The Level of Traffic Stress (LTS) framework is widely used to assess the suitability of roadway environments for cycling. Its main strength is the identification of infrastructure characteristics that meet the needs of different cyclist groups. The four levels of infrastructure ratings, LTS 1 to LTS 4, roughly map to the cyclist types defined by the Four Types of Cyclist typology. Despite its popularity, the LTS framework has several limitations, including reliance on a cyclist typology that was developed subjectively, and a lack of empirical evidence to define thresholds between levels. This work builds on our previous empirically-based findings that cyclists form three groups rather than four: Uncomfortable or Uninterested, Cautious Majority, and Very Comfortable Cyclists. We use survey data from Edmonton, Canada, to update the LTS framework such that levels match the three types of cyclists. Direct infrastructure ratings, binary logistic regression, and route choice data provide the empirical foundation to determine infrastructure characteristics that are suitable for the three types of cyclists. This adjusted framework is called Level of Cycling Comfort (LCC). We apply the framework to Edmonton and compare connectivity outcomes using both LTS and LCC frameworks. Overall, the LCC framework yields more conservative estimates of connectivity.

交通压力水平 (LTS) 框架被广泛用于评估道路环境是否适合骑自行车。它的主要优势是识别满足不同自行车群体需求的基础设施特征。基础设施评级的四个级别，LTS 1 到 LTS 4，大致映射到由四种自行车类型定义的自行车类型。尽管它很受欢迎，但 LTS 框架有几个局限性，包括依赖主观开发的骑自行车者类型学，以及缺乏定义级别之间阈值的经验证据。这项工作建立在我们之前基于经验的发现之上，即骑自行车的人形成三组而不是四组：不舒服或不感兴趣、谨慎的大多数和非常舒适的骑自行车的人。我们使用来自加拿大埃德蒙顿的调查数据，更新 LTS 框架，使级别与三种类型的自行车手相匹配。直接基础设施评级、二元逻辑回归和路线选择数据为确定适合三类自行车手的基础设施特征提供了经验基础。这个调整后的框架称为骑行舒适度（LCC）。我们将该框架应用于埃德蒙顿，并使用 LTS 和 LCC 框架比较连接结果。总体而言，LCC 框架产生了更保守的连通性估计。我们将该框架应用于埃德蒙顿，并使用 LTS 和 LCC 框架比较连接结果。总体而言，LCC 框架产生了更保守的连通性估计。我们将该框架应用于埃德蒙顿，并使用 LTS 和 LCC 框架比较连接结果。总体而言，LCC 框架产生了更保守的连通性估计。