Designing for a Low-Stress Active Transportation Network

While many Central Ohio residents are interested in walking or bicycling, they cite concerns around a lack of dedicated facilities, high traffic volumes and vehicle speeds, and driver behavior as reasons for not currently doing so.

Changes to street design, together with appropriate accommodations for people walking and bicycling, can help to make Central Ohio’s road network safer and more comfortable for all users. These changes have the potential to result in more trips occurring by foot, bike, or transit.

Currently, more than 1/3 of all trips made in the MPO area are less than 3 miles in length. Many of these trips are made by car, when that distance could be traveled by foot, bike, or transit.​ The way we design our transportation system can directly impact a person’s choice to walk or bike to their destination instead of drive.

For pedestrians, the safest way to travel is on a well-maintained network of sidewalks or designated walkways and paths. We depend on them to separate and protect us from vehicle traffic.

On the other hand, gaps in the sidewalk network, such as those seen here, create uncertainty for pedestrians: can they safely travel to their destination? That uncertainty can be a deterrent to choosing to walk. ​

Reducing gaps in sidewalk coverage is a regional priority. The MTP has established a 2050 target of 85% sidewalk coverage on roadways with a Federal Functional Classification of Arterial or Collector.

Sidewalk gaps are especially concerning when they exist in neighborhoods whose residents may not have a choice in how they get to their destinations.

Residents of the neighborhoods highlighted in this map experience higher rates of poverty.

(Source: 2015-2019 summary data from Census American Community Survey)

Highly confident cyclists are strong and fearless! The highly confident cyclist is motivated by a direct route to their destination. While they may enjoy riding on a path or other facility that is separated from traffic, highly confident cyclists are also willing to ride alongside vehicle traffic if it is a more direct, or less crowded, route.

Highly confident cyclists make up the smallest share of the bike-riding population nationally and here in Central Ohio.

In a 2020 survey of Central Ohioans, 21% of respondents identified themselves as strong and fearless riders.

Somewhat confident cyclists are enthusiastic about bicycling and comfortable on most types of bicycle facilities. They have a lower tolerance for interacting with traffic than highly confident cyclists, though, and prefer to ride on designated facilities.

In Central Ohio, people who identify themselves as Somewhat Confident cyclists make up about 1/4 of the population, according to our survey.

People who identify themselves as interested-but-concerned are interested in bicycling for transportation, but are too concerned about their safety and the availability of safe places to bike. They feel more motivated to bike when they have access to a complete network of connected, separated bike facilities. This same infrastructure also accommodates more confident cyclists, making it the recommended design for all ages and abilities. 

A person’s tolerance for interacting with traffic while bicycling often depends on the conditions present on a particular roadway. As the volume and speed of vehicular traffic increases, the bicycling experience becomes more stressful. 

A bicycle level of traffic stress analysis evaluates data related to these conditions and helps us to understand the factors contributing to a person’s decision to bike. This understanding is an important step in designing roadways to be more accommodating of all users. 

While every individual has their own tolerance for interacting with traffic, we can use data to approximate the relative level of traffic stress for each type of cyclist.

While all roadways generate some traffic stress, the ATP calculates the level of traffic stress specifically for roadways with a Federal Functional Classification of Arterial or Collector, within the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) area.

There are a few reasons for focusing on these specific roadway types:

• Most trips include travel along arterial and collector roads; these roadways serve as the primary transportation network and are necessary routes for all modes of travel.
• Data is more readily available for arterial and collector roads than for local and subdivision roads.
• Arterial and collector roads within the MPO area are eligible for MORPC-attributable federal funding
• Cyclists are not permitted on freeways and certain limited-access roads.

Combined, arterials and collectors make up nearly 2,000 road miles within the MPO area.

Please note, this level of traffic stress methodology does not include the region’s trail and shared-use path system. This network is designated as separate line features on the map, indicating where an alternative is available for bicyclists who do not want to ride on-street. Through the Central Ohio Greenways (COG) Board, this network will be extended to provide more access and better connections in the future and should be considered as part of any new transportation project. This system is, and will continue to be, a major part of Central Ohio’s active transportation network.

The on-street bike network is typically the most direct route to jobs, schools, shopping, and services. So the level of traffic stress analysis focuses strictly on the roadway network and facilities provided within the roadway itself. This separation of on-street and off-street bike facilities also helps to identify intersections and other crossing locations for trails and shared-use paths that may require special accommodations to ensure the same level of comfort is provided through those intersections.

Using methodology from the Ohio Department of Transportation, each roadway's level of traffic stress is determined by the following factors:

• On-street bike facility type
• Posted speed limit
• Number of vehicle travel lanes
• Average annual daily traffic counts
• Functional class
• Direction of travel (both or one way)

Taken together, these data inputs provide objective insight into how stressful a roadway may be for cyclists. Additional data, like presence of a centerline, road width and parking lane are preferred, but the analysis accommodates, using a weakest link methodology to score the LTS based on the roadway’s worst-performing segment. That is, if a roadway has a mix of higher-stress and lower-stress factors, the route will score as higher-stress.

Bicycle LTS is a simple communication tool that can help the public understand which roads are most comfortable for bicycle travel.

It is also a useful planning tool to help communities plan for and connect comfortable on-street bicycle facilities.

Roadways fall into one of four levels of traffic stress:

• Level 1 (LTS-1): Low Traffic Stress (All Ages)
• Level 2 (LTS-2): Moderate Traffic Stress (Most Adults)
• Level 3 (LTS-3): High Traffic Stress (Confident Cyclists)
• Level 4 (LTS-4): Extreme Traffic Stress (Expert Cyclists Only)

Level 1 roadways are the most comfortable for cyclists, with bike lanes that are physically separated or buffered from vehicular traffic or the road is both very low-volume and low-speed. These roadways are considered appropriate and comfortable for cyclists of all ages and abilities, including the interested-but-concerned.

There are approximately 8 miles of LTS-1 arterial and collector roadways in the MPO area.

Separated facilities such as side paths and regional trails are also typically considered LTS-1 facilities, but because they are off-street facilities, they require additional design considerations to ensure user safety. This is particularly important at locations where they intersect with vehicular traffic such as intersections and driveways. There are approximately 716 miles of side paths and regional trails in the MPO area.

Level 2 roadways exhibit conditions that create a moderate level of traffic stress for bicyclists. These roads are considered comfortable for most adult bicyclists, because they offer bike lanes or bicyclists share the road with low to moderate vehicle volumes and speeds. 

There are approximately 45 miles of LTS-2 arterial and collector roadways in the MPO area.

As speed limits and/or vehicle traffic volumes increase, so too does the level of stress for cyclists. Level 3 (LTS-3) roadways are therefore considered high-stress. Only strong and fearless, highly confident bicyclists are likely to travel on these roads.

There are approximately 697 miles of LTS-3 arterial and collector roadways in the MPO area.

Higher-speed (45+ mph) roadways that do not provide dedicated travel space for bicyclists are extremely stressful. These Level 4 (LTS-4) roadways will likely be avoided by most cyclists. 

There are approximately 1,236 miles of LTS-4 arterial and collector roadways in the MPO area. However, it is important to note that some of these roadway corridors do currently provide alternative options for bicyclists, such as side paths (multi-use path in place of a sidewalk). This is often the most appropriate facility type for LTS-4 roadways.

The level of traffic stress analysis shows the majority of arterial and collector roadways are today considered very stressful for bicyclists travelling on-street. However, as this map shows, some of these roadways are accompanied by adjacent trails or side paths. These are a separated facility for bicyclists and pedestrians that are often the most appropriate facility type for those roadways.

It is important to understand where these facilities exist separately from the roadway in order to plan for future connections and design accommodations appropriately. Understanding the level of traffic stress of the roadway separately from the adjacent side path or parallel trail can also provide valuable information for future roadway improvements as well as intersection design

This analysis is providing an additional piece of information to local agencies looking to improve infrastructure for people walking and bicycling. While it may not be feasible or desirable to change every LTS-4 roadway to LTS-1, this information can help to inform decision-making around potential investments in a more comfortable, connected, regional bike network. 

In its  Bikeway Selection Guide, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)  provides a user-friendly tool to guide the decision-making process for identifying a preferred bike facility type on any given roadway.  ​

The Bikeway Selection Guide notes three key steps for this process:

1. Identify the Design User for the project (is the desire to accommodate the Interested-But-Concerned bicyclist?). 
2. Identify the preferred facility type for the Design User (what type of bike facility will best accommodate the Design User?).
3. Evaluate the feasibility of the preferred facility type (is it feasible to accommodate the preferred facility, or do alternatives need to be explored?). 

When determining the preferred bike facility, the Bikeway Selection Guide notes a few key factors: ​

• Where the roadway is located (Urban, Suburban, or Rural context)​
• The travel speeds or posted speed limit of the roadway
• The number of vehicles per day traveling on the roadway

The Bikeway Selection Guide also provides simplified decision-making charts based on roadway context to help with identifying the appropriate facility type. The chart shown here is for streets in Urban, Urban Core, Suburban, and Rural Town Contexts.

In general, roads with higher speeds and higher traffic volumes require more separation between vehicles and bicyclists. However, the preferred bikeway for a rural roadway may be different from the preferred types for urban and suburban roadways, or roadways through rural town centers.

The chart shown here is for rural roadways. However, while the typical bicyclist on rural roadways is likely in the Highly Confident or Somewhat Confident category, it is often desirable to provide shared-use paths along rural roads with higher speeds and volumes. 

While the bicycle level of traffic stress analysis does not directly translate into a proxy for pedestrian level of travel stress, it can still be used to inform where improvements may be needed for pedestrians to cross the street. This is particularly true for uncontrolled pedestrian crossing locations.​

In its  Guide for Improving Pedestrian Safety at Uncontrolled Crossing Locations , FHWA uses the same factors that comprise the level of traffic stress analysis to provide best practices for improving pedestrian safety at locations where no traffic control is present. The roadway configuration, posted speed limit, and vehicle volumes are used to determine the appropriate elements to include in the design of an uncontrolled pedestrian crossing. ​

The bicycle level of traffic stress ratings included in the ATP can be used to identify locations where improvements to these pedestrian crossings may be necessary.