Kelsey Squiers
PP&D 212
March 14, 2014

University of California Biking Proposal – Environmental Impacts

Background

In the spring of 2013, the University of California, Irvine (UCI) was ranked by the League of American Bicyclists (LAB), one of the most respected bicycle advocacy associations in the country, as a Silver level bike-friendly university. The LAB’s ranking system is based on five “E” aspects (engineering, education, encouragement, enforcement, and evaluation). A Silver ranking means that UCI “[d]efinitely feel[s] welcoming to bikes but there is still usually work to be done in two or three of the “E”s to undergird the bicycling culture and opportunities” (bikeleague.org). While UCI provides sustainable transportation incentives, has some infrastructure for biking, a bike-rental program, and is home to a few bike-enthusiast clubs, the campus is falls short in three of the LAB’s “E”s: Engineering, Education, and Encouragement.
Engineering: There are three types of bicycle routes on the UCI campus. These include dedicated bicycle paths, pedestrian/bicycle shared paths, roads with bike lanes, and a small number of sharrows (located on the roads within housing complexes). Currently, there are only three distinct sections of the UCI campus that have dedicated bicycle lanes, which are all located on the outskirts of campus. The most commonly used bike path within the UCI campus is a mixed pedestrian/bicycle path encircling Aldrich Park. Roads with bike lanes make up the majority of UCI’s current bike infrastructure. Importantly, there are a number of highly travelled roads, such as Adobe Circle and Adobe Circle South, that contain no bike lanes. However, many of the existing bike lanes, paths, and sharrows lack clear signage, and connectivity so often go either unnoticed, or bypassed. This not only hinders biking to campus, by making it difficult or inconvenient, but also leads to policy violations and unsafe cycling behavior. Furthermore, the campus does not have enough bike racks to meet demand, as seen by the frequency with which bikes can be seen tied to benches, poles and stairs.
UCI also has a bike rental program known as ZotWheels. There are four ZotWheels stations located in the inner area of campus from which the UCI community can rent and return bicycles after using them for up to three hours, for an annual membership fee of $40. According to UCI’s Transportation Department, ZotWheels is primarily used for inter-departmental trips and lunchtime exercise among staff. While this is admirable, this program is failing to tap into UCI’s largest population: its students. The ZotWheels locations are within walking distance of one another (within half a mile (Frank and Engelke 2005)) and only reach the interior of campus, so do not function well for bike commuting and travel to close by shops and restaurants.
Education: According to UCI Transportation Services, UCI’s largest challenge regarding biking is a lack of education amongst cyclists. They reported the following as the most common and dangerous bike habits on campus: riding against traffic, riding to the right of right-turning vehicles, running stop signs and red lights, riding in darkness without a light/reflectivity, riding too fast amongst pedestrians, and transitioning between pedestrian and road-user status (hopping back and forth on sidewalk/roads). Cyclists are also unfamiliar, or perhaps unyielding, to UCI’s specific bike polices. Transportation Services notes that the majority of bike citations are issued for riding on Ring Road during business hours (which is prohibited) and riding above the designated speed limit on the Inner Ring (8 mph). There is clearly a lack of education amongst cyclists on how on proper and campus bike rules and etiquette.
Encouragement: While UCI’s current infrastructure and programs do encourage biking to an extent, these efforts could certainly be expanded. While infrastructure issues have already been discussed, there is also room for improvement in UCI’s incentive program. Currently, UCI offers Sustainable Transportation Permits (free parking permits for use of “green” modes of transportation) to graduate students, faculty, and staff. Those that bike or walk to campus earn five parking passes a month. However, there are no incentives or benefits for undergraduate students that commute to campus via bikes, nor are there any other biking incentives aside from these free permits.
While showing promise, there is clearly room for improvement in UC Irvine’s biking transportation services, especially given UC Irvine’s interest of being a green, bicycle-friendly campus, as made clear in their 19 LEED ranked buildings (news.uci.edu). We propose making specific infrastructure and UCI policy changes to the UCI Campus to make the campus more bike-friendly. Specifically, we will add ZotWheels locations to campus housing, allow for bikes to be ridden on ring road with the addition of a new bike lane, connect existing and proposed bike lanes while improving signage, add more bike racks throughout the campus, and create more incentives for biking to campus. These changes will hopefully encourage and increase the number of those who bike to UCI in place of driving. This could relieve shuttle and car use for those living within two miles of the campus (which is considered a bikable distance (Moudon, et. at., 2005), and simply improve the quality of life for students who will now have more transportation options and possibly save time if they choose to bike instead of walk.
Literature Review

It would be irresponsible to suggest increasing the UC Irvine campus’s infrastructure for cycling without first discussing the potential benefits and return on such and investment. A vast amount of literature and research shows that the use of active modes of transportation, such as cycling, can help address current public health and climate crises. Furthermore, this research provides an overview of the different methods for achieving this increase, and the magnitude of their impacts.
Desires to reduce congestion and emissions standards have lead many cities to seek increasing biking as a means of transportation, thus bringing attention to what methods are effective for increasing cycling. Dill and Carr (2003) discuss what factors past research has found to be contributors to increased bike use; public attitude, culture, city size and density, cost of car use and public transportation, income, climate, safety and cycling infrastructure are all associated with the rate of cycling as a means of transportation. This paper will focus on the research pertaining to the impact of infrastructure, as this is the most malleable factor as planners and policy makers have great influence over infrastructure. The National Bicycling and Walking Study conducted by the US Department of Transportation notes that 12% to 17% bicyclists surveyed in Phoenix, Seattle, and Portland noted that they chose not to bike to work partially due to a “lack of facilities”, and that a separate survey conducted in Davis, CA, and Seattle, WA found that 12% and 41% of cyclists would commute by bicycle if there were safer routes.
Dill and Carr (2003) analyzed data from 43 large cities to examine the relationship between amount of infrastructure for cycling and prevalence of cycling in a given community. They find a positive and significant association between levels of biking infrastructure and rates of bicycling commuting; for every 1-mile increase in the length of on-street bike lanes, they found a 1% increase in bike commuters (Dill and Carr 2003). Thus, areas that have more infrastructure for bikes will likely see higher usage of bikes as a means of transportation. While their study cannot say this is a causal relationship, it certainly suggests any initiative to increase the rate of cycling over driving needs to focus on building infrastructure to support cycling.
Another study (Parker, Rice, Gustat, Ruley, Spriggs, Johnson 2013) examined the impact of building new bike lanes in New Orleans to determine whether more people were cycling on the street, and how. Researchers observed three streets, one street with a new bike lane and two adjacent streets without bike lanes, before and after the bike lane was striped. These observations were used to determine if adding bike lanes led to an increase in cycling and if more people chose to ride with the flow of traffic on the street, rather than ride on the sidewalk, after the lanes were striped. They found that there was an increase in cyclists on all the streets they studied after the installation of the bike lanes (Parker et. al., 2013). The largest increase was on the street with the new lane. Additionally, the proportion of riders cycling with traffic increased after the lanes were striped (Parker et. al., 2013). Again, it does appear that investing in proper infrastructure will increase the use of cycling.
So, what is the benefit of increasing cycling? Frank, Greenwald, Winkelman, Chapman, and Kavage (2009) elaborate on the relationship between cycling, emissions, and health. They note that how we choose to travel is an individual, and environmental, health decision. Active forms of transportation our better for our personal health and the health of the environment. They suggest, similarly to Dill and Carr, that the build environment serves as the intervention point for increasing the use of sustainable transportation and the health of citizens. The transportation sector actually contributes the largest share of US greenhouse gases (GHGs) about one-third of the total (U.S. Department of Energy, 2009), with much of that amount generated by routine household travel (Federal Highway Administration, 2009). Most will agree that in order reduce green house gas emission, as mandated by various governments, it is essential to change current travel behavior. Switching to active modes of transportation that do not produce emissions, such as walking and cycling would constitute such a change.
Higgins and Higgins (2005) actually calculate the reduction in oil consumption, carbon dioxide emissions, that can be achieved possible in the United States if people choose to walk or bike instead of drive when feasible. They found that if the total US population between the ages 10 and 64 substituted of walking or biking for driving (for an hour of total activity per day) this could lead to a reduction of 2.47x109 barrels of crude oil (due to decreased demand for gas), and a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions of approximately 426.1 Tg (tera-grams) (Higgins and Higgins, 2005). Thus, it is likely that investment in infrastructure for cycling and active-transportation are well worth the cost as this would save in health cost by promoting exercise, decrease costs of CO2 emissions and dependency on fossil fuels.
The same can be said for lowering rates of obesity; changing travel behavior is one way to address the obesity epidemic in the United States. Walking and bicycling are active means of transportation, and are linked with a lower likelihood of obesity (Frank et al., 2004). Research on self-reported and objectively measured health and transportation data from 14 countries, 50 US states, and 47 US cities found that countries with higher use of active transportation have lower rates of obesity (Pucher, Buehler, Bassett, Dannenberg, 2010). Furthermore, active transportation can be increased through infrastructure changes such as more and safer sidewalks, trails, and bike lanes (Parker et. al., 2013).
There is clear evidence that infrastructure and the built environment can simultaneously address obesity and climate change through promoting active and sustainable means of transportation, such as cycling.
Proposal

In order to enhance each of the three “E”s previously discussed, the following changes are suggested:
Engineering: The current infrastructure for biking is lacking. As seen in the literature, built environment does indeed provided an opportunity to increase biking as a mode of transportation, increasing both personal health and reduction of GHG emission. UC Irvine could be considered mixed-use, as housing, dining, various campus buildings and amenities, as all within the area of campus, which is one feature of a built environment that is conductive to sustainable transportation (Saelens and Handy 2008). Thus, UCI needs to focus on infrastructure that enables biking. To promote biking and its benefits, UC Irvine can make the following short-term changes that involve little construction and planning. (1) Additional and Improved Bike Racks at the following campus locations: Donald Bren Hall, Roland Hall, Ayala and Langson Library, each UCI-owned housing complex, Social Sciences/Social Ecology buildings, and the Student Center. These are all popular destinations on campus and do not have enough bike racks to support demand (as seen by the number of bikes locked to poles, benches, etc.), which can discourage biking to campus. (2) Improved labeling and signage for existing bike lanes and sharrows. Many of the existing lines and symbols that mark bike paths are faded and hard to notice. For a built environment that is conducive to biking, bike lanes need to be present and clear.
There are even greater infrastructural changes UCI can implement in the long-term. These changes include (1) increased ZotWheels locations in each of the UCI owned housing complexes, (2) dedicated bike lane on Ring Road, and (3) dedicated bike lanes that connect the proposed bike lane on Ring Road and the existing bike lane on the inner ring. These changes serve as substantial changes to UCI’s built environment. As a study of New Orleans found, installation of new bike lanes can lead to an increase in the use of biking as a mode of transportation (Parker et. al., 2013).
Education: In order to improve awareness of UCI policies and incentives, and general bike etiquette and rules, UCI should add bike education as a component of its existing orientation to incoming students. UCI should also create closer partnerships with existing bike clubs and groups on campus to collaborate on awareness and educational programs that further engage the UCI community in best biking practices.
Encouragement: While UCI currently has one incentive program for biking as a means of transportation, it does not apply to undergraduate students, which make up approximately 78% of the UCI student population (UCI Facts and Figures). UCI should not only extend this program to undergraduates living off campus, but should add other incentive programs: discount on ZotWheels membership for those that renew annually, and extend discounts to members of bicycle clubs for on-campus dining.
Environmental Impacts
The infrastructural changes proposed in this paper impact the environment in three key ways: GHG emissions, traffic congestion, and physical health. Increased bike racks and improved labeling will require some construction materials, namely use of metals and paints. There are options for bike racks made out of recycled material that meet the LEED standards that UC Irvine excels at meeting with new construction projects (such as the new Verano Place Apartments) (news.uci.edu). One example of this is Bay City Bike Racks, which are made of 95% recycled material (www.forms-surfaces.com/bay-city-bike-rack). Using recyclable and sustainable construction materials will minimize the environmental impact of creating this infrastructure, as they reduce input of raw materials and thus the emissions required to harvest those materials. The long-term infrastructural changes of creating new bike paths will have more significant environmental impacts. Creating new bike lanes in some cases will only mean sectioning off pre-existing areas to be dedicated to bike use, which would not emit GHGs other than those required in manufacturing and transporting the paint and materials. However, some bike paths will have to be built, namely, those connecting the proposed bike lane on Ring Road to the existing bike lane on the inner Ring. The current pathways connecting these two areas are solely for pedestrian use, and many are too narrow to serve both pedestrians and cyclists. So, given that these paths are surrounded by plants and grass, there will need to be some removal of plants. Land clearing emits CO2, a major GHG. However, this would be a minimal amount of land clearing, and any plants that are uprooted in the process will be properly disposed of through composting, which UCI has shown receptivity too, as Pheonix Grill is a zero waste food court that has a compost bin for left-over food and the containers.
Thus, the negative environmental impacts of this proposal in terms of emissions and disrupting the existing environment are negligible. This is fitting, as the goal of increasing biking on campus is to promote sustainable modes of transportation and thus reduce environmentally unfriendly behaviors such as driving. While it is beyond the scope of this proposal to project the amount of increased biking in place of driving that would result from these changes, we can come up with some rough estimates of the potential benefits. While data for the number of students that bike to campus is currently unavailable, Transportation Services reports that almost 12% of UCI faculty and staff commute to campus via bike. Since most of the housing surrounding the campus consists of apartments, and is occupied mostly by students, it is likely that the majority faculty and staff who do not walk or bike to campus live too far from UCI to practically do so. So, we expect to see only a slight increase in the number of these individuals who forgo driving for biking to campus. However, approximately 62% of students live off-campus, and there is a great deal of housing within biking distance of campus. Thus, we hope that our changes would increase biking to campus versus driving or taking shuttles amongst students significantly. If only 10% of UC Irvine’s student population (which is close to 28,000) chose to bike rather than drive, this would yield 2800 fewer vehicle trips to campus everyday each of those students had classes for years to come. This would significantly reduce GHG emissions from commuting in the long term for UCI. Increased biking also has the potential to reduce traffic congestion at UC Irvine, and in the immediate areas of the City of Irvine. Two miles is considered the confortable distance a person is willing to travel by bike (Moudon, et. at., 2005). So, those living within a two-mile radius of the campus will be the population expected to be impact by these changes by deciding to bike to campus rather than drive. So, if this proposal is successful increasing those that bike rather than drive, traffic within this two mile radius of campus will decrease leading to less road and parking congestion. The final impact, albeit not strictly environmental, is the increase in health outcomes that will come from the expected increase in cycling and subsequent decrease in driving. While the reduction in emission in terms of decreasing pollution enough to have a noticeable impact on pollution-related health outcomes is likely negligible, the increase in physical activity due to cycling has significant health implications. As discussed in the literature review, increased active modes of transportation are linked to decreased obesity rates. To the individual, this is significant as the health care can be extremely costly for those who do not engage in an active lifestyle. It could be argued that those who will choose to bike as a result of these changes are individuals already prone to be physically active, and thus not in danger of poor health outcomes. However we hope that the combination of increasing infrastructure, education, and encouragement, UC Irvine will cultivate a strong bike culture that translates to promotion of active modes of transportation for everyone. Hopefully this proposal will impact a diverse amount of the UCI population. Through improving the infrastructure, education and encouragement for biking on the UC Irvine Campus, ridership is very likely to increase amongst students who would otherwise drive, providing many benefits such as reduced emissions, decreased traffic, and improved health outcomes. Implementing these suggested changes would further UC Irvine’s commitment to sustainability and the campus would be well on its way to earning higher rankings and recognitions for its bike-ablity.

Works Cited

Dill, J., & Carr, T. (2003). Bicycle commuting and facilities in major US cities: if you build them, commuters will use them. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 1828(1), 116-123.

FHWA, U.S. Department of Transportation. National Bicycling and Walking Study—Five-Year Status Report by the U.S. Department of Transportation, 1999. www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bikeped/study. Htm

Frank, L. D., & Engelke, P. (2005). Multiple impacts of the built environment on public health: walkable places and the exposure to air pollution. International Regional Science Review, 28(2), 193-216.

Frank, L. D., Greenwald, M. J., Winkelman, S., Chapman, J., & Kavage, S. (2010). Carbonless footprints: promoting health and climate stabilization through active transportation. Preventive Medicine, 50, S99-S105.

Grow HM, Saelens BE, Kerr J, Durant NH, Norman GJ, Sallis JF. Where are youth active? Roles of proximity, active transport, and built environment. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2008; 40(12): 2071- 2079.

Higgins, P. A., & Higgins, M. (2005). A healthy reduction in oil consumption and carbon emissions. Energy Policy, 33(1), 1-4.

Parker, K. M., Rice, J., Gustat, J., Ruley, J., Spriggs, A., & Johnson, C. (2013). Effect of bike lane infrastructure improvements on ridership in one New Orleans neighborhood. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 45(1), 101-107.

Pucher J, Buehler R, Bassett DR, Dannenberg AL. (2010) Walking and cycling to health: A comparative analysis of city, state, and international data. Am J Public Health. 100(10): 1986-1992.

Saelens, B. E., & Handy, S. L. (2008). Built environment correlates of walking: a review. Medicine and science in sports and exercise, 40(7 Suppl), S550-66.

UC Irvine. (2013). 2013 Facts and Figures. http://uci.edu/pdf/UCI_13_Facts_and_Figures.pdf UC Irvine News. (2013). UCI graduate student housing project earns 5 LEED Platinum certifications. http://news.uci.edu/press-releases/uci-graduate-student-housing-project-earns-5-leed-platinum-certifications/