Click for next page ( 5

The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine
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 4
4 of bicycle facilities into the transportation planning process. The web-based guidelines (available at: assist state departments of trans- portation and other state, regional, and local agencies in considering bicycling in all transportation projects. Additionally, the guidelines will support local agencies' review of bicycle projects as part of their transportation improvement plan. Transportation planners will be able to use the guidelines for the following purposes: Estimating the cost of specific facilities on the basis of type and key characteristics, Estimating how a facility will impact the overall bicycling environment in an area, and implicitly how it will affect the amount of riding based on characteristics of the facility and of the surrounding area, If information is available for calibration, estimating the usage of a facility and the change in usage of complementary and/or competing facilities, Estimating the specific types of benefits and their relative sizes based on charac- teristics of the facility and of the surrounding area. The guidelines consist of a "tree" of questions, starting with general information and working toward more specific details. The first step of the interactive tool is to choose the geographic location and type of facility to be considered. Questions then work from the general to the specific, refining the results (and the subsequent questions) as more infor- mation becomes available. The program only asks questions applicable to the facility type and types of analysis requested. For example, pavement type only applies to cost analysis, but the setting (urban/suburban/rural) applies to cost, demand, and benefits. In the end, users are presented with an estimate of the costs, demand, and benefits of the proposed facility. While all the cost, demand, and benefit figures in the tool are calculated from previously available sources, the web tool is the first attempt to bring this kind of information together in an easy-to-use application. The tool can be used at many levels: a neighborhood group considering lobbying for a facility might input minimal specifications to get ballpark figures, while a professional planner could enter highly detailed information and receive substantially more accurate cost, demand, and benefit output. INTRODUCTION Planning and policy efforts at all levels of transportation planning aim to increase levels of walking and bicycling. Such enthusiasm is shared by travel researchers, trans- portation professionals, public health practitioners, and policymakers. In many cases, initiatives are motivated by a desire to reduce auto use and its attendant environmental consequences (e.g., pollution and natural resource consumption). They may also be moti- vated by concerns of livability, public health, or physical activity. In response, urban planners, transportation specialists, elected officials, and health advocates are all looking to non-motorized travel to address myriad concerns, whether they are environmental, congestion, health, or quality of life. Such initiatives are not new. For example, 10 years ago The National Bicycling and Walking Study (1) put forth the goal to double the level of bicycling (and walking) in the United States. A Federal Action Plan was subsequently developed to spur this process. In the period since this landmark publication, much has been done to promote bicycling for recreation and as a mode of transportation, including increased funding for facilities. However, there remains a particularly weak foundation of knowledge to guide estimates for how facilities for bicycling and walking could be better valued. To make the best use of limited transportation funds there is a critical need for better information about two important aspects of bicycle facilities. The first is the costs of different bicycle investment options. The second is the value and effects such investments will have on bicycle use and mode share, including the resulting environmental, economic,

OCR for page 4
5 public health, and social benefits. Decisions on transportation projects are typically based on the potential for the project to contribute to broad public policy goals. Such informa- tion as it relates to bicycle projects assists decisionmakers in developing modal options and providing travelers with more transportation choices. This research project developed guidelines to measure the benefits and costs in order to achieve the following principal objectives: Help compare investments in bicycling with other modes, Provide tools and knowledge for choosing bicycle facilities, and Integrate cycling--and its benefits and costs--into the general transportation planning process. Some goals, such as minimizing costs, can be quantified and are relatively straight- forward. Such analysis is usually addressed as an element of traditional benefit-cost analysis and this estimation is essential to capital improvement project evaluation. The degree to which such estimates have been applied to bicycle facilities is scant. Estimating the benefits is considerably more challenging due to lack of data and lack of available robust methodologies. Even procedures for estimating the demand of cycling are fraught with difficulty. Assuming the demand for cycling is known and can be quantified, its value is difficult to convert to a monetary measure. For example, levels of various types of air pollutants are continually measured, but there is a range of estimates around the monetary value that should be associated with a given level of a pollutant. Other benefits, such as the ability to contribute to strong communities or "smart growth" initiatives are particularly elusive. This report contains the results of research centered on three con- tributions that pertain to cycling facilities including determining costs, the demand, and monetary benefits that result. The guidelines developed as part of this project are designed to be used by transporta- tion planners, policy advisors, elected officials, project managers, engineers, and advocates and representatives from neighborhood organizations. This report refers to this broad group as planners or transportation planners. The report is made up of three parts. The first part (Chapter 1) describes a method for transportation planners to estimate the costs of different types of bicycle facilities. The model responds to user inputs (based on characteristics of a proposed bicycle facility) and provides the user with baseline knowledge on estimated costs. An example of the cost model is shown in Table 1. The second part (Chapter 2) outlines a "sketch planning" method to estimate the number of daily bicyclists in an area using readily available data. The sketch planning tool is based on extensive literature review and research that drive its application. Two aims of this application are to (1) ascertain the nature of the facility being considered (e.g., geographic scope, type of facility) and (2) determine the type of demand estimate desired (e.g., use of a particular facility and expected increase in total demand resulting from a new facility). The tool provides a range of possible demand levels for a given situation based on National Household Travel Survey (NHTS) and census commute to work data. This research provides the impetus for creating a tool in which the user is also able to choose an estimate based on a range by applying local knowledge. The third part (Chapters 3, 4, and 5) describes the process used to develop guidelines to measure benefits associated with bicycle mobility improvement. Chapter 3 offers strate- gies used to estimate various types of economic benefits from bicycle facilities. Benefits to users include increased mobility, health, and safety. Benefits to the community include decreased auto use and improved livability and fiscal conditions (see Figure 1). Chapter 4 describes how the research from the previous three chapters is translated into guidelines. Chapter 5 provides ideas for applying the guidelines to the transportation planning process. Appendices A through J follow the main body of the report and provide details on the methodology for the research contained with this report.

OCR for page 4
6 TABLE 1 Cost worksheet example Input English Units Itemized COSTS Length Depth BASE YR ITEM DESCRIPTION Units Width (Feet) UNIT (Feet) (Inches) (2002) City Boston State Code MAB Build Year 2002 1.00 Roadway Construction 1.10 Earthwork 1.11 Clearing and Grubbing $ 1,703 acre $ - 1.12 Excavation 6 $ 15 cu yd $ - 1.13 Grading $ 2,108 acre $ - 1.14 Pavement Removal $ 14 cu yd $ - 1.15 Curb/Gutter Removal $ 4 l ft $ - - Earthwork Contingency 10% $ - 1.20 Pavement 1.21 Portland Cement Concrete Pavement 5 $ 142 cu yd $ - 1.22 Bituminous Concrete Pavement 3 $ 135 cu yd $ - 1.23 Crushed Stone Surface 3 $ 37 cu yd $ - 1.24 Aggregate Base 4 $ 28 cu yd $ - 1.25 Curbing $ 22 l ft $ - 1.26 Curb Ramps $ 1,068 each $ - 1.30 Drainage 1.31 Storm Drains $ 113 l ft $ - 1.40 Pavement Markings 1.41 Bicycle Arrow $ 53 each $ - 1.42 Bicycle Symbol $ 71 each $ - 1.43 Bicycle Box (colored pavement) $ 9 sqft $ - 1.44 Lane Striping $ 3,266 mile $ - 1.45 Shared Lane Marking (sharrow) $ 71 each $ - 1.50 Landscaping 1.51 Landscaping - Grass $ 1,363 acre $ - 1.52 Landscaping - Trail $ 27,188 mile $ - 1.53 Root Dams $ 11 l ft $ - 2.00 Structures 2.10 Bridge 2.12 Bridge Deck (concrete or steel) 16 $ 91 sqft $ - 2.13 Abutments $ 17,273 each $ - - Bridge Contingency 10% $ - 2.20 Underpass 2.21 Underpass $ 3,840 l ft $ - - Construction Estimate $ - - Location Index 125% $ - - Construction Contingency 10% $ - TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST $ - Beneficiary To the User (direct) To the Community (indirect) Mobility Health Safety Reduced Livability Fiscal Auto Use -enhanced -increased -decreased -decreased -proximity to -increased conditions physical activity crashes congestion recreational economic -shorter travel -decreased -increased -reduced amenities activity distance health care costs comfort pollution -increased open -decreased taxes space Figure 1. Schematic presentation of benefits by type.