SUCCESSFUL BICYCLE PLANNING:
ADAPTING LESSONS FROM COMMUNITIES WITH HIGH BICYCLE USE TO ANN ARBOR AND WASHTENAW COUNTY
September 2001
Prepared for the
−
Downtown Development Authority, City of Ann Arbor
−
University of Michigan Plant Operations
−
Bicycle Program, City of Ann Arbor
−
Ann Arbor Transportation Authority
−
Washtenaw County Drain Commissioner
−
getDowntown Programby theUrban and Regional Research CollaborativeA. Alfred Taubman College of Architecture and Urban PlanningThe University of MichiganTheodoros Natsinas, Ph.D., Visiting ScholarJonathan Levine, Associate ProfessorMoira Zellner, Research Assistant
i
SUCCESSFUL BICYCLE PLANNING:
ADAPTING LESSONS FROM COMMUNITIES WITH HIGH BICYCLE USE TO ANN ARBOR AND WASHTENAW COUNTY
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Bicycle use has a long history in Ann Arbor. Until the 1960s, undergraduates at theUniversity of Michigan were not allowed to bring cars to campus. Hence the bicyclewas a major mode of transportation for them. In the 1970s, as a result of a nationalincrease in use, planning professionals started to give more attention to the bicycleas a mode of transportation. At that time Ann Arbor was at the forefront of developments: the City commissioned several relevant studies; one on bicycleparking facilities being the first such study nationally; a bicycle coordinator positionwas established in 1979. These efforts were recognized by the 1988
Bicycling
magazine survey that ranked Ann Arbor in the 6
th
position of the 10 most bicyclefriendly cities in the US. It seems that by 1988 all "alternative" modes of transport,i.e. anything else apart from driving alone, were used by significant percentages of the population. The 1990 census results demonstrated that as the commute to workstatistics showed that 38 to 39 percent of the workers' commuted by "alternative"modes.During that period the drafting of Ann Arbor's Bicycle Master Plan started and wascompleted in 1992. However, the Plan marks a high point and the end of an era.Since then more and more complaints have been voiced that Ann Arbor hasdowngraded the promotion of bicycle use, as well as of other "alternative" modes,and that it has become more car-orientated. One of the major complaints relates tothe fate of the bicycle coordinator position. The position was moved fromTransportation to Parks and Recreation, was made part-time, at times withoutbenefits, given other duties unrelated to bicycling, and had a rapid turnover of personnel. Further, complaints are being voiced about the funding that has beendirected into projects catering for car transportation, citing the cost of therefurbishment of the downtown parking structures as a prime example. A recentseries of reported harassment of bicyclists by motorists and associated indifferenceby the police has provoked an intense debate among the bicyclist community, whichtends to confirm the impression that Ann Arbor is becoming less bike friendly.However, efforts for "alternative" transportation have continued, some significantexamples being the expansion of the AATA transit services, the getDowntownprogram, the placement of bike racks on the buses, and the Main St. redesign toimprove the pedestrian environment. All the same, Ann Arbor seems to have becomeoverall less bicycle-friendly.Since the late 1980s two other cities, Boulder, CO, and Madison, WI, have moved inan opposite to Ann Arbor direction. They have built reputations for being bicycle
ii
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
Search History:
Result 00 of 00
00 results for result for
p.
Table 3.4: Parking data for SUCCESSFUL BICYCLE PLANNING
Book : SUCCESSFUL BICYCLE PLANNING
2.5K
Reads
13
Readcasts
3
Embed Views
Get Scribd Mobile
To get Scribd mobile enter your number and we'll send you a link to the Scribd app for iPhone & Android.We've sent a link to the Scribd app. If you didn't receive it, try again.
We'll never share your phone number.
More From This User
Notes
Load more
