A Bicycle Policy for Cerviabicy.it/docs/48/Pol_Cer_ENdef.pdf · A Bicycle Policy for Cervia. Page | 9 / 33 trips made by bicycle. Modal split is an assessment of all modes. Survey

2011

G. Rossi

V. 06

28/10//2011

A Bicycle Policy for Cervia

A Bicycle Policy for Cervia. P a g e | 2 / 33

Table of Contents

Introduction .........................................................................................................................................5

A. Status Analysis ................................................................................................................................5

Indicator Data.................................................................................................................................5

Area, population and density:.................................................................................................6

Transport Network:......................................................................................................................6

Traffic Injuries and Fatalities: .....................................................................................................7

Indicators Calculations:.............................................................................................................7

Detailed Mobility Survey ...............................................................................................................8

Survey Limitations........................................................................................................................9

Survey Results...............................................................................................................................9

Bicycle mode share: ..................................................................................................................9

Modal split:...................................................................................................................................9

Multimodal Mode Share: ........................................................................................................11

Regular Bicyclists' Experience: ...............................................................................................11

Bike Parking and theft:.............................................................................................................12

Safety: .........................................................................................................................................12

Climate and Regular Cyclists:................................................................................................12

Potential for cycling in Cervia:...............................................................................................12

SWOT Analysis................................................................................................................................14

Stakeholder Interviews ................................................................................................................15

OpenStreetMap Verification......................................................................................................16


What can be improved?............................................................................................................16

B. Visione e definizione degli obiettivi..........................................................................................18

C. Action and Budget Plan............................................................................................................23

Dedicated Bicycle Staff: .............................................................................................................24

Bicycle Mobility Plan: ...................................................................................................................24

Allocate Funds to Plan and Provide: ....................................................................................24

Invest Now:.....................................................................................................................................24

Fund a Continuous Bikeway Network ......................................................................................25

Fund or Require Secure Bicycle Parking Everywhere: ..........................................................25

Fund Monitoring and Evaluation:..............................................................................................26

Bike Sharing Complements other Measures ...........................................................................26

D. Assigning Responsibilities and Resources ...............................................................................27

Assign Dedicated Staff................................................................................................................27

Interim measures can include: ..............................................................................................28

E. Monitoring and Evaluation.........................................................................................................28

BYPAD Audit Every 2-3 years ......................................................................................................28

Infrastructure:.................................................................................................................................28

Counting bicyclists: ......................................................................................................................28

Modal split:.....................................................................................................................................29

Injury and Fatality Data:..............................................................................................................29

Public Input: ...................................................................................................................................30

Public Knowledge ........................................................................................................................30

Conclusions .......................................................................................................................................31

References.........................................................................................................................................32

ANNEX: Example BYPAD Questions ..............................................................................................33



A Bicycle policy for Cervia

Introduction

This document outlines key elements of the cycling policy development processes which will be improved and enriched step-by-step through the BICY project’s achievements and findings. It sets out guidelines for institutions/administrations and local communities to develop more sustainable mobility patterns and practices. The Bicycle Policy is structured in 5 parts: Status analysis Vision, Objectives and Targets Action and Budget Plan Assignment of Responsibilities and Resources Monitoring and Evaluation After the current status is assessed and the objectives are suggested (parts A and B), a consultation between stakeholders has taken place to define an action and budget plan, and to assign resources. Finally, suitable monitoring and evaluation techniques will be identified.

A. Status Analysis

In this section, the current status of cycling will be summarized, based on the findings made in WP3. The aim of this section is: To set a baseline for the current level of cycling in Cervia in terms of cycling infrastructure and cycle use. To generate scenarios and asses their possible impact on cycling in order to validate different policy options.

Indicator Data

Ravenna and Cervia are partner cities in the BICY project (http://bicy.it/), which aims to increase bicycling in Central Europe through a variety of measures. Indicator data useful in understanding


and evaluating cities was requested as part of BICY. The BICY indicator data, provided by the Comune di Cervia, was incomplete, which makes analysis more limited.

Area, population and density:

Urban reference area was given as 82,19 square kilometers (km2), containing a population of 28.542 (2008), of which 13.639 are male (47,79%) and 14.903 are female (52.21%). Children 8 years and below are 7,30% of the population (2.084). This given area is possibly much larger than the urbanized area, given that nearby Riccione, with a 31.8% larger population, reports its size is only 20,8% as big as Cervia. It is important to know the urbanized area, or we cannot calculate a true urban population density, which would be far too small at the currently calculated 347,3 persons per km2. Urban area is important for other calculations and comparisons as well, discussed below. Cervia has a wonderful feature in its proximity to the sea, in an area where other small urbanized areas are connected to each other and to the Ravenna center through countryside, sometimes connected by bicycle paths, along with large natural and agricultural areas. Commuting patterns make a big difference to quality of life and the attractiveness of the area to tourists.

Transport Network:

Total length of road network, excluding unpaved roads in reference area, was not given. The total length of exclusive bikeways was given as 35 km. For verification purposes, another source was used to find the length of bikeways, OpenStreetMap (OSM, discussed below). OSM found this number probably closer to 62,55 km, which might not include all recreation paths. Both sources are used and compared in this analysis. The exclusive bikeways indicator is defined to include roads where bikes have a separated lane, either segregated by a line or by a physical separation (borders, walls, flowerpots, etc). A bidirectional bike path on a single road counts only once (the length of the road segment). Roads with mixed traffic (motor vehicles, and bicycles) that also have traffic calming (roads with speed limits below 30km/h, which includes zones where only walking speed is allowed) were given as just 278 m (0,278 km), or 0,078% of the length of bikeways. Pedestrian-only areas, which allow bicycles to pass, were given as 105.5 m2 ,which is an area and cannot be put into relation with road km.


Traffic Injuries and Fatalities:

The total number of severe road injuries and fatalities caused by cars per year in Cervia were not given. However, we know from the statistics of Ravenna that the area has higher road injuries than other similar places, so a serious problem may exist in Cervia as well. In Ferrara, which is close in population size to Ravenna (86,2%), the number of injuries caused by cars was much lower, only 31,96% as many, or 2.1 per 1.000 inhabitants. Similarly, in Graz, although we only have data for the region of Styria, the rate is much lower, 0,8 per 1.000 inhabitants (13,2% the rate in Ravenna, 900 for 1.100.000 people). Clearly there is important work to be done improving safety.

Indicators Calculations:

Based on the available data, we can calculate two of the BICY indicators. The standard indicators are: Cycling index

km cycle track per resident Network coverage index

km cycle track per km road Network density index

km cycle track / area in km2 The first, Cycling Index, is found to be most important for the analysis of Cervia because population is the currently our most reliable indicator data available. The second, Network Coverage index, requires road length, which we do not have, and the last requires urban area, which may not be provided. The preliminary data for all BICY partners found a relationship between bicycling levels (mode share) and the cycling index (km cycle track per resident) between different partners that can help us make decisions about Cervia’s status and target goals. Please use the index with caution as mode share could not be determined reliably with the survey. Note that in the graph below, there are two plots for Cervia, one using the length of exclusive bikeways provided by Cervia, and one using the number given by OSM. The OSM data seems to fit the model much better. For purposes of this analysis, an adjusted bike share of 13.3% was found for Ravenna, and 25.4% for Cervia. These numbers are not certain due to the limitations of the survey (see below, Survey section).


Figure 1: Cycling index with bicycle modal split for BICY partners. Trend line shows that an increase of

bikeways is associated with a steady increase in cycling. Cycling index is calculated twice for Cervia and

Ravenna, once with official data for bikeways, and once with OpenStreetMap (OSM) data. Adjusted bike

share data was used for both Ravenna and Cervia. Note that not all data is verified.

Clearly there is a large difference between the official bikeway length and the OSM length. The OSM length matches the trend line very well, but this would mean that Cervia has by far more bikeway length per person (Cycling Index) than any other BICY partner, including Ravenna.

One explanation could be, that Cervia may be a special case because it is not a large urban area and the cycling is made up of many tourists as well as commuters and residents. Therefore the high bike share might be explained differently than a typical city. If the survey was done at the peak of summer, this could also give a very different view than what would be found the rest of the year.

In any event, Cervia’s cycling conditions and culture can always improve, as we explore below.

Detailed Mobility Survey

Surveys are essential tools for understanding, evaluating, and acting on transportation planning issues. In this case the detailed mobility survey of BICY is available for Cervia. The BICY survey is also a tool for validating indicator data and for supplying missing information such as the key indicator, bicycle mode share. Bicycle mode share is the percent of


trips made by bicycle. Modal split is an assessment of all modes.

Survey Limitations

The survey results still needs to be verified and can be considered only preliminary. Due to duplicates and other shortcomings, there were 279 usable surveys from Cervia. Unfortunately no survey for tourists was created and conducted, so tourism is not represented by the survey. The male/female ratio of the survey was well balanced, with a roughly representative proportion of each. However, the age categories were not well balanced. The share of minors (appearing under age 16) was high at 29,7%, because we would expect closer to 14,6%, or only half as many minors, based on the population. A larger proportion of adults (over 16 years, but under 60) are also found in the survey than are found in the population of Cervia, which may actually reflect the population of visitors if the survey was done at the peak of summer. On the other hand, older people may be missing from the survey: the share of people over age 60 was at least 25% lower than expected, at 14,7%. Comparing to Italy as a whole, people over 65 were 20,08% of the population in 2008. [1] It is not clear if there is bias due to more adults under 60 and fewer adults over 60.

Survey Results

The primary analysis was made on the 279 usable surveys from Cervia residents.

Bicycle mode share:

The bicycle mode share for Cervia was 30,6% of trips based on survey respondents, however, because of the large overrepresentation of minors, who bicycle more than adults, a preliminary adjustment was made to 25,4%. Regular users of bicycles were 42,7%, and another 24,4% were determined to be potential bikers due to the distance to their work (7 km or less).

Modal split:

As the table and its graph show, below (Table 1, and Figure 2), Cervia’s modal split was found to have 6,3% walking, 34,0% driving, 25,4% for cycling, 26,5% for motor bikes (including motorcycles), and only 2,6% for public transportation. It is important to know that this type of modal split, which is the standard method, does not count exactly the number of trips or the exact mix on the road, but rather asks for the major mode on a workday. Therefore someone who walks 0,5 km to a bus, and takes the bus for 2,5 km, is only counted in public transport. Thus the total amount of walking (because walking occurs to get to


every mode) can be larger than it appears. This is partially differentiated in the multi-modal data in the next section.

Walking 6,3%

Driving 34,0%

Cycling 30,6%

Pub Trans 2,6%

Motorbike 26,5% Table 1: Modal split for Cervia, found by survey. Not adjusted for age.

Figure 2: Modal split for Cervia residents, found by survey. Not adjusted for age.

There is a second approach, for another view of the travel pattern, where modal split is calculated by time (the mode which the person spent more time using is chosen). This changes the proportions, but is not the standard method, so it cannot be the official modal split. Below it is compared with the standard data based on distance, shown already above. One primary value of this table is to see that certain modes are faster (driving, cycling, and motorbikes). For Ravenna the public transport share was larger, indicating a longer time. Here the share is small, but the same amount for both distance and time, suggesting that transit trips are faster and more reliable in less urbanized areas. DISTANCE TIME

Walking 13.6% 22.7%

Driving 34.0% 23.9%

Cycling 30.6% 27.2%


Pub Trans 2.6% 2.6%

Motorbike 26.5% 25.4%

Table 2: Modal splits for Cervia compared (standard by distance, with alternate view by time). Bike share

not adjusted for age.

Figure 3: Modal splits for Cervia compared (standard by distance, with alternate by time). Bike share not

adjusted for age.

Multimodal Mode Share:

Bike-and-ride parking is used by only 4,2% of regular bicyclists, and it is surprising that only 1,7% of them claimed to carry their bicycle inside public transport. The use of bike and public transport is very small, only 0,7%, whereas the use of bike and private cars is unusually high, 12,9%, suggesting a significant share of recreational riding. This might make sense if the survey was taken at the peak of summer, and would probably not be the case year-round.

Regular Bicyclists' Experience:

Quality of bike routes: A majority, 68.9%, of regular bicyclists experienced discontinuity in their bicycle paths and only 5% said they found them continuous. Only 40,3% felt their entire bike path was illuminated, so they could see and feel safe at night, although that is more than twice as high as Ravenna (18,5%).


Bike Parking and theft:

Only 16,8% of regular bikers find secure bicycle parking, and 59.3% have experienced bike theft, the same percentage that fears bike theft. This suggests that theft is not considered until it happens, so it might be better prepared for, and prevented, by education.

Safety:

A large majority, 82,4%, of regular bikers fear a bicycle accident, and 13,4% survived an accident. Only a very small number, 10.1%, feel respected by car drivers. Unfortunately no data is available on actual rates of injury or fatality of cyclists, but as seen elsewhere, Ravenna appears to be much more dangerous than other places, and cyclists in Cervia are much more scared and feel more disrespected than even in Ravenna.

Climate and Regular Cyclists:

36,1% of regular bikers are experienced in riding in moderate rain, 35,3% ride in temperatures of 10°C or less. This indicates at least 1/3 of regular cyclists are already willing to cycle most of the year, even in winter and rain. With regard to topography, only 29,4% had needed to tackle hills that caused fatigue.

Potential for cycling in Cervia:

The potential bike mode share has been determined by adding to the share of regular biker the share of residents who currently not cycle but whose home-work distance is estimated less than 7km. With this hypothesis, the potential regular cyclists is 67,1%. In fact the true potential is much higher because non-work trips are typically closer to home, and make up a larger share of all travel, so almost everyone is a potential cyclist for non-work trips. What makes non-bike riders ride a bike on regular basis? Interviewees have been asked what services and infrastructure they require before they ride a bike every day. Here are the most requested items: Safe bike parking 15,2% Continuous bike path 31,0% Bike path with weather protection 20,3% To take bike within public transport 8,6% Electric bikes 5,6% Bike-and-ride possibility 5,6% Bike sharing 5,1%


It is clear that not all requirements can be realized at once but it gives an idea what non bikers see as main obstacles for cycling. The fact that safe parking and continuous paths rank high may reflect the fact that those are the biggest barriers that people are familiar with, because it is a daily problem in Cervia. Of course, the survey respondents may not know what will help most. For instance, if someone has not tried bike sharing, they may not know how much it would change their behavior. In fact, anything that helps a person try bicycling can make a significant difference. People who try bicycling often continue, as illustrated in the following slide from the BICY publication, “Twenty Good Reasons for Cycling” (Italian version, “20 Buone Ragioni per Andare Per Bici”). [2]

Figure 4a: Italian version of slide, showing that drivers found bicycling better than expected.


Figure 4b:English version of slide shown above.

SWOT Analysis

The SWOT analysis goal is to identify internal Strengths and Weaknesses, and external Opportunities and Threats (SWOT). The SWOT analysis is based on interviews of two governmental stakeholders (the Deputy Mayor for Tourism and the Responsible of Urban Development Office) and one representative of the AQUILOTTI Cycling Association. The BYPAD method was used for these interviews, in order to obtain the information for the SWOT analysis for Cervia. BYPAD refers to the “Bicycle Policy Audit” tool, “developed by an international consortium of bicycle experts as part of an EU-funded project.” [3]

SWOT Analysis of Cycling in the City of Cervia

STRENGTHS WEAKNESSES


cyclist culture and behaviour old urban shape small number of parking places high number of bicycle-friendly tourists bicycle path length (30 km) numerous car restrictions bicycle-friendly hotels numerous bicycle rentals favourable socio-economic environment EMAS registered environmental management system

incomplete network unsafe road crossings critical train-bicycle inter-modality new houses without bike recovery space lack of a specific policy lack of dedicated communication lack of a city bicycle office lack of institutional support bicycle mobility data collection neglected

OPPORTUNITIES THREATS

plan to complete the network new traffic calming measures better partnership with the Province

three new parking plots: 1600 places (but in suburban areas and equipped with bike rental) economical perturbation on tourist flow

Stakeholder Interviews

There were no stakeholder interviews conducted for Cervia, however, the three interviews used in the BYPAD process allowed meaningful input of this type.


OpenStreetMap Verification

A preliminary analysis of the open source GIS resource, OpenStreetMap, is available thanks to software written by the University of Bologna team. The software is still under development.

OpenStreetMap Bikeway Data Exclusive cycleways 55.493km

Paths on highways and leisure tracks

(additional): 6.84km

Mixed use with car:

On 83,610km of road bicycles are allowed

and 135.883km is classified as living

streets or residential.

This would amount to 62,55km of exclusive

cycleways in OpenStreetMap.

Thus based on this data, the total amount of exclusive bikeway is 62,55km, which is 78,7% larger than the 35km of official length. Note that although this data may not correspond to the official lengths, this classification is applied everywhere in the world, even though subjective judgement is a factor of uncertainty.

The area surveyed does not necessarily include the entire non-urbanized area of Cervia, so there may be more remote/rural bikeways not included here. For understanding urban transportation, it is important to have the road-length and exact cycle way length of the urban area only.

What can be improved?

This sub section summarizes the results and suggests efficient improvements of cycling in Cervia. The potential number of regular cyclists in Cervia is estimated to be approximately 67,1% based on existing cyclists plus the distance to work (7 km maximum distance). So this would be a medium-long term objective for a cycling policy. The 67,1% share could be increased further by offering multi-modal solutions. As cycling becomes more popular, people may also relocate their activity centers to come more by bike. But such a change in land-use by residents and developers may be slow. In order to achieve 67,1% bike share for regular trips, the data from Cervia, Ravenna and other cities in the BICY project suggest the length of exclusive bikeways needs to be increased by a factor of approximately 2.5 (see Figure 1). A vast majority (68,9%) of regular bike riders report discontinuous cycle ways along their regular path; 13,4% survived accidents and almost half of the regular bikers fear accidents and only a tiny number, 10,1%, feel respected by car drivers. This suggests that the length of the network needs to be increased in order to increase ridership, but the absolute priority should be given to make the network more connected. Fewer interruptions of bikeways will make the network much safer. This argument is strengthened by SWOT analyses where bad inter-city connections, and a fragmented network (for example,


“East-west connections and Milano Marittima are the missing points in the network”) are seen as a weakness. Almost half, 49,6%, of regular bike riders experienced a bike theft, and 68,9% fear bike theft. Therefore, the availability of safe parking appears on the top of the wish list for non bike riders who could potentially ride a bike on a regular basis. There is a clear need for new, safe parking. Furthermore the currently available bike parks could be reviewed as most bike racks cannot be considered “safe”. In addition, many bike holders can damage the bike's wheels. It is important to consult bicycling experts and choose racks that work well for all bicyclists. The SWOT analysis found a strength in the “bicycle culture and behaviour”. The indicator analysis confirms that the current cycling network is accepted and used. Yet only 10,1% of bike drivers feel respected by car-drivers. This suggests that some campaigning is required to raise awareness and inform the public about the necessities and weaknesses of cyclists, as well of the cyclists’ positive contribution to the city's environment, economy, and air pollution. The SWOT analysis states that there is competence in cycling in politics and cycling is strongly integrated. On the other hand, there is currently no Bicycle Office, there is a lack of a specific communication, stakeholder/cyclist involvement and inter-institutional co-ordination and support. This situation could be resolved by a bicycle office or a centralized coordinator, overseeing the communication between institutions and cyclists as well as inter-institutional co-ordination. The survey would suggest further measures to boost cycle usage regarding multi-modal solutions. Non-cyclist residents would prefer to have the possibility to take their bike into the public transport (8,6%) slightly more than a bike-and-ride station (5,6%). This raises of course the question whether this can be realized during rush hours. The survey states further that 20,3% of non-cyclist residents would cycle with a weather protected (sun, wind, rain) cycle path. This may not be feasible for the whole network. But could be an option for tourists along the beach. 5,6% of non cyclists desire electric bikes, probably as a substitute for the motorcycle. There are already incentives in place to buy electric scooters at the regional level.


B. Visione e definizione degli obiettivi

In questa sezione, viene fornita una visione d'insieme delle necessità di un centro urbano indirizzando possibili sviluppi sulla mobilità ciclabile e sulle altre modalità di trasporto. In questo quadro saranno definiti alcuni obiettivi quantitativi e qualitativi specifici e misurabili di politiche sulla mobilità ciclabile. Il potenziale di Cervia è eccezionale. Circa 1/3 dei ciclisti che usano regolarmente la bici, la utilizzano anche in caso di pioggia e quando è freddo (sotto i 10 ° C), mostrando che la bicicletta può risultare un importante mezzo di trasporto per la maggior parte dell'anno (36,1% and 35,3% ). Even better, 34,5% of those who do not regularly ride bicycles say they would ride a bicycle if certain improvements were made. It is possible this number is higher, because studies find that people do not realize how much they like riding a bicycle until they try it, and many who try it will continue (see Figure 4, above). Only 2,2% are “car lovers” – those who cannot imagine traveling without their car. Just as with the SWOT analysis, the top two priorities that Cervia residents are to create continuous bikeways, and to find safe bicycle parking. Helping bicyclists feel safe and protected is also very important, because a high number feel disrespected by drivers, fear collisions, and many have even survived a collision with a car. Cervia has a poor safety record as discussed elsewhere. Providing good parking and good places to ride is part of the solution, but education and enforcement programs are also needed, as discussed in targets, below. In the quickly developing world of bicycle transportation, successful cities always adopt a target for bicycling levels and the characteristics of the bicycling offer. These are both numerical targets, as well as qualitative goals, such as “The City of Cervia aims to be the best bicycle city of its size in all of Central Europe, a place where everyone feels safe and comfortable to ride a bicycle, and everything can be done by bicycle.” Targets for different types of cyclists can be chosen as well: for instance, for visitors (tourists) and for residents; for commuters; and for shoppers. Cycling Infrastructure: Come evidenziato dalle interviste e dall’ indagine SWOT, al centro dell’attenzione c’è la necessità di migliorare la rete d ipste ciclabili e l’offerta di parcheggi riservati per le biciclette. Queste indicazione trovano un riscontro importante nel indice di ciclabilità, di seguito stimato, relativo alla lunghezza di piste ciclabili per persona. Le piste ciclabili devono essere realizzate per risultare efficienti. In primo luogo, la rete nel suo insieme deve essere ben connessa, offrendo un collegamento con i principali centri di attrazione/generazione. Ma la rete deve essere anche continua, riconoscibile e facile da usare, con una buona segnaletica che aiuta le persone a trovare la strada ed evitare condizioni di


pericolo, e deve essere realizzata ispirandosi ai criteri di progettazione che possano andare bene per tutti i tipi di ciclisti, dai giovani agli anziani, da quelli che viaggiano a velocità sostenuta a quelli che procedono più lentamente, dai ciclisti esperti a quelli inesperti. E’ facile realizzare piste ciclabili in modo non corretto. Se non si presta particolare attenzione agli standard di progettazione che si sono sviluppati anche a seguito di numerosi errori, gli investimenti sulle piste ciclabili potrebbero avere dei problemi che ne riducono l’efficacia. Piste ciclabili mal realizzate possono essere ad esempio troppo strette, o troppo vicino ad auto in sosta, aumentando così la probabilità che i ciclisti possano essere feriti in seguito alla apertura delle portiere o all’improvvisa partenza di un veicolo. Possono essere caratterizzate da scarsa visibilità, per cui i ciclisti non vengono visti, dando luogo a situazioni estremamente pericolose in corrispondenza degli incroci o anche semplicemente di passi carrai. Possono essere troppo corte, o troppo poco marcate sull’asfalto, per essere utilizzabili. Potrebbero essere parzialmente occupate da pali e cassonetti. Potrebbero essere occupate da auto in sosta illegale. Se sono sulla carreggiata stradale, come avviene per la maggior parte delle piste ciclabili, possono essere piene di rifiuti che devono essere rimossi, altrimenti si scoraggia l’uso di tali piste anche per l’alta probabilità di forature degli pneumatici. Piste ciclabili devono avere una pavimentazione regolare, quindi è necessario prestare attenzione alle radici degli alberi. Particolare cura deve essere riservata alle buche presenti sulle piste ciclabili, perché i ciclisti sono gli utenti della strada più colpiti dalle cattive condizioni della pavimentazione. Piste ciclabili mal progettate potrebbero essere regolarmente occupate dai pedoni, o perché esse sono in condizioni migliori rispetto al marciapiede, o perché non sono nettamente separate dal marciapiede stesso, rendendole così poco utilizzabili per chi usa la bicicletta. Anche in questo caso, va sottolineato che le migliori piste ciclabili vanno bene per tutti i tipi di ciclisti. La rete ciclabile ideale serve sia i ciclisti veloci e temerari, che optano per il percorso più rapido, sia i ciclisti più lenti e più timorosi, tra i più giovani e vecchi, che possono aver bisogno di una protezione speciale. Sono assolutamente da evitare le curve strette. E’ importante prevedere uno spazio adeguato a passare e consentire l’incrocio dei ciclisti che procedono in direzioni opposte. Vanno evitati cordoli sporgenti, pali stretti o rampe strette sulla pista ciclabile. Forse l'aspetto più importante per realizzare delle piste ciclabili funzionali è la qualità delle loro connessioni in corrispondenza delle intersezioni, che costituiscono i punti più pericolosi per i ciclisti. Prevedere dei buoni collegamenti permetterà un uso efficiente della bicicletta, sia evitando ai ciclisti inutili attese, sia aiutandoli a individuare velocemente la prosecuzione della pista ciclabile o a individuare la strada migliore da percorrere per giungere a destinazione.

Obiettivi:

• Raddoppiare la rete di piste ciclabili per raggiungere prefissati valori di mobilità ciclabile

• Analizzare le caratteristiche della rete in modo da garantire la massima connettività • Valutare la rete ciclabile in base alle indicazioni sopra indicate e assicurarsi che essa

fornisca un elevato livello di servizio.


Sotto-obiettivi inerenti la rete:

• Connessioni est - ovest • Connessioni con Pinarella e Milano Marittima • una pavimentazione priva di asperità • intersezioni della pista ciclabile sono sicure e ben visibili • Tutte le piste ciclabili sono sufficientemente larghe da ospitare flussi anche

consistenti di ciclisti con diversi livelli di esperienza. • Le piste ciclabili sono facilmente individuabili dai ciclisti, non utilizzate dai

pedoni o dalle auto in sosta.

Parcheggi per le biciclette: Ogni centro di attrazione/generazione di spostamenti e ogni residenza dovrebbero essere dotati di un adeguato e sicuro parcheggio per le biciclette.

Obiettivi:

• Come minimo, l'indice BICY (che si ottiene confrontando i posti per parcheggio bici ed i posti per parcheggio auto) deve mostrare che questi sono ugualmente presenti.

• Prevedere uno schema legislativo che richiede la presenza di aree di parcheggio per biciclette protette, sicure e accessibili.

Integrazione con il trasporto pubblico:

Ogni servizio di trasporto pubblico dovrebbe consentire il trasporto di biciclette nella massima misura possibile (ad esempio sulla parte anteriore di un autobus o all’interno di esso). Naturalmente tutti i treni possono e dovrebbero consentire il trasporto delle biciclette. L'accesso dovrebbe essere immediato. Non tutti sono in grado di sollevare la bicicletta per portarla su per gli scalini, o per inserirla in una rastrelliera. In teoria, non vi è alcun costo aggiuntivo per una bicicletta, e nessuna limitazione temporale al trasporto delle biciclette. Esistono dei rimorchi che possono trasportare un gran numero di biciclette (ad esempio 15 o più).

Obiettivi:

• Ogni autobus e van trasportano il massimo numero possibile di biciclette. • Ad ogni treno è consentito l’accesso ai ciclisti. • Non è mai previsto un costo aggiuntivo per il trasporto della bicicletta

Provvedimenti legislativi, controlli e sanzioni:

Deve essere condotta una revisione completa dello schema legislativo in materia di mobilità ciclabile, dei regolamenti e delle politiche, nonché dei controlli e delle sanzioni previste. In molti casi le leggi sono talmente vecchie da risultare inadeguate per l’attuale mobilità ciclabile. Molte volte ci sono dei problemi di applicazione dei regolamenti, sia con i ciclisti che non recepito completamente le regole di circolazione, sia con gli altri utenti della strada che possono costituire


un pericolo per ciclisti. Il fatto che così pochi di ciclisti di Cervia si sentano veramente rispettati dagli automobilisti mostra che vi è un problema che può essere migliorato, e certamente nella strategia da adottare rientrano i controlli, le sanzioni, i regolamenti e le politiche. Il supporto attivo degli organi di polizia è essenziale per promuovere una cultura sana e felice della bicicletta.

Obiettivi:

• Gli organi di polizia sono consapevoli delle difficoltà e dei problemi che devono fronteggiare i ciclisti e intervengono con azioni di sostegno per proteggere e incoraggiare l’uso della bicicletta.

• Eliminare leggi, regolamenti o politiche che possono scoraggiare o penalizzare l’uso della bicicletta.

• Quegli automobilisti che con le loro manovre minacciano i ciclisti e i pedoni sono perseguiti.

Istruzione e formazione:

I Paesi con una diffusa cultura della bicicletta e con le strade più sicure per la mobilità ciclabile prevedono dei corsi educazione stradale nel loro sistema educativo, a partire dai bambini più piccoli. Andare in bicicletta è una competenza, e può essere loro insegnata. Attualmente esistono una serie di programmi di formazione che una città può erogare, non solo per i giovani, ma anche per le persone meno giovani. Vanno quindi previsti per i vari conducenti dei programmi di formazione che potrebbero essere inclusi all’interno dei corsi per la patente di guida. Potrebbe essere fornito del materiale didattico in modi diversi anche attraverso il sito web del comune.

Obiettivi:

• Ogni bambino ha accesso a scuola a corsi di formazione in bicicletta. • Ogni utente viene informato sulle problematiche della mobilità ciclabile in modo da

aumentarne il livello di conoscenza e di rispetto verso tale modalità di trasporto. • Ogni persona anziana ha accesso ai programmi di formazione per diventare un ciclista. • Mappe ed altre informazioni sulla mobilità ciclabile devono essere facilmente disponibili

Tasso di uso della bicicletta: Sulla base dei dati dell’indagine, una futura ripartizione modale degli spostamenti in bici pari al 67.1 % è un obiettivo minimo. Una buona domanda da porsi è perché i dipendenti statali dicono di utilizzare la bici molto più degli altri? È questo l'effetto di provvedimenti specifici per i dipendenti statali nella Regione Emilia-Romagna? Il fatto che queste persone utilizzino le biciclette in misura doppia rispetto alla media, incoraggia a perseguire l'obiettivo di incrementare l’uso della bicicletta in quanto tale uso in ambito urbano potrebbe essere estesa ad una percentuale molto più alta.


Le persone anziane ricevono una serie di beneficio dall’uso della bicicletta, in quanto procura loro un modo soft per fare un po’ di esercizio fisico. Andare in bicicletta è uno dei modi per mantenersi al di sopra della "soglia di disabilità" man mano che si invecchia. Andare in bicicletta aumenta l'aspettativa di vita e anche la qualità della vita: aiuta a prevenire e a ridurre le malattie croniche e altri problemi di salute. Andare in bicicletta offre libertà di movimento - di mobilità e di accesso - per tutte le età, compreso chi non può guidare, ma può andare in bicicletta.

Obiettivi:

• Ogni residente che può andare in bicicletta si sente sicuro e tranquillo nel farlo. • obiettivo iniziale di aumentare la quota modale di uso della bicicletta al 67.1% • Aumentare tale quota oltre il 25.4% in futuro.

Attività commerciali amiche della bicicletta

Anche i titolari delle attività commerciali locali hanno dei benefici dalla mobilità ciclabile. Alcuni studi mostrano che le persone che usano la bicicletta tendono a spendere nei negozi di più di coloro che usano l’autovettura. Un programma per i negozianti per sostenere l'aumento della mobilità ciclabile può prevedere una serie di modalità tra cui:

• Fornire sconti per i ciclisti; • Fornire un adeguato parcheggio custodito per le biciclette dei dipendenti e dei clienti; • Organizzare fiere di strada speciali o promozioni incentrate sulla bicicletta

Monitoraggio e valutazione Vengono introdotte nella presente sezione una serie di obiettivi.

obiettivi:

• verifica BYPAD ogni 2-3 anni • Raccogliere i dati sulle piste ciclabili e sulle aree di parcheggio per biciclette insieme a

tutti gli altri tipi di monitoraggio; • Il monitoraggio dei flussi di ciclisti ogni anno / stagione attraverso metodologie rigorose

e standardizzate. • Indagini sulla domanda di trasporto almeno una volta ogni cinque anni, preferibilmente

una volta all'anno. • dati georeferenziati sulla incidentalità distinguendo gli incidenti senza danni alle persone,

quelli con feriti e quelli con morti; tali dati devono essere messi a disposizione di tutti; • Pubbliche relazioni:

� interviste programmate agli utenti del trasporto pubblico � Prevedere diverse modalità di contatti per il pubblico: pagina web, e-mail e numero di telefono, interviste regolari a gruppi di ciclistici, e audizioni pubbliche � Informazioni sul grado di percezione. Oggi, esiste un senso di paura diffusa. Quale è il grado di soddisfazione dei vostri ciclisti?


� I dati che vengono raccolti ed elaborati, compreso i dati GIS di analisi, dovrebbero essere resi disponibili al pubblico sul sito web del comune.

Misure di restrizione all’uso dell’autovettura L'analisi SWOT ha evidenziato che " le misure di restrizione all’uso dell’auto sono preferibili alle attività promozionali per migliorare l'uso della bicicletta per andare al lavoro, a scuola e per fare shopping." Le attività promozionali sono indubbiamente importanti, ma cambiando il sistema fisico cambia anche il modo di viaggiare.

obiettivi:

• Aumentare il numero di aree a traffico limitato, prevedendo: � aree pedonali � aree ciclabili, senza traffico di attraversamento � Aumentare le Zone30 e altri dispositivi di dissuasione del traffico

Uso del Suolo in funzione della bicicletta

Lo sviluppo urbano modifica il grado di utilizzo della bicicletta.

obiettivi:

• Favorire la concentrazione urbana e quindi la densità abitativa • Prevedere politiche di zonizzazione in modo da assicurare all’intera città di soddisfare

localmente le proprie esigenze • creare una cintura di verde attorno alle aree urbane

C. Action and Budget Plan

This section will describe the measures taken, as agreed after consultations with stakeholders, to achieve the previously defined goals. An action plan and budget plan will be presented that broken down in activities, implementation priorities and schedules. The City of Cervia is already better than many cities for bicycling, but it can and should be much better still. The analysis in this document shows that there are clear problem areas, and clear actions which will work to solve those problems. Doing so will have many benefits, not only increasing by cycling, but for reducing traffic problems, injuries and fatalities, increasing the attractiveness of Cervia for tourism, along with improving the health and economic vitality of the city.


Dedicated Bicycle Staff:

As discussed below in “D. Assigning Responsibilities and Resources”, assigning staff with expertise and regular duties to support and improve bicycling is essential to success. Meeting user needs in Cervia was given a low rating. Presently the BYPAD found that “Cyclists needs dealt by EMAS manual” so “timely answers [are] not always possible.”

Bicycle Mobility Plan:

Although the Urban Mobility Plan was found to address cycling, a special planning process to assess all aspects of bicycle infrastructure and programs needs to be completed. Obviously, an essential step to creating a comprehensive solution for Cervia is a comprehensive planning process, although whenever possible, addressing clear problems must not be delayed by a planning process. Clear problems should be solved directly as a high priority. A method of assigning priority is also needed, and should be solved by the planning process if not before.

Allocate Funds to Plan and Provide:

Bicycling is already a major, but underserved, portion of the transportation picture. Funds must therefore be budgeted to each of the areas of this document, not just parking and bikeways. With or without the BMP, a bicycle network plan needs to be generated, assessing the quality of the network and identifying new linkages which would allow cyclists to safely, quickly, comfortably, and conveniently reach all destinations in the city. With this goal in mind, the city can conduct a rigorous planning process, perhaps with the help of an outside consultant, to identify ways to provide a complete and comprehensive bicycle network, including parking, education, enforcement, monitoring, evaluation, and bikeways infrastructure. Additional programs such as education and training for cyclists, promotions to increase cycling, bike share programs that allow people to quickly and inexpensively borrow and use a bicycle, and more can and should be included in this planning process as well as in the ongoing investments in not only transportation, but in public safety, the environment, and community life. This planning process must be funded in the near term as a high priority, because once it is complete, the benefits will be highest for the long-term.

Invest Now:

The best possible time to invest in bicycling is always NOW. To upgrade the entire bicycle infrastructure is an investment in urban quality of life, in the health of the community, in bolstering the local economy, in enhancing local culture, and of course, it is an investment that


will increase bicycling. The biggest study yet on effective measures for increasing cycling, by Pucher et al, 2010, found that "cities adopting comprehensive packages of interventions experienced large increases in the number of bicycle trips and share of people bicycling.”[5] This is supported by the unique research of the BICY project as well. Therefore act quickly on all levels, and reap the biggest rewards the soonest possible. Investing in bicycling pays for itself many times over, and in many ways, over time. Increasing bicycling is known to improve residents’ health, and to improve the municipality in many ways. Creating a better bicycle network makes the city more attractive for residents, business and tourism. Many studies show the financial, environmental and health benefits. The most effective bicycle infrastructure is a complete bicycle infrastructure: with sensible and complete connections between homes and all important destinations, as well as safe and secure places to park and store the bicycle while visiting those places, and supportive services like bike share, access to transit, repair shops, and bicycle-friendly businesses. The focus must be on facilities and infrastructure first. “Build it and they will come” is the first step to a great bicycle city.

Fund a Continuous Bikeway Network

To reach the target of 67,1% regular cyclists and beyond, increasing the bikeway network is required. The cost per kilometer for a bicycle lane is expected to be 22.000€. The cost per kilometer for a cycle track is expected to be 250.000€.

Fund or Require Secure Bicycle Parking Everywhere:

The cost for installing one quality outdoor bicycle rack for ten bicycles is expected to be 750€. In addition, policies can and should require both businesses and residences to provide adequate, secure, ground floor bicycle parking. Where businesses and housing providers cannot fill this need, the City must find and fund a way. All homes should provide a safe place to store a bicycle, as well as other devices for travel without a car, such as rolling shopping baskets, strollers for children, and wheelchairs if needed. These should be on the ground floor for fast access for all, because not everyone can carry a heavy piece of equipment up stairs, and the easier the access is, the more it will be used. Building and zoning codes can and should require this. Any new apartment can provide parking.


Likewise, any new commercial building can provide safe parking, such as a locked room or a rack behind a locked gate, or a rack in front of a store that is able to be watched by many eyes, so that residents feel safe bringing a nice bicycle to work or to shop.

Fund Monitoring and Evaluation:

Cervia must schedule, fund, and conduct regular monitoring. This includes the BYPAD Audit every 2-3 years, yearly community input, gathering all injury and fatality data, keeping good records of the bicycle infrastructure, and more. Traffic counts must be funded either by the purchase of equipment so staff can conduct these counts, or by a regular budgetary allocation that is set aside to ensure that an outside consultant consistently and accurately performs these counts.

Bike Sharing Complements other Measures

The new service of free rental bicycles for visitors coming by train is an exceptional initiative which has great potential to increase cycling as well as tourism in Cervia. [6]

The cost of a bike sharing system depends on its size, and the type of technology. The simplest, used already in the Regione Emilia-Romagna, is a mechanical system which is returned to the point of origin. More complex systems which require more expensive electronics, and constant redistribution of the bicycles, are available as well. As with a bikeway network, the key is to have many stations, so the bikes are always convenient.

Sample costs from the City of Portland in the USA are as follows:

Smart Card bike sharing systems range in price from $4,500 - $5,500USD [per bike] including the cost of docking stations, computer software, licensing, bikes, and other capital expenditures. Operating costs range from $1250 - $2300USD/bike, although some business plans purport that over 50% of operating costs can be re-captured through subscriptions, rental and user fees. Cell phone activated systems tend to have a much lower capital costs ($1000-$2500/bike) than Smart Card systems, but require more staffing. [4]


Most bicyclists in Cervia feel disrespected by motorists and feel that their bicycle path is

not continuous. Taking action will make a difference. (Photo, google maps streetview.)

D. Assigning Responsibilities and Resources

This section nominates the actors accountable and to ensure that all resources (human, knowledge, funds) will be available in a timely manner. Key is to make the commitment to give space and resources to bicycling. If no space can be made, this program will fail. The SWOT analysis indicated political support as a strength, so it should be possible to join the great bicycle cities in providing for bicycling physically, financially, and socially.

Assign Dedicated Staff

Assigning dedicated staff time to bicycling is an essential step to improving bicycling in Cervia. The BYPAD audit found that the “Cervia Municipality has a bicycle mobility policy but weak support from higher level institutions.” Although bicycle infrastructure is implemented by Urban Development Dept. staff, a focused effort on identifying what is to be implemented must be an ongoing effort as well. Because bicycling is a major mode in Cervia, which will increase and require even more municipal support over time, dedicated staff is a key step to do at once. Ideally, an expert should be hired in the near-term and given the support needed to make changes throughout the city. This


is particularly important now, when the changes and investment are highest, as Cervia reaches to become a great bicycling town.

Interim measures can include:

Create a task force or special commission to move the bicycling program forward Assign special staff attention to focus on completing the bikeway network Hire a special contractor to help different departments coordinate better

Completing this section requires further input from the Comune di Cervia.

E. Monitoring and Evaluation

This section describes how the progress of the cycling policy is monitored. Monitoring is critical. Obviously, this policy document has been greatly hindered by the lack of data regarding Cervia’s bicyclists and their cycling environment. Unfortunately, the BYPAD audit found that “no data collection initiatives” exist for the city. A special effort must be made to completely change that for the future.

BYPAD Audit Every 2-3 years

As specified in the BYPAD manual, the process must be ongoing. “Repeating the audit regularly (once every two or three years) will indicate progress in the municipality’s cycling policy.” When is the next BYPAD going to be done? These must be scheduled, budgeted and planned for in advance.

Infrastructure:

Cycleways per person, and amount of bicycle parking including bike-and-ride stations, were the two top infrastructure indicators identified by the City of Cervia. Maintaining records of cycleways and bicycle parking needs to be done simultaneously with all other monitoring, so that the effect of these investments by Cervia can be measured.

Counting bicyclists:

Regular counting of bicyclists is imperative. Counting must be done in a standardized way, and in as consistent a manner as possible, respecting the many factors that influence bicycling.


Counting allows us to know whether more people are bicycling over time. Counting allows us to better understand the safety of the city. Counting can also show us when people cycle every day. Is there a peak time? This too can help with responding to cyclists’ needs. Counting must be done at the same time and place each year, ideally with the same weather patterns. September is a global standard due to the effects of the beginning of the school year and end of summer. Counting at other times of the year should also be done, e.g., each season, preferably during high activity times (not during vacations, exam periods, etc.). Ideally, Cervia would ensure these counts either by the purchase of equipment for counting bicyclists, so staff could schedule and conduct these counts, or by a budgetary allocation that is set aside to ensure that an outside consultant consistently and accurately performs these counts.

Modal split:

Assessing overall modal split is also critical for monitoring, and for assessing the combined effect of all policies. Policies which affect transit ridership or car usage will also affect bicycle ridership and walking rates. A detailed mobility survey given to the population, similar to the one that was to be done for BICY, should be done at least once every five years, preferably once every year. Due to the commuter population of Cervia, the survey should identify where people live and work, and be sure to include bicycling to and from bus and train rides.

Injury and Fatality Data:

Understanding how many bicyclists are being injured or killed, including the time of year, time of day, location, and traffic behavior, is very important for improving cycling. Cooperation with law enforcement and medical institutions to provide good data on a regular basis is essential to evaluation. Ideally, this data will be geocoded for spatial analysis, and made available to both researchers and the public. It is very good that the BYPAD audit reports, “Accidents involving cyclist data are collected and treated to implement safety actions in dangerous places”. However, this must be systematic, spatial, and assessed over time. Over a period of years, patterns can become clear, showing that in some areas, more collisions occur and/or more injuries occur. There are many reasons why increased injuries may occur: dangerous conditions of course may be the reason, but also more bicyclists may mean more injuries, even if the area is safer than others. In any event an evaluation can lead to measures which improve safety and prevent injury and fatality. This can only be done with proper monitoring and evaluation!


Public Input:

Regular consultation with the traveling public, especially cyclists but including everyone, is very important for improving cycling. Invite the public specifically: how can your city increase the amount of bicycling, and the quality of bicycling, for everyone? Provide multiple ways for the public to give feedback: a web page form, an email and phone number, regular requests to cycling groups, and public hearings to ask for advice. This will improve the culture of bicycling, provide information to more efficiently improve the city in many ways, and create trust and goodwill between members of the public as well as with the City of Cervia. The new free bicycle rental option for visitors who come by train is one place where a survey (asking all visitors about their bicycle experience) can be very easy. This could even be required for completing the rental. Of particular importance is to ask the bicycling community its perceptions. Today, there is fear: fear of being hit by cars, fear of bicycle theft. There is a feeling of being disrespected by car drivers. There is a feeling that the bicycle network is not continuous, not well lit, and more. Only by asking again will improvements be known. How happy are your bicyclists?

Public Knowledge

As with any great place to live, the data which is collected and created, including GIS datasets for analysis, should be made publicly available on the city’s website. This will improve the public’s knowledge and assist the city as a whole in attaining its important goals.


Conclusions

This first bicycle policy for Cervia is a major step. It is the first of many more steps which must be taken. Quick and focused action is necessary, and funds must be allocated consistently, to achieve the great conditions and the many benefits possible. Creating a place for bicycling in the city government is the first step to creating a better place for bicycling in Cervia. Mobilizing this way can then create a place for Cervia on the list of the world’s greatest bicycling cities, increasing the recognition, interest, and visiting of Cervia. Regular monitoring at the same time each year must be done. Provision of new bikeways and new bike parking to provide a comprehensive bicycling environment, so each person can safely, conveniently, and comfortably travel anywhere in the city and find a place to park, is the highest goal. Creating new cyclists requires education and training opportunities, and the support of local laws and law enforcement. The culture of cycling must feel safe and supported. Investing staff time and funds now will pay off in the long term with increased tourism and enhanced municipal identity; a happier and healthier population; and a stronger and more robust local economy: ready to not only survive, but to flourish in the global challenges ahead. Cervia has tremendous potential. The bicycle can provide tranquil transportation that

supports the lifestyle and the goals of the community. (Photo, google maps streetview.)

Eliminato: <sp>


References

[1] EUROSTAT. "Ageing characterises the demographic perspectives of the European societies - Issue number 72/2008.” Accessed Oct. 3, 2011. http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_OFFPUB/KS-SF-08-072/EN/KS-SF-08-072-EN.PDF [2] “Twenty Good Reasons for Cycling”, downloaded Sept. 29, 2011. http://www.bicy.it/docs/86/Trendy_cycling_EN_web.pdf Italian version, “20 Buono Ragioni per Andare Per Bici”, downloaded Sept. 29, 2011. http://www.bicy.it/docs/86/Trendy_cycling_IT_web.pdf [3] BYPAD Project website, accessed Jan. 25, 2011. http://www.BYPAD.org/ [4] “Bicycle Sharing Frequently Asked Questions.” Portland Bureau of Transportation. Accessed October 3, 2011. http://www.portlandonline.com/transportation/index.cfm?c=50814 [5] “Infrastructure, programs, and policies to increase bicycling: An international review.” John Pucher, Jennifer Dill, Susan Handy. Preventive Medicine 50 (2010) S106–S125 [6] Cervia, bici gratis per chi arriva in treno. Aquisti Verdi. 29/07/2011. Accessed 27/09/2011. http://www.acquistiverdi.it/news/2011/07/29/cervia_bici_gratis_per_chi_arr5797


ANNEX: Example BYPAD Questions

Although Ravenna used even more questions for its SWOT analysis/BYPAD interviews, the collection of 18 “starter questions” were given as follows:

18 BYPAD STARTER QUESTIONS

To carry out the SWOT analysis in a structured and comprehensive way it will be helpful to use the questions/categories developed in the BYPAD project. These are:

1. How does the city government receive information about the needs of cyclists?

2. What are the possibilities for bikers to actively participate in the decision making process of

transport policy?

3. What is the significance of the bicycle in politics and administration?

4. How effective is the co-operation with external organisations (integrated public transport system, state, etc.)?

5. How is bicycle traffic anchored in transport policies?

6. How is the funding of bicycle traffic policies guaranteed?

7. Who is responsible for the implementation of bicycle traffic policies?

8. Please select the most accurate description of the bicycle traffic network in city/town?

9. How is the maintenance of the bicycle traffic infrastructure organized?

10. What is done to increase the safety of cyclists?

11. What is done to optimize the combination of public transport and bicycle traffic (inter-modal

transportation)?

12. How well is the public informed with regard to bicycle traffic, policy & events?

13. What is done in the areas of traffic education and bicycle training?

14. What initiatives are taken to encourage cycling of various age groups?

15. What is done to ensure equal rights in mobility cyclists and motorists?

16. To what extent does current city development policy support bicycle traffic?

17. How are data for bicycle use collected and adopted?

18. How does the municipality/region collect and use data concerning the safety of bicycle traffic?

Table 3. BYPAD starter questions for SWOT process as given to all BICY project partners.

Documents

A Bicycle Policy for Cerviabicy.it/docs/48/Pol_Cer_ENdef.pdf · A Bicycle Policy for Cervia. Page | 9 / 33 trips made by bicycle. Modal split is an assessment of all modes. Survey