Nonmotorized Transportation Planning

Identifying Ways to Improve Pedestrian and Bicycle Transport

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

TDM Encyclopedia

Victoria Transport Policy Institute

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Updated 24 November 2008

---

This chapter describes planning activities that can improve walking and cycling conditions, and encourage use of nonmotorized modes.

Description

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).

· Bicycle Parking.

· 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.

Wit and Humor

“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”

How it is Implemented

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.

Travel Impacts

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 Split In Selected European Cities (ADONIS, 2001)

City	Foot and Cycle	Public Transport	Car	Inhabitants
Amsterdam (NL)	47 %	16 %	34 %	718,000
Groningen (NL)	58 %	6 %	36 %	170,000
Delf (NL)	49 %	7 %	40 %	93,000
Copenhague (DK)	47 %	20 %	33 %	562,000
Arhus (DK)	32 %	15 %	51 %	280,000
Odense (DK)	34 %	8 %	57 %	1,983,000
Barcelona (Spain)	32 %	39 %	29 %	1,643,000
L’Hospitalet (Spain)	35 %	36 %	28 %	273,000
Mataro (Spain)	48 %	8 %	43 %	102,000
Vitoria (Spain)	66 %	16 %	17 %	215,000
Brussels (BE)	10 %	26 %	54 %	952,000
Gent (BE)	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 Split in Urban Areas (Pucher and Lefevre, 1996)

	Car	Transit	Cycling	Walking	Other
Austria	39%	13%	9%	31%	8%
Canada	74%	14%	1%	10%	1%
Denmark	42%	14%	20%	21%	3%
France	54%	12%	4%	30%	0%
Germany	52%	11%	10%	27%	0%
Netherlands	44%	8%	27%	19%	1%
Sweden	36%	11%	10%	39%	4%
Switzerland	38%	20%	10%	29%	3%
UK	62%	14%	8%	12%	4%
USA	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 US survey found that 38% of respondents would like to walk to work, and 80% would like to walk more for exercise (STPP, 2003). A U.S. survey found that 17% of adults claim they would sometimes bicycle commute if secure storage and changing facilities were available, 18% would if employers offered financial incentives, and 20% would if they had safer cycling facilities (“A Trend On the Move: Commuting by Bicycle,” 1991). The table below summarizes a Canadian public survey indicating high levels of interest in cycling and walking.

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.	0

Rating from 3 (very beneficial) to –3 (very harmful). A 0 indicates no impact or mixed impacts.

Benefits And Costs

Nonmotorized transportation provides a number of benefits and costs (for more information see Litman, 2005 and the Bicyclepedia at www.bicyclinginfo.org/bikecost).

Mobility Benefits

Improved nonmotorized transport conditions increase Transportation Options and Basic Mobility, which particularly benefits non-drivers. Walking and cycling are often the most Affordable transportation modes. People who are transportation disadvantaged often rely heavily on nonmotorized transportation, for trips made entirely by walking or cycling and to access transit. Nonmotorized transportation improvements help create more balanced transportation systems that reduce Automobile Dependency. Universal Design improvements are particularly important for benefiting people with physical disabilities.

TDM Benefits

Shifts from driving to nonmotorized modes can congestion reduction, road and parking facility savings, consumer savings, environmental protection and increase community Livability (Litman, 1999; Buis, 2000). Nonmotorized transportation supports other alternative modes (public transit and ridesharing),

Land Use Impacts

Nonmotorized transportation supports Smart Growth land use objectives, including Clustered, mixed-use development that increases Accessibility, reduces impervious surface, and provides other benefits (Land Use Evaluation).

Safety and Health

Nonmotorized modes have relatively high crash injury and fatality rates per mile of travel, but this is offset by reduced risk to other road users, and by the fact that pedestrians and cyclists tend to travel less overall than motorists. International research suggests that shifts to nonmotorized transport result in overall increases in road safety. For example, the Netherlands has a high level of nonmotorized transport, yet the overall traffic death rate per capita, and the death rate of cyclists per million km ridden, is much lower than in automobile dependent countries (Pucher and Dijkstra, 2000). Pedestrian fatalities per billion km walked are less than a tenth as high, and bicyclist fatalities are only a quarter as high, as in the United States. A number of targeted strategies and programs can reduce crash risk to nonmotorized travelers (Komanoff, 1999; Pucher and Dijkstra, 2000; Nabors, et al., 2007). Retting, Ferguson and McCartt (2003) conclude that the following engineering strategies provide safety benefits:

· Traffic Speed Management and Traffic Calming

· Single-lane Roundabouts

· Sidewalks and pedestrian bridges

· Exclusive pedestrian signal phasing

· Pedestrian refuge islands in the middle of wide streets, and curb extensions.

· Brighter roadway lighting

Walking and cycling provides significant aerobic Health benefits, which can more than offsets increased crash risk. According to one major study, “Regular walking and cycling are the only realistic way that the population as a whole can get the daily half hour of moderate exercise which is the minimum level needed to keep reasonably fit.” (Physical Activity Task Force, 1995). Danish bicycle commuters have a 40% reduction in mortality compared with people who do not cycle to work, which suggests that the incremental risks of bicycle transportation are far outweighed by health benefits, at least for experienced adult cyclists riding in a bicycle-friendly community (Andersen, et al, 2000). People who walk and bicycle frequently also tend to have great looking legs.

Recreation Benefits

Nonmotorized transport provides recreational benefit. Many people enjoy walking and cycling and the healthy exercise they provides. They are among the most common forms of physical recreation. Some people argue that transportation funding should not be spent on recreational activities, such as walking and cycling facilities, yet a significant portion of motor vehicle travel is for recreation. It makes no sense to refuse funding for a path or bikelane, yet fund roadway capacity so motorists can drive to a healthclub where they walk a treadmill or pedal a stationary bike. This suggests that both transportation and recreational funding can be devoted to nonmotorized improvements.

Economic Development

In several case studies, improving walking conditions in a community significantly increased retail sales and property values (NPS, 1995; NBPC, 1995; LGC, 2001). It can increase regional Economic Development by improving Accessibility and reducing consumer expenditures on fuel and other imported resources.

Costs

Costs are generally associated with program expenses and facility improvements. Charles Zeeger, et al. (2002) provides information on typical costs for bicycle and pedestrian facilities. High-quality Bike Parking typically cost $100-500 per bike. Some nonmotorized transportation improvements, such as traffic calming, may reduce motor vehicle traffic speeds.

A cost-benefit analyses (CBAs) of walking- and cycling track networks in Norwegian cities, taking account health benefits, reduced air-pollution and noise from road traffic, and reduced parking costs that results when travel shifts from automobile to cycling and walking, estimated that benefits are at least 4-5 times greater than costs.

Table 5 Benefit Summary

Objective	Rating	Comments
Congestion Reduction	2	Reduces automobile use.
Road & Parking Savings	3	Reduces automobile use.
Consumer Savings	3	Provides affordable mobility.
Transport Choice	3	Increases travel choices.
Road Safety	3	Reduces automobile use. Also provides health benefits.
Environmental Impacts	3	Reduces automobile use, particularly high-polluting short trips.
Land Use Impacts	3	Reduces automobile use. Encourages higher-density development.
Community Livability	3	Reduces automobile use and increases local access.

Rating from 3 (very beneficial) to –3 (very harmful). A 0 indicates no impact or mixed impacts.

Pedestrian-Oriented Commercial Areas (Car-Free Planning)

Proponents of nonmotorized transportation sometimes propose Car-Free streets or districts. To be successful these require careful planning, and are unsuited to many locations. It is generally better to improve overall walking and cycling conditions by improving nonmotorized facilities and Traffic Calming streets throughout a community, than to try to ban car traffic in a few token areas.

In pedestrian-oriented retail areas, such as shopping streets and tourist areas, walkability is a key factor in retail success. Much of the attraction of retail malls is their excellent and carefully controlled pedestrian environments. Most retail locations with the highest rents are highly pedestrian oriented. However, improving walking conditions will not necessarily increase business activity at a particular location, particularly if it involves restricting automobile traffic.

Pedestrianized commercial districts (“Mainstreets”) can be important for urban revitalization, but must be carefully implemented to be successful (West, 1990; Robertson, 1990; Tyler, 1999; LGC, 2001). They can help create a lively and friendly environment that attracts residents and visitors. Some are closed to motor vehicle traffic, either full time or during some time periods such as evenings or weekends, but most use Traffic Calming design strategies to control traffic speeds and volumes (Boyd, 1998).

Business and residents should be involved in planning and managing pedestrian commercial streets. Often, a downtown business organization or Transportation Management Association will oversee streetscape development, as well as parking management and promotion activities. Below are recommended guidelines for creating a successful pedestrian commercial street or district (Litman, et al, 2000):

• Pedestrian streets are only successful in areas that are attractive and lively. They require a critical mass of users. They should serve as both a destination and a thoroughfare by forming a natural connection route between diverse attractions (housing, shops, offices, etc.).

• Develop a pleasant environment, with greenery, shade and rain covers. Use brick, block pavement or textured cement instead of asphalt, if possible. Street-level building features and street furniture should be pedestrian scale and attractive. Minimize blank building walls.

• Encourage the development of diverse pedestrian-oriented activities that attract a broad range of customers and clients, including retail and commercial services, housing and employment. Apartments and offices can often be located over shops.

• Allow motor vehicles as required for access, with appropriate restrictions based on need, time and vehicle type. This may include unrestricted motor vehicle traffic during morning hours, transit and HOV vehicles, pickup and drop-off for residents and hotels, service and emergency vehicles, or other categories deemed appropriate.

• Pedestrian streets should have good access to public transit and parking. They should be located in pedestrian-friendly areas. Mid-block walkways and buildings open to through public traffic should be developed and enhanced as much as possible.

• Develop a variety of artistic, cultural and recreational amenities (statues, fountains, playgrounds) and activities (concerts, fairs, markets). Highlight historical features.

• Pedestrian streets should generally be small and short, typically just a few blocks in length, although this may increase over time if appropriate.

• Security, cleanliness and physical maintenance standards must be high.

• Vehicle traffic on cross-streets should be slowed or restricted.

Equity Impacts

Since nearly everybody walks, and many people cycle, nonmotorized transportation improvements can benefit nearly everybody, although some people benefit more than others from a particular policy or project. Universal Design improvements can be particularly important for providing Basic Mobility and benefiting people who are transportation disadvantaged.

Improving conditions for nonmotorized travel often require public resources (money and land devoted to sidewalks, paths and bikelanes), the public cost per trip is usually less than that of automobile travel (money and land devoted to roads and parking facilities), so such improvements can be considered to increase horizontal equity.

Litman (1998) describes how people who drive less than average overpay their share of local transportation expenditures, since their local taxes fund roadway expenses that are primarily needed for the sake of automobile traffic, so increased funding for nonmotorized transportation is often justified for the sake of horizontal equity. Lower-income and transportation disadvantaged people often rely heavily on nonmotorized transportation, and so benefit significantly by nonmotorized improvements. Nonmotorized transportation is often critical for providing Basic Mobility.

Table 6 Equity Summary

Criteria	Rating	Comments
Treats everybody equally.	2	Almost everybody uses nonmotorized transport.
Individuals bear the costs they impose.	2	Requires public resources, but usually less than costs for automobile trips.
Progressive with respect to income.	3	Lower income people rely on nonmotorized transport.
Benefits transportation disadvantaged.	3	Transport disadvantaged rely on nonmotorized transport.
Improves basic mobility.	3	Nonmotorized transport provides basic mobility.

Rating from 3 (very beneficial) to –3 (very harmful). A 0 indicates no impact or mixed impacts.

Applications

Nonmotorized transportation improvements are particularly important in areas with high levels of walking and cycling, higher-density commercial and residential areas, and resort areas. Universal Design improvements are particularly important in areas where people with disabilities frequently travel. Nonmotorized improvements are provided primarily by regional and local governments, sometimes with federal and state/provincial support. Businesses can provide sidewalks, bicycle parking, and shower facilities.

Table 7 Application Summary

Geographic	Rating	Organization	Rating
Large urban region.	3	Federal government.	1
High-density, urban.	3	State/provincial government.	2
Medium-density, urban/suburban.	3	Regional government.	2
Town.	3	Municipal/local government.	3
Low-density, rural.	2	Business Associations/TMA.	3
Commercial center.	3	Individual business.	2
Residential neighborhood.	3	Developer.	3
Resort/recreation area.	3	Neighborhood association.	3
		Campus.	3

Ratings range from 0 (not appropriate) to 3 (very appropriate).

Category

Improves Transport Choice

Relationships With Other TDM Strategies

For more information on ways to improve and encourage nonmotorized modes see Managing Nonmotorized Facilities, Pedestrian Improvements, Bicycling Improvements, Universal Design, Nonmotorized Encouragement, Bicycle Parking, Evaluating Nonmotorized Transport, and Multi-Modal Level-of-Service Indicators. For information on creating more pedestrian- and bicycle-friendly street conditions see Traffic Calming, Vehicle Restrictions, Speed Reductions and Address Security Concerns. For integrating nonmotorized transportation with transit see Bike/Transit Integration and Transit Oriented Development. Nonmotorized transportation supports most other TDM strategies, particularly Transit and Ridesharing, and Smart Growth. It is supported by Commute Trip Reduction programs, Parking Management, New Urbanism, and Smart Growth. Least Cost Planning, Institutional Reforms, Prioritizing Transportation, Road Space Reallocation and Context Sensitive Design can help increase public investment in non-motorized transport planning.

Stakeholders

Nonmotorized transportation improvements are usually implemented by local or regional governments, sometimes with state or provincial transportation agency support. Some measures, such as sidewalks, paths and bicycle parking facilities, are implemented by businesses and developers.

Barriers To Implementation

Nonmotorized transportation programs are often limited by professional practices and funding that favors motorized modes, and development practices that result in lower-density, single-use land use patterns.

Best Practices

A number of guides and resources including ADONIS (1998), Litman, et al. (2000), NYBC (2002), GDOT (2003) provide information on best practices for improving nonmotorized travel conditions and encouraging nonmotorized transport. These include:

· Integrate nonmotorized planning into all transport and land use planning activities.

· Educate all transportation professionals in nonmotorized transportation planning principles.

· Fund nonmotorized planning at a comparable rate as other travel modes.

· Insure that all roads are suitable for walking and cycling unless these modes are specifically prohibited and suitable alternatives are available.

· Use current planning practices and design standards, including Universal Design.

· Include nonmotorized travel in transportation surveys and models.

· Create pedestrian-oriented Commercial Centers and neighborhoods.

· Perform user surveys to identify problems and barriers to nonmotorized travel.

· Use traffic calming and other traffic control measures to make street environments safer and more pleasant for nonmotorized transport.

Nonmotorized facilities must accommodate many types of users. People walk alone and in groups, walk pets, push strollers and carts, run, skate, bicycle, stop to gaze and talk, play and eat on sidewalks and paths. Sidewalks and paths serve as both travel-ways and stopping areas. Different uses and users require different amounts of space. Although a person walking alone may only need 18-24 inches of width, other users and uses require more space. A couple walking side-by-side, a person in a wheelchair or pushing a cart, a runner or bicyclist all need more space than a single pedestrian. In addition, sidewalks and paths contain various types of “furniture” such as signposts, parking meters, mail boxes, garbage cans and sometimes café seating. When people pass each other or an object on the path, they require adequate shy distance (extra space between vehicles or pedestrians as they pass each other). Although a sidewalk or path may have a generous nominal width, its functional width may be much smaller due to various types of obstacles within its right-of-way. A sidewalk or path should be designed and managed to accommodate a wide range of uses and users.

Wit and Humor

Joe is walking through the city back to his home after a long night of drinking, and he smacks into a tree along the sidewalk. He gets up, staggers forward, and runs into the tree again. Two more times he does the same thing.

“This is terrible,” he says. “I should have been home two hours ago, and here I am lost in the forest.

Examples and Case Studies

Bicycle Planning

Santa Barbara (www.ci.santa-barbara.ca.us/pworks/transp/bike_plan/bmp_toc.html.)

A comprehensive plan for integrating bicycling infrastructure into the city's street network, including on- and off-road facilities, and ancillary facilities such as bicycle parking, signing and other amenities.

Portland, OR (www.trans.ci.portland.or.us/traffic_management/bicycle_program/BikeMasterPlan/Default.htm)

During the 1990's the City of Portland has developed an extensive bicycling infrastructure including on- and off-street routes, bicycle parking, and other facilities.

Philadelphia, Pa (www.phila.gov/departments/street/html/the_bicycle_network.html)

The City was awarded more than $3 million of Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality program funds to plan and implement a city-wide bicycle network featuring bike lanes, trails, and bicycle parking facilities.

Tucson, AZ (www.ci.tucson.az.us/transport/planning/overview.html)

With a network of more than 240 miles of bikeway already on the ground, the Tucson Bikeway Improvement Plan identifies more than 50 additional miles of striped bike lanes that will be added to the system by 2001.

New York City, NY (www.ci.nyc.ny.us/html/dcp/html/bndprods.html#b)

This award-winning plan identifies more than 900 miles of on- and off-street facilities and recommends a series of policies and programs that would promote bicycle use, encourage integration with transit, and link to the City's greenway system. The activist group, Transportation Alternatives, has published their own Bicycle Blueprint for the city (www.transalt.org/blueprint).

Wisconsin Department of Transportation (www.dot.state.wi.us/dtim/bop/finalbike.html)

Adopted in December, 1998, the Wisconsin Bicycle Transportation Plan 2020 provides a blueprint for more and safer bicycle trips with recommendations and roles for a variety of government agencies and groups.

Pedestrian Planning

City of Portland, OR (www.trans.ci.portland.or.us/Sidewalks_and_Pedestrians.html)

The City has adopted a two-part pedestrian improvement plan: Part One outlines the policies and plans for improving conditions for walking, and Part Two is a detailed design manual for pedestrian facilities. The Portland Pedestrian Design Guide and Pedestrian Master Plan (www.trans.ci.portland.or.us) are outstanding pedestrian planning resources. It developed an excellent process for prioritizing pedestrian improvements, taking into account demand and current conditions.

City of Madison, WI (www.ci.madison.wi.us/reports/execsum2.pdf)

Adopted in September 1997, Madison's visionary plan for walking incorporates planning, design, maintenance, and long-term goals and objectives. Madison was one of the first communities to adopt a separate plan for walking.

Arlington County, VA (www.co.arlington.va.us/dpw/planning/ped/ped.htm)

Arlington County is one of the nation's densest urban areas and has developed a pedestrian plan that builds on the accessibility of two major transit corridors in the County. An extensive sidewalk building program is complemented by a neighborhood traffic calming program, all directed by citizen task forces.

Washington State DOT (www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bikeped/design.htm)

Washington State Department of Transportation adopted a design guidance that integrates nonmotorized planning into the state’s overall transportation infrastructure program by incorporating walking and cycling design requirements into all appropriate projects.

ODOT (www.odot.state.or.us/techserv/bikewalk)

The Oregon Department of Transportation has established a comprehensive pedestrian (and bicycle) planning and design document.

European Pedestrianization (Beatley, 2000)

Many European cities have become increasingly pedestrianized, including car-free commercial districts in older downtowns, and woonerf residential streets (in Dutch, woon means “residential” and erf means “yard) where vehicles traffic is slowed to walking speeds. In the United Kingdom they are called “Home Zones.” There are now an estimated 6,000 woonerf in the Netherlands.

Nonmotorized Transport Safety Programs

European Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety (Pucher and Dijkstra, 2000)

In the United States, pedestrian fatalities are 36 times higher, and bicycling fatalities are 11 times higher, than car occupant fatalities per km traveled. Walking and bicycling can be made quite safe, however, as shown by much lower fatality rates in The Netherlands and Germany. Pedestrian fatalities per billion km walked are less than a tenth as high, and bicyclist fatalities are only a quarter as high, as in the United States. The Netherlands and Germany have long recognized the importance of pedestrian and bicyclist safety. Over the past two decades these countries have undertaken a wide range of measures to improve safety: better facilities for walking and bicycling; urban design sensitive to the needs of non-motorists; traffic calming of residential neighborhoods; restrictions on motor vehicle use in cities; rigorous traffic education of both motorists and non-motorists; and strict enforcement of traffic regulations protecting pedestrians and bicyclists. The United States could adopt many of the same measures to improve pedestrian and bicycling safety here. The necessary technology and methods are already available, with decades of successful experience in Europe.

Downtown Walkability Improvements

The city of St. Petersburg, Florida converted the downtown business district into a more walkable area by reducing the number of traffic lanes, converting to angled parking, and reducing the speed limit to 15 MPH. This increased access by automobile (due to more convenient parking), attracted pedestrian activity and increased safety. During the following years the area experienced significant economic growth supported by millions of square feet of mixed residential and commercial development, resulting, at least in part, by improved downtown walkability.

Copenhagen Free Bike Program (www.cios.com)

In 1995, the Free City-Bike Program was implemented by the City of Copenhagen. One thousand specially designed free City-Bikes were stationed at 120 stands around the City at train and subway stations, parking lots and large housing blocks. The bikes were also stationed around common final destinations, such as office buildings, shopping districts, parks and other tourist attractions. For a deposit of only 20 Dkr. (US$3), anyone can take a bike and cycle wherever they want, within downtown (restricted area). When the bike is returned to any bike stand within the area, the user gets their deposit back.

With the cooperation of sponsors, the project went so well that 500 more bikes were added when Copenhagen was named the "European Culture City" in 1996. The number of bikes increased by 300 in 1997 and 300 in 1998 for a total of more than 2,000 bikes. 38% of users are tourists.

References And Resources For More Information

ADONIS (1998), Analysis And Development Of New Insight Into Substitution Of Short Car Trips By Cycling And Walking, Transport Research, Fourth Framework Programme Urban Transport (www.vejdirektoratet.dk/dokument.asp?page=document&objno=7134), European Commission, Luxembourg. For a summary see www.staffs.ac.uk/schools/sciences/geography/cast/walk21/papThorson.html.

ADONIS (1999), Best Practice to Promote Cycling and Walking and How to Substitute Short Car Trips by Cycling and Walking, ADONIS Transport RTD Program, European Union (www.cordis.lu/transport/src/adonisrep.htm). This 300-page catalogue describes dozens of strategies to help improve and encourage walking and cycling, ranging from special facilities, to safety campaigns and traffic management to facilitate street crossing.

Alta Transportation Consulting (2001), Rails-With-Trails: Lessons Learned, U.S. Dept. of Transportation (www.altaplanning.com/projects/fhwa).

Alta Planning + Design (2005), Caltrans Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities Technical Reference Guide: A Technical Reference and Technology Transfer Synthesis for Caltrans Planners and Engineers, California Department of Transportation (www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/survey/pedestrian/TR_MAY0405.pdf).

American Bikes (2004), Complete The Streets For Safer Bicycling And Walking, American Bikes (www.americabikes.org).

America Walks (www.americawalks.org) is a non-profit organization that supports walking improvements.

Lars Bo Andersen, et al (2000), “All-Cause Mortality Associated With Physical Activity During Leisure Time, Work, Sports and Cycling to Work,” Archives of Internal Medicine, Vol. 160, No. 11 (http://archinte.ama-assn.org/issues/v160n11/full/ioi90593.html), June 12, 2000, pp. 1621-1628.

Apogee (1994), Costs and Cost Effectiveness of Transportation Control Measures; A Review and Analysis of the Literature, National Association of Regional Councils (www.narc.org), 1994.

Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals (www.apbp.org) provides information, support, training and credibility to nonmotorized transportation professionals.

Carlos J.L. Balsas (2002), “New Directions for Bicycle and Pedestrian Planning Education in the US,” Planning Practice & Research, Vol. 17, No. 1, 2002, pp. 91-105.

Gary Barnes and Kevin Krizek (2005), Tools for Predicting Usage and Benefits of Urban Bicycle, Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs, University of Minnesota (www.lrrb.org/pdf/200550.pdf).

Timothy Beatley (2000), Green Urbanism; Learning from European Cities, Island Press (www.islandpress.com).

Beneficial Designs, Inc. et al (2001), Designing Sidewalks and Trails for Access; Part 1, Review of Existing Guidelines and Practices, Publication No. FHWA-HEP-99-006, 1999; Designing Sidewalks and Trails for Access; Part 2, Best Practice Design Guide, Publication No. FHWA-EP-01-027, Federal Highway Administration, USDOT (www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bikeped).

Bicycle Federation of America (www.bikefed.org) provides extensive resources for bicycle and pedestrian planning.

Bicycle Information Center (www.bicyclinginfo.org) provides information on nonmotorized transport planning and programs.

Bicycle Policy Audit (www.bypad.org) is a European Union research project to develop guidance for optimizing municipal and regional cycling policies.

Bicyclepedia (www.bicyclinginfo.org/bikecost) is a bicycle facility benefit/cost analysis tool available free on the Internet.

Ian Boyd (1998), “Pedestrian-Oriented Environments,” in Design and Safety of Pedestrian Facilities: A Recommended Practice of the Institute of Transportation Engineers, ITE (www.ite.org).

BTS, Pedestrian and Cycling Publications, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, USDOT, (www.bts.gov/NTL/subjects/ped-bike.html).

Jeroen Buis (2000), The Economic Significance of Cycling; A Study to Illustrate the Costs and Benefits of Cycling Policy, VNG uitgeverij (The Haag; www.vnguitgeverij.nl) and I-ce (www.cycling.nl).

Dan Burden (2003), Level of Quality (LOQ) Guidelines, Walkable Communities (www.walkable.org/library.htm); at www.tjpdc.org/transportation/walkability.asp. Shows graphically roadway design features that optimize pedestrian and cyclist access, safety and mobility, and transit station accessibility.

Dan Burden (2003), How Can I Find and Help Build a Walkable Community?, Walkable Communities (www.walkable.org/article1.htm).

BV (2003), The Workplace BUG Guide, Bicycle Victoria (www.bv.com.au).

Sally Cairns, et al (2004), Smarter Choices - Changing the Way We Travel, UK Department for Transport (www.dft.gov.uk). This comprehensive study provides detailed evaluation of the potential travel impacts and costs of various mobility management strategies. Includes numerous case studies.

CCAP (2005), Transportation Emissions Guidebook: Land Use, Transit & Transportation Demand Management, Center of Clean Air Policy (www.ccap.org/guidebook). This Guidebook provides information on various smart growth and mobility management strategies, including rules-of-thumb estimates of VMT and emission reductions.

Centre for Alternative and Sustainable Transport (CAST) (www.staffs.ac.uk/schools/sciences/geography/cast/casthome.html) performs research on non-motorised, sustainable transport.

Robert Cervero and Carolyn Radisch (1995), Travel Choices in Pedestrian Versus Automobile Oriented Neighborhoods, UC Transportation Center, UCTC 281 (www.uctc.net).

Community Bicycle Network (CBN) Factsheets, newsletter, curriculum guides, and action manuals, Detour Publications (www.detourpublications.com).

Complete Streets (www.completestreets.org) is a campaign to promote roadway designs that effectively accommodate multiple modes and support local planning objectives.

Complete the Streets (www.americabikes.org/bicycleaccomodation_factsheet_completestreets.asp).

Comsis Corporation (1993), Implementing Effective Travel Demand Management Measures: Inventory of Measures and Synthesis of Experience, USDOT and Institute of Transportation Engineers (www.ite.org).

CTR (2001), Recreational Trails Program: Report On State Trail Projects, Coalition for Recreational Trails (CRT) and Federal Highway Administration (www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/sttrail.htm). Includes a database with statistics on public trails throughout the U.S.

Marie Demers (2006), Walk For Your Life! Restoring Neighborhood Walkways To Enhance Community Life, Improve Street Safety and Reduce Obesity, Vital Health Publishing (www.vitalhealthbooks.com/book/2414947630.html).

DFT (various years), Traffic Advisory Leaflets: Cycle Facilities, Department for Transport (www.roads.dft.gov.uk/roadnetwork/ditm/tal/cycle/index.htm). Various information resources related to cycling promotion and planning.

Jennifer Dill and Theresa Carr (2003), “Bicycle Commuting and Facilities in Major U.S. Cities,” Transportation Research Record 1828, Transportation Research Board (www.trb.org), pp. 116-123.

Jennifer Dill (2005), Measuring Network Connectivity for Bicycling and Walking, School of Urban Studies and Planning, Portland State University (http://web.pdx.edu/~jdill/ALRbikes).

Linda Dixon (1996), “Bicycle and Pedestrian Level-of-Service Performance Measures and Standards for Congestion Management Systems,” Transportation Research Record 1538, TRB (www.trb.org), pp. 1-9.

DRD (2000), Collection of Cycle Concepts, Danish Road Directorate (www.vd.dk/wimpdoc.asp?page=document&objno=17291). This comprehensive guidebook provides information on how to increase the use of bicycles and prevent bicycle accidents, including chapters on roadway design and maintenance, bicycle parking, promotion, safety programs and case studies.

Environics (1998), National Survey on Active Transportation, Go for Green, (www.goforgreen.ca).

Fehr & Peers and Reid Ewing (2002), Traffic Calming Guidelines, City of Sacramento (www.pwsacramento.com/traffic/ntmp.html).

FHWA (2000), Walkable Community; Your Town USA, FHWA-SA-00-010, USDOT (http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/programs/ped_bike.htm).

FHWA, Pedestrian Safety Roadshow (www.ota.fhwa.dot.gov/walk) provides information on pedestrian safety.

Fietsberaad (www.fietsberaad.nl), the Centre of Expertise on Bicycle Policy located in the Netherlands, works to develop, disseminate and exchange practical knowledge and experience for improving and encouraging cycling.

Fietsberaad (2008), Cycling in the Netherlands, Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management, The Netherland; at www.fietsberaad.nl/library/repository/bestanden/Cycling%20in%20the%20Netherlands%20VenW.pdf.

Lawrence Frank and Peter Engelke (2000), How Land Use and Transportation Systems Impact Public Health, Active Community Environments, Georgia Institute of Technology and Center for Disease Control (Atlanta; www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/dnpa/aces.htm).

Federal Highway Administration’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Program Office (www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bikeped) is responsible for promoting bicycle and pedestrian transportation accessibility, use, and safety.

GDOT (2003), Pedestrian & Streetscape Guide, Georgia Department of Transportation (www.dot.state.ga.us).

David L. Harkey, et al (1998), The Bicycle Compatibility Index: A Level of Service Concept, FHWA, FHWA-RD-98-072 (www.hsrc.unc.edu/oldhsrc/research/pedbike/bci/bcitech.pdf).

Mayer Hillman (1998), Curbing Shorter Car Journeys: Prioritising the Alternatives, Friends of the Earth (www.foe.co.uk).

HSRC (2000), Pedestrian and Bicycle Crash Analysis Tool (PBCAT), Highway Safety Research Center, University of North Carolina (HSRC), Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), available free from the Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center (www.walkinginfo.org).

Walter Hook (2003), Preserving and Expanding the Role of Non-motorized Transport: Sustainable Transportation: A Sourcebook for Policy-Makers in Developing Countries, Module 3d, Sustainable Urban Transport Project – Asia (www.sutp-asia.org) and Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Technische Zusammenarbeit (www.gtz.de); at the Institute for Transportation and Development Policy website (www.itdp.org/STe/STe4/readSTe4/NMT.PDF).

I-ce (2000), The Significance of Non-Motorised Transport for Developing Countries: Strategies for Policy Development, World Bank, Urban Transport Strategy Review (http://wbln0018.worldbank.org/transport/utsr.nsf).

International Bicycle Fund (www.ibike.org) provides a variety of information and resources to support cycling for transportation and recreation throughout the world.

ITE (1998), Implementing Bicycle Improvements at the Local Level, ITE, Federal Highway Administration (www.fhwa.dot.gov); at www.bikefed.org/local.htm.

ITE (2001), Alternative Treatments for At-Grade Pedestrian Crossings, Institute of Transportation Engineers (www.ite.org). This 220-page report describes more than 70 alternative treatments for pedestrian crossings that are used throughout the world.

Charlie Komanoff (1999), Killed by Automobile, Right of Way (www.rightofway.org).

Less Traffic (www.lesstraffic.com) provides information on traffic reduction and Street Reclaiming strategies.

Todd Litman (2003), “Economic Value of Walkability,” Transportation Research Record 1828, Transportation Research Board (www.trb.org) pp. 3-11; at www.vtpi.org/walkability.pdf.

Todd Litman (2004), Whose Roads? Evaluating Bicyclists’ and Pedestrians’ Right to Use Public Roadways, VTPI (www.vtpi.org); at www.vtpi.org/whoserd.pdf.

Todd Litman (2005), Quantifying the Benefits of Non-Motorized Transport for Achieving TDM Objectives, VTPI (www.vtpi.org); at www.vtpi.org/nmt-tdm.pdf; originally published as “Bicycling and Transportation Demand Management,” Transportation Research Record 1441, 1994, pp. 134-140.

Todd Litman (2006), Transportation Cost and Benefit Analysis: Techniques, Estimates and Implications, Victoria Transport Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org/tca). Includes information on the full costs of different forms of transportation, including walking and cycling.

Todd Litman (2006), “Managing Diverse Modes and Activities on Nonmotorized Facilities: Guidance for Practitioners,” ITE Journal, Vol. 76, No. 6 (www.ite.org), June 2006, pp. 20-27; at www.vtpi.org/man_nmt_fac.pdf.

Todd Litman, et al (2000), Pedestrian and Bicycle Planning; A Guide to Best Practices, Victoria Transport Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org). Comprehensive guide with extensive references.

Living Streets (www.livingstreets.org.uk) (previously the Pedestrians Association) campaigns for urban redevelopment and pedestrian welfare. It provides a variety of information on ways of making streets and urban neighborhoods more livable.

LGC (2001), The Economic Benefits of Walkable Communities, Local Government Commission (www.lgc.org).

Local Government Commission (www.lgc.org) has a variety of useful resources for neighborhood planning and pedestrian/bicycle improvements, including “Designing Safe Streets and Neighborhoods”, “The Economic Benefits of Walkable Communities" and “Why People Don't Walk and What City Planners Can Do About It” fact sheets.

Roger Mackett (2000), How to Reduce the Number of Short Trips by Car, European Transport Conference, Centre for Transport Studies, University College London (www.ucl.ac.uk/transport-studies/shtrp.htm).

Andrew A. McDonald, Andrew G. Macbeth, Karisa Ribeiro and David Mallett (2007), Estimating Demand for New Cycling Facilities in New Zealand, Land Transport New Zealand Research Report 340 (www.ltsa.govt.nz); at www.ltsa.govt.nz/research/reports/340.pdf.

Hugh Morris (2004), Commute Rates on Urban Trails: Indicators From the 2000 Census, presented at the Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting (www.trb.orb).

Anne Vernez Moudon, et al (1996), Effects of Site Design on Pedestrian Travel in Mixed Use, Medium-Density Environments, Washington State Transportation Center, Document WA-RD 432.1, (www.wsdot.wa.gov); at www.wsdot.wa.gov/Research/Reports/400/432.1.htm.

Arthur Nelson and David Allen (1997), “If You Build Them, Commuters Will Use Them; Cross-Sectional Analysis of Commuters and Bicycle Facilities,” Transportation Research Record 1578, TRB (www.trb.org), pp. 79-83.

Dan Nabors, et al. (2007), Pedestrian Road Safety Audit Guidelines and Prompt Lists, Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center (www.pedbikeinfo.org), Federal Highway Administration Office of Safety; at http://drusilla.hsrc.unc.edu/cms/downloads/PedRSA%20-%20FINAL%20-%20high-quality.pdf.

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) Walking Safety website (www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/outreach/safesobr/OPlanner/ncpsw/walk1.html) provides information on pedestrian safety issues.

NHTSA, Resource Guide on Laws Related to Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety, The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/research/ResourceGuide/index.html), contains a compilation of U.S. vehicle and traffic laws that affect walking or cycling.

Northwestern University Traffic Institute (www.nwu.edu/traffic) offers professional development workshops on bicycle planning and facility design, and other related subjects.

NPS (1995), Economic Impacts of Protecting Rivers, Trails and Greenway Corridors, U.S. National Park Service (www.nps.gov/pwro/rtca/econ_index.htm).

NYBC (2002), Improving Bicycling and Pedestrian Safety, New York Bicycling Coalition (www.nybc.net/programs/NYBC_manual.shtml).

Oregon, DOT Bicycle and Pedestrian Planning (www.odot.state.or.us/techserv/bikewalk/obpplan.htm) shows nonmotorized planning at its best.

Partnership for a Walkable America (www.nsc.org/walkable.htm) is a national coalition of government agencies and industry interests.

PBIC, Image Library (www.pedbikeimages.org), by the Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center (www.walkinginfo.org) provides an extensive collection of photographs related to walking and cycling.

PBPC (1995), The Economic and Social Benefits of Off-Road Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities, Technical Brief, National Bicycle and Pedestrian Clearinghouse, No. 2 (www.bikefed.org).

PBQD (2000), Data Collection and Modeling Requirements for Assessing Transportation Impacts of Micro-Scale Design, Transportation Model Improvement Program, USDOT (www.bts.gov/tmip).

Pedestrian Information Center (www.walkinginfo.org) is a pedestrian planning and safety information clearinghouse supported by the Federal Highway Administration.

Rhonda Phillips, John Karachepone and Bruce Landis (2001), Multi-Modal Quality of Service Project, Florida Department of Transportation, Contract BC205 (www.dot.state.fl.us/Planning/systems/sm/los/FinalMultiModal.pdf).

Physical Activity Task Force (1995), More People, More Active, More Often, UK Department of Health (London).

Portland (1998), Portland Pedestrian Design Guide, and Pedestrian Master Plan, Pedestrian Transportation Program, Office of Transportation, City of Portland (www.trans.ci.portland.or.us).

PPS (1998), Transit-Friendly Streets: Design and Traffic Management Strategies to Support Livable Communities, TCRP Report 33, TRB (www.trb.org).

John Pucher and Christian Lefevre (1996), The Urban Transportation Crisis in Europe and North America, MacMillan Press (London).

John Pucher and Lewis Dijkstra (2000), “Making Walking and Cycling Safer: Lessons from Europe,” Transportation Quarterly, Vol. 54, No. 3, Summer 2000, Eno Foundation (www.enotrans.com); at www.vtpi.org/puchertq.pdf.

John Pucher, Charles Komanoff, and Paul Schimek (1999), “Bicycling Renaissance in North America? Recent Trends and Alternative Policies to Promote Bicycling,” originally published in Transportation Research A, Vol. 33, No. 7/8, 1999, pp. 625-654; at www.vtpi.org/pucher3.pdf.

Push Play (2001), Movement=Health - Guidelines for the Promotion of Physical Activity, Hillary Commission and Push Play (www.hillarysport.org.nz/pushplay/pdfs/Movement_Equals_Health.PDF or

www.pushplay.org.nz).

PWA (2000), How Walkable is Your Community? Partnership for a Walkable America (www.nsc.org/walk/wkcheck.htm).

Richard A. Retting, Susan A. Ferguson and Anne T. McCartt (2003), “A Review of Evidence-Based Traffic Engineering Measures Designed to Reduce Pedestrian-Motor Vehicle Crashes,” American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 93, No. 9 (www.ajph.org), Sept. 2003, pp. 1456-1463.

Piet Rietveld (2000), “Nonmotorized Modes in Transport Systems: A Multimodal Chain Perspective for The Netherlands,” Transportation Research D, Vol. 5, No. 1, January 2000, pp. 31-36.

Ian Roberts, Harry Owen, Peter Lumb, Colin MacDougall (1996), Pedalling Health—Health Benefits of a Modal Transport Shift, Bicycle Institute of South Australia (www.science.adelaide.edu.au).

Carlton Roberts-James (2003), “Creating A Better Walking Environment,” Sustainable Transport: Planning for Walking and Cycling In Urban Environments (Rodney Tolley Ed.), Woodhead Publishing (www.woodhead-publishing.com), pp. 282-297.

Kent Robertson (1990), “the Status of the Pedestrian Mall in American Downtowns,” Urban Affairs Quarterly, Vol. 26, No. 2, Dec. 1990, pp. 250-273.

Kjartan Sælensminde (2002), Walking and Cycling Track Networks in Norwegian Cities: Cost-Benefit Analysis Including Health Effects and External Costs of Road Traffic, Institute of Transport Economics, Oslo (www.toi.no/toi_Data/Attachments/887/sum_567_02.pdf).

W.L. Schwartz, et al (1999), Guidebook on Methods to Estimate NonMotorized Travel: Overview of Methods. Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center (www.tfhrc.org), FHWA-RD-98-165.

STPP (2003), Americans Attitudes Toward Walking and Creating More Walkable Communities, Surface Transportation Policy Project (www.transact.org).

Rodney Tolley (2003), Sustainable Transport: Planning for Walking and Cycling in Urban Environments, Woodhead Publishing Ltd (www.woodheadpublishing.com).

Norm Tyler (1999), Downtown Pedestrian Malls, (www.emich.edu/public/geo/557book/c120.auto.html).

Velo.Info (www.velo.info) is a web-based information resource, supported by the European Commission, to assist cities in introducing measures to support and increase cycle use.

Walkable Communities (www.walkable.org) helps create people-oriented environments.

Walking Steering Group (1996), Developing a Walking Strategy, UK Department of the Environment Transport and the Regions, downloadable at www.local-transport.detr.gov.uk/walk/walk.htm.

Amanda West (1990), “Pedestrian Malls: How Successful Are They?” Main Street News (www.mainst.org/pedmallarticle.htm).

WSDOT (1997), Pedestrian Facilities Guidebook: Incorporating Pedestrians Into Washington’s Transportation System, Washington State Department of Transportation (Olympia; www.wsdot.wa.gov/ta/t2/t2pubs.htm).

WSDOT Bicycle Website (www.wsdot.wa.gov/bike) has information and examples of Washington’s outstanding bicycle planning programs.

WTPP (2001), World Transport Policy and Practice – Special Pedestrian Planning Issue, Volume 7, Number 4 (www.ecoplan.org/wtpp/wt_index.htm). Articles on ways to improve walkability and encourage pedestrian transportation.

Charles Zeeger, et al (2002), Pedestrian Facilities Users Guide: Providing Safety and Mobility, Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center (www.walkinginfo.org), Highway Safety Research Center, Federal Highway Administration, Publication FHWA-RD-01-102.

---

This Encyclopedia is produced by the Victoria Transport Policy Institute to help improve understanding of Transportation Demand Management. It is an ongoing project. Please send us your comments and suggestions for improvement.

VTPI Homepage

Encyclopedia Homepage

Send Comments

Victoria Transport Policy Institute

www.vtpi.org info@vtpi.org

1250 Rudlin Street, Victoria, BC, V8V 3R7, CANADA

Phone & Fax 250-360-1560

“Efficiency - Equity - Clarity”

#25