1. 1
Strategies for Increasing Bike Mode Share at San Francisco State University to 20%
Natalie Yemenidjian
San Francisco State University
2. 2
Natalie Yemenidjian
“San Francisco State University aspires to be the nation’s preeminent public urban
university.”
—San Francisco State University Strategic Plan 2005–2010;
San Francisco’s transportation system must adapt to handle a heavier load of
commuters as its population grows. San Francisco State University (SFSU) could play a
pivotal role in creating a more equitable and thorough transportation network within the
city. The integration of an efficient bicycle network in and around the SFSU campus will
alleviate some repercussions of the one percent per year population growth anticipated by
the city (Plan Bay Area, 2013) such as traffic congestion, increase in greenhouse gas
emissions and a lack of space. A well, thought-out transportation plan that includes a
strong bicycle network would not only move students, faculty and staff around town, it
would reflect SFSU’s historic dedication to social justice and equity, especially for those
earning low-incomes (White, 2014).
A bicycle network is not just a good idea; it is a requirement in keeping with a
2007 Memorandum of Understanding between the City and County of San Francisco and
SFSU. The understanding was to minimize transportation impacts outlined in the
environmental impact report (EIR) set forth in the Final Campus Master Plan, namely as
a result of the enrollment of more students by 2020 at SFSU. The MOU requires that
“The University will complete the initial phase of the north-south bicycle and pedestrian
path, plan for an expanded bicycle network, including the final leg of the north-south path
and an east-west path (TDM, 2014, p.3).” The campus must help the city alleviate traffic
during peak hours in congested areas like along 19th
Avenue. It is not feasible to do so
without the help of alternative modes of transportation and bike infrastructure is an
affordable and safe alternative.
In a 2014 SFSU survey conducted by students in last year’s Bicycle Geographies
course, 48 percent of students, faculty and staff surveyed said they own a bicycle; yet,
only 9.5 percent of respondents cycle to school out of which, 80 percent live within 5
miles of campus (Bicycle Geographies, 2014). Considering these statistics, it is
reasonable that there will be a 20 percent mode share of bicycling in the next five years if
3. 3
the infrastructure in and around campus would only rise to the urgent need for it. Mode
share, or the percent of which different means of travel are used, is a way of measuring
how people get from point A to point B. Planners who want to see a decrease in
automobile use and an increase in non-motorized transportation aim to facilitate higher
percentages of alternative modes of transportation like bicycling. Since there are 5,000
students to be added to the overall enrollment at SFSU taking enrollment from 20,000
students to 25,000 students by 2020, but no new parking, alternative modes of
transportation are now a necessity. A cohesive strategic plan to encourage non-motorized
commutes to and from SFSU needs to be implemented in order to have an effective
market strategy.
This paper suggests three ways to increase mode share of bicycling on campus
from 4 percent to 20 percent by 2020 through marketing: Articulate a common goal
between administration, local agencies and campus organizations; use infrastructure as a
marketing tool; and direct marketing to niche groups like women and novice riders.
Articulate a common goal within campus community
SFSU students and faculty have a myriad reasons not to bike. An SFSU survey
cited these reasons as being: poor infrastructure, lack of adequate bike parking, distance,
hills and inadequate bike storage (Bicycle Geographies, 2014). We must address these
issues head on because, “unless such reasons are effectively addressed within their
specific context, marketers and policy makers will continue to witness low bicycling
participation rates among urban commuters (Claudy and Peterson, 2014, p. 183).”
Creating a dialogue between the movers and shakers of SFSU who directly participate in
the school’s planning decisions and those who commute to campus is the first step in
finding common goals. A compelling reason to bike, such as our individual ecological
responsibility, galvanizes thoughtful citizens to create a common goal. A call to action
such as “20 percent mode share by 2020” comingle with the goals of organizations from
a regional level, like the goals set forth by Plan Bay Area, to grassroots campus
organizations like Power to the Pedal a student-run project of the Sustainable Initiatives
program of the Cesar Chavez Student Center at SFSU. Ryan Tachibana, manager of the
Power to the Pedal, said he wants to see the campus set specific goals that are tangible
and that “a bicycle resource position within the university would be a great step forward.
4. 4
This position would help unify pre-existing bicycle resources on campus and provide a
voice for said resources (Tachibana, 2015).” Despite this, Power to the Pedal is struggling
to reach students on campus. According to Tachibana, flyers, tabling and word of mouth
has been the most effective marketing tool, but getting through to students has been
“extremely difficult.” A cyclists’ diplomat of sorts would put forth safety, infrastructure
and other concerns to the table of bigger, long-term planning goals of the campus.
While Tachibana’s initiative is a step in the right direction, a systematic strategy
must be in place in order to make a more effective turn-around. In City Cycling, John
Pucher and Ralph Buehler argue, “A coordinated policy is the trademark of a city with
safe and increased ridership (Pucher and Buehler, 2010, p. 350). A bicycle liaison is
essential for coordinating initiatives on SFSU’s campus to carry out plans because, as
Pucher and Buehler’s research has found, a “comprehensive approach has a much greater
impact on cycling than individual measure that are not coordinated (350).” Last semester,
the bicycle geographies class came to the same conclusion. Student organizations come
and go with graduating classes, however, a permanent fixture in the planning department
to oversee the needs of cyclists will be integral to carrying out integrated measures for
better infrastructure as well as be a sounding board for the needs of SFSU cyclists. By
having a coordinated policy that is long-term, there will be more access for people who
are open to changing their mode of transportation. A liaison will also facilitate a plan that
is sustainable and that maintains research of improvement projects.
Next, the existing groups and bicycle campaigns need an aggregate of bicycle
information accessible by a website hosted by SFSU. A link like bike.sfsu.edu would be
an easy link for like-minded faculty and student organizations to disseminate information,
promote events, and to provide novice bicyclists with support. The “Go State!” campaign
has digital signs around campus with links that are confusing like
http://www.sfsu.edu/~parking/text/bikebarn.html. The messages on the figure 1 and figure
2 promotional material that do not address all of significant concerns students have about
their cycling experiences. In the Bicycle Geographies survey taken last year, 30 percent
of respondents cited poor infrastructure to campus. Then, 13 percent responded that a
lack of adequate bike parking was their reason for not biking to school. Figure 1
addresses the bike parking issue by promoting the bike barn; however, there are no clear
5. 5
instructions on where the bike barn is, how it works or how to access it. Figure 2 also
fails to address the major concern among riders to campus: infrastructure.
The aggregate site: parking.sfsu.edu/bike is buried but is much more effective tool
for students. Yet, it doesn’t include any student organizations, events and is not updated
regularly. A bike coordinator would need to update this site regularly for it to serve the
campus better, as well find new resources to create a community of bikers.
Bicycle events like Bike to Work Day are essential for increasing mode share.
Research suggests that if we ask people to commit to short term rides, one day of riding
their bike to school or work, they will be more likely to do so in the future (Claudy, 2014,
p. 185). A study out of Victoria, Australia found that “one-fifth of the participants were
riding to work for the first time [during a bike to work event] and approximately one-
quarter of those first time rides continue to commute by bicycle 5 months after the event”
(Piatourski, 2014). A campus bicycle coordinator should organize trailing programs –
trialing is when people try new transportation -- such as bike to school days and bike
convoys that ensure they are heavily promoted and safe experiences. When the ride is
positive, especially for a novice cyclist “reasons for bicycling can be strengthened
(Claudy, 2014, p. 183)” which facilitate a stronger bicycle community. A 2013 student of
bike to work day events in the UK found that “processes of group identification were
found to be associated with strong positive attitudes towards cycling as a commute mode
among the participants, particularly amongst those who had started cycling to work
within the previous two years” (Bartle, Avinci and Chatterjee, 2013, p. 69). The events
also introduce beginning cyclists to routes and nearby infrastructure.
Infrastructure as a Marketing Tool
If SFSU wants higher bicycle mode share, it is absolutely essential to encourage its
students and faculty to commute by bicycle to and from campus. Out of 450 SFSU
faculty and students who do not use a bicycle to commute to school, 30 percent said their
greatest barrier is poor infrastructure (Bicycle Geographies, 2014). Not one U.S. city, or
campus for that matter, has increased cycling “without an extensive network of well-
integrated bike lanes and paths that provide separation from motor vehicle traffic”
(Pucher and Buehler, 2012, p. 351). Cities with the highest rates of bicycling also include
ample amounts of safe bicycle parking with plenty of shelter (Pucher and Buehler, 2012).
6. 6
A study of more than 40 U.S. cities found that “each additional mile of bike lane per
square mile was associated with an increase of approximately one percentage point in the
share of workers regularly commuting by bicycle” (Dill and Carr, 2003). Clearly, as
infrastructure grows, so will the amount of bicycle commuters. The most integral step is
to build a sustainable infrastructure to facilitate a strong bicycle community for there to
be an increase in non-motorized transportation usage, as has been substantiated over the
years (Dill and Carr, 2003). If we build it, they will come.
However, building the infrastructure is not enough; SFSU must supply ample
information on how to use it. Adequate signage is directly related to the efficiency and
use of the bikeways and more import must be placed on the accessibility of these markers.
A study out of Sydney, Australia showed that “use of cycling infrastructure can be
increased with a combination of social marketing and opportunities for people to ride in a
safe and social context” (Rissel et al., 2010, p. 19). SFSU needs to provide accessible and
highly visible signage that illustrates routes, access points to campus and bike parking.
Routes need to occasionally be tested to ensure there are no big obstacles or new barriers,
if so, that should be communicated to commuters. Maps at highly frequented bike
parking spots on campus should have maps of routes that include safe directions to public
transportation, safety information and upcoming bicycle events. Without adequate
resources, a campus-based intervention to increase ridership will not rise up to its full
potential since beginning riders trialing new commute behaviors use existing
infrastructure that makes them feel safe (Rissel et al., 2010). In order to expand the usage
of this infrastructure, a more inclusive and more equitable system must be devised for
novice or expert riders to participate at their full capacity.
California State University, Northridge
California State University, Northridge (CSUN) is at a crossroads similar to SFSU.
The city of Los Angeles aims to expand its bikeways from 334 miles to 1,684 miles over
the next thirty-five years and the administration has also made it a goal to connect to
those bikeways (D’Alfonso et al., 2012). It is an opportunity to expand mode share to a
burgeoning public transportation network in the more than 260-square mile valley to the
even greater Los Angeles region where less than half of students travel. A 2010 survey of
faculty, staff and students at CSUN found that 11 percent of students walk, bike or skate
7. 7
to campus; however, 40 percent of respondents who drive to the Northridge campus said
they would bike to school if there were better infrastructure (Cox and Michaud, 2010, p.
i). Just like SFSU, we have students willing to leave their car keys at home, but the built
environment must rise to meet them.
Five years ago, students in a course at CSUN similar to Bicycle Geographies put
together a campus bike infrastructure study overseen by Dr. Zeynap Toker, associated
professor at CSUN’s Urban Studies and Planning Department. Toker expects the results
of the incremental improvements that have been implemented on campus to be positive,
observing via email: “It feels like we have way more bikes on campus now and our
counts, although not representative of the whole campus, show that too (Toker, 2015).”
After six years of the infrastructure being in place, the professor said they would have a
concrete study of how many more cyclists there are now on campus. By summer of 2016,
the results of their infrastructure improvements should be available.
The infrastructure built at CSUN accommodates skateboarders, cyclists and
pedestrians with clear signs at every intersection. Cyclists and skateboarders ride in the
same lane, giving adequate room to pedestrians and vehicles to create a safer experience
for riders (figure 4). In figure 4, a slightly raised guard is shown that separates a two-way
bike and skateboard lane from pedestrians. The east-to-west path that spans almost a mile
on campus is made to segregate bikes/skateboards and pedestrians. Painted “Bike Lane”
signs on the floor of every possible intersection and pedestrian route. Riders are required
to yield for pedestrians at the markers of every crosswalk.
The recommendations made by Toker and their students came to a similar
conclusion as this paper, that in order to promote cycling as a safe, healthy, and
sustainable mode of transportation, bicycle infrastructure must be incorporated within
and around vehicular infrastructure (D’Alfonso et al., 2012). The study also recommends
that university campuses facilitate teaching new cyclists bicycle safety by offering group
rides and basic bicycle maintenance.
Marketing to niche groups
When women’s infrastructure issues are addressed, the needs of other
underrepresented groups are indirectly addressed (Winters and Teschke, 2010). Women
are more likely to ride on infrastructure that keeps them away from vehicular traffic
8. 8
(Garrard, Rose and Lo, 2008). Issues of LGBTQ cyclists have not been adequately
studied. As SFSU builds better bicycle infrastructure to improve the campus
community’s overall health and carbon footprint, it is imperative that we include
underrepresented groups to give everyone an equitable and safe riding experience.
Developing marketing strategies that make female-bodied and novice cyclists
feel safe equates to higher levels of cycling. Research has found that, “health benefits of
bicycling far exceed the health risks from traffic injuries, contradicting the widespread
misperception that bicycling is a dangerous activity (Pucher, Dill and Handy, 2010,
S106).” It is important to send a clear message that the benefits of cycling for the
individual outweigh the risks. Women, in particular, feel like they are in harm’s way
more than their male counterparts (Pucher and Buehler, 2012). SFSU student
organizations should facilitate group rides for women and beginners in order to alleviate
some of the perceived risks these groups may feel.
TABLE 1 Articulate a common goal
• Appoint a SFSU bicycle coordinator to be a liaison between the planning department and bicycle
commuters
• An aggregate website for biking on campus, updated with events, safety and route information
• Bicycle events that are a congregation of student groups, administration
Infrastructure as a marketing tool
• Provide ample signage and maps
• If we build it, riders will use it, especially when promoted through social media and student groups
Marketing to niche groups
• Address issues of women, beginner and other underrepresented groups
• Facilitate group rides
• Create marketing material that quells unnecessary risk perceptions
11. 11
Citations
Bartle, Caroline, Erel Avineri, and Kiron Chatterjee (2013), “Online Information-
Sharing: A Qualitative Analysis of Community, Trust and Social Influence
Amongst Commuter Cyclists in the UK,” Transportation Research Part F: Traffic
Psychology and Behaviour, 16, 60-72.
Bicycle Geographies (2014). Recommendations for Increasing the Bicycle Mode Share to
SF State [PDF document]. Retrieved from
https://ilearn.sfsu.edu/ay1415/mod/resource/view.php?id=261081
Burr, T. (2006). Building community, legitimating consumption: Creating the U.S.
bicycle market, 1876-884. Socio-Economic Review, 4(3), 417-446.
Claudy, M., & Peterson, M. (2014). Understanding the Underutilization of Urban bicycle
commuting: A behavioral reasoning perspective. Journal of Public Policy &
Marketing, 33(2), 173-187.
Cox, H. & Michaud, K. (2010). Commuting Practices at CSUN. Institute for
Sustainability Report #1
D’Alfonso, D., Cordova, A., Toker, Z., Cox, H., & Yetter, L. (2010). CSUN Bicycle
Report. Institute for Sustainability Report #3
Dill, Jennifer, and Theresa Carr. (2003). Bicycle Commuting and Facilities in Major U.S.
Cities:. Portland State University. Web.
Garrard, J. , Rose, G. , & Lo, S. (2008). Promoting transportation cycling for women: The
role of bicycle infrastructure. Preventive Medicine, 46(1), 55-59.
12. 12
Moudon, A., Lee, C. , Cheadle, A. , Collier, C. , Johnson, D. , et al. (2005). Cycling and
the built environment, a U.S. perspective. Transportation Research Part D, 10(3),
245-261.
Nelson Nygaard, Consulting Associates (2009). Transportation Demand Management
Plan [PDF document]. Retrieved from
http://sustain.sfsu.edu/sites/sites7.sfsu.edu.sustain/files/assets/doc/SFSU_TDM_Pl
an_1-06-10.pdf
Parker, K., Rice, J. , Gustat, J. , Ruley, J. , Spriggs, A. , et al. (2013). Effect of bike lane
infrastructure improvements on ridership in one New Orleans neighborhood.
Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 45(S1), 101-107.
Pucher, J., Buehler, R. (2012). City Cycling. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Pucher, J., Dill, J. , & Handy, S. (2010). Infrastructure, programs, and policies to increase
bicycling: An international review. Preventive Medicine, 50, 106-125.
R. Tachibana, personal communications, April 15, 2015.
Rissel, C., New, C., Wen, L. , Merom, D., Bauman, A. , et al. (2010). The effectiveness
of community-based cycling promotion: Findings from the cycling connecting
communities project in Sydney, Australia. International Journal of Behavioral
Nutrition and Physical Activity, 7(1), 8.
Sayarshad, H., Tavassoli, S. , & Zhao, F. (2012). A multi-periodic optimization
formulation for bike planning and bike utilization. Applied Mathematical
Modelling, 36(10), 4944-4951.
White, G. (2015, May 18). Stranded: How America's Failing Public Transportation
Increases Inequality. Retrieved May 18, 2015, from
