United States
Envn onnientnl Protection
Agency
Office ot Transportation
and Land Use Policy
Washington DC 20460
EPA-400/2-79-001
September 1979
An
£EPA
Bicycling and Air Quality
Information Document
-------
NOTICE
This document is disseminated under the
sponsorship of the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency in the interest of
information exchange, and to meet the
requirements of Section 108 (f) of the
Clean Air Act, as amended in 1977.
The United States Government assumes
no liability for its contents or use
thereof.
The contents of this report reflect
the views of Abt Associates Inc.,
which is responsible for the facts
and the accuracy of the data
presented herein. The contents do
not necessarily reflect official
views or policy of the U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency. This
report does not constitute a standard,
specification, or regulation.
The United States Government does not
endorse products or manufacturers.
Trade or manufacturers' names appear
herein only because they are considered
essential to the object of this document.
-------
Bicycling and Air Quality
Information Document
FINAL REPORT
Prepared for:
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Transportation and Land Use Policy
in cooperation with
U.S. Department of Transportation
Marda Fortmann Mayo: Principal Author
Abt Associates Inc.
55 Wheeler Street
Cambridge, Mass. 02138
Nina Dougherty Rowe: EPA Contract Manager
EPA Contract No. 68-01-4946
September 1979
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY xi
BACKGROUND 1
1.1 Objective and Contents of Report 1
1.2 Background 2
1.2.1 Air Quality Control and Transportation 2
Measures
1.2.2 Current Bicycle Use and Factors 8
Affecting Levels of Use in Urban Areas
BICYCLE PROGRAMS 29
2.1 Engineering 29
2.1.1 Bikeways 29
2.1.2 Maintenance 35
2.1.3 Supporting Facilities 36
2.1.4 Intermodal Links 37
2.1.5 Parking and Storage 39
2.2 Safety Education 40
2.2.1 Adult Education 42
2.2.2 Juvenile Education 45
2.3 Enforcement 47
2.4 Encouragement 49
2.4.1 Employer Programs and Facilities 49
2.4.2 Public Awareness 52
EVALUATING BICYCLE STRATEGY IMPACT 59
3.1 Summary of Quantitative Data on Bicycle Program 59
Effectiveness
3.2 Need for Comprehensive Bicycle Program Implemen- 67
tation with Evaluation
3.3 Estimating Air Quality Impacts 70
3.4 Effects of Emissions on Bicyclists 76
3.5 Calculation of Gasoline Savings 79
3.6 Economic and Health Impacts 81
3.6.1 Economic Impacts 81
3.6.2 Health Benefits 82
3.7 Estimating Program Costs 84
3.8 Relative Air Quality Impacts of Bicycle Strategies 87
in Combination with, and Compared with, other
Transportation Measures
PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION 93
4.1 Legislation and Political Support 93
4.1.1 Model Ordinance or Act Authorizing a Program 94
of Bicycle and Bikeway Planning and Imple-
mentation
4.1.2 Consistent Laws Governing Bicycle Operation 94
111
-------
Section Pac
4 4.1.3 Bicycle Facility Legislation 95
4.1.4 Statewide Bicycle Registration 95
4.1.5 Developer Guidelines 96
4.1.6 Legislative Adoption of Bicycle Plans with 97
Commitment to Implement
4.1.7 Political Support 98
4.2 Bicycle Coordinators and Advisory Committees 99
4.2.1 Bicycle Coordinator 99
4.2.2 Advisory Committee 103
4.3 Supporting Agencies: Program Coordination and 103
Funding
4.3.1 U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) 105
Programs
4.3.2 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 108
(EPA) Programs
4.3.3 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban 112
Development (HUD) Programs
4.3.4 U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) 113
Programs
4.3.5 State Programs and Funding Sources 113
4.3.6 Regional Programs and Funding Sources 114
4.3.7 Local Public Programs and Funding 114
Sources
4.3.8 Private Programs, Organizations, and 115
Funding Sources
4.3.9 Combined Use of Programs and Funds 117
5 CASE STUDIES 119
5.1 Davis, California 120
5.2 Madison, Wisconsin Area 124
5.3 Denver, Colorado Area 126
5.4 State of North Carolina 130
5.5 State of California 133
APPENDICES 141
A SUPPORTING FIGURES, SECTION 1 141
A-l Bicycle Measures in SIPs, September 1979 143
A-2 Major Mode of Transportation to Work for 22 155
U.S. SMSAs: 1975, 1976
A-3 Bicyclist Trip Length - Frequency Distributions 156
A-4 Comparison of Mean Monthly Temperature 157
A-5 Crude Estimates of the Risks of Travel by 158
Various Modes
A-6 State of Pa. and Madison, Wise. Area Bicycle 159
Users by Age Groups
B EPA Bicycle Coordinators, Regional Offices, and 161
States in Region
-------
APPENDICES, CONTINUED Page
C Illustrative Facility Costs 165
D Legislation 174
Model Statute or Ordinance 175
Sections of the Uniform Vehicle Code Relating to 179
Bicycle Use
Summary of the Bicycle Provisions, Revised Palo 186
Alto, California, Zoning Regulations
E Potential Federal Funding Sources for Bicycle Programs 195
and Facilities
Funding Sources and Map for Platte River Greenway 202
F DOT Bicycle Legislation 205
Section 217, Title 23, Bicycle Transportation 206
and Pedestrian Walkways
Section 141, PL 95-599, Bicycle Program 207
Section 682, PL 95-619, Bicycle Study 209
v
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure £ac
1-1 Transportation Measures in the Clean Air Act, as 6
Amended 1977
1-2 Bicycle Measures in State Implementation Plans (SIPs) 7
as of September 1979
1-3 Estimated Levels of Bicycle and Automobile Ownership 9
in Eleven Countries, 1973/74
1-4 Estimated Bikes in Use and U.S. Bicycle Sales H
1-5 Sales of Adult versus Children's Bikes 12
1-6 Modal Splits for Twelve Cities in Europe, All Trip 13
Purposes
1-7 Modal Splits for 10 Cities in Europe, Journey-to- 14
Work
1-8 Factors Associated with Bicycle Use 16
1-9 U.S. Trip Length Distributions for Walking, Bicycle, 17
Car/Truck, and Transit Work Trips
1-10 Survey Data on Deterrent Factors 19
1-11 Survey Data on Incentives for Bicycle Use 22
1-12 Short Auto Trip Distribution by Purpose Compared to 23
Bicycle Trip Purpose Distribution
1-13 Primary Mode of Travel for which the Bicycle was 25
Substituted: State of Pa. and Washington, D.C.
2-1 Advantages and Disadvantages of Different Bikeway 31
Types
2-2 1977 Bicycle Theft Statistics for the 12 Most 41
Populated States
2-3 Categorization of Bicycle/Motor Vehicle Accidents 43
2-4 Bicycle Information in Drivers' Manual 44
2-5 Major Emphasis of Bicycle Education Content by Age 46
Level
2-6 Citations Issued to Bicyclists and Bicycle Accidents 50
Reported by Year, City of Madison, Wise.
2-7 Bicycling Support by Agency Administrator 53
3-1 Summary of Bicycle Options by Measures of Effectiveness 61
and Estimated Costs
3-2 Primary Modes of Travel for Which the Bicycle 71
Substituted by Age
3-3 Average Automobile Miles Traveled in an Urban Area 73
Projected to 1980
3-4 Average CO Emissions for Light Duty Passenger Vehicles 73
in an Urban Area Projected to 1980
3-5 Hypothetical Case Study of Net Reduction in CO 75
Emissions Due to a Shift to Bicycle Use
3-6 Relationship of CO and HC Emissions to Temperature 77
and Cold Starts
VI
-------
Figure Page
3-7 Distribution of Nationwide VMT and Fuel Consumption 79
3-8 Relative Fuel Economy and Mean Trip Length 80
3-9 Aerobic Exercise Prescription 83
3-10 Illustrative Comprehensive Bicycle Strategies 85
3-11 Relative Frequency of Types of Non-Motor Vehicle 86
Accidents
3-12 Relative Impacts of Bicycling and Other Transportation 88
Measures
4-1 Communities in the Boston Transportation Planning 100
District
4-2 Bicycle Coordinators at Local, Regional, and State 101
Levels
4-3 Summary of Programs 104
4-4 Coordination of Air Quality and Transportation 106
Planning and Implementation
4-5 Bicycle Activities in Section 175 Applications, as 109
of September 1979
5-1 North Carolina Coordination 131
vii
-------
viii
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Grateful appreciation is expressed to Nina Dougherty Rowe, EPA Project
Manager for this document, and Bicycle Coordinator for the agency.
Ms. Rowe provided not only overall direction, but made many substantive
contributions to the document.
Special recognition is also due other project participants. Several
staff members of Abt Associates Inc. made special contributions.
Philip Tabas, Esq. was responsible for the Model Statute/Ordinance
contained in Appendix D. Dr. Larry Kerpelman and Gene Fax served as
management reviewers.
Other contributors include Dr. John Spengler of the Harvard School of
Public Health who assisted with the section discussing pollution impacts
on bicyclists. Joseph Curreri of Environmental Research and Technology,
Inc. provided the carbon monoxide (CO) case study in the air quality
section. Fred Wolfe, Tom O'Hare, and E. Rand MacMillan of the
Mountain Bicyclists' Association in Denver assisted during initial
drafting of the document. Randy MacMillan is the author of the Denver
case study. Ralph Hirsch provided insights into the European experience.
In addition, gratitude is expressed to all those individuals at the
Federal, state, and local levels who are working with or concerned about
bicyclings, and who generously provided information or review assistance
for this document.
ix
-------
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Bicycling and Air Quality Information Document is one
of a series of reports mandated by Section 108(f) of the Clean Air
Act, as amended in 1977, The major purpose of these reports is to
provide information on measures to control air pollution caused by
automobile emissions.
This document is intehded to assist officials and citizens
in evaluating the use of bicycle strategies as transportation measures
in state and local air quality planning processes. The document indi-
cates how bicycle use may be increased through engineering, safety
education, enforcement, and encouragement. Air quality, energy, eco-
nomic, and health impacts of bicycle measures are discussed. Steps
for implementing bike programs through existing planning procedures are
delineated. Finally, five case studies illustrate strong bicycle pro-
gram implementation.
Increasing bicycle use has obvious appeal as an air
quality measure for several reasons. First, since trips made by
bicycles do not result in hazardous emissions, every bicycle trip which
substitutes for auto travel results in cleaner air. Bicycle strategies
generally appear to be among the most popular transportation measures,
when instituted. This is not surprising since many riders say a major
motivation for using a bicycle is for enjoyment, and because bicycle
riding provides an opportunity for physical exercise at the same time
a trip is made. Other appealing features of bicycle strategies include
energy conservation through reduced demand for gasoline. In addition
to conservation, bicycle riders save the money they would otherwise pay
for gas. Finally, in some situations such as congested downtown areas,
bicycle travel is faster than car travel. Use of bicycles rather than
cars in urban areas
Section 1; BACKGROUND
Section 1 summarizes use of bicycle strategies as transpor-
tation measures in the State Implementation Plans (SIPs). The many
factors which affect existing bicycle use and potential modal shift—
exclusive of new bicycle programs—are also discussed in this section.
Seven of the first round SIPs included bicycle strategies.
Areas covered by these strategies included Utah (Provo), Colorado
(Denver), the Washington, D.C. area (including the northern Virginia and
Maryland suburbs), Maryland (Baltimore), Massachusetts (Boston), Wash-
ington (Spokane), and Pennsylvania (Pittsburgh and Philadelphia). Most
of these areas implemented or are in the process of implementing part
or all of their plans. Air quality impacts associated with the bicycle
strategies have not been specifically examined. Several areas found
that the bicycle strategies were among the more popular transportation
measures.
-------
A second round of SIPs and transportation measures were
due this year for areas whose pollutants still exceed maximum levels
established by EPA. As of September 1979, over 80 urban areas had
indicated use or study of bicycle strategies as part of their
transportation measures to reduce air pollution. The bicycle strategies
mainly concentrate on physical facilities such as bikeways and
parking.
It is estimated that almost half the U.S. population uses
a bicycle at least once a year. If the local environment is favorable
(e.g. moderate weather and terrain), bicycle programs can encourage
these riders to made additional trips by bicycle rather than car, by
removing deterrents such as unsafe riding conditions and lack of
secure parking facilities. In areas including Davis, California, and
Madison, Wisconsin with such environments and strong bicycle programs,
a relatively large percentage of all trips are currently made by
bicycle. Approximately 13% of all vehicle trips are made by bicycle
in Madison and over 25% in Davis.
European bicycle use provides an indication of bicycle
potential given favorable conditions. The bicycle is the major mode
of transportation in the Netherlands. Modal split data for twelve
cities in northern Europe indicates the percentage of bicycle trips
of all modes (including foot) ranges from 5% in Marseille (France) to
45% in Tilburg (Netherlands).
The U.S. bicycle transportation literature indicates that
at least 27 factors, exclusive of new bicycle program impact, can
be expected to affect the level of bicycle use.
FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH BICYCLE USE
Other
Physical Social Transportation
Environment Environment Alternatives
• Size and •
density of
urban areas
affecting
trip length
• Climate •
• Terrain •
• Hours of
daylight
• Air Quality
• Safety Hazards
• Traffic Volumes
• Existing facili-
ties for biking
Social organi- o Types
zation and use
of time affect- * Convenience
ing trip pur-
pose * Cost
Crime « Comfort
Peer group • Safety
support for
bicycling • Visibility
Individual
Population
Characteristics
• Income
* Age
« Bicycle riding
skill level
• Physical condition
• Knowledge and per-
ception of trans-
portation options
• Trip mode
preferences
• Valuation of time
• Valuation of
exercise
Fear of accidents
Aesthetics
XI1
-------
The literature on the impact of these factors is reviewed
in Section 1. Impacts vary widely among urban areas in the U.S.,
making local estimation of potential impacts necessary.
Section 2; BICYCLE PROGRAMS
Section 2 contains a summary of reasonably available
control measures (RACMs), as required by the 1977 Clean Air Act amend-
ments. A comprehensive approach to developing bicycle measures is
stressed. For example, one bike path will probably have little effect.
Other complimentary measures are needed, such as engineering, safety
education, enforcement, and encouragement.
Physical facility improvements for bicyclists are discussed
under the engineering category. Bikeways, parking facilities, supporting
facilities such as parallel grate replacement or traffic signals, and
maintenance of facilities are examples of engineering measures.
The safety education category covers adult bicyclist train-
ing, instructor training, and police training. Juvenile bicycle safety
education is also included, since some of the bicycle trips made by
this age group substitute for trips in which the child would be driven
by car.
Police training programs, assignment of special safety
officers, bicycle peer courts, and bicycle registration are illustrations
of enforcement measures currently in use in bicycle programs.
Finally, marketing and publicity activities which emphasize
particularly enjoyable aspects of bicycling, such as exercise and money-
saving benefits are summarized under the encouragement category. Activities
include employer incentive programs, media coverage, and bike maps.
Section 3; EVALUATING BICYCLE STRATEGY IMPACT
The results of a literature search on bicycle program
effectiveness are discussed in Section 3. Evaluation of bicycle programs
for overall program effectiveness, and for air quality, energy, economic,
and health impacts is stressed.
The literature search utilizes one primary and six secondary
measures of effectiveness, including modal shift from auto trips to
bicycle trips, and changes in travel time, bicycle accidents, knowledge
retention, behavioural change, bicycle theft, and bicycle returns.
Little quantitative documentation of program impacts could be located.
Further, methodological questions were raised by much of the literature
available.
Because of the absence of a reliable literature on bicycle
program effects, the importance of local baseline surveys, comprehensive
bicycle program implementation, program evaluation, and publication of
outcomes is stressed. Localities implementing and carefully evaluating
bicycle programs will make a national contribution if the results are
disseminated.
Kill
-------
In the absence of reliable quantitative data on potential
program impacts, hypothetical examples illustrate air quality and
energy impacts of bicycle strategies. Such strategies have greater
potential air quality impacts than simple modal shift percentages
might imply. These increased impacts are due to inefficient operation
of the automobile for the type of travel which bicycling is most likely
to replace. Such auto travel is characterized by short trips, slow
speeds, cold starts, and stop-and-start driving. Such urban automobile
trips result in higher emission rates for carbon monoxide (CO), hydro-
carbons , particulates, lead, sulfate, and asbestos. A hypothetical
example illustrates how a net modal shift (auto drivers to bike riders)
could result in a total CO reduction of 5.1%.
Survey results are also presented in this section which
indicate that in Pennsylvania, over half of all bicycle trips substitute
for car trips (either as a driver or passenger). Only 2% of the
bicyclists would have taken a bus. Over 30% of those under 15 would
have been a passenger in a car. If this pattern holds among riders
taking additional trips, and among new bicycle riders, the major modal
impact of bicycle strategies for all ages will be to reduce auto travel.
Because most toxic auto emissions disperse widely over
urban areas, a broad range of bicycle strategies will have a positive
impact on air quality. Such strategies could be appropriately targeted
at a broad range of trip types—including recreational, school, work,
and utility—taken throughout the entire area.
Carbon monoxide emissions, however, tend to be highly
localized, with peak levels generally occurring during rush hour.
Commuter travel would be the logical target for bicycle strategies to
reduce CO violations. However, increasing bicycle travel during periods
of peak emission production raises questions about the health effects
of such exposures on bicyclists. A literature review on the effects of
emissions on bicyclists indicates that until further research is con-
ducted on the health effects of bicyclist exposure to pollutants, no
firm conclusions can be drawn.
Gasoline consumption, like auto emissions, is dispropor-
tionately higher for the short urban car trips for which bicycle travel
can substitute. Therefore, successful bicycle strategies not only will
save fuel, but will save more than would be indicated by simply looking
at trip or mileage shifts alone.
In addition to air quality improvements and gasoline savings,
bicycle strategy impacts include positive economic and health effects.
For example, a 7% regional economic multiplier effect has been calculated
for the McElroy-Sparta bicycle trail system in Wisconsin. Regular
bicycling (e.g. commuting) can provide the minimum aerobic exercise
recommended by some doctors for better health.
xiv
-------
Potential benefits of bicycle strategies should be weighed
against costs. Section 4 presents several illustrative comprehensive
bicycle strategies of differing cost levels. other types of costs
such as those associated with travel time changes are also discussed.
Bicycle measures can effectively compliment and support other
transportation measures. For example, bus patronage increased in San
Diego when bicycle racks were installed on the busses. Other complimen-
tary uses of bicycle programs are summarized in Section 3.
Section 4; PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION
The best bicycle strategy is useless unless it is effectively
implemented. The planning and implementation process in many of
the most active bicycle programs is characterized by strong legislation
and political support, clear assignment of lead responsibility (e.g.
to a bicycle coordinator), cooperation and coordination among supporting
agencies, and availability of funding for the bicycle program.
Section 4 discusses types of legislation which can assist
in implementing bicycle strategies. This legislation includes a model
ordinance or statute authorizing a bicycle program, and consistent
laws governing bicycle operation. Examples of bicycle facility
legislation include the bicycle provisions of the new Palo Alto zoning
ordinance, and the set-asides of highway funds for bicycles in the
states of Oregon and Washington. Bicycle registration, developer
guidelines, and legislative adoption of bicycle plans with commitment
to implement are also reviewed.
Bicycle coordinators have been appointed to head some of
the strongest bicycle programs. Specific assignment of implementation
responsibility to a coordinator is particularly useful in bicycle
strategies because such a large number of organizations and individuals
can lend support.
Bicycle advisory committees, bicycle organizations, local
elected officials, and local, state and federal departments have all
provided support during implementation of existing bicycle programs.
Specific sources of potential in-kind or financial support are
summarized in the section. Finally, the importance of including
bicycle strategies not only in the State Implementation Plan, but
in the DOT-assisted planning process is stressed. Bicycle programs
must be included in the Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) and
other appropriate DOT plans to receive DOT financial assistance and to
receive EPA 175 (Urban Air Quality Grant) funds. Potential Federal
funding sources for bicycle programs and facilities are listed in
Appendix E, along with an actual example of combined facility funding
in Denver.
xv
-------
Section 5; CASE STUDIES
Five case studies are included which illustrate
effective implementation of bicycle strategies. The programs
described provide examples of local, regional, and state programs,
and include: Davis (California), Madison (Wisconsin), Denver
(Colorado), and the states of North Carolina and California.
The programs exhibit many common features including
strong enabling legislation, clear assignment of responsibility,
adequate levels of funding, and highly motivated program
administrators. However, the programs also illustrate how
different the initial motivating force for programs may be.
Public pressure and use of the political system, support by
bicycle organizations, and the efforts of individuals were
instrumental during the early phases of various programs.
All, however, have experienced public, political, and administra-
tive support once initiated.
xvi
-------
SECTION 1: BACKGROUND
1.1 Objective and Contents of Report
This document, mandated by Section 108(f) of the Clean Air
Act, as amended in 1977, is one of a series on measures to control
transportation emission-related pollution.
The purpose of this report., is to provide information on the
potential role of bicycle strategies in reducing air pollution. More
specifically, the document is intended to help air quality planners,
transportation planners, local officials, and citizens decide whether
a bicycle strategy should be included as a transportation measure in
the state and local air quality planning process. The report is
primarily intended to assist areas without experience with bicycle
programs. Based on literature reviews and discussions with bicycle
program administrators, the report summarizes bicycle program informa-
tion which may directly or indirectly affect air quality.
Bicycle strategies warrant serious consideration for several
reasons. Trips made by bicycles do not create air pollution or use
scarce gasoline. An estimated 40-45% of Americans already own or
have access to and use bicycles for some types of trips. Every new
trip taken by bicycle instead of car will result in direct gasoline
savings, emission reduction, and air pollution improvement. Some
bicycle programs are low cost, so even a small number of new
bicycle trips resulting from the program may justify the expenditure.
Finally, bicycle strategies appear to be one of the most popular
transportation measures for use in air quality planning.
The report contains five major sections. The remainder of
Section 1 briefly reviews the air quality planning requirements in the
U.S. and summarizes information on current bicycle use.
Existing bicycle programs are reviewed in Section 2, providing
information on reasonably available control measures (RACMs) as stipu-
lated by the 1977 Clean Air Act amendments. Programs are discussed
by four major categories: engineering, education, enforcement and
encouragement.
A bicycle strategy means a comprehensive set of bicycle measures or
programs, such as provision of bicycle parking and riding facilities,
along with implemention of education, and enforcement programs.
2
Bicycle Manufacturers of America estimate.
-------
Evaluation of bicycle program impacts is discussed in
Section 3. Measures of effectiveness are used to assess the air quality
related impacts of existing programs. Evaluation of air quality,
energy, economic and health benefits are also discussed.
Many localities have invested in bicycle program development
but have never implemented the plans. Some of the major reasons
include inadequate funding, lack of political support and insufficient
public education. Section 4 discusses reducing or removing such
obstacles to implementation. Implementation considerations are partic-
ularly important for air quality planners, since the agency preparing
the air quality plan normally has no powers to implement bicycle
programs directly.
Finally, several case studies are included to illustrate
local experiences with bicycle programs. Experience in Davis (California),
the Madison (Wisconsin) and Denver (Colorado) metropolitan areas, and
the states of North Carolina and California are described in Section 5.
1.2 Background
1.2.1 Air Quality Control and Transportation Measures
Although air quality legislation was passed in 1955 and 1963,
it was not until the 1967 Clean Air Act that national regulation of
emissions from new motor vehicles was permitted. The 1967 Act called
on each state to set standards for air quality and a schedule for
compliance. By 1970, the Clean Air Act Amendments required the new
Environmental Protection Agency to set national ambient air quality
standards.
Primary ambient air standards (to protect health) and secondary
standards (to protect welfare) were set by EPA in 1971 for six pollu-
tants: carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, particulate matter, nitrogen
dioxide, sulfur oxides and photochemical oxidants. The legislation
also required motor vehicle manufacturers to reduce carbon monoxide
emissions in new vehicles 90% by 1975 and nitrogen oxides by the same
percentage by 1976. Attainment dates for all these standards have
been extended several times, with current deadlines in the 1980s.
States containing areas not meeting the primary or secondary
ambient standards in 1970 were required to prepare a State Implemen-
tation Plan (SIP). This Plan was to outline the measures which would
be taken to control stationary and transportation related pollutants
so air quality standards would be achieved by the deadline.
-------
The portions of the SIP dealing with emission reduction from
transportation sources were called Transportation Control Plans (TCPs).
Most urban areas with heavy automobile travel could not meet air quality
standards without developing measures to reduce transportation emissions.
Bicycle strategies were included by EPA in some of the TCPs,
where public support was expressed at hearings, because bicycle travel
is non-polluting and air pollution from autos could be reduced if more
people biked instead of driving. The Utah CProvo), Colorado (Denver),
Washington, D.C., Maryland (Baltimore), northern Virginia, Massachusetts
(Boston), Washington (Spokane), and Pennsylvania (Pittsburgh and Phila-
delphia) TCPs all contained bicycle measures (1)*. Most of these areas
implemented or are in the process of implementing part or all of their
plans. None of these areas has specifically examined air quality
effects attributable to bicycle strategy implementation.
Unlike some unpopular transportation measures ^specially
those restricting auto travel, bicycle programs generally met with
public acceptance. A recent Boston air quality document stated that:
It is generally considered that bikeways
are an acceptable program in the public's
eyes. The low cost and low disruption to
present transit patterns add to its
favorable impact and acceptability. The
recreational aspect of bicycling is a
further positive factor (2).
Similarly, an official in Denver commented:
Experience we have had with transportation
control strategies in Denver over the
past four years would seem to indicate that
strategies such as bicycle lanes may be
the most implementable and publicly
acceptable of any strategies proposed
to date for Denver (3).
Generally, the first round of transportation strategies
including bicycle measures were not implemented rapidly for a variety
of reasons. These reasons included the limited time period available
for preparation of these plans, limited data on the potential effective-
ness and socioeconomic impact of various measures, and a lack of aware-
ness of the hazards associated with polluted air. Implementation was
further impeded in some areas because of confusion over the legislative
requirements and funding sources, or unclear assignment of responsibil-
ities.
*References are given at the end of each of this report's sections.
-------
In large part because of these problems and the failure of
many urban areas to reduce pollutants to a level considered an
acceptable health risk, the Clean Air Act was amended in 1977. The
Clean Air Act, as amended in 1977, called for preparation of new
State Implementation Plans.
The first step in preparing the new air quality plans was
to identify non-attainment areas. The oxidant standard was the most
widely violated with only one of the 208 urban areas in the U.S. of
over 200,000 population, Honolulu, meeting the attainment standard.
Of the remaining smaller 103 urban areas, 97 were in violation and 6
were presumed to be pending further data (4). A recent change in the
oxidant standard in 1979 reduced the number of non-attainment areas (5).
Unlike oxidants which disperse over large geographic areas,
high carbon monoxide (CO) levels tend to be localized, particularly in
downtown areas with heavy traffic. Continuing CO violations were noted
in 189 urban counties or parts of urban counties.
Total suspended particulate violations, like oxidents, are
generally dispersed. State reports to EPA indicated violations in all
or part of 408 counties.
After identifying non-attainment areas, the next step in
meeting requirements under the 1977 Clean Air Act is for each state to
develop and implement a plan (SIP) to bring non-compliance areas up to
standard by December 31, 1982. If a State demonstrates that attainment
of standards for carbon monoxide and photo chemical oxidants is not
possible by 1982, then an extension of the deadline to December 31, 1987
may be granted by EPA. The new State Implementation Plans were due
January 1979. Approval or disapproval of the plans by EPA is taking
place during 1979. Analysis of the effectiveness of the transportation
control plans must be completed by July 1980, with the final SIPs due
in July 1982 for those areas which will be getting an extension to 1987.
Sanctions are included in the Act for failure to develop
and implement adequate measures. Loss of some federal funds, including
federal highway grants and stringent limitations on new development
are among the sanctions included.
A cooperative planning process is emphasized in the Act.
Such a process should include 1) interagency coordination, 2) partici-
pation of local elected officials and citizens, 3) public education
Information on the air quality status of individual urban areas is
available from the EPA Regional Offices (see Appendix B).
-------
among local, regional, state, and federal agencies, and 4) analysis
of a broad range of alternative strategies. The transportation
measure planning process and implementation should be integrated with
the continuing, cooperative and comprehensive ("3C") transportation
planning procedures set forth by the Department of Transportation. To
encourage integrated planning further, the 1977 Clean Air Act indicated
a preference for certification by State governors of the metropolitan
planning agencies - already the DOT "3C" agencies - as the air quality
p1anning organizati ons.
Bicycle lanes, bicycle parking, and employer programs to
encourage bicycling are among the reasonably available control measures
(RACM) to reduce transportation pollution specifically mentioned in
Section I08(f) of the Clean Air Act, as amended in 1977 (see Figure 1-1}
Many of the 1979 SIPs already received by EPA contain bicycle
measures. States and urban areas including bicycle measures in
their SIPs as of September 1979 are shown in Figure 1-2, and a
more complete list summarizing the measures themselves is included
in Appendix A.
-------
Figure 1-1
Transportation .Measures in the Clean Air Act, as
Amended 1977
"(i) motor vehicle emission inspection and maintenance
programs;
(ii) programs to control vapor emissions from fuel transfer
and storage operations and operations using solvents;
(iii) programs for improved public transit;
(iv) programs to establish exclusive bus and carpool lanes
and areawide carpool programs;
(v) programs to limit portions of road surfaces or certain
sections of the metropolitan areas to the use of common carriers, both
as to time and place;
(vi) programs for long-range transit improvements involving
new transportation policies and transportation facilities or major changes
in existing facilities;
(vii) programs to control on-street parking;
(viii) programs to construct new parking facilities and operate
existing parking facilities for the purpose of park and ride lots and
fringe parking;
(ix) programs to limit portions of road surfaces or certain
^ections of the metropolitan area to the use of nonmotorized vehicles
or pedestrian use, both as to time and place;
(x) provisions for employer participation in programs to
encourage carpooling, vanpooling, mass transit, bicycling, and walking;
(xi) programs for secure bicycle storage facilities and other
facilities, including bicycle lanes, for the convenience and protection
of bicyclists, in both public and private areas;
(xii) programs of staggered hours of work;
(xiii) programs to institute road user charges, tolls, or
differential rates to discourage single occupancy automobile trips;
(xiv) programs to control extended idling of vehicles;
(xv) programs to reduce emissions by improvements in traffic
flow;
(xvi) programs for the conversion of fleet vehicles to
cleaner engines or fuels, or to otherwise control fleet vehicle
operations;
(xvii) programs for retrofit of emission devices or controls
on vehicles and engines, other than light duty vehicles, not subject
to regulations under section 202 of title II of this Act; and
(xviii) programs to reduce motor vehicle emissions which
are caused by extreme cold start conditions."
Source: Public Law 95-95 (H.R. 6161); Aug. 7, 1977, Clean Air
Act Amendments of 1977. Section 108(f) amendments.
Underlining added for programs specifically mentioning
bicycles of nomnotorized vehicles.
-------
Figure 1-2
Bicycle Measures in State Implementation Plans (SIPs)
as of September 1979
Region State
Urban Area(s)
III
Mass.
N.Y.
N.J.
Pa.
Del.
Md.
D.C.
Va.
IV
V
VI
VII
IX
X
Ala.
Ky.
Ga.
S.C.
Fla.
Ind.
Minn.
Ohio
Wise.
111.
Texas
N. Mex
Ark.
Okla.
Kansas
Colo.
Calif.
Nev.
Wash.
Idaho
Ore.
Boston, Springfield
Capital District/Catskill, Utica/Rome, Syracuse,
Rochester, N.Y.C. metro area, Westchester County,
Nassau County, Suffolk County
Atlantic City, Phillipsburg, Bergen, Essex, Hudson,
Middlesex, Manmouth, Morris, Ocean, Passaic, Somerset,
Union, Burlington, Camden, DVPRC/Mercer
Allegheny County (Pittsburgh), Leigh & Northampton
Counties (Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton), Scranton/
Wilkes-Barre, Harrisburg/Philadelphia/Pittsburgh
Wilmington
Baltimore, Howard County, Montgomery County, Rockville,
Bowie, City of Gaithersburg
D.C.
Northern Virginia Counties(including Arlington, Loundon, &
Falls Church), Virginia Beach, Norfolk, S.E. Virginia,
Portsmouth, Hampton City/Newport News
Jefferson County
Atlanta
Charleston County, Columbia
Duval County, Jacksonville, Pinellas County, Broward
County, Dade County, Palm Beach, Orange County
South Bend
Duluth, Twin Cities, Rochester
Cincinnati, Kenton County (Ky.), Columbus, Cleveland,
Canton
Madison
Chicago
Hpuston
Albuquerque
Little Rock
Wichita
Denver
Los Angeles, San Diego, Montery/Santa Cruse, Santa
Barbara, San Francisco
Las Vegas
Vancouver, Seattle-Tacoma, Spokane
Boise
Salem, Eugene-Springfield, Ashland-Medford
Source: Nina Dougherty Rowe and EPA Bicycle Coordinators, Sept. 1979
-------
1.2.2 Current Bicycle Use and Factors Affecting Levels of Use
In Urban Areas
The primary purpose of bicycle strategies Is to increase the
number of trips and total vehicle miles ridden by bicycle rather than
car. Because bicycle transportation is virtually non-polluting, each
auto trip displaced will result in a direct positive impact on air
quality through auto emission reduction.
Polluting emissions produced by the operation of automobiles
include carbon monoxide (CO), hydrocarbons (HC), oxides of nitrogen
(NO ), particulates, lead, sulfates, and asbestos. In many urban areas,
the automobile is responsible for well over 90% of CO emissions from
all sources (6). Nationwide, approximately 40% of hydrocarbons and
NO , about 9% of suspended particulates, and 3% of all sulfur oxides
come from transportation sources (7)- While many questions about
the relationship between auto-related air pollutants and human health
are not yet answered, a growing body of research implies that both
short and long-term hazards to health (and property) are associated
with levels of exposure experienced at some times in urbanized areas.
Carbon monoxide tends to be localized, peaking during rush
hours when heavy traffic is encountered. Therefore, bicycle strategies
to reduce this pollutant should concentrate on commuter travel, and
travel in areas of heavy traffic such as to popular recreation facilities,
shopping centers or schools. Other pollutants such as hydrocarbons and
particulates are characterized by much greater dispersal over the
urban area. Therefore, a bicycle strategy to reduce these pollutants
could include programs to shift trips from auto to bike at a broader
range of locations and times.
This section examines data on existing and potential bicycle
use. The purpose of this summary is to provide a foundation for
evaluating the potential impacts of the bicycle measures reviewed in
Section 2.
Over the last 20 years, bicycle sales have increased approxi-
mately 250%, with 9.4 million bicycles sold in the U.S. in 1978 (8).
In fact, during the six year span from 1972 to 1977, more bicycles
were shipped and imported than cars (681 million bicycles to 601
million cars).
Because of the rapid increase in bicycle ownership during
the 1970s, bicycles are accessible to many Americans. In fact, when
estimated 1973/74 bicycle and automobile ownership levels in the U.S.
and ten other industrialized nations are compared, the U.S. ranks
fifth in bicycle ownership. (See Figure 1-3). Almost as many
bikes were owned per 1000 population as cars in the U.S.
-------
Figure 1-3
ESTIMATED LEVELS OF BICYCLE AND AUTOMOBILE OWNERSHIP
IN ELEVEN COUNTRIES, 1973/74
Country
Denmark
Netherlands
Finland
Sweden
United States
Germany
Japan
Belgium
France
Italy
United Kingdom
Bicycles/
1000 inhabitants
596
590
522
491
430
419
382
296
216
214
202
Automobiles/
1000 inhabitants
242
249
200
308
482
275
145
242
280
247
248
Source: M. Taylor, "Pedestrians and Cyclists," "Background Report #1,
(OECD Road Research Secretariat: Paris, France) 1978.
-------
In 1977, an estimated 46% of the American population used a
bicycle at least once during the year (8). The estimated number of
users has steadily increased over the years. For example, about 15%
of the population used bicycles in 1950 and 26% in 1960 (see Figure
1-4).
Furthermore, the number and proportion of adult bicycle
owners increased dramatically in the early 1970s. Adult bicycles con-
stituted only 26% of all sales in 1968, but had increased to 58% by
1977 (see Figure 1-5). Many possible reasons have been advanced
for increased interest by adults, including the introduction of the
multi-speed, light weight bicycle into the U.S. during the late
1960s and early 1970s. The importance of aerobics and physical fit-
ness was receiving widespread publicity during this period as well as
environmental concerns. In addition, the OPEC oil embargo which
occurred during 1973 and 1974, created gasoline shortages. Since the
upsurge in adult sales began during this period, energy savings may
also have been a reason for increased adult bicycle use.
While modal split data for bicycle travel have traditionally
been neglected in transportation surveys, a few local surveys indicate
that a substantial proportion of all trips are currently being made by
bicycle in some localities with favorable conditions and bicycle
programs. For example, 13% of all vehicle trips are made by bicycle
in Madison, Wisconsin (9), an estimated 33% of all trips in Gains-
ville, Florida (10), and over 25% in Davis, California (11).
Despite the relatively high levels of use in some parts of
the U.S., the potential of bicycle transportation is still relatively
untapped compared with other industrialized nations. Developed coun-
tries in which the bicycle is an important means of transportation
include many in Northern Europe. In the Netherlands, cycling is the
most important transport mode (12) and virtually every family owns a
bike. Forty percent of the adults use a bike every day, and 80% ride
a bike occasionally (13).
Modal split (percentage of trips by transportation mode) data
for all trips in 12 European cities are shown in Figure 1-6.
Cycling as a percentage of all trips ranges from 5% in Marseille,
France to 45% in Tilburg, Netherlands. Figure 1-7 indicates that
the cycling modal split share for journey to work trips in a
somewhat different set of 11 European cities ranges from 9 to 61%.
In contrast, use of the bicycle as a major mode of transportation
to work in the U.S. in 22 metropolitan areas ranged from negligible
to 3.2%, with the average use for all workers .6% (see Figure A-2,
Appendix A) .
The American/European comparisons should be viewed as rough
comparisons only. Most of the European cycling percentages
include mopeds, thus overestimating bicycle use. The American
journey-to-work figures may be underestimates since the
major mode only is tabulated; in many areas bicyclists are
likely to use their cycles only part of the year. Thus, the
U.S. figures may underestimate the total percentage of trips
made by bicycle.
10
-------
Figure 1-4
ESTIMATED BIKES IN USE AND U.S. BICYCLE SALES
(mill.)
100
95
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
High
Estimate
Low
Estimate
Bicycle Users
Bicycle Sales
CD CD
0) O)
O -*
CO CD CO CO (OCDCOCOCDCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCO
O) O) O) O) O) O) O) O) %NJ ""^ ^^ ^^ ^^ *^ "***! "^J ***J
rou-uui o>^ioocoo-*N)u^uio>^ioo
Year
Source: Bicycle Manufacturers of America, Washington, D.C.
Note: Bicycles in use estimate is based on an estimate of
bike "life" multiplied by a unit sales factor. Rental and other multiple
use situations are calculated into the users estimate.
11
-------
Figure 1-5
SALES OF ADULT VERSUS CHILDRENS' BIKES
USA LIGHTWEIGHT (ADULT) MARKET
Domestic and Imports
1960
1965
1970 '72 '73 '74 '75 '76 '77
USA 20" (Childrens) BICYCLE MARKET
Domestic and Imports
1960 1963
1968 '72 '73 '74 '75 '76 '77
Source: Bicycle Manufacturers of America
Includes wheel sizes ranging from 24" to 27".
12
-------
Figure 1-6
MODAL SPLITS FOR TWELVE CITIES IN EUROPE,
ALL TRIP PURPOSES
Country
Denmark
France
Netherlands
United
Kingdom
City
Copenhagen
Grenoble
Lille
Lyon
Marseille
Nancy
Nice
Orleans
Rouen
Tilburg
Zaanstad
Oxford
Year
1974
1973
1976
1976
1976
1976
1973
1976
1973
1972
1974
1976
Percentage of trips by mode
Foot
7
40
38
45
52
46
50
35
43
26
24
Cycle
11*
14*
12*
6*
5*
7*
10*
15*
10*
45*
43
50
Private
car
34
38
42
38
33
36
33
43
41
26
22
23
Public trans-
port
48
8
8
11
10
11
7
7
6
3
3
27
Other
(**)
8
* Includes mopeds.
** Where given, otherwise FOOT + CYCLE + P.C. + P.T. = 100%
Source: M. Taylor, "Pedestrians and Cyclist," Background Report #1,
(Paris, France, OECD Road Research Secretariat: Paris,
France), 1078.
13
-------
Figure 1-7
MODAL SPLITS FOR 10 CITIES IN EUROPE,
JOURNEY-T O-WORK
Country
France
Germany
Netherlands
United
Kingdom
European
City or
U.S. SMSAS
Lille
Lyon
Marseille
Nancy
Orleans
Bremen
Tilburg
Rotterdam
Zaanstad
Stevenage
Year
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1970
1972
1971
1974
1976
Percentage of tri
Foot
24
23
29
23
18
29
9
20
10
19
Cycle
19*
9*
10*
11*
23*
22
61*
22*
40
9
Private
Car
49
47
45
51
50
ps by mode
Public
transport
8
19
16
15
9
49
28
25
37
50
2
29
2
20
Other**
4
11
* Includes mopeds
** Where given, otherwise FOOT + CYCLE + P.C. + P.T. = 100%
DATA SOURCES: M. Taylor, "Pedestrians and Cyclists" Background Report No. 1,
(Paris, France: OECD Road Research Secreteriat), 1978.
14
-------
The extent to which U.S. bicycling could approach European
levels is determined in part by factors shown in Figure 1-8. This
figure summarizes factors identified during a literature search as
associated with variation in bicycle use. Four major categories of
factors are used: the physical environment, the social environment,
other transportation alternatives, and individual population
characteristics.
While the U.S. and Northern Europe probably vary somewhat
on almost every one of the factors in Figure 1-8, the majority of the
differences are not immutable. For example, gasoline prices are sub-
stantially higher in Europe making bicycling more attractive. However,
recent increases in U.S. prices have begun to equalize these dif-
ferences. Furthermore, despite somewhat more dispersed land use
development in the U.S. than Europe, many U.S. auto trips are short
enough to be taken by bicycle. The most recent U.S. Nationwide
Personal Transportation Study (NPTS) indicates that over half (62%)
of all U.S. trips were five miles or less, accounting for 16% of all
U.S. vehicle miles traveled (VMT) by car (14).
Survey data in the U.S. indicate most bicycle trips, excluding
intennodal travel , are under five miles in length, regardless of trip
purpose (see Figure A-3, Appendix A). The modal niche which bicycling
currently occupies in the U.S. is indicated in Figure 1-9. Mean
bicycle trip length is 1.4 miles for work trips (15), compared with
0.1 miles for walking and 9 miles or more for car/truck and transit.
The Physical Environment; The first factor identified in
Figure 1-8 as affecting the rate of bicycle use is the size and
density of the urban area—in other words, land use development pat-
terns. Smaller, more densely developed areas are likely to have more
short trips appropriate for bicycling. Development patterns probably
account, in part, for the differences in mean automobile trip length
among U.S. SMSAs. For example, workers in the Omaha and Providence
SMSAs have average automobile trips of 5.8 miles and 6.0 miles
respectively, compared to automobile trip lengths of 8.6 in the N.Y.
SMSA and 9.9 in Baltimore.3
Data from the 1978 NPTS is expected to be available during the latter
half of 1979.
2
Intennodal travel utilizes two or more modes of transportation to com-
plete a trip, for instance, bicycle and bus.
Selected Characteristics of Travel to Work in 20 Metropolitan Areas;
1976 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Bureau of Census), September 1978.
15
-------
Figure 1-8
FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH BICYCLE USE
Physical
Environment
• Size and
density of
urban areas
affecting
trip length
• Climate
• Terrain
• Hours of
daylight
Social
Environment
• Social organi-
zation and use
of time affect-
ing trip pur-
pose
• Crime
• Peer group
support for
bicycling
Other
Transportation
Alternatives
• Types
• Convenience
• Cost
• Comfort
• Safety
• Visibility
Air Quality
Safety Hazards
Traffic Volumes
Existing facili-
ties for biking
Aesthetics
Individual
Population
Characteristics
• Income
• Age
• Bicycle riding
skill level
• Physical condition
• Knowledge and per-
ception of trans-
portation options
• Trip mode
preferences
• Valuation of time
• Valuation of
exercise
• Fear of accidents
16
-------
FIGURE 1-9
U.S. TRIP LENGTH DISTRIBUTIONS FOR WALKING, BICYCLE,
CAR/TRUCK, AND TRANSIT WORK TRIPS
95
PERCENT OF
TRIPS
IN EACH TRIP
LENGTH
CATEGORY
10-14
15-24 25+
WORK TRIP LENGTH CATEGORIZES (in miles)
MEAN TRIP LENGTH
Bicycle 1.4 mile
Walk .1 mile
Transit 9.1 mile
Car/Truck 9.0 mile
All Modes 8.5 mile
MEAN TRAVEL TIME
12-1 minutes
8.7 minutes
39.5 minutes
19.1 minutes
19.9 minutes
Source of Data: Bureau of the Census, The Journey to Work in the United States; 1975,
Current Population Reports, P-23, No. 99 (Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Dept. of Commerce), July 1979.
17
-------
Several surveys on deterrent factors to increased bicycle
use indicate bad weather influences the level of bicycle use in the
U.S. (see Figure 1-10) . A survey in Boston (16) indicated that
bicycling activity falls off when the temperature is below 40°. How-
ever, winter temperatures among some northern European cities with high
levels of bicycle use and many U.S. cities are surprisingly similar
(see Figure A-4, Appendix A). Orhn (16) notes that "Even though
weather conditions do affect or limit the use of bicycles, this may
have been overemphasized somewhat, at least with respect to tempera-
ture." The Boston survey showed that at least 10% of the student
cycling population uses their bikes 10 to 12 months per year, and
22% rode 7-9 months per year. Thus, many bicyclists continued to
ride during cold weather.
Precipitation (rain and snow) affects bicycle operating
safety and is more inhibiting than temperature. The City of Madison
assumed for planning purposes that bicycling will decrease sub-
stantially on days with precipitation of a two hour duration or more,
and when an inch or more of snow is on the ground (18). In Boston,
rainfall of 0.10 within any given hour during the day was used as a
cut-off point to estimate decrease in riding (16).
Nighttime was considered a deterrent factor by respondents in
both Boston and M^adison surveys. In fact, a large percentage of fatal
overtaking motor vehicle/bicycle accidents occur at night (19). How-
ever, good bikeway design, lighting and bicycle lights should assist in
reducing hazards.
Poor air quality was cited by Washington, D.C. bikers as a
deterrent. (Information on effects of air pollution on cyclists is
contained in Section 3).
Traffic safety hazards, including those associated with high
speed, high volume traffic, are a major deterrent. Concern about acci-
dents was cited as a deterrent in each survey summarized in Figure 1-10.
Precise calculation of the extent to which bicyclists run a greater risk
of death or injury compared with other modes of transportation is diffi-
cult because of the lack of data on accidents by type and location com-
pared to bicycle miles traveled. However, State of Maryland data on
total bike/car fatalities from 1973 to 1977 indicated that all of the
82 persons killed in bike/car accidents were cyclists (20). Everett's
estimation of fatality risks for different transportation modes (see
Figure A-5, Appendix A) also provides an indication of relative risk.
18
-------
Figure 1-10
SURVEY DATA ON DETERRENT FACTORS
BOSTON, MASS.
GAINSVILLE, FLA.
STATE OF PA."
WASHINGTON, D.C.
4
(Factor somewhat or
greatly influential)
Inclement
weather 86 %
Low
temperatures 75%
Nighttime 69%
Lack of Secure
Parking Facili-
ties 65%
Crime Areas You
Nay Pass Through 64%
Danger of Auto
Collision 53%
Condition of
Pavement 52%
Availability of
other Transpor-
tation 43%
(Factor somewhat or
greatly influential)
Inclement
weather 90%
Danger of
Collision 73%
Hard to
Carry Things 68%
Takes
Too Long 45%
Hilly
Terrain 43%
Too
Tiring 25%
No Bike Rack
at Destination 22%
(Problem discouraging family
members from using a bicycle)
Users Non-Users
Traffic,
unsafe streets 7%* 3%
Not physically
capable 3%
Poor condition
of bike 1%
Bicyclists
nuisance in st. 1%
Fear of accidents ,
not safe 1% 1%
Hills 1% 1%
Takes
too long 1%
No bike 1%
Don't know how
to ride 1%
Fear of theft 1%
(Problem areas most fre-
quently cited by bikers)
Necessity of
bike paths
Need for
bike racks
Heavy
Traffic
Inconsiderate
auto drivers
Inconsiderate
bus drivers
Smoke and
exhaust fumes
32%
16%
12%
11%
5%
7%
Hazardous road (bumps
and storm drains) 7%
Need for education
of motorists
Other
6%
4%
•Percentages are of total sample population surveyed.
Many of those surveyed did not respond to the question.
DATA SOURCES: Boston Area
Bicycle Project (Boston, Mass.
: Central Transportation Planning Staff) , August 1 , 1976
B.T. Caine and R.L. Siegel, "The Second Most Frequent Mode of Transportation", Planning^ Design, and
of Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities (New
A.C. Nielsen
Company, Survey on Bicycling
York, N.Y.: MAUDEP) , New Orleans meeting proceedings, 1975.
Activity in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, (Minneapolis,
Implementation
Minn : conducted
for the Pa. Dept. of Transportation by Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.), November 1974.
4
C.S. Shaw, "Citizen Participation in Bicycle Planning from the Public Agency's Viepoint", Transportation Research Record #570,
The Bicycle As A Transportation Mode (Washington, D.C., Transportation Research Board), 1976.
-------
(Figure 1-10, continued)
MADISON, WISCONSIN
(Average ranking on scale of
1 - "not at all inhibiting" to
5 - "extremely inhibiting" for
non-recreational bike trips)
MADISON, WISCONSIN
(Average ranking on scale of
1 - "not at all dangerous" to
5 - "extremely dangerous"
when riding bike)
Danger of theft
Bad weather
Snowy
Raining
Cold
Windy
Heat
Personal Safety
Takes too long
Cannot carry packages
Lack of bicycle racks
at destination
Too much physical effort
and sweating
Too much starting and
stopping
Social pressure
(dress, ridicule, etc.)
DATA SOURCES :5'6Technical
2.75
2.63
(4.43)
(4.02)
(3.40)
(2.68)
(2.06)
2.61
2.32
2.04
1.93
1.79
1.41
1.30
Memorandum III, Survey and
City of Madison), 1974.
Terape Bikeway Study: Background (Tempe
Riding in heavy traffic
Car turning abruptly
Car stopping abruptly
Car door opening
Cross traffic
Bad weather
Riding bicycle at night
Bicyclist making left
hand turn
Railroad tracks
Inventory, Findings and
4.32
4.00
3.58
3.43
3.43
3.40
3.32
3.22
2.72
Implications
, Arizona: Tempe Planning Department
TEMPE, ARIZONA
(Factors ranked as "most important"
to inhibiting use of bicycles for
everyday transportation)
Danger from Auto
Traffic
Time
Weather
"Other"**
Fear of Theft
Physical Effort
Lack of Storage
Did not rank items
No answer
Users
37%*
14%
7%
6%
5%
3%
2%
20%
7%
Non-users
21%
16%
3%
21%
3%
4%
1%
17%
14%
*Percentage of "most important" rankings.
**"Other" responses included: don't have
a bike, distance/distance to work, bike
in disrepair, don't want to/no interest,
difficult to carry parcels, others.
(Madison, Wisconsin:
, September 1972.
-------
Bicyclists in Washington, D.C. mentioned the absence of
biking facilities as a deterrent (see Figure 1-10) . Of the non-bikers
surveyed in Madison, Wisconsin (21), 21% said they would ride a
bicycle to work, 14% to school, 18% for shopping, and 49% for recreation
if better facilities were provided.
A summary of bicycle riding incentive factors in Figure 1-11
indicates that 9% of those surveyed in Madison chose to ride a bike
because of scenic or aesthetic factors.
The Social Environment; The second major category of
factors associated with bicycle use in Figure 1-8 is the social
environment. A major determinant of bicycle use is trip purpose,
which is in turn related to the social environment (e.g., local
economy, social organization, and use of time). Survey data on
bicycle trip purpose is summarized in Figure 1-12. In some areas
of the U.S., more trips are taken by bicycle for recreational purposes
than other purposes, particularly when compared with the recreational
percentage for auto travel. However, bicycle trip purpose is highly
variable, with some areas such as Gainsville, Florida; Madison,
Wisconsin; and Lakewood, Colorado, showing higher percentages of
bicycle trips for school purposes. The major implication of
Figure 1-12 is that bicycle trip purpose distribution (and by implication
modal shift and emission reduction potential) is highly variable among
individual localities.
Crime, including fear of bicycle theft and perhaps of personal
assault, was cited as a deterrent factor (see Figure 1-10). Problems
of personal security have been reported for bikers riding in isolated
areas. Secure parking facilities and good lighting for night riding may
reduce the impact of crime, and increase ridership.
One of the major differences between the U.S. and northern
European environment is the traditional acceptance and use of the bicycle
as an adult mode of transportation. However, this supportive environment
does appear to exist in some university communities in the U.S., such as
Davis and Madison, where existing levels of bicycle use are high.
Other Transportation Alternatives: The availability and use
of other transportation alternatives, (category three in Figure 1-8)
is probably a major determinant of bicycle use. For example, lower
levels of bicycle use in the U.S. compared with Europe is probably
partially related to higher level of automobile ownership in the
U.S. than in the other 10 countries examined (see Figure 1-3). The
extent to which increasing the attractiveness of bicycling will
21
-------
MADISON, WISCONSIN
(Reason for choice
of bicycle)
Figure 1-11
SURVEY DATA ON INCENTIVES FOR BICYCLE USE
COLUMBUS, OHIO CBD
STUDY2
(Reason for choice
of bicycle)
BOSTON, MASS.
(Univ. student response on
factors somewhat or greatly
influencing bicycle use)
TEMPE, ARIZONA
("most important"
reasons for bicycling)
EUGENE, OREGON
(reason for bicycling)
Time 46 %
Congestion 31%
Scenic 9%
Bike Route 3%
Other 11%
Parking
Problems 30 %
Quickest means
of Travel 24%
Convenience 12 %
Exercise 10%
Traffic
Congestion 9%
Efficient Mode
of Travel 8%
Economical 4%
Ease of Access
to any Desti-
nation 2 %
Opportunity for Fun/recreation 37%
physical exercise 80%
Exercise 30%
Saving money 41%
Economic reasons 12% Exercise
Transportation 9% Bike is
Quickest
Environmental
reasons 5% It's Fun
Total
Sample
71%*
51%
49%
Non-
Univ.
only
72%*
46%
50%
Social reasons 4% Cheap Trans-
portation
Other 3%
Environ-
mental
concerns
Only form
of trans-
portation
Convenient
parking
45%
41%
29%
18%
46%
40%
27%
14%
DATA SOURCES: Technical Memorandum I, Survey Procedures and Basic Summary (Madison, Wisconsin:
City of Madison), 1974.
J.M. Wright, "Pedestrian vs. Bicycle vs. Automobile - A Case Study", Planning, Design, and
Implementation of Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities (N.Y., N.Y., MAUDEP) New Orleans meeting, 1975.
Boston Area Bicycle Project (Boston, Mass.: Central Transportation Planning Staff), August 1, 1976.
4
Tempe Bikeway Study: Background (Tempe, Arizona: Tempe Planning Department), September 1972.
Greenway Bike Bridge Evaluation Report - Phase I (Eugene, Oregon, Public Works Department) November 1978.
*Multiple responses are
reflected in percentages
so column does not sum
to 100%.
-------
Automobile Travel
Figure 1-12
SHORT AUTO TRIP DISTRIBUTION BY PURPOSE COMPARED TO BICYCLE TRIP PURPOSE DISTRIBUTION
Bicycle Travel
State of
North
Trip Purpose Trips VMT Carolina Arizona Phil. CBD
Work 47% 39% 6% 3% 28%
Utility 26% 22% 17% 11% 7%
School* 11% 9% 2% 21% 40%
Recreational
and Social 16% 30% 75% 55% 19%
Other 6%
E.g. , personal business, shopping.
++School category also includes civic and religious trips.
Work and school categories combined.
**
Exercise is other category.
•^uto travel data is from the Nationwide Personal Transportation
Study , Vol. 10 (U.S. Bureau of the Census, for the Federal High-
way Administration, Washington, D.C.), November 1973.
T.L. Huddleston , Bicycle Rider Characteristics in North Carolina
(Raleigh, N.C. ; Department of Transportation), August 10, 1977.
Only purposeful trips (54% of all trips) were included.
D T Smith, Jr , Safety and Locational Criteria for Bicycle
Facilities, Final Report (DeLeuw, Gather & Company, for the
Federal Highway Administration), October 1975.
Gainsville, Greenway, Lakewood, Madison, Hash., D.C. g State of
Florida^ Oregon6 Colorado7 Wisconsin club members LAW Pa.10
16% 33% 6% 28% (61%)* (33%)* 6%
13% 11% 18% 7% 21% 18% 18%
48% 10% 53% 40% (61%)* (33%)* 6%
19% 37% 12% 25% 15% 34% 70%
4% 9% 5% 4% 16%**
B.T. Cain and R.L. Siegel, "The Second Most Frequent Mode of Transportation/"
Planning, Design and Implementation of Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities
(MAUDEP, New Orleans, La. ) 1975. (Total of most frequent and second most
frequent trip purposes are used) .
City of Eugene, Oregon, Report on the Greenway, Ore. Bridge (Eugene, Ore.),
1978.
J. Wright, "Pedestrian vs. Bicycle vs. Automobile - A Case Study." Planning ,
Design and Implementation of Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities (MAUDEP, New
Orleans, La. ) 1975.
o
Long Range Bikeway Program: A Summary Report of Proposed Policies and Facility
Plans (Madison, Wisconsin: City of Madison). December 1975.
9
J.A. Kaplan, Characteristics of the Regular Adult Bicycle User, PB-258-399,
City of Philadelphia, unpublished mimeograph.
10.
(Washington, D.C., Federal Highway Administration), July 1975.
Bicycling in Pennsylvania, (Harrisburg, Pa.: Barton-Aschman Associates Inc.,
for the State of Pennsylvania) March 1976. Includes purposeful trips only.
-------
result in a modal shift from auto versus other transportation modes is
not well documented. However, a survey in Pennsylvania in 1974 indi-
cated that for all bicyclists, 58% would have otherwise reached their
destination in a car, 33% as a driver and 25% as a passenger, if they
couldn't travel by bicycle (see Figure 1-13). Only 3% would have used
a bus or motorcycle. For bicyclists over 16, 62% would have driven a
car, and 12% would have been an auto passenger. Forty percent of the
bicyclists under 16 would have been an auto passenger, and 55% would
have walked.
A survey in Washington, D.C. indicated a higher percentage of
bicyclists would have walked if bicycles were not an option. Sixteen
percent would have driven or been a passenger in a car for school trips,
40% for personal business, and 32% for work trips (see Figure 1-13).
After construction of a bicycle bridge in Eugene, Oregon,
bicyclists using all three bridges in the city were surveyed. Twenty-
nine percent of the bicycle riders surveyed said they used a car less
frequently as a result of the bicycle bridge construction (22).
Individual Population Characteristics; The final category of
bicycle use factors is individual population characteristics. These
include income, age and physical condition, knowledge of and feelings
about transportation options, valuation of time and exercise, and fear
of accidents.
A statewide survey in Pennsylvania indicated that bicycle use
is higher among higher income individuals (23) although the relationship
appears to be reversed in areas with large university student populations
(21,22). This may be partly a function of increased knowledge about
options, since income is positively correlated with education. In
addition, there may be more peer group support among higher income and
university populations because of increased knowledge about air quality
and other environmental problems.
Age is highly correlated with bicycle use, although local
variations are apparent. A survey of bicycle use in the State of
Pennsylvania shows almost all children between the ages of 12-15 using
bicycles, but a substantial reduction in bicycle use for each higher
age category (see Figure A-6, Appendix A). A somewhat different pattern
is indicated in Madison, Wisconsin, which has a large university popula-
tion (see Figure A-6, Appendix A). In Madison, the higher level of
bicycle use is among the 25-44 age group. A similar pattern was
encountered in an evaluation of bicycle users in another university
community - Eugene, Oregon. Even when non-university riders were
isolated, the highest levels of use were observed among those aged
16 to 34 years.
24
-------
Figure 1-13
PRIMARY .MODE OF TRAVEL FOR WHICH THE BICYCLE WAS SUBSTITUTED:
STATE OF PA. AND WASHINGTON, D.C.
STATE OF PA.'
WOULD NOT HAVE TRAVELED 1*
OTHER MODES}*
AUTO PASSENGER Ml WALKING
PERCENT OF
TOTAL BICYCLISTS
WOULD MOT HAVE TRAVELED 1%
OTHER MODES 3*
AUTO PASSENGER
H*
WOULD NOT HAVE TRAVELED 1%
OTHER MODES!'
PERCENT OF
BICYCLISTS
OVER 16
AUTO PASSENGER \J
1 40% 1
Trip Walk
Purpose
To school 54%
To personal business 29%
To work 24%
WALKING \ PERCENT OF N. /
< !5% 1 BICYCLISTS
/ UNDER 16
2
WASHINGTON, D.C.
Auto
Driver
8%
30%
24%
Auto
Passenger
8%
10%
8%
Bus Other Total
29% 1% 100%
29% 2% 100%
44% OX 100%
Sources: Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc., Bicycling in
Pennsylvania (for the Pa. Department of Trans-
portation, Harrisburg, Pa.), May 1976.
2
A.C. Nielsen Company, 1974 Survey of Bicycling
in Washington, D.C. (under direction of Barton-
Aschman Associates, Inc.), 1974.
25
-------
Kaplan's study of League of American Wheelmen Members
(24) indicated that accident involvement appeared to decrease as
cycling experience and age increased. Furthermore, the oldest respon-
dents (ages 66-82 years) traveled an average of more miles than any
other age group. This data indicates the correlation between greater
cycling skill and increased use of a bicycle.
Knowledge and perceptions of transportation options is felt
to affect modal choice (25). Similarly, modal choice is affected by
individual valuation of time (26), with equal length bicycle trips
having different time costs to different individuals. Individual
valuation of exercise will also affect the level of bicycle use (27) .
Finally, some bicyclists have argued that the actual hazards
of riding are not as great as perceived by some potential riders,
assuming competent riding instruction (e.g., 28). They argue that
removal of unnecessary fear will increase bicycle tripmaking.
26
-------
REFERENCES: SECTION 1
(1) N.D. Rowe, "Summary of Bicycle Measures", (Washington, D.C. :
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) 1975.
(2) Transportation Element of the State Implementation Plan for the
Boston Region (Boston, Mass.: Central Transportation Planning
Staff) Dec. 22, 1978.
(3) Cambridge Systematics, Implementation and Administration of Air
Quality Transportation Controls; An Analysis of the Denver,
Colorado Area (Washington, D.C.: for the U.S. Department of
Transportation) April, 1978.
(4) Council on Environmental Quality, Environmental Quality,
(Washington, D.C.: CEQ), December 1978.
(5) 'Change in Ozone Standard", Federal Register, Feb. 4, 1979.
(6) P. Morgenstern, T.R. Parks, and J. Calcagni, "A Pollutant Emission
Inventory for the Metropolitan Boston Air Pollution Control District
(30 Municipalities), (Cambridge, Mass.: Walden Research Corp) 1972.
(7) "Emissions from Transportation Sources, 1978", U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency.
(8) Bicycle Manufacturers of America.
(9) Long Range Bikeway Program.- A Summary Report of Proposed Policies
and Facility Plans (City of Madison: Wisconsin), December 1975.
(10) B.T. Caine and R.L. Siegel, "The Second Most Frequent Mode of
Transportation", Planning, Design and Implementation of Bicycle
and Pedestrian Facilities (New York, N.Y.: MAUDEP) December, 1975.
(11) D.B. Pelz, "Development of Bicycle Facilities, Interim Status
Report", Bicycle Programs, (City of Davis, California: Public
Works Dept.) August 1977.
(12) M. Taylor, "Pedestrians and Cyclists", Background Report No. 1,
(Paris, France: OECD, Road Research Secreteriat) 1978.
(13) P. Bythiner, "How Holland Hit the Road", Holland Herald.
(14) Nationwide Personal Transportation Study, Vol. 10, (Washington,
D.C.: Federal Highway Administration/Bureau of the Census),
November 1973.
(15) U.S. Bureau of the Census, The Journey to Work in the United States;
1975, CPR P-23, No. 99, (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of
Commerce), July 1979.
27
-------
(16) Boston Area Bicycle Project (Boston, Mass.: Central Transporta-
tion Planning Staff), August 1, 1976.
(17) C.E. Ohrn, "Estimating Potential Bicycle Use and Public Invest-
ment", (Minneapolis, Minn.: Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.)
August 22, 1973.
(18) Technical Memorandum II, Forecasting Bicycle Demand (Madison,
Wisconsin: City of Madison) 1974.
(19) K.D. Cross, Bicycle Safety Education (Falls Church, Va. :
AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety) August 1978.
(20) Maryland Citizens Bicycle Study Committee, A Report on the Status
of Bicycling in Maryland (Baltimore, Md. : Maryland Dept. of Trans-
portation), January 1979.
(21) Technical Memorandum III, Survey and Inventory, Findings and
Implications (Madison, Wisconsin: City of Madison) 1974.
(22) Greenway Bike Bridge Evaluation Report - Phase I (Eugene, Ore. :
Public Works Department) November 1978.
(23) A.C. Nielsen Company, Survey and Bicycling Activity in the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, (Minneapolis, Minn.: conducted
for the Pa. Department of Transportation by Barton-Aschman
Associates, Inc.), November 1974.
(24) J.A. Kaplan, Characteristics of the Regular Adult Bicycle User,
(Washington, D.C.: Federal Highway Administration), July 1975.
(25) Charles River Associates Inc., On the Development of a Theory
of Traveler Attitude—Behavior Interrelationships: Vol. II
(Cambridge, Mass.: Charles River Associates Inc. for the U.S.
Department of Transportation), August 1978.
(26) M. Everett, "Benefit-Cost Analysis for Labor Intensive Trans-
portation Systems", Transportation, 6, 1977.
(27) M. Everett, "Commuter Demand for Bicycle Transportation
in the United States", Traffic Quarterly, October 1974.
(28) J. Forester, Cycling Transportation Engineering Handbook
(Palo Alto, California: Custom Cycle Fitments), 1977.
28
-------
SECTION 2: BICYCLE PROGRAMS
2.0 Introduction
With an estimated 46% of Americans taking at least one trip
a year by bicycle, and about 62% of all auto trips in the U.S. under
5 miles in length, more trips could be taken by bicycle rather than
car if Americans are motivated to do so. Incentives and deterrents
which affect such motivation were discussed in the previous section.
This section contains descriptions of programs designed to remove
deterrents and increase incentives to bicycling. Since virtually
all the programs discussed in this section have been implemented
somewhere in the U.S., the programs should be considered reasonably
available control measures (RACMs) to control or reduce air pollution.
This section contains a summary of measures which can
be combined into a comprehensive and mutually reinforcing program.
Use of a single measure alone, such as provision of a single bike
path or parking facility, will probably have little effect. Other
complimentary measures are needed, such as engineering, safety
education, enforcement, and encouragement.
Physical facility improvements for bicyclists are discussed
under the engineering category. Bikeways, parking facilities, supporting
facilities such as parallel grate replacement or traffic signals, and
maintenance of facilities are examples of engineering measures.
The safety education category covers adult bicyclist train-
ing, instructor training, and police training. Juvenile bicycle safety
education is also included, since some of the bicycle trips made by
this age group substitute for trips in which the child would be driven
by car.
Police training programs, assignment of special safety
officers, bicycle peer courts, and bicycle registration are illustrations
of enforcement measures currently in use in bicycle programs.
%
Finally, marketing and publicity activities which emphasize
particularly enjoyable aspects of bicycling, such as exercise and money-
saving benefits are summarized under the encouragement. Activities
include employer incentive programs, media coverage, and bike maps.
2.1 Engineering
2.1.1 Bikeways
Bikeways are defined as routes used by bicyclists, including
streets, highways, sidewalks, lanes and paths. Bikeways include routes
shared with other transportation modes and exclusive routes.
29
-------
One impediment to more widespread bicycle use appears to be
fear of bike accidents (1). Motor vehicle collisions are particularly
feared. Bicycle facilities may reduce fear of accidents and certain
types of accident risk if well designed. The selection of the most
effective mix of bikeway types for inclusion in a bicycle strategy
will depend on a number of factors. These include local conditions,
such as existing road conditions, trip purposes, demographic charac-
teristics of riders, heavy trip corridors, and opportunities for bike-
ways. The types of bikeways discussed in this section are:
use of best existing roads through bike maps
wide roadway shoulders
wide curb lanes
bottleneck removal
bikeway signs
special roadway use signs
bikelanes (shared & exclusive)
separated bikepaths (shared & exclusive)
Detailed design standards for each type of bikeway will
affect safety and use. Such standards have not been included in this
document because there is a substantial literature setting forth
standards and recommendations for bikeway design. One of the most
recent bikeway standards is the CALTRANS Planning and Design Criteria
for Bikeways in California (2). The Federal Highway Administration
is currently revising the AASHTO Guide for Bicycle Routes (3).
Other guides to standards include the Sorton et al.
Pedestrian and Bicycle Considerations in Urban Areas (4) ,
Forester's Cycling Transportation Engineering Handbook (5), and
others (6,7).
Major advantages and disadvantages experienced by localities
with each type of bikeway are summarized in Figure 2-1. Use of
existing streets through development of a bicycle map is one of the
least expensive techniques of improving the bicycling environment.
Such maps can indicate which streets have low traffic volume or attrac-
tive scenery, and can be produced quickly. Urban areas producing
bicycle maps include Boston, Denver, Washington, D.C. and Philadelphia.
States preparing bicycle maps include North Carolina, Wisconsin,
California, and Pennsylvania. A technical bulletin has been prepared
by the Department of the Interior describing the North Carolina bike
mapping process (8). An article outlining the process of bicycle
mapping and sources of existing maps is contained in the first issue
of Bicycle Forum (9).
Since such a large proportion of bicycle riding takes place
on the street, one relatively easy way of providing more bicycle
facilities is through institution of a policy of automatically pro-
viding a wide curb or outside lane, and/or a wide shoulder when road
improvements or new construction takes place. As John Forester
30
-------
Figure 2-1
ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF DIFFERENT BIKEWAY TYPES
Bikewav Type
Use of best existing
roads through bike
map
Wide curb lane
Advantages
No capital invest-
ment needed, cost of
bike maps only
Can be imple-
mented quickly
Can be built and
maintained as part of
regular public works
program
Pi sadvantage s
May not offer good
protection against
motor hazards for all
riders
Requires that map is
widely available and
used to select riding
routes
Possible conflicts with
cars
Wide roadway
shoulder
Sidewalks
Can be built and
maintained as
part of regular
public works
program
Use of freeway
shoulders as in
California can
provide a safer
route than
arterial routes
in some cases
Low cost
May be only alterna-
tive in some situa-
tions
May not offer
adequate protection
against motor
vehicle encroachment
May collect debris
May be associated with
increased accidents
(doubled in Palo Alto
when tried)
Intersection problems
Conflicts with pedes-
trians may reduce speed,
increase bike/pedestrian
accidents
In residential areas,
smooth travel may be
interrupted by children
playing
31
-------
Bikeway Type
Advantages
Disadvantages
Signing
Special use signs
(bike use during
specified times)
Low cost
May make motorists
more cautious
Low cost
Motorists generally
respected signs and
bicycles in D.C. and
Seattle
May give false sense of
security to rider because
signs may be ignored by
vehicle driver
May slow auto traffic
May not be obeyed in heavy
traffic and speeds over
40 mph (e.g. in Washington,
D.C.)
Bikelanes shared
with parked cars
Low cost
Exclusive bikelanes
on the roadway
Desired by many
bikers
Maintenance easy
(except where curb
barriers used)
Generally easy to
implement
Low Cost
Motor vehicle/bike
accidents decrease
over on-road riding
Bicyclist behavior
generally more
predictable for
motorists
Bicyclists subject to
serious injury from
opening car doors, cars
driving across bike lane
to park (problem in
Palo Alto)
Regular sweeping
needed
Regular painting of
lane needed
Davis survey indicates
increase in accidents
associated with
bicyclist left turn
(bicyclist has to
cross traffic if not
using pedestrian
walk pattern)
32
-------
Bikeway Type
Advantages
Disadvantages
Separate bike
path shared with
pedestrians
Politically feasible
in areas where cost
of exclusive bike
path too high, or land
not available for two
paths
Works well in areas
with low density, low
speed bike traffic
and few pedestrians
Best-liked and
most heavily
traveled in D.C.
High speed bike
travel and pedestrians
incompatible
High cost construction,
separate maintenance
from roadway required
Increased accident rates
associated with
motorist right hand turn
at intersection
Right-of-way not always
available
Exclusive bike
path
maintained and well
designed (e.g., wide
enough), offers good
riding experience
Removed from noise,
air pollution
Expensive
Security problems
experienced in some
areas not visible from
road (e.g. Eugene, Orono,
Niles)
Increased accident rates
associated with motorist
right hand turn at
intersection
Note: Some portions of figure draw on work by David Pelz, Davis, Ca.
33
-------
points out, a 14-16 foot roadway width (instead of the usual 11-12 ft.)
"does not divert highway funds to non-highway projects, but neither
does it kick cyclists off the roadway .... It requires no new finan-
cing modes and no new laws" (10). The transportation and public
works agencies already have funding mechanisms in place to assist in
routinely providing wide shoulders. Such an effort is currently
underway in Dane County, Wisconsin, to serve the Madison metropolitan
area. Over 50 miles of shoulder have recently been widened with
highway funds (11).
Sidewalks may be an alternative for novice or juvenile bikers
in some urban situations with narrow roadways and heavy high speed
traffic. This is a relatively inexpensive method, only requiring curb
cuts at intersections and possible signing. Massachusetts, for example,
rescinded its state law prohibiting sidewalk riding. Concern has been
expressed over increased intersection and driveway accident hazards,
particularly since Palo Alto experienced a major increase in accidents
when they included sidewalks as part of a bikeway system. Insufficient
data are available to determine the extent to which the accident
increase occurred because of an increase in bicycle riders (increased
exposure). A new study of bicycle/pedestrian conflicts on shared
pathways concludes that a mix can only be successful in very low volume
conditions (12).
Special bike signs on the streets were the last preference
of bicyclists in a Washington, D.C. survey (13), and regular bike signs
were the next to last choice. One report suggests that signs generally
give the illusion of providing facilities but may serve as a temporizing
device by officials not willing to fully support bicycling measures (14).
Special signs may provide some added protection for bicyclists.
For example, signs in Seattle require that motor vehicles yield to
bicycles and D.C. signs state "Change Lanes to Pass Bicycles" during
rush hours giving the bicyclist the entire lane. In Washington, D.C.
such signs were often not obeyed when traffic was heavy and speeds
exceeded 40 mph. An evaluation (13) concluded that special signs
should be used on streets with slower traffic.
The only real advantages of bike route signs are a possible
increase in motorist awareness of bicycle traffic, provision of direc-
tional information (if included on the sign), and information that the
signed route may be safer in some way (e.g., have been selected because
of a low traffic volume or wide street width). It is also important
to remember that bicyclists will rarely travel more than a block or
two out of their way for bike routes except for recreational purposes.
Palo Alto, for example, installed signs along 27 miles of streets
(15% of the city street system), only to find a year later that over
65% of the bicyclists surveyed said they "never" or "seldom" used the
bike routes.
34
-------
Bikelanes and separate bikepaths were the most popular types
of bikeways in the survey of Washington bicyclists. Bikelanes have
the advantage of relatively easy implementation at low cost. A survey
in Davis, California (15) concluded that bike lanes improved riding
conditions for riders using the same route with and without bike lanes.
Other detailed comments included increased safety carrying children
on bikes, removal of the hazard associated with opening car doors,
increased safety for youngsters, and slowing of auto traffic through
removal of a traffic lane.
Universities provide some of the best examples of bike paths.
For example, exclusive paths have been established at the Boulder cam-
pus of the University of Colorado. Due to the high concentration of
bicyclists and pedestrians on this campus, university planners decided
to separate the two groups. The Davis campus of the University of
California provides "bicycle streets" within the campus. These are
regular streets which have been closed off to cars by installation
of bollardsl closing the street at the entrance to the campus.
Intersection hazards have been a particular problem for riders
on some bikepaths, particularly conflicts with right-turning motor
vehicles who are unaware of a bicycle path entering the roadway because
they cannot see the path. In addition, objections have been voiced
by many bicyclists to mandatory use of bicycle paths. (This issue is
discussed further in Section 4.1.2.). Other criticisms of some
existing paths include inadequate design (e.g. poor sight distance,
abrupt curves, inadequate width), and inadequate maintenance.
2.1.2 Maintenance
Poor maintenance resulting in potholes, broken glass, sand,
and other debris is a major deterrent to increased bicycle riding.
Maintenance problems can cause severe accidents and make riding
generally unpleasant. Further, localities have been sued for accidents
caused by inadequate maintenance. Separated bikepaths need particular
maintenance attention, since they are not swept clean by cars or
street-cleaning equipment as in the case of some other bikeways. Law-
suits and lack of use have resulted in some areas without good main-
tenance of bikepaths. Therefore, a comprehensive bicycle strategy
should contain clear assignment of responsibility for regular inspec-
tion, street sweeping, bikeway sweeping, and tree trimming by local
governments and an adequate budget.
A bollard is a post installed in the roadway, preventing motor
vehicles from passing through.
35
-------
2.1.3 Supporting Facilities
Supporting facilities may include removal of parallel grates
along bicycle routes, installation of bicycle-activated traffic sig-
nals, lighting for routes used at night, opening of bridges or express-
ways when safer than the alternative routes, and barrier or bottleneck
removal.
Drainage grates are a major hazard if they are the parallel
type with spaces between the bars of more than 3/4". This grate type
is the most widely used because it channelizes water effectively and
does not get stopped up easily with leaves and debris. Therefore, it
is reportedly more effective for drainage than some alternatives in
preventing flooding in areas with heavy surface runoff. Nevertheless,
many bicyclists have been injured when their bicycle tire caught
between the parallel bars. Replacements are available including the
honeycomb, criss-cross, or "E" grates. Steel straps can also be
welded onto existing parallel grates. A detailed study on the
hydraulic characteristics of bicycle-safe grates has recently been
completed under U.S. Department of Transportation sponsorship (16).
Characteristics of grates on both continuous grades and in sump con-
ditions were tested. This study should be consulted when selecting
the most appropriate grate for a given condition.
Towns are well advised to install bicycle-proof grates on
routes traveled by bicyclists before an accident occurs and the town
has to pay not only the damage awards but replace the grates as well.
Exactly such a lawsuit took place in the Boston area when a bicycle
wheel caught in a parallel grate, the rider broke a wrist, and
collected damages from the town. The town was also ordered to replace
the grates.
A large proportion of bicycle accidents occur at intersec-
tions. Therefore, intersections should be carefully designed
and consideration given to installation of bicycle-actuated traffic
signals at difficult intersections. Signals include magnetic induc-
tion loops and hand-actuated push buttons. The induction loops
which automatically detect bicycle are in operation in both Cupertino
and Davis, California. Also, in Denver, standard push button actuated
pedestrian signals have been placed adjacent to some bikeways. This
readily available equipment allows plenty of crossing time but its
use by bicyclists depends on how conveniently the buttons are
located.
Lighting and edge striping may be particularly important
along separated bicycle paths which have heavy use after dark.
Barrier or bottleneck elimination is also important. A
partial list of barriers or bottlenecks and possible solutions includes:
36
-------
Barriers
Road discontinuity or bottlenecks
between neighborhoods
Heavy traffic corridor
Bike route discontinuity
Poor road condition
Heavy cross traffic
River, canal, freeway
Railroad tracks
Limited access bridge
Tunnel
Expressway
Possible Solutions
Construct bikeway link
Construct bikeway link or
indicate alternative route
Construct bikeway link (e.g.,
wider curb lane or shoulder)
Resurface and maintain
Install bicycle-activated
signal
Construct bridge, overpass
Construct overpass or perpen-
dicular crossing
Change policy, or institute
shuttle or bus bike racks
Indicate by-pass route,
institute shuttle
Open to bikes if safer than
alternative routes
Eugene, Oregon and the State of California provide examples of
bicycle barriers removal. In Eugene, a river barrier was removed
when U.S. Department of Transportation demonstration funds were
approved for construction of a bicycle bridge. Surveys of bridge
users indicate that travel time has been reduced by 62% on average,
50% of the riders using the bridge are new riders, and 29% of the
riders switched from car to bike (17).
In California, bicyclists noted that expressways were an
important but closed link in local bicycle networks. For example, the
president of the Santa Clara Valley Bicycle Association noted in the
case of closed expressways, "many times the alternative route is
confusing, unsafe, and extra miles out of the way" (18). Under the
direction of Dick Rogers in California's Office of Bicycle Facilities,
a result, approximately 230 additional miles of freeway shoulder were
opened for bicycle use in 1978.
2.1.4
Intermodal Links
Bicycle strategies to reduce air pollution can be more
effective if intermodal links are provided. Dual-use facilities
An intermodal link is a facility (e.g. bike parking rack at a sta-
tion, bus rack) permitting a bicycle to be used for a portion of a
trip and another mode of transportation such as train, bus, or car
to be used for the other portion of the trip.
37
-------
include provision for parking at transit stations and for transporting
bicycles on cars, buses, trains and boats. Intermodal links serve
an important function in bicycle strategies because they can permit
bicycle travel to be used as part of long trips.
The bicycle can be used as a feeder mode for transit if
secure parking is provided. Either racks or lockers can be used,
although lockers are probably more appealing to regular commuters
because of their added protection against theft, vandalism, and
weather. Such lockers have been installed at a number of transit
stops in the BART system in San Francisco, Washington, D.C.'s METRO
system, Atlanta's iMARTA system, and at park-and-ride lots in the
Baltimore area. The Baltimore experience illustrates the importance
of surveying demand before installing lockers and of publicizing
bicycle parking availability. The park-and-ride lockers were not
used in some locations and eventually were relocated to university
parking areas where demand existed (19). Conversely, in Palo Alto,
the locker units at the train station have never been vacant during
the four years since installation (20). Regular commuters rent the
lockers for $5 per month; the on-demand coin operations were dis-
continued because of vandalism.
Bikes can already be taken on to some ferries and trains.
For example, New York and San Francisco provide ferryboat service
to commuters and permit passengers to bring bicycles on board. The
BART (Bay Area Rapid Transit) system in San Francisco permits bicy-
cles on board its cars during off-peak hours, as does the PATH system
in New York and New Jersey. The London subway system also carries
bicycles. However, transporting bicycles on trains has been
resisted by railroads in many areas. For example, the Boston com-
muter railroad refuses to permit bicycles on board, stating bicycle
loading would result in schedule slow-down and subsequent passenger
loss.
Several bus/bicycle demonstrations provide information on
the feasibility of bus trailers and carrying bicycles inside busses.
Bus trailers have been tried by Santa Barbara and the San Diego
Transit Authority. In Santa Barbara, a 14-bicycle trailer towed
behind a conventional bus connected the University of California at
Santa Barbara with the downtown area. San Diego operated a similar
service across the San Diego-Coronado Bay Bridge from April 1975 to
June 1976. Both services have been discontinued because of the
continuing subsidies required. A pedal-hopper, a bus interior re-
designed to accomodate 24 bicycles and riders, was tried in San
Francisco. Connecting Oakland with San Francisco, this service was
also discontinued because of costs. In contrast, bus-bike service
has been provided through the Purfleet Tunnel in England for about
20 years (21).
38
-------
Because the bicycle/trailer demonstration in San Diego
showed that demand existed for a bicycle/bridge service, CALTRANS
examined lower-cost alternatives. The major cost of the previous
demonstration was driver wages for the exclusive bicycle service,
so the new experiment added a bicycle rack on the back on busses
already making the trip. San Diego Transit provided busses, main-
tenance and administration; CALTRANS provided four bicycle racks
capable of holding five bicycles each at a cost of $1000 per rack.
Total maintenance expenses during the nine month period
monitored were $2538, and operating revenues from both the rack
fees and bicyclists' bus fares were only $1236. Operating deficits
were experienced due to the coin box which was part of the bicycle
rack locking system. Road dust jammed the coin boxes, requiring
labor-intensive cleaning of the boxes every few days. Aside from
this problem, CALTRANS concluded that the bus rack system did not
cause operating delays, that racks were less expensive to operate
than vans, and that the operating loss associated coin box cleaning
could be reversed by providing free bicycle rack service. Free
service could also increase bus patronage among bicycle riders,
with the increased passenger fares offsetting the capital cost of
the bicycle racks (22).
Bicycle racks are being provided on special bus service
in Seattle. The "Seattle Parks Special" services, a loop route
including downtown, 10 parks, the aquarium and historic sites in
Seattle were provided on weekends and holidays during the summer
of 1979 (23).
Car/bicycle trips are common for recreation and offer
potential for work trips. Uncertain weather would not be as much
of a deterrent to bicycle commuters if they knew they could get
a ride home by car if rain or snow developed during the day. The
existing car-pooling system could be used to provide information
on such potential auto transportation. Employer provision of a
bicycle rack to be loaned out overnight might increase the use of
a car/bicycle pool program.
Vans with bicycle parking trailers have been sponsored by
CALTRANS for San Diego bicycle commuters. Bicyclists travel to
a designated location where they meet the 12-passenger van for
the journey to work.
2.1.5 Parking and Storage
A network of bikeways and intermodal links should be com-
plemented by secure bicycle parking facilities at major activity
centers, such as public and private employment locations, transit
stations, schools, shopping centers, recreation areas, and
39
-------
municipal facilities. Without parking facilities, cyclists are
forced to chain their bikes to poles, trees or similar available
objects, often creating pedestrian barriers, or running the risk
of having their bike stolen.
To illustrate the theft problem, over 600,000 bicycles
were stolen in 1977 in the 12 most populated states, representing a
loss of over 21 million dollars (see Figure 2-2). In North Carolina
alone, there are approximately 29 bicycles stolen every 24 hours,
which represented a loss of over $1 million per year between 1975
to 1977. A bike rack provides some protection against theft when
used with a well-constructed, theft resistant padlock. Many dif-
ferent types of locks and racks are now available, with descriptions
and costs of some types included in Appendix C. Bike racks will
provide more of an incentive to new riders if the racks are located
close to the entrance of work places or in a central location for
shopping. Placement of the racks under cover is an added incentive.
The standard pipe bike rack which merely holds the bike upright is
not adequate for locking both wheels and the frame. Bike lockers
and use of bike parking storage rooms provide the most secure environ-
ment. Interior space, if available, also may be a solution. Lockers
are in use in many federal locations currently, including the Depart-
ment of Health, Education and Welfare and the Environmental Protection
Administration offices in Washington, D.C. Lockers are more expen-
sive than racks, however, and may not be necessary or feasible in
many situations.
2.2 Safety Education
Two types of safety education are discussed in this section.
Adult education is most immediately related to air quality improve-
ment, since trip diversion from auto to bicycle trips will take place
among adult drivers. Juvenile education should not be ignored in
a bicycle strategy, however, since children will be making the
choices in the future about bicycle and auto use. Furthermore, if
parents perceive the bicycling environment is safe or safer for their
children, the adults may be more likely to use a bike more often
themselves, or permit children to make a trip by bike rather than
in a car driven by an adult.
Hundreds of films, pamphlets, teacher training guides and
other bicycle education materials and techniques have been produced
for all age groups from pre-school children to adults. Under the
sponsorship of the U.S. Department of Transportation and the U.S.
Consumer Product Safety Commission, many of these materials were
catalogued and annotated in a publication titled 1977 Bicycle Safety
Education: A Guide to Resources and Materials (24). Unfortunately,
few of these materials have been evaluated for accuracy of informa-
tion, or for effectiveness of presentation as measured by short and
40
-------
Figure 2-2
1977 BICYCLE THEFT STATISTICS FOR THE
12 MOST POPULATED STATES
States
Offenses Per
Thousand Population
Offenses
Value
Florida
New Jersey
California
Illinois
New York
Ohio
Texas
Pennsylvania
North Carolina
Indiana
Michigan
Massachusetts
*
Not Available
Source : Michael
4.4
4.3
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.7
2.6
1.9
1.9
*
*
*
Connelly & Elizabeth Hofton,
37,365
32,205
38,022
40,143
55,178
29,777
34,509
22,594
10,603
*
*
*
North
$3,176,776
$3,195,394
$6,040,459
$ 285,792
$2,851,135
$ 285,792
$2,181,642
$3,365,298
$1,032,727
*
*
*
Carolina Bicycle
Registration Study
the N.C. Bicycle P:
(Research Triangle Park, N.C.: RTI for
:ogram) November 15, 1973.
41
-------
long term information retention, behavioral changes, or reduction
in accidents. A recent DOT-sponsored bicycle safety project report
concluded: "The state of the art in safety education is to imple-
ment a program with no effectiveness measures and use unprofessional
measurement techniques to infer success for the program" (25).
One of the problems plaguing the design and evaluation of
bicycle safety programs has been insufficient knowledge about which
accident situations are most common and hazardous. A major study
of Dr. K. Cross in 1975 (26) provided reliable data on bicycle/
motor vehicle accidents through a detailed study of almost a thou-
sand accidents in four different sampling areas. Seven generic and
25 subtypes of accidents were identified which account for over 85%
of reported fatal accidents and 90% of reported injuries in the
sample. A summary of the generic categories and associated accidents
is contained in Figure 2-3.
Based on this work, Dr. Cross has developed recommendations
by age group for educational programs and other measures which could
be taken to increase safety (27). For example, in the accident type
where bicyclists make unexpected left turns across traffic, in 94%
of the cases the bicyclist did not check thoroughly to see if a car
was approaching. Education programs directed to this problem should
therefore stress thorough search procedures by cyclists. Air quality
planners and others interested in increasing bicycle safety should
encourage localities to consider the findings of Dr. Cross.
2.2.1 Adult Education
Reaching adults with educational programs, especially in
numbers large enough to make a significant difference in safety
improvement, has been difficult. The mass media (e.g. TV, radio)
offer some potential, and are being tested in a public awareness
demonstration in North Carolina. Developed through the state's
Bicycle Program, the awareness campaign is developing a safety cam-
paign utilizing TV, radio, newspaper, and posters. Hazard recognition,
emergency manuvers, and bicyclist vulnerability are among the messages.
An analysis of the effectiveness of the awareness campaign is also
planned.
Since the majority of teenagers take a motor vehicle driving
test, several states have included information on bicycles in their
driver education handbook. Applicants for licenses are required to
read and remember this material in order to pass the written test,
so presumably bicycle-related material is memorized. An example of
such material from the Massachusetts Drivers License Manual is shown
in Figure 2-4.
Several "hands-on" education programs for adults have been
initiated recently. For example, the League of American Wheelmen
provides instruction and certification to bicycling instructors,
and awards certificates to successful students of their Effective
Cycling Program. Based on a training program developed by J. Forester,
the Effective Cycling Instructor's Manual (28) is used as a text
42
-------
Figure 2-3
CATEGORIZATION OF BICYCLE/MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENTS
Bicycle-Related Accident Type
Bicycle Rideout: Midblock
Bicycle Rideout: Inter-
section
Bicyclist Turn
Fatal
15%
12%
16%
Non-Fatal
14%
17%
14%
Subtotal:
Motorist-Related Accident Type
Motorist Turn/Merge/
Drive Through/Drive Out
Motorist Overtaking
Motorist Unexpected
Turn
43%
45%
2%
38%
2%
19%
10%
14%
Subtotal:
43%
44%
Other
14%
11%
Source: K.D. Cross, Bicycle Safety Education—Facts and Issues
(Falls Church, Va. AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety)
August 1978.
43
-------
Figure 2-4
BICYCLE INFORMATION IN DRIVERS' MANUAL
THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
Alan MacKey
REGISTRAR OF MOTOR VEHICLES
DRIVERS'
LICENSE MANUAL
• CLASS 3 LICENSE
• MOTORCYCLE LICENSE
nu.ES OF rnn ROAD
BICYCLES
Bicycles are vehicles and an important part of the traffic
mix. More bicycles than automobiles were purchased in the
United States last year. As bicycle use increased, so have
bicycle accidents.
In 1975 in Massachusetts 2.320 people were injured and 22
were killed in bicycle-motor vehicle accidents. The largest
proportion of such accidents (516C7) occur in tne 3 - 1 4 age
group, but accidents in the 20- 3-1 azezroup have increased
lOOTe since 1971.
In 1973 a new Nfassarhnsrtts Sirvrlr safety law was
passed (Chapter 85. Sertton [IB1 Under the new law
bicyclists have the nshi tn u.v ail rnihlir wavj in the
Commonwealth except limited arrws or exnress Mate
highways where sicns specifically pr»hihitine bicvrics
have been posted. Sirvrlisn must follow "'hr trarHc
laws and regulation? of the- Commonwealth." inrlud-
in$ RIDING WITH TTIE FLOW OF TRAFFIC.
obeying all traffic siens and siznali. vipleiin? ;he Heht
of way to pedestrians, and si?nallin^ bv hand tor stnos
and turns. The only exceptions for bievriists to the
rules of the road are that f 1 1 ;hev mav use cither hand
to signal, and they mav ride on sidewalks outside busi-
ness districts unless there is a local ordinance to the
contrary.
The law requires that the operator of a motor ve-
hicle shall irant the bicycle the «ame ritrht as other
vehicles with rrsnert to intersections, turns and rtieht
operation. Chapter 90. S«"-tion 14 requires :hat "in
approaching or passing a person on a Sirvrlp :he ooer-
ator of a motor vehicle shall «lnw down and pass \T A
SAfE DISTANCE and at a reasonable and nrooer
speed." For safety sake it is important that motor ve-
hicle operators adhere to these laws.
WATCH FOR
THEY HAVE RIGHTS. TOO.
44
-------
for instructors and Effective Cycling (29) for the adult students.
The course consists of a minimum of 30 hours of instruction, 20
on the road and 10 in the classroom (30). Objectives of the train-
ing include increased confidence in on-road riding, as well as simple
skill improvement.
In Michigan, an education program for community leaders,
such as judges and police, has been initiated at the state level under
the direction of Bonita Neff and the 4-H (31). This program includes
long bicycle trips so that influential officials and staff are
directly confronted with actual problems facing bicycle riders in
their area.
2.2.2 Juvenile Education
As of 1977, public school bicycle safety education programs
were available through at least 30 state agencies (24). Many local
school districts have developed their own programs. Santa Clara City,
California, and Newton, Massachusetts are examples of localities
which-have developed their own programs including on-the-road prac-
tice. The Santa Clara City Elementary School Cycling Program includes
bicycle inspection, classroom instruction through movies or a lec-
ture and road training. The items covered include riding on the
right-hand side, right turns, traffic signals, stop signs, pedestrian-
style left turns on major streets, and vehicular-style left turns on
residential streets. The on-road training takes place in groups of
less than six children. A high school cyclist trained by the local
cycling club and a PTA cycling parent provide supervision. Instruc-
tion takes place during an afternoon, and is expected to be reviewed
periodically (30).
The program in Newton developed over a 22 year period.
Initially, a rodeo was used, but was dropped because the less-than-
superior rider was not rewarded and simulated streets encouraged
inadequate hazard search techniques. Groups of no more than 15 are
now taken for on-road training during their gym class. The group
is instructed by the police department safety officer who rides in
a car and uses loud speakers. The children are accompanied by
three parents, a teacher who accompanies all rides, and a bicycle
teacher. Generally, the school principal rides with the safety
officer at least once to lend official sanction to the instruction.
The group remains out on the road until right and left turns, and
hazard recognition appear adequate for each member of the group,
including the adults. Some principals require that children par-
ticipate in and successfully complete this training before they
ride their bikes to school (32).
45
-------
Under the direction of Donald LaFond, the State of Maryland
provides one of the few examples of an educational program based on
analysis of local accidents and testing for recall of the bicycle
safety material presented to students. The content of film strips
prepared for use in local schools is based on concepts relating to
known accident types associated with various age levels. The content
areas by age level are shown in Figure 2-5.
Figure 2-5
MAJOR EMPHASIS OF BICYCLE EDUCATION CONTENT BY AGE LEVEL
Content Area
History t Status
of Cycle
Knowledge of
Procedures
Storing Security
« Liability
Coordination
SJcilla
Special Cycling
Special Riding
Techniques
Selection of
Size and Type
Repair and
Maintenance
awe and Rules
Visual Search
Bazard
Recognition
Risk Aisessinent
Decisiou
Evasive
Techniques
age lev«l*
5 6 7 8 9 10 tl 12 13 14 IS 16 17 18 19 10 Zl
~ not relevant as accid'Jit counter-measure
— not relevant as accident ceuntermeasvire -
J-
indicates age of najor emphasis
indicates a lesser emphasis needed
Source: D. LaFond, State of Maryland as illus-
trated in Regional Workshops on Bicycle
Safety; Presentations, Participant Prob-
lems, Programs and Ideas and Recommenda-
tions, V. S. Darago (Urban Scientific
and Education Research, Inc. for the
NHTSA, Wash., D.C.), September 1978.
46
-------
Film strips provide the core technique used in the Maryland program.
The director feels a wider range of hazard actuations can be presented
through use of film than would be possible or safe in an on-road
training situation.
Learning and retention in the Maryland program were evaluated
in a sample of 7th, 8th, and llth graders at 10 schools. Based on a
pre- and post-viewing test, immediate retention was close to 90%.
Eight to nine weeks later, recall was about 86% and was still close
to 80% three months later (33).
Other new programs include a multi-grade (K-12) National
Bicyclist Training Program which is currently being developed by the
Bicycle Federation, under the direction of Katie Moran. The program
will include on road training, with a pilot test planned in the
Denver area. The program will also include modules for adults, and
will result in certification of course participants. (34)
2.3 Enforcement
The data on aggressive enforcement programs indicate that
such programs—when combined with policy education in schools, are
about as effective in reducing accidents as well-designed bikeways.
Since the perception of accident risks on bicycles is cited in
surveys as a major deterrent to increased use, reduction of accidents
through enforcement of safer bike riding habits may increase ridership
over time.
A review of bicycle enforcement programs (35) concludes that
most of the programs are similar. (Programs in North Carolina; the
State of Wisconsin; Tennessee; Boulder Valley; Des Moines, (Iowa):
Santa Barbara,(Ca.); Concord, (Ca.); and Richfield, (Minn.) were among
those reviewed.) All the enforcement programs attempt to involve
the community in the program. Peer courts using community members as
judges, and high school or college-age bicycle patrols who ticket
bicycle traffic offenders are among the techniques used to increase
community participation.
The Concord, California program uses a three student bicycle
court for juvenile offenders. With more than 1,000 cases handled
annually, the success rate has been remarkable with only 3% repeaters
over a five year test period. (36).
47
-------
Other effective enforcement programs include those in Des
Plaines and Niles, Illinois. The City of Des Plaines organized a
bicycle program in July, 1972, with a police officer spending the
majority of his time giving safety lectures in all grammar schools,
conducting bicycle rodeos, supervising the bicycle court, and issuing
warnings and tickets to violators. While a popular program, accidents
continued to increase, as shown below.
Year Accidents Warnings Tickets
39 0
73 116
46 237
61 343
Data Source: Des Moines Police Department
As a result, Des Plaines decided to adopt the more aggressive bicycle
enforcement warden system used by the neighboring town of Niles. In
this program during 1975, Niles wardens stopped 6,000 cyclists,
issuing warnings and instructing cyclists in proper bicycling
techniques. As a result, their accidents went from 17 to 3. (37).
The similarly encouraging results of the revised Des Plaines program
are shown below:
Year Accidents Contacts Warnings Tickets
1976 31
1977 28 6,166 4739 734
1978 18 22,297 3783 270
1972
1973
1974
1975
41
27
33
69
Data Source: Des Moines and Niles Police Depts.
The cost of the program was the salary of the bicycle officer plus
about $14,000 for summer wardens and their uniforms. Re venue-sharing
funds were used to assist the program. (38)
The town of Havre-de-Grace in Maryland experienced similar
accident reductions when a vigorous enforcement program was launched.
During the first year the program was initiated, accidents dropped
75% from the 61 accidents occurring during the base year. A 15%
reduction was experienced the next year, with only 3 accidents
during 1978 needing hospital attention. The Lieutenant in charge of
48
-------
the program thinks enforcement is very important, adding "How many
people would obey the 55 mph speed limit without enforcement?" (39)
Madison, Wisconsin provides an example of accident increases
as citations decrease. As shown in Figure 2-6, citations have decreased
since 1971, and accidents have steadily increased.
2.4 Encouragement
As Richard Knapp of the CALTRANS Bicycle program stated,
"The single most important action that can lead to an effective
bicycle program in any agency is the adoption of an advocacy role."
Advocacy of employer programs and use of the media are two of many
ways to increase public awareness of bicycle transportation as an
alternative. Education programs are also a means of encouragement.
2.4.1 Employer Programs and Facilities
Encouraging employers to provide some basic bicycle facilities
for their staff can be an effective but inexpensive part of bicycle
strategy. Employers may be more interested in providing facilities or
programs such as parking, bike/car pool information, bike trip
reimbursement, flexi-time and staggered work hours, and showers, if
examples of other companies providing such benefits are provided.
In addition, potential financial advantages to the company should be
made as explicit as possible.
The most important incentive most employers can provide is
secure bicycle parking facilities. In many areas, bicycle racks are
sufficient. For example, companies in the Dallas area installing
racks as part of an employer incentive program include the National
Bank of Commerce, Sunoco, and the Dallas Morning News .
In higher crime areas, a more secure facility may be necessary
such as that provided by the Children's Hospital in downtown Boston.
Initially, bicycle racks were provided, since Boston fire regulations
prohibit bicycles inside hospital buildings. However, the theft rate
was high. Therefore, several years ago the hospital began providing
bicycle parking services in the hospital's conveniently located
multi-story automobile parking garage. Although staff are charged for
parking cars in the garage, the hospital permits employees to park
their bikes free of charge in a special covered, fenced^ and padlocked
bicycle storage area within view of the garage attendent. A single
Employer Incentive Regulations encourage installation of bicycle
facilities. Such regulations are strongly encouraged by both EPA and
DOT, and are one of the more popular transportation measures. Contact
the bicycle coordinator at the regional EPA office (see Appendix B)
for more information.
49
-------
Figure 2-6
CITATIONS ISSUED TO BICYCLISTS AND BICYCLE ACCIDENTS REPORTED
BY YEAR, CITY OF MADISON, WISC.
CITATIONS
ISSUED TO
BICYCLISTS
3600
3400
3200
3000
2800
2600
2400
2200
2000
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
REPORTED
ACCIDENTS
190
180
170
160
150
140
130
120
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
1956 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78
YEAR
Source: "Bicycle Usage, Accident, Citation, Licensing, and Theft Trends for the City of Madison",
Madison Department of Transportation, 1978.
-------
padlock key is kept at the attendent's booth and employee identification
is required before the key can be borrowed to unlock a bike. In
addition, individual locks are required for each bike. As a result,
thefts have been minimal. As an additional benefit, the hospital
carries an insurance policy which covers all but a $10 deductible in
case of theft.
About 250 employees a day use the bicycle parking facility,
according to the parking attendant. The hospital official in charge
of the program has considered charging for bicycle parking but feels
the financial benefits to the hospital outweigh the cost of providing
the service (40). Automobile parking facilities are already over-
taxed, and the cost of constructing and operating new parking facilities
to accomodate bicyclists who would otherwise drive their cars would
cost more than the foregone parking revenue and other costs of the
bicycle parking program.
At the Federal level, a new General Services Administration
(GSA) directive of June 1979 (41) states that "GSA will provide adequate
bicycle parking facilities to encourage the use of bicycles for com-
muting purposes" and that the intention is to develop and implement
an effective and safe bicycle parking program. A survey to determine
need is recommended. Clothing lockers can also be provided, and
existing shower facilities made available for use by cyclists where
practical.
Shower facilities and a place to change clothing after
bicycle commuting in hot and humid urban areas are almost a necessity.
Some employers believe investment in such facilities as part of
employee physical fitness programs and benefit packages is financially
beneficial to the company. Benefits to the company may include lower
absenteeism, higher productivity resulting from better health, and
improved employee satisfaction with company benefit packages (42).
Examples of shower provision for private employees include
construction by developers in the Stanford, California Industrial Park
(43) and by Abt Associates Inc. in Cambridge in a new addition.
On the federal level, showers can be justified for bicycle
commuters if bicycle commuting is a part of an approved physical fitness
program, under December 1978 GSA guidelines (44). The Washington, D.C.
headquarters of EPA is an example of a Federal agency installing showers
(5 showers were installed in 1976).
Additional information is available from Mr. Robert Einsidler,
Manager of Special Services, Children's Hospital, 300 Longwood Avenue,
Boston, Mass. 02115.
51
-------
In order to encourage greater use of the bicycle as a
commuting alternative, other kinds of incentives can be developed by
the employer. These incentives may include the following:
• Employee reimbursement for bicycle travel mileage
when using a bicycle for business purposes
* Rebate of the monthly motor vehicle parking
space rental cost (if a normally provided company
benefit) to the bicycle commuter (former automo-
bile driver) in cash,
• Purchase by the employer of a special bicycle lock
for each employee who is a bicycle commuter.
An example of a special incentive offered to employees is
provided by the Salz Leathers Tannery in Santa Cruz, California. A $10
subsidy is given for the purchase of a new 10-speed high performance
bicycle. In addition, the bicycle is financed by a payroll deduction
plan over a period of 90 days. About 50% of the 260 person staff
has taken advantage of the plan, with about 20% of the staff riding
their bikes fairly regularly (45).
Another example is the bicycle travel expense reimbursement
policy of the Northeast Solar Energy Center in Cambridge, Mass.
The policy was initiated when an employee, Steve Brown, applied for
reimbursement for a 70 mile trip over a weekend to a business meeting
in 1978. As a result, the company president approved a policy of 4C/
mile reimbursement for business (non-commuting) use of bicycles (car
use reimbursement in 17£/mile) (46) .
2.4.2 Public Awareness
Bicycle use may be increased by publicizing advantages
through the media, obtaining endorsement by public officials, and
distributing bicycle maps indicating safe or attractive bicycle routes.
Endorsement, encouragement, and support of bicycling by
officials and employers can be important. An example of employer
support is contained in Figure 2-7. In this memo, EPA Administrator
Costle provides top-level policy support to provision of bicycle
commuting facilities within his own organization. Each EPA Regional
For more information, contact Steve Brown or Bob Mitchell, Director
of Communications, at (617) 661-3500.
52
-------
Figure 2-7
BICYCLING SUPPORT BY AGENCY ADMINISTRATOR
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
AUG 2 B73
THE ADMINISTRATOR
t-tEMORANDUM
TO: Regional Administrators
SUBJECT: Encouraging Bicycle Commuting
As you know, the Environmental Protection Agency pro-
vides secure parking for bicycles and showers for employees
in its Headquarters facility to make bicycle commuting more
convenient. Sixty enclosed bicycle lockers were installed
in 1975. Five showers were installed in 1976.
This is an idea which I strongly support. If we are
to promote alternative fonns of transportation in our efforts
to clean up the air, we must set an example for others to
follow.
If bicycle facilities, lockers and showers for bicycle
commuters, are not available in your Region, I strongly
encourage you to investigate and plan the installation of
facilities in the next year. Vfherever other Federal agencies
are collocated with the Environmental Protection Agency, it
may be possible to gain support from them in providing such
arrangements for all interested employees.
You may want to consider informing the local news media
about bicycle commuting and our. efforts in support of
employee facilities for bikers.
The General Services Administration is collecting" infor-
mation on bicycle facility needs. Please survey your office
and send information on the existing, bicycle facilities and
bicycle facility needs to Nina Dougherty Rowe , EPA Bicycle
Transportation Coordinator, ANR-44S, (753-0603). Ms. Rowe is
also available to answer your questions en thi/Tsubiect.
DoujfLasMrt. Costle
cc: Regional Bicycle
Coordinators
53
-------
Office has responded. One office, for instance, is providing theft-
resistant bicycle locks for use by commuters in the office.
Local transportation agencies sometimes take their lead from
state transportation agencies, particularly in activities which the
state helps to fund. State officials may be assisted in their local
bicycle-related information efforts if they are provided with a
list of knowledgeable bicyclists upon whom they can call for advice
on bicycle issues or problems.
Formal resolutions can be written and adopted by local
city councils that draw attention to bicycle commuting, and *•«•
encourage local citizens to bicycle. The Denver City Council
passed this type of resolution in 1971.
Similarly, a governor or mayor can publicly recognize
bicycling as an environmentally safe, energy-efficient and enjoyable
transportation mode. The governor of North Carolina, for instance, has
given strong public support to that state's bicycling program.
Bicycle Hot Line programs can also enhance public awareness.
Examples of such programs include a "Bicycle Commuter Service" in
Portland, Oregon. Funded by the Oregon Department of Energy, the
service is operated in conjunction with the Portland Wheelmen, and
uses a "233-BIKE" telephone number. The Washington Area Bicyclist
Association and Seattle's Cascade Bicycle Club also operate hot lines.
54
-------
REFERENCES: SECTION 2
(1) D. LaFond, State of Maryland as illustrated in Regional Workshops
on Bicycle-Safety; Presentations, Participant Problems, Programs
and Ideas and Recommendations, V. S. Darago (Urban Scientific
and Education Research, Inc. for the NHTSA, Wash., D.C.),
September 1978.
(2) State Bicycle Facilities Committee, Planning and Design Criteria
for Bikeways in California (Sacramento, California; CALTRANS,
State of California), June 30, 1978.
(3) American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials, Guide for Bicycle Routes (Washington, D.C.: AASHTO),
1974.
(4) A. Sorton and Barton Aschman Associates, Inc., Pedestrian and
Bicycle Considerations in Urban Areas — An Overview (Washington,
D.C.: FHWA, U.S. Department of Transporation), 1978.
(5) J. Forester, Cycling Transportation Engineering Handbook (Palo
Alto, California: Custom Cycle Fitments), 1977.
(6) D. F. Lott, D. Y. Lott, and T. M. Harrington, Bikeway Usage and
Design (Davis, California: Bicycle Research Associates), 1975.
(7) Institute of Transportation and Traffic Engineering, UCLA,
Bikeway Planning Criteria and Guidelines (Sacramento, California:
for the Division of Highways, Department of Public Works, Business
and Transportation Agency, State of California), April 1972.
(8) "Planning for Statewide Bicycle Routes, The North Carolina
Experience," BOR Technical Bulletin #5 (Washington, D.C.,
Bureau of Outdoor Recreation) 1977.
(9) J. Troja & C. A. Drake, "Mapping for Bicycles," Bicycle Forum
No. 1, Spring 1978.
(10) J. Forester, "What's the Real Potential for Bikeways?", Planning,
Design and Implementation of Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities (N.Y.,
N.Y. : MAUDEP), 1976 Toronto meeting proceedings.
(11) Conversation with Dane County planner, June 1978.
(12) RTKL Associates, Inc. An Investigation of the Potential for
Pathways Shared by Pedestrians and Bicyclists, Appendix W of
of the Pedestrian Planning Procedures Manual (Preliminary),
(for the Federal Highway Administration), Wash., D.C., Jan.,
1978.
(13) DeLeuw, Gather & Company and Spokeswomen, Bikeway Design Evaluation
(Washington, D.C.: for the District of Columbia Department of
Transportation), December 1978.
(14) Central Transportation Planning Staff, Boston Bicycle Project
(Boston, Mass.) August 1, 1976.
55
-------
(15) City of Davis, Bicycle Programs (Davis, Calif.) May 1976.
(16) P.H. Burgi and D.E. Gober, Bicycle-safe Grate Inlets Study,
Vol. 1; Hydraulic and Safety Characteristics of Selected Grate
Inlets on Continuous Grades, FHWA-RD-77-24 (Washington, D.C.:
U.S. Dept. of Interior for the U.S. Dept. of Transportation),
June 1977.
P.H. Burgi, Bicycle-safe Grate Inlets Study, Vol. 2: Hydraulic
Characteristics of Three Selected Grate Inlets on Continuous
Grades, FHWA-RD-78-4 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Dept. of Interior
for the U.S. Dept. of Transportation), May 1978.
P.H. Burgi, Bicycle-safe Grate Inlets Study, Vol. 3: Hydraulic
Characteristics of Three Selected Grate Inlets in a Sump
Condition, RHWA-RD-78-70 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Dept. of
Interior for the U.S. Dept. of Transporation), Sept. 1978.
(17) Greenway Bike Bridge, Evaluation Report—Phase I (Eugene,
Oregon: City of Public Works), November 1978.
(18) D. Keller, "Bicyclists Who Talk About the Network Nightmare,"
San Jose Mercury, July 23, 1978.
(19) M. Ostrowski, Bicycle Parking Facility Evaluation, Regional
Bikeways Study Working Paper, Maryland, May 1978.
(20) Conversation with fi. Fletcher, Palo Alto, February 1979.
(21) J. Parker, Letter to N. Rowe, June 1979.
(22) C. Home and V. Hurst, Transit Bus-Bicycle Rack Demonstration
Project (San Diego, California: Caltrans District 11, State of
California), May 1977.
(23) L.A. Kirby, "Seattle Parks and Recreation News Release: Seattle
Parks Special", May 21, 1979.
(24) Bicycle Safety Education: A Guide to Resources and Materials
(Washington, D.C., Consumer Product Safety Commission), 1977.
Available from the Superintendent of Documents, Government
Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402 (Stock No. 052-011-
00151-1, Cost $2.20/copy).
(25) V.S. Darago, Regional Workshops on Bicycle Safety; Presentations,
Participant Problems, Programs and Ideas, and Recommendations
(Washington, D.C., Urban Scientific and Educational Research,
Inc. for the U.S. Department of Transportation), September 1978.
(26) K.D. Cross, Identifying Critical Behavior Leading to Collisions
Between Bicycles and Motor Vehicles (Santa Barbara, California:
Anacapa Sciences), 1973.
(27) K.D. Cross, Bicycle-Safety Education (Falls Church, Virginia:
AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety), August 1978.
56
-------
(28) Forester, Effective Cycling Instructor's Manual, (Palo Alto,
California: Custom Cycle Fitments), August 1977.
(29) Forester, Effective Cycling (Palo Alto, California: Custom Cycle
Fitments), 1975.
(30) Forester, Cycling Transportation Engineering (Palo Alto,
California: Custom Cycle Fitments), 1977.
(31) Conversation with B. Neff, Bicycle Specialist, 4-H Youth Programs,
Michigan, Jan. 197 9.
(32) Conversation with Lt. C. E. Feeley, Newton Safety Officer, Oct.
1978, and "Bicycle Safety" by Lt. Feeley, Newton Police
Dept., mimeograph, no date.
(33) Conversation with D. LaFond, Maryland Dept. of Education, Maryland
Feb. 1979.
(34) Letter from K. Moran to M. Mayo, Oct. 17. 1978.
(35) B. Burgess, C.B. Yates, Review of Bicycle Enforcement Programs,
Raleigh, N.C.: Bicycle Program, N.C. Dept. of Transportation
no date.
(36) M. (Post) Mayo, "Workshop on Enforcement", DOT Safety Conference,
mimeograph, May 8, 1973.
(37) Conversation with Safety Officer, Des Plaines Police Department,
Illinois, May 1979.
(38) Conversation with Safety Officer, Niles Police Department.,
Illinois, May 1979.
(39) Conversation with Safety Officer, Havre-de-Grace Police
Department, Maryland, May 1979.
(40) Conversation with R. Einsidler, Children's Hospital, Boston,
Mass., August 10, 1979.
(41) Commissioner Dennis J. Keilman, Memo to all Regional Administrators
on "Bicycle Parking" (Washington, D.C.: General Services
Administration), June 1, 1979.
(42) N.D.Rowe, "Bicycling on the Fitness Bandwagon", Bicycling, March
1979.
(43) "Showers Proposed to Cool Palo Alto Commuter Traffic", Bicycle
Forum, No. 3.
(44) "Guidelines for Establishment of Physical Fitness Facilities"
(Washington, D.C.: General Services Administration), December 4,
1978.
(45) Letter from Salz Leather Tannery to N. Rowe, EPA., 1978.
(46) "BABC Member Paid for Bike Use at Work", Boston Area Bicycle
Coalition, No. 5, Summer 1978, and conversation with B. Mitchell,
Northeast Solar Energy Center, Sept. 5, 1979.
57
-------
58
-------
SECTION 3: EVALUATING BICYCLE STRATEGY IMPACT
3.0 Introduction
State and local officials, planners, or other individuals
considering the use of bicycle measures discussed in Section 2 need
to evaluate the likely effects of alternative programs in their own
area. Careful evaluation of the potential impacts and costs of
alternative measures will help in the selection of the most effective
programs, given the funds available.
In addition to the information on existing levels of
bicycle use and other local factors likely to affect the impact of
bicycle programs (see Figure 1-8, Section 1 for a summary of factors),
information on the effectiveness of different types of bicycle programs
is needed. With reliable data on actual program impacts (e.g. modal
shift from car to bicycle trips), estimates can be made of air
quality impacts, health effects, gasoline savings, economic impacts,
and program costs.
This section provides a summary of literature on bicycle
program impacts using seven measures of effectiveness. The section
continues with a discussion of other impacts which should be considered
during the analysis of alternative bicycle measures. A concluding
section indicates how bicycle measures can compliment other transpor-
tation measures.
3.1 Summary of Quantitative Data on Bicycle Program Effectiveness
A literature search was undertaken to provide localities,
considering implementation of a bicycle strategy,with reliable data
on the types and extent of impacts of alternative bicycle measures.
The results of the search are presented in this section, and are
summarized in Figure 3-1.
One primary and six secondary measures of effectiveness were
utilized in the analysis framework for each type of bicycle program (e.g.
barrier removal). The effectiveness measures included changes in:
Primary measure
• modal shift from auto trips to bicycle
trips
Secondary measures^
travel time
bicycle accidents
knowledge retention
behavioral change
bicycle theft
bicycle returns
For air quality planning purposes, the primary measure of
effectiveness is modal shift associated with bicycle program options.
More specifically, modal shift from motor vehicle trips to bicycle
59
-------
trips is needed to calculate actual and potential emission reduction
effects of bicycle programs. This modal shift data also permits
calculation of energy savings associated with bicycle programs.
Secondary measures were also examined, on the assumption that
program effectiveness in these areas may contribute to some modal
choice decisions. Some recent studies have indicated that convenience
(e.g., time savings) is a greater determinant than comfort in modal
choice decisions. Therefore, travel time change was included as
a measure of effectiveness.
Fear of accidents, particularly motor vehicle accidents, is
a major deterrent to bicycle riding (see Figure 1-10). To the extent
that potential bicycle riders are deterred by actual— rather than
imagined—risks, provision (and knowledge) of a safer riding environment
should contribute to increased bicycle trips.
A variety of bicycle education programs have been initiated.
It is obvious that safety information should be made available to
current and potential bicycle users. To ascertain which education
programs are most promising, "knowledge retention" and "behavioral
change" are included as measures of effectiveness. Programs to
encourage increased bicycle use can also be evaluated using these
two measures.
Bicycle theft is a deterrent to increased bicycle use.
Bicycle parking facilities, police department enforcement, and bicycle
registration may all reduce bicycle theft. In addition, registration
should also facilitate returns of stolen registered bikes. Therefore,
"bicycle theft" and "bicycle returns" were included as measures of
effectiveness on the hypothesis that theft reduction may encourage
additional bicycle trip-making.
Since little cost data is available, an estimate of whether
the program cost is "low", "medium", or "high", relative to costs of
other program options1 is used. For example, under the "bikeway"
category, use of sidewalks ("low") is a lower cost option than installa-
tion of signs ("medium"), which in turn is lower cost than construction
of separated bikepaths ("high").
Figure 3-1 presents the alternative program options and
summarizes the results of the literature search for quantitative data
on program effectiveness (e.g. modal shift, changes in travel time,
accidents, learning, bike theft and return). Unfortunately, little
quantiative documentation of program effectiveness could be located.
Further, some of the literature containing quantative data raised
methodological questions. For example, control groups and multi-
variate analysis were not generally employed to permit analysis of
the extent to which factors other than the bicycle programs may have
affected outcomes.
Modal shift data should include number of trips, trip length, auto
travel speeds, location, and time of day for refined air quality and
energy-saving calculations.
60
-------
Figure 3-1:
Summary of Bicycle Options by Measures of Effectiveness and Estimated Costs
Bicycle Program Option
I. Facility Engineering
Bike ways
Shoulder Upgrading (routine)
Use of Free Shoulder
Wide Curb Lanes
Use of Sidewalks
Bike way Signs
Special Use Signs
Bikelanes
Shared Lanes
Exclusive Lanes
Mixed
*
t
Bikepaths
Measures of Effectiveness
Modal Shift
(To Bicycle
Trips)
(+ 10% new
riders)
Travel Time
Changes
Bicycle
Accidents
+ 54% car/bike
+ 24% city-wide
-18% car/bike
+ (car door accidents)
(— total and serious)
-37% car/bike
(-33% improper cyclist
left turn)
(-87% mid-block inter-
section cyclist
(—72% wrong way
—non-intersection
—
-60% (with curb
separation)
(+ motorist right
turn at intersection)
—45% car/bike, moped
-20%-40% bike/moped
(+ motorist right turn
at intersection
(—bicyclist left turn
at intersection)
(—fatalities outside
intersection)
(+ non-fatalities
outside intersection)
(+ rate for total and
serious)
Learning
Knowledge
Retention
Behavioral
Change
Bicycle
Theft
Bicycle
Returns
Data Source and
Program Location
(A) Palo Alto, CA
(B) Palo Alto, CA
(A) Palo Alto, CA
(C) Washington, D.C.
(D)U.S. LAW Survey
(E) Davis, CA
(F) Netherlands
(G) Netherlands
(H) Denmark
(I) France
(D) U.S. LAW Survey
Estimated
Relative Cost
L
L
L
L
M
M
M
H
1 References are given at the end of Figure 1.
-------
Figure 3-1:
Summary of Bicycle Options by Measures of Effectiveness and Estimated Costs, continued.
Bicycle Program Option
1. Facility Engineering
(continued)
Maintenance
Supporting Facilities
Parallel Grate
Replacement
Traffic Signals
Lighting
Barrier Removal
Bridge
Measures of Effectiveness
Modal Shift
(To Bicycle
Trips)
(+ 50% new
riders)
+ 29% car
to bike
Travel Time
Changes
+ 62%
Bicycle
Accidents
Learning
Knowledge
Retention
Behavioral
Change
Bicycle
Theft
Bicycle
Returns
Data Source and
Program Location
(J) Eugene, OR
Estimated
Relative Cost
L-H
M
H
H
H
1 References are given at the end of Figure 1.
-------
Figure 3-1:
Summary of Bicycle Options by Measures of Effectiveness and Estimated Costs, continued.
Bicycle Program Option
1. Facility Engineering
(continued)
Intermodal Links
Use of Existing Space on
Ferries, Trains
Van Racks
Racks at Stations
Lockers at Stations
Special Bus Racks
Parking Facilities
Racks
Lockers
II. Safety Education
Adult Education
Effective Cycling
Training
Driver Education
Teacher Training
Police Training
Juvenile Education
Safety Towns
Education by
School Teachers
Education by Police
School Education,
Non-aggressive
Safety Enforcement
Measures of Effectiveness
Modal Shift
(To Bicycle
Trips)
Travel Time
Changes
( Removed
travel Barrier)
Bicycle
Accidents
+ (toy town)
+ 35% (72 - '75)
Learning
Knowledge
Retention
80%/6 mo.
Behavioral
Change
Bicycle
Theft
Bicycle
Returns
Data Source and
Program Location
(K) San Diego, CA
(L) Sweden
(L) Sterling, III.
(M) Des Plaines, III.
Estimated
Relative Cost
L
L
M
H
M
M
H
M
L
M
M
H
L-M
L- M
1 References are given at the end of Figure 1.
-------
Figure 3-1:
Summary of Bicycle Options by Measures of Effectiveness and Estimated Costs, continued.
Bicycle Program Option
I II. Safety Enforcement
Aggressive Enforcement and
Education by Police
Bicycle Court
Bicycle Registration
IV. Encouragement
Employer Programs
Recognition
Flexi-time
Bike Trip Reimbursement
Use of Indoor Space
for parking
Bike Racks
Bike Lockers
Showers
Public Awareness
Use of Free Media Services
Use of Purchased
Media Services
Production and Distribution
of Bicycle Route Maps
Measures of Effectiveness
Modal Shift
(To Bicycle
Trips)
Travel Time
Changes
Bicycle
Accidents
-82% ('74 - '75)
-75% ('74 - 75)
Learning
Knowledge
Retention
Behavioral
Change
Bicycle
Theft
Bicycle
Returns
+ (64%
return)
Data Source and
Program Location
(M) Niles, III.
(N) Harve de Grace,
Md.
(O) State of
Minnesota
Estimated
Relative Cost
M
L
L (after
start-up)
L
L
L
L-H
M
H
H
L
H
M
1 References are given at the end of Figure 1.
-------
REFERENCES, FIGURE 3-1
(A) T.T. Noguchi, C.E. Walker, "Bicycle Route System—Evaluation
and Status Report" (City of Palo Alto: California), January 17,
1974.
(B) "The Urban Bicycle Route System for the City of Palo Alto",
(City of Palo Alto: California), mimeograph, 1973.
(C) DeLeuw Gather and Spokeswomen, Bikeway Design Evaluation (for
the D.C. DOT: Washington, D.C.), December 1978.
(D) J.A. Kaplan, Characteristics of the Regular Adult Bicycle User,
(Federal Highway Administration, San Francisco, California),
July 1975.
(E) D.T. Smith, Jr., Safety and Locational Criteria for Bicycle
Facilities, Final Report (DeLeuw Gather for SHWA, U.S. Department
of Transportation: Washington, D.C.), October 1975.
(F) Koninklijke Nederlandsche Toeristenbond, Fietspaden enoversteek-
plaatsen (Bicycle Paths and Cycle-Crossings), Verkeersonemorandum
No. 4, van de Verkeersafdeling van de ANWB (Traffic Division
of the Algemene Nederlandse Wiedri ders Bond), 2nd Revised Edition,
Amsterdam, Holland, December 1978.
(G) I.M. Aarondse, Article in Verkeerstechniek #5, 1964.
(H) Radet for Trafik sikkerhedsforskning, Cykelstiers Betydning for
Faerdseessikkerheden, Rapport 1 (Statens Trykningskontor:
Copenhagen, Denmark), 1969.
(I) S. Goldberg and J. C. Gazeres, "Les Accidents sur Pistes
Cyclables" (Organisme National de Securite Fontiere, Bulletin No. 1),
September 1962.
(J) Greenway Bike Bridge, Evaluation Report—Phase I (City of Eugene
Public Works: Eugene, Oregon). November 1978.
(K) C. Home and V. Hurst, Transit Bus-Bicycle Rack Demonstration
Project (San Diego, California: CALTRANS District 11, State of
California), May 1977.
(L) Conversation with Donald LaFond, State of Maryland, April 22, 1979.
(M) Department of Police, mimeographed paper (City of Des Plaines,
Illinois), no date.
(N) Conversation with Lt. Wtn. Kristie, Safety Officer, Police Depart-
ment, Harve-de-Grace, Maryland, April 22, 1979.
(O) M.D. Connelly and E.R. Lofton, North Carolina Bicycle Registration
Study (Research Triangle Institute, for the North Carolina Bicycle
Program, DOT, Raleigh, N.C.), November 15, 1978.
65
-------
More specifically, only one study contained quantative
data on the modal shift associated with a bicycle measure from
car to bicycle trips. This study examined the Oregon bicycle bridge.
Approximately 30% of the trips involved use of bicycles rather than
cars. This same evaluation indicated a substantial time savings
resulting from the bridge construction.
Most of the quantitative impact data located was for
changes in bicycle accidents. Data from Palo Alto indicates that
bicycle accidents increased when sidewalk riding was permitted,
and when the first generation of bike signs were installed. Car/bike
accidents decreased with the use of shared bikelanes, although
bicycle/car door accidents increased. Both total and serious
accidents were relatively less common for riders using bikelanes and
surveyed in the Kaplan (LAW) survey. The Davis, California bikelane
experience was similar.
European data indicates that bicycle/car accidents
were less common or decreased when bikepaths were used, although
accidents associated with motorist right turns at intersections
increased. Kaplan's study, however, indicated higher rates of
total and serious accidents for those surveyed when using bikepaths.
Kaplan hypothesized that cyclists may use less caution on this
type of facility, since they are separated from motor vehicles
except at intersections, and may therefore be more subject to other
causes of accidents such as falls on slippery gravel, or collisions
with fixed objects.
The limited data on impacts of juvenile education is
contradictory. However, the safety town experiments in Sweden imply
that care should be exercised in using "toy" traffic situations lest
children assume that actual use of roads is equally safe. Retention
tests in Maryland indicate that much of the information shown in
the film strips developed by the state was remembered.
Agressive safety enforcement is associated with
accident reductions in three programs - police department programs
in Des Plaines and Niles, Illinois, and in Harve de Grace, Maryland.
Finally, the bicycle registration program in Minnesota was quite
successful during its first year of operation in returning stolen
bicycles to their owners.
In addition to the problems of little quantitative
data being available, some of these programs were implemented without
the support of a comprehensive approach. Therefore, observed
impacts are likely to be smaller than would be expected in
broader programs composed of mutually reinforcing components.
66
-------
3.2 Need for Comprehensive Bicycle Program Implementation
with Evaluation
The data limitations on bicycle program costs and outcomes
were indicated in the previous section. Such data limitations obviously
restrict the ability of metropolitan planning agencies, states, and
localities to predict potential outcomes of bicycle strategy implemen-
tation to reduce air pollution. In view of the relatively high levels
of bicycle use in the few urban areas which have implemented comprehensive
bicycle programs (e.g. Davis, California and Madison, Wisconsin), and
potential latent demand implied by the widespread purchase and ownership
of bicycles in the U.S. , common sense indicates that the effects are
likely to be positive. Furthermore, MPOs, states, and localities
implementing comprehensive bicycle strategies, carefully documenting
costs and outcomes, and publicizing the results, will be making a
substantial contribution to our level of knowledge about bicycle
program effects. In fact, a strong argument can be made for federal
funding assistance for such programs, since the benefits from carefully
evaluated eomprehensive bicycle programs will be national.
The greatest modal shift and air quality impact effects
would be expected in areas with larger numbers of positive factors
influencing bicycling (see Figure 1-8), and where higher levels of
institutional, political, and public support for bicycling exist, or
can be generated. However, since so little quantitative data on bicycle
program effects is available, careful analysis of comprehensive bicycle
program implementation in areas which appear less promising will also
make a major contribution to our level of knowledge. Bicycle measures
should be viewed as demonstration measures, whose effects are expected
to be generally positive, but whose magnitude of impact is still unknown.
It is important to emphasize that comprehensive bicycle programs are
being discussed. Such programs include a range of mutually reinforcing
activities such as bicycle facility construction, safety education
and enforcement activities, employer programs, and publicity about
the enjoyable aspects of bicycling (see Figure 3-10 for illustrations).
Isolated improvements, such as bicycle path construction without provision
for secure parking, without careful attention to intersections, and with-
out publicity, are unlikely to have an appreciable impact on modal shift
except in unusual situations.
Areas undertaking implementation and evaluation of a
comprehensive bicycle program should take advantage of national funding
sources, whenever possible, since reliable data on the cost-effectiveness
of such programs will be of national value. The Environmental
A comprehensive program is one with a range of mutually reinforcing
_ activities.
As noted in "How to Calculate Emission Benefits of Each Control
Measure: Bicycle Lanes and Storage Facilities", How to Prepare
The Transportation Portion of your State Air Quality Implementation
Plan, (Wash., D.C.: U.S. Dept. of Transportation, Federal Highway
Administration and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), Nov. 1978.
67
-------
Protection Agency's section 175 program can provide planning assistance.
This and other potential sources of financial assistance are discussed
in Section 4, and summarized in Appendix E.
Evaluation and reporting plans should be developed as
an integral part of bicycle strategy development. The first step
in evaluating a program is to obtain good baseline data on bicycle
use, attitudes, and related items such as bicycle accidents before
program implementation. Survey data is particularly useful,
although existing agencies may provide additional data (e.g. police
department records on bicycle accidents and thefts). Obviously,
the questions to be asked will vary depending on the type of bicycle
program to be implemented. An example of a baseline survey is the
1974 study of bicycle use sponsored by the Pennsylvania Dept. of
Transportation.
Reliable data can be obtained in most cases through use
of a sample, rather than a survey of the entire population. When
designing the sampling strategy, program staff should consult one or
more of the many excellent books on survey design , consult with avail-
able experts in local, metropolitan, or state government, and/or
obtain help from outside experts.
A plan is also needed for evaluating the bicycle program
once implementation has started. This plan should be developed before
the bicycle program is initiated, and the plan should include what
data is to be obtained, how the data will be gotten, and who is
responsible for getting and analyzing the data. A follow-up survey,
or surveys, will provide particularly useful information on items
such as modal shift from car to bicycle trips, or the extent to which
new bicyclists feel the programs encouraged modal shift. In deter-
mining modal shift, local, state, and/or federal level transportation
staff assistance, or outside expert advice should be obtained by
bicycle program staff needing technical assistance.
A.C. Nielsen Company and Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc., Survey on
Bicycling Activity in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (for the
Pennsylvania Dept. of Transportation, Harrisburg, Pa.), November 1974.
o
For example, Survey Research Methods, E.R. Babbie, (Wadsworth Press),
1972; Survey s Opinion Research: Procedures for Processing & Analysis,
J.A. Sonquist and W.C. Dunkelburg, (Prentice-Hall), 1977; Social
Statistics, H.M. Blalock, Jr.,(McGraw-Hill), 1972; Data Analysis
and Regression, F. Mosteller & J.W. Tukey, (Addison-Wesley), 1917;
Foundations of Behavioral Research, F.N. Kerlinger, (Holt, Rinehart
and Winston, Inc.), 1973.
68
-------
Other sources of data may also be useful in evaluating
program effects. Such sources might include police department
records on accident reductions, reported bicycle thefts, and stolen
bicycles returned to their owners through a registration system.
The school system may provide data on retention of safety education
programs, based on test results. Early consultation with providers
of such information will help insure that the data desired is
actually collected and made available.
States and local governments will be responsible for
most of the program implementation. However, metropolitan planning
agencies may be able to provide useful assistance during the planning
and evaluation phases. These phases require some technical skills
which may not be readily accessible to local governments. In addition
to skills, metropolitan planning agencies have access to some special
funding programs, such as EPA's section 175 urban air quality planning
grants.
The final stage, writing up and dissemination of the
bicycle program results, can be handled by any or all levels of
government or by private individuals. This stage is in some ways
the most important part of the process, since others outside the
program area can benefit only if they know about the results. A
variety of dissemination methods should be used if possible, including
publication (e.g. in The Bicycle Forum, transportation journals, or
planning publications), use of the media (e.g. TV, radio, regional
or national newspapers), informing federal-level bicycle coordinators
(e.g. the EPA and DOT bicycle coordinators) of program results, and
presentation of program results at conferences and conventions.
Publicizing program experiences, costs, and impacts will not only
benefit other areas considering implementation of bicycle programs,
but will provide national recognition to the program designers,
implementers, evaluators, and particularly to the individual(s)
disseminating the results.
Specific program impacts in the areas of air quality,
health, gasoline savings, and economic effects which should be
considered during the evaluation phase are discussed in the follow-
ing sections.
69
-------
3.3 Estimating Air Quality Impacts
The calculation of the air quality impacts associated with
bicycle transportation strategies depends on three major factors:
• the percentage and location of vehicular trips
and VMT which can feasibly be shifted to bicycle
use (modal shift potential);
• the significance and magnitude of the related
vehicular pollutants;
• the net effect this shift would have on
vehicular pollutant levels.
Modal shift to bicycles will be a function of the over
twenty local factors identified in Figure 1-8 and discussed in Section
1.2, bicycle programs available for implementation (see Section 2),
and their effectiveness (Section 3.1). As noted earlier, local
factors are highly variable, and additional comprehensive bicycle
program implementation and evaluation is needed before the magnitude
of program impacts and air quality improvements can be reliably
estimated on an aggregate level. Local areas with survey data on
bicycle use already available should utilize such data for air
quality estimates. Otherwise, plans should be developed to obtain
the necessary data.
Ideally, survey data would be obtained on the number
and percentage of auto drivers (or children being driven) who would
substitute bicycle travel if a comprehensive bicycle program was imple-
mented. The limited data on modes of travel for which bicycle
travel substituted indicates that a substantial percentage of
bicycle riders would other have driven a car, or been a passenger.
For example, the bicycle bridge constructed in Eugene, Oregon
generated many new trips which would otherwise have been taken
by car (see Figure 3-1). A statewide survey in Pennsylvania
indicated that on average, 58% of those riding bicycles would
otherwise have either driven or ridden in a car. Only 2% would
have taken a bus (see Figure 3-2), so transit diversion is not
a major concern. When alternative modes were examined for
bicyclists in central cities over 500,000 population, where good
bus service is most likely, only 4% of the bicyclists would have
used a bus. Even bicycling by children and teenagers under 15
years old substitutes heavily for car travel (as a passenger),
with 36% of those under 6, 38% of those 6-11, and 43% of those 12-15
using a bicycle rather than being driven to their destinations.
70
-------
Figure 3-2
PRIMARY MODES OF TRAVEL FOR WHICH THE BICYCLE SUBSTITUTED, BY
Age
Under 6
6-11
12-15
16-19
20-23
24-29
30-44
45-59
60+
Total
AGE OF
Walking
60%
58%
50%
28%
17%
20%
20%
15%
27%
37%
BICYCLISTS
Driving
Car
—
-
1%
42%
69%
71%
66%
73%
59%
33%
Passenger
in Car
36%
38%
43%
22%
7%
7%
9%
8%
-
25%
-.1 J— I*. 1
Bus
1%
2%
2%
3%
1%
2%
1%
3%
11%
2%
Other
3%
2%
4%
5%
6%
-
4%
1%
3%
3%
Source: A.D. Nielsen Company and Barton-Aschman Associates,
Inc., Survey on Bicycling Activity in the Commonwealth
of Pennsylvania (for the Pennsylvania Department of
Transportation, Harrisburg, Pa.), November 1974.
71
-------
The statistics in Figure 3-2 on adult bicycle riders
indicate even heavier automobile substitution. For those from
20-59 years of age, three quarters or more of each age category
would either have driven a car or been a passenger in a car. Even
for those 60 and over, 59% would otherwise have driven a car.
If mode substitution patterns are similar for new bicycle trips
made by existing riders, and/or for new bicycle riders, over half
of all bicycle trips will result in a direct reduction of VMT and
as s oci ate d emi s s ions.
Modal shift to bicycles will be a function of the over twenty
local factors identified in Figure 1-8 and discussed in Section 1.2,
bicycle programs available for implementation (see Section 2), and
their effectiveness (Section 3.1).
The significance and magnitude of related vehicular pollutants
should also determine which bicycle programs are implemented. This dis-
cussion focuses on automobile use as the primary source of vehicular
pollutants which would be most significantly affected by a shift to
bicycle transportation. Auto pollutants include carbon monoxide (CO),
hydrocarbons (HC), oxides of nitrogen (NO ), particulates, lead, sul-
fates and asbestos.
The most significant of the auto pollutants in terms of total
emissions is carbon monoxide (CO). In many urban areas, over 90% of CO
emissions from all sources are produced by the automobile (1).
Therefore, a major benefit to air quality resulting from a shift to
bicycle transportation would be a reduction in ambient levels of CO.
In order to illustrate potential net reduction in urban CO,
a hypothetical case study of a few major parameters and their inter-
relationships is used in this section. Many automobile trips in urban
areas are short, low-speed trips. This phenomenon is illustrated in
Figure 3-3, which lists average automobile miles traveled projected for
the year 1980 for an urban regional planning district (2). Travel is
separated into six speed categories.
Assuming both trips made driving a car and as a passenger in a
car (e.g. a child being driven to a destination) are replaced by
bicycle trips.
Speed categories are used in the example as illustrative proxies
for the more complex set of factors (e.g. speed, trip length,
location, vehicle mix, temperature, etc.) which should ideally be
considered for any particular locality.
72
-------
Figure 3-3
AVERAGE AUTOMOBILE MILES TRAVELED
IN AN URBAN AREA PROJECTED TO 1980
Average
Speed Category Annual Miles Traveled
5 m.p.h. 26,000
10 m.p.h. 65,000
15 m.p.h. 320,000
20 m.p.h. 300,000
25 m.p.h. 200,000
50 m.p.h. 310,000
Figure 3-4 shows the average emissions of CO in terms of grams
per mile associated with each speed category. These emissions were cal-
culated from the emission factors contained in EPA's Mobile Source
Emission Factors (3). They represent a typical age and annual travel
distribution of light duty passenger vehicles under average urban travel
conditions.
Figure 3-4
AVERAGE CO EMISSIONS FOR LIGHT DUTY PASSENGER VEHICLES
IN AN URBAN AREA PROJECTED TO 1980
Average
Speed Category CO Emissions (grams/mile)
5 m.p.h. 140
10 m.p.h. 100
15 m.p.h. 70
20 m.p.h. 55
25 m.p.h. 45
50 m.p.h. 25
73
-------
It is important to recognize that 00 emissions are signifi-
cantly higher at lower speeds. For this reason, it could be possible
to achieve significant reductions in emissions by shifting low speed
automobile travel to bicycles. Let us assume that a total of 2.4%1
of the annual travel shown in Figure 3-3 could be shifted to bicycle
use. Let us further assume that this shift would be biased towards
the lowest speed categories.
We then calculate the total emissions produced before and
after the shift. Table 3-5 demonstrates this analysis. We see that
a modal shift to bicycle use of 2.4% could theoretically result in a
5% reduction in total CO emissions. Since ambient concentrations
of CO are directly proportional to emissions, the same reduction of
5% could be achieved in ambient CO concentrations.
This CO reduction would be manifested in "hot spot" areas of
high CO levels associated with urban traffic congestion. Theoretically,
this could result in an achievement of CO standards for those areas
where the standards are marginally exceeded, especially if the average
modal shifts displayed in Table 3-5 are contained in the peak rush hour
traffic periods and in areas of particularly heavy traffic.
Several techniques for estimating bicycle demand by trip type
and geographic area have been advanced (7-9). Targeting of bicycle
programs to areas of heaviest travel (e.g. the CBD) and peak travel times
(e.g. rush hour commuting) should result in greater reductions for those
critical short term periods of severe CO standard violation.
As indicated in Figure 3-1, actual modal shift data is virtually non-
existent. A modal shift of about 10% in Davis, California has, however,
been attributed in part, at least, to provision of better bicycle facili-
ties.
Survey data indicates a willingness to shift. For example, a survey of
non-bikers in Madison, Wisconsin (4) indicated that 21% would ride a
bicycle to work, 14% to school, 18% for shopping and 49% for recreation
if better facilities were provided. A 1973 survey of commuter bicycling
in Philadelphia indicated that with modest provisions of bicycle lanes
and parking, 5% to 10% of all current commuters to the CBD would shift
to bicycle use (5).
74
-------
Figure 3-5
HYPOTHETICAL CASE STUDY OF NET REDUCTION IN CO EMISSIONS
DUE TO A SHIFT TO BICYCLE USE
Average
Speed
Category
5
10
15
20
25
55
CO
g/VMT*
140
100
70
55
45
25
Annual
VMT
25,000
65,000
320,000
300,000
200,000
310,000
CO
Metric Ton/Yr.
3.64
6.50
22.40
16.50
9.00
7.75
% Modal
Shift
15%
10%
5%
0.5%
0.5%
0%
Reduction CO
Metric Ton/Yr.
.55
.65
1.12
.08
.05
.00
% Reduction
CO
15%
10%
5%
0.5%
0.5%
0.0%
Total
1,221,000
56.80
2.4%
2.91
5.1%
-------
Hydrocarbon levels are also higher at lower speeds, and increase
at levels similar to those of CO. In addition, CO levels provide rough
indication of the direction of variation in other emission-related pollu-
tants such as lead and asbestos (10-12). Oxides of nitrogen, however, are
not produced at significantly higher rates at low speeds.
Other factors besides speed will affect emission production,
including the number of cold starts (a trip made after a long engine-
off period) and ambient temperature. Figure 3-6 illustrates the
increase of CO and HC emissions as temperatures decrease and as
cold starts increase.
Because of the large number of factors which affect bicycle
use, and which vary widely across the U.S., integration of bicycle
transportation evaluation with the local and regional transportation
planning process is important. Such integrated planning will increase
the likelihood of access to major local data sources, and professional
expertise in specialized areas such as modeling and forecasting.
Furthermore, modeling efforts which integrate enough factors to produce
a reliable prediction of future bicycle use, given other proposed
changes in the local transportation system, are likely to be beyond
the budget of a bicycle program. Such efforts may, however, be feasible
as part of a larger transportation planning process.
3.4 Effects of Emissions on Bicyclists
An analysis of air quality impacts of bicycle strategies
would be incomplete without consideration of possible effects on bi-
cyclists of riding in polluted environments. Unfortunately, empirical
research in this area is limited. Certainly, exposure to pollutants
is generally greater in traffic than in many other situations. For
example, analysis of lead exposure inside buildings compared with
exposure during driving indicates substantially increased levels of
lead exposure in traffic (13).
A bicyclist breathes polluted air directly, whereas an auto-
mobile driver may be protected to some degree by the car. However,
research by Spengler and others (14) on carbon monoxide exposure
indicates that motorists and bicyclists experience about the same levels
in Boston. Several possible reasons have been advanced for this finding.
76
-------
HC CO
22 220
20 200
18 180
16 160
14 140
12 120
10 100
8 80
6 60
4 40
2 20
Figure 3-6
RELATIONSHIP OF CO AND HC EMISSIONS TO
TEMPERATURE AND COLD STARTS
HC
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
% COLD STARTS
80
90 100
Source of Data: Mobile Source Emission Factors (Washington, D.C., U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
EPA-400/9-78-005), March 1978. Tables F-1, F-3, F-4, F-6, F-19, F-21.
Legend: = Average ambient temperature of 25°F
= Average ambient temperature of 75 F
Note: Vehicle mix assumes 80.3% autos, 5.8% for each of the two light truck classes, 4.5%
heavy gas trucks, 3.5% heavy duty diesels, and 0.50 motorcycle VMT.
100% and 20.6% cold starts assume an average vehicle speed of 19.6 mi/hr., 0% cold
starts assumes an average vehicle speed of 45 mi/hr.
Average emission factors are for 1980.
A cold start is representative of vehicle start-up after a long engine-off period.
77
-------
Automobile air intakes are located in the lower front area of cars,
near the exhaust emissions of the preceding car. Therefore, emissions
such as carbon monoxide are taken in{ particularly in heavy traffic,
and circulated inside the car where they are inhaled by the driver.
Bicycle riders, however, are normally located over to one side of the
roadway rather than directly in back of cars. Bicyclists also breathe
in air at least four feet above the roadway surface, and can move
ahead of slow or stopped traffic (e.g. at lights or in traffic jams).
However, respiration rates of bicyclists are higher than automobile
drivers and the increased "dose" of polluted air received by the bi-
cyclists has not yet been factored into exposure analyses. Further-
more, bicyclists breathing through their mouths may increase the
penetration of particles into the upper and lower respiratory tract.
Research on CO exposures of bicyclists (10) by Kleiner and
Spengler using portable CO monitors indicated that exposure was a
function of traffic volume, street configuration, proximity of monitor
to traffic and ventilation (air circulation). The study indicates no
advantage to routing bicycles away from wide main thoroughfares to
reduce CO exposures. In fact, CO exposures to cyclists were higher on
narrow busy streets, independent of time of day. Wider streets may
offer both greater separation of the bicyclist from traffic and more
ventilation. Use of a portable CO monitor proved feasible, so localities
could use this technique to determine precise CO exposure on different
streets.
A recent U.S. Department of Transportation study on short-
term health effects of bicycling in urban areas (15) did not find
serious short-term health effects. However, the volunteers tested
were all healthy young adult males. The results might be different
if other demographic groups, such as children, were tested.
The toxic effects of smog have prompted several researchers
to question the advisability of locating bicycle routes close to
heavily traveled transportation routes (16,17). Research conducted
on the effects of photochemical oxidants (ozone) on bicyclists
concluded "a single one-hour exposure to levels of 03 approximating
current smog alert levels for oxidant can produce rather distinctive
changes in lung function in the face of fairly severe aerobic work
loads" (18). The researcher further stated that specific bikeway loca-
tion is insensitive to oxidant levels since 03 is formed from other pol-
lutants, and is dispersed over wide areas. However, the researcher sug-
gested consideration of ambient levels of smog when evaluating the
desirability of a bicycle strategy.
Considering fleet changes in the years to come, (e.g. more
diesel engines), a special effort should be made to anticipate changes
is exposures and potential health effects, such as sulfates produced
78
-------
by catalytic mufflers. Although EPA studies have dismissed a health
impact to the general public, bicyclists may have exposures different
than the general public. A concern of more serious import is the health
impact of significantly increasing numbers of diesel vehicles. A recent
review of the health effects associated with diesel exhaust emissions
concluded that no definitive judgment regarding diesel emissions could
be made due to the lack of a broad-based community study or well-controlled
investigation of a worker population (19).
Until further research is conducted on the health effects of
bicyclist exposure to pollutants, no firm conclusions can be drawn.
3.5
Calculation of Gasoline Savings
Some analyses of bicycle-related energy-saving potential
underestimate the possible savings because the substantially higher
consumption levels of cars on short trips in urban areas are not
factored in.
Gasoline savings associated with bicycle strategies can be
roughly approximated using VMT data, estimating modal shift from cars
to bicycles, and utilizing data on average gasoline consumption for the
local mix of automobiles. Just as low speeds and short trips result in
increased CO and HC emissions, more gasoline is consumed for shorter
trips. This relationship is shown in Figure 3-7.
Figure 3-7
DISTRIBUTION OF NATIONWIDE VMT MID FDEL CONSUMPTION
60
70
TUP LENGTH (MILES)
Source: T.C. Austin, K.R. Hellman, 'Passenger Car Fuel
Economy as Influenced by Trip Length", paper
presented at the Automotive Engineering Congress,
Detroit, February 1975.
-------
A rough approximation of gasoline savings associated with
bicycle strategy alternatives can be calculated using the following
formula:
A VMT
•— = Gasoline Savings
Average MPG
where A VMT = the reduction in VMT anticipated
as a result of the bicycle strategy
Average MPG = an average figure for gasoline con-
sumption based on the local vehicle
fleet mix, average trip length
diverted, and year of estimate
Factors for relative fuel economy by trip length are presented
in Figure 3-8.
Figure 3-8
RELATIVE FUEL ECONOMY AND MEAN TRIP LENGTH
Mean Trip Relative
Length Fuel Economy
1/4 mi. .10
1 .25
3 .45
4 .55
5 .60
6 .65
Source: T.C. Austin, K.H. Hellman, "Passenger
Car Fuel Econmy as Influenced by
Trip Length", paper presented at the
Automotive Engineering Congress, Detroit,
February, 1975.
We can use the hypothetical VMT reduction from Figure 3-4 to
illustrate use of the formula. Hypothetical VMT reduction associated
with the bicycle strategy was 28,900 VMT. If we assume that average
gasoline consumption is 18 mpg for 1980 in our hypothetical locality,
and average trip length displaced is 1.4 mi. , average gasoline
Average bicycle trip length in a 1975 Census study (20)
80
-------
consumption is roughly 5.4 mpg . Therefore, gasoline savings would be
roughly 5352 gallons per year. The dollar value of gasoline savings
associated with bicycle strategies can then be calaculated by multiplying
the gallons saved by the actual or estimated average price per gallon
in the local area for the desired projection date .
On an aggregate level, Hirst (22) estimated that 1.8% of
total urban automobile energy use could have been saved in 1971 if
10% of the urban auto travel conducted during daylight and in good
weather for trips of under 6 miles was shifted to bicycles.
Actual gasoline consumption (and associated gasoline savings
attributable to modal shift associated with bicycle programs) is dependent
on a large number of variables. These variables include average speed
of the automobile, range of speeds, frequency of major speed changes,
frequency of minor speed changes, engine temperature at start-up, trip
length, road surface, road curvature, grade, and ambient conditions
(temperature, barometer, humidity, and wind) (21). Therefore, evaluation
of bicycle strategy impacts should utilize local expert air quality and
transportation staff and data, so that local gasoline savings estimates
are as reliable as possible.
3.6 Economic and Health Impacts
3.6.1 Economic Impacts
Use of bicycle transportation in Davis, California is probably
higher than in any other locality in the U.S. Several psychologists
at the University of California's Davis campus have evaluated the effects
of bicycle travel in Davis over a series of years. They concluded that
the bicycle helped preserve the core area of the city as a viable shopping
area since parking is not a serious obstacle to downtown shopping (23).
They stated "Many business leaders in the community are strong proponents
of bike riding, and admit that this is a matter of self-interest. The
use of bicycles has meant that there are no parking meters in the city
and the traffic situation at rush hours is tolerable" (24).
Fuel economy factor of approximately .30 x 18 mpg « 5.4 mpg.
2
A useful source of data on current gasoline prices is the "Lundberg Letter",
a weakly publication containing statistics on the oil industry published
by Tele-Drop, Inc., P.O. Box 3996, N. Hollywood, CA 91609.
81
-------
These same researchers also noted that the high schools and
University were also able to set aside less land for parking due to
the minimal space demands of bicycle parking and high levels of bicycle
use.
The Elroy-Sparta trail, located in rural Wisconsin provides
a dramatic example of economic effects of a regional recreation bicycle
path. Built in 1967 at a total cost of $329,000, the fifty mile trail
attracts 43,000 bicyclists annually. An estimated additional 3,000
bicyclists use the trail each year. The annual trade added to local
community businesses has been estimated at $295,000, or a 7% growth
factor for local travel business each year. The Wisconsin Department of
Natural Resources, adding in a local multiplier effect, estimates the
Trail brings an added $708,000 to the regional economy each year (25) .
Bicycle facilities can increase real estate values, also. For
example, real estate ads for houses in Lincoln, Massachusetts often
note proximity to bicycle paths. The same phenomena has been noted in
Seattle, where proximity to the Burke-Gilman Trail is often mentioned
in real estate ads (26).
3.6.2 Health Benefits
Several major studies have established a correlation between
regular exercise and good health (e.g., increased longevity), and at
least one insurance company is now giving 10-25% reductions on its life
insurance policies to non-smokers who have participated in non-static,
aerobic exercise such as bicycling, swimming, or jogging for at least
a year (27). Over 200 companies in the U.S. have recognized the finan-
cial benefits of physical fitness programs (28). These companies include
AT & T, Chase Manhattan, ALCOA, IBM, Xerox, Weyerhauser, and Exxon
(28, 29). One study indicated a 27% reduction in absenteeism after a
one year exercise program was initiated at a Goodyear plant in Sweden (27),
Ten nations have a lower death rate from circulatory disease
than the U.S. (30). During 1978, the federal government spent $48
billion on health care but less than $2 billion on disease prevention and
fitness promotion. Physicians have stressed the aerobic and exercise
benefits of bicycling, including Boston's famous heart surgeon, Dr. Paul
Dudley White. Another bicycling physician, Dr. Clifford Graves, considers
bicycling superior to running, jogging, tennis, or golf because the knees
More information on physical fitness programs can be obtained from the
American Association of Fitness Directors in Business and Industry,
c/o President's Council on Physical Fitness and Sports, Washington, D.C.
82
-------
and hips are not subjected to constant jarring or bumping (31). Cycling
is also recommended for alleviating muscle injuries and leg soreness
from other types of exercise such as running (32).
Commuting to work can provide a reasonable level of aerobic
exercise for some riders. As illustrated in Figure 3-9, cycling three
times a week for a minimum of ten minutes at 60% of maximum heart rate
intensity is suggested as a minimum aerobic program, after approval by
a physician.
Figure 3-9
AEROBIC EXERCISE PRESCRIPTION
Factor
Frequency (Days/Week)
Duration (Mins/Workout)
Intensity
(% Max HR Range)
(% VO2 Max)*
Mode
Low
Fitness
Level
3
10-20
60-70
50-60
Walk,Jog
Swim,
Cycle
Medium
Fitness
Level
3 or 4
15-45
70-80
60-70
High
Fitness
Level
5
30-60
80-90
80-90
Walk,Jog,Run Jog,Run,
Swim, Swim,
Cycle Cycle
Source: "An Aerobics Approach", Bike World, July/August 1978.
* VO2 Max. - an individual's maximum oxygen uptake.
It would be desirable to quantify or estimate health
benefits from bicycling strategies. Such benefits could take the form
of public health benefits due to reduced auto emissions as well as
benefits to individual riders due to increased exercise. Such benefits
were not included in the examples given above due to measurement
difficulties. In a national survey of studies on the health costs of
air pollution covering studies published from 1967-1977,- Stewart Herman
concluded that the existing health effects studies "depended heavily on
mathematical calculations rather than actual measurement" and "to date,
no study has pulled together all the available data on air pollution
and health effects in order to compile a systematic and comprehensive
estimate of the health costs imposed by air pollution" 033).
83
-------
3-7 Estimating Program Costs
Desired bicycle strategy benefits such as emission reductions
must be weighted against program costs. The first step in estimating
costs is to compute total annualized costs for each bicycle strategy.
This requires estimating costs for each program component (e.g.,
bike parking racks, education programs), inflating the cost appropriately
for future expenditures during the planning period, using a reasonable
discount rate, and calculating the present value of all expenditures.
Total costs can then be annualized.
Areas with bicycle programs already underway should already
be familiar with these procedures. For areas which are unfamiliar with
bicycle programs, illustrative comprehensive bicycle programs have
been summarized in Figure 3-10. Relative program costs have been
indicated as lower, medium, and higher. For areas unfamiliar with
bicycle programs, some order-of-magnitude cost information has
been included in Appendix C. However, given widely differing costs
across the U.S., and variations in the inflation rate, it cannot
be emphasized strongly enough that serious consideration of
alternative bicycle program costs must depend on local and current
cost data.
In addition to estimating the expenditures required to
implement alternative bicycle strategies, other costs must be considered.
These include changes in travel time and accidents.
The following cost equation was used by Everett (34) for
estimating relative costs of various forms of transportation:
T = (a + pf) + D(b + pv)
where T = total annual cost of commuting by car or bicycle
(dollars per year)
a = annual fixed costs of owning the vehicle (s)
(dollars per year)
p = value of time (dollars per minute)
f = fixed time costs at terminals (minutes per year)
D = distance of travel during the year (miles per year)
b = vehicle operating costs (dollars per mile)
v = annual average speed (minutes per mile)
84
-------
Figure 3-10
ILLUSTRATIVE COMPREHENSIVE BICYCLE STRATEGIES
COMPONENT
INSTITUTIONAL
SUPPORT
LOWER COST
Staff: Use of vacant
unfunded position for
metropolitan area
coordinator
Data: Incorporation of
bicycle questions into
existing data collection
efforts
MEDIUM COST
HIGHER COST
Staff: Funding of part-
time coordinator at
metropolitan and state
levels
Data: Limited special
studies
Staff: Full time metropolitan
and State coordinators
Data: Detailed special studies.
BICYCLE FACILITY
IMPROVEMENTS
Printing and Distribution of
Bicycle Route Maps
Routine Shoulder Upgrading
Grate Strapping
Bikeways:
Class I - 10 miles
Class II - 20 miles
Parallel Grate
Bikeways :
Class I -
Class II
Class III
D a*-a 1 1
-------
Unfortunately, many bicycle accidents are unreported,
particularly those which do not involve a motor vehicle. Furthermore,
bicycle accidents not involving a motor vehicle appear to comprise
the major proportion of all bicycle accidents. For example, analysis
of data from the Consumer Products Safety Commission's National
Electronic Injury Surveillance System (NEISS) indicates that 18% of
all bicycle-related fatalities and 94.5% of all bicycle-related
injuries were the result of non-motor vehicle accidents (35). Using
the NEISS data, Dr. K. Cross estimates that about 1,000 fatalities
and 80,000 injuries result from bicycle/motor vehicle accidents each
year, and 220 fatalities and 1,374,000 serious injuries result from
non-motor vehicle accidents each year. The type of accident associated
with non-motor vehicle conflicts is indicated in Figure 3-11 which
indicates that falling or colliding with a fixed object is the major
cause of this type of accident. On the local level, survey data will
provide the most accurate data on baseline accident rates by type,
and on accident costs.
Figure 3-11
RELATIVE FREQUENCY OF TYPES OF NMV ACCIDENTS
DESCRIPTION OF SAMPLE AND SOURCE
SURVEY OF GENERAL POPULATION IN THE
STATE OF TENNESSEE (Barton-Asckian
Associates, 19746)
SURVEY OF GENERAL POPULATION IN THE
STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA (Barton-Aschman
Associates, 1975)
SURVEY OF A SAMPLE OF GRADE-SCHOOL
CHILDREN [AGES 7-13] IN 170 SCHOOLS
IN 110 CITIES IN 37 STATES (Ctilapecka
et «!., 1975)
ALL ACCIDENTS TREAT £0 IN THE STUDENT
HEALTH FACILITY AT THE UNIVERSITY OF
CALIFORNIA, SANTA BARBARA, DURING THE
PERIOD BETWEEN 1971 AND 1976 (Chung,
1976)
NUMBER OF
ACCIDENTS
IN SAMPLE
47
98
5601
794
TYPES OF NMV ACCIDENTS
BICYCLE-
BICYCLE
1U
9J
in
422
BICYCLE-
,-£DESTRIAN
0%
1Z
12!
6%
COLLISION
WITH FIXED
OBJECT OR
FALLING
891
902
88X
521
Source: Kenneth D. Cross, Bicycle-Safety Education, AAA
Foundation for Traffic Safety, Falls Church, Va.,
Aug. 1978, p. 23.
86
-------
3.8 Relative Air Quality Impacts of Bicycle Strategies in
Combination with, and Compared with. Other Transportation
Measures
Use of several of the transportation measures in
conjunction with bicycle strategies can increase the positive air
quality effects of bicycle programs. Measures to increase transit
patronage can benefit bicycle programs if intermodal facilities,
such as transit station parking facilities, are provided. Measures
to restrict traffic, such as limiting hours or location of travel ,
may increase the attractiveness of bicycle travel. Transportation
pricing measures, such as a parking surcharge, will increase the indi-
vidual savings associated with bicycle use. Long-term measures
to reduce the need to travel, such as zoning for more compact land
use development, should decrease trip length, thereby increasing the
short trip VMT potential for modal shift to bicycles. Finally,
gasoline restrictions—whether resulting from a transportation measure
or through other circumstances—may have the greatest effect on increased
bicycle use. For example, Sunday or weekend gas station closings
may make the bicycle a more attractive alternative for recreational
and utility shopping trips.
Information on estimated air quality impacts of major trans-
portation measures will be available after all the Section 108(f)
information documents have been released by EPA. In the meantime,
air pollution and energy reduction effects of alternative transportation
measures in Figure 3-12 can be used as a rough indication of potential
effects.
Bicycle measures compliment many of the other transportation
measures. For example, transit patronage may be improved if bicycle
parking facilities are provided at transit stations, or if bicycles
can be carried on busses or trains. An example of this phenomena is
the San Diego bus/bike rack demonstration where bus patronage increased
due to bicycle rider use of the new service (see Section 2).
Measures to restrict auto travel, including private car
restrictions, on-street parking controls and road pricing to discourage
single occupancy auto trips, may make bicycle travel relatively more
attractive for some trips. Auto restrictions may have an additional
indirect effect on bicycle measure effectiveness. To the extent that
auto restrictions increase the demand for transit beyond capacity,
it may increase bicycle trips. For example, commuting to work by
bicycle during the summer months may appear more attractive to some
people than standing in a hot, overcrowded bus or train, or paying
extremely high fees for use of a car.
For instance, closing a parkway to vehicular travel on weekends.
New York City, for example, has closed a major road in Central Park
during summer weekends.
87
-------
Figure 3-12
RELATIVE IMPACTS OF BICYCLING
AND OTHER TRANSPORTATION MEASURES
Action Group
1. Measures to Imorove
Flow of High
Occupancy Vehicles
2. Measure* (o Imorov*
Total Vehicular
Traffic Flow
1 Measures to Increase
Car and Van
Occupancy
4. Measures to Increase
Transit Potronaqa
S. Measures to Encourage
Walk and Bicycle
Modes
6. Measures to Imorove
the Efficiency of TJXI
Service and Goods
Movement
Action
Bus-actuated signals
Bus-only lanes on city
itreets
Reserved freeway bus or
bui/earpool lanes ana
ramps
Bus priority regulations
it intersections
Improved signal systems
One-way streets, revers-
ible lanes, no on-sireet
parking
Eliminate unnecessary
traffic control devices
Widening intersection
Driver advisory system
flamo metering, freeway
surveillance, anver advisory
Staggered work hours
Caroool matching program
Garoool public information
Caroool incentives
Neighborhood ride sharing
Service imorovemems
Pare reductions
Traffic-related incentives
Park/rid* with exoress
bus service
Oemand-resoonsive
Pedestrian mills
Second level sidewalks
eikeway system
Bicycle storage facilities
Pedestrian-actuated signals
Bicycle priority regulations
at intersections
imorove efficiency of
tlxi service
Imorove efficiency of
urban goods movement
Regional
Energy
Reduc-
tion 1%)
0-0.5
0-2.0
1.0-3.0
0-0.5
1.0-4.0
1.0-4.0
0-2.0
0- 1.0
0-0.5
0-1.0
0
3.0 • 6.0
2.0 • 4.0
4.0 • 6.0
0- 1.0
1 0-3.0
4 0 • 6.0
1.0-5.0
0.5 - 2.5
0- 1.0
0.5 - 2.5
0-0.5
0.5 • 2.0
0- 1.0
0-0.5
0-0.5
0- 2.0
C- 1 5
Air
Pollution
Decrease
Decrees*
Decrees*
Decrees*
Decrease
Decrease
Decrease
Decrees*
Decrees*
Decrees*
Decrees*
Decrees*
Decrees*
Decrees*
Decrees*
Decrease
Decrease
Decrees*
Decrease
Decrees*
Decrease
Decrees*
Decrees*
Decrees*
ME
MS
Decrees*
Decrease
88
-------
Figure 3-12, continued
7. Mtatunt to Atnrict
Traffic
A * .(•_..
BL Transoortation rnonq
Mmtum
9. Mtnurn to Rtduct
mi Nmd to Travtl
10. Emrgy flrnrtetion
Mtoum
Au to- frt« or traffic
limitid ion«
Limiting houn or
location of travtl
Limiting frttway uuqt
Sridoat and highway tolli
Canontion tollt and read
cordon tolli
InotaMd parking cora
fvttm
Mlltagttn
Vthidi-reland fttt
Four-day v»ortt w*««
Zoning
Horn, goods dtilnry
Conttnunidtiom
nilxtitutn
G« ralioninq without
traraftraolt couooni
(3
-------
REFERENCES, SECTION 3
(1) P. Morgenstern, T.R. Parks, and J. Calcagni, "A Pollutant
Emission Inventory for the Metropolitan Boston Air Pollution
Control District (30 Municipalities)." Walden Research Corp.,
Cambridge, Mass., 1972.
(2) Data transmitted to J. Curreri, ERT, Lexington, Mass, from
Maryland D.O.T., "Regional planning District Traffic Data"
September 19, 1974.
(3) EPA-400/9-78-006. "Mobile Source Emission Factors " March
(4) Technical Memorandum III, Survey and Inventory, Findings and
Implications, (Madison, Wisconsin; City of Madison), 1974.
(5) Facilities and Services Needed to Support Bicycle Commuting Into
Center City Philadelphia, (Philadelphia, Pa. : a report by the
Philadelphia Coalition to the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency), June 1973.
(6) U.S. Bureau of the Census, The Journey to Work in the United
States; 1975, CPR P-23, No. 99 (Washington, D.C.; U.S. Department
of Commerce), July 1979.
(7) C.E. Ohrn, "Predicting the Type and Volume of Purposeful Bicycle
Trips," The Bicycle as a Transportation Mode, TRR #570 (Washington,
D.C.: Transportation Research Board), 1976.
(8) Southwestern Pennsylvania Regional Planning Commission, Estimating
Bikeway Demand (Pittsburgh, Pa.: Southwestern Pennsylvania Regional
Planning Commission), June 1977.
(9) Technical Memorandum II, Forecasting Bicycle Demand (Madison,
Wisconsin: City of Madison), 1974
(10) B.C. Kleiner and J.D. Spengler, Carbon Monoxide Exposure to
Boston Bicyclists (Boston, Mass.: New England Consortium on
Environmental Protection), April 1975.
(11) R.S. Jones, A.R. Jones, and J.D. Yoder, "Lead, CO and Traffic:
A Correlation Study," J. Air Pollution Control Association,
10:384-388, October 1960.
(12) H.E. Whimple, ed., "Biological Effects of Asbestos," Annals of
the N.Y. Academy of Science, 132:1-766, 1965.
(13) F.J. Berlandi, "Symposium on Development and Usage of Personal
Exposure Monitors for Exposure and Health Effect Studies," ESA
laboratories, Inc., Bedford, Mass., 1979.
(14) Conversation with J. Spengler, March 1979.
(15) Messer Associates, Inc., A Study of the Health Effects of Bicycling
in an Urban Atmosphere, POT-TES-78-001 (Washington, D.C., U.S.
Department of Transportation), November 1977.
90
-------
(16) M.D. Everett, "Roadside Air Pollution Hazards in Recreational
Land Use Planning," American Institute .of Planners, 1974.
(17) R.L. Grob, "Air Pollution Along Freeway Corridors: A Guide to
Bicycle Route Location", EPC certificate paper, University of
California, Irvine, 1974.
(18) A. DeLucia, Safety and Location Criteria for Bicycle Facilities,
(DeLeuw, Gather & Company for the Federal Highway Administration,
Washington, D.C.), October 1975.
(19) Health Effects Research Laboratory, Health Effects Associated
with Diesel Exhaust Emissions (Washington, D.C.: EPA), November 1978.
(20) U.S. Bureau of the Census, The Journey to Work in the United
States; 1975, CPR P-23, No. 99 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Dept.
of Commerce), July 1979.
(21) T.C. Austin, K.H. Hellman, "Passenger Car Fuel Economy as
Influenced by Trip Length," paper presented at the Automotive
Engineering Congress, Detroit, February 1975.
(22) E. Hirst, Energy Use for Bicycling (Oak Ridge, Term: Oak
Ridge National Laboratory).- February 1974.
(23) R. Sommer and D.F. Lott, "Bikeways in Action: The Davis
Experience", Congressional Record, Vol. 117, No. 53, Monday,
April 19, 1971.
(24) R. Sommer and D.F. Lott, "Behavioral Evaluation of a Bikeway
System", Bicycle Programs (City of Davis, Davis, Ca.), August
1977.
(25) "Bikecentennial's Riders Profit" (Missoula, Mt. .- Bikecentennial) ,
April 1977.
(26) P.A. Wiatrak (Director of Engineering) and J.D. Lehman (Bicycle
Program Coordinator, City of Seattle Engineering Dept.); Letter
to N. Rowe, EPA, dated June 11, 1979.
(27) Based on a conversation with Thomas Smith, senior vice-president
of Occidental Life Insurance Company of Raleigh, North Carolina,
February, 1979.
(28) N.D.Rowe, "Bicycling on the Fitness Bandwagon," Bicycling,
March 1979.
(29) D.G. Houser, "More Fitness Working Women, September 1979.
(30) J. Califano, "Americans 'Waste Lives'," San Francisco Chronicle,
Friday, July 28, 1978.
(31) A. Grey, "The Doctor Who Pedals the Streets of San Diego/"
Bike World, January 1979.
(32) "An Aerobics Approach," Bike World, July/August 1978.
91
-------
(33) S.W. Herman, The Health Costs of Air Pollution; A Survey of
Studies Published Between 1967 and 1977, for the American Lung
Association with support from EPA, December 1977.
(34) M. Everett, "Commuter Demand for Bicycle Transportation in the
United States, " Traffic Quarterly, October 1974 .
(35) J.D. McCullagh, "The Economics of Bicycling," Bicycling, March
1979.
92
-------
SECTION 4: PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION
4.0 Introduction
The planning and implementation process in many of most active
bicycle programs is characterized by:
• strong legislation and political support
• clear assignment of lead responsibility, e.g., to a
bicycle coordinator
• cooperation and coordination among supporting agencies
• availability of funding for the bicycle program.
Each of these factors is discussed in more detail in this section.
4.1 Legislation and Political Support
Many of the strongest bicycle programs in the U.S. are
supported by good state and local legislation. In turn, political
support is needed both for passage of the initial enabling legislation,
and during the bicycle program implementation process as program
funding approvals are needed. Both legislation and political support
are discussed in this section, including the following types of
legislation:
• enabling legislation to establish clearly and
maintain a program at the state and local levels
with staff and a bicycle coordinator to implement
the legislation
• consistent laws governing bicycle operation
• legislation governing bicycle facilities such as
that contained in a zoning ordinance
• enabling legislation for statewide bicycle registra-
tion
• inclusion of developer guidelines for bikeway facility
construction in the subdivision ordinance
• legislative adoption of bicycle plans
• laws or regulations governing use of bicycle
facilities by mopeds, skateboards and skates
93
-------
4.1.1 Model Ordinance or Act Authorizing a Program of Bicycle
and Bikeway Planning and Implementation
The most important elements of any legislation establishing
a bicycle program include:
• a clear statement of the major elements to be
considered and included in a comprehensive bicycle
program
• reasons justifying a bicycle program
• definitions
• appointment of an agency to administer the program
and a bicycle coordinator
• authorization of a minimum funding level for the
bicycle program
Some of the strongest bicycle programs in the U.S. have such
enabling legislation, including the states of California and North
Carolina, and the City of Madison, Wisconsin. A model State Act/
City Ordinance has been developed for this document, based on a
review of relevant statutes and legal authority for bicycle programs,
and is contained in Appendix D. The Model Ordinance/Act embodies
the concepts and proposals set forth in earlier sections of this
report. Before its adoption by a state or local government, local
legal counsel should be consulted to insure conformity with the
existing laws in the jurisdiction.
4.1.2 Consistent Laws Governing Bicycle Operation
Many states have confusing, inconsistent, or outdated motor
vehicle codes pertaining to bicycles. A number of recent studies have
recommended review and evaluation of local vehicle laws (1-4).
One criticism of local bicycle laws is that there is needless
inconsistency between jurisdictions and between states. To that end,
the National Committee on Uniform Traffic Laws and Ordinances
Uniform Vehicle Code, as it pertains to bicycles, may be used as an
initial model. The bicycle-related portions have been reproduced in
Appendix D.
The provisions of the Uniform Vehicle Code are generally
recommended, subject to the advice of local legal counsel, with the
exception of Section 11-1205(c) on mandatory bicycle path use. This
section is controversial, partly because of inadequate maintenance on
some bicycle paths, and/or poor initial design. Bicycle riders have
argued that some paths actually increase accident hazards, compared
to roadway riding, and substantially decrease speed, an important
consideration for bicycle commuters. In 1979, the Subcommittee on
Operation recommended to the National Committee on Uniform Traffic
Laws and Ordinances that mandatory use of bike paths be dropped. A
majority of those at the national meeting, and in a mail ballot, approved
deletion. The mandatory provision is still part of the Code because
94
-------
the required 60% vote on a mailout ballot was not realized. However,
several states have already deleted similar provisions. Revocation
of the mandatory bicycle path riding provision in Michigan is being
discussed (5), and similar laws have already been repealed in Maryland,
California, and Connecticut (6). Seattle deleted reference to the manda-
tory path rule during a recent revision of the Traffic Code, and similar
changes at the State level were proposed in the State Legislature,
although not enacted (7) during the 1978-79 session.
4.1.3 Bicycle Facility Legislation
Several types of legislation fall into the category of
bicycle facility legislation, including construction standards and
zoning requirements for bicycle parking. Several areas have developed
their own construction codes, such as the CALTRANS standards mentioned
in Section 2.
Zoning for bicycle facilities is a new area which has only
recently been tried. Such zoning requires that a mimimum number of
bicycle parking facilities be constructed for different types of land
uses. The Palo Alto zoning ordinance is an outstanding example and
a summary has been included in Appendix D. (A copy of the ordi-
nance may be obtained from the City of Palo Alto, California).
Other legislative incentives for bicycle construction might
include a specific set-aside of highway funds for bicycle facilities,
construction of bikepaths or wide shoulders when new highways are
constructed, or maintenance of existing bikeways along state or local
routes as in the States of Oregon and Washington.
4.1.4 Statewide Bicycle Registration
Enabling legislation for statewide bicycle registration can
be very beneficial to bicycle owners. Two states—California and
Minnesota—have enacted legislation at the State level. The California
legislation permits municipalities to adopt local bicycle registra-
tion ordinances, determine its own registration system and keep the
fees to cover costs and bicycle facility programs. No state funds were
allocated to cover costs, but authorities estimate an 85% partici-
pation rate by cities and counties.
The Minnesota Legislature passed legislation in 1976
authorizing operation of a statewide bicycle registration program .
License data is computerized, including the serial number,
For more detailed descriptions, see M.D. Connelly and E.R. Lofton,
North Carolina Bicycle Registration Study (Research Triangle Park,
N.C.: RTI), November 15, 1978.
95
-------
brand name, frame size, assigned license number and owner's name
and address. A major advantage of this system is access by local law
enforcement agencies throughout the state to the stolen articles file
within the Minnesota Crime Information System (MINCIS). The approxi-
mately 52 local licensing programs were cancelled by the authorizing
legislation. Since the inception of operation in 1977, 75-80 stolen
bicycles have been identified.
Statewide bicycle registration can generate valuable data
to be used in assessing the magnitude of bicycle ownership. Registra-
tion can also assist in notifying relatives of injured bicyclists—
especially children—who are seriously injured and are not carrying
identification.
4.1.5 Developer Guidelines
Inclusion of developer guidelines for bikeway development
in the local subdivision ordinance can be an impetus to additional
and better facilities. The following elements might be considered
when drawing up such guidelines:
General Recommendations
• New development plans to coordinate road and
recreation plans with any existing or proposed
bikeway plan
• Bikeways within new developments designed and
constructed according to accepted standards of width,
curve radius, grades, stopping sight distances,
draininge, vertical clearance, signing, pavement
materials, etc.
• Specifically designed bicycle parking facilities
located at all public bicycle destinations
within new developments.
Street Design Recommendations
• Transportation corridors within new developments
to allow the necessary right-of-way to permit
the construction of bikeways
• Streets related to the topography of the area
so as to reduce unreasonable grades for bicycles
• Where appropriate, developer allowance of necessary
width and grading to construct bicycle/pedestrian
underpasses beneath major bicycle/pedestrian
access barriers
• Where appropriate, connections from on-street
bikeways provided at cul-de-sac locations
96
-------
• Where on or off-street bikeways intersect a major
street, intersection design utilizing the best
available data on safe design accident and engineering
• Clear sight triangles provided at all intersections
of two or more streets
• Approved bikeway signing provided at all
decision points and warning locations along a
bikeway for bicyclists
Recreation/Open Space Area Design Recommendations
• Existing waterways or drainage courses as well
as other recreation corridors designed to allow
the construction of continuous bikeway facilities
• Recreation facilities within new developments as
well as recreation areas adjacent to the development
connected by bikeways
• Specifically designed and approved bicycle
parking facilities provided at park, recreation
and open space areas
4.1.6 Legislative Adoption of Bicycle Plans with Commitment
to Implement
Many bicycle program plans have been prepared but not
implemented. Because lack of implementation has been a problem
with many transportation plans, EPA requires that all transportation
measures in the SIP, including bicycle measures, be backed by the
commitment to implement. Bicycle strategies should, therefore,
have legislative adoption to ensure that political support exists
for implementation.
Often, the state highway or transportation commission is the
entity which formally adopts specific bikeway plans and project
improvements. Local adoption by the city council is common on the
local level. Davis and Palo Alto (California) and Seattle (Washington)
are examples of local areas which have adopted plans.
Regional bicycle plans usually must be formally adopted by
the agency that commissions their preparation. Often this is the
metropolitan planning organization. Local and state adoption of this
plan is mandatory for its implementation.
97
-------
4.1.7 Political Support
Obviously, legislative support is critical for passage of
the legal measures discussed in the previous sections, and for program
funding. An example of the "crushing defeats" which can result if
such political support is lacking is recounted by Charles Floyd (8).
A bikeway system for Clarke County, Georgia was supported by a
broad range of organizations, including the County Commissioners,
the State Highway Department, and the State Department of Transportation.
However, the project was killed when the State legislature turned
down the Transportation Commissioner's request for a state share of
the matching funds required for local bikeway projects financed under
the Federal Highway Act of 1973.
Methods of getting legislative support for bicycle programs
include:
• working with one or more legislators who
are already interested in bicycle trans-
portation
• ensuring that legislators are aware of
interest in bicycle programs, particularly
constituent interest
• electing legislators who will support
bicycle transportation and any necessary
bicycle programs
• providing legislators with information on
bicycle transportation, and generating
support
Strong support by even one legislator can be instrumental
in the development of a bicycle program. For example, former
Massachusetts State Senator William Saltonstall, whose daughter was
killed in a bicycle accident, has provided the political leadership
in Massachusetts for an important piece of legislation, bicycle
rules of the road. He also supported a special bicycle facilities
section of a recent State Transportation Bond Issue providing $2
million in matching funds and grants for bicycle projects.
In addition to personal interest, political support may
result from constituent concern and/or pressure. If sufficient citizen
support exists, pro-bicycle candidates may be elected. The Davis,
California case study in Section 5 provides an example of this process.
98
-------
Finally legislative support can be increased through the
provision of information and education. A bicycle coordinator can
provide leadership for such efforts. For example, the state
bicycle coordinator in Michigan appoints legislators to her bicycle
advisory committee. As a result, bicycle proposals are developed
with the cooperation of legislators, and her bicycle proposals have
strong legislative advocates. She has also developed an on-road
training program for officials, including legislators, so that they
will experience first-hand the actual problems of bicycle riding
in Michigan.
4.2 Bicycle Coordinators and Advisory Committees
Highly motivated bicycle coordinators at the local,
regional, and state levels can make the difference between imple-
mentation of a strong bicycle program or development of just another
plan for the shelf. Similarly, bicycle advisory committees have
been useful in providing political support for bicycle programs,
as well as providing substantive input to the planning process.
4.2.1 Bicycle Coordinator
Every bicycle strategy included in a State Implementation
Plan should include a commitment for the appointment of a bicycle
coordinator at the state and local levels. Bicycle coordinators have
been instrumental in the planning and implementation of many strong
bicycle programs (see the case studies in Section 5 for examples),
and can provide the leadership needed to coordinate the many programs
and individuals potentially involved in a comprehensive bicycle
program.
Bicycle transportation strategies must be carried out by a
large number of organizations. For example, bicycle measures involve
such diverse organizations as the local departments of transportation
and public works for facilities construction, the local mass transit
organizations for inter^modal links, employers for employer incentive
programs, schools and the state Department of Motor Vehicles for
education, police departments for enforcement, and the media for
encouragement and education. Furthermore, state, regional, county,
city, and town levels of many of these organizations may be involved
in implementing a metropolitan-wide bicycle program. An example
showing the major agencies with which the North Carolina state bicycle
program works is contained in the case study section (Section 5-3).
The map in Figure 4-1 illustrates, using the Boston air quality planning
region, the many individual communities potentially involved in the
Boston bicycle transportation measure implementation. Figure 4-2
summarizes some major agencies which often have to be coordinated on
a state, regional, and local level, and the helpful role a coordinator
can play in ensuring that the various agencies mutually support
increased bicycle use.
At the state level, a bicycle coordinator can concentrate on
state-wide issues, such as linking of metropolitan facilities,
improvement of the motor vehicle/bicycle traffic laws, incorporation of
bicycle safety education into the state model or core curriculum,
information dissemination, and provision of assistance to metropolitan
99
-------
Fig-ore 4-1
Communities in the Boston Transportation Planning District
METROPOLITAN AREA PLANNING COUNCIL
(consisting of 101 communities)
April 1974
\ OUNttAtLI J * L/
•IBOfBEU. ~—l Jr"HC>60"0«>'V« ^-•'A ./
,''\ ~-t*S ,,-V^-J "~~ ^T^'x
J * I ,' \ *_ LOWIU. I *^
^^ I ' .,' \ • I X,
_-_.„'
Communities with bikeways
Communities with proposals
100
-------
Figure 4-2
BICYCLE COORDINATORS AT LOCAL, REGIONAL AND STATE LEVELS
LOCAL LEVEL
(City, town, county)
BICYCLE COORDINATOR
ADVISORY GROUP
PLANNING AGENCY
(Evaluation, Planning)
ENVIRONMENTAL/AIR QUALITY
AGENCIES
(Evaluation, Planning,
Encouragement, Funding)
PUBLIC WORKS/HIGHWAYS
(Engineering, Maintenance)
TRAFFIC/TRANSIT/TRBHSPORTATION
AGENCIES
(Evaluation, Engineering,
Construction, Maintenance)
OPEN SPACE/RECREATION AGENCY
(For Recreation Uses:
Evaluation, Engeering,
Construction, Maintenance)
POLICE/SHERIFF
(Enforcement, Safety Education,
Accident Data Collection)
SCHOOLS
(Education, Encouragement)
FINANCE DEPT. OR COMMITTEE
(Funding)
MEDIA
(Encouragement, Education)
PRIVATE EMPLOYERS
(Encouragement)
CITIZENS
(Evaluation Responses,.
Easements, Volunteer
Assistance)
LOCAL ELECTED OFFICIALS
(Political Support, Legislation,
Appropriations)
REGIONAL LEVEL
BICYCLE COORDINATOR
ADVISORY GROUP
REGIONAL AGENCY/COMMISSION
(Metropolitan Planning Agency,
Council of Governments, Special Purpose)
(Evaluation, Engineering - sometimes
other functions)
CITHER REGIONAL ORGANIZATIONS
(e.g. Bike groups, public service
groups - Encouragement, Education,
Funding)
PRIVATE TRANSIT ORGANIZATIONS
(Inter-modal Links)
MEDIA
(Encouragement, Education)
STATE LEVEL
BICYCLE COORDINATOR
ADVISORY GROUP
PLANNING AGENCY
(Evaluation, Planning)
ENVIRONMENTAL/AIR QUALITY
AGENCIES
(Evaluation, Planning,
Encouragement, Funding)
TRANSPORTATION/PARKING AGENCY
(Engineering, construction. Maintenance)
ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS AGENCY
(Evaluation - air quality,
environmental aspects)
OPEN SPACE/PARKS/RECREATION AGENCY
(For Recreational Uses: Evaluation,
Engineering, Construction, Maintenance)
LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY
(Enforcement, Safety Education,
Accident Data Collection)
MOTOR VEHICLE AGENCY
(Education)
SCHOOL DEPARTMENT
(Education, Encouragement)
FINANCE/BUDGET DEPARTMENT
(Funding)
ELECTED OFFICIALS
(Political Support, Legislation,
Appropriations)
PRIVATE TRANSIT COMPANIES
(Intennodal Links)
PRIVATE ORGANIZATIONS
(Education, Education, Funding)
MEDIA
(Encouragement, Education)
-------
area coordinators and localities. In addition to media contacts,
the coordinator may need to work with the planning, transportation,
environmental affairs, education, open space/parks/recreation, law
enforcement, finance/budget, and motor vehicle departments within the
state government, and elected officials, private transit companies,
and other interested state-level private groups such as bicycle or
environmental groups.
One of the most comprehensive state-level programs was
initiated in 1974 by Curtis Yates in North Carolina. Starting with
preparation of a report entitled "Bikeways for North Carolina—
Bicycle prerequisites" which he wrote while working for the Planning
Department, Mr. Yates proposed that the Department of Transportation
be the lead state agency for bicycle matters. He was subsequently
appointed to head the new program which includes enforcement, education
(including preparation of a bicycle safety rodeo manual, low cost
demonstration safety programs, and a course for adult cyclists),
bicycle route mapping, a study of bicycle user characteristics, and
facility design (9).
A number of regional agencies have bike coordinators such as
Boston, Baltimore, and Denver. For example, the coordinator at the
Baltimore Regional Planning Council is continuing a program begun in
the early 1970s. As a result of this early effort, bicycle transporta-
tion control measures were included in the 1973 Maryland State
Implementation Plan for air quality improvement. The Regional
Planning Council coordinated a five-county bicycle planning effort
which began with a local analysis of the feasibility of bikeways.
Each county undertook an analysis of demand for Class I, II, and III
bikeways and for curb lanes, and each put together a plan. Implementa-
tion has now begun in some counties.
Like the regional agencies, many local coordinators have
concentrated on physical facilities. Madison, Wisconsin, however,
employed a part-time coordinator, using CETA funds, to follow through
on a variety of bicycle programs. The coordinator worked out so well
the elty is attempting to set up a full-time coordinator position.
Bicycle coordinators may be volunteers in smaller localities
within metropolitan areas. The towns of Lexington, Acton, and Lincoln
within the Boston, Massachusetts metropolitan area are all examples
of localities which have undertaken bicycle programs under the direction
of volunteer coordinators. Larger cities generally have paid coordina-
tors. Examples include Washington, D.C.: Seattle, Washington;
Portland, Oregon; and Green Bay, Wisconsin CIO).
1A program administered by the U.S. Department of Labor.
102
-------
4.2.2 Bicycle Advisory Committee
A Bicycle Advisory Committee is an effective and widely-
utilized method of developing both high-level and grass-roots
support for a bicycle program. Such committees often include
elected officials, media representatives, and delegates from local
transportation, school district, planning, and parks departments.
Representatives of bicycling organizations and other interested
groups are also often represented to involve the public in the
planning and implementation process. Examples include advisory
committees at the state level for both the Michigan and North
Carolina bicycle programs.
4.3 Supporting Agencies; Program Coordination and Funding
To ensure a cohesive bicycle program, and to utilize imple-
mentation funding provided by other agencies, the bicycle coordinator
or official responsible for bicycle measures should work closely with
other interested agencies. Planning funds for this purpose are avail-
able through1 EPA's Section 175 Program.1
Inclusion of a bicycle strategy in the SIP and transportation
measures is only the first step in the successful implementation of a
bicycle measure. Bicycle measures in the SIP must be included in the
regular transportation planning and implementation programs. These
programs are discussed in more detail in the following section. Coordin-
ation with other agencies is equally important for other types of bicycle
measures.
This section begins with a discussion of Federal programs.
A summary of potential Federal funding sources is contained in Appendix
E. Programs at the state, regional and local levels are discussed next.
The section concludes with potential sources of private assistance. A
list of major agencies and programs is contained in Figure 4-3.
1 See the 1978 Federal Register notice, p. 60215.
103
-------
Figure 4-3
SUMMARY OF PROGRAMS
SOURCE
FEDERAL
• EPA; Section 175, Urban Air Quality
Planning Grants
Section 201, Wastewater
Treatment Grants
• DOT: Federal Aid Highway Funds
(Federal Aid Highway
Program Manual, 6-1-1-1)
FHWA Section 217 of Title 23
UMTA TIP
NHTSA Section 402
Section 141 (c)
• HUD: Section 701 Urban Planning
Community Development Block Grants
• INTERIOR: HCRS Land & Water Cons. Fund
Historic Preservation Funds
• DOE; Appropriate Technology Small
Grants Program
• COMMERCE; EDA Public Works Program
Urban Policy Incentives
« POL: Title II, CETA
» HEW: Title IV Elem. & Sec. Ed. Act,
Section "C"
« NAT'L ENDOWMENT FOR THE ARTS: Livable
Cities Grants
Design, Communications & Res. Prog.
REGIONAL
• Metropolitan Planning Organizations
% Special Purpose Regional Service
Districts
STATE AND LOCAL PUBLIC
• Local Departments (e.g. Transporta-
tion, Education, Law Enforcement)
• Bond Issues
• Capital Improvement Budget
PRIVATE
Land Donations
Employers and Businesses
Community Organizations
See Appendix E for more information on programs,
104
-------
4.3.1 U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) Programs
Coordination of bicycle transportation planning for
air quality purposes with the local transportation planning process
is particularly important for several reasons. First, DOT has
developed and funded an extensive transportation planning process
in urban areas, which can provide valuable expertise and assistance.
Second, in order to receive DOT and some EPA planning and implemen-
tation funds, bicycle activities must be included in the DOT
transportation planning process and mandated documents such as
the UPWP (Unified Planning Work Program).
In urban areas over 50,000 population, the U.S. Department
of Transportation cannot approve federal planning and construction
funds unless a comprehensive transportation planning process by a
Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) is in effect. The planning
process, known as the "3C" process, must be "a continuing, comprehen-
sive transportation planning process carried on cooperatively by
States and local communities."
A number of program documents must be produced during
the 3C process, including a Unified Planning Work'Program TUPWP) ,'a
Prospectus, both long-range and systems management Transportation Plans,
a Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) for a 3-5 year period,
and an annual element of the TIP. The Unified Work Program
describes all planning activity to take place over the next year or
two, and includes the costs and timing for each planning activity.
The Prospectus describes the MPO, and how it will meet the 3C
requirements. The Transportation Plan long-range element describes
the long-range transportation policy for the area. The TSM (Transpor-
tation Systems Management Element) describes how existing facilities
can be utilized more efficiently- The 3-5 year Transportation Improvement
Program is a mid-range planning document which describes projects
planned for implementation during this period. Finally, and most
importantly, the Annual Element of the Transportation Improvement Program
lists specific projects desired for implementation during the next year.
This list is included in the state "Program of Projects" for annual 1
submission to the U.S. Dept. of Transportation for funding approval.
At the direction of the President of the U.S., an
explicit procedure has been set up between EPA and DOT to reduce
potentially duplicative, overlapping, and inconsistent activities at
the state and local level. These procedures are contained in a
Memorandum of Understanding and in Planning Guidelines (11, 12).
The relationship of the EPA/DOT air quality programs, and the
DOT-assisted transportation programs is illustrated in Figure 4-4.
A straightforward explanation of how citizens and organizations
can participate in the transportation planning process is
available in The End of the Road: A Citizen's Guide to Transpor-
tation Problemsolving (Washington, D.C.: National Wildlife
Federation and Environmental Action Foundation, Inc.), 1977.
105
-------
Figure 4-4
COORDINATION OF AIR QUALITY AND TRANSPORTATION
PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION
AIR
QUALITY
(EPA/DOT-assisted)
TRANSPORTATION
(DOT-assisted)
State Implementation
Plan
Transportation
Measures
Unified Planning
Work Program (UPWP)
Bicycle
Strategies
PLANNING
Transportation Plan
TSM
(short-
range)
Element
Long Range
Range
Element
Trans.
Improvement
Program
(TIP)
IMPLEMENTATION
FHWA Funds
UMTA Funds
State/Local
Funds
KEY:
DOT = U.S. Department of Transportation
EPA = U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
TSM = Transportation System Management Element
TIP = Transportation Improvement Program
FHWA = Federal Highway Administration
UMTA = Urban Mass Transportation Administration
106
-------
Under the new guidelines, bicycle and other transportation
measures included in the air quality plans (SIPs) and which require
planning are to be included as part of DOT's Unified Planning Work
Program (UPWP). The prospectus prepared under the UPWP is to be
revised to include all air-quality related transportation planning
activities anticipated within the area and is to describe the
responsibilities of the respective agencies involved. The DOT and
EPA regional offices will have the opportunity for joint review of
the UPWP, as well as other planning elements.
Short-range bicycle activities, which can be quickly imple-
mented, such as special sign installation, should be considered under
the short-range Transportation System Management Element (TSME) of
the transportation plan. The DOT regulations on the TSME specifically
mention bicycle programs, stating that "automobiles, public transit,
taxis, pedestrians and bicycles should be considered as elements of
one single urban transportation system". Bicycle measures are further
listed under "Actions to be Considered" (13). Major facilities such
as extensive separated bike paths should be considered under the long-
range element.
The Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) is a staged
multi-year program of transportation improvements consistent with
the Long-Range Areawide Transportation Plan and covering a 3-5 year
period. Air quality measures including bicycle strategies must be
included in the annual element of the TIP to qualify for UMTA or
FHWA funds (13).
Boston provides an example of how the process actually works.
The 1973 State Implementation Plan contained some bicycle transporta-
tion measures, included largely because of strong support by a
local bicycle organization. Bicycle parking facilities (racks) were
included in the TSME for mass transit stops on the MBTA (Massachusetts
Bay Transit Authority) commuter lines. The TIP included this measure,
and in January 1976, an application was submitted for UMTA Transit
Efficiency Project grant funds. The grant was approved in October 1977
and the racks were delivered in March 1979 (14).
Several types of assistance are available for bicycle
programs through DOT. The Department has sponsored or produced a number
of bicycle documents, including a recent study on the energy conservation
potential of bicycle transportation, mandated by the National Energy
Conservation Policy Act. The results of this study are to include a
target for bicycle use in commuting and a comprehensive program to meet
these goals. The report should be forthcoming shortly.
Bike facilities are eligible items for the use of highway
trust funds when they are incidental features of a highway project.
Section 217 was added to the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1973 to allow
the use of Federal-aid highway funds for construction bicycle facilities
(see Appendix F). Bicycle facilities must compete with other highway
programs for use of funds, but substantial total amounts of money ($45
million per year, $2.5 million per state) are available under this program.
A special $6 million bikeway demonstration program was estab-
lished through the Federal-Aid Amendments of 1974. However, as the
House Conference Report on the Surface Transportation Assistance
Act of 1976 noted, only a small nuviber of the 495 projects proposed
for over $141 million in Federal-State-local costs, were able
107
-------
to be funded. Therefore, the Committee recommended a new bikeway program,
stating "The Committee recognizes the continuing interest nationwide
in promoting bicycle use and feels there are great benefits to be ^
obtained from an additional Federal investment in bicycle facilities."
Twenty million dollars were authorized for each of the fiscal years
1979-82, $10 million to come from the Highway Trust Fund and $10 million
from general funds. Funds are to be supplementary to those provided
under 23 U.S.C. 217. The Federal share would be 80% of total project
cost. This program, incorporated into the 1978 Surface Transportation
Assistance Act of 1978 under Section 141(c), was in the process of
receiving a $4 million appropriate in the fall of 1979. (See Appendix F
for a copy of this and other DOT-bicycle program legislation).
Other DOT assistance programs include the highway
safety program administered through the Governor's Highway Safety
Representative. This program provides funds, on a federal-state
cost sharing basis, for states to develop safety programs, including
bicycle safety measures. Many bicycle programs have used these
funds, including programs described in Section 5 of this document.
Planning activities can be included as part of the
3 C program, administered through the local UMTA offices and the
Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs). Bicycle facilities
such as bicycle parking facilities at transit stations can be
included under the UMTA Mass Transit Grant program. Bicycle facilities
can also be funded through UMTA's Transportation Improvement
Program. A summary of the DOT programs is included in Appendix E.
4.3.2 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Programs
EPA's Section 175 Planning Grant Program provides fun^
for air quality planning, including planning for bicycle strategies .
Grants, to be used primarily for development of strategies to
reduce ozone and carbon monoxide pollution, are available to organi-
zations of local elected officials. The draft regulations call for
administration of the $50 million program through the Urban Mass
Transportation Administration (UMTA) of the Department of Transpor-
tation, in accordance with the DOT-EPA Interagency Agreement of
Movember 3, 1978.
Bicycle projects that can be funded under the section
175 grants include:
• bicycle route and facility mapping
• bicycle use/demand studies
• studies to determine bicycle modal shift potential
• studies to determine air quality benefits from
mixed mode travel (bike-bus, bike-transit)
• bicycle education programs to encourage bicycle
commuting
More information is available in EPA's Bicycle Programs and Urban Air
Quality Grants publication. Examples of bicycle activities already
included in Section 175 applications are included in Figure 4-5.
1 House Conference Report No. 95-1797, Oct. 14, 1978.
2 N.D. Rowe, "Bicycling and the Clean Air Act", U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., 1979.
108
-------
Figure 4-5
Bicycle Activities in Section 175 Applications, as of September 1979
Region State
Urban Area
Bicycle Projects
Amount EPA Funds Requested
Mass.
Boston
R.I.
ii N.Y.
Providence
Albany
Nassau County
Rochester
Capital District
Evaluate feasibility of
implementing bikeways and/
or related facilities in
municipalities; determine
impact of such facilities
on air quality (Minute
Man Area Bikeway, bicycle
facilities in Scituate,
Walpole and Weliesley).
Inventory hazards along
possible bike routes in
metropolitan area.
Produce bicycle maps.
Non-corridor studies
(for downtown or other
specific area) related
to bikeways and elderly
and handicapped trans-
portation
Efforts to pursue imple-
mentation of adopted
bikeway element of
Regional Transportation
Plan includes identi-
fying routes, bicycle
safety programs, ensuring
adequate bicycle and
pedestrian accomodations
in highway improvement
projects, and determining
the effect of increased
bicycle usage on air
quality.
Preliminary route develop-
ment of county-wide
Class I/II Bikeway
System
Metropolitan Area Bikeway
Plan to be developed
Analysis of bikeways and
bicycle storage
$25,000 for staff salaries
$10,000 for staff
$3,000
Source: Nina Dougherty Rowe and EPA Regional Bicycle Coordinators, 1979
1Many localities did not specifically identify the portion of their
175 grant which would be used for bicycle project planning.
109
-------
Figure 4-5, continued
Region State
Urban Area
Bicycle Projects
Amount EPA Funds Requested
III Pa.
Del.
Philadelphia
Wilmington
Md.
Baltimore
IV
V
D.C.
Fla.
111.
Ind.
Ohio
Michigan
Missouri
VI
Texas
D.C.
Pinnellas
Chicago
Rock Island
Indianapolis
South Bend
Akron
Dayton
Lansing
East-West Gateway
Dallas
Houston
San Antonio
Identification of
specific bike projects
Promotion of bike
programs in Newark,
New Castle area,
facility improvement,
bicycle storage, and
bike maps in 1980.
Bicycle Locker
Demonstration program,
FY 1980. Lockers to
be installed at six
month intervals. Users
will be surveyed & bike
lockers evaluated.
Identification of
specific bike projects.
Bikeway Study
Inventory bikeways and
storage facilities,
development of a plan
to implement
Analysis of bike measures
along with other
measures
Analysis of bike measures
along with other measures
Analysis of bike measures
along with other measures
Update files on bikeways
and existing facilities,
identify short range
transit improvements
including bikeways
Bikeway system plan
Analysis of possible
bikeway routes
Determine feasibility of
bicycle facilities as an
air pollution control
strategy
Support campaign to promote
bicycle commuting
Analysis of all reasonably
available control measures
(bikeways and bike storage
included)
$15,000
110
-------
Figure 4-5, continued
Region State
Urban Area
Bicycle Projects
Amount EPA Funds Requested
VI N. Hex.
Okla.
Ark.
La.
VIII Colo-
Utah
X Calif.
Albuquerque
Oklahoma City
Tulsa
Little Rock
New Orleans
Baton Rouge
Shreveport
Colorado Springs
Salt Lake
Prove
All
Analysis of all reasonably
available control measures
(bikeways and bike storage
included)
Bikeways and storage facilities
included in alternative analysis
of transportation measures,
bike maps
Alternative analysis
including bikeways and
storage facilities
Bikeways and bicycle
storage will be
analyzed along with
other reasonably
available control
measures
111
-------
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act amendments of 1977
provide funds for the planning and construction of publicly-owned
wastewater treatment and collection facilities (Section 201) and
a program for area-wide water quality management (Section 208).
Section 201 of the Amendments states that the EPA administrator
"shall encourage waste treatment management which, combines 'open
space' and recreational considerations with. such, management".
Bicycle facility construction can be combined with water
management facilities by using the right-of-way areas for the
pathway. Grand Isle is an example of such use. Another example is
in California where the State Department of Water Resources has
allowed bicyclists access to a twenty mile stretch along the
California Aquaduct. This bikeway segment just north of Los Angeles
makes use of a surfaced maintenance road that is free of motor vehicle
traffic. The bikeway is popular among cyclists who want to escape
the congestion of the urbanized coastal communities.
4.3.3 U.S. Department of Rousing and Urban Development (HUD)
Programs
An interagency agreement between HUD and EPA stipulates
that in activities funded through the Comprehensive Planning Assis-
tance Program (701), "grant recipients shall, as a condition of con-
tinued eligibility for funding 1) incorporate any land use related
measures identified in the SIP as necessary for the attainment and
maintenance of the NAAQS as performance criteria, and 2) reflect any
State or Federal programs for prevention of significant deterioration
of air quality'1.
In addition, 701 recipients and air quality planning agencies
are encouraged to use "common data bases, common analytic techniques,
and consistent criteria in their planning activities and to adopt
compatible work programs and implementation strategies".
Bicycle coordinators should contact planning staff members
early to ensure that bicycle provisions can be included in the
relevant portions of the comprehensive plan, including the transporta-
tion, parks/recreation, land use, and zoning portions. The data base
may be useful during the continuing bicycle program planning and imple-
mentation process.
The Community Development Block Grant Program (CBDG) can
also be used for projects which include bicycle facilities.
112
-------
4.3.4 U.S. Department of the Interior (DPI) Programs
Ihe major Interior program related to bicycle use is
assistance for state-level recreation facility planning. Many
states have surveyed bicycle use and demand under this program.
For example, a 1978 telephone survey for the State Comprehensive
Outdoor Recreation Plan CSCORPl in Nebraska showed that, for the
almost 2000 people contacted, bicycling was by far the most popu-
lar outdoor activity out of the 29 activities studied (15) .
Because many of the state surveys show bicycling to be
a very popular activity, bicycle riding facilities have been built
in many recreational areas. Whenever possible, such facilities
should support the SIP bicycle strategy goals by linking into a
larger network of bikeways serving the area.
An example of a multipurpose bikeway is one developed by
the New York State Department of Parks and Recreation in Grand Isle.
The route connects two state parks with, schools and the Grand Isle
Civic Center. The right of way for this recreational corridor was
made available through an EPA policy for Section 201 assistance under
the Clean Water Act of 1972. This policy encourages multiple use
of waste water interceptor alignments. The project, the cost of
which was shared by the State Parks Department and the U.S. Heritage
Conservation and Recreation Service, brings together many outdoor
activities through creation of the bikeway link.
4.3.5 State Programs and Funding Sources
Funding resources for bicycle projects and programs at the
state level most often consist of the state's matching share of
federal programs or in-kind services. However, some states have
special programs: Massachusetts currently is using a special $3
million bond issue for bicycle facility construction assistance to
localities.
Specific state agencies which may contribute funds or
services include the Departments of Transportation, Highways, Public
Works, Planning, Community Affairs, Education, Law Enforcement, Parks
and Outdoor Recreation, Energy Conservation, and Air Quality.
The Department of Highways (or Transportation) is the most
frequently used state source of bicycle project construction funds.
The application and funding procedures parallel those that would be
followed for a street or highway project seeking state and federal
assistance. For example, the Oregon State Highway Department
113
-------
appropriates 1% of its annual budget for pedestrian and bicycle
facilities. This money is from the Highway Users' Fund, exclusive of
any federal involvement. Localities in Oregon must also appropriate
bicycle matching funds to receive state aid. The State of Washington
has a similar program.
State energy offices generally examine methods for conserving
gasoline through, transportation measures. They prepare emergency
plans as well as longer range strategies. Examples of how energy
offices can support bicycle programs include the Oregon Department
of Energy-assisted bicycle commuter service Hot Line in Portland,
and the Washington Energy Extension Service (WEES) which is offering
talks and slide shows in King County on use of bicycles for commuting
and recreation.
4.3.6 Regional Programs and Funding Sources
Although regional sources are limited, the DOT-designated
metropolitan planning organization (MPO) can assist in bicycle
facilities funding through inclusion of local bicycle facilities in
the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and later through
distribution of "Urban Systems" funds.
Special-purpose regional service districts are a potential
source of in-kind services. Transportation districts are one example.
Shared rights-of-way, bike-and-ride programs, and secure parking
facilities may be provided by such districts. For example, the Bay
Area Transit (BART) District provides bicycle storage lockers at its
rail stations and permits bicycles to be carried on the transit cars
during off-peak hours.
Watershed management, sewage, and flood control districts
are other examples of special-purpose regional districts which may
include bikeways in conjunction with their other construction acti-
vities . Most of the regional agencies are both federally and locally
funded. A bicycle coordinator can help to insure that all these
sources are investigated and utilized when appropriate.
4.3.7 Local Public Programs and Funding Sources
Many bicycle programs and facilities are funded at the local
level, either through complete local funding or through a matching
share of a regional, state, or federal program. A major advantage of
local funding is the short turnaround time between requests and
funding—generally within a year. Possible sources of direct financial
or in-kind assistance are summarized in this section.
114
-------
Research and planning funds and staff time may be available
from the local planning department. Other departments, such as
parks and recreation, public works, police, and local school
departments, may provide similar funds or services. Services pro-
vided by these departments may include construction of paths within
parks, signing of routes, provision of police staff for education
and enforcement programs, inclusion of bicycle education in class
instruction, and inclusion of special bicycle provisions in the
zoning ordinance.
The bicycle program in the town of Lincoln, Massachusetts,
is an example of a bicycle program which was completely funded
locally. Funds for over five miles of separated bike paths were
approved by Town Meetings. Labor was available at no charge to
the bicycle program through use of the Public Works crew during
"down time". Services have been made available through the local
Police Department for a bicycle safety clinic conducted by one of
their officers and a local bicycle shop owner.
Sources of direct funding may include the local capital
improvement budget and bond issues. For bikeway construction, the
capital improvement budget is a primary resource. Major construction
of bicycle facilities sometimes requires a bond issue referendum.
Bonding brings the cost of a facility down on a year-by-year basis
and, although increasing the total amount paid, it may make a
construction program more attractive to taxpayers.
4.3.8 Private Programs, Organizations, and Funding Sources
Many communities contain private organizations that might
be interested in participating in bicycle-related projects or pro-
grams. These organizations are more likely to make in-kind, rather
than direct, financial contributions.
Donations of-private land or easements can contribute
significantly to the development of a bicycle system. Private land
owners may contribute acreage to parks, open space, or recreational
corridors where a bikeway facility is to be established. Some
localities, such as Lincoln, Massachusetts, have used easement
contributions for a large portion of the bikeway system. A legal
agreement (easement) can be drafted allowing public bicycle access
with public liability but retaining private ownership.
Universities and private developers may voluntarily set
aside corridors for bicycle travel. The University of California at
Santa Barbara is an example of such corridor and facility provision.
115
-------
Private developers may also provide land and/or bicycle
facilities. Planned new areas such as Peach tree City, Georgia,
and Reston, Virginia, are examples where developers provided bike
paths.
Other easement or "right-of-way" opportunities exist over
abandoned rail lines, old towpaths and canals, utility rights of
way, highway rights or way, and other easements. An example of a
bicycle path utilizing such an easement is the Illinois Prairie
Path, a 35 miles path just west of Chicago on an abandoned railroad
line. The Commonwealth Edison Company shares the easement and
helped to clear the way for the trail. The success of this path
spurred the utility company to set aside over 1,000 miles of its
own right of way for recreational and other secondary uses .
Interested individuals have often been instrumental in
implementation of such paths. Mrs. Abigail Watts organized the
effort for the Illinois Prairie Path, while Justice William O.
Douglas did so for the C & 0 Canal in Washington, D.C., which is
accessible to several million people and runs 184.5 miles. Similarly,
the 67 miles of path along the California Aqueduct running north to
south in California, was the result of three years of effort
spearheaded by Mrs. Artermis Ginzton, a bicyclist. Further information
on use of rights of way for bikepath implementation is contained
in From Rails to Trails, a publication of the Citzen's Advisory
Committee on Environmental Quality, and in Availability and Use
of Abandoned Railroad Rights of Way, a report by the U.S. Department
of Transportation to tne President and Congress in response to
Section 809(a) of the Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform
Act of 1976.
Members of bicycle organizations can provide valuable
assistance during the SIP planning and implementation process,
including political support and first-hand knowledge of bicycle
incentives and deterrents. The Boston Area Bicycle Coalition (BABC)
is an example of such a group, whose members were instrumental
in urging inclusion of a bicycle strategy in the original Boston
SIP process.
More recently, the Bicycle Commuters of New York (BCNY) have
participated vigorously in preparation of the New York SIP. Their
activities include submission of bicycle oriented strategies and pilot
projects to the Citizens Advisory Committee and oversight committee.
BCNY members also testified at hearings. As a result, the 1979 SIP
includes one of the half dozen pilot projects proposed by BCNY
members. The pilot project will create a 24-hour bike lane on the
Queensboro bridge (17).
Similarly, League of American Wheelmen members assisted in
development of the 1979 Southeastern Pennsylvania SIP- Their activi-
ties included comments and testimony on the SIP, and a request for
voting representatives from the bicycle community on both the technical
advisory committee on transportation and the policy committee for
air quality (16).
116
-------
4.3.9 Combined Use of Programs and Funds
Examples of the successful use of different types of programs
and funding sources—federal, state, and local—are contained in the
case studies in Section 5. A good example of combined use of funds
is the Sacramento Northern Railroad Bikeway project in California.
This 10.4 mile commuter bikeway uses Sacramento City funds, County
funds, and state funds. The City of Concord, California, is also
using local and federal funds for construction of a 3 mile separated
bikeway for commuters along an old railroad right of way connecting
the town and a transit station. The Federal Bikeway Demonstration
Program (FHWA) was used for the federal share.
Another good example of combined use of funds is contained
on page 203 of Appendix E. The Platte River Greenway Foundation combined
funds from private, local, state and Federal sources to construct a
ten mile bicycle path and other recreation facilities along the Platte
River in Denver. Private funds included individual contributions,
corporate donations, and foundation funds. The Mayor's Revenue Sharing
Fund provided part of the local share, along with a city council match
appropriation and capital improvement funds. State funds came from
the Conservation Trust Fund, the Urban Drainage and Flood Control District,
general revenue funds, Centennial-Bicentennial Commission contributions,
and State Trails Committee funds. Finally, Federal contributions
included Highway Urban Systems funds, EDA Local Public Works Employment
Act money, and assistance from the Land and Water Conservation Fund as
well as HUD's Community Development Fund.
117
-------
REFERENCES, SECTION 4
(1) "Bicycling Laws in the U.S.", Traffic Laws Commentary, III,
No. 2, September 1974.
(2) Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Study, (Washington, D.C.:
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. Dept.
of Transportation), March 1975.
(3) Bicycles in Maryland; Legal Issues (Baltimore, Maryland:
Regional Planning Council and the Maryland Department of
Transportation), February 1978.
(4) B.N. Henszey, "Bicycles: A Need for Comprehensive Regulation",
Traffic Quarterly, XXXI, No. 1, January 1977.
(5) Conversation with B. Neff, Bicycle Specialist, 4-H Youth
Program, Michigan, March 1979.
(6) J.E. Parker, Washington Area Bicyclist Association, Letter to
N.D. Rowe, EPA, June 6, 1979).
(7) P.A. Wiatrak and J.D. Lehman, City of Seattle Engineering
Dept., Letter to N.D. Rowe, EPA, June 11, 1979.
(8) C.F. Floyd, "One Community's Odyssey on the Bikeway Trail:
The Athens--Clarke County, Georgia Case", Planning, Design
and Implementation of Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities
(New York, N.Y.: MAUDEP), July 1977.
(9) "Conversation with the Captain", Bicycle Forum, Spring 1978.
(10) J. Foreman, "Fighting Traffic is a Breeze if You've Got Pedal
Power", Boston Globe, August 13, 1978.
(11) "Memorandum of Understanding Between the Department of
Transportation and the Environmental Protection Agency
Regarding the Integration of Transportation and Air Quality
Planning", June 1978.
"Transportation-Air Quality Planning Guidelines", (Washington,
D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Department
of Transportation), June 1978.
(13) "Transportation Improvement Program: Department of Transpor-
tation, Federal Highway Administration, Urban Mass Transporta-
tion Administration" (Washington, D.C.: Federal Register),
Wednesday, September 17, 1975.
(14) Conversation with Nancy Shapiro, MBTA, Boston Mass., April 24,
1979. '
(15) Bureau of Sociological Research, 1978 Nebraska SCORP Draft,
(Omaha, Nebraska: University of Nebraska), August 1978.
(16) Citizens' Advisory Committee on Environmental Quality,- From
Rails to Trails (Washington, D.C.: CACEQ) , February 1975~!
(17) N.D. Rowe, "Bicycling and the Clean Air Act: Workshop for Act
'79 Bikeweek" (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency), Summer 1979.
118
-------
SECTIONS: CASE STUDIES
5.0 Introduction
This section contains descriptions of five bicycle programs:
Davis (California), Madison (Wisconsin), Denver (Colorado) and the
states of North Carolina and California. These programs provide
concrete examples of major points made throughout this information
document.
Common features of these five programs include:
• a solid record of concrete accomplishments
• highly motivated program administrators, some of
whom initiated the programs
• strong enabling legislation
• clear assignment of responsibility for bicycle trans-
portation given to program administrators by public
agency
• location of all or a part of the bicycle program
in the transportation or public works agency
• support by transportation agency administrators
for the bicycle program
• adequate levels of funding
• prestigious position for bicycle program
administrator (i.e., title, civil service level)
• political support
• cooperation with other interested agencies
• use of a variety of funding sources
In addition to common features, the case studies illustrate
how the initial motivating force for bicycle programs may differ.
For example, citizen perception of the need for bicycle programs and
pressure through the political system characterized the beginning of
the Davis program. The Denver example illustrates how pressure by
bicycle organizations can also be effective in program initiation.
The North Carolina example illustrates how a highly motivated individual
can be instrumental in initiating a program. The Madison and California
examples illustrate this point as well. While programs may begin
differently, one of the program administrators noted that public,
political, and administrative support must all be present for a strong
program to continue. Such support can, of course, be encouraged by
program administrators and advisory committees appointed at the
inception of a program.
119
-------
The case studies in this section describe some of the
most active bicycle programs in the U.S. Local organizations and
individuals without bicycle program experience, who are interested
in improving air quality, can learn from these experiences. We
encourage you to contact the administrators of these programs
directly for more specific information and advice.
5.1 Davis, California
With 28,000 bicycles owned by a population of 35,000 (1),
Davis is an outstanding example of how a small city can encourage
bicycle transportation. Although- a warm climate, dry Calthough hot)
summers, flat terrain, a large number of students at the University
of California, generally informal dress, many existing wide streets, an
and a large percentage of residents living within 2 miles of the
university and downtown contribute to a favorable environment for
bicycle riding. However, adjacent towns with somewhat similar conditions,
but without bicycle programs, do not have a high rate of bicycle use.
Davis residents ensure that bicycling remains a transportation alterna-
tive through strong political support.
In the early 1960s, as the campus expanded, the population
increased, streets became busier, and space for bicycles on the road
decreased. Local bike shops reported an increase in damaged front
wheelj as bikes were squeezed onto the curb by passing cars. A group
of concerned citizens looked for a way to separate bicycles from the
growing numbers of cars. Initially, a proposal for bicycle paths
was turned down by the City Council as impractical and possibly
dangerous. Proponents were considered cranks (2).
However, widespread support for bicycle facilities became
apparent as discussions continued. A petition to the City Council was
signed by 90% of the several hundred voters whose signatures were
requested. A major issue in the 1966 city election was bike paths, and
the pro-bikeway candidates won. As a result of strong political support,
a bicycle program was set up to plan and implement a system of bike-
ways. Since that time, over 14 miles of bike lanes, 7 miles of bike
paths, and street and rail grade separations have been constructed in
Davis (3) .
Parking facilities have also been installed in a number of
locations. For instance, bike racks have been added to most downtown
areas.
Initial and some subsequent funding of onstreet bike lanes
was provided through gasoline tax revenues (4). City funds have been
used in some cases, and bikeways have been built by developers. If
shown as part of the bike path system contained in the Master Plan,
developers may be required to provide bikeways and a dedicated right-of-
way. Adequate street width for bikelanes is also required, and bike
connections with public facilities and shopping may be requested.
Downtown parking facilities have been donated, in some cases, by public
service groups.
120
-------
assistance from city officials. A change in bikeway signing illustrates
the kind of practical improvement made on the basis of evaluation.
Some confusion was noted among automobile drivers, particularly
those from out of town, as to the meaning of "bike lane" or
"bikeway" signs. Occasionally a driver would be found using the bike-
lane, apparently interpreting the signs to mean bikes must use the
area, but cars can also. Therefore use of the phrase "bikes only"
was recommended and implemented.
In addition to physical facilities and evaluation, the bicycle
program includes education and enforcement programs. Six separate
programs are administered through the police department. The school-
related programs include a planned curriculum for children from kinder-
garten through ninth grade, a bike rodeo, a bicycle safety check day,
and a bike safety training school including both training on school
grounds and on the roads.
The registration program has recently been transferred to the
university because of Proposition 13-related staff and budget cut-
backs in the Davis Police Department (5). Licenses cover a three-
year period. An estimated 1% of college student bicycles are stolen
each month (6). Therefore, entry of license data in the State
Department of Motor Vehicle computer system is an attractive feature
of the program since return of stolen bicycles is facilitated.
Enforcement of bicycle and motor vehicle laws and regulations
relating to bicycle safety is handled by regular patrolmen in addition
to a Bike Enforcement Officer. A ten-speed bicycle is often used by
the Bike Officer when on duty. The city's Bicycle Regulation (7)
permits the following penalties to be imposed for violations by those
under 18 years of age:
a) attend traffic school for a period of six Saturdays
b) be deprived of bicycle for a period not to
exceed thirty days
c) have parents of violator deprive violator of
bicycle for a period not to exceed thirty days
d) write a composition of not less than 200 words on
a subject title specified by the chief of police or
his representative
e) obtain a city bicycle license immediately and pay
the penalty
f) copy the section of bicycle chapter violated 100
times.
121
-------
Applicable provisions of the traffic laws for drivers of vehicles
apply to adults. Strict enforcement of the parking regulations has
contributed to the bicycle program by keeping bike lanes free (6).
How important are these programs in increasing bicycle use?
A study by DeLeuw Gather reported that over 25% of all travel in Davis
is by bicycle (4). In a door-to-door survey in a middle-class
single-family neighborhood in Davis, 60% of the adults aged 25-35
owned bikes, 46% of those 36-45 did, as did 14% of those over 46 (8).
A survey of a class at each grade level indicated that no
kindergarten children had ridden bikes to school, compared with 22% of
first-graders, about 50% in grades 2-5, and 71% of sixth-graders (8).
When parents were asked about their children's bicycle use, most
believed it was safe for children to ride bicycles in Davis, largely
due to bicycle lanes. Almost everyone wanted more lanes and more law
enforcement.
Almost half of the junior high school students (80% of those
not using the bus) rode bicycles to school every day (8). Use of
bicycles for other purposes, such as trips to movies, was common.
Sixty percent of the high school students not going by bus rode their
bikes to school (8).
Among college students, 89% of the freshman and sophomores,
79% of the juniors and seniors, and 61% of the graduate students kept
bicycles at their campus residences (2). Distance is an important
factor in use, with 70% of students living 1-2 miles away from campus
using a bicycle. Students living within a mile averaged about 10 round-
trips a week; those 1-2 miles away averaged about 5 round trips a
week (2). The majority of those living more than 3 miles away, however,
used a car.
A survey indicated non-student young adults also used bikes
at high rates. About 70% used bicycles, although for fewer round
trips than students (8).
Because it is difficult to disentangle the effects of generally
favorable conditions, such as climate, from bicycle program effects,
"control" communities with similar conditions but without bicycle
programs were examined. A survey was undertaken in Woodland, a city
of about the same population size located near Davis. With the same
climate and topography, but without Davis' bicycle program, bicycles
were viewed as incidental. Respondents lacked contact with bikeways
and had no opinion about them (2). While Woodland children did ride
bicycles to school, only 7% of the high school students not bussed
rode bicycles compared with 60% in Davis. For junior high school
students, the comparable figures were 38% in Woodland compared with
80% in Davis (4).
122
-------
Two University of California psychologists, Robert Sommer and
Dale Lott, have evaluated the bicycle programs over a period of years.
They have examined similar areas with warm climates, similar terrain,
and universities but with much lower levels of bicycle use such as
Stockton, with the University of the Pacific; Santa Barbara, with its
University of California campus; and Sacramento, with its State College.
Based in part on these comparisons, they have concluded that bicycle
programs are important factors in increasing the use of bicycles.
In their words:
Just as the automobile requires the availability of gas
stations, good roads, highway regulation, licensing
procedures and driver education, so the bicycle requires,
in addition to moderate climate and terrain, the
separation of bicycle from automobile traffic at some
points, the respect of motorists at intersections, special
regulations pertaining to bicycles, bicycle racks in suf-
ficient numbers in the downtown areas and bicycle educa-
tion in the schools (2).
Detailed analysis of the effects of the bicycle program on
air quality and energy savings has not taken place. However, it has
been estimated that use of bicycles saves an automobile trip per day
for every two households in the city. This is equivalent to about
7,000 trips per day which would otherwise be taken by car. Since
Davis is located in a valley where air inversions occur—particularly
in the fall when agricultural burning of rice fields takes place—
bicycle use obviously reduced air pollution.
The bicycle program is also part of a city-wide energy
program. Based on a questionnaire distributed to residents in the
early '70s, a general plan was developed. The goals of the plan were
to limit growth and to conserve land, water, energy, and other natural
resources. Since the survey indicated that automobiles accounted
for 50% of personal energy use in Davis, the bicycle program, along
with land use limits and encouragement of work at home, became an
important focus of the energy program (10).
For more information, contact:
Mr. David B. Pelz
Public Works Director
City of Davis
226 F St.
Davis, California 95616
(916) 756-3740, ext. 14
123
-------
5.2 Madison, Wisconsin Area
Madison, Wisconsin is a good illustration of a comprehensive
bicycle program underway in a non-attainment area. The program includes
the four "E"s—engineering, education, enforcement and encouragement.
Furthermore, the program is supported by, and integrated with,
both regional and state-level bicycle programs.
As in many localities, the original bicycle Master Plan had
been "prepared through purely subjective means without the benefit
of user surveys, etc." (1). Clear goals, objectives, policies, and
standards were lacking when the 1971 bicycle facility plan was
prepared (1).
Adult bicycle use increased in the early '70s and Madison
evaluated needs, bicycle demand, and accidents. Three major surveys
were made in 1974. These included a mail-back survey, interviews of
over 1800 bikers, and a survey of bicycle users in all public and
parochial schools in the Madison area.
The surveys provided encouraging data on existing and potential
bicycle use. For example, 68% (144,000 of the total area population
of 212,000) considered themselves bicycle users. About 50,000 bicycle
round trips per day were made in Madison. About 4% of all vehicles
were bicycles during a 37 location vehicle count.
Although respondents noted that cold weather, snow, and rain
inhibited bicycle use, seasonal field counts indicated some bicycling
takes place year round. Of the weekday trips, almost 30% were for
work, 40% for school, and 7% for shopping. Recreational trips
accounted for about 20% of the total. The survey also indicated that
parking facilities are essential for bicycle security. Eighty-
three percent thought more money should be spent on safe bicycle
facilities. Twenty-one percent of adult non-bikers said they would bike
to work, and 49% said they would use a bicycle for recreational purposes
if better facilities were provided (2 ).
As a result of this survey, seven local units of government,
including the cities of Madison, Middleton, and Monona, the Villages
of Maple Bluff, McFarland, and Shorewood Hills, and Dane county
participated in a joint planning effort. Twenty miles of bikeway
were proposed in a short-range plan for an estimated construction
cost of $86,270 and maintenance expenses of $7,390. The long-range
plan included about 16 miles of bikeways and an expensive overpass for
a total estimated construction cost of $691,709 and about $40,000 for
maintenance.
124
-------
In addition, the hiring of a coordinator was recommended,
to be funded through the CETA program initially. Many other recommenda-
tions were made including a registration program and ongoing monitoring.
A coordinator was hired and was so successful that the city
is currently developing a request for a full-time position. Most of
the short-range plan was implemented. Two police officers were
assigned to ride bicycles and enforce the bicycle safety provisions.
The state education program was used in the Madison schools, and
many of the other recommendations were implemented. In addition, the
county has provided 54.3 miles of wide shoulders for bicyclists (3).
Another major survey effort is currently being planned which
should provide comparative data on the effects of the bicycle program
(4).
For more information, contact:
Mr. Thomas Walsh
Traffic Engineer
City Transportation Department
City/County Building
210 Monona Ave.
Madison, Wisconsin 53709
(608) 266-4761
125
-------
5.3 Denver, Colorado
Since the first bicycle plan in 1972, Denver has undergone
two full cycles of bicycle planning and implementation. Initial
problem identification occurred in 1971 when a local bicycle activist
organization, Bicycles Now, staged a series of police-escorted bicycle
support rallies. The focus of the demonstrations was the Denver
City Hall, and the demonstrations attracted up to 4,000 people.
City Council responded by passing a resolution requesting the planning
office to study and make recommendations for a bikeway system.
The Denver Bikeway Plan was completed in 1972. It was a
carefully researched and well received plan which focused on route
development and intermodal (bus) connections. In 1973, six miles of
lanes were implemented for commuter use, and a pilot bikeway connecting
several parks in a north-south route was established. During 1974
and 1975, the Denver City Council appropriated $100,000 each year and
created 33 miles of bikeways. This constituted 20% of the original
164 mile system plan (1).
By 1976, the activist groups had dissolved, the city planner
had moved to a new job, and the city was left without a professional
to follow through on the system development as both advocate and
evaluator. In 1976 and 1977, economic conditions left no capital
improvement funds available for bikeway construction.
A statewide conference, Bicycling in Colorado, was held in
1977 to evaluate the existing status of bicycling from a statewide
perspective. The conference was organized to identify problems and
propose solutions to questions of facility design and funding,
program coordination and legislative needs. The conference report
concluded that current facilities were discontinuous, planning too
often emphasized costly paths when on-street facilities were available,
and facility plans lacked provisions for maintenance (2).
An example of the lack of coordination which was raised at
the conference was the development of a 10-mile linear park through
the city which included a well constructed 8-foot-wide grade-separated
bike path. The Platte River Greenway project required $1.4 million to
construct. It had two significant characteristics in relation to the
community's existing bikeway system: the Greenway was designed with
little connection to the city's existing system, and it was difficult
to get to with only two or three access points along the entire ten-mile
distrnce. As a consequence, the Greenway was little used by bicyclists
for either commuting or recreation.
126
-------
Based on workshop reports which evolved from the Bicycling in
Colorado conference, Mt. Bicyclists' Association determined that a
regional access map which connected usable streets and existing
bikeways into a system should receive top priority. There were no
maps available at the time to show cyclists where to ride and how
to access major regional destinations. Additionally, the map would
assist in determining what facility development was required to make
the city and the region more accessible to bicycle traffic. The map
sbusequently detailed over 500 miles of usable routes, including the
first appearance of the Platte Greenway on a map. The region's
street system was adequate, in most cases, to connect the discontinu-
ous official routes into a system.
The conference and the new regional map had the effect of
stimulating renewed evaluation of bicycle transportation among local
cyclists and public agencies. By 1978, the region's severe air pollu-
tion problem dominated public debate. Preparation of the State
Implementation Plan (SIP) focused public attention on defining alterna-
tives to the heavy automobile reliance of area residents. Bicycling
was frequently advised as an important alternative in public hearings
on the content of the SIP. Support came from business, government and
many citizens. In response to a provision of the SIP, the Denver
Regional Council of Governments has formed a Bicycle Advisory Committee
and is preparing the first Regional Bikeway Plan.
A major problem in the Denver region, as noted earlier, has
been the lack of coordination of bicycle facilities on the basis of
a regional plan or strategy for bikeway development. The Regional
Bikeway Plan, currently being prepared, is the first step in that
direction. The Regional Bikeway Plan, when adopted by the Denver
Regional Council of Governments, will be used as the basis for
allocation of federally funded bikeway projects.
The Regional Bikeway plan will be focused primarily on
commuter bicycle transportation, i.e. utilitarian trips. Currently
nearing completion, the plan identifies routes to designated activity
centers (destinations of cyclists for work, shopping, and personal
business activities) from surrounding 2 and 4 mile travel sheds.
Linkages between activity centers are also provided where activity
centers overlap and where activity center interaction has high
potential.
The plan also is cognizant of the need for bicycle storage
facilities and suggests financial incentives for the private sector
to provide bicycle storage facilities at trip attractors.
127
-------
Within Denver's city limits, the Mayor appointed a Policy
Advisory Committee on Bicycle Commuting. This committee works with
a new bicycling program coordinator in the Denver Planning Office.
In 1979, the Advisory Committee elected to emphasize bicycle parking
through a study and plan. The parking plan will complement the
Revised Denver Bikeway Plan as a major incentive to increased bicycle
use.
The Revised Plan, the second generation effort, will emphasize
on-street routes, shifting away from the lane and path approach
taken in the original bikeway plan in 1972. Capital improvements are
focused on barrier removal projects rather than linear paths.
The '79 Bikeway Plan proposed 84 miles of additional on-street
routes, no new lanes, and 21 miles of bikepaths. No lanes were
proposed because streets with adequate width were identified. This
will minimize construction costs and annual maintenance expense as
well. The total existing and proposed 210 mile network is composed
of 3% lanes, 32% paths, and 65% Class III routes (3).
Despite substantial planning and implementation efforts, a
corresponding reduction in accidents is not occurring, nor is
utilization increasing substantially (4). A recent study (5)
supports the argument that while facilities are required for barrier
removal and route continuity, it is the cyclists' fear of accidents
which continues to act as the greatest identified barrier to bicycle
use.
In July, 1979, the City of Denver and the State Office of
Energy Conservation Coordinated the first Annual Denver Bike Expo
to encourage commuter and recreational bicycling.The Expo was
held in a popular downtown plaza where demonstrations, exhibits and
information was made available to the public. Incredibly, 26 agencies
and private groups participated directly in this promotion of
bicycling. The Denver Bike Expo was a success and plans are being
made for an expanded 1980 program.
For more information, contact:
Mr. Royce Sherlock
Bicycle Coordinator and Head of Land Use Planning
Denver Planning Office
1445 Cleveland Place, Room 400
Denver, Colorado 80262
(303) 575-3375
128
-------
Mr. George Scheuernstuhl
Director, Transportation Services
Denver Regional Council of Governments
2480 W. 26th St., Suite 200B
Denver, Colorado 80211
(303) 455-1000
Mr. Bill Litchfield
State Highway Bicycle Coordinator
Division of Transportation Planning
Colorado Dept. of Highways
4201 E. Arkansas Ave.
Denver, Colorado 80222
(303) 757-9506
129
-------
5.4 State of North Carolina
In 1974, the North Carolina legislature passed a "Bicycle
and Bikeway Act" which directed the North Carolina Department of
Transportation to:
• assist local governments with bikeway develop-
ment
• develop and publish policies and standards
relevant to bicycling and bicycle facilities
• sponsor bikeway demonstration projects
• develop and implement a statewide bikeway
system
Funds were provided for staff salaries, travel, and for the Bicycle
Advisory Committee (1). Federal grants supplement the state allocation
of funds.
The bicycle program was created as a result of a paper
written by the current director, Curtis Yates, while he was still
working for the planning department. His paper, entitled "Bikeways
for North Carolina—Bicycle Program Requisites" influenced the North
Carolina Department of Transportation to offer him a position as
Bicycle Coordinator (2).
Citizen input was obtained by appointing a seven-member
Advisory Committee. Citizen information is partly handled through a
newsletter. Interagency coordination is illustrated in Figure 5-1.
North Carolina has been especially successful in attracting
federal assistance in the form of Section 402 highway safety funds.
A total of $400,000 for bicycle funding was raised through this
program to establish a staff position for technical assistance to
localities . This money was also applied toward workshops on bicycle
facilities and safety held throughout the state. Media spots,
bicyclist education courses, and handbooks are other products that
resulted from North Carolina's 402 funding.
Over ten projects were completed by 1977 (3-14). These
included a review of North Carolina statutes pertaining to the bicycle,
a study of the problems and needs of storage facilities for bicycles,
a "how to" manual for development of bicycle programs by local areas,
and several surveys to ascertain the characteristics of bicyclists in
North Carolina.
130
-------
Figure 5-1
NORTH CAROLINA COORDINATION
State Bicycle
Coordinator
Department of Public Instruction
Department of Natural Resources
and Community Development
Department of Crime Control
and Public Safety
Department of Transportation
• Div. of Motor Vehicles
• Traffic Engineering
• Planning and Research
• Bridge Structures and
Roadway Design
• Div. of Highways
• Public Information
Citizen Advisory Committee
Bicycle Organizations
Citizens
Source of Data: M. Meletiou, N.C. Bicycle Program, 1979.
131
-------
One of the most tangible benefits for North Carolina
bicyclists was the development of statewide bicycle systems called
Bicycle Highways. Over sixteen maps were prepared, identifying safe
highways for bicycling, and providing detailed information on food,
lodging, and other services.
About sixteen other projects are currently underway or
completed (16, 17). These include a Bicycle Safety Pilot Cities
program to demonstrate the effects of a comprehensive bicycle safety
program in Greenville and Davidson. Low cost bicycle safety programs
will be demonstrated in seven additional cities. A bicycle safety
display booth to be used throughout the state in public places such
as shopping center and conferences is being developed. A three-year
statewide bicycle accident analysis is also underway.
North Carolina is experimenting with a wide range of educa-
tional programs. These include elementary school education and
bicycle education for both special groups and the general public. A
disappointing aspect of the program is the low priority rating given
a Kindergarten through 9th grade bicycle/pedestrian safety education
curriculum. Tested in 100 school systems over a three year period,
this Federally-assisted demonstration was given a low-priority
ranking by the N.C. Department of Education at the end of the demonstra-
tion period, and state funding was not made available to continue the
program.
Other educational programs include a series of summer Pedal
Power Camps where safety training will be given to about 300 children,
development of a bike rodeo manual, and the addition of a bicycle
supplement to the Driver's education Instructor's Manual. An adult
education course guide will be made available for use at community
colleges and universities in the state. A bicycle information service
is underway, which will provide public access to a library, films,
bicycle files on specific subjects and informational road shows. A
bicycle safety mass media educational program will utilize radio and
TV to reach a large audience (18) .
For more information, contact:
Mr. Curtis B. Yates
Bicycle Coordinator
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Box 25201
Raleigh, N.C. 27611
(919) 733-2804
132
-------
5.5 State of California
California's bicycle program is administered by the Office of
Bicycle Facilities, located in California's Department of Transportation
(Caltrans). Authorized by .the Legislature in 1973, the bicycle program
has had strong support by politicians and Caltrans officials (1). As
the Secretary of Caltrans wrote in a letter to the state Senate in
1979, "A comparison of California's 16 million registered motor vehicles
to the estimated 10 million bicycles owned in California shows a
significant potential for the use of the bicycle as an effective substi-
tute to the automobile for utilitarian trips, such as commute
trips" (2).
Under Dick Roger's direction, and with a staff of 5 people,
the Office of Bicycle Facilities has developed a strong program to
provide better physical facilities in California. The program uses
Federal, state and local funds for construction and technical assis-
tance within the state.
Federally-assisted projects include use of about 10% of
California's Title 23, Section 217 (a) federal aid funds for bicycle
projects. Located in the Mendocino, Kern, Los Angeles, Riverside and
Stockton areas, in 1978 these projects include construction of 6.2
miles of paved shoulders, 3 miles of bicycle paths and 0.3 miles of
bicycle path and bridge. Particularly noteworthy is the substantial
amount of funds obligated for bicycle projects ($225,700 out of $2.5
million for the state) when the bicycle projects must compete directly
with other federal-aid highway projects for funding.
California also received $297,060 (5%) of the $6 million
Federal Bikeway Demonstration Program funds for three projects. The
Oakland-San Francisco Bay Bridge Shuttle Demonstration is being
implemented by Caltrans. Four vans and bicycle trailers plus opera-
ting costs were financed by the $140,000 budget. Begun in September
1977, the demonstration will be continued at least until 1980. Other
projects include construction of a bicycle trail in Concord, and a
bus/bike project in the City of Santa Cruz.
The authorizing legislation (3) for the Office of Bicycle
Facilities calls for an amount of not less than $360,000 of each
annual Caltrans budget to be set aside for the construction of non-
motorized transportation facilities in conjunction with the State
Highway System. During the fiscal year 1977/1978 approximately
$1.3 million was obligated for nonmotorized transportation facilities
(4), and in fiscal year 1978/79, $1.46 million was budgeted (5).
Facility construction scheduled for FY 78/79 includes about 44
133
-------
miles of paved shoulders, lane signing and striping at Napa, 2.4 miles
of bike lanes, and over 4 miles of path construction. Projects
already completed or in construction include about 74 miles of paved
shoulder and 4.3 miles of bicycle path.
An appropriation of $30,000 per month is available through
the state's Bicycle Lane Account and is administered by the Office
of Bicycle Facilities. Priorities for use of the funds are set
forth in Section 2383 of the Streets and Highways Code and include:
• construction of Class I bikeways to complete
existing routes serving commuters
• construction of other Class I bikeways contained
in the city or county bikeway plan
• elimination of hazards to bicyclists on existing
bikeways or bicycle routes
• provision of secure bicycle parking facilities
serving civic or public buildings, transit termi-
nals, business districts, shopping centers and
schools
• other projects implementing the city or county bikeways
plan
Funds have been approved for six bikepath projects, totaling almost 10
miles in San Diego, Orange, Sacramento and Los Angeles Counties,
the city of Duarte, and the City of Los Angeles.
Senate Bill 283, passed in 1975, provides for the allocation
of $4.9 million dollars between 1976 to 1979 for the construction of
a commuter bikeway in each county group, and for improvements on the
Bikecentennial Route. In 1977, $2.25 million was approved by the
Caltrans Secretary for two commuter bikeway projects. The Sacramento
Northern Railroad Bikeway is a joint City/County/State project.
A 10.4 mile Class I bikeway will be constructed on an abandoned rail-
road right-of-way, and joins the American River Bike Trail which
provides recreational riding and access to California State University.
An exclusive bike crossing will be constructed over the America River,
and the City of Sacramento will pay for and provide on-street
improvements to link the bikeway to downtown employment centers. In
addition to these contributions by the city, the County will contribute
$134,000, and $1.4 million will be provided by the state.
The San Diego Route Bikeway will receive $850,000 from the
state for construction of about 25 miles of Class I, II and III bikeways
around San Diego Bay. The bikeway will link with the San Diego-
134
-------
Coronado Bay Bridge bus-on-bike service, and will serve industrial,
military and commercial employment centers along the Bay as well as
recreational demand. Six local agencies and Caltrans are participating
in the project. The City of San Diego is the lead agency and Caltrans
is responsible for project development.
The Bikecentennial Route Improvement Program will receive a
total of about $2.6 million when the current projects are completed.
Between 1976 and 1978, 31 miles of paved shoulders were provided
in five projects, and the City of San Diego received funds for develop-
ment of bike lanes on a bridge replacement project. Additional
projects scheduled for completion include construction of 45 miles of
paved shoulders on State highways, and several joint state/local agency
funded projects. These joint projects will result in the construction
of 28 miles of bike lanes and 3 miles of bike paths.
The Office of Bicycle Facilities has also undertaken three
major studies. In 1972 a Statewide Bicycle Committee was formed to
make recommendations to the California Legislature concerning bicycling
issues of significant importance. This study resulted in legislation
revising the vehicle code to realistically address cyclist/motorist
rules of the road. Emphasis was on preserving cyclists rights to
use all streets and highways while also having the same basic responsi-
bilities as those of motor vehicle drivers.
In April 1977, a Statewide Bicycle Facilities Committee was
formed to develop statewide criteria and standards for bicycle
facilities. Participants included state and local agencies, bicycling
groups and other interested individuals and groups. After public
hearings, new criteria developed by the Committee were adopted by
the Department in August 1976. The published standards, Planning
and Design Criteria for Bikeways in California (6), have received
national recognition. Over 3,000 copies have already been distributed,
and the Federal Highway Administration has requested permission for
national distribution through the U.S. Department of Transportation.
California has led the way for use of freeway shoulders
where safer than alternative routes. Caltrans completed a Freeway
Shoulder Study in 1977 which resulted in the opening of approximately
230 miles of shoulder in 1978. This increased the total mileage open
135
-------
for bicyclists' use to about 960 statewide. No unusual safety problems
have been noted on the freeway shoulders open to bicyclists (7).
For more information, contact:
Mr. Dick Rogers
Director, Office of Bicycle Facilities
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans)
1120 N St.
Sacramento, California 95814
(916) 445-2200
136
-------
REFERENCES: SECTION 5
DAVIS
(1) Conversation with Fred White, Bicycle Officer, Davis Police
Department, November, 1978.
(2) R. Sommer and D.F. Lott, "Bikeways in Action: The Davis
Experience, Congressional Record. Vol. 117, No. 53, Monday,
April 19, 1971.
(3) "Suggested Bike Facilities Tour of Davis, 1976", Bicycle
Programs, (City of Davis, California), August 1977.
(4) D.B. Pelz, "Development of Bicycle Facilities, Interim Status
Report", Bicycle Programs (Public Works Dept., City of Davis,
California), August 1977.
(5) Conversation with Fred White, Davis Police Department, November
1978.
(6) R. Sommer and D.F. Lott, "Behavioral Evaluation of the Bikeway
System", Bicycle Programs (City of Davis, California), August
1977.
(7) "Chapter 5, Bicycles, Code of the City of Davis", Bicycle
Programs (City of Davis, California), August 1977.
(8) F. Becker as reported in R. Sommer and D.F. Lott, "Bikeways
in Action: The Davis Experience", Congressional Record, Vol. 117,
No. 53, Monday, April 19, 1971.
(9) M. Rorvik as reported in R. Sommer and D.F. Lott, "Bikeways
in Action: The Davis Experience", Congressional Record, Vol. 117,
No. 53, Monday, April 19, 1971.
(10) The Davis Experiment; One City's Plan to Save Energy
(Washington, D.C.: Public Resource Center), 1977-
MADISON
(1) Long Range Bikeway Program: A Summary Report of Proposed
Policies s Facility Plans (Wisconsin: City of Madison),
December 1975.
(2) Bikeway Planning Program Background Studies (Madison, Wisconsin:
Department of Transportation), April 1975.
(3) Conversation with Dane County offices, April 1979.
(4) Conversation with Tom Walsh, Madison Department of Transportation,
April 1979.
137
-------
REFERENCES: SECTION 5 (cont.)
DENVER
(1) The Denver Bikeway Plan (Denver, Colorado: Denver Planning
Office), 1972.
(2) Bicycling in Colorado (Mountain Bicyclists' Association for the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Colorado Department of
Highways, Denver Regional Transportation District), 1977.
(3) Telephone interview with Royce Sherlock, Bicycle Coordinator,
Denver Planning Office, April 1979.
(4) Mountain Bicyclists' Association, A Study of Bicycle-Motor
Vehicle Accidents in Colorado (for the Traffic Safety Division,
Colorado Department of Highways), March 1979.
(5) Mountain Bicyclists' Association, Incentives to Increased
Bicycle Use (for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region VIII: Denver, Colorado), April 1979.
NORTH CAROLINA
(1) "N.C. DOT Bicycle Program, Responsibilities and Projects,"
(Raleigh N.C.: North Carolina Bicycle Program), 1978.
(2) "A Conversation with the Captain", Bicycle Forum, Spring, 1978.
(3) Bikeways for North Carolina; Bicycle Program Requisites (1974).
(4) The Bicycle Boom; What To Do About It (1974).
(5) Bicycling Through History (1974).
(6) The North Carolina Bicycle Facility and Program Handbook (1975).
(7) Laws Pertaining to the Use and Operation of the Bicycle (1975)
(8) Bikecentennial North Carolina (1975).
(9) State Fair Survey and Analysis (1975-76).
(10) Bicycling Highways - Mountains to Sea Maps (1976-77).
(11) Planning for Statewide Bicycle Routes; The North Carolina
Experience (1977).
(12) Bicycle Theft and Parking and The Business, School, and Community
Organizations of N.C. and Bicycle Parking (1977).
(13) T. L. Huddleston, Characteristics of the Avid North Carolinian
Who Uses a Bicycle Regularly (1977).
138
-------
REFERENCES: SECTION 5 (cont.)
(14) M.D. Connelly and E.R. Lofton, North Carolina Bicycle Registration
Study (Research Triangle Park, N.C.: Research Triangle Institute for
the N.C. Dept. of Transportation), November 15, 1978.
(15) Conversations with C.B. Yates and M. Meletiou, North Carolina
Bicycle Program, March, 1979.
(16) "Bicycle Program Projects", (Raleigh, N.C.: N.C. Dept. of
Transportation), 1978.
(17) C.B. Yates, "Bicycle Safety Education Programs in North Carolina"
(Raleigh, N.C.: N.C. Dept. of Transportation), 1979.
CALIFORNIA
(1) Conversation with Dick Rogers, Director, Office of Bicycle Facilities,
Caltrans, January 1979.
(2) Letter from Adriana Gianturco, Director of Transportation, Caltrans,
to Hon. Darryl R. White, Secretary of the Senate, March 1979.
(3) Section 156.7, Article 3.5, Chapter 1, Division 1, California
Streets and Highways Code.
(4) Annual Report of the Development of Nonmotorized Transportation
Facilities (Sacramento, Ca.: Caltrans), May, 1978.
(5) Report to the Legislature; Development of Nonmotorized
Transportation Facilities (Sacramento, Ca.: Caltrans), March, 1979.
(6) State Bicycle Facilities Committee, Planning and Design Criteria
for Bikeways in California (Sacramento, Ca.: Caltrans), June 30, 1978.
(7) Conversation with Dick Rogers, Director, Office of Bicycle Facilities,
Caltrans, June 1979.
139
-------
140
-------
APPENDIX A
SUPPORTING FIGURES,
SECTION I
141
-------
142
-------
Figure A-l
Bicycle Measures in SIPs, September 1979
Region State Urban Area
Bicycle Measure
Mass.
Boston
60 bike racks in 11 MBTA
stations.
Mass,
Springfield
II
N.Y.
Capital
District &
Catskill
Uti ca/Rome
Syracuse
Rochester
N.Y.C. metro
area
Mass. Dept. of Public
Works (MDPW) bikeway
program, bike paths,
lanes and routes, signing,
publicizing bike routes.
Education of drivers and
bicyclists to rules of
the road and bicycling
techniques.
Removal of impediments
(e.g. replace drainage
grating, enacting parking
bans, improving street
surfaces, etc.).
Bicycle/pedestrian circula-
tion system on Springfield
Riverfront Park
Bicycle path, Northampton
Outer belt bike path
Westfield community^wide
complex of bike routes
Bikeway system on dikes in
Chicopee
Bicycle storage facilities,
bicycle lanes, areawide
bicycle routes
Bikeway and bicycle storage
facilities
Bikeways
Bikeways
Various bikeways (100 mi.)
Pilot project of 4 commuter
routes with Class I, Class
II and Class III variations
Source: Nina Dougherty Rowe and EPA Regional Bicycle Coordinators, 1979
143
-------
Region State
Urban Area
Bicycle Measure
II N.Y.
Westchester
County
Nassau County
Suffolk County
N.J.
Atlantic
City
Phillipsburg
Bergen
Route 117 bikeway
Putnam Bikeway Phase I
Bronx River Bikeway
Phase III
Bicycle lanes, bicycle
storage facilities
Investigate the implemen-
tion of a county-wide
bicycle plan
Recommendation in SCDOT's
Transportation Plan to
make provisions for
biking facilities when
major road construction
takes place.
Bike lanes and storage
facilities
Ventnor City Bikeway,
4.0 miles
Sommers Point Bikeway,
0.82 miles
linwood Bikeway, 1.66
miles
Hammonton Bikeway
Phillipsburg, 2 bikeways
consolidated, 1.5 miles
Hopatcong - Belvidere Rd.
Bikeway, 0.5 miles
River Edge-Hackensack,
construct bikeway from
Hackensack River to
Steuban House to Johnson
Park
Hackensack-Teaneck,
construct bikeway from
Johnson Park on east side
to Hackensack River
Oradell, construct bikeway
link between Commander
Black Drive to Ridewood
Ave.
Rivervale, construct
bikeway along Rivervale
Ave. to link existing
bikeways in Rivervale
144
-------
Region State
Urban Area
Bicycle Measure
II
N.J.
Bergen
Essex
Huds on
Ramsey, construct bikeway
from Darlington/Campgaw
Park to meet both Ramapo
River and Rockland Electric
Utility Bikeways, 5.0
miles
Mahwah, construct bikeway
along Ramapo River and
Rockland Electric
Utility right-of-way,
7.6 miles
E. Rutherford-Rutherford,
construct bikeway adjacent
to Conrail's Erie Lacka-
wanna Line and Carlton Hill
branch
E. Rutherford-Rutherford,
construct bikeway adjacent
to Conrail's Erie Lacka-
wanna Line from Park Ave.
to Riggin Field
Fort Lee, construct bikeway
on top of Palisades from
vicinity of G. Washington
Bridge to N.Y. St. line,
12 miles
Ridgewood bikeway
Teaneck bikeway
Emerson bikeway
Nutley bikeway
Canterbury Memorial and
Yantacaw Brk Park bikeway
Hudson County bikeway
System
Jersey City bikeway
connecting Roosevelt
Stadium to Lincoln Park
Countywide, urban bikeways
First St., Bayonne bike-
way construction
County Park, bikeway
construction
Shore route, Bayonne Park
to Veteran Stadium bikeway
Montclair bikepath
Nutley bikepath, Kingsland
and Memorial Park
145
-------
Region State Urban Area
Bicycle Measure
II N.J.
Hudson
Middlesex
Mammouth
Mercer
Bike route, Newark,
Weequahic and Branch
Brook Parks
Bikeway, Newark within
Branch Brook Park
Bike parking, Newark
bike parking facilities
Johnson Park bikeway
Rutgers University bike-
way. Piscataway
Piscataway (Hoes Lane)
bikeway
Victor Crowell Park bike-
way
Shrewsbury Borough bike-
ways
Middletown Township bike-
way
Shark River Park bikeway
Belmar bikeway, S. Belmar
Bikeway, Mercerville-Edinburg Rd.,
Hamilton S West Windsor Twps.
Bikeway, Princeton Boro & Princeton
Twp.
Bikeway- various local streets,
Princeton Boro
Princeton Twp. Bikeway System
Construction of Princeton Twp.
Bikeway System
Morris
County bikeway, Passaic River
Park, Passaic/Chatham Twp.
Bikeway at Patriots Path
Bikeway, Pequannock
(Woodland Park)
Bikeway. Pequannock
Bikeway, Passaic River
Park
Bikeway, Morristown
146
-------
Region State Urban Area
Bicycle Measure
II N.J.
Ocean
Passaic
Somerset
Union
DUPRC/
Burlington
Camden
Long Beach Blvd. bikeway
Brick Township bikeway
Dover Township bikeway
Lavallette Borough bikeway
Seaside Heights Borough
bikeway
N. Haledon bikeways
Bikeway, Amwell Rd., Cedar
Grove to J.F. Kennedy Blvd.
Bikeway, Bridgewater,
Manville, Somerville
Bikeway, Bernards Township
Bikeway, Manville Borough
Bikeway, Franklin County
Bikeway. Amwell Township
Cranford Township bikeway
Passaic River Park bikeway
46 Transit Terminal bicycle
lockers
Willingboro Township
bikeway
Strawbridge Lake bikeway.
Moorestown Township
Levitt Parkway bikeway,
Willingboro Township
Bikeway system, Willing-
boro Township
Moorestown Riverton Road
Bikeway along Cooper River,
Lawnside Boro
Bikeways along various
local roads, City of
Camden
147
-------
Region State
Urban Area
Bicycle Measure
III Pa.
Allegheny
County
(Pittsburgh)
Lehigh &
Northampton
Counties
(Allentown-
Bethlehem-
Easton)
Scranton/
Wilkes-Barre
Bike-n-ride lockers
Implementation of
Allentown and Easton
bikeway studies
(Increase in bicycling will
reduce hydrocarbon
emissions slightly)
Bike routes as in the
Lackawana County Regional
Planning Commission
Bike Route Plan, June '78
Del.
Wilmington
III Md.
Baltimore
Implementation of bicycle
facility improvements.
Implementation of Newark
bikeway systems, storage
facilities and route
permission (use Del.
Memorial Bridge via truck)
Programs to promote bicycle
use for short trips,
particularly commuting;
handbook for commuters
Provide basic bicycle-
related roadway improve-
ments {i.e. bike safe
storm grates, wide
urban lanes, paved
shoulders)
Pilot bicycle parking,
install bike parking
at selected sites
Establish and expand
cyclist and motorist
education programs
Selected bikeways
identified as priority
routes in the regional
bikeways plan for
designation or construc-
tion.
148
-------
Region State
Urban Area
Bicycle Measure
III Md.
D.C.
Va.
Howard
County
Montgomery
County
Rockville
Bowie
City of
Gaithersburg
D.C.
Northern
Virginia
Counties
Arlington
Bikeway/pedestrian
bridge
Build 17 additional
miles of bike lanes
and bikeways
Install 400 additional
bike storage facilities
Comprehensive bikeway
plan
Bikeways/bike lanes
Bike paths to be included
in master plan update
Bike lanes and bikeways.
Install 300 additional
bicycle storage
facilities
Bikeway along 1-66
corridor between 1-495
and Rosslyn in
Arlington and Fairfax
Bike storage at metro-
rail. Fund additional
19.1 miles of bikeways
III Va.
Loundon
Falls Church
Virginia
Beach
Norfolk
Bike storage at metro
Bikeway on Gallows Road
from Route 29/211 to
Route 7, Fairfax
Bikeway along Route 1
corridor between
entrance on Ft.
Belvoir and north
intersection of
Route 235 in Fairfax
Witch Duck Road bikeway,
2.12 miles
North Plaza Trail
bikeway
Newton Road-Haywood
Road bikeway
Bikeway expansion
study of its 20 mile
bicycle route system
149
-------
Region State
Urban Area
Bicycle Measure
III Va.
S.E. Virginia
Portsmouth
Hampton City/
Newport News
Study to evaluate (1)
implementation potential
of short bikeways (2.5
to 5.5 miles) to serve
all types of trips; (2)
promotion of bikeways as
a form of transportation
for all types of trips;
(3) evaluation of cost
and benefits of bikeways;
(4) implementation of
safety programs; (5)
construction of secure
bike parking with transit
and activity centers;
and (6) potential of
shared bikeways
Bikeway along George
Washington Highway
between Chesapeake City
limits and Norfolk Naval
Shipyard (will serve as
a commuter route for
shipyard workers living
in Craddock and serve the
Town and Country shopping
center
Regional bike plan adopted
by MPO
Bicycle lockers and shelters
at fringe parking lots
±V Ala.
Ky.
Ga.
Jefferson
County
Atlanta
Bicycle lanes and storage
facilities
Bicycle facilities.
Further implementation of
Regional Bikeway Plan
Long range bicycle plans
for 500 miles of bikeway
network
Atlanta Regional Council
preparing summary report,
will look at bicycle
measures
150
-------
Region
State
Urban Area
Bicycle Measure
S.C.
Charleston
County
Columbia
Fla.
Duval County
Jacksonville
Pinellas
County
Broward
County
Long range bikeways
program, 161.7 miles
Bikeway plan for a
comprehensive network of
bikeways under guidance
of the Bikeway Subcommittee,
Columbia Area Transportation
Study, Transportation
Planning Advisory Committee
1979-1982 study to
consider implementation of
remaining bikeway routes
recommended in Jackson-
ville Urban Area Transpor-
tation Study. Regional
Bikeway Plan
Bikeway Implementation Plan
of 110 miles to be imple-
mented 1979-1985. Jackson-
ville area to initiate
bikeway routes in 1979.
(The routes will collect
bicycle traffic from north,
sourth portions of city,
and link bicycle commuter
traffic to downtown area)
Evaluation of bicycle lanes
and storage facilities to
be completed by 12/81
Bikeways Implementation
Plan, 221 miles of Class I
bikepaths, 537 miles of
Class II bike routes.
Encourage use of bicycles,
especially for short
trips. Estimated daily
VMT reduction due to bikes:
1982 62,594 mi/day
1987 75,227 mi/day
151
-------
Region State
Urban Area
Bicycle Measure
IV Pla.
Dade County
Palm Beach
Ind.
Orange County
South Bend
Minn.
Ohio
Duluth
Twin Cities
Rochester
Cincinnati
Kenton County,
Ky.
Columbus
Wise.
Madi s on
By 1982 Dade County will
have implemented 100
miles of Class I separated
bikeways and 200 additional
miles of signed routes,
plus bike lockers at
transit.
Bikeway study plan.
Bicycle usage will be
publicized and taken to
large employers for
consideration.
Sidewalk and bike path
program
Appropriate provisions in
future highway projects
for bicycles and pedestrians
to ensure efficient use
of road space
Employer programs to
encourage bicycling
Bicycle facilities
Bikeways as identified
in proposed bikeway
plan for the Rochester
area
Implemented ±y /;>/ /o
bicycle facilities in
city of Middletown
Bicycle storage facilities
and bikeways
Bike lane improvements:
Tuttle Park (5,545 ft.),
Front & Main Street
(4,240 ft.), Bethlet to
Whetstone Park (12,000 ft.)
Schrock Rd. (400 ft.)
Bicycle system improvement
1979-82, goal to improve
bike paths
152
-------
Region State Urban Area
Bicycle Measure
Ohio Cleveland
Canton
111.
Chicago
VI Texas Houston
N. Mex. Albuquerque
VI Ark. Little Rock
Okla.
VII Kansas Wichita
Several bikeways
constructed in 1975
metropark system
20 mile bikeway plan,
2 routes scheduled for
construction in 1979:
(1) West to Tuscarawas
to Fulton Canton Park
system, (2) Maple to
Glenwood in North
Canton Place Park
Development of bikeways
and storage facilities
(will inventory all
facilities), implement
local bikeway programs
17 miles of bike paths
by 1981 (attachment to
SIP, not SIP commitment).
Study bike paths to
determine how to serve
commuter traffic.
Bicycle storage at major
commercial and public
facilities
Bikeway network master
plan part of an approved
Transportation Plan.
Bikeways are a consideration
of all street and highway
development and are
included as part of the
facility design where
appropriate
Evaluate and study programs
for bike lanes and bike
storage as part of the
TIP development
Evaluate and study programs
for bicycle storage and
bicycle lanes as part of
alternative analysis
Bicycle lanes and storage
facilities, employer programs
to encourage bicycling and
walking, bicycle lanes and
storage and comprehensive
bike plan are potential
measures which may be
pursued if other strategies
do not work
153
-------
Region State
Urban Area
Bicycle Measure
VIII Colo.
Denver
IX Calif.
Los Angeles
San Diego
Monterey/
Santa Cruse
Santa
Barbara
Nev.
San Francisco
Las Vegas
Development of Regional
Bicycle Plan. Bicycle
Plan Implementation and
Demonstration Project.
Bicycle parking wherever
a major employer or
major business landlord
provides subsidized
parking facilities for
motor vehicles.
5 year program: bike/
pedestrian underpass,
5 bikeways next to
major arterials, program
to restripe highways
to allow for wider
outside lanes
Increased bicycle
pedestrian facilities
(bike paths and bike
racks). Amend zoning
ordinance to require
bike paths, bike racks
and over-crossing.
Develop regional bicycle
route system, community
oriented routes,
bicycle feeder systems
to public transit,
possible employer
incentives and facilities,
including secure bicycle
parking, connections
with express bus service,
showers and lockers.
Extensive educational
and promotional programs.
(1990 target: 50% increase
in bike travel).
Bike lanes and storage
facilities
Provide public information
on bicycle programs to
push existing bicycle
system which has bike
storage facilities, net-
work of bike routes and
bike maps.
Planning storage facilities,
developing bike routes,
Transbay Bike Shuttle van/
bike trailer over Bay Bridge
Increased bicycle use
154
-------
Region State Urban Area
Bicycle Measure
Wash. Vancouver
Seattle-Tacoma
Spokane
Idaho Boise
Additional Bicycle Use,
Given medium priority for
analysis to attain emission
reduction targets
Bicycle lanes and storage,
trails and walkways; will
be analyzed for emission
reduction potential. Plan
to accelerate current City
of Seattle Bicycle program.
Bicycle Coordinator: City
of Seattle has hired a bicycle
coordinator to encourage
bicycle use
Bicycle Parking and storage:
Employers will be encouraged to
provide bicycle parking and
storage
Survey: Survey county employees
to determine additional bicycle
storage and other needs
Bikeways/Pathways Plan:
Implement recommendations
from forthcoming Interim
Bikeways/Pathways Plan
Bike Plan: Improve current
bike plan (adopted 1976) to
provide for additional bike
lanes and storage
Bicycle Coordinator: Hired by
Ada County January 1978
Bicycle/Pedestrain Design
Manual adopted March 1979
Bikeway Map: Prepare Bikeway
Master Map for Ada County
(FY 79 UPWP)
154a
-------
Region State Urban Area
Bicycle Measure
Idaho Boise
Oregon Portland
Salem
Candidate projects for
future consideration:
Approximately $2,500 in federal
funds will be used to analyze
the potential of additional
bicycle measures including:
1) Bicycle peer court to hear
cases involving traffic
violations by younger (high
school age and below)
riders
2) Push for bike parking facilities
3) Education program on bicycle
safety
4) Bicycle commuter marketing
program
5) Bikeway maintenance program
6) Getting bicycle projects
on the transportation systems
element (funding) list
Bikeways: Have developed 74 miles
of bikeways in the air quality
maintenance area. Committee to
use 1% of state highway funds
for bicycle transport. Will receive
additional emphasis if other
control measures do not bring
sufficient reductions in emissions.
Map: The City of Portland will
prepare a map of city streets, rating
each street for difficulty of
riding
Location study: study of where to
put short term (racks and posts)
and long term (lockers) bicycle
parking to encourage commuting
by bicycle to the central business
district
Bicycle Plan: Bicycle Plan
recently completed and undergoing
review. Plan will be incorporated
into comprehensive and transportation
plans.
I54b
-------
Region State Urban Area Bicycle Measure
Oregon Eugene- Bikeways: Over 100 miles
Springfield of bikeways currently in
metropolitan area. Bicycling
encouraged. Significant
commuter use of bikeways.
Use of bicycles linked to
modest emission reductions
needed to meet standards.
Ashland-Medford Increased Bicycle Use:
Produce 700 tons per year
CO reduction from improved
bicycle and transportation
networks. Will receive
careful consideration in
analysis of transportation
control measures (175 grant).
154c
-------
SMS A
Figure A-2
MAJOR MODE OF TRANSPORTATION TO WORK
FOR 22 U.S. SMSAS: 1975, 1976
Drives
Foot Bicycle Alone Carpool Bus
Subway2
or El. Train Other
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
Allentown-
Bethlehem-
Easton, Pa.-N.J.
Baltimore, Md.
Birmingham, Ala.
Buffalo, N.Y.
Cleveland, Ohio
Denver, Colorado
Grand Rapids , Mich .
Honolulu, Hawaii
Houston, Tex.
Indianapolis, Ind.
Las Vegas, Nev.
Louisville, Ky.-Ind.
New York, N.Y.
Oklahoma City, Okla.
Omaha, Nebr.-Iowa
Philadelphia, Pa.
Providence-Pawtucket-
Warwick, R.I. -Mass.
Raleigh, N.C.
Sacramento, Calif.
St. Louis, Mo. -111.
San Francisco-
Oakland, Calif.
Seattle-Everett ,
Wash.
7.9
5.1
2.6
5.5
3.6
5.2
4.8
4.0
2.7
3.2
2.8
2.4
7.9
2.8
3.9
5.8
5.1
2.7
2.3
3.8
4.8
3.4
0.4
-
0.9
0.4
1.2
1.3
1.0
0.5
0.2
0.7
0.3
0.3
0.7
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.9
3.2
0.6
1.1
0.5
70
61
75
72
68
69
74
57
70
71
.5
.2
.6
.8
.7
.4
.9
.4
.4
.3
75.9
72
36
76
68
61
70
70
74
68
61
69
.0
.3
.4
.1
.8
.1
.3
.1
.3
.8
.1
19
21
17
13
13
17
16
25
21
21
17
18
10
18
21
16
20
23
16
21
14
17
.4
.5
.6
.8
.8
.4
.3
.2
.6
.3
.2
.9
.2
.1
.1
.1
.6
.4
.9
.5
.5
.6
1
11
2
5
9
5
1
11
3
3
2
4
11
0
4
9
3
0
2
4
12
8
.3
.0
.9
.0
.6 1.5
.2
.3
.4
.5
.0
.1
.5
.6 28.0
.7
.3
.0 3.2
.4
.9
.0
.5
.5 0.6
.0
0
0
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
4.4 1
1
2
3.1 0
0
1
1
1
2.7 2
1
.9
.8
.3
.0
.4
.6
.4
.0
.3
.0
.3
.9
.3
.3
.2
.6
.5
.8
.5
.3
.0
.4
TOTAL, all workers 5.1 0.6 59.1 16.4 7.3 8.8 1.4 1.4
making trips (exclud-
ing Phil, Pa. and
San Francisco, Cal.
SMSAs)
2lncludes streetcars
El. = Elevated
Includes workers using motorcycles, all other means not listed, and
workers using an auto or truck but not specifying type of riding
arrangement.
Source of Data: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Selected Characteristics of
Travel to Work in 20 Metropolitan Areas; 1976, P-23, No. 72, Sept. 1978;
Selected Characteristics of Travel to Work in the San Francisco-Oakland
SMSA; 1975, P-23, No. 88, July 1979; and Selected Characteristics of
Travel to Work in the Philadelphia SMSA: 1975, P-23, No. 86, August 1979.
155
-------
Bicyclist Trip Length - Frequency Distributions
ALL TRIPS
80
60
40
20
a.
1
90* o
H1
Ln
ffi
SHOP
100
83
60
a.
i-
,2
° 20
*>
c
V
U
\
\
V-^
^L
— . __ __
WORK
100
80
60
•A
Q.
U
h-
1
**-
° 2°
C
U
U
V
TRIPS
V
\ \
\ v
\
\
NA
'-"
^i>
^^
•^
SCHOOl
100
80
An
L(\
. TRIPS
\ \
V
\
\
*N
\
\
V
3
\
^
\
--
'^^x^
--;
2 4 6 8 10 12 2 4 6 8 10 12 2 4 6 8 10 1
fravel Time (Miles) Travel Time (Miles) Travel Time (Miles)
f all trips within 5 mile range 90* Trips within 6 miles 70-90* Trips within 5 mile range
rRIPS TO RECREATION
-v
i
X
^
^
1 —
1UU
An
a.
h-
1
«*_
0 20
C
U
U
V
a.
\
.\
\
\
\
\
.
\
^
i
\ —
~~r
< i
Eu
Ar
genet Oregon
Izona. Statewld
nver, Colorado
5
2
H-
03
C
2
>
Ul
e
Travel Time (Miles)
80-90* Trips within 3 ">"e range
10 12
Travel Time (Miles)
75~95* Trips wiLhin k miie range
Source: Safety and Location Criteria for Bicycle Facilities,
Daniel T. Smith Jr., De Leuw, Gather & Company,
FHWA-RD-75-112, February 1977, p..59.
-------
COMPARISON OF MEAN MONTHLY TEMPERATURE IN EUROPEAN CITIES
WITH HIGH LEVELS OF BICYCLE USE AND SELECTED U.S. CITIES
MEAN MONTHLY TEMPERATURE - °P
Jan.
•London
•DeBilt, Netherlands
(Rotterdam)
•Stockholm (Upsala,
Sweden)
•Copenhagen
•Sacramento
(Davis)
Minneapolis
Milwaukee
Erueka, Calif.
New Haven
Cleveland
Boston
Buffalo
40
36
31
34
45
12
21
47
30
28
30
25
Feb.
40
39
30
36
48
16
22
48
30
29
30
24
Mar.
41
37
29
34
52
27
31
49
37
35
38
32
April
55
46
38
44
56
44
44
SO
47
47
48
44
May
53
52
53
56
62
57
53
53
57
58
59
55
June
56
58
59
58
70
67
63
56
66
68
68
65
July
63
63
64
65
76
72
69
56
72
72
74
70
Aug.
61
63
61
64
77
70
68
57
71
70
72
68
Sept.
56
56
52
56
72
60
60
56
64
64
65
61
Oct.
53
51
48
50
61
49
50
54
54
53
55
51
Nov.
42
42
34
41
S3
31
36
51
43
41
45
39
Dec.
44
42
35
41
43
18
25
49
32
31
33
28
•Fron Monthly Climatic Data from the World National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adnin. Environmental Data Service.
Volume 24, 1971. These have been rounded off to nearest degree.
1973 World Alnanac - Monthly Normal Temp, based on data 1931-1960.
Source: C.E. Ohrn, "Estimating Potential Bicycle Use and Public Investment", (Minneapolis, Minn.:
Barton-Aschman Associates Inc.), August 22, 1973.
-------
Figure A-5
CRUDE ESTIMATES OF THE RISKS OF TRAVEL BY VARIOUS MODES
Mode
Deaths per 100
million miles3
Risk Relative
to driving (times
more dangerous)
Rapid Transit
Scheduled pas-
senger plane
Bus
Passenger
train
Car
Motorcycle
General
private
aviation
Bicycle
Dutch
English
Pedestrian
0.06
0.1
0.2
0.2
1.5 - 5b
11.0 - 20l
15.0
15-30b'C
20-40
3-10
5-10
3-10
3.5-6d
10.06
10 - 20
Unless otherwise noted the estimates are from William Haddon, Jr., M.D., and Susan
P. Baker, M.P.H., "Injury Control," in Duncan Clark and Brian Mac Mahon (eds.)»
Preventive Medicine, 2d edition (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1976), Table 2.
National Safety Council, Accident Facts (1969) for highside estimates.
Author's crude estimates from data in table and other calculations.
Personal letter (10 October 1977) from G.R. de Reft, Eng., Manager Traffic
Engineering & Safety Department, ANWB (Royal Dutch Touring Club), The Hague;
personal letter (2 August 1977) with documentation from ir.T. Mulder, Head of the
Traffic Bureau, Amsterdam, Netherlands; and personal letter (10 May 1977) from
H. v.d. Klei, Information Department, Institute for Road Safety Research SWOV, Voor-
burg, Netherlands.
eJ.D.G.F. Howe, "The Issue of Safety in Planning for the Cyclist," The Highway
Engineer, March 1977, pp. 16-17 (footnotes), and Friends of the Earth Ltd.,
"Bicycles Campaign Briefing Document No. 4" (London) quotes and critiques the
official statistics of 10 times as much risk of a fatal accident cycling as driving.
Source: M. Everett, University of Tennessee, 1979.
158
-------
Figure A-6
STATE OF PA. AND MADISON AREA BICYCLE USERS BY AGE GROUPS
STATE OF PA.1
IUU7o_
QO
< 3U-
0.
Z 80_
O
Z 70-
« 60-
u
co 50-
u.
2 4°-
u
Z 30_
UJ
Q
o 20-
z
10
0
26%
Under
6
7.1%
87%
6-11
10.6%
91%
12-15
8.3%
59%
16-19
8.2%
47%
20-
M
5.7%
44%
24-29
8.2%
37%
30-44
18.0%
60+ and Don't
know
16%
45-59 15.5%
18.4% 3% \
10%
20%
30%
40%
50% 60% 70%
PERCENT OF TOTAL POPULATION
80% 90%
100%
35-
30_
25-
oc
4U
C/9
20-
15-|
10.
5_
65
MADISON AREA
955
TOTAL USERS 2873
458
391 386
358
249
11
0-5 6-10 11- 15- 19-24
14 18
25-44
AGE GROUP
45-64
65 & over
Sources: Bicycling in Pennsylvania, (Barton-Aschman Associates Inc. for the
State of Pennsylvania), March 1976.
2
Technical Memorandum III, Survey and Inventory, Findings and
Implications (Madison, Wisconsin: City of Madfcon), 1974.
-------
APPENDIX B
EPA BICYCLE COORDINATORS, REGIONAL OFFICES, AND
STATES IN REGION
161
-------
162
-------
Region
I
II
III
IV
Bicycle Coordinator
Denny Lawton
Environmental Protection Agency
Room 2302 JFK Federal Bldg.
Boston, Massachusetts 02203
FTS 8-223-5630
617-223-5630
John Filippelli
Environmental Protection Agency
Room 1005
26 Federal Plaza
New York, New York 10007
FTS 8-264-7665
212-264-7665
Peter Cosier/Sill Belanger
Environmental Protection Agency
6th & Walnut Streets
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19106
FTS 8-886-6082
321-886-6082
Don Stone
Environmental Protection Agency
245 Court!and Street, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30308
FTS Z52-2864
404-881-2864
Michelle Rockawich
Environmental Protection Agency
Air Pollution Division
230 S. Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60604
FTS 8-886-6082
215 886-6082
States in Region
Connecticut, Maine,
Massachusetts, New Hampshire,
Rhode Island, Vermont
New Jersey, New York
Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands
Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania
Virginia, West Virginia,
District of Columbia
Alabama, Georgia, Florida,
Mississippi, North Carolina,
South Carolina, Tennessee,
Kentucky
Illinois, Indiana, Ohio
Michigan, Wisconsin,
Minnesota
VI
VII
Ragan Broyles
Environmental Protection Agency
1201 Elm Street
Dallas, Texas 75270
FTS 8-729-2742
214-767-2742
Wayne Leidwanger
Environmental Protection Agency
Room 249
1735 Baltimore Avenue
Kansas City, Missouri 64108
FTS 8-758-2880
816-374-2880
Arkansas, Lousisana
Oklahoma, Texas, New Mexico
Iowa, Kansas, Missouri,
Nebraska
163
-------
Bicycle Coordinator States in Region
III Barry Levene Colorado, Utah, Wyoming,
Environmental Protection Agency Montona, North Dakota, South Dakota
Suite 900
1860 Lincoln Street
Denver, Colorado 80203
FTS 8-327-3711
303-837-3711
IX Eric Ginsburg Arizona, Californai, Nevada
Environmental Protection Agency Hawaii
215 Fremont Street
San Francisco, California 94105
FTS 8-556-2498
415-556-2498
X Dave DeBryun Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, Washington
Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101
FTS 8-399-1226
206-442-1226
EPA Headquarters Nina Rowe
Environmental Protection Agency ANR-445
401 M. Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
164
-------
APPENDIX C
ILLUSTRATIVE FACILITY COSTS
• Average Bike Route, Lane and Path Costs
• Bicycle Parking Facility Costs
NOTE: All illustrative facility costs except bicycle storage facili-
ties are based on 1974 data as summarized in A. Sorton, R.K. Seyfried,
and L.J. Slade's Pedestrian and Bicycle Considerations in Urban Areas;
An Overview; (conducted for the U.S. Department of Transportation,
Federal Highway Administration and National Highway Safety Administration
by the Traffic Institute, Northwestern University, in cooperation with
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.) Dec. 1977. These costs have been
adjusted to reflect more current figures. A factor of .477 has been
used which is based on the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics" Consumer
Price Index, which rose 47.7% between 1974 and 1979. The original
data was from Tennessee, except for summary bicycle costs which were
from Pennsylvania and Austin, Texas.
The bicycle parking facilities cost data are from the U.S.
General Services Administration's "Bicycle Parking" issuance of June 1,
1979. These costs have been included to provide a rough approximation
of cost order-of-magnitude. They cannot substitute in any way for
local information needed for accurate area-specific cost estimates,
because of regional variations and rapidly changing prices.
165
-------
SUMMARY OF BICYCLE FACILITY COSTS
AVERAGE AVERAGE
TYPE INSTALLATION COSTS MAINTENANCE
(Cost Per Mile) (Costs/Mile/Year)
BICYCLE ROUTE $739-$!,477 $300
BICYCLE LANE $1,477-$4,431 $600
BICYCLE PATH $29,540-$88,620 $1,000
SOURCE: BARTON-ASCHMAN ASSOCIATES INC.
Bicycling in Pennsylvania
Recommended State Policies for
Providing Bicycle Facilities Programs 1975
AUSTIN AREA BICYCLE SYSTEM
INTERIM REPORT, AUSTIN, TEXAS 1975
166
-------
PAVEMENT SURFACE
CTi
WIDTH
Asphalt
Concret
Full Depth
PER 100'* PER MILE
Asphalt Con.
Surface With
Stabilized Base
PER 100' PER MILE
Cement Surf.
With Stab.
Base
PER 100' PER MILE
Stabilized
Gregate
PER 100' PER MILE
8 $606-871
8
8
8
10.5 $768-1078
10.5
10.5
10.5
12.5 $916-1285
12.5
12.5
12.5
$31997-45936
$542-672
$40550-56918
$665-798
$48365-67848
$827-1019
$27667-35482
$1580-1699 $83424-89707
$487-635
$35112-42134
$1920-2053 $101376-103398
$635-812
$43666-53803
$2275-2467 $120120-130253
$753-960
$25714-33528
$33528-42874
$39758-50688
NOTE: SURFACING COSTS REFLECT INCIDENTAL CLEARING AND CURBING, REDUCED MATERIAL COST ALLOWANCE FOR
INCREASE QUANTITIES, AVERAGE OF TWO FEET EXCAVATION THROUGHOUT.
* 100 Linear Feet
-------
BICYCLE PARKING FACILITIES
Name of
Device
Manufacturer
Address
Class Model Price Notes
Cycle-Safe
System
Hartger & Hartger
143 Ionia Ave.,
Grand Rapids, MI
49503
(616) 459-4556
$320 per
Locker
$160 per
Bicycle
Double compart-
mented Bicycle
Locker
Holds two
bicycles stored
horizontally
and facing in
opposite
directions
Reinforced
fiberglass
top and sides
Totally enclosed
to protect bikes
from the weather
Access from both
ends of locker
Bike Stable
Bike Stable Co.
P.O. Box 1402
South Bend, IN
46624
(219) 233-7060
Key- $214 per
Oper. Locker
$214 per
bicycle
Bicycle Locker
Holds one
bicycle stored
vertically
Totally enclosed
to protect bikes
from the weather
Shroud covered
padlock
Minimum order is
100 units
Vertical storage
of bike may
present problems
for cyclist
Class I provides totally enclosed protection from weather and maximum
protection from theft or vandalism. Class II is not enclosed and
provides security by locking both wheels and frame. The bicyclist is
generally required to provide a lock.
168
-------
Name of
Device
Manufacturer -
Address
Class Model
Price
Notes
Bike Lokr
Bike Lockers
East 1051
Pennsylvania
Ave. ,
Tyrone, PA
16686
(814) 684-4108
Bike Lockers, LTD.
P.O. Box 445
West Sacramento
CA 95691
(916) 372-6620
M-2
$390 per
Locker
$195 per
Bicycle
Standard double
Gompartmented
bicycle locker
Holds two bicycles
stored horizontally
and facing in
opposite directions
Aluminum welded
frame with 5/8 in.
phenolic particle
board side, top,
and doors
Barrel bolt lock
for hasp type
lock
Totally enclosed
to protect bikes
from the weather
Access from both
ends of locker
Park 'n'
Lock Bike
Garage
J.G. Wilson Corp.
P.O. Box 599
Norfolk, VA
23501
Representative:
Graham, Van Lear
& Elmore Co., Inc.
8453-A Tyco Road
Tysons Corner
Vienna, VA
(703) 821-8990
TM-
22-
BG
$1,015
per
Locker
$508
per
Bicycle
Double bicycle
locker
Holds two bicycles
stored horizontally
in separate stalls
and facing in the
same direction
Each stall has a
counterbalanced
steel shutter with
provision for
locking
Totally enclosed
to protect bikes
from the weather
Enclosure frame
consists of side,
top, back, and
bottom panels
Panels fabricated
from galvanized
steel
Access from one
end of locker
169
-------
Name of
Device
Manufacturer -
Address
Class Model Price
Notes
Park-A-Bike
Park-A-Bike, Inc.
280 Madison St.
Denver, CO 80206
(303) 355-5316
II
$25
per
rack
• Bicycle security
rack
• Available in
single units
• Secures both
wheels and
frame with a
single lock
• Relatively easy
to use
• Employs a curved
steel arm that
swings over the
bike frame and
clamps around it
• Cable which
secures both
wheels may be
vulnerable to
bolt or wire
cutters
Petal Park
Petal Park
9226 Annapolis Td.
Lanham, MD 20801
(301) 459-1722
II
P-
100
(Pad-
Lock)
$138.75
per
rack
$69.38
per
bicycle
K- $219.25
200 per
(Key rack
assign.)
$109.63
per
bicycle
• Bicycle security
rack
• Each rack holds
two bicycles
• All steel
cons tructi on
• One movable part
• Secures the
wheels and frames
of most bikes with
a swing arm in
lieu of chains or
cables
• Has a polyurethane
coating to protect
against corrosion
• Aesthetically
pleasing
170
-------
Name of
Device
Manufacturer -
Address
Class Model Price
Notes
Rally Rack
Rally Enterprises ,
Inc.
P.O. Box 299
Sonoma, CA 95476
(707) 938-4744
II RR-
200
$27
per
rack
An "-J
$27
• Bicycle security
rack
• Holds one
bicycle
• Secures rear
per
bicycle
wheel and frame
with a single lock
Increases
protection with
the addition of a
cable attached to
the post which
secures the front
wheel
Cable may be
vulnerable to bolt
or wire cutters
II RR- $60
300 per
rack
$60
per
bicycle
Bicycle security
rack
Holds one bicycle
Secures rear wheel
and frame with a
single lock
Eliminates cable
and adds a separate
aluminum chassis
which prevents
removal of the
front wheel
Company claims
front wheel
cannot be removed
from chassis while
back wheel is held
in place by the
locked parking
stand
171
-------
Name of
Device
Manufacturer
Address
Class Model Price
Notes
Rack III
Rack III
3661 Grand Ave.
Oakland, CA
94610
(415) 835-8058
II Pad- $96.50
lock per
two
bike
module
• Bicycle security
rack
• Holds two bicycles
per module
• Secures both wheels
and frame
• All locking
components are
constructed of
steel
• Secures bike with
a pivoting three-
pronged device
• This moving part
may be trouble-
some
• Slight inconvenience
in removing lock
from protective cage
U-LOK
Sunshine Recreation
Co.
22713 Ventura Blvd.,
Suite A
Woodland Hills,
CA 91364
(213) 884-1732
II
U-
LOK
Stand
U-
LOK
Plug
$47.50
per
stand
$23.75
per
bicycle
$10.50
per
Stand
$5.25
per
Bicycle
Bicycle security
rack
Holds two bicycles
Has sufficient
coated cable to
secure both wheels
as well as bike
frame
Special U-LOK plug
locks bike frame
within locking
station
Bicyclist may lose
the U-LOK plug
Cable may be
vulnerable to bolt or
wire cutters
172
-------
Name of
Device
Bike-Safe
Manufacturer -
Address
Patterson-
Williams
P.O. Box 4040
Santa Clara,
CA 95054
(408) 988-3066
Class Model Price
II 161 $130
502 per
two
bike
unit
$65
*f\j^j
per
bicycle
161 $250
505 per
five
bike
unit
Notes
• Bicycle security
rack
• Model 161502 holds
two bicycles
• Model 161505 holds
five bicycles
• All galvanized
• Locks complete
bicycle, including
frame and both
wheels
• Not vulnerable to
bolt cutters and
requires no chain
because bike is
totally secured
as well as
surrounded by heavy
duty steel pipe
Unaesthetic
Relatively easy to
use
173
-------
APPENDIX D
Model Statute or Ordinance
Sections of the Uniform Vehicle
Code Relating to Bicycle Use
Summary of the Bicycle Provisions,
Revised Palo Alto, California
Zoning Regulations
174
-------
STATUTORY OR ORDINANCE CITATION
(CHAPTER NO.; ARTICLE NO.)
AN ACT AUTHORIZING A PROGRAM OF BICYCLE AND BIKEWAY
PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION
(MODEL STATUTE OR ORDINANCE)
Section 1. Purpose; The purpose of this statute shall be to authorize
the (State, City) Department of ( ) to plan and
implement a program for the construction, operation and
maintenance of a system of bicycle facilities and inter-
modal links; to undertake a program of public education
and information regarding safe bicycling, bicycle
facilities and routes; to implement a program for
enforcement of safe bicycling and related motor vehicle
practices; and to authorize the expenditure of funds
for this purpose.
Section 2. Findings; The (Legislature, City Council) hereby finds
that:
a) it is in the public interest, health, safety and
welfare for the (State, City) to encourage and provide
for the efficient and safe use of the bicycle;
b) in order to promote balanced-transportation, to increase
safety on the public roads and to serve the increasing
numbers of bicyclists, it is necessary to construct,
operate and maintain bicycle-related facilities and to
educate the public with regard to their use;
c) it is necessary to incorporate public and private
sector involvement in the planning and implementation
of a bicycle and bikeway planning and implementation program;
d) to coordinate plans for bicycle facilities and bicycle use
most effectively with other governmental agencies, as they
affect roads, streets, schools, parks and other publicly
owned lands, abandoned road and railroad beds, and conserva-
tion areas, it is necessary to assign responsibility and
provide funds to a single (state, city) agency for this
purpose, and
e) to maximize the use of public tax dollars, it is
necessary to designate a single (state, city) agency
which shall be eligible to receive federal matching funds
for the purpose of establishing and maintaining a (state-
city-) wide bicycle use and bicycle facility planning
and implementation program.
f) the separation of bicycle traffic from motor vehicle
traffic will increase the traffic capacity and safety of
the highway and constitute a highway purpose which justifies
the expenditure of highway funds for a bicycle use
and bicycle facility planning and implementation
program.
175
-------
Section 3.
Section 4,
Definitions: As used in this (statute, ordinance),
except where the context clearly requires otherwise,
the following words and expressions shall be defined
as follows:
a) Bicycle: a non-motorized vehicle with two or
three wheels.tandem, a steering handle, one or two
saddle seats, and pedals by which the vehicle is
propelled exclusively by human power.
b) Bikepath: a completely separate and independent
travel corridor for the exclusive use of bicycles,
either within an existing right-of-way, or in a
completely new right-of-way.
c) Bikelane: a portion of an existing road set aside
for exclusive bicycle use, delineated by visual
barriers.
d) Bikeroute: a travel route consisting of a combination
of bikepaths, bikelanes and automobile roads which
is appropriately constructed, maintained and designated
by signs, markers or other designations.
e) Bicycle facilities: those structures, spaces,
or equipment necessary for or incident to the
movement, transfer, storage, parking or security
of bicycles or bicycle-use, including but not
limited to: bikepaths, bikelanes, bikeroutes,
bicycle signs, signals, pavement markings, bicycle-
safe grates, lighting, transfer stations, bicycle
parking lots, rooms, racks and lockers, bicycle
education materials and route maps, and bicycle
registration systems.
g) Department: the (State, City) Department of ( )
^Administering Agency and Appointment of Bicycle Coordinator:
The (State, City) Department of ( ) is hereby designated
and authorized to develop, coordinate and implement a program
relating the bicycle use and facility planning and implemen-
tation in (State, City), as described in sections 5 and 6,
herein. The Department shall appoint an individual to act
as coordinator of bicycle programs,to oversee the Department's
implementation of the program specified herein, and to
coordinate the activities of other agencies, levels of
government, individuals, and private organizations for
purposes of bicycle use and facility planning and implementation,
Section 5. Program Requirements: The Bicycle Use and Bicycle Facility
planning and implementation program shall consist of, but not
be limited to:
a) preparation of an overall program plan for the location,
construction, operation and maintenance of a system of
176
-------
bicycle facilities and programs through the
(State, City) including studies of existing
and future users and potential modal shift in
vehicle miles, and a plan to establish and
implement information exchange, public educa-
tion, and enforcement of bicycle-related rules
and regulations in furtherance of the objectives
of such plan.
b) development of standards for planning, designing,
construction, maintaining, operating, and marking
of bicycle facilities consistent with any
established federal standards, and preparation of
plans, feasibility studies and detailed designs
for the construction of bicycle facilities
identified as components of the (state-, city-)
wide bikeway system.
c) acquisition of property for, and designation, construc-
tion, operation and maintenance of a system of
bicycle facilities throughout (State, City).
d) carrying out programs for information exchange, public
education and employer programs and facilities for
employee bicycle use.
e) developing and publishing policies, procedures, rules
and regulations for bicycle and bicycle facility use,
and for bicycle registration and security and
providing for the enforcement thereof,
f) preparing, publishing, and disseminating educational
materials and (state-, city-) wide bikeway route
network maps,
g) development and implementation of a bicycle safety
enforcement program, administered by the police
department.
h) developing and implementing a comprehensive bicycle
use and safety education program for children and
adults through schools, the media, and other organiza-
tions .
i) assistance and cooperation with other units of govern-
ment and other agencies in the development and
construction of state, regional and local bikeways and
bicycle-related facilities, and working with elected
officials, and citizen groups in planning such bikeway
systems.
(for states) i) upon the request of a substate unit of government,
only the Department may enter into an agreement with
such governmental unit for the acquisition of
property, or the construction, operation and
maintenance of bicycle facilities which generally
follow a state highway right-of-way where the
Department finds that such a facility will not
constitute a safety hazard or interfere with the
normal flow of traffic.
177
-------
The costs of the acquisition of property for, or
the construction, operation or maintenance of such
bicycle facilities shall be apportioned equitably
between the Department and the governmental unit.
j) prior to the end of each fiscal year, the Department
shall prepare and submit an annual report to the
(Legislature, City Council). The annual report shall
describe the progress made by the Department in imple-
menting the program requirements described herein.
Section 6; Designation of Bicycle Facility ^Routes
a) Bicycle facility routes may be designated along
and upon the public roads.
b) The Department shall not construct a highway which
will result in the severance or destruction of an
existing bicycle facility route, unless a
reasonable alternative route is provided.
c) The Department shall incorporate bicycle facility
plans, prepared pursuant to Section 5, in the
design, planning, and construction of all new
highways.
Section 7: Authorization^
a) The Department may enter into such agreements, execute
such contracts, establish and manage such accounts
or deposits, or take any other action that may be
appropriate, to apply for, receive and expend funds
from the federal, state or local government or private
sources available for bicycle programs and projects
or related thereto and to accomplish the purposes set
forth in preceeding Section 1, 2 and 5.
b) The (Legislature, city Council) hereby authorizes the
Department to request needed funds for the bicycle
program in its annual budget request. An amount not
less than shall be authorized each year
subject to the appropriation of the (Legislature,
City Council) .
178
-------
SECTIONS OF THE UNIFORM VEHICLE CODE
RELATING TO BICYCLE USE
Chapter 1 - Words and Phrases Defined
1-105 BICYCLE. Every vehicle propopelled solely by human power upon
which any person may ride, having two tandem wheels, except
scooters and similar devices.
1-114 DRIVER. Every person who drives or is in actual physical control
of a vehicle.
1-184 VEHICLE. Every device in, upon or by which any person or property
is or may be transported or drawn upon a highway, excepting
devices used exclusively upon stationary rails or tracts. (A
bicycle is a vehicle.)*
Chapter 3 - Certificates of Title and Registration of Vehicles
3-102 EXCLUSIONS. No certificate of title need be obtained for: 5.A
vehicle moved solely by human or animal power.
Chapter 4 - Anti-theft Laws
4-101 EXCEPTIONS FROM PRIVISIONS OF THIS CHAPTER. This chapter does
not apply to the following unless a title or registration has
been issued on such vehicles under this act: 1. A vehicle moved
solely by human or animal power.
Chapter 7 - Financial Responsibility
7-103 EXEMPT VEHICLES. The following vehicles and their drivers are
except from this article: 7. A vehicle moved solely by human or
animal power.
Chapter 9 - Civil Liability
9-401 NEGLIGENCE OF CHILDREN. A violation of any provision of this
act by a child under the age of 14 shall not constitute negligence
per se although a violation may be considered as evidence of
negligence.
Chapter 11 - Rules of the Road
11-313 RESTRICTIONS ON USE OF CONTROLLED-ACCESS ROADWAY. (a) The
(State highway commission) by resolution or order entered in its
minutes, and local authorities by ordinance, may regulate or
prohibit the use of any controlled-access roadway (or highway)
within their respective jurisdictions by any class or kind of
traffic which is found to be incompatible with the normal and
safe movement of traffic.
(b) The (State highway commission) or the local authority adopting
any such prohibition shall erect and maintain official traffic-
control devices on the controlled-access highway on which such
prohibitions are applicable and when in place no person shall
disobey the restrictions stated on such devices.
*Bicycles were included in the definition of "vehicle" at the
National Committee on Uniform Traffic Laws and Ordinances meeting,
July 23-25, 1975.
179
-------
11-504 DRIVERS TO EXERCISE DUE CARE. Notwithstanding other provisions
of this chapter or the provisions of any local ordinance, every
driver of a vehicle shall exercise due care to avoid colliding
with any pedestrian or any person propelling a human powered
vehicle and shall give an audible signal when necessary and
shall exercise proper precaution upon observing any child or
any obviously confused, incapacitated or intoxicated person.
11-509 PEDESTRIANS' RIGHT OR WAY ON SIDEWALKS. The driver of a vehicle
crossing a sidewalk shall yield the right of way to any pedestrian
and all other traffic on the sidewalk.
11-1103 DRIVING UPON SIDEWALK. No person shall drive any vehicle
other than by human power upon a sidewalk or sidewalk area
except upon a permanent or duly authorized temporary driveway.
11-1105 OPENING AND CLOSING VEHICLE DOORS. No person shall open any
door on a motor vehicle unless and until it is reasonably safe
to do so and can be done without interfering with the movement
of other traffic, nor shall any person leave a door open on a
side of a vehicle available to moving traffic for a period of
time longer than necessary to load or unload passengers.
Article XII - Operation of Bicycles and Other Human-Powered Vehicles
11-1201 EFFECT OF REGULATIONS. (a) It is a misdemeanor for any person
to do any act forbidden or fail to perfrom any act required in
this article .
(b) The parent of any child and the guardian of any ward shall
not authorize or knowingly permit any such child or ward to
violate any of the provisions of this act.
11-1202 TRAFFIC LAWS APPLY TO PERSONS ON BICYCLES AND OTHER HUMAN-
POWERED VEHICLES. Every person propelling a vehicle by human
power or riding a bicycle shall have all of the rights and all
of the duties applicable to the driver of any other vehicle under
chapters 10 and 11, except as to special regulations in this
article and except as to those provision which by their nature
can have no application.
11-1203 RIDING ON BICYCLES. No bicycle shall be used to carry more
persons at one time than the number for which it is designed
or equipped, except that an adult rider may carry a child securely
attached to his person in a back pack or sling.
11-1204 CLINGING TO VEHICLES. (a) No person riding upon any bicycle,
coaster, roller skates, sled or toy vehicle shall attach the
same to himself to any (streetcar or) vehicle upon a roadway.
(b) This section shall not prohibit attaching a bicycle trailer
or bicycle semitrailer to a bicycle if that trailer or semi-
trailer has been designed for such attachment.
180
-------
11-1205 RIDING ON ROADWAYS AND BICYCLE PATHS. (a) Every person
operating a bicycle upon a roadway shall ride as near to the
right side of the roadway as practicable, exercising due care
when passing a standing vehicle or one proceeding in the same
direction.
(b) Persons riding bicycles upon a roadway shall not ride more
than two abreast except on paths or parts or roadways set
aside for the exclusive use of bicycles. Persons riding two
abreast shall not impede the normal and reasonable movement of
traffic and, on a laned roadway, shall ride within a single
lane.
(c) Wherever a useable path for bicycles has been provided
adjacent to a roadway, bicycle riders shall use such path
and shall not use the roadway ,
11-1206 CARRYING ARTICLES. No person operating a bicycle shall carry
any package, bundle or article which prevents the use of both
hands in the control and operation of the bicycle. A person
operating a bicycle shall keep at least one hand on the handle-
bars at all times.
11-1207 LEFT TURNS. (a) A person riding a bicycle intending to turn
left shall follow a course described in 11-601 or in subsection (b).
(b) A person riding a bicycle intending to turn left shall
approach the turn as close as practicable to the right curb or
edge of the roadway. After proceeding across the intersecting
roadway, the turn shall be made as close as practicable to the
curb or edge of the roadway on the far side on the intersection.
After turning, the bicyclist shall comply with any official traffic
control device or police officer regulating traffic on the
highway along which he intends to proceed.
(c) Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions, the state highway
commission and local authorities in their respective jurisdictions
may cause official traffic-control devices to be placed and thereby
require and direct that a specific course be traveled by turning
bicycles, and when such devices are so placed, no person shall
turn a bicycle other than as directed and required by such devices.
11-1208 TURN AND STOP SIGNALS. (a) Except as provided in this section,
a person riding a bicycle shall comply with 11-604.
(b) A signal of intention to turn right or left when required
shall be given continuously during not less than the last 100
feet traveled by the bicycle before turning, and shall be given
while the bicycle is stopped waiting to turn. A signal by hand
and arm need not be given continuously if the hand is needed
in the control or operation of the bicycle.
This section was amended during the 1979 meeting of the National
C°f Tu"6! °n Uniform Traffic Laws and Ordinances. See the end
of this document for a draft version of the new amendments.
181
-------
11-1209 BICYCLES AND HUMAN-POWERED VEHICLES ON SIDEWALKS. (a) A
person propelling a bicycle upon and along a sidewalk, or
across a roadway upon and along a crosswalk, shall yield the
right of way to any pedestrian and shall give audible signal
before overtaking and passing such pedestrian.
(b) A person shall not ride a bicycle upon and along a
sidewalk, or across a roadway upon and along a crosswalk, where
such use of bicycles is prohibited by official traffic-control
devices.
(c) A person propelling a vehicle by human power upon and
along a sidewalk, or across a roadway upon and along a cross-
walk, shall have all the rights and duties applicable to a
pedestrian under the same circumstances.
11-1210 BICYCLE PARKING, (a) A person may park a bicycle on a sidewalk
unless prohibited or restricted by an official traffic control
device.
(b) A bicycle parked on a sidewalk shall not impede the normal
and reasonable movement of pedestrian or other traffic.
(c) A bicycle may be parked on the roadway at any angle to the
curb or edge of the roadway at any location where parking is
allowed.
(d) A bicycle may be parked on the roadway abreast of another
bicycle or bicycles near the side of the roadway at any location
where parking is allowed.
(e) A person shall not park a bicycle on a roadway in such a
manner as to obstruct the movement of a legally parked motor
vehicle .
(f) In all other respects, bicycles parked anywhere on a highway
shall conform with the provisions of article 10 regulating the
parking of vehicles.
11-1211 BICYCLE RACING. (a) Bicycle racing on the highways is prohibited
by 11-808 except as authorized in this section.
(b) Bicycle racing on a highway shall not be unlawful when a
racing event has been approved by state or local authorities
on any highway under their respective jurisdictions. Approval
of bicycle highway racing events shall be granted only under
conditions which assure reasonable safety for all race participants,
spectators and other highway users, and which prevent unreasonable
interference with traffic flow which would seriously inconvenience
other highway users.
(c) By agreement with the approving authority, participants in
an approved bicycle highway racing event may be exempted from
compliance with any traffic laws otherwise applicable thereto,
182
-------
provided that traffic control is adequate to assure the safety
of all highway users.
Chapter 12 - Equipment of Vehicles
12-101 SCOPE AND EFFECT OF REGULATIONS, (e) The provisions of this
chapter and regulations of the department shall not apply to
vehicles moved solely by human power, except as specifically
made applicable.
12-201 WHEN LIGHTED LAMPS ARE REQUIRED. Every vehicle upon a highway
within this State at any time from a half hour after sunset to
a half hour before sunrise and at any other time when, due to
insufficient light or unfavorable atmospheric conditions,
persons and vehicles on the highway are not clearly discernable
at a distance of 1,000 feet ahead shall display lighted head
and other lamps and illuminating devices as respectively
required for different classes of vehicles, subject to
exceptions with respect to parked vehicles, and further that
stop light, turn signals and other signaling devices shall
be lighted as prescribed for the use of such devices.
Article VII - Bicycles
12-701 APPLICATION OF CHAPTER TO BICYCLES. No provision in this
chapter shall apply to bicycles nor to equipment for use on
bicycles unless a provision has been made specifically applicable
to bicycles or their equipment.
12-702 HEAD LAMP REQUIRED AT NIGHT. Every bicycle in use at the times
described in 12-201 shall be equipped with a lamp on the front
emitting a white light visible from a distance of at least 500
feet to the front.
12-703 REAR REFLECTOR REQUIRED AT ALL TIMES. Every bicycle shall be
equipped with a red reflector of a type approved by the department
which shall be visible for 600 feet to the rear when directly in
front of lawful lower beams of head lamps on a motor vehicle.
12-704 SIDE REFLECTOR OR LIGHT REQUIRED AT NIGHT. Every bicycle when
in use at the times described in 12-201 shall be equipped with
reflective material of sufficient size and reflectivity to be
visible from both sides for 600 feet when directly in front of
lawful lower beams of head lamps on a motor vehicle, or, in
lieu of such reflective material, with a lighted lamp visible
from both sides from a distance of at least 500 feet.
12-705 ADDITIONAL LIGHTS OR REFLECTORS AUTHORIZED. A bicycle or its
rider may be equipped with lights or reflectors in addition to
those required by the foregoing sections.
12-706 BRAKE REQUIRED. Every bicycle shall be equipped with a brake
or brakes which will enable its driver to stop the bicycle within
25 feet £r->m a speed of 10 miles per hour on dry, level, clean
pavement.
183
-------
12-707 SIRENS AND WHISTLES PROHIBITED. A bicycle shall not be equipped
with, nor shall any person use upon a bicycle, any siren or
whistle.
12-708 BICYCLE IDENTIFYING NUMBER. A person engaged in the business
of selling bicycles at retail shall not sell any bicycle unless
the bicycle has an identifying number permanently stamped or
cast on its frame.
12-709 INSPECTING BICYCLES. A uniformed police officer may at any time
upon reasonable cause to believe that a bicycle is unsafe or
not equipped as required by law, or that its equipment is not
in proper adjustment or repair, require the person riding the
bicycle to stop and submit the bicycle to an inspection and
such test with reference thereto as may be appropriate.
Chapter 15 - Respective Powers of State and Local Authorities
15-101 PROVISIONS UNIFORM THROUGHOUT STATE. The provisions of this
act shall be applicable and uniform throughout this State and
in all political subdivisions and numicipalities therein and
no local authority shall enact or enforce any ordinance on
a matter covered by the provisions of such chapters unless
expressly authorized.
15-102 POWERS OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES, (a) The provisions of this act
shall not be deemed to prevent local authorities with respect
to streets and highways under their jurisdiction and within
the reasonable exercise of the police power from:
8. Regulating the operation of bicycles and requireing the
registration and inspection of same, including the requirement
of registration fee.
Source: National Committee on Uniform Traffic Laws and Ordinances,
Uniform Vehicle Code, main volume, 1968 and supplement, 1976
(Washington, D.C.) as summarized in Model Bicycle Ordinance,
American Automobile Association, 1976.
184
-------
1979 DRAFT AMENDMENTS TO SECT. 11-1205
11-1205 POSITION ON ROADWAY (Riding on roadways and bicycle paths).
(a) Any person operating a bicycle upon a roadway at less
than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place and
under the conditions then existing shall ride as close as
practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway
except under any of the following situations:
(1) When overtaking and passing another bicycle or vehicle
proceeding in the same direction.
(2) When preparing for a left turn at an intersection or
into a private road or driveway.
(3) When reasonably necessary to avoid conditions including,
but not limited to, fixed or moving objects, parked or
moving vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians, animals, surface
hazards, or substandard width lanes that make it unsafe to
continue along the right-hand curb or edge. For purposes
of this section, a "substandard width lane" is a lane that
is too narrow for a bicycle and a vehicle to travel safely
side by side within the lane.
(b) Any person operating a bicycle upon a one-way highway
with two or more marked traffic lanes may ride as near the
left-hand curb or edge of such roadway as practicable.
2
11-1205.1 RIDING TWO ABREAST AND USE OF BICYCLE PATHS
(a) Persons riding bicycles upon a roadway shall not ride
more than two abreast except on paths or parts of roadways
set aside for the exclusive use of bicycles. Persons riding
two abreast shall not impede the normal and reasonable
movement of traffic and, on a laned roadway, shall ride
within a single lane.
(b) Wherever a usable path for bicycles has been provided
adjacent to a roadway, bicycle riders shall use such path
and shall not use the roadway.
Source: J.W. English, National Committee on Uniform Traffic Laws
and Ordinances, October 1979.
2
Changes in these two sections only involved renumbering. Note that
section (b) on mandatory use of bicycle paths is controversial.
A simple majority of those attending the 1979 meeting of the National
Committee and those polled in a subsequent mail survey recommended
deletion of this section. However, for a change to occur in the
Uniform Vehicle Code requires 35% of the approximately 140 members
to vote yes at a meeting and 60% to vote yes in a mail-out ballot.
Several states have deleted their mandatory bikepath laws. See
Section 4.1.2 for more information.
185
-------
SUMMARY OF THE BICYCLE PROVISIONS OF THE PALO ALTO
ZONING REGULATIONS
CAdopted by the Palo Alto City Council March 20,
1978, and amended June 2, 1978. Chapter 18.83)
Chapter 18.83. Off-Street Parking and Loading Regulations
18.82.050 Basic Regulations: Bicycle Facilities
(a) Bicycle facilities shall be provided for any new
building constructed and for any new use established;
for any enlargement of an existing building or use;
and for any change in the occupancy of any building
or the manner in which any use is conducted that
would result in additional parking facilities being
required, subject to the provisions of this Chapter.
(b) No existing use or structure shall be deemed non-
conforming solely because of the lack of bicycle
facilities prescribed in this Chapter, provided
that bicycle facilities existing on July 30, 1978
shall not be reduced in capacity, design, or function
to less than the minimum standards prescribed in
this Chapter.
(c) For additions or enlargements of any existing building
or use, or any change of occupancy or manner of
operation that would increase the bicycle facilities
required, the additional facilities shall be required
only for such addition, enlargement, or change, and
not for the entire building or use.
(d) Bicycle facilities required by this Chapter for any
building or use shall not be considered to meet the
requirement for any other building or use, except
as authorized by the Director of Planning and Community
Environment.
(e) Bicycle facilities required by this Chapter, or provided
optionally in addition to the minimum requirements
prescribed by the Chapter, shall conform to the design
standards set forth in Section 18.82.110.
(f) Bicycle facilities required by this Chapter shall be
maintained for the duration of the use requiring such
facilities, and shall not be used for other purposes.
A copy of the complete ordinance may be obtained
by contacting the City of Palo Alto, City Hall,
Palo Alto, California.
186
-------
(g) All bicycle facilities required by this Chapter shall
be located on the same site as the use for which such
facilities are required, except as authorized pursuant
to Section 18.82.080.
(h) No use shall be required to provide facilities for more
bicycles than prescribed by this Chapter, or prescribed
by the Director of Planning and Community Environment
in accord with this Chapter, or prescribed by any
conditional use permit, variance, or Planned Community
District. Where additional facilities are provided,
they may be considered as meeting the requirement for
another use, subject to Section 18.83.080.
18.82.060 Schedule of Off-Street Parking and Bicycle Facility
Requirements
(b) In each district, off-street parking facilities and
bicycle facilities for each use shall be provided
in accord with the following schedule, {see. Figure
18.82.070 Additional Requirements
(c) Substitution of bicycle facilities for required
vehicle facilities: Eight Class 1 bicycle parking
facility spaces in addition to minimum bicycle
requirements may be substituted for one required
vehicle parking space, up to a maximum of 5 percent
of the vehicle spaces required.
18.82.080 Adjustments to Requirements of Schedule
Alternative programs which may be considered by the
Director of Planning and Community Environment under
this provision include, but are not limited to, the
following:
(3) Evidence that a proportion of residents, employees,
and/or customers utilize, on a regular basis,
bicycle transportation alternatives commensurate
with reduced parking requirements.
18.83.110 Design Standards
(c) Bicycle facilities: The following basic standards
shall be observed:
(1) Bicycle parking facilities shall include provision
for storage and locking of bicycles, either in
lockers or in secure racks or equivalent
installation in which the bicycle frame and wheela
may be locked by the user.
(2) The minimum class of facility required by Section
18.82.060 is shown in the following table. A
higher class of facility may be substituted where
a Class 2 or Class 3 facility is required.
/see Figure B/
(3) Paving is not required, but the outside ground
surface shall be paved or planted in a way that
avoids mud or dust.
187
-------
FIGURE A
USE
MINIMUM OFF-STREET
PARKING REQUIREMENT
MINIMUM BICYCLE
PARKING REQUIREMENT
spaces
class*
1. Accessory employee
housing or guest
cottage
1 space per unit
none
2. Administrative
office services:
a)
In the LM
District
b) In all other
districts
1 space for each 27.9 sq. m. (300
sq.ft.) of gross floor area
1 space for each 23.2 sq. m- (250
sq.ft.) of gross floor area
10% of auto
parking
10% of auto
parking
3. Animal care
facilities
1 space for each 32.5 sq. m. (350
sq.ft.) of gross floor area
10% of auto
parking or
1 space--
whichever is
greater
Automobile ser-
vice station
1 space for each 32.5 sq. m. (350
sq.ft.) of gross enclosed floor area,
plus queue capacity equivalent to the
service capacity of gasoline pumps
none
5. Automotive
services:
a) Enclosed
b) Open lot
1 space for each 32.5 sq. fl.
sq.ft.) of gross floor area
(350
1 space for each 46.5 sq. m. (500
sq.ft.) of exterior sales, display,
or storage site area
none
6. Business and trade
schools
1 space for each 4 persons caoacity,
or 1 space for each 23.2 sq. If. (250
sq.ft..) of gross floor area, which-
ever is greater
10% of auto
parking
2-covered
Churches and reli-
gious institutions
1 space for each 4 seats or 4 per-
sons capacity, based on maximum use
of all facilities at the same time
10% of auto
parking
8. Commercial
recreation
1 space for each 4 seats or 4
persons capacity
30% of auto
parking
188
-------
USE
9. Com.muni.ty facili-
ties, including
swim club, tennis
club, golf course,
community centers,
neighborhood cen-
ters, and similar
activities
104 Convalescent
facilities
11. Day care centers,
day care homes,
family day care
homes, and resi-
dential care homes
12. Drive-up windows
providing services
to occupants in
vehicles
13. Eating and drink-
ing services : .
«^t
a) With drive-in/V
fa-ilities
b) All others
14. Financial services:
a) Bank, savings
I loan office
b) Others
15. General business
services:
a) Enclosed
b) Open lot
16. Hospitals
MINIMUM OFF-STREET
PARKING REQUIREMENT
1 space for each 4 persons capacity
based on maximum use of all
facilities
1 space for each 2.5 patient beds
To be established by use permit
conditions
Queue line for 5 cars, not blocking
any parking spaces, in addition to
other applicable requirements
aJbt^dLu^
3 spaces for each 9.3 sg. ff) (100
sq.ft.) of gross floor area
1 space for each 4 seats or 4 per-
sons capacity
1 space for each 13.9 sq. fn. (ISO
sq.ft.) of gross floor area
1 space for each 23.2 sq. m. (250
sq.ft.) of gross floor area
1 space for each 32.5 sq. "1. (350
sq.ft.) of gross floor area
1 space for each 46.5 sq. HI. (500
sq.ft.) of sales, display, or
storage site area
1 space for each 1.5 patient beds
MINIMUM BICYCLE
PARKING REQUIREMENT
spaces
30% of auto
parking
10% of auto
parking
To be establi
permit
none
1 space per
9.3 sq.mt.
(100 sq.ft.)
10% of auto
parking
10% of auto
parking
10% of auto
parking
10% of auto
parking
10% of auto
parking
class*
1
2-covered
;hed by use
50%-1
50%-3-covered
50%-1
50%-2-covered
2-covered
1
3
1
189
-------
USE
MINIMUM OFF-STREET
PARKING REQUIREMENT
MINIMUM BICYCLE
PARKING RKOUIREMENT
spaces
class*
17. Hotel
1 space per guest room; plus the
applicable requirements for eating
and drinking, banquet, assembly,
commercial or other as required for
such use, less 75 percent of the
spaces required for guest rooms
10% of auto
parking
2-covered
18. Lodging
1 space for each lodging unit, in
addition to other residential use
requirements
1 space
per lodging
unit
19. Manufacturing:
a)
In the LM
District
1 space for each 27.9 sq.m. (300
sq.ft.) of gross floor area
b) In all other
districts
1 space for each 46.5 sq.Hl.
sq.ft.) of gross floor area
(500
10% of auto
parking
10% of auto
parking
20. Medical, profes-
sional, and general
business offices:
a)
In the LM
District
b) In all other
districts
1 space for each 27.9 sq.ni.. (300
sq.ft.) of gross floor area
1 space for each 23.2 sq.m. (250
sq.ft.) of gross floor area
10% of auto
parking
10% of auto
parking
21. Mortuaries
1 space for each 4 seats or 4 per-
sons capacity, plus funeral proces-
sion queue capacity of 5 cars
none
22. Multiple family
residential use
1.25 spaces per studio unit, 1.5
spaces per 1 bedroom unit, and 2
spaces per 2 bedroom or larger
unit; of which at least one space
per unit must be covered
1 space per
unit
23. Personal services
1 space for each 13.9 sq.jj), (150
sq.ft.) of gross floor area
10% of auto
parking
2-covered
24. Private clubs,
lodges, and frater-
nal organizations
1 space for each 4 seats or 4 per-
sons capacity based on maximum use
of all space at one time
10% of auto
parking
25. Research and
development:
a)
In the LM
District
b) In all other
districts
1 space for each 27.9 sq.m. (300
sq.ft.) of gross floor area
1 space for each 23.2 sq.m. (250
sq.ft.) of gross floor area
10% of auto
parking
10% of auto
parking
190
-------
USB
MINIMUM OFF-STREET
PARKING REQUIREMENT
MINIMUM niCYCLE
PARKING REQUIREMENT
spaces
class
26. Retail:
a) Intensive
b) Extensive
c) Open lot
1 space for each 13.9 sq.11. (150
sq.ft.) of gross floor area
1 space for each 32.5 sq.M* (350
sq.ft.) of gross floor area
1 space for each 46.5 sq.m. (500
sq.ft.) of sales, display, or
storage site area
10% of auto
parking
10% of auto
parking
10% of auto
parking
2-covered
2-covered
3
27. Schools and educa-
tional facilities:
a) Grades K-8
b) Grades 9-12
2 spaces per teaching station
spaces per teaching station
1 space per
every 3
students
1 space per
every $.2.
students
3-enclosed
3-enclosed
28. Shopping Center
1 space for each 25.6 sq.m. (275
sq.ft.) of gross floor area
10% of auto
parking
29. Single family res-
idential use:
a) In the 0-S
District
b) In all other
districts
4 spaces per unit, of which one
space must be covered
2 spaces per unit, of which one
space must be covered
none
none
30. Two family resi-
dential use
1.5 spaces per unit, of which
one space per unit must be covered
none
31. Warehousing and
distribution:
a) In the LM
District
b) In all other
districts
(300
1 space for each 27.9 sq.ffl*
sq.ft.) of gross floor area
1 space for each 92.9 sq.ffl- (1,000
sq.ft.) of gross floor area
none
none
32. Any use not
specified
To be determined by the Director
of Planning and Community Environ-
ment
To be determined by the
Director of Planning and
Community Environment
191
-------
FIGURE B
Class
Purpose and Description
For long-term parking (one-half hour or more):
Lockers or check-in for high security and/or total
protection from the weather.
For short-term parking (Jess than one-half hour):
Ability for user to lock both wheels and frame,
with user providing the lock.
For short-term parking:
A stationary object, such as a "bicycle rack" to
which the user can secure both wheels and the
frame with a user-provided l.S meter (6 foot)
cable (or chain) and lock.
192
-------
(4) Bicycle spaces shall be racks or lockers
anchored so that they cannot be easily removed.
Racks shall be so designed that both wheels and
frame of a bicycle can be locked securely to it
with a heavy chain, cable, or padlock. Lockers
shall be so designed that an unauthorized person
cannot remove a bicycle from them.
(5) Fixed objects which are intended to serve as
bicycle racks but not obviously intended for such
purposes shall be clearly labeled as available
for bicycles.
(6) If a room or common locker not divided into
individual lockers or rack spaces is used, one
bicycle space shall consist of a rectangular
area not less than 0.6 meter (2 feet) wide by
1.8 meters (6 feet) long. There should be a
minimum aisle width of 1.5 meters (5 feet).
(7) Location criteria: Care should be taken to
locate the bicycle facility at least as
convenient as the most convenient car parking,
and as close to the desired entrances as possible
without interfering with pedestrian traffic.
Bicycle and auto parking areas should be separated
by some form of barrier to eliminate the
possibility of a bike being hit by a car.
(8) User safety and convenience criteria: The Director
of Planning and Community Environment shall have
the authority to review bicycle racks for design
with respect to safety and convenience.
(9) Construction and appearance criteria: Lockers
should be harmonious with their environment both
in color and design. Signs should clearly
designate the area as a bicycle parking facility.
Parking device desi.gns should be incorporated
whenever possible into street furniture. There
should be sufficient space between devices so
that the use of one does not interfere with the
other bicycles or devices. The parking device
should allow for maximum flexibility in grouping
and placement.
193
-------
194
-------
APPENDIX E
POTENTIAL FEDERAL FUNDING SOURCES
FOR BICYCLE PROGRAMS AND FACILITIES
195
-------
POTENTIAL FEDERAL FUNDING FOR BICYCLE FACILITIES
By Nina Dougherty Rowe
Administering
Agency/Contact
Legislative
Authority
Funding Amount
Not Solely for Bike Progs.
Purpose
Comment
Department of Transportation
Federal-Aid Highway Program
Manual (6-1-1-1)
Federal Highway Administration
(Tom Jennings - 202 426-0314)
Federal Highway Administration Title 23 U.S. Code
(FHWA) Federal Aid to Highway Act
Section 217
FY 79 - Total $6.9 Billion Funds are from highway trust fund gas
(Includes highways, mass tax for all types of transportation.
transit, etc.) Traditionally the bulk of the money
No limit per state has gone to highways. Bike facilities
70/30 cost share (intrastate) are an eligible item for the use of
90/10 cost share (Interstate) these highway funds.
FY 78 & 79 $45 million per
year with a maximum of $2.5
Million per state a year
80/20 cost share-planning
70/30 cost share-construc-
tion
These funds are also a part of the
highway trust fund for blkeway/
walkway projects that are not re-
lated to federal aid highway projects
Funds are competitive
with highway projects
Apply through State
Highway Departments
FHWA
<£>
CTi
Surface
Transportation
Assistance Act,
Section 14f
$20 million
annually,
1979-82
For bikeways; bicycle lane or
path, bicycle traffic control
devices, bicycle shelter or
parking or bicycle support
facility to serve bicycles and
persons using bicycles.
Funds have not
yet been appropriated
by Congress.
National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration
Governor's State Highway
Safety Representative
Title 23 U.S. Code
Highway Safety Act of 1966
FY 78 $137 Million per
state celling based on
formula of population
and miles of public roads.
(Includes all safety pro-
grams .)
70/30 cost share
3 years to obligate
Seed money for states to develop
programs to meet highway safety
needs -- Educatlpn enforcement
and knowledge of rules of the
road must be a part of annual work
program of highway safety plan.
Bicycle safety programs eligible.
FHHA administers portions
of these funds related to
engineering studies to
determine facility related
countermeasures.
-------
Administering
Agency/Contact
Legislative
Authority
Funding (Anount)
Not Solely for Bike Prog'
Purpose
Comment
Department of Transportation
TbOTj
Urban Mass Transportation
Administration (UMTA)
Metropolitan Planning
Organization (HPU)
UMTA/MPO
UMTA/MCU
Urban Mass Transportation
Act of 1964 as amended
ID
Urban Mass Transportation Act
of 1964 as Amended
Transportation Improvement
Program Regulations
(Sept. 17. 1975. Federal
Register. Vol. 40. No. 181)
Environmental Protection Agency
State Environmental Protec-
tion Agency
Clean Water Act of 1977
Section 201(g)(6) and
Section 208(B)(2)(A)
FY 79 $2.9 Billion
(Includes all mass transit
funding)
Unified Work Program for
Transportation Planning
Technical Assistance Funds
Mass Transit Grants
Transportation Improvement
Program
FY 76 $4.5 Billion (Sewage
treatment). State limit
based on formulae.
Mass transit activities and studies
Bicycle studies and plans eligible
Bike study must be an element in-
cluded In continuing transportation
planning processes (3 c's)
For mass transit related construc-
tion.
Feeder routes to transit facilities
and bicycle parking facilities at
transit stations. Eligible.
For transportation projects imple-
mentation next 3-5 years. The
transportation system management
plan an element of the TIP. explains
how efficient use will be made of
existing facilities, utiliting low-
cost, non-capital improvements-1 .e.
carpooling, bus lanes, etc.
Bicycle paths, exclusive lanes,
secure and convenient storage areas
for bicycles; and other bicycle
facilitation measures are eligible
for these UMTA funds.
A $90.000 bicycle demand
study in Washington, D.C.
was funded by UMTA tech-
nical assistance funds.
May 1974 letter from Secre-
tary of UMTA
The improvement must be
part of the TIP proposed by
the HPO
For sewage treatment projects which
clean up land. Incidental multiple
use projects which take advantage
of the recreation, open space op-
portunities are eligible for some
of the funds. Bikeways can be con-
structed along the interceptor
sewer lines.
Must be a part of contin-
uing water quality planning
process. Applications
through State Environmental
'rotectlon Agency. $34,000
(less than U) of the $1.1
1111 ion to construct a
sewer right of way was used
to develop a 7 mile bike
trail in Maryland.
-------
Administering
Agency/Contact
Legislative
Authority
Funding (Amount)
Not Solely for Bike Prog's
Purpose
Comment
Department ojjjousing and
Urban Development
City Hall Community Planning
Housing Act of 1977 as amended
00
Department of Interior (DOI)
Heritage Conservation and
Recreation Service
State Outdoor Recreation
Liaison Office
Heritage Conservation and
Recreation Service
Jail road Revitalization and
tegulatory Reform Act of
1976. Section 809
Interia Regulations
October 11, 1977, Federal
Register
.and & Water Conservation
rund Act of 1965 as amended
FY 77 $3.2 Billion
FY 78 $3.6 Billion
FY 79 $3.75 Billion
(Community Development)
"Entitlement" for metro-
politan cities and urban
counties (populations of
50,000 + 200.000
respectively)
20% to non-metropolitan
areas
31 discretionary funds to
programs like Hew
Communities
r\ 78 $5 Million
90/10 cost share maximum
Community Development Block Grant
criteria: suitable living environ-
ment and expanded economic oppor-
tunities for low income groups. &
adequate housing. Bikeways eligible.
For conversion of abandoned railroad
rtghts-of-way to recreation and con-
servation use.
FY 78 $600 Million
FY 79 $750 Million
FY 80-89 $900 Million
per year
50/50 cost share
For outdoor recreation facilities.
Bike facilities eligible.
Application through Mayor
and City Council
S. 1793 to amend the
Railroad Revitalization
and Regulatory Reform Act
would authorize $75 Mil-
lion for the fiscal year
ending Sept. 30, 1979
90/10 cost share
Bike facilities must be
a part of the State Com-
prehensive Outdoor Recrea-
tion Plans; must be spon-
sored by public agency;
priority to urban areas;
for planning, acquisition
& development; State de-
termines to which projects
and in what order money
awarded; special consider-
ation to improving envir-
onment.
-------
Administering
Agency/Contact
Legislative
Authority
Funding (Amount)
Not Solely for Bike Prog's
Purpose
Comment
Department of Interior (001)
Heritage Conservation and
Recreation Service
State Historic Preservation
Officer
The National Historic Preserva-
tion Act of 1966
Bureau of Reclamation
Federal Water Project
Recreation Act (Public Law
89-72) (Section 2(a))
10
ID
Department of Defense
U. S. Army Corp of Engineers
Federal Water Project
Recreation (PL 89-72)
FY 78 $35 Million (for
historic preservation)
State limit based on a
formula
Projects Individually
authorized in line (ten
of budget. Joint costs
on new projects borne by
Federal Government; 50/50
cost sharing except in
federally managed areas.
FY 78 $110 Million (Water
Resource Projects). Cost
sharing (1/2 of separable
costs)
For acquisition or development
historic preservation purposes,
of districts, sites, buildings.
structures, objects; preparations
of statewide historic preservation
'surveys and plans; must be in
accord with comprehensive state-
wide plan approved by Secretary
of Interior. Historic property
must be listed in National Register
in order to receive grants.
Recreational potential must be con-
sidered on federal multiple purpose
resource projects in which the land
is usually purchased by the Federal
government. Necessary facilities
on new and old projects are funded.
For Water Resources Projects. Multi-
purpose projects eligible for funds,
For example, Civil War
Trail: bicycle facility
that follows the Battle
of Atlanta
Involves a long process
of study, design, con-
struction. The public
is well informed of the
projects through public
hearings. Non-federal
agency manages the rec-
reation projects.
Same as Above - Process
takes 10-12 years.
Non-federal agency must
agree to assume 1/2 of
separable costs & all
maintenance, operation,
replacement & adminis-
tration costs for recrea-
tion facility; otherwise,
only minimum facilities
for protection of public
health & safety will be
provided.
-------
Administering
Ayency/Contact
Legislative
Authority
Funding (Amount)
Not Solely for Bike Prog's
Purpose
Comment
Department of Health, Education
and Uel fare
Office of Education
State Education Office
Department uf Labor
Manpower Administration
Title I, II, IV & V of
Elementary & Secondary Educa-
tion Act of 1965 and Title I
of Higher Education Act of
1965
Neighborhood Youth Corps
Grant-in-Ald programs
Must be used in association with
educational improvement or
research depending on which grant
applied for.
Operation Mainstream
Up to 90% of cost of
approved projects
Up to 90% of cost of
approved projects
NJ
O
O
Projects which contribute to
conservation, development,
management of natural resource
or recreation area.
Improve physical or social envir-
onment of local communities
(designed to prepare chronically
unemployed adults for permanent
job).
A 3-year, $90.000 a year
bicycle safety study to
develop a safety town In
Sterling, Illinois was
funded from these HEW
funds. Competitive with
reading projects, etc.
Not more than 12.5% of
program funds can be
spent in one state each
fiscal year. Priority
given to high training
potential.
Not more than 12.5% of
program funds can be
spent in one state each
fiscal year.
-------
Administering
Agency/Contact
Legislative
Authority
Funding (Amount)
Not Solely for Bike Prog'
Purpose
Comment
Appalachian Regional Commission
General Services Administration
Appalachian Redevelopment Act
of 1965 ( Public Law 89-4)
Supplemental Grants
Section 214
General Services Act of 1949
as amended
Increase Land 1 Water
Conservation Fund Sharing
to 80S or used to supple-
ment almost any Federal
Grant-in-Aid Program
Administration Funds in
each Federal Agency
For improving Appalachian region.
Bikeways may be part of authorized
highways and access roads or a min-
ing land reclamation project.
For maintaining federal building.
Bike parking facilities; currently
bikeracks provided at federal
buildings free upon request.
Affects 13 states.
Must be part of State
Appalachian Development
Programs
Bike locker demonstrations.
Study of bike parking needs
new policy to be set in
Spring which will probably
allow for purchase of bike
lockers.
National Endowment of the Arts
Public Information Office
2401 E. St.. N.U.
Washington, U.C. 20506
National Foundation of the
Arts and the Humanities Act
of 1965 (PL 209)
to
o
FY 79 Total $120 Million
($3-1/2 million for small
grants, professional
fellowship and design;
Design Project Fellowship)
For Planning; design and feasibility! 48
of artistic endeavors, and programs
for public awareness, small grants
to non-profit, tax exempt Individuals
out of 1700 demand
grants were transportation
related. Send for a copy
of "Guide to the Endowment
of Arts Program".
-------
PLATTE RIVER GREZNWAY MAP
Denver city limit
1-70
Speer Boulevard
Sloan
Lake
Park
Sanchez
Rude Par
Park
Mile
High
Sports
k D=^
DENVER
Platte River
Greenway Trail &
Nearby Facilities
Platte
ii River
\~/ Denver
/J I/ Coliseum
South
Platte
River
Central Platte Valley
Denver
Central
Business
District
Civic Center
Cheesman Park
6th Avenue
Barnum Park
Cherry Creek
Bayaud Av.
Valverde
Park
Vanderbilt
Park
Mississippi Av.
Washington
Park
Florida Av.
Overland
Park Golf
Course
Ruby
Hill
Park
Frontier
Park
NORTH
approximate scale
1 inch = 0.9 miles
I Rosedale
Denver city limit
Lakewood Gulch
Sanderson Gulch
West Harvard Gulch
Dartmouth Av
-------
FUNDING SOURCES FOR PLATTE RIVER GREENWAY
BIKE/BIKE TRAIL AND OTHER RECREATION FACILITIES
OVERVIEW OF CONTRIBUTIONS TO DATE ...
March, 1979
LOCAL (Denver)
$2,000,000 Mayor's Revenue Sharing Fund (1974)
850,000 City Council Match Appropriation (1974)
250,000 Capital Improvement Fund (1978)
$3,100,000 TOTAL LOCAL FUNDS (41%)
STATE (Colorado)
$ 740,000 Conservation Trust Fund (1975-79)
150,000 Urban Drainage and Flood Control District (1975-77)
40,000 Centennial-Bicentennial Commission (1976)
305,000 State Trails Committee (1976-78)
100,000 Auraria General Revenue Funds (1976)
$1,335,000 TOTAL STATE FUNDS (18%)
FEDERAL
$ 625,000 Land and Water Conservation Fund (HCRS) (1975-78)
300,000 Secretary's LWCF Contingency Fund (HCRS) (1976)
384,000 Community Development Fund (1976)
546,000 Highway Urban Systems Fund (1976-78)
220,000 Local Public Works Employment Act (EDA) (1977)
$2.075,000 TOTA L F E D E R A L F U N DS (27%)
PRIVATE
$ 780,000 Gates Foundation (1976)
100,000 Boettcher Foundation (1976)
53,000 Fishback Foundation Trust (1976)
28,000 Pepsi Cola (1976)
29,000 First of Denver Savings Account Promotions (1975-76)
90,000 Estimated Individual Contributions (1975-78)
$1,080,000 TOTAL PRIVATE FUNDS (14%)
$7,591,000
TOTAL FUNDING TO DATE (100%)
PLATTE RIVER GREENWAY FOUNDATION 1421 COURT PLACE DENVER. COLORADO 80202 (303)623-2252
203
-------
204
-------
APPENDIX F
DOT BICYCLE LEGISLATION
• Section 217, Title 23, Bicycle Transportation
and Pedestrian Walkways
• Section 141, PL 95-599, Bicycle Program
• Section 682, PL 95-619, Bicycle Study
205
-------
TITLE 23, HIGHWAYS, UNITED STATES CODE
Section 217, BICYCLE TRANSPORTATION AND PEDESTRIAN WALKWAYS
(a) To encourage energy conservation and the multiple use of highway
rights-of-way, including the development, improvement, and use
of bicycle transportation and the development and improvement of
pedestrian walkways on or in conjunction with highway rights-of-
way, the States may, as Federal-aid projects, construct new or
improved lanes, paths, or shoulders; traffic control devices,
shelters for and parking facilities for bicycles; and pedestrian
walkways. Sums apportioned in accordance with paragraphs (1),
(2), and (6) of section 104(b) of this title shall be available
for bicycle projects and pedestrian walkways authorized under
this section and such projects shall be located and designed
pursuant to an overall plan which will provide due consideration
for safety and contiguous routes.
(b) For all purposes of this title, a bicycle or pedestrian walkway
project authorized by subsection (a) of this section shall be
deemed to be a highway project, and the Federal share payable on
account of such bicycle project or pedestrian walkway shall be
that provided in section 120 of this title.
(c) Funds authorized for forest highways, forest development roads
and trails, public lands development roads and trails, park
roads and trails, parkways, Indian reservation roads, and public
lands highways shall be available, at the discretion of the
development charged with the administration of such funds, for
the construction of bicycle and pedestrian routes in conjunction
with such trails, roads, highways, and parkways.
(d) No motorized vehicles shall be permitted on trails and walkways
authorized under this section except for maintenance purposes,
and, when snow conditions and State or local regulations permit,
snowmobiles.
(e) Not more than $45,000,000 of funds authorized to be appropriated
in any fiscal year may be obligated for projects authorized by
subsections (a) and (c) of this section, and no State shall obligate
more than $2,500,000 for such projects in any fiscal year.
Source: United States Code Annotated, Title 23, Highways, Cumulative
Annual Pocket Part, (St. Paul, Minn.: West Publishing Co.),
1978.
206
-------
SURFACE TRANSPORTATION ASSISTANCE ACT OF 1978, PL 95-599, Nov. 6, 1978
BICYCLE PROGRAM, Section 141.
(a) For the purposes of this section, the term-
(1) "Secretary" means the Secretary of Transportation
(2) "bikeway" means a new or improved lane, path, or shoulder,
a traffic control device, lighting, or a shelter or parking
facility for bicycles;
(3) "State" means any one of the fifty States, the District
of Columbia, or Puerto Rico.
(b) The Secretary shall, by regulation, establish design and construction
standards for bikeway construction projects for which grants are
authorized in subsection (c) and section 217 of title 23, United
States. Code. Such regulations shall contain criteria for pavements,
adequate widths, sight distances and lighting; appropriate design
speeds and grades; and such other requirements as the Secretary
may deem necessary.
(c) The Secretary is authorized to make grants to States and to
political subdivisions thereof for (1) the construction of bikeways
which (A) comply with regulations promulgated pursuant to subsection
(b), or (B) prior to promulgation of such regulations, reflect
current state of the Art design standards, or (2) nonconstruction
programs or projects which can reasonably be expected to enhance
the safety and use of bicycles. Projects in urban areas financed
with grants under this subsection shall be in accordance with the
continuing, comprehensive planning process in section 134 of title
23, United States Code.
(d) The Federal share of any project or program for which a grant is
made under subsection (c) shall not exceed 75 per cent.
(e) Grants made under this section shall be in addition to any sums
available for bicycle projects under section 217 of title 23,
United States Code.
(f) Section 109(f) of title 23, United States Code, is amended by
adding after the words "median strips," the following: "bikeways".
(g) Section 109 of title 23, United States Code, is amended by adding
a new subsection as follows: "(n) The Secretary shall not approve
any project under this title that will result in the severance or
destruction of an existirg ni.ijcr route for nonmotorized
transportation traffic and light motorcycles, unless such-project
provides a reasonably alternate route or such a route exists.".
(h) Section 217(a) of title 23, United States Code, is amended to
read as follows:
"(a) To encourage energy conservation and the multiple use of
highway rights-of-way, including the development, improvement, and
use of bicycle transportation and the development and improvement
of pedestrian walkways on or in conjunction with highway rights-
of-way, the States may, as Federal-aid highway projects, construct
207
-------
new or improved lanes, paths, or shoulders; traffic control devices,
shelters for and parking facilities for bicycles; and pedestrian
walkways. Sums apportioned in accordance with paragraphs (1),
(2), and (6) of section 104(b) of this title shall be available
for bicycle projects and pedestrian walkways authorized under this
section and such projects shall be located and designed pursuant
to an overall plan which will provide due consideration for
safety and contiguous routes.
(i) There is authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary to carry
out subsection (c), for each of the fiscal years ending September
30, 1979, September 30, 1980, September 30, 1981, and September 30,
1982, out of the Highway Trust Fund $10,000,000 and $10,000,000
out of any other money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated.
208
-------
NATIONAL ENERGY CONSERVATION POLICY ACT, PL 95-619, November 9, 1978
Section 682, BICYCLE STUDY
(a) The Congress recognizes that bicycles are the most efficient means
of transportation, represent a viable commuting alternative
to many people, offer mobility at speeds as fast as that of cars
in urban areas, provide health benefits through daily exercise,
reduce noise and air pollution, are relatively inexpensive, and
deserve consideration in a comprehensive national energy plan.
(b) Not more than one year after the date of enactment of this Act,
the Secretary of Transportation shall complete a study of the
energy conservation of potential bicycle transportation, determine
institutional, legal, physical, and personal obstacles to
increased bicycle use, establish a target for bicycle use in
commuting, and develop a comprehensive program to meet these goals,
In developing the program, consideration should be given to
educational programs, federal demonstrations, planning grants,
and construction grants. The Secretary of Transportation shall
submit a report to the President and to Congress containing the
results of such a study.
209
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on tin: revvm beiore comnlvtinti
fPORT NO.
EPA-400/2-79-001
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Bicycling and Air Quality Information Document
5. REPORT DATE
Final Report, Secte^jer 197?
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
Marda Portmann-Mayo
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Abt Associates Inc.
55 Wheeler Street
Cambridge, Mass. 02138
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
EPA 68-01-4946
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Office of Transportation and Land Use Policy
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
4C1 >;. Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA
5. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
EPA Contract Manager: Nina Dougherty Rowe
6. ABSTRACT
This report is one of a series prepared in accordance with Section 108 (f) of
the Clean Air Act, as amended in August 1977. This document is intended to
assist urban areas with better utilization of bicycle strategies in
their State Implementation Plans to reduce air pollution, and in integration
of such strategies with their transportation system management and air
quality planning programs as required by EPA, FHWA and UMTA.
This document summarizes major factors affecting the level of bicycle use
at the local level, and outlines measures to be considered for inclusion
in a comprehensive bicycle transportation strategy. Quantitative data
on bicycle program effectiveness is reviewed, and evaluation of potential
air quality and energy impacts of bicycle strategies is discussed.
Implementation considerations are included, such as legislation,
institutional structure, and funding sources, rinally, brief case studies
of programs implementing bicycle strategies are presented for Davis
(California), Madison (Wisconsin), Denver (Colorado), and the states of
North Carolina and California.
7.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
3.IOENTICI£PS OPEN ENDED TERMS
COSATI Hclil Croup
Air Pollution Abatement
Bicycle Planning
Transportation Planning
Automobile Traffic Reduction
Air Qualify
Bicycling
Travel Ireacts
IB. DISTRIBUTION S
Unlimited
19. SECURITY CLASS iTins Reportj
Unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES
20. SECURITY CLASS iThii pjgtj
Unclassified
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (R«»- <-
EDITION IS OBSOLETE
•U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : I960 0-620-228A062
------- |