FUTURELAB // PREPARING FOR BETTER CYCLING CITIES OUTCOME AND RECOMMENDATIONS. from the. FutureLab masterclass

Transcription

1 COPENHAGEN // EUROPEAN GREEN CAPITAL 2014 FUTURELAB // PREPARING FOR BETTER CYCLING CITIES OUTCOME AND RECOMMENDATIONS from the FutureLab masterclass

2 02 INTRO // WHAT IS FUTURELAB? FutureLab took place on the 28th and 29th of August The idea behind the FutureLab masterclass emerged in a partnership between Aalborg University Copenhagen and the City of Copenhagen as a part of SharingCPH. Over the course of two days experts, from researchers to practitioners, were gathered for the masterclass with intense workshops and inspiring discussions with the overarching purpose of addressing the question: How can we create better cities for people in the future? The underlying thesis of FutureLab was a belief that cycling can contribute to this by addressing several of today s urban challenges. That s why we call it: Preparing for better cycling cities. But FutureLab is not the first place where cycling has been discussed. Quite the contrary. The bicycle has been on the agenda around the world for years now. There is already a great amount of research, experience, analysis and reflection about cycling and how to enhance it. It was not as such the purpose of FutureLab to contribute to this. We did not discuss why cycling is good or how good it is, we did not discuss the width of the bicycle lanes nor did we evaluate cycling campaigns. The purpose of FutureLab was to build on what we already know and instead push the discussion further. The main task of FutureLab is to continuously focus on the linkage between the bicycle and the greater picture by concentrating on the values important for a good urban life. FutureLab took place at Aalborg University s premises in Copenhagen. The list of participants included experts from several different nationalities, Denmark, the Netherlands, Norway, and the UK. Some participants were there to discuss the future of existing cycling cities and others were there to discuss the future of upcoming cycling cities. The experiences from different nationalities were mixed in a crossdisciplinary forum where planners met healthcare representatives, consultants and researchers and where the discussion was knitted together by local, regional, national, and international perspectives.

3 03 Through our teaching and research activities, Aalborg University plays an important role in the continuous development of sustainable cities Inger Askehave, Prorector of Aalborg University (photo: AAU) It s not about the bike. Cycling should never be the end in itself. It should simply be regarded as an extremely efficient way to get around: to create mobility, traffic flow and quality of life for all. It should be a means to make a liveable city Morten Kabell, Mayor of the Technical and Environmental Administration, City of Copenhagen (photo: Enhedslisten) We are going to challenge the existing mobility logics Morten Elle, Associate Professor, Aalborg University (photo: private)

4 04 WORKSHOPS // WHAT AND HOW? FutureLab s purpose was to share experience and knowledge among participants and together set the bar higher. Through three different workshops the participating experts were mixed in different groups, working with different kinds of challenges as a staring point for the multi-facetted discussions. DAY 01 FutureLab s first day was about discussing the future for present cycling cities: Copenhagen and Amsterdam. The day was divided into two rounds, where the first one was about future scenarios and future mobility solutions for the city, whereas the second round was about making use of positive effects and findings from the future scenarios so to address present challenges in the city. Again, the purpose was not to find possible solutions to enhance cycling or increase the number of cyclists the purpose was to discuss how we create better cities for people and to discuss the role of cycling in this regard. All participants were divided into six groups across nationalities and professions. Each group worked with different scenarios and cases that formed the outline for the workshop discussions together with a number of guiding questions. At the end of each round the groups were asked to summarize their discussion on a poster. DAY 02 FutureLab s second day focused on upcoming cycling cities and sharing knowledge and experience between cities and countries. Two upcoming cycling cities were represented; Oslo and Bristol. It was not a matter of teaching best case scenarios, but a matter of translating knowledge and experience into an Oslo or Bristol context and dealing with potentials and challenges found here. After an introduction to the two case cities six groups were formed - each group working with a particular challenge from a city together with experts from that city.

5 05 ROUND 01 // SCENARIOS For the Round 01 // Scenarios Workshop we found ourselves in a future city a city very much like Copenhagen. The city s population has been growing over the past years and forecasts show that the population growth will continue. New urban areas have been developed in order to meet the demands of the rising population. Yet, the citizens mobility is more challenged than ever before. With a limited capacity the streets are under pressure from the increased traffic creating congestion and safety issues, which limitsmobility for all users of the city. With more workplaces in the city, not only local traffic, but also regional traffic, is adding to the difficult traffic situation. The city is suffering from the intense traffic and what used to be qualities of the city are rapidly vanishing. Innovative and radical solutions are needed if the city should go back to being a city for people. During this round we discussed how to deal with the city s challenges if innovative and radical solutions were implemented. The challenges defined here are based on present challenges from, in particular, Copenhagen and Amsterdam. CAPACITY // How to enhance mobility when space is a limited resource? SAFETY // How to make more people mobile without compromising safety? CITY // REGION // How to enhance mobility between city and region? Each group was given a scenario describing a solution (the scenarios are elaborated on the following pages). The purpose was not to evaluate the solutions as such, but to discuss the positive effects they could have on the city s challenges. This served as a foundation for the Round 02 // case workshop. The figure below explains the procedure: Scenarios (six radical solutions) Positive effects Ideas and solutions Recommendations Capacity Safety City // Region How do the solutions address the three main challenges? Torvegade case (capacity) H. C. Andersens Boulevard case (safety) Allerød-ruten case (city // region) How to apply the positive effects and solve challenges of concrete cases? Round 01 Round 02 The discussions are briefly summarized on the following pages.

6 06 CHALLENGE // CAPACITY How to enhance mobility when space is a limited resource? The scenarios did not increase capacity as such. The focus of discussion for the groups were on how the scenarios could contribute to a better and more efficient use of the limited capacity. Several groups pointed at awareness as a positive effect of their scenario awareness among road users that could arise if bicycle lanes (scenario 03) or traffic lights (scenario 02) were removed. Much infrastructure today is designed to limit the need for awareness and each transport mode is given its own track. This gives a higher (perceived) safety, but the question is If bicycle lanes were in the middle of the street it would give priority to cyclists, and create flow (scenario 01) whether more awareness could create the same safety? (The discussion on this topic continues in the next section on safety.) The plenary debate on capacity became a discussion of priority. With limited capacity, priority is crucial: how do we divide and design the space available? And how are current solutions supporting the city as compared to the given scenarios? The groups found that especially lowering speed limits for cars to 20 km/h (scenario 04) and switching bicycle lanes and car lanes could displace the priority on cars why are streets and cities today primarily designed to cope with a car logic (uniformity in terms of size and high speed and without mutual awareness as opposed to cyclist and pedestrian logic )? The scenarios were examples of how (with use of additional measures, e.g. not owning your own transport mode (scenario 06)) a social equity among road users can be created through a different priority of the streets and how this could lead to more people using the same space and thus better utilization of capacity. Another important discussion was on the, at times, disproportion between mobility and accessibility. While much infrastructure is designed to give mobility through direct and unobstructed routes, the accessibility is challenged. An extreme example of this is to completely segregate different transport modes by elevated non-motorized lanes (scenario 05) as seen in e.g. large Asian cities. While safety and mobility is rather high in these solutions, the groups found that access to destination was limited. In the penary debate we got to ask each other how livable a city without access is? And what is a city without livability? IN SHORT Lower speed could increase overall capacity and create equal treatment (scenario 04) The scenarios were radical in the sense that they questioned the prioritization of the city s streets and urban spaces (why should car traffic and logic determine the design and prioritization?). An upside-down prioritization of the street could create an equity among road users and more focus on accessibility rather than mobility. A livable city requires access and not through traffic. SCENARIO 01 // CAR AND BICYCLE TRAFFIC SWITCHED Imagine that the city s areas dedicated to car traffic and bicycle traffic respectively were switched so that the bicycle lanes/tracks are now at the center of the street while motorized traffic is at the edge (where other transport modes should be is up to you). SCENARIO 02 // NO TRAFFIC LIGHTS Imagine that all traffic lights at intersections were removed. How could this solution contribute to create a better city for people? SCENARIO 03 // BICYCLE LANES REMOVED Imagine that all areas dedicated for bicycling were removed. In this scenario bicycle traffic will be mixed with other transport modes.

7 07 CHALLENGE // SAFETY How to make more people mobile without comprising safety? The safety and capacity challenges were closely related in the all discussions across the different groups and scenarios. Again, awareness was a crucial point and for most scenarios also a positive effect. Removing all traffic lights (scenario 02) would be the more extreme exercise in creating awareness. In plenary we discussed how segregated cycling infrastructure is key in terms of perceived safety, as cyclists become more vulnerable without. An important point here is that no matter what (even if you have elevated cycling lanes as suggested in scenario (05)) traffic modes and logics will intersect sooner or later a situation demanding awareness since protection is not possible. Without traffic lights (scenario 02) attention is forced to be on people rather than a machine s signal the group working with this scenario argued that this most likely would create awareness, but would it be enough to create safety? This led to a discussion on critical mass obviously cyclists (and other non-motorized transport mode If we don t have signals the bicycle will take over at the intersections (participant) Mixed use of streets increases awareness of other road users - but how would it influence the feeling of stress? (scenario 03) users) are vulnerable and often less visible which could be fatal at intersections. But perhaps this is how the so-called cycling cities differ from those who aren t. There is a critical mass of cyclists creating a visibility and awareness per se. A lower speed limit (scenario 04) was another solution that, according to the group, obviously would leadto less accidents which is supported by massive research and data. The question is, in fact, how we can allow anything but the low speed limits? Is mobility more important than people? Most groups despite their scenario argued that lower speed limits were necessary to create a city for people. IN SHORT Awareness was a central theme throughout most discussions. Should we enhance awareness to increase safety or should infrastructure be designed to eliminate the need for awareness? The groups argued that no matter the design, there is a need for awareness - at intersections etc. - and to maintain the human scale. The challenge, then, is to increase safety and not compromising it. Lower speed limits for cars (and cyclists?) are key in this regard. SCENARIO 04 // CARS SPEED LIMIT OF 20 km/h Imagine that a speed limit for all motorized transport at 20 km/h in the city was introduced. How could this solution contribute to create a better city for people? SCENARIO 05 // NON-MOTORIZED TRACKS ON ELEVATED TRACKS Imagine that all non-motorized traffic could have its own elevated tracks. This scenario means that non-motorized transport and motorized traffic do not need to mix at any point not even at intersections. SCENARIO 06 // NO OWNERSHIP OF TRANSPORT MODES Imagine that no one in the city (both local citizens as well as people visiting) owned his or her own mode of transport (car, bicycle or ). Instead, transport modes were on demand and people would always have easy access to whatever transport mode they needed.

8 08 CHALLENGE // CITY // REGION How to enhance mobility between city and region? How the scenario solutions could affect connection between city and region led to a discussion on differences between places and, again, the difference between mobility and access. Where the city for many We need city logistics to create a slow city zone (scenario 01) is a destination requiring access (workplace, home, shopping, education etc.) the distance between region and city is primarily a matter of mobility how do we get from A to B in the fastest and most comfortable way? This difference put a different perspective on the given scenario as compared to the other two challenges. What is working in the city does not seem to have the same intended effects when commuting. Thus, several groups discussed how different solutions should apply to the city center and to the surrounding region. The city center should focus on livability and awareness, while the approaching roads and lanes should be characterized by their seamless and connected network, where mobility is key. This calls for no interruptions (such as We need regional links / hubs with park n ride or park n bike (scenario 02 and 04) intersections) on the super cycle highways and the use of e.g. bridges to connect missing links. Finally several groups worked with the idea of transport hubs and park n ride or park n bike to limit motorized transport in the city without compromising mobility to and from the city. The group working with the scenario of no traffic lights (02) argued that increasing connection and mobility between city and region generally could not be solved by infrastructural solutions alone. E.g. it would need special schedules for delivering goods, which could go along with creating more flexible streets during peak hour and park n rides to decrease motorized traffic where the space was already limited in the city. This could be enhanced by not choosing transport mode depending on what you own, but instead by what is most efficient (scenario 06). In other words you would no longer be a cyclist or a car driver. You would be a mobilist. IN SHORT We need to distinguish between the city and the region and plan according to the context and needs. The city should have access and awareness, while the seamless flow and high mobility are important factors for connecting the region to the city. The connection should be a physical transition and not an attempt to create city conditions in the region or the other way around.

9 In Round 02 we went back to 2014 again. During Round 01 // Scenarios Workshop the participants worked with futuristic or radical solutions to deal with mobility challenges experienced in the (future) city. They identified a number of positive effects of the given scenario. This was now the starting point for Round 02. The purpose was still to discuss how we create better cities for people. In this round however, the focus was on concrete challenges in the contemporary city. The task was to come up with solutions to some of these challenges by integrating the positive effects as identified in Round ROUND 02 // CASES CAPACITY - Torvegade This case deals with the challenge of limited capacity in the city. Torvegade is a street that exemplifies a classic Copenhagen issue. Its many users make it a extremely busy stretch and with street s narrow bicycle paths the cycling experience is worsened. SAFETY - H.C. Andersens Boulevard This case deals with the challenge of traffic safety in the city. H.C. Andersens Boulevard is a street among the busiest streets in Copenhagen with car traffic, public transport and a high number of cyclists. Challenges are for example; in peak hours the bicycle paths have limited capacity and cyclists are in danger of being pushed off the path and on to the (car) street, outside of peak hours car traffic has turned out to often go above the speed limits, and there is a relatively high number of accidents at the intersections. CITY // REGION - Allerødruten This case deals with the challenge of enhancing cycling between region and city. Allerødruten is a route which is part of the new Super Cycle Highways around Copenhagen that aim to make commuters choose the bicycle instead of the car. The challenges are for example: long distances, dangerous intersections, and intersections where the flow is interrupted.

10 010 CHALLENGE // CAPACITY The case of Torvegade Two groups worked with the particular case of Torvegade. From the previous round they took on the idea of utilizing the limited capacity in a different way where awareness between transport modes is central. Both groups discussed limitations for car traffic one by mixing traffic (low speed) and forcing cars to adapt to cyclists speed and traffic logic (as done at Lyngby Hovedgade in a nearby city) the other by making one-way streets. The purpose? To make it more inconvenient for car drivers without removing car driving as an option for those who are in particular need for it. The idea of implementing road pricing continuously came up also during the plenary debates. Both groups found that the solution they made could not be limited to the particular street (Torvegade) alone. They included the surrounding areas to create holistic solutions with e.g. one-way bridges with connecting streets. This would limit the space for car traffic, but not limit the access for cars as such. At the same time one group suggested to use this option to create more scenic routes for cyclists (and pedestrians). One group also came up with a solution completely different from infrastructure investments could we find out whom the cyclists (or road users in general?) are and modify schedules (e.g. for schools or universities) to manage and spread the most intense peak hours and traffic jams? We had a similar situation in Amsterdam with congestion on the cycle tracks where a large group wants to turn. We found out that half of the groups were regular commuters and the other half were students. So I think you should change the meeting times for students (participant)

11 011 CHALLENGE // SAFETY The case of H.C. Andersens Boulevard Learning from the initial scenarios the speed limit in particular was as a popular idea. How the speed limit could or should be enforced was however up for discussion. Creating more space for cyclists (and thus less for cars) could be one way. Both groups working with this case suggested limitations for cars. And with inspirations from a new solution in Amsterdam it was suggested to cut off the street (H.C. Andersens Boulevard) and instead make a (pedestrianized) connection between the Central Station and the Town Hall Square / Strøget which could benefit more people. In plenary we discussed the difficulties of implementing such radical solution. Two themes were dominant in this regard: The police and the politicians acceptance. The police are focused on how Redesign, speed limits and urban space (with cafés etc.) will create social safety (both in terms of perception and traffic) (group solution) to enforce the law e.g. with lower speed limits. Several participants during this plenary, and other discussions, questioned how the police could veto solutions with public and political support often without proper arguments. The question is whether the police, in their attempt to protect the law and people s safety, actually are doing quite the opposite by enforcing (car logic) structures that are problematic to e.g. accessibility and safety for e.g. pedestrians and cyclicts? This calls for further discussion. The other theme of politicians acceptance is fundamental and perhaps universal. One group highlighted the seemingly dominant fear among politicians: the fear of taking away the personal freedom by, for instance, restricting car driving. However, they questioned There will be short-term downsides when doing car restrictions. (group solution) this personal freedom : the personal freedom of whom? The ideal political situation would apparently be one where all citizens were able to go wherever with whatever transport modes. But how does this reflect reality when cities have such limited capacity (which will only be more limited in time with higher populations)? And how is the personal freedom of car drivers influencing the personal freedom of those who are not driving cars? Children, elderly etc. One group called for alternatives to the existing situation in order to secure social equity not for cyclists as such but in general.

12 012 CHALLENGE // CITY // REGION The case of Allerød-ruten The case of Allerød-ruten differed from the two other cases, as the majority of the route is located outside of the city. Both groups working with this particular case discussed how the conditions as well as the needs differed. First, high mobility is more crucial. Distances are longer between destinations and thus the need for access points lower. Thus creating segregated bicycle lanes (protected from traffic) is creating safety without compromising e.g. access as opposed to the city area. However, both groups called for a better connection of the grid of super cycle highways. Intersections and bottlenecks (narrow bicycle lanes etc.) are obstacles that challenge the network. This should be secured by e.g. generic standards the groups also discussed how this could ease collaboration between the many municipalities involved in the Super Cycle Highwayproject. Connection, however, is not just a question of infrastructure. The groups argued that connection to public transport today is not sufficient. Big scale marketing etc. could be part of the solution. In a plenary a discussion of the economic aspects took place. Building bridges or doing marketing come at a cost, and several participants found this to be a central barrier (both now and in the future). In arguing the opposite (that it is rather cheap than expensive) some participants called for a comparison between this infrastructure and other infrastructure investments. Repayments on cycling infrastructure have turned out to be rather high (and the initial costs rather low). This calls for further discussion and investigation. Contrary to today s solution the groups continued the discussion from Round 01 about emphasizing the transition from region to city. The illustration is an attempt to collect the different ideas discussed and illustrated during the discussion. The main idea is to let different rules apply to city and region as discussed in both Round 01 and 02 namely lower speed in the city for cars as well as cyclists. E + E cycling (electricity and... EPO?) REGION (high mobility) Super cycle highways Slow zone city life CITY (urban life, access and compact development) City logistics

13

14 014 ROUND 03 // UPCOMING CYCLING CITIES For Round 03 the workshop approach changed, as we were no longer talking about the improvement of cycling cities, but rather how to become a cycling city. Again, the focus was cycling as a means to create better and greener cities. But this is not a matter of implementing bicycle lanes or important best practices from Copenhagen or Amsterdam. It is rather a translation task : how do we transfer knowledge and experience from one context to another? This requires sensitivity to the city we are dealing with. The barriers and potentials are different in terms of the physical as well as the social elements. Working in groups with local representatives the participants discussed different challenges of Oslo and Bristol. Both cities were introduced by highlighting the cities existing situation and their visions for the future. Oslo Oslo has developed a cycling strategy / master plan with the aim of increasing the number of cyclists from 8 % to 16 %. But who are these additional 8 %? And how to approach different social groups such as children, women or students? Bristol Bristol will be the European Green Capital of The city is thus aiming at increasing cycling to support the status as a green city. Several initiatives are commenced, but the city is struggling with a number of (infrastructural) issues. How can Bristol achieve rapid visible short terms results combining soft measures with a method for prioritizing investments in infrastructure?

15 015 NEW CYCLING CITIES // OSLO Who are the potential cyclists of Oslo? There are already cyclists in Oslo in fact 8 %. But as the representatives from Oslo said, the majority of the 8 % belong to the so-called M.A.M.I.L. category. Yes, middle-aged-men-in-lycra. The motivation for this group is quite different to that of other population groups. They perceive distance, safety, clothing etc. in different ways ways that tend to scare off other groups rather than attracting them to go by bike. The potential cyclists of Oslo are most likely not cycling right now might not even consider it a possibility. The challenge is not to improve cycling facilities, but to approach the potential cyclists who might not even know that they are potential cyclists. How should the infrastructure be designed to be attractive for the potential cyclists? And to communicate about cycling with people who do not consider themselves part of it? During the workshops and discussions we discussed different approaches and in particular how to focus on cycling without talking about it. Focus on cycling by not talking about it We found that happiness could be an approach to focusing on cycling without talking about it. Then happiness is the goal rather than cycling. Cycling, then,is a means to happiness. At the moment, politicians and media are concerned with the un-happiness of the Norwegian youth in particular emphasized in a comparison with Denmark and the Netherlands where the populations are happier (and also less obese from an international perspective). This could be an approach by involving cycling in school activities or other school related Do you want happier kids? (group recommendation) matters. At the moment, lack of safety is debated in Oslo some schools even forbid cycling! But schools, at the same time, possess the largest potential for cycling. The Police as a barrier During the workshops and plenary debates it turned out that the Police can be a threat to new solutions rather than help and this is not unique for Oslo, but an issue that appears across cities internationally. Two elements were in focus during our discussion; how to design solutions in ways that enforce traffic rules? And how could collaboration between e.g. planners and the Police be enhanced and potentially more fruitful? Both topics are yet to be dealt with. In Amsterdam they are working with various road designs to limit fast driving perhaps a model that potentially could be transferred to other cities? In terms of collaboration we discussed how the Police could be involved in solution making instead of accepting or rejecting already made solutions. For some (especially upcoming cycling cities), traffic rules are also in need of being modified for the Police to enforce them fairly. The police should NOT have authority to stop democratically decided projects! (group recommendation) However, this topic, in general, needs more focus. Cycling as a competitor or collaborator with public transport Today, many students in Oslo make use of the public transport as students are given free tickets. Could it, from a future perspective, be beneficial to only provide free tickets to long distance commuters and combine it with cycling? The point is not to promote cycling at the expense of public transport. Instead, collaborations should be facilitated perhaps with city bikes?

16 016 NEW CYCLING CITIES // OSLO Pilot projects Another discussion which has resonance in perhaps all cities, even the cycling cities of Amsterdam and Copenhagen, is the car parking in front of shops and how removing it is perceived a catastrophe for shop owners income. Several participants pointed at previous experience stating that, most likely, this will not happen. Do you want customers to spend more time on your part of the sidewalk? (plenum discussion) These participants referred to research that show how cyclists (not only in Denmark and the Netherlands) spend more money than car drivers. However, this would need further investigation and examples. For instance, by doing pilot projects. During the plenary it was discussed whether municipalities could take on the economic risk initally. In general pilot projects can be a way to show case ideas and innovations with lower risk for both private and public participants. FOCUS ON CYCLING AS PART OF ANOTHER GOAL - cycling as a measure to increase happiness PILOT PROJECTS AND STUDIES - how can we show and communicate results in practice? TARGET INFRASTRUCTURE AND EFFORTS - who are the potential cycllists and how do we define their needs?

17 017 NEW CYCLING CITIES // BRISTOL Infrastructural and soft measures network of physical and social elements Creating a network is key in terms of promoting any transport mode the network is the foundation for getting around. The groups discussed how a network master plan is crucial, but also challenges of implementing such master plan. How do you create a network if you cannot do it overnight? It s about creating a balance between the low hanging fruits and the critical missing links. Missing links do not necessarily include infrastructure. It can be a matter of understanding how people move now and why. During the workshop sessions we discussed the option for Transitions are opportunities to change personal habits (plenary debate) focusing on people s transition phases and how the phases can change personal habits e.g. students and families that are settling down in Bristol. Network and missing links can also be about the traffic in general: how do traffic regulation support or hinder certain transport modes? Speed limitations are already on the agenda for Bristol this is an optimal opening to re-consider the use of urban space. Perhaps it is an option to make cycling more visible (along the streets rather than hidden in parks) for potential cyclists and for other road users. Pilot projects low cost and rapid results As it is not possible to implement a full network from one day to another; focus the effort where the potential is greater. Pilot projects are key in this regard and a way of doing things properly and not half way. During group discussions we found that Bristol s many students possess a great potential in this regard. A cycling network could evolve around universities to create visible and safe routes with great potential. Several groups suggested to combine the effort with competitions between universities and students: who are the most environmentally friendly for instance? How can other means such as social media contribute? The pilots should be systematic in the sense that they are monitored and evaluated. This will be a way of showing ideas in practice. Communication A central discussion about Bristol was communication. There is a tendency in present British newspapers and magazines to point out cyclists as the devils of the street how to turn this around and at least not make it worse when focusing on developing a cycling culture? The participants from Bristol admonished to not be anticar which was agreed upon across the plenary debate. Again, the discussion we wish to encourage is not about cyclists or cycling as such, but about livability and cities for people. If cycling and car Be careful not to create a discourse where cyclists and car drivers are two different things. They are both people and can also be cyclists and car drivers at the same time. (plenary debate) driving are regarded as two different and competing transport modes in media the fight on the street will continue. Make use of the fact that people are more than a cyclist or a car driver. They are most likely to be both. Another way of approaching and perhaps eliminating the rage against cyclists in Bristol is by use of the British wit humor! This can help change the present image in the media hiring a PR agent could be fruitful. A third approach is to use all projects (pilots etc.) to communicate outcomes. Especially now when a Green Capital momentum is building up.

18 018 NEW CYCLING CITIES // BRISTOL Collaboration Collaboration was a term that popped up several times during workshops and plenary debates with different perspectives. For instance, to benefit from other infrastructural projects: if the street is being dug up for utility relocation etc., then make sure to use the occasion for implementing cycling infrastructure as they do in the Netherlands. In general interdisciplinary Coupling infrastructure investments smarter everybody wins (plenary debate) collaborations and focus on getting cycling to the norm instead of continuously being the odd child in the class. Collaboration with the Police is crucial in terms of e.g. enforcing traffic rules (such as cars speed limitations), but also to develop a new set of traffic rules for cyclists that is not based on a car logic. A third approach could be to use the Green Capital momentum to invite new ideas and perspectives to Bristol. Amsterdam? Copenhagen? Could the competition between two cycling cities (both claiming to be the better one ) be an occasion to collaborate? COLLABORATION - across departments and with public and private actors. EMBEDDING CYCLING - get cycling to be the norm and not something temporary We need to make use of the Green Capital Momentum (plenary debate) PILOT PROJECTS AND STUDIES - how can we show and communicate results in practice?

19 019

20 020 RECOMMENDATIONS // WHAT DID WE FIND? Two days of intense workshops came to an end. While the discussions were the actual target of FutureLab we also wished to pass on our findings. Based on the workshops six recommendations for Copenhagen and three for Oslo and Bristol respectively, were formulated. Executive Director, Torben Gleesborg, did the closing speech and recieved the six recommendations for Copenhagen on behalf of Mayor of the Technical and Environmental Administration, Morten Kabell, before passing on the recommendations for Oslo to Rune Gjøs and for Bristol to Ed Plowden. But before presenting the recommendations, we leave the word to the participants.:... nice to meet people working with the same subjects and towards the same goals. Inspiring and useful!... what a unique forum which was the foundation of sharing knowledge and good intentions - let s meet again! The exchange of experience between the four cities was very valuable, and the workshop process was facilitating that in a very good way. Great discussions. (participant)... for me, as a policy maker of a city region, the workshops and visit to a city was an inspiring way to think about cycling with other experts. And also a nice way to reflect about the way we work in Amsterdam.... thank you for two inspiring days with international perspectives.... especially day one brought us out of our comfort zone.. We have to use the big palette of solutions - different in every city/country. Fantastic and very valuable! We would like to have you all to come to Bristol to continue the conversation next year! (participant)

21 021 6 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR COPENHAGEN 01 Go for the radical solutions! (business as usual might be worse...) 02 Connect the missing link between the Copenhagen s Central Station and town hall square - create a passage for people 03 Value the cyclists when doing transport models (but... remember those non-measurable values) 04 Lower speed limits for all transport modes (time / zone divisions) (don t ask the police if it s possible - engage the police in developing the solutions) 05 Enhance and develop the level division of bicycle lanes (accept cyclists traffic logic - various sizes, speeds...) and now : let s talk less about cyclists... or car drivers, pedestrians etc. (both external and internal communication) - let s talk about people!

22 022 3 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR OSLO 01 Pilot study at a school aiming at tweens (12 yrs) (extending the distance with free public transport, measuring and communicating happiness) 02 Targeted infrastructure and facilities (e.g. for students, schools or women) 03 Pilot study to make shops bicycle friendly (data gathering, eliminate financial risk for the shop, create role model ambassadors) 3 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR BRISTOL 01 Embedding - council departments (all of them) - health, police, utilities 02 Collaboration - school parents, shopkeepers, local communities, universities 03 Pilots - experimental orders - talk with parents (to school by bicycle) - green capital (competition, universities) - ring/ring and other app s - one good corridor route - water shed

23 023 SUMMARY // FutureLab was about preparing better cycling cities at least that was the headline of the master class. But a cycling city only has a value as long as it benefits the city as a whole. We dealt with this by discussing how we create better cities for people. Cycling in this regard is only a part of the city and its mobility but also a means to solve present and urgent challenges of e.g. capacity, safety and commuting traffic. Copenhagen and Amsterdam has already reached the critical mass and discussing cycling infrastructure or amounts of cyclists should no longer be the core of the discussion (and yet it still is ). We need to step up and understand the needs of e.g. those who use their car or maybe how to develop or change needs. which is not necessarily cycling infrastrcuture. Perhaps it is no longer about cycling but, instead, the foundations for people s daily lives. This calls for urban planning to be about more than urban planning. The starting point might be different but the discussion is quite similar to that of Oslo and Bristol who represented the upcoming cycling cities during FutureLab. Infrastructure will most likely be important in cases like these, but to believe that infrastructure is key/the only thing important will most likely lead to failure. During FutureLab we did not discuss how Oslo or Bristol could eventually be the new Copenhagen or Amsterdam we discussed how Oslo and Bristol could develop and become more human scale oriented with better mobility (and access) on their own premises. This requires a sensibility to both the physical layout of the cities, but especially to the social aspects and culture. But the challenges cannot be overcome by fancy campaigns it requires an identification of all the potentials that might be hidden elsewhere. And that was exactly what we discussed during FutureLab. We rarely know how any solution will work. Let s be honest about it. It might not be a bad thing! (plenary debate) Cycling can, if used right, be a cure against some of the most urgent and crucial challenges of our cities. But this cure tend to have adverse effects if it is considered as an add-on something that we put on top of our existing city and infrastructure and our doings and sayings (from citizens to planners and politicians). Our situation with dramatically increasing populations puts a never seen before pressure on all parts of a city. And it requires solutions that might come out as being rather radical, but also necessary to turn this situation into a never seen before potential. Cycling is not a goal. If we continuously believe so, we ve lost the battle in advance the cycling city might be leading in terms of cycling, but is it a city where people want to live? During FutureLab we aimed at talking about people and not about transport modes.

24 COPENHAGEN // EUROPEAN GREEN CAPITAL 2014 FUTURELAB // THANK YOU FutureLab was created by Aalborg University Copenhagen and the City of Copenhagen as a part of Sharing Copenhagen. The project has been financially supported by Realdania. For further information about FutureLab, please contact : Anne Katrine Braagaard Harders, AAU-CPH akbh@plan.aau.dk