use density and mix.
Comments
Higher density and more mixed population, commercial and employment tend to increase pedestrian travel.
Ease of street crossing. Easier street crossings tend to increase pedestrian travel.
Sidewalk continuity.
Sidewalks that do not connect create barriers to pedestrian travel.
Block size. Smaller block sizes tend to increase pedestrian travel.
Street connectivity (grid vs. cul de sac).
Connected streets allow better pedestrian access, which tends to increase pedestrian travel.
Topography.
Building orientation.
Trip distance.
Steep slopes tend to create barriers to pedestrians.
Commercial buildings oriented toward sidewalks rather than automobile parking tends to increase pedestrian travel.
Travel costs
Walking tends to be used for short (<1 km) trips.
Market trends or Transportation Demand Management measures that increase automobile trip costs may induce shifts from driving to walking.
Factors affecting pedestrian travel www.eu-portal.net

NON MOTORISED TRANSPORT
Factors Bicycle Travel Impacts
Age
Gender
Education
Students
Bicycle use increases into middle age and then decreases. Cyclists tend to have lower average age than non-cyclists.
Men tend to cycle significantly more than women.
Bicycle use increases slightly with education.
Students are the largest bicycle commuter group. Universities, colleges and schools are major generators of bicycle trips.
People who do not have a car available are more likely to cycle. Car and License
Factors influencing Bicycle travel (based on Levitte, 1999) www.eu-portal.net

NON MOTORISED TRANSPORT
Having a Drivers License People who cannot drive are more likely to cycle.
Size of Town A population of less than 100,000 appears to offer a better environment for cycling, and so may have higher rates of cycling than larger cities.
Employment Status
Professional Status
Higher unemployment is associated with more cycling.
Among employed people, professionals and managers appear more likely to cycle than blue collar and sales workers.
Household Income
Trip Length
Parking Fees
Facility Conditions
Utilitarian cyclists tend to have lower average incomes compared with noncyclists. Recreational cyclists tend to have higher than average incomes.
Cycling is most common for short (<5 mile) trips.
Commuters who must pay for parking may be more likely to bicycle.
Bicycle facilities (paths and lanes) and roadway conditions considered favourable to cycling tend to increase bicycle travel.
Factors influencing Bicycle travel (based on Levitte, 1999) www.eu-portal.net

NON MOTORISED TRANSPORT
Trip distance
Travel costs
Bicycle Parking
Community values
Cycling tends to be used for moderate (<5 km) trips.
Market trends or Transportation Demand Management measures that increase automobile trip costs may induce shifts from driving to bicycling.
Bicycle parking may affect some cycling decisions, particularly the availability of high-security, covered bike storage at worksites.
Some communities appear to accept and support utilitarian cycling more than others.
Factors influencing Bicycle travel (based on Levitte, 1999) www.eu-portal.net

NON MOTORISED TRANSPORT
Walkability should take into account:
•
Pedestrian network quality (quality of paths, sidewalks, street crossings).
•
Pedestrian network connectivity (how well sidewalks and paths are connected, and how directly pedestrians can travel to destinations).
•
Security (how safe people feel while walking).
•
Density and accessibility (distance between common destinations, such as homes, shops, schools, parks).
www.eu-portal.net

Reconstructed trend lines of the bicycle share in the total of car, moped and public transport movements,
1920-1995
(in %)
NON MOTORISED TRANSPORT www.eu-portal.net

NON MOTORISED TRANSPORT
Explanation model for developments in bicycle use www.eu-portal.net

NON MOTORISED TRANSPORT
NATCYP
• a benchmark program directed by Velo Mondial, supported by DG
TREN of the European Commission, and with five participating countries; Czech Republic, England, Finland, Scotland and The
Netherlands.
3 main aspects:
•
The choice of the appropriate indicators for an efficient and productive assessment and comparison
•
A more in-depth exchange of experiences on specific topics of interest using a site visit.
•
The compilation of conclusions and recommendations for this stage, and the identification of other countries who are interested to be involved in a further stage of this program.
www.eu-portal.net

NON MOTORISED TRANSPORT
BYPAD ( www.bypad.org
)
• a European benchmarking and quality management tool for improving local cycling policy
.
Elements to keep in mind are the following:
• history of cycling policy in your city
• spatial structure of your city
• bicycle use
• safety
• who is involved / responsible in cycling policy ?
• Which action programs on cycling are running now (infrastructure, training, education, …)
•
Budget for executing cycling policy www.eu-portal.net

NON MOTORISED TRANSPORT
www.eu-portal.net

NON MOTORISED TRANSPORT
Velo.Info: The European Network for Cycling Expertise
• an EU funded project launched within the 5th FP.
The goals and objectives were described as:
•
Create a critical mass of expert knowledge that covers the best references on planning for cycling.
•
Make use of state of the art information technologies: there will be developed a database with cycle knowledge in al kinds of policy fields.
This database is available on the Velo.Info website and works with a powerfull search engine.
•
Guarantee high-level quality development through the co-operation of the European stakeholders.
www.eu-portal.net

NON MOTORISED TRANSPORT
SPICYCLES (2006-2008)
• a STEER project launched in 2006
• aims to realise that the minor role the bicycle still plays in the overall transport systems
•
To solve the problem, there is a need for an articulated strategy that tackles the issue from different but equally important perspectives. www.eu-portal.net

SPICYCLES: 6 participating cities
•
Barcelona,
•
Berlin,
•
Bucharest,
• Göteborg,
•
Ploiesti,
•
Rome www.spicycles.velo.info
NON MOTORISED TRANSPORT www.eu-portal.net

NON MOTORISED TRANSPORT
Country
Austria
Canada
39%
Car
74%
Denmark
France
42%
54%
Germany 52%
Netherlands 44%
Sweden 36%
Switzerland 38%
UK
USA
62%
84%
Transit
13%
14%
14%
12%
11%
8%
11%
20%
14%
3%
Cycling
9%
1%
20%
4%
10%
27%
10%
10%
8%
1%
Source: Pucher and Lefevre, 1996
Walking
31%
10%
21%
30%
27%
19%
39%
29%
12%
9%
4%
3%
4%
2%
8%
Other
1%
3%
0%
0%
1% www.eu-portal.net

Civitas Initiative in Ploiesti
Urban planning and development includes also infrastructure for cycling and walking which is a novelty in Ploiesti.
•
Implementation of a package of modern solutions, offering better design, access and security for pedestrians and cyclists
•
Increase city viability.
•
Improving of the convenience and safety of pedestrians/cyclists
•
Enhancing the pedestrian/cycling environment.
•
Encouraging the use of transport resources with lower pollution emissions
NON MOTORISED TRANSPORT www.eu-portal.net

NON MOTORISED TRANSPORT
1. Fill out a walkability tool for your city / municipality
2. Give an example of a method for benchmarking cycling policies
3. Sum up initiatives to improve NMT www.eu-portal.net