Comparing Bicycle Plans: Seattle and D.C

2014
TO BIKE OR NOT TO BIKE?
Comparing Bicycle Master Plans for Seattle,
WA and Washington D.C.
Photo Credits to Joseph Siwa
Kenneth Rosales, UrbP 256, Serafin, 5/6/14

Introduction: What’s this Report About?
Comparing Bicycle Master Plans for Seattle, WA
and Washington D.C.
This report is an individually produced final assignment for a class known as UrbP 256: Introduction
to Local Transportation Planning instructed by Professor Eduardo Serafin in the Urban and
Regional Planning Masters Program at San Jose State University. The intent and purpose of this
assignment was to compare two Bicycle Master Plans from two cities and see “how they do or not
integrate their plans specific policies that promote” environmental sustainability (I.e. the natural
environment) and environmentally sound “behavior and infrastructure” (Serafin 2014, 16).
The city comparison project was broken down into three tasks: 1) Pick two cities to compare, 2)
Evaluate the Bicycle Master Plans, and 3) Writing up an evaluation. The chapters ahead will remind
the reader of a journal article, but with much more amusing titles. Chapter 2- “How Was it
Analyzed: The Comparison Matrix” of this report provides its audience with the methodology of
how the two Bicycle Master Plans were assessed, Chapter 3- “ “ calls for an in-depth review of the
results from analyzing the Bicycle Master Plans. The final chapter, Chapter – “ “ are filled with
concluding and suggestive thoughts for the two cities and beyond.
The cities I chose to compare were Seattle Washington and the nation’s capital, Washington D.C.
When picking these two cities, I considered several things: a) Were they roughly comparable in size,
density, and population? and b) Are they known to be a bicycle-friendly city? To determine the
former, I looked up 2010 census data and citydata.com and for the latter, I read the article
“America’s Most Bikeable Neighborhoods” by Richard Florida (2013) from the renowned “The
Atlantic Cities” information house on urban and regional planning research, studies, and news.
1

City of Seattle, Washington
The City of Seattle lies within the state of Washington. It has a population of 608,660 people, a land
area of 83.9 square miles, and a population density of 7,565 people per square mile (U.S. Census
Bureau 2014 and City-Data.com). Seattle has a Median Household Income of $63,470 and an
unemployment rate of 6.7% (U.S. Census Bureau 2014).
Seattle completed and adopted their latest Bicycle Master Plan in April 2014 by the Seattle
Department of Transportation [SDOT] (Figure 1).
Figure 1 Seattle, Washington’s Bicycle Master Plan Cover (City of Seattle 2014a, Cover)

Washington, District of Colombia
Washington is a district and the United States of America’s capitol. It has a population of 601,723
people, a land area of 61.4 square miles, and a population density of 10,298 people per square mile
(U.S. Census Bureau 2014 and City-Data.com). Washington D.C. has a Median Household Income
of $64,267 and an unemployment rate of 10.5% (U.S. Census Bureau 2014).
The District finished and adopted their latest Bicycle Master Plan by the District Department of
Transportation (DDOT) in April 2005 (Figure 2).
Figure 2 Seattle, Washington’s Bicycle Master Plan Cover
(City of Seattle 2014a, Cover)

Why Seattle and the District?
The City of Seattle and the District of Colombia are very similar in size, population, density, and
demographics. When I chose Seattle as my first city to study, I had trouble finding another city to
compare that was similar in population, size, density, and progressiveness. When I found the District
as one of the most bicycle friendly cities in the United States through “The Atlantic Cities” article
and compared its characteristics to Seattle through U.S. Census American Fact Finder and
CityData.com, I knew that this provided the perfect condition to conduct and comparative research
between the two Bicycle Master Plans (See Table 1 and Figure 3 for spatial orientation).
Table 1 Table showing common data sets of Seattle, WA and Washington D.C.
Figure 3 Google Map spatially orienting the reader where Seattle, WA and Washington D.C. are located in the United
States (Google Maps 2014).

Methods: How was it Analyzed?
The Comparison Matrix
I created a comparison matrix in the form of a table as an evaluation tool to assess how the
bicycle master plans for Seattle, WA and Washington D.C. compare and contrast in quality to one
another (See Appendix). The criterions placed in the far left hand column were meant to analyze
seven sections: 1) Environment, Sustainability, & Health, 2) Community, Equity, and Government,
3) Existing Conditions & Bicycle Networks, 4) Design Standards, 5) Service & Traffic Impact
Analysis, 6) Funding & Implementation. A total of 29 criterions in the form of questions were in all
seven sections. The second and fourth columns represented the scores given to each plan. This
scoring system is based on Tang et al. (2010) and Kowshal (2012) where climate action plans and
environmental impact reports’ (from the California environmental quality act [CEQA]) greenhouse
gas sections were respectively analyzed for their quality. They used three quality indicators:
Awareness, Analysis, and Action. Each indicator was given a score out of 10 based on a numerical
system from zero to three for each of their evaluation protocol which were weighted using a
statistical tool known as Chronbach’s Alpha. Based on the documents they analyzed, a zero
represented a protocol that was missing, a one symbolized if their protocol was mentioned, but had
no detailed information, and a two was assigned to a protocol that was discussed in great detail.
However, due to my limited understanding of these complex statistical tools I will use a
more basic structure. Since each section (quality indicator) has more questions (evaluation protocol)
than others then each section is weighted more than other. Perhaps there is a flaw in this, but
nonetheless, each city has a standard to reach by a total score in each section and cumulatively
overall.
2

I adapted the scores used by Tang (2010) and Kowshal (2012) from zero to two with the
same definitions to each (Figure 4). Cumulatively, each city has a total of 58 points they can gain (2
possible points x 29 criterions/questions = 58 total possible points).
Figure 4 A snapshot of how the matrix comparison table looks like. Note the rows and categories.
Please Turn Page

Results: Which Plan is More Bike-
Friendly?
Preferring Seattle Over the District
This chapter provides the reader with a profound review of the results generated from the
comparison matrix table. Each subheading will provide the results of each subsection of the
comparison matrix per city/district (Figures 6, 12, 16, 23, 31, 32, and 34). I suggest using the matrix
(appendix) as a guide to fully comprehend the analysis. For reference of the final results in graph
form see below for figure 5.
Figure 5 Total Score of each section plan via the Matrix
38.75
34
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Seattle The District
SectionScoreOutof58
Grand Total
3

8.75
5.25
0
2
4
6
8
10
SectionScoreoutof12
Environment, Economy,
& Health
Environment, Economy, & Health
Seattle: 8.75/12 l The District: 5.5/12
Seattle The Seattle Plan’s “strongest suit”
was its discussion on health. It had an in-depth
conversation about the concern of children’s
health and the nation’s (which also reflect Seattle)
high obesity and diabetes rates and reduction in
walking and bicycling rates [Figure 7] (City of
Seattle 2014a, 5). The Plan, however, fails to
provide a much more profound discussion on the health of disenfranchised communities. Are
disenfranchised children in worse shape than the privileged? The discussion of health could have
provided much more depth, especially in the equity sector.
Further, the environmental section briefly mentions the negative impacts from transportation such
as its link to polluting water and air (City of Seattle 2014a, 6). Seattle’s plan also briefly mentions the
significance of Vehicle Miles Traveled and its
connection to “fossil fuel burning vehicles”
and how bicycling can reduce these impacts
and “improve and protect Seattle’s natural
environment while reducing carbon
emissions” (City of Seattle 2014a, 6). Seattle’s
plan introduction quickly described how its
approach to “expanding and enhancing active
Figure 7 Chart from the Seattle Plan showing the
correlation between walking/biking rates and childhood
obesity on an nation-wide scale (City of Seattle 2014a, 5).
transportation” was a “stepping stone” towards achieving its Climate Action Plan goals (City of
Seattle 2014a, 6). The Seattle plan’s introduction also had a pie chart showing the city’s greenhouse
Figure 6 Graph showing results of the first section of the
Matrix.

gas profile with transportation contributing the most to climate change [Figure 8] (City of Seattle
2014a, 6).
Although the introduction could have gone into
more depth about the environmental impacts of
transportation, the third chapter titled as “Policy
Framework” had an entire subheading dedicated
to Seattle’s Climate Action Plan [CAP]
(reference/citation provided) describing in detail
what policy actions to reduce greenhouse gases
[GHG] (per the CAP) are going to be made
within the plan (City of Seattle 2014a, 32).
However, the significance about climate change
(such as its impacts why it’s so important to
reduce GHGs) was not discussed. This was also
true about air and water pollution.
Figure 8 Seattle’s greenhouse gas profile by sector
(City of Seattle 2014a, 6).
The Seattle Plan described its goals, targets, and policy framework to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions and promotion of sustainable travel through Climate Action Plan and Comprehensive
Plan, however, it doesn’t specifically describe or calculate how much GHG emissions will be
reduced. For example, one of its goals in the Climate Action Plan (integrated to the Bicycle Master
Plan) is to provide “bicycle facility within ¼ mile of every home in Seattle” (City of Seattle 2014a, 31
and 32). How many GHG emissions does one bicycle facility reduce? How are they measuring their
progress? Who is measuring this progress and how often and who is this information being reported
to? These details are missing.
The Seattle Plan had an entire subsection dedicated to “Economic and Community Development”
in “Chapter 6: Programs.” The main focus of this section was to describe the support of “economic
and community development” through bicycle related activities [Figure 9] (City of Seattle 2014a, 90).
In particular, their actions included the promotion of bicycle and tourism programs in business
districts to create “more livable and vibrant communities” (City of Seattle 2014a, 90).

In “Chapter 7: Implementation Approach,” Seattle’s Plan described its interdepartmental approach
in enhancing the local economy by having their Office of Economic Development produce pre and
post analyses, reports, and “intercept surveys” to measure and communicate the economic success
the Plan (I.e. new design and facilities) has on a “neighborhood and city-wide scale, include tourism”
Unfortunately, the Seattle Plan did not go into
depth about how bicycle infrastructure impacts the
local economy. I could not find any information
about how increasing bicycle trips have a positive
impact on the City of Seattle’s economy. Does
increased use of bicycles increase business? Does it
save significant costs for people? I also couldn’t
find information about how high automobile use
denigrates Seattle’s economy (or if it does). In
other words, readers may pose the questions “so
Figure 9 Seattle’s advertisement on economic
Prosperity (City of Seattle 2014a, 90).
what,” “why”, and/or “how? Overall, the Seattle Plan for this subsection was solid.
Washington D.C. The Washington D.C. plan’s strongest discussion was the economic
benefits bicycling can bring to the District. It included a small discussion on the questions I posed in
the Seattle Plan. For example, the District’s plan quotes “A motor vehicle is the second highest
household expense after housing itself” (District of Colombia 2005, 11). This quote even provided a
citation to its stated facts. The D.C. Plan also included a small discussion on the importance of
tourism and how there is a new market segment for “active tourism” [Figure 10] (District of
Colombia 2005, 11). Tourism was the most important factor in economic gains for the D.C. Plan
since the only policy recommendation it had for economic sustainability is for “active travelers.”
Like the Seattle Plan, it provided a detailed description of interdepartmental collaboration including
working partnerships with tourism companies (something Seattle didn’t have) to cater to the idea of
D.C. becoming an “active vacation destination” (District of Colombia 2005, 41). They provided a
large breadth of reasoning for it as well. For example, “Outdoor recreation is the second most

popular activity for leisure travelers, behind shopping.’ ‘About 27 million travelers took bicycling
vacations in the past five years, making bicycling one of the top three most popular outdoor
vacation activities’” (District of Colombia 2005, 41).
Nonetheless, the D.C. plan suffered from more thorough
discussion actual economic benefits bicycling can bring to
a city. Have there been analyses made before? Is there
another city that has gained copious amounts of revenue
from increased bicycle use? The Washington D.C. plan
did not even mention the term “climate change” in its
entire plan (using the control + f function). However, it
had a breadth of information on air pollution in its
introduction chapter under the heading “Environmental
Benefits” (District of Colombia
Figure 10 A picture in the D.C. Plan portraying
the importance of bicycling for tourists
(District of Colombia 2005, 11)
2005, 11). This section went into detail about
how the District is in non-attainment for ground
level ozone and how bicycling can reduce these
levels along with fuel use [Figure 11].
Additionally, D.C.’s plan quickly described how
transportation pollution contributes to the
contamination of one of its rivers, the Anacostia
River. Unfortunately, the District’s plan’s
discussion on environmental sustainability ended
Figure 11 A picture in the D.C. Plan portraying the
importance of bicycling for tourists
(District of Colombia 2005, 11)
at the introduction. Further, the Washington D.C. Plan did not include any policies specific to
reducing air pollutants, such as providing reduction targets per pollutant by a certain year and how
they will measure it. Further, no discussion on GHG reduction was made. Nonetheless, the entire
Plan was dedicated to reducing pollutants. The D.C. Plan was extremely deficient in its discussion

on health. It was so short, I can provide the entire description here: “Increased levels of bicycling
will improve the health of District residents.’ ‘Biking to the store, school or work provides a time-
efficient, low cost way of attaining the U S Surgeon General’s recommended daily allowance of
physical activity.’ ‘Bicycle exercise can help reduce heart disease, diabetes, and other chronic illnesses
among District residents’” (District of Colombia 2005, 11). The only other discussion on health was
in the Plan’s implementation section. It also detailed the District’s concern on childhood health, but
it was odd that it was mentioned later in the Plan rather than at the beginning. No conversation
about the link between health and equity was found.
Community, Equity, & Government
Seattle Seattle’s Plan had a “prioritization
framework” that includes 1) The improvement of
safety; 2) Enhancement of connectivity; 3)
Advocacy for equity concerns; 4) Increase in
ridership; and enhancement of livability (City of
Seattle 2014a, 5). Their equity component includes
public engagement, deliverables, and economic
investment.
The Seattle Plan provided an in-depth conversation about the inequities that exist in Seattle. The
Plan’s introduction held a discussion on equity as a subsection which provided statistics of bicycle
use between races (primarily White identified individuals bike75% to 83%), car ownership
percentages between varying demographics
such as age, illnesses, disabilities, and
income [Figure 13] (City of Seattle 2014a,
7). About 16 percent of Seattle residents do
not own a car, thus, inclining Seattle to
provide different forms of transportation to
get around (City of Seattle 2014a, 7).
5.75
3.5
0
2
4
6
8
SectionScoreOutof6
Community, Equity, &
Government
Figure 12 Graph showing results of the second section of
the Matrix.
Figure 13 Graph showing of bicycle use distribution in Seattle by
race and ethnicity (City of Seattle 2014a, 7).

Under “Chapter 2: State of the Seattle Bicycling Environment” of the Seattle Plan, an entire
subsection is dedicated for the results of an equity analysis that was conducted. The analysis called
for identifying areas where there are high numbers of underserved demographics (using census data)
coupled with a disparate amount of bicycle facilities [using calculations of miles of bicycle
facilities/sq. miles per Census Tract] (City of Seattle 2014a, 18).
The Plan also integrated equity in its goals and implementation in accordance with Seattle’s
Comprehensive Plan and Race and Social Justice Initiative (City of Seattle 2014a, 82, 88, 94, 95, and
96).
Although the Plan provided specific integration of its Comprehensive Plan and equity, the Plan
failed to describe what their “Race and Social Justice Initiative” (mentioned numerous times) is and
how the Plan is related to it.
Seattle’s Plan went through a public
engagement process with the intent to a)
reach out beyond their current bicycle
community (E.g. residents, businesses,
employees, and property owners); b)
incentivize infrequent or potential
bicyclists of the new and improved bicycle
network (implemented from previous
Plans) to provide their recommendations;
c) update the Plan by creating strategies to
broaden the bicycle community from a
niche to the entire city; and d)to gain more
details about how bicycling can help
“build vibrant, livable
communities and produce safer streets”
[Figure 14] (City of Seattle 2014a, 9). The Seattle Bicycle Advisory Board (SBAB) was the “primary”
Advisory Committee for the 2013 Seattle Plan, which comprises of community members (City of
Seattle 2014a, 9).
Figure 14 Picture showing the Seattle community engaged in
the bicycle master planning process (City of Seattle 2014a, 9).

The Advisory Committee had a three phase community engagement project which had different
intents unique from each other: 1) Gather data through survey tools, mapping, and community
meetings to find out what can encourage more bicycle users in general (and identifying what the
barriers are); 2) Reviewing/revising past policy frameworks, draft bicycle network map, and new
implementation strategies; and 3) gain community insight about the draft plan (City of Seattle 2014a,
9). Each phase was composed of several community meetings, not just one for each phase, however,
it did not provide specific numbers such as the number of participants at each community event (or
overall) and the number of community hearings they held (City of Seattle 2014a, 9). This
information was better described in the appendices (especially the data collected from participants),
but it would have been nice to have seen participation details in the plan so people can see the
“critical mass” of people engaged in the planning process. This level of detail would have also
helped in providing information about how successful the engagement process was in meeting its
goals.
Lastly, Seattle’s plan successfully described which departments the department of transportation,
bicycle board, and advisory committee needs to work with (or had worked with) for the public
engagement process, goal settings, policy recommendations, and plan implementation. Seattle had a
great public participation process.
Washington D.C. The District’s engagement process was similar to Seattle’s, it too also
had its Bicycle Advisory Council (BAC) as the “guidance committee,” worked with the District
Department of Transportation [DDOT] (District of Colombia 2005, 12). The Plan provided the
specific number of participants (150) involved in the outreach process as well as total commenting
(over 1,000). Although the D.C. Plan doesn’t provide a specific number of meetings held it does,
however, provide the entire community engagement calendar (District of Colombia 2005, 12). The
D.C. engagement process had two monthly meetings from 2003 to 2005, special webpage with
online comment option (2003), survey form distribution (May 2003), bicycle tours and workshops
[total of eight] (April to July 2003), draft plan reviews [May 2004] (District of Colombia 2005, 12).

The D.C. public participation process was
almost able to fit all of the criteria, but it did
not mention the collaboration of other
committees or departments. This may be
because there were no working partnerships.
Additionally, the purpose of the community
engagement process was unclear, descriptions
were absent.
Unfortunately, no discussion on equity
existed in the District Plan except for one
sentence in its introduction under the
economic benefits subsection and two in the
“Bicycling Today” subheading: “The option of
bicycling can improve the mobility of the
275,000 District residents without access to a car and allow some households to own one vehicle
instead of two” (District of Colombia 2005, 11). The second comment on equity is stated as such:
“Almost thirty-seven percent of DC households do not have access to a motor vehicle.’
‘Approximately 275,000 District residents live in households without an automobile or are too
young for a driver’s license”’ (District of Colombia 2005, 6).
Existing Conditions, Bicycle
Networks, & Maps
Seattle: 6/8 l The District: 7.25/8
Seattle The Seattle Plan provided its
readers with an extremely detailed description
of its existing conditions of bicycle facilities.
This information was found throughout
several sections of the plan such as the
Figure 15 Pie graph showing the District populace’s
preference to bicycle facilities. These results came from
community engagement workshops, meetings, and from
surveys (District of Colombia 2005, 12).
Figure 16 Graph showing results of the third d section of the
Matrix.
6
7.25
0
2
4
6
8
SectionScoreOutof8
Existing Conditions,
Bicycle Newtworks, &
Maps

Executive Summary, the Introduction, “Chapter 2:
State of the Seattle Bicycling Environment,”
“Chapter 4: The Bicycle Network,” and “Chapter
5: End of Trip Facilities.” Although there was no
specific methodology in calculating (through
formulas and theory) the conditions of streets, the
data that the Commission and SDOT collected
were all from the public engagement process
through surveys, public meetings, and workshops
(City of Seattle 2014a, i-vii, and 14-74 and City of
Seattle 2014b, 23-36). They asked the public where
they deemed the safest and most dangerous areas
to bicycle (City of Seattle 2014a, i-vii, and 14-74
and City of Seattle 2014b, 23-36). Further studies
of street conditions were referred to City of Seattle
adopted Complete Streets policy, Safe Routes to
School program, and the Washington
Neighborhood Safe Streets Bill enacted by the state
(City of Seattle 2014a, 4, 31, and 37).
Bicycle to work data, however, was difficult to
find. The Seattle Plan briefly mentioned bicycle
commuting information in its introduction
celebrating its achievements of being one of the
cities with the largest bike to work rates in the
country (City of Seattle 2014a, 1). The details,
however, were mainly in the appendices (City of
Seattle 2014b, 23). It turns out that people in the
City of Seattle primarily bicycle for work commutes:
“When asked what the purpose of their most recent trip was, 65% of respondents said that it was a
commute trip, 25% recreation, and only 7% shopping/errands and 5% visit
friends/entertainment/social” [Figure 17 & 18] (City of Seattle 2014b, 23).
Figure 17 Visual showing cities with highest bicycle
commute rates (City of Seattle 2014b, 23).
Figure 18 Bar graph showing Seattle’s bicycle use
types within seven days (City of Seattle 2014b, 23).

Maps and tables were found for existing bicycle facilities and preferred and non-preferred bicycle
routes [See attached Seattle network map] (City of Seattle 2014a, 15-24).
The Seattle Department of
Transportation conducts collision
studies due to the fact that one of the
Plan’s goals is to “reduce the collision
rate by one third between 2007 and
2017” (City of Seattle 2014a, 23 and City
of Seattle 2014b, 66-67). So far, they
claim to have reduced crash rates from
“0.158 per cyclist in 2007 to 0.105 per
cyclist in 2011” [Figure 19] (City of Seattle 2014a, 23 and City of Seattle 2014b, 66-67).
.
Although the Seattle Plan provided a reduction of collisions, it did not provide a visual to see where
the bicycle crashes occur in Seattle. The Seattle Plan included revised goals, action guidelines,
interdepartmental collaborative policies, and enhanced bicycle facility designs to reduce collisions.
The Seattle Plan went above and beyond. In addition to a “master” recommended map, it had a
variety of maps that are addendums to the “Existing” and “Completed” bicycle facilities maps,
including the “Gaps in the Existing Bicycle Network” and “Recommended All Ages and Abilities
Bicycle Network” maps (City of Seattle 2014a, 15-17 and 49). “As of 2013, the bicycle network in
Seattle is over 300 miles, including 78 miles of bicycle and climbing lanes, 92 miles of shared lane
pavement markings, 6 miles of neighborhood greenways, 47 miles of multi-use trails, 128 miles of
signed routes, and over 2 miles of other on- and off-street bicycle facilities” (City of Seattle 2014a,
14).
Although the Seattle Plan did address the concern of bicycle stress and included the identification of
problem bicycling areas through public engagement and its resolution of a “Gaps in the Existing
Bicycle Network” map, the Plan did not specifically include a stress map.
Figure 19 Graph showing Seattle’s decrease in bicycle collisions
since their 2007 Bicycle Master Plan was adopted (City of Seattle
2014a, 23 and City of Seattle 2014b, 66-67)

Washington D.C. The District Plan had a simple and quick mentioning of its current
conditions of bicycle facilities in bulleted form under its “Bicycling Today” subsection of the
Introduction. “Currently, the District has 17 miles of bike lanes, 50 miles of bike paths, and 64 miles
of bicycle routes (see Map 2. Existing Facilities Map)” (District of Colombia 2005, 6).
Early in 2003, the District of Colombia’s Department of
Transportation conducted a “roadway inventory” with 406
miles of field measurements recorded on the largest arterial
and connector roads (45% of all D.C. streets) using
“scientifically-calibrated Bicycle Level of Service (Bicycle
LOS) Model” accounting for “shoulder width, speed limit,
pavement condition, and on-street parking data” and
bicyclist comfort level [Figure 20] (District of Colombia
2005, 13). D.C. found that “Most of the downtown streets
and major arteries between downtown and the suburbs had
grades of D or lower” (District of Colombia 2005, 13). A map
of the Bicycle LOS results was kindly provided in the D.C.
Plan (District of Colombia 2005, 14). This data was also coupled with public participants of surveys,
workshops, and bicycle tours (District of Colombia 2005, 12-13).
An entire map was created to depict bicycle commuting in
the District Plan. “More than 5% of workers commute by
bicycle in several District of Colombia Neighborhoods”
[Figure 20] (District of Colombia 2005, 6). The 5% work
commute by bicycle figure was touted and enlarged in the
District Plan. In fact, this message (with a lower percentage)
was also presented in the Seattle Plan (City of Seattle 2014a,
1).
The D.C. Plan addressed bicycle crashes as a significant problem for bicyclists (District of Colombia
2005, 10, 12, 16, 28, 30, 36, 37, and 43). The crashes recorded in the D.C. Plan are referenced from
Figure 20 Table showing Bicycle Level of
Service analysis results in the District (District
of Colombia 2005, 13).
Figure 21 A fact that the District enlarged
in its bicycle plan.

the District’s police department and they acknowledged that not all crash incidents are reported
(District of Colombia 2005, 10, 12, 16, 28, 30, 36, 37, and 43). The Plan even provided an
informative and readable map that illustrates crash incidents in the District (District of Colombia
2005, 10, 12, 16, 28, 30, 36, 37, and 43). The D.C. Plan included revised goals, action guidelines,
interdepartmental collaborative policies, and enhanced bicycle facility designs to reduce collisions
(District of Colombia 2005, 10, 12, 16, 28, 30, 36, 37, and 43).
The D.C. Plan provided its readers with a detailed map of the Pan’s
proposed bicycle network/facilities under-laid by the existing network to
measure its goals (District of Colombia 2005, 16). The D.C. Plan,
however, did not go above and beyond the Seattle Plan in providing an
equity map such as the “Recommended All Ages and Abilities Bicycle
Nework,” therefore it deserves a lower score (City of Seattle 2014a, 49 and
District of Colombia 2005, 16).
The D.C. Plan did not provide a Stress Map as I was specifically looking
for, but I figured that the stress map they provided was in the form of
their Bicycle Level of Service where a grade of an “F” stands for a very
low level of comfort for a bicyclist (District of Colombia 2005, 14).
Unfortunately, the map was extremely cluttered and difficult to read (District of Colombia 2005, 14).
Design Standards
Seattle: 6/8 l The District: 2.5/8
Seattle The Seattle Plan included the
exact same type of bicycle facilities framework as
suggested in the Washington County toolkit (one
of references that recommends this in Plans)
[Figure 24]. In fact, Seattle had updated their
city’s condition of what type of bicyclists their
city had in 2013 (City of Seattle 2014a, 3).
Figure 22 Another enlarged
text in the District Plan
explaining the average
number of crashes bicyclists
go through in Washington
D.C.
6
2.5
0
2
4
6
8
SectionScoreOutof8
Design Standards
Figure 23 Graph showing results of the fourth d section of
the Matrix.

The Seattle Plan also included a “Facility
Designation Guideline,” an “Intersection
Treatment Selection Table,” a “Strategies
and Actions: Bicycle Facility Design”
table, a “Bicycle Facilities Visual
Glossary,” a “Multimodal Corridor
Decision Making Process” Chart, and a
“Strategies and Actions: Multimodal
Corridors” table, and a “Visual Guide to
Bicycle Parking” (City of Seattle 2014a,
35-76).
The entire Plan’s design guidelines was
comprehensive, it includes street and off
street bicycle lanes, cycle tracks, business
access and transit lanes, intersection
treatments, overpasses, underpasses,
traffic signals, bicycle signals/ “green
wave” signal timing, railroad crossings,
way-findings, and elaborate signage
(City of Seattle 2014a, 35-76). The
Seattle Plan includes a map of all bicycle
facilities, but not as specific to delineate
whether if a “bike lane” is protected or
buffered, and so on (City of Seattle
2014a, 16).
The Seattle Plan’s design guidelines also
provided many creative designs and
programs for bicycle facilities. It even
includes an entire chapter dedicated to
Figure 24 This is a facility designation guideline Seattle uses to
identify different types of bicyclists and provide specific bicycle
facilities for them (City of Seattle 2014a, 3).
Figure 25 One of four design ideas that were the most creative to
me, this one is known as the “Green Wave” (City of Seattle 2014a,
35-76)

“end of trip” bicycle facilities such as parking, lockers,
and showers. Some of the designs that stuck out include
the “green wave signal timing,” “half signal (pedestrian
and bicycle signals),” the differentiation between a cycle
track and bicycle lane, and “bicycle forward stop bar”
[Figures 25-28] (City of Seattle 2014a, 35-76).
Bicycle parking had been greatly considered in the
Seattle Plan. The Plan conveniently includes city parking
regulations and even provides an inventory of bicycle
parking and how to maintain them and potentially
provide more bicycle parking (City of Seattle 2014a, 35-
80). One of the strategies the Plan included was the
development of a bicycle parking implementation
program which is described in more detail in the
implementation chapter (City of Seattle 2014a, 81).
Some of the most innovative parking strategies found
were 1) temporary event parking (for short term users)
and 2) Way-finding parking signs [for long-term users]
(City of Seattle 2014a, 78-79).
Assuming the bicyclist population increases, the Seattle
Plan did not integrate design features for other transport
vehicles such as buses, trains, and taxi cabs.
Please turn to the next page.
Figure 26 Two of four design ideas that were
the most creative to me, this one is known as
the “Half Signal” (City of Seattle 2014a, 35-76).
Figure 27 Three of four design ideas that
were the most creative to me, this one is
known as the “Street Level Cycle Track”
Figure 28 Four of four design ideas that were
the most creative to me, this one is known as
the “Bicycle Forward Stop Bar” (City of Seattle
2014a, 35-76).

Washington D.C. The District of Colombia did not have a design guideline within the
Plan, but it had a “District of Columbia Bicycle Facility Design Guidelines” document (District of
Colombia 2005, 23 and 32). The Plan did provide a description of most common bicycle facilities
with pictures for visual awareness, however, no URL link is provided. The description focused
mainly on lanes, including treatments for bicycle lanes, bus/bike lanes, and trails (District of
Colombia 2005, 23).
The D.C. Plan did not go into full
description about their most innovative
designs for bicycle facilities, however, they do
have a separate document for their designs
which may have a much more in-depth
conversation on this topic. Nonetheless,
some of the most innovative designs that
stuck out in the Plan itself are 1) Exclusive
bus and bicycle lanes and 2) Bicycle boxes
[Figure 29] (District of Colombia 2005, 24).
No exclusive parking facilities chapter was included in
the D.C. Plan, but enhanced bicycle parking facilities was
discussed on several occasions. Some of the D.C. Plan’s
recommended policies for bicycle parking include: 1)
Providing bicycle parking at privately-owned buildings,
2) Provide bicycle parking at rental stations, 3) Increase
bicycle parking at malls, 4) Enhancing existing bicycle
parking at transit stations by providing more light,
shelter, signage, and 5) Establishing a bicycle facility
maintenance hotline [Figure 30] (District of Colombia
2005, 25, 27, 33, and 35).
Figure 29 Two of D.C.’s top design ideas that “spoke out to
me” – Bus only lanes and bicycle boxes at intersections
(District of Colombia 2005, 24).
Figure 30 D.C. recommended a “free
guarded parking” area at transit stations for
bicycle commuters (District of Colombia 2005,
25, 27, 33, and 35).

The total downsides to the D.C. Plan in this design guidelines section are: 1) It did not have a bicycle
facility framework to analyze different types of bicyclists and 2) D.C. did not integrate design
features for other transport vehicles such as buses, trains, and taxi cabs.
Service & Traffic Impact
Assessment
Seattle: 1.5/10 l The District: 5/10
Seattle The strongest area in Seattle’s Plan
was its discussion on multimodal assessment.
The Seattle Plan provides an entire
subsection dedicated to the explanation of
the importance for multimodal corridors, its
connection to the city’s Complete Streets policy, and its integration (through maps, goals, strategies,
and implementation) with the Plan under “Chapter 4: The Bicycle Network” (City of Seattle 2014a,
65-74). However, any further discussion on the exact quantitative analysis used is non-existent.
Nonetheless, the Plan did mention that there are calculations used in the Complete Streets policy
that considers varying modes of transportation.
However, Seattle did not: 1) Include a way to quantify traffic or congestion in bicycle facilities
including, but not limited to: travel time, speed, delay, travel time, speed, and delay, queue, stops,
density, and travel-time variance, 2) Provide a level of comfort calculation/bicycle level of service
for existing or future bicycle infrastructure, and 3) Utilize criterions based on traffic impact analyses.
Washington D.C. The District is Seattle’s counterpart in this section and is a winner!
The District of Colombia’s Department of Transportation conducted a “roadway inventory” with
406 miles of field measurements recorded on the largest arterial and connector roads (45% of all
D.C. streets) using “scientifically-calibrated Bicycle Level of Service (Bicycle LOS) Model”
accounting for “shoulder width, speed limit, pavement condition, and on-street parking data” and
bicyclist comfort level (District of Colombia 2005, 13).
Figure 31 Graph showing results of the fifth d section of
the Matrix.
1.5
5
0
2
4
6
SectionScoreOutof10
Service and Traffic
Impact Assessment

The D.C. Plan mentioned and emphasized multi-modal assessment. “This plan emphasizes
providing a multi-modal transportation system, including a “world class bicycle transportation
network”. The Action Plan (Action Item 7.17) called for the development of District-wide “bicycle
spine network,” to connect existing, dedicated bicycle paths with one another and with new paths
and dedicated bicycle lanes. The District is currently updating their [Long Range Transportation
Plan] LRTP, which includes a multi-modal analysis of 27 roadway corridors. “The LRTP update
provides an opportunity to update and expand upon the recommendations for bicycle facilities and
policies” (District of Colombia 2005, 17). The Plan, however, did not go any further than this. It did
not mention Level of Service specific to its multi-modal action plan.
Nonetheless, the District’s Plan fell short in several areas in this section, it lacked: 1) Measure of
Effectiveness- A way to quantify traffic or congestion in bicycle facilities including, but not limited
to: travel time, speed, delay, travel time, speed, and delay, queue, stops, density, and travel-time
variance and 2) The utilization of criterions that are based on traffic impact analyses.
Guiding Principles, Laws,
& Policies
Seattle: 6/8 l The District: 6/8
Seattle The Seattle Plan had
entire chapters dedicated to policies,
goals, and guiding principles. It even
successfully integrates several key laws
and policies while others are only
mentioned without detailed
descriptions. For example, the titles of
the chapters make it very clear to the reader on where to find policies, goals, and implementation:
“Chapter 3: Policy Framework” and “Chapter 7: Implementation Approach” (City of Seattle 2014a,
26, 92).
Figure 31 Graph showing results of the fifth d section of
the Matrix.
6 6
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
SectionScoreOutof8
Guiding Principles, Laws, &
Policies
Figure 32 Graph showing results of the sixth section of the Matrix.

The Seattle Plan used several city adopted laws and policies such as Seattle’s Comprehensive Plan,
Climate Action Plan, and Complete Streets Policy to build visions, goals, objectives, strategies, and
actions around it. “The BMP exists on a foundation of citywide planning policy, while its policy
framework enhances the details and intent of past city plans” (City of Seattle 2014a, 27).
The Seattle Plan used a vision statement as a
preliminary way to set goals: “Riding a bicycle is a
comfortable and integral part of daily life in Seattle for
people of all ages and abilities” (City of Seattle 2014a,
26).
As mentioned earlier, the Seattle Plan had five
“prioritization framework” or main goals, they
include: 1) Ridership Increase, 2) Improve Safety, 3)
Create Connectivity, 4) Provide Equitable Bicycling,
and 5) Increase Livability, Vibrancy, and Healthiness
(City of Seattle 2014a, 26). To provide further
reinforcement to the goals and vision, the Seattle Plan
established six objectives to “summarize how the
goals of the plan will be achieved” (City of Seattle
2014a, 26).
The Seattle Plan had a prioritization framework for
bicycle improvements and maintenance that are based
on a series of factors including: 1) Quantitative: Is the
maintenance or improvement fit within the context of
the Seattle Plan’s goals (with safety and connectivity
the most important)?, 2) Whether the facility is in a
citywide network or local connectors, 3) Time
sensitivity (is it an strategy/action that needs to be finished per the Plan), 4) A five tier system of
priority (which one will be finished first?), and 5) Qualitative: This is based on funding leverage,
policies, community interest, and geographic balance [Figure 33] (City of Seattle 2014a, 101-108).
Figure 33 The Prioritization Process Seattle created
maintenance, upgrades, or anything involved
with bicycle facilities and programs (City of Seattle
2014a, 101-108).

The Seattle Plan did not have a specific section or chapter dedicated to benchmarking, but they are
embedded in its strategies and action sections of all their goals.
The Seattle Plan had an entire chapter on programs known as “Chapter 6: Programs.” The chapter
includes education, safety, and enforcement programs. The education and safety programs mainly
involved the discussion on kids, schools, bicycle education, and licensing programs (City of Seattle
2014a, 88, 97, and 107). The Plan also included the research and collaboration with state
government in including requirements of bicycle awareness for drivers when attaining drivers
licenses (City of Seattle 2014a, 88, 97, and 107). However, the enforcement section lacked significant
detail. Nonetheless, many enforcement strategies and actions were included in the Plan’s
implementation, funding, and interdepartmental collaboration descriptions (I.e. Seattle Police
Department). The Seattle Plan includes collision reporting, but lacks infraction and red light
“running” laws, but again, its strategies and actions may include it in the future. For example, the
Seattle Plan states “Develop a process for analyzing police reports to document where a bicycle
collision occurred on the street within the specific bicycle facility or in an adjacent travel lane” (City
of Seattle 2014a, 97).
The weakest point of Seattle’s Plan is its language, it was not very strong. The Plan used words such
as “much,” “should,” and “may” mainly for physical improvements on bicycle facilities. On very few
occasions does the Seattle Plan mention that the city or a specific department “must” or “should”
do something. For example, actions needed to be made for the strategy “Improve bicycle facilities as
needed, based on performance criteria” include “Conduct a follow-up study to evaluate the
effectiveness of new treatments” (City of Seattle 2014a, 97).
Washington D.C. The Plan’s most powerful area in this section was its enforcement
programs. In the plan’s third goal it specifically aimed toward enhancing education, promotion, and
enforcement bicycle programs. Moreover, three of the Plan’s core recommendations addressed
programs and laws: 1) “Recommendation 3.3 Enforce traffic laws related to bicycling, 2)
“Recommendation 3.2. Educate bicyclists about safe bicycling,” and 3) “Recommendation
3.4.Establish a Youth Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Education Program” (District of Colombia
2005, 39).The District Plan does include red light running enforcement including enhancing

reporting procedures from officers [and even including an online reporting system for residents]
The second sets of strong points in the D.C. Plan were its vision statement, goals (3), and core
recommendations (3-6 each). The Goals include: 1) More and Better Bicycle Facilities, 2) More
Bicycle-Friendly Policies, and 3) More Bicycle-Related Education, Promotion, and Enforcement
(District of Colombia 2005, 15). Priorities and updates (I.e. benchmarking) for bicycle maintenance
and upgrading in the D.C. Plan were scattered throughout the entire document, but they were
mainly found in the recommendation sections per goal and in the Bicycle Level of Service analysis
section. Additionally, many priorities were established by either community request or by adopted
D.C. policies and laws.
The D.C. Plan created three “milestones,” which were essentially guiding principles to help guide
their implementation process. Although the D.C. Plan does fit all of the criteria in this section, the
guiding principles could have been established before the implementation section which would act
as a guide to the entire Plan. In other words, the entire Plan’s goals and recommendations could
have been much more specific to its “milestones” and a different and much more vigorous or
specific implementation process could have been established such as the one created by the Seattle
Plan.
Some of the weaker discussions in the D.C. Plan included its policies and adopted laws and its
language. The D.C. Plan mentions several policies and laws adopted by the District, however, like
the Washington Plan it fails to provide more description to some. Further, the D.C. Plan did not
dedicate entire subsections about policies or laws such as its General Plan or Climate Action Plan
like the Seattle Plan does.
The D.C. Plan’s language varies, but a pattern was found. Usually, when discussion about a
department providing some sort of service that would enable the goals and recommendations the
Plan is addressing, “should” and “may” were loosely used. The stronger language was used mainly
for providing specific physical object such as providing signs or bicycle lanes. Stronger language
such as “must” must be used for department collaboration instead of “may” or “should” to show
how serious the Plan is about improving the bicycle environment in D.C.

Funding & Implementation
Seattle The Seattle Plan provided
an approach with five strategies, cycling
investment per year, and an investment per
capita per year based on peers [Figure 35].
A funding strategy was also in place for the
Seattle Plan where they addressed that they
cannot rely on federal state grant funding
due to their current “stagnant” nature, thus,
having to “scan” funding from publically local and private sources. The Seattle Plans’ funding
approach was broad since they not only consider “new bicycle facilities, but also in offering bicycle
parking, encouraging people to use facilities and bicycles in general, educating people about the rules
of the road, maintaining bicycle facilities, and tracking the success of bicycle projects and programs”
(City of Seattle 2014a, 109-113). Their funding approach was excellent.
The funding plan in Seattle’s Plan again stick to its goals and uses them as “performance measures”
to prioritize and support certain projects and funding. The Seattle Plan also separates each type of
costs into categories by facilities, street, arterials, drainage and stormwater, “soft costs” such as
engineering and planning and/or permitting, and more [Figure 36] (City of Seattle 2014a, 110-113).
Although there was no description of what facilities and projects are going to be specifically funded
by a certain source by a specific date, the Seattle Plan did reference its goals as a way to determine
what needs to be funded. Further, the Plan provided an entire appendix describing the conditions of
funding on every level (federal, regional, state, local) and even corporate and private opportunities
(City of Seattle 2014b, 288-292).
4.75
4.25
0
1
2
3
4
5
SectionScoreOutof6
Funding &
Implementation
Figure 34 Graph showing results of the seventh section of the
Matrix.

Figure 35 A snapshot of Seattle’s bicycle facilities costs.
Figure 36 A snapshot of Seattle’s investment data per strategy/category per year.
The Seattle Plan definitely had an implementation program in place. It designates the program as
strategies and actions in several different categories including (strategies only): 1) Strengthen bicycle
Project and Program Delivery Processes, 2) Review bicycle-related collisions, collision rates and
frequencies over time and identify and implement safety strategies, 3) Track development of the
bicycle facility network as part of SDOT’s asset management system, 4) Negotiate maintenance
agreements with partners, 5) Update the Bicycle Master Plan.
The Seattle Plan did include Capital Improvement Programs in its implementation strategy: “The
funding strategy will help the city secure continual financial support for bicycle transportation and
recreation, position itself for successful grant applications, and prioritize bicycle projects in strategic
planning and budget development to ensure funding in the city’s Capital Improvement Program
(CIP)” (City of Seattle 2014a, 108). The entire implementation program was based off of its five
goals.

Unfortunately, the Seattle Plan did not have specific dates for each implementation action except for
when the Plan needs to be updated and in a few other actions. The entire implementation table
should have had specific dates to make the actions a lot more measurable.
Washington D.C. In the D.C. Plan, the implementation program was tied with the cost
analysis. Further, the District’s Plan neatly described which agencies were responsible for which
bicycle-related responsibilities they needed to make into a reality [Figure 38] (District of Colombia
2005, 44-48).
The District Plan considered Capital Improvement
Programs: “Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) (updated
annually): The CIP is a comprehensive, six year plan for
the development, modernization or replacement of city-
owned facilities and infrastructure.’ ‘It includes street and
bridge projects.’” (District of Colombia 2005, 17).
The D.C. Plan had three milestones for its
implementation plan, see figure 37. They mainly focus
more on safety and bicycling encouragement.
The D.C. Plan does include plans for
funding, but it was scattered throughout
the Goals and Recommendations and
Implementation sections. There were no
concrete chapters or subsection for
funding. Most of D.C.’s funding is
dependent on the federal government
(District of Colombia 2005, 19-49). The
Plan does, however, provide the costs for
their projects/recommendation per year
Figure 37 The D.C. Plan’s Implementation
Milestones
Figure 38 The D.C. Plan’s department responsibilities list.

starting from 2005 to 2015 in an easy to read table (District of Colombia 2005, 44). All the cost
types were separated in different tables, they include: 1) Physical Improvements, 2) Policy
Recommendations, and 3) Program Recommendations (District of Colombia 2005, 44-46).
The District’s Plan overall was comprehensive, but incomplete. The D.C. Plan could have gone
above and beyond federal funding by looking into private funds, and in general, should have more
robust funding plan like Seattle’s.
The Plan had a timeline between 2005 and 2015 with goals to accomplish on an annual basis and
had a recommended policy to update the Master Plan every five to 10 years (and the bicycle network
map every five years), but there was no specific benchmarks along the way [Figure 39] (District of
Colombia 2005, 44-46).
Figure 39 A snapshot of D.C.’s neat implementation timeline.

Conclusion: Providing
Recommendations
What Seattle & the District Must Consider
Recommendations for Seattle
Seattle needs to consider a Level of Service Analysis that is fully integrated with all other
transportation systems. There was absolutely no conversation about this. It is important for Seattle
to conduct this type of assessment in order to be able to quantify their upgrades and progress in
improving their bicycle network. Further, Seattle did not have a stress map, an output of Level of
Service since it measures comfort.
Recommendations for Washington D.C.
Washington D.C. had absolutely no discussion on equity and climate change. They are leaving an
entire population out of the picture and it is absolutely unacceptable on their part to not include the
disenfranchised. Climate change may impact these communities the worse, and of course, the entire
population. Ignoring climate change could lead to disastrous outcomes in Washington D.C.
Washington D.C.’ did not identify the different type of bicyclists by not integrating a “Bicyclist
Facility Standard.” This also ignores the different types of bicyclists that want to have the option to
bicycle, but does not have the choice.
4

Lastly, the District’s Master Plan should have been updated five years ago. Seattle updated theirs in
seven years and has added great milestones on equity and climate change. Hopefully, they are
reaching their goal now to update the plan within 10 years because it’s currently 2014. Their update
is due next year.
Recommendations for Both Plans
Both Seattle and the District need to work on strong language. If this is not corrected there is a
possibility that many implementation measures that the public, staff, and advisory committees
worked so hard for may be overlooked or worse, ignored. There could be critical actions that may
need to be made and if they aren’t conducted due to a written error goals may not be achieved, or
worse such as in Seattle’s plan, the disenfranchised may be negatively impacted again.
The integration of significance criterions is extremely important when it comes to environmental
sustainability when taking into consideration of impacts on: wildlife, aesthetics, hydrology, and/or
land use, to name a few. Just because bicycle facilities are built, it does not mean that one can
assume that it will have no impacts. Both Seattle and the District Plans lacked this important
attribute when creating their Bicycle Master Plans and must consider it in the future.
Seattle and Washington D.C. also did not have a “Measure of Effectiveness.” The did not quantify
traffic or congestion in bicycle facilities including, but not limited to: travel time, speed, delay, travel
time, speed, and delay, queue, stops, density, and travel-time variance. This could help the Plan
effectively measure how to optimize the use of facilities.
Both Plans also lacked the integration of design features in taxis, buses, and other transit amenities
such as light rail. If the numbers of bicyclists are increasing, shouldn’t all other designs change with
it? What if buses do not have the adequate amount of bicycle racks because the bicycle commuter
rate has increased two fold in their jurisdictions? If this is not planned properly, it could become a
disincentive to bike. More specifically, this conversation needs to happen interdepartmentally with
other agencies and divisions.

Reference List
Ciccarelli, John (Representing Bicycle Solutions). Bicycle master planning and conceptual design
Presentation, San Jose State University, CA, April 9, 2014.
City-Data.com. Seattle, Washington. http://www.city-data.com/city/Seattle-Washington.html
(accessed May 10 2014).
City-Data.com. Washington, District of Columbia.
http://www.city-data.com/city/Washington-District-of-Columbia.html (accessed May 10
2014).
City of Seattle.Department of Transportation. 2014a. Seattle bicycle master plan: April 2014.
http://www.seattle.gov/transportation/docs/bmp/apr14/SBMP_21March_FINAL_ful
l%20doc.pdf (accessed February 19, 2014).
City of Seattle.Department of Transportation. 2014b. Seattle bicycle master plan: April 2014-
Appendix.
http://www.seattle.gov/transportation/docs/bmp/apr14/SBMP%20Appendices%2021%2
0march%202014_FINAL.pdf (accessed February 19, 2014).
District of Columbia. 2014. District Department of Transportation. District of colombia: bicycle
master
plan: April 2005. http://ddot.dc.gov/node/477012 (accessed April 19, 2014)
Dowling, Richard. NCHRP 3-70 study (Presentation by Richard Dowling, Dowling Associates).
Eduardo Serafin. UrbP 256: Transportation planning: Local issues (syllabus, San Jose State
University, CA, January 28, 2014), 17.
Florida, Richard. The Atlantic Cities. America’s most bikable neighborhoods.
http://www.theatlanticcities.com/neighborhoods/2013/05/americas-most-bikeable-
neighborhoods/5587/ (accessed May 6, 2014).
Google Maps. https://maps.google.com/ (accessed May 11, 2014).
5

Initiative for Bicycle and Pedestrian Innovation. creating walkable + bikable communities: a user
guide to developing pedestrian and bicycle master plans.
http://www.pdx.edu/ibpi/sites/www.pdx.edu.ibpi/files/IBPI%20Master%20Plan%20Han
dbook%20FINAL%20(7.27.12).pdf (accessed February 19, 2014).
Kowshal, Papia, "How Smart is CEQA About Climate Change? An Evaluation of CEQA's
Greenhouse Gas Analysis" (2012). Master's Theses.Paper 4141.
Ridgeway, Matthew (Representing Fehr & Peers). Complete streets policy & planning overview.
Presentation, San Jose State University, CA, March 12, 2014).
Mineta Transportation Institute. Low-stress bicycling network connectivity.
http://transweb.sjsu.edu/PDFs/research/1005-low-stress-bicycling-network-
connectivity.pdf (accessed February 19, 2014).
Multimodal Level of Service in the 2010 HCM, Presentation, Kittelson& Associates.
Sacramento Transportation Authority.Sacramento Transportation & Air Quality Collaborative. Best
practices for bicycle master planningand design, under Resources: Library- Sacramento
Transportation & Air Quality Collaborative, 3
http://sacta.org/pdf/STAQC/FinalReportII_BPBicycle.pdf (accessed March 5, 2014).
Steinman, Lesley, Mark Doescher, David Levinger, Cynthia Perry, Louise Carter, Amy Eyler,
SemraAytur, Angie L.i. Cradock, Kelly R.
Evenson, Katie Heinrich, Jacqueline Kerr, Jill Litt, YucelSevercan, and Carolyn Voorhee.
2010. Master plans for pedestrian and bicycle transportation: community characteritics.
Journal of Physical Activity and Health 7 (Suppl 1), S60-S66.
Tang, Zhenghong; Brody, Samuel D.; Quinn, Courtney E.; Chang, Liang; and Wei, Ting, Moving
from agenda to action: evaluating local climate change action plans (2010). Community and
Regional Planning Program: Faculty Scholarly and Creative Activity.Paper
6.http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/arch_crp_facultyschol/6
United States Census Bureau. 2014. American Fact Finder, 2010.
http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/community_facts.xhtml#none (accessed
May 10, 2014).
Washington County, Oregon. 2012. Washington County: bicycle facility design toolkit”.
Zachary Y. Kerra, Daniel A. Rodriguezb, Kelly R. Evensonc, Semra A. Aytur. 2013. Pedestrian and
bicycle plans and the incidence of crash-related injuries. Accident Analysis and Prevention 50,
1252-1258.

APPENDIX
Kenneth Rosales
3/5/14
UrbP 256
Serafin& Agrawal
BICYCLE MASTER PLAN ANALYSIS
FOR SEATTLE, WA & WASHINGTON D.C.:
Evaluation Table
The table below is an evaluation tool used to assess how
the bicycle master plans for Seattle, WA and
Washington D.C. compare and contrast in quality to
one another. The criterions are placed in the far left
hand column are meant to analyze seven sections: 1)
Environment, Sustainability, & Health, 2) Community,
Equity, and Government, 3) Existing Conditions &
Bicycle Networks, 4) Design Standards, 5) Service &
Traffic Impact Analysis, 6) Funding & Implementation.
A total of 29 criterions in the form of questions are in
all seven sections. The second and fourth columns
represent the scores given to each plan. This scoring
system is based on Tang et al. (2010) and Kowshal
(2012) where climate action plans and environmental
impact reports’ (from the California environmental
quality act [CEQA]) greenhouse gas sections were
respectively analyzed for their quality. They used three
quality indicators: Awareness, Analysis, and Action.
Each indicator was given a score out of 10 based on a
numerical system from zero to three foreach of their

APPENDIX
evaluation protocol which were weighted using a
statistical tool known as Chronbach’s Alpha. Based on
the documents they analyzed, a zero represented a
protocol that was missing, a one symbolized if their
protocol was mentioned, but had no detailed
information, and a two was assigned to a protocol that
was discussed in great detail.
However, due to my limited understanding of
these complex statistical tools I will use a more basic
structure.
Since each section (quality indicator) has more questions
(evaluation protocol) than others each section is
weighted more than other. Perhaps there is a flaw in
this, but nonetheless, each city have a standard to reach
by a total score in each section and cumulatively.
I adapted the scores used by Tang (2010) and
Kowshal (2012) from zero to three with the same
definitions to each. However, each question can gain
only up to two points each. Cumulatively, each city has
a total of 58 points they can gain (2 possible points x 29
criterions/questions = 58 total possible points).

APPENDIX
Bicycle Master Plan Analysis Table:
Comparing Seattle, WA and Washington D.C.
Evaluation
Criterion/
Bicycle
Master Plan
Seattle
Score
Seattle Notes
Wash-
ington
D.C.
Score
Washington D.C. Notes
1. Environment, Economy, & Health
1) Discussion on
Interaction between
Transportation &
Environment? Does
the plan describe a)
vehicle miles traveled
and its link to
greenhouse gases, b)
existing greenhouse
gas emission
conditions, c) and
climate change? Does
it connect to its
Climate Action Plan?
Description of policies
for environmental
benefits (Serafin
2014)?
(1)
Climate change is only mentioned once in the entire
plan (using the control + f function), however, the
introduction has a whole subheading dedicated to the
environmental benefits to a more bicycle-centric society
(City of Seattle 2014a, 6). This environmental section
briefly mentions the negative impacts from
transportation such as its link to polluting water and air
(City of Seattle 2014a, 6). Seattle’s plan also briefly
mentions the significance of Vehicle Miles Traveled and
its connection to “fossil fuel burning vehicles” and how
bicycling can reduce these impacts and “improve and
protect Seattle’s natural environment while reducing
carbon emissions” (City of Seattle 2014a, 6).
Additionally, Seattle’s plan introduction quickly
describes how its approach to “expanding and
enhancing active transportation” is a “stepping stone”
towards achieving its Climate Action Plan goals (City of
Seattle 2014a, 6). The Seattle plan’s introduction also has
a pie chart showing the city’s greenhouse gas profile
with transportation contributing the most to climate
(0.50)
The Washington D.C. plan does not even mention
the term “climate change” in its entire plan (using
the control + f function). However, it has a
breadth of information on air pollution in its
introduction chapter under the heading
“Environmental Benefits” (District of Colombia
2005, 11). This section goes into detail about how
the District is in non-attainment for ground level
ozone and how bicycling can reduce these levels
along with fuel use. Additionally, D.C.’s plan
quickly describes how transportation pollution
contributes to the contamination of one of its
rivers, the Anacostia River.

APPENDIX
change (City of Seattle 2014a, 6).
Although the introduction could have gone into more
depth about the environmental impacts of
transportation, the third chapter titled as “Policy
Framework” has an entire subheading dedicated to
Seattle’s Climate Action Plan [CAP] (reference/citation
provided) describing in detail what policy actions to
reduce greenhouse gases [GHG] (per the CAP) are
going to be made within the plan (City of Seattle 2014a,
32). However, again, the significance about climate
change (such as its impacts why it’s so important to
reduce GHGs) is not discussed. This is also true about
air and water pollution.
Unfortunately, the District’s plan’s discussion on
environmental sustainability ends at the
introduction.
2) Includes Policies
that Promotes
Environmentally
Sustainable Travel? To
What Extent?
Greenhouse gas
(1)
In Chapter 3: Policy Framework, subsection “Climate
Action Plan,” the Seattle Plan provides two policies and
greenhouse gas reduction targets (City of Seattle 2014a,
32). Seattle has planned to become carbon neutral by
2050 and therefore has two policies in the form of
visions for transportation infrastructure and services to
(0.25)
The Washington D.C. Plan does not include any
policies specific to reducing air pollutants, such as
providing reduction targets per pollutant by a
certain year and how they will measure it. Further,
no discussion on GHG reduction was made.

APPENDIX
reduction strategies
(Serafin 2014)?
meet this goal: a) There is a bicycle facility within ¼ mile
of every home in Seattle and b) Protected/buffered on-
street bicycle lanes and greenways connect Urban
Centers in Seattle (City of Seattle 2014a, 32). Seattle
wants to reduce its GHG emissions from “road
transportation” by 82% and its vehicle miles traveled
(VMT) by 20%. Seattle has these lofty goals in hopes of
tripling its bicycle transportation use by 2030 (City of
Seattle 2014a, 32). In this very section, Seattle’s Plan
outlines implementation strategies about how to achieve
their Climate Action Plan policy framework.
Lastly, in the same chapter the Plan refers to its
Comprehensive Plan’s transportation policies (I.e.
General Plan) relevant to the bicycle master plan and the
environment. It states: “TG15 Increase walking and
bicycling to help achieve city transportation,
environmental, community and public health goals”
The Seattle Plan describes its goals, targets, and policy
framework to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and
promotion of sustainable travel, however, it doesn’t
specifically describe or calculate how much GHG
emissions will be reduced by providing a “bicycle facility
within ¼ mile of every home in Seattle.” Further, how
many GHG emissions does one bicycle facility reduce?
How are they measuring their progress? Who is
measuring this progress and how often and who is this
information being reported to?
Nonetheless, the entire Plan is dedicated to
reducing pollutants.
3) Includes Policies
that Encourages
Environmentally
Unsustainable Travel?
Such as increased
emissions of
greenhouse gases? To
What Extent (Serafin
(2)
The entire Plan is dedicated to promote bicycling which
is a sustainable form of traveling. (2)
The entire Plan is dedicated to promote bicycling
which is a sustainable form of traveling.

APPENDIX
2014)?
4) Overall, is the Plan
Powerful in Providing
Environmentally
Sustainable Travel?
Why and How? Which
is more effective
(Serafin 2014)?
(1.5)
The entire Plan is dedicated in providing an
environmentally sound way to travel by avoiding the use
of fossil fuels. However, looking at the analyses and the
scores of each plan, Seattle has a more effective
approach. Although the D.C. plan includes a more
thorough discussion on air pollution, Seattle’s dedicates
an entire section discussing its integration with their
Climate Action Plan. In other words, since Seattle
discusses its city’s hurdle to combat global climate
change, Seattle’s Plan is much more powerful.
(0.5)
5) Does the Plan
include a discussion on
the economic benefits
and/or improved
economic
sustainability from
improved bicycle
infrastructure?
(1.5)
The Seattle Plan has an entire subsection dedicated to
“Economic and Community Development” in “Chapter
6: Programs.” The main focus of this section is to
describe the support of “economic and community
development” through bicycle related activities (City of
Seattle 2014a, 90). In particular, their actions include the
promotion of bicycle and tourism programs in business
districts to create “more livable and vibrant
communities” (City of Seattle 2014a, 90). Two of the
actions include: a) The formation of a “Bicycle-Friendly
Business District” that collaborates with the Office of
Economic Development (OED) and/or the chamber of
commerce to brand the area in a way that motivates or
encourages people to bike to their businesses and b) the
support for a tourism program that encourages bicycling
for visitors by facilitating “communication and
education between tourism agencies and other partners”
In “Chapter 7: Implementation Approach,” Seattle’s
Plan describes its interdepartmental approach in
enhancing the local economy by having their Office of
(1.75)
On the other hand, the Washington D.C. plan does
include a small discussion on the questions I posed
in the Seattle Plan. For example, the District’s plan
quotes “A motor vehicle is the second highest
household expense after housing itself” (District of
Colombia 2005, 11). This quote even provides a
citation to its stated facts. The D.C. Plan also
includes a small discussion on the importance of
tourism and how there is a new market segment
for “active tourism” (District of Colombia 2005,
11). Tourism is the most important factor in
economic gains for the D.C. plans since the only
policy recommendation it has for economic
sustainability is for “active travelers.” Like the
Seattle Plan, it provides a detailed description of
interdepartmental collaboration including working
partnerships with tourism companies (something
Seattle didn’t have) to cater to the idea of D.C.
becoming an “active vacation destination” (District
of Colombia 2005, 41). They provide a large
breadth of reasoning for it as well. For example,
“Outdoor recreation is the second most popular

APPENDIX
Economic Development produce pre and post analyses,
reports, and “intercept surveys” to measure and
communicate the economic success the Plan (I.e. new
design and facilities) has on a “neighborhood and city-
wide scale, include tourism” (City of Seattle 2014a, 100).
Unfortunately, the Seattle Plan did not go into depth
about how bicycle infrastructure impacts the local
economy. I could not find any information about how
increasing bicycle trips have a positive impact on the
City of Seattle’s economy. Does increased use of
bicycles increase business? Does it save significant costs
for people? I also couldn’t find information about how
high automobile use denigrates Seattle’s economy (or if
it does). In other words, readers may pose the questions
“so what,” “why”, and/or “how?”
activity for leisure travelers, behind shopping.’
‘About 27 million travelers took bicycling vacations
in the past five years, making bicycling one of the
top three most popular outdoor vacation
activities’” (District of Colombia 2005, 41).
Nonetheless, the D.C. plan suffers from more
thorough discussion actual economic benefits
bicycling can bring to a city. Have there been
analyses made before? Is there another city that has
gained copious amounts of revenue from increased
bicycle use?

APPENDIX
6) Does the Plan
mention problems in
public health? Was
health the major
premise for creating
the Master Plan? How
in-depth was the
discussion? Was low-
income health
discussed (Kerr 2013,
1253)?
(1.75 )
Seattle’s Plan generally describes America’s health
problems of “cardiovascular diseases, diabetes, cancer,
and other cardiovascular diseases” (City of Seattle 2014a,
5). However, the Plan’s primary concern is childhood
obesity. They correlate this problem with nationwide
decrease in bicycle use or walk to school rates within the
past half century (City of Seattle 2014a, 5). The Plan
further discusses the importance of an active lifestyle
and its connection to academic success. “A study of
more than 20,000 school-aged children found that by
walking or bicycling to school, children’s mental
alertness was advanced by half a school year” City of
Seattle 2014a, 5).
To show how serious Seattle is in enhancing children’s
health in their city, their implementation strategy
includes a collaborative effort with the King County
Public Health to measure the progress of healthy (safety,
obesity, respiratory health) and equity from improved
bicycle infrastructure (City of Seattle 2014a, 100).
Seattle’s Plan has a “prioritization framework” that
includes 1) the improvement of safety; 2) enhancement
of connectivity; 3) advocacy for equity concerns; 4)
increase in ridership; and enhancement of livability (City
of Seattle 2014a, 5). In the implementation chapter of
the plan (chapter 7), equity and health are described in
an interchangeable manner. Specifically, the plan states
that they want to make sure any future infrastructure
“provides
a health benefit for people in areas with the greatest
reported health needs, represented by obesity rates,
physical activity rates (self-reported), and diabetes rates”
Overall, Seattle’s Plan describes that health is a problem
in their city. They specifically targeted the concern of
children’s health, but it lacked the conversation of health
problems in disenfranchised communities. Are
disenfranchised children in worse shape than the
privileged? The discussion of health could have
(0.25 )
The D.C. Plan was extremely deficient in its
discussion on health. It was so short, I can provide
the entire description here: “Increased levels of
bicycling will improve the
health of District residents.’ ‘Biking to the store,
school or work provides a time-efficient, lowcost
way of attaining the U S Surgeon General’s
recommended daily allowance of physical
activity.’ ‘Bicycle exercise can help reduce heart
disease, diabetes, and other chronic illnesses
among District residents’” (District of Colombia
2005, 11).
The only other discussion on health was in the
Plan’s implementation section. It also detailed the
District’s concern on childhood health, but it was
odd that it was mentioned later in the Plan rather
than at the beginning. No conversation about the
link between health and equity was found.

APPENDIX
provided much more depth, especially in the equity
sector.
Although, health is not described in the Seattle Plan in
full, the appendix provides more information and
discussion of equity, including all the other
“prioritization framework” goals (City of Seattle, 2014b,
236 and 300). However, it’s doubtful the conventional
reader would be interested in delving into the
appendices since the report itself is already lengthy. That
is why it is important to address the equity issues up
front.
Total 8.75/12 Total 5.5/12
2. Community, Equity & Government

APPENDIX
1) Did the Plan go
through community
outreach (Sacramento
Transportation & Air
Quality Collaborative
2005, 4)? Did the lead
agency form a
community advisory
committee and/or a
technical advisory
committee with a mix
of community
members, and other
relevant departmental
staff (Sacramento
2005, 4)??Were there
at least three general
public outreach
meetings for the
creation of the Plan
(Sacramento
2005, 4)? What was the
purpose of the
outreach, what was
discussed (Sacramento
2005, 4)?
(1.75)
Seattle’s Plan went through a public engagement process
with the intent to a) reach out beyond their current
bicycle community (E.g. residents, businesses,
employees, and property owners); b) incentivize
infrequent or potential bicyclists of the new and
improved bicycle network (implemented from previous
Plans) to provide their recommendations; c) update the
Plan by creating strategies to broaden the bicycle
community from a niche to the entire city; and d)to gain
more details about how bicycling can help “build
vibrant, livable communities and produce safer streets”
The Seattle Bicycle Advisory Board (SBAB) was the
“primary” Advisory Committee for the 2013 Seattle
Plan, which comprises of community members (City of
Seattle 2014a, 9). Although there was no mention of the
board or committee having Seattle Department of
Transportation (SDOT) staff as a residing board
member, the committee met with SDOT on a monthly
basis and collaborated with many other departments
including: the Freight Advisory Board, Pedestrian
Advisory Board, Planning Commission, Design
Commission, and Bridging the Gap Oversight
Committee (City of Seattle 2014a, 9). The Advisory
Committee had a three phase community engagement
project which had different intents unique from each
other: 1) Gather data through survey tools, mapping,
and community meetings to find out what can
encourage more bicycle users in general (and identifying
what the barriers are); 2) Reviewing/revising past policy
frameworks, draft bicycle network map, and new
implementation strategies; and 3) gain community
insight about the draft plan (City of Seattle 2014a, 9).
Each phase was composed of several community
meetings, not just one for each phase (City of Seattle
2014a, 9).
The Seattle Plan was able to fit all of the criteria
(1.5)
The District’s engagement process was similar to
Seattle’s, it too also had its Bicycle Advisory
Council (BAC) as the “guidance committee,”
worked with the District Department of
Transportation [DDOT] (District of Colombia
2005, 12).. The Plan provides the specific number
of participants (150) involved in the outreach
process as well as total commenting (over 1,000).
Although the D.C. Plan doesn’t provide a specific
number of meetings held it does, however, provide
the entire community engagement calendar
(District of Colombia 2005, 12). The D.C.
engagement process had two monthly meetings
from 2003 to 2005, special webpage with online
comment option (2003), survey form distribution
(May 2003), bicycle tours and workshops [total of
eight] (April to July 2003), draft plan reviews [May
2004] (District of Colombia 2005, 12).
The D.C. public participation process was almost
able to fit all of the criteria, but it did not mention
the collaboration of other committees or
departments. This may be because there were no
working partnerships. Additionally, the purpose of
the community engagement process was unclear,
descriptions were absent.

APPENDIX
requirements, however, it did not provide specific
numbers such as the number of participants at each
community event (or overall) and the number of
community hearings they held. This information was
better described in the appendices (especially the data
collected from participants), but it would have been nice
to have seen participation details in the plan so people
can see the “critical mass” of people engaged in the
planning process. This level of detail would have also
helped in providing information about how successful
the engagement process was in meeting its goals (I.e.
purpose).

APPENDIX
2) Does the Plan
require the
transportation lead
agency to integrate and
work
interdepartmentally
with other divisions
(Sacramento
2005, 4)? For example,
a Sustainability
Commission or a
Transportation
Management
Agency/Transportatio
n Demand
Management
Commission
(Sacramento
2005, 4)?
(2)
Yes, the Plan provides a listing of which departments
the department of transportation, bicycle board, and
advisory committee needs to work with (or has worked
with) for the public engagement process, goal settings,
policy recommendations, and plan implementation.
(2)
Yes, the Plan provides a listing of which
departments the department of transportation,
bicycle board, and advisory committee needs to
work with (or has worked with) for the public
engagement process, goal settings, policy
recommendations, and plan implementation.
3) Was there a focus
or discussion about
providing bicycle
amenities in low-
income communities
(Steinman, et al. 2010,
S61)? Was there any
discussion on equity or
lack of infrastructure
in low-income
communities
(Steinman, et al. 2010,
S61)?
(2)
As mentioned before, one of Seattle’s priorities is equity
through public engagement, deliverables, and economic
investment. The Plan’s introduction holds a discussion
on equity as a subsection providing statistics of bicycle
use between races (primarily White identified individuals
bike75% to 83%), car ownership percentages between
varying demographics such as age, illnesses, disabilities,
and income (City of Seattle 2014a, 7). About 16 percent
of Seattle residents do not own a car, thus, inclining
Seattle to provide different forms of transportation to
get around (City of Seattle 2014a, 7).
Under “Chapter 2: State of the Seattle Bicycling
Environment” of the Seattle Plan, an entire subsection is
dedicated for the results of an equity analysis that was
(0.25)
No discussion on equity exists in the District Plan
except for one sentence in its introduction under
the economic benefits subsection and two in the
“Bicycling Today” subheading. “The option of
bicycling can improve the mobility of the
275,000 District residents without access to a
car and allow some households to own one
vehicle instead of two” (District of Colombia 2005,
11). The second comment on equity is stated as
such: “Almost thirty-seven percent of DC
households
do not have access to a motor vehicle.’
‘Approximately 275,000 District residents live in
households without an automobile or are too
young for a driver’s license ”’ (District of Colombia

APPENDIX
conducted. The analysis called for identifying areas
where there are high numbers of underserved
demographics (using census data) coupled with a
disparate amount of bicycle facilities [using calculations
of miles of bicycle facilities/sq. miles per Census Tract]
(City of Seattle 2014a, 18). The disenfranchised
communities were identified as people who were a) of
color; b) households below 200% of the federal poverty
line; c) census tracts filled with auto-less people; d)
people under 18 years of age; and e) population over 64
years of age (City of Seattle 2014a, 18). Each of these
criterions were identified on maps (City of Seattle 2014a,
19). The final map included an overlay of all the equity
criteria with outlines of areas lacking bicycle facilities
The Seattle Plan also includes the integration of climate
change and equity. “A key strategy in the plan to meet
these goals is to implement new on- and off-street
bicycle facilities and services to accommodate riders of
all ages and abilities in order to increase the share of
trips made by bicycle and thereby reducing vehicle miles
traveled and GHG emissions” (City of Seattle 2014a,
32).
The Plan also integrates equity in its goals and
implementation in accordance with Seattle’s
Comprehensive Plan and Race and Social Justice
Initiative (City of Seattle 2014a, 82, 88, 94, 95, and 96).
The Seattle Plan provides an in-depth conversation
about the inequities that exist in Seattle. Its goals are
aspirational and admirable. Although the Plan provides
specific integration of its Comprehensive Plan and
equity, the Plan fails to describe what the Race and
Social Justice Initiative is and how the Plan is related to
it. Nonetheless, the Plan deserves the full points of the
equity criterion.
2005, 6).

APPENDIX
Total 5.75/6 Total 3.5/6
3. Existing Conditions, Bicycle Networks, & Maps

APPENDIX
1) Does the Plan have
a section describing
existing conditions of
bicycle facilities
(Sacramento
2005, 5)? Is there a
measurement of
existing street
conditions, “Journey
to Work” data from
the 2010 (Sacramento
2005, 5)? Was there a
survey performed for
this? Were most of
these measurements
(above) done through
community outreach
(Sacramento
2005, 5)? Are there
maps for any of these?
(2)
The Seattle Plan provides its readers with an extremely
detailed description of its existing conditions of bicycle
facilities. This information is found throughout several
sections of the plan such as the Executive Summary, the
Introduction, “Chapter 2: State of the Seattle Bicycling
Environment,” “Chapter 4: The Bicycle Network,” and
“Chapter 5: End of Trip Facilities.” Although there was
no specific methodology in calculating (through
formulas and theory) the conditions of streets, the data
that the Commission and SDOT collected were all from
the public engagement process through surveys, public
meetings, and workshops (City of Seattle 2014a, i-vii,
and 14-74 and City of Seattle 2014b, 23-36). They asked
the public where they deemed the safest and most
dangerous areas to bicycle (City of Seattle 2014a, i-vii,
and 14-74 and City of Seattle 2014b, 23-36). Further
studies of street conditions were referred to City of
Seattle adopted Complete Streets policy, Safe Routes to
School program, and the Washington Neighborhood
Safe Streets Bill enacted by the state (City of Seattle
2014a, 4, 31, and 37).
Bicycle to work data, however, was difficult to find. The
Seattle Plan briefly mentioned bicycle commuting
information in its introduction celebrating its
achievements of being one of the cities with the largest
bike to work rates in the country (City of Seattle 2014a,
1). The details, however, were mainly in the appendices
[this was not mentioned in the Plan] (City of Seattle
2014b, 23). It turns out that people in the City of Seattle
primarily bicycle for work commutes: “When asked
what
the purpose of their most recent trip was, 65% of
respondents said that it was a commute trip, 25%
recreation, and only 7% shopping/errands and 5% visit
friends/entertainment/social” (City of Seattle 2014b,
23).
(2)
The District Plan has a simple and quick
mentioning of its current conditions of bicycle
facilities in bulleted form under its “Bicycling
Today” subsection of the Introduction. “Currently,
the District has 17 miles of bike lanes,
50 miles of bike paths, and 64 miles of bicycle
routes (see Map 2. Existing Facilities Map)”
Early in 2003, the District of Colombia’s
Department of Transportation conducted a
“roadway inventory” with 406 miles of field
measurements recorded on the largest arterial and
connector roads (45% of all D.C. streets) using
“scientifically-calibrated Bicycle Level of Service
(Bicycle LOS) Model” accounting for “shoulder
width, speed limit, pavement condition, and on-
street parking data” and bicyclist comfort level
(District of Colombia 2005, 13). D.C. found that
“Most of the downtown streets and
major arteries between downtown and the
suburbs had grades of D or lower” (District of
Colombia 2005, 13). A map of the Bicycle LOS
results was kindly provided in the D.C. Plan
(District of Colombia 2005, 14). This data was also
coupled with public participants of surveys,
workshops, and bicycle tours ((District of
Colombia 2005, 12-13).
An entire map was created to depict bicycle
commuting in the District Plan. “More than 5% of
workers commute by bicycle in several District of
Colombia Neighborhoods” (District of Colombia
2005, 6). The 5% work commute by bicycle figure
was touted and enlarged in the District Plan. In
fact, this message (with a lower percentage) was
also presented in the Seattle Plan (City of Seattle
2014a, 1).

APPENDIX
Maps and tables were found for existing bicycle facilities
and preferred and non-preferred bicycle routes (City of
Seattle 2014a, 15-24).

APPENDIX
2) Does the plan have
bicycle crash studies
(Initiative for Bicycle
& Pedestrian
Innovation 2012, 45
47, 53, 73, and 79)?
(1.75)
The Seattle Department of Transportation conducts
collision studies due to the fact that one of the Plan’s
goals is to “reduce the collision rate by one third
between 2007 and 2017.” So far, they claim to have
reduced crash rates from “0.158 per cyclist in 2007 to
0.105 per cyclist in 2011” (City of Seattle 2014a, 23 and
City of Seattle 2014b, 66-67). Although the Seattle Plan
provides a reduction of collisions, it doesn’t provide a
visual to see where the bicycle crashes occur in Seattle.
The Seattle Plan includes revised goals, action
guidelines, interdepartmental collaborative policies, and
enhanced bicycle facility designs to reduce collisions.
(2)
The D.C. Plan addresses bicycle crashes as a
significant problem for bicyclists (District of
Colombia 2005, 10, 12, 16, 28, 30, 36, 37, and 43).
The crashes recorded in the D.C. Plan are
referenced from the District’s police department
and they acknowledge that not all crash incidents
are reported (District of Colombia 2005, 10, 12, 16,
28, 30, 36, 37, and 43). The Plan even provides an
informative and readable map that illustrates crash
incidents in the District (District of Colombia
2005, 10, 12, 16, 28, 30, 36, 37, and 43). The D.C.
Plan includes revised goals, action guidelines,
interdepartmental collaborative policies, and
enhanced bicycle facility designs to reduce
collisions (District of Colombia 2005, 10, 12, 16,
28, 30, 36, 37, and 43).

APPENDIX
a recommended
Bicycle Network
(Sacramento
2005, 11)? Is there a
map (Sacramento
2005, 11)?
(2)
The Seattle Plan goes above and beyond. In addition to
a “master” recommended map, it has a variety of maps
that are addendums to the “Existing” and “Completed”
bicycle facilities maps, including the “Gaps in the
Existing Bicycle Network” and “Recommended All
Ages and Abilities Bicycle Network” maps (City of
Seattle 2014a, 15-17 and 49). “As of 2013, the bicycle
network in Seattle is over 300 miles, including 78 miles
of bicycle and climbing lanes, 92 miles of shared lane
pavement markings, 6 miles of neighborhood
greenways, 47 miles of multi-use trails, 128 miles of
signed routes, and over 2 miles of other on- and off-
street bicycle facilities” (City of Seattle 2014a, 14).
(1.75)
The D.C. Plan provides its readers with a detailed
map of the Pan’s proposed bicycle
network/facilities under-laid by the existing
network to measure its goals (District of Colombia
2005, 16). The D.C. Plan, however, does not go
above and beyond the Seattle Plan in providing an
equity map such as the “Recommended All Ages
and Abilities Bicycle Nework,” therefore it
deserves a lower score (City of Seattle 2014a, 49
and District of Colombia 2005, 16).

APPENDIX
a Stress Map (Mineta
Transportation
Institute 2012, 28-29)?
(0.25)
Although the Seattle Plan does address the concern of
bicycle stress and includes the identification of problem
bicycling areas through public engagement and its
resolution of a “Gaps in the Existing Bicycle Network”
map, the Plan does not specifically include a stress map.
(1.5)
The D.C. Plan does provide a Stress Map in the
form of Bicycle Level of Service where a grade of
an “F” stands for a very low level of comfort for a
bicyclist (District of Colombia 2005, 14).
Unfortunately, the map is extremely cluttered and
difficult to read (District of Colombia 2005, 14).
Total 6/8 Total 7.25/8
4. Design Standards
1) Does the Plan use a
bicycle facility
framework to analyze
different types of
bicyclists (Washington
County, Oregon 2012,
2)? For example: Type
1- Strong & Fearless;
Type 2- Enthused and
Confident; Type 3-
Interested, but
Concerned; and Type
4- No Way, No How
(Washington County,
Oregon 2012, 2).
(2)
The Seattle Plan includes the exact same type of bicycle
facilities framework as suggested in the Washington
County toolkit. In fact, Seattle had already updated their
city’s condition of what type of bicyclists their city has
(0)
Unfortunately, the D.C. Plan does not have a
bicycle facility framework to analyze different types
of bicyclists.

APPENDIX
Facility Design
Guidelines
(Sacramento
2005, 10)? More
specifically, does it
focus on bike lanes,
traffic signals, railroad
crossings, signage and
markings, etc
(2)
The Seattle Plan includes “Facility Designation
Guideline,” an “Intersection Treatment Selection
Table,” a “Strategies and Actions: Bicycle Facility
Design” table, a “Bicycle Facilities Visual Glossary,” a
“Multimodal Corridor Decision Making Process” Chart,
a “Strategies and Actions: Multimodal Corridors” table,
and a “Visual Guide to Bicycle Parking” (City of Seattle
2014a, 35-76). The entire Plan’s design guidelines is
comprehensive, it includes street and off street bicycle
lanes, cycle tracks, business access and transit lanes,
intersection treatments, overpasses, underpasses, traffic
signals, bicycle signals/ “green wave” signal timing,
(1.5)
The District of Colombia does not have a design
guideline within the Plan, but it has a “District of
Columbia Bicycle Facility Design Guidelines”
document (District of Colombia 2005, 23 and 32).
The Plan does provide a description of most
common bicycle facilities with pictures for visual
awareness, however, no URL link is provided. The
description focuses mainly on lanes, including
treatments for bicycle lanes, bus/bike lanes, and
trails (District of Colombia 2005, 23).

APPENDIX
(Sacramento
2005, 10)? Is there a
map?
railroad crossings, way-findings, and elaborate signage
(City of Seattle 2014a, 35-76). The Seattle Plan includes
a map of all bicycle facilities, but not as specific to
delineate whether if a “bike lane” is protected or
buffered, and so on (City of Seattle 2014a, 16).
3) Does the Plan
include “beyond the
usual” and creative
designs and programs
for facilities and
parking (Sacramento
2005, 40-61)? For
example, does the Plan
go into depth about
bicycle lockers and
showers, bicycle
boulevards, Contra-
Flow Bike Lanes,
Sharrows with
adequate spacing for
no “flying door
collisions,” colored
bicycle lanes, bicycle
boxes, left and right
bicycle turn lanes,
bicycle signals, on/off-
ramp bike
lanes/crossings,
and/or traffic calmings
(Sacramento
(2)
The Seattle Plan’s design guidelines also provided many
creative designs and programs for bicycle facilities. It
even includes an entire chapter dedicated to “end of
trip” bicycle facilities such as parking, lockers, and
showers. Some of the designs that stuck out include the
“green wave signal timing,” “half signal (pedestrian and
bicycle signals),” the differentiation between a cycle
track and bicycle lane, and “bicycle forward stop bar”
Bicycle parking has been greatly considered in the
Seattle Plan. The Plan conveniently includes city parking
regulations and even provides an inventory of bicycle
parking and how to maintain them and potentially
provide more bicycle parking (City of Seattle 2014a, 35-
80). One of the strategies the Plan includes is the
development of a bicycle parking implementation
program which is described in more detail in the
implementation chapter (City of Seattle 2014a, 81).
Some of the most innovative parking strategies found
were 1) temporary event parking (for short term users)
and 2) Way-finding parking signs [for long-term users]
(1)
The D.C. Plan does not go into full description
about their most innovative designs for bicycle
facilities, however, they do have a separate
document for their designs which may have a
much more in-depth conversation on this topic.
Nonetheless, some of the most innovative designs
that stuck out in the Plan itself are 1) Exclusive bus
and bicycle lanes and 2) Bicycle boxes (District of
Colombia 2005, 24).
No exclusive parking facilities chapter was included
in the D.C. Plan, but enhanced bicycle parking
facilities was discussed on several occasions. Some
of the D.C. Plan’s recommended policies for
bicycle parking include: 1) Providing bicycle
parking at privately-owned buildings, 2) Provide
bicycle parking at rental stations, 3) Increase
bicycle parking at malls, 4) Enhancing existing
bicycle parking at transit stations by providing
more light, shelter, signage, and 5) Establishing a
bicycle facility maintenance hotline (District of
Colombia 2005, 25, 27, 33, and 35).

APPENDIX
2005, 40-61)?

APPENDIX
4) Does the plan
integrate bicycle design
in transportation
vehicles such as buses,
trains, and taxi cabs?
(0)
Assuming the bicyclist population increases, the Seattle
Plan does not integrate design features for other
transport vehicles such as buses, trains, and taxi cabs.
(0)
Assuming the bicyclist population increases, the
D.C. Plan does not integrate design features for
other transport vehicles such as buses, trains, and
taxi cabs.
Total 6/8 2.5/8
5. Service & Traffic Impact Assessment
a Measure of
Effectiveness?
(0)
No, the Seattle Plan does not include a way to quantify
traffic or congestion in bicycle facilities including, but
not limited to: travel time, speed, delay, travel time,
speed, and delay, queue, stops, density, and travel-time
variance.
(0)
No, the D.C. Plan does not include a way to
quantify traffic or congestion in bicycle facilities
including, but not limited to: travel time, speed,
delay, travel time, speed, and delay, queue, stops,
density, and travel-time variance.

APPENDIX
2) Does the Plan
measure the level of
comfort for existing
conditions and
projections for future
infrastructure
(Sacramento
2005, 20)? In other
words, what “bicycle
level-of-service”
calculations does the
Plan use (Sacramento
2005, 20)?
(0)
No, the Seattle Plan does not provide a level of comfort
calculation/bicycle level of service for existing or future
bicycle infrastructure.
(2)
Yes, the District of Colombia’s Department of
Transportation conducted a “roadway inventory”
with 406 miles of field measurements recorded on
the largest arterial and connector roads (45% of all
D.C. streets) using “scientifically-calibrated Bicycle
Level of Service (Bicycle LOS) Model” accounting
for “shoulder width, speed limit, pavement
condition, and on-street parking data” and bicyclist
comfort level (District of Colombia 2005, 13).
3) Does the Plan
include traffic impact
analysis to determine
what are “significant
criterions” for
bicyclists (Sacramento
2005, 21)? If so, what
are they (Sacramento
2005, 21)?
(0)
No, the Seattle Plan does not use criterions based on
traffic impact analyses.
(0)
No, the Seattle Plan does not use criterions based
on traffic impact analyses.

Comparing Bicycle Plans: Seattle and D.C

Comparing Bicycle Plans: Seattle and D.C

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

Similaire à Comparing Bicycle Plans: Seattle and D.C

Similaire à Comparing Bicycle Plans: Seattle and D.C (20)

Plus de Kenneth Rosales

Plus de Kenneth Rosales (20)

Comparing Bicycle Plans: Seattle and D.C