friendly and are often cited in the relevant literature. If the 1990 census results forthe three cities are compared, they show that commuting by single-occupant-vehicle(SOV) had the same share in all three, approximately 61%. Similarly in all three, thesum of the shares of "alternative" mode commute was about 27%. Ann Arbor hadthe highest share for walking and the lowest for cycling.The trends since 1990 show the following:
In Boulder, where good data are available, the trends show that bicycle andtransit are increasing their share of the daily commute, and the SOV share isdeclining, despite increases in the total number of trips.
In Madison, there are no overall modal split data. The data that does existindicate that the number of bicycle trips is increasing, and, specifically for theUniversity community, the bicycle share of the commute has increased.
Surveys in Ann Arbor seem to indicate, without much statistical confidence, thatbicycle use since 1990 has stayed approximately the same. The fact that it hasstayed the same and not decreased might have more to do with the nationallyobserved increase in cycling, mainly for recreation, than with the local promotionefforts. These surveys do not provide adequate data to reach even anapproximate indication of the trends in the use of walking and SOV.The present study compared Ann Arbor with Boulder and Madison in order todetermine how these two communities achieved the increase in bicycling and if anylessons can be learned for the local area. This two cities were not only chosenbecause of their success in fostering bicycle use; they were chosen because theyshare several characteristics with Ann Arbor: presence of a big university, similarsize of population and area, and severe winter conditions. The project contactedinterviews, site visits, and literature review to identify the factors that contribute tothe level of bicycle use in the three cities. The results are summarized below:Demographic and weather dataComparing the data for these variables two factors (high density, and highpercentage of student population) are higher in Ann Arbor than for the othertwo cities. Both high density and high percentage of student population areconsidered as favorable for high levels of bicycle use. The weather data areleast favorable in Ann Arbor, even though only slightly worse than in Madison.Significantly, Ann Arbor, compared even to Madison, has considerable moredays with at least one inch of snow depth.The above points are relevant for the level of bicycle use by Universitystudents (see Table 2.9). The level of bicycle use by students in Ann Arbor isconsiderably lower than in the other two cities. This can be partially attributedto two reasons associated with winter weather conditions: 1) there is littleprotected parking/storage available for bicycles in the winter, and 2) snowremoval from bike facilities is not quick and adequate.User perception of transportation multi-modal policiesThe City of Ann Arbor has implemented several "alternative" mode schemesbut the overall impression to the street user, in comparison to the situation inBoulder and Madison, is that automobile transportation maintains a moredominant position. This is especially true when the downtown areas in thethree cities are compared. The different impression is created bya) The high profile interventions in Boulder and Madison: major downtownstreets converted to exclude the private car, and