Ce diaporama a bien été signalé.
Le téléchargement de votre SlideShare est en cours. ×

KennethRosales_FinalBMPComparison_Seattle_WashingtonDC_Combined

Publicité
Publicité
Publicité
Publicité
Publicité
Publicité
Publicité
Publicité
Publicité
Publicité
Publicité
Publicité
2014
TO BIKE OR NOT TO BIKE?
Comparing Bicycle Master Plans for Seattle,
WA and Washington D.C.
Photo Credits to Joseph Si...
Introduction: What’s this Report About?
Comparing Bicycle Master Plans for Seattle, WA
and Washington D.C.
This report is ...
City of Seattle, Washington
The City of Seattle lies within the state of Washington. It has a population of 608,660 people...
Publicité
Publicité
Publicité
Publicité
Publicité
Publicité
Publicité
Publicité
Publicité
Publicité
Prochain SlideShare
ECOLOGICAL CHANGES OF LAKES
ECOLOGICAL CHANGES OF LAKES
Chargement dans…3
×

Consultez-les par la suite

1 sur 74 Publicité

Plus De Contenu Connexe

Similaire à KennethRosales_FinalBMPComparison_Seattle_WashingtonDC_Combined (20)

Plus par Kenneth Rosales (20)

Publicité

KennethRosales_FinalBMPComparison_Seattle_WashingtonDC_Combined

  1. 1. 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
  2. 2. 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
  3. 3. 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)
  4. 4. 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)
  5. 5. 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).
  6. 6. 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
  7. 7. 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
  8. 8. 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
  9. 9. 8.75 5.25 0 2 4 6 8 10 Seattle The District 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.
  10. 10. 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).
  11. 11. 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” (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 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
  12. 12. 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
  13. 13. 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: 5.75/6 l The District: 3.5/6 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 Seattle The District 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).
  14. 14. 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).
  15. 15. 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).
  16. 16. 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 Seattle The District SectionScoreOutof8 Existing Conditions, Bicycle Newtworks, & Maps
  17. 17. 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).
  18. 18. 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)
  19. 19. 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.
  20. 20. 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 Seattle The District SectionScoreOutof8 Design Standards Figure 23 Graph showing results of the fourth d section of the Matrix.
  21. 21. 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)
  22. 22. “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).
  23. 23. 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).
  24. 24. 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 Seattle The District SectionScoreOutof10 Service and Traffic Impact Assessment
  25. 25. 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 Seattle The District SectionScoreOutof8 Guiding Principles, Laws, & Policies Figure 32 Graph showing results of the sixth section of the Matrix.
  26. 26. 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).
  27. 27. 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
  28. 28. reporting procedures from officers [and even including an online reporting system for residents] (District of Colombia 2005, 37). 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.
  29. 29. Funding & Implementation Seattle: 4.75/6 l The District: 4.25/8 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 Seattle The District SectionScoreOutof6 Funding & Implementation Figure 34 Graph showing results of the seventh section of the Matrix.
  30. 30. 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.
  31. 31. 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.
  32. 32. 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.
  33. 33. 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
  34. 34. 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.
  35. 35. 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
  36. 36. 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.
  37. 37. 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
  38. 38. 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).
  39. 39. 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.
  40. 40. 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.
  41. 41. 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” (City of Seattle 2014a, 31). 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.
  42. 42. 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” (City of Seattle 2014a, 90). 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
  43. 43. 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?
  44. 44. 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” (City of Seattle 2014a, 105). 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.
  45. 45. 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
  46. 46. 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 Transportation & Air Quality Collaborative 2005, 4)??Were there at least three general public outreach meetings for the creation of the Plan (Sacramento Transportation & Air Quality Collaborative 2005, 4)? What was the purpose of the outreach, what was discussed (Sacramento Transportation & Air Quality Collaborative 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” (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). 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.
  47. 47. 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).
  48. 48. APPENDIX 2) Does the Plan require the transportation lead agency to integrate and work interdepartmentally with other divisions (Sacramento Transportation & Air Quality Collaborative 2005, 4)? For example, a Sustainability Commission or a Transportation Management Agency/Transportatio n Demand Management Commission (Sacramento Transportation & Air Quality Collaborative 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
  49. 49. 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 (City of Seattle 2014a, 20). 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).
  50. 50. APPENDIX Total 5.75/6 Total 3.5/6 3. Existing Conditions, Bicycle Networks, & Maps
  51. 51. APPENDIX 1) Does the Plan have a section describing existing conditions of bicycle facilities (Sacramento Transportation & Air Quality Collaborative 2005, 5)? Is there a measurement of existing street conditions, “Journey to Work” data from the 2010 (Sacramento Transportation & Air Quality Collaborative 2005, 5)? Was there a survey performed for this? Were most of these measurements (above) done through community outreach (Sacramento Transportation & Air Quality Collaborative 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)” (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 (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).
  52. 52. APPENDIX Maps and tables were found for existing bicycle facilities and preferred and non-preferred bicycle routes (City of Seattle 2014a, 15-24).
  53. 53. 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).
  54. 54. APPENDIX 3) Does the Plan have a recommended Bicycle Network (Sacramento Transportation & Air Quality Collaborative 2005, 11)? Is there a map (Sacramento Transportation & Air Quality Collaborative 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).
  55. 55. APPENDIX 4) Does the Plan have 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 (City of Seattle 2014a, 3). (0) Unfortunately, the D.C. Plan does not have a bicycle facility framework to analyze different types of bicyclists.
  56. 56. APPENDIX 2) Does the Plan have Facility Design Guidelines (Sacramento Transportation & Air Quality Collaborative 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).
  57. 57. APPENDIX (Sacramento Transportation & Air Quality Collaborative 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 Transportation & Air Quality Collaborative 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” (City of Seattle 2014a, 35-76). 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] (City of Seattle 2014a, 78-79). (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).
  58. 58. APPENDIX Transportation & Air Quality Collaborative 2005, 40-61)?
  59. 59. APPENDIX
  60. 60. 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 1) Does the Plan have 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.
  61. 61. APPENDIX 2) Does the Plan measure the level of comfort for existing conditions and projections for future infrastructure (Sacramento Transportation & Air Quality Collaborative 2005, 20)? In other words, what “bicycle level-of-service” calculations does the Plan use (Sacramento Transportation & Air Quality Collaborative 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 Transportation & Air Quality Collaborative 2005, 21)? If so, what are they (Sacramento Transportation & Air Quality Collaborative 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.

×