Assessment of Three Alternative Bicycle Infrastructure Quality-of-Service Metrics

Abstract

Cities throughout the United States are increasingly interested in the design of bicycle facilities to attract new riders and improve the comfort of existing riders. In particular, transportation agencies increasingly use treatments such as cycle tracks, buffered bike lanes, and colored pavement to supplement or replace traditional facilities (e.g., bike lanes). To respond to this trend, transportation professionals require evaluation metrics that effectively assess design options and provide decision-support in the choice of bicycle facilities that best match local context. Recent research has produced several bicycle evaluation tools [e.g., bicycle level of service (BLOS)] that attempt to fill this need. This paper presents the results of a comprehensive, real-world comparison of three leading bicycle evaluation tools: Highway Capacity Manual 2010 (HCM) BLOS, Danish Road Directorate BLOS, and the San Francisco, California, Bicycle Environmental Quality Index. Each evaluation tool was applied to a before–after evaluation of two bicycle facility installations in Washington, D.C. The tools were assessed with a consistent set of evaluation criteria, which included data and time requirements, sensitivity to key inputs, intuitiveness of the results, and soundness of the tool's theoretical basis. Intercept surveys of facility users were used to compare the tool outputs with actual user preferences. The results suggest several shortcomings in the HCM BLOS methodology that make it unsuited for assessing bicycle design options that include cycle tracks and other emerging bicycle facility types. Additional research is needed to develop a nationally accepted bicycle evaluation tool to reflect the growing variety of bicycle facilities in the United States.