Designing For Bicyclist Safety - Illinois Department Of Transportation

Designing for Bicyclist SafetyModule DDESIGN POLICIES & SAFETY EVALUATION

LEARNING OUTCOMESDiscuss why we should include bicycles in thetransportation network Explain the challenges and opportunities toanalyze bicyclist safety

Designing for Bicyclist SafetyDESIGN POLICIES

FEDERAL LAWConsider bicycle facilities, where appropriate,with new construction and reconstruction. Consider safety and contiguous routes forbicyclists in plans and projects. What does consider mean?

USDOT POLICYSigned on March 11, 2010 and announced March 15, 2010Every transportation agency, including DOT, hasthe responsibility to improve conditions andopportunities for walking and bicycling and tointegrate walking and bicycling into theirtransportation systems.

USDOT POLICYRecommended Actions: Consider bicycling as equal with other modes Ensure transportation choices for all ages and abilities,especially children Go beyond minimum design standards Integrate bicycle accommodation on bridges Collect data on bicycle trips Remove snow – same maintenance as roads requiredfor facilities built with federal funds Improve bicycle facilities during maintenance projects

USDOT POLICYThe Department willpromote the developmentof multimodal networkswhich includeinterconnectedpedestrian/and or bicycletransportation facilitiesthat allow people of allages and abilities to safelyand conveniently get wherethey want to go.USDOT, September 2014

FHWA PROGRAM GUIDANCE Bikeways established in all urban areaconstruction/reconstruction projects, unless: bicyclistsprohibited by law cost excessively disproportionate absence of need Paved shoulders included in all rural areaconstruction/reconstruction projects with1,000 vehicles per day

REDUCES LIABILITY“It is no longer acceptable toplan, design, or build roadwaysthat do not fully accommodateuse by bicyclists andpedestrians With every passing year, thecourts become less and lesssympathetic to agencies thathave not understood themessage: bicyclists andpedestrians are intendedusers of the roadway. “

Designing for Bicyclist SafetyEVALUATING NEEDS

DATA COLLECTION GOALSIdentify high crash locations, corridors, areas Identify locations, corridors, areas with highcrash potential Prioritize high crash locations, corridors, areas Identify appropriate treatments

DATA COLLECTION GUIDELINESCollect only what you need Collect only what you can use Do you need 5 years’ worth of data if 3 years’ worthgive you a good idea of the problem? Do you need crash data for the entire state to becollected if you’re focused on a small area? Do you need detailed reports if the raw numbers give agood picture of the problem? But don’t jump to conclusions too soon: incompletedata could give a false perspective of the problem

DATA COLLECTION GUIDELINES Timely crash data Tryto get the most recent data possible Make sure they go back far enough to berepresentative (min 3 years) Don’t go too far back: conditions change over time

TYPES OF SAFETY PROJECTS1.2.3.4.Spot Locations (individual intersections andnon-intersections)Corridors (½ mile to 5 or more miles in length)Targeted Areas (neighborhood, businessdistrict, or large area where pedestriancrashes are high)Entire Jurisdictions (addressed throughsystem-wide changes)

CRASH DATA ANALYSISCrash data analysiscan: Discover prevalentcrash types andbehaviorsTarget specific areasInform selection ofbicycle facilityCity of Denver

CRASH DATAUnderstanding the limitations: Crashes usually dispersed Data does not include “nearmisses” Public may perceivelocations without a crashhistory as being unsafe Data may be incomplete orinaccurate

SAFETY EVALUATION TOOLSHighway Safety Manual Bicycle Intersection Safety Indices Highway Capacity Manual Road Safety Audit BIKESAFE

HSM METHODOLOGY Urban & Suburban SegmentsNbiker Nbr x fbiker Nbiker– vehicle-bicycle collision frequency Nbr – crash frequency, excluding bikes and peds fbiker – bicycle crash adjustment factor-- or 30 mph posted speed-- road type (2U, 3T, 4U, 4D, 5T)-- values range from 0.002 to 0.050

HSM METHODOLOGY Urban & Suburban IntersectionsNbikei Nbi x fbikeiNbikei -- vehicle-bicycle collision frequencyNbi -- predicted intersection crashes (no bikes/peds)fbikei – bicycle crash adjustment factor-- intersection type (3ST, 3SG, 4ST, 4SG)-- values range from 0.011 to 0.018

CMF LIMITATIONS

CMF LIMITATIONS

BICYCLIST INTERSECTION SAFETY INDICESPrioritize intersections crossingsand intersection approaches forbicycle safety improvements Score of 1 (safest) to6 (least safe) Score for each movement(thru, left turn, right turn)

BICYCLIST INTERSECTION SAFETY INDICESSelectSites Sites

BICYCLIST INTERSECTION SAFETY INDICESInputs: ADT on main and cross streets. Number of through vehicle lanes oncross street. Number, type, and configuration oftraffic lanes on main street approach. Speed limit on main street. Presence of on-street parking on mainstreet approach. Type of traffic control on approach ofinterest (signal or no signal).

BICYCLE LEVEL-OF-SERVICEInterrupted flow: LOS reported separately for each mode Purpose,length, and expectation differsTravel speed Intersection delay Bicyclist perception

BICYCLE LEVEL-OF-SERVICEFactors in bicycle LOS score:Interrupted flowMotorized vehiclevolume % heavy vehicles % occupied parking # lanes Outside lane width Median Curb Access Pavement condition Motorized vehiclespeed

LEVELS OF TRAFFIC STRESS (LTS)Levels of Traffic StressLTS 1 Physicallyseparated fromtraffic or lowvolume, mixedflow traffic at 25mph or less Bike lanes 6 ftwide or more Intersectionseasy to approachand cross Comfortable forchildrenLTS 2LTS 3LTS 4 No dedicated Bike lanes 5.5 ft Bicycle lanesnext to 35 mphbicycle facilitieswide or less, nextauto traffic, or Traffic speeds 40to 30 mph automph or moremixed-flow traffictraffic Unsignalizedat 30 mph or less Comfortable for“strong andcrossings of up to Comfortable forfearless” ridersmost current U.S.5 lanes at 30riders(vehicularmphcyclists) Comfortable for Typical of bicyclefacilities in U.S.most adults Typical of bicyclefacilities inNetherlands

ROAD SAFETY AUDITFormal safetyexamination conductedby an independent,experienced,multidisciplinary team RSA Prompt List Bikeability checklist

RSA PROMPT LISTOutdated Striping

BIKEABILITY CHECKLIST

Designing for Bicyclist SafetySELECTING COUNTERMEASURES

DESIGN GUIDELINESFHWA Memorandum – August 20, 2013“Bicycle and Pedestrian Facility Design Flexibility”Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities (AASHTO)Designing Urban Walkable Thoroughfares (ITE)Urban Bikeway Design Guide (NACTO)New 2015Separated Bike Lanes Planning & Design Guide (FHWA)New 2016Achieving Multimodal Networks: Applying Flexibility and Reducing Conflicts(FHWA)New 2017Small Town and Rural Multimodal Networks (FHWA)

BIKESAFE

Designing for Bicyclist SafetySUMMARY THOUGHTS

KEY SAFETY FACTORSSpeed Number of lanes Visibility Traffic volume & composition Conflict points Proximity Bike control Connectivity

DATA COLLECTION GUIDELINES Collect only what you need Collect only what you can use Do you need 5 years' worth of data if 3 years' worth give you a good idea of the problem? Do you need crash data for the entire state to be collected if you're focused on a small area? Do you need detailed reports if the raw numbers give a good picture of the problem?