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