#26 Bike Network Planning: Tools for Dealing with Connectivity and Level of Traffic Stress - Furth, Mekuria
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Like this? Share it with your network

Share
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
477
On Slideshare
477
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0

Actions

Shares
Downloads
15
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Low Stress Bicycling and Network Low Stress Bicycling and Network Connectivity  y Peter G. Furth, Northeastern University Maaza Mekuria Axum Design & Engineering Mekuria, Axum Design & Engineering
  • 2. Most of the Population has a Low Tolerance for T ffi St T l f Traffic Stress
  • 3. Classifying the Population by Tolerance for T ffi St T l f Traffic StressStrong &Fearless Enthused &< 1% Confident (7%) C fid Interested but Concerned No Way, No Source: Roger Geller, (60%) How (33%) City of Portland Classifying Network Elements by Level of Traffic Stress (LTS)LTS 1: for children LTS 3: for “Enthused &LTS 2: for traffic intolerant Confident” adult LTS 4: highest stress
  • 4. What Is the “Bicycle Network” to an  Individual? d d l1. All the streets and paths where one may 1 All the streets and paths where one may legally ride2. Inventory of designated / improved bike 2 Inventory of designated / improved bike facilities3. Set of preferred or suggested routes3 S f f d d4. The set of streets and paths that don’t exceed  his / her level of tolerance for traffic stress
  • 5. Connectivity : Can You Get from A to B without exceeding a specified level of traffic stress? h d f d l l f ff ? San Jose (south central), Stress Level 1
  • 6. Level of Traffic Stress 1 (LTS 1) Islands 6
  • 7. SJSU Rooted Tree LTS 2 7
  • 8. Level of Traffic Stress 2 (LTS 2) Islands 8
  • 9. Connectivity : Can You Get from A to B without exceeding a specified level of traffic stress? h d f d l l f ff ? without undue detour? San Jose (south central), Stress Level 1
  • 10. Detour Criterion Detour CriterionLow‐stress route should not be more than 25% longer than the shortest routeOR (for short trips)OR (f h t t i ) 0.33 mi longer than the shortest route 0 33 mi longer than the shortest route
  • 11. Criteria for Level of Traffic Stress Criteria for Level of Traffic Stress• Bicycle Level of Service (BLOS 1997) Bicycle Level of Service (BLOS, 1997) – Black‐box formula yields A‐F rating – Data hungry Data hungry – Doesn’t model intersections well• Bi l C Bicycle Compatibility Index (BCI, 1996) tibilit I d (BCI 1996)• Bikeway design criteria in places that have  succeeded in attracting the mainstream  population
  • 12. New Set of Criteria New Set of Criteria LTS 1: suitable for children LTS 2: acceptable to traffic Based on Dutch intolerant adult criteria LTS 3: OK for “enthused & Confident” LTS 4 hi h t stress 4: highest t• Segments Segments • Intersection Approaches • Crossings
  • 13. Weakest Link Principle of  Weakest Link Principle of Aggregation gg gThe stress of a route = stress of its most The stress of a route stress of its moststressful link • Different from summing or averaging 1 1 1 4 1 1
  • 14. SegmentsSegment Type Level of Traffic StressStand‐alone paths LTS = 1Segregated paths S d h LTS = 1 LTS 1(sidepaths, cycle tracks)Bike lanes LTS can vary from 1 to 4Mixed traffic Mi ed traffic LTS  can vary from 1 to 4 LTS can ar from 1 to 4
  • 15. Dutch Criteria (CROW 2007) Lane  L Daily traffic  D il t ffi Street type and speed limit St t t d d li it configuration (vehicles/day) Urban local  Urban  Rural local  Fast traffic  street through street road road 30 km/h (19  30 k /h (19 50 km/h (31  50 k /h (31 60 km/h (37  60 k /h (37 70+ km/h  70 k /h mph) mph) mph) (44+ mph) Two‐way traffic  <2500 Mixed traffica Bike laneb or  Advisory bike  Cycle track  with no  cycletrackc laned or low‐ centerline 2000–3000 bike laneb or bike lane or  speed  speed cycle tracke service road 3000–5000 >4000 Bike lane or  Bike lane or  cycle track cycle trackc Two lanes (1+1) any Bike lane or  Bike lane or  cycle track cycle trackc Four lanes (2 +  any (Does not  Cycle track or low‐speed service road 2) or more 2) exist) i t)aFor designated bike routes, a bike lane or advisory bike lane is optional.bMay be an advisory bike lane on road sections with no centerline.cCycle track is preferred if there is parking; cycle track is recommended for designated bike routes track is preferred if there is parking; cycle track is recommended for designated bike routes.dAlthough CROW (2007) gives “mixed traffic” for this cell, the default layout for roads in this category is to mark advisory bike lanes.eCycle track is preferred for designated bike routes.
  • 16. Criteria for Bike Lanes Alongside a Parking  Lane LTS > 1 LTS > 2 LTS > 3 LTS > 4Street idth (thruSt t width (th 1 (n.a.) ( ) 2 or more (n.a.) ( )lanes per direction)Sum of bike lane and 15 ft or 14 or 14.5 13.5 ft or (n.a.)parking lane width more fta lessSpeed limit or 25 mph 30 mph 35 mph 40 mph orprevailing speed or less moreBike lane blockage rare (n.a.) frequent (n.a.)Dimensions aggregate using Weakest Link logic
  • 17. Criteria for Bike Lanes Not Alongside a  Parking Lane Parking Lane LTS > 1 LTS > 2 LTS > 3 LTS > 4Street width (thru 1 2, if directions more than 2, (n.a.)lanes per direction) are separated or 2 without a by a raised separating median medianBike lane width 6 ft or 5.5 ft or less (n.a.) (n.a.) moreSpeed limit or 30 mph (n.a.) 35 mph 40 mphprevailing speed or less or moreBike lane blockage rare (n.a.) frequent (n.a.)
  • 18. Criteria for Mixed Traffic Street Width 2-3 lanes 4-5 lanes 6+ lanesSpeed LimitUp to 25 mph LTS 1 a or 2 a LTS 3 LTS 430 mph LTS 2 a or 3 a LTS 4 LTS 435+ mph LTS 4 LTS 4 LTS 4 a. Use lower value for streets without marked centerlines or classified as residential and with f l ifi d id ti l d ith fewer th 3 l than lanes; use hi h higher value otherwise.
  • 19. Traffic Stress on Intersection  Approaches – “ k h “Pocket Bike Lanes” k ”Dutch criteria • RT lane must be  short• RT lane must begin  abruptly• Bik l Bike lane must  t continue straight• Wide bike lane• Intersection angle keeps turning speed  to 15 km/h to 15 km/h
  • 20. Criteria for Pocket Bike Lanes Criteria for Pocket Bike Lanes Level of Configuration Traffic StressSingle RT lane up to 150 ft long, starting abruptly while LTS > 2the bik lane continues straight; i tth bike l ti t i ht intersection angle ti lsuch that turning speed is < 15 mph.Single RT lane longer than 150 ft ,starting abruptly LTS > 3while the bike lane continues straight; intersectionangle such that turning speed is < 20 mph.Single RT lane in which the bike lane shifts to the left, LTS > 3but intersection angle and curb radius are such thatturning speed is < 15 mph.Single RT lane with any other configuration; dual RT LTS = 4lanes; or RT lane plus option (through-right) lane
  • 21. Increased Traffic Stress on Widened  Approaches h Added turn lanes (Monroe @ Stevens  Creek)
  • 22. Widened Intersection Approaches  Interrupt Low‐Stress Paths h
  • 23. Stress at Crossings – Apparent Safe Routes  gCrossing Winchester Avenue 23
  • 24. Stress at CrossingsStress at Crossings
  • 25. Criteria for Crossings Criteria for Crossings NO MEDIAN REFUGE Width of Street Being Crossed Speed Limit Up to 3 lanes 4 - 5 lanes 6+ lanes Up to 25 mph LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 4 30 mph LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 4 35 mph LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 4 40+ LTS 3 LTS 4 LTS 4 Width of street being crossedWITH MEDIAN REFUGE Speed Limit Up to 3 lanes 4 - 5 lanes 6+ lanesUp to 25 mph LTS 1 LTS 1 LTS 230 mph LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 335 mph LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 440+ LTS 3 LTS 4 LTS 4
  • 26. With Crossing Effect – Winchester becomes a  y gbarrier without any low‐stress crossing CalGIS 2012 ADEC 26 Sacramento, CA  
  • 27. San Jose Street Network Stress Classification CalGIS 2012 ADEC 27 Sacramento, CA  
  • 28. Distribution of Segment Miles by Level  g y of Traffic Stress Stress Level Miles Miles (percent) Lowest 1 2131 64% Low 2 115 3% Medium 3 276 8% High 4 678 20% Prohibited 5 134 4% Total 3334 100%
  • 29. San Jose Street Network Stress Level 1 29
  • 30. San Jose Street Network Stress Level 2 30
  • 31. San Jose Street Network Stress Level 3 31
  • 32. San Jose Street Network Stress Level 4 32
  • 33. Barriers• Natural (rivers mountains) RR Freeways: Natural (rivers, mountains), RR, Freeways:  Crossings collect traffic, tend to be high stress• Freeways: Added stress from on off ramps Freeways:  Added stress from on‐off ramps• Arterials lacking low‐stress approaches with  low‐stress crossings l i• Parks and Campuses (!) • Incomplete street grid, forcing traffic to use  arterials
  • 34. Incomplete Street Grid as Barrier
  • 35. Permeable Barriers Can Be a Key to  Connectivity and Low Stress Downing Ave – Westfield Ave @ Hwy 17
  • 36. Level of Traffic Stress 2 (LTS 2) Islands 36
  • 37. Slate of Possible Improvements 37
  • 38. Resulting Network for LTS < 2 38
  • 39. A Measure of Connectivity A Measure of Connectivity Percent Trips Connected, by Level  of Traffic Stress of Traffic Stress• Trip Table for Home‐to‐Work Trips Number of people traveling from zone i to zone j p p g j Which zone pairs are connected at a given LTS? ( y ) g g p TAZ (traffic analysis zone) = standard geographic  unit
  • 40. TAZ can be too coarse a geographic  unit to model bicycle access unit to model bicycle access
  • 41. Disaggregating Demand  from TAZs to Blocks f l k• Origins: in proportion to block population Origins:  in proportion to block population• Destinations:  in proportion to trip generation  factors
  • 42. Linking Block Centroids to the NetworkLinking Block Centroids to the Network Block  centroid,  with  connectors   connectors to  surrounding  vertices
  • 43. Home‐Work Trip Connectivity p y Trip Length < 4 mi < 6 mi < 8 mi All LTS 1  0.7% 0.4% 0.3% 0.2% LTS 2  7.7% 4.7% 3.4% 2.2%Before LTS  3  22.6% 16.4% 13.2% 8.9% LTS  4  100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Total trips 78,673  136,652  189,439  292,396  Trip Length < 4 mi < 6 mi < 8 mi AllAfter LTS 1  1.7% 1.0% 0.8% 0.5% LTS  2  14.9% 12.7% 11.1% 7.9% LTS  3  27.4% 22.7% 20.0% 14.6% LTS  4  100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Total trips 78,673  136,652  189,439  292,396 
  • 44. Acknowledgement• Support from the  Mineta Transportation  T i Institute • Inspiration from  Rails to Trails  Rails to Trails Conservancy• Cooperation of the  City of San Jose y 44