Quantifying cars per road?

Hi All,

I have been trying to think of some way to quantitativly describe how
congested roads are in a particular area in a way that would show how
pleasant or unpleasant it might be to ride there.

Here in Norway there are only 4.5 million people in a country the size
of California. This would lead on to believe there were limitless
possibilities for excellent lonely bike rides. While there are of
course many great places to ride, the road network seems to
concentrate cars in a way that makes it seem much more crowded here
that one would think. Visitors from abroad have commented to me abouth
this too while we are driving around. Due to geographic, political,
and historical reasons, there are lots of "can't get there from here"
situations where there is only one road available to get someplace.
There are relatively few alternate routes. This means that the
frequency of cars can be quite high at times. If you just divided the
number of cars by the number of kilometers of roads, this would make
it seem less congested because many of these roads are quite long.

So any suggestions on ways of thinking about/describing the utility of
roads and their frequency of use?

Joseph

On 2007-03-01, wrote:
Hi All,

I have been trying to think of some way to quantitativly describe how
congested roads are in a particular area in a way that would show how
pleasant or unpleasant it might be to ride there.

Sounds like you want the Bicycle Level of Service:

http://www.ibike.org/engineering/los.htm

--

__o Kristian Zoerhoff
_'\(,_
(_)/ (_)

On 2007-03-01, Kristian M Zoerhoff wrote:
On 2007-03-01, wrote:
Hi All,

I have been trying to think of some way to quantitativly describe how
congested roads are in a particular area in a way that would show how
pleasant or unpleasant it might be to ride there.

Sounds like you want the Bicycle Level of Service:

http://www.ibike.org/engineering/los.htm

Argh, now I find my /good/ bookmark: a BLOS calculator:

http://bikelib.org/roads/blos/blosform.htm


--

__o Kristian Zoerhoff
_'\(,_
(_)/ (_)

On 1 Mar 2007 13:09:55 -0800, "
wrote:

[---]

So any suggestions on ways of thinking about/describing the utility of
roads and their frequency of use?

Maps produced for cyclists in Germany often classify roads by the
number of motor vehicles per hour which use them. The set I have uses
the following classification:

- over 10,000 vehicles per hour: unsuitable for cyclists

- between 3,000 and 10,000 vph: of limited suitability for cyclists

- between 1,000 and 3,000 vph: suitable for cyclists

- up to 1,000 vph: very suitable for cyclists

On Mar 1, 10:16 pm, Kristian M Zoerhoff
wrote:
On 2007-03-01, wrote:

Hi All,

I have been trying to think of some way to quantitativly describe how
congested roads are in a particular area in a way that would show how
pleasant or unpleasant it might be to ride there.

Sounds like you want the Bicycle Level of Service:

http://www.ibike.org/engineering/los.htm


That is very interesting. It is certainly helpful for determining the
relative unpleasantness of a given road. But I wonder if there is some
way to describe lack of alternate routes for an entire area. Some
crazy unit like cars/capita/km^2/min or something.

On the CalTrans website it says they maintain 1,640,101 miles of
roads. Obvioulsy lots of these are streets in urban areas the likes of
which do not exist here, but still this is hugely greater than the
25,000 miles of roads (including dirt roads!) here according to a
recent newspaper article. And with people living in narrow corridors
in valleys, this means lots of cars on the few roads where people
live. 13% as many people, 1% as many roads (probably less given the
inclusion of dirt and private roads).

I'm not saying they should pave the place, but the lack of alternate
routes puts the squeeze on bikes big time.

Joseph

I've critiqued the "Bicycle Compatiblity Index" he

http://humantransport.org/bicycledri...itique_BCI.pdf

The various tools that have been devised to determine bicycling
suitablity largely rely on how "comfortable" it is to use a road. This
"comfort" is largely a function of perception. As we know, bicyclists'
perceptions are poor.

Wayne

On Thu, 01 Mar 2007 22:32:39 +0100, Andrew Price wrote:

On 1 Mar 2007 13:09:55 -0800, "
wrote:

[---]

So any suggestions on ways of thinking about/describing the utility of
roads and their frequency of use?

Maps produced for cyclists in Germany often classify roads by the number
of motor vehicles per hour which use them. The set I have uses the
following classification:

- over 10,000 vehicles per hour: unsuitable for cyclists

- between 3,000 and 10,000 vph: of limited suitability for cyclists

- between 1,000 and 3,000 vph: suitable for cyclists

- up to 1,000 vph: very suitable for cyclists

I don't know much about the roads in Germany, but this wouldn't translate
to the US where roads vary a lot in style and width. Very high volume
roads can still be suitable for cyclists if there's enough lane width,
shoulder, and/or a bike lane. This is more common in Western states.
Eastern states are more likely to have narrow roads with lots of traffic.

For example, compare northern VA (Washington, DC suburbs) with Orange
County, CA. These areas are practically identical in type commercial and
residential development, and in demographics. However OC is eminently
bikeable while NoVA is a disaster. The difference is that all new
development since the 60s in CA has 14' or wider standard lanes, usually
with shoulders or bike lanes in addition; while VA still builds arterial
roads with 12' outer lanes and no shoulders.

Matt O.

On Mar 1, 10:51 pm, Wayne Pein wrote:
I've critiqued the "Bicycle Compatiblity Index" he

http://humantransport.org/bicycledri...itique_BCI.pdf

The various tools that have been devised to determine bicycling
suitablity largely rely on how "comfortable" it is to use a road. This
"comfort" is largely a function of perception. As we know, bicyclists'
perceptions are poor.

Wayne

Interesting. How could someone devise such a silly way of testing as
sticking a camera to the side of a road and then bother wasting all
the effort for the whole rest of the project? That's one of the
dumbest things I've heard lately.

If you ignore the BL aspects, do you think the system is somewhat
valid?

Joseph

Matt O'Toole wrote:



I don't know much about the roads in Germany, but this wouldn't translate
to the US where roads vary a lot in style and width. Very high volume
roads can still be suitable for cyclists if there's enough lane width,
shoulder, and/or a bike lane.


What would be the outcome if a bicyclist used an "unsuitable" road?



For example, compare northern VA (Washington, DC suburbs) with Orange
County, CA. These areas are practically identical in type commercial and
residential development, and in demographics. However OC is eminently
bikeable while NoVA is a disaster. The difference is that all new
development since the 60s in CA has 14' or wider standard lanes, usually
with shoulders or bike lanes in addition; while VA still builds arterial
roads with 12' outer lanes and no shoulders.


Last I checked, my 2' bicycle fit well on a 12' lane.

Wayne

wrote:

On Mar 1, 10:51 pm, Wayne Pein wrote:

I've critiqued the "Bicycle Compatiblity Index" he

http://humantransport.org/bicycledri...itique_BCI.pdf

The various tools that have been devised to determine bicycling
suitablity largely rely on how "comfortable" it is to use a road. This
"comfort" is largely a function of perception. As we know, bicyclists'
perceptions are poor.

Wayne


Interesting. How could someone devise such a silly way of testing as
sticking a camera to the side of a road and then bother wasting all
the effort for the whole rest of the project? That's one of the
dumbest things I've heard lately.

If you ignore the BL aspects, do you think the system is somewhat
valid?


I agree that most bicyclists do not enjoy the stress of riding on a
narrow busy road. But stress is a matter of perception, not operational
function. And what is stressful for one bicyclist may not phase another.

What is the expected benefit of rating roads on the basis of aggregate
bicyclist perceptions as a function of motor vehicle speed, volume, and
road width? To keep bicyclists off worse rated roads? Bicyclists should
be everywhere they are allowed, spreading like a beneficial virus!
People self select to what they are comfortable with.

What about operational measures such as collision rate, cross traffic
frequency, hilliness, surface condition, directness, etc.? Placing
emphasis soley on the stress of overtaking traffic misses the larger
issues and perpetuates the destructive Fear From the Rear paradigm. We
should strive to raise bicyclist's tolerance for traffic, not
artificially lower it by telling them how bad a road is.

In your case of few routes, what would be the point of a suitability
rating anyway? If there is no choice there is no choice. In the case of
an urban area with many choices, locals should know what roads they
prefer to use. In that case, having a suitability map which rates some
roads poorly does the disservice of formally documenting roads that
bicyclists "shouldn't use." What's the good of that?

Wayne