practicum final (1)

Bikability Assessment, Research & Implementation Strategy ASU Campus Sustainability Applications Tayler Jenkins Allan Karim Frank Trombino

12/15/2012 TEMPE

ARIZONA STATE

UNIVERSITY

12/15/2012 BIKABILITY STRATEGY

2

Table of Contents

ABSTRACT 3

INTRODUCTION 4

PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION 5

OBJECTIVES 7

METHODS 9

DATA ACQUISITION 14

CONTEXT & SETTING 18

IMPLEMENTATION 19

ANALYSIS & DISCUSSION 23

CONCLUSION 27

APPENDIX 30


3

Abstract The purpose of this project is to implement a bicycle plan at Arizona State University to improve bikeability and pedestrian flow, ensure a safe environment for the campus community, and to help mitigate commuter emissions. The methods for research included an extensive review of literature to see what other campuses have done to increase bikeability. In order to evaluate current conditions of ASU’s bike facilities, data was acquired by surveying students and faculty and by observing and quantifying congestion in crowded areas on campus. As a result of this research, a plan was drafted to build a bike culture on campus, address traffic flow and congestion on campus through the implementation of adequate infrastructure, address safety concerns of riders and their property, and safely and effectively link commuters to campus. Implementation of this plan will ensure that ASU’s Tempe campus is a safe and convenient place for bicyclists and other pedestrians to enjoy, while helping to attain ASU’s goal of climate neutrality by 2035. Although many problematic areas on campus are highlighted with the research performed in this paper, further research may need to be developed in order to maximize the potential of an overhaul of ASU’s bike facilities.


4

Introduction Arizona State University is considered one of the nation’s first, best, and most innovative institutions in regards to sustainability. Not only does the college offer undergraduate, graduate, and Ph.D. options under the sustainability curriculum, but the institution also actively pursues sustainability by integrating the mantra into the college’s core values and actions. The progressive institution has ambitious goals to achieve climate neutrality by 2035 and is looking to diminish as many greenhouse gas emissions as possible over the next 23 years. The push to make Arizona State University a more sustainable campus by improving bicycle facilities, which aims to encourage biking as a commuting option, has become a growing trend by both faculty members and the student body. Encouraging bicycle riding is largely seen as an effort to significantly decrease carbon emissions associated with driving automobiles to and from campus, and to develop a safe environment for pedestrians on campus. However, many problematic areas exist within the framework of the current ASU bicycle facilities program, which unfortunately may limit the full sustainability potential that bicycle riding can offer to the campus climate neutrality initiative. Currently, it is estimated that 10,172 bicycles are used on campus at the Tempe location (Yatabe, 2012). If proper bicycle facilities are designed and implemented with an adequate and beneficial infrastructure, the potential to increase bike ridership to and from campus, as well as within the campus, may significantly increase. As a result, fine tuning and perfecting the bicycle facilities on Arizona State University campus can potentially allow for increased ridership and a safer campus environment, which can then work to the advantage of the school’s climate neutrality plan of 2035. With the implementation of a well-designed bicycle facility, it is estimated that vehicular commuter emissions can be reduced by 53.6%, or 7,957 MT CO2( Refer to appendix, figure 1.2).

Unfortunately, it seems that problems with ASU’s bicycle facilities already exist. It is possible that as enrollment rates continue to increase, the university will see increased ridership, which may further compound the current problems that exist. The goal of the research conducted in this document is to highlight problematic areas of Arizona State University’s bicycle facilities (Tempe campus) which can be remediated by the implementation of well-planned, long-term solutions to the problems. By reviewing literature that improves bicycle facilities both on and off campus, pursuing meaningful data acquisition by both surveys and observational methods, and by looking at potential bike pathways on campus, there may exist the possibility of administering worthwhile and beneficial revisions to the problem-ridden pedestrian flow patterns that currently exists on campus.


5

Problem Identification

Although ASU has supported a bicycle facilities program over the years, many flaws exist within the current infrastructure. The overlying problem of having a flawed bicycle facility is that it may discourage individuals to participate in bike ridership. Ultimately, the issues associated with the current bike plan on campus may hinder the capability of Arizona State University to achieve its goal of climate neutrality by 2035. The flawed bicycle facility on campus is composed of many underlying problems that have recently come to fruition due to an expanding student/faculty body, the failure to implement an evolving bike plan, or the lack of understanding/poor implementation of an adequate bike facility infrastructure by campus administrators. Unfortunately, many problems exist both on campus, as well as off campus for bicyclists.

Many problems exist on campus that may negatively impact use of its bicycle

facilities. Increased ridership, a growing campus population, and increased activity on campus has highlighted one of the main problems with the current outline of the campus: there are no significant, visual, or commanding infrastructure elements to direct the different types of pedestrian traffic flows. From observation, it seems that a lack of designation or guiding rules has prompted a “free-for-all” type of environment in which there are no particular standards to abide by when migrating around campus. With an ever-expanding student body and faculty, pedestrian congestion has become a significant problem not only for bicyclists, but also for everyone else who has to share the pathway. Much like automobile traffic, pedestrian congestion occurs when walkers, bicyclists, skateboarders, carts, and service vehicles all traverse a shared pathway or intersection in which there is no formal designation.

Pedestrian congestion not only slows the flow of traffic among the various paths,

nodes, and malls on the university, but it may potentially create unsafe conditions for people moving throughout the university. As a result, safety is a major problematic area of the bike plan that needs remediation. It has been duly noted that ASU’s Walk Your Wheels campaign of 2011 (a failed effort extended by Undergraduate Student Government to make densely populated pedestrian zones on campus safer by encouraging riders of wheeled vehicles to dismount their craft) was launched on the Tempe campus solely to alleviate unsafe conditions that had led to a large amount of complaints, collisions, injuries, damages to property, of students, faculty, and campus visitors.

The infrastructure of ASU’s bike facility also lacks in the department of safe and

adequate storage. Although many bike racks exist on campus, often times many of these racks fill to maximum capacity, while other racks are left constantly empty. The variance in bike rack capacity is largely a function of class scheduling, building use, and as a result proper rack placement is a necessary component of the bikes facilities. Overcrowding often leads to bicyclists locking their bikes to structures and objects not designated for bike storage such as fences, trees, or light poles. To make matters worse, users who lock their


6

bikes to racks often experience damage to their bicycles due to the constant contact and abrasiveness of others trying to attach/remove their own bike from the rack. This overcrowding of the rack tends to lead to damage of an individuals bicycle. Crime on campus associated with bike theft and vandalism is also exceptionally high, which prompts the need for adequate and safe storage in necessary locations.

The lack of incentives for riders in the current bike plan also showcases a problem

with the system. Finding ways to further incentivize ridership will aid in the successful implementation of a comprehensive plan.

Many problems with ASU’s bicycle plan is that is fails to adequately address off-

campus bikeability as well. Off-campus bikeability refers to the off campus routes that directly connect bike riders to the Tempe campus. Problems associated with properly and safely linking bicyclists who use public transportation to the campus has failed to be properly addressed. As a result, many routes lack the adequate infrastructure to encourage the utilization of bicycles in the future. This lack of infrastructure includes issues with bike storage when riding public transportation and unsafe bike lanes from these public transportation drop-off points. Safety concerns also exist off campus with bicyclists who are constantly sharing roadways with automobiles. Bicyclists who live off-campus and travel to class/work often share roadways with vehicles that travel upwards of 35 mph (legally) on an unprotected shoulder on their commute to campus. Overcoming these safety hazards and implementing the proper solution to further encourage bike ridership from both faculty and students is a large problem.


7

Objectives

Highlight problematic areas on campus

• There are certain areas on campus where bike/pedestrian traffic and overcrowding of bicycle racks are particularly high. These areas can be identified based on personal experience as well as data acquired from surveys distributed to ASU students and faculty members on campus. Highlighting these areas makes it possible to devote extra attention to alleviating the problems caused by the high volume of people that walk or ride through these spots on campus.

Redesign pedestrian & bicycle traffic flows on multi-use & dedicated pathways to increase student safety and ease congestion

• With walkers, bicyclists, skateboarders, and vehicles sharing the same pathways on campus, congestion is a major issue, especially during passing periods. This project aims to improve the flow of traffic by implementing bike lanes, which would keep fast-moving traffic on one side of the path and slower traffic (walkers, skateboarders) on the other. It would also prohibit vehicles from driving on certain paths to enable better flow amongst pedestrians and bicyclists. These initiatives would also reduce the number of collisions and near-collisions, thus improving student safety.

Create a cohesive following for proper bike etiquette as well as build a bike culture on campus

• These changes cannot be put into action without the help of the students and faculty. It is for this reason that a strong bike culture needs to be constructed to help facilitate the norms and guidelines of bike riding. Without these guidelines, structural changes made to campus paths will be rendered useless. A large part of culture is adherence to the rules, which is why it is imperative that rules need to be enforced as well.


8

Increase quantity & reliability of bicycle storage in areas where bicycle parking tends to be overcrowded

• During busy times, bike racks in some areas of campus are overcrowded, forcing many students to park their bikes far from their class or lock their bikes on objects not designated for storage. An objective of this project is to implement more bike racks in areas that tend to fill up. Another aspect of this initiative is to decrease bike thefts through the use of secure storing facilities or bike monitoring programs.

Offer incentives & disincentives for students and faculty to encourage more people to ride bikes to campus

• Students may choose to drive to school rather than ride a bike for various reasons. However, for those who live close enough to campus to bike, offering incentives will encourage some drivers to opt for biking to campus instead. For example, offering showers or lockers will benefit bike riders because they will be able to clean themselves off and change before going to class. This would be especially useful in the summer months when sweating is guaranteed on even short rides.

Link on-campus bike paths with off-campus bike lanes and public transportation drop-off points

• Some people may take public transit to school but still want to ride a bike while on campus. Incentivizing this type of travel, and properly linking off-campus public transit routes to bike paths on campus will ease the transition onto campus for these students.

Help mitigate CO2 emissions & achieve carbon neutrality goals

• The objectives of this project will encourage students, employees, and faculty to ride bikes to campus. More people opting to ride their bike rather than drive to campus will reduce greenhouse gas emissions and therefore contribute to ASU’s goal of carbon neutrality.


9

Methods Research for the project was conducted through two major strategies: review of existing literature and acquisition of data specifically relevant to Arizona State University’s Tempe campus.

Literature Review

Some resources have already been published regarding the bikeability of university campuses. The main goals of the literature review is to research how other universities have implemented bicycle plans or other campus plans that address on-campus transportation in terms of linking commuters to campus, safety for pedestrians and bicyclists on campus, creating a bike culture, and congestion/flow.

Safety & Security

On any college campus, safety must be addressed in order for students to feel secure bringing their bikes to campus. Safety concerns can be attributed to both personal safety and property safety as well. Multiple scholarly papers have cited a strong correlation between perceptions of safety and willingness to participate in bicycle ridership both on and off campus. In a 2008 survey of University of Maryland campus goers, approximately 48.8% of participants noted that feeling unsafe due to vehicular traffic was a reason that prevented them from bicycling (Akar & Clifton, 2008). In the same study, approximately 52.5% agreed that dedicated bike lanes to and from campus would encourage ridership, and 43.6% preferred trails and pathways separate from roadways. Discontinuities in the bike lanes, which typically occur near intersections, fragment the distinct bike lane which tends to create negative perceptions of safety by bicyclists. Another source indicates that of these types of lanes, “bike only” lanes are most preferred. The same source indicates that local streets with a designated bike lane are rated the most safe when compared to shared motor-vehicle lane options or multi-use paths (Badger, 2012). (see appendix figure 1.4) In a recent study in Canada, bike lanes that are separated from traffic by a physical barrier have been shown to decrease the risk of injury of cyclists by 90% (Badger, 2012).

In addition to bicyclist and pedestrian safety is the concern of the security of the users’ bicycles. In the 2011-2012 school year at Arizona State University, police received 488 reports of bike theft when bikes were parked on campus (Coe, 2012). Most occurred at residence halls, Memorial Union, Noble Science Library, and the Bateman Physical Science center. Other campuses, such as U.C. Berkeley, have implemented secure storage solutions with access codes or cage storage options to combat theft or vandalism (U.C. Berkeley, 2004). Another


10

solution to bike thefts is the implementation of bike lockers. Bike owners could feel confident leaving their bikes in these because nobody else would have access to a given locker other than the owner of the bike inside it. The University of Oregon Eugene is one school that has already implemented these on campus (Fields, 2006). At the University of Maryland, a survey showcased that a large percentage of respondents felt that if more secure and covered biking were offered, it would encourage ridership (Akar & Clifton, 2008). U.C. Berkeley also mandates all campus attendees to attain a valid bicycle license that is directly registered to their bike. This helps to link owners to their bikes in case of theft or damage. U.C. Berkeley bicycle safety advocates also promote their cause during freshman orientation, which aims to educate new students to safety measures and proper riding techniques on campus as soon as they begin their college career. Norman Yatabe, a member of the facilities development and management at ASU, aspires to possibly implement a bike valet program which would allow for monitored parking and storage of bicycles by either volunteer workers or paid positions (Yatabe, 2012).

Developing a Bicycle Culture

Bicycle use across cities and campuses alike cannot be explained solely by physical determinants because cultural factors play a large role in ridership and should certainly be taken into account when developing a master bike plan (Pelzer, 2010). Behaviors and norms often make up the framework of a culture, so fostering a bike-friendly culture is very important when it comes to implementing a bike friendly facility. According to Pelzer, bicycle culture is composed of 4 categories: micro-dimensions, which consist of personal experiences and meaning/material practices and macro-dimensions, which consist of mobility and the physical environment. Both Portland, OR and Amsterdam are cities that foster a strong bike culture. Often times, underlying perceptions about riding bicycles is rooted in the society in which the activity operates. For example, the perception that views bicycling as a poor-man’s mode of transport, a common view held throughout the United States, may lead to decreased ridership. Laws and regulations, often reflection of cultural norms as well, and can reinforce specific cultural positions, even for bicycle riding. A strong bike culture, as seen in Portland, OR emanates a wider set of beliefs about sustainability, outdoor living, and civic involvement (Pelzer, 2010). These perceptions are largely established through practice and interaction, so establishing positive reinforcement and interaction can help to create the foundation of a bike friendly culture on campus.

So what does it mean for a campus to be considered “bike friendly”? A dissertation through Michigan Technological University on bicycle friendly universities explores campuses which have earned the reputation of being bike friendly and assesses which components have made them so. The document offers a checklist criteria for a successful university bike program. It suggests that the bike plan should be comprehensive, flexible, integrative and


11

community-oriented, and should solicit input from multiple stakeholders, emphasize education, and involve a knowledgeable consultant (Fields, 2006). According to Fields, these traits seem to be common among universities which have implemented successful bike programs. Because these traits seem to have worked for other universities’ bike plans, they are important for ASU to consider in establishing its own bike culture.(Fields 2006). Additionally, it offers tools for universities to determine how bike friendly their campus is as well as advice on how to achieve this goal. ASU can learn from the tools provided as well as from the initiatives of other universities in its quest to become a bike friendly university.

The University of Wisconsin, Madison has a Bicycle Ambassador Program, which get

students involved in biking on campus by hosting biking events, offering repairs, hosting skill and safety clinics, sharing maps, etc. (Fields, 2006). Another student-to-student program called “Bicycle Buddy Program” at the University of Washington matches new bike commuters with more experienced ones (Fields, 2006). The existence of these programs on campus helps to create a bike culture at the university because it encourages student involvement in bicycling on campus as well as make it easier for people to bike on campus. Another way schools have helped to create a bike culture is by offering incentives for bicyclists. The University of Colorado, Boulder offers a program called “Buff Bikes,” which allows students and faculty to borrow a bike. Stanford offers “Guaranteed Ride Home,” which provides rides to bicyclists in case of odd circumstances preventing them from getting home on their bikes. The University of Washington also provides showers and clothes lockers for bike commuters (Fields, 2006). The incentives offered by these bike-friendly universities all help to encourage students and faculty to ride bikes and thus help to create a bicycle culture on campus.

U.C. Berkeley embraces the bike culture by actively pursuing outreach programs

targeting bicyclists in the region. The university offers education programs on orientation days for freshman, and promotes programs such as “Ride Your Bike to Work/School Day” to further encourage ridership. They often have kiosks set up at university events handing out free bike gear such as bike lights, u-locks, helmets, and other bike paraphernalia that is funded through school subsidies. U.C. Berkeley further extends opportunities to biking participants by offering showering facilities and lockers for individuals who feel the need to shower and change after a rigorous ride (U.C. Berkeley, 2004).

One ambitious program launched by the City of Denver, Colorado (called “Denver B-cycle”) enables residents to purchase bikes for rent. Their program really engages people because each bike “is equipped with RFID chips and computers to track mileage, calories burned and carbon offsets. Riders can monitor personal their fitness, see their contribution to the City’s green efforts and connect with others online” (Anonymous, 2010). These innovations allow people to quantify progress towards their personal fitness goals as well as their environmental contributions. The ability to see this progress is beneficial for users because it


12

takes their relationship with biking to an even deeper level, thus helping to encourage a bike culture. Another inspiring case can be seen in Emory University’s transformation from being nearly bike dead to becoming one of the nation’s most bike friendly universities, all in just one year (Carpiet, 2008). In order to create a bike culture on campus, Emory implemented a bike loaner program, showers, free campus shuttles with bike racks, free cycling safety classes, and a free ride home in case of emergencies. More initiatives are in development, including “outfitting new and existing roads into campus with bike lanes” (Carpiet, 2008). Because of these developments, Emory is now considered an extremely bike friendly university. With careful planning, ASU can emulate these initiatives and create a flourishing bike culture of its own. Congestion & Flow

Congestion and flow of traffic can be serious issues in high-density areas such as college campuses. Congestion can occur both at street-level, where bicyclists and vehicles share roadways, and also on campus where pedestrians, bicyclists, skateboarders, and service vehicles share a mix-used pathway. Safety perceptions and data, as mentioned above, revealed a strong link between ridership and actual safety. Bicyclists that share roadways with vehicles have also shown to negatively affect vehicular flow, thus encouraging the need to incorporate separate lanes (Taylor, 1999).

On campus flow designation has proven to be a difficult task for many universities,

especially at ASU. Some schools have set precedents in addressing these potential problems. The U.C. Berkeley opted to enlist a police enforced “dismount” zone from 8am-6pm along the main congested arterial routes along the campus, much to the dismay of many riders (U.C. Berkeley, 2004). Instead of offering an arterial bike lane system, the university chose to redirect bicycle traffic to the perimeter and enlist a “bicycle spoke” shaped network. University of California Davis, named the “Bike Capital of the United States,” offers 12 bicycle roundabouts on campus and 14 miles of bike paths in and around campus (Fields, 2006). These make it easier for bicyclists to get where they need to go on campus. The roundabouts keep bicyclists moving and thus helps keep the flow of traffic consistent even at four-way intersections. At the University of Arizona in Tucson, bike facilities managers have implemented route maps to inform and guide bicycle thoroughfare along shared pathways with pedestrians, and also established a dismount zone in areas of heavy congestion or where there is lacking visibility (University of Arizona, 2012).


13

Constructing collapsible traffic-control bollards and issuing strict time guidelines for on-campus mobility for facility service vehicles or carts can also helps to divert excess traffic from dense pedestrian zones (Yatabe, 2012). This of course can also help to alleviate the congestion along certain walkways on campus.

Utilizing Public Transit & Linking Commuters to Campus

Linking bike riders with public transportation options that efficiently and safely locate riders to their destination (campus) is very important to attain a developed bicycle facility. Many campuses recognize this fact and have adopted practices that aim to integrate bicyclists with public transportation options. At the U.C. Berkeley campus, officials have extended bike networks and lanes to directly reach transit stops for local bus systems and the BART (U.C. Berkeley, 2004). Officials within this school also have partnered with public transportation entities to allow bike riders to bring their bikes onto buses when bike racks are full. Officials have also worked with these entities to make sure that there is adequate bike storage at transportation stations. Implementing a network of bike lanes that connect to users to these public transportation and utilize the safe bike lane standard is equally as important to encourage ridership. Encouraging bike riders that live too far from campus to use public transportation as well as their bike is a method tool to encourage ridership. One method that has coerced students of Tennessee Technological University to abandon single use vehicle commutes has been to heavily increase the cost of parking on campus (King & Badoe, 2007). Disincentivizing the use of a single vehicle is helpful to encourage bicycle riding. The University of British Columbia (UBC) opted to incentivize public transit use by issuing free “U-passes” for college participants, which is largely funded by the cost of parking passes on campus (Senft, 2005). UBC was able to quickly attain an increase public transit ridership from 31% to 51% over a 2-year span, while experiencing a decrease in sales for parking passes by 12%.


14

Data Acquisition

The method utilized in the data acquisition portion of this practicum was a combination of several tactics designed to create a composite movement profile for pedestrians & cyclists alike on Tempe’s ASU campus. Data from surveys, field readings, existing studies, and student organizations were gathered to develop guidelines for creating a comprehensive pedestrian-traffic plan for the campus.

A fifteen-question survey (see appendix figure 1.1) was produced to profile how the

ASU community moves throughout campus. It also served a secondary purpose of gauging the population’s propensity to use a designated path system. Space for student & faculty suggestions about how to improve campus bikeability & increase confidence in a comprehensive bike-path system was also provided. A total of one hundred surveys were distributed to students and faculty across campus. Fifty-four complete surveys were returned and submitted, the results of which were compiled into a single combined response profile (see Appendix for specific questions and responses). This profile would later play a significant role in determining potential sites infrastructure redevelopment, as well as high-traffic crossings where field surveys would take place.

Seven total sites were identified as “problem pedestrian-traffic crossings”. These

sites would provide a setting to conduct field surveys where pedestrian, vehicular, cyclist, and alternative method travelers were counted over a fifteen to twenty-five minute period during “peak” passing periods (collisions and near-collisions were also recorded).

See tables below:

#1 Loc: College Ave. / Cady Mall Thur. 11/29/12 11:45-12:00 pm Type # % Pedestrian 517 77.05% Bicycles 108 16.10% Skateboard/ Scooters 44 6.56% Other 1 0.15% Service Carts 1 0.15% Heavy Vehicles N/A N/A Total 671 100.00% Collisions 0 0.00% Near-Collisions 3 0.89%


15

#2 Loc: Memorial Union / Cady Mall Wed. 11/28/12 11:35-55 am Type # % Pedestrian 1148 81.82% Bicycles 145 10.33% Skateboard/ Scooters 104 7.41% Other 3 0.21% Service Carts 3 0.21% Heavy Vehicles 0 0.00% Total 1403 100.00% Collisions 1 0.14% Near-Collisions 7 1.00%

#3 Loc: Orange Mall / Palm Walk Wed. 12/05/12 11:40-12:00pm Type # % Pedestrian 908 66.33% Bicycles 293 21.40% Skateboard/ Scooters 130 9.50% Other 5 0.37% Service Carts 16 1.17% Heavy Vehicles 17 1.24% Total 1369 100.00% Collisions 0 0.00% Near-Collisions 18 2.63%


16

#4 Loc: Tyler Mall/ Palm Walk Thur. 11/29/12 1:15-1:30 pm Type # % Pedestrian 768 76.34% Bicycles 159 15.81% Skateboard/ Scooters 75 7.46% Other 1 0.10% Service Carts 2 0.20% Heavy Vehicles 1 0.10% Total 1006 100.00% Collisions 1 0.20% Near-Collisions 4 0.80%

#5 Loc: South-Campus Crossing (McCallister/SRC) Wed. 11/28/12 11:35-12:00pm Type # % Pedestrian 609 48.64% Bicycles 326 26.04% Skateboard/ Scooters 179 14.30% Other 2 0.16% Service Carts 10 0.80% Heavy Vehicles 126 10.06% Total 1252 100.00% Collisions 4 0.64% Near-Collisions 46 7.35%


17

#6 Loc:

Forrest Mall/ Hayden Library Wed. 12/05/12 11:14-11:30pm Type # % Pedestrian 664 72.33% Bicycles 167 18.19% Skateboard/ Scooters 77 8.39% Other 1 0.11% Service Carts 7 0.76% Heavy Vehicles 2 0.22% Total 918 100.00% Collisions 0 0.00% Near-Collisions 9 1.96%

#7 Loc: Cady Mall / Tyler Mall Thurs. 12/06/12 11:45-12:00pm Type # % Pedestrian 870 70.85% Bicycles 237 19.30% Skateboard/ Scooters 102 8.31% Other 2 0.16% Service Carts 7 0.57% Heavy Vehicles 10 0.81% Total 1228 100.00% Collisions 1 0.16% Near-Collisions 18 2.93%

Information, obtained from other campus organizations (Undergraduate Student Government, Facilities Development & Management, etc…) that have some level of involvement in current pedestrian & cyclist plans, provided a context for the raw data collected by surveys & field observation. Current bicycle path-plans & location-specific


18

statistical data were both utilized in models created for the proposed campus bike-path overlay.

Context & Setting Arizona State University’s Tempe campus is home to one of the nations largest student-body & staff populations with projections & intention of growing. The current campus pedestrian infrastructure has become inadequate in handling its current use & pathways and sidewalks are reaching capacity. A lack of planning & high level of inflexibility makes this infrastructure prime for major issues in the future. The intention of this report will be to develop a context for the future implementation of a comprehensive pedestrian/ bike path overlay; the purpose of which will be to decrease walkway congestion, increase campus-community safety, and reduce the amount of CO2E emissions generated by this campus.

In order to truly identify areas of ‘problematic’ congestion we wanted to create the most accurate pedestrian profile possible, and to do so, a pedestrian composite was created. It utilized direct observational data, survey responses (designed to gain demographic data/ gauge propensity of using a new path-overlay system), and case-study information / research conducted by other leading universities. According to a campus survey (see appendix figure 1.1) 64% of those who replied have a ‘higher than average’ level of concern regarding pedestrian & bicyclist safety, with 77% of them saying they themselves had been involved in some type of pedestrian/cyclist collision. The implementation of infrastructure where pedestrians feel safe will be key in the success & usership of any new campus system. If ASU wants to attain it’s particularly ambitious carbon-neutrality goals, developing principle practices are going to be paramount & this overlay plan should be considered a guideline for the sustainability of ASU’s Tempe’s campus population.


19

Implementation This plan will be implemented utilizing a multi-faceted approach over the course of

four years. This all-encompassing strategy is the most comprehensive and practical way to achieve a bikeable campus with minimized congestion. Broadly, this consists of establishing a bike culture, improving on-campus infrastructure, improving bike lanes connecting to campus, and linking commuters to campus. Each of these branches work together to create a functional system for relieving congestion on campus as well as encouraging people to not only ride bikes to campus, but to exhibit etiquette and attention to safety while doing so. Establishing a bike culture is vital for this plan because it will establish etiquette and encourage students to bike to campus. This will mainly be done through education and outreach. First, freshmen should be distributed a bicycle handbook at orientation that teaches them about the safety and etiquette one should have while biking on campus. Additionally, ambitious students with an interest in bicycling can form clubs on campus that spread the word about biking at ASU. The nature of the club can be determined by the student, but it should be along the lines of a bicycle “ambassador” program, which may host bicycling events, offer maps of bikeable areas on campus, pair up experienced bike riders who can pair up with new ones, and promote safety and etiquette while biking on campus. These types of groups can help to get students involved with biking on campus and spread the word about rules and conduct for bicyclists and pedestrians on campus malls. Campus officials can also work with students to develop and encourage these types of groups.

Of course, enforcement will be required to initiate these cultural shifts, especially at

first, because people can be reluctant to change. Enforcement can consist of mandating a license and requiring people to register their bikes before being allowed to ride on campus. Bicycle education classes may be a part of the license issuing process as well. Then, inserting a section in the student code of conduct relating to biking on campus will further encourage students to follow these rules. The school can then issue citations to enforce the guidelines to those who break the rules, with potential punishments ranging from fines to license revocation and, after too many citations, inability to graduate. Rules may pertain to safety (i.e. no texting while riding a bike) and etiquette (right-of-way, bike only lanes, adherence to dismount zones, side of the path to walk/ride on). This would work much like renting a library book-- if a student does not return a library book, he or she cannot graduate. Similarly, if a student accumulates too many violations, he or she will not be allowed to graduate. The culture and enforcement branches of the plan should begin at the onset of the plan and continue throughout its four-year implementation and beyond.


20

In addition to shifting cultural values, adequate physical infrastructure and amenities are essential to this plan. In the first year, showers, bike storage facilities (bike lockers, bike cages, and a bike valet), and additional bike racks will be built on campus and in the immediate areas of public transit, or commuter drop offs. The showers will be beneficial for bicyclists so that they can clean themselves off after riding to school during Arizona’s hotter months. Also, the storage facilities will enable people to feel safe parking their bikes on campus. For example, bike lockers will provide safe storage for individual bikes, and bike cages are larger bike storage rooms that would require a sun card to access. A bike valet could also potentially be implemented. Bike lanes, roundabouts, no-drive zones, and signage will be erected on-campus in the second year, after rules and culture have been established.

Two major population crossings were identified as areas for infrastructure

redevelopment. These areas are identified as the Cady Mall/ University Dr. crossing & the South-Campus Crossing. These areas would see major redevelopment; redistributing priority to, what data supports as, pedestrian centered intersections. (a close-up rendering of one redevelopment areas is shown in figure A-2) Dedicated bicycle artilleries will be located along Forrest Mall; starting at the Tempe Transportation Department and continuing through campus, ending across the intersection of Apache Road. Current “free-for-all” style sidewalks will be replaced with mixed-use pedestrian & cyclist pathways to foster campus safety & more effectively separate pedestrians from light vehicles. These paths will ease congestion and help establish a cohesive flow for continuously traveling campus community. In addition, no-drive zones will be located in some of the most congested areas and will be segregated from vehicle and cart use by using collapsible bollards, which will be up-right during the busiest times of day. These dismount zones will be incorporated onto Palm Walk and Orange Mall for the busiest times of the day (between 8am and 6pm). Signs will also need to be incorporated throughout campus to indicate designated paths, dismount zones, etc. Bike maps may also be displayed on campus upon directories to inform campus goers of the rules and accessible routes.


21

See figures below for path overlay designations:

Figure A-1


22

Figure A-2

The areas highlighted in orange indicate crossings that require major infrastructure redevelopment

Off-campus infrastructure improvements will occur on the outskirts of campus to

make it easier for students to get to school via bike. An important determining factor of whether students ride their bikes to school is whether they feel safe on the roads. In the fourth year of the plan’s implementation, the bike lanes on Rural Rd., University Dr., Apache Blvd., and College Ave. will be remodeled for increased safety using a “choker,” or a median physically separating the bike lane from the automobile lanes (see appendix figure 1.3). This will also be implemented from the Tempe Transportation Center along Forest Ave. to campus.

While off-campus infrastructure is undergoing improvements, the plan also aims to link commuters to campus by making public transit easier in general as well as for students who want to bike once arriving on campus. Making public transit more accessible for students can be achieved by making the U-Pass free for ASU students. Another initiative


23

intended to help bicyclists who take public transit is to work with Tempe’s public transportation to install more space on public transit vehicles for bikes. ASU can work with the public transit entities to allow users to bring their bikes on the bus when it is not full, or to install higher capacity bike racks on buses. Finally, the plan aims to increase the safety of bike lanes between popular bus stops and campus using the previously described choker-bike lane model (see appendix figure 1.3) These should help students to feel safer riding their bikes to campus as well as make it easier for them to bring their bikes to campus via public transit.

Analysis & Discussion

Through the data collection and literature review, much can be done to improve bike access on and off ASU’s Tempe campus to improve ridership, increase safety, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions caused by vehicle commuters. Modeling has shown us that approximately 7,957 MT CO2 can potentially be mitigated by reaching out to commuters that can ride bicycles instead of driving (see appendix figure 1.2)

With ASU’s net emissions projected to be 244,856.6 MT CO2 in 2012, savings can amount to 3.25% of ASU’s total net CO2e emissions (Brown, 2006). It is important to note that implementing a safe bike facility impacts all campus users, and necessitates the cooperation and coordination of faculty, students, and third party operations on campus.

The first step, and possibly the most difficult, is to establish a strong foundation for a functional and long term bike culture. Reach out programs, student clubs, and peer pressure, and proper enforcement can play a strong role in building ridership. Constructing amenities such as adequate storage, shower facilities, and other initiatives on campus can also help to strengthen the bike culture. The proper placing of storage facilities, showering areas, and additional racks may require further research to indicate the best locations for placement.

Unfortunately, none of the culture building initiatives can guarantee that ridership will

increase in the future, or that campus goers will respect the pedestrian traffic designations. Many students may still break the rules and many campus members will still traverse the school grounds distracted by occupying their focus toward their cell phones, thus disrupting the pedestrian flow and further leading to unsafe conditions. Finding solutions to alleviating the problems with distracted pedestrians may be difficult. As stated above, enforcement plays an integral role in establishing a bike culture. It is for this reason that mandating licenses and registration for campus bikers, and utilizing a punishment system that strongly discourages individuals from breaking the rules is necessary. Using ASU’s “code of conduct” as a method


24

of discouraging riders is a strong motivator to ensure students follow the rules because if students attain too many riding violations, they may be unable to graduate (the same rule applies if a student does not return a library book). Since there is no “illegal” activity associated with riding a bike on campus in Tempe, police can not actively, or legally, enforce these violations with citations. It is unknown as to whether or not police would be able to enforce the implemented rules for pedestrians on campus, and as a result, campus officials or other entities may have to become the enforcers of pedestrian rules on campus.

The sustainability movement that is growing on campus may help to encourage a bike

culture, but behavior change is proven to be incredibly difficult. The saving of 7,757 MT CO2 is an ambitious, and maximum number, and savings will most likely be realized much lower than this figure. Culture takes a long time to establish, which is why the flushing of a whole student body (4 years) may be necessary in order to acquire proper participation. The extensive sprawl of Phoenix metropolitan area, and the embedded automobile culture of the United States makes creating a bicycle culture even more difficult. Working with surrounding municipalities to build a bike culture in tandem is equally as important to establish a conducive environment for bike ridership.

The development of on-campus infrastructure is very important to encourage

ridership. Literature review showcased what types of infrastructure was used on various college campuses. Ideally, ASU can also incorporate arterial bike lanes, mixed use pathways, pedestrian roundabouts at intersections, dismount zones, and signage in a way that maximizes ergonomics, safety, and efficiency. Through the survey and pedestrian traffic flow studies, many problematic areas on campus have been highlighted and should be remediated. It is important to recognize that 83.3% of survey respondents felt that there were not adequate dismount zones or parking where they needed them, while 77% of these individuals had been involved in some sort of collision on campus. The survey also outlined how the majority of students would like to see order and structure on campus, which may encourage them to ride their bikes. This highlights important flaws regarding safety, storage, and usability on campus. Through the pedestrian traffic observations, it was found that bicyclists normally fulfilled 15%-20% of the pedestrian composition. All intersections showcased varying degrees of high density during peak hours of passing periods, and all exhibited certain levels of danger. Bottlenecking at the south campus crossing proved to showcase one of the most dangerous locations, in which any pedestrian had an 8% chance of being involved in a collision. Of all the observed intersections, south campus crossing also maintained the highest percentage of bikers, at 26%. It was equally important to note that at this intersection, vehicles were shown preference based upon the traffic light timing.


25

Although vehicles comprised 10% of the flow, they were allotted window of 38 seconds while non-vehicle pedestrians, who comprised 90% of the flow, were allotted 22 seconds.

#5 Loc:

South-Campus Crossing (McCallister/SRC) Wed. 11/28/12 11:35-12:00pm Type # % Pedestrian 609 48.64% Bicycles 326 26.04% Skateboard/ Scooters 179 14.30% Other 2 0.16% Service Carts 10 0.80% Heavy Vehicles 126 10.06% Total 1252 100.00% Collisions 4 0.64% Near-Collisions 46 7.35%

This underlies a fundamental flaw that favors vehicles over foot-traffic on a college

campus, a place meant to cater to people, not machines. Although most in the survey felt the area in front of Memorial Union was most chaotic, south campus crossing proved to be the worst.

Technicalities such as lane widths, lane designs, roundabout designs, pedestrian

overpasses, and how pedestrian traffic should be segregated are pressing concerns that should also be further researched to optimize the benefits. Implementing bike infrastructure deals directly with land-use on campus, especially the transformation of such, and is a potential problem that may conflict with some of the goals of campus officials. Understanding their needs, and adapting to them may require a whole new overlay design to conceived. Financing of a complete bike facility project may be significant, and a cost benefit analysis should be implemented to decipher the true benefits and pitfalls of such an endeavor.

Linking off-campus commuters through infrastructure and incentives is also integral to

the bike program at ASU. The development of off-campus infrastructure may also help to boost ridership, but there are many issues that must be overcome to facilitate proper implementation. Implementing safe bike lane designs, as proposed along Forest Avenue to


26

link Tempe Transit Center to ASU, with a designated median or “choker” would potentially eliminate metered street parking for vehicles. Since this is City of Tempe property, it may be difficult to convince the City of Tempe to agree to a measure that may reduce incoming revenue. Allowing for increased or overnight storage at Tempe Transit Center may be difficult to achieve since the city may not have the funding to create these amenities either. Extensive negotiations may have to take place in order to facilitate a positive outcome for all parties.

Increasing the price of parking has shown to deter drivers while boosting public

transportation at other universities, but may prove to be different at ASU. Currently, ASU’s parking permits are considered by many to be “ridiculously high” already, yet many individuals still purchase these permits. The current cost for a one-year parking permit at ASU varies according to each parking structure, and costs between $280 and $780 (Parking and Transit, 2012). It is the hopes of the bike plan implementation to raise this cost even further to help fund free U-Passes for students, but to what extent it will be worthwhile is unknown and should be further researched. It is also important to realize that reducing all vehicular commutes in itself is not ideal, for this would lead to many of the university’s parking structures that currently house solar PV to go largely unused. Although this is not likely, finding a balance amongst these variables is important, especially if is hoped that parking permits can fund free U-Passes. It is also important to note that U-Passes at ASU exist for $80 per year, but since many students only are in school 60% of the year (15 weeks per semester), 40% of the U-Pass’s worth often going unused.


27

Conclusion Bicycle transportation is important for Arizona State University to address because it

can potentially play an integral role in mitigating carbon emissions among students and faculty that use vehicles for their daily commutes. Although ASU already offers some bicycling amenities, more initiatives should be implemented to ensure bicyclist/pedestrian safety, encourage ridership, and maintain a smooth flow as ASU’s population expands in years to come. Based on the research acquired from other campus projects in conjunction with our own assessment and data acquisition, this project effectively targets four major areas in need for remediation: traffic flow and congestion on campus, implementing safe bike lanes for students and faculty who ride bikes to campus, building a bike culture, and safely and effectively linking commuters to campus. Administering this plan may help ASU to become bike friendly, enabling students and faculty to safely and easily travel to and through ASU campus via bike, skateboard, or other modes of transit. Although the suggested methods of implementation offered in this report may help to improve the current state of the campus facilities, the results may only offer a working foundation for a well-developed campus bike facility. Further data acquisition and research should be acquired in order to fine tune and maximize the benefits of any realistic bike/pedestrian access plan on the Tempe campus.


28

References

Anonymous (2012). Parking & Transit. Arizona State University [University Business and Finance]. Retrieved from https://cfo.asu.edu/pts-parking-tempe.

Anonymous (2010). How Bike-Friendly Is Your Campus?. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/lnacademic

Anonymous. (2010). La Voz Bilingüe. From http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy1.lib.asu.edu/docview/357090059/abstract?accountid=4485 http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy1.lib.asu.edu/docview/357090059/abstract?accountid=4485

Akar, G. & Clifton K. (2008). The influence on Individual Perceptions and Bicycle Infrastructure on the Decision to Bike. 88th Panel of the Transportation Research Board, 1-18, Washington D.C.

Badger, E. (2012). Dedicated Bike Lanes Can Cut Cycling Injuries in Half. Retrieved from the

Atlantic Cities website. http://www.theatlanticcities.com/commute/2012/10/dedicated-bike-lanes-can-cut-cycling-injuries-half/3654/

Balsas, Carlos J.L. Sustainable transportation planning on college campuses. (2003). Transport Policy. 35-49. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0967070X02000288

Brown, N. (2006). ASU’s Clean Air Cool-Cool Planet Campus Carbon Calculator. Arizona State University. Coe, J. (2012). Bike Thefts Down on at ASU but Police Urge More Vigilance. AZ Central. Retrieved from the AZ Central website http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2012/09/19/20120919asu-bike-thefts-down-police-urge-more-vigilance.html http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2012/09/19/20120919asu-bike-thefts-down-police-urge-more-vigilance.html

Carpiet, Lynette. Bicycle Retailer and Industry News. 17. 1. (Jan 1, 2008): 1,31. From http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy1.lib.asu.edu/docview/195518222/fulltext?accountid=4485 http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy1.lib.asu.edu/docview/195518222/fulltext?accountid=4485

Carpiet, L. (2008). Emory university builds bike culture on campus. Bicycle Retailer and Industry News, 17(1), 1-1,31. Retrieved from http://login.ezproxy1.lib.asu.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/195518222?accountid=4485

Fields, K. M. (2006). Bicycle friendly university communities. Michigan Technological


29

University). ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, , 222-222 p. Retrieved from http://login.ezproxy1.lib.asu.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/305304401?accountid=4485. (305304401). Horacek, T. M., White, A. A., Greene, G. W., Reznar, M. M., Quick, V. M., Morrell, J. S., & Byrd-Bredbenner, C. (2012). Sneakers and Spokes: An Assessment of the Walkability and Bikeability of U.S. Postsecondary Institutions. Journal Of Environmental Health,74(7), 8-15.

Jennifer Bonham, Barbara Koth. Universities and the cycling culture. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment. 94-102. Retreived from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S136192090900114X King, K. & Badoe, D. (2007). Travel Behavior of University Students in Weekday Journey to Campus and Its Implications for Campus Transport Planning. The TRB 86th Annual Meeting, 1, Washington D.C. Pelzer, P. (2010). Bicycling as a Way of Life: A Comparative Case Study of Bicycle Culture in Portland, OR and Amsterdam.7th Cycling and Society Symposium (1), 1-13. Oxford Senft, G. (2005). U-Pass at the University of British Columbia: Lessons for Effective Demand Management in the Campus Context. 2005 Annual Conference of the Transportation Association, 1-17, Calgary. Sidebottom, A. , Thorpe, A., Johnson, S. (2009). Using Targeted Publicity to Reduce Bicycle Theft. European Journal of Criminology. 267-286. Retrieved from http://euc.sagepub.com.ezproxy1.lib.asu.edu/content/6/3/267. Taylor, D. & David, W.J. (1999). Review of Basic Research in Bicycle Traffic Science, Traffic Operations, and Facility Design. Transportation Research Record: The Journal of the Transportation Research Board, (1674), 102-110, Austin. Toor, W. & Havlick, S. (2004). Transportation & Sustainable Campus Communities: Issues, Samples, Solutions. Island Press, 1-18, Washington D.C. University of Arizona. (2012). Bicycle Information. Retrieved from the official University of Arizona website http://parking.arizona.edu/alternative/bike.php University of California, Berkeley. (2004). Campus Bicycle Plan. University of California, Berkeley [The Parking & Transportation Department], 1-74, Berkeley.


30

Yatabe, N. (2012). ASU Tempe Campus Access Management Plan. Arizona State University. [Office of the University Architect: Facilities Development & Management], 1-5, Tempe.

Appendix Figure1.1 Pedestrian & Cyclist Transportation Survey Combined Response Profile ASU Pedestrian & Cyclist Transportation Survey Combined Survey Response Profile Total Responses- 54 Academic Year: F S J SR FACULTY 19- 11- 9- 14- 1-

Choose an answer to complete the statement that best represents you 1. I get on to campus by... A) Commuting in vehicle 9 B) Light rail 2 C) Busses 4 D) Walking 14 E) Alternative transportation (bike, skateboard, scooter, etc...) 25 2. Once on campus I travel by way of... A) On foot 10 B) Bicycle 17 C) Alternative Transportation (longboard, scooter) 27 3. I feel like there is adequate bike parking / dismounting areas where I need them A) True 9 B) False 45


31

4. I feel like the most congestion/ confusion on campus is... A) Around the MU 29 B) Palm Walk 8 C) Cady Mall (walkway that bisects Hayden Lawn/ connects to College Dr. ) 12 D) South Campus Crossing (SRC/ Hassayampa/ Vista del Sol) 4 E) other: 1- W.P. Carey Business building 5. I would support a designated campus-wide bike path system. A) Highly likely 34 B) Likely 14 C) Not Likely 5 D) Opposed 1 6. I am confident that it is safe to park my bike on campus overnight (strongly disagree) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 (strongly agree) 4- 0- 11- 4- 14- 5 - 12- 3- 0- 1- 7. I’ve been involved in a (bicycle/ pedestrian)(bicycle/ vehicular) collision A) True- 42 B) False - 12 8. I feel the ASU campus is well integrated into my daily commute (strongly disagree) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 (strongly agree) 1- 0- 9- 13- 4- 14- 6- 2- 0- 5- 9. My current level of concern regarding pedestrian/ bicyclist safety on campus is (unconcerned) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 (highest level of concern) 0- 3- 3- 8- 5- 16- 9- 4- 2- 4- 10. I would be more likely to bike to campus/ while on campus if there were dedicated bicycle paths & secured parking A) Highly likely 15 B) Likely 36 C) Not Likely 3 D) Opposed 0 11. Which of the following describes you?: A) Commuter (15+ minute drive to ASU) 17 B) Off-campus (bikeable distance to ASU) 7


32

C) On-campus (student housing) 30 12. Which of the following describes you?: A) Mostly stay in one area of campus 4 B) Travel throughout campus over the week 12 C) Travel through most of campus daily 38 13. Which of the following describes you?: A) Satisfied with the current pedestrian/ bicycle traffic flow on campus 4 B) Impartial to the current pedestrian/ bicycle traffic flow on campus 7 C) Dissatisfied with the current pedestrian / bicycle traffic flow on campus 43 14. What would improve your confidence in overnight bike-parking?

15. What could be done to ease pedestrian congestion or improve ASU’s bikeability?

Figure1.2 Potential CO2 E Savings Calculation Current Single Passenger Vehicle Commuters: 14,828 MT CO2 E Average Commuting fuel use monthly: 7.28 gallons per month Average Commuter Trips: 24 Trips per month – 7.5miles per trip average Propensity to replace car with bicycle as commuter vehicle (as determined by mean average of survey results & University of California Berkley Study: 53.66% 14,828 x 0.5366= 7,956.7 MT CO2 E


33

Figure 1.3 Tempe Street Configuration with Speed Reducer

Figure 1.4 Bike Preferences & Safety

practicum final (1)

Documents