DOCSLIB.ORG

Bicycle Parking in the Narrow Streets of Copenhagen

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Bicycle Parking in the Narrow Streets of Copenhagen Bicycle Parking in the Narrow Streets of Copenhagen An Interactive Qualifying Project Submitted To: Professor Susan Jarvis Professor Frederick Bianchi Worcester Polytechnic Institute Submitted By: Jessica Falci Priscilla Dunphy Roberto Garcia Marianne Spang Bech William Pope Miljøpunkt Indre By-Christianshavn May 2, 2016 Copenhagen, Denmark This report represents the work of WPI undergraduate students submitted to the faculty as evidence of completion of a degree requirement. WPI routinely publishes these reports on its website without editorial or peer review. For more information about the projects program at WPI, please see http://www.wpi.edu/academics/ugradstudies/project-learning.html. Abstract Our project, sponsored by Miljøpunkt Indre By, focused on optimizing bicycle parking in Inner City Copenhagen, specifically on the narrow street of Studiestræde. The habits of cyclists, the opinions of shop owners, pedestrians, and cyclists, and data gathered through observation and experiments all contributed to the generation of a Pugh Matrix detailing our top recommendations. By implementing these suggestions over time, the Inner City can gradually improve its bicycle parking to continue to attract citizens to cycling and further promote the city’s environmental sustainability. 1 Table of Contents Abstract ........................................................................................................................................... 1 Executive Summary ......................................................................................................................... 5 Background .................................................................................................................................. 5 Methodology ............................................................................................................................... 5 Assess the current habits of cyclists ........................................................................................ 6 Identify the Needs of Stakeholders ......................................................................................... 6 Propose Final Bicycle Parking Recommendations ................................................................... 7 Results ......................................................................................................................................... 7 Recommendations ...................................................................................................................... 8 Constraining Landmarks .......................................................................................................... 9 Informative Signs ..................................................................................................................... 9 Flex Parking and Additional Bicycle Racks ............................................................................... 9 Improving the City’s Current Bicycle Removal System .......................................................... 10 Campaigning .......................................................................................................................... 10 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................. 10 Chapter 1: Introduction ................................................................................................................ 11 Chapter 2: Background ................................................................................................................. 14 Bicycle Parking Congestion in Copenhagen .............................................................................. 14 Copenhagen’s Growing Cycling Community ......................................................................... 15 Effects of Biking on the Copenhagen Community .................................................................... 20 Environmental Impact ........................................................................................................... 20 Political Impact ...................................................................................................................... 21 Negatives Impacts of Poor Bike Parking ................................................................................ 22 Existing Parking Solutions.......................................................................................................... 26 Summary ................................................................................................................................... 35 Chapter 3: Methodology ............................................................................................................... 36 2 Assess the Current Habits of Cyclists ........................................................................................ 36 Flow and Hourly Bicycle Counting ......................................................................................... 37 Bicycle Tagging Experiment ................................................................................................... 38 Identify the Needs of Stakeholders ........................................................................................... 39 Propose Final Bike Parking Recommendations ......................................................................... 39 Chapter 4: Results ......................................................................................................................... 43 Demographics............................................................................................................................ 43 Flow Data ................................................................................................................................... 44 Weekday ................................................................................................................................ 45 Weekend ................................................................................................................................ 46 Tagged Bicycle Experiment ....................................................................................................... 47 Stakeholder Interviews: ............................................................................................................ 50 Cyclists ................................................................................................................................... 50 Shop Owners .......................................................................................................................... 50 Pedestrians ............................................................................................................................ 51 Pugh Matrix ............................................................................................................................... 52 Chapter 5: Recommendations and Conclusions ........................................................................... 54 Constraining Landmarks ............................................................................................................ 54 Informative Signs ....................................................................................................................... 55 Converting Car Parking .............................................................................................................. 56 Flex Parking ............................................................................................................................ 57 Additional Bicycle Parking Racks ........................................................................................... 57 Improved Bicycle Removal System ........................................................................................... 62 Campaigning .............................................................................................................................. 67 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................. 67 Works Cited ................................................................................................................................... 69 Appendix ....................................................................................................................................... 73 APPENDIX 1: Objective 1 Data Recording Tables ...................................................................... 73 Flow Data Tables .................................................................................................................... 73 3 Rack Data Tables .................................................................................................................... 74 APPENDIX 2: Objective 2 Data Recording Tables ...................................................................... 76 Pedestrian Counting Table .................................................................................................... 76 APPENDIX 3: Objective 1 Data Table Results ............................................................................ 77 Flow Data Results- Weekday ................................................................................................. 77 Flow Data- Weekends ............................................................................................................ 77 Demographics .......................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • License Agreement with Gotcha Ride LLC to Operate the North County Coastal Bike Share Pilot Program in the City of Encinitas
    MEETING DATE: April 17, 2019 PREPARED BY: Crystal Najera, CAP DEPT. DIRECTOR: Karen P. Brust Program Administrator DEPARTMENT: City Manager CITY MANAGER: Karen P. Brust SUBJECT: License Agreement with Gotcha Ride LLC to operate the North County Coastal Bike Share Pilot Program in the City of Encinitas. RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1) Authorize the City Manager, in consultation with the City Attorney, to execute a license agreement with Gotcha Ride LLC (in substantial form as attached) to operate the North County Coastal Bike Share Pilot Program in the City of Encinitas (Attachment 5). STRATEGIC PLAN: This item is related to the following Strategic Plan focus areas: • Environment—promotes the use of emissions-free bicycles as an alternative mode of transportation. • Transportation—supports a transportation mode that accommodates more people with minimal impact on the community. • Recreation—promotes active lifestyles and community health. • Economic Development—addresses the “last mile” gap between public transit and local businesses and promotes tourism. FISCAL CONSIDERATIONS: There is no fiscal impact associated with the recommendation. Gotcha will bear the sole cost of deploying and operating the bike share program. Minimal City staff time will be needed to coordinate with Gotcha to ensure that the program operates in a manner beneficial to the City. BACKGROUND: Bike share is a service through which bicycles are made available for shared use to individuals on a very short-term basis, allowing them to rent a bicycle at one location and return it either at the same location or at a different location within a defined geographic boundary. Transportation, especially travel via single occupancy vehicle, is a major source of greenhouse gas emissions in Encinitas and the North County coastal region.
    [Show full text]
  • City of Del Mar Staff Report
    City of Del Mar Staff Report TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members FROM: Clem Brown, Environmental Sustainability/Special Projects Manager Via Scott Huth, City Manager DATE: May 6, 2019 SUBJECT: License Agreement with Gotcha Ride LLC to Operate the North County Bike Share Pilot Program in the City of Del Mar REQUESTED ACTION/RECOMMENDATION: Staff requests that the City Council approve a license agreement with Gotcha Ride LLC (Attachment A) to operate the North County Coastal Bike Share Pilot Program in the City of Del Mar and authorize the City Manager to execute the agreement. BACKGROUND: The City of Del Mar is committed to reducing local greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to limit the effects of climate change, while also offering viable transportation alternatives to driving. Del Mar has adopted a Climate Action Plan (CAP) that establishes a number of strategies to meet GHG emissions reduction targets, including facilitating safe, convenient, and affordable alternative transportation options. Specifically, Goal 14 in the CAP includes a strategy to “explore implementation of a bike share program…to provide another transportation alternative for traveling in town.” Transportation, especially travel via single occupancy vehicles, is a major source of GHG emissions in Del Mar and the other north San Diego County (North County) coastal cities. Offering and promoting programs like bike share, that replace vehicle trips with bike trips, is one way Del Mar can help to reduce emissions while offering more efficient and more affordable transportation modes for residents, employees, and visitors. Bike share is a service by which bicycles are made available for shared use to individuals on a very short-term basis, allowing them to borrow a bicycle at one location and return it either to the same or an alternate location within a defined geographic boundary.
    [Show full text]
  • Poised for Pedaling: Comparing Bicycle
    POISED FOR PEDALING: COMPARING BICYCLE INFRASTRUCTURE IN COPENHAGEN, DENMARK AND PORTLAND, OREGON by SEAN VERMILYA A THESIS Presented to the Department of Planning, Public Policy, and Management and the Robert D. Clark Honors College in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Bachelor of Science June 2020 An Abstract of the Thesis of Sean Vermilya for the degree of Bachelor of Science in the Department of Planning, Public Policy, and Management to be taken June 2020 Title: Poised for Pedaling: Comparing Bicycle Infrastructure in Copenhagen, Denmark and Portland, Oregon Approved: Marc Schlossberg Primary Thesis Advisor This thesis investigates the following question: how can Portland learn from Copenhagen’s policy successes and failures to better develop, implement, and utilize bicycle infrastructure going forward? The thesis begins by addressing each city’s mobility history and how that history contributes to current transportation networks. Historical cycling support helps explain Copenhagen’s strong network today, while the US’s embrace of the automobile prevented Portland from fully embracing the bicycle. The thesis then deconstructs the differences between bicycle infrastructure in Copenhagen and Portland along five focus areas: design, municipal control, societal values, current politics, and equity. Copenhagen’s cyclist-friendly design, egalitarian societal values, and strong social safety net contribute to its superior cycling network and bring more cyclists to the streets. These advantages serve as models for Portland for emulate. However, the cities’ common struggles with municipal infrastructure control and mobility politics demonstrate cycling’s divisive nature regardless of locale. They also show that improvement remains well within Portland’s reach.
    [Show full text]
  • Unlicensed Dockless Bike Sharing
    UNLICENSED DOCKLESS BIKE SHARING – COMMON POSITION PAPER – INTRODUCTION This common position of the International Association of Public Transport (UITP), the European Cyclists’ Federation (ECF) and its Platform for European Bike Sharing and Systems (PEBSS), recognises that there are currently significant changes happening in the operation, technology and business models of bike sharing systems. Over the past decade, station-based bike sharing has been successfully introduced to many cities worldwide, encouraging more cycling and promoting more healthy and liveable cities. While the environmental benefits of docked bike sharing is clear, the high implementation and operation costs have deterred some cities from embracing these schemes that promote the benefits of active travel. The introduction of smart bikes allows for dockless operation, which involves lighter infrastructure at a lower cost. We have recently seen the emergence of privately funded dockless bike sharing systems, operating without public licensing. This has a variety of implications for a city’s transport policy. This paper provides a framework and recommendations for cities and relevant authorities to ensure dockless bike sharing schemes contribute to the objectives of a wider sustainable urban mobility policy and efficiently complement public transport. Active mobility such as cycling and walking is crucial to any sustainable urban mobility strategy based on a high quality public transport system for more liveable and healthier cities. New wave of unlicensed dockless bike parking areas so that another rider can find share operators or locate it for the next ride. Since spring 2016, there has been a dramatic increase, primarily in China, of un- anchored, free-floating and app-controlled private bike share operators.
    [Show full text]
  • Determinants of Bicycle Commuting in the Washington, DC Region: the Role of Bicycle Parking, Cyclist Showers, and Free Car Parking at Work
    Transportation Research Part D 17 (2012) 525–531 Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect Transportation Research Part D journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/trd Determinants of bicycle commuting in the Washington, DC region: The role of bicycle parking, cyclist showers, and free car parking at work Ralph Buehler Urban Affairs and Planning, Virginia Tech, Alexandria Center, 1021 Prince Street, Room 228, Alexandria, VA 22314, USA article info abstract Keywords: This article examines the role of bicycle parking, cyclist showers, free car parking and tran- Bicycling to work sit benefits as determinants of cycling to work. The analysis is based on commute data of Bicycle parking workers in the Washington, DC area. Results of rare events logistic regressions indicate that Car parking bicycle parking and cyclist showers are related to higher levels of bicycle commuting—even Cyclist showers when controlling for other explanatory variables. The odds for cycling to work are greater Trip-end facilities for employees with access to both cyclist showers and bike parking at work compared to those with just bike parking, but no showers at work. Free car parking at work is associated with 70% smaller odds for bike commuting. Employer provided transit commuter benefits appear to be unrelated to bike commuting. Regression coefficients for control variables have expected signs, but not all are statistically significant. Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. 1. Introduction Over the last decades US cities have increasingly promoted bicycle commuting to reduce local and global air pollution, combat peak hour traffic congestion, and achieve health benefits from physical activity (Alliance for Biking and Walking, 2012).
    [Show full text]
  • Why Shared Bikes of Free-Floating Systems Were Parked out of Order? a Preliminary Study Based on Factor Analysis
    sustainability Article Why Shared Bikes of Free-Floating Systems Were Parked Out of Order? A Preliminary Study based on Factor Analysis Qianling Jiang 1 , Sheng-Jung Ou 2 and Wei Wei 2,* 1 School of Design, Jiangnan University, Wuxi 214000, China; [email protected] 2 School of Design, Chaoyang University of Technology, Taichung 41349, Taiwan; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected] Received: 20 May 2019; Accepted: 12 June 2019; Published: 14 June 2019 Abstract: Free-floating bicycle-sharing systems are an important component of sustainable transport. China’s bicycle-sharing schemes have experienced ups and downs in the past three years, and there are a lot of related studies, but there are relatively few studies on the causes of disorderly parking of shared bikes. In this study, an open questionnaire is used to widely collect the causes of the disorderly parking of shared bicycles from users. Through factor analysis, six factors and 32 criteria for the causes of disorderly parking are constructed. Factor 1 ‘supervision and management of enterprises’; factor 2 ‘supervision and management of users’; factor 3 ‘parking space’; factor 4 ‘guidance of parking shared bikes’; factor 5 ‘user self-discipline’; factor 6 ‘operation and maintenance’. It requires the cooperation of multiple parties to solve the problem of disorderly parking of shared bicycles. Keywords: Free-Floating Bike-sharing Systems; causes of disorderly parking; factor analysis 1. Introduction As global warming intensifies, countries around the world have begun to save energy and reduce emissions to slow down global warming. At the Copenhagen Summit (2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference), the Chinese government made commitment to reduce carbon emissions and then opened the curtain for sustainable development.
    [Show full text]
  • Recommended Short-Term Bicycle Parking Requirements Short Term Bicycle Parking Requirements Use Type Required Bicycle Parking Spaces
    Chapter 7 | PROGRAM & POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS Bicycle Parking Recommendations by Land Use The City of Billings should require bicycle parking by land use, and type of parking. The following suggestions may be incorporated into existing City Municipal Code either within Section 24-601 or as an attachment to the table in Section 6-1203. Off-street parking requirements. Short Term Bicycle Parking - Bicycle parking meant to accommodate visitors, customers, and others expected to depart within two hours. Standard bicycle racks are typically employed as short-term parking. Table 7.5 – Recommended Short-Term Bicycle Parking Requirements Short Term Bicycle Parking Requirements Use Type Required Bicycle Parking Spaces Warehouses, and freight terminals 1 per 5,000 sq ft of floor space Wholesale business 10 percent of required auto parking Food or beverage places with sale and consumption on 10 percent of required auto parking premises Motor vehicle, machinery, plumbing, heating, ventilating, building The greater of 2 or 20 percent of required auto parking material supplies, sales and services Retirement homes and housing projects for the elderly which 1 per 4 employees have received a declaratory ruling from the Montana Human Rights Commission allowing sale or lease of the units exclusively to persons sixty (60) years of age or older Motel and motor courts 1 per 10 rooms Hotels 1 per 10 rooms Hospitals (with less than 100 beds based upon state licensed bed 15 percent of required auto parking count) and institutions Hospitals (with over 100 beds
    [Show full text]
  • Guideline for Bike Rental Transdanube.Pearls Final Draft
    Transdanube.Pearls - Network for Sustainable Mobility along the Danube http://www.interreg-danube.eu/approved-projects/transdanube-pearls Guideline for bike rental Transdanube.Pearls Final Draft WP/Action 3.1 Author: Inštitút priestorového plánovania Version/Date 3.0, 23.11.2017 Document Revision/Approval Version Date Status Date Status 3.0 23/11/2017 Final draft xx.xx.xxxx final Contacts Coordinator: Bratislava Self-governing Region Sabinovská 16, P.O. Box 106 820 05 Bratislava web: www.region-bsk.sk Author: Inštitút priestorového plánovania Ľubľanská 1 831 02 Bratislava web: http://ipp.szm.com More information about Transdanube.Pearls project are available at www.interreg-danube.eu/approved-projects/transdanube-pearls Page 2 of 41 www.interreg-danube.eu/approved-projects/transdanube-pearls Abbreviations BSS Bike Sharing Scheme ECF European Cyclists´ Federation POI Point of Interest PT Public Transport Page 3 of 41 www.interreg-danube.eu/approved-projects/transdanube-pearls Table of content Contacts ..................................................................................................................................................................... 2 Bike Rental ................................................................................................................................................................ 5 Execuive summary ................................................................................................................................................. 5 1. Best practice examples from across
    [Show full text]
  • Cost Analysis of Bicycle Facilities: Cases from Cities in the Portland, OR Region
    Cost Analysis of Bicycle Facilities: Cases from cities in the Portland, OR region FINAL DRAFT Lynn Weigand, Ph.D. Nathan McNeil, M.U.R.P. Jennifer Dill, Ph.D. June 2013 This report was supported by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, through its Active Living Research program. Cost Analysis of Bicycle Facilities: Cases from cities in the Portland, OR region Lynn Weigand, PhD, Portland State University Nathan McNeil, MURP, Portland State University* Jennifer Dill, PhD, Portland State University *corresponding author: [email protected] Portland State University Center for Urban Studies Nohad A. Toulan School of Urban Studies & Planning PO Box 751 Portland, OR 97207-0751 June 2013 All photos, unless otherwise noted, were taken by the report authors. The authors are grateful to the following peer reviewers for their useful comments, which improved the document: Angie Cradock, ScD, MPE, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health; and Kevin J. Krizek, PhD, University of Colorado Boulder. Any errors or omissions, however, are the responsibility of the authors. CONTENTS Executive Summary ................................................................................................................. i Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 3 Bike Lanes................................................................................................................................ 7 Wayfinding Signs and Pavement Markings .................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Exploring Bicycle Options for Federal Lands: Bike Sharing, Rentals and Employee Fleets
    FHWA-WFL/TD-12-001 JANUARY 2012 EXPLORING BICYCLE OPTIONS FOR FEDERAL LANDS: BIKE SHARING, RENTALS AND EMPLOYEE FLEETS Technical Report published by Technology Deployment Program Western Federal Lands Highway Division Federal Highway Administration 610 East 5th St. Vancouver, WA 98661 For more information or additional copies contact: Susan Law, Planning Team Leader [email protected], 360.619.7840 Technical Report Documentation Page 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient’s Catalog No. FHWA-WFL/TD-12-001 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date January 2012 EXPLORING BICYCLE OPTIONS FOR FEDERAL LANDS: BIKE SHARING, RENTALS AND EMPLOYEE FLEETS 6. Performing Organization Code 7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No. Rebecca Gleason, Laurie Miskimins 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) Western Transportation Institute P.O. Box 174250 11. Contract or Grant No. Bozeman, MT 59717-4250 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered Federal Highway Administration Final Report Western Federal Lands Highway Division August 2009 – July 2011 610 East 5th St. Vancouver, WA 98661 14. Sponsoring Agency Code HFL-17 15. Supplementary Notes COTR: Susan Law – FHWA CFLHD/WFLHD. Advisory Panel Members: Adam Schildge – FTA, Alan Turnbull – NPS RTCA, Andrew Duvall, National Science Foundation IGERT PhD student, Brandon Jutz – FWS, Candace Rutt – CDC, Diana Allen – NPS RTCA, Franz Gimmler – non-motorized consultant, Ivan Levin – Outdoor Foundation, Jane D. Wargo – HHS, Jason Martz – NPS, Jim Evans – NPS, Nathan Caldwell – FWS, Paul DeMaio – Bike Share consultant, Tokey Boswell – NPS. This project was funded by the Fish and Wildlife Service Refuge Road Program.
    [Show full text]
  • The Relationship Between Public and Private Bicycle Use: the Case of Seville
    A Service of Leibniz-Informationszentrum econstor Wirtschaft Leibniz Information Centre Make Your Publications Visible. zbw for Economics Castillo-Manzano, José I.; Castro-Nuño, Mercedes; Lopez-Valpuesta, Lourdes Conference Paper The relationship between public and private bicycle use: the case of Seville 55th Congress of the European Regional Science Association: "World Renaissance: Changing roles for people and places", 25-28 August 2015, Lisbon, Portugal Provided in Cooperation with: European Regional Science Association (ERSA) Suggested Citation: Castillo-Manzano, José I.; Castro-Nuño, Mercedes; Lopez-Valpuesta, Lourdes (2015) : The relationship between public and private bicycle use: the case of Seville, 55th Congress of the European Regional Science Association: "World Renaissance: Changing roles for people and places", 25-28 August 2015, Lisbon, Portugal, European Regional Science Association (ERSA), Louvain-la-Neuve This Version is available at: http://hdl.handle.net/10419/124610 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Terms of use: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. personal and scholarly purposes. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle You are not to copy documents for public or commercial Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, If the documents have been made available under an Open gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte.
    [Show full text]
  • Bicycle Facilities Planning
    Bicycle Facilities Planning Overview Bicycle facilities range from conventional bike lanes to coordinated way finding systems, all acting to improve the safety and comfort of bicyclists. This module will review different types of facilities available to jurisdictions to improve their bikeway network. They are drawn from international best practices and this module give an overview of when and how they can be used. There are two separate lectures, one focused on types of facilities and the second focused on bike parking only. Learning Objective: Identify the needs of different types of cyclists Compare types of facilities that are available in a bikeway network Judge which types of facilities are appropriate in different environments Suggested Use _x_Professional Development _x_Graduate Level _x_Undergraduate Time Required __Less than 1 hour __ 1 hour __2-3 hours _x_Half-day Workshop __Full-day Workshop Instructions 1. Announce purposes and give brief overview of the day 2. Give lecture 3. Summarize lecture and discussion 4. Assignment 5. Circulate handouts and evaluations Lecture “Bicycle Facilities Planning” 1. Types of Cyclists 2. Purpose for Riding 3. Types of Facilities a. Bike Lanes b. Bicycle Boulevards (Neighborhood Greenways) c. Cycle Tracks d. Intersections e. Signals f. Signing and Marking 4. Discussion “Bicycle Facilities: Parking” 1. Why Parking? 2. Long term vs. short term 3. Types of racks 4. Placement & installation 5. Other facilities 6. International examples 7. Discussion Materials/Handouts Bike Boulevard Design Assignments and Activities 1. Bike Boulevard Audit 2. Code write up for parking types 3. Op/Ed piece for facility type in community Suggested Readings “Evaluation of Bike Boxes at Signalized Intersections.” (2010) Jennifer Dill.
    [Show full text]