Group items tagged

Barriers to Municipal Planning for Pedestrians and Bicyclists in North Carolina Authors: Kelly R. Evenson, Semra A. Aytur, Sara B. Satinsky, Daniel A. Rodríguez Background: The Guide to Community Preventive Services recommends implementing community- and street-scale urban design, as well as land use policies and practices, to promote walking and bicycling. To better understand barriers to municipal walking and bicycling projects and policies, we surveyed municipal staff in North Carolina.  Methods: We surveyed all 121 municipalities with at least 5,000 persons, and 62% responded. We also surveyed 216 of 420 municipalities with less than 5,000 persons, and 50% responded. The municipal staff member most knowledgeable about walking and bicycling planning was asked to complete the survey. Responses were weighted to account for the sampling design, to reflect prevalence estimates for all North Carolina municipalities. Results: Common barriers to walking and bicycling projects and policies were selected from a 14-item list. For walking, barriers included lack of funding (93% of responding municipalities), other infrastructure priorities (79%), automobile infrastructure priorities (66%), and staffing challenges (65%). For bicycling, barriers included lack of funding (94% of responding municipalities), other infrastructure priorities (79%), automobile infrastructure priorities (73%), issues were not high priorities for the municipality (68%), staffing challenges (68%), and insufficient support from residents (63%). Barriers generally were more prevalent among rural municipalities than among urban municipalities (9 of 14 barriers for walking and 5 of 14 for bicycling; P < .10). limitations The study relied on 1 respondent to report for a municipality. Additionally, job titles of respondents varied with municipality  size.  Conclusions: Health professionals and multidisciplinary partners can assist in overcoming the common local- and state-level barriers

Some commentators recently expressed outraged that governments spend money on cycling improvements. Examples include Christopher Cadwell's Drivers Get Rolled: Bicyclists Are Making Unreasonable Claims To The Road-And Winning, in the Weekly Standard, and Bob Poole's A U.S. Bicycle Route System? in Surface Transportation Innovations #121. You could call them cycling critics, because they assume that bicyclists have inferior rights to use public roads and that cycling facility investments are wasteful and unfair, or call them automobile dependency advocates because their general message is that transportation planning should focus on facilitating automobile travel with little consideration for other modes. Their arguments are largely wrong, I'll call them "half-truths" to be charitable, presented with great certitude and self-righteous anger. These articles are published in ideologically-oriented periodicals for readers who share their prejudices, so they make little effort to justify their positions. However, it is important that people involved in multi-modal transport planning understand these issues because they often surface in policy debates.

"A tool that allows anyone to easily collect and share automobile and bicycle traffic count data."

Describing the four general categories of transportation cyclists in Portland and their differing needs best precedes a discussion of bikeway treatments. For lack of better terminology, Portlanders can be placed into one of the four following groups based on their relationship to bicycle transportation[2]: "The Strong and the Fearless," "The Enthused and the Confident," "The Interested but Concerned." The fourth group are non-riders, called the "No Way No How" group. Survey after survey and poll after poll has found again and again that the number one reason people do not ride bicycles is because they are afraid to be in the roadway on a bicycle. They are generally not afraid of other cyclists, or pedestrians, or of injuring themselves in a bicycle-only crash. When they say they are "afraid" it is a fear of people driving automobiles. This has been documented and reported in transportation literature from studies, surveys and conversations across the US, Canada, and Europe.

Assuming a one-to-one tradeoff between vehicle trips and non-motorized trips, the DOT report estimated that the program conserved 1.67 million gallons of gasoline and averted more than 30.8 million pounds of carbon dioxide emissions between 2007 and 2010. The report also noted that the increase in non-motorized travel and the decrease in automobile trips resulted in notable reductions in other air pollutants that contribute to health problems. It estimates that boosting the amount of pedestrian and bicycle activity in these communities reduced the economic cost of mortality by about $6.9 billion in 2007. Doctors and the broader public health community have long been advocating increasing opportunities for biking and walking as a cost-effective strategy to reduce illness and wasteful spending on reactive health care. The U.S. DOT report, "Report to the U.S. Congress on the Outcomes of the Non-Motorized Transportation Pilot Program", is available at: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bicycle_pedestrian/ntpp/2012_report/final_report_april_2012.pdf.

Getting people out of cars and onto bicycles, a much more sustainable form of transportation, has long vexed environmentally conscious city planners. Although bike lanes painted on streets and automobile-free "greenways" have increased ridership over the past few years, the share of people relying on bikes for transportation is still less than 2 percent, based on various studies. An emerging body of research suggests that a superior strategy to increase pedal pushing could be had by asking the perennial question: What do women want?

While streets were once a place where we stopped for conversation and children played, they are now the exclusive domain of cars. Even where sidewalks are present along highways and high-speed streets, they feel inhospitable and out of place. Traffic and road capacity are not the inevitable result of growth. They are the product of very deliberate choices that have been made to shape our communities around the private automobile. We have the ability to make different choices-starting with the decision to design our streets as comfortable places for people. Thankfully, in recent years a growing number of people around the world have stood up and demanded something better. PPS is helping to show the way forward, assisting communities realize a different vision of what transportation can be.

This video is all about the dutch history before and after their automobile peak time.