A Historical Perspective on the AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities and the Impact of the Vehicular Cycling Movement

This paper draws from a literature review and interviews to demonstrate the impact of advocacy, research, and culture on guidance for design users, bike lanes, and separated (protected) bike lanes in the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials’ bicycle guides’ content from...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Transportation research record 2018-12, Vol.2672 (13), p.38-49
Hauptverfasser: Schultheiss, William, Sanders, Rebecca L., Toole, Jennifer
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 49
container_issue 13
container_start_page 38
container_title Transportation research record
container_volume 2672
creator Schultheiss, William
Sanders, Rebecca L.
Toole, Jennifer
description This paper draws from a literature review and interviews to demonstrate the impact of advocacy, research, and culture on guidance for design users, bike lanes, and separated (protected) bike lanes in the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials’ bicycle guides’ content from 1974 to present. In the late 1960s and early 1970s, a bicycle renaissance in America resulted in efforts at the local, state, and federal level to encourage bicycling. After Davis, California, became the first community in the United States to build a network of bike lanes, a new brand of bicycle advocacy, vehicular cycling (VC), formed to oppose efforts to separate bicyclists from motorized traffic based on fears of losing the right to use public roads. Via positions of power and strong rhetoric, vehicular cyclists influenced design guidance for decades to come. Through the 1980s, VC philosophy aligned with a federal view that bicyclists freeloaded from the gas tax, resulting in diminished federal support for guidance and related research throughout the decade. However, the passing of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 led to increased bicycle networks and renewed interest in bicycle facility research. Although vehicular cyclists continue to oppose roadway designs that separate bicyclists from motorized traffic, research from the last decade demonstrates networks of separated bike lanes improve bicyclist safety and are necessary to meet the needs of the vast majority of the public who want to bicycle but feel unsafe in many traffic contexts.
doi_str_mv 10.1177/0361198118798482
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>sage_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_crossref_primary_10_1177_0361198118798482</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sage_id>10.1177_0361198118798482</sage_id><sourcerecordid>10.1177_0361198118798482</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c309t-1d32440869d99482d309a51c81b09e538f8b5a91eca04319131695ff8246f4523</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1UEtOwzAQtRBIlMKepS8QsGMnsZeh0I9UVCQK28h1xq2rNI7stFJP0GuTtKyQWI3m_TTzEHqk5InSLHsmLKVUCkpFJgUX8RUaxDSVESdJfI0GPR31_C26C2FLCGM8YwN0yvHUhtZ5q1WFP8CHBnRrD4BdjdsN4Dz_nC4XeLK3JWDj_Bl8hQNUrtlB3WJn8IvVR10BHittK9taCFjV5Vk52zVKn0X99g0bq_eV8njUGWy9xu_uAH3MPboxqgrw8DuH6Gv8thxNo_liMhvl80gzItuIlizmnIhUllJ2X5YdqhKqBV0RCQkTRqwSJSloRTijkrKug8QYEfPU8CRmQ0Quudq7EDyYovF2p_yxoKToiyz-FtlZooslqDUUW7f3dXfh__offidyBg</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype></control><display><type>article</type><title>A Historical Perspective on the AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities and the Impact of the Vehicular Cycling Movement</title><source>SAGE Complete</source><creator>Schultheiss, William ; Sanders, Rebecca L. ; Toole, Jennifer</creator><creatorcontrib>Schultheiss, William ; Sanders, Rebecca L. ; Toole, Jennifer</creatorcontrib><description>This paper draws from a literature review and interviews to demonstrate the impact of advocacy, research, and culture on guidance for design users, bike lanes, and separated (protected) bike lanes in the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials’ bicycle guides’ content from 1974 to present. In the late 1960s and early 1970s, a bicycle renaissance in America resulted in efforts at the local, state, and federal level to encourage bicycling. After Davis, California, became the first community in the United States to build a network of bike lanes, a new brand of bicycle advocacy, vehicular cycling (VC), formed to oppose efforts to separate bicyclists from motorized traffic based on fears of losing the right to use public roads. Via positions of power and strong rhetoric, vehicular cyclists influenced design guidance for decades to come. Through the 1980s, VC philosophy aligned with a federal view that bicyclists freeloaded from the gas tax, resulting in diminished federal support for guidance and related research throughout the decade. However, the passing of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 led to increased bicycle networks and renewed interest in bicycle facility research. Although vehicular cyclists continue to oppose roadway designs that separate bicyclists from motorized traffic, research from the last decade demonstrates networks of separated bike lanes improve bicyclist safety and are necessary to meet the needs of the vast majority of the public who want to bicycle but feel unsafe in many traffic contexts.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0361-1981</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2169-4052</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1177/0361198118798482</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications</publisher><ispartof>Transportation research record, 2018-12, Vol.2672 (13), p.38-49</ispartof><rights>National Academy of Sciences: Transportation Research Board 2018</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c309t-1d32440869d99482d309a51c81b09e538f8b5a91eca04319131695ff8246f4523</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c309t-1d32440869d99482d309a51c81b09e538f8b5a91eca04319131695ff8246f4523</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0361198118798482$$EPDF$$P50$$Gsage$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0361198118798482$$EHTML$$P50$$Gsage$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,21818,27923,27924,43620,43621</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Schultheiss, William</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sanders, Rebecca L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Toole, Jennifer</creatorcontrib><title>A Historical Perspective on the AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities and the Impact of the Vehicular Cycling Movement</title><title>Transportation research record</title><description>This paper draws from a literature review and interviews to demonstrate the impact of advocacy, research, and culture on guidance for design users, bike lanes, and separated (protected) bike lanes in the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials’ bicycle guides’ content from 1974 to present. In the late 1960s and early 1970s, a bicycle renaissance in America resulted in efforts at the local, state, and federal level to encourage bicycling. After Davis, California, became the first community in the United States to build a network of bike lanes, a new brand of bicycle advocacy, vehicular cycling (VC), formed to oppose efforts to separate bicyclists from motorized traffic based on fears of losing the right to use public roads. Via positions of power and strong rhetoric, vehicular cyclists influenced design guidance for decades to come. Through the 1980s, VC philosophy aligned with a federal view that bicyclists freeloaded from the gas tax, resulting in diminished federal support for guidance and related research throughout the decade. However, the passing of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 led to increased bicycle networks and renewed interest in bicycle facility research. Although vehicular cyclists continue to oppose roadway designs that separate bicyclists from motorized traffic, research from the last decade demonstrates networks of separated bike lanes improve bicyclist safety and are necessary to meet the needs of the vast majority of the public who want to bicycle but feel unsafe in many traffic contexts.</description><issn>0361-1981</issn><issn>2169-4052</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2018</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp1UEtOwzAQtRBIlMKepS8QsGMnsZeh0I9UVCQK28h1xq2rNI7stFJP0GuTtKyQWI3m_TTzEHqk5InSLHsmLKVUCkpFJgUX8RUaxDSVESdJfI0GPR31_C26C2FLCGM8YwN0yvHUhtZ5q1WFP8CHBnRrD4BdjdsN4Dz_nC4XeLK3JWDj_Bl8hQNUrtlB3WJn8IvVR10BHittK9taCFjV5Vk52zVKn0X99g0bq_eV8njUGWy9xu_uAH3MPboxqgrw8DuH6Gv8thxNo_liMhvl80gzItuIlizmnIhUllJ2X5YdqhKqBV0RCQkTRqwSJSloRTijkrKug8QYEfPU8CRmQ0Quudq7EDyYovF2p_yxoKToiyz-FtlZooslqDUUW7f3dXfh__offidyBg</recordid><startdate>20181201</startdate><enddate>20181201</enddate><creator>Schultheiss, William</creator><creator>Sanders, Rebecca L.</creator><creator>Toole, Jennifer</creator><general>SAGE Publications</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20181201</creationdate><title>A Historical Perspective on the AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities and the Impact of the Vehicular Cycling Movement</title><author>Schultheiss, William ; Sanders, Rebecca L. ; Toole, Jennifer</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c309t-1d32440869d99482d309a51c81b09e538f8b5a91eca04319131695ff8246f4523</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2018</creationdate><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Schultheiss, William</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sanders, Rebecca L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Toole, Jennifer</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><jtitle>Transportation research record</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Schultheiss, William</au><au>Sanders, Rebecca L.</au><au>Toole, Jennifer</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>A Historical Perspective on the AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities and the Impact of the Vehicular Cycling Movement</atitle><jtitle>Transportation research record</jtitle><date>2018-12-01</date><risdate>2018</risdate><volume>2672</volume><issue>13</issue><spage>38</spage><epage>49</epage><pages>38-49</pages><issn>0361-1981</issn><eissn>2169-4052</eissn><abstract>This paper draws from a literature review and interviews to demonstrate the impact of advocacy, research, and culture on guidance for design users, bike lanes, and separated (protected) bike lanes in the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials’ bicycle guides’ content from 1974 to present. In the late 1960s and early 1970s, a bicycle renaissance in America resulted in efforts at the local, state, and federal level to encourage bicycling. After Davis, California, became the first community in the United States to build a network of bike lanes, a new brand of bicycle advocacy, vehicular cycling (VC), formed to oppose efforts to separate bicyclists from motorized traffic based on fears of losing the right to use public roads. Via positions of power and strong rhetoric, vehicular cyclists influenced design guidance for decades to come. Through the 1980s, VC philosophy aligned with a federal view that bicyclists freeloaded from the gas tax, resulting in diminished federal support for guidance and related research throughout the decade. However, the passing of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 led to increased bicycle networks and renewed interest in bicycle facility research. Although vehicular cyclists continue to oppose roadway designs that separate bicyclists from motorized traffic, research from the last decade demonstrates networks of separated bike lanes improve bicyclist safety and are necessary to meet the needs of the vast majority of the public who want to bicycle but feel unsafe in many traffic contexts.</abstract><cop>Los Angeles, CA</cop><pub>SAGE Publications</pub><doi>10.1177/0361198118798482</doi><tpages>12</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0361-1981
ispartof Transportation research record, 2018-12, Vol.2672 (13), p.38-49
issn 0361-1981
2169-4052
language eng
recordid cdi_crossref_primary_10_1177_0361198118798482
source SAGE Complete
title A Historical Perspective on the AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities and the Impact of the Vehicular Cycling Movement
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-10T12%3A01%3A12IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-sage_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=A%20Historical%20Perspective%20on%20the%20AASHTO%20Guide%20for%20the%20Development%20of%20Bicycle%20Facilities%20and%20the%20Impact%20of%20the%20Vehicular%20Cycling%20Movement&rft.jtitle=Transportation%20research%20record&rft.au=Schultheiss,%20William&rft.date=2018-12-01&rft.volume=2672&rft.issue=13&rft.spage=38&rft.epage=49&rft.pages=38-49&rft.issn=0361-1981&rft.eissn=2169-4052&rft_id=info:doi/10.1177/0361198118798482&rft_dat=%3Csage_cross%3E10.1177_0361198118798482%3C/sage_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_sage_id=10.1177_0361198118798482&rfr_iscdi=true