Ideas from Bike Brainstorm Meeting, 18 Nov 2009

Ideas from Bike Brainstorm Meeting at Trails & Open Spaces Office, 18 November 2009, facilitated by Al Brody

[In response to FHWA request for research topics on bicycle and pedestrian transportation enhancements.}

A group of concerned citizens got together and brainstormed what we believe the FWHA's Environment and Planning  Bicycle and Pedestrian Team should consider for lines of research that should be pursued within this emphasis area. .

Many of us in the choir know that a better non-motorized system will provide more options for those who choose to leave their car at home, but what we need is a way to validate, justify, quantify, what we know already – that more trails and sidewalks and a better connected system will make it more attractive for people to ride and walk…And this will lead to other benefits – environmental, social, health, community, etc. 

Documentation of how many users are using our non-motorized system is becoming more important as more projects compete for scarce funding.  With the CMAQ program, project applicants have to describe actual benefits of the proposed project (e.g. what daily CO emissions and/or congestion reductions can be expected).  It’s hard to quantify the benefits of a new trail project or extension without knowing the current usage.  So, non-motorized projects are at a disadvantage.

The http://knowledge.fwha.dot.gov/cops/step.nsf/home/ web site 'could not be found'.  Please let me know if there is an alternate way to submit our suggestions.  I have included our suggestions below.

Thanks

Al Brody

Pikes Peak Area Bike Coalition

719.266.6846

 

 

 

1. Who is (Who isn't) /What for/Why(Why NOT?) use of non-motorized facilities including multi-use trails bike lanes, and streets.

    -- It would be very helpful to understand why people choose to or not to ride bicycles.

 

2. We believe there is a 'tipping point' where injuries/fatalities increase as bicycling increases and then injuries level off as cycling continues to increase as a percentage of mode share.  How can communities  avoid the initial increase in incidents as they strive to increase the bicycle mode share?

 

3. Study bias against cyclists in motor vehicle/bicycle crash investigations.  For example,  cyclists are often blamed for crashes and given blood alcohol content tests while the motorists do not get tested.  There appears to be a bias related to use of safety equipment.  Often crash investigators and the media will address if a helmet was worn but not check to determine if seat belts were worn. 

 

4. Analyze the uniformity of crash data collection forms for crashes involving pedestrians and cyclists.  Even within our metropolitan area there are various forms used by police. 

 

5. Study what can be done to address crash scenes disturbed by witnesses or first responders who rush to move the damaged bicycle and or rider out of traffic.  This can destroy the chances of completing a meaningful crash investigation.

 

6. Study the cyclist/motorist training curriculum and test questions for inclusion of multi modal road sharing.

 

7. Study crash/injury/fatality trends in cities that have earned the League of American Bicyclists Bicycle Friendly Community Award.  Possibly start with cities which have earned the Platinum status and work down to the bronze level award.

 

8. There are many new categories of Low or light impact/powered vehicles such as Segways, electric bikes, scooters, neighborhood electric vehicles, etc. Study the appropriate use and regulation of these new alternative vehicles.

 

9. Study how well Complete Streets policies are working and how they have been integrated to accommodate all road users safely.  The concern here is how well the 'Whole System' functions.  The corollary is to study why municipalities have avoided Complete Streets policies or have voted against them.  We need to understand what is motivating people to accept or fight the multi modal use of our streets.  

 

10. Study Sustainability Performance of our streets and roadways.  Rights of Ways are community assets and should be used in ways to contribute to energy production and other beneficial uses that may even help to pay for the infrastructure.

 

11. Study the possibility of additional points for transportation in building L.E.E.D. certification that would encourage desired behaviors. 

 

12. Study the creation of a L.E.E.D. like certification for built rights of ways.  This competition could lead to ever improving facilities.

 

13. Study the impact to bicycle and low impact vehicles mode share because of mass transit limitations (such as bike rack capacity on buses for two bicycles, or restrictions on bringing bikes into certain train cars or onto transit during rush hours.  The concern here is the impact transit restrictions have on last mile transportation options and how that may affect multi-modal travel.