copyright 1996, Tracy-Williams Consulting

Balancing Engineering, Education, Law Enforcement, and Encouragement in Local Bicycle Programs

By John Williams & Kathleen McLaughlin, Adventure Cycling Association

(published February 1993 as Case Study 11 of the National Bicycling and Walking Study; FHWA)

Conclusion

A comprehensive bicycle program directed toward the goal of increasing safe bicycle travel must combine the efforts of many people. No one office can do it all. Officials in public works, planning, enforcement, education, recreation agencies all have a role and must work together to achieve the desired end.

In order to determine success, it is important to first determine current conditions. Since non-motorized travel is seldom measured, we know little about it. With data on use, user attitudes and behavior, safety, and security problems, it is possible to assemble an achievable set of goals and objectives. These goals and objectives should be used to guide the development and implementation of an action plan. The plan should include physical elements like roadway improvements and trail systems, as well as non-physical elements like enforcement and education programs.

Evaluating the elements of the action plan is a critical step in determining future direction and past success. Success should be measured both in terms of services delivered and effects achieved. Evaluation must be seen as a key ingredient to implementation, rather than as an extra duty to be performed if there is time or money.

Combining these steps into a comprehensive program will allow a community to achieve and measure success.

References

  1. A Study of Bicycle-Motor Vehicle Accidents: Identification of Problem Types & Countermeasure Approaches; 1977; Cross & Fisher for NHTSA
  2. Bikeway Plan: Bike Routes & Priorities; 1991; City of Davis, California
  3. Boulder Transportation Plan; 1990; City of Boulder, Colorado
  4. City of Davis TSM Plan; 1991; City of Davis, California
  5. City of San Diego Traffic Signal Detection Study; 1985; Mohle, Grover & Associates for the City of San Diego, California
  6. Evaluation of the Eugene Bikeways Master Plan; 1979; RCI for the City of Eugene, Oregon
  7. Final Report on the Palo Alto Bikeway System; 1974; City of Palo Alto, California
  8. Geelong Bikeplan; 1977; Geelong Bikeplan Study Steering Committee and the Geelong Regional Commission, Geelong, Australia
  9. Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities; 1991, AASHTO Task Force on Geometric Design
  10. Policy on Geometric Design of Highways & Streets; 1990; AASHTO Task Force on Geometric Design
Return to Table of Contents
Return to Reference Library
Return to Selected Articles
Return to the BikePlan Source Home Page