Nonmotorized Transportation Planning
Identifying Ways to Improve Pedestrian and Bicycle Transport
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Victoria Transport Policy Institute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Updated
22 July 2008
This chapter describes planning
activities that can improve walking and cycling conditions, and encourage use
of nonmotorized modes.
Nonmotorized Transportation (also known as Active Transportation and Human Powered Transportation) includes Walking and Bicycling, and variants such as Small-Wheeled Transport (skates, skateboards, push scooters and hand carts) and Wheelchair travel. These modes provide both recreation (they are an end in themselves) and transportation (they provide access to goods and activities), although users may consider a particular trip to serve both objectives. For example, some people will choose to walk or bicycle rather than drive because they enjoy the activity, although it takes longer.
There are many specific ways to improve nonmotorized transportation:
·
Improve sidewalks, crosswalks, paths and bikelanes.
·
Correct specific roadway hazards to nonmotorized transport (sometimes
called “spot improvement” programs).
·
Improve Nonmotorized Facility Management and
Maintenance, including reducing conflicts between users, and maintaining
cleanliness.
·
Universal Design (transportation systems that
accommodate people with disabilities and other special needs).
·
Develop pedestrian oriented land use and building design (New Urbanism).
·
Increase road and path Connectivity, with
special nonmotorized shortcuts, such as paths between cul-de-sac heads and
mid-block pedestrian links.
·
Street furniture (e.g., benches) and design features (e.g., human-scale
street lights).
·
Traffic Calming, Streetscape
Improvements, Traffic Speed Reductions, Vehicle Restrictions and Road Space
Reallocation.
·
Safety education, law enforcement and encouragement
programs.
·
Integrate with transit (Bike/Transit Integration
and Transit Oriented Development).
· Address Security Concerns of
pedestrians and cyclists.
· Public Bike Systems (PBS),
which are automated bicycle rental systems designed to provide efficient
mobility for short, utilitarian urban trips.
· Pedways, which are indoor
urban walking networks that connect buildings and transportation terminals.
·
Create a Multi-Modal Access Guide, which includes maps and other information
on how to walk and cycle to a particular destination.
|
“I
number it among my blessings that my father had no car, while most of my
friends had, and sometimes took me for a drive. This meant that all these
distant objects could be visited just enough to clothe them with memories,
and not impossible desires, while yet they remained ordinarily as
inaccessible as the Moon. The deadly power of rushing about wherever I
pleased had not been given me. I measured distances by the standard of man,
man walking on his two feet, not by the standard of the internal combustion
engine. I had not been allowed to deflower the very idea of distance; in
return I possessed 'infinite riches' in what would have been to a motorist ‘a
little room.’ The truest and most horrible claim made for modern transport is
that it ‘annihilates space.’ It does. It annihilates one of the
most glorious gifts we have been given. It is a vile inflation which lowers
the value of distance, so that a modern boy travels a hundred miles with less
sense of liberation and pilgrimage and adventure than his grandfather got
from travelling ten. Of course, if a man hates space and wants it to be
annihilated, that is another matter. Why not creep into his coffin at
once? There is little enough space there.” -
C.S. Lewis, “Surprised by Joy” |
Pedestrian and cycling improvements are usually implemented by local governments, sometimes with funding and technical support of regional or state/provincial transportation agencies. It usually begins with a pedestrian and bicycle plan to identify problems and prioritize projects (Litman, et al., 2000; NYBC, 2002). Implementation may require special funds, either shifting funds within existing transportation, a new budget allocation, or grants. It is useful to develop Multi-Modal Level-of-Service rating systems which indicate the convenience and comfort of walking and cycling conditions.
Complete Streets means that roadways are designed to accommodate all modes, including walking and cycling. It involves Streetscaping and Road Space Reallocation in appropriate roadway projects. It can also involve planning and field surveys to identify where barriers exist to nonmotorized travel and funding to correct these problems. It often requires new relationships between different levels of government, such as match funding and maintenance agreements between state/provincial transportation agencies and local governments.
According to some estimates, 5-10% of automobile trips can reasonably be shifted to non-motorized transport in a typical urban area (Mackett, 2000). When driving disincentives such as Parking Pricing or other Market Reforms reduce automobile travel, typically 10-35% of the reduced trips shift to walking and cycling (Transportation Elasticities). In recent years several evaluation tools have been developed to predict demand for nonmotorized travel, evaluate walking and cycling conditions and predict the effects of pedestrian and cycling improvements (Evaluating Nonmotorized Transport).
Nonmotorized trips can substitute directly for automobile trips. Walking and cycling improvements also support Public Transit and Ridesharing. A relatively short nonmotorized trip often substitutes for a longer car trip. For example, a shopper might choose between walking to a small local store and driving a longer distance to shop at a supermarket. Pedestrian and bicycle improvements are critical to Smart Growth, New Urbanism, and Transit Oriented Development, which can result in significant reductions in per-capita motor vehicle trips, as discussed in the Land Use Impacts chapter.
Communities that improve nonmotorized travel conditions often experience significant increases in nonmotorized travel and related reductions in vehicle travel (PBQD, 2000; Fietsberaad, 2008). One study found that residents in a pedestrian friendly community walked, bicycled, or rode transit for 49% of work trips and 15% of their non-work trips, 18- and 11-percentage points more than residents of a comparable automobile oriented community (Cervero and Radisch, 1995). Morris (2004) found that residents living within a half-mile of a cycling trail are three times as likely to bicycle commute as the country average. Another study found that walking is three times more common in a community with pedestrian friendly streets than in otherwise comparable communities that are less conducive to foot travel (Moudon, et al, 1996). Some cities have very high portions of non-motorized travel, as indicated in Table 1.
Table 1 Mode
|
City |
Foot and Cycle |
Public Transport |
Car |
Inhabitants |
|
|
47 % |
16 % |
34 % |
718,000 |
|
|
58 % |
6 % |
36 % |
170,000 |
|
Delf (NL) |
49 % |
7 % |
40 % |
93,000 |
|
Copenhague (DK) |
47 % |
20 % |
33 % |
562,000 |
|
|
32 % |
15 % |
51 % |
280,000 |
|
|
34 % |
8 % |
57 % |
1,983,000 |
|
|
32 % |
39 % |
29 % |
1,643,000 |
|
L’Hospitalet ( |
35 % |
36 % |
28 % |
273,000 |
|
|
48 % |
8 % |
43 % |
102,000 |
|
|
66 % |
16 % |
17 % |
215,000 |
|
|
10 % |
26 % |
54 % |
952,000 |
|
|
17 % |
17 % |
56 % |
226,000 |
|
Brujas (BE) |
27 % |
11 % |
53 % |
116,000 |
Some European cities have high rates of nonmotorized transport.
Each mile of bikeway per 100,000 residents increases bicycle commuting 0.075 percent, all else being equal (Nelson and Allen, 1997; Dill and Carr, 2003). Although only about 1% of total U.S. trips are made by bicycle, several North American communities (Palo Alto, Madison, Boulder, Eugene) have cycling rates five to ten times higher (Comsis, 1993). International studies also find significant differences in non-motorized travel patterns, as illustrated in the table below. High levels of non-motorized travel in such geographically diverse communities, and lower levels in otherwise similar areas, indicate that transport policies and community attitudes are more important than geography or climate in determining nonmotorized travel.
Table 2 Mode
|
|
Car |
Transit |
Cycling |
Walking |
Other |
|
|
39% |
13% |
9% |
31% |
8% |
|
|
74% |
14% |
1% |
10% |
1% |
|
|
42% |
14% |
20% |
21% |
3% |
|
|
54% |
12% |
4% |
30% |
0% |
|
|
52% |
11% |
10% |
27% |
0% |
|
|
44% |
8% |
27% |
19% |
1% |
|
|
36% |
11% |
10% |
39% |
4% |
|
|
38% |
20% |
10% |
29% |
3% |
|
|
62% |
14% |
8% |
12% |
4% |
|
|
84% |
3% |
1% |
9% |
2% |
Nonmotorized travel is much more common in some urban areas than others.
Many communities have significant latent demand for
nonmotorized travel, that is, people would walk and bicycle more frequently if
they had suitable facilities and resources (Komanoff and Roelofs, 1993; Pucher,
Komanoff, and Schimek, 1999). One
Table 3 Active
Transportation Survey Findings (Environics, 1998)
|
|
Cycle |
Walk |
|
Currently use this mode for leisure and recreation. |
48% |
85% |
|
Currently use this mode for transportation. |
24% |
58% |
|
Would like to use this mode more frequently. |
66% |
80% |
|
Would cycle to work if there “were a dedicated bike lane which would take me to my workplace in less than 30 minutes at a comfortable pace.” |
70% |
NA |
|
Support for additional government spending on bicycling facilities. |
82% |
NA |
Some TDM studies conclude that walking and cycling improvements have little impact on overall vehicle travel (Comsis, 1993; Apogee, 1994), because they only consider current commute trips that can shift directly to nonmotorized modes, with no changes in destinations or land use. Potential travel impacts are much greater if walking and cycling are integrated with public transit, and with Smart Growth development practices that reduce travel requirements, for example, by locating schools and shops within residential neighborhoods. Pedestrian improvements around worksites can increase transit and rideshare use, because without these employees may feel the need to have a car to run errands during breaks.
Travel surveys and traffic counts usually under-record nonmotorized trips, because they ignore or undercount short trips, non-work travel, travel by children, recreational travel, and nonmotorized links (BTS, 2000). For example, trips that are classified as “auto” or “transit” trips are often actually “walk-auto-walk,” or “walk-bus-walk” trips, yet the walking component is not usually counted, even if it takes place on a roadway. One study found that the actual number of nonmotorized trips is six times greater than what conventional surveys indicate (Rietveld, 2000). In 2000, the Southern California Metropolitan Transportation Authority increased the portion of nonmotorized travel in their models from about 2% of regional trips (based on conventional travel surveys) up to about 10% (based on more comprehensive travel data from the 1995 National Personal Transportation Survey).
Table 4 Travel Impact Summary
|
Objective |
Rating |
Comments |
|
Reduces total traffic. |
2 |
|
|
Reduces peak period
traffic. |
2 |
|
|
Shifts peak to off-peak
periods. |
0 |
|
|
Shifts automobile travel to
alternative modes. |
3 |
|
|
Improves access, reduces
the need for travel. |
1 |
Supports higher-density,
mixed land use. |
|
Increased ridesharing. |
0 |
|
|
Increased public transit. |
2 |
Pedestrian access affects
public transit use. |
|
Increased cycling. |
3 |
|
|
Increased walking. |
3 |
|
|
Increased Telework. |
0 |
|
|
Reduced freight traffic. |