Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page R1
NATIONAL NCHRP REPORT 552 COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM Guidelines for Analysis of Investments in Bicycle Facilities
OCR for page R2
TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE 2005 (Membership as of November 2005) OFFICERS Chair: John R. Njord, Executive Director, Utah DOT Vice Chair: Michael D. Meyer, Professor, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology Executive Director: Robert E. Skinner, Jr., Transportation Research Board MEMBERS MICHAEL W. BEHRENS, Executive Director, Texas DOT ALLEN D. BIEHLER, Secretary, Pennsylvania DOT LARRY L. BROWN, SR., Executive Director, Mississippi DOT DEBORAH H. BUTLER, Vice President, Customer Service, Norfolk Southern Corporation and Subsidiaries, Atlanta, GA ANNE P. CANBY, President, Surface Transportation Policy Project, Washington, DC JOHN L. CRAIG, Director, Nebraska Department of Roads DOUGLAS G. DUNCAN, President and CEO, FedEx Freight, Memphis, TN NICHOLAS J. GARBER, Professor of Civil Engineering, University of Virginia ANGELA GITTENS, Vice President, Airport Business Services, HNTB Corporation, Miami, FL GENEVIEVE GIULIANO, Director, Metrans Transportation Center, and Professor, School of Policy, Planning, and Development, USC, Los Angeles BERNARD S. GROSECLOSE, JR., President and CEO, South Carolina State Ports Authority SUSAN HANSON, Landry University Professor of Geography, Graduate School of Geography, Clark University JAMES R. HERTWIG, President, CSX Intermodal, Jacksonville, FL GLORIA JEAN JEFF, Director, Michigan DOT ADIB K. KANAFANI, Cahill Professor of Civil Engineering, University of California, Berkeley HERBERT S. LEVINSON, Principal, Herbert S. Levinson Transportation Consultant, New Haven, CT SUE MCNEIL, Professor, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Delaware MICHAEL R. MORRIS, Director of Transportation, North Central Texas Council of Governments CAROL A. MURRAY, Commissioner, New Hampshire DOT MICHAEL S. TOWNES, President and CEO, Hampton Roads Transit, Hampton, VA C. MICHAEL WALTON, Ernest H. Cockrell Centennial Chair in Engineering, University of Texas, Austin LINDA S. WATSON, Executive Director, LYNX--Central Florida Regional Transportation Authority MARION C. BLAKEY, Federal Aviation Administrator, U.S.DOT (ex officio) JOSEPH H. BOARDMAN, Federal Railroad Administrator, U.S.DOT (ex officio) REBECCA M. BREWSTER, President and COO, American Transportation Research Institute, Smyrna, GA (ex officio) GEORGE BUGLIARELLO, Chancellor, Polytechnic University, and Foreign Secretary, National Academy of Engineering (ex officio) J. RICHARD CAPKA, Acting Administrator, Federal Highway Administration, U.S.DOT (ex officio) THOMAS H. COLLINS (Adm., U.S. Coast Guard), Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard (ex officio) JAMES J. EBERHARDT, Chief Scientist, Office of FreedomCAR and Vehicle Technologies, U.S. Department of Energy (ex officio) JACQUELINE GLASSMAN, Deputy Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S.DOT (ex officio) EDWARD R. HAMBERGER, President and CEO, Association of American Railroads (ex officio) DAVID B. HORNER, Acting Deputy Administrator, Federal Transit Administration, U.S.DOT (ex officio) JOHN C. HORSLEY, Executive Director, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (ex officio) JOHN E. JAMIAN, Acting Administrator, Maritime Administration, U.S.DOT (ex officio) EDWARD JOHNSON, Director, Applied Science Directorate, National Aeronautics and Space Administration (ex officio) ASHOK G. KAVEESHWAR, Research and Innovative Technology Administrator, U.S.DOT (ex officio) BRIGHAM MCCOWN, Deputy Administrator, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S.DOT (ex officio) WILLIAM W. MILLAR, President, American Public Transportation Association (ex officio) SUZANNE RUDZINSKI, Director, Transportation and Regional Programs, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (ex officio) ANNETTE M. SANDBERG, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administrator, U.S.DOT (ex officio) JEFFREY N. SHANE, Under Secretary for Policy, U.S.DOT (ex officio) CARL A. STROCK (Maj. Gen., U.S. Army), Chief of Engineers and Commanding General, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ex officio) NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM Transportation Research Board Executive Committee Subcommittee for NCHRP JOHN R. NJORD, Utah DOT (Chair) MICHAEL D. MEYER, Georgia Institute of Technology J. RICHARD CAPKA, Federal Highway Administration ROBERT E. SKINNER, JR., Transportation Research Board JOHN C. HORSLEY, American Association of State Highway MICHAEL S. TOWNES, Hampton Roads Transit, Hampton, VA and Transportation Officials C. MICHAEL WALTON, University of Texas, Austin
OCR for page R3
NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM NCHRP REPORT 552 Guidelines for Analysis of Investments in Bicycle Facilities KEVIN J. KRIZEK GARY BARNES GAVIN POINDEXTER PAUL MOGUSH KRISTIN THOMPSON Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs University of Minnesota DAVID LEVINSON NEBIYOU TILAHUN Department of Civil Engineering University of Minnesota DAVID LOUTZENHEISER DON KIDSTON Planners Collaborative Inc. Boston, MA WILLIAM HUNTER DWAYNE THARPE ZOE GILLENWATER Highway Safety Research Center University of North CarolinaChapel Hill RICHARD KILLINGSWORTH Active Living by Design Program University of North CarolinaChapel Hill S UBJECT A REAS Planning and Administration · Highway and Facility Design Research Sponsored by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials in Cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD WASHINGTON, D.C. 2006 www.TRB.org
OCR for page R4
NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM NCHRP REPORT 552 Systematic, well-designed research provides the most effective Price $36.00 approach to the solution of many problems facing highway Project 7-14 administrators and engineers. Often, highway problems are of local ISSN 0077-5614 interest and can best be studied by highway departments individually or in cooperation with their state universities and ISBN 0-309-09849-1 others. However, the accelerating growth of highway transportation Library of Congress Control Number 2006922678 develops increasingly complex problems of wide interest to © 2006 Transportation Research Board highway authorities. These problems are best studied through a coordinated program of cooperative research. In recognition of these needs, the highway administrators of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation COPYRIGHT PERMISSION Officials initiated in 1962 an objective national highway research Authors herein are responsible for the authenticity of their materials and for obtaining program employing modern scientific techniques. This program is written permissions from publishers or persons who own the copyright to any previously published or copyrighted material used herein. supported on a continuing basis by funds from participating member states of the Association and it receives the full cooperation Cooperative Research Programs (CRP) grants permission to reproduce material in this publication for classroom and not-for-profit purposes. Permission is given with the and support of the Federal Highway Administration, United States understanding that none of the material will be used to imply TRB, AASHTO, FAA, Department of Transportation. FHWA, FMCSA, FTA, or Transit Development Corporation endorsement of a The Transportation Research Board of the National Academies particular product, method, or practice. It is expected that those reproducing the was requested by the Association to administer the research material in this document for educational and not-for-profit uses will give appropriate program because of the Board's recognized objectivity and acknowledgment of the source of any reprinted or reproduced material. For other uses of the material, request permission from CRP. understanding of modern research practices. The Board is uniquely suited for this purpose as it maintains an extensive committee structure from which authorities on any highway transportation subject may be drawn; it possesses avenues of communications and NOTICE cooperation with federal, state and local governmental agencies, The project that is the subject of this report was a part of the National Cooperative universities, and industry; its relationship to the National Research Highway Research Program conducted by the Transportation Research Board with the Council is an insurance of objectivity; it maintains a full-time approval of the Governing Board of the National Research Council. Such approval research correlation staff of specialists in highway transportation reflects the Governing Board's judgment that the program concerned is of national importance and appropriate with respect to both the purposes and resources of the matters to bring the findings of research directly to those who are in National Research Council. a position to use them. The members of the technical committee selected to monitor this project and to review The program is developed on the basis of research needs this report were chosen for recognized scholarly competence and with due identified by chief administrators of the highway and transportation consideration for the balance of disciplines appropriate to the project. The opinions and departments and by committees of AASHTO. Each year, specific conclusions expressed or implied are those of the research agency that performed the areas of research needs to be included in the program are proposed research, and, while they have been accepted as appropriate by the technical committee, to the National Research Council and the Board by the American they are not necessarily those of the Transportation Research Board, the National Research Council, the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Officials, or the Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation. Research projects to fulfill these needs are defined by the Board, and Each report is reviewed and accepted for publication by the technical committee qualified research agencies are selected from those that have according to procedures established and monitored by the Transportation Research submitted proposals. Administration and surveillance of research Board Executive Committee and the Governing Board of the National Research contracts are the responsibilities of the National Research Council Council. and the Transportation Research Board. The needs for highway research are many, and the National Cooperative Highway Research Program can make significant contributions to the solution of highway transportation problems of mutual concern to many responsible groups. The program, however, is intended to complement rather than to substitute for or duplicate other highway research programs. Published reports of the NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM are available from: Transportation Research Board Business Office NOTE: The Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, the 500 Fifth Street, NW National Research Council, the Federal Highway Administration, the American Washington, DC 20001 Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, and the individual and can be ordered through the Internet at: states participating in the National Cooperative Highway Research Program do http://www.national-academies.org/trb/bookstore not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers' names appear herein solely because they are considered essential to the object of this report. Printed in the United States of America
OCR for page R5
The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished schol- ars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. On the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and techni- cal matters. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone is president of the National Academy of Sciences. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Acad- emy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achieve- ments of engineers. Dr. William A. Wulf is president of the National Academy of Engineering. The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, on its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Harvey V. Fineberg is president of the Institute of Medicine. The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy's purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Acad- emy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both the Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone and Dr. William A. Wulf are chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council. The Transportation Research Board is a division of the National Research Council, which serves the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering. The Board's mission is to promote innovation and progress in transportation through research. In an objective and interdisciplinary setting, the Board facilitates the sharing of information on transportation practice and policy by researchers and practitioners; stimulates research and offers research management services that promote technical excellence; provides expert advice on transportation policy and programs; and disseminates research results broadly and encourages their implementation. The Board's varied activities annually engage more than 5,000 engineers, scientists, and other transportation researchers and practitioners from the public and private sectors and academia, all of whom contribute their expertise in the public interest. The program is supported by state transportation departments, federal agencies including the component administrations of the U.S. Department of Transportation, and other organizations and individuals interested in the development of transportation. www.TRB.org www.national-academies.org
OCR for page R6
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAMS STAFF FOR NCHRP REPORT 552 ROBERT J. REILLY, Director, Cooperative Research Programs CRAWFORD F. JENCKS, Manager, NCHRP CHRISTOPHER J. HEDGES, Senior Program Officer EILEEN P. DELANEY, Director of Publications KAMI CABRAL, Associate Editor NCHRP PROJECT 7-14 Field of Traffic--Area of Traffic Planning RICHARD HAGGSTROM, California DOT (Chair) DARRYL ANDERSON, Minnesota DOT (AASHTO Monitor) JOHN C. FEGAN, FHWA MARTIN GUTTENPLAN, Florida DOT CHRISTOPHER J. JOHNSTON, Delta Development Group, Inc., Mechanicsburg, PA ELLEN JONES, Downtown DC Business Improvement District, Washington, DC SCOTT E. NODES, City of Goodyear Public Works Department, Goodyear, AZ ANN DO, FHWA Liaison RICHARD PAIN, TRB Liaison
OCR for page R7
This report presents methodologies and tools to estimate the cost of various bicy- FOREWORD cle facilities and for evaluating their potential value and benefits. The results will help By Christopher J. Hedges transportation planners make effective decisions on integrating bicycle facilities into Staff Officer their overall transportation plans and on a project-by-project basis. In the past, plan- Transportation Research ners and stakeholders have been faced with considerable challenges in trying to esti- Board mate the benefits of bicycle facilities. The authors have developed criteria for identi- fying benefits that will be useful and effective for urban transportation planning, and they have provided a systematic method to estimate both direct benefits to the users of the facilities and indirect benefits to the community. The research described in the report has been used to develop a set of web-based guidelines available on the Inter- net at http://www.bicyclinginfo.org/bikecost/ that provide a step-by-step worksheet for estimating costs, demands, and benefits associated with specific facilities under consideration. Transportation decision makers at the federal, state, and local levels are examining the role of bicycling in response to traffic congestion, increased travel times, and envi- ronmental degradation. Through federal highway legislation, funding has been made available to develop bicycle facilities, both on and off road; however, greater public investment in bicycle facilities warrants a more comprehensive analysis of the costs and benefits. The U.S. DOT National Bicycling and Walking Study (1994) called for dou- bling the percentage of trips made by bicycling and walking to 15 percent of total trips. To make the best use of transportation funds, there is a need for better information on (a) the effects of bicycle-facility investment on bicycle use and mode share and (b) the resulting environmental, economic, public health, and social benefits. Under NCHRP Project 07-14, "Guidelines for Analysis of Investments in Bicycle Facilities," a research team led by the University of Minnesota conducted an extensive analysis of the costs and benefits associated with bicycle facilities and developed a methodology that can be applied by transportation planners to assist with decision making in their own jurisdic- tions. The research results were used to develop web-based, step-by-step guidelines for evaluating the cost, demand, and potential benefits for bicycle facilities in support of investment decisions. These guidelines are available on a website maintained by the Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center (PBIC) at www.bicyclinginfo.org/bikecost/. The PBIC is a clearinghouse for information about health and safety, engineering, advo- cacy, education, enforcement, and access and mobility. The interactive guidelines lead the user through a series of questions, starting with the geographic location and the type of facility under consideration, and working through more specific issues to an estimate of the costs, demand, and potential benefits of the proposed facility. PBIC is funded by the U.S. DOT and the Centers for Disease Control and Preven- tion. The PBIC is part of the University of North Carolina Highway Safety Research Center.
OCR for page R8
CONTENTS 1 SUMMARY Background, 1 Estimating Bicycle Facility Costs, 1 Measuring and Forecasting the Demand for Bicycling, 2 Benefits Associated with the Use of Bicycle Facilities, 3 Benefit-Cost Analysis of Bicycle Facilities, 3 Introduction, 4 7 CHAPTER 1 Estimating Bicycle Facility Costs Identifying Costs, 7 Methodology for Determining Costs, 9 21 CHAPTER 2 Measuring and Forecasting the Demand for Bicycling Introduction, 21 Literature Review, 21 A Sketch Planning Methodology, 26 28 CHAPTER 3 Benefits Associated with the Use of Bicycle Facilities Previous Approaches, 28 Overview of Issues, 28 Proposed Benefits and Methods, 30 Conclusions, 36 38 CHAPTER 4 Benefit-Cost Analysis of Bicycle Facilities Introduction and Purpose, 38 Translating Demand and Benefits Research into Guidelines, 38 Benefit-Cost Analysis Tool, 40 Application to Pedestrian Facilities, 42 47 CHAPTER 5 Applying the Guidelines Federal Funding Sources, 47 Non-Federal Funding Sources, 48 51 ENDNOTES 53 BIBLIOGRAPHY AND SOURCES A-1 APPENDIX A: Estimating Bicycling Demand B-1 APPENDIX B: Bicycling Demand and Proximity to Facilities C-1 APPENDIX C: Literature Researching Bicycle Benefits D-1 APPENDIX D: User Mobility Benefits E-1 APPENDIX E: User Health Benefits F-1 APPENDIX F: User Safety Benefits G-1 APPENDIX G: Recreation and Reduced Auto Use Benefits H-1 APPENDIX H: Community Livability Benefits I-1 APPENDIX I: Field Testing J-1 APPENDIX J: Primer on Designing Bicycle Facilities