Click for next page ( 4


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 3
3 make up this subset of the population. Thus, areas with large numbers of bicycle com- muters usually indicate locations where more bicycling takes place. BENEFITS ASSOCIATED WITH THE USE OF BICYCLE FACILITIES A key aspect of promoting bicycling and walking is to ensure that adequate facilities exist to encourage use of these modes. For walking, this includes sidewalks, public spaces, and street crossings. For bicycling, this includes paved shoulders, bicycle lanes, wide curb lanes, on-street or off-street bike paths, and even parking or showers at the workplace. However, bicycle facilities cost money and their merits are often called into question. Many consider spending public monies on them a luxury. Planners and other transporta- tion specialists often find themselves justifying these facilities, claiming that they benefit the common good and induce additional bicycle use. Especially in austere economic times, planners often seek ways to "economize" such facilities. A review of existing literature reveals wide variation in perspectives and in the kinds of information expected by different stakeholder groups. The central challenge for urban planners, policy officials, and researchers from closely aligned fields is to focus on the benefits of bicycle facilities that pointedly satisfy certain criteria. After reviewing existing literature, canvassing available data and methods, and consulting a variety of policy officials, the team suggests that to be most useful for urban transportation planning, bicycling benefits need to be Measured on a municipal or regional scale, Central to assisting decision-makers about transportation/urban planning, Estimable via available existing data or other survey means, Converted to measures comparable to one another, and Described for both users and non-users (i.e., the community at large). There are several ways to describe the different types of benefits and to whom they apply. The suggested strategy for considering benefits of different facilities is guided by previous research. The first level distinguishes between benefits realized by the user versus the community at large. These can also be thought of as direct and indirect bene- fits. Within each of these user groups, one can identify specific types of benefits. The team identifies, prescribes, and demonstrates strategies to measure different types of benefits within each user group. BENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS OF BICYCLE FACILITIES The team completed extensive research to reliably quantify the value individuals ascribe to various bicycle facilities. For example, using a combination of primary data analysis, secondary data analysis, and literature review, this research uncovered the following: An on-street bicycle lane is valued at 16.3 min, not having parking along a route is valued at 8.9 min, and an off-road improvement is valued at 5.2 min, assuming a typical 20-min bicycle commute; Three types of facilities are valued differently by urbanites and suburbanites when measuring the effect of access to cycling-related infrastructure on home values. For example, a home 400 m closer to an off-street facility in an urban area nets $510; Individuals who attain at least 30 min of physical activity per day receive an annual per capita cost savings of between $19 and $1,175 with a median value of $128; Savings per mile in terms of reducing congestion are assumed to be 13 cents in urban areas, 8 cents in suburban areas, and 1 cent in towns and rural areas. Based on such findings and other analysis, the team crafted a set of guidelines to be used by transportation professionals and government agencies to better integrate the planning