Bike Plan Source System Evaluation

Looking at the existing transportation system can help identify places where it works great for bicyclists and places where it's only marginal. It can also help identify places where it breaks down all together.

Examples of breakdown would include things like interstate highways or railroad yards that sever bicycling access to certain parts of town. Other types of breakdown would include public transportation systems that are especially unfriendly; for example, transit stations with poor bike access and no bike parking.

Examples of marginal locations would include collector and arterial streets with narrow traffic lanes and other "bicycle-UNfriendly" features like dangerous drain grates, rough diagonal railroad crossings, and unresponsive signals. This could also include trail segments that contain hazards. And, in the transit arena, a marginal connection could be a major bus stop with badly designed or located bike parking.

Examples of places where the system does work would include "bicycle-friendly" arterials and collectors, stop-sign-protected low-volume connectors, and properly designed trail systems. Included also within this category would be transit system connections designed with bicyclists in mind.

Here are some of the most important features to analyze:

Barriers--complete or partial to bicycle travel
Quality of service on existing facilities

Relevance of the features

While it makes some sense to ultimately fix all problems identified in the community, it makes even more sense to handle the most important ones first. The severity of the problem is one factor in determining the priority of its solution; for example, an arterial street with 9-foot curb lanes, high volumes of 45mph traffic, big joints between the gutter and the pavement, and dangerous drain grates every block would warrant serious attention. These aspects would come to light in the analysis suggested above.

At the same time, the seriousness of the problem must be weighed against its relevance to users (and potential users). For example, a problem on a street that connects a neighborhood with a nearby school and park would likely warrant a higher priority than would a problem on a road within an industrial park far from any residential areas.

For this reason, it's important to look at such factors as:

Potential destinations for bicyclists
Logical trip origins for a variety of rider types
Corridors of opportunity for facility development

References:

Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities; AASHTO, 1991
Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices; US DOT/FHWA, 1976
"Improving Local Conditions for Bicycling;" John Williams, Bikecentennial, 1989
"Urban and Suburban Bicycle Compatibility Street Evaluation Using Bicycle Stress Level;" Alex Sorton and Tom Walsh; TRB, 1994

Topics for further study:

The evolution of bicyclist stress level ratings: from Geelong (Australia) to Madison (Wisconsin)
Using the FHWA's report on "Selecting Roadway Designs for Accommodating Bicycles"
The rural roadway suitability approach underlying Wisconsin's state bicycle maps
Bicycle improvements and FHWA's "management and monitoring systems"
Chip seal surfaces: lessening the impacts on bicyclists
On-street parking and bicycle use (esp. diagonal parking and short term commercial parking)
Rumble strips: state policies, safety trade-offs and possible "bike-friendly" approaches
Palo Alto's roadway patching policies
Madison's winter roadway maintenance procedures

Return to Planning and Design Return to Bike Planning and Program Development
Return to BikePlan Source Home Page