Next Article in Journal
(Micro-)Plastics in Saturated and Unsaturated Groundwater Bodies: First Evidence of Presence in Groundwater Fauna and Habitats
Previous Article in Journal
Consumer Preference for Fisheries Improvement Project: Case of Bigeye Tuna in Japan
Previous Article in Special Issue
Nonlinear Influence and Interaction Effect on the Imbalance of Metro-Oriented Dockless Bike-Sharing System
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 16
Issue 6
10.3390/su16062531
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Bicycle Parking Requirements in City Building Codes and Their Potential to Promote Sustainability

by
David Kohlrautz
* and
Tobias Kuhnimhof
Institute of Urban and Transport Planning, RWTH Aachen University, 52074 Aachen, Germany
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2024, 16(6), 2531; https://doi.org/10.3390/su16062531
Submission received: 9 February 2024 / Revised: 14 March 2024 / Accepted: 15 March 2024 / Published: 19 March 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Sustainable Urban Transport Planning)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Bicycle parking requirements in building codes are an important tool for promoting cycling, as several studies have shown that the provision of secure parking increases cycling rates and contributes to sustainability. However, bicycle parking requirements are not comprehensive across the EU and vary widely within countries and between municipalities, which questions what aspects they should consider. This paper analyzes the literature and guidelines on parking requirements and compares their implementation in ten German and four international cities both qualitatively, examining specific requirements for parking facilities, and quantitatively, examining the number of spaces required. The results show that most guidelines set comparable standards in terms of quality and quantity. However, the quality standards defined in the actual building codes are heterogeneous. While most cities require features such as the ability to lock the bicycle frame, they do not adequately address different user groups and insufficiently consider e-bike charging infrastructure. Most cities meet the guidelines for the required number of bicycle parking spaces, but lack a clear rationale based on local conditions, which can lead to an unsustainable under- or oversupply. In summary, cities do not fully utilize the potential of parking requirements to promote cycling because of incomplete qualitative standards.

1. Introduction

Bicycle parking requirements in building codes regulate the amount and quality of parking facilities that must be provided when a new building is constructed or when the use of an existing building is changed. Bicycle parking management is an important issue for countries with high cycling rates, as there is a high demand for bicycle parking [1]. While the cycling mode share in Germany was about 11% nationwide in 2017, the rates vary widely between cities [2,3]. Germany has about one bicycle per capita, and this number is increasing. Between 2017 and 2022, the number of bicycles grew from 73.5 to 82.8 million [4], raising the question of where to store them.
Bicycle parking requirements play a key role in achieving the following sustainable transportation goals:
  • Encourage cycling, as high-quality parking facilities provide weather protection and a high level of security against theft and vandalism [5,6].
  • Prevent fly parking of bicycles on sidewalks, etc., thereby improving urban design and reducing barriers for pedestrians, especially for people with reduced mobility [1,5,7].
  • Avoid the construction of parking facilities in public spaces to prevent costs for municipalities and the overuse of limited public space [1].
Despite the importance of bicycle parking, its requirements in building codes are relatively new compared to requirements for car parking (e.g., [8]). For example, Italy only implemented nationwide requirements in 2017 [9], and bicycle parking requirements are still not comprehensive across the EU and vary within countries, as shown in Figure 1.
In Germany, bicycle parking requirements are regulated at the state level. Most states allow municipalities to set more detailed parking requirements, regulating the quantity and quality of parking for cars and bicycles. However, in North Rhine-Westphalia, for example, this has only been allowed since 2019 [5], while the provision of bicycle parking has generally been required since 1995 [10].
Although bicycle parking facilities are important for promoting cycling [11,12], most research to date has focused on the infrastructure for moving traffic, such as bicycle lanes [13]. Therefore, it is not surprising that bicycle parking requirements in building codes have not been the focus of research [13]. However, it is important to determine whether the current implementation meets the strategic goals of transport policy, as parking requirements are a major tool for promoting cycling in the long term. Therefore, we analyze international guidelines for defining bicycle parking requirements and compare them to actual building codes. Our focus is on Germany, but we also use international examples for comparison despite their differences in national and state regulatory frameworks.
After reviewing and comparing the guidelines, we assess the extent to which parking requirements align with scientific knowledge on promoting cycling and summarize the key areas they should address. We focus on both qualitative design standards and the number of bicycle parking spaces required, and we define the number of parking spaces as the number of parkable bicycles. Thus, a u-rack typically has two parking spaces.
The paper opens with a depiction of prior research on bicycle parking and design guidelines. Next, we describe our methodology, present our findings, discuss them, provide policy recommendations, and draw a conclusion.

2. Literature Review

There is a widespread consensus that promoting cycling can enhance sustainability by reducing car usage, emissions, and space consumption, while also providing significant health benefits, even on a societal level [14,15,16]. Therefore, numerous studies have analyzed the impact of land use and bicycle infrastructure on the likelihood of cycling. While they found positive effects of cycling infrastructure, most studies have only focused on moving bicycle traffic, such as bicycle networks, or analyzed bike-sharing systems [13,17,18,19]. Evaluations of bicycle parking policies are lacking because bicycle parking improvements are usually embedded in broader strategies to promote cycling [13,18].
Fewer studies have analyzed the influence of bicycle parking facilities on the likelihood of cycling. While some have found significant effects [11,12], others have estimated minor effects [20,21]. Researchers have found that cyclists prefer sheds to parking racks [22,23,24], and that bicycle parking facilities are more important than showers or lockers [11,25]. Furthermore, some cyclists store their bicycles in their offices or rooms at home or work, although this is not their preferred option [24]. Cyclists are also sensitive to the walking distance between the parking facility and their destination [26,27]. For instance, [28] found that a 100 m increase in walking distance reduced the use of bicycle lockers by 20%. Studies have shown trade-offs between pricing and the acceptance of parking facilities [26]. Furthermore, research has analyzed the willingness of cyclists to pay for bicycle parking [29,30]. The results suggest the potential to refinance investments in high-quality bicycle parking facilities through revenue generated by renting them to users. It is unclear whether and to what extent the provision of charging infrastructure can increase cycling rates [31,32].
Furthermore, as mentioned in the introduction, cyclists engage in fly parking when parking facilities are insufficient or too far away from their destination. This results in bicycles being parked on street furniture or sidewalks, creating urban design issues and obstacles for pedestrians and individuals with reduced mobility. This is particularly problematic in cities with limited space [1,7,33]. Therefore, it is crucial to provide attractive parking facilities not only to promote cycling but also to address broader sustainability concerns. However, it is important to note that providing an excessive number of parking facilities can also be unsustainable, primarily in terms of car parking [34].
One approach to managing bicycle parking is the implementation of sharing systems. However, according to [35], the potential to reduce parking demand at train stations is only moderate, even if all cyclists were willing to share their bicycles. Additionally, shared mobility plays a minor role in Germany [2,36].
While scientific studies often analyze the behavior of cyclists, many guidelines from independent researchers, research organizations, and cycling foundations recommend how facilities should be designed. Table 1 provides a systemization of these recommendations, demonstrating their similarity. The guidelines may also cover additional aspects, such as parking facilities for children’s bicycles. However, we have focused on the quality requirements that are most relevant to building codes or most prominent in the guidelines.
Almost all guidelines recommend that parking facilities should allow the locking of the bicycle frame to the facility. In contrast, in Denmark, butterfly racks (also called front wheel racks) are also recommended, which do not meet this requirement [40].
Most guidelines recommend that facilities be covered, at least for long-term parking. The barrier-free accessibility of facilities and the maximum distance between facilities and destinations are less consistent across guidelines. Some guidelines specify maximum distances: [6] states that walking distances should be less than 5 m for short-term and 15 m for medium-term parking. Ref. [40] recommends 15 m for short-term and 100 m for long-term parking, and [7] suggests walking distances of generally less than 50 m.
Most guidelines specify a minimum amount of space per parked bicycle, which also depends on respective parking designs (e.g., perpendicular, angled, double-row). If specified in the guidelines, the values shown in the table refer to single-row parking, but even this value varies from 1.0 m2 to 1.6 m2.
Almost all guidelines recommend safe standing when parking, although the Danish guideline is less clear as butterfly racks typically only hold a bicycle by the front wheel. More than half of the guidelines recommend lighting for parking facilities. Almost all make a distinction between short- and long-term parking, while less than half of the guidelines distinguish between visitors and permanent users, although the options for providing parking for both groups are different. Basement parking is much less feasible for visitors, for instance. Five of the guidelines recommend space for cargo bicycles, while only three of them consider charging for e-bikes. This may be due to the fact that some of them were published several years ago as the share of e-bikes has increased rapidly in recent years; the number of e-bikes in Germany, for example, more than doubled, from 4.5 million in 2018 to 11.0 million in 2023 [4].
The number of recommended parking spaces is usually calculated based on floor space usage data, the number of units per building (e.g., apartments), or specific metrics, such as the number of workplaces, students in a school, or beds in a hotel. While the qualitative requirements are usually independent of local conditions, the guidelines recommend that the number of parking spaces required by a city in building codes should take into account aspects such as the (target) mode share of cycling or topography [5,6,39,41,42].
To illustrate the quantitative requirements for bicycle parking, we define the two example buildings, a residential building and a supermarket, as shown in Table 2. To determine the necessary number of parking spaces under the different approaches used in the guidelines, we have specified space utilization data and the number of users. The guidelines recommend 17–30 spaces for Building 1 and 20–25 parking spaces for Building 2.

3. Methods

We analyze the parking requirements of the cities listed in Table 3. We selected the German cities with the intention of having heterogeneous cycling conditions. The cities vary in size (120,000–3.6 million inhabitants), geographic location, and modal share of cycling. None of the cities are mountainous, but some are hillier than others, which is also reflected in the modal shares. We only consider cities that have parking requirements defined at the city level, rather than simply implementing state-specific regulations. The city-states of Berlin and Bremen are exceptions, as they are both a state and a city. For international comparison, we have selected Copenhagen (DK) and Amsterdam (NL) due to their high cycling mode share, and London (UK) and Toronto (CA) as contrasting examples.
To categorize the cities, we have researched data on the role of bicycle traffic in the cities, specifically bicycle ownership and mode share. There are variations in data collection methods among cities when reporting bicycle statistics. Some cities report the number of bicycles per household, while others report the ownership of bicycles per person. Additionally, some cities provide information on e-bikes, while others do not differentiate between them and conventional bicycles. Overall, there appears to be a non-linear correlation between bicycle ownership and mode share.
To analyze the qualitative requirements outlined in the parking requirements of the building codes, we use the structure presented in Table 1. While some aspects, such as the ability to lock the bicycle frame to the parking facility, can be easily verified, others, such as barrier-free accessibility, are less clear. The application of building regulations in this case requires interpretation, making direct comparisons between cities more challenging.
For the quantitative comparison, we use the example buildings in Table 2. We assume that both buildings are located in dense areas but outside of historic city centers. If the parking requirements do not distinguish between supermarket customers and employees, the number of parking spaces is allocated to the customers as the largest user group.

4. Results

The results section is divided into two parts. The first part analyzes the qualitative parking design standards. There are only a few reasons why these should vary between the cities, such as local theft risks or e-bike shares. In contrast, differences in the quantitative requirements in the second part would be in line with the guidelines, as they recommend taking into account local conditions such as the local mode share of cycling.

4.1. Qualitative Design Standards

Qualitative parking design standards vary widely from city to city, as shown in Table 4. Amsterdam has the most comprehensive requirements, while Toronto and, surprisingly, Copenhagen have the fewest.
Most guidelines recommend that parking facilities should allow for locking bicycle frames, while it is not mandatory in the two German and two international cities. Although several cities require covering, it is usually only required for residents or when a certain number of parking spaces is exceeded. The latter is probably based on construction feasibility and cost.
Almost all cities require easy access to parking facilities, but definitions vary, with some accepting ramps, elevators, or even stairs with push ramps. The acceptable walking distance between the facility and the destination also varies widely and is specified in only half of the cities, although most guidelines recommend short distances. The limitations on property sizes may reduce the need for further regulation, as parking spaces usually need to be verified on the same property. However, a maximum distance of 200 or 300 m seems insufficient for promoting cycling, as these distances also apply to short-term parking and far exceed the recommendations of the guidelines that specify distances. In contrast, most of the cities analyzed, both in Germany and internationally, define a clear minimum parking space of 1.4 or 1.5 m2 for parking a bicycle.
Only six German cities and Amsterdam require parking facilities to provide safe standing when parking, although almost all of the guidelines recommend this. Five German cities, along with Amsterdam and London, require lighting for facilities, which is consistent with the fact that not all guidelines address this issue. Apart from Copenhagen, all international cities, but only one German city, directly differentiate between short-term and long-term parking, while several cities indirectly distinguish between them by requiring covered facilities at residential buildings. Distinguishing between visitors and permanent users is more common. Only Amsterdam, London, and Toronto differentiate between short- and long-term parking, as well as between visitors and permanent users. This is likely due to these issues overlapping, as visitors are usually also short-term users. Most parking requirements involve the provision of space for cargo bikes, while only three German cities and Amsterdam consider e-bike charging infrastructure.

4.2. Quantitative Parking Requirements

The number of bicycle parking spaces required by cities for the two example buildings is shown in Table 5. For the residential building, most German cities and London require 20 to 34 parking spaces or about 1.5 spaces per resident. These numbers are in the range or slightly above the 17–30 recommended in the guidelines. Only the city of Göttingen, which, along with Amsterdam, has the second-highest cycling mode share, does not require bicycle parking for residential buildings, except for student housing. Meanwhile, the cities of Copenhagen and Amsterdam require substantially more parking facilities than recommended in the guidelines, likely due to their high cycling mode shares.
The requirements for the supermarket vary. While five German cities follow the 20 to 25 parking spaces that were recommended in the guidelines, four German cities require only 10 to 17 spaces, and Erfurt requires 40 spaces despite having a comparatively low cycling rate. Internationally, Toronto requires fewer spaces, London requires 26, and Copenhagen and Amsterdam require more.
While most of the parking requirements offer the opportunity to reduce the amount of parking required for cars, given a good public transit service at the building’s location, this factor does not affect the amount of parking required for bicycles in the German examples. The cities allow the payment of one-time in-lieu fees to build fewer bicycle parking spaces than required, either generally or on a case-by-case basis. This can be a solution when providing bicycle parking facilities is not feasible.
In summary, no clear relationship exists between mode share and the number of parking spaces for the German examples. Cities such as Aachen and Erfurt have moderate levels of cycling but require a similar number of parking facilities as cities with much higher levels of cycling. On an international level, the number of required bicycle parking spaces is higher in Copenhagen and Amsterdam, corresponding to the higher level of cycling.

5. Discussion

Bicycle parking requirements can promote cycling by providing an attractive parking supply, which has been shown to increase cycling rates [13,18]. Therefore, it is important for bicycle parking requirements to ensure that the quality of the parking supply meets the needs of cyclists. Although these needs may not differ significantly between cities, this study has shown that parking design standards in building codes vary. Cities have heterogeneous definitions of accessibility requirements. For instance, some cities allow stairs with push ramps and permit access distances of up to 300 m, which demonstrates a lack of ambition in promoting cycling. Moreover, building codes often fail to consider different user groups. Other fundamental requirements, such as safe standing during parking or lighting, are inconsistently specified by cities, both in Germany and internationally. Only the city of Amsterdam has comparably comprehensive parking requirements, although it allows the use of stairs with push ramps.
The lack of consideration for e-bike charging and cargo bikes underscores that some parking requirements are outdated, although most were last updated less than five years ago. However, even a 2020 guideline did not include charging infrastructure for e-bikes [39]. Regardless of whether an e-bike’s battery is removable and can be recharged elsewhere, it does not require much effort to provide electrical outlets, especially if light already needs to be provided.
The German cities in our study, with the exception of the city of Göttingen, have similar requirements for the number of bicycle parking spaces, although the current bicycle ownership and the modal share of cycling differ between them, as shown in Table 3. This could be explained by the fact that not only the current but also the target modal split can be and should be used to determine the number of parking spaces to be provided [5,41]. As a result, most of the requirements meet the quantitative recommendations of the guidelines despite the different local conditions of the cities and geographical contexts to which the guidelines refer. With the expectation that the provision of bicycle parking facilities will increase cycling rates [11,12] and thus increase the demand for bicycle parking, it seems reasonable not to overemphasize the current low cycling rates. This is especially true if topography is a major barrier in the city as e-bikes mitigate the impact of topography [67,68]. However, requiring a uniform number of parking facilities regardless of local conditions may lead to underestimating parking demand in areas with high bicycle traffic and constructing unnecessary bicycle parking facilities in areas with low demand. Both scenarios should be avoided from a sustainability standpoint. The first case does not fully utilize the potential of bicycle traffic, while the second case leads to unnecessary consumption of space that could be used for other purposes, such as recreation, and construction-related emissions. In contrast, the cities of Amsterdam and Copenhagen require more facilities than recommended by the guidelines, likely due to their already high levels of cycling.
Another relevant topic regarding bicycle parking is the growing popularity of shared mobility, particularly in cities with high usage of bike-sharing systems. However, according to the national mobility survey, bike-sharing has a minor role in Germany [2] and is unlikely to significantly impact bicycle parking demand.
While we analyzed the implemented parking requirements, more research should focus on appropriate and quantifiable regulations for the accessibility of bicycle parking facilities and the impact of such regulations on the practical implementation of parking facilities [13]. There may be a substantial gap between the theoretical requirements in building codes and the actual infrastructure that is implemented. Conducting a quantitative study on the impact of building codes on bicycle parking and cycling rates, while controlling for other factors such as the development of the bicycle network, would enhance current knowledge. However, this is challenging since most bicycle parking improvements are part of broader cycling policies [13].
Parking requirements in building codes are only applied when a building is constructed or its use is changed. Therefore, other measures must be considered when there is a shortage of bicycle parking infrastructure or to encourage cycling in the short term, as parking requirements can only have a long-term impact in existing neighborhoods. Some cities financially support measures to retrofit bicycle parking facilities in existing buildings on private property [69,70]. However, more research is needed to address this issue and analyze the achievable impacts of such measures.

6. Policy Recommendations

Bicycle parking requirements can promote cycling by increasing the supply of bicycle parking. Therefore, they should be part of a city’s policies to promote sustainable mobility. However, encouraging cycling by defining bicycle parking requirements involves a trade-off between the quality and quantity of bicycle parking facilities and space consumption, construction costs, and construction-related emissions. Car parking is costly and takes up a lot of space [34,71]. Bicycle parking facilities have similar drawbacks, albeit to a lesser extent. In Germany, high rents pose a challenge for many urban residents. To reduce construction costs, cities are minimizing the required parking. However, to promote cycling and discourage fly parking, adequate parking facilities are necessary [1]. Therefore, for cycling, a slight long-term oversupply of parking facilities, which could be a substantial oversupply in the short term, seems reasonable. However, the oversupply of free car parking in the past was, from today’s perspective, a mistake that needlessly encouraged car traffic [34,72]. In summary, to estimate the optimal number of bicycle parking facilities and in order to optimize parking supply with sustainability in mind, it is important to consider local conditions, such as topography, cycling network, and cycling culture. In accordance with the guidelines, we therefore recommend implementing local building codes instead of doing so at the state or national level. This approach contrasts with the practice of many European countries that establish bicycle parking requirements at the national level [9].
Defining only non-binding guidelines for bicycle parking facilities raises the question of whether developers have a vested interest in providing good and sufficient bicycle parking. However, at least anecdotally, the authors are aware of enough examples of bicycle parking facilities being built that do not meet the basic recommendations. This underscores the need for parking requirements that enforce the provision of adequate parking facilities.
After analyzing the guidelines and applying them to building codes, we recommend establishing quality requirements for bicycle parking in order to ensure the usability and attractiveness of parking facilities. We suggest the following examples:
  • Inclusion of basic requirements (ability to lock the bicycle frame, barrier-free accessibility prohibiting, e.g., push ramps, defining maximum allowed distance and minimum required space per bicycle for parking, providing safe standing when parking, lighting).
  • Differentiation between visitors and permanent users, as well as between short-term and long-term users, in order to meet the demand and needs of all user groups, and definition of quality requirements, such as covering, based on this differentiation.
  • Inclusion of space for cargo bikes and e-bike charging infrastructure, comprising standard electrical outlets at the parking space, at a minimum.
Finally, promoting cycling involves not only providing bicycle parking, but also an attractive cycle network in the city. To facilitate bicycle traffic, we recommend combining bicycle parking requirements in building codes with other policies, such as building bike lanes or cycleways.

7. Conclusions

Bicycle parking requirements are used to varying degrees in the cities studied, although they are a powerful tool that can enforce an attractive bicycle parking infrastructure on private property. By increasing cycling in the long term, they are a key to making urban transport more sustainable. While quantitatively, most of the German cities in the study require a similar number of parking spaces, which is often at the same level as is recommended by the guidelines, the quality requirements vary, as shown in this study. For example, if a city does not require the ability to lock the bicycle frame and a safe standing position when parking, only some of the property developers will voluntarily implement appropriate parking facilities out of self-interest. Therefore, it is advisable not to take such standards for granted, as some parties involved in the building design are often less aware of the needs of cyclists.
When considering the long-term impact of parking requirements in building codes, it is important to consider future demand trends. As cycling increases in countries such as Germany and the Netherlands, particularly with the rise of e-bikes, and as the average value of bicycles also increases with this trend, the importance of secure parking and the relevance of parking facilities grows substantially. Building codes should therefore take into account both the long-term consequences of quality standards for bicycle parking and the development of bicycle traffic. As long as the positive effects of bicycle parking infrastructure at the societal level are greater than the benefits to developers in terms of increased rental and sales prices, it seems reasonable to promote cycling by requiring a good parking infrastructure in both quality and quantity.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, D.K.; methodology, D.K.; software, D.K.; validation, D.K.; formal analysis, D.K.; investigation, D.K.; resources, T.K.; data curation, D.K.; writing—original draft preparation, D.K.; writing—review and editing, D.K.; visualization, D.K.; supervision, T.K.; project administration, D.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

City parking requirements are available online. The dataset is available upon request from the authors.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. van der Spek, S.C.; Scheltema, N. The importance of bicycle parking management. Res. Transp. Bus. Manag. 2015, 15, 39–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Nobis, C.; Kuhnimhof, T. Mobilität in Deutschland—MiD Ergebnisbericht; Study by infas, DRL, IVT and infas 360 on behalf of the BMVI; infas Institut für Angewandte Sozialwissenschaft GmbH: Bonn, Germany, 2019; Available online: https://bmdv.bund.de/SharedDocs/DE/Anlage/G/mid-ergebnisbericht.pdf?__blob=publicationFile (accessed on 18 February 2024).
  3. Gerike, R.; Hubrich, S.; Ließke, F.; Wittig, S.; Wittwer, R. Sonderauswertung zum Forschungsprojekt “Mobilität in Städten—SrV 2018”; TU Dresden: Dresden, Germany, 2020; Available online: https://tu-dresden.de/bu/verkehr/ivs/srv/ressourcen/dateien/SrV2018_Staedtevergleich.pdf (accessed on 18 February 2024).
  4. ZIV. Marktdaten Fahrräder und E-Bikes für 2023. 13 March 2024. Available online: https://www.ziv-zweirad.de/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/ZIV_Marktdatenpraesentation_2024_fuer_GJ_2023.pdf (accessed on 18 February 2024).
  5. Blees, V.; Thiemann-Linden, J.; Müller, K. Kommunale Stellplatzsatzungen: Leitfaden zur Musterstellplatzsatzung NRW; Zukunftsnetz Mobilität NRW: Köln, Germany, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  6. BICY. Bicycle Parking Made Easy: A Guide to the Construction of Bicycle Parking Facilities; BICY: Ferrara, Austria, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  7. Gamman, L.; Thorpe, A.; Willcocks, M. Bike Off! Tracking the Design Terrains of Cycle Parking: Reviewing Use, Misuse and Abuse. Crime Prev. Community Saf. 2004, 6, 19–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Reichsgaragenverordnung. Verordnung über Garagen und Einstellräume: RgaO. 1939. Available online: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garagenverordnung#/media/Datei:Deutsches_Reichsgesetzblatt_39T1_028_0219.jpg (accessed on 18 February 2024).
  9. Küster, F.; Peters, M. Making Buildings Fit for Sustainable Mobility: Comparing Regulations for Off-Street Bicycle and Car Parking in Europe; European Cyclists’ Federation: Brussels, Belgium, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  10. Nordrhein-Westfalen. Bauordnung für das Land Nordrhein-Westfalen: BauO NW; Nordrhein-Westfalen: Düsseldorf, German, 1995. [Google Scholar]
  11. Hunt, J.; Abraham, J. Influences on bicycle use. Transportation 2007, 34, 453–470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Bueno, P.C.; Gomez, J.; Peters, J.R.; Vassallo, J.M. Understanding the effects of transit benefits on employees’ travel behavior: Evidence from the New York-New Jersey region. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2017, 99, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Heinen, E.; Buehler, R. Bicycle parking: A systematic review of scientific literature on parking behaviour, parking preferences, and their influence on cycling and travel behaviour. Transp. Rev. 2019, 39, 630–656. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. de Hartog, J.J.; Boogard, H.; Nijland, H.; Hoek, G. Do the health benefits of cycling outweigh the risks? Environ. Health Perspect. 2010, 118, 1109–1116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Flügel, S.; Veisten, K.; Sundfør, H.B.; Jordbakke, G.N.; Hulleberg, N.; Halse, A.H. The effect of health benefits on the value of travel time savings in active transport. J. Transp. Health 2021, 21, 101074. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Hendriksen, I.J.M.; Simons, M.; Garre, F.G.; Hildebrandt, V.H. The association between commuter cycling and sickness absence. Prev. Med. 2010, 51, 132–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Nikitas, A.; Tsigdinos, S.; Karolemeas, C.; Kourmpa, E.; Bakogiannis, E. Cycling in the Era of COVID-19: Lessons Learnt and Best Practice Policy Recommendations for a More Bike-Centric Future. Sustainability 2021, 13, 4620. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Pucher, J.; Dill, J.; Handy, S. Infrastructure, programs, and policies to increase bicycling: An international review. Prev. Med. 2010, 50 (Suppl. S1), S106–S125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Kou, Z.; Wang, X.; Chiu, S.F.; Cai, H. Quantifying greenhouse gas emissions reduction from bike share systems: A model considering real-world trips and transportation mode choice patterns. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2020, 153, 104534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Stinson, M.A.; Bhat, C.R. Frequency of Bicycle Commuting: Internet-Based Survey Analysis. Transp. Res. Rec. J. Transp. Res. Board 2004, 1878, 122–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Handy, S.L.; Xing, Y. Factors Correlated with Bicycle Commuting: A Study in Six Small U.S. Cities. Int. J. Sustain. Transp. 2011, 5, 91–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Moskovitz, D.A.; Wheeler, N. Bicycle Parking Analysis with Time Series Photography. Transp. Res. Rec. J. Transp. Res. Board 2011, 2247, 64–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Yuan, C.; Sun, Y.; Lv, J.; Lusk, A.C. Cycle Tracks and Parking Environments in China: Learning from College Students at Peking University. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2017, 14, 930. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Lusk, A.C.; Wen, X.; Zhou, L. Gender and used/preferred differences of bicycle routes, parking, intersection signals, and bicycle type: Professional middle class preferences in Hangzhou, China. J. Transp. Health 2014, 1, 124–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Buehler, R. Determinants of bicycle commuting in the Washington, DC region: The role of bicycle parking, cyclist showers, and free car parking at work. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2012, 17, 525–531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Molin, E.; Maat, K. Bicycle parking demand at railway stations: Capturing price-walking trade offs. Res. Transp. Econ. 2015, 53, 3–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Kohlrautz, D.; Kuhnimhof, T. Planning for bicycle parking: Predicting demand using stated preference and count data. J. Cycl. Micromobility Res. 2024, 2, 100011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Arbis, D.; Rashidi, T.H.; Dixit, V.V.; Vandebona, U. Analysis and planning of bicycle parking for public transport stations. Int. J. Sustain. Transp. 2016, 10, 495–504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. van Lierop, D.; Lee, B.H.; El-Geneidy, A.M. Secure Investment for Active Transport: Willingness to Pay for Secured Bicycle Parking in Montreal, Canada. Transp. Res. Board Annu. Conf. 2012, 93. Available online: https://escholarship.mcgill.ca/downloads/pg15bk66s?locale=en (accessed on 18 February 2024).
  30. Fournier, J.; van Liefferinge, M.; Ravensbergen, L.; DeWeese, J.; El-Geneidy, A. Evaluating the Need for Secured Bicycle Parking Across Cyclist Typologies. Int. J. Sustain. Transp. 2023, 17, 1278–1286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Kohlrautz, D.; Kuhnimhof, T. E-Bike Charging Infrastructure in the Workplace–Should Employers Provide It? Sustainability 2023, 15, 10540. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Popovich, N.; Gordon, E.; Shao, Z.; Xing, Y.; Wang, Y.; Handy, S. Experiences of electric bicycle users in the Sacramento, California area. Travel Behav. Soc. 2014, 1, 37–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Larsen, J. Bicycle Parking and Locking: Ethnography of Designs and Practices. Mobilities 2015, 12, 53–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Shoup, D. The High Cost of Free Parking. J. Plan. Educ. Res. 1997, 17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. van Goeverden, K.; Correia, G. Potential of peer-to-peer bike sharing for relieving bike parking capacity shortage at train stations: An explorative analysis for the Netherlands. Eur. J. Transp. Infrastruct. Res. 2018, 18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Borgstedt, S.; Franziska, J.; Gensheimer, T. Fahrrad-Monitor Deutschland 2021: Ergebnisse einer Repräsentativen Online-Befragung, 17 November 2021. Available online: https://bmdv.bund.de/SharedDocs/DE/Anlage/StV/fahrrad-monitor-2021.pdf?__blob=publicationFile (accessed on 18 February 2024).
  37. APBP. Essientials of Bike Parking: Selecting and Installing Bicycle Parking that Works. 2015. Available online: https://www.apbp.org/assets/docs/EssentialsofBikeParking_FINA.pdf (accessed on 18 February 2024).
  38. Barber, H.; Arnold, T.; Blackett, A.; van den Dool, D. Bicycle Parking Facilities: Guidelines for Design and Installation. 2016. Available online: https://bicycleinfrastructuremanuals.com/manuals5/Austroads-Bicycle-Parking-Facilities-Guidelines-for-Design-and-Installation-2016.pdf (accessed on 18 February 2024).
  39. The Stationery Office. Cycle Infrastructure Design; Local Transport Note 1/20, Norwich; 2020. Available online: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/951074/cycle-infrastructure-design-ltn-1-20.pdf (accessed on 31 May 2023).
  40. Celis, P.; Bølling-Ladegaard, E. Bicycle Parking Manual; The Danish Cyclists Federation: Copenhagen, Denmark, 2008; Available online: https://www.celis.dk/Bicycle_Parking_Manual_Screenversion.pdf (accessed on 18 February 2024).
  41. Meschik, M. Planungshandbuch Radverkehr; Springer: Wien, Austria, 2008; ISBN 9783211767504. [Google Scholar]
  42. FGSV. Hinweise zum Fahrradparken; FGSV Verlag: Cologne, Germany, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  43. Aachen. Stellplatzsatzung der Stadt Aachen. 2020. Available online: https://serviceportal.aachen.de/suche/-/vr-bis-detail/dokument/881220/download?_19_WAR_vrportlet_priv_r_p_action=vr-bis-detail-dienstleistung-show (accessed on 18 February 2024).
  44. Berlin. Ausführungsvorschriften zu § 49 Absatz 1 und 2 der Bauordnung für Berlin (BauO Bln) über Stellplätze für Kraftfahrzeuge für Menschen mit Schwerer Gehbehinderung und Rollstuhlnutzende Sowie für Abstellplätze für Fahrräder: AV Stellplätze. 2021. Available online: https://www.berlin.de/sen/sbw/_assets/service/rechtsvorschriften/bereich-bauen/avstellplaetze.pdf (accessed on 18 February 2024).
  45. Bremen. Ortsgesetz über vorhabenbezogene Stellplätze für Kraftfahrzeuge, Fahrradabstellplätze und Mobilitätsmanagement bei Bauvorhaben in der Stadtgemeinde Bremen (Mobilitäts-Bau-Ortsgesetz): MobBauOG HB. 2022. Available online: https://bau.bremen.de/sixcms/media.php/13/MobBauOG-2022%20mit%20Begr%C3%BCndung.pdf (accessed on 18 February 2024).
  46. Darmstadt. Satzung über Die Herstellung von Stellplätzen oder Garagen und Abstellplätzen im Gebiet der Wissenschaftsstadt Darmstadt: Einstellplatzsatzung. 2019. Available online: https://www.darmstadt.de/fileadmin/PDF-Rubriken/Rathaus/satzungen/662.pdf (accessed on 18 February 2024).
  47. Dortmund. Stellplatzsatzung der Stadt Dortmund. 2022. Available online: https://www.dortmund.de/dortmund/projekte/rathaus/verwaltung/stadtplanungs-und-bauordnungsamt/downloads/baurechtliche-satzungen/neufassung_stellplatzsatzung.pdf (accessed on 18 February 2024).
  48. Erfurt. Handlungsrichtlinie der Landeshauptstadt Erfurt für die Herstellung von Fahrradabstellplätzen und Kfz-Stellplätzen zur Anwendung des §49 Thüringer Bauordnung (ThürBO) vom 10 Dezember 2021. 2021. Available online: https://www.erfurt.de/mam/ef/leben/verkehrsplanung/vk/handlungsrichtlinie_text.pdf (accessed on 18 February 2024).
  49. Göttingen. Satzung der Stadt Göttingen über die Herstellung und Bereithaltung von Fahrradabstellanlagen und die Anzahl notwendiger Einstellplätze für Kraftfahrzeuge. 2017. Available online: https://www.goettingen.de/medien/dokumente/5_1_1_satzung_ueber_die_herstellung_und_bereithaltung_von_fahrradabstellanlagen_und_anzahl_notwendiger_stellplaetze_fuer_kfz_stellplatzsatzung_.pdf?20210728103951 (accessed on 18 February 2024).
  50. Mannheim. Satzung der Stadt Mannheim über Die Verpflichtung zur Herstellung und Bereithaltung von Fahrradstellplätzen: Fahrradstellplatzsatzung. 2021. Available online: https://www.mannheim.de/sites/default/files/2021-03/V016_2021.pdf (accessed on 18 February 2024).
  51. Münster. Stellplatzsatzung der Stadt Münster. 2019. Available online: https://www.stadt-muenster.de/recht/ortsrecht/satzungen/detailansicht/satzungsnummer/63.13 (accessed on 18 February 2024).
  52. Potsdam. Stellplatzsatzung der Landeshauptstadt Potsdam. 2021. Available online: https://www.potsdam.de/system/files/documents/stellplatzsatzung_2021-12-10.pdf (accessed on 18 February 2024).
  53. København. Cykelparkering. 2019. Available online: https://kp19.kk.dk/cykelparkering (accessed on 18 February 2024).
  54. Amsterdam. Nota Parkeernormen Fiets en Scooter. 2018. Available online: https://zoek.officielebekendmakingen.nl/gmb-2018-183048.pdf (accessed on 18 February 2024).
  55. London. In Parking Addendum to Chapter 6—Cycle Parking; 2016. Available online: https://www.london.gov.uk/programmes-strategies/planning/london-plan/past-versions-and-alterations-london-plan/london-plan-2016/london-plan-chapter-six-londons-transport-2 (accessed on 18 February 2024).
  56. Toronto. Bicycle Parking Space Regulations. 2022. Available online: https://www.toronto.ca/zoning/bylaw_amendments/ZBL_NewProvision_Chapter230.htm (accessed on 18 February 2024).
  57. Gruschwitz, D.; Belz, J.; Brand, T.; Eggs, J.; Ermes, B.; Follmer, R.; Heising, S.; Kellerhoff, J.; Pirsig, T.; Roggendorf, M. Mobilität in Deutschland—MiD Regionalbericht Stadt Aachen; Study by infas, DRL, IVT and infas 360 on behalf of the BMVI and the city of Aachen; infas Institut für Angewandte Sozialwissenschaft GmbH: Bonn, Germany, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  58. Pirsig, T.; Belz, J.; Brand, T.; Eggs, J.; Ermes, B.; Follmer, R.; Gruschwitz, D.; Kellerhoff, J.; Roggendorf, M. Mobilität in Deutschland—MiD Regionalbericht Darmstadt-Dieburger Nahverkehrsorganisation (DADINA)/Wissenschaftsstadt Darmstadt; Study by infas, DRL, IVT and infas 360 on behalf of the BMVI; infas Institut für Angewandte Sozialwissenschaft GmbH: Bonn, Germany, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  59. Stadt Dortmund. Ergebnisse der Mobilitätsbefragung 2019. Drucksache Nr.: 16308-19. 2020. Available online: https://rathaus.dortmund.de/dosys/gremrech.nsf/0/0ED179117E528B3AC12584FF0044CCBD/$FILE/VorlageVG%2316308-19.pdf (accessed on 1 November 2023).
  60. Stadt Göttingen. Ergebnisse Haushaltsbefragung zum Mobilitätsverhalten 2022 und weiteres Vorgehen. 2023. Available online: https://www.goettingen.de/allris/vo020?VOLFDNR=25207&refresh=false&TOLFDNR=160765 (accessed on 1 November 2023).
  61. Ingenieurbüro Helmert. Mobilitätsbefragung 2019: Zum werktäglichen Verkehrsverhalten der Bevölkerung in Münster. Münster. 2020. Available online: https://www.stadt-muenster.de/sessionnet/sessionnetbi/getfile.php?id=477484&type=do (accessed on 1 November 2023).
  62. Københavns. Mobilitetsredegørelse. 2021. Available online: https://kk.sites.itera.dk/apps/kk_pub2/pdf/2145_bb5703a07da4.pdf (accessed on 18 February 2024).
  63. Gemeente Amsterdam. Meerjarenplan Fiets 2017–2022. 2017. Available online: https://bikecity.amsterdam.nl/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/Meerjarenplan_Fiets_2017-2022.pdf (accessed on 18 February 2024).
  64. Transport for London. Travel in London. 2022. Available online: https://content.tfl.gov.uk/travel-in-london-report-15.pdf (accessed on 18 February 2024).
  65. 2CV. Cycling Potential in London’s Diverse Communities. 2021. Available online: https://content.tfl.gov.uk/cycling-potential-in-londons-diverse-communities-2021.pdf (accessed on 18 February 2024).
  66. Toronto. Cycling Network Plan Update. 2019. Available online: https://www.toronto.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/993a-backgroundfile-134913-Cycling-Network-Plan-Update.pdf (accessed on 18 February 2024).
  67. MacArthur, J.; Harpool, M.; Schepke, D.; Cherry, C. A North American Survey of Electric Bicycle Owners; National Institute for Transportation and Communities (NITC): Portland, OR, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  68. Behrendt, F.; Cairns, S.; Raffo, D.; Philips, I. Impact of E-Bikes on Cycling in Hilly Areas: Participants’ Experience of Electrically-Assisted Cycling in a UK Study. Sustainability 2021, 13, 8946. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Kohlrautz, D.; Kaulen, R.; Witte, A. Quartiersansätze zur Förderung aktiver Mobilität. Straßenverkehrstechnik 2023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Buehler, R.; Heinen, E.; Nakamura, K. Bicycle Parking. In Cycling for Sustainable Cities; Buehler, R., Pucher, J., Eds.; The MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2021; ISBN 9780262362924. [Google Scholar]
  71. Jia, W.; Wachs, M. Parking Requirements and Housing Affordability: Case Study of San Francisco. Transp. Res. Rec. J. Transp. Res. Board 1999, 1685, 156–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Weinberger, R. Death by a thousand curb-cuts: Evidence on the effect of minimum parking requirements on the choice to drive. Transp. Policy 2012, 20, 93–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 16 02531 g001
Figure 1. Bicycle parking requirements in building codes at the national or regional level in the EU (adapted from [9]).
Figure 1. Bicycle parking requirements in building codes at the national or regional level in the EU (adapted from [9]).
Sustainability 16 02531 g001
Table 1. Recommendations for qualitative design standards for bicycle parking facilities in guidelines.
Table 1. Recommendations for qualitative design standards for bicycle parking facilities in guidelines.
[37][38][6][39][40][41][42][5]
LocationNorth AmericaAustraliaEuropeUnited KingdomDenmarkAustriaGermanyGermany
ProtectionAbility to lock the bike frame
Covering/weather protection
AccessibilityBarrier-free access P
Max. distance [m] ADDDA 100
Space per bicycle [m2] 1.51.6 1.01.0 1.5
UsabilitySafe standing when parking
Lighting
Consideration/DifferentiationShort-/long-term parking
Visitors/permanent users W
Cargo bikes
E-bike charging
Legend
Included Not included
AAdjacent to destinationsPAt ground level, via ramps, elevators, or push ramps
DDepending on the trip purpose and/or parking durationWFor workplaces
Table 2. Recommendations on numerical requirements for bicycle parking facilities in guidelines for the example buildings.
Table 2. Recommendations on numerical requirements for bicycle parking facilities in guidelines for the example buildings.
BuildingParametersNecessary Bicycle Parking Facilities
Space UsageUser GroupsNumber of Users[6][39][40][41][42][5]
1Residential buildingTen 3-room apartments with 100 m2 eachResidents20302023172730
2Supermarket1000 m2 of supermarketCustomers1000251020201515
Employees100100055
Total-252020202020
Table 3. Overview of key cycling indicators for the cities considered and the year of the latest update of bicycle parking requirements.
Table 3. Overview of key cycling indicators for the cities considered and the year of the latest update of bicycle parking requirements.
CityAachenBerlinBremenDarmstadtDortmundErfurtGöttingenMannheimMünsterPotsdamCopenhagenAmsterdamLondonToronto
Date of Last Update2020 [43]2021 [44]2022 [45]2022 [46]2022 [47]2021 [48]2017 [49]2021 [50]2019 [51]2021 [52]2019 [53]2018 [54]2016 [55]2022 [56]
Current cycling mode share [%]11182517101336174423263643
(Conv.) bicyclesPer household-1.61.9-1.41.4-1.72.81.81.2 11.90.5-
Share of persons [%]70738276-65-76-81----
E-bikesPer household-0.040.14-0.20.06-0.06-0.060.03 1---
Share of persons [%]8275-3-4-4----
Source[57][3][3][58][59][3][60][3][61][3][62][63][64,65][66]
1 Per person instead of per household.
Table 4. Comparison of standards for bicycle parking design in cities.
Table 4. Comparison of standards for bicycle parking design in cities.
CityAachenBerlinBremenDarmstadtDortmundErfurtGöttingenMannheimMünsterPotsdamCopenhagenAmsterdamLondonToronto
ProtectionAbility to lock the bike frame
Covering/weather protection R5010R5012PU10R R50 PU
AccessibilityBarrier-free access 1SGGEPPGEGEAPG
Max. distance [m]200BE10010060100 300BEBE75
Space per bicycle [m2]1 1.51.41.51.51.31.41.51.4 1.51.41.1
UsabilitySafe standing when parking
Lighting
Consideration/
Differentiation		Short-/long-
term parking
Visitors/permanent users
Cargo bikes
E-bike charging
Legend
Included Not included
10If >10 parking spacesGOn ground level without barriers or by ramps
12If >12 parking spacesPOn ground level without barriers or by ramps, elevators, or stairs equipped with push ramps
1S≤one flight of stairsPUFor private users
BEAt the building entrance RFor residential use
EOn ground level without barriers or by ramps or elevatorsR5050% of facilities for residential or private users
EAEasy access
Table 5. Quantitative bicycle parking requirements in different cities.
Table 5. Quantitative bicycle parking requirements in different cities.
City AachenBerlinBremenDarmstadtDortmundErfurtGöttingenMannheimMünsterPotsdamCopenhagenAmsterdamLondonToronto
Building 1Residential buildingTotal303033252729025342940452010
Building 2SupermarketCostumers19142525830132013204043206
Employees600021003400060
Total251425251040132317204043266
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Kohlrautz, D.; Kuhnimhof, T. Bicycle Parking Requirements in City Building Codes and Their Potential to Promote Sustainability. Sustainability 2024, 16, 2531. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16062531

AMA Style

Kohlrautz D, Kuhnimhof T. Bicycle Parking Requirements in City Building Codes and Their Potential to Promote Sustainability. Sustainability. 2024; 16(6):2531. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16062531

Chicago/Turabian Style

Kohlrautz, David, and Tobias Kuhnimhof. 2024. "Bicycle Parking Requirements in City Building Codes and Their Potential to Promote Sustainability" Sustainability 16, no. 6: 2531. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16062531

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop