Skip to main content
Intended for healthcare professionals
Restricted access
Research article
First published online January 1, 2013

Considerations for Integrating Bicycling and Walking Facilities into Urban Infrastructure

Abstract

Several manuals, handbooks, and web resources provide varied guidance on planning for and designing bicycle and pedestrian facilities, yet there are no specific indications which treatments in these guides work well for users. In this study, best practices are highlighted and program characteristics associated with high levels of nonmotorized travel are identified, with an emphasis on bicyclists and pedestrians in the California communities of Davis, Palo Alto, and San Luis Obispo, cities known for being bicycle and pedestrian friendly. Analyses of a user preference survey of more than 630 residents in the case study communities, interviews with operators, and review of related literature reveal several factors that matter most to stakeholders for creating bicycle-and pedestrian-friendly places. These factors include (a) acceptable bicycling and walking distances to desired activities, (b) direct routes, (c) good route connectivity, and (d) separation of motorized and non-motorized transportation modes. Recommendations are presented as key considerations for integrating bicycling and walking facilities into urban infrastructure and are arranged to correspond to the trip-making cycle, from the decision to engage in an activity through the choice of route to arrival at the destination. Findings indicate that bicyclists and pedestrians alike strongly desire automobile-separated facilities on streets. This finding suggests that these kinds of projects may merit priority over purely recreational paths. Although roadways may generally need to be friendly for bicycling and walking, the emphasis should be on linking activity locations and transit stations that are purposely placed to be within acceptable distances for these activities.

Get full access to this article

View all access and purchase options for this article.

References

2. 2009 National Household Travel Survey. U.S. Department of Transportation, 2009. http://nhts.ornl.gov/2009/pub/stt.pdf.
3. America Bikes. www.americabikes.org. Accessed Aug. 2, 2010.
4. Ernst M., and Shoup L. Dangerous by Design: Solving the Epidemic of Preventable Pedestrian Deaths (and Making Great Neighborhoods). Transportation for America, Washington, D.C., 2009.
5. Handy S. Critical Assessment of the Literature on the Relationship Among Transportation, Land Use, and Physical Activity. In Special Report 282: Does the Built Environment Influence Physical Activity? Examining the Evidence, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2005.
6. Goldsmith S. The National Bicycling and Walking Study Case Study No. 1: Reasons Why Bicycling and Walking Are and Are Not Being Used More Extensively as Travel Modes. Publication FHWA-PD-92-041. FHWA, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1992.
7. Pucher J., and Dijkstra L. Promoting Safe Walking and Cycling to Improve Public Health: Lessons from the Netherlands and Germany. American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 93, 2003, pp. 1509–1516.
8. Epperson B. Evaluating Suitability of Roadways for Bicycle Use: Toward a Cycling Level-of-Service Standard. In Transportation Research Record 1438, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1994, pp. 9–16.
9. Hunt J. D., and Abraham J. E. Influences on Bicycle Use. Transportation, Vol. 34, No. 4, 2007, pp. 453–470.
10. Davis W. J. Bicycle Test Route Evaluation for Urban Road Conditions. American Society for Civil Engineering Transportation Congress, Vol. 2, 1995, pp. 1063–1076.
11. NCHRP Report 616: Multimodal Level of Service Analysis for Urban Streets. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2008. http://www.trb.org/Main/Public/Blurbs/160228.aspx.
12. Antonakos C. L. Environmental and Travel Preferences of Cyclists. In Transportation Research Record 1438, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1994, pp. 25–33.
13. Nuworsoo C., Cooper E., and Cushing K. Integration of Bicycling and Walking Facilities into the Infrastructure of Urban Communities. Mineta Transportation Institute, San Jose, Calif., 2012. http://transweb.sjsu.edu/project/1031.html.
14. Calgary Commuter Cyclist Survey, 2007: Final Results. City of Calgary Transportation Department, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, 2007.
15. Bernhoft I., and Carstensen G. Preferences and Behavior of Pedestrians and Cyclists by Age and Gender. Transportation Research Part F, Vol. 11, 2008, pp. 83–95.
16. Sorton A., and Walsh T. Bicycle Stress Level as a Tool to Evaluate Urban and Suburban Bicycle Compatibility. In Transportation Research Record 1438, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1994, pp. 17–24.
17. Sisiopiku V. P., and Akin D. Pedestrian Behaviors at and Perceptions Towards Various Pedestrian Facilities: An Examination Based on Observation and Survey Data. Transportation Research Part F, Vol. 6, 2003, pp. 249–274.
18. Muraleetharan T., and Hagiwara T. Overall Level of Service of Urban Walking Environment and Its Influence on Pedestrian Route Choice Behavior: Analysis of Pedestrian Travel in Sapporo, Japan. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2002, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2007, pp. 7–17.
19. McAndrews C., Florez-Diaz J. M., and Deakin E. Views of the Street: Using Community Surveys and Focus Groups to Inform Context-Sensitive Design. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1981, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2006, pp. 92–99.
20. Parkin J., Wardman M., and Page M. Estimation of the Determinants of Bicycle Mode Share for the Journey Using Census Data. Transportation, Vol. 35, 2008, pp. 93–109.
21. Cervero R., and Duncan M. Walking, Bicycling, and Urban Landscapes: Evidence from the San Francisco Bay Area. American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 93, No. 9, 2003, pp. 1478–1483.
22. Nelson A. C., and Allen D. If You Build Them, Commuters Will Use Them: Association Between Bicycle Facilities and Bicycle Commuting. In Transportation Research Record 1578, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1997, pp. 79–83.
23. Dill J., and Carr T. Bicycle Commuting and Facilities in Major U.S. Cities: If You Build Them, Commuters Will Use Them—Another Look. Presented at 82nd Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2003.
24. Tilahun N., Levinson D., and Krizek K. J. Trails, Lanes or Traffic: The Value of Different Bicycle Facilities Using an Adaptive Stated Preference Survey. Transportation Research Part A, Vol. 41, 2007, pp. 287–301.
25. Taylor D., and Mahmassani H. Analysis of Stated Preferences for Intermodal Bicycle-Transit Interfaces. In Transportation Research Record 1556, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1997, pp. 86–95.
26. Garrard J., Rose G., and Lo S. K. Promoting Transportation Cycling for Women: The Role of Bicycle Infrastructure. Preventive Medicine, Vol. 46, 2008, pp. 55–59.
27. Handy S., Xing Y., and Buehler T. Factors Associated with Bicycle Ownership and Use: A Study of Six Small U.S. Cities. Transportation, Vol. 37, 2010, pp. 967–985.
28. Schlossberg M., Agrawal A. W., Irvin K., and Bekkouche V. L. How Far, by Which Route, and Why? A Spatial Analysis of Pedestrian Preference. MTI Report 06-06. Mineta Transportation Institute, San Jose, Calif., 2007. http://transweb.sjsu.edu/mtiportal/research/publications/documents/06-06/MTI-06-06.pdf.
29. Pikora T., Giles-Corti B., Jamrozik K., and Donovan R. Developing a Framework for Assessment of the Environmental Determinants of Walking and Cycling, Social Science and Medicine, Vol. 56, 2003, pp. 1693–1703.
30. Pucher J., Dill J., and Handy S. Infrastructure, Programs, and Policies to Increase Bicycling: An International Review. Preventive Medicine, Vol. 50, 2010, pp. S106–S125.
31. Krizek K., Forsyth A., and Baum L. Walking and Cycling International Literature Review, Final Report. Department of Transport, State of Victoria, Melbourne, Australia, 2009.
32. Forsyth A., and Krizek K. Walking and Bicycling: What Works for Planners? Built Environment, Vol. 36, No. 4, 2010, pp. 429–446.

Cite article

Cite article

Cite article

OR

Download to reference manager

If you have citation software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice

Share options

Share

Share this article

Share with email
EMAIL ARTICLE LINK
Share on social media

Share access to this article

Sharing links are not relevant where the article is open access and not available if you do not have a subscription.

For more information view the Sage Journals article sharing page.

Information, rights and permissions

Information

Published In

Article first published online: January 1, 2013
Issue published: January 2013

Rights and permissions

© 2013 National Academy of Sciences.
Request permissions for this article.

Authors

Affiliations

Cornelius Nuworsoo
College of Architecture and Environmental Design, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, CA 93407.
Erin Cooper
Center for Sustainable Transport, EMBARQ/World Resources Institute, 10 G Street, NE, Washington, DC 20002.

Notes

Metrics and citations

Metrics

Journals metrics

This article was published in Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board.

VIEW ALL JOURNAL METRICS

Article usage*

Total views and downloads: 144

*Article usage tracking started in December 2016


Altmetric

See the impact this article is making through the number of times it’s been read, and the Altmetric Score.
Learn more about the Altmetric Scores



Articles citing this one

Receive email alerts when this article is cited

Web of Science: 0

Crossref: 14

  1. Active Transportation for Underrepresented Populations in the United S...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  2. Level of service analysis of rail road grade crossing from the perspec...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  3. Intrinsic mode choice determinants based on a descriptive analysis of ...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  4. How to Integrate On-Street Bikeway Maintenance Planning Policies into ...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  5. Simulating the effects of redesigned street-scale built environments o...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  6. Conceptualizing cycling experience in urban design research: a systema...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  7. Determinants of low-carbon transport mode adoption: systematic review ...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  8. Planning for Pedestrians with a Participatory Multicriteria Approach
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  9. Bicycle Lane Condition and Distance: Case Study of Public Bicycle Syst...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  10. Pedaling disaster: citizen bicyclists in disaster response—Innovative ...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  11. Sustainable trail development: Applications of the GreenPaths Rating S...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  12. Understanding cyclist traffic behaviour: Contrasting cycle path design...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  13. The space race: A framework to evaluate the potential travel-time impa...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  14. Metro commuters’ satisfaction in multi-type access and egress transfer...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar

Figures and tables

Figures & Media

Tables

View Options

Get access

Access options

If you have access to journal content via a personal subscription, university, library, employer or society, select from the options below:


Alternatively, view purchase options below:

Purchase 24 hour online access to view and download content.

Access journal content via a DeepDyve subscription or find out more about this option.

View options

PDF/ePub

View PDF/ePub