 |
 |
Hello Steve, At the seminar in Guildford last week, John Parkin and Jane Hunter (University of Bolton) gave a paper that showed quite clearly that hilliness was a major component of effort, and that more effort correlated closely with less cycling. John suggested, however, that that needn't be the end of the story, and that there is engineering work to do to find solutions. He noted, for example, that highway engineers are constrained in terms of the grades they can specify for motorways. I would agree with Richard's reply that Portland, Oregon, may be the best city for making the case. San Francisco, famous for its hills, has been making significant efforts to accommodate cyclists, but has not yet broken into the national rankings. Ditto Seattle, which has an enthusiastic cycling culture, and is quite hilly, but which can't yet boast great mode share for bikes. There are other places in the states that have made a virtue out of proximity to hilly or mountainous terrain to promote cycling more generally. For example, Boulder, Colorado, ranks very highly for cycling accommodation. Although the city itself is not "hilly", it sits on sloping terrain at the very foot of the Rocky Mountains. A great part of its beauty and enduring appeal is access to rugged mountain country. Ditto Durango, Colorado, and Moab, Utah, which are meccas for off-road riders. Another approach might be to argue for the recreational, tourism, adventure travel, and economic development spin-offs from investment in cycling accommodation. For a well documented case study of that approach (albeit from the very flat Outer Banks of North Carolina), see this paper: http://atfiles.org/files/pdf/NCbikeinvest.pdf. It describes remarkably quick payback from infrastructure investment. Build it and they will come. Most of the League of American Bicyclists' "Bicycle Friendly Communities" that I'm familiar with are quite flat, though I'm not familiar with every one of them. (See: http://www.bicyclefriendlycommunity.org/Images/bfc_pdf_pages/bicycle_friendl y_community_case_study.pdf) Hope this is helpful, David Patton Cambridge On 9/12/07 7:43 PM, "Paul Rosen" <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: [UTSG] Cycling and Terrain > Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 16:44:59 +0100 > From: Steve Melia <[log in to unmask]> > Reply-To: Steve Melia <[log in to unmask]> > To: [log in to unmask] > > > > Does anyone know of an example of a city or town with a hilly terrain > which has nonetheless succeeded in achieving a relatively high modal share > for cycling? > > This question arose in discussion with a transport planner in Plymouth who > said one problem he frequently encounters is the view that it is a waste > of time promoting cycling there because of the terrain. I have heard > variations on the same argument in other circumstances. > > Clearly terrain does exert a strong influence on propensities to cycle - > some studies have attempted to quantify this (eg Rodriguez & Joo). Some > cities such as Freiburg are deceptive in this respect, because they are > surrounded by mountains but the vast majority of the urban area where > cycling takes place is flat. > > Is anyone aware of an example which would help my Plymouth contact to > refute that argument? > > Steve Melia > University of the West of England > > RODRIGUEZ, D.A. and JOO, J., 2004. The relationship between non-motorized > mode choice and the local physical environment. Transportation Research > Part D: Transport and Environment, 9(2), pp. 151-173. > >