Walter G Booth School of Engineering Practice

Master of Engineering and Public Policy Inquiry

Determining Bicycle Infrastructure Suitability on Auto-Oriented Commercial Arterial Roadways

Submitted In partial fulfillment of the requirements for a Masters of Engineering in Engineering and Public Policy

Submitted by: Justin Readman Date: September 8, 2014 Supervisor: Dr. B. Baetz

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to explore the most appropriate cycling infrastructure treatment for auto-oriented commercial arterial roadways, using

Upper James Street in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada as a case study. To do this, a review of relevant literature on bicycling infrastructure was completed. Two evaluation methods were conducted to determine how closely they align with a final recommendation. The first method used the Reasoned Argument Approach. This approach is commonly used to evaluate infrastructure alternatives within the

Ontario Municipal Class Environmental Assessment framework. The second approach used the Analytical Hierarchy Process to evaluate the same alternatives, using the same criteria. This evaluation was conducted by a small sample of municipal practitioners with responsibility for planning and designing bicycle infrastructure. Each approach resulted in a different preferred alternative (bicycle lanes using reasoned argument and a centre-running cycle track using the analytical hierarchy process). The results of this study may have impacts on practitioners conducting cycling infrastructure decision-making.

Key words: Bicycle Infrastructure, Evaluation, Public Policy, Analytical Hierarchy

Process, Reasoned Argument

Justin Readman Page i

Acknowledgements

I would like to acknowledge the guidance of my supervisor, Dr. Brian Baetz, as well as my program director Dr. Gail Krantzberg. Your advice and guidance was invaluable throughout this inquiry and my broader time at McMaster University. I would also like to thank my work colleagues for their assistance with the analytical hierarchy questionnaires as well as for the insightful discussions we have had about cycling infrastructure. Lastly, I would like to thank my partner for support and encouragement.

Justin Readman Page ii

Table of Contents

Abstract ...... i

Acknowledgements ...... ii

Table of Contents ...... iii

Introduction ...... 1

Review of the Literature ...... 6

Brief History ...... 6

Results of the Literature Search ...... 7

Method ...... 19

Evaluation Criteria ...... 22

Case Study Location and Design Alternatives ...... 23

Results ...... 26

Policy Recommendations ...... 30

Conclusions ...... 32

References ...... 34

Appendix 1 – Evaluation Criteria Weighting Questionnaire ...... 40

Appendix 2 – Alternative Evaluation Questionnaire ...... 41

Appendix 3 – Reasoned Argument Evaluation ...... 43

Appendix 4 – Analytical Hierarchy Process Calculations ...... 45

Justin Readman Page iii

Determining Bicycle Infrastructure Suitability…

Introduction

This inquiry paper investigates the best method to integrate cycling infrastructure within a suburban arterial, auto-oriented, commercial roadway. If one were to visit nearly any municipality in North America, you are likely to see at least one of these roadways. They are typically characterized by wide multi-lane roadways, often containing a continuous centre left-turn lane. Outside of the road right-of-way, the land uses consist of destination commercial (larger format retailers, restaurants and entertainment venues), but may also include some office uses and mid- or high-rise apartment buildings. Often the parking is located in surface lots at the front of the building with multiple ingress and egress points along the block face. These types of roads are inhospitable to cyclists and pedestrians, contain a large amount of visual clutter and have significant potential for conflict points. Cyclist and pedestrians may tend to blend in with the surroundings and be few in numbers, while drivers are focused on finding their destination and avoiding collisions with other motor vehicles.

Following World War II, North American cities have essentially created a transportation monoculture centered on the private automobile and transportation policies have favoured automobiles over other modes (Wilkenson, 1997; Perez,

2010). McClintock (1987) concurs with Wilkenson (1997) and Perez (2010) and goes on to assert that this prioritization has been most significant on vulnerable populations (children and people of lower socio-economic status) who cannot or do not have access to motor vehicles.

Justin Readman Page 1

Determining Bicycle Infrastructure Suitability…

Building high capacity roads can have the unintended consequence of reducing cycling and public transit use with limited improvement in terms of vehicle speeds and congestion reduction (Mohan and Tiwari, 1999). Furthermore, land use segregation, long block lengths and lack of active travel infrastructure encourage car use (Frumkin, 2002). Following this type of development pattern for the past 50 years, it is understandable as to why the cycling mode share is so low within North

America.

Many recognize that census information tends to undercount cyclists since it does not collect information on persons who commute by bicycle one to two times per week or account for seasonal differences in cycling rates (Dill & Carr, 2003;

Litman, 2006). Bicycle commuting mode shares within Canada and the United States are very low (see Figure 1). For example, British Columbia and the Yukon have a cycling work mode share of two percent (Other Provinces and States range from 0.1 to 2 percent) (Pucher and Buehler, 2006). On the other hand, European counterparts enjoy a significantly higher bike mode share (5 to 32 percent) (Ibid).

However, Europe was not always this far ahead in terms of bicycle commuting.

Between the 1950’s and the 1970’s, planning in Holland focused primarily on the automobile; however, in the 1970’s, after recognizing the effects of the creation of the automobile-monoculture, there was a concerted effort to rebalance the transportation network (Ministry of Transport, 1999).

Justin Readman Page 2

Determining Bicycle Infrastructure Suitability…

Figure 1: Bike share of work trips by Province/State (Source: Pucher and Buehler, 2006)

One of the most significant challenges with achieving a greater mode share in cycling is enticing the interested but concerned contingent of the population (see

Figure 2). This group is generally afraid of traffic and in particular, safety issues along arterial roads and at intersections (Geller, N.D.).

Justin Readman Page 3

Determining Bicycle Infrastructure Suitability…

Four types of Cyclists

1% 7%

32% Strong and Fearless Enthusiastic and Confident Interested but Concerned No Way, No How

60%

Figure 2: Types of Cyclists (Adapted from Geller, N.D.)

The Province of Ontario approved Ontario Traffic Manual Book 18: Cycling

Facilities in early 2014. This provides guidance and direction to practitioners on the installation of bicycle facilities for various roadway types and includes a number of treatments to provide added comfort and safety for cyclists. It is anticipated that the application of the measures outlined within Book 18 will greatly increase the cycling mode split, specifically targeting individuals within the ‘interested but concerned’ population segment.

However, within Book 18 one area that is lacking (in terms of information or guidance) is the type of infrastructure to install along major arterial auto-oriented commercial roadways, (similar to Upper James Street in Hamilton, Ontario). For the purposes of this paper, this street will be used as a case study and will be run through a robust evaluation process in the hopes to determine an appropriate cycling facility.

Justin Readman Page 4

Determining Bicycle Infrastructure Suitability…

Upper James contains a significant amount of employment and commercial land uses within the suburban portion of the City, located above the Niagara

Escarpment. Currently, this roadway is a five lane roadway (two lanes of traffic in each direction plus a continuous centre left-turn lane), does not contain cycling facilities and is a destination for many local area residents since the road contains a mix of personal service, grocery, hardware, restaurant, and entertainment amenities. The surrounding area is predominantly low-density residential.

Vulnerable populations that reside near this area, and cannon drive or have access to a car, may face significant challenges accessing destinations along this corridor.

Although sidewalks are present, cyclist options are to ride in mixed traffic, attempt to weave through surface parking lots, ride on the sidewalk or dismount and walk their bicycle.

This inquiry will attempt to add information to the knowledge base, in terms of a potential new infrastructure application for automobile-oriented corridors as well as information on infrastructure evaluation processes. Additionally, this inquiry will make broader cycling policy recommendations that could be transferred to other communities.

Justin Readman Page 5

Determining Bicycle Infrastructure Suitability…

Review of the Literature

Brief History

The bicycle has had a significant role in the advancement of human mobility.

Between 1820 and 1890, the bicycle advanced personal mobility by approximately

0.5 meters per second per decade (Minetti et al., 2001).

The first cycling boom, which occurred in the 1890’s, afforded personal freedom and mobility to the masses and was a leading cause of improved social liberalism for women (Rubenstein, 1977; Somers, 1967; Spreng, 1995; Taylor,

2008). The bicycle expanded the range and mobility of a broad cross-section of the population at a relatively low cost.

As the popularity of bicycles continued to rise, pent up demand for improved roadways became a political issue. Somewhat ironically, lobbying efforts by cyclists to improve roadways helped contribute to infrastructure that met the needs of automobile use (Somers, 1967; Spreng, 1995).

In the 1970’s, during the height of auto-oriented development, there was a second bicycle boom. The boom resulted in the doubling of bicycle sales (Epperson,

1995). The boom may be attributed to the boomer generation, having more disposable income than previous generations, as well as advances in bicycle design that made them trendy again. The boom ended around the time of the 1970’s energy crisis so it is unlikely that bicycle sales were linked with environmental movements of the time. However, this boom may have had a lasting impact (through policy

Justin Readman Page 6

Determining Bicycle Infrastructure Suitability… changes) on the advancement of cycling infrastructure improvements we see today

(Epperson, 1995).

Results of the Literature Search

Based on an extensive literature review there does not appear to be any examples of academic work seeking to improve infrastructure design for busy auto- oriented commercial corridors.

Cycling research can generally be bucketed into six focus areas. These include:

 Historical accounts of cycling within geographic areas;  Cycling and health research (in terms of activity levels and fitness, emission exposure, etc.);  Cyclists’ route selection/Barriers to Cycling (Geographic Positioning System (GPS), Stated Preference, Recall Surveys);  Safety Studies (Longitudinal collision studies, helmet use and effectiveness studies);  Built Environment and its effect on mode choice; and,  Performance Research (material types, bicycle geometry, etc.).

For the purpose of this study, the net was cast wide and approximately 100 published articles were reviewed from the categories above (with the exception of performance research). Performance research is irrelevant to this focus area since the target population is everyday cyclists, not those heavily involved in performance cycling.

Practitioners around the world are challenged to increase mode shares of bicyclists. From a sustainability perspective, energy efficient modes, such as walking and biking, are ideal for short trips, are universally available and do not rely

Justin Readman Page 7

Determining Bicycle Infrastructure Suitability… on vast amounts of parking at either the origin or destination (Wilkenson, 1997).

Additionally, Cox (2008) argues that sustainable mobility requires the most efficient use of energy. Automobiles are inherently less efficient since the majority of energy goes towards moving the weight of the vehicle itself and walking is limited by its low speed. McClintock (1987, p. 270) states, “bicycles are between 25 and 30 times more efficient in energy use as a car”.

Gabrow et al. (2012) estimate that a transfer of 50 percent of short trips from automobile to bicycle in the largest cities in the states of Minnesota, Wisconsin,

Illinois, Indiana, Michigan and Ohio would result in an approximate $3.8 billion

(conservative by their account) average annual benefit to society. They attribute these benefits to improvements in air quality as well as improvements to health of the population. While their estimates are conservative, it is unlikely that a mode shift of this scale would be achieved anytime quickly, if ever - particularly given that some of the most bicycle-friendly communities in the world are challenged to hit that target. Gabrow et al.’s (2012) research indicates there are significant benefits from encouraging a shift from automobile to bicycle for short trips and even small incremental shifts towards biking should provide overall societal benefits.

In addition to the sustainability lens, North America is faced with an ageing population. Given this reality, cities need to do more to create a balance between different modes of transportation (Vojnovic, 2006). Data from the City of Toronto suggests that the highest percentage of cyclists by age range is within the 35 to 44- age bracket, followed closely by the 45 to 54-age bracket (see Figure 3).

Encouraging more people, particularly within this age bracket, to cycle is promising

Justin Readman Page 8

Determining Bicycle Infrastructure Suitability… from a health perspective. Lafferty et al. (2013) found that people who primarily traveled to work by bicycle were less likely to be overweight, obese, or have diabetes or hypertension compared to those that traveled by other modes. However, within their study only 3% of participants regularly cycled to work.

Figure 3: Toronto Cycling Trips by Age and Gender (Source: Toronto Cycling Think and Do Tank, 2013, adapted from City of Toronto Data) The data from the City of Toronto indicates female cyclists lead the 35 to 54- age brackets. This unique result is not seen in the majority of published studies. For example, Kamphuis et al. (2008) found that women were less likely to cycle than men. Dill and Carr’s (2003) study consisted of primarily male participants and 69 percent of all participants did not have children. Males, particularly those with little supervision from their parents, and adolescents from lower income families were more likely to participate in active travel to school (Babey et al., 2009).

Commuter cycling rates by women has profound impact on the planning of cycling infrastructure, particularly since women and people with higher incomes tend to choose routes perceived to be safer, even though they are longer (Krizek,

Justin Readman Page 9

Determining Bicycle Infrastructure Suitability…

2006). Furthermore, children were more likely to walk or cycle to school if their mother walked or cycled to work (Panter et al., 2010). This tells practitioners that women should play a key role in the planning of cycling infrastructure to ensure that appropriate design measures are in place to exude a sense of comfort for their demographic group (and inherently the broader cross-section of society).

Additionally, since youth and people of lower socioeconomic status tend to rely on walking and cycling more so than other groups, infrastructure spending should be prioritized in order to support these mobility groups (Butler et al., 2007).

Now that we know who is cycling and what demographics should be targeted it is important to understand where cyclists are going. Areas that contain trails and/or bike lanes as well as destinations (offices, fast-food restaurants, hospitals and multi-family residential) support cycling (Moudon et al., 2005). Conversely,

Aultman-Hall et al. (1996) found that cyclists tended to avoid trails and preferred more direct on-road routes. Moudon et al. (2005) also found that a moderate level of traffic and destinations were desirable for cyclists rather than too much traffic.

Winters et al. (2010) conclude that the built environment influenced mode choice and that cyclists preferred less large commercial and single-family land uses.

Planners can significantly improve population health by improving walking and cycling environments since the built environment has a strong influence over people’s travel choice (see Figure 4, with particular attention to the neighbourhood environment component where planners have the most ability to affect change)

(Racioppi et al., 2005). Batterbury (2003) argues that planning is too important to be left to planners – especially those who do not ride bikes. They argue that the

Justin Readman Page 10

Determining Bicycle Infrastructure Suitability… streetscape should be developed by coalitions of citizens and professionals. Within the Province of Ontario, contemporary planning practices - ones where collaboration and consultation take place - are important components of the process.

Figure 4: Ecological model of neighbourhood influences on walking and cycling (Saelens et al., 2003) As outlined in the ecological model above, and in addition, Perez (2010) outlines factors that can contribute to increased levels of active travel include:

 Dedicated budget to infrastructure supporting active travel;  Traffic calming to reduce vehicle speeds and prioritize non-motorized travel;  Decreased crime rates so that children and the elderly feel safe within neighbourhoods; and,  To provide a mix of services and destinations where people live.

Justin Readman Page 11

Determining Bicycle Infrastructure Suitability…

There appears to be strong public support for infrastructure improvements to improve bicycle mode splits (Lorenc et al., 2008). A Harris Poll conducted in 1991 found that 49 percent of active bicycle riders who did not currently commute by bicycle said they sometimes would if there were safe bike lanes (as cited in Dill &

Carr, 2003, p. 116). More recently, a survey conducted in the Greater Toronto Area by Share the Road Coalition (2014) found that 68% of survey respondents wanted to see more bike infrastructure so that more people would ride more often. In Dill and Carr’s (2003) review of 42 cities, they found a significant positive correlation between bicycle commuting and the provision of bicycle infrastructure.

Cyclist populations have participated in a number of GPS route-tracking studies and the findings of the studies generally align. Most cyclists try to take the most direct route, while detouring slightly to avoid steep hills (Aultman-Hall et al.,

1996; Dill, 2009; Menghini, et al., 2010). Cyclists also sought roadways with minimal traffic (Aultman-Hall et al., 1996; Dill, 2009; Menghini, et al., 2010). Aultman-Hall et al. (1996) found that 50 percent of the trips contained a segment on an arterial road; however, this was attributed to the possibility of needing to ride along them to connect to another local road.

One contrary finding between studies is that Aultman-Hall et al. (1996) found cyclists prefer using signalized intersections; whereas, Menghini et al. (2010) found the opposite. Given that one study was conducted in a small city and the other in a large city may reflect differences associated with intersection volume and complexity at these two locations.

Justin Readman Page 12

Determining Bicycle Infrastructure Suitability…

Dill (2009) found that some cyclists may be traveling out of their way to use routes that have cycling facilities in place. Dill (2009) asserts that without a well- connected cycling network it would be difficult to minimize interaction with vehicular traffic at the same time as minimizing route distance. A study by Krizek

(2006) (which used a different methodology than Dill (2009)) found that on a 20 minute commute, cyclists may be willing to travel an extra 16.3 minutes to take a route that has an on-street bicycle lane, 8.9 minutes where there is no on-street parking or an additional 5.2 minutes for an off-road bicycle path.

Dill (2009) asserts that, if cycling is to attract new people, then there must be diversity within the network (in terms of types of infrastructure). However, Nash et al. (2005) outline four conflicting demands placed upon cycle network planners, including: strict rules and guidelines; existing condition constraints that may restrict what can be implemented; differing preconceived ideas from cyclists with respect to the type of infrastructure or route placement; and, budget constraints.

Given the constraints outlined by Nash et al. (2005) it may be difficult for practitioners to implement a diverse cycling facility network.

Krizek and Roland (2005) argue that discontinuities in cycling networks can form the weakest link within said network. Discontinuities can occur due to bicycle facilities ending mid-block, the addition of a motor vehicle right turn lane, any time a bicycle facility intersects with a crossing road, and, in some instances, across major driveway accesses. Based on the literature it appears that much consideration should be given to these locations during planning and design.

Justin Readman Page 13

Determining Bicycle Infrastructure Suitability…

When cycling on street, comfort is dictated by the width of the bicycle lane or curb lane, topography, the presence of transit stops and parking as well as the volume and speed of automobiles and other cyclists (Li et al., 2012). The inclusion of on-road bicycle infrastructure (sharrows or bicycle lanes) can reduce the odds of a bicycle-motor vehicle collision by 52 percent (Hamann & Peek-Asa, 2013). However, a review of cycling fatalities and serious injuries in New York City by Mandel-Ricci et al. (2008) found that 94 percent of collisions involved contact with a motor vehicle and 89 percent of fatal crashes occurred at an intersection. During their study period, they found only one bicycle fatality involving a motor vehicle occurring within a bicycle lane. Interestingly, motorists on roadways with 40 and 50 mph

(approximately 64 and 80 km/h, respectively) speed limits gave cyclists more space when passing when a bike lane was not present (Parkin and Meyers, 2010). The authors attribute this to people following the pavement lines more closely than the actual space between the cyclist and their vehicle. In order to achieve a similar passing distance when a bike lane is present, Parkin and Meyers (2010) suggest that the bicycle lane be two meters wide along higher speed and/or volume roadways.

One study, conducted in Copenhagen, found that the installation of bicycle lanes resulted in an increase of collisions by 5 percent (Jensen, 2008). On the other hand, Chen et al. (2012) found that bicycle lanes, installed in New York, did not lead to an increased number of collisions. Krizek and Roland (2005) note that areas where bike lanes end force cyclists to merge with traffic and pose significant risks.

An example of bicycle infrastructure treatments that could be considered within automobile-oriented commercial arterial roadways are centre-running, two-

Justin Readman Page 14

Determining Bicycle Infrastructure Suitability… way cycle tracks. They are found in a select number of North American cities

(Portland, Minneapolis, Washington, and New York). Minneapolis installed a number of bike lanes on the left hand side of the street following the death of a cyclist by a transit bus in the mid 1990’s (Krizek & Roland, 2005). Anecdotally, the above cities moved bike lanes from the right lane to the centre of the road to reduce conflicts that tend to occur within the right lane (deliveries, cab pick-up and drop- off and bus stops). The downside to centre cycling lanes (or left side cycle lanes on one-way streets) is that they require cyclists to traverse many lanes of traffic

(Krizek & Roland, 2005). For example, when the lane ends or the cyclist is required to turn onto a roadway where a left side cycle lane is not present (i.e. transition from the left side bike lane to the right hand curb lane either moving forward or onto the perpendicular street) the crossing of automobile traffic can create a confusing and dangerous position when a safe transition mechanism is not provided.

Since the 1970’s, the Dutch have taken radical measures to improve their cities for cycling, often at the expense of the automobile. This has been done through reclaiming space with the construction of cycle tracks or protected bike facilities

(McClintock, 1982). Perraton (1968) found that cyclists were four times safer on a cycle track than on a roadway. This is supported through research by Jensen (2008), who found that the installation of cycle tracks resulted in a between intersection decrease of auto-bicycle collisions by 10 percent, however, collisions at intersections rose by 18 percent.

Justin Readman Page 15

Determining Bicycle Infrastructure Suitability…

Thomas and DeRobertis’ (2013) review of the literature found that the incorporation of intersection treatments into cycle track implementation reduced collisions and injuries and that, in general, one-way cycle tracks were safer than two-way. Through their review, they found that effective treatments to improve cycle track/intersection junctions include:

 Aligning cycle tracks as close as possible to parallel automobile traffic at intersections;  Inclusion of advance stop bars for automobiles so that cyclists are in view of parallel traffic;  Reducing turning automobile traffic speeds through the provision of raised cycle track crossings; and,  Separating cyclist movements through the provision of bicycle dedicated signal phases. There are other positive and negative aspects to cycle tracks. Within physically separated bicycle lanes, comfort is higher when there is light bicycle traffic and heavy automobile congestion (Li et al., 2012). This means that when cycle tracks are very busy they can create dangerous situations for cyclists within the track as they are essentially hemmed in by the protection measure. However, an additional potential benefit that the construction of protected cycle tracks may create is restriction of traffic. Research by Gonzales et al. (2010) found that vehicular access restrictions to congested areas can improve overall mobility and that dedicating space to non-automobile modes can improve mobility to all modes. However, this would need to be conducted on a case-by-case basis to determine the overall capacity of the local network and the effect that the changes would have on said capacity.

Justin Readman Page 16

Determining Bicycle Infrastructure Suitability…

Within the context of the Ministry of Transportation’s Ontario Traffic Manual:

Book 18 a nomograph is presented to assist practitioners in selecting the appropriate type of bicycle facility based on traffic volume and speed data (see

Figure 5). For the full process, refer to figure 3.2 within Book 18.

Figure 5: Desirable Bicycle Facility Pre-Selection Nomograph (Source: Ministry of Transportation of Ontario (2013)) A component of safe bicycling practice, which has received a lot of attention

(at the province/state level) as well as having been studied quite extensively, is the use and efficacy of bicycle helmets. The purpose of this inquiry is not to debate the merits of bicycle helmet use or the policies dictating it. However, since a supplementary goal of this inquiry is to capture additional cyclist mode it is worth brief consideration.

Bicycle helmet legislation has been demonstrated to reduce bicycling fatalities among juveniles (Grant and Rutner, 2004). However, this study did not assess the impact that legislation may have had on overall cycling usage. In other words, does the legislation deter people from cycling? The author of this inquiry was

Justin Readman Page 17

Determining Bicycle Infrastructure Suitability… unable to locate a study that looked at the effect of cycling rate pre- and post- mandatory helmet laws. If the result of the implementation of a mandatory helmet law results in a reduction of cyclists then the benefits of mandating helmet use for the relatively rare cyclist that might have been protected from injury or death may not be worth it at the population scale. For example, Godefrooij (2001) argues that quality infrastructure and traffic calming are more effective at preventing critical injuries than mandated helmet laws. In addition, he argues that head injuries occur in car drivers and pedestrians, so should they also be mandated to wear a helmet?

The last safety component, which is of interest to this inquiry, is the effect of exposure from emissions. Since this inquiry is looking to integrate cycling into a high volume roadway it is prudent to review what the literature says about cyclist exposure to airborne pollutants.

Inhalation rates are higher for those that use active travel modes, which can increase exposure to airborne pollutants (de Nazelle and Nieuwenhuijsen, 2010).

Average particle number concentration is approximately 59 percent higher on arterial roads compared to local traffic roadways; however, no negative associations to lung function were found through this study (Strak et al., 2010).

An intervention to protect cyclists from pollution could be to place bicycle lanes on alternate routes that have less motor vehicle traffic (de Nazelle and

Nieuwenhuijsen, 2010; Zuurbier et al., 2010). However, de Hartog et al. (2010) found that the health benefits of cycling greatly outnumber the risks relative to driving. Additionally, other research has shown that cyclists prefer to take the most direct path. Alternate routes, with low traffic volume, tend to be more circuitous.

Justin Readman Page 18

Determining Bicycle Infrastructure Suitability…

In Copenhagen, the construction of cycle tracks and bike lanes resulted in a

20 and 5 percent increase in bicycle and moped traffic along with a 10 and 1 percent decrease in motor traffic (Jensen, 2008). Jenson (2008) recognizes that the traffic may have moved to other parallel routes instead of switching from one mode to another. However, the results of this study are promising, if they are replicable in other locations. Since the installation of higher quality cycling infrastructure may have reduced traffic while improving the cycling mode split, emission would be lower (locally at least, if traffic was disbursed elsewhere) and more people would be reaping the health benefits of cycling.

Through the literature review, it is apparent that there is not much in the way of guidance for the installation of cycling infrastructure along auto-oriented commercial corridors. Given that these routes tend to be the most direct, further research and guidance should be developed to assist practitioners with infrastructure enhancements. In that vein, this paper will use evaluation techniques to determine the theoretically preferred cycling facility for this type of corridor.

Method

The evaluation of alternative design concepts used two different methods to determine the most appropriate cycling infrastructure type for automobile-oriented arterial commercial corridors. The first is the Reasoned Argument Approach.

Planners within Ontario following the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment process commonly use this method. This method compares alternatives against each other working towards a preferred alternative. Weightings are not typically

Justin Readman Page 19

Determining Bicycle Infrastructure Suitability… established and if they are, the establishment is relatively arbitrary. This method was conducted by the author of this paper and used the same criteria and alternatives as the participants using method two.

The second method is the Analytical Hierarchy Process. This component was conducted by nine (one female and eight male) participants. These participants work within the transportation-planning field and are responsible for planning and design of roadways and cycling infrastructure. The author of this study acted as a facilitator and administered and summarized the results of the surveys. To simplify the process, the Analytical Hierarchy Process (see Saaty (1990)) was modified slightly to allow participation by those with a lack of understanding of the process.

First, the evaluation criteria were established and simplified to narrow down to a number which was manageable yet granular enough to pick up trade-offs between the different criteria. These criteria were reviewed with a sub-set of the participants to ensure they were robust enough while still maintaining simplicity.

Second, a questionnaire was developed to rank pair-wise comparisons against each other (see Appendix 1). Criteria were set on scale to represent -8 on the left hand side, 0 being equal and 8 on the right hand side. This scale was chosen to be able to communicate results as well as group averages and standard deviations. The Delphi

Technique (see Linstone (1985)) was incorporated to reduce variability in the responses and to move towards a consistent group selection. As such, answers from the first round were compiled and the average and standard deviation were calculated. Participants were then given a follow-up survey, their previous answer along with the group average and standard deviation. They were asked to

Justin Readman Page 20

Determining Bicycle Infrastructure Suitability… reconsider their selection and if they chose to keep a previous answer that deviated significantly from the group average, they were asked to state their justification.

The second round answers were compiled and, again, the average and standard deviation were calculated. Participants were given a third version of the survey.

They were provided with their second answer along with the average and the standard deviation of the second set of group responses. However, this time they were also provided with anonymous results that differed significantly from the average along with that reviewer’s justification and were asked to resubmit. The purpose of this third iteration was to ensure that individual reviewers were considering all angles when selecting their weighting. The average of the third round was then used to determine the weighting of the individual criteria. Negative values were used to indicate the side of the scale that the individual reviewers were favouring. The negative symbol was removed and each value had a one added to them to allow the weighting to be calculated using the Analytical Hierarchy Process.

Next, the group was given a questionnaire to evaluate how the different alternatives met the criteria (see Appendix 2). The same process was used to scale the pair-wise comparison. Due to the number of comparisons generated (72) only one iteration of the questionnaire was administered. Again, these values were reset to be in a format appropriate for calculations within the Analytical Hierarchy

Process.

Justin Readman Page 21

Determining Bicycle Infrastructure Suitability…

Evaluation Criteria

The Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Guide contains a number of recommended criteria considerations for roadway infrastructure projects.

Additionally, Nash et al. (2005) include five criteria categories used to calculate route evaluation effectiveness. These categories (coherence, directness, attractiveness, safety, and comfort) could be adapted and integrated into the evaluation process when practitioners evaluated cycling schemes.

In order to reduce the complexity in the evaluation process the criteria were narrowed down into the hierarchy outlined in Figure 6. These criteria were selected as there are differences that are measurable and a level of detail sufficient to encompass a relatively well-rounded consideration of impacts on the environment.

Other criteria considered but not selected for inclusion are archaeology impacts, impacts on fauna, impacts on groundwater, etc. While important, the inclusion of these would likely not affect the evaluation since the impacts would be similar for any alternative or are picked up within other criteria (for example, impacts on street trees would potentially affect avian habitat).

Justin Readman Page 22

Determining Bicycle Infrastructure Suitability…

Figure 6: Evaluation Criteria Hierarchy Case Study Location and Design Alternatives

Upper James Street in Hamilton, ON is a commercial arterial roadway serving as the primary commercial corridor for residents above the Niagara Escarpment.

The focus area for this study is the 4.1 km segment between Rymal Road and

Fennell Avenue. According to Google Maps, the cycling route alternatives are West

5th Street at 4.9 km or Upper Wellington Street at 5.8 km. These alternate routes are primarily residential and are also classified as arterial roadways with limited to no bicycle infrastructure. There is a disconnected grid pattern of local roadways that do not permit easy parallel cycling access in a north-south direction.

The road is a five-lane roadway (two in each direction plus one continuous centre left turn lane). There are eleven signalized intersections along the segment under consideration (four of which are for major crossing arterials, two for highway ramps, one for a minor roadway and four for accesses to commercial plazas. There are two segments that are approximately one km long without any traffic signals.

Commercial properties are generally accessed off Upper James Street via individual

Justin Readman Page 23

Determining Bicycle Infrastructure Suitability… accesses. Along the southern portion of the corridor some driveways are consolidated into commercial plazas. Driveway spacing is approximately five to twenty metres. See Figure 7, below, for a typical example of the roadway.

Figure 7: Upper James Street, Hamilton, ON

Initially, seven alternatives were developed (do nothing/existing conditions

(Figure 8), bike lane (Figure 9), raised bike lane, one-directional boulevard cycle track (Figure 10), bi-directional boulevard cycle track, centre lane bi-directional protected cycle track (Figure 11) and multi-use path at the back of the property lines). In order to condense the alternatives down to a reasonable number to evaluate the raised bike lane and one-directional boulevard cycle track were condensed into one alterative and renamed separated bike facility. The bi- directional boulevard cycle track was not carried though since two-way cycle tracks crossing a significant number of commercial driveway accesses would present

Justin Readman Page 24

Determining Bicycle Infrastructure Suitability… serious cyclist safety concerns. The multi-use path at the back of properties was also discontinued since its implementation would be technically infeasible.

Figure 8: Alternative 1 - Do Nothing/Existing Conditions (Created using streetmix.net)

Figure 9: Alternative 2 - Bike Lanes (created using streetmix.net)

Figure 10: Alternative 3 - Separated Bike Facility (created using streetmix.net)

Justin Readman Page 25

Determining Bicycle Infrastructure Suitability…

Figure 11: Alternative 4 – Centre-Running Protected Cycle track (created using streetmix.net) Note that alternative four would limit automobile movements to right-in, right- out, except at signalized intersections since the centre-running cycle track would be protected by a raised curb (not depicted).

Results

The results of the Reasoned Argument Approach (Appendix 3) would likely lead to the selection of bicycle lanes as the preferred alternative. Since this approach does not lead well to weighting the different criteria, it is difficult to choose an appropriate alternative. Assigning a value of zero for the most negative impacts (red), one for neutral impacts (white), and two for least negative impacts

(green) concur with the selection of bicycle lanes as the preferred and doing nothing being the second choice. The last place selection is the centre running protected cycle track.

Using the Analytical Hierarchy Process, weighting of different criteria resulted in the percentages found within Figure 12. The average of the participants’ responses prioritized most of the weighting to traffic operations and safety (59 percent) and the least to economic impact and cost (9 percent). On the lowest level Justin Readman Page 26

Determining Bicycle Infrastructure Suitability… criteria (the ones actually being ranked against the alternatives) real cyclist safety concerns carries the most weight at 24 percent, while automobile accessibility and operating cost carry the least at 2 percent.

Figure 12: Weighted Evaluation Criteria

The use of the Delphi Technique did not result in significant changes to the results

(see Table 1 being mindful that the negative indicates preference towards the left column and that a value of 1 is added when run through the Analytical Hierarchy Process). The three iterations did result in a slight narrowing of the standard deviation. However, some criteria maintained relatively wide deviations (traffic operations/safety versus natural environment and real cyclist safety concerns versus perceived cyclist safety concerns).

The weighting for a few of the criteria also saw some migration through the three iterations. For example, the group average continued to migrate towards a higher weighting to intersectional functionality (away from accessibility).

Justin Readman Page 27

Determining Bicycle Infrastructure Suitability…

Table 1: Average and Standard Deviation of the Groups Ranking of Evaluation Criteria

Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Standard Standard Standard Average Deviation Average Deviation Average Deviation Traffic Operations/Safety -2.3 3.8 -2.4 3.4 -2.4 3.4 Natural Environment Traffic Economic Impact and Operations/Safety -3.9 1.9 -3.8 1.9 -4.1 1.6 Costs Economic Impact and Natural Environment -2.7 3.1 -2.6 2.6 -2.7 2.3 Costs Intersection Functionality -0.2 3.4 -1.1 2.4 -1.2 2.3 Accessibility Intersection Functionality 3.3 2.2 3 1.6 3 1.6 Cyclist Safety Accessibility 1.4 3.4 1.7 3.3 1.4 2.9 Cyclist Safety Impact on Intersection Auto/Cyclist Collision Capacity 5.1 1.4 5.1 1.4 5.1 1.4 Potential Automobile Cyclist Accessibility -1.8 1.9 -2.1 1.7 -2.3 1.5 Accessibility Real cyclist Safety Perceived Cyclist Concerns -2.3 3.5 -1.4 3.9 -1.6 3.1 Safety Concerns Amount of Impervious Impact on Street Pavement 1.8 2.9 1.6 2.7 1.7 2.5 Trees Amount of Impervious Pavement 2.8 2.6 2.7 2.2 2.8 2.1 Air Quality Impact on Street Trees -1.1 2.7 -0.9 2.6 -1.4 1.9 Air Quality Infrastructure Capital Infrastructure Costs -1.1 2.9 -1.3 2.8 -1.3 2.8 Operating Costs Infrastructure Capital Impacts on Costs 0.1 2.9 0 2.9 0.2 2.7 Businesses Infrastructure Operating Impacts on Costs 1.3 2.3 1.3 2.3 1.2 2.5 Businesses

Using the weighting established by the Analytical Hierarchy Process and the results from the evaluation of the alternatives the preferred alternative can be selected

(i.e. the alternative with the highest overall score). Table 2 shows the breakdown of scores for each alternative against the evaluation criteria and the overall ranking of alternatives.

Justin Readman Page 28

Determining Bicycle Infrastructure Suitability…

Table 2: Scoring of Alternatives Using the Analytical Hierarchy Process

Track Facility Bike Lane Bike Separated Separated Do Nothing Do Centre Cycle Cycle Centre

Intersection Capacity 0.9 0.4 0.6 0.3 Minimize Auto/Cyclist Collision Potential 1 2.6 4.4 5.7 Cyclist Accessibility 0.5 1.6 3.1 1.7 Automobile Accessibility 0.8 0.5 0.5 0.2 Minimize Real Cyclist Safety Concerns 1.5 4.9 8.2 10.2 Minimize Perceived Cyclist Safety Concerns 0.6 1.6 4.1 3.4 Minimize Amount of Impervious Pavement 1.5 1 0.4 0.7 Minimize Impact on Street Trees 6 4.4 1.2 3.5 Improved Air Quality 0.9 2.3 4.7 4.7 Lower Capital Cost 2 1.1 0.3 0.3 Lower Operating Cost 0.9 0.5 0.2 0.2 Minimize Impact on Businesses 1.6 0.9 0.9 0.5 Sum 18.2 21.8 28.6 31.4

The results from the Analytical Hierarchy Process are the inverse of the

Reasoned Argument Approach with the centre cycle track scoring the highest, followed closely by the separated facility. Another point to note is that the bike lane only scored marginally higher than doing nothing. This may indicate that in these types of corridors the addition of a bicycle lane provides little benefit for cyclists and should not be implemented.

The results from the Analytical Hierarchy Process are more robust than the results from the Reasoned Argument Approach, particularly given that there was involvement from a larger set of individuals providing input into the data. Planning of cycling lanes within North America may have short-changed cyclists on the type of infrastructure needed due to shortcomings in the evaluation, particularly within

Ontario. The Reasoned Argument Approach may be artificially attributing biased

Justin Readman Page 29

Determining Bicycle Infrastructure Suitability… weight from practitioners into the process. For example, many projects in reality are likely judged artificially high on cost; however, using the Analytical Hierarchy

Process, cost (both capital and operating) was given a very low weighting.

Additionally, high weight may artificially be given to automobile accessibility even though actual weightings to this category were quite low.

Future research should investigate the effect of the inclusion of public participation into the Analytical Hierarchy Process for cycling infrastructure selection. The process used for this study simplified the technique to a level that could be used more broadly and with no training requirement. Particularly, it would be interesting to analyze the differences between practitioners and members of the public to determine whether there is consistency or significant variation between the two groups.

One of the limitations of the Analytical Hierarchy Process is the level of complication and effort additional criteria and alternatives would add. For example, using the criteria above and carrying through three alternatives requires 36 pair- wise comparisons; however, adding an additional alternative increases that to 72 pair-wise comparisons. This means that criteria and alternatives must be simplified to a level that is manageable and practical yet robust enough to capture variations.

Policy Recommendations

Pucher and Buehler (2006) assert that land-use and transport policy are attributable to different levels of cycling. In their study, they linked the rates of cycling to mixes of uses as well as much stricter transportation ‘stick’ policies, such

Justin Readman Page 30

Determining Bicycle Infrastructure Suitability… as higher gasoline taxes, extensive traffic calming and car-free zones (which are highest in Europe, followed by Canada then the United States). Federally and at the

State/Province level, governments should integrate the true cost of transportation to the users. Whether it is done through carbon taxes or user fees it should be left up to the individual governments to decide. The intent here is to reduce market distortions in travel and to move towards a true user-pay system. Additional revenues from this could then be applied to improving cyclist/pedestrian infrastructure at the local level.

Locally, the Ontario Ministry of Transportation should revisit Ontario Traffic

Manual: Book 18 and consider adding centre-running cycle tracks for automobile- oriented commercial arterial roadways. These facilities are applied in select jurisdictions in North America and could be more broadly applied to act as a short- to medium-term cycling measure.

Provincial and State governments should increase funding towards cycling initiatives. Holland spends 10 percent of their surface transportation budget on cycling, whereas, the US does not even spend a fraction of 1 percent (Repogle and

Hook, 1995). Should North American communities wish to achieve cycling mode splits similar to Holland then significant dedicated funding is required to create infrastructure that is actually safe as well as perceived to be safe.

Within North America, municipalities should have longer-term goals of redeveloping these corridors into mixed-use corridors. Parking accesses should be consolidated and/or moved to side streets and parking should be consolidated within or behind buildings. Increases in density (and a mixed use development) lead

Justin Readman Page 31

Determining Bicycle Infrastructure Suitability… to shorter trip distances and less reliance on automobiles (Newman and Hogan,

1981). Additionally, consolidation of driveways reduces the number of conflict points for side-running cycle tracks and improves overall cyclist accessibility.

At the municipal level, practitioners should ensure that their evaluation processes are robust and eliminate bias (real and unintended). This is particularly true for cycling infrastructure planning. Provincial/State governments can assist municipalities by creating Analytical Hierarchy Training programs for practitioners.

Pending future research, the Analytical Hierarchy Process could be broadened to include a public participation process. Practitioners could filter research by different demographics to also assist with targeting infrastructure to meet the needs of the most vulnerable population cohorts.

Lastly, local municipalities should continue to promote cycling as a viable transportation mode. An important consideration in any promotion and marketing campaign is to promote cyclists as regular everyday people, not a fringe group of society. Non-cyclists perceive cyclists as spandex-wearing lifestyle cyclists, while people that regularly cycle perceive cyclists as people that use bicycles for regular day-to-day activities (Gatersleben & Haddad, 2010).

Conclusions

In order to develop cycling infrastructure that actually improves real and perceived safety for the broadest cross section of society, infrastructure planners must think creatively to develop innovative infrastructure solutions. Osborne (2005 p. 238) states, “Traffic engineers should be prepared to experiment with innovative

Justin Readman Page 32

Determining Bicycle Infrastructure Suitability… safety measures (which benefit children in particular) even though they may have an adverse impact on traffic capacity”. By using the Analytical Hierarchy Process to evaluate a number of different cycling alternatives the option most ‘outside of the box’, so to speak, ended up being the preferred alternative.

Cycling was once a travel mode embraced by the masses. Some European locations as well as some North American cities are re-embracing the bicycle for its broad sustainability benefits and are reaping the rewards. Of course, this comes at a cost to automobile users. However, the most marginalized of society is most impacted by the automobile monoculture created over the past 50 years. It is time for society to be socially just and ensure balance and good design is incorporated into transportation decisions for all modes, not just the automobile.

Justin Readman Page 33

Determining Bicycle Infrastructure Suitability…

References

Aultman-Hall, L. Hall F.L., & Baetz, B.W. (1996). Analysis of Bicycle Commuter Routes Using Geographic Information Systems: Implications for Bicycle Planning. Transportation Research Record, 1578, 102-110

Babey, S.H., Hastert, T.A., Huang, W., & Brown, R. (2009). Sociodemographic, Family, and Environmental Factors Associated with Active Commuting to School among US Adolescents. Journal of Public Health Policy, 30(1), S203-S220

Batterbury, S. (2003). Environmental Activism and Social Networks: Campaigning for Bicycles and Alternative Transport in West London. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 590, 150-169

Butler, G.P., Orpana, H.M., & Wiens, A.J. (2007). By Your Own Two Feet: Factors Associated with Active Transportation in Canada. Canadian Journal of Public Health, 90(4), 259-264

Chen, L., Chen, C., Srinivasan, R., McKnight, C.E., Ewing, R., & Roe, M. (2012). Evaluating the Safety Effects of Bicycle Lanes in New York City. American Journal of Public Health, 102(6), 1120-1127

Cox, P. (2008). The Role of Human Powered Vehicles in Sustainable Mobility. Built Environment, 34(2), 140-160

Curtis, C. (2005). The Windscreen of Land Use Transport Integration: Experiences from Perth, WA, a Dispersed City. The Town Planning Review, 76(4), 423-453 de Hartog, J.J., Boogaard, H., Nijland, H., & Hoek, G. (2010). Do the Health Benefits of Cycling Outweigh the Risks? Environmental Health Perspectives, 118(8), 1109- 1116 de Nazelle, A. & Nieuwenhuijsen, M. (2010). Integrated health impact assessment of cycling. Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 67(2), 76-77

Dill, J. (2009). Bicycling for Transportation and Health: The Role of Infrastructure. Journal of Public Health Policy, 30(1), S95-S110

Dill, J., & Carr, T. (2003). Bicycle Commuting and Facilities in Major U.S. Cities: If You Build Them, Commuters Will Use Them. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 1823(1), 116-123

Epperson, B. (1995). Bicycle Planning: Growing Up or Growing Old? Race, Poverty & the Environment, 6(1), 42-44

Justin Readman Page 34

Determining Bicycle Infrastructure Suitability…

Frumkin, H. (2002). Urban Sprawl and Public Health. Public Health Reports, 117(3), 201-217

Gabrow, M.L., Spak, S.N., Holloway, T. Stone Jr., B., Mednick, A.C., & Patz, J.A. (2012). Air Quality and Exercise-Related Health Benefits from Reduced Car Travel in the Midwestern United States. Environmental Health Perspectives, 120(1), 68-76

Gatersleben, B., & Haddad, H. (2010). Who is the typical bicyclist? Transportation Research Part F, 13, 41-48

Geller, R. (N.D.). Four Types of Cyclists. Retrieved from https://www.portlandoregon.gov/transportation/44597?a=237507 Accessed on: August 5, 2014

Gonzales, E.J., Geroliminis, N., Cassidy, M.J., & Daganzo, C.F. (2010). On the allocation of city space to multiple transport modes. Transportation Planning and Technology, 33(8), 643-656

Godefrooij, T. (2001, April). Debate is counterproductive [Letter to the editor]. British Medical Journal, 322(7293), 1064

Grant, D. & Rutner, S.M. (2004). The Effect of Bicycle Helmet Legislation on Bicycling Fatalities. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 23(3), 595-611

Hamann, C. & Peek-Asa, C. (2013). On-road bicycle facilities and bicycle crashes in Iowa, 2007-2010. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 56, 103-109

Jensen, S.U. “Bicycle Tracks and Lanes: a Before-After Study.” TRB 87th Annual Meeting Compendium of Papers CD-ROM. Washington, D.C. (2008)

Kamphuis, C.B.M., Giskes, K., Kavanagh, A.M., Thornton, L.E., Thomas, L.R., van Lenthe, F.J., Mackenbach, J.P., & Turrell, G. (2008). Area variation in recreational cycling in Melbourne: a compositional or contextual effect? Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 62(10), 890-898

Krizek, K.J. (2006). Two Approaches to Valuing Some of Bicycle Facilities’ Presumed Benefits. Journal of the American Planning Association, 72(3), 309-319

Krizek, K.J., & Roland, R.W. (2005). What is at the end of the road? Understanding discontinuities of on-street bicycle lanes in urban settings. Transportation Research Part D, 10, 55-68

Justin Readman Page 35

Determining Bicycle Infrastructure Suitability…

Lafferty, A.A., Mindell, J.S., Webb, E.A., & Millett, C. (2013). Active Travel to Work and Cardiovascular Risk Factors in the United Kingdom. American Journal of Preventative Medicine, 45(3), 282-288

Li, Z., Wang, W., Liu, P., & Ragland, D.R. (2012). Physical environments influencing bicyclists’ perception of comfort on separated and on street bicycle facilities. Transportation Research Part D, 17, 256-261

Linstone, H.A. (1985). The Delphi Technique. Environmental Impact Assessment, Technology Assessment, and Risk Analysis, NATO ASI Series, 4, 621-649

Litman, T. (2006). Transportation Solutions. Race, Poverty & the Environment, 12(1), 70-72

Lorenc, T., Brunton, G., Oliver, K., & Oakley, A. (2008). Attitudes to walking and cycling among children, young people and parents: a systematic review. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 62(10), 852-857

Mandel-Ricci, J., Styton, C., Nicaj, L., Assef’a, S., Woloch, D., Jeffrey, K., McCarthy, P., & Budnick, N. (2008). A multiagency effort to reduce bicyclist fatalities and serious injuries in New York City. Public Health Reports, 123(5), 652-654

McClintock, H. (1982). Planning for the Cycling Revival. The Town Planning Review, 53(4), 383-402

McClintock, H. (1987). On the Right Track? An Assessment of Recent English Experience of Innovations in Urban Bicycle Planning. The Town Planning Review, 58(3), 267-291

Menghini, G., Carrasco, N., Schüssler, N., & Axhausen, K.W. (2010). Route choice of cyclists in Zurich. Transportation Research Part A, 44, 754-765

Ministry of Transport (1999). The Dutch Bicycle Master Plan. Retrieved from: http://www.fietsberaad.nl/library/repository/bestanden/The%20Dutch%20Bi cycle%20Master%20Plan%201999.pdf Accessed: August 10, 2014

Ministry of Transportation of Ontario (2003). Ontario Traffic Manual: Book 18 – Cycling Facilities. Retrieved from: http://sudburycyclistsunion.ca/wp- content/uploads/2014/03/cwug-OTM_Book_18_March_2014.pdf Accessed August 3, 2014

Minetti, A.E., Pinkerton, J., & Zamparo, P. (2001). From Bipedalism to Bicyclism: Evolution in Energetics and Biomechanics of Historic Bicylces. Proceedings: Biological Sciences, 268(1474), 1351-1360

Justin Readman Page 36

Determining Bicycle Infrastructure Suitability…

Mohan, D. & Tiwari, G. (1999). Sustainable Transport Systems: Linkages between Environmental Issues, Public Transport, Non-Motorized Transport and Safety. Economic and Political Weekly, 39(25), 1589-1596

Mouton, A.V., Lee, C., Cheadle, A.D., Collier, C.W., Johnson, D., Schmid, T.L., & Weather, R.D. (2005). Cycling and the built environment, a US perspective. Transportation Research Part D, 10, 245-261

Nash, E., Cope, A., James, P., & Parker, D. (2005). Cycle Network Planning: Towards a Holistic Approach Using Temporal Topography. Transportation Planning and Technology, 28(4), 251-271

Newman, P. & Hogan, T. (1981). A Review of Urban Density Models: Toward a Resolution of the Conflict between Populace and Planner. Human Ecology, 9(3), 269-303

Osborne, P. (2005). Safe Routes for Children: What They Want and What Works. Children, Youth and Environments, 15(1), 234-239

Panter, J.R., Jones, A.P., van Sluijs, E.M.F., & Griffin, S.J. (2010). Attitudes, social support and environmental perceptions as predictors of commuting behaviour in school children. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health. 64(1), 41-48

Parkin, J. & Meyers, C. (2010). The effect of cycle lanes on the proximity between motor traffic and cycle traffic. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 42, 159-165

Perez, K. (2010). Towards new patterns of mobility. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 64(1), 8-9

Perraton, J. (1968). Planning for the Cyclist in Urban Areas. The Town Planning Review, 39(2), 149-162

Pucher, J., & Buehler, R. (2006). Why Canadians cycle more than Americans: A comparative analysis of bicycling trends and policies. Transport Policy, 13, 265- 279

Racioppi, F., Dora, C., & Rutter, H. (2005). Urban Settings and Opportunities for Healthy Lifestyles: Rediscovering Walking and Cycling and Understanding Their Health Benefits. Built Environment, 31(4), 302-314

Repogle, M. & Hook, W. (1995). Improving Access for the Poor In Urban Areas. Race, Poverty & the Environment, 6(1), 48-50

Rubinstein, D. (1977). Cycling in the 1890’s. Victorian Studies, 21(1), 47-71

Justin Readman Page 37

Determining Bicycle Infrastructure Suitability…

Saaty, T.L. (1990). Decision making by the analytical hierarchy process: Theory and applications. European Journal of Operational Research, 48(1), 9-26

Saelens, B.E., Sallis, J.F, & Frank, L.D. (2003). Environmental Correlates of Walking and Cycling: Findings From the Transportation, Urban Design, and Planning Literatures. Environment and Physical Activity, 25(2), 80-91

Share the Road Coallition (2014). Ontario Bike Summit launches with provincial funding announcement for municipal cycling infrastructure. Retrieved from: http://www.sharetheroad.ca/files/Media_Release___2014_OBS___FINAL.pdf Accessed: August 18, 2014

Somers, D.A. (1967). A City on Wheels: The Bicycle Era in New Orleans. Louisiana History: The Journal of Louisiana Historical Association, 8(3), 219-238

Spreng, R. (1995). The 1890s Bicycling Craze in the Red River Valley. Minnesota History, 54(6), 268-282

Strak, M., Boogaard, H., Meliefste, K., Oldenwening, M., Zuurbier, M., Brunekreef, B., & Hoek, G. (2010). Respiratory health effects of ultrafine and fine particle exposure in cyclists. Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 67(2), 118-124

Taylor, M. (2008). The Bicycle Boom and the Bicycle Bloc: Cycling and Politics in the 1890s. Indiana Magazine of History, 104(3), 213-240

Thomas, B. & DeRobertis, M. (2013). The safety of urban cycle tracks: A review of the literature. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 52, 219-227

Toronto Cycling Think and Do Tank. (2013). Women and Cycling in Toronto-A Snapshot. Retrieved from: http://spacing.ca/national/2013/07/05/cycling- think-do-tank-women-and-cycling-in-toronto-a-snapshot/ Accessed: August 17, 2014

Vojnovic, I. (2006). Building Communities to Promote Physical Activity: A Multi- Scale Geographical Analysis. Series B, Human Geography, 88(1), 67-90

Wilkenson, B. (1997). Nonmotorized Transportation: The Forgotten Modes. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 533, 87-93

Winters, M., Brauer, M., Setton, E.M., & Teschke, K. (2010). Built Environment Influences on Healthy Transportation Choices: Bicycling versus Driving. Journal of Urban Health: Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine, 87(6), 969-993

Zuurbier, M., Hoek, G., Oldenwening, M., Lenters, V., Meliefste, K., van den Hazel, P., & Brunekreef, B. (2010). Commuters’ Exposure to Particulate Matter Air Pollution

Justin Readman Page 38

Determining Bicycle Infrastructure Suitability…

Is Affected by Mode of Transport, Fuel Type and Route. Environmental Health Perspectives, 118(6), 783-789

Justin Readman Page 39

Determining Bicycle Infrastructure Suitability…

Appendix 1 – Evaluation Criteria Weighting Questionnaire The criteria below will be used to evaluate different types of bicycle infrastructure. The purpose of this questionnaire is to establish weighting for the different criteria. A series of questionnaires may be used to help develop consensus around a weighting for each area. Please fill out the questionnaire individually. Keep in mind that the further your answer is away from 0 will give much more weight to a criteria. For example, if an 8 is selected then that will give the majority of weight to that area. Your answers will be merged with others to determine an overall percentage weighting to each criteria. For areas where you feel there is a very slight importance (over it being equal) write a value between 0.1-0.9 and circle the factor that is slightly more important. Otherwise, indicate your value by placing an X in each row based on your perception of the factor that is more important to you. extremely more important more extremely strongimportance very importance stronger importance stronger moderately Importance Equal importance stronger Moderately importance Stronger strongimportance Very important more extremely -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Traffic Operations/Safety Natural Environment Traffic Operations/Safety Economic Impact and Costs Natural Environment Economic Impact and Costs Intersection Functionality Accessibility Intersection Functionality Cyclist Safety Accessibility Cyclist Safety Impact on Intersection Capacity Auto/Cyclist Collision Potential Cyclist Accessibility Automobile Accessibility Real cyclist Safety Concerns Perceived Cyclist Safety Concerns Amount of Impervious Pavement Impact on Street Trees Amount of Impervious Pavement Air Quality Impact on Street Trees Air Quality Infrastructure Capital Costs Infrastructure Operating Costs Infrastructure Capital Costs Impacts on Businesses Infrastructure Operating Costs Impacts on Businesses

Justin Readman Page 40

Determining Bicycle Infrastructure Suitability…

Appendix 2 – Alternative Evaluation Questionnaire extremely strong extremely strong very stronger stronger moderately Equal stronger Moderately Stronger strong Very strong extremely Ranking each pair of alternatives, -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 which is likely to have less impact Do Nothing Bike Lane on intersection capacity? Do Nothing Separated Bike Facility Do Nothing Centre Running Cycle Track Bike Lane Separated Bike Facility Bike Lane Centre Running Cycle Track Separated Bike Facility Centre Running Cycle Track which is more likely to have a lower Do Nothing Bike Lane potential for auto/cyclist collisions? Do Nothing Separated Bike Facility Do Nothing Centre Running Cycle Track Bike Lane Separated Bike Facility Bike Lane Centre Running Cycle Track Separated Bike Facility Centre Running Cycle Track which is anticipated to provide Do Nothing Bike Lane better cyclist accessibility (travelling Do Nothing Separated Bike Facility through the corridor and to Do Nothing Centre Running Cycle Track destinations)? Bike Lane Separated Bike Facility Bike Lane Centre Running Cycle Track Separated Bike Facility Centre Running Cycle Track which is anticipated to provide Do Nothing Bike Lane better automobile accessibility Do Nothing Separated Bike Facility (travelling through the corridor and Do Nothing Centre Running Cycle Track to destinations)? Bike Lane Separated Bike Facility Bike Lane Centre Running Cycle Track Separated Bike Facility Centre Running Cycle Track which alternative is anticipated to Do Nothing Bike Lane minimize real cyclist safety Do Nothing Separated Bike Facility concerns? Do Nothing Centre Running Cycle Track Bike Lane Separated Bike Facility Bike Lane Centre Running Cycle Track Separated Bike Facility Centre Running Cycle Track which alternative is anticipated to Do Nothing Bike Lane minimize perceived cyclist safety Do Nothing Separated Bike Facility concerns? Do Nothing Centre Running Cycle Track Bike Lane Separated Bike Facility Bike Lane Centre Running Cycle Track Separated Bike Facility Centre Running Cycle Track which alternative is more likely to Do Nothing Bike Lane minimize the amount of new Do Nothing Separated Bike Facility impervious pavement? Do Nothing Centre Running Cycle Track Bike Lane Separated Bike Facility Bike Lane Centre Running Cycle Track Separated Bike Facility Centre Running Cycle Track which alternative is more likely to Do Nothing Bike Lane minimize the impact on street Do Nothing Separated Bike Facility trees? Do Nothing Centre Running Cycle Track Bike Lane Separated Bike Facility Bike Lane Centre Running Cycle Track Separated Bike Facility Centre Running Cycle Track which alternative is more likely to Do Nothing Bike Lane result in improved air quality? Do Nothing Separated Bike Facility Do Nothing Centre Running Cycle Track Bike Lane Separated Bike Facility Bike Lane Centre Running Cycle Track Separated Bike Facility Centre Running Cycle Track which alternative is more likely to Do Nothing Bike Lane have lower capital costs? Do Nothing Separated Bike Facility Do Nothing Centre Running Cycle Track Bike Lane Separated Bike Facility Bike Lane Centre Running Cycle Track Separated Bike Facility Centre Running Cycle Track which alternative is more likely to Do Nothing Bike Lane have lower operating costs? Do Nothing Separated Bike Facility Do Nothing Centre Running Cycle Track Bike Lane Separated Bike Facility Bike Lane Centre Running Cycle Track Separated Bike Facility Centre Running Cycle Track which alternative is more likely to Do Nothing Bike Lane have the least impact on Do Nothing Separated Bike Facility businesses? Do Nothing Centre Running Cycle Track Bike Lane Separated Bike Facility Bike Lane Centre Running Cycle Track Separated Bike Facility Centre Running Cycle Track

Justin Readman Page 41

Determining Bicycle Infrastructure Suitability…

Intentionally blank for print formatting purposes.

Justin Readman Page 42

Determining Bicycle Infrastructure Suitability…

Appendix 3 – Reasoned Argument Evaluation Alternatives Traffic Operations and Safety Natural Environment Economic Impacts & Cost Intersection Functionality Accessibility Cyclist Safety Impact on Auto/Cyclist Cyclist Accessibility Automobile Real Cyclist Safety Perceived Cyclist Amount of Impact on Street Air Quality Infrastructure Infrastructure Impact on Intersection Capacity Collision Potential Accessibility Concerns Safety Concerns Impervious Trees Capital Cost Operating Cost Businesses Pavement Do Nothing Will have no effect Cyclists will either Full accessibility to Access to all There is no Cyclists would There would be no There would be no There would be little No capital required No change in No impact on on intersection take the lane or ride businesses along the businesses along the protection for perceive this as anticipated change in impact on street impact on traffic operating cost. businesses. capacity along sidewalks. corridor. Cyclists corridor. cyclists. Significant unsafe since there amount of trees. movements but also Where sidewalk may have challenges Movements may be conflict points exist. are high volumes and impervious limited uptake in riding is present using this corridor as impacted by cyclists speed and no pavement. cycling. there may be a through corridor taking the lane. physical space is increased potential due to mixed traffic provided. Only for collisions. riding and high ‘strong and fearless’ automobile volumes cyclists would use and speeds. this. Bike Lane May increase cyclist Cyclists would more Full accessibility to Access to all Some road space is Some space is There would be no to There would be no to There would be little Minor capital costs Slight increase in No impact on Comment [RM1]: None? volumes slightly. likely to be riding in businesses along the businesses along the provided for cyclists. allocated to cyclists. limited change of limited impact on impact on traffic required for paint operating cost to businesses. May May delay some the bike lane; corridor. Conflict corridor. Cyclists are However, there is However, a lot of amount of street trees. movements with and minor roadway clear and maintain have additional Comment [RM2]: None? automobile turning however, some may points exist along removed from travel limited protection effort is required on impervious some minor widening. cycling lanes. customers who cycle. movements still choose to rid e numerous driveway lane thus reducing since there is no the cyclist’s part to pavement. increases to cycling on the sidewalk. accesses. cyclist motor vehicle physical barrier. review their usage. Setting stop bar back interaction. Significant conflict surroundings for for automobiles may points exist potential conflicts. mitigate impacts. May attract ‘strong and fearless’ and some ‘enthusiastic and confident’. Separated Bike May increase cyclist Cyclists more likely Full accessibility to Access to all Cyclists are provided Some protection is There would be the There would be There would be little Highest capital cost Highest operating No impact on Facility volumes moderately. to ride along this businesses along the businesses along the with some physical provided for cyclists. highest level of significant impact to impact on traffic to add segregated costs to plow and businesses. May May delay some facility. Should corridor. Conflict corridor. Cyclists are protection. However, a lot of increase in street trees. movements with cycling lane. May maintain. have additional automobile turning cyclists operate bi- points exist along removed from travel Significant conflict effort is required on impervious some minor have additional costs customers who cycle. movements. Should directionally there numerous driveway lane thus reducing points exist. the cyclist’s part to pavement as the increases to cycling if cyclist signal have an advanced may be increased accesses. cyclist motor vehicle review their boulevard would be usage. preemption is added. cyclist signal phase. potential for interaction. surroundings for paved to provide collision. potential conflicts. cycling facilities. May attract ‘strong and fearless’ and some ‘enthusiastic and confident’ and some ‘interested but concerned’. Centre Running Expected to increase Cyclists will likely Limited accessibility Motorists would be This option has the This option would be There would be There would be There would be Using concrete traffic Highest operating Will have impact on Cycle Track cyclist volumes most use this facility to businesses along limited to right in highest level of perceived as the limited increases to limited impact to significant impact to barricades would costs to plow and access to businesses. significantly. Will (unless travelling to the corridor (at right out movements protection for safest. Would likely impervious street trees. traffic movements. minimize capital maintain. May have additional require a separate a mid-block signalized only, except at cyclists and removes attract all levels of pavement (likely However, this would cost. However, if customers who cycle. signal phase and will destination that is intersections). signalized the majority of riders if the around the likely see significant additional signalized have impacts on not accessible from Additional signals intersections conflict points. intersections are intersections to increases to cycling intersections are motor vehicle this). Separate signal could be added to designed well to allocate space for usage. required then would movements. phasing should improve accessibility transition cyclists in turning movements). increase capital cost minimize risk. at increased cost. and out of the cycle moderately. Turning movements Limited number of track. may have potential conflict points and for collisions. best accessibility as a through corridor.

Red: Indicates least preferred. Green: Indicates most preferred.

Justin Readman Page 43

Determining Bicycle Infrastructure Suitability…

Intentionally blank for print formatting purposes.

Justin Readman Page 44

Determining Bicycle Infrastructure Suitability…

Appendix 4 – Analytical Hierarchy Process Calculations

Weighting Calculations

ty Sum Percent Weighting Natural Environment Natural Traffic Operations/Safe Traffic

Cost and Impact Economic Traffic Operations/Safety 1 3.4 5.1 9.5 59.4 Natural Environment 0.3 1 3.7 5 31.3 Economic Impact and Cost 0.2 0.3 1 1.5 9.3 16

Sum ist Safety ist Weighting Intersection Intersection Accessibility Cycl Functionality Global Percent Percent Global Local Weighting Local

Intersection Functionality 1 2.2 0.3 3.5 0.27 16 Accessibility 0.5 1 0.4 1.9 0.15 8.9 Cyclist Safety 4 2.4 1 7.4 0.58 34.5 12.8

Justin Readman Page 45

Determining Bicycle Infrastructure Suitability…

Sum Potential Local Weighting Local Impact on Capacity on Impact Auto/Cyclist Collision Collision Auto/Cyclist Global Percent Weighting Percent Global

Impact on Capacity 1 0.2 1.2 0.14 2.2 Auto/Cyclist Collision Potential 6.1 1 7.1 0.86 13.8 8.3

Sum Weighting Global Percent Percent Global Local Weighting Local Auto Accessibility Auto Cyclist Accessibility Cyclist

Cyclist Accessibility 1 3.3 4.3 0.77 6.9 Auto Accessibility 0.3 1 1.3 0.23 2 5.6

Sum Concerns Local Weighting Local Perceived Cyclist Safety Cyclist Perceived Global Percent Weighting Percent Global Real Cyclist Safety Concerns Safety Real Cyclist

Real Cyclist Safety Concerns 1 2.6 3.6 0.72 24.8 Perceived Cyclist Safety Concerns 0.4 1 1.4 0.28 9.7 5

Justin Readman Page 46

Determining Bicycle Infrastructure Suitability…

Sum Pavement Air Quality Air Local Weighting Local Amount of Impervious Impervious of Amount Impact on Street Trees on Impact Global Percent Weighting Percent Global

Amount of Impervious Pavement 1 0.1 0.3 1.4 0.11 3.5 Impact on Street Trees 2.7 1 2.4 6.1 0.48 15 Air Quality 3.8 0.4 1 5.2 0.41 12.8 12.7

Sum Weighting Capital Cost Capital Global Percent Percent Global Operating Cost Operating Local Weighting Local Impact on Business on Impact

Capital Cost 1 2.3 0.8 4.1 0.39 3.7 Operating Cost 0.4 1 0.5 1.9 0.18 1.7 Impact on Business 1.2 2.2 1 4.4 0.42 3.9 10.4

Weighting of Alternatives

rack Sum T Weight Facility Bike Lane Bike Separated Separated Do Nothing Do Centre Cycle Centre

Which is likely to have less Do Nothing 1 2.6 2 2.6 8.2 0.43 impact on intersection Bike Lane 0.38 1 0.63 1.6 3.61 0.19 capacity? Separated Facility 0.5 1.6 1 1.7 4.8 0.25 Center Cycle Track 0.38 0.63 0.59 1 2.6 0.14 19.2

Justin Readman Page 47

Determining Bicycle Infrastructure Suitability…

rack Sum T Weight Facility Bike Lane Bike Separated Separated Do Nothing Do Centre Cycle Centre

Which is more likely to have a Do Nothing 1 0.29 0.26 0.23 1.78 0.07 lower potential for auto/cyclist Bike Lane 3.4 1 0.33 0.3 5.04 0.19 collisions? Separated Facility 3.9 3 1 0.48 8.38 0.32 Center Cycle Track 4.3 3.3 2.1 1 10.7 0.41 25.9

rack Sum T Weight Facility Bike Lane Bike Separated Separated Do Nothing Do Centre Cycle Centre

Which is anticipated to provide Do Nothing 1 0.27 0.21 0.26 1.74 0.07 better cyclist accessibility Bike Lane 3.7 1 0.26 0.91 5.87 0.23 (travelling through the corridor Separated Facility 4.8 3.9 1 1.9 11.6 0.45 and to destinations)? Center Cycle Track 3.9 1.1 0.53 1 6.53 0.25 25.7

rack Sum T Weight Facility Bike Lane Bike Separated Separated Do Nothing Do Centre Cycle Centre

Which is anticipated to provide Do Nothing 1 1.1 2.6 4.4 9.1 0.4 better automobile accessibility Bike Lane 0.91 1 1.1 3.1 6.11 0.27 (travelling through the corridor Separated Facility 0.38 0.91 1 3.2 5.49 0.24 and to destinations)? Center Cycle Track 0.23 0.32 0.31 1 1.86 0.08 22.6

Justin Readman Page 48

Determining Bicycle Infrastructure Suitability…

Sum Track Weight Bike Lane Bike Do Nothing Do Centre Cycle Cycle Centre Separated Facility Separated Which alternative is Do Nothing 1 0.24 0.22 0.2 1.66 0.06 anticipated to minimize Bike Lane 4.1 1 0.31 0.3 5.72 0.2 real cyclist safety concerns? Separated Facility 4.6 3.2 1 0.48 9.28 0.33 Center Cycle Track 5 3.3 2.1 1 11.4 0.41 28.1

ility rack Sum T Weight Fac Bike Lane Bike Separated Separated Do Nothing Do Centre Cycle Centre

Which alternative is anticipated Do Nothing 1 0.32 0.18 0.2 1.7 0.06 to minimize perceived cyclist Bike Lane 3.1 1 0.24 0.3 4.64 0.16 safety concerns? Separated Facility 5.6 4.2 1 1.3 12.1 0.42 Center Cycle Track 5 3.3 0.77 1 10.1 0.35 28.5

rack Sum T Weight Facility Bike Lane Bike Separated Separated Do Nothing Do Centre Cycle Centre

Which alternative is more likely Do Nothing 1 2.6 4 1.7 9.3 0.43 to minimize the amount of new Bike Lane 0.38 1 2.9 2 6.28 0.29 impervious pavement? Separated Facility 0.25 0.34 1 0.5 2.09 0.1 Center Cycle Track 0.59 0.5 2 1 4.09 0.19 21.8

Justin Readman Page 49

Determining Bicycle Infrastructure Suitability…

rack Sum T Weight Facility Bike Lane Bike Separated Separated Do Nothing Do Centre Cycle Centre

Which alternative is more likely Do Nothing 1 2.1 3.7 2.4 9.2 0.4 to minimize the impact on Bike Lane 0.48 1 3.7 1.6 6.78 0.29 street trees? Separated Facility 0.27 0.27 1 0.3 1.84 0.08 Center Cycle Track 0.42 0.63 3.3 1 5.34 0.23 23.2

rack Sum T Weight Facility Bike Lane Bike Separated Separated Do Nothing Do Centre Cycle Centre

Which alternative is more likely Do Nothing 1 0.34 0.24 0.23 1.82 0.07 to result in improved air Bike Lane 2.9 1 0.34 0.31 4.56 0.18 quality? Separated Facility 4.1 2.9 1 1.4 9.4 0.37 Center Cycle Track 4.4 3.2 0.71 1 9.31 0.37 25.1

rack Sum T Weight Facility Nothing

Bike Lane Bike Separated Separated Do Centre Cycle Centre

Which alternative is more likely Do Nothing 1 4 5.6 5.4 16 0.54 to have lower capital cost? Bike Lane 0.25 1 3.2 4.1 8.55 0.29 Separated Facility 0.18 0.31 1 0.91 2.4 0.08 Center Cycle Track 0.19 0.24 1.1 1 2.53 0.09 29.5

Justin Readman Page 50

Determining Bicycle Infrastructure Suitability…

rack Sum T Weight Facility Bike Lane Bike Separated Separated Do Nothing Do Centre Cycle Centre

Which alternative is more likely Do Nothing 1 2.9 4.4 4.3 12.6 0.5 to have lower operating costs? Bike Lane 0.34 1 3.4 2.9 7.64 0.3 Separated Facility 0.23 0.29 1 1.2 2.72 0.11 Center Cycle Track 0.23 0.34 0.83 1 2.41 0.09 25.4

rack Sum T Weight Facility Bike Lane Bike Separated Separated Do Nothing Do Centre Cycle Centre

Which alternative is more likely Do Nothing 1 2.1 2.3 2.6 8 0.41 to have the least impact on Bike Lane 0.48 1 0.91 2.1 4.49 0.23 businesses? Separated Facility 0.43 1.1 1 1.9 4.43 0.23 Center Cycle Track 0.38 0.48 0.53 1 2.39 0.12 19.3

Justin Readman Page 51

Determining Bicycle Infrastructure Suitability…

Scoring of Alternatives

rack T Facility Bike Lane Bike Separated Separated Do Nothing Do Centre Cycle Centre

Intersection Capacity 0.9 0.4 0.6 0.3 Minimize Auto/Cyclist Collision Potential 1 2.6 4.4 5.7 Cyclist Accessibility 0.5 1.6 3.1 1.7 Automobile Accessibility 0.8 0.5 0.5 0.2 Minimize Real Cyclist Safety Concerns 1.5 4.9 8.2 10.2 Minimize Perceived Cyclist Safety Concerns 0.6 1.6 4.1 3.4 Minimize Amount of Impervious Pavement 1.5 1 0.4 0.7 Minimize Impact on Street Trees 6 4.4 1.2 3.5 Improved Air Quality 0.9 2.3 4.7 4.7 Lower Capital Cost 2 1.1 0.3 0.3 Lower Operating Cost 0.9 0.5 0.2 0.2 Minimize Impact on Businesses 1.6 0.9 0.9 0.5 Sum 18.2 21.8 28.6 31.4

Justin Readman Page 52