Safety in the US: A Legacy of “Fake Truth” and the Challenge Ahead

Peter G Furth Professor of Civil & Environmental Engineering Northeastern University “We’d like to give you a separated , but we know it’s more dangerous.” Engineer at a public meeting in the US, 2007

From Metroplan Orlando, 2010

What about the massive European “experiment” with cycle tracks? “The Dutch produced a very dangerous bikeway system, compared to cycling on the road, but they have overcompensated for those dangers by installing protective measures that make it extremely inconvenient, again compared to cycling on the road.” “Fake Truth” has a motivation … the Vehicular Cycling doctrine

“Bicyclists fare best when they behave as, and are treated as, operators of vehicles.” John Forester

Segregated bike paths are seen as an attempt to deprive cyclists of their rights to ride in the road. Need to respond to public’s query, “But isn’t it safer to be separated from ?” Forester’s experiment concluded: Separated paths are 1000 times more dangerous than riding in the road. Vehicular Cycling Took Over Advocacy Organizations

running parallel to Melnea Cass Blvd in Boston Vehicular Cycling Took Over the Engineering Profession AASHTO* Guide for the Development of Bike Facilities: • A bike lane must never be placed behind parked cars • Nine cautions against segregated paths prior to 2012 • Current (2012) edition has 14 cautions! • “[On two-way paths,] signs won’t face the right direction” • “Cyclists who prefer to ride in the road might be harassed”

* American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Engineering Guidelines Have Consequences

Bike lanes on Camino del Norte in San Diego, speed limit 55 mph Three 1990’s Studies Used to Argue that Segregated Paths are Unsafe Moritz (1996): “Sidewalk riding is 16 times as dangerous as cycling in the street” • Where do you ride? How many collisions with motor vehicles? • No mention of sidewalks; just “other” • No consistency check • Only 9 sidewalk accidents in whole study • “Other”  sidewalk  Moritz, 1997, focused on commuting to work: “5.32 times as dangerous” • Same study method, same flaws • Only 12 sidewalk accidents in whole study Wachtel & Lewiston (1994): “Sidewalk bikeways carry 1.76 times the risk of bicycling in the street” • Considered only risk at intersections • When risk on segments is added, relative risk falls to 1.07 • When wrong-way cycling is excluded, relative risk falls to 0.53 9 • And this is without any deliberate safety mitigation for the bikeways! How to Break the Chicken & Egg Stranglehold: Go to Canada! • Montreal (Lusk, Furth, et. al., 2011): Cycle tracks were less safe in 0 out of 6 comparisons • Overall, cycle tracks had relative risk of 0.72 compared to alternative in- street routes • Still stronger findings from Vancouver, Toronto (Teschke et. al., 2013) • Cycle tracks had 20% the risk of riding in the street between intersections, equal risk at intersections

• New York City installs highly visible cycle tracks (2007-2008), and by 2012, the floodgates open. Some Axioms regarding Bike Safety

1. Subjective safety and objective safety are pretty consistent. • People aren’t so stupid, after all. • So much for the “special knowledge” of the experts

2. Road unsafety is not only revealed in injury statistics; it is also revealed – maybe even more than in crash data – in non- participation. Our Legacy of Bicycling Facilities

• Stand-alone bike paths 

• A growing number of cycle tracks 

A low-stress bike lane • Bike lanes – some low traffic stress, some high traffic stress

• Signed bike routes – some low traffic stress, some high traffic stress

A high-stress bike lane Levels of Traffic Stress

LTS 1: Very low traffic stress – suitable for children LTS 2: Low traffic stress – mainstream adult population – follows Dutch bikeway criteria LTS 3: Medium high stress – acceptable to “Enthused & Confident” LTS 4: Very high stress – tolerable only to the “Strong & Fearless” San Jose Street Network 2012, All Levels of Stress

14 Stress Level 3 or Less

15 Stress Level 2 or Less

16 Stress Level 1

17 Boston’s Greenway “Network” Today

90 miles Charles River Paths

Only 2% of home-work pairs connected The “Emerald Network” We Can Create 210 miles

A revolution in • Transportation 47% of • Sustainability home-work • Public health pairs • Quality of life connected Barriers within Boston’s Low-Stress Network

C A

B A B

C Creating a Low-Stress Bike Network Requires Commitment and Investment

Boston’s failed experiment in incrementalism, spending $1.50 per person per year

Year Comment Low stress accessibility to job locations 2007 Mayor becomes “bike-friendly” 0.7%

2014 After 7 years of “low-hanging fruit” 1.2% Who knows After building “Bikeways for 82.0% when? Everybody” network