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