Frank,
I would like to consider working on the classification LOS models and ratings. That would be right up my alley. However, I don't have much experience with Grant writing. Let discuss this soon Frank.
Thanks,
~Derek

“Every time I see an adult on a bicycle I no longer despair for the future of the human race.” -H.G. Wells

Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2009 16:31:29 -0400
From: fgmeindl@verizon.net
To: bikeboard@cheat.org
Subject: [Bikeboard] Bike Route Classification

Bicycle Board Members,

The Federal Highway Administration has a course on Bicycle and Pedestrian Planning: http://www.tfhrc.gov/safety/pedbike/pubs/05085/chapt4.htm that suggests considering the following when classifying bike routes.

Accessibility: This is measured by the distance a bicycle facility is from a specified trip origin or destination, the ease by which this distance can be traveled by bicycle, and the extent to which all likely origins and destinations are served. Some communities (e.g., Arlington, VA) have adopted a criterion of having a bicycle facility within 1.61 kilometer (km) (1 mile (mi)) of every residence. More importantly, no residential area or high-priority destination (school, shopping center, business center, or park) should be denied reasonable access by bicycle.
Directness: Studies have shown that most bicyclists will not use even the best bicycle facility if it greatly increases the travel distance or trip time over that provided by less desirable alternatives. Therefore, routes should still be reasonably direct. The ratio of directness to comfort/perceived safety involved in this trade-off will vary depending on the characteristics of the bicycle facility (how desirable is it?), its more direct alternatives (how unpleasant are they?), and the typical user’s needs (in a hurry? is it a business or pleasure trip?).
Continuity: The proposed network should have as few missing links as possible. If gaps exist, they should not include traffic environments that are unpleasant or threatening to group B/C (basic and child) riders, such as high-volume or high-speed motor vehicle traffic with narrow outside lanes.
Route attractiveness: This can encompass such factors as separation from motor traffic, visual aesthetics, and the real or perceived threat to personal safety along the facility.
Low conflict: The route should present few conflicts between bicyclists and motor vehicle operators.
Cost: This would include the costs both to establish and to maintain the system.
Ease of implementation: The ease or difficulty in implementing proposed changes depends on available space and existing traffic operations and patterns.

In another section of the course, they recommend using a "Level of Service" (LOS) model similar to LOS models used for decades for motor transportation. They provide an equation that gives a LOS numerical score and A thru F rating for each street depending on inputs including traffic volume, speed, percentage of heavy vehicles, pavement surface condition and outside lane width.

Those of us who are geeky enough to enjoy such a thing might be able to get a Transportation Enhancement Program grant for a 3 phase project. In phase 1, we would use the FHWA method to determine bicycle LOS for Morgantown streets. In phase 2, we could use LOS and its components to define a bicycle route improvement plan that would constitute the proposal for phase 3, implementing the high priority improvements.

Anybody want to work on this? The Intent to Apply forms for the 2010 TEP cycle are due November 15. 2 months away.

Frank
Cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles

Insert movie times and more without leaving Hotmail®. See how.