1. Seattle Bike Map Update
Lisa Davidson Aaron Lykken and Brian Macik

2. Current map is not intuitive Emphasizes bike facility types
Does not consider comfort for all ages and abilities
Requires knowledge beyond what the map provides.
The current iteration emphasizes bike facility types such as cycle tracks, sharrows, and bike lanes.
Results in a map with terminology that is incomprehensible to most inexperienced cyclists looking to select a route suited to their preference

3. Conceptual Model
Inspired by the City of Austin’s bike map that focuses on Level of Comfort.
Model created from collective knowledge of 1) cycling,2) literature review and 3) phone interview with the City of Austin
Austin based their map largely upon:
1) A 2012 study Low Stress Bicycle Bicycling and Network Connectivity by Peter Furth, and
2) The Four Types of Transportation Cyclists by Portland planner Roger Geller.
Furth’s study was inspired by Geller’s work in Portland, Oregon and used psychological stress as the central measurement of the effectiveness of a given bike route.
Our 3 major criteria were identified from the report, Low Stress Bicycling and Network Connectivity.

4. Research Question
How can the Seattle bike map be more intuitive and help all riders choose the best route?
Geospatial Questions:
Where are the most comfortable routes for all users in Ballard?
Where can improvements in connectivity be made?
City bicycle networks are commonly defined by the collection of bicycle facilities that exist for cyclists to use. However, many Americans do not ride regularly because of the shortage of safe routes. Because of this shortage, a more realistic way of defining a bicycle network is by a rider’s tolerance for traffic stress. The major advantage of using levels of comfort to map streets is that it gives cyclists exactly what they need to plan a route.

5. Data Sources Issues Incomplete data Out of date
Data sets incomplete (street widths, road classification)
Out of date (always a problem with data - data does not include new bike facilities like Ballard’s new two-way bikeway)

6. Methods - Analysis Steps
Step 1: Selecting Comfort Criteria
Quality of Bike Facilities
Road Speed
Road Width
Identified comfort criteria
Sharrows, bike lanes, cycle tracks, off street trails, etc.

7. Methods - Analysis Steps
Assign
Comfort
Levels
Assigned comfort levels to criteria

9. Methods - Analysis Steps
Steps 3: Joining
Joined the criteria to the street network
Unique Identifier
Step 4: Analysis
Determined the overall comfort level
Weighting scheme
Division of comfort scale
3 - Joined the criteria to the street network
4 - Determined the overall comfort level
Data limitations - missing data for each layer. bike layer not matching.

10. Results All roads rated Weighting Facilities: 50% Width: 25%
Speed: 25%
Multiple scenarios were tested to see how weighting the comfort factors affected the outputs

11. Results All roads rated Weighting Facilities: 75% Width: 12.5%
Speed: 12.5%

12. Results All roads rated Weighting Facilities: 12.5% Width: 75%
Speed: 12.5%

13. Results All roads rated Weighting Facilities: 12.5% Width: 12.5%
Speed: 75%

14. Results
Preferred Map
Only roads with facilities or those commonly used rated
Weighting
Facilities: 50%
Width: 25%
Speed: 25%
(original)

15. Facility vs. Comfort
Greenway is dominate in the Facility perspective. The Comfort perspective only shows the Burke Gilman as high comfort. 65th east-west is shown because it has sharrows. Comfort suggest not using due to its low comfort.
24th Ave NW seemingly showed as a preferred route going north. Offers a bicycle lane but the stress of fast car speeds, moderate hill climb and interactions with parking cars makes the experience uncomfortable. The comfort map shows as Low Comfort throughout.

16. Policy Implications/Suggestions
Short Term:
Reveals areas for improving connectivity
Long Term:
Prioritize higher comfort facilities
Speed limit implications
High speed and wide roads demand higher protection
To improve comfort the city should target improving connectivity between “islands.” Even a High Comfort facility can be a Low Comfort experience due to an unsafe crossing. Example of Ballard Greenway and 20th - having to shoot the gap.
Residential streets and Greenways should be reduced to 20 m.p.h.

17. Improving Connectivity
Inconsistent comfort
Interruptions in greenway
“Missing Link”
Shilshole Ave NW is an arterial with fast speeds and without bicycle facilities.
Intersection of 20th Ave NW and NW 58th Street. Greenway is interrupted by 1.) Low comfort route (20th Ave) and 2.) a low protection crossing with only a bicycle crossing painted. Does not feature the green bike lanes and LED crossing lights treatment as 24th Ave NW. Difficult for young children and elderly to cross safely.

20. ? Limitations More criteria should be considered
Comfort level, weighting, and classification for each criteria is subjective ?
Criteria: Topography, Land use, Road Conditions, Traffic Volume
Low Comfort segment along 28th Ave NW is actually just an unusually wide residential road, the size of an arterial. While likely still Medium Comfort, does allow cars to drive faster without narrow street or closely parked cars on the sides.
Does comfort rating for a segment go down in adverse weather?

21. Thank You!
A special thanks to Chad Lynch, Kyle Rowe, and Sara Zora for their assistance on this project.