Portland State University PDXScholar TREC Webinar Series Transportation Research and Education Center (TREC) 3-19-2015 Webinar: A Comprehensive Evaluation of Protected Cycling Facilities: Lessons from Five Cities Christopher Monsere Portland State University, monsere@pdx.edu Let us know how access to this document benefits you. Follow this and additional works at: http://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/trec_webinar Part of the Transportation Commons, Urban Studies Commons, and the Urban Studies and Planning Commons Recommended Citation Monsere, Christopher, "Webinar: A Comprehensive Evaluation of Protected Cycling Facilities: Lessons from Five Cities" (2015). TREC Webinar Series. 2. http://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/trec_webinar/2 This Book is brought to you for free and open access. It has been accepted for inclusion in TREC Webinar Series by an authorized administrator of PDXScholar. For more information, please contact pdxscholar@pdx.edu.
Early Adopters of the Protected Bicycle Lane in United States: What Have We Learned? http://bit.ly/nitc_583 Christopher M. Monsere @CMonsere Portland State University Project co-pis Jennifer Dill, Kelly Clifton, Nathan McNeil Lead GRAs: Tara Goddard and Nick Foster NITC Webinar March 19, 2015 Photo credit: Nathan McNeil, PSU 1
Webinar Overview 1. Introduction and Background 2. Methodology 3. Change in Ridership 4. Design 5. Community Support 6. Conclusions 2
Credit: People for Bikes Green Lane Project
Research Objectives A field-based evaluation of protected bikeways in five U.S. cities to study: Safety of users (both perceived and actual) Effectiveness of the design Perceptions of residents and other road users Attractiveness to more casual cyclists Change in economic activity 4
Overview of Sites 5
Green Lane Cities Studied 6
Austin: Rio Grande Street Two-way protected bike lane on one-way street Two-way bikeway One-way vehicle lane 7
Austin: Bluebonnet Lane Two-way protected bike lane on a two-way street Two-way vehicles Two-way bikeway 8
Austin: Barton Springs Road One-way protected bike lane on the south side of the road Shared-Use Path One-way bikeway Two-way vehicles 4 lanes 9
Chicago: N/S Dearborn Street Two-way protected bike lane on one-way street One-way vehicle lanes Two-way bikeway 10
Chicago: N Milwaukee Avenue Pair of one-way protected bike lanes on a two-way street Two-way vehicle lanes One-way bikeway 11
Portland: NE Multnomah Street Pair of one-way protected bike lanes on a two-way street One-way bikeway Two-way vehicle lanes with center turn lane 12
San Francisco: Fell Street One-way left-side protected lane on a one-way street One-way bikeway One-way vehicle lanes 13
San Francisco: Oak Street One-way right-side lane on a one-way street One-way vehicle lanes One-way bikeway 14
Washington DC: L Street One-way protected bike lane on a one-way street One-way bikeway One-way vehicle lanes 15
Methodology 16
Video Data Primarily intersections 3 locations per facility (not Austin) 2 cameras per location 2 days of video (7am to 7pm) per location 168 hours analyzed 16,393 bicyclists and 19,724 turning vehicles observed Example Video Screenshots (2 views) from San Francisco at Oak and Broderick
Resident Surveys Mailed to residents living near new protected bike lane(s) 8-12 pages (~40 questions) 23% response rate overall Bicyclist Bicyclists intercepted on facility and directed to online survey 33% response rate overall 18
Data Used in Analysis Research Element Video Data Bicyclist Survey Resident Survey Count Data Change in Ridership Design/Safety Evaluation Barrier Types & Comfort Community Support 19
Change in Ridership: Safety perceptions and potential riders 20
Percent Increase Change in Observed Bicycle Volumes 180% 171% 160% Before: One-way travel After: Two-way travel 140% 126% 120% 100% 80% 60% 68% 46% 46% 65% 58% 40% 20% 21% 0% Rio Grande Multnomah Bluebonnet Fell Milwaukee Dearborn L Street Barton Springs Bike lanes prior No bike lanes prior Source: City-provided before and after counts, PSU video counts, ACS Survey 21
Before the new facility was built, how would you have made this trip? 100% 80% 60% 17% 21% 55% 56% 56% 65% 75% 80% 83% By bicycle, using this same route Would not have taken trip 40% 60% 7% 10% 10% 6% By other mode 20% 0% 38% 34% 32% 29% Dearborn Rio Grande Multnomah L Street Barton Springs Source: Cyclist intercept surveys, Green Lane evaluation 6% 7% 10% 18% 11% 6% Oak Street Fell Street Milwaukee By bicycle, using another route 22
One likely reason: Improved perception of safety I feel the safety of bicycling on has.. Increased Somewhat Increased a Lot Austin Rio Grande SF Oak / Fell Portland Multnomah Chicago Milwuakie DC L Street Chicago Dearborn Austin Barton Springs 27% 18% 33% 31% 29% 18% 33% 66% 81% 59% 65% 66% 82% 56% Source: Cyclist intercept surveys, Green Lane evaluation 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 23
Resident Survey: Potential New Cyclists Share of Residents Strong and Fearless, 5% Enthused and Confident, 27% Interested but Concerned, 43% No Way No How, 25% I would be more likely to ride a bicycle if motor vehicles and bicycles were physically separated by a barrier. 62% 85% 43% 37% Strong and Fearless Enthused and Confident Interested but Concerned No Way No How 24
Because of the Street separated bikeway, how often I ride a bicycle overall has... 60% 50% Increased Somewhat Increased a lot 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Men Women Men Women Men Women Men Women Men Women Men Women San Francisco Washington DC Chicago Austin Portland Overall Source: Cyclist intercept surveys, Green Lane evaluation 25
Design: Intersections, Signals, Buffers 26
Intersections Design Elements Turning and mixing zones Fully signalized Buffers Type and widths 27
Turning Zone with Post Restricted Entry and Through Bike Lane (TBL) Merging Area Bicycle Motor vehicle 28
Turning Zone with Unrestricted Entry and TBL 29
Mixing Zone with Yield Entry Markings 30
Mixing Zone with Sharrow Marking 31
Mixing Zone with Green Skip Coloring 32
Intersection and Type of Design Direction of Turning Traffic Through Bikes Per Hour Turning Vehicles Per Hour Observed Correct Turning Motorist Observed Correct Through Bicycle % of Bicyclists Agreeing They Feel Safe Turning Zone with Post Restricted Entry and Through Bike Lane (TBL) L Street / 15th Turning Zone with Post Restricted Entry and TBL L Street / Connecticut Turning Zone with Unrestricted Entry and TBL Oak / Divisadero Mixing Zone with Yield Entry Markings NE Multnomah / 9th Left 110 173 86% 93% 64% Left 116 125 88% 89% 64% Right 201 126 66% 81% 74% Right 31 94 93% 63% 73% Mixing Zone with Sharrow Marking Oak / Broderick Right 188 24 48% 30% 79% Mixing Zone with Green Skip Coloring Fell / Baker Left 226 48 49% - 84%
DC Design on M Street (new) Photo from @JenniferDillPSU 34
Total Conflicts Observed Precautionary and Minor Conflicts 120 100 Oak Divisadero 80 60 Oak and Broderick L and Connecticut Fell and Baker 40 L and 15th St 20 Multnomah and 9th 0 0 200 400 600 800 1,000 Turning Vehicles When Bike Is Present * Bicycles Thousands 35
Left-turn signal for cars Bicycle signals Dearborn and Madison, Chicago, IL Photo: C. Monsere 36
People on Bicycles Waited for green/legal right-turn on red Proceeded illegally on red Dearborn/ Randolph 92% 8% Dearborn/ Madison 77% 23% Dearborn/ Congress 93% 7% People in Motor Vehicles 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Legal Turn on Green Illegal Turn on Red Arrow Jumped into crosswalk Dearborn/ Randolph 92% 6% 2% Dearborn/ Madison 90% 5% 6% Dearborn/ Congress 84% 10% 6% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 37
Perceived Safety at Intersections Percent Respondents Somewhat or Strongly Agreeing "Feel Safe" Chicago - Signalized Fell/Baker Oak/Broderick NE Multnomah/9th Oak/ Divisadero L Street/ Connecticut L Street/ 15th Street 0 20 40 60 80 100 Percent Feeling Safe 38
Percent Increase of Normalized Score (with a standard biccyle lane as base) Change in Stated Comfort (from a bike lane), by bicyclist type Strong and Fearless Enthused and Confident Interested But Concerned 70% 60% 60% 50% 50% 48% 40% 30% 24% 24% 31% 20% 10% 0% -10% 1% -1% -1% -1% A painted 2-3 foot buffer A solid painted buffer -5%-4% A painted buffer and parked cars -2% 1% A raised concrete curb 10% 7% 9% 6% A 2-3 foot buffer and plastic flexposts Planters separating the bikeway
Community Support: Motorists, Pedestrians, General 40
Support for Protected Lanes Facilities that encourage bicycling for transportation are a good way to improve public health. I would support building more protected bike lanes at other locations. All Residents Car/Truck Non-commuters Mix Transit 83% 75% 79% 69% 80% 75% 84% 76% 82% 78% Because of the protected bike lanes, the desirability of living in my neighborhood has increased Foot Bicycle 79% 88% 97% 95% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Source: Resident surveys, Green Lane evaluation 41
Support for Protected Lanes Facilities that encourage bicycling for transportation are a good way to improve public health. I would support building more protected bike lanes at other locations. All Residents Car/Truck Non-commuters Mix Transit 43% 39% 36% 47% 43% 83% 75% 79% 69% 80% 75% 84% 76% 82% 78% Because of the protected bike lanes, the desirability of living in my neighborhood has increased Foot Bicycle 45% 66% 79% 88% 97% 95% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Source: Resident surveys, Green Lane evaluation 42
Because of the protected bike lanes, the safety of on the street has.. Portland, Multnomah San Francisco, Oak 37% 45% 21% 38% Walking Driving Bicycling Austin, Bluebonnet 38% 52% Austin, Barton Springs 44% 43% Chicago, Milwaukee 19% 28% Chicago, Dearborn 15% 23% Washington DC - L St. 27% 30% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Percent of Residents Stating Safety Increased" 43 Source: Resident Surveys, Green Lane evaluation
Because of the protected bike lanes, the safety of on the street has.. Portland, Multnomah San Francisco, Oak 37% 45% 74% 21% 38% 80% Walking Driving Bicycling Austin, Bluebonnet 38% 52% 85% Austin, Barton Springs 44% 43% 82% Chicago, Milwaukee 19% 28% 74% Chicago, Dearborn 15% 23% 76% Washington DC - L St. 27% 30% 80% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Percent of Residents Stating Safety Increased" 44 Source: Resident Surveys, Green Lane evaluation
Conclusions Evidence of increased bicycle volumes Within one year, mostly due to shifting routes Strong improved perception of safety for people riding on the facilities May be improving experience for women more than men Surveys of residents indicate that separation may encourage more cycling 45
Conclusions Designs choices affect safety and comfort, some worked better than others Clear demarcation of the merge entry point for vehicles and the use of the through bicycle lane performed best Use of signals effective (highest perception of safety) Green markings good for communicating paths Designs with buffers with highest physical separation preferred, though flexpost scored high too 46
Conclusions Generally positive perceptions for other road users More negative perceptions are specific to certain streets Support for the protected lane concept Road users appear to recognize larger benefits 47
Questions? http://bit.ly/nitc_583 Thanks to support from: National Institute for Transportation and Communities (NITC), a U.S. Department of Transportation university transportation center, People for Bikes (formerly Bikes Belong) and the Summit Foundation. Thanks to City partners: Mike Amsden (CDOT), David Smith (CDOT), Jim Sebastian (DDOT), Mike Goodno (DDOT), Roger Geller (PBOT), Rob Burchfield (PBOT), Ross Swanson (PBOT), Wendy Cawley (PBOT), Lindsay Walker (Lloyd District TMA), Seleta Reynolds (SFMTA), Miriam Sorell (SFMTA), Annick Beaudet (Austin), Nathan Wilkes (Austin), Aleksiina Chapman (Austin). Christopher M. Monsere Portland State University monsere@pdx.edu 48
Reference List Monsere, C., J. Dill, N. McNeil, K. Clifton, N. Foster, T. Goddard, M. Berkow, J. Gilpin, K. Voros, D. van Hengel, J. Parks. Lessons From The Green Lanes: Evaluating Protected Bike Lanes In The U.S.. Final Report, National Institute for Transportation and Communities (NITC), NITC-RR-583, June 2014. Foster, N., Monsere, C., Dill, J., Clifton, K. A Level-of-Service Model for Protected Bike Lanes Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. X, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2015. In Press. McNeil, N.M., Monsere, C., Dill, J. The Influence of Bike Lane Buffer Types on Perceived Comfort and Safety of Bicyclists and Potential Bicyclists Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. X, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2015. In Press. Monsere, C., Foster, N., Dill, J., McNeil, N.M. User Behaviors and Perceptions at Intersections with Mixing and Turning Zones on Protected Bike Lanes Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. X, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2015. In Press. Dill, J., Goddard, T., Monsere, C., McNeil, N.M. Can Protected Bike Lanes Help Close the Gender Gap in Cycling? Lessons from Five Cities Paper 15-3481. Proceedings of the 94th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2015. Dill, J. Clifton, K., Monsere, C., McNeil, N. Measuring and Predicting Behavior Change In Response To New Cycle Tracks. Prepared for the 10th International Conference on Transport Survey Methods Leura, Australia, November 16-21, 2014 49
BONUS SLIDES 50
Resident Bicyclist Four year degree + Income >$100k Work From Home Work Outside Home Asian Hispanic or Latino/a Black White 55 + years 35 to 54 years <35 years of age Female Own working bicycle Own/Lease a car Car Share Membership Transit Pass Driver's License Children in HH 2+ Adults in HH Home Owners 6% 5% 5% 15% Four year degree 83% + 41% Income >$100k Work From Home Work Outside 66% Home Asian Hispanic or Latino/a Black 81% White 34% 55 + years 40% 35 to 54 years 26% <35 years of age 53% Female Own working 67% bicycle Own/Lease 81% a car 18% Car Share Membership 50% Transit Pass Driver's License 96% 15% Children in HH 2+ 64% Adults in HH 55% Home Owners 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Source: Resident and Bicyclist surveys, Green Lane evaluation 7% 7% 5% 1% 6% 28% 25% 37% 32% 48% 56% 73% 72% 78% 89% 93% 89% 97% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 51
Buffer type affects safety and comfort Types of buffers used include: Flexposts and painted buffer (Fell Street, San Francisco) Parked vehicles and flexposts (Milwaukee Avenue, Chicago) Semi-permanent planter with colored pavement (Multnomah St., Portland) 52
Bicyclists: Mean Stated Comfort with Hypothetical Buffers Austin Barton Springs Austin Rio Grande Chicago Dear. Chicago Milw. Portland Mult. SF Oak / Fell Streets D.C. L Street 6 5 4 3 2 1 Solid painted buffer (5) Painted 2-3 foot buffer (3) Painted buffer and parked cars (1) Raised concrete curb (6) 2-3 foot buffer and plastic flexposts (2) Planters separating the bikeway (4) 53
The buffer effectively separates bikes from cars "Strong and Fearless" "Enthused and Confident" "Interested But Concerned" "No Way No How" Disagree, 5% Disagree, 14% Disagree, 12% Strongly Agree, 49% Somewhat Agree, 38% Strongly Agree, 63% Somewhat Agree, 32% Strongly Agree, 47% Somewhat Agree, 41% Strongly Agree, 30% Disagree, 29% Somewhat Agree, 41% % Disagree 54
Perceptions of residents driving on street Percent responding increased L Street 27% Fell Oak Multnomah Milwaukee Dearborn Bluebonnet 20% 22% 15% 32% 54% 63% Since the protected bike lanes were built, the amount of time it takes me to drive on this street has... Since the protected bike lanes were built, how safe and predictable bicyclists are acting has... Barton Springs 18% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 55
Perceptions of residents driving on street Percent responding increased L Street Fell Oak Multnomah Milwaukee Dearborn Bluebonnet 27% 20% 22% 32% 15% 52% 54% 48% 63% 44% 54% 53% 59% Since the protected bike lanes were built, the amount of time it takes me to drive on this street has... Since the protected bike lanes were built, how safe and predictable bicyclists are acting has... Barton Springs 18% 58% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 56
Perceptions about Parking Oak/Fell (-50 spots) 55% Milwaukee (-some) 49% L Street (-150 spots) 46% Bluebonnet (-some) 44% Dearborn (-minimal) 41% Multnomah (+20 spots) 30% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% % indicating negative impact on... ability to find a parking spot on the street 57