CE 326: Transportation Planning

Non‐Motorized Transportation

Urban/Suburban Development

• Older cities  originally developed for non‐auto modes; infrastructure “updated” for vehicle traffic

• Newer cities  planning and zoning regulations favored low‐density, automobile‐oriented development

Regional Variations in Mode Choice

Source: Pucher, J., and J.L. Renne, “Socioeconomics of Urban Travel: Evidence from the 2001 NHTS,” Transportation Quarterly, vol. 57, no. 3, summer 2003.

Values in table are the % of trips by mode indicated.

Recent Policy Shift

• ISTEA (1991)  allowed use of HTF allocations for bike/pedestrian projects

• FHWA design guidance (2000) called for the routine inclusion of provisions for bicyclists and pedestrians on all federally funded surface transportation projects

• Complete Streets policies adopted at city and state level

Planning Trends

• Dense/mixed commercial and residential design

• Network connectivity

• Roadway design that favors lower speeds

• Complete Streets

• Safe Routes to Schools/Safe Routes for Seniors programs

Benefits of Walking and Cycling

• Environment• Zero emissions

• Zero fuel consumption

• Limited noise

• Health• Physical activity = better cardio health, less obesity

• Improved air quality = respiratory improvement

• Accessibility to businesses

Bicycle Commuting

http://www.bikeleague.org/news/acs2010.php

Factors Influencing Walking/Biking Decisions

•Distance/time• Attitude/culture• Trip and destination barriers•Multimodal connectivity• Safety (real or perceived)

2001 National Household Transportation Survey Data

Personal vehicle, multiple occupant,

48.9%

Personal vehicle, single occupant,

37.6%

Walk, 8.6%

Other, 1.7%

School bus, 1.5%

Transit, 1.5%

More than half of trips < 3 miles

City State Population Percent Commuters Percent FemaleUnited States 309,349,689 0.53% 26%Largest Cities by PopulationNew York City NY 8,184,899 0.80% 21%Los Angeles CA 3,797,144 0.90% 22%Chicago IL 2,698,831 1.30% 28%Houston TX 2,107,208 0.50% 19%Philadelphia PA 1,528,306 1.80% 42%Phoenix AZ 1,449,481 0.60% 10%San Antonio TX 1,334,359 0.20% 23%San Diego CA 1,311,886 1.00% 31%Dallas TX 1,202,797 0.20% 8%San Jose CA 949,197 0.60% 16%Top Cities by Commuter ShareDavis CA 65,740 22.10% 40%Boulder CO 97,585 9.90% 29%Eugene OR 156,299 8.30% 33%Berkeley CA 112,824 8.00% 26%Cambridge MA 105,337 6.80% 29%Santa Barbara CA 88,579 6.40% 29%Portland OR 585,429 6.00% 35%Madison WI 233,777 6.00% 37%Gainesville FL 124,433 6.00% 44%Iowa City IA 68,027 5.60% 28%

Cycling in New York City

• 2006 – 2009:  installed more than 200 lane‐miles

• By 2030: plans to install 1,800 lane‐miles

• According to NYCDOT counts, between 2003 and 2009, bicycle commuting increased by 154%

Trip Barriers

Safety Concerns

Pedestrian‐Friendly Infrastructure

http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/2012‐05_safe‐seniors_washington‐heights_cb12.pdf

Sharrows

Standard Lane

Protected Lane

Cycle Track

Intersection Treatments (Bike Box)

Destination Barriers

Multimodal Connectivity

Bike Share

Bicycle Performance Measurement

• Limited data previously available

• Recently, GPS applications have allowed better data collection

• CycleTracks App 

• Developed by San Francisco County Transportation Authority

• Implemented in many cities

• Provides data to planning agency

• Provides useful tool for user

http://www.sfcta.org/modeling‐and‐travel‐forecasting/cycletracks‐iphone‐and‐android

Bicycle Safety Measurement

• Accidents difficult to measure (often unreported)

• Particularly bike‐pedestrian accidents

• Other types of conflicts

• Lane obstructions

• “Dooring”

References

• Partially adapted from FHWA University Course on Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation ‐ Publication No. FHWA‐HRT‐05‐088

• NYC Street Design Manual, 2nd Edition (NYCDOT, 2013)

• NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide