A recent study of Seattle residents found that those living near bike paths had an increased likelihood of riding, but saw no effect for bike lanes. Then again, a study in Minneapolis reached the opposite conclusion. Some recent work has found no connection between bike lanes and ridership levels at all. In short, the research picture is far from settled.

A new study published in the March 2012 issue of the journal Transportation attempts to clarify the confusion. Ralph Buehler of Virginia Tech and John Pucher of Rutgers analyzed a new batch of 2008 data on bike lanes (that is, on-road routes) and bike paths (off-road ones) in 90 of the largest cities in America. Even after controlling for a number of factors — including land use, climate, socioeconomic status, gas prices, public transport and bike safety — they still get a clear result: "cities with a greater supply of bike paths and lanes have significantly higher bike commute rates." They continue:

We find that the supply of bikeways per capita is a statistically significant predictor of bike commuting. By including separate variables for paths and lanes ... our analysis is able to examine each type of facility separately and finds that they do not have significantly different associations with levels of bike commuting among cities.

Buehler and Pucher report that bike commuting in cities with the most bike lanes per 100,000 residents was three to four times higher than in cities with the fewest, and twice as high in cities with the most bike paths. They also found three to four times more bike commuting in cities with the most combined path and lane mileage compared to those with the least.

In other words, when the opportunity is there — whether on an off-street beaten path or a freshly painted road lane — city residents ride their bikes more often. That isn't causation, of course, but it is "consistent with the hypothesis that bike lanes and paths encourage cycling," the researchers conclude.

So that debate's settled, right? Well, sort of. A more localized study in Stafford, England, scheduled for publication in Transport Policy, complicates the situation.

Tim Jones of Oxford Brookes University examined the National Cycle Network - a 13,000-mile system of paths and lanes established by Sustrans that claims to be within a mile's reach of half the British population. While the system exists both on and off roadways, it's the traffic-free paths in urban areas separated from motor cars that are the most popular, carrying two thirds of all the network's bike trips.

The idea for building traffic-free paths is to wean people in cities back on bikes through recreational riding, so that in time they become full-fledged bike commuters. The first part of this effort has been a success. While the route length of urban, traffic-free paths grew roughly 98 percent between 2000 and 2005, usage rose about 135 percent:

But the conversion to bike commuting didn't quite take. As a point of comparison, Jones studied two suburban Stafford neighborhoods, Beaconside and Rickerscote, that are similar in most respects except one: Beaconside residents have easy access to a network traffic-free path that leads 2 miles into central Stafford, and Rickerscote residents don't.

As expected, Jones found that levels of bike commuting were higher in Beaconside (6 percent) than in Rickerscote (2 percent). But those figures were at or below levels from the 2001 Census: 7 and 2 percent, respectively. So bike commuting hadn't changed much in Beaconside since the traffic-free path was finished in late 2005. If anything it might have gone down.

In sum, traffic-free paths connecting suburbs and cities "would appear to be insufficient in encouraging a shift from car travel to cycling for everyday practical journeys," Jones concludes. The important lesson for policy makers is that bike paths and bike lanes may both increase ridership, but in different ways. While the former may encourage recreational riding, that doesn't necessarily translate into everyday cycling.

To do that, writes Jones, probably requires a "broader, multi-faceted approach":

More specifically, provision of good quality separate cycling facilities alongside heavily travelled roads and linking to everyday facilities that people need to use, self-enforcing speed restrictions using traffic calming and more intelligent design across residential neighbourhoods, coupled with making driving expensive and inconvenient in central urban areas through various restrictions on car use and car parking. Encouraging the public on to the 'nursery slopes' of Sustrans style traffic-free paths in order to acquire the skills for cycling on the road network for everyday purposes seems unlikely to create a mass modal shift away from journeys by car.

On the face of things, the studies only seem to confuse the matter. Buehler and Pucher found a connection between bike paths and bike commuting, while Jones did not. On closer inspection they aren't as far off as they seem. The point here is not for all bike research to align precisely; British towns and American cities are different, after all, and single-city and multi-city analyses have different aims.

Rather, with each study of this kind that's completed, it seems more clear that in many cities, for many different purposes, there does appear to be some fundamental demand for sustainable transportation just waiting for a share of the urban landscape. In some places, tapping that potential just means adding a bike path. In others, it may take a bit more.

Photo credit: Kai Pfaffenbach/Reuters

Eric Jaffe is a contributing writer to The Atlantic Cities and the author of The King's Best Highway: The Lost History of the Boston Post Road, the Route That Made America. He lives in New York.

במסגרת התוכנית, הרוכבים קונים מדבקה ב-5 דולרים, שמודבקת על הקסדה ומוצגת בבתי העסק השונים. הצגת המדבקה מזכה בהנחות שנעות בין 5% ברשתות מזון להנחה של חצי דולר על כוס קפה בבתי קפה מקומיים. מדבקת התוכנית גם מוצגת על חלונות הראווה של בתי העסק המשתתפים בתוכנית כדי ליידע את הרוכבים.

התוכנית כבר פועלת במדיסון, ויסקונסין, סיאטל, ורמונט, בוסטון ומקומות רבים נוספים. לדברי הוגה התוכנית, איאן קלפטאר, היא אינה מסובכת לתפעול - כל עוד יש לעסקים מלאי של מדבקות והאתר מתוחזק, היא מתנהלת מעצמה פחות או יותר.

הלקוחות באים והעסקים תומכים

מאחר שהעסקים מספקים בדרך כלל מקומות חנייה לכלי רכב - קלפטאר סבור שרק הגיוני להציע גם משהו לרוכבי האופניים.

"אם מישהו משלם על ארוחה והמסעדה משלמת על השכירות של מקום החנייה שלו, העלות שלה להכנת הארוחה למעשה גבוהה יותר", הוא מפרט. "התוכנית מבליטה את העובדה שמחיר הארוחה כולל את מחיר החנייה, ונותנת עדיפות לתחבורה מקומית, מה שגם מועיל לקהילה כולה".

התוכנית לא רק מעודדת תחבורה ירוקה, מועילה לבריאות התושבים ודואגת לבטיחותם באמצעות הקסדות - עצם הנוכחות הבולטת של הרוכבים בבתי העסק, עשויה לדברי קלפטאר לשנות גם את התשתית בשטח.

"העסקים הם קול חזק בתוך הקהילה", הוא אומר. "התוכנית מעודדת אותם לתמוך ביוזמות להרחבת והקמת שבילי אופניים, כדי להגדיל את כמות הלקוחות המגיעים אליהם ברכיבה".

קפלטר סבור גם שתוכניתו עשויה לסייע בשינוי הרגלי התחבורה של האוכלוסייה. "אם נגרום לאנשים לנוע באופן שגרתי על אופניים אל בתי עסק, זה יכול לעודד אותם גם לנסוע לעבודה על אופניים".

לכתבה באתר ynet

ההצעה להוסיף ל-Waze מצב "רוכב אופניים" שתיצור התראת "רוכב אופניים לפניך" עברה למקום הראשון עם 640 הצבעות עד כה. היישום נועד להגן גם על נהגים (מפני כניסה לכלא), ולא רק על רוכבי אופניים (אף שהעונש לגביהם ולגבי בני משפחותיהם חמור יותר).

נעשתה פניה לסמנכ"ל Waze במטרה להסב את תשומת ליבו להצעה, והופעל עליו לחץ וירטואלי מתון כדי שיסכים להעביר את ההצעה לבחינה מקצועית בפורום נרחב יותר בחברה.

ייתכן שיצוצו בעיות טכניות ביישום (מישהו אמר לי שעובר פרק זמן בין עדכון לעדכון, כך שההתראה על נקודה נעה לא תהיה רלבנטית, ומישהו אחר אמר שה-waze "טוחן" סוללה, ומישהו אחר חושב שזה פתרון שעלול לגרום לנהגים לא לשים לב לרוכבים שלא יהיו מסומנים ב-waze). נמתין להחלטת Waze, אבל הביקוש להצעה צריך להיות מובע בהצבעות שלכם ושל חבריכם בעד הרעיון.

במקרה, ביום שפניתי אליו, שודרה כתבה על כניסתה לכלא של הנהגת שדרסה את איציק דרזי לפני כחמש שנים. ראו בהמשך קישורים לכתבות.

אם אתם חושבים שהרעיון טוב, הצביעו בעדו וחשוב מכך - העבירו לחבריכם (בעיקר אלו שאינם רוכבי אופניים), פרסמו בדף הפייסבוק שלכם, וכד'. כתובת מקוצרת לקישור לרעיון: http://goo.gl/RB0WW

---נספח---
המהדורה היומית 19/2/2012 - אם שדרסה בשוגג רוכב אופניים נכנסת לכלא - כתבה שמתחילה בדקה 25:10
http://news.nana10.co.il/Article/?ArticleID=866272
אם לשלושה דרסה רוכב אופניים - ותיכנס לשנת מאסר
http://news.nana10.co.il/Article/?ArticleID=849457

עמותת 'ישראל בשביל אופניים' קוראת לתמוך ברעיון. לניוזלטר החודשי של העמותה לחצו כאן

כנס 'רוכבים בטוח': רוכבי האופניים לוקחים את הכידון בידיים 

רוכבים בטוח - רכיבה ב"מתחם מועדף"

משטרת ישראל נלחמת בתאונות רוכבי האופניים

More than half the global population now lives in urban environments, and that number will only grow: By 2050, an estimated 80% will live in cities. This means that in the next 40 years we will need to build the same amount of urban infrastructure as we have in the last 4,000 years. This trend will also have an impact on global warming: Between 1990 and 2007, transportation-related emissions increased by a third, while emissions from other sectors decreased. Regardless of our political views, we can’t afford to perpetuate the car-centric model. It’s time to brand alternative forms of transportation in a way that convinces consumers to opt for higher-efficiency modes over the traditional automobile.

It’s widely accepted and understood that consumer decisions are as much influenced by emotional attachments to a product or service as by the hard facts such as price and performance. So why is it that when it comes to most aspects of human transportation, the world still seems to believe people are rational machines?

Take the spectacular failure of Tata’s ambitious low-cost car, the Nano. In many ways, the Nano seemed like a real game-changer--a car that would do for the auto industry what Ikea did for furniture, Amazon for book retail, and Netflix for video rentals. The vision for the car, as articulated by Ratan Tata, the chairman of the hugely successful Tata Group, was inspiring: Make a luxury car available to the average Indian (and eventually everyone in the world) for about $2,500.

Tata followed the disruptive innovation script to a T. The company innovated all aspects of the value chain to slash the cost of production, building a car with fewer components of less expensive materials while maintaining fantastic fuel efficiency. Even the distribution model was upended: The Nano was to be sold at large supermarkets and electronics stores. On top of that, Tata had devised a contemporary launch plan leveraging social media instead of the expensive TV ads most other car brands adhere to.

With more than a billion people, a hugely growing middle class, and one of the fastest growing car markets in the world, India seemed like the ideal place to make this vision fly. But things haven’t gone as planned. Nano sales never met even its most conservative sales targets and is far from the 20,000 cars it needs to sell per month to break even. The failure of the Nano stands in stark contrast to Tata’s other brands, especially their premium brands such as Land Rover and Jaguar.

So what went wrong with the Nano? An Indian consumer study by a brand strategist from Venturethree, Sandeep Dighe, came to a clear conclusion: Indian consumers don’t want a cheap car; they want a car to flaunt. For Indians, as for people in all other countries, a car is as much about status and identity as it is about transport. Positioning the Nano as the world’s cheapest car was, in other words, a dramatic mistake and a startling reminder that transport is as much an emotional decision as buying soap, maybe even more so.

Other car manufacturers looking to capture the low-end car market better take note. Unfortunately, Tata’s mistake isn’t unique in the world of transportation. When it comes to devising urban mobility schemes, engineers and planners rule. Most collective transport schemes are based on a false assumption that if given a cheap and effective option, people will use it.

Urban mobility is a massive global challenge. The world needs people to shift from big, heavy, fuel-consuming cars to collective transport, including bikes and other low-energy forms of mass transportation. But as the Tata example shows, the challenge is as much emotional as functional. Taking the bus, riding a bike, or driving a cheap lightweight electric car must be perceived as cool, a symbol of status even in places like China and India, where buying a Mercedes is seen as almost a life goal in itself. Here, brands like Tesla and Biomega have shown a way to create aspirational change rather than a functionalistic approach to building more infrastructure.

Actually, in many cases there is plenty of infrastructure already in place; it’s just poorly designed and relatively unbranded compared to cars. Despite an adequate interstate network, traveling by bus is considered in itself deplorable in the U.S. at large, whereas buses in the U.K. have been well-branded.

This is an area where the right design, branding, and marketing could make a huge difference to the world and future generations. These changes might even be one of the huge opportunities out there. Together, cities are already bigger than any individual market or alliance. And urban populations are becoming increasingly uniform as a consequence of globalization. The rise of a large urban market and the need to reduce CO2 emissions is an opportunity ripe for new urban-mobility solutions.

Written by Jens Martin Skibsted and Rasmus Bech Hansen.

[Images: James R. Martin, Jim Hughes, and PB Photo via Shutterstock]