Bicycling Improvements
Strategies to Make Cycling Convenient, Safe and Pleasant
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Victoria Transport Policy Institute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Updated 6 September 2019
This chapter describes ways of improving cycling conditions and encouraging cycling activity.
Description
There are many specific ways to improve bicycle transportation (ADONIS, 1998; Litman, et al., 2000). These include:
· Improved paths and bikelanes.
· Correcting specific roadway hazards (potholes, cracks, narrow lanes, etc.).
· Improved road, road shoulder and path Management and Maintenance.
· Improved Bike Parking.
· Develop a more Connected street network and clustered development (New Urbanism).
· Establish Public Bike Systems that provide convenient rental bicycles for short utilitarian trips.
· Traffic Calming, Speed Reductions, Vehicle Restrictions, and Road Space Reallocation.
· Safety education, law enforcement and encouragement programs.
· Integration with transit (Bike/Transit Integration and Transit Oriented Development).
· Create a Multi-Modal Access Guide, which includes maps and other information on how to cycle to a particular destination.
· Provide Public Bike Systems and bicycle rental services.
· Address Security Concerns of cyclists.
Cyclists use various facilities, as summarized in Table 1. Improving these facilities tends to improving cycling conditions and increase cycling activity. A significant amount of cycling occurs on roads, highway shoulders and sidewalks that have no special designation or design features for cycling. It is therefore important to design, maintain and manage all of these facilities to accommodate cycling. For example, as much as possible roadways should have minimal potholes and cracks that can catch a bicycle tire, particularly along the right lane, and shoulders should be paved and maintained in good condition. Bike lanes without curb automobile parking appears to be the most effective facility type to encourage urban cycling (Torrance 2009).
Table 1 Types of Bicycle Facilities
|
Type |
Description |
|
Paths and trails (Type I) |
Various types of paths and trails separated from roadways. These can be built along highways and railroad rights of way, through parks, and other locations where a linear corridor exists. |
|
Bike lanes (Type II) |
Special road lanes for use by cyclists. In some cases this involves removing curb parking, which tends to increase cyclist comfort and safety. |
|
Bike routes (Type III) |
Roadways designated as being extra suitable for cycling. |
|
Bicycle boulevards |
City streets selected for and designed with features to facilitate cycling and discourage excess motor vehicle traffic speeds and volumes. |
|
Bike Rapid Transit Systems |
Enclosed and grade-separated bike paths (Sung, Park and Kim 2009) |
|
Designated shared streets |
Roadways (particularly city streets) with markings to indicate that cyclists should ride in the traffic lane. |
|
General roadways |
A significant amount of cycling occurs on roadways that have no special designation or design features. |
|
Highway shoulders |
Highway shoulders, both paved and unpaved, are often used for cycling. |
|
Sidewalks |
Sidewalks are used by some cyclists, particularly by children and inexperienced adults, and along busy roadways that lack provisions for cycling. |
|
These include bike racks, storage lockers, and shower/changing facilities. |
This table describes various types of cycling facilities.
Figure 1 & 2 Bike Lane Installation
|
|
|
|
Before bikelane. (Photo curtsey of John Luton) |
After bikelane. |
How it is Implemented
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 Nonmotorized Planning to identify problems and prioritize projects. Implementation may require special funds, either shifting funds within existing transportation, a new budget allocation, or grants.
|
Cycling Facility Design Guides
CROW (2007), Design Manual For Bicycle Traffic, National Information and Technology Platform for Transport, Infrastructure and Public Space (www.crow.nl); at www.crow.nl/shop/productDetail.aspx?id=889&category=90.
DfT (2002), Inclusive Mobility A guide to Best Practise on Access to Pedestrian and Transport Infrastructure, UK Department For Transport (www.dft.gov.uk); at www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roads/tpm/tal/walking/inclusivemobilityaguidetobes4137.
DfT (2004), Policy, Planning and Design for Walking and Cycling – Local Transport Note 1/04, UK Department For Transport (www.dft.gov.uk); at www.dft.gov.uk/consultations/archive/2004/ltnwc/ltn104policyplanninganddesig1691.
DfT (2004), Adjacent and Shared Use Facilities for Pedestrians and Cyclists – Local Transport, UK Department for Transport (www.dft.gov.uk); at www.dft.gov.uk/consultations/archive/2004/ltnwc/ltn204adjacentandsharedusefa1692.
DfT (2006), Manual for Streets, Department for Transport (www.manualforstreets.org.uk). Provides guidance to practitioners on effective street design.
DfT (various years), Cycle Infrastructure Design, UK Department for Transport (www.dft.gov.uk); at www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/sustainable/cycling.
NZTA (2005) New Zealand Cycle Network and Route Planning Guide, New Zealand Transport Agency (www.nzta.govt.nz); at www.nzta.govt.nz/resources/cycle-network-and-route-planning.
TA (2005), “The Geometric Design of Pedestrian, Cycle and Equestrian Routes,” Design Manual for Roads and Bridges, Highways Agency (www.standardsforhighways.co.uk); at www.standardsforhighways.co.uk/dmrb/vol6/section3/ta9005.pdf.
TfL (2005), London Cycling Design Standards – A Guide To The Design Of A Better Cycling, Transport for London (www.tfl.gov.uk); at www.tfl.gov.uk/businessandpartners/publications/2766.aspx. |
Travel Impacts
Bicycling can substitute directly for automobile trips. Communities that improve cycling conditions often experience significant increases in bicycle travel and related reductions in vehicle travel (Clifton, et al. 2012; PBQD 2000; Douma and Cleaveland 2008; Handy, Tal and Boarnet 2010). 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) find that for U.S. cities with more than 250,000 population, each additional mile of bike lanes per square mile is associated with a roughly one percentage point increase in bicycle commute mode share. Rietveld and Daniel (2004) find that bicycle transportation increases in cities where cycling is relatively easier (fewer hindrances along cycling routes) and safer, and as cycling is faster and cheaper relative to automobile travel. Topp (2008) argues that an system of integrated cycling facilities and rental services, high quality public transportation and carsharing can significantly reduce automobile travel, particularly for shorter urban trips.
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 due to supportive public policies (AWB 2010). International studies also find significant differences in non-motorized travel patterns, as illustrated in the table below. High levels of cycling in such 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 bicycle use.
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% |
The amount of walking and cycling varies significantly from one city to another.
Many communities have significant latent demand for bicycle transport. That is, people would bicycle more frequently if they had suitable facilities and resources (Komanoff and Roelofs 1993). 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 (Bicycling 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 studies conclude that cycling improvements have little impact on overall vehicle travel (Apogee 1994), but other studies indicate much higher potential mode shifts (Hillman 1998; ADONIS 1999; TravelSmart; Pucher, Dill and Handy 2010). Potential travel impacts are greater if cycling is Integrated with Transit, and with Smart Growth development practices that reduce travel requirements, for example, by locating schools and shops within residential neighborhoods.
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, a “bike-bus-bike” trip is often classified as “transit”, even if more distance is traveled by cycling. 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).
In recent years several evaluation tools have been developed to predict demand for cycling, evaluate cycling conditions and predict the effects of cycling improvements (Evaluating Nonmotorized Transport).
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 |
Bicycle 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
Cycling can provide a number of benefits and costs, as discussed below (for more information see the Bicyclepedia at www.bicyclinginfo.org/bikecost, Litman, 2005; CPF 2008).
Mobility Benefits (Evaluating Transportation Choice)
Improved cycling conditions increase travel choice and mobility, which particularly benefits non-drivers. Cycling is often one of the most Affordable transportation options. People who are transportation disadvantaged often rely heavily on nonmotorized transportation, for trips made entirely by cycling and to access transit. Bicycle transportation can help provide Basic Mobility.
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 2012; Buis 2000). Nonmotorized transportation supports other alternative modes (public transit and ridesharing), and Smart Growth land use objectives, including higher density, mixed-use development to increase access, and reduce per capita pavement.
Safety and Health Impacts
Cycling has a relatively high casualty rate per mile of travel, but this is offset by reduced risk to other road users, and by the fact that cyclists tend to travel less overall than motorists. International research indicates that as cycling activity increase in a community, per capita traffic accident rates decline (Jacobsen 2003). This appears to reflect a combination of factors: cyclists impose less risk on other road users, total vehicle travel tends to decline, motorists become more considerate and cautious, and communities may invest more in facility improvements and cycling education. 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). Bicyclist fatalities are only a quarter as high as in the United States, due to greater safety efforts.
Cycling can provide significant aerobic fitness health benefits, which more than offsets the increased crash risk (Roberts, et al., 1996; Frank and Engelke, 2000). 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). Cyclists also tend to have great looking legs.
Economic Development Benefits
To the degree that cycling improvements improve Community Livability and reduce automobile costs, they can increase property values and improve Economic Development. In a survey of business owners in an urban retail district, Drennen (2003) found that 65% consider arterial bike lanes to provide overall economic development benefits, compared with 4% that consider it overall negative, and 65% support expansion of the program in their area.
Recreation Benefits
Many people enjoy cycling and the healthy exercise it provides. 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 pedal a stationary bike. This suggests that both transportation and recreational funding can be devoted to cycling improvements.
Costs
Costs are generally associated with program expenses and facility improvements. A typical bike lane costs $52,000 per mile, or 30¢ per 2.1 mile trip bicycle trip if used by 80 cyclists a day, while a typical new sidewalk is estimated to cost 12¢ per trip (Comsis 1993). High-quality bike racks and lockers typically cost $100-500 per bike. Some nonmotorized transportation improvements, such as traffic calming, may reduce motor vehicle traffic speeds.
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 and provides health benefits. |
|
Environmental Impacts |
3 |
Reduces automobile use, particularly high-polluting short trips. |
|
Land Use Impacts |
3 |
Supports higher-density development. |
|
Community Livability |
3 |
Reduces motor vehicle traffic and increases local access. |
Rating from 3 (very beneficial) to –3 (very harmful). A 0 indicates no impact or mixed impacts.
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.
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. Cycling can help provide Basic Mobility.
Table 6 Equity Summary
|
Criteria |
Rating |
Comments |
|
Treats everybody equally. |
1 |
Can be used by a portion of the population. |
|
Individuals bear the costs they impose. |
2 |
Requires public resources, but usually less than costs for automobile trips. |
|
Progressive with respect to income. |
2 |
Some lower-income people rely on cycling. |
|
Benefits transportation disadvantaged. |
2 |
Some transportation disadvantaged people rely on cycling. |
|
Improves basic mobility. |
2 |
Can help provide 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
Nonmotorized Planning is often the first step for Bicycle Improvements. Managing Nonmotorized Facilities, Bicycle Encouragement, Public Bike Systems, Bicycle Parking, Bicycle/Transit Integration, Commute Trip Reduction, Road Space Reallocation and Traffic Calming are ways of improving cycling conditions. New Urbanism, Smart Growth and Transit Oriented Development can help create roadway and land use patterns that are more suitable for bicycle transportation. Least Cost Planning and Institutional Reforms can help increase public investment in bicycle improvements. Address Security Concerns can be an important part of improving cycling conditions.
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), Winters and Cooper (2008) and NACTO (2012) provide information on best practices for improving nonmotorized travel conditions and encouraging nonmotorized transport. These include:
· Educate all transportation professionals in bicycle planning principles.
· Insure that all roads are suitable for cycling unless it is specifically prohibited and suitable alternatives are available.
· Use current planning practices and design standards.
· Include nonmotorized travel in transportation surveys and models.
· Perform user surveys to identify problems and barriers to bicycle travel.
· Use traffic calming and other traffic control measures to make street environments safer and more pleasant for cycling.
|
“Listen up all miscreants and malefactors. Today we discuss the seven deadly sins as they apply to cycling…” (for the full column see Salvation by Bicycle). |
Examples and Case Studies
Pucher and Buelher (2008), ABW (2010) and Smith (2010) provide numerous examples and case studies of successful bicycle improvement programs.
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.portlandonline.com/transportation/index.cfm?c=34772)
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.
Danish Bicycle Improvements (http://www.vd.dk/pdf/cykelrapport/131-162Chapter13.pdf)
The report Collection of Cycle Concepts by the Danish Road Directorate includes a chapter of successful examples of community-based Danish bicycle improvements, including roadway design, paths, bicycle parking, bicycle shopping programs, and promotion campaigns.
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).
Electric Bicycle Implementation In China (Durning 2010)
In China, electric bikes from novelty items in 1998 to almost one e-bike per ten people today. What caused this growth? What can we learn from China?
The economic context of e-bikes is radically different in China than in North America. In China, most electric bikes buyers are stepping up in vehicular speed and comfort from heavy, low-performance bicycles. They are opting for electric bikes not in place of cars but in place of bicycles, motorcycles, or scooters. In the North America, e-bike buyers are stepping down in vehicular speed and comfort from the automobile. (Actually, they’re mostly buying an additional vehicle, to use in place of their car some of the time.)
Researcher Chi-Jen Yang (2010) argues that the proliferation of electric bikes in China was “a policy accident.” Overrun with noisy, dangerous, fast, polluting motorcycles, more than 90 major Chinese cities ban or limiting new licenses for motorcycles, but did not regulate electric bikes—even electric bikes that are essentially motor scooters with decorative pedals. So motorcycle demand, burgeoning with China's economic development, has switched to electric bikes. This research suggests that technological advances and market forces had little to do with targeted subsidies, rather, it resulted from policies that limit motorcycle and car use.
This suggests that electric bikes can increase in market share if public policy to make their fossil-fueled competitors less competitive and cycling in general much more attractive. Specifically, these policies can include:
· Climate policies that price carbon through a carbon tax or a fair cap and trade system.
· Develop a complete network of continuous, separate, named, signed, and lighted bikeways through our communities, so that cyclists (pedal and electric) are shielded from auto traffic.
· Grow our cities up rather than out, constructing compact communities where walking, cycling, and transit are better alternatives than driving for many trips. Density is as important a determinant of cycling as infrastructure.
Electric bikes are promising. They deserve our respect. Their champions, manufacturers, and retailers deserve our encouragement. But the biggest favor we can do for them is not to subsidize them but to change the price of fossil fuels, the layout of our streets, and the design of our cities—creating the kinds of places in which cars become less necessary and bikes become more normal.
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.
Making Cycling Irresistible: Lessons from the Netherlands, Denmark, and Germany (www.vtpi.org/irresistible.pdf)
The Netherlands, Denmark, and Germany have very high levels of cycling because their public policies made bicycling a safe, convenient, and practical mode of transport. The key to achieving high levels of cycling appears to be the provision of separate cycling facilities along heavily traveled roads and at intersections, combined with traffic calming of most residential neighborhoods. Extensive cycling rights of way in the Netherlands, Denmark, and Germany are complemented by ample bike parking, full integration with public transport, comprehensive traffic education and training of both cyclists and motorists, and a wide range of promotional events intended to generate enthusiasm and wide public support for cycling. In addition, the Netherlands, Denmark, and Germany make driving relatively expensive as well as inconvenient in central cities through a host of taxes and restrictions on car ownership, use, and parking. Moreover, strict land use policies foster compact, mixed-use developments that generate shorter and thus more bikeable trips. It is the coordinated implementation of this multifaceted, mutually reinforcing set of policies that best explains the success of these three countries in promoting cycling.
Velib Paris Bicycle Rental (www.velib.paris.fr)
In 2007 the city of Paris launched a new self-service bicycle rental system called Velib. The system provides approximately 20,000 rental bikes available at approximately 1,400 stations located around the city. To access the bikes, riders can purchase a one-day card for 1 euro, a weekly card for 5 euros, or an annual card for 29 euros. For each trip, the first half-hour of use is free, the second half-hour costs 1 euro, at third half hour costs 2 euros, and each addition half-hour after that costs 4 euros. Example: a 25 minute trip = 0 euros, a 50 minute trip = 1 euro, an hour and 15-minute ride = 3 euros. This price structure is designed to encourage frequent use of the bikes for short trips. Each Velib’ parking station is equipped with muni-meters to purchase one and 7-day passes and to pay any additional charges once the bike is dropped off. The Velib’ meters also provides information on other station locations. Paris also has over 371 km (230 miles) of cycling lanes.
Road Diets Include Bike Lanes (Burden and Lagerway 1999; Rosales 2007)
Many arterials have been converted from 4- to 3-lane or 4- to 2-lane reductions with bike lanes as part of road diet treatments. The Road Diet Handbook: Setting Trends for Livable Streets (Rosales, 2007) is a comprehensive guide for road diet implementation, including guidelines for identifying and evaluating potential road diet sites, design concepts and practices, and experience from case studies.
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.
|
Parking Versus Bike Lane One of the most common ways to create improve cycling conditions is to convert a parking lane into a bicycle lane. Here are some factors to consider when evaluating such conversions.
The basic tradeoff is between the convenience of vehicle parking versus the convenience and safety of bicycle travel. Traffic engineering generally favors use of roads for travel rather than parking (some traffic engineers argue that all parking should be supplied off-street), and places a high value on safety. This suggests that, all else being equal, bike lanes are a more appropriate use of road space than automobile parking.
A typical parking lane has about 100 parking spaces per mile. Assuming 50% occupancy and 2-hour turnover, motorists are actually better off overall if a parking-to-bike-lane conversion convinces 25 travelers per hour (200 per day) to a particular destination to shift from driving to cycling, since the reduced automobile parking supply is offset by reduced automobile parking demand.
The value of parking and bicycle lanes depends on the availability of alternatives. If automobile parking is available on sidestreets or parking lots nearby, the loss of some on-street parking will impose little cost, if area parking supply is very limited the cost will be larger. In many situations an apparent parking shortage can be addressed with more efficient Parking Management, such as better regulations, pricing and user information, allowing some parking spaces to be eliminated without reducing motorists’ convenience. For example, when parking spaces are converted to bicycle lanes it may be important to add signs indicating to motorists where vehicle parking is available nearby, and to more efficiently regulate or price nearby parking spaces to increase turnover, so parking spaces are available to priority users such as delivery vehicles and shoppers.
A bicycle lane is particularly important if no high-quality bicycle routes parallel that roadway. In many cases, other bicycle facilities are not true substitutes. For example, most off-street, multi-use paths, and neighborhood street bike routes, are only suitable for relatively low speed cycling, so faster riders still need bicycle lanes on arterial roadways.
Merchants on a particular street often object to parking-to-bike-lane conversions out of fear that they will lose customers who use on-street parking. This is often untrue or inappropriate. In many cases, on-street parking serves only a small portion of their total customers, alternative parking is available nearby, and some of their customers who currently drive will shift to cycling if suitable facilities are available (Sztabinski 2009). This is actually a debate between very local costs (the merchants who lose a few parking spaces) versus widely distributed benefits (businesses throughout the area who will benefit from reduced automobile parking demand, travelers who benefit from financial savings and health benefits, and all residents who benefit from reduced traffic congestion, accident risk and pollution emissions).
Some current trends are increasing cycling Demand, including rising fuel prices, increasing urbanization, increasing health and environmental concerns, and changing consumer preferences. High quality cycling facilities can significantly increase cycling demand; for example, if a community builds a bicycle network, installs more Bicycle Parking facilities and develops Public Bike services. As a result, bicycle lane projects that were not considered cost-effective in previous years may become cost effective to meet future demands, particularly if implemented as part of an integrated community-wide bicycle improvement program. |
Bikability Evaluation (McNeil 2010)
McNeil (2010) evaluates neighborhood bikeability based on the goods and activities that can be reached within a 20-minute bike ride, taking into account the quality of cycling infrastructure and the location of destinations such as stores, schools and parks. This information can be used to calculate a Bikeability Score ranging from 0 (worst) to 100 (best). Bicycle facility improvements and more local services increase bikeability scores.
Bicycle Improvement Benefit/Cost Analysis (Gotschi 2011)
This study assessed how costs of Portland’s past and planned investments in bicycling relate to health and other benefits. Bicycle facility costs are compared with 2 types of monetized health benefits: health care cost savings and value of statistical life savings. Levels of bicycling are estimated using past trends, future mode share goals, and a traffic demand model. This analysis indicates that by 2040, investments in the range of $138 to $605 million will result in health care cost savings of $388 to $594 million, fuel savings of $143 to $218 million, and savings in value of statistical lives of $7 to $12 billion. The benefit-cost ratios for health care and fuel savings are between 3.8:1 and 1.2:1, and an order of magnitude larger when value of statistical lives is used. This indicates that such efforts are cost-effective, even when only a limited selection of benefits is considered.
Odense Cycle City (www.cyclecity.dk)
Odense Cycle City was a project between 1999 and 2002 to improve cycling conditions and encourage bicycle use in this Danish city with 186,000 residents and 500 kilometres of cycling routes. The project evaluation indicates that the number of cyclists increased by 20% during the three year period, while cycling accidents declined by 20%. Suveys indicate that 25% of Odense citizens cycle for commuting to work and for errands, and 80% of Odense children walk or ride a bicycle to school.
Bicycle Friendly Communities (www.bikeleague.org/programs/bicyclefriendlyamerica)
The League of American Bicyclists’ (www.bikeleague.org) Bicycle Friendly Community Program provides incentives, assistance, and award recognition for communities that actively support bicycling. In total the program identified four states, more than one hundred cities and towns, and approximately one hundred businesses considered outstanding in their efforts to accommodate and encourage cycling. The annual report describes the highlights and accomplishments of each awarded jurisdiction and organization.
Bicycle Route Planner (www.cykelby.dk/eng/Stifinder.asp)
A special service helps cyclists navigate around the city of Odense using a mobile phone. Users only pay for the data transfer. The system provides:
- Cycle route shown on a map
- Description of the route
- The destination on a map
Users indicate their origin and destination by keying in an address or phone numbers. The system indicates the most direct and safest route option with maps on the telephone screen. It is easy to move the map view and zoom in and out as needed. The system indicates the distance and expected travel time. The route planner can be bookmarked at http://cykelby.krak.dk.
Minimum Cycling Dimensions
Walton and Murray (2012) measured how cyclists passed pinch points in cycle lanes and road shoulders to determine the relationship between the width of available space for a cyclist and the likelihood of a cyclist traversing the edge line and moving into the motorised vehicle stream. They reached the following conclusions:
- Cyclists need at least 0.4m of clear space to the right (left in left-hand drive jurisdictions) edge-line at a pinch point which will afford a continuous trajectory or path continuity. When provided with 0.4m to 0.8m almost all cyclists will ride left of the white line despite the presence of a pinch point.
- If the far right of the roadside has an object higher than 0.1m then the minimum space to preserve a cycle trajectory is 0.5m. Where objects encroach on a cyclist’s handlebars (eg fences) there should be 1m of clear space for the cyclist. Although the risk of doors opening from parked cars was not studied specifically, with only one site having parked cars as an obstacle, these will require additional site-specific design considerations when accounting for cyclist space.
- In narrow lanes or shoulders, cyclists will often keep just to the right of the lane line or edge line, despite having extra clear, well-maintained space further to the right in which to ride. When provided with 1.1m of space, most (around 80%) cyclists remain within 40mm of the edge line.
- Cyclists anticipate pinch points and will minimise the angle of approach, given available space and forewarning of the narrow point. Any pinch point with a sight line of at least 20m will allow the cyclist to negotiate the site and give the perception of maintaining a steady course.
- 1.5m of space or more (eg to match design guidance) is preferred by cyclists. However, there is evidence from this research that at pinch points extending over short distances (eg 5m, the approximate length of the longest pinch point in the study) there is a continuity advantage in providing cycling space down to a width of 0.5m.
- Cyclists on mountain bikes are considerably more variable in their behaviour and much less likely to be influenced by the presence of roadside objects.
Danish Cycling Concepts (Andersen, et al. 2012)
This 160-page report presents numerous ideas and technical information to improve cycling conditions and encourage bicycle transportation, based on Danish bicycle planning experience. Chapters include:
Collaborations and networks
Cost-benefit and traffic models
Campaigns and marketing
Health and cycling
Urban planning and bicycle planning
Planning the cycling infrastructure
Designing the cycling infrastructure
Bicycle parking
Road signage and maps, cycle route planners, and ITS
Maintenance and road construction
Public bikes and commuter bikes
Cycle tourism
Internet-Based Bicycle Route Guidance System (www.msrc-cleanair.org)
Project Is Part of MSRC Effort To Take Cars Off The Road
Diamond Bar, CA., - There are several reasons why more people don’t ride their bikes to work – 1) they’re fearful of busy intersections and riding on main boulevards, 2) it’s inconvenient, takes too much time and there are no shower accommodations and 3) bicyclists often have a difficult time figuring out exactly how to get from point A to point B on their bike.
In an effort to eliminate some of these obstacles, the Mobile Source Air Pollution Reduction Review Committee (MSRC), a government group who funds transportation-related clean air projects, has earmarked $400,000 to fund an interactive, internet-based bicycle route and map system. The system will provide real-time bike route information based on point of origin and destination markers, as well as identify bike facilities and accommodations such as drinking fountains and restrooms along the way. Once a user inputs their origin and destination, the system will provide directions in a turn-by-turn format. If there is no designated bike path, the system will suggest a route based on considerations including traffic volume, posted speed limits and avoiding steep grades. Bike routes for the entire South Coast Basin covering Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino and Riverside County will be included.
Although there are a number of traditional, hard copy bike maps available, they often cover smaller regions and the maps are sometimes incomplete, according to MSRC Chairman and Palm Springs Mayor William Kleindienst.
“We know that one of the obstacles for commuting bicyclists is not having complete map and road directions,” he said. “A real-time system with up-to-the-minute road conditions will provide bikers with a high level of confidence that they can travel safely from home to work and back. And, every time we take a car off the road we’re cutting pollution.”
Bike enthusiasts including the Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition, a membership based advocacy organization, say an online bike map system will help stimulate bike ridership. “Both experienced and novice cyclists will find great use in an internet-based bicycle routing system,” said Ron Milam, executive director, LACBC.
Bicycle Lane Impacts On Retail (Sztabinski 2009)
A study that examined the impacts of proposed bike lanes on retailers along Bloor Street in Toronto found that:
- Only 10% of patrons drive to stores, the rest arrive by walking, cycling or public transit.
- Even during peak periods no more than about 80% of metered parking spaces on the street are occupied.
- Patrons arriving by foot and bicycle visit the most often and spend the most money per month.
- More merchants who believe that a bike lane or widened sidewalk would increase business than merchants who think those changes would reduce business.
- Patrons would prefer a bike lane to widened sidewalks at a ratio of almost four to one.
- The reduction in on‐street parking supply from a bike lane or widened sidewalk could be
- accommodated in the area’s off‐street municipal parking lots.
This analysis indicates that in many situations, expanding sidewalks and converting bicycle and transit lanes, or wider sidewalks, could support local economic development.
Bikeway Planning Guide (www.c4cguide.org)
The Urban Bikeway Design Guide
produced by the National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO)
is a toolkit for designing safer streets for bicyclists published. It provides
design guidelines and standards for bike lanes, cycle tracks, bicycle
boulevards, bike-friendly intersection and traffic signals, signs and markings
and other roadway design features. It describes options, offers design
recommendations and provides specific examples.
Davis California Bicycle Planning (Buehler and Handy 2008)
In the 1960s some Davis, California citizens lobbied for bike lanes to make bike travel safer. As a result, Davis created the first bike lanes in postwar America. After 1967, transportation in Davis was oriented toward the bicycle. The city's Public Works staff developed many innovative designs and programs, which were fine-tuned in Davis and then applied elsewhere. Davis now has 50 miles of bike lanes and 50 miles of offstreet paths in a 10 square mile city, making a highly functional bicycle transportation system. Bicycle commute mode share (22% in 2010) is the highest, and per capita annual automobile travel is the lowest among U.S. cities.
Vitoria-Gasteiz Bike Programs (www.vitoria-gasteiz.org/we027/http/html/en/0210.shtml)
The city of Vitoria-Gasteiz promotes bicycle transportation in many ways. The city has several kilometres of bicycle routes and new sections are being added on a continuous basis. The city offers a free bicycle lending service, including a "Park and pedal" programme, which offers the free use of bicycles in city parks.
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
ABW (2014), Bicycling and Walking in the U.S.: Benchmarking Report, Alliance for Biking & Walking, (www.peoplepoweredmovement.org).
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 www.infrastructure.gov.au/infrastructure/mcu/urbanpolicy/active_travel/index.aspx.
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 Planning (2003), San Francisco Bicycle Program Supplemental Design Guidelines, San Francisco Department of Parking and Traffic (DPT) (www.altaplanning.com). This reflects current best practices in bicycle facility design.
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).
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.
Troels Andersen, et al. (2012), Collection of Cycle Concepts, Cycling Embassy of Denmark (www.cycling-embassy.dk); at www.cycling-embassy.dk/2012/05/10/cycle-concepts2012.
APBP (2010), Bicycle Parking Guidelines, Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals (www.apbp.org); at www.apbp.org/?page=Publications.
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).
Austroads (2011), Cycling Aspects of Austroads Guides, Austroads (www.austroads.com.au); at www.onlinepublications.austroads.com.au/items/AP-G88-11.
David Bassett, John Pucher, Ralph Buehler, Dixie L. Thompson, and Scott E. Crouter (2008), “Walking, Cycling, and Obesity Rates in Europe, North America, and Australia,” Journal of Physical Activity and Health, Vol. 5 (www.humankinetics.com/jpah/journalAbout.cfm), pp. 795-814; at http://policy.rutgers.edu/faculty/pucher/JPAH08.pdf.
BIC (2002), The Bicycle Matrix: Crash Type Definition and Countermeasures, Bicycle Information Center (www.bicyclinginfo.org/matrix/index.htm).
Bicyclepedia (www.bicyclinginfo.org/bikecost) is a bicycle facility benefit/cost analysis tool available free on the Internet.
Bicycle Policy Audit (www.bypad.org) is a European Union research project to develop guidance for optimizing municipal and regional cycling policies.
Bicycle Information Center (www.bicyclinginfo.org) provides information on nonmotorized transport planning and programs.
Bicycle Federation of America (www.bikefed.org) provides extensive resources for bicycle and pedestrian planning.
BikeScore (www.walkscore.com/bike-score-methodology.shtml) evaluates local walking conditions on a scale from 0 - 100 based on four equally weighted components, bike lanes, hills, destinations and road connectivity and bike commuting mode share.
Mia Birk (2010), Joyride: Pedaling Toward A Healthier Planet, Cadence Press (www.miabirk.com).
BTA (2005), Blueprint for Better Biking: 40 Ways to Get There: Plan to Ensure Portland is America’s Bicycling Hub, Bicycle Transportation Alliance (www.bta4bikes.org).
BTS, Pedestrian and Cycling Publications, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, USDOT, (http://www.bts.gov/NTL/subjects/ped-bike.html).
Jeroen Buis (2002), The Economic Significance of Cycling; A Study to Illustrate the Costs and Benefits of Cycling Policy, VNG uitgeverij (www.vnguitgeverij.nl) and I-ce (www.cycling.nl).
Ralph Buehler and John Pucher (2012), “Cycling to Work in 90 Large American Cities: New Evidence on the Role of Bike Paths and Lanes,” Transportation, Vol. 39, No. 2, pp. 409-432, DOI: 10.1007/s11116-011-9355-8.
Ted Buehler and Susan Handy (2008), “Fifty Years of Bicycle Policy in Davis, California,” Transportation Research Record 2074, Transportation Research Board (www.trb.org), pp. 52–57; at www.des.ucdavis.edu/faculty/handy/Davis_bike_history.pdf.
Sally Cairns, et al (2004), Smarter Choices - Changing the Way We Travel, UK Department for Transport (www.dft.gov.uk); at http://eprints.ucl.ac.uk/archive/00001224/01/1224.pdf.
Nick Cavill and Adrian Davis (2007), Cycling & Health: What’s The Evidence?, Cycling England, Department for Transport (www.dft.gov.uk); at www.dft.gov.uk/cyclingengland/site/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/cycling_and_health_full_report.pdf.
Nick Cavill, Andy Cope and Angela Kennedy (2009), Valuing Increased Cycling in the Cycling Demonstration Towns, Cycling England, Department for Transport (www.dft.gov.uk); at www.dft.gov.uk/cyclingengland/site/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/valuing-increased-cycling-in-the-cycling-demonstration-towns.pdf.
ClearChannel (2007), Smart Bike Information Document, Clear Channel Smart Bikes (www.smartbike.com).
Kelly J. Clifton, et al. (2012), Consumer Behavior and Travel Mode Choices, Oregon Transportation Research and Education Consortium (www.otrec.us); at http://kellyjclifton.com/Research/EconImpactsofBicycling/OTRECReport-ConsBehavTravelChoices_Nov2012.pdf.
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).
COWI (2009), Economic Evaluation Of Cycle Projects - Methodology And Unit Prices, Samfundsøkonomiske Analyser Af Cykeltiltag - Metode Og Cases and the accompanying note Enhedsværdier for Cykeltrafik, prepared by COWI for the City of Copenhagen (www.kk.dk/cyklernesby); at www.kk.dk/sitecore/content/Subsites/CityOfCopenhagen/SubsiteFrontpage/LivingInCopenhagen/CityAndTraffic/CityOfCyclists/CycleStatistics/socioeconomicbenefits.aspx.
CPF (2008), Economic Benefits of Cycling for Australia, Cycling Promotion Fund (www.cyclingpromotion.com.au); at www.cyclingpromotion.com.au/images/stories/downloads/CPF_CyclingBenefits.pdf.
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.
Allison L. C. de Cerreño and My Linh H. Nguyen-Novotny (2006), Pedestrian and Bicyclist Standards and Innovations in Large Central Cities, Rudin Center for Transportation Policy & Management (www.wagner.nyu.edu/rudincenter); at http://wagner.nyu.edu/rudincenter/files/bikeped.pdf.
DfT (2004), Policy, Planning and Design for Walking and Cycling – Local Transport Note 1/04, UK Department For Transport (www.dft.gov.uk); at www.dft.gov.uk/consultations/archive/2004/ltnwc/ltn104policyplanninganddesig1691.
DfT (2004), Adjacent and Shared Use Facilities for Pedestrians and Cyclists – Local Transport, UK Department for Transport (www.dft.gov.uk); at www.dft.gov.uk/consultations/archive/2004/ltnwc/ltn204adjacentandsharedusefa1692.
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, TRB (www.trb.org), pp. 116-123; at www.des.ucdavis.edu/faculty/handy/ESP178/Dill_bike_facilities.pdf.
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.
Richard Dowling, et al. (2008), Multimodal Level Of Service Analysis For Urban Streets, NCHRP Report 616, Transportation Research Board (www.trb.org); at http://trb.org/news/blurb_detail.asp?id=9470; User Guide at http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_w128.pdf.
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.
Emily Drennen (2003), Economic Effects of Traffic Calming on Urban Small Businesses, Masters Thesis, San Francisco State University (www.emilydrennen.org); at www.emilydrennen.org/TrafficCalming_full.pdf.
Frank Douma and Fay Cleaveland (2008), The Impact of Bicycling Facilities on Commute Mode Share, Hubert H. Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs, University of Minnesota (www.hhh.umn.edu); at www.hhh.umn.edu/centers/slp/pdf/bicycling_facilities.pdf.
Alan Durning (2010), The Parable of the Electric Bike, Sightline Daily (http://daily.sightline.org/daily_score/series/the-parable-of-the-electric-bike).
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 (2009), Cycling in the Netherlands, Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management (www.minvenw.nl) and Fietsberaad (Expertise Centre for Cycling Policy) (www.bicyclecouncil.org); at www.fietsberaad.nl/library/repository/bestanden/CyclingintheNetherlands2009.pdf.
Megan Fowler, Warren Lloyd and Cameron Munro (2010), Shared Path Widths, Via Strada (http://viastrada.co.nz), for VicRoads; at http://viastrada.co.nz/pub/shared-path-widths; summary poster at http://viastrada.co.nz/sites/viastrada/files/Shared_paths_poster.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).
Joey M. Goldman and Gail Murray (2011), Strollers, Carts, and Other Large Items on Buses and Trains: A Synthesis of Transit Practice, Synthesis 88, Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP), TRB (www.trb.org); at http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/tcrp/tcrp_syn_88.pdf.
Thomas Gotschi and Kevin Mills (2008), Active Transportation for America: A Case for Increased Federal Investment in Bicycling and Walking, Rail-To-Trails Conservancy (www.railstotrails.org); at www.railstotrails.org/ATFA.
Thomas Gotschi (2011), “Costs and Benefits of Bicycling Investments in Portland, Oregon,” Journal of Physical Activity and Health, Vol. 8, Supplement 1, pp. S49-S58; at http://journals.humankinetics.com/jpah-supplements-special-issues/jpah-volume-8-supplement-january/costs-and-benefits-of-bicycling-investments-in-portland-oregon.
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.
Susan Handy, Gil Tal and Marlon G. Boarnet (2014), Policy Brief on the Impacts of Bicycling Strategies Based on a Review of the Empirical Literature, for Research on Impacts of Transportation and Land Use-Related Policies, California Air Resources Board (http://arb.ca.gov/cc/sb375/policies/policies.htm).
Susan Handy (2011), “The Davis Bicycle Studies: Why Do I Bicycle But My Neighbor Doesn't,” Access 39, University of California Transportation Center (www.uctc.net); at www.uctc.net/access/39/access39_davis.shtml.
Dr. Mayer Hillman (1998), Curbing Shorter Car Journeys: Prioritising the Alternatives, Friends of the Earth (www.foe.co.uk).
International Bicycle Fund (www.ibike.org) provides a variety of information and resources to support cycling for transportation and recreation throughout the world.
ITDP (2015), The Potential for Dramatically Increasing Bicycle and E-bike Use in Cities Around the World, with Estimated Energy, CO2, and Cost Impacts, Institute for Transportation and Development Policy (www.itdp.org); at www.itdp.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/A-Global-High-Shift-Cycling-Scenario_Nov-2015.pdf.
ITE (1998), Implementing Bicycle Improvements at the Local Level, ITE, Federal Highway Administration (www.bikefed.org/local.htm).
ITE (2010), Designing Walkable Urban Thoroughfares: A Context-Sensitive Approach, An ITE Recommended Practice, Institute of Transportation Engineers (www.ite.org) and Congress for New Urbanism (www.cnu.org); at www.ite.org/css.
Peter L. Jacobsen (2003), “Safety in Numbers: More Walkers and Bicyclists, Safer Walking and Bicycling.” Injury Prevention (http://ip.bmjjournals.com), Vol. 9, 2003, pp. 205-209; at http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/9/3/205.
Kevin J. Krizek, et al (2006), Guidelines for Analysis of Investments in Bicycle Facilities, Transportation Research Board, NCHRP Report 552 (www.trb.org); at http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_552.pdf.
LAB (2010), Bicycle Friendly America, League of American Bicyclists (www.bikeleague.org); at www.bikeleague.org/programs/bicyclefriendlyamerica. This annual report identifies U.S. states and communities that provide safe accommodation for cycling and encourage cycling for transportation and recreation.
LAB (2010), Bridging the Gaps in Bicycling Networks: An Advocate’s Guide to Getting Bikes on Bridges, League of American Bicyclists (www.bikeleague.org); at www.bikeleague.org/resources/reports/pdfs/bridges.pdf.
LACDPH (2011), Model Design Manual for Living Streets, Los Angeles County Department of Public Health (www.modelstreetdesignmanual.com).
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 (1994), “Bicycling and Transportation Demand Management,” Transportation Research Record 1441, Transportation Research Board (www.trb.org), pp. 134-140.
Todd Litman (2012), Evaluating Active Transport Benefits and Costs, Victoria Transport Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org); at www.vtpi.org/nmt-tdm.pdf.
Todd Litman, et al. (2000), Pedestrian and Bicycle Planning; A Guide to Best Practices, VTPI (www.vtpi.org). Comprehensive guide with extensive references.
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.
Anne C. Lusk, et al. (2010), “Risk of Injury for Bicycling on Cycle Tracks Versus in the Street,” Injury Prevention, doi:10.1136/ip.2010.028696; at http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/early/2011/02/02/ip.2010.028696.abstract.
Nancy McGuckin (2011), Biking in the U.S.: Trends from the National Household Travel Survey, National Bike Summit (www.travelbehavior.us/Nancy--ppt/Biking%20in%20the%20US%20PPT.pdf.
Nathan McNeil (2010), Bikeability and the Twenty-Minute Neighborhood: How Infrastructure and Destinations Influence Bicycle Accessibility, Portland State University (www.ibpi.usp.pdx.edu); at www.ibpi.usp.pdx.edu/media/McNeil_Bikeability_June2010.pdf.
Richard Moeur (2008), “Rolling into the Future: Emerging Resources and New Initiatives for Bicycle Transportation,” ITE Journal, Vol. 78, No. 5 (www.ite.org), pp. 20-23.
NACTO (2012), Urban Bikeway Design Guide, National Association of City Transportation Officials (www.nacto.org); at www.c4cguide.org.
Luc Nadal (2007), “Bike Sharing Sweeps Paris Off Its Feet,” Sustainable Transport, No. 19, Institute for Transportation and Development Policy (www.itdp.org), Fall 2007, pp. 8-13; at www.itdp.org/documents/st_magazine/ITDP-ST_Magazine-19.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.
NCHRP (2014), Recommended Bicycle Lane Widths for Various Roadway Characteristics, NCHRP 766, Transportation Research Board (www.trb.org); at http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_766.pdf.
NZTA (2005) New Zealand Cycle Network and Route Planning Guide, New Zealand Transport Agency (www.nzta.govt.nz); at www.nzta.govt.nz/resources/cycle-network-and-route-planning.
OECD (2004), National Policies to Promote Cycling; Implementing Sustainable Urban Travel Policies – Moving Ahead, European Conference of Ministers of Transport, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (www.oecd.org/bookshop).
Oregon DOT Bicycle and Pedestrian Planning (www.odot.state.or.us/techserv/bikewalk/obpplan.htm) shows nonmotorized planning at its best.
Parks & Trails New York (2010), Bicyclists Bring Business: A Guide for Attracting Bicycle Tourists To New York’s Canal Communities, Parks & Trails New York (www.ptny.org), the New York State Canal Corporation and the Erie Canalway National Heritage Corridor; at www.ptny.org/pdfs/canalway_trail/b3/Bicyclists_bring_business.pdf.
R.S. Patten, et al (2006), Shared Use Path Level of Service Calculator: A User’s Guide, Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center (www.tfhrc.gov), US Department of Transport Federal Highways Administration; at www.tfhrc.gov/safety/pedbike/pubs/05138/05138.pdf.
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.
PBQD (2000), Data Collection and Modeling Requirements for Assessing Transportation Impacts of Micro-Scale Design, Transportation Model Improvement Program, USDOT (www.bts.gov/tmip).
Physical Activity Task Force (1995), More People, More Active, More Often, UK Department of Health (London).
John Pucher (1999), “Bicycling Renaissance in North America: Recent Trends and Alternative Policies to Promote Bicycling,” Transportation Research A, Vol. 33, Nos. 7/8, Sept./Nov. 1999, pp. 625-254; at http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/cache/papers/cs/16057/http:zSzzSzpolicy.rutgers.eduzSzpaperszSz11.pdf/bicycling-renaissance-in-north.pdf.
John Pucher (2007), Cycling for Everyone: Key to Public and Political Support, keynote address at the 2007 National Bike Summit, League of American Bicyclists, Washington, DC, March 16, 2007; at www.policy.rutgers.edu/faculty/pucher/BikeSummit2007COMP_Mar25.pdf.
John Pucher and Ralph Buehler (2006), “Why Canadians Cycle More Than Americans: A Comparative Analysis Of Bicycling Trends And Policies,” Transport Policy, Vol. 13, May, pp. 265–279; at www.policy.rutgers.edu/faculty/pucher/TransportPolicyArticle.pdf.
John Pucher, Jennifer Dill and Susan Handy (2010), “Infrastructure, Programs and Policies To Increase Bicycling: An International Review,” Preventive Medicine, Vol. 50, No. S1, January; prepared for the Active Living By Design Program (www.activelivingbydesign.org); at http://policy.rutgers.edu/faculty/pucher/Pucher_Dill_Handy10.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 Lewis Dijkstra (2000), “Making Walking and Cycling Safer: Lessons from Europe,” Transportation Quarterly, Vol. 54, No. 3, Summer 2000; at www.vtpi.org.
John Pucher and Christian Lefevre (1996), The Urban Transportation Crisis in Europe and North America, MacMillan Press (London).
John Pucher and Ralph Buelher (2008), “At the Frontiers of Cycling: Policy Innovations in the Netherlands, Denmark, and Germany,” World Transport Policy & Practice, Vol. 13, No. 3 (www.eco-logica.co.uk); at www.eco-logica.co.uk/pdf/wtpp13.3.pdf.
John Pucher, Lewis Thorwaldson, Ralph Buehler and Nick Klein (2010), “Cycling in New York: Innovative Policies at the Urban Frontier,” World Transport Policy and Practice, Vol. 16, Summer (www.eco-logica.co.uk/worldtransport.html); at http://policy.rutgers.edu/faculty/pucher/CyclingNY.pdf.
John Pucher and Ralph Buehler (2011), Analysis of Bicycle Trends and Policies in Large North American Cities: Lessons For New York, University Transportation Research Center; at www.utrc2.org/research/assets/176/Analysis-Bike-Final1.pdf; summary at www.utrc2.org/research/assets/176/Bicycle-Brief1.pdf.
John Pucher, Ralph Buehler, and Mark Seinen (2011), “Bicycling Renaissance in North America? An Update and Re-Assessment of Cycling Trends and Policies,” Transportation Research A, Vol. 45, No. 8, pp. 451-475; at http://policy.rutgers.edu/faculty/pucher/TRA960_01April2011.pdf.
PRESTO (Promoting Cycling for Everyone as a Daily Transport Mode) (https://ec.europa.eu/energy/intelligent/projects/en/projects/presto) is a project of the EU’s Intelligent Energy.
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.
Piet Rietveld and Vanessa Daniel (2004), “Determinants of Bicycle Use: Do Municipal Policies Matter?” Transportation Research A, Vol. 38, No. 7 (www.elsevier.com/locate/tra), August, pp. 531-550.
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).
Jennifer Rosales (2006), Road Diet Handbook: Setting Trends for Livable Streets, William Barclay Parsons Fellowship Monograph 20, Parsons Brinckerhoff (www.pbworld.com/library/fellowship); summary at www.oregonite.org/2007D6/paper_review/D4_201_Rosales_paper.pdf.
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.
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.
Patrick Siegman (2005), On-Street Bike Lanes Preferred Alternative, Nelson/Nygaard, Memorandum to City of Lincoln, Nebraska (www.lincoln.ne.gov/city/plan/dt_plan/mtg/021105/bike1.pdf).
Rachel Smith (2010), Cycling Super Highways Toolkit, AITPM JBMS, at
www.4shared.com/document/COLaHTtt/AITPM_JBMS_Cycling_Super_Highw.html.
Spicycles (2009), Cycling on the Rise: Public Bicycles and Other European Experiences, Spicycles Consortium (http://spicycles.velo.info); at http://spicycles.velo.info/Portals/0/Deliverables/SpicyclesFinal_Booklet_small.pdf.
Hyangun Sung, Jihyung Park and Hyeja Kim (2009), “A Study on the Bike Rapid Transit System,” KOTI World-Brief, Vol. 1, No. 1, Korea Transport Institute (www.koti.re.kr), May 2009, pp. 2-5; http://english.koti.re.kr/upload/eng_publication_regular/world-brief01.pdf.
Fred Sztabinski (2009), Bike Lanes, On-Street Parking and Business A Study of Bloor Street in Toronto’s Annex Neighbourhood, The Clean Air Partnership (www.cleanairpartnership.org); at www.cleanairpartnership.org/pdf/bike-lanes-parking.pdf.
TA (2005), “The Geometric Design of Pedestrian, Cycle and Equestrian Routes,” Design Manual for Roads and Bridges, Highways Agency (www.standardsforhighways.co.uk); at www.standardsforhighways.co.uk/dmrb/vol6/section3/ta9005.pdf.
TfL (2005), London Cycling Design Standards – A Guide To The Design Of A Better Cycling, Transport for London (www.tfl.gov.uk); at www.tfl.gov.uk/businessandpartners/publications/2766.aspx.
Hartmut H. Topp (2008), “Can MeetBike Replace the Car?,” World Transport Policy & Practice (www.eco-logica.co.uk), Volume 14, Number 3, pp. 24-31; at www.eco-logica.co.uk/pdf/wtpp14.3.pdf.
Kristen Torrance, Ipek Sener, Randy Machemehl, Chandra Bhat, Ian Hallett, Naveen Eluru, Ian Hlavacek, and Andrew Karl (2009), The Effects of On-Street Parking on Cyclist Route Choice and the Operational Behavior of Cyclists and Motorists, Center for Transportation Research for the Texas Department of Transportation; at www.utexas.edu/research/ctr/pdf_reports/0_5755_1.pdf.
TravelSmart (www.travelsmart.transport.wa.gov.au) is a successful program for promoting alternative transportation, including cycling.
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.
USEPA(1998), Bicycle and Pedestrian Programs, Transportation and Air Quality TCM Technical Overviews, US Environmental Protection Agency (www.epa.gov/oms/transp/publicat/pub_tech.htm).
Velo.Info (www.velo.info) is a web-based information resource to assist cities in introducing measures to support and increase cycle use, funded by the European Commission.
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.
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.
Kerry Wood (1999), Bicycle Crashes in New Zealand: Masters Thesis, Viastrada (http://viastrada.co.nz); at http://viastrada.co.nz/pub/wood-thesis.
Chi-Jen Yang (2011), “Launching Strategy for Electric Vehicles: Lessons from China and Taiwan,” Technological Forecasting & Social Change, Vol. 77, pp. 831–83; at www.duke.edu/~cy42/EV.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 250-360-1560
#93