1. CRIS, GPS, and BLOS: Data Collection Tools for
Effective Bicycle and Pedestrian Planning
Lydia Kelly, Cecilio Martinez, Stephanie Velasquez

2. Presented by
Lydia Kelly
Bicycle & Pedestrian Transportation
Planner
Phone: (210) 230-6911
Email: kelly@sametroplan.org
Cecilio Martinez
Senior GIS & Web Analyst
Phone: (210) 230-6905
Email: martinez@sametroplan.org
Stephanie Velasquez
Regional Transportation Planner
Phone: (210) 230-6908
Email: velasquez@sametroplan.org
www.sametroplan.org
825 South Saint Mary’s St. | San Antonio, Texas 78205 | Phone: 201-227-8651 | Fax:210-227-9321

3. Introduction and MPO Plans and Programs
Lydia Kelly
Bicycle & Pedestrian Transportation
Planner
Phone: (210) 230-6911
Email: kelly@sametroplan.org

4. Agenda
§ What
is
an
MPO
and
how
it
relates
to
active
transportation
§ Programs
and
Studies
§ Data:
Where
it
comes
from;
how
it
is
used
§ Incorporating
the
Safety
Program
§ Questions

5. Metropolitan
Planning
Organization
Northeast
Partnership
Greater Bexar County
Council of Cities
Metropolitan Transit

6. Transportation
Policy
Board
Senator
Jeff
Wentworth
Texas
Legislator
Representative
Joe
Farias
Texas
Legislator
Mayor
Chris
Riley,
Leon
Valley
Greater
Bexar
County
Council
of
Cities
Commissioner
Kevin
Wolff
Bexar
County
Commissioner
Sergio
Rodriguez
Bexar
County
Commissioner
Tommy
Adkisson
(Chair)
Bexar
County
Renne
Green,
Director
Public
Works
Bexar
County
Councilman
Carlton
Soules
San
Antonio
Councilman
Cris
Medina
San
Antonio
Council
Ray
Lopez
San
Antonio
Councilman
Rey
Saldaña
San
Antonio
Majed
Al
Ghafry,
Dir.
Public
Works
San
Antonio
Mike
Frisbie,
Dir.,
CIMS
Department
San
Antonio
Councilman
William
Weeper,
Selma
Northeast
Partnership
Manuel
Peláez,
Board
Member
VIA
Transit
Mary
Briseño,
Board
Member
VIA
Transit
Mario
Medina,
District
Engineer
SA
District,TxDOT
Clay
Smith,
Planning
Engineer
SA
District,TxDOT
Dean
Danos,
Executive
Director
AACOG

7. MPO
Programs
and
Plan
Unified
Planning
Work
Program:
Budget
and
Planning
Studies
-­‐
2
years
Metropolitan
Transportation
Plan:
Future
goals,
strategies
and
transportation
projects
for
25
years
Transportation
Improvement
Program:
Funded
transportation
projects
within
4
years

8. Components
of
the
Plans
&
Programs

9. Active
Transportation
Programs
Walkable
Community
Program
Walkable
Community
Workshops
Pedestrian
and
Bicycle
Safety
Classes
for
children
and
adults
Bike
rodeos/related
activities
Defensive
Driving
Class
Support
Walk
&
Roll
Program
Walk
&
Roll
Rally
Supports
National
Bike
to
Work
Month
Encourages
businesses
to
support
active
transportation
Encourages
residents
to
“try”
active
transportation
Bicycle
and
Pedestrian
Mobility
Advisory
Committees
Monthly
meetings
3
Bike
Night
meetings
a
year
Agency
Staff
and
Citizen
Representation

10.
What
is
wrong
with
this
picture?

11. Elements
desired
for
a
Community

12. The
Benefits
a
Walkable
Community
Transportation
Benefits–
reduced
traffic
congestion,
improved
safety,
calms
traffic,
preserves
road
infrastructure.
Economic
Benefits
–
increased
retail
sales
(restaurants,
lodging
establishments,
retail
stores),
job
creation,
and
enhancement
of
nearby
property
values.
Environmental
Benefits
–
improved
air
quality
and
energy
conservation.
Social
Benefits
-­‐
quality-­‐of-­‐life
benefits
from
living
in
communities
with
more
open
space
and
greenways
and
that
provide
more
opportunities
for
walking
or
cycling.
Health
and
Fitness
Benefits–
it
is
well
recognized
that
Americans
would
benefit
in
many
ways
from
a
more
active
lifestyle.
Bike
lanes,
sidewalks
and
trails
promote
healthy
choices.

13. Related
Studies
Bicycle
&
Pedestrian
Data
Mobility
2035
Plan
Scenario
Collection
Project
Planning
Phase
I
and
Phase
II
San
Antonio
Scoring
for
Surface
Regional
Transportation
Projects
Bicycling
Travel
Metro
Patterns
Survey
Mobility
recognize
active
transportation
projects
Pedestrian
Safety
Action
Safety
Plan
Program

14. Study
Network
and
Data
Elements
Cecilio Martinez
Senior GIS & Web Analyst
Phone: (210) 230-6905
Email: martinez@sametroplan.org

15. The
San
Antonio
–
Bexar
County
Metropolitan
Planning
Organization
(MPO)
Planning
area

16. History

17. History
1975
City of San Antonio’s Bicycle Master Plan
1975 San Antonio only had three bicycle
corridors, which consisted of McAllister
Park, a route connecting St. Mary's
University, Trinity University, San Antonio
College and Brackenridge Park, and a bike
trail along the San Antonio River in the
historic mission area.

18. History
1995
UPWP 94-2 San Antonio-Bexar County Bicycle Mobility Task Force
Bicycle Mobility Plan. Full-time bicycle coordinators
Identify bicycling funding

19. History
1997
Community’s Bicycle Route Planning Workshop
Proposed Bikeways

20. History
2005
Adoption of the Bicycle Master Plan April 28, 2004
Consideration of a resolution to execute a
Bicycle Master Plan for the City of San
Antonio and Bexar County region as called
for in the Unified Development Code
(Development Services)
Approved by San Antonio City Council on
April 21, 2005
Approved by Bexar County Commissioners
Court by resolution on July 12, 2005

21. Current

22. Bicycle
Network

23. Total Percentage of the
Bicycle Network
28. 6%
+/- 5% margin of error
28.6% of Corridors Used From
MPO Bicycle Mobility Plan (1994)
and
Community-Based Bicycle Planning Study (1997)

24. Total Percentage of the
Bicycle Network
56. 8%
+/- 5% margin of error
28.2% of Corridors Used From
2001 Bicycle Route
Suitability Study

25. Total Percentage of the
Bicycle Network
62%
+/- 5% margin of error
5.2% of Corridors Used From
2004 Existing and Funded Bicycle
Facilities and Accommodations

26. Total Percentage of the
Bicycle Network
72.9%
+/- 5% margin of error
10.9% of Corridors Used From
2005 Metropolitan Transportation
Plan Update Public Involvement

27. Total Percentage of the
Bicycle Network
77. 2%
4.3%
+/- 5% margin of error
4.3% of Corridors Used From
2005 Proposed Southside Initiative
and some City of San Antonio
Prop 3 Hike and Bike Trails

28. Total Percentage of the
Bicycle Network
100%
+/- 5% margin of error
22.8% of Corridors Used From
2005 The City of San Antonio’s
Major Thoroughfare Plan

29. How do we evaluate this network?

30. What is Bicycle Level of Service (BLOS)?

31. What is Bicycle Suitability and Bicycle Level of Service (BLOS)?
Bicycle level of service (BLOS) attempts to place a rating on the
experience of bicycling on the transportation networks of collector,
arterial, service and local roads. The rating ranges from A to F, good to
bad respectively along the lines of the automobile level of service (LOS)
model.
a1ln(Vol15/L) + a2SPt(1+10.38HV)2 + a3(1/PC5)2
- a4(We)2 + C
where:
Vol15 = directional traffic (15 minutes time period)
L = total number of through lanes
SPt = effective speed limit (see below)
SPt = 1.12ln(SPP -20) + 0.81
SPP = Posted speed limit
HV = percentage of heavy vehicles
PC5 = FHWA’s five point surface condition rating
We = Average effective width of outside through lane

32. Key Inputs for Bicycle Conditions Evaluation
Width of bike lane/paved shoulder
Width of outside lane
Traffic volume
Traffic Speed
% Trucks
Presence of on-street parking
Pavement Condition

33. BLOS
Basis for 2001 San Antonio study
Basis for 2005 San Antonio update
Part of the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual

34. Key Inputs for Bicycle Conditions Evaluation

35. Why Aerial Photography or Orthophoto Imagery?
Orthophoto Imagery
Digital orthophoto is a computer-generated image of an aerial
photograph or aerial digitial image in which displacements caused by
camera orientation and terrain have been corrected and the image has
been projected to a standardized map projection.
In other words, digital orthophotos are special photos because they
have been processed to be spatially accurate.
The MPO has access to imagery at 4 inch pixel resolution
The resolution number represents the distance covered by one pixel in
the image. Therefore, a 4 inch image is an image where 1 pixel is equal
to 4 inches.

36. Aerial Photography
Our imagery is updated every year from our partnership with City of San Antonio,
Bexar County Appraisal District and Bexar Metro 9-1-1. Which are part of the
Strategic Geospatial Coordination Committee or SGCC

37. Quickly Identify Geometrics
What can you collect using the
Aerial Photography?
1. Number of Lanes
=2
3. Configuration
= undivided
6. Total width of outside lane
& shoulder
= 18ft
7. Width of outside striped
lane
= 5ft
8. Width of Parking
=0
9. Percent of segment with
occupied parking
=0
10. Width of Sidewalk
= 6ft

38. Segment Split

39. Right-Of Way

40. Pavement Condition
RATING PAVEMENT CONDITION
5.0 (Very Good) Only new or nearly new pavements are likely to be smooth enough and free of cracks
and patches to qualify for this category.
4.0 (Good) Pavement, although not as smooth as described above, gives a first class ride and
exhibits signs of surface deterioration.
3.0 (Fair) Riding qualities are noticeably inferior to those above; may be barely tolerable for high-
speed traffic. Defects may include rutting, map cracking, and extensive patching.
2.0 (Poor) Pavements have deteriorated to such an extent that they affect the speed of free-flow
traffic. Flexible pavement has distress over 50 percent or more of the surface. Rigid
pavement distress includes joint spalling, patching, etc.
1.0 (Very Poor) Pavements that are in an extremely deteriorated condition. Distress occurs over 75
percent or more of the surface.

41. A visual example of the Pavement conditions descriptions
Figure 7: Pavement Condition Ratings & Images
PCR 5.0 - Excellent PCR 4.0 - Good to Excellent PCR 3.3 - Good
New or nearly new pavements. Pavements exhibiting few, if any, Evidence of initial deterioration
Free of cracks, patches, or rutting. visible signs of surface deterioration. including hairline cracks and
minor rutting.
PCR 2.4 - Fair to Poor PCR 1.2 - Poor PCR 0.8 - Very Poor
Visible defects including moderate Extremely deteriorated pavements. Pavement is completely deteriorated.
cracking, distortion, and rutting. Defects include severe cracking, No structural integrity.No salvage value.
Some patching may now be present. distortion, and rutting.
Very extensive patching.
Source http://www.state.me.us/mdot/systems_management/pvmnt-conditions.php

42. Traffic Count
Texas Department of Transportation
City of San Antonio Bexar County

43. Field Collection is most accurate

44. Bicycle
Maps
(Free)
2003 2005 2009

45. 2001 Bicycle Study with 2003 Bicycle Map
~1,000 miles of roadway
studied
~34 miles of bicycle
facilities existed
~10,000 copies
Bicycle Level of Service Distribution
37%
40%
Percentage of Study Network Segments
35%
30% 24%
25%
20% 15%
11% 10%
15%
10%
3%
5%
0%
A B C D E F
Level of Service Grades

46. 2005 Bicycle Study with Bicycle Map
~1,400 miles of
roadway studied
~66 miles of bicycle
facilities existed
~45,000 copies

47. 2009 Bicycle Study with Bicycle Map
~1,664 miles of roadway
studied
~136 miles of bicycle facilities
~30,000 copies

48. Bicycle Study Summary
Bicycle Bicycle
Number of
Year Network Facilities
Copies
(Miles) (Miles)
2003 1,000 34 10,000
2005 1,400 66 45,000
2009 1,664 136 30,000

49. Progressive Studies
Bicycle
&
Pedestrian
Data
Collection
Project
San
Antonio
Regional
Bicycling
Travel
Phase
I
and
Phase
II
Patterns
Survey

50. Bicycle
&
Pedestrian
Data
Collection
Project
Phase
I
and
Phase
II
1. Existing/Programmed Paved
Shoulders or Bike Lanes
2. Bicycle LOS Threshold Met
3. Roadway Restripe Candidate
4. Road Diet Candidate
5. Add Paved Shoulders
6. Detailed Corridor Study Needed

51. Bicycle
&
Pedestrian
Data
Collection
Project
Phase
I
and
Phase
II
Shoulders 4ft or Greater
1. Existing/Programmed Paved
Shoulders or Bike Lanes
2. Bicycle LOS Threshold Met
3. Roadway Restripe Candidate
4. Road Diet Candidate
5. Add Paved Shoulders
6. Detailed Corridor Study Needed

52. Bicycle
&
Pedestrian
Data
Collection
Project
Phase
I
and
Phase
II
Bicycle LOS “B” for all collector and local streets, as well as
arterials within one mile of the existing/planned Linear Creekway system
Bicycle LOS “C” for all other arterial street
1. Existing/Programmed Paved
Shoulders or Bike Lanes
2. Bicycle LOS Threshold Met
3. Roadway Restripe Candidate
4. Road Diet Candidate
5. Add Paved Shoulders
6. Detailed Corridor Study Needed

53. Bicycle
&
Pedestrian
Data
Collection
Project
Phase
I
and
Phase
II
CoSA: 10 ft. (11 ft. if along a VIA route or a road with significant horizontal curvature)
TxDOT: 11 ft.
Bexar Co.: 12 ft
1. Existing/Programmed Paved
Shoulders or Bike Lanes
2. Bicycle LOS Threshold Met
3. Roadway Restripe Candidate
4. Road Diet Candidate
5. Add Paved Shoulders
6. Detailed Corridor Study Needed

54. Bicycle
&
Pedestrian
Data
Collection
Project
Phase
I
and
Phase
II
CoSA: 10 ft. (11 ft. if along a VIA route or a road with significant horizontal curvature)
TxDOT: 11 ft.
Bexar Co.: 12 ft
1. Existing/Programmed Paved
Shoulders or Bike Lanes
2. Bicycle LOS Threshold Met
3. Roadway Restripe Candidate
4. Road Diet Candidate
5. Add Paved Shoulders
6. Detailed Corridor Study Needed

55. Bicycle
&
Pedestrian
Data
Collection
Project
Phase
I
and
Phase
II
Motor Vehicle LOS “C”
1. Existing/Programmed Paved
Shoulders or Bike Lanes
2. Bicycle LOS Threshold Met
3. Roadway Restripe Candidate
4. Road Diet Candidate
5. Add Paved Shoulders
6. Detailed Corridor Study Needed

56. Bicycle
&
Pedestrian
Data
Collection
Project
Phase
I
and
Phase
II
Motor Vehicle LOS “C”
1. Existing/Programmed Paved
Shoulders or Bike Lanes
2. Bicycle LOS Threshold Met
3. Roadway Restripe Candidate
4. Road Diet Candidate
5. Add Paved Shoulders
6. Detailed Corridor Study Needed

57. Bicycle
&
Pedestrian
Data
Collection
Project
Phase
I
and
Phase
II
Right-Of Way and Cross Section
1. Existing/Programmed Paved
Shoulders or Bike Lanes
2. Bicycle LOS Threshold Met
3. Roadway Restripe Candidate
4. Road Diet Candidate
5. Add Paved Shoulders
6. Detailed Corridor Study Needed

58. Bicycle
&
Pedestrian
Data
Collection
Project
Phase
I
and
Phase
II
1. Existing/Programmed Paved
Shoulders or Bike Lanes
2. Bicycle LOS Threshold Met
3. Roadway Restripe Candidate
4. Road Diet Candidate
5. Add Paved Shoulders
6. Detailed Corridor Study Needed

59. San
Antonio
Regional
Bicycling
Travel
Patterns
Survey
To gather data from residents to
better understand bike travel in the
region, including:
Estimated number of residents
who bike
The reasons people bike
Where people bike
The frequency that people bike
Barriers to biking
Perceptions of current conditions
for biking in the region
The types of biking improvements
that are needed

60. San
Antonio
Regional
Bicycling
Travel
Patterns
Survey
Profile of Bicyclists and Non-Bicyclists

61. San
Antonio
Regional
Bicycling
Travel
Patterns
Survey
The GPS survey was administered to 208 bicyclists
◦ 152 randomly selected bicyclists
◦ 56 active bicyclists who were members of cycling clubs, etc.
The GPS device was carried by bicyclists for one week
The GPS device recorded the routes used, speed, and other
information that will help us better understand bike travel in the
region

62. San
Antonio
Regional
Bicycling
Travel
Patterns
Survey

68. Progress
1975
2011

69. iMap and Bicycle Information

70. MPO’s Safety Program
Stephanie Velasquez
Regional Transportation Planner
Phone: (210) 230-6908
Email: velasquez@sametroplan.org

71. History
§ Efforts began in 2006
§ Best Practices
§ Available crash data
§ 2009 began to work with TxDOT – safety data
§ Request from partner agencies for information about
traffic and safety crash information for more informed
decision making
§ 2010 release of the MPO’s Regional Safety Study using
2008 Crash Record Information System data

72. Purpose of the 2010 Safety Study
§ Exceptional growth over the next 20 years, expecting 600,000 new
residents.
§ Introducing CRIS and safety data to our region.
§ Budget constraints limit the ability for the needed transportation
improvements making safety even more of a pressing issue.
§ Efforts to reduce the frequency and severity of crashes has long
been underway, this study offers a more coordinated effort across
local jurisdictions.
§ Priority for the MPO and Partner Agencies
§ Requests from City of San Antonio Public Works
§ San Antonio Police Department
§ Bicycle and Pedestrian Mobility Advisory Committees

73. 2010 Safety Study Overview
v Introduction v Regional
Crash
Assessment
v Impaired
Driving
v Transportation Safety in v Distracted
Driving
the Planning Process v Road
Rage/Aggressive
Driving
v Regional Safety v Cell
Phone
Use
Committee v Speeding
v Methodology v Bicycle
Crashes
v Pedestrian
Crashes
v Legislative Information v Motorcycle
Crashes
v Next Steps
v Analysis
v Technical
Appendix

74. 2010 Safety Study Overview
v Regional Crash Assessment
v Impaired Driving
v Distracted Driving
Did you know?
v Road Rage/Aggressive v The first automobile crash involving a cyclist in the United States occurred
Driving in New York City in 1896, when a motor vehicle collided with a bicyclist.
(www.cycling.org)
v Cyclists were the highest paid athletes in the U.S. until Babe Ruth joined
v Cell Phone Use the Yankees.(www.cycling.org)
v Helmet use has been estimated to reduce head injury risk by 85 percent.
v Twenty-onestates and the District of Columbia have helmet laws applying
v Speeding to young bicyclists; none ofthese laws applies to all riders.
(www.helmets.org)
v Bicycle Crashes
v Pedestrian Crashes On average, one bicyclist is
involved in a crash with a
vehicle every other day in our
v Motorcycle Crashes region.

75. 2010 Safety Study Overview

76. 2010 Safety Study Overview
Methodology
Analyzed accurate quantitative
and qualitative data.
v Crash Records Information System
v Transportation Survey
v GIS

77. Crash Records Information System (CRIS)
Photo courtesy San Antonio Express-News
Crash
Unit Person
Crash Number
Photo courtesy San Antonio Express-News Photo courtesy San Antonio Express-News

78. Safety Study Overview – Next Steps
§ Create a Regional Safety
Program
§ Develop an online public friendly
format
§ Current three years
§ Develop an online application
that allows public agencies to
directly access data
§ “iMap”

79. How is the Safety Data Used?
§ City of San Antonio Bond Project
Selection for 2012
§ STP-MM Funding for Future MPO
Projects
§ Walkable Community Workshops
§ Bicycle Master Plan
§ Pedestrian Safety Action Plan
§ San Antonio Police Deployment of
Resources
§ Education and Awareness Campaigns
§ Support Data for Grant Applications
§ Northside Independent School District

80. MPO Safety 2012
§ More formalization of safety efforts, analysis and data
collection
§ Information is updated online
§ More in-depth information of analysis areas
§ Additional contributing factors analyzed
§ Includes year 2010 thus far
§ 8 contributing factors represent 76% crashes

81. Who helps us make decisions?
§ Transportation Safety Committee
§ Texas Department of Transportation
§ San Antonio Police Department
§ City of San Antonio
§ Silver Eagle Distributors
§ Bexar County Sheriff’s office
§ Bexar County GIS Department
§ Mother’s Against Drunk Driving
§ Federal Highway Administration

82. Safety: an Important Component in Transportation Planning
§ Bike Master Plan
§ Pedestrian Safety Action Plan
§ STP-MM projects
§ City of San Antonio Bond Program
§ Walkable Community Workshops

83. Bike Master Plan

84. Pedestrian Safety Action Plan

85. STP-MM projects
Number of Crash Rate per
No Entity Roadway Name Crashes VMT
57 TxDOT IH 410 Pedestrian Accommodations 0 0.00
59 TxDOT Loop 13 Pedestrian Facilities 15 1.39
60 TxDOT Loop 13 Pedestrian Facilities 3 0.68
67 TxDOT US 87 Bicycle Accommodations 3 0.72
The formula for calculating the crash rate for a roadway segment is presented below.
The “Rate” ( R ) is expressed in crashes per Million Vehicle Miles Traveled (MVMT),
which is standard to the Traffic Engineering profession.
Where:
A = Average number of crashes along the study roadway per year
L = Length of roadway segment in miles
V = Average Daily Traffic Volume along the roadway

86. City of San Antonio Bond Program

87. Walkable Community Workshops

88. Bike Night

89. iMap update with safety related data

90. Next Steps
§ Safety Program Continued Development
§ Regional Safety Trends
§ Performance Measures
§ Counter Measures

91. Questions
Lydia Kelly, Cecilio Martinez, Stephanie Velasquez