Transatlantic collaborations in cycling research

By

12 Jan, 2017

During the second week of January, ECF President Manfred Neun was invited to present current Scientist for Cycling (S4C) activities at the Bicycling Committee Meeting of American Transport Research Board (TRB). TRB is a division of the US National Research Council administered by the Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, which has the general objective to promote innovation and progress in transportation through research in interdisciplinary settings. Founded in 1920, the TRB hosts more than 200 permanent committees from all fields of transport.
In this post, ECF President Manfred Neun shares his experience in TRB meeting.

TRB meeting gave me a chance to highlight a need of bridging the worlds of cycling and related research. I also used this opportunity to invite the audience to the World Cycling Summit, Velo-city 2017, and the next S4C colloquium in Arnhem-Nijmegen in June.

TRB is primarily a huge congress of researchers, and if there is ever a space to discuss transport research in America, it is in the TRB, once a year. However, it is not only busy with representatives from scientific field, but also from science related businesses. The TRB Meeting is one of the biggest global summits internationally - with attendees from all over the World (e.g., great delegations from countries such as China), one could compare it to OECD’s International Transport Forum (ITF). Around 13.000 researchers, professionals, politicians, practitioners, and also business people could be met at the TRB. What is more, the conference expo is huge, enormous number of properly reviewed research reports is also quite impressive. I had a unique opportunity to meet high-level decision makers there, such as ITF Secretary General, Prof. José Viegas, who has also had a chat with me.

The cycling community may estimate to have about 350 – 400 TRB attendees representing cycling (~3% of all attendees). Central docking station for cycling community is the Bicycle Transportation Committee, chaired by Ralph Buehler, Assistant Professor in Urban Affairs and Planning and a faculty fellow with the Metropolitan Institute at Virginia Tech’s Alexandria Center. Outside the US, he is also known as an editor of the book “City Cycling” (2012, together with John Pucher). There are also several Bicycle Transportation subcommittees that manage committee’s members, communications, etc.

The four days program that I attended concentrated on active transportation, bicycling and walking, and it was simply overwhelming. One very positive observation is that a term ‘active transportation’ was used more often than non-motorised transportation (NMT) (except of some presentations in rather statistical context like from the US Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration). The latter term has rather negative, less active connotations, therefore its usage should be limited.

Bicycle Transportation Committee Meeting

During the meeting of the Bicycle Transportation Committee, I presented ECF’s global network Scientists for Cycling to the researchers present. After giving a short overview of how the network came into existence, I highlighted the successful last two S4C colloquia and gave a preview on the next edition. The colloquium in February 2016 in Taipei offered the great opportunity to explain the benefits of a long-term collaboration with Taiwan’s academia, in particular the “Active Mobility Forum” initiated by Prof Jason Chang already two years before Velo-city 2016. Thinking in categories of active mobility and the active mobility agenda became essential for establishing a level playing field to stimulate international collaborations, overcome cultural and language barriers, and unleash the momentum for Taipei’s colloquium and Velo-city. In particular it’s a milestone already that we discussed with the academia there about how cycling delivers to the UN Global Goals. This happened at the right time with an extended audience.

The key-topics of the S4C colloquium in Aveiro in November 2016 were “Global Goals” and “rapid change”, but also meeting with the initiators of the Portugal Bike Valley strategy became an eye-opener. It was very successfully organised by the University of Aveiro, with professors José Carlos Mota and Margarida Coelho in the lead; I was able to reiterate my thanks to them also personally since Margarida Coelho participated in the TRB. Content-wise the Aveiro colloquium was the opportunity to explain the impact of the active mobility agenda as an evaluation matrix in two aspects: Firstly to better identify the contributions of cycling and active mobility to the UN Sustainable Development Goals, and secondly as a basis for the new EU cycling economic benefits study. This study does not only estimate the economic value of cycling at more than half a trillion Euro, but it also identifies concretely the existing gaps for further research, providing an agenda for researchers working on cycling.

In the preview of the S4C activities the main topic was the invitation to Velo-city 2017 in Arnhem-Nijmegen and the next S4C colloquium there. Thanks to the good collaboration with Prof Kevin Krizek (University of Colorado, Boulder and Radboud University Nijmegen), I was able to present the list of 80 papers and extended abstracts to the TRB Committee already at this stage. With about 60% contributions from Europe and 40% from abroad, this colloquium will become a really international meeting platform for cycling related research.

TRB presentations, workshops and poster sessions

First of all, TRB representatives positively noted that there is an annual increase in the field of cycling research contributions to the TRB.

Second, it is important talk about ‘Bikeshare Experiences from Around the World’ which was one of the most impressive events. Myriads of questions were asked, while the answers which were provided were evidence-based and very well reasoned. Among the discussion questions were: ‘What do people use bikesharing for?’; ‘Is bikesharing useful in suburban areas?’; ‘Which characterizations of bikesharing users can be identified?’; ‘Which are the characteristics of a typical trip with a shared bike, which effects of pricing can be found?’; ‘What affects the usage of shared bikes, and what is users’ satisfaction?’; ‘What influence cyclists’ route choices have comfort and travel time?’

In addition, a very interesting discussion was also triggered by the presentations on evaluation of the results from Munich’s intermodal bike route planner, as well as a study on strategies to promote cycling from Bogota, Rosario, Mexico City and Rio de Janeiro. With a presentation titled “Bicycling is freedom: A Qualitative Analysis of Latino Immigrant Cycling Experiences”, Jesus Barajas from Berkeley seemed already bridging to the next Velo-city motto. In fact, he might have been doing so because he was accepted with his application to the S4C colloquium in Nijmegen. Striking was the enormous number of contributions from China, in particular about public bike share studies. An eye-catching fact: many of them were related to a target of the clean air!

To sum up, the collaborations on the transatlantic route seem to be intensified after this summit. Arnhem-Nijmegen can become a new benchmark also for these mutual efforts on cycling related research.

Presentation of Manfred Neun can be found here.

Additional links about TRB and cycling – responsible bicycling, as it is called in America: