|
|
Cordell, K., principal author, Outdoor Recreation for the 21st. Century: A Report to the Nation: The National Survey on Recreation and the Environment , Venture Publishing, State College, PA, 2003.
Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities , American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC, 1999.
Rouphail, N., J. Hummer, J. Milazzo II, and P. Allen, Capacity Analysis of Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities: Recommended Procedures for the "Bicycles" Chapter of the Highway Capacity Manual , FHWA-RD-98-108, Federal Highway Administration, McLean, VA, 2000, available online at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/tfhrc/safety/pubs/98-108/contents.htm#contents.
Botma, H., and H. Papendrecht, "Traffic Operations of Bicycle Traffic," Transportation Research Record 1320 , Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, pp. 65–72, 1991.
Harkey, D., D. Reinfurt, M. Knuiman, J. Stewart, and A. Sorton, The Bicycle Compatibility Index: A Level of Service Concept , Final Report , FHWA-RD-98-072, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC, 1998.
Landis, B.W., V.R. Vattikuti, and M.T. Brannick, "Real-Time Human Perceptions: Toward a Bicycle Level of Service," Transportation Research Record 1578 , Transportation Research Board, 1997.
Evaluation of Safety, Design, and Operation of Shared-Use Paths–Final Report , FHWA-HRT-05-137, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC, 2006.
Highway Capacity Manual , Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, 2000.
[1] Throughout this document, the terms shared-use path, path, pathway, and trail will be used interchangeably. They should be understood to mean a hard-surface treadway that is open to a variety of nonmotorized users, including bicyclists, pedestrians, runners, and skaters, and serves both transportation and recreational purposes.
[2] Walking, bicycling, running or jogging, and day hiking rank 1st, 9th, 11th, and 12th, respectively, out of 35 outdoor recreation activities surveyed. Outdoor Recreation in American Life: National Assessment of Demand and Supply Trends , Ken Cordell, Sagamore Publishing, 1999.
[3] Five of the 15 study trails were not represented in the video clips used for the user perception survey: the W&OD, Grant's, Capital Crescent, Pinellas, and White Creek trails.
[4] Weather and technical problems prevented a full set of 60 three-minute clips from being created for four of the study trails. See tables 1–4 for the number of valid data collection trials that were completed for each study trail.
[5] Due to adverse weather conditions, very few data collection trials could be executed on the W&OD and Capital Crescent trails in the Washington, DC, metropolitan area.
[6] The Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities (AASHTO, 1999) established 2.4 m (8.0 ft) as the minimum recommended width for shared use paths. The widest trail included in this study was the 6.1 m (20.0-ft) Lakefront Trail in Chicago, IL; the model is not designed to address widths outside these minimum and maximum boundaries.
[7] However, because the model does not address the unique characteristics of equestrians, cross-country skiers, snowmobiles, or motorized all-terrain vehicle (ATV) trail users, counts of these users should not be included in any of the five categories or in the user volume totals.
[8] Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities , AASHTO, 1999, p. 35.
[9] ibid, p. 36.
FHWA-HRT-05-138 |
 |