Rivalry and excludability as characteristics of tools aimed at making cycling in cities more attractive

Monika Paradowska

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.12775/EiP.2018.012

Abstract


Motivation: Urban transport systems are complex and sophisticated, while different passenger transport modes are more or less attractive, depending on their characteristics and demands of transport users. According to many municipalities, cycling is considered one of the most required ways of commuting, because it generates multiple benefits and low levels of external costs of transport. Thus, many cities try to increase the share of cycling in the modal split by the way of various interventions. Effects of these efforts are different, depending on levels of rivalry and excludability of goods provided, which influence the attractiveness of cycling.

Aim: The main aim of the paper is (1) to describe key elements of and some solutions for cycling systems in urban areas with focus on two characteristics of goods: rivalry and excludability, and (2) to examine, how different levels of rivalry and excludability influence the attractiveness of cycling and contribute to required effects of cycling policy.

Results: A change in levels of rivalry and excludability can lead to an increased attractive-ness of cycling. Instruments, that play a crucial role, are e.g. separated cycling infrastructure, leading to a (partially) exclusion of other transport users, as well as solutions for eliminating self-exclusion from cycling or exclusion of people with disabilities. Further research on levels of rivalry and excludability in terms of the complexity of transport systems can contribute to a better understanding of transport behaviour. This, in turn, can result in a creation of adequate solutions and it can be useful while estimating future effects.


Keywords


rivalry; excludability; cycling; transport demands; urban transport systems

Full Text:

PDF

References


Buchanan, J. (1965). An economic theory of clubs. Economica, 32(125). doi:10.2307/2552442.

Buehler, R., Götschi, T., & Winters, M. (2016). Moving toward active transpor-tation: how policies can encourage walking and bicycling. San Diego: Active Living Research.

Buehler, R., Pucher, J., Merom, D., & Bauman, A. (2011). Active travel in Germany and the US. Contributions of daily walking and cycling to physi-cal activity. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 41(3). doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2011.04.012.

Clark, C. (1958). Transport: maker and breaker of cities. Town Planning Review, 28(4). doi:10.3828/tpr.28.4.kun370rn6pg882g3.

De Vries, P. (2005). Anti-rival and anti-excludable. Retrieved 20.11.2016 from http://deepfreeze9.blogspot.com.

Dekoster, J., & Schollaert, U. (1999). Cycling: the way ahead for towns and cities. Retrieved 20.11.2016 from http://ec.europa.eu.

European Commission. (2007a). Sustainable Urban Transport Plans. Preparatory Document in relation to the follow-up of the Thematic Strategy on the Urban En-vironment. Main document. Retrieved 20.11.2016 from http://ec.europa.eu.

European Commission. (2007b). Sustainable Urban Transport Plans. Preparatory Document in relation to the follow-up of the Thematic Strategy on the Urban En-vironment. Annex. Retrieved 20.11.2016 from http://ec.europa.eu.

European Commission. (2011). Roadmap to a Single European Transport Area: towards a competitive and resource efficient transport system. Retrieved 20.11.2016 from http://ec.europa.eu.

Hall, P. (1994). Squaring the circle: can we resolve the Clarkian paradox? Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 21(7). doi:10.1068/b21s079.

Handy, S., van Wee, B., & Kroesen, M. (2014). Promoting cycling for transport: research needs and challenges. Transport Reviews, 34(1). doi:10.1080/01441647.2013.860204.

Hardin, G. (1968). The tragedy of the commons. Science, 162(3859). doi:10.1126/science.162.3859.1243.

Heesch, K.C., Sahlqvist, S., & Garrard, J. (2012). Gender differences in rec-reational and transport cycling: a cross-sectional mixed-methods compari-son of cycling patterns, motivators, and constraints. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 9(1). doi:10.1186/1479-5868-9-106.

Heydon, R., & Lucas-Smith, M. (2014). Making space for cycling. A guide for new developments and street renewals. London: Cyclenation.

Lanzendorf, M., & Busch-Geertsema, A. (2014). The cycling boom in large German cities – empirical evidence for successful cycling campaigns. Transport Policy, 36. doi:10.1016/j.tranpol.2014.07.003.

Levinson, D., (2014). Rivalry and anti-rivalry, excludability and anti-excludability. Retrieved 20.11.2016 from https://transportist.org.

Mayes, M., Halliday, M., & Hatch, I. (1996). A qualitative assessment of attitudes to cycling. Transport policy and its implementation. London: Planning and Transport Res and Computation.

OECD. (2008). The wider economic benefits of transport: macro-, meso- and micro-economic transport planning and investment tools. doi:10.1787/9789282101834-en.

Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the commons. The evolution of institutions for collec-tive action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511807763.

Ostrom, E. (2010). Beyond markets and states: polycentric governance of complex economic systems. American Economic Review, 100(3). doi:10.1257/aer.100.3.641.

Pape, M. (2016). Moving cycling forward: coordinated approach to cycling for local and regional authorities in the EU. Retrieved 20.11.2016 from http://www.europarl.europa.eu.

Platje, J. (2012). Current challenges in the economics of transport systems: a stakeholder and club good approach. Logistics and Transport, 2(15).

Pucher, J., & Buehler, R. (2008). Making cycling irresistible: lessons from the Netherlands, Denmark and Germany. Transport Reviews, 28(4). doi:10.1080/01441640701806612.

Pucher, J., & Buehler, R. (2012). Walking and cycling in Western Europe and the United States: trends, policies, and lessons. TR News, 280.

Pucher, J., & Buehler, R. (2016). Safer cycling through improved infrastruc-ture. American Journal of Public Health, 106(12). doi:10.2105/AJPH.2016.303507.

Pucher, J., Dill, J., & Handy, S. (2010). Infrastructure, programs and policies to increase cycling: an international review. Preventive Medicine, 50(S1). doi:10.1016/j.ypmed.2009.07.028.

Ricardo–AEA. (2014). Update of the handbook on external costs of transport. Re-trieved 20.11.2016 from https://ec.europa.eu.

Rydzkowski, W., & Wojewódzka-Król, K. (Eds.). (2007). Transport. Warsza-wa: PWN.

Samuelson, P. (1954). The pure theory of public expenditure. Review of Eco-nomics and Statistics, 36(4). doi:10.2307/1925895.

Transport for London. (2014). Attitudes towards cycling. Annual report 2014. Re-trieved 22.03.2017 from http://content.tfl.gov.uk.

UN–Habitat. (2013). Planning and design for sustainable urban mobility. Global report on human settlements 2013. Retrieved 20.11.2016 from https://unhabitat.org.

van Audenhove, F.J., Korniichuk, O., Dauby, L., & Pourbaix, J. (2014). Future of urban mobility 2.0. Imperatives to shape extended mobility ecosystems of tomor-row. Retrieved 16.03.2017 from http://www.uitp.org.

Winters, M., Davidson, G., Kao, D., & Teschke, K. (2011). Motivators and deterrents of bicycling: comparing influences on decisions to ride. Trans-portation, 38(1). doi:10.1007/s11116-010-9284-y.

Wright, P. (2016). Congestion charging: lessons from London. London: Transport for London.

Zayed, M. A. (2016). Towards an index of city readiness for cycling. Interna-tional Journal of Transportation Science and Technology, 5(3). doi:10.1016/j.ijtst.2017.01.002.








ISSN 1898-2255 (print)
ISSN 2392-1625 (online)

Partnerzy platformy czasopism