Non-Motorized Transportation Planning
Identifying Ways to Improve Pedestrian and Bicycle Transport
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Victoria Transport Policy Institute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Updated 23 April 2018
This chapter describes planning activities that can improve walking and cycling conditions, and encourage use of non-motorized modes.
Non-motorized 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 non-motorized transportation:
· Improve sidewalks, crosswalks, paths and bikelanes.
· Correct specific roadway hazards to non-motorized transport (sometimes called “spot improvement” programs).
· Improve Non-motorized 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 non-motorized 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.
· Plan and design roadways to increase walking and cycling safety.
· 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 (NYBC 2002; ABW 2010). A variety of roadway planning and design practices can increase walking and cycling safety (Sandt, et al. 2015). 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 non-motorized 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 non-motorized travel, evaluate walking and cycling conditions and predict the effects of pedestrian and cycling improvements (Evaluating Non-motorized Transport).
Non-motorized trips can substitute directly for automobile trips. Walking and cycling improvements also support Public Transit and Ridesharing. A relatively short non-motorized 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 non-motorized travel conditions often experience significant increases in non-motorized 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 Share 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 non-motorized 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 non-motorized 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% |
Non-motorized travel is much more common in some urban areas than others.
Many communities have significant latent demand for non-motorized 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), because they only consider current commute trips that can shift directly to non-motorized 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 non-motorized trips, because they ignore or undercount short trips, non-work travel, travel by children, recreational travel, and non-motorized links (Forsyth, Krizek and Weinstein Agrawal 2010). 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. According to the 2009 National Household Travel Survey, 10.9% of personal trips are by walking and 1.0% are by bicycle, a 25% increase since 2001, and more than twice as much as most travel surveys indicate. One study found that the actual number of non-motorized trips is six times greater than what conventional surveys indicate (Rietveld 2000). In 2000, the Southern California Metropolitan Transportation Authority increased the portion of non-motorized travel in their models from about 2% of regional trips (based on conventional travel surveys) up to about 10% (based on more comprehensive travel survey data).
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.
Non-motorized transportation provides a number of benefits and costs (for more information see Litman, 2011, Burshell, et al. 2013, and the Bicyclepedia at www.bicyclinginfo.org/bikecost).
Improved non-motorized 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 non-motorized transportation, for trips made entirely by walking or cycling and to access transit. Non-motorized transportation improvements help create more balanced transportation systems that reduce Automobile Dependency. Universal Design improvements are particularly important for benefiting people with physical disabilities.
Shifts from driving to non-motorized modes can congestion reduction, road and parking facility savings, consumer savings, environmental protection and increase community Livability (Litman, 1999). Non-motorized transportation supports other alternative modes (public transit and ridesharing),
Non-motorized 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).
Non-motorized 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 non-motorized transport result in overall increases in road safety. For example, the Netherlands has a high level of non-motorized 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 non-motorized travelers (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.
Non-motorized 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 non-motorized improvements.
In several case studies, improving walking conditions in a community significantly increased retail sales and property values (NBPC, 1995; LGC, 2001). It can increase regional Economic Development by improving Accessibility and reducing consumer expenditures on fuel and other imported resources.
Costs are generally associated with program expenses and facility improvements. Zeeger, et al. (2002) provides information on typical costs for bicycle and pedestrian facilities. The Pedestrian Facilities Users Guide provides information on typical costs for bicycle and pedestrian facilities, including sidewalks, paths, crosswalks, traffic calming features such as speed humps and traffic circles, streetscaping, roadway and intersection redesigns, street furniture, and improved traffic law enforcement, as summarized below.
Table 5 Typical Non-motorized Facility Costs (Zeeger, et al. 2002)
|
Measure |
Typical Costs |
|
Asphalt walkway |
$30-40 per linear foot for 5-foot wide walkway. |
|
Curb ramps |
$1,500 per ramp. |
|
Bike lanes |
$10,000-50,000 per mile to modify existing roadway (no new construction). |
|
Chokers |
$7,000 for landscaped choker on asphalt street, $13,000 on concrete street. |
|
Curb bulbs |
$10,000-20,000 per bulb. |
|
Traffic circles |
$4,000 for landscaped circle on asphalt street, $6,000 on concrete street. |
|
Chicanes |
$8,000 for landscaped chicanes on asphalt streets, $14,000 on concrete streets. |
|
Street closures |
$6,500 for landscaped partial closure, $30,000-100,000 for full closure. |
|
Marked crosswalk |
$100-300 for painted crosswalks, $3,000 for patterned concrete. |
|
Pedestrian refuge island |
$6,000-9,000, depending on materials and conditions. |
|
Center medians |
$15,000-20,000 per 100 feet. |
|
Traffic signals |
$15,000-60,000 for a new signal. |
|
Raised intersection |
$70,000+ per intersection |
|
Traffic signs |
$75-100 per sign. |
|
Speed humps |
$2,000 per hump |
|
$50-150 per bike for racks and $100-500 per bike for lockers |
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 6 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 non-motorized 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 non-motorized 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 (Robertson, 1990; 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):
|
Since nearly everybody walks, and many people cycle, non-motorized 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 non-motorized 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 non-motorized transportation is often justified for the sake of horizontal equity. Lower-income and transportation disadvantaged people often rely heavily on non-motorized transportation, and so benefit significantly by non-motorized improvements. Non-motorized transportation is often critical for providing Basic Mobility.
Table 7 Equity Summary
|
Criteria |
Rating |
Comments |
|
Treats everybody equally. |
2 |
Almost everybody uses non-motorized 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 non-motorized transport. |
|
Benefits transportation disadvantaged. |
3 |
Transport disadvantaged rely on non-motorized transport. |
|
Improves basic mobility. |
3 |
Non-motorized transport provides basic mobility. |
Rating from 3 (very beneficial) to –3 (very harmful). A 0 indicates no impact or mixed impacts.
Non-motorized 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. Non-motorized 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 8 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).
Improves Transport Choice
For more information on ways to improve and encourage non-motorized modes see Complete Streets Policies, Managing Non-motorized Facilities, Pedestrian Improvements, Bicycling Improvements, Universal Design, Non-motorized Encouragement, Bicycle Parking, Evaluating Non-motorized 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 non-motorized transportation with transit see Bike/Transit Integration and Transit Oriented Development. Non-motorized 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.
Non-motorized 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.
Non-motorized 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.
A number of guides and resources including ADONIS (1998), Litman, et al. (2000), NYBC (2002), GDOT (2003) provide information on best practices for improving non-motorized travel conditions and encouraging non-motorized transport. These include:
· Integrate non-motorized planning into all transport and land use planning activities.
· Educate all transportation professionals in non-motorized transportation planning principles.
· Fund non-motorized 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 non-motorized travel in transportation surveys and models.
· Create pedestrian-oriented Commercial Centers and neighborhoods.
· Perform user surveys to identify problems and barriers to non-motorized travel.
· Use traffic calming and other traffic control measures to make street environments safer and more pleasant for non-motorized transport.
Non-motorized 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.
|
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. |
For more examples see CATSIP (www.catsip.berkeley.edu), a comprehensive online resource for improving walking and cycling conditions.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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 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 Department of Transportation adopted a design guidance that integrates non-motorized planning into the state’s overall transportation infrastructure program by incorporating walking and cycling design requirements into all appropriate projects.
The Oregon Department of Transportation has established a comprehensive pedestrian (and bicycle) planning and design document.
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.
In 2009, the City of Delhi, India published Pedestrian Design Guidelines, a detailed guidebook that describes the role of non-motorized modes in an efficient and equitable transport system; defines minimum requirements for the design, size and maintenance of sidewalks, crosswalks and other pedestrian facilities; and describes international best practices for enhancing the pedestrian environment. It includes:
The report, Summary of Design, Policies and Operational Characteristics for Shared Bicycle/Bus Lanes (Hillsman, Hendricks and Fiebe 2012) contains the results of an investigation of the design and operation of shared bicycle/bus lanes, which are designated for use by public transit buses, bicycles, right-turning vehicles, and sometimes taxis and delivery vehicles. Such lanes are intended to provide a speed advantage for public transit vehicles, more direct route for bicyclists, greater level of service to bicyclists, and some degree of space separation between general traffic and bicyclists for their greater safety and comfort. However, this combined use raises many issues of compatibility of bicycles and buses sharing the same road space. Investigators compiled a list of shared bicycle/bus lanes in cities in the United States and Canada. Researchers found few examples of state-level guidance on shared bicycle/bus lanes but more examples at the local and regional levels. Through surveys and interviews, the shared bicycle/bus lanes from four cities in the United States were selected for in-depth examination and were developed into case studies: Ocean City, Maryland; Minneapolis, Minnesota; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; and Washington, D.C. As a result of this investigation, an identification and discussion of the contextual factors, design variables, and tools for planning and implementing shared bicycle/bus lanes is presented.
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.
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.
AASHTO (2004), Guide for the Planning, Design, and Operation of Pedestrian Facilities, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (www.aashto.org); at www.walkinginfo.org/library/details.cfm?id=2067.
ABW (2010-2017), Bicycling and Walking in the U.S.: Benchmarking Reports, Alliance for Biking & Walking, (www.peoplepoweredmovement.org); at www.peoplepoweredmovement.org/benchmarking.
ADIT (2013), Walking, Riding and Access to Public Transport: Supporting Active Travel in Australian Communities: Ministerial Statement; Australian Department of Infrastructure and Transport (www.infrastructure.gov.au); at https://bit.ly/2HofvNp.
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.
ADUPC (2009), Abu Dhabi Urban Street Design Manual, Abu Dhabi Urban Planning Council (www.upc.gov.ae/en/Home.aspx); at www.upc.gov.ae/guidelines/urban-street-design-manual.aspx?lang=en-US. It includes an Online Street Design Tool (https://usdm.upc.gov.ae/usdm_online_tool/USDM_Online_Tool.html).
ADUPC (2013), Abu Dhabi Public Realm Design Manual, Abu Dhabi Urban Planning Council (www.upc.gov.ae/en/Home.aspx); at www.upc.gov.ae/prdm/index.asp.
DFID (2010), Children, Transport and Mobility in Sub-Saharan Africa: Developing a Child-Centred Evidence Base to Improve Policy and Change Thinking Across Africa, Department of International Development (www.dur.ac.uk/child.mobility).
Alliance for Biking & Walking (www.peoplepoweredmovement.org) is a coalition of local and state bicycle and pedestrian advocacy organizations that provides information and support for advocacy and planning.
Alta Planning (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); at http://atfiles.org/files/pdf/Pedestrian-Bicycle-Facilities-Caltrans.pdf.
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.
Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals (www.apbp.org) provides information, support, training and credibility to non-motorized transportation professionals.
Bicycle Federation of America (www.bikefed.org) provides extensive resources for bicycle and pedestrian planning.
Bicycle Information Center (www.bicyclinginfo.org) provides information on non-motorized 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).
Dan Burden (2003), Level of Quality (LOQ) Guidelines, Walkable Communities (www.walkable.org/library.htm). Shows graphically roadway design features that optimize pedestrian and cyclist access, safety and mobility, and transit station accessibility.
Max A. Bushell, Bryan W. Poole, Charles V. Zegeer and Daniel A. Rodriguez (2013), Costs for Pedestrian and Bicyclist Infrastructure Improvements: A Resource for Researchers, Engineers, Planners, and the General Public, Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center (www.walkinginfo.org), Federal Highway Administration; at www.walkinginfo.org/download/PedBikeCosts.pdf.
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.
CATSIP (California Active Transportation Safety Information Pages) (www.catsip.berkeley.edu), a comprehensive online resource for improving walking and cycling conditions.
Centre for Alternative and Sustainable Transport (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).
Complete Streets (www.completestreets.org) is a campaign to promote roadway designs that effectively accommodate multiple modes and support local planning objectives.
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.
CSE (2009), Footfalls: Obstacle Course To Livable Cities, Right To Clean Air Campaign, Centre For Science And Environment (www.cseindia.org); at www.indiaenvironmentportal.org.in/content/footfalls-obstacle-course-livable-cities.
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.
DfT (2006), Manual for Streets, Department for Transport (www.manualforstreets.org.uk). Provides guidance to practitioners on effective street design.
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).
Michelle Ernst and Lilly Shoup (2009), Dangerous by Design: Solving the Epidemic of Preventable Pedestrian Deaths (and Making Great Neighborhoods), Transport for America (http://t4america.org); at http://t4america.org/docs/dangerousbydesign/dangerous_by_design.pdf.
FHWA Bicycle and Pedestrian Program Resources (www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bicycle_pedestrian) provides information on U.S. programs and planning practices that support active transportation.
FHWA (2012), Report to the U.S. Congress on the Outcomes of the Nonmotorized Transportation Pilot Program, Federal Highway Administration (www.fhwa.dot.gov); at www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bicycle_pedestrian/ntpp/2012_report/final_report_april_2012.pdf.
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.
Ann Forsyth, Kevin J. Krizek and Asha Weinstein Agrawal (2010), Measuring Walking and Cycling Using the PABS (Pedestrian and Bicycling Survey) Approach: A Low-Cost Survey Method for Local Communities, Mineta Transportation Institute, San Jose State University (www.transweb.sjsu.edu); at www.transweb.sjsu.edu/project/2907.html.
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).
Gehl Architects (2010), Our Cities Ourselves: 10 Principles for Transport in Urban Life (www.itdp.org); at www.itdp.org/documents/2010-OurCitiesOurselves_Booklet.pdf.
Gehl Architects (2013), Istanbul: An Accessable City – A City For People, EMBARQ Turkey (www.embarqturkiye.org); at www.embarq.org/research/publication/istanbul-public-spaces-and-public-life.
GTZ SUTP and the Interface for Cycling Expertise (2009), Cycling-inclusive Policy Development: A Handbook, Sustainable Urban Transport Project (www.sutp.org); at www.sutp.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1462&Itemid=1&lang=uk.
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).
David L. Harkey and Charles C. Zegeer (2004), PEDSAFE: Pedestrian Safety Guide and Countermeasure Selection System, FHWA-SA-04-003, Federal Highway Administration, Pedestrian and Bicycling Information Center (www.walkinginfo.org); at www.walkinginfo.org/library/details.cfm?id=10.
Edward L. Hillsman, Sara J. Hendricks and JoAnne K. Fiebe (2012), A Summary of Design, Policies and Operational Characteristics for Shared Bicycle/Bus Lanes, Project No. BDK85 977-32, National Center for Transit Research (www.nctr.usf.edu), Florida Department of Transportation; at www.nctr.usf.edu/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/77937.pdf.
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).
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).
ITE (2006), Context Sensitive Solutions in Designing Major Urban Thoroughfares for Walkable Communities, Proposed Recommended Practice, Institute of Transportation Engineers (www.ite.org); at www.ite.org/bookstore/RP036.pdf.
ITE (2010), Designing Walkable Urban Thoroughfares: A Context Sensitive Approach, Recommended Practice, Institute of Transportation Engineers (www.ite.org); at www.ite.org/emodules/scriptcontent/Orders/ProductDetail.cfm?pc=RP-036A-E. Also see www.ite.org/css.
ICMA (2005), Creating a Regulatory Blueprint for Healthy Community Design: A Local Government Guide to Reforming Zoning and Land Development Codes, International City/County Management Association (www.icma.org) and Active Living By Design (www.activelivingleadership.org).
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 (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 Non-motorized 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 (2010), Short and Sweet: Analysis of Shorter Trips Using National Personal Travel Survey Data, VTPI (www.vtpi.org); at www.vtpi.org/short_sweet.pdf.
Todd Litman (2013), Evaluating Complete Streets: The Value of Designing Roads For Diverse Modes, Users and Activities, Victoria Transport Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org); at www.vtpi.org/compstr.pdf.
Todd Litman (2018), Evaluating Active Transport Benefits and Costs: Guide to Valuing Walking and Cycling Improvements and Encouragement Programs, Victoria Transport Policy Institute (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.
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.
Living Streets (2011), Making The Case For Investment In The Walking Environment, Living Streets Program (www.livingstreets.org.uk), University of the West of England and Cavill Associates; at www.livingstreets.org.uk/makingthecase.
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.
Measuring Walking (www.measuring-walking.org) describes internationally standardised monitoring methods of walking and public space.
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.
NACTO (2012), Urban Bikeway Design Guide, National Association of City Transportation Officials (www.nacto.org); at www.c4cguide.org.
NACTO (2011), Urban Bikeway Design Guide, National Association of City Transportation Officials (www.nacto.org); at http://nacto.org/cities-for-cycling/design-guide.
NACTO (2012), Urban Street Design Guide, National Association of City Transportation Officials (www.nacto.org); at http://nacto.org/urbanstreetdesignguide-overview. This guide provides comprehensive information on ways that cities can make streets safer, more livable, and more economically vibrant.
NACTO (2016), Global Street Design Guide, National Association of City Transportation Officials (www.nacto.org) and the Global Designing Cities Initiative (www.globaldesigningcities.org); at http://globaldesigningcities.org/publication/global-street-design-guide/streets/street-users.
NACTO (2017), Equitable Bike Share Means Building Better Places for People to Ride, National Association of City Transportation Officials (www.nacto.org); at https://nacto.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/NACTO_Equitable_Bikeshare_Means_Bike_Lanes.pdf.
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.
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.
NSW (2004), Planning Guidelines for Walking and Cycling, Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources (www.planning.nsw.gov.au); at www.planning.nsw.gov.au/plansforaction/pdf/guide_pages.pdf.
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 non-motorized planning at its best.
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); at 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).
Richard Pratt, et al (2012), Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities, Chapter 16, Traveler Response to Transportation System Changes, TCRP Report 95, TRB (www.trb.org); at http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/tcrp/tcrp_rpt_95c16.pdf.
PROWAC (2007), Accessible Public Rights-of-Way: Planning and Designing for Alterations, Public Rights of Way Access Advisory Committee, Access Board (www.access-board.gov); at www.access-board.gov/prowac/alterations/guide.htm.
John Pucher and Ralph Buehler (2007), “At the Frontiers of Cycling: Policy Innovations in the Netherlands, Denmark, and Germany,” World Transport Policy & Practice, Vol. 13, No. 3; at www.eco-logica.co.uk/pdf/wtpp13.3.pdf.
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,” Transportation Research A, Vol. 33, No. 7/8, 1999, pp. 625-654; at www.vtpi.org/pucher3.pdf.
John Pucher and Ralph Buehler (2007), “At the Frontiers of Cycling: Policy Innovations in the Netherlands, Denmark, and Germany,” World Transport Policy & Practice, Vol. 13, No. 3; at www.eco-logica.co.uk/pdf/wtpp13.3.pdf.
John Pucher and Ralph Buehler (2008), “Making Cycling Irresistible: Lessons from the Netherlands, Denmark, and Germany,” Transport Reviews, Vol. 28, No. 4, July 2008; at www.vtpi.org/irresistible.pdf.
John Pucher and Ralph Buehler (2009), “Sustainable Transport that Works: Lessons from Germany,” World Transport Policy and Practice, Vol. 15, No. 1, May, pp. 13-46 (www.eco-logica.co.uk/pdf/wtpp15.1.pdf ).
John Pucher, Jennifer Dill and Susan Handy (2010), “Infrastructure, Programs and Policies To Increase Bicycling: An International Review,” Preventive Medicine, Vol. 48, No. 2, February; prepared for the Active Living By Design Program (www.activelivingresearch.org/resourcesearch/journalspecialissues); at http://policy.rutgers.edu/faculty/pucher/Pucher_Dill_Handy10.pdf.
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), “Non-motorized Modes in Transport Systems: A Multimodal Chain Perspective for The Netherlands,” Transportation Research D, Vol. 5, No. 1, January 2000, pp. 31-36.
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.
Collin Roughton, et al. (2012), Creating Walkable and Bikeable Communities: A User Guide to Developing Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plans, Center for Transportation Studies at Portland State University (www.ibpi.usp.pdx.edu); at www.ibpi.usp.pdx.edu/media/IBPI%20Master%20Plan%20Handbook%20FINAL%20(7.27.12).pdf.
SACOG (2011), Complete Streets Resource Toolkit, Sacramento Area Council of Governments (www.sacog.org); at www.sacog.org/complete-streets/toolkit/START.html.
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).
Laura Sandt, et al. (2015), A Resident’s Guide for Creating Safer Communities for Walking and Biking, Federal Highway Administration Office of Safety (http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov); at http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/ped_cmnity/ped_walkguide/residents_guide2014_final.pdf.
John Schoon (2010), Pedestrian Facilities: Engineering and Geometric Design, Thomas Telford Ltd (www.thomastelford.com).
W.L. Schwartz, et al (1999), Guidebook on Methods to Estimate Non-motorized Travel: Overview of Methods. Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center (www.tfhrc.org), FHWA-RD-98-165.
Scientists for Cycling (www.ecf.com/projects/scientists-for-cycling) is a professional network involving experts in both natural and social sciences who use their knowledge to improve and encourage cycling.
Rachel Smith (2010), Cycling Super Highways Toolkit, AITPM JBMS, at
www.4shared.com/document/COLaHTtt/AITPM_JBMS_Cycling_Super_Highw.html.
STPP (2003), Americans Attitudes Toward Walking and Creating More Walkable Communities, Surface Transportation Policy Project (www.transact.org).
Sam Swartz (2012), Steps to a Walkable Community: A Guide for Citizens, Planners, and Engineers, America Walks (www.americawalks.org/walksteps).
Rodney Tolley (2003), Sustainable Transport: Planning for Walking and Cycling in Urban Environments, Woodhead Publishing Ltd (www.woodheadpublishing.com).
Kristen Torrance, et al. (2009), Effects
of On-Street Parking on Cyclist Route Choice and the Operational Behavior of Cyclists
and Motorists, Center for Transportation Research
The University of Texas at Austin (www.utexas.edu);
at www.utexas.edu/research/ctr/pdf_reports/0_5755_1.pdf.
T.Y. Lin International (2012), Sharing the Road: Optimizing Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety and Vehicle Mobility, Michigan Department of Transportation (www.michigan.gov/mdot); at www.michigan.gov/mdot/0,4616,7-151-9622_11045_24249-279311--,00.html
T.Y. Lin International (2012), Best Design Practices for Walking and Bicycling in Michigan, Michigan Department of Transportation (www.michigan.gov/mdot) at www.michigan.gov/documents/mdot/MDOT_Research_Report_RC1572_Part6_387521_7.pdf.
UTTIPEC (2009), Pedestrian Design Guidelines: Don’t Drive…Walk, Delhi Development Authority, New Delhi (www.uttipec.nic.in); at www.uttipec.nic.in/PedestrianGuidelines-30Nov09-UTTPEC-DDA.pdf.
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.
Walk Friendly Communities (www.walkfriendly.org) is a national program sponsored by the U.S. Department of Transportation to encourage towns and cities to establish a high priority for supporting safer walking environments. The Resources section provides useful information for bicycle and pedestrian planning and analysis.
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.
Darren Walton and Stephen J. Murray (2012), Minimum Design Parameters For Cycle Connectivity, Report 432, NZ Transport Agency (www.nzta.govt.nz); at www.nzta.govt.nz/resources/research/reports/432/docs/432.pdf.
WFC (2010), Walk Friendly Community Assessment Tool, Walk Friendly Communities (www.walkfriendly.org).
WHO (2013), Pedestrian Safety: A Road Safety Manual For Decision-Makers And Practitioners, World Health Organization (www.who.int); at http://who.int/roadsafety/projects/manuals/pedestrian/en/index.html.
Meghan Winters and Adam Cooper (2008), What Makes a Neighbourhood Bikeable, Cycling In Cities, University of British Columbia (www.cher.ubc.ca/cyclingincities); at www.cher.ubc.ca/cyclingincities/pdf/WhatMakesNeighbourhoodsBikeable.pdf.
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 V. Zegeer, Laura Sandt and Margaret Scully (2009), How to Develop a Pedestrian Safety Accident Plan, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. Federal Highway Administration; at http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/docs/fhwasa0512.pdf.
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; at http://drusilla.hsrc.unc.edu/cms/downloads/PedFacility_UserGuide2002.pdf.
Charles Zegeer, et al. (2010), Pedestrian Safety Strategic Plan: Recommendations for Research and Product Development, Federal Highway Administration Office of Safety (http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov); at http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/pssp/fhwasaxxxxx/fhwasaxxxxx.pdf.
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.
Victoria Transport Policy Institute
www.vtpi.org info@vtpi.org
1250 Rudlin Street, Victoria, BC, V8V 3R7, CANADA
Phone & Fax 250-360-1560
#25