Cycling inequalities in Copenhagen : Strategies and policies Léo Couturier Lopez Urban Studies Master's (Two-Year) Thesis 30 Credits Semester 4 / 2021 Supervisor: Elnaz Sarkheyli Abstract The bike, once relegated to a neglected, dangerous, and less efficient means of transport compared to cars, has seen its role and is images being reinforced all around the world. However, despite its intrinsic characteristic of being easily accessible, the cycling practice is not value-free. It embodies and reproduces inequalities that cross our societies. The transportation justice research framework investigates conditions to access this sustainable means of transportation insofar of our needs. As such, my research questions the capacity of the municipality of Copenhagen to address mobility justice challenges in cycling practices. First, I investigated this question by analyzing two main types of documents: A national travel survey, disaggregated at the scale of the greater Copenhagen, and strategic documents made by the municipality to evaluate their progress in developing the cycling practice. Then, I ran a set of expert semi-structured interviews to explore what I observed in the documents. The results showed that behind the outstanding numbers, the cycling strategies and visions focus essentially on the commuters and exclude other groups. It limits the cycling practices to the productivity sphere, ensuring an efficient mode of transport to work or education. Despite a gender gap non-existent in biking, the study showed strong differences in cycling patterns. More surprisingly the highest income groups are the ones that cycle the most, but they also drive their car the most as they live predominantly in the suburbs. The cycling practice is also plateauing, may be decreasing. I conclude with a call for diversifying the types of cycle mobility that would take better take into consideration the different needs. In order to maintain a high level of cycling in the Capital, the strategies and policies of cycling should be overseen at the metropolitan scale with a clear structure or institution defining goals and visions. Key words: Cycling practices; Mobility Justice, Policies, and strategies. 2 Acknowledgment I would first like to thank my thesis advisor, Senior Lecturer Elnaz Sarkheyli at Malmö University. She managed to keep me on the right tracks by providing me rightful advises and encouragement. She consistently allowed this paper to be my own work but steered me in the right the direction whenever he thought I needed it. I would also like to thank the experts who were involved in the interviews of this research project: Thomas Sick Nieslen, Marianna Weinreich, Pernille Bussone. Their insights and sometimes passion about the field of mobility made these interviews more than just a method of data collection. I would also like to acknowledge Natalie Gulsrud from Copenhagen University for her very valuable comments on this thesis and hope our collaboration will go further. Finally, I must express my very profound gratitude to my flat mates for providing me with unfailing support and continuous encouragement throughout the difficult months of study and through the process of researching and writing this thesis. This accomplishment would not have been possible without them. Thank you. 3 Table of Contents 1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 8 1.1 Background ............................................................................................................................... 8 1.2 Research question .................................................................................................................... 11 1.3 Aim of the study ...................................................................................................................... 11 1.4 Previous research ..................................................................................................................... 12 1.5 Layout ...................................................................................................................................... 14 2 Theory ............................................................................................................................................. 15 2.1 Mobility Justice ....................................................................................................................... 15 2.1.1 The modern mobility ....................................................................................................... 15 2.1.2 Mobility Justice ............................................................................................................... 15 2.1.3 The “Right to the City” for a just city? ............................................................................ 17 3 The object of study .......................................................................................................................... 18 4 Methodology ................................................................................................................................... 19 4.1 Secondary data sources ............................................................................................................ 20 4.1.1 City of Copenhagen: Green Mobility .............................................................................. 20 4.1.2 City of Copenhagen’s budget: a city for everyone (En By for Alle) ................................ 20 4.1.3 City of Copenhagen: Cycle Superhighways .................................................................... 20 4.1.4 City of Copenhagen & Decisio: Effects of lower car use ................................................ 21 4.1.5 Denmark Statistic ............................................................................................................ 21 4.1.6 Gender studies by Ramboll ............................................................................................. 22 4.1.7 Danish National Travel Survey ....................................................................................... 22 4.1.8 Bicycle account 2018 (published in 2019) Copenhagen Municipality ............................ 25 5 Analysis ........................................................................................................................................... 26 5.1 The recontextualization of the cycling practice ....................................................................... 26 5.2 Spatial inequalities between the Greater Copenhagen and Copenhagen Municipality ........... 28 5.2.1 Statistics ........................................................................................................................... 28 5.2.2 Cycling policies and strategies ........................................................................................ 31 5.2.3 Interviews ........................................................................................................................ 33 5.3 Gender ..................................................................................................................................... 33 4 5.3.1 Statistics ........................................................................................................................... 33 5.3.2 Cycling policies and strategies ........................................................................................ 36 5.3.3 Interviews ........................................................................................................................ 36 5.4 Income ..................................................................................................................................... 36 5.4.1 Statistics ........................................................................................................................... 36 5.4.2 Cycling policies and strategies ........................................................................................ 38 5.4.3 Interviews ........................................................................................................................ 39 5.5 Age .......................................................................................................................................... 39 5.5.1 Statistics ........................................................................................................................... 39 5.5.2 Cycling policies and strategies ........................................................................................ 40 5.5.3 Interviews ........................................................................................................................ 42 5.6 Occupation ............................................................................................................................... 42 5.6.1 Statistics ........................................................................................................................... 42 5.6.2 Cycling policies and strategies ........................................................................................ 44 5.6.3 Interviews ........................................................................................................................ 44 5.7 Analysis summary ................................................................................................................... 45 6 Discussion ......................................................................................................................................