Traffic Impacts of Bicycle Facilities Greg Lindsey, Principal Investigator Humphrey School of Public Affairs University of Minnesota June 2017 Research Project Final Report 2017-23 • mndot.gov/research To request this document in an alternative format, such as braille or large print, call 651-366-4718 or 1- 800-657-3774 (Greater Minnesota) or email your request to [email protected]. Please request at least one week in advance. Technical Report Documentation Page 1. Report No. 2. 3. Recipients Accession No. MN/RC 2017-23 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date Traffic Impacts of Bicycle Facilities June 2017 6. 7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No. John Hourdos, Derek Lehrke, Melissa Duhn, Alireza Ermagun, Lila Singer-Berk, Greg Lindsey 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Project/Task/Work Unit No. University of Minnesota CTS# 2015017 Humphrey School of Public Affairs 11. Contract (C) or Grant (G) No. th 301 19 Ave. S. (c) 99008 (wo) 144 Minneapolis, MN 55455 12. Sponsoring Organization Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered Minnesota Local Road Research Board Final Report Minnesota Department of Transportation 14. Sponsoring Agency Code Research Services & Library 395 John Ireland Boulevard, MS 330 St. Paul, Minnesota 55155-1899 15. Supplementary Notes http:// mndot.gov/research/reports/2017/201723.pdf 16. Abstract (Limit: 250 words) Engineers need information about interactions between vehicles and bicyclists to design efficient, safe transportation systems. This study involved a review of design guidelines for bicycle facilities, observation of bicycle-vehicle interactions at nine roadways with different types of bicycle facilities, analysis of results, and description of design implications. Facilities observed included buffered and striped bicycle lanes, sharrows, signed shared lanes, and shoulders of various widths. Driver behaviors were categorized as no change in trajectory, deviation within lane, encroachment into adjacent lane, completion of a passing maneuver, and queuing behind cyclists. Drivers on roadways with bicycle lanes were less likely to encroach into adjacent lanes, pass, or queue when interacting with cyclists than drivers on roadways with sharrows, signs designating shared lanes, or no bicycle facilities. Queueing behind cyclists, the most significant impact on vehicular traffic flows, generally was highest on roads with no facilities or shared facilities without marked lanes. Statistical modeling confirmed the descriptive results. Given an objective of increasing predictability of driver behavior, buffered or striped bicycle lanes offer advantages over other facilities. Sharrows may alert drivers to the presence of cyclists, but traffic impacts on roadways with sharrows may not differ significantly from roadways with no facilities. Signs indicating bicyclists may occupy lanes also may alert drivers to the presence of cyclists, but this study provided no evidence that interactions on roadways marked only with signs differ from roadways with no facilities. From the perspective of reducing potential traffic impacts, bicycle lanes are to be preferred over sharrows or signage. 17. Document Analysis/Descriptors 18. Availability Statement Bicycling, Traffic, Bicycle Facilities, Design, Impact Studies, No restrictions. Document available from: Drivers, Bicycle Lanes National Technical Information Services, Alexandria, Virginia 22312 19. Security Class (this report) 20. Security Class (this page) 21. No. of Pages 22. Price Unclassified Unclassified 100 Traffic Impacts of Bicycle Facilities FINAL REPORT Prepared by: John Hourdos Derek Lehrke Melissa Duhn Minnesota Traffic Observatory Department of Civil, Environmental, and Geo- Engineering University of Minnesota Alireza Ermagun Lila Singer-Berk Greg Lindsey Humphrey School of Public Affairs University of Minnesota June 2017 Published by: Minnesota Department of Transportation Research Services & Library 395 John Ireland Boulevard, MS 330 St. Paul, Minnesota 55155-1899 This report represents the results of research conducted by the authors and does not necessarily represent the views or policies of the Minnesota Department of Transportation or the University of Minnesota. This report does not contain a standard or specified technique. The authors, the Minnesota Department of Transportation, and the University of Minnesota do not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers’ names appear herein solely because they are considered essential to this report because they are considered essential to this report. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The research team would like to acknowledge the Local Road Research Board, Mr. James Rosenow, Technical Liaison, Mr. Bruce Holdhusen, Project Coordinator, members of the Technical Advisory Panel (TAP), Ms. Elizabeth Andrews, Center for Transportation Studies, and Ms. Christine Anderson, Center for Transportation Studies, for their assistance with the design and conduct of this study. TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1: Introduction ....................................................................................................................1 CHAPTER 2: The Design and Evaluation of Bicycle Facilities: A Review of the Literature........................2 2.1 Approach and Methods ...................................................................................................................... 2 2.2 Analyses and Results........................................................................................................................... 4 2.2.1 Categorization of Bicycle Facility Design Guidelines ................................................................... 4 2.2.2 Evaluations of Bicycle Facility Design Guidelines ...................................................................... 12 2.2.3 Complete Street Policies and Programs .................................................................................... 20 2.3 The Need for Field Evaluations of Bicycle Facilities .......................................................................... 24 CHAPTER 3: Field Methods, Site Identification, and Monitoring Approach ......................................... 26 3.1 Pilot Study to Demonstrate Field Methods ...................................................................................... 26 3.1.1 Pilot Site Description ................................................................................................................. 26 3.1.2 Data Reduction .......................................................................................................................... 29 3.1.3 Data Reduction Methodology ................................................................................................... 29 3.1.4 Results of the Pilot Study .......................................................................................................... 30 3.2 Selection of Study Sites .................................................................................................................... 32 3.3 Data Collection, Reduction, and Analysis ......................................................................................... 32 3.3.1 Camera Deployment ................................................................................................................. 32 3.3.2 Review and Initial Video Reduction .......................................................................................... 38 3.3.3 Manual Observation and Bin Counts ........................................................................................ 38 3.3.4 Further Video Reduction ........................................................................................................... 38 3.3.5 Movement Log and Classification of Interactions ..................................................................... 39 3.3.6 Analysis of Interactions ............................................................................................................. 41 CHAPTER 4: Bicycle-Vehicle Interactions and Driver Behaviors on Roadways ..................................... 42 4.1 Veteran’s Memorial Bridge, Mankato .............................................................................................. 42 4.1.1 Effects of Reconstruction on Riding Location ........................................................................... 42 4.1.2 Effects of Reconstruction on Bicycle-vehicle Interactions. ....................................................... 42 4.2 Marshall Avenue, St. Paul ................................................................................................................. 49 4.2.1 Effects of the Striped Bike Lane and Signed Shared Lane ......................................................... 50 4.2.2 Driver Avoidance of Shared Lane .............................................................................................. 51 4.3 Como Avenue, Minneapolis .............................................................................................................. 51 4.3.1 Effects of the Striped Bike Lane and Sharrows ......................................................................... 52 4.4 15th Avenue SE, Minneapolis ............................................................................................................ 53 4.4.1 Effects of Striped Bicycle Lanes and Signed Shared Lanes ........................................................ 53 4.4.2 Effects of Buffered Bicycle Lanes and Signed Shared Lanes ....................................................