SHIFT: Cycling as a catalyst for better communities

cycling as a catalyst for better communities By: Dominic Prestifilippo & Nicolas Coia

Nicolas Coia Dominic Prestifilippo

SHIFT

Published by

320 South Broad Street Philadelphia, PA 19102 Copyright Š 2012

Copyright © 2012 by Nicolas Coia & Dominic Prestifilippo Illustrations copyright © 2012 by Nicolas Coia & Dominic Prestifilippo Photography credits: All photography created by © 2012 Nicolas Coia & Dominic Prestifilippo unless otherwise noted.

All rights reserved. No portion of this book may be reproduced–mechanically, electronically, or by any other means, including photocopying–without written permission of the publisher.

Cover design by Nicolas Coia & Dominic Prestifilippo Book design by Nicolas Coia & Dominic Prestifilippo Masters of Industrial Design at The University of the Arts 320 South Broad Street Philadelphia, PA 19102 First printing June 2012

Submitted in partial fulfillment of requirements for degree of Master of Industrial Design at The University of the Arts, Philadelphia, PA by Dominic Prestifilippo & Nicolas Coia

Approved by

320 South Broad Street Philadelphia, PA 19102 Copyright Š 2012

Abstract Using the bicycle as a catalyst, SHIFT proposes a number of design interventions to help raise Philadelphia’s quality of life. To facilitate this proposed shift, this thesis leverages the Human Centered Design Process through ethnographic field studies, visual data synthesis and an iterative design approach. The meaning of “interested but concerned� was juxtaposed against the theories of latent demand to highlight and unpack the economic benefits that a 3% shift in ridership could afford this fair city. Finally, a semantic view on the role of politics and communities in Philadelphia is unraveled. Focusing on the wickedness of the encountered problem and expressing how design solutions are but a small piece of the puzzle.

We ask that you read this document with interest and intent and to feel comfortable reaching out to us with questions, concerns, updates or corrections. It is the nature of design to constantly iterate and challenge.

Thank you, Nicolas Coia & Dominic Prestifilippo

To the interested, but concerned ‌

Acknowledgements Thank you to our committee chair Dr. Mimi Sheller, and our advisors Peter Angelides, Russell Meddin, Mike Pitone, Sherry LeFevre, Neil Kleinman and Jonas Milder. The variety and depth of perspective as well as the guidance you added helped us make our project stronger with every meeting.

A special thanks to all who found time to meet with us and offer their perspectives on the status of commuting, infrastructure and cycling within Philadelphia. You are truly appreciated and you have helped make this what it is today.

Also, thank you to Dillon Mahmoudi, of Portland State University. Without his help, a critical piece of our analysis, the connectivity maps, would not have been possible.

Table of Contents Foreword Human Centered Design & Politics Requirements for Addressing Wicked Problems Wickedelphia: The Wicked Problem of Cycling in Philly

12 14 16

Semantic Zoom n exploration of the political and on-street culture in A Philadelphia The Citizens of Philadelphia Interested But Concerned MOTU Complete Street Mock-up City & State National In Conclusion

33 34 50 62 82 94 96 108

Appendix I: Capital Effects Engaging At The National Level Availability of Federal Funding The National Bike Summit NBS & Its Breakdown

112 114 120 126

Appendix II: The Philadelphia Paradox A City In Flux Philadelphia Has Plans Steps In The Right Direction Top Down Perspectives The Philadelphia Paradox Exploration Of Induced Demand Is Philadelphia Really Doing Enough?

Appendix III: The Citizens

of

130 132 136 142 156 158 166

Philadelphia

Safety, NYC & A Tip? The City Strollers Thigh Masters A Culturally Relevant Perspective Thigh Masters: Observations Craigslist Survey Results Motor Mouths #BIKECAR: A Case Study

202 210 214 220 222 230 234 236

Appendix IV: Glossary & Bibliography Glossary Bibliography About the Authors

240 242 247

Foreword

Foreword

Human Centered Design & Politics Human Centered Design(HCD), is an approach that applies the postindustrial design process of research, prototyping and synthesis to often large, cultural issues. Through conversations, shadowing, role play and more, designers learn about the lives of people affected by the political and cultural issues being addressed. This information enables them to understand the context of the issue and how a solution could be optimized to fit easily into the end user’s existing routines. Throughout this process there is a constant externalization of information to build from. The magnitude of information that informs effective problem solving is beyond the capacities of the mind. Thus, its management is a key designer role. Visualizations are a common way of doing this. These graphics tell the story of the meaning behind the information in a way that is much easier and faster to engage with. Finally, reframing must happen, often. As new data arrives its meaning must be understood within the context of the project. Thus evaluating it from multiple vantage points enables the designer to understand how it fits in to the larger picture.

These tools and the qualitative nature of this process make it a naturally powerful method for addressing issues which arise in the political arena. By visualizing the data that are normally omitted in vapid policy discussions, designers make the information clear and thus facilitate decisions. Through reframing of data that may seem one sided, challenges can become opportunities. By developing prototypes, scenarios and stories a designer offers constituencies an understanding of the significance of their representative’s proposal.

These examples consider how only a few of the fundamental aspects of this design process could have great affect on politics and as such are only the tip of the iceberg for potential change.

12 & 13

Design Process

Research

Synthesis

Prototype

Test

Foreword

Requirements for addressingWicked Problems “A Wicked Problem is a social or cultural problem that is difficult or impossible to solve for as many as four reasons: incomplete

In Design, a Wicked Problem is a multivariate, highly connected issue with no clear definition and therefore no clear solution. Horst Rittel first outlined characteristics of these problems in his Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning, as shown on the opposite page.

According to his criteria many of the issues facing the U.S. and the world today constitute a Wicked Problem, e.g., global warming, health care reform, poverty, etc. These issues, though unsolvable, still need to be addressed. To do so Rittel’s criteria must be accounted for.

or contradictory

Rittel described specific attributes, for instance: each problem can be considered a symptom of another (#8) each has an infinite number number of people of potential solutions (#6). Both of these aspects show the natural and opinions interconnectedness of these types of problems. Therefore, to truly try and affect change, this interconnectedness must be addressed. involved, the large knowledge, the

economic burden and

His other criteria include the necessity to take a stance on how a problem should be addressed (#9). This is important because the nature of these solutions are untestable (#4), rather, each irrevocably changes problems with other the issue. Recognizing the importance of perspective and action, a designer is compelled to remain steadfast in their understanding and problems.� take on as many aspects of a wicked problem as possible. It is only Kolko, pg10 Wicked through this that one could hope to make significant progress. the interconnected

Problems; Problems Worth Solving

Aspects of a Wicked Problem Based on Horst Rittel’s Descriptions from Dilemas in a General Theory of Planning, (161-167)

1. There is no definitive definition of a Wicked Problem 2. Wicked Problems have no stopping rule, no end point 3. Solutions to Wicked Problems are not true-or-false, but good or bad 4. There is no immediate and no ultimate test of a solution to a Wicked Problem 5. Every solution to a Wicked Problem is a “one-shot operation”; because it irrevocably affects the problem itself 6. Wicked problems have an infinite number of potential solutions, each defined by the scope in which it is viewed 7. Every Wicked Problem is essentially unique 8. Every Wicked Problem can be considered to be a symptom of another problem 9. The choice of explanation of a Wicked Problem determines the nature of the problem’s resolution 10. The designer has no right to be wrong

14 & 15

Foreword

Wickedelphia: The Wicked Problem of cycling in Philadelphia Automobiles have a radical monopoly in the United States. Here, driving is the dominant method of mobility for commuting to work.

The deleterious effects of our automobile monopoly are now well documented. It is therefore critical that other transportation options be explored – especially in urban environment where there adoption is relatively easily.

Philadelphia in particular has the chance to be different. The proximity of residences to business districts within the city creates opportunities for non-motorized transit to be much more viable than in many suburban and rural communities. Philadelphia has more than just proximity going for it though. The city’s smooth topography makes it ideal for cycling and walking. Further consideration of the city’s design highlights the city’s grid layout, which not only makes it easy to navigate, but it keeps motorists at slower speeds decreasing the likelihood of fatal accidents. All of these aspects together with the high business and population density within Center City, Philadelphia economic core, could make a non-motorized travel haven.

The city of Philadelphia has begun taking a more active role in pursuing these alternate transit modes as well. In 2009 Philadelphia’s Mayor, Michael Nutter, signed a “complete streets” policy. That is a policy that ensures that streets are designed with all transit users in mind, not just motorists. Since many prior street designs included sidewalks, accounting for pedestrians to at least some degree, the new required consideration for bicycle infrastructure seems to be the catalyst for this fresh outlook on street design. Considering Philly’s

16 & 17

200+ miles bike lanes, the city seems to have put a lot of effort towards accommodating of non-motorized transit.

However, all is not as it would seem. What took Philadelphia over 15 years to accomplish, New York did in only three. From 2006 to 2009, New York added over 200 miles of bike lane to their system. Not only that, but they did it in the area of most need, the busiest part of Manhattan. In contrast, Philadelphia has only a handful of lanes in its economic core, offering little more than one option in any direction.

The 200+ miles of bike lanes in Philly include the tiny pieces on the outskirts of the city that seem to have been placed there out of ease rather than some thoughtful plan. A more thorough comparative analysis of cycling networks can be seen in Appendix II. Beyond infrastructure, the city has very little in the way of cycling promotion and education. Most of what does exist, has been fought for and supported by the Bicycle Coalition of Greater Philadelphia (BCGP) as opposed to the city itself. What the city has done most recently has been referred to as “edu-forcement.” This is where the city sends police officers on special patrols dedicated to traffic violations relating to the interaction of transit modes.

Given all the city’s natural qualities supporting non-motorized transit, one is left to wonder what keeps the city’s government from providing more support? As it turns out, this isn’t just a problem of local government intransigence, but is also hampered by on-street interactions and misperceptions of the street-user’s interests, as well

Foreword

as state and national government’s decisions regarding non-motorized transit funding and policy. These aspects are interwoven, building and supporting each other’s misguided efforts at improvements and misunderstandings around decision making. The breadth of this problem marks it as a wicked one and requires us, as designers, to address it thusly.

Our Stance

We believe that Philadelphia can differentiate itself from this car-centric culture and that cycling will be the catalyst to do so.

We believe the car-centric culture in our country has created cities that can only be sustained through the use of automobiles. Over time it has become evident that the production and maintenance of these vehicles often create more problems than they potentially solve, distancing communities and manufacturing pollution. We believe that Philadelphia can differentiate itself from this car-centric culture and that cycling will be the catalyst to do so. With the ever surging trend towards healthier, more environmentally conscious options in all areas of life, the bicycle is a clear choice for transportation, especially in a city as potentially accommodating as Philadelphia.

Cycling infrastructure has been proven to benefit all street users, so we believe it is our entry point for pushing for better street designs that not only include more cycling infrastructure, but also inherently improve the street scape for all users.

We believe that progress requires action. Bold steps are not without anxiety. Therefore we understand that while change is difficult, it is necessary to grow and improve. To increase this potential for growth and our design’s robustness, it is then necessary to design actions that address multiple stakeholders.

18 & 19

Our Goal We want to improve the quality of life within Philadelphia. We will do this by engaging the city, as well as, those who influence and are influenced by it, to understand their perspectives on cycling in Philadelphia. With this data we will design a set of actions complementary to the stakeholder’s culture, promoting cycling as a means for a better life.

Why Cycling Will Be Effective Not only is cycling more egalitarian and fun, on a day to day basis, than automobiles, it can bring real economic improvements to communities as well. Beyond these monetary effects, riding a bicycle has an experiential quality that is unmatched by any other mode of transit. It is these qualities that have perpetuated cycling, even through the recent automotive driven decades.

Economics For cities, a major concern for the implementation of change is value.

What is the value economically; politically; socially? When speaking of transportation the real challenge is proving the economic value of a change and then manifesting the political will to enable a city to progress. It is without a doubt that Philadelphia has a dynamic multimodal on-street culture. The City’s grid layout, mild topography, and relatively close geographical elements afford street users the unique ability to easily traverse Philadelphia from multiple styles of interaction. Driving a car is simple and seemingly quick. Taking a bus or train can be convenient and inexpensive. Riding a bicycle is fast,

Foreword

refreshing and engaging. Walking is fun, simple and connects you directly to the ‘scene.’ In order to maintain a high quality of life, a complete street mentality and implementation is a great way for Philadelphia to prepare for the future and enhance the prime elements, e.g., safety, air quality and aesthetics, of on-street interactions.

http://issuu.com/mid_uarts/ docs/thesis_preddy_smith

To clarify, a complete street is a street designed to provide adequate infrastructure to all modes of transport, such as the automobile, the bus, the train, the bicycle and the pedestrian. For the purpose of this thesis, we are not focusing on a complete street that necessarily includes train accommodations because buses are much more cost effective for moving large numbers of people across a city. Aside from the increased safety that a complete street affords its users, the designs often allow the easy beautification of a street from additional space. On-street green space increases property value and enhances the water retention of its streets (for more information on Philadelphia’s water overflow problem, please see the 2011 UArts MiD thesis book Soak It Up, Philly! by Donovan Preddy and Michael Smith).

Implementing a redefined street scape across Philadelphia is a daunting task requiring great planning and infrastructural changes.

Rather than propose the manifestation of a comprehensive complete street, this thesis instead looks at the bicycle as a means by which Philly can start with smart improvements to better the safety of its streets and increase the overall quality of life for residents.

20 & 21

Philadelphia’s Latent Cycling Demand Where latent demand is defined as commuters who drive less than 3.5 miles to work.

THE LATENT DEMAND FOR CYCLING IN PHILLY IS 32%

Where latent demand is defined as commuters who drive less than 3.5 miles to work.

Philly Auto Commuters Distance in Miles 1-3.5 >3.6

1,840,300 32%

16,491 A 3% Shift

We’re assuming 3% of the latent population shifts to the bicycle due to increased network connectivity in Philadelphia’s bike lane infrastructure.

In developing a politically minded commuting by car into Philadelphia is argument for the implementation of 2.4MM. On average, 32% of Philadelphians SAVINGS PERbike YEAR dedicated infrastructure for a city, drive between zero and 3.5 miles to one needs to investigate the economic work (2009 National Travel Survey). benefits and effects of said infrastructure. That equates to a sum of 764,800 people This must also account for the potential commuting by car less than 4 miles to 16k people exercising 30 min. a shift of population to a new transit mode. work. We can assume this is an inflated number including residents of New Jersey, day would save an average of Delaware and Pennsylvania.

Lets explore In quantifying the economic constructs that define Philadelphia as a viable city for this a little further; 60% of a population cycling infrastructure, we first must define can be the assumed quantity of persons interested, but concerned in bicycle as a the latent population of cyclists in Philly. means for traveling to work based off of a Portland study (Geller). 60% of the prior The 2011 Annual Urban Mobility mentioned 32% is 458,880 persons. A Report by the Texas Transportation perfect 30% of Philly’s current population Institute states the total number of people (US Census Bureau 2010 Census).

$2.9 MM in yearly Health Care Costs

A 3% Shift Foreword

bike lane infrastructure.

Annual Savings Upon Shifting From Car to Bike SAVINGS PER YEAR

16k people exercising 30 min. a day would save an average of

2 Tons of CO Emissions

$2.9 MM in yearly Health Care Costs

2MM

59K

Currently 3% Shift

$586k saved Active Transportation for America states that 1 ton of CO2 = $10.

383k $11 Million...

Gallons of fuel saved by 16k

In 4 years, a 3% shift amounts to the

22 & 23

In summation, we consider 3.5 miles is a very reasonable distance by which a person of fine physical condition can ride a bicycle. Since 32% of the current automotive commuters are driving this distance, we are considering this portion to be Philadelphia’s latent cycling population, in terms of commuting. The following analysis, however, will consider if a meager 3% of this population shifted to the bicycle as their main form of transportation.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention advises “30 minutes moderate exercise on most days,” or the equivalent of 5 miles of bicycling to fight and prevent obesity. This increase in exercise is understood to save the average person between $20 and $330 dollars in yearly health care costs (Gotschi and Mills). If we take the median cost savings of $175 per year and apply that to our modest 3% shift, 16K Philadelphians would save $2.9 MM in health care costs.

Investigating this shift further, we learn that there would be 59,000 less tons of CO2 emitted into the atmosphere. Not only is this a meaningful start to the reduction of carbon dioxide emissions, but the Active Transportation for America also states that 1 ton of CO2 can be equated to $10. That’s an additional savings of $586K. Philadelphia is also the 20th most Ozone polluted city in America (State of the Air 2011). That means any method we have to decrease our particulate pollutants begins to decrease our residents risk of Pediatric and Adult Asthma, Chronic Bronchitis, Emphysema and poverty. Yes, poverty. Heavily polluted air means more economic instability for the lower economic class of citizens in an urban environment. This is due to the incurred and ongoing health care costs involved with treating things like Asthma, Bronchitis and Emphysema.

T

Active Transportation for America states that 1 ton of CO2 = $10.

Foreword

Currently 3% Shift

Annual Savings Comparison

383k $11 Million...

Gallons of fuel saved by 16k people not driving to work

In 4 years, a 3% shift amounts to the same cost as the new Dilworth Plaza...

PRESENT & FUTURE VALUE OF A 3% SHIFT Not only would a savings in carbon emissions be seen, there would also be a $65MM decrease in the amount of fuel used. The Yr4 16,000Cost shifted users of Dilworth Plaza would Renovationuse 383K less $50MM gallons of fuel or $11MM! Yr3

Yr3

Now, lets investigate the future value of Yr2 Yr2 Yr2 savings aggregated by 16,491 persons switching from a car to bike for their commute to work.Yr1 The summation of the Yr1 Yr1 Yr1 numbers presented on the prior pages is $14MM $14MM. That is, in year one 16K people would have saved an aggregate of $14MM. At a 6% discount rate over four years, Year 1

Year 2

*With a 6% applied discount rate.

Year 3

Year 4

these 16K individuals could have paid for the installation of the new Dilworth Plaza. Which calls out its exorbitant cost, and the question of priorities within Philadelphia.

Year 5

We have not calculated the additional savings of not owning a car, but assuming thatIf 500 sold their cars, 500of ofthese these people users donated based oncars, AAA’s 2011 cost estimate of their they would save an owning and operating additional $4.9MM a automobile for a year($8,588), these individuals would save an additional $4.9MM.

National Household Transportation Study Rails to Trails: Active Transportation for America

Present & Future Value of a 3% Mode Shift

24 & 25

PRESENT & FUTURE VALUE OF A 3% SHIFT $65MM Yr4 Cost of Dilworth Plaza Renovation $50MM

Yr2

Yr1

Yr1

Yr3

Yr3

Yr2

Yr2

Yr1

Yr1

$14MM

Year 1

Year 2

Year 3

Year 4

*With a 6% applied discount rate.

To sum this all up, 16,491 motorists who shift to riding a bicycle, in one year, would have $19MM which they could invest into the societal fabric of Philadelphia, or approximately $1,152 per person.

Experientially Bicycles transform a city from hard angles to organic curves, forcing new perspectives simultaneously. As the previously defined forms are re-framed, new juxtapositions and opportunities are

Year 5

If 500 of these users donated their cars, they would save an additional $4.9MM

National Transport

Rails to Tr Transport

discovered. In Next American City’s “The Real Reason Why Bicycles are the Texas Tra Key to Better Cities”, by Kasey Klimes, Mobility R bicycles are referred to as “an instrument of experiential understanding.”(Klimes) He continues, offering that “on a bicycle, citizens experience their city with deep intimacy…” These transient, transitional moments provide a person the chance to re-evaluate their own neighborhood with new insights into the significances of their day to day life within its context.

Foreword

Jen Petersen continues this topic in Pedaling Hope. She attributes the new perspectives to the “…active choice to encounter urban elements that often go unnoticed and unappreciated…”(2). These could be the new significance of changes in road surface conditions from blacktop to brick as in Old City, or the new recognition of the proximity of Liberty Lands Park to ones home. Peterson provides some specific examples herself, such as the “completely unfiltered and breathtaking view of a quintessential monument to modernity – the Brooklyn Bridge” or during a late night ride along the Hudson River there is a “private showing of lights reflected in the water from tall buildings on the palisades of the opposite bank, while sailboats rock in the river’s currents.” How a city unfolds itself before a cyclist is deeply personal and can only be alluded to in words. One must ride a bicycle oneself to understand how one will be affected.

Egalitarian Beyond these purely experiential aspects of cycling, a bicycle provides very functional benefits as well. One such benefit is that a bicycle significantly broadens the reach of a pedestrian. In many cities, pedestrians are familiar with the areas around their home and work, and the places between. However, outside of that radius, they are often quite unfamiliar. A bicycle changes that in the most direct way. Where initially it took an hour to walk from the Schulykill to the Delaware, it is now a ten minute ride. Where before Reading Terminal Market was the best option for groceries, the Italian Market is now within reach. Not only do these new destinations become attainable, but the communities and businesses between them do as well. Which brings up another point, that of visibility.

26 & 27

Pedestrians easily see and engage with their communities. As they walk, they may look around and observe the historic architecture and patronize the stores they pass. On a bicycle, though slightly impaired, this community engagement is still quite possible. Therefore, a pedestrian’s reach is extended while maintaining their community engagement. That is significant within a city, because these community interactions, these serendipitous encounters create the culture and significance that define the city itself.

These engagements are only partially enabled by public transit and almost completely destroyed by automobiles. Speed is the common culprit behind this differentiation. As a person’s rate of movement is increased the resolution at which they perceive their environment is decreased. While walking, a person has a few minutes to take in a city block and all its nuanced detail. In a car a person speeds by it in seconds. This inability to see the city inherently creates misconceptions of the city. This is most noted when considering what problems exist. Street conditions are understood only in the context of large, speeding machines and heavy weight. Rough neighborhoods are overlooked in the anxiety of making the stoplight. Small businesses aren’t patronized due to the challenges of parking.

Public transit amends some of these issues; however some do remain.

When pedestrians take a train from City Hall to Fishtown, part of their journey is underground and part is above ground. Underground, transit users aren’t even privileged to the light of day, let alone the opportunities to see and engage the communities in which they travel through. When the train is above ground, the view is literally a high level view of the city. A person cannot engage with the city which they traverse in any nuanced or detailed way, but rather only in generalities. When considering a bus, many of the issues of both

Foreword

automobile and the train strike again. Thus, while public transit extends the reach of a pedestrian, it still creates a barrier between them and the communities through which they travel.

Bicycles also maintain a direct connection between the user and the work. Thus, as a bicyclist, if the load is heavier it is noted. If the real costs of the distance is farther it is noted. This quality is beneficial because mobility are felt, the real costs of mobility are felt, viscerally. This translates to a more balanced use of energy by the person. Which is an important viscerally. quality in our world today. Rather than having the energy begin as oil overseas, to then be shipped here for one to purchase, often overpaying to account for the surplus weight of their vehicle, the energy begins as food, which can often be sourced locally. This is then processed and allotted to the task at hand by one’s own body.

This second path of energy also has positive side effects, such as an increase in stamina, cardiovascular strength and weight loss.

In a comparison of vehicles, bicycles are clearly a much simpler machine than an automobile. This translates directly to bicycles being more easily attained and maintained. A reliable, used bicycle can be purchased in Philadelphia, for around $150, while a reliable car will often cost easily ten times that amount. That is an order of magnitude greater. At the other end of the spectrum a completely customized bicycle, hand built to the users specifications by local fabricators can be purchased for two or three thousand dollars. That supports the local economy and is still only a fraction of what a new car costs.

And these prices only account for the initial cost. The simplicity of the bicycle’s drivetrain and braking mechanisms also makes troubleshooting easier and repair cheaper.

28 & 29

As cities continue to grow, the premium on space continues to rise.

As motorists increase with road capacity, it is clear that the already narrow streets of Philadelphia will not be able to support more automotive demand. Enrique Peñalosa, the eminent former Mayor of Bogotá, stated recently while speaking at PennDesign, that street parking is a privilege, not a right. Automobiles, he said, are a private endeavor, and thus their maintenance and storage should be as well.

This is antithetical to the car-centric culture that pushes a right-toautomobility mind-set here in the United States. Peñalosa further stated that the needed limitations on automobility could only come from a top-down political decision. He continued by advocating for cities to remove their on-street parking, building wider sidewalks and bike lanes in their place. On average ten bicycles fit in a single car parking space. Therefore, more cycling infrastructure can ease the burden an increasingly dense urban population can put on its streets.

Shifting Imagine the future, cleaner, cheaper, healthier and more fun! 16,000 people will not shift their mode of transportation solely on a whim.

This shift needs to be induced. The latent population of Philadelphia requires the physical manifestation of bicycle infrastructure in order to move from one mode to the other. In order for this to be attained however, cycling, culture and infrastructure, must be reframed to unveil these opportunities to empower those interested, but concerned to shift.

We’ll end this section with a question, if Mayor Nutter approached you and said “I can save you $1,100 dollars a year if you ride a bicycle to work instead of driving a car?” What would you do?

Semantic Zoom

Semantic Zoom » Zoom Level -1

CIVILIANS

MOTU

ANDREW STOBER

RINA CUTLER

PHILADELPHIA CDC CENTRAL PHILADELPHIA

BUSINES

STREETS DEPT.

32 & 33

Mirra

Zoom Level -1: AN Exploration of the political and on-street Meddin culture in Philadelphia

HARRISBURG

PARKING AUTH.

Semantic zooms, or as the Eames duo coined this analysis, ‘The Powers of Ten,’ is a method of viewing multiple levels of an environment. Visually highlighting the various connections and societies that emerge within a given space. A semantic zoom unfolds Bruegger the complexities of systemic and wicked problems. Allowing the designer to PCPC focus on one audience, while understanding that users connection within the wicked problem. Simultaneously, we are able to extract minute complexities that govern a systems function and the authoritative roles and interaction points within a given environment.

This allows designers to distinguish differences in perspectives, needs and thus design the required strategies to help alleviate pain points within a wicked problem.

WATER DEPART.

SS

Thompson

DRWC

In the coming sections we will highlight the various audience DVRPC members involved in each semantic level and highlight the opportunities we uncovered through user research. Just as in the ‘Powers of Ten’, we hope to illuminate the complexities and wickedness inherent within the system of infrastructure decision making in the urban world of cycling in Philadelphia. We will cover the city level, Civilians, the Mayors Office of Transportation and Utilities, Businesses and the Community Development Corporations, a general state level and a more specific National level including the House of Representatives, Senate.

Semantic Zoom » Zoom Level -1

Civilians

Carmalt

BUS TRAIN CAB

BIKE / PED COORD.

Sport

Doty

PUBLIC TRANSIT

Errands

Stuart

BCGP

CYCLIST

PEDESTRIAN

Boyle

STREETS DEPT.

Commute

Mirra

Meddin

CIVILIANS

MOTORIST

CARPOOL

MOTU

ANDREW STOBER

PARKING AUTH.

Bruegger

PCPC

CAR

RINA CUTLER WATER DEPART.

PHILADELPHIA

BREWERYTOWN

DVRPC Thompson

FAIRMOUNT

CDC

DRWC

BUSINESS

SOUTHWEST CENTRAL PHILADELPHIA

NEW KENSINGTON

SOUTH OF SOUTH

PAUL LEVY

CHINATOWN

LOCAL

DIANA LU JOHN CHIN

XIN GE START-UP

CORPORATE

34 & 35

Semantic Zoom Level -1: The Citizens of Philadelphia

With a design goal to understand the civilian perspective of cycling in Philadelphia, we interviewed and observed Motorists, Pedestrians and Cyclists. These interviews helped us uncover areas of concern for each user group. From this we were able to formulate two design interventions found at the end of this section.

Motor Mouths The motoring public with whom we spoke were not anti bicycle and they were not anti bike lane. In fact they seemed more concerned with finding places to park their cars.

The two main factors hindering motorists from riding a bicycle was their physical inability and their conception of convenience. Driving a car has become a learned convenience in America. Our children are licensed as early as the age of 16, and the car is advertised as the quickest and easiest form of transportation. In fact, our country is designed around the automobile, with highways, byways, roads and parking.

Another concern we heard from the drivers with whom we spoke was that of pedestrian traffic. While Philadelphia is the 5th best city to walk, as rated by walkscore.com, one motorist we questioned, responded “The worst part?...Pedestrians. Pedestrians crossing don’t pay attention. They have to watch out for other people.”

Semantic t Level -1

Our main goals in speaking with Philadelphia motorists was to better understand their reluctance to riding a bicycle in the city as well as their feelings towards the current population of riders. Because there is a consistent undertone of animosity between motorists and cyclists, we wanted to understand if this is a particularly exacerbated happening, or if the majority of motorists truly hated bicyclists.

Fortunately, our results favored in the former.

The City Strollers Our understanding of Portland States theories on the population of interested but concerned, led our research to investigate pedestrian interest and concerns with cycling in Philadelphia. The following is a recap of our findings, for more detail please reference Appendix III. The Pedestrians we interviewed quite candidly respected and promoted cycling infrastructure. Although some hadn’t ridden a bicycle since childhood, they didn’t abolish the idea as though bicycling was a plague of modern day society. Instead, they were concerned in their personal abilities in riding a bike. As an example of this, one pedestrian with whom we spoke said, “I haven’t rode a bike since a kid, so I don’t know if I still can. I know they say, ‘once you learn, you never forget,’ but I’m not sure if that actually worked. We’ll find out one day.”

This gentleman’s behavioral patterns allow us to assume he’ll walk for years to come, but the gentle inference of ‘[finding] out one day’ is telling of his subconscious desire to again ride a bike.

36 & 37

With a design goal to understand the civilian perspective of cycling in Philadelphia, we interviewed and observed Motorists, Pedestrians and Cyclists.

Semantic Zoom Âť Zoom Level -1

Philadelphia Motorist Demographics

Average commuting age

of daily motoring commuters are women

Auto Commuters

Percent of Motorists x Ethnicity Caucasian 52% Asian 7% African American 33% Hispanic 8%

38 & 39

What’s the worst thing about driving?

Pedestrians crossing…they don’t pay attention

What are your thoughts on cyclists?

Cyclists are good, they just need to obey the traffic laws.

What are your thoughts on bike lanes?

What’s the worst thing about driving?

Bike lanes are a great idea.

We don’t ride bikes, but the street is for everybody.

The worst thing about driving [in Philly] is the congestion.

Semantic Zoom » Zoom Level -1

As the saying goes, humans are creatures of habit. Walking, just as driving, is a generalized pattern of behavior. And once a behavior is normalized, active cognitive function can relax. In order for many people to ride a bicycle, they would need to change multiple aspects of their lifestyle. Regardless of the potential benefits of exercise, speed, enjoyment and a new style of urban engagement, many pedestrians currently have no motivation to ride a bike.

Another informant who classifies himself as a pedestrian and motorist of Philadelphia stated, “I wish there were more bike lanes. It’s really hard, in the city with narrow streets. It’s hard not to hit them…I wish [the bikers] would use them. It’s unnerving because you don’t want to hit them, it’s really tight, and they kind of don’t care, they swerve in and out. More bike lanes definitely.”

This statement is unadulterated advocacy for bicycle lanes. This informant walks and drives the corridors of Philadelphia, he recognizes the simple benefits that dedicated cycling infrastructure provides the cyclist, driver and pedestrian.

The informant’s concern speaks directly to the comprehensive safety of a ‘complete street.’ Whereby safety is maintained for multiple modes of transportation, proving that infrastructure for “a small group of citizens,” another common rebuttal, is actually infrastructure for all transportation.

Thigh Masters The majority of cyclists we spoke with felt Philadelphia is a great city to

40 & 41

ride because of its topography. In addition to being a relatively flat city, Philadelphia is dense with commerce, education, entertainment and residential areas. Due to Philadelphia’s size these trip generators are all within a 1 - 3 mile radius.

This is widely understood to be a prime range for bicycle travel for the majority of a population.

In fact, Philly has what Scott Bernstein, President of the Center for Neighborhood Technology, calls “Locational Efficiency.” Locational efficiency relates to how convenient ones job, home and grocery are to that individual.

Contrary to the topographical and locational benefits, Philadelphia does have disadvantages to cycling. One of which arose more often than not is the relationship between bicycles and cars, otherwise known as “bikewars.” One cyclist in particular told us she feels “it’s a Philly thing.

Cars like to hit you... Philly drivers don’t seem to recognize that there are rules.” Roads commonly are, in fact, two way streets, and the culture of respect between motorists, cyclists and pedestrians needs to be as well.

Bike Wars & King of the Road In Challenging the King of the Road, a thesis by Jacob Bjerre Mikkelsen, Shelly Smith and Ole B. Jensen, they state that although American bicycle advocacy is one of the strongest, a persistent

Why do you walk?

I trust myself, as opposed to the public transportation.

For me, I’m lucky; I live close to the city. I don’t have to pay the high gas prices.

Semantic Zoom Âť Zoom Level -1

Philadelphia Pedestrian Demographics

Average commuting age

of daily pedestrian commuters are women

Pedestrian Commuters

Percent of Pedestrians x Ethnicity Caucasian 65% Asian 10% African American 19% Hispanic 6%

42 & 43

How do you feel about bike lanes?

I wish there were more, and I wish [the bikers] would use them. It’s unnerving, because you don’t want to hit them. More bike lanes definitely.

What’s the worst thing about walking?

Cabs are nuts. That’s [the] worst thing about walking.

Semantic Zoom » Zoom Level -1

opposition has led to a battle of mobility. This political opposition has trickled past theory and has manifested itself in the on-street behavior of motorists versus cyclists.

The observations and experiences outlined in Challenging the King of the Road are not unlike our own. Detailing how cars take hard right turns, cutting off cyclists and creating very dangerous situations. And how cyclists run red lights, ride on sidewalks and zig zag between cars to get to a stop light quickly.

In this thesis we will consider interventions to address and mitigate these “bikewars” and present them in the end of this section.

The Working Class Biker The bike messenger is a different breed of cyclist. She isn’t riding for sport.

He isn’t trying to get to work with as little sweat as possible. Rather, they are racing on the streets of Philly with packages on their backs. Their end goal to deliver as many pieces of post they can during normal working hours.

Due to their need for speed, messengers classically dart through traffic, argue with cabs, speed past pedestrians and zip onto sidewalks. Seemingly without the respect or ode of acknowledgment to fellow street and sidewalk users.

However, to empathize with the messenger is to understand their relationship with the urban landscape and the requirements of their work.

Cycling in densely populated corridors of the City, the bike messenger is uniquely attune to traversing his environment. It is this very attitude and boded confidence that results in the piercing eyes of pedestrian on-lookers, the shaking of fists by motorists and the disrespectful spit of irate cab drivers.

For the urban bike messenger, bikewar is an everyday occurrence.

In regards to bicycle infrastructure, a group of messengers we spoke with felt “it’s better to have bike lanes that are bullshit, than no bike lanes.” This

44 & 45

sentiment stems from the lack of a cycling network, bike lanes that start and end nowhere or are “covered in glass and full of potholes.” Citing, in addition to these facts and concerns, there is a consistent disrespect from motorists using bike lanes as parking.

A ‘Lone Wolf As with any subculture, there are anomalies.

Matt, an aggressive messenger cited that he “hates bike lanes,” even claiming that “most are just another way to get doored.” Drastic, as it may sound, his concerns are legitimate.

The placement of Philly bike lanes have historically been on the driver side of a parking lane. This is the optimal location for a cyclist to be obstructed by a person exiting a car, and thus get “doored.”

Friends Don’t Let Friends Walk To Work What influences a confident, comfortable pedestrian to shift her behavior in a congested urban environment? Friends.

A self proclaimed women-interested-incycling-but-concerned-with-its-safety told us her story. Jesse has multiple friends who ride their bikes all over the city. Her friend Jane “bikes everywhere; for work and recreation,” and another friend, Anna, doesn’t even have a driver’s license.

Jesse’s friends visit often, and it has been a running joke between them that she should get on a bike. Jesse explains that she was always interested, but had a looming fear of riding in the city. Jesse’s partner is a doctor at Penn Medicines’ E.R., so she knows all too well the horror stories of urban accidents. Not-to-mention her friend Anna was hit in the head by a forklift on Washington Avenue.

However it is not the stories of people hit or injured which are the root cause of her fear. Rather, it is Jesse’s lack of cycling knowledge that deters her from riding in the urban context. Walking up and down 16th and 17th streets on her commute to work, Jesse has observed other cyclist behavior. The inconsistencies in actions confuse her on what is right and what is wrong.

Semantic Zoom Âť Zoom Level -1

Philadelphia Cyclist Demographics

Average commuting age

of daily bike commuters are women Bike Commuters

Percent of Cyclists x Ethnicity Caucasian Asian African American Hispanic

58% 17% 16% 9%

46 & 47

What would you change about Philly?

If I could change one thing it would be driver awareness of riders.

What would you change about Philly?

Probably that more people from the suburbs would understand you can’t ride on the sidewalks.

Semantic Zoom » Zoom Level -1

Family Matters Jesse works at 17th and JFK, 1.1 miles from her home and she commutes by foot daily. This is an easy commute for her and takes between 15 and 20 minutes.

Fortunately for Jesse’s dog, her work is very flexible and she is able to leave for a mid-day walk. But her mid-day travels take 30 - 40 minutes.

Jesse has began to realize the little amount of time she has available and that a bicycle would improve her and her dogs quality of life. Jesse’s unselfish attitude combined with friendly prodding and encouragement is what prompted her behavioral shift.

A Little Education is All it Takes Jesse’s concerns are not unresolvable, in fact we received a 750 word email from her, detailing her first few experiences riding her bike. Her personal tipping point was simple education from seasoned riders. All Jesse needed was to understand that automobiles are not going to actively run her over, and that it is OKAY to take a full lane because the bicycle is considered a legal automobile in the state of Pennsylvania. Simple pieces of information like this, which are so readily available to many urban riders, are overlooked as important nuggets that help people interested in riding to get on a bike.

Jesse Leonard: Interested but concerned interviewee

48 & 49

Opportunity Recap Motorist Overview »» »» »» »» »»

Motorists are not anti bike-lane.

Motorists are mostly concerned with where to park.

Driving is a learned convenience.

Driving is highly advertised and so desire has been highly marketed.

High pedestrian traffic is a danger for motorists.

Pedestrian Overview »» Potentially don’t remember how to ride a bicycle. »» Walking is a normalized pattern of behavior. »» Philadelphia’s narrow street grid makes it difficult to design for all transportation modes. »» Cyclists swerve in and out of cars. »» Cab drivers disrespect pedestrian right of way. »» Driving and parking can be difficult.

Cyclist Overview »» »» »» »» »» »» »» »» »» »» »» »» »» »»

Philadelphia has what is known as Locational Efficiency.

Bike wars, no one ever wins, and people get hurt.

Cars take hard right turns and cut off cyclists.

Cyclists zig-zag through automobiles.

One bike lane is better than no bike lane.

Philadelphia lacks a cycling network.

The Bicycle Coalition of Greater Philadelphia’s interests have become too political.

There is a very persistent auto-centric opposition.

Cyclists should not ride on the sidewalk.

Cyclists run red lights.

Bike lanes are just another way to get doored.

Observed inconsistent cyclist behavior.

Friends are a powerful motivator for riding a bike.

Lack of knowledge is a barrier for entry.

Semantic Zoom » Zoom Level -1

Interested But Concerned

Audience In order to address this audience of interested, but concerned we needed to understand their commonalities. We first considered our target population of motorists and pedestrians and realized that their current mode of transit isn’t important. What is, though, is that they are both non-cyclists, unfamiliar with much of the culture surrounding it. We also noted that our population is strictly Philadelphian. Since this city has a very strong and proud heritage, it was important that our system incorporates that.

Communication Design With a defining target audience as the interested but concerned, we designed a systematic campaign for reaching out to these, potentially unaware, would-be cyclists. A series of advertisements at the onset of this design intervention. By using graphic and visual design to portray the average Philadelphian’s ‘friend’ riding a bike, we can engage our audience by promoting that they simply “Ask a Friend.” Ask them about cycling culture or the do’s and don’ts of riding a bike in an urban environment. This is okay, because as the ad portrays, we’ve all been there. These statements directly address the concerns we heard from our interviewees, such as the uncertainty of knowing if they remember how to ride a bike, or the current on-street laws or how to properly lock a bike. All of this knowledge, these advertisements stress, is simply a question away.

The second ad is directed towards the aforementioned ‘friend.’

Current cyclists don’t necessarily promote biking as a means of

50 & 51

Try a ride!

Your Friends Can Help.

JUST ASK When did you realize you were comfortable on a bike?

“

I was riding South on 19th, coming up to Market St. There is a lot of traffic there. It is frustrating. Once I finally turned on to Market, there was less traffic. I was happy and relaxed. Only then did I realize I was riding without my hands on the handlebars!

Mock Advertisement Addressing the Interested, but Concerned Population

Semantic Zoom Âť Zoom Level -1

A City With More People Riding Bicycles is a Healthier City.

THANK YOU

Friends Help Friends Try a Ride.

�

I have been interested in riding for a while, but I had a looming fear of riding in the city. My friends ride all over. Finally, I told them of my fear. They were very receptive and with their help, and reassurance I took my bike around the block. Since then, my bike and I are inseperable!

Mock Advertisement Addressing the Current Cycling Population

52 & 53

transportation to their coworkers, friends or family members. By targeting people who already ride, we can close the gap between asking and telling. Because friends are such strong influencers, considering them ambassadors to cycling aids in reaching out in a meaningful way to our audience.

To further address the opportunities that arose, we tied this campaign together with an online resource intended to be provided by the Bicycle Coalition of Greater Philadelphia. The goal of the website is two-fold. First, provide users with the information they need to consider cycling a viable option. A simple stepping stone into understanding on-street bicycle mobilities. Second, provide access to a free/low cost bicycle that can be reserved for your commute to work. Since bicycling is inherently experiential, these two actions work in tandem. They ease anxiety with information while providing the means to ride a bike by removing the barrier of entry. As was learned through our interview with Jesse, once she was on her bike, feeling cute, she realized bicycling was fun and easy; she was hooked.

Precedent A major reason for the strong uprising of the automobile, as opposed to the bicycle or other modes of transportation, was due to the sheer amount of advertising. This began in the mid-twentieth century and continues on to present day. These ad’s were pivotal in reframing the bicycle as a child’s toy rather than a means of transportation. The power of this medium is clear and with a new focus, we believe we can begin to help our audience reconsider their perceptions of riding.

Semantic Zoom » Zoom Level -1

Interaction Design The site was designed with a story in mind. Pulling the viewer through four pivotal and common categories of concern. Using ample white space and a friendly, playful color scheme that draws the eye to key topics, we are able to design a welcoming experience that transcends age and gender. All the while, driving the user to one particular action. In web design, the rate at which a user takes a certain action is called a conversion rate, the higher the better. We designed this site for a high conversion rate by keeping it simple and straight forward, and minimizing outbound links which allow users to simply pass through the site. More than that, the site is designed to offer access to a low-cost bicycle at just the right moment. That is, when a potential new cyclist is most willing to shift their behavior.

And this is right after their questions have been answered.

One of the most unique elements of this bike-rental process is the requirement to have a friend to ride with. Through our research, we discovered, the importance of lowering anxiety and the natural ability of a confident friend to do this. We believe that this partnership will deter bad experiences, and thus increase the number of participants who ultimately shift to cycling. And by being able to request a coalition member as your ‘buddy’ we’ve mitigated the potential of this becoming a barrier.

In addition, the use of video and simple imagery helps deliver content through engaging visual mediums. Video has become one of the more popular internet based content delivery systems and graphics are a great way to portray information for people who quickly scan information.

Resource Website Wireframe Âť Landing Page

54 & 55

BIKES ARE FRIENDLY! Try a ride to work with a friend and find out. Concerned about riding in traffic?

Confused about locking a bike? Just want to know the laws. We have you covered, now just give it a shot!

Concerned about riding in traffic?

Semantic Zoom » Zoom Level -1

Resource Website Wireframe » Traffic

Concerned about riding in traffic?

Riding in traffic can seem like a scary thing.

However, riding with cars and trucks is actually not that bad. Drivers do not want to get into an accident and are often very wary of what cyclists are up to.

When riding in traffic, it is important not to impede the flow of automobiles. Whenever possible, ride in a bicycle lane or in the slow lane of traffic. If it is not possible for cars to safely pass, simply ride in the middle of the lane, taking it. This way cars won’t be able to make a bad decision in trying to squeeze by.

To see this and more, demonstrated, watch Sara in the video.

back to top or try a ride

Cnofused about locking a bike?

A common concern of our interviewees was the fear of riding in traffic. Providing a video from the perspective of a cyclist shows this experience for what it really is. This helps those timid about traffic to understand that reality differs from their perception. Filming this in Philly upholds the strong local pride and makes it more compelling.

A text description is provided as well.

This more descriptive means is meant to be accessible by computers without highbandwidth internet capabilities.

56 & 57

Resource Website Wireframe Âť Bike Locks

Confused about locking a bike?

Anatomy of a locked bike

Locking a bike can be confusing. Which part is important, what is safe to lock to, how is the best way to do it, and on and on.

Rear Triangle

The key points to know: 1. Always lock the frame of the bicycle 2. Always lock to something secure e.g., ensure sign posts have signs, bike racks aren’t loose, etc.

Cable lock, looped through the front wheel, and secured to the U-lock. back to top

U-Lock, locked through the wheel and rear triangle.

or try a ride

Just want to know the laws?

Another common concern is how to lock a bike. Because we understand the complexities of securely locking a bicycle inhibits its purchase we designed a single, simple, secure locking method. The variety of nuanced locking situations are simplified to a single option. The visual

method also highlights the necessary mechanisms for doing so, e.g., a lock and cable.

Supplementary information is also provided as well for those who prefer a guided walkthrough.

Semantic Zoom » Zoom Level -1

Resource Website Wireframe » Laws

Just want to know the laws?

Sharrow

(Share & Arrow) 1. Reminds motorists to share the road 2. Should ride over to be positioned safely in the road

4 Feet

4’

You’ve probably seen bike riders riding all over the place. You are wondering what laws do bike riders have to obey? The answer is pretty much, all of them!

It is legal to: 1. Ride in the driving lane, with traffic 2. Ride in the middle of the lane if it is unsafe for a motorist to pass 3. Skip wearing a helmet if you are over 12 years old It is illegal to: 1. Run a stop sign 2. Run a red light 3. Ride on the sidewalk

In PA motorists are required to give cyclists a minimum of four feet when passing back to top or try a ride

Try a ride!

Many potential new riders are unfamiliar with the street markings and laws regarding cycling. They see cyclists acting differently under similar circumstances and are left confused about how they should ride.

This uncertainty causes anxiety in the novice rider and so addressing these concerns visually can quickly help a new cyclist feel comfortable and confident.

58 & 59

Resource Website Wireframe » Try a Ride

Try a ride!

Renter’s name

Friends help friends ride a bike. Find a friend and go for a ride…

No helmet necessary locks are provided other f.a.q.

email phone credit card number expiration

sid

skill level

or

will bring instead?

never ridden

old pro

Your Friend’s name or request a friend when?

special requests

JUNE S M T W T F S 3 10 17 24

Brought to you by SHIFT

Beyond information sharing, our ultimate motivation for this site is to provide easy access to a low cost bike and to do this when people are most likely to be interested. Therefore we placed this signup page last, so that our user’s questions would be answered first, opening their minds to reconsidering a bicycle as transportation

4 11 18 25

5 12 19 26

6 13 20 27

7 14 21 28

1 8 15 22 29

2 9 16 23 30

get your bike!

back to top

Recognizing the potentially pensive nature of our user at this point it is important to keep this page light and simple.

Linking to the frequently asked questions and offering special accommodations helps assuage a user’s lingering anxiety.

Semantic Zoom Âť Zoom Level -1

Resource Website Wireframe Âť Confirmation http://www.shifttobikes.com/thanks Thank You!

Thank you Jane Doe, for trying a bicycle as a means for transportation on June 7, 2012.

Add to ical or gcal or outlook Tell people on facebook or twitter go back to learning

A final thank you page, not only makes the user feel appreciated, but provide valuable feedback to them regarding their online transaction. We have also taken advantage of the opportunities this page affords by allowing the user share their experience via social media, as well as provide an

easy means of adding this event to their calendar.

Again, on a separate page, it is imperative to maintain consistent navigation to reduce confusion.

60 & 61

Resource Website Wireframe Âť F.A.Q. http://www.shifttobikes.com/faq Frequently Asked Questions

Frequently Asked Questions What happens if my chain falls off?

How can I adjust my seat?

When do I need to return my bicycle?

Why can’t I rent one for more than a day?

go back to learning

What happens if my chain falls off?

When a chain falls off, it is usually a simple fix. Simply push the loose chain back on to the top of the rear gears and spin the pedals backward. Ask your friend for help.

back to learning

How can I adjust my seat?

The frequently asked questions affords the opportunity for people to have any lingering questions answered quickly.

As always, maintaining a consistent navigation is imperative in maintaining a standard mental model of how the site navigated.

Semantic Zoom » Zoom Level -1

Semantic Zoom Level -1: MOTU

The Mayors Office of Transportation and Utilities, among many other things, is the political authority governing all street based transportation changes and enhancements for Philadelphia. Rina Cutler, appointed in 2008 as the Deputy Mayor of Transportation and Utilities(MOTU), is the woman in charge of all major decisions, strategically designing Philadelphia for the future.

A Full Plate To do this though, Cutler must balance many things. Since her appointment, the Mayor and the Philadelphia City Planning Commission (PCPC), have come out with three plans that directly affect the decisions Cutler makes. These are the Greenworks plan of 2009, the Citywide Vision Plan of 2035 plan of 2011 and Phase 1 of the Pedestrian & Bicycle plan of 2010.

These plans are outlined in detail in Appendix II. While some plan details are vague, such as “Increase Traffic Calming Measures” (69) of the Greenworks plan, others are specific and detailed, e.g. “Adjust onstreet pricing at meters and kiosks to keep occupancy at 85 percent of capacity, so that one or two spaces per block are always available,” clause 4.3.2.c in the 2035 plan. It is Cutler’s job to understand the benefits versus the drawbacks of each option and decide how to move forward.

62 & 63

Mayors Office of Transportation & Utilities

Carmalt

BUS TRAIN CAB

BIKE / PED COORD.

Sport

Doty

PUBLIC TRANSIT

Errands

Stuart

BCGP

CYCLIST

PEDESTRIAN

Boyle

STREETS DEPT.

Commute

Mirra

Meddin

CIVILIANS

MOTORIST

CARPOOL

MOTU

ANDREW STOBER

PARKING AUTH.

Bruegger

PCPC

CAR

RINA CUTLER WATER DEPART.

PHILADELPHIA

BREWERYTOWN

DVRPC Thompson

FAIRMOUNT

CDC

DRWC

BUSINESS

SOUTHWEST CENTRAL PHILADELPHIA

NEW KENSINGTON

SOUTH OF SOUTH

PAUL LEVY

CHINATOWN

LOCAL

DIANA LU JOHN CHIN

XIN GE START-UP

CORPORATE

Semantic Zoom » Zoom Level -1

A Common Thread Often, many of these decisions come down to cost. As was the finding from many of our interviews as the reason for why certain progress wasn’t being made. In fact we were told by one member of the PCPC that finding funding was the biggest data need.

However, as we spoke with more people, this idea that money was the key inhibitor began to look less and less legitimate. In New York we met with members of their DOT’s Bike Program. Over and over they re-iterated how cheap bike lanes are. Especially in comparison to other infrastructure costs! We found that it is not the absolute costs for bike infrastructure, but instead the comparative costs. The cost of spending time writing a grant for infrastructure that benefits a small audience as opposed to a much larger audience is not politically strategic. When it is cycling against another issue, cycling, it seems, does not often win.

Pro-Cycling That is not completely true, however. Andrew Stober, Chief of Staff of MOTU, told us that historically speaking, they are spending a lot more time on cycling related infrastructure than they ever did in the past1.

Though a number of reasons are certainly affecting this, Cutlers probike stance definitely helps. The city has four buffered bike lanes at the expense of a traffic lane, added many more miles of standard bike lanes that lie on the road’s shoulder and drastically increased bike parking, all while Cutler has been in office.

1. Read more about our interview with Andrew Stober see Appendix II.

64 & 65

Philly Connectivity Score: 13.3

New York Connectivity Score: 27.1

Portland Connectivity Score: 35.5

n_join_

n_split

pdx_q 0

0.5

1

2

MILES

Bike network connectivity maps. Orange cells indicate bike lane, Red cells indicate bike lane intersections. More about theses in Appendix II

These are successes for the city. As a politician, one of Rina’s concerns is how Philly stacks up against other cities across America and the world. With cycling being such a popular trend right now, it is imperative that the city take at least some action towards keeping with the times.

Perception Vs. Reality It is important, though, to compare the realities of the street with the perceptions of the governments. To do this we worked with Dillon Mahmoudi of Portland State University to develop a network connectivity metric and set of comparative maps. Since more connectivity, provides

more options for travel, it is an important aspect of infrastructure. Philadelphia’s network connectivity of 13.3 is clearly lacking when compared with NYC’s 27.1 and Portland’s 25.5, a city often cited as America’s most bike friendly.

Thus it seems that New York and Portland’s more aggressive strategy of lane implementation has yielded real effects on their bike-ability. Where Portland made the decision to become more bike friendly over a decade ago, and has been slowly working towards this goal, New York made a much more recent and radical decision.

As of 2007 they began a plan to implement 250 miles of lane that year, followed each year by another 50.

0

0.5

Semantic Zoom » Zoom Level -1

Therefore, though Cutler may be supportive of cycling, and MOTU may be spending more time on cycling related infrastructure than ever before, these decisions and ‘dedication’ are not yielding substantive results. And this is inherently restricting the interested but concerned from feeling comfortable to ride their bikes in the city.

A Contradiction of Mechanics One explanation for why this might be arose when we spoke with Andrew Stober. He explained that until there is more demand for cycling infrastructure, there will not be any further bike lanes installed in Center City. This shows the City’s misperceptions regarding the relationship between cyclists and infrastructure. Just as in classic economics the belief is that demand drives supply. However, in terms of transportation infrastructure it is the opposite, supply drives demand. This is called induced demand, and also explains why new road capacity does little to ease traffic congestion. The following page illustrates this issue1.

This misunderstanding has therefore created a paradox where users need infrastructure to feel safe and confident and the government waits to see an increase in urban cyclists before they add any improvements.. Until this paradox is reconciled, progress will continue to be hampered1.

1. For more about this paradox and induced demand, see Appendix II.

OpportunityRecap MOTU Overview »» Responsible for all infrastructure decisions »» Philadelphia compared to other cities »» Lack of funding

»» »» »» »»

Weighing of decisions for progress Poor network connectivity Lack of firm pro-bike stance Paradoxical infrastructure strategy

66 & 67

Which Comes First?

CHICKEN

CYCLISTS

OR

EGG

INFRASTRUCTURE

V1

de

ma

nd

Volume

V1

V2

Volume

Cost-volume point quickly shifts along the current demand curve with few new trips created at first.

C2

C1

Equilibrium

User Cost

Current road capacity & congestion create a self regulating cost-volume point on the short term demand curve

C1

User Cost

Economics

Capacity: 60%

Capacity: 95%

Example

Induced Demand Visualized

Will immediately use newly available options

User: Unsatisfied with the system.

Has un-met needs.

Additional Infrastructure is built

Behaviors

Semantic Zoom Âť Zoom Level -1

Short Term (~1 year) Mid Term

Upon visual / physical manifestation immediately understands the newly available options and changes to use

V1

V2

V3

Volume

Capacity: 95%

Loss in normal function of current system triggers consideration to change because available options are in line with their wants and needs.

User: Maintains status quo

THE MAGIC ZONE

New road capacity shifts demand curve to create a new self-regulating cost-volume point, but at a lower, more accessible cost. This translates to a larger total volume of motorists with similar levels of congestion.

C2

C1

USer Cost

User: Inability to conceptualize an alternative deters the opportunity of consideration.

68 & 69

Long Term

Semantic Zoom » Zoom Level -1

A Call to Action Since this paradox affects the street users just as much as the government, a multi-faceted approach must be taken to fully address it. With the ad campaign and low-cost bike rental service addressing the on-street aspects of the paradox, an action is needed to reframe this issue within the government.

Though we recognize the perceived logic of the City’s infrastructure strategy, it is in fact backwards in this context of transportation. How do we best explain that to the city? We communicate in a language they will understand. A language they are familiar with. A document.

This document would inform and aid Rina Culter in her decision making role by: • Showing the network connectivity comparisons, reframing her perspective of how Philly compares to other cities.

• Illustrating the qualitative power of cycling to bolster her current pro-cycling stance.

• Expressing an economic argument for cycling’s feasibility, to show the fallacy of assuming money as a barrier.

• Call out the potential return on investment, to provide a fiduciary impetus for action.

This powerful synthesis of quantitative and qualitative information will empower her to prioritize cycling in a way never before seen in Philadelphia.

We recognize that as a politician Rina is a busy woman, and familiar with certain modes of information transmission. Therefore this

70 & 71

document must be familiar enough to be considered while concisely conveying our powerful story. To do this we utilize visual communication design practices to provide an engaging reading experience.

Not just a document, it will be a petition as well. A document by itself often has little weight in the political community. However adding the support of her constituency quickly makes it more significant. This kind of support could easily be created through a partnership with the BCGP to access their resources as well as creating an on street and digital marketing push to promote and publicize this governmental re-framing.

Semantic Zoom » Zoom Level -1

Comparing Philadelphia’s Network to Other City’s

Connectivity of Philadelphia

Score=208/1566 =

13.3 We understand that one of Cutler’s roles is understanding how Philadelphia compares to other cities. By providing a clear metric that enables a one-to-one comparison, unbiased by geography or size we are able to empower her with information regarding real differences, not just perceived. This is the type of information that would also enable her to take a more firm pro-bike position.

In doing so we hoped to highlight the disparity between the perceptions of Philadelphia as a bicycle friendly city and the reality of poor connectivity in the network which has been created to accommodate cyclists. In this way, we show that her work is not yet done. For Philadelphia to truly become a great city, a stronger push is needed for a more complete network.

72 & 73

Connectivity of New York

Connectivity of Portland Score=653/2408 =

27.1

These maps show, not just connectivity, but it’s locations as well. It is clear that the highest rates of connectivity in other cities are in the core, the economic and residential areas of the city. If this were the case in Philadelphia, Center City and South Philly would contain the core of the connected network. Though at first glance it may seem this is true, the core of the connections are actually west of Center

Score=1021/2879 =

35.5

City, in University City. In comparing South Philly to other parts of the city, the level of connectivity is average as well.

This is disappointing because Center City has one of the country’s highest mode shares for cycling at over 5%. (Mode Shift,18).

Semantic Zoom » Zoom Level -1

Visualizing the Economic Argument THE LATENT DEMAND FOR CYCLING IN PHILLY IS 32% Where latent demand is defined as commuters who drive less than 3.5 miles to work.

Philly Auto Commuters Distance in Miles 1-3.5 >3.6

1,840,300 32%

16,491 A 3% Shift

We’re assuming 3% of the latent population shifts to the bicycle due to increased network connectivity in Philadelphia’s bike lane infrastructure.

SAVINGS PER YEAR

16k people exercising 30 min. a day would save an average of

2 Tons of CO Emissions

$2.9 MM in yearly Health Care Costs Funding was often brought up as a key Included in this argument are potential barrier for cycling related improvements. monetary savings comparisons showing Therefore our call to action document not just the numbers, but what it could must include an economic argument to mean to the individual or city if a small demonstrate how these improvements of motorists shifted to a bicycle as $586k saved portion 2MM 59everyone, K benefit not just the cycling their primary mode of travel.

Active Transportation for America community. states that 1 ton of CO2 = $10.

Currently 3% Shift

383k $11 Million...

Gallons of fuel saved by 16k people not driving to work

In 4 years, a 3% shift amounts to the same cost as the new Dilworth Plaza...

2 2 2 TonsTons ofTons CO of CO ofEmissions CO Emissions Emissions

day would savein an average of $2.9 MM yearly $2.9 MM in yearly $2.9 MM in yearly Health Care Costs Health Care Health Care Costs Costs

2MM 2MM 2MM

$586k saved saved Active$586k Transportation for America $586k saved Active Transportation for America states that 1 ton of CO2 = $10.

59K 59K 59K

Active for America statesTransportation that 1 ton of CO2 = $10. states that 1 ton of CO2 = $10.

Currently 3% Shift Currently 3% Shift Currently 3% Shift

383k $11 Million...

4 years, a 3% shift amounts to the 383k In$11 Million... cost as the new Dilworth Plaza...

In 4 years, a 3% shift amounts to the 383k same $11 Million... same cost as the new Dilworth Plaza...

Gallons of fuel saved by 16k people not driving to work Gallons of fuel saved by 16k people not driving to work Gallons of fuel saved by 16k people not driving to work

In 4 years, a 3% shift amounts to the same cost as the new Dilworth Plaza...

PRESENT & FUTURE VALUE OF A 3% SHIFT PRESENT & FUTURE VALUE OF A 3% SHIFT PRESENT & FUTURE VALUE OF A 3% SHIFT $65MM $65MM $65MM $50MM

Yr4 Cost of Dilworth Plaza Renovation Cost of Dilworth Plaza Renovation

Yr4 Yr3

Yr3 Yr4

Yr3

Yr3

Yr2

Yr3 Yr2

Yr3 Yr2

Yr2

Yr2

Yr2

Yr1

Yr2 Yr1

Yr2 Yr1

Yr2 Yr1

$14MM

Yr1

Yr1

Yr1

Yr1

$14MM

Yr1

Yr1

Yr1

Yr1

Year 2

$50MM

Cost of Dilworth Plaza Renovation

$50MM

$14MM Year 3

Year 4

Year 5

Year 2 *With aYear 6% applied discount rate. Year 3 1

Year 4

Year 5

Year 2 *With aYear 6% applied discount rate. Year 3 1

Year 4

Year 5

Year 1

*With a 6% applied discount rate.

If 500 of these users donated they users woulddonated save an Iftheir 500cars, of these additional $4.9MM their they woulddonated save an If 500cars, of these users additional $4.9MM their cars, they would save an additional $4.9MM National Household Transportation Study National Household Transportation Study National Household Rails to Trails: Active Transportation Study for America Rails to Trails: Active Transportation for America Rails toTransportation Trails: Active Texas Institute Transportation for America Mobility Report Texas Transportation Institute -

74 & 75

Semantic Zoom Âť Zoom Level -1

A Comparison with Real Expenditures

PRESENT & FUTURE VALUE OF A 3% SHIFT $65MM Yr4 Cost of Dilworth Plaza Renovation $50MM

Yr3

Yr3

Yr2

Yr2

Yr2

Yr1

Yr1

Yr1

Yr1

Year 2

Year 3

Year 4

Year 5

$14MM

Year 1

If 500 of these users donated their cars, they would save an additional $4.9MM

*With a 6% applied discount rate.

National Household Transportation Study Rails to Trails: Active Transportation for America Texas Transportation Institute Mobility Report

Continuing with the economic argument, we recognize that it is also important to show future values. This way we illustrate that though there may be some initial costs of changing, the return on this investment compounds annually. Therefore, to a city with supposed significant fiscal issues, these

improvements would put money back in to the city by increasing the expendable income of its residents. Therefore Cutler would be able to make more informed decisions regarding infrastructure changes and the required dedication of resources these changes require.

57% COMMUTE

Evening Morning

TOTAL

Making it Real by Visualizing Street Use

76 & 77

TOTAL

57% COMMUTE

40

DIRECTION

RIDERSHIP BY SEX 9%

30

9%

LOCAL DIRECTION

Female

19%

40

9% DIRECTION

LOCALE

Evening Morning

TOTAL

Center C

Morning Commute

% BREAKDOWN

10

Chinatown

Wrong Correct

As we discussed earlier, Cutler is responsible for all infrastructure decisions.

And to further empower her with information, we highlight the current use of the streets.

Center City

Morning Commute

% BREAKDOWN

We understand that Cutler is a street user and potentially receives numerous documents regarding the details and

Fem Mal

Wrong Correct

30

Elderly

Wrong Correct Chinatown

RIDERSHIP BY SEX

57% COMMUTE

Young

10

LOCALE

TOTAL

Male

Evening Morning

Queen Village

North Broad

Female Male

Evening Commute

19%

Female Male

% BREAKDOWN

17%

Female Male

outcomes of infrastructure developments.

However, our document re-frames this in terms of her constituency; the people using the streets. Highlighting use patterns and outlier actions shows the real issues that occur, and why it is important to develop “complete streets.”

Semantic Zoom » Zoom Level -1

Making it Personal with Profiles from the Street

Motorists

What’s the worst thing about driving?

What are your thoughts on cyclists?

Pedestrians crossing, they don’t pay attention

What are your thoughts on bike lanes?

Bike lanes are a great idea.

We don’t ride bikes, but the street is for everybody.

Cyclists are good, they just need to obey the traffic laws.

Do bicycles belong on the road?

Damn straight they’re a cycle!

One of the other aspects of Cutler’s position is her responsibility to respond to her constituency. Bringing real people into the story always makes it more powerful and engaging.

Conversations from on-street interviews help bridge the gap between perception and reality. Often it is the squeaky wheel that gets the oil, and our political

What’s the worst thing about driving?

The worst thing about driving [in Philly] is the congestion.

leaders hear much more resistance to issues than acceptance. Shedding light on new perspectives can help bridge this gap. The voices of these civilians show potential new perspectives and the value of including the needs of the people and their communities in the often tactical decisions for progress.

Demonstrating Multiple Modes of Transportation

She locks her door, leaving for work

Arriving at her car, she gets situated and starts the car to leave

She walks to her car

She stops on her way to get gas

Continuing this idea of bringing real people into the story, a set of scenarios highlighting the processes people go through to take different modes of transportation, whether car, bus, bike or by foot, helps keep the variety of people’s needs in perspective. Needs

that everyone tries to meet on the same streets. Understanding the similarities and differences, again highlights the significance of building “complete streets.”

78 & 79

Semantic Zoom Âť Zoom Level -1

Visualizing a Demonstration

IT WA

RE HE

PINE ST.

BROAD ST.

WAIT HERE

Finally offering a simple demonstrable action for Cutler and the Streets Department to implement makes responding to this document easy. We recognize that government officials see many challenges each day and though addressing them is their responsibility, it takes a lot of time to develop actions.

To ease this burden we have designed an action that would show the government’s support for cycling and how complete streets can benefit everyone. This is discussed in further detail on the following pages.

80 & 81

The Effects of Progress

We Appreciate It

We close this document with a compelling story of those ready and waiting to use this new infrastructure. This re-introduces the human element to help show why a “complete street� is so important.

Our goal was to illuminate for the government the positive effects their actions would make on the community, as well as to show that there is a population of real people, not just numbers, ready to take to a bicycle. That is, if a proper network existed.

Semantic Zoom Âť Zoom Level -1

Complete Street Mock-up

Using design to affect the city level, we must fully recognize the paradox that exists around infrastructure implementation if we are to influence real change. We have subsequently discussed the need to address each end of the paradox, the street and the government, but now we must bring these together and create a cohesive link between the two. This way, each will truly support the other. To do this we have designed a complete street mock-up. This temporary installation will bring out new cyclists, while simultaneously demonstrating the holistic improvements a complete street makes.

Classically, the Streets Department, under Rina Cutler, conducts live tests of any proposed bike lane implementation. And so, in maintaining consistency with these constructs, we are proposing our test on Broad Street between Lombard and Locust Streets. This proposal includes the temporary removal of parking. We understand removing parking is a major issue, but we feel the potential learnings and temporary nature of this installation balance this issue. In place of parking, buffered bike lanes would be installed, using landscaping to beautify and delineate. This test demonstrates the protection buffered bike lanes create, and thus decreasing traffic conflicts while, providing beautification and rain water retention for the street as well as increased connectivity for Center City.

As stated earlier, learning is a key aspect of these tests. Therefore, tube tests, or pneumatic counters, are included to analyze the flow and speed of traffic based on the implementation of our buffered bike lane on the main corridor of Center City. Our assumptions are

82 & 83

Addressing the Paradox

Call to Action No New Infrastructure Without Demand

Complete Street Mock-up

Friend’s Help No New Demand Without Infrastructure

that traffic would slow down slightly due to interest in our green buffering, but there would be no increase in congestion. Likewise, this connection would add cycling accessibility to Broad Street, offering a great North/South connection to the Spruce and Pine street bike lanes.

This action ultimately binds the potential increase in ridership, due to the marketing push for helping friends, with the new perspective outlined in our call to action on how more cycling infrastructure beautifies the streets and attracts new riders. This demonstrates how a complete street transformation could increase the quality of our city corridors.

Semantic Zoom Âť Zoom Level -1

Target Intersection

PINE ST.

BROAD ST.

When designing this installation, Pine St. and Broad St. were chosen for a few reasons. It is important to show the value of adding connectivity to the network and so we connect Broad Street with the Pine Street bike lane. We chose Pine St. in particular because it is in Center City where the largest number of bike commuters ride. Broad St. was chosen

because it is a main thoroughfare for both motorists and cyclists. Adding cycling infrastructure on this road would be very beneficial. It would also be a significant gesture, towards a more supportive cycling culture from the city. Seeing as City Hall sits at the crossroads of Broad St. and Market St.

Current Bike Route Options

PINE ST.

BROAD ST.

The current route option, illustrated above, clearly indicates no connectivity for cyclists using this lane. Which corresponds to the perceived route opportunities when someone interested, but concerned considers riding. Since they often fear riding in traffic and prefer to use dedicated cycling infrastructure.

84 & 85

Semantic Zoom Âť Zoom Level -1

Reimagining At times Broad St. is fairly congested, thus to prototype the buffered bike lanes, we propose to simply remove the onstreet parking on the necessary blocks and maintain the full number of traffic lanes.

1

2

3

Ensuring that the new bike lanes are buffered with hardscaping(#1 on opposite page) is crucial due to ensuring the perception of safety at the high speed differentials between cyclists and motorists on Broad St. The bike wars discussed earlier illustrate the continual tension between cyclists and motorists. To mitigate the opportunity for poor behavior, such as running red lights, we proposed the use of green bike boxes(#2 on opposite page).

These location markers not only indicate where motorists and cyclists should position themselves, when the latter is preparing for a left hand turn, but provide a safe zone for cyclists to stay in while waiting for the appropriate signal.

We recognize that the installation of hardscaped buffered bike lanes makes it impossible for a bus to pull up to the sidewalk. To remedy this, we devised a ramped plateau(#3 on opposite page). The ramped plateau would be placed in the bike lane, directly in front of a bus stop. The flat top would facilitate wheelchair access to buses. The physical ramp would also act as a signal to cyclists to be vigilant because pedestrians may be crossing.

86 & 87

Redesigned Intersection

IT WA

HE

RE

PINE ST.

BROAD ST.

2

1

1

Buffered Bike Lane Temporary Hardscaping

2

Bike Box for Left Turns

3

Ramped Plateau for Traversing Bus Stop

WAIT HERE

3

Semantic Zoom Âť Zoom Level -1

Westbound on Pine St.

IT WA

HE

RE

PINE ST.

BROAD ST.

WAIT HERE

The addition of new infrastructure on Broad St. adds to the connectivity of the network and therefore adds significant new route opportunities.

These opportunities increase perceived catchment areas for where cyclists can ride, thereby lowering the barrier of entry.

Here, instead of only being able to cross Broad St. a cyclist can now turn in either direction and continue their journey on dedicated bike infrastructure.

88 & 89

Southbound on Broad St.

IT WA

HE

RE

PINE ST.

BROAD ST.

WAIT HERE

There is now the opportunity to have southbound cyclists, and for them to turn onto Pine St.

Semantic Zoom Âť Zoom Level -1

Northbound on Broad St.

IT WA

HE

RE

PINE ST.

BROAD ST.

WAIT HERE

There is now the opportunity to have northbound cyclists, and for them to turn onto Pine St.

90 & 91

As we developed the network, people were able to travel from point A to point B. Exclusively on a bike lane. Before, that was really a barrier to them because they needed that 5’ of space even if it gave them no protection; psychologically it was what they needed.

Hayes Lord, NYC DOT

Semantic Zoom » Zoom Level -1

“…it is our firm

Zoom Level -1: Conclusion

belief that our

As designers, we have focused our efforts on a specific subset of designed actions problems and audience members which we believe have the most potential agency to instigate change. The actions we devised, will net out presented earlier are direct engagements with a particular focus. positive effects That is, to improve Philadelphia’s quality of life by creating a more for everyone…” supportive environment for cycling. When considering that each of these audiences lays claim to some aspect of street life, it is clear that their perspectives are intertwined, systemically.

This interwoven environment has a multitude of touch points and opportunities for change making it practically impossible to solve.

This is what defines it as a wicked problem. A systematic response is needed to have any hope of affecting change. Recognizing, also, that at this zoom level, within this wicked problem, there is a paradox which must be addressed was a key driver in the development of our focused audience and action set.

Furthermore, we do recognize that there are other stakeholders involved here, such as the Community Development Corporations and the local businesses, as shown in our illustration. However, as defined earlier, to address a wicked problem it is necessary to focus one’s efforts in order to be effective. Consequently, recognizing that it is impossible to address all problems, we understand that due to the overlapping nature of the environment, any slight change in one place ripples throughout other aspects of the problem-set. In alignment with this requirement, it is our firm belief that our designed actions will net out positive effects for everyone in the long run.

92 & 93

Zoom Level -1: Stakeholder Map

Carmalt

BUS TRAIN CAB

BIKE / PED COORD.

Sport

Doty

PUBLIC TRANSIT

Errands

Stuart

BCGP

CYCLIST

PEDESTRIAN

Boyle

STREETS DEPT.

Commute

Mirra

Meddin

CIVILIANS

MOTORIST

CARPOOL

MOTU

ANDREW STOBER

PARKING AUTH.

Bruegger

PCPC

CAR

RINA CUTLER WATER DEPART.

PHILADELPHIA

BREWERYTOWN

DVRPC Thompson

FAIRMOUNT

CDC

DRWC

BUSINESS

SOUTHWEST CENTRAL PHILADELPHIA

NEW KENSINGTON

SOUTH OF SOUTH

PAUL LEVY

CHINATOWN

LOCAL

DIANA LU JOHN CHIN

XIN GE START-UP

CORPORATE

Semantic Zoom Âť Zoom Level 0

Semantic Zoom Level 0: City & State

TRAI

Sport

We now move from the local level of Philadelphia to the city and state level of America. In deciding where to focus our actions, this level was less important. Certainly we wanted to understand where Philly stands compared to other cities, but it became clear that few cities were comparable. Thus a detailed analysis became less important and we chose to focus on New York and Portland for their progressive and cycling friendly strategies.

For many states, federal funding for cycling infrastructure is not made with city specific goals, but instead, holistically by the state government. This is particularly true in Pennsylvania, and because major roads and highways are conduits for connecting people statewide, there is a lack of focus on the street level in cities, such as in Philadelphia. However, the potential new transportation bill, MAP211, currently in the Senate, could radically change this too.

This change would be a drastic improvement for Philadelphia. The means for accessing money for infrastructure projects would become much easier by opening a structure for grant proposals to access 50% of federal funds. This is why we chose to focus our efforts at the national level, to help ensure the success of MAP-21.

1. Read more about the Senate’s MAP-21 transportation bill in Appendix I.

Errands

PEDESTRIAN Commute

MO

CARPOOL

CAR

BREWERYTOWN FAIRMOUNT

SOUTHWEST

NEW KENSINGTON

S OF

94 & 95

Zoom Level 0: Stakeholder Map

Carmalt

BUS

IN CAB

NYC

Doty

Stuart

BCGP

CYCLIST

N

Boyle

STREETS DEPT. Mirra

Meddin

CIVILIANS

OTORIST

MOTU

ANDREW STOBER

PARKING AUTH.

HARRISBURG

Bruegger

PCPC

RINA CUTLER WATER DEPART.

NY

DVRPC

PHILADELPHIA

N

SOUTH F SOUTH

BIKE / PED COORD.

PUBLIC TRANSIT

Thompson

CDC

DRWC

BUSINESS

CENTRAL PHILADELPHIA

PORTLAND

PA

PAUL LEVY

CHINATOWN

LOCAL

READING CORPORATE

DIANA LU JOHN CHIN

XIN GE START-UP

PITTSBURGH

OR ALLENTOWN

SCRANTON

MA …x46

Semantic Zoom » Zoom Level +1

Semantic Zoom Level +1: National BUS TRAIN CAB

BIKE COO

Sport

PUBLIC TRANSIT

Errands

District of Columbia’s Senate and House of Representatives, is the forefather of decision making that affects all state ability to build, enhance and progress the urban and suburban street scape.

MOTU And as such, funding was a consistently used excuse discussed CIVILIANS throughout our research for Philadelphia’s inability to progress.

The timely alignment of the new transportation bill, which would potentially eradicate cycling project funding,1 and the 2012 National Bike Summit on Capitol Hill was a unique opportunity for a design PHILADELPHIA intervention CYCLIST

PEDESTRIAN

Commute

MOTORIST

CARPOOL

ANDREW STOBER

CAR

RINA CUTLER

BREWERYTOWN

FAIRMOUNT

Congress

CDC

BUSINE

SOUTHWEST CENTRAL PHILADELPHIA SOUTH OF SOUTH

Congress persons are elected as representatives. They are proxies for their constituency in the high-level discussions that decide the course of the nation. Understandably, these individuals are very busy people, often with very large teams of staff members to help them manage the myriad of policies, current events, personal events, trends and more. As elected officials, not only must they manage this work load, they must be seen doing it. Thus, they must travel a lot, even if only to their home states. These government officials, need strong valid arguments to not only be persuaded, but to persuade. It is only in doing all this that they can hope to represent their constituency. That collection of people, from the Congress person’s hometown area or state that decide the future of their career.

NEW KENSINGTON

PAUL LEVY

CHINATOWN

LOCAL

READ

COR

DIANA LU

JOHN CHIN

1. Read more about the transportation bills in Appendix I.

XIN GE

START-UP

PITTSBURGH

96 & 97

Zoom Level +1: Stakeholder Map

Carmalt

/ PED ORD.

NYC

Doty

Stuart

BCGP Boyle

STREETS DEPT.

HOUSE OF REPS.

Mirra

HARRISBURG

Meddin

W R

PARKING AUTH.

Bruegger

PCPC

WATER DEPART.

NY

DVRPC Thompson

DRWC

ESS

PORTLAND

CONGRESS

PA

DING

RPORATE

OR ALLENTOWN

SCRANTON

MA …x46

SENATE

Semantic Zoom Âť Zoom Level +1

Keeping it Local In general Congress people aren’t especially concerned about the events of small towns and big cities; the policies they create affect the nation. The exception to that however, is their hometown. A Congress person must maintain a strong relationship with his/her hometown because it is paramount that their constituency believe they are being accurately represented.

A Congress person is often disconnected from the happenings of their home-district by the simple fact of spending so much time in Washington. Outside of the D.C. bubble, they may also be required to travel to other places within the states and abroad. This additional travel only further adds to the cultural distance separating them from their constituency. All of these experiences begin to dilute their initial perceptions and potentially influence their decisions. Thus it is their job to not only work hard on policy but also on maintaining a strong connection to their home-districts. Therefore travel home and any other means of connection they can make to that area are always appreciated. As such, staff members often give priority to the concerns of their employers’ constituency. This means that for a citizen calling on Congress, the more personal their story can be and the more action oriented it is, the better the response they will receive from the staff member.

Congressional Engagement As we came to understand at the National Bike Summit1, cycling advocates leverage personal stories to engage and persuade their congressional representatives. When advocating with a congressional 1. Read more about the National Bike Summit in Appendix I.

98 & 99

Cultural Comparison

Lawton, OK vs. Washington D.C.

16.0min

Average Commute Time

BAPTIST

33.4min

Average Commute Time

CATHOLIC

Most Prominent Religion

Most Prominent Religion

71.5%

37.1%

Commute Alone by Car

Sources: BestPlaces.net, Commuting in the United States: 2009 report Maps tiles by Stamen Design, under CC BY 3.0, Data by Openstreetmap, Under cv BY SA

Commute Alone by Car

Semantic Zoom Âť Zoom Level +1

Informative slide during a Congressional meeting preparation activity

100 & 101

representative, it is not only important, but also powerful to tell a personal and compelling story. For the summit advocates, this seemed to come naturally. They were prepared with their dossiers of stats underlining various local and national achievements regarding bicycling.

This summit was set up as a means to prepare participants for a day of lobbying in Congress. Two vigorous days of activities and lectures, bring the advocates up to speed on current affairs and opportunities available to them regarding the volatile transportation bill.

On Capitol Hill it was important for participants to first visit their local representatives before lobbying other Congress persons. This is because of the constituent preference mentioned earlier. During these meetings the staff members spoke on behalf of their congress person, opening the floor for discussion with their local constituent.

The constituents (lobbyists) articulate their interests and requests, paying particular attention to their phrasing and asking directly if the congress member is in favor of dedicated funding for cycling infrastructure. If the staff member and constituency has no further points to discuss the meeting adjourns. The lobbyist’s dossier is left and each go their separate ways. Ideally, a week or two later the lobbyists follow up on any outstanding details regarding their previous discussion.

These were classically verbal discussions. No visuals were used and seldom was a piece of the dossier used as a conversation piece.

At such a pregnant moment, with the fate of national support for cycling yet to be determined, and after so many days of training and education, one would expect something more compelling. Even the dossiers that we saw, were merely a standard folder with a collection of papers espousing a successful program, or showing annual percentages of popular metrics like ridership or collisions. This standard presentation was ripe for being re-envisioned.

Semantic Zoom Âť Zoom Level +1

The government and specifically the culture of it are rightfully still very formal. Therefore whatever re-envisioning was to be done, must account for these formalities. One cannot commit a cultural faux pas and expect to still be credible, let alone compelling. Therefore, as we moved forward, we worked towards developing a better way to tell our story, that would complement the current culture there.

Visualizations for Re-envisioning In an effort to make our conversation distinguishable from the numerous other groups that would be meeting with Congress that day, we created visualizations. Graphical points that would provide visual conversation cues, to help us guide and focus the conversation in a way not currently used.

We developed these visuals as cards to work overtime. Small and portable like a business card, their size makes them familiar.

However the similarities end there. The more balanced aspect ratio differentiates them from a business card, without hampering their ability to be easily carried in ones pocket or wallet. The use of distinct colors also helps them stand out against the white papers that we expect to litter a Congress person’s desk.

These cards act as a cognitive artifact, later reminding the staff member or Congress person of the conversation, reconnecting them to the information and verbal interaction. More than a reminder, however, the use of a Quick Read(QR) code on the back, in tandem with a URL offers the holder a more in-depth visual story, built around the need for better cycling infrastructure in Philadelphia.

102 & 103

40

20

Drive Public Transit

226g CO2/mile

30

None emitted

40

#SHIFT

454g CO2/mile

Drive

Drive Public Transit

TIME

226g CO2/mile

of the time

0

Drive

MINUTES

Public Transit

20

PEOPLE

HALF 30

40

#SHI FT

defense

30

40

#SHIFT

Drive Public Transit

TIME

226g CO2/mile

Drive

Public Transit Bike Drive

Public Transit Bike Walk Drive

Public Transit

CO2 EMISSIONS / MILE Drive

2

Public Transit Bike

CALOR

TRANSITION TO EQUILIBRIUM YEARLY COMMUTING COST AFTER A CHANGE PER PERSON IN PHILADELPHIA e 3g CO /mile car Free QUARTER $1,386 $8,588 alth e of the time h transit None emitted $150 Total for Philadelphia Walk

0

Drive

MINUTES

90 AVER

Y P

45

2

Public Transit

20

Bike

Walk

HALF 30

40

0

#SH IF T

of everyone

# S HTI F T #SHIF

CO2 EMISSIONS / MILE

454g CO2/mile

Bike Walk

Bike

of everyone

2

# S HIFT

454g CO2/mile

Walk

HALF

CO2 EMISSIONS / MILE

CALORIES BURNED / MILE

Walk

Drive

Public Transit Bike Walk Drive Drive

None emitted

0

Walk

#SH IF T #SHIF # S HTI F T TIME THE ANNUAL#S COST OF OIL T H IF T SPENDING F.Y. 2013 FEDERAL 454g CO /mile WASTED DURING TRAFFIC 226g CO /mile BREAKDOWN

45

3g CO2/mile Free $1,386

of everyone

Bike Walk

Walk

20

Bike

Total for Philadelphia

90 AVERAGE TIME TO WORK

$150 Total for Philadelphia

Bike

Public Transit

CALORIES BURNED / MILE

Walk

QUARTER $8,588

PEOPLE

Public Transit Bike

MINUTES

2

Public Transit

Drive

Walk

40

45

2

Drive

30

of everyone

Y P

90 AVER

Public Transit

Bike

PEOPLE

Drive

Public Transit Bike Walk Drive

PEOPLE

Public Transit

PEOPLE

Drive Drive

$150

# S HIFT

CALORIES BURNED / MILE

HALF

TRANSITION TO EQUILIBRIUM YEARLY COMMUTING COST AFTER A CHANGE PER PERSON IN PHILADELPHIA

45

3g CO2/mile Free $1,386

CO2 EMISSIONS / MILE

Bike Walk

CALOR

Walk

#S H IF T

Drive Public Transit

m

454g CO2/mile

Walk

20

AVERAGE TIME TO WORK

of everyone

#SH I F T

CALORIES BURNED / MILE

Bike

0

Walk

2

90

HALF

m

226g CO2/mile

Public Transit

CO2 EMISSIONS / MILE

Bike Walk

MINUTES

co

om

#SHIFT Public Transit

Public Transit

lr.

r.c

30

mb

bl

20

CO2 EMISSIONS / MILE Drive

Bike

tu

Walk

it.

um

MINUTES

Drive

45

Bike

Walk

of the time

0

$150

Walk

Drive Public Transit Bike

None emitted

2

Public Transit

mm o ccoor.cm lrl.r. b.clo mmbbumlr tutu t.t b iti.t. sium nnssaint.t raa tr s --ttrt-an ifitft iftr sshh sifhtsh

Walk

ns

Bike

ra

Public Transit

Drive Bike

Total for Philadelphia

CALORIES BURNED / MILE

TRANSITION TO EQUILIBRIUM YEARLYAFTER COMMUTING COST A CHANGE PER PERSON IN PHILADELPHIA QUARTER $8,588

Bike

m m co o lr. clor.cm mb mlrb. tu ub it. ut.mt ns t.sti ra asin -t tnr ift fttr-a sh sifht-i sh

-t

Drive

226g CO2/mile

m co m m lr. .co.co mb lr lr tu mbmb it. tu tu ns it. it. ra ns s -t a an ift -tr tr shhift ifts sh

ift

45

3g CO2/mile Free $1,386

30 40 of everyone

CALORIES BURNED / MILE

CO2 EMISSIONS / MILE

TIME

Public Transit

AVERAGE TIME TO WORK

sh

$8,588

0

$150

90

YEARLY COMMUTING COST PER PERSON IN PHILADELPHIA

45

3g CO2/mile Free $1,386

one emitted

Walk

90 AVERAGE TIME TO WORK

HALF

CO2 EMISSIONS / MILE

#SHI FT # S HIFT THE ANNUAL # S HCOST I F T OF OILTIME 454g CO /mile WASTED DURING TRAFFIC226g CO /mile

CO2 EMISSIONS / MILE Drive

Public Transit

MINUTES

Bike CALORIES BURNED / MILE

Drive PEOPLE

Walk

G COST DELPHIA

20

Bike

#SHIFT

454g CO2/mile

Bike CALORIES BURNED / MILE

Public Transit

40

PEOPLE

Drive

Bike

Total for Philadelphia

defense

30

Drive

0

$150

90 AVERAGE TIME TO WORK

2

# S HIFT

226g CO2/mile

Public Transit

0

Walk

of everyone

m

om

co

r.c

Drive

lth

hea

None emitted

Walk

defense

20

CO2 EMISSIONS / MILE

454g CO2/mile

Bike

45

e car

3g CO2/mile Free $1,386

2

Drive

Bike

HALF

#SH I F T

226g CO2/mile

Public Transit

PEOPLE

Public Transit

Bike

Drive

MINUTES

lr.

40

CO2 EMISSIONS / MILE

Public Transit

Drive PEOPLE

mb

30

transit

Drive

Y P

#SH IF TT #SHIF # S TIME HIFT #S H IF T THEF.Y. ANNUAL COST OF OIL 226g CO /mile T 2013 SPENDING 454g CO /mile FEDERAL WASTED DURING BREAKDOWN TRANSITION TO TRAFFIC EQUILIBRIUM

Public Transit

tu

bl

20

Walk

AVERAGE TIME TO WORK

45

2

Walk

it.

um

MINUTES

#SHIFT Drive

0

None emitted $150

of the time $8,588

MINUTES

2

Public Transit

QUARTER

AFTER A CHANGE AFTER A CHANGE YEARLY COMMUTING COST YEARLY COMMUTING COST PER PERSON IN PHILADELPHIA PER PERSON IN PHILADELPHIA Multiple cards design were made to support multiple conversions. It also created the opportunity for a more QUARTER QUARTER QUARTER the different 3g CO 3g CO Free 3gcards.

CO Free /mile /mile /mileare complex story to be visually built, and pique curiosity around collecting and sharing Free c of the time $8,588 of the time of the time $1,386 $1,386 $1,386 lth $8,588 $8,588 ea transit None emitted $150 None emitted $150 Nonehemitted $150 90

Public Transit

Walk

Walk

Bike

Bike

ns

Public Transit

ra

Drive

Drive

CALORIES BURNED / MILE

Walk

AVERAGE TIME TO WORK

Public Transit

-t

Public Transit

ift $8,588

0

one emitted $150

45

3g CO2Free /mile $1,386

40 of30 everyone

2

90 AVER

om oo.cmm m rr..cclr o bll b .c mmubm lr ttutu.t b iitt.s.i tum nnassn it. rraatr ns --ttt- a iifhfttif -tr sshhshift s

sh

45

3g CO2Free /mile $1,386

90

HALF

m m co o lr. lrc.com mbmblr. tu u b it. t.tum ns sit.t ra ansi -t tr n ift ft-tra shshiiftsh

YEARLY COMMUTING COST PER PERSON IN PHILADELPHIA

90 AVERAGE TIME TO WORK

0

$150

Bike

m co mm lr. .c.coo mb lrlr tu mmbb it. ttuu ns iitt. . ra nss -t aan ift -ttrr sh if tsh

G COST DELPHIA

None emitted

CO2 EMISSIONS / MILE

226g CO2/mile

TRANSITION TO EQUILIBRIUM A CHANGE YEARLYAFTER COMMUTING COST PER PERSON IN PHILADELPHIA

CALORIES BURNED / MILE

Walk

CALOR

Walk

YEARLY COMMUTING COST PER PERSON IN PHILADELPHIA

45

3g CO2/mile Free $1,386

FT ##SHI S HIFT TIME #SHIFT THE454gANNUAL COST OF OIL226g CO /mile CO /mile WASTED DURING TRAFFIC TRANSITION TO EQUILIBRIUM

Bike

Walk

20

Walk

Bike CALORIES BURNED / MILE

MINUTES

TIME

Public Transit

Bike

Bike

Total for Philadelphia

CO2 EMISSIONS / MILE Drive

Public Transit

2

Public Transit

CALORIES BURNED / MILE

Walk

454g CO2/mile

Bike

Bike

Drive

# S HIFT

#SHIFT

226g CO2/mile

Public Transit

0

$150

of the time $8,588

Drive

2

defense

m

Drive

None emitted

30 40 of everyone

20

#SH I F T 454g CO2/mile

Walk

QUARTER

Walk

Public Transit

MINUTES

CO2 EMISSIONS / MILE

226g CO2/mile

Walk

Bike

HALF

co

om

#SHIFT Public Transit

Public Transit

45

3g CO2/mile Free $1,386

Bike

40

lr.

r.c

30

Drive

mb

bl

20

CO2 EMISSIONS / MILE Drive

Bike

tu

Walk

it.

um

MINUTES

$8,588

0

$150

Walk

Drive Public Transit Bike

None emitted

of the time

#SHIF TIME #SH TTI F T #IF SH

CO2 EMISSIONS / MILE

90 AVERAGE TIME TO WORK

YEARLY COMMUTING COST PER PERSON IN PHILADELPHIA

AVERAGE TIME TO WORK

QUARTER

of everyone 30 40

m com cr.o m blr.l .co ummb lr tt.ut b isti. tum nns it. trarans ft--t a hifit -tr sshhift s

Walk

90

Walk

mm coo lr.lr.ccom mmbblr. tuu b it.t.tum nssit.t raansi -tt r n iftft-tra sshhiiftsh

Bike

ns

Public Transit

ra

Drive

CALORIES BURNED / MILE

Walk

HALF

454g CO /mile F.Y. 2013 FEDERAL SPENDING THETRANSITION ANNUAL COST OF OIL 226g CO /mile T TO EQUILIBRIUM BREAKDOWN WASTEDAFTER DURING TRAFFIC A CHANGE

2

Public Transit

l hea

#S H IF T

Bike

m co mm lr. ..ccoo mb llrr tu mbb it. tu ns it. ra ns -t a i f t tr sh iftsh

-t

3g CO2/mile Free $1,386

##SHI S HIFT TIME FT

Drive

2

20

CO2 EMISSIONS / MILE

454g CO /mile THE ANNUALTO COST OF OIL226g CO /mile TRANSITION EQUILIBRIUM WASTED DURING TRAFFIC AFTER A CHANGE

226g CO2/mile

AVERAGE TIME TO WORK

45

ift $8,588

0

$150

90

sh

one emitted

CALORIES BURNED / MILE

Walk

YEARLY COMMUTING COST PER PERSON IN PHILADELPHIA

45

3g CO2/mile Free $1,386

Public Transit Bike

90 AVERAGE TIME TO WORK

G COST DELPHIA

Drive

TRANSITION TO EQUILIBRIUM AFTER A CHANGE YEARLY COMMUTING COST PER PERSON IN PHILADELPHIA

Drive PEOPLE

CALORIES BURNED / MILE

Walk

#SHIFT

Public Transit

454g CO2/mile

Bike

# S HIFT TIME

CO2 EMISSIONS / MILE

Free are th$150c

$1,386

Total for Philadelphia MINUTES

Bike

226g CO2/mile

Public Transit

of30 everyone 40

20

transit

Walk

Drive

454g CO2/mile

Total for Philadelphia HALF

MINUTES

of the time

$8,588

$150

Bike

#SHIFT

Free

$1,386

QUARTER

Walk

m

om

co

r.c

#SH I F T

226g CO2/mile

$150

of the time

$8,588

of everyone 30 40

20

CO2 EMISSIONS / MILE

Bike

Free

HALF MINUTES

lr.

40

PEOPLE

PEOPLE Drive

Public Transit Bike

mb

30

$1,386

Y P

AVER

PER PERSON IN PHILADELPHIA

QUARTER

Walk

Walk

tu

bl

20

#SHIFT Public Transit

$150

of the time

$8,588

it.

um

MINUTES

CO2 EMISSIONS / MILE Drive

Free

T

AVERAGE TIME TO WORK

PER PERSON IN PHILADELPHIA

QUARTER

Walk

Drive Public Transit

ns

Bike

ra

$150

$1,386

AVERAGE TIME TO WORK

m comm lrr.l.cr.ocoom mbbbl r.c tumm bl it..ttu.tu m nssist i .tu ra an n sit -ttrtar n ifftt-ft- tra sshhsihiiftsh

-t

$8,588

TRANSITION TO EQUILIBRIUM F.Y. 2013 FEDERAL SPENDING

THE ANNUAL COST OF OIL AFTER A CHANGE BREAKDOWN WASTED DURING TRAFFIC YEARLY COMMUTING COST

mm coo lr . com mb lr. .tu mb sit .tu an sit ttrra n ft-- ra hiift -t ssh hift s

ift

Free

AVERAGE TIME TO WORK

sh

$1,386

YEARLY COMMUTING COST PER PERSON IN PHILADELPHIA

AVERAGE TIME TO WORK

TRANSITION TO EQUILIBRIUM

THE ANNUAL OF OIL AFTER ACOST CHANGE WASTED DURING TRAFFIC YEARLY COMMUTING COST

m co mm lr..c.oco mb lr lr tu mbmb it.tutu nsit.it. ra sns -t ana ift tr-tr shifti-ft shsh

G COST DELPHIA

TRANSITION TO EQUILIBRIUM AFTER A CHANGE YEARLY COMMUTING COST PER PERSON IN PHILADELPHIA

TIME

226g CO2/mile

Bike CALORIES BURNED / MILE

Walk

CALOR

Semantic Zoom Âť Zoom Level +1

System Flow

Conversation Starters

WEBSITE QUOTE

Influential Quote

Facts, Comparisons & Interviews

VISUALS

QUOTE

Influential Quote Twitter Hashtag for Online Conversation

The Storytelling System We developed the system to be usable and dynamic. We wanted to create an informative tool that is both supportive of the personal engagements necessary when lobbying, and comprehensive such that it can be a standalone piece. The card/ website system made sense for this. As a provocative visualization it supports the face-to-face story telling required during

lobby meetings. Yet, it also perpetuated the type of personal stories preferred by Congress persons and their staff members, by acting as an advertisement for the website. The site was designed to tell the story of the benefits cycling would afford our fair city. Illustrating that it is not only possible, but necessary to create the needed infrastructure. And to do that, Congress would need to pass the MAP-21 amendment.

104 & 105

We recognized that the transferability of these cards would make them ideal for serendipitous meetings. Therefore a twitter hashtag was included as a place for consolidated discussion around these points. This real-time discussion would allow those in different physical locations and organizational hierarchies to engage in conversation.

In Action As with any wicked problem, it is difficult to know the effects of an action taken to tame a wicked problem. We succeeded, however, in captivating the staff members with whom we spoke. Also, through web analysis, we saw a spike of traffic to the site during and shortly after the National Bike Summit.

Semantic Zoom Âť Zoom Level +1

A Staff Member for Senator Casey Discussing One of Our Cards

Congressional Visualization Website

106 & 107

Semantic Zoom » In Conclusion

In conclusion

The Human Centered Design (HCD) process is a powerful tool, as evidenced here. It enabled us to dig in deep and wide, attaining a thorough understanding of multiple stakeholders and their nuanced culture. It is with this understanding that we have been able to design such a comprehensive system of actions. Each level of our action system complements the culture found therein, and enhances the potential for progress by utilizing the natural connections between them.

It is clear that transportation is a wicked problem closely knit to pollution, perceptions of convenience, stereotypes and more.

However, in consideration of the Rittel’s criteria discussed earlier, and our action-oriented design methodology it was necessary to choose specific audiences and design actions that would have the most preferred outcomes.

“…we advocate for

Clearly, however, the results of these actions and the barriers which they push up against, both extend beyond this city. While our focus the work we have has been on Philadelphia, and redefining it as a model for good done in their own transportation and better qualities of life, the reliance and dominance contexts.” of automobility as a transit mode is nationwide. Therefore, because we firmly believe in the scalability of the benefits of cycling, we advocate for others to build on the work we have done in their own contexts. For it is only with persistent and unified push across the breadth of each level that these benefits will be most fully realized.

others to build on

Action Recap National Level » Congressional Storytelling System

Key Drivers: Congressional preference for hometown stories Conversational nature of Congressional culture Comprehensiveness and ease of use of tool City Level » Call to Action

Key Drivers: The paradox of perception for cycling demand Poor cycling network connectivity Perceived lack of funding for complete streets projects Street & City Level » Complete Street Mock-up

Key Drivers: Lack of perceived connection between infrastructure and demand Government’s support for cycling lacks visibility Significance of experiential demonstrations for explaining Street Level » Friends help Friends Campaign

Key Drivers: Friends are often the motivator for new cyclists There is a lot of anxiety around cycling for new riders There is often a harsh shift in culture

108 & 109

Appendix I: Capital Effects

Supporting Research  Appendix I – Capital Effects

Engaging At the National Level

Transportation is a national issue. In an effort to gain a greater understanding of our local environment, we knew it would be necessary to understand the context in which it works. The federal government provides many funding opportunities through multiple programs and initiatives for non-motorized transportation. However, like many controversial issues, these funding sources can and do easily disappear.

There are many non-profit and advocacy groups organized to fight for dedicated bicycling and pedestrian related funding. Among them, the League of American Bicyclists stands out. As the lead organizer of the National Bike Summit (NBS), they certainly do their part of mobilizing and educating in the name of improved bicycle infrastructure.

This idea of advocacy is important, especially because the current cycling population appears to be small. Thankfully, NBS takes it to the next level, literally. NBS is focused on advocating and lobbying congressional representatives. The Summit has designed a curriculum to prepare even the Capitol Hill novice to be properly informed and articulate when addressing Congress persons and Senators.

Our attendance at this year’s NBS afforded us ample opportunities to speak with representatives from various cities across the country. As a whole, the NBS was helpful in inspiring the potential of local action from the speakers, forums and presentations.

112 & 113

Supporting Research » Appendix I – Capital Effects

Availability of Federal funding

While 14% of American fatalities are cycling and pedestrian related (2% & 12% respectively)1, the national transportation budget represents only 2.7% of all government funding2. Of this 2.7%, 1.6% is dedicated for bicycling and walking. Amounting to approximately $2.17 per capita or .0432% of government funding3.

Accessing and Tracking Because there are no federal specific funding opportunities for bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure, there is no clear method to access or track monetary support for biking and walking initiatives.

Rather, the funding opportunities appear as aspects of larger programs. For instance, the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement(CMAQ), Transportation Enhancements(TE) and the Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) Discretionary Grant programs account for more than half of bike and pedestrian funding.

These sources are geared towards improving community health, beautification and safety of an environment and in “[achieving] critical national objectives,”4 respectively. None of these grants were designed specifically for cycling or walking, but due to the broad nature of their uses, multiple types of initiatives can be supported by these grants. While it is simple to leverage these sources for multiple objectives, it remains difficult for cities and states to allocate money that is perceived to perform an alternate function.

1. Getting a Fair Share for Safety from the Highway Safety Improvement Program, 19 2. Chantrill 3. Swanson, 84 4. Tiger Grant

Non-Motorized Transit Budget

Total Available Government Funds

114 & 115

1.6% of Trans. budget for bicycle & walking

2.7% of Gov. Funds for Transportation Budget

Supporting Research » Appendix I – Capital Effects

Rescission Process

for money asks

s sum back send

U.S. D.O.T.

Rescissions and State Decisions The ability to rescind funds is a bookkeeping feature to ensure government money is spent. It is a process by which the government cancels unspent funds and redirects them to other projects. The US Department of Transportation (DOT) will, from time to time rescind money from the state DOTs. When this happens the US DOT tells the state how much it needs back, it is then up to the state to determine from which programs to take the money.

Historically, the State DOT’s rescind money that would have otherwise been used for cycling and pedestrian infrastructure. Specifically, the CMAQ and TE programs often bear this weight. Out of the $2.2 Billion rescinded in August of 2010, 44%, or $968 MM came from these programs. This is unfortunate, because as discussed earlier these programs fund the majority of bike/ped infrastructure.1 Recent Transportation Bills

State D.O.T. Decides what to return

The most recent transportation bill expired on March 31, 2012. The proposed revision, H.R. 7, has been noted by many as one of the worst transportation bills ever. Known as the “bill only big oil could love” by dc.streetsblog.com,2 H.R. 7 allocated monies for Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvements to fund new highway lanes while simultaneously cutting all funding for public and non-motorized transportation3. In our opinion, allocating

1. Swanson, 90 2. Schmitt 3. Oppose H.R. 7 4. Tiger Grant

116 & 117

air quality money for automotive initiatives is backwards progression.

Thankfully, the nation had similar concerns and so a public outcry promoted the withdrawal of H.R.7 from the House.

Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21) is a less controversial bill with an interesting slant. MAP-21 consolidates approximately 90 programs into just 30, focusing on particular national goals and reducing duplicate programs. This is both good and bad. For instance, funding for Safe Streets to School has been consolidated into a program called “additional activities,” which increases the state and national ability to take Safe Streets to School funding and allocate it to other “additional activities.”

The unique aspects of MAP-21 are provisions protecting cities from rescissions. MAP-21 increases the spending power of cities by proportionally allocating 50% of the states additional activities funds to metropolitan areas with over one million residents. The remaining money is available to smaller metro areas through a competitive grant process. This provision requires that state DOT’s now allocate 50% of all transportation funding directly to their largest cities. Thus removing the states ability to rescind unspent nonmotorized transit monies.

Supporting Research » Appendix I – Capital Effects

118 & 119

H.R. 7 has been noted by many as one of the worst transportation bills ever. Known as the “bill only big oil could love” … H.R. 7 allocated monies for Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvements to fund new highway lanes …

Supporting Research  Appendix I – Capital Effects

The National Bike Summit

The National Bike Summit was a very timely event. The transportation bill expired on March 31, 2012 and the environment around H.R. 7 and MAP-21 were provoking rich political debate.

Attending the National Bike Summit offered an interesting investigation into the world of bicycle advocacy and the precedence advocacy has at the national level. The Summit elegantly framed that to implement change, one must design a multifaceted approach; in-so-far as highlighting specific actions geared towards multiple audiences.

Our Experience While at the summit, our main goal was to understand how other local governments and advocates address the challenges of promoting cycling within their respective environments. We also hoped to use this opportunity to engage the federal government, tell the story of Philadelphia’s cycling situation and lobby for dedicated funding for cycling infrastructure.

This year, the summit hosted the first ever dedicated panel discussion on women and cycling in America. The discussion highlighted the bicycles historical significance in the movement for female equality in America. Panelists discussed how the bike offered a cultural loophole, allowing women to get out of their corsets (and parents watchful eye) to access a new-found freedom. A freedom to explore the world without chaperones and formalities. The discussion illuminated the need for cultural support, as opposed to our prior writings around the

120 & 121

Andy Clarke, President of the League of American Cyclists

Supporting Research » Appendix I – Capital Effects

“…The distinct age gap between the cycling advocates and those that are ‘young.’”

monetary dealings of our federal government, as well as other aspects that should be addressed. Such as less extreme marketing materials, rather than racers or teenagers at the beach, advertise average women performing day-to-day activities. Or address the financial barriers caused by lower wages for women in comparison to men, and the inability to afford high end bicycles as a result of these salaries.

This session set the tone for the week, focusing on how the bicycle, a simple artifact, can have such significance and power over a culture of people.

With the impetus of improving cycling within an urban environment, our research focused on breakout sessions around business and community benefits. Quality Bicycle Products (QBP), the nations largest bicycle parts supplier, presented a very progressive strategy that helped them lower their yearly health care costs (a powerful economic benefit as an effect of cycling). QBP pays their employees three dollars for every day the employee bikes to work. Within the first year, QBP’s investment of $45k raised the overall health of its employees, decreasing the health care premiums and saving $175k in total health care costs. Additionally, QBP pays their employees through an internal system whereby the employees can use their money to purchase food at the company’s cafeteria or bike parts directly from the warehouse. Systematically putting QBP’s investment right back into the company.

In other scenarios, such as in Long Beach, CA, the nations first Bike Friendly Business Districts (BFBD) were formed. The Mayor of Long Beach recognized that cycling supports local economies and so the BFBD’s received free bike parking with liability support covered by the city, free bike tune-up clinics, and even ‘Walk Your Bike’ sidewalk stencils.

122 & 123

A very particular trend began to emerge as the event progressed. The facilitators began referring to the youthfulness of the congressional staff members and that when on Capitol Hill our meetings would most likely be held with these young staffers. On average, the general population of advocates was over 40, with approximately 20% of advocates between late twenties and thirties. This disparity between advocacy and the young population of riders was really brought to a head when we realized that these staff members are often in their late twenties. How much does this age difference really affect the needs and perspectives of cyclists and their representatives?

The first women’s cycling forum at the event

The Ask “The Ask” came up often. That is, the way to directly ask our politicians for dedicated funding for cycling and pedestrian infrastructure. At one point the entire group, all 800+ of us were asked to repeat “Do you support MAP-21, do you support a clean extension?”

We were instructed to frame our concerns as questions. Imply nothing. Beyond the simple use of an actual question though, another key talking point that was stressed was the use of specific examples. See below for an example:

Honorable Tom Petri discussing his amendment to H.R.7

Do not: “We would appreciate your support for dedicated cycling funding. It has helped us a lot back home.”

Training for speaking with our Congress persons on Capitol Hill

Supporting Research » Appendix I – Capital Effects

Do: “We have used the dedicated cycling funding to create 100+ miles of bike lane, and support three school’s Safe Streets initiatives. We need this funding to continue this progress. Do you support dedicated cycling funding?”

On Capitol Hill, we engaged two of our local Representatives, Brady and Fattah in addition to Pennsylvania’s two Senators, Toomey and Casey. None of these meetings were held with the actual elected official, but instead the transportation specific congressional staff member of each respective meeting.

The meetings were facilitated by Alex Doty of the Bicycle Coalition of Greater Philadelphia and each meeting had a dedicated constituent from the respected district. “The ask” was affirmed with an expression of gratitude (if the staffers boss supported the bill in question) followed by a description of the types of projects that had been funded. This always prompted the direct ask by the select constituent: “So, do we have your support for dedicated funding for bicycling and walking?”

After the official meeting, we engaged the congressional representatives about our project, using the cards we designed as talking points and leave behinds. Please see “Semantic Zoom Level +1” for more details on the card and website design.

124 & 125

Meeting with Senator Toomey’s Transportation Staff Member

Supporting Research » Appendix I – Capital Effects

NBS & Its Breakdown

Many aspects of the the National Bike Summit helped inform our designs. However, our main take-away from the event, was how necessary and powerful advocacy can be. We were told time and time again that our Congress person actually does want to represent their constituency. To do this effectively, the Congress person needs to know their constituency’s stance. This is why follow up is of the utmost importance, because as a constituent, you could be contacted regarding your stance on a specific topic in times of need.

Recognizing that many of the staff members within Congress are of the millennial generation offered an interesting juxtaposition. This similarity amongst them, along with their distinguished positions and schedules, seemed to create somewhat of a sub-culture within DC. Such that marketing cycling’s benefits to them now, could mean more support for cycling later.

The homogeneity of the advocacy scene was also intriguing. It was announced repetitively by describing the young staff. And was highlighted in the fact that this year was the first time in 12 years in which the Summit hosted a female specific forum. The diversification of cycling is needed to remove the middle-aged man, elitist façade and call out the egalitarian roots of the bicycle. In this way, it can be perceived as an opportunity for transportation for all people, no matter their race, religion or economic status.

126 & 127

While this Summit is the best of the best, it showcased the distinct failings of the industry. The two biggest names in US bicycling, Trek and Specialized, were absent. This disregard for support is telling of the internal hardships embodied by the cycling community. Without a strong unification within this world, progressing a collective goal will be consistently inhibited.

Along the same lines, we expected to find a wealth of data to arm ourselves with as we developed our argument for cycling. However, more often than not, this didn’t exist in any usable way. There were many questions regarding studies of very specific scenarios, e.g., the time savings of children 5-10 riding as opposed to walking to school.

While these seemed esoteric, the studies that were provided seemed almost equally weird. Quantitative studies are often very specific, so this is not really a lack of focus or direction, it seems it is more just a lack of effort. Cycling is popular. People do it everywhere, in all seasons, at all times of the day, to all destinations, etc. These organizations need to start and/or continue funding and supporting these analyses. This is the type of material that governments and other businesses want to know before they invest, thus it only makes sense to have a strong collection of data-sets to stand on.

Appendix II: The Philadelphia Paradox

Supporting Research » Appendix II – The Philadelphia Paradox

A city in Flux “Historically speaking, the transportation department is spending more time on biking than ever before.”

AndrewStober

Appointed as the mayor of Philadelphia in January of 2008, Michael Nutter made a campaign promise to raise the priority of bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure. Ten months later Charles Carmalt was appointed as the first Bicycle and Pedestrian Coordinator of Philadelphia. This was a pivotal time for Philly cyclists; Carmalts’ position was a sign of Philadelphia’s devotion to bicycling related infrastructure and breathed hope into the hearts and minds of commuters and advocates.

However, when it comes to the streets, Mayor Nutter is not the ultimate decision maker. Rina Cutler, the Deputy Mayor for Transportation and Public Utilities is the governing authority over Philadelphia’s streets. A brief look at Rina’s history as the Executive Director of Philadelphia’s Parking Authority easily frames the context of her political stance and leniency towards automobile culture.

However, one cannot discount Cutlers instrumental connection in leading the charge in orchestrating the implementation of bike lanes such as on Spruce Street and Pine Street.

With the additional man-power and focus the City has recently put towards the increase of non-motorized transportation, there was, seemingly, great potential for progress. Unfortunately, there is a consistent lack of political will to raise priority for on street improvements to benefit all modes of transportation.

130 & 131

City Hall in Philadelphia

Supporting Research » Appendix II – The Philadelphia Paradox

Philadelphia has Plans

Mayor Michael Nutter wants Philadelphia to be “the greenest [city] in America.” Quite an ambitious goal. One may assume bicycling would be a part of this plan, and it is. The question is, “To what extent is cycling and pedestrian infrastructure represented?” Over the past few years, the City has released a number of reports outlining the specifics for reaching this ambitious goal. Such as the Greenworks plan, 2009, where Nutter fleshes out his proposal in greater detail.

Later, in 2011, the City published its blueprint for the future, the City Wide Vision plan for 2035 and in the midst of these, a two-part pedestrian and bicycle master plan was developed.

The Greenworks Plan

G R E E N WO R K S P H I L A D E L P H I A

Mayor Michael A. Nutter CITY OF PHILADELPHIA

Published in 2009, the plan covers five sections; Energy, Environment, Equity, Economy and Engagement. Bicycles appear in the middle three, but play the largest part in Economy. Under this section, the previously mentioned Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan is deemed a requirement with the need to revisit the prior bicycle plan, which was never formally adopted by the City1. It also calls for an East/West bike corridor, because “although Philadelphia has an extensive bicycle network, little of it serves bicyclists in Center City.”2 The plan outlines a number of other proposals as well, such as:

ENERGYENVIRONMENTEQUITYECONOMYENGAGEMENT

• • • •

Exploring bike share Increasing bike parking Designing streets for all users (Complete Streets) Increasing traffic calming measures

1.Ujifusa 2. Greenworks Philadelphia, 68

132 & 133

“Although Philadelphia has an extensive bicycle network, little of it serves bicyclists in

Center City.”

The Greenworks Plan

Because the Greenworks plan was only slightly specific, the Mayor, and Rina, have less action based deliverables from which they need to uphold. Such as constructing an East/West corridor (now known to be Spruce and Pine Streets), more bike parking and a revamped bike/ped plan. It does not, however, ensure the inclusion of any other Center City infrastructure. The plan recognize that “83% of Philadelphia bicycle commuters live within 4 miles of City Hall”3 and that there had been an increase in overall ridership. At the time, this increase could be attributed to a SEPTA strike, a rise in gas prices, growing awareness of environmental issues and a growing urban bicycle culture.

The 2035 Plan

CITYWIDE VISION PHILADELPHIA

2 35 a

The City Wide Vision plan is a much more comprehensive and long term strategy for the City in which they outline cycling specific goals, amongst other city initiatives which we won’t be discussing.

Some goals are broad like, for instance, the clause 7.1.1a, “Increase percentage of trips by transit, bicycle and walking” and “Expand infrastructure for alternative-fuel vehicles and bicycles.” With others being very specific, Clause 4.2.2d states Philly will, “Require that bicycle parking be included with transportation facilities.” And Clause 4.1.1g proposes an “[Expansion of] the intermodal transit center at 30th Street Station to connect bus, regional rail, high speed rail and pedestrian and bicycle networks.”

3. Greenworks Philadelphia, 69

Supporting Research » Appendix II – The Philadelphia Paradox

This plan, published two years after the Greenworks plan, repeats some of the same focal points, e.g. bike sharing and traffic calming, but with a more authoritative voice. Instead of the exploration of bike share, the plan references the implementation of bike share.

PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE PLAN

PHILADELPHIA CITY PLANNING COMMISSION / OCTOBER 2010

PHILADELPHIA

The Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan Due to a lack of adequate funding, the Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan was developed in two phases. Phase 1, completed in 2010, consists of Center City, South Philadelphia, North and Northwest Philadelphia. While Phase 2 will cover the remainder of Philadelphia and will be completed by the winter of 2012. An extensive look at the City’s street scapes was undertaken to develop this plan. The results include a map of suggested bicycle infrastructure, a plan for implementation and guidelines on how to develop other aspects of the street scape to further enhance the on-street environment of Philadelphia.

Creating a city-wide plan in two parts has inherent problems. Mostly at the overlap between the two, since accounting for these areas is unpredictable at best. Of course, the Philadelphia City Planning Commission (PCPC) and their consultants, the Toole Design Group, tried to account for this. One of the methods used was through community meetings held around the progression of the proposed pedestrian and bike plans.

The last community meeting for the second phase was held in North Philly at the CORA Services Building. The overall structure was well designed, however the community engagement was weak at best.

With a total attendance of approximately 15 persons. The PCPC

134 & 135

2 1 Bike plan phases presented their preliminary ped/bike plan for the region and the research that helped determine and delegate priority over the affected areas. Feedback was requested from the attendees but there was no structure in place by which the attendees would be acknowledged of their input. Overall the event had the air of a mandatory requirement being checked off a list, rather than a welcomed opportunity to engage the community.

But the City has been making progress. There are a number of very quotable statistics regarding the changes that have been made to date. Often, the City’s 200+ miles of bike lanes are brought up, along PCPC Pedestrian & Bicycle Plan Meeting

Supporting Research » Appendix II – The Philadelphia Paradox

Steps in the Right Direction

with the successes of the protected bike lanes on Spruce Street and Pine Street.

Bicycle Lanes Spruce Street and Pine Street buffered bicycle lanes are the first lanes installed by the City at the cost of a travel lane. These bike lanes were installed in tandem to offer cross-town access in both directions, but went through data based tests first. There was a lot of push back from the residents about their installation. However, it was in the plans, and the lanes were only being tested, so the project moved forward. The results were impressive. Philly saw an increase in ridership, and even a decrease in side-walk riding1. Also, both serious vehicular crashes and fender benders saw a significant decrease, while enabling the same average motor vehicle speed. Because MOTU makes data based decisions, the bike lanes were successfully implemented.2 Two years later, in 2011, the City tried to parlay those successes into support for two more buffered bike lanes at the cost of a single driving lane. This time a North/South pair that cut through the East side of Center City, 10th and 13th Street specifically. This again was met with local opposition. We attended a town meeting and listened as the motorists, pedestrians and cyclists argued their points.

Businesses spoke of how they feared the bike lane would impair their customer’s ability to get to their store. A fireman spoke up and made an interesting point, telling of how he would rather have bicyclists than motorists to maneuver past in the event of an emergency. While 1. Mode Shift 2. Stober

136 & 137

all the discussion was insightful it was not clear if this would have an impact on the lanes installation. In fact it was fairly clear to everyone that the pilot test lanes would be installed either way, and that again the data would make the decision, absolving MOTU of having to take an affirmative stance.

The reason these streets were chosen were also data based. Low traffic volume, no SEPTA bus routes, no obsolete trolley tracks, no on-street parking to remove, etc. This is all very relevant data to those that will be actually working on the street. However, the data that was missing, is the data regarding who the lane is suppose to serve. Where to do the cyclists ride?

Enforcement In the summer of 2011, the city received grant funding for a temporary program called Give Respect/Get Respect. Rina Cutler, Deputy Mayor for Transportation and Public Utilities called it “an educational initiative for drivers, cyclists and pedestrians to be more aware and mindful of each other on Philadelphia’s roads.”3 While the premise seemed fair, the results were certainly biased.

The program produced over 800 stops, with bicycles making up 600 of those. Captain Alan Clark, who lead the patrol was quoted saying “Cyclists seem to be where the education focus needs to go… motorists don’t need education. If they ran a light, they know what 3. Statement from Deputy Mayor Cutler, Commissioner Ramsey Regarding Give Respect-Get Respect Campaign

Supporting Research » Appendix II – The Philadelphia Paradox

they did”1. Of the 600 stops, only ten citations were issued, the rest were warnings. It was aimed at education, after all. These results seem to constitute success, because funding has been renewed for the coming summer of 2012.

As part of the campaign, educational pamphlets were also handed out. They included standard material about paying attention, being courteous, and how to yield appropriately. A seemingly innocuous piece of collateral, but a closer look at the cover art reveals some distinct perspectives. While both the walker and driver guide show scenes with other modes of transit represented, signage for “Get Healthy Philly”, peoples faces and a relatively normal, top down perspective. That of the bicycle, however, is much less welcoming.

The cyclist is shown completely alone, indicating that they do not get along with others. They are also shown only from the bottom up, giving the viewer the appearance of being beneath them, Dehumanization is a physically and metaphorically. The viewer only sees the cyclist from popular tool in war- the rear, and with their skin tone the same as the bicycle, further dehumanizing cycling. Dehumanization is a popular tool in war-time time propaganda. propaganda, and so these illustrations have an eerily antagonistic feel to them. Their perspective is as if, the viewer were just knocked down by the cyclist and is left watching them ride away.

Enforcement as education is also a strange idea. As Captain. Clark said, motorists do not need education, the cyclists do. Why is that?

Give Respect, Get Respect 2011 Citations/Stops

75% 1. Zalo

25%

138 & 139

Cover art for Give Respect/Get Respect campaign pamphlets

Supporting Research » Appendix II – The Philadelphia Paradox

Bike Share History

‘07

Bike Share Philadelphia Created

‘08

Bike Share Philadelphia Forum Held

‘09

‘10

Feasibility Study Denver Starts First Program

‘11

‘12

Bike Share Coordinator Position Open New York Bike Share Opening & Los Angeles Bike Share Opening

Bike Share Just as the City’s plans progressed from exploring a bike sharing program to proposing its implementation, the City’s actions have moved from being that of an observer, to being explorative. This seems to put them exactly one step behind where they say they want to be. In 2010, a feasibility study was conducted showing Philadelphias potential. However with other cities initiating programs during that time Philadelphia’s stance was still one of “watch and wait.”1 There are, of course, many questions and challenges that quickly come to mind when considering bike share. Will the bicycles just be stolen? Who would be liable if an accident were to happen? What happens when there is an almost instant increase in ridership?

While none of these questions are necessarily debilitating in and of themselves, the sheer number of them can create a lot of anxiety.

This would explain the City’s watch and wait stance. However, with so many bike share programs up and running nationally and internationally, the answers to these questions are being quickly aggregated.

Recently the City has responded to these examples, and is beginning to implement the bike share portion of the 2035 plan. They are still not actually implementing a bike share, but rather, have created a Bike Share Coordinator position.

1. Aland

140 & 141

Checking out the Capital Bikeshare in Washington D.C.

Supporting Research  Appendix II – The Philadelphia Paradox

Top down perspectives on cycling in Philadelphia Speaking with the people involved is key. Talking directly to those involved with the creation of our street scape provides glimpses of the inner workings of our local government. Interviewing those on the outside, that view and use the infrastructure, is also important to understanding the repercussions and significance of street changes.

Karen Thompson Karen is new to her job as a planner for the Delaware River Waterfront Corporation (DRWC). She is a quick-witted and hip woman in her late twenties. As a recent graduate herself, she was more than willing to help us with our project. We first ran into Karen at a DRWC meeting regarding the waterfront redevelopment plans.

After speaking with her and learning of her interest in community development, she seemed like a good person to interview. Having a background in planning, and commuting mostly by foot she promised a unique perspective. A few weeks later, we met her at a coffee shop on her morning route to work.

We inquired about her take on the walk-ability of Philadelphia and with a spunky smile and a touch of sarcasm she told us that she thinks Philadelphia is a great city to walk, but that it can be hard. She went on to say that you could really walk almost anywhere, it is not very overwhelming like some cities can be, but that you just need to be careful about where you end up. As a female it can be unsafe for her. The neighborhoods change block-to-block, and this is something she definitely considers.

142 & 143

Moving the conversation towards cycling, she spoke about how the sidewalk “bike lane” on Columbus Blvd. was painted by one agency. The City had made it illegal to ride on the sidewalk, though they later implemented a process for approving sidewalk riding under certain conditions. It seems it is a classic case of government and quasi-public agencies not speaking with each other and it made us consider if the city is adding bike infrastructure anywhere it will fit. She says that none of the organizations involved with developing the city want to be working in a silo, but that it is difficult for planners across multiple agencies to communicate as much as they’d like to. This case seemed like a prime example.

She continued, explaining how she is very supportive of bike lanes because they move the bike riders off of the sidewalk and onto the street. She has had a number of close calls with sidewalk riders in the past, claiming they’ll see her and pedal faster! This doesn’t deter her though, she loves the eclectic city-scape that Philadelphia offers to those on foot, and takes it in daily on her commute and errands.

Karen Thompson, Planner for the DRWC

Supporting Research » Appendix II – The Philadelphia Paradox

Jeannette Brugger Jeannette is a planner and cyclist and very pragmatic.

She explained that she often gets to ride for work, and that this is one reason why she loves her job as a bicycle, pedestrian and open space planner in the Strategic Planning an Policy Division of the Philadelphia City Planning Commission (PCPC). She hopes that perhaps one day she could get a company bicycle, similar to how some businesses offer company cars. In light of QBP’s savings, that isn’t such a bad idea for the City either.

She told us that funding is a major issue with cycling infrastructure. “The biggest data need,” she said, “is figuring out how to get funding to get the [Pedestrian and Bicycle] plan implemented.” Many of the major trail and land development projects in Philadelphia are funded by foundations and private developers.

She suggested that City priorities dictate attention to all infrastructure citywide and that bridges, roadways and utilities are further up on that list than cycling infrastructure. Though many miles of additional cycling infrastructure has been added in the past several years.

Jeannette Brugger, City Planner for the PCPC

She also made a strong point, that bicycles are just one small piece of what the planning commission does. The PCPC has many other responsibilities, and that rather MOTU and the Streets Department are the entities that control implementation. They are the gatekeepers.

144 & 145

Russell Meddin Russell has ridden a bicycle since he was a kid. For him it was love at first bike. His daily bicycle is a rugged steel framed mountain bike outfitted with front and rear lights, fenders, and a bell. He is a bicycle advocate and so he sets a good example by wearing a helmet as well as a brightly colored biking jacket for high visibility.

Russell became more active in the bike advocacy scene in 2007 when he cofounded Bike Share Philadelphia. At that time, he was pushing Philadelphia to be at the forefront of bike share in the United States. Unfortunately, due to inadequate traction in the local government, the Bike Share project dwindled after a few years of good media coverage and a high potential for implementation.

Around the same time he also joined the Greater Philadelphia Bike Coalition (BCGP), Philadelphia’s leading advocacy group for biking. Since joining he has become a prominent figure for the Coalition and now resides as one of the board members.

Russel’s main objective as an advocate is to enable a safer environment of mobility in Philadelphia by pushing for more progressive growth strategies; such as bike share and bike lanes. He is also active in trying to build a stronger voice from the younger population Russell Meddin, Board Member for BCGP

Supporting Research  Appendix II – The Philadelphia Paradox

of cyclists. He too recognizes the homogeneity of the cycling advocate scene as discussed earlier regarding the National Bike Summit. Russell worries that advocates and policy makers have lost touch with the younger generation of riders and are moving the cities patterns of mobility in the wrong direction.

Charles Carmalt A very congenial man, he spoke with intent. As the Pedestrian and Bicycle Coordinator for the city, he often has the final say about what is and is not implemented. He arrived with a friendly smile, curious about what we might be interested in learning.

We explained our project and goals and began the interview.

As we prodded on the process involved with the installation of bicycle infrastructure, Carmalt stressed it is a process indeed. There is always a lot of up front research regarding where the lanes should go; informed heavily by land use revenues among other things. After that, the type of infrastructure, e.g., bike lane, sharrow, etc. must be considered. Yet even then, extensive testing of the infrastructure must occur before a decision for it is made permanent. And this is all tied to the repaving schedule. Apparently, paint absorbs into the pavement better when it is applied closer to initial resurfacing – A very intensive process indeed.

Charles Carmalt, Pedestrian & Bicycle Coordinator

146 & 147

Parking was also brought up as an issue. It has a critical role in where bicycle lanes are laid. When lanes are placed, automotive parking must remain neutral. This means if they remove two spots where the bike lane goes, they must create two new spots.

Charles made clear, that the installation of cycling infrastructure is not just a flippant decision.

Rather it is heavily balanced and considered.

However, from our rapid prototyping perspective, a process that involved would hinder, more than help its progression.

Jeff Jeff has been riding a bike for 15 years and has been a Philadelphia local for even longer. This gives him a unique and well versed perspective on the Philadelphia bicycling scene. Jeff started his cycling career as a racer, but has evolved his passion into both business and pleasure. Jeff is a Philadelphia bike messenger (during which he rides anywhere from 20-40 miles a day), bike commuter and recreational cyclist. In other words, his only means of transportation is his bicycle. He also organizes rides and is friends with a couple of the local bike shop owners.

As a true local and rider, the bike he had during our interaction was a custom made Chris Wright bicycle.

Jeff, Bicycle Messenger

Supporting Research » Appendix II – The Philadelphia Paradox

A locally welded, steel fixed gear bike with clip-less pedals and no brakes. A professional and beautiful machine. That day he had chosen a classic jersey, but otherwise continued the standard messenger look with the requisite messenger bag, and tattoos.

His understanding of Philadelphia’s current system of bike infrastructure was well balanced. Understanding both sides of the system (policy to advocacy). As a rider he wants an increase in lanes because it promotes ridership, safety and awareness, however expressed the understanding that it is a win-lose situation between the addition and subtraction of bike/auto lanes.

As a long time urban rider, he has witnessed an evolution of ridership within Philadelphia. He told us a story how one afternoon he saw dozens and dozens of people riding by. They were of all ages and it was something, Jeff noted, you would never have seen even 3 years ago. He explained that this new breadth of ridership has directly affected the immediate small business economy, telling us of his friend’s recent increase in business.

Andrew Stober Andrew is a calm and collected individual. He dresses professionally and thinks diligently before speaking. He is soft toned and welcoming, however stresses rigid political principles and has a tough mind-set against the aggressive and bad behaviors of Philadelphia cyclists. It seemed to be his greatest concern, stating “cyclists are their own worst enemy.”

148 & 149

Without an increase in ridership, the current cycling infrastructure is it for Center City.

Andrew Stober

He delivered standard facts about the amount of infrastructure implemented over the past ten years, the majority of which has been outside of center city.

And stressed that without an increase in ridership, there will be no more cycling infrastructure within Center City. Although rigid about the potential for more bike lanes, he mentioned one of the major goals for the Streets Department was to make every mode of transport safe and convenient. This seemed a bit contrary to such a rigid stance, but we did not push the issue.

He spoke matter-of-factly that bicycling is one of the many things MOTU deals with, and historically speaking, the Transportation Department is spending more time on biking than it has ever before.

Dr. Mimi Sheller A very friendly and welcoming woman, she was quick to find time to let us speak with her. As the Director of Drexel’s Mobilities Research and Policy Center, she is clearly an academic. Her office was decorated with family pictures, event flyers and books.

Andrew Stober, MOTU Chief of Staff

Supporting Research » Appendix II – The Philadelphia Paradox

She was exactly the woman we needed to speak with.

Her research lies in the culture of mobility and so had some very interesting insights and further research suggestions for us. She explained how the culture of automobility is the driving opposition challenging a stronger push for cycling infrastructure in cities.

Mimi’s suggested shift in perspective alluded to a gap between the perceptions of Philly’s bike friendliness and the reality of on street actions; commenting on a previous thesis study of Philadelphia that referenced drivers “spatial aggressiveness.”

We pressed her for where she thought the change needed to happen for Philadelphia to progress away from this dominating automotive mindset. She spoke to the need for better infrastructure. That is, infrastructure of a higher quality and quantity. Good infrastructure creates a feeling of safety and security and with that we would reach a tipping point where cycling is normalized. She warned, however, that this would not be possible without a shift from the “rightto-automobility” mind-set.

Again this was very insightful. It made sense from a design standpoint, that the affordances built into the street scapes would enable or hinder cycling efforts.

Dr. Mimi Sheller, Director of Drexel’s Mobilities Research and Policy Center

150 & 151

Sample Data Cards

The Big Picture

The affinity map did not fully connect the pieces and so we re-engaged the cards. Our second pass was aimed at unpacking the hidden story. We analyzed common threads between the comments and laid the cards out on brown paper to annotate the connections.

trend

infra.

cyclist

motor

ped.

policy

advoc.

Historically speaking, the transit dept is spending more time on biking then ever before.

theory

trend

infra.

cylist

motor

54

ped.

policy

advoc.

The overall system is still in support of motorists.

Mimi Sheller | mCenter, Drexel | Director

OPPORTUNITY

We slowly developed eight stories, framed around persistent topics, i.e. Access, The Coalition, Cyclist

theory

Andrew Stober | MOTU | Chief of Staff

O B S TA C L E S

We took these cards and built an affinity map, categorizing with patterns and outliers. Our initial clusters helped us understand that implementation, infrastructure effects and behavior were the most common topics.

EVIDENCE

In order to understand how the disparate comments regarding cycling infrastructure fit together, we used affinity mapping and story telling to build a strong mental model of our interview data. First, we transcribed our interviews, highlighting the particularly salient comments. These were then categorized into four levels, Opportunities, Obstacles, Needs and Evidence. Each comment was subcategorized by its particular topic.

theory

trend

infra.

cyclist

motor

20

ped.

policy

advoc.

How could long term parking help the cycling environment and how could it be implemented?

Charles Carmalt | MOTU | Bike / Pedestrian Coordinator

69

Supporting Research » Appendix II – The Philadelphia Paradox

Actions, Implementation, Policy, Safety, Infrastructure Effects and Sharing. These stories were an excellent resource that bound and externalized all the information we had received thus far. A comprehensive mental model had been created.

In an effort to create one unified story, we brought our eight stories together, revisiting the cards individually. This time though, instead of creating connections by juxtaposition, we left the cards where they were and used string to link the related comments together. We were able to pull some individually interesting connections together.

Overall though this proved to be cumbersome and unnecessary at this phase of the project.

From our stories we were able to understand the perspectives and issues regarding the politics and culture of cycling in Philadelphia.

We learned that many of the purported challenges to implementation were monetary issues. That cyclists are often vilified, but that there is also a lot of misunderstandings around the motives and their actions. It also brought to light the stark contrast between Dr. Sheller’s and Mr. Stober’s comments. The former saying that more cycling infrastructure enables more users, and supports a shift to better transit options, while the latter implied infrastructure is merit based, saying that until there is more demand, there will be no more infrastructure.

Annotations around the Data Card placement helped us tell the story.

152 & 153

Clustering and connecting the pieces of our interviews to create a cohesive story

Supporting Research  Appendix II – The Philadelphia Paradox

Stakeholders Throughout our research, we were constantly trying to understand what the process was for installing infrastructure. There was never a single clear way, but an agglomeration of any number of different avenues for a new road to be paved, or a bike lane to be painted.

In an effort to understand the environment of power and persuasion, and number of connections which play a role within that environment, we developed a stakeholder map based on our research. As a model of our working perspective, it helped us recognize potential allies for pursuing the continual development of a better cycling network.

154 & 155

Stakeholder Map High Power

Developing a Cycling Network

Rina Cutler, MOTU City Council

rts po

lic

t o v i a pu

b

PCPC

Emergency Responsereport s

ts or rep

Ambulance

bie

to

lob

hin works wit

Police

s

Bike/Ped Coordinator

s

Bike Coalition

e

Center City Proprietors Assoc.

lob bie s

r

vis

kets

advises

s at

a ft

Errand er

Pedestrians

Commute

advocates for

Deliverers

h

s trip ck qui

tr

as

cu

se ba

ds $ spen

ts

for to &

Food

t $a

lec

Buses

Neighborhood Bike Works

Service

er om st

nds spe

fr o m quick trip

sh

created

member o f

collects trash after

ra

col

Commuters

st

ct

pic ks

ll e

Pleasure-ers Tourists

up

Motorists

Taxis

co

Suburbanites

Retail

Local Businesses

High Interest

r ne ow

issue s mo ving vio lat ion s

Fire Dept.

Sanitation

lo bb ie s

ad

tic king par ues iss

Low Interest

rep ort st ov ia eo fic f of

designs for

Water Dept.

Paul Levy

e

y offic fet sa

re

Streets Dept.

P.P.A.

Mayor Nutter

to

to

reports to th

fo

wo rks wi

ning plan

s ort rep

appointed

adv oca tes

with rks wo

Fitness/Pleasure Pan-handle

Homeless

vo ad

Tourists

Perform

ca

Canvassing

Errand

picks up

te

Commute

sf

or

Cyclists

collects trash after

picks up

Low Power

Deliver Fitness/Pleasure

Supporting Research » Appendix II – The Philadelphia Paradox

The Philadelphia Paradox

There is a paradox at the heart of many transportation departments, and Philadelphia is no exception. It is founded in classic economic models and cultural perceptions. However, models are expected to be inaccurate, and cultural perceptions can change.

Mr. Stober’s implications that infrastructure is merit based is nothing new. It is the reason we have so many roads and highways. As traffic and congestion increase, the obvious solution seems to be to build more capacity. This fits with the normal economic expectations we all learn at the lemonade stand. If demand increases, the proprietor must increase their supply. This is a demand driven model, that perpetuates an increase in production.

However, This simplistic model doesn’t work for highly complex, multivariate systems, such as traffic. Rather, just the opposite.

Instead of demand driving supply, supply drives demand. This concept is called induced demand and is a known, but often questioned, economic theory which has been most often studied in the scope of automotive transportation.

Consider this in the scope of cycling infrastructure and it becomes apparent that the demand for cycling within Philadelphia is

156 & 157

limited by the infrastructure that is supplied. Thus, a required increase in cycling demand to increase supply of infrastructure is a misunderstanding of the transportation system. Which in turn creates a paradox of stagnation.

Induced Demand and Lemonade Consider the lemonade stand. If it was supply driven, as opposed to demand, then the amount of lemonade the proprietor offered would literally produce the demand to purchase it. Thus more lemonade means more sales. Assuming a fixed cost, supply regulates demand.

If a limit on supply has been reached, cost can then be implemented as a regulator for demand. Enrique PeĂąalosa, the former Mayor of BogotĂĄ, made this point in February while Speaking at the University of Pennsylvania. Stating that the regulation of congestion is purely a political decision.

This theory of latent demand certainly doesn’t work in all cases of demand and supply. It clearly does not work for a normal lemonade stand. Produce more lemonade than people are buying, and you would go under. Latent demand, rather, works when a system is at its tipping point, where demand is ready to absorb any increase in supply, e.g., urban transportation. Everyone needs to get around.

Supporting Research » Appendix II – The Philadelphia Paradox

Exploration of induced Demand We may have previously thought that we could build roadways to satisfy capacity, traffic congestion makes it clear this is not the case.

“Induced Traffic and Induced Demand” by Lee, D.B., L.A. Klein, and G. Camus states that “the first recognition that demand responded to [internal] factors was the assertion that congestion is self-regulating… ”(B-2). This implies an automatic balancing of supply and demand; the supply of the street capacity and the demand of the motorist. We would venture that even the reader has reconsidered a trip or two because of the congestion that occurs at certain times of day or days of the year.

Lee, Klein and Camus continue to explain that because traffic is self-regulating, road capacity does nothing to improve levels of congestion. Of congestion is the number of cars on a mile of road, more capacity just means more cars can fit – and they do, again creating congestion. This is called induced traffic.

Induced traffic accounts for all new trips on that extra capacity, whether they are a completely new trip or merely a different trip re-routed to make use of the new capacity. This holistic collection of new road use includes the portion that we, for this thesis, find most interesting, induced demand. Induced demand only considers completely new trips, as opposed to longer, or re-routed trips. Thus induced demand is only a sub-set of induced traffic.

We still have not found a concrete difference between induced and

158 & 159

Though the terms remain ambiguous, Lee, Klein and Camus were very explicit about many other points of interest. One such point is that “the idea of latent demand has not been implemented as a formal forecasting method.”1 This echoed the responses from the city officials with whom we spoke. It seems that not only in Philly, but many places are considering latent demand more the exception than the rule.

This, however, should not be the case. According to this document, “improvements that change user cost should be evaluated in the light of whatever change in volume will actually occur.”2 Cost here is referencing actual dollars spent on fuel, time spent traveling, accidents incurred, etc. Almost all infrastructure improvements affect these costs, so it would only make sense that latent demand should be accounted for in some way.

Lee, Klein and Camus also layout a specific path to long run equilibrium, highlighting that the halfway point of this path occurs in only a quarter of the total amount of time3. This was significant for us because it shows how easily people change to accommodate new systems, though at the outset, they may think it impossible.

1. Lee, B-2 2. Lee, B-14 3. Lee, B-12

Transition to Equilibrium After Any Change

PEOPLE

latent demand in our research. However, for the sake of this book, we will define induced demand and latent demand as was concluded by a local economist, Peter Angelides. That is, induced demand is the creation of new demand and latent demand is a population with unrealized demand potential.

QUARTER of the time

HALF of everyone

TIME

“The idea of latent demand has not been implemented as a formal forecasting method.”

Lee, Klein & Camus, Induced Traffic and Induced Demand

Supporting Research » Appendix II – The Philadelphia Paradox

Cyclic Road Investment Cycle

induces Road Investments

Traffic Demand

induces Further detailing how people will adapt to a new system, “Latent Demand and the Browsing Shopper,” Peter E. Earl and Jason Potts consider the variations of people’s behavior in the short and long run, similar to “Induced Traffic and Induced Demand.

However Earl and Potts also consider an intermediate or mid-run period, as opposed to merely a short and long run as discussed in “Induced Traffic and Induced Demand.”

This mid-run period, we believe, is where the magic happens!

The mid-run is where we believe new demand is created. When an individual sees a new product or service, they immediately

understand its benefits and begin to use it. Where previously, that same person would never have toyed with the need or want for such a good. The market doesn’t recognize this type of demand, partially because it does not exist until the product does, but also because it is uncontrollable and unpredictable, this scares people. This mid-run set is what we consider the latent or induced demand. This differs, of course, from short run demand, representing the market that is knows it wants something new and is simply waiting. Long run demand is vastly different from the prior. Individuals who will not change their ways until their old way fails are considered in the long run. Even then, the new offering must meet or exceed their needs. This mid-run target market shifts almost immediately upon conceptualization of the new offering.

These mid-termers are the ones that would otherwise not show up in polls or sign petitions, they are the ones, however, who will make up the bulk of new riders in Philadelphia. They are the population of latent bicyclers.

Creating accommodations for this latent cycling population is a decision that so far has been difficult to make. But, according to “Induced Travel and Induced Road

160 & 161

“Bicycle travel often does not occur due to a number of impediments, one of which is relatively poor accommodation of bicyclists within the existing transportation network.”

Toole, Technical Analysis – Latent Demand for Bicycle Travel

Investment”, by Cervero and Hansen, this is a decision that may just have to be made, cut and dry. In a study conducted on data from California they discovered an “unequivocally strong two-way empirical relationship between road supply and demand…”(Cervero and Hansen, 487). Thus validating the existence of the theory of induced demand. They then go a step further and say that “road investments induce travel demand and traffic growth induces road investments” (Cervero and Hansen, 481). This calls out a vicious cycle of automobility,i.e., where spending money to increase capacity only continues the need to spend money to increase capacity. Thus to break this cycle of automotive spending, a simple decision to shift funds to other modes, will have to be made.

As Lee, Klein and Camus stated earlier, the latent population needs to be accounted for. While this may seem challenging, Jennifer Toole outlines the equation and variables needed to do just that in “Technical Analysis – Latent Demand for Bicycle Travel”. She recognizes that “assessing latent demand considers both existing activity and pent-up bicycle demand”(Toole, 2) Though the equation is too complex to accurately convey here, the variables include such items as travel distance, trip purpose and average trip distance, all things City Hall should be able to access. Toole even goes so far as to explicitly state that “Bicycle travel often does not occur due to a number of impediments, one of which is relatively poor accommodation of bicyclists within the existing transportation network” (Toole, 1) We interpret this statement to say that if the number of cyclists is low, then it is most likely due to poor accommodations. Then what, we wonder, are poor accommodations,?

Lack of bike lanes, lack of enforcement, lack of network connectivity?

Supporting Research » Appendix II – The Philadelphia Paradox

Latent Demand in Action In Baltimore, MD induced demand was leveraged to increase attendance at two museums, the Baltimore Museum of Art (BMA) and the Walters Art Museum (WAM). Outlined in “The Cost of Free Admission: A Comparative Study Examining the Feasibility of Eliminating Museum Admission Charges,” by S. Cortell, the results are clear. The BMA saw an eight percent increase over their two year average, with 37% of those being first time visitors. The WAM’s first time admissions made up 43% after this change was made, with growth in the children and family art activities experiencing triple digit growth. Both museums saw the effects in other areas as well, such as an increase in donations from upper-level donors. Thus, not only did it have direct positive effects, but those produced further positive effects as well.

Portland and New York provide more cycling related examples. The cycling mecca of Portland, OR was not always that way. It was built because they wanted to increase their number of riders. In “Bridging The Gaps,” by M. Birk and R. Geller, they discuss the successes of Portland’s “build it and they will come approach” (2). Their paper studies the changes in ridership that their bridge improvements made. These improvements created better connections between the residential and commercial parts of the city, enabling easier commutes and access to shopping. Over the course of five years, these changes created an approximately 70% increase in the number of riders using these bridges and arterial connectors. All key pieces of infrastructure for many people’s routes to work.

162 & 163

Portland’s bike network split bytract, census 1990 track; left: 1990, right: with 2000 b Figure 2: Bike mode& commute split bymode census and 2000, network shown in black

Birk and Geller go on to outline key factors regarding why their changes were so successful. These include: • The quantity of facilities: completeness of network • The quality of the facility itself.

These were then expanded upon, “The bikeway network must be well connected, providing continuous, or near continuous service to be effective.” (Birk and Geller, 25) This was Dr. Sheller’s point too.

“The facilities must be constructed to the highest standards to

Figure 2: Bike mode split by census tract,the 1990potential and 2000,for withnegative bicycle bicycle-automobile interactions minimize network shown in black

and to maximize cyclists’ ease of use.” (Birk and Geller, 25) A similar point was brought up in our interviews regarding the need for a high level of safety and security for riding to become normalized.

Figure 2: Bike mode split by census tract, 1990 and 2000, with bicycle network shown in black

15

Supporting Research » Appendix II – The Philadelphia Paradox

“The use of bikeways seems best supported in areas where trip distances are relatively short and urban design supports bicycle use.”(Birk and Geller, 25) Which they further expand on later, explaining that “Portland’s ‘build it and they will come’ approach has proven largely successful in promoting increased bicycle use. This is especially true in Portland’s inner city where factors other than the presence of bikeways contribute to conditions amenable to bicycling.” (Birk and Geller, 25) Philadelphia’s Center City, already has the highest level of ridership. There must be some of these “other factors” that “contribute to conditions amenable to cycling” then right?

Finally, in New York the latent demand strategy is currently underway. Their radical deployment of 200 miles in three years followed by another 50 miles a year, is a clear statement that they recognize the power and necessity to creating the infrastructure first, if an increase in cyclists is a priority. The project began in 2006 and almost instantly began instigating change. Between ‘07 and ‘08 the city’s ridership increased 35% (Gastel).

164 & 165

NYC’s East River bikeway, lower Manhattan

Supporting Research » Appendix II – The Philadelphia Paradox

Is Philadelphia Really Doing Enough?

Considering the gap between perception and reality in the context of a bike friendly city was particularly interesting. After synthesizing our research, we feel Philadelphia is a perfect example of this. It seems that the focus is on the minimum effort that will enable the City to appear bike friendly.

Contrary to the plans outlined earlier, the City’s actions do not consider cycling a priority. While the Greenworks Plan speaks of exploring bike share, the bike share forum happened the year prior to its publication. The discussions and advocacy started the year before that, in 2007, and a full two years before the first large scale installation in America. Philadelphia had the opportunity to lead the bike sharing charge, but instead it is still only timidly considering it.

The plan talks about designing streets for all users and utilizing traffic calming methods. Yet here we are three years after its publication and we’ve finally achieved an official complete streets policy, not to mention little in the way of hardscaped traffic calming changes.

The 2035 plan specifically calls for efforts to be made to increase trips made by bicycles, and that this should be done by expanding infrastructure1. Since then the city has moved on two new lanes, 10th and 13th. It also explicitly calls for better bicycle connections to 30th St. Station2. However, the potential hardscaped buffered bike lanes that have been proposed on Market/JFK stop blocks short of the station. Not-to-mention during a recent renovation to the station, a bike lane was purposefully omitted.

1. Philadelphia 2035, 7.1.1 a 2. Philadelphia 2035, 4.1.1 g

166 & 167

Funding is often brought up as the token issue. We believe, however that funding is not an issue. Prioritization is the issue. If an effort were made to seek funding, extensive government grants are available. Additionally, bike lanes are inexpensive to implement.

How inexpensive is difficult to say; as discussed earlier regarding the inability to separate the added costs of bike infrastructure from the normal costs of bridge maintenance and improvements. (Birk and Geller, 3) Because bike lanes are simply paint on the ground and are don’t merit a dedicated painting schedule – bike lane painting is tied to the resurfacing schedule – the costs are even further minimized.

13th St.. bike lane stops at Hamilton St.. just blocks before meeting the bike lane on Spring Garden St.. (map courtesy of Google)

The cost, it seems, is the removal of parking. At the Safe Streets for Healthy Neighborhoods meeting in South Philly, February of 2012, it was stated explicitly that the removal of parking was out of the question. This was not a surprise, the issue of parking is a common theme throughout Philadelphia politics, in fact it’s necessary to stay “parking space neutral” when installing bike lanes. Clearly the cost of a parking spot, is just too much to bear for the City. Hence why the connection between the bicycle lane on 13th Street cannot be made to the one on Spring Garden Street, stopping only a block or two away.

Philadelphia has many aspects that make it great for cycling, such as flat topography and a grid layout. While the benefits of topography may go without explanation, the grid however may be surprising.

As explained in Debunking the Cul-de-sac in The Atlantic, grids do not necessarily mean less accidents, but less fatal accidents. The

Supporting Research » Appendix II – The Philadelphia Paradox

large number of intersections slows automobiles down, while also affording great opportunities for making needed connections. Thus Philadelphia’s grid is a great attribute. This could be why cycling in Center City has one of the highest bicycle mode shares, even with the lack of infrastructure.

Connectivity, or Lack Thereof One of the traits contributing to the success of Portland’s infrastructure, as evidenced in bridging the gap, is the quantity of its network. It explicitly says the “network must be well connected”(Birk and Geller, 25). Philadelphia’s high mileage of bike lanes, – 200 miles – is often cited as progress and growth. However, while even the Greenworks plan calls out Center City’s lack of lanes made us question the connectivity of Philly’s network.

To do this we enlisted the help of Dillon Mahmoudi, an Urban Studies Ph.D. candidate and Geographic Information Systems (GIS) specialist at Portland State University. We developed a plan to analyze the connectivity of a bike network and to do so independent of the city.

To do this we overlaid a quarter-mile by quarter-mile grid over the infrastructure networks. We then highlighted grid cells according to the type of infrastructure they contained, i.e. orange for over an eighth of a mile of bike lane, red for an infrastructure intersection.

We then took a simple ratio of intersection cells to bike lane cells to develop a comparative metric.

We compared the results from Philadelphia with those of Portland and New York. In this way we hoped to create a score to compare how our network, used by the largest percentage of cyclists of the top 5 largest cities in the US, with that of the largest city in the US, New York, and the unofficial cycling mecca, Portland. Philadelphia ranked the lowest, by far.

Philadelphia

168 & 169

All subsequent map tiles by Stamen Design. Distributed under CC BY 3.0. Data by OpenStreetMap. Distributed under CC BY SA

Bicycle Lanes Bicycle lanes and trails are indicated by the yellow lines

Bicycle Lane Intersections Each red circle indicates where two or more bike lanes intersect

Grid Overlay A 0.25x0.25mi grid, in green, is applied over the network

Bicycle Lane Intersections The map has been removed, leaving only the grided network

Grid Network Using the cycling network to fill in the respective grid cells, a better sense of the catchment area of the network is illustrated

174 & 175

Network Connectivity Score

208

Number of Grid Cells With At Least One Intersection

1566

Number of Grid Cells With At Least An Eighth Mile of Bike Lane

= 13.3 Philadelphia Connectivity Score

New York Bicycle Lanes Bicycle lanes and trails are indicated by the yellow lines

Bicycle Lane Intersections Each red circle indicates where two or more bike lanes intersect

Grid Overlay A 0.25x0.25mi grid, in green, is applied over the network

Bicycle Lane Intersections The map has been removed, leaving only the grided network

Grid Network Using the cycling network to fill in the respective grid cells, a better sense of the catchment area of the network is illustrated

180 & 181

Network Connectivity Score

653

Number of Grid Cells With At Least One Intersection

2408

Number of Grid Cells With At Least A Quarter Mile of Bike Lane

= 27.1 New York Connectivity Score

Portland Bicycle Lanes Bicycle lanes and trails are indicated by the yellow lines

Bicycle Lane Intersections Each red circle indicates where two or more bike lanes intersect

Grid Overlay A 0.25x0.25mi grid, in green, is applied over the network

Bicycle Lane Intersections The map has been removed, leaving only the grided network

Grid Network Using the cycling network to fill in the respective grid cells, a better sense of the catchment area of the network is illustrated

186 & 187

Network Connectivity Score

1021 Number of Grid Cells With At Least One Intersection

2879

Number of Grid Cells With At Least A Quarter Mile of Bike Lane

= 35.5 Portland Connectivity Score

Supporting Research » Appendix II – The Philadelphia Paradox

Connectivity Recap Comparing Philly to New York to Portland, highlights some gross disparity’s between the level of connectivity within the network. As the top 5th largest city with the highest percentage of cyclists, and having this poor of a network, especially where it is needed most, is bittersweet.

Sweet because Philly does have a lot of riders, despite the low network connectivity. Bitter because a quick look at the network, and it is clear by all the random pieces, and gaping voids, that connections were not the focus. The focus was simply painting bike lanes.

However, it seems that now that the easy, often pointless ones, are done, there is no push to connect them.

Even as this book is written, one of the key lanes created in Center City, the North/South lane on 10th St., is being reconsidered.

Now, due to a supposed increase in traffic congestion felt by the shop owners, they are planning on removing the lane on the most congested part of the street and to replace it with sharrows.

Sharrow

From our perspective, this is not a good idea. We attended a BCGP meeting regarding this conflict with the head of the Philadelphia Chinatown Development Corporation (PCDC). We learned that no formal questioning of the shop owners had occurred, it was simply idle comments as the PCDC did their usual rounds, checking up on their constituents. Thus the added congestion affecting shop owners is dubious at this point.

188 & 189

BCGP Meeting with PCDC Executive Director John Chin

Not to mention the on going construction that ran in-tandem with the bike lane testing. This clearly added to the congestion, which in addition adds poor road conditions that keeping would-be cyclists away. Unfortunately, bike lanes are tested when the road is at its worst, right before resurfacing.

Also, bike lanes are traffic calming measures. They imply that they will reduce traffic flow. As stated earlier in the latent demand portion, an adjustment to this will happen relatively quickly, with half of the road users assimilating to the change within a quarter of the time in which it takes the long term users.

Finally, sharrows are not proven to increase ridership(Hartzell). We must assume this is due to both a lack of the ability to create a feeling of safety, and confusion about their function. According to the 2009 Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) which first included sharrows, they are meant to: 1. Assist bicyclists with lateral positioning in a shared lane with on-street parallel parking in order to reduce the chance of a bicyclist’s impacting the open door of a parked vehicle,

Supporting Research » Appendix II – The Philadelphia Paradox

2. Assist bicyclists with lateral positioning in lanes that are too narrow for a motor vehicle and a bicycle to travel side by side within the same traffic lane, 3. Alert road users of the lateral location bicyclists are likely to occupy within the traveled way, 4. Encourage safe passing of bicyclists by motorists, and 5. Reduce the incidence of wrong-way bicycling.

None of these speak to being a valid replacement for bike lanes.

Rather, they are simply guidance on where cyclists should ride to be safe. In addition, there has been no education in Philly on sharrows, so street users are left to infer their own meanings.

Sharrows, thus cannot create a feeling of safety, because no one knows what they mean. However, even if everyone knew, it wouldn’t change the speed differential between cyclists and motorists and thus, would not change the anxiety created by the interaction of sharing the road.

We are not proposing that a lane be forced where it isn’t welcome. We are simply suggesting that due diligence be conducted. If 10th street is a poor option, there should be a second option ready to be tested.

It is clear that network connectivity, and cycling in general, is not a high priority for the City of Philadelphia. Once this is clear, the 200+ miles of bike lane, the success of Spruce and Pine begin to appear for what they are, a political marketing campaign.

Another Look

190 & 191

On the ensuing pages, we will take another visual look at the cycling network. Compare the level of connectivity within Philly against our own bicycle commuting mode share, as well as against other city’s connections. Think about where you travel and how your perceptions of the network compare to the maps results.

Pennsylvania

Percentage of Commuters Who County Use Bikes Montgomery Map source: BCGP Mode Shift Report, 2011 pg 15

0.05% 0.11%

0.38%

0.92%

0.49%

0.13%

0.21% 0.22%

0.47% 0.30%

New Jersey

0.92% 1.30%

1.00% 4.15% Delaware County

5.30%

4.37%

0.39%

0.00%

Percent who Bike to Work Zero Up to 0.25% 0.25% to 0.50% 0.50% to 1% 1% to 5.30%

Pennsylvania

Large Cycling ModeMontgomery Share,County Greater Than 3% 0.05%

Map source: BCGP Mode Shift Report, 2011 pg 15

0.11% 0.38%

0.92%

0.49%

0.13%

0.21% 0.22%

0.47% 0.30%

New Jersey

0.92% 1.30%

1.00% 4.15% Delaware County

5.30%

4.37%

0.39%

0.00%

Percent who Bike to Work Zero Up to 0.25% 0.25% to 0.50% 0.50% to 1% 1% to 5.30%

One or More Intersections  Philly Because network connectivity is a key aspect of a strong cycling network, we removed all the grid cells without intersections. This illustrates the level of connectivity within Philadelphia’s network.

New York

Portland

Two or More Intersections Âť Philly Using a grid to normalize the networks by city discounts the number of connections within a grid cell. To alleviate this, we have removed all grid cells with less than two intersections.

New York

Portland

Three or More Intersections Âť Philly We have again removed grid cells, this time leaving only cells with three or more intersections in them.

New York

Portland

0-2 3-6

Appendix III: The Citizens of Philadelphia

Supporting Research » Appendix III – The Philadelphia users

Safety, NYC & a Tip?

“A widely spread argument against bicycling in the Philadelphia debate seems to be that all this new bike infrastructure only benefits a small group of citizens.” (Mikkelsen, Smith and Jensen, 11) Infrastructure Means Safety

You’re seeing a lot more women biking, and that’s one of those big things to know when something is working.

Inbar Kishoni, NYC DOT

With a cycling population in Philadelphia of 1.7% (US Census Bureau 2010 Census), what benefit does dedicated cycling infrastructure afford these 25,942 citizens when the remaining 1.5MM residents drive a car, walk or take public transportation? If you consider what X does for Y; where X is a bike lane and Y is a bicyclist, then yes, bike infrastructure does not directly benefit anyone other than the bicyclists. Now, look at the system holistically; X is a bike lane, Y is the cyclist, Z is an automobile, A is a pedestrian and B is the level of safety and security provided to all modes of travel within a given environment, it becomes clear everyone is affected by these changes.

The website, <www.completestreets.org> cites the reduction of automobile speeds as a by-product of installing bicycle infrastructure, pedestrian bump outs and wider sidewalks. This greatly decreases the likelihood of pedestrian fatalities due to the reduction in automobile speeds. If a car is driving 40 mph and hits a pedestrian, 80% of the pedestrians in that scenario will die. Decrease the speed by 10 mph and the likelihood of death is cut in half. Now, decrease that speed another 10 mph and the rate of fatality becomes just 5%!

202 & 203

AARP’s 2009 study on Planning Complete Streets for an Aging America focuses on an interesting demographic, the elderly, but comprehensively states: “Recent public health studies have found that per mile, pedestrians in the United States are three times more likely to be killed in motor vehicle crashes than in Germany, and over six times as likely to be killed as in the Netherlands (Bailey, 2004), two European countries where driving is actively discouraged in city centers and where urban land use and transportation policy support non-motorized travel” (12).

The effectiveness of holistic planning approaches to our on street environment is not arguably one way or the other. It is proven that ‘radical’ street enhancements save lives. So, Philadelphia, what is most important for our city, citizens or their cars?

A Local Comparison New York City has made leaps and bounds over the last few years, installing 250 miles of lanes in 2007 and 50 miles each year proceeding. We were fortunate enough to meet Inbar Kishoni, Project Manager, and Hayes Lord, Director, of the NYC Department of Transportations Bicycle Program. Not surprisingly, the results of their infrastructure changes over the past couple of years are reflective

Supporting Research » Appendix III – The Philadelphia users

Those of us fighting for our cities, we struggle because too few see the problems, and fewer understand the solutions. They are quite literally racing past the issue, too busy to see, too fast to comprehend.

Kasey Klimes, Urban Design Researcher

of the results seen in European cities. “We’re at the lowest fatalities the city has ever had for pedestrians since NYC started keeping record! ... Because people aren’t speeding as much.” (Hayes Lord) It is of no competition that NYC’s has a much more aggressive on street environment than Philadelphia.

The roads are substantially wider, the population is more than five times larger, and the cultural pace of life is much more aggressive. And yet they are obtaining decreased automobile speeds and a massive reduction in pedestrian/automobile related deaths. NYC is taking aggressive steps, and they are experiencing the positive results.

One cannot neglect that Philadelphia has seen similar results in the few successful Center City bike lanes; such as on Spruce and Pine streets. As reported in the “Crosstown Connection | Pilot Project Findings” from MOTU by Andrew Stober in December of 2009, Spruce and Pine street bike lane implementations of 2009/2010 (test/implementation) have proven to be beneficial to the conditions of on-street mobility.

Inbar Kishoni, Project Manager, Bike Program NYC DOT

The report concluded that these bike lanes slowed traffic, especially the fastest cars while simultaneously creating a safe cycling environment, increasing the order and smoothness of automobile vehicle flow.

204 & 205

“We are, all of us, architects, of a sort. We individually and collectively make the city through our daily actions and our political, intellectual and economic engagements. the city makes us”

The steps taken by MOTU have been great. And as cyclists ourselves, we greatly appreciate the infrastructure that has been installed. It is, however, the lack of priority and connectivity that keeps this infrastructure from benefiting people who aren’t already riding their bicycles. As we’ve mentioned time and again, a bicycle network affords proper standards of mobility for the cyclist while simultaneously promoting and prompting the interested but concerned population to get on a bike and ride.

Brief Demographics of Philadelphia Cyclists On average, five of every 100 commuters in Center City, West Philly and South Philly is riding a bicycle (5.4%, 4.15% & 4.73% commuting by bike, respectively). Two of those five cyclists are woman. In 2009 a study by Scientific America coined women as an “indicator species” for bike friendliness.

Women are considered indicator species from the generalization that they are more risk adverse than men, performing more of the ‘child care and household shopping.’ Since riding a bike in a city without proper infrastructure can be seen as a dangerous and aggressive act, a high population of female ridership is indicative of two things. 1) the environment has excellent dedicated bike

But, in turn, J. Peterson

Supporting Research » Appendix III – The Philadelphia users

The steps taken by MOTU have been great. And as cyclists ourselves, we greatly appreciate the infrastructure that has been installed. It is, however, the lack of priority and connectivity that keeps this infrastructure from benefiting people who aren’t already riding their bicycles. As we’ve mentioned time and again, a bicycle network affords proper standards of mobility for the cyclist while simultaneously promoting and prompting the interested but concerned population to get on a bike and ride.

Brief Demographics of Philadelphia Cyclists On average, five of every 100 commuters in Center City, West Philly and South Philly is riding a bicycle (5.4%, 4.15% & 4.73% commuting by bike, respectively). Two of those five cyclists are woman. In 2009 a study by Scientific America coined women as an “indicator species” for bike friendliness.

Women are considered indicator species from the generalization that they are more risk adverse than men, performing more of the ‘child care and household shopping.’ Since riding a bike in a city without proper infrastructure can be seen as a dangerous and aggressive act, a high population of female ridership is indicative of two things. 1) the environment has excellent dedicated bike infrastructure or 2) the environment is at a tipping point. The 2010 American Census cites the national average for female ridership at 26.4%, In Philly, 42% of our bike commuters are women!

Jeanette Sadik-Khan, Commissioner NYC DOT

206 & 207

In Philadelphia, bicycling is on its way to becoming a normalized mode of transportation. Among the reasons previously stated for why Philadelphia is a good city to bicycle (grid layout, topography), the majority of trips for Philly residents can be made within a 1 - 3 mile radius. This is due to the high number and density of trip generators.

Bicycle trip generators, as stated in “Technical Analysis - Latent Demand for Bicycle Travel” by NOVA Bikeways and Trails Plan, are “parks, schools, high employment areas, park-and-ride lots, transit stations, shopping areas and other high volume destinations.” Not only does Philly’s urban landscape provide easy access to these amenities, the residential communities are woven into this fabric while simultaneously surrounding it.

So, To Tip or Not to Tip “A city reaches a tipping point when biking achieves what Ms. Sadik-Khan describes as an everyday ‘architecture of safety.’” – The New York Times article, “A Bike-Lane Perch for the Urban Show” This is an interesting perspective proposed by Sadik-Khan, a woman leading the same charge for which we are arguing. If you unpack the meaning of ‘architecture of safety’ you define a built environment that has safe amenities for all modes of transportation.

Conversely to Sadik-Khan’s argument, we are proposing that Philadelphia is already at a tipping point, and an ‘architecture of safety’ is the agent of change. Whereby drastic change to our on street environment will allow Philly residents to shift their normalized behaviors.

In arguing the theories and behavioral characteristics of the second stage of latent demand, an environment providing acceptable levels of safety becomes a visual and experiential function that influences a natural shift in behavior.

Supporting Research » Appendix III – The Philadelphia users

In measuring Philadelphia’s consistent lack of ‘architectural safety,’ regarding Phillys network connectivity score of 13.3, we feel this city is limited in its abilities to progress; stagnant at its current levels of bicycle usage.

A simple walk down the majority of Center City streets on any weekday, one is pressed to find a bike rack without a bike. Stand at a corner, wait one minute and a cyclist will ride past. The culture is here; the want is ingrained in the fabric of our urban constructs; a grid city, 42% female ridership, density of trip generators, topographically flat; highest percent ridership among top five populated American cities. This city is over capacity and ready to tip.

208 & 209

Supporting Research Âť Appendix III â&#x20AC;&#x201C; The Philadelphia users

The City Strollers

Demographics We spoke with seven pedestrians, three women, two of whom were teenagers, the remaining four were men. Four of the interviews were of African American decent, the remaining were Caucasian. It appeared they were all middle class or lower middle class citizens.

Pedestrians 1. Male/Female 2. Age 3. Why do you walk?

4. Do you jaywalk?

5.

6.

7.

8.

Results

Cyclists

motorists

2. Age

2. Age

Each person seemed content with moving by foot. They had their own motivations, but generally felt it was most convenient for their 1. Male/Female 1. Male/Female current needs.

3. Why do you ride a Why do you drive a One gentleman we spoke3. with explained that walking had become bike? car?

his routine. He does not own a car, or a bicycle. As with any normal

4. human Do you drive?

4. What are your in choice. Once behavior is function, there becomes a loss Do you ride a bike? thoughts on bike 5. normalized, What would you there is no need to process information, habituation Do you drive? lanes? change? takes place and cognitive function is not as heavily needed. In order What is the worst thing 5. Do you ride a bike? this himworst to ride 6. for What is the thinga bicycle, he would need to change multiple about walking about riding in Philly?

6. What is the aspects of his lifestyle. Regardless ofworst the unforeseen benefits of in Philly? thing about driving enjoyment and a new style of urban engagement, this 7. exercise, What is thespeed, best thing What is the best thing in Philly? about riding has in Philly? pedestrian no motivation to ride a bicycle. about walking 7. What is the best thing in Philly? about driving in Philly?

Pedestrian Questionnaire

8. What is the best thing about walking in Philly?

7. What is the best thing about driving in Philly?

7. What is the best thing about riding in Philly?

change?

7. What is the worst thing 6. What is the worst thing about walking about riding in Philly? in Philly?

6. What is the worst thing about driving in Philly?

5. Do you ride a bike?

210 & 211

Pedestrians

Why do you walk in Philly?

Havenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t ridden a bike since I was a kid. No, I donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t drive a car.

What’s the worst thing about walking?

The long distances.

What’s the best thing about walking?

You burn calories.

Why do you walk in Philly?

I walk to get place to place.

It’s too hard to drive & park.

Supporting Research » Appendix III – The Philadelphia users

Thigh Masters

“People try to

Demographics

Of the five cyclists we spoke with, two were male, three female. One man was of African American decent, the remaining interviews were the time. From Caucasian. Two of the cyclists were wearing helmets, while all but one their cars!” had been riding their bicycle at the time of interaction. It is observed Female Cyclist that three were of the middle to upper middle economic class while the other two were middle-lower middle economic class citizens.

run you over all

Results When digging in to understand why people bicycle in the city we

Cyclists

motorists used a similar questionnaire to the one we had developed for the

1. Male/Female

1.

Male/Female choice than those of the pedestrians.

2. Age

2. Age

3. Why do you ride a bike?

When asking “why 3.

Why do you drive a do you ride a bike?” to our informants, answers car? included aspects of enjoying the weather or the city. Some did often

4. Do you drive?

state tying back to their perceptions of convenience 4.

Whatit’s arefunctionality, your though.

Overall, thoughts on bike the responses spoke of cycling in a positive light, lanes? with the issue of safety only arising once. It makes sense that this

pedestrians. The results had an added dimension of enjoyment and

ng

g

6. What is the worst thing about riding in Philly?

7. What is the best thing about riding in Philly?

Cyclist Questionnaire

population little concerns about riding, so much so that they were 5.

Do you ridehas a bike? often even happy about it.

6. What is the worst thing about driving in Philly?

7. What is the best thing about driving in Philly?

8. What is the best thing about walking in Philly?

5. What would you change?

7 about riding in Philly?

214 & 215

Philadelphia Commuting Cyclist

Cyclists

What would you change about Philly?

I guess, more bike lanes. And maybe separated bike lanes, with a median. And more places to lock bikes.

What’s the worst thing about riding?

I think it’s a Philly thing. Cars like to hit you.

What’s the worst thing about riding?

Nothing…gets you wherever you need to go.

Supporting Research » Appendix III – The Philadelphia users

http://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=aCYP0sZX5u0

On Street Violence One comment brought up in our interview with Dr. Sheller was the violent taking of space by drivers in their on-road mentality. This speaks directly to concerns regarding riding in traffic. The behavior of a car driver is amplified by the protection and power of driving a one-ton steel box. Drivers, therefore become spatially aggressive.

Violently taking space, as if it is a positive action, the driver views “slow, dithering automobiles and bikes as problems.” Sheller then recognizes that in order for the bicycle to be accepted as a means of transportation, spatial aggressiveness needs to be addressed.

In order for cycling to become an accepted form of on-street transportation, drivers need to be less violent, and respect the other on-street actors. Studies and neighboring cities show that increased bike infrastructure mitigates traffic flow, calms and organizes onstreet behavior, thus enabling this to happen.

The Working Class Biker Interviewing the messenger community opened a world of cycling knowledge we hadn’t previously expected to be as rich and diverse.

College educated, advocacy focused and respect oriented are ways in which you could frame the overall perspectives of the messengers with whom we spoke.

218 & 219

The Wolf Pack As cyclists, messengers are united in their sub-community, as well as at the more generalized level of urban riders. Their relationship with biking spans levels of enthusiasts, mechanics, store owners, and even members of the Coalition. Charles, a former Coalition member, spoke of mixed feelings about the Coalitions motives.

“Since they got their seat at the table, and funding, their interests have been more political than about the needs of the cyclists.”

Left: Liza, Right: Matt Philadelphia Bike Messengers

Over the past couple of years, the Coalition began installed green bike rings throughout the city on recycled parking meter poles. It was soon discovered that these rings can be very easily removed, and rather than providing a simple fix (spot welding the bike rings to the meter poles), they hoped no one would see it and swept it under the table. Charles truly feels “the Coalition isn’t concerned about people getting their bikes stolen, they are worried about their political face.”

Below is an interview With NYC’s Bike Snob on the Culture & Politics of Cycling

What got you into riding?

I’ve always loved riding bikes ever since learning how, though as I get older I gain more and more appreciation for the practical side of cycling.

Do you feel that you advocate for bicycling and if so, what are your main areas of concern?

I feel like I do in the sense that I’m passionate about cycling, I try to be a considerate cyclist, and I write about cycling in a way that I hope is entertaining and empowering for people who are interested in it.

In particular, I hope that by poking fun at certain aspects of cycling I make it less intimidating for those who might find cycling sort of insular and inscrutable. I feel it’s important not to get too hung up on having the right stuff or worrying about what’s “cool” or “uncool” or on other preconditions and instead to jump right in. At the same time, I also think it’s important to be smart on the bike, so I tend to make fun of stuff that’s, well, not so smart. (Like “bombing hills” on track bikes, or like being inconsiderate to other riders, pedestrians, drivers, what have you.)

It sounds pretentious, but I’d like to think being able to laugh at each other and ourselves can help foster a sense of community and also help us all vent some of the frustrations we experience out there on the roads.

A Culturally Relevant Perspective Photo courtesy of nycvelo.com

220 | 221

What are the biggest issues facing cycling?

If given the opportunity, how would you have these issues resolved?

I’d say it’s the dangerous anti-cyclist attitude of non-cycling motorists and the lack of support for Keep building cycling infrastructure and cyclists from law enforcement, followed closely reinforce the message to motorists (via law by the lack of a decent cycling infrastructure. enforcement) that they need to respect cyclists, the cycling infrastructure, and the power of their automobiles.

How did these come to be?

We have an absurd approach to cycling in much of this country, which is that you’re supposed to follow all the same rules as motor vehicles, on streets that have been designed for motor vehicles. We don’t seem willing or able to accept that there are differences between cars and bikes, or that cycling is a legitimate form of transportation that can easily coexist with driving. The implicit message is, “You want to ride your bike? Fine, pretend you’re a car,” which is just stupid.

How do you expect these issues to unfold?

Well, it’s obvious. The result is that most people are either afraid to ride or are unaware it’s a viable transportation option. And when a cyclist is injured by a car the reaction is often along the lines of, “See what happens? Serves you right.” The only cyclists who can function in a system like that are the “hardcore”--the racers or messenger wannabes, or else the people who ride recreationally in places and contexts where cycling is more “sanctioned.”

So it remains a subculture.

In your travels what are some of the most interesting changes governments have made for cyclists and cycling?

My best perspective is on New York since that’s my home. It has a ways to go, but the cycling infrastructure they’ve built recently has been an incredible improvement. It’s made practical cycling profoundly more accessible to ordinary people. If they continue to build and refine it, it could be something truly amazing.

Supporting Research » Appendix III – The Philadelphia users

THIGHMASTERS:OBSERVATIONS

Both the City of Philadelphia and the Bike Coalition conduct bicycle counts each year. Our process and focus is different, and so observing with an ethnographic lens sheds an interesting light on our findings.

First we took a map of Center City Philadelphia and deductively chose seven locations for observational research. These locations were chosen based on observed bicycle and car traffic patterns, in addition to their perimeter and access points between residential communities and high destination areas, such as job centers.

We decided the observations should be conducted during the commute to work times (8:30 - 9:15AM, 5:00 - 5:45PM), and we set a 45 minute observation time limit.

We positioned ourselves at 17th and Walnut first to perform a practice observation. This ‘test’ allowed us to analyze and understand what we should record. From this we were able to design a rubric for observations. This standardized our results and provides a simple way to tally bike counts.

The results were interesting. The bicycle as a form of transportation appeals to all different types of citizens. It doesn’t matter if you’re male or female, young or old, independent or have a family, or if you ride for function or style. In essence, deducing this information offered a unique perspective on the body of cyclists in Philadelphia.

They are exactly the same as motorists and pedestrians. Regardless of the mode one uses for travel, people have the same motivations,

222 & 223

Supporting Research » Appendix III – The Philadelphia users

wants and needs. The difference between people is simply the medium of travel in which we frame our lives around. People need to understand these personal demands to find the mode of travel that works best for the way they want to live.

Unfortunately, cyclists, motorists and pedestrians do not see each other as equal. There is a great loss of respect among these modes of transportation. This disrespect only promotes the ‘bikewars’ instead of mitigating them.

Observation Location Strategy Race Race terminates at Pier and goes

Arch to Ben Franklin Bridge. Broad is a North / South cooridor

Market

Have background observations for convo with PCDC at coalition meeting

Market has low automobile volume & 17th is directly south of Philadelphia Community Colledge

Walnut Initial observation test location

Spruce South

South street has a popular scene & Broad is a North / South corridor

A bike lane resides here

nk yu ss Pa

h

0th

Broad

Locations of Observation

17th

A bicycle conscious neigborhood

224 & 225

Male

Female

Young

Elderly

Independent

Family

Not a Couple

226 & 227

Function

Couple

Style

Supporting Research Âť Appendix III â&#x20AC;&#x201C; The Philadelphia users

Quantitative Observation Results 57% of the observed cyclists were traveling during the evening hours.

This could be telling of the popularity around using the bicycle as a means of transportation for short, non-work related, trips. Such as traveling to and from a friends house, getting a few items from the grocery store, heading to the gym and other recreational activities.

9% of the population we observed were riding their bikes in the wrong direction. This is not a substantial number of people, but it is an issue. Legally, all cyclists should be riding with traffic and not against it.

The ratio between men and women in the locations we observed did not vary all that much. On average, we counted 18% of riders as female. This is lower than the Coalition numbers and the American Census, however our counts were performed in the middle of winter.

It is normal for the population of cyclists to decrease in the winter due to inclement weather. That is especially true for the female population of riders, due to their aversion to risk and danger.

The North Broad St. and Race Street location had the greatest number of cyclists. In fact there was approximately 1 cyclist per minute. The popularity of this location lends in insight into the routes that cyclists enjoy taking in Philadelphia. We had previously spoken with individuals who enjoy riding on Race Street, and knew from informal observations that Broad Street is a popular route, but it is important to record and validate these assumed findings. As stated previously, bike lane implementation is not based on rider routes.

COMMUTE 228 & 229

Evening Morning

TOTAL

TOTAL

57% COMMUTE

LOCALE

Quantitative Observation Results

40

DIRECTION

RIDERSHIP BY SEX 9%

TOTAL

Evening Morning

9%

DIRECTION LOCAL

LOCALE

30

10

Wrong Correct Chinatown

Center City

Morning Commute

% BREAKDOWN

19%

RIDERSHIP BY SEX 40

LOCALE

Female Male

Wrong Correct

30

10

Chinatown

Center City

Morning Commute

% BREAKDOWN

Queen Village

North Broad

Evening Commute

19%

Female Male

% BREAKDOWN

17%

Female Male

Female Male

Supporting Research » Appendix III – The Philadelphia users

Craigslist Survey Results

Craigslist Surveys: Motorists & Cyclists A secondary study we conducted, focused on quantity. We designed two more surveys, one for motorists and the second for cyclists. Built in Google Apps, we were able to easily distribute these surveys on Craigslist and aggregate the data in a Google Document.

As the target audience for these surveys was motorists and cyclists we posted Craigslist ads in the ‘for sale car’ and ‘for sale bike’ sections. Leveraging Twitter as a social media advertising platform, we tweeted links for the questionnaires to local bike and car specific Twitter accounts. Our intentions were to drive as much Philadelphia specific driver and biker traffic to the appropriate questionnaire.

Unfortunately, there were too few motorist respondents, and we felt it unfair to compare the two data sets. So in lieu of a comprehensive comparison, we have simply analyzed and annotated the results from the cyclist survey.

230 & 231

I feel like Philadelphia is a great city to bike in. The only thing I could think of adding to it would be more bike lanes in and around Center City or bike lanes connecting North Philly to South Philly/Stadiums. â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Craigslist Cyclist

Pro bike lanes, good idea, bikers need to be held accountable for obeying laws more than they are currently. â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Craigslist Motorist

4

7

Age

79% N/A Female Male

No Yes

4

7

15

2

7

11

Age

79%

Years Cycling

Gender

2

7

11

4

7

15

Years Cycling

Age

DEMOGRAPHICS

N/A Female Male

No Yes

N/A

e

15

Gender

73%

Own a Car

The cyclist survey concluded that 88% of respondents used Own a Car that this bike lanes ‘sometimes’ and ‘most times.’ Keep in mind is of a population set of men aged 18-29 who mainly commute and exercise by bike, riding an average of 6-12 miles. These 73% respondents can be considered enthusiasts at the very least.

CRAIGSLIST RESULTS

2–4

18–29

1–2

<1

16+

8–16

50–59 4–8 40–49 2–4 30–39 1–2 18–29 <1 N/A

50–59 40–49 30–39 18–29 N/A

232 & 233

4

19

For Fun

Commuting Fitness Commuting Errands Fitness

Most Times

Other Errands

Sometimes

For Work Other

BicycleBicycle Uses Uses 27

Always

4

For Fun

4

Never 19

For Work Fun For

19

Rarely

27

12

17

Lane Usage

Always

6–12

Sometimes Most Times

4–6

Rarely Sometimes Never Rarely

12

Never

12

Lane Usage Lane Usage 17 17

Most Times Always

0–2.5

7

10

12+

2.5–4

Average Milage

BEHAVIORS

27

Bicycle Uses

For Work

12+

Supporting Research Âť Appendix III â&#x20AC;&#x201C; The Philadelphia users

Motor Mouths

In total, we spoke with five motorists. Two interviews were upper middle class and three were most likely lower middle class citizens.

Three were men and two were women. They were all of African American decent.

motorists 1. Male/Female 2. Age 3. Why do you drive a car?

4. What are your thoughts on bike lanes?

5. Do you ride a bike?

6. What is the worst thing about driving in Philly?

7. What is the best thing about driving in Philly?

Motorist Questionnaire

Results Again, using a similar questionnaire, we met with motorists to find out their perspective on commuting and cycling in Philadelphia. The results were somewhat surprising in the fact that every motorist we spoke with was very supportive of a stronger cycling culture. They thought bicycles belonged on the road, and that bike lanes were a good idea. The support for the latter point was often derived from the added clarity it provided as to where each street user should be.

Ultimately, the voices we heard from offered much stronger support for cycling and the infrastructure it needs than anticipated. It is with this information that we will build actions to address this population as well as other stakeholder populations to further the cycling movement in Philadelphia, increasing the local quality of life.

8. What is the best thing about walking in Philly?

7. What is the worst thing 6. about walking in Philly?

7.

6. Do you drive?

5. Do you ride a bike?

5.

4.

4. Do you jaywalk?

3.

3. Why do you walk?

2.

2. Age

1.

1. Male/Female

234 & 235

Do bicycles belong on the road?

Damn straight,theyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;re a cycle!

Supporting Research » Appendix III – The Philadelphia users

#BikeCar, A case study In order to study and test the implications and observed interactions between the bicycle and car, outlined in ‘bikewars,’ we designed a physical prototype. #BIKECAR was built to challenge the norms of on-street bicycle and car culture and their interactions in the urban environment.

The #BIKECAR was constructed in an ‘X’ fashion around our bikes with yellow rope strung around, acting as a visual border. The #BIKECAR worked in two ways; It psychologically altered our onbike actions and affordances. With the additional boundary, we felt a greater responsibility to obey traffic laws and patterns. To put it bluntly, we became ‘slow dithering cars.’

Our observations of motorist response to these actions and physical form factor were shocking. Not one horn was sounded, we were never cut off and no driver was outwardly irate with our on-street movements. The people we spoke with actually appreciated it. We deduced that the physical boundaries acted as a visual affordance for the motoring public. And with this affordance, they immediately understood how to interact with us. #BIKECAR allowed us to transcend the cultural norms of the bicycle, elevating our on street status to that of an actual automobile.

236 & 237

http://vimeo.com/30966285

Appendix IV â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Glossary & Bibliography

Supporting Research Âť Appendix V - Glossary & Bibliography

Glossary

BCGP Bicycle Coalition of Greater Philadelphia BFBD Bike Friendly Business District BMA Baltimore Museum of Art CMAQ Congestion Mitigation & Air Quality Complete Streets Streets designed to accommodate all modes of transit DOT Department of Transportation DRWC Delaware River Waterfront Corporation DVRPC Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission HCD Human Centered Design GIS Geospacial Information Systems Induced Demand Creation of new demand Induced Traffic New trips that are taken when road capacity is increased Latent Demand Unrealized demand

240 & 241

MAP 21 MOTU MUTCD NBS

Moving Ahead for Progress into the 21st Century Mayorâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Office of Transportation and Utilities Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices National Bike Summit

PCDC

Philadelphia Chinatown Development Corporation

PCPC

Philadelphia City Planning Commission

QBP Sharrow TE TIGER WAM

Quality Bicycle Products On-street shared roadway symbol using a bike and arrows Transportation Enhancements Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery Walters Art Musuem

Supporting Research » Appendix V - Glossary & Bibliography

Bibliography

2009 National Household Travel Survey User’s Guide. U.S. Department of Transportation & Federal Highway Administration, 2011. Print.

Aland, Rachel. “Why Philly Deserves Bike Share.” Next American City 26 Mar. 2011. . <http://americancity.org/daily/entry/why-phillydeserves-bike-share>.

Bailey, L. “Aging Americans: Stranded Without Options.” (2004) : n. pag. Print.

Birk, M., and R. Geller. “Bridging the Gaps: How Quality and Quantity of a Connected Bikeway Network Correlates with Increasing Bicycle Use.” Transportation Research Board 85th Annual Meeting. 2006.

Print.

Cervero, Robert, and Mark Hansen. “Induced Travel Demand and Induced Road Investment.” Journal of Transport Economics and Policy 36 (2002) : 469–490. Print.

Chantrill, Christopher. “Government Spending Details: Federal State Local for 2010 - Charts.” Usgovernmentspending.com. 10 May 2012. <http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/year_spending_2010USbt_1 3bs1n#usgs302>.

“CMAQ - Air Quality - Environment.” Fhwa. 10 May 2012. <http:// www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/air_quality/cmaq/>.

242 & 243

Cortell, S. “The Cost of Free Admission: A Comparative Study Examining the Feasibility of Eliminating Museum Admission Charges.” 2011 n. pag. Print.

Earl, Peter E., and Jason Potts. “Latent Demand and the Browsing Shopper.” Managerial and Decision Economics 21 (2000) : 111–122.

Print.

Gastel, Scott. “DOT Announces 35% Increase in Commuter Cycling from 2007 to 2008 and Calls on Cyclists to Use Lights to Be Seen & Safe.” Nycdot 30 Oct. 2008. 10 May 2012. <http://www.nyc.gov/html/ dot//html/pr2008/pr08_047.shtml>.

Geller, Roger. Four Types of Cyclists. Portland Bureau of Transportation, 2009. Print.

Getting a Fair Share for Safety from the Highway Safety Improvement Program. Advocacy Advance, 2011. Print.

Gotschi, Thomas, and Kevin Mills. Active Transportation for America.

Rails-to-Trails Conservancy, 2008. Print.

Greenworks Philadelphia. Mayor’s Office of Sustainability, 2009. Print.

Hartzell, Dan. “Bike Lanes or Shared-use Markings: Which Is Safer?” The Morning Call 13 Mar. 2012. 10 May 2012. <http:// articles.mcall.com/2012-03-13/news/mc-bicycle-lanes-pointcounterpoint-20120309_1_bike-lanes-sharrows-motor-vehicle-lane>.

Supporting Research » Appendix V - Glossary & Bibliography

Kimmelman, Michael. “A Bike-Lane Perch for the Urban Show.” The New York Times 7 Nov. 2011. 22 Jan. 2012. <http://www.nytimes. com/2011/11/08/arts/design/a-bike-lane-perch-for-the-urban-show. html?_r=3&emc=eta1>.

Klimes, Kasey. “The Real Reason Why Bicycles Are the Key to Better Cities.” Next American City 18 May 2011. 10 May 2012. <http:// americancity.org/daily/entry/the-real-reason-why-bicycles-are-thekey-to-better-cities>.

Kolko, Jon. Wicked Problems: Problems Worth Solving: A Handbook & A Call to Action. AC4D, 2012. Print.

Lee, D.B., L.A. Klein, and G. Camus. “Induced Traffic and Induced Demand.” Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board 1659.-1 (1999) : 68–75. Print.

Lynott, Jana et al. Planning Complete Streets for an Aging America.

AARP Public Policy Institute, 2009. Print.

Mikkelsen, Jacon Bjerre, Shelley Smith, and Ole B. Jensen.

“Challenging the ‘King of the Road’ – Exploring Mobility Battles Between Cars and BIkes in the USA.” 14 Apr. 2011 n. pag. Print.

Mode Shift: Philadelphia’s Two Wheeled Revolution in Progress.

Bicycle Coalition of Greater Philadelphia, 2011. Print.

“Oppose H.R. 7 – The American Energy and Infrastructure Jobs Act - The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights.” The Leadership Conference 8 Feb. 2012. 10 May 2012. <http://www. civilrights.org/advocacy/letters/2012/oppose-hr-7-the-american.html>.

244 & 245

Petersen, Jen. “Pedaling Hope.” Magazine on Urbanism 6 (2007) : 36–39. Print.

Philadelphia2035. City of Philadelphia, 2011. Print.

Rittel, Horst W.J., and Melvin M. Webber. “Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning.” Policy Sciences 4.2 (1973) : 155–169. Print.

Schmitt, Angie. “House Transportation Bill Too Extreme for Some Republicans.” Streetsblog Capitol Hill 8 Feb. 2012. 10 May 2012. <http://dc.streetsblog.org/2012/02/08/house-transportation-bill-tooextreme-for-some-republicans/>.

Schrank, D. L, T. J Lomax, and Bill Eisele. Urban Mobility Report.

Texas Transportation Institute, The Texas A&M University System, 2011. Print.

“Snapshot.” 10 May 2012. <http://2010.census.gov/2010census/>.

State of the Air 2011. American Lung Association, 2011. Print.

“Statement from Deputy Mayor Cutler, Commissioner Ramsey Regarding Give Respect-Get Respect Campaign « City of Philadelphia’s News &Alerts.” City of Philadelphia 19 Jul. 2011. 10 May 2012. <http://cityofphiladelphia.wordpress.com/2011/07/19/ statement-from-deputy-mayor-cutler-commissioner-ramseyregarding-give-respect-get-respect-campaign/>.

Stober, Andrew. “North/South Bike Lane Pilot Project Proposal 13th Street and 10th Street.” 16 May 2011 n. pag. Print.

Supporting Research » Appendix V - Glossary & Bibliography

Swanson, Kristen. Bicycling and Walking in the United States 2012 Benchmarking Report. Alliance for Biking & Walking, 2012. Print.

“TIGER Grants.” U.S. Department of Transportation. 10 May 2012. <http://www.dot.gov/tiger/>.

Toole, Jennifer. Technical Analysis – Latent Demand for Bicycle Travel. NOVA Bikeways and Trails Plan, 2002. Print.

“Transportation Enhancements - Environment.” Fhwa. 10 May 2012. <http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/transportation_ enhancements/>.

Ujifusa, Steven B. “Philadelphia Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan.”

PlanPhilly: Planning Philadelphia’s Future. 10 May 2012. <http:// planphilly.com/node/8683>.

“US Census Bureau 2010 Census.” 2010 Census 2010. . <http://2010. census.gov/2010census/>.

Zalo, Mo. “600 Cyclists Pulled over Since Start of Crackdown.” Philly. com 18 Jul. 2011. 10 May 2012. <http://articles.philly.com/2011-07-18/ news/29786981_1_bike-patrols-bike-messenger-equal-rights>.

246 & 247

About the Authors

Dominic Prestifilippo

Nicolas Coia

B.S. Aerospace Engineering Georgia Tech Augusta, Ga

B.S. Marketing & Entrepreneurship Northeastern University Glen Rock, Nj