Considerations for Integrating Bicycling and Walking Facilities into Urban Infrastructure

Abstract

Several manuals, handbooks, and web resources provide varied guidance on planning for and designing bicycle and pedestrian facilities, yet there are no specific indications which treatments in these guides work well for users. In this study, best practices are highlighted and program characteristics associated with high levels of nonmotorized travel are identified, with an emphasis on bicyclists and pedestrians in the California communities of Davis, Palo Alto, and San Luis Obispo, cities known for being bicycle and pedestrian friendly. Analyses of a user preference survey of more than 630 residents in the case study communities, interviews with operators, and review of related literature reveal several factors that matter most to stakeholders for creating bicycle-and pedestrian-friendly places. These factors include (a) acceptable bicycling and walking distances to desired activities, (b) direct routes, (c) good route connectivity, and (d) separation of motorized and non-motorized transportation modes. Recommendations are presented as key considerations for integrating bicycling and walking facilities into urban infrastructure and are arranged to correspond to the trip-making cycle, from the decision to engage in an activity through the choice of route to arrival at the destination. Findings indicate that bicyclists and pedestrians alike strongly desire automobile-separated facilities on streets. This finding suggests that these kinds of projects may merit priority over purely recreational paths. Although roadways may generally need to be friendly for bicycling and walking, the emphasis should be on linking activity locations and transit stations that are purposely placed to be within acceptable distances for these activities.

The space race: A framework to evaluate the potential travel-time impacts of reallocating road space to bicycle facilities

“…In addition to North American cites heavily relying on these designs in their cycling networks, many municipalities also include off-road bike paths as part of their total coverage. Recent research, however, indicates that cyclists strongly prefer separated on-road bike lanes over recreational paths (Nuworsoo and Cooper, 2013). Moreover, an earlier study found that even the highest quality off-road paths are used by utilitarian cyclists infrequently (Aultman-Hall et al, 1997).…”

Cyclists\' physiological stress and network planning and evaluation

“…Figure 4 shows the classification according to the spatial extent of the studies (Urban, Suburban or both). In this figure, a significant number of urban studies can be observed (Kuzmyak et al, 2014;Parks et al, 2013;Goodno et al, 2013;Nuworsoo et al, 2012;Piccinini et al, 2014;Burke et al, 2009;Tefe and Langen, 2007;Pilko et al, 2014;Ebrahimabadi, 2012;Kimbauer and Baetz, 2014;Bisson et al, 2011; Lin and Yu, 2013; Indicator 1. Flow characteristics of motor vehicles in the adjacent road 2.…”

“…Figure 2 shows the analysis of the classification according to the level of the study (Network or Segments, according to Table 4), where there is a predominance of studies at the network level focusing on items of comfort and facilities (Brezina et al, 2012;Nuworsoo et al, 2012;Burke et al, 2009;Ebrahimabadi, 2012;Kimbauer and Baetz, 2014;Bisson et al, 2011;Lin and Yu, 2013;de Leeuw and de Kruijf, 2015;Van den Dool, et al, 2014;Rissel et al, 2013;Surendra, 2015). At the network level, we can observe a concentration of research on cycling infrastructures using surveys and field information in segregated infrastructures (Burke et al, 2009;Pilko et al, 2014;Ebrahimabadi, 2012;Kimbauer and Baetz, 2014;Bisson et al, 2011;Martinek, 2011;Greaves et al, 2015;Evenson et al, 2011;Monsere et al, 2014;Rissel et al, 2013).…”

“…Figure 3 presents the classification analyses in relation to the criterion found in the surveys (Objective or Subjective, according to Table 5). Most of the research selected (Brezina et al, 2012;Nuworsoo et al, 2012Nuworsoo et al, , 2013Burke et al, 2009;Magalotti, 2013;Pilko et al, 2014;Ebrahimabadi, 2012;Bisson et al, 2011;Martinek, 2011;Greaves et al, 2015;AASTHO, 2010;de Leeuw and de Kruijf, 2015;James, 2015;van den Dool et al, 2014;Philp et al, 2015;Sallis et al, 2013;Evenson et al, 2011;Beukes and Vanderschuren, 2012;Monsere et al, 2014;Clarke, 2008;Goodman and Christopher, 2015;Rissel et al, 2013) was found in the subjective criterion group. Figure 3 also indicates that these studies were mainly focused on the type of segregated infrastructure (Brezina et al, 2012;Burke et al, 2009;Magalotti, 2013;Pilko et al, 2014;Ebrahimabadi, 2012;Bisson et al, 2011;Martinek, 2011;Greaves et al, 2015;Evenson et al, 2011;Monsere et al, 2014;Goodman and Christopher, 2015;Rissel et al, 2013).…”

“…Shared with pedestrians / Shared with vehicles. (Nuworsoo et al, 2012;Nuworsoo et al, 2013;de Leeuw and de Kruijf, 2015;Philp et al, 2015;Beukes and Vanderschuren, 2012;Clarke, 2008).…”