Lessons from the Green : Evaluating Protected Bike Lanes

http://bit.ly/nitc_583

Christopher M. Monsere @CMonsere Jennifer Dill @JenniferDillPSU Nathan McNeil @NWUrban Portland State University

Pro Walk Pro Bike Pro Place Pittsburgh, PA

September 9, 2014 1 Photo credit: Nathan McNeil, PSU Session Overview 1. Overview of Sites (Chris) 10 2. Methodology (Nathan) 5 3. Change in Ridership (Jennifer) 15 *Questions from audience* 4. Design (Chris) 25 *Questions from audience* 6. Barrier types (Nathan) 5 7. Community Support (Jennifer) 10 *Questions from audience*

2 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 users – Attractiveness to more casual cyclists – Change in economic activity

3 Overview of Sites

4 Green Cities Studied

5 Study Facilities: Austin Rio Grande

Bluebonnet Lane

Barton Springs Road

6 Study Facilities: Chicago

Chicago: N/S Dearborn Street

Chicago: N Milwaukee

7 Study Facilities: Portland

Portland: NE Multnomah Street

8 Study Facilities: San Francisco

SF: Fell Street

SF: Oak Street

9 Study Facilities: Washington DC

DC: L Street

10 Methodology

11 Video Data • Primarily intersections • 3 locations per facility, 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 Survey Details • Mailed to residents living near new protected BL Resident Survey • 8 - 12 pages (~40 questions) • ~2/3 of completions paper survey returned by mail • ~1/3 of completions opted for online survey Travel • Incentive of $100 Amazon gift card raffle (3 per city) Habits/ Opinions Driving

Biking Facility- Specific Walking

Business

Demographics Bicyclist Survey Details • Bicyclists intercepted on facility and Bicyclist Survey directed to online survey • Incentive of $100 Amazon gift card raffle (3 per city) Trip Details Experience with operations and safety

Bikeway Facility- encounters and Specific collisions

Unique facility treatments and intersections Demographics Survey Response Rates

Resident Survey Bicyclist Survey City Route Response Response Delivered Returned Rate Distributed Returned Rate

Washington, DC L Street 1,832 236 13% 763 300 39%

Bluebonnet Lane 1,590 439 28% - - -

Barton Springs Austin, TX 333 91 27% 73 18 25% Road* Rio Grande - - - 98 43 44% Street

San Francisco, CA Oak /Fell 1,935 517 27% 900 278 31%

N/S Dearborn 1,119 197 18% 600 124 21% Street Chicago, IL N Milwaukee 1,470 311 21% 775 236 30% Avenue NE Multnomah Portland, OR 1,467 492 34% 200 112 56% Street TOTAL 9,746 2,283 23% 3,409 1,111 33%

*Note Barton Springs Road is also surveyed in the Bluebonnet Lane resident survey Resident Bicyclist

Four year degree + Four year degree83% + 89% Income >$100k 41% Income >$100k 48% Work From Home 15% Work From Home 7% Work Outside Home Work Outside66% Home 93% Asian 6% Asian 7% Hispanic or Latino/a 5% Hispanic or Latino/a 5% Black 5% Black 1% White 81%White 89% 55 + years 34% 55 + years 6% 35 to 54 years 40% 35 to 54 years 37% <35 years of age 26% <35 years of age 56% Female 53% Female 32% Own working bicycle Own working67% bicycle Own/Lease a car Own/Lease81% a car 73% Car Share Membership 18% Car Share Membership 28% Transit Pass 50% Transit Pass 72% Driver's License Driver's License96% 97% Children in HH 15% Children in HH 25% 2+ Adults in HH 2+64% Adults in HH 78% Home Owners 55%Home Owners 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 16 Source: Resident and Bicyclist surveys, Green Lane evaluation Residents by Primary Commute Mode

Non-commuter 237

Mix 335

Transit 301

Bicycle 157

Foot 313

Car / Truck 920

0 200 400 600 800 1000

17 Source: Resident surveys, Green Lane evaluation Data Methods by Facility

Video Bicyclist Resident Count Data Survey Survey Data Barton Springs    Road Austin Bluebonnet Lane   Rio Grande   Street Dearborn Street     Chicago Milwaukee     Avenue NE Multnomah Portland     Street Fell Street     San Francisco Oak Street    Washington DC L Street    

18 Data Used in Analysis

Video Bicyclist Resident Count Research Element Data Survey Survey Data

Change in Ridership    

Design/Safety    Evaluation

Barrier Types &   Comfort

Community Support 

19 Change in Ridership: Safety perceptions and potential riders

20 Change in Observed Bicycle Volumes

180% 171%

160% Before: One-way travel After: Two-way travel

140% 126%

120%

100%

80% 68% 65%

Percent Increase Percent 58% 60% 46% 46%

40% 21% 20%

0% Rio Grande Multnomah Bluebonnet Fell Milwaukee Dearborn L Street Barton Springs Bike lanes prior No bike lanes prior

21 Source: City-provided before and after counts, PSU video counts, ACS Survey Before the new facility was built, how would you have made this trip?

100%

17% By bicycle,

80% using this same route 21% 55% 56% 56% 65% 75% Would not 60% 80% 83% have taken trip

7% By other 40% 10% 10% mode 6% 60%

20% 38% 6% 34% By bicycle, 32% 29% 7% 10% using another 18% route 11% 6% 0% Dearborn Rio Grande Multnomah L Street Barton Oak Street Fell Street Milwaukee Springs 22 Source: Cyclist intercept surveys, Green Lane evaluation One likely reason: Improved perception of safety

I feel the safety of bicycling on ______has . . Increased Somewhat Increased a Lot

Austin Rio Grande 27% 66%

SF Oak / Fell 18% 81%

Portland Multnomah 33% 59%

Chicago Milwuakie 31% 65%

DC L Street 29% 66%

Chicago Dearborn 18% 82%

Austin Barton Springs 33% 56%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 23 Source: Cyclist intercept surveys, Green Lane evaluation What about attracting new cyclists or increasing cycling?

24 Because of the ____ Street separated bikeway, how often I ride a bicycle overall has . . .

60%

Increased Somewhat 50% 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

25 Source: Cyclist intercept surveys, Green Lane evaluation Potential New Cyclists by the “Four Types”

Share of Residents

Strong and Enthused and Interested but No Way No How, Fearless, Confident, 27% Concerned, 43% 25% 5%

I would be more likely to ride a bicycle if motor vehicles and bicycles were physically separated by a barrier. 85%

62%

43% 37%

Strong and Fearless Enthused and Confident Interested but Concerned No Way No How

26 Because of the protected bike lanes, the safety of bicycling on the street has increased

No Way No How 59%

Interested But 88% Concerned

Enthused and 87% Confident

Strong and Fearless 76%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Percent of Residents Stating "safety increased"

27 Source: Resident Surveys, Green Lane evaluation Because of the [facility], the likelihood that I will choose to bicycle on this street as opposed to other has . . . 100% 78% 78% Potential 80% 60% 43% 40% 23% New Cycling 20% 0% Strong and Enthused and Interested but No Way No How Fearless Confident Concerned

Decreased Increased Among residents who have ridden a bicycle on the new facility: Because of the [facility], how often I ride a bicycle overall has . . . 100% 80% 60% 45% 43% 40% 20% 20% 7% 0% Strong and Enthused and Interested but No Way No How Fearless Confident Concerned

Decreased Increased

28 Women Residents Who Want to Bike More

6.0 5.8 5.9 Non-utilitarian bicyclist 5.3 (n=181) 5.0 Utilitarian bicyclist 4.6 (n=337) 4.1 4.0

3.2

3.0 Stated Comfort LevelComfort Stated 1.9 2.0 1.6

(mean.1=very uncomfortable, 6=verycomfortable) 1.0 path or separate from commercial street with two similar street, but with a similar street, but with a the street lanes of in each striped bikeway added physically separated direction,traffic speeds of bikeway 35 mph, on-street car parking, and no bikeway

Levels of comfort in different bicycling environments: Women residents who are interested in bicycling more, by current bicycling behavior 29 Questions?

30 Design: Intersections, Signals, Loading Zone, Green pavement

31 Design Elements • Intersections – Turning and mixing zones – Fully signalized • Providing access – Hotel loading zone • Other design elements – Green pavement marking – Minor driveways – “Look Bikes”

32 Turning Zone with Post Restricted Entry and Through Bike Lane (TBL)

33 Turning Zone with Unrestricted Entry and TBL

34 Mixing Zone with Yield Entry Markings

35 Mixing Zone with Sharrow Marking

36 Mixing Zone with Green Skip Coloring

37 % of Direction Through Turning Observed Observed Correct Correct Bicyclists and Type of Design of Turning Bikes Per Vehicles Agreeing Turning Through They Traffic Hour Per Hour Motorist Bicycle Feel Safe

Turning Zone with Post Restricted Entry and Through Bike Lane (TBL) Left 110 173 86% 93% 64% L Street / 15th

Turning Zone with Post Restricted Entry and TBL Left 116 125 88% 89% 64% L Street / Connecticut

Turning Zone with Unrestricted Entry and TBL Right 201 126 66% 81% 74% Oak / Divisadero

Mixing Zone with Yield Entry Markings Right 31 94 93% 63% 73% NE Multnomah / 9th

Mixing Zone with Sharrow Marking Right 188 24 48% 30% 79% Oak / Broderick

Mixing Zone with Green Skip Coloring Left 226 48 49% - 84% Fell / Baker DC Design on M Street

Photo from @JenniferDillPSU 39 Dearborn and Madison, Chicago, IL Photo: C. Monsere 40 Bicycle Signals on Dearborn • Using the small bicycle in the bicycle signal lens is a good way to communicate the signal is only for bicycles – 87% agree • I like that bicyclists and turning cars each have their own signal – 74% agree • At these intersections, it is always clear to me which signal I should use as a motorist – 66% agree

41 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%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% People in Motor Vehicles 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%

42 Hotel Loading Zone

Bicycle Use Used TBL Did not use TBL Forced out

Cars Present, n=128 48% 12% 40%

No Cars Present, n=615 37% 63%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Motor Vehicle Use In TBL Keeps TBL Clear In Merge Zone

Cars Present, n=44 30% 61% 7%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 43 Meaning of Green Marking

10% I don't know 15% 19% Portland, Multnomah 3% Other 1% Chicago, Milw 3% Chicago, Dearborn 15% Marks space for bicyclists to stop 1% 3% Marked space alerts motorists and/or bicycles 42% of conflict area (includes bicyclists have ROW, 52% use caution, shared area , merge area) 62% Marked space is for bicycles only (a protected 30% lane, a bicycle lane, a place that bikes should 31% be) 14%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

n= 44 Minor Intersections

Somewhat Agree Strongly Agree

The “Yield to Bikes” signs have made me pay closer attention to cyclists when 39% 24% turning off Milwaukee Ave.

When I want to turn right, I am able to adequately see if there are any 32% 11% approaching cyclists in the bike lane.

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% n=276 45 Look Bikes

1=Not effective at all 6= Very Effective

How effective do you think these markings will be at warning 14% 14% 22% 25% 16% 9% pedestrians about bicycle traffic?

n=191 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

46 Questions?

47 Barriers: Buffer types and perceived comfort

48 Buffer type affects safety and comfort Types of buffers used include:

Flexposts and painted buffer Parked vehicles and flexposts Semi-permanent planter with (Fell Street, San Francisco) (Milwaukee Avenue, colored pavement Chicago) (Multnomah St., Portland) 49 Comfort on Hypothetical Facilities with Varying Buffers Residents + Bicyclists Bicyclists Only How comfortable would you feel bicycling on a commercial street with two lanes of traffic in each direction, with traffic speeds of 35 miles per hour (Situation D above), but with the following types of separation from traffic:

With a solid painted buffer

With a painted 2-3 foot buffer

With a painted buffer and parked cars

With a raised curb

With a 2-3 foot buffer and plastic flexposts

With planters separating the bikeway 50

1 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 Painted buffer and Raised concrete curb 2-3 foot buffer and Planters separating the (3) parked cars (1) (6) plastic flexposts (2) bikeway (4)

51 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% 31% 30% 24% 24% 20% 10% 9% 10% 7% 6% 1% 1% 0% -1% -1%-1% -2% -4%

(with a standard biccyle lane as base) base) as lane biccyle a standard (with -5% Percent Increase of Normalized Score Normalized of Increase Percent -10% A painted 2-3 A solid painted A painted A raised A 2-3 foot Planters foot buffer buffer buffer and concrete curb buffer and separating the parked cars plastic bikeway flexposts

52 Bicyclists: Comparing Stated Comfort on Hypothetical Facilities to Stated Comfort on Actual Facilities

Milwaukee (Striped painted buffer)

Barton Springs (Flexposts)

L Street (Flexposts)

Fell Street (Flexposts) Hypothetical Dearborn SB contraflow (two-way) Comfort

Oak Street (Flexposts)

Multnomah (Planters, Flexposts, Parking) Stated Milwaukee (Flexposts) Comfort

Dearborn NB with traffic (two-way)

Milwaukee (Parked Cars)

Rio Grande NB with traffic (two-way)

Rio Grande SB contraflow (two-way)

1 2 3 4 5 6

53 Source: Cyclist intercept surveys, Green Lane evaluation Bicyclists: Buffer width and Sense of Safety …buffer makes me feel safe 3.80 (shared-use path) 3.70 3.60 3.50

Score 3.40

3.30 Mean 3.20 3.10 3.00 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 Total Width (ft) Far Edge of Bicycle Facility to Near Edge of Motor Vehicle Lane

54 Community Support: Motorists, Pedestrians, General

55 83% Support for All Residents 75% Protected 43% 79% Car/Truck 69% Lanes 39% 80% Non-commuters 75% Facilities that encourage 36% bicycling for transportation are a good way to improve 84% public health. Mix 76% 47% I would support building more protected bike lanes at other 82% locations. Transit 78% 43%

Because of the protected bike 88% lanes, the desirability of living Foot 79% in my neighborhood has 45% increased 97% Bicycle 95% 66%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

56 Source: Resident surveys, Green Lane evaluation Because of the protected bike lanes, the safety of _____ on the street has . .

37% Walking Portland, Multnomah 45% 74% Driving 21% San Francisco, Oak 38% 80% Bicycling

52% Austin, Bluebonnet 38% 85%

44% Austin, Barton Springs 43% 82%

19% Chicago, Milwaukee 28% 74%

15% Chicago, Dearborn 23% 76%

27% Washington DC - L St. 30% 80%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Percent of Residents Stating “Safety Increased" 57 Source: Resident Surveys, Green Lane evaluation Because of the protected bike lanes,

...my satisfaction with the walking ...my sense of safety when crossing environment on this street this street has

Increased No Change Increased No Change

L Street 36% 53% L Street 27% 53%

Oak/Fell 33% 49% Oak/Fell 24% 55%

Multnomah 37% 56% Multnomah 35% 57%

Milwaukee 19% 56% Milwaukee 17% 46%

Dearborn 17% 54% Dearborn 18% 38%

Bluebonnet 49% 41% Bluebonnet 34% 57%

Barton Springs 58% 37% Barton Springs 43% 51%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

58 Source: Resident Surveys, 78% of respondents have walked on street, Green Lane evaluation Perceptions of residents driving on street

Percent responding increased 27% L Street 52% Since the protected Fell 20% bike lanes were built, Oak 22% the amount of time it 54% takes me to drive on 32% this street has . . . Multnomah 48% Since the protected 63% Milwaukee 44% bike lanes were built, how safe and 54% Dearborn 53% predictable bicyclists are acting has . . . 15% Bluebonnet 59% 18% Barton Springs 58%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 59 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% 70% % indicating negative impact on...

ability to find a parking spot on the street how stressful it is to park on the street

60 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 Jennifer Dill Nathan McNeil Portland State University Portland State University Portland State University [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] 61 BONUS / REFERENCE SLIDES

62 Study Routes: Pre-Conversion

Austin Chicago Portland San Francisco DC

N NE Barton Springs Bluebonnet Rio Grande N/S Milwaukee Multnomah Fell St Oak St L Street NW Road Lane St Dearborn St Ave St

Length (miles) 0.5 0.7 0.4 1.2 0.8 0.8 0.3 0.3 1.12

# Signalized 4 0 2 13 7 10 4 4 15 Intersections

# Unsignalized 2 15 5 0 5 3 0 0 0 Intersections

ADT 23-28k 3.5k 5k 8-16k 12k 10k 28k 30k 12-14k

Transit stops on     route

Speed Limit 35 30 30 30 30 25 30 30 25

85% Speed 34-36 30-32 21 n/a 36 28 n/a 30.5 n/a (MPH) 63 Study Routes: Conversion

Austin Chicago Portland San Francisco DC

Barton Bluebonnet Rio Grande N/S N Milwaukee NE Multnomah Springs Fell St Oak St L Street NW Lane St Dearborn St Ave St Road

Nov./ Dec. Spring Spring Construction Spring April/May Fall 2012/ Aug-12 Apr-12 2012 and /summer /summer Oct-12 Timeframe 2013 2013 Winter 2013 May 2013 2013 2013 BL Placement (in Right Right Left Left Right Right Left Right Left relation to traffic)

Bike Lane Width 5'-7' 5' + 5' 6.5' + 5.5' 5' + 4' 7' 4'-7' 7'3" 7'3" 8' (representative)

3'; 8' Typical Buffer 2-4'; 9' 1.5' 2' 4' parking 2'-8' 5' 5' 3' Width parking strip strip

# Bicycle Signals 1 0 1 12 to 13 1 0 0 0 0

Turn or bus One lane in Loss of MV Travel No No In places One lane lane, in each No No In places Lane places direction

Net Loss of Parking No ~150 No 21 69 +27 gained 28 27 64151