bicycle transportation literature review - joel kirk
TRANSCRIPT
1
Bicycle Transportation Infrastructure (Signage/Connectivity) in the Area ofLaurentian University and the core of the City of Greater Sudbury from the
Perspective of a Laurentian University Student.
A Review of Urban Centres with Interconnected Bicycleway Networks, Connectiveand Supportive Infrastructure in North America.
Joel Kirk
1. INTRODUCTION
Throughout North America virtually every demographic of the population is
becoming more dependent on the private automobile for transit. As urban population
density decreases and people move farther away from their jobs and services, dependence
on the private automobile increases. Data from the last US census shows that 76% of
Americans use private automobiles for travel to and from work (US Census Bureau,
2004). In Canada that number is much closer to 90% (The Daily, 2003).
This trend is also seen at post-secondary institutions throughout North America.
In the majority of universities in North America many automobile related problems have
arisen. Such problems as inadequate parking services, congestion, high road maintenance
costs and air pollution are now common place not only in urban areas but also in
university campuses (Balsas, 2003).
This problem has been addressed at many levels of administration; from the US
federal government to post secondary institutions and private businesses. In recognition
of the trend of increased automobile use the US department of transport conducted the
2
National Biking and Walking Study in 1994 to gauge national interest in active forms of
transit. They recommended two goals to combat the automotive trend, firstly, that bicycle
and pedestrian commuting should double and secondly, that injuries and fatalities
resulting from ‘pro-green’ methods of commuting should be reduced by 10% (Harkey et
al, 1998; Krizek and Rio, 2005).
To address this problem at the university level, both university administrators and
city planners have tried encouraging other means of transport through ‘pro-green’
transport initiatives such as pedestrian and public transit programs and ‘anti-auto’
initiatives through automobile parking restrictions (Balsas, 2003). For post-secondary
institutions the use of public transit has met with success. Still more can be done to
improve transit throughout university campuses and nearby subdivisions for student
commuters.
The second major issue facing commuter cycling is the lack of connective and
supporting infrastructure. Unlike pedestrian infrastructure where a street without a
sidewalk is the exception, a street without proper bicycleway infrastructure is the norm in
almost all North American cities. Implementing bicycle transportation initiatives to
combat the increased trend of automobile use is very difficult and unsafe without the
necessary infrastructure. There is relatively little literature published on the lack of
connectivity of bicycleways in North America. Krizek and Rio (2005) measured the
discontinuity of bicycle lanes in the city of Minneapolis, Minnesota. The study identified
30 discontinuities of bicycle lanes within the city and measured cyclist’s opinions of the
3
discontinuities via a survey. This method was able to provide an outline of the
connectivity and bicycle compatibility of Minneapolis, however, the scope of this
literature review encompasses too many centres to apply the Krizek and Rio method.
The second relevant study found was Harkey et al. (1998) who developed a method to
measure the compatibility of specific roadways for bicycle transit. When approaching
bicycle transit from the interconnectivity of entire cities the compatibility index is not
large enough in scope to address the problem.
Since these problems are so universal throughout North America, they have
applications in the City of Greater Sudbury. Greater Sudbury is still considered to be in
its infancy in terms of non-motorized transportation however it does have a functional
public transit system which services the greater city. Laurentian University, in Sudbury,
has similar transportation issues to the rest of the city. Since Laurentian University and
the City of Greater Sudbury are located in Northern Ontario they have a large proportion
of private automobile users and thus a lot of the associated traffic problems. The concept
of addressing these traffic issues through non-motorized forms of transit should be
furthered studied to improve the overall transportation efficiency.
Fortunately the timing of this research could not be better. The City of Greater
Sudbury is conducting a comprehensive review of its existing official plans. One of the
background studies addresses transportation infrastructure in the City of Greater
Sudbury. The city estimates that 5.7% of all trips in Greater Sudbury are by method of
walking and only 0.04% is by bicycle. The city feels that this low number of cycling trips
4
is more the result of a lack of identified opportunities for cycling rather than disinterest.
Therefore the city created the Bicycle Advisory Committee in 1993 to address the needs
and opportunities for cycling in Greater Sudbury; recently the Bicycle Advisory
Committee was renewed and renamed the Bicycle Advisory Panel. Both the Bicycle
Advisory Panel and Rainbow Routes Trail Association are advising the City of Greater
Sudbury on environmentally friendly and active forms of transportation (Earth Tech
Canada Inc., 2005). The intent of this study is to present examples of interconnected
bicycleways and effective infrastructure to assist in the development of opportunities for
commuter cycling in the City of Greater Sudbury.
2. METHOD
There are many different forms of non-motorized transportation; bicycle
transportation was chosen as the focus for this study since it is the most efficient in terms
of power input to forward velocity. The Bicycle User Group of Ottawa (2002) estimates
that in terms of distance travelled compared to energy used cycling is 3 times as efficient
as walking, 25 times as efficient as bus transit and 84 times as efficient as private
automobile transit. Of all the forms of non-motorized transit, bicycle transit is the real
prodigy, since it has great real world potential but is still in its infancy in North America.
The bicycle production industry in the US was $5.5 billion or 18 million units in 2002
(Friel, 2005). That shows that in one year 18 million individuals invested in bicycles and
that there is a subsequent demand for cycling related infrastructure and facilities.
Obviously, the number of units sold is smaller in Canada but is still significant. Since
5
bicycles are wheeled vehicles they can more easily be integrated into the existing
automobile transportation network. Bicycles also offer the ability to carry a small amount
of cargo which is an essential characteristic of a transportation medium used by the
general public and university students. These three characteristics clearly show that
bicycles are an optimum method of non-motorized transportation to study.
To determine the required infrastructure necessary to have an efficient, safe and
interconnected bicycleway network a review of several bicycle friendly urban centres
was necessary. No one urban centre contains all the aspects or infrastructure favourable
to commuter cycling. Since the results from this paper will be applied to a future case
study of the City of Greater Sudbury it is important that the urban centres of study be the
best examples of bicycleway networks possible while having some similar characteristics
to the City of Greater Sudbury. The criteria for selection were: The presence of a post
secondary institution, a similar population size to Greater Sudbury, a‘re-greening’
environmental movement, a location within Canada and an interconnected bicycleway
network. The 3 centres selected had at least the majority of these characteristics present
and it was felt by the author that the centres chosen best represented effective commuter
cycling infrastructure in North America relative to Greater Sudbury.
In an effective bicycleway network there are many components. These
components can be broken down into physical connective infrastructure, physical
supportive infrastructure and educational infrastructure. The physical connective
infrastructure equates to bicycleways which are broken down into bicycle routes, lanes
6
and paths (Bicycle Advisory Committee, 1997). Physical supporting infrastructure is
divided into storage facilities, integrated commuter facilities, integrated transit, bicycle
share programs and maintenance facilities. The second type of supporting infrastructure
is educational which is divided into educational programs and bicycle user groups. To
address the issue of the requirements for an interconnected bicycleway network this
paper will focus on a literature review of the types of infrastructure available, examples
of where that infrastructure is in use and a review of three cities with well developed
bicycleway networks.
3. LITERATURE REVIEW
3.1 Physical Connective Infrastructure
3.1.1 Bicycleway
A bicycleway is a bicycle focused transportation artery that functions within a
network. A well developed bicycleway network should connect an entire urban area and
provide access via bicycle. In a bicycleway network there are three types of connective
infrastructure; bicycle lanes, routes and paths.
7
3.1.2 Bicycle Lanes
A bicycle lane is a separate lane for bicycles on a road. It is designed to function
in conjunction with automotive infrastructure. The lane is physically delineated by a
painted stripe, texturing or colouring or even a barrier. A bicycle lane is also identified by
signs and painted markers (Bicycle Advisory Committee, 1997). The bicycle lane
approach is the best option with moderate volume or multi lane roadways since the
bicycle specific portion of the travelled surface is physically delineated.
3.1.3 Bicycle Routes
A bicycle route is any road so identified by bicycle route signs. All bicycle lanes
are bicycle routes, however, only physically delineated routes are bicycle lanes. As
mentioned above physically delineated routes or lanes are the best option for moderate
volume roadways. Physically non-delineated routes function best for low traffic roads,
often there is not any specific bicycleway infrastructure required other than proper
signage (Bicycle Advisory Committee, 1997).
3.1.4 Bicycle Paths
A bicycle path is a separate facility from which all motorized traffic is excluded.
Bicycle paths include bicycle only paths and multi-user paths. Bicycle paths can be
located parallel to or separate from a roadway (Bicycle Advisory Committee, 1997).
8
Bicycle paths are the most expensive of the three options and to ensure they receive
sufficient usage to justify cost they are often located in scenic areas to accommodate both
recreational and commuter type users.
3.2 Review of Urban Centres with Interconnected Bicycleway Networks
3.2.1 The City of Davis
Davis, California is an excellent example of a well planned bicycle friendly
community. It has a total population of 60,000 residents with nearly a quarter of them
falling in the 20-24 age category (City of Davis, 2005). The local post-secondary
institution is the Davis Campus of the University of California which comprises nearly
one fourth of the geographic area of Davis (UCD, 2005). With the university focused
atmosphere and the large proportion of university aged residents the city’s transportation
policies reflect a more much active means of transit than average.
The Bicycle Friendly Community program is a grant program sponsored by the
Bikes Belong Coalition, which represents the major bicycle producing companies. Davis
is considered by the Bicycle Friendly Community program to be the “Bicycle Capital of
the US”. It is estimated that between 20-25% of all commuter trips made in Davis are by
bicycle (League of American Bicyclists, 2005). The City of Davis has been at the
forefront of commuter cycling since the early 1960’s and has been developing a highly
interconnected and supported bicycleway network since then (League of American
9
Bicyclists, 2005). The topography of Davis is flat agricultural land and provides many
benefits for cycling which will be explored later. Davis is located roughly 10km west of
Sacramento and 70km northeast of San Francisco (Google, 2005).
The City of Davis is the only centre of study which is truly interconnected by a
bicycleway network with proper infrastructure. When one looks at the Davis Bike Map it
is apparent that Davis is interconnected by adequate connective infrastructure. In many
areas there are parallel and perpendicular bicycleways which create a multi-way
redundancy or grid like network very similar in layout to an automotive roadway
network. Another important aspect of Davis’ bicycleway network is that virtually all the
major arteries, with the exception of some portions of Interstate 80 are equipped with
physically delineated bicycle lanes. This aspect is very important for commuter cycling
since most destination points are on or near major automotive arteries the fastest most
efficient route to them is often via the arteries, usually accessible only by motorized
vehicle. Cycling on major transportation arteries is highly dangerous without proper
connective infrastructure. The other two centres studied tackled this problem by
designating parallel lower volume roadways as bicycle routes; this is a good solution and
is possible given Guelph and Hamilton’s grid like road network but it is less efficient for
the commuter cyclist. The residents and administration in Davis feel that physically
delineating bicycle lanes on major transportation arteries contributes significantly enough
to commuter cycling that it is a viable option. Davis also has an extensive network of
bicycle paths which interconnect with and complement the on road bicycleways creating
10
a truly interconnected bicycleway network. In Davis a bicycleway is not the exception it
is the rule.
3.2.2 The City of Guelph, Ontario
The City of Guelph has a population size of 110,000 residents and is located in
Southern Ontario. Since Guelph is located in a predominately agricultural area its
topography is relatively flat. The City of Guelph is highly focused towards the
environment and ensuring that it is an environmentally sustainable city. In terms of daily
commuter transit 2.5% of residents ride their bicycle to work (City of Guelph, 2005).
The City of Guelph is in the process of developing a bicycleway network with a
high degree of interconnectivity; although it is still in the early stages when compared
with Davis. The City of Guelph is interconnected by bicycle routes and many of the
bicycle routes are in the form of delineated bicycle lanes. The interconnectivity issue in
Guelph is that the physically delineated bicycle lanes do not interconnect and often only
exist on a portion of a given street. Therefore Guelph is interconnected by bicycle routes
that are not physically delineated. Both automotive traffic volume on non delineated
bicycle routes and bicycle lane discontinuity could pose a safety issue for commuter
cyclists. There are multi use paths and bicycle paths in Guelph which assist with
interconnectivity in certain locations. The bicycle paths are located in recreational or park
areas and only interconnect on road bicycle routes adjacent to them. The City of Guelph
has many of the aspects of an interconnected bicycleway network with proper connective
11
and supportive infrastructure but it is not fully developed yet. There are still ‘gap’ areas
within Guelph, but in the context of Canadian cities Guelph is one of the best examples
of proper bicycleway infrastructure and is becoming a good example of a well structured
bicycleway network.
3.2.3 The City of Hamilton, Ontario
The City of Hamilton is at the forefront of cycling in Ontario and is moving in the
direction of a safe and highly interconnected bicycleway network. The City of Hamilton
has a population of 662,000 residents and is thus much larger than the other areas of
study (Statistics Canada, 2005). There are two components which make Hamilton a good
city for study. Firstly it has a developing bicycleway network and secondly it is a city
which has changed its environmental policy to reflect a more environmentally friendly
image. Similarly to Sudbury, Hamilton has historically been viewed has a heavy industry
related city with the environment being a low priority. The reputation of the purely
industrial city has certainly outlived its application.
One of the spin-offs of the greener Hamilton movement has been the development
of a well connected bicycleway network and this has caused an exponential level of
growth in the cycling movement (City of Hamilton, 2005). Hamilton has become a haven
for commuter, recreational and competitive cycling in Ontario. In October of 2003 the
City of Hamilton hosted the Road World Championships for cycling displaying that
12
Hamilton has truly become a world class bicycle city (Cycling News Magazine, 2003).
The topography of Hamilton is different from the other two centres of study. Like
Guelph and Davis, Hamilton is located on generally flat topography with the exception of
the Niagara Escarpment (City of Hamilton, 2005). This interesting geologic feature
provides a more vertical aspect to the flatter topography surrounding it.
The bicycleway network in Hamilton is similar to that of Guelph in that it is
interconnected but it is largely interconnected by bicycle routes with no connective
infrastructure other than signage. There are bicycle lanes and paths in Hamilton but not to
the same degree as Guelph or especially Davis. To combat the current lack of connective
infrastructure the bicycle routes in Hamilton are differentiated between multi use paths,
physically delineated bicycle lanes, high traffic non-delineated routes and low traffic
non-delineated routes. This approach to educating cyclists on the potential dangers
associated which each bicycle route should help to make Hamilton safer for cycling but
to ensure safety the high traffic routes need to be physically delineated. Similar to Guelph
the existing bicycle lanes in Hamilton are not continuous and only exist on a portion of
roadway. Hamilton has made a good start in planning out its bicycleway network but it
needs to develop the connective infrastructure in order to have a safe bicycleway network
with a high degree of interconnectivity. In a Canadian context Guelph and Hamilton are
two of the best examples of city wide bicycleway networks, however they are still
13
lacking in terms of connective infrastructure in comparison to Davis which is highly
interconnected with proper infrastructure.
3.3 Physical Supportive Infrastructure
3.3.1 Storage Facilities
Storage facilities for bicycles exist in a variety of forms with common
characteristics. A bicycle storage facility needs to provide a secure area where
commuters can store their bicycles without risk of theft, damage or vandalism (Bicycle
User Group Ottawa, 2002). Bicycle racks are the most common form of storage facility
since they are relatively inexpensive and can be located in a variety of indoor or outdoor
areas.
There are several different styles of bicycle racks. Those that support the weight
of the bicycle on the fork or seat stays better support the bicycle and reduce the
likelihood of damage compared to racks which support the bicycle by the front or rear
rim. The rim racks often cause damage to the rim sometimes to the extent that the whole
wheel will be rendered non-functional (Bicycle Advisory Committee, 1997). It is a great
deterrent to any for any potential bicycle commuter to be forced to use supporting
infrastructure that will result in damage to the bicycle.
14
Single bicycle racks are either stand alone or attached to parking meters and are
therefore highly efficient for sidewalks in built up areas. The City of Toronto (2005) uses
single bicycle racks throughout the city. To ensure that there is a sufficient number of
bicycle racks to support the bicycleway infrastructure citizens can request bicycle racks
be put in their neighbourhood or place of work via the City of Toronto’s website (2005).
Multiple bicycle racks are the type that is more commonly found at major
destination points in lower density urban areas such as malls or universities. Given that
there is enough space at the destination point multiple bicycle racks are the most efficient
since more bicycles can stored in a small area than with single bicycle racks (Bicycle
Advisory Committee, 1997).
Bicycle lockers are the other type of storage facility. They provide greater
protection and security than bike racks since they are an enclosed tapered box which the
bicycle fits inside. However, bicycle lockers more expensive and are not as efficient
spatially as bicycle racks (Balsas, 2003).
3.3.2 Integrated Commuter Facilities
A commuter facility is a transit station where commuters switch from one means
of transit to another. Integrated transit facilities for commuter cyclists, includes elements
of supporting infrastructure namely change rooms and storage facilities. These commuter
15
facilities are generally located in busy urban areas in close proximity to the destinations
of the commuters.
A well laid out integrated commuter facility has several important characteristics;
it has to fulfil the needs of the broadest base of users possible. The vast majority of
commuters will need change room facilities and commuters travelling over 10km or
commuting in hot summer weather require shower facilities as well (City of Toronto,
2005). Since bicycle can not easily be taken into some destination points, such as offices,
businesses or classrooms, storage facilities are another characteristic. These two
requirements form the basis for an integrated commuter facility. These facilities can be
relatively small and therefore it would be easy locate them in virtually any institution
whether it is private or public.
In 2004 the City of Chicago opened a large integrated commuter facility complex.
The facility is located on two floors of a downtown parking garage thus keeping with its
storage facility function. It is over 16,000 square feet, and contains indoor parking for
300 bicycles. Showers, change rooms and lockers are available to bicycle commuters.
Since it is a heated complex it can function all year instead of only 3 seasons. In addition
to the required components of an integrated transit facility it also offers a café and
maintenance shop. Both the café and repair shop are well thought out additions to the
complex since they make it almost a destination unto itself and encourage cycling as a
means of transportation. To enhance security the complex is monitored by an in house
16
police bicycle unit which also monitors the surrounding area (Public Building
Commission of Chicago, 2004).
3.3.3 Proper Signage for Bicycleways
Correct signage is another important component of any user friendly bicycleway
network. Signage is necessary for direction since many of the users may not be familiar
with the bicycleway network or signs may be the only infrastructure delineating a bicycle
route (Bicycle Advisory Committee, 1997). The need for signage is especially true for
students who are often unfamiliar with the city and may depend on their bicycle for
transit. Signage also makes other users of the road aware of bicycleways and helps the
entire road network function more cohesively.
There are a great variety of signage models in use or under development in a number of
cities. The signage used across a region should be similar in format and it needs to
provide specific information about the bicycleway where it is located. A proper signage
format should include (City of Toronto, 2005) (Rainbow Routes Association, 2004):
· An indication that the transportation artery in question is a bicycleway.
· The type of bicycleway that has been designated (Path/Lane/Route).
· The designated user groups for the transportation artery.
17
Bicycle path signage should include additional information such as (Rainbow Routes
Association, 2004):
· Path length, difficulty, and surface type.
· Name and distance of road intersection points.
· A map of the path and surrounding location.
3.3.4 Integrated Transit Systems
An integrated transit system is comprised of a public transit system which
functions with non-motorized transit initiatives such as commuter cycling. The goal of an
integrated transit system is to service the needs of all types of users. The features of an
integrated transit system include both elements of physical infrastructure and universal
commuter friendly policies.
The Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) is a good example since it has invested
in bicycle storage facilities at many of its transit stations and during non-peak hours
allows cyclists to bring their bicycles on the subway, rail trains, street cars and buses.
Beginning in June, 2005, the TTC launched a one year Bike Racks on Buses initiative on
seven of its routes to assist commuter cyclists using the integrated transit approach. The
18
Ontario Provincial GO transit service also allows cyclists to bring their bicycles aboard
GO trains during non-peak hours (The City of Toronto, 2005).
3.3.5 Bicycle Share Programs
There are several bicycle share programs in Canada. The bicycle share bikes can
be used from both a recreational or commuter standpoint. One example of this approach
is the Yellow Bike program in Toronto. A year pass costs $25 and allows user access to
a fleet of bright yellow bicycles, available at a number of hubs in downtown Toronto.
These hubs are both public facilities and private businesses that support bicycle transit.
The yellow bicycles can be picked up by any member and returned to any bicycle hub
throughout downtown Toronto (City of Toronto, 2005). Similar programs exist in both
Victoria and Banff (City of Victoria, 1995) (Winterborne Bicycles, 2005).
3.3.6 Bicycle Stores and Maintenance Facilities
For any city to have a strong bicycleway network it needs to have a network of
repair, maintenance and retail facilities to support cyclist needs. Usually this type of
supporting infrastructure is found in the form of small independent locally owned
businesses. This type of business is a bonus for any community since they e locally
owned they often contribute back to the community which supports them. Many of these
bicycle stores offer repair clinics, sponsor community events and provide a professional
service to the public.
19
The City of Davis has an integrated public and private approach to maintenance services.
It is fully integrated and encompasses a variety of public services made available by the
city, the university and cycling firms. A tool rental service is provided by several local
shops as well as repair and maintenance classes. The university offers summer storage
facilities for bicycles and helmet rentals (UCD, 2005).
3.4 Educational Supportive Infrastructure
3.4.1 Educational Programs
Educational programs are of great importance to a safe and efficient bicycleway
network. There are several different types of educational programs with different focuses.
The most crucial type educates cyclists, motorists and pedestrians on proper rules and
etiquette on the road or trail. A good public education program outlines the different
types of users, where each fits into the transportation spectrum, what the rules are that
they are expected to follow and what other users expect of them. Proper communication,
traffic regulations and safety equipment should be included in these educational
programs. This type of safety focused educational program needs to be offered through
the school system at all levels and in conjunction with motor vehicle licensing programs.
20
Each program should be specific to the city in which it is taught since different cities
have vastly different compositions of a bicycleway network.
There are two major educational programs through the University of California,
Davis (UCD). Transportation and Parking Services (TAPS) is a department of UCD
which governs transit and parking on campus. TAPS provides a cycling traffic school for
cyclists caught making transit violations on the university campus. By taking the TAPS
course the fine for transit violations is reduced. The second educational program offered
by UCD is called Bike Right which is a proactive public bicycle safety and injury
prevention program (UCD, 2005).
Another type of educational program is one that is focused towards the
mechanical nature of the bicycle and how to operate it efficiently as a cyclist. Many
individuals who would be interested in commuter cycling for its health and
environmental benefits are not comfortable with bicycles on an operational or mechanical
level. By teaching individuals how to safely maintain and operate their bicycles, bicycle
transit would be strongly encouraged.
One such program is the Guelph Youth Cycling Program sponsored by the City of
Guelph and Winterborne Bicycles. This program provides underprivileged youths with
the opportunity repair an older bicycle and keep it for their own use. This program
teaches youths about the operation and mechanics of a bicycle and provides them with a
21
means of transportation and the opportunity to become involved in cycling which they
otherwise would not have had (Winterborne Bicycles, 2005).
3.4.2 Bicycle User Groups
Bicycle User Groups are organizations that contribute positively to a city
bicycling culture. A Bicycle User Group, or BUG, is group of a people in a workplace, a
school, a community, or a neighbourhood, who come together to improve conditions for
commuter cycling, or to enjoy cycling together. Each BUG grows out of its own
environment and develops differently according to the needs of its users (City of
Toronto, 2005).
Most Bicycle User Groups function strongly in the educational field and
encourage non-cyclists or novice cyclists to become involved. The City of Toronto BUG
(2005) has a program where experienced cyclists, called cycling ambassadors, will
partner up with inexperienced cyclists and assist them in their ride to work. As well the
Toronto BUG has developed a series of internet videos that are focused towards
educating individuals on how to become commuter cyclists. Similar user groups exist in
both Hamilton and Ottawa and support the bicycling culture in those areas (Bicycle User
Group Ottawa, 2002; City of Hamilton, 2005).
4. DISCUSSION
22
As seen in the literature review section there are many forms of infrastructure
both connective and supportive that are required components of a bicycleway network.
No one urban centre contains all the aspects or components favourable to commuter
cycling in Canada so it was important to study several centres. Two Canadian examples,
Guelph and Hamilton, were studied as well as Davis, California which has a renowned
bicycleway network. The study of the three centres focused on connective forms of
infrastructure and the interconnectivity of the bicycleway network of each centre.
Following the three bicycleway networks, supportive types of infrastructure were
reviewed and examples of the various types of physical and educational infrastructure
were given. Now that the types of infrastructure have been described and examples of
bicycleways have been given the discussion will focus on the various aspects that
challenge cities in creating safe and highly interconnected bicycleway networks based on
what has already been examined.
All three of the centres studied in this paper were located on located on flat
topography. This is beneficial for any cycle friendly community for two reasons. Firstly,
the flat topography assists in the grid like structure of a city roadway network since there
are not a greater number of geological obstructions to build around. The grid structure
provides multi-route redundancy for the bicycleway networks meaning that there are
many parallel routes that can be designated bicycleways. By this feature the cities of
study have avoided locating portions of their bicycleway networks on major automotive
arteries. Secondly flat terrain is preferred by many commuter cyclists since it can more
efficiently traversed than mountainous topography.
23
Proper bicycle storage is a very important component of any bicycleway network
and it requires more discussion than it could be given in the literature review section. The
issues of storage facilities delve into the mechanics, design and metallurgy of bicycles.
Bicycle rims are fashioned out of lighter and weaker aluminium alloys than frames or
forks are. A bicycle rim is not strong enough or structured properly to support the bicycle
weight in a direction perpendicular to the rim and the result from using the wheel type of
storage rack is bent non-functional wheels (Bicycle Advisory Committee, 1997). Bicycle
racks which support the weight of the bicycle by the frame or fork may still damage the
bicycle, mainly in the areas of paint and possibly the structural integrity of the fork or
frame depending on the materials used to construct the bicycle. Frame or fork supporting
racks will cause much less damage than wheel supporting racks and the frame or fork
style provide increased security because the frame, fork and wheels can be more easily
locked to the rack (Bicycle Advisory Committee, 1997). Also bicycle racks provide no
protection for the other components of a bicycle from the impact of a foreign object. The
possibility exists that the drivetrain components of a bicycle could be rendered non-
functional from a moderate impact, leaving the cyclist stranded. Many such impacts
occur on a regular basis when cyclists are depositing or removing their bicycles from a
crowded bicycle rack. Of the different types of storage facilities bicycle lockers are by
far the best. They provide the utmost in security and protection in comparison to spatial
footprint and cost. Given the option most cyclists would prefer to use bicycle lockers,
since they provide added safety, security and cause no damage to the bicycle. Due to the
24
increased cost of bicycle lockers over bicycle racks most facilities that offer bicycle
lockers charge a small fee for their use.
The lack of standardization for bicycle transit is a problem in North America.
Educational programs, traffic regulations and physical infrastructure need to be
standardized for bicycleway networks at the national level similar to the format for motor
vehicles. Most development occurs at the municipal level and often municipalities
develop different formats for dealing with bicycle transit. This municipal method also
burdens municipalities with developing policies which in many cases have already been
developed elsewhere. The standardization approach is much farther along in the US than
in Canada where federal funds are provided to municipalities to develop bicycleway
infrastructure and national cycling organizations provide consultation for municipalities.
For some items such as bike racks for buses the US federal government with cover 95%
of the cost (League of American Bicyclists, 2005). In Canada the full cost of
development falls to the municipality which equates to a lack of infrastructure in
Canadian cities.
In 1991 the US Congress opened the Highway Trust Fund to bicycle
infrastructure needs (Friel, 2005). The US Department of Transport actively took a role
in bicycle commuting with the 1994 National Biking and Walking Study (Harkey et al,
1998) (Krizek and Rio, 2005). The US highway bill was enhanced in 1998 providing
more funds for bicycle infrastructure and for 2005 the US has set aside $4 billion to
develop bicycle infrastructure and programs (Friel, 2005). The other national level
25
funding organization is the Bikes Belong Coalition which is a coalition of the large
American bicycle manufacturers who donate monetary grants to communities who
develop their bicycleway infrastructure in an effort to promote cycling across the US.
This phenomenon is much farther behind in Canada. There are no national cycling
organizations in Canada which provide grants to municipalities to encourage the
development of bicycleway infrastructure. The largest commuter style organizations are
at the provincial level; namely the Cycle Ontario Alliance (2005) which is focused
towards interconnecting cities via trails and bicycle routes. Proportionally the scope that
Canada funds all types of cycling is far behind the US and therefore the programs and
infrastructure are equally far behind. For commuter cycling to develop in Canada, as it
has in the United States, Canada needs to take some national level interest in the activity.
That interest should be in the form of a standardized national commuter cycling
organization and increased federal and provincial funding to municipalities for cycling
infrastructure and educational programs.
One of the main obstacles facing commuter cyclists is the mentality of motorists.
Many motorists feel that the road is for motorized vehicles and bicycles do not belong. It
is understandable that motorists feel this way since cyclists are a rarity on many roads
and motorists are uncertain of what the cyclist actions will be on the road. Many cyclists
ride in a andom fashion for two reasons. Firstly the proper infrastructure usually does
not exist and therefore the cyclist has to compensate for nonexistent or inadequate
infrastructure by using the delineated motorized vehicle road surface. Secondly the vast
majority of motorists and cyclists are not aware of what the rules of the road for cyclists
26
are. Many cyclists do not know how to signal, make steady consistent movements or
even which portion of the road they should be riding on. Public education programs
about cycling and driving need to be implemented for all users of the road. When each
user group knows the other rules of road then confusion, poor communication, negative
mentality and the likelihood of collisions will be greatly reduced.
In Canadian cities with bicycleway networks there is a trend of designating
bicycle routes to interconnect cities without the proper connective infrastructure.
Hamilton and Guelph both are interconnected with physically non delineated bicycle
routes. Physically non-delineated bicycle routes are intended for low traffic roadways
and in that capacity those routes function safely. The alarming trend is that due to the
lack of connective infrastructure in Hamilton and Guelph these types of bicycle routes
are being used on higher traffic roadways where they do not provide sufficient protection
for cyclists. There are two reasons for this trend: Firstly physically non-delineated
bicycle routes are inexpensive since no infrastructure is required other than proper
signage. Secondly the road surface does not have to be expanded to include proper
physically delineated bicycle routes or bicycle lanes. Granted a designated, physically
non-delineated bicycle route does provide some safety to cyclists in that it legitimizes
their right to use the roadway for cycling but it does not fully separate them from
motorists and therefore does not provide an adequate measure safety in many cases.
To encourage people to become involved in active, environmentally friendly
transportation and ensure their safety while participating in it proper infrastructure needs
27
to be constructed with interconnectivity in mind. The public education programs about
cycling should not be limited to cyclists but should be available for all users of the road.
Educating motorists, cyclists and pedestrians about the rules and regulations of the road
will result in each group being aware and respectful of the others. The transportation
network within cities will then function more safely and cohesively.
From an academic standpoint, developing a method to measure the degree of
interconnectivity of a city bicycleway network would be a major asset to standardizing
bicycle transit in North America. To develop such a method various aspects of a
bicycleway network could be assigned numeric values. Variations in road surface quality,
for example, could be assigned a graduated series of numeric values since it would help
to estimate potential obtainable velocity on bicycleways. Variables such as potential
sustainable velocity, predicted traffic volume, bicycleway maintenance, topography and
the number of bicycleway intersections compared with the total length of the bicycleway
network are all aspects which could be measured and assigned numeric values. Once the
numeric values are determined for all the variables a ratio could be calculated displaying
the degree of efficiency and interconnectivity of the entire bicycleway network. This
method would be universal for all bicycleway networks. Therefore the calculated ratio of
any given city bicycleway network could be readily compared to the ratio of any other
city bicycleway network. Once bicycleway networks could be compared in a
standardized manner the cities with safe, highly interconnected bicycleway networks
would be identified for further study. From that point the common themes or aspects of
the most efficient, highly interconnected bicycleway networks could be isolated and a
28
model of the components of those bicycleway networks could be created. The
bicycleway network model could then be used as a template for urban centres to further
develop their bicycleway networks in the most efficient and standardized manner.
Finally, this study points at a lack of literature in the field of bicycle
transportation with respect to Northern Ontario. The Academic Search Premier and
Scholar Portal Search databases were consulted for the recent past. All related journals in
those databases were consulted for the period of 2001 to present and some as far back as
1993. Nothing was found that was relevant to cycling in the region of Northern Ontario.
5. CONCLUSION
The trend of automobile dependency in North America is still on the increase
since individuals are living farther away from where they work or go to school than they
once did. Individuals who at one time may have walked are now dependent on private
automobiles. Automotive commuting is not the most environmentally sustainable or
healthy method of transit available. Transit by bicycles has been shown to be much more
efficient in terms of energy input converted to distance travelled and cycling strongly
mitigates negative environmental effects such as air pollution incurred by automotive
transit. To make cycling a safe and viable option for commuters a highly interconnected
bicycleway network is a necessity. The focus of this paper was to explore the
29
components of a bicycleway network and provide real world examples of those
components in North American cities.
The sequel to this paper is a focused case study of the City of Greater Sudbury in
the area around Laurentian University. It was therefore important that the cities of study
for this paper had certain characteristics in common with Greater Sudbury. The cities that
best fit the selection criteria were Guelph, Hamilton and Davis. The interconnectivity and
connective infrastructure of each city respective bicycleway network was studied in this
paper. The various types of supportive infrastructure were described and examples in
various cities were provided as well.
As demonstrated a safe and highly interconnected bicycleway network requires
many components. It was found that Davis is an excellent example of a highly
interconnected bicycleway network with proper connective infrastructure. It was also
found that Guelph and Hamilton provided some good aspects of a bicycleway network,
however, both centres were lacking in the areas of safety and connectivity. From this
literature review five recommendations can be made to assist municipalities in the
development of safe and highly interconnected bicycleway networks:
· The standardization of traffic regulations for bicycles at the national level in a
similar format to automotive traffic regulations.
30
· The development of a national level commuter cycling organization which
can provide consultation for the development of bicycleway networks and
provide a standardized format for that development.
· Increased funding from the federal and provincial governments needs to be
provided to municipalities to construct adequate connective and supportive
infrastructure for bicycleway networks. This infrastructure is needed to make
commuter cycling safe in urban areas and sufficient funds are needed to
construct it.
· Prominent educational programs about traffic regulations for automobiles,
bicycles and pedestrians need to be implemented to educate all user groups on
proper behaviour and use of transportation infrastructure.
· Educational programs about the correct maintenance and operation of bicycles
will increase the public confidence in using bicycles means of commuting.
This type of educational program should be sponsored by the municipality
and provided through local bicycle firms.
In all North American cities there is room growth in commuter cycling. Some
centres are more developed than others but all cities have the potential to become safe,
efficient and highly interconnected places for bicycle transit given that they develop the
proper infrastructure.
31
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Websites
Bicycle User Group Ottawa (2002). A Bicycle User Group Guide. www.cfsc.ottawa.on.ca/BUGmanual2002/bugs-long.pdf.
Bikes Belong Coalition (2005). Homepage. bikesbelong.org/site/intro.cfm.
City of Davis, California (2005). City of Davis, California: Census Information.www.city.davis.ca.us/misc/census.cfm.
City of Guelph (2004). Guelph Trail Master Plan: Existing Off-Road Trails and On RoadBicycle Routes. guelph.ca/uploads/CS_Group/parks/trails/GTMP_Map2.pdf.
City of Guelph (2005). Census Data: Mode of Transportation to Work.guelph.ca/business.cfm.
32
City of Toronto (2005). Cycling Homepage. www.toronto.ca/cycling/index.htm.
City of Victoria (1995). Bicycle Master Plan.www.city.victoria.bc.ca/residents/transportation_cycbicycle.shtml.
Cycle Ontario Alliance (2005). Ontario Bicycle Route.
www.cycleontario.ca/pcrn/index.html.
Cycling News Magazine (2003). 2003 Road World Championships: World’s Pay RareVisit to North America. www.cyclingnews.com/road/2003/worlds03.
Google (2005). Google Maps. maps.google.ca.
Google (2005). Google Images. www.google.ca.
League of American Bicyclists (2005). Bicycle Friendly Community Page.www.bicyclefriendlycommunity.org.
Statistics Canada (2005). Community Profile: Hamilton.www.statscan.ca/english/profil01.
The City of Hamilton (2005). The City of Hamilton: Cycling Homepage.www.myhamilton.ca/myhamilton/CityandGovernment/CityDepartments/PublicWorks/RoadsAndTraffic/Cycling/.
The City of Hamilton (2005). Map Hamilton: Parks and Recreation.www.map.hamilton.ca/frameset.htm.
The Daily (2003). Study: Work and Commuting in Urban Centres.www.statcan.ca/Daily/English.
UCD (2005). University of California, Davis Campus: Transportation and ParkingServices. www.taps.ucdavis.edu/index.html.
UCD (2003). Davis Bike Map. University of California, Davis. June 2003. p 1-2.
US Census Bureau (2004). Journey to Work: 2000.www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/c2kbr-33.pdf.
Winterborne Bicycles (2004). Guelph Youth Cycling Program. www.winterbornebikes.com.
Publications
Rainbow Routes Association. Greater Sudbury Trail Guide.2004.
33
Government Documents
Bicycle Advisory Committee. Technical Report. The City of Greater Sudbury. August1997.
Earth Tech Canada Inc. City of Greater Sudbury Transportation Study Report. City ofGreater Sudbury: Official Plan Background Report. September 2005.
Academic Periodicals
Balsas, Carlos (2003). Sustainable Transportation Planning on College Campuses. Transport Policy. vol. 10, p 35-49.
Friel, Brian (2005). How Bicycle Lobbying got into High Gear. National Journal;8/13/2005, Vol. 37 Issue 33-35, p2593-2594.
Harkey, David., Reinfurt, Donald., Knuiman, Mattew (1998). Development of theBicycle Compatibility Index. Transportation Research Record. Issue 1636, p 13-20.
Krizek, Kevin., Rio, Roland (2005). What is at the End of the Road? UnderstandingDiscontinuities of On-Street Bicycle Lanes in Urban Settings. ActiveCommunities Transportation Research Group: Transportation Research Part D,p 55-68.
Public Building Commission of Chicago (2004). Chicago Opens Bicycle CommuterStation. Civil Engineering. vol. 74, issue 9, p 37.