“It’s the Boulder Way to Go”€¦ · network development, web design and site hosting was led by the city’s Planning and Development Services Information Resources Geographic

GOBikeBoulder.net “It’s the Boulder Way to Go”

Creating a web-based bike routing application

Project Summary

and Report of Findings

Prepared by the city of Boulder

for CMAQ Contract 06-HTD-00032 BikeQuest

GOBikeBoulder.net Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program

Contract 06-HTD-00032 BikeQuest The preparation of this document has been financed in part through the funds from the US Department of Transportation under Title 23, USC. This document has been disseminated under the sponsorship of the Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The content of this report reflects the views of the authors who are responsible for the accuracy of the data presented herin. The contents do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the Federal Highway Administration, the state of Colorado, or the city of Boulder. This report does not constitute a standard, specification or regulation. Prepared by: City of Boulder Marni Ratzel, City Transporation Planner Chris Hagelin, Senior Transportation Planner Larry Ferguson, Geographic Information System Specialist

GOBikeBoulder.net Page i Project Summary & Findings Report

Table of Contents

Executive Summary 1

Background 2

Marketing and Outreach 4

Project Evaluation 6

Project Diary 17

Project Team

GOBikeBoulder.net Page i Project Summary & Findings Report

Executive Summary GOBikeBoulder.net is a new Transportation Demand Management tool aimed to make commuting by bike in Boulder more convenient through use of a web-based routing application. With GOBikeBoulder.net, users input their trip origin and trip destination to receive a map of the recommended travel route that includes turn by turn directions and related information such as calories burned and gas saved by biking instead of driving this route. This report provides:

• Project background; • a project diary that documents the steps taken to develop the bike route mapping

tool; • an overview of the marketing and outreach strategies used to raise awareness of

GOBikeBoulder.net and encourage new users to register to the site; and • an evaluation of the program effectiveness to reduce motor vehicle miles traveled.

This online bike mapping tool addresses 2006 focus group feedback conducted by GO Boulder that the greater Boulder community would like more routing information to help them confidently navigate the city of Boulder’s 350 plus miles of bike facilities. The project is a pilot program that provides online bike routing within the geographic city limits the city of Boulder only. The application is structured so that it can be replicated by other communities, and it is hoped that the product would be expanded in the Denver metro region. GOBikeBoulder.net was launched in June, 2007 to tie-in with Boulder’s annual Walk & Bike Week. An integrated marketing campaign to generate awareness for GOBikeBoulder.net and direct users to the website has resulted in over 1500 registered users. Unique visits to the website peaked at over 1660 during Walk and Bike Week in June. GOBikeBoulder.net averaged about 345 unique visits per week throughout August and September, and about 128 unique visits since mid-November. These visits seem to reflect the trends of the cycling season and of various marketing and public relations efforts during those peak times. Those that responded to the GOBikeBoulder.net evaluation survey reported substantial changes in travel behavior during the project period compared to those that responded to the registration survey. Their average bicycle mode share increased by 4.5%. On average one additional bike trip per week was completed. A decline in the average vehicle miles traveled (VMT) also was reported; this included drive alone and carpool/vanpool combined. When annualized, approximately 226 vehicle miles are reduced per year. If this VMT reduction figure is expanded to the entire population of registered users (1,481), the annual VMT reduction is estimated at 334,854 miles +/- 3.8 (sampling error at 95% C.I.). Given those assumptions, the annual emission reduction is estimated at 145 to 156 metric tons of CO2.

GOBikeBoulder.net Page 1 Project Summary & Findings Report

Background To achieve the goals of the city of Boulder’s Transportation Master Plan, transportation options such as walking and bicycling that support an active community must be provided as convenient alternatives to the Single Occupant Vehicle (SOV). The city has constructed a majority of its bicycle network and the current bicycle mode share of all trips completed by Boulder Valley residents is 14 percent. The city offers over 350 miles of dedicated bicycle facilities, including on-street bike lanes, designated bike routes, paved shoulders, and paths. With an extensive bicycle network already in place, our focus is shifting toward encouraging residents to increase use of their transportation options. Increasing the number of daily bicycle trips will require the city to provide messages and programs that highlight bicycling as a viable transportation option for commuting and active living. In the fall of 2006, GO Boulder/city of Boulder conducted focus groups to better understand the barriers our community perceives to completing trips by bike. This research highlighted that there is a significant demand for more direct bike routing information to enable users to confidently navigate the existing bicycle network. GOBikeBoulder.net is a new Transportation Demand Management tool aimed to make commuting by bike in Boulder more convenient through a web-based routing application. This innovative web-based application offers site users a route summary and turn-by-turn directions from user generated origin to destination by means of Boulder's bikeway network, including off-street paths, on-street bike lanes, shoulder, and routes. GOBikeBoulder.net also provides information on calories burned, gas saved, and elevation gained for the route queried. Features of the application include:

• Three ways to select origin/destination points: 1. by street address 2. by geographic point on the map 3. by point of interest

• Preference between primarily on-street or off-street bike routing. • Printer friendly page displaying the route map, turn by turn instructions, estimated

total miles, a breakdown of miles for each route segment, and estimated total elevation gain.

• On screen tabs to pages that display route elevation, and calculators for estimated calories burned, and emission and cost savings.

GOBikeBoulder.net is a pilot program that provides online bike routing within the geographic city limits of the city of Boulder, only. The application is structured so that it can be replicated by other communities, and it is hoped that the product will be expanded to the Denver metro region. The development of GOBikeBoulder.net was funded by a Federal CMAQ/TDM grant awarded to GO Boulder, a city of Boulder program designed to encourage transportation


mode choice. A reduction in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) is an effective performance measure of the program’s success. Bicycle miles traveled and user opinion on features of the website also serve to assess the project’s ability to provide a user-friendly tool that makes biking the easy and convenient choice. Project Goals The primary goals of the project are to:

• Contribute to an increase in bike mode share within the city of Boulder • Demonstrate a reduction in VMT by converting drive alone trips to bicycle trips.

A secondary goal was to develop this product as a pilot program for the Denver region. The project utilized standard ESRI GIS software. Since Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG) staff and numerous communities in the Denver Metro area are already using ESRI GIS software products, there is potential over time to develop a “unified” bike routing website that will benefit communities throughout the DRCOG region. This report includes a project diary detailing the steps taken to develop the bike routing application. The dairy is available to other front-range municipalities interested in developing a similar bike routing web-application. Project Team This project was directed by the city of Boulder Public Works for Transportation Department GO Boulder program, which also evaluated the project effectiveness to reduce VMT. GIS network development, web design and site hosting was led by the city’s Planning and Development Services Information Resources Geographic Information System work group. Consultants provided technical assistance to develop route algorithms, the web-based interface, transportation data hierarchy model marketing and outreach.


Marketing and Outreach

This goal of marketing and outreach for GOBikeBoulder.net was to develop an integrated campaign that encouraged those that travel in Boulder to complete more trips by bike, generate awareness for GOBikeBoulder.net and promote users to register on the website. The primary target audience was potential bicyclists that who live and work in the city of Boulder, with some overlap to outlying areas of Boulder County adjacent to the city limits. Collectively, the products of the campaign aimed to increase use of GOBikeBoulder.net by registered uses to facilitate uniform data collection and analysis and determine the application’s success in reducing VMT. Campaign Objectives

Publicize GOBikeBoulder.net as an innovative cutting edge tool to make it easier to get around town by bike.

Register at least 60 percent of site users rather than have them enter as guests Encourage those that enter as a guest to become a registered user Get all registered users to log in each time they visit the site Persuade all registered users to complete the Did you Ride? Survey and

Evaluative Follow-up Survey(s) upon request. Generate 3000 visits to the site in the first month and increase this by 10 percent

each month from July though September with a goal of 4000 visits by September. All users to GOBikeBoulder.net are encouraged to register and complete online surveys that serve to evaluate the success of the website in shifting from SOV trips to bicycling trips resulting in a reduction of VMT. Users that registered to the site and completed surveys were rewarded with incentives. People that registered to GOBikeBoulder.net received a coupon for their choice of a free cyclometer (a $15 value). a handlebar map holder (an $8 value) or a complimentary 2007 edition full-size Boulder bike/ped map (a $3.00 value), while supplies lasted. To encourage newly registered users to try the mapping tool, this incentive needed to be claimed in person by visiting the GO Boulder office or Farmer’s Market. Registered users earned an entry into the GOBikeBoulder.net drawing for each unique visit that was logged in and resulted in a queried route and when a Did You Ride? survey (generated by e-mail 24-hours after visiting the site) was submitted. Registered users that completed the Did You Ride? survey also received a coupon for a complimentary Ben & Jerry’s ice cream cone. Approximately 4 – 6 weeks after users registered with GOBikeBoulder.net, an e-mail was sent to them with a link to the evaluative follow-up survey. When this was completed the user earned another entry into the GOBikeBoulder.net drawing for prizes and coupons for


an ice cream cone or choice of a cyclometer, bar map holder or bike/pedestrian map promotional product. People who registered with GOBikeBoulder.net on or before Sept. 15, 2007 were entered into a drawing for a grand prize “Colorado Get Away for Two”. Additionally, 50 Timbk2 messenger bags were given away as part of the registered user drawing. GOBikeBoulder.net launched in June, 2007. The integrated marketing campaign resulted in over 1500 registered users. Unique visits to the website peaked at over 1660 during Walk and Bike Week in June. GOBikeBoulder.net averaged about 345 unique visits per week throughout Aug. and Sept. and about 128 unique visits since mid-Nov. These visits reflect the trends of the cycling season.

GOBikeBoulder.net unique hits

5/21-9/30 8,408

10/1-12/31 2,673

Total:

11,081

GOBikeBoulder.net unique hits May – Dec. 2007

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

5/21-5

/28

6/4-6/10

6/25-7

/1

7/9-7/15

7/23-7

/29

8/06-8

/12

8/20-8

/26

9/3-9/09

9/17-9

/23

10/1-

10/7

10/15

-10/21

10/29

-11/4

11/12

/-11/1

8

11/26

-12/2

12/10

-12/16

12/24

-12/30


Evaluation of program effectiveness Methodology This section explains the methodology used to evaluate the impact of GOBikeBoulder.net on user travel behavior and to fulfill the requirements of the CMAQ grant in regard to reporting VMT and emission results. The methodology section is divided into three main areas; Data Collection, Results, and Analysis.

Data Collection The data needed to evaluate the impact of GOBikeBoulder.net was collected though three different surveys conducted at specific times during the project period. When users registered on the GOBikeBoulder.net website they filled out an initial online survey, referred to as the ‘registration survey,’ that collected some demographic data as well as information on current travel behavior. It is important to note that individuals were given a choice of either becoming a registered user or using the web tool as a guest. There is no travel behavior or demographic data collected on guest users. Approximately 24 hours after each unique visit to GOBikeBoulder.net during which a registered user queried a route, the user received a link to a short survey via email. The Did you Ride? survey asked whether or not the route queried was actually ridden and the one-way trip distance. The last survey, referred to as the evaluation survey, was sent out four to six weeks after a user registered to the site and was designed to identify changes in travel behavior after using GOBikeBoulder.net.

Registration Survey The registration survey was designed to collect demographic and travel behavior data of people registering to use the new web-based mapping tool. To get a snap shot of current travel behavior, questions were framed in terms of what the user did last week. Following is the list of questions and responses:

• Number of one way trips made last week by each of the following modes: bike, walk, bus, driving alone, carpool/vanpool, and multimode trips

• Number of miles bicycled last week. • Average one way bicycle trip distance • Helmet use; yes, no, or sometimes • College student status; yes or no • Gender; male or female • Age category • Eco Pass status

The categories used for age were:

• 16 to 24 years of age • 25 to 34 years of age • 35 to 44 years of age


• 45 to 54 years of age • 55 to 64 years of age • 65 or older

The possible responses for the question of Eco Pass status included:

• No, I don’t have an eco pass • Yes, through my employer • Yes, through my neighborhood • Yes, CU Boulder student, Buff One pass • Yes, CU Facility/Staff Buff One pass • Yes, another pass

It is also important to note that due to an initial error in the website, the registration surveys of 95 users were lost. It is thought that the problem was related to registrants using the Firefox Internet browser.

Did you Ride? Survey After using the GOBikeBoulder.net web-based mapping tool to query a route, registered users were e-mailed a link to an online survey which was designed to record whether or not the route was ridden. Below is a list of all the data collected by the Did you Ride? survey:

• Whether or not route was bicycled; Yes or No • Estimated one-way trip distance of route • Whether or not a round trip was completed by bicycle • Mode taken if bicycle was not used to complete route queried; walking, bus, drove

alone, carpool/vanpool, or multimodal trip. The Did you Ride? survey did not ask what mode would have been used if a registered user had not ridden the route queried. If the survey asked this question, the calculation of VMT reduction by GOBikeBoulder.net influenced trips would have been simple to determine. As a result, the calculation of VMT reduced was determined by the change in drive alone and car/vanpool trips by registered users who completed the registration and evaluation surveys. When looking at the results of the Did you Ride? survey and in particular the proportion of users who reported ridding the routes they queried, it is important to understand the potential for a self-selection bias. It is impossible to tell for certain if the respondents to the Did you Ride? survey are a representative sample of the entire population of registered users or whether those that bicycled the routes they queried were more (or less) likely to respond to the survey.

Evaluation Survey Approximately four to six weeks after registering, users were asked to answer the evaluation survey. The evaluation survey asked similar questions to the registration survey to identify and/or measure changes in travel behavior after using GOBikeBoulder.net. The data


collected from the sample of users that responded to both the registration and evaluation surveys is the primary source for analyzing the impact and effectiveness of the GOBikeBoulder.net online bicycle mapping tool. The data collected by this last survey included:

• General change in bicycling behavior; riding more, less or the same • Average percent increase in bicycling • Average one way bicycle trip distance • Total miles bicycled last week • Helmet use; yes, no, sometimes • Number of one way trips made last week by each of the following modes: bike, walk,

bus, driving alone, carpool/vanpool, and multimode trips The survey design and line of questioning resulted in a few issues for respondents and therefore may have affected the data collected. For example, the question related to average percent of increased bicycling was asked of all respondents regardless of whether or not they answered that they were bicycling more. This question should have been part of a skip pattern and only asked to respondents who reported bicycling more in the first question. Another option would have been to have the question ask about percent more or less depending on the first question’s response. A review of the data also shows a fair amount of inconsistency among users in reporting the number of bicycle trips, total distance bicycled, and average one-way trip distance. Often the number or trips reported multiplied by the average one-way trip distance was inconsistent with the total distance bicycled ‘last week.’ However, such inconsistencies are common in this type of survey as human beings are generally poor at estimating distances. The evaluation survey also asked users to rate the quality of the GOBikeBoulder.net tool various features with a score of one to four, with one being poor and four being excellent. The components or features included in this customer satisfaction rating were:

• web page and map design • choice to select origin/destination • directness of route • turn-by-turn directions • calorie calculator • elevation graph • environmental impact calculator

Lastly, the evaluation survey provided an open-ended comment section for registered users to address challenges, provide suggestions for improvement, and any other comments.


Results Table 1: Key Statistics Key statistics Registered users 1858 Registration surveys completed 1481 Routes queried 10,315 Routes queried: Registered Users / Guests 3,806 / 6,510 Did you Ride? surveys completed 248 Evaluation surveys completed 452 Registration and Evaluation surveys matches* 357 *95 evaluation surveys were completed by registrants whose registration survey data was missing and 2 surveys were eliminated due to extreme anomalies in the data. Table 2: Registrant Survey Results Measures Results All Registrants 1481 Average Total trips per week 15.1 Total average bicycle distance per week 28.4 Average bicycle trip distance for reported week 5.8 MODE Mode Share Average trips per week Bike 32.6% 4.9 Bus 15.5% 2.3 Walk 7.4% 1.1 Drive Alone 33.4% 5.0 Car/vanpool 9.3% 1.4 Multi-modal 1.8% 0.3


Table 3: Registration Survey Responses (N=1481) Question Responses

Bike 4.9 Walk 2.3 Bus 1.1 Drive alone 5.0 Car/Vanpool 1.4

Last week how many one way trips did you make by each of the following methods? (average trips/week by mode)

Multimodal 0.3 Last week, about how many miles did you ride a bicycle?

Average bicycle miles traveled per registrant

28.4

What is the average distance of your one way bike trip?

Average one-way bicycle trip distance per registrant

5.8

Yes 1120(76%)No 152(10%) Sometimes 209(14%)

Do you wear a helmet?

Missing data 2 Yes 178 Are you a college student? No 1305 Male 808 What is your gender? Female 675 16 to 24 years of age 31 25 to 34 years of age 133 35 to 44 years of age 357 45 to 54 years of age 399 55 to 64 years of age 350

Which category contains your age?

65 or older 213 No, 864(58%) Yes 619(42%) Yes, through my employer 335 Yes, through my neighborhood

103

Yes, CU Boulder student pass 79 Yes, CU Facility/Staff pass 64

Do you have an Eco Pass?

Yes, another pass 38


Table 4: Routes Queried Measure Results Total # of routes queried 10,315 # queried by registered users 3,806 # by guests 6,509 Total distance queried (miles) 38,345 Average one-way distance (miles)- all 3.8 Average one-way distance (miles)- registered users 4.1 Average one-way distance (miles)- guests 3.6 Table 5: Did you Ride? Follow-Up Survey Responses Question Responses

Yes 165 (67%) Did you ride this route? No 83 (33%)

What was the estimated distance of this trip (one way)?

Average per respondent 4.72

Total Bicycle miles traveled 1,559 Did you ride your bike on the return trip? Yes 96%

Walk 45 (54%) Bus 17 (21%) Drive Alone 10 (12%) Car/vanpool 4 (5%)

If you didn’t ride your bicycle, how did you complete this trip?

Multimodal 7 (8%) The total number of miles that can be directly connected to GOBikeBoulder.net through the Did you Ride? survey responses is 1,559. If it were assumed that the proportion of routes queried and completed were the same for the sample of Did you Ride? survey respondents and the total population of routes queried, then the estimated number of bicycle miles traveled would be: 25,691 miles +/-6.1% (95% C.I.) (67% of 38,345 miles queried). In other words, the city of Boulder can be 95 percent confident that the true range of bicycle miles traveled lies between 24,124 and 27,258 miles. The sampling error of +/-6.1% is based on 248 responses for the Did you Ride? Follow-up Survey out of a total of 10,315 total routes queried.


Table 6: Evaluation Survey (n=452) Question Responses

More 122 Same 328

Are you riding your bicycle more?

Less 2 Average percent more? N=122 29% Last week, about how many miles did you ride a bicycle? 15331 miles total

34 miles average

What is the average distance of your one way bike trip? 5.6 miles Yes 349 (77.2%)No 44 (9.7%)

Do you wear a helmet?

Sometimes 57 (12.6%) Bike 6.3 trips Walk 2.8 trips Bus 1.4 trips Drive Alone 4.1 trips Car/vanpool 1.6 trips

Last week how many one way trips did you make by each of the following methods? (average of respondents)

Multimodal 0.5 trips Calorie calculator 2.8 Directions 2.9 Route 3.0 Elevation Graph 3.0 Environmental calculator 2.7 Page Design 2.8

User Satisfaction Ratings

To From Selection 2.7 Table 7: Evaluation Survey Results Measures Results Evaluation responses 452 Average Total trips per week 16.3 Average bicycle distance per week 33.5 Average distance per bicycle trip for reported week 5.5 MODE Mode Share Average trips per week Bike 37.1% 6.1 Bus 16.4% 2.7 Walk 8.7% 1.4 Drive Alone 25.1% 4.1 Car/vanpool 9.7% 1.6 Multi-modal 3.0% 0.5


Table 8: Suggestions from Evaluation Survey Suggestions N= Expand outside of city of Boulder limits 31 Make improvement to mapping component; more user-friendly map, more interaction, better printing, more detailed

15

Include the option of a combination of on- and off-street option, for most direct route

12

Improve geo-coding and algorithms for more direct routes, and avoid unnecessary turn directions

8

Periodic reminders to use service, improved marketing 7 Include the ability to plan your own route and get calculations 5 Improve signage on path system 5 Add ability to map to specific bus routes 3 Exclude certain roads due to safety 3 Provide alternative routes 3 Make service compatible with all web browsers 2 Format for mobile devices 2 Have link to updates on bicycle facility improvements, road construction updates

2

Improve visibility of and accessibility to calculators 2 Include the ability to enter intersections instead of exact addresses 2 Provide a link to bike laws, safety and commuter tips 2 Partner with Google to improve mapping system 2 Provide safest route option 2 provide suggested loop rides for recreation and/or featured rides 2 Provide a comparison between driving time v. bike time 1 Explain assumptions behind environmental calculator 1 Have an annual GBB membership drive 1 Make more prominent the ability to map to bike shops 1

Analysis

Change in Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) The VMT reduced by registrants of GOBikeBoulder.net is determined by measuring the change in drive alone and car/vanpool trips between the registration and evaluation surveys. Average trip distances for drive alone and car/vanpool trips are taken from the 2004 Modal Shift in the Boulder Valley Report. Average carpool occupancy is assumed to be 2.2. The sampling error at the 95% Confidence Interval for 452 evaluation responses out of the total population of 1481 registrants is +/- 3.8%.


The tables below outline the calculation as shown in the formula below:

VMT Reduction (+/- 3.8%) =

{[(Change in weekly drive alone trips X average drive alone trip distance)+( Change in weekly car/vanpool trips X average car/vanpool trip distance)/average carpool occupancy] X 52} X 1481

Table 9: Before and After Travel Behavior Measures All Registrants All Evaluations Change Respondents 1481 452 Average Total trips per week 15.1 16.3 1.2

Average bicycle distance per week

28.4 33.5 5.1

Average bicycle trip distance per week

5.8 5.5 -0.3

MODE Mode Share

Average trips per week

Mode Share

Average trips per week

Mode Share Change

Trips per day Change

Bike 32.6% 4.9 37.1% 6.1 4.5% 1.2 Bus 15.5% 2.3 16.4% 2.7 0.9% 0.4 Walk 7.4% 1.1 8.7% 1.4 1.3% 0.3 Drive Alone 33.4% 5.0 25.1% 4.1 -8.3% -0.9 Car/vanpool 9.3% 1.4 9.7% 1.6 0.4% 0.2 multi-modal 1.8% 0.3 3.0% 0.5 1.2% 0.2


Table 10: Estimation of Annual VMT of Registrants Measures Registration

Survey N= 1481

Evaluation Survey N=452

Change

Average Drive Alone Trips per week

5.0 4.1 0.9

Average Drive Alone Trip Distance (miles)

5.7 5.7

Average Drive Alone VMT per week

28.5 23.4 5.1

Weeks per year 52 52 Average Annual VMT from Drive Alone

1,482.0 1215.2 -266.8

Average Car/vanpool Trips per week

1.4 1.6 -0.2

Average Car/vanpool Trip Distance (miles)

8.6 8.6

Average carpool occupancy (divide)

2.2 2.2

Average Car/vanpool VMT per week

5.5 6.8 -1.3

Weeks per year 52 52 Average Annual VMT from Car/vanpool

284.6 352.2 67.6

Average total VMT per year per registrant

1766.6 1540.5 -226.1

Total VMT per year for 1481 registrants 2,616,334.6 2,281,480.5 -334,854.1 The sampling error at the 95% Confidence Interval for 452 evaluation responses out of the total population of 1481 registrants is +/- 3.8%. Table 11: VMT Reduction Range Estimate VMT Reduction

Sample error at 95% C.I.

Low Range High Range

334,854.1 +/-3.8 322,137.4 347,586.9


Emissions Reduced Emissions reduction calculation assumed that the light duty vehicle class MPG average for the city of Boulder is 19.5. The factors used to calculate gallons of fuel saved and CO2 reductions were provided by the city of Boulder’s Environmental Affairs Department. They are the same factors used to in the city’s Climate Action Plan and were provided by the EPA. Table 12: Estimated Annual Emissions Reduction

MPG for light duty vehicle classes VMT Reduced

Gallons of Fuel Saved

CO2 Reduced (lbs)

CO2 Reduced (metric tons)

Low Range 322137.4154 (L) 16,487.46 319,140.85 144.76

High Range 347586.941 (H) 17,790.00 344,353.64 156.20

Key Findings Those that responded to the GOBikeBoulder.net evaluation survey reported substantial changes in travel behavior during the project period compared to those that responded to the registration survey. Average bicycle mode share increased by 4.5%. On average one additional bike trip per week was completed. A decline in the average vehicle miles traveled (VMT) also was reported; this included drive alone and carpool/vanpool combined. When annualized, approximately 226 vehicle miles are reduced per year. If this VMT reduction figure is expanded to the entire population of registered users (1,481), the annual VMT reduction is estimated at 334,854 miles +/- 3.8 (sampling error at 95% C.I.). Given those assumptions, the annual emission reduction is estimated at 145 to 156 metric tons of CO2.


Project Diary This Project Diary outlines the technical specifications and components utilized to develop the routing application of the GOBikeBoulder.net web site. This portion of the document is technical in nature and intended for the benefit of GIS technicians and database administrators to gain an understanding of the routing application infrastructure and functionality. Application overview The application is an interactive Geographic Information System (GIS) ESRI ArcIMS © interface with dynamic links to other bike information web pages and web-based resources. Main components of the bike routing application include: 1. The ability to search for the best bicycle route utilizing user entered origin and destination information via:

• Address (type street address) • Map Location (click on map) • Point of Interest (select origin and destination from a drop down list)

2. When a queried route is displayed in the map interface, the following information is also displayed:

• Route Summary Information • Elevation Graph • Turn by Turn Directions • Calorie Counter • Environmental Calculator • Cost Calculator

GIS Application Data City of Boulder GIS data sets incorporated in the GOBikeBoulder.net web application include: 1. Transportation street and bike route data. 2. Geo-coded base map streets data 3. Street label data 4. Point of interest (parks, public buildings, bike shops, etc) dataset 5. Aerial Imagery (orthographic rectified and collected in April, 2006 at 1 ft resolution). 6. Bike to Work Day breakfast station locations (available on a seasonal basis) 7. City wide DEM 10 ft. grid elevation data


Application Design and Functionality The application utilizes an interactive Geographic Information System ArcIMS© interface with routing algorithms built on an asp.net framework. The web site includes dynamic links to other bike information web pages and web-based resources. For performance reasons the application runs on shapefile datasets, native data is in SDE format. Required Software for the Application:

ESRI ArcGIS© 9.2 Desktop with ArcINFO and ArcEditor licenses ESRI ArcIMS© 9.2 Microsoft Visual Studio© 2005 Tilton GIS Route Scout © Routing Algorithm Software

Optional Software:

Microsoft SQL Express © Database Software

Optional Hardware:

The server is a Dell PowerEdge 2850, 2 proc, 4 gigabytes of RAM and RAID 5 with 3 – 73 gigabytes 15 K HDD Rack Space Allocation KVM Switch Allocation Switch Port Allocation Windows 2003 License Backup Software Live state Recovery Costs

To maximize performance and enhance the security of the routing application, city of Boulder GIS staff recommends using a dedicated server for this application. The city chose to host the application on its website through a dedicated server using ArcIMS 9.2 software on an ESRI Arc GIS platform. The benefit of this is two-fold: 1) ESRI is a known leader in the field of GIS and 2) numerous communities in the Denver Metro Region also employ the ESRI platform for their GIS functionality. With the regional routing datasets created per specification, there is great potential to expand the routing application with this server. To better visually understand the workings of this application, the following graphic displays the components and software that comprise the GOBikeBoulder.net Web bike routing application:


ArcIMSArcIMS is the ESRI software for delivering maps and GIS data and services via the Web.

Kuhns and Tilton GIS 1. Elevation Graph 2. User Survey Data Base 3. Web functionality design

COB GIS 1. Developed Routing Data 2. Attribution rating of routes 3. Developed Elevation Graph grid 4. Mapping Navigation Tool 5. User survey input forms 6. Web functionality design 7. Routing Data Schema

DesktopGIS Desktop ArcGIS is a complete system for authoring, serving, and using geographic information. It is an integrated collection of GIS software products for building and deploying a complete GIS.

Components of the GO Bike Boulder web application:

GIS software and extensions that would need to be purchased by communities interested in doing a similar site.

Dedicated Dell PowerEdge Virtual Server

Tilton GIS 1. Routing Algorithms

GO Boulder - City of Boulder Transportation 1. Bike Routing Data SDE and Shapefile Format 2. Elevation Graph 3. Environmental Calculators 4. GO Bike Boulder Web Interface Design 5. Help Document 6. How to Manual 7. Legend data colors 8. Marketing and naming rights for GO Bike Boulder 9. Print Map Functionality Design 10. Routing Selection Options Interface and Functionality 11. User Registration and Login 12. User Survey Database and Forms 13. Route Rating Data Schema 14. Disclaimer Language

ESRI SoftwareArcGIS ArcIMS

Route Scout ArcIMS Extension 1. Generate Routing Algorithms 2. Generate Routing Directions

Visual Studio 2005 Optional purchase if developer wants to further customize site

1. Visual Studio 2005 2. .net programming language 3. SQL Express Database

Graphic showing the components of the GOBikeBoulder.net Bike Routing Website


Creating a Network Routing GIS Dataset: City GIS staff using ESRI ArcGIS© software, had created over the past several years an SDE linear feature class dataset that contains all the existing alley, street and bike trail features located in Boulder. This dataset is also geo-coded, which is a requirement for doing a bike routing application address search. The existing linear feature class dataset is the foundation from which the GOBikeBoulder.net GIS network routing dataset evolved. This dataset gave the city of Boulder a head start with building network connectivity. Communities that do not have an existing street line segment GIS dataset may consider obtaining an ESRI compatible street dataset from a national vendor. A GIS network routing dataset is an interconnected set of lines and vertices representing geographic features through which resources can move. A key element in accomplishing this task was to build system-wide network connectivity into the existing linear feature class dataset. For the website routing algorithms to function properly, the routing dataset must have 100% connectivity. This means that every street and bikeway line segment must be topologically connected to another line segment. A good practical analogy is to think of the bike routing network as a city water pipe system. If not all the pipes are connected, the user will experience leakage, pressure loss and unsatisfactory performance of that water system.

City of Boulder Street Bike SDE linear feature class dataset

The following steps were taken and to build the requisite topological network connectivity into the routing street and bike data. These steps were recommended to provide optimum routing performance when coupled with the web site routing algorithms. All of these operations were run in an SDE feature dataset / feature class environment: Step 1: Created a Geo-database Topology of the Network Dataset ESRI ArcGIS desktop software includes a geo-database topology data processing procedure, which enabled the GIS technician to visually identify locations in the existing bike / street SDE linear feature class dataset where network connectivity is lacking. A geo-database topology is a data object created and stored in a geo-database which defines a set of rules about the relationships geometric features contained in a feature class or feature dataset. This geo-database topology can be created in ESRI ArcCatalog and can be added to an ESRI ArcMAP as a layer, just like any other data.


An ESRI ArcGIS© topology was run on a copy of the existing street and bikeway dataset to identify areas of the bike / street data that lacked connectivity or where duplicate features existed. Two geo-database topology rules were applied: 1) line features must not have dangles; and 2) line features must not overlap. 1) Must not overlap - requires that lines not overlap with lines in the same feature class. This rule is used where line segments should not be duplicated. For example, in a street feature class, lines can cross or intersect but cannot share segments. 2) Must not have dangles - requires that a line feature must touch lines from the same feature class at both endpoints. An endpoint that is not connected to another line is called a dangle. This rule is used when line features must form closed loops, such as when they are defining the boundaries of polygon features. It may also be used in cases where lines typically connect to other lines, as with streets. In this case, exceptions can be used where the rule is occasionally violated, as with cul-de-sac or dead end street segments. Important: There were locations in the network where vertices were not wanted, such as at underpasses / overpasses. To avoid creating unwanted vertices in the master street / bike dataset it is important to run the topology on a copy of the dataset. This will protect the integrity of the master dataset. The topology data was then added as a layer to the ArcMAP session and edited as needed. Step 2: Built Network Connectivity An ArcEditor or ArcInfo license was required to create, edit, or validate the geo database topology and the street/bike network dataset. This part of the process required the GIS technician to visually evaluate the entire dataset in an ArcMAP project and fix areas that lacked connectivity. As detailed in the adjacent graphic, the geo-database topology assisted the GIS technician in doing this task by highlighting all areas in the network dataset that lack connectivity. The edits were accomplished by snapping all identified disconnected line segments together per the assigned cluster tolerance settings of the street / bike network dataset. The GIS technician used regular editing tools to edit individual features that participated in a topology. There also are several pre-defined ways to fix a given type of topology error.

Topology identifies

Topology identifies areas

Graphic showing an example of an ArcMAP topology layer that identifies “dirty areas” in a street / bike


For example, to use the “Fix Topology Error” tool, right-click on an error and choose which way to fix the error. After editing was performed on the feature classes, the geo database topology was validated to see if any edits broke either of the two topology rules. Any errors were fixed or marked as exceptions. The street / bike dataset was clean and accurate following the implementation of these well-defined rules. Special attention was given to areas with limited connectivity, such as underpasses and one-way streets. An important concept in building network connectivity into an existing street / bike dataset was to understand the role that vertices and the “split line at vertices tool” play in “creating or restricting” network connectivity.

No Vertex inserted therefore, no connectivity

Inserting a vertex creates connectivity

A) At grade intersection

B) Underpass Overpass Location

C) At grade intersection

This graphic shows three examples of intersecting geometric line segments. In example A and C, a vertex needed to be placed at the intersection of these “at grade” line segments to insure that connectivity was created when the split line at vertices operation was run on the street / bike SDE dataset. Example B is an underpass / overpass location. Here, it was important that no vertex be placed at the geometric intersection of the line segments. This prevented connectivity from being created when the GIS technician ran the “split line at vertices” on the network routing dataset. The result is a real world model where it is not possible to be routed from one grade separated street segment to another. Important: To properly attribute the overpass / underpass information, the GIS technician needed a clear understanding of all the locations of overpasses and underpasses that are located in the Boulder community. For some locations, This required meetings with the community’s traffic engineering staff.


Step 3: Assigned one-way routing to the network dataset For one-way street routing to work properly in the bike web routing application, Route Scout© routing algorithms required the following attribution to be added to the master network routing feature class:

√ An attribution data field was added to the feature class called ONEWAY.

√ To denote travel in a southbound or westbound one-way direction, the segment was assigned the value TF.

√ To denote travel in a northbound or eastbound one-way direction, the segment was assigned the value FT.

√ For segments where bike travel was prohibited (freeways, major highways) a value XX was assigned to those line segments.

TF - South or West

Important: Like underpasses/ overpasses, the GIS technician needed to be knowledgeable of the one-way street corridors in the Boulder community to properly attribute the one-way information. This required meetings with transportation engineering staff.

GIS data table with one-way attribute values assigned


Step 4: Established a system-wide routing hierarchy A core component of the bike routing application was to develop a transportation data hierarchy to perform queries that would achieve the following objectives:

• prioritize Boulder’s bicycle facilities;

• query routes two bicyclists preferences: most direct route and maximize off-street

The transportation data hierarchy model was built on the basic assumption that a principal objective of the project was to promote Boulder’s bicycle system. Roadways with bicycle facilities were given a higher rating than roadways without bicycle facilities. This ensured that route queries would direct cyclists onto the bicycle network as close to their origin as possible and kept them on the bike system for as long as possible until they reached their desired destination.

Most direct route query example

Additionally, the model is able to provide a route query for a cyclist that prefers the “most direct route” or a route query for a cyclist that prefers an “off-street route”, even if it increases the length of the route biked.

To develop the transportation data hierarchy model, our transportation consultant conducted a literature search of existing models like the Bicycle Compatibility Index and Bicycle Level of Service to identify potential factors for a local model to rate our facilities, including the suitability of roadways to safely accommodate bicyclists and motorists in a shared right of way. The result is an aggregate rating for each segment, which is considered along with shortest distance to query routes between origin and destination based on user preferences.

Attachment A: provides a sample of the rating system criteria and potential factors or data ranges that defined a hierarchy among facilities and potential route choices. Based on the criteria and factors, a rating was calculated for each facility segment that comprises the bicycle network, including roadways where bicyclists and motorists share the right of way.

Off-street route query example


Important: Certain very curvy paths required a special rating adjustment by the GIS technician to achieve the desired route results. It is anticipated that the next release of Route Scout© will address this issue.

Step 5: Ran Split Line at Vertices Operation on Network Dataset Running the split line at vertices operation provided a dual benefit in preparing the network routing dataset for posting to the web. It created and restricted connectivity, where desired, by the strategic placement of vertices throughout the network. It also prepared the dataset for a spatial join procedure with a DEM grid that enabled an elevation graph to be displayed. Once the connectivity phase was completed, a “split line at vertices” operation was run on the entire street / bike network dataset to prepare it for a spatial join with an elevation grid. The split line at vertices tool is can be accessed in ArcToolbox at the following location: The ArcGIS “split line at vertices tool” splits features at each vertex for the entire input feature class. This command will turn single line features into multiple line features. The number of line features created depends on how many vertices exist on each line from the input feature class.


Step 6: Joined elevation data with routing network data A spatial join procedure was then performed in SDE to join an elevation value to each line segment of the routing network. This enabled an elevation graph to be displayed as part of the GOBikeBoulder.net routing web application. Important: Running the spatial join procedure was an intense process on the enterprise SDE GIS system. This was one of the most time consuming and challenging parts of the entire project. The GIS technician worked closely with a DBA system administrator before embarking on this step to discuss running the procedure after hours or incrementally. Additionally the 20 foot grid built from a DEM dataset, if stored in ArcCatalog, can be very memory intensive and take several minutes to open or display.


A city wide 20 foot elevation grid was created from a city wide DEM model. A selection buffer was created to better facilitate the spatial join procedure. This also minimized the number of gird points that needed to be processed by the spatial join procedure.

Note: The nearest feature is defined as the feature that is geographically closest to another one. Proximity is based on straight line distance between features.


Recommended performance tips for completing spatial joins: Perform a join with either the Join Data dialog box accessed by right-clicking a layer in ArcMap or a geoprocessing tool. Use the Spatial Join geoprocessing tool (Analysis Tools > Overlay > Spatial Join tool) rather than the dialog box if performing a spatial join with large or complex datasets. The Spatial Join tool will give dramatically better performance and reliability. The geoprocessing framework can be used to easily automate repetitive or frequently performed joins with the tool as part of a model or script, or simply by entering the parameters for the tool in the geoprocessing command line. For example, perform several similar spatial joins to compare the results.

• For the best results with spatial joins, it is recommended that both layers have the same coordinate system. If the layers have different coordinate systems, the following rules apply:

• The spatial join will be calculated in the target layer's (the selected layer in the table of

contents) coordinate system.

• If the type of join performed involves adding a field to show the distance between joined features, the distance will be in a unit of measure associated with the target layer's coordinate system.

• If one of the layers has an unknown coordinate system and the other a defined coordinate

system, an error message will appear. If both layers have an unknown coordinate system, the join will proceed and the resulting layer will have an unknown coordinate system.

• The coordinate system used to display data in ArcMap has no effect on how the data is

joined. ArcMap allows data to be stored in one coordinate system and displayed in another. The analysis is always performed using the stored coordinate system.

Step 7: Exported SDE routing network data to shapefile format Once the routing network dataset was built and attributed in SDE, it was exported into an ESRI shapefile format and then posted to the ArcIMS routing application. This step facilitated the Route Scout© algorithms to perform optimally in the web site interface. For optimal query speed, it is recommended that the routing data be in a shape file format and not in an SDE geo database. This is the dataset used by the routing algorithm software to display routes in the web interface. For applications such as this, the simple feature storage of the a shapefile data model had clear advantages:

• The complete geometry for each feature was held in one record. No assembly was required.

• The data structure (physical schema) was very simple, fast, and scalable.

• It was easy for programmers to write interfaces.

• Shapefiles were interoperable and can be easily applied to a variety of data uses and interchange formats.


IMPORTANT: For optimal performance of the routing shapefile, the GIS technician periodically checked to see that the spatial index has been built and working after editing the shapefile. Performance and display problems occurred when this was not done..

Error displayed when spatial index is lacking.

Graphic showing location in ArcCatalog where spatial index is built.

GOBikeBoulder.net web interface The GoBikeBoulder.net site interface was built in a series of layers using absolute positioning. The layout of the layers is controlled by the file map.css. The css file, which is a cascading style sheet, is used to define how to display the HTML elements that comprise the website. The web interface includes the following elements:

• Each of the information boxes select origin, select destination, directions, calculators and elevation graph are populated with data when a route is queried. The elevation graph and the calculators button change the layers css visibility property from hidden to visible,

• The legend and help boxes are pop-ups generated by javascript.

• The print page is generated by referencing the current map and extracting the route data from the directions layer.

• The boulderbike.js applications file contains the majority of the javascript code used by the application.


Major functions in the boulderbike.js code file include:

• showPrintPage() opens the print page popup. • change() , changeoff() and changeon() control layer visibility. • getStyleObject() is a cross-browser function to get an object's style object given its id • moveMap() moves the map in the direction selected by the rosette. • zoomIn() and zoomOut() change the extents of the map by a fixed percentage. • startDrag() starts the pan map function. • moveDrag() continues the pan map function. • endDrag() stops the pan map function. • lightup() changes the opacity of rosette. • preloadImages() preloads the images. • selOrigin() makes visible the path origin marker. • selDestination() makes visible the path destination marker. • unCheckRadios() clears the radio buttons. • setStyle() sets the style of the cursor.


Bike routing web application testing recommendations

1. Test browsers outside of your IT network firewalls because you will see different results. This is strongly recommended particularly if you want to incorporate a user survey as part of your application.

2. Develop a check list of testing and stick to it. When in doubt …test, test, test! 3. When testing your updated routing shapefile be sure to test for one way routing. 4. Keep a “change control” diary document of updates to programming code and 5. other upgrades to the application.


Project Team City of Boulder

Project manager Marni Ratzel City Transporation Planner [email protected] Data analysis Chris Hagelin Senior Transportation Planner [email protected] GIS mapping/network development Larry Ferguson Senior GIS Specialist [email protected] Marketing & public relations Andrea Robbins City Transportation Planner [email protected]


mailto:[email protected]




Attachment A: Sample bike network hierarchy

GOBikeBoulder.net Page32 Project Summary & Findings Report

Attachment A: Sample bike network hierarchy

GOBikeBoulder.net Page32 Project Summary & Findings Report

Documents

“It’s the Boulder Way to Go”€¦ · network development, web design and site hosting was led by the city’s Planning and Development Services Information Resources Geographic