RECYCLING EUROPE On the effectiveness of cycling policies and the interplay between urban, national and European levels of policymaking

Master Thesis Max Lugtenborg

European Studies – Governing Europe Universiteit van Amsterdam 2017 Recycling Europe On the effectiveness of cycling policies and the interplay between urban, national and European levels of policymaking

MA Thesis in European Studies Graduate School for Humanities Universiteit van Amsterdam

Max Lugtenborg 10070737 [email protected]

Main Supervisor: Dr. G. J.A. Snel Second Supervisor: Prof. J.T. Leerssen

3 July 2017

1 Table of contents

1. Introduction 3

2. Theoretical framework 6 2.1. Theories of European integration 6 2.2. Multi-level governance and Europeanization 7 2.3. Urban dimension 9 2.4. Governing principles 11

3. Method 13 3.1. Policy effectiveness 13 3.2. Data collection 15

4. Case studies 16 4.1. Introduction 16 4.2. Amsterdam 16 4.3. Copenhagen 25 4.4. Berlin 32 4.5. European Union 39

5. Analysis 47 5.1. Roundup: the functioning of current cycling policies 47 5.2. Added value 48 5.3. Tension between European, national and urban policymaking 51

6. Conclusion 53

7. References 55

2 1. Introduction

“Our struggle for global sustainability will be won or lost in cities” – Ban Ki-Moon

Cities nowadays find themselves at the forefront of many of our major challenges. The biggest problems facing Europe today, i.e. flows of migrants, terrorism or climate change, appear most acute in its cities. Because it’s at these sites that these challenges become urgent and empirical, cities can and have to act on them. Their governments are directly confronted with these issues and therefore have more practical knowledge. Therefore, they prove more capable to act than their national counterparts (Sassen, 2012). National governments prove rather reluctant in tackling these issues, due to great internal ideological differences. Cities on the other hand are pragmatic and their governments consist of problem solvers (Vermeulen, 2013). Cities today are rapidly becoming powerful and omnipresent factors in European and global politics. Although diplomacy is traditionally linked to the nation states, cities now find themselves increasingly capable of organising their own foreign contacts, through processes of globalization and Europeanization, independently from their respective nation states (Heinelt & Niederhafner, 2008). The European Union, at the same time, struggles with a democratic deficit and the rise of Eurosceptic voices throughout the entire continent. The discussion that appears dominant is about the question of whether we want more or less European integration. This question proves to be deeply ideological and moreover one we cannot simply solve. It is my personal conviction that we’ve reached a dead end. I therefore feel we should leave the more/less discussion and start thinking about a different kind of European integration (New Pact for Europe, 2013). Inspired by Benjamin Barber and Ulrike Guèrot, I think more value might have to be attached to the important role cities can play in a future European system. Barber argues that cities, and the mayors that run them, offer the best forces of good governance. As national governments are unable to fully collaborate, due to issues with borders and sovereignty, he declares the nation state to be dysfunctional and obsolete. Cities, on the contrary, do not have to deal with these issues and are the primary sources of cultural, social and political innovation. Barber therefore pleads for a Global Parliament of Mayors (Barber, 2013). Guérot also suggests moving away from the question of more or less European integration, as Member States, according to her, keep hanging on to their national interests, which resists European cooperation. Although her initial focus lies on regions, rather than cities, her argument attaches a significant weight to cities as well. She argues that Europe should be subdivided into smaller sections that can better connect to

3 urban needs and interests. This would provide Europe with the legitimacy it currently lacks (Guérot, 2015). These ideas are rather radical but might be used as inspiration. Popular trust in European administrators is low, whereas citizens feel far more confidence towards their local policymakers. This recently has sparked a renewed interest in cities from the European Union. The Union increasingly acknowledges the value of cities as potential partners for addressing European problems and achieving the EU’s big-picture goals. Although subnational authorities are relevant actors in the EU participatory governance system, they’re not formally represented in any Union institution. This is in contrast to their national counterparts, who find themselves represented in the Council. With the introduction of the Urban Agenda for the EU, the EU now seems to acknowledge the role of cities. Through various partnerships, the programme aims to involve cities and ensure that they get their say in European policymaking. Legislation needs to better reflect urban needs, practices and responsibilities. These partnerships focus on improving regulation, funding and the exchange of knowledge (Urban Agenda for the EU, 2016). In the wake of this trend, the European Union just now starts to develop an active interest in cycling (European Ministers for Transport, 2015). As cycling is connected to a wide variety of benefits, ranging from the environment and people’s health to the economy and social inclusion, the conviction exists that the promotion of cycling can make a significant contribution to various EU objectives, such as the Europe 2020 targets regarding employment or climate change (EU Cycling Strategy, 2017). Policy in cycling belongs to the responsibilities of local governments and subsequently formally falls outside of the competences of the European Union. However, cities might benefit from coordinated EU action in this area. To this day, the Union lacks such coordinated action.

Research questions This thesis first of all tries to answer the question of why a European policy in this area is practically non-existent. Would such policy perhaps be ineffective or are cities simply more capable of doing this themselves? And how should we interpret this sudden interest of the EU in cycling? These questions will be answered through the examination of three well- known European bicycle-friendly cities, namely Amsterdam, Copenhagen and Berlin. Their bicycle policies will be thoroughly analysed and subsequently related to a potential European policy concerning the matter. It will become clear what European interference in this area could bring to the table. The main question of this thesis, however, concerns the relationship and possible tension between urban and European policymaking. In order to formulate an answer, the findings of the former questions will be placed into a broader discussion on the European

4 project. Is it possible or desirable to think of a future European Union paying more attention to cities?

Thesis structure The thesis will be structured as follows: first a theoretical framework will be outlined, clarifying European Union policymaking and its governing principles. Then, a short chapter will explain the method used for analysing the various case studies. Subsequently, an in- depth analysis will be made of the cycling policies in Amsterdam, Copenhagen and Berlin. Also, the current opportunities and possibilities for cycling in Union policy will be explained. In the final chapters, the findings regarding cycling policy will be placed into the broader discussion on European integration.

5 2. Theoretical framework

Our understanding of European Union policymaking is largely shaped by theory. An understanding of the main EU related theories is therefore necessary. Pollack identifies three main strands: theories of European integration and their implications for policymaking; theories focusing on the federal aspects of the European Union; and theories examining the governance approach towards the Union (Pollack, 2005). Taken together, these theories provide various distinctive questions and hypotheses about the key actors and the dominant processes of EU policymaking. These can be used to analyse the participants, processes and policies that can be observed in the European Union. A main theory about European integration might not exist. Instead EU policymaking may differ considerably across various issue areas.

2. 1 Theories of European integration

The European project has been examined through multiple approaches. The main debate has been that between the neo-functionalists and the intergovernmentalists.

Neo-functionalism The process of European integration initially was explained by neo-functionalists. Neo- functionalist theory, elaborated by Ernst Haas among other scholars (Haas, 1961; Lindberg, 1963; Lindberg & Scheingold, 1970) observed a process of functional spillover. Spillover refers to the mechanism by which integration in one area creates the conditions and incentives for integration in a related policy area. For example, the decision by European governments to place a certain sector, such as coal and steel, under the authority of a central governing body could only be fully achieved by also integrating transport policies (Rosamond, 2000). Neo-functionalists therefore predicted that sectoral integration would subsequently produce unintended and unforeseen consequences and would promote further integration in related policy areas (Pollack, 2005). George identified a second strand of spillover processes, which he called ‘political spillover’. At subnational level, interest groups operating in an integrated sector would have to interact with the supranational body charged with the management of the sector. Over time, these groups would come to appreciate the benefits from integration and transfer their loyalties from their national governments to the supranational authority. Political spillover therefore implies pressure for further integration created by both supranational as subnational actors (George, 1996).

6 An important contribution of neo-functionalism to the study of Union policymaking is the conceptualization of the so-called Community-method, which emphasises the role of European institutions in the decision-making process. EU policymaking hereby is pictured as a process driven by an entrepreneurial Commission. This image was prominent up onto the mid 1960s. By then, however, the French president Charles de Gaulle started reaffirming the importance of state sovereignty and questioning the Community method. The Commission appeared weak by this confrontation and the nation state all the more stronger. Neo-functionalism became criticized for assuming a degree of automatism and failing to account for less cooperative Member States (Eilstrup-Sangiovanni, 2006). A new school of European integration theory emerged, stressing this obstinate character of the Member States.

(Liberal) intergovernmentalism Most obviously with de Gaulle, but later with the accession of new EU members, such as the UK, Ireland and Denmark, Member State governments made clear that they would resist the gradual transfer of sovereignty to the European Community (Pollack, 2005). The primacy of the nation states would determine European decision-making. The view that national governments, rather than a supranational body, played the central role in the European project became dominant (Milward, 2000). This intergovernmentalist view found intergovernmental bargaining to be at the heart of policy-making. The integration process was re-launched in the 1980s, which revived neo-functionalism for some. However, others, most prominently Moravcsik, argued that these steps forward could be accounted for by a revised intergovernmental model. Moravcsik combined liberal domestic theory with an intergovernmentalist view at European level into his liberal intergovernmentalism (Pollack, 2005). In other words, this implies that nation states internally decide on their national preferences and take these to the European bargaining table. The outcomes reflect the relative power of each Member State (Moravcsik, 1993).

2.2 Multi-level governance and Europeanization

In the literature on European integration, the main focus used to be on the above- described ‘old’ integration theories, borrowed from international relations theory. As they are mostly concerned with the interaction between European institutions and nation states, these theories do not pose a complete picture. For instance, they fail to take sufficiently into account the role of local authorities or non-governmental stakeholders in the decision- making process. More recently another strand of thought has gained prominence. The

7 multi-level governance approach states that EU decision-making rests at a number of different levels and that subnational actors also play a key role.

Multi-level governance The theory of multi-level governance was developed by Hooghe and Marks and resulted from their research on new structures put into place by the 1992 Maastricht Treaty. They describe the concept as “a system of continuous negotiation among nested governments at several territorial tiers – supranational, national, regional and local” (Hooghe & Marks, 2003). The emergence of the European version of multi-level governance is the result of a broad process of a reallocation of decision-making, which has pulled some former functions and responsibilities of the national governments up to the level of the supranational and some down to the regional or local (Marks, 1993). Central governments in the 1990s were losing decision-making power both to the Commission as to local governments. The Commission played a key role in designing and implementing funds while local authorities gained importance through reforms in European funding (Pollack, 2005). Multi-level governance theorists observe that supranational, national and sub- national levels of government are interconnected. Political developments at one level have an impact on the other levels. In this view, developments on subnational level, for instance on urban level, can have a profound impact on the speed and shape of European integration (Nugent, 2010). Many regional governments now have taken a pro-active stance in European policy-making, some having permanent offices in Brussels and some being part of delegations in the Council (Marks, Hooghe & Blank, 1996). However, the role of subnational actors should not be overestimated. Local and regional governments aren’t formally represented in the European decision-making process yet. The treaties do not acknowledge them as an official part. National governments still take on an important role in European policymaking, for instance through the Council, whereas local authorities are mostly conceived as being advisory. Though, the EU does value the involvement of local and regional authorities, and for a number of reasons. First of all, nearly 70% of all EU decisions are executed on the local level. Second, local authorities are more in touch with the European citizens. Involving them in policymaking can contribute to mitigating the Union’s democratic deficit. Furthermore, local governments can help adapting EU policies to regional differences. Finally, subsidiarity is one of the foundational principles of the European Union (Committee of the Regions, 2009).

8 Europeanization Related to the multi-level governance tradition is the concept of Europeanization. This refers to the process whereby EU institutions and their policies influence national and subnational institutions and policies within the Member States, for instance by instilling norms (Pollack, 2005). Earlier literature on Europeanization focused mostly on the top- down effects of the EU on its Member States and regional or local governments. The latter would only come into action in the implementation phase (Ward & Williams, 1997; Kern, 2007). In recent years, however, more attention is given to the bottom-up aspect of Europeanization. Subnational governments are herein conceptualized as spaces for politics that can influence European policy through active lobbying and representation of interests (Carter & Pasquier, 2010). This coincides with recent developments of valuing the importance of involving cities in the European decision-making process.

Open method of coordination The 2008 economic crisis exposed the weaknesses in the European Union system of governance. It renewed the debate about intergovernmentalism and supranationalism. In addition to that, social and educational questions increasingly gained attention on European level, issues usually left to the competences of the individual Member States. These developments brought into question the further use of soft intergovernmental methods, such as the Open Method of Coordination (OMC). OMC was formally introduced in Lisbon in 2000 and can be seen as a method of soft governance over policy areas that do not necessarily fall under EU competences, but under partial or sometimes full competences of the Member States. The aim is to achieve convergence towards EU objectives. Rather than on binding rules, OMC relies on the establishment of certain guidelines, indicators, benchmarks and targets. However, OMC has been criticised for bringing about a greater pressure than the apparent soft nature of governance the regulatory instrument implies. ‘Peer pressure’ and ‘naming and shaming’ are terms often used in this respect (European Parliamentary Research Service, 2014).

2.3 Urban dimension

The multi-level governance system of the EU does not (yet) acknowledge cities as formal actors in the European policymaking process. However, a renewed interest in the importance of cities can be observed. The process of Europeanization implies the opening-up of a new political area, in which cities can gain prominence. It presents cities with new challenges, through competition, as well as opportunities. Europeanization can cause cities to actively

9 participate in the multi-level governance system and gain a growing independence from their respective national states. Cities can become prominent in EU policymaking by providing European institutions with knowledge and legitimacy (Heinelt & Niederhafner, 2008). This way, the multi-level system can provide cities with opportunities to pursue their interests. In practice it can be difficult, however, for individual cities to become successful at European level. This has lead to the creation of umbrella organizations, of which EUROCITIES is the most important, representing collective urban interests. The organisation tries to influence European legislation and policy, on behalf of cities and in consultation with European institutions. In addition, through six thematic forums, EUROCITIES offers its members a platform for exchanging knowledge and ideas. The organisation nowadays is seen as an important partner for the EU in achieving its objectives (EUROCITIES, 2016).

Urban Agenda for the EU In an effort to further strengthen the urban dimension by European and national policy actors, the EU in 2016 has launched the Urban Agenda for the EU. As Union legislation to a large extent is implemented in urban areas and because urban areas are among the key beneficiaries of EU funding, the Urban Agenda strives to involve urban governments in achieving better regulation, better funding, and better knowledge exchange. The EU hereby wants to ensure that European cities get their say in policymaking. It aims to promote cooperation between the Commission, Member States, cities and other stakeholders. Through the Urban Agenda, the Commission has set up strategic thematic partnerships in order to improve Union legislation to better reflect urban needs, practices and responsibilities. The idea is that these partnerships eventually produce a number of action points aimed at improving Union legislation. If a partnership is able to attain broad support for its action points, these could be transferred into legislation. In addition, the Urban Agenda functions as a one-stop-shop for cities to find guidance for the different policies and instruments in place (Urban Agenda for the EU, 2016). Each partnership is composed on average of about 15 to 20 partners and consists of the Commission, other EU organisations (such as the European Investment Bank or Committee of the Regions), cities, Member States, experts, umbrella organisations (such as EUROCITIES or the Council of European Municipalities), and relevant non- governmental stakeholders. Cycling is made one of the three key parts of the strategic partnership on urban mobility. Although the partnerships created through the Urban Agenda are not yet formally represented in the European decision-making process, it does provide a platform for cities to gain more influence within the multi-level governance system of the European Union.

10 2.4 Governing principles

The Treaty on the European Union (TEU), created in Maastricht in 1992 and amended through the 2007 Treaty of Lisbon, is one of the primary treaties of the European Union. It sets out the Union’s general principles and forms the basis of EU law. With respect to the limits of its powers, the principles of conferral, subsidiarity and proportionality are set forth in Article 5 of the Treaty.

Conferral The principle of conferral governs the limits of the Union’s competences. This entails that the European Union can only act within the limits of the competences conferred upon it by the Member States. These competences are determined in the Treaties and can only serve to attain the objectives set out herein. The remaining competences not conferred upon the Union stay with the individual Member States (European Union, 2012a). The competences are laid out in Articles 2-6 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). There are four types of competences conferred upon the EU. First, there are the exclusive competences, in which only the EU can intervene. These are for instance the customs union and trade policy. Second, the competences that are shared between the EU and the Member States. These entail that Member States can only act if the EU has chosen not to and include for example cohesion policy and the environment. The third type refers to the EU setting up certain arrangements within which Member States must coordinate policy. The EU provides broad guidelines, as in the case of economic policy. Finally, the EU has competence to support, coordinate or supplement Member State actions, for instance in the areas of culture and tourism (European Union, 2012b). Urban matters, traditionally, do not belong to the competences of the European Union.

Subsidiarity Subsidiarity complements the principle of conferral. It compels the Union to only intervene in areas that do not necessarily fall within its exclusive competences, if and in so far as these objectives cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States. The Union may act in case the proposed action, by reason of scale or effects, can be better achieved at European level, rather than at national, regional or local level (European Union, 2012a). The principle of subsidiarity ensures that decisions are made as closely as possible to the European citizens and that checks are continuously carried out in order to justify these decisions. To this end, national parliaments are encouraged to get involved in EU activities. Proposals are forwarded to them to be examined before any Council decision. Moreover, the Commission is obliged to take into account the regional and local dimension

11 of all legislative drafts (European Union, 2012b). Subsidiarity and multi-level governance depend on each other: the first implies the responsibilities of various levels of government while the latter emphasises their interaction (Committee of the Regions, 2009).

Proportionality The principle of proportionality binds European institutions to not exceed the objectives laid down in the Treaties with the content and form of its actions. In other words, actions of the European Union must be limited to what is necessary to achieve the objectives of the Treaties (European Union, 2012a).

12 3. Method

3.1 Policy effectiveness

From compliance to application In order to assess the performance of cycling policies implemented in the various case studies, different factors will be analysed. To this end, tools borrowed from international regime theory will be used, in order to measure the effectiveness of policy. Policy implementation is hereby understood as the process leading towards behavioural change. The process of policy implementation, thus, ranges from making policy to experiencing actual behavioural changes as a result from the policy. To evaluate this process, three different factors will be taken into account. Taken together, these factors can accurately assess the process from compliance to application. Compliance, in this sense, refers to the incorporation of a certain policy, whereas application is about whether the ends specified by this policy are actually achieved (Skjaerseth & Wettestad, 2002). The main question, therefore, is: how can we measure what has been achieved and how can we relate these achievements to some standard of what can be achieved? Concerning these questions, different points in the policy implementation chain will be analysed, represented by two main dimensions: output and outcome. Output refers to actual policy. Outcome is about behavioural changes of those subjected to this policy (Skjaerseth & Wettestad, 2002). Any complete assessment of effective policy requires causal inference between output and outcome. Therefore, usually a third dimension is added. Impact concerns this question of causality. This is important in order to understand whether it’s the policy in question, or other unrelated factors that have caused the behavioural changes. This poses a difficult challenge, due to the simple fact that this causality is hard to measure through hard data. Therefore, the impact dimension is left out of this research. For the scope of this thesis, merely output and outcome will be sufficient.

Output Policy output is relatively easy to measure, as it refers to actual policy measures. With regards to cycling policy, we should take into account material as well as immaterial measures. Material measures hereby refer to physical interventions and investments in cycling infrastructure, whereas the immaterial refers to actions in the field of education, communication and information (Harms, Bertolini & Te Brömmelstroet, 2016). For example, material measures could include the provision of cycling lanes or routes or the improvement of bicycle parking facilities. Immaterial measures, on the other hand, could involve marketing campaigns or awareness-raising efforts among motorists.

13 Government spending can also be regarded as an output of cycling policy, as it can be seen as a translation of strategies into action through investments in cycling matters. However, due to overlap of different projects on different levels, it can be complex to determine the true amount of expenditures on cycling. Therefore, any given amount in this thesis represents the minimum amount spend on cycling.

Outcome The outcome of policy is slightly harder to measure. Regarding cycling policies, we can subdivide the matter into short-term and long-term policy outcome. Short-term is mostly evaluated through the percentage of trips shifted from motorized vehicles to bicycles, whereas long-term often includes changes in car ownership and improved safety records. Long-term cycling policy outcome is hard to measure as other potential outcome factors, like health or liveability, are difficult to quantify (Handy, Van Wee & Kroesen, 2014; Krizek, Handy & Forsyth, 2009). For this reason, and for the scope of this thesis, only short-term outcome is taken into account. The most widely applied means of measuring cycling policy outcome appears to be absolute or relative change in the numbers of persons cycling or an alteration in bicycle modal share (Pucher, Dill & Handy, 2010). Another gauge often used is the number of bicycle accidents (Thomas & DeRobertis, 2013). Finally, a more indirect outcome indicator concerns the perception of cycling conditions (Castillo-Manzano & Sanchez-Braza, 2013). This could be used as a variable for measuring attitudes towards cycling. In this thesis, I will make use of all three of these variables.

Cycling policy As regards cycling policies, the academic research on the effectiveness of these kinds of policies seems to be rather limited (Harms, Bertolini & Te Brömmelstroet, 2016). Moreover, authors who did explore this topic typically focus on specific settings through extensive case studies. Harms, Bertolini & Te Brömmelstroet have distinguished three types of studies commonly used: evaluative studies, based on ex post evaluation analysis; quantitative studies, examining heterogeneous secondary data sources; and qualitative studies, based on in-depth analyses of case studies. Their findings supported a couple of hypotheses concerning the effectiveness of cycling policies. First of all, the way that cycling policy is implemented seems to be important: setting measurable and verifiable goals and following through with most of the proposed policy plans. Second, providing an adequate cycling infrastructure and decreasing the attractiveness of the use of cars seem to be key drivers (Harms, Bertolini & Te Brömmelstroet, 2016). The authors do emphasize that these hypotheses are still in need of testing. This thesis will make use of their third described type of study, namely the analysis of case studies. Case studies have the

14 important advantage that they provide an elaborate image, taking into account multiple aspects. However, a main limitation of this approach is the difficulty of generalization. To somewhat counterbalance this difficulty; three case studies will be compared. These case studies will be analysed through output, outcome and impact, and in addition evaluated on the basis of the above-explained hypotheses.

3.2 Data collection

Data is mostly collected through analysing various policy documents regarding cycling policy. The cities of Amsterdam, Copenhagen and Berlin all have composed elaborate multiannual plans in which they explain and motivate their respective policy plans and strategies. In addition, in order to find out more about the European Union’s current and possible future policies on cycling, and about a potential Cycling Strategy for the EU, which might be in the making, an interview has been conducted with Piotr Rapacz. He was recently appointed as the Cycling Focal Point for the European Commission (DG MOVE), in charge of mainstreaming cycling with existing European transport policies. This interview helped drafting the chapter on the European Union (4.6).

15 4. Case studies

4.1 Introduction

Cycling modal share in the Netherlands, Denmark and Germany are among the highest in the European Union, with the first two topping most of the charts. Where most Member States present an average cycling modal share of about 3 tot 7% (a notable exception is Hungary with 19%), the Netherlands, Denmark and Germany achieve respectively 26%, 16% and 10% of all trips made by bicycle. The Netherlands is known as the country with more bicycles than residents, where cycling is most developed and integrated in society at the European and global level. Denmark has a long tradition of cycling and has made the bike into one of its distinguishing features. Germany is considered to be the most bicycle- friendly of the larger Member States, emphasising the need for increasing its so-called ‘ecomobility’, which refers to walking, cycling and public transport. The Netherlands, Denmark and Germany can rightfully be seen as the countries in which cycling and policies on cycling are best developed and integrated in their respective societies. Their capitals represent the very best in coordinated policies and programs for promoting cycling. Not only are cycling levels relatively high, but virtually every societal group makes use of bikes. Moreover, bicycles in these cities are not just used for recreation, but they suit a wide range of daily, practical purposes as well (Pucher & Buehler, 2007). Berlin is somewhat of the odd one out, as it does not yet approach Amsterdam and Copenhagen in their bicycle orientation. However, recent policy measures have achieved an impressive increase in cycling modal share, which is now higher than any other European city of similar size. While history, culture, geography and climate certainly are important factors, they do not necessarily determine the fate of cycling. Government policies are decisive as well. In contrast to other EU members, the Netherlands, Denmark and Germany have provided the conditions for cycling to prosper. Dutch, Danish and German cities, in turn, have focused on making their cities bicycle-friendly rather than car-friendly. These countries have been at the forefront in making cycling safe, convenient and attractive.

4.2 Amsterdam

4.2.1 Introducing: cycling city Amsterdam

Anyone who has ever tried to make their way through the centre of Amsterdam knows: cyclists rule the streets. Seemingly unbothered by traffic rules, they hurry through the city,

16 leaving car users (and tourists) powerless, due to their huge numbers. Bikes have shaped the image of Amsterdam to such an extent that the city nowadays is seen as almost synonymous with cycling. Cycling is so normal that it’s not seen as an identity but just the way people get around (Van Mead, 2016). The city is equipped with an elaborate network of cycle paths, unmatched by any other city. This is facilitated by Amsterdam’s ideal geography: the city’s flat, densely build-up and trips are relatively short. These factors favour the use of bicycles. Cycling figures are therefore impressive. The number of bicycles present in Amsterdam is roughly about three times the number of cars and is said to even exceed the city’s population. The modal share of cycling is about 32%. In the centre, bikes even account for an estimated 68% of all trips. But while Amsterdam has become synonymous with the bicycle, the staggering amount of bikes present on the roads poses new problems. Where other cities struggle in getting their inhabitants to cycle, Amsterdam now has to deal with a shortage of space. Locations popular with tourists unfamiliar with the city’s unwritten bicycle rules frustrate residents, who are, particularly during rush hour, forced to stop at every junction on major routes. This can even lead to new safety risks. Therefore, Amsterdam’s cycling policy today is relatively advanced and aims to overcome problems other cities might only dream of.

4.2.2 National cycling policy in the Netherlands

Measures and regulation regarding cycling in the Netherlands are in general left to the municipalities. In the 1990s, the Dutch Ministry of Transport was rather active in stimulating the use of bicycles in the Netherlands, resulting in the development of a national strategy dedicated to promoting cycling. The Bicycle Master Plan comprised a wide variety of projects to be carried out over the period 1990-1997, including research projects and pilot projects aimed at improving bicycle conditions all over. The Bicycle Master Plan was mostly valued for its contribution to the general recognition of the importance of cycling policy. As a result, most municipalities had developed high-quality bicycles strategies themselves by 1996 (European Conference of the Ministers of Transport, 2004). After the completion of the Bicycle Master Plan a period of decentralisation followed, through which cycling became to be seen as the responsibility for local levels of government. The national government recognised that its role was limited, given the nature of cycling as a short-distance travel mode. Municipalities were more qualified for designing and implementing policy on the matter. The national government now largely takes up a

17 coordinative and supportive role, which is expressed mostly through investments in large projects. It mainly sets the wider framework of rules and regulations. In 2015, the programme Tour de Force was launched, representing the shared cycling policy ideas of multiple Dutch local governments. Its main objective: increasing the amount of kilometres travelled by bike in the next decade by 20% (Tour de Force, 2016). As the programme is established through collaboration of a range of different stakeholders, including local governments, it’s the closest to a national strategy currently in existence. However, not all municipalities are actively involved and the document doesn’t have any official regulatory powers. Its position is mostly explorative and advisory. Municipalities, therefore, remain free to decide on cycling matters themselves. The programme contributes by bringing together various stakeholders, conducting relevant research and experiments, and financially supporting plans made by local authorities. Its main objective: making Dutch cities even more bicycle-friendly (Tour de Force, 2016).

4.2.3 Amsterdam’s policies on cycling

History At the start of the twentieth century, the bicycle was considered a respectable way of getting around and bikes far outnumbered other modes of transport in Amsterdam. The post-war period, however, featured an economic boom and more and more people were able to afford cars. Amsterdam, much like other Dutch cities, became under the spell of motorized vehicles, resulting in a yearly decrease of bicycle use of approximately 6%. The 1950s and 1960s posed a severe threat to cyclists in the city, as a rapidly growing number of cars entered the scene (De la Bruhèze & Veraart, 1999). The general idea was that the bicycle in time would disappear from the streetscape, as the car was increasingly seen as the vehicle of the future (Van der Zee, 2015). But the intensified traffic came at a cost. The number of traffic accidents with fatal consequences rose drastically, with a culmination of 3.300 casualties in 1971, of which 400 were children (SWOV, 2017). These events led to a series of large protests, led by multiple specially created action groups, of which Stop de Kindermoord (nowadays part of Veilig Verkeer Nederland) and the Eerste Enige Echte Nederlandse Wielrijdersbond (EENW, now Fietsersbond) are probably the most notable. Amsterdam’s inhabitants had become angry, as the streets no longer belonged to the people who lived there, but instead to huge traffic flows (Van der Zee, 2015). The influence of Stop de Kindermoord rapidly grew and it became subsidized by the national government. From this point, it started developing ideas for a safer urban planning. At the same time, EENW demanded more space for bicycles in the public space. The activities of these action groups

18 combined with the numbers of traffic deaths, led politicians to genuine worries about the state of the city. Moreover, emissions caused a serious concern for pollution (Van der Zee, 2015). Gradually, politicians became aware of the advantages of cycling and their transport policies slowly shifted from a focus on cars to an emphasis on cycling. A number of decisive events and increasing numbers of (child) traffic deaths, resulting in fierce activism, turned Amsterdam into the bicycle friendly city it is today. A lot has been achieved since the post-war period. The city has consistently improved cycling conditions over the last decades and succeeded in raising the modal share of cycling. Contemporary Amsterdam gladly poses itself as the bicycle capital of the world. However, the city now faces new challenges as cycling paths need to be renewed and the staggering amount of bicycles in the city nowadays constitutes a serious parking problem. These new challenges are reflected in Amsterdam’s cycling strategy.

Motivation for policy Amsterdam’s cycling strategy is put forth in the city’s multiannual plans for cycling. These comprise of the plans regarding cycling policy over a period of five years. The current multiannual plan was recently introduced and explains the city’s ideas concerning cycling for the period 2017-2022. It discloses three main arguments in order to motivate the necessity for policy on cycling. These arguments explain in what way the promotion of cycling can contribute to the overall objectives of the city: being a healthy, accessible and attractive city. First of all, cycling is perceived as being healthy. Not merely for individuals, but also for the entire city. Cyclists are said to be less sick and more productive. At the same time, they contribute to cleaner air in and around the city, as the promotion of bikes implicates a discouragement of car usage and therefore prevents the emission of CO2. The bicycle makes a positive contribution to the climate and air quality relative to cars or public transportation (City of Amsterdam, 2016a). Second, cycling helps strengthening the economy. The increased usage of bicycles during the period 2010-2015 has yielded over 120-mln euros. Cycling contributes in various ways. The bicycle industry in the narrow sense refers to companies that produce, trade, sell, repair, rent or storage bikes. Taking into account the number of entrepreneurs and their average revenues, Amsterdam’s cycling industry in narrow sense has a turnover of about 108-mln euros. Additionally, cycling is important for other companies as well, for instance the logistics industry. The amount of bicycle couriers is rapidly increasing. Finally, cycling contributes to the city’s accessibility, as they take up relatively little space and the modal shift from cars to bikes implies a reduction in travel expenses. This is said to be essential for Amsterdam’s economic growth (City of Amsterdam, 2016a).

19 Finally, cycling can enlarge the quality of life in Amsterdam’s public realm. The city features an extremely dense build-up, which, due to inner-city building projects, will only become denser. New streets and squares will be created, closed off for cars, that will attract residents and entrepreneurs. Non-motorized modes of transport are at the heart of Amsterdam’s transport policy, considering the relative little space they take up. Moreover, cycling entails a number of social effects. It can advance social interaction, cohesion, identity and vivacity. Furthermore, cycling contributes largely to the (international) image of Amsterdam (City of Amsterdam, 2016a).

Strategy and objectives In order to utilize all these benefits assigned to cycling, Amsterdam strives to make the city as bicycle-friendly as it can be. To this end, the multiannual plan for cycling 2017-2020 determines three main policy objectives to further build cycling city Amsterdam. First of all, cyclists should be able to make use of a dense network of roads, which allows for a certain degree of comfort and which limits encounters with heavy motorized traffic. In addition to the traditional bike, there’s an increasing number of other types of bicycles and bike-like vehicles, such as the e-bike or delivery bicycles. Differences in speed on the cycle paths and the presence of these new bikes call for cycle routes that are suited for these various users. By 2025, at least half of the cycling routes within the ring road should have a minimum width of 2,5 metres. In addition, cyclists need to be satisfied with the overall network of cycling routes (City of Amsterdam, 2016a). Second, Amsterdam wants to provide its citizens with adequate parking facilities. Cyclists should be able to park their bikes near their destination. Enforcement will be an important means for achieving this, rather than constructing new facilities. The main target is to realise an occupancy rate of 85% in the busiest areas. Moreover, the city strives towards a positive rating on parking facilities by its residents. The goal is to achieve a score of 7 out of 10 (City of Amsterdam, 2016a). Finally, the city wants its cyclists to feel at ease. This is important, as Amsterdam wants to maintain its international reputation as bicycle capital of the world. By name of The New Way of Cycling the city strives to enhance cyclists’ awareness and good behaviour. This is necessary in order to limit the nuisance caused by bicycles and stimulate residents to make more use of their bikes. Space is in short supply and crowded roads can lead to stress and irritation. This demands good behaviour from cyclists. Behavioural change is therefore to be stimulated in order to ensure safety in traffic (City of Amsterdam, 2016a).

20 Policymaking process The establishment of Amsterdam’s multiannual plans regarding cycling comprises a long process, in which a lot of data is used. Regarding policy on parking spots, for instance, the city has tried to count all of the bikes within the ring road, in order to find out where problems with parking occur most acute. Subsequently, these numbers were combined with input on parking problems from the city districts. Based on the combination of this information, the city has designated a number of hotspots to be dealt with in the following years. Furthermore, lessons from previous policy years are taken into account as well. Additionally, concerning the cycling network, the city has counted cyclists all over the city. This was combined with data from the ‘Fietstelweek’, a national initiative urging citizens to download a mobile phone app that collects and shares data on cycling behaviour. Based on these actions, the city has determined the most crowded cycling areas that need to be dealt with first. In addition, city districts are frequently consulted and asked to react to potential policy plans. Moreover, Amsterdam’s residents were invited to participate during special discussion sessions. The city collects and clusters their various reactions and tries to use these wherever possible (City of Amsterdam, 2016a). In implementing and executing the plans, an important role is reserved for so-called ‘Programmateam Fiets’. This team is responsible for implementing the central plans regarding cycling, through delegation and financing. In addition, it takes on a coordinative, advising and facilitating role. Moreover, as it is able to respond to new developments, it constitutes a platform for the development of measures as well. Citizens, entrepreneurs and interest groups are involved as well. For instance, pilots can be launched in consultation with a certain neighbourhood or after interaction with consultation groups. Citizens’ initiatives are most welcomed. Amsterdam’s city districts are responsible for the execution of the plans. First of all, citizens and entrepreneurs have a direct line of communication with their respective districts. Second, districts are able to bring together interest groups, stakeholders, and parties with the city government. The districts are leading in the implementation process (City of Amsterdam, 2016a). The central government provides (financial) support for the implementation of policy connected to the objectives set forth in the multiannual plans. Moreover, the districts are free to take additional measures not specified in the central plans.

International collaboration and exchange As a world famous cycling city, Amsterdam has a lot of contact with other cities concerning the matter. The city gets a great many requests from cities wanting to visit and quite a few delegations actually come visit each year. Last year, about 120 international delegations were hosted. Cyclespace, an organisation dedicated to accelerating the shift from car-

21 centric to human-centric bicycle-friendly cities, takes on a great role herein. Amsterdam wants to profit from the great international interest in cycling but was in need of a partner to help meet this demand. Cyclespace won a city tender and now, as from 2016, hosts the many visiting international delegations, making the programmes, receiving the visitors and taking them on tours in and around the city (Cyclespace, 2014). Every now and then, Amsterdam’s city officials provide for presentations themselves. The involvement of Cyclespace is seen as an important means for representing Amsterdam as the world leader in the area of cycling knowledge and innovation. Moreover, the city could benefit through revenue and employment, as foreign cities at times have substantial budgets to their disposal to promote cycling. Therefore, the organisation aims to bring in even more of these delegations. In addition, Cyclespace has created the position of bicycle mayor, who acts as a showcase and host (O’Sullivan, 2016; De Jong, 2016). These visits are mostly in light of the exchange of knowledge and for outsiders to have a first-hand look at Amsterdam’s practical measures regarding cycling. This year, Cyclespace is organising the very first Bicycle Mayor and Leader Summit in Amsterdam, aiming to expand and improve the network of cycling representatives around the world. The exchange of knowledge works in both ways. Visiting delegations learn themselves but provide knowledge and information as well. As usage of bicycles in Amsterdam continues to increase, the need for smart and innovative solutions grows as well. To this end, the city looks outside of its city borders as well. The manager of Amsterdam’s ‘Programmateam Fiets’ takes frequent trips to other cities all over the world, in order to find out how these other cities deal with specific and everyday issues concerning cycling.

Effectiveness: assessing the former multi-annual plans In order to get a grip on the effectiveness of Amsterdam’s cycling policy, the city’s multiannual plan for cycling 2012-2016 will be assessed. As explained earlier, this will be done by analysing the cycling policies through two dimensions: output and outcome. Output refers to actual policy and outcome is about behavioural changes. Amsterdam’s current multiannual plan for cycling was introduced in 2016. So in order to assess its predecessor; I’ll compare the situation in 2016 to the one in 2012. The multiannual plan 2012-2016 discloses two main objectives. First, the city’s citizens and visitors have to be able to cycle through the city in a swift, safe and comfortable fashion. Second, citizens and visitors should be able to quickly and easily park their bikes. To this extent, the plan’s main focus is on improving the cycling network and bicycle parking spots. Concrete material measures, therefore, are for the most part in line with these main goals. As regards parking, the city planned to expand the amount of

22 parking spots with 5.500 near train stations, 2.000 near metro stations, and another 4.500 in and around the centre of Amsterdam. This equals a total of 12.000 new spots. Furthermore, by limiting the allowed parking time in crowded areas (to a maximum of 7 or 14 days), existing parking spots should become more efficient. The control on abandoned or neglected bikes will be tightened, in order to decrease the share of these bikes from approximately 10% to 5%. Moreover, bicycle coaches and flexible parking facilities are to be deployed (City of Amsterdam, 2012). Regarding Amsterdam’s cycling network, the main focus is on improving the least safe parts of the network. This mostly concerns crowded streets with no separate cycling lanes. To tackle this, up to 15 km will be improved by widening the cycling paths with red asphalt. Moreover, cyclists’ comfort and the traffic flow are to be improved by adjusting traffic lights and installing time detectors. Finally, realising four new and quicker bicycle connections will expand the cycling network (City of Amsterdam, 2012). As for the immaterial measures, Amsterdam plans to enhance enforcement, information and education in order to realise safe behaviour among road users. Examples hereof are traffic safety campaigns, focusing on traffic lights, bicycle lights and blind spot. In addition, the city emphasises traffic education on primary and secondary schools, through a bike exam (City of Amsterdam, 2012). In December 2016, when the new multiannual plans regarding cycling were introduced, 9.421 new parking spaces had been realised on ground level, while 6.345 spots were still in preparation or under construction. Taken together, this amounts to a grand total of 15.766 parking spots, which largely exceeds the initial plans. Moreover, the share of abandoned and neglected bikes has been reduced respectively to 6,7% and 6,1% (City of Amsterdam, 2016b). As for the improvements of Amsterdam’s cycling network, 14,6 km of wider and red asphalt has been laid, while the remaining 0,6 km is currently in preparation. Furthermore, all planned time detectors have been installed and all four new bicycle connections have been constructed (City of Amsterdam, 2016b). Regarding the immaterial measures, the campaign Klaar met je fiets? has resulted in the removal of around 850 unused bikes. Moreover, communication measures, such as Wayfinding and Bike Rules have been evaluated positively (DTV Consultants, 2016). The modal share of cycling has increased from about 31-32% of all trips (City of Amsterdam, 2015; City of Amsterdam, 2012) to 36% in 2016. This resulted in approximately 666.000 trips per day, whereas in 2012 about 600.000 trips per day were made by bike. (City of Amsterdam, 2016a). The exact numbers on bicycle accidents are uncertain but the trend seems to be that the number of accidents resulting in serious injuries has been rising since 2012 (SWOV, 2016). Finally, with regards to the perception of cycling conditions, cyclists seem to appreciate the city’s policy efforts. A user survey shows that the group of people that think cycling conditions have been improved

23 outnumbers the group that thinks conditions have worsened. Moreover, a significant group indicates that nothing has changed, despite the increased number of cyclists present on the roads (DTV Consultants, 2016).

Regarding policy output, the city of Amsterdam seems to have converted most of the proposed policy interventions into concrete policy measures. The planned number of new parking spots has been constructed and even exceeds the initial proposals. Furthermore, the control on neglected or abandoned bikes has been tightened, resulting in a reduced share in the bicycle stands. Moreover, the proposed time detectors, adjusted traffic lights and new cycling connections have all been realised. As for policy outcome, the modal share of cycling in Amsterdam has increased, much like the absolute number of trips per day. The exact number of bicycle accidents is unknown, however the trend seems to be that these are rising. Though, this might be explained by the absolute increase in bicycle trips per day. The city of Amsterdam had mostly set measurable goals in its plans and the city followed through with most of the proposed policy interventions. Moreover, the cycling infrastructure has been improved. The main objectives determined in the multiannual plans, namely easy parking and comfortable, quick and safe cycling, have largely been met (DTV Consultants, 2016). The multiannual plans don’t elaborate much on plans for decreasing the attractiveness of car use. Through former introduced and intensified policy on car parking, a shift from the usage of cars to bikes had already taken place earlier on. This, therefore, wasn’t a main focus for the policy period 2012-2016. However, some of the policy interventions do slightly complicate car use in Amsterdam For instance, the new red asphalt, meant for cyclists, leads to a narrowing of the rest of the road, which forces them to adjust their speed. In conclusion, when assessed through output, outcome and impact, and evaluated by means of the hypotheses as distinguished by Harms, Bertolini and Te Brömmelstroet, the performance of cycling policies of the city of Amsterdam in the period 2012-2016 can be considered as being effective. The main goals have been met, just like most proposed interventions. Moreover, the share of cycling has increased and car use has been complicated, albeit minimal. The only negative part is the slight increase in bicycle accidents.

24 4.3 Copenhagen

4.3.1 Introducing: cycling city Copenhagen

Copenhagen features a strong bicycle culture and is worldwide seen as the benchmark for cities trying to figure out how to take the bicycle serious as a regular mode of transport. Although its narrow medieval city centre on itself already favours bikes over heavier vehicles, the Danish capital’s new ways of using bicycle promotion tools continuously inspires planners from all over the world. Nowhere are more new ideas produced for increasing bicycle traffic than in Copenhagen (Colville-Andersen, 2014). Every two years since 2011, the Copenhagenize Design Company, a multinational urban design consultancy, publishes the so-called Copenhagenize Index, a comprehensive inventory and ranking of bicycle-friendly cities around the globe. In the first two editions (2011 and 2013) Amsterdam topped the charts. However, the ranking of 2015 featured a shift with Copenhagen taking the lead. The city is now regarded as the most bicycle-friendly city in the world, mostly due to large-scale innovation and investments (Colville-Andersen, 2015). The latest numbers, released by the city of Copenhagen, support this claim: a satisfaction among cyclists of 97% and a cycling modal share of 30%. The share of residents riding their bikes to work or school everyday within the city even reaches a staggering 62% (Steen, 2017). Copenhagen’s efforts to create a cycling city have paid off and are for a large part the result of strong political leadership combined with a new focus on urbanism. In November 2016 for the first time Copenhagen saw more bikes in the centre than cars (Cathcart-Keays, 2016). Copenhagen’s history, geography and climate definitely prove important factors, but the key to the city’s success seems mostly a strong political commitment. “It’s not in our genes, it’s not in our water” states Copenhagen’s technical and environmental mayor Morten Kabell. Building protected infrastructure will lead people to start riding their bikes (Cathcart-Keays, 2016).

4.3.2 National cycling policy in Denmark

In Denmark, cycling policies and programs are considered primarily, if not exclusively, an issue for local governments. Municipalities are responsible for making the specific plans that reflect the particular conditions and needs for the local context (Pucher & Buehler, 2007). A national cycling strategy is mostly meant to inspire and motivate local authorities to set targets and establish action plans and concrete measures regarding cycling and the promotion of safer cycling (European Conference of the Ministers of Transport, 2004).

25 In July 2014, the Danish Ministry of Transport published a new national cycling strategy ‘Denmark - on Your Bike!’, launched with the aim of encouraging more people to cycle. The strategy is built on three pillars, each containing a variety of specific initiatives to promote the usage of bicycles. The first pillar is about everyday cycling and makes suggestions on how to make people choose to cycle to work or school instead of taking the car. The second pillar focuses on recreational cycling in order to provide citizens with a healthier lifestyle. The third and final pillar elaborates on the importance of cyclists’ safety in getting people to cycle (Danish Ministry of Transport, 2014). The national cycling strategy is intended to be an inspiration to the municipalities and other actors who want to participate in the green transition and who wish to invest in the promotion of cycling. It has no official regulatory powers, but the Ministry of Transport continuously allocates funding through funds that encourage cycling (Danish Ministry of Transport, 2014). Moreover, the national government considers cycling highways as important means for developing cycling in Denmark. To this end, it has assigned 25,5-mln euros to the construction of theses highways in and around major Danish cities.

4.3.3 Copenhagen’s policy on cycling

History Copenhagen has a long tradition when it comes to cycling. In the pre-war period, the bicycle was praised in songs, poetry and literature as the ultimate symbol of a healthy and natural daily existence in the city. This was the time that the so-called Svajerne, bicycle messengers delivering all types of goods on various types of cargo bikes, flourished. Moreover, the Danish Cyclists Federation and the Danish Cycling Union were founded in respectively 1905 and 1907 (City of Copenhagen, 2013). These still exist and work to this day towards better conditions for cycling. During the Second World War, a shortage on petrol and spare parts made the bicycle again into an essential tool for Copenhageners, with for instance bicycles replacing taxis (Cycling Embassy of Denmark). After the war, a ban on importing cars made bicycle traffic reach incredible heights. But post-war economic prosperity reached Denmark as well. Car traffic exploded and bike paths constructed in the pre-war era were largely removed. Much like Amsterdam, Copenhagen in the 1960s became rather car-clogged, despite the notable presence of the cyclists unions (Goodyear, 2012). The growth of car traffic coincided with a significant decrease in cycling numbers. However, even when bicycle traffic was at its lowest, still one third of the adult population in Copenhagen used bikes regularly. Congestion, combined with an energy crisis and a recession during the 1970s, led to a growing awareness about alternatives to the car (City of Copenhagen,

26 2013). In an era when the power of public protest was probably at its peak, this led to large demonstrations, advocating the rights and importance of cyclists. These induced politicians to improve cycling conditions and start investing in cycling infrastructure once again. Former cycling tracks were rebuild, which resulted in falling fatalities and injuries and rising cycling numbers. Piece by piece, Copenhagen worked towards becoming a bicycle-friendly city again, introducing projects like the free bike share programme and reintroducing bike messengers and cycle taxis. Moreover, the first coordinated policy for increasing cycling in the city was developed in 2002 (City of Copenhagen, 2002). The seemingly never-ending flow of cyclists that characterises contemporary Copenhagen can be regarded as the result of a process forty years in the making.

Motivation for policy Copenhagen’s cycling policy is an integral part of a wide range of different policy areas, ranging from the environment and public health to the economy and the city’s liveability. The city’s main objective seems to be becoming one of the most liveable cities in the world. Copenhagen wants to adhere to its self-proclaimed international brand: Copenhagen as a liveable, innovative, sustainable and democratic city with the political will for an improved quality of life for its citizens (City of Copenhagen, 2011a). To this end, it strives towards becoming CO2 neutral in 2025, making it an environmental capital. The city believes that there is a close link between pleasant cycling conditions and a vibrant urban environment, in which a wide variety of people thrive and feel at home (City of Copenhagen, 2011b). Cycling is perceived as an excellent means for a cleaner environment, increased traffic safety, reduced congestion and improved public health. Moreover, cycling constitutes an important element to the goal of having a good city life. In other words, cycling is regarded as not just a singular goal in itself, but rather as a highly prioritised and effective political tool for creating a more liveable city. According to the Bicycle Strategy, cycling contributes to Copenhagen’s accessibility, cleaner air, less noise, healthier citizens and a strengthened economy. In specific, an increased cycling number leads to less congestion and less wear on the roads, fewer sick days and longer life expectancy, and less pollution. Moreover, cycling policies are rather inexpensive relative to other transport interventions (City of Copenhagen, 2011a).

Strategy and objectives In order to utilize cycling as an effective tool for stimulating the liveability of Copenhagen, the city has drawn up a bicycle strategy. According to this document, cycling in

27 Copenhagen should be defined by three main keywords: safe, quick and comfortable. Therefore, these keywords comprise the focus points of the city’s cycling strategy. Safe refers to Copenhagen’s residents experiencing a sense of security when cycling. This is perceived as one of the essential requirements for choosing the bicycle over other modes of transport. The main focus hereby is on the most vulnerable groups in traffic: children, the elderly and others who find cycling during rush hour to be an overwhelming experience. As many transport habits and manners are established at an early age it is important to get children to learn how to properly cycle. Furthermore, children who are used to cycling are generally more inclined to keep cycling. Subsequently they will acquire the necessary experience for navigating through traffic. Moreover, proper cycling etiquette needs to be established. Copenhageners need to have a common understanding of what appropriate behaviour is (City of Copenhagen, 2011a). Quick is about getting bicycle travel time to be competitive with other forms of transport, as 48% of Copenhageners state that the main reason for cycling is that it’s the fastest and easiest way to go around. Travel time in this sense is not just about speeding but refers to being able to choose your own tempo and direct routes. More space for cyclists is therefore to be created (City of Copenhagen, 2011a). Comfortable, in turn, covers the maintenance of cycle tracks and the city’s bicycle parking facilities. In order to get more people to start cycling, the comfort level needs to be up to a certain standard so that both the current as the potential cyclists find it easy and attractive to cycle. To this end, maintenance on cycling tracks needs to be scaled up. Moreover, there are more bicycles in Copenhagen than parking spots, which poses a large problem particularly in the city centre. Problems, such as bicycle theft and the nuisance caused by overturned bikes, can be prevented by adequate parking facilities. Partnerships with employers and workplaces can help to ensure a smooth journey. In addition, a new bike share scheme is to be introduced as an integral part of the public transport system (City of Copenhagen, 2011a).

Policymaking process The city of Copenhagen is the main actor in making policy on cycling, as it’s responsible for designing the city’s multiannual plans. It is supported by the national government and public transport organisations. In addition, citizens and cycling advocacy groups lend their support. The Cycling Embassy of Denmark and the Danish Cyclists’ Federation assisted in formulating, implementing and monitoring the policy documents. The multiannual plans are based on the data collected and explicated in the influential bicycle accounts. The criteria for these accounts were defined in collaboration with cyclist focus groups on the occasion of the first Bicycle Account (City of Copenhagen,

28 2002). A bicycle account is an assessment of the cycling conditions and developments in the city. It surveys Copenhagen’s cycling initiatives, analyses and interprets residents’ satisfaction with cycling conditions, and discusses other relevant factors impacting cycling (City of Copenhagen, 2014). The document is published every two years and includes i.a. telephone interviews with randomly selected residents and data from habit studies (City of Copenhagen, 2015). The data presented in the Bicycle Account is based on surveys and provides the basis for future policy.

International collaboration and exchange Copenhagen’s leading position in the world regarding cycling gets the city a lot of international attention, especially as its policies prove rather innovative. Every year about 60 international delegations from all over the world visit Copenhagen to learn about promoting cycling as a primary mode of transport (Astrup, 2016). The city’s got guests visiting on a weekly basis, wanting to find out what’s been achieved and what its objectives are. It’s nearly a full days work for city officials to speak to calling representatives (Fietsersbond, 2009). Copenhagen is supported herein by the Danish Cycling Embassy. This organisation often hosts visiting delegations and provides for tours in and around the city (Cycling Embassy of Denmark, 2016). Visitors include governmental as well as non- governmental organisations, such as bicycle advocacy groups or journalists. In addition, a special term has been called into life to refer to a city taking over certain aspects of Copenhagen. Copenhagenize is a term often used, especially with regards to cycling. It’s now used as a verb by policymakers worldwide and means as much as planning urban development in such a way that cycling can flourish as it does in Copenhagen. Copenhagen is a full member of EUROCITIES and cooperates in a wide range of working groups. The city’s a part of the working group on Sustainable Mobility Planning, which aims at sharing best practices.

Effectiveness In order to get a grip on the effectiveness of Copenhagen’s cycling policies, its former cycling strategy will be assessed. Cycle Policy 2002-2012 will be analysed through two dimensions: output and outcome. Moreover, the strategy will be evaluated by means of the hypotheses determined by Harms, Bertolini and Te Brömmelstroet. To this end, Copenhagen’s situation in 2002, at the start of Cycle Policy, will be compared to the one in 2012, when a new strategy was introduced. With Cycle Policy 2002-2012, the city of Copenhagen for the first time published a cycling policy with the purpose of drawing attention to cycling as an environmentally

29 desirable and effective means of transport and to coordinate initiatives for improving cycling conditions. In the years following up to the policy, multiple Bicycle Accounts had been published, which provided the necessary input for the bicycle plans. The main goals of the cycle policy are, first of all, to increase the share of people who cycle to work to 40%. Second, to improve safety by decreasing the risk of serious injury or death with 50%. Furthermore, the proportion of cyclists who feel safe should increase to 80%. Moreover, the average travelling speed on trips over 5 km needs to increase with 10%. Finally, cycling tracks deemed unsatisfactory should not exceed 5%. These specified goals are to be met by 2012 (City of Copenhagen, 2002). In order to achieve the targets, the city has proposed a number of concrete material measures. First, the cycle track network will be extended on the basis of the Cycle Track Priority Plan, which demands 51 km of new or reinforced cycle paths (City of Copenhagen, 2001). Second, green cycle routes are to be developed in accordance with the Proposals for Green Cycle Routes. These include 21 new routes amounting to about 100 km, however this does not necessarily have to be completed by 2012 (City of Copenhagen, 2000). Furthermore, cycling will be combined with public transport by improving bicycle parking at stations and terminals. An action plan is to be drawn up (City of Copenhagen, 1998). In addition an action plan is to be drafted on bicycle parking in town, as only one third of cyclists are satisfied with the parking opportunities. As a kick off, 500 parking spots will be constructed in densely populated areas. Finally, cyclists’ sense of security needs to be improved by improving bicycle conditions at intersections (City of Copenhagen, 2002). As for immaterial measures, cycling promotion campaigns will continue to be an important part of the cycling policy. The We Bike to Work campaign will be upheld. This campaign seeks to get employers to stimulate the usage of bikes among their employees. In addition, new promotional campaigns will be developed. At the start of 2012, with the introduction of the new bicycle strategy, the proposed measures and set goals were to be met. As for the material measures, the total length of the city’s cycle paths has gone up from 335 to 383 km, signifying an increase in 2012 of 48 km relative to 2002. In addition, the Green Cycle Routes have been expanded with 11 km. Furthermore, over the course of ten years, 49.000 parking spots have been constructed (City of Copenhagen, 2014). Parking at stations has been improved and redesigned and efforts to remove abandoned bikes intensified (Copenhagen, 2011). Finally, intersections have been improved, through i.e. stop lines for cars and adjusted traffic signals, resulting in an increase in cyclists’ sense of security (City of Copenhagen, 2011). As regards the immaterial measures, We Bike to Work was upheld and, moreover, new campaigns focusing on cyclists’ behavioural manners have been launched. These campaigns have been positively evaluated by Copenhagen’s residents (City of Copenhagen, 2014).

30 Over the course of ten years, the modal share of cycling has increased from 32% to 35%. The number of seriously injured cyclists has dropped from 152 to 102. In addition, the ratio of seriously injured per kilometre cycled has almost halved. Finally, the perception of cycling conditions has been bettered. Relative to 2002, Copenhageners seem to value their cycle tracks and parking racks higher in 2012. A staggering 95% of the residents appears to be satisfied with Copenhagen as a cycling city (City of Copenhagen, 2014). As for the main goals set in the Cycle Policy 2002-2012, the share of people cycling to work has been increased to 36%. The risk of serious injury or death has been halved. The proportion of cyclists who feel safe has risen to 76%. The average speed on trips over 5 km has moved from 15,3 km/h (in 2004) to 15,5 km/h, which amounts to an increase of 1,3%. Finally, the percentage of cycling tracks deemed unsatisfactory has decreased to 2% in 2004 (City of Copenhagen, 2005). This exact variable, namely dissatisfaction in contrast to satisfaction, hasn’t been measured since. However, average satisfaction with the condition of cycling tracks seems to be rising (City of Copenhagen, 2014).

Regarding policy output, the city of Copenhagen has realised most of its concrete policy measures. Cycle paths and Green Cycle Routes have been constructed. Parking and traffic intersections have been improved sufficiently. Moreover, bicycle promotion campaigns have been continued and developed. Concerning policy outcome, the modal share of cycling has been increased, much like the absolute number of trips per day. In addition, the ratio of serious injuries per bicycle kilometre has been reduced and the perception of cycling conditions improved. In its Cycle Policy 2002-2012, Copenhagen had set measurable and verifiable goals and the city followed through with most of the proposed policy interventions. Even though not all of the main objectives have been met, in particular the expected enhanced average speed proved somewhat ambitious, the city has produced significant results in nearly all focus areas. The cycling strategy does not elaborate on discouraging car usage, which is part of the Traffic and Environment Plan. The Bicycle Account of 2004, however, showed that while bicycle traffic had risen by 41%, motorised traffic only rose by 18% (City of Copenhagen, 2005). In conclusion, when assessed through output, outcome and impact, and evaluated by means of the hypotheses as distinguished by Harms, Bertolini & Te Brömmelstroet, the performance of cycling policies of the city of Copenhagen in the period 2002-2012 can be considered as being effective. Although the main goals haven’t all been fully met, significant results have been generated. Cycling numbers and cyclists’ satisfaction have increased, while the ratio of injuries against distance travelled has diminished.

31 4.4 Berlin

4.4.1 Introducing: cycling city Berlin

Berlin is somewhat of the odd one out relative to the previous two case studies. It’s not a typical cycling city and its orientation towards cycling doesn’t even approach Amsterdam and Copenhagen, affirmed by a way lower modal share of 13%. The city is significantly larger and widely spread out, so cycling from one end to another can be a real challenge. In addition, the winters are long and cold. Moreover, its public transport system is extensive and functions properly, rendering the need to cycle rather low (Pidd, 2010). Finally, the cobblestone streets offer little comfort. In spite of these disadvantages, the city’s cycling activity in recent years is dramatically increasing, due to effective policy. As the city has to deal with a difficult financial situation and cannot invest in large-scale transport modes, cycling offers itself as a rather cheap and cost-friendly investment. In addition to being environmentally and socially sustainable, cycling is also the most economic mode of transport. This has lead Berlin to declare itself a city of bikes in 2004. Dedicated policy now has made Berlin into the most bicycle-friendly of European cities of comparable size (Pucher & Buehler, 2007). A renewed image of cyclists and changed demographic, above all in the number of elderly people taking up bikes, have caused a major increase in cycling figures. Berlin only just now starts to encounter problems caused by this increase, such as a shortage of parking spots. A unique feature in the promotion of cycling in Berlin is some extraordinary popular activism. A referendum, initiated by the people, is currently in the making, aimed at placing cycling even higher on the policy agenda. Berlin is therefore a great example of how expertise from different societal layers together can promote cycling.

4.4.2 National cycling policy in Germany

Much like the Netherlands and Denmark, the main authority in the field of cycling policies in Germany lies with the local governments. State and central governments mostly provide financial support and assist with planning and research activities. Municipalities make the additional specific plans that reflect particular conditions and needs (Pucher & Buehler, 2007). For example, the cycling strategy adopted by the city state Berlin is intended as a local level specification and extension of the nation-wide goals set out in the National Cycling Plan (City of Berlin, 2011). The promotion of cycling on a national level in Germany can be traced back to the late 1970s, through several projects. As from 2002, there has been a separate budget

32 dedicated to the construction and maintenance of cycling tracks along federal highways. That same year, the first ever German national cycling plan was produced, focused on encouraging cycling as a component of a sustainable and integrated transport policy (German Federal Ministry of Transport, Building and Housing, 2002). In 2012, the national federal government, through the then called Federal Ministry of Transport, Building and Urban Development, adopted the National Cycling Plan 2020, aiming to increase the country’s modal cycling share with 5% by 2020 (from 10% to 15%). This strategic policy document aims to seamlessly follow up on its predecessor while further improving its quality. The plan calls for an increase in so-called ‘ecomobility’, which refers to cycling, walking and public transport, and has appointed nine focus areas, ranging from road safety and infrastructure development to communication and tourism. The main goal is to make cycling more attractive for German residents and visitors. Germany’s federal government herein aims to play a role as facilitator, coordinator and catalyst in the promotion of cycling. To this end, the cycling plan sets out some guiding policy principles for the concerning period. These are based on research conducted by the federal government drawing together lessons learned and positive examples from state- and municipal level structures (German Federal Ministry of Transport, Building and Urban Development, 2012). In this sense, the federal government acts as a disseminator of best practices as well. However, it has little coercive power, as it can only act within the responsibilities of its regulatory framework. Therefore, it tries to motivate many governmental and non-governmental stakeholders to participate though funding. In the end, the dominant thought is that only through concerted action by federal, state and local authorities will it be possible to boost cycling throughout the nation (German Federal Ministry of Transport, Building and Urban Development, 2012).

4.4.3 Berlin’s policy on cycling

History It might be surprising that German cities, such as Berlin, have undertaken so many policies to promote cycling, as Germany is home to some of the world’s most important car manufacturers and has one of the highest rates of car ownership in the world. Moreover, it lacks a long tradition of cycling, in contrast to the Netherlands and Denmark. After the Second World War, Berlin was divided into two distinct parts. The western part, controlled by the allied forces, and the eastern part, part of the Soviet sphere of influence, featured different political systems of government. Both left their imprint on Berlin’s infrastructure and transport systems, which can still be seen today. East Berlin, for example, still lacks cycle paths and lanes and tram tracks and bumpy streets impair

33 cycling (City of Berlin, 2003). Much like Amsterdam and Copenhagen, post-war Berlin found itself increasingly under the spell of motorized vehicles, resulting in a drop of bicycle usage. The war had damaged the city and rebuilding was mostly done in a way that best accommodated cars. West Berlin integrated the car by dismantling its tram infrastructure and constructing limited access highways into the city centre. East Berlin, on the other hand, built large boulevards, resulting in the highest rate of car ownership and usage in the whole of East Germany (Pucher & Buehler, 2012). Berlin today still features an abundance of roads, leading to little to no issues of traffic congestion. At the time of the reunification of both parts of the city, the modal share of cycling was about 6% in West Berlin against only 3% in East Berlin. From then on, and especially since the turn of the century, Berlin started prioritising the bicycle for a variety of reasons, including environmental pollution and worsening air quality on the one hand, and the city’s deepening economic crisis on the other. Promoting cycling appeared a relatively cheap alternative to heavier modes of transport (Pucher & Buehler, 2007). Since then, funds available to cycling have risen constantly in spite of the rather difficult financial situation the city has dealt with (City of Berlin, 2011). In 2000, an annual funding dedicated to cycling infrastructure was introduced. In 2004, the first Cycling Strategy was adopted, updated and elaborated in 2011. Furthermore, in 2003, the FahrRat (Bicycle Council) was founded, which consists of cycling experts from various departments of the City of Berlin combined with researchers, representatives of the bicycle industry, bicycle advocacy groups and providers of public transportation. This group meets on a regular basis in order to discuss a range of issues regarding cycling. Moreover, it’s involved in formulating the city’s bicycle strategy (Pucher & Buehler, 2007). Although cycling levels in contemporary Berlin are not even half of what they used to be a century ago, the shift from car to bicycle promotion in combination with effective policy measures has caused a doubling of modal share in the twenty years since reunification.

Motivation for policy As mentioned above, Berlin prioritised cycling for a number of purposes. It started because of rising numbers of environmental pollution and as a response to the worsening financial situation. Over the years, the city added to this formulation of the necessity for cycling policy. Berlin’s 2011 cycling strategy distinguishes seven main arguments for why there should be more cycling in the city, building upon the former strategy. The two strategies are basically the same, though the 2011 version is more elaborate and comprehensive. According to the policy document, cycling first of all creates mobility, as citizens of nearly

34 every demographic group can make use of bikes for short and medium-length distances. To this end, the bicycle represents a quick and inexpensive means and can, in combination with public transport, compete with the car on longer distances. Bicycles even have the potential to replace a part of motorized traffic. As almost half of the journeys undertaken by Berliners are less than 5 km, cycling could take over a certain share of these trips. Moreover, cycling proves to be good for ones health and improves the quality of life in the city by not emitting any harmful gasses. In addition, bicycles take up relatively little space. The economic benefits are mentioned as well. On the one hand, cycling infrastructure is comparatively inexpensive and investments are easily repaid through intensive use. On the other hand, cycling supports the economic development of the city. An enhanced quality of life is said to attract new residents, businesses and tourists. Finally, more visible cyclists on the roads automatically lead to road users adjusting, making them more careful. Cycling therefore also contributes to improved road safety (City of Berlin, 2004; City of Berlin, 2011).

Strategy and objectives Cycling is seen as an integral strategic part of Berlin’s urban development plans for transport and is therefore perceived as a means of achieving the city’s overall goal for mobility. Policy in this area should serve in a way that is healthy, safe, and economically efficient, while at the same time be city-friendly, sustainable and socially fair (City of Berlin, 2011). To this end, in order to fully utilize the benefits that cycling entails, the city of Berlin has determined a number of strategic goals. First of all, the modal share of cycling should be increased from 13% in 2008 to 18- 20% in 2025. It’s estimated that approximately 0.6 to 0.9 million of the trips made by car could potentially be shifted towards the bicycle. The cycling modal share should realistically be able to rise with about 3-4% annually. Second, in line with this, longer trips (more than 5 km) need to be transferred to the bicycle as well. Only 19% of all trips made by bike in Berlin are longer than 5 km. Making cycling more attractive combined with technological innovations could make this possible. The city aims to increase the average length of cycling trips with 25%. Such an increase could more than twice reduce the negative effects of motorized traffic. Combining the bicycle with public transport can contribute to this objective as well. The figure for combined journeys therefore needs to rise to 5%. Furthermore, the number of traffic accidents involving cyclists must be diminished. Although the accident statistics, given an increase in bicycle traffic, have been fallen in recent years, the number of cyclists killed or seriously injured is seen as way too high. Moreover, 2011 featured a slight increase again. The cycling strategy has taken on the target of reducing the amount of deaths with 40% and the amount of injured with 30%

35 by 2025. Another objective is to raise the funding for cycling related measures to a minimum of 5 euros per inhabitant per year. This is in line with the vision of the federal government’s National Cycling Plan. Finally, the main cycling route, including full signage, needs to be completed by 2017 (City of Berlin, 2011). In addition to these strategic objectives, the city has put forth some guiding principles. For instance, all cycling policies are intended to contribute to the goals set out in city’s overall urban and transport plans and are meant to specify and extend nationally set goals. Moreover, the city aims to pursue long-term continuity with its cycling policies, as this has proven to be decisive for success. To this end, soft measures, like public relations and image building, are involved, as well as best-practices from other countries (City of Berlin, 2011).

Policymaking process In Berlin, the process of cycling policymaking is not understood as merely a project for transport administrators but as a joint development plan involving a range of stakeholders. The drafting of the cycling strategy brought together measures from various areas of activity and responsibility. For this reason, the city of Berlin had created the Bicycle Council in 2003, which advises the responsible senate department on the development and implementation of policy. This council includes a variety of members. Administrators from both the city senate as the local boroughs are involved, as well as representatives from the police, environmental and transport groups, public transport and experts or academia. This broad range of participants entails the contribution of a variety of experiences and points of view. The seven main arguments in favour of cycling determined in Berlin’s cycling strategy were formulated by the members of the Bicycle Council. The organisation is made responsible for the overall strategic goals (City of Berlin, 2011). The Berlin Senate subsequently implemented its ideas in the strategy. In 2015, a group of activists, scientists and urban planners introduced a new and rather effective means of cycling advocacy. Unhappy with the insufficient attention awarded to cycling in the Berlin Senate, the group drafted a bicycle bill, aiming at making cycling safe and comfortable. This would result in more Berliners using their bikes. The bill demands more dedication towards the promotion of cycling. A Bicycle Referendum was started, in order to get their law on the government agenda. To this end, the bill needs to attain a certain amount of favourable votes, divided over three different stages. If enough votes for the bill are required in the third and final stage – the actual referendum – it can be transferred into legislation. Meanwhile, the amount of positive votes required for the first stage has been achieved with overwhelming numbers (De Wagt, 2016). The referendum

36 can be interpreted as an example of how expertise from different societal levels, administrators combined with experts and citizens, together can promote cycling policy.

International collaboration and exchange As Berlin is nowhere near as famous as Amsterdam and Copenhagen when it comes to bicycle figures and bicycle orientation, the city receives fewer requests from potential visiting delegations. Due to its difficult financial situation, Berlin officials can’t undertake as much trips to other cities as well. However, the city participates in a number of partnerships in order to gain inspiration and exchange knowledge. For instance, it has worked together with the city of Amsterdam in a project called Embassy Lab Velo. This project focused on developing sustainable and innovative cycling traffic resources and offered a means of exchanging knowledge between both cities. Amsterdam was leading in this project and demonstrated how the bicycle can contribute to sustainable urban mobility. Furthermore, Berlin is a full member of EUROCITIES and is, like Amsterdam and Copenhagen, participating in the working group on Sustainable Mobility Planning. This group is, among other things, concerned with sharing knowledge and best practices.

Effectiveness In order to get a grip on the effectiveness of Berlin’s cycling policy, its former cycling strategy will be assessed. This 2004 policy document will be analysed through output and outcome. Moreover, the strategy will be evaluated by means of the hypotheses determined by Harms, Bertolini and Te Brömmelstroet. To this end, Berlin’s situation in 2004 will be compared to its situation in 2011, when the new and updated version of the strategy was adopted. The 2004 cycling strategy was the first ever policy document the city specifically dedicated to the promotion of cycling and was an integral part of the city’s overall transport development plan for sustainable, socially fair and city-friendly mobility. The strategy aimed to improve the conditions and options for cycling through a variety of defined fields of action. First of all, the Berlin Senate decided in 2004 that a comprehensive cycling network needed to be established comprising of approximately 660 km of cycling paths and lanes along the canals, park areas and other relatively quiet streets. About 30% of existing routes needed to be improved. Furthermore, main roads should be made more bicycle-friendly. This entire system should be functioning by 2010. Additionally, the supply of information on and along cycle paths needs to be improved, in order to ensure easier orientation for visitors in particular. This would contribute to cyclists’ sense of safety and in addition limit loss of time. By 2006, the entire main cycling network should be accompanied by signage. Moreover, cycling possibilities need to be better integrated with

37 i.e. Internet route planners. Then, the strategy calls for adequate parking facilities. Berlin’s cyclists need to be able to park near their destination. Therefore, bicycle parking near residential areas and other crowded points in the city need to be improved. Finally, connecting cycling to public transport is conceived as being of great importance for enhancing the attractiveness of cycling, as this increases the possibility of traveling over longer distances by bike. To this end, parking facilities at stations need to be improved and information campaigns will be expanded. As for immaterial measures, campaigns will be launched aimed at informing new cyclists on the rules and appropriate behaviour and addressing road safety (i.e. through blind spots) (City of Berlin, 2004). At the time of the introduction of the new and updated cycling strategy in 2011, the cycling network in Berlin had been continuously extended and had reached a total length of 1.000 km. However, this included many paths that did not meet the appropriate quality standards. About three quarters of the main cycle network proved to be very suitable for cycling, leaving about 25% in need of improvement. Eight main routes and four tourist routes had been signposted. The completion of the main cycle network, including full signage, was postponed to 2017. Campaigns aimed at promoting cycling to school and work, awareness of the blind spot and behaving in accordance with the rules have been introduced and continued over the years. The modal share of cycling has increased from 10% to 13% in 2008 (German Institute of Urban Affairs, 2012). Bicycle traffic has risen with about 40% (City of Berlin, 2014). Although this moment was about three years prior to the adoption of the new and updated version of the strategy and therefore technically does not yet represent the end of the first period, 2008 was the last time within this period that large-scale surveys and measurements were carried out. No relevant data on mobility habits was collected between 2008 and 2011. The number of cyclists killed or seriously injured was about the same in 2011 as it was in 2002. However, due to the impressive absolute increase in bicycle traffic, the number of cycling accidents relatively diminished (City of Berlin, 2014).

Regarding policy output, the city of Berlin has produced some mixed results. On the one hand, the city’s cycling network has continuously been extended and signposted. On the other hand, a lot of work still needs to be done on improving the cycle paths and the completion of the main cycle network was postponed. Then again, campaigns aimed at promoting cycling have been introduced and continued. Regarding policy outcome, the modal share of cycling has been increased and the relevant number of cycling accidents has been diminished. The city of Berlin did not follow trough with all of its policy proposals. However, this might be due to the unfavourable financial situation the city had to deal with. What’s

38 striking though is that Berlin has combined the promotion of cycling with policy aimed at discouraging car use. The city features controlled parking zones where parking permits are required and there’s no free parking in the city centre. Moreover, the city has introduced an environmental zone in 2008, which entails that only certified cars, producing lower levels of emissions, are allowed to enter this zone. The combination of policies promoting bicycles and actions discouraging car use leads to positive verdict, especially when taking the city’s difficult financial situation into consideration. A lot of work still needs to be done though. The city definitely is not on the same level as Amsterdam and Copenhagen, but the results so far lead to the conclusion that Berlin’s overall policy on cycling can be regarded as rather effective.

4.6 European Union

4.6.1 Introducing cycling in the European Union

If every country in the European Union would come up with cycling figures similar to those of the Netherlands or Denmark, the EU could be able to cut its transport greenhouse gas emissions with about 25%. Increasing the average cycling rates throughout the whole of Europe, of course depending on what mode of transport would be replaced, can therefore potentially make a huge contribution to the Union’s environmental targets set in its Europe 2020 strategy. European politicians are increasingly urged to start thinking about the potential of cycling, instead of focusing on technologically complex solutions (Walker, 2011). However, increasing the average level to the Danish standard would be quite an enterprise. The average European cycles about 190 km per year, whereas Danes come up with 965 km. On average, 12% of Europeans cycle everyday. Cycling numbers in the Netherlands are the highest, whereas people in Malta, Cyprus, Spain and Luxembourg score well below the average (European Commission, 2013). Thus, there’s much room for improvement. Although the EU has always featured some mechanisms for the support of cycling, mostly through funding, the Union lacks an overall strategy on the matter. However, recent developments have lead to increasing calls from different societal levels for such coordinative action. The potential of cycling to unlock socio-economic and environmental benefits has started to penetrate into European policymaking. Cycling in European Union policy now seems to have gained momentum. The question remains, however, whether the benefits promised by advocates prove to be appropriate enough for the Commission to initiate policy and what such policy would entail and look like. Moreover, cycling

39 traditionally is pre-eminently a responsibility for local governments and the current political climate does not really favour European legislation on local matters.

4.6.2 EU objectives: from Lisbon to Europe 2020

With the Lisbon Agenda in 2000, the European Council introduced the Union’s new ten- year strategic action and development plan. Announced as a response to the challenges of globalisation and aging, the strategy aspired the European Union to become the most dynamic and competitive knowledge-based economy in the world by 2010, capable of sustainable economic growth, with more and better jobs, greater social cohesion and respect for the environment. However, the original version of the strategy evolved into a highly complicated system with multiple objectives and actions and an unclear division of responsibilities, in particular between the EU and national governments. After a mid-term review in 2004, an expert group, appointed by the Commission, submitted a report concluding that the results so far were rather disappointing (High Level Group, 2004). As a result, the Lisbon Agenda was re-evaluated and re-launched in 2005. A focus on economic growth and employment became prioritised (European Commission, 2005). The importance of addressing climate change became apparent around that time, although decisions revolving around the matter were made outside of the context of the Lisbon Agenda, notably in the Sustainable Development Strategy (SDS). SDS set out the policy framework for the European Union to fulfil its long-term vision on sustainability, economic growth, social cohesion and environmental protection. In this respect, SDS underpinned the Lisbon Strategy while adding an environmental strand. Specific priorities of SDS translated into targets such as the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and the prevention of congestion, traffic noise and pollution (European Commission, 2001). Thus, the environmental dimension became a constituent part of the Lisbon Strategy. The distinction between both strategies became rather blurred. Both Lisbon and SDS were focused on improving and ensuring welfare and living conditions in a sustainable way for present and future generations (European Commission, 2005). However, Member States found the link between both strategies to be rather weak, so that rather than working mutually reinforcing, they’ve had been operating in isolation. At the beginning of the new decade, most of Lisbon’s goals hadn’t been realised, much like the environmental targets. Expectations of the new strategic framework, however, were high. Europe 2020 was introduced in 2010 as the Union’s new multiannual strategy, focused on getting Europe out of the economic crisis. The strategy aims at smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. To this end, five main targets have been set in the policy fields of employment, research and development, education, poverty and social exclusion,

40 and climate and energy. These targets give an overall view of where the EU should be by 2020 and are translated into national targets so that each country can check its progress. The Europe 2020 strategy functions as a reference framework for activities at EU, national and regional levels. This means that national governments set their respective targets in order to help achieve the overall EU objectives. Every year they’re required to report on them. The Commission prioritizes inducing growth and jobs.

4.6.3 A Union-wide policy on cycling

The call Various actors have called upon the European Commission to develop an EU cycling strategy. In 2001, the Transport, Health, Environment Pan-European Programme (THE PEP) was established, as an initiative of both the World Health Organisation Europe and the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe. The programme aims to achieve transport sustainable for health and the environment at pan-European level. In 2009, members of THE PEP adopted the so-called Amsterdam Declaration, making the promotion of cycling part of its main priority goals (THE PEP, 2009). This was enhanced in the 2014 Paris Declaration by including the aim to integrate transport, health and environmental objectives into urban and spatial planning policies (THE PEP, 2014). In this format, a pan-European master plan for the promotion of cycling was developed, with a scope beyond the EU borders, as not all of THE PEP’s members are part of the EU nor are all EU Member States part of the programme. In 2015, the European Parliament approved a report, drafted by the Committee of Transport and Tourism in response to the implementation of the Commission’s 2011 White Paper on Transport. In this White Paper, the Commission adopted a roadmap of 40 concrete initiatives to build a competitive transport system, which would increase mobility, remove major barriers and to encourage growth and employment (Commission, 2011). The Parliament’s report called on the Commission to include an EU roadmap for cycling into its next Work Programme (European Parliament, 2015). This roadmap was pictured as a Union-wide strategy to align the already existing relevant initiatives, ranging from motivating people, especially young people, to cycle to collecting data on bicycles. Subsequently, further policy measures could be proposed inducing a modal shift towards cycling. Later that year, the Transport ministers of the Member States endorsed the so- called Luxembourg declaration during an informal Council meeting dedicated to cycling. This Declaration on Cycling as a climate friendly Transport Mode took into account the THE PEP Paris Declaration and the Parliament’s call for an EU roadmap for cycling. With

41 this declaration the ministers called upon the Commission to consider three main action points: the integration of cycling into the Commission’s multimodal transport policy; the development of an EU level strategic document on cycling; and the appointment of a European focal point for cycling (EU Ministers for Transport, 2015). As a result, the Commission launched an official web page dedicated to cycling as a first step towards a Union-wide strategy concerning the subject. Moreover, it has installed a focal point for cycling, concerned with integrating cycling into the Commission’s multimodal transport policy and aligning already existing activities supporting cycling (European Commission: Directorate-General Mobility and Transport, 2017). In addition, the Committee of the Regions adopted its own report for an EU roadmap for cycling in 2016. This roadmap should address the growing demand for coordinated action at European level to help utilize the environmental, health and economic benefits of cycling. The Committee called for a paradigm shift in transport policies, requiring a new sustainable travel hierarchy and prioritising measures to make active modes of transport safer and more attractive (Committee of the Regions, 2016). Moreover, various interest groups, both governmental as nongovernmental, have been lobbying for an EU level strategy regarding cycling for years. An expert group representing most of these interest groups has recently put together a draft blueprint document for an EU Cycling Strategy. This expert group included i.a. the European Cyclists Federation (ECF), the Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI) and national cyclist representative organisations from the Netherlands, Denmark and Germany. The European Commission had an observer status. More than 80 public and private entities have expressed their support for this draft version, which is based on input collected from a wide range of stakeholders. The document aims to encourage more people across the European Union to cycle more often and will be submitted to the Transport Commissioner to serve as a new inspiration for action (EU Cycling Strategy, 2017).

Motivation for policy A European strategy on cycling is mostly motivated in economic terms. Other benefits mentioned, such as those related to health and the environment, are often related to the economy as well. Moreover, cycling is seen as the most cost-effective mode of transport, after walking, as its positive externalities are conceived as exceeding its expenses. According to the Luxembourg Declaration, bicycle innovation boosts jobs and growth and supports the European industry through new technologies and services. More cycling opens up new jobs in areas ranging from bicycle manufacturing and retail to tourism and services (EU Ministers for Transport, 2015). It’s estimated that Europe’s cycling industry today already features a total of 650.000 full time jobs. Doubling cycling

42 could potentially lead to another 400.000 employments (EU Cycling Strategy, 2017; EU Ministers for Transport, 2015). Furthermore, a modal shift from motorized vehicles to bicycles serves environmental purposes as well. Cyclists produce virtually no emissions, whereas (urban) transport accounts for about 40% of carbon emissions. Tripling the modal share of cycling to the expense of motorized traffic could decrease transport CO2 emissions with about 5%, significantly mitigating the carbon footprint (European Parliamentary Research Service, 2016). Cycling is an essential tool for relief of congestion. Traffic congestion costs Member States an estimated 100-billion euros a year (European Commission, 2017). Moreover, as cycling unblocks the streets, delays, loss of working hours and waste of fuel can be diminished. Taking into account production, maintenance, operation and fuel, cycling is the most eco-friendly mode of transport (EU Ministers of Transport, 2015). Finally, cycling entails a number of health benefits. It reduces the symptoms of a sedentary lifestyle and increases the levels of fitness and overall physical as well as mental health. Cycling employees claim fever sick days and children that cycle to school are said to be able to concentrate better than those who get dropped off (EU Ministers for Transport, 2015). Moreover, such regular exercise can help prevent obesity and cardiovascular disease. Therefore, it can positively influence mortality rates. In addition, healthcare costs decrease as people become fitter and less sick. The costs of investing in cycling could potentially be covered by saving on these disease related costs (European Parliamentary Research Service, 2016). The health benefits of cycling to work or education massively outweigh the potential safety hazards it entails. Besides, the so-called ‘safety in numbers’ principle holds that cycling becomes safer as more cyclists enter the roads (EU Ministers for Transport, 2015). In sum, cycling can contribute to several Commission priorities, such as triggering private investments in sustainable jobs across all Member States, reducing emissions and increasing energy efficiency (EU Ministers of Transport, 2015). It can help the European Union in achieving its Europe 2020 targets. The EU wants to make the best use of cycling as a mode of transport by including it in its efforts to achieve these targets. Cycling fits perfectly into the Commissions priority of growth and jobs. The question is whether the scale is appropriate enough.

Legal competence and possibilities within multi-level governance Adhering to the principles of conferral and subsidiarity, the European Union leaves cycling policies for the most part to the Member States. National governments usually provide for the general regulatory framework, while practical measures are mostly generated at the local or regional levels, notably in cities. EU support consists primarily of guidance,

43 exchange of knowledge and best practices, and financial support through funding. Subsidiarity requires, according to the Treaty on the European Union, the EU to only intervene when the objectives of a certain action cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States, but can rather be achieved at Union level, by reason of the scale or effects of the proposed action. The EU Cycling Strategy convincingly argues that a cycling policy can be explained as belonging to the competences of the European Union, according to this definition of subsidiarity. As half of the EU population cycles, 8% uses the bike as its primary mode of transport, and cyclists take on 8,1% of all road fatalities, relevant policy can be part of the competences of the EU in terms of scale. In terms of effect, the economic benefits of cycling have been valued at 513-billion euros and 650.000 jobs. Moreover, its potential contribution to reducing emissions is enormous. A coordinated approach on European level could unlock the full benefits on cycling (EU Strategy for Cycling). The Treaties have given the EU a mandate to take action in a number of policy fields relevant to cycling. Due to subsidiarity, the EU is relatively limited in proposing ‘hard’ legislative measures. Interventions on issues that are perceived as being local are difficult to justify for the Commission. Measures or regulations might be easiest in fields such as road safety and visibility, as the EU has straight competences in these areas. The Commission could propose legislation linked to these issues, i.e. mandatory automatic brake assistance or adapted lorry cabins to avoid the blind spot, and oblige the Member States to implement these. Moreover, custom duties for the import of e-bikes, for example, could be adjusted. These kinds of measures could in turn positively impact the modal share of cycling (Interview Rapacz, 2017). Most EU policy, however, refers to the so-called ‘soft’ competences (fourth type of competences conferred on EU) on for example urban mobility, tourism, and public health. This means competence to support, coordinate or supplement Member State actions. Currently, about ten Commission Directorate Generals have a direct or indirect link to cycling policies. These links range from offering funding through various investment programmes to setting targets for the decarbonisation of transport or legislation for noise pollution, air quality or safety standards. In EU urban mobility policy in general the principle of cooperation at different levels is applied. This might be best explained under the guise of the Open Method of Coordination, in which the Commission provides a wider framework or set of guidelines. Cities can use these as tools, in turn encouraged by the Commission. A great example hereof is the 2013 Urban Mobility Package. A part hereof is the Sustainable Urban Mobility Plan (SUMP), in which cycling plays an important role, in line with the Commissions 2011 Transport White Paper objectives. The Commission encourages cities to adopt such SUMP’s, which encompass certain guidelines and tools

44 for sustainable mobility and transport in cities. Member States are encouraged to recommend and enable the conditions for cities to implement such plans. National governments shouldn’t limit urban progressive policies (Interview Rapacz, 2017). Furthermore, the EU supports cycling in cities through initiatives such as CIVITAS, ELTIS and the European Mobility Week. Moreover, one of the partnerships created in the EU Urban Agenda is on urban mobility. Cycling is one of its three main action points. In addition to these policy measures, the EU has a number of funding instruments to be used in favour of cycling, of which the Trans-European Transport Network (TEN-T), Horizon 2020, COSME and Cohesion Policy are probably the most important. EU funds provide a good opportunity to boost cycling by providing additional resources for direct and indirect cycling-related measures.

Policy plans In line with the Luxembourg Declaration, a Focal Point for Cycling has been installed within DG MOVE, who’s responsibilities are roughly fourfold. First he ensures that cycling has a proper place in whatever policy, regulations or other plans are made in the field of transport. Second, he’s responsible for mainstreaming cycling into existing EU transport policies. Third, together with Eurostat, he tries to encourage Member States to provide the EU with data on cycling. The Member States are currently only obligated to send in data on fatalities, whereas the Commission wants numbers on for instance cycling modal share and injuries as well. Finally, he’s involved in mapping out the EU funds and projects regarding cycling. The idea is to make it easier to apply for EU funding for the purpose of cycling. Basically, he’s trying to do whatever’s possible in the current EU political and legal framework. Although this Focal Point for Cycling currently merely works within DG MOVE, the idea is to eventually create a Commission-wide contact point that would coordinate all Commission action regarding cycling. This is important as cycling does not belong to one directory (Interview Rapacz, 2017). The most important plan is probably the adoption of a Union-wide strategy on cycling. Such an EU document could look like the blueprint version drawn up by the EU Cycling Strategy campaign, which means creating a bottom up approach including lots of different stakeholders. Although the Commission won’t legislate or regulate, such a document, in the form of an official communication or working document, would make the case for cycling in the EU a stronger one. Cycling policy for now is a part of urban mobility and will, in the near future, stay a part of it. This means that future EU cycling policy will mostly provide guidelines, through SUMP-like structures (Interview Rapacz, 2017). Cycling at EU level has momentum right now. There is a certain weight behind a Union-wide strategy, as all Member State transport ministers have signed the Luxembourg

45 Declaration (be it informal) and the Parliament and Committee of the Regions have expressed their support. However, doubt exists, as the current political climate is not that favourable of adopting such a document. The rise of Euroscepticism and populism entails that the Commission is not really in favour of proposing new legislation, especially for local issues like cycling. Added to this that Brexit causes one of the most heavily involved and supportive countries to leave the Union, cycling appears not to be one of the main priorities of the current Commission (Interview Rapacz, 2017).

46 5. Analysis

5.1 Roundup: the functioning of current cycling policies

Amsterdam, Copenhagen and Berlin share a lot of similarities when it comes to their cycling policies. All three of them are relatively free to make their own policies within their respective national regulatory frameworks. Naturally they have to adhere to the ruling national laws and regulations, but cycling is in all three countries considered as largely a matter for local governments. National governments posses little to no coercive powers and take on a coordinative role at most. All three cities motivate the promotion of cycling in a similar fashion, emphasizing cycling’s benefits for the economy, citizen’s health, the environment and the cities’ liveability. The latter is presented as a rather vague term but seems to refer to the sum of all advantages. A city with an improved economy, health and environment equals a city that’s more liveable. In order to utilize these benefits, the three cities appear to set similar targets and goals. Here, Amsterdam and Copenhagen prove to be true leaders when it comes to cycling, as their main objectives, set out in their respective cycling strategies, turn out somewhat more specified than the goals of their German counterpart. Amsterdam and Copenhagen prove they feature highly developed cycling cultures, as they feel the need to concentrate on measures improving cyclists’ comfort, rather than raising the number of cyclists. Berlin, with a less extensive and historic tradition regarding cycling, just now starts to encounter comparable problems. With regards to the policymaking process, many stakeholders are involved, ranging from city officials and representative organisations to cycling experts and city residents. In Berlin a bicycle council has been created, responsible for the city’s overall strategic goals regarding cycling, while the city of Amsterdam has appointed a special team, dedicated to implementing cycling policies. An assessment of the cities’ former cycling strategies demonstrates that their policies can be regarded as being effective. The governments in question in general follow through with their proposed policy plans and largely achieve their targets. Moreover, all three cities feature increasing cycling figures, both in absolute numbers as in modal share. Although history, culture, geography and climate are certainly important factors, they do not necessarily determine the success rate of cycling. Government policies are decisive as well. Cycling policies in Amsterdam, Copenhagen and Berlin are the result of a long path-depended process, in which a shift has been made from a car-centric approach to an increasing focus on the bicycle and the conditions have been provided for cycling to prosper. This has made Amsterdam and Copenhagen in particular into the worlds cycling

47 capitals. Berlin now has a higher modal share of cycling than any other European city of similar size. In addition, the cities appear to organise their own foreign contacts in order to gain inspiration and exchange relevant knowledge. This happens both within as outside of the European Union. The cities undertake regular trips to other cities and receive foreign delegations themselves as well. Especially Amsterdam and Copenhagen receive many requests for guided tours, presentations, workshops etc. This has lead the city of Amsterdam to enter into a partnership with Cyclespace, an Amsterdam-based non- governmental organisation dedicated to raising cycling numbers in cities all over the world. Cyclespace now hosts visiting delegations on behalf of the city of Amsterdam and, moreover, has called the function of Bicycle Mayor into life. Next to their own international contacts, non-governmental organisations, such as EUROCITIES, provide networks for these cities to exchange their knowledge and ideas in a wide variety of policy areas.

As the case studies demonstrate, cycling policies in the examined cities seem to be working properly and are, especially in the cases of Amsterdam and Copenhagen, rather well developed. Indeed, cycling appears to be a policy area that functions pre-eminently on local level. What, then, could be the added value of EU action?

5.2 Added value

Future scenarios The EU Cycling Strategy blueprint provides three realistically possible scenarios for the growth potential of cycling and its possible future state within the European Union. The scenarios are based on information provided by societal trends combined with stakeholder needs and technological developments and depend on public sector activities, in particular on the European level. The first scenario presumes a European Union without a Union-wide cycling strategy but merely with individual efforts from Member States, regions and cities. This picture assumes the continuation of investments by national and local stakeholders. The EU institutions will maintain their current level of support but won’t increase their activities or coordination efforts. The Union’s coordination potential won’t be utilized which would lead Member States and local governments to rely upon their own initiatives and expertise, hence limiting the exchange of knowledge and effectiveness. Moreover, a passive EU could lead to severe damages in the field of cycling (EU Cycling Strategy, 2017).

48 The second scenario posits the adoption and implementation of a Union-wide strategy, providing a level playing field for cycling. In this case, the European Union would increase its support and coordination, guided by the overarching strategy. Moreover, it would pressure national and local governments and stakeholders to stronger commit to cycling. The EU, in this scenario, would not undertake any additional legislative activities but would mostly deliver its results through coordination. The Member States and local governments would be able to count on European support and, moreover, have access to the best available knowledge (EU Cycling Strategy, 2017). The third and final scenario assumes, in addition to the adoption and implementation of a cycling strategy, the prioritising of sustainable modes of transport. In this case, a number of restrictive measures are applied to motorised transport on top of the stronger commitment of Member State and local governments to cycling. The EU would deliver its results by coordination as well as by changing investment priorities or regulations (EU Cycling Strategy, 2017).

Added value In the previous EU multi-annual financial framework approximately 600-milion euros was spend on cycling, amounting to about 1% of the EU’s total spending on transport measures in that period. In addition, the bulk of this was allocated in just four countries, namely Hungary, Poland, Czech Republic and Germany (European Cyclists Federation, 2014). The European Cyclists Federation has calculated that all the European funds available for cycling in the current multiannual financial framework (2014-2020) amount to a total of 1.325-billion euros, based on explicit referencing to cycling in the programming documents. Taking into account the implicit and indirect references as well, cycling related measures could be able to attain an estimated 2.041-billion euros on European subsidies. However, at the moment there is little guidance on how to use these subsidies nor is there a specific monitoring or impact assessment system put in place (European Cyclists Federation, 2014). This results into missed opportunities for cycling promoting measures. A Union-wide cycling strategy would be a useful tool to help coordinate efforts throughout the EU, provide guidance and best practices. Advocates state that strategic leadership on cycling by the European Commission is an important step towards a more sustainable, liveable and competitive Europe (EUROCITIES, 2017). On top of its current activities, including the Urban Mobility Package, the Urban Mobility Partnership, CIVITAS and other funding instruments, the EU would be able to show stronger leadership. The Commission could strongly push for bicycle-friendly measures to be adopted by local governments. Moreover, the exchange of experience and best practice could be facilitated and more funding could be made available. In addition,

49 the EU could legislate in other areas with impact on urban mobility, like safety and visibility.

EU gains The benefits for the European Union are clear. Cycling delivers significant cost savings in public investments and moreover, helps to meet the main objectives set by the EU in its Europe 2020 strategy. In its 2011 White Paper on Transport, the Commission has set the targets to halve the use of conventionally fuelled cars in urban areas and achieve CO2- free logistics in major urban centres by 2030. By 2050, conventionally fuelled cars need to be phased out and the EU should feature close to zero fatalities in road transport (European Commission, 2011). Cycling is a major asset towards achieving them. However, due to the rise of Eurosceptic and populist voices all throughout Europe, the political climate is unfavourable for imposing hard legislation, especially on local or regional matters. It is therefore important to get the balance right between providing guidance and leaving local authorities the freedom and flexibility to implement strategies adapted to their own specific circumstances (EUROCITIES, 2017).

City gains A European cycling strategy for the largest part would be focused on the general European average. Although both the EU as Amsterdam, Copenhagen and Berlin appear to have a similar motivation for promoting cycling, expectations for these relatively advanced cycling cities, are low, as such a strategy would mostly comprise of a toolbox for the provision of safe, attractive and comfortable cycling. Such provisions already exist in the Netherlands, Denmark and Germany. However, rising cycling levels within the EU could benefit the entire cycling industry, which, in turn, could increase the economic benefits. Leading cities, such as Amsterdam and Copenhagen, could take advantage of this in areas like for instance tourism. Amsterdam and Copenhagen would be the best examples from which others could learn. However, the policy systems and structures of these cities cannot directly be transferred onto other cities, as they are the result of lengthy and path- depended developments. Lagging cities lack cycling cultures and, therefore, would not benefit from simply adopting these policies. That’s where EU action could potentially come in. It could provide guidelines to undergo such a development. The Sustainable Urban Mobility Plan is a great example hereof, as it offers a toolbox for gradually implementing sustainable measures.

In sum, the added value of further EU action in the field of cycling policy would be most of all the provision of a toolbox or a set of guidelines designed to help cities or other local

50 authorities with implementing policies that would promote the usage of bicycles. Such guidelines would be based on the average need throughout the European Union and would mostly benefit lagging cities without any significant culture related to cycling. Leading cities that already have such a toolbox to their disposal, for instance through longer processes of trial and error, would benefit less from EU intervention, as its added value would probably be little to none.

5.4 Tension between European, national and urban policymaking

When it comes to cities in the current European Union, two main developments can be observed. First, the Union acknowledges the growing importance of cities and strives to involve them in its policymaking process (Urban Agenda for the EU, 2016). Second, cities nowadays are more and more capable of organising their own foreign contacts, independently from their respective national governments (Heinelt & Niederhafner, 2008). Although diplomacy traditionally is linked to national states, the past few decades have witnessed an increasing influence of cities and regions in the realm of international politics. Cities have began to form a complex network of actors, finding themselves at the forefront of the most urgent and major challenges facing us today, varying from climate change to terrorism and the refugee crisis. As national governments prove to be rather reluctant in tackling these questions, due to great internal ideological differences, the European Union increasingly acknowledges the value of cities as potential partners for addressing European problems and achieving the Union’s big picture goals. Especially as these questions are mostly cross border, cities are seen as important contributors for building bridges. The EU recently has called the Urban Agenda into life in an effort to strengthen this urban dimension. It strives to involve urban governments in achieving better regulation, better funding and better exchange of knowledge. The Urban Mobility partnership, an element of the Urban Agenda, includes cycling as one of its main topics. In cycling policy, these developments become evident by the multiple calls for a Union-wide strategy and the inclusion of cycling in all European (urban) mobility policies on the one hand, and the regular international trips city delegations undertake with the aim of gaining inspiration and knowledge on the other hand.

The European Union seems to have learned from its response to the 2008 economic crisis, which resulted in a debate about the balancing of intergovernmental and supranational action. The debate brought into question the use of the Open Method of Coordination, as a form of soft intergovernmental policy. This becomes evident in urban and subsequently in cycling matters. Urban issues fall outside of the formal competences

51 of the EU. Naturally, the same goes for cycling policies, as these belong to the responsibilities of local governments. Moreover, cycling policy proves to function best when carried out on local level. Nevertheless, cycling today is presented as being able to make an important contribution to the Union’s overall objectives. As the Commission has learned from its 2008 response and the current political climate does not favour hard interventions, especially in regional matters, it wants to keep legislating to a minimum. Instead, a system of governance is introduced best explained through the lens of multi- level governance. Stakeholders from all different policy levels become involved and are interconnected. European-wide policy on cycling is non-compulsory and provides, much like the Sustainable Urban Mobility Plan and the Urban Agenda partnerships, merely a platform or toolbox. This can be interpreted as the EU using the Open Method of Coordination, soft governance rather than legislation. In order to utilize the opportunities that arise in cities to contribute to the Union’s main objectives, the EU offers help and coordination for making and implementing new policies. Furthermore, it provides a platform and network for cities to exchange knowledge and best practices. The added value of EU action in the field of cycling policy largely seems to be to take on a coordinative role. The Commission can set the policy framework, which won’t be compelling, facilitate the exchange of knowledge, raise awareness and offer funding and financing. However, successful cities do not necessarily need EU action. As these cities are capable of organising their own foreign contacts and exchange of knowledge themselves, or through representative organisations like EUROCITIES. Moreover, as cycling policies seem to function properly without EU interference, a tension between the urban and European level policymaking threatens to arise. Should Union action be seen as a perk rather than a need?

52 6. Conclusion

“The key thing today is to build a transnational European democracy that goes beyond nation states” – Ulrike Guérot

As explained in the introduction to this thesis: I personally feel like Europeans today are stuck in the discussion on more or less European integration. It’s a discussion that cannot be solved due to great internal ideological differences at present. The threat of the European project taking a dead end direction looms large. Europe struggles with the rise of Euroscepticism and suffers from a democratic deficit. At the same time, Europe is not merely a utopia, but certainly too a socio-economic reality. The (economic) interconnectedness is far too great. A large-scale withdrawal therefore appears simply impossible. You can check out any time you like, but you can never leave. That’s why, it has been suggested to start thinking about a different kind of Europe. Perhaps a Europe paying more attention to the role of cities, relative to their national states. Cities nowadays constitute an omnipresent factor in European (and global) politics and are able to gain new room for political manoeuvre through the processes of Europeanization and globalisation, as these imply the opening-up of new political spheres in which cities can play a multi-level game. Through this, traditional national structures of policymaking can – at least partly – be bypassed. The European Union now recognizes this growing importance as well. Around 75-80% of Europe’s citizens live in cities, a number that will only increase in the near future, and Europe’s greatest problems appear most acute at these sites. The EU now wants to utilize this urban dimension as well as possible. A major step has been taken with the introduction of the Urban Agenda for the EU, which somewhat ensures that cities get their say in Union decision-making. European legislation needs to better reflect urban needs, practices and responsibilities. In the wake of urban policy, the EU now also starts to acknowledge the value of cycling as a means for contributing to its big-picture goals. Many calls have been heard and the Commission has appointed a special focal point for cycling in DG MOVE, dedicated to giving more weight to cycling. One of its first points of action comprises mainstreaming cycling into existing transport policies. A Union-wide strategy on the matter is currently in the pipeline. Cycling affects many different policy areas and is therefore an effective means for tackling several objectives at once. However, as bicycles in general are used for short distances, cycling mostly occurs in cities. It therefore formally belongs to the field of urban mobility and falls outside of the formal competences of the European Union. The Commission can only adopt hard measures regarding cycling in areas like road safety and visibility. European cycling policy therefore mostly includes soft policy

53 measures. A Union-wide strategy would consist of a set of guidelines aimed at helping cities with making and implementing bicycle-promoting policies. Moreover, the EU would offer a platform and network for members to gain and exchange knowledge and best practices. However, the cases of Amsterdam, Copenhagen and Berlin indicate that policy on cycling already appears to properly work without EU interference. Indeed, relevant policy actually seems to pre-eminently function when it’s carried out on local level. These cities do not necessarily need Union action in this area. Moreover, through their own efforts, and membership of representative and network organisations like EUROCITIES, cities are already able to sufficiently organise their own foreign contacts, in order to exchange knowledge and best practices. We’re dealing with a policy area that’s important to the Union, but occurs almost entirely outside of its sight. The question remains whether the EU should even slightly interfere in this area. Why more integration on a topic that already functions? Regarding urban policies, and therefore cycling policies, this view seems to have landed, as the EU merely promotes guidelines and other forms of soft governance. A view motivated by an unfavourable political climate for legislating as well. Local governments decide themselves on how to use the offered tools, if they’re even implemented at all. A relatively new form of governance occurs, best explained through multi-level governance. The European Union provides a policy framework, after elaborate consultation with many different governance levels, ranging from administrators to experts and citizens. It hereby tries to nudge members into adopting certain policies, such as Sustainable Urban Mobility Plans. National governments are pressured to enable the regulatory conditions for cities to implement such plans. In other words, the EU seems to move towards collaborating more closely with local, urban governments. Might this be a vision of a future Europe? A vision in which the European Union provides the conditions for cities to prosper? Benjamin Barber already observed the leading role of cities in the world economy and even declared the nation state to be dysfunctional and obsolete. Freddy Heineken pleaded for a United States of Europe, dividing the continent into smaller regions. In his wake, Ulrike Guérot envisioned Res Publica Europeae, diminishing rigid national interests. These suggestions appear somewhat radical, but a solution might lie somewhere in the middle. A Europe, valuing the important role of cities, assembled under the umbrella of a central soft governing authority that represents all on the international stage. Let this be an inspiration. It might be time to recycle Europe.

54 7. References

Astrup, S. (2016, 2 November) Det Cykler for København, Politiken (retrieved from: http://politiken.dk/indland/kobenhavn/art5649047/Det-cykler-for-K%C3%B8benhavn).

Barber, J. (2013) If Mayors Ruled the World: Dysfunctional Nations, Rising Cities, New Haven: Yale University Press.

Carter, C. & Pasquier, R. (2010) The Europeanization of Regions as ‘Spaces for Politics’: A Research Agenda, Regional and Federal Studies, 20(3), 295-314.

Castillo-Manzano, J. & Sánchez-Braza, A. (2013) Can Anyone Hate the Bicycle? The Hunt for an Optimal Local Transportation Policy to Encourage Bicycle Usage, Environmental Politics 22(6), 1010-1028.

Cathcart-Keays, A. (2016, 30 November) Two-Wheel Takeover: Bikes Outnumber Cars For the First Time in Copenhagen, The Guardian (retrieved from: https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2016/nov/30/cycling-revolution-bikes-outnumber- cars-first-time-copenhagen-denmark).

City of Amsterdam (2012) Meerjarenplan Fiets 2012 – 2016, Amsterdam: City of Amsterdam.

City of Amsterdam (2015) De Staat van de Stad Amsterdam VIII, Amsterdam: City of Amsterdam.

City of Amsterdam (2016a) Voor Fietsers en een Gezonde en Bereikbare Stad, Amsterdam: City of Amsterdam.

City of Amsterdam (2016b) Fietsmonitor MJP Fiets 2012-2016, Amsterdam: City of Amsterdam.

City of Berlin (2003) Cycling in Berlin, Berlin: City of Berlin.

City of Berlin (2004) Cycling Strategy for Berlin, Berlin: City of Berlin.

55 City of Berlin (2011) New Cycling Strategy for Berlin, Berlin: City of Berlin.

City of Berlin (2014) Mobility in the City: Berlin Traffic in Figures 2013, Berlin: City of Berlin.

City of Copenhagen (1998) Public Transport Plan, Copenhagen: City of Copenhagen.

City of Copenhagen (2000) Proposals for Green Cycling Routes: Home-Workplace Routes and Recreational Routes, Copenhagen: City of Copenhagen.

City of Copenhagen (2001) Cycle Track Priority Plan 2001, Copenhagen: City of Copenhagen.

City of Copenhagen (2002) Cycle Policy 2002-2012, Copenhagen: City of Copenhagen.

City of Copenhagen (2005) Bicycle Account 2004, Copenhagen: City of Copenhagen.

City of Copenhagen (2009) Traffic in Copenhagen, Copenhagen: City of Copenhagen.

City of Copenhagen (2011a) Good, Better, Best. The City of Copenhagen’s Bicycle Strategy 2011-2025, Copenhagen: City of Copenhagen.

City of Copenhagen (2011b) Bicycle Account 2010, Copenhagen: City of Copenhagen.

City of Copenhagen (2013) City of Cyclists – Copenhagen Bicycle Life, Copenhagen: City of Copenhagen.

City of Copenhagen (2014) Bicycle Account 2012, Copenhagen: City of Copenhagen.

City of Copenhagen (2015) Bicycle Account 2014, Copenhagen: City of Copenhagen.

Colville-Andersen, M. (2014, 16 October) Innovation In, Lycra Out: What Copenhagen Can Teach Us About Cycling, The Guardian (retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2014/oct/16/copenhagen-cycling-innovation-lycra- louts-green-wave-bike-bridges).

56 Colville-Andersen, M. (2015, 6 February) The 20 Most Bike-Friendly Cities on the Planet, Wired (retrieved from: https://www.wired.com/2015/06/copenhagenize-worlds-most- bike-friendly-cities/).

Committee of the Regions (2009) The Committee of the Regions’ White Paper on Multilevel Governance, Brussels: Committee of the Regions.

Committee of the Regions (2016) An EU Roadmap for Cycling, Brussels: Committee of the Regions.

CycleSpace (2014, 3 March) CycleSpace Amsterdam Wint Tender Gemeente Amsterdam en Stadsregio, CycleSpace (retrieved from: http://cyclespace.nl/2014/03/03/cyclespace-amsterdam-wint-tender-gemeente- amsterdam-en-stadsregio/).

Cycling Embassy of Denmark, Bicycling History (retrieved from: http://www.cycling- embassy.dk/facts-about-cycling-in-denmark/cycling-history/ on 4 June 2017).

Cycling Embassy of Denmark (2016) Annual Report 2016, Copenhagen: CED.

Danish Ministry of Transport, Denmark – On Your Bike! The National Bicycle Strategy, Copenhagen: Ministry of Transport.

De la Bruhèze, A., & Veraart, F. (1999) Fietsverkeer in Praktijk en Beleid in de Twintigste Eeuw, Den Haag: Ministry of Traffic and Water Management.

DTV Consultants (2016) Evaluatie Meerjarenplan Fiets, Breda: DTV.

Eilstrup-Sangiovanni, M. (2006) Debates on European Integration, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

EU Cycling Strategy (2017) Blueprint for an EU Cycling Strategy: Draft Version (retrieved from: https://ecf.com/sites/ecf.com/files/Blueprint%20for%20a%20EUCS_draft%20March% 202017_0.pdf).

57 EUROCITIES (2016) Strategic Framework 2014-2020. Towards an Urban Agenda for the EU, Brussels: EUROCITIES.

EUROCITIES (2017) EUROCITIES Statement Towards an EU Strategy on Cycling (retrieved from: http://nws.eurocities.eu/MediaShell/media/EUROCITIESStatementonanEUcyclingstra tegy.pdf).

European Commission (2001) A Sustainable Europe for a Better World: A European Union Strategy for Sustainable Development, Brussels: European Union.

European Commission (2005) Working Together for Growth and Jobs. A New Start for the Lisbon Strategy, Brussels: European Union.

European Commission (2011) White Paper on Transport, Luxembourg: European Union.

European Commission (2013) Attitudes of Europeans Towards Urban Mobility, Brussels: European Union.

European Commission: Directorate-General Mobility and Transport (2017), Cycling (retrieved from: https://ec.europa.eu/transport/themes/urban/cycling_en).

European Conference of the Ministers of Transport (2004) National Policies to Promote Cycling, Paris: Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development.

European Cyclists Federation (2014) Cycling for Growth. Using European Funds for Cycling.

European Parliament (2015) Report on the implementation of the 2011 White Paper on Transport: taking stock and the way forward towards sustainable mobility, Brussels: European Union.

European Parliamentary Research Service (2014) At a Glance: The Open Method of Coordination, Brussels: European Union.

58 European Parliamentary Research Service (2016) Moving Cycling Forward. A Coordinated Approach to Cycling for Local and Regional Authorities in the EU, Brussels: European Union.

European Union (2012a) Consolidated Version of the Treaty on European Union.

European Union (2012b) Consolidated Version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

European Union Ministers for Transport (2015) Declaration on Cycling as a climate friendly Transport Mode, Luxembourg.

Fietsersbond (2009) Cycling Cities, Utrecht: Fietsersbond.

George, S. (1996) Politics and Policy in the European Union, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

German Federal Ministry of Transport, Building and Housing (2002) National Cycling Plan 2002-2012: Ride Your Bike!, Berlin: Federal Ministry of Transport, Building and Housing.

German Federal Ministry of Transport, Building and Urban Development (2012) National Cycling Plan 2020: Joining Forces to Evolve Cycling, Berlin: Federal Ministry of Transport, Building and Urban Development.

German Institute of Urban Affairs (2012) The Cycling Mode Share in Cities, Berlin: German Institute of Urban Affairs.

Goodyear, S. (2012, 25 April) Why the Streets of Copenhagen and Amsterdam Look So Different From Ours, Citylab (retrieved from: https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2012/04/why-streets-copenhagen-and- amsterdam-look-so-different-ours/1849/).

Guérot, U. (2015, 29 June) Europe As a Republic: The Story of Europe in the Twenty First Century, Open Democracy (retrieved from: https://www.opendemocracy.net/can- europe-make-it/ulrike-guerot/europe-as-republic-story-of-europe-in-twenty-first- century).

59

Haas, E. (1961) International Integration: the European and the Universal Process, International Organization 15(3), 366-392.

Handy, S., Van Wee, B. & Kroesen, M. (2014) Promoting Cycling for Transport: Research Needs and Challenges, Transport Reviews 34(1), 4-24.

Harms, L., Bertolini, L. & Te Brömmelstroet, M. (2016) Performance of Municipal Cycling Policies in Medium-Sized Cities in the Netherlands since 2000, Transport Reviews 36(1), 134-162.

Heinelt, H. & Niederhafner, S. (2008) Cities and Organized Interest Intermediation in the EU Multi-Level System, European Urban and Regional Studies 15(2), 173-187.

High Level Group (2004) Facing the Challenge. The Lisbon Strategy for Growth and Employment, Luxembourg: European Union.

Hooghe, L. & Marks, G. (2003) Unraveling the Central State, but How? Types of Multi- Level Governance, The American Political Science Review, 97(2), 233-243.

Jong, R. de (2016, 29 April) Lee Feldman: De Fiets Als Symbool van Creativiteit, Steden in Transitie (retrieved from: https://stedenintransitie.nl/interview/lee-feldman).

Krizek, K., Handy, S. & Forsyth, A. (2009) Explaining Changes in Walking and Bicycling Behavior: Challenges for Transportation Research, Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 36(4), 725-740.

Lindberg, L. (1963) The Political Dynamics of European Integration, Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Lindberg, L., & Scheingold, S. (1970) Europe’s Would-Be Polity. Patterns of Change in the European Community, Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.

Marks, G. (1993) Structural Policy and Multi-Level Governance in the EC, in: The State of the European Community, Boulder: Lynne Rienner.

60 Marks, G., Hooghe, L. & Blank, K. (1996) European Integration from the 1980s: State- Centric v. Multi-Level Governance, Journal of Common Market Studies 34(3), 341- 378.

Mead, N. van (2016, 11 August) Bike Jams and Unwritten Rules: A Day With Amsterdam’s New ‘Bicycle Mayor’, The Guardian (retrieved from: https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2016/aug/11/cycling-amsterdam-bike-jams- bicycle-mayor-anna-luten).

Milward, A. (2000) The European Rescue of the Nation-State, Routledge: London.

Moravcsik, A. (1993) Preferences and Power in the European Community: a Liberal Intergovernmentalist Approach, Journal of Common Market Studies 31(4), 473-524.

New Pact for Europe (2013) Strategic Options for Europe’s Future (retrieved from: https://www.newpactforeurope.eu/documents/1st_report_new_pact_for_europe.pdf? m=1389892848).

Nugent, N. (2010) The Government and Politics of the European Union, Basingstoke: Palgrave.

O’Sullivan, F. (2016, 26 April) Amsterdam Is Appointing a Bicycle Mayor, CityLab (retrieved from: https://www.citylab.com/solutions/2016/04/amsterdam-is-appointing- a-bike-mayor/479901/).

Pidd, H. (2010) Sehr Gut: Why Cycling in Berlin Is a Dream, The Guardian (retrieved from: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/green-living-blog/2010/apr/22/bike-blog- cycling-berlin).

Pollack, M. (2005) Theorizing EU Policy-Making, in: Policy-Making in the European Union, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Pucher, J. & Buehler, R. (2007) At the Frontiers of Cycling: Policy Innovations in the Netherlands, Denmark and Germany, World Transport Policy and Practice 13(3), 8- 56.

Pucher, J & Buehler, R. (2012) City Cycling, Cambridge: MIT Press.

61

Pucher, J., Dill, J. & Handy, S. (2010) Infrastructure, Programs, and Policies to Increase Bicycling: An International Review, Preventive Medicine 50(1), 106-125.

Rosamond, B. (2000) Theories of European Integration, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Sassen, S. (2012) An Emergent Urban Geopolitics (retrieved from: http://www.saskiasassen.com/pdfs/london/an-emergent-urban-geopolitics.pdf).

Skjaerseth, J. & Wettestad, J. (2002) Understanding the Effectiveness of EU Environmental Policy: How Can Regime Analysis Contribute, Environmental Politics 11(3), 99-120.

Steen, M. (2017, 1 June) New Figures on Cycling in Copenhagen Break the Record, Cycling Embassy of Denmark (retrieved from: http://www.cycling- embassy.dk/2017/06/01/new-figures-cycling-copenhagen-break-record/).

Stichting Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek en Verkeersveiligheid (2016) Het aantal ernstig verkeersgewonden in de Stadsregio Amsterdam, Den Haag: SWOV.

Stichting Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek en Verkeersveiligheid (2017) Verkeersdoden in Nederland, Den Haag: SWOV.

Thomas, B. & DeRobertis, M. (2013) The Safety of Urban Cycle Tracks: A Review of the Literature, Accident Analysis & Prevention, 52, 219-227.

Transport, Health, Environment Pan-European Programme (2009) Amsterdam Declaration. Making THE link: Transport Choices for our Health, Environment and Prosperity, Amsterdam.

Tour de Force (2016) Agenda Fiets 2017-2020, Den Haag: Tour de Force.

Urban Agenda for the EU (2016) Pact of Amsterdam (retrieved from: https://ec.europa.eu/futurium/en/system/files/ged/pact-of-amsterdam_en.pdf).

62 Vermeulen, M. (2013, 18 November) Waarom Steden Het Voor Het Zeggen Moeten Krijgen, De Correspondent (retrieved from: https://decorrespondent.nl/355/waarom- steden-het-voor-het-zeggen-moeten-krijgen/64744173670-e74ec7d2).

Wagt, E. de (2016, 5 July) A New Approach In Cycling Advocacy: Berlin Bicycle Bill Referendum, European Cyclists’ Federation (retrieved from: https://ecf.com/news- and-events/news/new-approach-cycling-advocacy-berlin-bicycle-bill-referendum).

Walker, P. (2011, 12 December) Cycle Like the Danes to Cut Carbon Emissions, Says Study, The Guardian (retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/dec/12/cycle-like-danes-cut- emissions).

Ward, S. & Williams, R. (1997) From Hierarchy to Networks? Sub-Central Government and EU Urban Environment Policy, Journal of Common Market Studies, 35(3), 439-464.

Zee, R. van der (2015, 5 May) How Amsterdam Became the Bicycle Capital of the World, The Guardian (retrieved from: https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/may/05/amsterdam-bicycle-capital-world- transport-cycling-kindermoord).

63