Cycle Tracks: Concept and Design Practices. February 17, 2010

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Cycle Tracks: Concept and Design Practices. February 17, 2010"

Russell Hodge
6 years ago
Views:

1 Cycle Tracks: Concept and Design Practices February 17, 2010

2 Today s webinar presenters APBP Board Member Host Brett Hondorp, Principal, Alta Planning + Design Guest Moderator Zach Vanderkooy, Bicycling Design Best Practices Project Coordinator, Bikes Belong Peter Furth, Professor of Civil Engineering, Northeastern University Cara Seiderman, Transportation Program Manager, City of Cambridge, Mass. Rob Burchfield, City Traffic Engineer, Portland (Ore.) Bureau of Transportation Hayes Lord, Director, Bicycle Program, NYC Department of Transportation

3 Cycle Tracks: Concept and Design Practices Part 1: General Design, Intersection Safety Treatments, and Safety Studies Peter Furth Northeastern University apbp webinar, Feb 17, 2010

4 Cycle track (n): A bicycle path along a road, physically separated from motor traffic, and distinct from the sidewalk. 4 Not a shared use path not used by pedestrians Other terms: sidepath, bike path, raised lane, separated lane One-way and two-way versions exist

5 Why Cycle Tracks? #1 reason for not riding a bike = Traffic danger Dutch Guide recommended treatments Multilane road with speed limit > 20 mph: Cycle Track AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities doesn t understand this desire for separation. Consider two options: mph multi-lane highway with 5-ft shoulder 2. Parallel route on local streets connected by bike paths most experienced and many casual adult riders will continue to use the shoulder for the sake of speed and convenience. 5

6 Engineering Guidance AASHTO Guide has no guidance on cycle tracks It has 9 warnings about parallel shared use paths: Not relevant to one-way cycle tracks 2-way cycle tracks have intersection and endpoint concerns similar to shared use paths, which can be addressed Other 7 concerns about parallel paths are silly Other sources of engineering guidance: Dutch Design Manual for Bicycle Traffic (CROW) 6

7 Physical Separation from motor traffic: Curb, raised median, parking lane, planting buffer, bollards, Levels: Street level, sidewalk level, in between 7

8 Separation from Pedestrians Painted line Change in level full or partial Vertical elements Different surface 8

9 Width and Functionality About 3.75 ft/ lane Buffers at edges Provision for Passing? One-way with passing: 7.5 ft Two-way, 2 lane 7.5 ft Obvious space advantage of 2-way Wider is better, but Narrow can work, too 9

10 Safety: One-Way or Two-Way? Europe: Better safety record with one-way cycle tracks Reasons for 2-way Space limitations Wrong-way bicyclists Difficult street crossings 10

11 Safety at Driveways & Minor Intersections: Make it look like a bicycle crossing, not a parking lane or sidewalk Bike silhouettes (Paris, Montreal) Color (Copenhagen) 11

12 Raise sidewalk & cycle track Makes priority clear Speed bump effect 12

13 At signalized intersections Left turn on green arrow only ( Protected left ) Bicycle signal heads if bikes green period will differ from cars 13

14 Leading thru arrow protects first flush of waiting bikes 14

15 Right-Turn Lanes Controlled by Green Arrows 15

16 Endpoints and Transitions Don t dump wrong-way traffic into street 16

17 Jughandles for Safer Crossovers B 17 A

18 18 Corral for turning bikes to wait

19 Myth of the Danger of Separated Paths False Sense of Security Origin: Vehicular cycling theory, not data Massive European experiment dismissed I ve heard that separated paths have 5 times greater crash risk. Moritz (TRR, 1997) 12 crashes (4.1%) on Other : sidewalks, parking lots,? Less than 1% of bicycling-miles on Other facilities Other Sidewalk Separated path??? Confused data, insufficient exposure 19

20 Comparative Studies of Bicycling, In- Street vs on-path Wachtel & Lewiston (ITE Journal, 1994) compared sidewalk bikeways to streets : Relative crash risk on sidewalk is1.8 Intersection crashes only! Accounting for mid-block crashes: relative risk is equal Ride in same direction as closest travel lane: sidewalk risk is 50% of instreet risk Montreal cycle tracks (publication pending), 10 years data, hundreds of crashes Crash risk in cycle track is 28% smaller than in-street risk In spite of non-ideal cycle track designs Conclusion: Perceived safety and Statistical safety are not at odds 20

21 Cycle Tracks: Concept and Design Practices APBP Webinar February 17, 2010 Cara Seiderman City of Cambridge, MA

22 Improve Safety Why Cycle Tracks? Eliminate Bike Lane/Shared Lane Obstructions Comfort, especially on High Speed/Volume Roadways Continuity of Pathway Experience Attract new riders Support Economic Development Enhance Pedestrian Environment/Urban Design Support Environmental/Climate Goals Support Transportation Goals Support Quality of Life Goals Support Public Health Goals, Especially for Children

23 Design Users

24 The Real World

25 People prefer cycle tracks

26 You Choose

27 Cambridge, MA Our Fair City

30 Vassar Street

47 Binney Street

48 Binney Street

49 Concord Avenue

52 Portland s CYCLE TRACK SW Broadway (SW Clay to SW Jackson) By Robert Burchfield, PE Portland Bureau of Transportation Cycle Tracks: Concept and Design Practices The Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals FEBRUARY 17, 2010

lane converted to on-street parking Seven foot wide bike lane at curbside Three foot shy zones

53 PORTLAND BUREAU OF TRANSPORTATION Project OVERVIEW Cycle track project stretches seven blocks along SW Broadway on the PSU campus Originally 3 lanes one-way southbound Outside southbound lane converted to on-street parking Seven foot wide bike lane at curbside Three foot shy zones separate cycle track from parking stalls PORTLAND STATE BROADWAY BROADWAY JACKSON CLAY DOWNTOWN PORTLAND

54 PORTLAND BUREAU OF TRANSPORTATION Broadway Cycle Track CROSS SECTION SW Broadway Cycle Track Portland, Oregon 50

55 Broadway Cycle Track PUBLIC OUTREACH PORTLAND BUREAU OF TRANSPORTATION

56 PORTLAND BUREAU OF TRANSPORTATION Broadway Cycle Track MARKINGS Looking south from SW Montgomery Typical mid-block marking Looking north from SW Clay

57 PORTLAND BUREAU OF TRANSPORTATION BUS STOP Treatment During morning peak hours, buses service at two stops along the cycle track. Buses will still pull to the curb TriMet bus zone along cycle track north of SW Montgomery (looking south)

58 LEFT HAND TURN Treatment Two Stage, with Bike Box Cyclist left hand turn area at SW Montgomery Street PORTLAND BUREAU OF TRANSPORTATION JONATHAN MAUS / BIKEPORTLAND.ORG

PORTLAND BUREAU OF TRANSPORTATION Broadway Cycle Track CHALLENGES Parking Enforcement Pay Stations Enforcement Officers use buffer area when placing citation Temporary parking removal using magnetic

59 PORTLAND BUREAU OF TRANSPORTATION Broadway Cycle Track CHALLENGES Parking Enforcement Pay Stations Enforcement Officers use buffer area when placing citation Temporary parking removal using magnetic base flexible posts Street Cleaning Cycle Track plus buffer is wide enough to accommodate a street sweeper Leaf fall is heavy in autumnextra cleaning needed JONATHAN MAUS / BIKEPORTLAND.ORG Wheel Chair User Access Concerns from users regarding wheelchair van loading Cycle Track may be used by wheelchairs

60 PORTLAND BUREAU OF TRANSPORTATION Future CYCLE TRACK project NE Cully Boulevard Cycle track Parking Crossing with left hand turn boxe Cycle track Cycle track Cycle track

61 PORTLAND BUREAU OF TRANSPORTATION Thank You. Robert Burchfield, PE City Traffic Engineer Portland Bureau of Transportation 1120 SW 5 th Avenue, Suite 800 Portland, OR Phone: Robert.burchfield@pdxtrans.org JONATHAN MAUS / BIKEPORTLAND.ORG

62 Cycle Tracks: Concept and Design Practices. The New York City Experience Broadway Hayes A. Lord Director, Bicycle Program NYC Department of Transportation February 17, 2010

3 years 200 miles 2006 2009 2006 8,650 commuter cyclists 420 lane miles 0.

63 3 years 200 miles ,650 commuter cyclists 420 lane miles 0.8 miles of on-street protected paths ,495 commuter cyclists Over 645 lane miles Over 10 miles of onstreet protected paths

64 NYC s Toolbox of Design Treatments Signal Protected Path 2-Way Protected Path Separated Path with Mixing Zone Cycle Track

65 9 th Avenue Existing Conditions 2006

9 th Avenue Existing Conditions (2006): S I D E W A L K 11 Parking/ Loading Lane West 12 Moving Lane 12 Moving Lane 12 Moving Lane 70 feet 12 Moving Lane 11 Parking/ Loading Lane East S I D E W A L K

66 9 th Avenue Existing Conditions (2006): S I D E W A L K 11 Parking/ Loading Lane West 12 Moving Lane 12 Moving Lane 12 Moving Lane 70 feet 12 Moving Lane 11 Parking/ Loading Lane East S I D E W A L K New Design (2009): Peak Hour traffic volume: 1,700 vph 4 Travel Lanes S I D E W A L K East 10 Buffer 6 10 Parking Lane 12 Moving Lane 70 feet 11 Moving Lane 11 Moving Lane 10 Parking/ Loading Lane West S I D E W A L K High Collision Rates High Vehicle Speeds 780 Cyclists (12-hour period: 2007) Primary land use: Multi-family residential

67 9 th Avenue Signal Protected Bike Path

68 9th Avenue Signal Protected Bike Path % increase in cyclists

69 2007 Grand Street Existing Conditions

Grand Street Existing Conditions (2007): S I D E W A L K 9 Parking/ Loading Lane South 11 Moving Lane 34 feet 5 9 Parking/ Loading Lane North S I D E W A L K Land Use New Design (2008): 3 Buffer

70 Grand Street Existing Conditions (2007): S I D E W A L K 9 Parking/ Loading Lane South 11 Moving Lane 34 feet 5 9 Parking/ Loading Lane North S I D E W A L K Land Use New Design (2008): 3 Buffer Popular cross-town bicycle route Link to Manhattan Bridge and Williamsburg Bridge Existing bike lane S I D E W A L K 5 8 Parking/ South Loading Lane 10 Moving Lane 34 feet 8 Parking/ Loading Lane North S I D E W A L K Disorderly traffic 647 Cyclists (12-hour period: 2008) Primary land use: Mixed commercial/residential

71 Grand Street Protected Bicycle Path with Mixing Zone

72 Grand Street Protected Bicycle Path with Mixing Zone 2008

73 Grand Street Protected Path with Mixing Zones 29% Increase in cyclists

74 Kent Avenue Existing Conditions 2007

Kent Avenue Existing Conditions: East S I D E W A L K 6 3 3 11 Moving Lane New Design (2009): CENTERLINE 40 feet 11 Moving Lane 6 West S I D E W A L K East S I D E W A L K 8 Loading

75 Kent Avenue Existing Conditions: East S I D E W A L K Moving Lane New Design (2009): CENTERLINE 40 feet 11 Moving Lane 6 West S I D E W A L K East S I D E W A L K 8 Loading Lane 11 Moving Lane 40 Feet 8 Parking Lane S I D E W A L K Two-way Traffic No Curbside access Existing Curbside Bike Lanes Peak Hour SB traffic volume: 429 Primary land use: industrial

76 Kent Avenue Two-way Bike Path 2009

77 Kent Avenue Two-way Bike Path

78 Sands Street Cycle Track XX% increase in cyclists Before After

users down 50% Reportable crashes down 49% Injuries to pedestrians down 40% Injuries to

79 Safety Statistics 9th Avenue: Injuries to all street users down 56% Reportable crashes down 48% Injuries to pedestrians down 29% Injuries to cyclists down 57% Broadway: Injuries to all street users down 50% Reportable crashes down 49% Injuries to pedestrians down 40% Injuries to cyclists down 50% Grand Street: Injuries to all street users down 27% Injuries to pedestrians down 28%

80 Comparative Costs Estimates Signal Protected Bike Path $1.5 million per mile (approx) Separated Path with Mixing Zone $139,000 per mile (approx) Cycle Track $13 million per mile (approx)

81 Contact Information Hayes A. Lord Director, Bicycle Program NYC Department of Transportation (212)

Small Town & Rural Multimodal Networks

Small Town & Rural Multimodal Networks Fred Young, PLA Andrea Clinkscales, AICP, PMP Alta Planning + Design Funding Partners Project Team Existing Design Guidance AASHTO Flexibility Guide 2004 AASHTO Bike