Recycling Europe

(1)

RECYCLING EUROPE

On the effectiveness of cycling policies and the interplay between

urban, national and European levels of policymaking

Master Thesis Max Lugtenborg

European Studies – Governing Europe Universiteit van Amsterdam

(2)

Recycling Europe

On the effectiveness of cycling policies and the interplay between urban, national and European levels of policymaking

MA Thesis in European Studies Graduate School for Humanities Universiteit van Amsterdam Max Lugtenborg

10070737

max.lugtenborg@student.uva.nl Main Supervisor: Dr. G. J.A. Snel Second Supervisor: Prof. J.T. Leerssen

(3)

1. Introduction

“Our struggle for global sustainability will be won or lost in cities” – Ban Ki-Moon

Cities nowadays find themselves at the forefront of many of our major challenges. The biggest problems facing Europe today, i.e. flows of migrants, terrorism or climate change, appear most acute in its cities. Because it’s at these sites that these challenges become urgent and empirical, cities can and have to act on them. Their governments are directly confronted with these issues and therefore have more practical knowledge. Therefore, they prove more capable to act than their national counterparts (Sassen, 2012). National governments prove rather reluctant in tackling these issues, due to great internal ideological differences. Cities on the other hand are pragmatic and their governments consist of problem solvers (Vermeulen, 2013).

Cities today are rapidly becoming powerful and omnipresent factors in European and global politics. Although diplomacy is traditionally linked to the nation states, cities now find themselves increasingly capable of organising their own foreign contacts, through processes of globalization and Europeanization, independently from their respective nation states (Heinelt & Niederhafner, 2008). The European Union, at the same time, struggles with a democratic deficit and the rise of Eurosceptic voices throughout the entire continent. The discussion that appears dominant is about the question of whether we want more or less European integration. This question proves to be deeply ideological and moreover one we cannot simply solve. It is my personal conviction that we’ve reached a dead end. I therefore feel we should leave the more/less discussion and start thinking about a different kind of European integration (New Pact for Europe, 2013).

Inspired by Benjamin Barber and Ulrike Guèrot, I think more value might have to be attached to the important role cities can play in a future European system. Barber argues that cities, and the mayors that run them, offer the best forces of good governance. As national governments are unable to fully collaborate, due to issues with borders and sovereignty, he declares the nation state to be dysfunctional and obsolete. Cities, on the contrary, do not have to deal with these issues and are the primary sources of cultural, social and political innovation. Barber therefore pleads for a Global Parliament of Mayors (Barber, 2013). Guérot also suggests moving away from the question of more or less European integration, as Member States, according to her, keep hanging on to their national interests, which resists European cooperation. Although her initial focus lies on regions, rather than cities, her argument attaches a significant weight to cities as well. She argues that Europe should be subdivided into smaller sections that can better connect to

(5)

urban needs and interests. This would provide Europe with the legitimacy it currently lacks (Guérot, 2015). These ideas are rather radical but might be used as inspiration.

Popular trust in European administrators is low, whereas citizens feel far more confidence towards their local policymakers. This recently has sparked a renewed interest in cities from the European Union. The Union increasingly acknowledges the value of cities as potential partners for addressing European problems and achieving the EU’s big-picture goals. Although subnational authorities are relevant actors in the EU participatory governance system, they’re not formally represented in any Union institution. This is in contrast to their national counterparts, who find themselves represented in the Council. With the introduction of the Urban Agenda for the EU, the EU now seems to acknowledge the role of cities. Through various partnerships, the programme aims to involve cities and ensure that they get their say in European policymaking. Legislation needs to better reflect urban needs, practices and responsibilities. These partnerships focus on improving regulation, funding and the exchange of knowledge (Urban Agenda for the EU, 2016).

In the wake of this trend, the European Union just now starts to develop an active interest in cycling (European Ministers for Transport, 2015). As cycling is connected to a wide variety of benefits, ranging from the environment and people’s health to the economy and social inclusion, the conviction exists that the promotion of cycling can make a significant contribution to various EU objectives, such as the Europe 2020 targets regarding employment or climate change (EU Cycling Strategy, 2017). Policy in cycling belongs to the responsibilities of local governments and subsequently formally falls outside of the competences of the European Union. However, cities might benefit from coordinated EU action in this area. To this day, the Union lacks such coordinated action.

Research questions

This thesis first of all tries to answer the question of why a European policy in this area is practically non-existent. Would such policy perhaps be ineffective or are cities simply more capable of doing this themselves? And how should we interpret this sudden interest of the EU in cycling? These questions will be answered through the examination of three well-known European bicycle-friendly cities, namely Amsterdam, Copenhagen and Berlin. Their bicycle policies will be thoroughly analysed and subsequently related to a potential European policy concerning the matter. It will become clear what European interference in this area could bring to the table.

The main question of this thesis, however, concerns the relationship and possible tension between urban and European policymaking. In order to formulate an answer, the findings of the former questions will be placed into a broader discussion on the European

(6)

project. Is it possible or desirable to think of a future European Union paying more attention to cities?

Thesis structure

The thesis will be structured as follows: first a theoretical framework will be outlined, clarifying European Union policymaking and its governing principles. Then, a short chapter will explain the method used for analysing the various case studies. Subsequently, an in-depth analysis will be made of the cycling policies in Amsterdam, Copenhagen and Berlin. Also, the current opportunities and possibilities for cycling in Union policy will be explained. In the final chapters, the findings regarding cycling policy will be placed into the broader discussion on European integration.

(7)

2. Theoretical framework

Our understanding of European Union policymaking is largely shaped by theory. An understanding of the main EU related theories is therefore necessary. Pollack identifies three main strands: theories of European integration and their implications for policymaking; theories focusing on the federal aspects of the European Union; and theories examining the governance approach towards the Union (Pollack, 2005). Taken together, these theories provide various distinctive questions and hypotheses about the key actors and the dominant processes of EU policymaking. These can be used to analyse the participants, processes and policies that can be observed in the European Union. A main theory about European integration might not exist. Instead EU policymaking may differ considerably across various issue areas.

2. 1 Theories of European integration

The European project has been examined through multiple approaches. The main debate has been that between the neo-functionalists and the intergovernmentalists.

Neo-functionalism

The process of European integration initially was explained by neo-functionalists. Neo-functionalist theory, elaborated by Ernst Haas among other scholars (Haas, 1961; Lindberg, 1963; Lindberg & Scheingold, 1970) observed a process of functional spillover. Spillover refers to the mechanism by which integration in one area creates the conditions and incentives for integration in a related policy area. For example, the decision by European governments to place a certain sector, such as coal and steel, under the authority of a central governing body could only be fully achieved by also integrating transport policies (Rosamond, 2000). Neo-functionalists therefore predicted that sectoral integration would subsequently produce unintended and unforeseen consequences and would promote further integration in related policy areas (Pollack, 2005). George identified a second strand of spillover processes, which he called ‘political spillover’. At subnational level, interest groups operating in an integrated sector would have to interact with the supranational body charged with the management of the sector. Over time, these groups would come to appreciate the benefits from integration and transfer their loyalties from their national governments to the supranational authority. Political spillover therefore implies pressure for further integration created by both supranational as subnational actors (George, 1996).

(8)

An important contribution of neo-functionalism to the study of Union policymaking is the conceptualization of the so-called Community-method, which emphasises the role of European institutions in the decision-making process. EU policymaking hereby is pictured as a process driven by an entrepreneurial Commission. This image was prominent up onto the mid 1960s. By then, however, the French president Charles de Gaulle started reaffirming the importance of state sovereignty and questioning the Community method. The Commission appeared weak by this confrontation and the nation state all the more stronger. Neo-functionalism became criticized for assuming a degree of automatism and failing to account for less cooperative Member States (Eilstrup-Sangiovanni, 2006). A new school of European integration theory emerged, stressing this obstinate character of the Member States.

(Liberal) intergovernmentalism

Most obviously with de Gaulle, but later with the accession of new EU members, such as the UK, Ireland and Denmark, Member State governments made clear that they would resist the gradual transfer of sovereignty to the European Community (Pollack, 2005). The primacy of the nation states would determine European decision-making. The view that national governments, rather than a supranational body, played the central role in the European project became dominant (Milward, 2000). This intergovernmentalist view found intergovernmental bargaining to be at the heart of policy-making. The integration process was re-launched in the 1980s, which revived neo-functionalism for some. However, others, most prominently Moravcsik, argued that these steps forward could be accounted for by a revised intergovernmental model. Moravcsik combined liberal domestic theory with an intergovernmentalist view at European level into his liberal intergovernmentalism (Pollack, 2005). In other words, this implies that nation states internally decide on their national preferences and take these to the European bargaining table. The outcomes reflect the relative power of each Member State (Moravcsik, 1993).

2.2 Multi-level governance and Europeanization

In the literature on European integration, the main focus used to be on the above-described ‘old’ integration theories, borrowed from international relations theory. As they are mostly concerned with the interaction between European institutions and nation states, these theories do not pose a complete picture. For instance, they fail to take sufficiently into account the role of local authorities or non-governmental stakeholders in the decision-making process. More recently another strand of thought has gained prominence. The

(9)

multi-level governance approach states that EU decision-making rests at a number of different levels and that subnational actors also play a key role.

Multi-level governance

The theory of multi-level governance was developed by Hooghe and Marks and resulted from their research on new structures put into place by the 1992 Maastricht Treaty. They describe the concept as “a system of continuous negotiation among nested governments at several territorial tiers – supranational, national, regional and local” (Hooghe & Marks, 2003). The emergence of the European version of multi-level governance is the result of a broad process of a reallocation of decision-making, which has pulled some former functions and responsibilities of the national governments up to the level of the supranational and some down to the regional or local (Marks, 1993). Central governments in the 1990s were losing decision-making power both to the Commission as to local governments. The Commission played a key role in designing and implementing funds while local authorities gained importance through reforms in European funding (Pollack, 2005).

Multi-level governance theorists observe that supranational, national and sub-national levels of government are interconnected. Political developments at one level have an impact on the other levels. In this view, developments on subnational level, for instance on urban level, can have a profound impact on the speed and shape of European integration (Nugent, 2010). Many regional governments now have taken a pro-active stance in European policy-making, some having permanent offices in Brussels and some being part of delegations in the Council (Marks, Hooghe & Blank, 1996).

However, the role of subnational actors should not be overestimated. Local and regional governments aren’t formally represented in the European decision-making process yet. The treaties do not acknowledge them as an official part. National governments still take on an important role in European policymaking, for instance through the Council, whereas local authorities are mostly conceived as being advisory. Though, the EU does value the involvement of local and regional authorities, and for a number of reasons. First of all, nearly 70% of all EU decisions are executed on the local level. Second, local authorities are more in touch with the European citizens. Involving them in policymaking can contribute to mitigating the Union’s democratic deficit. Furthermore, local governments can help adapting EU policies to regional differences. Finally, subsidiarity is one of the foundational principles of the European Union (Committee of the Regions, 2009).

(10)

Europeanization

Related to the multi-level governance tradition is the concept of Europeanization. This refers to the process whereby EU institutions and their policies influence national and subnational institutions and policies within the Member States, for instance by instilling norms (Pollack, 2005). Earlier literature on Europeanization focused mostly on the top-down effects of the EU on its Member States and regional or local governments. The latter would only come into action in the implementation phase (Ward & Williams, 1997; Kern, 2007). In recent years, however, more attention is given to the bottom-up aspect of Europeanization. Subnational governments are herein conceptualized as spaces for politics that can influence European policy through active lobbying and representation of interests (Carter & Pasquier, 2010). This coincides with recent developments of valuing the importance of involving cities in the European decision-making process.

Open method of coordination

The 2008 economic crisis exposed the weaknesses in the European Union system of governance. It renewed the debate about intergovernmentalism and supranationalism. In addition to that, social and educational questions increasingly gained attention on European level, issues usually left to the competences of the individual Member States. These developments brought into question the further use of soft intergovernmental methods, such as the Open Method of Coordination (OMC).

OMC was formally introduced in Lisbon in 2000 and can be seen as a method of soft governance over policy areas that do not necessarily fall under EU competences, but under partial or sometimes full competences of the Member States. The aim is to achieve convergence towards EU objectives. Rather than on binding rules, OMC relies on the establishment of certain guidelines, indicators, benchmarks and targets. However, OMC has been criticised for bringing about a greater pressure than the apparent soft nature of governance the regulatory instrument implies. ‘Peer pressure’ and ‘naming and shaming’ are terms often used in this respect (European Parliamentary Research Service, 2014). 2.3 Urban dimension

The multi-level governance system of the EU does not (yet) acknowledge cities as formal actors in the European policymaking process. However, a renewed interest in the importance of cities can be observed.

The process of Europeanization implies the opening-up of a new political area, in which cities can gain prominence. It presents cities with new challenges, through

(11)

participate in the multi-level governance system and gain a growing independence from their respective national states. Cities can become prominent in EU policymaking by providing European institutions with knowledge and legitimacy (Heinelt & Niederhafner, 2008). This way, the multi-level system can provide cities with opportunities to pursue their interests. In practice it can be difficult, however, for individual cities to become successful at European level. This has lead to the creation of umbrella organizations, of which EUROCITIES is the most important, representing collective urban interests. The organisation tries to influence European legislation and policy, on behalf of cities and in consultation with European institutions. In addition, through six thematic forums, EUROCITIES offers its members a platform for exchanging knowledge and ideas. The organisation nowadays is seen as an important partner for the EU in achieving its objectives (EUROCITIES, 2016).

Urban Agenda for the EU

In an effort to further strengthen the urban dimension by European and national policy actors, the EU in 2016 has launched the Urban Agenda for the EU. As Union legislation to a large extent is implemented in urban areas and because urban areas are among the key beneficiaries of EU funding, the Urban Agenda strives to involve urban governments in achieving better regulation, better funding, and better knowledge exchange. The EU hereby wants to ensure that European cities get their say in policymaking. It aims to promote cooperation between the Commission, Member States, cities and other stakeholders. Through the Urban Agenda, the Commission has set up strategic thematic partnerships in order to improve Union legislation to better reflect urban needs, practices and responsibilities. The idea is that these partnerships eventually produce a number of action points aimed at improving Union legislation. If a partnership is able to attain broad support for its action points, these could be transferred into legislation. In addition, the Urban Agenda functions as a one-stop-shop for cities to find guidance for the different policies and instruments in place (Urban Agenda for the EU, 2016).

Each partnership is composed on average of about 15 to 20 partners and consists of the Commission, other EU organisations (such as the European Investment Bank or Committee of the Regions), cities, Member States, experts, umbrella organisations (such as EUROCITIES or the Council of European Municipalities), and relevant non-governmental stakeholders. Cycling is made one of the three key parts of the strategic partnership on urban mobility. Although the partnerships created through the Urban Agenda are not yet formally represented in the European decision-making process, it does provide a platform for cities to gain more influence within the multi-level governance system of the European Union.

(12)

2.4 Governing principles

The Treaty on the European Union (TEU), created in Maastricht in 1992 and amended through the 2007 Treaty of Lisbon, is one of the primary treaties of the European Union. It sets out the Union’s general principles and forms the basis of EU law. With respect to the limits of its powers, the principles of conferral, subsidiarity and proportionality are set forth in Article 5 of the Treaty.

Conferral

The principle of conferral governs the limits of the Union’s competences. This entails that the European Union can only act within the limits of the competences conferred upon it by the Member States. These competences are determined in the Treaties and can only serve to attain the objectives set out herein. The remaining competences not conferred upon the Union stay with the individual Member States (European Union, 2012a). The competences are laid out in Articles 2-6 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). There are four types of competences conferred upon the EU. First, there are the exclusive competences, in which only the EU can intervene. These are for instance the customs union and trade policy. Second, the competences that are shared between the EU and the Member States. These entail that Member States can only act if the EU has chosen not to and include for example cohesion policy and the environment. The third type refers to the EU setting up certain arrangements within which Member States must coordinate policy. The EU provides broad guidelines, as in the case of economic policy. Finally, the EU has competence to support, coordinate or supplement Member State actions, for instance in the areas of culture and tourism (European Union, 2012b). Urban matters, traditionally, do not belong to the competences of the European Union.

Subsidiarity

Subsidiarity complements the principle of conferral. It compels the Union to only intervene in areas that do not necessarily fall within its exclusive competences, if and in so far as these objectives cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States. The Union may act in case the proposed action, by reason of scale or effects, can be better achieved at European level, rather than at national, regional or local level (European Union, 2012a). The principle of subsidiarity ensures that decisions are made as closely as possible to the European citizens and that checks are continuously carried out in order to justify these decisions. To this end, national parliaments are encouraged to get involved in EU activities. Proposals are forwarded to them to be examined before any Council decision.

(13)

of all legislative drafts (European Union, 2012b). Subsidiarity and multi-level governance depend on each other: the first implies the responsibilities of various levels of government while the latter emphasises their interaction (Committee of the Regions, 2009).

Proportionality

The principle of proportionality binds European institutions to not exceed the objectives laid down in the Treaties with the content and form of its actions. In other words, actions of the European Union must be limited to what is necessary to achieve the objectives of the Treaties (European Union, 2012a).

(14)

3. Method

3.1 Policy effectiveness

From compliance to application

In order to assess the performance of cycling policies implemented in the various case studies, different factors will be analysed. To this end, tools borrowed from international regime theory will be used, in order to measure the effectiveness of policy. Policy implementation is hereby understood as the process leading towards behavioural change. The process of policy implementation, thus, ranges from making policy to experiencing actual behavioural changes as a result from the policy. To evaluate this process, three different factors will be taken into account. Taken together, these factors can accurately assess the process from compliance to application. Compliance, in this sense, refers to the incorporation of a certain policy, whereas application is about whether the ends specified by this policy are actually achieved (Skjaerseth & Wettestad, 2002). The main question, therefore, is: how can we measure what has been achieved and how can we relate these achievements to some standard of what can be achieved? Concerning these questions, different points in the policy implementation chain will be analysed, represented by two main dimensions: output and outcome. Output refers to actual policy. Outcome is about behavioural changes of those subjected to this policy (Skjaerseth & Wettestad, 2002). Any complete assessment of effective policy requires causal inference between output and outcome. Therefore, usually a third dimension is added. Impact concerns this question of causality. This is important in order to understand whether it’s the policy in question, or other unrelated factors that have caused the behavioural changes. This poses a difficult challenge, due to the simple fact that this causality is hard to measure through hard data. Therefore, the impact dimension is left out of this research. For the scope of this thesis, merely output and outcome will be sufficient.

Output

Policy output is relatively easy to measure, as it refers to actual policy measures. With regards to cycling policy, we should take into account material as well as immaterial measures. Material measures hereby refer to physical interventions and investments in cycling infrastructure, whereas the immaterial refers to actions in the field of education, communication and information (Harms, Bertolini & Te Brömmelstroet, 2016). For example, material measures could include the provision of cycling lanes or routes or the improvement of bicycle parking facilities. Immaterial measures, on the other hand, could

(15)

Government spending can also be regarded as an output of cycling policy, as it can be seen as a translation of strategies into action through investments in cycling matters. However, due to overlap of different projects on different levels, it can be complex to determine the true amount of expenditures on cycling. Therefore, any given amount in this thesis represents the minimum amount spend on cycling.

Outcome

The outcome of policy is slightly harder to measure. Regarding cycling policies, we can subdivide the matter into short-term and long-term policy outcome. Short-term is mostly evaluated through the percentage of trips shifted from motorized vehicles to bicycles, whereas long-term often includes changes in car ownership and improved safety records. Long-term cycling policy outcome is hard to measure as other potential outcome factors, like health or liveability, are difficult to quantify (Handy, Van Wee & Kroesen, 2014; Krizek, Handy & Forsyth, 2009). For this reason, and for the scope of this thesis, only short-term outcome is taken into account. The most widely applied means of measuring cycling policy outcome appears to be absolute or relative change in the numbers of persons cycling or an alteration in bicycle modal share (Pucher, Dill & Handy, 2010). Another gauge often used is the number of bicycle accidents (Thomas & DeRobertis, 2013). Finally, a more indirect outcome indicator concerns the perception of cycling conditions (Castillo-Manzano & Sanchez-Braza, 2013). This could be used as a variable for measuring attitudes towards cycling. In this thesis, I will make use of all three of these variables.

Cycling policy

As regards cycling policies, the academic research on the effectiveness of these kinds of policies seems to be rather limited (Harms, Bertolini & Te Brömmelstroet, 2016). Moreover, authors who did explore this topic typically focus on specific settings through extensive case studies. Harms, Bertolini & Te Brömmelstroet have distinguished three types of studies commonly used: evaluative studies, based on ex post evaluation analysis; quantitative studies, examining heterogeneous secondary data sources; and qualitative studies, based on in-depth analyses of case studies. Their findings supported a couple of hypotheses concerning the effectiveness of cycling policies. First of all, the way that cycling policy is implemented seems to be important: setting measurable and verifiable goals and following through with most of the proposed policy plans. Second, providing an adequate cycling infrastructure and decreasing the attractiveness of the use of cars seem to be key drivers (Harms, Bertolini & Te Brömmelstroet, 2016). The authors do emphasize that these hypotheses are still in need of testing. This thesis will make use of their third described type of study, namely the analysis of case studies. Case studies have the

(16)

important advantage that they provide an elaborate image, taking into account multiple aspects. However, a main limitation of this approach is the difficulty of generalization. To somewhat counterbalance this difficulty; three case studies will be compared. These case studies will be analysed through output, outcome and impact, and in addition evaluated on the basis of the above-explained hypotheses.

3.2 Data collection

Data is mostly collected through analysing various policy documents regarding cycling policy. The cities of Amsterdam, Copenhagen and Berlin all have composed elaborate multiannual plans in which they explain and motivate their respective policy plans and strategies. In addition, in order to find out more about the European Union’s current and possible future policies on cycling, and about a potential Cycling Strategy for the EU, which might be in the making, an interview has been conducted with Piotr Rapacz. He was recently appointed as the Cycling Focal Point for the European Commission (DG MOVE), in charge of mainstreaming cycling with existing European transport policies. This interview helped drafting the chapter on the European Union (4.6).

(17)

4. Case studies

4.1 Introduction

Cycling modal share in the Netherlands, Denmark and Germany are among the highest in the European Union, with the first two topping most of the charts. Where most Member States present an average cycling modal share of about 3 tot 7% (a notable exception is Hungary with 19%), the Netherlands, Denmark and Germany achieve respectively 26%, 16% and 10% of all trips made by bicycle. The Netherlands is known as the country with more bicycles than residents, where cycling is most developed and integrated in society at the European and global level. Denmark has a long tradition of cycling and has made the bike into one of its distinguishing features. Germany is considered to be the most bicycle-friendly of the larger Member States, emphasising the need for increasing its so-called ‘ecomobility’, which refers to walking, cycling and public transport.

The Netherlands, Denmark and Germany can rightfully be seen as the countries in which cycling and policies on cycling are best developed and integrated in their respective societies. Their capitals represent the very best in coordinated policies and programs for promoting cycling. Not only are cycling levels relatively high, but virtually every societal group makes use of bikes. Moreover, bicycles in these cities are not just used for recreation, but they suit a wide range of daily, practical purposes as well (Pucher & Buehler, 2007). Berlin is somewhat of the odd one out, as it does not yet approach Amsterdam and Copenhagen in their bicycle orientation. However, recent policy measures have achieved an impressive increase in cycling modal share, which is now higher than any other European city of similar size.

While history, culture, geography and climate certainly are important factors, they do not necessarily determine the fate of cycling. Government policies are decisive as well. In contrast to other EU members, the Netherlands, Denmark and Germany have provided the conditions for cycling to prosper. Dutch, Danish and German cities, in turn, have focused on making their cities bicycle-friendly rather than car-friendly. These countries have been at the forefront in making cycling safe, convenient and attractive.

4.2 Amsterdam

4.2.1 Introducing: cycling city Amsterdam

Anyone who has ever tried to make their way through the centre of Amsterdam knows: cyclists rule the streets. Seemingly unbothered by traffic rules, they hurry through the city,

(18)

leaving car users (and tourists) powerless, due to their huge numbers. Bikes have shaped the image of Amsterdam to such an extent that the city nowadays is seen as almost synonymous with cycling. Cycling is so normal that it’s not seen as an identity but just the way people get around (Van Mead, 2016). The city is equipped with an elaborate network of cycle paths, unmatched by any other city. This is facilitated by Amsterdam’s ideal geography: the city’s flat, densely build-up and trips are relatively short. These factors favour the use of bicycles. Cycling figures are therefore impressive. The number of bicycles present in Amsterdam is roughly about three times the number of cars and is said to even exceed the city’s population. The modal share of cycling is about 32%. In the centre, bikes even account for an estimated 68% of all trips.

But while Amsterdam has become synonymous with the bicycle, the staggering amount of bikes present on the roads poses new problems. Where other cities struggle in getting their inhabitants to cycle, Amsterdam now has to deal with a shortage of space. Locations popular with tourists unfamiliar with the city’s unwritten bicycle rules frustrate residents, who are, particularly during rush hour, forced to stop at every junction on major routes. This can even lead to new safety risks. Therefore, Amsterdam’s cycling policy today is relatively advanced and aims to overcome problems other cities might only dream of.

4.2.2 National cycling policy in the Netherlands

Measures and regulation regarding cycling in the Netherlands are in general left to the municipalities. In the 1990s, the Dutch Ministry of Transport was rather active in stimulating the use of bicycles in the Netherlands, resulting in the development of a national strategy dedicated to promoting cycling. The Bicycle Master Plan comprised a wide variety of projects to be carried out over the period 1990-1997, including research projects and pilot projects aimed at improving bicycle conditions all over. The Bicycle Master Plan was mostly valued for its contribution to the general recognition of the importance of cycling policy. As a result, most municipalities had developed high-quality bicycles strategies themselves by 1996 (European Conference of the Ministers of Transport, 2004).

After the completion of the Bicycle Master Plan a period of decentralisation followed, through which cycling became to be seen as the responsibility for local levels of government. The national government recognised that its role was limited, given the nature of cycling as a short-distance travel mode. Municipalities were more qualified for designing and implementing policy on the matter. The national government now largely takes up a

(19)

coordinative and supportive role, which is expressed mostly through investments in large projects. It mainly sets the wider framework of rules and regulations.

In 2015, the programme Tour de Force was launched, representing the shared cycling policy ideas of multiple Dutch local governments. Its main objective: increasing the amount of kilometres travelled by bike in the next decade by 20% (Tour de Force, 2016). As the programme is established through collaboration of a range of different stakeholders, including local governments, it’s the closest to a national strategy currently in existence. However, not all municipalities are actively involved and the document doesn’t have any official regulatory powers. Its position is mostly explorative and advisory. Municipalities, therefore, remain free to decide on cycling matters themselves. The programme contributes by bringing together various stakeholders, conducting relevant research and experiments, and financially supporting plans made by local authorities. Its main objective: making Dutch cities even more bicycle-friendly (Tour de Force, 2016). 4.2.3 Amsterdam’s policies on cycling

History

At the start of the twentieth century, the bicycle was considered a respectable way of getting around and bikes far outnumbered other modes of transport in Amsterdam. The post-war period, however, featured an economic boom and more and more people were able to afford cars. Amsterdam, much like other Dutch cities, became under the spell of motorized vehicles, resulting in a yearly decrease of bicycle use of approximately 6%. The 1950s and 1960s posed a severe threat to cyclists in the city, as a rapidly growing number of cars entered the scene (De la Bruhèze & Veraart, 1999). The general idea was that the bicycle in time would disappear from the streetscape, as the car was increasingly seen as the vehicle of the future (Van der Zee, 2015).

But the intensified traffic came at a cost. The number of traffic accidents with fatal consequences rose drastically, with a culmination of 3.300 casualties in 1971, of which 400 were children (SWOV, 2017). These events led to a series of large protests, led by multiple specially created action groups, of which Stop de Kindermoord (nowadays part of Veilig Verkeer Nederland) and the Eerste Enige Echte Nederlandse Wielrijdersbond (EENW, now Fietsersbond) are probably the most notable. Amsterdam’s inhabitants had become angry, as the streets no longer belonged to the people who lived there, but instead to huge traffic flows (Van der Zee, 2015). The influence of Stop de Kindermoord rapidly grew and it became subsidized by the national government. From this point, it started developing ideas for a safer urban planning. At the same time, EENW demanded more space for bicycles in the public space. The activities of these action groups

(20)

combined with the numbers of traffic deaths, led politicians to genuine worries about the state of the city. Moreover, emissions caused a serious concern for pollution (Van der Zee, 2015). Gradually, politicians became aware of the advantages of cycling and their transport policies slowly shifted from a focus on cars to an emphasis on cycling.

A number of decisive events and increasing numbers of (child) traffic deaths, resulting in fierce activism, turned Amsterdam into the bicycle friendly city it is today. A lot has been achieved since the post-war period. The city has consistently improved cycling conditions over the last decades and succeeded in raising the modal share of cycling. Contemporary Amsterdam gladly poses itself as the bicycle capital of the world. However, the city now faces new challenges as cycling paths need to be renewed and the staggering amount of bicycles in the city nowadays constitutes a serious parking problem. These new challenges are reflected in Amsterdam’s cycling strategy.

Motivation for policy

Amsterdam’s cycling strategy is put forth in the city’s multiannual plans for cycling. These comprise of the plans regarding cycling policy over a period of five years. The current multiannual plan was recently introduced and explains the city’s ideas concerning cycling for the period 2017-2022. It discloses three main arguments in order to motivate the necessity for policy on cycling. These arguments explain in what way the promotion of cycling can contribute to the overall objectives of the city: being a healthy, accessible and attractive city.

First of all, cycling is perceived as being healthy. Not merely for individuals, but also for the entire city. Cyclists are said to be less sick and more productive. At the same time, they contribute to cleaner air in and around the city, as the promotion of bikes implicates a discouragement of car usage and therefore prevents the emission of CO2. The bicycle

makes a positive contribution to the climate and air quality relative to cars or public transportation (City of Amsterdam, 2016a).

Second, cycling helps strengthening the economy. The increased usage of bicycles during the period 2010-2015 has yielded over 120-mln euros. Cycling contributes in various ways. The bicycle industry in the narrow sense refers to companies that produce, trade, sell, repair, rent or storage bikes. Taking into account the number of entrepreneurs and their average revenues, Amsterdam’s cycling industry in narrow sense has a turnover of about 108-mln euros. Additionally, cycling is important for other companies as well, for instance the logistics industry. The amount of bicycle couriers is rapidly increasing. Finally, cycling contributes to the city’s accessibility, as they take up relatively little space and the modal shift from cars to bikes implies a reduction in travel expenses. This is said to be

(21)

Finally, cycling can enlarge the quality of life in Amsterdam’s public realm. The city features an extremely dense build-up, which, due to inner-city building projects, will only become denser. New streets and squares will be created, closed off for cars, that will attract residents and entrepreneurs. Non-motorized modes of transport are at the heart of Amsterdam’s transport policy, considering the relative little space they take up. Moreover, cycling entails a number of social effects. It can advance social interaction, cohesion, identity and vivacity. Furthermore, cycling contributes largely to the (international) image of Amsterdam (City of Amsterdam, 2016a).

Strategy and objectives

In order to utilize all these benefits assigned to cycling, Amsterdam strives to make the city as bicycle-friendly as it can be. To this end, the multiannual plan for cycling 2017-2020 determines three main policy objectives to further build cycling city Amsterdam.

First of all, cyclists should be able to make use of a dense network of roads, which allows for a certain degree of comfort and which limits encounters with heavy motorized traffic. In addition to the traditional bike, there’s an increasing number of other types of bicycles and bike-like vehicles, such as the e-bike or delivery bicycles. Differences in speed on the cycle paths and the presence of these new bikes call for cycle routes that are suited for these various users. By 2025, at least half of the cycling routes within the ring road should have a minimum width of 2,5 metres. In addition, cyclists need to be satisfied with the overall network of cycling routes (City of Amsterdam, 2016a).

Second, Amsterdam wants to provide its citizens with adequate parking facilities. Cyclists should be able to park their bikes near their destination. Enforcement will be an important means for achieving this, rather than constructing new facilities. The main target is to realise an occupancy rate of 85% in the busiest areas. Moreover, the city strives towards a positive rating on parking facilities by its residents. The goal is to achieve a score of 7 out of 10 (City of Amsterdam, 2016a).

Finally, the city wants its cyclists to feel at ease. This is important, as Amsterdam wants to maintain its international reputation as bicycle capital of the world. By name of The New Way of Cycling the city strives to enhance cyclists’ awareness and good behaviour. This is necessary in order to limit the nuisance caused by bicycles and stimulate residents to make more use of their bikes. Space is in short supply and crowded roads can lead to stress and irritation. This demands good behaviour from cyclists. Behavioural change is therefore to be stimulated in order to ensure safety in traffic (City of Amsterdam, 2016a).

(22)

Policymaking process

The establishment of Amsterdam’s multiannual plans regarding cycling comprises a long process, in which a lot of data is used. Regarding policy on parking spots, for instance, the city has tried to count all of the bikes within the ring road, in order to find out where problems with parking occur most acute. Subsequently, these numbers were combined with input on parking problems from the city districts. Based on the combination of this information, the city has designated a number of hotspots to be dealt with in the following years. Furthermore, lessons from previous policy years are taken into account as well. Additionally, concerning the cycling network, the city has counted cyclists all over the city. This was combined with data from the ‘Fietstelweek’, a national initiative urging citizens to download a mobile phone app that collects and shares data on cycling behaviour. Based on these actions, the city has determined the most crowded cycling areas that need to be dealt with first. In addition, city districts are frequently consulted and asked to react to potential policy plans. Moreover, Amsterdam’s residents were invited to participate during special discussion sessions. The city collects and clusters their various reactions and tries to use these wherever possible (City of Amsterdam, 2016a).

In implementing and executing the plans, an important role is reserved for so-called ‘Programmateam Fiets’. This team is responsible for implementing the central plans regarding cycling, through delegation and financing. In addition, it takes on a coordinative, advising and facilitating role. Moreover, as it is able to respond to new developments, it constitutes a platform for the development of measures as well. Citizens, entrepreneurs and interest groups are involved as well. For instance, pilots can be launched in consultation with a certain neighbourhood or after interaction with consultation groups. Citizens’ initiatives are most welcomed. Amsterdam’s city districts are responsible for the execution of the plans. First of all, citizens and entrepreneurs have a direct line of communication with their respective districts. Second, districts are able to bring together interest groups, stakeholders, and parties with the city government. The districts are leading in the implementation process (City of Amsterdam, 2016a). The central government provides (financial) support for the implementation of policy connected to the objectives set forth in the multiannual plans. Moreover, the districts are free to take additional measures not specified in the central plans.

International collaboration and exchange

As a world famous cycling city, Amsterdam has a lot of contact with other cities concerning the matter. The city gets a great many requests from cities wanting to visit and quite a few delegations actually come visit each year. Last year, about 120 international delegations

(23)

centric to human-centric bicycle-friendly cities, takes on a great role herein. Amsterdam wants to profit from the great international interest in cycling but was in need of a partner to help meet this demand. Cyclespace won a city tender and now, as from 2016, hosts the many visiting international delegations, making the programmes, receiving the visitors and taking them on tours in and around the city (Cyclespace, 2014). Every now and then, Amsterdam’s city officials provide for presentations themselves. The involvement of Cyclespace is seen as an important means for representing Amsterdam as the world leader in the area of cycling knowledge and innovation. Moreover, the city could benefit through revenue and employment, as foreign cities at times have substantial budgets to their disposal to promote cycling. Therefore, the organisation aims to bring in even more of these delegations. In addition, Cyclespace has created the position of bicycle mayor, who acts as a showcase and host (O’Sullivan, 2016; De Jong, 2016). These visits are mostly in light of the exchange of knowledge and for outsiders to have a first-hand look at Amsterdam’s practical measures regarding cycling. This year, Cyclespace is organising the very first Bicycle Mayor and Leader Summit in Amsterdam, aiming to expand and improve the network of cycling representatives around the world.

The exchange of knowledge works in both ways. Visiting delegations learn themselves but provide knowledge and information as well. As usage of bicycles in Amsterdam continues to increase, the need for smart and innovative solutions grows as well. To this end, the city looks outside of its city borders as well. The manager of Amsterdam’s ‘Programmateam Fiets’ takes frequent trips to other cities all over the world, in order to find out how these other cities deal with specific and everyday issues concerning cycling.

Effectiveness: assessing the former multi-annual plans

In order to get a grip on the effectiveness of Amsterdam’s cycling policy, the city’s multiannual plan for cycling 2012-2016 will be assessed. As explained earlier, this will be done by analysing the cycling policies through two dimensions: output and outcome. Output refers to actual policy and outcome is about behavioural changes. Amsterdam’s current multiannual plan for cycling was introduced in 2016. So in order to assess its predecessor; I’ll compare the situation in 2016 to the one in 2012.

The multiannual plan 2012-2016 discloses two main objectives. First, the city’s citizens and visitors have to be able to cycle through the city in a swift, safe and comfortable fashion. Second, citizens and visitors should be able to quickly and easily park their bikes. To this extent, the plan’s main focus is on improving the cycling network and bicycle parking spots. Concrete material measures, therefore, are for the most part in line with these main goals. As regards parking, the city planned to expand the amount of

(24)

parking spots with 5.500 near train stations, 2.000 near metro stations, and another 4.500 in and around the centre of Amsterdam. This equals a total of 12.000 new spots. Furthermore, by limiting the allowed parking time in crowded areas (to a maximum of 7 or 14 days), existing parking spots should become more efficient. The control on abandoned or neglected bikes will be tightened, in order to decrease the share of these bikes from approximately 10% to 5%. Moreover, bicycle coaches and flexible parking facilities are to be deployed (City of Amsterdam, 2012). Regarding Amsterdam’s cycling network, the main focus is on improving the least safe parts of the network. This mostly concerns crowded streets with no separate cycling lanes. To tackle this, up to 15 km will be improved by widening the cycling paths with red asphalt. Moreover, cyclists’ comfort and the traffic flow are to be improved by adjusting traffic lights and installing time detectors. Finally, realising four new and quicker bicycle connections will expand the cycling network (City of Amsterdam, 2012). As for the immaterial measures, Amsterdam plans to enhance enforcement, information and education in order to realise safe behaviour among road users. Examples hereof are traffic safety campaigns, focusing on traffic lights, bicycle lights and blind spot. In addition, the city emphasises traffic education on primary and secondary schools, through a bike exam (City of Amsterdam, 2012).

In December 2016, when the new multiannual plans regarding cycling were introduced, 9.421 new parking spaces had been realised on ground level, while 6.345 spots were still in preparation or under construction. Taken together, this amounts to a grand total of 15.766 parking spots, which largely exceeds the initial plans. Moreover, the share of abandoned and neglected bikes has been reduced respectively to 6,7% and 6,1% (City of Amsterdam, 2016b). As for the improvements of Amsterdam’s cycling network, 14,6 km of wider and red asphalt has been laid, while the remaining 0,6 km is currently in preparation. Furthermore, all planned time detectors have been installed and all four new bicycle connections have been constructed (City of Amsterdam, 2016b). Regarding the immaterial measures, the campaign Klaar met je fiets? has resulted in the removal of around 850 unused bikes. Moreover, communication measures, such as Wayfinding and Bike Rules have been evaluated positively (DTV Consultants, 2016).

The modal share of cycling has increased from about 31-32% of all trips (City of Amsterdam, 2015; City of Amsterdam, 2012) to 36% in 2016. This resulted in approximately 666.000 trips per day, whereas in 2012 about 600.000 trips per day were made by bike. (City of Amsterdam, 2016a). The exact numbers on bicycle accidents are uncertain but the trend seems to be that the number of accidents resulting in serious injuries has been rising since 2012 (SWOV, 2016). Finally, with regards to the perception of cycling conditions, cyclists seem to appreciate the city’s policy efforts. A user survey

(25)

outnumbers the group that thinks conditions have worsened. Moreover, a significant group indicates that nothing has changed, despite the increased number of cyclists present on the roads (DTV Consultants, 2016).

Regarding policy output, the city of Amsterdam seems to have converted most of the proposed policy interventions into concrete policy measures. The planned number of new parking spots has been constructed and even exceeds the initial proposals. Furthermore, the control on neglected or abandoned bikes has been tightened, resulting in a reduced share in the bicycle stands. Moreover, the proposed time detectors, adjusted traffic lights and new cycling connections have all been realised. As for policy outcome, the modal share of cycling in Amsterdam has increased, much like the absolute number of trips per day. The exact number of bicycle accidents is unknown, however the trend seems to be that these are rising. Though, this might be explained by the absolute increase in bicycle trips per day.

The city of Amsterdam had mostly set measurable goals in its plans and the city followed through with most of the proposed policy interventions. Moreover, the cycling infrastructure has been improved. The main objectives determined in the multiannual plans, namely easy parking and comfortable, quick and safe cycling, have largely been met (DTV Consultants, 2016). The multiannual plans don’t elaborate much on plans for decreasing the attractiveness of car use. Through former introduced and intensified policy on car parking, a shift from the usage of cars to bikes had already taken place earlier on. This, therefore, wasn’t a main focus for the policy period 2012-2016. However, some of the policy interventions do slightly complicate car use in Amsterdam For instance, the new red asphalt, meant for cyclists, leads to a narrowing of the rest of the road, which forces them to adjust their speed.

In conclusion, when assessed through output, outcome and impact, and evaluated by means of the hypotheses as distinguished by Harms, Bertolini and Te Brömmelstroet, the performance of cycling policies of the city of Amsterdam in the period 2012-2016 can be considered as being effective. The main goals have been met, just like most proposed interventions. Moreover, the share of cycling has increased and car use has been complicated, albeit minimal. The only negative part is the slight increase in bicycle accidents.

(26)

4.3 Copenhagen

4.3.1 Introducing: cycling city Copenhagen

Copenhagen features a strong bicycle culture and is worldwide seen as the benchmark for cities trying to figure out how to take the bicycle serious as a regular mode of transport. Although its narrow medieval city centre on itself already favours bikes over heavier vehicles, the Danish capital’s new ways of using bicycle promotion tools continuously inspires planners from all over the world. Nowhere are more new ideas produced for increasing bicycle traffic than in Copenhagen (Colville-Andersen, 2014). Every two years since 2011, the Copenhagenize Design Company, a multinational urban design consultancy, publishes the so-called Copenhagenize Index, a comprehensive inventory and ranking of bicycle-friendly cities around the globe. In the first two editions (2011 and 2013) Amsterdam topped the charts. However, the ranking of 2015 featured a shift with Copenhagen taking the lead. The city is now regarded as the most bicycle-friendly city in the world, mostly due to large-scale innovation and investments (Colville-Andersen, 2015).

The latest numbers, released by the city of Copenhagen, support this claim: a satisfaction among cyclists of 97% and a cycling modal share of 30%. The share of residents riding their bikes to work or school everyday within the city even reaches a staggering 62% (Steen, 2017). Copenhagen’s efforts to create a cycling city have paid off and are for a large part the result of strong political leadership combined with a new focus on urbanism. In November 2016 for the first time Copenhagen saw more bikes in the centre than cars (Cathcart-Keays, 2016).

Copenhagen’s history, geography and climate definitely prove important factors, but the key to the city’s success seems mostly a strong political commitment. “It’s not in our genes, it’s not in our water” states Copenhagen’s technical and environmental mayor Morten Kabell. Building protected infrastructure will lead people to start riding their bikes (Cathcart-Keays, 2016).

4.3.2 National cycling policy in Denmark

In Denmark, cycling policies and programs are considered primarily, if not exclusively, an issue for local governments. Municipalities are responsible for making the specific plans that reflect the particular conditions and needs for the local context (Pucher & Buehler, 2007). A national cycling strategy is mostly meant to inspire and motivate local authorities to set targets and establish action plans and concrete measures regarding cycling and the

(27)

In July 2014, the Danish Ministry of Transport published a new national cycling strategy ‘Denmark - on Your Bike!’, launched with the aim of encouraging more people to cycle. The strategy is built on three pillars, each containing a variety of specific initiatives to promote the usage of bicycles. The first pillar is about everyday cycling and makes suggestions on how to make people choose to cycle to work or school instead of taking the car. The second pillar focuses on recreational cycling in order to provide citizens with a healthier lifestyle. The third and final pillar elaborates on the importance of cyclists’ safety in getting people to cycle (Danish Ministry of Transport, 2014).

The national cycling strategy is intended to be an inspiration to the municipalities and other actors who want to participate in the green transition and who wish to invest in the promotion of cycling. It has no official regulatory powers, but the Ministry of Transport continuously allocates funding through funds that encourage cycling (Danish Ministry of Transport, 2014). Moreover, the national government considers cycling highways as important means for developing cycling in Denmark. To this end, it has assigned 25,5-mln euros to the construction of theses highways in and around major Danish cities.

4.3.3 Copenhagen’s policy on cycling History

Copenhagen has a long tradition when it comes to cycling. In the pre-war period, the bicycle was praised in songs, poetry and literature as the ultimate symbol of a healthy and natural daily existence in the city. This was the time that the so-called Svajerne, bicycle messengers delivering all types of goods on various types of cargo bikes, flourished. Moreover, the Danish Cyclists Federation and the Danish Cycling Union were founded in respectively 1905 and 1907 (City of Copenhagen, 2013). These still exist and work to this day towards better conditions for cycling.

During the Second World War, a shortage on petrol and spare parts made the bicycle again into an essential tool for Copenhageners, with for instance bicycles replacing taxis (Cycling Embassy of Denmark). After the war, a ban on importing cars made bicycle traffic reach incredible heights. But post-war economic prosperity reached Denmark as well. Car traffic exploded and bike paths constructed in the pre-war era were largely removed. Much like Amsterdam, Copenhagen in the 1960s became rather car-clogged, despite the notable presence of the cyclists unions (Goodyear, 2012). The growth of car traffic coincided with a significant decrease in cycling numbers. However, even when bicycle traffic was at its lowest, still one third of the adult population in Copenhagen used bikes regularly. Congestion, combined with an energy crisis and a recession during the 1970s, led to a growing awareness about alternatives to the car (City of Copenhagen,

(28)

2013). In an era when the power of public protest was probably at its peak, this led to large demonstrations, advocating the rights and importance of cyclists. These induced politicians to improve cycling conditions and start investing in cycling infrastructure once again. Former cycling tracks were rebuild, which resulted in falling fatalities and injuries and rising cycling numbers.

Piece by piece, Copenhagen worked towards becoming a bicycle-friendly city again, introducing projects like the free bike share programme and reintroducing bike messengers and cycle taxis. Moreover, the first coordinated policy for increasing cycling in the city was developed in 2002 (City of Copenhagen, 2002). The seemingly never-ending flow of cyclists that characterises contemporary Copenhagen can be regarded as the result of a process forty years in the making.

Motivation for policy

Copenhagen’s cycling policy is an integral part of a wide range of different policy areas, ranging from the environment and public health to the economy and the city’s liveability. The city’s main objective seems to be becoming one of the most liveable cities in the world. Copenhagen wants to adhere to its self-proclaimed international brand: Copenhagen as a liveable, innovative, sustainable and democratic city with the political will for an improved quality of life for its citizens (City of Copenhagen, 2011a). To this end, it strives towards becoming CO2 neutral in 2025, making it an environmental capital. The city

believes that there is a close link between pleasant cycling conditions and a vibrant urban environment, in which a wide variety of people thrive and feel at home (City of Copenhagen, 2011b). Cycling is perceived as an excellent means for a cleaner environment, increased traffic safety, reduced congestion and improved public health. Moreover, cycling constitutes an important element to the goal of having a good city life. In other words, cycling is regarded as not just a singular goal in itself, but rather as a highly prioritised and effective political tool for creating a more liveable city. According to the Bicycle Strategy, cycling contributes to Copenhagen’s accessibility, cleaner air, less noise, healthier citizens and a strengthened economy. In specific, an increased cycling number leads to less congestion and less wear on the roads, fewer sick days and longer life expectancy, and less pollution. Moreover, cycling policies are rather inexpensive relative to other transport interventions (City of Copenhagen, 2011a).

Strategy and objectives

In order to utilize cycling as an effective tool for stimulating the liveability of Copenhagen, the city has drawn up a bicycle strategy. According to this document, cycling in

(29)

Copenhagen should be defined by three main keywords: safe, quick and comfortable. Therefore, these keywords comprise the focus points of the city’s cycling strategy.

Safe refers to Copenhagen’s residents experiencing a sense of security when cycling. This is perceived as one of the essential requirements for choosing the bicycle over other modes of transport. The main focus hereby is on the most vulnerable groups in traffic: children, the elderly and others who find cycling during rush hour to be an overwhelming experience. As many transport habits and manners are established at an early age it is important to get children to learn how to properly cycle. Furthermore, children who are used to cycling are generally more inclined to keep cycling. Subsequently they will acquire the necessary experience for navigating through traffic. Moreover, proper cycling etiquette needs to be established. Copenhageners need to have a common understanding of what appropriate behaviour is (City of Copenhagen, 2011a).

Quick is about getting bicycle travel time to be competitive with other forms of transport, as 48% of Copenhageners state that the main reason for cycling is that it’s the fastest and easiest way to go around. Travel time in this sense is not just about speeding but refers to being able to choose your own tempo and direct routes. More space for cyclists is therefore to be created (City of Copenhagen, 2011a).

Comfortable, in turn, covers the maintenance of cycle tracks and the city’s bicycle parking facilities. In order to get more people to start cycling, the comfort level needs to be up to a certain standard so that both the current as the potential cyclists find it easy and attractive to cycle. To this end, maintenance on cycling tracks needs to be scaled up. Moreover, there are more bicycles in Copenhagen than parking spots, which poses a large problem particularly in the city centre. Problems, such as bicycle theft and the nuisance caused by overturned bikes, can be prevented by adequate parking facilities. Partnerships with employers and workplaces can help to ensure a smooth journey. In addition, a new bike share scheme is to be introduced as an integral part of the public transport system (City of Copenhagen, 2011a).

Policymaking process

The city of Copenhagen is the main actor in making policy on cycling, as it’s responsible for designing the city’s multiannual plans. It is supported by the national government and public transport organisations. In addition, citizens and cycling advocacy groups lend their support. The Cycling Embassy of Denmark and the Danish Cyclists’ Federation assisted in formulating, implementing and monitoring the policy documents.

The multiannual plans are based on the data collected and explicated in the influential bicycle accounts. The criteria for these accounts were defined in collaboration with cyclist focus groups on the occasion of the first Bicycle Account (City of Copenhagen,

Recycling Europe