Rolling Towards the Sustainable City: Developing Bicycle Friendly Transportation Policy

By Kevin Lockhart

December, 2014

Introduction

Cities are places of home, work, commerce, and leisure and offer citizens the opportunity to

participate in the global economic and cultural sphere. Around the world, people have realized the

benefits of urban living; as of 2008 over 50% of the world's population now lives in urban centers, a

number that is expected to grow to 70% in 2050.1 Traffic congestion, health and safety concerns, and

the burdens of infrastructure commitments threaten this urban renaissance.2 Automobile centric

transportation systems, based on the vast resource consumption required as inputs and polluting

emissions exhausted, are unsustainable.

Bicycling, on the other hand, contributes to the livability and social capital of urban areas and

has few of the socio-economic barriers associated with automobile ownership. Bicycling infrastructure

costs are greatly reduced versus automobile infrastructure, bicycling increases the health of participants,

and air pollution and CO2 emissions resulting from bicycles are non-existent.3

The city of Copenhagen, Denmark has committed to establishing itself as a leader in bicycle

policy stating as its objective “to create through regulations, sustainable traffic development adjusted to

the existing city so that energy consumption, the nuisances of the traffic, and the environmental impacts

are minimized.”4 Copenhagen has sought creative ways to encourage utilitarian bicycling and its modal

share. The municipal government has developed partnerships with companies, shopping centers, public

transport providers, and other municipalities to integrate infrastructure and initiatives with the objective

of creating a sustainable transport network. Research suggests this uptake in bicycling as a mode of

transport is not unique to the topography or climate of Copenhagen.5

This paper seeks to determine the public policy tools by which Copenhagen was able increase

the modal share of bicycles and how cities interested in pursuing bicycle friendly policy as a means to

achieve greater sustainability in their transportation system may apply this policy framework. The

structure of this paper is as follows. The second section of this paper will discuss the issues faced by

the modern city, the implications for transportation systems, and provide an overview of why bicycle

transportation is an ideal mode of sustainable transport. Discussed next will be several of the key fac-

tors leading to the high modal share of bicycle use in Copenhagen. The final section will discuss how

aspects of the public policy framework deployed by Copenhagen can help other cities fulfill their own

potential to become a 'City of Bicycles'.

Transportation and the Urban Environment: The Price of Automobile Dependency

According to Kingdon, problems come to the attention of decision makers through indicators

that show there is a demonstrable problem out there.6 Within the urban environment there are an abun-

dance of indicators which highlight the external costs private automobiles impose on society: increased

congestion, accidents, sprawl, air and noise pollution, health expenditures, and massive infrastructure

capital and maintenance costs are borne by all of society and threaten the livability of the modern city.7

Crouse estimates the economic cost of traffic congestion and the resulting opportunity cost to individu-

als and businesses to exceed $2 billion annually.8 Globally each year over 250,000 deaths are caused by

air pollution and total global damages caused by climate change, largely a result of motor vehicles

emissions, are estimated to cost between 1% and 2% of world gross domestic product.9

Policy instruments such as tax subsidies, regulatory policies, zoning and land use policies found

in most urban centers, particularly in North America, encourage excessive levels of automobile

infrastructure investments that divert capital from innovative ways to enhance the urban environment.10

These policies encourage lower densities and urban sprawl; automobile-oriented cities devote as much

as one quarter of their land to streets and parking, resulting in greater economic, environmental, social

and aesthetic costs imposed on society. Personal automobiles consume more energy and emit far more

GHG emissions per passenger-km than other surface passenger modes, consuming 30 times more

primary fuel than bicycling11 and the number of vehicles is increasing in cities around the world.

According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), transport energy use amounted to 26% of total

world energy use and the transport sector was responsible for about 23% of world energy-related GHG

emissions in 2004.12

Public policy towards sustainability measures has traditionally resulted from crises such as en-

ergy shortages, excessive levels of air pollution, and debilitating traffic congestion. Rapid urbanization

in combination with the dependence of the private automobile, and its associated ills, is threatening

such a crisis. The last half century has seen a sharp increase in the number of cities with a population

greater than 1 million, estimated to reach 564 cities in 201513 with 19 cities having a population greater

than 10 million.14 Half the world’s population now lives in urban areas. This trend has amplified the

transportation and mobility woes of urban centers and reinforced the critical role sustainable transportation

plays in the development of our urban centers.

Sustainable Transportation

Public policy design is a process of creative solutions intended to find new approaches to a

problem15; sustainable transport policy offers the opportunity to choose creative, effective and efficient

tools or policy instruments. Sustainable transportation encourages economic and social connections with

minimal environmental cost; Buehler defines it as:

“encouraging shorter trips by modes of transportation that require less energy

and cause less environmental harm. Moreover, a more sustainable transportation

system should foster commerce, reduce energy consumption and carbon

emissions, increase safety, provide equal access to destinations for all groups of

society, and enhance the quality of life.”16

As a mode of sustainable transport, promoting bicycle use creates greater space for unavoidable

automobile use or that, which will inevitably result from increased urban growth; bicycle use

minimizes stress on infrastructure, thereby reducing infrastructure budgets, and eventually becomes a

standard fixture of any future policy.17

The Benefits of Bicycle Transportation

The comprehensive nature of transportation problems has been neglected in past transportation policy

which has responded to isolated problems with narrow infrastructure or technological solutions. A broad

policy framework, which incorporates bicycle policy within transportation policy, can benefit in five key

areas, outlined by Lovelace:

bicycles offer the greatest energy savings of any voluntary change in transport behavior,

bicycle policy avoids complex or capital intensive infrastructure and can be rapidly implemented,

particularly during times of fiscal restraint,

cycling offers excellent range and speed of mobility,

there is growing momentum in shifting from car to bicycle use, and

public policy framed as transport and energy policy can target multiple economic and social

aspects.18

It is widely accepted that bicycling and the resultant decline in car traffic and energy use,

reduces congestion, increases energy security, and reduces carbon emissions, and pollution.19 Using

cost-benefit analyses (CBA) Meschik has demonstrated investments in bicycle infrastructure create

more jobs than road infrastructure, and that the cost-benefit ratios are an order of magnitude larger

when factors such as reductions in mortality are considered.20

Utilitarian cycling goes beyond transportation. It is the easiest, most affordable and most

accessible means of physical exercise for most people21, and meets the daily requirements for exercise.

Active modes of transport affect social and health policy through health benefits including reduced

obesity rates, reduced asthma rates, lower health care costs.22 The health benefits of cycling have been

found to be 11 times larger than the risks relative to car driving, even when inhaled air pollution and the

risk of accidents are taken into account.23

In addition to health benefits, when compared to other modes of transportation bicycles are

often faster, particularly in urban areas. In trips less than 5 km cycling is often quickest. Given that

50% of trips are less than 5 km and 30% are less than 2 km,24 encouraging the replacement of

motorized transport with the bicycle holds the potential for significant benefits.

The role of bicycles as utilitarian transport is multi-faceted and potentially transformational, as

stated by Bruce Katz of the Brookings Institute, good bicycle policy, “is the path towards healthy living;

it’s the path towards sustainability, and social inclusion, and (...) may be the kind of path for the kind of

productive economic growth that’s eluded our country for decades”.25 Globally, politicians, policy

makers, citizens and communities have taken notice of the benefits offered by increasing the modal

share of bicycle transportation and its role in the policy discussion, bicycle transportation is now an

“idea in good currency”.26 This momentum should help overcome the knowledge-policy gap that has

kept utilitarian bicycling at the margins of transport policy.

Barriers to bicycle use

In order to understand why bicycling remains a marginal form of urban travel in many modern

urban center, the barriers to bicycle use merit discussion. Lovelace cites individual barriers such as

vulnerability in accidents with motorized traffic, bicycle theft, increasing travel distances due to urban

sprawl, perceived low social status, and weather and topology as factors explaining the poor uptake of

utilitarian bicycling.27

Barriers in terms of policy also exist; bicycling remains an afterthought in transport policy

discussions. National budgetary allocations reflect this, in the U.S. in 2004 state funding for cycling

and walking projects combined amounted to $125 million, 400 times less than the $49 billion in state

funding for highways.28

In addition to a lack of understanding of the technical and spatial requirements for necessary for

bicycling infrastructure, the lack of co-ordination between the broad range of actors with varied

objectives, both horizontally and vertically, results in biased policy planning and creates roadblocks to

implementation. Finally, the flawed perception that bicycling is a sport, leisure, or children’s activity

rather than a viable mode of transport hinders its role in transport and urban policy.29

Copenhagen: Bicycle Policy Done Right

The city of Copenhagen Denmark presents a special case, representing a benchmark for sustain-

able transportation. Bicycling became a culture and lifestyle due to population growth, which occurred

much later than in comparable cities, and a lack of car culture. These factors also facilitated the imple-

mentation of bicycle-centric policy with very little opposition. Policy makers have sought to influence

individual behavior, improve social conditions and provide quality transportation services to the public

by reshaping the urban environment through urban planning, promoting bicycle use, and the implemen-

tation of a constant cycle of policy evaluation. These steps have been critical in living up to the name

‘City of Bicycles’.30 The municipality’s success is apparent as each day 150,000, a full 36% of resi-

dents, commute to work or educational institutes choosing to do so by bicycle, compared to 31% by

car.31

Although the bicycle`s role in urban transport was discussed in the 1980, Bicycle Network Plan,

it was only later in the 1997 Traffic and Environment Plan that instruments to improve Copenhagen’s

traffic were discussed. This policy document set clear objectives: the total rate of city motor traffic may

not increase and using of public transport and bicycles had to increase. By 2000, the Traffic Improve-

ment Plan had set explicit actions to improve cycling. This sub plan was the basis for Cycle Policy

2002-2012.32 This policy document contained five areas of focus:

Infrastructure is based on a radial network of paths, predominantly separated from the roadway

and sidewalk. Priority has been to route paths through parks, waterfront and other greenspaces

to minimize conflict with cars, and maximize safety, comfort and speed (Cycling frontiers).

The bicycle infrastructure needs to be comprehensive and coherent, and provide priority to cy-

clists in order to influence people’s choice of transport and encourage cyclists and stimulate

motorists to substitute the car for the bike.

Connections to public transportation were identified as unsatisfactory by 42% of Copenhagen`s

residents in 2006. As a result, bicycles are now allowed on suburban trains and metro`s. In addi-

tion to increasing the catchment area of public transit, these connections enable longer travel

distances by bicycle.

Road safety, or the perception of safety, is the primary deterrent to bicycling. Copenhagen`s ef-

forts to improve safety included extending and improving the bicycle network along roads and

parks. The city now focuses on improving safety at intersections through advance stop lines for

cyclist, priority traffic signals, and lane markings.

Theft is a deterrent to bicycling. In addition to increasing parking facilities and secure storage

the policy initiatives such as the Netherlands Bicycle Masterplan call for increased preventive

measures and a system of bicycle identification.

Promotion of bicycle usage requires that policy go beyond the provision of infrastructure to in-

clude ‘Soft’ promotion measures. Promotion campaigns and education programs are also an es-

sential component of a policy to stimulate bicycle usage.33

Improving the Livability of the Urban Setting

Promotion of the bicycling lifestyle and culture is viewed as critical and has helped to foster a

sense of community, participation and ownership. The result is bicycle policy that is a mature and

independent component in the development of a larger sustainable urban vision.34 Elected officials

have become politically motivated, states Copenhagen`s cykelsekretariat, ``projects can often be

implemented within a single term in office; bicycle policies are relatively inexpensive and highly

visible. And finally, emphatically: 60% of voters has a bicycle as their main mode of daily transport.``35

This consensus of the accepted social advantages of cycling: less congestion, environmental benefits,

health and livability, minimizes the `decision points` that require `clearance` by various actors in the

political and implementation process in order for policy to move forward.36

The `finger` plan on which Copenhagen is based creates a radial network of transportation hubs

which link the various sectors of the city; industry, residential, and commercial to the historic and rela-

tively car free urban core. Restrictive land use policies, high residential densities and mixed land uses

have succeeded in maintaining economic sustainability and quality urban life. Because suburban ex-

pansion and office buildings were concentrated along radial train corridors a high percentage of trips

are short enough to cover by bike.37

Economic policy instruments help restrict automobiles, such as fuel taxes, and parking fees, in

addition to regulation such as reducing the number of parking spaces available and decreasing speed

limits. Limiting the accessibility of car ownership and use, and encouraging alternative choices such as

the bicycle, has led to a large number of individuals for whom car ownership is undesirable. Car own-

ership in Denmark, 22 per 100 people is almost half that of even Amsterdam, with 42 cars per 100 peo-

ple.38

These measures have revitalized public life in an incremental process of calming traffic that re-

turns priority to soft traffic, pedestrians and cyclists.39 48% of Copenhagen cyclists choose the bicycle

because it is the fastest and easiest mode of travel, often quicker than the automobile; short cuts like

bridges, tunnels, contraflow cycling on one-way streets, and the Green Wave (coordinated traffic lights)

are prioritized 40 to ensure this trend continues.

Moving Forward

The city of Copenhagen`s seeks to improve city life, comfort, speed and a sense of security

through prioritization and innovation. The ambitious policy document Good, Better, Best outlines bicy-

cle strategy moving forward, it aims to increase the modal share for bicycles to 50% of all trips to work

or educational institutions by 2015. It is recognized that high cycling levels result in less congestion,

fewer sick days and a healthier citizenry, less wear and tear on the roads and less pollution. In addition

to requiring less public funds than other transport investments, Copenhagen has monetized these socie-

tal benefits of bicycling to aid evaluation, finding that, taking a bicycle results in a net profit for society

while taking a car results in a net loss, and that the overall benefit to Copenhagen can be measured at

228 million Euro`s per year.41

Innovative Green Routes and Bicycle Superhighways are planned which provide increased

space and speed tiered traffic while also recognizing the social importance of cycling by allowing side-

by-side traffic lanes and room for family cycling. As a practical policy tool facilitating the social aspect

of cycling, in concert with education, has the potential of to affect societal change through the inter-

change of resources between individuals and government thereby influencing the trajectories of indi-

viduals through life. Seeing the potential to shape the life course of citizens, particularly its children,

Copenhagen has embarked on a framework of education programs to foster civic pride as well as shape

the future of low carbon travelers.42

Copenhagen envisions bicycling as an integral part of becoming an Environmental Capital

which is CO2 neutral by 2025. The 2011-2025 Good, Better, Best policy strategy describes bicycling as

a highly politicized tool which can be used to enhance city life and livability, and is also part of the

city`s official health policy.43

Lessons from Copenhagen

Urban dwellers have many good reasons to use bicycles in the utilitarian sense; the bicycles on-

ly energy input is provided directly from the user, it offers cardiovascular exercise, and bicycling re-

quires a fraction of the space used by cars. Bicycling is economic, costing far less than automobiles in

both direct user costs and infrastructure, and it is socially equitable in that it is available to all segments

of society. Changes in the national mood towards issues such as sustainable development and fiscal

constraint are also helping to increase momentum towards increased bicycle use. These objectives can

be reached through bicycle policy because, as Kingdon argues, actors in government can sense the

broad social movement and potential impact on the policy agenda.44

The successful implementation of bicycle policies has distinguished Copenhagen`s achieve-

ments. Sabatier and Mazmanian have found that policy implementation is based on three factors: the

tractability of the problem, legislative and institutional variables, and broad socio-economic and politi-

cal variables. Copenhagen`s success can be traced to the tangible effects of congestion which has a

causal relationship to health and narrow range of targeted in reducing car use. Copenhagen has a clear

statute and the support of all levels of government and cooperating agencies with minimal veto points.

And lastly, promoting bicycle use to improve Copenhagen`s livability is an issue the public takes own-

ership in and politicians take notice of.45

Copenhagen, like most cities its size, is faced with policy challenges as citizens demand a high

level of services in a period of financial constraint; however, lessons can be learned from the experi-

ences of Copenhagen, primarily in how various policy instruments have been used to increase the en-

thusiasm for improving the urban environment through the use of bicycles. That the citizens of Copen-

hagen view bicycling favourably, this lends legitimacy to the actions policy makers take to address the

issues Copenhagen faces collectively. There are many factors which have contributed to the success of

bicycle policy in increasing the modal share in Copenhagen, the following section discusses a few of

the key policy components and instruments which can be deployed by cities interested in building sus-

tainable transport systems through bicycling.

To Drive or Ride

Copenhagen demonstrates that infrastructure is not a primary factor in increasing the modal

share of bicycle use. The city has relied upon standard infrastructure comprised of raised bicycle paths,

separated from car lanes only by markings, and range from 2 to 2.5 meters wide.46 Although a high

level of infrastructure is necessary to influence people`s choice of transport, to encourage individuals to

want to bicycle, it must only achieve the base standards of being effective, comfortable, integrated and

above all safe.47 Copenhagen has demonstrated that in order to achieve a greater share of the modal

split bicycle policy must go beyond infrastructure to influence behaviours.

Urban agglomerations can act to restrain automobiles from urban centers via restricted parking

and increased automobile ownership costs48 to incentivize individuals to choose to bicycle. Tolley calls

for motorised traffic to be comprehensively restrained as part of a holistic policy to encourage alterna-

tive modes of transport and spatial arrangements conducive to their use as part of an ‘environmental

traffic management’ approach.49 This approach can be considered social regulation, in that it limits be-

haviour harmful to society, but is implemented using corrective taxes and charges to create financial

incentive for individuals to change their behavior.

Policy ‘sticks’, instruments to restrict automobile ownership, include strict land use policies

which lead to higher urban densities and more mixed-use development, vehicle taxes and registration

fees, and stringent driver licensing. On the other hand, a favourable modal split can be promoted

through policy ‘carrots’ intended to push individuals to choose the bicycle for transportation. These

include more extensive pathway systems, integration with public transport and education programs.50

Further, these policies are deployed as a tool for the `social shaping` of transportation and the

institutional contexts that can favour greater transportation innovation.51 Policy makers must set the

systemic conditions to favour the use and further innovation of the most desirable transportation mode,

the bicycle.

Information and Education

Policy makers with vision and a strong political drive, and the knowledge, support and

enthusiasm of civil servants and the citizenry drive successful policy of any type. Information is an

indirect action by policy makers, objectives are being pursued through the actions of others, and is

preferred because it is less coercive than other instruments.52 Information based policy instruments

appear benign but are in fact the most powerful way to change behavior through influencing the value

system on which those behaviours are based.53 Copenhagen has demonstrated successful bicycle policy

requires fostering the underlying culture and practice of sustainable transportation. As a value

consensus and symbolic language of sustainability develop, so too does a thoughts-words-action

approach in policy that leads to concrete measures and limited political obstruction.54 Developing a

mainstream culture of sustainability pushes debate beyond the primary merits and obstacles of bicycle

policy.55

Information and promotional campaigns such as “I bike CPH” facilitate positivity, participation

and ownership in the bicycling network in addition to encouraging safer attitudes and behaviours.

Information campaigns are most effective in changing transportation habits and behavior when soft

measures, public relations, and educational campaigns are combined with hard, infrastructure and

economic initiatives. Multiple initiatives have the added benefit of yielding a higher rate of behavior

modification for the amount of resource input.56

Copenhagen has taken two affirmative promotional approaches that can be replicated by other

cities. The first encourages those already cycling to continue and to bicycle more frequently. These

measures target the young and middle aged through businesses and educational institutions, for exam-

ple, the “We bike to work” campaign, which mobilized 100,000 Danish participants. This type of cam-

paign is part of a larger picture in which sustainable mobility is the key concept.

Other campaigns focus on non-cyclists and children as a target group. Children in particular are

a key demographic because policy makers recognize that the bicycle culture depends on a continuous

influx of new cyclists and that good cycling habits start early. All campaigns aim to maximize the cost-

benefit of information expenditures by targeting those audiences most likely to change their behaviour

57 and act also as social policy.

Evaluation

Beginning in 1996 bicyclists have evaluated the performance of the network in the city`s bi-

annual survey, Bicycle Account.58 This ongoing evaluation process provides information on cycling

levels, trip purpose, and bicyclist characteristics to measure satisfaction with the extent and width of

bike paths, road and path maintenance, bike parking, coordination with public transport, and safety.59

Bicycle Account focuses on the subjective experiences of everyday bicyclist to make concrete infra-

structure improvements giving users a stake in their safety and ownership in Copenhagen`s overall bi-

cycle policy.

Copenhagen has leveraged policy evaluation to provide demonstrable value for money in

programs and infrastructure. Cost benefit analysis (CBA) assigns monetary value to the impact of

potential projects, weighing the benefits of decreased travel time and pollution, versus potential

disruptions or disadvantages. Through the Economic Evaluation of Cycle Projects municipal officials

can demonstrate the benefits of infrastructure such as bridges or improvements to cycle lanes. 60 CBA is

an integral part of setting political priorities, particularly given financial constraints, and can also be

used to integrate bicycling infrastructure and programs into other policy areas, such as health and

finance.61

Information Communication Technology (ICT) offers exciting opportunities to use technology

to enhance program evaluation, enhancing the systematic collection of data used to optimize traffic

flows, calculate the consequences of potential policy, or assess the impact of current policy.62 In addi-

tion to its own GIS initiatives which aid data gathering and analysis regarding travel, Copenhagen has

partnered with 45 other cities as part of the Urban Transport Benchmarking Initiative of 2006. The

comparative tool offers information regarding cyclist role in the traffic system.63

These tools enable policy makers to evaluate policies and programs with much greater depth

and a finer scale, helping to improve policy while increasing cost effectiveness.64 By defining the de-

livery parameters, or benchmarks, policy can be implemented and evaluated to define the causal links

between policy and indicators. This becomes increasingly important as a higher degree of programs are

delivered by Non-Governmental Agencies requiring greater accountability.

Partnerships and Collaboration

A critical component of the bicycle policy field is the host of government agencies, interest

groups, associations, and social movements integral to policy development and implementation. The

actors within Copenhagen’s policy area behave as a subset of actors with higher level of interest and

close interaction, what Pal defines as a policy network, rather than the broader policy community,

actors who mutually understand the policy areas ideas and terminology.65 Copenhagen’s advocacy

coalitions consist of a wide range of actors, including government at all levels, officials and interest

groups who share a belief about the policy area and demonstrate coordinated activity.

Copenhagen policy makers have used informal networks in addition to formal and well-

organized associations to ensure knowledge sharing provide inspiration and facilitate cooperation

across jurisdictional boundaries. The municipal cycle network includes the Cycling Embassy of

Denmark, which consolidates cooperation between the private, public and civil sectors, the Danish

Road Directorate, and Danish Cyclists’ Federation, an NGO with around 40 local branches, and the

Cycling Embassy of Denmark.66

Non-governmental agencies can play a critical role in promoting the development of bicycling

policies and ensuring administrators, politicians, industry and the media remain abreast of current

issues. NGO activities can include collecting information, expertise, dissemination of information, and

conducting promotional campaigns intended to raise awareness of cycling and the need for plans and

legislation concerning cyclist safety and infrastructure design.67 The bicycle manufacturing industry is

particularly important in promoting cycling as a sustainable transportation choice and encouraging

behavioural change.

Bicycle policy is often seen as a local response to congestion and smog, and measures to design

oversee and implement bicycle infrastructure are left to municipalities; however, well integrated

bicycle policy framework requires national involvement and co-ordination among different ministerial

branches including transportation, environment, land use and finance.68 Leadership at the national level

is important to articulate common objectives, goals, and ensure integrated and coordinated actions

among the various actors, the horizontal agencies of the ministries, and the vertically integrated

regional and local authorities in partnership with industry, bicycling advocacy associations and other

stakeholders.69 In addition to providing the funds required for coordinated action to governmental

organizations in charge of transportation, health, education and the environment national leadership

demonstrates political will and commitment, contributing legitimacy and ‘de-marginalizing’ the

bicycling agenda and sustainable transportation.

Conclusion

Transportation policy has tended to rely on taxes and incentives to improve the automobile

through technological innovation. Better fuel efficiency, cleaner, and safer automobiles were

considered the solution to transportation woes. Not only does this model fail to consider the

comprehensive costs of a transportation system based primarily on automobiles but it also creates a

systemic bias that limits the modal share of alternatives. Public policy can create opportunities for

individuals to make their daily transportation decisions based, in part, on incentives, directions, and

investments, on the principles of sustainable transportation.

Sustainable transportation meets the basic access needs of individuals while considering human

and ecosystem health, social equity, and economic vibrancy through choice of transport modes. The

paradox of sustainable transport infrastructure has frustrated many cities, policy makers, and certainly

bicycle advocates; alternative transportation systems cannot be developed unless a significant number

of individuals choose sustainable transport; however, alternatives cannot be chosen when infrastructure

and the urban environment do not offer this choice.70 It is incumbent on government at all levels to

shape transportation policy through infrastructure, economic incentives, and land use and housing

policy. Through a unique set of circumstances, the city of Copenhagen has implemented a forward

thinking policy framework that goes beyond bicycle policy to include transportation, economic,

environmental and health files, from which other urban centers may learn.

Although this paper focused on bicycling policies, it must be recognized that these policies

alone cannot bring about sustainable transportation systems. Utilitarian bicycling policies are just one

element of a comprehensive package of policy tools that comprise sustainable transportation networks.

Integration and coherence between cycling policies and other policies are necessary and other non-

motorized transportation modes have a role in the analytical framework.

Notes

1 Beatley, Timothy (2012). Green Cities of Europe: Global Lessons on Green Urbanism. Island Press.

Washington D.C. 2 Meschik, Michael. (2012) Reshaping city traffic towards sustainability: Why transport policy should

favor the bicycle instead of car traffic. (2012). Procedia – Social and Behavioural Sciences 48 (2012)

495-504. Institute for Transport Studies. 3 Meschik, 2012 4 Beatley, 2012 5 Christensen, L. , & Jensen, T. C. (2009). Will a bicycle friendly policy make passenger travel more

sustainably?. Paper presented at The 12th International Conference on Travel Behaviour Research,

Jaipur, Rajasthan, India. Retrieved from

http://iatbr2009.asu.edu/ocs/custom/abstracts/493_Abstract.pdf 6 Pal, Leslie. (2010). Beyond Policy Analysis: Public Issue Management in Turbulent Times. Nelson Education. Toronto, On. 7 Meschik, 2012 8 Crouse, D. (2000)The Real Costs of the Automobile: A Report on Recent Research. Bulletin of Science, Technology &

Society, Vol. 20, No. 5, October 2000, 366-378. University of Toronto: Sage Publications 9 Crouse, 2000. 10 Crouse, 2000. 11 Lovelace, R., Beck S., Watson M., Wild, A. (2011). Assessing the energy implications of replacing car trips with bicycle

trips in Sheffield, UK. Energy Policy 39. p. 2075–2087 12 Pachauri, R.K., & Reisinger, A. (Ed.s). (2007). Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups

I, II and III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. IPCC, Geneva, Switzer-

land. pp 104 13 Our Cities, our Health, our Future. Acting on Social Determinants for Health Equity in Urban Settings. Report to the

WHO Commission on Social Determinants of Health from the Knowledge Network on Urban SettingsKnowledge Network 14 Pachauri & Reisinger, 2007. 15 Pal, 2010. 16 Buehler, R., Pucher, J., Kunert, U. (2009). Making Transportation Sustainable: Insights from Germany. Brookings In-

stitution Metropolitan Policy Program 17 Bicycle Policies of the European principals: Continuous and Integral. FietsBeraad. Publication No.7 (2009) 18 Lovelace, 2011. 19 Buehler et al., 2009; Pachauri & Reisinger, 2007. 20 Meschik, 2012. 21 Pucher, J. (2001). The role of public policies in promoting the safety, convenience & popularity of bicycling. World

Transport Policy & Practice. Volume 7, Number 4. Eco-Logica. U.K. 22 Maria Börjesson, Jonas Eliasson (2012), Chapter 10 The Benefits of Cycling: Viewing Cyclists as Travellers rather than

Non-motorists, in John Parkin (ed.) Cycling and Sustainability (Transport and Sustainability, Volume 1), Emerald Group

Publishing Limited, pp.247-268 23 Meschik, 2012. 24 When Ontario Bikes, Ontario Benefits. A Green Paper for an Ontario Bicycling Policy. (March, 2010). Share the Road

Cycling coalition 25 Cities, Bicycles, and the Future of getting Around. (2009).Brookings Institute. Retrieved from:

http://www.brookings.edu/events/2009/12/08-city-transportation#ref-id=27cc1093920f380b0eaa3e74f2abf1c0a8e1ca21 26 Pal, 2010. 27 Lovelace, 2011. 28 Buehler, R. & Buehler, J. (2006). Why Canadians Cycle More Than Americans: A Comparative Analysis of Bicycling

Trends and Policies. Transport Policy 13. P. 265-279 29 Implementing Sustainable Urban Travel Policies: Moving Ahead. National Policies to Promote Bicycling. ECMT. (2004). 30 City of Copenhagen, 2012 31 Good, Better, Best. The City of Copenhagen's Bicycle Strategy 2011-2012 (n.d.). Retrieved from

http://www.kk.dk/sitecore/content/Subsites/CityOfCopenhagen/SubsiteFrontpage/LivingInCopenhagen

/~/media/A6581E08C2EF4275BD3CA1DB951215C3.ashx 32 City of Copenhagen, 2012. 33 Cycle Policy 2002-2012 (Danish title: Cykelpolitik 2002-2012) (2002). City of Copenhagen, Building and

Construction Administration, Roads and Parks Department Retrieved from:

http://kk.sites.itera.dk/apps/kk_publikationer/pdf/413_cykelpolitik_uk.pdf 34 FietsBeraad, 2009.

35 FietsBeraad, 2009. 36 Pal, 2010. 37 Pucher, J., Buehler, R.. (2007). At the Frontiers of Cycling: Policy Innovations in the Netherlands,

Denmark, and Germany, World Transport Policy and Practice, Vol. 13, No. 3, 2007, pp. 8-57. 38 FietsBeraad, 2009. 39 Gemzoe, L. (2001).Copenhagen on foot: thirty years of planning & development. World Transport Policy & Practice.

Volume 7, Number 4. Eco-logica. U.K. 40 Good, Better, Best. (2012). The City of Copenhagen's Bicycle Strategy 2011-2012 (n.d.). Retrieved from

http://www.kk.dk/sitecore/content/Subsites/CityOfCopenhagen/SubsiteFrontpage/LivingInCopenhagen

/~/media/A6581E08C2EF4275BD3CA1DB951215C3.ashx 41 Good, Better, Best, 2012. 42 Anderson et al. 2012. 43 Good, Better, Best, 2012. 44 Pal, 2010. 45 Pal, 2010. 46 FietsBeraad, 2009. 47 FietsBeraad, 2009. 48 FietsBeraad, 2009. 49 Tolley, R, (ed) (1997) The greening of urban transport: Planning for walking and cycling in

Western cities, 2nd Ed, John Wiley and Sons, Chichester, Chapter 14, 192-205. 50 ECMT, 2004. 51 Meadowcroft, J., Hellin, M. (2010). Carbon Capture and Storage. In Policy: From Ideas to Implementation. Eds. Toner, G.,

Pal, L., Prince, M. McGill-Queens University Press. Montreal & Kingston. 52 Pal, 2010. 53 Prince, M. (2010). Self-Regulation, Exhortation, and Symbolic Politics. In Policy: From Ideas to Implementation. Eds.

Toner, G., Pal, L., Prince, M. McGill-Queens University Press. Montreal & Kingston. 54 FietsBeraad, 2009. 5555 FietsBaard, 2009. 56 Anderson, T., Brendal, F., Weinreich, M., Jensen, N., Riisgaard-Dam, M. Kofod Nielsen, M. (2012). Collection of Cycle

Concepts. Cycling Embassy of Denmark & The Danish Road Directorate. 57 Anderson et al. 2012. 58 Copenhagen`s Bicycle Strategy & Policies. (2012). City of Copenhagen. Retrieved from:

http://www.kk.dk/sitecore/content/subsites/cityofcopenhagen/subsitefrontpage/livingincopenhagen/cityandtraffic/cityofcycli

sts/copenhagencyclepolicy.aspx 59 Pucher, J., Buehler, R.. 2007. 60 City of Copenhagen, 2012. 61 Anderson et al. 2012. 62 Anderson et al. 2012. 63 (http://www.transportbenchmarks.eu/) 64 Anderson et al. 2012. 65 Pal, 2010. 66 Anderson et al., 2010. 67 ECMT, 2004. 68 ECMT, 2004. 69 ECMT, 2004. 70 Nelson, Anitra. (2011), Steering Sustainability in an Urbanizing World: Policy, Practice and

Performance. Ashgate Publishing Limited. Burlington VT.