TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH RECORD 1538
Bicycle and Pedestrian Level-of-Service Performance Measures and Standards for Congestion Management Systems
LINDA B. DIXON
The Gainesville Mobility Plan Prototype was developed as the congestion management system plan for Gainesville, Florida, and incorporated level-of-service (LOS) performance measures for bicycle and pedestrian facilities. The LOS evaluations describe the degree of bicycle and pedestrian accommodation in a transportation corridor. The bicycle LOS measures are designated basic facility provided, conﬂicts, speed differential, motor vehicle LOS, maintenance, and provision of transportation demand management programs or intermodal links. Pedestrian LOS criteria are similar and incorporate speciﬁc pedestrian features. The Gainesville bicycle and pedestrian LOS performance measures use a point scale resulting in an LOS rating system of A through F. The scoring system was developed with sensitivity to characteristics that may be mutually exclusive or inclusive to determine all possible combinations of points. The methodology hypothesizes that there is a critical mass of variables that must be present to attract nonmotorized trips. The methodology is applicable for corridor evaluations on arterial and collector roadways in urban or suburban areas. The criteria include measures of programmatic and off-street projects such as rail-trails, bicycle parking, bikes-on-transit, employer-based programs, and so forth, in addition to traditional on-street facility improvements. By measuring such improvements recommendations for more diverse projects can be supported. This analysis was applied to several roadways with promising results that generally corresponded to user perceptions of the facilities. LOS evaluation was used as a tool of the congestion management system to develop project recommendations and priorities, but it may also be useful in concurrency and long-range transportation planning.
Bicycle and pedestrian LOS analysis must use data that are easily gathered, account for the varying ability levels of facility users, and produce recommendations for a wide array of improvements, including programmatic and off-street projects such as greenways, railtrails, bicycle parking, bikes-on-transit, employer-based incentive programs, and so forth, in addition to traditional on-street facility improvements. Such a methodology was developed and applied in the Gainesville Mobility Plan Prototype (the Plan), which is the draft plan for the congestion management system for Gainesville, Florida. The Plan measured existing roadway LOS conditions for all modes and developed speciﬁc project proposals to reduce congestion by encouraging alternative travel modes, reducing single-occupant vehicle trips, and improving operational conditions. LITERATURE REVIEW Existing Bicycle LOS Methodologies Several efforts have initiated development of a quantiﬁable bicycle LOS measure. The most notable is the Florida Roadway Condition Index (RCI). RCI expands on the earlier Bicycle Safety Rating Index developed to predict bicyclist-motorist crash exposure ( 1). Another recent methodology relates bicycle LOS to stress levels experienced by cyclists of varying proﬁciency on roadways with various characteristics (2). In Montgomery County, Maryland, a bicycle LOS was developed to measure transit accessibility. It was based on bicycle parking availability and a ratio of on-street bicycle facilities to roadway miles (3). Other sources discuss LOS capacity and the calculated space requirements for bicycle operation (4,5). Existing Pedestrian LOS Methodologies Pedestrian LOS measures are considerably less developed than bicycle LOS measures. The Highway Capacity Manual (5) calculates pedestrian LOS based on capacity and space requirements. Some communities measure pedestrian LOS and predict those pedestrian trips that are associated with transit access (3,6 ). Qualitative attributes of pedestrian-friendly environments are described, but not quantiﬁed, in several sources (7–9). One study analyzed pedestrian signal delay to deﬁne a pedestrian LOS (10). Montgomery County assesses sidewalk ratio, circuity, connectivity, delay, and hazard to measure the quality of a pedestrian trip accessing transit. The LUTRAQ (Land Use, Transportation, Air Quality) study evaluated the quality of pedestrian facilities to predict transit trips, assessing the ease with which streets could be crossed, as well as sidewalk continuity, street density, and topography (6 ).
Transportation planning has begun to emphasize multimodal approaches to meeting the challenges of congestion, air quality, infrastructure concurrency, and quality of life. Federal mandates for clean air, congestion management, and expanded public participation have contributed to this shift in approach. Therefore, communities have realized the necessity of measuring the deﬁciencies and improvements in nonmotorized transportation systems. There are numerous accepted methodologies for predicting and describing motor vehicle use. Similar analytical approaches are required if improvements to nonmotorized transportation systems are to be realized. Currently there are no standard level-of-service (LOS) performance measures for bicycle or pedestrian facilities, but the evolution of such measures has begun. Several recent efforts have identiﬁed, both qualitatively and quantitatively, the characteristics that create a good bicycle or pedestrian environment. However, none of the existing methodologies fully account for the range of bicycle and pedestrian improvements that could be implemented through plans for congestion management systems or other longrange planning efforts.
City of Gainesville, P.O. Box 490, M.S. 28, Gainesville, Fla. 32602, Current address: Delaware Department of Transportation, P.O. Box 778, Dover, Del. 19903.
maintenance. speed differential. amenities. and provision of transportation demand management (TDM) programs or multimodal links to transit. motor vehicle LOS. and TDM and multimodal provisions. conﬂicts. conﬂicts. Bicycle LOS evaluation criteria involve the provision of basic facilities. The criteria and their weighted point scores are displayed in Table 1. but they also incorporate
other research and the speciﬁc needs of the Plan. This methodology is based on the premise that there is a critical mass of variables that must be present in a transportation corridor to attract nonmotorized trips. The categories “bicycle facility provided” and “conflict” incorporate several subelements. and other features supported in research. The first three pedestrian variables incorporate subelements.2
TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH RECORD 1538
GAINESVILLE BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN LOS PERFORMANCE MEASURES The Gainesville bicycle and pedestrian LOS performance measures evaluate roadway corridors using a point system of 1 to 21 that results in LOS ratings from A and F. The pedestrian measures draw upon accepted facility designs. signal timing. Many of the bicycle measures originate from the Florida RCI ( 1). maintenance. The scoring system was developed with a sensitivity to characteristics that may be mutually exclusive or inclusive to determine all possible combinations of
Bicycle and Pedestrian Level-of-Service Performance-Measure Point System
. Pedestrian LOS evaluation criteria involve the provision of basic facilities. motor vehicle LOS.
tourist centers. The bicycle LOS ratings are sensitive to variations in both bicyclists’ abilities and their tolerance of less-accommodating facilities as deﬁned by Wilkinson et al. freedom of movement. Bicyclists feel threatened in an environment that presents many turning conﬂicts and may avoid cycling there. the entire segment will not score points. the measurement is taken to the face of the curb.
Off-Street and Parallel Alternative Facility Off-street bicycle facilities are deﬁned as areas used by bicycles that are physically separated from motorized vehicular traffic by an open space or a barrier or possess their own right-of-way (12).66 to 4. excluding the gutter pan. Segment scores identify the portions of a corridor having the greatest deﬁciencies. Vegetative encroachment that is a result of poor maintenance should not be counted as a barrier. and continuous right-turn lanes.27 m (12 to 14 ft)—wide curb lane. heavily used right-turn slip lanes. The bicycle and pedestrian LOS ratings are similar to motor vehicle LOS ratings. and the physically challenged) are typically the best for all pedestrians. Both national and local bicycle crash statistics reveal a high proportion of crashes caused by this type of conﬂict. and physical obstructions? Proper design and control of these features can greatly increase the safety and comfort of bicyclists using the corridor. driveways (both commercial and residential) and side streets are evaluated for each side of the street within each corridor segment. be located within 0.
Barrier Free Within the corridor segment are there any barriers or pinch points to bicycle travel? Barriers are physical encroachments that force a bicyclist to enter the motor vehicle travel lane at a speciﬁc point within the segment.44-m (8-ft) width.72 m (245 ft) apart. bus bays. senior citizens.Dixon
points. and • Greater than 4. The number of acceptable access points corresponds with the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) Access Management Class 5 or 6 with restrictive or nonrestrictive medians and posted speeds of 72 km/hr (45 mph) or less. bicycle and pedestrian LOS ratings of C and D are considered acceptable in most urban settings. (11). These barriers present a sudden and unexpected break in the continuity of the bicycle facility and can be caused by a narrow bridge or underpass. and direct access to bicyclists.
Bicycle LOS Performance Measures Bicycle Facility Provided Width of Outside Lane What is the width of the rightmost through-travel lane in the roadway? The measurement is taken from the inside stripe of the rightmost travel lane to the edge of pavement. The scoring categories are as follows: • 3. This spacing permits acceptable motor vehicle ﬂows and was assumed to reduce bicycle conﬂicts to an acceptable level. Not all roadways in a community should be expected to rate LOS A or B.61 km (1 mi). bus.25 mi) of the corridor. To be considered a parallel facility serving the corridor the facility must maintain a minimum 2.
Conﬂicts To what degree are conﬂicts created or alleviated for the bicyclist because of frequent motor vehicle turn movements.27 m (14 ft)—designated bike lane. These ratings likely would be exceptions reserved for special locations where many people walk or bicycle. At each access point a bicyclist must scan for hazards and be prepared to execute an evasive maneuver. LOS ratings of E and F describe degrees of unacceptable performance. and activity centers. If either side of the street exceeds the target of 22 per 1. poor visibility. Pedestrian facilities designed to function for the least-skilled pedestrians (children. among which C and D describe generally acceptable roadway performance. When a bicycle lane is present. and E and F describe deﬁcient facilities. only the width of the rightmost travel lane is measured. intrusion of drainage facilities into the bicycle area. Generally. vegetative encroachment that results from gaps in the facility (such as grassy patches
. undesignated bike lane.40 km (0.
Less Than 22 Driveways and Side Streets per 1. Segment scores may appear somewhat exaggerated when compared to the LOS rating deﬁnitions. or extremely wide curb lane. or other special use is present in the curb lane. The pedestrian LOS ratings similarly describe the characteristics and attractiveness of facilities but also predict the likelihood of roadway compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). downtowns. An LOS rating of A or B indicates a performance level well above average and may be expected in locations such as college campuses. When the gutter pan has been overlaid with feathered asphalt resurfacing to accommodate bicycles.66 m (12 ft) or less—no on-street bicycle facility. The disappearance of bicycle-lane striping at intersections without right-turn lanes is not to be considered a barrier because this is the standard striping for such intersections. this criterion does not give credit to parallel roadways with bicycle facilities with the exception of access roads within a boulevard roadway design and bicycle boulevards that afford the greater share of roadway space. The study corridor segment should provide basic bicycle access. The bicycle and pedestrian LOS ratings describe the level of interaction that a bicyclist or pedestrian can anticipate with motorists in a corridor and the level of support provided to attract nonmotorized modes to that corridor. and serve the same primary destination points as the roadway network. Therefore. For the described measures. the bicycle lane width is included in the total measurement with the rightmost motorvehicle travel lane. but they are moderated by applying weighted averages to achieve the corridor LOS rating. These criteria measure how easily bicyclists and motorists are able to observe and predict each other’s actions. A and B describe near perfect conditions. paved shoulder. The existence of on-street parking should not be counted as a barrier because parking is analyzed in a separate criterion. No attempt is made to relate pedestrian facility performance to pedestrian skill because abilities are less varied among pedestrians than bicyclists.61 km Driveway and sidestreet access points create conﬂicts for bicyclists. Conversely. • Greater than 3. However. A Class 5 or 6 is typically found in Gainesville on urban arterial roadways and prescribes that access points must be at least 74. The bicycle and pedestrian facility performance measures that were used in the analysis of congested roadways in Gainesville are detailed in the following sections. When parking.
If average actual motorvehicle speeds are available. Bicycle pockets are lanes for through-bicycle movement at intersections where a right-turn lane is provided.
No On-Street Parking The presence of on-street parking should be noted even if it appears for only a short distance within the segment. or at least in those portions of the segment where vehicle turning movements are most frequent. When no on. such as wrong-way riding and sidewalk riding. The 24-kph speed is the upper range of speed for young adult and novice adult bicyclists. effective green time at signalized intersections. and other special-use lanes. number of signalized intersections and travel lanes. These hazards can be somewhat minimized through design and pavement width. but they can also result from on-street parking and other physical obstructions. In determining the 1. The total number of lanes. The scoring categories are as follows: • Motor-vehicle LOS is E or F. This is because of the difficulty left-turning bicyclists have on such a roadway and the increased levels of noise and air pollution within the roadway microclimate. However. The occurrence of restricted sight distance should be noted even if the condition is in effect for only a short distance within the segment because it can discourage bicycle use on the corridor and can create very real safety concerns for bicyclists. Continuous right-turn lanes. is increased on multilane roadways because of the difficulty they have crossing these roadways and the threat they perceive from increased traffic volumes. Multilane roadways that provide medians. The existence of any on-street parking can discourage bicycle use on the corridor and create very real safety concerns for bicyclists using the corridor.to 48-kph (25. Restricted sight distances are typically created by steep slopes and sharp curves. These have been cited as factors in the comfort and safety levels of bicyclists using a roadway (1.61-km distancing of signalized intersections measurements shall include any signalized intersections at the terminuses of roadway segments. To receive points for this criterion these intersection implementations must be provided at a majority of intersections within a corridor segment if signalized intersections occur at a frequency greater than one per 1.or off-street bicycle facility is present.
. is an additional factor in the motor-vehicle LOS criterion. These medians are considered a beneﬁt to bicyclists because they limit left-turn conﬂicts. On-street parking creates such hazards as turning and backing vehicles.
Intersection Implementations Desirable intersection implementations are primarily bicycle pockets and bicycle-sensitive loop detectors. open car doors. and
Unrestricted Sight Distance Sight distance must meet the standard for stopping sight distances according to the American Association or State Highway and Transportation Officials ( 13). However. Congestion issues are primarily accounted for under the motorvehicle LOS criterion. • 40. it is also the average of the lowest likely speed—10 kph (6 mph)—with the highest likely speed—39 kph (24 mph) (14).
Motor-Vehicle LOS To what degree do motor-vehicle volume and congestion affect the comfort and safety level of bicyclists in the corridor segment? Motorvehicle LOS for roadways in Gainesville is a calculation of the roadway carrying capacity affected by annual average daily traffic. • Motor-vehicle LOS is D and there are fewer than six travel lanes. this data could be used for a more accurate analysis. continuous turn lanes are not to be credited in this category because the beneﬁt of reducing back-ups is greatly offset by the increase in turning movements at random locations. the segment cannot score points for having a barrier-free facility. including bus. When this back-up occurs motorists are often tempted to use the bicycle lanes or paved shoulders to pass on the right. and • Greater than 48-kph (30-mph) speed differential—posted speed of greater than 72 kph (45 mph). centerturn lanes. directional distribution of traffic ﬂow. School zone posted speeds are not considered because they address a speciﬁc need for a speciﬁc time period.4
TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH RECORD 1538
where there are missing sections of a paved shoulder) should be considered barriers because such an encroachment is a secondary result of a break in facility continuity.to 20-mph) speed differential—posted speed of 48 to 56 kph (30 to 35 mph).
Medians Present The medians must be restrictive.to 30-mph) speed differential—posted speed of 64 to 72 kph (40 to 45 mph). and peak-hour traffic volumes (15). A roadway that operates at a good motor-vehicle LOS but accomplishes this LOS by providing a high number of travel lanes does not encourage bicycle travel. All roadways with six or more lanes shall not score points for this criterion regardless of the motor-vehicle LOS. or bike lanes are not included in determining the total number of lanes. The presence of medians should be noted only if the medians are a dominant feature throughout the corridor segment. Bicyclists’ risktaking behavior. Turn lanes in a median can also be a beneﬁt because they allow traffic ﬂow to continue without backing up behind a turning vehicle. raised medians with or without turn bays. restricted driveway access. and sight obstructions. acceptable travel speeds.2). Other intersection implementations can include pavement markings or space provisions to accommodate left-turning bicyclists at intersections. high-occupancyvehicle.
Speed Differential Speed differential is calculated by comparing the average bicycle speed of 24 kph (15 mph) with the posted speed. but even in the best of circumstances onstreet parking can create physical and psychological conﬂicts for bicyclists. or there are six or more travel lanes. and other criteria that are compatible with bicycle travel will likely score an acceptable overall bicycle LOS rating. The scoring categories are as follows: • 24. Roadways with six or more travel lanes are less comfortable and less safe for bicyclists. The upper limit motor-vehicle speed of 72 kph (45 mph) has been suggested to the speed at which bicycle stability and stress are affected (2).to 32-kph (15.61 kilometer. this does not imply that all roadways with six or more lanes will receive an overall unacceptable bicycle LOS score.
or off-street facilities. although minor deﬁciencies in two or more of these areas will be present. Bicyclists can anticipate a moderate level of interaction with motor vehicles. or shower and locker facilities. When there is 1 per 1.
LOS D Scores 11 or below but above 7 equal an LOS D rating. The Gainesville bicycle LOS ratings relate directly to these groups. and self-sweeping are maintenance problems. Unsupervised child riders should be anticipated because they will typically feel comfortable on these facilities. and logistical barriers and affect the decision to bicycle? A roadway corridor may provide good accommodation. shrubs that are reasonably set back from the roadway and need infrequent trimming are not. When there are no maintenance problems resulting from the described conditions the segment is recorded as having no maintenance problems. and so forth? Maintenance factors do not measure temporary conditions. However. social. Group C bicyclists are preteen riders who initially are supervised by adults and gradually gain independent access to the system. Debris resulting from a recent spill or crash that is quickly blown or swept away is not. Some Group B bicyclists will progress to the more advanced level. Group C riders will be somewhat less comfortable on these facilities. These roadways are adequate for all bicyclists. rough road edge. rough railroad crossing. and its surface condition is an important consideration. low-volume motor-vehicle traffic. Bicyclists can anticipate a low level of interaction with motor vehicles. These roadways are adequate for Group A riders. standing water. When the maintenance problems occur more frequently or the extent and magnitude of the identiﬁed problem is great the segment is considered to have major or frequent problems. B. An off-street bicycle facility may be present along this corridor when on-street conditions are less bicycle friendly.
TDM and Multimodal Support Does the corridor have the available support of transportation management organization (TMO) services or intermodal links to transit that assist in overcoming institutional.
Maintenance Does the corridor suffer from maintenance deﬁciencies. To be given credit for this bicycle LOS criterion the TMO services must be targeted at commuters with employers or with primary origination-destination points along the corridor. low-volume motor-vehicle traffic. Bicyclists can anticipate a low level of interaction with motor vehicles. and good surface conditions. The roadway will generally be characterized by a combination of low-speed. These roadways are adequate for most bicyclists. guaranteed-ridehome programs. The programs must be directed at improving conditions or providing such incentives for bicyclists as bicycle parking. Bicyclists have been categorized by Wilkinson. but Group B will always be a dominant bicyclist type. and so forth. infrequent conﬂicts. infrequent conﬂicts. but puddles that quickly drain are not. et al. Shrubs and limbs from trees that are planted immediately adjacent to the roadway and create a constant hazard from overgrowth or fallen limbs are maintenance problems. the maintenance factors measure conditions that reflect disrepair and neglect of the roadway surface or construction deficiencies that create a chronic maintenance problem.and off-street bicycle facilities. The roadway without a bicycle
. patching. (11) as Group A. regularly standing water caused by deficiencies in roadway drainage is a maintenance problem. particularly if unsupervised. those without on-street facilities will have characteristics that dictate a low level of interaction with motor vehicles in the roadway. such as low-speed. These roadways will typically have an on-street facility (bicycle lane or wide curb lane) dedicated for bicyclists. weathering. potholes. Unsupervised child riders should be anticipated because they will typically feel comfortable on these facilities.Dixon
• Motor-vehicle LOS is A. These roadways may or may not provide an on-street bicycle facility. bicycle-commuter support groups.
LOS B Scores 17 or below but greater than 14 equal an LOS B rating. Without the provision of such a facility the motor-vehicle travel lane is the legal bicycle facility. including cracking. Instead. Gravel. grass cuttings. Group B bicyclists are casual or novice adults and teenagers who are less conﬁdent and prefer well-deﬁned separation from motorists. drainage. For example. Intermodal links to transit can include either bikeson-transit provisions or bicycle parking racks at bus stops along the corridor. Grass growing in cracks or in a collection of permanent debris or that encroaches past the edge of a rural section of a roadway is a maintenance problem. These roadways will provide both on.61 kilometers (1 mi) or fewer of such maintenance problems or the extent and magnitude of the identiﬁed problem is minimal the segment is considered to have minor or infrequent problems. and good surface conditions. and C. such as fallen leaves. These roadways may have either on. Bicyclists can anticipate a moderate to high level of interaction with motor vehicles. according to those skills levels that affect facility preference. Roadways that do not provide a designated on-street bicycle facility are still evaluated for maintenance problems. parking cash-out policies. leaves. In general. Group A consists of advanced adult bicyclists who value direct access and are conﬁdent in their traffic skills.
Bicycle LOS Ratings Bicycle LOS measures are rated according to the degree to which a roadway safely and comfortably accommodates bicyclists of various skill levels. or C and there are fewer than six travel lanes. and debris that accumulate because of poorly designed slope. but grass that needs mowing or edging along a curb face is not. Roadways with scores in the upper end of this range may be adequate for some Group B riders. but other programmatic deficiencies may be needed to encourage bicycling and walking. These roadways are generally safe and attractive to all bicyclists. Group C bicyclists and their parents prefer quiet residential streets and well-deﬁned separation from motorists.
Bicycle LOS Ratings Deﬁnitions LOS A Scores 21 or below but greater than 17 equal an LOS A rating. B.
LOS C Scores 14 or below but greater than 11 equal an LOS C rating.
In determining the 1. or good surface conditions—that will allow Group A riders to share the roadway space with caution in most situations.61 km Compliance with this criterion is measured the same for pedestrian facilities as for bicycle facilities. The barrier-free measure also takes into account the presence of intersection curb ramps.
LOS F Scores 3 or below equal an LOS F rating.53 m (5 ft) Wide and Barrier Free The sidewalk must be at least 1. with the exception of access roads within a boulevard roadway design.
Conﬂicts To what degree are conﬂicts created or alleviated for the pedestrian because of visibility. This measure is a basic rating of compliance with ADA requirements. The study corridor shall be expected to provide basic pedestrian access.6
TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH RECORD 1538
facility will have ﬁve or more characteristics—such as low-speed. An example of this situation is a sidewalk 3 m (10 ft) wide in a downtown with outdoor cafes restricting the clearance width to less than 1.53 m. In this situation there are no sidestreets to cross or only minor sidestreets that do not present a signiﬁcant delay to pedestrians.61-km distancing of signalized intersections measurements shall include any signalized intersections at the terminuses of road-
Minimum 1. The 1. pedestrian exposure times. When a bicycle facility is provided on this roadway its characteristics of high-volume. A roadway segment that does not score points for pedestrian facility provided cannot score points for this criterion.61 km along the segment. the segment will still score points. or good surface conditions—that will allow Group A riders to adequately share the roadway in most situations. motor-vehicle turning movements. These roadways do not provide any bicycle facilities. This facility is typically located on a separate right of way instead of within the roadway right of way. credit for this criterion is not given to parallel roadways with sidewalks. The curb ramps must meet the ADA accessibility guidelines for width and slope to qualify as barrier free (16 ).53 m wide and barrier-free facility.
LOS E Scores 7 or below but above 3 equal an LOS E rating. When a sidewalk facility has frequent gaps and missing segments it is noncontinuous. and other ﬁxtures that may encroach on the sidewalk space. but not for movements across the major corridor being evaluated.53 m (5 ft) wide for its entire length. The roadway without a bicycle facility will have two or more characteristics—such as low-speed.53 m. the facility should be rated according to its dominant characteristic. low-volume motor-vehicle traffic.53 m but has signiﬁcant barriers that decrease the useable.53-m clearance must be maintained around all utility poles.53 m wide the corridor segment will score points in this category. The pedestrian signal delay is an average delay determined to be one half of the maximum pedestrian wait time during peak-hour conditions. limited conﬂicts. When signalized intersections occur at intervals greater than 1. or continuous on both sides. including any signalized intersections at the roadway segment terminuses. This criterion is only applied to the basic pedestrian facility. therefore.
Pedestrian LOS Performance Measures Pedestrian Facility Provided Dominant Facility Type What are the characteristics of the pedestrian facility provided in the corridor? The dominant facility can be either noncontinuous or nonexistent.
Less Than 22 Driveways and Sidestreets per 1. high-speed motor-vehicle traffic and frequent conﬂicts will make this roadway inadequate for most Group B riders. An off-street bicycle facility may be present along this corridor when on-street conditions are less bicycle friendly. low-volume motor-vehicle traffic. If the dominant characteristic is a sidewalk but the sidewalk has one short gap. but are not limited to. Solitary short gaps in a sidewalk system should be considered a barrier within the existing facility. and pedestrian convenience. An off-street bicycle facility may be present along this corridor when on-street conditions are less bicycle friendly. which cannot score points when the extra width is on a parallel or alternative facility. limited conﬂicts. greenways.
short missing segment.53 m When the sidewalk provided is greater than 1. high-speed motor-vehicle traffic and frequent conﬂicts will make this roadway highly inadequate for Group B riders. Bicyclists can anticipate a high level of interaction with motor vehicles. A roadway with a continuous sidewalk on one side and a few short sidewalk sections on the opposite side should be rated as having a continuous sidewalk on one side of the street only. These roadways may or may not provide an on-street bicycle facility. newspaper boxes. which increases risktaking behavior? These criteria measure the degree to which pedestrians and motorists must interact. cafe railings. continuous on one side. clear space to less than 1. Examples of such facilities may include.4 km of the roadway segment and provide access to the same primary destination points served by the roadway network. When a bicycle facility is provided on an LOS D roadway its characteristics of high-volume. trafﬁc signal poles. benches. When the sidewalk is greater than 1.
Off-Street Parallel Alternative Facility This facility must be located within 0.
Sidewalk Width Greater than 1. which are required for a sidewalk to be completely barrier free. Due to the high level of motor-vehicle use and automobile-oriented development on these roadways bicyclists are greatly discouraged or even put at risk when using these roadways. These roadways require cautious use by Group A riders. This criterion also identifies an otherwise continuous sidewalk system with one
Pedestrian Signal Delay of 40 Sec or Less The pedestrian signal delay is calculated for sidestreet crossings along the corridor segment. the segment is awarded points for this pedestrian signal delay criterion. rail-trails. and pedestrian plazas. A roadway segment that does not score points for pedestrian facility provided cannot score points for this criterion. but will not score for the criterion of a minimum 1.
Trees located within narrow buffers may produce maintenance deﬁciencies that will be accounted for within that criterion. Roadways that do not provide a pedestrian facility cannot score points for this criterion because there is no facility to buffer.e. schools.3 m or less. To receive points for this criterion all of the corridor segment’s intersections must be free of obstructions to pedestrian sight distances and provide a crosswalk. Medians in a midblock location reduce the number of motorist leftturn conﬂicts for pedestrians.61 km or less along the segment the majority of these intersections must have pedestrian signal delays of 40 sec or less. The 18. Generally. the segment must provide either of two specifications: exclusive pedestrian phase. the segment is awarded points for this pedestrian crossing-width criterion. For this measure the minimum of 1 m has been selected for all buffers. office complexes. When average actual speeds are available they can be used for a more accurate analysis. When signalized intersections occur at distances of 1.3 ft) The buffer is the space between the existing sidewalk and the curb or roadway edge. In this situation there are few side streets to cross.61 km or less along the segment.
Benches or Pedestrian-Scale Lighting Benches or pedestrianscale lighting must be a dominant feature of the segment or at least be provided in locations along the segment adjacent to highpedestrian-traffic generators. To score points the 1-m buffer must be maintained throughout the segment. School zone speeds are not considered in this evaluation.
Buffer not Less Than 1 m (3. Pedestrian midblock crossings must provide appropriate protection (i. A buffer width of 2 m (6. therefore. The pedestrian crossing width is measured in the center of a crosswalk at a signalized intersection only.
Crossing Widths 18.6 ft) is recommended for buffers with trees. The medians must be restrictive raised medians with or without turn bays. When pedestrian refuge islands or medians are present within the crosswalk the measurements shall reflect that these facilities decrease pedestrian crossing distances.3 m (60 ft) or Less The pedestrian crossing widths are measured for sidestreet crossings along the corridor. and then from the refuge to the arrival curb. a concession was made to extend this measure to 40 sec. Crosscorridor widths could be used. including any signalized intersections at the corridor segment terminuses.3-m crossing width is cited in the Florida Pedestrian Safety Plan of 1992 (7 ) as the maximum desirable pedestrian crossing width. Some facilities such as trees or lighting on private property are credited when they are located immediately adjacent to the right-of-way and are intended to beneﬁt the sidewalk users and be permanent. The minimum desired 1-m buffer strip is recommended in the Florida Pedestrian Safety Plan for buffer strips without trees. the through-crossing distance and other measures. 30 sec has been suggested as the maximum acceptable average pedestrian delay (10). Each of these measurements is individually evaluated using the criterion of 18. Research indicates that pedestrians’ impatience and risktaking behavior increases after 30 sec of delay. auxiliary pedestrian signals. crosswalks.61 km along the segment.
Reduced Turn-Conflict Implementations Intersection designs must provide properly located crosswalks and sight distances to maximize visibility for pedestrians.3 m should be improved to provide pedestrian refuge islands or medians with supplemental pedestrian push buttons. which are evaluated in the crossing width criterion. In reviewing the typical delay times for pedestrians in Gainesville and taking into account the implications for motor-vehicle LOS. The medians to be considered in this criterion are midblock medians. but not less than one installation per segment) or protected left-turn signal phasing on the majority of signals within the segment. but not for movements across the corridor being evaluated. including number of travel lanes and presence of medians. When signalized intersections occur at distances of 1.
Posted Speed 56 kph or Less High-speed traffic greatly decreases the comfort of pedestrians and can be a major deterrent to pedestrian trips. When such a refuge is present the measurement is taken from the departure curb to the refuge. but would require more extensive data collection. retirement communities. When the crossing distance is different on each side of the street the greater of the two measurements is used to determine compliance with this criterion. excluding intersections. restricted right turn on red.Dixon
way segments. provide sufficient information about the size of the intersection and its effect on pedestrian movement. the majority of these intersections must have pedestrian crossing widths of 18. transit transfer stations.3 m (60 ft) or less. some combination of pedestriancrossing warning signs. Additional measures that reduce conﬂicts between turning motorists and pedestrians at intersections include restricted right-turn-on-red signage. such as activity centers.
. In addition. Posted speed limits of 56 kph create operating speeds at the maximum tolerable level of pedestrian comfort. ﬂashers. When signalized intersections occur at intervals greater than 1. When a posted speed of greater than 56 kph occurs anywhere in the study segment the segment will not score points for this criterion.
Shade Trees Shade trees must be a dominant feature of the segment or at least be provided in locations along the segment adjacent to high-pedestrian-traffic generators.
Medians Present Points will be received for this criterion when medians are a dominant characteristic within the corridor or when they are present at locations with frequent motor-vehicle turning movements or frequent pedestrian midblock crossing movements.
Amenities in Right-of-Way Does the segment provide features that increase comfort and convenience for pedestrians using the facility? These features must be located primarily within the roadway right of way. not pedestrian refuge islands at intersections. regardless of tree provisions. protected leftturn or exclusive pedestrian signal phasing.. Crossing widths greater than 18. or a grade-separated crossing (these features should be provided at every warranted location in the segment. and so forth. and they do not create significant exposure to traffic. and push buttons). and grade-separated crossings.
low-speed or low-volume motor-vehicle traffic. and so forth). restricted driveway access. and intersection design. A grassy swale.
LOS B Scores 17 and below but greater than 14 equal an LOS B rating. holes. C.
LOS D Scores 11 and below but greater than 7 equal an LOS D rating.
TDM and Multimodal Support Does the corridor have the available support of TMO services or intermodal links to transit that assist in overcoming nonroadway barriers and affect the decision to walk? As with the bicycle programs the TMO services must target commuters along the corridor and be directed at improving conditions or providing incentives for pedestrians. D. acceptable travel speeds. These roadways are designed primarily for high-volume motor-vehicle traffic with frequent turning conﬂicts and high speeds. Intersection crossings are likely to be more frequent and more difﬁcult.. buckling. tourist. but no less than one bench per 1. but there may be somewhat fewer amenities or pedestrian-friendly design elements. but will not attract pedestrian trips.8
TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH RECORD 1538
Motor Vehicle LOS To what degree do motor vehicle volume and congestion affect the comfort and safety level of pedestrians in the segment? Compliance with this criterion is measured the same for pedestrian analysis as for bicycle analysis. These roadways provide many pedestrian safety and comfort features that can attract pedestrian trips. may be located on roadways with high-speed. but will likely have some deﬁciencies in maintenance or intersection design. and other pedestriancompatible criteria will likely score an acceptable overall pedestrian LOS rating. pedestrian-friendly intersection designs. Roadways with this level of pedestrian accommodation may be expected in central-city. These roadways are adequate for pedestrian use.
Maintenance Does the corridor suffer from maintenance deﬁciencies. travel lane. Pedestrians can anticipate moderate to high levels of interaction with motor vehicles.g. when a pedestrian facility is not provided in the segment points cannot be scored for this maintenance criterion. Pedestrians can anticipate a high level of interaction with motor vehicles. but may not necessarily attract pedestrian trips. medians. Multilane roadways that provide sidewalks with wide buffers. including cracking. credit cannot be given for the maintenance of such a facility. Roadways in this category that do not provide a pedestrian facility may be characterized as urban fringe.
Pedestrian LOS Ratings Pedestrian LOS ratings are deﬁned by the measures of pedestrian safety features and the level of automobile-oriented development characteristics along the corridor. standing water. continuity. patching.
LOS C Scores 14 and below but greater than 11 equal an LOS C rating. These roadways will have many of the characteristics of an LOS A pedestrian facility. weathering. However. Even where a sidewalk is provided these roadways will not meet ADA requirements and will have frequent deﬁciencies in sidewalk width.
pus locations. rough railroad crossing. The LOS ratings describe the basic level of ADA compliance and the degree to which facility provisions encourage pedestrian use. and. These roadways may or may not provide a pedestrian facility. These roadways will have more frequent deﬁciencies in pedestrian safety and comfort features and are more likely to violate ADA requirements for width and clearance. Gaps in the sidewalk system may occur within this roadway corridor. The roadways will be characterized by ample sidewalk space.
Pedestrian LOS Ratings Deﬁnitions LOS A Scores 21 and below but greater than 17 equal an LOS A rating. Intermodal links to transit must include sidewalks on both sides of the street at bus stops locations and at least one location with a bench or shelter along the study segment. These roadways will provide a standard sidewalk.
DISCUSSION OF RESULTS The bicycle LOS performance measures were tested on nine arterial and three collector roadways in Gainesville. therefore. As with bicycle LOS this measure does not imply that all roadways with six or more lanes will receive an overall unacceptable pedestrian LOS score. The results were bicycle LOS ratings of B. Pedestrians can anticipate a low level of interaction with motor vehicles. clearance. high-volume motor-vehicle traffic. and E on these corridors.
LOS E Scores 7 and below but greater than 3 equal an LOS E rating. These roadways are adequate for pedestrian use. These roadways are inadequate for pedestrian use. and college cam-
LOS F Scores of 3 and below equal an LOS F rating. or other such facility is not considered an acceptable pedestrian facility. Pedestrians can anticipate moderate interaction with motor vehicles on these roadways. benches. paved shoulder. or may provide a sidewalk on one side of the street only.61 km. Pedestrians can anticipate a low to moderate level of interaction with motor vehicles. tree root intrusion. and so forth? The pedestrian facility maintenance evaluation parallels the maintenance analysis for bicycle facilities. vegetative encroachment. The roadway and sidewalk features will be designed at human scale for maximum pedestrian comfort. The pedestrian LOS performance measures were tested on ﬁve arterial roadways and one collector roadway in Gainesville and resulted in rat-
. These roadways are highly pedestrian oriented and will tend to attract pedestrian trips. and plentiful amenities (e. These roadways do not provide any continuous pedestrian facilities and are characterized by high levels of motor-vehicle use and automobile-oriented development. shade. These roadways are inadequate for pedestrian use. rural section roadways with moderate motor-vehicle traffic.
Florida Bicycle Facilities Planning and Design Manual: Draft. benches at transit stops. This is due in part to attractors for motorists also being attractors for bicyclists and pedestrians. Dec. whereas many of the other urban conﬂicts do not exist. which. TRB. A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets. when compared to the results of this LOS analysis. D. Aug. National Research Council. The results were reviewed by three advisory committees of the Gainesville Metropolitan Planning Organization. and Transportation Vehicles. Evaluating The Suitability of Roadways For Bicycle Use: Towards A Cycling Level of Service Standard.
. Untermann. an application on rural roadways may require adjusting the weight given to pavement width and travel speeds because. H. D. Epperson. Florida Department of Transportation. Urban Intersections that Work: a New Deﬁnition for Level of Service. Roadways that are high on the project-needs list for bicycle or pedestrian improvements generally received a low LOS rating. Transportation. and T. 6. local streets are bicycle and pedestrian friendly
because of their low traffic speeds and volumes. based on densities and other land use analysis.. Aug. Applications of LOS measures to long-range transportation planning and concurrency should also be explored. 1994. National Research Council. 15. bicycle and pedestrian LOS measures and standards could be used to predict bicycle and pedestrian volumes within a corridor. L.C. The described method of measuring bicycle and pedestrian facility performance is most applicable on urban collector and arterial roadways. develop improvements. March 1994. Volumes of all modes. In addition to determining LOS performance these measures can also be used to develop an LOS minimum standard.C. Bartholomew. Walsh. Nov. National Research Council. Navin. Measuring the performance of bicycle and pedestrian facilities provides an opportunity to gather facility inventories. a greenway. Washington.S. crash data may not be particularly useful in developing LOS measures.. A corridor with a high adopted standard and a high measured performance level should produce high levels of walking and bicycling along the corridor. March 1994. Clarke. American Planning Association. However. TRB. American Association of State Highway Officials... crash data may relate to the LOS performance evaluations. Determination of Service Levels for Pedestrians. In Transportation Research Record 1438. 4.
1. when a facility is determined to be primarily multiuse a higher pedestrian LOS standard may be desirable to provide for a safe interaction. The crash statistics in Gainesville indicate that most bicycle and pedestrian crashes occur in congested corridors near activity centers. 1984. ITE Journal. K. To further reﬁne these measures the methodology should be tested on a variety of roadway types in different communities and veriﬁed by bicyclists’ and pedestrians’ perceptions. with European Examples. D. the impact of these features is often ampliﬁed. D. TRB. determine deﬁciencies. FHWA. In these circumstances low bicycle and pedestrian crash rates may indicate that there are no bicyclists or pedestrians using the corridor. 13.C. Committee members’ anecdotal and personal experiences suggest that the assigned corridor LOS ratings accurately describe existing bicyclist and pedestrian conditions. 14. Publication of this paper sponsored by Committee on Pedestrians. 10. Conversely. Florida Department of Transportation. In Transportation Research Record 1438. Ultimately. Bicycle Traffic Flow Characteristics: Experimental Results and Comparisons.. Air Quality Connection.C. For one congested corridor the bicycle and pedestrian LOS performance-measure results supported project and program recommendations. activity centers. D.Dixon
ings of C. American Association of State Highway Officials. PAS Memo. A. F. Washington. Washington. 1992. B. Inc. National Research Council. However. These predicted volumes could be incorporated into transportation demand modeling and used to support the development of facility improvements. K. 1991. 1985. May 1993. 1994. The speciﬁc features that would be implemented to achieve the desired LOS rating would be chosen from the menu of criteria developed for the measures described. Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities. Washington. Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board. S. and gauge results. 1994. Transportation Facilities. 5. Making the Land Use. increase near major traffic generators. Montgomery County Planning Board and Maryland National Capital Park and Planning Commission. Stress Level as a Tool To Evaluate Urban and Suburban Bicycle Compatibility. D. Sorton. 1992. 1992. 12. A. Feb. B. Sarkar. including a sidewalk segment.C. National Research Council. Special Report 209: Highway Capacity Manual. D. TRB. pp 31–36. Epperson. Local street analysis may be accomplished by adding a high-score criterion for lowspeed streets. These committees include technical staff and local citizens with high levels of training and experience in bicycle and pedestrian usage. Florida Pedestrian Safety Plan.. Washington. The committees produced a list of bicycle and pedestrian project priorities. central-city districts. 1992. the propensity of people to walk or bicycle. The analysis may also be useful to infrastructure concurrency applications wherein the effect of development and other transportation improvements on bicycle and pedestrian facility performance can be evaluated. Kaiser. and R. and bicyclist and pedestrian user characteristics. Van Nostrand Reinhold Company. Selecting Roadway Design Treatments to Accommodate Bicycles. Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Accessibility Guidelines For: Buildings and Facilities. New York. 7. Accommodating the Pedestrian. Wilkinson. In Transportation Research Record 1405. in rural settings. C.. A. Level of Service Report for the Gainesville Urbanized Area. Analysis of other corridors resulted in recommendations of additional improvements to be incorporated into long-range transportation planning and congestion management system plans. 16. or a higher bicycle LOS may be desirable to attract bicyclists from the off-street facility to the roadway. 8. Like motor vehicle LOS standards these minimum standards could vary from one roadway to another. 9. high motor-vehicle traffic volumes and increased conﬂict potential may discourage nonmotorized transportation. North Central Florida Regional Planning Council. The standards would determine. Similarly.C. and the corridor evaluations would determine the success of facilities in accommodating or encouraging walking or bicycling. All roadways should be targeted to maintain a minimum bicycle and pedestrian LOS D.. Bicycle Federation of America. R. 1993. Knoblauch. and thus conﬂict potential. D. An adopted standard for bicycle and pedestrian facility performance could prescribe the minimum acceptable LOS for the adequate accommodation of bicyclists or pedestrians.S. land uses. Fiscal Year 94 Annual Growth Policy. In Transportation Research Record 1438. D. D. 2.C. Typically. U. U. but may provide some insight into the validity of LOS evaluations. 11. Therefore. given certain roadway types. revealed a correspondence between roadways with low LOS and roadways identiﬁed as needing improvements. Washington. and E.. W. 3. Higher LOS standards may be desirable for locations near schools. and reestablishment of an inactive TMO. 1993. 1991. P. Department of Transportation. Washington. Washington. Bicycle and pedestrian conﬂicts on multiuse facilities and sidewalks are not speciﬁcally addressed in this methodology. TRB.C. III. The bicycle and pedestrian LOS measures do not incorporate crash data in the analysis. and other traffic generators. S.