|
 |
FAQ's
: Bicycle Planning
Are states and cities required
to plan for bicycling and/or walking?
How much does it cost to
do a bicycle and/or pedestrian plan?
How much do bicycle and pedestrian
facilities cost?
Which are the best cities
for bicycling and walking?
Are states and cities required
to plan for bicycling and/or walking?
There is no legal requirement for states or cities to develop stand-alone
bicycle and/or pedestrian plans. However, bicyclists and pedestrians
must be considered in the statewide and metropolitan transportation
plans required by Federal law (TEA-21). A number of states and metropolitan
planning organizations (What is an MPO?) have chosen to develop separate
bicycle and pedestrian plans, and most have integrated bicycle and
pedestrian planning - to some degree, at least - in their overall
transportation plans. Significantly, bicycle and pedestrian projects
must be included in these planning documents to be eligible for federal
transportation funds.
More details:
In 1991, Congress passed the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency
Act (ISTEA) that created a new transportation planning process for
States and Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs). The process
was not altered significantly by the Transportation Equity Act for
the 21st Century (TEA-21), passed in 1998. Federal law requires states
and MPOs to plan for the "development and integrated management and
operation of transportation systems and facilities (including pedestrian
walkways and bicycle transportation facilities) that function as an
intermodal transportation system." State and MPO plans are further
required to consider projects and strategies to increase the safety
and security of the transportation system for nonmotorized users.
TEA-21 reiterates in the Bicycle Transportation and Pedestrian Walkways
section (1202) that planning for bicyclists and pedestrians should
be an integral part of the ongoing transportation planning process,
and that projects and programs identified in the planning process
should be implemented:
"Bicyclists and pedestrians shall be given due consideration in
the comprehensive transportation plans developed by each metropolitan
planning organization and State."
"Bicycle transportation facilities and pedestrian walkways shall
be considered, where appropriate, in conjunction with all new construction
and reconstruction and transportation facilities, except where bicycle
and pedestrian use are not permitted."
"Transportation plans and projects shall provide due consideration
for safety and contiguous routes for bicyclists and pedestrians."
Click here to read descriptions of statewide, regional and local planning
documents.
http://www.bicyclinginfo.org/pp/types/index.htm
Click here to access the Federal Highway Administration guidance on
implementing the Federal transportation law, including the planning
process.
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bikeped/BP-Guid.htm
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bikeped/inter.htm
Resources available from FHWA
FHWA-PD-97-053 Bicycle and Pedestrian Planning Under ISTEA
FHWA-HI-94-028 Bicycle and Pedestrian Planning (training course participant
workbook)
Order at: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bikeped/order.htm
How much does it cost
to do a bicycle and/or pedestrian plan?
Somewhere between $50,000 and $500,000! Obviously the answer depends
on a lot of variables and assumes that the development of the plan
will likely be done by outside consultants. Factors affecting the
cost include:
How big is the area and population covered by the plan?
Is the plan going to cover both bicycle and pedestrian issues
or just one of the two?
Is the plan primarily a policy document (setting standards,
policies, guidance etc) or will it result in the identification
of a network of facilities for bicyclists and pedestrians, and will
the planning extend to include engineering drawings and studies
for particular projects?
How much public involvement will there be?
How long will the plan take to complete?
Does the plan include a user map, or other significant printed
pieces? If so, how many copies will be printed, how many colors
used etc.?
Will the plan include a detailed assessment of bicycle and
pedestrian suitability or levels of service?
How sophisticated are the agencies involved? For example,
is this their first nonmotorized plan, or an update? Do they have
extensive GIS capabilities and experience or not?
So, a small city of 50,000 people might be able to develop a useful
plan for a bicycle network, which prioritizes projects and establishes
bicycling policies, for under $100,000. However, that amount of money
wouldn't go far in a city like Los Angeles or Chicago unless the plan
was primarily a policy document. Large cities, such as Philadelphia
or Houston, might need to spend $300,000 to $500,000 to get a plan
that identifies a network of bicycle facilities, rewrites city policy
and design manuals to include bicycling, and has an appropriate amount
of public involvement and outreach.
Few pedestrian-only plans have been developed in the United States,
and those cities that have adopted them - for example, the City of
Portland, Ore. - have often done the work in-house with their own
staff. The Maricopa Association of Governments Pedestrian Master Plan,
covering the Phoenix metro area, cost in the region of $200,000 and
included the development of new tools for analyzing pedestrian needs
and improvements.
How much do bicycle and
pedestrian facilities cost?
The answer depends a lot on whether the project involves purchasing
additional right of way, major drainage and ditch work, and other
important factors. The Oregon state bicycle and pedestrian plan, for
example, notes that "Bike lane striping can cost as little as $2,000
per mile, but reconstructing a roadway requiring right-of-way and
drainage improvements can cost as much as $2 million per mile." link
However, some states do provide estimates of the costs of bike facilities,
excluding the cost of purchasing right-of-way. (link to RTF)
Florida Department of Transportation (1999)
Bike path per mile, 12 foot wide, railroad conversion: $128,000
Bike lanes per mile, 5 foot each side, pavement extension: $189,000
Paved shoulders per mile, 5 foot each side, rural: $102,000
Bike lockers (for 2 bikes): $1,000
Virginia Department of Transportation (2000)
Bike path per mile, 10 foot wide: $92,000
Bike lanes per mile, 4 foot each side w/curb and gutter: $270,300
Bike lanes per mile 5 foot each side w/mountable curb: $281,100
Bike lane stripe, four inch line: 60 cents
per linear foot
Wide curb lane, 2 feet each side: $48,600
Paved shoulders per mile, 4 feet each side: $69,200
Bike locker (for 2 bikes): $670-$930
Bike rack (10-12 bikes): $325-$730
Wisconsin DOT Bicycle Transportation Plan
Wisconsin uses the "marginal cost" approach: the per unit costs
of bicycle improvements are those costs over and above the costs
of the project without bicycle accommodation. Typically, right-of-way
costs and the costs of relocating utilities are not included in
this estimate for bicycle facilities.
Paved shoulder, 3 feet both sides; over gravel shoulder: $20,000
per mile
Paved shoulder, 5 feet both sides; over gravel shoulder: $33,000
per mile
Wide curb lane (one or two feet added, both sides): $15-50,000
per mile
Bike lane, five/six feet, both sides: $25-90,000
per mile
Bike path (final limestone surface): $10,000
per mile
Bike path (asphalt, 12 feet, landscaped etc): $200,000
per mile min.
The wide curb lane and bike lane figures have a range that depends
on the use of asphalt versus concrete, width of lane as measured
from curb face.
Walking facility costs:
New York State DOT, Region 8 Cost Estimates,
1994
Sidewalk construction, 5 feet wide: $99,000
per mile, or $3.75 per sq. foot
Four-way pedestrian signal: $15,000 per unit
Striping, four inch stripes: $9,504 per mile,
or $1.80 per linear foot
Vermont Agency of Transportation, 1996
Asphalt sidewalk, 4 feet, no curb: $1.50
per sq. foot
Concrete sidewalk, 6 feet: $3.33 per sq.
foot
Striping, 12 inch strip: $1 per meter
Florida DOT, 1999
Sidewalks, both sides, 5 feet width: $46,000
per mile
Sidewalks, both sides, 6 feet width: $54,000
per mile
Walk/Don't Walk Signal System, four corners: $3,700
Maintenance costs:
Which are the best cities
for bicycling and walking?
Bicycling Magazine tries to answer this question every couple of years,
and you can find out their ranking by viewing this summary of their
findings. A new ranking of cities appears in the November 2001
issue of the magazine and features many of the same cities from previous
years. One issue they always have to deal with is size: there are
several smaller cities (e.g. Davis, Calif.; Gainesville, Fla.; Chico,
Calif.; Santa Barbara, Calif.; Corvallis, Ore.) that are bicycle-friendly
but Bicycling Magazine usually focuses on cities with a population
greater than 200,000.
Other ways to find out if your city is bicycle-friendly? Check with
the League
of American Bicyclists to see if they have designated your community
a "Bicycle Friendly Community". Their formal recognition program requires
certain conditions to have been met, including provision for bicyclists
on the ground, staff support and resources devoted to bicycling, and
other criteria.
Another good indication of bicycle-friendliness is the number of people
riding! Although it's not a perfect number, the decennial census tells
us how many people get to work by bicycle. In 1990, the metropolitan
areas with the most bicycle commuters were:
Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSA) |
|
Percent of journeys to work on bicycle |
|
Population |
|
Number
of people riding to work |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1. Chico, CA MSA |
|
3.9% |
|
69,561 |
|
2,727 |
2. Gainesville, FL MSA |
|
3.6% |
|
92,175 |
|
3,318 |
3. Santa Barbara-Santa Maria-Lompoc, CA MSA |
|
3.3% |
|
179,258 |
|
6,002 |
4. Eugene-Springfield, OR MSA |
|
2.9% |
|
126,571 |
|
3,659 |
5.
Bryan-College Station, TX MSA |
|
2.9% |
|
55,820 |
|
1,598 |
6.
Fort Collins-Loveland, CO MSA |
|
2.6% |
|
92,809 |
|
2,404 |
7. Madison, WI MSA |
|
1.9% |
|
204,399 |
|
3,970 |
8. Tucson, AZ MSA |
|
1.9% |
|
291,553 |
|
5,486 |
9. Champaign-Urbana-Rantoul, IL MSA |
|
1.8% |
|
89,190 |
|
1,638 |
10. Sacramento, CA MSA |
|
1.8% |
|
685,945 |
|
12,440 |
11. Iowa City, IA MSA |
|
1.7% |
|
53,410 |
|
922 |
12. Yuma, AZ MSA |
|
1.4% |
|
40,798 |
|
574 |
13. Phoenix, AZ MSA |
|
1.4% |
|
996,495 |
|
13,930 |
14. Honolulu, HI MSA |
< |
1.2% |
|
437,518 |
|
5,460 |
15. Boise City, ID MSA |
|
1.2% |
|
103,285 |
|
1,240 |
16. State College, PA MSA |
|
1.2% |
|
57,114 |
|
685 |
17. Provo - Orem, UT MSA |
|
1.2% |
|
104,035 |
|
1,224 |
18. Sarasota, FL MSA |
|
1.1% |
|
112,341 |
|
1,285 |
19. Bellingham, WA MSA |
|
1.1% |
|
60,439 |
|
680 |
20. Bloomington, IN MSA |
|
1.1% |
|
51,537 |
|
576 |
21.
San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose, CA MSA |
|
1.1% |
|
3,200,833 |
|
34,882 |
22. Merced, CA MSA |
|
1.1% |
|
68,697 |
|
732 |
23. Lawrence, KS MSA |
|
1.1% |
|
40,660 |
|
429 |
24. Albuquerque, NM MSA |
|
1.0% |
|
228,955 |
|
2,387 |
25.
Salinas-Seaside-Monterey, CA MSA |
|
1.0% |
|
164,270 |
|
1,665 |
The equivalent numbers for walking to work are:
Metropolitan
Statistical Areas (MSA) |
|
Percent of journeys to work by walking |
|
Population |
|
Number of people walking to work |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1. Jacksonville, NC MSA |
|
15.4% |
|
86,801 |
|
13,371 |
2. State College, PA MSA |
|
15.4% |
|
57,114 |
|
8,775 |
3. Iowa City, IA MSA |
|
13.3% |
|
53,410 |
|
7,114 |
4. Champaign - Urbana - Rantoul, IL MSA |
|
11.4% |
|
89,190 |
|
10,194 |
5. Lawton, OK MSA |
|
10.4% |
|
51,707 |
|
5,356 |
6. Lafayette - West Lafayette, IN MSA |
|
10.3% |
|
63,081 |
|
6,506 |
7. Bloomington, IN MSA |
|
9.6% |
|
51,537 |
|
4,949 |
8. Bloomington - Normal, IL MSA |
|
9.2% |
|
66,695 |
|
6,117 |
9. Killeen - Temple, TX MSA |
|
8.8% |
|
119,088 |
|
10,538 |
10. Madison, WI MSA |
|
8.2% |
|
204,399 |
|
16,859 |
11. Lawrence, KS MSA |
|
7.9% |
|
40,660 |
|
3,231 |
12. La Crosse, WI MSA |
|
7.8% |
|
49,125 |
|
3,820 |
13. Jamestown - Dunkirk, NY MSA |
|
7.5% |
|
61,148 |
|
4,582 |
14. Fayetville, NC MSA |
|
7.5% |
|
137,134 |
|
10,235 |
15. Clarksville - Hopkinsville, TN MSA |
|
7.4% |
|
83,872 |
|
6,245 |
16. Fargo - Moorhead, ND MSA |
|
7.3% |
|
78,446 |
|
5,741 |
17. Dubuque, IA MSA |
|
7.1% |
|
41,584 |
|
2,973 |
18. Salinas - Seaside - Monterey, CA MSA |
|
7.1% |
|
164,270 |
|
11,651 |
19. Burlington, VT MSA |
|
7.1% |
|
70,491 |
|
4,976 |
20. Columbus, GA MSA |
|
6.9% |
|
110,773 |
|
7,670 |
21. Muncie, IN MSA |
|
6.9% |
|
54,007 |
|
3,727 |
22. St. Cloud, MN MSA |
|
6.9% |
|
93,271 |
|
6,425 |
23. Wichita Falls, TX MSA |
|
6.8% |
|
56,615 |
|
3,831 |
24. Eau Claire, WI MSA |
|
6.7% |
|
63,584 |
|
4,291 |
25. Columbia, MO MSA |
|
6.6% |
|
56,860 |
|
3,774 |
There are also tools available to help you rate the walkability
and bicycle-friendliness of your community. The Walkability Checklist
(download the checklist at www.walkinginfo.org)
provides an easy-to-use form to fill out as you take a walk in your
neighborhood, and a bicycling equivalent is in the works.
|
|