Chapter 6 – Case Studies Bicycle Safety Guide and Countermeasure Selection System | Case Studies 141 The 50 engineering, education, enforcement and pro- motional countermeasures are described in Chapter 5. Included in this chapter are case studies that illustrate these treatments or programs as implemented in a state or municipality. Examples are included from many States. Provided on the following pages is a list of the 59 case studies by countermeasure group. A more detailed matrix showing the case studies by specific countermeasure is included in Appendix B. Each case study includes a description of the problem that was addressed, relevant background information, a description of the implemented solution, and any quantitative results from evaluation studies or qualita- tive assessments. Many communities find it difficult to conduct formal evaluations of projects due to staff and budget limitations, but assessing whether a treatment has helped toward the intended objectives and not caused unexpected adverse impacts is critical to long-term improvement. We tend to think that some evaluation is better than none but oc- casionally may be misled by short-term or single-event types of assessments. In these cases, the judgment of ex- perienced practitioners may help to fill in the gaps in knowledge or interpret results that seem “too good to be true.” By far, longer-term evaluations (bicyclist/traffic counts, speed studies, etc.) are preferable to short-term project assessments. Multiple short-term studies of the same types of facilities do, however, build on each other and help to provide a more complete picture of the ef- fectiveness of bicycling countermeasures. These cautions should be borne in mind when reviewing the case studies that follow. Included for each study is a point of contact in the event that further information is desired. Please note that in some cases the specific individual listed may have left the position or agency. There should still be someone at the municipal or state agency who is familiar with the project and can provide any supplemental information. Not all traffic control devices (TCDs) in the case studies comply with the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control De- vices (MUTCD). The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) does not endorse the use of non-compliant TCDs except under experimentation, which must be approved by the FHWA Office of Transportation Op- erations. 142 Case Studies | Bicycle Countermeasure Selection System Page Number Case Study Title Shared Roadway On-Road Bike Facilities Intersections Treatments Maintenance Calming Traffic Paths Trails/Shared-Use Markings, Signs, Signals Education and Enforcement Support Facilities and Programs 145 #1 – Roadway Surface Hazards for Bikes X X 148 #2 – A Tale of Portland Bridges X X X X X 155 #3 – Lighting in the Knapps Hill Tunnel X 157 #4 – Back-in Diagonal Parking with Bike Lanes X X 164 #5 – Valencia Street Road Diet — Creating Space for Cyclists X X X 168 #6 – Shoreline Park Expansion Project — Provision of Bicycle and Pedes- X X X X trian Enhancements 171 #7 – Bicycle Treatments on a Former Pedestrian Mall X X X X 176 #8 – Bike Lane Safety Evaluation X X 181 #9 – Establishing Bike Lanes — Chicago’s Streets for Cycling Plan X X X X 185 #10 – How Hampshire Street Pavement Markings Influence Bicycle and X Motor Vehicle Positioning 190 #11 – Raised Bicycle Lanes and Other Traffic Calming Treatments on X X X X Ayres Road 196 #12 – Floating Bike Lanes in Conjunction with Part-time Parking X X X 199 #13 – Incorporating a Bicycle Lane through a Streetcar Platform X 201 #14 – Red Shoulders as a Bicycle Facility X X 204 #15 – Conversion of 14-foot-wide Outside Lanes to 11-foot Travel Lanes X X X with a 3-foot Undesignated Lane 207 #16 – Preferential Transit-Bicycle Lanes on Broadway Boulevard X X 209 #17 – Taming the Urban Arterial X X X 212 #18 – Contraflow Bicycle Lanes on Urban Streets X X 216 #19 – Left Side Bike Lanes on One-Way Streets X X 221 #20 – Curb Radii/Curb Revisions X 223 #21 – Combined Bicycle Lane/Right-Turn Lane X X X 226 #22 – Blue Bike Lanes at Intersection Weaving Areas X X 230 #23 – Crossing an Arterial on an Offset Intersection: Bicycle-Only Center- X X Turn Lane 232 #24 – Improving Sight Distance between Cyclists and Motorists X X X X 235 #25 – Grandview Drive Roundabout and Corridor Improvements X X X X 238 #26 – Innovative Application of the Bike Box X X 242 #27 – Comprehensive Maintenance Planning for Bicycle Facilities X X X 246 #28 – Road Hazard Identification Project X 249 #29 – Bikeway Speed Humps X 252 #30 – Speed Cushions for the Evergreen Corridor Bike Lane Project X 258 #31 – Neighborhood Mini Traffic Circles X Bicycle Countermeasure Selection System | Case Studies 143 Page Number Case Study Title Shared Roadway On-Road Bike Facilities Intersections Treatments Maintenance Calming Traffic Paths Trails/Shared-Use Markings, Signs, Signals Education and Enforcement Support Facilities and Programs 260 #32 – Bicycle Boulevards — Bryant Street Example X X X 265 #33 – Planning, Designing and Implementing a Shared-Use Path X 268 #34 – Path and Roadway Intersections X X X 273 #35 – Grade Separated Crossing Treatments X X 278 #36 – Share the Trail: Minimizing User Conflicts on Non-motorized Facili- X X ties 283 #37 – Shared Lane Markings X X 286 #38 – Bicycle Detection Program X X 289 #39 – Bicycle Signal Heads X 292 #40 – Pedestrian/Bicycle Crosswalk Signals (Half-Signals) X 294 #41 – Share the Road Sign Initiative X 296 #42 – Placement of 20-mph School Zone Signs X X 302 #43 – Shared-Use Arrow 305 #44 – Enforcement for Bicycle Safety X 308 #45 – Bicycling Ambassadors and Bike Lane Education X X 310 #46 – Comprehensive Child Bicycle Safety Program X 316 #47 – Share the Road: Motorist/Bicyclist Traffic Education and Enforce- X ment Programs 320 #48 – Hitching Posts for Bicycle Parking X 323 #49 – Bicycle Access on Caltrain X 327 #50 – Bike and Bus Program X 333 #51 – Mapping for Bicyclists X 336 #52 – Commuter Coach: Commuter Bicyclist Recruiting X X 339 #53 – Bike to Work Promotion X X X 344 #54 – Free Cycles Program 347 #55 – Bicycle Destination Signing System X X 349 #56 – Urban Forestry X 351 #57 – Raising Funds for Bicycle Safety Programs through Specialty Li- X cense Plates 355 #58 – A Transit Oriented Development Financial Incentive Program — A X Tool to Encourage More Bicycling and Walking 144 Case Studies | Bicycle Countermeasure Selection System SEATTLE, WASHINGTON #1 Minimizing Roadway Surface Hazards for Bikes BACKGROUND The goals of the city of Seattle’s Bicycle Program are to get more people bicycling more often and to reduce the number of crashes involving bicyclists. To accomplish this, the city of Seattle has adopted two main objectives: 1) to complete a comprehensive urban trails system (rail- trails and other trail facilities); and 2) to make all streets and bridges bicycle-friendly. The second objective was developed with the knowledge that up to 80 percent of all bicycle trips within the city will always be on streets shared with motor vehicles, regardless of how many trails are completed. There is simply no way to build a trail to every residence and every place of business. Even bicycle trips that involve the use of a trail typically involve on- street elements getting to and from the trail. Bicyclists riding on city streets often encounter road hazards that can cause them to suddenly weave, possibly Surface irregularities become hazards for bikers long before causing a conflict with motor vehicles, or even fall. In they become so for automobile drivers. other cases, it discourages people from even attempting to ride. Typical road hazards include drainage grates that INSTITUTIONALIZE GOOD INITIAL DESIGN can catch bicycle tires, drainage grates that are either The intent of the program, to institutionalize good design above or below the road surface, gaps between pavement practices into standard plans and specifications, is to make seams, gutter pans that are too wide, poorly placed or sure that as streets are re-built and maintained, the right de- slippery utility covers, railroad tracks that cross streets signs happen automatically (typically referred to as “routine at obtuse angles, textured crosswalks that are slippery or accommodation”). The following are examples of how the excessively bumpy, pot holes, bad pavement around util- city has incorporated and adopted standard practices that ity patches, and broken pavement caused by tree roots. benefit bicyclists by removing road hazards: • drain grates — standard, required specification grate is COUNTERMEASURES baffled in a way that prevents bike tires from getting caught in the gaps; drain grates are required to be flush Seattle’s solution has been to “institutionalize” good de- with the street; sign practices into standard plans and specifications and to • seamless curbs — new, concrete streets have seamless curbs establish a “Bike Spot Safety Program.” that are integrated into the curb lane (no gutter pan); • utility covers — where possible, utility covers are located outside the travel area for bicyclists (1.2 m (4 ft) from Peter Lagerwey, Pedestrian & Bicycle Program curb or, if there is parking, to the left of the parked cars); Coordinator, City of Seattle utility covers must be flat, have texture and be void of unnecessary protrusions that could divert a bicycle tire; Bicycle Countermeasure Selection System | Case Studies 145 • utility cuts — utility cuts must be repaired twice, once with a temporary patch to allow for settling, and later, BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA with a permanent patch. The importance of institutionalizing good design practices is brought home by the experiences of a The effort to do an even better job of “routine accommo- few localities in Florida and probably other states. dation” continues.