Cover PageTable of Contents1. Introduction2. Literature Review3. State-of-the-Practice Survey4. ConclusionsAppendix: Detailed CriteriaTechnical Report Documentation Page 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No.TX-97/3988-1 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report DateBICYCLE SUITABILITY CRITERIA: LITERATURE REVIEW July 1997AND STATE-OF-THE-PRACTICE SURVEY 6. Performing Organization Code 7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No. Shawn M. Turner, C. Scott Shafer, and William P. Stewart Research Report 3988-1 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS)Texas Transportation InstituteThe Texas A&M University SystemCollege Station, Texas 77843-313511. Contract or Grant No.Study No. 7-398812. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period CoveredTexas Department of Transportation Research Documentation:Research and Technology Transfer Office January 1997 - June 1997P. O. Box 5080Austin, Texas 78763-508014. Sponsoring Agency Code15. Supplementary NotesResearch performed in cooperation with the Texas Department of Transportation.Research Study Title: Identify and Develop Criteria for Evaluating Roads to Determine Their Suitability forBicycle Use16. AbstractThis research report reviews and summarizes bicycle suitability criteria being used in the United States,presents preliminary conclusions, and makes preliminary recommendations regarding such criteria. Conclusions and recommendations are presented here as a starting point for discussion on the state-of-the-practice in bicycle suitability and the potential for the institution of such criteria at a statewide level in Texas.Suitability criteria found in the literature review were varied in nature and mostly used in urban areas. Manycriteria require additional data beyond that commonly found in urban transportation data bases. Severalbicycle suitability criteria included the presence or width of shoulders, a situation commonly found on Texasstate highways. The state-of-the-practice survey revealed that 70 percent (11 of 16 states) had bicyclesuitability criteria in place. The two most common criteria (one or both were used in every case) were thetraffic volume (ADT) and the width of outside lanes (or shoulders). Thirty-five percent of the states withsuitability criteria also indicated that they looked at heavy vehicles when considering traffic volume, 25percent considered pavement conditions, and 15 percent included traffic speed or speed limit criteria. The research team concluded that the potential uses and applications are critical in defining the bicyclesuitability criteria. The availability of statewide roadway inventory data is also important in establishing andmaintaining information about suitability on state roadways in Texas.17. Key Words 18. Distribution StatementBicycle Suitability, Bicycle Planning, Bicycle Map No restrictions. This document is available to thepublic through NTIS:National Technical Information Service5285 Port Royal RoadSpringfield, Virginia 2216119. Security Classif.(of this report) 20. Security Classif.(of this page) 21. No. of Pages 22. PriceUnclassified Unclassified 56 Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed page authorizedBICYCLE SUITABILITY CRITERIA: LITERATURE REVIEW AND STATE-OF-THE-PRACTICE SURVEYbyShawn M. Turner, P.E.Assistant Research EngineerTexas Transportation InstituteC. Scott ShaferAssistant ProfessorDepartment of Recreation, Park and Tourism SciencesTexas A&M UniversityandWilliam P. StewartAssociate ProfessorDepartment of Recreation, Park and Tourism SciencesTexas A&M UniversityResearch Report 3988-1Research Study Number 7-3988Research Study Title: Identify and Develop Criteria for Evaluating Roads to Determine Their Suitability for Bicycle UseSponsored by theTexas Department of TransportationJuly 1997TEXAS TRANSPORTATION INSTITUTEThe Texas A&M University SystemCollege Station, Texas 77843-3135vDISCLAIMERThe contents of this report reflect the views of the authors, who are responsible for thefacts and the accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect theofficial views or policies of the Texas Department of Transportation. This report does notconstitute a standard, specification, or regulation. This report was prepared by Shawn Turner(Texas certification number 82781), Scott Shafer, and William Stewart.viACKNOWLEDGMENTSThe authors would like to acknowledge the support and guidance of the project director, PaulDouglas, TxDOT Bicycle Coordinator, of the Multimodal Division. Other members of the projectadvisory panel who offered numerous useful comments include:• Glenn Gadbois, Executive Director, Texas Bicycle Coalition• Elizabeth Hilton, Field Coordination Engineer, Design Division, TxDOT• Jacquie Magill, District Bicycle Coordinator, Austin District, TxDOTMaria Burke, Field Coordination Engineer in TxDOT’s Design Division and project director for arelated TxDOT bicycle research study (0-1723: Bicycle and Pedestrian Demand Forecasting),attended project meetings and provided comments and suggestions.The authors would like to thank the numerous bicycle professionals and advocates contactedthroughout this study. They were most generous with their time and available products, and relateda wealth of experience to the research team. Any misstatements of their bicycle experiences orprocesses are solely the responsibility of the authors.viiTABLE OF CONTENTSPAGELIST OF FIGURES ......................................................... ixLIST OF TABLES ..........................................................xCHAPTER ONE - INTRODUCTION ............................................1Research Goals and Objectives ............................................1Research Implementation ................................................2Organization of this Report ..............................................2CHAPTER TWO - LITERATURE REVIEW ......................................3Bicycle Stress Levels ...................................................6Bicycle Safety Index Rating ..............................................6Bicycle Suitability Rating--Davis ..........................................7Roadway Condition Index ...............................................8Modified Roadway Condition Index (Epperson-Davis) .........................11Interaction Hazard Score