Technical University of Munich – Professor for Modeling Spatial Mobility Prof. Dr.-Ing. Rolf Moeckel Arcisstraße 21, 80333 München, www.msm.bgu.tum.de Master’s Thesis The Effects of the Design and Land-Use Diversity of the Built Environment on Cycling in Munich Author: Thomas M. Scriba Supervision: Prof. Dr.-Ing. Rolf Moeckel Date of Submission: March 19, 2018 Declaration I hereby confirm that this thesis is presented for the degree of Master of Science in Transportation Systems at the Technical University of Munich (Technische Universität München). This thesis has been composed entirely by myself and is based solely on the results of my own work, unless stated otherwise. No other person’s work has been used without due acknowledgement. This thesis has not been submitted for any other degree or professional qualification. ________________________________ Thomas M. Scriba ABSTRACT This thesis investigates the influences the built environment in Munich has on the rates of cycling exhibited by the various 25 city districts. As cities strive to reduce congestions and commute times, many of them, including Munich, have looked to the bicycle as a solution. Previous research shows that increased shared of cycling are associated with better living conditions and lower rates of air pollution. The City of Munich has done much to support cycling in recent decades. Cycling infrastructure has been built up, routes throughout the city marked with new signage, pavement marking improved to increase motorists’ awareness, and organizations supporting cycling have run publicity and informational campaigns and events to raise the public profile of cycling. This thesis utilizes a mixed-method approach combining a quantitative analysis of geographic built environment and demographic/social data with a qualitative study comprised of field surveys in 6 of the 25 districts. Stepwise multiple linear regression is used to determine the various influences the different dimensions of the built environment could have on the modal share of cycling by using geographic and demographic data describing each of the 25 districts along with the modal split information for each district. The field surveys throughout the city were recording and tracked as they followed preplanned routes to capture the various cycling experiences across the city. The findings of both the quantitative and qualitative study are brought together in a synthesis of both methods to combine the findings for a more comprehensive perspective of why certain areas of the city might have higher rates of cycling than others. While no causal connections between any of the aspects of the built environment and the modal share of cycling could be made due to the design of the study, associations between the accessibility to common destinations, the density of built-up development, and certain aspects of the road network could be drawn. The qualitative study supplemented the findings of the quantitative study by showing the importance of park and green areas throughout the city as well as the quality and design of the cycling infrastructure along roads and sidewalks in Munich. i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would first like to thank my supervisor, Professor Rolf Moeckel, who was immensely helpful throughout the entire process: organizing my thoughts into a valid research topic at the beginning, generating the thesis’ study design and carrying it out, analyzing the results, and generally pushing me along to keep up with the timeline. Without his guidance, this work would not exist. I would also like to thank Dr. Ana Tsui Moreno Chou of the Research Group of Modeling Spatial Mobility and Dipl. Ing. Uta Zimmerman of the City of Munich’s Ministry for Health and the Environment (Referat für Gesundheit und Umwelt, Landeshauptstadt München), for providing additional data which helped support this study. A very special thank you to Cat Silva, a fellow of the MOBIL.LAB at the University, for agreeing to be a second reader of my thesis. Finally, I could not be more grateful to Jasmin and my family. Your encouragement, motivation, and support made it possible for me to get to this point in the first place, and for me to be able to stay focused and write this thesis to conclude my studies. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1 2 Conceptual Framework ................................................................................................................... 4 2.1 The Mixed-Method Approach ................................................................................................. 4 2.1.1 Quantitative study ........................................................................................................... 5 2.1.2 Qualitative study ............................................................................................................. 6 2.1.3 Synthesis of Results ......................................................................................................... 6 3 Background and Literature Review ................................................................................................. 6 3.1 Munich, Bavaria, and Germany ............................................................................................... 7 3.1.1 Transport in Munich ........................................................................................................ 9 3.1.2 Cycling in Munich .......................................................................................................... 15 3.2 The Built Environment and Cycling ....................................................................................... 20 4 Quantitative Study Methodology and Results .............................................................................. 22 4.1 Datasets and Variables .......................................................................................................... 23 4.1.1 Built Environment Variables .......................................................................................... 26 4.1.2 Demographic and Social Variables ................................................................................ 37 4.2 Quantitative Study Analysis Methods ................................................................................... 38 4.2.1 The Variable Trimming Process ..................................................................................... 38 4.2.2 Stepwise Multiple Regression Analysis ......................................................................... 42 4.2.3 Further Quantitative Analysis ........................................................................................ 44 4.2.4 Variables of Interest Analysis ........................................................................................ 46 4.3 Quantitative Study Results .................................................................................................... 48 5 Qualitative Study Methodology and Results ................................................................................. 50 5.1 The District Selection Process ............................................................................................... 51 5.1.1 The Districts Included in the Qualitative Study ............................................................. 52 5.2 Field Survey Methodology ..................................................................................................... 58 5.2.1 Planning the Field Survey Routes .................................................................................. 58 5.2.2 Performing the Field Surveys ........................................................................................ 59 5.2.3 Interesting Aspects of the Built Environment ............................................................... 61 5.3 Qualitative Study Results....................................................................................................... 61 5.3.1 Field Survey 1: Schwabing-West ................................................................................... 62 5.3.2 Field Survey 2: Sendling ................................................................................................. 63 5.3.3 Field Survey 3: Berg am Laim ........................................................................................ 64 5.3.4 Field Survey 4: Pasing-Obermenzing ............................................................................. 65 5.3.5 Field Survey 5: Thalkirchen-Obersendling-Forstenried-Fürstenried-Solln (TOFFS) ....... 66 5.3.6 Field Survey 6: Feldmoching-Hasenbergl ...................................................................... 68 iii 5.3.7 Synthesis of Field Survey Results ................................................................................... 69 6 Discussion and Conclusions ........................................................................................................... 74 6.1 Limitations of the Study and Recommendations for Improvement ..................................... 74 6.2 Synthesis of Results and Conclusions .................................................................................... 76 6.3 Recommendations for Future Research ................................................................................ 79 7 References ..................................................................................................................................... 81 8 Appendices ..................................................................................................................................