Research Project Description

Lessons for Bike/Pedestrian Integration into the Infrastructure of Urban Communities

Project Number: 2906

Project Objective:

This project will highlight best practices and identify program characteristics associated with high bicycle use levels in selected small urban case study communities of Davis, Palo Alto, and San Luis Obispo in California to illustrate how urban neighborhoods or communities can better integrate bicycling meaningfully into their planning procedures.

Principal Investigators:

Cornelius Nuworsoo, Ph.D., Assistant Professor, Department of City and Regional Planning, California Polytechnic State University

Team Members:

Eugene Jud, P.E., Lecturer, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, California Polytechnic State University

Sudeshna Mitra, Ph.D., Assistant Professor, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, California Polytechnic State University

Katherine Cushing, Ph.D., Associate Professor, Department of Environmental Studies, San Jose State University

Project Abstract:

With increasing concern about global warming, green house gas emissions and rising fuel prices, non-motorized modes, such as biking and walking, are gaining importance as viable choices in urban transportation. Having over-emphasized automobile transportation for so many years, many cities in the United States are not accustomed to addressing alternative modes of mobility. This over-emphasis is reflected in personal travel habits which include the fact that at the national level, more than 90% of work trips are typically made by the automobile, 5% by public transit, 2.5% by walking and a mere 0.5% by bicycle (Bureau of Transportation Statistics August, 2008). It is imperative that we increase the level of non-motorized travel to address the concerns about energy use and the environment.

Even where alternative modes are addressed, not all US cities have taken a unified approach to promoting bicycle transportation because bike mode choice is dependent on such important factors as year round weather conditions, topography, trip purpose, and trip length. Even in cities like Davis, Palo Alto and San Luis Obispo, which have strongly promoted biking, there is the need for improved design and planning tools to assess the ridership, mode shift and safety impacts of expanding bicycle networks and facilities. These cities may provide important lessons to others on what is done right and what can be improved. The literature reveals quite a few design guidelines for bike lanes, but there are no specific indications which of the varied treatments in these guides work well for users. While some cities have been tremendously successful in deploying bicycle-friendly facilities, most lag behind and lack the resources to assess what is needed to integrate them with other means of travel.

This study will emphasize policy lessons in the choice of infrastructure and types of operations; mode shifts away from the auto; and how to educate the public with the goal of improving the integration of non-motorized modes into the urban transportation infrastructure. To accomplish this, we will study three cases of cities that have become pedestrian- and bike-friendly by promoting bicycle and pedestrian transportation in order to:

•  Elicit transferable lessons for adoption by other cities in terms of treatments that users generally prefer, those that users or accident data reveal as wrong and treatments that could be improved

• Identify program characteristics associated with high ridership levels

• Identify key areas within the Master Planning process that should incorporate bicycling needs

The scope proposes to combine primary data from surveys of non-motorized and public transit users with secondary data from previous study efforts in three California case study cities: Davis, Palo Altos, and San Luis Obispo, to identify program characteristics associated with high ridership levels and what could be improved in bike/pedestrian planning in urban neighborhoods or small communities.

The anticipated product from this work effort will be a guide. It is envisioned to include visual documentation of examples (and how they are rated by users) with accompanying text and recommended guidelines prepared to be as readable to the general public as to professionals. Recommendations will address such areas as transferable policies, infrastructure systems, public education methods, and key user preferences.

The Caltrans guide book and other references identified in this proposal are primarily design guidelines. They do not link the recommendations to operations and user preferences as this project intends to do.

Task Description:

Task 1: Review Literature

Research the literature on innovative policies from cities in the United States and elsewhere, especially Europe.

Task 2: Select Case Study Cities

Select case study examples of urbanized areas that have universities because university populations tend to energize cities to emphasize alternative modes of transportation. Policies that work for University populations can be easily adapted by large employers and other types of institutions to their needs. The primary case study cities are Davis, San Luis Obispo and Palo Alto.

Task 3: Document Case Study Conditions

Document the implementation of non-motorized transportation in the case study cities to include demographics, history of sustainable mobility, existing infrastructure and operational treatments, and types of activities linked by non-motorized modes and expansion plans.

Task 4:Survey Transit and Bike Riders in Case Study Area

A survey will be designed and pretested. It will be submitted for Human Subjects approval. The finalized questionnaire will be administered to a random sample of non-motorized and public transit travelers.

Task 5: Analyze Survey Data and Other Information

The survey data will be entered, summarized, and analyzed in statistical software.

Task 6: Document Impacts

Document the impacts of treatments. Where possible, use such criteria as non-motorized mode choice, usage levels of alternative modes, and comparative safety levels (e.g. crash rates).

Task 7: Develop Guidelines

Develop guidelines for non-motorized transportation within a proposed hierarchy of transportation infrastructure.

Task 8: Document Study

The anticipated product from this work effort will be a guide including visual documentation of examples (and how they are rated by users) with accompanying text and recommended guidelines. Recommendations will address such areas as transferable policies, infrastructure systems, public education methods, and key user preferences.

Technology Transfer:

At least one paper will be prepared and submitted to a refereed conference, such as the TRB Annual Meeting. Similarly, a minimum of one paper will be submitted to appropriate transportation journals, such as the Journal of the Transportation Research Board and the ITE Journal.

Results of the project will also be disseminated through the MTI website where interested parties will be able to access the final report. Project members will present at a meeting of MTI Research Associates and other interested parties in Fall 2010. Finally, copies of the guide will be sent to 10-15 transportation planning departments with similar community characteristics to the three areas studies for this project.

Potential Benefits of Research:

The end users of the product are anticipated to include the full spectrum of providers and users, that is, planners and engineers; educators, politicians, and citizens. Planners and engineers would have a synthesis and handy reference to refer to in the course of their work; educators can use it as a concise collection of instructional materials; and both politicians and the citizenry would have an easy- to-read, practical reference to guide their decision-making in the process of public participation, need identification and safe use of non-motorized facilities.

Project Funding: $59,350.00