Women’s Issues in Transportation: Summary of the 4th International Conference, Volume 2: Technical Papers (2011)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

254 Gender Considerations in Performance Measures for Bicycle Infrastructure Catherine R. emond, University of California, Davis In the united States, men’s total bicycle trips surpass women’s by a ratio of at least 2:1. Gender differences in perceptions of bicycling safety, combined with the effect of bicycle facility type, could help explain the different cycling rates for men and women. The united Nations and the european union (eu) have recognized that women and men have different trans- portation needs, and the eu requires explicit recogni- tion of these differences in national transport policies and implementation. Currently, the indices or mea- sures commonly used to evaluate American bicycle infrastructure do not account for gender differences. Bicycle facility design is often guided by design cyclist categories that define bicyclists by how well they ride in vehicular traffic. Female cyclists have been shown to prefer more separation from vehicular traffic than male cyclists, which can lead to women having to choose to travel on bicycle facilities that have been designed for safety rather than to provide a convenient route to community services. The imbalance of u.S. bicycle trip rates by gender is an indicator that American bicycle infrastructure does not serve the needs of all bicyclists. Two gender-neutral indices, the bicycle compatibility index and the bicycle level-of-service index, which are commonly used to assess u.S. bicycle infrastructure, are compared with the Netherlands’ bicycle infrastruc- ture survey in an effort to understand the association of gender-neutral versus gender-sensitive policies on bicycle infrastructure design and assessment. Increasing bicycling ridership in the united States is now recognized as being beneficial in various ways, ranging from decreasing vehicle miles traveled to fighting obesity to strengthening community cohesion and social capital. Although people are told bicycling is good for them, Americans—especially American women—do not bicycle: fewer than 1% of trips in the united States are made by bicycle (1, 2), with men’s total bicycle trips surpassing women’s by at least 2:1 (1). low bicycle modal share is not a global phenomenon; in the Netherlands, for instance, national level bicycle policy first enacted in the 1970s has helped maintain bicycling levels where 27% of trips made are by bicycle and women make 55% of these trips (2, 3). This high level of bicycling can be partially attributed to an exist- ing strong bicycle culture that allowed policy implemen- tation to build on the existing infrastructure (4, 5). The high level of female bicyclists can perhaps be attributed to a national culture that accepts gender equality as a cultural norm (6, 7). Member countries of the european union (eu), which includes the Netherlands, have recognized that there are differences in men’s and women’s transport needs by inte- grating gender mainstreaming requirements into all eu policies including transportation by the late 1990s (8, 9). The concept of gender mainstreaming was identified as a global objective in 1997 by the united Nations (uN) Development Council and was defined by the uN eco- nomic and Social Council in 1997 as follows: [T]he process of assessing the implications for women and men of any planned action, including

255PeRFoRMANCe MeASuReS FoR BICYCle INFRASTRuCTuRe legislation, policies or programmes, in all areas and at all levels, as a strategy for making women’s as well as men’s concerns and experiences an integral dimension of the design, implementation, monitor- ing, and evaluation of policies and programmes in all political, economic and societal spheres so that women and men benefit equally and inequality is not perpetuated. (10) The Swedish government made gender equality the sixth goal of transport policy in 2001. Three important focuses for gender mainstreaming and transport were recognized: “concrete differences between women’s and men’s travel differences, gendered attitudes and valua- tions of transportation facilities, and gendered distribu- tion of power and influence over the sector” (11). In contrast, the united States has not integrated gen- der mainstreaming into transportation policies, and although the FHWA does sponsor the Women’s Travel Issues National Conferences and recommends that trans- portation policymakers and planners pay attention to conference findings of travel differences between men and women, there is no requirement to follow the rec- ommendations (11). Could the gender-neutral approach of u.S. transpor- tation policies be contributing to the disparity between male and female bicycling rates? Currently, the studies used as a foundation for the evaluation of American bicy- cle infrastructure do not take gender travel differences into account (12–14). This has serious implications; the assumption in u.S. bicycle infrastructure design that all bicyclists have the same needs regardless of gender, or that male bicyclists are representative of all users, could be partially responsible for the imbalance between bicycle trips made by men and women in the united States. This paper examines performance measures used in planning bicycling facilities with respect to the treatment of gender differences and the implications with respect to the types of facilities provided. concepTual Basis and liTeraTure revieW Two conceptual frameworks are used in this paper: the first is to give insight into bicycling behavior from the viewpoint of bicycling as a physical activity and the second is to further understand differences in bicycling behavior by gender. The first framework is based on the ecological model commonly used in physical activity research within the public health field to explain individual behavior (15). This model suggests that individual behavior is influenced by factors at multiple levels, including the individual, the social environment, and the physical environment. Indi- vidual factors include attitudes, preferences, and beliefs as well as confidence in one’s ability to engage in the behav- ior (a concept called “self-efficacy” in the field of public health). Social–environmental factors include the cultural norms of the community as evidenced by the collective behaviors of its residents. Interpersonal relationships, including those within households, are also considered social–environmental factors. Physical–environmental factors depend on the nature of land use patterns and transportation infrastructure. The ecological model was chosen over the more traditional model of travel behavior that focuses on utility maximization and does not readily account for attitudes or social–environmental factors. In relation to the ecological model, use of the gender category in bicycle behavior research provides a struc- tured framework to further analyze the relationship between gender and bicycling behavior. In her discus- sions of gendered transport geography, law recom- mends analyzing the social and cultural dimensions of transportation research from a gendered viewpoint (16, 17). This viewpoint is important as gender not only deals with perceived differences between men and women but also influences other subgroups’ (i.e., defined by age, disability, income, ethnicity) experiences of bicycling (9, 17–19). Analyzing the levels of the ecological model from a gendered perspective helps one to understand not only the factors but also the interrelations between fac- tors that can be associated with different bicycle behav- iors in men and women. Hall (19) further suggested conceptualizing the social context of transport in terms of the dynamics created by the interactions “of three competing groups of actors ... each able to be subjected to a gendered evaluation: (a) transport industry employers/employees, (b) transport users, and (c) residents of areas within which transport has an impact.” Approaching the analysis of the ecologi- cal model factors from this viewpoint allows one to better evaluate the influence of gender-neutral and gender- sensitive policies on performance measure development. This paper focuses on the association of u.S. gender- neutral American bicycle policies with low male and female bicycle trip rates. Several important factors that have been associated with different cycling rates in men and women are identified and discussed in terms of gender difference. Then, guided by Hall’s conceptual framework (19), the paper explores how nonrecognition of the role of gender in bicycle behavior affects infrastructure design and assessment by comparing gender-neutral and gender- sensitive bicycle infrastructure policies and the resulting measures used in the united States and the Netherlands. Gender differences in Bicycle Behavior u.S., Australian, and european studies of gender differ- ences in bicycle behavior have identified that differences

256 WoMeN’S ISSueS IN TRANSPoRTATIoN, voluMe 2 in transport needs, safety perception, and effect of bicy- cle facility type are associated with different cycling rates for men and women (1, 4, 9, 20, 21). American women’s trips are more for household and family support activities than men’s, with women in two- working-parent families making twice as many weekday trips as men to pick up and drop off household children under the age of 14 years (22–24). As many of these activities require the transport of goods or passengers, women might prefer the convenience of driving to bicy- cling to fulfill these activities, especially if they are also using trip-chaining to carry out these responsibilities. Although a preference for driving over bicycling is an individual-level factor, it is heavily influenced by house- hold and family relationships, which are considered a part of the social environment. A strong bicycle culture—such as experienced in Germany, the Netherlands, and Denmark—provides an environment where performing household chores, such as shopping, by bicycle is accepted as a community norm; in these communities, the share of female cyclists is equal to or greater than the share of male cyclists and shopping trips make up 20% to 25% of overall bicycle trips versus 5% of all bike trips in the united States (9, 25). other factors come into play, however; the dense structure of european communities allows for easier access to ser- vices than the sprawling strcture of u.S. communities, where distances to services are greater (2, 26). These two points are connected: women’s role as chauffer for children and the elderly in the family is heavily influenced by how well the transport infrastruc- ture of the community supports all users. The more the infrastructure allows for children and the elderly to be independently mobile, the less they will have to be chauffeured and more time will be freed up for the chauffer (9). Women bicyclists tend to have greater concern for safety from the perspective of both road safety and driver behavior. Women often are more risk averse than men and tend to perceive negative consequences of sharing roads with vehicular traffic more than men do (27). Consequently, women are more likely than men to prefer bicycling separated from vehicular traf- fic by bicycle paths or on-road lanes but not so iso- lated that they are vulnerable to attack (1, 28–31). This can affect not only a woman’s choice to bicycle but also influence her decision to let her children travel by themselves to school based on her perception of neigh- borhood safety (32). If bicycle path networks provide safety from vehicular traffic at the expense of conve- nience to services such as stores and schools, however, then extensive bicycle path networks do not always encourage bicycling in a community—for male or female bicyclists (28, 33, 34). european versus u.s. Bicycle policy developMenT American bicycle policies are in their infancy compared with countries that have a tradition of a strong bicycle cul- ture. While the u.S. is still struggling with how to design transportation infrastructure and educate users to allow different transportation modes to safely interact (35), the Netherlands, for example, is now focusing on how to make bicycling more competitive with vehicular travel with respect to travel time and convenience (2, 36). U.S. Bicycle Policy: Safety First Sprawling land development and emphasis on trans- portation infrastructure that favors the automobile has discouraged development of a strong bicycle culture in most American communities (37). This situation is fur- ther compounded by the lack of a national bicycle policy supporting multimodal use of transportation networks. From a gender viewpoint, u.S. statutes require that the u.S. Department of Transportation does not discrimi- nate against women in the planning and policy decisions in federally funded federal projects, but, at the regional level, municipal planning organizations are not required to specifically address the needs of women in their trans- portation planning processes (38). In bicycle infrastructure planning, the u.S. focus is on improving safety. This focus is understandable as com- munities with a small number of bicyclists (as in most American communities) and a strong vehicular culture tend to have more bicycle–vehicle accidents than com- munities with large amounts of bicycling (39); the more motorists expect to encounter bicyclists, the more care- fully they tend to drive (3). National strategies for advancing bicycle safety have been put forth in the National Strategies for Advancing Bicycle Safety [National Highway Traffic Safety Admin- istration (NHTSA)], and the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, efficient Transportation equity Act: A legacy for users (SAFeTeA-lu) has provisions for bicycle infrastructure funding (35, 40). NHTSA advances key goals believed to increase bicyclists’ safety, including having motorists learn to share the road with bicyclists, having bicyclists riding safely through education and law enforcement, requiring bicycle helmets, revising the legal system to support safe bicycling, and having roads and paths safely accommodate bicyclists (35). Both the American Clean energy and Security Act passed by the House of Representatives in June 2009 (41) and the Committee Draft of the Surface Transpor- tation Authorization Act of 2009 (STAA) (42) include a “complete streets” (referred to as comprehensive street

257PeRFoRMANCe MeASuReS FoR BICYCle INFRASTRuCTuRe design standards in STAA) component that sets complete street principles as planning goals for state and regional transportation planners that recognize the unique needs of “pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists and transit riders of all ages and abilities (to be) able to safely move along and across a complete street” (43, 44). Although both the climate change bill and STAA strive to encompass the diversity of transportation network users, including children, the elderly, and the disabled, they do not recog- nize gender as a transport user group with unique needs. This is notable, considering international recognition of the distinct differences in travel behaviors of men and women and resulting policies that have been created to address these differences by the uN and the eu (11). Women and Transport in Europe In a series of three reports published by the uN eco- nomic Council for europe in late 2008, a review of gen- der issues and recommendations was submitted to the uN economic Commission. The reports found that there are “clear and persistent gender differences in travel patterns” (11) but that little attention has been paid to women in transport projects in part because transport is such a strongly male-dominated sector and hence dominated with masculine values and practices. Conse- quently, gender mainstreaming in transportation sector policies was recommended not only to satisfy human rights requirements but also to help achieve “sustainable human-centered development” (11). of note in the reports’ discussion of gender analy- sis was the recognition that gender analysis challenges the traditional travel model, which assumes household behavior as representative of all household members without taking into account the “power structures and gender relations within the household units” (11). If this is recognized, then transport planning would have to “shift away from a focus on facilitating the movement of motorized vehicles to a people-centered perspective that starts with an analysis of the basic household mobil- ity needs” (11). Netherlands Bicycle Policy: Convenience National bicycle policies were enacted in the mid-1970s in the Netherlands in response to plummeting bicycling rates from increased vehicle usage. This falling bicycling rate was further compounded by communities focusing on increasing vehicle road capacity and parking space while ignoring the needs of bicyclists. In 1975, Dutch bicycle rates had dropped to one-third of 1950 trip rates. After enactment of the Dutch national bicycle policy, which focused on improving bicycle infrastructure and restricting car use, bicycling rates in Dutch cities had increased by 2006 to 52% of the 1952 level (25). From 1990 to 1997, the Netherlands developed a national strategy entitled the Dutch Bicycle Master Plan (BMP) to encourage bicycling (2). Gender mainstream- ing was not explicitly mentioned in the BMP, as it had not yet become an eu policy requirement (8); however, gender equality in the Netherlands was already “a deeply embedded, cultural and institutional norm” (6, 7) before the adoption of gender mainstreaming by the eu. The Netherlands is often cited in other eu member country bicycle policy papers as an example of successful bicy- cle policy implementation because of the high bicycling rates, accessibility to all users (men, women, youth, elderly), safety, and extensive bicycle infrastructure as well as other factors (2, 4, 45). Furthermore, the roughly equal number of male and female bicyclists in the Neth- erlands meant that the public input into the BMP devel- opment process had a fairly equal representation of male and female concerns. The current national mobility man- agement plan and municipal plans would be under eu gender mainstreaming guidelines (11). As hoped for, by the time the BMP was completed, many of the communities in the Netherlands had devel- oped strong bicycling cultures. It is believed that the main value of the BMP was that it provided a clear vision of Dutch bicycling policy and backed up this vision with dedicated bicycle infrastructure funding (2). Bicycling is viewed as an integral part of the Dutch transportation system and current national bicycling policies are now managed as part of the mobility management plan (2). Most Dutch bicycle planning is now the responsibil- ity of the municipalities, as it was believed that bicycling policies and planning could be better managed at the community level because of the nature of most bicycle trips: usually short distances are traveled. Bicycling rates in Dutch cities differ depending on municipal planning policies and implementation (2, 46). As Dutch bicycle policies have matured, so has the focus; in the 1970s, the focus was mainly on traffic safety and then on creating complete bicycle path networks; now the focus is on making bicycling more competitive in relation to vehicular travel (5) and on coordinating bicycle access to public transit. coMparison of neTherlands and u.s. Bicycle faciliTy assessMenT Measures The paper now addresses the valuations or measures of bicycle transportation facilities and discusses the associa- tion of u.S. gender-neutral versus the Netherland’s gender- sensitive measures of bicycling rates. For this discussion,

258 WoMeN’S ISSueS IN TRANSPoRTATIoN, voluMe 2 gender-sensitive measures are defined as measures that (a) use a population sample that is representative of com- munity demographics by gender, age, and abilities and (b) are based on research with a “people-centered per- spective that starts with an analysis of the basic household mobility needs” (11). This definition takes into account both how the mea- sures are developed and how they are implemented. A sample representative of the population that will have access to the bicycle infrastructure is required to develop measures that will be sensitive to all potential infrastruc- ture user needs. A people-centered perspective focuses on connectivity—how the network infrastructure supports all users by providing routes that allow them to bicycle to their destinations in a safe, comfortable, and timely manner. Measures developed from a people-centered perspective would be able to take into account the con- text in which the infrastructure operates and measure the impact on the social and environmental systems with which it interacts. The united States applies bicycle infrastructure mea- sures that use the same level-of-service (loS) rating terms traditionally used to describe how well the road supports vehicular traffic movement. Although the Highway Capacity Manual, 2000 edition (47), does not provide standardized loS criteria for bicycles (48), two indices commonly used by state and u.S. transportation and land planning organizations are the bicycle compati- bility index (BCI) (14) and the bicycle loS index (BloS) (13). Both measures quantify how suitable a road is for bicycling by evaluating specific roadway geometries and traffic conditions. Roadways with a better (lower) score are generally safer for bicyclists. These measures are used to evaluate existing infrastructure, compare alternatives, and guide improvements to infrastructure design (49). Design Bicyclist Categories Bicycle infrastructure design in the united States is based on the “design bicyclist categories,” which catego- rize bicyclists not by their transport needs but by how comfortable they are operating in vehicular traffic. The AASHTo 1999 Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities defines the three categories of bicyclists (“design bicyclist categories”) as advanced, basic, and children (50). Group A advanced bicyclists are experienced rid- ers who operate under most traffic conditions; Group B basic bicyclists are casual or new adult and teenage riders who are less confident of their ability to operate in traffic without specific provisions for bicycles; and Group C are children (12). From a gendered viewpoint, a number of studies, as discussed earlier, indicate that female cyclists have dif- ferent perceptions of safety and different trip needs than male cyclists, regardless of whether they are advanced or less experienced cyclists (1, 20, 24, 29). As summa- rized in Table 1, this gender difference in risk perception could help explain the small percentage of advanced and experienced women bicyclists observed in studies based on FHWA design bicyclist categories (51) and the BCI index study, which also defines their sample partitioning at least in part by how comfortably bicyclists operate in motor traffic (12–14). unlike the complete street or comprehensive street design standards, which advocate all streets being made accessible to everyone within the community (44), FHWA guidelines based on the design bicyclist categories create a two-tiered approach to bicycle infrastructure design in which all streets are “bicycle friendly” with wide curb lanes and paved shoulders to allow bicycles and vehicles to share the road; this meets the requirements for Category A advanced bicy- clists. Category B and C bicyclists are served by low- speed residential roads and designated bicycle facilities such as “bike lanes, separate bike paths, or side street bicycle routes” built along key traffic corridors (12). This tiered approach could lead to unequal access to community services as emphasis of design for safety for Category B and C cyclist routes could take precedence over convenience to services that Category A bicyclists would have using on-street routes. TABLE 1 Summary of Comparison of Design Bicyclist Categories by Gender Group A: Advanced Cyclist Group B: Basic Cyclist Group C: Children AASHTo definition experienced riders who operate under Casual or new adult and teenage Children most traffic conditions riders who are less confident of their ability to operate in traffic without specific provisions for bicycles Male preference even if uncomfortable will more often Routes designed for Group B cyclists Parental concerns about route safety ride in traffic than women (20) could prioritize safety of riders over influence decision about whether route convenience to community children ride services Female preference often prefer more separation from traffic, which leads to being categorized as a Group B cyclist

259PeRFoRMANCe MeASuReS FoR BICYCle INFRASTRuCTuRe Bicycle Compatibility Index The BCI measures the comfort levels of adult bicyclists on the basis of “observed geometric and comfort levels of bicyclists on a variety of roadways” (14). The study that developed the BCI used a study participant group ranging in age from 19 to 74 years, had a mean age of 36 years, and was 60% male. The methodology used to develop this index required participants to watch a series of video clips showing various road conditions. After viewing each video, participants rated the road- ways on a 6-point scale with respect to how comfortable they would be sharing the road with vehicles depending on traffic volume, traffic speed, road width, and over- all comfort rating (14). These comfort levels were then translated into bicycle loSs, which could be used to evaluate how well a roadway could accommodate both motorists and bicyclists. The loS ranged from loS A or an index of less than or equal to 1.5 (roadway extremely compatible for average adult bicyclist) to loS F or an index of greater than or equal to 5.3 (extremely uncom- fortable for the average adult bicyclist). In the BCI study, participants were stratified into three groups depending on how much they bicycled and what bicycle facilities they preferred. The participants who stated they were “comfortable riding under most condi- tions” (60% of the total sample) tended to be male, rode more on major streets, and rode more miles a week than those who stated they were not comfortable. The three groups were experienced commuter (n = 79, 67% male, mean age = 34 years), experienced recreational (n = 78, 59% male, mean age = 36 years), and casual recreational (n = 34, 41% male, mean age = 36 years). Separate BCI models were run for each category and casual recreational bicyclists were found to have a significantly higher com- fort rating (i.e., they are less comfortable) than the expe- rienced commuter or experienced recreational bicyclists (14). The model used in real-world applications is the combined model or “average bicyclist” model, although the BCI model is not recommended for children and loS C is recommended if primarily casual recreational bicy- clists will be using the facility. There is no explicit analysis of gender differences, which is a weakness of the study, as the groups were stratified along criteria that differ by gender, in par- ticular “types of facility used”; studies have found that women bicyclists of all experience levels tend to prefer more separation from traffic than men (1, 20, 28, 30, 50). Second, the number of participants (60%) who stated that they were comfortable riding under most con- ditions is not representative of the general population. By design bicyclist criteria, this 60% of the sample would be defined as Group A advanced bicyclists, but according to the Bicycle Federation of America only 5% of American bicyclists are advanced (12). Participants in the BCI study evaluated videos of road segments; they never actually rode a bicycle on the seg- ment, which brings up concerns about whether they would have rated the road segment differently if they had bicycled on it. Second, the roads were segments shown out of context of the rest of the community’s transport network. The BCI measure reflects the current focus of u.S. bicycle policies: to improve the safety of bicycling without taking into account the larger network that the section of infrastructure being assessed exists in physi- cally or socially. BLOS Index BloS was developed as an loS model for u.S. metro- politan areas. The study used a real-time 17-mi course consisting of 30 road segments that represented as many road and traffic conditions and land uses as possible. The event was held over one weekend with 150 participants who bicycled the course and rated the road segments on a comfort level with a 6-point scale similar to the BCI scale of loS A (most comfortable) to loS F (least comfortable). The four parameters that most influenced participant ratings were shoulder width, traffic volume, pavement condition, and percentage of heavy vehicle volume (13). The sample used in the BloS study did not fairly represent the general population as most participants were club cyclists who were Category A advanced bicy- clists (12), which would make the “average” bicyclist in this study more experienced than the general popula- tion. There was an almost equal split by gender (n = 68 females, n = 77 males), with no significant difference in comfort scores by gender (3.33 vs. 3.17, respectively). This could be attributed partly to the high percentage of experienced club cyclists of both genders who took part in the survey. In contrast to the BCI study, the participants did bicycle the roads they were rating, which gives a more realistic riding experience than observing a video of the road. The road course they were rating was chosen to represent a variety of road and traffic conditions but again did not take into account the community context of the network. Dutch Cycle Balance: Quick Scan Indicator for Cycling Infrastructure The Dutch benchmarking process called the cycle bal- ance was developed after the BMP was completed in the late 1990s to evaluate local community bicycle policy results, policy effects, and policy process (36) that had developed due to BMP programs. When the process was

260 WoMeN’S ISSueS IN TRANSPoRTATIoN, voluMe 2 completed in 2002, almost half of all Dutch cyclists had been covered: 115 towns had been surveyed, including all towns with more than 100,000 inhabitants (36). The cycle balance surveys were administered by Dutch Cyclists’ union (Fietsersbond) volunteers within their communities. Four surveys were used to assess 10 dimen- sions that reflect local bicyclist conditions: directness of routes, comfort (obstructions), comfort (road surface), attractiveness, competiveness compared with the car, bicycle use, road safety of bicyclists, urban density, bicy- clists’ satisfaction, and bicycling policy on paper. The surveys consisted of a survey of the community’s cycling policy filled out by the town’s administration, a survey assessing bicyclists’ satisfaction with the local bicycle infrastructure, a survey of national data on local bicy- cling conditions, and the quick scan indicator for cycling infrastructure (QSIF), which most closely resembles the American BCI and BloS bicycle measures. The QSIF used three measurement instruments: a measure bike, a video camera on a second bicycle, and a car. The measure bike digitally measured per second distance, vibration, noise, speed, and elapsed time (5), while the video camera recorded the route, and the car was driven on as much of the same route as possible for comparison of travel time and distance by car to the same destination. Five bicycle infrastructure requirements were measured: coherence, attractiveness, directness, safety, and comfort (5), with the main emphasis on directness and comfort. The QSIF criteria for directness are average speed, delay, devious distance, and travel time by bike versus car; the criteria for comfort are vibration, traffic congestion, and number of stops (5). The QSIF measures are much more extensive than the BCI measures of traffic volume, traffic speed, road width, and overall comfort rating (14) and the BloS measures of shoulder width, traffic volume, pave- ment condition, and percentage of heavy vehicle volume (13). unlike the BCI and BloS measures, which were derived from the study participant ratings of the road seg- ments, the QSIF measures were derived from the readings of the measure bike sensors and the video tapings of the second bicycle. These measure results could then be com- pared with the surveyed perceptions of the community on local bicycling conditions to see how well community per- ceptions correlated to QSIF results (5). The QSIF assessed selected routes from randomly chosen houses in the community to popular cyclists’ des- tinations in an effort to represent how bicyclists travel about their community (36). As summarized in Table 2, this is in contrast to the BCI study, which had partici- pants assess videos of isolated road segments (14) and the BloS study, which had bicyclists tour a route that was set up to test as many road and land use conditions as possible without taking into account whether the route characterized how bicyclists traveled around their community (13). Finally, to benchmark the local bicycling conditions, QSIF survey results for each city were compared with results from the other cities and with the standards that had been developed for bicycling infrastructure, so that cities could understand the weak and strong aspects of their bicycle policies (5, 36). unlike the BCI and BloS indices, the QSIF survey in conjunction with the other three surveys of the Dutch Cycle Balance survey set satisfies the previously discussed definition of gender sensitivity by using a survey sample representative of community demographics. Second, by using a combination of surveys, the Dutch Cycle Bal- ance not only rates the condition of the roads and bicycle lanes and paths but does so within the community con- text in which the infrastructure is used. recoMMendaTions and conclusions Combined transportation and land use planning approaches to multimodal transportation planning, such as complete street movement, most closely approach the Netherland’s holistic approach to bicycle policy and infrastructure design. unless gender-sensitive indices are available to assess bicycle infrastructure, however, even the complete street movement, by not taking gender dif- ferences in bicycle behavior into account, is not recogniz- ing the needs of all transportation network users. TABLE 2 Summary of Evaluation of Bicycle Infrastructure Measures Measure Representative Sample Household-Centered BCI ∑ 60% male, 40% female ∑ video segments of roads taken out of context of network ∑ 60% self-identified as experienced infrastructure ∑ Measures based on participant rating ∑ Analyzes road segments in isolation from household origin BloS ∑ 50% male, 50% female ∑ 17-mile route of 30 road segments representing as many road ∑ Mostly experienced bicyclists (cycling club members) and traffic conditions and land uses as possible ∑ Measures based on participant rating ∑ Segments out of context of infrastructure network ∑ Analyzes road segments in isolation from household origin QSIF ∑ Quantitative measure of infrastructure done on two ∑ Network context emphasized: analyzes routes starting from bicycles: measures collected through sensor input and randomly selected homes to popular bicyclist destinations video taping

261PeRFoRMANCe MeASuReS FoR BICYCle INFRASTRuCTuRe In the united States, indices that measure comfort and practical needs and the community context in which the transportation infrastructure is used by all bicyclists would help state and regional transportation planners evaluate how successful they are in meeting the unique needs of all bicycle users. Neither the BCI nor BloS meets these requirements, as the narrow range of mea- sures they survey does not adequately assess whether bicycle infrastructure is meeting the comfort or practical needs of all users. Second, the sample demographics of both studies are not representative of all bicyclists; there is male and experienced sample bias in the BCI study and experienced bicyclist sample bias in the BloS study (13, 14). The QSIF survey objectively measures road condi- tions of household-centered routes and then presents the quantitative findings in conjunction with the other three Cycle Balance surveys’ results to give a person- centered perspective of the community infrastructure being assessed. The following recommendations, taken from the Dutch BMP model and gender mainstreaming literature are presented in the belief that they will help u.S. bicy- cle infrastructure designers create bicycle networks that safely and effectively serve the needs of all community members: • Create a national bicycle policy that explicitly rec- ognizes that bicycling is experienced differently by bicy- clists of different ages and abilities as well as by gender. • Because bicycle trips are usually short distances, it is best to leave control of community bicycle policies with local governments. • Use the national bicycle policy in conjunction with federal funding to encourage and give focus to the devel- opment of local bicycle policies. • Create new measures for infrastructure assessment that are based on community demographics, not on the gender-neutral “design bicyclist.” • Conduct comprehensive bicycle surveys that sub- jectively and objectively measure the quality of commu- nity bicycle infrastructure networks and are based on basic household mobility needs instead of the vehicular movement model. The imbalance of u.S. bicycle trip rates by gender can be viewed as an indicator that American bicycle infra- structure does not serve the needs of all bicyclists, but until indices take into account factors that contribute to this imbalance, it will be difficult to identify possible ways to address this issue. one approach is to revise the index models currently used to assess u.S. bicycle infrastructure to be gender sensitive. The Dutch Cycle Balance benchmarking model with its dedication to improving bicycling conditions for all Dutch citizens is recommended as a model the u.S. could follow to help develop the most “direct, attractive, comfortable and safe routes possible within a coherent cycling network” (36) for both male and female bicycle riders. references 1. Krizek, K. J., P. J. Johnson, and N. Tilahun. Gender Dif- ferences in Bicycling Behavior and Facility Preferences. In Conference Proceedings 35: Research on Women’s Issues in Transportation. Volume 2: Technical Papers. Transpor- tation Research Board of the National Academies, Wash- ington, D.C., 2005, pp. 31–40. 2. european Conference of Ministers of Transport. Imple- menting Sustainable urban Travel Policies: National Poli- cies to Promote Cycling. Transport, vol. 12, 2004, pp. 1–90. 3. Pucher, J., and R. Buehler. At the Frontiers of Cycling: Policy Innovations in the Netherlands, Denmark, and Ger- many. World Transport Policy and Practice, 2007. 4. Pucher, J., and R. Buehler. Cycling for everyone: lessons from europe. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2074, Trans- portation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2008, pp. 58–65. 5. Thijssen, G., M. Kraan, C. Goudappel, and F. Borgman. Benchmarking of Infrastructure for Biking. In European Transport Conference, 2000. 6. Woodward, A. european Gender Mainstreaming: Prom- ises and Pitfalls of Transformative Policy. In Equity in the Workplace: Gendering Workplace Policy Analysis (H. Gottfried and l. A. Reese, eds.), lexington Books, lan- ham, Md., 2004, pp. 77–100. 7. Mazey, S. Gender Mainstreaming Strategies in the e.u.: Delivering on an Agenda? Feminist Legal Studies, vol. 10, 2002, pp. 227–240. 8. Pollack, M. A., and e. Hafner-Burton. Mainstreaming Gender in the european union. Journal of European Pub- lic Policy, vol. 7, No. 1, 2000. 9. lehner-lierz, u. The Role of Cycling for Women. In Sus- tainable Transport Planning for Walking and Cycling in Urban Environments (R. Tolley, ed.), Woodhead Publish- ing, Cambridge, united Kingdom, 2003, pp. 123–143. 10. A/52/3 Report of the Economic and Social Council for 1997. united Nations General Assembly, New York, 1997. 11. Report to the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe Executive Committee on the Implementation of the Priorities of the UNECE Reform for Strengthen- ing Some Activities of the Committee: Review of Gender Issues in Transport. Geneva, Switzerland, united Nations economic and Social Council, 2008. 12. Wilkinson, W. C. III, A. Clarke, B. epperson, and R. Kno- blauch. Selecting Roadway Design Treatments to Accom- modate Bicycles. FHWA, 1994.

262 WoMeN’S ISSueS IN TRANSPoRTATIoN, voluMe 2 13. landis, B., v. vattikuti, and M. Brannick. Real-Time Human Perceptions: Toward a Bicycle level of Service. In Transportation Research Record 1578, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1997, pp. 119– 126. 14. Harkey, D. l., D. W. Reinfurt, and M. Knuiman. Devel- opment of the Bicycle Compatibility Index: A Level of Service Concept. FHWA-RD-98-072. FHWA, 1998. 15. Sallis, J. F., and N. owen. ecological Models of Health Behavior. In Health Behavior and Health Education: The- ory, Research, and Practice (K. Glanz, B. K. Rimer, and F. M. lewis, eds.), Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, Calif., 2002, pp. 462–485. 16. law, R. Gender and Daily Mobility in a New Zealand City, 1920–1960. Social & Cultural Geography, vol. 3, No. 4, 2002, pp. 425–445. 17. law, R. Beyond Women and Transport: Towards New Geographies of Gender and Daily Mobility. Progress in Human Geography, vol. 23, No. 4, 1999, pp. 567–588. 18. Rosenbloom, S. The Need for Study of Women’s Travel Issues. Transportation, vol. 7, No. 4, 1978, pp. 347– 350. 19. Hall, D. Towards a Gendered Transport Geography. Jour- nal of Transport Geography, vol. 12, No. 3, 2004, pp. 245–247. 20. emond, C. R., W. Tang, and S. l. Handy. explaining Gender Difference in Bicycle Behavior. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2125, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2009, pp. 16–25. 21. Garrard, J., G. Roes, and S. K. lo. Promoting Transporta- tion Cycling for Women: The Role of Bicycle Infrastruc- ture. Preventative Medicine, vol. 46, No. 1, 2008, pp. 55–59. 22. McGuckin, N., and Y. Nakamoto. Differences in Trip Chaining by Men and Women. In Conference Proceedings 35: Research on Women’s Issues in Transportation. Vol- ume 2: Technical Papers. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2005, pp. 49–56. 23. Niemeier, D., and K. Shafizadeth. Bicycle Journey-to- Work: Travel Behavior Characteristics and Spatial Attri- butes. In Transportation Research Record 1578, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1997, pp. 84–90. 24. Garrard, J., S. Crawford, and N. Hakman. Revolutions for Women: Increasing Women’s Participation in Cycling for Recreation and Transport. Summary of Key Findings. School of Health and Social Development, Deakin univer- sity, victoria, Australia, 2006. 25. Pucher, J., and R. Buehler. Making Cycling Irresistible: lessons from the Netherlands, Denmark and Germany. Transport Reviews, vol. 28, No. 4, 2008, pp. 495–528. 26. Bicycling and Walking in the U.S. Thunderhead and Alli- ance, Washington, D.C., 2007. 27. Harris, C. R., and D. Glaser. Gender Differences in Risk Assessment: Why Do Women Take Fewer Risks Than Men? Judgement and Decision Making, vol. 1, 2006, pp. 48–63. 28. Nelson, A. C., and D. Allen. If You Build Them, Com- muters Will use Them: Association Between Bicycle Facil- ities and Bicycle Commuting. In Transportation Research Record 1578, TRB, National Research Council, Washing- ton, D.C., 1997, pp. 79–83. 29. Brown, N. Why Aren’t Women on Wheels? San Fran- cisco Bicycle Coalition, San Francisco, 2004. www.sfbike. org/?women_mb. 30. Tilahun, N. Y., D. M. levinson, and K. J. Krizek. Trails, lanes, or Traffic: valuing Bicycle Facilities with an Adap- tive Stated Preference Survey. Transportation Research Part A, vol. 41, 2007, pp. 287–301. 31. Bernhoft, I. M., and G. Carstensen. Preferences and Behav- iour of Pedestrians and Cyclists by Age and Gender. Trans- portation Research Part F, vol. 11, 2008, pp. 83–95. 32. McMillan, T. e. urban Form and a Child’s Trip to School: The Current literature and a Framework for Future Research. Journal of Planning Literature, vol. 19, No. 4, 2005, pp. 440–456. 33. Smith lea, N. urban Cycling Safety: Individual or Social Responsibility? National Center for Bicycling & Walking, vol. 55, 2003, pp. 4–9. 34. Hiles, J. Listening to Bike Lanes: Moving Beyond the Feud. Master’s thesis. university of Montana, Missoula, 1996. 35. National Strategies for Advancing Bicycle Safety. NHTSA, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and FHWA, 2001. 36. Borgman, F. The Cycle Balance: Benchmarking local Cycling Conditions. In Sustaining Sustainable Transport: Planning for Walking and Cycling in Urban Environments (R. Tolley, ed.), Woodhead Publishing, Cambridge, united Kingdom, 2003, pp. 511–524. 37. Forester, J. Bicycle Transportation: A Handbook for Cycling Transportation Engineers, 2nd ed. T. M. Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1994. 38. lucas, K., ed. Running on Empty: Transportation , Social Exclusion and Environmental Justice. Policy Press, Bris- tol, united Kingdom, 2004. 39. Jacobsen, P. l. Safety in Numbers: More Walkers and Bicyclists, Safer Walking and Bicycling. Injury Prevention, vol. 9, 2003, pp. 205–209. 40. Safe, Accountable, Flexible, efficient Transportation equity Act: A legacy for users (SAFeTeA-lu). Bicycle Transporta- tion and Pedestrian Walkways/Safe Routes to School, 2005. 41. u.S. House. American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009. 111th Cong., 2009. H.R. 2454. 42. America Bikes Analysis of the Committee Draft of the Sur- face Transportation Authorization Act of 2009. America

263PeRFoRMANCe MeASuReS FoR BICYCle INFRASTRuCTuRe Bikes, Washington, D.C., 2009. www.americabikes.org/ documents/STAA_Analysis_Summary.pdf. 43. Complete Street FAQ. National Complete Streets Coali- tion, Washington, D.C. http://www.completestreets.org/ complete-streets-fundamentals/complete-streets-faq/. 44. McCann, B. Complete the Streets! American Planning Association, Washington, D.C., 2005. http://www.sbcag. org/Meetings/TTAC/2005/July/Complete%20the%20 Streets.pdf. 45. Ireland’s First National Cycle Policy Framework. Irish Department of Transport, Dublin, 2009. 46. Rietveld, P., and v. Daniel. Determinants of Bicycle use: Do Municipal Policies Matter? Transportation Research Part A, vol. 38, No. 7, 2004, pp. 531–550. 47. Highway Capacity Manual. TRB, National Reseach Council, Washington, D.C., 2000. 48. NCHRP Report 616: Multimodal Level of Service Analy- sis for Urban Streets. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washigton, D.C., 2008. 49. Selecting Bicycle Facility Types and evaluating Road- ways lesson 13. In Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety, FHWA, 2005. 50. Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities. AASHTo, 1999. 51. Stinson, M., and C. R. Bhat. A Comparison of the Route Preferences of experienced and Inexperienced Bicycle Com- muters. Presented at 84th Annual Meeting of the Transpor- tation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2005.