National Academies Press: OpenBook

Guidelines for Analysis of Investments in Bicycle Facilities (2006)

Chapter: Appendix I: Field Testing

« Previous: Appendix H: Community Livability Benefits
Page 104
Suggested Citation:"Appendix I: Field Testing." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2006. Guidelines for Analysis of Investments in Bicycle Facilities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13929.
×
Page 104
Page 105
Suggested Citation:"Appendix I: Field Testing." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2006. Guidelines for Analysis of Investments in Bicycle Facilities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13929.
×
Page 105
Page 106
Suggested Citation:"Appendix I: Field Testing." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2006. Guidelines for Analysis of Investments in Bicycle Facilities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13929.
×
Page 106
Page 107
Suggested Citation:"Appendix I: Field Testing." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2006. Guidelines for Analysis of Investments in Bicycle Facilities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13929.
×
Page 107
Page 108
Suggested Citation:"Appendix I: Field Testing." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2006. Guidelines for Analysis of Investments in Bicycle Facilities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13929.
×
Page 108

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

I-1 APPENDIX I FIELD TESTING An important part of this project’s outcome lies in its utility as a tool to assist the local community transportation planning process. Toward this end, the research team conducted field testing of the guidelines before general release to the public. This effort took place in two parallel tracks: one aimed at soliciting comments from the broad cycling community and another focused on communities with strong interest in testing and potentially using the guidelines. Survey Through field testing, our aim was to ensure that the guidelines provide a useful and easy-to-use tool that planners, engineers, and policymakers can use for making informed investment decisions. To accurately measure the degree to which the tool met this goal, the research team developed a survey that was distributed to all field testers (see Figure 24). The survey, in Microsoft® Word format, asks a series of questions about the tool’s applicability, accuracy, ease of use, “look and feel,” and other technical issues. Some ques- tions asked for narrative responses, while others solicited numeri- cal ratings to allow for quantitative analysis. Track One: Public Testing After testing the guidelines within the research team, the beta ver- sion was released for public field testing through email distribution lists and announcements at research presentations. Potential field testers were asked to apply the online tool to a planned or existing bicycle facility whenever possible, and provide comments using the survey. The research team solicited field testing from the planning and cycling community through the following efforts: • A presentation and announcement at the 2005 American Plan- ning Association national conference in San Francisco in March • A presentation and announcement at the University of Min- nesota’s 2005 Center for Transportation Studies annual con- ference in April • A presentation and announcement at Boise State University’s 2005 Community Bicycle Congress in May • An email invitation to members of the Association of Pedes- trian and Bicycle Professionals (APBP) • An article in the April 22, 2005, edition of Centerlines, the newsletter of the National Center for Bicycling and Walking To augment this “public” field testing track, the research team extended personal invitations to the following select group of bicycle planners and advocates to test and offer comments on the guidelines: Planners • Josh Lehman, Massachusetts State Bicycle Coordinator • Randy Thoreson of the National Parks Service Rivers, Trails, and Conservation Assistance Program, St. Paul • Tom Huber, State of Wisconsin Bicycle and Pedestrian Coor- dinator • Charlotte Claybrooke, State of Washington Bicycle and Pedes- trian Coordinator • Drusilla van Hengel, Mobility Coordinator, City of Santa Barbara • Paul Magarey, Chair, Australian Bicycle Council Advocates • Chuck Ayers, Cascade Bicycle Club • Louise McGrody, Bicycle Alliance of Washington • Peg Staeheli, SVR Design Company • Emily Allen, Seattle Bicycle Advisory Board These individuals were selected on the basis of referrals or because they represented geographic areas or communities that would likely have good use for the tool.

Track Two: Active Living By Design Partnership Communities The second track of field testing focused on a targeted list of bicycle planning professionals with a strong interest in testing and potentially using the guidelines. The goal was to receive detailed and substantive comments from geographically distributed com- munities where bicycle planning is a priority. Key to this effort was our partnership with Active Living By Design (ALBD), a $16.5 million national program of The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF) and part of the University of North Carolina School of Public Health in Chapel Hill. As part of their aim, ALBD is providing $200,000 grants to community-oriented partnerships to develop and implement strategies that increase opportunities for and remove barriers to routine physical activity. Promoting bicy- cling is an important part of this aim as evidenced by the generous grant recently awarded by the RWJF to the League of American Bicyclists for the Bicycle Friendly Community Campaign. This is a national grassroots effort to increase the number of trips made by bike, promote physical fitness, and make communities more livable. The community partnerships to be selected for funding under ALBD were announced in the fall of 2003. Given that many of these com- munities have an interest in developing a stronger bicycling infra- structure, and that they have demonstrated a proven level of coor- dination, we saw these communities as ripe opportunities for field-testing the guidelines. An important consideration is that the chosen communities vary in their bicycling needs, capacities for change, and size. This strategy represents a creative way to mobi- I-2 Figure 24. Field testing survey. Field Testing Survey for “Guidelines for Analysis of Investments in Bicycle Facilities (NCHRP Project 07-14) Thank you for agreeing to pilot test the guidelines created for the above project. Doing so requires four steps. 1. Please familiarize yourself with the guidelines (http://www.bicyclinginfo.org/bikecost/) 2. Envision a possible bicycle facility in your community, or gather data from an existing facility, and apply them to the guidelines. 3. Compare your results with any cost or demand data you may have or evaluate the utility of the data output from the guidelines. 4. Please complete the below survey and provide us with valuable feedback This form is available at: _________________web site here APPLICABILITY Please rate the degree to which any set of guidelines that loosely represent this tool advance the bicycle planning process. Select one... Now, rate how well you think THIS TOOL serves its intended purpose. Select one... Did the guidelines meet your expectations? Select one... If not, in what manner? In what way do the guidelines help investment decisions? For each estimated benefit, please rate its ability to help guide facility investments: Mobility Select one... Health Select one... Recreation Select one... Community Livability Select one... Externalities Select one... Which benefits do you feel need considerably more attention? Were there benefits that were not captured by the guidelines? When calculating facility costs, you were provided the option to enter user-specified values. Please rate the extent to which this feature was useful: Select one... Please continue on the next page...

I-3 ACCURACY Assuming you are able to compare to existing data: What was the total facility cost projected by the guidelines? $ What was the actual cost of your facility (if known)? $ If you have cyclist counts for your existing facility, please comment on the accuracy of the guidelines’ demand estimates: EASE OF USE Please rate the guidelines’ ease of use a scale of 1 to 10: Select one... Please rate the effectiveness of the Bicyclopedia and “i” buttons: Select one... How clear were the instructions? Select one... What needed to be clearer? What improvements would make the guidelines easier to use? Please list any data that were difficult to locate (for example, household densities, median home sale price, bicycle commute share): BUGS Keep in mind that this product is a beta version. Please provide us with detailed description of any errors that you encountered. Please continue on the next page... Figure 24. (Cont.) lize efforts around our central aim—understanding how to make best use of funds. The research team recruited three ALBD partnership communi- ties to pilot test the guidelines: Seattle, Somerville, and Chapel Hill. These cities represent a variety of geographic settings, each provid- ing a different bicycle planning context (Table 28). The combined efforts of tracks 1 and 2 produced responses from the following individuals: Active Living By Design Partnership Communities • Steve Winslow, Somerville Massachusetts Bicycle and Pedes- trian Coordinator • David Bonk, Senior Transportation Planner, Town of Chapel Hill • Gordon Sutherland, Principal Long Range Planner, Town of Chapel Hill • Ned Conroy, Principal Planner, Puget Sound Regional Council Solicited Individuals • Randy Thoreson of the National Parks Service Rivers, Trails, and Conservation Assistance Program, St. Paul • Tom Huber, State of Wisconsin Bicycle and Pedestrian Coor- dinator • Josh Lehman, Massachusetts State Bicycle Coordinator • Charlotte Claybrooke, State of Washington Bicycle and Pedes- trian Coordinator • Drusilla van Hengel, Mobility Coordinator, City of Santa Barbara Responses from General Announcements • Jennifer Toole, Toole Design Group • Anne Lusk, Harvard School of Public Health • Jim Coppock, City of Cincinnati • Heath Maddox, Associate Transportation Planner, City of Berkeley • Andriana McMullen, Capital Regional District, British Columbia Internal Research Team • David Loutzenheiser, Planners Collaborative • Don Kidston, Planners Collaborative • Bill Hunter, UNC Highway Safety Research Center • Libby Thomas, UNC Highway Safety Research Center • Gary Barnes, Active Communities Transportation (ACT) Research Group, University of Minnesota • Gavin Poindexter, Active Communities Transportation (ACT) Research Group, University of Minnesota

• David Levinson, Associate Professor of Civil Engineering, University of Minnesota Comments Comments received via the online survey generally fit four cate- gories. First, several comments pointed out technical bugs in the tool. Second, a substantial number of comments related to ease of use, providing the research team with opportunities to improve the user experience. A third body of comments pointed out specific inac- curacies in methodology, cost estimates, and glossary items. Finally, I-4 a number of respondents offered broad methodological comments that could be incorporated into future research. The following outlines the range of comments that the research team was able to address through changes to the guidelines. Technical Bugs • Pressing the “back” button results in an error message. • In the cost sheet, the numbers in the “Itemized costs” field do not always fit in the allotted space. • Cost items 4.03 and 4.04 are not calculating correctly. U.S. Region / Community Setting W es t C oa st Se at tle , W as hi ng to n Population: 563,000 Five neighborhood project areas are more ethnically diverse than Seattle, with Asians constituting between 12% and 51%, and African Americans representing between 5% and 29% of the population. A vigorous mapping process in five Seattle neighborhoods will involve neighbors of all ages and ethnicities to make the places they live and work more walkable and bike friendly. An annual neighborhood map will be published, promoting neighborhood assets and promoting the pleasures and benefits of creating a good, safe walking environment. Ea st C oa st So m er vi lle , M as sa ch u se tts Population: 77,000 More than 50 languages are spoken in this city, which has two distinct faces; the wealthy west, where many professionals moved following the development of the Davis Square subway in 1986; and the east, which retains a largely blue-collar immigrant character with recent arrivals from Central and South America, South Asia, Africa, and the Caribbean. The project features completing the Somerville Community Path and bringing its physical activity benefits to the lower income communities in East Somerville. Innovative activities include distributing an "Active Living Welcome Package" (including a public transit map) to new residents, conducting physical activity audits in neighborhoods, engaging community members in mapping workshops, and making sure Active Living resources (e.g., bike paths and subway stops) appear correctly on mainstream city maps. In cooperation with realtors, the group will work to allow homebuyers to preview their commute options, based on each house they are considering. Policy change will leverage existing Safe Routes to School efforts, greening projects and master planning work to establish secure, attractive walking corridors. The Somerville Community path runs through a low-income area of high population density, racial and ethnic diversity. So u th Ch ap el H ill , N C Population: 50,000 Home of the University of North Carolina— Chapel Hill (UNC); the campus has 26,000 students and 10,000 employees The partnership will promote active living in neighborhoods, schools, and along a major transportation corridor in Chapel Hill. Specific tactics to promote active living will include: a citizen assessment of environmental supports for active living in a low income neighborhood; Safe Routes to School programming; pedestrian/bicycle/transit assessment of a major town transportation corridor (Airport Road); strengthening transit/active living linkages through bus promotions; and utilizing an existing employer incentive program to promote multi-modal commuting options. Proposed Project or Specific Facility TABLE 28 Active Living By Design, field testing locations

• Entering median home sale price with a comma ($150,000) results in an error message. • Entering persons per household with a decimal point (3.2) results in an error message. • The Community Livability and Externalities benefits do not always appear in the final output page. • The facility length entered in the cost sheet does not always transfer to the demand and benefits calculations. Ease of Use • Include a disclaimer at the beginning of the tool that informs the user about the relative accuracy of the estimates. • Include an executive summary of the 150-page research report. • Cost sheet headings should remain static when scrolling down. • Include instructions on how to use the cost sheet. • It is unclear which fields in the cost sheet are changeable. • The heading in the cost sheet called “Base Year” is difficult to understand. It should be called “User-specified unit cost.” • The outputs of the tool should be better formatted and clearly interpreted for the user. Inaccuracies • In the glossary, the same photograph is used for bicycle symbol, bicycle arrow, and sharrow. • Spelling error on Demand Step 1: “Metro are” should be “Metro area.” I-5 • Some metro area names on the first input page do not match the metro area names in other parts of the tool. The following comments for the previous three categories could not be addressed because of technical feasibility and time constraints: • An option should be provided to save your work partway through the process. • The option to export the cost sheet to Excel should produce a better-formatted document. • Users should have the option to use the tool in either metric or English units. Future Research Possibilities (outside scope of immediate project) In addition to issues that were impractical to address because of resource constraints, other comments offered ideas that were beyond the research scope of this project but should be considered for future study: • Costs and benefits should include information about safety in terms of crashes. • A facility’s connection to transit should be considered in the demand model. • Facility connectivity to schools should be considered in the demand model. • The manner in which traffic volume, hazards, topography, intersections, and vehicle speed would influence demand.

Next: Appendix J: Primer on Designing Bicycle Facilities »
Guidelines for Analysis of Investments in Bicycle Facilities Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

TRB’s National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 552: Guidelines for Analysis of Investments in Bicycle Facilities includes methodologies and tools to estimate the cost of various bicycle facilities and for evaluating their potential value and benefits. The report is designed to help transportation planners integrate bicycle facilities into their overall transportation plans and on a project-by-project basis. The research described in the report has been used to develop a set of web-based guidelines, available on the Internet at http://www.bicyclinginfo.org/bikecost/, that provide a step-by-step worksheet for estimating costs, demands, and benefits associated with specific facilities under consideration.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!