Required Readings

Week 1: Introduction (1/19/10)

Pedestrian and Bicycle Transportation Institutions (History, Policy Frameworks, Legal Issues):

1.1. US Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. National Bicycling and Walking Study: Ten Year Status Report, October 2004.

1.2. League of American Bicyclists. Bicycle Friendly America Yearbook, Available online,, 2009. (pp. 1-14)

1.3. US Department of Transportation. Accommodating Bicycle and Pedestrian Travel: A Recommended Approach, A US DOT Policy Statement on Integrating Bicycling and Walking into Transportation Infrastructure. Available online:, 2000.

1.4. US Department of Housing and Urban Development, Department of Transportation, and Environmental Protection Agency. HUD, DOT, and EPA Partnership: Sustainable Communities, Available online:, June 16, 2009.

1.5. Mionske, B., JD. (2007). Bicycling and the Law - Your Rights as a Cyclist. Boulder, CO: VeloPress.

Week 2: Benefits and Challenges of Promoting Pedestrian and Bicycle Transportation (1/26/10)

2.1. Pucher, J., Dill, J., & Handy, S. (2010). Infrastructure, Programs and Policies to Increase Bicycling: An International Review. Preventive Medicine, 48(2).

Environmental Factors Associated with Pedestrian and Bicycle Transportation

2.2. Krizek, K., A. Forsyth, and L. Baum. Walking and Cycling International Literature Review, Final Report, Department of Transport, State of Victoria, Melbourne, Australia, 2009. (pp. 1-13)

2.3. Cervero, R. and M. Duncan. "Walking, Bicycling, and Urban Landscapes: Evidence from the San Francisco Bay Area," American Journal of Public Health, Volume 93, Number 9, September 2003. (pp. 1-14)


2.4. Fisher, G.W., K.A. Rolfe, T. Kjellstrom, A. Woodward, S. Hales, A.P. Sturman, S. Kingham, J. Petersen, R. Shrestha, and D. King. Health Effects Due to Motor Vehicle Air Pollution in New Zealand, Report to the Ministry of Transport, 2002. (pp. i-5)

2.5. Gordon-Larsen, P. M.C. Nelson, P. Page, and B.M. Popkin. "Inequality in the Built Environment Underlies Key Health Disparities in Physical Activity and Obesity," Pediatrics, Volume 117, 2006, pp. 417-424.

2.6. Salvesen, D., Evenson, K. R., Rodríguez, D. A., & Brown, A. (2008). Factors influencing implementation of local policies to promote physical activity: a case study of Montgomery County, Maryland. Journal of Public Health Management and Practice, 14(3), 280-288.

2.7. Sallis, J. F., & Glanz, K. (2006). The Role of Built Environments in Physical Activity, Eating, and Obesity in Childhood. The Future of Children, 16(1), 89-108.

2.8. Cavill, N. and A. Davis. Cycling & Health: What's the Evidence?: Cycling England. (Skim Chapters 2-4)


2.9. Gotschi, T. and K. Mills. Active Transportation for America: The Case for Increased Federal Investment in Bicycling and Walking, Rails-to-Trails Conservancy and Bikes Belong, 2008. (pp. 3-17)

2.10. Litman, Todd. “Economic Value of Walkability,” Victoria Transportation Policy Institute, Transportation Research Record 1828, 2003.

2.11. Hurdle, J. “U.S. Cities Promote Bicycling as Gas Prices Soar,” Washington, June 12, 2008. Available online:

Week 3: Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety: Crash Data, Perceptions, Attitudes, and Culture (2/02/10)

Review of Crash Data

3.1. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Traffic Safety Facts: 2008 Data for Pedestrians.

3.2. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Traffic Safety Facts: 2008 Data for Bicyclists and Other Cyclists.

3.3. Jacobsen, P.L. “Safety in Numbers: More Walkers and Bicyclists, Safer Walking and Bicycling,” Injury Prevention, Volume 9, pp. 205-209, 2003.

Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Perceptions, Attitudes, and Culture

3.4. Basford, L., Reid, S., Lester, T., Thomson, J. and Tolmie, A. Drivers' Perceptions of Cyclists. Crowthorne: Transport Research Library, 2003. (Read Executive Summary)

3.5. Connerly, C., Audirac, I., Higgins, H., and Stutzman, M. Sharing the Roadway with Bicyclists & Pedestrians: Florida Drivers' Attitude Survey. Tallahassee: Florida Planning and Development Laboratory and FSU Survey Research Laboratory, 2006. (Read Executive Summary)

3.6. Horton, D. Fear of Cycling. In D. Horton, P. Rosen, and P. Cox (Eds.), Cycling and Society, Hampshire: Ashgate Publishing. (pp. 133-152). (read all five sections!)

Week 4: Anatomy of a Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan (2/09/10)

4.1 Three to four example pedestrian and bicycle plans to be reviewed by students in groups (See Example Plans page.)

Week 5: Pedestrian and Bicycle Facility Design Fundamentals (2/16/10)

5.1. US Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. Designing Sidewalks and Trails for Access, Part I of II: Review of Existing Guidelines and Practices, 1999. Available online: (pp. 31-69)

5.2. American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials. Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities, 1999. (currently being updated). (pp. 15-36)

Week 6: Pedestrian and Bicycle Facility Design Innovations and Cost Considerations (2/23/10)

6.1. US Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. Safety Effects of Marked Versus Unmarked Crosswalks at Uncontrolled Locations, FHWA-RD-04-100, Authors: Zegeer, Charles V., J. Richard Stewart, Herman Huang, and Peter Lagerwey, Available online:, 2001. (pp. 1-11, 36-61)

6.2. Synopsis of Jennifer Dill’s research on bicycle lanes in Portland.

(The full report is: Dill, J. and J. Gliebe, Understanding and Measuring Bicycling Behavior: A Focus on Travel Time and Route Choice, Final Report, OTREC-RR-08-03, Oregon Transportation Research and Education Consortium, Available online:, 2008.)

Week 7: International Pedestrian and Bicycle Transportation (3/02/10)

7.1. United States Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. University Course on Pedestrian and Bicycle Transportation, Lesson 23: International Approaches to Bicycle and Pedestrian Facility Design, Available Online:, 1999.

7.2. Søren Underlien Jensen, Claus Rosenkilde, Niels Jensen. Road Safety and Perceived Risk of Cycle Facilities in Copenhagen, White Paper, City of Copenhagen, Denmark and Trafitec, 2007.

7.3. City of Amsterdam Bicycle Policy

7.4. City of Copenhagen Bicycle Policy

7.5. Pucher, J., & Buehler, R. (2008). Cycling for Everyone: Lessons from Europe. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board 2074, pp. 58-65.

7.6. Cervero, R., Sarmiento, O., Jacoby, E., Gomez, L., & Neiman, A. (2009). Influences of Built Environment on Walking and Cycling: Lessons from Bogota. International Journal of Sustainable Transportation, 3(4), pp. 203-226.

Week 8: Field Trip--Walking Audit of Berkeley High School Area (3/09/10)

8.1. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. How to Develop a Pedestrian Safety Action Plan, Available online:, March 2009. (skim document)

8.2. Clifton, K.J., A.D. Livi Smith, and D. Rodriguez. “The Development and Testing of an Audit for the Pedestrian Environment,” Landscape and Urban Planning, Volume 80, 2007, pp. 95-110.

Week 9: In-Class Presentations of Class Projects (3/16/10)

Week 10: No class – Spring Break! (3/23/10)

Week 11: Pedestrian and Bicycle Data Collection and Performance Measures (3/30/10)

11.1. US Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. Pedestrian and Bicycle Data Collection in United States Communities: Quantifying Use, Surveying Users, and Documenting Facility Extent, Authors: R. Schneider, R. Patten, J. Toole, and C. Raborn, Available online:, January 2005. (Read Summary Section)

11.2. City of Copenhagen, Denmark. Copenhagen: City of Cyclists: Bicycle Account, Available online,, 2006.

11.3. City of Portland, OR. Portland Bicycle Counts 2009, Available online:, 2009.

Week 12: Pedestrian and Bicycle Facility Assessment/Suitability Analysis Methods (Roadway/Sidewalk/Trail Segments) (4/06/10)

12.1. Dowling, R., D. Reinke, A. Flannery, P. Ryus, M. Vandehey, T. Petritsch, B. Landis, N. Rouphail, and J. Bonneson. Multimodal Level of Service Analysis for Urban Streets, National Cooperative Highway Research Program Report 616, Transportation Research Board, Available online:, 2008. (pp. 1-16; pp. 92-95)

12.2. Gehl, J. Public Spaces & Public Life Studies, City of Adelaide, City Council, Australia, Available online,, 2002. (pp. 7-15; pp. 47-67)

Week 13: Pedestrian and Bicycle Facility Assessment/Suitability Analysis Methods (Roadway Intersections/Crossings) (4/13/10)

13.1. US Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. Pedestrian and Bicyclist Intersection Safety Indices: Final Report, Authors: D.L. Carter, W.W. Hunter, C.V. Zegeer, R. Stewart, and H. F. Huang, Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center, Available online:, 2006. (p. 1; pp. 49-50)

13.2. Landis, Bruce W., Venkat R. Vattikuti, Russell M. Ottenberg, Theodore A. Petritsch, Martin Guttenplan, and Linda B. Crider. “Intersection Level of Service for the Bicycle Through Movement.” Transportation Research Record 1828, Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, 2003.

Week 14: Pedestrian and Bicycle Demand Analysis and Prioritization Methods (4/20/10)

14.1. Schneider R.J., L.S. Arnold, and D.R. Ragland. Validation Testing and Refinement of the Alameda County Pedestrian Intersection Crossing Volume Model, UC Berkeley Traffic Safety Center White Paper, Presented at the Association of Collegiate Schools of Planning Conference Arlington, Virginia, Available online:, October 2009.

14.2. California Department of Transportation. Trip-Generation Rates for Urban Infill Land Uses in California: Phase1, Data Collection Methodology and Pilot Application, Prepared by Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., and Economic & Planning Systems, April 2008. (pp. 1-15)

Week 15: In-Class Presentations of Class Project/Course Wrap-Up (4/27/10)