International Journal of Intelligent Transportation Systems Research

https://doi.org/10.1007/s13177-021-00280-3

Development of Artificial Intelligence‑based Bicycle Level of Service

Models for Urban Street Segments
Sambit Kumar Beura1   · Prasanta Kumar Bhuyan2

Received: 5 October 2020 / Revised: 14 June 2021 / Accepted: 29 September 2021

© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Intelligent Transportation Systems Japan 2021

Abstract
This study deals with the development of artificial intelligence (AI)-based bicycle level of service (BLOS) models for urban
road segments carrying heterogeneous traffic. To accomplish this, the required data sets on the road geometric, traffic and
built-environmental conditions are collected from 84 road segments located in various parts of four Indian cities. The sat-
isfaction levels of bicyclists at each site are also assessed using a Likert scale of 1–6 (excellent–worst). Subsequently, three
promising AI techniques namely, Multivariate adaptive regression splines (MARS), Genetic programming (GP) and Bayes-
ian regularization neural network (BRNN) are utilized to develop the BLOS models. All models are trained and tested with
eight significant attributes of the road segments. Among all models, the MARS-based one has shown the best prediction
performance in the present context with a coefficient of determination (R2) value of 0.92 with averaged observations. On
the other hand, GP has produced the simplest (regression-like) but reliable model, which is the most favourable for field
applications. The relative importance of input variables has concluded that the outermost lane width, traffic volume, on-street
parking activities and pavement condition index are by far the most important variables in the present context. Hence, these
attributes should be largely prioritized in the planning process to enhance the perceived BLOS effortlessly.

Keywords  Street segment · Heterogeneous traffic · Bicycle level of service · Multivariate adaptive regression splines ·
Genetic programming · Bayesian regularization neural network

1 Introduction bicyclists’ perspective. These mathematical models are pop-

Bicycle is a green mode of road transport that offers various
societal, economic, environmental and health-related bene-
fits. This has been motivating  the transportation engineering
professionals to establish bicycle-friendly road networks and
encourage bicycle use in the localities. Suitable methodolo-
gies are also being proposed by the researchers using which
one can assess and improve the quality of bicycle infrastruc-
tures [1–12]. As road segments represent the basic entities
of any transportation system, various mathematical models
are proposed in the recent past for their assessments from
* Sambit Kumar Beura
sambit.beura@gmail.com
Prasanta Kumar Bhuyan
pkbtrans@gmail.com
1
Department of Civil Engineering, Anurag University,
Hyderabad, Telangana 500088, India
2
Department of Civil Engineering, National Institute
of Technology, Rourkela, Odisha 769008, India
ularly acknowledged as the bicycle level of service (BLOS)
models. However, most of the existing BLOS models are
developed under homogeneous traffic conditions, where
identical vehicles travel with a strict lane-discipline [1–11].
Hence, these models are well-applicable in the contexts of
developed countries. However, the prevailing conditions
in developing countries are quite different. Here, on-street
bicyclists interact with various categories of vehicles trave-
ling with a weak lane discipline, called heterogenous traffic.
Hence, their operational conditions are greatly influenced. In
addition, the unavailability of proper bicycle infrastructure
also increases this complexity further and leaves bicyclists to
manoeuvre at their own risk. Hence, the BLOS offered under
such conditions cannot be effectively analysed by using
the cited models [1–11]. Although, Beura et al. [12] have
recently proposed a probit-based BLOS model for hetero-
geneous traffic conditions, it is somewhat difficult for field
applications due to its complex structure. It is also difficult to
identify the best policies for the BLOS improvement as field
engineers and non-modelers rarely understand the sensitivity

13
Vol.:(0123456789)

of this model. In this regard, the present study primarily
aims (1) to develop an efficient and simple BLOS model
for the assessment of road segments carrying heterogeneous
traffic, and (2) to identify the most efficient strategies for
improving the present service quality (i.e., BLOS).
The recent developments in artificial intelligence (AI)
have shown remarkable efficiencies in solving prediction
problems in various fields of science and engineering.
Hence, three novel AI techniques namely, Multivariate
Adaptive Regression Splines (MARS) [13], Genetic Pro-
gramming (GP) [14, 15] and Bayesian Regularization Neu-
ral Network (BRNN) [16] are implemented in this study to
develop the BLOS models. Of all, MARS is a recently intro-
duced technique that has numerous advantages for solving
regression-type problems [13]. It is basically a nonlinear and
non-parametric tool that does not assume or impose any par-
ticular type of relationship among the variables beforehand.
This principle has made it extremely suitable for dealing
with high-dimensional problems. Secondly, GP is a branch
of evolutionary algorithms that automatically evolves the
computer programs to develop predictive models without
specifying their structures beforehand [14, 15]. Most impor-
tantly, unlike many other AI techniques, GP is capable of
producing highly compacted model equations that are easy
to understand and implement in the field. Thirdly, BRNN is
an advanced version of the artificial neural network (ANN)
technique. The conventional ANN models often exhibit
poor generalization abilities, particularly while evolved for
complex problems. This usually occurs due to the magni-
tude of the ‘weights’ associated with neuron connections
[17]. BRNN approach, however, is well-capable for dealing
with such problems. In this study, the BLOS models are
trained and tested with the information on eight important
road attributes. These data sets are collected from 84 road
segments located in various parts of four Indian mid-sized
cities. Prediction precisions of the developed models are
assessed using various statistical parameters, and the most
efficient one is reported. Subsequently, efficient BLOS
improvement strategies are also identified (by estimating the
relative importance of input variables). Various outcomes of
this study would be helpful both for augmenting the BLOS
of existing segments and designing new bicycle-friendly
road segments.
2 Prior BLOS Studies
Various service prediction models (with different names)
are proposed in the recent past to estimate the BLOS of
road segments. The first-ever model was developed by Davis
[1], which is popularly known as Roadway Segment Index
(RSI) model. This model was basically developed for the
assessment of road segments carrying homogeneous traffic.
13
International Journal of Intelligent Transportation Systems Research
Various input parameters of this model include traffic vol-
ume, number of lanes, speed limit, width of the outermost
lane, pavement factors and location factors. Epperson [2]
incorporated few modifications in the pavement and location
factors of this model and renamed the resulting model as
modified Roadway Condition Index (RCI) model. Another
improvised version of RSI model is known as the Bicycle
Suitability Rating (BSR) model [5]. This model signifies
the important roles of traffic volume and traffic speed in
the BLOS of road segments. The bicycle Interaction Hazard
Score (IHS) model proposed by Landis [3] has also intro-
duced two other influencing parameters namely, roadside
land use pattern and on-street parking activity.
The importance of curb-lane parameters (such as curb-
lane width, curb-lane traffic volume and curb-lane traffic
speed) was first reflected in the Bicycle Stress Level (BSL)
model [4]. Harkey et al. [7] proposed an improvised version
of this model and renamed it as Bicycle Compatibility Index
(BCI) model. The authors exposed the significant roles of
bicycle lanes and right-turning vehicles in the BLOS assess-
ment. Further, the BLOS models proposed by Landis et al.
[6] and Jensen [8] concluded that the bicycle lane and pave-
ment surface condition play significant roles in the BLOS
estimation. HCM-2000 [9] has considered the average traffic
speed, average delay and hindrance to define the BLOS cri-
teria. However, HCM-2010 [10] has considered an extensive
array of parameters to define the same. These parameters
include the outermost lane width, number of traffic lanes,
traffic volume, traffic speed, percentage of heavy vehicles
and road surface conditions. Kang and Lee [11] reported that
the BLOS is largely influenced by the portion of roadways
dedicatedly available for bicyclists.
However, none of the aforementioned BLOS models is
transferable to the mixed traffic environment (as those are
developed by considering homogeneous traffic conditions).
These models do not address the influences of few factors that
seem to be potential in developing countries (for instance,
roadside stoppages of intermittent public transits and density
of driveways carrying a high volume of traffic, etc.). Recently,
Beura et al. [12] have proposed a statistical BLOS model for
the assessment of urban road segments in mid-sized cities
(population ranges 0.5–1.0 million). This model returns an
overall BLOS score for the segment under consideration by
using the probabilities of obtaining individual service scores
1–6 (excellent–worst bicycling environments) on the same
segment. The ordered probit modelling approach is used to
predict these individual probabilities. The overall BLOS scores
are then used to define the bicycle service classes of urban
road segments varying from ‘A’ (excellent) to ‘F’ (worst).
However, the drawback of this model is that it is very much
complex in its mathematical structure, which makes it difficult
to understand and implement in the field. The sensitivity of
this model is also not well-understood by non-modellers and
International Journal of Intelligent Transportation Systems Research
public officials. Thus, improved models are developed in this
study for the better assistance of transportation planners and
engineers in mid-sized cities.
3 Methodological Aspects
The detailed working principles of MARS, GP and BRNN
techniques could be found in the literature [13–18]. However, a
brief outline of the same is presented below for completeness.
Subsequently, the model comparison and selection procedure
are also explained.
3.1 Modelling with MARS Technique
MARS develops predictive models using a set of coefficients
and piecewise functions (linear or nonlinear) [18]. These func-
tions are commonly acknowledged as ‘Basis Functions’ (BFs).
The selection process of BFs is entirely data-based and specific
to the problem at hand. A ‘divide and conquer’ strategy is used
to partition the space of predictors into convenient numbers
of piecewise linear segments with differing gradients, called
‘splines.’ The boundary between consecutive splines is called
as a ‘knot,’ and the piecewise function between two knots is
a BF. By using the set of coefficients and BFs, the general
expression of the MARS model can be presented as follow:
∑M
f (X) = 𝛽0 + 𝛽 𝜆 (X)
m=1 m m
(1)
Where, f(X) represents the predicted response (BLOS score
in this study), β0 represents the intercept, βm represents the
coefficient of mth BF, each λm(X) represents a BF (a single
spline function or a combination of two or more spline func-
tions), and M represents the numbers of BFs [13]. Here, β0 and
βm are estimated by the least square method.
MARS-based models fit with a set of data by executing the
following three phases [13]:
1 Constructive phase: BFs are introduced in several
regions of the input variables and are combined in a
weighted sum as expressed in Eq. 1. BFs consisting of
a single spline function (SF) or the products of two (or
more) SFs are continually added to the model by fol-
lowing a ‘two-at-a-time’ forward stepwise procedure.
This procedure is repeated until the maximum numbers
of BFs (as defined by the modeller) are included in the
model. Subsequently, the best pairs of SFs are selected.
Expressed in Eq. 2b, each pair of SFs consists of one
left-sided and one right-sided truncated function defined
by the knot location, τ.
(𝜏 − x)q ;x < 𝜏
{
q]
(2a)
[
−(x − 𝜏)+ =
0;otherwise
(x − 𝜏)q ;x > 𝜏
{
q]
(2b)
[
+(x − 𝜏)+ =
0;otherwise
2 Pruning phase: The inclusion of a large number of BFs
often leads to the formation of an over-fitted model.
Hence, a one-at-a-time backward deletion procedure
is applied to exclude the BFs with insignificant contri-
butions. In this process, a generalized cross-validation
(GCV) technique is used to penalize both BFs and knots
[13]. A larger GCV value tends to produce smaller mod-
els. Hence, while using the GCV criterion, a penalty for
the model complexity is incorporated.
3 Model selection phase: The optimal model is finally
selected from the sequence of smaller models obtained
in the pruning phase.
3.2 Modelling with GP Technique
GP procedure imitates the process of natural evolution [14].
The predictive models developed in this process resemble
tree structures, called GP trees. The nodes of these trees are
the elements either from a functional set (arithmetic opera-
tors, mathematical functions, Boolean operators, logical
expressions or any other user-defined functions) or from a
terminal set (variables, constant terms or both). In the initial
step of the GP formalism, several GP trees are arbitrarily
generated based on the user-defined functional sets, termi-
nal sets, population size, maximum number of genes (Gmax)
and the maximum depth of the GP tree (dmax). Further, the
objective function (sum of absolute errors between the actual
and predicted outputs) assesses the quality of individuals
in the population. At every generation, a new population
is produced by selecting the most fitted individuals from
the initial population, and then implementing various evo-
lutionary mechanisms such as reproduction, crossover and
mutation. These steps are iterated until the termination cri-
terion (i.e., reaching a threshold fitness value or executing
the maximum number of generations, whichever is ear-
lier) is achieved and the best-fit model is appeared in any
generation.
It can be noted here that, no concrete guideline is devised
yet to estimate the optimum values of GP algorithm param-
eters. Hence, a stepwise selection procedure is adopted to
attain these optimum values. The parameter to be optimized
is scanned thoroughly in a wide range while keeping the
remaining parameters unchanged. With changing the numer-
ical value of any parameter, the performance of the GP
model changes considerably and attains the optimum preci-
sion at a certain value. These critical values (of all param-
eters) are identified through numerous trials and are used
in the model development process. Any model developed
13

using the GP analysis is simply a mathematical function of
the input variables (regression-like) as follow:
(3)
( )
yGP = b + w × f x1 , x2 , x3 , …
Where, yGP represents the output of the GP model, b)is the
bias parameter, w is the weight of gene f x1 , x2 , x3 , …  , and
(
x1, x2, x3, … are the input parameters.
3.3 Modelling with BRNN Technique
A typical feed-forward multilayer perceptron (MLP) neural
network is comprised of one input layer, one output layer and
one/more hidden layer(s). Input variables are applied at the
first layer and outputs are produced at the last layer. Each layer
is comprised of many interconnected nodes, called ‘neurons.’
The neurons in any layer receive input information from the
preceding layer, process them, and deliver the transformed
outputs to the succeeding layer. In order to carry out suitable
transformations, hidden layers use some transfer functions
such as hyperbolic tangent sigmoid, log-sigmoid and linear
functions, etc.
The back-propagation algorithm [19] is commonly used to
train the neural networks, which essentially seeks in a step-
wise method to search for the optima in a high-dimensional
weight space to minimize the sum squared error (SSE). This
procedure often leads to the formation of an over-fitted model
due to unbounded values of the weights. The Bayesian reg-
ularization algorithm used in this study is well capable of
dealing with such kinds of problems. The BRNN procedure
minimizes both mean squared errors (MSE) and mean square
of weights (MSW). Expressed below, MSW minimizes the
weights and biases values and subsequently lessens the chance
of overfitting.
1 ∑n
MSW = w2 (4)
n j=1 j
Where, n is the total number of weights and wj represents
the network weights.
Equation 5 shows the mathematical expression of the total
performance function (PF) of BRNN.
PF = 𝛾 × MSE + (1 − 𝛾) × MSW (5)
Where, MSE represents the network mean square error and
ϒ represents the performance ratio.
It can be noted here that, extremely low values of ϒ may
not fit the training data set effectively, and the reverse may
result in overfitting. Hence, ϒ is estimated with the help of
a Bayesian framework [16] for the optimal regularization of
BLOS models. The basic expression of a BRNN-based model
with normalized output yBRNN within the range of [0–1] is as
follow:
13
International Journal of Intelligent Transportation Systems Research
∑h { ∑m
[ ( )}]
yBRNN = f b0 + wk × f bhk + wik Xi (6)
k=1 i=1
Where, f is the transfer function, b0 is the bias parameter
at the output layer, wk is the weight between kth neuron of the
hidden layer and the output neuron, bhk is the bias parameter
at kth neuron of the hidden layer, h is the number of neurons
in the hidden layer, wik is the weight connected between ith
input variable and kth neuron of the hidden layer, and Xi is
the normalized value of ith input in the range [0–1].
3.4 Dealing with Over‑fitting
Overfitting is a common issue associated with machine
learning techniques. This usually happens when a model is
trained for a long time without analysing how it would per-
form on the new data. Hence, the early stopping technique is
adopted in this study to deal with this issue. This technique
stops the training when the generalisation error increases,
which is measured by assessing the prediction performance
of the model on the validation or testing data (to keep a
track of how well the model performs on the new data). An
overfitted model is easily identified by a specific pattern in
the loss versus epoch graph, i.e., a decreasing training loss
and an increasing validation loss with increasing number
of epochs. This implies that one should keep track of the
validation loss along with training loss. In addition, a statis-
tical parameter namely, Overfitting Ratio ‘OR’ (as defined
in Table 1) is also used to compare the values of RMSE
obtained in model testing and training. Here, an OR value
less than ‘one’ represents an under-fitted model and its value
greater than ‘one’ represents an over-fitted model. Hence, an
efficient model is expected to produce an ‘OR’ value close
to ‘one’.
3.5 Selection of the Parsimonious Model
In AI, different architectures are likely to yield different per-
formances. Hence, one should be careful while selecting
a parsimonious model from the candidate models. In this
study, a parsimonious model is basically selected based on
its prediction efficiency and generalization ability. It can be
noted here that the prediction efficiency is usually assessed
in terms of one or more of the following parameters: coeffi-
cient of determination (R2), Nash-Sutcliffe model efficiency
coefficient (E), maximum absolute error (MAE), average
absolute error (AAE) and root mean square error (RMSE).
On the other hand, as described earlier, the generalization
ability is assessed using the over-fitting ratio (OR). The
definition as well as formulation of all these parameters are
given in Table 1. Here, the higher values of R2 and E, and
International Journal of Intelligent Transportation Systems Research

Table 1  Definition and formulation of statistical parameters

Metric Definition Formulation

R2 Best-fit calculations of the observed and predicted values of the output variable (i.e., overall BLOSPerc and 1−
SSRes

BLOSPred) in terms of the square of correlation coefficient between them SSTot

E Comparison of overall BLOSPerc and BLOSPred to evaluate how good the model is in explaining the total ∑n � �2 ∑
2
i=1 OAi −OA − ni=1 (OAi −OPi )
variance in the data set ∑n � �2
i=1 OAi −OA

MAE The maximum absolute difference between the values of overall BLOSPerc and BLOSPred
( )
max ||OAi − OPi || , ∀i
AAE The average of absolute difference between the values of overall BLOSPerc and BLOSPred 1 ∑ n
× i=1 ��OAi − OPi ��
n
RMSE The square root of average of squared difference between the values of overall BLOSPerc and BLOSPred
� �2
1 ∑n �
n i=1 OAi − OPi

OR The ratio of RMSE value obtained in model testing to that in model training RMSETesting
RMSETraining

SSRes = residual sum of squares, ­SSTot = total sum of squares, OAi = actual outputs, OPi = predicted outputs, OA  = mean value of actual outputs,
RMSETesting = RMSE in model testing, and RMSETraining = RMSE in model training

lower values of prediction errors (in terms of MAE, AAE
and RMSE) denote better prediction efficiency. In this study,
numerous models are first developed using the AI techniques
mentioned earlier. Subsequently, the performances of mod-
els obtained in each case are compared with each other.
Finally, the three optimum models (one in each case) are
identified for further investigation and comparison.
4 Study Area and Database Preparation
This section presents a detailed discussion of the site selec-
tion principles, location of study areas, data collection pro-
cedure and data extraction process.
built-environmental conditions. Road segments from inte-
rior regions as well as outskirts of the cities are considered.
The traffic flow on interior roadways represented a signifi-
cant percentage of two-wheelers and three-wheelers traffic.
In contrast, the traffic flow on the roadways located at the
outskirts represented a significant percentage of heavy vehi-
cles. Selected roadways also represented wide variations in
the widths of carriageways, outermost lanes, paved shoulders,
shared-use paths, medians, curbs and gutter pans. The traffic
volumes on these segments varied in a range of 350–5800
PCUs/h. The roadside developments were also significantly
diversified (residential, commercial, official and industrial
areas). Figure 1 exemplifies different kinds of bicycling envi-
ronments persisting in the study areas.

4.1 Site Selection 4.2 Collection of Roadway Data

India has a large and diverse transport sector with its own
share of challenges. The policy-making alongside the infra-
structural growth in the country unevenly vary from one part
to another. Hence, to develop a generalized BLOS model for
the entire country, it is highly essential to collect required data
sets from its various parts. Considering the time and budget
constraints, this study has selected four Indian mid-sized cities
for the data collection namely, Bhubaneswar (Odisha state),
Kottayam (Kerala state), Rourkela (Odisha state) and Rajah-
mundry (Andhra Pradesh state). Figure 1 shows the locations
of these cities on the Indian map. These cities well-represent
a variety of urban availabilities, on-road settings and travel
behaviours of the inhabitants (that has resulted from diverse
political, economic and socio-cultural developments). From
these cities, total 84 road segments (including 33 from Bhu-
baneswar city, 14 from Kottayam city, 23 from Rourkela city
and 14 from Rajahmundry city) are considered for data collec-
tion. While preparing the database, essential cares are taken
to consider widely diversified roadway geometric, traffic and
Discussed below, basically eight different variables have sig-
nificant influences on the BLOS of urban street segments in
mid-sized cities carrying heterogeneous traffic. Beura et al.
[12] have identified these variables with the help of the most
recent and promising machine learning technique namely,
‘random forest’. Hence, these parameters are directly col-
lected from the study areas for investigation and model
development purposes. The details of these variables along
with their collection procedures are given below.
1. Effective width of the outermost lane (WOLE): WOLE is
the sum total width of the outermost lane, paved shoul-
der and the paving between the outermost lane stripe and
the outer edge of the pavement minus the average width
reduction due to encroachments, if any [6]. Required
geometrical measurements were carried using a measur-
ing tape for determining the value of WOLE at each site.
2. Peak hour traffic volume per lane (PHV/L): In this study,
the peak hours of traffic flow were chosen as the analy-

13

Fig. 1  Study area locations and
typical bicycling conditions
ses periods to reflect the worst operational conditions
encountered by bicyclists. The mid-segment traffic flow
on each segment was videotaped for 2 hours and 30 min-
utes (either during 8:30–11:00 AM or 4:00–6:30 PM),
and the manual traffic volume counts were carried out.
The videotaping was done over a trap length of 30 m to
ease the measurement of a few other parameters along
with traffic volume. The value of PHV on each segment
was determined with the help of the ‘running average’
method. To express the volume counts in PCUs, the
conversion factors recommended in the IRC code of
practice-106 [20] were used. Subsequently, PHV/L on
each segment was estimated as the ratio of PHV and the
number of lanes (L) on each segment.
3. Average traffic speed (SAvg): The average traffic speed
(km/h) on each segment was estimated as the ratio of the
average crossing time of motorists and the length of the
longitudinal trap (i.e., 30 m).
4. Pavement condition index (PCI): The pavement condi-
tions at each site was assessed through visual inspections
by following the guidelines given in HCM-2010 [10]. As
per specifications, the value of PCI varies in the follow-
ing ranges: 4–5 (in case of no cracks and patches), 3–4
13
International Journal of Intelligent Transportation Systems Research
(fine or minor cracks), 2–3 (rutting, extensive patching,
few joint fractures, faulting, or cracking), 1–2 (distress
occurs over 50 % or more of the surface), and 0–1 (dis-
tress occurs over 75 % or more of the surface).
5. Roadside commercial density (RCD): The value of RCD
on each segment was rated on a 3-point scale of ‘1’ =
high, ‘0.5’ = moderate, and ‘0’ = low.
6. Roadside stoppages of the intermittent public tran-
sits (IPTStoppage): The IPTStoppage on each segment was
also rated using a 3-point scale where, ‘1’, ‘0.5’ and ‘0’
indicate high, moderate and low interruptions respec-
tively. If the public transits seemed to stop frequently
(say, at intervals of 60 seconds or less) on the roadside
areas, the interruption was termed to be ‘high’. Con-
versely, if the stopping activities were occasional (say, at
intervals of 180 seconds or more), the interruption was
termed to be ‘low’. In-between, the intermediate level
of interruption (say, at intervals 60–180 seconds) was
termed as moderate.
7. Volume of vehicular ingress-egress to the on-street park-
ing area (VParking): Approximate VParking on each segment
(in veh/h/km) was estimated by observing the parking
actives recorded in the videotapes.
International Journal of Intelligent Transportation Systems Research

8. Frequency of driveways carrying high traffic volume Table 2  Variations in participants’ characteristics at studied segments
(DFreq): DFreq at each segment (in driveways/km) was Characteristic Distribution Variation (%)
estimated by inspecting the whole length of each seg-
ment visually. Gender Female 41–46
Male 53–59
4.3 Collection of Overall Perceived BLOS Score Age (years) ≤ 20 12–21
21–40 47–58
In this study, an extensive perception survey was conducted 51–60 9–18
to assess the overall perceived BLOS scores (BLOSPerc) of ≥ 60 3–6
on-street bicyclists at each site. The array of these scores Educational background Matriculation or less 14–22
gives the output variable for the present analysis. Although Intermediate 27–37
time-consuming, the roadside interview survey approach Graduation or above 46–55
produces precise and reliable information from the partici- Bicycling experience (years) <5 19–28
pants. Hence, around 150 bicyclists were randomly recruited 5–10 42–56
from each site for face-to-face interactions. The selection > 10 18–27
was made in such a way as to represent a good mix of gen- Daily average bicycling dis- <5 24–32
tance (km/day) 5–10 46–59
der, age and other characteristics of bicyclists. Depending
upon the bicycle volume and pattern of arrival on a par- 11–20 11–17
ticular segment, the decision was taken on how frequently > 20 1–3
to recruit the participants. For instance, while the bicycle
volume was less at a site (say, around 150 bicycles/h), almost
all bicyclists were included in the survey to fulfil the study collected from each segment, the average of which repre-
purpose. On the other hand, while the volume was high, sented the overall BLOSPerc for the concerned segment. The
every third or fourth bicyclist was recruited for the interview. BLOSPerc of bicyclists was observed to vary in a wide range
As it is known that, non-response leads to a smaller final of 1.54–5.44 with a mean value of 3.49. However, extreme
sample size and, therefore, to a loss of accuracy in the pop- values like 1.54 and 5.44 (representing very good and very
ulation estimates. Therefore, the team members aimed at bad service conditions) were rarely observed, and it was
collecting the targeted number of responses by spending obvious.
sufficient time in the field. Furthermore, it was also aimed
to minimize the non-response rate by, for instance, develop-
ing more appealing survey materials. The bicyclists were 5 Data Analysis and Results
interacted in their local languages (like Odia, Hindi and
Telugu) and were assured that any information collected In the initial stage, a detailed investigation of the database
from them will only be used for research purposes. Small was carried out to visualize its statistical properties and use-
gifts and refreshment facilities were also arranged to attract fulness for further analysis. The statistical properties (mini-
the people for participation. In doing so, the refuse rate was mum, mean and maximum) of all variables were estimated,
minimized significantly. Furthermore, the minimum age of and the results are summarized in Table 3. As observed, each
participants was kept as 14 years in order to obtain rela- parameter varies in a very wide range. For instance, WOLE
tively mature responses. The wide variations observed in the was observed to vary from as low as 2.20 m to as high as
socio-demographic and travel-related characteristics of the 7.10 m. This concluded that the data sets are collected from
participants at study sites are shown in Table 2. For instance, widely diversified roadway environments. This fulfilled the
the gender distribution of participants across all sites was basic requirement of developing a well-generalized BLOS
41–46 % females and 53–59 % males. These all variations model for the present context. The variables were also
helped to estimate the overall BLOS scores perceived by all entered into Spearman’s correlation analysis to ensure their
possible categories of bicyclists. significance in the present context. In this analysis, the road
Bicyclists who recently travelled over the full length of attributes (Sl. No. 1–8 of Table 3) were used as independent
desired segments were asked to participate in the interview. variables and BLOSPerc was used as the dependent variable.
Each participant rated the desired segment based on a simple The correlation coefficients (Spearman’s ρ) alongside
question that, “How would you like to rate the road segment their statistical significance (p-value) obtained between
based on your overall perceived satisfaction?” The BLOSPerc each independent variable and BLOSPerc are summarized in
values were collected by using a 6-point Likert scale, which Table 3. As observed, each input variable is significantly
varies from ‘1’ (highly satisfied) to ‘6’ (highly dissatisfied). correlated with BLOSPerc at p < 0.001 level. This shows
In this process, at least 150 effective perceived ratings were that the perceived BLOS of on-street bicyclists is largely

13
 International Journal of Intelligent Transportation Systems Research

Table 3  Summary of the Sl. No. Variable (unit) Variable type Minimum Mean Maximum Spearman’s ρ p-value
database used in the present
investigation 1 WOLE (meters) Input 2.20 3.67 7.10 -0.532 < 0.001
2 PHV/L (PCUs/h/lane) Input 145 1070 2587 0.550 < 0.001
3 S Avg (km/h) Input 22 33.95 47 0.410 < 0.001
4 PCI (scale) Input 2.50 3.85 4.50 -0.465 < 0.001
5 RCD (scale) Input 0 0.49 1 0.520 < 0.001
6 IPT Stoppage (scale) Input 0 0.45 1 0.409 < 0.001
7 V Parking (Veh/h/km) Input 0 745.78 6000 0.530 < 0.001
8 D Freq (Driveways/km) Input 0 0.83 3 0.439 < 0.001
9 BLOS Perc Output 1.54 3.49 5.44 - -

Note: BLOSPerc represents the overall perceived BLOS score (which is now a continuous variable)

determined by these attributes. It can also be noted that, if as they require more computational efforts. Hence, a trade-
two or more independent variables are highly correlated with off was made between the model performance and its com-
each other, they explain the same variation in the output var- plexity. Subsequently, the most effective (R2 = 0.908) but
iable. This situation is called as “multi-collinearity”. In such the simplest model was obtained with eight BFs as follow:
cases, the variable having the highest correlation with model
BLOSPred, Norm = 0.562 + 0.199 × BF1 − 0.491 × BF2
output is only selected for inclusion in the model building
process. In this study, the maximum value of inter-correla- + 3.975 × BF3 − 0.375 × BF4
(8)
tions between the input variables was 0.54. This suggested + 0.273 × BF5 + 0.765 × BF6 − 0.978 × BF7
that the selected parameters are free from multi-collinearity, + 0.228 × BF8
and are able to affect BLOSPerc independently. Hence, these
all variables were entered into the modelling process. Where, BLOSPred, Norm is the normalized value of BLOSPred,
Before carrying out the AI analyses, all observations con- ( )
BF1 = max 0, VParking − 0.067 ,
tained in the database were separated into a training set of
52 observations (70% of the total) and a testing set of 22
observations (30% of the total). Both groups were made to BF2 = max(0, PCI − 0.5),
represent similar statistical properties (especially, the mean
and range) of the contained variables. All variables were ( )
BF3 = BF2 × max 0, 0.239 − WOLE ,
normalized in the range of [0–1] before feeding them into
MARS and BRNN analyses. This was required to overcome ( )
the problems that arise due to the dimensional effects of BF4 = max 0, 0.033 − DFreq ,
originally observed values. However, no normalization was
required for the GP analysis, which was a major advantage ( )
BF5 = max 0, SAvg − 0.437 ,
of using this technique. The ‘mapminmax’ function of MAT-
LAB was used in this study to normalize the variables. The ( )
following equation may also be used to manually normalize BF6 = BF4 × max 0, 0.5 − IPTStoppage ,
a variable v:
PHV
( )
v − vMin BF7 = max 0, 0.519 −
( )
× max 0, 0.5 − IPTStoppage , and
vNorm =
vMax − vMin (7) L

Where, vNorm is the normalized value of v, and vMax and
vMin are the maximum and minimum values of v.
5.1 MARS‑based BLOS Model Development
With the increase in numbers of ‘Basis Functions’ (BFs),
the performance of a MARS-based model gets improvised,
but its mathematical structure becomes more complicated.
Complicated models are less preferred for field applications
BF8 = max(0, RCD − 0.5).
Here, all input variables have their values normalized
within the range of 0–1. Therefore, Eq. 8 returns the normal-
ized value of BLOSPred. The de-normalized value of the same
could be estimated as follow:
BLOSPred = BLOSPred, Norm × (BLOSMax − BLOSMin ) + BLOSMin (9)

13
International Journal of Intelligent Transportation Systems Research

Where, BLOSMax and BLOSMin are the maximum and mini-
mum values of BLOSPerc (i.e., 5.44 and 1.54 respectively in
this study).
5.2 GP‑based BLOS Model Development
In order to attain the optimum solutions, GP algorithm
parameters were varied in wide ranges as shown in Table 4.
A tournament selection strategy with a tournament size of
seven was adopted to select the parental genes from the
pool of available solutions. The instructions or functions
defined in functional set were as follows: +, -, ×, ÷, (.) 2,
(.)3, sqrt, sin(.), cos(.), tan(.), tanh(.), exp(.) and ln(.). Con-
ditions used to terminate the program execution was 1000
generations or fitness value less than 0.0001, whichever is
earlier. After making numerous trials, the best solutions
were attained with a population size of 1000 individuals at
400 generations and a tree depth of six. The reproduction,
crossover and mutation probabilities were 0.02, 0.84 and
0.14 respectively.
The final population of the GP run attained for the
present problem is presented in Fig. 2. Figure 2(a) shows
a curve of non-dominated solutions on which optimally
evolved BLOS models fall, called the ‘Pareto front.’
The blue coloured rectangles on this plot are the set of
non-dominated BLOS models (i.e., superior perform-
ing models), and the violet-coloured triangles are the
set of dominated ones (i.e., inferior performing models).
Using the Pareto front, a trade-off was made between
the fitness and the expressional complexity of superior
performing models. In this process, one optimal model
(indicated on the Pareto front with an arrow mark) was
selected, which is both reliable (R 2 = 0.853) and less
complex. Figure 2(b) shows the weight and significance
of the gene and bias term of this model. As depicted
in Fig. 2(b), the p-value of the gene is significantly lesser
than the p-value of the bias term; which indicates that
the gene is largely contributing to the model in com-
parison to the other. Hence, it can be concluded that the
input variables are contributing more to the model than
the constant term. This is the sign of a good empirical
model.
The tree structure of the selected GP-based BLOS model
is shown in Fig. 3. By using the GP tree structure and esti-
mated coefficients, the mathematical expression of this
model is derived as follow:

Table 4  Adopted ranges of the GP algorithm parameters

Parameter Range

Population size (individuals) 100–1500

Gmax 100–1000
d max 2–8
Reproduction probability 0.01–0.07
Crossover probability 0.75–0.9
Mutation probability 0.05–0.15
Tournament size 7

Fig. 2  Optimum GP solutions:
(a) Pareto front, (b) weights and
significance of genes and bias of
the best model

13
 International Journal of Intelligent Transportation Systems Research

Fig. 3  Tree structure of the proposed GP-based BLOS model

PHV
( )
BLOSPred =1.510 + 0.382 × ln
L
− 2 × WOLE + VParking − 2 × SAvg × DFreq Table 6  Weights and biases of the selected BRNN model (model-2)
(10) Estimates Model term Hidden Hidden Hidden
( ) ( )
+ 0.382 × cos WOLE − 0.382 × PCI + 0.382 × ln SAvg
( )0.5 4 layer-1 layer-2 layer-3
+ 0.382 × WOLE + DFreq + 0.358 × (RCD) + 0.382 × IPTStoppage

Weight (w)
wik WOLE 0.274 -1.784 -1.873
PHV/L 0.291 0.843 -0.383
5.3 BRNN‑based BLOS Model Development SAvg 0.088 0.900 0.359
PCI 0.759 0.292 0.514
In this study, the feed-forward MLP neural networks com- RCD -1.187 -0.762 -0.829
prising of only one hidden layer were developed in order IPTStoppage 0.567 0.173 -0.300
to attain simple (but efficient) models. Numerous BRNN VParking 0.599 0.349 -0.239
models with different numbers of hidden neurons varying in DFreq -1.417 -0.220 0.020
the range of 1–10 were constructed and were trained using wk BLOSPerc -1.150 1.884 -1.411
the same sets of training data. Prediction performances of Bias (b)
the evolved models were assessed in terms of R2, AAE and bhk Hidden layer 0.073 -0.616 0.562
RMSE. The prediction results of eight superior perform- b0 BLOSPerc 0.961
ing models are shown in Table 5. It can be observed that
model-2 with three hidden neurons and log-sigmoid transfer wik are the weights between input and hidden layers, wk are the
function has produced the best results with a R2-value of weights between hidden and output layers, bhk are the biases at the
hidden layer, and b0 is the bias at the output layer
0.892 in the training stage and 0.872 in the testing stage. On

Table 5  Few superior Model No. 1 2 3 4 5

performing BRNN models
obtained from many trials Number of hidden neurons 3 3 3 4 4
Transfer Function Tan-sigmoid Log-sigmoid Elliot-sig Tan-sigmoid Log-sigmoid
Training results
R2 0.873 0.892 0.880 0.902 0.918
 AAE 0.204 0.175 0.174 0.163 0.149
 RMSE 0.259 0.238 0.249 0.225 0.204
Testing results
R2 0.857 0.872 0.845 0.845 0.861
 AAE 0.293 0.279 0.311 0.316 0.294
 RMSE 0.355 0.355 0.391 0.394 0.373
 OR 1.371 1.492 1.570 1.751 1.828

13
International Journal of Intelligent Transportation Systems Research

the other hand, despite having the best performance in the
training phase, model-5 has shown comparatively poor per-
formance in the testing phase. Thus, this model is neglected
from further considerations, and model-2 has been recog-
nized as the optimum BLOS model.
The connection weights and biases obtained for model-2
are shown in Table 6. Inputting these estimates in Eq. 6, the
expression of the BRNN-based BLOS model is derived as
follow:
A1 = 0.073 + 0.274 × WOLE + 0.291 × PHV∕L + 0.088 × SAvg
+ 0.759 × PCI − 1.187 × RCD + 0.567 × IPT Stoppage
+ 0.599 × VParaking − 1.417 × WFreq
A2 = −0.616 − 1.784 × WOLE + 0.843 × PHV∕L + 0.900 × SAvg
+ 0.292 × PCI − 0.762 × RCD + 0.173 × IPT Stoppage
+ 0.349 × VParaking − 0.220 × WFreq
exp(C) − exp(−C)
BLOSPred,Norm = (11h)
exp(C) + exp(−C)
Where, A1, A2, A3, B1, B2, B3, and C are the general terms
of the BRNN model.
The value of BLOSPred,Norm obtained from the above
model could be denormalized using Eq. 9, presented earlier.
5.4 Statistical Tests and Comparison of Models
The plots of the model predicted and overall perceived
(11a) BLOS scores (BLOS Pred versus BLOS Perc) are shown in
Fig. 4, 4a for training data and 4b for testing data. It is evi-
dent that the scatterings of BLOSPred values obtained from
all models are fairly within the 80 % prediction limit from
the line of fitness. However, it is difficult to identify the
(11b)
best model by simply analysing these figures. Thus, sev-
eral statistical parameters listed in Table 1 are also applied

to test the prediction precision of the developed models.

A3 = 0.562 − 1.873 × WOLE − 0.383 × PHV∕L + 0.359 × SAvg
The statistical results obtained using these parameters are
+ 0.514 × PCI − 0.829 × RCD − 0.300 × IPT Stoppage − 0.239 (11c) summarized in Table 7. As observed, MARS model has
× VParaking − 0.020 × WFreq shown the best prediction precision in the present context
with the highest values of R2 and E, and the lowest values
( ) of prediction errors between BLOS Pred and overall BLO-
exp eA1 − e−A1
B1 = −1.150 × ( ) (11d) SPerc (in terms of MAE, AAE and RMSE). The generali-
exp eA1 + e−A1 zation ability of this model was also assessed in terms of
the over-fitting ratio (OR). As observed, the model has
(
exp eA2 − e−A2
) an excellent generalization ability to the new data with an
B2 = 1.884 × ( ) (11e) OR value of 1.13.7
exp eA2 + e−A2 As per Table 7, both GP and BRNN models also have
reliable prediction efficiencies in the present context in
terms of both best-fit calculations and prediction errors.
( )
exp eA3 − e−A3
B3 = −1.411 × ( ) (11f) However, the major drawback of BRNN model is that it
exp eA3 + e−A3
has a relatively poor generalization ability to new data sets
(OR = 1.49). Its mathematical structure is also very much
C = 0.961 + B1 + B2 + B3 (11g) complex, which is not favourable for field applications.
Hence, the model would be the least preferred among all
developed models. On the other hand, the existing model
(probit-based) has been underperformed by the developed

Fig. 4  Plots of BLOSPred versus

overall BLOSPerc for (a) training
data and (b) testing data

13
 International Journal of Intelligent Transportation Systems Research

Table 7  Overall performance BLOS Model Data Best-fit calculation Prediction error Gener-
and ranking of BLOS models alization
Ability
R2 E MAE AAE RMSE OR

MARS model Training 0.908 0.907 0.645 0.165 0.217 1.13

Testing 0.932 0.865 0.538 0.213 0.245
GP model Training 0.853 0.853 0.656 0.197 0.274 1.15
Testing 0.876 0.778 0.630 0.257 0.316
BRNN model Training 0.892 0.888 0.726 0.175 0.238 1.49
Testing 0.872 0.720 0.674 0.279 0.355
Existing model Training 0.808 0.803 0.722 0.245 0.317 0.85
Testing 0.868 0.839 0.505 0.226 0.268

Table 8  Ranges of service classes (A–F)
BLOS Class Description Ranges of BLOSPred
A Excellent service < 1.5
B Very good service 1.5 – 2.5
C Good service 2.5 – 3.5
D Fair service 3.5 – 4.5
E Poor service 4.5 – 5.5
F Very poor service > 5.5
models in terms of the best-fit calculations (R2 and E) of
BLOS Pred and overall BLOS Perc. Although it has shown
comparable performance with the GP and BRNN models
in terms of error measuring parameters and OR, its major
disadvantage lies in its complex mathematical structure.
These all observations concluded that the MARS model
would be the most preferred one for field applications,
while prediction accuracy is of the utmost concern. The
GP model could also be implemented in the field for quick
calculations keeping in mind that the prediction results
would be relatively inferior.
5.5 Ranges of Service Classes (A–F) and Field
Applications
As the ultimate goal of this study was to estimate the service
levels (A–F) offered to bicyclists at the street segments, the
numeric values of the model predicted BLOS scores (i.e.,
BLOSPred) were needed to be converted into letter-graded
service classes A–F (where, A = excellent and F = worst).
To accomplish this, a service scale was defined in Table 8
based on a simple concept as follow. The mean value of
BLOSPrec scores obtained from the studied segments was
around 3.5. This corresponded to the boundary between the
first and last three service classes (i.e., A–C and D–F). This
means any value of BLOSPred less than 3.5 belongs to one of
the service classes A–C, while any value of BLOSPred higher
than 3.5 belongs to one of the service classes D–F. Thus, the
ranges of BLOS classes (A–F) were defined accordingly in
Table 8 at an equal interval of ‘one.’
For investigation purpose, the MARS model was applied
to estimate the BLOS class of all investigated segments. For
instance, the field observations for Madhusudan Marg, Bhu-
baneswar were as follows: WOLE = 3.5 m, PHV/L = 650.5
PCUs/h/lane, SAvg = 36 km/h, PCI = 4, LU = 0.5, IPTStoppage
= 0.5, VParking = 10 veh/h/km, and DFreq = 1 driveway/km.
Using these data, Eq. 9 gave rise to a BLOSPred value of 3.38.
This suggested that the segment is offering service class ‘C’
(as per Table 8) at its present condition. In a similar manner,
the BLOS classes of all other segments were also estimated.
It was observed that only 16 % of the investigated sites are
offering BLOS ‘A’ and ‘B’. Hence, there is a serious need
for timely augmenting the quality of existing segments to
meet future demands. This might be accomplished effec-
tively by adopting the strategies discussed in the following
section.
5.6 BLOS Improvement Strategies
For identifying the utmost important BLOS improvement
strategies, it was important to know the relative importance
of the BLOS model inputs. Hence, the sensitivity analysis
of MARS model (the most efficient one) was carried out by
using Eq. 12 [21].
� � � �
fmax xi − fmin xi
S i = ∑m � � � � �� × 100 (12)
f
i=1 max i
x − fmin xi
Where, Si = sensitivity (%) of ith input, fmax(xi) = maxi-
mum value of the output variable over ith input, fmin(xi) =
minimum values of the output variable over ith input, and m
= total number of input variables.
The fmax(x i) and f min(x i) parameters were estimated by
putting the maximum and/or minimum values of the i th
input along with mean values of the remaining inputs

13
International Journal of Intelligent Transportation Systems Research
Table 9  Ranking of modelled Parameter WOLE PHV/L
attributes as per sensitivity
analysis Si (%) 20.72 20.22
Rank 1 2
in the MARS model. As such, S i value represents the
percentage contribution of i th parameter in the predic-
tion of overall BLOS Pred. Thus, a higher S i value desig-
nates the higher importance of the concerned attribute.
Table 9 shows the results obtained from the sensitivity
analysis.
As observed in Table 9, WOL E closely followed by
PHV/L is the most important attribute for BLOS pre-
diction in the present context. V Parking and PCI are the
subsequent important variables. Hence, the four most
important strategies for the BLOS improvement at
urban road segments would be:
• To increase the effective width of the outside lane (by
widening the outermost traffic lane, constructing paved
shoulders and bicycle lanes, or by removing various
obstructions from the outermost lane like trees, illegally
parked vehicles and street vendors, etc., if any),
• To minimize the bicycle-vehicle interactions (by con-
structing dedicated bicycle lanes or providing bypass
roads for motorists),
• To reduce the illegal on-street parking activities, and
• To enhance the pavement surface quality.
Transportation planners and engineers should largely
prioritize the aforementioned parameters (WOLE, PHV/L,
V Parking and PCI) and strategies to effectively enhance
the BLOS of urban street segments under mixed traffic
conditions. As per Table 9, RCD, DFreq, VParking and IPT-
Stoppage have relatively lesser but significant influences on
the BLOS of street segments. Hence, four other strate-
gies, which should also be given due considerations for
BLOS improvement but with relatively lesser priority
include:
• To reduce the roadside commercial density,
• To decrease the influences of high-volume driveways (by
installing traffic control devices at the junctions or wid-
ening the driveways to ease the fast disposal of turning
vehicles),
• To impose strict rules on the vehicles moving with speeds
higher than the specified speed limits, and
• To put restrictions on the frequent stoppages of intermit-
tent public transits.
SAvg PCI RCD IPTStoppage VParking DFreq
4.91 11.82 10.45 4.64 17.03 10.21
7 4 5 8 3 6
6 Conclusions
This research has primarily focused on the development of
AI-based BLOS models for the efficient assessment of urban
road segments in mid-sized cities. Existing BLOS models
are primarily developed by considering the homogeneous
traffic flow conditions prevailing in developed countries.
These models are not transferable to the contexts of develop-
ing countries, where road traffic is heterogeneous in nature.
A probit-based BLOS model developed in the later context is
very much complex and computationally inefficient. Hence,
this study has developed improvised BLOS models through
the application of three dependable and promising AI tech-
niques namely MARS, GP and BRNN. Required data sets
for the present analysis are collected from as many as 84
road segments located in various parts of India. The col-
lected data sets basically include the information on eight
attributes such as the effective width of the outermost lane
(WOLE), peak hour traffic volume per lane (PHV/L), average
traffic speed (SAvg), pavement condition index (PCI), road-
side commercial density (RCD), roadside stoppages of the
intermittent public transits (IPTStoppage), volume of vehicular
ingress-egress to the on-street parking area (VParking), and the
frequency of driveways carrying high traffic volume (DFreq).
These variables are used as the sets of independent variables
in the model development process as they have significant
influences on the BLOS of urban street segments. Besides,
an extensive roadside interview survey has also been con-
ducted at each site to assess the overall perceived satisfac-
tion scores of bicyclists (BLOSPerc). The results have shown
that on-street bicyclists in the present context are offered
with diversified service classes (very good to very poor)
with BLOSPerc varying from as low as 1.54 to as high as
5.44. BLOSPerc has been used as the dependent variable in
the present analysis. Subsequently, the following important
conclusions are drawn.
• Among all newly developed BLOS models, the MARS-
based one has the best performance in the present con-
text with the highest R2-values of 0.908 and 0.932 in its
training and testing stages respectively. Thus, this model
would be the most preferred one for field implementa-
tion, while the prediction accuracy is of the utmost con-
cerns. Another advantage of this model over the exist-
13

ing model is that it is comparatively less-complex in its
mathematical structure.
• The simplest (but reliable) model has been produced
with the GP technique. This model has shown an efficient
prediction performance in the present context with high
R2-values of 0.853 and 0.876 in its training and testing
stages respectively. The major advantage of this model is
that it is highly compacted in its mathematical structure
(regression-like) for which it is supposed to be the most
applicable one from the point of view of simplicity and
manageability. It could be implemented in the field for
quick calculations keeping in mind that the prediction
results would be somewhat inferior to the MARS model.
• On the other hand, both BRNN and the existing models
are observed to be unfavourable for field applications
due to their complex structures. Transportation planners,
engineers and non-modellers would hardly understand
the sensitivity of these models.
• The proposed models (MARS and GP) are also observed to
be well-generalized to the vast urban contexts of mid-sized
cities in India and other developing nations. This has been
achieved by using a large quantity of diversified data sets
and promising AI techniques.
The field applications of the proposed models have shown
that only 16 % of the study corridors are offering excellent and
very good kinds of services (i.e., BLOS ‘A’ and ‘B’) at their
present conditions. Hence, it is essential to enhance the quality
of existing segments to meet future demands. This could be
effectively accomplished by adopting the BLOS improvement
strategies proposed in this study. It has been observed that
WOLE closely followed by PHV/L has the largest influence
on user-perceived BLOS. Hence, the best ways to enhance
the BLOS of urban street segments are to increase the effec-
tive width of the outside lane and minimize bicycle-vehicle
interactions. Both of these requirements could be fulfilled by
widening the outermost traffic lane, removing obstructions
from the outermost lane, if any, and/or constructing facilities
like separate bicycle lanes, paved shoulders, shared-use paths
and bypass roads. VParking and PCI are observed to be the third
and fourth most important parameters in the present context.
Thus, improved BLOS could also be effectively achieved by
minimizing on-street parking activities and enhancing the
pavement surface quality. Other BLOS improvement strategies
with relatively lower importance included the minimization of
roadside commercial density, effective management of turn-
ing-traffic on the high-volume driveways, etc. The proposed
models and the mentioned BLOS improvement strategies
would largely assist the transportation planners and engineers
in various on-going transportation planning processes. The
study findings will also assist the road authorities in improving
the quality of existing facilities and establishing new bicycle-
friendly facilities. Amongst the limitations of this study, the
13
International Journal of Intelligent Transportation Systems Research
BLOS models are primarily developed for mid-sized cities.
Hence, these models may not provide the expected level of
accuracy in big and metropolitan cities, where road and traf-
fic conditions are perhaps more complex. Hence, this aspect
could be investigated in future studies and the study efforts
could be duplicated at necessity. Future studies may also apply
better feature selection tools (for instance, Recursive Feature
Elimination) as selected variables have significant impacts on
the model performance.
Declarations 
Declarations of Interest  None.
References
1. Davis, J.: Bicycle safety evaluation. Auburn University, City of
Chattanooga, and Chattanooga-Hamilton County Regional Plan-
ning Commission, Chattanooga, TN (1987)
2. Epperson, B.: Evaluating suitability of roadways for bicycle use:
toward a cycling level-of-service standard. Transportation Research
Record, No. 1438, pp. 9–16 (1994)
3. Landis, B.W.: Bicycle interaction hazard score: A theoretical model.
Transportation Research Record, No. 1438, 3–8 (1994)
4. Sorton, A., Walsh, T.: Bicycle stress level as a tool to evaluate
urban and suburban bicycle compatibility. Transportation Research
Record, No. 1438, pp. 17-24 (1994)
5. Davis, J.: Bicycle test route evaluation for urban road conditions.
Transportation Congress: Civil Engineers-Key to the World Infra-
structure. Proceeding of the Transportation Congress, Volumes 1
and 2: Civil engineers—key to the world’s infrastructure, Ameri-
can Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), San Diego, pp. 1063–1076
(1995)
6. Landis, B.W., Vattikuti, V.R., Brannick, M.T.: Real-time human per-
ceptions: toward a bicycle level of service. Transportation Research
Record, No. 1578, 119–126 (1997). https://​doi.​org/​10.​3141/​1578-​15
7. Harkey, D.L., Reinfurt, D.W., Knuiman, M., Stewart, J.R., Sorton,
A.: Development of the bicycle compatibility index: a level of ser-
vice concept. Transportation Research Record, No. 1636, 13–20
(1998). https://​doi.​org/​10.​3141/​1636-​03
8. Jensen, S.U.: Pedestrian and bicycle level of service on roadway
segments. Transportation Research Record, No. 2031, pp. 43–51
(2007) https://​doi.​org/​10.​3141/​2031-​06
9. Transportation Research Board (TRB): Highway Capacity Manual,
p. 1134. Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C. (2000)
10. Transportation Research Board (TRB): Highway Capacity Manual,
p. 1650. Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C. (2010)
11. Kang, K., Lee, K.: Development of a bicycle level of service model
from the user’s perspective. KSCE J. Civ. Eng. 16(6), 1032–1039
(2012). https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s12205-​012-​1146-z
12. Beura, S.K., Chellapilla, H., Bhuyan, P.K.: Urban road segment level
of service based on bicycle users’ perception under mixed traffic
conditions. J. Mod. Transp. 25(2), 90–105 (2017). https://​doi.​org/​
10.​1007/​s40534-​017-​0127-9
13. Put, R., Xu, Q., Massart, D., Heyden, Y.: Multivariate adaptive
regression splines (MARS) in chromatographic quantitative struc-
ture-retention relationship studies. J. Chromatogr. A 1055, 11–19
(2004). https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​chroma.​2004.​07.​112
14. Koza, J.R.: Genetic Programming: On the programming of comput-
ers by means of natural selection. MIT Press, Cambridge (1992)
International Journal of Intelligent Transportation Systems Research
15. Poli, R., Langdon, W., McPhee, N.: A field guide to genetic pro-
gramming. Lulu Enterprises, UK Ltd, London (2008)
16. Demuth, H., Beale, M.: Neural Network Toolbox. The Math Works
Inc., USA (2000)
17. Bartlett, P.L.: The sample complexity of pattern classification with
neural networks; the size of the weights is more important than the
size of network. IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory 44(2), 525–536 (1998).
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1109/​18.​661502
18. Friedman, J.: Multivariate adaptive regression splines. Ann.Stat. 19,
1–141 (1991)
19. Goh, A.T.C.: Back-propagation neural networks for modeling com-
plex systems. Artif. Intell. Eng. 9(3), 143–151 (1995)
20. IRC: Guidelines for capacity of urban roads in plain areas. Indian
Road Congress-106, New Delhi (1990)
21. Gandomi, A.H., Yun, G.J., Alavi, A.H.: An evolutionary approach
for modeling of shear strength of RC deep beams. Mater. Struct. 46,
2109–2119 (2013). https://​doi.​org/​10.​1617/​s11527-​013-​0039-z
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
13