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, conicts, speed differential, motor vehicle LOS, maintenance, and provision of transportation demand management programs or intermodal links. Pedestrian LOS criteria are similar and incorporate specic 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 specic 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 quantiable 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 prociency 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 quantied, in several sources (79). One study analyzed pedestrian signal delay to dene 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 deciencies 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 identied, 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.

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. Bicycle LOS evaluation criteria involve the provision of basic facilities, conicts, speed differential, motor vehicle LOS, maintenance, and provision of transportation demand management (TDM) programs or multimodal links to transit. The categories bicycle facility provided and conflict incorporate several subelements. Many of the bicycle measures originate from the Florida RCI (1), but they also incorporate

other research and the specic needs of the Plan. Pedestrian LOS evaluation criteria involve the provision of basic facilities, conicts, amenities, motor vehicle LOS, maintenance, and TDM and multimodal provisions. The first three pedestrian variables incorporate subelements. The pedestrian measures draw upon accepted facility designs, signal timing, and other features supported in research. The criteria and their weighted point scores are displayed in Table 1. 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 scoring system was developed with a sensitivity to characteristics that may be mutually exclusive or inclusive to determine all possible combinations of

TABLE 1

Bicycle and Pedestrian Level-of-Service Performance-Measure Point System

Dixon

points. Segment scores may appear somewhat exaggerated when compared to the LOS rating denitions, but they are moderated by applying weighted averages to achieve the corridor LOS rating. Segment scores identify the portions of a corridor having the greatest deciencies. 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. The bicycle LOS ratings are sensitive to variations in both bicyclists abilities and their tolerance of less-accommodating facilities as dened by Wilkinson et al. (11). 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). No attempt is made to relate pedestrian facility performance to pedestrian skill because abilities are less varied among pedestrians than bicyclists. Pedestrian facilities designed to function for the least-skilled pedestrians (children, senior citizens, and the physically challenged) are typically the best for all pedestrians. Generally, bicycle and pedestrian LOS ratings of C and D are considered acceptable in most urban settings. An LOS rating of A or B indicates a performance level well above average and may be expected in locations such as college campuses, downtowns, tourist centers, and activity centers. Conversely, LOS ratings of E and F describe degrees of unacceptable performance. Not all roadways in a community should be expected to rate LOS A or B. These ratings likely would be exceptions reserved for special locations where many people walk or bicycle. The bicycle and pedestrian LOS ratings are similar to motor vehicle LOS ratings, among which C and D describe generally acceptable roadway performance, A and B describe near perfect conditions, and E and F describe decient facilities. The bicycle and pedestrian facility performance measures that were used in the analysis of congested roadways in Gainesville are detailed in the following sections.

Off-Street and Parallel Alternative Facility Off-street bicycle facilities are dened 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). To be considered a parallel facility serving the corridor the facility must maintain a minimum 2.44-m (8-ft) width, be located within 0.40 km (0.25 mi) of the corridor, and serve the same primary destination points as the roadway network. The study corridor segment should provide basic bicycle access. Therefore, 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, freedom of movement, and direct access to bicyclists.

Conicts To what degree are conicts created or alleviated for the bicyclist because of frequent motor vehicle turn movements, poor visibility, and physical obstructions? Proper design and control of these features can greatly increase the safety and comfort of bicyclists using the corridor. These criteria measure how easily bicyclists and motorists are able to observe and predict each others actions.

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, excluding the gutter pan. When the gutter pan has been overlaid with feathered asphalt resurfacing to accommodate bicycles, the measurement is taken to the face of the curb. When a bicycle lane is present, the bicycle lane width is included in the total measurement with the rightmost motorvehicle travel lane. When parking, bus, or other special use is present in the curb lane, only the width of the rightmost travel lane is measured. The scoring categories are as follows: 3.66 m (12 ft) or lessno on-street bicycle facility, Greater than 3.66 to 4.27 m (12 to 14 ft)wide curb lane, and Greater than 4.27 m (14 ft)designated bike lane, paved shoulder, undesignated bike lane, or extremely wide curb lane.

Less Than 22 Driveways and Side Streets per 1.61 km Driveway and sidestreet access points create conicts for bicyclists. Both national and local bicycle crash statistics reveal a high proportion of crashes caused by this type of conict. At each access point a bicyclist must scan for hazards and be prepared to execute an evasive maneuver. Bicyclists feel threatened in an environment that presents many turning conicts and may avoid cycling there. 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. A Class 5 or 6 is typically found in Gainesville on urban arterial roadways and prescribes that access points must be at least 74.72 m (245 ft) apart. This spacing permits acceptable motor vehicle ows and was assumed to reduce bicycle conicts to an acceptable level. For the described measures, driveways (both commercial and residential) and side streets are evaluated for each side of the street within each corridor segment. If either side of the street exceeds the target of 22 per 1.61 km (1 mi), the entire segment will not score points.

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 specic point within the segment. 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, intrusion of drainage facilities into the bicycle area, bus bays, heavily used right-turn slip lanes, and continuous right-turn lanes. 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. The existence of on-street parking should not be counted as a barrier because parking is analyzed in a separate criterion. Vegetative encroachment that is a result of poor maintenance should not be counted as a barrier. However, vegetative encroachment that results from gaps in the facility (such as grassy patches

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. When no on- or off-street bicycle facility is present, the segment cannot score points for having a barrier-free facility.

Speed Differential Speed differential is calculated by comparing the average bicycle speed of 24 kph (15 mph) with the posted speed. School zone posted speeds are not considered because they address a specic need for a specic time period. The 24-kph speed is the upper range of speed for young adult and novice adult bicyclists; it is also the average of the lowest likely speed10 kph (6 mph)with the highest likely speed39 kph (24 mph) (14). 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). If average actual motorvehicle speeds are available, this data could be used for a more accurate analysis. The scoring categories are as follows: 24- to 32-kph (15- to 20-mph) speed differentialposted speed of 48 to 56 kph (30 to 35 mph), 40- to 48-kph (25- to 30-mph) speed differentialposted speed of 64 to 72 kph (40 to 45 mph), and Greater than 48-kph (30-mph) speed differentialposted speed of greater than 72 kph (45 mph).

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. 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. On-street parking creates such hazards as turning and backing vehicles, open car doors, and sight obstructions. These hazards can be somewhat minimized through design and pavement width, but even in the best of circumstances onstreet parking can create physical and psychological conicts for bicyclists.

Medians Present The medians must be restrictive, raised medians with or without turn bays. The presence of medians should be noted only if the medians are a dominant feature throughout the corridor segment, or at least in those portions of the segment where vehicle turning movements are most frequent. These medians are considered a benet to bicyclists because they limit left-turn conicts. Turn lanes in a median can also be a benet because they allow traffic ow to continue without backing up behind a turning vehicle. When this back-up occurs motorists are often tempted to use the bicycle lanes or paved shoulders to pass on the right. However, continuous turn lanes are not to be credited in this category because the benet of reducing back-ups is greatly offset by the increase in turning movements at random locations. Congestion issues are primarily accounted for under the motorvehicle LOS criterion.

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, number of signalized intersections and travel lanes, effective green time at signalized intersections, directional distribution of traffic ow, and peak-hour traffic volumes (15). These have been cited as factors in the comfort and safety levels of bicyclists using a roadway (1,2). The total number of lanes, including bus, high-occupancyvehicle, and other special-use lanes, is an additional factor in the motor-vehicle LOS criterion. Continuous right-turn lanes, centerturn lanes, or bike lanes are not included in determining the total number of lanes. Roadways with six or more travel lanes are less comfortable and less safe for bicyclists. 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. Bicyclists risktaking behavior, such as wrong-way riding and sidewalk riding, is increased on multilane roadways because of the difficulty they have crossing these roadways and the threat they perceive from increased traffic volumes. 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. However, this does not imply that all roadways with six or more lanes will receive an overall unacceptable bicycle LOS score. Multilane roadways that provide medians, restricted driveway access, acceptable travel speeds, and other criteria that are compatible with bicycle travel will likely score an acceptable overall bicycle LOS rating. The scoring categories are as follows: Motor-vehicle LOS is E or F; or there are six or more travel lanes, Motor-vehicle LOS is D and there are fewer than six travel lanes, 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). Restricted sight distances are typically created by steep slopes and sharp curves, but they can also result from on-street parking and other physical obstructions. 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.

Intersection Implementations Desirable intersection implementations are primarily bicycle pockets and bicycle-sensitive loop detectors. Bicycle pockets are lanes for through-bicycle movement at intersections where a right-turn lane is provided. Other intersection implementations can include pavement markings or space provisions to accommodate left-turning bicyclists at intersections. 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 1.61 kilometer. In determining the 1.61-km distancing of signalized intersections measurements shall include any signalized intersections at the terminuses of roadway segments.

Dixon

Motor-vehicle LOS is A, B, or C and there are fewer than six travel lanes.

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. Bicyclists have been categorized by Wilkinson, et al. (11) as Group A, B, and C, according to those skills levels that affect facility preference. In general, Group A consists of advanced adult bicyclists who value direct access and are condent in their traffic skills. Group B bicyclists are casual or novice adults and teenagers who are less condent and prefer well-dened separation from motorists. Some Group B bicyclists will progress to the more advanced level, but Group B will always be a dominant bicyclist type. Group C bicyclists are preteen riders who initially are supervised by adults and gradually gain independent access to the system. Group C bicyclists and their parents prefer quiet residential streets and well-dened separation from motorists. The Gainesville bicycle LOS ratings relate directly to these groups.

Maintenance Does the corridor suffer from maintenance deciencies, including cracking, patching, weathering, potholes, rough road edge, rough railroad crossing, standing water, and so forth? Maintenance factors do not measure temporary conditions, such as fallen leaves, grass cuttings, and so forth. Instead, the maintenance factors measure conditions that reflect disrepair and neglect of the roadway surface or construction deficiencies that create a chronic maintenance problem. For example, regularly standing water caused by deficiencies in roadway drainage is a maintenance problem, but puddles that quickly drain are not. Gravel, leaves, and debris that accumulate because of poorly designed slope, drainage, and self-sweeping are maintenance problems. Debris resulting from a recent spill or crash that is quickly blown or swept away is not. 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, but grass that needs mowing or edging along a curb face is not. 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; shrubs that are reasonably set back from the roadway and need infrequent trimming are not. Roadways that do not provide a designated on-street bicycle facility are still evaluated for maintenance problems. Without the provision of such a facility the motor-vehicle travel lane is the legal bicycle facility, and its surface condition is an important consideration. When there are no maintenance problems resulting from the described conditions the segment is recorded as having no maintenance problems. When there is 1 per 1.61 kilometers (1 mi) or fewer of such maintenance problems or the extent and magnitude of the identied problem is minimal the segment is considered to have minor or infrequent problems. When the maintenance problems occur more frequently or the extent and magnitude of the identied problem is great the segment is considered to have major or frequent problems.

Bicycle LOS Ratings Denitions LOS A Scores 21 or below but greater than 17 equal an LOS A rating. These roadways are generally safe and attractive to all bicyclists. Unsupervised child riders should be anticipated because they will typically feel comfortable on these facilities. Bicyclists can anticipate a low level of interaction with motor vehicles. These roadways will provide both on- and off-street bicycle facilities.

LOS B Scores 17 or below but greater than 14 equal an LOS B rating. These roadways are adequate for all bicyclists. Unsupervised child riders should be anticipated because they will typically feel comfortable on these facilities. Bicyclists can anticipate a low level of interaction with motor vehicles. These roadways may have either on- or off-street facilities. However, 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, low-volume motor-vehicle traffic, infrequent conicts, and good surface conditions.

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, social, and logistical barriers and affect the decision to bicycle? A roadway corridor may provide good accommodation, but other programmatic deficiencies may be needed to encourage bicycling and walking. 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. The programs must be directed at improving conditions or providing such incentives for bicyclists as bicycle parking, bicycle-commuter support groups, guaranteed-ridehome programs, parking cash-out policies, or shower and locker facilities. Intermodal links to transit can include either bikeson-transit provisions or bicycle parking racks at bus stops along the corridor.

LOS C Scores 14 or below but greater than 11 equal an LOS C rating. These roadways are adequate for most bicyclists. Group C riders will be somewhat less comfortable on these facilities, particularly if unsupervised. Bicyclists can anticipate a moderate level of interaction with motor vehicles. These roadways will typically have an on-street facility (bicycle lane or wide curb lane) dedicated for bicyclists. The roadway will generally be characterized by a combination of low-speed, low-volume motor-vehicle traffic, infrequent conicts, and good surface conditions, although minor deciencies in two or more of these areas will be present. An off-street bicycle facility may be present along this corridor when on-street conditions are less bicycle friendly.

LOS D Scores 11 or below but above 7 equal an LOS D rating. These roadways are adequate for Group A riders. Roadways with scores in the upper end of this range may be adequate for some Group B riders. Bicyclists can anticipate a moderate to high level of interaction with motor vehicles. These roadways may or may not provide an on-street bicycle facility. The roadway without a bicycle

TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH RECORD 1538

facility will have ve or more characteristicssuch as low-speed, low-volume motor-vehicle traffic, limited conicts, or good surface conditionsthat will allow Group A riders to adequately share the roadway in most situations. When a bicycle facility is provided on an LOS D roadway its characteristics of high-volume, high-speed motor-vehicle traffic and frequent conicts 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.

short missing segment. This measure is a basic rating of compliance with ADA requirements. A roadway segment that does not score points for pedestrian facility provided cannot score points for this criterion.

LOS E Scores 7 or below but above 3 equal an LOS E rating. These roadways require cautious use by Group A riders. Bicyclists can anticipate a high level of interaction with motor vehicles. These roadways may or may not provide an on-street bicycle facility. The roadway without a bicycle facility will have two or more characteristicssuch as low-speed, low-volume motor-vehicle traffic, limited conicts, or good surface conditionsthat will allow Group A riders to share the roadway space with caution in most situations. When a bicycle facility is provided on this roadway its characteristics of high-volume, high-speed motor-vehicle traffic and frequent conicts will make this roadway highly inadequate for Group B riders. An off-street bicycle facility may be present along this corridor when on-street conditions are less bicycle friendly.

Sidewalk Width Greater than 1.53 m When the sidewalk provided is greater than 1.53 m wide the corridor segment will score points in this category. When the sidewalk is greater than 1.53 m but has signicant barriers that decrease the useable, clear space to less than 1.53 m, the segment will still score points, but will not score for the criterion of a minimum 1.53 m wide and barrier-free facility. 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. This criterion is only applied to the basic pedestrian facility, which cannot score points when the extra width is on a parallel or alternative facility. A roadway segment that does not score points for pedestrian facility provided cannot score points for this criterion.

LOS F Scores 3 or below equal an LOS F rating. These roadways do not provide any bicycle facilities. 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.

Off-Street Parallel Alternative Facility This facility must be located within 0.4 km of the roadway segment and provide access to the same primary destination points served by the roadway network. This facility is typically located on a separate right of way instead of within the roadway right of way. Examples of such facilities may include, but are not limited to, greenways, rail-trails, and pedestrian plazas. The study corridor shall be expected to provide basic pedestrian access; therefore, credit for this criterion is not given to parallel roadways with sidewalks, with the exception of access roads within a boulevard roadway design.

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, continuous on one side, or continuous on both sides. When a sidewalk facility has frequent gaps and missing segments it is noncontinuous. If the dominant characteristic is a sidewalk but the sidewalk has one short gap, the facility should be rated according to its dominant characteristic. Solitary short gaps in a sidewalk system should be considered a barrier within the existing facility. 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.

Conicts To what degree are conicts created or alleviated for the pedestrian because of visibility, motor-vehicle turning movements, pedestrian exposure times, and pedestrian convenience, which increases risktaking behavior? These criteria measure the degree to which pedestrians and motorists must interact.

Less Than 22 Driveways and Sidestreets per 1.61 km Compliance with this criterion is measured the same for pedestrian facilities as for bicycle facilities.

Minimum 1.53 m (5 ft) Wide and Barrier Free The sidewalk must be at least 1.53 m (5 ft) wide for its entire length. The 1.53-m clearance must be maintained around all utility poles, trafc signal poles, cafe railings, benches, newspaper boxes, and other xtures that may encroach on the sidewalk space. The barrier-free measure also takes into account the presence of intersection curb ramps, which are required for a sidewalk to be completely barrier free. The curb ramps must meet the ADA accessibility guidelines for width and slope to qualify as barrier free (16). 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, but not for movements across the major corridor being evaluated. The pedestrian signal delay is an average delay determined to be one half of the maximum pedestrian wait time during peak-hour conditions. When signalized intersections occur at intervals greater than 1.61 km along the segment, including any signalized intersections at the roadway segment terminuses, the segment is awarded points for this pedestrian signal delay criterion. In this situation there are no sidestreets to cross or only minor sidestreets that do not present a signicant delay to pedestrians. In determining the 1.61-km distancing of signalized intersections measurements shall include any signalized intersections at the terminuses of road-

Dixon

way segments. When signalized intersections occur at distances of 1.61 km or less along the segment the majority of these intersections must have pedestrian signal delays of 40 sec or less. Research indicates that pedestrians impatience and risktaking behavior increases after 30 sec of delay; therefore, 30 sec has been suggested as the maximum acceptable average pedestrian delay (10). In reviewing the typical delay times for pedestrians in Gainesville and taking into account the implications for motor-vehicle LOS, a concession was made to extend this measure to 40 sec.

Posted Speed 56 kph or Less High-speed traffic greatly decreases the comfort of pedestrians and can be a major deterrent to pedestrian trips. Posted speed limits of 56 kph create operating speeds at the maximum tolerable level of pedestrian comfort. When a posted speed of greater than 56 kph occurs anywhere in the study segment the segment will not score points for this criterion. School zone speeds are not considered in this evaluation. When average actual speeds are available they can be used for a more accurate analysis.

Reduced Turn-Conflict Implementations Intersection designs must provide properly located crosswalks and sight distances to maximize visibility for pedestrians. Additional measures that reduce conicts between turning motorists and pedestrians at intersections include restricted right-turn-on-red signage, protected leftturn or exclusive pedestrian signal phasing, and grade-separated crossings. To receive points for this criterion all of the corridor segments intersections must be free of obstructions to pedestrian sight distances and provide a crosswalk. In addition, the segment must provide either of two specifications: exclusive pedestrian phase, restricted right turn on red, or a grade-separated crossing (these features should be provided at every warranted location in the segment, but not less than one installation per segment) or protected left-turn signal phasing on the majority of signals within the segment.

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. Medians in a midblock location reduce the number of motorist leftturn conicts for pedestrians. Pedestrian midblock crossings must provide appropriate protection (i.e., some combination of pedestriancrossing warning signs, ashers, crosswalks, auxiliary pedestrian signals, and push buttons). The medians must be restrictive raised medians with or without turn bays. The medians to be considered in this criterion are midblock medians, not pedestrian refuge islands at intersections, which are evaluated in the crossing width criterion.

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. 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 benet the sidewalk users and be permanent.

Crossing Widths 18.3 m (60 ft) or Less The pedestrian crossing widths are measured for sidestreet crossings along the corridor, but not for movements across the corridor being evaluated. Crosscorridor widths could be used, but would require more extensive data collection. Generally, the through-crossing distance and other measures, including number of travel lanes and presence of medians, provide sufficient information about the size of the intersection and its effect on pedestrian movement. The pedestrian crossing width is measured in the center of a crosswalk at a signalized intersection only. When pedestrian refuge islands or medians are present within the crosswalk the measurements shall reflect that these facilities decrease pedestrian crossing distances. When such a refuge is present the measurement is taken from the departure curb to the refuge, and then from the refuge to the arrival curb. Each of these measurements is individually evaluated using the criterion of 18.3 m (60 ft) or less. 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. When signalized intersections occur at intervals greater than 1.61 km along the segment, the segment is awarded points for this pedestrian crossing-width criterion. In this situation there are few side streets to cross, and they do not create significant exposure to traffic. When signalized intersections occur at distances of 1.61 km or less along the segment, including any signalized intersections at the corridor segment terminuses, the majority of these intersections must have pedestrian crossing widths of 18.3 m or less. The 18.3-m crossing width is cited in the Florida Pedestrian Safety Plan of 1992 (7) as the maximum desirable pedestrian crossing width. Crossing widths greater than 18.3 m should be improved to provide pedestrian refuge islands or medians with supplemental pedestrian push buttons.

Buffer not Less Than 1 m (3.3 ft) The buffer is the space between the existing sidewalk and the curb or roadway edge. To score points the 1-m buffer must be maintained throughout the segment, excluding intersections. Roadways that do not provide a pedestrian facility cannot score points for this criterion because there is no facility to buffer. The minimum desired 1-m buffer strip is recommended in the Florida Pedestrian Safety Plan for buffer strips without trees. A buffer width of 2 m (6.6 ft) is recommended for buffers with trees. For this measure the minimum of 1 m has been selected for all buffers, regardless of tree provisions. Trees located within narrow buffers may produce maintenance deciencies that will be accounted for within that criterion.

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, such as activity centers, office complexes, retirement communities, schools, transit transfer stations, and so forth.

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.

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. 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. Multilane roadways that provide sidewalks with wide buffers, medians, restricted driveway access, acceptable travel speeds, and other pedestriancompatible criteria will likely score an acceptable overall pedestrian LOS rating.

pus locations. Pedestrians can anticipate a low level of interaction with motor vehicles.

LOS B Scores 17 and below but greater than 14 equal an LOS B rating. These roadways provide many pedestrian safety and comfort features that can attract pedestrian trips. These roadways will have many of the characteristics of an LOS A pedestrian facility, but there may be somewhat fewer amenities or pedestrian-friendly design elements. Pedestrians can anticipate a low to moderate level of interaction with motor vehicles.

Maintenance Does the corridor suffer from maintenance deciencies, including cracking, patching, buckling, weathering, holes, tree root intrusion, vegetative encroachment, rough railroad crossing, standing water, and so forth? The pedestrian facility maintenance evaluation parallels the maintenance analysis for bicycle facilities. However, when a pedestrian facility is not provided in the segment points cannot be scored for this maintenance criterion. A grassy swale, travel lane, paved shoulder, or other such facility is not considered an acceptable pedestrian facility, and, therefore, credit cannot be given for the maintenance of such a facility.

LOS C Scores 14 and below but greater than 11 equal an LOS C rating. These roadways are adequate for pedestrian use, but may not necessarily attract pedestrian trips. These roadways will provide a standard sidewalk, but will likely have some deciencies in maintenance or intersection design, may be located on roadways with high-speed, high-volume motor-vehicle traffic, or may provide a sidewalk on one side of the street only. Pedestrians can anticipate moderate interaction with motor vehicles on these roadways.

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. 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, but no less than one bench per 1.61 km.

LOS D Scores 11 and below but greater than 7 equal an LOS D rating. These roadways are adequate for pedestrian use, but will not attract pedestrian trips. These roadways will have more frequent deciencies 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. Intersection crossings are likely to be more frequent and more difcult. Pedestrians can anticipate moderate to high levels of interaction with motor vehicles.

Pedestrian LOS Ratings Pedestrian LOS ratings are dened by the measures of pedestrian safety features and the level of automobile-oriented development characteristics along the corridor. The LOS ratings describe the basic level of ADA compliance and the degree to which facility provisions encourage pedestrian use.

LOS E Scores 7 and below but greater than 3 equal an LOS E rating. These roadways are inadequate for pedestrian use. These roadways may or may not provide a pedestrian facility. Even where a sidewalk is provided these roadways will not meet ADA requirements and will have frequent deciencies in sidewalk width, clearance, continuity, and intersection design. Roadways in this category that do not provide a pedestrian facility may be characterized as urban fringe, rural section roadways with moderate motor-vehicle traffic. Pedestrians can anticipate a high level of interaction with motor vehicles.

Pedestrian LOS Ratings Denitions LOS A Scores 21 and below but greater than 17 equal an LOS A rating. These roadways are highly pedestrian oriented and will tend to attract pedestrian trips. The roadways will be characterized by ample sidewalk space, pedestrian-friendly intersection designs, low-speed or low-volume motor-vehicle traffic, and plentiful amenities (e.g., shade, benches, and so forth). The roadway and sidewalk features will be designed at human scale for maximum pedestrian comfort. Roadways with this level of pedestrian accommodation may be expected in central-city, tourist, and college cam-

LOS F Scores of 3 and below equal an LOS F rating. These roadways are inadequate for pedestrian use. These roadways do not provide any continuous pedestrian facilities and are characterized by high levels of motor-vehicle use and automobile-oriented development. These roadways are designed primarily for high-volume motor-vehicle traffic with frequent turning conicts and high speeds.

DISCUSSION OF RESULTS The bicycle LOS performance measures were tested on nine arterial and three collector roadways in Gainesville. The results were bicycle LOS ratings of B, C, D, and E on these corridors. The pedestrian LOS performance measures were tested on ve arterial roadways and one collector roadway in Gainesville and resulted in rat-

Dixon

ings of C, D, and E. The results were reviewed by three advisory committees of the Gainesville Metropolitan Planning Organization. These committees include technical staff and local citizens with high levels of training and experience in bicycle and pedestrian usage. Committee members anecdotal and personal experiences suggest that the assigned corridor LOS ratings accurately describe existing bicyclist and pedestrian conditions. The committees produced a list of bicycle and pedestrian project priorities, which, when compared to the results of this LOS analysis, revealed a correspondence between roadways with low LOS and roadways identied as needing improvements. Roadways that are high on the project-needs list for bicycle or pedestrian improvements generally received a low LOS rating. For one congested corridor the bicycle and pedestrian LOS performance-measure results supported project and program recommendations, including a sidewalk segment, benches at transit stops, a greenway, and reestablishment of an inactive TMO. Analysis of other corridors resulted in recommendations of additional improvements to be incorporated into long-range transportation planning and congestion management system plans. 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. Measuring the performance of bicycle and pedestrian facilities provides an opportunity to gather facility inventories, determine deciencies, develop improvements, and gauge results. In addition to determining LOS performance these measures can also be used to develop an LOS minimum standard. An adopted standard for bicycle and pedestrian facility performance could prescribe the minimum acceptable LOS for the adequate accommodation of bicyclists or pedestrians, given certain roadway types, land uses, and bicyclist and pedestrian user characteristics. Like motor vehicle LOS standards these minimum standards could vary from one roadway to another. All roadways should be targeted to maintain a minimum bicycle and pedestrian LOS D. Higher LOS standards may be desirable for locations near schools, central-city districts, activity centers, and other traffic generators. The specic features that would be implemented to achieve the desired LOS rating would be chosen from the menu of criteria developed for the measures described. Bicycle and pedestrian conicts on multiuse facilities and sidewalks are not specically addressed in this methodology. However, when a facility is determined to be primarily multiuse a higher pedestrian LOS standard may be desirable to provide for a safe interaction, or a higher bicycle LOS may be desirable to attract bicyclists from the off-street facility to the roadway. The bicycle and pedestrian LOS measures do not incorporate crash data in the analysis. However, crash data may relate to the LOS performance evaluations. The crash statistics in Gainesville indicate that most bicycle and pedestrian crashes occur in congested corridors near activity centers. This is due in part to attractors for motorists also being attractors for bicyclists and pedestrians. Volumes of all modes, and thus conict potential, increase near major traffic generators. Conversely, high motor-vehicle traffic volumes and increased conict potential may discourage nonmotorized transportation. In these circumstances low bicycle and pedestrian crash rates may indicate that there are no bicyclists or pedestrians using the corridor. Therefore, crash data may not be particularly useful in developing LOS measures, but may provide some insight into the validity of LOS evaluations. The described method of measuring bicycle and pedestrian facility performance is most applicable on urban collector and arterial roadways. Typically, local streets are bicycle and pedestrian friendly

because of their low traffic speeds and volumes. Local street analysis may be accomplished by adding a high-score criterion for lowspeed streets. Similarly, an application on rural roadways may require adjusting the weight given to pavement width and travel speeds because, in rural settings, the impact of these features is often amplied, whereas many of the other urban conicts do not exist. To further rene these measures the methodology should be tested on a variety of roadway types in different communities and veried by bicyclists and pedestrians perceptions. Applications of LOS measures to long-range transportation planning and concurrency should also be explored. Ultimately, bicycle and pedestrian LOS measures and standards could be used to predict bicycle and pedestrian volumes within a corridor. The standards would determine, based on densities and other land use analysis, the propensity of people to walk or bicycle, and the corridor evaluations would determine the success of facilities in accommodating or encouraging walking or bicycling. A corridor with a high adopted standard and a high measured performance level should produce high levels of walking and bicycling along the corridor. These predicted volumes could be incorporated into transportation demand modeling and used to support the development of facility improvements.

REFERENCES
1. Epperson, B. Evaluating The Suitability of Roadways For Bicycle Use: Towards A Cycling Level of Service Standard. In Transportation Research Record 1438, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1994. 2. Sorton, A. and T. Walsh. Stress Level as a Tool To Evaluate Urban and Suburban Bicycle Compatibility. In Transportation Research Record 1438, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1994. 3. Fiscal Year 94 Annual Growth Policy. Montgomery County Planning Board and Maryland National Capital Park and Planning Commission, Dec. 1992. 4. Navin, F. P. D. Bicycle Traffic Flow Characteristics: Experimental Results and Comparisons. ITE Journal, March 1994, pp 3136. 5. Special Report 209: Highway Capacity Manual. TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1985. 6. Bartholomew, K. A. Making the Land Use, Transportation, Air Quality Connection. PAS Memo, American Planning Association, May 1993. 7. Florida Pedestrian Safety Plan. Florida Department of Transportation, Feb. 1992. 8. Sarkar, S. Determination of Service Levels for Pedestrians, with European Examples. In Transportation Research Record 1405, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1993. 9. Untermann, R. K. Accommodating the Pedestrian. Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, Inc., New York, 1984. 10. Kaiser, S. H. Urban Intersections that Work: a New Denition for Level of Service. In Transportation Research Record 1438, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1994. 11. Wilkinson, W. C. III, A. Clarke, B. Epperson, Bicycle Federation of America, and R. L. Knoblauch. Selecting Roadway Design Treatments to Accommodate Bicycles. FHWA, U.S. Department of Transportation, Nov. 1992. 12. Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities. American Association of State Highway Officials, Washington, D.C., Aug. 1991. 13. A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets. American Association of State Highway Officials, Washington, D.C., 1991. 14. Florida Bicycle Facilities Planning and Design Manual: Draft. Florida Department of Transportation, March 1994. 15. Level of Service Report for the Gainesville Urbanized Area. North Central Florida Regional Planning Council, 1993. 16. Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Accessibility Guidelines For: Buildings and Facilities, Transportation Facilities, and Transportation Vehicles. U.S. Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board, Washington, D.C., Aug. 1992. Publication of this paper sponsored by Committee on Pedestrians.