Lessons from the Green Lanes: Evaluating Protected Bike Lanes
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Lessons from the Green Lanes: 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 road users – Attractiveness to more casual cyclists – Change in economic activity 3 Overview of Sites 4 Green Lane Cities Studied 5 Study Facilities: Austin Rio Grande Street Bluebonnet Lane Barton Springs Road 6 Study Facilities: Chicago Chicago: N/S Dearborn Street Chicago: N Milwaukee Avenue 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 streets 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=very comfortable) 1.0 path or trail separate from commercial street with two similar street, but with a similar street, but with a the street lanes of traffic 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 curb 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 Intersection 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