|
|
This lesson explores the history of community design and its effect on bicycle and pedestrian travel. It explains the intricate relationship between transportation systems and land use, and how this relationship has evolved in the United States. This session also discusses the importance of planning for nonmotorized transportation modes as viable alternatives to the use of private automobiles, as it relates to quality of life, economic factors, health, safety, and welfare. Finally, the lesson explores the increasing level of interest in bicycle and pedestrian planning that has resulted from national legislation and grassroots support in local communities. The major sections of this lesson are as follows:
Perhaps more than any other factors, transportation modes have influenced the way cities grow and the forms they take. Before the advent of the automobile, cities were smaller and more compact in area and population.
Travel between cities was arduous. Transport of goods and materials was generally limited to short distances. People walked, rode horses or burros, or traveled in animal-drawn carts. Trips for work, shopping, socializing, and business were limited to walking distance for most people.
The introduction of the bicycle was a major innovation that substantially extended the range people could travel. Even today, the bicycle is a major mode of transportation in some countries of the world, such as China. It is used to haul heavy loads, pull trailers, and provide everyday transport. In these countries, the cost of driving is prohibitive for the average citizen. Per capita income is low, and the price of motor vehicle fuel and services is very high. Studies have shown that as per capita income rises, however, people switch to private motor vehicle ownership and the extent of walking and bicycling decreases.
In the United States of the 20th century, urban design reflects the influence of the motor vehicle as the dominant transportation mode. Many cities have historic city centers and older neighborhoods that were designed to accommodate pedestrians. In many cities, these historic areas are preserved and showcased as relics of earlier times. People visit them for the unusual experience of leaving their cars behind and walking around.
Neighborhoods and commercial areas that were designed in the post-World War II era are far less inviting to pedestrian travel. They typically lack sidewalks, and streets are wide and difficult to cross (see figure 1-1). People usually get in their cars to go to school, to work, or to buy groceries.
Much of this behavior is just plain habit. People don’t think about walking or bicycling as being easy to do. Some of it, however, is a response to:
Figure 1-1. Photo. Wide suburban streets like this one were not built to accommodate or encourage walking.
Figure 1-2. Photo. Many modern developments are designed to cater to automobile travel.
| Source: Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center (PBIC) Image Library, http://www.pedbikeimages.org(1) |
Most modern suburban communities in the United States are not designed for bicycle and pedestrian travel. This was not always the case. In communities across the country that were built prior to 1950, there are remnants of walkable, bikable streets where destinations are closer to residential areas. More and more people are beginning to appreciate well-designed communities such as these, where bicycling is enjoyable and the streets are lined with trees and sidewalks (the trend toward neotraditional neighborhood design reflects this—see lesson 6). The following provides one view of how suburban residential design has changed in America:
| Over the last 40 years, as automobiles replaced streetcars, the need for locating houses close to the streetcar stop disappeared. Retail business concentrated near the residential subdivisions and apartment complexes, curbs and sidewalks, symbols of a pedestrian and streetcar-oriented world, became expensive and unnecessary features in this new, low-density environment. House lots became wider to accommodate garages, and houses themselves were set back from the street to reduce the noise and nuisance of passing cars.(2) |
Urban design practices have come full circle as planners and engineers have begun to recognize the value in providing neighborhoods and commercial areas that are pedestrian- and bicycle-friendly. In many cities and towns, zoning ordinances and subdivision design regulations have been revised to ensure that new developments are designed to encourage walking and bicycling.
Increased levels of bicycling and walking would result in significant benefits in terms of health and physical fitness, the environment, and transportation-related effects. Research has shown that even low to moderate levels of exercise, such as regular bicycling or walking, can reduce the risk of coronary heart disease, diabetes, stroke, and other chronic diseases; help reduce health care costs; contribute to greater functional independence in later years of life; and improve quality of life at every stage. A summary of benefits is provided below:
Figure 1-3. Photo. There are many economic benefits to building bicycle and pedestrian facilities like this shared-use path.
(This picture shows bicyclists not wearing helmets. FHWA strongly recommends that all bicyclists wear helmets.) Source: PBIC Image Library, http://www.pedbikeimages.org(1) |
Given these many benefits, the result of a 1991 Harris Poll is not surprising. While only 5 percent of respondents currently walk or bicycle as their primary means of transportation, two-and-a-half times this number would prefer to walk or bicycle if better facilities were available.(11)
Figure 1-4. Photo. Walking can have a tremendous health benefit.
| Source: PBIC Image Library, http://www.pedbikeimages.org,(1) |
Government support at the Federal, State, and local levels is critical to ensuring that the transportation system accommodates bicycling and walking. Whereas individuals and private organizations can accomplish much in increasing public awareness, identifying needs, etc., the creation of safer and more appealing places to bicycle and walk is primarily a responsibility of government. This is accomplished not only through direct improvements to the roadway environment, but also through planning, policymaking, and other government activities. Support and commitment at every level of government are thus the keys to significant increases in bicycling and walking as modes of transportation.
Leading the way in Federal support for bicycling and walking was the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA). That act initiated a major policy shift in Federal funding priorities in the United States by making Federal funds much more accessible for State and local bicycling and walking facilities and programs.(12) Subsequent Federal transportation bills have strengthened the emphasis on improving conditions for bicycling and walking.
Following the adoption of ISTEA, the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) published the National Bicycling and Walking Study (NBWS) in 1994.(13) NBWS translated the recognition of nonmotorized travel embodied in ISTEA into two specific goals: to double the percentage of trips made by foot and bicycle while simultaneously reducing the number of crashes involving bicyclists and pedestrians by 10 percent.
The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21), signed into law on June 9, 1998, carried forward the same programs for bicycling and walking established in ISTEA and included several new and stronger directives. TEA-21 amended existing surface transportation legislation by including a number of important policy statements:
TEA-21 also amended Federal transportation law to require the Secretary of Transportation to ensure that bicycle and pedestrian linkages are maintained and improved, stating that:
In February 1999, FHWA issued program guidance regarding the bicycle and pedestrian provisions of Federal surface transportation legislation. The program guidance and accompanying transmittal memorandum are extremely supportive of bicycling and walking and clearly establishes that these modes are an important component of the transportation system, stating that:(14,15)
The program guidance also clarified the meaning of "due consideration," stating that:(15)
States have responded to the challenges of the Federal legislation, and many are already ahead of its requirements. As mandated, bicycle and pedestrian coordinators are in place in all 50 States, and some State departments of transportation (DOTs) maintain programs that are staffed with several professionals who focus solely on bicycle and pedestrian planning and design issues. Florida DOT is one of the leaders in this regard, with six staff members who spend 80 percent or more of their time on pedestrian- or bicycle-related work, two who spend 50 percent or more in this area, and many additional staff who spend a smaller portion of time on pedestrian and bicycle issues.
MPOs and individual communities have also responded to the mandates and opportunities of the Federal legislation. The infusion of Federal funding for bicycle and pedestrian projects has galvanized local commitments of funding throughout the country. FHWA has estimated that in the 18 years prior to ISTEA, a total of $41 million of Federal funds were spent on bicycling and walking, for an average of $2.3 million per year. By the year 2003, that figure had risen to $422 million per year.
This infusion of funding has fueled a large rise in the number of new shared-use paths, bike lanes on urban streets, and sidewalk improvements throughout the country. More and more professionals have become involved in working on transportation issues related to bicycling and walking. The Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals, founded in 1995, reported a membership of over 450 professionals by the year 2003.
Bicycle and pedestrian projects are broadly eligible for funding from almost all the major Federal-aid highway, transit, safety, and other programs. Bicycle projects must be "principally for transportation, rather than recreation, purposes" and must be designed and located pursuant to the transportation plans required of States and MPOs.
National Highway System funds may be used to construct bicycle transportation facilities and pedestrian walkways on land adjacent to any highway on the National Highway System, including Interstate highways.
Surface Transportation Program (STP) funds may be used for either the construction of bicycle transportation facilities and pedestrian walkways or nonconstruction projects (such as maps, brochures, and public service announcements) related to safe bicycle use and walking. The modification of public sidewalks to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act also is eligible for STP funds.
Ten percent of each State’s annual STP funds are set aside for Transportation Enhancement Activities (TEAs). The law provides a specific list of activities that are eligible TEAs and this includes "provision of facilities for pedestrians and bicycles, provision of safety and educational activities for pedestrians and bicyclists," and the "preservation of abandoned railway corridors (including the conversion and use thereof for pedestrian and bicycle trails)."
Another 10 percent of each State’s STP funds are set aside for the Hazard Elimination and Railway-Highway Crossing programs, which address bicycle and pedestrian safety issues. Each State is required to implement a Hazard Elimination Program to identify and correct locations that may constitute a danger to motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians. Funds may be used for activities such as a survey of hazardous locations, projects on any publicly owned bicycle or pedestrian pathway or trail, or any safety-related traffic calming measure. Improvements to railway-highway crossings "shall take into account bicycle safety."
Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program funds may be used for either the construction of bicycle transportation facilities and pedestrian walkways or nonconstruction projects (such as maps, brochures, and public service announcements) related to safe bicycle use. Project applications for these funds must demonstrate an air quality benefit.
Recreational Trails Program funds may be used for all kinds of trail projects. Of the funds apportioned to a State, 30 percent must be used for motorized trail uses, 30 percent for nonmotorized trail uses, and 40 percent for diverse trail uses (any combination).
Provisions for pedestrians and bicyclists are eligible under the various categories of the Federal Lands Highway Program in conjunction with roads, highways, and parkways. Priority for funding projects is determined by the appropriate Federal Land Agency or tribal government.
National Scenic Byways Program funds may be used for "construction along a scenic byway of a facility for pedestrians and bicyclists."
Job Access and Reverse Commute Grants are available to support projects, including bicycle-related services, designed to transport welfare recipients and eligible low-income individuals to and from employment.
Title 49 U.S.C. (as amended by TEA-21) allows the Urbanized Area Formula Grants, Capital Investment Grants and Loans, and Formula Program for Other Than Urbanized Area transit funds to be used for improving bicycle and pedestrian access to transit facilities and vehicles. Eligible activities include investments in "pedestrian and bicycle access to a mass transportation facility" that establishes or enhances coordination between mass transportation and other transportation.
TEA-21 also amended Title 49 to create a Transit Enhancement Activity program with a 1 percent set-aside of Urbanized Area Formula Grant funds designated for, among other things, pedestrian access and walkways, and "bicycle access, including bicycle storage facilities and installing equipment for transporting bicycles on mass transportation vehicles."
Pedestrian and bicyclist safety remain priority areas for State and Community Highway Safety Grants funded by the Section 402 formula grant program. A State is eligible for these grants by submitting a Performance Plan (establishing goals and performance measures for improving highway safety) and a Highway Safety Plan (describing activities to achieve those goals).
Research, development, demonstrations, and training to improve highway safety (including bicycle and pedestrian safety) are carried out under the Highway Safety Research and Development (Section 403) program.(16)
Regardless of the commitment of Federal, State, and local governments to bicycling and walking transportation, and regardless of the walkability or bikability of our cities and towns, the full potential of bicycling and walking as transportation modes will not be realized if the public is unable to embrace them as viable transportation options. Both government and the private sector can play key roles here by working to increase public awareness of bicycling and walking and actively promoting their use. Programs to increase levels of nonmotorized transportation, including innovative transportation demand management plans, bike-to-work activities, Safe Routes to Schools programs, and other promotional efforts, all can help to popularize nonmotorized transportation.
If recent survey results are any indication, the public already strongly supports increased travel options. National transportation polls consistently show that adults in the United States want more opportunities to bicycle and walk for recreation and transportation. A 1991 Harris Poll showed that 46 percent of adults age 18 and older—82 million Americans—say they would sometimes commute to work by bicycle if safe bicycle lanes were available. Similarly, 59 percent of the respondents reported that they would walk, or walk more, if there were safe, secure designated paths or walkways. Respondents also indicated that they want their governments to enhance their opportunities to walk and bicycle.(11)
A 2002 poll conducted by the Bureau of Transportation Statistics and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) found that 27 percent of adults ride a bicycle at least once a month during the summer months, and found that respondents support the installation of more bike lanes, new paths, and better lighting and signals to support bicycle trips.(17) In a poll conducted by Belden Russonello & Stewart that same year, 53 percent of respondents supported higher levels of Federal spending on bicycle facilities, even if it means less funding is available for new road construction.(18)
Thus far, this lesson has described the challenges and potential for increasing nonmotorized travel in the United States. Public interest and financial support for bicycling and walking has led to improvement projects throughout the country, from big cities to small towns and in rural areas as well. Although progress is slow and the problems often seem insurmountable, several trends in transportation planning point to a promising future for bicycling and walking. New energy, funding, and political support are being given to programs that reduce reliance on the private motor vehicle and encourage bicycling and walking. Here are a few examples of these trends:
When ISTEA was enacted by Congress in 1991, many State DOTs were initially reticent about including facilities for bicycles and pedestrians during roadway improvement projects. Today, a number of States are leading the way in establishing policies that require inclusion of pedestrian and bicycle accommodations in each road construction or reconstruction project. America Bikes, an advocacy organization established to influence national transportation policy, established the concept of complete streets (see figure 1-5), and defines them in the following way:
Figure 1-5. Photo. Many State DOTs are adopting "complete streets" policies.
| Source: PBIC Image Library, http://www.pedbikeimages.org(1) |
Complete streets provide choices to the people who live, work, and travel on them. Pedestrians and bicyclists are comfortable using complete streets. A network of complete streets improves the safety, convenience, efficiency, and accessibility of the transportation system for all users. Every road project should create complete streets.(19)
Examples of States with complete streets policies include California, Florida, Kentucky, Oregon, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia. A number of other States are in the process of developing new guidance in their roadway design manuals that incorporates better accommodations for pedestrians and bicycles, including Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania.
The concept of complete streets includes provisions to make streets accessible for all users, including those with disabilities. Increasing the accessibility for users with disabilities increases the accessibility for all users.
In all parts of the country, there has been increased focus on pedestrian-oriented design. Once-deteriorating downtowns are being rediscovered and revitalized, often with a strong pedestrian emphasis. In some communities, this new focus began with the introduction of new urbanist developments and has then led to a more comprehensive reexamination of zoning and subdivision regulations that have traditionally favored automobile access. Communities in every State have begun the labor-intensive process of rewriting their development guidelines to either encourage or require mixed-use development and higher densities. Communities across the country increasingly require developers to provide sidewalks and bikeways, and decreasingly fewer planning boards allow exemptions from these requirements.
Many planning processes are recognizing and addressing the need for coordination and cooperation with other professional disciplines as well as with citizen groups, city maintenance departments, police officers, school officials, and others. Creating pedestrian- and bicyclist-friendly cities takes cooperation and a big-picture approach backed by the power to put forward adoptable recommendations with policy or regulatory status.
Galvanized by the success of Walk-to-School Day—a national promotional event held in early October of each year—State and local governments across the country are initiating Safe Routes to School programs (see figure 1-6). These programs are typically grassroots efforts among concerned parents, teachers, and community planners to improve walking conditions near schools, educate children on safe walking and bicycling skills, and promote walking as a healthy alternative.
Figure 1-6. Photo. Safe Routes to School programs are being implemented throughout the U.S.
| Source: PBIC Image Library, http://www.pedbikeimages.org(1) |
A growing number of State legislatures throughout the United States have passed legislation aimed at supporting Safe Routes to Schools efforts. This has spurred a variety of pilot programs, the development of guidebooks (such as those developed for use in California, Delaware, Florida, and Maryland), and national legislation. The growing momentum of these programs has been boosted by positive results in two communities that served as national pilot programs:
Trail systems provide continuous, scenic, and grade-separated access to major destinations using canal banks, flood control channels, river corridors, parks, and greenbelts. Built to current design standards, these trails can serve many types of users for many different trip purposes. Cities and towns of all sizes have continued to add miles of shared-use paths, forming a growing network of trails throughout the U.S. Projects like the East Coast Greenway—a proposed urban off-road trail extending from Maine to Florida—have galvanized local efforts to eliminate gaps in their trail networks, improve trail/roadway intersections, and develop guide maps. In urban areas such as Portland, OR, and Washington, DC, census data show higher levels of bicycle commuting in census tracts that lie along trails and onroad bikeways.
State and local DOTs have begun to reexamine longstanding roadway design practices that have favored generous lane widths and faster design speeds. There is a growing recognition among transportation engineers that urban roadways must be designed to accommodate multiple users, and therefore intersections should be more compact and provide refuge areas for pedestrian crossings. Traffic calming principles have become mainstream in many transportation departments. See lesson 20 for a full explanation of the traffic calming techniques.
Associations such as the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), Transportation Research Board (TRB), the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), and the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) are putting more and more positive energy into support for bicycle and pedestrian transportation.
They are working to educate their members about design planning, construction practices, and related issues. ITE, for example, has published manuals on traffic calming, supports traditional neighborhood design, and is adding new chapters on walking and bicycling solutions to its major handbook and other publications. AASHTO has initiated updates to the Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities and is in the process of publishing its first national pedestrian guideline. In addition, engineers and planners in the bicycle and pedestrian field have established their own professional organization—the Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals (APBP). This organization promotes excellence in the emerging professional discipline of pedestrian and bicycle transportation.
The public has become more involved in transportation planning and policy, especially on the local and State levels (see figure 1-7). Federal transportation legislation and a trend toward citizen activism are leading to the formation of bicycle and pedestrian advisory councils in many areas. Combined with existing community organizations, clubs, and advocacy networks, such councils play growing roles in transportation and land use decisions.
The following ideas are suggested for student exercises.
Part 1
Take photographs of both good and bad locations to bicycle and walk in your community. Photographs may document conditions in several locations or within one particular development (commercial or residential). Your photo log should capture the overall environment (such as streetscape), specific barriers and/or good features, and general land use relationships to the transportation facility. For each photograph, prepare a short writeup explaining the problems or positive features you inventoried.
Figure 1-7. Photo. There are growing trends in public involvement in local transportation planning processes.
| Source: PBIC Image Library, http://www.pedbikeimages.org(1) |
Part 2
Using the specific locations you documented in part 1, conduct an evaluation of engineering issues related to the following facility design aspects:
Need for bicycle/pedestrian facilities. How would you establish the need for facilities, whether the existing ones or proposed improvements? What data would you collect? What type(s) of analysis procedures or comparisons would be useful in assessing need? If you documented existing facilities in your photographs, how would you demonstrate effectiveness to detractors who call money spent on pedestrian and bicycles facilities a waste of resources? Please develop some proposed guidelines within the context of effective and reasonable public policy for use by a local agency in addressing issues related to bicycle and pedestrian facilities.
Incorporation of needed facilities in new design. Describe how any deficiencies you noted in your photo logging exercise could have been addressed if pedestrian and/or bicycle facilities were included in the original design and construction. Tabulate and evaluate the associated impacts. If you documented existing designs, describe and quantify impacts associated with accommodating pedestrians and/or bicycles in the facility/facilities you photographed.
Incorporation of needed facilities in retrofit design. Assuming that you documented locations deficient for pedestrian and bicycle travel, list and describe possible ways to rectify and retrofit existing facilities so that these locations can more readily accommodate pedestrian and/or bicycle travel modes.
Conduct an Internet search to find local land use planning procedures, and document your findings in a one-page report, citing your sources. Critique the organization’s pedestrian/bicycle planning procedures given the new Federal emphasis on pedestrian/bicycle issues.
List ten primary and secondary health and societal benefits of nonmotorized transportation. Then write a paragraph for each benefit that further develops each idea listed.
The references for this lesson are:
Additional resources for this lesson include:
Previous | Table of Contents | Next
FHWA-HRT-05-085 |
 |