How Bicycle Friendly is your city?

1
How Bicycle Friendly is your city?

• Bronze, Silver, Gold or Platinum

2
4 Steps to Bicycle Friendliness

• Sign the charter for Bicycle Friendly Communities
• Benchmark your city/community with the Velo.Info
  tool
• Be granted a bronze, silver, gold or platinum
  status
• Be involved in steps for improvement and take
  action

3
Why Bicycle Friendly?

• accessibility mobility
• young people
• economics
• transport
• environment
• health
• promotion
• planning
• safety
• education and training
• urban efficiency
• leisure tourism

4
Sign the charter
5
Charter signed by

• Beerse, Belgium
• Berlin, Germany
• Brentwood, USA
• Bursa, Turkey
• Cannes, France
• Cape Town, RSA
• Carrollton USA
• Copenhagen, Denmark
• Dar es Salaam, Tanzania
• Dublin, Ireland
• Edinburgh, UK
• Gdansk, Poland
• Helsinki, Finland
• Metuchen, USA
• New Orleans, USA
• Oulu, Finland
• Plovdiv, Bulgaria
• Salem, USA
• Sandnes, Norway

6
The Benchmark tool is about

• Preparing cycling policy
• Planning cycling policy
• Implementation of cycling policy
• Monitoring Evaluation of cycling policy

7
Preparing cycling policy

• Background Information
• None collected
• Data gathered from secondary sources or existing
  information. Data used may be old or minimal
  however.
• Up-to-date data is collected from primary sources
  as required by specific projects. No systematic
  collection.
• Up-to-date data is collected regularly (perhaps
  every five years) on all aspects of cycling,
  stored and readily available to city officers.
  Large quantity of data collected.
• Data is collected and updated regularly and
  systematically, perhaps biannually or even more
  frequently. Data collected is comprehensive and
  documented in deliverables, e.g. reports. Data is
  collected not only relating to cycling but also
  in relation to other relevant issues (health,
  traffic, environment etc.). Data is collected
  both generally and relating to specific
  categories - for example covering cycle use in
  general, as well as commuting, cycling for
  leisure, education, social trips etc. Data
  includes a temporal element, perhaps collected
  according to seasonal fluctuations and/or by
  weekday/weekend. Both quantitative (distance of
  trips, use of bikes carried by public transport,
  cycle theft, parking and storage etc.) and
  qualitative data (why people do/do not cycle,
  perceptions of cycling, reasons for not cycling,
  what might persuade them to cycle more etc.) is
  collected.

8
Preparing cycling policy

• Consultation
• No consultation.
• No information gathered on user needs.
• Existing information is gathered from secondary
  sources incidentally.
• Information is gathered from primary sources only
  when specifically needed for a project or when a
  concern arises. Passive collection.
• Good active programme of collation. Information
  on user needs gathered readily from primary
  sources to inform cycling policy.
• Good, active and widely-based programme.
  Information is collected actively, regularly and
  systematically using a multitude of methods such
  as surveys, consultation and discussions with
  user groups. Information is widely gathered and
  grouped into different target groups (e.g.
  children, commuters, leisure cyclists).
  Information is used to inform cycling policy.

9
Preparing cycling policy

• Partnership Building
• No communication.
• Ad-hoc communication. Low level of consultation
  taken place. One-way dialogue often common. Meet
  only occasionally.
• Medium level of consultation by senior internal
  officers, e.g. internal working group. Free
  flowing dialogue.
• Regular cooperation at a senior level with
  external and internal agencies. Free flowing
  dialogue. Partners meet regularly.
• Regular cooperation and a formal partnership
  between agencies, sectors and users. Free flowing
  dialogue. Partners meet regularly.

10
Preparing cycling policy

• Political Leadership
• Responsibility for cycling not clear.
• Led by low level officers.
• Led by senior officers.
• Led by top tier of politicians.
• Led by top tier of politicians in partnership
  with top tier of officers. There is clear
  evidence of political commitment to cycling.
  Commitment is consistent and sustained and has
  been well-established over several years, both in
  terms of specific cycling elements and in terms
  of the impact of cyclists on wider transport
  policy, town planning, highway planning and
  traffic management.

11
Preparing cycling policy

• Policy Framework
• Nothing defined - no objectives.
• Some policy and objectives defined, e.g. road
  safety related, but nothing comprehensive.
  Objectives not prioritised or classified into
  short-/long-term.
• Policy and objectives agreed and published but
  focusing only on transport/cycling - no
  consideration of other related issues and no
  links to other policy areas.
• Policy objectives agreed, published and have
  action plan. Clear objectives, both long-term and
  short-term. Some indicators set. Defined policy
  framework.
• Policy agreed, published and has genuine support
  of senior officers. Clearly defined policy.
  Wide-ranging policy with links between different
  policy areas recognised (e.g. health, transport,
  environment, urban planning). Explicit
  consideration of the impact of cyclists in wider
  transport policy, town planning, highway
  planning, traffic management policy aims and
  components. Clear determination to promote
  cycling as an integral part of policies in many
  related areas including air quality improvement,
  local environmental quality, traffic-calming,
  traffic restraint, leisure, tourism, health
  promotion, road safety, cyclist training,
  employer kilometrage reduction and commuter
  plans/ Objectives are set, prioritised and
  defined as long-/short-term. Both numerical and
  qualitative targets set. Must be clear evidence
  of the involvement of a range of users in the
  development of the policy framework. Plan shows
  clear identification of problems and clear set of
  realistic objectives produced, consistent with
  other policy targets. Clear recognition of what
  is achievable in both the long term.
  Prioritisation of objectives. Hierarchy of
  objectives. Evidence of review of existing
  strategy. Action Plan developed that is
  consistent with other guidance and transport
  policies more generally. Clear link between
  broader objectives and specific measures in
  Action Plan. Consideration of Plan's potential
  links with other strategies - ongoing
  co-ordination between strategies.

12
Planning

• Develop Action Plan
• No plan
• Efforts underway to develop and produce plan.
• Plan is in early stages.
• Plan is currently being developed and has reached
  middle stages.
• Plan has been developed but not implemented.
• Plan has been developed and is clearly defined.
  It is being implemented. It is ongoing and
  constantly evolving - it is not a static process.
  Plan is connected to other policies/plans and
  helps feed and meet other targets. Plan has clear
  set of targets and activities to be achieved.
  Must be clear evidence of the involvement of a
  range of users in all stages of the development
  and implementation of the plan. Plan is realistic
  about available resources.

13
Planning

• Define Communication and Marketing Plan
• No communication or marketing plan.
• Basic communication and marketing plan.
  Infrequent dissemination of information and
  occasional marketing for specific projects only.
• Regular communication with public using some
  forms of media only (leaflets/websites).
  Marketing on a broad level - not targeted to
  groups/topics.
• Regular communication and marketing in most forms
  of media. Some targeting.
• Systematic, continuous communication and
  marketing to all as well as targeted marketing to
  specific groups (children/commuters) and specific
  topics (health/environment). Marketing and
  communication focuses both on the general public
  as well as experts in the field and occurs
  through various/all media forms conferences,
  leaflets, advertising, awards, competitions etc.
  Clear evidence of the involvement of a range of
  users and on a regular basis.

14
Planning

• Timetable
• No timetable defined.
• Basic timetable outlined.
• Timetable outlined but with emphasis on
  short-term. Little long-term focus.
• Clear stipulated timetable indicating priorities
  and short/long-term objectives.Timetable has
  clear prioritised objectives which are both
  short- and long-term.
• Timetable is continually monitored and evaluated
  to assess these timescales and priorities. Clear
  idea of continual progress. Potential challenges
  and problems are systematically considered and
  pre-empted in the timetable. Clear evidence of
  involvement of users in considering potential
  challenges and problems, with provision for
  obtaining feedback from a variety of users
  including more and less confident/experienced
  utility and leisure cyclists, pedestrian and
  disability groups, etc. Contains contingency
  plans. Partners commitment is clearly set out.

15
Planning

• Secure Funding
• No funding secured.
• General baseline funding available but not
  sufficient to do what is needed and not
  systematically available.
• Funding available and secured for cycling schemes
  but may not be reliable or regular and hence
  cannot meet needs. Limited budget for one-off
  ideas.
• Sufficient, dedicated and regular funding secured
  for cycling. Funding can be utilised at the
  officer's discretion.
• Sufficient resources secured. Dedicated budget
  for plan secured. Funding is reliable, regular,
  covers the long-term and supports all aspects of
  the action plan. All transport projects consider
  cycling as part of their development. Recognition
  that everything that is done can contribute to
  the objective of increasing cycling. Additional
  money available to support new ideas and
  innovative projects.

16
Planning

• Consultation
• No consultation - no involvement of other
  agencies in the development of implementation of
  the plan.
• City agencies and user groups are invited to
  comment on ideas for specific tasks or projects
  occasionally. Their involvement is not
  structured.
• Occasional structured involvement of city
  agencies and user groups in a commentary role.
• Regular structured involvement of city agencies
  and user groups in consultation at the later
  stages of the decision making process.
  Predominantly a commentary role.
• Other agencies are involved permanently and
  continually and have a role in consultation in
  the early stages of plan and policy development.
  Advisory and steering role.

17
Implementation

• Staff Structure
• No one responsible for cycling or responsibility
  allocated randomly.
• Have a single junior cycling officer working
  alone.
• Have either team of junior officers or a junior
  officer in several relevant departments across
  the authority or a single senior cycling officer
  working alone.
• Have a senior level team of officers.
• Have a senior level team which is distributed
  across a number of departments at senior level.
  Every officer understands that contributing to
  cycling is part of their objectives. Active
  cooperation of departments.

18
Implementation

• Staff Training
• Staff receive no training.
• There is no structured training although
  personnel may engage in self-teaching through
  experience, word of mouth of colleagues and/or
  reference to manuals.
• Staff engage in self-teaching and occasionally
  attend training and education courses to
  supplement this. General training (e.g. project
  management/finance).
• Staff regularly attend training and education
  courses. Training is specifically related to
  cycling.
• Staff regularly attend informative courses and
  conferences. Education is not static but ongoing
  in an evolving learning process. Staff are
  involved and participate in cycling events, user
  groups and working parties. There may be an
  allocated budget for training needs.

19
Implementation

• Tools
• No tools available.
• Some tools are available to staff but are not
  used.
• Some tools are available for use but are only
  used by the cycling officer.
• A large variety of tools are available for use
  but these are used by the cycling officer only.
• A large variety of tools are available and are
  used by all staff, including the cycling officer.

20
Implementation

• Project Delivery
• Plan is not being implemented.
• Plan is being implemented, but slowly and with
  little success.
• Plan is being successfully implemented but is not
  meeting timetable.
• Plan is being successfully implemented and
  meeting timetable objectives and targets.
• Plan is a success and is exceeding targets.
• Plan is running either ahead of, or well to,
  timetable.

21
Implementation

• Partnership Maintenance
• No one is pushing it forward.
• Minimal effort by individuals to ensure
  maintenance of partnerships and regular
  communication. Some partners may not be doing
  what they are responsible for.
• Occasional effort is made by a range of agencies
  to ensure regular communication and co-operation.
  Passive.
• Concerted effort made to ensure partnerships
  continue to flourish and that communication is
  regular.
• Regular, concerted effort by a range of agencies
  to ensure that all partners stick to their
  responsibilities, communication is regular and
  the partnership flourishes.

22
Monitoring Evaluation

• Monitoring
• No data is collected for monitoring.
• Data is collected for specific problems or
  initiatives only.
• Data is collected regularly on all aspects of the
  plan and supplemented by the collection of data
  for specific measures.
• General data is collected systematically on all
  aspects of the plan and supplemented by the
  collection of data on the effectiveness of
  specific measures. Data is collected in a form
  enabling accurate monitoring of plan. Pre and
  post monitoring.
• General data is collected permanently on all
  aspects of the plan and supplemented by data
  collected on a wide range of strategic measures
  that have been implemented. Continual, systematic
  collection and monitoring. Wide range of
  strategic and local indicators used. Data
  collected in a form suitable for accurate
  monitoring of plan and benchmarking with cities.
  Data collected is widely available in the public
  domain. Trends are monitored. Progress is
  monitored over time. Pre and post monitoring.
  Clearly defined indicators for measuring progress
  against objectives. clear link between proposed
  performance indicators and objectives.

23
Monitoring Evaluation

• Evaluate Action Plan
• No evaluation.
• Evaluation of some data regarding specific
  measures but no overall evaluation. No assessment
  of the data in the context of the action plan and
  its original targets. No relationship of the data
  to the action plan.
• Evaluation of the plan as a whole supplemented by
  evaluation of specific measures. Evaluation of
  most measures using the data. Some relationship
  of data to action plan and original objectives.
• Evaluation of the plan as a whole supplemented by
  evaluation of specific measures. Evaluation of
  the data against the plan's initial targets and
  objectives. Pre/post evaluation of measures.
• A thorough evaluation of all aspects of the plan
  - both the plan as a whole and specific measures.
  All aspects are evaluated and checked against
  their original targets and objectives. Constant
  quality control. Constant evaluation both in the
  short- and long-term. Analysis and evaluation is
  used to inform and create recommendations as to
  the next stage and general future progression of
  the plan. Plan and guidance is updated according
  to the results of the evaluation. Pre/post
  evaluation. Data evaluated is used directly to
  feed into review of action plan and monitoring of
  action plan. Results are provided and used to
  engage in benchmarking initiatives with other
  cities.

24
Monitoring Evaluation

• Reporting
• No reporting.
• Basic reporting of results evaluation.
• Some tools are available for use but are only
  used by the cycling officer.
• Data gathered and evaluated and presented in
  reports which are widely available in the public
  domain.

25
Monitoring Evaluation

• Review Action Plan
• No review.
• Review of plan is published yet predominantly
  ignored and not used to feed into future ideas.
• Review of plan is published and regularly updated
  but is not used to inform new ideas or develop
  new actions.
• Review of plan is regularly updated and informs
  new ideas.
• Review is regularly updated following close and
  regular monitoring and evaluation of the action
  plan. New actions and timescales regularly come
  out of the review.

26
Total Result

• Current status for your city
• Total score pending
• Date 02-06-2005
• Benchmark Check by Accredited Consultants
• Award Ceremony

27
2005 Awards

• Rome Bronze
• Brussels Silver
• Helsinki Gold
• Derry Gold
• Odense Platinum
• Malmö Platinum

28
steps for improvement

• Preparation
• Background Information
• Consultation
• Partnership Building
• Political Leadership
• Policy Framework
• Planning
• Develop Action Plan
• Define Communication and Marketing Plan
• Timetable
• Secure Funding
• Consultation
• Implementation
• Staff Structure
• Staff Training
• Tools
• Project Delivery
• Partnership Maintenance
• Monitoring and evaluation