The Case for Complete, Green Streets Performance
Measures
Rebecca L. Sanders, PhD, MCP NACTO Designing for Cities Conference
October 23, 2014
• Research on roadway design preferences
• Complete, Green Streets Performance Measures
Overview
2
3
Why do we need multimodal metrics?
• To “promote the development of multimodal transportation networks”
• Auto-based measures insufficient
4
What should we measure?
“Examining the Cycle: How Perceived and Actual Bicycling
Risk Influence Cycling Frequency, Roadway Design Preferences, and Support for
Cycling Among Bay Area Residents”
5
6
Methodology & Study Area
Image credit: Bay Area Air Quality Management District
• Internet survey • Convenience sample • 463 respondents (39% response rate) • Surveyed summer, 2011
95
226 74
30
14
3
2
7
7
Roadway Design Comfort Ratings
Eight designs, varying by:
• Amount and type of separation
• Presence of parking
Seven-point Likert scale - comfort
• Very, moderately, slightly, neutral
Respondents (263 drivers, 225 cyclists)
• Non-cyclists (109, 73)
• Infrequent cyclists (89, 87)
• Frequent cyclists (64, 65)
8
Comfort Ratings
Percentage feeling “moderately” or “very” comfortable Non-cyclists • As a driver: 88% • As a bicyclist: 92%
Infrequent cyclists • As a driver: 88% • As a bicyclist: 89% Frequent cyclists • As a driver: 92% • As a bicyclist: 94%
9
Comfort Ratings
Percentage feeling “moderately” or “very” comfortable Non-cyclists • As a driver: 73%***
• As a bicyclist: 61%**
Infrequent cyclists • As a driver: 86% • As a bicyclist: 80% Frequent cyclists • As a driver: 95% • As a bicyclist: 86%
Significant difference between groups: ** p ≤ 0.01 ; *** p ≤ 0.001
10
Comfort Ratings
Percentage feeling “moderately” or “very” comfortable Non-cyclists • As a driver: 72%
• As a bicyclist: 41%**
Infrequent cyclists • As a driver: 83% • As a bicyclist: 67% Frequent cyclists • As a driver: 76% • As a bicyclist: 57%
Significant difference between groups: ** p ≤ 0.01
11
Comfort Ratings
Percentage feeling “moderately” or “very” comfortable Non-cyclists • As a driver: 63%**
• As a bicyclist: 20%***
Infrequent cyclists • As a driver: 75% • As a bicyclist: 52% Frequent cyclists • As a driver: 72% • As a bicyclist: 43%
Significant difference between groups: ** p ≤ 0.01 ; *** p ≤ 0.001
12
Comfort Ratings
Percentage feeling “moderately” or “very” comfortable Non-cyclists • As a driver: 41%**
• As a bicyclist: 11%***
Infrequent cyclists • As a driver: 54% • As a bicyclist: 17% Frequent cyclists • As a driver: 56% • As a bicyclist: 25%
Significant difference between groups: ** p ≤ 0.01 ; *** p ≤ 0.001
13
Comfort Ratings
Percentage feeling “moderately” or “very” comfortable Non-cyclists • As a driver: 62% • As a bicyclist: 3%**
Infrequent cyclists • As a driver: 64% • As a bicyclist: 12% Frequent cyclists • As a driver: 56% • As a bicyclist: 8%
Significant difference between groups: ** p ≤ 0.01
14
Cyclists Prefer Greater Separation (n=225)
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Barrier-sep bike lane, no pkg
Barrier-sep bike lane, pkg
Striped bike lane, no pkg*
Green bike lane, pkg*
Striped bike lane, pkg**
Shared lane marking, pkg**
Green shared lane, pkg*
No treatment, pkg*
No separation
Painted, separated space
Physically-separated space
Less separated
More separated Percentage of cyclists who would feel moderately
or very comfortable bicycling near drivers
… And So Do Motorists (n=263)
15
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Barrier-sep bike lane, no pkg
Barrier-sep bike lane, pkg
Striped bike lane, no pkg***
Green bike lane, pkg#
Striped bike lane, pkg#
No treatment, pkg
Shared lane marking, pkg*
Green shared lane, pkg
No separation
Painted, separated space
Physically- separated space
Less separated
More separated
Percentage of drivers who would feel moderately or very comfortable driving near bicyclists
16
How do people view bicycle lanes?
Bicycle Lanes Communicate to Drivers
17
Non-cyclists (n=36)
%
Potential cyclists (n=73)
%
Yearly cyclists (n=52)
%
Monthly cyclists (n=37)
%
Weekly cyclists (n=48)
%
Daily cyclists (n=18)
%
(+) Bicycle lanes…
…tell drivers to expect bicyclists
89 96 90 97 96 89
…give cyclists their own space 86 89 92 95 96 89
…make cyclists more predictable on the roadway
83 86 75 81 85 88
…allow cyclists to ride at their own pace 75 68 73 75 75 67
• Part of 4-year Caltrans project, #65A0337 • Mandated by DD 64-R1: Complete Streets • Caltrans’ focus:
– Develop performance measures for pedestrian and bicyclist safety and mobility
– Show economic benefits of transportation investments • Survey conducted to understand perceived safety,
mobility, and economic vitality
Transportation Corridors
18
19
Methodology
• Pedestrian and bicyclist intercept survey • 17 locations • Survey locations chosen by:
• Intersection characteristics • Streetscaping features • Amount of traffic • Pedestrian crash rates
• 1,114 respondents • Surveyed over two weeks in September 2010 (Phase I) and June 2012 (Phase II)
= Survey location Image credit: Google™ maps
Perceived Safety
20
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Walking on the sidewalk Walking across the street Biking on the street Biking across the street
Per
cen
tag
e o
f R
esp
on
den
ts
Bay Area Very Safe Bay Area Somewhat Safe Bay Area N/A or Don't Know
LA Area Very Safe LA Area Somewhat Safe LA Area N/A or Don't Know
21
What would make you feel safer from traffic?
• Improved pedestrian crossings • Bike lane • Public transit improvements • Decreased speed • More/better street lighting • Improved/widened sidewalk • Better maintained street • Improved driver behavior • Widened car lanes/street • ADA accessibility • Median • Police
• Improved parking • Improved signage • Adjusted traffic light timing • Roundabouts • Left turn lanes/arrows • Plants/landscaping • Reduced congestion • Pedestrian education • Car-free zone • Bulb-outs • Maintain buildings • Cameras
Perceived Safety: Open Response
Street Improvements: San Pablo Avenue
22
Top Five S.P.A. Improvements to Increase Perceived Traffic Safety, by Arrival Mode
Pedestrian (N=190)
Driver (N=208)
Bicyclist (N=49)
Transit User (N=84)
Improvement Rank Rank Rank Rank
Bike lane 1 1 1 5
Improved pedestrian crossings 2 2 3 2
Slow traffic/improve driver behavior 3 4 4 1
Street lighting 5 3 2 4
Traffic signals & stop signs 4 5 5 3
Sanders, R.L., & Cooper, J. F. (2013) Do All Roadway Users Want the Same Things? Results from a Roadway Design Survey of Pedestrians, Drivers, Bicyclists, and Transit Users in the Bay Area. Transportation Research Record, 2393, 155-163.
23
Pedestrian (N=195)
Driver (N=159)
Bicyclist (N=15)
Transit User (N=192)
Improvement Rank Rank Rank Rank
Improved pedestrian crossings 1 1 4* 1
Bicycle lanes/improvements 2 2 1 2
Road maintenance/clean streets 3 2 3* 4
More/wider traffic lanes 4* 3* 2 3
Decreased speeding 3 4* - 4
*Indicates tie with responses not listed
Street Improvements: Santa Monica Blvd
Top Four S.M.B. Improvements to Increase Perceived Traffic Safety, by Arrival Mode
Sanders, R., Griffin, A., MacLeod, K., Cooper, J., & Ragland, D. (2012) The Effects of Transportation Corridor's Roadside Design Features on User Behavior and Safety, and Their Contributions to Health, Environmental Quality, and Community Economic Vitality: Phase IV Final Report. Berkeley, CA: California Dept. of Transportation and UC Berkeley SafeTREC.
Performance Measures
24
• Goal: broad, long-term outcome or result the agency will work to realize
• Objective: finite target for the agency; year and quantity of change explicitly stated
• Performance Measure: factor or trend monitored to track progress
25
Caltrans’ Performance Measurement
26
Performance Measures: Traffic Risk
• PM 1.1a-b: Rate of pedestrian injuries & fatalities per walking trips
• PM 1.1c-d: Rate of bicyclist injuries & fatalities per bicycling trips Image credit: Portland Bureau of Transportation
27
Performance Measures: Traffic Risk
• PM 1.2: Percentage of Californians who feel safe using non-motorized modes on urban arterials
• PM 1.4a-b: Overall number of pedestrian & bicyclist collision hotspots
Image credit: City of Copenhagen
28
Performance Measures: Infrastructure
• PM 1.3a/b: Percent of signalized/unsignalized intersections with marked crosswalks and one or more of selected intersection design features Image credit: Dan Burden, pedbikeimages.org
29
Performance Measures: Infrastructure
• PM 1.3c: Percent of intersections with one or more of selected bicycle improvements
Image credit: Elvert Barnes, pedbikeimages.org
30
Performance Measures: Infrastructure
• PM 2.1a-b: Ratio of sidewalk and bicycle lane mileage to arterial centerline mileage
• PM 2.1c: Percent of ADA-compliant intersections
31
Performance Measures: Infrastructure
• PM 2.1d: Percent of projects designed as complete streets
• PM 4.2b: Percent of urban arterial sidewalk and bicycle lane mileage in fair or better condition
Image credit: Smart Growth America
32
Performance Measures: Mobility
• PM 2.1e-f: Number of pedestrian & bicycle trips
Key Takeaways
33
• Roadway design clearly impacts perceptions of comfort—for cyclists, pedestrians, *and* drivers
• Need to account for perceived safety/comfort
• Complete, Green Streets performance measures may help fill gap
Acknowledgments
34
This research was funded by the University of California Transportation Center, the Dean’s Normative Time
Fellowship, Caltrans, and the Eisenhower Transportation
Fellowship.
Thank you!
35
Bicycle Lanes Send the Wrong Message
36
Non-cyclists (n=36)
%
Potential cyclists (n=73)
%
Yearly cyclists (n=52)
%
Monthly cyclists (n=37)
%
Weekly cyclists (n=48)
%
Daily cyclists (n=18)
%
(-) Bicycle lanes…
…tell drivers that cyclists don’t belong on non-bicycle routes*
36 40 24 19 31 22
…make it more difficult for cyclists to turn left 36 32 31 30 21 28
…increase the chance of being doored** 22 15 6 8 17 22
…encourage drivers to drive closer to cyclists 8 10 4 11 6 22
…unnecessarily restrict fast cyclists 9 3 4 0 4 6