Water supply and sanitation Infrastruture

Water supply and sanitation Infrastruture

Is provided by towns and cities, public utilities that span several jurisdictions and rural cooperatives. About 15 million Americans are served by their own wells. Public water supply and sanitation systems are regulated by state-level regulatory commissions and the EPA. Water consumption in the U.S. is one of the highest in the world and water tariffs (rates) are among the lowest in developed countries. There is a massive need to replace ageing water and sanitation infrastructure that may require much higher water tariffs in the future.
United States: Water and Sanitation

Data
Water coverage (broad definition)
100%
Sanitation coverage (broad definition)
100%
Continuity of supply (%)
high
Average urban water use (l/c/d)
260 (only in-door residential use)
Average urban water and sanitation tariff (US$/m3)
0.50
Share of household metering
very high
Annual investment in WSS
US$ 25/capita/year
Share of self-financing by utilities
High
Share of tax-financing
Low
Institutions
Decentralization to municipalities
Yes
Water and sanitation regulator
Yes (multi-sector at state level)
Responsibility for policy setting
Shared, including the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Agriculture
Sector law
No
Number of service providers
54,000

Access
Urban (80% of the population)
Rural (20% of the population)
Total
Water
Broad definition
100%
100%
100%
House connections
100%
100%
100%
Sanitation
Broad definition
100%
100%
100%
Sewerage
95%
33%
83%
Source: WHO/UNICEF Joint Monitoring Program (2004) Access to improved water supply and sanitation in the United States is universal. However, access to improved sanitation is provided through different technologies depending on local circumstances. 83% of households are served by sewers (95% in urban areas and 33% in rural areas) and the remainder is served by on-site sanitation systems such as septic tanks.
Water use
According to a 1999 study by the AWWA Research Foundation residential end use of water in the United States is equivalent to more than 1 billion glasses of tap water per day.According to the same study 58% of water is used outdoors (gardening, swimming pools) and 42% indoors. Other sources indicate that outdoor use is only 25% of total residential water use..


A leaking tap.
Daily indoor per capita water use in a typical single family home is 69.3 gallons (260 litres). Overall use falls into the following categories:
body cleanliness:
Toilets - 26.7%
Baths - 1.7%
Showers - 16.8%
washing:
Clothes Washers - 21.7%
Dishwashers - 1.4%
Faucets - 15.7%
Leaks - 12.7%
Other Domestic Uses - 2.2%
These figures do not include water use in offices and commercial establishments, which is significant. Overall, per capital water use in the United States is about twice as high as in Europe (see water use in France, water use in Germany and water use in the UK).
Water sources
About 90% of public water systems in the U.S. obtain their water from groundwater. However, since systems served by groundwater tend to be much smaller than systems served by surface water, only 34% of Americans (101 million) are supplied with treated groundwater, while 66% (195 million) are supplied with treated surface water.
Few U.S. cities pump water from sources clean enough not to require filtration plants (see water purification). The major exceptions are New York City, Boston, San Francisco, and Portland, Oregon.[7] These cities have water sources with a high degree of natural purity. New York City's water supply, for example, is fed by a 2,000 square mile watershed in the Catskill Mountains. Because the watershed is in one of the largest protected wilderness areas in the United States, the natural water filtration process remains intact and filtration plants are unnecessary.
Service quality
There seems to be no comprehensive source of information on water supply and sanitation service quality in the United States.
Water quality
In almost all cases water supply is continuous, under good pressure and in conformity with the norms of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA).
Sanitation quality
Sanitation service quality is mixed, and sewer backflows into homes as well as combined sewer overflows into creeks and streams remain a problem. Wastewater treatment plants are operated satisfactorily in most cases. Discharges of wastewater are governed by the Clean Water Act.
Billing accuracy
The accuracy of billing remains a problem for some utilities. Possible sources of overbilling are inaccurate metering (such as metering of air when a tap is left open during a service interruption and the returning water pushes air through the meter) and miscategorization of users in a higher and more expensive consumption category, if a single bill is issued covering a lengthy period and if the utility uses increasing-block tariffs. There are no statistics on the prevalence of inaccurate billing in the US.
Water users who cannot resolve a billing complaint with their utility are encouraged to contact their respective State Public Utility Commissions, which in many states have jurisdiction to regulate water utilities.
Responsibility for water supply and sanitation
Service provision


The California Aqueduct
According to EPA's community water system survey 2000 there are about 54,000 community public water systems in the United States. In urban areas, these systems are either managed directly by towns and cities (such as in New York City) or indirectly by water companies (public utilities) owned by towns, cities and counties. In some cases public utilities span several jurisdictions, such as in the form of special-purpose districts. Utility cooperatives are a major provider of water and sanitation services, especially in rural areas [11] Privately owned water supply and sanitation utilities operating under concessions by local jurisdictions are rare in the United States.
There are also a few large bulk water suppliers in the arid Southwest of the United States. One of them is the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD) which sells treated water from the Colorado River and Northern California to its member utilities in Southern California through the California Aqueduct. 26 cities and water districts serving 18 million people are members of MWD. Another example is the Central Arizona Water Conservation district which operates the Central Arizona Project Aqueduct (CAP) which supplies water from the Colorado River to 80 municipal, industrial, agricultural and Indian customers in Central and Southern Arizona.
Approximately 15% of Americans rely on their own wells as a source of drinking water. Water from these wells is not subject to regulation by the EPA.
Regulation
The economic regulation of water and sanitation service providers in the U.S. (in particular in relation to the setting of user water rates) is usually the responsibility of regulators such as Public Utility Commissions at the state level (see economic regulator). The environmental and drinking water quality regulation is the responsibility of state departments of health or environment and the EPA.
Rates
Water rates (sometimes also called tariffs or user fees) in the United States are among the lowest in OECD countries. On average water rates were only $0.50 per cubic meter ($1.89 per 1,000 gallons) in 1999. However, due to higher water consumption in the US water bills are about the same level as in most other OECD countries.
The average American family spends $474 each year on water and sewerage charges according to the EPA . This is about the same level as in some European countries (see tariffs in France and tariffs in the UK).
Concerning rate structures, about one third of water rates are linear (the unit rate is independent of the level of consumption), one third are increasing-block rates (the unit rate increases with consumption) and one third are decreasing-block tariffs (the unit rate decreases with consumption). Decreasing-block rates offer hardly any incentive for water conservation.
Financing and Investment
Financing
Financing is provided through revenues from user fees (see above), debt and grants. Most debt contracted by utilities is commercial debt, usually in the form of bonds, in particular tax-free municipal bonds. In the past substantial federal grants and other subsidies have been provided, in particular to introduce wastewater treatment in order to comply with the Clean Water Act.
State Revolving Funds
The EPA and states administrate two major State Revolving Funds (SRF) Programs. Under both programs the federal government provides "capitalization grants" to states, provided that states match those funds with a contribution of at least 20%. Federal and state resources are pooled in State Revolving Funds, which in turn provide low-cost loans and other types of assistance to utilities. Revolving funds recycle funds and thus reduce the need for federal gran funding in the future. Several states have increased the funds available by issuing bonds secured by capitalization grant funds. These bond issues have provided twice as much funding as the grants themselves. The SRF bond sector received a AAA bond credit rating from a major credit rating agency - the only segment of the municipal bond market to achieve that distinction.
The first SRF, called Clean Water State Revolving Fund, aims at reducing pollution. It finances not only sanitary sewers, stormwater drainage and wastewater treatment plants, but also nonpoint source pollution control such as erosion control and wetland protection and restoration. While most of the funds have historically been directed at municipalities, homeowners and nonprofit organizations are also eligible to receive funds. On average interest rates are 2% and loans can be up to 20 years. They can fund up to 100% of project costs. Created in 1987, the program has so far disbursed more than US$ 60 billion, or US$ 4.5 billion annually in recent years. In 2006, 21 percent of funding was channeled to small communities with populations less than 10,000 inhabitants. Eligibility criteria vary by state, since states are the main administrators of the program.
The second group of funds, called Drinking Water State Revolving Funds, was created in 1997 using the Clean Water State Revolving Fund as a model. It specifically targets drinking water supply infrastructure as opposed to wastewater infrastructure. A particular feature of the funds is that states can set aside a portion of their capitalization grants to fund activities including source protection, capacity development and operator certification. EPA allocates funds to states based on a drinking water infrastructure survey carried out by EPA every four years. However, every state is guaranteed to receive at least 1% of the funding. States in turn allocate funds to utilities according to a ranking that uses criteria established by law. Priority is given to eligible projects that:
address the most serious risk to human health;
are necessary to ensure compliance with the requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act; and,
assist systems most in need, according to State-determined affordability criteria.
The program has provided nearly $9.5 billion of low-interest loans between 1997 and 2005. At least 15% of the funds are directed at small communities.
Federal assistance to small communities
In rural areas, the United States Department of Agriculture provides grants, loans and loan guarantees for water supply and sanitation in small communities (those with less than 10,000 inhabitants), in addition to technical assistance and training.
Investment
The American Water Works Association (AWWA) estimates that it will cost between $280 and $400 billion to replace the country's ageing water infrastructure. The EPA estimated in its Second Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey that $150 billion would have to be invested over a 20-year period in water supply systems alone (without sanitation) to ensure clean and safe drinking water.. EPA's clean and drinking water infrastructure gap analysis of 2002 showed that if present levels of spending do not increase, there would be a significant funding gap by 2019.

Bicycle-friendly Infrastructure
"Bicycle-friendly" describes policies, places and practices which help some people feel more comfortable about traveling by bicycle with other traffic.
Examples may include:
Engineering
segregated cycle facilities, including designated bicycle lanes, paved shoulders, sidepaths, and rail trails
speed reduction measures, traffic calming, road diets, lane diets and colorized bike lanes
improved passing facilities, such as wide outside lanes (to reduce social friction between cyclists and motorists)
bike racks on transit vehicles (which allow for longer-distance trips)
bike lockers or other accommodations for secure bicycle storage at railroad stations, airports, public buildings and other important destinations
measures to reduce ground level ozone, smog and other forms of air pollution which clogs lungs
opposition to certain forms of traffic calming and intersections, such as choke points and roundabouts with excessive entry or exit speeds (15-20 mph is considered friendly to pedestrians and bicyclists). Engineering must be sensitive to cyclists and pedestrians.
Education
educate everyone about the rules of the road (including children, via bicycle rodeos and school based traffic-ed programs)
improve public understanding of road sharing
help employers understand the benefits of accommodating, incentivizing and encouraging cycling
improve public understanding that bicycles riding with the flow of traffic are far safer than those riding against the flow
improve public understanding that night riding requires significant added equipment in lighting, reflectors and rider training
Enforcement
equal enforcement of the basic rules of the road when cyclists are involved
equal effort to recover and return stolen human powered vehicles
Encouragement
bike sharing programs such as White Bikes
public service announcements and advertising campaigns, including stickers placed in public vehicles such as taxis in Toronto
active involvement of local parks and recreation departments in cycling events
development of Bicycle Commuting Mentor Programs
There is a general rule that the lower speed and volume roadways (15-25 mph) need the fewest treatments for bicyclists; while those with higher traffic speeds (30-60 mph) and volumes require greater attention.
The League of American Bicyclists has formally recognized some USA cities as Bicycle-friendly communities for "providing safe accommodation and facilities for bicyclists and encouraging residents to bike for transportation and recreation."

Town planning
Trip length and journey times are argued to be key factors affecting cycle use. Therefore, town planning may have a key impact in deciding whether key destinations, schools, shops, colleges, health clinics, public transport interchanges remain within a reasonable cycling distance of the areas where people live. It is argued that the urban form can influence these issues, compact and circular settlement patterns tending to promote cycling. Alternatively, the low-density, non-circular (i.e., linear) settlement patterns characteristic of urban sprawl tends to discourage cycling. In 1990, the Dutch adopted the "ABC" guidelines, specifically limiting developments that are major attractants to locations that are readily accessible by non-car users.


US-style housing division.
The manner in which the public roads network is designed, built and managed can have a significant effect on the utility and safety of cycling as a form of transport. The key issue is whether the cycling network provides the users with direct, convenient routes minimising unnecessary delay and effort in reaching key destinations. Settlements that provide a dense roads network consisting of interconnected streets will tend to be viable utility cycling environments.
In contrast, other communities may use a cul-de-sac based, housing estate/housing subdivision model where minor roads are disconnected and only feed into a street hierarchy of progressively more "arterial" type roads. It is arguable that such communities discourage cycling by imposing unnecessary detours and forcing cyclists onto busy and dangerous arterial roads. There is evidence that people who live in such estates are heavier than people who live in places where walking and cycling are more convenient. It is also reported that the extra motor-traffic such communities generate tends to increase overall per-capita traffic casualty rates. Designs that propose to resolve the contradiction between the cul-de-sac and the traditional interconnected network, such as the Fused Grid, have been proposed and built with varying levels of success. Particular issues have arisen with personal security and public order problems in some housing schemes using "back alley" type links.
Cycling infrastructure
The cycling infrastructure comprises all the public ways that are available to cyclists traveling from one destination to another. This includes the same network of public roads that is used by drivers of motor vehicles minus those roads from which cyclists have been banned (most freeways) and plus additional routes that are not available to motorised traffic, such as cycle tracks and (in some jurisdictions) sidewalks.
Aspects of the cycling infrastructure may be viewed as either cyclist-hostile or as cyclist-friendly. In general, roads infrastructure based on prioritising motoring and attempting to create a state of constant "flow" for cars will tend to be hostile to non-car users. In 1996, the British Cyclists Touring Club (CTC) and the Institute for Highways and Transportation jointly produced the document "Cycle-friendly infrastructure: Guidelines for planning and design". This defined a hierarchy of measures for cycling promotion in which the goal is to convert a more or less cyclist-hostile roads infrastructure into one which encourages and facilitates cycling.
The CTC/IHT hierarchy
Traffic reduction. Can traffic levels, particularly of heavy vehicles, be reduced?
Traffic calming. Can speed be reduced and driver behaviour modified?
Junction treatment and traffic management. These measures include:
Urban traffic control systems designed to recognise cyclists and give them priority.
Exempt cyclists from banned turns and access restrictions.
Provide contra-flow cycle lanes on one-way streets.
Implement on-street parking restrictions.
Provide advanced stop lines/bypasses for cyclists at traffic signals.
Junction alterations, signalise roundabouts, cycle-friendly junction design.
Redistribution of the carriageway -such as by marking wide kerb lanes or shared bus/cycle lanes.
Cycle lanes and cycle tracks. Having considered and implemented all the above, what cycle tracks or cycle lanes are considered necessary?
Traffic reduction
Removing traffic can be achieved by straightforward diversion or alternatively reduction. Diversion involves routing heavy traffic away from roads used by high numbers of cyclists and pedestrians. Examples of diversion include the construction of arterial bypasses and ring roads around urban centres.
Traffic reduction can involve direct or indirect methods. Indirect methods involve reducing the infrastructural capacity dedicated to moving or storing cars. This can involve reducing the number of lanes for cars, closing bridges to motorised traffic and creating vehicle restricted zones or environmental traffic cells. In the 1970s the Dutch city of Delft began restricting private car traffic from crossing the city centre. Similarly, Groningen is divided in to four zones that cannot be crossed by private motor-traffic, (private cars must use the ring road instead). Cyclists and other traffic can pass between the zones and cycling accounts for 50%+ of trips in Groningen (which reputedly has the third highest proportion of cycle traffic of any city). The Swedish city of Gothenburg uses a similar system of traffic cells.
Reducing car parking capacity is an associated method. Starting in the 1970s, the city of Copenhagen, which is now noted for high cycling levels, adopted a policy of reducing available car parking capacity by several per cent a year. The city of Amsterdam, where around 40% of all trips are by bicycle, adopted similar parking reduction policies in the 80s and 90s. Direct traffic reduction methods can involve straightforward bans or more subtle methods like road pricing schemes or road diets. The London congestion charge reportedly resulted in a significant increase in cycle use within the affected area.
Speed reduction


Gatso speed camera
Some cycling experts argue for placing direct restrictions on motor-vehicle speed and acceleration performance. However, speed reduction has traditionally been attempted by either education, enforcement or road engineering. Education can mean publicity campaigns or targeted road user training. Enforcement in this context generally means the enforcement of statutory speed limits. Speed limit enforcement techniques include: direct police action, automated systems such as speed cameras or vehicle activated signs or traffic lights triggered by traffic exceeding a preset speed threshold. In addition to enforcement of the standard speed limits it is argued that limits of 30 km/h (20 mph) and lower are more appropriate for urban roads with mixed traffic. The Austrian city of Graz has achieved steady growth in cycling and has applied 30 km/h limits to 75% its streets since 1994. An EU report on promoting walking and cycling specifies as one of its top measures comprehensive camera-based speed control using mainly movable equipment at unexpected spots. The Netherlands has an estimated 1,500 speed/red-light camera installations and has set a target for 30 km/h limits on 70% of urban roads. By contrast, the recent use in the UK of a substantial number of visible speed-cameras primarily at fixed locations on arterial routes has had a questionable impact on general motorist behaviour and has been accompanied by a decrease in cycling. Engineering measures involve physically altering the road layout or appearance to actively, or passively slow traffic down. Measures include speed humps, chicanes, curb extensions, and living street and shared space type schemes. The town of Hilden in Germany has achieved a rate of 24% of trips being on two wheels, mainly via traffic calming and the use of 30 km/h (20 mph) zones. As of 1999, the Netherlands had over 6000 woonerven where cyclists and pedestrians have legal priority over cars and where a motorised speed limit of "walking speed" applies.However, some UK and Irish "traffic calming" schemes, particularly involving road narrowings, are viewed as extremely hostile and have been implicated directly in death and injury to cyclists.
One-way streets
One-way street systems are viewed as a product of urban management that focuses on trying to keep motorised vehicles moving at all costs. If applied to cyclists, they are argued to impose unnecessary trip length and inconvenience. It is argued that there are rarely any traffic management justifications for imposing this restriction on cyclists. In northern Europe, cyclists are frequently granted exemptions from one-way street restrictions. German research indicates that making one-way streets two-way for cyclists results in a reduction in the total number of collisions. It is also argued that contraflow cyclists may be at reduced risk of certain types of accident - particularly so called "dooring" type incidents. In Belgium, all one-way streets in 50 km/h zones are by default two-way for cyclists.Denmark, a country with high cycling levels, makes no use of such traffic-flow focused one-way systems. Some commentators from cyclist-hostile/car-focused jurisdictions argue that the initial goal should be to dismantle large one-way street systems as a traffic calming/traffic reduction measure, followed by the provision of two-way cyclist access on any one-way streets that remain.
Junction design
In general, junction designs that favour higher-speed turning, weaving and merging movements by motorists will tend to be hostile for cyclists. Features such as large entry curvature, slip-roads and high flow roundabouts are associated with increased risk of car–cyclist collisions. On large roundabouts of the design typically used in the UK and Ireland, cyclists have an injury accident rate that is 14-16 times that of motorists. Research indicates that excessive sightlines at uncontrolled intersections compound these effects. In the UK, a survey of over 8,000 highly experienced and mainly adult male Cyclists Touring Club members found that 28% avoided roundabouts on their regular journey if at all possible. Cycling advocates argue for modifications and alternative junction types that resolve these issues such as reducing kerb radii on street corners, eliminating slip roads and replacing large roundabouts with signalised intersections.
Traffic signals/Traffic control systems


Cyclists use a segregated cut through of a busy interchange in London at rush hour.
How traffic signals are designed and implemented directly impacts cyclists. For instance where vehicle detector systems are used to trigger signal changes, some may not detect cyclists at all or must be carefully adjusted to do so. This can leave cyclists in the position of having to "run" red lights if no motorised vehicle arrives to trigger a signal change. Some cities use urban adaptive traffic control systems (UTC's), which use linked traffic signals to manage traffic in response to changes in demand. There is an argument that using a UTC system merely to provide for increased capacity for private motor traffic will simply drive growth in such traffic. However, there are more direct negative impacts. For instance, where signals are arranged to provide private motor traffic with so called green waves, this can create "red waves" for other road users such as cyclists and public transport services. Traffic managers in Copenhagen have now turned this approach on its head and are linking cyclist-specific traffic signals on a major arterial bike lane to provide green waves for rush hour cycle-traffic. Cycling-specific measures that can be applied at traffic signals include the use of advanced stop lines and/or bypasses. In some cases cyclists might be given a free-turn or a signal bypass if turning into a road on the nearside.
Redistribution of the carriageway
One method for reducing potential friction between cyclists and motorised vehicles is to provide Wide Kerb (nearside) lanes (UK) or Wide outside through lanes (USA). These extra wide lanes increase the probability that motorists will be able to pass cyclists at a safe distance without having to change lanes. This is held to be particularly important on routes with a high proportion of wide vehicles such as buses or HGVs. They also provide more room for cyclists to filter past queues of cars in congested conditions.


A bus and cycle lane in Mannheim, Germany
Cycle friendly infrastructure argues for a marked lane width of 4.25 m. It is argued that, on undivided roads, this width provides cyclists with adequate clearance from passing HGVs while being sufficiently narrow to deter car users from attempting to “double up” and form two lanes. This “doubling up” effect may be related to junctions. At non-junction locations, greater width might be preferable if this effect can be avoided. The use of such wide lanes is specifically endorsed by Cycling: the way ahead for towns and cities, the European Commission policy document on cycle promotion.
Shared Bus and Cycle lanes are also a widely endorsed method for providing for cyclists. Research carried out by the Transport Research Laboratory describes shared bus cycle lanes as "generally very popular" with cyclists[ Guidance produced for Cycling England endorses bus lanes as providing cyclists with a direct and barrier free route into town centres and as avoiding the difficulties associated with other provisions such as shared-use footways. According to a French survey 42% of cyclists described themselves as "enthusiasts" for shared bus bike lanes versus 33% who were of mixed opinion and 27% who were opposed. Many cycling activists view these as being more attractive than cycle paths, while others object to being in close proximity to bus exhausts.
As of 2003, mixed bus/cycle lanes accounted for 118km of the 260km of cycling facilities in Paris. The French city of Bordeaux has 40km of shared bus cycle lanes. It is reported that that in the city of Bristol, a showcase bus priority corridor, where road space was re-allocated along a 14km stretch also resulted in more space for cyclists and had the effect of increasing cycling. The reverse effect has also been suggested, a review carried out in London reports that cycling levels fell across Kew bridge following the removal of a bus lane - this was despite a general increase in cycling level in the city generally. In addition, it is arguably easier, politically speaking, to argue for funding of joint facilities rather than the additional expense of both segregated cycling facilities and bus-only lanes. In some instances. bus lane proposals have run into vehement opposition from cyclists reps - a typical theme is the perceived generation of conflict due to the narrowing of other lanes already shared by cars/cyclists so as to create space for the bus lanes The TRL reports that cyclists and bus drivers tend to have low opinions of each otherThere have been reports in Dublin of conflict as cyclists choose to cycle in the bus lanes and a bus driver apparently expected them to use adjacent cycle tracks instead. In other cities the arrangements seem to work successfully with bus companies and cyclists' groups taking active steps to ensure that understanding is improved between the two groups of road users.
Cycle lanes and cycle tracks
The use of segregated cycle facilities such as cycle lanes and cycle tracks is often advocated as a means of promoting utility cycling. Roads or paths that are open to cyclists but not motorists can benefit cyclists where they provide links that are more convenient than the main road network, or help resolve obstacles. Examples include routes through pedestrian precincts etc. However, the use of such devices alongside, or within, existing roads is highly controversial both in terms of safety and cycling promotion. In terms of safety, separate cycle lanes or cycle tracks can seriously undermine safety if inappropriately designed or if used at inappropriate locations. Similarly, while it is possible to use separate facilities to promote cycling, it is also possible to use them for the opposite purpose: for removing priority from cyclists and giving it to motorists. Thus it is argued that the use and potential effects of segregated facilities for cyclists cannot be viewed in isolation from the underlying design, management and legal philosophies that govern the overall transportation infrastructure.
Trip-end facilities
Bicycle parking/storage arrangements


Bicycle parking at the Alewife subway station in Cambridge, Massachusetts, located at the intersection of three cycle paths.


Bicycle parking lot in Amsterdam.
Secure parking is argued to be a key factor influencing the decision to cycle.To be considered secure, the parking must be of a suitable design: allowing the bicycle to be locked via the frame. In addition, the bike parking must be located in a readily observable location permitting so-called passive security from passers-by. Weather protection is also desirable. As a rule, where cycling is being encouraged as an alternative to motoring, efforts are made to make bicycle parking more convenient and attractive to use than the equivalent car parking arrangements. This usually means providing a wide distribution of visible, well-signed, parking as close as possible to the entrances of the destinations being served. Storage rooms or bicycle lockers may also be provided. In some cases large concentrations of bike parking may be more appropriate. These storage facilities can sometimes be supervised and sometimes charge a fee. Examples include large bike parks at public transport interchanges such as railway, subway, tram or bus stations.
Conversely, at particular destinations, or in cultures, where cycling is seen as an unwelcome or inappropriate activity, bicycle parking may simply not be provided or else deliberately placed at awkward, out-of-sight, locations away from public view. In such cultural situations, cyclists may even be expressly forbidden from parking their bicycles at the most obvious and convenient locations. In April 2007, the authorities at the University of California's Santa Barbara campus started confiscating bicycles not parked at the allegedly inconvenient official bike racks
Other trip end facilities
Some people need to wear special clothes such as business suits or uniforms in their daily work. In some cases the nature of the cycling infrastructure and the prevailing weather conditions may make it very hard to both cycle and maintain the work clothes in a presentable condition. It is argued that such workers can be encouraged to cycle by providing lockers, changing rooms and shower facilities where they can change before starting work.