An Investigation of the Field of Bicycle Planning
in the United States:
Current Status, Challenges, and a Proposal for New Legislation
– The American Bicyclists’ Act (ABA)
Timothy D. Witten
Department of Urban Design and Planning
Masters Thesis Presentation

A. Basic Conditions in the U.S.

Not many trips (<1%) are made by bicycle, despite the fact that most Americans own bicycles, and a large minority rides a bicycle (50-70 million)
Over 90% of all trips are made by automobile.

B. Results and Effects:

(+) A degree of access and mobility unprecedented in human history
(-) Mobility and access are now increasingly compromised and threatened by traffic congestion and a dwindling supply of available land.
(-) Increasingly recognized disadvantages or "side effects":
pollution, global warming, destruction of habitat and farmland

great expense, both personal and societal

health, both physical and mental

separation, alienation of 33% of population who does not drive

neighborhood, community decay, and breakdown of many dynamics of the social web; sprawl, car-dependent housing, commercial and work environments

alienation from the natural world

C. Response:

Response is by (from):
Government, primarily

Urban design and planning

Environmental groups

Various advocates (who might share views and motivation of these others)

Health, education, safety, sociological practitioners
Responses have been:
CAFE rules; vehicles that pollute less (but people still use them less)

Designing communities; new designs such as new urbanism, TOD’s, traffic calming; resurrection of old designs.

Land use, zoning changes, growth management

Incentives and disincentives related to travel mode choice; including TDM, taxes, facilities. New programs include car sharing, road pricing

One solution – among these and others – is the promotion (or encouragement) of bicycling. In this paper, it is termed the advancement of bicycling, which includes the four E’s of engineering, education, enforcement and encouragement

D. This Study Focuses on Bicycling – How it is "advanced" in the U.S.:

Incentives and disincentives are 2 sides of the same coin. Example: a parking fee increase could be a disincentive to drive, as well as an incentive to seek a less costly alternative travel mode, such as the bicycle.
ORTHODOX / CONVENTIONAL APPROACH – Incentives to travel by bicycle:
WHO: Governments (all levels), planners, transportation planners, "designers" (landscape architects, architects)

WHAT: More facilities: lanes, paths, routes; racks, showers, transit access (bike on bus, e.g.).

HOW: Facilities are considered and organized through plans, guided by policies; both of these influence the definition and selection of projects

Only minor attention paid to financial incentives, education, PR/"encouragement", enforcement – i.e. non-facilities measures.

E. Results of these responses / efforts

Federal policies and policy direction for States: ISTEA and TEA-21 contain an abundance of evidence of intentions to advance bicycling, but this study uncovered that most provisions are options rather than mandates; recommendations rather than regulations.

Federal funding for bicycle-related planning and projects increased from $6 million/yr in 1990 to over $250 million/yr now. However, in general with the TEA’s, almost all funding is termed "potentially available". This means that states are allowed to use the money for pro-bicycling efforts; they are certainly not required to do so, although much of the public relations information gives the impression of the latter.

"mainstreaming" of bicycle planning; almost all of this planning is for facilities

increased attention toward TDM, "Smart Growth", Livable Communities, and the goal of places becoming "bikeable".

However, no known, measured increase in bicycling mode share.

F. Reasons efforts have failed – possible explanations

Amount of funding. Despite increases in gross amounts from TEA’s, still, percent of $ spent = % of trips, i.e., 1% of federal transportation spending is "pro-bicycle", and bicycle trips make up 1% of all trips. "You get what you pay for" has not been tested by raising the % of funding and seeing result. Modeling and prediction very difficult for bicycles. Even data on current use is questioned widely.

What funding is spent on.
PLANS – This study researched these questions: Are plans effective --
Can they be implemented (language is clear, precise, strong [meaning that it "has teeth"; that it contains true mandates and requirements, vs. option sand recommendations)?

Are they implemented?
FACILITIES – This study researched the question: Even if plans can be implemented, and they are implemented, are facilities alone going to entice drivers to travel by bicycle?

FINDINGS OF RESEARCH: from both a survey of a sample of bicycle plans, and a literature review, plans were found to have many shortcomings. Among these were:
Imprecise, vague, sometimes idealistic language and expectations

Strong tendency to write recommendations rather than requirements, and to leave implementation optional rather than mandatory

Lack of data gathering and evaluation of programs and projects – especially the most basic analysis: "has bicycling increased?"

G. Postulation from this research: It’s a "vision thing"

Postulate: the difference between the fields of planning and engineering is the degree to which importance placed on vision:
PLANNING is more vision than implementation, "nuts and bolts", "on the ground"

ENGINEERING is more interested in implementation than envisioning the "big picture", or the long term view.

TRANSPORTATION PLANNING is where the two meet; where differing ideas about importance of vision come together.

THUS FAR (or at least for the past few generations), the vision in transportation planning has been dominated by a vision of serving automobiles.
Deduction -- We have a choice regarding the advancement of bicycling:
A. Continue the current paradigm:
More money, more planning, more facilities

More "grassroots" support, advocacy

and a continuation of the conflict that arises: these two each looking to the other for leadership, for the source for power and for impetus for change
OR
B. We could have a new vision of a new method, instrument, principle and justification for change. The vision I chose to investigate was the vision of a legal instrument -- a law that made an argument for requiring bicycle access.

H. Reasons for Proposing the ABA as a Solution

Manifestation of new paradigm, discussed above
It allows continuation of conventional approach (current paradigm), but adds:
Fairer, more effective emphasis on issues raised by the "bikeway controversy" --- do facilities advance bicycling?

The power of law, based on the "equity of access argument"
A. The Bikeway Controversy
In the interest of advancing bicycling, essentially a debate over the relative merit of facilities vs. education

Issue: polls show that main obstacle to more bicycling is perception that bicycling is too dangerous; planners heed this and build facilities

EC/VC: facilities do not make cycling safer

Orthodoxy: facilities are needed to entice / encourage bicycling

Relevant findings: polls and models often do not capture the totality of variables in relation to human economic decision regarding travel mode choice. Variables not considered together with safety: laziness; convenience of driving; cost of driving, etc.

Proposed solution in ABA: the "bikeway controversy" must be solved. Pilot/case studies, research on safety, effectiveness of education vs. provision of facilities.
B. The power of law – potential benefits of new approach
By using the justification of "equity of access", can overcome enigmas presented by the question, "if you build it, will they come". Mandate that the experiment be performed.

Would bridge bureaucratic and academic separation between transportation planning and land-use planning, by providing "inter-disciplinary mandates.

Could use historical precedents in effectiveness: ADA, CAA among others.

Could facilitate broader discussion of benefits of the advancement of bicycling: conventional arguments are based on concerns about pollution, traffic congestion, health benefits (etc.). These still apply, but the ABA would facilitate attention toward equity.

Equity example provided by the ADA; other Acts provide examples of other benefits of a legal, federal, inter-agency approach to an inter-agency problem.

I. Where and how to Implement the Legal Approach

Federal Level, State or Local?
This became one of the most difficult questions to answer

Findings -- Arguments for federal level:
information sharing: innovations, experiments, standards, etc.

"tools of the trade" (standards, guidelines, regulations)

problems to be solved cross state lines (pollution, sprawl, automobile dependence; economic costs of pro-bicycle regulations can drive businesses and homeowners to flee

adequate evaluation, missing from much conventional bicycle planning, depends on data. Fed agencies can afford it, and it doesn’t need to be repeated city by city and state by state. E.g. are bike lanes safe?

Methods, policies can later filter down to state and local level.
Arguments for introducing at State level:
Federal level too difficult politically

State politicians closer to "grassroots"

Another "rights" and "discrimination" issue is one too many
Conclusion: it will be very difficult politically at either level, but there are more potential gains at the federal level

J. Components of the ABA

TEA-21: Re-write relevant sections and passages; this alone can have tremendous effect. Problem is that TEA-21 is temporary. Re-written parts could serve as foundation for independent law.

FHWA: Research , guidelines, information sharing, accidents, safety, education vs. facilities; influence over individual states

Other:
BCI

Mandate meaningful review, evaluation of bicycle plans – at all levels; supply needed data and gathering tools

Land-use / transportation connection: urban design and planning and transportation planning, engineering, design fields must interact on standards, design process, planning, building, educating.

Modeling (did not address in paper): modeling is thus far very limited; doesn’t take "vision" into account: low gas prices, growth management, ABA, etc., so it doesn’t give accurate projection

K. Survey of "Experts" – the RFI

To ascertain feasibility of the ABA, conducted national survey
Questions addressed:
Content

Arena/format in which to propose (federal or state, as independent Act or not)

Relevance and logic of equity issue and comparison with ADA

Political feasibility
Interviewees:
"experts" in fields of engineering, planning, design, politics, environmental, bicycle and alternative transportation advocacy, law, government, and others

50 on initial list; 35 agreed to participate; 12 participated formally, on paper; 6 participated either via telephone interview or informally on paper; 18 total.
Results (representative responses):
( - ) #1 criticism / concern was political feasibility at the federal level:
"justifiable, but not enough support"

"support must start at the grassroots"

"don’t think it will stand much of a chance, but that’s where the money is"
( + ) "Data, especially on deaths, accidents, could sell it"

( +/- ) Slight – but not dominant – preference for state level vs. federal

( + ) "ABA is a good approach because it will outlast TEA-21

( + ) "You are right about the problem with plans…they have no teeth, and they usually just sit on shelves. We need mandates, not more guidelines."
Conclusions from the survey, and about the survey process:
Idea of ABA as a federal law and one that is based on an equity of access argument will face extremely challenging odds of passing

The legal approach proposed – like campaigns for more funding and facilities – would also require national level support from the "grassroots"; it cannot be advanced without this; however, this brings up another "chicken and the egg" situation: which comes first – the political support or the situation that engenders the political support?

The survey could have yielded more helpful results if a reiterative, Delphi-method had been fully pursued. The version that interviewees commented on was very different -- much less researched and developed than the present set of components. This could have taken a year to achieve, however.
Conclusions about the ABA:
The research did not produce enough scientific evidence to provide a full framework for an independent bill such as the ABA.

The political difficulty of passing such a piece of legislation may be impossible to overcome at the present time.

However, the components of the proposed ABA that were researched and provided in this paper could very well be constructive and effective if implemented.

Despite the difficulties and obstacles that emerged in this study, the momentum of history is in its favor: pollution, congestion, and the assortment of other unfortunate results of our dependence on the automobile are far more likely to get worse before they get better. Among academics, researchers and technologists, the automobile-centric hope is that "technology will pull us through"; that we will soon have cars that are "no-polluting" and "low-polluting". In response to that, however, it must be asked: emissions requirements and research have given us 60 mpg cars…but who buys them? People are buying up SUV’s that get 12 mpg as if they cannot live without them (53% of vehicles purchased in 1998) and driving more miles per person, than they ever did before. These facts do not demonstrate an interest in using less gas. There could very well be more interest in the ABA.

This study identified and analyzed several fundamental challenges and shortcomings of the current methods used to advance bicycling in the United States; this knowledge can be used as a foundation for the call for a thorough evaluation of current assumptions, methods and priorities in the field of bicycle planning, as well as in related fields such as architecture, landscape architecture, urban design and planning, and others. The re-write of TEA-21, and the direction for a method of solving the "bikeway controversy" are two specific measures – among many others suggested – that can be focused on, to the advantage of these practitioners.

The concepts and components proposed as part of the ABA can be used toward the same end, perhaps in another form, or in several separate forms. For example, they could be further researched, reinforced, and then included in related legislation such as a "Smart Growth Act", "Livable Communities Act, or similar.

Alternatively – to return to the discussion about vision -- the ABA could some day be seen as a workable foundation for a new and more effective paradigm in the field of "alternative" transportation: it could be further researched, and further strengthened by legal and scientific argument; political support could be mustered, and it could be introduced as a bill in the U.S. Congress. As pollution, congestion and other results of our automobile dependence become intolerable, this could become an increasingly realistic approach. Within a few years of its passage, and as a result, the United States could begin enjoying – and prospering from – a dramatic increase in bicycling.

Contributed by Timothy Witten. Last updated 02/08/2000.