Technical Report Documentation Page 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No. TX-97/3988-1 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date BICYCLE SUITABILITY CRITERIA: LITERATURE REVIEW July 1997 AND STATE-OF-THE-PRACTICE SURVEY 6. Performing Organization Code 7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No. Shawn M. Turner, C. Scott Shafer, and William P. Stewart Research Report 3988-1 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) Texas Transportation Institute The Texas A&M University System 11. Contract or Grant No. College Station, Texas 77843-3135 Study No. 7-3988 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered Texas Department of Transportation Research Documentation: Research and Technology Transfer Office January 1997 - June 1997 P. O. Box 5080 14. Sponsoring Agency Code Austin, Texas 78763-5080 15. Supplementary Notes Research performed in cooperation with the Texas Department of Transportation. Research Study Title: Identify and Develop Criteria for Evaluating Roads to Determine Their Suitability for Bicycle Use 16. Abstract This research report reviews and summarizes bicycle suitability criteria being used in the United States, presents preliminary conclusions, and makes preliminary recommendations regarding such criteria. Conclusions and recommendations are presented here as a starting point for discussion on the state-of-the- practice in bicycle suitability and the potential for the institution of such criteria at a statewide level in Texas. Suitability criteria found in the literature review were varied in nature and mostly used in urban areas. Many criteria require additional data beyond that commonly found in urban transportation data bases. Several bicycle suitability criteria included the presence or width of shoulders, a situation commonly found on Texas state highways. The state-of-the-practice survey revealed that 70 percent (11 of 16 states) had bicycle suitability criteria in place. The two most common criteria (one or both were used in every case) were the traffic volume (ADT) and the width of outside lanes (or shoulders). Thirty-five percent of the states with suitability criteria also indicated that they looked at heavy vehicles when considering traffic volume, 25 percent considered pavement conditions, and 15 percent included traffic speed or speed limit criteria. The research team concluded that the potential uses and applications are critical in defining the bicycle suitability criteria. The availability of statewide roadway inventory data is also important in establishing and maintaining information about suitability on state roadways in Texas. 17. Key Words 18. Distribution Statement Bicycle Suitability, Bicycle Planning, Bicycle Map No restrictions. This document is available to the public through NTIS: National Technical Information Service 5285 Port Royal Road Springfield, Virginia 22161 19. Security Classif.(of this report) 20. Security Classif.(of this page) 21. No. of Pages 22. Price Unclassified Unclassified 56 Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed page authorized BICYCLE SUITABILITY CRITERIA: LITERATURE REVIEW AND STATE-OF-THE-PRACTICE SURVEY by Shawn M. Turner, P.E. Assistant Research Engineer Texas Transportation Institute C. Scott Shafer Assistant Professor Department of Recreation, Park and Tourism Sciences Texas A&M University and William P. Stewart Associate Professor Department of Recreation, Park and Tourism Sciences Texas A&M University Research Report 3988-1 Research Study Number 7-3988 Research Study Title: Identify and Develop Criteria for Evaluating Roads to Determine Their Suitability for Bicycle Use Sponsored by the Texas Department of Transportation July 1997 TEXAS TRANSPORTATION INSTITUTE The Texas A&M University System College Station, Texas 77843-3135 DISCLAIMER The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors, who are responsible for the facts and the accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official views or policies of the Texas Department of Transportation. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation. This report was prepared by Shawn Turner (Texas certification number 82781), Scott Shafer, and William Stewart. v ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors would like to acknowledge the support and guidance of the project director, Paul Douglas, TxDOT Bicycle Coordinator, of the Multimodal Division. Other members of the project advisory panel who offered numerous useful comments include: • Glenn Gadbois, Executive Director, Texas Bicycle Coalition • Elizabeth Hilton, Field Coordination Engineer, Design Division, TxDOT • Jacquie Magill, District Bicycle Coordinator, Austin District, TxDOT Maria Burke, Field Coordination Engineer in TxDOT’s Design Division and project director for a related TxDOT bicycle research study (0-1723: Bicycle and Pedestrian Demand Forecasting), attended project meetings and provided comments and suggestions. The authors would like to thank the numerous bicycle professionals and advocates contacted throughout this study. They were most generous with their time and available products, and related a wealth of experience to the research team. Any misstatements of their bicycle experiences or processes are solely the responsibility of the authors. vi TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE LIST OF FIGURES ......................................................... ix LIST OF TABLES ..........................................................x CHAPTER ONE - INTRODUCTION ............................................1 Research Goals and Objectives ............................................1 Research Implementation ................................................2 Organization of this Report ..............................................2 CHAPTER TWO - LITERATURE REVIEW ......................................3 Bicycle Stress Levels ...................................................6 Bicycle Safety Index Rating ..............................................6 Bicycle Suitability Rating--Davis ..........................................7 Roadway Condition Index ...............................................8 Modified Roadway Condition Index (Epperson-Davis) .........................11 Interaction Hazard Score ...............................................12 Bicycle Level of Service, Landis ..........................................12 Bicycle Maps ........................................................13 Virtual Reality Bicycle Suitability Experiments ...............................16 Gainesville, Florida Mobility Plan .........................................16 Capacity/Level of Service Analyses .......................................17 Findings from the Literature Review ......................................18 CHAPTER THREE - STATE-OF-THE-PRACTICE SURVEY .......................19 State of Arizona ......................................................21 State of California ....................................................21 State of Colorado .....................................................21 State of Delaware ....................................................22 State of Florida ......................................................22 State of Illinois .......................................................23 State of Maine .......................................................23 State of Minnesota ....................................................25 State of New Mexico ..................................................25 State of North Carolina ................................................26 State of Oregon ......................................................26 State of Pennsylvania ..................................................26 State of South Carolina ................................................27 vii TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) PAGE CHAPTER THREE - STATE-OF-THE-PRACTICE SURVEY (Continued) State of Utah ........................................................27 State of Washington ...................................................27 State of Wyoming ....................................................29 Findings from the State-of-the-Practice Survey ..............................29 CHAPTER FOUR - PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ....31 Definition of Bicycle Suitability ..........................................31 Uses and Applications of Suitability Criteria .................................31 Importance of Data Resources ...........................................32 Importance of Agency Support and Culture in Implementation ...................32 REFERENCES ............................................................33 APPENDIX: DETAILED INFORMATION ON BICYCLE SUITABILITY CRITERIA ....35 viii LIST OF FIGURES PAGE Figure 2-1. Bicycle Suitability Schematic of Broward County, Florida ...................8 Figure 2-2. Walkway and Bikeway Inventory Form ................................10 Figure 2-3. Distribution of Bicycle LOS Scores from Different Urban Areas ..............11 Figure 2-4. Austin Bicycle Suitability Map .......................................14 Figure 2-5. Middlesex County, New Jersey Bicycle Suitability Map ....................15 Figure 3-1. Sample of Illinois DOT State Bicycle Map ..............................24 Figure 3-2. Sample of Washington DOT State Bicycle Map ..........................28 ix LIST OF TABLES PAGE Table 2-1. Summary of Bicycle Suitability Methodologies .............................4 Table 3-1. Summary of Selected State Bicycle Suitability