As of September 1, 2012, the University Transportation Center for Mobility (UTCM) is no longer an active center of the Texas A&M Transportation Institute. The archived UTCM website remains available here.

UTCM HomeConference Site MapContact Conference Webmaster

Conference on Performance Measures for Transportation and Livable Communities

SEPTEMBER 7-8, 2011 • AUSTIN, TEXAS

BREAKOUT SESSION 11:
Bicycle and Pedestrian Performance Measures

Click on the icon to view a PDF of the slide presentation.

Presiding

JOAN HUDSON, Texas Transportation Institute

	Pedestrian and Bicycle Data SHAWN TURNER, Texas Transportation Institute
	Roadway Bicycle Compatibility, Livability, and Environmental Justice Performance Measures GREG GRIFFIN, Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization, Austin, Texas
	Multimodal Arterial Level-of-Service Measures BRUCE LANDIS, Sprinkle Consulting, Inc.

---

Pedestrian and Bicycle Data

SHAWN TURNER, Texas Transportation Institute

Slides [PDF , 615K]

Shawn Turner discussed pedestrian and bicycle data.  He described the importance and use of pedestrian and bicycle data and the data needed for planning and decision making.  He also highlighted national and international pedestrian and bicycle activities.  Shawn covered the following topics in his presentation.

• Data on walking and bicycling is important for a number of reasons.  Similar to other modes, pedestrian and bicycle data are needed to support policy decisions, to plan for cost-effective investments, to design safe facilities and infrastructure, and to measure performance and progress toward goals.  As has been noted, "what gets measured, gets done" and "if you are not counted, you do not count."  Data on walking and bicycling are critical for making the case for new and improved facilities.
• The City of Portland provides a good examine of a bicycle data collection program.  In 1992, the city had 83 miles of bikeways, which averaged 2,850 daily bicycle trips.  In 2008, the city had 274 miles of bikeways, which averaged 16, 711 daily trips.  Counts are taken at four bridge locations and 43 non-bridge locations throughout the city.  Bicycle crashes are also recorded and analyzed.  For example, combined bicycle traffic over the four main Portland bicycle bridges is compared with bicycle crashes.
• Collecting pedestrian and bicycle data should focus on the users and uses of the data, considering what agencies, departments, and groups need the data, how they will use it, and what decisions they will be making.  Avoid collecting data only because "that is what our program plan lists," "that is what my boss said to do," and "that is what others are doing."
• It is also important to consider pedestrian and bicycle data needed to measure livable communities.  The quality and safety of facilities may be monitored to address the goal of providing more transportation choices.  Accessibility by different modes may be used to assess the goal of reliable access to opportunities.  Pedestrian and bicyclist safety and facility data may be used to address the goal of healthy, safe, and walkable neighborhoods.
• It is also important to consider output and outcome measures.  Providing access to safe facilities is only part of the overall goal.  Ultimately, the goal or outcome should be more people choosing bicycling and walking as a travel mode and improved safety for bicycling and walking.  Counts and travel surveys measure outcomes.
• There are a number of activities underway at the national level.  Examples of these activities include the Alta/ITE "National Bicycle and Pedestrian Documentation Project," the Alliance for Bicycling & Walking (ABW) "Benchmarking Report," and the FHWA "Update of the Traffic Monitoring Guide," with supporting state-of-the-practice review.  Two NCHRP projects, "Demand Forecasting Methods (8-78)" and "Count Collection Methods/Equipment (7-19) are underway.  The TRB Pedestrian/Bicycle Data Subcommittee is also working on a number of activities.
• A recent international scan tour identified bike "barometers" or counters in highly visible locations in some European countries.  The Queen Louise Bridge in Copenhagen, Denmark records 36,000 average daily bicycle trips (ADBT).
• A number of key challenges can be identified from these and other activities.  Key challenges include consistency among state and local agencies to permit national data aggregation, and validity at the state and local level, including sampling approaches to avoid bias.  Automation of the pedestrian and bicycle data collection processes is another challenge to help overburdened data collection personnel.
• In conclusion, collecting data on walking and bicycling is as important as collecting data on other modes.  Pedestrian and bicycle data collection efforts should focus on the users and uses of the data and the decisions that will be made based on the data.  Output performance measures focus on access to facilities and destinations.  Outcome performance measures focus on safety and facility usage.

[ Top ]

Roadway Bicycle Compatibility, Livability, and Environmental Justice Performance Measures

GREG GRIFFIN, Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization, Austin, Texas

Slides [PDF , 298K]

Greg Griffin discussed the application of a bicycle compatibility analysis in Austin to examine potential environmental justice (EJ) issues related to bicycling in the city.  He also described future activities associated with the analysis.  Greg covered the following topics in his presentation.

• The first livability principal in the HUD-DOT-EPA Partnership for Sustainable Communities is to provide more transportation choices.  This principle focuses on developing safe, reliable, and economical transportation choices to decrease household transportation costs, reduce the nation’s dependence on foreign oil, improve air quality, reduce GHG emissions, and promote public health.
• Research has examined EJ and regional equity, pollution, road user safety, and access to jobs.  A study by Pucher and Buehler 2009 asked if "we really want to restrict cycling to a tiny percentage of the population and exclude most women, children, and seniors? Or should we be truly inclusive and design our cycling policies for everyone?"
• The "housing + transportation" costs methodology developed by the Center for Neighborhood Technology provides one measure for examining potential EJ concerns.  Data from the CAMPO 2009 regional roadways bicycling subset, and the 2009 ACS at the Census tract level were used in the bicycle compatibility analysis.
• The Bicycle Compatibility Index (BCI) was used in the analysis.  The BCI is formulated by considering factors such as bike lane, width, volume, speed, parking, land use, and adjustment factors.  The bicycle compatibility analysis was applied to the regional network by using the MPO’s modeling network, adding missing variables with Google Streetview, and functional class estimations.  The BCI or bicycle LOS was calculated using a spreadsheet.  The results are summarized and displayed graphically.
• Common variables to assess EJ include the percentage of minority and low-income individuals in different areas.  Data from the ACS on the percent of minority and median-income households by Census tracts were used in the analysis.  The results were presented graphically and compared to the BCI results.  The results were also compared statistically.
• The results of the bicycle compatibility and EJ analysis indicate that income and race are not significantly correlated with bicycle compatibility in the Austin metropolitan area.  Future work activities focus on improving data sources to include a complete sidewalk network and adding pedestrian LOS variables.  Other activities include using the 2010 Census data and new EJ definitions, and enhancing the bicycle network data with BCI or bicycle LOS variables.  Additional activities include applying the method in other areas.  For example, locations that reveal clustering and BCI inequities to demographics could be examined.
• Monitoring the results represents another future activity.  Performing counts at different locations with similar urban form variables to isolate socio-demographic influences will be conducted.  Finally, considering demand, not just supply, will be examined.  Applying the non-motorized accessibility approach developed by Iacono and others to an EJ framework and exploring if Walkscore is more predictive of active transportation than infrastructure are additional future activities.

[ Top ]

Multimodal Arterial Level-of-Service Measures

BRUCE LANDIS, Sprinkle Consulting, Inc.

Slides [PDF , 2.3M]

Bruce Landis discussed the inclusion of a multimodal LOS, a transit LOS, a bicycle LOS, and a walking LOS in the updated Highway Capacity Manual.  He described the research activities undertaken to develop these measures and presented the formulas for calculating the bicycle LOS.  Bruce covered the following topics in his presentation.

• The updated Highway Capacity Manual includes a multimodal LOS in the "Urban Street" chapter.  There is also a transit LOS, a bicycle LOS, and a walking LOS.  Reliable measures may include motor vehicle, bicycling, pedestrian, and transit LOS.  Other potential measures are fuel savings, GHG emissions, improvements in health, and economic effects.
• The multimodal, bicycle, pedestrian, and transit LOS included in the updated Highway Capacity Manual are being used in plans and studies throughout the country.  The Mobility 2035 plan developed by the San Antonio-Bexar County MPO provides one example.  FDOT also has bicycle-related research underway.
• The NCHRP project 3-70, Multimodal Level of Service Analysis for Urban Streets, supported the development of the multi-modal LOS for arterials that was included in the updated Highway Capacity Manual.  It also evaluated bicycling and walking conditions methods and identified the best measures and models.  The project examined the traditional motor vehicle LOS and tested intertwining the modal methods.  A first inter-translation quality of service (QOS)/LOS was created, along with simultaneous reporting.
• The NCHRP 3-70 project included nationwide testing and surveying.  Test corridors were in Oregon, Texas, Illinois, Virginia, California, Georgia, and Florida.  There are three test corridors in Austin.  These corridors are Guadalupe from MLK to Dean Keeton, Manchaca from Berkeley to SH 71, and Manor from Chestnut to Rogge.
• NCHRP project 3-92 updated the Highway Capacity Manual.  It incorporated other NCHRP reports and peer-and agency-reviewed methods.  It included the bicycle, pedestrian, and transit QOS/LOS measures, placing them on par with motor vehicle measures.  It acknowledges the new approach of asking customers about performance measures.



• There is also a pedestrian density LOS model.  It is based on the minimum pedestrian space per person and the equivalent maximum flow rate per unit width of sidewalks.  The updated Highway Capacity Manual also includes a pedestrian LOS model for a two roadway environment, a segment pedestrian LOS, an intersection pedestrian LOS, a roadway crossing difficult factor, and a complete streets LOS.
• Advanced tools can be used to estimate livability benefits in active transportation corridors.  An FDOT project developed another method to identify the benefits of corridor investments, including the societal benefits related to fuel savings, CO2 emissions savings, and health cost savings.
• Performance metrics can be developed and monitored to track walking and bicycle use.  For example, metrics for effective mid-block crossings might focus on making motorists and pedestrians aware of the crossing, communicating the obligations associated with the crossing, and enabling the motorists and pedestrians to fulfill their obligations.
• Additional information is available at the following websites:
• NCHRP Report 616: http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_616.pdf
• FDOT’s Q/LOS Handbook: http://www.dot.state.fl.us/planning/systems/sm/los/
  pdfs/2009FDOTQLOS_Handbook.pdf

[ Top ]

The State of TexasTexas Homeland Security Statewide Search (TRAIL)Statutorily Required ReportsTTI Rules and Procedures

Copyright Statement and Legal Notices

Please send comments, suggestions, and queries about this web site to the UTCM Webmaster.

University Transportation Center for Mobility™
Texas Transportation Institute · Texas A&M University System · 3135 TAMU · College Station, Texas 77843-3135
ph. (979) 845-2538 · fax (979) 845-9761