A report for the Los Angeles Sustainability Collaborative

Cycling in Los Angeles Findings from a Survey of Los Angeles Cyclists June 2010 Alexis Lantz University of California Los Angeles Department of Urban Planning [email protected]

DISCLAIMER The opinions expressed in this report and related materials are those of the author’s alone, and do not reflect the opinions of the Los Angeles Sustainability Collaborative, its Board Members, or any employer thereof. The Los Angeles Sustainability Collaborative is not responsible for the accuracy of any of the information supplied in this report, and reference herein to any specific product, process, policy, trade name, trademark, individual, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the LASC, it’s Board Members, or any employer thereof.

Executive Summary The Los Angeles region suffers greatly from the many negative externalities associated with driving such as poor air quality and traffic congestion. An April 2010 report released by the American Lung Association ranked Los Angeles among the top three cities in the nation with the worst air quality (ozone and particulate pollution).1 Moreover, Los Angeles often is cited by the Texas Transportation Institute as the metropolitan area with the worst traffic congestion.2 At the same time, Los Angeles has a temperate climate and relatively flat terrain, conditions amenable to the use of alternative modes of travel such as bicycles. However, thus far, city and regional leaders have done little to improve the city’s bicycling infrastructure and to encourage greater use of bicycles among all types of users. According to the Southern California Association of Government’s 2008 Regional Transportation Plan, almost 12 percent of all trips in the region are made by walking and bicycling, yet less than half a percent of funds are invested in projects supporting these modes. For work trips in the City of Los Angeles, 0.9 percent of all commuters travel by bicycle.3 Despite the lack of investment in bicycle infrastructure, cycling in Los Angeles is increasing. According to the 2008 American Community Survey, over 16,000 workers reported cycling to work each day, a 48 percent increase in commuter cyclists since the year 2000 (League of American Bicyclists, 2009). With the proper infrastructure, there is potential for further growth in the number of regular cyclists. Cyclists face many challenges that both jeopardize their safety and deter additional riders. For example, cyclists are involved in a disproportionate percentage of collisions when compared to their mode share.4 Fifty-seven percent of all bicycle fatalities in the State of California in 2005 were in the Southern California Association of Governments region, and 38 percent of those were in Los Angeles County.5 Research on cycling shows that safety concerns discourage cycling and that increased bicycle infrastructure is the best way to provide an optimal cycling environment. This research project, therefore, examines: • • • 1

the motivations of cyclists who already ride the streets of Los Angeles; the travel patterns and general experience of cyclists in Los Angeles; what cyclists know about cycling safety and rules of the road; and

State of the Air: American Lung Association April 2010 retrieved 5/17/2010 http://www.stateoftheair.org/2010/city-rankings/most-polluted-cities.html 2 Urban Mobility Report: Texan Transportation Institute 2009 retrieved 5/17/10 http://mobility.tamu.edu/ 3 2008 American Community Survey retrieved 2/17/10 http://www.census.gov/acs/www/index.html 4 Alliance for Biking and Walking 2010 Benchmarking Report retrieved 5/16/10 http://peoplepoweredmovement.org 5 2008 Regional Transportation Plan; Non-Motorized Transportation Report retrieved 5/29/2010 http://www.scag.ca.gov/rtp2008/final.htm

•

the obstacles cyclists face and their preferred strategies to improve the cycling environment in Los Angeles.

A survey instrument was developed to investigate these topics. The instrument was informed by previous work of this type in the Los Angeles region and elsewhere, as well as through conversations with stakeholders interested in this data collection effort, particularly the Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition (LACBC) and the Los Angeles Sustainability Collaborative (LASC). The survey was primarily conducted online with additional survey responses gathered at day labor centers throughout central Los Angeles. The online survey was distributed through the LACBC listserv, various blogs, and Twitter feeds. The online survey received 822 responses, of which 92 percent were complete. Thirty-one in-person surveys were collected at four day labor centers, of which almost none were complete. While the in-person sample was small, it provided some insight into the cycling behavior and experiences of day laborers. These data expand on existing data collected on cyclists in the City of Los Angeles. The data can help the city’s policymakers better accommodate current cyclists, and motivate future cyclists. Further, these data can help county and regional planning agencies such as the Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) and the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) create regionally supportive bicycle policies and allocate funding to support cycling as a viable and sustainable transportation solution. Many of the following recommendations already are incorporated into City and regional plans. However, too often these plans do not include measurable outcomes; moreover, oftentimes agency staff and political leaders lack accountability for failing to realize these plans. At all levels of government, agencies and political leaders need to be held accountable. Accountability must not come solely from the outside pressure of bicycle advocates and citizens; it also must be established by City and regional leaders through their vision, leadership, and commitment to a more verdant, livable, and economically vibrant future. Key Findings: • There is a significant gender disparity among riders. Almost 75 percent of survey respondents were male. • Many cyclists use bicycles as their mode of travel to public transit stops and stations. Forty-eight percent of online respondents and 81% of in-person respondents used bicycles to travel to public transit. • Day labor (in-person respondents) cyclists behave more like pedestrians, riding on sidewalks (52%) and crossing intersections at crosswalks (48%). • Online respondents, primarily white, middle- to upper-income males, tend to ride in the street (87%) and cross intersections as would motor vehicles (80%).

1

• • •

In general, day labor cyclists are less knowledgeable about road rules and safety, but some online respondents are equally uninformed about road rules and safety. Cyclists in Los Angeles have experienced slightly more crashes due to poor infrastructure (47%) than from interaction with motor vehicles (45%). The maintenance of streets and the extent of bicycle infrastructure affect the perceived and actual safety of cyclists.

Policy Recommendations for the City of Los Angeles: • Pass a motion prioritizing cycling, and walking, at the same level as motorized transportation. o The Los Angeles Department of Transportation (LADOT) mission outlines their commitment to “providing for the safe and optimal mobility of people” not motorized vehicles. LADOT needs to be held accountable for ensuring the safety and mobility of all road users whether they are on two wheels or four. • Create spending targets for bicycle infrastructure commensurate with mode prevalence in order to lessen the disproportionate rate of bicycle collisions at the city and regional level. • Implement a fix-it-first policy to prioritize pavement maintenance on streets that contain bike lanes and/or routes, or that are known, preferred bike routes for cyclists. • Set yearly mileage goals for on-street bicycle infrastructure and prioritize gaps in the existing network that connect cyclists to public transit, employment centers, and universities. • Set bicycle mode share targets for the City of Los Angeles, County of Los Angeles and Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) region. • Adopt a policy of annual or bi-annual bicycle and pedestrian counts to collect data on ridership and to identify priority corridors for infrastructure improvements. o Bicycle counts also will provide data to measure the effectiveness of infrastructure investments and to leverage local/state dollars at the federal level • Increase the number of city staff members dedicated to bicycle and pedestrian planning. The largest cities in the U.S. average 3.9 bike/pedestrian planning and engineering staff per one million residents. Los Angeles currently has approximately five staff members dedicated to bicycle planning for a city of four million. The City should have a staff of 15 to 16 to handle bicycle and pedestrian planning. • Work with the Air Resources Board to enforce and promote parking cash-out with city and regional employers. California’s Parking Cash-Out law requires employers with 50 employees or more who provide subsidized parking for their employees to offer employees a cash allowance instead of a parking space. Parking Cash-Out rewards commuters who already walk, bike or take transit and motivates other commuters to use alternative modes of travel.

2

• • •

Utilize the bus system as moving billboards to educate motorists about sharing the road and to make cycling more appealing. Use Transit TV, in vehicle posters, and informational pamphlets to educate cyclists and others about the rules of the road and how to ride safely through the. All materials need to be published in multiple languages. Allocate a portion of the Metro “Call for Projects” to education campaigns, outreach projects, and small-scale infrastructure improvements for which Neighborhood Councils, community organizations, and advocacy groups could apply.

3

Table of Contents I. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 6 Research Funding & Support.................................................................................... 7 Report Organization .................................................................................................. 7 II. CYCLING: WHAT DO WE KNOW? ........................................................................... 8 Existing Data & Previous Surveys............................................................................. 8 Literature Review ...................................................................................................... 8 III. METHODOLOGY ..................................................................................................... 15 Survey Design & Research Objectives ................................................................... 15 Outreach Approach ................................................................................................. 15 Demographics and Biases ...................................................................................... 16 IV. FINDINGS ................................................................................................................ 18 Motivation and Trip Information............................................................................... 18 Car Ownership, Transit Use & Parking ................................................................... 20 Safety Knowledge & Riding Behavior ..................................................................... 22 Riding Conditions & Incidents ................................................................................. 26 Improvements ......................................................................................................... 28 V. DISCUSSION & KEY FINDINGS .............................................................................. 29 VI. POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS.............................................................................. 30 Funding & Infrastructure Improvements .................................................................. 30 Outreach and Education ......................................................................................... 33 Additional Recommendations ................................................................................. 35 VII. FURTHER RESEARCH .......................................................................................... 36 VIII. CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................... 36 SOURCES ...................................................................................................................... 37

4

List of Figures Figure 1: Purpose of Bicycle Trips from the 2002 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Report ........................................................................................................ 9 Figure 2: Various forms of bicycle infrastructure. ........................................................... 13 Figure 3: Location of Survey Respondents by Zipcode and Locations of Day Labor Centers with Journey to Work by Bicycle Data by Census Tract from the 2000 US Census ............................................................................................................................... 17 Figure 4: Frequency of ridership in the last month for all respondents ............................ 19 Figure 5: Trip type and frequency for online respondents only........................................ 20 Figure 6: Mileage for all trip types for online respondents only ...................................... 21 Figure 7: Travel time for all trip types for online respondents only................................. 21 Figure 9: Frequency of using other forms of transportation for in-person respondent..... 21 Figure 8: Frequency of using other forms of transportation for online respondents only 22 Figure 10: Bicycle parking locations and frequency of use by online respondents.......... 23 Figure 11: Frequency of sidewalk riding .......................................................................... 24 Figure 13: Frequency of crossing intersections at the crosswalk ..................................... 24 Figure 14: Frequency of crossing intersections in the roadway ....................................... 24 Figure 15: Common locations for cyclists in the roadway .............................................. 25 Figure 18: Right to the lane, all respondents. .................................................................. 26 Figure 19: Frequency of collisions experienced by all respondents ................................. 27 Figure 20: Problems regularly encountered in route by online respondents .................... 28 Figure 21: Level of infrastructure and online respondents' safety preference .................. 28 Figure 22: Online respondents’ preference for improvements ......................................... 29 Figure 23: LADOT U-Rack. Photo courtesy LADOT Bike Blog .................................... 34

5

I. Introduction Since the late 1800s, bicycling in America has experienced numerous periods of increased popularity. Currently cycling is experiencing a boom. According to the 2008 American Community Survey, cycling to work has increased by 43 percent since 2000. Over this same time period, in Los Angeles, bicycle commuting increased by 48 percent from just over 9,000 cyclists to over 16,000. Several factors have motivated the renewed interest in cycling—increasing oil prices, a renewed emphasis on climate change, the state of economy, identification of obesity as a significant health problem, continued high rates of disease from air pollution, and changes in technology, such as fixed gear bikes. These factors not only have made cycling appealing to citizens concerned about their finances, interested in improving their health, possessing a social conscience, or looking cool, but also to key communicators and policy makers, such as the public health community, environmentalists, urban planners and some politicians. In California, recent policy initiatives like Senate Bill 375 (SB 375) and Assembly Bill (AB 1358) emphasize the importance of non-automobile travel and elevate the role of bicycles as a viable transportation option. The California State Legislature passed SB 375 in 2008, which requires regions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through coordinated transportation and land use planning. According to the Office of the Governor (October, 2008) SB 375 will “mean envisioning and planning for communities that rely less on automobiles and get Californians out of their cars for routine trips such as to work and the grocery store. Spending less time on the road is the single-most powerful way for California to reduce its carbon footprint.” Additionally, in 2008 California passed AB 1358, the Complete Streets Act. AB 1358 encourages communities to plan their streets for all transportation modes, not just cars, and to consider how streets can be used for more than simply transportation. In Los Angeles, Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa recently wrote an article for the Huffington Post (April, 2010) in response to the American Lung Association “2010 State of the Air” report. The Mayor stated, “The City of Angels no longer needs to be known for smog and sprawl, but it will take our collective efforts to ensure that we will all breathe cleaner air. Government action is key, but there are many, simple things people can do to help reduce air pollution: drive one less day per week, bike and walk as often as possible . . .” Clearly government action through policy and funding is essential to ensuring a safe and appealing environment for cyclists and pedestrians. Previous national and local surveys of cyclists found safety to be the primary issue faced by cyclists or the principal obstacle to cycling (NHTSA, 2002; MTA, 2004). The National Survey of Bicycle and Pedestrian Attitudes conducted by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) reported that almost all respondents (88%) felt threatened by motorists. In the NHTSA survey, 37 percent of respondents also reported that their safety was threatened by poor infrastructure such as uneven surfaces. Moreover, a survey conducted by the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation

6

Authority (MTA) found that the majority of respondents (71% of field respondents and 60% of mail-in respondents) identified safety concerns as the primary obstacle to bicycling (MTA, 2004). Safety concerns are a real issue in the City of Los Angeles and Los Angeles region. Fifty-seven percent of all bicycle fatalities in the State of California in 2005 were the in the Southern California Association of Governments region, 38 percent were in Los Angeles County (SCAG, 2008). To meet the goals outlined by SB 375 and AB 1358 and to optimize infrastructure investments, communities in California need quality baseline data to determine how the current infrastructure is being used. These data will allow policymakers to measure the benefits of future investments in bicycle infrastructure and to determine potential shifts from other transportation modes to cycling. In addition, to encourage ridership, policymakers must understand the experience of current cyclists as well as the barriers facing potential cyclists, those who desire to travel by bicycle, but face both real and perceived obstacles to doing so. The data collected through this research endeavor expands on the limited data already collected on cyclists in the City of Los Angeles and can help the city’s policymakers better accommodate current cyclists and motivate future cyclists. The survey highlights the motivations of current cyclists, their patterns of trip making, their overall experiences, the challenges they face, and the changes they think are necessary to improve the cycling environment. These data also can help county and regional planning agencies such as Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) and the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) create regionally supportive bicycle policies and allocate funding to support cycling as a viable and sustainable mode of transportation. Research Funding & Support This research was initiated on behalf of the Los Angeles Sustainability Collaborative (LASC). The LASC is a non-profit organization that promotes sustainable development in Southern California, raises awareness of environmental issues, and works to bridge the gap between real-world problems and scholarly research. The LASC promotes collaboration with other non-profit organizations and academic institutions to identify research needs on key environmental issues. The LASC funds research projects conducted by graduate students and shares their findings at community events that bring together and foster collaboration among environmental, policy, community, and business stakeholders. The Ralph and Goldy Lewis Center for Regional Policy Studies at the University of California Los Angeles also provided support for this project. The Lewis Center promotes the study, understanding and solution of regional policy issues, with special reference to Southern California, including problems of the environment, urban design, housing, community and neighborhood dynamics, transportation and economics. Report Organization The report is divided into several sections. The first section provides background information on cycling. Bicycle ridership is reviewed with a specific focus on the results

7

of the National Survey for Bicycle and Pedestrian Attitudes and MTA’s 2004 Enhanced Public Outreach Project for Metro’s Bicycle Transportation Strategic Plan. Scholarly literature on bicycling is drawn upon to provide insights regarding the benefits derived and obstacles faced by current and potential cyclists. A theme throughout the literature is the importance of infrastructure in making cycling appealing to a majority of people, addressing safety issues, and providing a healthy cycling environment. The second section of the report focuses on methodology. As mentioned previously, the core data collection for this study is a survey of cyclists in Los Angeles. In this section, are reviewed the research objectives, survey design, outreach approach, and the resulting demographics of the sample. The section concludes with a discussion of sampling bias. In section three, the findings from the survey are organized into five sub-sections: (a) motivation and trip information, (b) car ownership, transit use and parking, (c) safety knowledge and riding behavior (d) riding conditions and incidents, and (e) physical improvements. The implications of the data are examined and the results of this survey are compared with data from similar surveys and studies. Finally, policy recommendations in three areas are discussed: funding and infrastructure improvements, outreach and education, and additional recommendations.

II. Cycling: What Do We Know? In 2008, cycling made up just one percent of all trips in the United States (League of American Bicyclists, 2010). In Los Angeles cycling comprised 0.9 percent of all commute trips (2008 American Community Survey), but previous surveys also showed that cyclists in Los Angeles primarily use their bicycles for recreational trips. While cycling comprised a small share of trips in Los Angeles, bicyclist fatalities accounted for Figure 1: Purpose of Bicycle Trips from the 2002 2.6 percent of all traffic fatalities National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Report in Los Angeles (Alliance for Biking and Walking, 2010). Nationwide, three percent of all traffic fatalities in major cities involve cyclists (Alliance for Biking and Walking, 2010). Safety is considered a fundamental obstacle to increasing the mode share of cyclists in the City of Los Angeles as it is nationwide. Existing Data & Previous Surveys In many communities, data on cyclists and cycling are limited to data from the U.S. Census Bureau collected yearly through the American Community Survey and the

8

infrequently released National Household Travel Survey (NHTS). The Census Bureau data only captures commute trips and does not allow respondents to report multimodal journeys. Instead, respondents indicate only their primary mode of transportation to work. The NHTS collects data on all trip types and modes, but is a national sample and, therefore, cannot provide representative data for specific localities such as the City of Los Angeles. The most comprehensive and current survey of bicycle travel to date has been the 2002 National Survey of Bicycle and Pedestrian Attitudes administered by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). As Figure 1 illustrates, the survey found that among the almost 10,000 respondents the primary trip purposes were recreational trips (29%) and health/exercise (24%). Only five percent of respondents reported using a bicycle to commute to work or school, while 14 percent used their bicycle to run errands (NHTA, 2002). In 2004, the Los Angeles MTA conducted a survey of over 1,700 Los Angeles County residents, recruiting participants in the field and through an online/mail survey. The MTA survey found that the vast majority of bicycle trips were for health or recreation, 75 percent and 69 percent respectively. Fiftyeight percent of field respondents regularly used their bicycles to run errands compared to 32 percent of online/mail respondents (MTA, 2004). Thirty-three percent of mail/online respondents reported bicycling to work compared to 51 percent of field respondents (MTA, 2004). As noted above, according to the 2008 American Community Survey, bicycle commuting represented less than one percent of the journey-to-work mode share in the City of Los Angeles. It appears likely that if data for all trip types were collected, the bicycle mode share would be significantly higher. The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) projected the actual share of all trips made by bicycle in the Southern California region to be around 2.5 percent in 2003 (SCAG, 2003). Since the passage of the Federal Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) in the early 1990s, some cities and regions, such as Portland, Oregon, Marin County, California, and Boston, Massachusetts have conducted bicycle and pedestrian counts to calculate the actual number of trips taken by cyclist and pedestrians, using these data to help secure funding for future bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure investments. Neither the City of Los Angeles Planning Department nor the Los Angeles Department of Transportation has conducted bicycle or pedestrian counts. In 2009, to address the lack of data, the Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition (LACBC) organized the LA Bike Count, the first bicycle and pedestrian count in the City of Los Angeles. Conducted during the fall of 2009, the LA Bike Count identified over 14,000 cyclists at fifty intersections throughout Los Angeles over three days during peak weekday and weekend travel times (weekday morning and evening times and weekend midday) (LACBC, 2010). Data also were collected on the gender of cyclists and whether they were wearing helmets, riding on the sidewalk, and riding against the direction of traffic. The LA Bike Count found that sidewalk riding was highest on streets with no bicycle

9

infrastructure, that helmet use decreased as the level of bicycle infrastructure increased, and that female ridership was higher in areas with separated bicycle infrastructure (i.e. paths and lanes) (LACBC, 2010). In general, the survey showed that ridership was highest in areas with the most extensive bicycle infrastructure (paths and lanes). Locations near rail stations and universities, however, also produced high counts (LACBC, 2010). A 2004 survey by the Los Angeles MTA identified the different cycling populations in the Los Angeles region. These groups included: engaged cyclists, visible, and organized and cyclists who were “virtually invisible,” riding because they did not own cars and used bicycles as an affordable mode of transportation (MTA, 2004). MTA conducted their survey both in person throughout Los Angeles County and through online and mailin surveys (MTA, 2004). Mail/online survey respondents were primarily white (66%), male (74%), had household incomes of $50,000 or more a year (64%) and typically cycled several times a week (36.1%). In contrast, the field respondents were primarily non-white (79%), had household incomes of less than $35,000 a year (64%), and cycled almost every day (42.5%); similar to the mail/online respondents, a large majority were male (79%) (MTA, 2004). With respect to riding behavior and injury rates, 69 percent of NHTSA survey respondents reported that they rode in the direction of traffic; and 24 percent reported frequently riding against traffic (NHTA, 2002). Only four percent of the cyclists surveyed reported bicycle-related injuries over the past two years. According to the NHTSA, between 2000 and 2002, an estimated 2 million cyclists reported injuries while cycling (NHTSA, 2002). Of those, just over a quarter were injured as a result of accidents with motor vehicles. The MTA survey did not question respondents about their injury rates or their bicycle riding practices. The MTA data showed that helmet use was higher among the mail-in/online survey respondents (82%) compared to the field respondents (47%). Respondents to the NHTSA survey primarily rode their bicycle in the street (48%) as opposed to on the sidewalks (14%). Very few used roads with bicycle lanes (5%) or bicycle paths (13%); however urban cyclists were more likely to use paths or lanes than suburban or rural cyclists. Seventy-four percent of trips were five miles or less; of those, 39 percent were one mile or less (NHTSA, 2002). Field respondents to the MTA survey traveled an average one-way distance of 7.9 miles; whereas mail/online respondents to the MTA survey traveled an average one-way distance of 9.9 miles (MTA, 2004). Overwhelmingly, respondents to the NHTSA survey wanted more bicycle infrastructure in their communities. Thirty-eight percent suggested more bike lanes, 30 percent desired more bike paths, and 14 percent recommended more bike trails. Respondents to the MTA survey also prioritized the importance of bicycle infrastructure improvements. Seventy-six percent of mail-in/online respondents wanted bike paths, 83 percent suggested bike lanes, and 64 percent desired more bike routes (MTA, 2004). Field respondents felt even stronger about the need for additional infrastructure; eighty-four

10

percent wanted more bike paths, 91 percent proposed more bike lanes, and 84 percent indicated more bike routes. Literature Review In Los Angeles where, as in most American cities, the car reigns supreme as the dominant mode of transportation, safety concerns are important issues and pose the greatest obstacle to increased cycling in the city. According to a recent study by Transportation for America, Los Angeles ranked as one of the most dangerous cities in the U.S. for pedestrians (Transportation for America, 2009). Many of the safety concerns outlined in this study also affect cyclists. These included the lack of good infrastructure, speeding motorists, distracted drivers, and the high number of hit-and-runs (Transportation for America, 2009). In the United States, bicycle fatalities were 11 times higher than car occupant fatalities per kilometer traveled; however fatalities were only a fourth as high in Germany and the Netherlands (Pucher et al, 2000). Twelve percent of all trips in Los Angeles were done by walking or cycling, according to the recently released Benchmarking Report by the Alliance for Biking and Walking (2010. The national average was 9.6 percent. Yet Los Angeles devoted only 1.2 percent of its federal transportation dollars to bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure. The lack of spending on behalf of pedestrians and cyclists likely contributed to the high rates of vehicle-related collisions involving both, 36 percent as calculated by the NHTSA’s Fatality Analysis Reporting System (Alliance for Biking and Walking, 2010). Moreover, research has illustrated that motorists and, oftentimes, the police are not familiar with the rules of the road as they pertain to cyclists. In Los Angeles, the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) and the Los Angeles City Attorney routinely failed to pursue justice on behalf of cyclists (Newton, 2010). Consequently, cyclists frequently receive more blame for accidents, even when the accidents involve a hit-and-run driver (Komanoff et al, 2000). Komanoff and Smith (2000) reexamined 53 fatal bicycle crashes in New York City where the police had determined the dead cyclist to be at fault; the purpose of their investigation was to determine who was actually responsible for the crash. Using police reports, the researchers reconstructed the crashes. In 30 of the crashes motorists were at fault; in 11 cases the motorists and cyclists shared equal responsibility for the crash; and in 12 cases the cyclists were at fault. The authors found that in the cases where the motorists were at fault, they were at fault for the following reasons: drivers passing unsafely or aggressively (includes dooring) (28%), drivers turning into cyclist’s path (15%), speeding (14%), and running a red light or stop sign (10%). Cyclist misconduct that resulted in fatalities included running a red light or stop sign (8%) and traveling against the direction of traffic (9%).

11

Even in light of safety concerns, the rate of cycling in Los Angeles has grown in recent years. In a study conducted on the relationship between the quantity of pedestrians and cyclists and the frequency of collisions, data showed that as the number of people walking and bicycling increased, the number of collisions between pedestrians or cyclists and motorists’ decreased (Jacobsen, 2003). This research suggests that additional cycling and walking makes motorists more aware of these activities and, perhaps, also more cautious (Jacobsen, 2003). This research implies that policies to increase the number of people walking and bicycling in Los Angeles could actually improve the safety of cyclists and pedestrians. To date, cycling in Los Angeles is disproportionately an activity of males. The September 2009 bicycle and pedestrian count conducted by the Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition (LACBC) counted over 14,000 cyclists at 50 intersections during a three-day period. Of those cyclists, only 15 percent were female. Similarly, data from the 2008 American Community Survey showed that only 21 percent of respondents who bicycle to work were female. In research about the participation of female cyclists, Gerrard et al. (2006:6) asserted that, as women are considered more risk adverse than men, “female participation in cycling appears to be an indicator of how friendly the culture and environment is for cycling.” Providing separate bicycle facilities such as urban cycle tracks, on-street bike lanes, combined bus/bike lanes, offroad bike paths, shared-use paths, bicycle boulevards, and traffic calmed residential streets broadened the appeal of cycling to different types of cyclists, including children, women, and the elderly (Pucher et al 2009). Los Angeles has a high rate of immigrant cyclists who cycle not out of choice, but out of economic necessity (MTA, 2004). These cyclists are particularly susceptible to environmental and political issues. In interviews with immigrant cyclists in Los Angeles, interviewees reported that the loss of bicycles due to damage from bad infrastructure, crashes, or having a bicycle stolen meant less th

Figure 2: Various forms of bicycle infrastructure. From top down; Orange Line Bike Path, 9 Street Cycle Track, Bike Lane, Bike Box, Bicycle Boulevard, Sharrow. Images courtesy of MTA, Streetsblog, LACBC, Bike Portland, and SFBC

12

access to potential employment opportunities and losses of income, resulting in extended waiting periods before replacement bicycles could be obtained (Koeppel, 2006). Immigrant cyclists also raised the issue of deportation (Koeppel, 2006). According to a report released by the United States Department of Transportation in 2004, Latinos were killed riding bicycles at a disproportionally high rate. This finding likely was due to the combined lack of educational materials provided to Latino cyclists in addition to poor or non-existent bicycle infrastructure. Koeppel (2006) noted that many Latino immigrant cyclists bike against traffic because it is the norm in many Central American countries; in addition certain U.S. traffic signs or facilities are not seen in Central American countries, such as yield signs. The research also found that the neighborhoods in which many immigrants reside are some of the oldest and often have some of the most poorly maintained streets (Koeppel, 2006). Finally, Koeppel (2006) noted that, given where they are likely to live, many immigrant cyclists must traverse multiple large boulevards with high traffic volumes and speeds to access employment opportunities. Cycling is a relatively cheap mode of transportation. The initial costs associated with the purchase of a bicycle may hinder some from cycling, but used bicycles are available for reasonable prices at many stores, bicycle co-ops, and yard sales. In recent years, the rising costs of driving and public transit combined with the current economic recession may have motivated some travelers to consider cycling as a viable form of transportation.i Litman (2004) estimated that replacing a car trip with a bicycle trip saves both individuals and society $2.73 a mile. This cost takes into account the costs of congestion, air pollution, energy use, vehicle operation and maintenance, and traffic safety. If the 14.6 percent of Los Angeles residents who commute under 14 minutes to work switched from cars to biking, the daily savings would amount to $683,344 one-way or $1,366,687 for the roundtrip. Fifty percent of all trips taken in the United States are three miles or less, and in urban areas, the number is slightly higher, 53 percent of all trips are three miles or less (League of American Bicyclists, 2010). Despite this fact, only 1.8 percent of all trips three miles or less was traveled by bicycle and 72 percent of trips three miles or less was made by car (League of American Bicyclists, 2010). Eighty-five percent of all bicycle trips made in the United States was three miles or less (League of American Bicyclists, 2010). Distances at or under three and a half miles could easily be covered on a bicycle. During peak commuting hours in Los Angeles, a bike could travel these distances in less or in the same time as could a car. Data from the 2001 National Household Transportation Survey revealed that cycling trips were highest among households that did not own cars; however the number of trips made by bicycle was similar across all income levels. The rate of cycling differed across U.S. regions. The Pacific region (California, Oregon, Washington, Alaska, and Hawaii) had the highest share of trips made by bicycle 1.1% compared to 0.8% or 0.9% in the rest of the country and 0.4 in the East South Central region (Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama, and Mississippi) (Pucher, 2001). The low rate of cycling in the East South Central region was likely the result of low levels of investment in infrastructure and high levels of low-

13

density development (Transportation for America, 2009). According to Transportation for America, the most dangerous metropolitan areas for pedestrians were all located in the South, including many of the major cities of the East South Central region including Birmingham, Louisville, and Memphis (Transportation for America, 2009). The NHTSA research found that maintaining a healthy lifestyle was a primary motivator for many cyclists, outweighing safety concerns for cyclists already out on the road (NHTSA 2002). The public health community has used cycling and walking as mobility strategies to address the obesity epidemic. In Los Angeles, the Department of Public Health has collaborated with cities on transportation and land use policy, providing grant programs such as the Policies for Livable, Active Communities and Environments (PLACE) and Renewing Environments for Nutrition, Exercise and Wellness (RENEW). Both the PLACE and RENEW grants aim to develop policies and implement initiatives to foster healthier communities. Ideally, exercise becomes incidental as communities are made safer and walking and biking become appealing as viable forms of transportation. Cycling combines daily transportation with daily exercise and can help adults and children meet the recommended level of physical activity suggested by the Center for Disease Control. Using Global Positioning System (GPS) data, a study of 166 regular cyclists in Portland, Oregon showed that 60 percent of the cyclists rode for more than 150 minutes a week (Dill, 2008). The research found that the trips were primarily for utilitarian (not recreational) reasons. Dill (2008) found that a disproportionate share of cycling occurred on streets with separated bicycle facilities (lanes, paths, boulevards) or slow-moving neighborhood streets. While Portland has a much more integrated and comprehensive bicycle network than Los Angeles, the data supports the need for infrastructure to encourage cycling. Unless safety is addressed through providing better infrastructure in Los Angeles, the likelihood that more residents will take up cycling for health reasons is slim, especially when weighed against the perceived and real safety concerns related to cycling in a city such as Los Angeles. In Los Angeles, the City’s air quality has typically ranked as the worst in the nation (American Lung Association, 2010). Increased exposure to soot, particulate matter and air pollution are potential health issues for cyclists. Research has linked the effects of traffic-related air quality to cardio-respiratory mortality, non-allergic respiratory morbidity, allergic illness and symptoms especially in asthmatics, cardiovascular morbidity, lung cancer, low birth rates, and premature births (Krzyzanowski et al, 2005). Strak et al. (2009) examined the effect of limited exposure to air pollution, particulate matter, and soot on respiratory health in commuters traveling by bicycle. Their study was conducted with 12 cyclists, over 16 days during the morning rush hour in Utrecht, the Netherlands, on both high-traffic and low-traffic roads. The researchers monitored the cyclists before their commutes, immediately after, and six hours later. They found a 59 percent higher concentration of particulate matter on the high-traffic routes and a 39 percent higher soot concentration. The researchers noted increased exposure to soot was

14

associated with a noticeable decrease in lung function six hours after cycling; however their study population was small and, therefore, the reliability of the data is uncertain. In a review of existing literature on cyclists and exposure rates to air pollution, de Nazelle and Nieuwenhuijsen (2009) found a gap in the data and literature related to the rate of exposure to air pollution and health effects on cyclists. They attributed this gap to the logistical and technological difficulties of conducting transportation and environment research. They stressed the importance of examining potential health risks in conjunction with health benefits as the context for influencing planning and policy decisions on bicycle planning and infrastructure development. However, both Strak (2009) and de Nazelle and Nieuwenhuijsen (2009) agreed that route choice and type of bicycle infrastructure were important factors in determining cyclists’ exposure to air pollution, particulate matter, and soot. Moving cyclists away from the tailpipes of vehicles lessened their exposure. In aggregate, the above research makes a substantial argument for the importance of bicycle infrastructure in increasing the mode share for cycling, encouraging a diversity of cyclists, lessening the perceived and actual safety and health concerns, and promoting additional utilitarian trips versus solely recreational trips.

III. Methodology Survey Design & Research Objectives This survey was intended to gain an understanding of the motivation, experience, and knowledge of Los Angeles cyclists. The goals of the survey were to gather the data necessary to develop policy recommendations to make cycling safer for those travelers who already cycle and to make cycling more appealing to travelers who are not yet cycling or who cycle infrequently; and to fill gaps in data regarding cyclists in the City of Los Angeles. The survey instrument benefited from previous surveys conducted in Los Angeles, such as the MTA Enhanced Public Outreach Project for Metro’s Bicycle Transportation Strategic Plan, examples from other cities, and national surveys such as the National Survey of Bicycle and Pedestrian Attitudes. Additional questions were developed through conversations with stakeholders interested in the data collection effort, in particular the Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition (LACBC), LACBC’s City of Lights Program, the UCLA Labor Center, and the Los Angeles Sustainability Collaborative. The questions were organized to better understand the factors that motivate existing cyclists to ride, how frequently they ride, their riding behavior, knowledge of the rules of road as they apply to cyclists, obstacles they experienced on the road, and, finally, their preference for improvements. Additional questions were used to glean knowledge about collision rates and the types of infractions for which cyclists have been stopped. The

15

survey also included questions on demographics, the length of time respondents had been cycling in Los Angeles, where they first started riding a bicycle with regularity, and how they ranked cycling in Los Angeles compared to other places they had lived. Outreach Approach The survey was primarily conducted online, using the online survey tool SurveyMonkey. Additional responses were collected at various day labor centers throughout central Los Angeles. The online survey was distributed through the LACBC listserv, which was received by over 3,000 residents of Los Angeles County. It was publicized through the various blogs such as Streetsblog, Midnight Ridazz, Biking in LA, and through various Twitter accounts. The online survey generated 822 responses, of which a total of 753 (92%) were complete. The map in Figure 3 shows the location of survey respondents by zip code. The in-person surveys were conducted at the CARECEN Day Labor Center, IDEPSCA Downtown Job Center, IDEPSCA Cypress Park Labor Center, and IDEPSCA Hollywood Labor Center. (See Figure 3 for the locations of the day labor centers.) Thirty-one inperson surveys were collected at the day labor centers, of which almost none were complete. While the in-person sample was small, gathering any data at all on this cycling population provides a starting point for understanding their cycling experiences as there are very little literature or data on the cycling behavior of day laborers. Demographics and Biases Most of the online survey respondents were male (72%), white (76%), and had earnings of more than $50,000 (60%). Seventy-six percent of online respondents had secondary degrees. The median age of online respondents was 35. Only 28 percent of the online respondents were female. All of the in-person respondents were Hispanic males. The majority of in-person respondents earned under $35,000 (65%), having only completed elementary school or some high school (52%) with a median age of 41. Online respondents primarily rode road bikes (70%) where as in-person respondents primarily used mountain bikes (68%). The benefit of conducting the survey primarily online was the ability to reach a dispersed population on a limited budget. Another benefit of the online survey was the ability to have respondents rank and rate their motivations and preferences. However, this approach resulted in a sample that disproportionately represented cyclists who had the means to access the Internet and who had been reached through the various online channels previously mentioned. In-person surveying was used to balance the demographic bias of the online survey. However because of the length of the survey and complexity of some of the questions, especially questions that asked respondents to rate or rank their preferences, many of the in-person respondents did not complete the entire survey.

16

While the sampling does not reflect the views of the entire cycling population in Los Angeles, it does provide insight into the behavior and experience of recreational, day labor, and commuter cyclists. Figure 3: Location of Survey Respondents by Zipcode and Locations of Day Labor Centers with Journey to Work by Bicycle Data by Census Tract from the 2000 US Census

17

IV. Findings These data revealed the differences in the cycling behavior and knowledge of online and in-person survey respondents. Compared to online respondents, in-person respondents were dependent on their bicycles as their primary form of transportation and used transit more often. Online respondents bicycled more for recreation and the majority rode only two to four times a week. While a percentage of online respondents were dependent on their bicycles as their primary form of transportation, they were less likely to use public transportation than in-person respondents. Online respondents were much more knowledgeable about the rules of the road and how to cycle safely; they were more likely to wear helmets and to use front and rear bike lights. The majority of in-person respondents rode their bicycles on the sidewalk and identified the sidewalk as the safest place to ride. This contrasted starkly to online respondents who primarily traveled in the street and identified the road as the safest place for a cyclist to ride. Male respondents experienced more collisions than female respondents. In general, respondents to this survey experienced more collisions due to poor infrastructure than from motor vehicles. Motivation and Trip Information Most online and in-person respondents stated that they had ridden a bicycle in Los Angeles for less than six years. Fifty-one percent of online respondents had ridden for six or fewer years, with 34 percent having ridden for under three years. Forty-eight percent of in-person respondents cycled for six years or less, with 26 percent having bicycled in Los Angeles for less than three years. The majority of online survey respondents rode primarily for health reasons (36%), followed by recreational (21%) and environmental (15%) reasons. Female online respondents ranked environmental reasons higher than recreational reasons. With respect to the in-person day laborer respondents, data on their reasons for cycling were

Figure 4: Frequency of ridership in the last month for all respondents 50%

44%

45%

45% 37%

40% 35% 30%

26%

25%

In-person

20% 13% 12%

15% 10%

Online

10%

6% 6%

5%

1%

0% less than twice about once a a month week

2 to 4 times a week

daily

no response

18

inconclusive as the majority of respondents did not answer the question. Figure 4 uses categorical variables to show how often respondents rode their bicycles in the last month. Forty-four percent of online survey respondents cycled two to four times a week, but many, 37 percent, cycled daily. Almost half (45%) of the in-person survey respondents cycled daily. Respondents also were asked what time of day they cycled; fifty-eight percent of all respondents rode at all times of the day. Figure 5 displays the distribution of frequency of bicycle use by trip type for online respondents. Online respondents most frequently made recreation/exercise trips (70%). Forty-nine percent of respondents regularly bicycle to work and 45 percent regularly ran errands by bicycle. Of the online respondents who reported cycling daily (see Figure 4) 82 percent reported regularly cycling to work compared to 39 percent of online respondents who cycled two to four times a week. Female respondents regularly cycled slightly more often that men for social (39% vs. 37%) and errand trips (46% vs. 45%). The data were less complete for in-person respondents, but 61 percent regularly cycled for work, 69 percent regularly cycled for recreation/exercise, and 39 percent regularly cycled to run errands. Respondents were asked if they use their bicycles for work, only five percent of online respondents said yes. Of the five percent, one was a bike messenger and the other 45 respondents listed working in a bike-related field, such as a mechanic, coach, planner, or advocate. There were also several teachers who stated that their bicycle was necessary for their jobs. By contrast, 81 percent of in-person respondents reported that their bicycle was necessary for their work. As these men were interviewed at day labor centers, it can be inferred that their bicycles allowed them to travel to the centers for a variety of construction jobs. Figure 5: Trip type and frequency for online respondents only 120% 100% 80% 60%

45% 70%

40% 20% 0%

34% 21% 7% 2%

11% 11%

49% 18% 11% 21%

38%

26% 6% 6%

35% 15% 13%

61%

regularly occasionally rarely never

Figures 6 and 7 show the distribution of travel miles and travel times for all trips for respondents of the online survey. The majority of online respondents averaged travel

19

under five miles one-way and, correspondingly, their average one-way travel time was under 15 minutes. The longer distances were primarily recreational trips, although some one-way work commutes were well over ten miles. Figure 6: Mileage for all trip types for online respondents only 50%

44%

45% 40% 35% 30% 25%

23%

20%

20% 15%

13%

10% 5% 0%

Under 2 miles

2 to 5 miles

6 to 10 miles

11+ miles

Figure 7: Travel time for all trip types for online respondents only 33%

35% 30%

29% 26%

25%

Only a few in-person respondents wrote in the distances they traveled for the various types of trips. Of those, 35 percent cycled five or less miles to get to work, 26 percent rode over five miles, and some respondents traveled as far as thirty miles one-way to get to work. Most in-person respondents traveled under three miles to run errands and between two and ten miles for recreational trips. Car Ownership, Transit Use & Parking Eighty-two percent of online survey respondents owned a car. Male respondents had a higher percentage of car ownership than female respondents, 85 percent compared to 76 percent. Despite high levels of car ownership, 38 percent of online respondents reported using their bicycle as their primary form of transportation, a figure that mirrors the percentage of the sample that cycles daily (37%) (See Figure 4.)

20%

Forty-eight percent of online respondents reported using their bicycle to connect to 10% public transportation. Among the sub5% group of respondents connecting to public transportation, female respondents used 0% public transportation more regularly than Less than 5 mins 5 to 15 mins male respondents. Figure 8 shows the 15+ mins Not Respond percentages of how regularly online respondents used other forms of transportation. As a whole, online respondents reported driving (58%) and walking (48%) as the other forms of transportation they most regularly used. Women regularly walked more frequently than men (50% vs. 40%), whereas men regularly drove slightly more often than women (58% vs. 56%). Twenty-three percent of female respondents also more regularly used the bus, compared to only 14 percent of men. Both men and women used Metro rail at the same rate. 15%

12%

20

Figure 8: Frequency of using other forms of transportation for online respondents only 120% 100%

9%

80% 58%

29%

17%

13%

25%

28%

43%

regularly sometimes

60% 29%

rarely 32%

30%

33%

27%

29%

Carpool

Bus

Subway

40% 22% 20% 17% 4%

0%

Car

41%

never

14% 2%

Walking

Eighty-four percent of in-person respondents used their bicycle as their primary mode of transportation. Only 16 percent reported owning a car. Figure 9 provides information on how frequently in-person respondents used other forms of transportation. Eighty-one percent (81%) reported having used their bicycles to connect to public transportation; of those 79 percent used the bus regularly; sixty-four percent used Metro rail as shown in Figure 9. Figure 9: Frequency of using other forms of transportation for in-person respondent 120% 100% 80% 60% 40% 20%

29% 14% 21%

36%

29%

29%

Regularly

79%

Sometimes 27%

0%

Carpool

Rarely Never

43%

0% Car

40% 64%

23%

13%

17% 0% 4%

9%

5%

20%

Bus

Subway

Walking

21

When connecting to public transportation, 48 percent of in-person respondents used the bike racks on the front of the buses and 55 percent used the bike parking at rail stations. Seventy-nine percent of online respondents who reported using their bicycles to connect Figure 10: Bicycle parking locations and frequency of use by online respondents Metro bike locker

1.37

Fence

3.31

Parking meter

3.71

Other

4.01

Street sign

4.16

Bike rack

4.88 0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

to public transportation utilized the bike racks on the front of the buses, with women slightly more likely to do so then men. Twenty-five percent of online respondents used the bike parking at rail stations. Respondents were also asked to rank where they most frequently parked their bicycles, six being where they parked most often and one being where respondents parked least often. The rankings were averaged and Figure 10 depicts the various locations and respondents frequency of use. Online respondents reported frequently parking their bikes at bike racks. However, many online respondents parked their bikes at parking meters, street signs, and other locations such as trees and many brought their bicycles into their offices or other destinations. Currently, parking a bicycle at a meter in Los Angeles is against the law, as set forth in Municipal Code Chapter VIII Traffic SEC 88.10. Few inperson respondents answered the question, so the data were too incomplete to draw conclusions on this question. However the bicycles that were seen while administering surveys at the day labor centers were locked to fences, meters, and street signs outside of the centers. Safety Knowledge & Riding Behavior Safety knowledge and riding behavior differed greatly between the two categories of survey respondents. Regular helmet use was higher among online respondents (77%) compared to in-person respondents (39%). Use of both tail and headlights was also higher among online respondents compared to in-person respondents. Among online respondents, 71 percent reported regularly using headlights and 75 percent stated that they regularly using taillights. Sixty-one percent of in-person respondents reported regularly using head and taillights. The use of bright or reflective clothing was low among both online and in-person respondents; however it was slightly higher among in-

22

person respondents. Thirty-five percent of in-person respondents reported regularly wearing bright clothes compared to 31 percent among online respondents. Figure 11: Frequency of sidewalk riding 60%

Figure 12: Frequency of riding in the street 100%

52%

50%

80%

40%

70%

40% 27%

30%

29%

20% 16%

20% 10%

87%

90%

68%

60% 50% 40% 30%

9% 3%

0%

4%

0%

13% 7%

20% 10%

10% 1%

0%2%

10% 3%

0%

In-person

Online

In-person

Online

Sidewalk riding was higher among inperson survey respondents than online respondents. As Figure 11 depicts, fifty-two percent of in-person respondents described regularly riding on the sidewalk compared to only nine percent among online respondents. Sidewalk ridership was slightly higher among female online respondents (14%) than male respondents (6.5%). Figure 12 shows the frequency in which respondents rode in the street. Online respondents appeared to be more comfortable cycling in the street compared to in-person respondents, 87 percent compared to 68 percent. Correlated with the high level of sidewalk riding among in-person survey respondents, crossing intersections in the crosswalk was also high among in-person respondents (Figure 13). Female online respondents also reported crossing intersections at the Figure 12: Frequency of crossing intersections at the crosswalk 90%

60% 50%

80%

80%

48%

70%

40%

35%

32%

60% 50%

28%

30% 20%

Figure 13: Frequency of crossing intersections in the roadway

40% 17%

18%

16%

0%

0%

35%

30% 20%

10%

39%

4%

10%

13% 13% 3%2%

10% 1%

4%

0%

0%

In-person

Online

In-person

Online

23

crosswalk at higher rates than male online respondents, 28 percent compared to 13.5 percent. In California, riding through an intersection in the crosswalk is legal, unless the local municipal code says otherwise. In Los Angeles the municipal code does not address crossing the street at the crosswalk. Figure 14 illustrates the comfort that online respondents had for crossing intersections in the roadway. Eighty percent of online respondents crossed intersections as vehicles do, compared to only 39 percent of inperson respondents. Figure 15 shows the various locations in the right-of-way where cyclists often ride. The League for American Bicyclists and the NHTSA stipulate that Location 1 is the safest space for a bicyclist to ride as they are within full view of motorists and out of the door zone. Location 2 is in the door zone, where the opening of a car door can throw a cyclist over their handlebars. Location 3, the sidewalk, is a site of conflict with both pedestrians and motorists; while not illegal in Los Angeles, riding on the sidewalk is illegal in many adjacent cities. Figure 14: Common locations for cyclists in the roadway

Sixty-three percent of online respondents identified Location 1 as the safest place to ride, compared to only three percent of in-person respondents. In-person respondents felt Location 3 was the safest place for a cyclist to be, which is reflected in Figure 11 by the high rate of sidewalk riding. A majority of both online and in-person respondents reported regularly signaling to turn and change lanes. Sixty-one percent of in-person respondents stated that they regularly signaled before turning compared to 53 percent of online respondents. Fifty-five percent of in-person respondents reported regularly signaling before changing lanes compared to 54 percent of online respondents. Figure 17: Knowledge of Hand Signals (online respondents only) 120% 100% 80%

15% 2%

19% 20%

17% 11%

28%

72%

66%

60% 40%

83%

20%

61%

6%

0% 1 Correct Answer

2 3 4 Wrong Answer No Response

Figure 16: Hand Signals

24

However when asked to identify the meaning of each of the hand signals depicted in Figure 16, the majority of in-person respondents skipped the question. Image 1 is a left turn signal; Image 2 denotes stopping; Image 3 is a right turn signal; and Image 4 is also a right turn signal. Only 29 percent of in-person respondents correctly identified the signal in Image 1, ten percent correctly identified the signals in Images 2 and 3, and 32 percent were able to identify the signal in Image 4. Online respondents were more familiar with each of the signals as shown in Figure 17; however survey results clearly indicate that there are a number of cyclists who do not signal regularly or know how to signal correctly. Respondents were asked several questions regarding the California Vehicle Code as it pertains to cyclists. Questions were asked about the appropriate direction of travel and the right to occupy an entire travel lane. Ninety-eight percent of online respondents and 74 percent of in-person respondents affirmed cyclists are required to travel in the same direction as vehicle traffic. Respondents were asked if cyclists must always stay to the right when traveling on the street, 32 percent of online respondents and 87 percent of inperson respondents said yes (Figure 18). When asked if cyclists can take the full use of a lane 84 percent of online respondents said yes, compared to only 55 percent of in-person respondents, also show in Figure 18. Figure 15: Right to the lane, all respondents. This table combines results for two questions about whether cyclists must always stay to the right and if cyclists are allowed to take full use of a travel lane. 100% 90%

8% 8%

9% 26%

6% 6%

80% 70%

19%

60%

59%

50% 40%

87%

84%

30%

55%

20%

32%

10% 0% Full use of lane? (online)

Full use of lane? (in-person) Yes

No

Stay to the right? (online)

Stay to the right? (in-person)

No Response

If cyclists must always stay to the right, then they should not be able to take the full use of a lane. These two questions essentially asked the same thing; however respondents were confused about what the law allows. The California Vehicle Code (CVC 21202) states that “bicycles traveling slower than the normal speed of traffic must ride as close to

25

the right side of the road as practicable (or practical) except when passing, preparing for a left turn, to avoid hazards and dangerous conditions, or if the lane is too narrow.” The majority of respondents navigated routes that combine a variety of infrastructure including bike routes, lanes, and along streets that may have no infrastructure including major boulevards and secondary streets. The slightly higher response rate among both online and in-person respondents for regularly cycling on secondary streets (53%) compared to major arterials (46%) may have reflected a preference among respondents for lower traffic volume streets. Riding Conditions & Incidents Thirty-one percent of online survey respondents have received a ticket while riding, primarily for running stop signs, traffic lights, or not having proper lights or reflectors on their bike. Twenty-six percent of in-person respondents have received tickets; among those who wrote in the reason for receiving a ticket, several were cited for not wearing helmets, not having proper lighting or reflectors, or not riding in the direction of traffic. The helmet law applies only to people 18 years old or younger. All of the men ticketed for not wearing a helmet were well over the age of 18. Figure 19 reveals the percentage of respondents involved in five types of common collisions. Thirty percent of all survey respondents have been involved in some sort of collision or accident. As shown in Graph 14 respondents have crashed more due to poor infrastructure than with a moving vehicle. Online respondents have experienced more incidents than in-person respondents, 27 percent compared to 11 percent. Of the 27 percent of online respondents that have had some sort of accident, 57 percent were male and 25 percent were female. Figure 16: Frequency of collisions experienced by all respondents 120% 100% 80%

53%

55%

60%

83%

73%

89%

No Yes

40% 20%

47%

45% 17%

27%

0% With a moving vehicle

With a parked vehicle

With another bicycle

11% With a pedestrian Due to poor road conditions

26

Online respondents experienced higher rates of crashes due to poor infrastructure (48%) than in-person respondents (16%). In-person respondents experienced higher rates of collision with moving vehicles (27%) than collisions due to poor infrastructure; this finding may explain why they choose to cycle on the sidewalk or, conversely, may be caused by cycling on sidewalks. Figure 20 reflects the frequency of problems regularly experienced by online respondents on their routes. Respondents were asked to rate the most common problems encountered along their routes, five represented most common and one being least common. The averaged results show that online respondents reported regularly experiencing vehicles not sharing the roadway and poor infrastructure problems. Other, which ranked third, included trashcans and debris in the road/bikeway. Responses among the in-person sample were too incomplete to identify the problems that these cyclists regularly encounter. However, since many in-person respondents regularly rode on the sidewalk, it is possible that they did not experience some of these issues. Figure 17: Problems regularly encountered in route by online respondents 2.58

Difficulty crossing intersections

2.63

Vehicles driving in bike lanes

2.70

Open car doors (Dooring)

2.83

Vehicles parked in bike lanes

3.04

Harassment from motorists

3.78

Other

3.98

Poor road surface conditions

4.10

Vehicles not sharing the roadway

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

4.50

Respondents were requested to rank where they felt safest cycling, five being most safe and one being least safe, the rankings were then averaged. Respondents to the online survey reported feeling safest cycling on separated bicycle paths, followed by bike lanes and marked bike routes as shown below in Figure 21. Not enough in-person respondents answered the question to draw conclusions regarding their preferences; however of the few who did answer the question, the majority identified feeling safest riding on sidewalks and separated bike paths.

27

Figure 18: Level of infrastructure and online respondents' safety preference

1.61

On the sidewalk In the street

2.32 3.02

On a marked bike route (signage) In marked bike lanes

3.69

On a separated bike path

4.55 0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

4.50

5.00

Improvements Figure 22 depicts ten potential improvements to help improve cycling in the City of Los Angeles. Respondents ranked the potential improvements in order of importance, ten being most important and one being least important. Survey respondents felt strongly about providing more bicycle lanes, better education for motorists, more bikeways on major roads, and better quality road surfaces to improve cycling in Los Angeles. Inperson respondents ranked all of the improvement options highly. As in-person respondents were able to write in their responses, many failed to actually rank the improvements that they would like to see, giving the same level of priority to all of the potential improvements. Figure 19: Online respondents’ preference for improvements

Better lighting on bicycle routes

3.87

Better connection with/on transit (bus/train)

3.84

More bicycle parking

4.17

More bicycle education for bicyclists

4.32

More bicycle routes with signs

5.70

Bikeways that connect to each other

6.15

Repair/removal of hazards (potholes/grates)

6.44

More bicycles routes on major arterials

6.81

More bicycle education for motorists

7.28

More bicycle lanes

7.98 0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

8.00

9.00

28

V. Discussion & Key Findings These data present a picture of two different cycling populations in Los Angeles. While their experiences on the road may overlap, the online and in-person respondents had different cycling behaviors and knowledge. Except where noted in the findings above, male and female cyclists had similar experiences and preferences. Online survey respondents were primarily vehicular cyclists meaning they bicycle by the same principles as driving cars and were comfortable cycling on the road with traffic. Inperson respondents behaved more like pedestrians, riding on the sidewalks and crossing intersections in the crosswalk rather than in the travel lanes. This difference in cycling behavior was further reinforced by knowledge of the rules of the road or lack thereof. Thirteen percent of in-person respondents did not know that cyclists must travel in the direction of traffic, compared to two percent of online respondents. Online respondents were more familiar with the law as it pertains to cyclists’ ability to take a full travel lane if they need to avoid hazards or if the road is too narrow. However, even among the online respondents, there appeared to be a need for better education about the rules of the road, as was revealed by the two questions regarding staying to the right or taking the travel lane. Online respondents were more knowledgeable about hand signals, while the majority of in-person respondents skipped this question revealing a lack of knowledge about the meaning of the different hand signals. However, the data did not reveal whether the more than 50 percent of in-person respondents who reported regularly signaling before turning or changing lanes actually did so. While the sample sizes were different, it is telling that more online survey respondents have been involved in some form of collision either from bad infrastructure or with a motor vehicle, even though most were cycling less frequently than the in-person survey respondents. A portion of online and in-person respondents have received tickets for infractions when cycling. It is worth noting that several day laborers had been cited for not wearing a helmet, which was not consistent with the helmet law in Los Angeles. These citations point to a lack of knowledge on the part of some law enforcement personnel, but also may indicate a lack of knowledge by day laborers as well. More likely, day laborers may not have been willing to challenge the law enforcement system. However, everyone—law enforcement and cyclists—should be better aware of these rules in order to avoid unnecessary ticketing. Online respondents also have experienced numerous cases where law enforcement was not knowledgeable about the rules of the road as they apply to cyclists. Cyclists were wrongly stopped or cited for a variety of reasons including: taking full use of a lane or not staying to the right, the need to have one foot on the ground at a stop, not riding single file, or sidewalk riding. None of these behaviors are illegal in Los Angeles or in violation of the California Vehicle Code. In-person respondents cycled more often and for more utilitarian reasons than online respondents. However, while online respondents primarily used their bicycles for recreation or exercise trips, the data seemed to suggest that online respondents regularly cycled more for work trips (49%) than in the past when compared to results from the

29

MTA (33%) and NHTA (5%) surveys. Online respondents also cycled more frequently than mail/online respondents to the 2004 MTA Survey. Forty-four percent of online respondents rode two to four times a week and 37 percent cycled daily compared to 36 percent and 25 percent of mail/online respondents in the 2004 MTA survey. Regardless of the high car ownership rate among online respondents, it appeared that many online survey respondents left their cars behind and used bicycles for a range of trips including connecting to public transportation. In-person respondents were much more likely to use their bicycles to connect to public transportation and used transit at higher rates than online respondents. The use of both bicycles and public transportation in combination would not be reflected in the Census Bureau data since they do not allow for the reporting of multi-modal trips. Census survey respondents must pick only the dominant mode of transportation used for commuting. While further data collection on day-labor/immigrant cyclists is necessary to fully understand their cycling experience, these data provide some insight into the experiences of many cyclists in the City of Los Angeles

VI. Policy Recommendations The survey findings inform policy recommendations ranging from the need for improved infrastructure to the need for better education about cycling regulations and safety. The sections below present recommendations for the City of Los Angeles and regional planning organizations to act on to make cycling safer for cyclists already on the road and to make cycling more appealing as a viable form of sustainable transportation. These recommendations are as much about economic viability as they are environmental sustainability and increasing transportation options. The cities across the U.S. that are prioritizing cycling are doing so as a means to increase the economic vitality of their communities. Policymakers and planners in New York City, Long Beach, and Portland devote road space to bicycles to increase the mobility options of citizens, enabling them to access employment, services, and local businesses with greater ease while creating a healthier workforce. It also helps sell these respective cities to emerging green industries and technology companies. Economic incentives to locate a “green” business in Los Angeles extend beyond tax breaks and include the quality of life offered by the City. Many of the following recommendations already are incorporated into City, MTA, and regional plans. Examples include the City of Los Angeles Draft Bicycle Master Plan and the SCAG 2008 Regional Transportation Plan. Too often these plans do not include measurable outcomes; further, oftentimes agency staff and political leaders lack accountability for failing to realize these plans. At all levels of government, agencies and political leaders need to be held accountable. Accountability must not come solely from the outside pressure of bicycle advocates and citizens, it must also be established by City and regional leaders through their vision, leadership and commitment to a more verdant, livable, and economically vibrant future.

30

Funding & Infrastructure Improvements Quality infrastructure is the best way to provide a safer and more inviting cycling environment for Los Angeles residents. Adopting infrastructure treatments such as those initiated in the Netherlands and Germany since the 1970s can make cycling in Los Angeles as safe as it is in the aforementioned countries (Pucher et al, 2000). Treatments that encourage cycling and make it safer include variations on separated facilities for cyclists such as; paths, lanes, bus/bike lanes, bicycle boulevards, bicycle boxes at intersections, two-way travel on one-way streets, and signal accommodation for cyclists such as bicyclist-activated signals and cyclist-specific traffic signals (Pucher et al, 2000). See Figure 2 in Section II for photographs of some of these treatments. Additionally urban design and traffic calming measures can be used to prioritize people over cars by slowing vehicles (Pucher et al, 2000). In March, U.S. Department of Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood released a policy statement directing transportation departments across the country to “go beyond the minimum requirements and proactively provide convenient, safe, and context-sensitive facilities that foster increased use by bicyclists and pedestrians of all ages and abilities, and utilize universal design characteristics when appropriate. Transportation programs and facilities should accommodate people of all ages and abilities, including people too young to drive, people who cannot drive, and people who choose not to drive (U.S. Department of Transportation, 2010). The Los Angeles Department of Transportation mission outlines their commitment to “providing for the safe and optimal mobility of people” not motorized vehicles. The City of Los Angeles will never see a substantial shift from single occupancy vehicles to bicycling, walking, or riding public transit if business-as-usual continues at LADOT. Therefore, it is necessary for the Mayor and the City Council to pass a motion prioritizing the accommodation of bicycling and walking at the same level as motorized transportation and to hold LADOT accountable for ensuring the safety and mobility of all road users, whether they are on two wheels or four. The following recommendations regarding funding and infrastructure provide further guidance on how to better accommodate and integrate bicycles into the transportation network. The City of Los Angeles, MTA, and SCAG also must set spending targets for bicycle infrastructure commensurate with their mode share for all trips and the rate of collisions cyclists are involved in. The City recently approved to set aside 10 percent of the Measure R Local Return for bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure improvements; however, the set-aside is only for one year and is specific only to the local return. The City also must prioritize funding for bicycle and pedestrian funding with their federal and state transportation dollars. MTA and SCAG should create a strong regional policy to ensure that cities and counties in the region provide for cyclists and pedestrians. This policy should outline spending targets as well as inform cities and counties that projects that do not provide for cyclists and pedestrians will not be funded. Oregon’s “Bike Bill” requires that a minimum of one percent of all state highway funds received by a city or county be spent on bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure; this policy has allowed Portland to invest almost $100 million between 1993 and 2008 in bicycle infrastructure (Mapes,

31

2009). The infrastructure investment in Portland has increased the bicycle commuter mode share to almost 6 percent in 2008, a 238 percent increase since 2000 (League of American Bicyclists, 2009). As part of the Sustainable Community Strategic plans required by SB 375, cities and counties in the SCAG region must show they will meet the greenhouse gas emissions target set by the California Air Resources Board. These goals cannot be met unless more people begin to make short trips by cycling and walking. In conjunction with creating stronger fiscal policy supportive of cycling and walking, the City, MTA, and SCAG need to set regional bicycle mode share targets. Setting mode share and funding goals show the public a commitment to a healthier, more sustainable, and livable Los Angeles and Southern California. Prioritizing funding for bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure also includes expanding the Bikeways Department within the Department of Transportation. The largest cities in the U.S. average 3.9 bike/pedestrian staff per one million residents. The City of Los Angeles currently has five fulltime staff dedicated to bicycle planning for a city of four million. Based on the average staff for 1 million residents, the City of Los Angeles should have a staff of 15 to 16 individuals dedicated to bicycle and pedestrian planning. The cities in the U.S that are leading the way in infrastructure investment and innovation, such as Portland, San Francisco, and Minneapolis, also have the largest dedicated bicycle and pedestrian planning and engineering staff (Alliance for Bicycling and Walking, 2010). All of the aforementioned cities have over 15 dedicated bicycle and pedestrian planning and engineering staff (Alliance for Biking and Walking, 2010). Although it may not be feasible for the City to hire 10 new staff at this time given budget constraints, the City should develop a long-term plan that includes the hiring of additional planners and engineers over the next five years. To help secure and leverage future funding, as well as to measure the benefits of infrastructure improvements, the City of Los Angeles should conduct annual or bi-annual bicycle and pedestrian counts. Counts conducted by trained volunteers as was done by LACBC, Marin County, the Boston MPO, and City of Portland keep the cost of data collection low and engage concerned citizens. LACBC already has begun the process for the City of Los Angeles and several other cities in the region also have begun conducting counts. In the 2008 Regional Transportation Plan, SCAG identified as a problem the lack of reliable data sources on non-motorized travel in the region. SCAG or MTA should set aside funding for better data collection on cyclists and pedestrians throughout the region and follow the lead of the Boston Metropolitan Planning Organization by creating an interactive clearinghouse making these data widely available. One benefit of bicycle infrastructure improvements is their relative affordability when compared to public transportation investments and highway expansion. A simple first step to make the streets safer for cyclists is a “Fix-it-First” policy. Streets with bike lanes, bike routes, or arterials that are known preferred bicycle routes should be prioritized for street repaving. The Bureau of Street Services (BOSS) and the LADOT

32

should work together to ensure streets surfaces are safe for cyclists as well as motorists. The high rate of incidents due to poor infrastructure supports this policy. BOSS and LADOT should also be working together to install planned bicycle infrastructure whenever a street is being resurfaced; this approach would increase the cost effectiveness of installing bicycle infrastructure. It is clear from both these survey data and the recent LA Bike Count that cyclists ride to connect to public transportation as well as to work, run errands, and visit friends. While all streets accommodate cyclists, streets with bicycle infrastructure such as paths, lanes, and routes should create a network that link cyclists to major destinations such as college campuses, work centers, shopping areas, and transit hubs. These streets should be prioritized for implementation once the draft Bicycle Master Plan is approved. The Bicycle Master Plan should include goals related to yearly mileage and annual increases in the amount of on-street bicycle infrastructure. These targets would allow the City Council and the Mayor to hold LADOT staff accountable for specific results. In addition, bikeways should be marked with way-finding signage that includes destination and mileage information. Way-finding signage could help promote cycling and inform new and potential cyclists of good routes. Bicycle parking is also an infrastructure issue. Los Angeles has minimum parking requirements that ensure car parking for every possible land use; however bicycle parking is often ignored in the development process. Numerous businesses from shopping centers to major employers lack adequate bicycle parking. Just as parking is supplied for motorists throughout the City, bicycle parking should be supplied throughout the City to encourage and invite cycling. Bicycle parking should be visible and in well-lit locations near pedestrian traffic. Parking should be prioritized at transit hubs, major shopping and entertainment destinations, and at employment centers. The City should offer developers and new businesses incentives to include pedestrian-oriented bicycle parking in lieu of car parking spaces. MTA should create bicycle parking and access guidelines for transit-oriented developments and station designs, so bicycle parking does not continue to be a post-build afterthought, as it is currently.

Figure 20: LADOT U-Rack. Photo courtesy LADOT Bike Blog

The LADOT Bikeways Department currently has a program to install, at no charge to the business, U-rack. on the sidewalk in front of businesses that submit a request for bicycle parking. (See Figure 22 for a photograph of these racks.) Funding should be prioritized to clear LADOT’s bicycle parking backlog and to ensure the bicycle parking program continues. Awareness of the program is limited. Often it is the bicycle consumers that make businesses aware of the program. The City should expand awareness of the program on the part of business owners by including literature on the program with mail

33

from the City Office of Finance, the Bureau of Sanitation, or Department of Water and Power. Outreach and Education It is clear from the data that, while many cyclists are well informed about how to ride safely, a substantial percentage of respondents do not know basic bicycle safety rules. Cyclists need education on the rules of the road and how to ride safely; motorists and law enforcement personnel also need to be educated. Metro buses provide unique opportunities to provide basic safety information. Transit vehicles represent moving billboards traveling throughout the City and county. The advertising space on the backside of buses should be used to educate motorists about sharing the road, promoting cycling and making cycling a more appealing transportation option. Previous attempts at public awareness often have made cycling look risky and dangerous. For example, one MTA advertisement featured a woman in a bike helmet with skid marks across the image, making it appear as though she had been run over. Metro buses and rail also offer an opportunity to reach target audiences with educational advertising placed inside of the vehicles. Information on how to bicycle safely, safe, shared used of the roads, and bike maps should be supplied within rail cars and buses. Information should be supplied in multiple languages. The same information should be available on LADOT Dash buses since many lower-income travelers rely on DASH buses for short trips. Metro Transit TV provides information and entertainment on the majority of buses in the Los Angeles region, and it should also be utilized to educate public transportation users and cyclists about cycling safely and their rights. MTA should work with bike advocacy and community organizations to create comprehensive programming that reaches the diverse cycling and public transportation communities. MTA should consider creating a design and media contest around these ideas to engage a wider audience and also to save money on production costs. During 2009, cyclist and motorist relations have received more press through local news organizations because of highly publicized incidents. However, the City should create and utilize ongoing public service announcements (PSAs) on local radio and television stations. PSAs should be scheduled to run heavily at the start of the school year (August/ September) and in May for National Bike Month and as a kick off for the summer season. While this study focused primarily on adult cyclists, bicycle education needs to be institutionalized in schools at the elementary, middle and high school levels. Bicycles offer teens and children mobility and lessen dependence on their parents. Fixed gear bicycles and organized group rides are popular with teenagers in the City of Los Angeles. Advocacy, community groups, and government agencies such as the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) should do a better job of educating the younger generations

34

about cycling safely and encouraging young cyclists to continue using their bicycles as their primary form of transportation. Education programs for adults also should be supported. “Biking-101” courses are currently given through several advocacy organizations such as Cyclists Inciting Change through Live Exchange (C.I.C.L.E) and the League of American Bicyclists. Promoting these programs through the City and MTA would provide many interested individuals with the opportunity to learn how to cycle safely before getting out on the road. Also, just as motorists have the option to complete traffic school when they receive a citation, cyclists should have the opportunity to attend a “Biking-101” course for traffic violations instead of paying a fine or as a precondition to paying a reduced fine. MTA should allocate a portion of the “Call for Projects” for funding outreach and education campaigns, and small-scale infrastructure improvements by cities, community groups, and advocacy organizations. Funding could be used to pay instructors for “Biking 101” courses and programs such as the LACBC’s City of Lights, which educates day labor cyclists about safe riding and bicycle maintenance. Funds for this portion of the “Call for Projects” could be cobbled together from state Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) and Federal Transportation Enhancement Activities (TEAs) funds. TEAs can be used for the “provision of safety and educational activities for pedestrians and bicyclists (Federal Highway Administration).” Law enforcement officers in the City of Los Angeles need to be better educated about the law as it pertains to cycling and also regarding its protection for vulnerable road users. Evidence exists to show that the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) has not made police reports in cases when a cyclist has been injured by a motorists’ vehicle or other motorist’s behavior. (See CityWatch.com or Streetsblog.com). Creating a memorable informational video for the roll call is one way to ensure that officers are more aware of bicycle issues. Another way to help officers understand the experience of cyclists is to have all traffic officers spend a portion of their patrol duty on a bicycle instead of in a patrol car. LAPD also should work with the cycling community and neighborhood councils to organize group rides to help educate themselves and their communities on how to cycle safely and as a way to build good will and stronger community relations. Additional Recommendations Finally, California’s Parking Cash-Out law should be enforced. California’s Parking Cash-Out law requires employers with 50 employees or more who provide subsidized parking for their employees to offer employees a cash allowance instead of a parking space. The law was created to offer an incentive to employees to take transit, bike, walk, or carpool to work. Parking Cash-Out rewards commuters who already walk, bike or take public transportation and provides a financial incentive to motivate drivers to switch to alternative modes. The City, SCAG, and MTA should promote Parking Cash-Out to city and regional employers as well as to the public and work with the Air Resources Board to enforce the program. To complement promoting Parking-Cash Out, employers should be encouraged to host “Biking 101” safety workshops for employees interested in

35

biking to work; to provide secure parking facilities for employees; and, where feasible, to provide amenities such as showers and places for cyclists to change.

VII. Further Research It is clear from this study that there is still a need for more data collection from immigrant and low-income cyclists in the City of Los Angeles to learn more about their cycling experience, behavior, and knowledge. Future research on these population groups needs to be done through in-person surveying conducted through community organizations, churches, unions, and community events since these groups are less likely to attend formal meetings to voice their concerns and needs. Continued creative outreach and data collection can help understand and improve their experience. There also is need for data on residents who do not currently ride bicycles or who do so infrequently. Future surveys should gauge their perceived and actual impediments to cycling as well as gather information on their daily trip types and distances. Additionally, future surveys should include questions to gauge the public’s understanding of cyclists’ right to the road and to identify the types of policies or changes that would encourage them to shift some of their trips to bicycle trips. These future data may help to develop educational campaigns to better inform motorists about how to share the road. Surveying at the Department of Motor Vehicle (DMV) offices would be a good way to reach a diverse population of drivers.

VIII. Conclusion Despite the lack of investment in bicycle infrastructure in the City of Los Angeles, cycling in Los Angeles is on the rise. Providing a comprehensive bicycle network and promoting cycling is one of the most cost effective measures the City can take to help meet the air quality goals set by AB 32 and SB 375. The City of Los Angeles and the Los Angeles region now face an important turning point for adjusting the transportation network in order to achieve social and mobility goals with limited resources. To ensure a more accessible and environmentally and economically sustainable Los Angeles, bicycles need to figure prominently in these plans.

36

Sources Alliance for Biking and Walking. 2010. “Biking and Walking in the United States 2010 Benchmarking Report” http://www.peoplepoweredmovement.org/site/index.php/site/memberservices/C529 American Lung Association. 2010. “State of the Air Report” www.stateoftheair.org De Nazelle, Audrey and Mark Nieuwenhuijsen. 2009. “Integrated Health Impact Assessment of Cycling” Occupation Environmental Medicine, 67, pgs. 76-77 Dill, Jennifer and Theresa Carr. 2003. “Bicycle Commuting and Facilities in Major US Cities; If you Build Them, Commuters Will Use Them” Transportation Research Record. No.1828, Paper No. 03-4134 Dill, J., & J. Gliebe, 2008. “Understanding and measuring bicycling behavior: A focus on travel time and route choice.” Oregon Transportation Research and Education Consortium. Federal Highway Administration “Funding Sources for Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects” retrieved on 5/20/2010: www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bikeped/bp-broch.htm Garrard, Jan, Geoffrey Rose, Sing Kai Lo. 2008. “Promoting Transportation cycling for Women: The Role of Bicycling Infrastructure” Preventive Medicine. Vol. 26, pgs 55-59 Garrard, Jan, Sharyn Crawford, Natalie Hakman. 2006. Revolutions for Women: Increasing Women’s Participation in Cycling. Summary of Key Findings . Victoria: School of Health and Social Development, Deakin University. http://www.sport.vic.gov.au/web9/rwpgslib.nsf/GraphicFiles/100659RevolutionsKeyFindings/$file/1006-59RevolutionsKeyFindings.pdf Jacobsen, Peter Lyndon. 2003. “Safety in Numbers: More Walkers and Bicyclists, Safer Walking and Biking” Injury Prevention, 9, pgs. 205-209 Koeppel, Dan. March 2006. “Invisible Riders” Bicycling Magazine. www.bicycling.com Komanoff, Charles, Michael J. Smith. 2000. “The Only Good Cyclist; NYC Bicycle Fatalities – Who’s Responsible?” www.rightofway.org League of American Bicyclists and Alliance for Biking and Walking. 2009. “American Community Survey Bicycle Commuting Trends, 2000 to 2008” http://www.bikeleague.org/resources/reports/pdfs/acs_commuting_trends.pdf

37

League of American Bicyclists and America Bikes. 2010. National Household Travel Survey; Highlights of the 2009 NHTS http://www.bikeleague.org/resources/reports/pdfs/nhts09.pdf Litman, Todd. 2004. “Quantifying the Benefits of Nonmotorized Transportation for Achieving Mobility Management Objectives” Victoria Transport Policy Institute, November 30 . http://www.vtpi.org/nmt-tdm.pdf Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority and Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition. 2004. “Enhanced Public Outreach Project for Metro’s Bicycle Transportation Strategic Plan” www.metro.net/projects_studies/bikeway_planning/images/bicycle_final_report.pdf Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition. 2010. “LA Bike Count Report; Summary of Key Findings” www.labikecount.org and www.la-bike.org Mapes, Jeff. 2009. “Pedaling Revolution; How Cyclists are Changing American Cities.” Eugene: Oregon State University Press. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. 2002. National Survey of Bicyclist and Pedestrian Attitudes and Behavior. Volume 1: Summary Report. Washington DC: U.S. Department of Transportation. http://www.nhtsa.gov/DOT/NHTSA/Traffic%20Injury%20Control/Articles/Associated% 20Files/810971.pdf Newton, Damien. February 22, 2010. “City and County Refuse to Pass Charges against Cayenne Driver Who Hit Ed Magos and Ran” www.la.streetsblog.org Office of the Governor - Senate Bill 375: Redesigning Communities to Reduce Greenhouse Gases – 10/1/2008 http://gov.ca.gov/index.php?/fact-sheet/10707/ Pucher, John, Lewis Dijkstra. 2000. “Making Walking and Cycling Safer – Lessons from Europe” Transportation Quarterly. Vol. 54, No 3, pgs 25-50 Pucher, John, Ralph Buehler. 2009. “Cycling for a few or for Everyone: The Importance of Social Justice in Cycling Policy” World Transportation Policy & Practice. Vol. 15, No. 1, pgs 57-64 Pucher, John. 2003. “Socioeconomics of Urban Travel: Evidence from the 2001 NHTS” Transportation Quarterly. Vol. 57, No. 3, pgs 49-77 Pucher, John, Ralph Buehler. 2008. “Making Cycling Irresistible: Lessons from the Netherlands, Denmark, & Germany” Transportation Reviews. Vol. 28, No 4, pgs 495 528.

38

Reynolds, Conor C.O., M. Anne Harris, Kay Teshke, Peter A. Cripton, Meghan Winters. 2009. “The Impact of Transportation Infrastructure on Bicycling Injuries and Crashes: A Review of the Literature” Environmental Health. 8:47 www.ehjournal.net/content/8/1/47 Southern California Association of Governments. 2003. “Year 2000 Post-Census Regional Travel Survey; Final Report of Survey Results.” www.scag.gov/travelsurvey/ Southern California Association of Governments. 2008. “Regional Transportation Plan.” www.scag.gov/rtp2008 Strak, Maciej, Hanna Boogaard, Kees Meliefste, Marieke Oldenwening, Moniek Zuurbier, Bert Brunekreef, Gerard Hoek. 2009. “Respiratory Health Effect of Ultrafine Particle Exposure in Cyclists” Occupational Environmental Medicine. www.oem.bmj.com U.S. Department of Transportation. March 15, 2010. “Policy Statement on Bicycle and Pedestrian Accommodation Regulations and Recommendations” http://www.dot.gov/affairs/2010/bicycle-ped.html Villaraigosa, Antonio. April 28, 2010. “State of the Air” Huffington Post, www.Huffingtonpost.com i

MTA is planning on raising transit fare in Los Angeles in July, 2010 (Weikel, Dan. April 20, 2010. “L.A. Bus, Rail Fares May Increase” Los Angeles Times).

39