HomeMy WebLinkAbout21 Venessa Garza 3-3I 2. Go vernment Access ion No . I . Rep ort No.
SWUTC/051167455-1
4. Title and Subtitl e
Evaluating Bicycling Commuter Experiences at Texas A&M
University and Adjacent Areas in the City of College Station, Texas
7 . Auth or(s)
Robin Rabinowitz and Debbie Spillane
9. Performin g O rga ni za ti on Name and Address
Texas Transportation Institute
Texas A&M University System
College Station , Texas 77843-3135
12 . Sp onsori ng Agency Na me and Address
Southwest Region University Transportation Center
Texas Transportation Institute
Texas A&M University System
College Station , Texas 77843-3135
15. Suppl ementa ry Not es
Supported by general revenues from the State of Texas .
16. Ab s tra ct
Technical Report Documentation Pa2e
3 . Reci p ie nt 's Catal og No .
5. Report Date
August 2005
6 . Perfo rm ing Orga ni za ti on Code
8. Performin g Orga ni zati on Report No.
Report 167455-1
10 . Work Unit No. (TRA IS )
11 . Contract or Grant No .
10727
13 . Typ e o f Re port and Peri od Covered
14 . Sp on sori ng Agen cy Code
The university -oriente d community of College Station, Texas offers a great opportunity for bicycle commuting .
Both the City of College Station and Texas A&M University (T AMU) have taken steps to add facilities for
pedestrians and bicycles in and around campus areas . The goal of this proj e ct was to assess existing conditions to
determine the potential to further increase bicycle use in the community. We focused our research on the TAMU
campus and adjacent areas , as the university is the largest trip generator in this community.
Two survey s of bicycle commuters were conducted in which bicycle commuters reported inadequate path way s
(including poor pavement conditions as well as too few pathways), aggressive motorists , and difficult
intersections/traffic signals as their major obstacles to bicycling to campus . Fifty-five percent of survey re spondents
would like to have more and/or better bicycle pathways . Comments indicated that separate , dedicated pathway s
would be preferred by bicyclists , and 69 percent of survey respondents said th ey would bicycle more if a safe and
direct route was available .
The research team conducted a survey of non-bicycle commuters in which 42 percent of respondents,for reas ons not
r elated to th e bicycling environm ent , said they could not be encouraged to bike . Fourteen percent said that
improving pathways might encourage them to bicycle commute, and 5 percent stated that safety concerns are their
primary reason for not bicycling to campus .
The researchers also conducted a manual count of commuter bic y clists and found that of the approximately 45 ,000
students enrolled at T AMU, 1,906 enter campus by bicycle on a typical class day . Available data confirmed that
approximately 22 ,000 students enter campus daily through modes other than bicycle. Based on the information
gathered in this research project, the researchers estimate that approximately 500 additional stud ents may bike to
campus dail y if safe and direct routes to campus were available to them.
17. Ke y Words 18. Di strib uti on Sta tement
Bicycle, Bicycle Commuting, Bicycle Count,
Bicycle Survey, Uni v ersity Bicycle
No restrictions. This document is available to the
public through NTIS:
19. Securi ty Cl assif.(ofthis report )
Unclassified
Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72)
National Technical Information Service
5285 Port Royal Road
Spri ngfield , Virginia 22161
1
2 0. Securi ty Cl ass if.(of thi s p age)
. Unclassified
2 1. No . o f Pages
76
Reproduction of completed page authorized
22 . Pri ce
EVALUATING BICYCLING COMMUTER EXPERIENCES AT
TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY AND
ADJACENT AREAS IN THE CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS
by
Robin Rabinowitz, AICP
Assistant Transportation Researcher
Texas Transportation Institute
ana
Debbie Spillane
Assistant Transportation Researcher
Texas Transportation Institute
Project Monitor:
Ken Fogle, PE
Transportation Planner
City of College Station , Texas
Research Report SWUTC/051167455
Sponsored by the Southwest Region University Transportation Center
Texas Transportation Institute
The Texas A&M University System
College Station , TX 77843-3135
July 2005
DISCLAIMER
The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors, who are responsible for the facts
and the accuracy of the information presented herein . This document is disseminated under the
sponsorship of the Department of Transportation, University Transportation Centers Program , in
the interest of information exchange. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not
constitute endorsement or recommendation for use .
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors recognize that support for this research was provided by a grant from the U .S.
Department of Transportation , University Transportation Centers Program to the Southwest
Region University Transportation Center, which is funded 50% with general revenue funds from
the State of Texas .
The researchers would like to acknowledge the participation and cooperation of Ken Fogle of
the City of College Station , who served as the project monitor. Fogle 's active participation in
data collection and staffing assistance was inv aluable to the researchers. The researchers would
also like to thank Troy Rother of the City of College Station, Gary Jackson and Laura Johnson of
Texas A&M University (TAMU) Transportation Services , the Bryan/College Station
Metropolitan Planning Organization (BCSMPO), Carol Coker, Katie Womack, Tim Forrest, and
Shawn Turner of the Texas Transportation Institute (TTI), and our student worker Jason
Beesinger.
v
ABSTRACT
The universit y-oriented community of College Station, Texas offers a great opportunity for
bicycle commuting. Both the City of College Station and Texas A&M University (TAMU) have
taken steps to add facilities for pedestrians and bicycles in and around campus areas . The goal of
this project was to assess exi sting conditions to determine the potential to further increase bicycle
use in the community. We focused our research on the TAMU campus and adjacent areas , as the
university is the largest trip generator in this community.
Two surveys of bicycle commuters were conducted in which bicy cle commuters reported
inadequate pathways (including poor pavement conditions as well as too few pathways),
aggressive motorists , and difficult intersections/traffic signals as thei r major ob stacles to
bicycling to campus. Fifty-five percent of survey respondents would like to have more and/or
better bicycle pathways. Comments indicated that separate , dedicated pathways would be
preferred by bicyclists , and 69 percent of survey respondents said the y would bicycle more if a
safe and direct route was available.
The research team conducted a survey of non-bicycle commuters in which 42 percent of
respondents , for reasons not re lat ed to th e bicycling en vironm ent , said they could not be
encouraged to bike . Fourteen percent said that improving pathways might encourage them to
bicycle commute, and 5 percent stated that safety concerns are their primary reason for not
bicycling to campus.
The researchers also conducted a manual count of commuter bicyclists and found that of the
approximately 45 ,000 students enrolled at T AMU , 1,906 enter campus by bicycle on a typical
class day. Available data confirmed that approximately 22 ,000 students enter campus daily
through modes other than bicycle . Based on the information gathered in this research project,
the researchers estimate that approximately 500 additional students may bike to campus daily if
safe and direct routes to campus were avai lable to them .
Vl
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Local streets are often designed to accommodate only vehicles -without consideration for
pedestrians and bicyclists. The City of College Station has created a bicycle master plan that ,
when completed , will connect all parts of the city with dedicated bicycle paths. This plan was
developed, in part, on recommendations from a 1975 study conducted by the Brazos Valley
League of Women Voters. The city is also currently working with the Texas A&M University
Bicycle Task Force to coordinate bicycle programs into a cohesive and well-connected system.
For this project, surveys of bicyclists were conducted to assess experiences and to determine
what problems exist and where. Additionally, an observational count was conducted to help
evaluate bicycle volumes and routes.
The goal of this project was to determine the potential to increase bicycle use in the
community. The objectives to achieve this goal were to :
1) Determine how many people currently ride a bike to campus on a typical class day .
2) Learn which routes bicyclists use to travel to campus to discover areas of interest.
3) Ascertain what problems bicyclists encounter along their commute.
4) Determine what aspects (physical barriers , behavioral issues, other) on the bicyclists'
route affect comfort level and which facilities contribute to a perception of safety or
hazard .
5) Research the above to solve the hypothesis that bicycle activity would increase if
bicycling were made safer.
6) Determine what changes might promote bicycle commuting among current nonriders.
The first survey conducted for this project revealed that the southwest side of the Texas
A&M University (TAMU) campus had the highest rate of complaints at 2.29 per respondent, but
this was not significantly different from the southeast and the north sides of campus (2.25 and
2.16 complaints per respondent, respectively). The east side of campus had the lowest rate of
complaints, less than one (0.9) complaint per respondent.
More than half of respondents on the southwest side of campus indicated a problem with
difficult intersections. The south and east sides of campus had similar rates of complaints; and
respondents specifically reported too few bicycles routes as a common problem. On the east side
of campus, the highest number of complaints referenced poor lighting, and on the north side of
campus , poorly maintained bicycle paths and poor lighting were the most frequently reported
problems.
The TAMU bicycle-commuter count was conducted manually by posting counters at 12
campus entrances , including parking lots that were likely to be used as entrances and shortcuts.
A total of 1,908 bikes were counted entering campus , and 1,543 bikes were counted leaving
campus during this count. These numbers were added for a total of 3,451 campus commuter
bicycle trips. It is clear from the data collected that the high-density residential areas (southwest
and north sides of campus) and/or high-density restaurant and trade areas (north side) have the
highest levels of bicycle traffic .
Vll
A second survey was conducted on Bike to Work Day. Survey staff interviewed bicyclists
and obtained a total of 74 completed questionnaires. The second questionnaire differed from the
first in that the first questionnaire was oriented toward commuting habits and the second
questionnaire was designed to identify problems and preferences. The main problem
(encountered by 37 percent ofrespondents) in "bike commuting to and from campus" was
identified as inadequate pathways . A total of 23 percent of the respondents reported that dealing
with drivers was their biggest commuting problem, and 16 percent said they have no problems
along their commute . A total of 3 7 percent of this group of commuter bicyclists reported that
pedestrians are the major obstacle to bicyclists commuting on campus , and 12 percent responded
that on-campus pathways are inadequate .
The researchers asked bike commuters about safer bike routes , and a majority (69 percent) of
survey respondents replied they would travel (an average of 1.1 miles) out of their way to use
safer bikeways , whereas 30 percent answered they would not. When asked what single step the
cities or the uni v ersity could take to improve bicycling, a statistically significant majority (55
percent) ofresponses pertained to improving the quality and/or quantity of bicycle paths . The
second most common (12 percent) answer was improving education and awareness among
bicyclists, pedestrians , and motorists to reduce conflict and improv e safety.
To satisfy the objective of determining what changes might promote bicycle commuting
among current nonriders, a third survey was conducted. The survey found that reasons for not
bicycle commuting include not having a bike available (34 percent), living too far from campus
(24 percent), not liking the weather (9 percent), and feeling that bike riding in the community is
too dangerous (5 percent). When asked what changes the university or the cities could make to
encourage bicycle commuting, 42 percent of respondents said that nothing can be done to
convince them to ride a bicycle to campus but 26 percent of the respondents said that improving
bicycle pathway s or adding bicycle pathways might encourage them to ride.
The reasons for promoting bicycling in lieu of driving are many. These include improving
physical health , reducing the incidence of obesity, and lessening the negative effects of
motorized vehicle use , to conserving energy and natural resources . This research project
discovered that the reasons for not bicycling are also numerous and include not having access to
a bicycle , not wanting to bicycle in inclement weather, not feeling sa fe bicycling with vehicle
traffic , and matters of convenience .
Changes in policy and additions to both bike and pedestrian facilities may affect an
individual 's decision to walk or ride a bicycle. This research project led us to the conclusion that
the single most important step that the city or university could take to increase bicycle
commuting would be to add and improve bicycle paths , and that doi n g so may encourage another
500 students to bicycle commute to campus.
Vlll
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................................... vi
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................... vii
LIST OF TABLES .......................................................................................................................... xi
LIST OF FIGURES ...................................................................................................................... xii
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 1
BACKGROUND ......................................................................................................................... 1
Research Objectives ................................................................................................................ 1
Literature Rev iew .................................................................................................................... 2
Selection of Bicycle Programs Established on Other College Campuses .............................. .4
Di sc ussion Regardin g Stated Preference vs. Re vealed Preference Survey Types .................. 5
CHAPTER 2 : DATA AND COLLECTION METHODOLOGY ................................................... 7
DATA AN D ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................ 7
Survey One : Bicycle Commuters ............................................................................................ 7
Count ..................................................................................................................................... 20
Survey Two: Bicycle Commuters .......................................................................................... 32
Survey Three: Nonbicycle Commuters ................................................................................. 37
CHAPTER 3: CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................... .45
CHAPTER 4: RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................................................................... .47
FUTURE RESEARCH NEEDS ................................................................................................ 47
APPENDIX A: Survey One .......................................................................................................... 49
APPENDIX B ................................................................................................................................ 51
APP ENDIX C ................................................................................................................................ 53
APPENDIX D: Survey two ........................................................................................................... 57
APP ENDIX E : Survey Three ........................................................................................................ 59
REFERENCES .............................................................................................................................. 61
IX
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. How Often Do You Encounter the Following Obstacle s on Your Trip Route ? .............. 11
Table 2. Frequency of Perceived Obstacles to Bicyclin g to /from T AMU .................................... 12
Table 3. Commonly Identified Problems by Zone.* ..................................................................... 17
Tabl e 4: Data for Figure 6 ............................................................................................................. 18
Table 5: Data for Figure 7 ............................................................................................................. 19
XI
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure la: Frequency of bike commuters encountering aggressive motorists ................................ 8
Figure lb: Frequency of bike commuters encountering problem pedestrians ................................. 9
Figure le: Frequency of bike commuters encountering debris in the bikeway ............................... 9
Figure ld : Frequency of bike commuters encountering cracks and ho l es ih the path ..................... 9
Figure le: Frequency of bike commuters encountering discontinuous paths ............................... 10
Figure lf: Frequency of bike commuters encountering narrow/ending bicycle lanes .................. 10
Figure 1 g: Frequency of bike commuters encountering difficult intersections ............................. 10
Figure 2: Zone 1 (with bicycle commuter points of origin) .......................................................... 13
Figure 3: Zone 2 (w ith bicycle commuter points of origin) .......................................................... 14
Figure 4: Zone 3 (with bicycle commuter points of origin) .......................................................... 15
Figure 5: Zone 4 (with commuter points oforigin) ....................................................................... 16
Figure 6: Percent breakdown of bicycle commuters entering by zone, according to count. ......... 18
Figure 7: Breakdown by percent o f bike commuter vo lumes per zone/point of origin ................. 19
Figure 8: Survey question #9: "Why do you bic ycle? (check all that apply)." ............................. 20
Figure 9: Count breakdown b y total bicycle traffic at each intersection ....................................... 22
Figure 10: Intersection 1 ................................................................................................................ 23
Figure 11: Intersection 1 (Photo 2) ................................................................................................ 23
Figure 12: Intersection 2 ................................................................................................................ 24
Figure 13: Intersection 3 ................................................................................................................ 24
Figure 14: Intersection 3 (Photo 2) ................................................................................................ 25
Figure 15: Intersection 4 ................................................................................................................ 25
Figure 16: Intersection 4 (Photo 2) ................................................................................................ 26
Figure 17: Intersection 5 ................................................................................................................ 26
Figure 18: Intersecti on 6 ................................................................................................................ 27
Figure 19: Intersection 7 ................................................................................................................ 27
Figure 20: Intersection 8 ................................................................................................................ 28
Figure 21: Intersection 9 ................................................................................................................ 28
Figure 22: Intersection 10 .............................................................................................................. 29
Figure 23: Intersection 11 .............................................................................................................. 29
Figure 24: Intersection 12 .............................................................................................................. 30
Figure 25: West side underpass ..................................................................................................... 30
Figure 26: West side underpass (photo 2) ..................................................................................... 31
Figures 27 and 28: Bike to Work Day at Freebird 's World Burrito res taurant afforded an
opportunity to talk with bicycle commuters .................................................................................. 32
Figure 29: Jason takes a survey from a commuter bicyclist at Bike to Work Day at Freebird's
World Burrito ................................................................................................................................ 33
Figure 30: Major obstacles to bicycle commuting to/from campus (categories provided on
survey) ........................................................................................................................................... 34
Figure 31: Major obstacles to bicycle riding on campus (categories provided on survey) ........... 35
Figure 32: Distance (miles) bike commuters would travel out of their way to use safer bikeways .
....................................................................................................................................................... 36
Figure 33: Bike commuter preference for trip end facilities ......................................................... 37
Figure 34: Modes of transportation for nonbicycle commuters .................................................... 38
Figure 35: Reasons for not bicycle commuting to /fro m campus ................................................... 39
Xll
Figure 36: Changes by university or city that could encourage bicycle commutin g ................... .40
Figure 37: Would safe and direct routes encourage bicycle commuting? .................................... .41
Figure 38: Would improved bicycle parking encourage bicycle commuting? ............................. .42
Figure 39: Would shower facilities and lockers encourage bicycle commuting? ........................ .43
Xlll
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
BACKGROUND
In 1975 , the Brazos Valley League of Women Voters (BVLWV) conducted a bicycle survey
of the Texas A&M University (T AMU) campus and adjacent areas in the City of College
Station . The researchers conducted their survey at that time because of a perception of hazardous
conditions for commuting bicyclists. Based upon the results of the 1975 survey, the BVLWV
prepared a report outlining areas of difficulty for bicycle riders and made recommendations for
modifications of some streets and intersections to improve safety for bicyclists . The City of
College Station has since created a bicycle master plan that , when completed , will connect all
parts of the city with dedicated bicycle paths , bicycle lanes , and bicycle routes .
For this project, researchers reviewed the 1975 BVL WV survey and report. Researchers also
conducted surveys of commuter bicyclists to assess the current conditions for bicyclists in the
community and surveys of nonbicyclists to determine what might encourage them to ride .
The researchers also attempted to determine any achieved reduction in accidents resulting
from the implemented changes ; however, accident data from 1975 , the year of the League of
Women Voter 's survey, are not available.
Research Obj ectives
Project Goal: Determine the potential to increase bicycle use in the Bryan -College Station -
Texas A&M University community.
Research Objective : Determine how many people currently bike to campus on a typical class
day.
Research Objective : Learn which routes bicyclists use to travel to campus to discover areas of
interest.
Research Objective : Ascertain issues encountered by bicyclists along their commute .
Research Objective : Determine what aspects (physical barriers, behavioral issues , other) on the
bicyclists ' route affect comfort level and which facilities contribute to a perception of safety or
hazard .
Research Objective : Research the above objective to solve the hypothesis that bicycle activity
would increase if bicycling were made safer.
Research Objective : Determine what changes might promote bicycle commuting among current
nonriders .
1
Literature Review
Unlike driving a vehicle , which is a well-established part of the av erage American 's travel
patterns, bicycling is still , to many, a recreational pastime. Commutes by bicycle constitute a
small portion of the total trips made in the United States. Prior research estimated that in the U .S .
for the year between 1990 and 1991 , bicyclists rode 9.3 to 34.3 billion km (5.8 to 21.3 billion
miles), representing 0 .28 to 1.03 percent of total vehicle miles tra v eled . 1
In 2005 , reasons to change these patterns are abundant: pedestrians and bicyclists do not
consume oil , cause smog or acid rain , pollute waterways , add to the risk of global cl imate
change, create noise, or necessitate pav ing over more of the landscape for parking. Walking and
bicycling are also good ways to get the exercise that many people need and want. In fact ,
according to the National Cancer Institute :
Results from the 1999-2000 National Health and Nutritio n Examination
Survey (NHANES) show that an estimated 64 percent of U.S. adults are
either overweight or obese . In addition, the percentage of children who are
overweight continues to increase . Among children and teens ages 6 to 19 ,
15 percent (almost 9 million) are overweight according to the 1999-2000
data , or triple what the proportion was in 1980.2
Researchers have found a strong correlation between lack of physical activity and obesity,
and much of that has been attributed to our auto-oriented culture. More than one-quarter of the
trips Americans take are no more than 1 mile long, a walkable distance , and almost one-half of
trips are less than 3 miles long and are thus fit for bicycling.3 The Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) (1992) has set a goal of doubling Americans' use of walking and
bicycling as forms of transportation .4 So , how do people, in effect, "get there from here ?" What
can be done to increase nonmotorized travel for health, env ironmental, and financial benefit,
when:
... [I]nsights from the public health and social marketing fi elds suggest that
the deci s ion to even cons ider riding a bicycle is a multi-staged process
involv ing a variety of interacting personal, social , and environmental
factors. The choice to b icycle for a particular trip depends not only on the
specific characteristics of that trip but on the individual 's attitude toward
and willingness to bicycle. While attitudinal research gi v es important
insights into pedestrian and transit travel choices as well , its implications
are perhaps most significant for bicycle travel (emphasis a dded).5
FHWA's (Goldsmith, 1992) N ational Bicy cle and Walking St udy found that in addition to th e
many factors already described , family circumstances , personal habits, and topography also
affect an indiv idu al 's decision to commute by bicycle .4 Moritz (1997) conducted a surv ey of
2 ,374 bicycle commuters in the U .S . and Canada. The survey includes data on socioeconomics
and demographics , commuting habits and trip characteristics , ac cidents, equipment and fac iliti es
used , relative danger by type of str eet, and motivation.6
2
Changes in policy and additions to both bike and pedestrian facilities that may affect an
individual's decision to walk or ride a bicycle are occurring around the country. New standards
include more bike lanes and sidewalks , decreased intersection crossing distances , and improved
pedestrian signal technology, such as count-down signals and audible pedestrian crossing tones .7
Title 23 of the United States Code, Section 217, provides the funding mechanisms , planning
requirements , and policy tools needed to design walkable and bicycle-friendly communities. The
legislation also calls for the integration of bicycling and walking into conventional transportation
systems to enhance the ability of communities to improve the safety and practicality of bicycling
and walking for everyday travel. 8
Determining bicycle commuter ridership for this study may help support the goals of the City
of College Station 's Bikeway and Pedestrian Mast er Plan Update 2002 in context of the city 's
Comprehensive Plan:
Objective 5.5: College Station should continue to provide bikeways
between res idential areas , parks , schools , Texas A&M Univ ersity ,
and retail/employment centers.9
Texas A&M University 's vision in its Campus Master Plan 2004 firmly establishes its goal
of increased nonmotorized commutes to campus :
The University should seek the city's support to strengthen the notion of George
Bush Drive and Texas A venue as true avenues , incorporating street trees along the
edges and in the median, and should support city efforts to utilize both as bicycle
routes (off-street bicycle paths). 10
Researchers have confirmed that even small improvements to bicycle facilities can initiate
usage:
Higher levels of bicycle infrastructure are positively and significantly
correlated with higher rates of bicycle commuting. 1 1
This analysis confirms the hunches of public policy makers that at least
some, but perhaps not an inconsequential number, of commuters will be
responsive to the bicycling option if only it were made available. 12
The easiest policy initiative to encourage bicycle commuting is the
installation of bicycle parking facilities at employment centers. 13
In summary, there are compelling reasons for focusing bicycle-related research and policies
on commuter trips , whether to campus or the office , and they are the motivation for the research
presented in this report.
3
Selection of Bicycle Programs Established on Other College Campuses
University of Texas (UT) -Austin
Each day more than 1,000 individuals use bicycles as their mode of transportation to , from ,
and/or around the UT campus. Bicycle registration is required for everyone who bikes on
campus, and the administration uses registration to quantify actual bicycles on campus .
Registration is required of anyone r iding on campus (including visitors) -sticker issued
Dismount zones - 2 blocks of an east-west road is a designated pedestrian mall: no
vehicles , bicycle dismount zone , marked with barriers and signs, eventually will have
pavers
• No riding on sidewalks
• Lights required for night riding
• Impoundment and $50 fine for illegal parking
• Campus-wide 15 mph speed limit reduces pedestrian/bike/motor-vehicle conflicts
• UT works with City of Austin on bicycle plans , but often has different goals
University of Washington (UW) -Seattle
Bicycles are counted at racks located throughout campus.
Registration is recommended
Formal bicycle plan -"UW Bicycle Guide " brochure distributed
Shower facilities are available for pedestrian/bike commuters at several locations on
campus
• Discounted helmets and lights are available through health services
• Bicycle "Slow Zones " and dismount zones where cyclists must walk th eir bicycles
between classes -marked by signs and pavement markings
• More bike lockers than any other campus (534), with waiting list ($55 /yr rental)
Bike rooms
Impoundment for illegal parking and abandonment (30 days)
• "Bike buddies" commuter program
• All buses have bike racks
Routes and lanes connected with city system
Arizona State University -Tempe
Bicycles counted in racks -estimate 15 ,000 trips to-and-from campus each day
Registration recommended (through City of Tempe, $2 .00 fee); the university would
establish its own bicycle registry if it had the staff to do so
• 19 ,000 racks -most are used; usage is monitored and racks are moved as needed
Had Jockers , which were not used and so were removed
• High theft rate -suggests cyclists buy "clunkers" for use on campus
University of Florida -Gainesville
• Registration is recommended
Bicycle Janes on busiest roads
Campus police offer bicycle safety course for those ticketed for rules violations
4
Transportation and Parking Advisory Committee works with university on the University
Master Plan
University of Colorado -Boulder
Mandatory bicycle registration -$10 .00 lifetime fee
University of Michigan -Ann Arbor
No bike plan
Bike lockers are available
University of North Carolina -Chapel Hill
• Registration is optional , but recommended
• Bike rooms are available in some buildings
Ohio State University-Columbus
• Campus Master Plan and city have integrated bike routes
University of Wisconsin -Madison
Currently developing Campus Master Plan, which will include bicycle system
improvements
Bike paths
Bicycle lockers (35), reported to be in high demand
Discussion Regarding Stated Preference vs. Revealed Preference Survey Types
Surveys are a commonly used research tool for gathering information on preferences and
levels of satisfaction. Attitudinal surveys are one measure to establish perceptions of bicycle
commuting. The surveys prepared for this research project were designed to elicit potential
changes in bicycle commuter behavior if facilities were improved or augmented .
Forecasting the demand for new products or transportation innovations requires information
about consumers ' preferences for products or services that do not exist in the current
marketplace . In general , "stated preference" (SP) surveys rely on what consumers say they will
do in the future -"I will bicycle commute to /from campus if new bikes lanes are built."
"Revealed preference" (RP) surveys, however, operate under the notion that what people want is
revealed by what they already do (commuting to /from campus by personal vehicle), not by what
they s ay -the old adage that actions speak louder than words.
SP data has been subject to criticism by economists and other researchers because many
times consumers react differently to hypothetical scenarios than they would if confronted by the
same alternatives in a real situation. Additionally, during the survey, respondents have to be
presented with much more information than they would have in making their travel decisions .
Finally, bias can occur during stated preference data collection , including the following:
• affirmation bias: the respondent may adjust , consciously or not , his/her responses to what
he/she thinks the interviewer expects to hear;
5
• rationalization bias: while trying to rationalize his /her current behavior, the respondent
may provide artificial responses that do not reflect the way he /she actually acts ;
• policy response bias : the respondent may try to influence , by his /her responses , decisions
or policies which he /she believes will be based on the results ; and
• unconstrained response bias: responses may be somewhat unrealistic because the
respondent may omit actual constraints he /she experiences in reality.14
Despite these problems , however, there are a number of benefits to utilizing stated preference
data . 15 SP and RP data are seen to each have their own strengths and weaknesses, and surveys for
this project included both stated preferences and observations (counts).
A variety of preference surveys have been conducted by states , metropo litan planning
organizations (MPOs), and other organizations to capture commuter attitu de and mode choice .
Preference surveys can have a wide range of uses in bicycle and pedestrian planning, such as:
• estimating the potential mode choice impacts of a facility improvement or policy change ;
• determining relative preferences for different types of improv ements ; and
• measurin g attitudes and other personal variables which influence the decision to bicycle
or walk .16
Beyond preference surveys , examining the factors that influence frequency of commuting to
campus by bicycle is important fo r several reasons. The routine physical exercise provided by
bicycle use has significant health benefits for the bicycling individual. Additionally, every
bicycle trip made in lieu of a vehicle trip can help alleviate automob ile-related problems such as
traffic congestion , fuel use , and degradation of natural resources for roads and parking. In short,
bicycle riding has positive impacts on both personal health and the environment.
6
CHAPTER 2: DATA AND COLLECTION METHODOLOGY
A significant challenge facing the analysis of bicycle and pedestrian modes is the lack of
documentation on usage and demand, which makes it difficult to measure the cost/benefit of
investments in these modes. The Guidebook on Methods to Estimate Non-Motoriz ed Travel
states that "further development of modeling techniques and data sources are needed to better
integrate bicycle and pedestrian travel into mainstream transportation models and planning
activities."17 In 2004, the Development of the National Bicycle and Pedestrian Documentation
Projec t report was prepared to provide guidance to local agencies and organizations conducting
bicycle and pedestrian counts and surveys a consistent, uniform methodology as a national
standard.18
Very little quantitative information exists in the literature concerning the frequency of
bicycle commuter trips from the local community to a university campus . Complications arise
when attempting to count bicycles and may be the reason for the dearth of information: bicycles
are not easily detected by automatic counting devices and they travel in locations other than
roadways (e.g., as the crow flies , even through green spaces). Indeed, only one study was
identified that closely resembled the methodology utilized in this research project.
The Bicy cle Cordon Count Pilot Study (Aultman-Hall , 1999) conducted a pilot study of
bicycle count methodology at the University of Kentucky Lexington campus , considered the
largest regular bicycle trip generator in Kentucky.19 Student counters were stationed around the
campus perimeter, forming a complete cordon in shifts from 7 a .m . to 7 p .m . on Tuesday,
September 22 , 1998. Counters recorded the following data: time of observation, gender,
approximate age , helmet usage , location of bicycle (road versus sidewalk), travel direction
(inbound versus outbound), and travel direction (with or against traffic). There were 3 ,628
bicycle trips counted, among other findings.
DATA AND ANALYSIS
In conducting research for this TAMU/College Station bicycle commuter study, the survey
staff interviewed (and counted) as many people as possible during the time periods established
for administering each survey. As a result, each of the three survey events generated a different
number of completed questionnaires. The researchers performed appropriate statistical
significance tests because of the differences in the number of responses .
Survey One : Bicycle Commuters
The first of three surveys (Appendix A) conducted in the research project was to assess
commuting habits and identify the type and location of problem s encountered on the commute.
Prior to conducting the survey of commuter bicyclists , a I-hour orientation was held for
volunteers from the City of College Station, the Bryan/College Station Metropolitan Planning
Organization (BCSMPO), Aggi eland Bicycling Club, T AMU students, and the Texas
Transportation Institute (TTI), in which interviewers were instructed to obtain responses from
bicycle commuters only. Interviewers were gi v en maps , clipboards with questionnaire forms , and
7
yellow T-shirts printed front and back with "Bicycle Study 2004-2005" and "Survey Staff' for
identification.
On Tuesday, November 16 , 2004, a crew of 15 interviewers approached bicyclists at the
more heavily used bicycle racks on campus. Interview staff selected only those riders coming
from off-campus locations , referred to here as "bicycle commuters." A total of 144
questionnaires were completed . The first six questions were introdu ctory. A total of 80 percent of
these commuters reported bicycling to campus at least four times per week, 19 percent ride one
to three times per week, and 1 percent ride less than once per week.
In addition, 88 percent of the respondents said they take the mos t direct route to campus,
while 19 percent said they choose their route to avoid vehicle traffic . Seventeen percent of
survey respondents that said they use a designated bicycle path as their route of choice , 96
percent always use the same path , and 4 percent vary their route.
On the survey form, the question "How often do you encounter the following obstacles on
your trip route?" was followed by a table of potential obstacles. The data collected from this
question were tabulated by frequency of response to each of a list of "problems" and is presented
below in bar graph format as Figures la through lg and also as Table 1. In tabulating these data ,
omitted responses were given their own category. The frequency categories "routinely,"
"occasionall y," "rarely," and "never" were not defined by the researchers; therefore , answers are
based on the respondents ' interpretation of those categories .
-~ !:.... 30 +--------1
Cl)
O'>
~ 20 -+------! c:
Cl)
~ 10 -+------I
Cl)
a.
Routine ly Occasionally Rarely
Response
Never No Answer
Figure la: Frequency of bike commuters encountering aggressive motorists.
8
40 --~ 0 30 -(l)
C) ro 20 .... ----c:
(l)
0 10 a...
(l)
---
a..
0 r-1
Routi nely Occasionally Rarely Never No Answe r
Response
F igure lb : Frequ enc y of bike commuter s encounterin g problem p ed estrian s.
40 -~ 0 30 --
(l)
C) ro 20 .... c: -(l) -
0 10 a...
(l)
-f--
a..
0 r-1
Routi nely Occasionally Rarely Never No Answer
Response
F igure le: Frequency of bike commuters encountering d ebris in the bikew a y.
60 -~ 0 50 -(l) 40 C)
ro 30 .... c:
(l) 20 0 a...
(l) 10 a..
0
Routinely Occas ionally Rar ely Never No Answer
Response
Figure ld : F requency of bike commuters encountering cracks a nd holes in t h e p a th.
9
40 -~ 0 30 --
Q) -
O> -ca 20 -c:
Q) ' u 10 ....
Q)
--
Cl.
0 [irl
Routinely Occasionally Rarely Never No Answer
Response
Figure le: Frequency of bike commuters encountering d iscontinuous paths.
40 -~ 0 30 ---
Q)
O> ca 20 -c:
Q) -" -
u 10 ....
Q)
-
•;
Cl.
0
.
,. r-1
Routinely Occasionally Rarely Never No Answer
Response
Figure lf: Frequency of bike commuters encountering narrow/ending bicycle lanes.
30 -~ 0 -Q) 20 O> ca -c:
Q) 10 u ....
Q)
Cl.
Routinely Occas io nally Rarely Never No Answer
Response
Figure lg: Frequency of bike commuters encountering d ifficult in ters ections.
10
Table 1. How Often Do You Encounter the Fo)]owing Obstacles on Your Trip Route?
Routinely Occasionally Rarely Never No Answer
Aggressive motorists 8% 32% 38 % 18 % 4%
Pedestrians in the bicycle lane 25 % 36% 23% 13% 4%
Debris in the roadway/ bike lanes 17 % 30% 35 % 15 % 4 %
Cracks, holes , or other poor pavement 49 % 24% 17 % 6% 4% conditions
Discontinuous or no through route 12 % 33 % 23 % 27% 5%
Narrowing or ending of bicycling space 16 % 32 % 32% 17 % 4%
Difficult intersections 1 16 % 22 % 27% 28% 7%
A majority ofrespondents (73 percent) report finding cracks, holes, or other poor pavement
conditions at least occasionally along their route, while 23 percent report rarely or never
encountering these obstacles. "Debris in the roadway" is routinely and occasionally reported by
4 7 percent of respondents. Behavioral issues that affect bicyclists include "aggressive motorists ,"
reported on trip routes by 40 percent ofrespondents, and "pedestrians in the bike lanes," which
61 percent ofrespondents report encountering at least occasionally. "Narrowing or ending of
bicycling space" was reported as an occasional obstacle by 32 percent of respondents, but was
reported as never an obstacle by 17 percent. "Discontinuous or no through-routes" was reported
as an occasional obstacle by 33 percent ofriders surveyed, and 50 percent ofrespondents
reported rarely or never encountering this obstacle.
'The George Bush Drive/Wellborn Road intersection received the most compl ai nts at 10 (bicycle rider volume at
this intersection was 9%); the Texas Avenue/University Drive intersection recei ve d six complaints (this intersection
was not incl ud ed in the bicycle count, as it is not a campus entry point); and the College Main Street/University
Drive intersection received four complaints (count volume was 3% of total at this intersection).
11
The next que stion was designed to discover the most difficult prob lems identified by
bicyclists . Respondents were instructed to check boxes in an "any and all that apply" fonnat.
With the exception of "bicycling space too narrow " (16 percent), the other response rates are
very similar to each other and are provided in Table 2.
Table 2. Frequency of Perceived Obstacles to Bicycling to/from TAMU.
Most Difficult Problems Freq .
Lack of resp e ct from drivers 32 %
Difficult intersections 32 %
Other bicyclists ignoring rules 3 1%
Too few bicycle routes/paths 3 1%
Poor lighting 2 8%
Poorly maintained bicycle paths 25 %
Discontinuous bicycle routes 25 %
Bicycling space too narrow 16%
The importance of these data r e flecting perceived obstacles is in their app lication to
occurrences in areas , or zones , of the community. Below, the survey data are analyzed by these
"zones of occurrence." Of the 144 completed questionnaires, 112 respondents reported a "point
of origin" for their trip. To identify where problems are being experi enced by these commuters,
we divided survey respondents (based on origin location) into one of four zones. These zones
cover the southwest, south , east, an d north sides of campus , respecti v ely (see Appendix B for
map). Outlying origin points within one block of the adjacent zone are included in the total.
12
!.....
0 Jones Butler Rd
Figure 2: Zone 1 (with bicycle commuter points of origin).
13
p
Holik St
Figure 3: Zone 2 (with bicy cle commuter points of origin).
14
I >
' ....... Ashburn Ave CJ'.) {~ u ....... u
Wi l liams St
c c
-1 :::>
....... St Harrin (/) • Dr
L
Q)
~ St c
8 3 ~ u • Foste Ave c
E
0
0
Figure 4: Zone 3 (with bicycle commuter points of origin).
15
Figure 5: Zone 4 (w ith commuter points of origin).
Since the volume of bicyclists varied by zone (21 in Zone l ; 31 in Zone 2 ; 11 in Zone 3 ; and
49 in Zone 4), these numbers were divided into the number of problems cited per person in each
zone to obtain a rate . The most complaints per person came from Zone 1, the southwest side of
campus , where the rate of complaints , 2 .29 per respondent, was not s ignificantly different from
Zones 2 and 4 (2 .25 and 2.16 per person , respectively). Zone 3 , the east side of campus , which
had the fewest respondents , had the lowest rate of complaints , less than one (0 .9) complaint per
respondent.
16
More than half of respondents in Zone 1 indicated a problem with difficult intersections .
Zones 2 and 4 had similar rates of complaints overall , and respondents specifically reported too
few bicycle routes as a common problem. In Zone 3, poor lighting had the highest number of
complaints, and in Zone 4 , poorly maintained bicycle paths and poor lighting were the most
frequently reported problems . Table 3 illustrates these data in the format of complaints per
person by population and zone .
Table 3. Commonly Identified Problems by Zone.*
Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone3 Zone 4
(SW) (S) (E) (N)
Too few bicycle routes/paths 0 .33 0.32 0.09 0.31
Poorly maintained bicycle paths 0 .33 0.23 0 .09 0.35
Discontinuous bicycle routes 0.14 0.29 0 .00 0.29
Bicycling space too narrow 0.10 0.19 0.00 0.18
Lack of respect from drivers 0.24 0.29 0.09 0.29
Other bicyclists ignoring rules 0.48 0.32 0.09 0 .27
Difficult intersections 0.52 0 .35 0 .18 0.14
Poor lighting 0 .14 0.26 0.36 0.35
Total identified problems, per person 2.29 2.25 0.90 2.16
* Re sponses per person , n = 112 .
To assess any potential sources of sampling bias contained in survey one ("commuter
survey") regarding the proportion of commuters originating from each zone, the sample
population was tested against the total inbound bike traffic volumes recorded at campus
entrances (see Appendix B for map) adjacent to each of the defined zones (Figure 6 , Table 4). By
comparing the difference in sample proportion between the two surveys for each zone, it could
be determined if any zones were over-or under-sampled in the rider survey. This comparison
was made using a test of significant differences at the 0 .05 level (95 percent confidence interval).
No significant differences in proportion were found for Zones 1, 2 , or 3. The test found that the
proportion of bicycle riders interviewed who reported originating from Zone 4 was significantly
less than the proportion of bicycle riders counted for inbound traffic volumes (Figure 7, Table 5).
To control for the possibility of interviewing a disproportionate number of commuters from a
particular zone , interviewers were posted adjacent to all zone entrances (including Zone 4) for
the entire survey day, 7:30 a.m . -5:30 p .m.
17
43%
10%
D Zone 1
•Zone 2
o Zone 3
o Zone 4
Figure 6: Percent breakdown of bicycle commuters entering by zone, according to count.
T bl 4 D t ~ F" 6 a e : a a or 1~ure .
Number of Percent
respondents related to tota l
Zone in-bound from each traffic volume zone for each zone
Zone 1 21* 19%
Zone 2 31* 28%
Zone 3 11* 10%
Zone 4 49* 43%
n = 112
**Outliers within one block from each zone were included in the responses for that zone.
18
11%
59%
22%
o Zone 1
•Zone 2
D Zone 3
D Zone 4
Figure 7: Breakdown by percent of bike commuter volumes per zone/point of origin.
T bl 5 D t f F. 7 a e : a a or 1gure .
Percent of
Bike bike
In-bound Volumes per Zone commuter commuter
count per volumes per
Zone Zone/point of
origin
Zone 1 218 11%
Zone 2 415 22%
Zone 3 153 8%
Zone4 1,120 59%
1,906
19
Question number 9 asked "Why do you bicycle ?" This question w as also presented in a
"check all that apply" format ; therefore , answers are independent of each other and can each
score 100 percent. The most frequent response (Table 8) was "bicycl ing is more convenient" (72
percent). More than half ofrespondents said they bicycle because they find parking a vehicle on
campus difficult (54 percent) or too expensive (53 percent). The least frequently offered reason
for riding a bicycle to campus was that the bicyclist had no access to a vehicle (13 percent).
These data sugges t that bicyclists ride to campus because they choose to , not because they lack
alternatives.
80
70
60
~ 50
C1)
Cl
~ 40 -c:
C1)
u ....
C1) 30 a..
20
More convenie nt Exe rcise/health Parking difficult Parking too
expensive
Response
Conserve fuel Save envi ronment No access to vehicle
Figure 8: Survey question #9: "Why do you bicycle? (check all that apply)."
The final survey question was about helmet use. Of the 144 bicy clists interviewed, only 8
respondents (6 percent) reported regularly wearing a helmet. Reasons for not wearing helmets
included not owning one, helmets are uncomfortable or inconvenient, helmets mess up hair,
helmets are "dorky" or otherwise silly looking, bicycling in the community and on campus is
perceived to be low risk, and "Just stupid, I guess."
Count
Several techniques for conducting effective bicycle counts are discussed in the literature.
Many universities (e.g ., Arizona State University in Tempe, the Uni v ersity of Texas in Austin,
and the University of Washington in Seattle) estimate bicycle commuter rates by assessing bike
rack usage at a particular time of day. While such methods produce an aggregate number of
20
1
bicycles on campus at any one point in time , bicycle commuters are only part of that sum .
Numerous bicycles are brought to campus attached to vehicles or in truck beds; many more are
left at bike racks for on-campus use only. Bike rack usage estimates do not produce accurate
commuter trip data and most mechanical means of counting bicycles present problems , thus the
need for an on-site , real-time , physical count of daily bicycle commuters. A review of techniques
used by other communities and universities to quantify bicycle use led us to conclude that the
preferred method is the use of human "counters."
The TAMU bicycle-commuter count was conducted manually by posting counters at 12
campus entrances (see Appendix B for map), including parking lots that were likely to be used as
entrances and shortcuts. The counters included personnel from the City of College Station and
TTI and a number of campus bus drivers prov ided by T AMU Transportation Services . In a 1-
hour orientation conducted by the researchers , counters were instructed to create an "imaginary
line " at their entrance and count any bicycle that crossed that line entering or leaving campus.
A typical Tuesday was selected for the count, gi v en that Tuesday is , according to T AMU
Transportation Services , the busiest weekday for vehicular traffic and parking. The weather was
cool and windy, until 5 p .m., when storm clouds and lightning moved in . The count was to run
from 7 :30 a.m . to 7:30 p .m ., but because of threatening weather the count was terminated at 5:30
p .m . Stopping the count early is the likely reason for more bicyclists being counted entering
campus than leav ing .
Since the task was to count commuting bicycles, researchers omitted those riders entering
campus from the west side , which would primarily be intracampus trips. It was assumed that
bicycles entering from off-campus on the north , south , and east were commuters . Only two
bicyclists were counted in the first two hours of counting at the east entrance to PA (parking
area) 50 , so the site was abandoned , leaving 11 entrance points under surveillance. Subsequent
observations by the researchers revealed that many bic ycles were coming from nearby off-
campus housing and entering at the southwest corner of campus. On Tuesday, April 12 , bicycle
traffic at the southwest corner of campus , including the intersections of George Bush Drive with
Olsen Drive , Marion Pugh Street, and Wellborn Road, was counted by survey staff stationed on
the fourth floor of the Callaway House dormitory's parking garage , and this site is labeled as the
twelfth entrance. Weather conditions were clear, cool , and slightly breezy on that day. The count
was conducted from 7 :30 a.m. to 5 :30 p .m., as was the initial count. A total of218 bikes were
counted entering campus , and 194 were counted leaving campus during this count. These
numbers were added to the initial count, for a total of 1,908 incoming trips and 1,543 outgoing
trips (Figure 9). (See appendix C for details .)
21
350
300
250
Q) 200
E ::s
0 > 150
100
50
0
-
---
....-l'!J H -
ii\ --~ -
.;: 1 ~1
iJ -----h
' _L_ ..... -.,...-....,...--.,...-....,...--
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Intersection Number
-
"
'ii
ii
ii
:ff, ....-
f---
....,... ...... -
9 10
-
-
-
-
'
-
11
-
~
-....,
12
Dlnbound
•outbound
Figure 9: Count breakdown by total bicycle traffic at e ach intersection.
According to the count data, Univer si ty Dri ve at Ireland Street (In tersection 9) and
University Dri ve at Houston Street (Intersection 11) were the two busiest intersections for
bicyclists , each carrying over 500 bicyclists (16 percent of total bicycle trips) in and out of
campus, while the intersections wi th the lowest counts were Uni versity Drive at Asbury
(Intersection 10) with 3 percent, University Drive at Bizzell Street (Intersection 6) also with 3
percent, and University Dri ve at PA 5 (Intersection 8) w ith 2 percent of total bicycle trips
counted. Possible explanations for the difference s in bic yc le traffic are discussed in the Data and
Analysis section of this report .
The George Bush Dri ve /Wellborn Road area had the third highest traffic count (11 percent).
This is an area of high-density housing across the street from the southwest comer of the T AMU
campus. The nearby Callaway House dormitory provi des a covered parking garage with bicycle
racks on the first floor (li ghted and under 24-hour vi deo surveillance), which may make
bicycling more convenient than driving to campus and having to park and walk. Additionally, the
north side of campus had the highest v olume of bi cycle traffic. This is also an area of high-
density housin g, incl udin g the new Traditions pri vate stu dent housing complex. This area also
includes retail and restaurant trades. The tables in Appendix C show count data b y intersection
and time-of-day.
22
Figures 10-24 are photographs and descriptions of the 12 entrance points to campus from
which the research team observed and counted bicycle commuters.
George Bush Drive (facing east) at
Houston Street. This three-way
intersection has pedestrian-actuated
signals and both sidewalks and bike
paths on Houston Street. This bike
lane on George Bush Drive is
identified by pavement markings and
signs. There is no sidewalk along the
south side of this stretch of George
Bush Drive (note the footpath), and
encroaching brush further impedes
pedestrian travel. Pedestrians often
walk in the bike lane here. Seven
percent of bicyclists counted use this
entrance.
Figure 10: Intersection 1.
Another view of George Bush Drive
at Houston Street (facing north
toward the main Texas A&M
campus) shows the crosswalk with
pedestrian-actuated signals that leads
to sidewalks and bike lanes on
Houston Street.
Figure 11: Intersection 1 (Photo 2).
23
George Bush Dri ve at
Throckmorton/C oke Streets (facing
southeas t, away fro m the Texas
A&M campus). T his intersection has
crosswa lks an d pedestrian-actuated
signal boxes . Bicycle traffic merges
with veh icu lar traffic at this
intersection . Six percent of bicyclists
counted use this intersection .
Figure 12: Intersection 2.
Pedestrian traveling east on George
Bush Drive approaching the
intersection with Bizzell/Timber
Streets . Both George Bush Drive and
Bi zzell/Timber Streets have bicycle
lanes and si d ewalks at this location.
Here , th e bike lane also serves as a
buffer b etween pedestrians on the
sidewalk and vehicles . Eight percent
of bicyclists co unted use this
entrance to campus .
Figure 13: Intersection 3.
24
George Bush Drive and Bizzell
Street intersection (facing north
toward the Texas A&M campus).
This intersection has crosswalks and
pedestrian-actuated signal boxes .
Figure 14: Intersection 3 (Photo 2).
New Main Street (facing west),
considered the main entranceway to
the Texas A&M campus , has been
improved and both sides have wide
(6 feet) bike lanes , wide sidewalks (6
feet) with a grassy buffer between
the sidewalk and the street,
pedestrian-scaled lighting, and street
trees to provide shade for
pedestrians. A raised grassy median
provides additional protection for
pedestrian and bicycle crossing .
Eight percent of bicycles counted
used this entrance to campus .
Figure 15: Intersection 4.
25
Texas Avenue and New Main/
Walton Streets (facing east away
from the Texas A&M campus), has
pedestri an-actuated signal boxes and
crosswalks on both sides of all
streets, as well as bicycle lanes on
New Main/Walton Streets . Texas
A venue does not have bike lanes, so
north-south bicycle traffic uses the
sidewa lk located on the T AMU
campus, near the southbound lane of
Texas A venue, which serves as a
shared-use path.
Figure 16: Intersection 4 (Photo 2).
University Drive at PA 50 was
improved to include a paved median
(with curb cuts that aid bicyclists as
well as pedestrians) and crosswalks
with both signage and pedestrian-
actuated signals. During
observations here, researchers found
that many bicyclists spent time
waiting on the median to cross
against the light. Six percent of
bicyclists counted used this entrance
to campus.
Figure 17: Intersection 5.
26
University Drive at South College
A venue/Bizzell Street is one of the
largest and busiest intersections
entering campus and was the second
most mentioned as a problem
intersection in our survey of
bicyclists . Only 3 percent of
bicyclists entering campus use this
entrance , possibly because of the
large number of vehicles passing
through or perhaps because there are
no bike lanes on South College
A venue, causing bicyclists to choose
alternate routes .
F igure 18 : I ntersectio n 6.
Figur e 19: In te rsectio n 7.
27
University Drive at Spence Street
has crosswalks and pedestrian-
actuated signals . On the left side of
this photo is Spence Street, which is
a two-way street on campus. On the
right , the street becomes a driveway
that leads to a parking lot with
restaurant and retail establishments ,
and beyond is high-and moderate-
density housing. This parking lot is
used as a shortcut by bicyclists, and
10 percent of bicyclists counted
entering or leaving campus used this
intersection.
University Drive at PA 5 . This small
faculty/staff parking lot is a mid-
block driveway that is used as a
shortcut for bicyclists . Three percent
of bicyclists counted used this
entrance.
Figure 20: Intersection 8.
University Drive at Ireland/Nagle
Streets is a one-way street entering
campu s from an area of moderate-
density housing and is one of the two
highest bike volume intersections ,
carrying 17 percent of bicyclists
entering and leaving campus. There
are also substantial amounts of
pedestrian and vehicle traffic at this
intersecti on .
Figure 21: Intersection 9.
28
University Drive at A sbury Street,
which is a one-way street leaving
campus. The street has no bike lanes ;
however, there are well-delineated
crosswalks with pedestrian-actuated
signals and sidewalks on both sides
of the street. This intersection was
used by 3 percent of bicyclists
observed during the count.
Figure 22: Intersection 10.
Uni v ersity Drive at Houston
Street/College Main is a large
intersection between campus
dormitories and restaurant/retail on
the city side . This is one of the two
highest bike volume intersections ,
carrying 17 percent of bicyclists
entering and leaving campus .
Researchers observed a moderate
amount of pedestrian traffic through
this intersection.
Figure 23: Intersection 11.
29
George Bush Drive at Wellborn Road/
Marion Pugh/Olsen Boulevard was
counted as a single "intersection,"
although it is composed of three
divergen t paths to campus. Adjacent
high-density housing generates many
bicycle trips. Counters observed that
most bi cycles cross George Bush Drive
and use a path that runs parallel to
Well born Road. Some bicyclists use
Olsen Boulevard, and a few continue
on Geor ge Bush Drive . No bicyclists
were observed riding on Wellborn
Road. Eleven per cent of bicyclists
counted used this intersection.
Figure 24: Intersection 12.
An underpass under Wellborn Road
at Joe Routt Street eliminates
conflicts with vehicles. Colored
pavers h elp to separate pedestrians
and bicyclists (not part of the bicycle
count).
Figure 25: West side underpass.
30
The Well born Road underpass is
well-lighted , has telephones
available, and is under constant
video surveillance , offering users a
sense of security. Colored pa v ement
is designed to separate pedestrian
and bicycle travelers . (Photo 2)
Figure 26: West side underpass (photo 2).
31
Survey Two: Bicycle Commuters
On April 29, 2005, Bike to Work Day provided an opportunity to collect additional survey
data (Appendix D) from bicyclists regarding preferences for improved facilities and
identification of the type and location of barriers along existing routes . Interviewers from TTI
and from the City of College Station approached bicyclists as they were lined up at Free bird 's
World Burrito restaurant for free burritos being provided to commuter bicyclists (see Figures 27 ,
28, and 29 below). A total of 58 questionnaires were completed on that day (another 16
questionnaires from survey two were completed during the noncommuter survey at the Memorial
Student Center (MSC) on the TAMU campus on June 9, 2005, discussed below, and these were
aggregated into a total of 74). Whereas survey one was oriented toward commuting habits ,
survey two was designed for identifying problems and preferences for improvements. The
questionnaire developed for survey two was comprised of open-ended questions , and the
responses were later coded and grouped.
Figures 27 and 28: Bike to Work Day at Freebird's World Burrito restaurant afforded an
opportunity to talk with bicycle commuters.
32
Figure 29: Jason takes a survey from a commuter bicyclist at Bike to Work Day at
Freebird 's World Burrito.
33
Ninety percent of these commuter bicyclists reported riding to campus three to five times per
week, and 10 percent reported riding once or twice per week on average. The main problem
encountered by 37 percent ofrespondents in "bike commuting to and from campus" was
identified as inadequate pathways (see Figure 30). Comments included a lack of dedicated bike
lanes/paths, as well as problems with existing lanes/paths , such as poor pavement conditions , and
places where bike lanes suddenly end . Twenty-three percent of the respondents reported that
dealing with drivers was their biggest commuting problem , and 16 percent said they have no
problems along their commute. Eight percent of this group of bicycle riders said that
intersections and traffic signals presented their most significant problem, with comments such as
"difficulty in crossing Texas Avenue and George Bush Drive" and "bicycles not tripping traffic
detectors for signal changes." "Dealing with pedestrians," "problems with other bicyclists ," "lack
of bicycle parking on campus ," and dealing with "the train " was each reported by I percent of
riders surveyed. The researchers coded 9 percent of the answers as "other," and 3 percent of
survey respondents did not answer this question.
o Inadequate path
o None
o Dealing with dri\€rs
Ell Intersections/traffic lights
m Dealing with pedestrians
o Dealing with other bikers
11 Lack of bike parking/bike
racks
mi Train
•Other
El No response
Figure 30: Major obstacles to bicycle commuting to/from. campus (categories provided on
survey).
34
A total of 3 7 percent of this group of commuter bicyclists surveyed said that pedestrians are
the major obstacle to bicyclists commuting on campus , and 12 percent reported that pathways are
inadequate (see Figure 31 below). Dealing with vehicles and other bicyclists were each reported
as the main problem by 5 percent of this survey group. Bicycle theft on campus was also
reported by 5 percent of respondents as their primary concern . Intersections , cars parked in bike
lanes , and answers coded as "other" comprised 7 percent of responses , and 5 percent of
respondents did not answer this question. Finally, 19 percent of the survey respondents reported
no problems while bicycling on campus.
19%
o Dealing with pedestrians
•None
o Inadequate path
m Dealing with dri\.€rs/buses
El Dealing with other bikers
o Intersections/Traffic Lights
181 Lack of bike parking/bike
racks
•Cars parked in bike lane
Ill Theft
lZI Other
~No response
Figure 31: Major obstacles to bicycle riding on campus (categories provided on survey).
35
Additionally, when asked what single step the cities or TAMU could take to improve
bicycling, a statistically significant majority (55 percent) ofresponses pertained to improving the
quality and/or quantity of bicycle paths (Figure 32). The second most common answer (12
percent) was improving education and awareness among bicyclists , pedestrians , and motorists to
reduce conflict and improve safety. Adding more bike racks on campus was the improvement of
choice for 8 percent of respondents, and 8 percent answered that they could recommend no
changes . Twelve percent ofresponses were coded as "other," and 4 percent ofrespondents did
not answer this question.
6%
D 0.00 -0 .50
• 0.51 -1.00
0 1.01 -2 .00
El 2 .01 +
Figure 32: Distance (miles) bike commuters would travel out of their way to use safer
bikeways.
The researchers asked bike commuters about safer bike routes , and a majority (69 percent) of
survey respondents replied they would travel (an average of 1.1 miles) out of their way to use
safer bikeways , while 30 percent answered they would not. Figure 32 illustrates that 75 percent
of these commuters (69 percent group) are willing to travel up to 1 mile out of their way to use
safer bikeways . Only 1 percent of survey respondents did not answer this question .
36
Three questions related to trip end facilities were included in the survey (Figure 33). When
asked if they would bike commute more if protected bicycle parking was available , 50 percent of
respondents said yes, 39 percent said no, and 11 percent did not answer. When asked if they
would be willing to pay for a personal bicycle locker, 72 percent said no , 20 percent said they
would pay (an average maximum of $26 per year), and 10 percent did not answer. Respondents
were also asked if they would pay for covered bicycle racks: 68 percent said they would not pa y,
22 percent said they would pay, and 11 percent did not answer. Finally, this group of bicycle
commuters was asked if showers and changing facilities would encourage them to bicycle
commute more often; 54 percent responded "yes," and 46 percent said "no ."
Protected parking
available
Willing to pay for
locker
W illing to pay for
cove red bike ra cks 1-------.-
Showering facil iti es!,__..;:;;;...-...,----.....---~
0% 20 % 40% 60% 80 % 100%
Percentage (%)
BYes
BNo
DNo Answer
Figure 33: Bike commuter preference for trip end facilities.
In summary, the main problem bicycle commuters report in bicycling off-campus is
inadequate pathways (37 percent); when biking on campus, howev er, these same commuters
report problems with pedestrians as the main issue (37 percent). When asked what improvements
would most likely get them to ride more, the majority of commuters stated that improving
pathways was their primary preference, which is reinforced by the response that safer pathways
would also encourage them to ride more. Trip end facilities seem to be less important an issue .
Although 50 percent of this group of survey respondents said that covered parking may
encourage them to ride more, only 20 percent said the y would be willing to pay for the use of
such facilities.
Survey Three: Nonbicycle Commuters
To satisfy the objective of determining what changes might promote bicycle commuting
among current nonriders, on Wednesday, June 8, 2005 , three survey takers were stationed in the
lobby of the T AMU MSC where passersby were intercepted and asked if they were students , if
they live off campus, and how they travel to campus . If they commuted to campus by any mode
37
other than bicycle, these students were asked a half-page questionnaire (see Appendix E) about
why they do not bicycle commute and what could be done to encourage them to ride . This survey
consisted of seven open-ended questions intended to elicit spontaneous responses that would
later be coded and aggregated .
Ninety-nine nonbicycle commuters responded to the survey, of which 90 respondents
reported never commuting to campus on a bicycle (see Figure 34). Sixty-one percent of the 99
bicyclists surveyed said they usually drive a personal vehicle to cam pus . Just over 22 percent
said they regularly ride the bus , and 12 percent responded they sometimes drive and sometime
ride the T AMU bus . There were four respondents who stated they walk, one other respondent
rides a motorcycle , and one student drives to campus but occasionally commutes by bicycle
22%
4% 1%
o Car/Truck/Motorcycle
11 Bus
o Ca r/Bus
~Walk
11 Dri\€/Bike
Figure 34: Modes of transportation for non bicycle commuters.
38
Reasons for not bicycle commuting include not having a bike av ailable (34 percent), livin g
too far from campus (24 percent), adverse weather (9 percent), and feeling that bike riding in the
community is too dangerous (5 percent) (see Figure 35). While the researchers expected the heat
and other weather conditions to have a significant negative impact on bicycle ridership , onl y 9
percent of the respondents in this sample reported such an impact. There were 22 re sponses
grouped as "other," which includes a preference to dri v e (3 percent), a preference for the bus (3
percent), and inability to ride a bike (3 percent), with the least reported reasons for not bicycl e
commuting as "don't like to get sweaty," "don 't like physical exertion ," and "it 's a hassle ." Si x
percent did not respond to this question .
6%
24%
o Don't own working bicycle
IIll Too far
o Weather
m Too dangerous/safety
•Other
Q No response
Figure 35: Reasons for not bicycle commuting to/from campus.
39
When asked what changes T AMU or the cities could make to encourage bicycle commuting,
42 percent of respondents said that nothing can be done to convince them to ride a bicycle to
campus (Figure 36). A total of 26 percent of the respondents mentioned pathways as an issue in
their decision not to bicycle commute and said that improving bicycle pathways (14 percent) or
adding bicycle pathways (12 percent) might encourage them to ride. Other responses included
decreasing bicycle theft on campus (3 percent), reducing pedestrian/bicycle conflicts (2 percent),
and increasing bicycle parking facilities as incentives to increase bicycle commuting. Thirteen
percent of survey respondents did not answer this question . Nineteen percent of responses were
classified as "other," some of which include lower the cost of bicycles (2 percent); "flatten the
roads" (1 percent), offer financial incentives (1 percent), and educate drivers, bicyclists, and
pedestrians about bicycle rules (1 percent). Bicycle theft is known to be problem on campus;
however, it does not seem to be a determining factor in the decision to bicycle commute to
campus .
14%
D Nothing
• Improve pathways
o Increase number of pathways
i::J Other
o No reponse
Figure 36: Changes by university or city that could encourage bicycle commuting.
40
When asked if a safe, direct route would encourage them to bicycle commute (see Figure 37),
45 percent of survey respondents said "yes " and 17 percent said "no." Twenty-one percent of the
respondents provided answers coded as "other," which included "maybe" and "probably," and 17
percent of those surveyed did not answer this question . An interesting observation is that 11
percent of the group of 45 percent of respondents that stated they would bicycle commute if a
safe and direct route were available had previously stated that no changes made by the T AMU or
cities would encourage them to bicycle commute. This apparent contradiction could be
interpreted as a desire for more and better bikeways in the community or, as mentioned in the
background section of this report, may be attributed to bias inherent in stated preference surveys .
45%
21%
17%
Id Yes
•No
o Other
D No response
Figure 37: Would safe and direct routes encourage bicycle commuting?
41
Trip end facilities are often discussed as incentives to encourage bicycle commuting. When
asked if they would bike more if improved bicycle parking (such as covered parking or bicycle
lockers) were provided, nonbicycle commuters were fairly evenly di v ided on the issue (Figure
38). Thirty-eight percent said such facilities would not get them to bicycle commute more , 30
percent said they would bicycle commute more if protected bicycle parking was available, and
13 percent of those surveyed did not answer "yes" or "no ," but gave answers coded as "other,"
such as "maybe," "that would be nice ," or similar responses . Nineteen percent of respondents did
not answer this question.
13%
38%
El Yes
•No
D Other
['.] No response
Figure 38: Would improved bicycle parking encourage bicycle commuting?
42
When asked if the addition of showers and lockers might have an effect on their commute
mode , more than half (57 percent) of the nonbicycle commuters interviewed said that they would
not bike commute more frequently if convenient showers and changing facilities were available
on campus, 22 percent answered "yes," and 21 percent gave answers coded as "other" (Figure
39).
57%
Yes
DNo
• Other
Figure 39: Would shower facilities and lockers encourage bicycle commuting?
43
CHAPTER 3: CONCLUSIONS
These conclusions consist of a summary of the goal and objectives, with commentary on how
these objectives were met.
Research objectives included determining how many people currently bike to campus on a
typical class day . The TAMU student body consists of approximately 45 ,000 students .
According to the count conducted for this project, approximately 3,000 bicycle commute trips
are made between campus and the community on a typical class day. This number was obtained
by observational counts and may be an undercount due to weather conditions preventing a full
day of observation . (Many universities count bicycles at racks to estimate bicycle commuter
volumes; however, we considered this method less accurate due to the high number of bicycles
permanently kept on the TAMU campus.)
Another project objective was to discover routes bicyclists use to get to and from campus and
to find what areas in the community are in need of improvements to the bicycling environment.
The north and southwest sides of the T AMU campus have high-density development, and
researchers found high rates of bicycle traffic in these locations. The east side of campus is
developed as restaurant/commercial and lower-density housing , and fewer bicycle trips are
generated from this area . It is important to note that several intersections and crosswalks are
present on the north and southwest sides of campus , while there are only two signalized
crossings between the city and campus on the east side .
The project included an objective of determining the problems bicyclists encounter along
their commute. Bicycle commuters reported inadequate pathways , including poor pavement
conditions as well as too few pathways , aggressive motorists , and difficult intersections/traffic
signals as their major obstacles to bicycling to campus. The third most frequent response was
that the rider found no problems along their commute. This indicates that either some bicyclists
are more tolerant of problems , travel too short a distance to encounter problems , or that areas of
the community are problem free.
Another project objective was discovering characteristics (physical barriers , behavioral
issues , other) of the bicyclists' route that affect comfort level and determining those facilities that
contribute to a perception of safety or hazard . According to the results of our second stated
preference survey (with open-ended questions), 55 percent of the respondents would like to have
more and/or better pathways. A total of 3 7 percent said that inadequate bicycle paths are their
biggest obstacle in bicycling to campus , and 21 percent said their biggest problem was dealing
with drivers. Respondents ' comments made in the course of the interview process indicated that
separate , dedicated pathways would be their preference , and 69 percent of respondents said they
would bicycle more if a safe and direct route was available. It could be concluded from these
responses that creating a system of dedicated bicycle pathways would be the best step toward
increasing bicycle commuting in the community.
Next, researchers investigated the hypothesis that bicycle acti v ity would increase if bicycling
were made safer. As mentioned above , based on the second stated preference survey, 69 percent
of respondents said that a safe and direct path would encourage them to ride more. Researchers
45
reviewed recent bicycle accident statistics for areas of the city adjacent to campus and found nine
reported accidents in the year 2002 , four accidents in 2003 , and six accidents in 2004. Since
historical accident data (from 1975 , the year of the BVLWV bicycle count and survey) are not
available, to prove the hypothesis that a safe and direct route would encourage riding would
require that improvements be made and subsequent studies conducted.
The goal of this project was to determine the potential to increase bicycle use in the Bryan-
College Station -TAMU community. We focused our research on Texas A&M University and
the immediate surrounding area , as the university is the largest trip generator in the community .
We determined through surveys that bicycle ridership could be increased with safe and direct
routes between the university and residences. The results of our stated preference survey of
nonbicyclists indicate that 42 percent of respondents , for reasons not re lated to th e bicycling
environment, could not be encouraged to b ike . Fourteen percent, however, said that improving
pathways might encourage them to bicycle commute to campus. These results indicate that
increasing and/or improving bicycle pathways may encourage some nonbicyclists to ride.
In order to quantify potential increases in bike ridership due to additions to or improvements
in pathways , it is first necessary to obtain estimates of the average daily incoming v olume of
students to campus by other modes of travel. Based on figures obtained from Texas A&M
Parking and Transportation Services , approximately 22,000 students enter campus daily through
modes other than bicycle.20 In our final survey, 5 percent of nonriders stated that their primary
reason for not b icycling to campus is "too dangerous/safety." Applying this proportion to the
total daily incoming volume of nonriders gives a total of 1,100 students . Using the 45 percent
proportion of nonriders that stated having a safe , direct route to campus would increase their bike
usage , we estimated that approximately 500 ( 45 percent of 1, 100) additional students may bike to
campus daily if appropriate route changes are made.
46
CHAPTER4: RECOMMENDATIONS
It is clear from the data analysis that the areas of high-density residential (southwest and
north sides of campus) and/or high-density restaurant and trade (north side) have the highest
levels of bicycle traffic. In reviewing the survey and count data, the conclusion can be drawn that
increasing the density of residential and student-oriented business development within a
reasonable distance (one-half mile is the maximum distance most people are willing to walk to a
destination, and most people will bicycle up to 3 miles to a destination) of campus, could
increase pedestrian and bicycle commuting and may reduce the need for additional vehicle
parking on campus. This high-density development coupled with increased connectivity to
campus through interconnecting pedestrian and bicycle paths could help create an environment
that not only encourages walking and bicycling as routine forms of transportation, but may also
prioritize walking and bicycling over vehicle use. This could move the campus area toward the
City of College Station's and TAMU's goals of making roadways adjacent to campus
"parkways" to enhance the pedestrian and bicyclists' environment and integrate the campus with
the city. The researchers recommend that the cities and TAMU continue to work together on a
master bikeway plan that will connect all parts of the city with dedicated bikeways.
Additionally, the researchers recommend that the Cities of Bryan and College Station and
T AMU implement educational programs to make pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorists aware of
rules and regulations that may reduce conflict and thereby improve safety.
FUTURE RESEARCH NEEDS
The researchers recommend that the City of College of Station and TAMU conduct bicycle
counts every 2 years. This would not only track bicycle system usage to determine if bicyclists
are increasing or decreasing in number but could help ascertain where implemented changes to
the bicycle system are working and where additional changes may be needed.
The researchers also recommend that a survey of motorists be conducted at campus parking
lots to determine why commuters choose to drive and what could be done to encourage and
promote bicycle commuting from off-campus locations to campus.
47
APPENDIX A: SURVEY ONE
._.Texas
~ Tran_sportation Improving Bicycling Safety in the Aggie Community
Institute
Survey location (name of building or street): ______________ _
I) How did you get to campus today ? D Walk D Bic ycle D Bu s D Car D Other: -----
2) Where did your trip to campus begi n today? (closest intersection) ______________ _
3) How many times p er week on average do yo u make this trip ?
D Less than once a week D 4-6 times per week
Dail y D 1-3 times p er week D
4) What route did yo u take today ? (l is t major streets use d) __________________ _
5) Why did you choose this route? (check all that apply)
D Most direct
D A voi d traffi c
D Bike route
D Oth er
------------~
6) When makin g this trip do yo u u suall y follow th e same route? D Yes D No
Why ? ___________________________________ _
7) How often do you enco un ter the following obstacles on your trip route ?
Aggressive mo torists
Pede strians in the bicycle lane
Debri s in the roadway/bike lane s
Cracks, holes , or other poor pave ment conditions
Di sconti nuous or no through route
Narrowing or ending of ridin g space
Di ffic ult intersections (*list below)
Other :
*Intersections that are difficult to cross and why:
Routinely Occasionally Rarely Never
8) Which of these do you see as obstacles to bicycling in this community? (check all that apply)
D Too few bi cycle routes/p aths D Lack ofrespect from drivers
D Poorly maintained bicycl e paths D Oth er bic yclists ignorin g rul es
D Discontinuous bicycle routes D D iffic ult intersections
D Bicycling s pace too narrow D Po or li ghting
DOthers/comments --------------------------
9) Why do you bi cyc le ? (check a ll that apply)
D Parking difficult
D Parking too expensive
D Save environment
D Conserve fu el
10) Do yo u usually wear a hel met ? OYes D No
D Exerci se/he alth
D More convenient
D No access to vehicle
D Other(s) ___ _
Why, or why no t? ---------------------------------
49
APPENDIXB
Zone Map with Entrance Numbers
51
Count Totals
Intersectio n
Time
7:30 -8:00
8:00 -8 :30
8:30 -9:00
9 :00 -9:30
9 :30 -10 :00
10 :00 -10:30
I 0:30 -11:00
11 :00 -11 :30
11 :30 -12:00
12 :00 -12 :30
12:30 -1:00
I :00 -I :30
I :30 -2 :00
2 :00 -2:30
2:30 -3:00
3:00 -3:30
3:30 -4:00
4 :00 -4:30
4 :30 -5 :00
5 :00 -5 :30
Totals
B @
Houston
1
27
5
9
33
9
9
16
19
2
13
2 1
3
12
16
8
2
14
13
13
26
270
B @ Coke
2
16
19
8
20
11
5
10
8
2
7
17
6
IO
22
5
14
7
5
8
8
208
X = no count taken in thi s time slot
B @
Bizzell
3
22
10
20
23
13
6
19
19
9
17
13
6
9
13
7
9
27
8
3
26
279
APPENDIXC
TAMU Bicycle Count Totals (in and out) March 2005
Texas @
Wallon /N
ewMain
4
23
15
8
24
18
9
16
14
8
19
10
4
8
17
7
10
18
10
8
19
265
U@
PASO
5
12
9
15
25
17
12
14
13
14
18
2 1
12
12
18
9
6
10
9
9
19
274
U@
Bizzell
6
4
.4
4
2
5
4
4
8
6
4
3
6
5
5
4
2
4
2
3
7
86
U@
Spence
7
18
12
13
22
28
8
2 1
14
17
40
25
5
17
34
13
9
18
9
4
12
339
U @ PA5
8
10
0
x
5
5
7
4
6
3
8
5
II
0
5
5
0
8
85
U @
Ir e land
9
30
19
20
49
32
18
34
18
12
48
14
18
32
54
20
24
3 1
2 1
15
38
547
U@
Asb ury
IO
4
0
2
9
4
4
8
12
4
2
16
5
7
8
4
7
5
9
8
119
U@
Houston
II
27
8
18
46
16
12
43
35
20
46
55
17
3 1
43
16
17
39
2 1
19
38
567
Wellb orn
@
Ca ll oway
House
12
37
13
13
28
15
10
28
25
14
20
23
15
19
25
17
13
36
12
23
26
412
Totals
230
114
131
281
173
98
218
192
109
238
224
100
170
260
118
110
216
120
114
235
3451
Count Total Incoming
Inte r section
Time
7:30 -8 :00
8:00 -8 :30
8:30 -9 :00
9 :00 -9 :30
9:30 -10:00
10 :00 -10 :30
I 0:30 -11:00
11:00 -11 :30
11 :30 -12:00
12:00 -12:30
12:30 -1:00
1:00 -I :30
I :30 -2 :00
2:00 -2:30
2:30 -3 :00
3 :00 -3:30
3 :30 -4:00
4 :00 -4:30
4:3 0 -5:00
Totals
B @
Hou s to n
I
27
5
5
24
6
4
10
9
9
8
2
5
3
3
6
153
B @ Cokc
2
16
19
8
16
9
3
10
7
5
II
2
3
3
0
2
2
3
159
X =no co unt take n in thi s time s lot
B @
B izz el l
3
22
9
17
20
II
5
13
10
4
6
10
3
4
2
3
2
10
3
12 3
T AMU Bicy cle Count Totals (incoming onl y) March 2005
Texas
@
Wa lto n/
New Mai n
4
2 1
15
8
23
17
7
12
8
2
8
5
5
6
2
3
5
3
133
U @
PASO
5
12
8
14
2 1
15
I I
12
6
5
2
7
7
6
15
6
4
3
2
159
U @
Bizz ell
6
3
4
3
2
4
3
2
6
2
3
5
3
5
2
52
U @
Spence
7
18
10
10
18
22
8
10
7
7
18
15
4
9
17
9
4
5
0
196
U @ PA5
8
10
0
x
5
3
4
0
0
3
2
3
4
2
0
3
0
0
41
U @
Irela nd
9
30
17
15
39
28
10
19
13
9
19
11
7
15
36
7
6
12
3
2
308
U@
As b ury
10
3
0
8
3
2
4
7
2
2
10
3
3
4
2
5
2
2
66
U @
Houston
II
27
5
16
39
13
7
20
24
8
2 1
32
6
14
24
6
5
15
6
6
298
Well born
@
Call oway
Ho use
12
36
11
10
23
11
6
19
16
6
6
II
5
7
14
9
3
15
5
2
218
Totals
225
103
108
233
144
67
134
117
47
97
126
47
77
133
49
33
80
30
2 1
1906
Count Total Outgoing
In te r secti on
Tim e
7 :30 -8 :00
8 :00 -8:30
8 :30 -9 :00
9 :00 -9:30
9 :30 -10:00
10:00 -10:30
I 0:30 -11:00
11 :00 -11 :30
11 :30 -12 :00
12 :00 -12:30
12:30 -1:00
I :00 -I :30
I :30 -2:00
2 :00 -2 :30
2 :30 -3:00
3:00 -3 :30
3 :30 -4 :00
4 :00 -4 :30
4 :30 -S :OO
S :OO -S:30
Tota ls
B @
Ho u sto n
I
0
0
4
9
3
s
6
IO
4
13
7
13
s
8
12
12
23
137
B @
Coke
2
0
0
0
4
2
2
0
2
6
4
7
19
s
12
s
4
s
6
8 5
X =no count taken in th is ti me s lot
B @
B izze ll
3
0
3
3
2
6
9
s
II
3
3
s
II
4
7
17
s
2
22
120
TAMU Bic ycle Count Totals (outgoing onl y) March 2005
Texas
@
Wa lt o n /
New
Main
4
2
0
0
2
4
6
6
II
s
3
3
II
s
7
13
7
7
18
112
U@
PASO
5
0
4
2
2
7
9
16
14
s
6
3
3
2
9
6
7
17
115
U@
B izzell
6
0
0
2
2
4
3
0
2
0
3
3
0
2
7
34
U@
Spen ce
7
0
2
3
4
6
0
II
7
IO
22
IO
8
17
4
s
13
8
4
8
143
U@
PAS
8
0
0
0
x
0
0
2
3
4
3
s
9
0
2
s
0
8
44
U@
Ir e lan d
9
0
2
s
IO
4
8
IS
s
3
29
3
II
17
18
13
18
19
18
13
2 8
239
U@
Asbu ry
10
0
2
4
s
2
0
6
2
4
4
0
2
2
3
7
6
53
U@
Ho us to n
II
0
3
2
7
3
s
23
II
12
2S
23
II
17
19
IO
12
24
IS
13
34
269
Wellborn
@
Ca ll oway
Ho u se
12
2
3
s
4
4
9
9
8
14
12
IO
12
II
8
IO
2 1
7
2 1
23
194
Totals
5
II
23
48
29
31
84
75
62
141
98
53
93
127
69
77
136
90
93
200
1545
SWUTC 1674550 Survey II of Bicyclists, 2005
Did you answer our campus bicycle survey in November? Yes No
Wha t is the main problem you encounter in bike commuting to and from campus?
What is the main problem you encounter in bicycling on campus?
In order of importance . list the most troublesome spots (street name and/or nearest building/landmark)
you encounter along your commute (city and/or campus):
Problem location The problem Suggested solution Comments
1.
2.
3.
Wha t single step could the University or the Ci t ies take to improve bicycling?
How often do you bicycle commute to and from campus?
Would you bike to campus more often if protected bicycle parking were available? Yes No
Would you pay for a covered bicycle locker on campus? Yes No
How much per year?$ __________ _
Would you pay for a covered bicycle space? Yes No
How much per year?$ __________ _
What is the maximum distance (in miles or kilometers) you are willing to bicycle commute?
If bikeways were improved for safety but took you out of your way would you use them? Yes No
Maximum distance (in miles or kilometers ) you 're will ing to travel out of your way on a safe bike
route?
Would you bicycle commute more often if showers and changing facilities were available on campus?
Yes No
If yes , where would you want these facil ities to be located?
Comments :
57
SWUTC 1674550 Survey of Non Bicycle Riders, Summer Semester 2005
How do you usually get to campus?
How often do you ride your bicycle to campus? (If never, ask why, and if appropriate ask if
there is anything the cities or university could do to encourage them to ride)
What changes could the University or the Cities make to get you to bicycle commute to campus?
If bikeways provided a safe and direct way to campus would you bike more?
Would you bike to campus more often if protected bicycle parking were available on campus?
Would you bicycle commute more often if showers and changing facilities were available on
campus?
59
REFERENCES
1 Komanoff, C., and C. Roelofs . "The Environmental Benefits of Bicycling an d Walking." In National Bicycling and
Walking Study, Case Study 15 , FHWA, U .S. Department of Transportation, Publication No. FHWA-PD-92-041 ,
January 1993 , p . 3 .
2 "Prevalence of Overweight and Obesity among Adults: United States, 1999-2002 ." U.S . Department of Health and
Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National Center for Health Statistics , Hyattsville , MD.
http://www. cdc . gov /nchs/products/pubs/pubd/hesta ts /obese/ o bse99 . htm.
3 Conservation Law Foundation . 'Take Back Your Streets," Chapter 4 , Walking and Bic yc ling Conditions ,
http ://www .clf.org/general/index.asp?id=385 , accessed March 31, 2005.
4 Goldsmith , S.A. "Reasons Why Bicycling and Walking Are Not Being Used More Extensively As Travel Modes ."
In National Bicycling and Walking Study, Case Study 1, FHWA, U.S. Department of Transportation, Publication
No. FHW A-PD-92-041 , 1992 .
5 Guidebo ok on Methods to Estimate Non-Motorized Travel: Overview of Methods . Federal Highway
Administration, Publication No. FHWA-RD-98-165 , 1999 , http ://www.tfhrc.gov/safety/pedbike/vo ll /sec2wit.htm,
accessed March 30, 2005 .
6 Moritz, W . Survey of North American Bicycle Commuters: Design and Aggregate Results . In Transportation
Research R ecord 1578 , TRB , National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1997, pp . 91-101.
7 Bochner, Brian S., P .E., P.T.O.E . Written correspondence July 5, 2005.
8 Federal Highways Administration web site . http ://www .fhwa.dot.gov /environment/bikeped/overview.htm .
Accessed July 16 , 2005.
9 College Station Bikeway and Pedestrian Master Plan Update, Final Report, October 2002
http://www.cstx .gov/docs/bicycle _plan .pdf, accessed March 30, 2 005.
1° Campus Master Plan , Fin a l Report , Texas A&M University, College Station , Texas, Jul y 2004,
http ://www .tamu .edu/campusplan, accessed March 28 , 2005 , p . 89.
11 Dill , J., and T . Carr. "Bicycle Commuting and Facilities in Major U.S. Cities -If You Build Them, Commuters
Will Use Them." In P ed es trians and Bicycles, Journal of the Transportation Research Board , No. 1828, TRB Pap er
No . 03-4134, 2003, pp. 116-123 .
12 Nelson, A., and D . Allen. "If You Build Them, Commuters Will Use Them: Association Between Bicycle
Facilities and Bicycle Commuting." In Tran sportation Research R eco rd 1578 , TRB , National Research Council ,
Washington , D .C., 1997, pp . 79-83 .
13 Stinson, M .A., an d C.R. Bh at.·"An Analysis of Commuter Bicyc list Route Choice Using a Stated Preference
Survey." In Tran sportatio n Research R ecord 1828, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D .C., 20 03, pp .
107-115 . TRB 2004 Annual Meeting, http ://www .enhancements.org/trb /trb2004ffRB2004-00149 3.pdf, accessed
March 28, 2005.
14 Bradley, M .A., and Kroes , E.P . "Simultaneous Analysis of Stated Preference an d Revealed Preference
Information." Pro ceedin gs of the 18th PTRC Annual Summer Me eting; S eminar H. University of Sussex, U .K.,
1990 , p. 96 .
61
15 Louviere, J.J., D .A. Henscher, and J.D . Swait. Stated Choi ce Methods : Analysis
and Application, Cambridge : Cambridge University Press , 2000 p. 21 .
16 Stutts , J.C. Development of a Model Surve y for Assessing Le ve ls of Bicycling and Wa lkin g, University of North
Carolina, Highway Safety Research Center, November 1994 , pp . 1-8 .
http ://www .walkinginfo .org/task _orders/to_ 12/to l 2/vol2 /sec2. l 9 .htm , accessed M arch 28 , 2005.
17 Guidebook on Meth ods to Estimate No n-Mo torized Tra ve l . U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway
Administration, Publication N . FHWA-RD-165 , Vol. 1, Section 4 , July 1999 .
18 Development of the National Bicyc le an d Pedestrian Docum enta tion Project, November 30 , 2004 . Prep ared fo r
the Institute of Transport ation Engineers, Pedestrian & Bic ycle Council, by Alta Pl anning+ Design, Inc .
19 Aultman-Ha ll , L. Bi cyc le Cordon Count Pilot Stud y. Final Report , KTC Report #99-6 0, Dep artment of Civi l
Engineerin g an d Kentucky Transportation Center, University of Kentucky, Lexington , 1999.
20 Gary L. Jackson , Assistant Dire ctor, Parking, T AMU Tran sportati on Services , email correspondence of 8/9/2005 .
62
TE
Elriu11 ElociJmu
S:mior Ha:iaurciJ E11gi11:1:1r
Ta;m:i Tru11:iµormiio11 J11:imut:1
Sm~t Gcowth in TH.ll!I
Smart Growth
Is ...
• Transportation
-To be su:;taim1bl e
4 Economic
•Social
4 Environmental
Sm:wt Gtow1h In T•;as
Smart Gro M:h Oppon:unities
Smart growth ...
.. Buil tls on loca l goal s a, obj ectives
, Capi talizes on natural land use-
tran sporiaiion relationship s
Snurt Gwwth in Ttt.t:19
Why Smart Growth?
'€>.'
CorY,19 stion
Cost o/ "buildi ng out of COt'YJ!IStion"
Is not ...
Cost o/ ott1 9r r!Kj'.Jir9d public infras lrlJChJr !!
Quality of lira an<! th9 corrununi ty
Smart Growth
• "No growth "
• No new roads
Only slow , s:~inny streets
• Meo-traditional desi gn
• Only high-density
development
' De :;igned to discourage
traffic everywhere
Smart Gctr.'llh In Teltit9
Smart Growtn
Goals may be sei ai many levels
-State
-Region
-County
-City
-Site
Snort GctJwth in Te.os
1
Worl~ing together EIS El
region to m:hieve goEJls
-Elry:.ir1
-College Station
-Smaller municipalities
-Countie s
-MPO
-COG
-Business
-Texas A &
-State
Snott Q(fltfh in TeltllS
Smein: Gro ~h
SpgcifJc goal::; anci objEJctivg::;
vary by community
No "on e size fi ts all"
SmartGro h
Smein: Growth
Typic:.il sm:.irt f.JfDWtiJ J:.im.J-!.Js3 u!Jj3ctiv3s
CompEJct development
, Infill EJnd redevelopment
, Connectivity
, Heduction of spmwl
, Open spEJce preservEJtion
, Mi xed use
, J.\esthetic E!ppeEJI
VVEJl:rnbility
, Lower cost for in fm-structure
Sm:Jrt Grcr111h in Tn~
Smart Growch Actions -Brazos Valley
MPO/COG irnnspori aiion F::::::~~~~:=;;;~-)-Yl
planning
Comprehensive Plans
Zoning
Site plan revie w
Economic development
incentives
Development incentives
Public/private
partnerships
Project selection
processes
Srrurt Growth n Te:os
Smart Growth
2
Smalrt Growth
Smart Growth
Land Us·e-Transporcation
· Relationships
'·' ...
u
~,,
VMT is increasing 3 times as fast as population growth
Soun Gfow1h In Te:.as
Smart Growch
Smart Qr.rwth In Tea&
Land Use -Transportation
Relationships
Hoadway systarn layout
-Networ'r{ed neighborhoods can reduce internal VMT
by up to 50%
S1n:wt GfaMh In Tens
riiilllJ. •1i:•t=1 11-••--I
--··· ·-· ·•!! ::"..I:'-
3
/-\void congestion
thro!.lgh natwor:~ing
roOJd :;ys;tarn
Sourt Gr!.M1h in T<tias
Trensport ation Role In
(Economic} Sustainability
Business and li ving environments
-Accessibility
-Viabili ty
-Visual attractiveness
Protection of sensitiva resources
Snurt Gruwth n Tnll9
4