Fact Sheet T-03 – Options for Financing Measures for Cycling Introduction Part of the SUMP Is Recommended to Cling Measures

Home , Cycling infrastructure, Dead end (street)

Fact Sheet T-03 – Options for financing measures for Cycling Introduction part of the SUMP is recommended to cling measures. All options should be defne measures of high priority (more seen as complementary tools. Research has shown that investments impact with less fnancial effort). This Dedicated cycling budget and in bicycle transport are promising in ensures effcient use of a city’s cycling terms of cost-ratio aspects: “Paths and budget and/or funds. Additionally, com- general budget for transport parking facilities for bicycles are far pliance with technical regulations and Promotion of cycling is mainly a task less expensive than for cars. Further- inclusion in a bicycle master plan incre- for municipalities. This includes the more, increased cycle use helps mini- asingly is a requirement when deman- need to provide a budget at the local mise the consequential costs of traffc ding funding. level to improve conditions for cycling. in areas such as environment, health, When deciding on measures to impro- In German cities a budget often only and land use” (Thiemann-Linden et al ve the cycling infrastructure, considera- exists for investments in infrastructure. (2012)). A study from Austria compared tion of low-cost measures as a serious This enables the cycling offcer or cy- infrastructure that can be implemented alternative to cost-intensive reconstruc- cling unit to realize small measures with a budget of 50.000€. The results tion measures is recommended. This without much administrative effort. On are indicated in fgure 1. could include, for example, turning a the other hand it neglects that imple- However, cycling promotion still needs parking lane into a cycle lane and pain- mentation of facilities independent of a solid and sustainable fnancial back- ting pictograms or cycle lanes. major roads and of soft measures can ground to improve local conditions. A This fact sheet includes information be much more cost-effective (e.g. re- cycling master plan as an important about different options for fnancing cy- construction of one accident hot spot vs. campaign for more consideration and respect in traffc). Therefore it is recommended to open dedicated cycling budgets for the implementation of bicycle facilities independent of main streets and for soft measures. Bigger infrastructure projects should generally be funded by the overall budget for investments in infrastructure, where cycling needs should be consi- dered automatically in every infrastructure planning process. It is recommended that the local cycling strategy determines a coherent target network and main cycling routes. Measures of the cycling strategy should be prioritized in implementtion to ensu- re effcient use of available budget. Figure 1: What can you do with 50.000€? - study results from Austria (source: Thiemann-Linden et al (2012)) According to German experiences it can be assumed that expenditure of ci- shopping centre. Investors have to pro- increase the visibility of cyclists. At the ties for cycling issues range from 0,8€ vide a certain amount of car parking fa- same time they help reduce vehicular to 8€ per inhabitant and year. This me- cilities. Similar regulations should apply speeds since the advisory cycle lanes rely includes money for construction, for bicycle parking, too. leaves a smaller core lane for cars wi- maintenance and operation of cycling thout a centre marking. Many cities in infrastructure. Only very few cities now Low-cost measures the Czech Republic started implemen- also have a continuous budget for pub- Integrating cycling infrastructure into tation of so-called pictogram corridors, lic relations for bicycle transport. existing road networks must not be ex- which are similar to advisory lanes. pensive. Some measures with low costs External funding opportunities Communities have the possibility to conditions for cycling and at the same systematically apply for European and time improve safety for all road users: national funding. The opportunities for Speed 30 zones: Secondary roads funding bicycle promotion are not limi- often provide very good pre-conditions ted to transport-related programmes. - Figure 3: Pictogram corridor Pardubice (J. Schubert) - prove road safety and the attractiven- ronment and for health, it can also be ess of the environment the implementa- Provide shortcuts for cyclists: Ope- included in projects that consider sus- tion of speed 30 zones is very valuable. ning pedestrian zones is controversally tainable development, climate change, In Dresden - and in most German cities discussed in Germany. However, it easily- energy or health issues. - most streets of the secondary network provides good acccess to city centres for In the Czech Republic, Slovakia and have a speed limit of 30km/h. The net- cyclists. The opening of one-way streets Poland there are possibilities for ac- work of main roads (intersection density and dead-end streets enables cyclists to quiring funds from the state, which can approx. 500m) has a regular speed limit reach destinations without detours. be (e.g. in Poland) connected with the of 50km/h. More details on Speed 30 Bicycle street: On bicycle streets, requirement to develop a SUMP (Sus- zones can be found in CMB fact sheet bicycles have priority to cars, which tainable Urban Mobility Plan). Therefo- are only allowed, when a special sign re, it is up to the communities, whether is installed. The initial implementation or European requirements. resources. Costs only arise through the Alternative possibilities for acquiring funds are different approaches to in- ternalise some external costs of car fees for car use and parking are used for cycling investments, as well as for Figure 2: Speed 30 zone in Graz (Jan Schubert) public transportation. Markings: Advisory cycle lanes on is the engagement of private investors. single lane roads with limited lorry traf- This is especially useful for providing bicycle parking facilities near newly - constructed public buildings such as a nancial resources. Advisory cycle lanes Figure 4: Bicycle street in Leipzig (Tomas Cach) Lessons learned:

municipal budget or external funding. Cycling infrastructure can easily be developed by using low-cost measures such as markings or opening shortcuts for cyclists. Also secondary network can be converted into good cycling infrasructure

For further resources, links and best practice examples pleasevisit the visit Sustainable the Central Urban MeetBike Transport Project website: http://wwwhttp://www.sutp.org/.centralmeetbike.eu

Central MeetBike is implemented through the CENTRAL Sources / Further literature: Bushwell, Max; Poole, Bryan; Zegeer, Charles; Rodriguez, Daniel: Costs for Pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure improvements - a resource for researchers, engineers, planners and the general public. UNC Highway Safety Contact: Jan Schubert / Dr. Frank Ließke (after September Research Center. Chapel Hill. 2013. 2014) Tel.: +49 351 463-390 44 / +49 351 465-366 68 Deffner, Jutta; Ziel, Torben; Hefter, Thomas; Rudolph, Christian (eds.): “Handbook on Cycling Inclusive Planning Email: [email protected] / and Promotion”. Capacity development material for the multiplier training within the Mobil2020 project. Frankfurt/ [email protected] Hamburg. 2012. Prof. Dr.-Ing. Gerd-Axel Ahrens, Jan Contributing authors: Thiemann-Linden, Jörg; Mettenberger, Tobias, Wiechmann, Susanne (ed.): - Schubert, Kevin Vincent structure”. Cycling Expertise A-07. Berlin. German Institute of Urban Affairs (DIfU) GmbH. 2012. Photo: Jan Schubert