Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-07T17:27:50.619Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

RESEARCH ARTICLE: Evidence on Why Bike-Friendly Cities Are Safer for All Road Users

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 April 2011

Wesley E. Marshall  and
Norman W. Garrick
Wesley E. Marshall*
Affiliation:
University of Colorado Denver, Department of Civil Engineering, Denver, Colorado
Norman W. Garrick
Affiliation:
University of Connecticut, Civil & Environmental Engineering, Storrs, Connecticut
*
Wesley E. Marshall, PhD, PE, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Colorado Denver, 1200 Larimer Street, Campus Box 113, Denver, CO 80217-3364; (phone) 303-352-3741; (fax) 303-556-2368; (e-mail) wesley.marshall@ucdenver.edu
Get access

Abstract

Biking is increasingly being recognized as a highly sustainable form of transportation. Consequently, a growing number of American cities have seen tremendous growth in bicycle travel, in part because many cities are also investing resources into improving bicycling infrastructure. Aside from the environmental advantages, there is now growing evidence to suggest that cities with higher bicycling rates also have better road safety records. This study attempts to better understand this phenomenon of lower fatality rates in bike-oriented cities by examining 11 years of road safety data (1997–2007) from 24 California cities. The analysis included accounting for crashes across all severity levels, as well as for three classes of road users: vehicle occupants, pedestrians, and bicyclists. Additionally, we looked at issues of street and street network design to help determine the role that these features might play in affecting both bicycling rates and road safety outcomes. Overall, cities with a high bicycling rate among the population generally show a much lower risk of fatal crashes for all road users when compared to the other cities in our database. The fact that this pattern of low fatality risk is consistent for all classes of road users strongly suggests that the crashes in cities with a high bicycling rate are occurring at lower speeds. This agrees with the finding that street network density was one of the most notable differences found between the safer and less safe cities. Our data suggest that improving the streets and street networks to better accommodate bicycles may lead to a self-reinforcing cycle that can help enhance overall safety for all road users.

Environmental Practice 13:16–27 (2011)

Type
Features
Information
Environmental Practice , Volume 13 , Issue 1 , March 2011 , pp. 16 - 27
Copyright
Copyright © National Association of Environmental Professionals 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

California Highway Patrol (CHP). 1997–2007. Annual Report of Fatal and Injury Motor Vehicle Traffic Collisions. CHP, Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS), Sacramento. Available at http://www.chp.ca.gov/switrs/.Google Scholar
City of Portland Bureau of Transportation. 2008–2009. Annual Report. Portland, 28 pp. Available at http://www.portlandonline.com/transportation/index.cfm?c=34753&a=271668.Google Scholar
Ekman, L. 1996. On the Treatment of Flow in Traffic Safety Analysis: A Non-parametric Approach Applied on Vulnerable Road Users. Bulletin 136. Lund Institute of Technology, Department of Traffic Planning and Engineering, Lund, Sweden, 108 pp.Google Scholar
Ewing, R. 1996. Best Development Practices: Doing the Right Thing and Making Money at the Same Time. APA Planners Press, Washington, DC, 180 pp.Google Scholar
Ewing, R., and Cervero, R.. 2001. Travel and the Built Environment: A Synthesis. Transportation Research Record 1780:87–114.Google Scholar
Ewing, R., and Dumbaugh, E.. 2009. The Built Environment and Traffic Safety: A Review of Empirical Evidence. Journal of Planning Literature 23(4):347–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Handy, S., Paterson, R.G., and Butler, K.. 2003. Planning for Street Connectivity: Getting from Here to There. Planning Advisory Service Report 515. American Planning Association, Chicago, 95 pp.Google Scholar
Jacobsen, P.L. 2003. Safety in Numbers: More Walkers and Bicyclists, Safety Walking and Bicycling. Injury Prevention 9(3):205–209.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jensen, N, ed. 2002. Cycle Policy 2002–2012: City of Copenhagen. Copenhagen, Building and Construction Administration, Roads and Parks Department, 39 pp. Available at http://www.vejpark2.kk.dk/publikationer/pdf/413_cykelpolitik_uk.pdf.Google Scholar
Kenworthy, J., and Laube, F.. 2001. Millennium Cities Database for Sustainable Transport. Institute for Sustainability and Technology Policy, Perth, Australia. CDROM Database distributed by the International Association of Public Transport.Google Scholar
Litman, T. 2009. Evaluating Public Transit Benefits and Costs: Best Practices Guidebook. Victoria Transport Policy Institute, Victoria, Canada, 121 pp. Available at http://www.vtpi.org/tranben.pdf.Google Scholar
Mapes, J. 2009. Pedaling Revolution: How Cyclists Are Changing American Cities. Oregon State University, Corvallis, 288 pp.Google Scholar
Marshall, W., and Garrick, N.. 2010. Considering the Role of the Street Network in Road Safety: A Case Study of 24 California Cities. Urban Design International Journal 15(3):133–147.Google Scholar
Nordback, K, and Marshall, W.. 2011. The Effect of Increased Bicyclist Volumes on Individualized Bicyclist Risk. Presented at the 90th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, 15 pp.Google Scholar
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). 2006. Road Motor Vehicles and Road Fatalities. In Quality of Life: Transport. OECD Factbook. OECD, Paris, 226–228. Available at http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/44/48/36340933.pdf.Google Scholar
Pisarski, A. 2006. Commuting in America III: The Third National Report on Commuting Patterns and Trends. National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 550; Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) Report 110. Washington, DC, Transportation Research Board, 172 pp.Google Scholar
Pucher, J., and Buehler, R.. 2008. Cycling for Everyone: Lessons from Europe. Transportation Research Record 2074:58–65.Google Scholar
Pucher, J., and Dijkstra, L.. 2000. Making Walking and Cycling Safer: Lessons from Europe. Transportation Quarterly 54(3):25–50.Google Scholar
Retting, R.A., Ferguson, S.A., and McCartt, A.T.. 2003. A Review of Evidence-Based Traffic Engineering Measures Designed to Reduce Pedestrian–Motor Vehicle Crashes. American Journal of Public Health 93(9):1456–1463.Google Scholar
Taylor, J. 2001. Transportation and Community Design: The Effects of Land Use and Street Pattern on Travel Behavior. Technical Bulletin 11. University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, 4 pp. Available at http://www.jtc.sala.ubc.ca/bulletins/TB_issue_11_Transportation_edit.pdf.Google Scholar