Practicum Final (1)

Bikability
Assessment, Research &
Implementation Strategy
ASU Campus Sustainability Applications
Tayler Jenkins
Allan Karim
Frank Trombino
12/15/2012 TEMPE
ARIZONA
STATE
UNIVERSITY

12/15/2012 BIKABILITYSTRATEGY
2
Table of Contents
ABSTRACT 3
INTRODUCTION 4
PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION 5
OBJECTIVES 7
METHODS 9
DATA ACQUISITION 14
CONTEXT & SETTING 18
IMPLEMENTATION 19
ANALYSIS & DISCUSSION 23
CONCLUSION 27
APPENDIX 30

3
Abstract
The purpose of this project is to implement a bicycle plan at Arizona State University
to improve bikeability and pedestrian flow, ensure a safe environment for the campus
community, and to help mitigate commuter emissions. The methods for research included an
extensive review of literature to see what other campuses have done to increase bikeability.
In order to evaluate current conditions of ASU’s bike facilities, data was acquired by
surveying students and faculty and by observing and quantifying congestion in crowded areas
on campus. As a result of this research, a plan was drafted to build a bike culture on
campus, address traffic flow and congestion on campus through the implementation of
adequate infrastructure, address safety concerns of riders and their property, and safely and
effectively link commuters to campus. Implementation of this plan will ensure that ASU’s
Tempe campus is a safe and convenient place for bicyclists and other pedestrians to enjoy,
while helping to attain ASU’s goal of climate neutrality by 2035. Although many problematic
areas on campus are highlighted with the research performed in this paper, further research
may need to be developed in order to maximize the potential of an overhaul of ASU’s bike
facilities.

4
Introduction
Arizona State University is considered one of the nation’s first, best, and most
innovative institutions in regards to sustainability. Not only does the college offer
undergraduate, graduate, and Ph.D. options under the sustainability curriculum, but the
institution also actively pursues sustainability by integrating the mantra into the college’s
core values and actions. The progressive institution has ambitious goals to achieve climate
neutrality by 2035 and is looking to diminish as many greenhouse gas emissions as possible
over the next 23 years. The push to make Arizona State University a more sustainable
campus by improving bicycle facilities, which aims to encourage biking as a commuting
option, has become a growing trend by both faculty members and the student body.
Encouraging bicycle riding is largely seen as an effort to significantly decrease carbon
emissions associated with driving automobiles to and from campus, and to develop a safe
environment for pedestrians on campus. However, many problematic areas exist within the
framework of the current ASU bicycle facilities program, which unfortunately may limit the
full sustainability potential that bicycle riding can offer to the campus climate neutrality
initiative. Currently, it is estimated that 10,172 bicycles are used on campus at the Tempe
location (Yatabe, 2012). If proper bicycle facilities are designed and implemented with an
adequate and beneficial infrastructure, the potential to increase bike ridership to and from
campus, as well as within the campus, may significantly increase. As a result, fine tuning
and perfecting the bicycle facilities on Arizona State University campus can potentially allow
for increased ridership and a safer campus environment, which can then work to the
advantage of the school’s climate neutrality plan of 2035. With the implementation of a
well-designed bicycle facility, it is estimated that vehicular commuter emissions can be
reduced by 53.6%, or 7,957 MT CO2( Refer to appendix, figure 1.2).
Unfortunately, it seems that problems with ASU’s bicycle facilities already exist. It
is possible that as enrollment rates continue to increase, the university will see increased
ridership, which may further compound the current problems that exist. The goal of the
research conducted in this document is to highlight problematic areas of Arizona State
University’s bicycle facilities (Tempe campus) which can be remediated by the
implementation of well-planned, long-term solutions to the problems. By reviewing
literature that improves bicycle facilities both on and off campus, pursuing meaningful data
acquisition by both surveys and observational methods, and by looking at potential bike
pathways on campus, there may exist the possibility of administering worthwhile and
beneficial revisions to the problem-ridden pedestrian flow patterns that currently exists on
campus.

5
Problem Identification
Although ASU has supported a bicycle facilities program over the years, many flaws
exist within the current infrastructure. The overlying problem of having a flawed bicycle
facility is that it may discourage individuals to participate in bike ridership. Ultimately, the
issues associated with the current bike plan on campus may hinder the capability of Arizona
State University to achieve its goal of climate neutrality by 2035. The flawed bicycle facility
on campus is composed of many underlying problems that have recently come to fruition due
to an expanding student/faculty body, the failure to implement an evolving bike plan, or the
lack of understanding/poor implementation of an adequate bike facility infrastructure by
campus administrators. Unfortunately, many problems exist both on campus, as well as off
campus for bicyclists.
Many problems exist on campus that may negatively impact use of its bicycle
facilities. Increased ridership, a growing campus population, and increased activity on
campus has highlighted one of the main problems with the current outline of the campus:
there are no significant, visual, or commanding infrastructure elements to direct the
different types of pedestrian traffic flows. From observation, it seems that a lack of
designation or guiding rules has prompted a “free-for-all” type of environment in which
there are no particular standards to abide by when migrating around campus. With an ever-
expanding student body and faculty, pedestrian congestion has become a significant problem
not only for bicyclists, but also for everyone else who has to share the pathway. Much like
automobile traffic, pedestrian congestion occurs when walkers, bicyclists, skateboarders,
carts, and service vehicles all traverse a shared pathway or intersection in which there is no
formal designation.
Pedestrian congestion not only slows the flow of traffic among the various paths,
nodes, and malls on the university, but it may potentially create unsafe conditions for
people moving throughout the university. As a result, safety is a major problematic area of
the bike plan that needs remediation. It has been duly noted that ASU’s Walk Your Wheels
campaign of 2011 (a failed effort extended by Undergraduate Student Government to make
densely populated pedestrian zones on campus safer by encouraging riders of wheeled
vehicles to dismount their craft) was launched on the Tempe campus solely to alleviate
unsafe conditions that had led to a large amount of complaints, collisions, injuries, damages
to property, of students, faculty, and campus visitors.
The infrastructure of ASU’s bike facility also lacks in the department of safe and
adequate storage. Although many bike racks exist on campus, often times many of these
racks fill to maximum capacity, while other racks are left constantly empty. The variance in
bike rack capacity is largely a function of class scheduling, building use, and as a result
proper rack placement is a necessary component of the bikes facilities. Overcrowding often
leads to bicyclists locking their bikes to structures and objects not designated for bike
storage such as fences, trees, or light poles. To make matters worse, users who lock their

6
bikes to racks often experience damage to their bicycles due to the constant contact and
abrasiveness of others trying to attach/remove their own bike from the rack. This
overcrowding of the rack tends to lead to damage of an individuals bicycle. Crime on campus
associated with bike theft and vandalism is also exceptionally high, which prompts the need
for adequate and safe storage in necessary locations.
The lack of incentives for riders in the current bike plan also showcases a problem
with the system. Finding ways to further incentivize ridership will aid in the successful
implementation of a comprehensive plan.
Many problems with ASU’s bicycle plan is that is fails to adequately address off-
campus bikeability as well. Off-campus bikeability refers to the off campus routes that
directly connect bike riders to the Tempe campus. Problems associated with properly and
safely linking bicyclists who use public transportation to the campus has failed to be
properly addressed. As a result, many routes lack the adequate infrastructure to encourage
the utilization of bicycles in the future. This lack of infrastructure includes issues with bike
storage when riding public transportation and unsafe bike lanes from these public
transportation drop-off points. Safety concerns also exist off campus with bicyclists who are
constantly sharing roadways with automobiles. Bicyclists who live off-campus and travel to
class/work often share roadways with vehicles that travel upwards of 35 mph (legally) on an
unprotected shoulder on their commute to campus. Overcoming these safety hazards and
implementing the proper solution to further encourage bike ridership from both faculty and
students is a large problem.

7
Objectives
Highlight problematic areas on campus
• There are certain areas on campus where bike/pedestrian traffic and overcrowding of
bicycle racks are particularly high. These areas can be identified based on personal
experience as well as data acquired from surveys distributed to ASU students and
faculty members on campus. Highlighting these areas makes it possible to devote extra
attention to alleviating the problems caused by the high volume of people that walk or
ride through these spots on campus.
Redesign pedestrian & bicycle traffic flows on multi-use &
dedicated pathways to increase student safety and ease congestion
• With walkers, bicyclists, skateboarders, and vehicles sharing the same pathways on
campus, congestion is a major issue, especially during passing periods. This project
aims to improve the flow of traffic by implementing bike lanes, which would keep fast-
moving traffic on one side of the path and slower traffic (walkers, skateboarders) on
the other. It would also prohibit vehicles from driving on certain paths to enable better
flow amongst pedestrians and bicyclists. These initiatives would also reduce the
number of collisions and near-collisions, thus improving student safety.
Create a cohesive following for proper bike etiquette as well as
build a bike culture on campus
• These changes cannot be put into action without the help of the students and faculty.
It is for this reason that a strong bike culture needs to be constructed to help
facilitate the norms and guidelines of bike riding. Without these guidelines, structural
changes made to campus paths will be rendered useless. A large part of culture is
adherence to the rules, which is why it is imperative that rules need to be enforced as
well.

8
Increase quantity & reliability of bicycle storage in areas where
bicycle parking tends to be overcrowded
• During busy times, bike racks in some areas of campus are overcrowded, forcing many
students to park their bikes far from their class or lock their bikes on objects not
designated for storage. An objective of this project is to implement more bike racks in
areas that tend to fill up. Another aspect of this initiative is to decrease bike thefts
through the use of secure storing facilities or bike monitoring programs.
Offer incentives & disincentives for students and faculty to
encourage more people to ride bikes to campus
• Students may choose to drive to school rather than ride a bike for various reasons.
However, for those who live close enough to campus to bike, offering incentives will
encourage some drivers to opt for biking to campus instead. For example, offering
showers or lockers will benefit bike riders because they will be able to clean
themselves off and change before going to class. This would be especially useful in the
summer months when sweating is guaranteed on even short rides.
Link on-campus bike paths with off-campus bike lanes and public
transportation drop-off points
• Some people may take public transit to school but still want to ride a bike while on
campus. Incentivizing this type of travel, and properly linking off-campus public transit
routes to bike paths on campus will ease the transition onto campus for these
students.
Help mitigate CO2 emissions & achieve carbon neutrality goals
• The objectives of this project will encourage students, employees, and faculty to ride
bikes to campus. More people opting to ride their bike rather than drive to campus will
reduce greenhouse gas emissions and therefore contribute to ASU’s goal of carbon
neutrality.

9
Methods
Research for the project was conducted through two major strategies: review of existing
literature and acquisition of data specifically relevant to Arizona State University’s Tempe
campus.
Literature Review
Some resources have already been published regarding the bikeability of university
campuses. The main goals of the literature review is to research how other universities have
implemented bicycle plans or other campus plans that address on-campus transportation in
terms of linking commuters to campus, safety for pedestrians and bicyclists on campus,
creating a bike culture, and congestion/flow.
Safety & Security
On any college campus, safety must be addressed in order for students to feel secure
bringing their bikes to campus. Safety concerns can be attributed to both personal safety
and property safety as well. Multiple scholarly papers have cited a strong correlation
between perceptions of safety and willingness to participate in bicycle ridership both on and
off campus. In a 2008 survey of University of Maryland campus goers, approximately 48.8% of
participants noted that feeling unsafe due to vehicular traffic was a reason that prevented
them from bicycling (Akar & Clifton, 2008). In the same study, approximately 52.5% agreed
that dedicated bike lanes to and from campus would encourage ridership, and 43.6%
preferred trails and pathways separate from roadways. Discontinuities in the bike lanes,
which typically occur near intersections, fragment the distinct bike lane which tends to
create negative perceptions of safety by bicyclists. Another source indicates that of these
types of lanes, “bike only” lanes are most preferred. The same source indicates that local
streets with a designated bike lane are rated the most safe when compared to shared motor-
vehicle lane options or multi-use paths (Badger, 2012). (see appendix figure 1.4) In a recent
study in Canada, bike lanes that are separated from traffic by a physical barrier have been
shown to decrease the risk of injury of cyclists by 90% (Badger, 2012).
In addition to bicyclist and pedestrian safety is the concern of the security of the users’
bicycles. In the 2011-2012 school year at Arizona State University, police received 488 reports
of bike theft when bikes were parked on campus (Coe, 2012). Most occurred at residence halls,
Memorial Union, Noble Science Library, and the Bateman Physical Science center. Other
campuses, such as U.C. Berkeley, have implemented secure storage solutions with access
codes or cage storage options to combat theft or vandalism (U.C. Berkeley, 2004). Another

10
solution to bike thefts is the implementation of bike lockers. Bike owners could feel confident
leaving their bikes in these because nobody else would have access to a given locker other
than the owner of the bike inside it. The University of Oregon Eugene is one school that has
already implemented these on campus (Fields, 2006). At the University of Maryland, a survey
showcased that a large percentage of respondents felt that if more secure and covered biking
were offered, it would encourage ridership (Akar & Clifton, 2008). U.C. Berkeley also mandates
all campus attendees to attain a valid bicycle license that is directly registered to their bike.
This helps to link owners to their bikes in case of theft or damage. U.C. Berkeley bicycle safety
advocates also promote their cause during freshman orientation, which aims to educate new
students to safety measures and proper riding techniques on campus as soon as they begin
their college career. Norman Yatabe, a member of the facilities development and management
at ASU, aspires to possibly implement a bike valet program which would allow for monitored
parking and storage of bicycles by either volunteer workers or paid positions (Yatabe, 2012).
Developing a Bicycle Culture
Bicycle use across cities and campuses alike cannot be explained solely by physical
determinants because cultural factors play a large role in ridership and should certainly be
taken into account when developing a master bike plan (Pelzer, 2010). Behaviors and norms
often make up the framework of a culture, so fostering a bike-friendly culture is very important
when it comes to implementing a bike friendly facility. According to Pelzer, bicycle culture is
composed of 4 categories: micro-dimensions, which consist of personal experiences and
meaning/material practices and macro-dimensions, which consist of mobility and the physical
environment. Both Portland, OR and Amsterdam are cities that foster a strong bike culture.
Often times, underlying perceptions about riding bicycles is rooted in the society in which the
activity operates. For example, the perception that views bicycling as a poor-man’s mode of
transport, a common view held throughout the United States, may lead to decreased ridership.
Laws and regulations, often reflection of cultural norms as well, and can reinforce specific
cultural positions, even for bicycle riding. A strong bike culture, as seen in Portland, OR
emanates a wider set of beliefs about sustainability, outdoor living, and civic involvement
(Pelzer, 2010). These perceptions are largely established through practice and interaction, so
establishing positive reinforcement and interaction can help to create the foundation of a bike
friendly culture on campus.
So what does it mean for a campus to be considered “bike friendly”? A dissertation
through Michigan Technological University on bicycle friendly universities explores campuses
which have earned the reputation of being bike friendly and assesses which components have
made them so. The document offers a checklist criteria for a successful university bike
program. It suggests that the bike plan should be comprehensive, flexible, integrative and

11
community-oriented, and should solicit input from multiple stakeholders, emphasize education,
and involve a knowledgeable consultant (Fields, 2006). According to Fields, these traits seem
to be common among universities which have implemented successful bike programs.
Because these traits seem to have worked for other universities’ bike plans, they are important
for ASU to consider in establishing its own bike culture.(Fields 2006). Additionally, it offers
tools for universities to determine how bike friendly their campus is as well as advice on how to
achieve this goal. ASU can learn from the tools provided as well as from the initiatives of other
universities in its quest to become a bike friendly university.
The University of Wisconsin, Madison has a Bicycle Ambassador Program, which get
students involved in biking on campus by hosting biking events, offering repairs, hosting skill
and safety clinics, sharing maps, etc. (Fields, 2006). Another student-to-student program
called “Bicycle Buddy Program” at the University of Washington matches new bike commuters
with more experienced ones (Fields, 2006). The existence of these programs on campus helps
to create a bike culture at the university because it encourages student involvement in
bicycling on campus as well as make it easier for people to bike on campus. Another way
schools have helped to create a bike culture is by offering incentives for bicyclists. The
University of Colorado, Boulder offers a program called “Buff Bikes,” which allows students and
faculty to borrow a bike. Stanford offers “Guaranteed Ride Home,” which provides rides to
bicyclists in case of odd circumstances preventing them from getting home on their bikes. The
University of Washington also provides showers and clothes lockers for bike commuters
(Fields, 2006). The incentives offered by these bike-friendly universities all help to encourage
students and faculty to ride bikes and thus help to create a bicycle culture on campus.
U.C. Berkeley embraces the bike culture by actively pursuing outreach programs
targeting bicyclists in the region. The university offers education programs on orientation days
for freshman, and promotes programs such as “Ride Your Bike to Work/School Day” to further
encourage ridership. They often have kiosks set up at university events handing out free bike
gear such as bike lights, u-locks, helmets, and other bike paraphernalia that is funded through
school subsidies. U.C. Berkeley further extends opportunities to biking participants by offering
showering facilities and lockers for individuals who feel the need to shower and change after a
rigorous ride (U.C. Berkeley, 2004).
One ambitious program launched by the City of Denver, Colorado (called “Denver B-
cycle”) enables residents to purchase bikes for rent. Their program really engages people
because each bike “is equipped with RFID chips and computers to track mileage, calories
burned and carbon offsets. Riders can monitor personal their fitness, see their contribution to
the City’s green efforts and connect with others online” (Anonymous, 2010). These innovations
allow people to quantify progress towards their personal fitness goals as well as their
environmental contributions. The ability to see this progress is beneficial for users because it

12
takes their relationship with biking to an even deeper level, thus helping to encourage a bike
culture.
Another inspiring case can be seen in Emory University’s transformation from being
nearly bike dead to becoming one of the nation’s most bike friendly universities, all in just one
year (Carpiet, 2008). In order to create a bike culture on campus, Emory implemented a bike
loaner program, showers, free campus shuttles with bike racks, free cycling safety classes,
and a free ride home in case of emergencies. More initiatives are in development, including
“outfitting new and existing roads into campus with bike lanes” (Carpiet, 2008). Because of
these developments, Emory is now considered an extremely bike friendly university. With
careful planning, ASU can emulate these initiatives and create a flourishing bike culture of its
own.
Congestion & Flow
Congestion and flow of traffic can be serious issues in high-density areas such as
college campuses. Congestion can occur both at street-level, where bicyclists and vehicles
share roadways, and also on campus where pedestrians, bicyclists, skateboarders, and
service vehicles share a mix-used pathway. Safety perceptions and data, as mentioned above,
revealed a strong link between ridership and actual safety. Bicyclists that share roadways with
vehicles have also shown to negatively affect vehicular flow, thus encouraging the need to
incorporate separate lanes (Taylor, 1999).
On campus flow designation has proven to be a difficult task for many universities,
especially at ASU. Some schools have set precedents in addressing these potential problems.
The U.C. Berkeley opted to enlist a police enforced “dismount” zone from 8am-6pm along the
main congested arterial routes along the campus, much to the dismay of many riders (U.C.
Berkeley, 2004). Instead of offering an arterial bike lane system, the university chose to
redirect bicycle traffic to the perimeter and enlist a “bicycle spoke” shaped network. University
of California Davis, named the “Bike Capital of the United States,” offers 12 bicycle
roundabouts on campus and 14 miles of bike paths in and around campus (Fields, 2006).
These make it easier for bicyclists to get where they need to go on campus. The roundabouts
keep bicyclists moving and thus helps keep the flow of traffic consistent even at four-way
intersections. At the University of Arizona in Tucson, bike facilities managers have
implemented route maps to inform and guide bicycle thoroughfare along shared pathways with
pedestrians, and also established a dismount zone in areas of heavy congestion or where
there is lacking visibility (University of Arizona, 2012).

13
Constructing collapsible traffic-control bollards and issuing strict time guidelines for on-
campus mobility for facility service vehicles or carts can also helps to divert excess traffic from
dense pedestrian zones (Yatabe, 2012). This of course can also help to alleviate the
congestion along certain walkways on campus.
Utilizing Public Transit & Linking Commuters to Campus
Linking bike riders with public transportation options that efficiently and safely locate
riders to their destination (campus) is very important to attain a developed bicycle facility. Many
campuses recognize this fact and have adopted practices that aim to integrate bicyclists with
public transportation options. At the U.C. Berkeley campus, officials have extended bike
networks and lanes to directly reach transit stops for local bus systems and the BART (U.C.
Berkeley, 2004). Officials within this school also have partnered with public transportation
entities to allow bike riders to bring their bikes onto buses when bike racks are full. Officials
have also worked with these entities to make sure that there is adequate bike storage at
transportation stations. Implementing a network of bike lanes that connect to users to these
public transportation and utilize the safe bike lane standard is equally as important to
encourage ridership.
Encouraging bike riders that live too far from campus to use public transportation as
well as their bike is a method tool to encourage ridership. One method that has coerced
students of Tennessee Technological University to abandon single use vehicle commutes has
been to heavily increase the cost of parking on campus (King & Badoe, 2007). Disincentivizing
the use of a single vehicle is helpful to encourage bicycle riding. The University of British
Columbia (UBC) opted to incentivize public transit use by issuing free “U-passes” for college
participants, which is largely funded by the cost of parking passes on campus (Senft, 2005).
UBC was able to quickly attain an increase public transit ridership from 31% to 51% over a 2-
year span, while experiencing a decrease in sales for parking passes by 12%.

14
Data Acquisition
The method utilized in the data acquisition portion of this practicum was a
combination of several tactics designed to create a composite movement profile for
pedestrians & cyclists alike on Tempe’s ASU campus. Data from surveys, field readings,
existing studies, and student organizations were gathered to develop guidelines for creating
a comprehensive pedestrian-traffic plan for the campus.
A fifteen-question survey (see appendix figure 1.1) was produced to profile how the
ASU community moves throughout campus. It also served a secondary purpose of gauging the
population’s propensity to use a designated path system. Space for student & faculty
suggestions about how to improve campus bikeability & increase confidence in a
comprehensive bike-path system was also provided. A total of one hundred surveys were
distributed to students and faculty across campus. Fifty-four complete surveys were
returned and submitted, the results of which were compiled into a single combined response
profile (see Appendix for specific questions and responses). This profile would later play a
significant role in determining potential sites infrastructure redevelopment, as well as high-
traffic crossings where field surveys would take place.
Seven total sites were identified as “problem pedestrian-traffic crossings”. These
sites would provide a setting to conduct field surveys where pedestrian, vehicular, cyclist,
and alternative method travelers were counted over a fifteen to twenty-five minute period
during “peak” passing periods (collisions and near-collisions were also recorded).
See tables below:
#1 Loc:
College Ave. / Cady Mall
Thur. 11/29/12 11:45-12:00 pm
Type # %
Pedestrian 517 77.05%
Bicycles 108 16.10%
Skateboard/ Scooters 44 6.56%
Other 1 0.15%
Service Carts 1 0.15%
Heavy Vehicles N/A N/A
Total 671 100.00%
Collisions 0 0.00%
Near-Collisions 3 0.89%

15
#2 Loc:
Memorial Union / Cady Mall
Wed. 11/28/12 11:35-55 am
Type # %
Bicycles 145 10.33%
Other 3 0.21%
Heavy Vehicles 0 0.00%
Total 1403 100.00%
Collisions 1 0.14%
#3 Loc:
Orange Mall / Palm Walk
Wed. 12/05/12 11:40-12:00pm
Type # %
Bicycles 293 21.40%
Other 5 0.37%
Total 1369 100.00%
Collisions 0 0.00%

16
#4 Loc:
Tyler Mall/ Palm Walk
Thur. 11/29/12 1:15-1:30 pm
Type # %
Bicycles 159 15.81%
Other 1 0.10%
Total 1006 100.00%
Collisions 1 0.20%
#5 Loc:
South-Campus Crossing (McCallister/SRC)
Wed. 11/28/12 11:35-12:00pm
Type # %
Bicycles 326 26.04%
Other 2 0.16%
Total 1252 100.00%
Collisions 4 0.64%

17
#6 Loc:
Forrest Mall/ Hayden Library
Wed. 12/05/12 11:14-11:30pm
Type # %
Bicycles 167 18.19%
Other 1 0.11%
Total 918 100.00%
Collisions 0 0.00%
#7 Loc:
Cady Mall / Tyler Mall
Thurs. 12/06/12 11:45-12:00pm
Type # %
Bicycles 237 19.30%
Other 2 0.16%
Total 1228 100.00%
Collisions 1 0.16%
Information, obtained from other campus organizations (Undergraduate Student
Government, Facilities Development & Management, etc…) that have some level of
involvement in current pedestrian & cyclist plans, provided a context for the raw data
collected by surveys & field observation. Current bicycle path-plans & location-specific

18
statistical data were both utilized in models created for the proposed campus bike-path
overlay.
Context & Setting
Arizona State University’s Tempe campus is home to one of the nations largest
student-body & staff populations with projections & intention of growing. The current
campus pedestrian infrastructure has become inadequate in handling its current use &
pathways and sidewalks are reaching capacity. A lack of planning & high level of inflexibility
makes this infrastructure prime for major issues in the future. The intention of this report
will be to develop a context for the future implementation of a comprehensive pedestrian/
bike path overlay; the purpose of which will be to decrease walkway congestion, increase
campus-community safety, and reduce the amount of CO2E emissions generated by this
campus.
In order to truly identify areas of ‘problematic’ congestion we wanted to create the
most accurate pedestrian profile possible, and to do so, a pedestrian composite was
created. It utilized direct observational data, survey responses (designed to gain
demographic data/ gauge propensity of using a new path-overlay system), and case-study
information / research conducted by other leading universities. According to a campus
survey (see appendix figure 1.1) 64% of those who replied have a ‘higher than average’ level
of concern regarding pedestrian & bicyclist safety, with 77% of them saying they themselves
had been involved in some type of pedestrian/cyclist collision. The implementation of
infrastructure where pedestrians feel safe will be key in the success & usership of any new
campus system. If ASU wants to attain it’s particularly ambitious carbon-neutrality goals,
developing principle practices are going to be paramount & this overlay plan should be
considered a guideline for the sustainability of ASU’s Tempe’s campus population.

19
Implementation
This plan will be implemented utilizing a multi-faceted approach over the course of
four years. This all-encompassing strategy is the most comprehensive and practical way to
achieve a bikeable campus with minimized congestion. Broadly, this consists of establishing
a bike culture, improving on-campus infrastructure, improving bike lanes connecting to
campus, and linking commuters to campus. Each of these branches work together to create
a functional system for relieving congestion on campus as well as encouraging people to not
only ride bikes to campus, but to exhibit etiquette and attention to safety while doing so.
Establishing a bike culture is vital for this plan because it will establish etiquette and
encourage students to bike to campus. This will mainly be done through education and
outreach. First, freshmen should be distributed a bicycle handbook at orientation that
teaches them about the safety and etiquette one should have while biking on campus.
Additionally, ambitious students with an interest in bicycling can form clubs on campus that
spread the word about biking at ASU. The nature of the club can be determined by the
student, but it should be along the lines of a bicycle “ambassador” program, which may host
bicycling events, offer maps of bikeable areas on campus, pair up experienced bike riders
who can pair up with new ones, and promote safety and etiquette while biking on campus.
These types of groups can help to get students involved with biking on campus and spread
the word about rules and conduct for bicyclists and pedestrians on campus malls. Campus
officials can also work with students to develop and encourage these types of groups.
Of course, enforcement will be required to initiate these cultural shifts, especially at
first, because people can be reluctant to change. Enforcement can consist of mandating a
license and requiring people to register their bikes before being allowed to ride on campus.
Bicycle education classes may be a part of the license issuing process as well. Then,
inserting a section in the student code of conduct relating to biking on campus will further
encourage students to follow these rules. The school can then issue citations to enforce the
guidelines to those who break the rules, with potential punishments ranging from fines to
license revocation and, after too many citations, inability to graduate. Rules may pertain to
safety (i.e. no texting while riding a bike) and etiquette (right-of-way, bike only lanes,
adherence to dismount zones, side of the path to walk/ride on). This would work much like
renting a library book-- if a student does not return a library book, he or she cannot
graduate. Similarly, if a student accumulates too many violations, he or she will not be
allowed to graduate. The culture and enforcement branches of the plan should begin at the
onset of the plan and continue throughout its four-year implementation and beyond.

20
In addition to shifting cultural values, adequate physical infrastructure and amenities
are essential to this plan. In the first year, showers, bike storage facilities (bike lockers, bike
cages, and a bike valet), and additional bike racks will be built on campus and in the
immediate areas of public transit, or commuter drop offs. The showers will be beneficial for
bicyclists so that they can clean themselves off after riding to school during Arizona’s hotter
months. Also, the storage facilities will enable people to feel safe parking their bikes on
campus. For example, bike lockers will provide safe storage for individual bikes, and bike
cages are larger bike storage rooms that would require a sun card to access. A bike valet
could also potentially be implemented. Bike lanes, roundabouts, no-drive zones, and signage
will be erected on-campus in the second year, after rules and culture have been established.
Two major population crossings were identified as areas for infrastructure
redevelopment. These areas are identified as the Cady Mall/ University Dr. crossing & the
South-Campus Crossing. These areas would see major redevelopment; redistributing priority
to, what data supports as, pedestrian centered intersections. (a close-up rendering of one
redevelopment areas is shown in figure A-2) Dedicated bicycle artilleries will be located
along Forrest Mall; starting at the Tempe Transportation Department and continuing through
campus, ending across the intersection of Apache Road. Current “free-for-all” style
sidewalks will be replaced with mixed-use pedestrian & cyclist pathways to foster campus
safety & more effectively separate pedestrians from light vehicles. These paths will ease
congestion and help establish a cohesive flow for continuously traveling campus community.
In addition, no-drive zones will be located in some of the most congested areas and will be
segregated from vehicle and cart use by using collapsible bollards, which will be up-right
during the busiest times of day. These dismount zones will be incorporated onto Palm Walk
and Orange Mall for the busiest times of the day (between 8am and 6pm). Signs will also
need to be incorporated throughout campus to indicate designated paths, dismount zones,
etc. Bike maps may also be displayed on campus upon directories to inform campus goers of
the rules and accessible routes.

21
See figures below for path overlay designations:
Figure A-1

22
Figure A-2
The areas highlighted in orange indicate crossings that require major infrastructure
redevelopment
Off-campus infrastructure improvements will occur on the outskirts of campus to
make it easier for students to get to school via bike. An important determining factor of
whether students ride their bikes to school is whether they feel safe on the roads. In the
fourth year of the plan’s implementation, the bike lanes on Rural Rd., University Dr.,
Apache Blvd., and College Ave. will be remodeled for increased safety using a “choker,” or a
median physically separating the bike lane from the automobile lanes (see appendix figure
1.3). This will also be implemented from the Tempe Transportation Center along Forest Ave.
to campus.
While off-campus infrastructure is undergoing improvements, the plan also aims to
link commuters to campus by making public transit easier in general as well as for students
who want to bike once arriving on campus. Making public transit more accessible for
students can be achieved by making the U-Pass free for ASU students. Another initiative

23
intended to help bicyclists who take public transit is to work with Tempe’s public
transportation to install more space on public transit vehicles for bikes. ASU can work with
the public transit entities to allow users to bring their bikes on the bus when it is not full, or
to install higher capacity bike racks on buses. Finally, the plan aims to increase the safety of
bike lanes between popular bus stops and campus using the previously described choker-bike
lane model (see appendix figure 1.3) These should help students to feel safer riding their
bikes to campus as well as make it easier for them to bring their bikes to campus via public
transit.
Analysis & Discussion
Through the data collection and literature review, much can be done to improve bike
access on and off ASU’s Tempe campus to improve ridership, increase safety, and reduce
greenhouse gas emissions caused by vehicle commuters. Modeling has shown us that
approximately 7,957 MT CO2 can potentially be mitigated by reaching out to commuters that
can ride bicycles instead of driving (see appendix figure 1.2)
With ASU’s net emissions projected to be 244,856.6 MT CO2 in 2012, savings can
amount to 3.25% of ASU’s total net CO2e emissions (Brown, 2006). It is important to note that
implementing a safe bike facility impacts all campus users, and necessitates the cooperation
and coordination of faculty, students, and third party operations on campus.
The first step, and possibly the most difficult, is to establish a strong foundation for a
functional and long term bike culture. Reach out programs, student clubs, and peer pressure,
and proper enforcement can play a strong role in building ridership. Constructing amenities
such as adequate storage, shower facilities, and other initiatives on campus can also help to
strengthen the bike culture. The proper placing of storage facilities, showering areas, and
additional racks may require further research to indicate the best locations for placement.
Unfortunately, none of the culture building initiatives can guarantee that ridership will
increase in the future, or that campus goers will respect the pedestrian traffic designations.
Many students may still break the rules and many campus members will still traverse the
school grounds distracted by occupying their focus toward their cell phones, thus disrupting the
pedestrian flow and further leading to unsafe conditions. Finding solutions to alleviating the
problems with distracted pedestrians may be difficult. As stated above, enforcement plays an
integral role in establishing a bike culture. It is for this reason that mandating licenses and
registration for campus bikers, and utilizing a punishment system that strongly discourages
individuals from breaking the rules is necessary. Using ASU’s “code of conduct” as a method

24
of discouraging riders is a strong motivator to ensure students follow the rules because if
students attain too many riding violations, they may be unable to graduate (the same rule
applies if a student does not return a library book). Since there is no “illegal” activity associated
with riding a bike on campus in Tempe, police can not actively, or legally, enforce these
violations with citations. It is unknown as to whether or not police would be able to enforce the
implemented rules for pedestrians on campus, and as a result, campus officials or other
entities may have to become the enforcers of pedestrian rules on campus.
The sustainability movement that is growing on campus may help to encourage a bike
culture, but behavior change is proven to be incredibly difficult. The saving of 7,757 MT CO2 is
an ambitious, and maximum number, and savings will most likely be realized much lower than
this figure. Culture takes a long time to establish, which is why the flushing of a whole student
body (4 years) may be necessary in order to acquire proper participation. The extensive sprawl
of Phoenix metropolitan area, and the embedded automobile culture of the United States
makes creating a bicycle culture even more difficult. Working with surrounding municipalities to
build a bike culture in tandem is equally as important to establish a conducive environment for
bike ridership.
The development of on-campus infrastructure is very important to encourage
ridership. Literature review showcased what types of infrastructure was used on various
college campuses. Ideally, ASU can also incorporate arterial bike lanes, mixed use pathways,
pedestrian roundabouts at intersections, dismount zones, and signage in a way that
maximizes ergonomics, safety, and efficiency. Through the survey and pedestrian traffic
flow studies, many problematic areas on campus have been highlighted and should be
remediated. It is important to recognize that 83.3% of survey respondents felt that there
were not adequate dismount zones or parking where they needed them, while 77% of these
individuals had been involved in some sort of collision on campus. The survey also outlined
how the majority of students would like to see order and structure on campus, which may
encourage them to ride their bikes. This highlights important flaws regarding safety,
storage, and usability on campus. Through the pedestrian traffic observations, it was found
that bicyclists normally fulfilled 15%-20% of the pedestrian composition. All intersections
showcased varying degrees of high density during peak hours of passing periods, and all
exhibited certain levels of danger. Bottlenecking at the south campus crossing proved to
showcase one of the most dangerous locations, in which any pedestrian had an 8% chance of
being involved in a collision. Of all the observed intersections, south campus crossing also
maintained the highest percentage of bikers, at 26%. It was equally important to note that
at this intersection, vehicles were shown preference based upon the traffic light timing.

25
Although vehicles comprised 10% of the flow, they were allotted window of 38 seconds while
non-vehicle pedestrians, who comprised 90% of the flow, were allotted 22 seconds.
#5 Loc:
South-Campus Crossing (McCallister/SRC)
Wed. 11/28/12 11:35-12:00pm
Type # %
Bicycles 326 26.04%
Other 2 0.16%
Total 1252 100.00%
Collisions 4 0.64%
This underlies a fundamental flaw that favors vehicles over foot-traffic on a college
campus, a place meant to cater to people, not machines. Although most in the survey felt
the area in front of Memorial Union was most chaotic, south campus crossing proved to be
the worst.
Technicalities such as lane widths, lane designs, roundabout designs, pedestrian
overpasses, and how pedestrian traffic should be segregated are pressing concerns that
should also be further researched to optimize the benefits. Implementing bike infrastructure
deals directly with land-use on campus, especially the transformation of such, and is a
potential problem that may conflict with some of the goals of campus officials.
Understanding their needs, and adapting to them may require a whole new overlay design to
conceived. Financing of a complete bike facility project may be significant, and a cost
benefit analysis should be implemented to decipher the true benefits and pitfalls of such an
endeavor.
Linking off-campus commuters through infrastructure and incentives is also integral to
the bike program at ASU. The development of off-campus infrastructure may also help to
boost ridership, but there are many issues that must be overcome to facilitate proper
implementation. Implementing safe bike lane designs, as proposed along Forest Avenue to

26
link Tempe Transit Center to ASU, with a designated median or “choker” would potentially
eliminate metered street parking for vehicles. Since this is City of Tempe property, it may
be difficult to convince the City of Tempe to agree to a measure that may reduce incoming
revenue. Allowing for increased or overnight storage at Tempe Transit Center may be
difficult to achieve since the city may not have the funding to create these amenities either.
Extensive negotiations may have to take place in order to facilitate a positive outcome for
all parties.
Increasing the price of parking has shown to deter drivers while boosting public
transportation at other universities, but may prove to be different at ASU. Currently, ASU’s
parking permits are considered by many to be “ridiculously high” already, yet many
individuals still purchase these permits. The current cost for a one-year parking permit at
ASU varies according to each parking structure, and costs between $280 and $780 (Parking
and Transit, 2012). It is the hopes of the bike plan implementation to raise this cost even
further to help fund free U-Passes for students, but to what extent it will be worthwhile is
unknown and should be further researched. It is also important to realize that reducing all
vehicular commutes in itself is not ideal, for this would lead to many of the university’s
parking structures that currently house solar PV to go largely unused. Although this is not
likely, finding a balance amongst these variables is important, especially if is hoped that
parking permits can fund free U-Passes. It is also important to note that U-Passes at ASU
exist for $80 per year, but since many students only are in school 60% of the year (15 weeks
per semester), 40% of the U-Pass’s worth often going unused.

27
Conclusion
Bicycle transportation is important for Arizona State University to address because it
can potentially play an integral role in mitigating carbon emissions among students and
faculty that use vehicles for their daily commutes. Although ASU already offers some
bicycling amenities, more initiatives should be implemented to ensure bicyclist/pedestrian
safety, encourage ridership, and maintain a smooth flow as ASU’s population expands in
years to come. Based on the research acquired from other campus projects in conjunction
with our own assessment and data acquisition, this project effectively targets four major
areas in need for remediation: traffic flow and congestion on campus, implementing safe
bike lanes for students and faculty who ride bikes to campus, building a bike culture, and
safely and effectively linking commuters to campus. Administering this plan may help ASU to
become bike friendly, enabling students and faculty to safely and easily travel to and
through ASU campus via bike, skateboard, or other modes of transit. Although the suggested
methods of implementation offered in this report may help to improve the current state of the
campus facilities, the results may only offer a working foundation for a well-developed campus
bike facility. Further data acquisition and research should be acquired in order to fine tune and
maximize the benefits of any realistic bike/pedestrian access plan on the Tempe campus.

28
References
Anonymous (2012). Parking & Transit. Arizona State University [University Business and Finance].
Retrieved from https://cfo.asu.edu/pts-parking-tempe.
Anonymous (2010). How Bike-Friendly Is Your Campus?. The Chronicle of Higher Education.
Retrieved from www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/lnacademic
Anonymous. (2010). La Voz Bilingüe. From
http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy1.lib.asu.edu/docview/357090059/abstract?accountid=4485
http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy1.lib.asu.edu/docview/357090059/abstract?accountid=4485
Akar, G. & Clifton K. (2008). The influence on Individual Perceptions and Bicycle
Infrastructure on the Decision to Bike. 88th Panel of the Transportation Research Board, 1-18,
Washington D.C.
Badger, E. (2012). Dedicated Bike Lanes Can Cut Cycling Injuries in Half. Retrieved from the
Atlantic Cities website. http://www.theatlanticcities.com/commute/2012/10/dedicated-bike-lanes-can-
cut-cycling-injuries-half/3654/
Balsas, Carlos J.L. Sustainable transportation planning on college campuses. (2003). Transport
Policy. 35-49. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0967070X02000288
Brown, N. (2006). ASU’s Clean Air Cool-Cool Planet Campus Carbon Calculator. Arizona
State University.
Coe, J. (2012). Bike Thefts Down on at ASU but Police Urge More Vigilance. AZ Central.
Retrieved from the AZ Central website
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2012/09/19/20120919asu-bike-thefts-down-police-urge-
more-vigilance.html
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2012/09/19/20120919asu-bike-thefts-down-police-urge-more-
vigilance.html
Carpiet, Lynette. Bicycle Retailer and Industry News. 17. 1. (Jan 1, 2008): 1,31. From
http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy1.lib.asu.edu/docview/195518222/fulltext?accountid=4485
http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy1.lib.asu.edu/docview/195518222/fulltext?accountid=4485
Carpiet, L. (2008). Emory university builds bike culture on campus. Bicycle Retailer and
Industry News, 17(1), 1-1,31. Retrieved from
http://login.ezproxy1.lib.asu.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/195518222?accountid=4
485
Fields, K. M. (2006). Bicycle friendly university communities. Michigan Technological

29
University). ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, , 222-222 p. Retrieved from
http://login.ezproxy1.lib.asu.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/305304401?accountid=4
485. (305304401).
Horacek, T. M., White, A. A., Greene, G. W., Reznar, M. M., Quick, V. M., Morrell, J. S., &
Byrd-Bredbenner, C. (2012). Sneakers and Spokes: An Assessment of the Walkability and Bikeability of
U.S. Postsecondary Institutions. Journal Of Environmental Health,74(7), 8-15.
Jennifer Bonham, Barbara Koth. Universities and the cycling culture. Transportation Research
Part D: Transport and Environment. 94-102. Retreived from
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S136192090900114X
King, K. & Badoe, D. (2007). Travel Behavior of University Students in Weekday Journey to
Campus and Its Implications for Campus Transport Planning. The TRB 86th Annual Meeting, 1,
Washington D.C.
Pelzer, P. (2010). Bicycling as a Way of Life: A Comparative Case Study of Bicycle Culture in
Portland, OR and Amsterdam.7th Cycling and Society Symposium (1), 1-13. Oxford
Senft, G. (2005). U-Pass at the University of British Columbia: Lessons for Effective Demand
Management in the Campus Context. 2005 Annual Conference of the Transportation Association, 1-17,
Calgary.
Sidebottom, A. , Thorpe, A., Johnson, S. (2009). Using Targeted Publicity to Reduce Bicycle
Theft. European Journal of Criminology. 267-286. Retrieved from
http://euc.sagepub.com.ezproxy1.lib.asu.edu/content/6/3/267.
Taylor, D. & David, W.J. (1999). Review of Basic Research in Bicycle Traffic Science, Traffic
Operations, and Facility Design. Transportation Research Record: The Journal of the Transportation
Research Board, (1674), 102-110, Austin.
Toor, W. & Havlick, S. (2004). Transportation & Sustainable Campus Communities: Issues,
Samples, Solutions. Island Press, 1-18, Washington D.C.
University of Arizona. (2012). Bicycle Information. Retrieved from the official University of
Arizona website http://parking.arizona.edu/alternative/bike.php
University of California, Berkeley. (2004). Campus Bicycle Plan. University of California,
Berkeley [The Parking & Transportation Department], 1-74, Berkeley.

30
Yatabe, N. (2012). ASU Tempe Campus Access Management Plan. Arizona State University.
[Office of the University Architect: Facilities Development & Management], 1-5, Tempe.
Appendix
Figure1.1
Pedestrian & Cyclist Transportation Survey Combined Response Profile
ASU Pedestrian & Cyclist Transportation Survey
Combined Survey Response Profile
Total Responses- 54
Academic Year: F S J SR FACULTY
19- 11- 9- 14- 1-
Choose an answer to complete the statement that best represents you
1. I get on to campus by...
A) Commuting in vehicle 9
B) Light rail 2
C) Busses 4
D) Walking 14
E) Alternative transportation (bike, skateboard, scooter, etc...) 25
2. Once on campus I travel by way of...
A) On foot 10
B) Bicycle 17
C) Alternative Transportation (longboard, scooter) 27
3. I feel like there is adequate bike parking / dismounting areas where I need them
A) True 9
B) False 45

31
4. I feel like the most congestion/ confusion on campus is...
A) Around the MU 29
B) Palm Walk 8
C) Cady Mall (walkway that bisects Hayden Lawn/ connects to College Dr. ) 12
D) South Campus Crossing (SRC/ Hassayampa/ Vista del Sol) 4
E) other: 1- W.P. Carey Business building
5. I would support a designated campus-wide bike path system.
A) Highly likely 34
B) Likely 14
C) Not Likely 5
D) Opposed 1
6. I am confident that it is safe to park my bike on campus overnight
(strongly disagree) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 (strongly agree)
4- 0- 11- 4- 14- 5 - 12- 3- 0- 1-
7. I’ve been involved in a (bicycle/ pedestrian)(bicycle/ vehicular) collision
A) True- 42
B) False - 12
8. I feel the ASU campus is well integrated into my daily commute
(strongly disagree) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 (strongly agree)
1- 0- 9- 13- 4- 14- 6- 2- 0- 5-
9. My current level of concern regarding pedestrian/ bicyclist safety on campus is
(unconcerned) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 (highest level of concern)
0- 3- 3- 8- 5- 16- 9- 4- 2- 4-
10. I would be more likely to bike to campus/ while on campus if there were dedicated
bicycle paths & secured parking
A) Highly likely 15
B) Likely 36
C) Not Likely 3
D) Opposed 0
11. Which of the following describes you?:
A) Commuter (15+ minute drive to ASU) 17
B) Off-campus (bikeable distance to ASU) 7

32
C) On-campus (student housing) 30
A) Mostly stay in one area of campus 4
B) Travel throughout campus over the week 12
C) Travel through most of campus daily 38
A) Satisfied with the current pedestrian/ bicycle traffic flow on campus 4
B) Impartial to the current pedestrian/ bicycle traffic flow on campus 7
C) Dissatisfied with the current pedestrian / bicycle traffic flow on campus 43
14. What would improve your confidence in overnight bike-parking?
15. What could be done to ease pedestrian congestion or improve ASU’s bikeability?
Figure1.2
Potential CO2 E Savings Calculation
Current Single Passenger Vehicle Commuters: 14,828 MT CO2 E
Average Commuting fuel use monthly: 7.28 gallons per month
Average Commuter Trips: 24 Trips per month – 7.5miles per trip average
Propensity to replace car with bicycle as commuter vehicle (as determined by mean
average of survey results & University of California Berkley Study: 53.66%
14,828 x 0.5366= 7,956.7 MT CO2 E

33
Figure 1.3
Tempe Street Configuration with Speed Reducer
Figure 1.4
Bike Preferences & Safety

Practicum Final (1)

More Related Content

What's hot (18)

Similar to Practicum Final (1) (20)

Practicum Final (1)