Abstract - University of Arizona



Encouraging Active Transportation in TucsonBy: Loran ShamisMentor: Arlie Adkins, PhD.SBE 498Fall 2015Table of Contents TOC \o "1-3" Abstract PAGEREF _Toc310762620 \h 3Introduction PAGEREF _Toc310762621 \h 3Methodology PAGEREF _Toc310762622 \h 4Literature Review PAGEREF _Toc310762623 \h 6Data PAGEREF _Toc310762624 \h 10Safety in Tucson PAGEREF _Toc310762625 \h 11Safety Case Study: Portland, OR PAGEREF _Toc310762626 \h 13Safety Case Study: Minneapolis, MN PAGEREF _Toc310762627 \h 15Safety Case Study: Austin, TX PAGEREF _Toc310762628 \h 16Connectivity in Tucson PAGEREF _Toc310762629 \h 18Connectivity Case Study: Portland, OR PAGEREF _Toc310762630 \h 24Connectivity Case Study: Minneapolis, MN PAGEREF _Toc310762631 \h 25Connectivity Case Study: Austin, TX PAGEREF _Toc310762632 \h 26Unbalanced Transportation System of Tucson PAGEREF _Toc310762633 \h 27Investment Balance Case Study: Portland, OR PAGEREF _Toc310762634 \h 31Investment Balance Case study: Minneapolis PAGEREF _Toc310762635 \h 31Investment Balance Case Study: Austin, TX PAGEREF _Toc310762636 \h 33Discussion PAGEREF _Toc310762637 \h 34Teaching Tucson Safety PAGEREF _Toc310762638 \h 34Teaching Tucson Connectivity PAGEREF _Toc310762639 \h 35Teaching Tucson Balance PAGEREF _Toc310762640 \h 37Conclusion PAGEREF _Toc310762641 \h 38Limitations PAGEREF _Toc310762642 \h 41Recommendations PAGEREF _Toc310762643 \h 41Bibliography PAGEREF _Toc310762644 \h 42AbstractTucson is a reflection of the inefficient transportation system of the United States. The city’s auto centric emphasis is resulting in a collection of unhealthy citizens, endlessly investing into constructing unaccommodating infrastructure and contributes to the degradation of the natural environment. In order to correct these issues facing Tucson, the city must encourage more active transportation. By using case studies of other American cities- Portland, Minneapolis, and Austin- Tucson can learn some strategies that have been successful. Portland, Minneapolis and Austin have all effectively created active transportation systems utilizing various techniques. Creating a safe built environment, constructing a connected network and introducing equity amongst all forms of transportation can encourage more participation of active transportation in Tucson. By adopting the strategies used by Portland, Minneapolis and Austin, Tucson can produce a successful active transportation system and furthermore, create a healthier population, an efficient economy, and reduce the degrading environmental behavior that all exist today. IntroductionThe broken transportation system of the United States has resulted in a prevalent dependency on cars and, subsequently, accompanying unprecedented health issues, endless monetary investment, and environmental degradation. The United States is an emblem for a society that was built around the automobile. The nation’s average vehicle per household is 1.8, which is comparable to the average of 1.5 cars per household in Tucson, Arizona (Car Ownership in the U.S., 2013). Since the United States is generally considered to be a car dependent nation, this comparison echoes Tucsonans’ dependency on the private vehicle for daily obligations. There are many negative consequences of relying so heavily on automobiles for means of daily travel. The United States is known to have the highest prevalence of sedentary lifestyles resulting in the highest occurrence of overweight and obesity rates (Frank, 2009). The nation’s transportation system also has a huge impact of all levels and scales of economic vitality through endless investment in an inefficient system. Lastly, the local and global environment suffers greatly from the operations of automobiles. In order to overcome the issues caused by the nation’s transportation system, incremental changes must be implemented at local levels to promote a new system in the form of active transportation. Many of the negative impacts of the general dependency on automobiles are negated when the design of the built environment is shifted to accommodate those who commute actively by foot or by bicycle. Reduced obesity rates, a stronger economy and a healthier environment are all the results of a transportation system that prioritizes active commuters. Therefore, it is important for Tucson to correct its auto-centric transportation system, as well as the issues that system causes, by investing in a new scheme that is built around active commuters. Portland, Minneapolis and Austin all provide excellent examples of strategies to minimize the hindrances keeping commuters from shifting to active transportation.MethodologyThis paper consists of research collected and utilized using quantitative research and grounded theory. Grounded theory is the process of collecting data and tying that information to social patterns (Nieswiadomy, 2007). Data was collected in order to illustrate the wide spectrum of the issues related to the contemporary transportation system that is implemented in the United States. The grounded theory method assists in seeking and identifying the social patterns between the participation of active transportation and the benefits received relating to health, economics, and the environment (Nieswiadomy, 2007). Grounded theory also allows comparisons to be made (Nieswiadomy, 2007). Throughout this paper, comparisons are made between various geographic areas in regards to the current strategies encourage active transportation. This paper is also constructed through case studies. Case studies allow comparisons to be made between different social structures. Since the application and promotion of active transportation systems have resulted in successful and unsuccessful examples around the world, it is important to identify the key components of those systems that have created successful outcomes. Those outcomes will then be suggested applicable to the built environment of Tucson, Arizona. The data that was collected mainly consists of material found through Google Scholar and the University of Arizona’s Library enclaves. The material is generally in the form of scholarly journal articles. Data for issues relating to current transportation systems in the United States were found using keywords such as “transportation”, “United States”, “obesity”, “pollution”, “economy”, etc. Some of the information on the topic of issues were confronted on the Center for Disease Control, The World Health Organization and the US Census Bureau website. Information relating to the benefits of active transportation was encountered using keyword searches such as “active transportation” OR “active commuting” AND “health benefits”, “economic benefits”, “environmental benefits”. In order to find successful examples of cities that have implement active transportation, keyword searches such as “Portland”, “Minneapolis” and “Austin” were used. Many of the data gathered from these cities were found in their individual active transportation master plans. Information was also gathered using local blogs and news articles. Looking at Tucson’s weaknesses helped to determine which layers of the successful plans of Portland, Minneapolis and Austin would be the most substantial in improve the city’s active transportation system. This research paper is laid out in a series of sections. The literature review discusses the reasons as to why encouraging Tucsonans to participate in active transportation is beneficial. It provides background relating to the structure of the current transportation system and explains its inefficiencies. The paper then moves to the data section, which is comprised in various subsections. First, the issue of safety in Tucson is addressed followed by strategies implemented by Portland, Minneapolis, and Austin in order to provide a safe riding and walking environment. Next, the issue of connectivity in Tucson is addressed accompanied by approaches that Portland, Minneapolis and Austin integrated their successful active transportation networks. Lastly, Tucson’s transportation prioritizes motor vehicles and the subsections that follows discusses how Portland, Minneapolis and Austin attempt to create a balance in the monetary investment and the presence of infrastructure. The subsequent section is the discussion, which examines what strategies implemented in Portland, Minneapolis, and Austin are applicable to Tucson and address safety, connectivity and prioritizing active transportation.Literature ReviewThe obesity epidemic is affecting the United States at unprecedented rates with about a third of the population considered to be obese (Adult Obesity Facts, 2015). Pima County’s adult obesity rate is close to the nation’s average with approximately 26.6 percent of the population being obese; which is higher than the overall states obesity rate of 24.7 percent (Community Profile: Pima County, Arizona, 2013). Obesity has been found to be the common cause of degenerative diseases such as cardiovascular disease, heart disease, type 2 diabetes, respiratory diseases, cancer, and impaired mental health, all of which are affecting the state. For example, Arizona Department of Health Services declared that one in four deaths in Arizona are due to heart disease, the leading cause of death in the state. Additionally, Arizona is ranked 15th in the nation for type 2 diabetes prevalence, about 31 percent of the state experiences hypertension, hundreds of thousands are affected with heart disease and tens of thousands have obesity related cancer (Arizona, 2013). These numbers are only expected to increase within the next twenty years. Furthermore, a positive association has been found between the more time spent driving and higher body weights; on average about 64 minutes were spent daily driving per person in 2001 in the United State (Frank, 2009). In Tucson, the mean travel time to work is about 22 minutes, resulting in a round trip commuting time of close to 45 minutes (US Census Bureau, 2013). Since nearly an hour is spent in the car, assuming this is the only commute of the day, Tucsonans are less inclined to obtain their daily recommendation of at least 30 minutes of moderate-intensity physical activity 5 times a week; motivation and time are two of the most common excuses not to partake in leisurely physical activity. Thus, leaving only 48 percent of Arizonans to receive adequate physical activity as recommended by the Center for Disease Control (Center for Disease Control, 2013). One of the simplest solutions to the diseases aforementioned caused by the private vehicle is the promotion and investment in active transportation, which is an alternative form of transportation that requires physical effort, such as walking or bicycling, for utilitarian purposes. Walking and bicycling have been associated with lower risk of obesity thus lowering the risk of non-communicable diseases (Active Transportation, 2015). Encouraging walking and biking is simple because they are accessible, inexpensive and timesaving; however it is more difficult to encourage them as a means of transportation in the typical American city due to the convenience of driving a car. Though the car does allow one to travel a further distance in a shorter time and with little effort, about half of the trips in the United States are about three miles or less. Thus, by bicycling for two to three miles for a total of 30 minutes round trip would result in achieving the Center for Disease Control’s activity recommendation.Building an environment at the scale of the pedestrian and bicyclist also brings about many economic incentives as well. Encouraging active transportation helps to create a health economy at all scales, including the individual, the business and the region. Individuals commuting by foot or by bike can save money by avoiding the cost of owning and fueling a car as well as money spent on health insurance. The local and state economic sector benefit from the creation of jobs, taxes, and local dollar circulation, resulting in more money remaining in the local economy. Lastly, the federal government saves money on funding the highway infrastructure, and investing significantly less to fund the infrastructure to accommodate active commuters. Consequently, all levels and participators of the United States economy benefit from the investment in active transportation.Owning a car is no frugal purchase. After accounting for the purchase of the car, gas, maintenance, and insurance, the Consumer Expenditures in 2006 found that the average price of owning a car is about $8,000 per year (Smith, 2007). Shifting from vehicular travel to active commuting for daily obligations could significantly reduce this number. Another cost of commuting by car is the price of health insurance from a sedentary lifestyle. Inadequate physical activity can lead to a plethora of health issues that will ultimately require thousands of dollars in health insurance. A study published by the Center for Disease Control found the difference in health insurance costs ranged from about $500 annually if insufficiently active to $1500 annually if completely inactive between those who are considered active (Carlson, 2015). The individual could be saving thousands of dollars annually by participating in active transportation.The local and state sectors of the economy also benefit greatly when catering to the needs of active commuters. Bicycling, specifically, profits cities and states’ economies across the country through tourism and job creation. For example, Arizona Department of Transportation found that out-of-state tourists impacted the state’s economy by $88 million, annually, through means of events, retail sales and job creation (Arizona Department of Transportation, 2013). Not only does active transportation benefit industries relating to cycling but it also has been shown to impact local businesses districts. With the money pedestrians and cyclists are saving on health insurance or not owning a car they are able to spend that money at local businesses, especially the ones that are most accessible by foot or bike. Active commuters are also more likely to make repeat trips to their local stores because of the distance limitation when walking or biking. Therefore, businesses can benefit greatly by catering to this specific demographic.Of course there are also national economic benefits. Cities that are built around cars are requiring large sums of federal investment in order to maintain and construct new roads for growth. The funding for highways is split about 50 percent to maintenance and 50 percent to expansion; however, the money spent on expanding the highways only benefits about 1.3 percent of the country’s roads (Schmitt, 2015). Cities that are using the money to invest in infrastructure for active commuters will more efficiently accommodate for population growth. Also by spending money on bike and pedestrian infrastructure, active recreation will even further expand from already contributing an estimated $133 billion, annually in the United States as well as 1.1 million jobs (Clarke, 2012). Lastly, shifting the transportation system to cater to active commuters can benefit the environment. The systems of the environment are all interrelated and impacted by all actions of mankind. Thus, several elements of the environment feel the burden our societies’ activities. The Sonoran Desert is a delicate ecosystem with issues affecting the health and quality of life of all of its residents; many ranging from concern about obtaining sufficient amounts of quality water and the apprehension of climate change that is increasing days of extreme heat, drought, and flooding. Of course, air pollution is directly correlated with the capacity of drivers on the roads. As of now, personal vehicle transportation accounts for about a fifth of the total global carbon dioxide emission; about a third of the nations greenhouse gas emissions are due to daily household travel (Frank, 2009). Every gallon of gasoline burned by driving contributes to 20 pounds of carbon dioxide emissions. “In 2011, daily driving in Pima County contributed to 2 million pounds of carbon dioxide to air pollution” (Tangerine, 2013). Unfortunately, emitting greenhouse gases triggers a positive feedback loop with the need to consume more energy. These polluting chemicals result in higher temperatures, resulting in a desire to cool by air conditioning, and therefore consuming and polluting more greenhouse gases. Encouraging Tucsonans to commute by foot or bike can mitigate the amount of emitted greenhouse gases and will assist in breaking the demand cycle. Also, by changing the transportation system to prioritize cyclists and walkers for daily commutes, the need to rapidly accommodate large quantities of new drivers will diminish and as a result the demand for more surface area of urban infrastructure will begin to plateau. Not only do extensive highway systems encourage people to drive and emit greenhouse gases into the air but, also, large quantities of surface area cover of impervious material results in rapid rates of water runoff whisking away all of the chemicals and contaminants into surface water. These waters potentially disrupt ecosystems and the quality of the community’s water supplies, resulting in more money spent on clean up and a smaller water consumption supply. That water is also unable to infiltrate the water table and receive natural filtration, resulting in scarce supplies of ground water for consumption. By reducing need for more highways, it implies several other beneficial consequences for the environment; such as, lower sprawl rates, less resources and materials, reduced urban heat island effect, lower energy consumption, etc. Fortunately, these benefits are being recognized in cities around the United States by way of policies, investments, and societal inclinations that are shifting to the support of active transportation. These American cities, such as Portland, Minneapolis, and Austin, are demonstrating innovative and effective adaptations to their policies, goals and design in order to promote active transportation. Therefore, it is vital for Tucson to understand these active transportation revisions and to participate in the movement in order to experience the positive impacts of the investments of time, effort and money into the infrastructure. By demonstrating the benefits of active transportation to the rest of the country Tucson can help to produce a healthier, more affluent and environmentally conscious society.DataBicycle Tucson posted a blog posing the community this question: “why don’t more people commute by bike in Tucson?” The answers were varied but safety, connectivity, and lack of priority given to active commuters were among the most prevalent. These answers are assumed to be applicable to the obstructions hindering Tucsonans from commuting by foot as well. The Pima Association of Governments (PAG) published that only 8 percent of commuters travel to work or school by bike while 82 percent travel by car. The study also concluded that the majority of bike riders only partake in the activity for recreation and as few as 21 percent only utilize bicycling as a means to commute (PAG Regional Plan for Bicycling, 2009). As discussed before, several benefits can be seen at all levels of a community when there are more active commuters, some of which are experienced in cities such as Portland, Minneapolis and Austin. These cities are utilized as examples for Tucson to follow due to their high ranking in several polls regarding the city’s “friendliness” to bikers. These three cities also see relatively high percentages of bikers. Both of these reasons stimulated the assumption that these cities have ”friendliness” for walkers and high percentages of walkers. Therefore, investing in effort to address and correct these issues by learning from Portland, Minneapolis and Austin is vital for Tucson’s active transportation community to augment. Safety in TucsonThere are several data recorded that legitimizes active commuters’ concern for safety in Tucson. 28 percent of respondents to a survey conducted by PAG confirmed Pima County is not “bike friendly” due safety and lack of maintenance in bikeway facilities (PAG Regional Plan for Bicycling). The following data concerning the safety of cyclists in Tucson comes from the annual reports posted on Tucson Bicycle Crash Database, funded by PAG and run by The City of Tucson. In 2011 (the most recently completed and posted data), there were 378 bicycle collisions and 436 pedestrian collisions involving vehicles, with four of these collisions resulting in a fatality (Tucson Bicycle Crash Database). The majority of these collisions, for both pedestrians and cyclists, occurred throughout the workweek during rush hour traffic (PAG Regional Plan for Bicycling, 2009). Intersections are places of particular vulnerability for active commuters. Especially along arterial streets with high volumes of traffic and high speeds; a person struck by a car going 35 miles per hour is ten times more likely to die than if the car were traveling at 25 miles per hours. The majority of these collisions occurred at intersections of main streets with speeds of more than 25 miles per hour (Daniels, 2014); therefore the pedestrian or cyclist is more vulnerable in these intersections. Also, those intersections’ multimodal infrastructure, generally, only consist of narrowly, striped shoulders. Among Tucson intersections, the following table illustrates the most dangerous:IntersectionIntersection CollisionsNearby and Intersection-related CollisionsSpeed Limits 1Grant/Alvernon13 intersection18 nearby35 mph/ 35 mph2Grant/Mountain13 intersection4 along Mt.40 mph/30 mph322nd/Kolb11 intersectionX40 mph/40 mph41st/Ft Lowell11 intersection3 along 1st40 mph/40 mph5Speedway/Alvernon10 intersectionX35 mph/35 mph6Broadway/Craycroft10 intersection1 along Craycroft40 mph/40 mph7Broadway/Campbell10 intersection11 nearby (mainly Broadway)35 mph/35 mph8Speedway/Pantano11 intersectionX40 mph/35 mph9Broadway/Euclid8 intersectionX30 mph/35 mph10Ft Lowell/Mountain7 intersectionX40 mph/ 30 mph11 Campbell/Glenn7 intersection1 along Campbell35 mph/ 30 mph12Glenn/Mountain8 intersectionX30 mph/ 30 mphFigure 1: Tucson Bicycle Crash DatabaseAnother pattern that was observed by the Bicycle Crash Database is the most common collisions involving motor vehicles and bicyclists. The graphic below displays the type of collision percentages. The category “other” has the largest percentage and includes collisions with parked cars, pedestrians or animals, door zone collision, cyclist losing control or equipment failure, cyclist riding into the street, and other unique or location specific incidents. The most prevalent type of collision, outside of the category of “other”, involved the motor vehicle turning right with a cyclist approaching from the right, riding on the wrong side of the street. This type of incident occurs at the intersection of side streets or driveways. Next, crosswalk account for a large occurrence of bicycle collisions where one or both parties fail to stop at a stop sign or stop signal.Figure 2: Tucson Bicycle Crash DatabaseSafety Case Study: Portland, ORPortland, Oregon is an excellent example of a city that is attempting to make commuting safer for all modes of transportation. In order to experiment with strategies and monitor the city’s progress, the Portland Bureau of Transportation has adopted an overarching goal called “Vision Zero”. The city is implementing several strategies in order to achieve zero traffic related fatalities within the next ten years. Portland is attempting to address the incidents systematically through community-wide participation, data collection, enforcement and investment. One of the strategies utilized was traffic-calming investment. The city collected data concerning collision occurrence pre- and post-implementation with regards to three types of strategies- roundabouts/circles, 22-foot speed bumps and 14-foot speed bumps. In all three instances, collisions were reduced; an average of 30.19 percent reduction for roundabouts, 35.71 percent reduction for 22-foot speed bumps, and 39.34 percent reduction for 14-foot speed bumps (The City of Portland, Oregon). Confirming that traffic calming is successful at reducing collision occurrence allows the city to identify areas where collisions need to be reduced by implementing these same strategies.Portland is also investing in “road diets”, which is the strategy of converting space dedicated to solely motorists in order to create a system that is more balanced between all modes of transportation, including pedestrians and cyclists. Doing this assists in better organizing the streets and helps to improve predictability among commuters. Some motorists have shown opposition to this strategy because it takes infrastructure away from motor vehicles but appraisal has been seen among business districts and residents in neighborhoods where road diets have been implemented, walkers and cyclists. One example of a street that experienced “road dieting” in Portland is Northeast Multnomah Street (shown below in figure 3). The street once consisted of two lanes of traffic each way, a center turning lane and standard bike lanes. After implementing the diet, the street consists of one lane of travel in each direction, a center turning lane and protected bike lanes on each side of the road. The bike lanes are protected from motor traffic by parked cars, painted buffers, flexible bollards and/or planters. The width of the lane varies between four and seven feet depending on the location and the buffers vary in width anywhere from two to eleven feet. Cyclists and pedestrians are the most vulnerable users of the street during a collision; thus, it is important to have some sort of physical or visual barrier between traffic and active commuters.A study conducted by Portland State University involved interviews of the residents of the neighborhood regarding their observations of the improvement of safety for all types of commuters along the newly renovated Multnomah street. 75 percent reported safety for the cyclists have improved, 45 percent improved safety for drivers and 37 percent safety improvement for pedestrians (Monsere). The diet also implemented mixing zone with yield entry markings at intersections in order to organize the movement between cyclists and motorists. This strategy resulted in cyclists feeling 73 percent safer moving through intersections (The City of Portland, Oregon).251460057150011430057150000 Figure 3: Lessons from the Green Lanes: Evaluating Protected Bike Lanes in the U.S.Lastly, since intersections are a big concern for the safety of active commuters, Portland has invested a more efficient signal system that helps to better regulate and enforce full stops by cyclists. Some intersections utilize loop detection, which consists of a marked circle or rectangle at the appropriate distance from the intersection that detects when a bike is stopped within the shape, signaling the light to change to green. The signal is more effective if the cyclist makes a full stop within the marked area and remains there until the traffic light changes to green. Other intersections utilize video detection for the same purpose. Pedestrian buttons are also available for those who are commuting by foot with areas of refuge in intersection medians. Safety Case Study: Minneapolis, MNMinneapolis also offers a few great examples of safety strategies. For one, Minneapolis partakes in road dieting, as well, whenever possible. Making alterations to a strictly auto centric road in order to provide infrastructure for all modes of transit has shown to be one of the more efficient strategies at calming traffic. Decreasing the area dedicated to just automobiles along with decreasing the posted speed limit has resulted in calmer streets and therefore, a more comfortable environment for pedestrian, bicyclists and motorists, alike. Minneapolis’ Steve Elkins, the Transportation Chair of the Minneapolis Council, recognizes that road dieting costs no more when implemented during the process of regular road repair projects (Walljasper, 2011). Therefore, coupling routine road repair projects along with road dieting is a feasible task that could add more active commuters to the road.Cities attempting to encourage active commuting strive to encourage walkers and cyclists of all demographics. Women and children cyclists and pedestrians are great indicators of a city’s level of safety. Thus, many cities try to appeal and encourage active commuting to women and children. One of the strategies that have contributed immensely to the rates of ridership among women cyclists is the implementation of separate bike lanes along arterial roads. The city adopted this strategy from Dutch planners who also saw a dramatic increase in women cyclists throughout the country. Since Minneapolis has implemented those separate bike lanes, the city has reported 37 percent of all riders to be women while the national rate of women riders remain to be about a quarter (Walljasper). Minneapolis is also encouraging of minority groups participating in active transportation. The Major Taylor Bicycle Club, which is named after an African American record-winning racer, supports and organizes rides and bike events that appeal to minority groups. Ensuring everyone in the community feels safe when riding or walking is a serious goal of Minneapolis. Safety Case Study: Austin, TXLike Portland, Austin is also striving to reduce deaths and injuries related to bicycling. Recording and benchmarking the perceptions of safety helps the city recognize where adjustments and improvements need to be made for all users of the roadways. The 2014 Austin Bicycle Master Plan stated that 15 percent of the cyclists in Austin will ride on painted, on-street bike lanes while 40 percent feel more comfortable riding within protected bike lanes (2014 Austin Bicycle Master Plan). Thus, the master plan recognizes that painted bike lanes are not as effective at protecting and encouraging cyclists, especially along high-volume and velocity roadways. With this information, the city participated in the Green Lane Project, which is a program executed by Bikes for People that helps to support U.S. cities install infrastructure, in the form of protected bike lanes, that makes every user feel comfortable and safe. During Austin’s two years of participation in the program, the number of buffered or protected bike lanes increased from 5 miles to 20 miles (2014 Austin Bicycle Master Plan). Austin utilizes many different buffer techniques that are inexpensive, easily installed and very effective. For instance, 4th Street is a protect bike lane just over half a mile and it is protected by commuter rail tracks, turtle bumps and furniture. The commuter rail tracks were already existent; thus, there was no need to install another type of buffer. Barton Springs Road is another example of an inexpensive yet effective buffering characteristic. The road now has 1-? foot buffers with pylons within those buffers in order to create an actual physical barrier between the cyclists and the cars. The city is now experimenting with a new type of buffer- raised curbs (Figure 4, below). The raised curbs separate cyclists from motorized traffic and are accompanied by green painted lanes. Cities such as Chicago are looking at Austin as a successful example of implementing raised curbs as buffers. Figure 4: Raised Curbs in Austin, TX (from )Austin recognizes that installing protected bicycle lanes is not always the most feasible strategy to already-in-place street infrastructure. Therefore, the city is continuously observing and assessing the safety of bicycle lanes and attempting to make them safer by widening or buffering lanes. The city also encourages use of its urban trails and quiet, local neighborhood streets for commuting throughout the city by bike. Connectivity in TucsonPAG released a report in 2014 regarding the most utilized intersections for bicycles and pedestrians; it is important to know this information when considering connectivity. Knowing if the infrastructure is aligned with the demand for bike routes and sidewalks is important in order to serve the community more efficiently. It is also important to know whether people are utilizing the infrastructure already implemented and analyze areas of under utilization and improvement. In the tables below the intersections are comprised of two of the three types of routes that are categorized within the table- Residential streets, shared-use path and bike route. Residential streets are those zoned for residential development and with a maximum speed limit of 30 mph. Shared-use paths are paved with a width between 8 to 12 feet, are separated from the street and can be used by cyclists, equestrians, pedestrians and dogs; there is usually restrictive access for motorized vehicles on these paths. Bike routes are along lower volume streets with slower speeds- maximum speed limit of 30 mph- and are marked with “bike route” signs. The fourth type of street is striped shoulder demarcating bike routes; however, none of the most bicycle-utilized intersections fall within this category; therefore, they are excluded from the data regarding bicycles but included in the data regarding pedestrians. The following table depicts the most bicycle-utilized intersections in Tucson:Intersection# Of BicyclesType of PathPark Ave/University1,084Residential and Shared use intersectionRillito Pathway/Mountain Ave Bridge (weekend)1,025Shared use3rd St/Campbell894Shared use path and Bike Route intersection with main arterial2nd St/Highland Ave794Shared useRillito Pathway/Mountain Ave Bridge750Shared useHelen St/Mountain Ave714Residential and Bike Route intersection6th St/Highland Ave649Shared useAviation Pathway/Bristol Ave635Bike Route and Shared use intersectionMabel St/Warren Ave578ResidentialCamino Campestre/Randolph Way (Reid Park SUP, Weekend)529Shared useFigure 5: 2014 Regional Bicycle and Pedestrian Count Summary ReportThe table below illustrates the most utilized intersections for pedestrians in Tucson: Intersection# Of pedestriansType of PathPark Ave/University Blvd3,052Residential and shared use intersectionJames E Rogers Way/ Pathway2,184Bike route6th St/Highland Ave2,013Shared use2nd St/Highland Ave1,839Shared use4th St/Tyndall Ave1,280Shared use6th St/Fremont Ave967Bike Route with main arterial with Striped ShoulderPark Ave/Speedway Blvd931Bike route with main arterial with Striped ShoulderMabel St/Warren697ResidentialHelen St/Mountain Ave615Residential and Bike path intersection6th St/Park Ave514ResidentialFigure 6: 2014 Regional Bicycle and Pedestrians Count Summary ReportThe following is a map is based upon the data collected from the 2011 article posted by Mckisson, titled “Love Cyclovia but hate traffic? Here are some low-stress routes in Tucson”. Therefore, the map is based on opinion of all the low stress bike paths in Tucson. However, the article is from Bicycle Tucson, a digit portal updating the bicycle community of news, events and people and the map was created by the founder of the website; therefore, it is a great place to start in identifying the low stress routes that contribute to creating a successfully connected community. Below is that opinion-based map: Figure 7: Mckisson, 2011The map of Tucson’s low stress bike routes appears to create a connected community; however, the level of stress experienced by cyclists along those routes determines if the street is, in fact, an ideal route for active commuters and ultimately a contributor to the bicycle network. A study based out of San Jose, determined a ranking system in order to define a streets level of stress from the perspective of an average cyclist or pedestrian. The study created a 4 rank system from Level of Traffic Stress 1 (LTS1) to LTS4. LTS1 is the lowest level of stress perceived by the cyclist or the pedestrian and is a suitable route for children while LTS4 presents an environment that is uncomfortable for bicycles and pedestrians. LTS1 is ideal but LTS2- safe for most adults- is acceptable and LTS3 is for the risk takers of the cycling community (Mekuria, et al., 2012). The table below is directly from the study and explains, in greater detail, the ranks of bike routes’ Level of Traffic Stress:Figure 8: Mekuria, et al., 2012Determining the level of stress for the active commuters is important when mapping connectivity patterns because highly stressful connections are more likely to deter participation in active commuting. Therefore, below is another analysis of those “low stress routes in Tucson” that are presented above with the added layer of LTS rank consideration:2078223751 Figure 9: Google MapsThe paths highlighted above are bike routes that were outlined in the “Low Stress Bike Routes in Tucson” map from Mckisson, 2011. However, this map analyzes those paths based on the route’s characteristics within the criteria of the Low Stress Bicycling Network and Connectivity study (Mekuria, et al., 2012). The routes marked in red have the highest stress level (LTS4). These routes are higher ranked mainly because of the stressfulness of the junctions with arterial streets (marked with red pinpoints) without signalized crosswalks and the requirement of the cyclist to cross multiple lanes of traffic moving at high speeds; thus, creating a barrier in the connectivity pattern. The green signifies the route is intermediate in terms of stress (LTS2). These streets are categorized as LTS2 because they are along residential streets with speed limits no greater than 25 mph. The one characteristic that keeps the LTS2 routes from being LST1 is their lack of a designated strip for solely bicycle use. Without the clear separation of modal users, the street is not organized and therefore, unsafe. The blue paths are routes that are exclusively for non-motorized traffic; thus, categorized as LTS1. Below is the connectivity pattern when only including LTS1 and LTS2 since these are the paths that the majority of the population is likely to utilize rather than the occasional, highly experienced and brave cyclist. Figure 10: Google mapsThe network is reduced by 29 percent when the bike routes with higher stress are removed from the system. In terms of mileage, 71 percent of the total low-stress bike lanes identified by Mckisson are ranked LTS2 or lower and 40 percent of the total are ranked LTS1. Finally, in regards to connectivity in Tucson, below is a map of the LTS1 and LTS2 bike paths in Tucson along with the most utilized bike and pedestrian intersections: Figure 11: Google MapsThe yellow stars indicate the intersections most populous with pedestrians and the green diamonds indicate the intersections most utilized by cyclists. It is easy to see that the intersections that are most concentrated with pedestrians and cyclists are the junctions along the low LTS ranked streets. Connectivity Case Study: Portland, OR The Portland Bureau of Transportation is dedicated to increasing ridership of bicyclists and decreasing drivers among the city. One of the strategies the city has implemented is their guide signage system. At various locations along the city’s vast network of greenways, signs can be found directing cyclists to key destinations. The signs also state the distance to those destinations as well as the average time it will take to arrive.Another connectivity strategy that Portland has applied is the use of sharrow flowers. These are arrows painted at the junctions of greenways directing cyclists to the next bicycle friendly route they can chose to follow.Lastly, one strategy Portland is using is creating smaller block sizes. This helps particularly well with pedestrians. The block sizes in Portland are 200 feet by 200 feet, the smallest in the United States (Urban Planning 101- Block Sizes, 2015). Having these small block sizes allows there to be more connections, equaling more places for pedestrians to cross. The city also utilizes mixed-use development in order to create a more diverse built environment. With higher diversity in the types of development within a neighborhood or a block, pedestrians and cyclists are not required to travel extensive length to reach daily obligations. The combination of small block sizes and mixed-use accommodate traveling by bicycle of by foot. Connectivity Case Study: Minneapolis, MNOne way to ensure connectivity is to provide enough accessible facilities to guarantee everyone can utilize those facilities. Minneapolis has an ambitious goal set for 2020 to ensure every resident is within one mile of an off-street bikeway and a half-mile of a bike lane (Walljasper). In order to achieve this goal, investment in active transportation infrastructure is required. Minneapolis has provided a couple astounding and impressive investment projects in order to improve connectivity within and around the city. For example, the city contains America’s first bike freeway, Cedar Lake Trail. The freeway runs along an unbroken railway line, allowing cyclists and pedestrians to commute without concern for traffic lights and stop signs. The 9-mile corridor connects the western suburb Hopkins to downtown Minneapolis to the Mississippi river as well as crosses several low stress bike routes within the city. The Cedar Lake Trail helps to provide a port of entry into Minneapolis then provides points of dispersal throughout the city. Cedar Lake Trail is not the only bike freeway; Minneapolis also has the Midtown Greenway which is also exclusively for non-motorized traffic. Between the two facilities, trails, off-road networks, suburbs and St. Paul are all accessible through the means of active transportation. Additionally, the planning entities of Minneapolis recognize that high-speed, multi-lane, arterial roads can create barriers for active commuters. It can seem intimidating to cyclists and pedestrians to cross several lanes of traffic. Therefore, the city has invested into building off-street bike bridges throughout the city; one being the Martin Olav Sabo Bridge. The bike bridge was built in 2007 and is worth about $5 million. Martin Olav Sabo Bridge is built over the Hiawatha Avenue, which is comprised of 7 lanes. Now, the bridge is utilized by an average of 2,500 riders a day.Lastly, Minneapolis has the largest network of pedestrian bridges in the world. The Skyway Pedestrian bridges assist in connecting buildings above street level and are solely utilized by pedestrians. The bridges connect about eighty blocks throughout the city, or about 7 miles of bridges (Great American Infrastructure: Minneapolis, 2012). The main reason these enclosed bridges exist is due to the harsh winters Minneapolis experiences. If these bridges did not exist more people would feel inclined to drive short distances rather than walking a couple blocks. The Skyways also contain maps to help orient and guide the user throughout the network. These pedestrian bridges are great strategies to encourage walking as a mode of transportation when weather conditions are not ideal. Connectivity Case Study: Austin, TXThe 2014 Austin Bicycle Master Plan emphasizes greatly the importance of building a seamlessly connected network of infrastructure for bicycles and pedestrians. Since more than half of all car trips taken in the United States are shorter than 3 miles, Austin has a goal of shifting these short trips from driving to walking or biking. In order to do this, the plan underlines the importance of a “bicycle system” that serves an array of ages and abilities across the city. Identifying where these short trips occur most frequently has allowed the active transportation infrastructure to grow more and more over the past few years. Since 2004, the city network has grown from 126 miles to 210 miles in 2009. This network expansion contributed to a 2 percent growth in total bicyclists in Austin and 5.5 to 13 percent, depending on census tract, in the downtown vicinity from 2009 to 2011 (2014 Austin Bicycle Master Plan). However, Austin strives to make further progress by identifying more gaps in the bicycle network. Therefore, the Austin Bicycle Master Plan outlines the infrastructure in which the city is investing $151 million. The plan consists of 200 miles of new miles of on-street infrastructure as well as 47 miles of off-street infrastructure (2014 Austin Bicycle Master Plan), also known as Urban Trails. The Urban Trails are more expensive than on-street infrastructure; however, they are important connecters in order to reach all ages and abilities. Austin also recognizes that it may not be feasible to install protected bike lanes or urban trails; therefore, the plan prioritizes installing painted bike lane barriers.Unbalanced Transportation System of TucsonThe monetary investment and developmental investment prioritizes vehicular travel in Tucson. Active commuters experience the unbalanced investment mostly through the comparatively poor conditions and insignificant existence of infrastructure. The Pima County Transportation Budget distribution from 2014 to 2015 is depicted in the table below. The categories of engineering and planning are the sectors in charge of planning and designing sidewalks and bike paths. The pie chart below the table depicts the percent distribution that is dedicated to engineering and planning compared to the percent of everything else.CategoryMoney for InvestmentDescriptionDebt Services$19.1 millionPaying back HURF until 2027Roadway Maintenance$14.4 millionPothole repair, crack sealing and overlays, vegetation maintenance and storm responseTraffic Engineering$6.7 millionPays for signs, signals, striping, traffic studies and safety systemsTransit$6.1 millionSunTran and SunVanPavement Preservation$5 millionResurfacing of degraded major arterial roadsDirector’s Office$4.8 millionPay for overall admin and transportation related projectsOverhead and Insurance$4.4 millionOverhead costs and county’s self-insurance allocationField Engineering$1.7 millionInspection and compliance servicesEngineering and Planning$1 millionPlanning and design services on county roads, bridges, sidewalks and bike paths-800100297815000Figure 12: "More Roads to Recovery”, 2014Furthermore, PAG stated in the most recent 2009 Regional Plan for Bicycles that the $2.1 billion Regional Transportation Plan dedicates “$60 million for Bicycle, Pedestrian and Shared-use Path facilities… [to] be constructed over the 20-year term of the RTA plan (July 2006-June 2025)” (PAG Regional Plan for Bicycling, 2009), which quantifies to just under 3 percent of the Regional Transportation Authority plan’s budget. The 2040 Tucson Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) lists all the roadway projects of Tucson that are planned or committed for implementation for the next 30 years. Within that list of roadway projects, 14 of the 202 projects include funding for multi purpose paths, which quantifies to about 3.4 percent of the total cost of all the 202 planned projects (2040 Tucson Regional Transportation Plan, 2010). Then of the remaining 188 projects, which do not include the multi purpose paths, 41 include plans for sidewalks and bike lanes, amounting to about 13 percent of the total cost of the total 202 projects (2040 Tucson Regional Transportation Plan, 2010). The RTP also outlines the projects for bicycle and pedestrian planned and committed projects. The total amount set aside for bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure equates to $536,619 compared to roughly $10 million that is dedicated to roadway projects (2040 Tucson Regional Transportation Plan, 2010). There have also been several instances in the past when funding for pedestrian and bicycle programs have been cut in order to sustain the funding for major roadway projects. The most recent for example was 2014 when more than $14 million was removed from the bicycle and pedestrian budget (Mckisson, 2014). This was due to the economic recession of 2008 causing less than expected revenue from voter approved half-cent sales tax dedicated to the Regional Transportation Plan. It was assured that “named projects” such as Grant Road and Broadway widening projects, would still receive the funding required in order to execute their implementations (Mckisson, 2014). The funding for these “named projects” would come from cutting the budgets dedicated to categorical projects, such as greenways, pathways, bikeways and sidewalks. The majority of the category projects experienced a 17 percent cut in funding (Mckisson, 2014). The RTP also states the number of miles of projected infrastructure for both roadways and for bike and pedestrian infrastructure. The total length of roadway infrastructure amounts to 677.91 miles and the total length of bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure amounts to 443.96 miles (Tucson Regional Transportation Plan, 2010). Of the total length of bike and pedestrian infrastructure, 60.3 is dedicated to shared use path construction and multimodal facilities, 153.75 miles are dedicated to bike boulevard improvement and 218.11 miles are dedicated to bike lane and restriping.The present state of the Bike Boulevards also depicts how automobile infrastructure is prioritized over facilities for active commuters. Below are images of intersections of Tucson’s low stress corridors for bikes that are considered to be ideal conditions for active commuters:Figure 1 SEQ Figure \* ARABIC 3: Treat Ave and Blacklidge Drive (Google Street View)Figure 1 SEQ Figure \* ARABIC 4: Treat Ave and 3rd Street (Google Street View)Figure 1 SEQ Figure \* ARABIC 5: Lester St and Mountain Ave (Google Street View)Figure 1 SEQ Figure \* ARABIC 6: Lester Ave and Mountain Ave (Google Street View) Figure 1 SEQ Figure \* ARABIC 7: Lester St and 4th Ave (Google Street View)Figure 1 SEQ Figure \* ARABIC 8: Lester St and 4th Ave (Google Street View)Investment Balance Case Study: Portland, ORThe 2014 Regional Active Transportation Plan for Portland, Oregon states that $10 million per year is dedicated to active transportation. This funding would improve and expand bicycle and pedestrian networks. The study also recommends tripling this figure in the future to $30 million per year in order to achieve infrastructure and ridership targets and goals in a timelier manner. Declaring a minimum annual amount towards improving the active transportation system demonstrates Portland’s dedication and thus declaring the balance in the transportation network as a whole.Currently, the Portland Bureau of Transportation has twenty-three neighborhood greenway projects. These greenways, also known as bike boulevards, are designed in order to give priority over to pedestrians, bicyclists and neighbors. They serve low volumes of vehicular traffic at lower speeds of 20 mph. By designing these Greenways to prioritize bicyclists and pedestrians, these neighborhoods see less than 1,500 automobiles a day. These greenways stretch across the city into different sections of Portland. Presently, Portland has about 80 miles of Neighborhood Greenways.In Oregon’s 20 14 Regional Active Transportation Plan, it has been decided that simply equally weighing the priority of each mode of transportation can help to approach the issues more holistically. Creating one integrated plan can help to focus on the system as a whole and not as competing entities. Investment Balance Case study: MinneapolisA study conducted in Minneapolis and St. Paul, Minnesota sought to identify the relationship between installation of bicycle facilities and the ridership capacities. The study compared data from 1990, before the facilities were implemented, and 2000, after the facilities were implemented. Paths that were linked to common employers around the cities were observed in order to identify commuters rather than leisurely utilizers. “Almost all the facilities showed statistically significant increases in bicycle mode share” (Krizek, 2009). The study also found that “…three of the St. Paul facility areas had very low shares in 1990, and the shares in these areas almost doubled after the facilities were built” (Mckisson, 2014). Minneapolis’ facilities experienced an increase in ridership as well. The Minneapolis Bicycle Program has also reported that bicycle commuting work trips have doubled from about 2 percent in 2000 to nearly 4 percent in 2009, a time period when over $50 million was invested in increasing the mileage of bicycle facilities (Minneapolis Bicycle Master Plan, 2011). In the 2011 Minneapolis Bicycle Master Plan at least $284 million has been dedicated to bicycle projects with an additional $3 million dedicated to non-infrastructure. This equates to about $10 million per year in order to achieve goals within a 30-year timeframe (Minneapolis Bicycle Master Plan, 2011). This plan also identifies how much will be required to be spent annually in order to operate, maintain and implement non-infrastructure initiatives. The Martin Olav Sabo Bridge is also a great example of the priority Minneapolis provides to active commuters. Many citizens opposed the $5 million that were invested in a bridge only to be used by cyclists and pedestrians. Adding bike lanes and traffic signals to the Hiawatha Avenue (the road residing below the bridge) or investing that money into another transportation project that would benefit motorists would have muted all the opposition; however, the city saw the opportunity to encourage more residents to commute actively and now the bridge provides infrastructure to thousands of riders daily. Another tactic to prioritize active commuters in Minneapolis and costs relatively no money is reversing stop signs. In areas where more bike riders move through intersections, city engineers thought it was be beneficial to active commuters to reverse stop signs. Stopping and going on a bike takes a copious amount of effort and energy, so commuting, uninterrupted, would encourage more people to switch from driving to biking. Also, by requiring frequent stops for vehicles is a traffic calming strategy, which discourages motorized through traffic in areas with high volumes of active commuters.Investment Balance Case Study: Austin, TXOne of the strategies Austin has implemented in order to prioritize and, therefore, encourage more citizens to commute actively is by improving the infrastructure they already invested and making the infrastructyre function more efficiently. For instance, Austin installed a pedestrian and bicycle bridge over Little Walnut Creek, costing about $1.2 million for solely the bridge (Anderson, 2014). However, the streets leading up to the bridge were viewed as unsafe resulting in few actually utilizing the bridge. Rather than accepting the bridge as a failure and forfeiting the efforts to making the system more efficient, the city invested another $20,000 in order to install protected bike lanes (Anderson, 2014). The bridge now successfully connects an elementary school to a neighborhood north of the creek, allowing many young children to arrive safely to school without the use of a vehicle. This is an excellent example of how prioritizing bicyclists and pedestrians does not demand on large sums of monetary investment but can occur from improving infrastructure allowing it to function at its full potential.Table SEQ Table \* ARABIC 7: Furness Drive before installing protected bike lanes Figure 8: Protect Bike Lanes on Furness DriveDiscussionTeaching Tucson SafetyTucson is lacking a safe and comfortable environment for pedestrians and bicyclists in two ways, unset goals and nonexistent protected bike lanes. Safety can be a huge obstacle to overcome when attempting to encourage active transportation. Tucson has yet to implement a specific goal related to bicycle and pedestrian collisions. It is important to set a baseline and an achievable goal with a realistic deadline. Portland and Austin both have set forth goals for traffic related fatalities, giving them a target. Experimenting with a variety of strategies in order to achieve those goals provides vital information for each city and the rest of the nation. Tucson is also lacking protected bike lanes, which provide a perceived and a real sense of safety and comfort. Tucson has a vast network of bicycle lanes; however, riding within most of those lanes is risky as they are very narrow and not buffered or protected from motorized traffic. The Tucson bicycle crash database illustrated there are several factors contributing to the safety of pedestrians and cyclists. Since the majority of collision occurrences took place during the workweek’s rush hours, collisions are occurring most often during the presence of high traffic volume. The Tucson bicycle crash database also revealed there to be a correlation between collision instances and intersections. With the majority of collisions occurring during a car’s right turn demonstrates the junction of the two streets determines the vulnerability of cyclists and pedestrians and the likelihood of a collision. The second most frequent type of collision involves crosswalks and intersections. Since the two of these occupy the majority of the pie graph, this confirms the safety of intersections is of concern. All three cities could teach Tucson some strategies in order to create a safe environment for active commuters. Each city realized the potential effectiveness of infrastructure dedicated to active commuters in order to ensure safety resulting in more participation. By implementing protected bike lanes, collecting data and monitoring their effectiveness, these cities discovered that the protected bike lanes improve the safety of cyclists and pedestrians. If Tucson were to learn from these cities, the city would be comprised of multiple protected bike lanes; protected with pylons, street furniture, planters, ect. Portland can teach Tucson there are further steps that can be taken in order to ensure safety. At all the intersections the protected bike lanes pass through, there would be yield signals within the mixing zones; such as within right turning lanes. Those intersections would also have loop detection signals in order to ensure bikers are making full stops at red lights. Minneapolis confirms the feasibility of implementing these strategies by ensuring “road dieting” costs no more than routine road repair; since the majority of the money from the Arizona Department of Transportation is dedicated to routine road repairs, making these transformations would be easy.Teaching Tucson ConnectivityTucson is comprised of an extensive network of bike lanes. However, due to safety concerns, few of them are utilized significantly; therefore, leaving an inefficient and disconnected network for active commuters. This was illustrated by matching the most utilized intersections with a map streets considered to be LTS1 and LTS2 for bikers in Tucson. There was a concentration of frequently used intersections along those streets of the lowest stress, depicting a correspondence between low levels of traffic stress and participation of active commuters. Since these areas comprise a small portion of the city, Tucson could adopt some of the strategies from Portland, Minneapolis and Austin in order to create a more connected, low-stress network for active commuters. Once again, these cities understand the importance of setting goals when it comes to achieving a strong community of active commuters. Minneapolis set a more direct goal of ensuring all residents are within close proximity to bike paths. Austin set an indirect goal of shifting shorter commuting trips to be executed through active transportation and targets all ages and abilities; therefore, Austin is taking steps to achieve this conversion. Minneapolis has invested greatly into constructing a seamlessly connected active transportation system for both bike and pedestrians. On a larger scale, the city created the first bike freeway in order to connect the suburbs to the city- a strategy Tucson could adopt to connect its suburban population to the urban region. Minneapolis has also identified that a street with high volumes of vehicular traffic is creating a barrier in the network for cyclists and pedestrians and implemented a separate bridge for active commuters to avoid dangerous interactions with that arterial road. Tucson could look to identify arterial streets that also create obstructions and brainstorm strategies to avoid integrating active commuters with vehicles. Lastly, Minneapolis has an extensive network of off-ground, pedestrian bridges. These bridges allow pedestrians to connect from building to building without enduring the harsh winters of Minneapolis. While Tucson does not have harsh winters, the summer heat can often times be a barrier to entry for pedestrians and cyclists; therefore, Tucson could mimic Minneapolis innovative spirits in creating a built environment that allows active commuters to adapt to the high temperatures of summer. Austin has outlined two objectives to encourage short trips to be achieved by active commuting. Those objectives are to create an all ages and abilities bicycle network and to remove barriers in the bicycle network. The city is investing in infrastructure promoting safety to achieve these objectives. Investing in a bicycle network that is comprised of urban trails and protected bike lanes will encourage usage and make anyone feel comfortable traveling by bike or by foot. By learning from Austin, Tucson could map the bicycle system it wishes to implement and build a network of safe infrastructure. Lastly, Portland has successfully created a connected active transportation system by ensuring fluid navigation. The network features signs and wayfinding strategies (such as sharrows) in order to direct cyclists and pedestrians more easily. This could be used in Tucson on routes that entail crossing busy streets, or routes along busy streets, to redirect the cyclist or pedestrian to a calmer and safer path. The small block sizes of Portland are also advantageous for active commuters. With shorter block lengths, there becomes greater accessibility due to the frequently encountered crossing corridors. Although, this could potentially require revisions of Tucson’s zoning plans, it could be a very effective way to encourage active commuting. Since this structural component of Tucson is less likely to rapidly occur Tucson could simply implement more frequent and safe signal crossings. One of the characteristics the low stress bike paths of Tucson were lacking was the proper infrastructure for safe crossings; applying more signal crossings could eliminate that barrier. Tucson could utilize the map of low stress bike paths as a foundation to create a more connected active transportation system. By making these more comforting Tucson could add protected bike lanes on streets with low speed limits. The city could also implement overlay district zoning that encourages mixed-use development. By integrating commercial and residential along safe bike and pedestrian routes, active commuters will be closer to necessities and be more likely to choose an alternative mode of transportation.Teaching Tucson BalancePassing priority over to active commuters or striving for a more balanced transportation system are an excellent strategies in order to encourage more residents in Tucson to switch their transportation preference. By implementing some of the strategies Portland, Minneapolis and Austin have adopted, commuting by bike or by foot throughout Tucson can be made simple, effortless and more convenient. Sometimes, giving active commuters top priority is out of scope; therefore, many of these examples dedicate some level of priority to cyclist and pedestrians, which is better than none. Portland and Minneapolis have both dedicated to investing $10 million annually towards active transportation efforts, compared to Tucson’s $60 million investment in active transportation efforts over a span of 20 years. The monetary investment Tucson dedicates to active commuters amounts to $3 million annually, or 30 percent of what Portland and Minneapolis are dedicating. The square mileage of these cities compared to Tucson confirms the insignificant monetary investment Tucson dedicates to pedestrian and bicycle projects. $3 million is dedicated to the entire area of Pima County, a total of 9,189 square miles, while the annual investment of $10 million is allocated among the 57 square miles of Minneapolis (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010) and another $10 million allocated among 463 square miles of the area mandated by the Oregon Metro Council (2035 Regional Transportation Plan, 2011). Therefore, the monetary investment of the region of Portland and Minneapolis has the potential to achieve much more and impact a larger portion of the population. In order to address this, Tucson could dedicate an annual portion of the budget to achieve a significant amount of projects.Portland and Minneapolis have both demonstrated strategies in order to balance the physical movement of all mode of transportation. The two cities attempt to balance the street by discouraging motorized travel through streets utilized by bicyclists and pedestrians. Portland decreased posted speed limit, making traveling through bike boulevards inefficient for cars as well as safer for active commuters. Minneapolis reversed stop signs requiring cars to stop more frequently and subsequently discouraging drive through traffic and encouraging bicycle travel. Tucson could easily employ these simple strategies along streets having the potential to attract active commuters, such as residential streets. ConclusionTucson follows the general auto centric pattern of development that has occurred in most American cities over recent years. This type of sprawling landscape affects the health of several components that comprise a city. Tucson’s individuals’ physical health, the environmental health and the economic health are all suffering due to the dependence on automobiles. However, by correcting this inefficient urban landscape, Tucson could make great strides in improving the health of the individual, the environment and the economy. By identifying which pieces of Tucson’s active transportation system are functioning inefficiently and learning from other active cities Tucson could make great strides. The three obstructions of Tucsonans participating in active transportation is the concern for safety, an incomplete network of pathways and a lack of priority given to infrastructure and operation of the active transportation system. Cities such as Portland, Minneapolis and Austin are all revolutionizing the operation of the active transportation system in the United States; therefore, it is important for Tucson to adopt some of the strategies employed by these cities to correct and create its own successful active transportation system.The safety concern in Tucson is mainly concentrated in the intersections of arterial streets. Portland, Minneapolis and Austin are all investing in infrastructure to create a safer built environment for bicyclists and pedestrians. These three cities have observed great improvements in safety and therefore ridership since the application of street designs that dedicate a bounded area of the street to cyclists. Building protected bike lanes along arterial roads and clearly designating areas for cyclists in intersections is extremely significant at improving active transportation participation. Improving those two elements of the street can encourage more people to bike or walk as a means of commuting. Lack of connectivity in Tucson’s active transportation system is also discouraging participation in active transportation. Tucson has a fairly extensive network of painted-shoulder bike lanes. While this is a valid attempt at increasing connectivity throughout Tucson, these bike lanes lack a safe riding and walking environment. Several of the streets in Tucson that are recognized as “low stress bike paths” can be unjustified as safe by certain characteristics of the street that may be deterring riders. Portland has created a connected pedestrian and cycling network through the use of maximum block lengths. By ensuring block sizes are about 200 feet by 200 feet and built with high-density mixed-use development, pedestrians and cyclists have more opportunities to cross streets and access daily necessities. Minneapolis has the largest network of indoor pedestrian bridges; connecting several of the cities high-rise buildings. These bridges save pedestrians of inconvenience of enduring the harsh winter weather. Tucson could learn from this innovative strategy when attempting to deal with the extreme heat of summer. Lastly, Austin is addressing the gaps in its bicycle network and investing in infrastructure as needed. Tucson could implement this strategy to efficiently create a more connected active transportation system.The operation of Tucson’s active transportation system is triumphed by the priority the city gives to automobiles. Most of the budge for the Pima County Department of Transportation is dedicated to street widening projects rather than improving the active transportation infrastructure. Also much of the planning energy is exhausted by executing projects dedicated to ensuring the fluidity automobile travel. Portland, Minneapolis and Austin all are working to create a more balanced and fair transportation system through planning and investments. The monetary investments dedicated to active transportation in Portland and Minneapolis marginalizes Tucson’s monetary investment. Austin shows great efforts in continuously attempting to improve the functionality through balance of its active transportation system. Tucson could adopt some of the values of these cities while balancing its transportation system to accommodate all modes of transportation. By analyzing Tucson’s current status of its active transportation system, faults in the system were identified and pinpointed as issues in need of addressing. Portland, Minneapolis and Austin are all examples of cities that are innovatively experimenting to overcome some issues of which Tucson is confronted. Through analysis and case studies, it was discovered that all of these obstructions- safety, lack of connectivity and an unbalanced transportation system- all operate in sync. Therefore, it is important to ensure all three of these components are corrected and are harmonious in order to improve Tucson’s engagement in bicycling and walking as means of transportation. Tucson could potentially learn and adopt the strategies these cities have implemented in order to create a safer, connected and balanced transportation system for active commuters. LimitationsOne of the main limitations experienced while researching this topic was the limited literature regarding walking as a means of transportation. There were several bodies of literature concerning active transportation and primarily spoke of bicycling. Therefore, the information provided in this capstone is comprised of a general assumption that strategies to encourage bicycling will also encourage walking as a means of active transportation.RecommendationsIn order to continue to develop the scholarly literature regarding active transportation there should be more significant strategies explored in order to encourage walking as a form of commuting. By researching more substantial techniques for encouraging walking, there could be a more complete image of a street that serves every form of private transportation- driving, walking and biking.Bibliography"2014 Austin Bicycle Master Plan." (2014). . Austin Department of Transportation.2035 Regional Transportation Plan. (2011, December 13). Retrieved November 24, 2015, from 2040 Tucson Regional Transportation Plan. (2010). Retrieved November 24, 2015, from "ADOT Completes Study on Economic Impact of Bicycling in Arizona." (2013). Arizona Department of Transportation.Active Transportation. (2015, October 26). Retrieved November 5, 2015. "Adult Obesity Facts." (2015). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Anderson, M. (2014). In Austin, Posts and Paint Bring a New Bike Bridge From Good to Great. . "Arizona." (2013). State Obesity Data, Rates and Trends: The State of Obesity. Trust for America's Health and Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. "Car Ownership in U.S. Cities Map." (2013). Governing. "Community Profile: Pima County, Arizona." (2013). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Carlson, S.A., Fulton, J.E., Pratt, M., Yang, Z., and Adams, K.E. (2015). "Inadequate Physical Activity and Health Care Expenditures in the United States." Progress in Cardiovascular Diseases 57.4 (2015): 315-23. . Clarke, A., Dewey A., Flusche, D., Nesper, B., Simcox, A., Wempe, M., Wynands, N. (2012). A bicycle friendly America guide. American Bicyclists. Retrieved October 15, 2012, from T. 2014. The environmental planning handbook for sustainable communities and regions. Second Edition. Planners Press, APA. Washington, D.C.Frank, L. D., Greenwald, M.J., Winkelman, S., Chapman, J., and Kavage, S. (2009). Carbonless footprints: Ppromoting health and climate stabilization through active transportation. Preventive Medicine 50. Forbes, C. (2015). Tucson bicycle crash database. . "Great American infrastructure: Minneapolis, MN, Minneapolis skyway system." (2012). Infrastructure USA.Hallal, P. C., Andersen, L.B., Bull, F.C, Guthold, R., Haskell, W., and Ekelund, U. (2012). Global physical activity levels: Surveillance progress, pitfalls, and prospects. The Lancet 380.9838: 247-57. Krizek, K., Barnes, G. and Thompson, K. (2009). Analyzing the effects of bicycle facilities on commute mode share over time. Journal of Urban Planning and Development.McConville, M. E., Rodrigues, D,, Clifton, K., Cho, G., Fleischhacker, S. (2011). Disaggregate land uses and walking. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 40.1: 25–32. McKisson, Michael. "Love Cyclovia but Hate Traffic? Here Are Some Low-stress Routes in Tucson | Bicycle Tucson." Bicycle Tucson. , 29 Mar. 2011. Web. 11 Nov. 2015. Mckisson, M. (2014). RTA Board slashes funding for regional bicycle/pedestrian projects. Bicycle Tucson. Mekuria, Maaza C., Peter G. Furth, and Hilary Nixon. "Low-Stress Bicycling and Network Connectivity." (n.d.): n. pag. Sjsu.edu. Mineta Transportation Institute, May 2012. Web. 11 Nov. 2015. Minneapolis Bicycle Master Plan. (2011). Minneapolis, MN: City of Minneapolis, 2001. . Access Minneapolis.Minneapolis (city) QuickFacts from the US Census Bureau. (2010). Retrieved November 24, 2015, from Monsere, C., Dill, J. McNeil, N., Clifton, K., Foster, N., Goddard, T., Berkow, M., Gilpin, J., Voros, K., Van Hengel, D., and Parks, J.. (2014). Lessons from the green lanes: Evaluating protected bike lanes in the U.S. National Institute for Transportation and Communities U.S. Department of Transportation. "More roads to recovery."(1959). New England Journal of Medicine 260.18: 939. . Pima County, 2014. Web. 18 Sept. 2015. Nieswiadomy R. (2007). Qualitative Research Designs 5th edition.PAG regional plan for bicycling. (2009). Tucson, AZ: Pima Association of Governments, 2000. . Schmitt, A. (2015). More money won’t fix U.S. infrastructure if we don’t change how it’s spent. Streetsblog USA.Smith, L. (2007). The true cost of owning a car. Investopedia.Tangerine and Tangerine. (2013), "The Loop: Economic, environmental, community and health impact study." Economic, Environmental, Community, and Health Impact Study. . "The City of Portland, Oregon." Traffic Calming Studies and Reports RSS. Portland Bureau of Transportation.Urban Planning 101 – Block Size. (2015, March 30). Retrieved November 22, 2015, from Walljasper, J. (2011). Minneapolis shows how to make a great bike city. Shareable. United States Census Bureau. (2013). American FactFinder. Retrieved from: ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download