UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Bicycle policies and programmes in Vancouver, B.C. and Seattle, Washington : a comparison Rye, Tom 1991

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1991_A8 R93.pdf [ 4.28MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0100722.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0100722-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0100722-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0100722-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0100722-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0100722-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0100722-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0100722-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0100722.ris

Full Text

B I C Y C L E P O L I C I E S P R O G R A M M E S  I N V A N C O U V E R ,  WASHINGTON:  A  A N D  B . C .A N D  S E A T T L E ,  COMPARISON.  By TOM RYE B . A . , St. Catherine's College, University of Oxford, 1989  THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER  OF ARTS  in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES SCHOOL OF COMMUNITY & REGIONAL PLANNING  We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard  THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA September 1991 © T o m Rye, 1991  In  presenting  degree  this  thesis  in  at the University of  partial  fulfilment  British Columbia,  of  the  requirements  for  an  advanced  I agree that the Library shall make it  freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying  of  department  this or  thesis by  for scholarly  his  publication of this thesis  or  her  may  representatives.  It  be is  granted  by the head of  understood  that  for financial gain shall not be allowed without  permission.  Department The University of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada  DE-6 (2/88)  purposes  copying  my or  my written  - ii A B S T R A C T This thesis compares the evolution of the policies and programmes for bicycle planning which have developed in Vancouver, B.C., and Seattle, Washington since 1970. The bicycle policies of the two City governments are reviewed, as are the outcomes of these policies in terms of programme activities. The activities of other organisations, both voluntary and governmental, are also considered in the broad review of bicycle-related activities in the two cities. The bicycle policies and programmes of both are compared to models developed from the literature. The reasons for the differing development of bicycle policies and programmes in the two cities are examined from an historical perspective.  It is concluded that the  development and implementation of a bicycle policy faces similar problems to that of any other policy that is at the margin of political acceptability. It is argued that bicycle policies will be implemented much more readily if there is an active well-organised cyclists' lobby; if there is a bicycle coordinator employed by the municipality; and if cyclists can link their cause to one with broader political support (in this case, open space).  -i  i  i-  TABLE O F CONTENTS  Page Abstract  ii  List of tables  v  List of abbreviations Chapter 1:  vi  Introduction  1  1.1 Objectives  1  1.2 Scope and definitions  2  1.3 Structure of thesis  3  1.4 Vancouver and Seattle: an introduction  5  Chapter 2:  Literature Review  8  Chapter 3:  Programmes in Vancouver and Seattle  22  3.1 Vancouver  22  3.2 Seattle  35  3.3 More bikes on streets?  49  Reasons for the development of the policies and programmes in Vancouver and Seattle  50  4.1 Sources of political impetus for Vancouver's bicycle policy  50  4.2 Sources of political impetus for policy implementation in Vancouver  51  Chapter 4:  4.3 Sources of political impetus for Seattle's bicycle policy 4.4 Bicycling as a politically popular issue  51 52  4.5 Bicycling organisations in Vancouver and Seattle  53  4.5.1 The Cascades Bicycle Club  53  4.5.2 Organisations in Vancouver  55  -i v4 . 6 T h e i m p o r t a n c eo f m u n i c i p a l s t a f fi n a bicycling programme  57  4 . 7 M u n i c i p a lh i s t o r ya n di t si m p a c to n bicycleadvocacy  59  4 . 8B u r e a u c r a t i c s t r u c t u r e  6 1  4 . 9 D i f f e r e n c e si nE n g i n e e r i n gD e p a r t m e n t s  Chapter 5:  4 . 1 0  U S a n d C a n a d i a np o l i t i c a lc u l t u r e  4 . 1 1  D i f f e r e n tp o l i t i c a lh i s t o r i e so f t h e two cities  6 2 6 3 63  Conclusions and recommendations  65  5.1 The5E's  65  5.2 Policy  67  5.3 The role of the planner  68  5 . 4 V a n c o u v e ra n dS e a t t l e  6 8  Bibliography  70  Interviews  79  -V-  L I S T O F  T A B L E S Page  Table Table 2  1  Modal split in urban passenger transport a s % o fa l l t r i p s i n s e v e r a l c o u n t r i e s  9  Model  19  bicycle programme  in matrix form  - vi -  L I S T O F  A B B R E V I A T I O N S  BABC  B i c y c l i n g A s s o c i a t i o no f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a  BAB  B i c y c l e A d v i s o r y B o a r d( S e a t t l e )  B A C  B i c y c l eA d v i s o r y C o m m i t t e e ( V a n c o u v e r )  BATS  B i c y c l e s a s T r a n s p o r t a t i o nS y s t e m s s u b c o m i t t e e ( o f C B C ) .  B P C  B i c y c l eP r o g r a m m e C o o r d i n a t o r  CIP  C a n a d i a n I n s t i t u t eo f P l a n n e r s  C B C  C a s c a d e s B i c y c l e C l u b  G A C  G o v e r n m e n t A f f a i r sC o m m i t t e e ( o f C B C )  SED  S e a t t l eE n g i n e e r i n g D e p a r t m e n t  V B C  V a n c o u v e r B i c y c l e C l u b  V C B P  V a n c o u v e r C o m p r e h e n s i v e B i c y c l e P l a n  -1 -  C H A P T E R 1.1 O  b  j  e  c  t  i  v  e  O N E : s  I N T R O D U C T I O N .  .  This thesis is a comparison of the measures which have been adopted to improve conditions for bicycling and to make bicycling a more viable urban transportation option in Vancouver, British Columbia and in Seattle, Washington since 1970. It is the objective of this thesis to demonstrate how political processes, programmes and physical facilities can be combined to make a North American city a significantly easier and safer place in which to bicycle; and to assess how far this combination of processes and programmes can be replicated with similar effects in other North American cities. This will involve an investigation of the degree of legitimacy the policies and programmes have gained in each city and the source of this legitimacy (politicians, public support and so on) (Leung, 1987). This topic was chosen for a number of reasons. Firstly, because there is pressure from cyclists and local governments in the Vancouver area to improve conditions for cyclists (and thus to increase their numbers) as part of a change in transportation strategy for the region to reduce its dependency on the single occupant vehicle (SOV). (See for example Creating Our Future (GVRD 1991).) Secondly, because Seattle is seen as a leader "in bicycle planning across North America. (See for example, Theisen 1976, Bicycling Magazine, Aug. 1990.) Thirdly, because, superficially at least, the two cities appear not dissimilar, and from the general feeling that what is done in one might be transferrable to the other, their different political systems notwithstanding.  -2-  1.2 S c o p e a n d D e f i n i t i o n s . The scope o f this thesis is limited to the North American context, to Seattle and Vancouver in particular (although examples from other cities will be used), and to examining the role of municipal and regional, and not state/provincial and federal, governments in bicycle planning. The way in which cyclist interest groups interact with these governments and with each other is also considered a factor producing different outcomes in conditions for cyclists. Thus when reference is made to bicycle programs and activities in the two cities this means more than solely the activities of the municipal governments. There are further limitations. For example, many of the individual projects which have been undertaken in the two cities would on their own make excellent case studies of public participation, inter-agency cooperation, or facilities design. But to study one project alone would lose the comparative element which is central to this thesis; and, in addition, it is a contention of this thesis that bicycle planning is more than an assemblage of projects. A number of definitions would be useful at this point to help clarify further discussion. B i k e w a y . Any road, path or way which in some manner i s specifically designated as being open to bicycle travel, regardless of whether such facilities are designated for the exclusive use of bicycles or are to be shared with other transportation modes. (AASHTO, 1981.)  I n t e g r a t i o n . Bicycles and other vehicles sharing the same road space. S e g r e g a t i o n . Dedicating some road space solely for cycles or otherwise separating bikes and other vehicles.  B i c y c l e l a n e . A designated portion of the existing roadway for use by bicycles only. Defined by striping or other means. (CIP 1990.)  -3-  B i c y c l e p a t h . The term implies a dedicated, off road single use pathway for b In practice, these have often become multi-use recreational pathways. (Ibid.)  B i c y c l e r o u t e . Any route signed as such. (Ibid.) B i c y c l e n e t w o r k .  Any system of routes for cyclists which provides safe, con  and convenient travel. May form part of the existing road network or be a combination of specific pathways and parts of the existing roadways which meet the needs of cyclists. (Ibid.) B i c y c l e p o l i c y .  A policy adopted by a (local) government with the stated int  encouraging bicycle use and/or making bicycle use safer within its territorial jurisdiction.  B i c y c l e p r o g r a m m e . Any set of activities by municipalities and/or (which may be volunteer-based) whose intent is to encourage bicycle use and/or make bicycle use safer. A bicycle programme may be the result of implementing a bicycle policy.  B i c y c l e f a c i l i t y . Any physical facility built with the specific intent travel easier, safer and/or more convenient.  1.3 Structure of thesis. After a brief description of the two case-study cities, the history of bicycle planning in North America will be discussed to provide a context for the evaluation of the bicycle policies and their implementation as programmes and facilities in Vancouver and Seattle.  From this discussion, a generic city-scale bicycle programme will be  developed to facilitate the comparison. The aim will be to assess what each of the two cities has done in comparison to this generic programme and in comparison to each other. The most important part of the thesis is the analysis of how these actions or inactions have been achieved - the processes, actors and conditions which have made the programmes possible.  In this sense, then, the thesis is not an evaluation of how far  -4-  the bicycle programmes in Vancouver and Seattle have achieved their goals, as this would have led to problems establishing just what these goals - explicit and implicit were. The thesis aims instead to be a process evaluation, focusing on "an analysis of the processes whereby a program produces the results it does". (Patton, 1986:139.) This type of evaluation requires a qualitative approach which attempts to get a feel of how  those people involved in the programme perceive it to be progressing (or  regressing).  It involves asking people's subjective opinions or feelings about the  programme, be they recipients of its services, or people involved in providing the services. Findings will therefore not state anything definitively but will rather indicate an impression of how the policies have produced particular outcomes. (Robson and Foster, 1989.) Ways to measure process variables include interviews, records of requests for information and archival records to see whether a programme has complied with legislative requirements. (Blatt, 1982.) Thus much of the research for this thesis has been based on  open-ended yet structured interviews with  municipal  officials,  politicians, volunteers, and representatives of bicycling organisations in the two cities. Relevant municipal documents were also reviewed, as were the few published works about bicycling in the two cities. With more time and resources it would have been possible to interview more people, particularly in Seattle, and to review a greater number of documents. It would also have been helpful to conduct a survey of non-activist cyclists to try to discover how they feel about the conditions for bicycling in the two cities. In a longer thesis, a case study comparing the process whereby two bike-related projects were undertaken by the two cities would also have been instructive.  - 5-  1.4 V a n c o u v e r a n d S e a t t l e : A n i n t r o d u c t i o n . A b r i e f introduction to these two case study cities i s appropriate at this point. More detail will be added later in the text in order to make specific points. Vancouver and Seattle are on the northwest coast of North America, separated from each other by a distance o f 150 miles and the Canada/US border. They have similar populations and are the centres of metropolitan regions of roughly the same size. * They are both port cities and were founded in the latter part of the last century, Seattle in 1864, Vancouver in 1886. (Nelson, 1977.) Both metropolitan regions are experiencing rapid population growth. The physical setting of the two cities is somewhat different. Sprawl in Seattle is less constrained than in Vancouver. Physical constraints in the Vancouver area have been supplemented by Provincial government legislation which since 1973 has protected the agricultural land to the south of the urban area from development. Notably, from the cyclists' point of view, the climate is similar in both cities; both metropolises are built around several bodies of water which form barriers to easy bicycling; and the urban area of Seattle has somewhat more severe topography than in Vancouver. The administrative organisation of the two metropolitan regions is different. The City of Vancouver is unique in British Columbia in having its own charter which gives it considerable extra powers in comparison to all other B.C. municipalities, which are governed by the Provincial Municipal Act. The mayor is a member of the council with the ten other councillors, presides over Council deliberations, and has no power to veto legislation other than his/her casting vote. Both mayor and councillors are elected on an at-large basis.  1.  Vancouver parks are built, maintained and administered by a  Population of Vancouver in 1986: 431,147. Of the Vancouver Urban Area, 1,228,427. (StatsCan, 1987, 14-5.) In 1986 the population of Seattle was 486,200, and of King County, 1,362,000. Pierce, King and Snohomish Counties which include most of the cities in the Tacoma-Seattle-Everett region had a total population in 1986 of 2,283,600. (US Bureau of the Census, 1988, 562 and 722.)  -6-  separately-elected Parks Board. The two bodies are administratively separate, but the Parks Board Budget is derived from the City, and subject to approval by City Council. The regional government in the Vancouver area is the Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD) which has little power to regulate except in the areas of water, sewerage and waste disposal. It also has responsibility for hospitals, public housing and some parks in the region. It is not an elected body but instead its Board consists of mayors and councillors from member municipalities in the GVRD area. Until 1982 it had zoning powers but these were removed by the provincial government. Seattle is the largest municipality within King County. The County covers the area from Puget Sound east to the crest of the Cascade Mountains, and also includes Vashon Island in the sound. It is not a regional government per se; rather, it provides services to the unincorporated areas of the county (i.e. those that are not in one of the cities), and it is now  attempting to take on a more regional transportation planning role  (Miller, personal communication in interview (p.c), 1991.) King County has a ninemember elected council and a County Executive who  is the equivalent of a mayor.  Other regional bodies in the area are Metro, which provides sewage disposal and transit service, and the Puget Sound Council of Governments, which is a consensus-led, voluntary association of municipalities whose acceptance by its members has varied over time, in common with similar bodies across the US. (Miller and Williams, 1990.) The mayor and councillors in Seattle are elected at large. Prior to 1964, the system in Seattle was of the weak mayor, strong council type, but reforms in the late 1960s v  1  considerably strengthened the office of mayor, giving it more executive powers over departmental budgets and programmes, and the power to veto legislation presented to the mayor by council. (The veto power is limited.) (Kaplan 1970.) Further,  "a  variety of special purpose agencies were also restructured and made responsible to [the Mayor]". (MacDonald 1987,  174.)  -7-  Seattle does not have a separately elected parks board, (Parks and Recreation is a City department) although the school board is a separate entity.  T h e importance of the  differences in municipal structure and history will be discussed in greater detail in chapter 4.  -8 -  CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW. It is the aim of this section of the thesis to discuss the evolution of bicycle policies and programmes across North America in order to provide a context for the discussion of what has been achieved in Vancouver and Seattle. Bicycle planning has a relatively lengthy history on this continent, but can be divided into two discrete periods separated by 50 to 60 years of inaction. Around the turn of the century, bicycle path systems existed in St. Paul (50 miles), the Bay Area (50 miles), Coney Island, NY, and Seattle. (Sommer and Lott, 1974.) Ironically, these bikepath systems paved the way for roads for cars and there followed a fifty year lull in bicycle planning activities. Recent policies only started to be developed from the late 1960s when some cities and states began to reject the goal of universal mobility provided by the single occupant automobile (SOV). Before this time, the bicycle was not seen as a vehicle at all but merely as a toy.  The new wave of bicycle planning began in Homestead, Florida  (1961) and Davis, Ca. (1966). (ibid, 1974.) Bicycle use was growing due to increased environmental awareness and interest in physical fitness; as it grew, so did bicycle/car conflicts, accidents, and calls for something to be done'.(Hud son, 1982.) x  In contrast, the European history of transportation planning for bicycling is a much longer one and there is much greater acceptance of the bicycle as a transportation mode in (northern) European countries. For example, some early regulations regarding the construction of facilities for bicycles were passed in Germany in 1928 (Bracher, 1988.) This acceptance of bicycling is in part a product of and in part produces the much higher levels of utilitarian bicycle use in these countries, which reaches its peak in cities such as Groningen, Netherlands, where the bicycle share of non-education related utilitarian trips reaches 50%, and where bicycles outnumber cars on many suburban  -9 -  collector roads (Huyink, 1987). (See Table 1.) The bicycle is given priority over the car at many intersections and on areas of traffic-calmed streets (Hass-Klau, 1988). Between 1975 and 1985 federal funding for the construction of new bicycle facilities in the Netherlands totalled 500 million guilders, in addition to which many millions were spent by municipalities. (One guilder = $0.50.) Even in the U.K., which has one of the lowest overall rates of bicycle use in Europe (about 4% of all trips (Pucher, 1988:510)), cyclists are statutorily consulted about all new road projects built by the national Department of Transport.  T a b l e1 :M o d a ls p l i ti nu r b a np a s s e n g e rt r a n s p o r ta s% Country  Car  Transit  US (1978) Canada (1980) Germany (1978) Sweden (1978) (1984) N'lands Italy (1981) UK (1978) Denmark (1981) Includes pedestrian trips Source: Pucher, 1988  82.3 74.0 47.6 36.0 45.2 30.6 45.0 42.0  3.4 15.0 11.4 11.0 4.8 26.0 19.0 14.0  MODE Bike  Other*  0.7  13.6 11.0  9.6 10.0 29.4  32.3 43.0 20.7 43.4  4.0 20.0  32.0 24.0  Many of the issues with which bicycle planners in Europe have to grapple are the same as in North America but, as noted above, the use of bicycles, the institutionalisation of bicycle planning within government agencies, and the funding it gets are all so much greater in Europe as to reduce the validity of any comparisons between Europe and North America. As Lemieux et al (1980, 26) argue: These [European] experiences could not (it was later found) be transferred directly to urban America where bicycle transportation parameters were much different. It is for these reasons that this study is limited in scope to North America.  - 10-  To a large extent, North American cities were starting from nothing when they started up bicycle programmes around 1970. For a variety of reasons, it was assumed that the ideal solution was to keep bicycles and other vehicles apart by providing separate routes for the former and in some cases legislating that bicycles must use these facilities. As the Bicycle Federation of America (BFA) (1985, 23) points out: Initially, bicycle programmes were simply facilities programmes, with separation, complete or partial, of bicycles from motor vehicle traffic accepted as the ideal pursued with vigour. Bikeways, in particular bike paths, were perceived as the way to do this. Hence the plans which were produced at this time are frequently entitled "Bikevray Plans" - the primary focus of the policy was the provision of bikeways. (Sorton, 1983.) Examples include the Victoria B.C. Bikeways for the Victoria Metropolitan Area (1976), and the Bicycle Path System for the City of Calgary (1972). The emphasis on trying to keep bicycles and cars apart came from a variety of sources: the transportation planners and engineers who  produced the plans had not been  educated about the needs of cyclists, and did not always make consultation of cyclists one of their priorities in the design process of the new facilities; hence there was no conception of which types of cyclists these routes were being designed for, or what cyclists actually wanted. (Shaw, 1976.) They had no national design standards to work with until 1974  when the Association of American State Highway and  Transportation Officials (AASHTO) produced its Guide for Bicycle Routes. Some provided separate facilities for cyclists because they believed it was what the public wanted. Certainly, many bicycling advocates now accept that this is what the non-bicycling public does want (Laidlaw, Pollard, p.c. 1991). However, the agenda of some traffic engineers and politicians was to be seen to be doing something for cyclists at minimal expense and/or getting the bikes out of the way of the cars.  -11  -  The result of this was often grandiose bikeway plans which could not be fully implemented without huge amounts of cash and political will, both of which were lacking. The concrete changes to the road network and bikeway systems were not always positive. In Palo Alto, for example, 43 km of quieter residential streets were signed as bike routes in an attempt to induce cyclists to leave major arterials, but a survey showed that 65% of cyclists never used the signed routes because they offered no advantage over arterial streets. Sidewalk bikeways were also used but frequently proved dangerous because of the new  intersections they effectively created (with  driveways, for example), lack of width, poor visibility, and due to pedestrian/bicycle conflicts. (Williams, 1987.) As Smith (1976, 6) argues, such measures as bike routes, sidewalk bikeways, short stretches of on-street bicycle lane, and  poorly-designed  bikepaths which have no transportation function have been used as a temporizing device that creates an illusion of ' positive action by public officials who are unconvinced of bicycle facility needs, uncertain how to implement more advanced treatments, or simply anti-bike. Gradually the realisation dawned that planning for cyclists was more than just providing bike paths. The change came about because accident rates frequently increased after bike paths were put in (due largely to poor design); because it was recognised that cyclists wanted to travel everywhere that other travellers wanted to go and that consequently the majority of bicycle trips would continue to be made on normal roads; and a federally-funded national study of car-bike accidents showed that bicycle paths were not a solution to the majority of these accidents. (BFA, op  cit.)  In addition, those cities which had continued with their bicycle programmes often set up Bicycle Advisory Committees to their councils to solicit community input, in particular from the bicycling community, and from this they learnt that their cyclists had other concerns besides the provision of bikeways.  - 12 -  For example, in 1978 the city of Portland, Oregon, appointed a Citizens Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee, whose mandate was to identify and prioritize improvements to the bicycle and pedestrian network. However, the bike programme over the next few years concentrated on producing a bike map of the city, getting bike lockers and racks installed, and having bike parking added to the city's zoning requirements. (City of Portland Office of Transportation 1989.) At that point in time these were seen to be more important and more politically feasible than expanding the city's network of separate bike paths and lanes. The City of Spokane went through a similar process, moving from a 1976 bikeway plan "which soon appeared to be inadequate" because it "was not based on user needs and desires" (Spokane City Planning Commission 1988, vi) to the 1988 update, whose major recommendations were concerned with education and encouragement, not facilities design. Hence there was a move to more broadly-based bicycle programs. This was based on a recognition that if bicycling was to be treated as a viable mode of transportation then it was necessary to integrate planning for bicycling into the more general transportation planning and engineering process and to facilitate the safer co-existence of bikes and other vehicles on roadways. Engineering new facilities or re-engineering old ones was but one way to facilitate this co-existence. As McHenry (1980, 16) points out, The problem, as it turns out, is more than just how to separate the bicycle from the motor vehicle. It is how to provide for each competing transportation mode, within its own range of needs and abilities in such a way as to minimize conflict while maximising convenience, directness of route and potential for usage in a definite space. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) in the USA was an important actor in the change in attitudes to planning for bicycling. The energy crisis of the mid to late 1970s spurred research into alternative modes of transportation so that for once this field was well-funded. For example, the 1978 Surface Transportation Act required the  - 13 -  development of federal guidelines for bicycle facilities for use on federally-funded projects. One result was a FHWA document on bicycle facilities which was taken over by the American Association of State Highway Officials (AASHTO) and published in 1981 as their Guide for the Development of New Bicycle Facilities.  Another was a federally-  funded education programme for bicycle planners which reached 1500 municipal and state personnel between 1975 and 1981. (Sorton, 1983.) The federal government in Canada did not provide research funding and services on a similar scale: a search of the Transport Canada library revealed no works published by the Federal Government on bicycle planning.  In 1983, however, the Roads and  Transportation Association of Canada published its Criteria for the Design of Bikeways, which is the "Canadian version of the Guide for the Development of New Bicycle Facilities" (CIP, 1990, bibliography). The move to a more integrated approach to bicycle planning has not been a smooth one and some cities have gone further than others. However, current " state of the art' manuals for bicycle planning such as the Community Cycling Manual (CIP, 1990), are unanimous in their agreement that bicycle planning is much more than the provision of bikeways - although at the same time special facilities for bicycles are not ruled out. (ibid p 4.) The purpose of this discussion of the history of bicycle planning is to provide a context for a generic bicycle programme' with which to compare what Seattle and Vancouver v  have done. This brief synopsis (see above) has hopefully shown how thinking has developed over the years and the way that bicycle planning is now conceptualized. The next section will attempt to produce this generic bicycle programme with reference to v  1  - 14 -  a number of recent publications which indicate what some of the most important parts of a bicycle programme should be. Obviously bicycle policies and programmes do not exist in a political vacuum, but it is not the purpose of this section to discuss the political circumstances which have led to the particular bicycle programmmes in the two cities (this will be dealt with in Chapter 4); rather, this section will compare the outcomes of the programmes in Vancouver and Seattle with a generic or model programme. The first aspect of a model programme is that the municipality should have adopted some kind of a policy to promote bicycling within its jurisdiction. This is often but not always in the form of a bicycle plan. (See discussion on institutionalisation, below, p 17.) A programme which has formed the basis of many subsequent * second generation' bicycle programmes was set out by the Geelong (Australia) Bike Plan Steering Committee in the Geelong Bike Plan. This was the first bicycle plan to coin the term v  the 4 E's' to describe the interdependent parts of a bicycle policy: action is required in  the fields of Education, Encouragement, Enforcement and  Engineering.  This  recognises that more people are unlikely to use their bikes unless they are encouraged to do so by better engineering of facilities and better education of drivers and cyclists on how  to share the road; and that all these are useless unless there is proper  enforcement of traffic regulations to ensure that motorists and cyclists do comply with them. Thus there is a good case for making an emphasis on the 4 E's a part of the "generic bicycle policy'. A fifth E' is suggested here and can be considered as institutionalisation of planning V  for bicycling within the existing planning and engineering decision-making structure. (See for example Lagerwey, 1988, for a detailed discussion of this.)  A bicycle  - 15 -  programme - even one which is fully staffed - will not get much further than the top of the "dusty shelf unless it is institutionalised to some extent.  To measure this  accurately to some extent is impossible but by using interview and other data a qualitative analogy can be made. For example, if the ideas in a separate bicycle plan are incorporated into other municipal documents and actions then it is reasonable to assume that the policy has been somewhat institutionalised. CIP (1990, 4-5) lists a number of basic principles for effective bicycle planning. They are: Assume every street is a bicycling street. If there is a bike plan, ensure that the ideas in it are incorporated into every document. Existing barriers to continuous bicycle travel should be overcome (e.g. bridges, freeways). Ensure that the bicycling implications of up coming projects are considered as part of their planning and design. An exhaustive list of the possible planks of a bicycle programme is provided by the BFA (1985), and by Pugh (1990). Koos (1987) also has useful ideas on this subject, stemming from her work as a bicycle coordinator. Combining their generic bicycle %  1  programmes and presenting them in both written and matrix form (see Table 2) will permit a useful comparison of the programmes in Vancouver and Seattle. The matrix also suggests a small number of potential negative feedbacks between the elements of the 5 E's. For engineering, the ideal bicycle programme would assume that all streets are bicycle streets and thus ensure that: the street system is inventoried to assess its suitability for bicycle travel;  - 16-  there is a programme to eliminate bottlenecks, "squeeze points' and other hazards for cyclists (with a mechanism for cyclists to identify these); all new road construction plans are reviewed at an early stage for their impact on cyclists; there is proper maintenance of all on and off-street bikeways, possibly with a higher than usual standard of maintenance on highly-used bicycle corridors than on regular streets, and an ordinance to require pavement cuts (for utilities etc.) to be repaired to a high standard so as not to endanger cyclists; there is continuity of facilities for safe bicycle travel, which may include separate off-road bike paths where appropriate and feasible; there is a programme to install public bicycle parking and to encourage and\or require the installation of bike parking in private buildings and developments; and that existing bicycle facilities are upgraded to meet current minimum standards. The education part of a programme will aim to increase knowledge of cyclists' needs and to improve bicycle riding skills by doing some of the following: teaching bicycling skills in schools, and educating school teachers about bicycling; providing information leaflets on bike handling, riding in traffic and helmet usage; getting editorials and articles in local papers; and producing advertising and public service announcements (PSAs) for local news media to encourage motorists and cyclists to share the road. Enforcement will be facilitated by: local enforcement campaigns of motorist and cyclist infractions, preferably at the locations of highest car-bike conflicts and accident rates;  - 17-  some education for police officers so that they are aware of the rationale for enforcing traffic laws as they apply to cyclists; and information on how to register and how to lock bikes. The encouragement aspects of a bicycle programme can be furthered in some of the following ways: public endorsements of bicycling by local civic dignitaries e.g. a proclamation by the mayor of a Bicycle Week, and his\her participation in a bicycle ride; special events such as Bicycle Sundays; bicycle guide maps of the area; and a Bike to Work day, preferably one in which local dignitaries and celebrities again take part. The institutionalisation of planning for bicycling into general transportation planning and engineering is a huge task because it will only be fully accomplished when every procedure, regulation, manual and law which has implications for bicycle transportation explicitly recognises those implications and how to take account of them. However, institutionalisation may be speeded up by: training individuals in planning and engineering departments to review site plans and Capital Improvement Programmes (CIPs) for bicycle transportation impacts and implications - this training may require, for example, in-house seminars, or sending staff to conferences; having a citizen Bicycle Advisory Committee (BAC) to Council; having coordinating staff (bicycle coordinators); passing model laws and bylaws for bicycle parking and access; asking the BAC and local bicycle elubs for their input on selecting projects for the annual CIP.  - 18 having a variety of different funding sources for bicycle facilities and related activities to reduce the programme's over-dependence on one source which might be cut off. The model programme has been constructed i n order to compare the policy outcomes.  Questions concerning the design and engineering of safe facilities,  or the logistics of an education programme, are not considered here. The  elements  shown are  programme  will  resemble  particularly  the  case  possibilities; obviously not every city's bicycle this  because  'generic' one the  municipal  i n every  respect.  department  This  i n which  is the  programme is housed w i l l not have the expertise or the mandate to attempt to perform a l l of the above activities. Hence, as the case studies w i l l show, many parts of a bicycle programme are performed by non-municipal and sometimes volunteer-based organisations.  - 19 -  Table 2: Model Bicycle Programme E L E M E N T S OF P R O G R A M M E  IMPACTS  Inventory street system Eliminate bottlenecks Review construction plans ENG.  Continuity of facilities Bike parking installed Upgrade existing bike facilities -ve i f cyclists learn to ride offroad and so are less used to traffic  Education of children and teachers about bicycling EDUC.  Information leaflets Advertising, PSAs Editorials, articles in media -ve i f enforcement campaigns lead to undue harassment of motorists or cyclists Public endorsements of bicycling by dignitaries  ENC.  Special Events e.g. Bike Sundays Bike guide maps Bike to Work Days  - 20 Table 2 cont'd.  E L E M E N T S O F PROGRAMME  IMPACTS  Local enforcement campaigns of bikemotorist infractions ENF.  Education for police officers Information on how to register and lock bikes  Training of staff about bicycle planning Bicycle Advisory Committee/Board -ve if trained staff feel they have no need to consult B A C Bicycle Coordinator INST.  Model ordinances for bike parking and access Cyclist input on projects for CIP Variety of funding sources for programme  - 21 Table 2 cont'd. ELEMENTS  IMPACTS Bicycling universally accepted and planned for as much as other modes PART O F T H E POLICY PROCESS.  Overall effect of model programme elements combined Incorporation of bicycling into technical and professional literature and manuals  Funding  ENG. = engineering EDUC. = education ENC. = encouragement ENF. = enforcement INST. = institutionalisation. v ^  Impacting Impacted.  Sources: B F A (1985), Lagerwey (1988), Pugh (1988), Koos (1987).  -22-  C H A P T E R  3 :  T H E  B I C Y C L E  P R O G R A M M E S  I N  V A N C O U V E R  A N D  S E A T T L E . 3.1  Vancouver.  The bicycle programme in Vancouver is based on the policy enshrined in the Vancouver Comprehensive Bicycle Plan (VCBP) which was passed by Council in July 1988. The goals and objectives of the plan are summed up as: The City of Vancouver wishes to encourage and promote the safe use of bicycles for utilitarian and recreational purposes. Integration of the bicycle into the existing transportation network and acceptance of the bicycle as a safe and convenient mode of transportation is a primary goal and is achieved through Engineering, Education, Enforcement and Encouragement goals, (p 15.) Prior to the plan's adoption, the only bicycle-related policy which the City had was an incentive to developers by allowing a Floor to Site Ratio (FSR) bonus if they undertook to provide more bicycle parking in their projects.  (This was introduced by the  Development Permit Board in 1981.) The VCBP was  written by the Bicycle Programme Coordinator (BPC), Marty  Pospischil, who was hired specifically to do this job. The motion to create the position of BPC was passed by Council on July 30th 1985 and the post came into being in November 1986.  The funding for Pospischil's position as BPC  February 1987, although he stayed on as BPC  was terminated in  in Transportation until there was a  position open for him in Electrical Engineering. The plan is based on the 4 E's, and has 45 recommendations, many of which are similar to some of the elements of the generic programme outlined in the previous chapter. However, for a variety of reasons which will be explained in chapter 4, not all the recommendations of the VCBP have been implemented. The purpose of this chapter is to outline what has been done so far.  -23 -  A part of the VCBP deals with existing recreational routes in the City which were the Habitat bike route, the 7-11 trail and the Stanley Park Seawall.  The first was  established in 1976 at a cost to the City and Parks board of $68,000. (City of Vancouver Engineering Department 1988, 72.) It linked up the University Endowment Lands with the south of Stanley Park via a mixture of on and off-road routing, and also via the Burrard St. bridge. Similarly during 1989 and 1990 there was a project by the Engineering Department to upgrade and extend the Habitat bicycle route so that it now goes all the way around both shores of False Creek. It has been re-signed, more of it has been taken off-road, and bypass routes for faster cyclists have also been signed. The route includes the City's first push-button cyclist-actuated traffic signal. The project was an attempt to upgrade existing bicycle facilities but due to budget constraints (the Seaside Route cost $250,000) it was impossible to reach even minimum standards for path width and sight lines (as laid down in the Community Cycling Manual (CIP 1990)) on much of the route.  A  similar situation prevails on the Stanley Park Seawall, where the  recommendations of the bicycle plan are being implemented but to reach current minimum standards for shared-use trails would mean widening it along almost all its length which financially and environmentally is not possible at this time. The 7-11 Bicycle Trail follows the Skytrain Rapid Transit route from Main St. station in Vancouver to downtown New Westminster. It was built in 1986 at the same time as the Skytrain, by a now-defunct Crown Corporation called B.C. Parkway. Control of much of it is now in the hands of a subsidiary of B.C. Transit. Currently the 7-11 trail is in the same state that it was when the VCBP was adopted, that is, "a series of linear parks", rather than a bicycle facility. (Vancouver Bicycle Advisory Committee Minutes, 1985.)  Vancouver Engineering Department has  jurisdiction over the on-road sections of the route within the city, and will undertake a  -24-  review of these sections "during 1991"  (Vancouver Engineering Department, 1991a.),  but other than this there has been no attempt to upgrade this facility. The VCBP uses origin and destination data (from a 1985 survey by the GVRD) and also a survey of 600 local cyclists to prioritize those streets which are most important for  bicycling in Vancouver and  on  which resources could be concentrated.  Recommendation 1 of the VCBP (p 40) states: That the street priority system, detailed in this report, be recognised as a system to determine where bicycle requirements should be considered in road design and in future improvement projects. Although this does not preclude engineering to improve bicycling conditions on other streets, it does imply that some streets are more bicycling streets than others. Due to limited time and resources the BPC was not able to inventory every street for its suitability (or otherwise) for bicycling, and this has not been done since his position was terminated.  There is no systematic programme in Vancouver to identify and  eliminate hazards and bottlenecks for cyclists, with the exception of parallel drain grates and shallow angle railway crossings. In the latter case, the City wishes to install rubber flange fillers but cannot due to lack of cooperation from CP Rail. According to the VCBP (p 67), Vancouver presently has an extensive road maintenance program which has been expanded to include the unique road maintenance requirements of cyclists within the confines of approved budgeting. There is however no money which is directed specifically to spot improvements for cyclists and there is no additional publicity (aside from the Engineering Department listing in the phone book) to make cyclists aware of the possibility of having spot improvements and maintenance dealt with in this way.  -25 -  Engineering department plans for large scale roadway improvements are brought to the City's BAC on a regular basis to ask for committee input. Examples include plans for the widening of West 16th Ave; possible improvements to traffic flow at the Georgia St entrance/exit of Stanley Park; plans for on and off road bicycle facilities in new developments in Coal Harbour and in the Expolands; and the plans for the Cassiar Connector project at the southern end of the 2nd Narrows Bridge. (In the latter case pressure from the BAC led to City Council passing a motion calling on the Provincial Government to provide better bicycle access to the bridge. (The motion was ignored.)) However, neither the Engineering nor the Planning Department is bound to such consultation by any part of the VCBP; furthermore, consultation, if it takes place, sometimes does so at a fairly late stage in the planning process, when any input from the BAC  has a reduced chance of becoming reality simply because it is harder to  change plans that are already well-advanced. The continuity of facilities for safe bicycle travel in Vancouver is accounted for by several recommendations in the VCBP but principally by the following: (# 2) That the City of Vancouver Engineering Department road design standards incorporate recommended lane widths, where practical, as outlined in this report, (p 3.) (# 10) That all future roadway projects be designed to include cyclists on the road. In situations where such on-road access is unsafe that an alternative safe, direct, and convenient bicycle facility be provided, if practical, (p 4.) Thus whenever a road is widened or restriped, the curb lane is if possible (i.e. if there is room to stripe a wider curb lane without making the other lanes of substandard width and thus incurring liability) marked at the width recommended in the VCBP, which is 12 feet. This is narrower than in most North American municipalities which have a bicycle program where the average is closer to 14 feet (Williams 1990.)  -26-  At least two streets in Vancouver (NW  and SW  Marine Drive) have recently had  shoulders added which has made them safer for bicycle travel without increasing the number of lanes available for motor vehicles. The original intention of the Engineering Department was to add curbs and, on SW Marine, two extra driving lanes but, due to pressure from the BAC  and from local residents, the shoulder was added instead.  (Arnaud, p.c. 1991.) This shows that recommendation 10 of the VCBP is interpreted differently by the Engineering Department and the BAC. With the exception of short sections of the Seaside Bike Route such as the connector under the Burrard and Granville bridges, no new separated bicycle paths have been built in Vancouver since the 7-11 trail in 1986. The VCBP recommends incorporation of bike parking requirements into the City's parking By-Law. The report on this has just been completed (City of Vancouver Engineering Department June 1991) and is due to go into the public hearing process in the fall of 1991. If the report's recommendations are adopted in full, it will be one of the most comprehensive bicycle parking by-laws in North America.  (Pinsker at  Vancouver BAC Meeting, July 11 1991.) Currently the city is relatively well provided with short-term bicycle parking because many private businesses have installed racks for customers and visitors. The process of applying for permission to site a rack on a sidewalk outside a business has been speeded up by the City and now only takes about a week (McLachlan, p.c. 1990.) The City funded one small ($2,000) bicycle rack programme in the West End in 1989 and in addition it and the Parks Board has bicycle racks at community centres and at other City-owned buildings. The education recommendations of the VCBP have not been completed, with the exception of recommendation #  18  to restructure the committee to include  -27-  representatives from the School Board. This was approved by Council in April 1988. In September 1989 City Council also gave the BAC  $3000 for the production and  distribution of a survey of Vancouver cyclists which was done in order to better target education efforts. Vancouver City Police have put on a Bicycle Education Week every year since at least 1987, helped by volunteers.  Adult bicycling education classes are offered by the  Bicycling Association of British Columbia (BABC) to those members of the public who contact the Association about the courses. Bicycle education in schools is performed by the Vancouver Safety Council (VSC) whose bicycle activities are funded by the Provincial Government. The Safety Council organises talks and off-road bicycle handling courses which reach about 12,000 school children (Grades 2 and 4) each year. (Crowe, p.c. 1991.) In addition the Police visit some schools to give talks on bicycle education.  The School Board is unwilling to  introduce compulsory bicycle education given the current trend towards a reduction in the time devoted to mandatory parts of the curriculum. (Pollard, p.c. 1991.) The Vancouver Bicycle Helmet Campaign is composed of members from the BABC, ICBC, the VSC and the local hospitals. Funding and publicity material comes from ICBC and the BABC. In addition to promoting helmet use among school children, the Helmet Campaign also mounts periodic general awareness campaigns (e.g. in September 1988 (Vancouver BAC Minutes, June 1988)). Thus it can be seen that the City Council's role in bicycle education is quite minimal, which is understandable given that its direct jurisdiction over education in the city is limited. The Enforcement section of the VCBP has been a success in some respects. Recommendation 31 calls for the licensing of bicycle couriers in order to "control the  -28-  present downtown bicycle courier problem." (Around 1984-85 Council was receiving many complaints about errant downtown couriers (BAC Minutes, 1985).) A motion to this effect was passed by Council on April 12 1988. Since May 1989 bicycle couriers have had to pay a licensing fee (which also covers third party insurance), display a licence number on their bikes, and take a written and on-road test which is administered by a member of staff at the BABC who is employed for this purpose. Her salary is paid for by the licensing fees and with a grant from Council.  The programme was set up with help from volunteers, the Bicycle  Coordinator, and staff at the BABC. It has been successful in that it has reduced the numbers of complaints about couriers, and because more errant ones can now more easily be identified. Bicycle Enforcement Weeks have been run by the Vancouver Police Department since 1988.  Officers are instructed to look out for motorist-cyclist conflicts and cyclist  infractions of road regulations. During the 1991 week, officers were concentrated in the downtown core, on Stanley Park seawall, on major arteries on the east side (Knight, Hastings), and on the access roads to UBC.  (Constable Terry Gilmore, at  Vancouver BAC meeting, 12\06\91.) The number of cyclists ticketed rises during these weeks but I'm not sure they are accomplishing the goals we envisaged for them. We don't address the no lights at night, wrong-way riding - all the things that cause the accidents. Instead, couriers get cited for not having a bell. Bicycling should be part of the preventive work that the police do. (Laidlaw, p.c. 1991.) There has been consistent pressure from the Vancouver Bicycling Community on the police to introduce "cops on bikes'. It is argued that the sight of police on bikes would lead to a greater acceptance by motorists of the cyclist's right to use the road, that it would be a role model for better bicycling, and that police on bikes are more effective  -  crime-fighters  in  Recommendation  congested  2  9-  downtown  # 36 of the VCBP  areas  than  police  in  patrol  cars.  states:  That the Vancouver Police Department consider the use of trained police officers on bicycles to enforce trafficlaws and regulations governing cyclistson the Stanley Park Seawall and the English Bay area. In general, Vancouver  Police Department  has not considered itfeasible to put any of its  uniformed officerson bikes, although plain clothes police have been riding around bikes for some  time doing surveillance work.  18th 1988, Acting Chief Constable E.W.  In a letterto the BAC Lister cited problems  dated  October  of weather,  security, officer safety, slower response times, and general shortage of staffas for not putting police on bikes. However, new  Chief Constable W.  Foundation  in a letterto the BABC  T. Marshall notes that a grant from  to the Police Department  project in Vancouver.  He  will be a success and  we  will shortly be funding  says, "We  on  bike reasons  dated July 15,  1991,  the Vancouver  Police  a pilot cops on  bikes  have every reason to expect that this experiment  will be examining  the possibility of expanding  it in  the  foot patrol officers are given training on identifying stolen bikes. There  is  future." Vancouver  a l s o a n o n g o i n g b i c y c l e m a r k i n g p r o g r a m m e - o f f i c e r s a t t e n d v a r i o u s where  they offer this service. (City of Vancouver  Engineering Department,  February  1991.) Public endorsements  of bicycling by  proclamations by the mayor of May  civic dignitariesin Vancouver  bicycling events.  included  a s B i c y c l e M o n t h o v e r t h e p a s t s e v e r a ly e a r s  Minutes), and the participationby the mayor opening of the Seaside Bike Route.  have  Alderman  in the bicycle ride which Gordon  marked  (BAC the  Price regularly attends large  -30-  The City of Vancouver does not produce a bicycle map of the city nor any other literature giving information on how to negotiate routes in the city by bicycle.  The  only exception to this is a guide to the Seaside route which is available at points along its length. Special bicycling events are limited to those which are put on by private or voluntary organisations (e.g. the Manulife Ride for Heart). Bicycle Sundays were put on in the early and mid 1980s by the Parks Board, when a section of Stanley Park was closed off to all traffic except bikes from 8 to 11 a.m. on a Sunday morning. In 1986, for example, there were 5 Bike Sundays in the park, and the one on August 31 attracted 685 cyclists.  The practice was abandoned, however, because of low numbers of  cyclists attending. Contracts with concessions in the park make it impossible to close the road for any longer or any later. (BAC Minutes, Dec 1986.) Although Bike Sundays no longer occur, in June 1991 the City donated $5,000 worth of policing and coning off of lanes to the Ride for the Environment, an encouragement event which was organised by a new volunteer-based group "The Bicycle People'. Bike to Work days are a way of encouraging people to give up their usual commute mode for a day and try bicycling to work instead. There have been events like this in Vancouver sporadically over the past 10 years. During the period in which the City had a Bicycle Coordinator, there was a "Working Wheels' day (May 25 1987), when city staff were encouraged to try bicycling or walking to work. Since then there has been no Bike to Work Day, although every May  since 1989, there has been a  " Commuter Challenge when a cyclist, driver and bus passenger have raced each other 1  from 41st and Oak to downtown (where they were met by the mayor) in the morning rush hour. (This also occurred in 1985.) In 1991 this was covered on CBC Radio. It was organised by staff and volunteers from the BABC (Delahanty, p.c. July 1991).  -31 -  The City has gone some way to encouraging its own employees to cycle to work by supplying covered bicycle parking and showers for its employees. The Social Planning Department is currently considering how  and where to expand provision of these  facilities. The institutionalisation of a bike policy into the normal activities of a bureaucracy is, as explained above (p 14), difficult to measure, but an estimate can be made. There has been no deliberate training (e.g. seminars by outside experts, sending staff to bicycle planning conferences) of City of Vancouver engineers or planners to raise their awareness of bicycle issues, except for the 1987 Institute of Traffic Engineers' conference in Vancouver, when the City Engineer invited the bicycle transportation engineer John Forester to give a presentation. Thus the reviewing of plans for their impact on bicycle issues depends very much on the awareness of individual members of staff. Gord Lovegrove, a traffic engineer who worked on the Seaside Route, believes that "almost weekly" certain engineers who do have an awareness of the needs of cyclists are reminding others not to forget those needs in their plans, and he comments, "with the bike plan in 1988, that went a lot of the way towards institutionalising it [the bike policy] but still, a lot of the engineers in the department would not even consider them [bicycles]", (p.c. 1991.) There is no mechanism whereby the BAC  or local bicycling organisations are  systematically consulted for their comments on the bicycle implications of projects which are put forward for inclusion in the triennial Capital Expenditure Plan. As explained on page 22, the City of Vancouver is in the process of adopting a parking by-law. The policies adopted in the VCBP are the nearest that the City has to a model by-law governing bicycle access.  - 3 2 -  There is a City of Vancouver  Bicycle Advisory Committee.  1980 at which time itwas an Advisory Committee the City Council. The BAC  it to report and  to the Transportation Committee  (Arnaud, p.c. 1991.)  finally(on July 30th 1985) became  allows  the Vancouver  restructured  send  motions  an advisory committee to Council  directly to Council)  bicycle community.  to include  of  After five years of lobbying,  support, and monthly meetings. Initially, the members from  May  met every quarterand had no administrativesupport from  the City Clerk's Department. BAC  This was formed in  3 each  full  (which  administrative  of the committee were  However,  a total of 9 members,  with  the  mainly  in April 1988, the BAC appointed  was  by the Parks  Board,  School Board and Council. Each of these bodies sends one of theirelected members a liaison to the Committee,  and there are staff liaisons from the Engineering  and  as  Police  Departments. The officialmandate of the Bicycle Advisory Committee  is to  provide Council with advice and input on civic initiatives[related to b i c y c l i n g ]a n d to review and advise on the implementation plan for the bicycle plan. (From Minutes, Vancouver City Council, 18th March It therefore  has a fine line to tread between  lobby group advisory  to council.  role is the one  Aid. Gordon the BAC  being  a purely  1991.) advisory  Price (liaison to the BAC)  should  comprehensive  committee  and  believes that the  play if it is to retain its credibility  Council and that outside groups should be the lobbyists (p.c. 1991); but engineer Lovegrove  comments:  Committee  to staff.  "they [the BAC]  In these respects, then, the BAC  are a lobby  is a good  deal more  b u r e a u c r a c y t h a n i tw a sw h e n i tb e g a n .  to Council  a  and  an  a part of the formal  with Gord  Advisory  City  T h i s d o e s n o t n e c e s s a r i l  l i s t e n e d t o . G o r d L o v e g r o v e b e l i e v e s t h a t t h e B A C i sr e s p e c t e d a n d t h a t i t s v i e  - 33 -  taken seriously. However, Joe Arnaud (chair of the BAC from 1980 to 1988) believes that Council is only receptive to the ideas of the committee if cyclists who are not on the BAC support these ideas also. Alderman Gordon Price believes that the BAC been effective up to now  has  but only because there has been accompanying political  commitment to "harass the politicians" so it is difficult for them to forget the existence of the BAC. The ideal role of a citizens' advisory committee such as the BAC  is to provide  informed input to Council decisions and to keep Council and relevant departments aware of the issues which affect cyclists in the city. At times, the BAC has performed this role; at othertimes,it has absorbed much activist energy without much effect. Vancouver no longer has a Bicycle Programme Coordinator. There seems to be a view which is widespread both within and without the bureaucracy that it should have one. Currently the Engineering Department liaison to the BAC, Doug Louie, has previously spent about 15 % of his time as a traffic safety engineer on bicycle issues, but recently he has been spending more than this (p.c, 10\07\91, 12\03\91).  Ex-BPC Marty  Pospischil comments: "In terms of the need for a coordinator, yes, I think there is a need and I think the need is increasing. I can see one position coming back in the future", (p.c. 1991.) Gord Lovegrove believes that "a bicycle coordinator would be very useful in this department." (p.c. 1991.) In the minutes of the BAC Director of the BABC, Danelle Laidlaw, who  in May  1988, the Executive  was also a member of the  commented, "When we had a bicycle coordinator I think the BAC  BAC,  was a whole lot  more effective because we had someone who could talk the engineers' language". In Feb 1991 the City Engineer made a request to Council for the funds to hire a bicycle coordinator (Manager's Report to Standing Committee of Council on City Services and  -34-  Budgets, 28th February 1991).  However, the response was that Engineering should  find the money from within its existing budget and so the current situation is that the staff resources for each individual bicycle project are found from within the department, but there is no bicycle coordinator per se. The funding sources for bicycle activities in the city are limited to City council, the Parks Board, the B A B C , and, for safety-related projects, the Vancouver Safety Council and the Helmet Campaign. The latter three organisations receive much of their funding from the provincial government or its agencies. It is extremely difficult to assess how much money has been spent by the City of Vancouver on bicycle-related activities and facilities.  There has up to now been no  record of, for example, the cost of additional lane widths for bicycles in new road construction, and in general monies for bicycle things come out of many different pots to spread the load, as it were (Aid. Price, p.c. 1991.)  According to Nelson  McLachlan, chair of the B A C from April 1988 to February 1991, some $1,695,000 has been allotted to bicycle-related projects in the 1991-3 Capital Plan.  In May 1991  Council directed the Engineering Department to create a separate account for bicyclerelated expenditures, so from now on the amounts spent on these things will be easier to keep track of. Over the next 10 years an important source of funding will be from the developers of the land around B.C. Place stadium who only have to provide half the usual number of car parking spaces. They must give the money they save ($8 million) for the provision of bicycle and pedestrian facilities in the south and east of the downtown.  It is important at this point to attempt to draw some conclusion as to how far bicycle policy in the City of Vancouver has been institutionalised into the bureaucracy. Shortly after the V C B P was adopted, Danelle Laidlaw of the B A B C was quoted in  Report  Alberta  (29 August 1988) as saying that the V C B P would "end up gathering dust on  - 35 -  some back shelf." She is now somewhat less cynical (p.c. June 1991). There is a consensus that acceptance and awareness in the City of the needs of cyclists have come a long way but still have a great deal further to go. The risk of the VCBP being completely put on the shelf has been avoided, partly because it is a programme which was politically possible and which the engineering department could buy into at minimum cost (Price, p.c. 1991).  As both Gord  Lovegrove and Marty Pospischil argue, the awareness of cyclists' needs in the City now is far greater than it was before the adoption of the VCBP. The stage has now been reached, however, where decisions have to be made about switching resources (of money and roadspace) away from motor vehicles to bicycles, and so the next few years will be a greater test of the degree to which bicycling transportation planning really has been institutionalised in the City. 3.2 Seattle. Seattle produced a Comprehensive Bikeway Plan in 1972, and a Bicycle Plan in 1983 and a Comprehensive Bicycle Policy in 1985. The goals of the 1985 policy are to increase and promote the safe use of bicycles for recreation and transportation, and to incorporate bicycle transportation and recreation into all appropriate City programs and activities, (pp 9 and 15.) However, these do not form the back bone of the bicycle policy (Lagerwey, p.c. 1990, Finnie, p.c. 1991). More important, according to Angel Rodriguez (the chair of the City's Bicycle Advisory Board (BAB) from 1979 to 1985) was the BAB's successful attempt to have bicycling incorporated into the City's overall transportation plan in 1983. This reduces the risk of bicycling being marginalised and increases the chance of it being taken seriously within the Seattle Engineering Department (SED). The process is clearly set out in the 1983 Bicycle Plan (p 1):  - 36The City has a process to identify and set priorities for physical bicycling improvements. The Seattle Comprehensive Transportation Program (STCP) will identify needed improvements which will be considered for inclusion in the TCIP (Transportation Capital Improvement Program) bicycle element. Comprehensive bicycle planning should be viewed as a two-phase effort, with the Comprehensive Bicycle Plan guiding selection of bicycling improvements included in the TCIP. [Italics added.] The TCIP is a more influential document than any Bicycle Plan would ever be, simply because it is read by more people. Among the Goals and Objectives of the TCIP there are several statements which relate specifically to bicycling: Goal 1: Increase transportation safety. Goal 2: Provide access and mobility for all citizens. Objective 1: Reduce the potential for ...bicycle accidents resulting from the deterioration or obsolescence of the physical plant. Objective 5: Eliminate all barriers to bicycle travel. (Quoted in Avery and Anderson 1985, 9.) The City of Seattle has not spent much time or money upgrading its existing off-road bicycle facilities. Some sidewalk bikeways remain (e.g. on University Ave.) and the Edmonds bike trail remains a substandard facility. Despite heavier than anticipated use^,  the older parts of the Burke Gilman Trail remain at their original width.  However, the University of Washington does have plans to widen the section of the trail which runs through its campus. Obviously, as new sections of trail are built, the standards used are the most current and therefore most generous in width, curvature and sight lines. Coupled with the inclusion of bicycling into the STCP and TCIP (see above pp 30-31), SED has worked on the assumption that all streets (with a few exceptions) are bicycling streets. In 1983 the City inventoried all its streets and came up with a set of maps which classified them according to their suitability and importance for travel by a A June 1990 count by SED, the Cascades Bicycle Club and the International Bicycle Fund found up to 400 people per hour on the trail in some places. (CBC, July 1990.)  -37-  variety of modes, including walking and bicycling.  They were adopted by City  Council Resolution # 26904 in May 1983. The street classifications are supposed to guide the types of improvements each street will receive. There are five classifications related to bicycles: Bike Path, Bike Lane, Bike Route, Shared Roadway, and Bicycles Prohibited. This typology was criticised by the Cascades Bicycle Club (CBC) for being over-simplistic, and for not considering traffic density or the importance of each street in the (bicycle) transportation network. (CBC, February 1984.) However, it is at least a formal recognition of cyclists' use of the street system. Bottlenecks and hazards for cyclists are dealt with by the SED Spot Improvement Programme which has been in existence since 1978.  Some funds are set aside  specifically for improvements such as making drain grates and expansion joints on bridges safe, installing rubber flange fillers at shallow-angle railroad crossings (to stop bicycle wheels being trapped), and installing curb cuts and ramps to smooth the transition from off-road facilities to on-road bicycling. (Black, 1988.) Larger projects undertaken by the Spot Improvement Programme include striping of bike lanes, adding route and informational signage (for example, on the approach to the Ballard bridge which is hazardous for cyclists), and installing a contraflow bike lane and additional "green time' in a signalised intersection at the north end of the Fremont bridge. (Dornfeld at ProBike NW  91.) The current budget of the Spot Improvement  Programme is $110,000 a year, funded from City's share of the Washington State gas tax revenues. There is a limit of $10,000 per individual project - larger projects must be submitted for inclusion in the annual TCIP. An example of such a project is the improved bicycle path on the University Bridge, which was done in the summer of 1974. (CBC, March 1974.)  - 38 -  There is no statutoryrequirement in the City of Seattle for new be reviewed by the BAB Mike  o r b y t h e B i c y c l e P r o g r a m C o o r d i n a t o r s ,P e t e r L a g e r w e y  Dornfeld. However,  these two people are employed  have the time and resources to look out for new cyclists.("This is part of my job". keep  Board [BAB] know Some  (Lagerwey at ProBike NW  often) pass the responsibilityon  1973.  from  SED's  regular maintenance  budget.  There  requests to the Spot Improvement and SED  c e n t r e s a n d l i b r a r i e sw h i c h  requests from its membership  Without  improvements  this mechanism,  is however  Programme:  a  a phone  also distributes request cards at bike can be posted back to the department. by collecting spot-  and forwarding them  it is likely that fewer  for, amongst  road bicycle and pedestrian path which  to SED requests  other things, the Burke-Gilman  in  August  for  bicycle  trail, an off-  runs along a disused railway from the north east  corner of the City through the University of Washington  campus  to the north shore  of  and which is gradually being extended westwards from there. Other off-  r o a d b i c y c l e t r a i l si n t h e C i t y i n c l u d e t h e D u w a m i s h and the Alki trail. These  trailsdo not however  have been put in place where coincided.  but the  would reach the department.  The City of Seattle is famous  Lake Union  let the  programme,  Cascades Bicycle Club startedthe fore-runner of this scheme  improvement  91), "We  to  w h a t ' s i n t h ep i p e l i n e " .  for the public to make  shops, community  so  91.)) They can then  As Dornfeld says (atProBike NW  line on which requests can be made,  The  f u l l - t i m eb y t h e c i t y a n d  maintenance requests are funded by the Spot Improvement  majority are funded means  of the BAB.  and  projects which have implications for  an eye on projects themselves, or (more  individualmembers  construction projects to  Trail, part of the Interurban Trail, form  a connected  system  but  t h e o p p o r t u n i t y ( a v a i l a b l e l a n d ) a n d p o l i t i c a lw i l l  rather have  -39-  The majority of bicycle travel in Seattle as in all North American cities still takes place on the street system.  The bicycle programme in SED  attempts to take every  opportunity that presents itself to improve the continuity of safe facilities by, for example, striping wider curb lanes, adding shoulders when roads are resurface or restriped, and adding on street bike lanes. ^ The latest bike lanes in Seattle are on Gilman and Dexter Avenues. (Lagerwey at CBC  Govt. Affairs Committee meeting,  28th May 1991.) In addition to lane widening, the continuity of routes across certain bridges which have been barriers to cyclists has been maintained by the provision of a bikes on bus' v  service.  Since May  1989, during the reconstruction of the West Seattle low-level  bridge, SED has provided a van and trailer shuttle service for cyclists which crossed the high level bridge (from which cyclists are barred) every 20 minutes from 6 a.m. to 10 p.m.  (NorthWest Cyclist Aug 1989, 25.)  The State Route 520 floating bridge across the northern portion of Lake Washington is also closed to cyclists, but, since 1979, the transit agency Metro has provided bike racks on its service across the bridge from Edmonds to the University of Washington. The service (which reportedly is not frequent (CBC BATS Meeting 22nd May 1991)) was provided after lengthy lobbying of Metro by the Cascades Bicycle Club. The City of Seattle has had a bicycle parking by-law since 1983.  This stipulates that  the number of bicycle parking spaces in a new development must be equal to 10% of the number of car parking spaces in downtown developments, and 5% elsewhere.  There is a great controversy in the North American bicycling community regarding the safety of bike lanes. This has been raging since the early 1970s. See for example Lott and Lott (1976) and Forester's reply to them (1976); CIP (1990); Lowe (1990). There is no doubt however that the majority of cyclists want bike lanes (see for example Toronto Cycling Committee July 1990) and that bike lanes are a visible action by municipalities for cyclists.  -40-  According to local bicycle advocates Durlyn Finnie and Mike Hooning, however, there is still insufficient bike parking in the downtown core. In addition to the parking supplied by by-law, the Spot Improvement Programme installs about 100 bike racks per year in local business districts.  Racks can be  requested by the public on widely-distributed rack-request cards. SED will install racks on private property as long as a number of conditions regarding accessibility, visibility, liability and maintenance are met. (Dornfeld at ProBike NW  91.)  The City of Seattle has not been responsible for the education campaigns which have been conducted in the city. Instead the prime mover has been the Cascades Bicycle Club (CBC). In 1973, the club started its safety committee whose role was to write safety procedures for Cascades tours, [and] coordinate and work on the various safety programmes going on in government and school areas. (CBC Nov 1973.) At that time, the club had already been asked for its input into these programmes and that was one reason for its setting up this committee. In early 1979 the club started its education committee, initially to advise the City of Bellevue Parks department on the content of a proposed bicycle handling skills course. (CBC, March 1979.) In 1987, using funds from the annual Seattle to Portland (STP) ride, the education committee hired a consultant, Jane Abraham, to put together a number of educational programmes. The most well-known of these is the "Sprocketperson' programme in which trained volunteers from the CBC go out to talk to large groups of elementary school children about bicycle safety. In 1988 more than 18,000 children were exposed to Sprocketpeople across King Co. (Abraham, p.c. 1991.) Cascades Club volunteers also conducted bicycle roadeos which give children about 20 minutes of on road training. Although publicity for these programmes was purely by word of mouth, demand grew so much that Abraham and the CBC volunteers were  -41 -  forced to move from conducting roadeos themselves to training teachers and parents how to do them. To this end the C B C produces and distributes educational material. The club also lends helmets for children to use during the roadeos. Seattle Public schools has a bicycle education option in its Physical Education curriculum which was developed with the help of the C B C  but is now run  independently from the club (although it supplies resources such as brochures, helmets and even bikes). The City Police department is now also involved in bicycle education, visiting schools and putting on roadeos. t  c  The Club is also involved in providing expertise as a member of the Washington State Children's Helmet Coalition. The organisation has amongst other things facilitated a helmet bulk-buying programme for the State. The money for this coalition comes from Harborview Hospital in Seattle and the local T V  station K O M O - T V .  Bicycle  coordinators from King County and SED sit on the coalition but aside from staff time and undertaking small related projects the two municipalities do not put in any other resources (Abraham, p.c. 1991.) In adult education, the C B C was also busy staging an annual " Share the Trail' event at which volunteers set up booths on the Burke Gilman Trail and talked to users about responsible trail use.  This was initially a completely volunteer-based event, as  Abraham explains: All we received [from the City in the first year] was not having to pay the permit fees to do an event. After the first year, both King County Parks and Seattle Parks, after they saw how successful and well-received the programme was, then they said they would co-sponsor it in the following two years that we did it, and actually their help was minimal (e.g. they made sure I had some garbage cans out there). They never provided personnel. We did all the work; they just tried to smooth the way, but they considered themselves co-sponsors.  -42-  The club has also paid for the production and mounting costs of a number of advertising boards on buses urging motorists to share the road with cyclists. (Bicycle Forum, Summer/ Fall 1989, 13.) This was the latest of a number of Share the Road publicity efforts by the club - for example in 1977 the club began distributing "I share the road with bicycles" bumper stickers. According to Peter Lagerwey (p.c. 1990), encouragement is not a part of the SED bicycle programme (in spite of its inclusion in the 1985 Bicycle Policy (p 7).) However, several departments of the city have in the past and continued to offer encouragement to cyclists. In the early 1970s Mayor Wes  Uhlman made frequent public endorsements of  bicycling, such as taking part in a ride organised by the Cascades from the University District to downtown to highlight the problems faced by cyclists; endorsing  and  publicising "Bike to Work Weeks' at yearly and half-yearly intervals during his term of office; and closing off roads (such as Lake Washington Blvd through the Arboretum) at weekends to all vehicles except bicycles. Bicycle Sundays have been occurring in Seattle for the past 24 years. Initially staged by the City Parks' Department, these day-long closures of a part of Lake Washington Blvd in the southeast of the city have, since 1971, been co-sponsored by the CBC.  The  road is closed to motor vehicles all day and the programme is so popular that in the last two years it has been extended to summer Saturdays also. (Bicycle Paper June 1990.) A similar event, though annual rather than monthly, is the closure by Washington State Department of Transport (WSDoT) of the Interstate 5 freeway express lanes to motor vehicles for a day so that non-motorized modes can use the lanes. There has been a bike to work day or week in some form in Seattle since at least 1973. (CBC June 1973.) During the late 1970s these events attracted major sponsorship from  -43 -  local TV stations and bicycle shops, but the involvement of the City has always been limited. Today the annual Bike to Work day is organised almost entirely by the CBC (Bicycle Paper March 1991), although this year King Co. Department of Public Works made a contribution by supplying a shuttle bus for cyclists across the Evergreen Point Floating Bridge ( S R 520) (Miller, p.c. May 1991). In the 1985 Comprehensive Bicycle Policy (p 11) the City called on itself to provide more end-of-trip facilities for its own employees as a means of encouraging more of them to bicycle to work: Secure and convenient bicycle parking, and facilities for storing clothes and equipment, should also be provided at all municipally owned and leased buildings. However, it has not pursued this as religiously as it could have (Hooning, p.c. 1991). The City has produced a bicycle map of Seattle since the late 1970s. It is free to cyclists thanks to the advertisements which it carries, and it is updated on a regular basis. King County has produced a similar map with help from the bicycle industry and the CBC. The most well-known encouragement events in the Seattle area which reach perhaps the greatest number of cyclists and which raise non-cyclists' awareness of bicycling are two annual rides organised by the Cascades Bicycling Club: the Chilly Hilly and the Seattle to Portland (STP).  The latter attracts some 10,000 people who ride the 185 mile  course in either 1 or 2 days. As Abraham (p.c. 1991) comments about the club, "our rides are getting bigger and better, we've gotten more and more involved in safety, we're getting more and more known throughout the city, and so you can't beat it, I think, for bicycling". The local bicycle industry is heavily involved in sponsoring these events, and with this source of income plus the rider entrance fees the CBC nets at least $65,000 each year  -  4  4-  from the two rides. These two events both began in 1979 (CBC,  1979.) The CBC  also  o r g a n i s e sa na n n u a lB i k eE x p o- a t r a d ef a i r- w h i c hh e i g h t e n sa w and which, again, builds links between the bicycle industry and the club. The  institutionalization of bicycling into the transportationplanning and  process is a key aim for Seattle bike coordinator Peter Lagerwey yet in Seattle, this institutionalisationis not so far advanced Other  SED  staff are trained by  engineering  (p.c. Sept 1990).  that his job is  superfluous.  the bicycle coordinators in the niceties of  bicycle  planning (Lagerwey  at ProBike NW  January 1991), "We  are seeing significant changes in attitude[amongst SED staff]".  Nonetheless,  or not the bicycle is considered in the planning of a new  whether  is stilllargely dependent  1991) and, according to Mike  As  on the vigilance of the two  Hooning  (p.c.  project  bicycle coordinators and  the  volunteers on the Bicycle Advisory Board, although as Durlyn Finnie (past chair of the B A B ) c o m m e n t s , The policy is fairly institutionalisedin that they (SED) will usually consult Peter on projects which cross the Burke Gilman or other big t r a i l s . B u tw i t hs m a l l e rp r o j e c t s- t h e yf o r g e t , ( p . c . 1 9 9 1 . ) Also, current chair of the BAB Port Commission programme)  to come  had  "been  Mike Hooning  was recentlyjubilantbecause the Seattle  instructed" (by  someone  and give a presentation to the BAB  affected trailsin the area. (p.c.  outside the SED on a new  bicycle  development  which  1991.)  Seattle has had a citizensbicycling advisory board since 1977.  The BAB  was  and of which opport as far  fices actio unity as th  formed  to: advise the City Council, the Mayor, and all departments the City on matters relating to bicycling, and the impact by the City may have upon bicycling;and shallhave the contribute to all aspects of the City's planning processes relate to bicycling. (Council Resolution # 25534, May 16th 1977.)  of ns to ey  It is made  up of 10 members  4  5-  selected from the community  from the Cascades Bicycle Club, and two staffmembers from the Parks Department. section of the community CBC  members  The BAB  membership  plus a non-voting from Engineering and  by the bicycle coordinator,the Mayor  of the BAB  are not all  submit theirresumes and are then interviewed  and the current chair of the  Since 1987 there has been a requirement on the SED which affectcyclists,by the following  one  is selected to give as wide a cross-  as possible (i.e.the voting members  a l s o ) . P o t e n t i a lm e m b e r s  member  BAB.  to consult the BAB  about projects  mechanism:  The Board [BAB] is charged to review and make recommendations on capitalimprovement projects and other programs insofar as they relate to bicycling; and  At the beginning of e shall provide the Board being proposed for th then, upon being con identify those project Board review;  ach year's budget cycle, the bicycle coordinator with a list of all capital improvements that are e following year's budget. The department will tacted by the Board, work with the Board to and program elements that are appropriate for  and  Appropriate City officialsshall be prepared to provide the Board with information/ plans/ maps/drawings etc.' as appropriate to the project's and/or program's given phase, as are necessary to review. (Seattle BAB, 1987, 3 and 4.) This is a significant way  for cyclists to ensure that their needs  are met  in new  city  projects. Each  month  the BAB  project in the City.  hears a presentation by the manager In addition, each member  of the Board  tracking the progress of a few projects or programs  of a planned  or  current  has the responsibility for  and being the liaison between  Board and the managers of those projects. (Lagerwey at Probike NW w o r d s o f b i c y c l ec o o r d i n a t o rM i k e D o r n f e l d ( a tP r o B i k e N W  91),  91.)  the  In the  -46I've worked with bicycle advisory boards in Minnesota, Washington D . C . and Seattle, and the one in Seattle is by far the most effective one I've worked with. The City of Seattle has had a bicycle programme coordinator (BPC) on staff in the engineering department since 1977. (CBC Newsletter 1977.) Prior to this date an engineer called Bob Theisen spent much time on bicycle issues, although in 1975 he was laid off. The first BPC, Josh Lehman, was hired after a lobbying campaign organised by local cyclists. (Rodriguez, p.c. July 1991.) The funding for his position came from the Federal monies disbursed under the Comprehensive Education and Training Act (CETA), and this lasted for a year. (Lehman, p.c. May 1991.) He was not laid off at the end of this time, however, thanks, again, to lobbying by local cyclists such as Amy Carlson (p.c. January 1991) and political support from then Seattle Councilman Tim Hill. Although based in the engineering department, Lehman was a geographer/planner rather than an engineer. (Initially he was to have taken an exam in traffic engineering as a condition of his being hired, but this stipulation was dropped at the last minute. (Lehman, p.c. May 1991.)) Subsequent BPCs in the department have also not been engineers. This is in contrast to the situation in Vancouver where, when the BPC was hired, the City Engineer was insistent that the chosen candidate should have an engineering background. (Memo from Vancouver Deputy City Engineer to Director of Personnel re Bicycle Coordinator, July 18th 1986.) The City of Seattle had one and a half BPC positions by 1980, two by 1985 and it has just (July 1991) taken on three additional bicycle and pedestrian coordinators. These positions are funded from the regular City budget. The importance of these staff to the success of the bicycle programme will be discussed in the next chapter.  - 47 -  The Seattle bicycle programme has been notable in its pursuit of many novel funding sources. According to Lagerwey (p.c. Sept 1990), the direct funding by the City for the bicycle programme is about $150,000 per year, but approximately $4 million is spent from various sources on facilities. At ProBike NW  91 Lagerwey gave a number  of examples including: Federal monies for bicycle facilities - up to $4.5 million per state per year (although it is up to the state to find opportunities for spending the money); Federal money for building bike trails as part of new  freeways. The prime  example of this in the Seattle area is the I 90 project from Bellevue to Seattle which features a bike bridge, tunnel and trail which cost $22 million. Seattle's share of the half of one percent of the Washington state gas tax which has been earmarked for bicycle and pedestrian facilities since 1972.  The Spot  Improvement Programme is the prime beneficiary of this source of funds (Black 1988). Open Space bond issues.  These are voted on by city-wide referendum.  Examples in Seattle include Forward thrust (1968) and Open Space (1989). The latter raised $117 million in King Co. (Seattle's share is $41 million, of which $5.8 million goes to trails development). (Seattle Department of Parks and Recreation 1990.) Private-public partnerships. In Seattle US Sprint were allowed to run a fibreoptic line along a 7 mile stretch of the Burke-Gilman trail in return for $900,000 which is being used to fund extension of the trail. It is also possible to piggy-back bike trails onto new hydro and pipeline rights of way. Environmental Impact Statements. All new projects in the US must by law have an EIS which includes ways of mitigating the environmental impact of the project. Bike facilities are considered one way of doing this. (Jordan 1988.) Once incorporated into the EIS, the bicycle facility must be provided by law.  -48 -  Similar to this is the $25 million over the next 5 years which the City of Seattle will receive from Metro for shoreline mitigation after Metro built a new sewage treatment plant at Westpoint. Old franchise agreements between railways and the City have been used to obtain lengths of abandoned railway right-of-way at no cost to the municipality. The City of Seattle has been putting considerable sums into bicycle facilities over the past two decades. In December 1972 it allocated $100,000 of gas tax money to the construction of the Ravenna Blvd/ 17th Ave. N . demonstration bikeway project. (Theisen, 1976.) The 1974 CIP budget included $175,000 for bikeways. (CBC March 1974.) Funding for the Burke Gilman Trail included Federal Community Development Block Grant and Gas Tax cash, and money from the 1968 Seattle Forward Thrust bond issue.  (Seattle/King County 1979, quoted in City of Vancouver Engineering  Department 1988, Appendix E.) However, it has taken a long time for the bicycle programme to obtain a substantial and legitimate foothold in the bureaucracy.  Bob Theisen worked on bicycle project  planning in SED from mid 1972 to 1976, when he was laid off. Up to this time, most of the funding for the bicycle projects had come from non-City sources; these funds dried up in 1976, and so the bicycle programme was put on ice for 2 years. (Theisen, p.c. 1991.) Having compared the Seattle bicycle programme to the generic programme, it is clear that the City's direct involvement with bicycling issues is largely limited to engineering which is, as Lagerwey says, "what we do best", (p.c. Sept 1991.) However, the bicycle programme in Seattle is clearly more than what is done by SED. As Finnie (p.c. 1991) comments, "it's a combination of the BAB, SED, Cascades and King County".  -49-  The reasons the bicycle programmes in Vancouver and Seattle have developed in the way they have, and the interaction between the various actors on the bicycling stage, will be explored in the next chapter.  3.2 More  bikes on streets?  Although there has been a bicycle programme in Seattle for the past 21 years, it may be that there are more cyclists in Vancouver, due to its more compact urban form and large population in the West End, close to downtown. A C B D cordon count conducted as part of the Bicycle Parking Standards Study (City of Vancouver Engineering Department 1991b, 28) recorded the proportion of all morning trips into the downtown as 1.3% (873 bicycle trips). A mail-in survey of 588 Vancouver office workers in the same report concluded that about 12% of these respondents bicycled to work in reasonable weather.  The 1985 Origin and Destination Survey (quoted in City of  Vancouver Engineering Department 1988, 17) conducted by the G V R D concluded that 2.3% of all vehicle trips in the Vancouver Central Metropolitan Area were made by bicycle, although Jim Chin of the G V R D regards this figure - which was based on a 5% telephone sample of households - as an underestimate. (Chin, p.c. 1991.) There are no definitive figures for the number of cyclists in Seattle (Lagerwey, p.c. Sept 1990); however, he has said to another Vancouver cyclist that he believes there may be more cyclists in Vancouver than Seattle.  (Arnaud, p.c. 1991.) In Seattle's  bike to work day in May 1991, cyclists who stopped for free coffee and muffins at the "ride stations' set up by Cascades Club volunteers filled out surveys, of which some 800 were received. However, the people who stopped were greatly outnumbered by the people who rode on by, and B T W D organiser Stu Hennessey believes that there are "thousands of [commuting] cyclists out there." (CBC BATS meeting 23rd May 1991.) Since there are no definitive figures for numbers of cyclists in either city, it is not possible to evaluate the success of the respective policies according to this criterion.  -50-  C  H  A  P  T  E  R4  : R  E  A  S  O  N  S FOR T  H  E DEVELOPMENT OF T  P R O G R A M M E S I N V A N C O U V E R A N D SEATTLE. The purpose of this chapter is to discuss some of the factors which may have contributed to the differences in the development and the implementation of bicycle policies and programmes in the case study cities.  4.1 S o u r c e s o f P o l i t i c a l I m p e t u s f o r V a n c o u v e r ' s b i c y c l e p o l i c y In Vancouver, the Bicycle Advisory Committee was set up after pressure on Council from a number of activists from the Vancouver Bicycle Club (VBC) which began in 1978.  (Pollard, p.c. 1991.) However, Council began to take serious notice of the  bicycle issue after the 1984 transit strike, which brought great numbers of cyclists onto the streets, and raised awareness of bicycling - albeit, often, negatively defined as a "problem'. (City of Vancouver BAC Minutes, 1984 and 1985.) Danelle Laidlaw of the BABC, who sat on the Bicycle Advisory Committee at the time, noted that some of the people who began to bicycle because of the transit strike also voiced their dissatisfaction with the lack of facilities for cyclists in the city. Specifically, there was perceived to be a difficulty with the great number of cyclists crossing the Burrard Bridge, and the Engineering Department was charged with coming up with a solution (which is now in place - one way sidewalks shared by cyclists and pedestrians).  Several aldermen also expressed concern about bicycle-pedestrian and  bicycle-motor-vehicle conflicts, and at its meeting on 24th July 1984 Council commented that A more long range concern is the need for cyclist education ... and a program to effect this. (Minutes, 24/07/84.)  H  -51 -  Thus it was a combination of lobbying by cyclists, two years of petitioning by the B.C. Green Party, and council concerns generated by the transit strike, that launched the  process for the hiring of a BPC and the preparation of the VCBP. 4.2 Sources of political impetus for implementation of the policy in Vancouver.  Although the VCBP is City policy, this does not assure its implementation. The fact that it is slowly being implemented is because the awareness of bicycling on Council  and in the Engineering Department has been kept high by pressure from cyclists, from the BAC, (especially by the previous chair, Nelson McLachlan (see below, p 62)), because Alderman Gordon Price is a pro-bicycling' voice on Council, and because v  Council last year adopted a pollution control policy, Clouds of Change, (City of Vancouver 1990) which has given added impetus to the bicycle programme. Policy # 11(a) of Clouds of Change states that the City should: make bicycling a better transportation alternative by providing parking and related facilities in new developments, proceeding rapidly with implementation of the bicycle plan, and developing measures beyond the Comprehensive Bicycle Plan, in cooperation with the Bicycle Advisory Committee. Laidlaw (p.c. 1991) comments about the City's progress in implementing the VCBP: If I were cynical I might say that we dragged City Hall kicking and screaming into the Bicycle Age but, in fact, with the Mayor and a few councillors on side, it hasn't been that difficult. What I still don't see, though, is departments taking the initiative - they have to be prodded. 4.3 Sources of Political Impetus for Seattle's bicycle policy.  In Seattle, the 1969 City elections brought "new blood' into both the council and the Mayor's office. Mayor Wes Uhlman was elected at this time and, as explained above (p 6) was able to take advantage of new powers granted to the Mayor's office in the late 1960s.  -52 -  Initiativefor bicycling activitiesat this time came the Mayor's  Office. However,  both from the community  itis the view of Bob Theisen, who  and  from  worked for SED  at  the time on bicycle-relatedprojects, that the major impetus for these projects was  the  availabilityof Federal and statefunds. To obtain the latter, Seattle had to produce approve  a bikeway  plan.  Hence  Comprehensive Bikeway Plan w  an earlier report on commuter made  the direction for the preparation a  sp  bikeways,  a  r  t  l  ye  x  t  of the e  r  and it was put together by a joint  up of bicycling employees of the Mayor's Office, Department of  Development, SED, of the Mayor,  Parks and Recreation and the community.  1972.) The entireprocess took less than 9  The newly-founded  Cascades Bicycle Club (CBC)  1972  n  a  l  . T  committee Community  (Theisen, 1976; Office  months.  played a role and was very energetic  but, in itsearly years, gave the impression to Theisen and ex-councilman being an organisation uncertain of what itwanted,  and  Tim  Hill of  (p.c. 1991.)  4 . 4B i c y c l i n ga sa p o l i t i c a l l yp o p u l a ri s s u e . Trails are an important part of both the King County and Seattlebike programmes bicycling in general has benefitted from this association: as Lagerwey s a y s , " t r a i l sw i n v o t e s . "  for a Cross-town  build the Burke Gilman Furthermore,  1990)  Bicycling in Seattle has been identified with trail construction  since the early seventies,when Committee  (p.c. Sept  and  some  members  of the CBC  were also active in the  Trail, which was instrumental in getting funds to buy  and  Trail.  several of the bicycling advocates (Finnie, Hooning)  r e s e a r c h b e l i e v e t h a t t r a i l sa r e v a l u a b l e b e c a u s e t h e y g e t p e o p l e w h o  contacted for this would  not ride theirbikes (because of fear of traffic)to do so. These people may  otherwise or may  use their bicycles on the street system as well, but the fact that they bicycle at all build theirawareness of and sympathy Danelle Laidlaw of the BABC  for bicycle advocacy.  This opinion is shared  w h o , r e f e r r i n gt o M o n t r e a l ' s . b i k e p a t h n e t w o r k , s a y s ,  not may by  h  i  -53 -  If you undertake then you can go support... You community, but activists...(p.c.  a proje on and get the of poli 1991.)  a  ct like that do the thi support, n ticians, of  In contrast, bicycling in Vancouver local issue. Aid. Gordon most  has a marginal  Vancouver 1980.))  then you ngs you ot just people  hasnot  enjoyed  impact  on  a few  people's  mail-in survey  and  only  28%  (Vancouver BAC plan  1990.)  of 800  knew  issue then  pattern.  popular  Vancouver  cyclists in 1990  that the City did not have  This may  there is much  revealed  over 70%  at  (Civic politics  on partisan lines as on issues.  in  (Tennant, a very  low  had not heard of the  a bicycle  coordinator.  be because most of the recommendations of the  result in relatively invisible improvements.^  popular  this link to a politically  voting  awareness of the City's bicyclepolicy and programmes: VCBP,  support and do with that ed bicycling of community  Price (p.c. 1991) believes that bicycling is an issue which  are in any case fought as much A  get the public really want to of the organis like my mum,  less reason  If bicycling  is not a  for politicians to pay  politically  attention to  a  r e l a t i v e l ys m a l l g r o u p o f b i c y c l e a d v o c a t e s . 4.5 Bicycling organisations in Seattleand  Vancouver.  4.5.1 The Cascades Bicycle Club. In 1970, the Cascades Bicycle Club (CBC) August  was founded.  Its goals included  (CBC  1970) #4: #5:  #6:  to appreciateand improve our environment; to encourage bicycling for recreation and transportation [itwas never a racing bicycling club]; to protect bicycling interests.  Vancouver's bicycle policy as stated in the VCBP is to facilitatethe safe integrationof bicycles with other vehicles on the streetsystem. The striping of b i c y c l e l a n e s i s c o n s i d e r e d u n s a f e ; a n d b u i l d i n g b i k e p a t h s f o r u t i l i t a r i a nc y c l i s t s is not a priority. Thus there is littlevisible evidence aside from wider curb lanes and additional signage on bridges that the streetsystem is being adapted to accommodate cyclists.  - 5 4 -  The  Cascades Bicycle Club now  has over 4,000 members,  mostly in King  County.  T h e y c a n p a c k h e a r i n g s o n l a r g e n e w r o a d p r o j e c t s w i t h u p t o 3 0 0 c y c l i s t s( F i n n i e , p . c . 1991). In comparison, Vancouver Bike Club has about 200 members A s s o c i a t i o no f B C  about 2400, province-wide.  As well as being large, the CBC organised and outcomes.  and the Bicycling  aware  activistsappear to the author to be exceptionally well-  of how  they can affect policy formulation and  Almost since the club's inception,members  programme  h a v e b e e n c o n t a c t i n gp o l i t i c i a n s  and bureaucrats to keep them aware of the views of cyclistsin the Seattle area. example  of this was a P.R. ride from  Green  Lake to Pioneer Square which  An  the club  organised in 1971 and in which local politicianstook part. At every election also, the club contacted candidates to ask for theirviews on bicycling. With constant pressure of this nature, bicycling became 1991.)  recognised  Ex-Seattle city councilman  As Lehman  comments:  Tim  as a potential vote winner.  (Lehman,  p.c.  Hill agrees with this assessment (p.c. 1991).  "By the early 70s there was a well-defined, visible  commitment  t ob i c y c l i n gf r o mt h eb u s i n e s sa n dp o l i t i c a lc o m m u n i t y " . Bureaucrats in the area now projectsor programmes  know  t h a t i f t h e y d o n o t c o n s u l t l o c a l c y c l i s t sa b o u t  t h e n t h e l o c a l c y c l i s t sw i l l m a k e t h e i r v i e w s k n o w n  vociferously (Miller p.c. 1991.)  quickly  and  Government  Affairs Committee  is  departments when  they failto  Also, the CBC's  not afraid of threatening to sue local government  their stated responsibilities to cyclists. (Finnie, p.c. The political respect which the bicycling community  I g b o  honour  1991.) commands  in Seattlegrew  the following roots,in the opinion of Angel Rodriguez, ex-chair of the BAB of a local bike shop for many  new  and  years:  t had a good club, a good set of bike shop owners ot involved, and ride organisers with guts. If th e e n t h e r e , t h e n t h e p o l i t i c i a n sj u s t w o u l d n o t h a v e urselves to be a well-organised and well-motivated  who cared an ose three legs listened. We group (p.c.  d  who hadn't showed 1991)  from owner  (Ibid.)  -55  -  w h o a p p r o a c h e d p o l i t i c s a n dp o l i t i c i a n s i nat o t a l l y a d u l t m a n n e r didn't come across as raving lunatics, as table-pounders (Black, p.c. 1991.) T h u s t h e r ei s a p o s i t i v e f e e d b a c k l o o p : C a s c a d e sk n o w s t h a ti t h a s a f a i r c h a n c e o f being listened to, this knowledge  m o t i v a t e s i t s a c t i v i s t s ,s o t h e y a r e m o r e  effective and  t h u s a r e l i s t e n e d t o s t i l l m o r e . T h i si sn o t t o s a y t h a t t h eC B C h a s w o n a l l i t s b a t t l e s the most  "celebrated' being the failure to win cyclistaccess to the new  bridge in 1984. battle won  (Although the way  it political respect  (Black p.c. 1991).)  But in general, "Cascades  of the activistsinterviewed for thisresearch cited the CBC  successful advocacy Laidlaw.)  of bicycling in Seattle, (e.g. Rodriguez,  Lagerwey  (p.c. 1990)  Seattle  in which the club fought and recovered from this  b e c o m i n g m o r e a n d m o r e e f f e c t i v ea n d l i s t e n e dt o . " ( L e h m a n , p . c . M a y Many  West  [is]  1991.)  as instrumental in the  Pollard, Arnaud,  believes that as a bicycle coordinator,  Miller, "a  good  c i t i z e n ' sg r o u p , p r o p e r l y m a n a g e d , w i l lb e y o u rl i f e b l o o d " - i nh i s c a s et h the GAC  of the CBC.  Skonecki  ( 1 9 8 0 , 2 1 8 ) a g r e e s t h a t ab i c y c l e c o o r d i n a t o r " n e e d s a  constituency of local people who the program's  continuity".  know,  Rodriguez  like and will support the coordinator to assure p u t s i t al i t t l em o r e  bluntly:  If the CBC wasn't there, if it disappeared tomorrow, then Lagerwey would lose hisjob the day aftertomorrow, (p.c. 1991.) 4.5.2  Peter  Organisations in Vancouver.  Vancouver  has  recreational and  never  had  commuter  a bicycling  organisation  which  has  brought  together  cyclists,bicycling advocates and the bicycling industry.  T h e r e h a s n e v e r b e e n ag r o u p w h i c h h a s p r o m o t e d  bicycling through large events in the  same way thatthe Cascades has. The  Vancouver  founder members "One  Bicycle Club Marilyn  originated in 1978 and was, according to one of its  P o l l a r d , ap o l i t i c a l l y a c t i v e o r g a n i s a t i o n f r o m t h e  of the firstthings I remember  doing [with the Club] was protesting at the  beginning. opening  - 5 6 o f the S e a b u s [ b e c a u s e i t d i d n ' t c a r r y b i k e s ] " ( p . c . 1 9 9 1 ) . H o w e v e r , o v e r t h y e a r s the c l u b h a s b e e n l e s s a c t i v e i n a d v o c a c y - a l t h o u g h t h i s m future as differentpeople become  active.  The Bicycling Association of British Columbia as in Vancouver. cyclists who  It is a sporting body, t r a d i t i o n a l l yh a v e  been  is active at the Provincial level as  not a club, and is heavily dominated less interested in advocacy  recreation and transportation oriented clubs such as the Cascades.  well  by  racing  issues than It has an  more  important  role to play as the Provincial organiser and licensee of races, which absorbs much time.  Its main  Government. advocacy  funding  sources are membership  Executive Director of the BABC,  and  grants from  in part from  Provincial  Danelle Laidlaw, believes that the  r o l e o f t h e o r g a n i s a t i o n i s " a s ar e s o u r c e f o r o u r m e m b e r s  something themselves"  the  staff  who  want to  (p.c. 1991). She believes that the strength of the CBC  their very large membership  which  results from  do  comes  the rides which  they  organise. But, she says, I'm a littlereluctant for a provincial organisation [such as the BABC] to get into organising a ride. I'd like to see our clubs do that. I don't see i ta st h ef u n c t i o no ft h eA s s o c i a t i o nt ob e w h a tc l u b ss h o u l db e . The Advocacy  Committee  of the BABC  had a budget of $2,300 in 1990, compared  the approximately $85,000 of membership r a c i n gc o m m i t t e e . for those adult cyclists who  (Ibid.)  (Ibid.)  to  and grant income which was spent by  the  T h eB A B C d o e s p r o v i d e C a n - B i k e b i c y c l i n  are interested, but they are not offered on a year-round  basis. The growth of the CBC  compared  to its counterparts in Vancouver  may  in part  e x p l a i n e d b y t h e p e r s o n a l p o l i t i c so f t h e o r g a n i s a t i o n s . T h e f a c t t h a t C B C have the chance to be responsible for some (e.g the treasurer of the STP  ride  volunteers  large and logistically challenging  handles about $500,000  in ayear) may  be  events absorb  -57-  volunteer energy more constructivelythan in an organisation where such opportunities are fewer. 4 . 6 T h e i m p o r t a n c eo fm u n i c i p a ls t a f fi na b i c y c l ep r o g r a m m e . The CBC  and the BAC  in Seattlehave been immeasurably helped by the presence on  C i t y a n d ( s i n c e 1 9 8 7 ) C o u n t y s t a f fo f t h e b i c y c l e c o o r d i n a t o r s . V a n c o u v e r thissame combination of highly active bicycling community, A coordinator  is virtually an essential to a bicycle programme  While much can be done by important to have a qualifi advocate for biking and to (Lagerwey 1988, 98, emphas Phil Miller, the King  County  citizens ed person provide is added  has not  had  and bicycle coordinators. because:  "outside the system, itis also very "inside" the bureaucracy to be an citizens with timely information. .) 1  non-motorized  transportation coordinator, also  sees  c o m m u n i c a t i o n a s a v e r yi m p o r t a n tp a r t o f h i sj o b - h e i sa " c o n d u i t " b e t w e e n p r e s s u r e groups and his department, which pressure from outside, (p.c. 1991.)  hired him  to be "a pain in the ass" and  As Abraham  pre-empt  (p.c. 1991) says of her three local  coordinators,  They can't get up and say something because they're city workers but t h e yc a nt e l lu s a n ds o w e c a ng e tu p a n d s a yi t . a n d Peter and Mike (and Carla before him) did a lot for cycling in getting people organised behind the scenes. I mean, a lot of stuff, they can't do up front because they're city employees, but we've always known w h e n e v e r t h e r e ' s a n y t h i n g h a p p e n i n g w i t h t h e C i t y C o u n c i l . . real involved with the GAC and they letus know. So we've been sort of the volunteer arm. The  coordinators in Seattle are limited in what  they can do because they are in  one  department, (Engineering in the City, Transportation Planning (a part of public  works)  in the County).  varies  according  As Wilkinson  to the department  (1980, 218) explains, a coordinator's function  s/he is in and whether  whole department or for the whole municipality.  the job is to be a coordinator for the  -  Arnaud  (who  5  8-  is familiar with Seattle as well as Vancouver)  of having full-timecoordinating staff, and he  is convinced of the benefits  comments,  Council members tend to accept what stafftellthem. When you have a c o o r d i n a t o r w h o c a n g o t o C o u n c i l a n d s a y , l o o k , c y c l i s t sc o u l d u s e t h i s a n d t h i s i s w h y , t h e n C o u n c i l t a k e n o t i c e . B u t i f t h eB A C g o e s t o Council, they'llsay, "You're just the Committee, what do you know about it?" [In Seattle] they have the two people on staff that keep an eye on everything thatengineering planning does. So whenever anything comes up that affects bicycling, they're there. And that's what the Committee can't do on its own. (p.c. April 1991, emphasis added.) The  only person  coordinator would because more  interviewed  for this research who  be of use in Vancouver  he perceives there to be a danger in favour of different members  project.  However,  this view  was  did not believe that a Alderman  Gordon  of the position being  bicycle  Price, largely  tokenistic.  Price  is  of staff being assigned to each bicycle-related  does  not  recognise  that a  large  proportion  of  a  coordinator's time is spent ensuring that all projects take account of bicycles, and there are any  bicycle related projects to work  on.  A bicycle programme  that  is not just  a  series of projects. Arnaud is stronglyof the opinion thatthe BAC when  it had a coordinator to work  with.  in Vancouver was much  more effective  After the position was terminated,  according  to Arnaud, "things stagnated". The author notes from reading the minutes of the  BAC  that, during the period when  were  there was a coordinator, things the BAC  requested  generally done by the date of the next meeting whereas, before and after,requests for action or information often dragged on for several months. interviewswith Arnaud and  This was  confirmed  in  Laidlaw.^  Aid. Price believes that the stagnation in 1987 was because "[the BAC] looked as though there were too many long time people on it and it had gotten into a rut" (p.c. 1991); and also because the BAC was perceived as a COPE  -  5  9-  A l t h o u g h t h e r e w a s n o b i c y c l e c o o r d i n a t o r o n s t a f ff r o m 1 9 8 7 o n w a r d s , t h e n e w person of the BAC,  Nelson McLachlan,  worked  a l m o s t f u l l - t i m eo n b i c y c l i n g i s s u e s  during his tenure and in so doing raised awareness of bicycling both within and City Hall. As Engineer Gord Lovegrove Yes, I think that Nelson was for where things are going. politicallyhe erred here and together and led the chariot ra Alderman  Gordon  chair  without  comments,  a major mover. We owe a lot to Nelson So, maybe he did a few things wrong and there. But by and large he held the reins ce in the right direction.  Price says that McLachlan's  role was  as a "provocateur"  not as  a  bicycle coordinator. He worked very closelywith Gord Lovegrove on the planning of the Seaside Bike Route; he also spent much  time organising volunteers, persuading  t r a f f i ce n g i n e e r s t o g o o u t b i c y c l i n g , a n d r a i s i n g a w a r e n e s s o f b i c y c l i n g i n by letter-writingand "networking*.  Many  Vancouver  o f t h e s e a c t i v i t i e sa r e p r e c i s e l y w h a t a  paid  bicycle coordinator would spend his/hertime doing Laidlaw agrees that "what we  had  [ w i t h N e l s o n ] w a s a v o l u n t e e r b i c y c l e c o o r d i n a t o r - a n d t h eC i t y s h o u l d r e that", (p.c.  1991.)  4 . 7M u n i c i p a l h i s t o r y a n d i t s e f f e c t o n b i c y c l e a d v o c a c y . All bureaucracies  are in part a product  Seattleand Vancouver  of their past and the different histories of  Councils can go some  response to lobbying from cyclists. According  way  the  t o w a r d s e x p l a i n i n g t h e i rd i f f e r e n t  to MacDonald  (1987,  168),  When one compares the politicalevolution of the two cities, one can see t h a tt h e i rp o s t w a rp o l i t i c sg r e wo u to f s i m i l a rp o l i t i c a l s i t u a t i o n [had] similar longevity. Municipal  elections in Vancouver  first20 years following WW2: were much  and Seattle were not fought along party lines in the localpoliticswas nominally non-partisanand the parties  more loosely-based than at the Federal or Provincial/Statelevel. Both  were  committee which had little credibility with the incoming NPA administration. (Arnaud is a member of COPE (Committee of Progressive Electors) whilst Price is an NPA (Non-Partisan Association) alderman.)  - 6 0 -  embarked  upon  However,  there were important differencesin the way the two Cities operated.  The  a programme  of reconstruction and  development  origins of the two city councils were different. The  always dominated  during  Council  was  b y r e a l - e s t a t ea n d b u s i n e s s i n t e r e s t s f r o m i t s i n c e p t i o n i n 1 8 8 6  up  until the early 1970s.  (Magnusson,  1983.)  Vancouver  this time.  In this situation,  M o s ti n t e r e s t g r o u p s w e r e s u s p e c t , b u t b u s i n e s s g r o u p s . . . w e r (Ibidp 1 9 7 . ) a n d  "Citizen participation" is not a phrase which was used frequently, if at all,in Vancouver before 1968. (Tennant 1980, 8.) In Seattle, however, not dominated  f o r t h e f i r s tt w e n t y y e a r s o f t h e c e n t u r y a t l e a s t , C i t y C o u n c i l  entirely by  conservatives: organised labor always  had  two  was  or  three  representatives. Later in the century, according to Miller (1970, 41), the Council  in  Seattle was  its  not seen as "a strong centre of community  decisions after the topic had been debated for some  power."  It only made  time by the other  community  g r o u p s . T h i sc o n t r i b u t e d t ow h a tM a c D o n a l d ( o p c i tp 1 6 9 citizen committee  style of government".  This  emphasis  on  citizen participation  i n c r e a s e d a f t e r t h e e l e c t i o n o f M a y o r U h l m a n i n 1 9 6 9 (Ibid 1 9 8 7 ) , a n d account for the relativelywarm  welcome  which the bicyclingcommunity  received from  the City. I n c o n t r a s t , t h ep o s t w a rp e r i o d i n V a n c o u v e r s a w a g r e a t e r c e n t r a l i s a t i o n o f p o w e City Hall and in particular,strengthening of the civic bureaucracy.  (Tennant,  1980.)  T h i s r e a c h e d i t s h i a t u s i n 1 9 5 6 i n t h e f o r m a t i o n o f a c i t y m a n a g e r s y s t e mw h e r e a b o a r d made  up of the Mayor  and two appointed commissioners virtuallyran the City. In the  later years of this system (the mid to late 1960s), one of the commissioners, Sutton Brown, became  Gerald  dominant and "his power verged on the absolute" (Magnusson,  o pc i tp 2 0 4 ) . I np a r t i c u l a r , S u t t o nB r o w nw a sa b l et o r o u t ec t o b e i m p l e m e n t e d b y t h ed e p a r t m e n t s h e f a v o u r e d - e s p e c i a l l y t h e E  -61  Department  -  (thus increasing its power).  Hence,  for example,  the 1959 freeway  plan  w h i c h w a s am a j o r p l a n k o f t h e c i t y ' s t r a n s p o r t a t i o n p l a n w a s n o t o f f i c i a l l yp r e s e n t e d  to  Council (and therefore to the public) for eight years. Since  1972, when  a more  progressive Council  was  elected and  system was abandoned, Vancouver City has been much more open  the  commissioner  and  f u n c t i o n a l i n t e r e s t g r o u p s o f a l l v a r i e t i e s ... w o u l d a p p e a r t o b e l i t om o r es e r i o u s l yt h a nw a sp r e v i o u s l yt h ec a s e . Among  t h e m , o f c o u r s e , w e r e t h eb i c y c l i s t s .  4.8  Bureaucratic structure.  The  implementation of the bicycle policy in Seattle may  comparison more  to Vancouver  directly.  because the former City controls more  Firstly, planning  None  had  is an Office attached to the Mayor's  City employees  Engineering  Office).  interviewed for this thesis feltthat the bicycle  suffered in Vancouver  because  Engineering are all separate departments; however, an  Department  1990.)  of the Vancouver  programme  easier in  municipal functions  in Seattle is part of the Engineering  (except for long range planning which (Lagerwey, p.c. Sept  have been made  report, and  ex-BAC  Planning,  Social Planning  there is no doubt that the VCBP  chair Nelson  McLachlan  comments  and is  that, if  Planning and Engineering in Vancouver were one department, "we would be light years ahead [in the bicycle  programme]".  In Seattle one might expect that having Parks and Recreation under the jurisdiction of the City  would  However,  in fact both  Department  have  facilitatedthe implementation Hooning  .and Finnie  (p.c. Jan  of  the bicycle 1991)  say  programme.  that the  has been an unwilling partner of the Engineering Department:  the  Parks park  - 6 2 planners have not always passed on ideas from the BAB responsible for implementation.  In Vancouver  and SED  to the parks staff  this has been less of a  problem.  4 . 9 D i f f e r e n c e si nE n g i n e e r i n gD e p a r t m e n t s . The  Seattle Engineering Department  appears to have been much  bicycling than its counterpart in Vancouver,  welcome,  with a fabulous group even  Price comments  though  I was  who  went  a complete  receptive to  and in particular to the imposition on  department of a bicycle coordinator. Josh Lehman "I worked  more  comments  about his arrivalin  out of their way  outsider",  to give me  (p.c. 1991.)  "My  it was that he didn't have the support of the City Engineer which is why  the Engineering Department  to be eliminated", (p.c. 1991.) Department  to begin  the hiring process  was anticipating that the coordinator would  afterhis/her firstyear. (Vancouver BAC The  Seattle Engineering Department  vehicles". (Theisen, p.c. 1991.) that this is because  Minutes, in 1970  Obviously  trips. The  SED  bikeways,  which  was  a c t i v i t i e s .T h i s m a y  Thus  reading of the position  Council directed  for the coordinator,  work  "was  totallyoriented towards less the case. Theisen  motor believes  (the  they saw that the bicycle was a viable mode  the Department  in part explain why  rather than just dying when  for short  itself some  stake in bicycle  the bicycle programme  for  programme  was revived in  the Federal and State monies ran out in 1976; and it  help to explain the department's  City  set by Theisen himself and ride bikes to  also able to obtain and spend Federal and State monies  gave  the  on non-bicycle matters  certain key traffic engineers, especially Bill van Gelder  in the early 1970s.  Gordon  1986.)  this is now  Traffic Engineer) began to follow an example work  Certainly, when  SED, good  Whereas,  about the bicycle coordinator positionin Vancouver:  was recommended  a  the  1978 may  relative receptiveness to bicycle transportation today.  -63 -  4 . 1 0 U S a n d C a n a d i a n p o l i t i c a lc u l t u r e . There are great differencesin the Canadian and US way  political systems which go  some  to explaining the different experiences of bicycle advocates in Vancouver  Seattle. The  and  c i t i z e n s / s u b j e c t so f t h e t w o c o u n t r i e s a l s o t e n d t o r e s p o n d d i f f e r e n t l y t o  their respective political systems, resulting in two obviously different political cultures North and South of the border. Volunteer activityis more (1985, 141), who  common  in the US  than in Canada  according to Lipset  says:  Americans are more likely to take part in voluntary efforts to achieve particulargoals, while Canadians are more disposed to rely on the state. Authors who  have compared  t h e t w o c o u n t r i e s ' p o l i t i c a lt r a d i t i o n s n o t e t h e s t r o n g e r  elitisttendencies in Canadian to be questioned, and more 1972.) According  society which  make  government  policies both less likely  difficultto influence except at election time.  to Presthus (1977, 8), Canada  h a s " a q u a s i - p a r t i c i p a t i v ec o n d i t i o n a s  far as the citizen'srole in politicsis concerned", whereas, in the USA, other national political system  in the world  is bargaining  politicalprocess". (R.A. Dahl, quoted in Stedman, This would  go  some  way  1975,  "perhaps in  so basic a component  of  towards explaining the difference in magnitude  the Cascades  Club  no the  121.)  activitiesof the bicycling interestgroups in Seattle and Vancouver, stressed that within the USA  (Morton,  of  the  although it must  is exceptional: it is the  second or third largest bicycling club, and the only one that has its own  be  country's education  consultant. 4.11  D i f f e r e n t p o l i t i c a lh i s t o r i e s o f t h e t w o c i t i e s .  Finally, Seattle may "progressive' Vancouver  be receptive to bicycle advocacy  or "radical'  city.  issues because  it is somehow  It certainly has a radical political heritage  ( u n l i k e o t h e r c i t i e si n B . C . ) d o e s n o t s h a r e ( S c h w a n t e s  1970, Nelson  a which  1977.)  - 6 4 Friedheim more  and Friedheim  (1968, 147) assert that "the Seattle [labor] movement  radical than most other American  city-wide movements".  long time ago and it is impossible to prove any link between politicalenvironment  lend  this was  it and today's  a  favourable  for bicycling in Seattle.  The political popularity of the various Open however  However,  was  support  to Abraham's  especiallyenvironmentally.  Space Bond  issues over the years  assertion that Seattle is a  "progressive"  Britishtravelwriter Jonathan Raban, who  in Seattle for the past eighteen months,  recently said that it was  more  does city,  has been living like  Sweden  u n d e r O l a v P a l m e t h a n a U S c i t y . (Guardian ( M a n c h e s t e r ) 2 2 / 0 5 / 9 1 . ) H o w e v e i f S e a t t l e i s a  v  p r o g r e s s i v e ' c i t y , t h i s c a n o n l yb e c o n s i d e r e d a m i n o r c o n t r i b u t o  factor to the effectiveness of local bicycle  advocates.  -65-  C H A P T E R  5 : C O N C L U S I O N S  A N D  R E C O M M E N D A T I O N S .  The purpose of this final chapter is to discuss the findings of the research as they relate to, firstly, the 5 E's; secondly, policy studies in general; thirdly, the role of the planner; and lastly, what parts of the bicycle programme in Seattle might be transferrable to Vancouver and other cities.  5.1  The  5  E's.  The 5 E's are a very useful guide to anyone concerned with making a city more bicycle-friendly. They represent a progression from early bicycle programmes which were concerned almost entirely with facilities. However, the 5 E's together make up an ideal bicycle programme and it is unlikely that any one organisation or municipality would be able to implement all aspects of them, for the following reasons: Bicycle programmes are usually housed in one municipal department and so are seen by other municipal departments as being of less concern to them.  (For  example, in Seattle, the Parks Department is not always a fully willing partner with the Engineering Department in the bicycle programme.) Municipal jurisdiction may not extend or may be weaker where other bodies have responsibility for parks, education, driver education, or enforcement, for example. Thus municipal departments with responsibility for a bicycle programme must, whilst recognising the interdependence of the 5 E's, also realise their own limits and use their resources to carry out aspects of the programme in which they have expertise. For this reason, also, there is always a role for non-municipal, volunteer-based organisations to carry out tasks which the municipality cannot at that time undertake. Volunteer based organisations can demonstrate that an activity is worth doing; the municipality may then take it up.  -66-  Institutionalisation  is perhaps  bicycle programme,  b u t a l s o t h e m o s t d i f f i c u l tt o a c h i e v e .  a bicycle programme to achieve would normal  the  unnecessary  V  E'  which  is most  since everything which  Ultimately, it would that programme  is  a  render  attempting  and  safety.  However,  in road  transportation  planning,  this is again an ideal, since it requires  different organisations to change both their regulations and their procedure for them.  of  be carried out as part of the normal procedure and written into the  regulations of all organisations involved  engineering  essential to the success  many applying  The process of institutionalising bicycle transportationmust therefore begin  at  the level of the officeor department and work out from there. This research has demonstrated bicycle programme Departments. showing  Examples  in Vancouver  bicyclists. These which  r e q u i r e d f o r t h e i n s t i t u t i o n a l i s a t i o no f  have begun to occur within the Seattleand Vancouver  other engineers  Lovegrove  that the changes  include Bob  Theisen bicycling to work  that the bicycle is a viable mode reminding  Engineering  at SED  thereby  for short trips; and  Gord  other engineers to take account of the needs  organizational changes  a  of  can be seen as a process of social learning  is A n y l a s t i n gc h a n g e i n p r o c e s s a n d s t r u c t u r e[ w h i c h ] c o m e [ s ] f r o m w i t h i n the organisation and involve[s] far-reaching changes in awareness, attitudes,behavior, and values on the part of its constituents. (Leung, 1987, 15.)  This research has shown member about  that the process of social learning will occur faster if there is a  of staffwithin the department or organisation who the needs  of, in this case, cyclists.  This  is one  is able to educate other staff way  in which  a  bicycle  coordinator can be extremely useful. Bicycle plans enforcement  which  use the 4 E's of engineering, encouragement,  as their basis may  bicycle programme  is more  be useful because  education  they will clearly demonstrate  than just a facilitiesbuilding or safety  programme.  and that a  -67-  However, separate bicycle plans do little for the fifth E ' of institutionalisation, since V  they are easy to leave on the shelf gathering dust. Ampt (1984) showed this to be the case in Victoria, Australia, where some 11 out of 21 local bike plans have been written, adopted and then ignored. As this research has stressed, if the needs of bicycle transportation are really to be addressed then they must be written into the transportation plans, capital improvement plans, and zoning and traffic bylaws of a municipality. 5.2  Policy.  This study has shown that the impetus for bicycle policy-formulation in Seattle and Vancouver does not stem solely from a desire on the part of political and bureaucratic decision-makers to solve some perceived problem. While this has played a role, the existence of interest groups and the availability of funds have also been important. Obviously, policies on many things, not just bicycle transportation, are formulated for a similar variety of reasons. One objective of this thesis was to explain why the bicycle policies and programmes in Seattle and Vancouver have evolved differently. In part, this has been shown to be due to different political situations and a history of greater citizen involvement in municipal politics in Seattle than in Vancouver. Policy-making, in this instance, has taken place in two definite "sociohistorical and behavioural contexts" (Leung op ch, 6). This, too, is typical of policy-making in general - it does not take place in a vacuum. The different reactions of the two Engineering Departments studied in this work to the bicycle programme demonstrate the difficulty of imposing a policy on a department which does not have a stake in it. Because impetus for the policy in Seattle has come from within as well as without SED, the department has had an ongoing stake in it. This may have made the department more willing to implement the policy rather then to stand in its way.  A l l policies which are imposed upon an implementing agency by  - 68 -  another organisation may to  be  ongoing  implementing  suffer this difficulty. For this reason, it is essential for  liaison between  the  policy-makers  and  those  there  responsible  for  it.  5.3 The role of the planner. In studying the way Lagerwey  in which  Seattlebicycle coordinators Mike  Dornfeld and  Peter  operate, thisresearch has highlighted one very important role of the planner:  that of communicator.  This role is advocated for planners by planning theorist John  Forester (1989, 155) who  writes suggests thatplanners can:  E d u c a t e c i t i z e n sa n d c o m m u n i t y o r g a n i s a t i o n sa b o u t t h e p l a n n i n g p r o c e s s and both formal and informal "rulesof the game"; S u p p l y t e c h n i c a l a n d p o l i t i c a li n f o r m a t i o n t o c i t i z e n s t o e n a b l e i n f o r m e d , effective politicalparticipation and negotiation; W o r k t os e e t h a t c o m m u n i t y . . . n o n p r o f e s s i o n a l o r g a n i s a t i o n s access to public planning information, local codes, plans, notices of relevant meetings, and consultations with agency contacts,"specialists" supplementing theirown "in-house" expertise. The case study of Seattlehas shown that in this case their doing  thatplanners can in fact operate in this manner  so is conditional upon  reasonably well-organised "community  the existence of a motivated  but and  nonprofessional organisation".  5 . 4 V a n c o u v e ra n dS e a t t l e . For a bicycle programme  to be effective, the experience  from  Seattle indicates that it is  necessary to have three (groups of) actors working  together so that the voice of cyclists  is heard.  at the present time lacks this trio of  This research has shown  actors. They  that Vancouver  are:  a bicycle coordinator  on the municipal  staff;  a well organised and unified lobby group outside the municipal structure; and a group  of volunteers on an Advisory  municipality.  Committee  which  is associated with  the  - 6 9 The  volunteers should deal with large scale, long term matters rather than with  minutiae of, say, facilities design which  can absorb volunteer energy without  long term effect on policy. (Rodriguez, p.c. 1991.) actors should  be to raise awareness  automatically recognised enforcement  and  education;  much  The long term aim of all these  of bicycle transportation to a level at which  in all planning  and  regulation of transportation  that is, to a point where  the  it is  planning,  it is institutionalised within  the  bureaucratic and politicalstructure. It was an objective of this thesis to assess the transferabilityof the bicycle in Seattle to Vancouver.  Much  of what  m u n i c i p a l a c t i v i t i e sw o u l d  seem  both the US  However,  and Canada.  has been done in terms of lobbying  to be transferable to Vancouver  sources in the US,  Vancouver  with another Canadian  d i f f e r e n t b i c y c l ep o l i c y ) , i n s t e a do f w i t h a U S further research, as it would  help  relianceon records of American  experience.  As discussed above, Seattle is no mecca by  its governments  and  transportation  planning  transportation  problems.  and to other cities in  from  state, federal as  more  fruitfulto  and also from the private sector.  If time and resources had permitted, then, it may compared  and  one important factor which is not transferableis  the availability of a wider range of funding well as local governments,  programme  to reduce  have been  city, (perhaps Montreal  As  can  Canadian  bicycle advocates'  for bicycling. However,  be  with its very  c i t y . T h i s w o u l d b e a u s e f u la v e n u e f o r  there is a  cyclists alike that the bicycle, properly process,  have  current  recognition  integrated into  a part of the solution to current  a case study, it provides  a useful example  governments and groups of bicycle advocates across North  America.  for other  the urban city  -70-  BffiLIOGRAPHY  Abraham, Jane. "Bicycle Paths and Trails: PracticalApproaches to Reducing User C o n f l i c t s . 'i n P r o B i k e 8 8 P r o c e e d i n g s o f t h e F i f t h I n t e r n a t i o n a lC o n f e r e n c e o n Bicycle Programs and Promotions. Washington, D.C.: BFA. 1988. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Guide for Bikewavs Washington D.C.: AASHTO. 1974.  (AASHTO)  Guidelines for the Development Bicycle Facilities. Washington D.C.: AASHTO. 1981. Ampt,  E l i z a b e t h " P l a n n i n g a s as u b s t i t u t e f o r i m p l e m e n t a t i o n : Transport Reviews 1984 4:2, 201-212.  of  ab i c y c l e c a s e s t u d y '  New  in  A v e r y , E u g e n e V . a n d G e o r g e E . F i e s ( C i t y o f S e a t t l eE n g i n e e r i n g D e p a r t m e n t ) 1983 Seattle Comprehensive Bicycle Plan Seattle, Wa.: Seattle Engineering Department. Avery,  Eugene V. and Richard J. Anderson 1985 Seattle Comprehensive P o l i c y S e a t t l e ,W a . : S e a t t l e E n g i n e e r i n g D e p a r t m e n t . 1985.  Bicycle Federation of America (BFA). Development Manual Regional Bike Plan Washington D.C.: BFA. 1985. Bicycle Forum.  for a  Bicycling  Comprehensive  Various issues. Missoula, Mt.: Bikecentennial.  Bicycling Magazine  " S e a t t l ei s N u m b e r  One City for Cycling.' August  1990.  Black, Carta. "Low Cost Improvements for Bike Facilities' in ProBike 88 Proceedings of the Fifth InternationalConference on Bicycle Programs and Promotions. Washington, D.C.: BFA. 1988. B l a c k f o r d , M a n s e l G . " C i v i c G r o u p s , P o l i t i c a lA c t i o n a n d C i t y P l a n n i n g ' i n P a c i f i c H i s t o r i c a lR e v i e w 4 9 . N o v . 1 9 8 0 , 5 5 7 - 8 0 .  - 71 -  R e f o r m P o l i t i c s i n S e a t t l e D u r i n g t h eP r o g r e s s i v e E r a ' Northwest Quarterly 59 (Oct 1968), 177-186. v  B l a t t Qu Pr Sp  , J e s s e . alitative Anal oceedings of ecialists. Wa  *P r ysis. the shing  1  o g r a m E in Bicycl Second In ton D.C.:  v a l u a e Federat ternation BFA. 19  t i o n : D a t a C o l l e c t i o n T e c h n i q u ion of America (BFA) ProBike 82: al Conference for Bicycle Program 82.  B r a c h e r , T i l m a n " S u b j e k t i v e u n do b j e c k t i v e S i c h e r h e i t v o nR a d w e o f t h e I n t e r n a t i o n a l R o a d a n d t r a f f i cC o n f e r e n c e i n B e r l i n . 1 9 8 8 . B u c k l e y , C A . 93-102.  s  B i c y c l eT r a f f i c V o l u m e s ' i nT r a n s p o r t a t i o n R e s e a r c hR e  Burden, Dan. "Normalizing Bicycling in Government' in ProBike 82: Proceedings of the Second International Conference for Bicycle Program Specialists. Washington D.C.: BFA. 1982. Cascades Bicycle Club. Newsletter (various editions from Wa.: Cascades Bicycle Club.  1970  to 1991).  Capital Region District Bikeways for the Victoria Metropolitan Area Capital Region District. 1976.  Seattle,  Victoria, B.C.:  C h a o , P e t e r J . - C . e ta l . " C y c l i s t B e h a v i o u r Transportation Research Record # 683, 1978. City of Calgary Engineering Department A Bicycle Path System Calgary Calgary, publisher as author. 1972. City Plan Commission Council. 1988.  The  Bikeways  Plan  for the City  Spokane, Washington: Spokane  City of Portland Office of Transportation The Alternative Transportation Guide. Portland, Or: publisher as author. 1989. <  of  City  Program  City of Seattle. Council Resolution Board) 16th May 1977.  7  2-  # 25534  City of Seattle Engineering Department. publisher as author. 1985.  (intent to create a Bicycle  Comprehensive  S e a t t l eB i c y c l i n g G u i d e m a p  Advisory  Bicycle Plan  Seattle:  1991.  City of SeattleEngineering Department, Office for Planning Street Classification Maps Publisher as author. July 1984. C i t y o f S e a t t l e D e p a r t m e n t o f P a r k s a n dR e c r e a t i o n S e a t t l e G r e e n - N e w s l e Space and Trails Programs 1:1 Publisher as author. Fall 1990. City of Vancouver Clouds of Change: Report of the Task Force on Change Vancouver: publisher as author. 1990. City of Vancouver, City Clerk's Office Minutes of the Bicycle Advisory 1983 to 1991. (Unpublished.) City of Vancouver Engineering Department publisher as author. 1988. Bicycle Plan Vancouver: unpublished. 1991a.  Committee  Comprehensive Bicycle Plan  Vancouver:  Status Report.  13.  Bicycle Parking Standards Study author.  Atmospheric  To  February  Vancouver:  1991.  publisher as  1991b.  Everett, M.D. and J. Spencer "Empirical Evidence on Determinants of Mass Bicycle Commuting in the US: a Cross-Community Analysis' in Transportation Research Record # 912. F r i e d h e i m , R o b e r t L . , a n d F r i e d h e i m , R o b i n " T h e S e a t t l eL a b o r M o v e m e n t in Pacific Northwest Quarterly 55 (Oct. 1964) 146-156.  1919-20'  -73-  Foster, Andrew Arnold.  and Sue Robson. 1989.  Q u a l i t a t i v eR e s e a r c h i n A c t i o n L o n d o n :  Forester,John. Bicycle Transportation Cambridge, Mass: MIT Forester, John. Planning in the Face of Power Press. 1989. Goldberg, Michael and Mercer, John. Vancouver: UBC Press. 1986. G r e a t e r V a n c o u v e r R e g i o n a l D i s t r i c t( G V R D ) G V R D . 1 9 9 0 .  The  Press.  Edward  1983.  Berkeley: University of California  Myth  of the North  American  City  Creating Our Future  Burnaby,  B.C.:  Grotenhuis, Dirk H. ten "The Delft Cycle Plan' in Proceedings. Velo City 87 Conference "Planning for the Urban Cyclist". BA-Ede, Netherlands: C.R.O.W. 1987. Haskell, Carol "The 1981.  Role of the Bicycle Coordinator' in Bicycle Forum  Hass-Klau, Carmen. 1988.  New  Life For City Centres London: Anglo-German  Hope,  Diane and Dwight Yachuk. Community Cycling Manual: Design Guide. Ottawa: Canadian Instituteof Planners (CIP).  Hudson,  Mike. "The US has a July\August 1982 pp 22-3.  lot to learn about  bike  # 7,  Foundation.  a Planning 1990.  planning'  June  in  and  Planning  Huyink, W.G.M. "Cycling Policy in the City of Groningen' in Proceedings. Velo City 87 Conference "Planning for the Urban Cyclist ". BA-Ede, Netherlands: C.R.O.W. 1987. Jackson, Michael. "Public Funding: Plugging into Local, State and Federal Dollars' in ProBike 88 Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Bicycle Programs and Promotions. Washington, D.C.: BFA. 1988.  -74-  Jordan, Gihon. "Bicycle Studies in the Transportation Project EIS Process' in 80 Proceedings of the First National Conference for Bicycle Specialists. Washington P.C: BFA. 1980. K  a  p  l  a  n  ,M  i  King County, Washington.  c  h  a  e  le  ta  Bicycling Guidemap  lT  h  eM  o  d  e  lC  Publisher as author.  i  t  ProBike Program  i  e  sP  r  o  g  1990.  K i n g C o u n t y N o n m o t o r i z e d T r a n s p o r t a t i o n F u n Goals. Policiesand Objectives Unpublished undated document. Koos,  Mary Anne "How to Develop a Cycling Policy and Stimulate Cycle Use in Areas with few Cyclists'in Proceedings. Velo City 87 Conference "Planning for the Urban Cyclist". BA-Ede, Netherlands: C.R.O.W. 1987.  Lagerwey, Peter. "InstitutionalisingBicycling in the Transportation Planning in ProBike 88 Proceedings of the Fifth InternationalConference on Programs and Promotions. Washington, D.C.: BFA. 1988. L  e  Leung,  m  Process' Bicycle  , R i c h a r d e ta l " T h eN e wF e d e r a They Are and How to use them' in ProBike 80 Proceedings of the First National Conference for Bicycle Program Specialists. Washington D.C.: BFA. 1980. i  e  u  x  H.L. Towards a Subjective Approach to Policy Planning Winnipeg:Ronald P. Frye and Co. 1985.  and  lH  Evaluation  Lipset, Seymour Martin. "Canada and the US: the CulturalDimension' in C.F. Doran ( e d ) C a n a d aa n dt h eU S E a g l e w o o dC l i f f s , N J :P r e n t i c eH a l l . 1 9 8 5 . Litchfield, Bill. "Bicycle Advisory Boards' in ProBike 88 Proceedings International Conference on Bicycle Programs and Promotions. D.C.: BFA. 1988.  of the Fifth Washington,  Loop, S.B. and R.D. Lay ton "Effect of Bicycle lane Usage on Vehicles in the Adjacent Lane' in Transportation Research Record # 629, 1977.  i  -7 5 -  Lott, Dale F., and Robert Sommer. Behavioural Evaluation of a Bikeway Unpublished Paper, University of California at Davis.  System.  Lott, Dale F. and D.Y. Lott "Differentialeffectsof bike lanes on 10 classesof bicycleautomobile accidents' in Transportation Research Record # 605 pp 20-24, 1976. Lott, Dale F., Tim Tardiff and D.Y. Lott "Evaluation by Experienced Riders of a New Bike Lane in an Established Bike way System' in Transportation Research R e c o r df t6 8 3 , 1 9 7 8 . L o w e ,M a r c i a . B i c y c l e- V e h i c l ef o ra S m a l lP l a n e t . W a s h i n g t o n , D . C . : W o Institute. 1989. M a c D o n a l d , N o r b e r t . D i s t a n t N e i g h b o u r s - a C o m p a r a t i v e H i s t o r y o f Vancouver Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. 1987. McHenry, Steve R. "The Role of Facilitiesin Bicycle Transportation'in ProBike 80 Proceedings of the First National Conference for Bicycle Program Specialists. Washington D.C.: BFA. 1980. McLintock, Hugh. Cycle Planning: A Comprehensive Bibliography. Vol International Experience. Nottingham, England: Univ. of Nottingham, Instituteof Planning Studies, Dept. of Architecture and Planning. 1989. Magnusson, Warren (ed). Press. 1983.  City Politicsin Canada  Toronto: University of  2: The  Toronto  M a r i a n o ,M i c h a e lR . "B i c y c l et r a v e l : A n I n t e g r a lE l e m e m to ft h eU r b a nT r System.' in ITE 53rd Annual Meeting Compendium of Technical Papers: Transportation,an InternationalOverview. London: ITE. 1983. Miller, Phil and Williams, John. "County and Regional Proceedings.ProBike 90 . Washington D.C.: BFA.  Bicycle Programs'  in  Morton, William L. The Canadian Identity Madison, Wise: Univ of Wisconsin Press. 1972.  -76-  Nelson, Gerald B. NorthWest  Seattle New  Cyclist Magazine.  York: Alfred A. Knopf. Various issues.  Office of the Mayor, City of Seattle. Comprehensive publisher as author. Patton, Michael Q.  1977  Bikeway  Plan. Seattle, Wa.:  Utilisation-FocusedEvaluation Beverley Hills: Sage.  1986.  Patton, Michael Quinn. "Evaluation's PoliticalInherency: Practical Implications for Design and Use' in DJ. Palumbo (ed) The Politicsof Program Evaluation Beverley Hills: Sage. 1987. Portland Bicycle Paths Task Force. Bicycle Facilities for Portland: a PJan Portland, Or.: City of Portland. 1973. Presthus, Robert. Cross-national Perspectives on Leiden: E.J. Brill. 1977.  the United  Comprehensive  States and  Canada.  P u c h e r ,J o h n . "U r b a nt r a v e lB e h a v i o u ra st h eO u t c o m eo fP u b l i cP o l i c y : t h of Modal-Split in Western Europe and North America in APA Journal Autumn 1988. 1  Pugh, Ben. Excerpts from the 2010 Sacramento City/County Bikeway Master Plan. Sacramento: Sacramento Dept. of Public Works, Transportation Division. 1988. Rogers, Dick. "The Pros and Cons of Bike Lanes' in ProBike 80 Proceedings of the First National Conference for Bicycle Program Specialists. Washington D.C.: BFA. 1980. Sach, Jack. "The Geelong Bike Plan in ProBike 80 Proceedings of the First National Conference for Bicycle Program Specialists. Washington D.C.: BFA. 1980. 1  -77-  Schwantes, Carlos A. Radical Heritage: Labor Socialism and Reform in Washington and British Columbia 1885-1917. Seattle: University of Washington Press. 1970. S e a t t l eB i c y c l e A d v i s o r y B o a r d publisher. March 1987. Shaw,  Policiesand Procedures Manual  Seattle, Wa.  C h r i s S . " C i t i z e n P a r t i c i p a t i o ni n B i c y c l e P l a n n i n g f r o m t h e P u b l i c Viewpoint' in Transportation Research Record # 570, 1976.  No  Agency's  Skonecki, Peggy "The Local Bicycle Coordinator' in ProBike 80 Proceedings of the First National Conference for Bicycle Program Specialists. Washington D.C.: BFA. 1980. Smith,  David T. Jr. "Planning and Design Research Record #570 pp 3-8. 1976.  of Bike  Facilities'in Transportation  Sorton, Alex. "Integratingthe Bicycle into the Traffic Mix: the US experience.' in ITE 53rd Annual Meeting Compendium of Technical Papers: Transportation, an InternationalOverview. London: ITE. 1983. S t a t i s t i c s C a n a d a1 9 8 6 C e n s u s : P o p u l a t i o n a n d D w e l l i n g C o u n t s T e r r i t o r i e s - B . C . - P o p u l a t i o n . C a t a l o g u e # 9 2 Canada. 1987. Stedman, Murray  S. Jr. Urban Politics Cambridge, Ma.: Winthrop Publishers. 1975.  Tennant, Paul "Vancouver 1980), 3-27. Theisen,  Civic Policies, 1929-80' in B.C.  Studies 46  Robert D. "Planning and Designing a Demonstration Transportation Research Record # 570 pp 9-13. 1976.  (Summer  Bikeway'  in  T o r o n t o C y c l i n g C o m m i t t e e C y c l o m e t e r - a N e w s l e t t e r f o rC y c l i n g i Toronto: publisher as author. July 1990.  - 7 8 US  Bureau of the Census County and City Data Book. 1988. Washington, D.C.: Govt Printing Office. 1988.  US  Walsh, Tom. "The TrafficEngineers' Agenda' in ProBike 88 Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Bicycle Programs and Promotions. Washington, D.C.:BFA. 1988.  W i l k i n s o n , B i l l . " A B i c y c l e P r o g r a m C o o r d i n a t o r - W h y H a v e O n e a n dH One' in ProBike 80 Proceedings of the First National Conference for Bicycle Program Specialists. Washington P.C: BFA. 1980 Williams, John. "Improving Local Conditions for Bicycling in Bicycle Forum 1990. 1  May  Wilmink, A. "The Effects of State-Subsidisingof Bicycle Facilities' in Proceedings. Velo Citv 87 Conference "Planning for the Urban Cyclist". BA-Ede, Netherlands:C.R.O.W. 1987. O T H E R  S O U R C E :  N o t e sf r o m l e c t u r e s a t P r o B i k e N W Proceedings not yet published.  9 1 c o n f e r e n c e , O l y m p i a , W a . , J u l y3 - 7 1 9 9 1  - 79-  I N T E R V I E W S .  Date Jane Abraham  (Cascades Club Educator,Seattle)  2 2  M a y1991  1 0  M a y1991  Carta Black and Angel Rodriguez (Seattle)  5  July 1 9 9 1  Amy  27 Jan1991  Joe Arnaud  (Vancouver)  Carlson(Seattle)  Betty Crowe  (Vancouver Safety Council)  2 7  Durlyn Finnie (Seattle) Tin Hill (King County  26 Executive)  Josh Lehman  27  (SeattleEngineering  Danelle Laidlaw (BABC  Sept 1991  ExecutiveDirector)  Doug Louie (Vancouver Engineering Dept.)  7  June 1 9 9 1  2 7  M a y 1991  2 2  Gord Lovegrove (Vancouver Engineering Dept.) (Vancouver)  M a r c h 1991 12 April1991  N o v e m b e r 1990  Phil Miller (King Co. Dept of Public Marilyn Pollard  Jan1991  Department)  ( S e a t t l eB i k e C o o r d i n a t o r 1 9 7 7 - 8 4 )  Nelson McLachlan  Jan1991  27 July1991  Mike Hooning (Seattle) Peter Lagerwey  M a y 1991  Works)  (Vancouver)  M a y  2 8 1991  3  June 1 9 9 1  Marty Pospischil(Vancouver Engineering Dept.)  13  March 1991  Aid. Gordon Price (Vancouver)  12  March 1991  B o b T h e i s e n ( S e a t t l eE n g i n e e r i n g D e p t  Thanks  also to Steve  Kautz  (Vancouver); to Peter Lagerwey their office in November at the BABC  1970-76)  (City Clerk's Office, Vancouver); and Mike  Dornfeld for allowing me  22 July 1991  Rob  to rummage  1990; to Terry Rose at the Cascades Club Office; to  Office; and to Nelson for his help and inspiration.  Delahanty in  Michael  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0100722/manifest

Comment

Related Items