C-II. Distinctive in NL - Nationaal Fietscongres

Centre for Urban Studies
Combined use of bike and train
Roland Kager, Bram Fokke, Marco te Brömmelstroet, Luca Bertolini
VerDuS-DBR research programme, Nov 2013 – Aug 2014
A. Research background


VerDuS - DBR
 ‘Verbinden van Duurzame Steden’ (NWO, Min. I&M /
BZK / EZ, Platform31)
 ‘Duurzaam Bereikbare Randstad’: exploration of
research areas relevant for long-term transition to
sustainable transport, drafting of research agenda
Projects ‘Bicycle use’ and ‘Bicycle as an egress and access
mode’ awarded to UvA, output:
 Three scientific articles (forthc.)
 ‘CoRP Fietscommunity’, joint CROW-publication
 High media and professional interest (articles, confer.)
2
B. Setting the scene:
Bike-transit observations





A principal transport phenomenon in the Netherlands:
 high usage = ~45% in access travel to stations
 high growth = +5% annually 2000-2013 (# travellers)
 solid outlook: many co-trends = ict,hnw,(re-)urb,p2p,zzp,
gen.Z,phs,lev’s,flex,24/7,(car-)share,health,lifestyle,...)
... yet little understood: no data, no research tradition, little
awareness; ‘a niche in a niche’...
Appraised a system of high value (actual or potential)...
... but approached using a problem-frame in practice
Autonomous/user-driven development, not policy-driven
3
C. Hypothesis: Bike-train
a distinct modality?

Analysis: In case we would consider combined bike-train
use a distinct modality;
I. Conceptually: What are its distinct characterics?
II. Quantitatively: Distinctive enough to justify such an
approach? -> Illustrative example of NL
III. Application-wise?... also outside NL?
4
C-I. Characteristics of the bike-train modality
1. Integration of heterogeneous yet complementary transport
modalities
• The resulting modality is not the average of either
modality, but rather (because of choice) an optimal
combination of strong aspects of either sub-modality
2. Non-deterministic choice in
access and egress station
• relevant
• heterogeneous
• dynamic
3. High complexity
5
C-II. Distinctive in NL?
N
< 1 km
< 5km
< 7.5 km
Choice
(5 km)
Choice
(7,5 km)
All stations (excl.
lightrail)
388
19,2%
69,1%
81,2%
2,32
3,47
- Large IC station
17
1,1%
15,8%
23,8%
1,33
1,39
- IC station
27
1,8%
20,6%
28,5%
1,13
1,30
- Small IC station
22
1,5%
10,5%
17,0%
1,03
1,05
- Hybrid station
16
1,2%
7,6%
12,3%
1,05
1,11
- Stop station +
86
4,6%
28,8%
42,3%
1,41
1,77
- Stop station
216
9,4%
36,3%
53,6%
1,55
1,95
Catchment-area pedestrian distance vs cycleable distances (% of total population)
C-II. Distinctive in NL?
 Number of departing trains per
hour within 20 minutes of cycling
Additional number of departing trains
within 20 min. when using pedelec
C-II. Distinctive in NL ?
8
C-II. Distinctive in NL ?
9
C-II. Distinctive in NL ?
10
C-II. Distinctive in NL ?
11
C-II. Distinctive in NL ?

Effective speed per access modality
12
C-II. Distinctive in NL ?

Effective station choice per access modality
13
C-III. Application in NL?



Bike-train users are the dominant user group!
(we need to understand this group if we want to
facilitate, improve or adjust train or bike experience)
The general case of station choice provides (rather
unexplored) opportunities for optimisation, for
increasing land value or furthering urban densities.
Framework for exploring future use & impact of trends
(e-bike, PHS, ‘NorthSouth-line’,
reurbanisation, new stations,
new bike parkings, rationalisation
feedering transit, ....?)
14
C-III. also applicable outside NL?
15
C-III. also applicable outside NL?





Yes... heteregeonity within the transit system
... and distribution of (heterogeneous) access
stations of high level transit system within ‘cycling
distance’ closely correlates with urban density and
general transit system hierarchy
... mostly availability of bike system differs (bike
culture, bike infra, bike facilities, institutions)
... but such differences are rapidly
decreasing (especially in urban areas)
... and bike-train follows ‘bottom-up’
16
D. Research areas





Data! Case studies! Calibration!
Framework: From bike-train modality (‘trip chains’)
 to bike-train-based mobility (‘land-use/transport’)
 = ‘bike’ + ‘train’ + ‘bike-train’
Interrelationship bike-train with ‘full’ transit, ‘plain’ train
and ‘plain’ cycling
Spatial effects of bike-train-based mobility
(urbanisation, borrowed-size/agglomerations)
NL as ‘living lab’ in international business/consultancy
/profiling/research (focus on heterogeneity)
17
Contact us!
Roland Kager, Luca Bertolini,
Bram Fokke, Marco te Brömmelstroet
University of Amsterdam
Centre for Urban Studies
T 06 10790466
[email protected]
http://dbr.verdus.nl/pagina.asp?id=1650
http://www.linkedin.com/in/rolandkager

Download Report