Cycling in modern urban mobility

The aim of the course is to introduce the role of cycling in urban transport and analysis of urban cycling policies

1. Urban active mobility (including cycling) in the context of sustainable development;

2. Sustainable urban mobility in strategic documents and mobility plans (SUMP – sustainable urban mobility plan);

3. Soft (social) conditions of urban cycling policies;

4. Hard (infrastructural) conditions of urban cycling policies;

5. Cycling as a mode of transport (multimodal transport, cycling in urban logistics);

6. Development of bicycle sharing systems in Poland and in the world;

7. Perspectives of urban mobility development – electromobility and personal transporters.

Field trip: visit in one Polish city/town and meeting local cycling officer

Aldred, R., Jungnickel, K. (2014) ‘Why culture matters for transport policy: the case of cycling in the UK’, Journal of Transport Geography, 34, 78-87.

DeMaio, P. (2009) ‘Bike-sharing: History, Impacts, Models of Provision, and Future’, Journal of Public Transportation, 12(4), 41-56.

Gaffron, P. (2003) ‘The implementation of walking and cycling policies in British local authorities.’, Transport Policy, 10(3), 235-244.

Martens, K. (2007) ‘Promoting bike-and-ride: The Dutch experience’, Transportation Research Part A, 41, 326-338.

Pucher, J., Buehler, J., & Seinen, M. (2011) ‘Bicycling renaissance in North America? An update and re-appraisal of cycling trends and policies.’, Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 45(6), 451-475.

Pucher, J., Dill, J., Handy, S. (2010) ‘Infrastructure, programs, and policies to increase bicycling: An international review’, Preventive Medicine, 50, Suppl., S106-S125.

Ricci, M. (2015) ‘Bike sharing: A review of evidence on impacts and processes of implementation and operation’, Research in Transportation Business & Management, 15, 28-38.

Shaheen, S., Guzman, S., Zhang, H. (2010) ‘Bikesharing in Europe, the Americas, and Asia: Past, Present, and Future’, Transportation Research Record, 2143, 159-167.

Assessment methods:

- test

- project

- activity during the field trip – meeting with local governors

Test: W1, W2, W3

Project: U2, U3, K1, K3

Activity: U1, K2, K4

Mark from test:

50% - 3.0,

60% - 3.5,

70% - 4.0,

80% - 4.5,

90% - 5.0.

Mark from project:

Very low-quality project – 3.0,

Low quality project - 3.5,

Average-quality project – 4.0,

Good-quality project– 4,5,

Very good-quality project – 5.0.

not applicable