Ebby Leung
Brendan Nee
Joe Willhite

The availability of multiple transportation options is key to providing a system that allows for sustainable practices and long-term feasibility. Since bicycling provides an option that is both environmentally friendly, economical - both personally and politically, it has been proven to be the most efficient mode of human powered transportation. These factors contribute to the importance of bicycling as a transportation mode worldwide. For the purposes of this case study we will focus on the relative differences between Shanghai and Amsterdam along with a few references to the United States. Overall, bicycling is becoming a more feasible and recommended transportation mode around the world.

The recurring mantra among many planners is that individuals pursue different modal behavior based on the attractiveness of the alternatives available to them (i.e., they drive because transit is not available), their preferences, and other factors (harkening back to the discussion of utility presented in a general manner earlier and in a more specific manner later in this chapter). But such a relatively limited view often fails to consider the role fellow citizens and residents play in affecting such decisions. (Levinson and Krizek - Chapter 5) This explanation plays into the need for a socially acceptable means of transportation as well as the social engineering necessary to promote bicycling as a favorable choice among the general population as a mode of transportation.

Within the primary case study material, the cities of Amsterdam and Shanghai have proven to provide different social policies concerning the same topic. In Amsterdam the social preference to bicycle has been embraced and supported by the government in many ways, including woonerf zones, education, and a multitude of bicycle facilities that are maintained by the government. Shanghai, however, has chosen to limit the accessibility of bicycles on the major arterial roads and increase the police measures that enforce certain traffic concerns. The transition that has occurred in both cities is a direct result of government interactions in the different modes of transportation.

The personal utility of using the different modes of transportation eventually leads to the differentiations in their overall use. The costs, however, are not only the implicit monetary costs but also involve the opportunity and uncertainty costs associated with each alternative mode. The difference in these costs between individuals leads to the changes that occur between seasons and times of day that different modes are used, however, the general condition of the modes and availability of those modes plays a very important role in overall choices.

Without this effort to promote bicycling as a viable option, the likelihood that a person would choose bicycling as a mode would inherently decrease. The continued investment placed in the multiplicity of transportation modes is necessary to provide a long-term effort to promote this variety. This heightened level of investment can lead to a virtuous cycle. If investment falls because use is lacking, the use may continue to diminish given the vicious cycle that ensures.

There are many long-term policy implications that present themselves within the discussion about bicycling as a viable mode of transportation. The onus rests; however, on continued government policies that investment in education; remove the dependence on automotive infrastructure in the center city; improve bicycling infrastructure including parking, road lanes, and traffic calming measures. The long-term policies developed need to take the special requirements of the bicycle mode into account. Weather, in particular, can be a deterrent to the use of bicycles. It would be reasonable to assume that bicycle ridership in Minneapolis in the winter could not top that of Amsterdam no matter how much investment in bicycle infrastructure and education occurred.

Cycling is more compatible with public transportation than with the automobile. Both bicycles and streetcars can share the same corridor through a dense urban area without conflict. However, large streets through urban areas discourage cycling and cause congestion, which can hinder forms of public transportation.

This case provides an excellent comparison between two cities with a similar predominant mode of transportation but different government policies. Both cities rely heavily on cycling, but while Amsterdam views cycling in a very positive way and promotes it heavily, Shanghai seeks to ban it, thus restricting mode choice in the city. This shows how modes compete with one another in cities for a share of transportation. When disinvestment occurs, such as what happened after World War II in Amsterdam and currently in Shanghai, the transportation environment changes. Despite the fact that individuals are free to choose the mode they prefer, the government exerts tremendous influence on which mode of transportation is dominant through long-term policies. This translates into land use patterns. Cycling can lead to a diverse landscape. Shanghai has a concentrated city center while Amsterdam has multiple nodes of living and working space, which is conducive to non-automotive transportation.

The use of bicycles as a serious mode of transportation is dependant upon government investment in the multiplicity of modes that currently exist. Without further and consistent investment, use and availability of any mode can fail. In order to promote cycling, Amsterdam has created systems that not only allow for safer transportation when using a bike, but also promote the education of all users of public space to the demands of interactions between modes. Shanghai has chosen to move in the opposite direction that limits the use of bicycles by removing them from arterial roadways and relying more on public mass transit and automobile use. The choices made by each government will without a doubt have long-term policy impacts that will be seen for generations.

Created 2/11/04