<%BANNER%>

Creating Bicycle Friendly Universities

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0045596/00001

Material Information

Title: Creating Bicycle Friendly Universities an Analysis with Recommendations for the University of Florida
Physical Description: 1 online resource (119 p.)
Language: english
Creator: White, Caitlin
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2013

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: bicycle -- health -- planning -- transportation -- university
Urban and Regional Planning -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Urban and Regional Planning thesis, M.A.U.R.P.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: The United States is overwhelmingly dependent upon thepersonal automobile for transportation, and travel on the average universitycampus is no different.  Indeed, muchlike the larger communities in which they often reside, many American universitieshave struggled to alleviate congestion while providing safe and accessibletransportation options for all users. However, in this time of rising overweight and obesity, pollution andclimate change, it is more important than ever that universities, as fittingplaces to communicate innovative transportation practices to the rest ofsociety, invest in alternative modes of transportation.  One such mode is bicycling.  This study examines how universities encourage bicyclingfor transportation by exploring those features of the built and socialenvironments that impact the potential for individuals to cycle on campus,while taking into account the historical reasons for America’s car-dependent transportation system andits subsequent impacts on public and environmental health.  Using a prospective descriptive case studydesign, this thesis assesses how well the University of Florida (UF)promotes and provides for cycling on campus, and identifies those areas in needof greatest improvement.  Results indicate that enhancements to existing bicycleinfrastructure on campus, such as special accommodations for cyclists atintersections, as well as increased encouragement of cycling and education for bicyclists,could improve bicycle-friendliness at UF and ultimately encourage greater ratesof cycling for transportation. Ultimately, providing a better understanding of how universities canincrease rates of bicycling is essential to promoting both public and environmentalhealth while furthering the goals of sustainability for communities at large.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Caitlin White.
Thesis: Thesis (M.A.U.R.P.)--University of Florida, 2013.
Local: Adviser: Steiner, Ruth Lorraine.
Local: Co-adviser: Larsen, Kristin Esther.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2013
System ID: UFE0045596:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0045596/00001

Material Information

Title: Creating Bicycle Friendly Universities an Analysis with Recommendations for the University of Florida
Physical Description: 1 online resource (119 p.)
Language: english
Creator: White, Caitlin
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2013

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: bicycle -- health -- planning -- transportation -- university
Urban and Regional Planning -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Urban and Regional Planning thesis, M.A.U.R.P.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: The United States is overwhelmingly dependent upon thepersonal automobile for transportation, and travel on the average universitycampus is no different.  Indeed, muchlike the larger communities in which they often reside, many American universitieshave struggled to alleviate congestion while providing safe and accessibletransportation options for all users. However, in this time of rising overweight and obesity, pollution andclimate change, it is more important than ever that universities, as fittingplaces to communicate innovative transportation practices to the rest ofsociety, invest in alternative modes of transportation.  One such mode is bicycling.  This study examines how universities encourage bicyclingfor transportation by exploring those features of the built and socialenvironments that impact the potential for individuals to cycle on campus,while taking into account the historical reasons for America’s car-dependent transportation system andits subsequent impacts on public and environmental health.  Using a prospective descriptive case studydesign, this thesis assesses how well the University of Florida (UF)promotes and provides for cycling on campus, and identifies those areas in needof greatest improvement.  Results indicate that enhancements to existing bicycleinfrastructure on campus, such as special accommodations for cyclists atintersections, as well as increased encouragement of cycling and education for bicyclists,could improve bicycle-friendliness at UF and ultimately encourage greater ratesof cycling for transportation. Ultimately, providing a better understanding of how universities canincrease rates of bicycling is essential to promoting both public and environmentalhealth while furthering the goals of sustainability for communities at large.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Caitlin White.
Thesis: Thesis (M.A.U.R.P.)--University of Florida, 2013.
Local: Adviser: Steiner, Ruth Lorraine.
Local: Co-adviser: Larsen, Kristin Esther.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2013
System ID: UFE0045596:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

1 CREATING BICYCLE FRIENDLY UNIVERSITIES: AN ANALYSIS WITH RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA By CAITLIN WHITE A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS IN URBAN AND REGIONAL PLANNING UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2013

PAGE 2

2 2013 Caitlin White

PAGE 3

3 To believing in the future

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS First and foremost, I would like to thank all of the faculty and staf f who have assisted me during this thesis process, especially my Chair, Dr. Ruth Ste iner, for her help and supervision and my Co Chair, Dr. Kristin Larsen, for her guidance throughout my time at the University of Florida Next, I would like to thank my p arents for their endless love and encouragement. They are undoubtedly my biggest supporters and I am so lucky to have them Finally, I woul d like to thank the many friends I have made during my ti me in graduate school. Y

PAGE 5

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 4 LIST OF TABLES ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 7 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ................................ ................................ ............................. 8 ABSTRACT ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 9 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 11 Sustainable UF ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 1 1 Building Healthy Communities ................................ ................................ ................ 12 2 LITERATURE REVIEW ................................ ................................ .......................... 17 Automobile dependency in the United S tates ................................ ......................... 17 Public Health Concerns ................................ ................................ .......................... 21 Physical Inactivity ................................ ................................ ............................. 21 Air Po llution ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 22 Climate Change ................................ ................................ ................................ 24 Creating Bicycle Friendly Communities ................................ ................................ .. 25 Land Use ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 25 Bicycle Infrastructure ................................ ................................ ........................ 27 Bicycle Safety ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 30 En couraging Social Environments ................................ ................................ .... 33 Education ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 34 Law enforcement ................................ ................................ ....................... 35 Bicycle Friendly Plans and Policies ................................ ................................ .. 37 Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 38 3 METHODOLOGY ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 39 Background ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 39 ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 39 Collecting Data ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 41 Making an Assessment ................................ ................................ ........................... 42 Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 43 4 FINDINGS ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 46 University Profile ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 46 Engineering ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 48

PAGE 6

6 Parking ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 48 Bicycle Facilities ................................ ................................ ............................... 50 Education ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 51 Encouragement ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 52 Enforcement ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 54 Evaluation and Planning ................................ ................................ ......................... 55 Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 56 5 DISCUSSION ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 70 Engineering ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 70 Education ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 72 Encouragement ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 74 En forcement ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 75 Evaluation and Planning ................................ ................................ ......................... 77 Limitations ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 78 6 CONCLUS ION ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 85 APPENDIX: BICYCLE FRIENDLY UNIVERSITY APPLICATION ............................. 88 LIST OF REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ............................. 115 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ................................ ................................ .......................... 119

PAGE 7

7 LIST OF TABLES Table page 3 1 Grading rubric: Yes/No question ................................ ................................ ......... 44 3 2 Grading rubric: Select one question (Type A) ........... 44 3 3 Grading rubric: Select one question (Type B) ............. 44 3 4 Grading rubric: Select one question (Literature) Literature is used to make an assessment ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 44 3 5 Grading rubric: Select many question (Type 1) ......... 45 3 6 Grading rubric: Select many question (Type 2) ........... 45 4 1 Assessing t he Bicycle Friendliness of the University of Florida Engineering .... 57 4 2 Assessing the Bicycle Friendliness of the University of Florida Education ....... 61 4 3 Assessing the Bicycle Friendliness of the University of Florida Encouragement ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 63 4 4 Assessing the Bicycle Friendliness of the University of Florida Enforcemen t ... 65 4 5 Assessing the Bicycle Friendliness of the University of Florida Evaluation and Planning ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 67 4 6 2009 2011 American Com munity Survey 3 Year Estimates: Means of Transportation to Work Gainesville city, Florida ................................ .............. 68 4 7 % Travel to Campus by Mode in 2009 University of Florida ............................ 69 5 1 Bicycle Friendliness Failures of the University of Florida Engineering ............. 80 5 2 Bicycle Friendliness Failures of the University of Florida Education ................ 81 5 3 Bicycle Friendliness Failures of the University of Florida Encouragement ....... 82 5 4 Bicycle Friendliness Failures of the Univer sity of Florida Enforcement ............ 83 5 5 Bicycle Friendliness Failures of the University of Florida Evaluation and Planning ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 84

PAGE 8

8 LIST OF ABBREVIATION S AAS H TO Ameri can Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials APBP Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals BFU Bicycle Friendly University FDOT Florida Department of Transportation GHG Greenhouse Gas LAB League of American Bicyclists LEED Lea dership in Energy and Environmental Design MUTCD Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices NACTO National Association of City Transportation Officials PedBike SRC Florida Pedestrian & Bicyclist Safety Resource Center PM Particulate Matter PPD Physical Plan t Division RTS Gainesville Regional Transit System SG Student Government UF University of Florida UFPD University of Florida Police Department

PAGE 9

9 Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts in Urban and Regional Planning CREATING BICYCLE FRIENDLY UNIVERSITIES: AN ANALYSIS WITH RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA By Caitlin White May 2013 Chair: Ruth Steiner Cocha ir: Kristin Larsen Major: Urban and Regional Planning The United States is overwhelmingly dependent upon the personal automobile for transportation and travel on the average university campus is no different. Indeed, much like the larger communities in which they often reside, many American universit ies have struggled to alleviate congestion while providing safe and accessible transportation options for all users. However, in this time of rising overweight and obesity, pollution and climate change, it i s more important than ever that universities, as fitting places to communicate innovative transportation practices to the rest of society, invest in alternative modes of transportation One such mode is bicycling. This study examines how univer s ities en courage bicycling for transportation by exploring those features of the built and social environments that impact the potential for individuals to cycle on campus, while taking into account the historical reasons for car dependent transportation system and its subsequent impacts on public and environmental health. Using a prospective descriptive case study design, this thesis assess es how well the U niversity of F lorida (UF) promotes and provides for cycling on campus and identifies those areas i n need of greatest improvement

PAGE 10

10 Results indicate that enhancements to existing bicycle infrastructure on campus, such as special accommodations for cyclists at intersections, as well as increased encouragement of cycling and education for bi cyclists, cou ld improve bicycle friendliness at UF and ultimate ly encourage greater rates of cycling for transportation. Ultimately, providing a better understanding of how univer sities can increase rates of bi cycling is essential to promoting both public and environm ental health while furthering the goals of sustainability for communities at large

PAGE 11

11 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Sustainable UF In 2006, University of Florida (UF) President J. Bernard Machen signed the tment, in which he pledged to both reduce carbon footprint and educate the university community about climate change this commitment to addressing energy use and climate change by creating a Climate Action Plan, in which it set a goal of carbon neutrality by 2025 Traditionally, transportation is one of the largest contributors to anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and, subsequently, cl imate change (Shaheen & Lipman, 2007). Indeed, in the United States approximately one third of GHG emissions are produced by the transportation sector, with this figure expect e d to rise in coming decades (Shaheen & Lipman, 2007) However, at the Univers ity of Florida, it is estimated that approximately 16% share of emissions is the as specified in T he Tra nsportation Element of its Campus Master Plan, 2005 2015 t o reducing dependence on single occupant vehicles as a primary mode of travel to campus, and encouraging multiple modes of transportation including public transit, walking, and bicycling, within t he university context area (University of Florida, 2006). Across the United States, many universities are exploring a range of solutions to alleviate congestion and improve traveler safety on campus in respon se to high levels of single occupancy automobi le use, limited parking availability, and constrained financial

PAGE 12

12 resources (Balsas, 2003). Many of the solutions involve market prices for p arking and increased transit service, bicycle use, and pedestrianism on campus (Balsas, 2003), and the University of Florida is no different A t UF, the consequence of thi s commitment to reducing single occupant automobile use is illustrated by 2009 campus travel mode data. In that year only 24.3 % of travel to the University of Florida was done via personal automobil e, compared with 39.2 % via transit, 18.7 % via walking, 10.3 % via bicycling, and 8.5 % via other modes of travel ( University of Florida Office of Sustainability, n.d.) Considering that 83.4 % of all trips in the United States made in 2009 were done by perso nal automobile ( U.S. Department of Transportation Federal especially impressive. However, in spite of these accomplishments there is still latent opportunity to decrease tran sportation related GHG emissions at the University of Florida by increasing the role of bicycling on campus, and in doing so improv e the health of the campus community Building Healthy Communities Unlike most automobiles, including transit vehicles, walki ng and bicycling do not emit greenhouse gases. However, unlike walking, bicycling offers a greater potential substitute for automobile trips due to its faster speed and ability to cover longer distances (Dill, 2009). Indeed, because less than one mile is generally considered a walkable distance, while less than 5 miles is considered a bikeable distance, and national data indicates that only 14 % to 27 % of trips made are within walking distance while 63 % of trips made are within biking distance (Sallis, Fra nk, Saelens, & Kraft, 2004) it appears that there is considerable potential to decreas e GHG emission s s a potential panacea for the high rates of

PAGE 13

13 physical in activity and associated increases in overweight and ob esity currently plaguing the United States. Unlike time spent in the car, which is positively associated with obesity ( Frank, Andresen & Schmidt, 2004), bicycle commuting allows cyclists to meet their daily needs for physical activity while lowering their risk of overweight and obesity (Dill, 2009). Despite its frequent mention in both public health circles and the popular press, the obesity epidemic is a growing problem in the U.S. Indeed, h ealth researchers at Harvard University recently projected tha t 42 % of Americans will become obese before the epidemic plateaus in 2050 (Hill, Rand, Nowak & Christakis, 2010). This increase in the obesity rate over the next three plus decades foretells a grim future: at the current rate of approximately 36 % (Ogden, Carroll, Kit & Flegal, 2012), the estimated cost of treating obesity related illness is already $147 billion annually, and accounts for almost 10 % of all medical spending in United States (Cawley, 2009). Undoubtedly, this enormous and preventable expense places a huge burden on the American economy. Even when education and cognitive ability are controlled for, obesity is associated with lower wages, greater job absenteeism, and lower productivity while at work (Cawley, 2009). However, the economic cost o f obesity is clearly not the only negative consequence of the disease; obesity greatly impacts human health and quality of life. Both overweight and obese individuals are at greater risk for certain diseases and health problems, including coronary heart d isease, type 2 diabetes, certain types of cancer, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, stroke, liver and gallbladder disease, and certain respiratory problems (National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, 2010).

PAGE 14

14 Concerns regardi ng obesity and health are not immune from the University of Florida campus. According to the Healthy Gators Student Survey Report 2008 three of Coalition 2011). As described i n the report these concerns are overweight/obesity (17.2%), nutrition/diet issues (10.9%), and fitness/exercise (6.2%) (Healthy Gators Coalition, 2011) Additionally, the report reveals that over half of the student body d oes not meet the minimum standar d for moderate physical activity ( i.e. 30 minutes for five to seven days per week) set by the American College of Sports Medicine and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (Healthy Gators Coalition, 2011). Given the association between physical i nactivity, obesity, and such chronic conditions as heart disease and diabetes (Powell & Blair, 1994), these survey results are concerning. Nonetheless these problems have a potential solution, which would not only improve public health at UF but would a lso help the university achieve its goal of carbon neutrality by 2025: increasing rates of bi cycling on campus However, in order to increase these rates, the University of Florida must first identify those features of its campus community that discourage cycling, so that it may make the improvements necessary to become a truly bicycle friendly university Creatin g a b icycl e f riendly U niversity of F lorida In the spring of 2012, the n applying to the American Bicyclists (LAB) is a non profit bicycle advocacy an d education organization provides incentives, hands on assistance, and award recognition for communities,

PAGE 15

15 Bicyclists, 2012a). LAB was founded in 1880 to defend the rights of cyclists, and since 1965 its primary focus has been bicycle advocacy and educational pro gramming Bicycle Friendly Community, Bicycle Friendly University (BFU), and Bicycle Friendly Business, all of which recognize their respective entity (state, community, university or business) for supporting bicycling (League of American Bicyclists, 2012c). Additionally, Washington, D.C., supporting bicycle friendly federal legislation 1 and adv ising the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration on various bicycle related transportation issues (League of American Bicyclists, 2012c). This thesis intends to contribute additional research into how universities encourage bicycling for transpo rtation by exploring those features of the built and social environments that impact the potential for individuals to cycle on campus while taking car dependent transportation system and its subsequent imp acts on public and environmental health This study employs a prospective descriptive case study design, and University application 2 as a tool to analyz e the bicycle friendliness of the University of Florida in order to ass ess how well UF promotes and provides for cycling on campus 1 E .g., marketing to encourage individuals to commute by bike 2 gue of American Bicyclists to receive the Bicycle Friendly University designation for the University of Florida. Due to time constraints, the Office of Sustainability asked me, the researcher, to collect the relevant data necessary to fill out the BFU app lication. The application was subsequently completed by the researcher, and will be submitted by the University of Florida for consideration by the LAB in the fall of 2013. Most of the collected data and the completed application were also used as the ba sis of the methodology for this thesis. A detailed explanation of the methodology used by this study can be found in Chapter 3: Methodology.

PAGE 16

16 bicycle friendliness is based upon its performance relative to five distinct, bicycle related categories, which are identified by the BFU application and are known to infl uence cycling rates These five categori e s the LAB, are engineering, education, encouragement, enforcement, and evaluation and planning. The author intends for the results of this study to provide insight into how the University of Florida can increase rates of bicycling on campus through specific modifications to its built and social environments. This document contains five chapters, the first of which provides a justification for this research. The second chapter examines the literature as it pertains to automobile dependency in the United States and its impact on public and environmental health, a s well as th os e factors that contribute to the creation of bicycle friendly universities The third chapter outlines the methodolo gy used in this study while the fourth chapter presents the findings from this research in detail The fifth chapter presents a discussion of this research, paying particular attention to tho se areas of bicycle friendliness that the University of Florida needs the most improve ment on as revealed by the as sessment tool. This chapter also includes a discussion of the limitations of this study. Finally, the fifth chapter offers a conclusion to this research making connections between bicycle friendliness at the University of Florida and the larger contexts of sustainability and public health, as well as offering suggestions for future research

PAGE 17

17 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW As outlined in the introduction to this thesis, the second chapter examines the liter ature as it pertains to automobile dependency and its impact on public and environmental health, as well as those factors that contribute to the creation of bicycle friendly universities. The chapter begins with an overview of automobile dependency in the United States and its connections with urban sprawl. Next, it describes the many negative impacts that such automobile dependency has on public and environmental health. Finally, the chapter describes those features of the built and social environments that create communities (particularly universities) that are especially bicycle friendly, including trip distances, the presence of bicycle infrastructure, the perception of safety, an encouraging social environment and bicycle friendly plans and policies Automobile dependency in the United States In the United States, where suburbanization and decentralization of development is widespread, automobile ownership often ensures ease of movement between destinations. Indeed, the importance of the automobile is evidenced by the 91.3 % rate of automobile ownership by households in the nation, and the 83.4 % rate of daily trips made by automobile (U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration, 2011). However, the prevalence of automobile use is not a random feature of American society; it is the result of deliberate policies and practices that have overemphasized automobile infrastructure at the expense of walking and bicycling infrastructure (McCann, 2006).

PAGE 18

18 During the first half of the twenti eth century, a majority of Americans lived and worked in close proximity of the city center; however, since the end of World War II, there has been a marked decentralization of housing, jobs, and services from the nd was made possible by a number of factors, including innovations in transportation, building, and communication technologies, as well as particular government housing and transportation policies, which have conspired to support decentralization. For exa mple, federal housing policies, such as tax provisions that lower the cost of owning a home, have encouraged housing development (Knaap, Talen, Olshansky, & Forrest, 2000). Addit ionally, federal subsidies for transportation have made the cost of owning and operating an automobile Olshansky, & Forrest, 2000). 1 Together, these policies have enabled many Americans to live in newer homes at lower density suburban locations, where they drive longer distances to access the goods and services they need, all for a relatively low price (Knaap, Talen, Olshansky, & Forrest, 2000). As a result, many American communities today are characterized by urban sprawl. Sprawl d evelopment connotation, is used to describe the phenomenon of low density urban development, with density being defined as the number of reside 1 To explain, travel has a cost in terms of the amount of time and money spent in traveling, and automobiles are t ypically expensive to own and operate (Clifton, 2004). However, by artificially lessening the cost of automobile use through federal subsidies, alternative options such as transit, bicycling, and ically take more time to use and may or may not be available at a given location, thereby lessening their convenience compared to the car, and

PAGE 19

19 2009). Sprawl is frequently described as a bad thing because it promotes an inefficient use of finite resources, such as land (through development) and fuel (which becomes necessary to transport oneself from place to pla ce by personal automobile). Even if most Americans did not prefer to drive an automobile for transportation, current sprawling land development practices make it difficult, if not deadly, to travel by alternative means. As Sallis, Frank, Saelens, and Kra transportation policy and infrastructure since World War II favor automobile use so 255). Besides federal housing and trans portation policies, the widespread use of Euclidean zoning has contributed to the sprawling land development and automobile dependency present in the U.S. today (Frumkin, Frank & Jackson, 2004). Zoning was originally implemented with the intention of sepa rating incompatible land uses, such as industrial and residential, which could harm public health by exposing populations to the sometimes toxic outputs of industry, such as localized air, water, or land pollution. However, zoning has evolved to separate land uses that are not necessarily incompatible, such as residential and commerci create the long distances between different uses that are fundamental characteristics of sprawl [and] contribute to heavy reliance on auto 2004, p. 38). One result of Euclidean zoning is longer trip distances, which result in greater vehicle miles traveled and greater vehicle hours of travel. As Puc her and Dijkstra (2003) confirm:

PAGE 20

20 In the United Stat es, the separation of residential from commercial land uses increases trip distances and makes the car a necessity. Suburban cul de sacs further discourage walking and bicycling by making trips circuitous and excessively long. Residential roads often fee d directly into high speed traffic arteries, increasing the danger of any trips outside the neighborhood. (p. 1513) These practices of subsidizing homeownership and automobile use, segregating land uses, and increasing distances between destinations affect s travel behavior. [t] wo fundamental concepts of urban form that impact travel choice in general, and active transport in particular, are the proximity (land use density and mix) and connectivity (rou te directness) between importance of proximity and connectivity to active transportation by showing that land use mix and route directness is related to greater walking and bicycling, and that walking and bicycling for transportation is approximately five times more common in high density versus low density areas (Sallis, Frank, Saelens, & Kraft, 2004). The typical sprawl development, where density is discouraged, land uses are kept separate, and rout Frank & Jackson, 2004), therefore discourages active transportation, which harms public health F irst, it increases air pollution through increased trip lengths, usually by automobile. Second separated land use reduces walking and (Sallis, Frank, Saelens, and Kraft, 2004, p. 263).

PAGE 21

21 Public Health Concerns Physical Inactivity Getting enough exercise is literally a matter of life and death; in the United States, physical inactivity is responsible for approximately 200,000 deaths per year, which is second only to tobacco, which kills approximately 400 ,000 individuals each year (Sallis, Frank, Saelens & Kraft, 2004). Physical inactivity increases the likelihood of suffering from chronic diseases like coronary heart disease, stroke, certain cancers, diabetes and depression, and is believed to be partly responsible for the current overweight/obesity epidemic (Sallis, Frank, Saelens & Kraft, 2004). One method of increasing physical activity is through cycling for practical, daily travel (Pucher & Dijkstra, 2003). In fact ls in the leading medical and public health journals have explicitly advocated more cycling for daily travel as the most affordable, feasible, Dijkstra, 2003, p. 1509). Such support for increased rates of bicycling is the result of research indicating that cyclists can achieve adequate levels of physical activity necessary for health through daily travel alone (Dill, 2009). Traditionally, transportation planners and eng ineers have focused much of their attention on facilitating the safe movement of automobiles within and between communities. However, this dogged focus on automobile safety has become slightly myopic. If automobile deaths per year in the United States ca n be estimated to be roughly 35,000 (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 2010), that would still be less than one fifth of the 200,000 deaths per year in the US attributable to physical inactivity (Sallis, Frank, Saelens & Kraft, 2004). Clearl y, physical inactivity is the deadlier health concern, and the link between sedentariness and automobile use means

PAGE 22

22 that health and physical activity should be a major focus o f transportation planning [a] chieving physic al activity levels that provide Sallis, Frank, Saelens and Kraft, 2004 p. 250). Studies in Asia and Europe have shown a statistically significant relationship between active transportation and positive health outcomes, healthier blood lipid profiles and lower body mass index and blood pressure ( Sallis, Frank, Saelens, & Kraft, 2004). Studies have also shown that an increase in the use of active transportation to work results in improved car dio respiratory fitness, which protects individuals from heart disease and premature death (Sallis, Frank, Saelens, & Kraft, 2004). However, the improved health outcomes mentioned thus far are not the only positive health outcomes that may result from an increased use of active transportation, such as bicycling; respiratory and environmental health would be improved as well. Air Pollution According to the Department of Energy, the transportation sector accounts for one third of all energy consumed in the United States (Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center, 2010). It is also responsible for approximately one third of carbon dioxide emissions, three quarters of carbon monoxide emissions, half of volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions, one third of a ir toxics, and one fifth of particulate matter output (Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center, 2010; Frumkin, Frank and Jackson, 2004). Such air pollution is significant in a human health context because it is associated with both human respiratory dam age and death. Automobiles contribute to air pollution through the processes of combustion and evaporation, which release particulate matter (PM) that contain nitrates, sulfates, ammonium, carbon, metals, and other substances into the air (Frumkin, Frank & Jackson, 2004). PM is especially

PAGE 23

23 damaging to respiratory health and can result in death; indeed approximately 64,000 people die prematurely each year due to PM exposure a higher number than die from motor vehicle crashes and homicides combined (Frumkin, Frank & Jackson, 2004, pg. 82) Nevertheless respiratory disease is the more common outcome of exposure to air pollution. F or instance, elevated PM levels are associated with increased hospital admissions for strokes, congestive heart failure, and ischemic heart disease, and studies have shown that to high levels of PM (Frumkin, Frank & Jackson, 2004). reactions involving oxides of nitrogen and hydrocarbons in the presence of sunlight and heat, is another air pollutant that can result fro m automobile transportation, and is considered an irritant to respiratory airways (Frumkin, Frank & Jackson, 2004). Research shows that people experience shortness of breath, coughing and wheezing within hours of exposure to ozone school absenteeism rise s with increasing levels of PM and ozone, and visits to emergency rooms are shown to increase within days of rising ozone levels (Frumkin, Frank & Jackson, 2004). For example: [d]uring the Atlanta Olympic games in 1996, morning peak traffic flow decreased by 22 percent, one hour peak ozone levels decreased by 28 percent and various measures of acute asthma decreased between 11 percent and 44 percent . (Frumkin, Frank & J ackson, 2004, p. 84) Adverse health outcomes associated with automobile use also include lu ng cancer, premature birth and low birth weight (Frumkin, Frank & Jackson, 2004).

PAGE 24

24 Although driving is not the only source of air pollution, it is certainly a si gnificant contributes to air pollution, then alternatives to sprawl offer a way to reduce air pollution native is density and land use mix, which encourage active modes of transportation, such as bicycling. Of course, bicycling does not contribute to air pollution, nor does it negatively affect health. Rather, as previously cited research demonstrates, phy sical activity such as bicycling has numerous positive health effects. Climate Change Increased air pollution from transportation is also problematic in an environmental health context because it is believed to contribute to climate change. The use of fo ssil fuels for transportation is a major source of human caused greenhouse gas emissions (Shaheen & Lipman, 2007). Greenhouse gases, or GHGs, include carbon dioxide (CO2) and other emissions, like methane and nitrous oxide, which trap heat in the atmosphere and result in a number of negative environmental effects (Frumkin, Frank & Jackson, 20 04). For example possible ef fects of climate change include, rising ocean levels, more severe tropical storms and hurricanes, more pronounced heat waves, droughts and wildfires, and a wide range of other potential impacts on humans and wildlife in environments that are likely to feel the strongest effect s (Shaheen & Lipman, 2007, p. 8) Accor ding to Frumkin, Frank & Jackson (2004), the United States s. Although it contains only 5% of emits over 20% of greenhouse gases globally, of which approximately one thir d is the result of transportation (Frumkin, Frank & Jackson, 2004). Unfortunately, greenhouse gas emissions have been increasing with population growth

PAGE 25

25 and development around the world, and transportation sector emissions are expected to continue rising o ver the following decades (Shaheen & Lipman, 2007) These increases in GHG emissions are the result of both increases in personal travel and the movement of goods, and the over reliance on fossil fuels for transportation energy (Shaheen & Lipman, 2007, p. 6 ). Clearly, a change in the transportation sector away from dependence on energy sources that emit greenhouse gases is needed. While Shaheen & Lipman (2007) focus almost solely on new transportation technologies, like i engine and fuel technologies, in the effort to reduce greenhouse gases, there is a logical role for active transportation to meet this need. For instance, Stockholm, Sweden has a long term plan to reduce CO2 emissions through the improvement of its bi cycling infrastructure (Shaheen & Lipman, 2007). It is believed that by replacing 30 million short car trips with bicycling each year, and encouraging 2,000 individuals to cycle exclusively during the summer months, by 2050 the city can reduce its CO2 emi ssions by 2,900 tons per year (Shaheen & Lipman, 2007). Unlike the focus on new technologies mentioned above, saving energy, conserving land, and improving human health by reducing overweight and obesity. Creating Bicycle Friendly Communities Land Use Due to the prevalence of compact land use patterns in many European cities, and the popularity of bi cycling for transportation in those communities, the relatively long distan ces between destinations in many American cities is often cited as a major reason

PAGE 26

26 argued that American communities must utilize more compact, mixed land use patt erns, which would reduce trip distances, in order for cycling to become a viable transportation mode. While there are many valid reasons to favor compact land use development, ascribing a cause and effect relationship between current land use patterns in the U.S. and the low level of bi cycling is not a wholly accurate association. In the United States, 41% of all urban trips are shorter than 2 miles, and 28% are shorter than 1 mile (Pucher & Dijkstra, 2003). With 2 miles being considered an easy cycling dis tance, it seems clear that the 11 % rate of trips made by walking or bi cycling is the unusually low and should not be attributed solely to if distance were the overriding factor, one might expect more cycling than walking i n American cities, since cycling covers lon However walk trips outnumber bike trips 11 to 1 (U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration, 2011). U nlike the larger, sprawling communities in which they often reside, many traditional university campuses in the United States adhere to the principles of the neotraditional town, meaning that they concentrate a variety of functions, including housing, classrooms, offices, shopping areas, recreational spaces, and cultural centers in close enough proximity as to be easily accessible to pedestrians and bicyclists (Balsas, 2003). Yet despite their unique design, college campuses are often privy to the transportation trends pre sent outside of the campus boundaries ; although various goods and services may be accessible via bicycle on campus, many students, faculty, and staff do not reside on campus, but rather commute between campus and the larger community, often by car. Indeed d espite their relatively compact layout, rates of

PAGE 27

27 bicycling on many university campuses are as low as cycling rates for the rest of the United States at large. A s a result, many universities struggle with the same ill effects of automobile dependency as the rest of the United States. However, automobile dependency does not have to prevail. R esearch shows that a comprehensive approach to bicycle planning, which features an integrated package of many different, complementary interventions, including inf rastructure provision and pro bicycle Dill & Handy, 2010, p. S122), is effective in facilitating substantial increases in bicycling within communities including univer sity campuses Bicycle Infrastructure According to the League of American Bicyclists (2011), the most noticeable evidence of bicycle friendl iness is the existence of infrastructure for biking This infrastructure comprises everything from bike lanes and cycletracks on ro a dways, to bic y cle parking and showering facil i ties at destinations Th e idea that bicycle infrastruct ure is a sign of a bike friendliness is supported by research showing that [p] roximity of destinations, availability and quality of w alking and cycling facilities, 2012, p. 7) are associated with cycling, and the more supportive the physical environment is with respect to these features, the more time individuals spend cycling for transportation (Van Dyck et al., 2012). Generally speaking, stated preference studies show that individuals feel encouraged to bicycle more often if their comm unity has bike paths and lanes (Dill, 2009). However, findings f rom revealed preference studies regarding the influence of specific infrastructure treatments on bicycle ridership are less co two studies have found that bike lanes are

PAGE 28

28 associated with higher rates of bicycle commuting. Howe ver, at an individual level, According to Dill (2009), m ultiple studies show that bicyclists will go out of their way to use bicycle facilities, while one study contradict s that conclusion in fi nding that bicycle commuters will most often take the shortest route, whether or not that route has bicycle facilities Additionally, a national survey found that frequent bicyclists preferred bike lanes to bike paths, while infrequent bicyclists were mor e likely to prefer bike paths to bike lanes (Dill, 2009). The discrepant nature of these findings is most likely the result of the variety [a] t least three studies found differences in facility preferences between men and women, with women generally more attracted to infrastructure with less motor vehicle off street paths, with men feeling more comfortable using those facilities than women, most likely due to gender specific safety concerns (Pucher, Dill & Handy, 2010). On the other hand, stated preference studies found that experienced cyclists preferred using on street bicycl e lanes to off street bicycle paths, most likely due to the extra time safely while in traffic (Pucher, Dill & Handy, 2010). Due to this diversity in bicycle facility preference, a one size fits all approach to attracting individuals to cycling would most [a] network of different types of infrastructure appears necessary to attract new people to bicycling. Simply adding bike lanes to all new ma jor roads is This concept holds true

PAGE 29

29 road cycleable, a logical and well identified bicycle network c omposed of different types of bikeways should be implemented with identifiable links to off 43). As a result for both on and off campus communities, creating a well connected network of bicycle paths, lanes, and boulevards, along with low traffic neighborhood safer, more protected environment (Dill, 2009). Besides on street facilities, end of trip facilities, such as bicycle parking, are essential to attracting more people to cycling (Van Dyck et. al, 2012) In countries where cycling for transportation is prevalent, such as most Dutch, Danish, and German c ommunities, local governments, private developers, building owners, and public transport sys tems all provide bi cycle parking facilities for riders (Pucher and Buehler, 2008). This is the result of government ordinances requiring minimum levels of bicycle parking within and adjacent to buildings and other likely destinations for cyclists (Pucher and Buehler, 2008), and it is essential to increased bicycling rates. Just as drivers are more or less likely to drive to their destination based up on the availabi lity and convenience of car parking spaces, cyclists are more or less likely to bike to their destination based up on the availability and convenience of bicycle parking (Pucher and Buehler, 2008). Besides deterring bicycling, a lack of bicycle parking can result in the random parking of bicycles in public spaces. When chained to bus stop signs, fences, light poles, or any number of inappropriate places, this parking can not only cause property damage, but can obstruct pedestrians on sidewalks and be consi dered a visual nuisance (Pucher and Buehler, 2008).

PAGE 30

30 easily result in theft, which further discourages cycling (Association of Pedestrian a nd Bicycle Professionals, 2002) for both on and off campus riders (Ba lsas, 2003). Indeed, bicycle theft on campus can be a major deterrent to increased ridership (Balsas, 2003) ; therefore it is vital that secure bicycle parking be provided for riders at a variety of locations. Bicycle Safety One of the main reasons infrast ructure is so important to attracting new bicycle riders is because of real and perceived safety concerns A ccording to Pucher and Dijkstra (2003 ), it is much more dangerous to walk or ride a bike in American cit ies than to travel via automobile. Indeed per kilometer traveled, pedestrians were 23 times more likely to get killed than car occupants in 2001 (140 vs 6 fatalities per billion kilometers), while bicyclists were 12 times more likely than car occupants to get killed (72 vs 6 fat alities per billion kilometers) ( Pucher and Dijkstra, 2003, p. 1 511) In fact, when considered as a share of the total travelling population, pedestrian and bicycle fatalities make up over 13 % of all traffic fatalities while accounting for less than 12 % of all trips taken (Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center, 201 0). Unsurprisingly, safety concerns are one of the most frequently cited disincentives for cycling (Teschke et al., 2012). However, research shows that specific infrastructure treatments and transportation policies can increase real and perceived safety of bicycling by increasing their visibility on the roadway As Dobbs (2009) attests, because bicyclists are inter it is critical that roadway and bicycle path designers strive to improve the visibility of bicyclists and reduc e unexpected motorist bicyclist conflicts p. 13).

PAGE 31

31 In terms of the inherent safety of bicycle infrastructure, research shows that cycle tracks, or an exclusive bicycle facility that functions like a conventional on street bike lane but is separated from b oth motor vehicle traffic and sidewalks have the lowest injury risk for bicyclists (Teschke et al., 2012). Bicycle lanes are also found to reduce injury risk for cyclists, as are quiet streets (Teschke et al., 2012). According to Dobbs [t] he pr ovision of bike lanes for bicycles increases the visibility of bicyclists the long run, increasing cyclist visibility r educ es the number of rear end and sideswi pe crashes, and increases awareness of all transpor tation modes (Dobbs, 2009 ). I ncreased awareness of bicyclists makes bicycling safer, which encourages more bicycling and furthers awareness, thereby perpetuating a positive feedback cycle of awareness, sa fety, and increased ridership. As research by Pucher, Dill and Handy (2010) confirms : s tudies find that bicycling safety is greater in countries and cities with higher levels of bicycling, and that bicycling injury rates fall as levels of bicycling increa se. As the number of cyclists grows, they become more visible to motorists, which is a crucial factor in bicycling safety. In addition, a higher percentage of motorists are likely to be bicyclists themselves, and thus more sensitive to the needs and rights of bicyclists (p. S121) While cycle tracks and bicycle lanes help to make cycling safer, research shows that shared bicycle infrastructure, meaning paths or lanes that are also used by pedestrians, such as sidewalks or multiuse paths, are less safe than bicycle only paths and cycle tracks (Teschke et al., 2012). Fortunately, cyclists appear to favor the safer,

PAGE 32

32 bicycle specific infrastructure to the less safe, shared bicycle infrastructure (Teschke et al., 2012). Additionally, construction, downhill slopes and streetcar or train tracks are all found to be associated with injury risk for cyclists (Teschke et al., 2012), as are pavement deficiencies and drainage grates (Dobbs, 2009). To accommodate these findings, it is suggested that detours be provided fo r cyclists when construction or broken pavement affects bicycle infrastructure, and that route infrastructure be designed for the primary prevention of injuries to cyclists (Teschke et al., 2012). These design features include the use of bicycle specific facilities, like cycle tracks, bike lanes and paths, quiet streets, the absence of drainage grates with parallel bars, the absence of streetcar or train tracks, and the use of gently sloping changes in elevation (Teschke et al., 2012). Two topics related to bicyclist safety that deserve special attention are roadway intersections and traffic speed. In reference to intersections, one English study reported that 74% of crashes involving bicyclists at intersections result in fatalities (Dobbs, 2009). Inter section safety is not just a concern for off campus cyclists; it is relevant to on campus safety as well (Balsas, 2003). In order to improve intersection safety, a variety of roadway modifica special bike turn lanes leading d irectly to intersections, separate bike traffic signals with advance green lights for 2003, p. 1513). Reducing traffic speed is another essential factor in incre asing bicycle safety not only because it helps mot orists to avoid hitting pedestrians and bicyclists, but it also increases the rate of survival for non motorists who are struck (Pucher a nd Dijkstra, 2003) As Pucher and Dijkstra (2003) report The British Department of

PAGE 33

33 Transport, for ex ample, found that the risk of pedestrian death in crashes rises from 5% at 20 mph to 45% at 30 mph and 85% at 40 mph (p. 1513) Reduced traffic speeds can be accomplished through the application of traffic calming. Traffic calming reduces motor vehicle speeds by narrowing roads, zigzagging routes, and imposing physical barriers in the roadway, such as raised intersections and crosswalks, and speed humps, [a] comprehensive review of tra ffic calming impacts in Denmark, Great Britain, Germany, and The Netherlands found that traffic injuries fell by an average of 53% in traffic calmed In addition traffic calming communicates the equal ri ght of bicyclists to use the roadway by requiring that drivers yield to cyclists, thereby increasing the perceived legitimacy of cyclists on the roadway (Pucher & Dijkstra, 2003). Encouraging Social Environments A legitimate activity is one that is in agre ement with established or accepted patterns or standards. C ommunities with high levels of bicycling tend to foster increased rates of cycling through a supportive social environment whereas cities with low levels of bicycling tend to deter bicycling by p ortraying that activity as an illegitimate one (Pucher, Dill & Handy, 2010). This pattern appears to hold true even in communities with adequate bicycle infrastructure In fact research demonstrates that, in communities where adequate bicycle infrastruc ture is in place, social support for complete a task) related to bicycling will have a greater effect on rates of cycling than will additional infrastructure improv ements (de Geus, De Bourdeaudjuij, Jannes, & Meeusen, 2008). S tudies also show that individuals who report high levels of social

PAGE 34

34 support for bicycling are more likely to cycle themselves (de Geus, De Bourdeaudjuij, Jannes, & Meeusen, 2008). In particular support from significant others who accompany the individual in bicycling seems to be the most important social variable for increasing cycling (de Geus, De Bourdeaudjuij, Jannes, & Meeusen, 2008) Similarly physical self bility to complete a physical task, appears to be an important direct correlate of physical activity behavior, like cycling (de Geus, De Bourdeaudjuij, Jannes, & Meeusen, 2008). As a result, it appears that increased rates of bicycling could result from p rogram and policy interventions aimed at legitimiz ing cycling within communities by increas ing transportation successfully, and by raising rates of social support and acceptance for the activity. Education Cycling education is one way in which social support for bicycling and bicycling self efficacy could be raised. For instance, classes geared towards enhancing the traffic skills or commuting techniques of would be bicyclists could improve potential cyclists knowledge of safe and effective bicycling behaviors, and therefore enhance their confidence in their ability to cycle successfully. Indeed, comprehensive bicycling education is implemented in other countries with just this result. For example, in The Netherlands and Germany, traffic education begins at a young age. As Pucher and [b] y the age of 10, all schoolchildren have received extensive instruction on safe walking and bicycling practices. They are taught not just the traff ic regulations but how to walk and bicycle defensively, to anticipate dangerous situations, transportation are much higher in The Nether land s and Germany (27 % and 10 %

PAGE 35

35 respe ctively) than they are in the United States ( 1 %) (Pucher and Bueler, 2008) That sort of comprehensive and intensive education does not occur in the United States roadw [m] otorists are required by law to drive in a way that minimizes the risk of injury for pedestrians and cyclists even if they are jaywalking, cycling in the wrong direction, ignoring traffic signals, or otherw ise 1514). Such educational practices undoubtedly raise awareness about the rights of cyclists within communities, and lower the risk of bicycle injury and death, thereby encourag ing more bicycling. However, education does not solely occur in the classroom. Instead, there are a number of promotional tools that can be utilized to advertise bicycling for transportation and educate the public as to its role in the transportation syst em. Such tools include news articles, bicycle program websites, maps, promotional brochures, cycling festivals and celebrations, and networking events with related interest groups (Balsas, 2003). The importance of promotional tools in encouraging cycling holds true for on and off campus communities alike. Indeed, according to Balsas (2003), bicycle maps that clearly display the necessary route finding information are a priority for all riders. Law e nforcement Law enforcement practices can also play an important role in legitimizing and increasing social support for cycling. For instance, i n The Netherlands and Germany both motor vehicle operators and bicyclists are strictly regulated for traveling in ways that do or might result in an accident. Inde ed even when an accident in these countries results from a cyclist performing an illegal move, motor vehicle operators are almost

PAGE 36

36 always found to be at least partially responsible for the accident, due to their failure to anticipate unsafe cycling (Pucher & Dijkstra, 2003). By not giving priority to the automobile and requir ing that drivers to be responsible for their role in an accident involving a bicyclist, Dutch and German law enforcement legitimize the role of bicycling on the roadway, and encourage s safe and cautious driving. At the same time, Dutch and German law enforcement are stricter about ticketing cyclists who violate traffic regulations than are their American counterparts (Pucher & Dijkstra, 2003). For instance, in The Netherlands and Germ cyclists caught riding in the wrong direction, running red lights, making illegal turns, or riding at night without functioning Dijkstra, 2003, p. 1514). Like with the case of ticketing motorists, by enforcing the role of bicyclists in bicycling accidents, Dutch and German law enforcement encourages safety and caution among riders While the positive relationship between strict enforcement and support of bi cycling may seem counter intuitive, research regarding bicycling on university campuses confirms that campuses that best accommodate cyclists also enforce some of the strictest bicycle laws (Balsas, 2003). Law enforcement also plays a central role in encouraging b icycling through its influence on theft. Research shows that the potential risk of having a bicycle stolen or vandalized is negatively correlated with bicycle use (Rietveld & Daniel, 2004). Unfortunately, the risk of theft or vandalism not only decreases quality bike while cycling, which might encourage longer or more frequent trips (Rietvels & Daniel, 2004). However, research also shows that, by focusing their att ention on areas experiencing

PAGE 37

37 high crime, such as bicycle parking facilities where theft often occurs, law enforcement officials can drastically reduce overall crime (Braga, 2007). This is because, generally speaking, crime is not equally distributed throu ghout a region, but rather is clustered in on bicycling at universities shows that officers patrolling by bicycle are better able to prevent crime because getting them out of the car makes them more accessible to students faculty, and staff (Balsas, 2003). As a result, one can surmise that increased patrolling of areas known to have high rates of bicycle theft especially by bicycle patrol, could reduce rates of theft over bicycle stolen and increasing the rate of cycling. Bicycle F riendly Plans and P olicies Finally, the importance of plans and policies that support a comprehensive approach to increasing bicycle frie ndliness cannot be understated. Communities that simply stripe a bike lane on their major roadways and are subsequently puzzled when bicycling rates do not increase are missing the bigger picture. As Pucher Dill and Handy (2010) attest: A comprehensive approach produces a much greater impact on bicycling than individual measures that are not coordinated. The impact of any particular measure is enhanced by the synergies with complementary measures in the same package. In that sense, the whole package is more than the sum of its part s. (p. S122) On university campuses, and in communities at large, this comprehensive approach to planning for bicycl ists may be achieved through a variety of means, including the following: the creation of a specific bicycl e committee to

PAGE 38

38 the transportation planning process; the hiring of a bicycl e coordinator responsible for assessing needs identifying opportunities, formulating and implementing plans, coordinating events and maintaining (Balsas, 2003); periodic surveying of bicyclist needs and concerns; and the creation of a bicycle plan that encourages non motorized transportation (Balsas, 2003). Summary As the literature demonstrate s the reasons for low bicycle shares of trips, and the methods for improving bikability and increasing rates of biking are multifaceted. bicycling and good safety rates tend to have extensive infrastructure, as well as pro bicycle policies and programs, whereas those with low bicycling rates and poor safety Accordingly the quality of urban design, the type and safety of bicyc le facilities, the convenience and directness of routes, and the existence of bicycle education and traffic enforcement, must all be present in order to create a bicycle friendly university While specific intervent ions alone may have a positive effect on bi cycling, they are usually more a ffective when they are employed as part of a comprehensive plan to increase bicycling (Pucher, Dill & Handy, 2010). The following chapter of this thesis provides a detailed description of the methodology used in conducti ng a case study assessing the bicycle friendliness of the University of Florida.

PAGE 39

39 CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY Background In the spring of 2012 an interest in apply ing to the League of American Bicy le Friendly University program. The League of American Bicyclists (LAB) is a non profit bicycle advocacy an d provides incentives, hands on assistance, and award recognition for communities, universities and busine sses that actively support bicycling, and ranks states based on their level of bike Bicyclists, 2012 a ). LAB was founded in 1880 to defend the rights of cyclists Its primary focus has been bicycle advocacy and educationa l programming since 1965 (League of American Bicyclists, 2012c). programs include Bicycle Friendly State, Bicycle Friendly Community, Bicycle Friendly University, and Bicycle Friendly Business, all of which recognize their respective entity (state, community, university or business) for supporting bicycling (League of American Bicyclists, 2012c). Additionally, advocacy work includes organizing the annual National Bike Summit in Washington, D.C. supporting bicycle friendly federal legislation (e.g., the amendment to the 2005 Energy Policy Act, which use d education and marketing to encourage individuals to commute by bike ) and advising the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration on various bicycle related transportatio n issues (League of American Bicyclists, 2012c). Under the direction of the League of American Bicyclists, The B icycle F riendly U niversity recognizes institutions of higher education for promoting and

PAGE 40

40 providing a more bicycle f riendly campus for students, staff and visitors. The B icycle F riendly U niversity program provides the roadmap and technical assistance to create In order to perform a prospective descrip tive case study analyz ing the bicycle friendliness of the University of Florida, the researcher collected the data needed to complete the BFU application This application took the form of a questionnaire consisting of select one multiple choice, select m any multiple choice, yes/no, short answer, and long answer ( 100+ word) questions. These questions were largely concerned with five distinct, bicycle Education, Encour agement, Enforcement, and Evaluation and Planning. The the physical infrastructure in place in a university community and its effect on bicycling. Some topics of inquiry include d the existence of bicycle lanes and bicycl d the availability and distribution of information related to safe bicycling for both cyclists and motorists. Questions pertain ed to such topics as the availability of cycling education and the distribution of information, d how well the university community promote d bicycling. Topics of inquiry concern ed the existence of university sponsored bicyc ling events, as well as bicycle maps, bike share programs, and bicycle repair services. The on the relationship between law enforcement and the bicycling communities. These questions evaluate d the strength of the relation ship between these two communities, as well as the enforcement of laws related to safe bicycling for both cyclists and motorists. Finally, the

PAGE 41

41 d the systems that the university ha d in place for evaluating the cur rent bicycle network, and for planning its future. These questions were concerned with such issues as the tracking of bicycle crash and fatality rates, and the existence of a bicycle master plan. bicycle friendliness based upon its performance relative to subsequent evaluation could be completed. Collecting Data T he researcher collected the data needed to answer the questions asked in the BFU applica tion. Th is data came from a variety of sources, including personal observation, the examination of UF webpages and various print resources including campus planning documents Additionally, the answers to specific application questions were provided by a number of professionals at the U niversity of Florida who have expertise in areas directly related to those topics covered by the questionnaire Thes e answers were given in person, over the telephone, and through e mail. The following represents a comp lete list of individuals who assisted in answering questions asked in the BFU application: Harold Barrand, Associate Director Physical Plant Division Rena Buchan, Assistant Director of Housing for Graduate and Family Housing, Department of Housing and R eside nce Education Dan Connaughton, Director, Florida Traffic & Bicycle Safety Education Program, and Faculty, Department of Tourism, Recreation & Sports M anagement Linda Dixon, Associate Director, Planning Office, Facilities, Planning & Construction Div ision

PAGE 42

42 Scott Fox, Director, Transportation and Parking Services Ronald Fuller, Assistant Director, Transportation and Parking Services Erik Lewis, Senior Planner, Planning Office, Facilities, Planning & Construction D ivision John Savona, Officer, Bicy cle Unit, University of Florida Police Department Stephanie Sims, Implementation Coordinator, Office of Susta inability James Tyger, Program Coordinator, Student G overnment Dan Williams, Assistant Vice President, Marketing Making an Assessment As previo usly mentioned, the BFU application consisted of select one multiple choice, select many multiple choice, yes/no, short answer, and long answer (100+ word) questions. The BFU application did not include a grading rubric; evaluation of a le friendliness is done internally by the LAB. Therefore, i n order for to its support of bicycling on campus a grading rubric was developed by the researcher. This r ubric was established to be sensitive to the type of question being asked in the friendliness. For example, select one questions were subdivided according to select one question type, of which there are three: Type A, Type B, and Literature. Grading criteria were then established for each type. Similarly, select many questions were subdivided according to their question type, of which there are two: Type 1 and Type 2. Specific grading criteria were also established for each type. The grading rubrics for each question type can be found in Tables 3 1 through 3 6 located at the end of this c hapter.

PAGE 43

43 Additionally, f or the sake of analysis, five assessment table s w ere created to correspond with each Select one, select many, and yes/no question types were included in these tables. Informational questions that had answers with no intrinsic value to the assessment were excluded from the tables, although thi s information was includ ed as background material in Chapter 4: Findings. Short answer responses were also excluded from the tables, but were included in the Findings. Long answer questions were considered supplemental to the previously mentioned questio n types and were not included in the assessment tables or Findings Finally, questions whose answers could not be obtained were excluded from the tables and Findings In total, the education, encouragement, and evaluation and planning tables each assess seven questions, the encouragement table assesses eleven questions, and the engineering table assesses twenty questions. All five assessment tables (Table 4 1, Table 4 2, Table 4 3, Table 4 4 and Table 4 5) can b e found at the end of Chapter 4. Additiona lly, a full Friendly University application can be found in Appendix A. Summary The methodology described in this chapter help ed to assess the bicycle friendliness of the University of Florida. Although there may be other methods of completing this assessment, it should be noted that the BFU application chosen as the basis for this study has been used to evaluate the bicycle friendliness of universities across the United States The following chapter presents the findings resulting from these methods, and offers a means for evaluation and further discussion.

PAGE 44

44 Table 3 1. Grading rubric: Yes/No question Example Response Score (points) Score (%) Assessment Yes 1/1 100% Good No 0/1 0% Poor Table 3 2. Grading rubric: Sele ct one question (Type A) Example Response Score (points) Score (%) Assessment 2/2 100% Good 1/2 50% Fair 0/2 0% Poor Table 3 3. Grading rubric: Select one question (Type B) Example Response Score (points) Score (%) Assessment 2/2 100% Good 1/2 50% Fair 0/2 0% Poor Table 3 4. Grading rubric: Select one question (Literature) Literature is used to make an assessment Example Response Score (points) Score (%) Assessment Variable N/A N/A Good, Fair or Poor

PAGE 45

45 Table 3 5. Grading rubric: Select many question (Type 1) Example Response Score (points) Score (%) Assessment 67% to 100% of possible responses selected Variable 67 100% Good 34% to 66% of possible responses selected Variable 34 66% Fair 0 to 33% of possible responses selected Variable 0 33% Poor 0 0% Poor Table 3 6. Grading rubric: Select many question (Type 2) Example Response Score (points) Score (%) Assessment 0 to 33% of possible responses selected Variable 0 33% Good 34% to 66% of possible responses selected Variable 34 66% Fair 67% to 100% of possible responses selected Variable 67 100% Good

PAGE 46

46 C HAPTER 4 FINDINGS This C hapter summarizes the findings obtained by completing the BFU application for the University of Florida. Thi s Chapter is divided into five sections. The first section provides an overview of the University of Florida case study area in order to provide a context for the subsequent findi ngs S ections two through six present findings from the BFU application rel engineering, education, encouragement, enforcement, and evaluation and planning. The last section provides a summary of the findings from the UF case study. Finally, it should be noted that t he five assessment tables (Table 4 1 through 4 5) that were created based upon the information obtained through completion of the BFU application can be found at the end of this Chapter. Additionally, as previously noted, a full text Bicycle Friendly University application can be found in Appendix A. University Profile The University of Florida is a national university located in Gainesville, Florida The suburban campus h as a population of 52,271 students and 22,211 faculty and staff and, o n average, the 80% of students who live off campus commute 2.16 miles to campus, with the median commut e distance equaling 1.70 miles. T he university has a Sustainable Transportation Working Group consisting of student, faculty, and staff partici pants representing a variety of interests, including the university police department, student government, campus planning, transportation and parking services, sustainability, and health and wellness. This group meets quarterly to discuss and plan for mu ltiple modes of transportation on campus, including bicycling However, the university does not have a dedicated Bicycle Program Manager, nor does

PAGE 47

47 it have a specific budget for bicycle programming. Instead, bicycle related issues are handled by five main staff members of the university, and funding for bicycle through grant funding, such as fro m the Florida Department of Transportation. Due to the lack of a single Bicycle Program Manager, it is difficult to accurately estimate the percentage of time that the relevant staff members spend on bicycling issues as a whole. However, acknowledging th is difficulty, if approximately 5% of each staff equal roughly 25% bicycle program does not have its own web page. In stead, bicycling issues are covered on multiple webpages, most notably the Office of http://sustainable.ufl.edu/transportation/ ) and Transportation and Parking ( http://www.parking.ufl.edu/pages/transcommopt.asp ). However, t he university does ha ve four bicycle advocacy groups that are currently active on campus, and UF acknowledges i nvesting in bicycling for a number of reasons listed in the BFU questionnaire including the following: Im prove quality of life and health for students, faculty, and staff C onne ct the community and the campus P rovide multiple transportation options R educ e demand for car parking A ddress c limate change and environmental stewardship concerns D ecrease traffic congestion R espond to user demand I mprove the safet y of bicyclists and pedestrians

PAGE 48

48 Given the background information about the University of Florida d escribed above, this chapter now describes those findings obtained from completion of the BFU tion. As mentioned previously, the five assessment tables (Table 4 1 through 4 5) that were created based upon the information obtained through completion of the BFU application can be found at the end of this Chapter. Engineering The university accommoda tes bicycling through a de facto Complete Streets policy that was adopted in 2006 as part of its Campus Master Plan, 2005 2015. The implementation of these bicycle policies are ensured through the hiring of outside consultants to train staff or review pla ns, the use of an implementation checklist and design manual, and the oversight of a Parking In order to ensure that end of trip facilities exist for bicyclists, the university ha s adopted the following procedures : Bike parking ordinance/policy for existing buildings Bike parking ordinance/policy for new developments Policy requiring showers in non residential buildings Policy requiring lockers in non residential buildings Bicycles permitted in most campus buildings Requirement for new developments to meet LEED silver standards or higher In coordination with the city, county, and Metropolitan Transportation Organization, the university strives to reduce dependence on single occupant vehicles as the primary mode of travel and to encourage multiple modes of transportation ( University of Florida 2006 ). One way in which UF Transportation and Parking Services does this is by

PAGE 49

49 cap ping the number of automobile parking spaces available on campus. Parking passes are available to any st udent, faculty or staff who would like to buy on e, at varying levels of expense. Student passes cost $150 for an annual pass, while the price of faculty and staff parking passes vary depending upon the type of pass purchased. For example, faculty and sta ff parking passes begin at $312 for an annual and faculty may buy a less expensive commuter pass for $156 per year, or a motorcycle/scooter pass for $150 per year. H owever, while any student, faculty, or staff who wishes to buy a parking pass may do so, there are only 23,000 parking spots available to park cars in. W ith a total of 73,482 on site students, faculty, and staff, and 23,000 on campus parking spots, the au tomobile parking spots can only accommodate 31% of the total campus population at a given time. As of 2011, 12,458 bicycle parking spaces were available on campus, resulting in a ratio of roughly 1 bicycle parking space for every 5 persons on campus. Wh s tudents are allowed to park their bikes in their dorm rooms On campus, t he types of bicycle parking available include racks and bike depot/hubs/stations Bicycle parking can be found at all major university locations, including dormitories, libraries, classroom buildings, recreation centers, administrative buildings, transit stations, research labs, and off campus university owned housing. Most of the bicycle racks and depots/hubs/stations meet the security and convenience guidelines recomme nded by the Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals, and there is an ongoing effort to replace non compliant bicycle parking with appropriate styles. Indeed, the university

PAGE 50

50 has spent approximately $75,000 on bicycle racks in the past year ( R. Fuller personal communication, 7 February 2013 ). Bicycle Facilities The university provides locker rooms and showers in some non residential buildings without charge, as well as dedicated bicycle maintenance persons at their Student Government sponsored B ike Repair shop; these maintenance people have access to bicycle maintenance supplies. The university also has policies in place mandating the accommodation of bicyclists during construction. Through its partnership with the Gainesville Regional Transit System (RTS), the university is able to provide transit service to its students, which includes transit vehicles that are equipped with bicycle racks. The centerline mileage of the total campus road network is approximately 13.2 miles, all of which are und There are no protected/buffered bike lanes or cycle tracks, shared lane markings, signed bike routes, natural surface shared use paths, or single tracks on campus. However, 8.1 miles of the campus road network, or approximate ly 61% of the total, is covered by conventional bike lanes. The university bicycle network also includes approximately 1.6 miles of shared use path, 0.5 mile of contra flow bike lanes, and 0.33 mile of bike boulevards for a total of 10.53 miles of bicycl e roadway facilities mean ing that approximately 80% of the campus road network is designed to specifically accommodate bicycling. The university has improved conditions for bicyclists on campus roads by limiting automobile speeds on campus streets to 20 mp h or less, creating bicycle cut throughs, removing on street car parking, using speed tables to calm traffic, and creating car free zones. However, the university has done nothing to specifically accommodate bicyclists at campus

PAGE 51

51 intersections, nor does it do anything beyond routine roadway maintenance on behalf of cyclists, although it does facilitate the reporting of bicycle facility problems through the availability of e (PPD), as wel where bicycle facility problems can be reported. Education The university strives to ensure that incoming students, faculty, and staff are educated on safe cycling and driving by pres enting such information to all incoming students, providing educational handouts at resource fairs and campus events, and including that information in welcome materials for new students, faculty, and staff, such Uni versity of Florida Office of Human Resources, 2013). T he university does not regularly schedule classes on commuting, bicycle maintenance, or traffic and cycling skills, nor does it provide physical educa tion cycling classes for credit. However, it does house the Florida Traffic and Bicycle Safety Education Program as well as the Florida Pedestrian & Bicycling Safety Resource Center (PedBike SRC) under contract with the Florida Department of Transportation Th e Florida Traffic and Bicycle Safety Education Program, which began in 1982, targets school teachers and community trainers, and teaches them to instruct bicycle safety courses and workshops for elementary, middle, and high school students ar ound the state of Florida. Additionally, PedBike SRC promotes safe walking and cycling in the state by providing i nformation and educational materials to statewide advocacy groups. Furthermore, i nformation on safe cycling and driving are also included on the Office of webpage in arti cles from The Independent Florida Alligator (the student newspaper),

PAGE 52

52 during campus events such as the Spring Break Safety Fair, Road Safety Week, and Additionally, a number of courses covering material related to bicycling are offered through the College of Design, Construction and Planning, the College of Engineering, and the College of Public Health and Health Professions at the university. Finally operators of campus transit, administered through the Gainesville Regional Transit System, and the UFPD police officers receive driver training that includes information on sharing the road with bicyclists. Encouragement Bicycling is promoted at the university through car free days, such as t he Of fice of transportation, and through organized rides, such as the monthly Gainesville Critical A number of signature cycling festivals, major rides, and races take place throughout the community, many of them organized by the Gainesville Cycling Club as well as cycling teams and clubs on campus However, the university does not sponsor or actively support any of these promote bicycling to current or potential university students and staff. E ight bicycle shops are located within a 5 mile radius of campus, for a total of 1 shop for approximate ly every 9, 310 students, faculty, and staff on campus. The university also has a skate park with bike access, and it participates in a fledgling bike share system This program which currently includ es 35 bicycles, offers refurbished bicycles to UF departments with the purpose of promoting bicycling and encouraging the use of alternative transportation

PAGE 53

53 by faculty/staff. Bicycles are available on a first come, first serve basis, and departments are en couraged to develop a check in/out system to allow multiple employees to share the bicycles. Bicycles become the property of participating departments, who assume all maintenance and repair. Departments are encouraged to ycle repair. A light set, U lock, helmet, and safety information are provided with all bicycles. Riders must follow all traffic laws, wear helmets, and be UF employees. The university also has a student government sponsored Bike Repair shop as previousl y mentioned, which has been in operation for at least 15 years. Because the university is located in a League of American Bicyclist designated Bicycle Friendly Community, a number of bicycle resources from the larger Gainesville community that are availabl e to university students, faculty, and staff. These resources include online maps and an online route finding service. Specifically, Team Florida Cycling, UF's student run bicycling club, offers two bicycle map s on their blog ( http://teamfloridacycling.wordpress.com/resources/maps/ ) consisting of a Gainesville street map and a map of area bike trails Similarly, the City of Gainesville's Bicycle & Pedestrian program o f f ers an area bike m ap and an area bike trail map for the entire city, including the University of Florida. These maps can be accessed on their webpage ( http://www.cityofgainesville.org/GOVERNMENT/CityDepartmentsNZ/PublicWorks/Tran sportationServices/BicyclePedestrianPrograms/Maps/tabid/733/Default.aspx ). The creation of a 2013 bicycle map update is currently un derway by the City Bicycle & Pedestrian program administered by the Public Works department. Additionally t he Gainesville Cycling Club offers twenty bicycle maps of area bike rides

PAGE 54

54 on their map webpage ( http://gccfla.org/cgi bin/web_maps.cgi ). Finally, Google Maps offers bicycle route information in beta for Gain esville riders, including routes through the university. Enforcement lower the risk of bicycle theft or loss by offering voluntary bicycle registration, signage and demonstrations on how to properly lock a bicycle, regular security patrols of bicycle parking areas, a stolen or impounded bicycle recovery system, and informa tion campaigns about lowering the chances of bicycle theft. Although only one full time officer patrols exclusively by bike, as of 2012, 35 of the total 95 sworn officers, or approximately 37% of the force, is trained and able to patrol on bike ( J Savona personal communication, August 23 201 2 ) This tr mountain bike school which consists of 40 hours of bicycle patrol education The campus police department actively interacts with the campus cycling community. Indeed, while the one full time officer who patrols by bike, Officer John Savona, is the appointed law enforcement point person to interact with bicyclists, UF PD officers in general distribute bicycle theft deterrent information and bicycle safety education on an informal basis to s tudents, faculty, and staff throughout campus. This includes stopping bicyclists who are improperly wearing their helmets in order to talk to them about bicycle safety, presenting bike law pamphlets to violators, registering the bicycles of cyclists who a re pulled over for violating traffic laws so that they might be recovered during a theft, and presenting bicycle safety information to incoming freshman during UF PREVIEW, in campaigns to improve bicycl e safety by giving away helmet and li ght s, by targeting both

PAGE 55

55 motorist and cyclist infractions. Indeed the UFPD strives to treat bicyclists equitably and promote safety for all riders by enforcing the following traffic regulations : There are specific pena lties for failing to yield to a bicyclist while turning It is illegal to park or drive in a bike lane (intersections excepted) 1 bicyclists There is an ordinance (under Florida law) requiring a 3 foo t passing distance Evaluation and Planning Planning for bicyclists is embedded in T he Transportation Element of the Campus Master Plan, 2005 2015, which was adopted in March 2006 and is currently in the process of being updated for the years 2010 2020. As mentioned previously no dedicated funding source exists for implementation of the bicycle plan, however, funding for bicycle programming is acquired through a number of sources, including various university departments and external grant funding. Bicy cle usage on campus is tracked through periodic manual counts, intercept 2 and e mail surveys. According to the 20 09 2011 American Community Survey 3 Year Estimates, 3,388 (or 6%) of workers in Gainesville age 16 and older commute via bicycle (see Table 4 6 ) However, the most recent on campus bicycle mode share data from 2009 indicates that 10.3% of travel to campus is done by bicycle ( see table 4 7). When this table is examined more closely, it appears that 12.5% of undergraduates, 11.2% of graduate st udents, 6.3% of faculty, 4.1% of staff, and 12.5% of visitors to the university travel to campus by bicycle. In the last five y ears, no bicycle crash fatalities involving automobiles have occurred at the university. Also, no specific plans have been crea ted to reduce crashes, no satisfaction 1 he path of an approaching cyclist, who may crash into the door or try to avoid it by swerving into traffic, often resulting in serious injury or even death. 2 esignated location, screened for appropriateness, and administered a survey.

PAGE 56

56 survey has been completed regarding student an d staff bicycling, and no study has been performed to evaluate the eco nomic impact of bicycling at UF. Summary The findings of this study, as completion of the Bicycle Friendly University application, reveal that there is extensive accommodation of bicyclists on the University of Florida campus; however, these findings also reveal that there are specific instances in which UF needs improvement in order to maximize its bicycle friendliness (see Tables 4 1 through 4 5). For ex ample, in terms of engineering, the ratio of bicy c le parking to total campus population is less than desirable, there is no special accommodation of cyclists at intersections, and nothing beyond routine road maintenance is done on behalf of cyclists. Additionally, i n the case of education, UF does not offer a ticket diversion program or special classes, like commuter courses or cycling skills courses, which would increase cycl ing specific kn owledge and raise awareness of cyclists on campus. In terms of encouragement, the university does not promote bicycling, nor does it sponsor any signature cycling events and in the case of enforcement there are no restri ctions on bicyclists at the university. Finally, in terms of evaluation and planning, UF does not have a specific program or plan to reduce crashes, and it has not surveyed the uni versity community to assess individuals satisfaction with cycling on campus or the economic impact of cycling there The following chapter will delve into a detailed discussion of those areas of bicycle friendliness in which UF needs the most improvement according to the assessment.

PAGE 57

57 Table 4 1 Assessing the Bicycle Friendliness of the University of Florida Engineering Question Type (Yes/No; Select one Select many ) Response Score (%) Assessment (Good, Fair, Poor) What policy does your institution have for accommodating bicyclists? Select on e ( Literature ) Complete Streets policy N/A Good What tools are in place to ensure implementation? Select many ( Type 1 ) Implementation checklist; Design manual; Oversight by bicycle program coordinator/manager 3/5 (60%) Fair How does your college/univ ersity ensure your engineers and planners accommodate bicyclists according to AASHTO, MUTCD and NACTO standards? Select many ( Type 1 ) Hire outside consultants to train staff or review plans 1/6 (17%) Poor How do your college/university policies ensure that there are end of trip facilities for bicyclists? Select many ( Type 1 ) Bike parking ordinance/policy for existing buildings; Bike parking ordinance/policy for new developments; Policy requiring showers in non residential buildings; Policy requiring lo ckers in non residential buildings; Bicycles are permitted in most campus buildings; Requirement for new developments to meet LEED silver standards or higher 6/7 (86%) Good

PAGE 58

58 Table 4 1. Continued Question Type (Yes/No; Select one, Select many) Response Sc ore (%) Assessment (Good, Fair, Poor) How many annual on campus automobile parking permits are available each year per total campus population? Select one ( Literature ) 26 55% N/A Good How much is charged annually for an automobile parking permit? Sele ct one ( Literature ) $101 200 N/A Good The university/college provides free or subsidized parking for (check all that apply) Select many ( Type 2 ) Some faculty 1/5 (20%) Good What is the ratio of bicycle parking spaces to your total campus population? S elect one ( Type A ) 1:5 or more 0/2 (0%) Poor What type of bicycle parking do you provide on campus? Select many ( Type 1 ) Bike racks; Bike depot/hubs/stations 2/5 (40%) Fair At which location do you provide bike parking? Select many ( Type 1 ) Dormitor ies; Libraries; Classroom buildings; Recreation Centers; Administrative Buildings; Transit stations; Research Labs; Off campus college/university owned housing 8/8 (100 %) Good

PAGE 59

59 Table 4 1. Continued Question Type (Yes/No; Select one, Select many) Response Score (%) Assessment (Good, Fair, Poor) Are students allowed to park their bikes in their dorm rooms? Yes/No Yes 1/1 (100 %) Good Does your bike parking meet the security and convenience guidelines recommended by the Association of Pedestrian and Bicycl e Professionals (APBP)? Select one ( Type A ) Most 2/2 (100 %) Good Do you provide any of the following for students, faculty, and/or staff who commute by bike? Select many ( Type 1 ) Locker rooms in non residential buildings without charge; Shower faciliti es in non residential buildings without charge; Maintenance supplies such as tools, pumps, and tubes; Dedicated bike maintenance person 4/6 (67%) Good Do you accommodate bicyclists during construction (detour routes, signage, etc. )? Yes/No Yes 1/1 (100 % ) Good Does your college/university have a transit service (including Shuttles, Night Ride, etc.)? Yes/No Yes 1/1 (100 %) Good

PAGE 60

60 Table 4 1. Continued Question Type (Yes/No; Select one, Select many) Response Score (%) Assessment (Good, Fair, Poor) Are tran sit vehicles equipped with bike racks? Select one ( Type A ) All 2/2 (100 %) Good What other ways have you improved conditions for bicyclists? Select many ( Type 1 ) Speed limits 20 mph or less on campus streets; Bike cut throughs; Remove on street car park ing; Speed tables to calm traffic; Car restrictions/car free zones 6/10 (60%) Fair How do you accommodate bicyclists at intersections in your college/university? Select many ( Type 1 ) None of the above 0/8 (0%) Poor Is there anything beyond routine road way maintenance that you do on behalf of cyclists? Select many ( Type 1 ) (No options selected) 0/4 (0%) Poor How does your college/university facilitate reporting of bicycle facility problems? Select many ( Type 1 ) Email/ phone report to maintenance dept ; Online reporting tool like SeeClickFix 2/3 (67%) Good

PAGE 61

61 Table 4 2 Assessing the Bicycle Friendliness of the University of Florida Education Question Type (Yes/No; Select one ; Select many ) Response Score (%) Assessment (Good, Fair, Poor) What do you do to ensure that incoming students, faculty and staff are educated on safe cycling and driving? Select many ( Type 1 ) Presentation to all incoming students; Handouts at resource fairs; Information in all welcome packets for new students, faculty, and sta ff 3/6 (50%) Fair What have you done in the last 18 months to educate motorists and bicyclists on sharing the road safely? Select many ( Type 1 ) Campus newsletter/paper article; Dedicated bike page on college/university website; Other 3/10 (30%) Poor Do you have or participate in a ticket diversion program? Select many ( Type 1 ) None 0/3 (0%) Poor Which of the following options [Traffic skills 101; Cycling Skills classes; Commuter classes; Bicycle maintenance classes; Physical education cycling clas ses] are available on a regular basis at your college/university? (Please include classes for non students as well) Select one ( Type A ) Not regularly scheduled 0/2 (0%) Poor

PAGE 62

62 Table 4 2. Continued Question Type (Yes/No; Select one; Select many) Response Score (%) Assessment (Good, Fair, Poor) Are there bicycle related course offerings in transportation planning, policy, engineering or public health? Yes/No Yes 1/1 (100%) Good Has your college/university hosted a League Cycling Instructor seminar in the past two years? Yes/No No 0/1 (0%) Poor Does your college/university have driver training for any of the following professional drivers that includes information on sharing the road with bicyclists? Select many ( Type 1 ) Campus transit operators; Police 2/5 (40%) Fair

PAGE 63

63 Table 4 3 Assessing the Bicycle Friendliness of the University of Florida Encouragement Question Type (Yes/No; Select one ; Select many ) Response Score (%) Assessment (Good, Fair, Poor) How do you promote bicycling at your college/un iversity? Select many ( Type 1 ) Organized ride; Car free days 2/11 (18%) Poor Does the college/university sponsor or actively support any [signature cycling events]? Yes/No No 0/1 (0%) Poor Does your marketing department promote bicycling to current a nd potential students/staff? Yes/No No 0/1 (0%) Poor Are there cycling teams or clubs at your college/university? Select many ( Type 1 ) Recreational Bike Clubs (road or mountain); Racing clubs or teams (road, mountain, cyclocross, track, triathlon, etc ) 2/4 (50%) Fair What is the ratio of your total campus population to specialty bicycle retailers within a 5 mile radius of campus? Select one ( Type A ) 1 shop for every 7,001 15,000 students, faculty, staff 1/2 (50%) Fair Which of these bicycling facil ities or amenities do you have at your college/university? Select many ( Type 1 ) Skate park with bike access 1/7 (14%) Poor

PAGE 64

64 Table 4 3. Continued Question Type (Yes/No; Select one; Select many) Response Score (%) Assessment (Good, Fair, Poor) Does your college/university have or participate in a bike share or rental system? Yes/No Yes 1/1 (100%) Good Does your college or university have a co op or bike center? Yes/No Yes 1/1 (100%) Good If [your college has a co op or bike center] which of the follo wing services does it offer? Select many ( Type 1 ) Bike repairs 1/7 (14%) Poor Is your college/university located in a League of American Bicyclists designated Bicycle Friendly Community? Yes/No Yes 1/1 (100%) Good What bike map and/or route finding in formation is available for your college/university which has been updated in the last 18 months? Select many ( Type 1 ) Online route finding service; Online map 2/5 (40%) Fair

PAGE 65

65 Table 4 4 Assessing the Bicycle Friendliness of the University of Florida Enforcement Question Type (Yes/No; Select one ; Select many ) Response Score (%) Assessment (Good, Fair, Poor) How does your college/university lower the risk of bicycle theft/loss? Select many ( Type 1 ) Bike registration; Signage or demonstrations to teac h proper locking; Regular security patrols of bicycle parking areas; Stolen or impounded bikes recovery system; Information campaign to educate students on lowering their chances of bike theft 5/7 (71%) Good What percentage of patrolling police departmen t employees is on bike? Select one ( Type A ) 30% or higher 2/2 (100%) Good How does your campus police department interact with the student/ staff cycling community? Select many ( Type 1 ) Appointed law enforcement point person to interact with bicyclist s; Officers distribute bike safety/theft deterrent information; Officers provide bike safety education; Other 4/4 (100%) Good What kind of training is offered to police officers regarding traffic law as it applies to bicyclists? Select many ( Type 1 ) B asic academy training 1/7 (14%) Poor What enforcement campaigns are targeted at improving bicyclist safety? Select many ( Type 1 ) Helmet giveaways; Light giveaways; Targeting motorist infractions; Targeting bicyclist infractions 4/6 (67%) Good

PAGE 66

66 Table 4 4 Continued. Question Type (Yes/No; Select one; Select many) Response Score (%) Assessment (Good, Fair, Poor) Do your college/university policies treat bicyclists equitably and promote safety for all users? Select many ( Type 1 ) There are specific penal ties for failing to yield to a bicyclist when turning; It is illegal to park or drive in a bike lane (intersections excepted); There are penalties for motor vehicle users who 'door' bicyclists; There is an ordinance requiring a 3 ft passing distance. 4/9 (44%) Fair Are there any prohibitions or restrictions on bicyclists at your college/university? Yes/No No 0/1 (0%) Poor

PAGE 67

67 Table 4 5 Assessing the Bicycle Friendliness of the University of Florida Evaluation and Planning Question Type (Yes/No; Selec t one ; Select many ; Short answer) Survey Response Score (%) Assessment (Good, Fair, Poor) Does your college/university have a comprehensive bicycle master plan? Yes/No Yes 1/1 (100%) Good Is there a dedicated funding source for implementation? Yes/No N o 0/1 (0%) Poor How do you track bicycle usage on campus? Select many ( Type 1 ) Periodic Manual Counts, Other 2/4 (50%) Fair How many bicyclist crash fatalities involving automobiles have occurred at your college/university in the past five years? Sele ct one ( Type B ) 0 1/1 (100%) Good Do you have a specific plan or program to reduce crashes? Yes/No No 0/1 (0%) Poor Have you done a satisfaction survey of students and staff on bicycling at your college/university? Yes/No No 0/1 (0%) Poor Have you do ne an economic impact study on bicycling at your college/university? Yes/No No 0/1 (0%) Poor

PAGE 68

68 Table 4 6. 2009 2011 American Community Survey 3 Year Estimates: Means of Transportation to Work Gainesville city, Florida Estimate Percent (%) Ma rgin of Error Total: 55,897 100% +/ 1,931 Car, truck, or van: 42,549 76% +/ 1,885 Drove alone 35,430 83% +/ 1,933 Carpooled: 7,119 17% +/ 968 Public transportation (excluding taxicab): 3,616 6% +/ 656 Bus or trolley bus 3,5 84 99% +/ 651 Streetcar or trolley car 32 <1% +/ 51 Taxicab 15 <1% +/ 25 Motorcycle 865 2% +/ 465 Bicycle 3,388 6% +/ 782 Walked 3,217 6% +/ 669 Other means 197 <1% +/ 221 Worked at home 2,050 4% +/ 405 ( U.S. Census Bur eau, n.d. )

PAGE 69

69 Table 4 7. % Travel to Campus by Mode in 2009 University of Florida Mode: Undergr aduate Student Graduate Student Faculty Staff Visitor Total Walk 21.7 21.5 12.5 6.1 27.1 18.7 Bicycle 12.5 11.2 6.3 4.1 12.5 10.3 Motorcycle/ Scooter 3.6 2.8 0.0 2.0 2.1 2.8 Carpool 2.4 1.9 9.4 11.2 4.2 4.5 Automobile 9.2 15.9 56.2 57.2 33.3 24.3 Transit 50.6 46.7 15.6 18.4 20.8 39.2 Other 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.2 (University of Florida Office of Sustainability, n.d.)

PAGE 70

70 CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION This chapter uses the findings from the Bicycle Friendly University application to assess the University friendly campus. When considering the findings of this study, it is clear that there is extensive accommodat ion of bicyclists many successes in supporting engineering, education, encouragement, enforcement, and evaluation and planning pr actices that facilitate bicycle fr iendliness will be acknowled ged. However, the findings of this study also reveal that there are certain areas related to bicycle friendliness in which UF needs improvement. Therefore, this chapter will largely focus on the failures and will provide recommendations for improving those deficiencies. The five assessment tables (Table 5 1 through 5 5) displaying these failures can be found at the end of this chapter. Lastly, limitations of the research will be identified. Engineering The University of Florida has plan s in place, such as its Complete Streets policy embedded within its Campus Master Plan 2005 2015 which enable safe, comfortable access to travel for all campus roadway users, including bicyclists. It also has infrastructure on the gro und that conveys these plans physically, such as the 80% coverage of the campus road network by a variety of facilities that accommodate cyclists. As Chapter 2 explains, the presence of bicycling infrastructure is a primary factor in determining whether i ndividuals within a community will cycle for transportation (Van Dyck et al., 2012). However, three areas of engineering covered by the BFU application reveal the Univers ity clearly needs improvement according to the

PAGE 71

71 ee Table 5 1 at the end of this section) These are: the ratio of bicycle parking spaces to total campus population; accommodating bicyclists at intersections; and going beyond routine roadway maintenance on behalf of cyclists. The literature clearly de monstrates that end of trip facilities, such as bicycle parking, are essential to attracting more people to cycling (Van Dyck et. al, 2012) because, just as drivers are more or less likely to drive to their destination based on the availability and conveni ence of car parking spaces, cyclists are more or less likely to bike to their destination based on the availability and convenience of bicycle parking (Pucher and Buehler, 2008). However, at UF, the ratio of total campus population to available bicycle pa rking is greater than 1:5. Clearly, if the university wishes to encourage greater rates of cycling, it must provide adequate parking facilities for its students, faculty, and staff. That said, there is an ongoing effort to replace non compliant bicycle p arking with appropriate styles, and the university spent approximately $75,000 on bicycle rack purchases in 2012. Therefore, it seems that the need for additional bicycle parking is an issue that is being acknowledged and addressed. Research indicates tha t one third of total bicycle crashes occur at intersections, and 74 % of crashes at intersections result in fatalities (Dobbs, 2009). Studies also show that the reason for high rates of bicycle automobile crashes at intersections is drivers may b but failed to for oncoming motor vehicles but do not recognize that a cyclist is approaching because 15). In an effo rt to ensure cyclist safety and reduce the likelihood of a serious or fatal

PAGE 72

72 crash on campus, the university should research the benefit of implementing bicycle specific designs at intersections, especially at turning locations. As the research demonstrate s, increasing the visibility of bicyclists at intersections, whether through the provision of bike boxes, bicycle turn lanes, or other possible roadway treatments, reduces the overall number of bicycle automobile collisions and increases awareness of all m odes of transportation (Dobbs, 2009). While the university accommodates bicyclists during roadway construction through the provision of a detour, it does not go beyond routine roadway maintenance on behalf of cyclists This is problematic due to the poten tially life threatening effect of pavement deficiencies on cyclists (Dobbs, 2009). Pavement deficiencies, such as potholes, broken pavement, exposed drainage grates, and debris, may all cause bicycle accidents, whether directly, via collision with the def icient material, or indirectly, via collision with an automobile while attempting to avoid the problematic roadway (Dobbs, 2009) Thus, the university should invest in greater roadway maintenance on behalf of cyclists, such as more frequent sweeping of bi cycle lane s or the expedited clearance of potholes and broken pavement. Education The university has some demonstrated success es in the area of education. Most impressively the university houses both the Florida Pedestrian & Bicyclist Resource Center, which promotes safe walking and cycling activities in Florida through the provision of information and educational materials to advocacy groups across the state ( Florida Pedestrian and Bicycling Safety Resource Center, 2012 ), and the Florida Traffic and Bi cycle Safety Education Program, which trains school teachers and community leaders to teach children the knowledge and skills they need in order to be both safe

PAGE 73

73 and competent pedestrians and cyclists ( Florida Traffic and Bicycle Safety Education Program, 2 013). Both programs are funded by the Florida Department of Transportation Safety Office, and operate at a state wide level. While they are not programs intended to educate university students, faculty, and staff, nor are they contractually obligated to do so, their presence in Gainesville communicat es the existence of knowledge persons in the community with expertise in the area of bicycle education. Nonetheless the study findings reveal that there is very little bicycl e education programming available at UF and there fore much room for improvement (see Table 5 2 at the end of this chapter) The university does not offer any classes on campus that directly educate campus cyclists on the knowledge and skills needed to bicycle safely and competently and it has not hosted a LAB Cycling Instructor sem inar in the past two years As the research in Chapter 2 indicates, education plays a crucial role in legitimizing bicycling and increasing bicycle safety within communities, and those countries that invest most heavily in bicycling education tend to have both safer cycling practices and higher levels of bicycle ridership (Pucher and Djikstra, 2003). For instance, by not offering a ticket diversion program, which is a sentence that includes attending classes about traffic and cyclist safety for motorists and cyclist who violate traffic laws, the un iversity is missing an opportunity to further educate the campus community about safe driving and cycling. Additionally, w ith only 6.3% of faculty and 4.1% of staff traveling to campus by bike, compared to 12.5% of undergraduates, 11.2% of graduate students, and 12.5% of campus visitors, as stated Chapter 4, the university has the opportunity to increase faculty and staff bicycle ridership. This could be accomplished through the provision of

PAGE 74

74 commuter or cycling skills classes for staff and faculty who may be lacking the skills or knowledge needed to feel comfortable about commuting to campus via bike. Encouragement T he university has various success es in the area of encouragement. For instance, the university is home to four recreational and racing bike clubs, and is situated in a larger Bicycle Friendly Community that is also host to its own active bicycle club, the Gainesville Cycling Club. Due to its location in a Bicycle Friendly Community, the university benefits from the availability of a number of community wide resources that encourage cycling, such as the presence of 8 bike shops within a 5 mile radius of campus, the availability of online bike route information, and the annual presence of the Gainesvi lle Cycling Festival. The university also has its own Student Government sponsored Bike Repair service on campus, which offers free bike repair service for students, faculty and staff ( University of Florida Student Government, 2013) and sponsors events s uch as One Less Car Day, which promote the use of bicycling among other forms of alternative transportation However, despite its many successes, there are still improvements that could be made (see Table 5 3 at the end of this chapter) For instance, a s research in Chapter 2 indicates, people who have high levels of social support and witness the modeling of bicycling behavior are more likely to cycle themselves (de Geus, 2009). However, the university marketing department does not specifically promote bicycling to current or potential students and staff, nor does the university explicitly sponsor or actively support any signature bicycling events. Additionally, the university has limited amenities for cyclists beyond a skate park with bike access, and while the Student Government sponsored Bike Repair service is a huge asset to the campus cycling community, that bike center does not offer any

PAGE 75

75 services beyond free repair that might further encourage cycling on campus. Unfortunately, these are missed opp ortunities As a multimodal campus that already resides within a Bicycle Friendly Community, the university could easily and honestly promote itself as having a higher quality of life for its residents than many other university communities However, in failing to capitalize on promoting its bicycle friendly qualities, or in providing additional amenities to the campus community, the university is missing opportunities to not only make itself more desirable to prospective students, faculty, and staff, but to encourage greater rates of bicycling on campus. Enforcement One area of bicycle friendliness in which the university clearly shines is enforcement. With one full time officer who patrols exclusively by bike, and 35 of the total 95 sworn officers train ed and able to patrol on bike as of 2012, t he UFPD is actively involved in the campus cycling community. One aspect of enforcement that is particularly important and is an area that the UFPD is actively involved in is encouraging bicycling by deterring theft. As the literature revealed, t he risk of bicycle th eft quality bike that might encourage cyclists to make longer and more frequent bicycle trips (Rietveld and Daniel 2004) roadway users is also particularly significant. As the research shows, the equitable enforcement of traffic regulations legitimize the role of bicycling on the roadway, and encourage safe and cautious driving (Pucher & Djikstra, 2003). W hile the study findings revealed two failures in the enforcement section of the training is offered to police officers re The

PAGE 76

76 question is select many multiple choice, and it offers six different types of trainings among its answer choices as well as To this researcher, it appears that this ques tion may represent a case where choosing any of the possible adequate; expecting a police force to engage in more than two bicycle related trainings seems unreasonable and unrealistic. As well, because of the q uestion type, the findings from this particular question do not reveal that the UFPD actually has its own mountain bike training school that it designed for its officers ; because there was no ability to submit a short answer or to choose as an answ er option, this second training by the UFPD is not reflected in the results. Needless to say in this case, t do with the way the question was asked and the design of the grading rubrics than the UFPD actually pe rforming poorly in this area. subjective to the researcher; not having any restrictions on bicyclists could be a good thing because it does not inhibit bicycle use, but it could also be a bad thing if there are high traffic pedestrian areas that may be in need of such restrictions. For example, at UF there are some areas where restrictions on bicyclists may be a good idea, such as high traffic pedestrian areas where there is a lot of congestion and a better chance of bicyclist colliding with pedestrians. However the method for assessing whether or not a restriction on bicyclists is needed was not revealed by this research, therefore it is ea of poor performance by UFPD. Nevertheless, despite these ambiguous failings, the findings clearly demonstrate that, by continuing to

PAGE 77

77 look for ways to involve itself with the campus cycling community, whether through bicycle safety campaigns, increased police patrols by bike, or the creation of a traffic ticket diversion program, the UFPD can continue to have an integral role in encouraging bicycle friendliness at UF. Evaluation and Planning Communities with high levels of bicycling and safety tend to not only have extensive bicycle infrastructure, but also have established programs and policies that are supportive of bicycling (Pucher, Dill & Handy, 2010). Fortunately the university has both. By utilizing a Complete Streets policy that specifically plans for bicycle accommodations on campus, in addition to other modes of transportation, the university clearly indicates its view of the importance of a viable bicycle n etwork. The existence of a Sustainable Transportation Working Group consisting of campus professionals who advocate and plan for bicycling, among other modes, at the university also communicates its significance. However, evaluation and planning for bicy cling at UF is not without its failures (see Table 5 5 at the end of this chapter) For instance, the lack of a dedicated funding source for bicycle program support cycli which potentially decreases its legitimacy and effectiveness Similarly, although there are plans to hire an alternative transportation coordinator for the university in the near future (R. Fuller, personal communication, February 7 2013) th e current lack of a single dedicated Bicycle Program Manager or contact person communicates a relative lack of importance with regards to bicycling. Finally, by failing to conduct a bicycle satisfaction survey of students, faculty, and staff, or an econom ic impact study on bicycling at UF, the university is potentially missing opportunities to

PAGE 78

78 further promote bicycling by learning more about, and adjusting for, current cycling conditions. Limitations This study and its methodology were formulated around th e desire of the University of Florida to apply for the Bicycle Friendly University designation from the League of American Bicyclists. As a result, the findings of this study were pursuant to the types of questions being asked in the BFU questionnaire. W hile the BFU application asks three questions that touch upon the community outside of the college/university located in a League of American Bicyclists designate d Bicycle to work data (bicycle mode share) for your community application largely ignores the larger context in which the university exists. For example, w hile UF by the LAB major improvements are still needed in or der to make both the city and the university a truly safe and convenient place for cyclists, especially along major roadways where the university and larger community connect. While a university campus may be bicycle friendly, this means little if student s, faculty, and staff cannot safely and easily commute between the campus and their homes. As a result, this general lack of inquiry into the connection between the campus and the community the LAB.

PAGE 79

79 methodology, the findings were created entirely by the researcher. These rub rics were created because the BFU application does not provide a scoring or evaluation device for applicants; the LAB evaluates the application and designates a university as bicycle friendly based upon its own internal, private grading system. As a resul t, the application proved to be a good tool to assess where improvements were needed in order for a university to become more bicycle friendly a university is compared to other universities or to t friendly university. Finally, it is possible that some of the data collected for this study are inaccurate due to human error A variety of professionals at the University of Florida provided answers to particular BFU app lication questions. Although these are individuals who are knowledgeable in their field, it is possible that they may have been incorrect at times, or may not have h a d full k nowledge of the topic that they we re discussing.

PAGE 80

80 Table 5 1. Bicycle Friendlin ess Failures of the University of Florida Engineering Question Type (Yes/No; Select one; Select many) Response Score (%) Assessment (Good, Fair, Poor) How does your college/university ensure your engineers and planners accommodate bicyclists accor ding to AASHTO, MUTCD and NACTO standards? Select many (Type 1) Hire outside consultants to train staff or review plans 1/6 (17%) Poor What is the ratio of bicycle parking spaces to your total campus population? Select one (Type A) 1:5 or more 0/2 (0 %) Poor How do you accommodate bicyclists at intersections in your college/university? Select many (Type 1) None of the above 0/8 (0%) Poor Is there anything beyond routine roadway maintenance that you do on behalf of cyclists? Select many (Type 1) (N o options selected) 0/4 (0%) Poor

PAGE 81

81 Table 5 2. Bicycle Friendliness Failures of the University of Florida Education Question Type (Yes/No; Select one; Select many) Response Score (%) Assessment (Good, Fair, Poor) What have you done in the last 18 month s to educate motorists and bicyclists on sharing the road safely? Select many (Type 1) Campus newsletter/paper article; Dedicated bike page on college/university website; Other 3/10 (30%) Poor Do you have or participate in a ticket diversion program? Select many (Type 1) None 0/3 (0%) Poor Which of the following options [Traffic skills 101; Cycling Skills classes; Commuter classes; Bicycle maintenance classes; Physical education cycling classes] are available on a regular basis at your college/unive rsity? (Please include classes for non students as well) Select one (Type A) Not regularly scheduled 0/2 (0%) Poor Has your college/university hosted a League Cycling Instructor seminar in the past two years? Yes/No No 0/1 (0%) Poor

PAGE 82

82 Table 5 3. Bicyc le Friendliness Failures of the University of Florida Encouragement Question Type (Yes/No; Select one; Select many) Response Score (%) Assessment (Good, Fair, Poor) How do you promote bicycling at your college/university? Select many (Type 1) Organiz ed ride; Car free days 2/11 (18%) Poor Does the college/university sponsor or actively support any [signature cycling events]? Yes/No No 0/1 (0%) Poor Does your marketing department promote bicycling to current and potential students/staff? Yes/No No 0 /1 (0%) Poor Which of these bicycling facilities or amenities do you have at your college/university? Select many (Type 1) Skate park with bike access 1/7 (14%) Poor If [your college has a co op or bike center], which of the following services does it offer? Select many (Type 1) Bike repairs 1/7 (14%) Poor

PAGE 83

83 Table 5 4. Bicycle Friendliness Failures of the University of Florida Enforcement Question Type (Yes/No; Select one; Select many) Response Score (%) Assessment (Good, Fair, Poor) What kind of training is offered to police officers regarding traffic law as it applies to bicyclists? Select many (Type 1) Basic academy training 1/7 (14%) Poor Are there any prohibitions or restrictions on bicyclists at your college/university? Yes/No No 0/1 (0%) Poor

PAGE 84

84 Table 5 5. Bicycle Friendliness Failures of the University of Florida Evaluation and Planning Question Type (Yes/No; Select one; Select many; Short answer) Survey Response Score (%) Assessment (Good, Fair, Poor) Is there a dedicated funding source for implementation? Yes/No No 0/1 (0%) Poor Do you have a specific plan or program to reduce crashes? Yes/No No 0/1 (0%) Poor Have you done a satisfaction survey of students and staff on bicycling at your college/university? Yes/No No 0/1 (0%) Poor Have you done an economic impact study on bicycling at your college/university? Yes/No No 0/1 (0%) Poor

PAGE 85

85 CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSION The United States is an overwhelmingly automobile dependent country, and the various policies and practices put in place si nce the first half of the twentieth century have continued to accommodate automobility at the expense of alternative modes of transportation. As a result, over the past century the American transportation system has had enormous negative consequences on p ublic and environmental health, including contributions to both climate change and the current obesity epidemic. Recognizing these historical trends and considering their own struggles with roadway congestion, limited parking availability, and constrain ed financial resources, some American universities have begun investing in bicycling as a means of reducing single occupancy car use on campus and addressing its associated negative effects. As described in the literature and outlined by the League of Ame rican Bicyclists (2011), these investments have largely concerned five features of the built and social environments known to have an impact on cycling rates: engineering, education, encouragement, enforcement, and evaluation and planning. Acknowledging th e importance of these five features to encouraging bicycling, this thesis used a prospective descriptive case study design to examine how well the U niversity of F lorida promotes and p rovides for cycling in order to identify those areas in need of greatest improvement regarding bicycle friendliness on campus Results of this study indicate d that various enhancements to the built and social environments could be made in order to improve bicycle friendliness at UF and ultimately encourage greater rates of cy cling for transportation. In the area of engineering, these enhancements included providing special accommodation for cyclists at intersections,

PAGE 86

86 increasing the number of bicycle parking spaces on campus, and going beyond routine roadway maintenance in ord enhancements included enhancing current efforts to educate motorists and cyclists about sharing the road safely, creating a ticket diversion program, and offering cycl ing classes for students, fa culty, or staff desiring to enhance their bicycling skills and knowledge. In the area of encouragement, these enhancements included greater promotion of bicycling by UF, university sponsorship of cycling events, and enhancements to facilities and amenitie s for bicyclists. In the area of enforcement, these enhancements included a potential prohibition of cyclists in high traffic, pedestrian concentrated areas. Finally, in the area of evaluation and planning, these enhancements included the use of surveys to judge student, faculty, and staff satisfaction regarding cycling on campus, and the economic impact of bicycling at UF. Future research into the bicycle friendliness of the University of Florida should examine the feasibility and effectiveness, both in terms of cost and influence on cycling rates, of making the above mentioned enhancements. Given current constraints on financial resources at UF research that is both pointed in scope and meticulous in analysis will be necessary if substantial sums of mo ney are needed. Ultimately, making the improvements required to maximize the U niversity of F lorida friendliness will have long term ramifications that extend beyond the campus boundaries. Because travel behaviors on campus likely affect the tra nsportation habits of students, faculty, from campus to the rest of society (Balsas, 2003). As a result, by communicating the

PAGE 87

87 feasibility and desirability of making c y cling a mainstream mode of travel on campus, universities can shape the long term health and sustainability of communities at large.

PAGE 88

88 APPENDIX BICYCLE FRIENDLY UNI VERSITY APPLICATION Working for a Bicycle Friendly America Name of Applying Institution Name of Institution: Which campus? Main Other If other, describe (50 word limit) Has this campus applied to the Bicycle Friendly University program before? Yes No City: State: President/Chancellor/top official (include title): Applicant Profile First Name: Last Name: Title: Are you Faculty Staff Student

PAGE 89

89 Address: City: State: Zip: Phone: Email:

PAGE 90

90 Univer sity Profile 1. Type of institution National University Liberal Arts College Baccalaureate College Technical College Community College Career College 2. Type of Campus Urban Sub urban Rural 3. Population Total campus enrollment: Number of on site faculty and staff: Percent of students living off campus: City population: 4. What is the average commute distance of the students living off campus? (in miles) 5. Do you have a Bicycle Program Manager or a contact person responsible for bike related issues (if there is no designated program manager)? Yes No Who is the Bi cycle Program Manager? Applicant Other Name and contact information of Bicycle Program Manager 5a. What percentage of the Bike Program Manager's time is spent on bicycling issues?

PAGE 91

91 llar) 5c. What is the bicycle program's webpage? 6. How many hours each week do additional college/university employees (not counting the bicycle program manager) work on bicycle issues? Faculty: Staff: Students: 7. How many h ours each week do volunteers work on bicycle issues on average? 8. Do you have a Bicycle Advisory Committee? Yes No Other If other, describe (50 word limit) 8a. How often does the committee meet? Monthly Bi monthly Quart erly Annually Does not meet regularly

PAGE 92

92 8b. Which of the following groups are represented or regularly attend the Bicycle Advisory Committee? Check all that apply User grou p Law enforcement/ public safety division Student government Planning department Facility services/ transportation department Health and wellness City/county/regional government staff Faculty/researchers Racing team/club 9. Which bicycle advocacy group(s) is/are active on campus? 9a. Is this group/Are any of these groups working with you on this application? Yes No 9b. Do you contract with this group/these groups for any services or programs? Yes No 9c. Pl ease provide the name and contact information of the primary contact of this group/these groups.

PAGE 93

93 10. What are the primary reasons your college/university has invested in bicycling? (Check all that apply.) Improve quality of life/ health for students, f aculty and staff Connect community and campus Provide transportation options Reduce car parking demands Support smart growth Address climate change/environmental stewardship concerns Decrease traffic congestion Attract students Respond to user demand Improve bicyclist/pedestrian safety Meet city, county, or state requirements Other If other, describe (50 word limit) year s? (250 word limit) 12. What specific improvements does your college/university have planned for bicycling in the coming year? (100 word limit)

PAGE 94

94 Engineering 13. What policy does your institution have for accommodating bicyclists? Complete Streets pol icy A bicycle accommodation policy None 13a. When was it adopted? 13b. Provide a link to this legislation or policy 13c. What tools are in place to ensure implementation? (Check all that apply.) Implementation checklist Design ma nual Training Oversight by bicycle program coordinator/ manager Other None If other, describe (100 word limit) 14. How does your college/university ensure your engineers and planners accommodate bicyclists according to AASHTO MUTCD and NACTO standards? (Ch eck all that apply.) Offer general training Offer a FHWA/NHI Training Course Hire outside consultants to train staff or review plans Send staff to bicycle specific conferences/training Require project consultants to have bike/pede strian qualifications Design manual None

PAGE 95

95 15. How do your college/university policies ensure that there are end of trip facilities for bicycli sts? (Check all that apply.) Bike parking ordinance/policy for existing buildings Bike parking ordinance/policy for new developments Policy requiri ng showers in non residential buildings Policy requiring lockers in non residential buildings Bicycles are permitted in most campus buildings Policy that allows bike parking to substitute for car parking Requirement for new developments to meet LEED silver standards or higher None 16. How many annual on campus automobile parking permits are available each year per total campus population? 16a. How much is charged annually for an automobile parking permit? 16b. The un iversity/college provides free or subsidized parking for (check all that apply) All faculty All staff Some faculty Some staff None 17. How many individual bike parking spaces (not racks) are available at your college/university? 17a. W hat is the ratio of bicycle parking spaces to your total campus population? 1 : 1 1 : 2 1 : 3 1 : 4 1 : 5 or more

PAGE 96

96 17b. What type of bicycle parking do you provide on campus? Check all that apply. Bike racks Bike lockers Bike de pot/hubs/stations Indoor bike rooms Bike cages None 17c. At which location do you provide bike parking? Check all that apply. Dormitories Libraries Classroom buildings Recreation Centers Administrative Buildings Transit stations Research Labs Off campus college/university owned housing None 17d. Are students allowed to park their bikes in their dorm rooms? Yes No 18. Does your bike parking meet the security and convenience guidelines recommended by the Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals ( APBP )? All Most Some Few None

PAGE 97

97 19. Do you provide any of the following for students, faculty, and/or staff who commute by bike? (Check all that apply.) Locker rooms in non residential buildings without charge Shower facilities in non residential buildings without charge Discounted or complimentary gym membership Bicycle workstand Maintenance supplies such as tools, pumps, and tubes Dedicated bike maintenance person None of the above 20. Do you accommodate bicyclists during construction (detour routes, si gnage, etc)? Yes No 21. Does your college/university have a transit service (including Shuttles, Night Ride, etc.)? Yes No 21b. Are transit vehicles equipped with bike racks ? All Most Some Few None 22. What is the centerline mileage of your total campus road network? control? 23. W hat is the mileage of your total shared use path network on campus?

PAGE 98

98 24. List all current bicycle accommodations on campus. Complete all that apply. All should comply with AASHTO and MUTCD standards. a. Conventional bike lanes Current mileage: b. Protected/buffered bike lanes or cycle tracks Current mileage: c. Contra flow bike lanes Current mileage: d. Bike boulevards Current mileage: e. Shared lane markings (sharrows) Current mileage: f. Signed bike routes Current mileage: g. Paved shared use paths Current mileage: h. Natural surface shared use paths Current mileage: i. Singletr ack Current mileage:

PAGE 99

99 25. What other ways have you improved conditions for bicyclists? (Check all that apply.) Campus wide traffic calming Colored bike lanes Speed limits 20 mph or less on campus streets Bike cut throughs Way finding s ignage with distance and/or time information Bicycle roundabouts Remove on street car parking Speed tables to calm traffic Car restrictions/car free zo nes Other None If other, describe (250 word limit) 26. How do you accommodate bicyclists at intersections in your college/university? (Check all that apply.) When signals are timed, they are timed for cycling speeds When signals are demand activated, there are loop detector markings or bike accessible push buttons. Video detection Advance stop line or Bike Box Bicycle signal heads No signals, N/A Other None of the above If other, describe (100 word limit)

PAGE 100

100 27. Is t here anything beyond routine roadway maintenance that you do on behalf of cyclists? More frequent bike lane sweeping Paths/trails cleared same time or before roadway Potholes are cleared within 24 48 hours Other If other, describe (100 word limit) 28. How does your college/university facilitate reporting of bicycle facility problems? Email/ phone report to maintenance dept Online reporting tool like SeeClickFix None Other If other, please describe. (250 word limit) 29. Describe any other infrastructure features or improvements at your college/university that promote bicycling (250 word limit).

PAGE 101

101 Education 30. What do you do to ensure that incoming students, faculty and staff are educated on safe cycling and driving? (Check all that apply.) Bike safety video(s) Educational bike tours of c ampus Presentation to all incoming students Handouts at resource fairs Information in all welcome packets for new students, faculty, and staff Other If other, describ e (100 word limit) 31. What have you done in the last 18 months to educate motorists and bicyclists on sharing the road safely? (Check all that apply.) Public service announcements Campus newsletter/paper article Bicycle ambassador program Newspaper column/blog on bicycling Dedicated bike page on college/uni versity website Billboards/ digital billboards Share the Road signs Share the Road information in campus driver's education Test for motorists applying for/renewing parking permits Other None of the above If other, describe (200 wo rd limit) 32. Do you have or participate in a ticket diversion program ? Check all that apply. Motorists Cyclists None

PAGE 102

102 33. Which of the following opt ions are available on a regular basis at your college/university? (Please include classes for non students as well) 33a. Traffic Skills 101 (or equivalent) classes -including classroom and on bike instruction. Weekly Monthly Quarterly Annually Not regularly scheduled Never 33b. Cycling Skills classes -three to four hour classroom training courses Weekly Monthly Quarterly A nnually Not regularly scheduled Never 33c. Commuter classes one/two hour classes Weekly Monthly Quarterly Yearly Not regularly s cheduled Never

PAGE 103

103 33d. Bicycle maintenance classes Weekly Monthly Quarterly Annually Not regularly scheduled Never 33e. Physical education cycling classes (for credit) Each term Annually None 34. How many students do you teach with these classes annually? 35. Are there bicycle related course offerings in transportation planning, policy, engineering or public health? Yes No Please list and describe (250 word limit) 36. How many League Cycling Instructors are there in your college/university community? 36a. Please list active League Cycling Instructors. (100 word limit) 37. Has your college/university hosted a League Cycling Instructor seminar in the past two years? Yes No

PAGE 104

104 38. Does your college/university have driver training for any of the following professional drivers that includes information on sharing the road with bicyclists? (Check all that apply.) College/university staff Campus tra nsit operators Police Operators of university/college owned vehicles Law enforcement students and/or staff None offered 39. Describe any other education efforts in your college/university that promote bicycling. (250 word limit)

PAGE 105

105 Encourag ement 40. How do you promote bicycling at your college/university? Check all that apply. Organized Ride President/Board led Ride Campus bike tours Trail construction or maintenance day Car free days Promotion of the Pe ople for Bikes Pledge Commuter events Mentoring program for new riders Cash incentives program for cycling Bike valet parking at events Other No promotion If other, describe. (250 word limit) 41. List the signature cycling events at your campus or in your community (e.g. bik e festivals, major rides and races). (500 word limit) 41a. Does the college/university sponsor or actively support any of these rides? Yes No If yes, how? (150 word limit) 42. Does your marketing department promote bicycling to current and potential students/staff? Yes No If yes, how? (150 word limit)

PAGE 106

106 43. Are there cycling teams or clubs at your college/un iversity? Check all that apply. Recreational Bike Clubs (road or mountain) National Mountain Bike Patrol Racing clubs or teams (road, mountain, cyclocross, track, triathlon, etc) BMX or freestyling clubs or teams None 44. What is the ra tio of your total campus population to specialty bicycle retailers within a 5 mile radius of campus? 44a. List their names. (500 word limit) 45. Which of these bicycling facilities or amenities do you have at your college/university? Check all th at apply. BMX track Velodrome Cyclocross course Mountain bike park Pump tracks Skate park with bike access Other None If other, describe (100 word limit) 46. Does your college/university have or participate in a bike share or rental system? Yes No 46a. If yes, how many bikes are in the system?

PAGE 107

107 46b. If yes, what kind of program is it? Check all that apply. Auto mated bike share system Short term bike rentals Long term bike loan (term or longer) Bike library Unregulated program (i.e. Yellow Bike) Other If other, describe. (100 word limit) 46c. If yes, who is permitted to use the system? Check all that apply. The public Students Staff/Faculty 47. Does your college or university have a co op or bike center? Yes No 47a. If yes, which of the following services does it offer? Bike repairs DIY repair area Safety classes Stolen bike registry recovery assistance Bike valet parking services Bike messenger services Manage or assist on campus abandoned bike program 47b. How many years has i t been in operation? 48. Is your college/university located in a League of American Bicyclists designated Bicycle Friendly Community ? Yes No

PAGE 108

108 49. What bike map and/or route finding information is available for your college/university which has been updated in the last 18 months? Check all that apply. Online route finding service Online map Printed on road bike routes map Printed mountain b ike trails map Other None If other, describe (250 word limit) 50. Describe any other programs or policies that the college/university has to encourage cycling. (250 word limit)

PAGE 109

109 Enforcement 51. How does your college/university lower the risk of bicycle theft/loss? Bike registration Signage or demonstrations to teach proper locking Bike lock rentals Free bike locks Regular security patrols of bicycle parking areas St olen or impounded bikes recovery system Information campaign to educate students on lowering their chances of bike theft None 52. What percentage of patrolling police department employees is on bike? 53. How does your campus police departm ent interact with the student/ staff cycling community? Check all that apply. Appointed law enforcement point person to interact with bicyclists Officers distribute bike safety/theft deterrent information Officers provide bike safety education Other There is currently no formal interaction If other, describe. (250 word limit)

PAGE 110

110 54. What kind of training is offered to police officers regarding traffic law as it applies to bicyclists? Check all that apply. Basic academy training International Police Mountain Bike Association training Law Enforcement Bicycle Association training National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Law Enforcement Training Smart Cycling course League Cycling Instructor/local cyclist presentation Institute for Police Training and Development bicycle training No training currently offered 55. What enforcement campai gns are targeted at improving bicyclist safety? Check all that apply. Helmet giveaways Light giveaways Targeting motorist infractions Targeting bicyclist infractions Positive enforcement ticketing Other None of the above If other describe. (250 word limit) 56. Are there any other campus public safety (e.g. EMS) employees on bikes? Yes No If yes, describe. (250 word limit)

PAGE 111

111 57. Do your college/university policies treat bicyclists equitably and promote safety for all users ? Check all that apply. There are specific penalties for failing to yield to a bicyclist when turning. It is illegal to park or drive in a bike lane (intersections excepted). There are penalties for motor vehicle users who 'door' bicyclists. There is a ban on cell phone use while driving. There is a ban on texting while driving. The college/university uses photo enforcement for red lights and/or speed. There is an ordinance requiring a 3 ft passing distance. It is illegal to ha rass a bicyclist. Other None of the above If other, describe. (250 word limit) 58. Are there any prohibitions or restrictions on bicyclists at your college/university? Yes No If yes, describe. (200 word limit) 59. Describe any other progr ams or policies that the university/college has to enforce safe cycling. (250 word limit)

PAGE 112

112 Evaluation and Planning 60. Does your college/university have a comprehensive bicycle master plan ? Yes No 60a. When was it passed or most recently updated? 60b. Is there a dedicated funding source for implementation? Yes No If yes, describe. (200 word limit) 60c. Provide a link to th e plan or describe. (250 word limit) 61. What is the most current journey to work data (bicycle mode share) for your community? This percentage can be found in the U.S. Census or the American Community Survey Percentage of trips. 62. How do you track bicycle usage on campus? Automatic counters Periodic manual counts Travel diaries Other If other, describe. (200 word limit) 62a. What are the most recent results? 63. How many bicyclist crash fatalities involving automobiles have occurred at your college/university in the past five years? 64. How many bicyclist crashes involving automobiles have occurred at your college/university in the past five years? 65. How many non automobile related bicyclist crashes have occurred at your college/university in the past five years?

PAGE 113

113 66. D o you have a specific plan or program to reduce crashes? Yes No 67. Have you done a satisfaction survey of students and staff on bicycling at your college/univer sity? Yes No If yes, describe the results. (250 word limit) 68. Have you done an economic impact study on bi cycling at your college/university? Yes No If yes, describe the results. (250 word limit) 69. Describe any other programs or policies your university/college has in place that evaluate and/or plan bicycling programs and facilities. (250 word limit)

PAGE 114

114 Final Overview 70. What are the three primary reasons your college/university deserves to be designated a Bicycle Friendly University? Please be specific. Reason One Reason Two Reason Three 71. What are the three aspects of your college/universit y most in need of improvement in order to accommodate bicyclists? Aspect One (100 word limit) Aspect Two (100 word limit) Aspect Three (100 word limit) 72. Are you planning any new projects based on your completion of the Bicycle Friendly University ap plication? Yes No If yes, describe. (250 word limit) 72. OPTIONAL: What are the biggest challenges you see to becoming more bicycle friendly? (100 word limit) 73. We often get requests for model BFU applications from aspiring universities. Would y ou be willing to share your application? Yes No 74. How did you hear about the BFU program? Submit any documents that you would like to provide in support of your application and five high resolution photos (1 5MB) here. By submitting photos, the League of American Bicyclists has the right to use your photos to promote bicycling. Please note that the files will submit immediately and will not appear as an attachment.

PAGE 115

115 LIST OF REFERENCES American Community Survey. (2012). Gainesville city, Florida : Means of Transportation to Work 2007 2011. U.S. Census Bureau Retrieved from http://factfinder2.census.gov Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals. (2002). Bicycle Parking Guidelines. Retriev ed from http://c.ymcdn.com/sites/www.apbp.org/resource/resmgr/publications/bicycle_par king_guidelines.pdf Balsas, C.J. (2003). Sustainable T ransportation Planning on College Campuses. Transport Policy, 10 35 49. Braga, A. (2007). The Effect of Hot Spots Policing on Crime. Campbell Collaboration systematic review final report. Retrieved from http://campbellcollaboration.org/lib/download/248/ Cawley, J. (2009). The Economics of Childhood Obesity. Health Affairs, 20 (3), 364 371. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2009.0721 Clifton, Kelly. (2004). Mobility Strategies and Food Shopping fo r Low Income Families: A Case Study. Journal of Planning Education and Research 23, 402 413. de Geus, B., De Bourdeaudjuij, I. Jannes, C. and Meeusen, R. (2008). Psychosocial and environmental factors associated with cycling for transport among a worki ng population. Health Education Research, 23 (4), 697 708. Dill, J. (2009). Bicycling for transportation and health: The role of infrastructure, Journal of Public Health Policy 30, S95 S110. Retrieved from: http://www.med.upenn.edu/beat/docs/Dill_2009.pdf Dobbs, G.L. (2009). Pedestrian and bicycle safety on a college campus: Crash and conflict analyses with recommended design alternatives for Clemson University Retrieved from ProQuest. ( AAT 1464129) http://sustainable.ufl.edu/topics/energy climate change at uf/ Florida Pedestrian & Bicyclin from http://www.pedbikesrc.ce.ufl.edu/pedbike/About_Us.asp Retrieved from http://legacy.hhp.ufl.edu/safety/program summary.shtml

PAGE 116

116 Frank, L.D., Andresen, M.A., & Schmid, T.L. (2004). Obesity Relationships with Community Design, Ph ysical Activity, and Time Spent in Cars. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 27 (2), 87 96. Frumkin, H., Frank, L. D., & Jackson, R. (2004). Urban sprawl and public health: Designing, planning, and building for healthy communities Washington, DC: Is land Press. Healthy Gators Coalition (2011). Healthy Gators Student Survey Report 2008 Retrieved from http://healthygators.ufsa.ufl.edu/wp content/uploads /2012/05/2008HGSurveyReport.pdf Hill, A., Rand, D., Nowak, M., & Christakis, N. (2010). Infectious Disease Modeling of Social Contagion in Networks, PLoS Computational Biology, 6 (11) Retrieved from http://www.ploscompbiol.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pcbi.100 0968 Knaap, G., Talen, E., Olshansky, R., & Forrest, C. (2000). Government Policy and Urban Sprawl. Report prepared for the Illinois Depa rtment of Natural Resources. Retrieved from http://dnr.state.il.us/orep/pfc/balancedgrowth/pdfs/government.pdf League of American Bicyclists. (2011). Bicycle Friendly Ame rica: The Blueprint. Retrieved from http://www.bikeleague.org/programs/bicyclefriendlyamerica/pdfs/bfa_blueprint.pd f League of American Bicyclists. (2012a). Bicycle Friendly America. Retrieved from http://www.bikeleague.org/programs/bicyclefriendlyamerica/ League of American Bicyclists. (2012b). Bicycle Friendly University. Retrieved from http://www.bikeleague.org/programs/bicyclefriendlyamerica/bicyclefriendlyunivers ity/index.php League of American Bicyclists. (2012c). The H istory of the League of American Bicyclists. Retrieved from http://www.bikeleague.org/about/history.php McCann, Barbara. (2006). Community Design for Healthy Eating. Robert Wood Johnson Founda tion. Princeton, NJ. National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion. (2010). Obesity: Halting the Epidemic by Making Health Easier: At a Glance, 2010 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Retrieved from: http://www.cdc.gov/chronicdisease/resources/publications/aag/obesity.htm

PAGE 117

117 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. (2010). Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) Encyclopedia [Data file]. Retrieved from http://www fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx Ogden, C.L., Carroll, M.D., Kit, B.K., & Flegal, K.M. (2012, January). Prevalence of Obesity in the United States, 200 9 2010. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db82.pdf Urban Economics 7th Edition. New York: McGraw Hill. Pedestrian and Bicycle Information C enter (2010). The National Bicycling and Walking Study: 15 Year Status Report. U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration. Retrieved from http://katana.hsrc.u nc.edu/cms/downloads/15 year_report.pdf Powell, K.E. & Blair, S.N. (1994). The public health burdens of sedentary living habits: theoretical but realistic estimates [Abstract]. Medicine and science in sports and exercise, 26 (7). Retrieved from http://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/7934758 Pucher, J. & Buehler, R. (2008). Making Cycling Irresistible: Lessons from The Netherlands, Denmark and Germany. Transport Reviews, 28 (4), 495 528. Pucher, J. & Dijkstra, J. (2003). Promoting Safe Walking and Cycling to Improve Public Health: Lessons from the Netherlands and Germany. American Journal of Public Health, 93 (9), 1509 1516. Pucher, J., Dill, J., and Handy, S. (2010). Infrastructure, programs, and po licies to increase bicycling: An international review. Preventive Medicine, 50. Retrieved from http://policy.rutgers.edu/faculty/pucher/pucher_dill_handy10.pdf Rietveld, P. & Daniel, V. (2004). Determinants of bicycle use: do municipal policies matter? Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 38, 531 550. Sallis, J.F., Frank, L.D., Saelens, B.E., & Kraft, M.K. (2004). Active transportation and physical activit y: opportunities for collaboration on transportation and public health research. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 38 (4) 249 268. Shaheen, S.A., & Lipman, T.E. (2007). Reducing greenhouse emissions and fuel consumption: sustainable ap proaches for surface transportation. IATSS Research 31 (1), 6 20. Cripton, P.A. (2012). Route Infrastructure and the Risk of Injuries to Bicyclists: A Case Crossover Study American Journal of Public Health, 102 (12).

PAGE 118

118 University of Florida (2006). Transportation Element. Campus Master Plan, 2005 2015. Retrieved from http:/ /www.facilities.ufl.edu/planning/cmp/mp0515/Transportation%20Element%2 02005.pdf University of Florida Office of Human Resources (2013). New Employee Guide: 2013 Edition. Retrieved from http://www.hr.ufl.edu/publications/newemployeeguide.pdf University of Florida Office of Sustainability (n.d.). Reaching the Vision Retrieved from http://sustainable.ufl.edu/ docs/ReachingtheVision final.pdf University of Florida Student Government. (2013). Free Bike Repair Service. Retrieved from http://www.sg.ufl.edu/Services/FreeBikeRepairService U.S. Census Bureau (n.d.). Gainesville city, Florida: Means of Transportation to Work: 2009 2011. In 2009 2011 American Community Survey 3 Year Estimates Retrieved from http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid =ACS_11_3YR_B08301&prodType=table U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration (2011). Summary of Travel Trend s: 2009 National Household Travel Survey. Retrieved from http://nhts.ornl.gov/publications.shtml Van Dyck, D., Cerin, E., Conway, T.L., De Bourdeaudhuji, I., Owen, N., Kerr, J., s, J.F. (2012). Perceived neighborhood environmental related walking and cycling: Findings from the USA, Australia and Belgium. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 9 (70). Retriev ed from http://www.ijbnpa.org/content/9/1/70

PAGE 119

119 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Caitlin Garrison White was born and raised in south Florida. In 2003, she graduated from the University of N otre Dame wit h a Bachelor of Arts degree in h istory and a minor in European s tudies. After graduation, she worked on an organic farm in Naperville, Illinois before interning at a Chicago non profit dedicated to addressing the issues of food insecurity poor. These experience s opened her eyes to the many connections between land use and public health, and guided her decision to enroll as a graduate student at the University of Florida. have primarily focused on the topic of health and the built environment, especially as it relates to urban agriculture and alternative transportation systems, and she intends to use her experience and education to serve a future career dedicated to building healthier, more sustainable and equitable commun ities.