Bicycling Strategy Report  

The Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning (CMAP) is responsible for developing GO TO 2040, the long-range plan for northeastern Illinois. For more information on this project, please visit www.goto2040.org.  

One step in the process of creating the plan is to identify and evaluate potential planning strategies. Planning strategies are actions which the region, or governments within the region, might take in order to realize what they envision as their desired future. CMAP is creating research on various planning strategies and releasing them in interactive online format to share initial findings and encourage discussion. While reading this white paper, please consider the following discussion questions, which you'll have the chance to answer at the end of this document:

• What should CMAP’s role be in the planning and implementation of bicycle facilities? As a regional agency, how active should we be in seeking to improve bicycle conditions?
  
• What would be the overall effect of improving bicycle facilities in your community? What positives and negatives would come from this? What would be the most effective and appropriate way for your community to improve its bicycle facilities?
  
• If bicycle facilities were improved by communities across the region, what would the overall effects be, both on your community and region-wide?
  

Introduction 

Bicycling and walking are important elements of an integrated, intermodal transportation system. Constructing sidewalks, installing bicycle parking at transit, teaching children to ride and walk safely, installing curb cuts and ramps for wheelchairs, striping bike lanes, and building trails all contribute to our national transportation goals of safety, mobility, economic growth and trade, enhancement of communities and the natural environment, and national security. (USDOT, 1999)

This paper will briefly introduce and define bicycling as a planning strategy, review the existing conditions and the potential for improving the conditions for bicycling in the region, and finally examine the (plausible) effects of implementing this strategy, for the region and for individual communities within the region. This paper is not intended to be a comprehensive, definitive exposition of bicycle planning and programming but rather a planning tool, intended to initiate dialogue and discussion on the possible impacts of improving bicycling conditions in our region. In this paper, we will define bicycling broadly, and consider its impacts not only on transportation, but also on health, the environment, and economic and community development. The discussion and any answers we propose will remain hypothetical and tentative, and we hope to receive input from our readers giving their opinions on our conclusions. The strategy is defined very roughly as “Improving the conditions for bicycling”. Improvement could take the form of new bikeways, changes to existing transportation infrastructure to make bicycling easier and safer, new laws or ordinances protecting or promoting cyclists, educational and outreach programs designed to encourage and increase bicycling, or even enforcement programs intended to improve safety for bicyclists and other users of roadways and paths. Our research represents an attempt to answer the broad question: “What would happen, regionally and in your communities, if the region improved bicycling conditions?"

Bicycling Facilities Planning

As a planning strategy, bicycling – often combined in theory and in practice with strategies to improve pedestrian travel and encourage walkable communities – is commonly divided into the “Three E’s”: Engineering, Education, and Enforcement. (Some argue that two additional “E’s” should be added: Encouragement and Elected officials.) The first “E” refers to physical design/construction projects. These projects include new facilities of various types, or reconstruction and improvements made to existing transportation infrastructure. The second “E” refers to programs – often in schools – which educate and encourage students and citizens about bicycling, its benefits, safe riding techniques, and how to find and use additional resources. The third “E” refers to programs, and sometimes lobbying efforts, designed to create and enforce laws recognizing and protecting cyclists as legitimate roadway users. These programs generally focus on traffic safety.

All three approaches – all three “E’s” – work together synergistically and should be implemented simultaneously. However, we will focus in this section on the physical facilities which communities may construct, commonly referred to as “Bikeways”. These infrastructure projects provide the physical network on which cyclists (hopefully, educated and informed) will travel. Other reports have defined and classified types of bicycle facilities in detail. Listed below are some of the major types of bicycling infrastructure; more detail on each of these can be found by clicking on the links.

• Bicycle/Multiuse Paths or Trails 
• Bicycle Lanes
• Bicycle Boulevards
• Bicycle Marked Routes (“Sharrows”)
• Bicycle Signed Routes
• Paved Shoulders (Rural areas) and Wide Outside Lane (Urban areas)
• Bicycle Parking

Comments (2)

An important assumption in this paper is that the provision of bicycle facilities increases bicycling. In other words, creating new bicycle facilities or improving existing ones will attract new riders or will encourage existing riders to use bicycle facilities more frequently. This assumption is supported by a wealth of planning literature.

A study of the impact of bicycle facilities in Minnesota found that areas where bicycle facilities were constructed during the 1990s had considerably higher bicycle mode shares in 2000 than they did in 1990, especially compared to areas where bicycle facilities were not improved. Almost every facility that was studied appeared to cause increases in cycling mode share in the areas around the facilities. For example, according to the authors, “Central city trips crossing the Mississippi River showed a much larger increase than trips that did not; this reflects a number of significant improvements to bicycle accommodation on bridges during this decade…[D]owntown Minneapolis and the University of Minnesota, where most of the facilities were concentrated, showed large increases in bicycle mode share, while downtown St. Paul, which had few improvements, had no increase.” (Barnes, Thompson and Krizek)

Other studies have found correlations between the presence of bicycle facilities and bicycle use, particularly for commuting; one article states that “this analysis confirms the hunches of public policy decision makers that at least some, but perhaps not an inconsequential number, of commuters would be responsive to the bicycling option if only it were made available.” (Nelson and Allen) Several other studies that compare bicycling across major metro areas found similar results. (Cerrano et al; Dill and Carr)

In northeastern Illinois, we have been successful in encouraging travelers to use alternative transportation. For example, between 1990 and 2000, work trips by bicycle increased 58%. More broadly, walking and bicycling together account for 1.5 million trips daily in the region, and many more if transit access is considered (our transit system depends on non-motorized access). (US Census)

Comments (4)

Existing Conditions

The existing conditions for bicycling (and walking) throughout the northeastern Illinois region have been documented and analyzed in great detail in Soles and Spokes: The Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan for Chicago Area Transportation prepared by the Chicago Area Transportation Study (CATS) in 2004. (CATS 2004, particularly “Task 2 Report”) We encourage readers interested in a more detailed discussion of bicycling in northeastern Illinois to become familiar with the Soles and Spokes program, described online at: http://www.cmap.illinois.gov/bikeped/bikeped.aspx. 

In addition, CMAP has created and maintains a Bicycle Information System (BIS). The BIS is an inventory of all local and subregional bikeway plans, as well as northeastern Illinois’ Greenways and Trails plan (adopted by NIPC in 1997 and currently being updated). Plans are compiled in the BIS and are mapped as the Strategic Regional Bicycle and Pedestrian System Map (PDF - 10 MB). Given the regional scope of the BIS and its inclusion of planned and future routes, the map is not intended to function as a user’s map. Rather its value and use is as a planning tool to help officials, planners, and transportation agencies understand, communicate, and coordinate efforts to accommodate bicyclists and other non-motorized modes of travel in our region. The BIS enables implementers of individual transportation and development projects to identify existing and planned bicycle facilities in the area of their projects and to integrate these plans into their designs.

Developing and improving the regional bikeway network – as well as other facilities and opportunities for non-motorized travel – is an important part of our overall regional development strategy. Specific policy recommendations and guidance in both the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), and in the 2040 Regional Framework Plan affirm this fact and clearly express the importance of such a strategy.

The 2030 Regional Transportation Plan, most recently updated and approved in June 2007, discusses pedestrian and bicycle travel in “Chapter 5: Strategic Regional Systems”. The plan strongly encourages shared-use, multi-modal design of roadways and states that “bicycle and pedestrian transportation strategies that encourage non-motorized travel and improve the quality of walking and biking trips are integral to successful shared-use design.” Increasing bicycle (and pedestrian) travel would directly help acheive a number of the RTP’s stated objectives, including better mobility and accessibility, system efficiency, public health and safety, and community and economic development. Specifically, it makes the following recommendations:

The RTP recommends strategic improvements to shared-use facilities that foster “routine accommodation” of pedestrian and bicycle design in all transportation projects and services…The RTP recommends that project implementers consider a facility’s potential use by bicycle and pedestrian travelers and make appropriate design accommodations using flexibility included in most highway design manuals…[Routine accommodation] includes pursuing improvements that support bicycle and pedestrian access to transit and providing bicycle and pedestrian travel information and promotion as part of larger management and operation strategies applied to the entire transportation system. (CATS 2007). 

Finally, the RTP lists a number of specific ways that communities and implementing agencies can make roadways and other transportation infrastructure safer and more convenient for bicyclists and pedestrians.

The Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission’s (NIPC) 2040 Regional Framework Plan, focusing on land use and the promotion of sustainable development patterns throughout the region, recommends “Promotion of Walking and Biking as Alternative Modes of Travel” as one of 17 major strategies to achieve the vision of the region. The plan discusses the synergistic, mutually supportive ways in which improving bicycling and walking conditions support and are supported by other important goals of the plan, such as compact development, mix of uses, promotion of transit, reduction of barriers between neighborhoods and communities, increased public health and safety, and equitable mobility and access. Overall, the 2040 Regional Framework Plan recommends that bicycle and pedestrian connections be ubiquitous in fully urbanized parts of the region and that bicycle and pedestrian connections linking centers be developed in less urbanized areas.

Comments (4)

At municipal and sub-regional (i.e. county and council of government) levels of government, several examples of bicycle-friendly places exist within our region. On a national level, the League of American Bicyclists’ Bicycle Friendly Community awards program has recognized both the City of Chicago and the Village of Schaumburg as exceptionally bicycle-friendly communities (receiving the Silver and Bronze Awards, respectively).

In Soles and Spokes, various approaches and measures are used to attempt to answer the question, “How walkable and bikeable is our region?” Appraising general compactness of development, mix of land uses, and average block lengths; calculating bicycle and pedestrian levels-of-service; and counting/ inventorying bicycle and pedestrian facilities, as well as barriers, throughout the region, leads – as one might expect for such a large, diverse region – to mixed conclusions. Overall, the region is a mixture of bicycle-friendly and bicycle-hostile areas. Given such a conclusion, the section on “Examples of Developments that Encourage Bicycling and Walking” (CATS 2004) is very useful. Examples like the City of Chicago’s aggressive, “retro-fit” bike program, the pioneering efforts in Schaumburg, and recent compact, mixed-use, bicycle- and pedestrian-friendly developments in Vernon Hills, Arlington Heights, and other communities – as well as county-wide efforts in DuPage, Lake, and Kane Counties – give us a clear picture and good understanding of what works when setting out to create bicycle-friendly places.

In the section entitled, “Connectivity and Distribution of Bicycle Facilities,” Soles and Spokes summarizes the overall situation in northeastern Illinois thus:

An examination of the distribution of developed bikeway systems throughout the region seems to indicate a relationship between development patterns and provision of bicycle facilities. Put simply, densely developed communities have more bikeways. In particular, urban areas tend to have bike lanes and signed bike routes on streets. These bikeway systems tend to be in older urban areas where bicycling has become common and grid street systems can provide connectivity for a variety of bicycling skills. By contrast, suburban and rural areas have provided riders predominantly with off-road facilities such as multi-use paths. For the most part, these off-road facilities have been developed along natural recreational corridors (rivers, forest preserve green belts) or abandoned or unused railroad rights-of-way (Illinois Prairie Path, North Shore Trail). (CATS 2004)

Over the past several years, subsequent to the much of the data used in analyses in Soles and Spokes, bicycling has increased in northeastern Illinois, both in terms of the number of persons bicycling for transportation and recreation, and in terms of the planning and provision of bicycle facilities by governments and governmental agencies. Most recently, on October 10, 2007, the Illinois House overrode the Governor’s veto on Senate Bill 314, commonly known as the “Complete Streets” law. This new law requires that bicycle and pedestrian travel ways or routes shall be given full consideration in the planning and development of transportation facilities. It also requires that bicycles and pedestrians be accommodated when roads are built or rebuilt in urban areas. And finally, the bill requires that IDOT establish design and construction standards for bicycle and pedestrian ways. For more details please click here: http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/publicacts/fulltext.asp?name=095-0665&write=pa.

An improvement in the overall conditions for bicycling, and an increase in official support and promotion of bicycling as a legitimate travel mode in our region, may be related to trends in land use and development patterns, demographic changes, achieving a “critical mass” of bicycling infrastructure, increasing automobile congestion, growing awareness of environmental problems, higher gasoline prices, increased funding opportunities, and/or successful marketing and advocacy efforts. Most likely, improvements/increases in bicycling can reasonably be connected with all of these factors, as well as others. However, no clear causality can be definitively established. The complexity and inter-relatedness of such disparate factors and spheres of activity hinders attempts to isolate causes and to affect quick, sweeping changes. As a result, those seeking to improve conditions for bicycling and to increase its share as means of transportation, must work on several, very different fronts, integrating and coordinating wide-ranging efforts. Nevertheless – and regardless of the elusiveness of an obvious “cause” for or a simple “means” to increasing bicycling as a travel mode – the reason for and the benefits of doing so are very clear indeed.

Comments (2)

Impacts of Improving Bicycling Conditions in Northeastern Illinois

The justification for federal, state, and local support of bikeways initiatives, and for proactively seeking to increase the mode share of bicycles within our transportation system is based on widely accepted transportation planning concepts, and even more broadly, on the fundamental principles of planning itself – namely, the health, safety, and welfare of our communities and the individuals who live in them. The effort to increase bicycling as transportation and as recreation in northeastern Illinois is important for reasons of mobility, health, safety, the environment, and the character of our communities. In the context of our transportation system, developing bicycle facilities and programs is important for reducing congestion and improving the overall operation of the system.

There is growing interest, among both residents and officials in northeastern Illinois, in walking and bicycling as both a means of transportation and a recreational activity. As noted above, walking and bicycling are healthy, efficient, low cost, and available to nearly everyone. They help communities achieve the larger goals of developing and maintaining “livable communities;” making neighborhoods safer and friendlier; reducing transportation-related environmental impacts, mobile emissions, and noise; and preserving land for open space, agriculture, and wildlife habitat. They also provide transportation system flexibility by giving people alternatives in congested conditions and by providing improved multimodal access, particularly in combination with transit systems. There is also growing interest in encouraging walking and bicycling as a means for improving public health. Increasingly, public health organizations are looking to urban, regional, and state transportation planners to create more walkable and bikeable communities in order to encourage healthier lifestyles across the United States. (California Department of Transportation) 

Comments (0)

Transportation

As a substitute for automobile travel, bicycling provides significant social, environmental, and economic benefits, including congestion mitigation, reduced travel costs, mobility for non-driving populations, increased transit access and ridership, and improved community livability.

Congestion

Bikeways can offer an alternative to passenger cars. Local trips using passenger cars now clog our arterial and expressway systems with short trips and turning vehicles. In Chicago, 31% of trips are less than one mile in length; 59% are less than three miles long, an easy distance by bike. In the suburbs, 20% of trips are less than a mile; and 51% of trips are less than three miles long. (CATS 2004)

The degree to which increased bicycling reduces congestion has not been firmly established in planning literature. Litman estimates that adding an additional automobile to peak-hour traffic in an urbanized area results in external costs to other travelers (made up of incremental travel time increases and other factors) of 10 cents to 35 cents per mile. (Litman 2004, p. 9) If that traveler used a bicycle instead of an automobile, these costs to other users decrease dramatically.

Comments (1)

Transit Ridership

There are many benefits of integrating bicycle, pedestrian, and transit methods of travel. Transit enables the bicyclist or pedestrian to take longer trips and to pass over or through topographical barriers. Similarly, adequate non-motorized facilities enlarge transit’s catchment area. Good bicycling and walking facilities that complement a comprehensive transit system create a transportation synergy that can provide people access to work, school, shopping, and other desirable destinations, while at the same time relieving automobile congestion on the roadways.

For example, in the state of California, after bike racks were installed on Caltrain (the San Fransisco-San Jose commuter rail system) a 4% ridership increase was attributed to bicyclists (Ciccarelli, 1998). In 1999, Denver’s Regional Transportation District (RTD) conducted a survey of bicyclists who utilized the bike racks on buses. Survey results showed that approximately 50% of the bike-on-bus riders would not make the trip on transit if it were not for bike racks. (Epperson, 1999)

The Federal Highway Administration has also studied this issue and has determined that there are examples of transit ridership increasing due to increases in bicycle facilities. In Phoenix, a bike-on-bus demonstration program led to over 1,400 new transit riders per month. (FHWA, p. 5) The same report also stated that bike-on-transit services were often used by riders during off-peak times, making more efficient use of transit capacity. Also, as noted above, programs that link biking and transit expand the catchment area of public transit and allow bicyclists to make trips that they otherwise could not have made. (FHWA, p. 9)

Comments (5)

Health, Safety, and Environment

Bicycling is a form of active transportation. Like walking, and other non-motorized modes of travel, bicycling relies on human power for locomotion. As a form of active transportation, bicycling directly supports public health and safety objectives, including increased physical fitness, pollution reduction, and improved safety (reductions in serious and fatal crashes). In addition, bicycling helps to reduce air pollutants, limit energy and oil consumption, and also contributes to the creation of linear open space through the creation of greenways.

Health

Bicycling and walking are excellent ways to improve cardiovascular health and help prevent chronic diseases associated with excessive body weight. A 2001 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey reported that 64% of Americans are either overweight (34%) or obese (30%), conditions associated with heart disease, certain types of cancer, type II diabetes, increased risk of stroke, arthritis, breathing problems, and psychological disorders such as depression. Nationally, this trend has increased dramatically over the past decade: in 1991, only four of 45 states had obesity rates of 15% to 19%. No states had rates in excess of 20%. In 2000, 49 states (all but Colorado) had obesity rates in excess of 15% and 22 of the 49 participating states had obesity rates of 20% or greater. Illinois’ rate of adult obesity increased from 12.7% in 1991 to 20.5% in 2001. (American Obesity Association)

The National Center for Disease Control (CDC) recommends at least 30 minutes of brisk activity five days per week to maintain cardiovascular fitness and control weight. Other organizations recommend at least one hour of physical activity per day. Currently, fewer than one third of adults meet the recommended amount of physical activity. In fact, 40% of American adults lead sedentary lifestyles, participating in no leisure time physical activity at all (Office of the Surgeon General, 2001). In comparison, many European countries with notably better alternative transportation options, such as the Netherlands and Denmark, have obesity rates that are only one-third of the American rate. (Pucher and Dykstra, p. 1512)

Bicycling or walking to work, the store, or to visit friends are excellent ways to integrate exercise into one’s daily activities. Nationally – as is the case in our own region – studies show that many trips made by American households are within comfortable bicycling or walking distance. Almost half (49%) of all trips are shorter than three miles, 40% are shorter than two miles, and 28% are shorter than one mile. (CATS 2004)

There are strong correlations between obesity and land use mix, and one study estimated that each additional daily hour spent in a car was associated with an increase in the likelihood of obesity of 6%. (Frank et al, 2004) The provision of alternative transportation options such as bicycling reduces reliance on automobiles, allowing healthier modes of travel.

Comments (1)

Safety

In our seven-county region in 2005, we had 75,696 motor vehicle injuries, of which 629 were fatal. Our region has a motor vehicle crash each one minute and forty-six seconds. We have a fatal crash every 18 hours. Providing safe facilities and encouraging less driving can result in fewer crashes, injuries, and deaths. Such a strategy has led to lower death rates in northwestern Europe: whereas the United States had 14.9 traffic fatalities per 100,000 population in 2002, the United Kingdom and the Netherlands both had 6.1 traffic fatalities per 100,000 population by providing a safe traffic system and with a bicycle-pedestrian mode share of 30% and 48%, respectively. Less vehicle exposure can lead to fewer vehicle deaths. (CATS 2004)

Travel by bicycle can be safer than travel in an automobile. “From the 2002 National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) data, it was determined that motor vehicle traffic crashes were the leading cause of death for every age 3 through 33. Because of the young lives consumed, motor vehicle traffic crashes ranked 3rd, behind only cancer and diseases of the heart, in terms of the years of life lost, i.e., the number of remaining years that the person is expected to live had they not died.” (USDOT NHTSA, 2005) This in turn points to the crucial connection between transportation and land uses. When communities develop in ways and forms that result in nearly complete automobile dependency, the annual traffic death rates increase.

Several international examples demonstrate that bicyclist safety can be improved dramatically if addressed directly. According to one source, “…from 1975 to 2001…cyclist facilities declined by 64% in Germany and by 57% in the Netherlands. The drop in cyclist fatalities in Germany is especially impressive because it came during a boom in cycling there, with a doubling in the number of bike trips and 50% growth in the share of total trips made by bike.” (Pucher and Dykstra, p. 1512)

Comments (1)

Environment

Converting motorized to non-motorized trips is also important to reduce automobile emissions. According to air quality conformity calculations, an average of 1 mile of walking or bicycling by each of the three million households in the Chicago region adds up to savings of more than 1,800 kilograms of VOC emissions. Bicycling and walking are part of a robust transportation system that will work in a number of future energy and environmental scenarios.

Bicycling and walking are important to the health of all residents of northeastern Illinois, not just to those engaging in these activities. Bicycle travel spares the air many tons of greenhouse gases and hundreds of pounds of inhalable particles each day. People bicycling or walking are typically replacing shorter automobile trips, which contribute disproportionately high amounts of pollutant emissions. As modes of travel, bicycling and walking contribute no pollution, require no external energy source, and use land efficiently. They move people effectively from place to place without adverse environmental impacts.

As noted above, bicycling and walking can also help alleviate congestion and stressed transportation systems. Nationally, the vehicle miles traveled, rates of car ownership, and trips have continued to rise, which has increasingly strained our transportation systems and contributed to congestion (Tresidder). By replacing automobile trips, bicycling can mitigate congestion and environmental damage. Bicycling and walking require less space and infrastructure than automobile facilities – 10 to 12 bicycles can fit into a single automobile space. As a mode of travel, bicycling corresponds to and works synergistically with compact, sustainable development patterns.

The relationship between bicycling and transit use also contributes to environmental quality. Not only can bicycle facilities increase trips on transit, they can provide alternatives to driving to park-and-ride lots. According to FHWA, for an auto trip of the length that most commuter make, “nearly 90 percent of the emissions occur in the first mile, know as the ‘coldstart’ stage…converting transit access trips from auto to bike, or converting car commutes to bike-and-ride transit trips, can produce significant emissions reductions.” (FHWA 1993) Other sources find similar reductions; one study estimates that if 1% of automobile travel was replaced by walking or bicycling, it would lead to a decrease in motor vehicle emissions of 2 to 4% (Litman).

Comments (2)

Community Character

Bicycling supports efficient, compact, sustainable land development patterns, in which transportation and land use are integrated and working together to achieve greater mobility, equity, health, prosperity, and a higher overall quality of life. As the urban theorist and author Jane Jacobs noted, “People love activity, not emptiness.” Both bicycling and walking allow people to get outside and interact with one another. They fill the public realm with activity, create opportunities to speak with neighbors, and provide more “eyes on the street” to discourage crime and violence.

Increasing the ease and comfort with which residents can bicycle is also good for families with children. A bicycle enables a young person to explore his or her neighborhood, visit places without being driven by parents, and experience the freedom of personal decision-making. More trips by bicycle and on foot means fewer trips by car. This, in turn, can mean less traffic congestion around schools and in the community, as well as less time spent by parents chauffeuring kids around.

According to the California Department of Transportation, “Approximately 3.5 million households – representing 7 million youngsters – spend an hour or less a week in some type of physical activity. A study conducted for the Boys & Girls Clubs of America and the Pennsylvania-based nonprofit group KidsPeace found 54% of respondents said they had little or no time, or wished they had more time, to spend in physical activities with their kids. Riding a bicycle or walking a child to school, or simply around the neighborhood after dinner, can give parents and kids one-on-one time to talk and spend meaningful, healthy time with one another.” (California Department of Transportation)

In summary, bicycling is human-oriented. Travel by bicycle brings people into closer, more meaningful contact with their surroundings than travel by automobile. While the geographic sphere within which one travels is generally smaller, bicycling allows one to know that sphere better, to observe the physical and social elements of one’s neighborhood – to more easily stop, take note, greet, help, or exchange information with others. While it is difficult to quantify the impacts of bicycling on community character, the planning literature does indicate that increasing non-motorized travel can influence community cohesion (Litman).

Comments (2)

Economy

A number of studies have looked at the high economic cost of automobile travel (even without externalities (such as congestion and environmental costs) factored in) to individuals and communities, as compared to travel by bicycle or transit. The strong connection between auto-dependent, sprawl development and higher costs for transportation has been studied in a report entitled “Driven to Spend: Pumping Dollars out of Our Households and Communities.” (Center for Neighborhood Technology and Surface Transportation Policy Project) This study found that households in automobile-dependent communities devote more than 20% of household expenditures to surface transportation (more than $8,500 annually), while those in communities with more accessible land use and more multi-modal transportation systems spend less than 17% (less than $5,500 annually), representing a savings of thousands of dollars a year.

Bicycling (and walking) are, then, relatively inexpensive means of travel, costing the individual as little as $0.07 and $0.04 per mile respectively (in 1996 dollars) (Litman), while automobile cost averages $0.32 per mile.

The societal, or public, costs of bicycling versus automobile travel show an even greater discrepancy between them. These costs indicate clearly that increasing bicycling (and walking) in a community can have substantial economic benefits for the community at large. In addition to lower infrastructure, maintenance, and operation costs, a comprehensive trail system, bikeway system, or continuous sidewalk network can increase community livability and economic vitality, improving access to shopping, employment, and increasing property values – thereby benefiting the local economy through increased tax revenues (Litman). In a survey of business owners in an urban retail district, another study found that 65% consider arterial bike lanes to provide overall economic development benefits, compared with 4% that consider it overall negative, and 65% support expansion of the program in their area (Drennen).

In a report entitled, “The Benefits of Bicycling in Minnesota,” the estimated annual economic benefits of bicycling for the state of Minnesota are summarized thus:

(Barnes)

A list of and links to various articles and studies on the economic benefits of bicycling is available at the University of Minnesota, Hubert H. Humphrey Institute of Urban Affairs’ website: http://www.hhh.umn.edu/centers/slp/bike_economic_benefits.html 

There is mixed academic evidence concerning the relationship of bicycle facilities and the value of nearby land. A recent study of this issue in Minnesota found no significant relationship, positive or negative, between land value and the presence of nearby bicycle facilities (Poindexter et al). Other examinations have found some examples of positive impacts on land value, and others where no change in land value occurred (Webbel). While there is some anecdotal evidence from around the Chicago region that bicycle facilities have caused increases in land value, further study is needed to demonstrate these relationships.

Comments (0)

Conclusion

The connection between land use and transportation – which was the impetus behind the creation of CMAP itself and which will serve as the theoretical foundation and guiding principle of CMAP’s Regional Comprehensive Plan – is embodied and epitomized in the strategy of improving and increasing opportunities for bicycling in individual communities and throughout the region. In conjunction with other non-motorized modes of travel, a strong commitment to developing bicycling facilities and programs offers communities an important and effective way to address many of the challenges they face, not only in terms of transportation mobility and access, but also as regards environmental health and the protection of finite natural resources, public health and the physical fitness of residents, equitable travel opportunities, overall livability, and ultimately, the long-term desirability and sustainability of our communities.

Below are the overall questions that were raised for discussion at the beginning of the document.

Comments (4)

References

American Obesity Association. AOA Fact Sheets. http://obesity1.tempdomainname.com/subs/fastfacts/obesity_US.shtml 

Barnes, Gary. 2004. The Benefits of Bicycling in Minnesota.

Barnes, Gary, Kristin Thompson, and Kevin Krizek. A Longitudinal Analysis of the Effect of Bicycle Facilities on Commute Mode Share. http://www.hhh.umn.edu/img/assets/20163/effect_bike_facilities_mode_share_krizek.pdf 

California Department of Transportation. 2005. Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities in California: A Technical Reference and Technology Transfer Synthesis for Caltrans Planners and Engineers. http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/survey/pedestrian/TR_MAY0405.pdf 

Cerreno, Allison L.C. de and My Linh H. Nguyen-Novotny. January 2006. Pedestrian and Bicyclist Standards and Innovations in Large Central Cities. Rudin Center for Transportation and Management. Retrieved from: http://wagner.nyu.edu/rudincenter/files/bikeped.pdf 

Center for Neighborhood Technology and the Surface Transportation Policy Project. 2005. Driven to Spend: Pumping Dollars out of Our Households and Communities. http://www.transact.org/report.asp?id=236 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Behavior Risk Factor Surveillance System. http://www.cdc.gov/brfss/ 

Chicago Area Transportation Study. 2007. 2030 Regional Transportation Plan.

Chicago Area Transportation Study. 2004. Task 2 Report: Existing Conditions and Regional Trends. http://www.solesandspokes.com/Task2FinalReport.pdf 

Dill, Jennifer and Theresa Carr. 2003. Bicycle Commuting and Facilities in Major US Cities. Transportation Research Record. http://tinyurl.com/yurt22

Emily Drennen. 2003. Economic Effects of Traffic Calming on Urban Small Businesses, Masters Thesis. San Francisco State University.

Federal Highway Administration. Bicycle and Pedestrian Connections to Transit: Lesson 9. Retrieved from: http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/PED_BIKE/univcourse/pdf/swless09.pdf 

Frank, Lawrence D., Martin Andresen, and Thomas Schmid. 2004. Obesity Relationships with Community Design, Physical Activity, and Time Spent in Cars. http://choices4health.org/resourceFiles/73.pdf 

Litman, Todd. 2004. Quantifying the Benefits of Non-motorized Transportation for Achieving Mobility Management Objectives. http://www.vtpi.org/nmt-tdm.pdf 

Nelson, Arthur and David Allen. 1997. If You Build Them, Commuters Will Use Them: Association between Bicycle Facilities and Bicycle Commuting. Transportation Research Record. http://www.enhancements.org/download/trb/1578-10.PDF 

Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission. 2006. 2040 Regional Framework Plan.

Poindexter, Gavin, Kevin J. Krizek, Gary Barnes, and Kristen Thompson. 2007. Guidelines for benefit-cost analysis of bicycle facilities: refining methods for estimating the effect of bicycle infrastructure on use and property values. http://www.mrutc.org/research/0607/Benefit-CostAnalysisofBicycleFacilities_FINAL2.pdf 

Pucher, John and Lewis Dijkstra. 2003. Promoting Safe Walking and Cycling to Improve Public Health: Lessons From The Netherlands and Germany. Public Health Matters - American Public Health Association. Retrieved from: http://www.ajph.org/cgi/content/full/93/9/1509.

Tresidder, John. 2005. Using GIS to Measure Connectivity. Portland State University. http://web.pdx.edu/~jdill/Tresidder_Using_GIS_to_Measure_Connectivity.pdf 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 2005. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration: Motor Vehicle Traffic Crashes as a Leading Cause of Death in the U.S., 2002 – A Demographic Perspective. http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-30/NCSA/Rpts/2005/809843.pdf 

U.S. Department of Transportation. 1999. FHWA Guidance: Bicycle and Pedestrian Provisions of Federal Transportation Legislation. http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/PED_BIKE/docs/pb_memo1999Guidance.pdf 

U.S. Department of Transportation. FHWA University Course on Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation. http://www.tfhrc.gov/safety/pedbike/pubs/05085/index.htm

Webbel, Suzanne. 2000. Trail Effects on Neighborhoods: Home Value, Safety, Quality of Life. http://www.americantrails.org/resources/adjacent/sumadjacent.html

For an extensive list of resources on bicycling, click here

Comments (0)