Technical Memorandum

DATE:     May 15, 2014

TO:         Boston Region Metropolitan Planning Organization

FROM:    Beth Isler, PE/PTP

RE:          Bicycle Network Evaluation             

1. Introduction

Local, regional, and state agencies in the Boston metropolitan region have been actively working for decades to improve its bicycling infrastructure. As a result of these efforts, a regional network of on- and off-road facilities is evolving. Traditionally however, bicycle facilities in the US have been built primarily as recreational accommodations rather than as part of the bicycle transportation network. Often, the result is a fragmented system of paths that do not connect key origins and destinations and are not always usable for utilitarian trips.

Although the Boston region has made strides towards a bicycle network that serves all trips and connects to the larger transportation system (the Minuteman Commuter Bikeway is a prime example of such an approach), there are gaps because of a lack of coordinated planning, funding, and right-of-way (ROW); as well as physical obstructions, such as waterways, bridges, roadways, and railroads. The objective of this project is to enhance bicycle connectivity and safety by identifying and prioritizing regionally significant gaps within the existing bicycle network between major regional origin and destination points.

This bicycle-network evaluation uses technical analysis based on a diverse set of criteria to envision a more cohesive network within the MPO region. The study uses Geographic Information Systems (GIS) to evaluate network gaps according to how well they would support bicycle connectivity and maximize safe access throughout the region. This analysis can be applied as a tool to assess additional gaps. Recommendations for advancing the 11 highest-priority gaps are included.

This project advances the goals of the Boston Region MPO Regional Bicycle Plan1 developed with the Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC); furthers the mobility goals discussed in the Long-Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) Paths to a Sustainable Region;2 assists in implementing the Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT) Bicycle Transportation Plan and the Bay State Greenway;3 encourages the shared use of infrastructure recommended in the youMove Massachusetts Report;4 and builds upon the ongoing work of the MPO’s Congestion Management Process. Moreover, it supports the MassDOT secretary of Transportation’s Healthy Transportation Compact5, GreenDOT6, and Mode Shift goals.

A steering committee of bicycle representatives from MassDOT and MAPC guided this project. At the outset of the study, staff presented its approach and methodology to the Massachusetts Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board for feedback. Reviewers from Livable Streets Alliance and Northeastern University also provided valuable input.

This report documents existing conditions, the evaluation methodology, identified network gaps, analysis results, and recommended potential connections for the highest-priority ‘gaps’ along with their potential ‘connections’ (see definition in Methodology section on next page).

1.1      Purpose

The purpose of this project is to 1) identify gaps in the regional bicycle network; 2) prioritize them; and 3) analyze the top-ranking network gaps in terms of potential construction projects, or other remedial actions, which may be considered for design and funding in the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). This study does not address expansions outside of the network.

1.2      Methodology

The steps in this project are:

1. Create a regional bicycle network map showing existing and planned facilities
2. Define the evaluation criteria
3. Identify significant gaps within the network
4. Apply the evaluation criteria
5. Propose recommendations for addressing high-priority gaps

For this project, there is a critical difference between what constitutes a gap and how it is evaluated. Although technically a gap could be a lack of access based on an operational issue, socio-demographic barrier, or physical obstruction, for the purposes of this study, a gap is defined as a lack of a physical connection between bicycle facilities or between a bicycle facility and a regional transit station (commuter rail, rapid transit, key bus route). In contrast, important criteria such as access to activity centers, employment, schools, etc., are taken into account during the evaluation phase of the project, which is described in the Evaluation Methodology Section below.

2. Base Network

It is important to take a systematic approach to the inventory of facilities that comprise the regional bicycle network evaluated in this study. Therefore, the base network is defined as existing and upcoming:

• Shared-use paths
• Unimproved paths (which primarily represent the aqueduct trail network)
• On-road bike lanes
• Protected bike lanes/cycle tracks

Upcoming projects are defined as those listed in the Federal Fiscal Years (FFYs) 2014-17 TIP or with an MPO status of “Advertised.” Shared lanes, roadways with sharrows, and on-road routes that do not include marked bike lanes (for example, the Claire Saltonstall Bikeway) are not included in this study.

The starting point for the base network map (Figure 1) was the MAPC’s 2012 Greater Boston Cycling and Walking Map. Staff used GIS for the analysis in this study.

3. Evaluation Methodology

As stated above, this study defines as a gap as a lack of a physical connection7 between bicycle facilities or between a bicycle facility and a regional transit station (commuter rail, rapid transit, key bus route). Although technically a gap could be a lack of access based on an operational issue, socio-demographic barrier, or physical obstruction, these criteria are considered during the evaluation of the gaps in order to identify which ones are most significant. Where appropriate (given the parameters of this study), gaps were overlaid on conceptual alignments to evaluate how well they would function as actual connections in the overall transportation system (for example, the Upper Charles Trail in Sherborn). Generally, isolated facilities such as the bike trails in Pond Meadow Park in Braintree or Breakheart Reservation in Saugus were not considered to serve the regional bicycle network, so potential connections linking them to the rest of the network were not evaluated. 

3.1      Evaluation Criteria and Scoring Methodology

In order to identify the relative efficacy of potential connections in creating a more cohesive, continuous network within the Boston MPO region, staff developed a scoring methodology (Table 1). Staff employed GIS analysis to determine whether the gaps/potential connections would address the selected evaluation criteria, and then calculated a final score. Appendix A walks through the methodology step-by-step using the North Shore Task Force subregion as an example. Gaps were identified by sketching ellipses to show the general location of the gap, and then the evaluation criteria were overlaid to indicate the strength of the potential connection. 

To assure consistency with other regional plans, points were assigned to gaps for which another plan already has identified a need or a potential connection. These plans provide data and insight about existing network gaps:

• 2007 Boston Region MPO Regional Bicycle Plan (developed with MAPC)
• 2008 Massachusetts Bicycle Transportation Plan/Bay State Greenway Network
• 2011 MPO Long-Range Transportation Plan
• 2013 Livable Streets Alliance Green Routes Plan
• 2014 Northeastern University Regional Bicycle Plan

Moreover, the processes that were used to develop these plans solicited public input and have been vetted by the Massachusetts bicycling public. For example, the 2008 Massachusetts Bicycle Transportation Plan outlines a long-term vision for a statewide bicycle network, the Bay State Greenway. Although only approximately 200 miles of this 750-plus mile on- and off-road network have been constructed, its long-term goal and the work that has been completed in support of it is valuable and therefore is folded into this evaluation.

TABLE 1
Evaluation Criteria and Methodology

¹The CTPS regional transportation model was used to provide future (20 years, or 2035) bicycle and pedestrian trip tables. These data were calculated at the level of disaggregated geographic areas known as traffic analysis zones (TAZs). The trip tables include bicycle and pedestrian trip productions and trip attractions for all trip purposes based on existing and future year demographic and socioeconomic data. The model calculates the number of trip productions within a TAZ using generation rates obtained from travel surveys and the number of trip attractions using land use data. These are estimated as a function of household size, workers per household, vehicles per household, income, household location, households, basic employment, retail employment, college employment, school employment, and service employment. Forecasts in the model were developed by MAPC based on its MetroFuture scenario. ²"The 'Top High Crash Intersection Locations' are based on a clustering of crashes that have been submitted to the statewide crash system at the Registry of Motor Vehicles and located to a geographical point. They have been ranked based on the weighting of the number and severity of crashes. This should only be used as an initial evaluation tool. To obtain details on the methodology used, the limitations of the data and/or a listing of textual data for the top crash locations please contact CrashDataRequest@mhd.state.ma.us or call 617-973-8484. It should be noted that the Top Crash Locations data was compiled under the authority of United States Code Title 23, Section 148(g) (4) which states that such data 'shall not be subject to discovery or admitted into evidence in a Federal or State court proceeding or considered for other purposes in any action for damages arising from any occurrence at a location identified or addressed in such reports, surveys, schedules, lists, or other data." Source: http://services.massdot.state.ma.us/maptemplate/TopCrashLocations/.

Note: The following limitations should be noted regarding the use of the regional model to derive bicycle and pedestrian trip tables:

1) The model combines bike trips with pedestrian trips. 2) The model does not consider factors that affect bicycle mode choice, such as safety, availability of bicycle infrastructure, or geographical preferences for bicycling. 3) -The model is calibrated at the regional level rather than the TAZ level. 4) However, using the regional model to estimate bicycle demand is advantageous because it generates trip tables through a systematic and comprehensive process where numerous data on existing and future bicycle traffic generators is taken into consideration.

4. Results

The methodology includes an inherent bias towards longer gaps since they have more opportunities to encounter the defined criteria and score more points.8 Therefore, results are organized by distance to identify the long, medium, and short connections with the strongest potential. Results were first organized into groups by gap length, and then divided into high, medium, and low priority. Figure 2 summarizes the number of gaps in each distance category. Table 2 summarizes the overall scoring metrics.

TABLE 2

Overall Scoring Metrics

Figure 3 shows that the majority of gaps are in or close to Boston, in the Inner Core Committee (ICC); and Figure 4 on the next page shows the results for the entire Boston region. Figures 5 through 13 show the results for each MAPC subregion. Appendix B provides the complete table of scoring results. Section 5 goes into greater detail on the highest priority gaps.910

4.2      Additional Findings

Besides the gaps identified in this study, there are areas within the region (such as TRIC and SSC) with so few bicycle facilities (on-road lanes, protected lanes, or off-road paths) that they do not meet the definition of a gap for this study. Connecting these areas to the rest of the regional network would involve outward expansions of the existing network (for example, extending the Bay Colony Rail Trail south). However, this does not mean that there are not existing desire lines or needs for facilities in those areas. They should be considered in subsequent updates to this study.

In addition, many bike lanes are not continuous, disappearing for a block or through an intersection. For example, the bike lanes on Purchase Street and Atlantic Avenue adjacent to the Rose Kennedy Greenway in Boston are intermittent in spots. Although these gaps do not show up in this regional-scale analysis, they can be significant barriers and should be addressed on the corridor or project level.

One-way streets, such as Dartmouth Street in Boston, also can prove to be a significant block in a bicyclist’s route. Although technically there is a bicycle facility on that street, the one-way direction presents restrictions. So, even when motor vehicle travel is only one-way, when feasible, contraflow lanes and other design opportunities should be pursued to maximize bicycle connectivity.

5. For Highest Priority Gaps

This section recommends potential improvements and identifies next steps for addressing the 11 highest-priority gaps across the distance categories. The section is organized into three categories of connections:

• With ROW or land ownership issues
• Recommended for further planning and design (including a feasibility assessment, if not already complete)
• Those programmed for funding

5.1 Connections with Right-of-Way or Land Ownership Issues

"

5.2 Connections Recommended for Further Planning and Design

“Northeastern University’s Civil Engineering Transportation Design Capstone: Charlesgate Connection” (2008) suggests a shared-use path (in yellow, left) over Commonwealth Avenue on the west side of the Bowker Overpass, and then continuing the path on to the overpass to cross the Massachusetts Turnpike (in green, below left and yellow, below right).
Potential Challenges	Massachusetts Turnpike, Bowker Overpass
Potential Funding Sources and/or Partners	MassDOT, City of Boston, Emerald Necklace Conservancy, DCR
Next Steps	Investigate feasibility of various proposed plans

5.3 Connections Programmed for Funding

6. Conclusions and Next Steps

This bicycle network evaluation uses technical analysis, based on a diverse set of criteria, to arrive at recommendations that would create a more cohesive regional network. The study uses GIS to evaluate network gaps according to how well they would support bicycle connectivity and maximize access to the regional transportation system. This analysis can be applied as a tool for assessing additional gaps. Recommendations for addressing the 11 highest-priority gaps are included in this study.

This study is an ongoing endeavor, which should be updated periodically. The regional bike plan also should be updated to support this project and to create a comprehensive direction for bicycle planning in the region.

Note that the Inner Core Committee subregion is denser and more complex than the rest of the region’s bicycle network, and may warrant its own evaluation. The study found many gaps in this area that were not regionally significant, but are important aspects of subregional bicycle corridors, and should be addressed.

BI/bi

cc:       J. Lehman and P. Sutton, MassDOT

            D. Loutzenheiser, MAPC

APPENDIX A. METHODOLOGY EXAMPLE

This appendix presents an example of how the methodology was applied to evaluate the gaps, using the North Shore Task Force subregion as an example. The appendix is comprised of eight slides of maps from GIS and one slide of a scanned in image of the Excel spreadsheet used to compile the results.

Slide 1: Step 1

• This map shows gaps within the base network of bicycle facilities and between the bike network and commuter rail stations.

Slide 2: Step 2

• This map shows the gaps overlaid on Environmental Justice communities to see where intersections occur.

Slide 3: Step 3

• This map shows the gaps overlaid on employment density to see where intersections occur.

Slide 4: Step 4

• This map shows the gaps overlaid on public libraries, town halls, and Central Business Districts to see where intersections occur.

Slide 5: Step 5

• This map shows the gaps overlaid on schools, colleges, parks, and open space to see where intersections occur.

Slide 6: Step 6

• This map shows the gaps overlaid on transportation analysis zones with more than the mean number of bicycle and pedestrian trips in 2035 to see where intersections occur.

Slide 7: Step 7

• This map shows the gaps overlaid on crash clusters to see where intersections occur.

Slide 8: Step 8

• This map shows the gaps overlaid on existing plans such as the Bay State Greenway Network to see where intersections occur.

Slide 9: Step 9

• This figure shows the spreadsheet used to total the number of intersections and calculate a score for each gap.

APPENDIX B. EVALUATION SPREADSHEET

This appendix presents the spreadsheet used to total the number of intersections and calculate a score for each gap. It summarizes the results of each step of the methodology described in Appendix A for each of the 234 gaps.