Metrics for Building Better Bicycle Networks

Metrics for Building Better Bicycle Networks Presenters Daniel Turner, AICP WSP

Reed Sibley, AICP WSP

Spencer Gardner, AICP Toole Design Group

APA2017

Overview of Presentation Approach to Network Development Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress Measuring Network Connectivity Bicycle Demand Estimation Integrating in Planning and Development Process

Approach to Network Development Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress Measuring Network Connectivity Bicycle Demand Estimation Integrating in Planning and Development Process

Approach to Network Development

What are the project goals?

More people biking?

Safer streets?

Approach to Network Development

Why don’t some people bicycle?

Approach to Network Development

What changes can be made to get more people to bicycle?

Who rides?

Revisiting the Four Types of Cyclists: Findings from a national survey (TRB 2015)

Interested but Concerned

What are the concerns?

Safety Distance Weather Infrastructure

Interested but Concerned

What are the concerns?

Among the interested but concerned, traffic safety fears are a key barrier, suggesting that infrastructure that reduces interactions with motor vehicle traffic may be particularly successful with this group.

Revisiting the Four Types of Cyclists: Findings from a national survey (TRB 2015)

Comfort

Separation

Prospect Park West

Source: Project for Public Spaces

Prospect Park West Protected Bike Lane

190% Increase In ridership NYCDOT 2012

Prospect Park West Protected Bike Lane

32 percent of new riders under age 12.

190% Increase In ridership NYCDOT 2012

Ninth Avenue

Source: Streetsblog NYC

Ninth Avenue Protected Bike Lane

56 percent increase

34 percent decrease NYCDOT 2011

Five C’s Building a Successful Network

Approach to Network Development Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress Measuring Network Connectivity Bicycle Demand Estimation Integrating in Planning and Development Process

Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress Concept

Rate roadways for how comfortably they accommodate people on bikes using the four types as a measuring stick.

Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress Concept

Low Stress

High Stress

Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress Concept

Low Stress

High Stress

Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress Concept

Low Stress 8-80

High Stress Interested but concerned

Enthused and confident

Strong and fearless

Scoring Elements Segments

Scoring Elements Segments

Speed

Scoring Elements Segments

Speed

Bike facility

Scoring Elements Segments

Speed

Bike facility

Number of travel lanes

Scoring Elements Approaches

Scoring Elements Approaches

Bike facility

Scoring Elements Approaches

Bike facility

Interaction with turn lanes

Scoring Elements Approaches

Bike facility

Interaction with turn lanes

Curb radius (design speed)

Scoring Elements Crossings

Scoring Elements Crossings

Speed of cross traffic

Scoring Elements Crossings

Speed of cross traffic

Intersection control and crossing treatments

Scoring Elements Crossings

Speed of cross traffic

Intersection control and crossing treatments

Number of lanes to cross

Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress Methodology

Criteria for Level of Traffic Stress (LTS) for Unsignalized Crossings Without a Median Refuge Speed Limit

Width of Street Being Crossed Up to 3 Lanes

4-5 Lanes

6+ Lanes

Up to 25 mph

LTS 1

LTS 2

LTS 4

30 mph

LTS 1

LTS 2

LTS 4

35 mph

LTS 2

LTS 3

LTS 4

40+ mph

LTS 3

LTS 4

LTS 4

Lookup tables

Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress Methodology

Dutch CROW manual

Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress Methodology

Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress Methodology

8-80: LTS = 1

All LTS:

: LTS <= 2

: LTS <= 3

Weakest Link Oops

Weakest Link

Weakest Link

Other Rating Systems » Bicycle Level of Service (BLOS) » Bicycle Compatibility Index (BCI) » BAM » BSS » MM » WisDOT

Other Rating Systems Bicycle Level of Service (BLOS)

From FHWA Highway Capacity Manual

Other Rating Systems Bicycle Level of Service (BLOS)

Statistical model

Other Rating Systems Bicycle Level of Service (BLOS)

Based on participant reaction to video footage

Other Rating Systems Bicycle Level of Service (BLOS)

Letter grades A-F

Other Rating Systems Bicycle Level of Service (BLOS) Number of lanes Shoulder width

Width of travel lanes

Heavy vehicles

BLOS score

Width of bike lane

Vehicle speeds

Pavement condition

Significant data requirements

Other Rating Systems Bicycle Level of Service (BLOS)

Missing newer facility types

Other Rating Systems Bicycle Level of Service (BLOS)

Missing newer facility types

Other Rating Systems Bicycle Level of Service (BLOS) Bicycle LOS = a1 x ln(Vol15/Ln) + a2 x SPt x (1+10.38HV)2 + a3 x (1/PR5) 2 + a4 x (We) 2 + C Where: Vol15 = Volume of directional traffic in 15 minute time period Vol15 = (ADT x D x Kd) / (4 x PHF) where: ADT = Average Daily Traffic on the segment or link D = Directional Factor Kd= Peak to Daily Factor PHF = Peak Hour Factor Ln = Total number of directional through lanes SPt = Effective speed limit SPt = 1.1199 ln(SPp - 20) + 0.8103 where: SPp = Posted speed limit (a surrogate for average running speed) HV = percentage of heavy vehicles (as defined in the 1994 Highway Capacity Manual) PR5 = FHWA’s five point pavement surface condition rating We = Average effective width of outside through lane: where: We = Wv - (10 ft x % OSPA) and Wl = 0 We = Wv + Wl (1 - 2 x % OSPA) and Wl > 0 & Wps= 0 We = Wv + Wl - 2 (10 x % OSPA) and Wl > 0 & Wps> 0 and a bikelane exists where: Wt = total width of outside lane (and shoulder) pavement OSPA = percentage of segment with occupied on-street parking Wl = width of paving between the outside lane stripe and the edge of pavement Wps= width of pavement striped for on-street parking Wv = Effective width as a function of traffic volume and: Wv = Wt if ADT > 4,000veh/day Wv = Wt(2-0.00025 x ADT) if ADT ≤ 4,000veh/day, and if the street/road is undividedand unstriped

Other Rating Systems Bicycle Level of Service (BLOS) Bicycle LOS = a1 x ln(Vol15/Ln) + a2 x SPt x (1+10.38HV)2 + a3 x (1/PR5) 2 + a4 x (We) 2 + C Where: Vol15 = Volume of directional traffic in 15 minute time period Vol15 = (ADT x D x Kd) / (4 x PHF) where: ADT = Average Daily Traffic on the segment or link D = Directional Factor Kd= Peak to Daily Factor PHF = Peak Hour Factor Ln = Total number of directional through lanes SPt = Effective speed limit SPt = 1.1199 ln(SPp - 20) + 0.8103

Complex formula

where: SPp = Posted speed limit (a surrogate for average running speed) HV = percentage of heavy vehicles (as defined in the 1994 Highway Capacity Manual) PR5 = FHWA’s five point pavement surface condition rating We = Average effective width of outside through lane: where: We = Wv - (10 ft x % OSPA) and Wl = 0 We = Wv + Wl (1 - 2 x % OSPA) and Wl > 0 & Wps= 0 We = Wv + Wl - 2 (10 x % OSPA) and Wl > 0 & Wps> 0 and a bikelane exists where: Wt = total width of outside lane (and shoulder) pavement OSPA = percentage of segment with occupied on-street parking Wl = width of paving between the outside lane stripe and the edge of pavement Wps= width of pavement striped for on-street parking Wv = Effective width as a function of traffic volume and: Wv = Wt if ADT > 4,000veh/day Wv = Wt(2-0.00025 x ADT) if ADT ≤ 4,000veh/day, and if the street/road is undividedand unstriped

Other Rating Systems Bicycle Level of Service (BLOS)

Score not indexed to a particular target user

Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress Enhancements

Elevation

Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress Enhancements

Traffic volume

Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress Enhancements

Actual traffic speeds

Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress Enhancements

Additional stress categories

Case Study

Case Study: Bike Ironbound Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress

Level 1

2

3

4

Case Study: Bike Ironbound Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress

Level 1

2

3

Case Study: Bike Ironbound Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress

Level 1

2

Case Study: Bike Ironbound Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress

Level 1

Approach to Network Development Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress Measuring Network Connectivity Bicycle Demand Estimation Integrating in Planning and Development Process

Network Analysis Why?

» Quantify the impacts of high-stress links » Visualize network gaps » Identify major barriers

Bicycle Penalty Concept

Quantify network connectivity by comparing the area that can be reached by car to the area that can be reached by a lowstress bike ride within a given travel distance.

Bicycle Penalty Process Overview

Bicycle Penalty Process Overview

9 x 9 Grid (587 ft squares)

Bicycle Penalty Process Overview

9 x 9 Grid (587 ft squares) How many squares can be reached on a 1-mile drive?

Bicycle Penalty Process Overview

9 x 9 Grid (587 ft squares) How many squares can be reached on a 1-mile drive?

Car Network = 80 Squares

Bicycle Penalty Process Overview

Car Network = 80 Squares

Bicycle Penalty Process Overview

Car Network = 80 Squares

Bicycle Penalty Process Overview

Car Network = 80 Squares

Low Stress Network = 59 Squares

Bicycle Penalty Process Overview Bike Penalty =

(area accessible by car) â&#x20AC;&#x201C; (area accessible by bike)

Car Network = 80 Squares

(area accessible by car)

Low Stress Network = 59 Squares

Bicycle Penalty Process Overview Bike Penalty =

Car Network = 80 Squares

(80) â&#x20AC;&#x201C; (59) (80)

= 26%

Low Stress Network = 59 Squares

Case Study: Fair Haven

Case Study: Fair Haven Bicycle Penalty

Case Study: Fair Haven Bicycle Penalty

LTS 1

2

3

4

Case Study: Fair Haven Bicycle Penalty

LTS 1

Case Study: Fair Haven Bicycle Penalty

Case Study: PeopleForBikes

Case Study: PeopleForBikes Concept

Create an open source tool using freely available data to score lowstress connectivity anywhere in the USA.

Case Study: PeopleForBikes Data Sources

+ OpenStreetMap

Case Study: PeopleForBikes Access Scoring

Car Network = 4 Schools

Low Stress Network = 2 Schools

Case Study: PeopleForBikes Access Scoring

» People » Opportunity » Core Services » Retail » Recreation » Transit

Case Study: PeopleForBikes Access Scoring

Other Metrics Measuring Network Connectivity

» Basket of destinations » Bicycle Travel Time » Network coverage » Bicycle Connectivity Index (NYC method) » We could learn a lot from our friends in Wildlife Ecology

Approach to Network Development Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress Measuring Network Connectivity Bicycle Demand Estimation Integrating in Planning and Development Process

Bicycle Demand Analysis Why?

» Quantify potential need » Not reliant on existing bike usage data » Helps identify: » Priorities for improvement based on demand » Routes to connect areas of high demand

Bicycle Demand Analysis Inputs Factor

Weight

Population Density

18%

Job Density

18%

Key Destinations

35%

Schools

4%

Universities

8%

Parks

4%

Commercial

8%

Bus Stops

3%

Train Stations

8%

Equity Factors

29%

Under 18

6%

No Car Access

8%

Income <125% Poverty

5%

Bike to Work

6%

Walk or Transit to Work

4%

Bicycle Demand Analysis Bike Ironbound Example

Bicycle Demand Analysis

Approach to Network Development Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress Measuring Network Connectivity Bicycle Demand Estimation Integrating in Planning and Development Process

Integration into Planning Process Traditional Planning Process

Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress

Bicycle LTS analysis of roadways

I. Identify and Diagnose Analysis of roadway characteristics Develop list of potential bicycle improvements

II. Prescribe Solutions

Analyze potential improvements impacts on Level of Traffic Stress Recommend improvements to improve low stress connectivity

III. Evaluate Impact

Analyze LTS of roadways with assumed implementation of recommendations

Case Study

Case Study: Bike Ironbound Estimating Project Impact BEFORE

Case Study: Bike Ironbound Estimating Project Impact AFTER

*assumes separated facilities where possible

Case Study: Bike Ironbound Estimating Project Impact AFTER Low Stress Connections to Newark Penn

*assumes separated facilities where possible

Case Study: Bike Ironbound Estimating Project Impact BEFORE

AFTER

Case Study: Bike Ironbound Estimating Project Impact BEFORE

1

Case Study: Bike Ironbound Estimating Project Impact AFTER

1

Case Study: Bike Ironbound Estimating Project Impact AFTER

1

New LTS 1 Links

Case Study: Bike Ironbound Estimating Project Impact

BEFORE

AFTER

LTS 1 Miles 14%

LTS 1 Miles 30%

114% increase

Case Study: Bike Ironbound Estimating Project Impact

BEFORE

AFTER

Blocks along LTS 1 27%

Blocks along LTS 1 55%

104% increase

Case Study: NJ Complete Streets Bicycle Facility Planning Method

Bicycle Facility Planning Method Determine Desired Facility

Identify Corridor and Review Context

Assess Feasibility

(  Bicycle Facility Table)

(  Bicycle Facility Minimums)

Not Feasible

Explore Alternatives

Identify Parallel Route (less than 30% detour)

Feasible

Explore Traffic Calming Options

Not Feasible

Feasible

Design Facility

Reconfigure Alignment and/or ROW

Minimize Travel Lane Width – Provide Shoulder (if possible)

Bicycle Facility Planning Method  Bicycle Facilities Table ADT

85TH PERCENTILE SPEED ≤ 20

25

30

35

40

45

≥50

ABCDE

ABCDE

CDE

CDE

DE

DE

E

2,500-5,000

BDCE

BDCE

CDE

CDE

DE

DE

E

5,000-10,000

BDCE

BDCE

CDE

DE

DE

E

E

10,000-15,000

CDE

CDE

CDE

DE

E

E

E

DE

DE

DE

E

E

E

E

≤ 2,500

≥15,000

A: Shared-Street / Bike Boulevard B: Shared-Lane Markings C: Bike Lane D: Buffered Bike Lane E: Separated Bike Lane / Off-Road Path

Bicycle Facility Planning Method  Bicycle Facility Minimums Key Considerations:  General purpose travel lanes for motor vehicles in most contexts should be 10-11’ wide  Shared-streets have no minimum width requirements  Shared-lane markings are not appropriate on multi-lane streets Standard Bike Lane

Buffered Bike Lane

Two-Way Separated Bike Lane

Separated Bike Lane

Off-Road Path

Case Study: Arvada, CO Project Identification

All stress levels

No steep slopes

Low-stress segments; all intersections Only low-stress

Case Study: Minneapolis, MN Impact Analysis

QUESTIONS? Daniel Turner, AICP turnerdr@pbworld.com

Reed Sibley, AICP sibley@pbworld.com

Spencer Gardner, AICP sgardner@tooledesign.com