14.2.2 Bicycle

Selecting the correct methodology or tool for bicycle analysis depends on several factors such as bicycle facility type, anticipated vehicular delay caused by bicycle facilities, and desired performance measures. A bicycle analysis methodology selection flowchart is provided in Figure 14-3

to guide in the selection of bicycle analysis methodologies. Refer to TxDOT’s RDM Chapter 6, Section 4 for information on bicycle facility design.

The bicycle analysis subsection methodology is based on the following resources/tools (key notes are provided under each resource):

HCM and the HCS;

Provides limited information for bicycle analysis methodologies

Methodologies emphasize bicycle crossings at signalized intersections and bicycle travel speed

This chapter emphasizes using the application of the HCM methodologies as seen in the HCS (i.e., signalized intersections and urban street segments)

BLTS;

This methodology is from the Mineta Transportation Institute’s 14-17 2024 | Traffic and Safety Analysis Procedures Manual BLTS Report 11-19, May 2012 and is comparable to an assessment in which various bicycle accommodations are classified based on safety, comfort, and connectivity criteria

Microsimulation; and

Guidelines on when to use microsimulation for bicycle analysis

This methodology is used to provide animations and analyze the interaction between bicycles and vehicles, but it does not analyze the perceived safety and comfort of bicycle accommodations

Various Safety Guidelines

External resources that are used for bicycle facility improvements via countermeasure selection and scenario-specific enhancements

The future of predictive safety analysis for bicycle accommodations

See Table 14-18

for various bicycle facilities and their descriptions

Table 14-18: Bicycle accommodation types and descriptions
Type	Definitions/Descriptions
Shared Lane (Mixed Traffic)	Bicycles and vehicular traffic operate in the same space
Bicycle Lane (may or may not have a buffer)	A bicycle lane is an on-street bicycle accommodation that gives bicycles defined ROW within certain areas. This includes paved shoulders.
Sidepath	Sidepaths are off-street bicycle accommodations.

Figure 14-3: Bicycle analysis tool/methodology selection flowchart

14.2 Multimodal Analysis

14.2.2.1 The HCM

14.2.2.2 Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress (BLTS)

14.2.2.3 Microsimulation

14.2.2.4 Safety

14.2.2.1 The HCM

The HCM-based software, HCS is best for bicycle analysis scenarios, as depicted in Figure 14-3

.

The HCM contains methodologies for several bicycle facility types (see Table 14-19

), but the HCS only analyzes urban street segments and signalized intersections. For street segment analysis, the HCM uses bicycle travel speed as a major factor to determine LOS. As such, it is recommended that the HCM methodology for street segment analysis only be considered for bicycle accommodations with high volumes of bicyclists (e.g., central business districts, mixed-use developments, tourist destinations, outdoor shopping centers). It is recommended to use HCS (or another similar software tool) for analysis of bicycle accommodations at signalized intersections. LOS D is recommended as a minimum target for signalized crossings and street segments.

Table 14-19: HCM 7th Edition Bicycle Analysis by Facility Type
Facility Type	HCM Chapter and Section Number
Urban street facilities	16.5
Urban street segments	18.5
Signalized intersections	19.6
Two-way stop-controlled intersections	20.6
All-way stop-controlled intersections	21.6
Roundabouts	22.6
Ramp terminals and alternative intersections	23.B.4
Off-street facilities	24.3

While bicycle analysis can be conducted by hand for other accommodations covered in the HCM (i.e., accommodations besides urban street segments and signalized intersections), it is recommended to use BLTS analysis for these other accommodations.

To conduct a bicycle analysis of signalized intersections, the inputs shown below are collected and entered into the corresponding fields on the “Bicycle Mode - Signals” section of the Multimodal Input Data on HCS. Definitions of multimodal inputs are provided in the HCS User Guide. Traffic inputs for the intersection will impact LOS calculations for the analysis and are also entered.

On-street parking occupied, proportion;

Curb-to-curb street width, ft;

Outside through lane width, ft;

Bicycle lane width, ft;

Paved shoulder width, ft; and

Presence of curb

To conduct a bicycle analysis of urban street segments, the inputs shown below are collected and entered on the “Bicycle Mode - Streets” section of the Multimodal Input Data on HCS. Definitions of multimodal inputs are provided in the HCS User Guide. To view results, print the “segments report” found in the HCS.

Bicycle running speed, mi/h;

Percent heavy vehicles;

Total number of access points; and

Pavement condition rating

14.2.2.2 Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress (BLTS)

BLTS is used for bicycle analysis scenarios as described in Figure 14-3

.

A BLTS analysis is conducted by taking inventory of existing/proposed bicycle accommodations. The inventory gathers relevant information about each bicycle facility (e.g., bike lane width, on-street parking width, through lanes per direction, etc.). Inventory data is then compared to predefined BLTS classifications for each roadway characteristic and used to assign each facility an overall BLTS classification. A BLTS classification is a ranking that describes safety, comfort, and convenience (see Table 14-20

). The steps for a BLTS analysis are shown in Figure 14-4

. Detailed steps on conducting a BLTS analysis are provided on the next page

Figure 14-4: Steps in a BLTS analysis

The intent of a BLTS analysis is to determine individual bicycle facility deficiencies or connectivity gaps in a network to prioritize bicycle facility improvements. It can be used at any stage in the project development. At the planning level, it can be used to determine priority locations for improving bicycle accommodations. At the design level, it can be used to determine specific facility needs such as wider bicycle lanes, bicycle lanes separated by a buffer, or vertical feature, etc.

A BLTS analysis does not analyze capacity, travel times, or delay, but does analyze safety, comfort, and connectivity based on facility design.

The four BLTS classifications are BLTS 1 (the best rating), BLTS 2 (the minimum standard for most bicycle accommodations), BLTS 3 (the first failing rating), and BLTS 4 (the worst rating). The four classifications and their definitions are shown in Table 14-20

.

Table 14-20: BLTS Classification Information
Classification	Characteristics
BLTS 1	Bicycle accommodations with this classification have little to no traffic stress. They are perceived as safe, open, and comfortable. Accommodations are often separated from motor vehicles by a buffer or vertical feature or are adjacent to roads with low speeds and low volumes. These accommodations are suitable for all abilities and ages. This is the best classification.
BLTS 2	Bicycle accommodations with this classification have a small level of traffic stress. They can be adjacent to motor vehicles and speeds higher than BLTS 1. These accommodations are suitable for most ages and abilities. This is the minimum standard for most pedestrian facilities.
BLTS 3	Bicycle accommodations with this classification represent accommodations with a medium level of traffic stress. These accommodations are often adjacent to motor vehicles and can be mixed bicycle traffic flow. Vehicle speeds and volumes are higher. These accommodations are suitable for some able-bodied adults. This is the first failing classification.
BLTS 4	Bicycle accommodations with this classification represent accommodations with the highest levels of traffic stress. They are often exclusively mixed traffic accommodations with high vehicle speeds and volumes. These accommodations are only suitable for highly confident able-bodied adults. This is the worst classification.

14.2.2.2.1 Step One: Template Selection and Data Collection for Bicycle Accommodations

The BLTS Inventory and Classification template (provided in Appendix O, Section 3 – BLTS Inventory and Classification
) has four tables based on facility type:

One for bicycle accommodations that are adjacent to vehicular traffic (with or without buffers);

One for mixed traffic bicycle accommodations;

One for bicycle accommodations at intersection approaches; and

One for unsignalized intersection crossings or midblock crossings

This fillable template will serve as the basis for analysis and contains information on data needs, reference tables used in the analysis, and fillable boxes to input information.

Once the correct table on the BLTS Inventory and Classification template is selected, collect data for the bicycle facility in question. Use the BLTS Inventory and Classification template discussed previously to list all collected data. Characteristics to inventory depend on the facility type and are shown here:

Separated bicycle lanes

Separated by proximity (e.g., bicycle lane is completely disconnected from vehicular traffic) or separated by a large vertical barrier (e.g., a large vertical feature between bicycle lane and vehicles)

BLTS 1 classification is recommended with no further analysis

Bicycle lanes adjacent to vehicular traffic (does not include bicycle lanes separated by a large vertical barrier)

Posted speed

Through lanes per direction

Bicycle lane width

On-street parking width (if applicable)

See Table 14-22

or Table 14-23

for applicability criteria

Mixed traffic bicycle accommodations (bicycles and vehicular traffic share the road)

Posted speed

Through lanes per direction

Bicycle accommodations at intersection approaches

Generally, if more than 80 percent of bicyclists use signalized intersection crosswalks instead of crossing via bicycle lanes or vehicular lanes, a BLTS 1 classification can be given, and no further data collection or analysis is recommended

Posted speed

Right-turn length (if applicable)

A measure of how many vehicles use the right-turn lane (i.e., the longer the right-turn lane, the more people that use it)

Right-turn length is a substitute for TMCs at an intersection

Table 14-25

or Table 14-26

for applicability criteria

Lanes crossed to reach left-turn lane (if applicable)

See Table 14-27

for applicability criteria

Unsignalized intersection crossing or midblock crossings

Posted speed on adjacent vehicular roadway

Number of adjacent roadway lanes

For roadways without a median refuge

Table 14-28

footnote 1 for adjacent roadway lanes definition

For roadways with a median refuge

See Table 14-29

or Table 14-30

footnote 1

14.2.2.2.2 Step Two: Determine BLTS Classification

Use the data gathered from the facility inventory and the relevant BLTS classification tables shown on the BLTS Inventory and Classification Template
(see Appendix O, Section 3 – BLTS Inventory and Classification
) to determine a BLTS classification. The BLTS classification reference tables are also shown in Table 14-21

. The preliminary BLTS classification is written down on the BLTS Inventory and Classification template. Determining the overall BLTS classification of the facility occurs in Step 3
, this step is a preliminary determination of BLTS classification.

Table 14-21: BLTS Analysis Tables by Facility Type
Facility Type	Tables Used to Determine PLTS
Bicycle lanes that are adjacent to vehicular traffic (does not include bicycle lanes that are adjacent to vehicular traffic but are separated by a large vertical barrier)	Use Table 14-22 if the facility is adjacent to on-street parking Use Table 14-23 if the facility is not adjacent to on-street parking
Mixed traffic bicycle accommodations	Use Table 14-24
Bicycle accommodations at intersection approaches	Use Table 14-25 if the facility is a pocket bike lane (a bike lane positioned between a right-turn lane and a through lane at an intersection) Use Table 14-26 for mixed traffic bicycle accommodations at intersection right-turns Use Table 14-27 for mixed traffic bicycle accommodations at intersection left turns
Bicycle accommodations at unsignalized intersection crossings or midblock crossings	Use Table 14-28 if the facility is an unsignalized intersection crossing or midblock crossing with no raised median. Use Table 14-29 if the facility is an unsignalized crossing or midblock crossing with a raised median (one to two lanes). Use Table 14-30 if the facility is an unsignalized intersection crossing or midblock crossing with a raised median (three or more lanes).

A bicycle route can be comprised of several individual bicycle accommodations (e.g., a segment of bike lane not disconnected from vehicular traffic, a segment of mixed traffic bicycle accommodations, and a bicycle facility at an intersection approach). If this is the case, data is collected for each facility and a BLTS classification assigned to each facility separately in preparation for the overall facility BLTS classification.

Table 14-22: BLTS Criteria for Bicycle Lanes Alongside a Parking Lane
Posted Speed	1 Lane Per Direction			≥2 Lanes Per Direction
Posted Speed	≥15-ft bicycle lane + parking width	14-14.5-ft bicycle lane + parking width	≤13.5-ft bicycle lane + parking width²	≥2 Lanes Per Direction
≤25	BLTS 1	BLTS 2	BLTS 3	BLTS 3
30	BLTS 2	BLTS 2	BLTS 3	BLTS 3
35	BLTS 3	BLTS 3	BLTS 3	BLTS 3
≥40	BLTS 4	BLTS 4	BLTS 4	BLTS 4

¹Applicable to bicycle accommodations that are adjacent to on-street parking

²Use this column if bicycle lane blockage is common

Table 14-23: BLTS Criteria for Bicycle Accommodations Not Alongside a Parking Lane
Posted Speed	1 Lane Per Direction		2 Lanes Per Direction with Raised Median	≥2 Lanes Per Direction or No Raised Median
Posted Speed	≥6-ft bicycle lane width	≤5.5-ft bicycle lane width	2 Lanes Per Direction with Raised Median	≥2 Lanes Per Direction or No Raised Median
≤30	BLTS 1	BLTS 2	BLTS 2	BLTS 3
35	BLTS 3	BLTS 3	BLTS 3	BLTS 3
≥40	BLTS 4	BLTS 4	BLTS 4	BLTS 4

¹Applicable to bicycle accommodations that are not adjacent to on-street parking

Table 14-24: BLTS Criteria for Mixed Traffic Bicycle Lanes
Posted Speed	Unmarked Centerline	1 Through Lane Per Direction	2 Through Lanes Per Direction	≥3 Through Lanes Per direction
≤20	BLTS 1	BLTS 1	BLTS 3	BLTS 3
25	BLTS 1	BLTS 1	BLTS 3	BLTS 3
30	BLTS 2	BLTS 2	BLTS 3	BLTS 4
35	BLTS 2	BLTS 2	BLTS 3	BLTS 4
40	BLTS 4	BLTS 4	BLTS 4	BLTS 4
≥45	BLTS 4	BLTS 4	BLTS 4	BLTS 4

Table 14-25: BLTS Criteria for Pocket Bicycle Lanes at Intersection Approaches^1,2
Posted Speed	≤150-ft Right-Turn Lane Length	>150-ft Right-Turn Lane Length	Other³
≤25	BLTS 1	BLTS 2	BLTS 4
30	BLTS 2	BLTS 3	BLTS 4
35	BLTS 3	BLTS 3	BLTS 4
≥40	BLTS 3	BLTS 4	BLTS 4

¹Only applicable when bicycle accommodations interact with right-turn lanes at an intersection approach

²Pocket bicycle lanes are bicycle lanes positioned between a right-turn lane and a through lane at an intersection

³Scenarios in this category include dual right-turn lanes, or a right turn and shared through-right combination

Table 14-26: BLTS Criteria for Mixed Traffic Bicycle Accommodations at Intersection Approaches (Right-Turn Lanes)¹
Posted Speed	≤75-ft Right-Turn Lane Length	75 – 150-ft Right-Turn Lane Length	>150-ft Right-Turn Lane Length
≤25	BLTS 1	BLTS 1	BLTS 2
30	BLTS 1	BLTS 2	BLTS 3
35	BLTS 2	BLTS 3	BLTS 4
≥40	BLTS 3	BLTS 4	BLTS 4

¹Only applicable when bicycle accommodations interact with right-turn lanes at an intersection approach

Table 14-27: BLTS Criteria for Mixed Traffic Bicycle Accommodations at Intersection Approaches (Left-Turn Lanes)¹
Posted Speed	No Lane Crossed	1 Lane Crossed	≥2 Lanes Crossed	Other
≤25	BLTS 2	BLTS 3	BLTS 4	BLTS 4
30	BLTS 3	BLTS 4	BLTS 4	BLTS 4
≥35	BLTS 4	BLTS 4	BLTS 4	BLTS 4

¹Only applicable when bicycle route can turn left and uses left-turn lane instead of two stage crossing at signalized crosswalks

Table 14-28: BLTS Classification of Unsignalized Intersection Crossing or Midblock Crossings (No Raised Median)
Posted Speed	Adjacent Roadway Lanes¹
	2 Lanes			3+ Lanes
	<5,000 vpd	5,000 – 9,000 vpd	>9,000 vpd	<8,000 vpd	8,000 – 12,000 vpd2	>12,000 vpd
≤25	BLTS 1	BLTS 1	BLTS 2	BLTS 3	BLTS 3	BLTS 4
30	BLTS 1	BLTS 2	BLTS 3	BLTS 3	BLTS 3	BLTS 4
35-40	BLTS 2	BLTS 3	BLTS 4	BLTS 3	BLTS 4	BLTS 4
≥45	BLTS 3	BLTS 4	BLTS 4	BLTS 4	BLTS 4	BLTS 4

¹For bicycle accommodations that are unsignalized intersection crossings or midblock crossings without a median refuge, this is the total number of lanes on the segment (e.g., a roadway with two lanes in each direction and a two-way left turn lane would have an adjacent lane value of 5)

²Use this column when ADT is unavailable

Table 14-29: BLTS Classification of Unsignalized Intersection Crossing or Midblock Crossings (1 to 2 Lanes – Raised Median)
Posted Speed	Adjacent Roadway Lanes¹
	1 Lane	2 Lane
	Any	<5,000 vpd	5,000 – 9,000 vpd2	>9,000 vpd
≤25	BLTS 1	BLTS 1	BLTS 2	BLTS 2
30	BLTS 2	BLTS 2	BLTS 2	BLTS 2
35-40	BLTS 2	BLTS 2	BLTS 2	BLTS 3
≥45	BLTS 3	BLTS 3	BLTS 3	BLTS 4

¹For bicycle accommodations that are unsignalized intersection crossings or midblock crossings with a median refuge, this is the maximum number of lanes crossed in one direction (e.g., a roadway with two lanes in each direction would have an adjacent roadway lane value of 2)

²Use this column when ADT is unavailable

Table 14-30: BLTS Classification of Unsignalized Intersection Crossing or Midblock Crossings (3 or More Lanes – Raised Median)
Posted Speed	Adjacent Roadway Lanes¹
	3 Lanes			4+ Lanes
	<8,000 vpd	8,000 – 12,000 vpd2	>12,000 vpd	Any
≤25	BLTS 1	BLTS 2	BLTS 3	BLTS 4
30	BLTS 2	BLTS 2	BLTS 3	BLTS 4
35-40	BLTS 3	BLTS 3	BLTS 4	BLTS 4
≥45	BLTS 4	BLTS 4	BLTS 4	BLTS 4

¹For bicycle accommodations that are unsignalized intersection crossings or midblock crossings with a median refuge, this is the maximum number of lanes crossed in one direction (e.g., a roadway with two lanes one direction and three lanes in the other direction would have an adjacent roadway lane value of 3)

²Use this column when ADT is unavailable

14.2.2.2.3 Step Three: Determine BLTS Adjustments

As stated previously, separated bicycle lanes and bicyclists using pedestrian crossings at signalized intersection crosswalks are classified as BLTS 1.

For bicycle accommodations that are not separated, accommodations that are mixed traffic bicycle accommodations, and accommodations at intersection approaches, use the BLTS classification designated in step two. For bicycle accommodations that are unsignalized intersection crossings or midblock crossings, use the overall BLTS classification determined in step two, adjusted for any crosswalk enhancements. The crosswalk enhancement adjustments are shown in Table 14-31

.

Table 14-31: BLTS Classification Adjustments for Unsignalized Intersection Crossings and Midblock Crossings
Treatment¹	Adjustment
High-visibility crosswalk markings, parking restrictions on crosswalk approach, adequate nighttime lighting levels, and crossing warning signs	-0.5
Raised crosswalk	-1.0
Advance Yield Here To (Stop Here For) bicycle sign and yield (stop) line	-0.5
In-street bicycle crossing sign	-0.5
Curb extension	-0.5
Bicycle refuge island	-1.0
RRFB	-1.0
PHB	-1.0

¹The maximum reduction is 2 classification levels or BLTS 2, whichever comes first

If a bicycle route is comprised of multiple accommodations, the BLTS classification with the highest level of traffic stress governs the entire route (e.g., a route comprised of a BLTS 2 bicycle lane, a BLTS 3 intersection approach, and a BLTS 4 midblock crossing would receive a BLTS 4 classification).

Examples
of a completed inventory and BLTS classification for an on-system bicycle facility are shown in Table 14-32

and Table 14-33

.

In the first example
shown in Table 14-32

, the bicycle facility was a bicycle lane between intersections. The first step was to determine which inventory and classification template table to use (see Appendix O, Section 3 – BLTS Inventory and Classification
). The upper table in the BLTS Inventory and Classification Template was used based on the footnote at the bottom of the table that states, “Applicable to bike accommodations that are adjacent to vehicular traffic”. Next, an inventory was conducted for the facility in question, the collected data was based on the BLTS Inventory and Classification Template
chosen, and for this example included the following data:

Bike lane width;

Determined to be five feet

On-street parking width;

Determined that it is not applicable for this facility

Through lanes per direction; and

Determined to be one

Posted speed

Determined to be 35 mph

The collected data was used to determine the BLTS classification of the facility based on a single reference table. It is important to select the correct table. Although there are two reference tables on the BLTS Inventory and Classification template table, only one is selected, based on if the facility is adjacent to on-street parking. In this example
, there is no on-street parking, so Table 14-23

was used to determine the BLTS classification. Based on Table 14-23

, a bicycle accommodation adjacent to vehicular traffic with a five-foot bicycle lane width, a 35-mph speed limit, and one through lane of vehicular traffic per direction is given a BLTS 3 classification. This type of facility is not eligible for treatment reductions, therefore the final classification of this facility is BLTS 3. In part 2 of this example
(see Table 14-33

), the next portion of this bicycle route will be inventoried. Although a BLTS 3 classification was given to this facility, if other portions of the route are classified inferior, they will govern the entire route.

Table 14-32: Example 1 (Part 1) – Bicycle Lane Inventory and BLTS Classification
Facility: Bicycle Lane between intersections
Characteristic	Value	BLTS Reference Table	BLTS Classification
Bike lane width (ft)	5	Table 14-23	BLTS 3
On-street parking width (ft)	Not applicable
Through lanes per direction	1
Posted speed (mph)	35

In the second example
shown in Table 14-33

, the bicycle facility was a bicycle lane at an intersection approach. The first step was to determine which inventory and classification template table to use (see Appendix O, Section 3 – BLTS Inventory and Classification
). The third table from the top in the BLTS Inventory and Classification Template was used based on the footnote at the bottom of the table that states, “Applicable to bicycle facilities at intersection approaches.” It was determined that most bicyclists cross the intersection on the bike lane and do not use the pedestrian crosswalk. Next, an inventory was conducted for the facility in question, the collected data was based on the BLTS Inventory and Classification Template
chosen, and for this example included the following data:

Right-turn length;

Determined to be 200 feet

Number of lanes crossed; and

Determined to be four

Posted Speed

Determined to be 35 mph

The collected data was used to determine the BLTS classification of the facility based on a single reference table. Although there are three reference tables on the BLTS Inventory and Classification template, only one is selected, based on if the facility is for a through-right movement or left turn and if the facility is mixed with traffic or if there is a bike lane. In this example
, this is a through-right movement and is in mixed traffic, so Table 14-26

was used to determine the BLTS classification. Based on Table 14-26

, a bicycle accommodation that approaches an intersection with a 200-foot right turn lane, crosses four lanes through the intersection, and has a posted speed of 35 mph is given a BLTS 4 classification. This type of facility is not eligible for treatment reductions, therefore the final classification of this facility is BLTS 4. Example 1 (Part 1) resulted in a BLTS 3 classification for the facility and example 1 (part 2) resulted in a BLTS 4 classification for the facility. Since the two facilities are on the same route, the overall route classification is BLTS 4 (i.e., the worse of the classifications).

Table 14-33: Example 1 (Part 2) - Bicycle Lane at Intersection Approach Inventory and BLTS Classification
Facility: Bicycle Lane at intersection approach
Characteristic	Value	BLTS Reference Table	BLTS Classification
Right-turn length (ft)	200	Table 14-26	BLTS 4
Lanes crossed	4
Posted speed (mph)	35

The Shared-Used Path Level of Service (SUPLOS)
calculator is used for bicycle analysis scenarios as described in
Figure 14-3

.

This tool is mainly used to evaluate bicycle mobility. Though the results of using this calculator will likely improve conditions for all modes on the path, it was designed from the bicyclist’s point of view. It was created with the following usage criteria:

The tool is for shared paths with paved hard surfaces (e.g., asphalt or concrete).

The tool uses the following modes as inputs:

Adult bicyclists

Pedestrians

Runners

In-line skaters

Child bicyclists

The tool is not applicable to trails with stop signs, signal controls, or road crossings with spacing less than 0.25 miles apart.

The tool is best suited for two-way shared-use path facilities. It does not apply to on-street bicycle facilities.

Links to the SUPLOS calculator and user guide are provided in Appendix O, Section 4 – Shared-Use Path Level of Service Calculator Guidance.

14.2.2.3 Microsimulation

Microsimulation is used for bicycle analysis scenarios as described in Figure 14-3

.

Animations of bicycle accommodations can be created with microsimulation (microscopic) tools and are a valuable resource in bicycle analysis. Animations are not necessary for any bicycle facility analysis but could be recommended based on project complexity and level of detail. Animations are not acceptable as a standalone form of analysis and are recommended to be used only as a complement to a BLTS, HCS, or traditional microsimulation (microscopic) analysis.

Microsimulation can be used if the bicycle facility interacts with motor vehicles and if there are significant delays. Microsimulation does not analyze safety or perceived comfort of a bicycle facility, so a microsimulation (microscopic) analysis is paired with a BLTS analysis wherever possible (i.e., for all facility types except signalized intersections, alternative intersections or interchanges, and high-volume urban street segments).

For general guidance on conducting a microsimulation (microscopic) analysis, see Chapter 13
.

If using Vissim to conduct a bicycle analysis, refer to the Vissim user manual for information on specific best practices and guidance.

14.2.2.4 Safety

In addition to the safety emphasis found in the BLTS analysis, additional resources on bicycle facility safety are provided in Appendix O
, Section 2 – Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Resources
. It contains information about countermeasure selection tools and crash analysis tools for bicycle accommodations. The document also lists many external reports that focus on bicycle safety at various accommodations and scenarios.

While predictive safety analysis for bicycle accommodations is limited as of 2024, NCHRP Report 1784 is developing crash prediction model SPFs for use in the Second Edition of the HSM. For further information on the application of the HSM and other safety topics, see Chapter 5
and Chapter 6
. Additionally, TxDOT Research and Technology Implementation is sponsoring a research project to address bicycle safety through the development of CMF for bicycle accommodations.