Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Cycling Scenario:
The Potential for Dramatically Increasing
Bicycle and E-bike Use in Cities Around the World,
with Estimated Energy, CO2, and Cost Impacts
12 November 2015
Research commissioned by
Acknowledgments
The authors wish to thank Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI), the European Cyclists’
Federation (ECF), and the Bicycle Product Suppliers Association (BPSA) for their generous
financial support that made this research possible, particularly our primary contacts there,
Chris Peck, Kevin Mayne, and Bob Margevicius. We also thank the individuals who participated
in meetings of the advisory committee for this study, providing data and insight on cycling
and e-bike use around the world. Members of that group include Christopher Peck, Kevin
Mayne, Carlofelipe Pardo, Christopher Cherry, Bob Margevicius, Michael Replogle, Randy
Neufeld, Alejandra Leal, Geetam Tiwari, and S. K. Jason Chang.
Without that support we would not have had the data or insight to conduct the global level
of scenario building and analysis that was completed. Finally, the authors thank all the
members of the Research Team at UC Davis who carried out much of the data gathering,
data cleaning, and data refinement and analysis work. We thank also the contributions
of Stephen Robert Kulieke and Katie Rustad of UC Davis and Jemilah Magnusson, Gabriel
Lewenstein, and Aimee Gauthier, of ITDP, and Zoé Kruchten and Elina Baltatzi of ECF who
helped manage strategic communications.
There are many other people too numerous to name who helped this project succeed and we
thank them. Of course the flaws in the end product are the responsibility of the authors alone.
25%
20%
Mode share
15%
10%
5%
0%
2015 2030 2050
Figure ES-1. Global Mode Shares of Cycling and E-biking by Year and Scenario
Note: “Mode share” refers to the percentage of urban trips, “BAU” refers to business as usual
and “HSC” refers to High Shift Cycling.
CO2e (megatonnes)
3,000
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
0
2015 BAU HS (excl. HSC BAU HS (excl. HSC
cycling) cycling)
2030 2050
Figure ES-2. Yearly CO2 Emissions from urban passenger transport worldwide in the BAU, HS, and HSC scenarios
Conclusions/Recommendations
This analysis shows that cycling can have
a substantial positive impact on the world’s
future, saving US$24 trillion dollars over
the next thirty-five years and dramatically
Bike Share Users on São Paulo’s New Bicycle Infrastructure.
improving quality of life for the world’s rapidly With these policies, governments will be able to quickly in-
urbanizing population. Benefits also include an crease the amount of cycling, walking, and public transport
use and achieve the benefits of an HSC scenario.
11 percent annual reduction in urban transport
CO2 emissions by 2050 over the High Shift
scenario without a strong cycling component, must be addressed for e-bikes to succeed as a
as part of a broader 50 percent reduction from mass mode in many countries. These include
the entire set of changes in the HSC scenario safety and cost. Governments should encour-
versus the BAU scenario. Given the growing age and subsidize low-powered, speed-limited
threat of global climate change, the authors e-bike usage while placing direct restrictions
recommend that actions be taken at the on high-polluting gasoline motorbikes.
municipal, national, and global level to help To meet ambitious cycling targets and
realize such a scenario. achieve the resultant benefits, strong poli-
In upcoming climate negotiations, the cies must be adopted at both the local and
authors recommend that countries include national levels of government. The recom-
specific commitments for cycling, including mendations below are based on the policies
mode share and infrastructure investment adopted by cities and countries that have
targets. E-bikes play a critical role in the HSC achieved high and sustained levels of cycling
scenario, but there are a range of issues that as a percentage of urban travel. To achieve an
• Invest in walking facilities and public • Adopt policies such as congestion pricing,
transport to create a menu of nonmotor- vehicle kilometers traveled (VKT) fees,
ized transport options that can be com- and development impact fees to charge a
bined to accommodate a wide variety of price for driving that accounts for negative
trips; externalities;
• Coordinate metropolitan transport and • Dedicate fuel taxes, driving fees, and other
land-use plans, so that all new investments transport-system revenues toward invest-
result in more cycling, walking, and public ment in sustainable transport.
• The most important change was to e-biking levels than in last year’s HS
remove cycling from the impacts of last scenario.
year’s HS scenario, and report the HS
scenario including only the BAU level Presenting all of this information posed
of cycling. Thus, in this report, the 2014 something of a challenge, but through-
study HS results are slightly lower than out this report we refer mainly to three
those published in last year’s report; scenarios: the revised BAU, last year’s HS
scenario (with BAU cycling), and the new
• Second, the BAU for cycling was updated HSC scenario that shows the full impact of
for the 2014 HS scenario based on the high cycling over what is achieved without
BAU developed in this study, so that the it. In some places we focus on the marginal
two BAUs match. This BAU is higher than impact of cycling by comparing HSC to last
last year’s, since we somewhat underes- year’s HS; in others we show the impact of
timated base year cycling mode shares HSC compared to the BAU, which includes
last year; the benefits from cycling along with very
high public transport ridership, and other
• Finally, the new HSC scenario was high shift benefits.
developed, with far higher cycling and
the expectation that cities that make data of cities covered by the data is shown as labels
available are likely to be somewhat above above each column. Approximate trends in
average for cycling mode share). Finally, Table data were used to determine if a region was
1 also brings the average mode share up to experiencing growth or decline in cycle uti-
2015, based on the estimated trend and the lization. Although many periods in different
average year of available data. The final 2015 regions have limited data, approximate trends
mode shares are shown in the far right-hand are evident. Despite variations in individual
column. countries, it was determined that OECD regions
Figures 1a and b (next page) show the pro- would trend toward growth in the baseline,
gression of urban population-weighted aver- while non-OECD regions would experience a
ages at the regional level from their average fall in cycling use. The trends for future bicycle
source year to the baseline year of 2015 (with- mode share in the BAU scenario are described
out adjustments for missing data). The number in greater detail in Section 3.
2
0.5
0.4
Mode Share
0.3
6 35
0.2
30 8
40
13
0.1 86 47
84 10 66 159
558
9 12
0 0
347
0 0 0 1 356
0
OECD USA Neth-Den Japan OECDEurope OECDNA-exMex
1977-2000 Mode Share 2001-2005 Mode Share 2006-2010 Mode Share 2011 -2015 Mode Share
Figure 1a. Average mode share estimates for different time periods, for selected OECD countries and regions.
0.4
5
0.35
Mode Share
0.3
2
0.25 6
11
0.2
26
0.15
27 57
4
0.1
10
60 22
0.05 6 14
32 11
0 0 1 0
0
Non-OECD China India LAC+ ROW
1977-2000 Mode Share 2001-2005 Mode Share 2006-2010 Mode Share 2011 -2015 Mode Share
Figure 1b. Average mode share estimates for different time periods, for selected non-OECD countries and regions.
Note: The number of cities included in the average is shown above each column.
30%
25%
Mode share (% of trips)
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
ic
il
k
ce
ly
ic
da
ico
AC
st
a
es
pe
nd
an
ar
ric
in
di
si
az
si
pa
rd
cif
Ita
Ea
do
an
at
na
ro
rL
rA
us
ex
Ch
In
nm
Br
rm
la
Af
No
Ja
Pa
St
ng
Eu
Fr
e
Ca
he
M
/R
er
he
dl
Ge
De
d
Ki
D
th
Ot
CD
pe
id
Ot
ite
EC
d
Ne
M
ro
OE
ite
Un
rO
Eu
Un
he
r
he
CD
Ot
Ot
OE
n-
No
Figure 2. Aggregate, adjusted Baseline mode shares for bicycles and e-bikes, 2015.
14000
2015 Global e-Bike Sales
12000
0.50%
10000 0.50%
95.00% 3.30% 0.13%
Sales (,000)
8000 0.33%
0.25%
6000
2000
91 82 62 50 44 40 38 33 11 10
0
s
g
a
l
ia
k
m
ia
ia
nd
ia
y
y
en
nd
ur
ria
a
nd
tia
ga
ta
us
ia
ce
n
ce
ni
ly
h
ar
ar
an
ni
A
an
GB
ar
ak
en
iu
an
ai
ec
bo
tv
al
la
ed
ua
Ita
la
st
US
pr
ee
rtu
la
oa
an
nm
ng
to
lg
lg
rm
Sp
nl
ov
ov
La
M
m
er
Cz
Ire
Au
Po
m
Cy
th
Sw
Gr
Es
Cr
Fr
Be
Bu
Hu
Po
Fi
Ro
De
th
Ge
Sl
Sl
xe
Li
Ne
Lu
Figure 3. Bicycle and e-bike sales for most recent year.
(Bar chart shows bicycle sales in 2014, including recreational as well as utilitarian, for countries with available data;
the inset pie charts show e-bike sales shares by major world region, 2015.
200 0 4
China Non-OECD Europe/ OECD Europe OECD North America OECD Pacific Other Asia + ME South America
150 3
100 2
50 1
0 0
Ca m
Cy s
th d
es
a
lia
g
Ge m
nd
a
ria
ly
itz a
Au o
il
el
ut nd
Hu y
y
Sw y
Ur ia
in
an
ile
us
ia
a
Em y
Be a
y
ce
te
n
ni
ur
re
Sw eni
a
ua
ar
az
ic
do
Lu ede
e
in
an
d
iu
Ita
ra
pa
at
tv
ite Spa
ss
la
ra
rw
la
st
ira
pr
la
iw
Ar Turk
Ch
an
ua
na
ex
Ko
bo
ng
Ch
Br
lg
ug
La
Is
St
ng
er
rm
st
Ru
Ire
ov
Ja
Au
Po
No
Ta
Fr
m
h
Ki
d
Sl
Li
xe
ite
ab
d
So
Un
Un
d
ite
Un
Figure 4. Bike sharing by world region, totals and (inset) per 1,000 residents.
Note: For totals, the blue bars relate to the left axis, and the yellow bars to the right axis.
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
Non-OECD Europe/Russia
Denmark
France
Germany
Netherlands
Nordic
United Kingdom
Japan
United States
Canada
Mexico
Brazil
Other LAC
Africa
Middle East
China
India
Other Asia
Italy
10 100
9 90
8 80
Asia Pacific (right axis)
Sales ex. Asia Pacific (mil)
7 70
4 40
3 30
2 20
1 10
0 0
28
48
26
29
38
46
49
20
22
24
40
42
44
36
39
23
30
32
34
43
25
45
50
33
35
27
47
37
18
16
19
12
14
21
41
13
31
15
17
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
traditional bicycles. North America, Africa, and 6 kilometers per trip and one trip per day per
Latin America are all projected to have a slow e-bike, or 6 kilometers per day per e-bike,
but consistent growth in e-bike sales through results in the average e-bike PKT per day across
2050. Eastern Europe, Russia, and the Middle the entire population, shown in Figure 7. Some
East are projected to experience a much slower countries are expected to be stuck at very low
rate of sales going forward. Few new policies levels of e-biking, given the very low levels
emerge to promote e-biking, provide bicycle today, with no expectation that this will change
infrastructure, or otherwise incentivize higher without strong new policy drivers. A good
uptake rates than shown here. example is India, where e-bikes are expected to
The e-bike sales projections, coupled with be uncompetitive with gasoline scooters unless
an assumed steady use of e-bikes at around policies are enacted to change this.
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
United Kingdom
Netherlands
United States
Middle East
Italy
Mexico
Nordic
Brazil
Denmark
Other Asia
Africa
Non-OECD Europe/Russia
Germany
China
India
Canada
France
Other LAC
Japan
0.05
0.15
0.25
Da
v
Sh Bo is
ul
d
0
0.4
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.5
0.6
ijia Eu er
zh g
ua Be ene
ng
C rkel
Ti Sa am ey
a nj nt brid
a
Zh in Ba ge
en rb
Po ara
gz r
ho G tlan
u ai
ne d
Ni M svil
ng ad l
bo Io iso
w n
a
Na C
nj it
in Ch y
g M ico
Sh is
ho llin Tu on
Sh u gh cs
an am on
gh (W
C ai A
ha Bl Den )
ng oo v
Sa mi er
ch lt n
un La gto
ke n
C
for four example countries, also showing recent mode share data for cities within those countries.
H it y
Jin a
an La rtfo
s rd
Xi Sa Ve
Figure 8. Cycling (yellow bars) and total of cycling plus e-biking (green bars) mode share targets for 2030
am cr ga
am s
G en en
ua Te to
ng
zh Ev mp
ou an e
st
Sh o
en Sa P n
nt rov
zh a
en M o
o
G La nic
w a
ui
ya r
R enc
ng ic
hm e
on
Da d
lia N Irv
ew in
H n H e
on av
g O en
Ko ak
l
C ng O and
s
ho
ng Sa hko
n sh
qi M
ng at
Bo eo
st
on
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.1
0.2
0
0.04
0.14
0.02
0.06
0.08
0.12
0.16
0.18
0.05
0.15
0.25
0.35
Pa
tn Yo
a Ca rk
Na m
gp
br
ur
id
ge
Ra Br
ip is
ur to
Am Ox l
rit Po ford
sa
r rts
m
Ag
ou
Bh ra Sw t h
ub in
an do
es
w
ar
N n
Gu Pe orf
wa te o
ha rb lk
ti or
ou
Bi gh
ka
H ne M Exe
ub
li- r ilt te
D
ha
on r
rw So Key
ad ne
Ka W ut
ha s
np es m
ur tM pt
id Pl on
la y
TV n d mo
Ch M s U ut
an ni h
di ta
ga
rh Ed ries
M
in
ad bu
ur M
ai an rgh
ch
Bh es
op Le ter
al ice
Va s
r an Li ter
si ve
rp
Su
oo
ra Lo l
India
Pu t nd
du o
ch Pr n
er
United Kingdom
Ah ry es
m to
ad Ab n
ab er
ad d
Gl een
Ja ou
ip ce
ur st
er
Ip
De sw
lh
i ich
W
Ko
lk
a
at Bi tfor
a rm d
in
Pu gh
ne am
Du
Ch rh
en am
na
Hy i Le
de ed
ra Ne s
ba
Ba d wc
ng No astl
al
or tti e
e ng
M h
um Sh a m
ba St e
i ok ffie
Ko e- l
ch
on d
i -T
Bl ren
Pa ac t
na kp
ji o
Sh Du ol
im nd
la ee
Ga Gl
ng as
to go
k w
3.500
3.000
pKm/Cap/Day
2.500
2.000
1.500
1.000
0.500
0.000
India
United Kingdom
Netherlands
Brazil
United States
Italy
Nordic
Mexico
Middle East
Africa
Denmark
China
Germany
France
Canada
Japan
Other LAC
Non-OECD Europe/Russia
Other OECD Pacific
Other OECD Europe
Figure 9. Increase in cycling per person per day between 2015 and 2030, HSC.
United States. This shows that even in the Individuals choosing to cycle typically means
United States, fully half of all car trips are five they are also choosing not to travel by another
miles (8 kilometers) or less, and 35 percent are mode—be it walking, driving, or taking public
less than three miles (5 kilometers). Thus while transport. In the case of e-biking it could also
for the United States the HSC target in 2030 is mean shifting from a gasoline-powered two-
set at about 10 percent for combined cycle/e- wheel scooter or motorcycle. In the long run, a
bike mode share, a much higher mode share shift in travel modes toward more cycling has
would appear possible given trip distances. The broader dynamics—supporting denser cities
United States has among the longest average with transportation systems more oriented
urban trip distances in the world—thus most to walking, cycling, and public transport, as
other countries have higher shares of trips that opposed to sprawling car-dominated cities.a
are less than 10 kilometers. Even in Belgium— In addition, over a thirty- to forty-year time
with much higher cycling shares than the frame, this development can relate to an uptick
Unites States—car trips account for about 70 in cycling rather than an uptick in driving
percent of 5 kilometer trips and 80 percent of 8 (or even a modest shift from the latter to the
kilometer trips.16 former) by people who do not yet own a car—
Figure 11 shows the same results for only the vast majority of people in the developing
the HSC separated by region. These reflect the world. Thus for a 2030 modal shift estimate,
foregoing assumptions and considerations in this is really an alternative development
developing this scenario. estimate—more people take up cycling and
e-biking over time, and the demand for car
Modal Shift Impacts of the High Shift ownership and car travel drops somewhat.
Cycling Scenario There are many ways that such scenarios
Assuming a much higher uptick of cycling could play out. For example, bicycles could
and e-biking requires a second assumption— substitute for some mass transport trips; on
how does this change broader travel patterns? the other hand they could be part of a much
a
World Economic Outlook Database, October 2014, International Monetary Fund. Database updated on 7 October 2014.
Accessed on 27 January 2015.
100.0%
80.0%
Cumulative Trips (%)
60.0%
40.0%
20.0%
Miles
50%
45%
40%
35%
30%
Mode Share
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
m
s
st
a
ly
il
ic
co
k
ca
a
y
da
an
C
nd
te
ic
pe
pe
di
az
ar
si
an
in
do
nc
rd
Ita
Ea
LA
i
ri
cif
na
ex
p
In
rA
nm
Ch
la
Br
ro
ro
Af
No
rm
St
ng
Ja
e
Pa
Fr
M
er
Ca
Eu
Eu
he
dl
De
Ge
Ki
d
th
id
CD
ite
Ot
CD
CD
d
Ne
M
ite
Un
OE
OE
OE
Un
n-
No
2015 Cycling 2015 e-Bikes 2030 HS Cycling 2030 HS e-Bikes 2050 HS Cycling 2050 HS e-Bikes
12
10
Trillion PKT
0
OECD 2015 2030 BAU 2030 Old HS 2030 New HSC 2050 BAU 2050 Old HS 2050 New HSC
OECD 2030 OECD 2050
25
20
15
10
5
0
Non-OECD 2015 2030 BAU 2030 Old HS 2030 New HSC 2050 BAU 2050 Old HS 2050 New HSC
Non-OECD 2030 Non-OECD 2050
Figure 12. PKT Comparison between BAU, 2014 HS and Current HSC, for OECD and Non-OECD.
2.0
1.0
0.0
-1.0
-2.0
-3.0
-4.0
LDV Bus Other cycling e-bikes LDV Bus Other cycling e-bikes
OECD Non-OECD
8.0
6.0
4.0
2.0
0.0
-2.0
-4.0
-6.0
-8.0
-10.0
-12.0
LDV Bus Other cycling e-bikes LDV Bus Other cycling e-bikes
OECD Non-OECD
Figure 13a. Change in PKT relative to BAU for previous HS and new HSC scenarios, 2030.
Figure 13b. Change in PKT relative to BAU for previous HS and new HSC scenarios, 2050.
Note: For buses, the reduction in the HSC scenario is relative to the increase that occurred in
the old HS scenario, so the net change in bus travel is still positive.
0.025
Megajoules per pass-km
0.02
0.015
0.01
0.005
0
OECD non-OECD OECD non-OECD OECD non-OECD
2015 2030 High Shift 2050 High Shift
LDV 2-3W Urban bus BRT Minibus Metro car Tram/LRT Commuter rail e-bike
Figure 15. Change in energy use, current HSC versus old HS.
4°C Scenario (4DS), developed as part of IEA’s and the modal shift generate about a 7 percent
ETP b, is used for the electricity CO2 projections average reduction in CO2 emissions over the
in both the BAU and HSC scenarios, meaning HS scenario in 2030, rising to 11 percent by
that in most countries there is some de- 2050. Compared to the BAU, the HSC scenario
carbonization of electricity over time, though (including all elements of the original HS
not the very deep de-carbonization that occurs scenario along with the high cycling elements)
in the IEA’s 2 Degree Scenario (2DS). Thus if cuts urban passenger transport CO2 by 24
this mode shift scenario were placed in the percent in 2030 and 47 percent in 2050—that is,
context with a broad 2DS, e-bikes and other nearly a 50 percent reduction in global urban
electric vehicles would be almost completely passenger transport CO2 from modal shift. This
de-carbonized by 2050 (and many light duty assumes that fuel economy standard require-
vehicles [LDVs] would shift to electric and also ments now slated for implementation under
be de-carbonized). adopted rules go forward but are not modified
As shown in Figure 16, the reduction in CO2 further. If the world also adopts a global road
emissions is similar to the reduction in energy map to a doubling of motor fleet fuel economy
use when comparing last year’s HS scenario to as proposed by the Global Fuel Economy
the HSC scenario. The bicycle/e-bike increases Initiative, the impact of that initiative on CO2
4,500
4,000
3,500
CO2e (megatonnes)
3,000
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
0
2015 2030 BAU 2030 Old 2030 New 2050 BAU 2050 Old 2050 New
HS HSC HS HSC
2030 2050
OECD Non-OECD
b
The analysis of well-to-wheel impacts was performed using IEA’s Mobility Model (MoMo), as proprietary, spreadsheet-based
energy and CO2 emissions model, that uses energy data from the 4DS and 2DS scenarios to project the impact of changes to
travel, energy, and CO2-related inputs..
$1,600
$1,400
$1,200
$1,000
$800
$600
$400
$200
$-
2015 2030 2050 2015 2030 2050
OECD Non-OECD
Bicycles E-bikes
Figure 17. Bicycle and e-bike average purchase cost by region and year.
Figure 18. Total costs across all categories by scenario, 2030 and 2050.
$400.0
$200.0
$- Change in HSC v.
Old HS
$(200.0)
USD Billions
$(400.0)
$(1,000.0)
$(1,200.0)
LDVs
M2W
Buses
Bicycles
E-bikes
LDVs/M2W
Buses
Cycles/E-bikes
Roads/Sidewalks
Parking
Cycle lanes
Roads/Sidewalks
Parking
Cycle lanes
Liquid
Electricity
Vehicle Purchase Operations and Infrastructure Infrastructure O&M Energy Cost
Maintenance Construction
Figure 19a. change in cost ($ billion dollars) by cost category, 2030 HSC, Old HS, and BAU
$1,500.0
$1,000.0
$(500.0)
$(2,000.0)
$(2,500.0)
LDVs
M2W
Buses
Bicycles
E-bikes
LDVs/M2W
Buses
Cycles/E-bikes
Roads/Sidewalks
Parking
Cycle lanes
Roads/Sidewalks
Parking
Cycle lanes
Liquid
Electricity
Vehicle Purchase Operations and Infrastructure Infrastructure O&M Energy Cost
Maintenance Construction
Figure 19b. change in cost ($ billion dollars) by cost category, 2050 HSC, Old HS, and BAU.
Cumulative Cumulative
2030 2050
2015–2030 2015–2050
Scenario Costs
Comparisons
Table 2. Cost results by scenario and time frame, with comparisons across scenarios (USD trillions).
*Note: Differences may not appear exact, due to rounding.
c
http://lcc.org.uk/pages/seville-goes-dutch.
2
Replogle, M. & Fulton, L. A Global High Shift Scenario : Impacts And Potential For More Public
Transport, Walking, And Cycling With Lower Car Use. (2014).
3
Pucher, J. & Buehler, R. Making Cycling Irresistible: Lessons from The Netherlands, Denmark
and Germany. Transp. Rev. 28, 495–528 (2008).
4
Pucher, J. & Buehler, R. Cycling for Everyone: Lessons from Europe. Transportation Research
Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board 2074, 58–65 (2008).
5
Bonifazi, E. et al. Emerging technology trends and innovation processes for the low carbon
economy – electric two-wheelers. (2013).
6
Skougaard, B. Denmark National Travel Survey. 16, 191–194 (2013).
7
Dulac, J. Global Land Transport Infrastructure Requirements: Estimating road and railway
infrastructure capacity and costs to 2050. 54 (2013).
8
Pucher, J. & Buehler, R. Sustainable transport in Canadian cities: Cycling trends and policies.
Berkeley Plan. J. 19, 97–123 (2006).
9
CityRyde LLC. Methodology for Determining GHG Emission Reductions Through Bicycle
Sharing Projects. Methodology (2011).
Ministry of Transport & Management Public Works and Water. Cycling in the Netherlands.
10
77 (2009). at http://www.fietsberaad.nl/library/repository/bestanden/CyclingintheNether-
lands2009.pdf
Mayne, K. Report to the Pro E-bike Project : Market potential for Pro E-bike services in South
11
Ricci, M. Bike sharing: A review of evidence on impacts and processes of implementation and
12
Starkey, P. & Hine, J. Poverty and sustainable transport How transport affects poor people with
13
Weinert, J. X., Ma, C., Yang, X. & Cherry, C. R. Electric Two-Wheelers in China: Effect on Travel
14
Behavior, Mode Shift, and User Safety Perceptions in a Medium-Sized City. Transp. Res. Rec.
2038, 62–68 (2008).
Dekoster, J. & Schollaert, U. Cycling: the way ahead for towns and cities. Reproduction (1999).
15
doi:10.1038/5000250
Vandenbulcke, G. et al. Mapping bicycle use and the risk of accidents for commuters who cycle
16
on Driving Behavior recorded in the National Household Travel Survey of 2009. 1, 56 (2012).
Pucher, J., Dill, J. & Handy, S. Infrastructure, programs, and policies to increase bicycling: an
18
Dufour, D. PRESTO Cycling Policy Guide - General Framework. Intell. Energy - Eur. (2010).
19
Todd Litman, Robin Blair, Bill Demopoulos, Nils Eddy, Anne Fritzel, Danelle Laidlaw, Heath
20
Maddox, K. F. Pedestrian and Bicycle Planning A Guide to Best Practices. 155 (2015).
Haubold, H. Commuting : Who Pays the Bill? Overview of fiscal regimes for commuting in
21
Anderson, L. B., Schnohr, P., Schroll, M. & Hein, H. Q. All-cause mortality associated with physi-
22
cal activity during leisure time, work, sports, and cycling to work. Arch Intern Med 1621–8
(2000). at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10847255