Road User Education and Multimodal Planning: Can Capability Be Part of the Process?

New designs, technologies, and rules are all being deployed to make roads more usable for people traveling by a variety of modes: walking, biking, transit, and driving. This paper examines whether and how road user education might be better integrated into the multimodal planning process. Interviews with multimodal transportation planners and education specialists, in addition to content analysis of online educational videos geared toward enhancing bicycle capabilities and awareness, reveal a nexus between the significant changes to roads and facilities proposed by planners and road user education. It is found that some multimodal transportation organizations have adopted practices that support education of current road users, with content and approaches that emphasize safe usability and mode shift. Planners can play a distinctive role in the process of educating current and potential users, helping set the “time and place” for education and the content of educational materials and practices. Still, a lack of agreement is evident for planners as to whether current practices fall within their purview. Hurdles that impede planners’ ability to engage in multimodal road user education include inadequate coordination, a lack of funding, and limited training or access to trained specialists and effective content. If users’ capabilities to safely use and be aware of multiple modes are seen as essential to communities’ mobility objectives, a conceptual shift for planners, adding education to traditional expertise in infrastructure and policy, may be required.

[1]  F P Rivara,et al.  Prevention of bicycle-related injuries: helmets, education, and legislation. , 1998, Annual review of public health.

[2]  Richard A. Retting,et al.  Improving Driver's Ability to Safely and Effectively Use Roundabouts: Educating the Public to Negotiate Roundabouts , 2011 .

[3]  S P Baker,et al.  Effects of high school driver education on motor vehicle crashes, violations, and licensure. , 1999, American journal of preventive medicine.

[4]  P. Ulleberg PERSONALITY SUBTYPES OF YOUNG DRIVERS. RELATIONSHIP TO RISK-TAKING PREFERENCES, ACCIDENT INVOLVEMENT, AND RESPONSE TO A TRAFFIC SAFETY CAMPAIGN , 2001 .

[5]  H M Simpson,et al.  The safety value of driver education an training , 2002, Injury prevention : journal of the International Society for Child and Adolescent Injury Prevention.

[6]  J. Sallis,et al.  Environmental correlates of walking and cycling: Findings from the transportation, urban design, and planning literatures , 2003, Annals of behavioral medicine : a publication of the Society of Behavioral Medicine.

[7]  A F Williams,et al.  Driver education renaissance? , 2004, Injury Prevention.

[8]  L. Lonero Trends in driver education and training. , 2008, American journal of preventive medicine.

[9]  Torgeir Vaa,et al.  Meta-analysis of the effect of road safety campaigns on accidents. , 2011, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[10]  Luca Bertolini,et al.  Integrating land use and transport knowledge in strategy-making , 2009 .

[11]  D. Silverman Interpreting Qualitative Data: Methods for Analysing Talk, Text and Interaction , 1994 .

[12]  M. Harris,et al.  Safe cycling: how do risk perceptions compare with observed risk? , 2012, Canadian journal of public health = Revue canadienne de sante publique.

[13]  Tyler Golly,et al.  Breaking Barriers with Building Blocks: The Story of the City of Edmonton’s Award-Winning Bicycle Education Videos , 2015 .

[14]  A K Lund,et al.  Results of a seat belt use law enforcement and publicity campaign in Elmira, New York. , 1987, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[15]  Alek L. Pochowski,et al.  Review of State Roundabout Programs , 2010 .

[16]  R. Willson Assessing communicative rationality as a transportation planning paradigm , 2001 .