DC cycletrack study
16 views
Skip to first unread message
Tricia Kovacs
Mar 15, 2013, 9:33:44 AM3/15/13
to bicycle...@googlegroups.com
I'm not sure if this email was delivered to BicycleDriving, so I'm
sending it again. If you receive it twice, I'm sorry for the
duplication.
Tricia Kovacs
-------- Original Message --------
Dear BicycleDrivers and Chainguardians,
I did read the report from DC on the cycletracks and other bicycle infrastructure. Besides the crash data which I already mentioned in my previous email, here are some other interesting tidbits.
Bike boxes, bicycle signals and sharrows were installed at the 6 leg intersection of New Hampshire Ave/16th St/U St NW.
The bicycle signals cause delays for everyone during the a.m. peak, and >75% of cyclists do not use them because "it was not worth the time to wait" for them. Most cyclists (>50%) are using the crosswalks rather than the combination of bicycle facilities available. Only 18% of cyclists stop in the bike box, the other 82% stop in the crosswalk; but the study says the bike boxes are successful because only 15% of the 18% who use the bike box found motor vehicles encroaching. Despite all this non-use of the bicycle infrastructure, the preliminary recommendations do NOT include removing any of the infrastructure. Hmm, I wonder if the consultants from Kittelson, Portland State Univ and Toole Design Group have ever read the Emporer's New Clothes?
Perception: "perceptions of the facility are generally positive from both cyclists and motorists"
Reality: crashes increased from 4 in 4 years (before) to 5 crashes in 13 months (after)
One of the recommendations made me laugh out loud. They recommend that the dashed bike lanes crossing 16th St should be moved as close as possible to the crosswalk to increase visibility of cyclists to turning motorists (there is a lot of right turn on red conflict). Hmm, most cyclists are using the crosswalk, let's move the bike lane closer to the crosswalk. (Just to be clear, this is not recommending that cyclists swerve right while traveling through the intersection, you need to look at the pictures on pages 5 & 8 to see how they have the bike lanes crossing the 6 legs).
Pennsylvania center cycletrack
The motorized traffic decreased on Pennsylvania by 20% and 15% (different sections) after installation of the cycletrack, and the reason was "not entirely clear". I wonder if they measured the traffic volume on parallel streets? As I observed when I rode the cycletrack, 44% of motorists indicate that signals, signs and street markings do not make it clear who has the right-of-way at intersections. This study was written before bike signals were installed, when cyclists were instructed to use the traffic signals, yet cyclists still encountered large delays due to changes in the signal timing to separate left turn from straight through phases.
Perception: "Cyclists overwhelmingly indicate that they felt riding a bicycle on Pennsylvania Ave with the center bike lanes is safer and easier"
Reality: 9 crashes in 4 years (before), 16 crashes in 14 months (after)
The study admits this is a problem as bicycle volume tripled, yet crashes increased about 7 times.
I'd be interested to see a follow-up study since bicycle signals were installed. I really hate that turning cyclists are now instructed to use the crosswalk for left and right turns.
15th St NW left side cycletrack
When this report was written, there were no bicycle signals, so cyclists were instructed (with signage) to use the pedestrian WALK signal. This was necessary to prevent left turning motorists from hitting straight through cyclists. Cyclists traveling between I St and U St generally experience significant delay. Many cyclists (20-30%) use the vehicular signals, and 40% ran red lights. (Note: I used the vehicular signals when I rode this cycletrack because I didn't see the signs requiring me to use the pedestrian signals.) Signal timing is optimized for northbound traffic, since 15th is one way northbound north of Massachusetts Ave; therefore southbound cyclists must stop frequently.
There are lots of pedestrian conflicts and vehicular conflicts when cross traffic blocks intersections. Pedestrians feel cyclists are not yielding to them at intersections. Just under half of motorists find waiting for a green arrow to turn left to be a major inconvenience, and 2/3 find turning into alleys to be difficult.
Perception: "Cyclists overwhelmingly feel that riding on 15th St with the cycletrack is much safer and easier now... and that they would go out of their way to ride on the cycletrack as opposed to other streets."
Reality: 20 crashes in 4 years (before), 13 crashes in 14 months (after)
But, "cyclist volumes approximately doubled over this same time period, this represents no significant change in crashes per cyclist". I sure wish cities tracked bike/ped crashes.
In the general recommendations for future bicycle facilities, the study did point out the difficulties with bike signals. I agreed with this statement: "The operational benefit associated with bicycle signals may not be large enough to justify the capital and maintenance costs of the bike signals. Intersections with protected bicycle movements also require more complicated signal timing. To help bicyclists understand the traffic control that applies to them, the application of bike signals should be consistent along a particular facility." I would go much further in that last sentence. The infrastructure in DC was different at each cycletrack (and within the 15th St cycletrack when I rode it last March). The MUTCD is supposed to be guiding cities to have consistent infrastructure, and this innovative experimentation is irresponsible IMHO.
The study also discussed mixing zones and whether they are more appropriate to prevent intersection conflicts. But the study stated that "cyclists strongly prefer separation from vehicles, mixing zones are likely to decrease cyclist comfort when used at intersections with high turning volumes." I say let's increase the reality rather than the perception of safety!
Tricia Kovacs
P.S. Will anyone on these two email lists be attending the "safety summits" that we read about on the LAB Bike Summit blog? We need vehicular cyclists/bicycle drivers involved in those conversations!
On 3/11/2013 1:41 PM, Patricia Kovacs wrote:
Tricia Kovacs
-------- Original Message --------
| Subject: | Re: [CG] Re: [BicycleDriving] sign on Atlanta bus |
|---|---|
| Date: | Thu, 14 Mar 2013 15:35:41 -0400 |
| From: | Tricia Kovacs <pko...@att.net> |
| To: | bicycle...@googlegroups.com, chain...@yahoogroups.com |
Dear BicycleDrivers and Chainguardians,
I did read the report from DC on the cycletracks and other bicycle infrastructure. Besides the crash data which I already mentioned in my previous email, here are some other interesting tidbits.
Bike boxes, bicycle signals and sharrows were installed at the 6 leg intersection of New Hampshire Ave/16th St/U St NW.
The bicycle signals cause delays for everyone during the a.m. peak, and >75% of cyclists do not use them because "it was not worth the time to wait" for them. Most cyclists (>50%) are using the crosswalks rather than the combination of bicycle facilities available. Only 18% of cyclists stop in the bike box, the other 82% stop in the crosswalk; but the study says the bike boxes are successful because only 15% of the 18% who use the bike box found motor vehicles encroaching. Despite all this non-use of the bicycle infrastructure, the preliminary recommendations do NOT include removing any of the infrastructure. Hmm, I wonder if the consultants from Kittelson, Portland State Univ and Toole Design Group have ever read the Emporer's New Clothes?
Perception: "perceptions of the facility are generally positive from both cyclists and motorists"
Reality: crashes increased from 4 in 4 years (before) to 5 crashes in 13 months (after)
One of the recommendations made me laugh out loud. They recommend that the dashed bike lanes crossing 16th St should be moved as close as possible to the crosswalk to increase visibility of cyclists to turning motorists (there is a lot of right turn on red conflict). Hmm, most cyclists are using the crosswalk, let's move the bike lane closer to the crosswalk. (Just to be clear, this is not recommending that cyclists swerve right while traveling through the intersection, you need to look at the pictures on pages 5 & 8 to see how they have the bike lanes crossing the 6 legs).
Pennsylvania center cycletrack
The motorized traffic decreased on Pennsylvania by 20% and 15% (different sections) after installation of the cycletrack, and the reason was "not entirely clear". I wonder if they measured the traffic volume on parallel streets? As I observed when I rode the cycletrack, 44% of motorists indicate that signals, signs and street markings do not make it clear who has the right-of-way at intersections. This study was written before bike signals were installed, when cyclists were instructed to use the traffic signals, yet cyclists still encountered large delays due to changes in the signal timing to separate left turn from straight through phases.
Perception: "Cyclists overwhelmingly indicate that they felt riding a bicycle on Pennsylvania Ave with the center bike lanes is safer and easier"
Reality: 9 crashes in 4 years (before), 16 crashes in 14 months (after)
The study admits this is a problem as bicycle volume tripled, yet crashes increased about 7 times.
I'd be interested to see a follow-up study since bicycle signals were installed. I really hate that turning cyclists are now instructed to use the crosswalk for left and right turns.
15th St NW left side cycletrack
When this report was written, there were no bicycle signals, so cyclists were instructed (with signage) to use the pedestrian WALK signal. This was necessary to prevent left turning motorists from hitting straight through cyclists. Cyclists traveling between I St and U St generally experience significant delay. Many cyclists (20-30%) use the vehicular signals, and 40% ran red lights. (Note: I used the vehicular signals when I rode this cycletrack because I didn't see the signs requiring me to use the pedestrian signals.) Signal timing is optimized for northbound traffic, since 15th is one way northbound north of Massachusetts Ave; therefore southbound cyclists must stop frequently.
There are lots of pedestrian conflicts and vehicular conflicts when cross traffic blocks intersections. Pedestrians feel cyclists are not yielding to them at intersections. Just under half of motorists find waiting for a green arrow to turn left to be a major inconvenience, and 2/3 find turning into alleys to be difficult.
Perception: "Cyclists overwhelmingly feel that riding on 15th St with the cycletrack is much safer and easier now... and that they would go out of their way to ride on the cycletrack as opposed to other streets."
Reality: 20 crashes in 4 years (before), 13 crashes in 14 months (after)
But, "cyclist volumes approximately doubled over this same time period, this represents no significant change in crashes per cyclist". I sure wish cities tracked bike/ped crashes.
In the general recommendations for future bicycle facilities, the study did point out the difficulties with bike signals. I agreed with this statement: "The operational benefit associated with bicycle signals may not be large enough to justify the capital and maintenance costs of the bike signals. Intersections with protected bicycle movements also require more complicated signal timing. To help bicyclists understand the traffic control that applies to them, the application of bike signals should be consistent along a particular facility." I would go much further in that last sentence. The infrastructure in DC was different at each cycletrack (and within the 15th St cycletrack when I rode it last March). The MUTCD is supposed to be guiding cities to have consistent infrastructure, and this innovative experimentation is irresponsible IMHO.
The study also discussed mixing zones and whether they are more appropriate to prevent intersection conflicts. But the study stated that "cyclists strongly prefer separation from vehicles, mixing zones are likely to decrease cyclist comfort when used at intersections with high turning volumes." I say let's increase the reality rather than the perception of safety!
Tricia Kovacs
P.S. Will anyone on these two email lists be attending the "safety summits" that we read about on the LAB Bike Summit blog? We need vehicular cyclists/bicycle drivers involved in those conversations!
On 3/11/2013 1:41 PM, Patricia Kovacs wrote:
I'd been searching for crash data from DC and NYC and I did find something today for DC.
I need to read it, but just searched for "crash" and found:16th St/U St/NewHampshire Ave NW intersection:pre-cycletrack: 4 crashes in 4 yearspost-cycletrack: 5 crashes in 13 months
Pennsylvania Ave (3rd to 15th St NW):pre-cycletrack: 9 crashes in 4 yearspost-cycletrack: 16 crashes in 14 months
15th St (E to V St NW)pre-cycletrack: 20 crashes in 4 yearspost-cycletrack: 13 crashes in 14 months
The study seems to say that since cyclist volumes doubled, it's OK if crashes double (or quadruple or octuple) as well. If "Safety in Numbers" is a fact, then I sure don't see the proof in this study.There is discussion regarding cyclists' use of pedestrian signals, and that they need to install bicycle signals. Will the bicycle signals have arrows so that bicyclists don't run over pedestrians?
On a related topic, I'm learning more about traffic signal right-of-way in an effort I'm involved in regarding changes to Ohio traffic signal law. Read section 4D.04 in the MUTCD, imagine that the state law is rewritten this way word for word (as Ohio DOT has done in their infinite wisdom) and try to write a module for a drivers ed course to teach it. Then, imagine adding bicycle signals (with both traffic signal arrows and bicycle signal arrows included) to the mix.Note that the above code is supposed to cover traffic signals, pedestrian signals, flashing beacons, pedestrian hybrid beacons, signals on flash (either at night or during signal removal phase) and the new flashing yellow left turn arrows. I'm up in Cleveland right now and yesterday rode on the Euclid Ave bus rapid transit route with bike lanes. The buses are in the middle lanes with the bus stops on the medians. They also have bus-only traffic signals. Thank God they don't have bicycle signals, too.Tricia
John S. Allen
Mar 15, 2013, 7:49:45 PM3/15/13
to Tricia Kovacs, bicycle...@googlegroups.com
At 09:33 AM 3/15/2013, Tricia Kovacs wrote:
I'm not sure if this email was delivered to BicycleDriving, so I'm sending it again. If you receive it twice, I'm sorry for the duplication.
Tricia Kovacs
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [CG] Re: [BicycleDriving] sign on Atlanta bus
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2013 15:35:41 -0400
From: Tricia Kovacs <pko...@att.net>
To: bicycle...@googlegroups.com, chain...@yahoogroups.com
Dear BicycleDrivers and Chainguardians,
I did read the report from DC on the cycletracks and other bicycle infrastructure. Besides the crash data which I already mentioned in my previous email, here are some other interesting tidbits.
Bike boxes, bicycle signals and sharrows were installed at the 6 leg intersection of New Hampshire Ave/16th St/U St NW.
Analysis here:
http://iamtraffic.org/2013/01/the-six-way/
Pennsylvania center cycletrack
I'd be interested to see a follow-up study since bicycle signals were installed. I really hate that turning cyclists are now instructed to use the crosswalk for left and right turns.
Yes, that's weird indeed because it is illegal to ride on sidewalks in downtown DC, and the crosswalks lead directly to the sidewalks. And there are other oddities. HD video at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBaEzmbmrz4
15th St NW left side cycletrack
Videos here:
https://vimeo.com/album/1632204
John S. Allen
Technical Writer/Editor,
http://sheldonbrown.com
League Cycling Instructor #77-C
jsallen *at* bikexprt.com
http://bikexprt.com
http://john-s-allen.com/blog
http://bostonbiker.org/streetsmarts
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages