Cycling and the city

Cycling and the City A Master Thesis on challenges of utility cycling in urban areas and how they can be approached Zofia Anna Jagielska Copenhagen October 2012

Master Thesis Landscape architecture

Cycling and the City ‘A Master Thesis on challenges of utility cycling in urban areas and how they can be approached’ danish title; ‘Cykling i byen - et speciale om de udfordringer transport-cykling står overfor i urbane områder og hvordan disse udfordringer kan håndteres

‘

Zofia Anna Jagielska crn322 April 2012 - October 2012 Hand-in October 20 2012 Supervisors; Hans Skov Petersen Bernhard Snizek Danish Centre for Forest, Landscape and Planning Faculty of Life Sciences University of Copenhagen all photos and figures in this thesis are taken, edited and/or created by the author unless otherwise is noted

“Every time I see an adult on a bicycle, I no longer despair for the future of the the human race “ H.G. Wells

7

6

Preface This thesis is a result of three years of studies in landscape architecture (master degrees) at Faculty of Life Sciences from September 2009 at University of Copenhagen. The thesis has been created during spring, summer and autumn - from April 20th until October 20th 2012 This thesis would not exist without crucial help from several persons and institutions. Hence I would like to express great appreciation to; Prof. Nancy Rottle for facilitating my internship in City of Seattle. I would not have gone to Seattle if it was not for Nancy connecting me with Lyle Bicknell, arranging funding and inspiring me to go to Seattle. Furthermore Nancy gave me helpful supervision during my stay in Seattle and helped me finding a focus. A great ‘thank you’ to Nancy for all her help.

Andreas Hermansen and Line Berglund for keeping me company while observing cyclists.

Anna and Maria Jagielska for suggestions and help during the whole process.

Beata Jagielska for reading through and critically commenting chapters. For lending a calm place to stay during the end of the work for finishing it up.

Stephanie Siahaan and Melanie Khodaie for reading through and critically commenting chapters.

Furthermore, I would like to give a special thank you to; Marie Kåstrup for very gainful supervision, providing relevant material and giving helpful tips Lyle Bicknell for practical support and useful supervision during the whole process.

ScanDesign Foundation (including Mary DeLorme) for funding my stay in Seattle and helping with facilities for a workshop Michael and Jean-Louise Allen for participating in workshop NC Mary, Ashle, Bruce, Lyle, Pam and Sherell for participating in workshop C: Peter and Alison Scheetz for hosting me in Seattle The Roehl family, Marie-Louise and Andreas, for hosting me during Velo City Global 2012 in Vancouver - and for inspiration, good and helpful advices Sara Zora for providing bicycle planning material from the SDOT in City of Seattle

Kristian Dalgaard for mental support and tolerance and service (providing food and beverages) while intensively writing. Also for reading though and critically commenting chapters and lay-out.

Kristina Neel for practical help and mental support at the very end.

And last but not least my two supervisors Hans Skov Petersen and Bernhard Snizek for professional and helpful supervision and mental support through the whole process. Thanks for playing the devils advocate being critical and questioning aim and purpose in relation to crucial conclusions as a way to keeping me on the tracks.

Finally, I want to express my deepest appreciations to Elysia Leung for tighten up my language as a native English speaking person, and correcting and reading through several crucial thesis chapters.

Also for having disciplinary comments as an urban planner. Thank you Elysia, it has been a great help.

My colleagues from the Cycle Program; head of the cycle program Pia Preibisch Behrens for practical help. Emil Tin, Niels Jensen, Ulrik Djupdræt and Anja Larsen for useful supervision and critical comments. Thanks for contributing to the ‘typology matrix‘ and helping clarifying vital points in the discussion and perspectives.

Peter Cromwell and Ashle Fauvre for tips of relevant litterature - and good ideas and advices Astrid Anne Severinsen, Line Berglund Petersen and Nané Køllgaard Pedersen for serve as a models on several photos. And thank you Astrid for helping with practical help at the end!

Zofia Anna Jagielska crn322 2012 October 20.

9

8

Abstract The overall theme of this thesis is utility cycling, ie. cycling as a mode of transport as a ‘tool’ in urban planning. There are many reasons for a city to promote utility-cycling, yet the bike-share (in 2010) in Seattle is only 3.6 % which is higher than the U.S. average of 1 % but lower than certain European cities such as Copenhagen, Amsterdam, Bremen and Zürich. The city of Seattle has stated a goal of increasing the use of cycling by tripling the amount between 2007 and 2017 [Seattle Bike Master Plan 2007]. How can this goal be reached? How can the bike-share be increased and how can utility-cycling be promoted in a city like Seattle? The answer is by ‘developing’ a mainstream bicycle culture where the majority considers the bicycle as their main mean of transport for mundane everyday activities. Seattle faces several physical barriers to in terms of cycling such as lack of a fully developed coherent network of cycle-infrastructure, motorways, busy arterial roads to be crossed, water, an infrastructure that supports automobile usage which causes high volumes of motorized vehicle traffic. However sociological and cultural barriers are the most profound and the main reason why the level of utility-cycling is not higher in Seattle. Cycling is not yet socially accepted and is not considered a ‘cool’ and ‘sexy’ way of getting around. Cyclists are perceived as certain types - due to several reasons including apparel and appearance. This is why cycle-typologies is a topic for this thesis. Cycle planners and bike advocates would have to overcome mental barriers such as challenging ‘fear of cycling’, negative cycle stereotypes and perceptions of cycling as toy for exercise, sport, leisure and recreation. This can be done through visual media and using tricks of marketing selling the bicycle as a mode of transport adding you style, identity and attractiveness. This can also be done by targeting physical interventions to certain cycle-typologies detected to be mainstream-indicator typologies. Typologies representing ‘civil’ cycling are mainstream indicator typologies. The focal point of this thesis is thus the correlation between physical and sociological approaches to cycle promotion; the strength of visual marketing and sociological knowledge in correlation with the benefits of well-designed physical landscape and the sociological knowledge and the tricks of branding and marketing embedded right into the physical landscape. This is reflected in choices of facilities, where to place them, appropriate infrastructure and what to invest in, in relation to preferences of different types of cyclists.

This is illustrated in a typology-matrix relating the preferences of five defined typologies of cyclists with six types of existing Seattle cycle-infrastructure. The matrix and the cycle-typologies are based on analysis of empirical data (observations and qualitative interviews) collected in Seattle and studies of theories and literature (both scientific and non-scientific). The matrix reveals that cycle-infrastructure have to fulfill the criteria of providing dense and coherent network of facilities covering the whole city, provide direct access to destinations (homes, workplaces, groceries, boutiques, cafes etc.) be attractive so to compete with other modes of transportation, provide a comfortable ride and not least foster a feeling of safety in order to reach mass-appeal. Especially feeling of safety is a crucial factor for mainstream-cycling.

11

10

Table of content 1. Introduction

15

2. Fieldwork

21

1.1 Purpose 1.2 Background 1.3 Thesis Statement 1.4 Hypothesis 1.5 Method 1.6 Limitations and theoretical framework 1.7 Structure of thesis

2.1 Going-native 2.2 Observations 2.3 Qualitative interviews 2.4 Velo City Global 2012 Chapter summary

15 16 16 17 17 17 19

22 22 24 24 24

5.1 Cycle facts and figures for Seattle 5.2 A short introduction to design of bicycle infrastructure in Seattle 5.3 Multi-use trails and connections 5.4 Physical obstacles 5.4.1 Low density 5.4.2 Topography 5.4.3 Water and interstate 5 5.4.4 Climate 5.4.5 Transit 6. Spatial analysis and 5.4.6 Sharrows and bike lanes street-scape typologies Chapter summary and discussion

46 50 53 56 56 56 59 59 60 63 60 61 65 76

7. Public opinions and dynamics of cycling 91

28 29 29 30

4. Infrastructure and street-scape

45

6.1 spatial analysis 6.2 street-scape typologies 1-6

3. Cycling and cyclists in America Today 27 3.1 Why Bike 3.2 Business and economy 3.3 Obstacles in Seattle and beyond Chapter summary

5. Seattle Infrastructure and city-structure

33

4.1 Why do girls stop cycling? - It’s the infrastructure, stupid!

4.2 Feeling of safety and actual safety 4.3 Communication 4.4 Design of infrastructure 4.5 Built environment and to invite 4.6 Fear of violence in the public realm 4.7 Bicycle friendly infrastructure 4.8 Seattle Neighborhood Greenways 4.9 City strucuture 4.10 Vehicular vs. segregated cycling 4.11 Bike Lane skepticism Chapter summary

33 35 36 36 38 39 39 40 41 41 43 43

8. Sociology of Technology

95

8.1 The bicycle as an artifact 8.2 The activities of cycling 8.3 Culture of fear 8.4 The science of cycling 8.5 Social status of cycling 8.6 ‘Bike in comfort - arrive in style‘ 8.7 Fashion, identity and a cycling revolution 8.8 Feeling of safety and a mainstream bicycle-culture 8.9 Identity and modal choice Chapter summary

95 96 98 100 103 103 107 109 109 109

13

12

9. Cycle typologies and stereotypes

111

12. Diversity of cyclists

143

9.1 Marketing and lifestyle segments 9.2 Four types of cycling activities 9.3 Portland typologies in relation to cycling 9.4 Cycle stereotypes 9.5 Militant vs. civil cycling 9.6 Bike Snob NYC and Toronto-cyclists Chapter summary

111 113 114 115 116 117 118

12.1 Fear of cycling 12.2 Civil cycling 12.3 Militant cycling 12.4 Battle of roadspace 12.5 Burke Gilman Trail 12.6 Dexter Avenue 12.7 Arterial roads or ‘neighborhood greenways‘?

12.8 Existing infrastrucutre in Seattle 12.9 Woman and cycling 12.10 The Seattle Typologies 12.11 Sport vs transport Chapter summary

143 143 144 144 144 145 145 146 149 150 151 151

10. Who bikes in Seattle? Seattle typologies

121

10.1 Observations 10.2 Results 10.3 Discussion of results 10.4 Old White Men in Lycra 10.5 Interviews 10.6 Summary 10. 7 The Seattle-typologies of cyclists Chapter summary

121 122 126 127 127 129 129 135

13. The typology matrix - 153 Seattle typologies and their preferences

11. A correlation between cycle- and place typologies

137

11.1 Two groups of approaches 11.2 Social structures and physical space 11.3 Power and space 11.4 Gentrification Chapter summary

137 138 139 140 140

14. Discussion and perspectives

161

14.1 Social status of cycling and road-space 14.2 The matrix 14.3 Indicator-typologies 14.4 Existing infrastructure in Seattle 14.5 Non-physical interventions 14.6 Physical barriers of cycling in Seattle 14.7 Is a modal shift realistic?

14.8 A cycling revolution Perspectives

161 161 162 164 166 166 167 169 169

Conclusion 170 References 172 Appendix A-G attached CD

15

14

Introduction

1.1 Purpose The basic overall purpose with this thesis is to gain useful knowledge in relation to cycle-promotion in order to substitute trips done by the automobile. How can utility cycling be promoted in Seattle and thus in other similar cities? I will attempt to understand why the majority of people in Seattle do not ride their bike regularly as mode of transport. The strategic intent is to increase utility cycling in Seattle. This is can be done by supporting development towards a ‘mainstream’ bike-culture; where cycling is considered a natural modal choice for the majority of the city residents. Such a mainstream cycle-culture can be found in several Scandinavian and other Northern European coutries such as Denmark, Germany and Holland [Gehl 2010]. It has been described by Gehl as a gradual development from cycling undertaken by a moderate amount of brave enthusiasts “to being a wide popular movement, comprising all age groups and layers of society from members of Parliament and mayors to pensioners and school children.” [Gehl 2010, p. 189] The two opposed and polarized cycling cultures has, by Kåstrup been expressed as militant versus civil cycling [Kåstrup, 2009]. In short, a vision for Seattle and U.S. is a more significant transformation ( a transformation in an early phase already happening in Seattle) from “militant cycling” into “civil cycling” (see chapter 9 ‘Cycle typologies and Stereotypes’ p. 111) . My aim is to capture the presumably 56 % interested but concerned in cycling in Seattle [Dill 2012] (see chapter 9 ‘Cycle typologies and Stereotypes’ p. 111). How is mainstream cycling reflected in the urban landscape?

Photo: Zhao Huasen (http://www.ignant.de/2012/07/17/floating/)

1

17

16

1.2 Background A personal and professional interest in cycling stems from employment at the Bicycle Office in the city of Copenhagen; in a position both as a paid part-time intern during my studies at Technical University of Denmark and later full-time as an Architectural Engineer (before starting on a master degrees as a Landscape Architect at LIFE). My position in the Bicycle Office has inspired me to choose the topic of cycle promotion. During the years I have become conscious of the relevance of utility cycling in an urban planning perspective - and of both individual and societal benefits of cycling. I have become aware that transportation choices may contribute to better city-environments and quality of life. The position in the Bicycle Office has moreover given me knowledge and experience to support assumptions and hypothesis on utilty-cycling through-out the thesis.

My starting point is a believe that the correlation between the physical landscape (a technical approach) and changes of mobility cultures and behavioral patterns (a sociological approach) is gainful in order to achieve a modal shift. Working with the interface of technical and non-technical aspects of cycling stems from; an engineering background (technical background) and master courses in urban theories, sociology and cultural geography (non-technical aspects). However my professional expertise is the one of a landscape architect - design of the physical landscape thus being a theme in this thesis.

1.3 Thesis statement In Seattle the bike share is relatively low in comparison to some Northern European cities. It is although high compared to the US average of 1%1. This is because the bike is not yet considered a prime mode of transport in everyday life, if at all considered a mode of transport. This despite the existence of infrastructure such as; bike lanes on several arterial roads, sharrows, trails, etc. One could claim that due to the presence of infrastructure there is an unspent potential.

However there are still huge infrastructural obstacles and challenges in Seattle such as; lack of a coherent network of cycle-infrastructure, barriers such as motorways, busy arterial roads to be crossed, water, bridges, an infrastructure that supports automobile usage which causes high volumes of motorized vehicle traffic. The problem is reinforcing itself since the relatively low level of cycling means that it may be difficult politically or at worst impossible to implement and defend investments in physical improvements and changes where it is needed.

How can you promote cycling as a mode of transport in Seattle? How can utility cycling be increased in Seattle? The short answer is; “by creating a ‘mainstream’ bicycle-culture”. This leads to the question; “How is a mainstream bicycle culture reflected in the urban landscape?”

Has the perception of ‘the typical cyclist’ influence on whether people chooses to bike? How? What role do stereotypes and typologies play?

How is stereotypes and typologies reflected in the built environment? How is this reflected in the city-scape in Seattle today?

1.4 Hypothesis My assumption is that the answer partly lays in the interface of Cycle typologies and “Cycle infrastructure”/ street-scapes - and in the city structure. That a certain way of dealing with cycle typology (who bikes or whom people thinks bike) in correlation to the urban space and the built environment is affecting cycling levels. I believe choices of cycle facilities or street scape is influential on different types of cyclists. Therefore the different perceptions of cyclists may have a crucial impact on people’s modal choice.

Who reflects the persons we wish to be? How do we want others to perceive us? The internet-blog “www.copenhagencyclechic.com” by Mikael Colville-Andersen may likely have inspired different kind of people around the world to cycle for mundane everyday purposes in a dress, suit or skirt - presumably because most people would like to be viewed as; chic, fashionable, good-looking etc.

1.5 Method Suggestions for an answer to this thesis statement has been found through research in Seattle, WA, U.S. - where I conducted empirical studies during a four-month stay. Conclusions are derived from an analysis and studies in theories /literature and findings, experiences and data from the fieldwork. The literature is both scientific and non-scientific ‘pop’ literature such as magazines, brochures, guide-books or books for entertainment. Knowledge and theories of cycle infrastructure as a means to increase utility cycling are primarily based on cycling planning practices in Denmark and gathered in Collection of cycling Concepts written by experienced practitioners. For research and fieldwork in Seattle see chapter 2 ‘fieldwork’ p. 21.

Seattle is the starting point and existing infrastructure is being evaluated in relation to preferences and the needs of different cycle typologies. Existing infrastructure has been categorized in infrastructural typologies / street scape typologies based on observations in Seattle and spatial analysis of two specifically chosen courses/ street-scapes. The spatial analysis is divided into two parts; a part where the method is inspired by ‘serial vision’ and a part inspired by mental maps of Kevin Lynch [Stahlscmidt 2001].

1.6 Limitations and theoretical framework Several mobility-researchers has described why mobility is seen as a necessity in modern society and why flexibility by being mobile is regarded a corner stone of modern society. It is also regarded a contribution to quality of life, development and growth [Urry 2007]. Though Hartmann-Petersen argues that it may be viewed in a critical perspective and that it has its consequences this thesis is not questioning the mobility-paradigm of modern society [Hartmann-Petersen 2009]. I have chosen not to go into the discourse of mobility and thus the premise of the thesis is that mobility overall is positive and being mobile is worth aiming at.

1. For figures and statistics see chapter 3 ‘Cycling and Cyclists in America Today’ p. 27

19

18

This thesis does not provide a final solution or clear recommendations for the city of Seattle. Neither do I design new type of infrastructure or suggest infrastructural solutions to all the physical obstacles mentioned such as hills and water. The aim is rather to evaluate existing facilities in relation to mainstreamindicator typologies. Some conclusions suggest in which direction cycle planning ought to go for an increase in utility cycling. It reveals aspects of contemporary urban planning which may be inhibiting for a mainstream cycle culture. Both physical and non-physical obstacles will be revealed. This thesis recommends certain target-groups as indicator-typologies for mainstream cycling. The thesis unveils what type of infrastructure that could be preferable in relation to those indicator-typologies. However the conclusion is not a fixed ‘how to do guide’ for urban planners. Rather does it aim at starting a discussions and challenge certain ‘point of views’ in relation to cycle planning.

I am focusing on utility cycling in urban areas. Cities are relevant because more than 50 % of the world’s population lives in cities. This is a continuing development and cities worldwide continues to grow [Gehl 2010]. Cities are said to be human habitats [Moddemeyer 2012]. Moreover cities physical pre-conditions are in favor of utility cycling in terms of higher density, shorter distances and mixed land-use. The focus of the thesis is especially cycling in a U.S. context. The focus is Seattle. Seattle is a progressive American city in terms of promoting cycling but the city also faces huge challenges and obstacles such as size and sprawl, topography, city structure, car centric mentality and (negative) stereotypes of cyclists. Utility cycling covers a broad range of themes, topics, meanings and aspects. I will not deal with many of the relevant aspects of cycling such as; (fear of) bike-theft, children and cycling (and the importance of children cycling for a future cycle-tradition), cycling as a solution to health issues, cycling and economy, funding of infrastructure, and the many reasons for urban planners to promote cycling. I am not discussing the importance of end-trip facilites such as proper bicycle parking and changing rooms and bath facilites at workplaces, allthough such factors may have an impact on cycle promotion. I am not analyzing infrastrucutral solutions for intersections or junctions. I have chosen to deal with road section solutions solely.

Photo: Zhao Huasen (http://www.ignant.de/2012/07/17/floating/)

1.7 Structure of the thesis I will start by describing an important part of the methodology; the fieldwork in Seattle. The chapter that follows ‘cycling and cyclists in America today’ is an introduction to utility cycling in US as a theme and an overview of the role of cycling in American cities. The chapter illustrates the relevance of cycling from an urban-planning perspective. The chapter finishes by briefly giving an overview of which main obstacles and challenges utility-cycling in the U.S. and in Seattle in particular are facing.

The first part of the thesis concerns the built environment. ‘Infrastructure and street-scape’ defines and reveals why infrastructure and physical interventions is necessary for transport-cycling. ‘Seattle - infrastructure and city-structure’ focuses on infrastructure, the physical obstacles and the urban landscape of Seattle. It starts with an introduction to the city and by outlining the existing cycling-infrastructure.

The chapter finishes with an outline of the physical challenges and obstacles that cyclist faces. ‘Spatial analysis and street-scape typologies’ defines six types of existing street-scape typologies in Seattle by observations and through an analysis of two bike-friendly locations in the city. ‘Public Opinions and Dynamic of Politics’ reveals that building infrastructure may not be efficient if not dealing with sociological aspects and habitual and behavioral changes. The chapter is thus a transition between the infrastructural approach to transport-cycling and a sociological approach; how to ‘sell’ mainstream cycling - the theme of the next chapter ‘Sociology of Technology’. This part of the thesis deals with non-physical aspects of cycling. ‘Sociology of Technology’ describes how social acceptance and visual communication impacts cycle-promotion. It is described why working with cycle-typologies might me useful in an urban planning perspective at the end of the chapter, which is why the next chapter ‘Typologies and Stereotypes’ deals with theories about cycle-typologies. The following chapter ‘Who Bikes in Seattle? The Seattle Typologies’ is an analysis of the empirical studies made in Seattle, resulting in the development of five specific Seattle cycle-typologies. ‘A Correlation between Cycle- and Place Typologies’ is yet another transition summing up and bringing together the two parts of the thesis; the physical and the non-physical. The chapter reveals why the relation between the physical city-scape, ‘selling cycling’ and challenging stereotypes is vital for cycling-promotion. ‘Diversity of cyclists’ is an analysis of the correlations and relations of built environment and cycle-typologies on the basis of theories described, data from fieldwork and key-results of the empirical studies. A summary of the analysis is the typology-matrix in ‘The Typology Matrix - Seattle-typologies and their preferences’ - developed through the analysis of the previous chapter. The next chapters is a discussion of the matrix and describes urban planning perspectives of the matrix. How the matrix reflects all the themes dealt with through the thesis is also discussed.

21

20

Fieldwork

2

I went to Seattle, Washington State [WA], 5th of March 2012 where I stayed until the 25th of June 2012, to conduct research for this thesis. At the same time I worked as an intern in the City of Seattle, Department of Planning and Transportation [DPD] as an urban planner. The internship was not directly linked to the research or fieldwork, but it gave me among other things, the opportunity to get in touch with different people somehow related to bike planning in Seattle. It also gave an important insight of the planning process and a deeper understanding of the city (structure, mentality, spirit, living a daily life in the city..). Last but not least it gave me the opportunity to commute to and from work every day in Seattle – as much as possible by bike. In this regard I like to use to term “going native”, borrowed from another field of science (Ethnology), since being an integrated part of the city life and bike community in Seattle was a way of “going native” opposed to an outside perspective of mere observation.

Being in Seattle during May was especially useful since May is the National Bike Month2 in the U.S. and several bike related events were therefore held in May. Attending those events really gave me a solid understanding of the characteristics, and thus problems and potentials of the American bike culture.

The internship was part time and the spare-time was used to conduct further research by systematic observations on three specific locations and to undertake qualitative interviews with both cyclists and non-cyclists. Furthermore my stay in the pacific north-west also gave me the unique opportunity to attend a international cycle conference; from June 26th until June 29th I attended ‘Velo City Global 2012’ held in Vancouver, BC, Canada.

2. Due to the national ‘Bike to Work’ campaign (similar to the Danish version ‘Vi cykler til arbejde’ arranged by DCF) in May, May is regarded The National Bike Month

23

22

2.1 Going-native An important part of “going-native” was commuting by bike or riding my bike for other trip-purposes around the city. But I also attended bike-related lectures and events.

I attended events such as ‘Bikes and Bagels’, where free coffee and bagels was handed-out to cyclists. I also attended a Public meeting about the redesign of the waterfront, presentation about ‘biking and business’ and several bike-group meetings. The Bike-group meetings are hosted by ScanDesign Foundation who funds study-tours to Copenhagen. The meetings is a gathering of the attendees on those study-tours and a discussion on how the experiences and best-practices from the study-tours can be applied in Seattle. I used the bike group meeting as a frame for the workshop (described below); the ScanDesign Foundations facilities and the participants of my workshop was members of the bike group.

The experiences and knowledge I have gained by attending those events are partly used as a basis for some of the conclusions made in this thesis. My analysis and conclusions are obviously affected by the places I ‘used‘ in Seattle - where I lived and where I worked. Some of my findings may have been different if I worked and/or lived a different place.

‘Bikes and Bagels’

2.2 Observations In order to quantify what I have observed on my daily bike-rides, I have systematically made observations of cyclists in three specifically chosen locations; Dexter Avenue at Starbucks, Burke Gilman Trail by the dinosaurs, and Fremont Avenue (at Vita Café by 43. st). (see chapter 5 ‘Seattle -Infrastructure and city-structure’ p. 45 & chapter 6 ‘Spatial analysis and street-scape typologies’ p. 63 ) Those observation served another important purpose; investigating correlations between types of cyclists and bicycle friendly street scapes/ bike infrastructure.

Observations at Vita Café located on the corner of Fremont Avenue and 43. st

Workshop C at ScanDesign locations

25

24

The locations were chosen by their significant differences and because they are places where cyclists most likely would appear due to cycle-facilities provided. All three locations are connected. Burke Gilman Trail is a multi-use trail, Fremont Avenue has both sharrows and traditional bike lanes provided - and there are buffered bike lanes on Dexter Avenue. All cyclists was counted and categorized as either female or male and either cycle-wear, day-wear or ‘in between’ cyclist. The observations was made four times each place (12 observations in total) on week-days - each time on a duration of two hours; two days in the morning rush-hour and during the afternoon. I also made observations on Burke Gilman Trail and Fremont Avenue on weekends eight times on a duration of two hours - four observations each place. See Appendix A for the observation plan, Appendix C for tables with raw dats of observations and Apendix E for all computed data.

2.3 Qualitative interviews Qualitative interviews was conducted in the frame of two workshops where the participants were asked to make four easy and short exercises.

The first workshop [Workshop C] was held in relation to a Bike Group Meeting where the participants was members of the bike group and mainly utility cyclists - they were thus not representative of a Seattle population but all had a special relation to cycling and bike planning. They were asked to fill out a short questionnaire answering how often they cycle, for what purposes, age etc. Then they were asked to write five words they would think of in relation to; ‘Traditional Bike Lanes’, ‘Burke Gilman Trail’ ‘Dexter Avenue’ and ‘sharrows’. They were also asked to write approx. 10 sentences of how Seattle can become a bicycle utopia / cycle-paradise. At the end the answers was discussed in plenum.

The second workshop [workshop NC] was held with two persons I have defined as non-utility cyclists (although one of them was not a cyclist at all). The exercises of the second workshop was slightly different yet similar. The NC group was asked to write 10 words they think of in relation to ‘cyclists’ or ‘cycling’. Then they were asked to write in sentences their thoughts about two specific places (Burke Gilman Trail and Dexter Avenue) in the city. And then they were asked to describe traditional bike lanes. A short discussion followed the exercises. The aim with the interviews / workshop was to capture the Seattle cycle culture from an inside perspective. Opinions on cycling and cyclists’ preferences of facilities were revealed. (See Apendix F-G for interviews) 2.4 Velocity Global At Velo City Global 2012 I attended several lectures that turned out being relevant for this thesis. Either by knowledge gained through the content of the lecture or through tips of relevant articles and surveys.

Or simply by finding inspiration in the topics and conclusions.

Chapter summary The findings done through the going-native part and the interviews / workshop has been used primarily to supplement and support theories and arguments. The observations has directly been used to develop ‘the typology matrix’ - the result or conclusions of the analysis of the empirical data and theories presented throughout the work .

Neighborhood hubs

2

1

Green areas

Obsevation spot: Fremont Avenue Part of the cycle-network

1 2

Location of the place I lived in three months

Location of the place I lived the last month of my stay Location of workplace

Location of observations

Fieldwork map Obsevation spot Burke Gilman Trail

Roundtable workshop session in Velo City Global 2012 in Vancouver

27

26

Cycling and Cyclists in America Today

This is a short introduction to utility cycling as a theme and an overview of the role of cycling in American cities. This chapter illustrates the relevance of cycling from urban-planning perspective.

The chapter finishes with a brief overview of the main obstacles and challenges facing utility-cycling in the U.S. and in Seattle in particular - the focus of this report.

When I traveled to various U.S. cities and paid attention to bike-related issues, I was often confronted with the bike as a fashion icon on items of all sorts – apparel, bags, postcards, books, ... You might likely find urban and modern bike-shops in a gentrified urban neighborhood in major U.S. cities. I went to a bar in Portland where they were selling ‘bike-beers’ and an old ‘Dutch-bike’ was hanging on the wall. I found that the bike has undertaken a renaissance, not only, as, for instance, a fashionable item on clothing or as a visual theme for a bar. Local governments, NGO’s, urban planners and others, too, have had a rapid growing interest in promoting biking as a solution to a wide range of complex, global and local problems, being more or less related [Buehler & Pucher 2011, Gehl 2010, Pucher et al. 2009, Haddad & Gatersleben 2010, ...]. However, cycling as a feasible mode of transportation has still poor conditions in most of the U.S., and it is not yet considered a feasible mode of transport for the majority of Americans.

In Seattle, WA in 2010 the bicycle share of commuting was 3.6 % and thus higher than the US average of 1 % [U.S. Census 2010 American Community Survey]3. The amount of commuters by bike in Seattle, WA might be relatively high in comparison with other U.S. cities4 but is definitely low compared to some Northern European cities such as Bremen, Amsterdam and Copenhagen5. It is thus fair to assume that there is a great unspent potential to increase the amount of commuters by bike.

3. https://public.sheet.zoho.com/public/bikeleague/2000-to-2010-bike-commuters-largest-70-2-1 2012 4. The total bicycle share of trips in U.S is 1 % In Memphis, TN only 0,1 % commutes by bike, the same figure in New York is 0,8 %, although the cycle share has increased over the last several years due to huge investments in bike infrastructure and promotion.

5. As many as 50 % of Copenhagen residents who work or study in Copenhagen cycle to their workplace or educational institution.

[Bicycle Account 2010, p. 6]

3

29

28

3.1 Why bike?

There are many reasons for different bodies such as municipalities and NGO’s to promote transportcycling. The Danish City of Aarhus, having 8000 as its zip code, has made a campaign called: “8000 advantages of biking”6 proposing not least than 8000 benefits of cycling [http://www.aarhuscykelby.dk 2012]. The bike is regarded as the solution for a wide range of related complex problems especially in bigger cities all over the world. The bike as a means of transportation is a vital part of the solution to problems like air pollution, noise, CO2-emission, climate change, congestion, poor quality of urban space, obesity, health issues, noise, mobility, poverty and traffic accidents. Those problems are growing and ubiquitous in U.S. cities. Those problems are also intrusive in people’s quality of life in the U.S. Obesity and cardiovascular health problems are a huge issue in the U.S. growing bigger and bigger day by day. This is where ‘active’ transportation plays a vital role as a solution [Cahill 2010]. Although a lot can be said about this, I will not go into depth on how the bike can be a solution to the above-mentioned problems. However I will roughly go through some of the main benefits using a bike for transportation has for both the individual and society.

The most readily and easy to comprehend benefits of the bikes are those concerning CO2 emissions, air noise pollution and obesity. Cycling is a healthy, simple, egalitarian, sustainable, energy saving, ecofriendly, affordable and quiet mode of transportation since the bike “...causes virtually no noise or air pollution. The only energy cycling requires is provided directly by the traveler and the very use of that energy offers valuable cardiovascular exercise.”

[Pucher & Buhler 2008, p. 496] The bike is also a democratic means of transportation: It does not require much space (and thus it requires much less investment in infrastructure than other modes of transportation), most people can afford a bike and even small children and elderly are capable of biking without a license. Another less obvious but fundamental benefit of biking on a societal level is the correlation with high quality urban space, community benefits and thus the bikes impact on the quality of life in urban areas. Vibrant city life where the cities’ function is as a social platform and meeting place for people is one crucial criteria for a successful urban space - and in this regard cycling plays a vital role [Gehl 2010].

“Social activities include all types of communication between people in city space and require presence of other people. [Gehl 2010, p. 22] (…) Studies from cities all over the world illuminate the importance of activity as an urban attraction. People gather where things are happening and spontaneously seek the presence of other people.[Gehl 2010, p. 25] The natural starting point for designing cities for people is human mobility and the human senses [Gehl 2010, p.

33] (...) Bicyclists represent a different and somewhat rapid form of foot traffic, but in terms of sensory experiences, life and movement, they are part of the rest of city life [Gehl 2010, p. 182].”

On a personal level another benefit is the fact that the bike, in some dense urban areas is indeed the fastest transport mode. In Copenhagen it is considered the easiest, fastest and most comfortable way of getting around. This is the main personal reason why the many residents of Copenhagen choose the bike7 [Copenhagen Bicycle Account 2010].

Nearly all attributes of cycling are simultaneously beneficial for the society and the individual. Road traffic congestion is both; a socio-economical problem, where the society loses billions of dollars each year in lost travel time, and a problem for the individual being stuck in traffic and therefore less mobile.

Health is of personal well-being and concern, but a healthy population is also a societal interest.

3.2 Business and economy Another recent strategy among some bike advocates is to convince the public, businesses and policymakers that biking enhances Downtown’s economic competitiveness in order to disprove the persistent myth that a limitation on car traffic decreases income for local businesses or even kills them. Erin O’Melinn, Executive Director of the Vancouver Area Cycling Coalition, discusses in a presentation called “Biking and Bottom Line” held in Seattle, how less congestion (due to more biking), improves traffic circulation and then supports retail [O’Melinn 2012]. Also a green image, including bike promotion, can be used to brand companies, cities and regions as being environmentally friendly and progressive.

Those are just some of the many reasons to promote cycling. It thus makes sense to wonder why cycling is not more widespread already in the US? Below, part of the answer is given by briefly outlining some of the main obstacles and challenges for cycling in Seattle and beyond.

3.3 Obstacles in Seattle and beyond Despite Seattle’s great potential and feasibility to develop a mainstream cycle-culture (see chapter 5 “Seattle Infrastructure and city-structure” p. 45), there are many obstacles for cyclists in this city. The first one and most obvious is the lack of a widespread, coherent and dense network of high-quality cycle facilities throughout the city and to destinations and amenities. Although some cities, like Seattle, have increased the cycle network dramatically by adding 129 miles of new bike lanes from 2007 to 2011 [BMP Progress Report 2012] and doing impressive efforts, a lot can be done in other cities as well. Seattle is doing a great job providing facilities and their Bike Master Plan is very ambitious, however the infrastructure in a wider perspective is not in favor of biking. The existing standard-width of on-street lanes is too narrow in terms of the risk of “dooring” and the feeling of safety on heavily trafficked roads.

Seattle is very porous and urban sprawl creates huge distances. This sprawl structures of the city creating huge distances. I would argue sprawl is one of the main reasons why biking in the rest of the U.S. is not 6. Translated from: 8000 fordele ved at cykle – Århus Cykelby 7. 55 % of cyclists in Copenhagen in a survey with 718 respondents being categorized as cyclists answered speed being their main reason for biking

31

30

more common. Furthermore, Seattle is surrounded by mountains; both the Cascades and the Olympics and the city itself is quite hilly in some neighborhoods.

“Bicyclists face barriers, such as freeways, roadway crossings, and topography in many parts of the city” [BMP 2007, p. 1] The volume of automobiles and not least the lack of awareness on cyclists – in Seattle and in U.S. in general makes it unpleasant and unsafe to ride on arterial and other big roads without designated space for cyclists such as bike lanes, which might be the main reason for the widespread fear of cycling. The fear is both a real fear emerging from actual number of fatal accidents involving cyclists on busy roads and from not being seen by motorists [Parkin & Koorey in Parkin 2012] – but is, noteworthy, also created by the narratives and mere perception of cycling being an extremely dangerous activity. Interestingly enough although “... most bicycle-related deaths involve a colission with a motor vehicle. (...) The majority of cycle collisions do not involve motor vehicles.” [Parkin & Koorey in Parkin 2012, p. 141 & 140]

Photo: baby body-suit [http://bit.ly/U81G9w]

Bike advocates claims that car-drivers due to mass and speed of car and pedestrians are more exposed to the risk of fatal accidents in traffic [BikeSnobNYC 2010]. David Horton is a British sociologist and bike advocate. He writes in an article “Fear of cycling” from 2010 how fear of cycling – besides being a fear of the mere activity and a fear of accidents, is a fear of becoming the marginalized scape goat cyclists are viewed as in Anglo-American culture.[Horton in Horton et al 2010 ] The culture of fear influences not only cycling and modal choices but is a phenomenon widespread in western societies and the U.S. in particular. (See section ‘Culture of fear’ in chapter 8 ‘Technology of Sociology‘ p. 98).

The physical obstacles might be easy to notice but there are other non-physical barriers to mainstreamcycling in U.S. Cycling is not yet socially accepted as a cool and ‘sexy’ way of getting around. Cyclists are perceived as certain types (which is why typology is a main theme for this thesis and the different perception and typologies will be later explained in depth) and too often not viewed in a positive light among the majority of Americans. Why it is so and the importance of certain perceptions of cyclists will be explained in chapter 8 ‘Sociology of Technology’ p. 95 - and is a fundamental issue for this thesis.

Chapter summary In conclusion I would argue that despite both physical and non-physical challenges and obstacles for Seattle and other US cities, American cities are undergoing a Cycle-Renaissance with cycling on the political agenda, growing number of cyclists and the bicycle becoming a fashionable item. Therefore there is a n unspent potential for developing a mainstream-bike culture in the US. Downtown Seattle

‘Bike-beer’ and a bike hanging on the wall in a bar in Portland

33

32

Infrastructure and street-scape 4.1 Why do girls stop cycling? - It’s the infrastructure, stupid!

I have been cycling around Seattle and have enjoyed cycling on the Burke Gilman Trail, designed for cyclists, and other 'cycle-friendly' places in the city, while thinking until my brain hurts, trying to figure out, how one could push towards a modal-shift. What soon came to my mind was the importance of 'designated space for cyclists' - facilities and infrastructure. And I thought; 'As soon as they build a comprehensive network of cycle tracks, trails and cycle paths more people will commute by bike.’ 'The cyclists needs symbolic and physical space in the public realm, be it lanes, trails or tracks or simply by sharing the road with a small amount of slow-moving motor-vehicles and then the bikeshare will increase dramatically'. 'Is it not that simple?' My ideas and thoughts of the importance of the built environment was not without a certain portion of truth nor is the solution or strategy to increase transport-cycling that simple. Yet research shows “... bike lanes and paths encourage cycling. They reveal a positive relationship even when controlling for a range of other factors expected to affect cycling levels” [Buehler & Pucher 2011, p. 428]

Infrastructure is regarded as a necessary element for mainstream bike-culture, especially due to the increased feeling of safety provided. This chapter explains how infrastructure contributes to a mainstream culture and why and how the built environment impacts cyclists. The chapter ends by outlining arguments towards predominant opinions on cycle-infrastructure and debates of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ approaches to cycle-infrastructure.

'Beauty and the Bike', is a bike promotion strategy and a documentary about a group of British girls exploring the joy and freedom of biking. The main point is to show how the girls discover the way to cycle chic and fashionable, by traveling to the German city Bremen, where separated bike lanes make it possible for the City’s young girls biking on dutch bikes wearing dresses, thus showing how cycling is an everyday activity for the majority of the residents of Bremen.

4

35

34

“Back in Darlington, when the girls from Bremen came to visit, they were shocked at the lack of quality infrastructure, how much road space was allocated to motorized traffic, and how aggressively motorists used “their” space. (...) Why do girls stop cycling? It’s the infrastructure, stupid!” [http://bit.ly/TgLVaL 2012]

The main message of 'Beauty and the Bike' is the one of how a properly constructed built environment, where there is space for cyclists or where cycle-facilities are provided, determines whether people will bike and perhaps more importantly who will bike and what clothing and gear is needed to bike. This is a topic I will discuss later, being an essential point for me as well.

In Collection of Cycle Concepts 2012, a collection of knowledge and lessons made by cycle planners in Denmark, published by the Cycling Embassy of Denmark, the reason for the great importance of high quality facilities are emphasized.

“Cities where bicycle traffic has increased have this in common: they have established a cohesive cycling infrastructure with a high level of cyclist service (security, passability and comfort)” [Collection of Cycle Concepts 2012, p.54].

Cyclists need designated roadspace – for several reasons; in order to ride comfortably, without fear, safely, easily and smoothly. Designated cycle space also decreases potential conflicts with automobiles.

Accessibility, flow, travel experience and travel time are other features cycle facilities might offer cyclists [Collection of Cycle Concepts 2012]. This has especially been the case since the ever-increasing amount of automobiles took up space once shared by cyclists. The first automobiles and horse carriages literally pushed the bike into the gutter – both on the roads and in the minds of transport planners and others [Horton in Horton et al 2010]. Today, there simply is no room for cyclists on most arterial roads, with heavy motorists traffic, and therefore, cyclists need their own designated space.

4.2 Feeling of safety and actual safety Not only actual safety but also the feeling of safety plays a crucial role when arguing for cycle infrastructure and facilities. While traffic engineers and bike planners traditionally have focused solely on the risk of cycling and the number of accidents (the actual safety), a recognition and acknowledgment of the importance of the feeling of safety has occurred in contemporary planning environments. This stems from how actual safety differs from the feeling of safety; a cyclist might be at risk but feel unsafe but might feel safe but be at risk, leading to the fact that the actual safety and the feeling of safety are not necessarily the same thing [Collection of Cycle Concepts 2012]. Some traffic engineers claim that a little fear of cycling in specific spots actually decreases the risks, due to higher attention and caution while riding.

However, a general 'fear of cycling' most likely deters people from cycling altogether – and thus has an incredible impact on the bike mode share. A lack of feeling of safety does not only lead to less cycling, but also to higher risk for those cyclists remaining. This is due to the “critical mass” mechanism, where drivers pay attention to cyclists and are aware of potential conflicts in places with high levels of cycling - when a certain level of cycling is reached. One could call this ‘safety in numbers’. So the more cyclists in a certain area, the safer this area gets for cyclists, when the “critical mass” is reached. This mechanism also works the other way around. A low level of cycling leads to less attention from motorists who are not used to driving next to cyclists. This may result in an increased risk of conflicts with cyclists. In those cases, if the level of cycling increases this will lead to an increase in accidents, before the certain amount of cyclists is reached [Collection of Cycle Concepts 2012].

Feeling of safety is thus truly crucial both for safety issues and for encouraring a modal shift. Cyclists might feel unsafe on roads without facilities, in mixed traffic, especially with high volumes of motorist traffic and high speeds. [Collection of Cycle Concepts 201] While both actual safety and feeling of comfort without fear are fundamental elements for cycling, the magic trick is to develop solutions that are both safe and feel safe. The lack of feeling of safety and a fear of cycling is widespread among woman and the elderly in the U.S. [Bonham & Wilson in Parker 2012 ] Mainstream-cycling must not require courage. Woman are said to be 'indicator-species' for a mainstream cycling culture and they are highly underrepresented as cyclists in the U.S and Canada [Dill 2012]. So 'if women cycle, everyone cycles' – you have to make women feel safe moving around town on a bike. The actual safety and the feeling of safety increases the more space cyclists get for themselves. Specific facilities for cyclists, space and cycling infrastructure thus contribute to a mainstream cycling culture.

“Planning should serve the interests of the most vulnerable cyclist groups so that all types of cyclists will be able to use the infrastructure.” [Collection of Cycle Concepts 2012, p.50-51]

Photo: Cycle-tracks in Copenhagen from the photo archives of Bicycle Office City of Copenhagen, Denmark

One could say that by successfully promoting cycling one also promotes safety, due to safety in numbers or critical mass effect.

37

36

4.3 Communication Designated space improves cyclist’s comfort, travel time, feeling of safety and experience while cycling, but physical space and specific facilities for cyclists is also communication. Designated cycle infrastructure creates visibility for motorists and the fact that cyclists are being prioritized economically and within the road space, urban spaces and within the city in general. The former mayor of Bogota, Enrique Peñalosa, describes this in the documentary 'Urbanized' by Gary Hustwit about cities roles and development, how high-quality infrastructure increases the social status of bicycles, since it shows cyclists that the city takes a person who spends $30 on a bicycle as seriously as a person who spends $30,000 on a car.

"Before we had networked bikeways, low-income people were ashamed to use bicycles” [Peñalosa in Hustwit 2011].

4.4 Design of infrastructure Through designating space for cyclists, cycling facilities may be formed and designed differently. In Copenhagen, a curb-raised cycle track on each side of the road, along the payment, in each direction, with a standard width of 2.2 m / 7.2 ft is a standard facility for cyclists - along with lanes being painted on the ground with a narrower width. In Seattle trails, off-road paths (often shared with pedestrians) and lanes, painted on the road on each side are the most common facilities for cyclists. Other places have traditionally offered two-way cycle tacks on one side of the road. A cycle track, according to the U.S. NACTO8 Urban Bikeway Design Guide9 “is physically separated from motor traffic and distinct from the sidewalk. (...) In situations where on-street parking is allowed cycle tracks are located to the curb-side of the parking (in contrast to bike lanes).” [http://nacto.org/cities-for-cycling/design-guide/cycle-tracks/ 2012]

Bike lanes and bike tracks can be designed differently in terms of details and the way which the facilities are separated from the roadway. Cycle tracks can for instance be elevated or raised separated by a curb (the Copenhagen-model) or by a barrier on the same level as the car lanes. 'The NACTO Design Guide' lists different design-options and detailing for cycle infrastructure as for instance in intersections, signage and speed calming on residential streets. Different design-options have different impact for cyclists, some can be said to have a higher quality in terms of meeting the diverse needs of cyclists and the commuters need of comfort, travel time and feeling of safety. In Collection of Cycle Concepts the recommendation is to make cycle facilities separated and wide, so fast cyclists have room to overtake slower cyclists without compromising the comfort and feeling of safety [Collection of Cycle Concepts 2012]. Like the Copenhagen cycle track: “Cycle tracks offer cyclists safety, security and passability on sections between intersections. Cyclist satisfaction is doubled on cycle tracks as compared to cycle lanes. Cycle tracks can increase bicycle traffic. For example, in Copenhagen, a bicycle traffic increase of 20% and a motor traffic drop of 10% are observed when a new cycle track section is opened.”

[Collection of Cycle Concepts 2012, p.64] High-quality facilities for cyclists, without obstacles and detours, is an important ingredient for increasing the bike share mode. There is a debate in the world of 'cycle-planning' of whether 'on-street' facilities or 'off-street' trails are best or most efficient for an increase in cycle-share [Buehler & Pucher 2011].

In Copenhagen, the old and traditional network of cycle-tracks and lanes are being supplemented with green routes equivalent to the Seattle trails in order to offer cyclists a great variety of possibilities, flexibility and choices [Jensen 2010] - as well as a denser network. One ought to remember that 'destinations' often are located on-street - workplaces, homes, shops and cafes for example are located by the streets. While off-street routes offer both short-cuts and detours in green, quite and enjoyable surrounding. Facilities thus needs to be placed strategically to create a coherent network where important neighborhoods and hubs are well-connected.

“There is a temptation to establish cycle tracks where it would be easy and cheap to do so.

However cycle tracks should only be built where they are necessary, which is often where it is difficult and controversial. The cycling infrastructure should be direct, logical and convenient, otherwise a number of cyclists will choose roads that are not planned for bicycle traffic. At worst they won’t bike at all.” [Collection of Cycle Concepts 2012, p.56]

8. National Association of City Transportation Officials

Cycle-tracks in Vancouver, BC, Canada

9. “The purpose of the NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide (part of the Cities for Cycling initiative) is to provide cities with state-ofthe-practice solutions that can help create complete streets that are safe and enjoyable for bicyclists. To create the Guide, the authors have conducted an extensive worldwide literature search from design guidelines and real-life experience. “ [http://nacto.org/cities-for-cycling/design-guide/]

39

38

For the sake of simplicity one could say that the cycle-infrastructure for transport-cycling should fulfill the following criteria: foster a feeling of safety and comfort, speed, convenience and actual safety. A high feeling of comfort is determined by a physical comfort (for instance cycling on a smooth surface, no noise, shelter of a cold wind.,..) and mental comfort - for instance cycling without stress and fear.

Number one reason for the majority of the many cyclists choosing to bike in Copenhagen is 'it is the fastest and the most convenient way of getting around the city' [Bicycle Account 2010]. Aiming at making cycling fast, convenient and easy must thus be a criteria for city’s planning for 'cycle-friendliness'.

Coherency or network are keywords in physical planning for cyclists. Fragmented bike-paths and a 'network' with way too many missing links may not serve cyclists properly and might thus not have the desired effect of increasing bike-share. A coherent and connected network is crucial. Summing up the Ducth criteria for proper design of cycle infrastructure captures what has been described so far; coherence, directness, attractiveness, safety and comfort should be the characteristics of appropriate cycle infrastructure [Parkin & Koorey in Parkin 2012] One should note that safe solutions for cyclists in intersections where the risk of collision and mishaps are biggest are very important for an effeicient and coherent cycle-network. However I will not analyze intersection solutions in Seattle.

4.5 Built environment and to invite The importance of bike facilities, might be pretty obvious. However, as I will argue in a later chapter, a physical approach may not be enough.

“Good facilities are necessary but not sufficient. You also need a culture that is not too focused on the car as status symbol, a low enough crime rate that allows for a simple bike lock, a community that sees the benefit of cycling as a public and environmental good” [Bicknell 2012]

4.6 Fear of violence in the public realm Fear of violence and assault in the public realm is influenced by urban planning and design of urban space too. Outgoing services creating a vibrant city life leads to a higher sense of security - due to the presence of several other human beings [Gehl 2010]. Jane Jacobs describes in her book 'Death and Life of Great American Cities' how the design of the street contributes to crime-prevention - due to 'eyes on the street' of street dwellers and other users [Jacobs 1961]. Sense of security and fear of assault as it pertains to cycling goes two-ways. The individual on a bike is not protected by a metal box as is the case with car-drivers. Cyclists as pedestrians needs 'safe' environments - also in terms of crime-prevention.

But a certain amount of cyclists contributes to a safer environment by their mere presence - there are no metal walls hindering direct interaction with the surroundings.

4.7 Bicycle friendly infrastructure I use the term bicycle friendly infrastructure to cover all types of physical improvements for cyclists.

The need for a broad range of physical approaches is emphasized in the Collection of Cycle Concepts 2012 for cycling conditions. Not only mere lanes, tracks, trails or paths should be considered as a physical contribution to cycling-conditions. The term infrastructure refers to a broader specter of initiatives physically embedded in the urban landscape. In the Seattle Bike Master Plan this is called a bikeway: “Bikeway: A generic term for any road, street, path, or way which in some manner is specifically designated for bicycle travel, regardless of whether such facilities are designated for the exclusive use of bicycles or are to be shared with other transportation modes. (Source: American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities, 1999)” [BMP 2007]

Nonetheless, the correlation between the built environment and its impact on human behavior has been the corner stone and a key foundation in the field of architecture, geography and urban planning for ages. Gehl calls it to “invite people” - to sit, walk, cycle... Better conditions for cyclists simply invites more people to cycle and well-designed physical conditions for cyclists supports a mainstream bicycle culture where all types "dare" to cycle. [Gehl 2010] If we look at the built environment some places in Seattle it easy to suspect that people have been invited to drive their car - especially during the second half of last century. The physical environment has a vital impact on the behavior of the human inhabitants and physical planning can contribute to changes of patterns and land use in urban areas [Gehl 2010].

"Many city planners and architects believe that the physical environment, natural and built, directly affects human behavior.” [Gans 1993 in Agervig Carstensen 2012, p. 117] View on the highway Interstate 5 (I5) running through Seattle and Down Town Seattle

41

40

A bikeway could be a residential street with low levels of traffic and low speeds. I've chosen to call, what has been defined as bike-ways ‘bike infrastructure’. The term embraces different kinds of diverse streetscapes: 1. designated cycling facilities (lanes, tracks) on arterial streets 2. mixed use off-road trails in green areas 3. calm slow-speed residential areas with low levels of traffic.

Concerning the latter; there is a clear relationship between feeling of safety, actual safety, risk and speed of motorist vehicles in mixed traffic.

“When speeds are slow and motor traffic volumes low, cyclists can perfectly well circulate in mixed traffic. Physical traffic calming is often necessary to achieve a sufficiently slow speed. … The lower the speed, the more small children can circulate safely and securely, including cycling toddlers who are “learning by playing”. [Collection of Cycle Concepts 2012, p. 66] 4.8 Seattle Neighborhood Greenways Mixed traffic, slow-speed, low-volume residential streets are what the NACTO guidelines call Bike Boulevards. In Seattle, inspired by Portland, those are very closely linked to what is called 'Seattle's Neighborhood Greenways', although the concept of Neighborhood Greenways is more than merely improving conditions for cyclists. The Greenways are a community-based movement (though also supported financially by the City of Seattle) that aims to create people-friendly and sustainable streets by means of inviting street furniture and amenities, traffic calming & controlling, Green Stormwater Infrastructure (GSI) and not least improve conditions for pedestrians and cyclists, though this can also be done by modal separation. [Seattle Toolkit 2012]

Photo: Seattle Neighborhood Greenways [http://seattlegreenways.org/resources/photo-gallery/ 2012]

4.9 City Structure Density and mixed land-uses etc. are also crucial features for bike friendly infrastructure and for increasing bike share. A city’s structure and topography is particularly important for cycling levels. Infrastructure is not just a concern of road space - but also about urban planning on a larger scale. One needs to acknowledge that the cyclist's environment is what surrounds him or her – the urban environment and thus it needs to be attractive [cycling and society symposium 2012].

4.10 Vehicular vs segregated cycling While most bike advocates might agree on the vital role of the built environment some bike advocates are skeptical about separating modes. An article about separated bike lanes in Atlantic Cities speaks about a man, Doug Gordon, who placed small plastic cups along the edge of a bike lane as a unscientific experiment, that turned out being pretty effective in terms of preventing car-drivers to drive on the bike lane, concluding that: “Physical barriers, even small ones, have a greater effect on driver behavior than painted lines.” [http://bit.ly/UIehBF 2012] This was done as a contribution to the debate about what is called 'vehicular cycling' – where the bike is considered a vehicle, where one ought to cycle on the road following the rules of vehicles vs 'segregated cycling' – cycling on specific facilities designated for cyclists on the road. John Forester , a spokesperson for 'vehicular cycling' through his book 'Effective Cycling' from 1984 argues; “Cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles” [http://bit.ly/O1XPIm 2012]

Photo: Cups working as an effective physical barrier [http://bit.ly/UIehBF 2012]

43

42

It is even stated among 'Vehicular cyclists' that segregated facilities might be dangerous and counterproductive, because

"people tend to have a false sense of security that can actually add to the danger." [http://bit.ly/O1XPIm 2012]

and "The paths are just as dangerous as the street, and in many cases even more dangerous, such as anytime the path crosses alleyways, streets, or exits from parking lots." [http://bit.ly/O1XPIm 2012] I would argue that whether a facility is less safe than riding in car lanes depends on the design and quality of the facility. The point of view of this thesis is in favor of 'segregated cycling'. This is due to the wish for a mainstream bicycle culture where 'vulnerable cyclists' are said to be indicator species and who most likely would not feel comfortable biking as a vehicle in the middle of the road. Moreover a wish for separation from motor vehicles was consistent for all cyclists interviewed. For instance, a part of the vision of Seattle as 'bike-paradise', for one cyclists was; 'Dedicated Bike lanes are nearby everywhere I want to ride' Another one writes in relation to a cycling-paradise vision 'Separated Bike Lanes everywhere ' and 'kids and old people on bikes'. All interviewed, both cyclists and non-cyclists, expressed a wish for more cycle lanes and cycle tracks.

Results from the Bicycle Master Plan survey also clearly show that the majority of cyclist prefer infrastructural interventions such as bike-lanes and multi-use trails when asked; Which of the following factors do you think would do the most to encourage bicycling in Seattle? [BMP 2007] Which of the following factors do you think would do the most to encourage bicycling in Seattle?

Source: Seattle Bike Master Plan 2007

4.11 Bike lane skepticism The British bike advocate and sociologists David Horton explains in his article 'Fear of cycling' how separated facilities (especially off-road trails) are contributing to the creation of fear of cycling by, as an unintended consequence, sending the message that normal roads are dangerous and 'no place to cycle; they are to be feared' [Horton in Horton et al. 2010].

In a symposium about Cycling and Society in London this autumn (3/9 – 4/9 2012 ) a discussion about whether a 'narrow-minded' focus on cycle-facilities is enough for a modal shift or whether one needs to consider other means and aspects aswell appeared, a debate one also could bump into during Velo City 2012 in Vancouver. Bike infrastructure is necessary but not sufficient.

Chapter summary The built environment is a crucial element for cycle promotion. Compactness and mixed land-use leads to optimal cycle distances. A great variety of facilities and bike-friendly urban spaces increase the feeling of safety - a necessity in a mainstream biking culture where vulnerable cyclists ought to be able to cycle around without fear. Some even argue that cyclists ought to 'cycle' as a vehicular in the middle of the road not using bike-lanes, however this does not meet the need of safe routes for 'anxious' cyclists.

Cycle-infrastructure differs in quality and design.

The next chapter is an introduction to Seattle – the city-structure, the topography and existing and planned bike-infrastructure.

45

44

Seattle -Infrastructure and city-structure Seattle is the biggest city and the capital of the state of Washington in the northern part of U.S. located 182 km from the Canadian border. Seattle is located by the sea (Puget Sound) and is surrounded by mountains – the Olympics in west and the Cascades east of the city. The great and beautiful volcano Mount Rainier stands majestically Southeast of the city .

Seattle is the focus of this thesis. The city is the physical arena of both the problems (including low amount of bike-commuters, infrastructural obstacles) and solutions. Seattle is a suitable case both due to unspent potential of higher levels of utility cycling - and several physical and non-physical obstacles and challenges. This chapter focuses on infrastructure, the physical obstacles and the urban landscape of Seattle. It starts by an introduction to the city and by outlining the existing cycling-infrastructure. The chapter finishes with an outline of the physical challenges and obstacles cyclist faces.

However the quality of the existing infrastrucutre will be evaluated and analyzed in relation to cyclists in a later chapter.

Seattle is suitable as a case-study for several reasons - most importantly the cycle share is significantly higher than other places in the U.S., especially for transport. In 2010 the bicycle share of commuting was 3,6 % and thus higher than the US average on 1 %. Moreover 68 % of all cyclists in the Seattle Bike Master Plan Survey with 1584 respondents, uses the bike for commuting (see figure on next page). On the basis of the relatively high share of bike-commuters it is estimated that more than 1 in 3 of Seattle residents rides a bicycle during summer months. This is also supported by the National Survey of Pedestrian and Bicyclist Attitudes and Behaviors which found that 27.3% of US residents over age 16 cycled at least once during a summer month in the Summer of 2002.

An increase in cycle-share for transportation in nearest future and a development of a mainstream cycle-culture within a couple of decades is regarded feasible. The political climate in Seattle in general is progressive in terms of cycling, the Mayor, Mike McGinn, is pro-cycling and a cyclists himself , Seattle experiences a dramatic expansion of the bike-network and an increase in both facilities and number of cyclists. One could thus conclude there is an unspent potential and that it is feasible to develop a mainstream bike culture with significantly higher bike share modes - since the foundation is already there and there is municipal support and a political wish for it.

5

47

46

5.1 Cycle facts and figures for Seattle In 2007 the city had 25 miles of bicycle lanes and 40 miles of multi-use trails. Between 2007 and today the city has installed 129 miles of on-street facilities, including bike lanes and shared lane pavement markings called ‘sharrows’ (see describtion of ‘sharrows’). Moreover the city has added over 9 new miles of multi-use trail improvements, implemented 98 miles of signed bicycle routes and installed over 2,200 bicycle parking spaces. A network of 450 miles of bikeways throughout Seattle are planned to be established by 2017, including 143.3 miles of bike-lanes, 58.2 miles of multi-use trails, 18.1 miles of bicycle boulevards and 110.5 miles of sharrows (see table 1). The city has a goal of increasing the use of cycling for all trip purposes by tripling the amount between 2007 and 2017. Moreover the city aims at improving the safety of bicyclists, by reducing the rate of bicycle crashes by one third between 2007 and 2017. Establishment of a coherent network of bikeways is an important mean to reach these goals.

Seattle

What was the primary purpose of your last bicycle trip?

Map of United States of America and location of Seattle, Source: Google maps

Source: Seattle Bike Master Plan 2007

Table 1. Source: Seattle Bike Master Plan 2007

Map of Seattle, Source: Google maps

49

48

Glimpses of Seattle

51

50

5.2 A short introduction to design of bicycle infrastructure in Seattle

A traditional bike-lane in Seattle provides four to five feet of dedicated width on the roads for cyclists [how to get around town via bike 2010] marked with a painted white cyclepictogram and separated from the road-lane with a white painted line. A dashed line indicates places with higher risk of conflicts with motorist vehicles, where they can be expected to cross the cycle lanes. In certain areas green bike lanes are established for the purpose to alert both drivers and cyclists [how to get around town via bike 2010].

There are no cycle-tracks in Seattle - what comes closes to a cycle-track is the buffered bike lanes on Dexter Avenue (only place) - an arterial road connecting Fremont and downtown, between the neighborhood of Queen Anne and Westlake. The buffer separates the lane by a 2-3 feet wide cross-hatched zone between the bike lane and the car lane. Bus-stop islands decreases the risk of conflicts between cyclists and bus-passengers entering or departing significantly.

Shared lane pavement markings called ‘sharrows’ are pavement-markings on the road, placed on the ‘car’ lane, communicating to motorists that the lane is shared with bicycle traffic. Motorists are expected to ‘watch out’ and share the road with cyclists.

Sharrows are a cheap and easy way of connecting bike-infrastructure on roads with a lack of space for lanes or political resistance towards other onstreet cycle facilities. They are criticized for being in-efficient, not feel safe and for motorist ignoring the sharrow-marking. It could be argued, though, that the sharrows are a cheap and feasible strategy to introduce on-street cycling for the public, with places without other infrastructure.

Seattle Greenways and Bike Boulevards are residential roads, parallel and perpendicular arterial roads, optimized for cycle-traffic by signage, green infrastructure, cars driving in slower speed and discouragement of cut-through traffic of motorists vehicles (leading to fewer cars). They give priority to cyclists as though-going traffic. There is usually no provision of designated space for cyclists as bikelanes, but speed humps, greenery and traffic-circles as traffic-calming elements improve conditions for cyclists and pedestrians. [www.nacto.org 2012]

53

52

So-called climbing lanes are graded roads, with traditional bike-lanes up-hill, due to slower speed of cyclists and room for motorists to safely pass. Downhill, where cyclists are expected to ride in same speed as cars, sharrows are places, if there is no space for traditional bike-lanes. Climbing lanes or simply some combination between traditional bike-lanes and sharrows is a common solution on arterial roads in Seattle.

Signage, bike dots (pavement marking to assist wayfinding), loop detectors at intersections to detect when cyclists (and other vehicles) wait for red light (marked on the pavement as T) are other physical cycle-interventions.

5.3 Multi-use trails and connections Already today certain parts of the city are well-connected in terms of comfortable and fast routes for cyclists. Seattle was one of the first American cities that established a high-class multi-use trail in an urban context; the Burke Gilman Trail – one of the most popular trails in the U.S., connecting some northern neighborhoods from west (Ballard, Fremont) to east (Wallingford, University District ) along the Shiphole canal and lake Washington. Approximately 1,800 cyclists rides Burke Gilman on a typical weekday and 2,200 bicyclists use the trail on a typical Saturday. Multi-use trails are separated offroad facilities for both cyclists and pedestrians. They often run along waterfronts, through parks or by industrial areas. They are popular for both transportation and recreation due to often beautiful car-free surroundings and safe and fast connections.

Especially due to The Burke Gilman Trail, and its connection to Dexter Avenue with buffered bike lanes through Fremont Bridge, northern neighborhoods as Fremont, Ballard and Wallingford are effectively interconnected and connected to University District and to downtown. Ballard is furthermore connected to Seattle Center and downtown by Elliott Bay Trail running from the locks to downtown beautifully along the sea. The Burke Gilman Trail is most likely the reason for the relatively high amount of bicycle trips in those specific neighborhoods; “Over five percent of residents commute to work by bicycle in parts of the University District, Wallingford, Fremont, Ballard, and Capitol Hill” [BMP 2007, p.71]

38 % of cyclists in the Bike Master Plan survey preferred cycling on off-street paved trails, 47 % preferred cycling on arterial street with bicycle lane. Not surprisingly only 5 % preferred cycling on arterial streets with no bicycle lanes. 9 % preferred residential streets and only 1 % preferred cycling on the side walk (see figure below) When making a bicycle trip, which of the following do you prefer to use?

Source: Seattle Bike Master Plan 2007

Burke Gilman Trail

38th Av NE

41st Av NE

40th Av NE

39th Av NE

37th Av NE

28th Av NE

30th Av NE

39th Av NE

37th Av NE

35th Av NE

42nd Av NE

40th Av NE

38th Av NE

42nd Av NE

Madrona Pl E

48th Av NE

53rd Av NE

54th Av NE 55th Av NE 57th Av NE 58th Av NE

Ridge Dr NE

Crest Dr NE

Lakemont Dr NE

BICYCLE SUNDAY

NE ne 55th Av S

54th Av S

SEWARD PARK

49th Av S

47th Av S

48th Av S

50th Av S

51st Av S

53rd Av S

52nd Av S

ANDREWS BAY

32nd Av S

57th Av S 56th Av S

42nd Av S

Lakeshore Dr S

39th Av S

31st Av S

33rd Av S

38th Av S

55th Av S

27th Av S

39th Av S

45th Av S 46th Av S

32nd Av S

37th Av S

Island Dr S

34th Av S

50th Av S Rainier Av S

48th Av S 49th Av S

46th Av S 44th Av S

Seward Park Av S

S Cark eek Dr

57th Av S

56th Av S

55th Av S

53rd Av S

n Av

54th Av S

52nd Av S

Ca

rv

er

Re

S

St

dw

S

S

SW

B

C

D

E

TRANSIT CONNECTIONS

Bike Trail

Arterial Streets

Surface Rail Transit Line

Pedestrian Path

Non-Arterial Streets

Underground Rail Transit

On-street Bicycle Lane

Signed Bicycle Routes

Light Rail or Streetcar Station

Sharrows

Arrows point to Uphill Direction: Frequency roughly indicates steepness of grade

Sharrows w/ Bicycle Lane on Uphill Side

2012 seattle bicycling guide map: [http://www.seattle.gov/transportation/bikemaps.htm 2012]

TO TUKWILA

F

G

DESTINATIONS Public School Library

Bike Shop Farmers’ Market

Woodley Av S

Dr

TO SEATTLE-TACOMA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT

A

S 115th St

Cornell Av S

w

S 11

Crestwood Dr S

Vie

71st Pl S

62nd Av S

65th Av S

66th Av S

63rd Av S

61st Av S

60th Av S

59th Av S

57th Av S

56th Av S

67th Av S

68th Av S

S

e

4th Av SW

S

in

70th Pl S

51st Av S

55th Av S

Av

ar

69th Pl S

Way S ML King Jr

8th Av SW 26th Av SW

31st Av SW

30th Av SW

SW

S Taft St S 104th St

Av th S Av

rd

66

on

63

nt

h Dr

Re

ac

Rainier Av S

S

a Be

St

s Av

S

ol

er

yS

S Eastwood Dr

ay

ter

S Fountain St S Leo St S Avon St

Bea Lu co ther S Augusta St n 4th Av Av St S S S Moore St 7th St S 11 S Wallace St 8th St

S 11

Th

Wa

S Hazel St

l Way

M

Se

S

S Bangor St

e Wa

S Prentice St

yok

S Ruggles St

Hol

32nd Av SW

S Cooper St

gina

Dr

S

S

S Gazelle St

S Ryan St

E Mar

SW

w

Av

l Dr

Pl

Dr

h

o

ac

oy

Bre

ie

y St

s Av

S Norfolk St

S Victor St

S 140th St

S Creston St

S 112th St

rr

er

KUBOTA GARDENS

S Victor St

S Ryan Way

SW 108th St

Arr

o

nv

S

S Norfolk St

St

Pe

ith

folk

w

r St

at

bo

le

sm

ia

g Ox ein Bo idge Br

pp

W

or

d St

St

ow

em

2n

g

Ke

Arr

sM

10

in

S

S Pilgrim St

64th Av S

39th Av S

7th Av S

aco

ne

S

SW 107th St

ea

65th Av NE

k

Dr

60th Av NE

ic Kes

w

56th Av NE

y La era Ell

NE 55th Av NE

51st Av NE

W 53rd Av NE La

urel

Dr

49th Av NE

47th Av NE 43rd Av E

Evergreen Pl Lk Washington Blvd E Grand Av

Randolph Pl Fullerton Av

MADRONA PARK

43rd Av S

41st Av S

42nd Av S

39th Av S

Cascadia Av S

GENESEE PARK

34th Av S Lexington Pl S

35th Av S

29th Av S

28th Av S

30th Av S

Shaffer Av S

29th Av S

30th Av S

28th Av S Vista Av S

14th Av S

12th Av S

44th Av S

21st Av S 16th Av S

10th Av S

51st Av NE

N E

E

35th Av E

36th Av E

36th Av S Lake Park Dr S

31st Av S

33rd Av S

35th Av S

36th Av S

37th Av S Hunter Blvd S

38th Av S

Courtland Pl S

ML King Jr Way S

Cheasty Blvd S

JEFFERSON PARK S

26th Av S 23rd Av S

22nd Av S

20th Av S

17th Av S

18th Av S

15th Av S

16th Av S

46th Av S

30th Av S

COLMAN PARK

34th Av S

33rd Av S

32nd Av S

28th Av S

Bradner Pl S 29th Av S

26th Av S ML King Jr Way S

25th Av S

23rd Av S

24th Av S

21st Av S

22nd Av S

20th Av S

18th Av S

19th Av S

16th Av S

17th Av S

14th Av S

15th Av S

Dr bia Colum

13th Av S

12th Av S

n Av S Carle ton Av S Flora Av Ellis Av S S

Corso 8th Av S

52nd Av NE

47th Av NE

48th Av NE

49th Av NE

NE ton Av Prince Pu rdue Pu llm Av an NE Av NE

50th Av NE

47th Av NE

37th Av E

St ad

29th Av E

31st Av E

32nd Av E

30th Av E

35th Av E

33rd Av E 34th Av E

36th Av E

FRINK PARK 32nd Av S

Yakima Av S

31st Av S

Lakeside Av S

33rd Av S Lk Washington Blvd S

18th Av S

20th Av S

12th Av S 13th Av S

Way S 5th Pl S 7th Av S

56th Pl NE

Forest Dr NE

Fairway Dr NE

45th Av NE 46th Av NE

50th Av NE

40th Av NE

41st Av NE

43rd Av NE

44th Av NE

Surber Dr NE

38th Av E

42nd Av E

41st Av E

McGilvra Blvd E

Arboretum Dr E

LAKE WASHINGTON

12th Av E

Erie Av

SEATTLE UNIVERSITY

45th Av NE

38th Av NE

39th Av NE 40th Av NE

34th Av NE 35th Av NE

31st Av NE

33rd Av NE

32nd Av NE

29th Av NE

36th Av NE

37th Av NE

30th Av NE

ARBORETUM

ison

36th Av E

M

29th Av E

33rd Av E

l rP hu Art E

ML King Jr Way

CAL ANDERSON PARK

34th Av E

2 26th Av E

Lk Washington

26th Av E

27th Av E 28th Av E

25th Av E

26th Av E

22nd Avv E

23rd Av A E

20th Av E

21st Av E

24th Av E

13th Av E 14th Av E

19th A Av E

17th Av 17t A E

Malden Av E 15th Av E

12th Av E

10th Av E Federal Av E

11th Av E

Belmont Av E

Boylston Av E Harvard Av E

Broadway Av E Broadway

7th Av S 8th Av S Airport Way S 9th Av S

7th Av S

Airport Maynard Av S

6th Av S 5th Av S

4th Av S

SW Pl n Ol

so

37th Av E

BELLE PLAC VUE E

Summit Av E

Melrose Av E Bellevue Av E

Way ve Oli 6th Av S

Maynard Av S

6th Av S

5th Av S

4th Av S

3rd Av S

2nd Av S

1st Av S

WESTCREST PARK

5th Av SW

6th Av SW

36th Av NE

Lake City Way NE

31st Av NE y NE

32nd Av NE

Lak e Cit

y Wa

35th Av NE

26th Av NE

25th Av NE

NE a Av NE

r Pl

nn

he

ve

Fisc

27th Av NE

28th Av NE

Rd NE NE Cana l Rd

Walla Walla 25th Av E

Blvd E

Pl ke tla on

Everett Av E

16th Av E

18th Av E

Eastlake Av E

Pontius Av N Yale Av N

l St el

Occidental Av S

1st Av S

2nd Av SW

RIVERVIEW PLAYFIELD

7th Pl SW 8th Av SW

7th Av SW

11th Av SW

10th Av SW

13th Av SW

12th Av SW

9th Av SW

17th Av SW

18th Av SW

19th Av SW

35th Av NE

32nd Av NE

22nd Av NE

25th Av NE

27th Av NE

26th Av NE

22nd Av NE

21st Av NE

20th Av NE

26th Av NE

24th Av NE 25th Av NE

23rd Av NE

21st Av NE

22nd Av NE

19th Av NE 20th Av NE

NE

an Trail

Blvd NE

-Gilm

ens Way

E Stev

Burke

Montlake

15th Av NE

M

Broadway Av E 10th Av E

Franklin Av E

Boylston Av E

Eastlake Av E

Yale Av E

Minor Av E

Montlake Bridge

Boyer Av E

Broadway Av E

18th Av NE

12th Av NE Brooklyn Av NE

University Way NE

16th Av NE 17th Av NE

E

e Av iew irv Fa

UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON

Memorial Way NE

NE Fairview Av E

RAVENNA PARK 25th Av NE

8th Av NE 7th Av NE

Roosevelt Way NE 11th Av NE

9th Av NE

8th Av NE

e

idg Br ty ris ive

Un

St cific Pa

Colorado Av S

Ohio Av S

Utah Av S

S Ohio Av

18th Av SW

21st Av SW

16th Av SW

15th Av SW

14th Av SW

23rd Av SW

35th Av SW

37th Av SW

27th Av SW

39th Av SW

41st Av SW

24th Av SW

24th Av SW 23rd Av SW 22nd Av SW Kelsey Ln SW 21st Av SW

S

Be

25th Av SW

S

S

S

27th Av SW

Av

Av Rainier Av S

S Roxbury St

S Bond St

S Nor oi

34th Av SW

rk

Av h as t Av le

Pa

11

on

S Burns St

sM

35th Av SW

d

S Fisher Pl

nt

S Cambridge St

De

oy

Oc

war

Re

S Barton St S Benefit St

SW

Arr

SW

Se ab W am H

S

39th Av SW

ail

Av

40th Av SW

h Tr

S Grattan St

RA AINIER N BEA BEACH EACH AC

S Henderson derson derso St

on

cil

S

ac

Ce

99

Av

Be

37th Av SW

alt

S Rose St

S Thistle St

S

41st Av SW

Ra

8th Av NE

5th Av NE

N E Av h

4t

Latona Av NE Thackeray Pl NE

Latona Av NE

4th Av NE

2nd Av NE

1st Av NE Eastern Av N

Sunnyside Av N

Corliss Av N

Bagley Av N

Meridian Av N Minor Av N

Fairview Av N

t St ar ew St

How

1st Av S Utah Av S 1st Av S

E Marginal Way S

6th Av S

19th Av SW

18th Av SW

20th Av SW

17th Av SW

PUGET PARK 19th Av SW

23rd Av SW

31st Av SW

17th Av SW 16th Av SW

Cottage Pl SW

Delridge Way SW 23rd Av SW

25th Av SW

26th Av SW

W 31st Av SW

32nd Av SW W

36th Av SW

Colorado Av S

11th Av SW

13th Av SW

16th Av SW

SW ay eW dg lri De 23rd Av SW

Way lon Ava SW

28th Av SW

Woodrose Pl SW

44th Av SW

California Av SW

S Holden St S Chicago St

S Trenton St

l Pl

42nd Av SW

Se

Northrop Pl SW

ief S Cloverdale St

na

44th Av SW

Ch

I-5

gi

43rd Av SW

S Austin St

S Kenyon St

S

S Cloverdale St

ar

45th Av SW

S Portland St

Rd

46th Av SW

22nd Av SW 21st Av SW

34th Av SW

SW 33rd Av SW

34th Av SW

37th Av SW

45th Av SW

44th Av SW

46th Av SW

48th Av SW

47th Av SW

y Av 47th Av SW SW Wright Av SW

Alaskan Way S

SW Av

35th Av SW

42nd Av SW

40th Av SW

41st Av SW

38th Av SW

39th Av SW

37th Av SW

36th Av SW

ay W y ro tle un Fa

WEST SEATTLE GOLF COURSE

49th Av SW Beach Dr SW 50th Av SW 49th Av SW

5th Av NE

M Burke Av N

Woodland Park Av N

Midvale Av N

LAKE UNION I-5 Colonnade Park

Dexter Av N

Westlake Av N

Aurora Av N

LAKE UNION PARK 8th Av N 9th Av N

Westlake Av N

DENNY PLAYFIELD

Boren Av N

Terry Av N

St d ar ch St

an

ra

St

no

ia

Le

in rg

41st Av SW

42nd Av SW

nt ou irm Fa Belvidere Av SW

39th Av SW Walnut Av SW

37th Av SW

44th Av SW

45th Av SW

47th Av SW

46th Av SW

California Av SW

49th Av SW

48th Av SW

50th Av SW

51st Av SW

52nd Av SW

53rd Av SW

54th Av SW

20th Av NE

E N Pin

3rd Av NE

Corliss Av N

NORTH SEATTLE COMMUNITY COLLEGE

Wallingford Av N College Way N

W oo cK dlaw in le n Av y Pl N N

WOODLAND PARK

Ashworth Av N

Wallingford Av N

Densmore Av N

Woodlawn Av N

Stone Wy N

Ashworth Av N Carr Pl N

Interlake Av N

Albion Pl N Woodland Park Av N

QUEEN ANNE GREENBELT 6th Av N

St ry l St Bel

Bl

SW Av rry Fe

California Av SW

SW Av et Garlough Av SW

SCHMITZ PARK

56th Av SW 55th Av SW

36th Av NE

Roosevelt Way NE

W ay st ur eh

Meridian Av N W te

ga rth No NE

Linden Av N Whitman Av N Winslow Pl N

BF DAY PLAYGROUND

Fremont Bridge

St ay Cl St ad

l St al

Vi

SW W

Av et ns Su

ail SW

Al Al ki Tr ki Av ns Su SW Av es gh Hu 56th Av SW

58th Av SW

Marine Av SW

57th Av SW

60th Av SW

59th Av SW

61st Av SW

Alki Av SW

64th Av SW

62nd Av SW

63rd Av SW

17th Av NE

11th Av NE

10th Av NE

15th Av NE

N Av rliss

9th Av NE

Stone Av N

ay

Aurora Av N Whitman Av N

Stone Av N

Densmore Av N Wallingford Av N

Aurora Av N

Linden Av N

Fremont Av N Greenwood Av N

Dayton Av N

Palatine Av N Greenwood Av N Phinney Av N

Evanston Av N

ZOO

Greenwood Av N

Linden Av N

Aurora Av N

DaytonAv N

Fremont Avv N

Mayfair Av N

3rd Av N Nob Hll Av N

3rd Av N

5th Av N

4th Av N Bigelow Av N

Warren Av N

2nd Av W

Taylor Av N

4th Av W

2nd Av W

3rd Av W

1st Av W

5th Av W

6th Av W

3rd Av W

16th Av W

Evanston Av N Fremont Av N

Phinney Av N P

ROSS PLAYGROUND

5th Av NW

4th Av NW

2nd Av NW

8th 7th Av W

13th Av W

14th Av W

15th Av W

1st Av NW

Bro

te

W

B at

10th Av W Westview Dr W

INTERBAY ATHLETIC FIELD

W dyk e Av

Woodland Pl N

Sycamore Av NW 5th Av NW

4th Av NW 3rd Av NW

2nd Av NW

8th Av NW

6th Av NW

7th Av NW

W

Av 13th Av W

12th Av W

11th Av W

9th Av W

14th Av W

Prosch Av W 13 th Av W

8th Av W

1st Av N

W dik e Av

17th Av WTh

orn

12th Av W

11th Av W

10th Av W

Queen Anne Av N

21st Av W 20th Av W

21st Av W

22nd Av W

23rd Av W

24th Av W

16th Av W 15th Av W

th Pl W 27th

26th Av W

25th Av W

28th Av W

27th Av W

Th

on t t W Way W ay W

on m w

Vie

Palatine Av N

Ballard Bridge

NOTE

27th Av W

W Williams Av W

Pl th 28 29th Av W

orn

W Pl a st vi te

on Eas

tm

32nd Av W

9th Av W

38th Av W 37th Av W

40th Av W

39th Av W

M

SEATTLE

y SW Delrid ge W a

5th Pl S

19th Av NE

4th Av NE

Bagley Av N

1st Av NE

Corliss Av N

3rd Av NE

Wallingford Av N

Burke Av N Wayne Pl N Meridian Av N

Sunnyside Av N

Courtland Pl N

Stone Av N

Interlake Av N

Midvale Av N Lenora Pl N

Stone Av N

N re Av smo Den Ashworth Av N

N Park Av N Interurban Trail

Greenwood Av N

Linden Av N North Park Av N

Dayton Av N

Fremont Av N

3rd Av NW

4th Av NW

6th Av NW

7th Av NW

8th Av NW

Dibble Av NW

9th Av NW Dibble Av NW

Division Av NW

13th Av NW

10th Av NW

12th Av NW

9th Av NW

11th Av NW

14th Av NW

15th Av NW

17th Av NW

24th Av NW

20th Av NW

22nd Av NW

26th Av NW

den Chitten 30th Av W

31st Av W

3 32nd Av W

45th Av W

Magnolia Blvd W

39th Av W

40th Av W

33rd Av W

34th Av W

36th Av W

35th Av W

37th Av W

38th Av W

Magnolia Blvd W

W Viewmont Way W

Perkins Ln W

42nd Av W

43rd Av W

44th Av W

Mary Av NW Alonzo Av NW

25th Av NW

27th Av NW

Earl Av NW 28th Av NW 28th Av NW

30th Av NW

ks Loc 36th Av W

l Rd NE Cana

LAKE WASHINGTON

Rd NE Walla Walla

Montlake Bridge

Ashworth Av N

Greenwood Av N

Fremont Av N

Evanston Av N

Dayton Av N

Phinney Av N

3rd Av NW

4th Av NW

5th Av NW

7th Av NW

4th Av NW

1st Av NW

2nd Av NW

11th Av NW

9th Av NW

Valmay Av NW Mary Av NW

15th Av NW

11th Av NW

12th Av NW

15th Av NW

16th Av NW

17th Av NW

18th Av NW

19th Av NW

20th Av NW

21st Av NW

22nd Av NW

23rd Av NW

Jones Av NW

30th Av NW

32nd Av NW 33rd Av NW

35th Av NW

34th Av NW

37th Av NW

Seaview Av NW

36th Av NW

32nd Av NW

42nd Av W

34th Av NW 35th Av W 34th Av W

33rd Av W

32nd Av W

25th Ave NE

LAURELHURST, SANDPOINT

Pen

40th Av W

23rd Ave NE

24th Ave NE

22nd Ave NE

19th Ave NE

20th Ave NE

21st Ave NE

Rd Mason

NE

Blvd NE Mountlake

E Stev ens Way

E Pl

Ashworth Av N

Ct Blak ely NW

9th Av NW

10th Av NW

11th Av NW

12th Av NE 24th Av NW

26th Av NW

29th Av NW

13th Av NW

22nd Av NW

23rd Av NW

14th Av NW

NW y Av ne W hit

NW Av View

NW s Dr den Gol

den

Gar

31st Av NW

8th Ave S

7th Ave S

Maynard Ave S

5th Ave S

4th Ave S

6th Ave S

1st Ave S 18th Ave NE

ke tla on M W

6th Ave S

Fauntleroy Way SW

S Fontanelle St S Webster St

ry

46th Av SW

S

S Webster St

lita Mi

47th Av SW

d Tr

rra

lan

Mu

Up

BOEING FIELD

S

LINCOLN PARK

S

Av

Fauntleroy Way SW

S

Av

n

MERCER ISLAND

Av

rk

S Garden St

S Othello St

co

Lakeside Ave S

on

Pa

ils

rd

S Myrtle St S Orchard St

Bea

LAKE WASHINGTON

Sewa

S

S Frontenac St

S

NOTE

S

Av

S

Dr

36th Ave S

Av

dS

57th

on Blv

OTHELLO S Willow St

10

S Brighton St

inier

Jr Way

rk

S Myrtle St

Ra

King

Pa

Lake Washington Blvd S

shingt

FRINK PARK

Wa

S Eddy St

S Holly St

lly

S Frontenac St

SW 102nd St

SW 112th St

9

S Hawthorn Rd d Rd an Upl S

S Eddy St S Morgan St

ML

S Willow St

Ho

33rd Ave S

Lk

ail

32nd Ave S

ay

W

h Tr

S Spencer St S Bateman St S Graham St

M

W SW

NOTE

eW

S

alt

S

Dr

QUEEN ANNE

se

r Av

S

Se

S Kenny St S Raymond St

S Eddy St S Angel Pl

S Morgan St

S Warsaw St

ay

31st Ave S

Interlake Av N

CAPITOL HILL

ar

Alaskan Way S University Way NE

16th Ave NE

17th Ave NE

Brooklyn Ave NE

15th Ave NE

Memorial Way NE

e Bridg rsity ive

1st Ave S UE S BRID GE 1ST AVEN

2nd Ave S

ne

ie

n Av

ief

DOWNTOWN

S Ge

in

S Farrar St S Dawson St

S Findlay St

Av S

tW

SODO

RK R PA KE BA MT

Ra

Rento

S Pearl St

S Brandon St

S Mead St

South Park Bridge CLOSED until 2013

w

15th Ave NW

Lakewood Av S

S Angeline St

S Mayflower St

S Sullivan St

S Donovan St

S Alaska St

S Lucile St

W

Vie

BALLARD BRIDGE

NE

S

S Pl Jill S th Av 28 Ch

Beac on

S

or

e

15th Ave W

Dr

NE

rst

Dr

lhu

rst

ure

lhu

La

ure

W

E La

CAUTION ON MONTLAKE BRIDGE

Linden Av N

8 th Av A NW 8th

How el l St

t St

Vir gi ni a ew St

Roosevelt Way NE

9th Ave NE

11th Ave NE

7th Ave NE

8th Ave NE

12th Ave NE

4th Ave NE

Co

Melrose Ave E

Eastlake Ave E

Yale Ave N

Olive Wa y

Minor Ave N

Pontius Ave N

9th Ave N

8th Ave N

Fairview Ave N

DENNY PLAYFIELD

Terry Ave N

Boren Ave N

6th Ave N

Dexter Ave N

Aurora Ave N

St te ry

St

Bel l St

nc ha rd St

Bla

Le no ra

St

2nd Ave N

St

5th Ave N

r St Ce da

Vin e St W al l St

Bat

Thackeray Pl NE

Latona Ave NE

2nd Ave NE

5th Ave NE

Un

NE

NE

E Broadway

Av

Av

k Rd

S

S Snoqualmie St

S Juneau St

Av

rp

S

S Thistle St

NE Pl E e ho Pl N E N d ol Pl Har klas Nic

rd

Bella vista Av S

Yor

a Av

S Oregon St

S Ferdinand St

S Hudson St

S Juneau St

ift Ai

VE R

S Rose St

S

S Adams St

y

S Brandon St

S Director St S Barton St

Wa

S Orcas St

Sw

S

RI

S Southern St

ay

an

43

S n Blvd ingto S Lk Wash Av dia Pl Ca sca ams Ad Mt

Le titi

ver

COLUMBIA COLUM COLU C COLUMBI CO OLUMB O UM U UMBIA UMB MB BIA A CITY CI C IITY TY TY

S Edmunds St

y Av

lW

8

S

S

no

S S Americus St

le

na

MERCER ISLAND

e Dr

n Av

S Co S Alaska St

an

H

gi

7

S Charlestown St

S Genesee St

y

S

St

IS

S Trenton St

SW Cambridge St

Mt Clair

nto

n Wa

25th Av

S

S Chicago St S Kenyon St

ar

6

On Sunday afternoons in the summer, Lake Washington Boulevard is open for cyclists and pedestrians. It is closed to motor vehicle traffic from Lake Park Dr to Seward Park. http://www.seattle.gov/parks/bicyclesunday/

S Dakota St

S

ay

S Portland St

M

Iv

th

E

MOUNT BAKER

24th Av

tW

ow St

4

48

21st Ave SW

E N

1st Ave NE

NE

Av

NE

lin

WALLINGFORD, FREMONT, BALLARD

Av

er

Av

Ob

ar

LAKE UNION

th

ss

irv iew Av e e Av eE

54

Va

Fa

NE

ak

Av

stl

st

Ea

41

NE

Boylston Ave E

Pl

d Pl

rd

3r

43

10

Franklin Ave E

NE

Eastlake Ave E

NE

NE

Yale Ave E

era Pl

Way

22nd Ave SW

Rivi

Durland

NE

23rd Ave SW

NE

t Way

NE

n St

Re

WEST SEATTLE

Poin

NE Way Bar tlett NE n Way Alto

ter Way

Sand

Exe

l Dr

St

Av S

2nd Ave SW

NE

NE

Av

ria

vd

or

Pl

KING COUNTY INTL AIRPORT E

W AM

SSOUTH OUTH OUT TTH H PARK P ARK K

SW

in

17th Ave NW

er

NE

e Av

mo

n Bl

rp

l Av

n Pl

SW

ar

NOTE

sid

et Ex

e Pl

ke

sid

La

Me

lla

Beacon

Ai

S Will

S Monroe St S Elmgrove St

identa

rso

ay

M

12

ke

tes

S

y

S Austin St S Holden St

bro

Rd

5

S Perry St

SW 104th St

SW 110th St

La

Ga

Av

n Wa

S Webster St

Occ

nde

eW

SW

INTERBAY DOWNTOWN

lde

S Henderson St

He

dg

Av

Map of planned bike facility network [BMP 2007]

S De

bia

SW

lri

th

shared-use path ends under Ballard bridge

bia

S St S Al

509

BICYCLE FACILITIES W Emerson St

inier

lum

Av

it Av

De

50

SALMON BAY

Colum

S Bennett St

S Juneau St

ey St S Harn ey St S Bail

S Eddy

S Concord St

SW 99thSt

SW 108th St

NW 45th St

Ra

S Co

er

s St S Dori St raska

S Neb

e

I-90

S McClellan St

SW 100th St

ARBOR ARBOR HEIIGH HEIGHTS HEIG HEIGH GHTS HTS H

Ave NW

ry

yS

tro

SW

ole

d

t Wa

S Pearl St S Dawson St

St

SW 97th St

SW 107th St

Shilsh

Blv

inier

por

mer

s St

SW 98th St

SW

S

S Shelton St

SW 106th St S

NW 46th St

Ma

n

S S Pl a Av vis Da awath Hi S Av

Ra

Air

S Alaska St

DU

De

Pl

SW Barton St

NW Ballard Way Does not go through

to

W VIE OR RB HA RK PA

mish Trail SW Austin St

SW Cloverdale St

gto

vad St S Ne ee nes S Ge

S Snoqualmie St

n St

S Fontanelle St

SW Kenyon St

SW Cloverdale St

SW Roxbury St

Ho

ca

S Wa

a St

S Lucile St

S Or

S Brighton St

SW Henderson St

SW 101st St

ng

Av

Av

rry

ren

Te

r Av

it Av

Av

no

Bo

mm

Mi

ton

Su

yls

Av

Bo

rd

Duwa

SW Thistle St

S Oregon St

nv

SW

SW Elmgrove St

S Nevada St

De

ay

SW Holden St

S Dakota St

ay

S

lW

SW

Way SW

Pl

S Hill St S Walker St

S Mt Baker Blvd

S Spokane St

Av

na

e

Dum ar

kl

hin

S Winthrop St

S Hinds St

er

gi

y SW

in

higa

S River St

SW Michigan St

SW Orchard St

SW Orchard St

Sh

lW

er

MOUNTAINS TO SOUND TRAIL APPROX. 2MI/3.3KM TO MERCER ISLAND

S Horton St

nv

ar

Wa

w St

SW Kenyon St

SW Cambridge St

NW Ballard Way

hi

rva

stria

S

S Mic

Always yield to pedestrians.

SW Trenton St

Pl

as

Ha

De

M

ge

SW Willo

SW Wildwood Pl

BALLARD

Av

W

ER H RIV AMIS DUW

SW

lrid

FOREST LAWN CEMETERY

SW Director St

rd

du

S Dawson St S Bennett St S Brandon St S Lucille St

Cyclists may use east sidewalk.

SOUTH SEATTLE COMMUNITY COLLEGE

SW Henderson St

43

Was Fr Lk in k Pl

LLESCHI ESSC ES CH C HII H

S Hanford St

S Angeline St

S Fidalgo St

SW Sullivan St SW Tillman St

S Bradford St S Andover St

In

S Findlay St

SW

SW SW Holden St

SW Rose St

SW

S Judkins St

S Ferdinand St

t Pl

n Way

SW Webster St

SW Southern St

S Stevens St S Winthrop St

vS lA

S Front St

Ct SW

SW Othello St

SW Monroe St

na

I-5

SW Portland St

roy

11 SEWARD PARK

Rd

Gle nr id ge W SW Austin ay StSW SW Ida St SW Holden St

go

GEORGETOWN O GEE W

SW Myrtle St

SW Concord St

ON

COLMAN PARK

Sylvan Ln SW

St

ck

m

rthur

Sylva

lo

llicu

S Charles St

BEACON B BE BEAC EACO EA AC A C CO ON O N HILL HI H ILL ILLL LL

S Forest St

S Alaska St

S Mead St

De

Hem

Ti

Av SW 29th Av SW 30th

SW

SW Rose St

un tle

AND VASH

SW Orchard St

Dia

rm

I-90

S State St

S Hinds St

SW

SW Mills St SW Frontenac St

Fa

HWORTH TO SOUT FERR IES WELCOME BICYCLES

MacA SW Holly St

SW Willow St

SW Myrtle St SW

FAUNTLEROY COVE

No access to I-90 bridge via Lakeside Ave S

t Dr

Py

in

n

Po

ol

S King St S Weller St S Lane St

S Holgate St

S Horton St

Av SW

Bata an

SW

nc

SW Morgan St

SW Holly St

SW

inal Way

gh

SW Graham St SW

y Way

am Av

tlero

Lake Dell Av

S

S College St

S Spokane St

S Hudson St

E

E James St E Terrace St

E Yesler Way

S Grand St

SSODO OD DO

S Hanford St

S

Crof

Hi

SW Raymond St

Lanh

Li

10

I-90 BRIDGE

BEACON HILL

DELRIDGE D E RIID EL IDG DG D GE

SW Findlay St

St

l Dr

E Spruce St E Fir St

S Waite St

SW Dakota St

on

rffe

E Denny Wy

MADRONA M ADRO DR DRO D RON RO NA

E Marion St

S Charleston St

ws

Do

S Stacy St

SW Idaho St

Da

E Prospect St

E Howell St

E Columbia St E Cherry St

S McClellan St

West Seattle Low Level Bridge

W Marg

Rd

SW Dawson St

Pl S Irving St

Entrance to Bicycle & Pedestrian Tunnel

SW Yancy St

SW Adams St SW Nevada St

E Lee St

E Valley St

E Olive St

S Bayview St

99

E Galer St

E Spring St

St S Lander S

SW

en SW Hudson St

Faun

E Spring St

S Atlantic St

S Forest St

de

520

E Mercer St E Ford Pl

E Denny Wy

CENTRAL C EN EENT NTRAL NT TR RA A DISTRICT DI DIS D ISTRIC TTR RICT CT

St

on

dis

S Plum St

t Av

obs

S Fri nk

S Jackson St

SW Andover St

SW Juneau St

hin Was

E Ma

S Massachusetts St

SW

Jac

La

E

SW

Av

SW

ke

E Yesler Way

Blvd

n Av

th

A RK E KWPA ME OKS MO

Pl W

SW Oregon St

SW Edmunds St

SW Brandon St

UW, CAPITOL HILL, ARBORETUM gton

Euclid Ave

ela

St

E Harrison St

E Denny Wy E Howell St

S Walker St

in

NE 40th St NE 39th St

E Ward St

E Union St

a St

W

NE 41st St

E Highland St

S Dearborn St

SAFECO FIELD

16

berg

SW Genesee St

SW Alaska St

SOUTH PARK

I-90 BRIDGE

Ch

SW Spokane St

NE

E Garfield St

E Alder St

Edgar Martinez Dr S

ta

WEST WEST WE SEATTLE SE SEA SSEATT EAT EEATT ATTLE AT A T TLLEE

9 S Portland St

519

icki

SW Dakota St

E Howe St

S Main St S King St

NE

E McGilvra St E McGraw St

E Boston St

E Jefferson St

KING STREET STATION

Kl

Chil

R VE RI

S Austin St S Holden St

SW Hinds St

y

SW Andover St

g St

h St

Av

NE 33rd

E Newton St

E John St

E Olive St E Pine St

S Lander St

SW Manning St

SW Carroll St

rin

Av

SW Hinds St

SW Charlestown St

S Fontanelle St

8th

SW Hanford St

SW Spokane St

St

Sp

9th

SW Stevens St

St

Roy St ER Mercer St E Merc M

E John St

St

SW

ca

nd

S Jackson St

er

Av

Wa

SW Orleans

SW

rd

ne

38t

E Blaine St

E Thomas St

E John St

CENTURY LINK FIELD

ral

h Dr

53

CAPITOL CA CAPITO C APITOL A API P PIIITTO TO TOL OLL HILL H ILLLLL

S Royal Brougham Way

mi

ac

lW

E Ward St

E Harrison St

NE

MADISON N PARK

S Washington St

nd

mira

E

Ad

H IS AM W DU

Be

SW Admiral Way

SW Lander St

La

Ad

E Prospect St

E Terrace St

H R O HARBOR IISLAND A D

SW Grayson St

SW

S

S Brighton St

SW SW Hanford St

SW Florid

SW

lW ay

SW College St

SW

na

E Highland St

E Valley St

E Roy St

NE 61st St NE 60th St

To cross Lake Washington at SR520, load your bike onto a bus at the Montlake Freeway Station.

Bicycle/Pedestrian Tunnel

r Av

gi

MONTLAKE MO M ONT NTLA TL KEE

vd

E Helen St

S Holgate St

rbo

ar

n Bl

E Aloha St

S Massachusetts St

SW Pritchard St

ay

W H ye W Bl ow r Av ai e St ne E St

ke

I-5

Ha

S Rive

M

d Av

SW Walker St

SW Prince St

v

8

hig

E

2n

an St

4thA

SW Holgate St SW Hill St

TL

rla

E Galer St

LAKE VIEW

St

n Av

SW

SW Seattle St

SW Massachusetts St

r SW

Se

y SW

Av

Always yield to pedestrians.

r St

PA RK

a Wa

rD

rni

ai

AT

te

E Crescent Dr

PLAC E Prospect St E

St

ter

lifo lm

Bon

T SE

In

E Pike St

Pine

Wes

Ca Pa

S Front St

WES

Bo E

E Garfield St

VOLUNTEER PARK

E Highland Dr

L U ELHU LAURELHURST LAURE URSSTT

UNION BAY

W

Av

E Louisa St E Miller St E Calhoun St

E Blaine St

LAKE VIEW CEMETERY

NE 45th St

k Rd

Lk

h

Av

Westlake Av N

RK PA

h

HUSKY STADIUM

E McGraw St

E Boston St

E Howe St

Clar

42

WASHINGTON CANAL

E Lynn St

E Newton St

I-5

NE 47th St

Lake Washington Blvd E

520

E Lynn St

E Newton St

NE 50th St

NE

MAGNUSON PARK

Princeton Way NE

NE 52nd St

NE

6t

SA SAND SSAN A AND AN N ND D POINT POINT OINTT OIN

NE 55th St

NE

3 NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION

NE ParkPl

NE Radford Dr

NE 60th St

y Pl

7t

Av

PORTAGE BAY

E Louisa St E Miller St

SAND POINT COUNTRY CLUB

sta

Ba

h

Av

NE

Rd

LAKE

E Roanoke St

Ct

Av E

l

ai DS AR W ED

4t d

Av

bia

an

NE

NE

Dr

NE Crown Pl

n Vi

NE 58th St

UNIVERSITY VILLAGE

23rd

y Tr

3r

d

CASCADE PLAY GROUND

ay

hitm

UW MEDICAL CENTER

lum

E

Ba

DENNY PARK

sW

Dr

tt

TLE YR M

lio

99

en

c St

Co

ar

El

2n

E Roanoke St

ev

m

Thomas St

cifi

St

Del

RK PA

mile

SW Atlantic St

TO

XI

E Shelby St

EASTLAKE A TLAK

Roy St Mercer St

ELLIOTT BAY TA ER WAT ME RI AN ELCO W ST DE PE CLES BICY

E Gwynn St

Valley St

St

Harrison St

Denny Way

Pa

NE

Ward St

Republican St

John St

NE

St

E Allison St

E Hamlin St

includes pedestrian connections between Eastlake and Capitol Hill and a technical mountain bike course

SEATTLE CENTER SPACE NEEDLE

W

at

N 35th St

ISLAND & BREMERTON

ALKI ALKI A

Cyclists may use east sidewalk.

BALLARD BRIDGE

oad

Bo

e

Pl

W Mercer St

W AT ER FR ON T

S Mead St S Fidalgo St

S Michigan St

N 36th St

W

n Av

w

Br

NE

hrma

ra

Pl

W McGraw St

DOW DOWNTOWN WN WN

1ST AVENUE S BRIDGE

-Gilm

rke

NE Northlake Pl

I-5 N 37th St

Pike

FERRIES TO BAINBRIDGE BICYCLES WELCOME

Bu

il

Fu

Wheeler St

Roy St

W John St

ba

NE 57th St

ion

N e Dr Halladay St

BELLTOWN B BEL ELLLT LTTO OW W WN N

7

NE Campus Pkwy

Tra

an

NE 65th St

CALVARY CATHOLIC CEMETERY

s Av

ess

Un

N 39th St

N 38th St

Valley St

W Thomas St

NE

NE 68th St

NE 57th St

NE

yN

h St

a Pl

NE 42nd St N 41st St

Aloha St

W Harrison St

NE

W

NE 43rd St

WALLINGFORD W WA ALLL AL LLING IN IINGFOR NG GFO FO FO OR R RD D

N 42nd St

N 40th St

58t

NE Blakely St

N 43rd Stt

WALLING FORD PLAY GROUND

Ward St

W Republican St

NE

venn

N 47th St

GASWORKS PARK

BHY KRACKE PARK

r Pl

Y BA

- 1/4

S Frontage Rd

MERIDIAN PLAY GROUND

N 48th St

Crockett St Newton St

W Kinnear St

ce

N 56th St

N 50th St

KERRY

T OT LI EL

SW Spokane St

SW Andover St

S Mic

N 51st St

N 57th St

N 34th St

E QUEEN ANNE PLAYGROUND

Hayes St

W Olympic Pl

K

Mer

N 58th St

Ra

t Pl

cG

w

W

ance

SW

vd

yN

Ann

M

ra

Av

l Way

N 52nd St

N 49th St

Smith St

cG

tt

gina

N 55th St

N 53rd St

W Prospect St PARK

PA R

W

NE 62nd St

COWEN PARK

NE 61s Rav t enn St a Blv d

NE

N 59th St

L

W Highland St

AR

NE 63rd St

N 61st St N 60th St

N 44th St

ge

Ur

NE 70th St

RAVENNA RAV RAVE R AVENNA AV AVENN VENNA NN N NA

tthew

ern

NE 72nd St

NE 70th St

NE 68th St

NE 65th St

N 62nd St

N 54th St

yN

NA

W Comstock St

FERR BICY IES TO CLES VA WE SHON LCOM ISLA ND E

Dist

Ave

W Mar

a Bl

id

NE 86th St NE 85th St

NE 75th St

NE 66th St

N 63rd St

N 46th St

Gap

lan

Che

SW

nn

W

ke

ve

nla

Inv

NE 80th St

NE 73rd St

ROOSEVELT ROO R O OSSSEEVELLT

Ra

ee

Ma

NE 87th St

NE 75th St

N 64th St

E Edgar St

Queen

M W Galer St

CA

Lynn St Boston St

W QUEEN ANNE PLAYFIELD

W Garfield St

enla

Gre

W Newell St

W Crockett St

W Blaine St

tW

SH

IP

QUEEN QUEEN EEN A AN ANN ANNE NNE

W Howe St

Br

on

on

ail

NE 88th St

NE 76th St

NE

em

em

Tr

GT ON

NE 90th St NE 89th St

NE 77th St

N 45th St

Fr

Fr

St

DAVID ROGERS W Armour St PARK

W Smith St

W McGraw St

KIN NE

6

an

W Dravus St

W Lee St

BIKE SHOP

WEST SEATTLE BRIDGE

lm

W Halladay St

lio

LIBRARY

Gi

W Florentia St

El

PUBLIC SCHOOL

N 36th

e-

Sh ip Ca na l Tr W Cremona St ail

SEATTLE PACIFIC UNIVER SITY

W

W Garfield St

rk

HIN

MATTHEWS BEACH PARK NE 93rd St

NE 92nd St NE 91st St

WEDGWOOD W EDGWO DG GWOOD GWO G WO O D OOD

NE 80th St

N ke Dr

NE

t St

Magnolia Bridge

Bu

W AS

N

N

Av

na

Av

ke

W Plymouth St

W Hayes St W Eaton St

KE

W Wheeler St

Gr

E

NW 39th St

LA

NE 94th St NE 93rd St

NE 82nd St

GREEN LAKE

99

NW Bowdoin Pl

MT PLEASANT CEMETERY W Raye St

SMITH COVE W Marina Pl PARK

FARMERS’ MARKET

ar

W

yW

W

Av e St

NW 40th St

W Fulton St

W

e

Wa

ac

th

W Crockett St W Newton St

W Howe St

Blain

N 43rd St N Motor Pl

FREMONT FREMON FFR REEEM REMO R EMON MO ON NTT N

W Dravus St W Etruria St

n Dr

Pl

ndon

ise

Cl

35

RK PA

W

MADISON PARK

INTERBAY Y

W Lynn Pl W Lynn St W Boston St

N Allen Pl

NW 44th St

W Barrett St

ma

W McGraw St

W Bertona St

Gil

W Smith St

E Miller St

P-PATCH COMMUNITY GARDENS UW TOWER UNIVERSITY BOOKSTORE BURKE MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY & CULTURE POST OFFICE HENRY ART GALLERY UW CAMPUS

M

W W Dravus St

W Halladay St

E Calhoun St

NW

NW 42nd St

NE 95th St

NE 85th St

n

Ba

NW Fern Pl

Dr

Pl N ton sing Ken Pl N Pl N stone kwood Key

Le

NW 43rd St

ke

N d Pl N oo nw d Pl Ke el nfi Ca

NW NW W NW N Av l Av Av el rd y lla ar

NW

ss

or Pl

W Raye St

Co

LIA NO AG M

W

E Louisa St

CAPITOL HILL FIRST HILL

NW Bright St

W W Ew Nic in ke g St W rs Em on er St so n W Ruffner St St

n Av

Av

W

NW 45th St

W Armour St

W

rd

d

NW 48th St

NW 46th St

ma

43

Blv

NW 49th St

Gil

W Bertona St

W Barrett St

t Pl

lia

NW 52nd St

W

Pl

no

W Man

MAGNOLIA MAG MAGNO MA M AGNOL NOL OLIA A

on

ag

Av

n Pl

rt

tm

M

Av

rto

tfo

Ru

Bu

on

es

M

GILMAN PLAY GROUND

NW 53rd St

NW 41st St

W Grover St

N 57th St

NW 55th St

NW 51st St NW 50th St

W

W Ruffner St

W Prosper St

Cr

W

NW 60th St

NW 54th St

NW Ballard Way Does not go through

LAWTON PARK W Tilden St

5

ay

W Elmore St

W Thurman St

W Fulton St

E University Blvd

NW 62nd St

NW Leary Way NW Ballard Way

Pl

W

an

W

an

Av W

Av

NW

ore

es

Av

od

rn

le

mm

lm Gi

31s t

ice

llm

ho

W Government Way

W Elmore St

Co

Ba

ils

W Fort St

W Emerson St

Ta

Sh

SALMON BAY

W

W McCord Pl

Av

6

Cyclists must dismount.

W Lawton St

n

5

re Way

to

3

W Commodo

as Wa W Lawton St y

DISCOVERY PARK Pr

NW 58th St

la

N 77th St

West

N 65th St

NW Market St

E McGraw St

EASTLAKE DOWNTOWN

2

(gravel pathway)

LAKE WASHINGTON CANAL E Hamlin St

N 57th St

ng

Rd

E Shelby St

NW 70th St

en

2

S

NE 96th St

NE 94th St

NE 90th St

Wino

B BALLARD BALLAR AL A ALLAR ALLARD LLLARD AR ARD AR RD D NW 60th St

hi

a

Tex

WEST POINT LIGHTHOUSE

NW 67th St

NE 97th St

NE 86th St

Gre

N 77th St

NE 98th St

NE 88th St

N 84th St

N 79th St

NE 100th St

NE 98th St

NE 95th St

NE 91st St

N 83rd St

N 78th St

NE 103rd St

NE 100th St

NE 96th St

NE 89th St

E

NE 105th St

NE 97th St

N 88th St

N 81st St N 80th St

NE 113th St NE 110th St

NE 102nd St

N 89th St

N 82nd St

W

NW 77th St

NW 65th St

as

bi

PORTAGE PORTAGE BAY BAY

E Roanoke St

yN

NW 80th St

W

m

St

e n Av

HUSKY STADIUM

Co

lu

4

er

hrma

Fu

UW MEDICAL CENTER N

Heavy traffic, limited crossings & congested sidewalks on bridge. Bicyclists recommended to use east sidewalk.

DAYBREAK STAR ART & CULTURAL CENTER

am

-G

NE 104th St

N 86th St

NW 56th St

Cr

sW ay NE ilm an Tr ail

W

St

E

E Shelby St

E Hamlin St

ev en

ke

NE 105th St

N 87th St

NW 83rd St

lW

NE 115th St

NE 110th St

NE 103rd St

N 92nd St

W

NE 117th St

MAPLE M A APLLE APL LLEAF LEA AF A

Kir

NE

at

E Gwynn St

St

Bur

I-5

aw

a Pl

W

E Allison St

E Edgar St

it

UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON

6

UNIVERSITY VILLAGE SHOPPING CENTER

reille Rd d OWh

NE Northlake Pl

Bo

47th Av W

Ct NE an

5

NE Campus Pkwy

n Trai

NE

NE Blakely St

m

NE 43rd St

1 NE 40th St l

4

SHILSHOLE BAY

RAVENNA venn Ra

4

ilma

ya

NE 120th St

NORTH N O ORTH ORT RTH HGATE HG GATTEE GATE

NE Northgate Way

N 90th St

N 87th St

NW 87th St

NE 124th St

NE 92nd St

NW 85th St

NW 73rd St

NE 45th St

NE 42nd St

Burke-G

NW

Rd

an

N

NE 125th St

NE 117th St

NE 107th St

G EENW GREENWOOD GR WO OOD D

CROW CR CROWN ROWN HILL H ILLL

NW 86th St

lm

NW 75th St

GREEN LAKE

NE 43rd St

1

Lo

3

N 52nd St

3

10

NW

NW 100th St

1

KIRKLAND

LLAKE A E CITY C TY Y

NE 123rd St

NE 115th St

NE 113thh St

N 85th St

FARMERS’ MARKET

N 51st St

2

df

NW 96th St

NW 90th St

BIKE SHOP

N 53rd St

NE 44th St

GOLDEN GARDENS

LIBRARY

UNIVERSITY BRIDGE ROOSEVELT N 50th St

Pl

NE 115th St

dl

10

Ra

Ho

ne

h Pl

N 117th St

N 115th St

oo W

9

tu

0t

NE 127th St

NE 120th St

NE

7 8

ep

NW 103rd St

NE 130thSt

NE 124th St NE 123rd St

Pl

6

N

NW 110th St

Pl

NE 125th St

N 121st St N 120th St

WASHELI CEMETERY

99

NE

m

5

W

NW 105th St

ay

ra

4

NW N

de

NW

d Av

tW

24th Av

PUBLIC SCHOOL

P-PATCH COMMUNITY GARDENS CINERAMA PACIFIC PLACE WESTLAKE CENTER WASHINGTON STATE CONVENTION & TRADE CENTER PIKE PLACE MARKET SEATTLE ART MUSEUM CENTRAL LIBRARY PIONEER SQUARE BIKE PORT

1

na

or

Dr

SODO

pla

Es

NW

NW

e Dr Av od wo

dg Ri ue Rich

ge

S Lane St S Dearborn St

Bl

Rid

S Weller St

ue

S King St

Airport Way S

Bl

PUGET SOUND

S Main St

KING STREET STATION

NW

S Washington St

el

E N

Sp

Yesler Way

10

NW Norcross Dr Woo dbin e Way

NW

ev

ay W

2

St

os

in in

ruce

NW 112th St

th

dw

Alde

NW 112th St

30

Hi

St

r St

Ro

HALLER LAKE N 122nd St

G

NE 134th St NE 133rd St

NE

Goo

e Av

EW VI OR RB HA RK PA

tern Wes

ce

rra

Te

NW 114th St

CARKEEK PARK

n St

rso

ffe

Je

N 130th St

N 128th St

Av NE

e Av

e d Av 2n e Av 1st

s St

NE 135th St

Av NE

3rd

e Av 4th

9

NW 117th St

NW 116th St

St

me

Ja

N

24th

NW 117th St

St

bia

erry

Ch

ay

NW 118th St

St

lum

Co

W

Av NE

e Av

e Av 9th

th

ion

Mar

e Av 5th

8

NW 120th St

NW 120th St

CENTURYLINK FIELD

3

NW 125th St

10

g St

rin

S Jackson St

2

NW 127th St

NW 122nd St

NW 119th St

N 131st St

N 130th St

NE 140th St

NE 137th St

elt

Pl

e Av

n St

iso

Mad

ev

an

th

e Av

11

St

Sp

Ferries to Bainbridge Island & Bremerton: Bicycles Welcome

th

Se

7

e Av

12

ca

ne

PA RK

th

rsi

ive

Un

6

NW 131st St NW 130th St

NE 140th St

NE 138th St

os

km

13

St

ty

e Av

Un

Ro

N 135th St

oc

th

St

ion

N 137th St

BITTER

F

NE 143rd St

Br

14

5 St

ke

Pi

E NE 145th St

JACKSON PARK GOLF COURSE

NE

3 4 St

ELLIOTT BAY

NW 137th St

BROADVIEW B RO R OADV D W LAKE

NW 132nd St

hA ve

ne

e om xi to r Ta s Welc Wate cycle Bi ian le: destr Pe t Seatt Wes

NW 140th St NW Elford Dr

1

hA ve

hA ve

hA ve

NW 143rd St

NW Northwood Rd

9t 8t

7t

2 4t

Pi

W AT ER FR ON T

NW Culbertson Dr

Pl NE

1 W ay

D Sherwood Rd

23rd

hA ve

hA ve

C

23rd

6t 5t

B

26th

Cl ay

St

Bro ad

1

NW

Ave

N

rn

A

EASTLAKE U DISTRICT CASCADE PLAYGROUND

Thomas St

Westlake Ave

tA ve

te

ot

tA ve Ala sk an

FREMONT BALLARD

DENNY PARK

Av

Denny Way

1s W es Elli

John St

1s t

SEATTLE CENTER

Taylor Ave N

DOWNTOWN

12

57

56

5.4 Physical obstacles Although the city is progressing in developing a mainstream cycling culture and a city suitable for biketraffic, the city faces several infrastructural challenges in terms of cycling. Lack of coherent and complying infrastructure being a major one worth mentioning, but this is not the only one.

“While many bicycle lanes, trails, and supporting facilities have been developed, there is not an interconnected network of bicycle facilities throughout the city” [BMP 2007, p. 76] 5.4.1 Low density The city structure, hilly topography and climate are other factors not in favor of cycling. Seattle has several urban hubs away from downtown with an urban-density of presumably about 80 %2, with mixed land-use, offering urban services as retail, cafes, culture, boutiques, groceries, post-offices and so. However they are small ‘centers’ usually not bigger than 1 squaremile (2,6 km2). What surrounds the urban hubs are low-density residential areas - areas with single-use detached single-family houses or industrial areas, typically having a low sub-urban density of 25 % and often having complicated systems of deadends to avoid cut-through traffic. Seattle inhabits approx. 602.000 people on 217.3 square kilometers (83.9 square miles) [Lonely Planet City Guide 2011]. In comparison the capital of Denmark Copenhagen inhabits 551.900 people on a 88 km2 which means that there are 5700 inhabitants pr. sq km. [www. kk.dk] In Seattle the population density is 2821 pr sq km (7286 pr. sq mi) [www.seattle.gov] and is thus more porous/sprawled than Copenhagen and many other European cities. Low density creates big distances due to lower compactness, which makes the bike less suitable as transport both in terms of exhaustion and travel-time.

5.4.2 Topography It is presumably the hilly topography and thus a terrain that historically has disconnected the different parts of the city, that has developed a strong distinct identity of each neighborhood in Seattle - a certain neighborhood feel [Lonely Planet City Guide 2011]. This is most likely also the reason for the spread in neighborhood hubs. While the neighborhoods today might be easily inter-accessible in an automobile, the very hilly terrain in specific parts of the city would make the cyclists work very hard, the exhaustion consequently leading to preventing some from cycling. In residential neighborhoods, streets on a steep side of a hill might be connected with shortcuts for pedestrians by stairs, meaning that a cyclists would have to carry the bike down- or uphill. Seattle lies on several hills and the topography in Seattle is thus steep between the top of the hill and by lower parts or sea-levels. The arterial street grades can be pretty steep, in Capitol Hill the street grade the steepest place has a grade of 21 %, in comparison one of the the steepest hill in Copenhagen, Valby Bakke, has an average grade on 4,3 % [http://www.climbs.dk/ valby_bakke.php]. In downtown Seattle the grade is 8.6% grade between 1st ave & madison. [http://bit. ly/T1aisE, 2012]

Seattle topography map [http://bit.ly/PDI9Np, 2012]

59

58

Cyclists, according to my interviews, also views the hills as an obstacle. A cyclists answers that ‘fewer hills’ would improve her cycling-experience. Another that “Hill assists to lack hilly neighborhood: - queen Anne, capitol hill, Phinney, Mt. Baker etc.”

[Cyclists on Seattle as Bike paradise, focus­group C] would contribute to a vision for Seattle as bike paradise. Á third prefers cycling at the least steepest route , although the alternative is ‘more beautiful’.

Fig. 1: Basemap of Seattle

Fig 2: Green areas, water and physical barriers such as I5

5.4.3 Water and Interstate 5 While the neighborhoods and their hubs might be pretty bike-able internally in terms of distance and flatness, the city in a larger perspective is spread (which might lead to great distances), hilly in certain parts and fragmented due to water; lakes, canals and sea. Seattle is shaped by Lake Washington to one side, a man-made ship-canal connecting water-flows to Puget Sound on the other side and lake union placed north of downtown. Further development of bridges with accessibility for bikes would be a adequate solution for the city fragmented by water. Interstate 5, a highway running through the city and through downtown, creates a physical barrier too, not only for cyclists. Interstate 5 (I5) is literally like a huge wall that divides the city into to two parts. I5 can be crossed by bridges several places, but some places cyclists and pedestrians would have to make huge detours for crossing the highway (see figures 2-5) 5.4.4 Climate Seattle is known for its rainy days, its placement between two mountain ranges and the sea, that captures clouds above Seattle, leads to a big percentage of all days during a year becoming rainy days [Ohlsen 2011] It is rarely raining heavily, usually light rain and mild climate in terms of temperature.

While some might mention the climate as a barrier to cycling it is hard to conclude whether the rain influences the bike share mode. Some dry places with another climate have low amounts of cycling in comparison to Seattle [https://public.sheet.zoho.com/public/bikeleague/2000-to-2010-bike-commuterslargest-70-2-1, 2012].

Fig 3: Green areas, water, neighborhoods and neighborhood hubs

Fig 4: The relation between characteristic of the city and barriers; Green areas, water, neighborhoods, neighborhood hubs and I5

Seattle Climate sheed [http://bit.ly/QY8npi 2012]

61

60

5.4.5 Transit A well-developed and maintained public transit systems, several buses, and both light-rail, streetcar and monorail connects the city and may be regarded competitor to cycling. However a well-developed public transit system might also enhance cycling, making a car-free lifestyle more feasible and wellaccepted. You can also bring your bike ‘on’ the bus, putting it in a rack in the front without paying extra fees. This is especially useful for buses going uphill to certain neighborhoods - an effective way of combining cycling and transit avoiding steep grades.

5.4.6 Sharrows and Bike Lanes Inadequate provision of facilities are another barrier worth discussing. While the quantity of infrastructural interventions has increased and will increase, the quality of what is planned could be regarded ‘problematic’. As my observation shows and as the Bike Master Plan survey reveals ‘sharrows’ might be a cheap temporary solution where it otherwise would not be possible to add anything else, but they are not very popular, not particularly used and do not feel safe and ought thus not be a core-stone in a bicycle-network. Well, they are obviously not, yet 110 of 450 miles bikeways, being 24 % of the planned bikeway-network are miles of sharrows. Sharrows are a quick and dirty way of introducing cycling in the city which may be a cheap and feasible starting-point for introducing cyclists in the urban landscape. But how does ‘sharrows’ correlates with the criteria for the purpose of infrastructure being ...

Non-cyclists do not know what a sharrow is, according to my interviews. They do not know the word and do not know how they works when they see them on the road (‘How do they work?’). Cyclists agrees that sharrows do not feel safe - a cyclists even writes that sharrows are;

“dumb, dangerous, confusing, cop-out, sub-standard ...”

[Cyclists on sharrows, focus­group C]

while another states that she guess they are better than nothing and good PR, but “false security”.

All, both cyclists and non-cyclists, express a wish for cycle-tracks and more lanes - especially if they are buffered. Traditional lanes are found to be not wide enough due to the risk of being hit by an opening car-door.

“Too many cars in arterials (...) and still feels like riding in car-traffic, but will get me there” [Cyclists on traditional bike lanes, focus­group C] While establishment of a coherent network of cycle-tracks is an element included in almost all ‘visions’ for Seattle as a bike paradise. Most respondents also wants more multi-use trails. One could thus conclude that the quality of the existing standards of facilities could be seen as a barrier, which is both changeable and worth ‘working’ on.

Chapter-summary and discussion Seattle has potential to develope a mainstream cycle-culture due to a relativley high amount of bikecommuters and political support. Furthermore an existing network of cycle infrastructure is a good base for further developing a dense network of bikeways. However cyclists in Seattle faces several physical obstacles such as huge distances due to a sprawl city-structure, hilly topography, the highway interstate 5, lack of cycle infrastructure, water and climate. None of those obstacles or challenges are in insurmountable. Investment in bridges for cyclists and pedestrians, promotion of electric bicycles or mapping out bikeable areas of the city are some suggestions for overcoming the barriers. Cities with similar topography to Seattle such as Zürich has a higher bike-share than Seattle [Jensen 2012]. As I will argue later the biggest barriers are mental and sociological barriers such as normative comprehension of transportation. I will claim that once they are ‘removed‘ the physical barriers will not be an obstacle for higher levels of utility cycling. As I will discuss later (see ‘discussion‘) it is all about prioritizing in bigger cycle-investments.

Moreover, despite all physical obstacle mentioned some parts of the city are perfectly bikeable and wellconnected by cycle-facilities. The next chapter is an analysis of two urban spaces being very suitable for utility cyclists.

Bicycle on lightrail

Bicycle on a rack in front of the bus

63

Tradtional Bike lanes

Buffered

Sharrows

Bike lanes

Bike

Trails in

Trails in an

Boulevards

a built-up

undeveloped

setting

setting

This chapter defines five prototypes or typologies of cycle infrastructure or cyclefriendly street-scapes in Seattle. Three of those typologies are defined on the basis of the conclusions of a spatial analysis of two cycle friendly urban spaces in Seattle.

Principal illustration of a streetgrid in a fictive section of Seattle

How some of those typologies can be used for cycle promotion will be revealed in a later chapter.

Spatial analysis and street-scape typologies Six types of cycle infrastructure or cycle friendly street-scapes has been detected in Seattle. This has been done by observations of existing facilities introduced in previous chapter and by making a spatial analysis of two existing sites: A specific fragment of Burke Gilman Trail and Dexter Avenue. Specific characteristics has been defined and been used to define three of the six prototypes - by the analysis of the two spaces in their specific context. All prototypes are solely based on road section solutions. The observations I did has taken place on three spots including Dexter Avenue and Burke Gilman Trail. The third spot for observations was Fremont Avenue. Fremont Avenue connects Fremont and Wallingford. Traditional bike lanes mixed with sharrows has been established on Fremont Avenue.

The two spaces has been chosen because they have high-quality facilities provided that meets the criteria of safe, fast and comfortable cycling. Furthermore both Burke Gilman Trail and Fremont Avenue Connects important parts. The analysis of Burke Gilman Trail has been the basis of the definition of trails in a built-up setting and trails in an undeveloped setting. The analysis of Dexter Avenue is the basis of the definition of the prototype of buffered bike lanes.

The Bike Boulevard or Seatttle Neighborhood Greenway - prototype is defined on the basis of the Seattle toolkit on ‘Seattle Neighborhood Greenways’ and NACTO design guide of Bike Boulevard. The street-scape typology of ‘Sharrows’ and ‘Traditional Bike Lanes’ are created on the basis of using those facilities when cycling around the city.

The methods ‘serial vision’ and ‘mental map’ are used for the spatial analysis. The mental map - a mapping of mental nodes - is inspired by Lynch. ‘Serial vision’ is a series of photos representing the routes.

6

64

Burke Gilman Trail

Dexter Avenue

65 Method 1: Inspired by ‘Serial vision’ I have been inspired by a method for spatial analysis called ‘serial vision’. The characteristics of a course are illustrated by a serial of either photos or drawings (hand or CAD). It is thus a suitable method for analyzing routes and ways. In order to capture the main characteristics of the Burke Gilman Trail and Dexter Avenue photos are taken from the point of view of a pedestrian walking on the trail or the sidewalk of Dexter Avenue - all along the way following a certain direction.

Method 2: ‘Mental maps’ Inspired by Kevin Lynch, mental maps of Burke Gilman Trail and Dexter Avenue has been created. The mental map does not reflect correct spatial or geographical dimensions. Kevin Lynch asked citizens of Boston to draw how they navigated through the city. Landmarks, specific characteristics of a neighborhood, paths (connections ), edges (walls, building) and ‘nodes‘ (urban hubs with retail and cafes, markets and parks) are all mental tools for navigating in a city. The idea is to capture how the two routes would be perceived ‘mentally’ for cyclists using either Burke Gilman or Dexter Avenue. My own mental perception are the basis of the map and I am representing ‘cyclists’. Although being based on perception a mental map reveals the physical characteristics - and weakness’ and strengths of the experience of cycling on Burke Gilman Trail and Dexter Avenue.

Spatial analysis

67

66

Sections and plans of parts of Dexter Avenue [source: http://www.seattle.gov/transportation/dexter_pave.htm 2012]

Google-maps of parts of Dexter Avenue and Burke Gilman Trail in different zooms [source: google-maps]

Ballard Wallingford

e

rk

Bu an

lm

Gi

Dinosaurs, Theo Chocolate and Fremont Market Cafe

Old Military Tower

U-district

Fremont Fremont Bridge

Dexter Avenue

Queen Anne

Space Needle

Aurora Bridge

Cafe

Gaswork Park Lake Union park water connection path

Down Town

district edges

Fig. u Lynch-inspired mental map of Burke Gilman Trail

nodes landmarks

Edge on trail

View from trail

Gaswork Park

University of Washington

Burke Gilman Trail is one of the first urban multi-use trails seperated from car traffic in the U.S..

Connects the northern neigborhoods Ballard, Fremont, Wallingford and U-district.

Both destination and corridor.

Burke Gilman Trail is a mulit-use trail connecting several northern neighborhood such as Ballard, Fremont, Wallingford and U-district. It runs along the waterfront of shiphole canal and through parks by several urban hubs. The trail may be considered an enjoyable transport corridor for cyclists and pedestrians living, working or running errands in for instance Fremont. It can also be regarded a destination in itself for recreation due to beautiful green location near water - or for meeting friends at the cafes by the trails or other ‘nodes‘.

Navigating along the trail is considered easy since several recognizable and remarkable ‘nodes’ and landmarks are located along the trail. Furthermore the character of the trail changes and cycling on the trail from U-district to Ballard is a diverse experience. Both Aurora Bridge and Fremont Bridge are two landmark visible from the trail in both directions. From Gaswork Park - one of the biggese ‘nodes‘ on the trails - the highrises of downtown and the ‘space needle‘ are visible landmarks. An old abondent militant tower is another landmark on the trail. Benches placed by ‘sculptures’ of dinasours made by plants is another important notable ‘node‘.

Burke Gilman Trail

Fig. Principle section of Dexter Avenue

Fremont

SAFECO Tower U-district

Aurora Bridge Cafe

Starbucks

Dexter Avenue

Queen Anne

The Cascades

Lake Union

park

Denny Park

water connection path district edges nodes

Downtown

landmarks

Fig. Lynch-inspired mental map of Dexter Avenue

Dexter Avenue connects two main ‘nodes‘ - the urban centers of downtown and Fremont Functioning primarily as ‘path‘ - transit corridor.

Not having many ‘nodes‘ or characteristic landmarks.

The new residential building and a Star Bucks cafe creates a mental node.

The glimpse of the Cascade Mountains on a sunny day, Lake Union and the landmark of the SAFECO Tower in U - district are landmarks that mentally contributes to the creation of an identity of Dexter Avenue.

Dexter Avenue is an important arterial road running along Lake Union. The beautiful glimpses of the lake – and the Cascade Mountains on a summer day is defined as landmarks. The SAFECO tower, another landmark, in the University District is visible on a sunny day from certain parts of Dexter Avenue. West of Dexter Avenue the residential neighborhood of Queen Anne is located on the top of a hill. Dexter Avenue is the most important connector road to downtown Seattle for all vehicles for several northern neighborhoods like Ballard and Wallingford through Fremont. The first and only buffered bike lanes in Seattle has been established on Dexter. The bike-lane runs behind the bus-stops, creating small islands for bus passengers waiting for the bus and decreasing the risk of conflicts between cyclists and bus-passengers entering and departing. On both side along Dexter buildings encloses the street. Primary functions along Dexter Avenue are industries (bigger and smaller companies) and housing. On the ground level of newly built apartment blocks a pizzeria and a Starbucks Coffee Cafe creates a recognizable spot on Dexter. The Starbucks and another cafe is the only two companies having outgoing functions on Dexter Avenue. Outgoing services as cafes and retail usually creates mental ‘nodes’ since people use to gather at cafes and boutiques - thus there are not many significant mental nodes on Dexter Avenue apart from the new apartments and the two cafes. However at the end of Dexter Avenue nearest downtown the visible trees and greenery of Denny Park is another recognizable mental ‘node’.

At one end of Dexter nearest Fremont, Aurora Bridge rises as a majestic landmark. At the other end the high rises of Downtown are visible landmarks almost from the beginning of the road from Fremont.

Dexter Avenue

77

76

Street-scape Typology 1

Traditional Bike Lanes Painted bike lanes provides four to five feet (1.2 - 1.5 meters) of roadspace for cyclists

Traditional bike-lanes provides four to five feet of dedicated width on the roads for cyclists. They are marked with a painted white cycle-pictogram and separated from the road-lane with a white painted line. A dashed line indicates places with higher risk of conflicts with motorist vehicles.

The bike lanes runs two ways on each side of the road along the road-lane.

Parking space is provided between the sidewalk and the bike lanes.

Cyclists using the bike lane thus ‘protects‘ the parked cars from the moving cars.

Traditional bike lanes runs at arterial roads all along the city. Arterial roads connects several urban hubs and offers mixed landuse. Most outgoing services such as retail and cafes are located along arterial roads. Arterial roads may thus function both as a transport corridor and a destination in itself.

Runs on the ‘outside’ of parked cars by the car-lane Traditional bike lanes established on arterial roads They connects several urban hubs and neigborhoods. Both corridor and destination.

P P

79

78

Street-scape Typology 2

Buffered Bike Lanes Traditional bike lanes with a painted buffer on 2-3 feet (0.51 meter) width Established on main arterials and flat terrain.

Buffered bike lanes are traditional bike-lanes with space for a ‘buffer’ seperating the bike lane and the car-lane. Buffered bike-lanes runs as traditional bike-lanes along the road on each side of the road between the car-lane and the parked cars. The buffer separates the lane by a 2-3 feet wide cross-hatched zone between the bike lane and the car lane.

Bus-stop islands decreases the risk of conflicts between cyclists and buspassengers entering or departing significantly.

Buffered bike lanes runs at main arterial roads connecting neigborhoods and urban hubs. Roads with buffered bike lanes functions mostly as transport corridors.

Although Dexter Avenue is placed hilly terrain the typology of ‘buffered bike lanes‘ runs on flat terrain.

P

Transport corridor connecting urban hubs and neighborhoods.

Has busstops on islands so the bike lane can run behind the busisland without interrupt entering and departing buspassengers

P

81

80

Street-scape Typology 3

Sharrows

Shared lane pavement markings called ‘sharrows’ are pavement-markings on the road, placed on the ‘car’ lane, communicating to motorists that the lane is shared with bicycle traffic. Motorists are expected to ‘watch out’ and share the road with cyclists. Sharrows are a cheap and easy way of connecting bike-infrastructure on roads with a lack of space for lanes or political resistance towards other on-street cycle facilities.

They are a cheap alternative to traditional bike lanes on arterial roads and thus also placed on roads connecting several hubs and roads having outgoing functions as cafes and boutiques. Roads with sharrows are both transport corridors and destinations.

Sharrows are lane pavement markings.

Motorists and cyclists shares the roadlane.

P

Located in the middle of the carlane to warn motorist about presence of cyclists.

Painted on arterial roads as traditional bike lanes.

Connects several urban hubs and neighborhoods.

P

83

82

Street-scape Typology 4

Bike Boulevard

Seattle Neighborhood Greenways are inspired by ‘Bike Boulevards’ in Portland. Bike Boulevards and greenways are residential roads, parallel and perpendicular arterial roads, optimized for cycle-traffic by signage, green infrastructure, cars driving in slower speed and discouragement of cut-through traffic of motorists vehicles (leading to fewer cars). They give priority to cyclists as though-going traffic. There is usually no provision of designated space for cyclists as bike-lanes, but speed humps, greenery and traffic-circles as traffic-calming elements improve conditions for cyclists and pedestrians.

Bike Boulevards are traffic calmed residential streets.

Bike Boulevards runs through low density residential areas with detached single family-houses. Housing thus being a monofunction of those roads.

A lot of streets in residential areas has dead-ends. Cyclists cycling on Bike Boulevards would typically life in a house in the area.

Favorable conditions for cyclists due to speedlimits and a low volume of cars.

Bike Boulevards are characterised with all the greenery - the flowers, plants , trees and lawns in the gardens. They are also characterized by street-trees and Green Stormwater Infrastructure between sidewalk and roadlane.

Low density residential areas.

Primarily housing.

Mostly dead-ends but sometimes cut-through for cyclists.

85

84

Street-scape Typology 5

Trails: Built-up setting Multi-use trails for cyclists and pedestrians

Multi-use trails are separated off-road facilities for both cyclists and pedestrians. They are popular for both transportation and recreation due to green car-free surroundings - and safe and fast connections.

Crossings of roads and railway tracks are safe and convenient since highstandard design solutions and signage by crossings gives priority to cyclists.

Multiuse trails may run in a curvy line or run straight. Often green elements as lawns, bushes and trees are placed along the trail.

Multi-use trails in a built-up setting runs through the city along some roads and through built environments. Therefore certain outgoing functions may be located be the trails such as cafes.

Those trails may be serve as transport corridors for pedestrians and cyclists and may connect several urban hubs and neighborhoods.

Seperated from car-traffic.

Having an urban feel to it.

P

Services and functions as boutiques and cafes are located along the trail.

Connects several urban hubs and neighborhoods

P

87

86

Streetscape Typology 6

Trails: undeveloped setting Multi-use trails for cyclists and pedestrians Seperated from car-traffic.

Located at the outskirts of the city.

Recreation in green and calm surroundings.

Multi-use trails in an undeveloped setting are as trails in a built-up setting separated off-road facilities for both cyclists and pedestrians. They run through parks, along waterfronts or by industrial areas.

Trails in an undeveloped setting runs at the outskirts of the city and does not neccesarily connect important hubs or neighborhoods of the city. By often running at the urban peripheri no urban functions or services such as cafes and retail are provided along the trail. Rather trails in an undeveloped setting offer a ride in calm and green surrundings through bigger park-areas or industrail wasteland not yet developed.

Enjoying a recreational ride rather than connecting destinations are the function of the trails in an undeveloped setting.

Those six typologies of ‘cycle-friendly infrastructure’ or ‘cycle-friendly streetscapes’ is a simplified representation of existing facilities and cycle-solutions in seattle. The streetscape typologies will be used in a later chapter showing how different types of bike facilities and streetscapes correspond differently with preferences of different types of cyclists. The quality of and what kind of infrastructure potential users prefer will thus be revealed in a later chapter.

91

90

Public opinions and dynamics of politics The built environment - implementing bike-infrastructure is a vital element for increasing the bike share. In Seattle high-class facilities already exist in some parts of the city and they even connect neighborhoods with urban hubs. Does the majority of residents near those facilities ride their bikes on a daily basis? I would say they do not. Cycling as a mode of transport is simply not part of a public consciousness. In relation to one of my workshops some of the words a non-cycling Seattle-resident wrote as associations to cycling was: ‘fun for kids, not relaxing, angry car drivers, danger and gear’. Those are words a regular cyclists most likely would not choose. A non-cyclist comments on traditional bike lanes are revealing as well; “If there were more consistent bike lanes I may be interested in riding on the street. They seem to just end and then drivers are forced to go around them” [Non-cyclists on Traditional Bike Lanes, workshop NC]

This chapter is a transition between a focus on the built environment to a focus on the bicycle from a sociological perspective. Conclusions are drawn from the relationship between both the role of cycling in the physical landscape and the social status of cycling.

This leads to the rhetorical question; Is it only a matter of infrastructure and facilities?

Again – no, building infrastructure would not necessarily transform non-cyclists into passionate cyclists - even if high-class facilities were built right next to their homes.

Besides, building infrastructure for cyclists does not only require will from urban planners but also funding and a focused political agenda. The core issue is cycle promotion; politicians need support from voters and city residents before investing in (and thus prioritizing) cycle infrastructure.

“The solution of on road cycle routing and lane separation is clearly vital but difficult to justify without a pre-existing critical mass of transport cyclists to use such facilities.” [Cox 2005, p. 13]

7

93

92

Many non-cyclists do not feel compelled by cycle through current methods of cycle promotion since they always drive a car (or use other modes of transportaion). The information and promotion targeted at cyclists might feel irrelevant for motorists. A very clear sign of this is a heated and emotional political debate in the Seattle media over what some have called the “war on cars”. Several conservative think-tanks have claimed that the pro-cycling policies of Mayor Mckinn are a part of the ‘war on cars’.

For example Micheal Ennis, director of The Washington Policy Center’s (one of the leading right-wing think-tanks) Center for Transportation. Below is an excerpt from his blog: “Seattle’s war on cars is a war on drivers, and it wastes taxpayers’ money, hurts the regional economy and makes traffic congestion worse. For many years, Seattle officials have tried to force people out of their cars by replacing auto lanes with bus and bicycle-only restrictions, increasing parking taxes and fees, or forcing car-free weekends in certain neighborhoods.” [http://bit.ly/OkriNX 2012] Public will and the transport “culture” is a vital reason for transportation-choices and habits.

“Culture, custom, and habit tend to foster bicycling in cities with high levels of bicycling but deter bicycling - especially among non-cyclists - in cities with low levels of bicycling, where it is viewed as a fringe mode. Non cyclists in bicycle-oriented cities may respond differently to policy interventions that non-cyclists in cities with little bicycling” [Pucher et el 2009, p. 121] In New York a heated debate has occurred as a consequence of re-designing public spaces into ‘peoplefriendly’ places where cars traditionally have been accommodated. Motorists obviously feel the restriction on car-usage complicates their everyday mobility. One motorist writes as a comment to the webedition of a New York Times article: “NYC is not Copenhagen, which was used as a model for this failed initiative. What is a postcard of Times Square without the hustle and bustle of yellow cabs, chaotic, alive, crowded? It was to be expected this decision would miss traffic targets. The whole thing is an eyesore, a complete fracas!” [http://nyti.ms/PkYlTA 2012] The father of a wealthy family in Manhattan, gets upset when mentioning cycling in New York and keeps yelling: ‘why should they [cyclists] be on the road, put them in the park, put them in the park!’

This is an anecdote I have been told confirming the existing hostile feelings towards improved cycling conditions

>

<=

>

=

>

<=

politicians <

citizens

urban planners

“... many people invest emotionally in their car. … [that is] ‘automotive emotions’, feelings, passions and embodied experiences associated with driving” [Cahill 2010, p. 36].

The relationship between the publics interest and wishes and how cities are built is thus more complex.

How can the majority be convinced that taking space from automobiles could be beneficial for motorists too? That it may be for the best of the whole city in the long term? Sociological knowledge and targeted promotion is vital for a mainstream bike-culture. One needs to “sell” cycling, so to speak, as selling other products. The need for a broad range of intervention (also non-physical) is being recognized among scientists, cycle-experts and planners: “A complete system of bicycling infrastructure (e.g., lanes, paths, cycle-tracks, bike boxes, traffic signals, parking, etc.) may have far more impact than the sum of its individual parts. (…) a coordinated package of complementary infrastructure measures, programs and policies may enhance the impact of any intervention that is a component of that package.”

[Pucher et al 2009, p. 122] I would argue that the approach to cycling in Copenhagen to some extent has been pretty comprehensive.

In order to increase the bike share you need a whip (restriction on car-usage), a carrot (attractive facilities and options for cyclists) and a tambourine (information on existing facilities, campaigning and promotion) [Collection of Cycle Concepts 2012] ‘The whip’ - the restrictions on automobile usage could for instance be the high cost for parking and fuel [Collection of Cycle Concepts 2012]. This part might be challenging in the U.S. due to the overwhelming car-centric culture, huge distances, low petrol prices and a built environments where there is no other ways of getting around than by car in some parts of the country. Being mobile is regarded as a fundamental democratic right [Spinney in Horton et al. 2007] and it should be said that in many places in the U.S. - you are not mobile without a car. There is simply no other ways of getting around and no alternatives offered.

That is why cycle-planners need ‘The Carrot’ ie. offering high-class facilities for cyclists as an alternative. The importance of physical approaches has been addressed in a previous chapter. In terms of mobility, in the long-run and with a complete bike-system in urban areas, cycling is the most utilitarian way of getting around and increases a city’s overall mobility due to more space for flow. I would argue that the bike is a mode of transport that does not compromise the mobility of others as is sometimes the case with car-driving.

In order to encourage people to use the bike-infrastructure and to choose the bike as their main mode of transport and understand why a city has invested in cycling while restricting automobile usage, ‘The Tambourine’ is needed. That is campaigning, information and marketing [Collection of Cycle Concepts 2012].

This thesis focuses on the correlation between the carrot and the tambourine. The latter is what will be discussed in the next chapter.

95

94

Sociology of Technology “Recent work in the sociology of technology has sought to investigate and lay stress upon the social construction of technologies. That is, on manner in which technologies do not develop or progress purely in response to technical imperatives, nor necessarily in a rational manner or direction.”

[Cox 2005, p. 2]

8.1 The bicycle as an artifact How can we convince a broader population that cycling is beneficial for everyone – and might be beneficial and even enjoyable for most people?

As argued before many non-cyclists do not feel enticed by cycle promotion - It can feel irrelevant, even in a city as Seattle where cycling is a feasible possibility. Hence it may be relevant to ask why it is so and then how this can be changed? The answer has to be found in the field of sociology.

Individuals may have personal reasons and incentives to cycle or not to cycle. Some of those incentives may be based on the physical landscape such as distance to and from work- place or cycle infrastructure located nearby home and workplace. However reasons for cycling or not-cycling are often determined by social norms. The majority of humans are capable of cycling (balancing on two wheels) from the age of four [Carstensen and Ebert in Parkin 2012]. This is true although cycling sometimes is represented as an act requring special skills and extraordinary good physical fitness (see ‘science og cycling in this chapter’). Why it may be so is explained throughout this chapter.

First we need to understand cycling – not in a objective manner, but through ‘Procedural Constructionism’, in which we regard cycling as a social construction [Cox 2005] The bicycle has been referred to as an ‘artifact’. An artifact is an object having activity embodied in it and constantly produced by meaning. Technological artifacts are not necessarily rational solutions to a technical problem, but defined by subjective reality infused with meaning, interpretation and value [Cox 2005].

8

97

96

8.2 The activities of cycling Regarding ‘cycling’ in this light may result in acknowledging the limitations in which one defines a cyclist as simply ‘a person performing the mere act of cycling’ and cycling as “the functional act of propelling a cycle in a purposeful motion” [Cox 2005, p. 3] , since it would lead to the misleading understanding of cyclists as unified entities having unified needs and expectations. One would thus miss to acknowledge the great diversity of interpretation, value and meaning of the great variety of cyclists, their needs, purposes and how to address promotion. Especially the latter is worth emphasizing. My focus is primarily the one of cycling being a feasible mode of transportation, so one would need to address promotion, planning and communication differently when promoting commuting by bike when compared to promoting organized sports-events, cycling for leisure purposes and so on. I will, however, in chapter 9 and 10 describe different types of cyclists, also those riding for sport and leisure in order to show the diversity of preferences and choices.

The British sociologist Peter Cox emphasizes how ‘cycling’ has different meanings, interpretations, values and most importantly needs for different groups of cyclists. He has categorized four groups of cycling-activities; ‘play’, ‘active pastime’, ‘transport’ and ‘organized sport’, each infused with different meaning. Therefore they should be regarded as four different activities even if individuals might shift between the four groups [Cox 2005]. Cycling is thus not a unified activity – those four ‘types’ of activities can not be promoted as the same, they are not even necessarily compatible.

Seattle Bike Master Plan stresses out the importance of meeting the needs of different typologies of cyclists

This, to some extent, explains why transport-cycling, despite all its obvious beneficial attributes for both individuals and society, has not become a mainstream-mode in U.S. cities (and many other places) yet, even though it may be the fastest and most convenient mode of transport in terms of travel-time and distance in some cases.

Automobiles are infused with connotations of freedom, privacy, progress and autonomy [Cahill 2010] although congestion in urban areas for instance in fact might lead to ‘drivers’ being stuck in traffic – being neither flexible or free. “... it is not just a machine of getting from A to B but [it] is also a reflection of one’s status, one’s sexuality, one’s orientation in the world. (…) ...there is a belief that one’s identity is reflected in the car that one drives.” [Cahill 2010, p. 35] With this is mind, the following statement from a post by Angie Schmitt, an urban planner, on streetblog. org about the history of cars, questions the universality or the status of a world created for cars as being ‘absolute’; “As ubiquitous as cars are today, and as seemingly fundamental to American identity they have become, you would think that when the pilgrims landed on Plymouth Rock, they were greeted by valets and an uninterrupted vista of limited-access highways. But, relatively speaking, it wasn’t too long ago when cars were introduced to the American public and met with a tremendous amount of skepticism.” [http://dc.streetsblog.org/, 2012]

*translated by the authour

“The recommended Bicycle Facility Network and supporting actions will serve all types of bicyclists—from new bicyclists to experienced riders.” [BMP 2007, p. y11] Even utility-cycling can have a range of meanings, definitions and has been perceived in different manners [Wesslowski 2012].

The bicycle as an artifact and in the light of sociology of technology supports the perception of transportation-choices as rarely or solely being ‘rational’ or practical, moreover people’s choice of mode is not clearly a matter of individual preferences, but also shaped by shared norms, expectation [Skinner & Rosen in Horton et al. 2007] and the physical urban landscape. Transport habits are ‘strong’ and very difficult to change since; “We are not able to make a decision of what mode to choose every time we leave home - it would feel overwhelming and we have to make our daily lifes work.” * [Freudendal-Pedersen 2012, p.27]

Cars in line in Seattle

99

98

One could conclude that the bicycle too, would have to be recognized as a mode of transport in its own right - not only adding freedom, flexibility and autonomy but also style, identity and attractiveness – in order for the bike to reach mass appeal. The cycle industry has already been claimed as a fashion industry [Cox 2005] and the bike in the U.S. and the U.K is undergoing a transformation towards fashion and mainstream culture already. Nonetheless it is crucial to ask; how does cycle-promotion today correlate with how we want others to perceive us? Who reflects how we want to be perceived? The advertisement industry has worked with branding, perception and typologies in many years in order to sell a product. The aim is to create positive connotations to a certain product. ‘Buy this product and you will be young, beautiful and attractive’ [Olins 2004] One of my findings during research in Seattle is that the perception of cycling and not least cyclists – the cycle-stereotypes, is an obstacle for higher levels of bike-commuting. A respondent in one of my interviews says

”It is a cultural thing, in certain environments it is not acceptable biking at all” [Cyclist on being a cyclist , Workshop C]

I will later go through the most common cycle-stereotype that can be found in the U.K. and U.S..

Whether they have portions of truth in them is obviously hard to conclude but what will come next aims at understanding why ‘perceptions’, ‘stereotypes’ and ‘typologies’ might be an obstacle, already insinuated above.

8.3 Culture of Fear During interviews ‘fear’ was a topic emerging again and again. For instance; ‘Danger’ and ‘accidents’ being words a non-cyclists often would associate with cycling. Another respondent told me that safety and the feeling of safety is a big issue. Some respondent were afraid to bike on normal bike-lanes due to ‘dooring’. Another said; ”It is not like I want to wear this [neon west, cycle gear and bright colors], but she [car-driver] almost hit me. She simply did not see me. ” [Cyclists on wearing special apparel for cycling, Workshop C] The perception of cycling being a dangerous activity, regardless whether it is so or not, is what I have determined to be a crucial reason for not cycling in the U.S. Fear of cycling might stem from a general ‘culture of fear’ that has been said to exist in western societies and especially in Anglo-American cultures – influential on many aspects of life [Horton in Horton et al. 2010]. ”We have never been so safe, yet never have been so fearful” [Horton in Horton et al. 2010, p.

137 ]

Simply by watching American TV I would claim, one can find traces of the ‘culture of fear’. You will see commercials for insurance basically aiming at convincing people how dangerous life without insurance is. The ‘fear-culture’ also exists in Europe and in Denmark. An example is a proposal about installing expensive security-cameras in the courtyard in my housing association, although I have never, in the four years living here, experienced any incidents of violence or act of crimes in the courtyard.

The culture of fear as it pertains to cycling has unintentionally been created by interventions aiming at increasing cycling safety. For example road safety education indicating that the road is a dangerous place (‘arrive alive’ is UK Government’s highway code for young road users), helmet promotion and the increasing separation from motorized traffic is implemented [Horton in Horton et al. 2010]. Thus the fear of cycling is primarily a fear of being hit by car, which is a legitimate serious concern, since most fatal injuries involving cyclists are cyclists being hit by a moving motorized vehicle [Parkin & Koorey in Parkin 2012]. However, it may also be a fear of act of violence or physical assaults in public space.

The cyclists may be perceived ‘vulnerable’ in this regard compared to the driver being protected by the metal walls of the automobile.

During my stay in the U.S I found evidence on construction of fear of cycling. In this regard one incident is especially important to mention; During spring 2012, I attended an optional lecture at the University of Washington10 (UW) called: ‘Bike There! Urban riding for fun and transportation.’ I assumed, on the basis of the title, that the intention with the lecture was to encourage students to cycle. The main topic of this lecture was, however, safety. Cascade Bicycle Club had hired Renee Barton, an experienced and passionate cyclist as a teacher of ‘safe-cycling’ and she held a lecture primarily on where the cyclists should place oneself on the street and what gear a cyclists would need; a proper U-lock (perhaps even two), bright clothes in layers, helmet, gloves, glasses, cycle-bags,... . Her advice was to make sure that cyclists wore bright visible colors of clothing and that they acted like a vehicle (see p. ). She also recommended not to use bike lanes in case they are too narrow and if there is a risk of ‘dooring’11. Her number one recommendation was to always wear a helmet when cycling. A student asked ‘how about riding on the sidewalk’? It should be noted that it is not illegal riding on the sidewalk in the U.S. The student explained how she rarely cycled, but when she did she was too scared cycling anywhere else than on the sidewalk. Barton answered that riding on the sidewalk might as well be as dangerous as riding on the road and then she told a story about a friend who cycled on the sidewalk, felt down and hit his head.

This lecture gave me insight into the core problem with bike-advocacy based on ‘safety’ - it creates fear.

An hour-long lecture about safety can thus be interpreted as an hour-long lecture about how dangerous cycling is, without all the right precautions, gear and knowledge. And how much money, gear, time and energy one needs in order to ride safely. What was even more problematic was the title “Bike There!

Urban riding for fun and transportation”. I understood it as a teaser for those students not yet biking, a 10. UW is one of the biggest and best reputed universities in the region.

11. Being hit by an opening car-door while the driver gets out of the car. This is especially a risk while riding on the traditional American bike-lanes where cars are parked on the inside, and the cyclists thus ‘protect’ the parked cars from the driving cars.

101

100

way to get them started. However I have wondered whether this information would be encouraging at all? As said by Horton this kind of communication (whether being true or not) contributes to the creation of ‘fear of cycling’, although it is probably meant as a contribution to cycle-promotion and road-safety.

I approached Renee Barton after this lecture and spoke to her about cycling and fear in the U.S As I have concluded from my interviews there is a lack of trust of drivers and a real fear of being hit by car.

Therefore many perceive the U.S as a dangerous place for cyclists. As Rennee Barton said;

“They [motorists] are aggressive.” [Barton 2012] According to her there is a lack of infrastructure and ‘culture’, which is a statement that correlates with what have been described previously.

8.4 The science of cycling Another note-worthy observation I have made in relation to the lecture is how cycling is represented as something complicated requiring special technical skills and knowledge. During the lecture a 30 page publication called ‘how to get around town via bike! - your guide to safe bicycling’ (by Cascade Bicycle Club) was handed-out. The publication includes text, photos and illustrations for how to ‘adjust your bike’ (handle bars, saddle), how to position yourself on a bike and on the road, how to fit a helmet, how to outfit yourself and the bike, how to ride in traffic, how to handle basic maneuvers on bike, ... ‘Oh my goodness, cycling indeed is a science’ as a friend from Denmark exclaimed in an ironical manner when he looked through the publication. For a person growing up in an environment where cycling is a subconscious activity and regarded as common place as brushing ones teeth, a detailed and technical ‘how-to-do guide’ might seem unnecessary. I also found a whole 250 page hand-book written by David North and published in UK; “Green Guides; Cycling “. This book too is a detailed guide in everything one could claim you need to know about cycling. It includes chapters on what bike to choose, what equipment and clothing is needed and tips for commuting and shopping by bike. There is also a chapter called: ‘safe cycling’. The book is meant as a universal cycling guide but the front-page-photo is showing a fit man on a mountain-bike in cycle-wear and a yellow helmet and the continuous banner with a long-stretched photo on the top of each page shows a group of road-racing cyclists in white helmets and colored spandex. The visual appearance of the book seems to target leisure and sports-cyclists, leaving out utilitarian cyclists. Without questioning the ‘facts’ and the content of the book, I would claim that what the book is basically supporting; cycling is complicated and you need handbooks, gear, technical skills, specific knowledge and education in order to ride a bike. If cycling is perceived as inconvenient or difficult requiring special gear, knowledge and spending a lot of time and money, it would, prevent some non-cyclists from cycling. “... if bicycling is perceived as an activity exclusive to a few keen people, and not as something that can be incorporated into daily life, this can be a major barrier to the increase of numbers of bicyclists and bicycle trips.” [Gatersleben & Haddad 2009, p. 47]

Cover of the book: ‘Green Guides, Cycling‘

Cover of the publication ‘how to get around town via bike‘

Photos of content of several pages in ‘Green Guides, Cycling‘ and ‘how to get around town via bike‘

103

102

It should be noted that it is not the cyclists who are passionate about cycling and who choose to spend significant amounts of time and money on gear, cycling and cycle-wear, that are regarded as a problem.

Nor is it cyclists who choose to wear a cycling-related clothing-item as helmet, neon-west and taking a shower when reaching the destination in order to feel comfortable or/and safe. What works for the individual cyclists is a personal matter - and I would argue that ‘what works work’. What I find problematic is the perception or reflection of cycling solely as an exclusive activity ought to require gear, money, fitness or special technical skills. Especially if the signal is that cycling merely is an activity for recreation, sport, leisure or exercise - when increase in utility cycling is an aim. It is also a critic of the possible creation of fear. The book ‘Green Guides; Cycling’ is, by graphics, illustration lay-out, photos and content in sharp contrast to ‘Cycle Chic’ by Mikael Colville-Andersen - a book I will introduce below.

Cover of the book; Cycle Vhic

Photos of content of several pages in ‘Cycle Chic’

8.5 Social status of cycling Horton makes an important point in relation to construction of fear and the social status of cycling; That is the one of fear of being strange or socially unacceptable. It is a fear of becoming the marginalized scape goat which cyclists are viewed as in Anglo-American culture. Horton says since transport-cycling became an unusual practice in Anglo-American culture, the cultural acceptance of transport-cycling decreased while cyclists became stigmatized. Fear of cycling not only refers to the fear of accidents but also a fear of becoming the ‘stranger’ with a stigmatized identity. Media uses cyclists flexibility and their behavioral tactics to navigate safely on the streets full of cars and without cycle-infrastructure, both legally and not, to create stories that makes cyclists mobility-scapegoats [Horton in Horton et al. 2010] This point begins to answer the questions raised at the beginning of this chapter. Horton’s description of mechanism of fear and low social status of cycling targets rightly Anglo-American mobility-culture.

What I will describe next is approaches addressing the challenge of the social status of the bike.

8.6 ‘Bike in comfort - arrive in style’.

A new type of bike-advocacy has emerged during the last decades, which can be seen as an opposition to the tendencies described above. This new type of bike-advocacy is based on entrepreneurship and activism. Mikael Colville-Andersen is a Danish-Canadian photographer and filmmaker, mostly known for his two cycle-blogs copenhagencyclechic.com and copenhagenize.com. He is the starting point for the ‘cycle-chic’ - movement, what can be called, “...bicycle advocacy in high heels”. [Colville-Andersen 2012, p. 7] Colville-Andersen was raised in Canada where I assume he usually saw cyclists as grown-up men in spandex on racer-bikes (what by some has been called MAMIL’s - Middle-Aged Men In Lycra). Moving to Copenhagen, he became ‘fascinated by’ all the beautiful, young Danish girls with long blond hair, wearing dresses and high heels biking around the city- and was inspired by the positive attributes to

Covers and content of several pages of Momentum Magazine

105

104

urban-cycling.

“Danish girls [on bikes] never let sensible shoes get in the way of making a fashion statement.

True to the Cycle Chic ethos, their clothes are fun, stylish and individual ...

[Colville-Andersen 2012, p. 264] Millions of female cyclists - throughout the twentieth century, and into our own - can’t possibly be wrong. Everything from the stiletto to the high-heeled boot to the 1980s cone heel is on display.“ [Colville-Andersen 2012, p. 267] In November 2006 he took his first photo of an urban cyclist in trendy day-wear. That was the beginning of all the photos of girls (and boys, men and woman) ‘cycling chic’. By posting the photos on a blog on the internet, one could claim it was a step towards a new way of advertising transport-cycling.

“It is my sincere hope that these photographs, taken in the now, not only reflect the past, but also allow us a glimpse into our future - a future in which bicycles are accepted and respected, and are a feasible form of transportation” [Colville-Andersen 2012, p. 7] The blogs soon gained huge popularity and interest from all over the world. Could you really cycle in high-heels and with a little dog in a wooden basket in front? Today the Copenhagen cycle chic-blog has become very popular and over 100 cycle chic - blogs has occurred around the world. A cycle-chic manifesto has been made. One of the latest creations by Colville-Andersen is the ‘Cycle Chic’-book, a coffee-table book with photos of people on bikes fashionably dressed in day-wear, published by Thames & Hudson. The ‘cycle chic’ movement addresses the need for selling the bike as a product, like other products, adding style and elegance to your life. By using photos as a media, the promotion is based on aesthetics and it approaches cycle-promotion in a visual manner. This is not peculiar since humans are said to be aesthetic creatures valuing and influenced by ‘beauty’ and ‘harmony’ which they have sought to archive in all ages. [Raffnsøe 1998] Now in Seattle and in Vancouver a more aesthetic approach to cycling-promotion is emerging too.

The Canadian cycle-magazine ‘Momentum’ deals with urban cycling in an elegant manner showcasing a high-quality lay-out. Similar to other lifestyle magazines Momentum has a fashion-section called ‘cycling in style’, where trendy cyclists are photographed on the road with their bicycle. Momentum covers a wide range of aspects of cycling, but mainly focuses on transport and style. The photos show a great variety of cyclists, mostly in day-wear but some wear a helmet, use cycle-bags or other kind of gear. Other are simply wearing fashionable day-wear without anything cycling-related. The magazine includes portraits of different people cycling, advise and entertainment for cyclists, just like other lifestyle magazines.

The Cycle Chic Manifesto (screenshot from http://www.copenhagencyclechic.com/2008/04/cycle-chic-manifesto.html, 2012)

107

106

“‘Hub and Bespoke’ is a retail “cycle boutique” aimed at overcoming the common barriers to urban cycling. We offer fashionable, functional clothing and accessories that let you ride your bike to the office, the market, or date night already dressed for your destination “ [http://www.hubandbespoke.com/ 2012] ‘Hub and Bespoke’ is located in the popular urban Seattle-neighborhood of Fremont in a small but elegant settings selling high-quality and fashionable cycle-wear imitating day-wear by design. They also sell bike-art on canvas and postcards. Hub and bespoke also supports, one could say, a grass-rooted approach to cycle-promotion, by arranging events such as ‘cycle-dating’.

Also, big and well-known mainstream jeans-companies such as Levi’s , are designing ‘special’ jeans for commuting by bike called ‘commuter’. The different designs of the commuter-series are like all other modern and trendy pairs of day wear jeans but the fabric is stretchy to ease commute by bike. [http://bit. ly/SxNEMi 2012] ‘Rapha’ is a British version of ‘Hub and bespoke’, although the design of the cycle-wear is in a ‘cyclewear style’ and does not imitate day wear. [http://www.rapha.cc/ 2012] Rapha too is more than selling cycle wear, it is a way of promoting cycling by means of blogs, creation of a bike-community (cycle stories) and high visual quality of design and website.

I find those fashionable cycle-wear tendencies very interesting and I see it as a contribution to a development towards a mainstream cycle-culture, although it should be mentioned that according to the cyclechic manifesto, having specific clothing for cycling, being fashionable or not, is a promotion-failure and unnecessary for true urban cycling.

“I will refrain from wearing and owning any form of ‘cycle wear’” [Colville-Andersen 2012, p. 8] The Cycle Chic movement could be criticized for having a narrow-minded focus on ‘the urban professional’ or the ‘young and hip’ - being a ‘certain type’ too, being exclusive and not embracing the diversity of cyclists.

Photo: from website of Hub and Bespoke [http://www.hubandbespoke.com/ 2012]

However, The Cycle Chic movement, ‘The Beauty and the Bike’ and all the other ‘aesthetic’ intervention mentioned are all addressing the need to create a link between appearance, image and cycling.

Obviously, as I experienced by attending the Velo City 2012 in Vancouver, plenty of initiatives for promoting cycling in a modern, visual and aesthetic manner exist all over the world. The trend is to use social media, modern technology, high-quality graphics and visual means targeting all kind of people, especially young urban citizens. In Portland urban planner Linda Ginenthal made a presentation on the ‘Smart Trips Programs’, where a broad range of means and coherent efforts including social media are used as tools to encourage cycling. ‘Smarter Than Car’ was another initiative aiming at encouraging the youth in Bejing to start cycling by establishing a trendy cycle-café and by publishing information material with high-quality graphic design.

8.7 Fashion, Identity and a Cycling Revolution Obviously a grass-roots approach to cycle-promotion cycling is not a new thing. Street closing for cars and cycling around on a Sunday like Ciclovia’s and critical mass-events have been popular in America for several years. [Velo City 2012] The growing popularity of initiatives like the above-mentioned is clear evidence of the crucial importance of creating images and the power of visual communication. And is a response to the questions what ‘type’ of cyclists do we see on the street moving around town? What image is created by bike advocates? Those questions has also concerned other master students, working with urban planning and bike advocacy. Two urban-planning master students from Vancouver, have developed a ‘Cycle Fashion Matrix’ showing determinants of cyclists choice of apparel in relation to trip purpose.

“What a person wears on their bike is reflective of several components: trip distance and purpose, availability of end-of-trip facilities, safety, comfort, weather, visibility, and personal preferences. (...) Furthermore, cycle fashion can be an indicator of conditions that either entice or discourage new cyclists, and the degree to which the bicycle is incorporated into the urban landscape. [Leung & Steiger 2012]” The ‘Cycle Fashion Matrix’ captures several important points concerning cycling which also is a focal point of this thesis; apparel and appearance of cyclists do have an impact on cycle promotion and on mainstream-cycling. What is fashionable? Who do people wish to reflect? Probably a great variety of different types of people, however, I would argue that you would not need to wear special clothing while cycling if the conditions for cyclists are right; if it is not too hilly and if the bike is taken seriously in the urban landscape. A common perception is that transportation-modes a required to be comfortable, convenient and fast [Urry 2007]. Not having to re-dress is one aspect of the convenience of driving a car in places where one would normally have to change clothing for the destination after cycling. If the aim is to encourage people to cycle, it should not be a complicated, expensive issue, rather it should ideally be as easy as driving a car - for instance in terms of apparel. One of my respondents, when asked to put down on paper words or sentences capturing a vision of Seattle as ‘bike-paradise’, writes; ‘Baskets on

109

108

determinantsÊofÊ BICYCLE wearingÊ INFRASTRUCTURE casual/workÊclothes?

determinantsÊofÊ clothingÊchoice?

tripÊpurpose?

weather

BETTERÊ WEATHER

comfort

safety

Work

ALWAYSÊWEARÊ ALWAYSÊWEARÊ TECHNICALÊ CASUAL/WORK CLOTHING CLOTHING

MOREÊ CYCLISTSÊ

destination

Social/Recreation

CASUAL/ WORKÊ CLOTHES

Exercise

TECHNICALÊ CLOTHES

1ÊminuteÊcycleÊsurveyÊresults

Cycle Fashion Matrix by Elysia Leung and Hailey Steiger

topography

COMBO

fashionÊ statement

Errands

Bikes’ and ‘Everyday clothing’ as some of the elements needed in a bike-paradise.

This is consistence with an overall aim of OTHER

“...endorsing bicycling as a day-to-day activity, conducted by normal people, for normal dayto-day activities.” [Gatersleben & Haddad 2009, p. 47] 8.8 Feeling of safety and a mainstream bicycle-culture The photos on Colville-Andersen’s blog deliberately aim to disprove the perception of cycling as a dangerous activity. Mikael Colville-Andersen is consciously challenging the “culture of fear” - that is so influential on the perception of cycling. As already insinuated and as I will discuss in a later chapter; fear is reflected in the choice of both rational or irrational cycle-outfit for example bright clothing, neonvests, helmets.. One could say that it ought not be cyclists being fearful and having to save themselves by means of neon-vests and helmets - rather the threat to cyclists of automobiles and their drivers, that should have co-responsibility of being cautious and taking care. A criteria of success for a mainstream cycle culture is the perception of safety. An indicator of an ultimate feeling of safety is characterized by an evidently pregnant woman I saw riding a bike in inner Copenhagen without a helmet while using a cellphone. One could discuss whether this was a responsible act or not, however the absence of fear is striking and worth having in mind in places where cycling, by some, is considered an extremely dangerous activity.

8.9 Identity and modal choice In terms of outfit while cycling it should be noted that it might be most convenient re-dress for destination while cycling in hilly places, like some parts of Seattle, where you are more likely to sweat.

This cycle-chic movement and the related approach is a sign of how mode-choices and mobility can be seen as a vital part in the creation of ones identity. Malene Freudendal-Petersen emphasizes through mobility-research how mobility contributes to the creation of identity “Personal conditions of freedom, happiness and the good life is a part of humans autobiographical tale, supported by mobility and managed by the individual through various behavioral patterns and personal strategies.12” [Freudendal-Pedersen, 2009]

Photos and layout from the website of Rapha [http://www.rapha.cc/ 2012]

12. Translated by the author

Chapter-summary Cycling is more than the mere act of cycling - revealed though this chapter. Culture of fear and fear of cycling are influential aspects on cycling in the U.S. The Canadian Cycle-Fashion-Matrix, the popularity of the cycle chic movement and all the interventions based on high-quality visual means are strong signs of the importance of visual communication that challenges negative stereotypes targets communication in relation to segments and typologies. This is, as stated by Leung and Steiger, also related to the built environment and urban landscape. Several social scientist and other theorists works regarding stereotypes, segments and typologies in relation to cycling are described in the next chapter.

111

Cycle typologies and stereotypes

This chapter explains why it is relevant to work with cycle typologies and stereotypes in relation to cycle-promotion. It presents both scientific and non-scientific ways of categorizing cyclists in lifestyle groups, stereotypes and typologies.

9.1 Marketing and lifestyle segments Cycle-stereotypes or cycle-typologies influence cycle-promotion and cycle-marketing, I have primarily focused on transport-cycling, but by working with the diversity of cyclists one would need to consider other types of cyclists too - those cycling for other purposes.

As claimed by Cox, one needs to define what meaning and purpose they associate with cycling in order to target promotion properly [Cox 2005]. The marketing industry for instance has for years created typologies/stereotypes and uses the sociological knowledge of categorizing people in lifestyle segments. The ‘Minerva-model’ maps the identified needs, wishes, behavior and preferences of four lifestyle segments and there relation to each other (see figure on next page). It was developed by the Danish sociologist Henrik Dahl, strongly influenced by Bourdieu and his terminologies; social, cultural and symbolic capital and his concepts of ‘habitus’ and ‘field’ [Bourdieu and Wacquant 2002]. The blue segment in in the ‘northwestern’ corner represents the value of the ‘economical elite’ of the society; the entrepreneurs and the businessmen for instance, while the green segment in the northeastern corner could be said capturing the academical elite, the well-educated people not necessary being wealthy in a financial sense, but having cultural and social capital. The two south-eastern segments are the lower middle-class without many resources - compensating for the lack of resources by valuing closeness and nearness of closely related - the pink southeastern corner valuing activity in the community and the purple segment in the southwestern valuing creating results by physical work [Dahl 1996 in Carstensen 2010]. Although sociologists use the model to understand and explain social structures and human behavior, the model is, as said, also useful in a marketing perspective to target interventions, initiatives and communication. Creation of stereotypes and typologies is obviously a rough oversimplification of human life and human beings. It is nonetheless a useful tool and an important sociological approach in relation to bicycle promotion.

9

113

112

Stereotypes or typologies also enhance 'reflection'. A female non-cyclist, scared of cycling, could for instance see a female cyclists reflecting her "type" or "segment" and thus get the thought 'If she is able to and not scared of cycling - I could perhaps be cycling too?'

"If people believe bicyclists are not like them, any information about bicycling may be ignored or rejected as non-bicyclists may not believe it is relevant for them.â&#x20AC;&#x153; [Gatersleben & Haddad 2009, p. 47] How to define a 'typical' cyclists? There is no typical cyclists and the average cyclists does not exists.

However, as argued above, categorizing people and working with stereotypes can be a useful tool to simplify the reality and to target communication and promotion. That is the reason why several scientists and others already do so.

The Minerva Model [source: Mhttp://mmdtv.wordpress.com/page/2 2012/]

9.2 Four types of cycling activities Peter Cox has qualitatively categorized the activity of cycling in four different activities opposed to categorizing types of cyclists, to stress how those four categories can be interpreted in different ways, with different meanings and connotations both for people undertaking those activities and for others; 'Play' captures an activity where the bicycle primarily is regarded a toy for pleasure and joy. It is an unorganized activity both for children but also for other recreation and leisure purposes, while 'active lifestyle' might be both organized or unorganized, but can be seen as something more than merely fun and joy - it is a lifestyle choice, a statement and an identity [Cox 2007]. The 'organized sport' category is, by its very definition, an organized activity. The bicycle may be regarding as a 'tool', insofar the bicycle has a function for another purpose than the mere act of sitting on a bike and pedaling - that might be reaching a destination, exercise or winning a competition [Cox 2007]. Transport-cycling, however, distinguishes itself from the three other categories by being highly based on individual choices and movements through the city, requiring coherent infrastructure on a city-scale and by being the most important category in a transport-planning perspective and in terms of urban planning in general.

The categorization of purpose of cycling is a more flexible way of 'putting people in boxes', but activities and purposes are obviously linked to the person undertaken this activity, this being the cyclists. Hence his analysis of the differences in the four activities are useful for the creation of different types of cyclists.

The Minerva Model [source: http://bit.ly/SUmQrQ 2012] Different cyclists each representing a typology

115

114

9.3 Portland typologies in relation to cycling Another scientific way of approaching cycle-typologies is the research done by Jenifer Dill in order to confirm or deny four types of potential adult cyclists, cyclists and non-cyclist, developed by the city of Portland . In 2006 Bicycle Coordinator Roger Geller developed four types of people in Portland in relation to their view on cycling, regardless of their recent cycling-status [Dill 2012]; 1. “Strong and Fearless” - those who cycle always, regardless conditions, that is no matter what.

The assumption is that less than 1 % of the population falls into that category.

2. “Enthused and Confident” - the people who are confident cycling but prefer facilities for cyclists and needs acceptable conditions - they count assumable of 7 % of the population in Portland.

3. “Interested but Concerned” - are those people who would like to cycle but are too afraid to do so. 60 % of the Portland residents has been estimated to be "Interested in cycling but concerned" 4 “No Way No How” - those who would never, under any circumstances, cycle for whatever reasons - presumably being 33 % of the adults in Portland Those categories were developed on the basis of planning experience and assumptions - and were used as a planning tool to investigate the potential of increasing cycling. Dill, has through a random phone survey with 908 adults, sought to confirm or deny the four categories and the distribution of the population into these categories. She found that the categories were applicable on the respondents and that the distribution into the categories was similar to the assumptions of Gellar [Gellar 2006], thus 56 % of the respondents could be categorized 'Interested but concerned' [Dill 2012]. Dill also found that women and elderly are more likely to be in the group of interested but concerned [Dill 2012], confirming what is known so far; woman being more fearful of cycling in general in the U.S. and thus being good indicators of a mainstream bicycle culture.

This research is important for several reasons; it confirms that there is a great unspent potential of new cyclists, the majority of respondents in Portland. Seattle too has used those categories to show the potential of increasing the level of cycling, although Seattle is different in terms of city-structure, sprawl, topography and bike-infrastructure provided. In Seattle the ‘Interesting but concerned’ group is called 'willing but warry', but the idea is the same [Dill 2012]. The research also confirms that 'fear' is an important reason for not cycling.

Four types of Transportation Cyclists in Portland by Roger Gellar for the City of Portland

9.4 Cycle stereotypes Yet another quantitative research in relation to stereotypes and typologies is useful to take a look at, a survey conducted by Birgitta and Haddad. They suggest four stereotypes of cyclists, that the respondents tend to perceive as a typical cyclists on the basis of a questionnaire completed by 244 people in the U.K. both cyclists and non-cyclists, based on apparel, appearance, purpose, emotions and behavior; 1. The Responsible cyclist is more likely to be responsible by being courteous to others, wearing reflectors, abide road rules and is not cycling on the pavement.

2. The Lifestyle cyclist like to spend money and time on cycling and they cycle for keeping fit or for adventure in natural surroundings. This type of cyclists are likely member of a club and to own 'gear' or bicycle equipment; Cycle-wear in lycra or spandex, cycle-shoes, helmets, mirrors, ...

3. The Commuter is perceived a highly-educated and good-looking young professional, most likely a male, commuting to work by bike in all kinds of weather.

4. The Hippy-go-lucky uses the cycle for daily activities such as shopping and tends to wear 'day-wear' and not wearing any kind of cycle-wear or own any gear. This type of cyclist is most likely female and is considered a kind person.

One of the aims of Haddad and Gatersleben’s research was to investigate whether and what the differences are between the perception of cyclists from a outside (non-cyclists) and in-side (cyclists) perspective. They found that most people (both cyclists and non-cyclists) perceived bicyclists as responsible, however those cycling recently were more likely to perceive the typical cyclists using the bicycle for day-to-day activities as shopping, while those who had not used a bicycle for a while or ever were more likely to perceive the typical bicyclists as a 'lifestyle cyclists'. Another crucial finding of their research is that cyclists using the bicycle for functional purposes were more likely to perceive the typical cyclists using the bicycle for functional purposes while lifestyle cyclists perceive the typical cyclists as a lifestyle cyclists. Most importantly the survey revealed a light tendency of perceiving cyclists as responsible or hippy-go-lucky among cyclists [Gatersleben and Haddad 2009].

117

116

9.5 Militant vs civil cycling Both the quantitatively and the qualitatively found categories are more or less interrelated and their relation can be placed in between two outer poles. Kåstrup defines those poles as 'militant cycling' in opposition to 'civil cycling' [Kåstrup 2009]. While the militant cycling as one extreme defines cycling an exclusive subculture of environmentalism or organized /closed sports-activity primarily for men, 'civil cycling' is an inclusive activity for both men and woman being a symbol of life quality, citizenship and mass culture [Kåstrup 2009]. Militant cycling can be seen as a symbol of survival, rebellion, competition, struggle against danger, pain, time, personal records, physical excretion or society/car industry / capitalism. Civil cyclists cycles primarily for transportation purposes as commuting and values livability and the bicycle as a fast and convenient way of getting around [Kåstrup 2009].

Peter Cox’ definitions of cycle-activates as 'Active lifestyle' and 'organized sport' could be comparable to Kåstrups definition of militant cycling consistent with 'the Strong and Fearless' cyclists in Portland and the 'Lifestyle Cyclists' defined by Haddad and Gatersleben. 'Transport', 'Interested but concerned' and 'The Hippy-go-lucky' labels would be placed by the 'civil cycling' end. The figure on below shows how the different ways of categorizing cyclists could be placed on an axis with militant cycling in one end and civil cycling at the other end, thus showing their interrelations.

militant cycling

organised sport

Commuter active lifestyle

play

In terms of perception of cyclists from non-cyclists, the following anecdote from the book confirms my qualitative findings during my stay in the US. and the quantitative findings by Haddad and Gatersleben, of non-cyclists tendency to perceive cyclists as sports-cyclists or cycling for exercise/leisure;

Most striking is a recognition of the widespread fear of cyclists, its source and an attempt to challenge it; Hippy-go-lucky transport

Enthused and Confident Strong and fearless

"Really, in a lot of ways being a cyclists is like being a vampire. First of all, both cyclists and vampires are cultural outcast with cult followings who clumsily walk the line between cool and dorky” . [BikeSnobNYC 2010, p. 50]

"I was once asked by a friend if I was going to ride the Tour the France, and when I laughed and replied "No," she scolded me for my bad attitude and told to think positively or else I'd never make it” [BikeSnobNYC 2010, p. 212].

Responsible

Lifestyle

9.6 Bike Snob NYC & Toronto-cyclists Defining cycle-stereotypes has also been done unscientifically for entertainment or for promoting cycling in a humorous way. 'BikeSnobNYC' is an anonymous cyclist and blogger from Brooklyn, New York who is also the author of a book also called Bike Snob. While not being scientific at all, the passionate New York cyclists can be argued being some kind of cycle-expert since BikeSnobNYC, by being an experienced cyclists, captures essential points of cycle promotion and cycle stereotypes. One could argue that if one finds the book entertaining and amusing it is probably because they recognize some parts of 'truth' in it. The book reflects and challenges bad and good aspects of American cycle-culture and most importantly the perception of cyclists in the US.

civil cycling

Interested but concerned

"Fear of traffic is one main reason people cite for not cycling...”

[BikeSnobNYC 2010, p. 98] Between the bicycle companies and the bicycle advocacy groups, there's now a perception that you have to be a raving lunatic to ride a bicycle without a helmet. [BikeSnobNYC 2010, p.107-108] I know cycling advocacy groups certainly mean well when they promote helmet use, but the unfortunate side effect is that when they push it too hard it helps to feed the fear [BikeSnobNYC 2010, p. 109]."

The Bike Snob book can be seen as a part of the trend of promoting cycling by means of visual communication, since it is published in high-quality graphics and it also tends to not 'moralize' or scare potential cyclists. " ... you can use this ignorance to your advantage by doing whatever you want, since nobody really has any idea what you're supposed to be doing anyway. (...) ... the law as it pertains to cyclists isn't particularly well-tailored to our needs,..." [BikeSnobNYC 2010, p.53]

119

118

"Roughly the same number of people die in the United States each year from automobile accidents as from guns . Yes, a machine that is designed to transport you and keep you safe is in practice just as fatal as a device that is designed with one sole purpose, which is to kill. (...)

Cars and guns each kill about sixty times more people in this country every year than plane crashes kill in the entire world. [So] Using a car because it's safer is like climbing out the window on a rope ladder because of the remote possibility your staircase might be infested with termites." [BikeSnobNYC 2010, p.105-106] The Bike Snob describes humorously and critically 11 different prototypes or subsets of cyclists; the roadie, the mountain biker, the cyclocrosser, the triathlete, the urban cyclists, the messenger, the beautiful godzilla, the retro-grouches, the righteous cyclists, the lone wolf and the contraption captains. His typologies too are based on the reflection of appearance; apparel, gear, type of bike but mostly on their attitude towards cycling. While some of the categories in this context mostly are fun to read about, some of them are compatible to the ones defined by scientific surveys and theories. The roadie, the mountain biker, the cyclo-crosser and the triathlete could be said being 'militant cyclists' [Kåstrup 2009], undertaken an 'active lifestyle' or 'organized sport activity' [Cox 2007], being 'strong and fearless' [Dill 2012] or be perceived as the 'lifestyle' stereotype [Gatersleben and Haddad 2009]. 'The urban cyclists' who is mostly a trendy male in his twenties and laughs at people who wear bright colored lycra is at some points comparable to the 'commuter' [Gatersleben and Haddad 2009] and his female counterpart 'the beautiful godzilla' - young, good-looking (in fashionable day-wear), riding on a dutch bike with a basket with a small dog in it and is on her cellphone has some similarities to 'hippy-go-lucky'. They are both closer to 'civil' than 'militant' cycling [Kåstrup 2009].

In a web-edition of the newspaper 'Toronto Standard' from December 2011 a 'fun' post describes 9 Toronto-typologies of cyclists, primarily based on appearance; The Cycle Strumpet, The Dandy Man, Fixie Dicks and Fixie Chicks, The Lance, The Two-Wheeled Parent, The Meanderer, The Recumbent, Sidewalk Cyclist and The Headphonist [http://bit.ly/QHJ2Tc 2012]. Again, those typologies are not based on scientific observations, they are mostly meant as entertainment and they are making 'friendly fun of' the different kinds of cyclists. However, those typologies too capture some recognizable aspects of different types of cyclists and the post also shows that it is possible and might be meaningful to subdivide cyclists in stereotypes.

Chapter summary The different cycle-promotion interventions described throughout this paper, intentionally or unintentionally, targets a cycle-typology or stereotype. The Cycle chic movement and to some extend 'Hub and bespoke' [http://www.hubandbespoke.com/ 2012] challenges the sports or lifestyle typology by targeting the urban young cyclists. 'Momentum magazine’ [Momentum 2012] has a broader appeal capturing a broad range of cyclists. 'Rapha' [http://www.rapha.cc/ 2012] targets the lifestyle typology although in an aesthetic manner.

121

120

10

Who bikes in Seattle?

Seattle typologies 10.1 Observations What types of cyclists can be seen in Seattle? In order to capture the city’s ‘cycle-typologies’ I have systematically made observations of cyclists on three locations; Burke Gilman Trail, Dexter Avenue and Fremont Avenue in Seattle (see chapter 2 ‘Fieldwork’ p. 21). Those locations have been specifically chosen by their significant differences and because they are places where cyclists most likely would appear. Burke Gilman Trail is a multi-use trail, Fremont Avenue has both sharrows and traditional bike lanes provided - and there are buffered bike lanes on Dexter Avenue. The starting point of the observations has been a division of the cyclists in two “types”. Those types are roughly based on the two opposed poles ‘militant’ and ‘civil’ cycling. I have thus operated with two main typologies from the very beginning based on apparel and appearance: the ‘lycra-guys’ and ‘day wear cyclists’. Obviously this division turned out to be way too simplified. I have then started to add more “types” in my “system” during the observations. Most cyclists would wear a helmet since it is required by law in the State of Washington.

By an analysis of theories presented previously and the empirical data found through observations and interviews five types of Seattle-cycletypologies has been defined. Those are represented at the end of the chapter.

The Seattle-cycle-typologies are created on the basis of the visual - the starting point is the appearance. How does the cyclists look? Inspired from Mikeal Colvilles Cycle Chicmovement and other aesthetic approaches the typologies are based on the importance of visual means (what I saw and how I interpreted what I saw). The typologies are derived from the empirical studies (the fieldwork in Seattle; observations, interviews, ...) but also from theories on cycle typologies, both the quantitatively found (Haddad & Gaterslaben 2009), qualitative (Kåstrup 2009, Cox 2007) and the stereotypes in an entertaining and less scientific light (Bike Snob 2010, Toronto 2011). The result is thus a mix between those proposed by various scientists and withdrawn from my own observations. The Seattle typologies are mainly based on apparel which I assume (to some extent) correlates with the purpose of the trip.

123

122

The starting point of the categorization of my typologies is, however, still two polarized cycle typologies; cyclists wearing cycle wear and cyclists wearing day wear. Between those several other types appear: Some might wear a t-shirt or even a nice shirt (day-wear) but having a neon-colored vest outside it all. Some might wear day-wear but cycle-shoes, wear cycle-wear in dark colors for “commute” and so on. I have called those “in-betweeners”. I also saw two pronounced ‘sub-groups’ of cyclists wearing cycle,- and day-wear; those wearing colorful bodysuit printed with names and logos of sponsors, as they were raising in Tour the France and those cycling ‘chic’ in high-heels, fur or so. Next, I will briefly present the results of my observations.

10.2 Results The observations are strong indicators of tendencies in gender, apparel and 'cycle-culture'. In total, during the 42 hours of observation both weekdays, morning and afternoon peak-hours, and weekends, all three places, 5741 cyclists passed by. A very clear picture of the distribution has appeared by processing the data; 70 % of the cyclists observed are men and 30 % are women. Very roughly 1/3 wear cyclewear, 1/3 day-wear and 1/3 are "in betweeners". This is how the three kinds of apparel and gender are distributed on all three spots and on both weekdays and weekends. There are perhaps slightly more cyclists wearing cycle-wear in total (35 %), especially during weekdays where 38 % of all cyclists, both males and females, cycle in cycle-wear and on Dexter Avenue where 40 % of all cyclists were wearing cycle-wear and Fremont Avenue where 39 % wear cycle-wear. There is no other significant differences or tendencies of outfit or gender between the three specific spots, however there is a light tendency of day-wear having the lowest percentage in all three places. One could also argue that it is clearly the majority having some kind of cycle-related on or dressed especially for cycling, since it is only one third who are 'clear' day-wear cyclists. All the computed data can be seen in the tables opposite. During weekdays while observing 1671 cyclists used the Burke Gilman Trail, only 277 cycled on Fremont Avenue and 1274 were cycling on Dexter Avenue. One could argue that roughly estimated on the basis of the data the same amount of cyclists uses the buffered Bike Lanes on Dexter Avenue and Burke Gilman Trail. The smallest amount of cyclists was counted on Fremont Avenue both weekdays and weekends.

Far more cyclists passed by the Burke Gilman Trail both weekends and weekdays (3507) in comparison to Fremont (509) which was observed both weekdays and weekends too . I did not observe during weekends at Dexter Avenue. Surprisingly enough, by apparel and appearance there is no remarkable differences between weekend and weekdays. There are a bit more cyclists during weekends on Burke Gilman Trail. Also, there is a tendency of weekend-cyclists cycling in groups of two or more and weekdays cyclists riding single, confirming the obvious assumption that cycling during weekends is a social activity for recreation, leisure and exercise. The majority wearing an outfit of Lycra or spandex are men - in total 89 % percent of all wearing Lycra/Spandex are men.

A very striking conclusion of the observations is that very few colored people cycling have been observed, 6 in total, 2 in Fremont Avenue and 4 on Burke Gilman Trail, counting approx 0,1 % of all cyclists. Only 7 % did not wear a helmet - men were more likely to not wear a helmet, however there was not a clear pattern of helmet usage and gender. It should be noted that is is not legal not to wear a helmet while cycling in the State of Washington. Wearing a helmet is required by law.

Comparing helmet-use weekdays on Dexter and Burke Gilman Trail, where the amount of cyclists passing by is comparable, more cyclists were likely to not wear a helmet on Burke Gilman Trail than on Dexter Avenue. Burke Gilman Trail had the highest amount of 'remarkable incidents' of cyclists worth noting such as having a dog in a basket, listening to music while riding, having a children-seat, tandems, trailers with kids, drinking coffee while cycling, using cellphone while cycling and most importantly cycling-chic in high-heels, dresses and skirts. However, cyclists carrying instruments, with place for 'cargo'/or a basket and cycling in 'unpractical' day-wear such as flip flops were also seen on Fremont and Dexter Avenue.

cycle-wear day-wear in between

woman men

Total distribution of gender

Total distribution of outfit

woman men

Distribution of gender in weekdays

cycle-wear day-wear in between

Distribution of outfit in weekdays

cycle-wear woman men

Distribution of gender in weekends

day-wear in between

Distribution of outfit in weekends

tabeller

124

Total sum woman men Cycle-wear Day-wear In-between Total sum

Weekdays woman men Cycle-wear Day-wear In-between Total sum

Weekends woman men Cycle-wear Day-wear In-between Total sum

number 1749 3992 5741 2026 1747 1948 5741

percent 30% 70% 100% 35% 30% 34% 100%

number 1053 2668 3721 1391 1101 1209 3701

percent 28% 72% 100% 38% 30% 33% 100%

number 696 1324 2020 635 646 739 2020

percent 34% 66% 100% 31% 32% 37% 100%

125 Woman number 674

percent 33%

men number 1352

percent 34%

men number 923

percent 67%

cycle-wear

Woman number 468

woman men

percent 66%

percent 32% 38% 33%

men number 429 403 492

in between

Distribution of outfit at Burke Gilman Trail

Distribution of gender at Burke Gilman Trail Woman number 206 243 247

day-wear

percent 68% 62% 67%

tabeller cycle-wear

Burke G woman men Cycle-wear Day-wear In-between Total sum

Fremont woman men Cycle-wear Day-wear In-between Total sum

number 1146 2361 3507 1128 1151 1228 3507

percent 33% 67% 100% 32% 33% 35% 100%

number 152 357 509 201 142 168 511

percent 30% 70% 100% 39% 28% 33% 100%

woman men

Woman number 402

percent 36%

men number 726

percent 29% 34% 29%

men number 143 94 120

in between

percent 64%

Distribution of outfit at Fremont Avenue

Distribution of gender at Fremont Avenue

Woman number 58 48 48

day-wear

percent 71% 66% 71% cycle-wear woman men

Dexter woman men Cycle-wear Day-wear In-between Total sum

number 451 1274 1725 697 454 574 1725

Table 2 & 3: Main results of observations

percent 26% 74% 100% 40% 26% 33% 100%

Woman number Page 1 214 115 122

percent 31% 25% 21%

men number 483 339 452

percent 69% 75% 79%

Distribution of gender at Dexter Avenue

day-wear in between

Distribution of outfit at Dexter Avenue

127

126

10.3 Discussion of results The figures from the observations are based on , by the very definition of observations, observing. This means that the cyclists were not asked why they were cycling on that specific route, what alternative they would have and what the purpose of the ride was. Thus one can not conclude anything about preferences, feelings, choices or thoughts on the basis of the observations. The results from the observations can perhaps be explained by the fact that there is no gender differences in the three types of outfit, however clearly males were most likely to not wear helmets and to wear cycle-wear in Lycra or Spandex in a 'Tour-de-France' style. The similarities of distribution in the three very different spots can be explained by their connectivity - cyclists would have to cycle on different types of street-scapes while moving through the city from A to B and in order to reach a destination. Thus all three places, having inter-connected facilities for cyclists, reflects the distribution of gender and clothing for the whole city.

It has not been easy to asses what is precaution of cycling and what is style or general clothing preference. It has been difficult to see whether cyclists would wear cycle-wear or rather some kind of cyclerelated clothing item or whether this was a form of comfortable day-wear, not for cycling purposes. This is because the style of clothing in Seattle is more 'sporty' than what people use to wear in Copenhagen.

The question is; has the person re-dressed because he or she is cycling or would he/she wear comfortable or sporty outfit anywhere? What is a precaution of cycling? Hypothetically, a cyclists could wear specific comfortable day-wear shorts or loose day-wear, looking like day-wear and designed as daywear, only while cycling. Or a cyclists could wear sporty outfit even when not cycling, since that is how some dresses in Seattle - also in the bus, driving a car and walking around the streets. Also, the trend of cycle-wear imitating day-wear by design also makes it very difficult to define cycle-wear by mere appearance. Levi's commuter jeans are made for cycling which can not be seen by looking at the jeans, so those wearing for instance the Levis commuter jeans, has been categorized day-wear cyclists. By only categorizing cyclists according to what I have seen, I have simply categorized cyclists as cycle-wear cyclists if they were wearing what looks like cycle-wear - and day-wear cyclists if it looked like day-wear.

If it was nearly impossible to asses, the cyclists has been categorized 'in betweeners'.

For all data - prossesed and raw observation-sheeds see ; ‘Apendix C-E’

Vision

Vision:

- Bikes everywhere

1.Dedicated Bike lanes are nearby

- Bike parking everywhere

everywhere I want to ride

- Separated bike lanes everywhere

2.25 % commuters ride at least

- less cars

part of the way to work/school

- Kids and old people bike

3.Kids bike to school

- Basket on bikes - Everyday clothes.

Excerpts of workshop answers

10.4 Old White Men in Lycra The few Afro-Americans cycling tell us something about American cycle-culture since 8.4 % of Seattle residents are Afro-Americans [Ohlsen 2011]. The amount of Afro-American cyclists (0.1 %) is therefore not representative for the Afro-American population. The Momentum Magazine has 'diversity of cyclists' as a theme of an article to challenge the stereotype of only white men cycling stemming from the issue of colored people being an underrepresented group of cyclists [Momentum 2012]. Cyclists in Seattle are mostly Caucasian. However the low percentage of colored cyclists can also be explained by the demographics of the northern neighborhoods of Seattle, being primarily "white" neighborhoods.

The network of facilities provided in the northern part of Seattle is more developed - the northern part of the city has a better cycle-infrastructure when compared to the southern parts. When noting that 70 % of all cyclists are men and the majority Caucasian the expression OWL's (Old White Men in Lycra, the Seattle version of MAMIL (see chapter 8 ‘Sociology of Technology‘ p. 95)) is not taken out of nowhere, although it is not totally pertinent according to the data. The majority is not wearing Lycra - roughly one third of all cyclists wears cycle-wear and only 12 % was observed having a body suit with sponsors in Lycra or Spandex. However, there is a significant difference in apparel tendencies for cycling when comparing Seattle and Copenhagen. In Copenhagen a big majority wears 'clear' day-wear in comparison to one-third of cyclists in Seattle.

I have not noted the age of the cyclists - it is difficult to asses peoples age on the basis of mere observations and if not asked.

10.5 Interviews The qualitative interviews, my daily life in Seattle and the interaction with different cyclists supports what preferences I assume each type would have. Opinions on four different types of cycling-facilities Burke Gilman (trail), traditional bike lanes, sharrows and Dexter (buffered bike lanes), from three different types of cyclists and non-cyclists are written down in keywords and sentences and all answers has been typed and can be seen in ‘Apendix F-G’.

All three respondents find sharrows 'scarry' and are not fond of sharrows as infrastructure for cyclists, however a cyclists finds them 'better than nothing'. Both Dexter Avenue and The Burke Gilman Trail is popular for both cyclists and non-cyclists, but interestingly enough one cyclists using the Burke Gilman Trail regularly finds it: 'scarry at night'. The perception of traditional bike lanes among the two cyclists and the non-cyclist does not correspond totally either. While all of them agrees that lanes are 'safer' (presumably compared to sharrows ), the two cyclists are more skeptical towards the bike lanes due to the risk of 'dooring', no physical separation and two many cars. A non-cyclists emphasizes the importance of consistency in the bike-lanes.

Although the data from the interviews are not quantitative they indicates a clear tendency; people cycling less than once a month or never primarily cycles for leisure/ exercise purposes (when cycling). This is consistent with the findings of Haddad and Gatersleben [Haddad & Gatersleben 2009]. The two noncyclists answering 'never' when asked how often the cycle, also answered 'for recreation / leisure' if they were to cycle. While the only cyclists cycling merely for exercise bikes 2-3 times a month, which makes sense since it would most likely be during weekends. Reversely most of the cyclists interviewed who were cycling daily or 2-3 times a week was cycle for commuting or/and transport.

129

128

10.6 Summary The negative stereotype of the 'typical cyclists' (MAMIL's) is explainable, although only one-third wears clear cycle-wear. The majority of cyclists (2/3) was was wearing at least one cycling-related item. This to some extend confirms the stereotype of the 'practical' and unfashionable cyclists in bright clothing, helmet, ... Cyclists wearing day-wear are only a minority of one-third. Cyclists wearing cycling related gear were most visible due to the intention of being visible for motorists when wearing for instance bright clothing or a neon-west. This supports the theory of the great influence of safety on the cycle-culture.

The high amount of cyclists having cycle-related items or gear is also indicating that once you have chosen to cycle - you become 'a cyclists'. It is almost an identity if not just a conscious choice. Once taken the decision of cycling you 'go all in' so to speak and you will invest in 'gear'. This is however only true for a certain type [Haddad & Gatersleben 2009]. Students13 cycling perhaps due to affordability and flexibility were observed not necessarily wearing anything cycling related.

The classical stereotype of the American cyclists - in lycra or spandex bodysuit - is only a minority of all cyclists observed. This is interesting in relation to the prejudices and visual communication in for instance the book 'Green Guide; cycling', where the photos therefore does not capture the majority of cyclists.

Obviously one can cycle for leisure purposes or for exercise in day-wear as I have met people commuting in a daily basis in spandex - however by comparing the different ways of categorizing cycling there is a tendency that the appearance reflects the purpose of the cycling, but more importantly how cycling is regarded - as what kind of activity cycling is perceived.

Bicycle Utopia A place where biking is so common, so easy and so automatic that it becomes the transportation model of choice.

Dexter:

Photos of papers from workshop and excerpts of answers

c1: Hilly, safe, fast, utilitarian nc1: better than sharrows, not too scary, nice to see more bikes, like to see more

10.7 The Seattle-typologies of cyclists I have detected five types of Seattle-cyclists on the basis of the observations, interviews, daily-life and rides in the city, interaction with other cyclists, analysis of theories and the cycle-typologies defined by others (e.g. Haddad & Gatersleben 2009, Cox 2007, KĂĽstrup 2009, BikeSnobNYC 2010)

c2: efficient, jealous because donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t have on my commute, fast

Traditional Bike Lanes: c1: Utilitarian, somewhat safe, will get me there, still feels like riding in car-traffic nc1: safer, slow, enjoyable, all ages c2: car-doors, safer, too many cars in arterials, accommodating

Sharrows: c1: Dumb, dangerous, confusing, cop-out, sub-standard

1. The Cautious 2. Lycra guys and lycra girls 3. Cycle-wear cyclists 4. The 'young and hip' 5. The 'cycle-driver' None of the typologies are merely based on gender since there were no clear gender-patterns in the observation-results.

nc1: scary, how do they work? c2: scary, just ok, better than nothing I guess, false security, good PR

13. The Burke Gilman Trail connects several neighborhoods with the University District and during weekdays young people with backpacks, computers or even the purple University of Washington t-shirt or sweatshirt were seen, thus presumably being students.

The Cautious The Cautious Cyclists wear day-wear added a cycle-related cycleitem - presumably for safety-reasons. They wear neon-vests, helmets and all sort of â&#x20AC;&#x153;protectiveâ&#x20AC;? gear not related to what could look like a high-speed sport-activity. They are most likely older than the age of 40. The Cautious Cyclist has similarities with the 'The Responsible Cyclist' of Haddad and Gatersleben. They are most likely commuters or utility cyclists, cycling not for the mere pleasure of cycling, but for reaching a destination. Whereby they eventually would have to cycle places not being optimal for cyclists (including arterial-roads shared with motorists) - sometimes places with high-volumes of high-speed traffic. This is why they need to be seen by motorist and thus why they wear safety and visibility items. The Cautious cyclists do not love to wear for instance a neon-vest ("It is not like I want to wear this"), but does it for a feeling of safety. However, the cautious cyclists has chosen to cycle because they enjoy cycling and they do find the daily commute pleasurable when a sufficient, safe and pleasant route has been found. And when cycling responsibly, paying attentions and when others do not cycle or drive hazardously. He or she cycles regardless the weather, though always wearing a visible raincoat when raining. The Cautious Cyclists are somewhere in between the two groups; 'Interested but Concerned' (cautious) and 'Enthused and Confident' (dare to cycle).

Lycra-guys and Lycra-girls The cyclists noted as wearing Lycra or Spandex are all those cyclists, mostly males, regardless age, wearing body suits printed with sponsorships in a 'Tour-de-France'-style . They are mostly fit, cycling in a fast past and yelling 'on your left' while overtaking all other cyclists.

Some of them are perhaps regarding the bicycle as a 'toy' and they enjoy spending money, time and energy on expensive gear and racer-bikes.

They are not carrying anything in order to avoid friction, having light bicycles with no room for stuff and therefore most likely not commuting. Presumably cycling for exercise and sport-purposes - which is why one could argue that some other Lycra-cyclists regard the bicycle as a tool for winning a race or getting fit. They are 'strong and fearless', experienced cyclists, cycling for the sake of adventure, speed and competition and thus cycling 'militantly'. Lycra-guys and lycra-girls have certain similarities with 'lifestyle cyclists'. They presumambly represants the most common stereotype of the American cyclists. They may likely carry their bike on the top of their car, drive to a forest and ride around the forest until driving home again. This type is the opposition to civil cycling - mainstream cycling for transport purposes and might also be regarded an opposition to 'Young and Hip cycling chic'.

The young and hip The majority of those wearing 'clear' day-wear in Seattle can be categorized a certain type although not wearing anything particular for cycling. One could assume that the choice of not wearing anything cycle-related can be viewed a statement. The BikeSnobNYC calls this type of cyclists for the 'Urban Cyclist' and refers to the 'hipster culture', originating from big American cities as New York; Young urban professionals, who are avoiding mainstream culture, dress in vintage-clothing and who cycle around town on fixie-bikes14 with a specific type of very narrow handlebars (gedebukkestyr in Danish) . I call this type for the 'young and hip', being both males and females middle-class youth . Both males and females might use old-fashioned dutch bikes as well as fixie-bikes. They are fashionably dressed (although not in a mainstream-style) in vintage clothing as for instance skinny jeans, old well-used All Star -shoes from Converse and round retro eye-wear and lumberjack shirts. They are rather wearing a cap than a helmet. They are in their 20s or early 30s and might be said cycling 'chic' since fashion is important for them.

They use the bike as a tool for transportation for all purposes; commuting, meeting friends at cafes and shopping. However cycling is a fashion statement for this typology and the bicycle might be a fashion-item too, rather than cycling due to affordability. They may be seen with groceries in a recyclable bag hanging from the handlebar, coffee in their hands, smoking cigarettes or talking on their cellphone. He/she does most likely wear a trendy messenger bag-pack or retro-bag-pack - or has an expensive handbag or a MAC book pro in the basket in the front.

This type has some correlations with the stereotype of the 'commuter' of Haddad and Gatersleben (2009) and might be placed somewhere between 'strong and fearless' and 'enthused and confident'. May be cycling while listening to music and thus has some similarities with the 'Beautiful Godzilla' defined by BikeSnobNYC, also young, good-looking, well-dressed female cyclists, biking recklessly â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;as though the rest of the world were created simply to yield herâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; [BikeSnobNYC 2010, p. 75] while she is on her cellphone.

May be difficult to place as either militant or civil cycling since they are generally not afraid of cycling in the traffic, however I would argue they are civil cyclists due to day-wear.

14 Bicycles with brakeless fixed-gears

Cycle-wear The cycle-wear cyclist is clearly wearing cycle-wear for the sake of comfort and convenience while cycling - and in order to be able to cycle in a certain paste and get sweaty, rather than 'fear'. However they ride in an "average" paste and are not necessarily super fit. The cycle-wear might not be colored or highly-visible nor is it a high-speed-sports body-suit. They may likely drive a car when raining or when the car is considered most practical for day-to-day activities and daily transport. They are cycling for leisure in weekends too presumably and own different kind of cycle-gear, wears special bike-outfit, though bicycle and gear might not be super-expensive. They might be a lifestyle cyclists, enjoying spending significant time and money on cycling, being a member of a 'cycle club', but are not necessarily sporty and might ride for both leisure and transport purposes.

The cycle-driver The last typology captures those cycling instead of driving for all transportation purposes; commuting to work on a daily basis in a suit, so not to change when reaching work, carrying cargo or groceries in a trailer or so. They are the parents on bikes with children seats, kids in a trailer or with children cycling on own children-bikes. They are the group of cyclists wearing day-wear but not being a 'young and hip' type. They may bike in a suit, work apparel, be both a male and female, young and old - but are most likely in their 30s and 40s. They are civil cyclists reflecting a mainstream cycle culture. May both ride carefully and responsibly but they are not fearful and could be seen without a helmet or any form of cycle related gear. Whether they bike or not, is not determined by protective gear. Some in this group might be categorized hippies or idealist, due to substituting cartrips for environmental reasons - considering it the 'right' way of getting around, even when it might be slightly inconvenient. But they might as well cycle because they find it the easiest, healthiest and most enjoyable way of getting around. However, some of the cycle-drivers cycle due to affordability of cycling; the bicycle being the only mode they can afford and they may not have other opportunities financially.

Cycle-drivers are 'enthused and confident' and correlates with the 'hippie-go-lucky' stereotype of Haddad and Gatersleben.

135

Chapter-summary Summing up, those five typologies each represents a type of cyclists in Seattle. It is obviously a rough over-simplification of the reality and they are based on my assumptions and understanding. However, as I have argued before, I believe the subdivision is a useful tool for targeting planning, promotion and communication. How those typologies can be used is represented in the following section.

137 Infrastructure Street-scape City-structure Urban form Statistics Research Professionals Researches NGO’s Urban Planners

QUANTITATIVE

QUALITATIVE

Sociology Typologies / Stereotypes Image/narratives/discourses Visual (art/graphics) Cycle Chic Momentum Magazine Hub and Bespoke Entrepreneurs Artists Business Activist Researches

A correlation between cycle- and place typologies

Typologies

Interface

Empirical data Theories and litterarute

Cyclists Civil

Streetscape

Militant Courage Inclusion and Fear vs exlusion

How can bike share be increased? – a physical approach and a sociological approach - and not least their correlation is crucial in order to increase the bike share of the modal split. This chapter is a transition connecting the sociological aspects of typologies and stereotypes discussed in chapters 7-10 above - and all the physical aspects described in chapter 4 above. As concluded, cycling in Seattle faces obstacles both on a sociological and a physical level. Furthermore, those obstacles are interrelated and must be ‘dealt’ with simultaneously since they impact one another. This chapter deals with the built environment and its impact on human minds - and vice versa, and how those relations can be used in a gainful manner.

11.1 Two groups of approaches I have, through my research, met a lot of different ways of researching cycling and ways of promoting cycling. I have, very roughly, detected a tendency of approaches that are mainly either physical (infrastructure, street scape, city structure, urban form,...) or sociological (typology / stereotypes, image, narratives, discourses, visual). While digging into the different approaches two ‘groups’ appear; 1. An ‘official’ or traditional way of promoting cycling with a focus on physical means and provision of facilities, lobbying for density, mixed land-use, establishing trails, changing legislative frameworks, making cycling maps, safety campaigns, cycle training, .... The people involved in this kind of promotion are mostly professionals and official cycle-planners working for local governments; cities, municipalities, regional governments, local NGO’s or scientists doing research. One could argue that this group somehow focuses quantitatively on cycle-promotion.

2. The other group approaches cycle-promotion by using ‘soft’ means. Campaigning toward behavioral changes and changing transport habits in a more or less innovative and creative manner. A marketing approach, qualitative focus, linked to activism, entrepreneurship, aesthetics, ‘cycle-chic’, art , working ‘bottom-up’ is characteristic for this group. It captures visual trends in terms of graphic lay-out and fashion. One could argue that this group partly aims at challenging both transportation-norms and prejudice about cycling-stereotypes.

11

139

138

Transport-planners have for years been working with design-guides and building infrastructure. Researchers have been conducting surveys, interviews or observations. Sociologists have sought to find the social mechanisms behind cycling. Artist have created art and activist events. The bicycle-industry has been selling bicycles and bike-related items. Entrepreneurs and creative souls have been promoting cycling in an innovative way. A tendency of using visual means has emerged.

In order to achieve a modal shift both groups and a wide range of approaches and means (both physical and non-physical) are necessary. But what is the correlation and how can this correlation be beneficial? How can the interface of all those different starting points increase transport-cycling? Would it contribute positively to cycle-promotion? This thesis aims to use the strength of visual marketing and sociological knowledge in correlation with the benefits of well-designed physical landscape for cyclepromotion. A useful interface is the sociological knowledge and the tricks of branding and marketing embedded right into the physical landscape.

This is reflected in choices of facilities, where to place them, other appropriate infrastructure and what to invest in, in relation to preferences of different types of cyclists.

“These different uses of cycle occur in differing locations and having contrasting requirements in terms of provision” [Cox 2007, p.3] Typologies, perceptions and visual communication are thus important elements which are related to physical space.

11.2 Social structures and the physical space The social structures of our society, mentalities and behaviors are embedded in the physical landscape.

An example is the fear-culture being reflected through the installation of security-cameras and the building of ‘gated-communities’ where residential neighborhoods are protected from ‘others’ by a protective physical wall surrounding the neighborhood, one or two ways out and security-guards guarding the gates [Cresswell 2004]. Human geographers have for years worked with defining place as a ‘meaningful location’. Place is space infused with meaning and interpretation. It is a way of understanding, seeing and knowing the world. A place is a place insofar as it is interpreted or understood as a place and produced and reproduced by connotations, practice (life lived), spatial embodiment and meaning - otherwise it is simply ‘space’ or a location [Cresswell 2004]. Lefebvre talks about production and re-production of space, thus adding meaning and value to ‘space’ [Shields 1998]. Physicality (our bodies and the physical surroundings) and mentality are inseperable. Architects, urban planners and sociologists have for years researched in the impact of (or lack of) architecture, urban planning and landscape-architecture on human minds. Obviously humans and society influence the physical landscape too [Gans in Carstensen 2011]. The exposure is two-ways. This is also true for cycling. Gehl describes why cyclists as a somewhat rapid form of pedestrian-traffic contribute to the quality of urban space since cyclists are able to use the public realm as a social platform and a meeting place. Obviously the built environment affects cyclists too. It affects the experience of the cycle-trip and the choice of cycling or not-cycling.

11.3 Power and space Social structures are reflected physically in the urban space; big scale by demographic patterns of population and by distribution of land-use within a city. Societal structures may also be reflected within smaller scales by e.g. fences, signage, security cameras or distribution of road space between the different transportation modes. So basically the social status of cycling is reflected in the urban space – and by the distribution of road space. One could claim that the size of physical space may reflect the level of power or as Bourdieu would say that size of space reflects a person’s position in the field and how much social, economical or cultural capital that person posseses. Bourdieu exemplifies how ‘big‘ pieces of space owned (e.g. a big office, a big appartment, owning many acres of land,...) symbolizes a person’s position in the field which means level of power [Bourdieu 1996].

“An actor’s position in social space is expressed by in which place within the physical space the actor is located.” [Bourdieu 1996, p. 151]15 This is true when it comes to the social ‘position‘ of cyclists and the physical space given in the roadspace. Acceptence of cycling as a normalized practice increases roadspace given to cyclists. Or reversly in places where cycling not yet is accepted as a normalized practice nearly no ‘roadspace‘ is dedicated cyclists. Thus one could argue that social aspects of cycle promotion and changes in the built environment in favor of cyclists are two sides of the same matter.

A piece of roadspace in the ‘Capitol Hill’ Neighborhood in Seattle

15. Translated by the author

141

140

11.4 Gentrification Gentrification is a term describing social redistribution leading to physical transformation of certain neighborhoods. Gentrification covers how cultural elites by moving into historically working-class neighborhoods or even deprived neighborhoods ‘pushes‘ out the original population of residents. The whole neighborhood transforms by those changes, physically too. For example trendy boutiques, organic grocery shops, cafes and expensive restaurans appears [Cresswell 2004]. Catalysators of this process are typically ‘young urban professionals‘, the so-called first-movers whom in their search for the authentic and the original paves the way for a mass-culture evolving from specific sub-cultures.

Today many elements of the ‘hipster-culture‘ has become fashion and thus part of a mass-culture; e.g. lumberjack shirts, apple-products, tattoos and big round glasses [BikeSnobNYC 2010]. Although ‘gentrification‘ usually is perceived as a negative term showing negative developments where taking care of vulnerable members of society has failed, I will use the term in a positive sense when it comes to cycling. Utility-cycling would simply need to be ‘gentrifed‘ in order to reach mass-appeal. Certain ‘types‘ may be catalysators for such a process (see ‘diversity of cyclists‘).

Relating cycle-stereotypes to the physical urban landscape in terms of preferences may be a helpful tool in urban planning in order to prioritize both physical and non-physical cycle-investments - and to target communication, facilities, cycle-friendly infrastructure and campaigns. Hence the correlation between type of person (the cycle-typology) and what kind of physical setting this type prefers to use is not without importance.

Chapter Summary Stereotypes, ‘image’, transportation-norms, discourses and social structures form the city, street scape and the urban landscape. Knowledge of those topics is useful for the urban planner and decision-makers and helps contributing to the choices of facilities, promotion, strategies, design, visual communication and policies.

urban space <=> utility-cycling

143

Diversity of cyclists

This chapter analyzes the correlation between cycle-typologies/the cyclists in Seattle and the built environment. Conclusions are partly reflected in the Typolgy-matrix of chapter 13

12

12.1 Fear of cycling Fear of cycling is a fear of accidents involving motorized vehicles (being hit by car). It can also be a fear of physical assaults in the urban space or fear of being a transportation scapegoat - unaccepted socially. Designated road-space for cyclists generates a higher feeling of safety due to the perception of avoiding conflicts with cars. Designated space is moreover a physical symbol of acceptance of cyclists in the urban space. Designated road-space can either be segregated facilities (buffered bike lanes or cycle tracks) on arterial roads or Bike Boulevards with designated ‘shortcuts’ for cyclists and low volumes of slow-driving cars. Traditional bike lanes do not always feel safe due to the risk of ‘dooring’. Moreover cyclists ought to be protected by parked cars and not vice verse. Cars might likely block the bike lane in the process of parking and cause conflicts. Multi-use trails offer a high feeling of safety due to absence of motorized traffic. Nevertheless some trails may be and/or feel deserted during odd-hours and during night. Proper facilities need ‘eyes on the street’ or means such as lighting from shop windows for an urban space that socially feels safe. For the commuter and utility cyclists a bike-network of facilities, trails and Bike Boulevards should be located where the citizens naturally travels. The network should connect destinations and urban hubs. Coherency is a keyword.

12.2 Civil cycling Meeting the needs of the fearful cyclist is an approach towards civil cycling - an inclusive approach of meeting needs of all kind of cyclists. The Canadian non-profit organization ‘8-80 cities’ aims at transforming cities “into places where people can walk, bike, access public transit and visit vibrant parks, streets and other public places.” [http://www.8-80cities.org/ 2012]

145

144

One of the goals of ‘8-80 cities’ is to provide safe biking solutions that feels safe for people in all ages - from 8 to 80 years old. A criteria for building infrastructure for cyclists could thus be that it should meet the needs of a cyclist being both 8 years old and 80 years in terms comfort - and in terms of actual and perceived safety.

12.3 Militant cycling ‘Militant cycling’ is for the few ‘strong and fearless’ challenging the danger of motorized traffic. Militant cycling exclude children, elderly and those being cautious. Lack of facilities or infrastructure that do not fulfill the criteria of comfort, travel time and feeling of safety for cyclists (sharrows, traditional narrow bike lanes) exclude special types of cyclists. Whereas only the ‘strong and fearless’, the young and invincible militant cyclists seeking adventure battling about the road-space do not mind riding on sharrows in traffic. Very few cyclists is not at all worried by cycling in high volumes of fast-driving motorized traffic. One could conclude that mainstream cycling should not to be based on bravery and courage.

12.4 Battle of road space There may likely be a need for a battle of the road space for cyclists, however it should take place on a political and financial level, not being undertaken by cyclists themselves while cycling. I regard traditional bike lanes as an important step forward in this political struggle however implementing a network of traditional bike lanes should not be regarded a final satisfying goal.

12.5 Burke Gilman Trail The Burke Gilman is inclusive in terms of meeting different needs. The feeling of safety is increased due to separation from motorized traffic. Mothers or parents with their kids dares to cycle on the Burke Gilman - as cyclists wearing day-wear apparel without helmets (according to observations). Moreover most remarkable incidents (dogs in a basket, carrying instrument, cargo-bikes, female cyclists in high-heels ...) was observed on the Burke Gilam Trail too. My assumption is that this is due to a higher feeling of safety, enough space provided and no steep hills on the route. The Burke Gilman trail do meet the need for the sporty cyclists too by having no or few stops and interruptions and by the possibility of cycling in beautiful surroundings for a long distance.

The Burke Gilman trail has yet another important characteristic in favor of mainstream cycling. It runs through urban hubs - running very close to destinations. Two cafes are located just by the trail at the section of the trail running along Fremont. The Fremont Market runs parallel to the trail, easily accessible from the trail. Burke Gilman Trail is utilitarian since it connects neighborhoods with urban hubs.

Cafes right next to the trail or parks along the trail makes the trail a ‘destination’ in itself, similar to some arterial roads. For a mainstream cycle-culture all destinations have to be accessible. Cyclists needs to get to where they live, work, homes of family, friends and acquaintances, the cafe where they will meet their friends, shops, groceries, cultural services and so on. This would require proper on-street facilities supplementing trails. Trails as a single physical solution is not sufficient. There is a limitation on how well trails are capable of connecting all important locations in a city.

12.6 Dexter Avenue Dexter Avenue connects important ‘nodes’ in the city. It connects the residential neighborhoods and the urban hubs of Ballard, Fremont and Wallingford - and downtown Seattle. The buffer increases the feeling of safety. Dexter is not a destination in itself (other than for those living and working there). There are few outgoing services and Dexter Avenue is mainly regarded a ‘path’ - a transport corridor. For cyclists this can be seen both as a weakness and a strength. As a transportation-corridor for fast cyclists going from A to B it works perfectly fine. When searching for vibrant city life Dexter Avenue does not fulfill the criteria. I have chosen to define the buffered bike lane typology as running from hub to hub on a relatively flat terrain since I believe I would see more ‘cycle-drivers’ on Dexter Avenue if the the road would not be as hilly as it is.

12.7 Arterial roads or ‘neighborhood greenways’?

A claimed benefit of Bike Boulevards or Seattle Neighborhood Greenways is that cyclists do not have to cycle on arterial roads being in the way of motorists and putting themselves in danger [Robin Randels on Velocity Global 2012]. But if cycling is regarded a serious and feasible mode of transportation cyclists needs to has access almost to the same roads and streets as cars (not highways obviously). Streets connecting destinations - arterial roads connect different part of the city while many residential streets in Seattle has dead-ends. Most people live in a detached single-family house by residential streets while working in downtown or in another urban hub. The arterial roads for cyclists too are used as corridors or as a destination - a shop or cafe. It is not a question of whether cyclists should ride on arterial roads or residential ‘greenways’. Cyclists should be able to cycle safely on both types of roads. The network has to be dense and give access to where the city residents normally would go.

One may conclude that a great variety of cycle-infrastructure meets the need of a ‘great’ variety of cycle types.

147

146

12.8 Existing infrastructure in Seattle Appropriate infrastructure ought to fulfill the criteria of coherence, directness, attractiveness, safety and comfort. The street-scape typologies of existing infrastructure in Seattle can be evaluated according to those criteria.

Each typology has been rated on a scale of 1 to 3 where 3 means that the infrastructure is fulfilling the criteria perfectly and 1 that the infrastructure not at all fulfill the criteria, 2 indicates that the infrastructure somewhat fulfill the criteria. I have made a definition of those criteria as follows; - A coherent cycle network has few or no missing links on the way and is not fragmented but are combined to and from possible destinations. The infrastructure/ facility can be coherent in relation to the rest of the network or it can be coherent in its own course. Trails for instance are indeed coherent if we rate them isolated but may be incoherent in relation to the rest of the network or in relation to where people work and where they life. The coherency of a facility or street-scape in relation to the rest of the network is crucial for its relevance for certain users.

- Directness; the infrastructure provides the most direct (and fastest) route from A to B with few or no detours.

- Attractive infrastructure competes with the needs of safe, fast and comfortable ways of getting around of other modes. Attractive infrastructure provides a pleasant bike-ride.

- Safe infrastructure is designed to eliminate or minimize the risk of accidents (especially with other transportation modes) and violence and assault in the public realm. Most importantly in this case ‘safe’ infrastructure have to feel safe. The feeling of safety being an important criteria in this regard.

Highest possible score 15 Lowest possible score 5 Traditional Bike Lanes

Buffered Bike Lanes

coherence *

2

3

1

1

3

3

directness

3

3

2

2

2

1

attractiveness

2

2

1

3

3

3

safety

2

3

1

3

3

3

comfort

2

2

1

3

3

3

Rating-sum

11

13

6

12

14

13

streetscapetypologies criteria

Traditional Bike Lanes may be coherent (if they not suddenly stops and turns into a sharrow) and direct because they run on arterial roads. However noise and volume of motorized cars decreases the comfort and feeling of safety. The attractiveness of traditional cycle lanes differs from street to street.

Buffered Bike Lanes are coherent and direct too. They feel safer than traditional bike lanes due to the buffer. They feel more comfortable than traditional lanes but their attractiveness depends on the street they are running on.

Sharrows may fill out ‘missing links’ but they do not provide a coherent facility in terms of comfortable and attractive cycle network. Riding on sharrows do not feel safe.

Bike Boulevards

Trails built-up

Trails un-developed

*coherence of facility/cyclefriendly street regarded isolated Table 4: Rating of infrastructure typologies in Seattle according to certain criteria. 1= not fulfilling, 2 = somehow fulfilling, 3 = fulfilling

Traditional Bike Lanes

Buffered Bike Lanes

Sharrows

3

3

3

3

2

1

directness

3

3

2

2

2

1

attractiveness

2

2

1

3

3

3

safety

2

3

1

3

3

3

comfort

2

2

1

3

3

3

Rating-sum

12

13

8

14

13

11

streetscapetypologies criteria

coherence

- Comfortable infrastructure feels comfortable to use in terms of smooth surfaces, no physical obstacles, no wind (or wind in the ‘right’ direction), no noise etc. Comfort also means mental comfort as for instance cycling without stress and fear.

Sharrows

*

Bike Boulevards

Trails built-up

*coherence of facility related to the whole network of facilites or cyclefriendly streets Table 5: Rating of infrastructure typologies in Seattle according to certain criteria. 1= not fulfilling, 2 = somehow fulfilling, 3 = fulfilling

Trails un-developed

149

148

Bike Boulevards are direct for those living by a bike boulevard. Bike Boulevards may be connected to arterial roads and thus may be coherent. But Bike Boulevards may as well be interrupted by a dead-end, not only for cars but for cyclists too. Riding on a Bike Boulevard are a attractive facility because the most likely offer a comfortable ride that feels safe due to the slow speed of moving vehicles and thus a higher feeling of safety.

Green and calm surroundings makes trails attractive and comfortable. Absence of motorized traffic makes riding on trails feel safe. When regarding trails isolated they are coherent but not direct since workplaces and housing areas usually are not placed by trails. When regarded as part of the network trails in a built-up setting may be coherent but trails in an undeveloped setting would most likely not be coherent in relation to the rest of the cycle-network in the city.

All the typologies has been rated on the basis of both coherence isolated and coherence when regarded in relation to the rest of the network. The rating of the six infrastructure typologies are shown in the two tables below. What the rating shows is that the scores differs from typology to typology when regarding ‘coherence’ in the two different manners. Not surprisingly; sharrows have the lowest score correlating with the answers in the qualitative interviews.

Both types of trails gets are high score since they fulfill all of the criteria. It is understandable if cycle planners feel tempted to implement multi-use trails such as the Burke Gilman Trail as a foundation for the infrastructure network since they fulfill those criteria. Establishing trails indeed is an important intervention for an increase in cycling in a city like Seattle. However as argued multi-use may not be direct and trails as a single physical solution is not sufficient. As stated; there is a limitation on how well trails are capable of connecting all important locations in a city.

The rating reveals two crucial points that a certain type of infrastructure may have a ‘high’ score but may not be relevant for potential users in terms of the daily route of a utility-cyclist. This confirms that a variety of physical interventions densely covering the whole city is crucial. Furthermore targeting users are important i.e. having the user in mind when planning and designing the facility or the bicycle friendly street.

Another point revealed from rating is that none of the existing infrastructure typologies in Seattle gets the highest possible score of 15 ‘points’. This will be discussed in chapter 14 ‘Discussion and perspectives’ p. 161.

Buffered Bike Lanes, trails in a built-up setting and Bike Boulevards scores high according to both definitions of coherence. As it will be revealed on the typology-matrix those types of infrastructure correlates with preferences of ‘mainstream’ -indicator groups described below.

12.9 Women and cycling Women are said being an indicator species for a mainstream cycle culture [Dill 2012]. It is understandable that a majority of women ‘opt out’ the option of cycling when regarding the perception of cycling and the character of the U.S. cycle-culture. Women in U.S. are still the ones primarily having the responsibility of bringing kids to school, doing the groceries and arranging social activities [Cahill 2010].

This does not correlate with cycling being perceived as an activity requiring surplus of time and energy.

A high-quality network of infrastructure is not only what is needed for getting women to cycle - a change of perception is crucial too. Woman being most fearful of cycling the perception of cycling as an extremely dangerous activity would have to be changed too. Cycling has to be regarded an easy, comfortable and fast way of getting around before becoming a feasible mode of transportation for woman - and thus the majority of city residents. If cycling is perceived as an item adding women elegance and style this can be seen as a clear evidence of mainstream cycling.

151

150

12.10 The Seattle typologies I have placed the five Seattle typologies within the two thresholds of ‘militant’ and ‘civil’.

The three typologies by the civil-cycling pole are indicator typologies for a mainstream cycling culture.

They each has a specific catalyst-function in a process towards mainstream cycling.

One could argue that current cyclists should not be regarded a target-group since they already cycle.

What might be interesting in terms of cycle promotion is targeting those not yet cycling, current cardrivers being potential cyclists. However I would argue that some of the Seattle cycle-typologies reflects ‘car-drivers’. Meeting the needs of the ‘cautious cyclists’ by safe and comfortable commuter routes also targets the ‘interested but concerned’ normally being afraid of cycling (and thus presumably driving a car instead). The interventions targeted the ‘cautious cyclist’ signalizes that cycling do not require courage.

The cycle-driver consider cycling a mode of transportation equal a motorized vehicle - in its own right.

Interventions targeting the cycle-driver challenges the misunderstood ‘blame the victim’ way of managing cycle safety - deterring many from cycling at all. The cycle-driver do not need special cycle-gear for cycling. Mainstream cycling requires suitable infrastructure and a built environment that invites people to cycle. It does not require re-dressing or investing in expensive cycle-gear in order to feel safe.

The cycle-driver could be said reflecting the convenience of driving a car in terms of everyday clothing and carrying kids and cargo around in a bicycle. Thus the cycle-driver typology may appeal to certain current car-drivers.

I would argue that approaches targeting the ‘cycle-driver’ and ‘the cautious’ may reach and feel relevant to non-cyclists, current car-drivers too.

The ‘young and hip’ are first-movers in a gentrification process . The term gentrification covers transformation of urban neighborhoods - who lives in those neighborhoods and what does the neighborhood offer its residents. But the types of people who gentrifies urban neighborhoods are also first-movers when it comes to other trends such as cycling ( ‘Young and Hip). They are seeking something original as opposition to mainstream; for instance a place to live with no obvious attribution but with hidden qualities such as cheap rents, or the exotic and interesting by an ethnically diverse population of residents. Cycling is an alternative way of locomotion offering authentic experiences and meeting the diversity of a city. Paradoxically enough the majority will eventually attempt to be original in the ‘right’ (trendy) manner and thus transforms the ‘subcultural’ trends of ‘the Young and hip’ into mainstream trends. Whether the majority consciously reflects themselves in this segment or not - they are indicators of a development towards a mass-culture. Simply said the ‘Young and Hip’ - although perhaps not reflecting the majority of car-drivers - is an important target group along with the cycle-driver and the cautious. They are ‘gentrifying’ and normalizing cycling so to say.

Lycra-guys and Lycra-girls

militant cycling

Cycle-wear

‘Young and hip‘

Cautious

civil cycling

Cycle-driver

12.11 Sport vs. transport If cycling is regarded primarily or merely a sport and leisure activity this may lead to the risk of a planning approach not meeting the needs of utility cyclists in terms of connecting destinations and creating safe and comfortable routes both in traffic and off-road which are crucial elements for a mainstream cycle culture.

Chapter summary How does this analysis respond with existing infrastructure in Seattle in relation to the different cycle typologies? The typology-matrix represented next reveals that question.

153

Lycra-guys and lycra-girls

Traditional Bike Lanes Buffered Bike Lanes

Young and hip

Sharrows

Cycle-wear

Bike Boulevards

Cycle-driver

Trails in a built-up setting

The cautious

Trails in an undeveloped setting

This chapter describes what kinds of facilities or cycle-friendly urban spaces the different types of the Seattle-cyclist would prefer to cycle in. The conclusion of this chapter is the ‘typology-matrix’ linking the assumed preferences of the cycle-typologies to the urban space typologies. I have previously placed the cycle-typologies within a ‘mainstream scale’ with militant cyclists as one threshold limit in one end (being least mainstream) and ‘civil cycling as another threshold limit at the other end - indicating a mainstream cycling culture. Simply said urban planners who aims at creating mainstream ought to target physical interventions targeting the preferences of the groups being closes ‘civil cycling’

The Typology Matrix - Seattletypologies and their preferences The cautious The cautious are not ‘strong and fearless’ but may feel unsafe while cycling. Therefore the cautious would need ‘safe’ segregated facilities. Furthermore the cautious being a commuter or cycling for other transport purposes needs a coherent cyclenetwork. Buffered Bike Lanes would be ideal due to the connectivity and due to space and buffer provided. Bike Boulevards are preferable too so to depart from and arrive safely home. Traditional lanes are regarded too narrow and unsafe. The cautious’ would most likely prefer detours than ‘risky’ environments and would thus avoid streets with sharrows. Neither sharrows nor traditional bike lanes are preferable. Trails in a built-up environment may be seen as perfectly fine and preferable due to separation from motorized traffic - the source of fear. However trails in an undeveloped setting do most likely not connect destinations well and may be too remote. The cautious might likely find both trails in undeveloped and built-up setting scary at ‘night’ and may be afraid of physical assaults and violence. Nevertheless trials in built-up environments connected better to urban hubs, workplace and home.

Moreover they are most likely less remote than trails in an undeveloped setting and feels safer to use due to ‘eyes on the street’ and vibrant life of presence of other humans. Thus the ‘Cautious’ prefer: - Buffered bike lanes - Bike Boulevards - Trails in a built-up setting

13

155

154 Lycra-guys and Lycra-girls Lycra-cyclists bike fast. They do not like to be slowed down although they prefer cycling for fitness and prefers some ‘challenges’ to increase workeffort as distance or hills. They are most likely not utility cyclists and do not commute by bike. While trails in undeveloped settings are ‘ideal’ for the the Lycra guys and Lycra girls trails in a built-up setting are considered too crowded with other slower cyclists. Traditional bike lanes are too narrow for overtaking slower cyclists (too many slower cyclists too) while buffered bike lanes are acceptable due to space provided by the buffer.

Sharrows are acceptable due to speed of automobiles being nearly the same as speed of the Lycra Cyclists. Moreover the lycra-cyclist is ‘fast and furious’ and is not scared of cycling in traffic. Actually the lycra-cyclists enjoys ‘militant cycling’ and to fight for road-space while cycling. Bike Boulevards are not preferable. There are too many interruptions of traffic calming devices and arterial roads that has to be crossed. Thus the ‘Lycra girls and Lycra guys’ prefer:

Cycle-wear The ‘cycle-wear’ cyclists use the bicycle as transportation and recreation. They like to cycle fast and direct. They are not afraid of cycling and do not mind hills. Thus traditional bike lanes and buffered bike lanes are preferable for transportation and trails in an undeveloped setting preferable for recreation . The trails in an builtup setting are regarded ‘crowded’ with other and slower cyclists.

Bike Boulevards too are regarded too ‘slow’ and not direct enough.

Cycle-wear cyclists prefer: - traditional bike lanes - buffered bike lanes - trails in an undeveloped setting

- trails in a undeveloped setting - buffered bike lanes - sharrows

The Young and hip The Young and Hip lives in a dense urban neighborhood and works (perhaps at a cafe) in the same or another dense urban neighborhood. The ‘Young and Hip’ likes to be near cultural and social activities (concerts, art-galleys, cafes, restaurants, ...) and needs access to the what city-life can offer him or her.

The ‘Young and Hip’ therefore moves around in urban hubs. Traditional bike lanes, trails in a built-up setting and sharrows are located in urban hubs and connect them. The ‘Young and Hip’ is not ‘afraid’ of accidents in mixed traffic and does not need buffered bike lanes. Neither does the buffered bike lanes provide ‘interesting’ spots on the way. Trails in a undeveloped setting and Bike Boulevards are not interesting for the ‘young and hip’. Thus ‘young and hip’ prefer: - traditional bike lanes - sharrows - trails in a built-up setting

Cycle-driver The cycle driver needs space or separated facilities. If they were to ride on sharrows in traffic they would most likely slow down the rest of the traffic and being an annoyance to car-drivers. Sharrows feel unsafe for them. They are usually not riding fast since they often carry children or cargo. Therefore they also prefer ‘flat’ routes and they avoid hilly places. As the ‘cautious’ and the ‘young and hip’ the cycle-driver is cycling for transportation purposes. Connections to and from destinations is a vital criteria for the ‘cycle-driver’ and trails in an undeveloped or green setting would thus not be preferable. Traditional bike-lanes are regarded too narrow for the trailers and for cycling with a kid on a separated bike by the side. A trail in a built-up setting would provide space, comfort and connections as would the Bike Boulevards. The latter most likely being by the home of the ‘cycle-driver’. Buffered bike lanes by providing extra space by the buffer and connecting destinations are regarded acceptable too. Especially since the buffered bike lanes could be established on flat topography on main arterial roads (as defined by the topology). Thus the ‘cycle-driver’ prefers: - Trails in a Built-up setting - Bike Boulevards - Buffered Bike Lanes

157

156

The Cautious

Tradtional Bike lanes

Lycra-guys

Buffered Bike lanes

and lycragirls

Lycra-guys and lycra-girls

Traditional Bike Lanes Buffered Bike Lanes

Young and hip

Sharrows

Cycle-wear

Bike Boulevards

Cycle-driver

Trails in a built-up setting

The cautious

Young and hip

Trails in an undeveloped setting

cycletypologies

Sharrows

Bike Boulevards

streetscapetypologies

Cycle-wear

The typology-matrix. Lines indicate preferences. Dotted lines indicate â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;second choiceâ&#x20AC;&#x2DC;

Cycle-driver

Trails in

Trails in an

a built-up

undeveloped

setting

setting

159

158

cycletypologies

Mainstreamcycling index

Civil cycling

streetscapetypologies

Traditional Bike Lanes

Buffered Bike Lanes

Sharrows

Bike Boulevards

Trails built-up

Trails un-developed

The cautious Cycle-driver Young and hip Cycle-wear

This targetgroup captures the potential of ‘interested but concerned’ - current car-drivers, afraid of cycling.

Mainstream-indicators. Regards cycling as a practical mode of transportation on equal basis with the car

Militant cycling

The cautious Lycra-guys and lycra-girls

Traditional Bike Lanes Buffered Bike High score (13) Lanes

Table 6: The typology-matrix shown as a table. Dots indicates preferences. Red-colored dots indicate second choice.

cycletypologies

Young and hip

Sharrows

Cycle-wear

Bike Boulevards

Cycle-driver

Trails in a High score (13) built-up setting

Highest score (14)

Civil cycling

Mainstreamcycling index

first-movers / “gentrificators”

Lycra-guys and lycra-girls

Sharrows

Bike Boulevards

Trails built-up

Trails un-developed

Young and hip Cycle-wear Lycra-guys and lycra-girls

Table 7: Dark colored dots are indicating civil cycling and white dots militant cycling, The darker color the dot of a cycle-typology the more this typology represents ‘mainstream‘ cycling.

cycletypologies

Relevant chacteristics of the typology-matrix highlighted such as the three mainstrema indicator typologies and infrastructure with highest rate-score.

Buffered Bike Lanes

Cycle-driver

Militant cycling

streetscapetypologies

Traditional Bike Lanes

The cautious

Trails in an undeveloped setting

cycletypologies

streetscapetypologies

streetscapetypologies

Traditional Bike Lanes

Buffered Bike Lanes

Sharrows

Bike Boulevards

Trails built-up

Trails un-developed

The cautious Cycle-driver Young and hip SUM

Table 8: The three mainstream indicator groups and preferences of infrastructure. The more ‘black‘ the sum of dots are the more preferable is the infrastructure for all three type of mainstream indicators.

161

Discussion and perspectives 14.1 Social status of cycling and road-space Social status of cycling is reflected in the urban space – and by the distribution of road space. Those cycle-typologies reflecting a mass-culture requires designated road-space - physical road-space and social acceptance. Utility cycling ought to be (re)-introduced as a natural part of urban space and vehicle of the road.

Does this mean that trails are no good? No, trails scores high when rating criteria for proper cycle infrastructure. They provide attractive, safe and comfortable space for cyclists. When strategically located they may provide direct and coherent routes. Trails as the Burke Gilman Trail contributes to a development towards mainstream-cycling due to high-quality design and a strategic location. One of the biggest attributes of the Burke Gilman Trail is its location connecting Ballard, Fremont and U-district. Parts of the trail may be a destination in itself due to cafes and parks. It may serve as both a corridor and a destination.

But is implementing trails enough? How does the ‘put them in the park’ mentality respond to utility cycling? Obviously, as the matrix shows, establishing trails solely (especially those in green un-developed areas) is not sufficient for an increase in utility-cycling . Cyclists who commute by bike on a daily basis needs safe and comfortable access to destinations and city-life, as other modes of transportation .

14.2 The matrix The matrix is a ‘first generation’ matrix based on assumptions and analysis. It is thus not fully developed. However, the matrix reveals several aspects of utility-cycling and cycle-typologies; It shows how perception of risk or willingness of putting oneself into risk is reflected by certain types not necessary preferring safe facilities. Planning for those type do not correlate with the majority being afraid of cycling and who needs facilities that foster a feeling of safety.

The matrix also reveals a need to create a dense, comfortable, safe and coherent network of bike-ways making destinations accessible. A variety of and a diversity of facilities and cycle-friendly street-scapes is important not only in order to meet the diverted needs of different types of cyclists but also due to

14

163

162

different purposes of trips. Also in order to foster the perception of the bike as giving a lot of different opportunities - and thus freedom and flexibility. Coherence is a keyword. Fragmented facilities are not sufficient, at best they would have no effect at all. At worst they signalizes that the network is not coherent, cyclists thus not prioritized and cycling not a feasible way of getting from A to B (and wherever people need to go). Density in a network covering most of the city is another important criteria to mainstream-cycling. Thus the conclusions of the typology-matrix challenges the ‘put them in the park’ mentality which regards cycling solely as sport, leisure or recreation.

Obviously creating such a network takes time and may be costly. Investing time and money in utilitycycling is a need for cycling taken seriously as a mode of transport. ‘Focus on the lowest hanging fruits’ [Røhl 2011] is an advice from Copenhagen cycle planners to cycle planners from cities with a low bike share. However, in Seattle the lowest hanging fruit has already been ‘taken’; implemented cheap and fast solutions on-street not compromising space of car-lanes (sharrows), created bike guide maps and so.

Seattle is not on ‘level zero’, but is indeed a progressive city that has taken all the right steps so far. It is time to move on so to say. A recommendation in the case of Seattle could be; ‘if you want it, do it right, 100 %. Offer the cost, fight politically and invest’. Indeed there is no reason not to.

The results of the matrix can be seen as a contribution to the discussion of what types of infrastructure cycle planners should invest in and prioritize. Rather than building ‘engineered’ cycle infrastructure purely on transport rationalities as actual safety - the urban space should be designed and formed for ‘people’ - different types of people. It has been argued that cycling as a vehicle is safe (even safer than cycling on traditional lanes or multi-use trails) although it does not feel so [John Forester 1984]. However the focus ought to be the users, the people who bikes, meaning than the feeling of safety, experiences and not least what signals the different kind of infrastructure sends should be an important part of considerations when choosing designs.

14.3 Indicator-typologies I have used the term ‘cyclist’ to cover a person who cycle regardless whether this person chooses to cycle as a identity or statement or whether this person cycle subconsciously considering the bicycle a practical tool for locomotion. I am not a judge of right or wrong types of cyclist, rather I have opinions on what type cycle planners and promoters should target in order to use utility bicycling as a tool for urban planning to create better, healthier, more beautiful and liveable cities.

The simplistic definitions of the different cycle-typologies are caricatures of human beings. Human characteristics and behavior is obviously more nuanced and complex than described in the typologies.

A cyclist would most likely be a mix of all the cycle-typologies, be two ‘types’ of cyclists or more at the same time or switch between the typologies. I am not saying that because you are a utility cyclists that you would never enjoy a bike-ride in green and recreational surroundings using a trail in an undeveloped setting during the weekends. Some cyclists may prefer riding detours on a trail in an undeveloped area for their daily commute due to a more pleasant bike ride. Moreover one can not define ‘the typical cyclist’ since he/she does not exists.

However, the field of sociology uses general definitions of human characteristics within different categorizations of contexts and structuralist relations to explain behavioral patterns. This is true for cycling too. The typologies may explain why someone chooses to cycle or not cycle. If the aim of urban planning in a city is to make majority of people to commute by bike on a daily basis some basic needs of commuters would have to be acknowledged. For example that some people would feel the need or would like to do groceries on the way home from work. Fear is also an important topic in this concern and a explanatory factor . The cautious cyclist is regarded an important target-group in this concern.

Interventions capturing the ‘cautious cyclists’ would most likely affect non-cyclists being afraid of cycling as it is today, to become less afraid . Both cycle-drivers and the cautious represents a mainstream culture. Reversely the Lycra guys and the Lycra girls are not indicators of a mainstream cycle culture.

Simplistic said they are militant cyclists. Militant cycling is an exclusive activity. It requires passion, time-consumption and money to buy expensive gear. Planning for sports or recreational cyclists do not necessarily meet the need of utility cyclists.

The question is who represents the current non-cyclist, the car-drivers? One may argue that is is not it relevant making interventions targeting current cyclists at all. One needs to target those not yet cycling, the current car-drivers, in order to increase the bike-share. I will however argue that some of the existing cycle-typologies may represent car-drivers too.

The cycle-driver consider cycling a mode of transportation equal a motorized vehicle - in its own right.

Interventions targeting the cycle-driver challenges the misunderstood ‘blame the victim’ way of managing cycle safety - deterring many from cycling at all. The cycle-driver to some extent represents car-drivers. As described above interventions targeted ‘the Cautious’ may capture car-drivers as well.

Promoting cycling, making the majority to commute by bicycle for instance has a positive impact on actual safety. One could say; ‘Do not talk about safety - make it safe’. Obviously all road-users should act responsively in traffic, but the responsibility for safety of cyclists should be equally shared with motorist . Today there is a tendency of ‘blaming the victim’. Roughly said what helmet law, neon vest and poorly designed and maintained cycle infrastructure such as sharrows (and too some extent traditional bike lanes) signalized is; if you are willing to take the risk you (and you alone) have the responsibility for your own safety. The cycle-driver challenges this since he or she does not need special cycle-gear for cycling. Cycling should not require special cycle-gear. A recommendation derived from the matrix could be; ‘Do not talk about safety, create safe facilities and design safe and comfortable urban spaces both in terms of traffic and assault.’ Moreover merely focusing on actual safety will not be sufficient.

The feeling of safety is crucial too. This is why some argues that a law requring cyclists to wear helmets is counterproductive for cycle promotion. A helmet-law does most likely contribute to a construction of fear of cycling. I will however not go into the controversial debate on helmet-use and helmet-laws.

The preferences and needs of the first-movers, the ‘Young and hip’, are facilities or infrastructure by urban hubs. Proper on-street facilities are crucial in order for cycling to be ‘gentrified’ reaching the goals of civil cycling. This may lead to the question; do proper on-street facilities exists in Seattle? .

165

164

14.4 Existing infrastructure in Seattle The matrix reveals that none of the existing types of infrastructure is preferable for all three ‘mainstream-indicator’ groups at once. However Bike Boulevards and Buffered Bike Lanes are two types of preferable infrastructure for two of the three indicator groups. The infrastructure-rating reveals that none of the existing infrastructure typologies in Seattle gets the highest possible score of 15 ‘points’.

But both the Bike Boulevard typology and the Buffered Bike lanes have a high score of 14 and 13. Also trails in a built-up setting score high (13). Note how those three types of cycle-infrastructure having the highest score rated (when understanding coherence in relation to the rest of the city) roughly correlates with the preferences of the three indicator-groups. Thus those three types of infrastructure could be argued being a starting point for further development. ‘A way to go’ so to say. This is also showed in table 8 where Bike Boulevards and Buffered Bike Lanes marked with dark-Grey dots shows how close the infrastructure is to be meet the need of all three indicator groups at once (black dot).

Some facilities may be rated a high score when considered isolated, such as multi-use trails. But they may not score highest when they are considered in a holistic perspective and in relation to the different cycle-typologies. Thus a high-scored facility such as multi-use trails may be irrelevant for commuters cycling through the city from home to workplace or from and to urban hubs. Accessibility, directness and coherency are important criteria for cycle-infrastructure arguing for on-street facilities. Cycling and urban space mutually impacts one another which is yet another argument for on-street facilities. Cyclists contributes to the quality of urban space [Gehl 2010], so the city should be designed and planned so cyclists can be an integrated part of urban space. In order for cyclists to contribute to the quality of urban space and affect the environment of the city, cyclists can not be ‘pushed’ away from the road-space and hidden somewhere in a park.

Buffered bike lanes would more or less meet the need of all three indicator groups if they were established on every arterial road. But buffered bike lanes do not eliminate the risk or fear of ‘dooring’.

On-street facilities on every main arterial road with physical separation and parking on the ‘outside’ protecting the cyclists meets the need of all three indicator groups. A type of on-street facility that would meet the needs of all three indicator groups would be the cycle-track on all main arterial roads (and would thus get a black dot in table 8). Furthermore cycle-tracks fulfill the criteria of coherence, directness, attractiveness, safety and comfort. Cycle-tracks do not yet exist in Seattle. However they are the most recommendable facility. It is important to note that cycle-tracks can be designed in different ways. It does not have to be a ‘copy-paste ‘of the Copenhagen-model with a curb, which may be expensive to implement. American cities such as Vancouver and Portland has implemented cycle-tracks in an ‘’American style’. In Vancouver newly established cycle tracks downtown runs two-way on one side of the road and is separated by flower boxes/greenery and bicycle parking. In Portland a sloped curb separates cyclists from the car-lane on each side of the road (see photo). However the conclusion is not that cycle tracks is the one and only infrastructural solution for cyclists in Seattle. Bike Boulevards and a network supplemented with trails creates a dense network offering high flexibility and many possible routes for cyclists to choose.

With all this said sharrows and especially traditional bike lanes may be regarded a first generation facility being a foundation for a better and improved network of cycle infrastructure - a second generation of facilities. Traditional Bike Lanes may be transformed into Buffered Bike Lanes and ideally some times in the future they may be transformed into cycle tracks.

Cycle-tracks in Portland OR, USA

Cycle-tracks in Portland OR, USA

Photo: Cycle-tracks in Copenhagen from the photo archives of Bicycle Office City of Copenhagen, Denmark Cycle-tracks in Vancouve, BC, Canada

Cycle-tracks fulfill the criteria of safe, comfortable, direct and attractive cycle infrastructure.

167

166

14.5 Non-physical interventions All physical changes need to be supported by a change in the perception and ‘culture ‘ of cycling. The fear of cycling needs to be challenged. Non-physical interventions ‘selling’ cycling should complement physical interventions. A certain way of representing cycling is crucial to entice current non-cyclists to cycle. In this regard the Cycle Chic and the Momentum Magazines may be the ‘way to go’ in terms of communication. They target the ‘indicator-groups’ opposed to the publication of the Cascade Bicycle Club or the Green Guide book. One could argue that the Momentum magazine and Cycle Chic book can not be compared to the publication of Cascade Bicycle Club or the Green Guide cycling book. The purpose of the magazine and the Cycle Chic book is entertainment while the guide and publication serves a practical purpose as a guide for safe cycling and as a practical handbook. The purpose of the publication of Cascade Bicycle Club is to promote cycling-safety. I will however argue that all four types of written material basically and at the end of the day aims at promoting cycling. Thus I am arguing that in terms of successful promotion of cycling the approach of Momentum and Cycle Chic may be the efficient one. Cycle chic may be too narrow in its target group although inspirational for both cyclists and non-cyclists, while Momentum has a broader appeal and a broader target group thus Momentum may be more successful in inspiring non-cyclists (such as current car-drivers) to cycle. In a ‘preface’ the publishers of Momentum writes; “[We] heard that Momentum has encouraged you to keep riding, or even start riding.”

[Momentum 2012, p. 13] With all respect I do not believe non-cyclist would feel inspired to cycle when they look through the publication of Cascade Bicycle Club or the green guide to cycle unless they strongly have considered starting cycling before-hand. I believe cycling seems way too difficult, expensive and time consuming.

Visual communication has a strong impact on perceptions and thus visual communication can be a useful tool to challenge the mental barriers to cycling such as; ‘fear of cycling’ and the ‘blame-the-victim’ approach to safety and risk, negative stereotypes (or simply stereotypes that do not reflect the majority) and the perception of cycling requiring surplus of time, money, special knowledge and technical skills.

14.6 Physical barriers of cycling in Seattle All physical barriers and obstacles in Seattle such as I5, water and hilly topography can be solved by modern technology such as bridges, elevator-solutions for cyclists in very steep areas1 or promotion of electric bicycles. All historical barriers for automobile-usage has has been solved by technology (building tunnels in mountain areas, building bridges, highways) due to will of investing in infrastructure for cars.

As for my self it seemed that the barriers were more mental than physical. They seemed insuperable before I started to bike around the city. However, once I would start biking it worked fine. I would find nice and enjoyable routes, either with facilities provided, cycling on the sidewalk (which is legal), cycling on residential streets or simply getting off and pulling my bicycle in places where I felt unsafe and

the hills were too steep. Thus the solution to all the above-mentioned barriers are ironically the bicycle itself. Its flexibility. When you are on a bicycle you can always stop, get off and walk while pulling it.

It is also important to note that Seattle as a hilly, fragmented and sprawled city with huge distances might likely as well be part of a perception of the city as ‘un-bikeable’ and part of a discourse of why biking is not suitable in Seattle. One of the interviewed non-cyclists lives in a flat dense neighborhood, provided with groceries and shops nearby, with no particular steep hills - near arterial streets with bike-lanes, Burke Gilman Trail and Dexter Avenue. Another family I met in Seattle would use their car for a distance of less than 2-3 miles, with one short distance of steep hill. A daily commute may as well be provided with facilities, few or no hills and a short distance, as was the case for myself. Cyclists will most likely find a well-facilitated and safe route, smaller detours to avoid steep hills and get use to distances.

Moreover many people, cyclists or non-cyclists, move around on a neighborhood-basis to do groceries, visit friends, ... A starting point is to develop ‘bikeable’ Seattle on neighborhood-basis. The city will perhaps work on a map showing ‘bikeable’ zones within a certain circle of distance on for instance a top of a hill, in order to overcome the perception of hills, distances and other barriers for cycling.

Furthermore the southern part of Seattle has a different much flatter terrain than the Northern part. Yet the level of cycling in the Southern part is lower than the Northern part due to lack of coherent cycleinfrastructure confirming that the biggest barriers are ‘social, mental and ‘cultural’ barriers to cycling.

14.7 Is a modal shift realistic?

While the benefits of cycling may be many, convincing and clear, one might still wonder; Is a modal shift realistic?

Yes, I believe so. I would argue that since today’s car dominance or car-centricity has been consciously and cleverly engineered since the appearance of the first commercial automobile – a bike culture and bike being a feasible mode of transportation may be engineered too.

Since the automobile became common property in the 60s around in the developed world, planners, engineers and politicians has spent tons of billions on developing favorable conditions for driving a car [Cahill 2010]. Car driving has been well-planned and well-invested. The mainstream car culture, we know today, is relatively young, less than 100 years, and is the result of a strategic and deliberate policy - it is a deliberate human construction. Also the car industry has been working hard on selling the car as a mode of transportation adding you ‘coolness’, ‘style’ and ‘sexiness’. [Cahill 2010] Technologies as automobiles, and other modes of transport (e.g. the bicycle) rarely can be viewed solely as rational solutions to a technical problem – but rather should be regarded as artifacts infused with meaning, interpretation and value. [Cox 2005] It is also pretty noteworthy that the bike literally paved the way for the car, since the first roads with asphalt was made to ease a bike ride – and most automobile manufacturers started originally being bicycle manufacturers. [BikeSnobNYC 2010 & Parkin in Parkin 2012]

169

168

With a wholehearted and intelligent effort the bike can become the transportation mode of choice. A conclusion supported by an international review on infrastructure, programs and policies to increase bicycling conducted by John Pucher, Jennifer Dill and Susan Handy. They find, not surprisingly “Most of the studies we surveyed suggest positive impacts of such interventions on bicycling level. [Pucher et al 2009, p.121 ] A complete system of bicycling infrastructure (e.g., lanes, paths, cycle tracks, bike boxes, traffic signals, parking, etc.) may have far more impact than the sum of the individual parts. [Pucher et al 2009, p.122 ] The multifaceted, coordinated approach offers the promise of substantial growth in bicycling...”

[Pucher et al 2009, p.122 ] It is not hard to believe that as soon as we create a world where it is easy, fast and convenient to ride a bike as transportation – more people will ride.

14.8 A cycling revolution Some may see cycle- planning as compromising the possibility to drive a car (see ‘war on cars’ p. 91). I

Visualization of Dexter Avenue with cycle-tracks and the users.

would say that there may be situations where planners would need to ‘choose’ and prioritize between the two modes and that cycling ought to have first priority in the majority of incidents for many reasons (see 3.1 ‘Why Bike’ p. 28). Research shows that the amount of private cars increases for each square km of road-asphalt established; planning for accommodating automobiles is unsustainable and a never-ending process. However regarding cycle-planning as being anti-car would be a simplistic conclusion. Besides the more cyclists substituting trips done by car the more space is left for the remaining automobiles since former cardrivers become new cyclists. Establishing road-lanes creates congestion while establishing cycle-lanes creates space. Basically I think one needs to use the right tool for the right purpose. It does not seem as such a rationality concerns mobility and transport today. An unscientific but qualified guess would be that approx. 80 % of all trips undertaken in private cars in cities as Copenhagen and perhaps even in Seattle could easily be undertaken by other modes of transport in terms of distance and comfort.

Those 80 % trips are done by car due to either a normative understanding of transportation modes; how to get around in certain social segments or to habit. What kind of attributes would a city like Seattle have with 80 % fewer cars? I believe it would be a safer, more pleasant, healthier and more vibrant city.

I do not think it would loose its urban feel, quite reversely in my opinion. I would not force people to bike miles and miles each day for doing their groceries in e.g. the dessert of Utah and 20 % of people driving through Seattle may not have any other options that are not too time-consuming, inconvenient or unfeasible. It is not realistic or feasible creating a world without private cars within the nearest future.

I am not even sure whether this would be desirable. But we are as far as we can be from a car-free situation, even in ‘progressive’ Copenhagen where automobiles have monopoly on our street. Private cars are ‘holy cows’ in most countries today. I know that sometimes cars simply work best e.g. for traveling long distances or when carrying heavy things. Furthermore non-private vehicles are crucial in modern society; logistic and distribution of goods, ambulances saving people’s life etc. However, the continuing increase in private car ownership in Copenhagen is a unsustainable development in terms of pollution, space, air-quality, noise, health, quality of life and more. Furthermore an increase in private cars compromises the safety, comfort and efficiency of cycling. We need to balance out the traffic-situation. That is not a ‘war on cars’, that is a cycling revolution.

Perspectives The matrix may in the future be developed further and thus serve as a planning tool to prioritize in certain types of cycle infrastructure targeting the mainstream indicator typologies as an action in developing a mainstream cycle culture in Seattle Further research and analysis of the results of the typology-matrix, a full-scale empirical study of quantitative and qualitative interviews, would contribute to develop the typology-matrix into a planning tool.

In the long term such a typology-matrix may serve as a tool to target communication and physical interventions through choices of facilities/infrastructure and content of campaigning. A fully developed typology-matrix would work ‘two-ways’ so to say; it could indicate who or what type of cyclist would find an intervention relevant or preferable. All interventions unintentionally or unconsciously communicate to certain segments or cycle-typologies. This may be used deliberately as an advantage within cycle planning and cycle promotion.

171

170

Conclusion Utility-cycling in Seattle faces physical barriers such as lack of a coherent network of cycle-infrastructure, motorways, busy arterial roads to be crossed, water, and infrastructure that supports automobile usage which causes high volumes of motorized vehicle traffic. The most profound barriers are however sociological. Culture of fear and fear of cycling are influential aspects on cycling in the U.S. Cycling is perceived as a dangerous activity requiring technical skills, knowledge, good personal fitness and a surplus of time and money. Also the perception of cyclists as a certain stereotype may affect cycle promotion, apparel and appearance being relevant in this regard. This stereotype may not reflect non-cyclists or how non-cyclists wishes to be perceived. The Canadian Cycle-Fashion-Matrix, the popularity of the cycle chic movement and all the interventions based on high-quality visual means are strong signs of the importance of visual communication that challenges negative stereotypes and targets communication in relation to segments and typologies. The need for selling the bike as a product, like other products, adding style and elegance to your life has to be acknowledged. Stereotypes or typologies also enhance ‘reflection’. A female non-cyclist, scared of cycling, could for instance see a female cyclists reflecting her “type” or “segment” and thus get the thought ‘If she is able to and not scared of cycling - I could perhaps be cycling too?’

Social structures are reflected in the urban landscape. Overcoming sociological barriers would pave the way to physical improvements for cyclists. Reversely social status of cycling is reflected in the urban space – and by the distribution of road space. Cycling requires designated road-space in order to be taken seriously as a mode of transport - physical road-space and social acceptance. The correlation of physical and non-physical intervention is useful. Facilities that foster a feeling of safety are crucial for a mainstream cycle culture. Cyclists ought not to protect themselves by neon-vest, helmets, cycle-wear, bright colors and cycle-gear but should be able to cycle safely in day-wear as if they were driving a car or taking the bus. It ougth not to be necessary for utility-cyclists to re-dress for the destination to feel safe and comfortable when cycling.

The typology-matrix relates sociological aspects of cycling (the cycle typologies) with the built environment (the infrastructure typologies). The typology matrix relates the preferences of certain types of cyclists to types of cycle infrastructure. Physical interventions need to be targeted ‘mainstream-indicator typologies.’ The infrastructure preferred by the mainstream indicator typologies are those cycle planners ought to prioritize in order to develop a mainstream cycle culture. Coherent, direct and comfortable on-street facilities that foster a feeling of safety meet the needs of the majority of people who has certain concerns about cycling due to fear. They also meet the need of the typologies that are ‘gentrifying’ cycling, the young and hip who needs accessibility to city life. Cyclists who commute by bike on a daily basis needs safe and comfortable access to destinations and city-life, as other modes of transportation .

People would for instance feel the need or would like to do groceries on the way home from work.

Trails in a undeveloped setting may not be relevant for the mainstream indicator groups although multiuse trails fulfill the criteria of coherence, attractiveness, safety and comfort. Multi-use trails may not provide a direct route to destinations. A dense, coherent network of cycle-tracks on all main arterial roads would meet the needs for all mainstream indicator cyclists and increase the social status of cycling.

There are no cycle-tracks implemented in Seattle today, however buffered bike lanes, Bike Boulevards and trails in a built-up setting scores highest as preferable infrastructure for the mainstream indicators. It is crucial to keep extending the network of those facilities. Buffered bike lanes could be regarded a first generation of cycle infrastructure transformed into ‘second generation’ cycle-tracks in the long run. A network of cycle-tracks should be supplemented with Bike Boulevards and a network of trails. A variety of facilitates and cycle-friendly street-scape is vital, not only in order to meet the diverted needs of different types of cyclists but also due to different purposes of trips. It is also vital in order to foster the perception of the bike as giving a lot of different opportunities and thus cycling as a mode of transport associated with flexibility and freedom.

173

172

References Bibliography [BikeSnobNYC 2010]: ‘Bike Snob Systematically & Mercilessly realigning the world of cycling’ by BikeSnobNYC, Chronicle Books, 2010, San Francisco, USA

[Copenhagen Bicycle Account 2010]: ‘Copenhagen Bicycle Account 2010’, publication by Cykelsekretariatet, Teknik- og Miljøforvaltningen, Center for Trafik, Københavns Kommune, 2010, Copenhagen, Denmark [Cox 2005]: ‘Conflicting Agendas in Selling Cycling’ by Peter Cox (UK), paper presented to velo city 2005, Dublin

[BMP 2007]: Seattle Bicycle Master Plan, published by SDOT, City of Seattle, 2007, Seattle, WA, USA

[Cox 2007]: ‘The Politics of Pedalling: Representation and Advocacy’ by Peter Cox paper delivered at velo-City 2007 Munich

[BMP Progress Report 2012]: BMP Progress Report 2012, published by SDOT, City of Seattle, 2012, Seattle, WA, USA

[Cresswell 2004]: ‘PLACE a short introduction’ by Tim Cresswell, Blackwell Publishing 2004, UK

[Bonham & Wilson in Parker 2012]: ‘Woman cycling through the life course: an Australian case study’ by Jennifer Bonham and Anne Wilson in ‘Cycling and Sustainability’ edited by John Parkin, Emerald Group, 2012, London, UK [Bourdieu 1996]: ‘Symbolsk Makt’ by Pierre Bourdieu, Pax Forlag 1996, Norway [Bourdieu and Wacquant 2002]: ‘Refleksiv sociologi - mål og midler’ by Pierre Bourdieu and Loïc J.D. Wacquant, Hans Reitzels Forlag, 2002, Denmark

[Dahl 1996 in Carstensen 2010]: ‘Sociologi og målgrupper. Nogle erfaringer med operationalisere Bourdieu’ by Henrik Dahl 1996 in ‘Kompendium i Bysociologi’ by Trine Agervig Carstensen, Academic Books, 2012, Copenhagen [Dill 2012]: ‘ Four types of cyclists?’ Testing a Typology to Better Understand Bicycling Behavior and Potential (working paper) by Jeniffer Dill, Nohad A. Toulan School of Urban Studies & Planning, 2012, Portland, USA [Forester 1984]: ‘’Effective Cycling’ by John Forester, ?, 1984, USA

[Buehler & Pucher 2011]: ‘Cycling to work in 90 large American cities: new evidence on the role of bike paths and lanes’ by Ralph Buehler and John Pucher, Springer Science, 2011, USA

[Freudendal-Pedersen, 2009]: ‘Mobilitet og byrum’ by Malene Freudendal-Pedersen in ‘Byens Rum 1.5’ published by JUUL | FROST ARKITEKTER, 2009, København, Denmark

[Cahill 2010]: ‘Transport, Environment and society’ by Michael Cahill, Mc Graw Hill Open University Press, 2010, U.K.

[Freudendal-Pedersen 2012]: ‘Opskriften på en ny cyklist’ by Christina Britz Nicolaisen in ‘Cyklister’ 1.-31. - maj 2012 published by ‘vi cykler til arbejde’ (DCF), Denmark

[Carstensen and Ebert in Parkin 2012]: ‘Cycling Cultures in Northern Europe: From ‘Golden Age’ to Renaissance’ by Trine Agervig Carstensen and Anne-Katrin Ebert in ‘Cycling and Sustainability’ edited by John Parkin, Emerald Group, 2012, London, UK

[Gans 1993 in Carstensen 2012]: ‘The potential Environment and the Effective Environment’ by H. Gans, 1993 in ‘Kompendie i Byplananalyse’ by Trine Agervig Carstensen, Academic Books, 2012, Copenhagen, Denmark

[Collection of Cycle Concepts 2012]: Collection of Cycle Concepts 2012 publication by Cycling Embassy of Denmark, 2012, Denmark

[Gehl 2010]: ‘Byer for mennesker’ / ‘Cities for People’ by Jan Gehl, Bogværket/Island Press, 2010, Denmark

[Colville-Andersen 2012]: ‘Cycle Chic’ by Mikael Colville-Andersen, Thames & Hudson, 2012, New York, USA

[Gellar 2006]: ‘Four Types of Cyclist by Roger Geller, Portland Office of Transportation, 2006, Portland, OR, USA

175

174

[Haddad & Gatersleben 2010]: ‘Who is the typical bicyclists?’ by Birgitta Gatersleben and Hebba Haddad, Elsevier, U.K.

[Raffnsøe 1998]: ‘Filosofisk æstetik – jagten på den svigefulde sandhed’ by Sverre Raffnsøe, ?, 1998, Copenhagen

[Hartmann-Petersen 2009]: ‘I medgang og i modgang’ by Katrine Hartmann-Petersen, Forskningsgruppen Rum, Sted, Mobilitet & By, Institut for Miljø, Samfund og Rumlig Forandring, Roskilde Universitet, 2009, Denmark

[Seattle Toolkit 2012]: ‘Seattle’s Neighborhood Greenways’ by Betsy Jacobson and Jennifer Richter, ScanDesign Foundation, Green Future Lab and Gehl Architects, 2012, Seattle, USA

[Horton in Horton et al 2010]: ‘Fear of cycling’ by Dave Horton in ‘Cycling and society’ edited by Dave Horton, Paul Rosen and Peter Cox, Ashgate Publishing Limited, 2010, U.K. [how to get around town via bike 2010]: ‘how to get around town via bike! your guide to safe bicycling’ publication by Cascade Bicycle Club, 2010, Seattle, USA [Leung & Steiger 2012]: ‘Cycle Fashion Matrix’ by Elysia Leung and Hailey Steiger, presented at Velo City Global 2012 i Vancouver, BC, Canada [Momentum 2012]: ‘Momentum Magazine’ edition May-June 12 by Momentum Magazine LTD (momentummag.com)

[Shields 1998]: ‘Lefebvre, Love and Struggle - Spatial dialectics’ by Rob Shields, Routledge 1999, London and New York [Skinner & Rosen in Horton et al. 2007]: ‘Hell is Other Cyclists: Rethinking Transport and Identity’ by David Skinner and Paul Rosen in ‘Cycling and society’ edited by Dave Horton, Paul Rosen and Peter Cox, Ashgate Publishing Limited, 2010, U.K. [Spinney in Horton et al 2010]: ‘Cycling the City: Non-Place and the Sensory Construction’ by Justin Spinney in ‘Cycling and society’ edited by Dave Horton, Paul Rosen and Peter Cox, Ashgate Publishing Limited, 2010, U.K. [Stahlschmidt 2001]: ‘Metoder til Landskabsanalyse’ - kortlægning af stedets karakter og potentiale’, Forlaget Grønt Miljø, 2010, Denmark

[North 2011]: ‘Green Guide, cycling’ by David North, Flame Tree Publishing, 2011, UK [Urry 2007]: ‘Mobilites’ by John Urry, Polity Press, 2007, U.K. & US [Ohlsen 2011]: ‘Seattle City Guide’ by Becky Ohlsen, Lonely Planet City Guide 2011, USA [Olins 2004]: ‘On B®and’ by Wally Olins, Thames and Hudson, 2004, London and New York [Parkin & Koorey in Parkin 2012]: ‘Network Planning and Infrastructure Design’ by John Parkin and Glen Koorey in ‘Cycling and Sustainability’ edited by John Parkin, Emerald Group, 2012, London, UK [Parkin in Parkin 2010]: ‘Introduction’ by John Parkin in ‘Cycling and Sustainability’ edited by John Parkin, Emerald Group, 2012, London, UK [Pucher & Buehler 2008]: ‘Making Cycling Irresistible: Lessons from The Netherlands, Denmark and Germany’ Transport Reviews, 2008, New Jersey, USA [Pucher et al. 2009]: Infrastructure, programs, and policies to increase bicycling: An international review, Elsevier , 2009, U.S.

Websites (all seen in 2012): https://public.sheet.zoho.com/public/bikeleague/2000-to-2010-bike-commuters-largest-70-2-1 http://www.aarhuscykelby.dk http://bit.ly/TgLVaL http://nacto.org/cities-for-cycling/design-guide/cycle-tracks/ http://bit.ly/UIehBF http://bit.ly/O1XPIm [http://seattlegreenways.org/resources/photo-gallery/ www.nacto.org http://www.seattle.gov/transportation/bikemaps.htm http://bit.ly/PDI9Np http://bit.ly/QY8npi http://www.seattle.gov/transportation/dexter_pave.htm http://bit.ly/OkriNX http://nyti.ms/PkYlTA http://www.hubandbespoke.com/ http://bit.ly/SxNEMi http://www.rapha.cc/ Mhttp://mmdtv.wordpress.com/page/2 http://bit.ly/SUmQrQ http://bit.ly/QHJ2Tc http://www.8-80cities.org/ http://www.copenhagencyclechic.com/2008/04/cycle-chic-manifesto.html

Presentations, conferences/symposium and pers. com.

[Barton 2012]: Personal conversation with Renee Barton, Cascade Bicycle Club, May 8th, 2012, Seattle, WA, USA [Bicknell 2012]: Personal conversations with Lyle Bicknell, urban Planner in Department of Planning and Development in City of Seattle, 2012, Seattle, WA, USA [Cycling and society symposium 2012]: Cycling and society symposium (September 3rd - 4th) 2012 in London, UK [Jensen 2012]: Personal conversations with Niels Jensen, cycle planner in Cykelsekretariatet (Bicycle Office), City of Copenhagen, 2010, Copenhagen, Denmark [Kåstrup 2009]: ‘The cycling girl in Copenhagen and beyond’ power point presentation by Marie Kåstrup presented on Velo City 2009 in Brussels.

[Moddemeyer 2012]: ‘ RESILIENCE AS A FRAMEWORK FOR SUSTAINABILITY’ by STEVE MODDEMEYER (consultant of Cities of the Future, resilience and sustainability) presentation for the city of Seattle 6. of April 2012, Seattle, WA, USA [O’Melinn 2012]: ‘Biking & the Bottom Line Q&A Forum’ presentation by Erin O’Melinn, Executive DirectorVancouver Area Cycling Coalition, March 29, 2012, arranged by Commute Seattle, Seattle, WA, USA [Røhl 2011]: Presentation on Bike Planning in Copenhagen by Andreas Roehl, permanent head of Bicycle Office, 2011, Copenhagen Denmark [Velo City Global 2012] Velo City Global 2012 conference (June 26th - 29th) 2012 in Vancouver, BC, Canada (www.velo-city2012.com/programs/program-at-a-glance) [Wesslowski 2012]: Presentation on Cycling and society symposium (September 3rd - 4th) 2012 in London, UK Movies: [Peñalosa in Hustwit 2011]. Enrique Peñalosa former mayor of Bogota, Columbia, interviewed in the documentary ‘Urbanized’ by Gary Huswit 2011

Appendix A-F

See attached CD

“Cycle Tracks will abound in Utopia “ H.G. Wells