WP Stakeholder Interviews

Transcription

1 WP3.2.2 Stakeholder Interviews Jason N. Meggs UNIBO-DICAM BICY Project, Central Europe, ERDF January 30, 2012

2 Task 3.2.2: Stakeholder Interviews Page 2/26 Stakeholder Interviews Task Common Indicators: Stakeholder Interviews final revision: 2012/01/15, by Jason N. Meggs Abstract Stakeholder interviews have been conducted pursuant to the BICY Project (WP3.2.2), summarized and presented in this report. The interviews focused on identifying common as well as place-specific bicycle transportation needs; identifying indicators of success; and choosing their relative importance through ranking; in order to best support the pursuit of the BICY Project goal of increasing cycling in Central Europe. Cover photo: Bicycles parked against the sky in mobile bike-parking unit (Graz, Austria). (Photo by Jason N. Meggs)

3 Task 3.2.2: Stakeholder Interviews Page 3/26 Overview To best fulfill the project goal of understanding the factors influencing the quality and quantity of bicycling across Central Europe, partners have conducted a variety of stakeholder interviews for comparison here and for use throughout the BICY Project process. These interviews, within the Common Indicator work packages (WP3), are intended to capture the opinion of stakeholders regarding indicators for cycling. Partner cities, and the larger diversity of places throughout Central Europe, may certainly differ in many ways. The objective of these interviews is to identify those place-specific needs, as well as to find common ground regarding which indicators ought to be considered first in as a common measure of success. A short questionnaire was provided for the interviewee to rank, in their view: 1. The most effective interventions in favor of cycling in that city or region; 2. The indicators that would reflect best the success of the interventions or policies that they would like to put in place to boost cycling; 3. And also to indicate whether the interviewee has the intent to improve utilitarian cycling, tourist cycling, or both. The freedom to go beyond this was encouraged explicitly on the provided rankings survey. The questionnaire is essentially a very short ranking and scoping survey, consisting of one scoping question and two ranking questions. It was translated as needed into each partner s language. A copy of the original English version is provided in Annex 1. Relationship to other WP3 work products: This survey differs from the detailed mobility survey conducted later (Common Indicators, WP3.2.3), which was a much more extensive effort. That mobility survey was focused on individual travel behavior, and was administered randomly to the public by the thousands, as an intercept (street) survey. This Stakeholder Interview survey also differs from the SWOT analysis, in which 18 or more questions, under the rubric of the BYPAD methodology [1], were also given to groups of stakeholders, ideally in workshops, for purposes of a SWOT analysis, distilling the many voices concerns into four categories of observations of place, and then cross-compared. In contrast, this survey is a short and quantifiable (ranking order) assessment of the situation for bicycling, to be given to one or more stakeholders (persons who are affected by, or who can affect, the situation for cycling in their geographical area). The SWOT analysis is reported on in its own SWOT Report; the general mobility survey for the public is reported as a subsection of the Indicators Report.

4 Task 3.2.2: Stakeholder Interviews Page 4/26 All of these reports have interrelations. Most importantly, all will be analyzed together in the final revision of the Transnational Strategy Report (WP3.4.3). Participation PARTNER COUNTRY AREA CITY DATA RESPONSES Budaörs Hungary City Budaörs Two surveys, no questionnaires Erfurt Germany City Erfurt Two (2) questionnaires Ferrara Italy Province Ferrara Two (2) questionnaires City Ferrara One (1) questionnaire Town Comacchio - Graz Austria City Graz Eight (8) questionnaires Koper Slovenia City Koper One (1) questionnaire Košice Slovakia Region Košice No participation Town Košice - Town Michalovce - Town Spišská Nová Ves - Prague Czech Rep. District 5 & City One (1) questionnaire Ravenna Italy Province Ravenna One (1) questionnaire City Ravenna - Italy Town Cervia - Velenje Slovenia City Two (2) questionnaires Table 1: Participation in Stakeholder Interviews (alphabetical order by primary partner place). As summarized in the above table, partners have submitted at least one stakeholder interview for each of eight out of nine Project Areas (the largest unit of place), but only seven turned in at least one provided questionnaire survey. Of the twelve (12) Partner cities and towns, there was no participation from within Ravenna, Italy; nor from the town of Comacchio in the Ferrara province. There is no submission from any area of Košice yet. Budaörs did not conduct and submit the provided short rankings questionnaire, but rather created and conducted a short answer survey/interview, and submitted two summary transcripts thereof. A total of 20 interviews have thus been collected, 18 of which were the standardized, requested ranking survey questionnaires, and two of which (from Budaörs) were in an alternate, short answer question format. Some respondents added meaningful comments or new categories to their survey, which are summarized below and are included in the summary tables (see Tables 3, 4 and 5).

5 Task 3.2.2: Stakeholder Interviews Page 5/26 Graz provided by far the most ranking surveys (8), with Ferrara providing three (2 from the province, one from the city, none from the smaller city of Comacchio); Velenje and Erfurt two, and only one each from Koper, Prague and Ravenna. Thus it is important to consider the surveys of each place separately given their unique conditions, as well as in concert. Additional surveys would increase the data available and further inform the project's analysis. The SWOT analysis is by far the more detailed resource for stakeholder participation, but does not afford reporting of individual stakeholder rankings and scoping. Graz was also unique in that many respondents wrote additional information on their questionnaires, and in several cases, added categories. Ferrara was the only group who were explicitly asked for additional information, thanks to the Italian translation; one of the two respondents added categories,but did not rank them. Budaörs, Hungary: Interview 1: Mr. Csaba Vágó, Leader of Mayor s Cabinet Office, Budaörs Local Government No questionnaire; multi-page interview. Summary: Great need for increasing cycling, more important to increase infrastructure offer than to do promotions, but grappling with whether to increase the cycling network first, or improve destinations (parking/facilities). Planning is already adequate; action is what is needed. (A severalpage interview.) Interview 2: Ms. Emma Domahidi, head of City Construction office, Budaörs Local government No questionnaire; multi-page interview Summary: Extension of network and creation of good facilities that s the only way a settlement can take if it wants its inhabitants to use bicycles as an every day activity. (A several-page interview.) Erfurt, Germany: Interview 1: Volkwar Bauer, Stadtverwaltung Erfurt Interview 2: Dr. Frank Angsten

6 Task 3.2.2: Stakeholder Interviews Page 6/26 Ferrara, Italy: This questionnaire differed in that an Italian translation of the survey was used, with the addition of the option to add an other category and a rank, for each of the ranking questions (Q1 and Q2). One respondent did so, but did not rank them. A notes and suggestions section was also added, but it was not used by any of the three respondents. Interview 1: Gianni Stefanati, Agenzia della Mobilità (Region) Added the following suggestions in Italian: Question 1: Qualificazione del sistema di cicloparcheggio Question 2: Servizi di riparazione e assistenza /anno Modal split Km totali anno effettuati dai ciclisti Stato di avanzamento della qualificazione della rete ciclabile Translation [Leone, 2012]: Question 1: Development of the cycle parking system Question 2: Repair and assistance per year Modal split Total km traveled by bicycle per year State of the advancement of the development of the bicycle network Interview 2: Marcella Braghetta, Comune di Ferrara (City) Interview 3: Fabrizio Amici, FER (Region)

7 Task 3.2.2: Stakeholder Interviews Page 7/26 Graz, Austria: Graz was unique in providing eight completed questionnaires from a diversity of stakeholders, the largest response of the Stakeholder Interviews. Respondents also volunteered a number of new categories. Interview 1: Helmut Spinka, Stadt Graz Interview 2: Wolfgang Fischer, University of Graz/Austria Interview 3: Aupela Prügger, VIANOVA Verkelirz (?) Consult Interview 4: Audrea Pavlovec-Ngxner, Member of City Parliament Interview 5: Bradler Walter, Argus Steiermark - Radlobby Interview 6: Margit Braun, Head of Institute for Traffic Education Interview 7: Heidi Schmitt, Radlobby Interview 8: Martin Kroissenbrunner, City of Graz Quite a few of the respondents from Graz qualified answers around the traffic calming intervention ( Increase extension 30km/hr zones ). One, who omitted it from a distant last place, stated it was most important but was already in place, helpfully indicating its importance in ranking for consideration of cities lacking in traffic calming. Another put the traffic calming option as second place, but with the qualification, & efficient enforcement. In the end, only two respondents placed traffic calming as first in ranked importance, and both also ranked at least one other choice as tied for first place. Two respondents added similar questions to the effect of increase amount of bicycle parking (both by number and per capita ). This evidently wasn't captured to their satisfaction with the given indicator option of Bicycle parking + bike and ride stations per km 2 (End point index), the meaning of which, some might find confusing, unknown or ambiguous. One respondent also added acceptance/user satisfaction as a proposed indicator. Still another, from the City Parliament, added the category, Set up of bicycle roads and remove cars from existing roads (e.g.., carfree areas) as the most effective intervention possible.

8 Task 3.2.2: Stakeholder Interviews Page 8/26 Koper, Slovenia Interview 1: Andreja Poklar, Municipality of Koper, Slovenija, Koper/Coastal-Karst Region (Note, for this interview, the responses given to the second ranking question were adjusted to fit pattern of 1-7, not 1-8. It is also noteworthy that the second half of the responses to the first question s issues (Q1) were answered in numerical order, 4-8.) Košice, Slovakia No participation. Prague, Czech Republic: Interview 1: Daniel MOUREK, Nadace Partnerství Ravenna, Italy: Interview 1: Maurizio Gasperoni, C.N.A. Provinciale Ravenna Velenje, Slovenia: Interview 1: Aloj Hudarin (?), Municipality of Velenje Interview 2: Borut Skruba, Municipality of Velenje

9 Task 3.2.2: Stakeholder Interviews Page 9/26 Contents of the Questionnaire: Q0. What kind of bicycle activity do you intend to improve? Regular cycling for all purposes (work, shopping, leisure) Leisure, tourism Q1. What are in your opinion the most effective interventions in favor of cycling in your city/region (give a ranking of priorities)? Realization of a new cycle tracks (creating new surfaces) Connection of existing but disconnected cycling tracks Improvement of existing cycling tracks (new pavement, signposting, crossings, illumination) Separating road lanes with markers Increase extension 30km/h zones Build more cycle parking Introduce/extend bike sharing/hiring schemes Increase the number of intermodal bike&ride parking Q2. What would be the indicators that would reflect best the success of the interventions or policies that you would like to put in place to boost cycling (give a ranking)? Measurement of bicycle flows Rate of accidents km cycle track per km road km of cycle track per citizen (Cycling index) km of cycle track per km 2 (Cycling density) Bike modal share Table 2: Contents of Questionnaire as distributed to Project Partners, released 19/10/2010 by J. Schweizer and S. Bertoni for Task 3.2 Common Indicators.

10 Task 3.2.2: Stakeholder Interviews Page 10/26 Discussion of methodology and utility The sample size for these surveys is not large and varies from 1 to 8 per country, with two surveys taking a different format than the standard questionnaire provided (instead, they were in the form of a short answer survey). However, all respondents are stakeholders such as government officials and advocacy group representatives who are expected to have a level of expertise and knowledge giving special weight to their opinions and perspectives, so even one questionnaire per place is a meaningful reference. The questions were heavily focused on cycle tracks, with three cycle track issues in each question (nearly half). It is unknown whether this biased responses. Having more cycle track questions could conceivably split the vote on cycle tracks and weaken their overall performance. On the other hand, it is also conceivable that such an emphasis on cycle track issues could foster an impression that cycle tracks are more important. A final possibility, respondents might already be highly focused on cycle tracks, knowing their vital importance in the top cycling cities, so multiple questions might help differentiate the approach to cycle tracks, and/or improve the chances of other issues being fairly weighted. In any event, cycle tracks, as seen in the conclusions, were all top choices. Relatedly, bicycle lanes (on-road facilities designated by markings) were only given one question, and were not as clearly described or named as they could be ( separating road lanes with markers ). One could even read this as a treatment to lanes for automobiles, perhaps to more clearly designate motor vehicle travel ways (this can reduce speeds). Bicycle lanes are less expensive and more expedient than cycle tracks. There is debate in the bicycle world as to the merits of the various types of facilities. Some respondents skipped questions or used rankings more than once to equate two or more options (for example, choosing one's top two and then putting 3 for all the rest). The use of averages at this stage of analysis is meant to capture the essence no matter if data is missing or rankings repeated. Fully considering respondents interviews would ideally take into account everything known about their respective places. Depending on the context for each place, needs and perspectives may vary. In addition the perspectives of the respondents vary, such as those having only a focus on tourism (e.g., Ravenna s respondent), versus those with a focus on everyday transportation cycling. For example, in most cities high priority was given to connecting cycle tracks that are discontiguous. In Ravenna for example, with a tourism perspective, the higher priority was for creating new cycle tracks, and improving existing tracks, while traffic calming came last different priorities from the group as a whole. The consideration of geography, particularly eastern versus western areas and size of place are also worthy of further comparison. These considerations can be further elaborated in the combined Transnational Strategy analysis (WP3.4).

11 Task 3.2.2: Stakeholder Interviews Page 11/26 Summary Questionnaire Results Q0. What kind of bicycle activity do you intend to improve? TOTAL Regular cycling for all purposes (work, shopping, leasure) 89% Leisure, tourism 39% Q1. What are in your opinion the most effective interventions in favor of cycling in your city/region (give a ranking of priorities)? Realization of a new cycle tracks (creating new surfaces) 2.59 Connection of existing but disconnected cycling tracks 1.94 Improvement of existing cycling tracks (new pavement, signposting, crossings, illumination) AVERAGE 3.61 Separating road lanes with markers 5.29 Increase extension 30km/h zones 5.00 Build more cycle parking 3.83 Introduce/extend bike sharing/hiring schemes 5.33 Increase the number of intermodal bike&ride parking 5.50 Graz 4: Set up bicycle roads, remove cars from existing roads 1.00 Q2. What would be the indicators that would reflect best the success of the interventions or policies that you would like to put in place to boost cycling (give a ranking)? AVERAGE Measurement of bicycle flows 3.11 Rate of accidents 3.94 km cycle track per km road 3.57

12 Task 3.2.2: Stakeholder Interviews Page 12/26 km of cycle track per citizen (Cycling index) 3.07 km of cycle track per km2 (Cycling density) 4.07 Bike modal share 3.17 Bicycle parking + bike & ride stations/km2 (End point index) 4.07 Graz 2: # bike racks per capita 2.50 Graz 2: Acceptance/user satisfaction 4.00 Table 3: Overall average of rankings for all questions, including user-added categories. Write-in questions (in Italics) cannot be compared with averages, as others did not have same question to answer. Graphs showing the ranked priority of issues for both Q1 and Q2 are presented below: Figure 1: Rank-order of issues, averaged for all places, for Q. 1: What are in your opinion the most effective interventions in favor of cycling in your city/region? (Lowest on left is highest priority.)

13 Task 3.2.2: Stakeholder Interviews Page 13/26 Figure 2: Ranks averaged across all partners, for Q. 2: What would be the indicators that would reflect best the success of the interventions or policies that you would like to put in place to boost cycling?

14 Task 3.2.2: Stakeholder Interviews Page 14/26 Rankings by place: Q 1. What are in your opinion the most effective interventions in favor of cycling in your city/region (give a ranking of priorities)? Ferrara Graz Koper Prague Ravenna Velenje (Number responding) Realization of a new cycle tracks (creating new surfaces) Connection of existing but disconnected cycling tracks Improvement of existing cycling tracks (new pavement, signposting, crossings, illumination) Separating road lanes with markers Increase extension 30km/h zones Build more cycle parking Introduce/extend bike sharing/hiring schemes Increase the number of intermodal bike&ride parking Graz 4: Set up bicycle roads, remove cars from existing roads 1.0 Table 4: Average Question 1 (Q1) rankings for each place, as well as user-added categories (italics). Additional unranked Q1 category suggested by Ferrara respondent 1: Development of the cycle parking system In the Table 4, above, under the column for each place, that place s average rankings for each Q1issue are presented. Table 5, below, shows the same place-based rankings for Q2.

15 Task 3.2.2: Stakeholder Interviews Page 15/26 Q 2. What would be the indicators that would reflect best the success of the interventions or policies that you would like to put in place to boost cycling (give a ranking)? Ferrara Graz Koper Prague Ravenna Velenje (Number responding) Measurement of bicycle flows Rate of accidents km cycle track per km road km of cycle track per citizen (Cycling index) km of cycle track per km2 (Cycling density) Bike modal share Bicycle parking + bike & ride stations/km2 (End point index) Graz 2: # bike racks per capita 2.5 Graz 2: Acceptance/user satisfaction 4.0 Table 5: Average Question 2 (Q2) rankings for each place, as well as user-added categories (italics). Additional unranked Q2 categories suggested by Ferrara respondent 1: Repair and assistance per year Modal split Total km traveled by bicycle per year State of the advancement of the development of the bicycle network

16 Task 3.2.2: Stakeholder Interviews Page 16/26 Analysis of Responses Across all partners, there is greater differentiation for the interventions (Q1 issues) than for the indicator metrics (Q2 issues), but in both questions rankings of issues, the amount of bikeways predominate the top choices; in particular, those concerning cycle tracks. In Q1, bikeways fill the first half of priorities (Connecting cycle tracks, New Cycle Tracks, and Improve cycle tracks, in that order), followed by more bike parking, then traffic calming, and only then bike lanes painted on streets, bike share, and finally bike and ride stations. Q1: Cycle tracks are clearly the highest priority intervention to increase cycling for the stakeholders interviewed, as shown in the average ranking across all responding partner places. The three top choice categories are the three cycle track categories (connecting cycle tracks, new cycle tracks, and improving existing cycle tracks, in that order of importance). Q2: The top choice indicator for monitoring the success of the cycling intervention was also focused on cycle tracks; specifically watching for: increases in the length (km) of cycle tracks per person; increases in the ratio of cycle tracks length to roadways length; and increases in the ratio of cycle tracks to urban area (in km 2 ); which were the 1 st, 3 rd and 4 th ranked choices, respectfully. Not coincidentally, these three indicators have also been chosen as the BICY Project s Standard Indicators. However, Q2 preferences also focused on counting bicyclists in two different ways. First, counting bike flows was chosen, over the more common metric of overall bike share (with 2 nd versus 5 th place). The measurement of bike flows at key intersections corresponds to the approach of Portland, Oregon, a city in the USA which has seen dramatic increases in cycling after interventions, and where counts at bridges (bike flows at specific points) are considered a key indicator of success. [Birk, 2006] By counting flows at key points, rather than attempting to ascertain overall citywide cycling, a very clear and consistent window into cycling rates is possible, and one which can be repeated numerous times at relatively minimal expense and trouble, offering many more data points which can help describe the temporal characteristics of cycling in much greater detail. For the remaining indicators of preference, again we see parking indicators second to bikeways, and the very last indicator of preference is reducing accidents. 1 1 Accident is a colloquial term in common use, since the rise of the automobile. However, it must be mentioned that in the world of bicycle research, accident is at best a controversial term, as no collision can be called an accident given how preventable collisions are and how determined they are by the provided transport system, and the behaviours which

17 Task 3.2.2: Stakeholder Interviews Page 17/26 Cycle track options clearly trounced bike parking options in both rankings. Given that the questions might be read as similar to many people, without some background or time to reflect, the general vote for more bikeways seems resounding, although the concerns of potential bias raised in the discuussion of methodology remain unanswered. The stakeholder focus on bikeways over parking is a concern requiring further inquiry and consideration; both are important, although the relative weights remain research questions. Erfurt 1 Erfurt 2 Ferrara 1 Ferrara 2 Ferrara 3 Graz 1 Graz 2 Graz 3 Graz 4 Graz 5 Graz 6 Graz 7 Graz 8 Koper Prague Ravenna Velenje 1 Velenje 2 New Cycle Tracks Connect Cycle Tracks Improve Cycle Tracks Bike Lanes Traffic Calming ? More Bike Parking Bike Sharing Bike & Ride Parks Graz 4: Set up bicycle roads, remove cars from existing roads 1 Table 6. Highlighting of first- and last-ranked choices to help identify whether there was survey confusion (some respondents may have reversed the ranking priority, using 8 for highest priority and 1 for lowest priority). Although the averages tell a strong tale of preference, in fact some respondents had mirror opposite top priorities. This could be due to respondent error, mistakenly thinking that higher numbers meant greater importance, or simply differing needs and perceptions. Statistics help assure that the responses were meaningful on balance: Q1. What are in your opinion the most effective interventions in favor of cycling in your city/region (give a ranking of priorities)? Ferrara Ravenna Graz Prague Koper Velenje AVERAGE STDEV MEDIAN MIN MAX DIFF Connection of existing but disconnected cycling tracks Realization of a new cycle tracks (creating new surfaces) Improvement of existing cycling tracks (new pavement, Build more cycle parking Increase extension 30km/h zones Separating road lanes with markers Introduce/extend bike sharing/hiring schemes Increase the number of intermodal bike&ride parking Graz 4: Set up bicycle roads, remove cars from existing roads 1.0 Q2. What would be the indicators that would reflect best the success of the interventions or policies that you would like to put in place to boost cycling (give a ranking)? Ferrara Ravenna Graz Prague Koper Velenje AVERAGE STDEV MEDIAN MIN MAX DIFF km of cycle track per citizen (Cycling index) Measurement of bicycle flows km cycle track per km road km of cycle track per km2 (Cycling density) Bike modal share Bicycle parking + bike & ride stations/km2 (End point index) Rate of accidents Graz 2: # bike racks per capita 2.5 Graz 2: Acceptance/user satisfaction 4.0 Table 7: Average rankings for each place, for each ranking question (Q1, and Q2), with descriptive summary statistics to assess consistency across partners. Sorted by averaged-rank order. precipitate to engender thereon. More judgement-neutral terms such as collision are preferred. Critics charge that accident is a term which apologises for the avoidable deaths, injuries and property damage that are inherent to car culture.

18 Task 3.2.2: Stakeholder Interviews Page 18/26 If stakeholders are generally in agreement, we would expect to see low medians and low maximums for the top ranked choices, as well as a low standard deviation. This does appear to be the case (a low standard deviation indicates that the values tend to be very close to the average, whereas a high standard deviation indicates that the data points are spread out over a large range of values). The standard deviations were also smallest at both ends of the scale, and the difference between the max and min responses was also smallest at both ends of the scale. This indicates fairly consistent agreement, even though some partners gave opposite ranking preferences. (The possibility of survey confusion bias, giving high numbers to first choice instead of low numbers, cannot be completely ruled out either.) Even if opposite rankings exist, it may not be due to error. No one prioritization best fits the needs of all places, if only because they start with different sets of features. A place with bike sharing already, might rank bike sharing as a low priority not because it is unimportant, but because it is already present. Note that Graz heavily weighted the overall average for Q1, as most ranked connectivity #1. In contrast, both of Erfurt s respondents ranked this question #5, but Erfurt reportedly has a high number of cycleways for its size. Here, however, we give one summary ranking to each respondent. Geographic Differences For the following graphs, as in the Indicators report, Partner Places are ordered geographically, to help reveal any patterns or differences between East and West and further assess whether different places have very different needs. Complete survey data The complete ( raw ) responses to all questions are presented in ANNEX 2: Raw Stakeholder Responses.

19 Task 3.2.2: Stakeholder Interviews Page 19/26 Select observations for Question 1: Figure 3: Ranked 1 st across all partners, connecting cycle tracks had second lowest standard deviation and maximum, and lowest median, its closest competitor was the very related preference of new cycle tracks. Figure 4: Ranked a close 2 nd after Connecting Cycle Tracks (previous graph).lowest stdev and difference between min and max. Scale has max of 9.)

20 Task 3.2.2: Stakeholder Interviews Page 20/26 Figure 5: Ranked 6 th, placing bikeways on roadways had the highest standard deviation and also the highest difference between min and max.

21 Task 3.2.2: Stakeholder Interviews Page 21/26 Select observations for Question 2: Figure 6: Ranked 1 st for Q2, km of cycle track per citizen had the lowest Standard deviation, lowest max and lowest difference between min/max. Figure 7: Ranked 5 th out of 7 among indicators, bike modal share, had the highest standard deviation and difference between min/max.

22 Task 3.2.2: Stakeholder Interviews Page 22/26 Given more time and resources, a comparison of the relative needs of respondents focused on tourism, with those focused on utilitarian cycling, is of interest, but given the small percentage of respondents focused on tourism, the analysis would be limited. More comparison of east and west would also be worthy of consideration. CONCLUSIONS Based on the stakeholders selected by partners, a very clear sense of priorities emerges. Across this wide array of places in Central Europe, the priority is increasing the amount, quality, and connectivity of the bikeway network, principally through additional cycle tracks. Bike parking and other measures such as bike shares, park and ride, and traffic calming take a lower priority. To best guage the success of the measures to increase cycling, respondents advise we look to the aforementioned growth of the cycle network first, and second, to the use of the network at key junctures through measurements of bike flows. Tourism, while important, was not the highest priority among stakeholders, and was only a goal of 40% of respondents, compared with 90% focusing on everyday cycling in its many forms. While this could be partly due to selection bias, it makes sense that local authorities have a primary duty to everyday local travel needs of residents. Thus, the measures identified to increase cycling, and to monitor those increases, followed a definite pattern across respondents: and the priority is focused on bikeways, particularly cycle tracks. It must be mentioned again that the interview format could bias responses toward cycle tracks over other facilities; bicycle lanes, with only one question, were not clearly identified, and cycle track questions were named first and enjoyed representation in fully half of the given choices. It is possible that some respondents did not mean to fully differentiate between cycle tracks and other facility types such as bicycle lanes, which are generally less expensive and more expedient, and can be a transitional shortterm measure. The trade-offs between various facilities choices are a subject of debate and investigation in the bicycle world and that debate was not fully elaborated for this brief interview. Conclusions and analysis will be further developed and related to other BICY inquiries in the Transnational Strategy (WP3.4).

23 Task 3.2.2: Stakeholder Interviews Page 23/26 References [1] BYPAD: Bicycle Policy Audit. [2] Translation provided by Alessandra Leone, professional Italian-English translator, University of Bologna. February [3] Bridging the Gaps: How Quality and Quantity of a Connected Bikeway Network Correlates with Increasing Bicycle Use. Birk, Mia; Geller, Roger Transportation Research Board 85th Annual Meeting Paper #

24 Task 3.2.2: Stakeholder Interviews Page 24/26 ANNEX 1: Blank interview questionnaire. Objectives Stakeholder interviews Task 3.2 Common Indicators Revision 01 : 19/10/2010 by J. Schweizer and S. Bertoni These interviews within the common indicator work packages intends to capture the opinion of stakeholders regarding indicators for cycling. Different partner cities may have a different background and cultures and would like to have recognized certain particularities in an indicator that is supposed to measure and quantify cycling activities or infrastructure. The objective of these interview is simply to find a common ground on which indicators ought to be considered in order to find a common measure. Questions The following questions will be asked to all stakeholders, but pro-active suggestions are always welcome. Name Organization City/Region: What kind of bicycle activity do you intend to improve? Regular cycling for all purposes (work, shopping, leasure) Leisure, tourism

25 Task 3.2.2: Stakeholder Interviews Page 25/26 What are in your opinion the most effective interventions in favor of cycling in your city/region (give a ranking of priorities)? Realization of a new cycle tracks (creating new surfaces) Connection of existing but disconnected cycling tracks Improvement of existing cycling tracks (new pavement, signposting, crossings, illumination) Separating road lanes with markers Increase extension 30km/h zones Build more cycle parking Introduce/extend bike sharing/hiring schemes Increase the number of intermodal bike&ride parking What would be the indicators that would reflect best the success of the interventions or policies that you would like to put in place to boost cycling (give a ranking)? Measurement of bicycle flows Rate of accidents km cycle track per km road km of cycle track per citizen (Cycling index) km of cycle track per km 2 (Cycling density) Bike modal share Bicycle parking + bike and ride stations per km 2 (End point index)

26 Task 3.2.2: Stakeholder Interviews Page 26/26 ANNEX 2: Raw Stakeholder Responses Q0. What kind of bicycle activity do you intend to improve? Erfurt 1 Erfurt 2 Ferrara 1 Ferrara 2 Ferrara 3 Graz 1 Graz 2 Graz 3 Graz 4 Graz 5 Graz 6 Graz 7 Graz 8 Koper Prague Ravenna Velenje 1 Velenje 2 Regular cycling for all purposes (work, shopping, leasure) Leisure, tourism Q1. What are in your opinion the most effective interventions in favor of cycling in your city/region (give a ranking of priorities)? Erfurt 1 Erfurt 2 Ferrara 1 Ferrara 2 Ferrara 3 Graz 1 Graz 2 Graz 3 Graz 4 Graz 5 Graz 6 Graz 7 Graz 8 Koper Prague Ravenna Velenje 1 Velenje 2 Realization of a new cycle tracks (creating new surfaces) Connection of existing but disconnected cycling tracks Improvement of existing cycling tracks (new pavement, signposting, crossings, illumunation) Separating road lanes with markers Increase extension 30km/h zones ? Build more cycle parking Introduce/extend bike sharing/hiring schemes Increase the number of intermodal bike&ride parking Graz 4: Set up bicycle roads, remove cars from existing roads 1 Q2. What would be the indicators that would reflect best the success of the interventions or policies that you would like to put in place to boost cycling (give a ranking)? Erfurt 1 Erfurt 2 Ferrara 1 Ferrara 2 Ferrara 3 Graz 1 Graz 2 Graz 3 Graz 4 Graz 5 Graz 6 Graz 7 Graz 8 Koper Prague Ravenna Velenje 1 Velenje 2 Measurement of bicycle flows Rate of accidents km cycle track per km road km of cycle track per citizen (Cycling index) km of cycle track per km2 (Cycling density) Bike modal share Bicycle parking + bike & ride stations/km2 (End point index) Graz 2: # bike racks per capita 2 3 Graz 2: Acceptance/user satisfaction 4 Table: Raw rankings from all respondents. Non-ranked new categories from Ferrara 1 not included here. Erfurt 1 Erfurt 2 Ferrara 1 Ferrara 2 Ferrara 3 Graz 1 Graz 2 Graz 3 Graz 4 Graz 5 Graz 6 Graz 7 Graz 8 Koper Prague Ravenna Velenje 1 Velenje 2 New Cycle Tracks Connect Cycle Tracks Improve Cycle Tracks Bike Lanes Traffic Calming ? More Bike Parking Bike Sharing Bike & Ride Parks Table: A different view of the raw data from Q1, above, with simplified titles to allow a larger table.