The purpose of this research project is to find out the assumptions on which choices concerning local cycling policy are based. The main research question is: Are investments by local authorities on cycling measures based on a broad policy vision (transport, economics, urban planning) and backed by research, data and models? The main question is divided into the following sub-questions: 1. On what arguments are municipal cycling measures based? 2. Is there a need for a stronger foundation of cycling policy/measures? If so, which suggestions and recommendations can be made? And for more background information: 3. What can be said about the local decision-making about cycling measures? 4. Are investments in cycling infrastructure decided independently or are they part of broader infrastructure measures? 5. What role does financial support play in local cycling policy planning? In the recently presented national transport policy, more responsibility is being given to the local authorities (provinces, regions and municipalities). Local authorities are situated closer to the users and consumers. Therefore they are in a better position to estimate which measures are necessary to develop a good cycling policy. The interviews showed that local authorities are positive about this approach. Goudappel-Coffeng interviewed 24 Dutch local authorities about their local cycling policy. The following can be concluded: • Both autonomous cycling policy and cycling policy integrated into local transport policy occur at the local level. • Stimulation of bicycle use is the aim of most local authorities. It is remarkable that competition between the bicycle and the car is not recognized. • Cycling measures are often a part of other transport measures. • The most important aspects of cycling policy are bicycle parking and networks of cycle paths. In the bigger municipalities (100000+) more attention is given to bicycle theft than in the smaller municipalities. • Within local government there is sufficient support to develop and implement local cycling policy. • Many municipalities have a specific budget for cycling measures. • The complaints of citizens are not the main source on which cycling policy is based. The foundations of cycling policy are often pragmatic. Sometimes policy is based on accident figures and traffic censuses. • Local authorities are satisfied with the way they develop, justify and implement local cycling policy. There is no specific need for a stronger basis for cycling policy. • The main task of national government is to set frameworks and to motivate local authorities to develop a soundly based cycling policy. Local authorities do wish to know more about examples of best practices concerning cycling measures. They also hold the view that current financial support from national government is not sufficient. • Road safety is a very important issue at local level. This can be seen in the need to implement measures in accordance with the “Duurzaam Veilig” programme (Sustainable Safety). There is sufficient attention to cycling policy at the local level. Bicycle parking and networks of cycle paths are the most important aspects of cycle policy. Missing links and bottlenecks are often pointed out in a pragmatic way. Sometimes local authorities use accident figures to justify cycling measures. Road safety is a very important issue at local level. Local authorities are not expecting more from national government than what the national government is doing now. The local authorities do wish more dissemination of knowledge and best practices concerning cycling measures and financial support for cycling measures is, in the eyes of the local authorities, not sufficient. (Author/publisher)
Samenvatting