perceptions of cycling in cyclists and non-cyclists alike in dublin

Upload: tomseaver1

Post on 05-Jul-2018

220 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

  • 8/16/2019 Perceptions of Cycling in Cyclists and Non-cyclists Alike in Dublin

    1/56

     

    Perceptions of cycling in cyclists

    and non-cyclists alike in Dublin

    Tom Seaver

    Student no.: 14204109

    Masters in Environmental Sustainability

    UCD School of Biology and Environmental Science

    Supervisor: Dr. Aoife Ahern

    Submission Date: 5th October 2015

  • 8/16/2019 Perceptions of Cycling in Cyclists and Non-cyclists Alike in Dublin

    2/56

    1

    Table of Contents

    1. Abstract....................................3

    2. Introduction..............................4

    3. Benefits of Cycling3.1 Environmental.................6

    3.2 Social.............................9

    3.3 Economic........................13

    4. Disadvantages of Cycling..........19

    5. Barriers to Cycling

    5.1Infrastructure and Distance...22

    5.2Bicycle Access......................255.3Safety...................................26

    5.4Darkness and Weather.........31

    5.5 Government follow through..32

    6. Methodology..................................33

    7. Results...........................................35

    8. Discussion......................................41

    9. References.....................................44

    10. Acknowledgements.......................51

    11. Appendix........................................51

  • 8/16/2019 Perceptions of Cycling in Cyclists and Non-cyclists Alike in Dublin

    3/56

    2

    List of Abbreviations

    CBD= Central Business District

    CSO= Central Statistics Office

    CVD= Cardiovascular Disease

    ECF= European Cycling Federation

    EU= European Union

    GDA= Greater Dublin Area

    GHG= Greenhouse Gas

    HEAT= Health Economic Assessment Tool

    IPA= Irish Parking Association

    IPCC= International Panel on Climate Change

    IT= Institute of Technology

    LCA= Life Cycle Assessment

    NCPF= National Cycling Policy Framework

    NEAT= Non-Exercise Activity Thermogenesis

    NTA= National Transport Authority

    PCA= Principal Component Analysis

    UCD= University College Dublin

    UN= United Nations

    WHO= World Health Organisation

  • 8/16/2019 Perceptions of Cycling in Cyclists and Non-cyclists Alike in Dublin

    4/56

    3

    1. Abstract

    Ireland’s ‘National Cycling Policy Framework 2009-2020’ outlines governmental

    plans to increase cycling’s modal share in terms of transport in Ireland. Ireland has

    lagged behind other EU countries, such as the Netherlands and Denmark, amongothers in this respect for some decades. Increasing the modal share of cycling

    makes sense in a city in terms of ‘greener’, more sustainable cities. The advantages

    are economic, environmental and social, as outlined in the literature review of this

    thesis. Furthermore, the benefits of cycling friendly cities outweigh the risks, while

    personal automobiles like cars can be overvalued in terms of their contribution.

    Cyclists and non-cyclists in Dublin have different perceptions on the barriers to

    cycling. In order to best increase cycling’s modal share in Dublin, it is worthwhile to

    ascertain what these perceptions of cycling in Dublin are. This will help to explain

    why some of cycling’s latent potential in Dublin is not realised. This exploratory study

    examines this in office workers in 9 large companies based in Dublin’s Central

    Business District, the study area, by way of survey.

    While the methodology limited the options for analysis, the data gathered still points

    towards answers. Unsurprisingly, gender appears to be an issue in cycling, as theperception of a lack of safety means fewer women than men cycle in Dublin, while

    the number of children cycling to school in Ireland (and are now being driven

    instead) has decreased hugely in the previous decades. This means that there are

    equity concerns in terms of cycling, and the need to make it both safer in order to

    make it perceived as safer in Dublin City. While there are less female cyclists, it is

    hinted that they wear helmets at a lower rate and are more likely to allow adverse

    weather to prevent them cycling. The results appear to point to differences in

    perceptions of cycling between the cyclists and non-cyclists who responded. Cyclists

    primarily perceive about and the lack of cycling infrastructure, as a barrier to cycling,

    more so than non-cyclists. It would seem that this could warrant a larger future study

    to find significant perceived barriers to cycling so that they may be addressed, and

    the governmental goal of 10% of all trips in Ireland by bicycle by 2020 can then more

    likely be reached.

  • 8/16/2019 Perceptions of Cycling in Cyclists and Non-cyclists Alike in Dublin

    5/56

    4

    2. Introduction

    The main aim of this thesis is to examine barriers to cycling and the potential role

    which enhanced rates of cycling can play in creating a more sustainable world.

    Cycling is far from a panacea to challenges in sustainability. This literature reviewwill assert it as a small, but worthwhile, component of more sustainable human

    world. There are several challenges currently in meeting the need to prevent or

    curtail anthropogenic climate change (IPCC (International Panel on Climate Change)

    2014), dealing with the depletion of the fossil fuels which humankind has relied upon

    heavily (Höök and Tang 2013) and using our resources more sustainably so as to

    preserve resources and ecosystem services for future generations and the estimated

    global population of 9 Billion people by 2050 (UN (United Nations) 2014).

    The definition of sustainability which will be used for the purposes of this thesis is the

    ‘three pillars’ definition’. This includes environmental, economic and social

    sustainability. The social aspect is the ability of a society to bring good social

    wellbeing and equality to all people. In the words of the former mayor of Bagota,

    Enrique Peñalosa (2010), “A bicycle path is a social statement that a person with a

    $40 bicycle is as important as anyone with a $40,000 car”. The economic component

    is about ensuring efficient and responsible resource use and critically, the

    environmental pillar of maintaining the integrity of the biosphere. These aspects are

    interacting, as per figure 1 (Circular Ecology 2015).

    Fig. 1: the 3 pillars of sustainability and their

    interactions. (Circular Ecology 2015) 

  • 8/16/2019 Perceptions of Cycling in Cyclists and Non-cyclists Alike in Dublin

    6/56

    5

    Why cycling? This literature review will display evidence from existing research that

    cycling, or increased rates of cycling can contribute greatly as a component of a

    sustainable world. Its positive qualities fit into all sets and subsets of the Venn

    diagram in figure 1.

    This study uses the Central Business District (CBD) in Dublin as the study area. UN

    reports state that populations are migrating from rural and countryside settings to

    cities, and are continuing to do so, and therefore human activities will begin to be

    concentrated in cities more so (as of 2014, 54% of humans lived in cities, compared

    with approximately 30% in 1950. It is projected that by 2050, the figure will have

    reached 66%) (UN 20141). This factor, in combination with increased global

    populations for this period will mean more cities and a general size increase inalready existing ones. Therefore, it is worthwhile to focus attention on the possible

    ways of making our cities more sustainable. Figure 2, below, summarises the

    aspects of cycling which lends itself to the chosen definition of sustainability.

    Fig. 2: The

    sustainable features of increasing cycling’s modal share. 

    Within figure 2, positive points of significantly increased levels of cycling are briefly

    illustrated. It does not include the drawbacks, which will also be dealt with. It will also

    be displayed that any potential drawbacks are far outweighed by the positives.

  • 8/16/2019 Perceptions of Cycling in Cyclists and Non-cyclists Alike in Dublin

    7/56

    6

    Figure 2 is a simplification of the clearer picture of what is known about cycling in

    cities. These subtleties will also be dealt with.

    3. Benefits of cycling

    3.1 Environmental:

    There are undoubtedly environmental arguments to be made for increasing cycling’s

    modal share. The IPCC (International Panel on Climate Change) cites the “ability to

    use alternative transportation modes including mass transit, bicycling, or walking”  as

    a factor in affecting the level of greenhouse gases (GHGs) a region emits (IPCC

    20141). When one considers that 14% of anthropogenic GHGs are currently caused

    by transport, it is a good idea to incorporate transport into any decarbonisation

    strategies. Creutzig (2012), in a study on decarbonising urban transport takes 4

    European cities, Mälmo, Freiburg, Sofia and Barcelona as case studies and

    conclude that not only are there environmental benefits to this, but other social and

    economic ones. Indeed, the European Union’s ‘Effort Sharing Decision’ (ESD), which

    are binding GHG emission targets for EU Member States (MS), targets the transport

    sector with 34% of its GHG emission reduction goals (European Cycling Federation

    2015). This is partly because ESDs only cover non-ETS sectors (European

    Commission 2015). This is the most obvious ecological advantage of bicycling.

    Using statistics from 2003, the European Cycling Federation (ECF) stated that the

    EU could reach 26% of its aimed CO2  reduction goal for 2050 (60% reduction

    compared to 1990) if the rest of the EU cycles the same amount as Danish citizens.

    For every 2.6km cycled by Danish citizens, the rest of the EU cycles 0.5km (ECF

    2011). The ECF published a study in 2011, quantified the potential emission savings

    of increased cycling rates in the EU. The key findings were as follows:

      When compared to personal cars, bicycle transport saved more than 10 times

    the GHGs, even with additional factors such as extra caloric intake needed for

    cycling commutes were taken into consideration.

      E-bikes (Electric bikes) have an emission range equal to that of normal

    bicycles. This is due to their ability to allow for 56% longer commutes.

  • 8/16/2019 Perceptions of Cycling in Cyclists and Non-cyclists Alike in Dublin

    8/56

    7

      In addition to the facts stated in the statistic from the paragraph above (ECF

    2011), EU crude oil imports would decrease by nearly 10%.

      Furthermore, the EU’s GHG goals will not be met with technology, but will

    rather be more likely achieved through a large modal-shift away from cars.  Bike share schemes, a way of increasing accessibility to and convenience of

    cycling, is a potential substitute for 50-75% of motorised transport users.

    (ECF 20111)

    Something to consider about the above study study are that the factors of disposal of

    bicycles after use and the effects of bicycle infrastructure were not taken into

    consideration due to a lack of available information on these factors. Furthermore,

    although it was a 2011 study, some of the statistics used to justify points may have

    since changed. However, although some of the data may be a little different today,

    the answer has not moved. Referring to point (a), below, cars have not become 10

    times more efficient in the last 4 years.

    In relation to point (b), there are many life-cycle analyses (LCAs) performed on the

    sustainability and footprint of e-bikes. Liu et al (2015) found that lead-acid batteries,

    which are the main battery-type, used in the increasingly popular e-bike in China,has the potential to cause ozone depletion, eutrophication, and photochemical smog

    and is also a source of carcinogenicity. The authors state that the majority of the

    environmental impacts of lead-acid batteries can be taken care of with proper

    recycling and treatment. Unfortunately, in China’s case though: “... currently, 95% of

    total lead emissions are released in the end-of-life stage due to improper

    management of the spent LABs recycling market in China, and these emissions

    causes 90% of total human toxicity potential ”. This emphasises that not one solution

    will make our cities truly sustainable and environmentally friendly, and that full LCAs

    must be taken into consideration. E-bikes have some other environmental factors to

    consider such as electricity source (i.e. fossil fuel or renewable?) and the battery

    type (ESU services 2010). All else being equal e-bikes would carry less overall

    benefits from a health point of view also.

    Point (c) can be thought of as a small way of ‘diversifying’ fuel sources. Automobile

     journeys replaced by cycling will instead be run on human energy (fat), rather thanfossil fuels. The diversification of power source is currently an energy policy strategy

  • 8/16/2019 Perceptions of Cycling in Cyclists and Non-cyclists Alike in Dublin

    9/56

    8

    of the EU (European Commission 2014). The justification for point (d) (that we in the

    EU cannot rely on technology to solve this problem), comes in two parts. The first

    part is that with increased efficiency comes the inherent risk of ‘the rebound effect’.

    This effect is essentially a positive feedback loop whereby increased efficiency will

    lead to greater consumption of endpoint energy. Secondly, there does not appear to

    be any technological advancement on the horizon which will help the EU reach its

    GHG reduction goals. Rather, the ECF argues that we must focus on a

    comprehensive strategy to reduce emissions across the board (ECF 20111). This is

    where increasing the modal share of cycling can fit into an overall plan.

    Other environmental benefits include no direct pollutants, negligible noise pollution,

    and lower levels of traffic congestion due to less space being required (Heinen2011). In terms of the latter benefit, this is due to the fact that for cycling requires

    less physical space per commuter than cars. In 2011 in Ireland, 69% of commuters

    drove to work (CSO 2011). Automobiles require large amounts of physical space due

    to their physical size and need for braking distance. Cycling also has lower speed

    (therefore requiring less braking distance). These benefits are true for walking also.

    Understandably, these environmental benefits are more difficult to measure than

    lower levels than pollutant and GHG being emitted (US Dep. Transportation 2000).

    On top of a high proportion of car drivers, most of them appear to be individuals

    driving with no passengers. This can be inferred as the CSO (2013) reported that

    only 6.1% of those who commuted by car were passengers in 2012 and 5.8% in

    2013. McCann (2015), studying IT (Institute of Technology) Sligo finds that 60-80%

    of students and staff came by private automobile, whereas only 15-22% of these

     journeys had any passengers (there was variance in answers among the survey

    conducted and the live interviews also performed). Perhaps the rate of car sharing ishigher here as students are less likely to have private automobiles for economic

    reasons. This adds to the comparative inefficiency of automobiles. In fact, Tranter

    (2012) argues that cars are a totally inefficient mode of transport. His justification is

    as follows: cars convert about 20% of the fuel energy they use into movement.

    Furthermore, drivers tend to weigh about 5% of their cars weight, so Tranter

    concludes that, by this metric, cars have about 1% efficiency when only a driver is

    present in the car while driving (which appears to be most of the time in Ireland).

  • 8/16/2019 Perceptions of Cycling in Cyclists and Non-cyclists Alike in Dublin

    10/56

    9

    Lynch and Foley (2011), write “a  combination of factors such as long commuting

    distances to work, large scale urban sprawl and increased decentralisation of city

     populations due to various government policies since the 1970s has encouraged a

    damaging and unsustainable form of land use across urban centres of the United

    States. In Ireland similar trends of excessive daily driving can be observed in the

    environs of the larger towns and cities - in the hubs and gateways.”   Similarly,

    Caulfield and Ahern (2013), point to the well documented association between urban

    sprawl, increased travel time which is made an unsustainable commute patterns due

    to large reliance on personal automobiles.

    This literature review in no way argues that walking and cycling ought to replace all

    forms of commute. However, it can certainly be a holistic replacement for asignificant share of the “unsustainable commute patterns”. 

    3.2 Social:

    Broadly speaking, the social benefits of significantly increasing the modal share of

    cycling include: increased levels of social interactions, an enhanced positive feeling

    about the built environment and the physical health ramifications such as positive

    effects on cardiovascular health and contributing to lower levels of obesity. In direct

    comparison, a ‘car -centric’ urban area can, in the literature summary of Garrard et al

    (2012) on the subject, “... (Come) at a cost to other road users and local residents in

    terms of community disruption, noise pollution, social isolation, urban sprawl and

    restrictions to children’s independent mobility”. The social side of the health benefits

    of cycling will be dealt with in this sub-section and their corresponding economic

    benefits in the next.

    Oftentimes, societal benefits can be less quantifiable. However, they are

    nonetheless tangible. What appears to be the case, is that infrastructure which

    encourages cycling and walking whilst discouraging cars enhances the social

    interactions of within a community, whereas the enabling a high volume of high

    speed traffic detracts from these benefits. In the case of Litmann and Doherty

    (2009), human urban environments which are more so amenable to active transport

    adds to the areas rating of liveability, level of social interaction and amenability of the

  • 8/16/2019 Perceptions of Cycling in Cyclists and Non-cyclists Alike in Dublin

    11/56

    10

    area. Furthermore, there are many costs of automobiles which are not considered,

    such as land use.

    With the reduction in air and noise pollution of those areas which discourage

    automobiles whilst encouraging active transport comes independent mobility andfurther increased physical activity from the opportunity to play outdoors. This finding

    has been replicated in many times and different in settings, similarly, higher levels of

    traffic are associated with lower levels of interactions between neighbours and social

    street-based activities (Garrard et al 2012). Interestingly, Litmann (2014) has

    compiled a report which discusses strategies and techniques of incorporating

    “ concept of community cohesion, which refers to the quantity and quality of

    interactions among people in a community, as indicated by the degree to which

    residents know and care about their neighbours”. This paper discusses how

    transport plans can affect communities in several negative ways, hence placing

    importance on the concept of community cohesion is for the advantage of

    communities.

    In terms of the physiological health benefits of cycling, the potential health benefits at

    population level are huge. The WHO (World Health Association) (2015) state this in

    the report ‘Health co-benefits of climate change mitigation - Transport sector’. Oja et

    al (2011) provide an overview of the literature of cycling’s health benefits.

    Overwhelmingly, cross-sectional and longitudinal studies display positive

    relationships between cycling and health. Furthermore “strong inverse relationships

    between commuter cycling and all cause mortality in the middle age to elderly

    subjects”. Oja et al  (2011) ranked most of the studies they reviewed as “moderate to

    high quality”.  A more recent systematic review of literature relating to the health

    effects of cycling is Mueller et al (2015). This review of 30 studies found “substantial

    net benefits” , despite the various differing applications of Help Impact Assessment

    methods. Furthermore, these ‘net benefits outweighed the negatives of air pollution

    exposure. Air pollution and cycling will be dealt with in the section ‘disadvantages of

    cycling’.

    One long term study (following the ~23,000 participants for an average of 9.8 years)

    attempted to find more specifically if there is any difference between exercise type

    participated in and prevalence of cardiovascular disease (CVD). Hoevenaar-Blom

  • 8/16/2019 Perceptions of Cycling in Cyclists and Non-cyclists Alike in Dublin

    12/56

    11

    (2011) finds that there is a significant dose-response effect causing an inverse

    relationship between exercise (certain types, and not others) CVD. In particular, this

    study found that sports on its own significantly decreases chances of CVD (p

  • 8/16/2019 Perceptions of Cycling in Cyclists and Non-cyclists Alike in Dublin

    13/56

    12

    Netherlands, cycling contributes the most to the nation’s moderate to heavy exercise

    (Garrard et al 2012). Increased utilitarian cycling would certainly increase what

    Levine (2002) calls ‘NEAT’ (Non-Exercise Activity Thermogenesis). This can be

    understood as our bodies’ caloric expenditure from activities which are not-sport

    related, eating or sleeping. Cycling can bring about a high amount of NEAT.

     A larger study on the health benefits of cycling comes from Andersen et al (2011),

    who like Dudas and Crocetti (2008), use schoolchildren as subjects (n= 334).

     Anderson et al’s  results found that “  A consistent pattern of better CVD risk factor

     profile in commuter cyclists compared with children using other means of transport

    was found. Participants, who did not cycle to school at baseline, and who had

    changed to cycling at follow up, were fitter, had better cholesterol/HDL ratio, better

    glucose metabolism, and a lower composite CVD risk factor score than those who

    did not cycle at either time point. Cycling to school may contribute to a better

    cardiovascular risk factor profile in young people".

    The WHO study titled ‘ Health co-benefits of climate change mitigation - Transport

    sector’ , is a Health impact assessment (HIA) which explores the benefits of active

    transport. Active transport is cited as a tool to aid climate change mitigation. Cycling

    falls under this category, but the study is about walking also. It notes the potential

    decrease in “respiratory/cardiovascular disease from air pollution, less traffic injury

    and noise stress” , and also, “...large benefits are expected from increased physical

    activity, which can prevent some cancers, type 2 diabetes, heart disease and other

    obesity-related risks... Improved mobility for women, children, the elderly, and low

    income groups enhances health equity .” Furthermore, “ Urban air pollution (much

    from transport) and traffic injuries kill some 2.6 million people annually, mostly in low-

    and middle-income countries. Active transport can help prevent many of the 3.2

    million deaths from physical inactivity.”   The HIA draws the links between the

    environmental benefits of active transport and the health benefits.

    Garrard et al (2012) also discusses to the ‘psychosocial ‘health  benefits of active

    transport. These include mental health and social health benefits, as well as a

    means of reducing the reducing health inequalities. Active commutes can provide the

    necessary exercise for treating anxious and depressive symptoms. It should be

    pointed out that many of the studies which are concerned with active commute and

  • 8/16/2019 Perceptions of Cycling in Cyclists and Non-cyclists Alike in Dublin

    14/56

    13

    mental health, or indeed health in general, are not specifically talking about cycling. It

    is however well established that regular physical exercise is associated with

    increased cognitive function (in terms of memory and how mental tasks are

    performed) in children and adults as well as decreases likelihood of dementia in

    older populations. The literature on mental health assets of cycling on balance

    appears to say that active commuting by cycling helps remove stress from

    commuting. There is also research which suggests that this is merely context

    dependent however. The converse of utilitarian cycling as a ‘de-stress tool’  can be

    seen as the barriers or perceptions of barriers to cycling. This will be discussed

    further in the section ’known barriers to cycling’. In terms of reducing health

    inequalities, active commuting through cycling can help reduce the socio-

    demographic health inequalities. These exist in most countries. Poorer populations

    tend to have much higher mortality levels than the rich. While ‘leisure time physical

    activity’ more so participated in by the economically advantaged, this is not the case

    for utilitarian cycling.

    Much of this probably will not be considered surprising by most, given that increased

    levels of exercise for most is universally accepted as a positive thing. As illustrated,

    the benefits are multiple and the contribution (as well as latent  possible contribution)of cycling are huge. As an added advantage to this as a form of exercise, cycling is

    much easier on joints than other forms of exercise as the activity is relatively non-

    weight bearing (Nichols et al 2003). Increasing utilitarian cycling has further potential

    importance in Ireland as our obesity or overweight levels are above the EU average

    (66% in men above 20 and 50.9% in women above 20, compared to western

    European average of 47.6%) (RTÉ 2014). A WHO study predicts the problem in

    Ireland is set to get worse before it gets better (Irish Times 2015).

     Another element of cycling’s  social accessibility is the many iterations of bicycles.

    They can be shaped in many ways, for example putting child carriers on them to help

    with school runs (Lovejoy and Handy 2012)

    3.3 Economic Benefits:

  • 8/16/2019 Perceptions of Cycling in Cyclists and Non-cyclists Alike in Dublin

    15/56

    14

    If cycling is to fit this paper’s definition of sustainability, it ought to have economically

    advantageous components. This sub-section will explore the known information on

    this and try to assess the validity of it. Similarly, the aforementioned advantages they

    are ‘co-benefits’, whereby one advantage infers another by necessity.

    Upon review of 16 papers for the economic consequences of active transport

    infrastructure, Cavill (2008) founds only 3 to be high quality, 6 moderate and 7 of low

    quality. Shedding some light on this, Rutter et al (2013) writes, “Economic evaluation

    is an important factor in the decision to fund any new transport scheme, but

    techniques for assessing the economic value of the health benefits of cycling and

    walking have tended to be less sophisticated than the approaches used for

    assessing other benefits.“  Cavill (2008) call for a “more standardised approach”   forexamining these relationships. Rutter et al (2013) make an attempt at his by creating

    a tool for calculating the averted costs of deaths and illnesses avoided from active

    transport. Should there be a dearth of local data, default conservative values based

    on previous studies can be used. This tool is used by Swedish and British

    departments of transport.

    Following on from the above mentioned health benefits of cycling, these confer

    economic savings also. A recent study by Fishman et al (2015) used the Health

    Economic Assessment Tool (HEAT) developed by the World Health Organization to

    estimate the mortality rate reduction and number of deaths prevented each year by

    cycling in the Netherlands. The study finds that “...of the mortality reduction of all age

    groups together, about 6500 deaths per year were prevented as a result of cycling in

    the Netherlands. With a value of a statistical life of euro 2.8 million per prevented

    death, the total economic health benefits of cycling were estimated at euro19 billion

     per year.”

    In Ireland, Deenihan and Caulfield (2014) applied the above mentioned HEAT to a

    proposed long cycle track from Dublin to Mullingar along a canal. The findings were

    that it can be inferred that over a 10 year period with a two year uptake of cycling

    and five years for the build up of the health benefits, that the benefits accumulated

    over 10 years would be between €26,695,000 and €141,222,000, (depending on the

    levels of cycling uptake) on the modal switch. These calculations are based on a

    local population uptake between 1.72% and 10%. These benefits would result from

  • 8/16/2019 Perceptions of Cycling in Cyclists and Non-cyclists Alike in Dublin

    16/56

    15

    an initial investment of €12,000,000. This, it is reasoned, would lead to benefit –cost

    ratios of between 2.22:1 and 11.77:1, dependent on the mode switch. The study

    finds the constructing of the cycleway to be very worthwhile economically speaking.

    Deenihan and Caulfield (2015), find further economic benefit in the construction ofcycling infrastructure. Tourists value cycling infrastructure in cities they visit. Through

    surveys, it was found that tourists are willing to increase their levels of cycling by an

    average of100% in order to use segregated cycle paths. These values were between

    40-50% for a cycle lane (compared to a regular road). The study also found young

    males who own one or more bicycles are more likely to choose a road without

    specific cycling facilities than older females who do not own a bicycle. The issue of

    cycling and gender will be returned to in a subsequent section.

    The Great Western Greenway is an example of success and the potential for cycling

    infrastructure in Ireland. It is a 42km long, mostly off-road, walking and cycling track

    from Westport to Achill Island in Co. Mayo. A Fáilte Ireland economic impact study

    from 2011 estimated that it had 80.000 individual ‘uses; that  year. It contributes

    greatly to the local economy and to the national economy to a smaller extent (3.8

    and 1.3 million euros per year respectively, but this is just a projection). A study from

    Trinity College Dublin concludes that a more realistic estimate is a bit more than 1

    million euro in total in to the local economy (domestic and non-domestic tourists)

    (Deenihan et al (2013). the facility has a payback period of 6 years. Investing in

    cycling facilities in areas that cater not just for local usage, but also for tourists can

    be very worthwhile to the local economy. It says, “the small local population of the

    area alone would not warrant an investment of €5.5 million in cycling facilities.

    However, the amount of tourists using the Greenway has made the facility a very

    worthwhile investment ” . This ties in with the Deenihan and Caulfield (2015) paper ontourists valuing bicycling infrastructure.

    In the USA, the Michigan Department of Transport (2014) published a report on

    findings relating to the potential economic benefits of cycling. Their 668 Million USD

    total comes from the following breakdown: household retail spending on bicycling -

    $175 million, manufacturing - $11 million, avoided health care costs $256 million;

    reduced absenteeism, $187 million; and event and tourism spending - $38 million.

  • 8/16/2019 Perceptions of Cycling in Cyclists and Non-cyclists Alike in Dublin

    17/56

    16

    The problem of course with reports done which make projections is that no matter

    how conservative or sensible the methodology is, they are still just best guesses.

    However, case studies may help to overcome this uncertainty in economic reports

    done by companies on behalf of city authorities. Indeed, there are many case studies

    displaying the economic worth of bicycle friendliness. It is not unusual for business

    owners in many cities to be in opposition to the introduction of bicycle infrastructure.

    Their reasoning is invariably that they will lose out on business. This is not a totally

    unreasonable thing to assume. It can be intuitively argued that car owners will spend

    more than alternative transport users. Cars are more expensive than bicycles and

    walking. Furthermore, they have more space to fit more purchases. There is a wealth

    of evidence to the contrary that car users spend more overall. For example, for 2 and

    half years, debate boiled locally on Polk Street, San Francisco, as to whether to put

    in segregated bike lanes or not. Local business owners fought hard against it, and

    they eventually won. Upon further analysis, it was found that only 15% of people who

    visit businesses the street arrive by car (Blue 2013). In the end, the city’s transport

    authorities came to a compromise for both sides and the investment of a segregated

    bike lane came with concessions (Fitzgerald Rodrigues 2015).

     A survey in Portland, Oregon (USA) of 78 businesses found that cyclists andpedestrians spend the same as, if not more than, automobile drivers (Oregon

    Transportation Research and Education Consortium 2012). They write, “Bicyclists,

     pedestrians, and transit riders are competitive consumers: when demographics and

    socioeconomics are controlled for, mode choice does not have a statistically

    significant impact on consumer spending at convenience stores, drinking

    establishments, and restaurants. When trip frequency is accounted for, the average

    monthly expenditures by customer modes of travel reveal that bicyclists, transit

    users, and pedestrians are competitive consumers and for all businesses except

    supermarkets, spend more, on average than those who drive”. While a car owner

    may spend more on an individual trip in Oregon, it is important to realise that trip

    frequency is an important factor which brings other transport modes up to equal and

    even higher economic importance.

    The finding that taking into account trip frequency is important is replicated in Dublin

    by the NTA (National Transport authority) in 2015. The survey had 1671respondents. Similarly to the above mentioned survey in Portland, once the money

  • 8/16/2019 Perceptions of Cycling in Cyclists and Non-cyclists Alike in Dublin

    18/56

    17

    spent by shoppers is adjusted for frequency of trips, car users account for 19.7% of

    the city centre’s retail revenue. This accounts for less than 1 in 5 euros spent.

    Comparatively, cyclists account for only 2.7%. However, bus accounts for 36.2%,

    walking accounts for 21.4%, Luas accounts for 16.0%, and train for the remaining

    4.1%. This survey makes it clear that it is mostly revolved around ascertaining and

    understanding the travel habits and spending of visitors to the city centre. 38% of the

    respondents were questioned during the weekday, and the remaining 62% on the

    weekend. Furthermore, surveys only took place between 10am and 9pm. On top of

    this, the locations of the surveying were Henry Street and Grafton Street, Dublin’s 2

    busiest streets for shopping and retail. This appears to be reasonable enough, given

    that the survey is titled, ‘Dublin City Centre Shopping Survey’. However, upon

    examination of where the biggest car parks in Dublin’s central commercial area are,

    one will find that they cluster around Grafton Street and Henry Street. These are the

    multi-story car parks on Jervis Street, Drury Street, Dawson Street, Molesworth

    Street, and Trinity Street.

     A conclusion which can be drawn from the above survey is that just fewer than 1 in 5

    visitors to the city centre are car drivers, and therefore public transportation and

    active commute ought to be an important part of Dublin cities future plans fortransport infrastructure.

    It is important to realise that surveys such as these offer only views on travelling and

    spending. There is much more to a city centre than this. There are places of work,

    higher learning, recreation, museums, galleries, some open spaces and cultural

    events. It is the view of the author that these are important. While surveys such as

    these may give important data, it is far from a clear picture of our interactions with

    city centres. Comparing studies such as these may not give truthful answers. Thereason for this is that cities across the world are built differently. They have different

    population densities, different qualities of public transport, and different

    infrastructures. Furthermore, the research methodologies can be totally different. It is

    worthwhile reiterating here that tourists were excluded from the above survey

    To illustrate, another study with the objective of ascertaining the relationship

    between visitor travel mode and spending levels in Dublin city centre has been

    performed. However, what makes O’Connor et al (2011) interesting to compare to

  • 8/16/2019 Perceptions of Cycling in Cyclists and Non-cyclists Alike in Dublin

    19/56

    18

    NTA (2015) is that it also includes the perceptions of retailers with regards to how

    much each modality type contributes to their incomes, while it also picked the same

    2 streets to get a sample from. The surveys were also relatively similar in size (1671

    vs 1009). While the NTA (2015) study is probably a bit better to use for travel

    modality and spending relationships as it is more recent, and also O’Connor et al

    (2011) did no surveying on weekends, which it admits “It is probable... that a

    Saturday count would have a different trip purpose profile, with less people travelling

    to the cit y centre for work and education.”

    In terms of retailer’s perceptions, O’Connor et al (2011) writes,”  Traders on Dublin’s

    two main shopping streets considerably over-estimate spending by shoppers

    travelling by car and Luas while significantly undervaluing the spend of bus

     passengers and pedestrians... Bus carried 35% of shoppers to Grafton St and 49%

    to Henry St; this compares with traders’ perceptions of 31% and 40% respectively.

    Measured in value terms, bus proved the most lucrative mode to both streets,

    delivering 38% of the total spend on both streets, when outliers are excluded.

    Pedestrian travel was similarly under-valued. Traders believed that 11% would walk

    to shop on Grafton St while on Henry St traders estimated that 6% of their customers

    came on foot. The actual figures are 20% and 19%, according to the survey. Cartransport was overvalued by traders. On Grafton St traders perceived that car would

    account for 13% of customers whereas in reality car-borne shoppers made up 10%.

    Traders on Henry St believed car would carry 19% of shoppers but in fact only 9%

    came by car.”  Again, the conclusion was drawn that there is a need to really look

    after and develop public transport and active commute infrastructure. It is worthwhile

    reiterating that this survey had its own limitations. While some of the statistics may

    have changed over the last few year, it is possible that the overestimation of car

    drivers to their businesses persists. A third study, and most recent study on the

    relationship between modality choice and spend of shoppers in Dublin’s city centre

    by the special interest group ‘the IPA’ (Irish Parking Association). Their findings are

    quite the opposite, and they conclude that accessibility for cars and provision of car

    parks are in the best interest for the city’s economic good (REFERENCE).

    Perhaps a more comprehensive study on the subject is one that took place in New

    Zealand. This particular one, by the New Zealand Transport Agency (2013) took 9shopping locations in Auckland, Christchurch and Wellington. The number of

  • 8/16/2019 Perceptions of Cycling in Cyclists and Non-cyclists Alike in Dublin

    20/56

    19

    respondents was 1744 people and 144 retailers. Interestingly, it was again found that

    retailers overestimated the importance of cars. A bigger study area may have also

    contributed to the higher resolution view as to what the people’s economic and travel

    dynamics with the city was. Active transport becomes more important closer to the

    city centre, with similar enough spends in each group (since the adjustment for visit

    frequency was performed). This may display the importance and practicality of

    population density in population choosing travel mode. The same trend is seen in

    Ireland in the aforementioned CSO (2011) and CSO (2013), whereby active travel

    commuting is very low in the Dublin hinterlands and generally increases towards the

    city centre. But this paper is not arguing that cycling should subsum all commuting

    modalities. In the words of Darnton (2009), “If just 5% of all our annual journeys were

    by bike, it would create a dramatic improvement in rush hour traffic conditions. That

    target of 5% is quite remarkable when we remember that over 40% of ail trips (in

    Great Britain) by car cover less than three miles.”  

    There are many other studies in a similar vein including Lee (2008) in Melbourne

     Australia, and Popovich and Handy (2014) in Davis, California. But it can be sloppy

    comparing cities with different sizes, populations, socioeconomic circumstances,

    quality of public transport, and climate. Also, the different methodologies in eachstudy mean that the overall picture they paint should be more of a ‘rough guide’. In

    all, these arguments are more so valid in terms of tearing down stigma/perceptions

    pertaining to cycling necessarily being bad for businesses. The evidence appears to

    point to the contrary. It is important to take these findings in context with the other

    advantages of increase modal share of cycling, particularly in our cities. While these

    studies should be taken ‘with a pinch of salt’, the overall picture they create should

    also be considered.

    4. Disadvantages of cycling

    Cycling is not without its pitfalls. These include exposure to air pollution from

    motorised traffic from air pollution, potential accidents and bicycle theft. Furthermore,

    there are many barriers to cycling which prevents its latent potential for modal share

    increase being realised, but this will be dealt with in its own section, as it relates verymuch to the title of this thesis.

  • 8/16/2019 Perceptions of Cycling in Cyclists and Non-cyclists Alike in Dublin

    21/56

    20

    In terms of the exposure of air pollution, the main air pollutants today are oxides of

    nitrogen and sulphur (NOx and SOx), particulate matter such as PM10 and PM2.5 and

    hydrocarbons such as PAH (polyaromatic hydrocarbons) (WHO 2005). It ought to be

    considered that there is much to take into account with air pollutant exposure of

    cyclists compared with motorists. For example, in a study that took place in Dublin,

    O’Donoghue et al (2007) comparing motorised versus cycling commuters finds that

    there a lower pollutant concentration of air pollutants for cyclists, especially at the

    less bust side of the road. However, this is not the full story. What must be taken into

    account is the general need for cyclists to breathe more. Therefore, the above

    pattern is reversed when one considers the higher rate of respiration of cyclists.

    McNabola et al (2009), another study based on this comparison with the study area

    in Dublin performed a PCA (principal component analysis) for this. A PCA is a way of

    ‘compressing data’ in order to simplify it and ascertain patterns. Results found that

    for non-motorised transport, wind speed was the most critical factor for air pollution

    levels and effects, whereas for motorised commuters traffic is the main variable.

    When it comes to the effects of air pollution, meteorological effects are important.

    What we see again is the fact that the level of cycling’s effects is totally context

    dependant. Similar to Hoevenaar-Blom et al (2013) (which was discussed on thesection on ‘social benefits’ of cycling), who concluded that utilitarian cycling helps

    prevent CVD but only in tandem with sport participation. Garrard et al (2012)

    discussed that not all demographics enjoy the ‘psychosocial’ benefits of cycling.

     Also, it was seen that the economic contribution of cyclists in a city depended, in

    part, on the city and the answer of the study could be ‘moved’ slightly by the

    methodology. This echoes what was said in the introductory section about cycling

    not being a panacea, but rather a useful piece in the puzzle of making our cities

    more sustainable.

    In terms of road safety, cycling can potentially be a lot less safe in some cities than

    any other form of transport. Ireland’s RSA (Road Safety Authority) reported a 59%

    increase in injuries on Irish roads in 2012 compared to 2011 (RSA 2014). A total of

    630 cyclist casualties (including fatalities which accounted for 8) were recorded that

    year (CSO 2012). This will probably remain until infrastructure is less than the

    standard seen in countries such as Denmark, Finland and the Netherlands. Thesecountries have quite low rates of cycling accidents (Jacobsen and Rutter 2012).

  • 8/16/2019 Perceptions of Cycling in Cyclists and Non-cyclists Alike in Dublin

    22/56

    21

    Short and Caulfield (2014) conclude that, in Ireland at least, “t he evidence here

    shows that cycling is less safe than official figures show and that cycling is not

    becoming safer as other modes are.” It is difficult to study cycling safety as

    incidences are (i) under reported (ii) have a discrepancy between different official

    databases. For example, Short and Caulfield (2014) find that police and hospital

    records of cycling collisions only half match. This, however, may be accounted for by

    the fact that not every collision will require calling the police. Cycling is growing in

    popularity in Ireland. But without proper reports and records it will be impossible to

    tell whether it is getting safer or not. What is known though is that there is a large

    asymmetry between the effects on a cyclists and motorists colliding at speed for both

    parties involved.

    Cycling injuries will also incur economic costs. In the Netherlands in 2012,

    emergency department treatments of cyclists cost over 410 million euros, of which

    traumatic brain injury alone cost 74.5 million euros (Scholten et al 2015). It must be

    remembered and considered that the Netherlands is a society with high cycle rates,

    but lower accident rates. It can be difficult to disentangle these 2 factors. The cost of

    accidents varies very much by type and severity. One study, Aertsens et al (2010),

    set in Belgium, founds an average cost of 841 euros of even minor accidents (oneswhich require a 24hour stay in hospital or less). The study found a 148 minor

    bicycling accidents occur in Belgium per million km cycled.

    There is also the obvious fact that cycling is slower than motorised transport in most

    situations. Exceptions include busy city centres and possibly rush hour traffic. But,

    referring to O’Donoghue et al (2007) and MacNabola et al (2009), these could be the

    worst times to cycle in terms of air pollution. While cars may be fast though, Tranter

    (2012) points to studies that show that motorists often underestimate the times oftheir journeys.

     Another problem with cycling is the relative ease of theft of a bicycle compared to an

    automobile. In 2013, there were 5,000 reported stolen bicycles stolen in Ireland,

    most of which were stolen in Dublin. However, with only 1 in 4 bike thefts reported, it

    is reasonable to put this number at 20,000 (Timoney 2015). This was seen as an

    interesting survey with quite a high level of response (more than 1500). In a similar

    vein, the trend of under-reported bike theft is seen in the UK. With reported annual

  • 8/16/2019 Perceptions of Cycling in Cyclists and Non-cyclists Alike in Dublin

    23/56

    22

    bike thefts remaining relatively static at ~100,000 incidences, victim/crime surveys

    suggests that the actual number could be as high as 500,000 (Sidebottom 2012).

    Outside of Ireland and the UK, this trend is seen in crime/victim survey in Montreal

    (Van Lierop 2013), which hints that this is an international trend. The serious

    problem of bike theft in most countries has led to the demand for increased bicycle

    parking which is safe and secure. This is an additional infrastructural expense (and

    environmental one), although admittedly it requires much less space than car

    parking, bike parking is often a target of thieves (Pucher and Buehler (2012).

    On a final note in this section, it is interesting to observe how levels of cycling related

    accidents and bicycle theft have risen with the increased modal share of cycling in

    Ireland in recent years.

    5. Barriers to cycling, in Dublin and in general

    The objective of this research is to examine the barriers that currently exist to cycling

    in Dublin. Barriers to cycling are those factors, both real and perceived, that prevent

    people from becoming cyclists. In this project, the research looks at barriers to

    cycling on the daily commute.

    ‘Real barriers’  are more physical in nature whereas the ‘perceived barriers’  are

    things which are broadly perceived as feasible deterrents, but prevent people from

    cycling nonetheless. They can be equally preventative of cycling and for this reason

    it can be difficult to disentangle to what extent whether barriers are real or perceived.

    For this reason, it will not be attempted to split them up. This thesis concerns itselfwith the perceptions of barriers to cycling in Dublin. So what is already known on the

    subject in general will be discussed. Many of the barriers are very much intuitive and

    interrelated. They include infrastructure, safety, bike theft, weather and distance.

    5.1 Infrastructure and distance

  • 8/16/2019 Perceptions of Cycling in Cyclists and Non-cyclists Alike in Dublin

    24/56

    23

    Infrastructure (or lack thereof) can be a significant barrier. A sign of a city with

    excellent levels of bicycle infrastructure is an even gender balance of cyclists and  a

    more proportionally representative spread of age, and the countries which boast this

    gender and age balance include Germany, Sweden, Finland, Denmark and the

    Netherlands (Buehler and Pucher 2012). The percentage of all trips taken by bicycle

    is ~10% for Finland, Germany and Sweden, ~18% for Denmark and ~27% for the

    Netherlands (Garrard, Handy and Dill 2012). These figures for cycling’s modal share

    is an average across the named country (cycling’s modal share will be higher in the

    cities than in countryside setting Buehler and Pucher 2012)). In certain cities of these

    nations, cycling’s modal share is way higher. For example, Gröningen and Zwolle in

    the Netherlands boast 40 and 37% of trips by bicycle respectively, Copenhagen and

    Odense in Denmark have 35 and 26% of all trips by bicycle respectively, and in

    Germany 35 and 22% for Muenster and Freiburg respectively (Buehler and Pucher

    2012)

    Infrastructure can be thought of as part of the built environment. There is a wealth of

    literature relating to the relationships between certain types of behaviours and the

    environment (Ma and Dill (2015), Heinen (2010), Furth (2012), Pucher and Buehler

    2008, Pucher et al (2010)). This is also true for the behaviours affecting cycling’smodal share. Ma and Dill’s 2014 review of the literature of the perceptions of the

    environment as it relates to the behaviour of cycling show that the perception of a

    bicycle-friendly atmosphere is important, but not enough to enhance cycling rates.

    Starting with a rather obvious one, there is a general decrease in the choice of modal

    choice with increase distance of trip (Zacharias 2005, Pucher and Buehler 2006).

    The research concerning bicycle use and commute distance very much displays

    distance as a significant barrier- Indeed, for a great many bicycle research studies,

    respondents are selected according to the travel distance. Furthermore, bicycle

    commuters seem to dwell nearer to their employment than other types of commuters

    (Heinen 2010). What is also known is that there appears to be a upper limit to an

    ‘acceptable cycling distance’. This upper   limit appears to also differ between men

    and women (Garrard, Handy and Dill 2012). Perhaps as well as gender differences

    there are cultural differences in this maximum acceptable difference (there certainly

    is at an individual level).

  • 8/16/2019 Perceptions of Cycling in Cyclists and Non-cyclists Alike in Dublin

    25/56

    24

     As an interesting comparison, Emond and Handy (2012) find that perceived distance

    is greater than actual distance for cyclists. This suggests that distance is both barrier

    and perceived barrier to cycling. As previously mentioned in the section

    ‘ disadvantages of cycling’, Tranter (2012) points to studies that show that motorists

    often underestimate the times of their journeys. Perhaps this may be subject to

    change with the increasing availability of GPS (Global Positioning System) devices.

    In terms of infrastructure as an intervention measure to affect cycling levels, Pucher

    et al (2010) provides an excellent overview and critical assessment of the literature.

    The following information is attributable to that study, unless otherwise stated. In

    terms of cycling tracks, 40 studies on the efficacy of cycling lanes at increasing

    cycling’s modal share were assessed. Similar to some of the economic studies in theprevious section on ‘economic benefits’, different methodologies across the studies

    are confounding factors in terms of ascertaining concrete answers. Perhaps the

    biggest failing of studies on this is the selection of avid cyclists as respondents, for

    convenience sake, rather than a representative sample. In all “ Most of the

    aggregate-level studies found a positive and statistically significant relationship

    between bike lanes and levels of bicycling, whereas the individual-level studies had

    mixed findings.”

    In terms of the availability of bicycle parking and its effect on cycling’s modal share,

    there is a “general consensus”,  that it is an important factor, particularly at an

    institutional level. Pucher et al (2010) surmises that this may be the reason that there

    are few studies into its level of importance. By ‘bicycle parking’, it is meant parking

    for bicycles which is safe, convenient and secure from theft. Of the studies that do

    exist however, it is shown that it can have a very large effect. From what studies

    have been done, ease and availability of bicycle parking are very effective atincreasing bicycles modal share (by up to 20% in some studies). Simple unplanned

    bicycle parking is not enough though. There is a need to have safe and secure

    bicycle parking in order to ward off theft (Pucher and Buehler 2012). Bicycle theft will

    be returned to. Bicycle parking links in with the integration of bicycles and public

    transport. Bike parking is an important factor of integrating bicycling with public

    transportation.

  • 8/16/2019 Perceptions of Cycling in Cyclists and Non-cyclists Alike in Dublin

    26/56

    25

    There are not very many studies which measure the effect of bicycle parking at

    public transportation stops. However, Martens (2007) and Givoni and Rietveld (2007)

    both find that this can have a reciprocal and mutually beneficial effect on both cycling

    levels and on uptake of public transportation. As mentioned before, these are both

    critical to bringing cities towards more sustainable patterns of travel. Both of these

    studies took place in the Netherlands, which, as already mentioned has the highest

    uptake of cycling in the world. Therefore, it is not known where this factor lies in

    terms of its relative importance of increasing cycling’s modal share. In Dublin,

    bicycles are not allowed on buses, but are allowed on trains during off peak hours.

    Of course, there are practical reasons for this. A glut of bicycles on public transport

    can be a problem, unless the bike storage is external on the vehicle. Pucher and

    Buehler (2012), say that this is why the European approach to ‘bike and ride’ has

    been to provide enough sheltered and safe bicycle parking at stops instead of

    accommodating the bicycles on board the vehicles. They also write, “ Paradoxically, a

    bike-and-ride programme can become problematic where it is more successful.

    Capacity problems are most likely to occur in cities with well used public

    transportation and high levels of cycling”.

    5.2 Bicycle Access 

    Perhaps unsurprisingly, bicycle ownership is consistently the number one predictor

    for cycling (Pucher et al 2010). It is obvious that access to a bicycle is bridge which

    must be crossed for an individual who wishes to cycle. In Dublin, there is the ‘dublin

    bike’ scheme for bicycle sharing, and it is growing with the number of stations

    expanding. It is being spread to other cities like Cork, Limerick and Galway

    (bikeshare.ie 2015). Bike sharing in Dublin still has a way to go. Murphy and Usher

    (2015), state that the scheme is predominantly used by higher income individuals.

    Perhaps the spreading of stations to more disadvantaged areas is a solution to this.

    Recall that the chosen definition of sustainability for this project includes social

    dimensions. A positive aspect of Murphy and Usher (2015) results was that the

    Dublin bike scheme indirectly was successful at increasing the awareness of drivers

    towards cyclists. This is a positive, seeing how Lynch and Foley (2011) find that

    there can be a pervasive attitude among drivers in Dublin to label cyclists as a

  • 8/16/2019 Perceptions of Cycling in Cyclists and Non-cyclists Alike in Dublin

    27/56

    26

    nuisance. This is an important outcome, related to safety, as it will soon be

    discussed how safety is a large perceived barrier to harnessing the latent potential

    for increased levels of cycling. What makes the recent success of bike sharing

    around the globe so interesting is that historically it has been a failure. Shaheen et al

    (2012) provides an historical context, from which this author believes a lesson can

    be gleaned from. Bike sharing first started in Amsterdam around 1965, in the so

    called ‘white bike plan’. An anarchist group interested in youth and environmental

    issues called ‘the Provos’  left bicycles which had been painted white around

     Amsterdam for all to use. Most of them eventually ended up stolen or in canals. 2

    other cities who tried this system, La Rochelle, France, and Cambridge, England

    also failed. The next generation were coin-deposit based systems. Cities such as

    Copenhagen and Arhus, Denmark, and Helsinki, Finland rolled them out in the

    1990’s to early 2000’s. A coin deposit generally  guaranteed their return, but no time

    limit meant that bikes could be gone for inordinate periods of time. While it was an

    improvement upon the 1st generation, there were still problems. The 3 rd generation,

    whereby there is a fee, a time limit, and total automation in their rental is the best so

    far. With its success, in 2012 there were 136 bike share programmes worldwide

    (Shaheen et al 2012). It has likely grown much since then (there have been 3 more

    schemes in Ireland since then for example). This slow but steady progress is

    reminiscent of how many German, Dutch and Danish cities increased cycling’s

    modal share between 20-43% from 1975 to 1995. Berlin alone quadrupled this from

    1970 to 2001 (Shaheen, et al 2012).

    The other scheme relating to increased accessibility to bicycles in Ireland in the ‘bike

    to work’  scheme. Under this scheme, eligible employees are able to purchase a

    bicycle and related equipment for a value of to 1000 euros. However, the employer

    pays for it out of what would have otherwise been the employee’s wages. There wil l

    be much less tax on these purchases (biketowork.ie 2015). There are social barriers

    to this scheme, as it requires a person to be in employment. At the same time, these

    people in employment will commute every day, and the aim is to make most of their

    commute by bicycle.

    5.3 Safety

  • 8/16/2019 Perceptions of Cycling in Cyclists and Non-cyclists Alike in Dublin

    28/56

    27

    Safety and perceptions of safety are large barriers to cycling. The perceived lack of

    safety inherent in cycling is reflected in Ireland over the sharp decline in numbers of

    pupils cycling to school since 1986. According to the 2011 census, just over 6,000

    primary students usually cycled to school compared to nearly 24,000 in 1986. For

    secondary students there has been an even starker decline from well over 50,000 in

    1986 to just over 6000 in 2011. For walking, there has been a decline over the same

    time span from over 250,000 to 118,000 for primary students and 105,000 to 74,000

    for secondary students (Irish Census 2011). The census report also comments “ The

    decline in the number of (secondary school) girls using a bicycle has been

     particularly stark, falling from over 19,000 in 1986 to only 529 in 2011.”  

    While some of this change may be explained by increased car ownership withincreased ownership (more on this in a later paragraph), McDonald (2012) sheds

    some more light on the reasons. Infrastructural deficits evident in Dublin’s (and

    Ireland in general) gender and age imbalance could be a source of parental concern.

    There is of course the possibility that this in tandem with more double income

    families mean that children with more likely be dropped to school. Getting more

    children to cycle will require easing parents concerns by increasing infrastructure

    quality and quantity. The decrease of children who actively commuted from the 1986Irish census to the 2011 census has already been mentioned. An entertainable

    hypothesis is that some of this data can be explained by an average increase in

    distance to school. But it is unlikely to explain all the change. With a 28% decrease

    in schoolchildren walking from 1996 to 2011 and a 87% decrease from 1986 to 2011

    in schoolchildren cycling (CSO 2011), it seems unlikely that children living in these

    areas who are now being driven to school are now living on average 87% further

    from school. It may however explain some of the cultural shift in travel modalities,

    along with the increase in double income families. An increase in distance from

    school, however, is seen in houses that have been built in the Greater Dublin Area

    (GDA) after 2001 (Rock 2015). This hints at new increased distances from school,

    however Rock (2015) concludes that, “further research is needed... the answer may

    lie in lack of walking facilities, car-oriented urban design and issues with childcare

    arrangements”. None of these factors are necessarily mutually exclusive.

    More clues might be ascertained from a 2012 study Emond and Handy, who studiedreason for travelling (or not) to high school by bicycle in Davis, California. Again,

  • 8/16/2019 Perceptions of Cycling in Cyclists and Non-cyclists Alike in Dublin

    29/56

    28

    females were less likely to cycle. But car accessibility was the biggest factor in

    determining whether a student drove or commuted actively. Emond and Handy’s

    study in California shows a similar finding to that of CSO (2011) in that there has

    been a large decline in active commuters over the last 2 decades. In 1969 in Davis,

    87% of school commutes less than 1 mile were done by foot or on a bicycle. By

    1989, this had dropped to 55%. The finding of parental concern playing a role in less

    children actively commuting is replicated in Lee et al (2013) studying in Austin,

    Texas, and also by Buchanan, Ridgewell and Sipe (2009) in Brisbane, Australia.

    Perhaps this widespread increase in parental concern is related to the increase in

    prevalence of automobiles and a ‘car -centric’ urban environment which Rock (2015)

    alludes to.

    Furthermore, there are equity considerations in terms of urban environments which

    are not conducive to children cycling. According to McDonald (2012), “any

    consideration of children and cycling must recognize that there is uneven access to

    bicycles, safe cycling environments, and parental availability” . Parental availability is

    particularly valid given what has been mentioned about increase in double income

    families and the fact that 1 in 4 families with children from the 2011 census is a lone

    parent family (One Family Ireland 2011).

    In terms of small children having less cycling skill in general , school programmes

    whereby children learn cycling skills have been a success. In Odense, Denmark,

    pupils in school learn proper and safe cycling skills as a compulsory part of the

    school curriculum. Handy, Heinen and Krisek (2012), elaborate on this by pointing

    out that in Odense there have been over 300 ‘safe routes to schools’ projects have

    been performed since 1979. Parents can avail of cycling trailers for children of a

    certain age, which even affords the possibility of a ‘school run’. Odense even has amascot for cycling to school, a chicken named ‘Cycle Anton’, who visits schools.

    There exists too, a programme to help immigrant women who are not use to cycling

    become more competent and confident cyclists. Other cities where this program has

    worked include Cambridge, UK, Münster and Freiburg in Germany, Gröningen, the

    Netherlands, and also the cities of Malmö and Linköping in Sweden. It is important to

    note that without cycling education, cycling is more likely to be  perceived as an

    unsafe mode of transport. Indeed, most school children in Germany, the Netherlandsand Denmark take part in cycling education and tests. Comparatively speaking

  • 8/16/2019 Perceptions of Cycling in Cyclists and Non-cyclists Alike in Dublin

    30/56

    29

    school pupils in other countries with much cycling related , such as the USA,

    Canada, Australia and much of Europe do not (Buehler and Pucher 2012).

    What Odense has in common with so many other cycling friendly cities is that while it

    has poured so much effort into increasing cycling’s modal share, it has equally

    introduced a few of what Handy, Heinen and Krisek (2012) call ‘autodeterrants’. The

    three techniques for this that appear to pervade in cities of high cycling rates are (i)

    car free/limited zones (particularly in city centres) (ii) limited city centre car parking

    and (iii) reduced speed limits (generally to 30km h -1). This echoes what has already

    been said in previous studies about specific interventions having positive outcomes

    on cycling’s modal share (Pucher et al 2010). In the words of Jacobsen and Rutter

    (2012), “The potential for injury is related to the kinetic energy involved.... Injury datasupport this observation. At speeds below 20mph (32kph) cyclist and pedestrians

    are rarely killed in a collision with vehicles... This physiological tolerance for injury is

    central to Sweden’s ‘Vision Zero’ road safety approach that identifies the importance

    of protecting pedestrians and cyclists from motor vehicles exceeding 30kph

    (19mph).” Recall that kinetic energy of an object equals the mass of the object times

    its velocity squared; therefore the speed of a car here is particularly important in

    regards to the severity of accidents.

    It is widely known that women are, in general, less likely to display risky behaviour

    than men. It is interesting to compare to separate data sets compiled by Buehler and

    Pucher (2012)1, one of many large cities and the percentage of cyclists who are

    females, and the other of the same cities, except the five year annual average of

    cyclist fatalities per 10,000 cyclists is shown. In stark contrast, Sydney has the

    lowest proportion of female cyclists (17%), but the highest rate (out of the studies

    cities) of cyclist fatalities, 8.3 on average per year. Amsterdam and Copenhagenhave the highest proportion of female cyclists (56 and 61% respectively), and the

    lowest average fatality rate per 10,000 cyclists over the same period, 0.4 and 0.3

    respectively. There appears to be an (albeit rough) inverse relationship between the

    value of these 2 qualities in the cities studied. Of course, other factors make up real

    safety (for example, infrastructure). On an interesting side note, the uptake of

    helmets in the latter of these 2 cities is very low (Jacobsen and Rutter 2012),

    suggesting that perhaps they are more so a manifestation of a perceived safetymeasure. Helmets will be addressed more in a subsequent paragraph.

  • 8/16/2019 Perceptions of Cycling in Cyclists and Non-cyclists Alike in Dublin

    31/56

    30

    Data from the study by Geddes (2009), finds a high drop off rate in Dublin in females

    from the ages brackets of 5-12, to 13-18 year olds. It went from 25.3% to 5.5%. In

    contrast, women in countries with high cycling rates move from age bracket to age

    bracket without having an appreciable drop off rate in cycling (Garrard, Handy and

    Dill 2012). The Geddes (2009) study also found through survey that men in Dublin

    are more tolerant of traffic. Hsu and Sophores (2014), studying in the USA, find that

    it is mothers instead of fathers who more so have safety concerns with their children

    cycling to school. So what is known of barriers, or perceived barriers to cycling in

    Dublin? Lawson et al (2013) performed a study on perception of safety while cycling

    in Dublin city. Similarly to this present study, it uses a survey to find opinions. From

    the analysis of 1954 respondents, it was found that even cyclists who consider

    themselves competent view cycling in Dublin city as unsafe, when compared to all

    other modes of travel. Similarly to Lynch and Foley (2011), it was found that

    motorists have a negative attitude towards cyclists in Dublin. This may be related to

    another finding of Lawson et al (2013) which is that, “Cycling is not envisaged as a

    major mode of travel either by cyclists or by planners or other users of the

    transportation network. As a result, enforcement and infrastructure design for the

    comfort and non-compliance of cyclists are not considered in multi-modal urban

    transportation networks.”  

    Garrard, Handy and Dill (2012), continue their discursion on other possible factors

    and studies concerning the lower proportion of female utility cyclists. While admitting

    that direct impact of these factors is slim, they do hint towards indirect evidence

    meriting further exploration. Many self reported studies show that women perceive

    cycling in a less positive way. On an individual level, this could be to do with any or

    all of a myriad of factors such as roles which women tend to play more often in

    households leave them with “ ...tighter time budgets, more complex travel patterns

    and more complex travel patterns and make more serve passenger trips than men”.

    Women, as mentioned before, also have a higher perception of the perceived risks

    of cycling. Perhaps cycling is a hindrance to a workplace where workers feel the

    need to be ‘presentable’ is a perceived barrier to cycling, as the survey in this thesis

    will question.

    Referring back to the Jacobsen and Rutter (2012) discussion of the literature oncycling helmets and safety, their opening argument is that ‘helmets do not create

  • 8/16/2019 Perceptions of Cycling in Cyclists and Non-cyclists Alike in Dublin

    32/56

    31

    safety’. The only thing, they argue, that can truly create cycling safety is the creation

    of an environment which is relatively more free from the dangers of motorised traffic

    and poorly designed roads, and that the wearing of helmets only served to give a

    false perception that cycling is itself a dangerous thing. This perception, they

    elaborate, may serve to decrease the rate of cycling and hence take away from the

    population level health benefits, discussed in the previous section on social benefits.

    Furthermore, there is uncertainty in the literature on the topic. Early meta-analysis

    studies find appreciably lower rates of head injuries for those wearing cycling

    helmets, whereas late studies do not show any appreciable difference. Perhaps this

    is due to different methodology in the meta-analyses. One interesting study used a

    sample of a population legally forced to wear a helmet cycling and found no

    decrease in head or any other type of injuries. It may be that people who choose to

    wear helmets are simply more cautious as a character trait. It is also worth noting

    that helmet does not come near to protecting all injuries. Therefore, the safety of the

    environment is arguably the biggest factor in terms of pedestrian and cyclist

    perceived and actual safety. There are few studies in Ireland on rates of helmet

    wearing while cycling.

    5.4 Darkness and Weather

    McCann (2015) finds that in the area studied, IT Sligo, that daylight hours can be a

    barrier to adopting cycling a means of commute. This relates to infrastructure as

    barrier. Sligo town, having a population of ~20,000 (CSO 20121) may have a lot of

    commuters from the surrounding hinterlands as it is a town and not a city. McCann

    also finds that the patterns of commute vary seasonally, perhaps unsurprisingly as

    adverse weather may come into play. Another interesting find in this paper is that

    sometimes, a lack of awareness of new and improved active commuting routes plays

    a role in lower rates of uptake than expected. It is probable however that the

    importance of this factor becomes less over time. In terms of weather as a barrier,

    there is yet again a link with infrastructure. High cycling cities in Europe such as

     Amsterdam, Copenhagen and Freiburg boast the same levels of cycling throughout

    the year, despite all having levels of rainfall very similar to Dublin (Caulfield 2014).

    While Pucher et al (2011), takes the case study of Melbourne’s agreeable climate as

  • 8/16/2019 Perceptions of Cycling in Cyclists and Non-cyclists Alike in Dublin

    33/56

    32

    a large factor in its relatively high modal share of cycling, but notes that other factors

    certainly play a part, such as cycling advocacy groups.

    Oulu, north Finland, has 8 months of winter every year. The city, with a population of

    191,000 still boasts a year round high cycling rate. 50% of 13 to 17 year olds cycleyear round. 27% of the population cycle several times a week year round. Well built

    and easily maintained infrastructure allows them to overcome the levels of snow

    (Winter Cycling Blog 2014).

    5.5 Governmental follow through

    This previous point on the perception of cycling’s place in Dublin “...infrastructure

    design for the comfort and non-compliance of cyclists are not considered in multi-

    modal urban transportation networks.”   brings this discussion to one final, possible

    real cycling barrier which could be worthwhile exploring in further work. It is that of

    ‘follow through’ of governmental plans is not completed. As an example, ch.19, p.51

    of Ireland’s National Transport Authority’s (NTA) ‘National Cycle Policy Framework’

    (NCPF) says that a ‘monitoring framework’, to assess the state of progress towards

    national goals be established. Since Ireland’s current NCPF runs from 2009-2020,

    the author went to find this ‘monitoring framework’ and any accompanying progress

    reports. Upon emailing the department of transport, tourism and sport, it was found

    that, “ While significant progress has been made under a number of objectives

    contained in the National Cycle Policy Framework (NCPF) it has not been possible,

    due to conflicting commitments and lack of resources, for the Department to develop

    the monitoring framework outlined at 19.1 of the policy document. While no

    structured approach has been in place for monitoring progress the NCPF has been

    integrated into the Development Plans of the majority of local authorities so ensuring

    that the objectives and policies to support and promote cycling are taken account of

    in current and future planning.” Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport (2015). 

    This seems to be very much working against the fulfilment of the NCPF, which itself

    admits, “... it is acknowledged that facilities constructed and maintained to date has

    been, in many case, inadequate” (NTA 2010). Quantity of cycling infrastructure,

    therefore, is not the only factor here, but also quality. This suggests it would also be

  • 8/16/2019 Perceptions of Cycling in Cyclists and Non-cyclists Alike in Dublin

    34/56

    33

    worthwhile to have an inspection of the quality of existing cycling infrastructure, as

    well as going ahead with plans to increase infrastructure quantity.

    In conclusion, it has been ascertained that there are barriers to cycling, both real and

    perceived, repeated across many cities (although only cities in developed cities havebeen discussed) and the barriers are very much related and intertwined. These

    barriers include bicycle access, cycling safety (including theft), infrastructure, gender

    and also possibly a lack of follow through of governmental plans.

    6. Methodology

    The way in which data was gathered for this study was by self-reported online

    survey. The software used was ‘survey monkey’. The methodology underwent a full

    review by the UCD ethics committee. The survey questions can be seen in the

    appendix. A ‘pilot test’ of   the survey was performed by 5 people, (all of whom had

    nothing to do with the research) in order to make sure that the questions and layout

    were clear and unambiguous. The purpose of the survey was of course to ascertain

    views and perceptions of the barriers to cycling in Dublin.

    More precisely, the aim of the survey was, as per the title of this thesis, to find the

    barriers to cycling among cyclists and non-cyclists alike in Dublin city. The survey

    was set up in such a way to filter cyclists (defined as those who cycle to work at least

    once a week), and non-cyclists (those who cycle to work less than once a week) in to

    different sections of the survey. Some questions were similar in these sections,

    some were not. Question asked were pertaining to what does the respondent

    perceive as a barrier, such as those discussed on the previous section (safety,

    weather, distance, and a myriad of other barriers). In order to complete the survey,

    respondents had to answer all of the questions (for the sake of data completeness).

    The only non-mandatory question was the question concerning gender.

    The way in which the information was gathered was first by approaching Human

    Resource managers within some companies in the Dublin Central Business District

    (CBD). Permission was sought to distribute the survey, which was anonymous,

    voluntary and could be opted out at any stage throughout. This was all made clear inthe accompanying email and  explanatory cover letter which came with the link to the

  • 8/16/2019 Perceptions of Cycling in Cyclists and Non-cyclists Alike in Dublin

    35/56

    34

    online survey. If participants answered that they were younger than 18 years of age

    to the first question, the survey was automatically exited from. This method of data

    collection is known as ‘snowball sampling’. It has inherent problems which will be

    discussed later on.

    The initial plan was perhaps a bit too simplistic and worked in only some places. The

    reason for this was that large organisations like the companies chosen often have

    particular rules about what emails can be distributed within these companies.

    Thankfully, since these Dublin companies in the CBD were chosen on the basis of

    the author’s contacts within them, the survey could be spread to some willing

    individuals. The companies which had the survey distributed were the Aviva

    Stadium, Independent College (staff only), ‘Linked In’, Google, KPMG, PWC, ‘Yelp!’, Headhunt International, Ernst and Young, Accenture, and Sidetrade. The survey was

    not distributed among cycling advocacy groups as this may have skewed the

    response towards ‘avid utilitarian cyclists’. 

    7. Results

     A total of 127 participants responded to this exploratory study. 71 (~56%) said that

    they do not cycle to commute to work. 53 (~44%) said that cycle to work at least

    once a week. 3 did not answer this question. While the ratio Male:Female was quite

    good, around 52:48, the age spread was poor, which can be seen in figure 3 below.

    Results are summarised in table 2 at the end of this section. Figure 3 shows that the

    age spread of the survey respondents was not representative of the population

  • 8/16/2019 Perceptions of Cycling in Cyclists and Non-cyclists Alike in Dublin

    36/56

    35

    Fig. 3: bar chart of age profile of correspondents.

    In addition to this age skew, there may well be a socio-economic bias. This is due to

    the respondents all being employees of large companies named in the last

    paragraph of the previous section. Nonetheless there are some indications of trends

    warranting further exploration.

    In terms of concerns of safety, nearly half (24/52) among those who cycled asked if

    they view safety ‘as a barrier to cycling’  answered in the affirmative. A higher

    proportion of cyclists found lack of a secure place to keep a bicycle a barrier to

    further cycling (32/52, or ~62%). 36/52 (~69%), view a ‘lack of proper cycling

    infrastructure’ as a factor in the way of increasing cycling’s modal share in Dublin.

     As for those who did not cycle, 71 in total, 20 walked. Several comments were also

    made in the survey indicating that some of the office workers from Dublin’s CBD

    consider their living proximity to the workplace too close to cycle. Almost all of the

    walkers lived in area codes D1 to D8, which are in general in closer proximimty to

    the CBD (see figure 3). Most walkers, (13/20, or 65%), live less than 2km from their

    place of work. 24 out of the remaining 51 commuters (those who neither cycle nor

    walk) drive. Interestingly, 19/24 drivers were found to have ‘easy access to free

    parking’. Figure 4, below, is a map showing the layout of postal districts in Dublin, as

    well as a rough indication of the location of Dublin’s CBD, which is represented as a

  • 8/16/2019 Perceptions of Cycling in Cyclists and Non-cyclists Alike in Dublin

    37/56

    36

    white oval. Some reference points are given, such as the UCD campus which is

    shown as a white square.

    Fig. 4: Map of the postal codes of Dublin, with the Dublin’s CBD and UCD’s campus

    roughly shown, with Howth and Dún Laoghaire also given as reference points. To

    give an idea of scale the northernmost point to the southern tip of the map would be

    about 10km (estimated using google maps).

    57 of the correspondents live in D1-D6. This area had a high proportion of cyclists,

    which was a positive outcome. 30/57 (~53%) living in D1-D6 said they cycled at least

    once a week to work. Out of the remaining 27, 12 walked, which means in total 42/57

    (~74%) commute actively. In comparison to those who live in the rest of Dublin and

    the surrounding area,

    Comparatively speaking, a much lower proportion of those not living in D1-D6 do not

    cycle, only 23/71 respondents (~53% versus ~23%). This suggests that distance is a

    barrier to cycling in Dublin. There were deemed to be too few respondents for

    comparing responses of those who live an ‘intermediate distance’ from the CBD.

    Indeed, about a third of non-cyclists (24/71, or ~34%) answered that distance is a

    barrier to cycling. Other seemingly significant answers for non-cyclists was 27/71

  • 8/16/2019 Perceptions of Cycling in Cyclists and Non-cyclists Alike in Dublin

    38/56

    37

    (nearly (40%) perceive safety as a barrier to them cycling and 28/71 see weather as

    a reason to never cycle.

    Males appear to cycle at a rate of 2.5 compared to that of women. Of the 53

    respondents who were cyclists, 38 were male and 15 were female. This is despite agood balance of gender in the sample. While there were not enough respondents

    who cycled to really compare behaviour among gender, there appears to be

    indication of the unsurprising result that females are