Click for next page ( 105


The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



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 104
I-1 APPENDIX I FIELD TESTING An important part of this project's outcome lies in its utility as a Tom Huber, State of Wisconsin Bicycle and Pedestrian Coor- tool to assist the local community transportation planning process. dinator Toward this end, the research team conducted field testing of the Charlotte Claybrooke, State of Washington Bicycle and Pedes- guidelines before general release to the public. This effort took place trian Coordinator in two parallel tracks: one aimed at soliciting comments from the Drusilla van Hengel, Mobility Coordinator, City of Santa broad cycling community and another focused on communities with Barbara strong interest in testing and potentially using the guidelines. Paul Magarey, Chair, Australian Bicycle Council Survey Advocates Through field testing, our aim was to ensure that the guidelines Chuck Ayers, Cascade Bicycle Club provide a useful and easy-to-use tool that planners, engineers, and Louise McGrody, Bicycle Alliance of Washington policymakers can use for making informed investment decisions. Peg Staeheli, SVR Design Company To accurately measure the degree to which the tool met this goal, Emily Allen, Seattle Bicycle Advisory Board the research team developed a survey that was distributed to all field testers (see Figure 24). The survey, in Microsoft Word format, These individuals were selected on the basis of referrals or because asks a series of questions about the tool's applicability, accuracy, ease of use, "look and feel," and other technical issues. Some ques- they represented geographic areas or communities that would likely tions asked for narrative responses, while others solicited numeri- have good use for the tool. cal ratings to allow for quantitative analysis. Track One: Public Testing After testing the guidelines within the research team, the beta ver- sion was released for public field testing through email distribution lists and announcements at research presentations. Potential field testers were asked to apply the online tool to a planned or existing bicycle facility whenever possible, and provide comments using the survey. The research team solicited field testing from the planning and cycling community through the following efforts: A presentation and announcement at the 2005 American Plan- ning Association national conference in San Francisco in March A presentation and announcement at the University of Min- nesota's 2005 Center for Transportation Studies annual con- ference in April A presentation and announcement at Boise State University's 2005 Community Bicycle Congress in May An email invitation to members of the Association of Pedes- trian and Bicycle Professionals (APBP) An article in the April 22, 2005, edition of Centerlines, the newsletter of the National Center for Bicycling and Walking To augment this "public" field testing track, the research team extended personal invitations to the following select group of bicycle planners and advocates to test and offer comments on the guidelines: Planners Josh Lehman, Massachusetts State Bicycle Coordinator Randy Thoreson of the National Parks Service Rivers, Trails, and Conservation Assistance Program, St. Paul

OCR for page 104
I-2 Field Testing Survey for "Guidelines for Analysis of Investments in Bicycle Facilities (NCHRP Project 07-14) Thank you for agreeing to pilot test the guidelines created for the above project. Doing so requires four steps. 1. Please familiarize yourself with the guidelines (http://www.bicyclinginfo.org/bikecost/) 2. Envision a possible bicycle facility in your community, or gather data from an existing facility, and apply them to the guidelines. 3. Compare your results with any cost or demand data you may have or evaluate the utility of the data output from the guidelines. 4. Please complete the below survey and provide us with valuable feedback This form is available at: _________________web site here APPLICABILITY Please rate the degree to which any set of guidelines that loosely represent this tool advance the bicycle planning process. Select one... Now, rate how well you think THIS TOOL serves its intended purpose. Select one... Did the guidelines meet your expectations? Select one... If not, in what manner? In what way do the guidelines help investment decisions? For each estimated benefit, please rate its ability to help guide facility investments: Mobility Select one... Health Select one... Recreation Select one... Community Livability Select one... Externalities Select one... Which benefits do you feel need considerably more attention? Were there benefits that were not captured by the guidelines? When calculating facility costs, you were provided the option to enter user-specified values. Please rate the extent to which this feature was useful: Select one... Please continue on the next page... Figure 24. Field testing survey. Track Two: Active Living By Design and remove barriers to routine physical activity. Promoting bicy- Partnership Communities cling is an important part of this aim as evidenced by the generous grant recently awarded by the RWJF to the League of American The second track of field testing focused on a targeted list of Bicyclists for the Bicycle Friendly Community Campaign. This is bicycle planning professionals with a strong interest in testing and a national grassroots effort to increase the number of trips made by potentially using the guidelines. The goal was to receive detailed bike, promote physical fitness, and make communities more livable. and substantive comments from geographically distributed com- The community partnerships to be selected for funding under ALBD munities where bicycle planning is a priority. Key to this effort were announced in the fall of 2003. Given that many of these com- was our partnership with Active Living By Design (ALBD), a munities have an interest in developing a stronger bicycling infra- $16.5 million national program of The Robert Wood Johnson structure, and that they have demonstrated a proven level of coor- Foundation (RWJF) and part of the University of North Carolina dination, we saw these communities as ripe opportunities for School of Public Health in Chapel Hill. As part of their aim, ALBD field-testing the guidelines. An important consideration is that the is providing $200,000 grants to community-oriented partnerships to chosen communities vary in their bicycling needs, capacities for develop and implement strategies that increase opportunities for change, and size. This strategy represents a creative way to mobi-

OCR for page 104
I-3 ACCURACY Assuming you are able to compare to existing data: What was the total facility cost projected by the guidelines? $ What was the actual cost of your facility (if known)? $ If you have cyclist counts for your existing facility, please comment on the accuracy of the guidelines' demand estimates: EASE OF USE Please rate the guidelines' ease of use a scale of 1 to 10: Select one... Please rate the effectiveness of the Bicyclopedia and "i" buttons: Select one... How clear were the instructions? Select one... What needed to be clearer? What improvements would make the guidelines easier to use? Please list any data that were difficult to locate (for example, household densities, median home sale price, bicycle commute share): BUGS Keep in mind that this product is a beta version. Please provide us with detailed description of any errors that you encountered. Please continue on the next page... Figure 24. (Cont.) lize efforts around our central aim--understanding how to make Charlotte Claybrooke, State of Washington Bicycle and Pedes- best use of funds. trian Coordinator The research team recruited three ALBD partnership communi- Drusilla van Hengel, Mobility Coordinator, City of Santa ties to pilot test the guidelines: Seattle, Somerville, and Chapel Hill. Barbara These cities represent a variety of geographic settings, each provid- ing a different bicycle planning context (Table 28). The combined efforts of tracks 1 and 2 produced responses from Responses from General Announcements the following individuals: Jennifer Toole, Toole Design Group Anne Lusk, Harvard School of Public Health Active Living By Design Partnership Communities Jim Coppock, City of Cincinnati Heath Maddox, Associate Transportation Planner, City of Steve Winslow, Somerville Massachusetts Bicycle and Pedes- Berkeley trian Coordinator Andriana McMullen, Capital Regional District, British David Bonk, Senior Transportation Planner, Town of Chapel Hill Columbia Gordon Sutherland, Principal Long Range Planner, Town of Chapel Hill Ned Conroy, Principal Planner, Puget Sound Regional Council Internal Research Team David Loutzenheiser, Planners Collaborative Solicited Individuals Don Kidston, Planners Collaborative Bill Hunter, UNC Highway Safety Research Center Randy Thoreson of the National Parks Service Rivers, Trails, Libby Thomas, UNC Highway Safety Research Center and Conservation Assistance Program, St. Paul Gary Barnes, Active Communities Transportation (ACT) Tom Huber, State of Wisconsin Bicycle and Pedestrian Coor- Research Group, University of Minnesota dinator Gavin Poindexter, Active Communities Transportation (ACT) Josh Lehman, Massachusetts State Bicycle Coordinator Research Group, University of Minnesota

OCR for page 104
I-4 TABLE 28 Active Living By Design, field testing locations U.S. Region / Setting Proposed Project or Specific Facility Community Population: 563,000 A vigorous mapping process in five Seattle Five neighborhood project areas are more neighborhoods will involve neighbors of all Seattle, Washington ethnically diverse than Seattle, with Asians ages and ethnicities to make the places they constituting between 12% and 51%, and live and work more walkable and bike African Americans representing between friendly. An annual neighborhood map will West Coast 5% and 29% of the population. be published, promoting neighborhood assets and promoting the pleasures and benefits of creating a good, safe walking environment. Population: 77,000 The project features completing the More than 50 languages are spoken in this Somerville Community Path and bringing its city, which has two distinct faces; the physical activity benefits to the lower wealthy west, where many professionals income communities in East Somerville. moved following the development of the Innovative activities include distributing an Davis Square subway in 1986; and the east, "Active Living Welcome Package" which retains a largely blue-collar (including a public transit map) to new immigrant character with recent arrivals residents, conducting physical activity audits from Central and South America, South in neighborhoods, engaging community Asia, Africa, and the Caribbean. members in mapping workshops, and making sure Active Living resources (e.g., bike paths and subway stops) appear correctly on mainstream city maps. In cooperation with realtors, the group will work to allow homebuyers to preview their Somerville, Massachusetts commute options, based on each house they are considering. Policy change will leverage existing Safe Routes to School efforts, greening projects and master planning work to establish secure, attractive walking corridors. The Somerville Community path East Coast runs through a low-income area of high population density, racial and ethnic diversity. Population: 50,000 The partnership will promote active living in Home of the University of North Carolina-- neighborhoods, schools, and along a major Chapel Hill (UNC); the campus has 26,000 transportation corridor in Chapel Hill. students and 10,000 employees Specific tactics to promote active living will include: a citizen assessment of environmental supports for active living in a low income neighborhood; Safe Routes to School programming; pedestrian/bicycle/transit assessment of a Chapel Hill, NC major town transportation corridor (Airport Road); strengthening transit/active living linkages through bus promotions; and utilizing an existing employer incentive South program to promote multi-modal commuting options. David Levinson, Associate Professor of Civil Engineering, a number of respondents offered broad methodological comments University of Minnesota that could be incorporated into future research. The following outlines the range of comments that the research team was able to address through changes to the guidelines. Comments Comments received via the online survey generally fit four cate- Technical Bugs gories. First, several comments pointed out technical bugs in the tool. Second, a substantial number of comments related to ease of Pressing the "back" button results in an error message. use, providing the research team with opportunities to improve the In the cost sheet, the numbers in the "Itemized costs" field do user experience. A third body of comments pointed out specific inac- not always fit in the allotted space. curacies in methodology, cost estimates, and glossary items. Finally, Cost items 4.03 and 4.04 are not calculating correctly.

OCR for page 104
I-5 Entering median home sale price with a comma ($150,000) Some metro area names on the first input page do not match the results in an error message. metro area names in other parts of the tool. Entering persons per household with a decimal point (3.2) results in an error message. The following comments for the previous three categories could The Community Livability and Externalities benefits do not not be addressed because of technical feasibility and time constraints: always appear in the final output page. The facility length entered in the cost sheet does not always An option should be provided to save your work partway transfer to the demand and benefits calculations. through the process. The option to export the cost sheet to Excel should produce a better-formatted document. Ease of Use Users should have the option to use the tool in either metric or English units. Include a disclaimer at the beginning of the tool that informs the user about the relative accuracy of the estimates. Include an executive summary of the 150-page research report. Future Research Possibilities (outside scope Cost sheet headings should remain static when scrolling down. of immediate project) Include instructions on how to use the cost sheet. It is unclear which fields in the cost sheet are changeable. In addition to issues that were impractical to address because of The heading in the cost sheet called "Base Year" is difficult to resource constraints, other comments offered ideas that were beyond understand. It should be called "User-specified unit cost." the research scope of this project but should be considered for future The outputs of the tool should be better formatted and clearly study: interpreted for the user. Costs and benefits should include information about safety in terms of crashes. Inaccuracies A facility's connection to transit should be considered in the demand model. In the glossary, the same photograph is used for bicycle symbol, Facility connectivity to schools should be considered in the bicycle arrow, and sharrow. demand model. Spelling error on Demand Step 1: "Metro are" should be "Metro The manner in which traffic volume, hazards, topography, area." intersections, and vehicle speed would influence demand.