This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Sandra Camargo Jonathan Hammond Brendan McHugh
April 18, 2011
Faced with the pressures of rising resource prices and the need to maintain a stable and even growing economy, the greater Richmond region must adapt to the requirements of a more sustainable future, particularly concerning active transportation. As it stands now, while Richmond has made some strides in providing good transit within its inner core, there are numerous hurdles to its transportation network and priorities pertaining to equity, regional cooperation, and financial and ecological durability. Barring unexpected breakthroughs in regional governance, this proposal seeks to use tools currently at Richmond‟s disposal to provide a variety of affordable near-term public and private solutions related to increasing the number of pedestrians and cyclists in Richmond's core, by improving their access to safe and reliable means to transport themselves through inner-city neighborhoods, namely bikesharing and the adoption of a complete streets policy. Prior to the most recent trend in planning, a majority of planning was not pedestrian or bike oriented. Today‟s planning discussions include accommodations for bikers and pedestrians through the implementation of complete streets. According to the National Complete Streets Coalition, “Instituting a complete streets policy ensures that transportation planners and engineers consistently design and operate the entire roadway with all users in mind - including bicyclists, public transportation vehicles and riders, and pedestrians of all ages and abilities” (14). Many people have criticized car oriented planning and they wish to move towards sustainable modes of transportation, bike sharing being one mode. A bike sharing program discussion is incomplete without mention of the economic feasibility and economic benefit of the program.
Bike sharing is defined by Paul DeMaio of MetroBike LLC in Washington DC as;"short term bicycle rental available at unattended stations". These rental stations are available 24 hours a day in technologically secure stations. The stations are usually located in larger cities where the stations are strategically placed throughout the city. This short distance form of transportation can be positive for individuals as well as the environment. Bike sharing can be funded through a public-private partnership, (such as that of Montreal, where modern bikesharing was first introduced) normally with an outdoor advertiser such as JCDecaux. Many cities have operated for a publicly-funded system, such as Capital Bikeshare, the jointly-operated system of Arlington County and the District of Columbia. Regardless of its funding mechanism, many of these systems are cheap to install and tend to break even or maintain a modest funding surplus.
Review of Literature and Relevant Documents
Various resources were used to understand the state of bicycling and bike infrastructure in Richmond and throughout the world. The main documents that were looked at were The VCU state of Cycling report and the Mayors Pedestrian, Bicycling, and Trails planning commission report. These documents will be revisited in data analysis. Other resources, such as journal articles and online news posts were used to understand past planning designs, the emergence of bike sharing programs and their successes or failures. Recently, many cities have been implementing “complete streets” guidelines as a means for improving their general environment. To understand the current need for bike paths, Robertson, A. Kent explains the planning trends of the past. His article accepts that pedestrians have been absent from planning designs for some time. While he never mentions cyclists, it is safe to assume that cyclists are affected in a similar way. Walking (as well as cycling) has become increasingly unattractive; especially in suburban areas that require one to travel longer distances on a road designed for motor vehicles. He argues that this type of planning has created a hostile, unwelcoming environment for
pedestrians (and cyclists). He then suggests ideas on how to remedy the situation; the suggestions coincide with complete street guidelines. The article, “Bill tackles passing space around bicycles,” by Katherine Carlos of the Times- Richmond Times-Dispatch shows how the existing roads in Richmond, which lack bike infrastructure, cause conflict between bikers and drivers. Neither of them feels respected by one another. In addition, many blogs and commentator sites reflect the same attitudes. One commentator in particular, understands the conditions for bicyclists in Richmond and is working to inform the public. He writes, “I‟m convinced by the number of hits and comments I get every time I write about biking in Richmond, as well as by the number of cyclists on the street, that we could actually change Richmond if we tried; we need to institute some kind of safe, city-wide biking network…Who‟s with me? I personally would like to see bike roads” He goe s on to explain the different forms of bike lanes that exist throughout the world. Among them are, separated bike lanes, which are lanes separated by some kind of barrier i.e. bushes or concrete. In his opinion, these lanes are superior to painted lanes because they offer cyclists greater safety. His suggestions were considered and will be mentioned in recommendations further in this paper. There are two main documents that offered us with insight into current local initiatives and provided us with useful data: The VCU state of Cycling report and the Mayors Pedestrian, Bicycling, and Trails planning commission report. These documents will be revisited in data analysis. Throughout the country, localities have recognized the need for improved infrastructure. Washington DC has recently joined the group and has implemented guidelines roughly paralleling FABB/WABA's complete-streets recommendations for the entire District of Columbia. It is to be expected that, in the future, the District will seek to remodel its streets to consider the mutual needs of pedestrians, motorists, cyclists and transit vehicles, either as part of regular maintenance or in an active campaign to improve various arterials. Other newspaper and online articles discuss the emergence of bike sharing programs. An article discussed the new bike sharing program in the University of Richmond. The program has not been as successful as expected. The article prompted a
site visit to the school. The findings can be found in appendix C. It was determined that the “failure” is due to the poor implementation of the program. There are many quirks that need to be fixed. The most immediate model for our bike-sharing proposal is Capital Bikeshare, the only other bikesharing service of its size currently existing in Virginia. CaBi, as it is sometimes abbreviated, is a collaboration between Arlington County, the District of Columbia, and other private, corporate, and quasi-governmental contributors and contractors. The most notable private contributor has been the Crystal City Business Improvement District, underwritten by several major neighborhood employers and landholders (i.e. Boeing and Vornado). Its chief contracting party is Alta, a company related to Bixi, the Quebec-based firm producing the bicycles and stations on which CaBi is based, which specializes in the maintenance of Bixi bikes and operating the system they constitute. Although these bicycles primarily consist of an extremely durable unibody construction – Dan Malouff, transit and development writer and Arlington County planner, calls them “bombproof” - Alta contractors regularly dispatch maintenance issues ranging from imbalanced tires to station vandalism. Capital Bikeshare was not the first bikesharing service to arrive in the Washington region. Smartbike DC was a pilot project implemented in 2008; under the guise of the District Department of Transportation, Clear Channel (the project's sponsor) installed 120 bikes at 10 stations. While the bicycles were less expensive than Bixi's, the SmartBike system was not expanded in part due to Clear Channel's lack of interest in promoting it – the system was effectively the ancillary aim of a much larger outdoor advertising contract – and in part due to the prohibitive expense and complexity of SmartBike stations. Anchored to the ground by cast concrete, the stations required significant excavation, exacerbated by the District's policy requiring underground utilities downtown; several streets were torn up for weeks for Pepco, the local electrical utility, to connect the stations. With some initial skepticism, Arlington County's plan to install a Bixi-based bikesharing service enabled the District to unwrangle the complexity of expanding its bikeshare infrastructure and couple with the County in creating a public-private
intergovernmental entity for the provision of a modular and potentially regionwide system across jurisdictions. Total implementation and operating costs for what is now a 118-station system with over 1100 bicycles has approximated $7.3 million for the first year, with $6 million covered by a federal USDOT grant and $835,000 covered by a grant from the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation. Additional revenues from advertising in order to reduce or eliminate the operating subsidy to the system are under discussion. (Flexible terms of membership and deals with social networks have recently increased the number of members in the system, which also increases revenue. The system has a total of over 8800 annual members.) [fee details founds in appendix D] Although, again, Bixi's very hardy bicycles cost roughly $4000 per unit, the flexibility of station siting and deployment has been the system's biggest advantage, allowing Capital Bikeshare to deploy stations very quickly and move them according to public needs. The solar-powered, modular stations are weighted down by their own gravity and wirelessly operated, obviating the need for excavation and electrical connections from the complicated downtown grid. The success, so far, of Capital Bikeshare – relative, at least, to the ill-used and limited-range SmartBike DC program – has been aided by the investment of both Arlington County planners and the District of Columbia Department of Transportation in a complete-streets policy that increases the safety and visibility of bicycling throughout those localities, even on small streets, despite the recalcitrance of the National Park Service to provide or allot for bicycle infrastructure (primarily on account of the NPS' reliance on monopolistic vendor contracts that prevent operators from sharing infrastructure or routes with, say, Tourmobile). This has resulted in the shutting-out of a large source of revenue from those tourists most likely to use bicycles to access sites such as these. However, the adoption of cycle tracks on 15th Street and Pennsylvania Avenue as well as bike lanes and sharrows on most of Arlington and Washington's arterial streets has increased both the visibility of cyclists and the safety in isolation that can be provided for them, despite issues of encroachment onto federal lands.
LEFT: Bicycle infrastructure on Pennsylvania Avenue NW. RIGHT: Bike lanes and “sharrows” on 15 th Street NW.
Neighboring jurisdictions, particularly the town of Silver Spring and City of Alexandria, are considering buying into the Capital Bikeshare system. While Silver Spring is a densifying suburban Sites containing information about other bike sharing programs were visited. The article, “thanks for sharing: communal bikes may be coming to a city near you” discusses bike sharing programs worldwide and the health benefits that come with it. He writes, “Bob Burns, the Trek executive who runs B-Cycle, says the interest in bike-sharing from cities around the world is so hot that he hasn't spent more than five days in a row at home in the last year. „Ultimately, as it cuts pollution, relieves traffic, and makes you healthier, bike sharing turns more people into cyclists," he says. Paris has already proved that, with a 17-percent increase in the number of personal bikes used for commuting.” Another
article in a newspaper based in London discusses health benefits of cycling to work, “Cycle to Work is a tax incentive aimed at encouraging employees to, er, cycle to work, thereby reducing air pollution and improving their health…Employers benefit from fitter, more punctual, more wide-awake staff. Employees benefit from better health and better bikes because their money goes further.” The literature suggests that, when implemented properly, bike sharing programs can be extremely successful and have many benefits.
Data Collection and Analysis
Data was collected from The VCU state of Cycling report and the Mayors Pedestrian, Bicycling, and Trails planning commission report. The data includes trends and attitudes towards biking and bike infrastructure. Both of these documents comment on the poor bike and pedestrian infrastructure The Administration of Mayor Dwight C. Jones is currently working hard to improve the quality of life for Richmond residents by following the Mayor‟s triple bottom line goals of sustainability. One area that the administration is focusing on is transportation efficiency projects that can elevate energy and environmental awareness in hopes of providing the opportunity to positively transform transit decisions for the long term. The Mayor‟s Bicycle, Pedestrian and Trails Planning Commission was created to carry out these goals. To illustrate what plans need to be made for Richmond to become more sustainable, the committee created the The Mayor‟s Bicycle, Pedestrian and Trails Planning Commission Report. The commission conducted a survey in 2010. While the survey is not statistically valid and does not represent the entire city population, it does offer insight into trends as to what is important to those who responded. When asked, “How important is it to you that Richmond is a bikeable/walkable city?” Over 97 percent of respondents answered, “very important or important (37). When asked to describe the majority use of their bi ke riding, only 36 percent said that they used it for running errands, commuting, etc. In
addition, their comments indicted that they would ride more if they felt biking were safer in Richmond. The commission recognizes the potential to increase ridership rates and reduce car usage. The survey also indicates that a majority of respondents ride a distance of less than 6 miles; the report notes that, “The majority of motor vehicle trips taken within the US are less than 3 miles, therefore, the distance typically traveled by bike by this group of respondents is well within the distances that would be expected for utilitarian trips.” When asked to list the main reasons that prevent them from biking, respondents top choices were: no bike paths, bike lanes or bike routes; Usage/unlawful motorists‟ behavior; poor condition of Bikeways/roads; insufficient bike parking; Uncomfortable bicycling on roads with motor traffic. Further questioning showed infrastructure improvement as an important … “what improvements would influence you to ride more?” Among the top five that were picked are, more bike lanes on major streets; bicycle boulevards. A theme was apparent in this survey. A majority of respondents felt that bike infrastructure was key and would encourage them and others to ride more. Surveys conducted for they VCU cycling report show similar trends. Virginia Commonwealth University is a part of the American College and University Presidents‟ Climate Commitment. “The commitment calls for universities to complete a comprehensive inventory of all GHG emissions on their campuses as a precursor to developing an institutional climate action plan for becoming carbon-neutral and having no net GHG emissions, a goal VCU is striving to reach by 2050” (Presidents‟). In order to achieve this goal, the university created the VCU Sustainability Committee. This Committee is divided into subcommittees such as Waste, Foodservice and Transportation and Education, Research and Community Engagement. The VCU cycling report is a document that provides data regarding trends at VCU. It is to be used to determine bycicle initiated on campus and to “act as [a] reference point from wich to evaluate the success of [the] initiatives.” The repeort shows that VCU has a large cycling population and has the opportunity to become the most bike-friendly university in Virginia. The report also included a survey, but included only student input. The results display similar trends to that of the Richmond Commission Report. “Twenty -eight percent( 196) of the survey respondents live less than a mile from their home campus. Twelve percent(82) live beteween one and three miles from campus, while 27
percent live three to five miles from campus, the remaining 33 percent (232) live more than five miles from their home campus” Given this information, one recommendation suggested by the report is that all bycicling initiatves should be done within 5 miles because, “Five-miles is the established standard of a „bycycle shed‟ i.e. the distance most people perceieve as an acceptable distance for bicycle tranportation” (10) As you can see in the graph below the “more bike lanes” options is at the top for increasing ridership. This is conducive with the commission report survey.
Stakeholder Interviews Interviews were conducted with the VCU Director of Sustainability, CoChairman of the Mayors Bike, Pedestrian and Trails Commission, and…These individuals were asked, “Has a bike sharing program been considered?”; “What would be the cost of such a program?”; “how feasible and realistic is such a program?” Further probing was needed in some instances. Additional interviews were conducted with officials in the DC metropolitan area regarding the actions taken there and their attitudes towards complete streets. Details of these interviews can be found in Appendix. Jacek Ghosh, VCU's Director of Sustainability, is currently working to sponsor and create an inter-campus bike sharing program in hopes of developing a path toward active transportation for the entire city of Richmond. The VCU Sustainability Committee has many great plans to help get the plan started. Some of the plans are concrete and others are still in development.
Three major turnkey bikeshare vendors currently exist: Bixi, the largest in North America; Bcycle, which has contracted with smaller bikeshare services such as Chicago's; and SoBi. Bixi and its contractors, such as Alta Bicycle, have installed successful systems in Montreal, Toronto, Minneapolis, Washington, D.C., and other North American cities at an average cost of rougly $40,000 per station, or $1200 per bicycle. Bcycle offers similarly-priced, scalable systems to institutions as well as midsized and large cities such as Denver, Chicago, and Louisville, Ky. SoBi's proposal is novel in that its startup costs are closer to $500 per bicycle, with users relying on GPS to locate their bikes. The three vendors all have some of the same technology but each has unique advantages. Bixi has a very durable bike that was built for every user, whereas Bcycle‟s bikes were adapted from an existing bike which might be harded to ride for some people. Sobi has more than one type of bike but is slightly more advanced technologically and is cheaper. All of the systems are solar powered and weatherproof and include GPS on their bike systems which helps keep them vandal proof. They are all connected through a database which can be reached through the internet or smart phone. This system allows the user to locate available bikes and reserve bikes all on a digital map. The user then can purchase use of the bike with a credit card over the internet. The user just types in a code or recieves a card which gives them access to the bikes. This system is also very beneficial for the implementors of the bike sharing program. It is able to insure that the bikes are safe through the use of the credit card system and can be set up to locate broken bicycles in the area as well. It also helps keep track of the overall system to know which bikes are being used more and which are being neglected. This aspect helps analyze the good and bad areas to locate the racks. Of these three, Bcycle or Bixi would work best for VCU. Sobi is a new and small company and might not have the resources to provide VCU with a robust bike sharing program in the long term, even though Sobi has newer and more sophisticated technology for bike sharing. The current plan is for VCU is 30-50 bikes with 10 stations; six stations will be on the Monroe Park Campus and four stations on the MCV campus. These stations are modular and can be moved to the most suitable locations as users adapt to the
system. Ghosh has been in discussion with local businesses and property owners to expand bikesharing facilities further than this, as well as to engage in a broader dialogue with the existing cyclist community. The pricing for the system will be similar to that of Capital Bikeshare: the first thirty minutes will be free and then the user will be charged roughly every half hour. The systems will most likely be accessed through credit card or VCU RamBucks and students may be offered incentives for biking. This pricing system is standard for most bike sharing programs. It encourages short trips to benefit as many users as possible. Some promotion ideas for the program include creating a web portal and hosting events such as, “The Great Bike Roundup”. The Great Bike Roundup is an event in Richmond that supports the local biking scene. It takes place once a year in which bikers of all experience and interest gather together to discuss biking and their personal interest in the activity. The event includes bike repair experts who offer free tune-ups and will answer any questions you may have about your bike. According to Ghosh, the program plans have begun but it is unclear when VCU bike sharing stations will be seen on campus. Ghosh hopes that the program will pave the way for the Mayor‟s Bicycle, Pedestrian and Trails Planning Commission . He hopes that there will be mobility hubs around the city that will not only offer bike sharing but also ZipCars and convenient bus service. This will perhaps even pave the way for local employers to have their own bike sharing stations so their employees are encouraged to live greener, more active lives. Champe Burnley, a Co-Chair on The Mayor‟s Bicycle, Pedestrian and Trails Planning Commission claims that “initiative” is the first step. He believes that there is no initiative for citizens to bike Richmond. Because the city already has such a variety of parking available to commuters, it leaves little incentive for them to consider alternate modes of transportation. If the city created intitiatives for using public transit or penalties for driving to the city, people would be forced to change. Before penalties can be enforced, commuters need a decent form of public transportation. This action saw results in London where there are multiple fees and penalties for driving in London. London and Paris were announced joint winners at the Institute for Transportation and Developmental Policy (ITDP) 2008 Sustainable Transport Award Ceremony. “The city is the largest to
adopt the congestion charge and its success has inspired cities in the USA, such as New York City and San Francisco, to consider implementing it. Prior to the charge, London drivers spent 50% of their time in traffic jams, costing the city between 2-4 million pounds every week. Now, Transport for London (TfL) said congestion has dropped 21% in 2007” (23) According to Burnely, the City of Richmond currently has no plan for bike sharing however there have been some discussions with VCU. The plans that are currently on the Mayor‟s Bicycle, Pedestrian and Trails Planning Commission Report include more infrastructure concerns and will begin implementation at the end of 2011. The Mayor‟s Commission is primarily composed of interested citizens and members of the community and therefore did not conduct any type of comprehensive estimate for building an entire bike lane network analysis. However, the Mayor of Portland claims in an article in the Oregonian, that Portland spent on it‟s bike infrastructure what it normally would spend on a single mile of freeway. Champe believes the most realistic near future change concerning biking in Richmond will be the creation of bike sharrows. Bike sharrows are street markings installed at locations in Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States. This marking is placed in the center of a travel lane to indicate that a bicyclist may use the full lane. Burnley hopes for a fast transition to complete streets for Richmond, but believes that it won‟t happen for another twenty years.
These interviews provide insight on the state of sustainability initiatives within the city. VCU‟s sustainability director is more optimistic about th e possibility of a bike sharing program. The possibility of a bike sharing program has not been discussed with seriousness in the mayor‟s commission. VCU will most likely have a bike sharing program before the city.
Goals and Objectives
The information that was gathered was used to create the following goals and objectives, along with recommendations.
Short term Goal: Bike Infrastructure Objective: Creating bike sharrows throughout city Why?: Alerts drivers that bikers are sharing the road.
Goal: Promote biking in Richmond Objective 1: Create incentives to bike in Richmond Why?: biking in Richmond lowers emmissions which is better for the enviornment Objective 2: Create media campaign aimed at biking in Richmond Why?: To educate the importance of biking in Richmond
Mid Term Goal: Bike Infrastructure Objective: Create limited bike lanes throughout Richmond‟s Core Why? : To create safe enviornment for bikers in Richmond
Goal: Provide alternative modes of transportation that reduce carbon emmissions throughout Richmond‟s core. (see appendix F) Objective: Establish limited bike sharing stations throughout Richmond‟s core Why?: To test the potential success of bike sharing in Richmond‟s core and to evaluate the degree of emmission reduction.
Goal: Create private sector promotion for biking in Richmond Objective: Establish bike sharing stations for corporations in the downtown sector Why?: To reduce city expenditures on bike sharing in Richmond
Goal: Bike Infrastructure Objective: Create a complete network of bike lanes throughout Richmond ( see appendix A for details) Why?: To create a safer environment for bikers throughout Richmond
Goal: Provide alternative modes of transportation that reduce carbon emmissions throughout Richmond‟s core. Objective: Establish a complete bike sharing program throughout Richmond‟s core Why?: A complete bike sharing program will provide the entire city with alternative forms of transportation.
Goal: Maintain a successful bike sharing program Objective: Continue to test best possible locations for bike sharing stations throughout Richmond‟s core Why?: A successful bike sharing program will keep the city provided with more options of transportation
Recommendations For Implementation
Continual Involvement Insure that the Mayor‟s Pedestrian, Bicycle and Trails Commission stays active and involve as much community participation as possible. By involving the community, the greatest number of people can become involved thus increasing the chances of it staying on the city agenda.
Bike Share Collaboration VCU should collaborate with the City of Richmond concerning bicycling improvements in the downtown area. This collaboration should work toward reducing carbon emmissions therefor working towards the collective effort of sustainability throughout the city. This includes a bike share program. The mayors commission should discuss this idea in more detail so that the program has a chance of being implemented.
Uniform Bike Share System VCU and the City of Richmond should collaborate in creating a uniform bike sharing system. This will give the users the maximum amount of options concerning bike sharing. The collaboration of VCU with the city can bring bike sharing beyond campus perimeter.
Team The bike sharing program in the City of Richmond should hire a bike sharing management team. This team will focus on the day to day tasks of the bike sharing program. These tasks will include maintenance, distribution, and data collection. Through these tasks they will determine best locations for stations through their data collection. They will redistribute bikes at the end of each day to the stations throughout the city.
Promotion Use media outlets to promote bike sharing throughout the city. The city should collaborate with bicycling businesses such as Aggies and Bunny Hop. This collaboration should create events and programs to encourage bike sharing in Richmond.
Funding Richmond should include sustainability concerning bike sharing as a top priority in their Capital Improvement Budget. For a program like this to be successful, funding is priority number one. If the city were to promote the bike sharing program, the overall health of the citizens will improve thereby cutting healthcare costs. If the program is successful
and the citizens of Richmond are healthier there is a better chance of receiving federal grant money that endorses a sustainable lifestyle.
Public Transit Richmond should create penalties for driving and incentives for public transit use. In order for these programs to succeed, the city needs to create a complete public transit system. This system should include either a more extensive bus system or a possible light rail system.
Complete Streets The Mayor‟s Pedestrian, Bicycle and Trails commission should collaborate with Public Works to create an effective and practical complete streets design. This design should be respectful to bikers, drivers and pedestrians alike. A preferred design concept of bike lanes is separated barrier design. This design should follow AASHTO guidelines. A proposed bike lane design can be found in Appendix A.
A Healthy City If Richmond should promote a bicycle oriented lifestyle as a health benefit for it‟s citizens. Bike sharing cuts down on pollution by reducing the number of drivers. The reduction in pollution and the exercise through bike sharing creates healthier citizens.
Bike Sharing Vendor At the moment, the bike sharing vendors that Richmond should consider are Bixi and Bcycle. Their bikes have sophisticated systems and credibility throughout the world. In addition, their bikes should include lazer lane technology for bicycle safety at night (See Appendix B).
1. -http://www.tfl.gov.uk/, Transport For London, (Accessed on April 17, 2011).i 2. -http://www.governmentsustainability.co.uk/content/view/157/2/, London wins sustainable transport award, Government Sustainability.Co.Uk, The Business Magazine For Sustainable Government, 2011. http://www.richmondgov.com/sustainability/index.aspx, Sustainability, City of Richmond, 2011. 3. Quinn, F. and Wright, B. Guide for Reviewing Public Road Design and Bicycling Accommodations for Virginia Bicycling Advocates. Fairfax Advocates for Better Bicycling, Fairfax, Virginia, 2010. http://www.fabb-bikes.org/guide/ (accessed 18 February 2011).
4. Government of the District of Columbia. Department of Transportation. DDOT Complete Streets Policy. Departmental Order No. 06-2010, District Department of Transportation. Washington, D.C., 18 October 2010.' 5. Martinez, Matt. "Washington, D.C., launches the nation‟s largest bike share program". Grist (20 September 2010), http://www.grist.org/article/2010-09-20-washington-d.c.-launches-the-nationslargest-bike-share-program/ (accessed 21 February 2011). 6. Carlos, Katherine, “ Bill tackles passing space around bicycles,” Richmond Times-Dispatch, February 14, 2011, http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/2011/feb/14/tdmet01-bill-tackles-passingspace-ar-840798/ 7. “Richmond, VA Master Plan,” Richmond, VA , 2000 -2010, http://www.richmondgov.com/planninganddevelopmentreview/documents/master plan/05Transportation.pdf 8. Robertson, A. Kent., “ Pedestrians and the American Downtown,” The Town Planning Review 64, no.3 (1993): 273-286, http://www.jstor.org/stable/40113233 9. The Walkman, "University of Richmond Creates Bike Share Program", Virginia Bicycle Federation, http://www.vabike.org/university-of-richmond-creates-bike-share-program/, April 7, 2011. 10. Wallack, M.. "Thank You For Sharing." 2010.http://www.bicycling.com/news/advocacy/thanks-sharing (accessed Apr. 12, 2011).
11. “Mayors Bicycling and Trails Planning Commission Report,” Mayors Bicycling and Trails Planning Commision. Richmond, VA, Nov. 2010 http://www.richmondgov.com/mayor/documents/MayorsPBTCommissionReport Opt.pdf 12. “1999 Guide for the Development of bicycling facilities,” American Association of State highway and transportation officials. Washington DC, 1999. http://www.sccrtc.org/bikes/AASHTO_1999_BikeBook.pdf 13. Dan Hoagland, interview by J.D. Hammond, Washington Area Bicyclist Association, March 9, 2011. 14. Champ Burnly, interview by Brendan McHugh, Mayors Pedestrian, Bicycle and Trails Commission, 15. Jaseck Gosh, interview by Brendan McHugh, VCU sustainability director,
The 1999 AASHTO guidelines were used to determine acceptable width and lane creation. AASHTO, as explained by Champ Burnley of the Mayors Pedestrian, bicycle and Trails Commission, was used as a guide for determining Complete Street Guidlines. As Figure 1 shows, bicyclists require “at least 1.0 m (40 inches) of essential operating space based solely on their profile. An operating space of 1.2 m (4 feet) is assumed as the minimum width for any facility designed for exclusive or preferential use by bicyclists. Where motor vehicle traffic volumes, motor vehicle or bicyclist speed, and the mix of truck and bus traffic increase, a more comfortable operating space of 1.5 m (5 feet) or more is desirable.” “However, where 1.2-m (4-foot) widths cannot be achieved, any additional shoulder width is better than none at all.”
These guidelines were further used in creating appropiate designs for some streets. The blog regardging biking in Richmond also provided useful ideas. These included the seperated barriers. The following images are photoshopped images of possible bike designs. They were created by Brendan McHugh.
Description: Franklin Street- measurement is 8 feet 4 inches (from edge of tree box to end of sidewalk). This sidewalk is between Harrison and Ryland facing West.
Harrison- measurement is 8 feet 9 inches (from edge of electric pole to end of sidewalk). This sidewalk is between Franklin and Grace facing North. B The vendors that were contacted for VCU‟s bike sharing program use an intense security system. Their system protects against bike theft and is therefore ideal. Bixi, Sobi use the following system:
In addition to this technology, this document recommended the Laser bike lane technology. It costs $50 per bike. (http://www.wired.com/autopia/2009/02/lightlanes-
lase/) C University of Richmond Bike share program: this program was created about 2 years ago by a student. The bikes are donated bikes and have no high tech characteristics. There is
really no way of tracking the bikes. A student stated, “ you just find a bike, if your luck y, and ride it and leave it wherever” This has caused a loss of bikes, many have been thrown into the river. The following images show the carelessness of students regarding the bike program. The bikes are not respected. The program is considered a failure.
D Bike sharing fees
E Interview details:
Dan Malouff, interview by J.D. Hammond, Arlington County Government Center, March 8, 2011.
Dan Malouff is a transit planner with Arlington County, currently focusing on its two major streetcar projects on Columbia Pike (possibly in collaboration with Fairfax County) and along the Jefferson Davis corridor toward Potomac Yards (in collaboration
with the City of Alexandria). He also edits BeyondDC, a transit blog for the greater Washington and mid-Atlantic regions. Malouff was part of the decision-making process behind Arlington's initial implementation of Capital Bikeshare, including the decision to go with Bixi and Alta as vendor and contractor. He also explained the history of Arlington's bicycle and active-transportation infrastructure over the past 20 years, and pointed to other stakeholders in the continuing process of redeveloping Crystal City from a quasi-arcology complex of enclosed buildings to an open, pedestrian-friendly neighborhood. Jim Maslanka, interview by J.D. Hammond, City of Alexandria Department of Transit Services and Programs, March 8, 2011.
James Maslanka is the director of transit services and programs for the City of Alexandria, to include paratransit, carpooling and active transportation. He and other members of the department have worked with Malouff et al. towards the development of cohesive transit improvements along the Route 1 corridor through and beyond Alexandria, as well as the mitigation of traffic problems from Pentagon mission growth in the city's suburban west end. He provided examples of bicycle infrastructure the City has provided both in the west end (to include trails and other separate-use facilities) as well as mixed-use infrastructure in the historic Old Town, and also explained the city's active-transportation expansion plans. (NB: Maslanka was the author's former employer.) Daniel Hoagland, interview by J.D. Hammond, Washington Area Bicyclist Association, March 9, 2011.
Dan Hoagland is the WABA bicycle ambassador to the greater Washington region. The interview discussed bicycle infrastructure and facilities plans for other jurisdictions in northern Virginia as well as plans to expand Capital Bikeshare. He expounded upon the issues of enabling localities to provide active transportation infrastructure in Virginia, being a “Dillon rule” state, and the vagaries of bicycle issues in Richmond, both in terms of the reception of the Commonwealth government and the transportation needs of the greater Richmond region. F Proposed bike station locations: