1538-001

7/31/2019 1538-001

1/9

The Gainesville Mobility Plan Prototype was developed as the conges-tion management system plan for Gainesville, Florida, and incorporatedlevel-of-service (LOS) performance measures for bicycle and pedestrianfacilities. The LOS evaluations describe the degree of bicycle andpedestrian accommodation in a transportation corridor. The bicycleLOS measures are designated basic facility provided, conflicts, speeddifferential, motor vehicle LOS, maintenance, and provision of trans-portation demand management programs or intermodal links. PedestrianLOS criteria are similar and incorporate specific pedestrian features. The

Gainesville bicycle and pedestrian LOS performance measures use apoint scale resulting in an LOS rating system of A through F. The scor-ing system was developed with sensitivity to characteristics that may bemutually exclusive or inclusive to determine all possible combinationsof points. The methodology hypothesizes that there is a critical mass ofvariables that must be present to attract nonmotorized trips. The method-ology is applicable for corridor evaluations on arterial and collectorroadways in urban or suburban areas. The criteria include measures ofprogrammatic and off-street projects such as rail-trails, bicycle parking,bikes-on-transit, employer-based programs, and so forth, in additionto traditional on-street facility improvements. By measuring suchimprovements recommendations for more diverse projects can be sup-ported. This analysis was applied to several roadways with promisingresults that generally corresponded to user perceptions of the facilities.LOS evaluation was used as a tool of the congestion management sys-tem to develop project recommendations and priorities, but it may also

be useful in concurrency and long-range transportation planning.

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 participa-

tion have contributed to this shift in approach. Therefore, commu-

nities have realized the necessity of measuring the deficiencies and

improvements in nonmotorized transportation systems. There are

numerous accepted methodologies for predicting and describing

motor vehicle use. Similar analytical approaches are required if

improvements to nonmotorized transportation systems are to be

realized. Currently there are no standard level-of-service (LOS)

performance measures for bicycle or pedestrian facilities, but theevolution of such measures has begun. Several recent efforts have

identified, both qualitatively and quantitatively, the characteristics

that create a good bicycle or pedestrian environment. However,

none of the existing methodologies fully account for the range of

bicycle and pedestrian improvements that could be implemented

through plans for congestion management systems or other long-

range planning efforts.

TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH RECORD 1538 1

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, includ-

ing programmatic and off-street projects such as greenways, rail-

trails, bicycle parking, bikes-on-transit, employer-based incentive

programs, and so forth, in addition to traditional on-street facility

improvements. Such a methodology was developed and applied in

the Gainesville Mobility Plan Prototype (the Plan), which is the draft

plan for the congestion management system for Gainesville, Florida.

The Plan measured existing roadway LOS conditions for all modes

and developed specific project proposals to reduce congestion by

encouraging alternative travel modes, reducing single-occupant

vehicle trips, and improving operational conditions.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Existing Bicycle LOS Methodologies

Several efforts have initiated development of a quantifiable bicycle

LOS measure. The most notable is the Florida Roadway Condition

Index (RCI). RCI expands on the earlier Bicycle Safety Rating

Index developed to predict bicyclist-motorist crash exposure (1).Another recent methodology relates bicycle LOS to stress levels

experienced by cyclists of varying proficiency on roadways with

various characteristics (2). In Montgomery County, Maryland, a

bicycle LOS was developed to measure transit accessibility. It was

based on bicycle parking availability and a ratio of on-street bicycle

facilities to roadway miles (3). Other sources discuss LOS capacity

and the calculated space requirements for bicycle operation (4,5).

Existing Pedestrian LOS Methodologies

Pedestrian LOS measures are considerably less developed than

bicycle LOS measures. TheHighway Capacity Manual (5) calcu-

lates 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). Quali-

tative attributes of pedestrian-friendly environments are described,

but not quantified, in several sources (79). One study analyzed

pedestrian signal delay to define a pedestrian LOS (10). Mont-

gomery County assesses sidewalk ratio, circuity, connectivity,

delay, and hazard to measure the quality of a pedestrian trip access-

ing 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).

Bicycle and Pedestrian Level-of-ServicePerformance Measures and Standards for

Congestion Management Systems

LINDA B. DIXON

City of Gainesville, P.O. Box 490, M.S. 28, Gainesville, Fla. 32602, Currentaddress: Delaware Department of Transportation, P.O. Box 778, Dover, Del.19903.

7/31/2019 1538-001

2/9

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, conflicts, speed dif-

ferential, motor vehicle LOS, maintenance, and provision of trans-

portation demand management (TDM) programs or multimodallinks to transit. The categories bicycle facility provided and con-

flict incorporate several subelements. Many of the bicycle mea-

sures originate from the Florida RCI (1), but they also incorporate

2 TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH RECORD 1538

other research and the specific needs of the Plan. Pedestrian LOS

evaluation criteria involve the provision of basic facilities, con-

flicts, amenities, motor vehicle LOS, maintenance, and TDM and

multimodal provisions. The first three pedestrian variables incor-

porate 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 transportationcorridor 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

7/31/2019 1538-001

3/9

points. Segment scores may appear somewhat exaggerated when

compared to the LOS rating definitions, but they are moderated by

applying weighted averages to achieve the corridor LOS rating.

Segment scores identify the portions of a corridor having the great-

est deficiencies.

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 ratingsare sensitive to variations in both bicyclists abilities and their

tolerance of less-accommodating facilities as defined 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 Aor 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 rat-

ings 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 deficient

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.

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 accommo-

date bicycles, the measurement is taken to the face of the

curb. When a bicycle lane is present, the bicycle lane widthis included in the total measurement with the rightmost motor-

vehicle 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.

Dixon 3

Off-Street and Parallel Alternative Facility Off-street bicy-

cle facilities are defined as areas used by bicycles that are physically

separated from motorized vehicular traffic by an open space or a

barrier or possess their own right-of-way (12). To be considered a

parallel facility serving the corridor the facility must maintain a min-

imum 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 par-allel 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 move-

ment, and direct access to bicyclists.

Conflicts

To what degree are conflicts created or alleviated for the bicyclist

because of frequent motor vehicle turn movements, poor visibility,

and physical obstructions? Proper design and control of these fea-

tures 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.

Less Than 22 Driveways and Side Streets per 1.61 km Drive-

way and sidestreet access points create conflicts for bicyclists. Both

national and local bicycle crash statistics reveal a high proportion of

crashes caused by this type of conflict. At each access point a bicy-

clist must scan for hazards and be prepared to execute an evasive

maneuver. Bicyclists feel threatened in an environment that presents

many turning conflicts 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 flows and was assumed to reduce bicycle conflicts to an

acceptable level. For the described measures, driveways (both com-

mercial 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 barri-

ers or pinch points to bicycle travel? Barriers are physical encroach-

ments that force a bicyclist to enter the motor vehicle travel lane at

a specific 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 crite-

rion. Vegetative encroachment that is a result of poor maintenance

should not be counted as a barrier. However, vegetative encroach-

ment that results from gaps in the facility (such as grassy patches

7/31/2019 1538-001

4/9

where there are missing sections of a paved shoulder) should be con-

sidered 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.

No On-Street Parking The presence of on-street parking

should be noted even if it appears for only a short distance withinthe 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 obstruc-

tions. These hazards can be somewhat minimized through de-

sign and pavement width, but even in the best of circumstances on-

street parking can create physical and psychological conflicts for

bicyclists.

Medians Present The medians must be restrictive, raised medi-

ans with or without turn bays. The presence of medians should be

noted only if the medians are a dominant feature throughout the cor-

ridor segment, or at least in those portions of the segment wherevehicle turning movements are most frequent. These medians are

considered a benefit to bicyclists because they limit left-turn con-

flicts. Turn lanes in a median can also be a benefit because they

allow traffic flow 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 benefit of reducing back-ups is greatly offset

by the increase in turning movements at random locations.

Congestion issues are primarily accounted for under the motor-

vehicle LOS criterion.

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 dis-

tance 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 imple-

mentations are primarily bicycle pockets and bicycle-sensitive loop

detectors. Bicycle pockets are lanes for through-bicycle move-

ment 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 inter-

section 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.


Speed Differential

Speed differential is calculated by comparing the average bicy-

cle speed of 24 kph (15 mph) with the posted speed. School zone

posted speeds are not considered because they address a specific need

for a specific time period. The 24-kph speed is the upper range of

speed for young adult and novice adult bicyclists; it is also the aver-

age of the lowest likely speed10 kph (6 mph)with the highest

likely speed39 kph (24 mph) (14). The upper limit motor-vehiclespeed of 72 kph (45 mph) has been suggested to the speed at which

bicycle stability and stress are affected (2). If average actual motor-

vehicle speeds are available, this data could be used for a more accu-

rate analysis.


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).

Motor-Vehicle LOS

To what degree do motor-vehicle volume and congestion affect the

comfort and safety level of bicyclists in the corridor segment? Motor-

vehicle LOS for roadways in Gainesville is a calculation of the road-

way carrying capacity affected by annual average daily traffic, num-

ber of signalized intersections and travel lanes, effective green time

at signalized intersections, directional distribution of traffic flow, 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-occupancy-

vehicle, and other special-use lanes, is an additional factor in the

motor-vehicle LOS criterion. Continuous right-turn lanes, center-

turn 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 risk-

taking 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 road-

ways 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 cri-

teria that are compatible with bicycle travel will likely score an

acceptable overall bicycle LOS rating.


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

7/31/2019 1538-001

5/9

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

travel lanes.

Maintenance

Does the corridor suffer from maintenance deficiencies, including

cracking, patching, weathering, potholes, rough road edge, rough

railroad crossing, standing water, and so forth? Maintenancefactors 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 road-

way 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 plantedimmediately 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 consider-

ation.

When there are no maintenance problems resulting from the

described conditions the segment is recorded as having no mainte-

nance problems. When there is 1 per 1.61 kilometers (1 mi) or fewer

of such maintenance problems or the extent and magnitude of the

identified problem is minimal the segment is considered to have

minor or infrequent problems. When the maintenance problems

occur more frequently or the extent and magnitude of the identified

problem is great the segment is considered to have major or frequent

problems.

TDM and Multimodal Support

Does the corridor have the available support of transporta-

tion 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 bicy-

cling and walking. To be given credit for this bicycle LOS crite-

rion 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 con-

ditions or providing such incentives for bicyclists as bicycle

parking, bicycle-commuter support groups, guaranteed-ride-

home programs, parking cash-out policies, or shower and locker

facilities. Intermodal links to transit can include either bikes-

on-transit provisions or bicycle parking racks at bus stops along

the corridor.

Dixon 5

Bicycle LOS Ratings

Bicycle LOS measures are rated according to the degree to which a

roadway safely and comfortably accommodates bicyclists of vari-

ous 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 confident in their

traffic skills. Group B bicyclists are casual or novice adults andteenagers who are less confident and prefer well-defined 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 super-

vised by adults and gradually gain independent access to the system.

Group C bicyclists and their parents prefer quiet residential streets

and well-defined separation from motorists. The Gainesville bicy-

cle LOS ratings relate directly to these groups.

Bicycle LOS Ratings Definitions

LOS A Scores 21 or below but greater than 17 equal an LOS A

rating. These roadways are generally safe and attractive to all bicy-clists. 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 facili-

ties 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 conflicts, and good surface condi-

tions.

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, partic-

ularly 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 combi-

nation of low-speed, low-volume motor-vehicle traffic, infrequent

conflicts, and good surface conditions, although minor deficiencies

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

7/31/2019 1538-001

6/9

facility will have five or more characteristicssuch as low-speed,

low-volume motor-vehicle traffic, limited conflicts, 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 conflicts will make this roadway

inadequate for most Group B riders. An off-street bicycle facility

may be present along this corridor when on-street conditions are less

bicycle friendly.

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 character-

isticssuch as low-speed, low-volume motor-vehicle traffic, lim-

ited conflicts, 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 characteris-

tics of high-volume, high-speed motor-vehicle traffic and frequent

conflicts will make this roadway highly inadequate for Group B rid-

ers. An off-street bicycle facility may be present along this corridorwhen on-street conditions are less bicycle friendly.

LOS F Scores 3 or below equal an LOS F rating. These road-

ways 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.

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 bar-

rier within the existing facility. A roadway with a continuous side-

walk 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.

Minimum 1.53 m (5 ft) Wide and Barrier Free The side-

walk 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, traf-

fic signal poles, cafe railings, benches, newspaper boxes, and other

fixtures 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


short missing segment. This measure is a basic rating of compli-

ance with ADA requirements. A roadway segment that does not

score points for pedestrian facility provided cannot score points for

this criterion.

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 significant 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 down-

town 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.

Off-Street Parallel Alternative Facility This facility must belocated within 0.4 km of the roadway segment and provide access

to the same primary destination points served by the roadway net-

work. This facility is typically located on a separate right of way

instead of within the roadway right of way. Examples of such facil-

ities 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.

Conflicts

To what degree are conflicts created or alleviated for the pedestrianbecause of visibility, motor-vehicle turning movements, pedestrian

exposure times, and pedestrian convenience, which increases risk-

taking behavior? These criteria measure the degree to which pedes-

trians and motorists must interact.

Less Than 22 Driveways and Sidestreets per 1.61 km Com-

pliance with this criterion is measured the same for pedestrian facil-

ities as for bicycle facilities.

Pedestrian Signal Delay of 40 Sec or Less The pedestrian sig-

nal 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 deter-

mined to be one half of the maximum pedestrian wait time during

peak-hour conditions. When signalized intersections occur at inter-

vals greater than 1.61 km along the segment, including any signal-

ized 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 significant delay to pedestrians. In determining

the 1.61-km distancing of signalized intersections measurements

shall include any signalized intersections at the terminuses of road-

7/31/2019 1538-001

7/9

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 risk-

taking behavior increases after 30 sec of delay; therefore, 30 sec

has been suggested as the maximum acceptable average pedes-

trian delay (10). In reviewing the typical delay times for pedestri-

ans in Gainesville and taking into account the implications for

motor-vehicle LOS, a concession was made to extend this measureto 40 sec.

Reduced Turn-Conflict Implementations Intersection de-

signs must provide properly located crosswalks and sight distances

to maximize visibility for pedestrians. Additional measures that

reduce conflicts between turning motorists and pedestrians at inter-

sections include restricted right-turn-on-red signage, protected left-

turn or exclusive pedestrian signal phasing, and grade-separated

crossings. To receive points for this criterion all of the corridor seg-

ments 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 fea-tures should be provided at every warranted location in the seg-

ment, but not less than one installation per segment) or protected

left-turn signal phasing on the majority of signals within the

segment.

Crossing Widths 18.3 m (60 ft) or Less The pedestrian cross-

ing widths are measured for sidestreet crossings along the corridor,

but not for movements across the corridor being evaluated. Cross-

corridor 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 medi -

ans, provide sufficient information about the size of the intersec-

tion 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 pedes-

trian 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 signal-

ized 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 Pedes-

trian 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 sup-

plemental pedestrian push buttons.

Dixon 7

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.

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 left-

turn conflicts for pedestrians. Pedestrian midblock crossings must

provide appropriate protection (i.e., some combination of pedestrian-

crossing warning signs, flashers, 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 con-

venience 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 in-

tended to benefit the sidewalk users and be permanent.

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 seg-

ment, 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 deficiencies that will be ac-

counted for within that criterion.

Benches or Pedestrian-Scale Lighting Benches or pedestrian-

scale lighting must be a dominant feature of the segment or at

least be provided in locations along the segment adjacent to high-

pedestrian-traffic generators, such as activity centers, office com-

plexes, retirement communities, schools, transit transfer stations, and

so forth.

Shade Trees Shade trees must be a dominant feature of the seg-

ment or at least be provided in locations along the segment adjacent

to high-pedestrian-traffic generators.

7/31/2019 1538-001

8/9

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, restricteddriveway access, acceptable travel speeds, and other pedestrian-

compatible criteria will likely score an acceptable overall pedestrian

LOS rating.

Maintenance

Does the corridor suffer from maintenance deficiencies, including

cracking, patching, buckling, weathering, holes, tree root intrusion,

vegetative encroachment, rough railroad crossing, standing water,

and so forth? The pedestrian facility maintenance evaluation paral-

lels 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 accept-

able pedestrian facility, and, therefore, credit cannot be given for the

maintenance of such a facility.

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 pro-

grams 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 loca-

tion with a bench or shelter along the study segment, but no less than

one bench per 1.61 km.

Pedestrian LOS Ratings

Pedestrian LOS ratings are defined by the measures of pedestrian

safety features and the level of automobile-oriented development

characteristics along the corridor. The LOS ratings describe the

basic level of ADA compliance and the degree to which facility pro-

visions encourage pedestrian use.

Pedestrian LOS Ratings Definitions

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 accom-

modation may be expected in central-city, tourist, and college cam-


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 com-

fort 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-friendlydesign elements. Pedestrians can anticipate a low to moderate level

of interaction with motor vehicles.

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 deficiencies in main-

tenance 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.

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

deficiencies in pedestrian safety and comfort features and are more

likely to violate ADA requirements for width and clearance. Gaps

in the sidewalk system may occur within this roadway corridor.

Intersection crossings are likely to be more frequent and more dif-

ficult. Pedestrians can anticipate moderate to high levels of interac-

tion with motor vehicles.

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 require-

ments and will have frequent deficiencies in sidewalk width, clear-

ance, 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.

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 develop-

ment. These roadways are designed primarily for high-volume

motor-vehicle traffic with frequent turning conflicts and high speeds.

DISCUSSION OF RESULTS

The bicycle LOS performance measures were tested on nine arter-

ial and three collector roadways in Gainesville. The results were

bicycle LOS ratings of B, C, D, and E on these corridors. The pedes-

trian LOS performance measures were tested on five arterial road-

ways and one collector roadway in Gainesville and resulted in rat-

7/31/2019 1538-001

9/9

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 pro-

duced a list of bicycle and pedestrian project priorities, which, when

compared to the results of this LOS analysis, revealed a correspon-dence between roadways with low LOS and roadways identified 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 rec-

ommendations, including a sidewalk segment, benches at transit

stops, a greenway, and reestablishment of an inactive TMO. Analy-

sis 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

deficiencies, 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 min-

imum 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 stan-

dards 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 desir-

able for locations near schools, central-city districts, activity cen-

ters, and other traffic generators. The specific features that would be

implemented to achieve the desired LOS rating would be chosen

from the menu of criteria developed for the measures described.

Bicycle and pedestrian conflicts on multiuse facilities and side-

walks are not specifically 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 inter-

action, 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. Vol-

umes of all modes, and thus conflict potential, increase near majortraffic generators. Conversely, high motor-vehicle traffic volumes

and increased conflict potential may discourage nonmotorized trans-

portation. 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 facil-

ity performance is most applicable on urban collector and arterial

roadways. Typically, local streets are bicycle and pedestrian friendly

Dixon 9

because of their low traffic speeds and volumes. Local street analy-

sis may be accomplished by adding a high-score criterion for low-

speed 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

amplified, whereas many of the other urban conflicts do not exist.

To further refine these measures the methodology should be tested

on a variety of roadway types in different communities and verified

by bicyclists and pedestrians perceptions. Applications of LOSmeasures 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 pedes-

trian volumes within a corridor. The standards would determine,

based on densities and other land use analysis, the propensity of peo-

ple 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 mea-

sured 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 sup-

port 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 andSuburban Bicycle Compatibility. In Transportation Research Record1438, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1994.

3. Fiscal Year 94 Annual Growth Policy. Montgomery County PlanningBoard and Maryland National Capital Park and Planning Commission,Dec. 1992.

4. Navin, F. P. D. Bicycle Traffic Flow Characteristics: ExperimentalResults and Comparisons.ITE Journal, March 1994, pp 3136.

5. Special Report 209: Highway Capacity Manual. TRB, NationalResearch Council, Washington, D.C., 1985.

6. Bartholomew, K. A. Making the Land Use, Transportation, Air QualityConnection. 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 Euro-pean Examples. In Transportation Research Record 1405, TRB,National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1993.

9. Untermann, R. K.Accommodating the Pedestrian. Van Nostrand Rein-hold Company, Inc., New York, 1984.

10. Kaiser, S. H. Urban Intersections that Work: a New Definition for Levelof Service. In Transportation Research Record 1438, TRB, NationalResearch Council, Washington, D.C., 1994.

11. Wilkinson, W. C. III, A. Clarke, B. Epperson, Bicycle Federation ofAmerica, and R. L. Knoblauch. Selecting Roadway Design Treatmentsto Accommodate Bicycles. FHWA, U.S. Department of Transportation,Nov. 1992.

12. Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities. American Associationof State Highway Officials, Washington, D.C., Aug. 1991.

13. A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets. AmericanAssociation of State Highway Officials, Washington, D.C., 1991.

14. Florida Bicycle Facilities Planning and Design Manual: Draft. FloridaDepartment of Transportation, March 1994.

15. Level of Service Report for the Gainesville Urbanized Area. North Cen-tral 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 ComplianceBoard, Washington, D.C., Aug. 1992.

Publication of this paper sponsored by Committee on Pedestrians.

1538-001

Documents