Evaluation of the bicycle and e-scooter infrastructure in Turkey in terms of urban transportation

Abstract

Urban transportation and sustainable mobility have been frequently emphasized in recent years in terms of both environmental and economic factors and meeting the need for mobility. In addition to the increasing population and vehicle ownership, the need for mobility brought about by a more intense lifestyle has increased the need for alternative transportation modes especially in urban areas. Due to its variety of benefits in social, economic and environmental areas, many cities worked on necessary policies of sustainable urban transportation. The common points of these policies are to expand the transportation infrastructure with micromobility vehicles, encourage public transportation and reduce the use of motor vehicles and respective emissions. Bicycles and e-scooters, enable short and medium-distance trips to be made more effectively and minimizes environmental impacts with a low carbon footprint. This study aims to take a picture of the existing micromobility infrastructure in Turkey, to determine the existing bicycle and e-scooter infrastructure of the cities and to evaluate the short-medium term investment/improvement plans of local governments and to provide possible solutions and suggestions to local governments within the scope of micromobility policies and applications. As a result of this study, considering the increasing bicycle and e-scooter infrastructure in recent years, the short and medium-term plans of local governments, commercial activities such as bicycle and escooter rental services, it is seen that the practices related to micromobility in our country do not meet certain and sufficient standards. It is necessary to eliminate the physical infrastructure deficiencies, ensure the completeness and connectivity of bicycle and scooter roads, determine the micromobility vision within the scope of transportation master plans. The establishment of a micromobility concept that will be supported and internalized by all levels of society will be proportional to the continuity and quality of both policies and investments.

Keywords

• Bicycle
• Bicycle roads
• e-scooter
• Micromobility
• Sustainable transport

Türkiye’de bisiklet ve e-skuter altyapısının kentsel ulaşım bakımından değerlendirilmesi

Öz

Kentsel ulaşım ve sürdürülebilir hareketlilik gerek çevresel ve ekonomik faktörler gerekse hareketlilik ihtiyacının karşılanması bakımından son yıllarda sıklıkla vurgulanmaktadır. Artan nüfus ve araç sahipliğinin yanında daha yoğun bir yaşam tarzının getirdiği hareketlilik ihtiyacı da özellikle kentsel alanlarda alternatif ulaşım türlerine olan ihtiyacı artırmıştır. Sosyal, ekonomik ve çevresel alanlarda birçok faydası olması sebebiyle birçok şehir, sürdürülebilir kent içi ulaşıma yönelik politikalar üretmeye başlamıştır. Bu politikaların ortak noktaları; mikro hareketlilik araçlarıyla yapılan ulaşımı yaygınlaştırmak, toplu ulaşımı teşvik etmek ve bireysel motorlu araç kullanımını azaltmaktır. Bisiklet ve e-skuter gibi araçların kullanımı, bireysel ulaşımda kısa-orta mesafeli yolculukların daha etkin yapılmasına imkân tanımakta, düşük karbon ayak izi ile çevresel etkileri en aza indirmektedir. Bu çalışma, Türkiye’deki mevcut mikro hareketlilik altyapısının genel fotoğrafını çekmek, şehirlerin mevcut bisiklet ve e-skuter altyapısını belirlemek, yerel yönetimlerin kısa-orta vadeli planlarını değerlendirmek ve yerel yönetimlere mikro hareketlilik politikaları kapsamında çözüm ve uygulama önerileri sunmak amacıyla hazırlanmıştır. Bu çalışma sonucunda, son yıllarda artan bisiklet yolları ve yerel yönetimlerin bu konudaki kısa ve orta vadeli planları, bisiklet ve e-skuter kiralama servisleri gibi ticari faaliyetler düşünüldüğünde ülkemizdeki mikro hareketlilik ile ilgili uygulamaların belirli ve yeterli standartları taşımadığı görülmektedir. Fiziksel altyapı yetersizliklerinin giderilmesi, bisiklet ve e-skuter yollarının kesiksiz ve süreklilik arz edecek şekilde planlanması ve ulaşım ana planları kapsamında mutlaka mikro hareketlilik vizyonunun belirlenmesi gerekmektedir. Toplumun her kesiminden destek görecek ve içselleştirilecek bir mikro hareketlilik kavramının yerleşmesi hem politikaların hem de yatırımların sürekliliği ve kalitesi ile orantılı olacaktır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Bisiklet
• Bisiklet yolları
• E-skuter
• Mikro hareketlilik
• Sürdürülebilir ulaşım

Kaynakça

1. [1] Kögmen Z. Karayolu Taşımacılığının Diğer Taşımacılık Modlarıyla Karşılaştırılması ve Sağladığı Avantajları. Uzmanlık Tezi, Ulaştırma Denizcilik ve Haberleşme Bakanlığı, Ankara, Türkiye, 2014.
2. [2] Sussman JM. Introduction to Transportation Systems. 2nd ed. Boston, London, Artech House, 2000.
3. [3] Acker V, Goodwin P, Witlox F. “Key research themes on travel behavior, lifestyle, and sustainable urban mobility”. International Journal of Sustainable Transportation, 10(1), 25-32, 2016.
4. [4] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). “Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis”. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_FrontMatter.pdf (10.04.2021).
5. [5] United Nations Development. “Sustainable Development Goals”. https://www.tr.undp.org/content/turkey/tr/home/sustainable-development-goals.html (10.04.2021).
6. [6] United Nations. “United Nations Paris Climate Agreement”. Le Bourget, France, 2015.
7. [7] Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Cumhurbaşkanlığı Strateji ve Bütçe Başkanlığı. “11. Kalkınma Planı” Ankara, Türkiye, Kalkınma Planları, 1225, 2019.
8. [8] Lumsdon L, Downward P, Rhoden S. “Transport for tourism: can public transport encourage a modal shift in the day visitor market?”. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 14(2), 139-156, 2006.

9. [9] Çevre, Şehircilik ve İklim Değişikliği Bakanlığı. “Bisiklet Yolları Yönetmeliği”. Ankara, Türkiye, 30976, 2019.
10. [10] Rérat P. “Cycling to work: meanings and experiences of a sustainable practice”. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 123, 91-104, 2019.
11. [11] Ton D, Duives DC, Cats O, Hoogendoorn Lanser S, Hoogendoorn S. “Cycling or walking? determinants of mode choice in the Netherlands”. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 123, 7-23, 2019.
12. [12] Çiftci Ö. Metropoliten Alanda Bisiklet Yolu Planlaması. Yüksek Lisans Tezi, İstanbul Teknik Üniversitesi, İstanbul, Türkiye, 2006.
13. [13] Oskarbski J, Birr K, Żarski K. “Bicycle traffic model for sustainable urban mobility planning”. Energies, 14(18), 1-36, 2021.
14. [14] CIVITAS. “Smart Choices For Cities: Cycling In The City”. https://civitas.eu/resources/civitas-policy-note-smart-choices-for-cities-cycling-in-the-city (12.09.2021).
15. [15] Fishman E. “Cycling as transport”. Transport Reviews, 36(1), 1-8, 2016.
16. [16] Le HTK, Buehler R, Hankey S. “Have walking and bicycling increased in the us? a 13-year longitudinal analysis of traffic counts from 13 metropolitan areas”. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 69, 329-345, 2019.
17. [17] İstanbul Büyükşehir Belediyesi. “İstanbul Bisiklet Ana Planı”. https://bisiklet.ibb.istanbul/istanbul-bisiklet-ana-plani/ (11.12.2021).
18. [18] Brand C, et al. “The climate change mitigation effects of daily active travel in cities”. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 93(4), 1-18, 2021.
19. [19] Neves A, Brand C. “Assessing the potential for carbon emissions savings from replacing short car trips with walking and cycling using a mixed GPS-travel diary approach”. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 123, 130-146, 2019.
20. [20] DUBLIN. “Global Electric Scooter Markets Report 2021-2028”. https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/global-electric-scooter-markets-report-2021-2028---increasing-efforts-by-oems-to-produce-lightweight-bikes--increasing-trend-towards-connected-e-bikes-301402099.html (10.12.2021).
21. [21] Ulaştırma ve Altyapı Bakanlığı. “Elektrikli Skuter Yönetmeliği”. Ankara, Türkiye, 31454, 2021.
22. [22] Smith CS, Schwieterman JP. “E-scooter Scenarios: Evaluating the Potential Mobility Benefits of Shared Dockless Scooters in Chicago”. Chaddick Institute Policy Series, Chicago, USA, 60422, 2018.
23. [23] Sanders RL, Calles MB, Nelson TA. “To scoot or not to scoot: findings from a recent survey about the benefits and barriers of using e-scooters for riders and non-riders”. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 139, 217-227, 2020.
24. [24] Bozzi A, Aguilera A. “Shared e-scooters: a review of uses, health and environmental impacts, and policy implications of a new micro-mobility service”. Sustainability, 13(16), 1-17, 2021.
25. [25] Kopplin CS, Brand B, Reichenberger Y. “Consumer acceptance of shared e-scooters for urban and short-distance mobility”. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 91, 1-26, 2021.
26. [26] Euronews. “Electric Scooters: What Are the Rules Across Europe and Where Are the Highest Injuries?”. https://www.euronews.com/next/2023/06/01/electric-scooters-what-are-the-rules-across-europe-and-where-are-injuries-highest (06.02.2023).
27. [27] Angiello G. “European cities and e-scooters at the crossroad”. Tema-Journal of Land Use Mobility and Environment, 16(1), 233-237, 2023.
28. [28] Kamphuis K, Schagen I. “E-Scooters in Europe: Legal Status, Usage and Safety: Results of A Survey in FERSI Countries”. Forum of European Road Safety Research Institutes (FERSI), Netherlands, 2020.
29. [29] Karasar N. Bilimsel Araştırma Yöntemleri. 17. Baskı. Ankara, Türkiye, Nobel, 2005.
30. [30] Sönmez V, Alacapınar FG. Örneklendirilmiş Bilimsel Araştırma Yöntemleri. 7. Baskı. Ankara, Türkiye, Arı Yayıncılık, 2013.
31. [31] Ankaya FU, Aslan BG. “Engelli turizm potansiyelinin değerlendirilmesi; dünya ve Türkiye örnekleri”. Ulusal Çevre Bilimleri Araştırma Dergisi, 3(2), 52-57, 2020.
32. [32] Cabiroglu S, Ozden A. “Türkiye’de uzun bisiklet parkurlarının bisiklet kullanımına etkisinin incelenmesi”. European Journal of Science and Technology, 32, 850-857, 2022.
33. [33] Calles MB, Nelson T, Fuller D, Gauvin L, Winters M. “Associations between individual characteristics, availability of bicycle infrastructure and city-wide safety perceptions of bicycling: a cross-sectional survey of bicyclists in 6 Canadian and U.S. cities”. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 123, 229-239, 2019.
34. [34] Assunçao-Denis ME, Tomalty R. “Increasing cycling for transportation in Canadian communities: understanding what works”. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 123(7), 288-304, 2019.
35. [35] Wang K, Akar G, Chen YJ. “Bike sharing differences among millennials, gen xers, and baby boomers: lessons learnt from New York City’s bike share”. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 116, 1-14, 2018.
36. [36] Dill J, Carr T. “Bicycle commuting and facilities in major u.s. cities: if you build them, commuters will use them”. Transportation Research Record, 1828(1), 116-123, 2003.
37. [37] Col Yılmaz D, Gercek H. “Prioritization of integrated bicycle network clusters in Istanbul Using analytic hierarchy process”. Pamukkale University Journal of Engineering Sciences, 20(6), 215-224, 2014.
38. [38] Akalın KB, Kara C, Ozden A, Karacasu M. “Eskişehir’deki kent içi bisiklet kazalarının incelenmesi’. IMO 13. Ulaştırma Kongresi, Erzurum, Türkiye, 10-12 Ekim 2019.
39. [39] Savan B, Cohlmeyer E, Ledsham T. “Integrated strategies to accelerate the adoption of cycling for transportation”. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 46, 236-249, 2017.
40. [40] Abrahamse W, Steg L, Vlek C, Rothengatter T. “The effect of tailored information, goal setting, and tailored feedback on household energy use, energy-related behaviors, and behavioral antecedents”. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 27(4), 265-276, 2007.
41. [41] Aldred R, Jungnickel K. “Constructing mobile places between leisure and transport: a case study of two group cycle rides”. Sociology, 46(3), 523-539, 2012.
42. [42] De Young R. “New ways to promote proenvironmental behavior: expanding and evaluating motives for environmentally responsible behavior”. Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 509-526, 2000.
43. [43] Thigpen C. “Do bicycling experiences and exposure influence bicycling skills and attitudes? Evidence from a bicycle-friendly university”. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 123, 68-79, 2019.
44. [44] Simons D, Clarys P, De Bourdeaudhuij I, De Geus B, Vandelanotte C, Deforche B. “Factors influencing mode of transport in older adolescents: a qualitative study”. BMC Public Health, 13(1), 323-332, 2013.
45. [45] Morrison CN, Thompson J, Kondo MC, Beck B. “On-road bicycle lane types, roadway characteristics, and risks for bicycle crashes”. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 123, 123-131, 2019.
46. [46] Kim D, Kim K. “The influence of bicycle oriented facilities on bicycle crashes within crash concentrated areas”. Traffic Injury Prevention, 16(1), 70-75, 2014.
47. [47] Zangenehpour S, Strauss J, Miranda-Moreno L, Saunier N. “Are signalized intersections with cycle tracks safer? A case-control study based on automated surrogate safety analysis using video data”. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 86, 161-172, 2015.
48. [48] Wall S, et al. “The effect of sharrows, painted bicycle lanes and physically protected paths on the severity of bicycle injuries caused by motor vehicles”. Safety, 2(4), 26-39, 2016.
49. [49] Ferenchak NN, Marshall WE. “Advancing healthy cities through safer cycling: an examination of shared lane markings”. International Journal of Transportation Science and Technology, 8(2), 136-145, 2019.
50. [50] Clabaux N, Fournier JY, Michel JE, Perrin C. “Does filtering by powered two-wheelers present a risk for pedestrians in city centers?”. Journal of Transport & Health, 13(3), 224-233, 2019.
51. [51] Bolton W. “Paris to Become 100 Per Cent Cycling City Within Next Four Years”. https://road.cc/content/news/paris-become-100-cent-cycling-city-next-four-years-287285 (21.12.2021).
52. [52] Paris. “Un Nouveau Plan Vélo Pour Une Ville 100 % Cyclable”. https://www.paris.fr/pages/un-nouveau-plan-velo-pour-une-ville-100-cyclable-19554 (21.11.2021).
53. [53] Medlis. “Bicycle Stair Access Ramp”. http://www.medlis.com.tr/en/p?/bicycle-stair-access-ramp/40 (12.12.2021).
54. [54] Saplıoglu M, Aydın MM. “Choosing safe and suitable bicycle routes to integrate cycling and public transport systems”. Journal of Transport & Health, 10(5), 236-252, 2018.
55. [55] Sakarya Büyükşehir Belediyesi. “Çark Caddesi Şimdi Yeni Yüzüyle”. https://www.sakarya.bel.tr/tr/Haber/cark-caddesi-simdi-yeni-yuzuyle-kaldirim-yuruyus-yolu-ve-asfalt-tamam/20869 (27.05.2023).
56. [56] İstanbul Büyükşehir Belediyesi. “Bisikletli Zabıtadan İlk Devriye”. https://zabita.ibb.gov.tr/bisikletli-zabitadan-ilk-devriye/ (10.12.2021).
57. [57] İstanbul Büyükşehir Belediyesi. “Sürüş Güvenliğine Yönelik İletişim Kampanyası Başlattık”. https://bisiklet.ibb.istanbul/surus-guvenligine-yonelik-iletisim-kampanyasi-baslattik/ (10.09.2021).
58. [58] European Cyclists' Federation. “France: Car Ads Will Have to Encourage the Use of Cycling and Other Sustainable Transport”. https://ecf.com/news-and-events/news/france-car-ads-will-have-encourage-use-cycling-and-other-sustainable-transport (10.03.2022).
59. [59] NTV. “12 Şubat Kışın İşe Bisikletle Gitme Günü Pandemi Sürümüyle Gerçekleşiyor”. https://www.ntv.com.tr/turkiye/12-subat-kisin-ise-bisikletle-gitme-gunu-pandemi surumuyle-gerceklesiyor,WtY2wseITkaHEoSlc7PKyg (10.04.2021).
60. [60] Danışmaz AT. “Covıd-19 salgınının tüketicilerin online alışveriş tercihine etkisi”. Sosyal Bilimler Araştırma Dergisi, 9(2), 83-90, 2020.
61. [61] My London News. “Bikes Are Starting to Replace Delivery Vans in London”. https://www.mylondon.news/news/zone-1-news/bikes-starting-replace-delivery-vans-16270456 (10.12.2021).
62. [62] Fuller D, Luan H, Buote RD, Auchincloss AH. “Impact of a public transit strike on public bicycle share use: an interrupted time series natural experiment study”. Journal of Transport & Health, 13, 137-142, 2019.