Research Questions: PART 3

This blogpost is the third and final post in a series dedicated to discussing the research questions defined for my current research project on bicycle Route 100 in Aalborg. The primary question asks "What is this thing?" and the first secondary question asks "What does Route 100 afford? What does it prevent?". Unlike the previous two blogposts, no links to the research questions are described. The reason for this is that the Route 100 User Survey did not ask any questions relevant to this area of interest. Rather, the research team aims to explore this last question through critical thinking and an exploration relevant of planning and funding documents.

SECONDARY RESEARCH QUESTION:

"WHAT ARE THE CHALLENGES TO DEFINING ROUTE 100

In recent years, Aalborg Municipality has planned and begun to implement a network of high priority bicycle commuter routes—højklasset cykelpendlerruter in Danish. Three such routes presently exist, all branching out from the City Centre to important local destinations on the south end of the city. Four additional routes are on the planning horizon, with two more routes south of the Limfjord and two north of it in the neighborhood of Nørresundby. Route 100 is one of the completed routes, connecting the City Centre to the main campus of Aalborg University in the southeastern edge of the city.

All documentation published by the municipality, Route 100 is explicitly and exclusively referred to as a “bicycle commuter route”. This is the same way that the Danish Roads Directorate, which funded some of the route improvements, describes the project and other like routes in Aalborg’s bicycle network. Route 100 is, however, described differently by the second outside funding source involved in the project’s development and implementation. The CIVITAS Initiative—a European organization co-financed by the European Union focused on sustainable transportation—was involved with the planning of Route 100 and titled the project a “Cycle Motorway in Aalborg”. Although the documentation CIVITAS published with Aalborg Municipality does indicate the potential positive influence the project might have on bicycle commuting, not once is the project referred to as a “commuter route”.

Although it may seem like semantics, this difference in nomenclature might create confusion for understanding what this thing is.

Mobility and Commuter Routes in Aalborg

The primary mobility strategy in Aalborg Municipality is to allow individuals to make the smartest choice for traveling from point A to B. This means encouraging residents to always consider which mode of transportation is the most ideal for a given trip and accommodate the most environmentally friendly mode choice. A portion of this strategy is to make bicycling an attractive mode of travel, along with walking and the public transportation system. (Mobilitetsstrategi, pg. 6)

In 2012, the mode share for bicycle commuting in Aalborg and Nørresundby was at 27%. By 2025, it is the municipality’s objective to increase that mode share to 40%. (Cykelhandlingsplan, pg. 6-7) The development of the bicycle commuter network targets the increased mode share by emboldening individuals to travel by bicycle for trips up to 5 km in length. (Cykelhandlingsplan, pg. 12) The reason for limiting the expectation for the length of bicycle commute trips is reflective of the mobility strategy approach that recognizes other modes of travel are often more appropriate and preferred for longer trips.

Routes in the commuter network are planned with a focus on safety and accessibility. This network is focused on developing well-lit, safe, and accessible spaces for bicyclists by providing either bicycle lanes or grade-separated bicycle lanes to ride on. The installation of bicycle air pumps, wayfinding signage should be prioritized on the commuter routes. During the winter, bicycle infrastructure along these routes should be the first to be salted. Additionally, where routes take a right hand turn, a “shunt” accommodating a free right-hand turn where bicyclists are not required to stop is encouraged. (Cykelhandlingsplan, pg. 12)

Aligned with the intentions for bicycle commuter routes in Aalborg, the municipality developed three specific goals for the Route 100 project together with the CIVITAS Initiative. These goals are as follows:

1) Free Flowing Conditions:  The route should minimize unnecessary stops and exhibits clear priority for bicycle riders. (CycleMotorway in Aalborg, pg. 8) 

2) Traffic Safety:  Bicyclists should be safe while using the route. (Cycle Motorway in Aalborg, pg. 8) 

3) Visibility and Service:  Extra services should be provided along the route to increase the allure of bicycle commuting. (CycleMotorway in Aalborg, pg. 8)

Contextual Comparison to Copenhagen

In 2011, Copenhagen Municipality launched a new a concept for the development of improved bicycle routes in concert with over twenty other Danish municipalities. This was two-years after the planning for Route 100 began in Aalborg. From the start, this project operated under the name Bicycle Super Highways—cykelsuperstier in Danish.  In February 2014, the Bicycle Super Highways concept changed names to Super Bicycle Highways—supercykelstier in Danish. (Cykelsuperstier bliver tilsupercykelstier)

As is likewise the intention behind the commuter routes in Aalborg, individuals riding on the Bicycle Super Highways should enjoy the same high priority from A to B. The main goal, however, is to prioritize bicycle commuting over all other modes of transportation. By 2025, the City of Copenhagen aims to increase the proportion of trips made by bicycle from 35% to 50%. (Cycle Super Highways, pg. 12) In order to stimulate this desired increase in bicycle trips, the Bicycle Super Highways project targets trips longer than 5 km. This is because Copenhagen residents are found to be 20% less likely to travel by bicycle when trips exceed this length. (Cycle Super Highways, pg. 12)

The provision of prioritized, upgraded routes for bicyclists is assumed to increase bicycle commute trips by 30%. (Cycle Super Highways, pg. 12) To achieve this expectation, the Super Bicycle Highways concept focuses on providing riders with three primary services along the routes:

1) Fast:  Routes should provide a direction connection for bicyclists and the riders should experience few stops along the way. Efficiency along these routes might be provided by timing traffic lights to accommodate cyclists, allowing them to ride ‘the green wave’ when traveling at 20 km/hr. (CycleSuper Highways, pg. 8) 

2) Comfort:  The provision of comfort is described concerning the physical qualities of the route. Asphalt along the route should be high quality, in good condition with out potholes, and well maintained. (Cycle Super Highways, pg. 8) 

3) Safe Service:  Bicyclists should feel secure when riding a Super Bicycle Highways. This is achieved, in part, by ensuring that riders are visible to drivers of motor vehicles. Routes should additionally be equipped with legible wayfinding guiding riders and pavement markings should clearly indicate where bicycles should be. Safety for riders can also be improved at lights by reorganizing intersections to afford bicyclists higher priority than other road users. Moreover, the routes should be well lit and separate traffic lights might be provided for bicyclists. (Cycle Super Highways, pg. 8)

In those municipalities involved with the concept, the Super Bicycle Highways should receive the highest priority for snow removal during the winter and other roadway issues requiring repairs. These routes should also receive preference when determining the placement of extra services or bicycles, such as bicycle pumps, foot resets, or traffic light countdown signals. (The Concept)

National Funding Mechanism

During the summer of 2012, the Danish Roads Directorate established a new funding pool specifically for super bicycle highways projects—supercykelstipuljen in Danish. Previously, projects like Route 100 were instead funded through the bicycle pool—cykelpuljen in Danish. The new funding pool is only available for projects located in large cities.

Applications to the new super bicycle highways pool of monies were accepted starting in February 2013. Thirteen projects were approved of in May 2013. Eight of these projects are involved with the Super Bicycle Highways concept and one is a new bicycle commuter route in Aalborg. (Aftale om Supercykelstier)

Dissecting the Differences

The Super Bicycle Highways concept changed its name from Bicycle Super Highways as a result of how these routes have come to be discussed and funded at the national level. Residents and business partners expressed that there was confusion caused by the subtle difference. Instead of keeping the unique name, the adjustment is intended to better align the work done in the capitol region with similar projects across the country. (Cykelsuperstier bliver til supercykelstier)

Aalborg Municipality, on the other hand, has gone the other direction and moved away from using the term “highway” to describe these types of routes from the time Route 100 was implemented. This adjustment was made because the municipality places an emphasis on providing free flowing conditions, rather than on speed of travel. The name “Cycle Motorway” might give the impression that the route is a separated artery of fast moving bicycles, but this is not an accurate representation of what is provided. The name adjustment was intended to more directly describe the purpose of the new classification of bicycle routes. Although accommodating a faster commute trip is an intended byproduct of developing the bicycle commuter network, increased speed of travel is not a key factor in route planning or the municipal strategy.

Before Aalborg Municipality changed the description of the route, the local newspaper NordJyske has published articles describing the route as a “motorway”—motorvej in Danish. This terminology implicitly refers to the Bicycle Super Highway concept despite the projects having no direct relation. Especially interesting with respect to this possible assumption is that the direct translation of supercykelstier from Danish to English is "super bicycle path". It is likely translated as "highway" because the contextual difference between a path and highway. The Bicycle Super Highway concept is more closely related to the idea of a highway, yet it is curious why the term motorvej was not used in Danish name for the concept.

Despite the terminology, the fact that Aalborg’s bicycle commuter routes are now eligible for monies through the super bicycle highway funding pool, the distinction may not actually be all that great. 

Are Differences Significance...?

The overall objective of the new funding mechanism is to get as many individuals as possible to choose riding a bicycle over driving a car. This objective is, perhaps, better aligned with the goal behind routes implemented by the Super Bicycle Highways project. The mobility strategy devised by Aalborg Municipality implicitly encourages residents to consider using a mode of transportation other than a personal motor vehicle. A primary intention is to give individuals the power to choose the best option, but not force the use of one mode over another. To contrast this strategy, Super Bicycle Highways are expressly planned to inspire individuals to leave their car parked at home and commute by bicycle instead.

The length of the bicycle routes highlights this strategic difference. All existing and planned routes associated with the bicycle commuter network in Aalborg are all approximately 5 km in length. The Super Bicycle Highways, however, typically are longer than 5 km and aim to realize a potential for long-distance bicycle commuting. Unlike in Aalborg Municipality, these highways are designed to make the bicycle directly competitive with trips that may otherwise be made in a car.

Yet, despite the contrasting focus on speed and length of the routes, there certainly are many similarities in the routes developed in the different municipalities. Safety and security for bicycle commuting is paramount to the development of the bicycle routes. The services, infrastructures, and facilities provided also have a similar purpose. That the commuter routes in Aalborg are eligible for funding through the super bicycle highway pool further indicates their functional resemblances.

The main difference is the nomenclature. Secondary to this is how competitive the respective municipalities intend bicycle travel to be with driving a car.

What this project hopes to explore is what, whether, and how much this difference influences what Route 100 is. (…which is me subtly referring back to the primary research question…)