Description: This map displays bicycle prohibitions on highways in Washington State. This data only includes permanent restrictions. Bicycle restrictions are implemented based on data from an engineering and traffic investigation of road, land use and traffic conditions at the location. Each restriction is the result of an official calendar action by the State Traffic Engineer. Calendar actions for bicycle restrictions include the date, state route, beginning/ending mile posts, and a short description. The data fields of this layer do not include the short descriptions, but do indicate the direction of traffic the restriction applies to (ex., northbound) and if other travel stipulations were made (ex., “must use sidewalk”). For accessibility assistance with this information, contact Active Transportation Division (Brian Wood Brian.D.Wood@wsdot.wa.gov).
Copyright Text: Washington State Department of Transportation
Description: The term ‘population center’ was defined in the 2021 WSDOT Active Transportation Plan (ATP) to include all city/town or census designated places in Washington State. The WSDOT Population Center dataset combines the WSDOT Incorporated City Limits dataset (May 2021) with the Office of Financial Management’s Census Designated Places (2020 Census) Dataset. Identification of Population Centers was undertaken in order to prioritize active transportation improvements in areas where people congregate and access destinations, and where travel distances between destinations align with typical distances travelled by users of pedestrian and bicycle modes. These areas are a priority because they serve the broadest range of users and potential users of the transportation system, including the very young, very old, and people with disabilities. In this dataset, each Population Center includes information for the “Place Name”, the “Place Type” (city/town or Census Designated Place), and whether or not the Population Center intersects a State Route (“yes” indicates that there is an intersection with a State Route, “no” indicates that there is no intersection.). The dataset will be updated as needed.Please direct questions about the Population Centers dataset to: Brian.D.Wood@wsdot.wa.gov.
Copyright Text: Washington State Department of Transportation
Name: Active Transportation Level of Traffic Stress (LTS)
Display Field: RouteIdentifier
Type: Feature Layer
Geometry Type: esriGeometryPolyline
Description: Assignment of LTS ranking to WA state highway segments was undertaken to aid in efforts to analyze high-level systemic safety and user acceptance of state highways for active transportation users. This data was also intended to inform high-level prioritization of active transportation improvements. Level of Traffic Stress (LTS) data rank highway segments from 1 to 4 based on roadway characteristics, with LTS 1 being most suited to active travel. LTS 1 was deemed suitable for all ages and abilities by WSDOT. LTS 2 is considered suitable for most active travelers. LTS 3 and 4 represent functional gaps in active transportation networks that present systemic safety issues and likely deter use of active modes. The data provided is not a substitute for detailed investigation of a location when specific investment decisions are being considered. The specific characteristics of locations with the same LTS rankings could vary considerably. It is important to note that an LTS 1 or 2 location might have additional, unmeasured characteristics that reduce its presumed suitability for active travel.Level of Traffic Stress (LTS) was described in the 2021 WSDOT Active Transportation Plan (ATP) with methodology outlined in Appendix D. This data updates the data and methods used for the ATP with additional considerations based on:Furth, P. G., Putta, T. V., & Moser, P. (2018). Measuring low-stress connectivity in terms of bike-accessible jobs and potential bike-to-work trips: A case study evaluating alternative bike route alignments in northern Delaware. Journal of Transport and Land Use, 11(1). https://doi.org/10.5198/jtlu.2018.1159. The current methodology assigns LTS rankings to roadway segments based on a combination of posted speed, traffic volume, and number of travel lanes. In addition, the presence of bike lanes of 5’ or greater was used to generate Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress (BLTS) rankings. Pedestrian Level of Traffic Stress (PLTS) was calculated using the presence of sidewalks as indicated in WSDOT enterprise sidewalk data. Ramp segments are included in the dataset with a default LTS ranking of 999. This ranking indicates that all ramps are to be considered high LTS (3 or 4) unless a manual evaluation of the roadway characteristics indicates otherwise. Datasets were not available that would enable ramp rankings to be determined systematically based on posted speed, traffic volume, and number of travel lanes, however a manual review of many ramp configurations across the state indicated that most ramps present LTS concerns.For additional information regarding ranking methodology or other questions about WSDOT’s Level of Traffic Stress dataset, contact: Brian.D.Wood@wsdot.wa.gov.
Copyright Text: Washington State Department of Transportation
Name: Active Transportation Route Directness Index Point
Display Field: RDI_Identifier
Type: Feature Layer
Geometry Type: esriGeometryPoint
Description: This feature class represents the points that were used for the Route Directness Index calculation. These points were generated along the increasing state routes as represented by the 12/31/2021 WSDOT LRS. Points were only generated within Population Centers as defined by the 2021 Active Transportaiton Plan. Every 250 feet along the route a transect was created perpendicular to the route extending 500 feet on each side of the route. These points represent the midpoint of each transect. The Route Directness Index (RDI) is a ratio that compares the straight-line (crow-flies) distance across a barrier and between two points to the actual distance imposed by the network of paths available to a traveler. RDI data is particularly relevant to pedestrian and/or bicyclist trips due to the extra time, physical energy, and exposure to weather out of direction travel creates. Research indicates that pedestrians are especially sensitive to out of direction travel and Broach, 2016, found that "to avoid an additional unsignalized arterial crossing, a pedestrian would be willing to go over 70 meters (230 feet) farther via an alternate path." This finding suggests that route directness is relevant to considerations of both utility and safety with respect to active travel. A complete discussion of route directness, including potential applications to decision making, can be found Washington State Multimodal Permeability Pilot, August 2021.RDI can be analyzed at different scales. A high-level analysis of RDI can address questions that compare population centers across the state or consider whether the RDI values are generally similar within a given population center or tend to vary in different portions of a population center. High level data could be combined with other statewide data such as crash data, transit stops, level of traffic stress data, destination data, etc. to analyze potential correlations. High level RDI data is less useful for analyzing a particular crossing location or recommending solutions to address high RDI values. A more detailed analysis is likely required when questions involve corridor studies or project evaluations. Detailed location information can refer to key destinations and crossing locations that are not captured using higher level network maps.The lowest RDI is 1 because a trip between those points can be made directly along an existing roadway. The actual methodology analyzed hypothetical trips where the start and end points were about a quarter mile apart relative to a straight line. In such a situation, an RDI of 2 would mean the trip is twice the distance it might otherwise be, or about one-half mile. Although one-half mile is not particularly far, the RDI is independent of the actual distance. We might start further down the road and if the RDI remained a 2 our trip distance would be twice as long as it could have been. The RDI thus measures the real or perceived burden or travel cost incurred by a person walking or bicycling. An RDI of 2 was selected as the threshold where that travel cost makes it increasingly unlikely that an active travel trip would be completed. The “design vehicle” when selecting that threshold was a walking pedestrian. Selecting an RDI of 2 was an attempt to balance observed travel behavior and the realities of existing crossing opportunities along the state highway system. In addition, since this analysis used about a quarter-mile spacing between test destinations, an RDI of 2 corresponds to the one-half mile maximum distance transit planners assume a pedestrian will be willing to walk to catch a bus or train. (FHWA, Pedestrian Safety Guide for Transit, 2013) So with respect to multimodal trips, RDIs greater than 2 might make transit less attractive.
Copyright Text: Washington State Department of Transportation
Name: Active Transportation Route Directness Index Route
Display Field: RDI_Identifier
Type: Feature Layer
Geometry Type: esriGeometryPolyline
Description: This feature class represents the routes that were used for the Route Directness Index calculation. These routes were generated by submitting the begin and end points of each RDI_Transect to the Esri routing service with a Walking travel mode. The service returns a route of the shortest pedestrian path between the two points. The routing service is dependent on the Esri network data available when the service was accessed in June 2022.The Route Directness Index (RDI) is a ratio that compares the straight-line (crow-flies) distance across a barrier and between two points to the actual distance imposed by the network of paths available to a traveler. RDI data is particularly relevant to pedestrian and/or bicyclist trips due to the extra time, physical energy, and exposure to weather out of direction travel creates. Research indicates that pedestrians are especially sensitive to out of direction travel and Broach, 2016, found that "to avoid an additional unsignalized arterial crossing, a pedestrian would be willing to go over 70 meters (230 feet) farther via an alternate path." This finding suggests that route directness is relevant to considerations of both utility and safety with respect to active travel. A complete discussion of route directness, including potential applications to decision making, can be found Washington State Multimodal Permeability Pilot, August 2021.RDI can be analyzed at different scales. A high-level analysis of RDI can address questions that compare population centers across the state or consider whether the RDI values are generally similar within a given population center or tend to vary in different portions of a population center. High level data could be combined with other statewide data such as crash data, transit stops, level of traffic stress data, destination data, etc. to analyze potential correlations. High level RDI data is less useful for analyzing a particular crossing location or recommending solutions to address high RDI values. A more detailed analysis is likely required when questions involve corridor studies or project evaluations. Detailed location information can refer to key destinations and crossing locations that are not captured using higher level network maps.The lowest RDI is 1 because a trip between those points can be made directly along an existing roadway. The actual methodology analyzed hypothetical trips where the start and end points were about a quarter mile apart relative to a straight line. In such a situation, an RDI of 2 would mean the trip is twice the distance it might otherwise be, or about one-half mile. Although one-half mile is not particularly far, the RDI is independent of the actual distance. We might start further down the road and if the RDI remained a 2 our trip distance would be twice as long as it could have been. The RDI thus measures the real or perceived burden or travel cost incurred by a person walking or bicycling. An RDI of 2 was selected as the threshold where that travel cost makes it increasingly unlikely that an active travel trip would be completed. The “design vehicle” when selecting that threshold was a walking pedestrian. Selecting an RDI of 2 was an attempt to balance observed travel behavior and the realities of existing crossing opportunities along the state highway system. In addition, since this analysis used about a quarter-mile spacing between test destinations, an RDI of 2 corresponds to the one-half mile maximum distance transit planners assume a pedestrian will be willing to walk to catch a bus or train. (FHWA, Pedestrian Safety Guide for Transit, 2013) So with respect to multimodal trips, RDIs greater than 2 might make transit less attractive.
Copyright Text: Washington State Department of Transportation
Name: Active Transportation Route Directness Index Transect
Display Field: RDI_Identifier
Type: Feature Layer
Geometry Type: esriGeometryPolyline
Description: This feature class represents the transects that were used for the Route Directness Index calculation. These lines were generated along the increasing state routes as represented by the 12/31/2021 WSDOT LRS. Transects were only generated within Population Centers as defined by the 2021 Active Transportaiton Plan. Every 250 feet along the route a transect was created perpendicular to the route extending 500 feet on each side of the route. The end points of each transect were then used to calculate the direct distance between the endpoints and were used to generate the shortest walking route between the endpoints.The Route Directness Index (RDI) is a ratio that compares the straight-line (crow-flies) distance across a barrier and between two points to the actual distance imposed by the network of paths available to a traveler. RDI data is particularly relevant to pedestrian and/or bicyclist trips due to the extra time, physical energy, and exposure to weather out of direction travel creates. Research indicates that pedestrians are especially sensitive to out of direction travel and Broach, 2016, found that "to avoid an additional unsignalized arterial crossing, a pedestrian would be willing to go over 70 meters (230 feet) farther via an alternate path." This finding suggests that route directness is relevant to considerations of both utility and safety with respect to active travel. A complete discussion of route directness, including potential applications to decision making, can be found Washington State Multimodal Permeability Pilot, August 2021.RDI can be analyzed at different scales. A high-level analysis of RDI can address questions that compare population centers across the state or consider whether the RDI values are generally similar within a given population center or tend to vary in different portions of a population center. High level data could be combined with other statewide data such as crash data, transit stops, level of traffic stress data, destination data, etc. to analyze potential correlations. High level RDI data is less useful for analyzing a particular crossing location or recommending solutions to address high RDI values. A more detailed analysis is likely required when questions involve corridor studies or project evaluations. Detailed location information can refer to key destinations and crossing locations that are not captured using higher level network maps.The lowest RDI is 1 because a trip between those points can be made directly along an existing roadway. The actual methodology analyzed hypothetical trips where the start and end points were about a quarter mile apart relative to a straight line. In such a situation, an RDI of 2 would mean the trip is twice the distance it might otherwise be, or about one-half mile. Although one-half mile is not particularly far, the RDI is independent of the actual distance. We might start further down the road and if the RDI remained a 2 our trip distance would be twice as long as it could have been. The RDI thus measures the real or perceived burden or travel cost incurred by a person walking or bicycling. An RDI of 2 was selected as the threshold where that travel cost makes it increasingly unlikely that an active travel trip would be completed. The “design vehicle” when selecting that threshold was a walking pedestrian. Selecting an RDI of 2 was an attempt to balance observed travel behavior and the realities of existing crossing opportunities along the state highway system. In addition, since this analysis used about a quarter-mile spacing between test destinations, an RDI of 2 corresponds to the one-half mile maximum distance transit planners assume a pedestrian will be willing to walk to catch a bus or train. (FHWA, Pedestrian Safety Guide for Transit, 2013) So with respect to multimodal trips, RDIs greater than 2 might make transit less attractive.
Copyright Text: Washington State Department of Transportation
Name: Active Transportation Sandy Williams Equity Needs
Display Field: geoid
Type: Feature Layer
Geometry Type: esriGeometryPolygon
Description: This analysis scores Census Block Groups in Washington based on their degree of equity and environmental justice need for the purpose of identifying and prioritizing investment locations for the Connecting Communities Pilot Program. Each Block Group receives a score based on several factors related to vulnerable populations and environmentally burdened communities, and these scores are added together to create the final score. See the accompanying methodology word document for a full list of factors. Original data sources are the U.S. Census 2016-2020 American Community Survey (ACS) and the Washington Environmental Health Disparities (EHD) Map.Individual scores are calculated for each measure, which then sum up to aggregate scores for vulnerable populations and overburdened communities as well as a combined final score. Block Group scores based on demographic measures from the ACS data are calculated relative to other Block Groups in similarly sized population centers or in tribal areas. If a Block Group’s value for a given demographic measure is at or above the 80th percentile within its population center size category, it is given 2 points for that factor. If its value is at or above the 60th percentile within its population center size category, it is given 1 point. All other Block Groups receive 0 points for that factor. Block groups that overlap with or touch multiple population centers that have different sizes are assigned the highest possible point value based on all overlapping population centers. For the health and environmental measures sourced from the EHD map, scores are applied based on the measure’s rank value. Block Groups with a rank of 9 or 10 are given 2 points, and Block Groups with a rank of 7 or 8 are given 1 point. This is applied statewide without any scaling within population center sizes, as is performed for the demographic metrics, to ensure that Block Groups with similar environmental or health burdens across the state are scored evenly. Here is a list of measures (included in attribute table), used to calculate the final score: 1. Population less than 18 years of age; 2. Population age 65 or older; 3. Housing cost-burdened households (spending over 30% of income on housing); 4. Black, Indigenous, People of color; 5. Households with 1 or more persons with a disability; 6. Ability to speak English – less than very well; 7. Household income below 200% of the federal poverty level; 8. Zero to one car households; 9. Unemployment; 10. Transportation expense (%) for moderate income families; 11. Limited access to healthy food; 12. Low birthweight (<2500 grams); 13. High rate of hospitalization, based on the maximum rank value from the following variables; (a) Death from cardiovascular disease, (b) Cancer deaths, (c) Lower life expectancy at birth, (d) Premature death; 14. Environmental exposures; 15. Environmental effects; 16. Diesel pollution burdenFinally, 1 additional point is given to Block Groups that fall within or touch a tribal area to give a slight priority to areas serving tribal populations. This score, along with the demographic measures from the ACS as well as the transportation expense, limited access to healthy food, low birthweight, and high rate of hospitalization measures from the EHD Map are summed together to create the total vulnerable population score. The three environmental measures from the EHD Map are summed together to create the total overburdened communities score. These two totals are summed to create the Block Group’s final score.
Copyright Text: Washington State Department of Transportation
Description: United States Bicycle Routes (USBR) are numbered routes for bicyclists that exist as a subset of the U.S. Numbered and Interstate Systems managed by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Council on Highways and Streets. AASHTO indicates: “The purpose of the U.S. Bicycle Route System (USBRS) is to facilitate bicycle travel on appropriate roads, paths and highways over routes that are desirable for interstate bicyclists. A route should form continuity of available roads through two or more states connecting and traversing areas of scenic, cultural, and recreational interest.” https://transportation.org/route/about-us/ The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) does not define “appropriate” in the statement above. Designation of a US Bike Route signifies that a route is legally usable by bicyclists and officially recognized and approved with a route number but does not certify that such routes provide facilities specifically designed for bicyclists or even designed to accommodate bicyclists. US Bicycle Routes may or may not include bicycle facilities, bicycle lanes, or bikeways as defined in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). Neither the MUTCD, nor the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) define bicycle route. “Route” is a generic term referring to an established or selected course of travel. US Bicycle Routes in Washington State should be regarded as navigation aids only, similar to other named routes such as scenic byways. WSDOT does not have policy that requires bicycle facilities to be present in order for a US Bike Route to be designated. US Bicycle Routes in Washington State may, or may not include signage to aid bicycle navigation. Please direct questions about this dataset to: brian.d.wood@wsdot.wa.gov.
Copyright Text: Washington State Department of Transportation