Santa Monica Bicycle Technology Demonstration Project by Alta Planning + Design

Source: Tyler Merbler (modified), Flickr

Source: Fido (modified), Flickr

Need

of bicycle-involved collisions in Santa Monica between 2007 and 2011 took place at intersections**

What’s in this Report Best Practices Comparison of available bike interventions Method Research questions and structure of before/after study Survey Intercept instrument and responses

The City’s 2011 Bike Action Plan called for the development of a handbook to streamline implementation of enhanced and innovative bicycle treatments. Due to the large number of intersections in Santa Monica, identification of effective interventions to improve intersection efficiency and safety for all roadway users was identified as a priority. However, at the time, little published research existed documenting which bicycle interventions at intersections could help reduce the risk of collision.

Purpose The City of Santa Monica’s Bicycle Technology Demonstration Project evaluates a series of bicycle interventions at eight study intersections through a user intercept survey and through before/after observations. The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) provided partial funding for this study and the implementation of the tested bicycle interventions.* This report summarizes the findings of four working papers drafted between 2012 and 2019, highlighting the effectiveness of the tested interventions.

* Metro also provided funding for the installation of 100 bicycle racks concentrated around commercial districts in Santa Monica

Observations Pedestrian, bicyclist, and motorist behaviors at study intersections Findings/Conclusion Study findings and next steps

BICYCLE TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATION PROJECT

CITY OF SANTA MONICA

Findings In an effort to identify effective bicycle intersection interventions, the City of Santa Monica evaluated a series of bicycle interventions (extended bike pocket, partially- and fully-colored bike boxes, a loop detector, video detectors, and microwave sensors) at eight study intersections through a user intercept survey and through before/after observations. The interventions were evaluated to see if they positively impacted the safety, legibility of design, and efficiency of the intersection for all roadway users. Results of the study showed the following: 



  

An extended bike pocket at one study intersection helped contribute to a moderate improvement in the perception of safety and legibility of the intersection, but may have helped contribute to an increase in the motorist rolling right turns when paired with a right turn only lane. Partially-colored and fully-colored bike boxes both greatly improved the perception of safety at two of the study intersections, although those perceptions did not translate into a reduction in the number of reported collisions. This may be the result of increased rolling right turns and increased red light running at tested intersections. The partially-colored bike box had a limited impact on motorist encroachment, whereas the fully-colored bike box was associated with a decrease in motorist encroachment. The fully-colored bike boxes were also more easily understood by intersection users, and both treatments were associated with a significant decrease in sidewalk riding. A loop detector at one study intersection was associated with a no significant change in bicyclist red light running or bicyclist encroachment into the crosswalk. Video detectors at one study intersection approach was associated with no significant changes in bicyclist red light running or bicyclist activation of push buttons. A microwave sensor at one study intersection was associated with no significant change in bicyclists activation of push buttons and an increase in bicyclist red light running.

Recommendations Continued implementation of fully-colored bike boxes with bicyclist detectors should be encouraged where appropriate due to their greater legibility among survey respondents and due to their potential ability to decrease motorist encroachment into the crosswalk. In addition, the City should consider seeking appropriate approvals to test a “Wait Here for Green” bike detection marking within bike boxes. While the test of detection technology was inconclusive, in-field observations from City staff recommend that video detectors should be encouraged at intersections due to their ability to differentiate between bicyclists and motor vehicles, relatively quick installation and reset process, and their ability to easily validate the sensor’s detection field.

BICYCLE TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATION PROJECT

CITY OF SANTA MONICA

Source: Shinya Suzuki (modified), Flickr

Interventions Five bicycle intersection treatments were tested: extended bike pocket, bike box, loop detector, video detector, and microwave sensor.

These treatments were selected because available research suggested they may be effective at improving intersection efficiency for bicyclists.

Bicyclist Positioning

Bicyclist Detectors

Extended Bike Pocket

Loop Detector

A designated lane for bicyclists at an intersection approach that extends beyond the motor vehicle stop bar (can include or not include a preceding bike lane).

Detects bicyclists through an inductive loop sensor placed in the pavement that uses a magnetic field to detect aluminum and steel interferences like metal bike wheels.

Bike Box

Video Detector

A designated area at the head of a traffic lane before a signalized intersection that provides bicyclists with a safer and more visible way to get to the front of queuing traffic during a red signal phase.

Detects bicyclists at intersections through calibrated video cameras and computer-based image analysis, which compares pixels of a current image with what the intersection looks like when itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s known to be empty.

* While bicycle-oriented push buttons were originally identified as a potential intervention, they were not installed at any of the study intersections and, therefore, are not included in this report.

BICYCLE TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATION PROJECT

Microwave Sensor Similar to video detection, microwave or radar detection creates a distinct map of an area and observes when a metal object (like a bike) or water-filled object (like a human body) obscures the expected image.

CITY OF SANTA MONICA

Extended Bike Pocket Benefits Enables bicyclists to correctly position themselves to the left of right-turn lanes or to the right of left-turn and/or through lanes. Helps increase visibility of bicyclists at the start of a green indication. Provides bicyclists with guidance to follow the preferred travel path. Leads to more predictable motorist travel movements.

bicyclist

Maintenance

and

Alerts motorists to expect and yield to merging bicycle traffic. Signifies an appropriate location for motorists to safely merge across the bike lane into the turn lane.

Dashed lines should be installed with thermoplastic to increase durability and resist tire wear. Routine maintenance required. Because the effectiveness of markings depends entirely on their visibility, maintaining markings should be a high priority.

Sources: NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide Google Street View

BICYCLE TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATION PROJECT

CITY OF SANTA MONICA

Bike Box Benefits Increases visibility of bicyclists. Reduces signal delay for bicyclists. Facilitates bicyclist left turn positioning at intersections during red signal indication. This only applies to bike boxes that extend across the entire intersection. Facilitates the transition from a right-side bike lane to a left-side bike during red signal indication (this only applies to bike boxes that extend across the entire intersection). Helps prevent â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;right-hookâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; conflicts with turning vehicles at the start of the green indication.

Maintenance Colored pavement surface may be costly to maintain; placement of markings between tire tracks will reduce wear.

Groups bicyclists together to clear an intersection quickly, minimizing impediment to transit or other traffic. Bicyclists can avoid breathing exhaust while queued at the signal.

BICYCLE TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATION PROJECT

Source: NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide

CITY OF SANTA MONICA

Overview of Available Research The bike box is a designated area on the approach to a signalized intersection, between an advance stop line and the intersection stop line, intended to provide bicyclists a space in which to wait in front of stopped motor vehicles during the red signal phase so that they are more visible to motorists at the start of the green signal phase. Positive operational effects of bike boxes documented through experiments around the world include: • •

•

• • •

• •

Allow bicyclists to bypass queueing traffic to get to the front of the queue. Give bicyclists a visible and practical advantage at signalized intersections and, thereby, encourage latent bicycle trips Place bicyclists in a safer and more visible location ahead of traffic rather than in the blind spot of traffic Allow bicyclists to wait in an area relatively free from exhaust fumes Make it easier for right-turning bicyclists to position themselves Reductions in the number of conflicts between bicyclists and turning drivers at the study intersections Reductions in the number of avoidance maneuvers by both bicyclists and motorists Reductions in the number of bicycles and motor vehicles encroaching into pedestrian crosswalks when stopped at an intersection

Two lingering concerns surrounding bike boxes are continued motor vehicle encroachment and feelings of vulnerability when waiting in front of traffic during a red signal phase.

MUTCD – Interim Approval for Optional Use of an Intersection Bicycle Box (IA-18). FHWA. 2016. Design Checklist & Guidance. Cycling England. 2011.

BICYCLE TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATION PROJECT

CITY OF SANTA MONICA

US Experimentation Interest in bike box experimentation increased in the United States in the late 2000s and early 2010s, with over 25 experiments from state, county, and local governments approved by FHWA. A study of one signalized intersection in Eugene, Oregon found no net change in the number of bicyclist-motorist conflicts before and after installation of a bike box (1.3% of bicyclists experiencing a conflict prior to installation and 1.5% experiencing a conflict after).* A 2010 before/after study of two signalized intersections in Austin, Texas took place in three phases: no intervention, an uncolored bike box, and a fully-colored bike box. Through video analysis, the study found that bike boxes accompanied with “No Right Turn on Red” signs can improve the safety of bicyclists and motorists at intersections. Specifically, the researchers noted that the addition of a bike box allowed the bicyclist to gain a safer stopping position in front of motorists, resulting in a significant increase in the percentage of bicyclists that departed the intersection first. Although the addition of the colored pavement did not significantly affect the percentage of bicyclists that used the bike box, the study found that it did improve motorist awareness of the intervention.** In 2011, a before/after study of 12 signalized intersections (seven with fully-colored bike boxes, three partially-colored, and two control locations) in Portland, Oregon found a high rate of compliance with and understanding of the pavement markings, with 73% of motorists not encroaching into the bike boxes (found to be significantly lower compared to the control intersections). Further observations found that motorists yielded to bicyclists at a higher rate at the intersections with bike boxes (400-500% increase) compared to the before data collection period, and that over three-quarters of surveyed bicyclists and a majority of surveyed motorists thought the bike boxes made the intersections safer.*** Three additional studies of bike boxes in 2012 found mixed results. Results of bike box continued experimentation in Portland, Oregon found that bicycle right-hook crashes doubled,**** a before/after study in Montreal found a significant increase in bicyclist red-light running,***** and a before/after study in Columbus, Ohio found that 45% of motorists encroached into bike boxes (regardless of the progressive additions of partially-colored markings, fully-colored markings, and “Right Turn on Red” signage).****** Nevertheless, FHWA reviewed available data and found that bike boxes were satisfactorily successful and presented a low risk of safety and operational concerns. And in 2016, FHWA issued interim approval of their use in the United States.

* Hunter, W.W. (2000). Evaluation of an Innovative Application of the Bike Box. Publication No. FHWA-RD-00-141. ** Lorskorn, J. et al. (2010). Effects of Bicycle Boxes on Bicyclist and Motorist Behavior at Intersections. The City of Austin. *** Dill, J. et al. (2011). Evaluation of Bike Boxes at Signalized Intersections. City of Portland. **** Burchfield, R.M. Progress Report: Request to Experiment: 9-105(E)-Colored Bike Lanes and Bike BoxesPortland, OR, 2012. ***** Zangenehpour, S., Miranda-Moreno, L.F. and N. Saunier (2012). Impact of Bicycle Boxes on Safety of Cyclists: A Case Study in Montreal. McGill University. ****** Milton Avenue Bike Box: Final Evaluation. City of Columbus. FHWA (2012).

BICYCLE TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATION PROJECT

CITY OF SANTA MONICA

Detectors Benefits Improves efficiency and reduces delay for bicycle travel. Discourages red light running by bicyclists without causing excessive delay to motorists. Can be used to prolong the green phase to provide adequate time for bicyclists to clear the intersection.

Criteria Proper bicycle primary criteria:

detection

meets

two

Maintenance Inductive loop detector sensitivity settings need to be monitored and adjusted over time.

Accurately detects bicyclists Provides clear guidance on how to actuate detection

Source: NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide

BICYCLE TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATION PROJECT

CITY OF SANTA MONICA

Types of Detectors Many high-volume signalized intersections are configured to recognize the approach of motor vehicle traffic in an effort to improve the efficiency of the intersection. But often the technology used to detect cars lack the sensitivity to detect people approaching the intersection by bicycle. Because some intersections require detection of a roadway user to start a green signal phase or to end an extended green signal phase in the opposing direction, bicyclists can be forced to wait at the intersection until a motor vehicle is detected and triggers a green light. In an effort to improve these conditions, the following three bicycle specific detectors were tested in this study: Bicyclist at 11th/Broadway

Loop Detector

Source: NACTO

Installation within the lane of travel is thought to be easily understood by users and prevents the need for bicyclists to dismount to activate a nearby pedestrian push button. While initial criticism of the devices included the inability to recognize carbon fiber and aluminum bicycles, subsequent studies have shown this to be less of an issue due to many bicycles having metal within their wheels.

Video Detector

Source: City of Bismarck

Unlike loop detectors, video detectors donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t require lane closure during installation or degrading the pavement quality, and the same device can identify both cars and bicycles (helping to offset its relatively high price tag). Adjustments to the detection zone can be made easily if bicyclist positioning and behavior changes or if new infrastructure, such as bike boxes, are installed.

Microwave Sensor Unlike video detectors, microwave sensors are relatively low-cost and their continuous wave radio signals can recognize bicyclists in most weather and lighting conditions, such as fog which is common in Santa Monica. And unlike loop detectors, they do not require a lane closure during installation. Source: Oak Ridge Today

BICYCLE TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATION PROJECT

CITY OF SANTA MONICA

Detector Accuracy In 2003, FHWA commissioned a study on bicycle and pedestrian detection. Within the study, researchers compared the ability of different detection devices to accurately identify bicyclists. Tested devices include two different loop detectors, a video detector, and a microwave sensor.* Results of the testing on ferrous-metal bicycles found:   

Loop detectors – 98% to 100% accurate Video detector – 99% accurate Microwave detector – 96% accurate

Additional tests on non-ferrous (aluminum) bicycles found:   

Loop detector – 100% accurate Video detector – 100% accurate Microwave detector – 98% accurate

Limitations of the study included a limited number of bicycles being tested and a focus on a test environment instead of real-world conditions. Studies of video** and microwave*** devices in real-world conditions found that bicycles were recognized at a rate of 75% and 70%, respectively. Additional research examined the ability of two common loop detector layouts to detect bicyclists at an active intersection in McLean, Virginia. The test showed that the most important factors in accurately recognizing an aluminum bicycle were the sensitivity setting of the detector amplifier and the location of the loop where the bicyclist crosses it. The researchers provided recommendations on the sensitivity settings, and suggested that when detection issues persisted at a given location, signage and pavement markings be deployed to encourage bicyclists to wait on the left or right edges of the loops. They also noted the importance of the presence of conductive metal in the bicycle’s wheels in the ability of a loop detector to recognize the bicycle.****

* Bicycle and Pedestrian Detection: Final Report. FHWA. 2003. ** Detzer, S., Junghans, M., Kozempel, K. and H. Saul. Analysis of Traffic Safety for Cyclists: The

Automatic Detection of Critical Situations for Cyclists. WIT Transactions on the Built Environment, 138. 2014. *** Shladover, S.E., Sharafsaleh, A., Cheong, A., Spring, J., and J. Leung. Bicycle Detection and

Operational Concept at Signalized Intersections Phase 2B: Testing a Bicyclist Detection System. California PATH Research Report, UCB-ITS-PRR-2012-3. 2010. **** Gibson, D. Making Signal Systems Work for Cyclists. FHWA-HRT-08-004. 71 (6). May/June 2008. Note: No loop detectors can recognize a bicycle with non-metal wheels or frame. Additional research by Strachen et al. provided additional detail on sensitivity settings, sensor placement relative to the roadway surface, and bicycle positioning above the detector.***** ***** Strachan, R., Van Den Dool, D. and T. Arnold. Traffic Signal Features for Bicycles. Australian Bicycle

Council. 2017.

BICYCLE TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATION PROJECT

CITY OF SANTA MONICA

Pavement Markings A study conducted in Sydney, Australia found that only 30% to 40% of bicyclists stopped at the correct location above a loop detector to trigger a green signal phase,* and a literature review of bicycle detection pavement markings revealed that 55% of the general population does not intuitively understand MUTCD’s standard bicycle detector symbol.** To address this issue, researchers studied the impacts of alternative pavement markings at two intersections with loop detectors and blue light feedback indicators in Portland, Oregon. The researchers found that the addition of text explaining the purpose of the pavement marking positively influenced how well the marking was understood by bicyclists, and that a “Columbia Experiment” marking that included the text “Wait Here for Green” appeared to have the best potential for being intuitively understood.**

* Strachan, R., Van Den Dool, D. and T. Arnold. Traffic Signal Features for Bicycles. Australian Bicycle Council. 2017. ** Boudart, J. Foster, N. Koonce, P., Maus, J., and L. Okimoto. Improving Bicycle Detection Pavement Marking Symbols to Increase Comprehension at Traffic Signals. ITE Journal. March 2007.

Examples of alternative pavement markings tested in a 2007 Portland study**

BICYCLE TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATION PROJECT

CITY OF SANTA MONICA

Comparison

BICYCLE TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATION PROJECT

CITY OF SANTA MONICA

Source: InSapphoWeTrust (modified), Flickr

Research Questions The focus of this study was divided among the following three research topic areas:

Safety 

On average between 2007 and 2011, there were 0.4 collisions per year at the 5 study intersections and 0.8 collisions per year at the 3 control intersections*

Do the intersection interventions improve safety conditions for pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorists, including travel behavior, perceptions of safety, and collisions?

Design    

Is the bike box design easily understood? Do bike boxes impact the travel behavior of road users? Does travel behavior vary by partially-colored or fully- colored bike box treatments? What is the optimal material for coloring bike boxes?

Efficiency  

A 2011 Portland study found that bike-motorist intersection conflicts dropped 31% after installation of bike boxes**

BICYCLE TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATION PROJECT

Which bicycle detection device is most accurate? Do bicycle detection devices improve bicyclists’ ability to safely travel through an intersection by reducing the rate of red light running?

* TIMS/SWITRS, UC Berkeley, 2007-2011. ** Dill, J. et al. (2011). Evaluation of Bike Boxes at Signalized Intersections. City of Portland.

CITY OF SANTA MONICA

Bicyclist Metrics The prevalence of the following seven bicyclist metrics was observed at the study intersections:

Crosswalk Encroachment The number of bicyclists that advance past a stop bar into a designated crosswalk while waiting at a red light.

Wrong-Way Bicycling The number of bicyclists traveling against the flow of traffic.

Red Light Running The number of bicyclists that ignore an intersection’s red signal phase and proceed through the intersection (while motorists also run red lights, this data was not collected because the proposed interventions were believed to be unlikely to impact the rate of red light running among motorists).

Pushing Pedestrian Crossing The number of bicyclists that press a pedestrian-actuated button to trigger a change in the traffic signal phasing.

Bicyclist Sidewalk Riding The number of bicyclists riding on a sidewalk instead of the travel lane or an available designated bikeway.

Bicyclist Lane Positioning The location of a bicyclist at an intersection approach relative to the sidewalk (“inner” is a position close to the sidewalk and “outer” is away from the sidewalk).

Bicyclist Turning Movements The number and direction of travel of bicyclists through an intersection.

BICYCLE TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATION PROJECT

CITY OF SANTA MONICA

Pedestrian Metrics The prevalence of the following three pedestrian metrics was observed at the study intersections:

Jaywalking The number of pedestrians that cross the street outside of a designated crosswalk (but not during a red-light signal phase).

Crossing against Red Light The number of pedestrians that cross the street during a red-light signal phase.

Pedestrian Turning Movements The number and direction of travel of pedestrians through an intersection.

BICYCLE TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATION PROJECT

CITY OF SANTA MONICA

Motorist Metrics The prevalence of the following three motorist metrics was observed at the study intersections:

Crosswalk Encroachment The number of motorists that advance past a stop bar into a designated crosswalk or bike box while waiting at a red light.

Rolling Right Turns The number of motorists that make a right turn during a red light without first coming to a complete stop.

Motorist Turning Movements The number and direction of travel of motor vehicles through an intersection.

BICYCLE TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATION PROJECT

CITY OF SANTA MONICA

Study Intersections Data was collected for the thirteen metrics at eight intersections in Santa Monica (see map below):

BICYCLE TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATION PROJECT

CITY OF SANTA MONICA

Bicycle Interventions 1

Lincoln & Michigan

2018

2012 N

Extended bike pocket with green paint added to westbound approach, grade and parking protected bikeway and contraflow bicycle lane with green paint added to eastbound approach

2 11th & Broadway

Partially-colored bike boxes added to all four approaches, bike pocket added to northbound approach, and bike lanes with green pavement markings added to the eastbound and westbound approaches

3 Ocean & California

Microwave detector added to all four approaches, and bicycle lane and fully-colored bike box added to the westbound approach

4 11th & Olympic Loop detector added to the eastbound approach, green paint added to bicycle lane at northbound approach, green bicycle lanes added to southbound approach, and continental crosswalk and ADA-compliant curb ramps added to west leg.

See Appendix D for intersection images

BICYCLE TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATION PROJECT

CITY OF SANTA MONICA

2012

2018 N

5 11th & Pico Video detector added to all four approaches, and a bicycle lane added to the northbound approach

6 17 & Broadway th

Control intersection with a bicycle lane added in the southbound approach and green bicycle lane pavement marking added to the eastbound and westbound approaches

7 Ocean & Arizona Control intersection changes to the configuration

with no roadway

8 11 & Michigan th

Control intersection with a bicycle lane added in the northbound approach

BICYCLE TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATION PROJECT

CITY OF SANTA MONICA

Source: chrisinphilly5448 (modified), Flickr

Instrument An intercept survey was designed to better understand perceptions of the bicyclist positioning interventions (extended bike pocket and bike boxes) after installation. The surveyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s nine questions focused on the respondentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; perceptions of safety, understanding of how to use the intervention, and ability to efficiently navigate the intersection. See Appendix A for the survey instrument and Appendix B for the raw responses

Limitations The survey was designed to support professional observations of the intersection interventions but was not intended to provide a statistically representative sample of all roadway users.

Audience Targeted survey respondents included bicyclists, skateboarders, rollerblades, and e-scooter riders waiting at red signal phases. An e-scooter rider completing a survey while in the new extended bike pocket at Lincoln Boulevard & Michigan Avenue

Online Version Flyers with instructions on how to complete an online version of the survey were distributed to people who did not have time to respond at the intersection and to a limited number of motorists.

Period Intercept surveys were administered during the postinstallation period on Wednesday, June 27, 2018 from 3:00 PM to 7:00 PM.* * The start time for Location #3 (Ocean Ave. & California Ave.) was delayed to 4:00 PM

Signs were positioned to encourage people to stop and take the survey

BICYCLE TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATION PROJECT

CITY OF SANTA MONICA

Survey Locations Intercept surveys were conducted at the three intersections with bicycle positioning interventions:

BICYCLE TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATION PROJECT

CITY OF SANTA MONICA

Responses Opinions from the 60 collected responses (56 in-person and 4 online) are summarized below for the three surveyed intersections: 1 2 3

Lincoln Blvd & Michigan Ave 11th St & Broadway Ocean Ave & California Ave

Safety Three-quarters of respondents indicated that the interventions helped make them feel safer at the intersections (79% of men and 70% of women). While a majority of respondents at each surveyed intersection indicated an improvement to safety, only 60% of respondents at Lincoln/Michigan said safety improved compared to 78% and 81% at 11th/Broadway and Ocean/California, respectively. These responses may indicate that a greater number of active transportation users find bike boxes to be a marked safety improvement compared to an extended bike pocket. Or it may be an indication that other factors at Lincoln/Michigan, such as the intersection configuration, signal phasing, volumes (Lincoln is one of the busiest streets in Santa Monica), and speeds, still remain an issue for active transportation users, with four (4) respondents commenting that the intersection felt particularly dangerous due to potentially conflicting movements with motorists and unfavorable signal timing issues from their perspective.

Responses by intersection

55%

overall (n=56)

63%

overall (n=35)

45%

overall (n=44)

74%

overall (n=54)

71%

overall (n=31)

81%

overall (n=48)

Responses also varied by the mode of the respondent, with 62% of pedestrians (n=13), 73% of bicyclists (n=30), and 100% of escooter riders (n=9) saying that the interventions improved safety. This may be because pedestrians did not perceive a marginal change in motorist encroachment into the crosswalk compared to the preinstallation configuration. BICYCLE TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATION PROJECT

CITY OF SANTA MONICA

Responses by mode

Design The legibility of the interventions varied little by respondent’s mode (between 52% and 60%); however, large variation existed between intersections. Two-thirds of respondents at Lincoln/Michigan indicated that they knew how to position themselves within the facility, compared to 30% at 11th/Broadway, and 81% at Ocean/California. This variation may relate to the total number of changes made to the intersection, with Ocean/California adding just one bike box and microwave sensors, Lincoln/Michigan adding bikeways in the east and westbound approaches, and 11th /Broadway adding painted bikeways and bike boxes at all approaches. This variation by intersection was also evident in respondents’ open-ended comments. While no comments mentioned being confused by the design at Lincoln/Michigan or Ocean/California, 8 out of 23 respondents at 11th/Broadway noted that they initially or currently don’t know how to use the bike boxes. One respondent said, “I don’t know how to use it. I think it’s cool but [the] City should advertise it more.” The confusion with how to use a bike box at 11th/Broadway also may have led to confusion about where one should position themselves while waiting at the traffic signal. Only 54% of respondents (and just 43% of bicyclists) at the intersection indicated that the partiallycolored bike box pavement markings helped indicate where they should be positioned at a light, compared to 67% and 71% for the pavement markings at Lincoln/Michigan and Ocean/California, respectively. This may be because of the presence of bicycle detector pavement markings adjacent to the bicycle stencil markings in the bike box or the lack of a fully-colored bicycle box.

BICYCLE TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATION PROJECT

CITY OF SANTA MONICA

Efficiency The intersection interventions appeared to improve the perception of efficiency most among e-scooter users. Every e-scooter respondent indicated that the interventions made navigating through the intersection easier, and 75% of escooter respondents said that the presence of the intervention informed their decision to use that particular route on their trip. Bicyclists and pedestrians agreed that the interventions made it easier to get through the intersections (71% and 67%, respectively), but only 50% of bicyclists and 23% of pedestrians said that the markings impacted their route choice. This may be because e-scooters require less energy than bicycling or walking and, therefore, users are less sensitive to traveling out of their way to access higher-quality facilities. The perceived efficiency of the interventions also varied by intersection. While at least 80% of respondents at 11th/Broadway and Ocean/California indicated that the bike boxes made the intersections easier to navigate, only 60% of respondents said the same for Lincoln/Michigan. This may be because the extended bike pocket was not seen as enough of an improvement to change the behavior of motorists. When asked about their concerns, one respondent said the intervention “Does not seem effective” and another commented that “Being in front a car is weird because they can go much faster than you.” Similarly, just one-quarter of respondents indicated that the intervention at Lincoln/Michigan impacted their route choice (possibly due to a lack of alternative route choices) compared to 71% at 11th /Broadway. While 83% of respondents at Ocean/California noted that the microwave sensors and the lone bike box made the intersection easier to navigate, only 43% said that it impacted their decision to route through the intersection. One person said they avoided it because it made them feel vulnerable, and another complained that the intervention was ineffective since it didn’t extend through the intersection.

BICYCLE TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATION PROJECT

Respondent concerns

“These are too few and far between!” - Bicyclist at Ocean/California

“I would like to see [a bike box] on the other side.” - Bicyclist at Ocean/California

“I use it only when biking alone and not with my child.” - Bicyclist at 11th/Broadway

“Cars need to signal and respect the bike box.”

- e-Scooter rider at 11th/Broadway

“Detectors needed before I would consider using the bike box. I do not feel comfortable using it to make a left turn. I cross the street to make a left turn.” - Bicyclist at 11th/Broadway

“Cars drive into the box. I didn’t know how to use it at first. I use the bike box to make left turns.” - Pedestrian at 11th/Broadway

“The paint wears off and gets stuck in the gutters.” - Pedestrian at 11th/Broadway

CITY OF SANTA MONICA

Summary Overall, the 60 survey respondents indicated that extended bike pockets were effective enough to be installed elsewhere in the city, primarily due to the perception of moderate improvements in safety and the ease by which the intervention could be understood. That said, respondents did not think that the extended bike pocket at Lincoln/Michigan made the intersection easier to navigate, and some suggested that other interventions may be more effective. Respondents overwhelmingly supported continued installation of bike boxes in the city, largely because they say it improved safety conditions while not detracting from the intersectionâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s efficiency. Feedback from users indicated that fully-colored bike boxes were better understood than partially-colored bike boxes and that the design at 11th/Broadway, which included a partially-colored bike box with redundant or misplaced stencils, was difficult to understand and that motorists did not always stop behind the bike box.

BICYCLE TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATION PROJECT

Survey respondents indicated that motorist encroachment into bike boxes was an issue

CITY OF SANTA MONICA

Data Collection As a compliment to the intercept survey analysis, observations of the study intersections were conducted before and after installation of the interventions. Below are the dates and times for the observational data collection by location:

PRE

POST

May 15+ May 22, 2012 7:00 AM - 10:00 AM 3:00 PM - 6:00 PM

May 22, 2018 7:00 AM - 10:00 AM 3:00 PM - 6:00 PM

May 22, 2018 7:00 AM - 10:00 AM 4:00 PM - 7:00 PM

Lincoln & Michigan

11 & Broadway

May 15, 2012 7:00 AM - 10:00 AM 4:00 PM - 7:00 PM

Ocean & California

May 22, 2012 7:00 AM - 9:00 AM 12:00 PM - 2:00 PM 5:00PM - 7:00PM

May 22, 2018 7:00 AM - 9:00 AM 12:00 PM - 2:00 PM 5:00PM - 7:00PM

11 & Olympic

October 9, 2012 7:00 AM - 10:00 AM 4:00 PM - 7:00 PM

May 21, 2019 7:00 AM - 10:00 AM 4:00 PM - 7:00 PM

11 & Pico

May 22, 2012 7:00 AM - 10:00 AM 4:00 PM - 7:00 PM

May 22, 2018 7:00 AM - 10:00 AM 4:00 PM - 7:00 PM*

17th & Broadway

May 22, 2012 5:00 PM - 7:00 PM

May 22, 2018 5:00 PM - 7:00 PM

Ocean & Arizona

May 15, 2012 7:00 AM - 9:00 AM

May 22, 2018 7:00 AM - 9:00 AM

May 22, 2012 7:00 AM - 9:00 AM

Volumes: June 5, 2018 Observations: May 22, 2018 7:00 AM - 9:00 AM

11th & Michigan

* Data collected error excluded bicyclist and pedestrian turning movement counts between 6:00 PM â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 7:00 PM

BICYCLE TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATION PROJECT

CITY OF SANTA MONICA

Approach A/B testing is a method of comparing two versions of the same thing against each other to determine which one performed better. For all A/B tests in this section, α = 0.05

To analyze the impacts of the selected interventions at the study intersections, a series of A/B tests were conducted to identify if a statistically significant change in the metrics were observed between the pre- and post-installation windows, between the test and control intersections, and between the intervention and non-intervention approaches at a given intersection.

Limitations All intersections were observed during at least one assumed peak period during the pre- and post-implementation periods.* While data was collected on a typical weekday with no known disruptive weather or major traffic-impacting events, observations over a limited observation window may be subject to the decreased statistical power of a small sample size and the effects of random variation. While efforts were made to select control intersections that were similar to the intervention intersections, some variations in the intersection geometries existed. In addition, the data collection period for the control intersections was smaller than the data collection period for the intervention intersections. Smaller observation periods were used for the control intersections to help reduce the overall costs of data collection.

Corrections The findings in this report supersedes those documented in working papers #1 through #4. Errors corrected from findings reported in Working Paper #3: Baseline Data Report include:  

Reporting back on the full data collection period A two-day average of observations and turning movement counts at Lincoln/Michigan

Observations by Location Observations for the study intersections are detailed below. See Appendix E for the observations from the three control intersections.

* Because 24-hour count was not available, the times selected for data collection of the peak periods was based on assumptions from typic peak periods at other intersections.

BICYCLE TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATION PROJECT

CITY OF SANTA MONICA

Lincoln & Michigan

Pre- and post-installation observations at Lincoln Boulevard and Michigan Avenue of a new extended bike pocket and right only lane in the eastbound approach and conversion of a twoway roadway to a parking-protected bikeway plus contraflow bicycle lane with green paint found the following: 



Bicyclist encroachment at the westbound approach increased by 26% (from 14% to 18%) between the pre- and post-installation periods compared to a 23% decrease at the other three approaches. The largest decrease was observed at the westbound approach where a contraflow bicycle lane and protected bicycle lane. The increased prevalence of bicyclist encroachment at the westbound approach was not statistically significant and may be the result of random variability. Bicyclist wrong-way riding at the westbound approach decreased 100% (from 5% to 0%) between the pre- and post-installation periods, which was consistent with an 66% decrease at the other three approaches. Bicyclist sidewalk riding at the westbound approach decreased 67% (from 43% to 15%) between the pre- and post-installation periods, which was consistent with a 28% decrease at the other three approaches. A statistically significant increase in jaywalking was observed at the east leg (from 1% to 13%), which was consistent with the large increase observed at the west leg (from 2% to 25%). This may be the result of fewer turning movement conflicts at the west leg as a result of the conversion of the west leg from a two-way to a one-way roadway and more well-defined travel lanes at the east leg. Motorist rolling right turns at the east leg increased 1,541% (from 2% to 24%) between the pre- and post-installation periods compared to a 167% increase at the north and south legs (no post-installation right turn movements were possible from the west leg after conversion of the road from two-way to one-way).

These findings suggest that an extended bike pocket and right only lane at the eastbound approach of Lincoln Boulevard and Michigan Avenue may have contributed to a decrease in wrong way bicycling and sidewalk riding at the westbound approach, while having little impact on bicyclist encroachment at the westbound approach. However, the combination of the extended bike pocket and right only lane may have contributed to an increase in motorists making rolling right turns and jaywalking. See the series of tables below for bicycle, pedestrian, and motor vehicle observations by intersection approach for Lincoln Boulevard and Michigan Avenue.

BICYCLE TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATION PROJECT

CITY OF SANTA MONICA

Observed bicyclist encroachment at Lincoln Boulevard & Michigan Avenue

Approach Northbound Southbound Eastbound** Westbound*** Total

Pre-Installation* Observed Total Prevalence 1 40 2.5% 2 55 3.6% 7 56 12.5% 8 56 14.3% 18

207

Post-Installation Observed Total Prevalence 2 28 7.1% 1 47 2.1% 7 120 5.8% 14 78 17.9%

8.7%

273

8.8%

Difference 185.7% -41.5% -53.3% 25.6% 1.1%

* Two-day average ** Converted from a two-way roadway to parking-protected bikeway and contraflow bicycle lane with green paint *** Extended bike pocket installed after the pre-installation window

Observed wrong-way bicycle riding at Lincoln Boulevard & Michigan Avenue

Approach Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound** Total

Pre-Installation* Observed Total Prevalence 1 40 2.5% 3 55 5.5% 2 57 3.5% 3 56 5.4% 9

208

Post-Installation Observed Total Prevalence 1 28 3.6% 0 47 0.0% 3 120 2.5% 0 78 0.0%

4.3%

273

1.5%

Difference 42.9% -100.0% -28.8% -100.0% -66.1%

* Two-day average ** Extended bike pocket installed after the pre-installation window

Observed bicyclist sidewalk riding at Lincoln Boulevard & Michigan Avenue

Approach Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound** Total

Pre-Installation* Observed Total Prevalence 26 53 49.1% 18 50 36.0% 17 47 36.2% 25 58 43.1% 86

208

41.3%

Post-Installation Observed Total Prevalence 22 57 38.6% 40 63 63.5% 7 70 10.0% 12 83 14.5% 81

273

29.7%

Difference -21.3% 76.4% -72.4% -66.5% -28.2%

* Two-day average ** Extended bike pocket installed after the pre-installation window

BICYCLE TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATION PROJECT

CITY OF SANTA MONICA

Observed pedestrian jaywalking at Lincoln Boulevard & Michigan Avenue

Approach North Leg South Leg East Leg** West Leg Total

Pre-Installation* Observed Total Prevalence 1 263 0.4% 3 792 0.4% 2 161 1.2% 5 281 1.8% 11

1,496

0.7%

Post-Installation Observed Total Prevalence 0 333 0.0% 3 633 0.5% 21 161 13.0% 57 226 25.2% 81

1,353

Difference -100.0% 25.0% 950.0% 1,317.4%

6.0%

714.2%

* Two-day average ** Extended bike pocket installed after the pre-installation window

Observed pedestrians crossing against the red signal at Lincoln Boulevard & Michigan Avenue

Approach North Leg South Leg East Leg** West Leg Total

Pre-Installation* Observed Total Prevalence 1 263 0.4% 3 792 0.4% 5 161 3.1% 5 281 1.8% 14

1,496

0.9%

Post-Installation Observed Total Prevalence 4 333 1.2% 1 633 0.2% 0 161 0.0% 23 226 10.2% 28

1,353

Difference 215.3% -58.3% -100.0% 471.9%

2.1%

121.1%

* Two-day average ** Extended bike pocket installed after the pre-installation window

Observed motorist rolling right turns at Lincoln Boulevard & Michigan Avenue

Approach North Leg South Leg East Leg** West Leg Total

Pre-Installation* Observed Total‡ Prevalence 6 652 0.9% 28 262 10.7% 11 751 1.5% 124 240 51.7% 169

1,905

8.9%

Post-Installation Observed Total‡ Prevalence 31 862 3.6% 80 257 31.1% 156 649 24.0% N/A*** N/A*** N/A 267

1,768

Difference 290.8% 191.3% 1,541.1% N/A

15.1%

70.2%

* Two-day average ** Extended bike pocket installed after the pre-installation window *** The travel lane along the west leg was replaced by a protected bikeway and a contraflow bicycle lane ‡ Number of right-turning motor vehicles

BICYCLE TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATION PROJECT

CITY OF SANTA MONICA

Summary of observed behaviors at Lincoln Boulevard & Michigan Avenue

Behavior Bicyclists Encroachment Wrong Way Riding Red Light Running Push Button Sidewalk Riding Outer Lane Position Bicyclist Volumes Pedestrians Jaywalking Cross Against Red Pedestrian Volumes Motorists Encroachment Rolling Rights Vehicle Volumes

Pre-Installation** Observed Total Prevalence

Post-Installation*** Observed Total Prevalence

Difference

18 9 3 4 86 16 -

207* 208* 206* 206* 208* 119*† 205

8.7% 4.3% 1.5% 1.9% 41.3% 7.7% -

24 4 27 4 86 25† -

273* 273* 272* 273* 273* 62 272

8.8% 1.5% 9.9% 1.5% 29.7% 40.3% -

1.1% -66.1% 581.6% -24.5% -23.8% 199.9% 32.7%

11 14 -

1,496 1,496 1,496

0.7% 0.9% -

81 28 -

1,353 1,353 1,353

6.0% 2.1% -

714.2% 121.1% -9.6%

419 169 -

17,818 1,905‡ 17,818

2.4% 8.9% -

366 267 -

16,534 1,768‡ 16,534

2.2% 15.1% -

-5.9% 70.2% -7.2%

* Volumes collected by automatic counters, and totals may vary from the in-person observations of other metrics **Two-day average *** Extended bike pocket added to westbound approach, grade and parking-protected bikeway and contraflow bicycle lane with green paint added to the eastbound approach † Bicyclists that did not fall clearly into “inner” and “outer” lane positioning categories were excluded ‡ Number of right-turning motor vehicles

BICYCLE TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATION PROJECT

CITY OF SANTA MONICA

11th & Broadway

Pre- and post-installation observations at 11th Street and Broadway of partially-colored bike boxes at all four approaches, a bike pocket at the northbound approach, green skip bicyclist pavement markings at eastbound and westbound approaches, and a reconfiguration of the northbound right turn lane found the following: 



Bicyclist encroachment into the crosswalk decreased at three out of the four approaches between the pre- and post-installation periods (32% decrease overall). An increase from 16% to 19% in bicyclist encroachment was observed at the southbound approach, which may be related to a small increase in motorist encroachment, unresolved sight distance issues caused by a building at the southeast corner of the intersection, or bicyclists circumventing long motorist queues. Motorist encroachment remained consistent at 2% between the pre- and postinstallation periods. Motorist encroachment at the southbound approach increased 53% but remaining at 1% between the pre- and post-installation periods (not statistically significant), which may be related to long motorist queues. Motorist encroachment increased 103% at the northbound approach (from 1% to 2%, representing a statistically significant difference), which may also be related to the northbound sight distance issues and long motorist queues. Bicyclist red light running increased at all four approaches from 0% to 9% of observed bicyclists between the pre- and post-installation periods. A similar increase was observed at the control intersection of 17th Street and Broadway, where bicyclist red light running increased from 5% to 10% between the pre- and post-installation periods. Bicyclist sidewalk riding decreased 43% (from 6% to 4%) between the pre- and postinstallation period, which may be an indication of a higher level of comfort at the intersection resulting from the bicycle interventions. Motorist rolling right turns increased 538% overall (from 2% to 13%) between the preand post-installation periods. The largest increase in motorist rolling right turns was at the south leg (from 2% to 21%), which may be related to the addition of a right only lane.

These findings suggest that partially-colored bike boxes and bicycle lane treatments may have helped reduce bicyclist encroachment and sidewalk riding at 11th Street and Broadway and that they had a limited impact on motorist encroachment. The intersection saw a sharp increase in motorist rolling right turns but this may have, in part, been connected to a reconfiguration of the northbound right turn lane. See the series of tables below for bicycle, pedestrian, and motor vehicle observations by intersection approach for 11th Street and Broadway.

BICYCLE TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATION PROJECT

CITY OF SANTA MONICA

Observed bicyclist encroachment at 11th Street & Broadway

Approach Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Total

Pre-Installation Observed Total Prevalence 12 69 17.4% 7 67 10.4% 47 164 28.7% 55 179 30.7% 121

479

25.3%

Post-Installation* Observed Total Prevalence 7 59 11.9% 16 97 16.5% 35 216 16.2% 42 214 19.6% 100

586

17.1%

Difference -31.8% 57.9% -43.5% -36.1% -32.4%

* Partially-colored bike boxes installed on all approaches

Observed bicyclist red light running at 11th Street & Broadway

Approach Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Total

Pre-Installation Observed Total Prevalence 0 69 0.0% 0 67 0.0% 0 164 0.0% 0 179 0.0% 0

479

0.0%

* Partially-colored bike boxes installed on all approaches

Post-Installation* Observed Total Prevalence 6 59 10.2% 32 97 33.0% 6 216 2.8% 9 214 4.2% 53

586

9.0%

Difference N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Observed bicyclist sidewalk riding at 11th Street & Broadway

Approach Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Total

Pre-Installation Observed Total Prevalence 5 64 7.8% 2 58 3.4% 12 174 6.9% 11 183 6.0% 30

479

6.3%

* Partially-colored bike boxes installed on all approaches

Post-Installation* Observed Total Prevalence 6 89 6.7% 1 60 1.7% 9 239 3.8% 5 198 2.5% 21

586

3.6%

Difference -13.7% -51.7% -45.4% -58.0% -42.8%

Observed motorist encroachment at 11th Street & Broadway

Approach Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Total

Pre-Installation Observed Total Prevalence 34 2,872 1.2% 16 2,655 0.6% 57 2,062 2.8% 44 2,158 2.0% 151

9,747

1.5%

Post-Installation* Observed Total Prevalence 74 3,076 2.4% 28 3,030 0.9% 34 2,199 1.5% 38 2,263 1.7% 174

10,568

1.6%

Difference 103.2% 53.3% -44.1% -17.6% 6.3%

* Partially-colored bike boxes installed on all approaches

BICYCLE TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATION PROJECT

CITY OF SANTA MONICA

Observed motorist rolling right turns at 11th Street & Broadway

Approach North Leg South Leg East Leg West Leg

Pre-Installation Observed Total‡ Prevalence 3 211 1.4% 5 340 1.5% 10 251 4.0% 4 274 1.5%

Total

1,076

Post-Installation* Observed Total‡ Prevalence 4 242 1.7% 94 444 21.2% 31 269 11.5% 48 403 11.9%

2.0%

177

1,358

13.0%

Difference 16.3% 1,339.6% 189.3% 715.9% 537.5%

* Partially-colored bike boxes installed on all approaches ‡ Number of right-turning motor vehicles

Summary of observed behaviors at 11th Street & Broadway

Pre-Installation Observed Total Prevalence

Post-Installation** Observed Total Prevalence

Difference

121 1 0 0 30 25 -

479 479 479 479 479 412† 479

25.3% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 6.3% 6.1% -

100 9 53 4 21 81 -

586* 586* 586* 586* 586* 126† 585

17.1% 1.5% 9.0% 0.7% 3.6% 64.3% -

-32.4% 635.7% N/A N/A -42.8% 959.4% 22.1%

1 0 -

584 584 584

0.2% 0.0% -

15 3 -

810 810 810

1.9% 0.4% -

981.5% N/A 38.7%

151 22 -

9,747 1,076‡ 9,747

1.5% 2.0% -

174 177 -

10,568 1,358‡ 10,568

1.6% 13.0% -

6.3% 537.5% 8.4%

* Volumes collected by automatic counters, and totals may vary from the in-person observations of other metrics ** Installation of partially-colored bike boxes at all four approaches, bike pocket added to northbound approach, and bike lanes with green pavement markings added to eastbound and westbound approaches † Bicyclists that did not fall clearly into “inner” and “outer” lane positioning categories were excluded ‡ Number of right-turning motor vehicles

BICYCLE TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATION PROJECT

CITY OF SANTA MONICA

Ocean & California

Pre- and post-installation observations at Ocean Avenue and California Avenue of a fullycolored bike box at the westbound approach, a two-way grade separated bikeway at the eastbound approach, and microwave sensors at all four approaches found the following: 



Bicyclist encroachment into the crosswalk increased 261% at the westbound approach (from 5% to 19%) where a fully-colored bike box was installed between the pre- and post-installation periods and increased 44% overall at the four approaches. This may be a result of a lack of stop bar for bicyclists on the westbound bike box and the need for bicyclists to transition from the two-way separated bikeway (along the sidewalk) to the roadway at the eastbound approach. Bicyclist red light running increased 102% at the westbound approach (from 13% to 26%) between the pre- and post-installation periods, which was consistent with a 22% overall increase at the other three approaches. This may indicate bicyclists’ frustration with the accuracy of the microwave sensor or it may suggest that bicyclists were not aware that a sensor was present due to a lack of signage/pavement markings. Bicyclist sidewalk riding decreased 64% at the westbound approach (from 44% to 16%) and decreased 49% at the southbound approach (from 19% to 10%) between the pre- and post-installation periods. Conversely, bicyclist sidewalk riding increased 96% at the northbound approach (from 20% to 39%) and increased 51% at the eastbound approach (from 65% to 51%) between the pre- and post-installation periods. This increase is likely the result of the addition of a striped bicycle lane along the sidewalk at the eastbound approach and the availability of wide off-street paths at the southbound approach. Bicyclist push-button activation increased from 0% (0 out of 467 observed bicyclists) to 1% (3 out of 364 bicyclist observations) between the pre- and postinstallation periods. This change was not statistically significant. Motorist encroachment decreased 46% overall (from 4% to 2%) between the pre- and post-installation periods. Motorist encroachment at the westbound approach decreased 49% (from 8% to 4%) between the pre- and post-installation periods, which was consistent with the 47% decrease observed at the other three locations. Motorist rolling right turns increased 100% at the east leg (from 12% to 23%) between the pre- and post-installation periods, which was consistent with a 211% increase at the other three approaches. The largest increase in motorist rolling right turns was observed at the west leg (from 6% to 39%), which may be related to the larger turning radius afforded by conversion of two inner lanes at the eastbound approach from the separate right only and through lanes to a single, wide right only lane.

These findings suggest that fully-colored bike box may have helped reduce bicyclist sidewalk riding at the westbound approach of Ocean Avenue and California Avenue, in addition to not leading to an increase in motorist encroachment. However, bicyclist encroachment, red light running, and rolling right turns at the westbound approach increased. While the underlying cause of the increase is not clear, a lack of stenciling informing bicyclists about the sensor, frustration with the accuracy of the sensor, or general signal timing may have contribute to the increase in these metrics. See the series of tables below for bicycle, pedestrian, and motor vehicle observations by intersection approach for Ocean Avenue and California Avenue.

BICYCLE TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATION PROJECT

CITY OF SANTA MONICA

Observed bicyclist encroachment at Ocean Avenue & California Avenue

Approach Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound** Total

Pre-Installation Observed Total Prevalence 36 308 11.7% 2 40 5.0% 1 80 1.3% 2 39 5.1% 41

467

8.8%

Post-Installation* Observed Total Prevalence 7 15 46.7% 33 210 15.7% 2 119 1.7% 5 27 18.5% 47

371

12.7%

Difference 299.3% 214.3% 34.5% 261.1% 44.3%

*Installation of microwave sensors at all four approaches ** Installation of a fully-colored bike box in the westbound approach

Observed bicyclist red light running at Ocean Avenue & California Avenue

Approach Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound** Total

Pre-Installation Observed Total Prevalence 19 308 6.2% 5 40 12.5% 4 80 5.0% 5 39 12.8% 33

467

7.1%

Post-Installation* Observed Total Prevalence 2 10 20.0% 7 210 3.3% 18 119 15.1% 7 27 25.9% 34

366

9.3%

Difference 224.2% -73.3% 202.5% 102.2% 31.5%

*Installation of microwave sensors at all four approaches ** Installation of a fully-colored bike box in the westbound approach

Observed push button activations by bicyclists at Ocean Avenue & California Avenue

Approach Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound** Total

Pre-Installation Observed Total Prevalence 0 308 0.0% 0 40 0.0% 0 80 0.0% 0 39 0.0% 0

467

0.0%

Post-Installation* Observed Total Prevalence 0 8 0.0% 1 210 0.5% 2 119 1.7% 0 27 0.0% 3

364

0.8%

Difference N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

*Installation of microwave sensors at all four approaches ** Installation of a fully-colored bike box in the westbound approach

BICYCLE TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATION PROJECT

CITY OF SANTA MONICA

Observed bicyclist sidewalk riding at Ocean Avenue & California Avenue

Approach Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound** Total

Pre-Installation Observed Total Prevalence 43 216 19.9% 34 175 19.4% 32 49 65.3% 16 36 44.4% 125

476

26.3%

Post-Installation* Observed Total Prevalence 57 146 39.0% 17 173 9.8% 87*** 88 98.9% 7 44 15.9% 168

451

37.3%

Difference 96.1% -49.4% 51.4% -64.2% 41.9%

*Installation of microwave sensors at all four approaches ** Installation of a fully-colored bike box in the westbound approach *** Formal bicycle lane striped on sidewalk of eastbound approach

Observed motorist encroachment at Ocean Avenue & California Avenue

Approach Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound** Total

Pre-Installation Observed Total Prevalence 45 4,691 1.0% 199 2,752 7.2% 75 2,402 3.1% 88 1,181 7.5% 407

11,026

3.7%

Post-Installation* Observed Total Prevalence 10 4,177 0.2% 87 2,878 3.0% 59 1,943 3.0% 48 1,268 3.8% 204

10,266

2.0%

Difference -75.0% -58.2% -2.7% -49.2% -46.2%

*Installation of microwave sensors at all four approaches ** Installation of a fully-colored bike box in the westbound approach

Observed motorist rolling right turns at Ocean Avenue & California Avenue

Approach North Leg South Leg East Leg** West Leg Total

Pre-Installation Observed Total‡ Prevalence 98 523 18.7% 52 343 15.2% 30 262 11.5% 92 1,637 5.6% 272

2,765

9.8%

Post-Installation* Observed Total‡ Prevalence 147 772 19.0% 99 414 23.9% 59 258 22.9% 473 1,207 39.2% 778

2,651

29.3%

Difference 1.6% 57.7% 99.7% 597.3% 198.3%

*Installation of microwave sensors at all four approaches ** Installation of a fully-colored bike box at the east leg ‡ Number of right-turning motor vehicles

BICYCLE TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATION PROJECT

CITY OF SANTA MONICA

Summary of observed behaviors at Ocean Avenue & California Avenue

Pre-Installation Observed Total Prevalence

Post-Installation** Observed Total Prevalence

Difference

41 0 33 0 125 82 -

467 467 467 467 476 311† 467

8.8% 0.0% 7.1% 0.0% 26.3% 26.4% -

47 6 34 3 168 52 -

371* 368* 366* 364* 451* 89† 414

12.7% 1.6% 9.3% 0.8% 37.3% 58.4% -

44.3% N/A 31.5% N/A 41.9% 121.6% -11.3%

0 20 -

1,639 1,639 1,639

0.0% 1.2% -

13 16 -

1,814 1,814 1,814

0.7% 0.9% -

N/A -27.7% 10.7%

407 272 -

11,026 2,765‡ 11,026

3.7% 9.8% -

204 778 -

10,266 2,651‡ 10,266

2.0% 29.3% -

-46.2% 198.3% -6.9%

* Volumes collected by automatic counters, and totals may vary from the in-person observations of other metrics **Installation of a bike lane and fully-colored bike box at the westbound approach and microwave sensors installed at all four approaches † Bicyclists that did not fall clearly into “inner” and “outer” lane positioning categories were excluded ‡ Number of right-turning motor vehicles

BICYCLE TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATION PROJECT

CITY OF SANTA MONICA

11th & Olympic

Pre- and post-installation observations at 11th Street and S. Olympic Boulevard of loop detectors a continental crosswalk, and ADA-compliant curb ramps at the eastbound approach and updated bicycle lanes with green paint at the northbound and southbound approaches found the following: 



Bicyclist encroachment into the crosswalk remained at 0% ahead of the eastbound approach between the pre- and post-installation periods among a small sample size of observed bicyclists (9 and 12 bicyclists, respectively). Bicyclist encroachment was not observed at the other two approaches. Wrong way bicycling decreased slightly overall (from 4% to 1%) between the preand post-installation periods, with the largest change taking place at the eastbound approach among a small sample size of observed bicyclists (decreasing from 5 bicyclists to 0 bicyclists riding in the wrong direction). Bicyclist red light running remained at 1% at the eastbound approach between the pre- and post-installation periods among a small sample size of observed bicyclists (9 and 12 bicyclists, respectively), which was consistent with the other two approaches. Bicyclist sidewalk riding decreased slightly overall (from 55 to 3%) between the preand post-installation periods, with no bicyclist sidewalk riding observed at the eastbound approach in either data collection period. The prevalence of outer lane positioning among bicyclists increased overall (from 40% to 81%) between the pre- and post-installation periods, potentially indicating a response to updated bicycle lane striping in the northbound and southbound approaches. Although the percent of bicyclists positioning themselves in the outer part of the lane in the eastbound approach decreased slightly (from 57% to 50%) between the pre- and post-installation periods, this was among a small sample size of observed bicyclists (7 and 2 bicyclists, respectively).

These findings suggest that the eastbound loop detectors had little influence on bicyclist behavior, although a larger sample of observed bicyclists is needed. See the series of tables below for bicycle, pedestrian, and motor vehicle observations by intersection approach for 11th Street and S. Olympic Boulevard.

BICYCLE TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATION PROJECT

CITY OF SANTA MONICA

Observed bicyclist encroachment at 11th Street & S. Olympic Boulevard

Approach Northbound† Southbound*† Eastbound** Westbound Total

Pre-Installation Observed Total Prevalence 0 9 0.0% 0

Post-Installation Observed Total Prevalence 0 12 0.0% -

0.0%

Difference N/A N/A

*Installation of loop detectors after pre-installation period ** Installation of a striped bicycle lane after pre-installation period † No crosswalks present at northbound and southbound approaches

Observed wrong-way bicycle riding at 11th Street & S. Olympic Boulevard

Approach Northbound Southbound* Eastbound** Westbound Total

Pre-Installation Observed Total Prevalence 1 98 1.0% 2 118 1.7% 5 9 55.6% 8

225

Post-Installation Observed Total Prevalence 2 112 1.8% 1 94 1.1% 0 12 0.0% -

3.6%

218

1.4%

Difference 75.0% -37.2% -100.0% -61.3%

*Installation of loop detectors after pre-installation period ** Installation of a striped bicycle lane after pre-installation period

Observed bicyclist red light running at 11th Street & S. Olympic Boulevard

Approach Northbound Southbound* Eastbound** Westbound Total

Pre-Installation Observed Total Prevalence 0 98 0.0% 1 118 0.8% 1 9 11.1% 2

225

Post-Installation Observed Total Prevalence 1 112 0.9% 0 94 0.0% 1 12 8.3% -

0.9%

218

0.9%

Difference N/A -100.0% -25.0% 3.2%

*Installation of loop detectors after pre-installation period ** Installation of a striped bicycle lane after pre-installation period

BICYCLE TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATION PROJECT

CITY OF SANTA MONICA

Observed bicyclist sidewalk riding at 11th Street & S. Olympic Boulevard

Approach Northbound Southbound* Eastbound** Westbound Total

Pre-Installation Observed Total Prevalence 4 98 4.1% 8 118 6.8% 0 9 0.0% 12

225

Post-Installation Observed Total Prevalence 2 112 1.8% 5 94 5.3% 0 12 0.0% -

5.3%

218

3.2%

Difference -56.3% -21.5% N/A -39.8%

*Installation of loop detectors after pre-installation period ** Installation of a striped bicycle lane after pre-installation period

Observed bicyclist outer lane positioning at 11th Street & S. Olympic Boulevard

Approach Northbound Southbound* Eastbound** Westbound Total

Pre-Installation Observed Total Prevalence 38 92 41.3% 41 107 38.3% 4 7 57.1% 83

206

Post-Installation Observed Total Prevalence 92 110 83.6% 77 99 77.8% 1 2 50.0% -

40.3%

170

211

80.6%

Difference 102.5% 103.0% -12.5% 100.0%

*Installation of loop detectors after pre-installation period ** Installation of a striped bicycle lane after pre-installation period

Observed pedestrian jaywalking at 11th Street & S. Olympic Boulevard

Approach North Leg* South Leg East Legâ&#x20AC; West Leg** Total

Pre-Installation Observed Total Prevalence 0 0 0.0% 3 3 100.0% 8 123 6.5% 11

126

Post-Installation Observed Total Prevalence 4 4 100.0% 1 1 100.0% 0 95 0.0%

8.7%

100

5.0%

Difference N/A 0.0% -100.0% -42.7%

* Installation of a striped bicycle lane after pre-installation period ** Installation of loop detectors after pre-installation period â&#x20AC; No pedestrian movement restrictions along the east leg

BICYCLE TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATION PROJECT

CITY OF SANTA MONICA

Observed pedestrians crossing against the red signal at 11th Street & S. Olympic Boulevard

Approach North Leg* South Leg East Leg† West Leg** Total

Pre-Installation Observed Total Prevalence 0 0 0.0% 0 3 0.0% 8 123 6.5% 8

126

Post-Installation Observed Total Prevalence 0 4 0.0% 0 1 0.0% 8 95 8.4%

6.3%

* Installation of a striped bicycle lane after pre-installation period ** Installation of loop detectors after pre-installation period † No pedestrian movement restrictions along the east leg

100

8.0%

Difference N/A N/A 29.5% 26.0%

Observed motorist encroachment at 11th Street & S. Olympic Boulevard

Approach Northbound† Southbound*† Eastbound** Westbound Total

Pre-Installation Observed Total Prevalence 200 1,161 17.2% 200

1,161

Post-Installation Observed Total Prevalence 240 1,187 20.2% -

17.2%

240

*Installation of loop detectors after pre-installation period ** Installation of a striped bicycle lane after pre-installation period † No crosswalks present at the northbound and southbound approaches

1,187

20.2%

Difference 17.4% 17.4%

Observed motorist rolling right turns at 11th Street & S. Olympic Boulevard

Approach North Leg* South Leg East Leg West Leg** Total

Pre-Installation Observed Total‡ Prevalence 76 376‡ 20.2% 76

376

Post-Installation Observed Total‡ Prevalence 144 358‡ 40.2%

20.2%

* Installation of a striped bicycle lane after pre-installation period ** Installation of loop detectors after pre-installation period ‡ Number of right-turning motor vehicles

BICYCLE TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATION PROJECT

144

358

40.2%

Difference 99.0% 99.0%

CITY OF SANTA MONICA

Summary of observed behaviors at 11th Street & S. Olympic Boulevard

Behavior Bicyclists Encroachment** Wrong Way Riding Red Light Running Push Button*** Sidewalk Riding Outer Lane Position† Bicyclist Volumes Pedestrians Jaywalking†† Cross Against Red†† Pedestrian Volumes Motorists Encroachment** Rolling Rights Vehicle Volumes

Pre-Installation Observed Total Prevalence

Post-Installation* Observed Total Prevalence

Difference

0 8 2 12 83 -

9 225 225 225 206 225

0.0% 3.6% 0.9% 5.3% 40.3% -

0 3 2 7 170 -

12 218 218 218 211 218

0.0% 1.4% 0.9% 3.2% 80.6% -

N/A -61.3% 3.2% -39.8% 100.0% -3.1%

11 8 -

126 126 126

8.7% 6.3% -

5 8 -

100 100 100

5.0% 8.0% -

-42.7% 26.0% -20.6%

200 76 -

1,161 376‡ 7,245

17.2% 20.2% -

240 144 -

1,187 358‡ 7,874

20.2% 40.2% -

17.4% 99.0% 8.7%

* Installation of loop detectors at the eastbound approach and a striped bicycle lane at the southbound approach ** No crosswalks present at northbound and southbound approaches *** No pedestrian push buttons are present at this intersection † On-street bicyclists that did not fall clearly into “inner” and “outer” lane positioning categories were excluded †† No pedestrian movement restrictions at East Leg ‡ Number of right-turning motor vehicles at West Leg

BICYCLE TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATION PROJECT

CITY OF SANTA MONICA

11th & Pico

Pre- and post-installation observations at 11th Street and Pico Boulevard of video detection devices at all four approaches and a bicycle lane at the northbound approach found the following: 



 

Bicyclist encroachment increased 42% overall (from 14% to 20%) between the preand post-installation period, suggesting that bicyclists were not content to wait at the detection pavement markings or that the markings were too faded to be noticed by bicyclists. Wrong-way bicycling increased 624% at the northbound approach between preand post-installation periods (from 1% to 10% but on a small sample size of 70 bicyclists and 29 bicyclists, respectively), while wrong-way bicycling decreased 65% at the other three approaches. This may be random variability due to the small number of observed bicyclists at the northbound approach during the post-implementation period (the change was not statistically significant at α = 0.05). Bicyclist red light running remained relatively consistent, increasing from 2% during the pre-installation period (4 out of 217 observed bicyclists) to 4% during the postinstallation period (7 out of 199 bicyclists). Bicyclist sidewalk riding also remained relatively consistent at 11% between the preand post-installation periods. Bicyclist push-button activation decreased 100% (from 2 out of 217 observed bicyclists to 0 out of 199 observed bicyclists) between the pre- and post-installation periods.

These findings suggest that video detection may not have had a large influence on bicyclist red light running, wrong-way bicycling, or sidewalk riding at 11th Street and Pico Boulevard but may have contributed to an increase in bicyclist encroachment. See the series of tables below for bicycle, pedestrian, and motor vehicle observations by intersection approach for 11th Street and Pico Boulevard.

BICYCLE TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATION PROJECT

CITY OF SANTA MONICA

Observed bicyclist encroachment at 11th Street & Pico Boulevard

Approach Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Total

Pre-Installation Observed Total Prevalence 10 70 14.3% 14 69 20.3% 6 27 22.2% 0 51 0.0% 30

217

13.8%

Post-Installation* Observed Total Prevalence 5 29 17.2% 22 112 19.6% 5 30 16.7% 7 28 22.0% 39

199

19.6%

Difference 20.7% -3.2% -25.0% N/A 41.8%

* Video detection was installed at all approaches

Observed wrong-way bicycle riding at 11th Street & Pico Boulevard

Approach Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Total

Pre-Installation Observed Total Prevalence 1 70 1.4% 4 69 5.8% 5 27 18.5% 1 51 2.0% 11

217

* Video detection was installed at all approaches

5.1%

Post-Installation* Observed Total Prevalence 3 29 10.3% 2 112 1.8% 1 29 3.4% 1 28 3.6% 7

198

3.5%

Difference 624.1% -69.2% -81.4% 82.1% -30.3%

Observed bicyclist red light running at 11th Street & Pico Boulevard

Approach Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Total

Pre-Installation Observed Total Prevalence 1 70 1.4% 1 69 1.4% 0 27 0.0% 2 51 3.9% 4

217

* Video detection was installed at all approaches

1.8%

Post-Installation* Observed Total Prevalence 2 29 6.9% 2 112 1.8% 1 30 3.3% 2 28 7.1% 7

199

3.5%

Difference 382.8% 23.2% N/A 82.1% 90.8%

Observed push button activations by bicyclists at 11th Street & Pico Boulevard

Approach Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Total

Pre-Installation** Observed Total Prevalence 1 70 1.4% 0 69 0.0% 1 27 3.7% 0 51 0.0% 2

217

* Video detection was installed at all approaches

BICYCLE TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATION PROJECT

0.9%

Post-Installation* Observed Total Prevalence 0 29 0.0% 0 112 0.0% 0 30 0.0% 0 28 0.0% 0

199

0.0%

Difference -100.0% N/A -100.0% N/A -100.0%

CITY OF SANTA MONICA

Observed bicyclist sidewalk riding at 11th Street & Pico Boulevard

Approach Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Total

Pre-Installation Observed Total Prevalence 4 73 5.5% 7 67 10.4% 5 27 18.5% 7 50 14.0% 23

217

10.6%

Post-Installation* Observed Total Prevalence 4 82 4.9% 1 44 2.3% 6 31 19.4% 11 42 26.2% 22

199

11.1%

Difference -11.0% -78.2% 4.5% 87.1% 4.3%

* Video detection was installed at all approaches

Observed bicyclist outer lane positioning at 11th Street & Pico Boulevard

Approach Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Total

Pre-Installation Observed Total Prevalence 9 64 14.1% 19 61 31.1% 1 20 5.0% 5 43 11.6% 34

188

18.1%

* Video detection was installed at all approaches

BICYCLE TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATION PROJECT

Post-Installation* Observed Total Prevalence 11 16 68.8% 37 106 34.9% 4 28 14.3% 3 24 12.5% 55

174

31.6%

Difference 388.9% 12.1% 185.7% 7.5% 74.8%

CITY OF SANTA MONICA

Summary of observed behaviors at 11th Street & Pico Boulevard

Pre-Installation Observed Total Prevalence

Post-Installation** Observed Total Prevalence

Difference

30 11 4 2 23 34 -

217* 217* 217* 217* 217* 188† 185††

13.8% 5.1% 1.8% 0.9% 10.6% 18.1% -

39 7 7 0 22 55 -

199* 198* 199* 199* 199* 174† 160††

19.6% 3.5% 3.5% 0.0% 11.1% 31.6% -

41.8% -30.3% 90.8% -100.0% 4.3% 74.8% -13.5%

0 0 -

319†† 319†† 319††

0.0% 0.0% -

3 3 -

266†† 266†† 266††

1.1% 1.1% -

N/A N/A -16.6%

297 133 -

12,855 1,244‡ 12,855

2.3% 10.7% -

291 233 -

12,410 1,380‡ 12,410

2.3% 16.9% -

1.5% 57.9% -3.5%

* Volumes collected by automatic counters, and totals may vary from the in-person observations of other metrics ** Video detectors installed at all four approaches and a bike lane added to the northbound approach † Bicyclists that did not fall clearly into “inner” and “outer” lane positioning categories were excluded †† Data collection error excluded bicyclist and pedestrian turning movement counts between 6:00 PM and 7:00 PM during the pre-installation period; reported post-installation bicyclist and pedestrian turning movement counts limited to match pre-installation period ‡ Number of right-turning motor vehicles

BICYCLE TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATION PROJECT

CITY OF SANTA MONICA

Source: Oran Viriyincy (modified), Flickr

Safety Research Question: Do the intersection interventions improve safety conditions for pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorists, including travel behavior, perceptions of safety, and collisions? To answer this question, intersection users were asked about their perceptions of safety postinstallation, collision data was compared pre- and post-installation, and wrong-way bicycling, bicyclist red light running, motorist encroachment, and rolling right turn observations were compared pre- and post-installation.

Extended Bike Pocket An extended bike pocket was installed next to a new right only turn lane at the westbound approach of Lincoln Boulevard and Michigan Avenue (along with the addition of a protected bikeway and contraflow bicycle lane in the west leg). Among the 15 respondents to the intercept survey at the intersection, 60% (9 respondents) said that the changes to the intersection made them feel safer (there were 0 reported bicyclist-involved collisions at the intersection between 2007 and 2011 and 1 reported bicyclist-involved collision between 2013 and 2017).* There was a significant increase in wrong-way bicycling and rolling right turns at the westbound approach, in addition to a significant decrease in bicyclist sidewalk riding, which may have been influenced by the lack of oncoming traffic from the eastbound approach due to the lane reconfiguration.

Bike Box Partially-colored bike boxes were installed at all four approaches of 11th Street and Broadway (along with the addition of green pavement markings for existing bicycle lanes and a new northbound right only lane). Among the 23 respondents to the intercept survey at the intersection, 78% said that the changes made the intersection feel safer (there were 0 reported bicyclist-involved collisions at the intersection between 2007 and 2011 and 3 reported bicyclistinvolved collisions between 2013 and 2017).* The installation of the bike boxes was associated with a decrease in sidewalk riding and limited influence on motorist encroachment into the crosswalk. The change was also associated with a modest increase in bicyclist red light running and a large increase motorist rolling right turns, which may have in part been influenced by the addition of a northbound right only lane. A fully-colored bike box was installed at the westbound approach of Ocean Avenue and California Avenue (along with microwave sensors at all approaches). Among the 16 respondents to the intercept survey at the intersection, 81% said the changes made the intersection feel safer (there were 0 reported bicyclist-involved collision between 2007 and 2011 and 1 reported bicyclist-involved collision between 2013 and 2017).* The installed bike box was associated with decreases in bicyclist sidewalk riding and motorist encroachment. The change was also associated with an increase in bicyclist red light running and motorist rolling right turns which may have been influenced by the lack of pavement markings to indicate the presence of the microwave sensors and fewer turning conflicts.

*See Appendix F for collision data BICYCLE TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATION PROJECT

CITY OF SANTA MONICA

Design Research Questions:    

To answer these questions, intersection users were asked the legibility of the interventions post-installation, observational data of bicyclist encroachment into the crosswalk and sidewalk riding was compared pre- and post-installation, and City maintenance staff were consulted.

Extended Bike Pocket An extended bike pocket was installed at the westbound approach of Lincoln Boulevard and Michigan Avenue (along with the addition of a protected bikeway and contraflow bicycle lane at the eastbound approach). Among the 17 respondents to the intercept survey at the intersection, 65% said they understood how to use the changes. In addition, 10 out of 15 respondents (67%) said that the changes helped them to know where to position themselves ahead of the traffic signal. Between the pre- and post-installation windows, the extended bike pocket was associated with decreases in sidewalk bicycle riding and increases in bicyclist encroachment into the crosswalk.

Bike Box Partially-colored bike boxes were installed at all four approaches of 11th Street and Broadway (along with the addition of green pavement markings for existing bicycle lanes and a new northbound right only lane). Among the 23 survey respondents at the location, only 30% said they understood how to use the intervention, and only 7 of 13 respondents (54%) said that the interventions helped them know where to position themselves ahead of the traffic signal. Between the pre- and post-installation windows, the partially-colored bike boxes were associated with significant decreases in bicyclist encroachment and sidewalk riding. A fully-colored bike box was installed at the westbound approach of Ocean Avenue and California Avenue (along with microwave sensors at all approaches). Among the 16 intercept survey respondents at the intersection, 81% said that they understood how to use the intervention. In addition, 5 of 11 respondents (71%) said that the treatment helped them know where to position themselves ahead of the traffic signal. Between the pre- and postinstallation windows, the bike box was associated with a decrease in sidewalk riding and an increase in bicyclist encroachment into the crosswalk. The City of Santa Monica’s Civil Engineering Division found that the selected paint treatment for the bike boxes was adequately durable over time.

BICYCLE TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATION PROJECT

CITY OF SANTA MONICA

Efficiency Research Questions:  

Which bicycle detection device is most accurate? Do bicycle detection devices improve bicyclists’ ability to safely travel through an intersection by reducing the rate of red light running?

To answer these questions, observational data of bicyclist red light running and bicyclist push button activation was compared pre- and post-installation.

Loop Detector A loop detector was installed at the eastbound approach of 11th Street and Olympic Boulevard. There was no significant change in bicyclist red light running or bicyclist encroachment into the crosswalk between the pre- and post-installation windows among a small sample size of observed bicyclists.

Video Detector Video detectors were installed at all four approaches of 11th Street and Pico Boulevard. There was no significant change in the rate of bicyclist red light running or push-button activation between the pre- and post-installation windows. The City of Santa Monica’s Civil Engineering Division found that video detectors were best able to differentiate between bicyclists and motor vehicles, were relatively quick to install and reset, and were easy to adjust the detection field to validate proper functioning of the sensor.

Microwave Sensors Microwave sensors were installed at all four approaches of Ocean Avenue and California (along with a fully-colored bike box at the westbound approach). Between the pre- and postinstallation periods, there was minimal observed change in push button activation and a large increase in bicyclist red light running at the westbound approach and a slight increase at the other three approaches. The increase in westbound red light running may have been related to a lack of pavement markings indicating the presence of a sensor.

BICYCLE TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATION PROJECT

CITY OF SANTA MONICA

Summary In an effort to identify effective bicycle intersection interventions, the City of Santa Monica evaluated a series of bicycle interventions (extended bike pocket, partially- and fullycolored bike boxes, a loop detector, video detectors, and microwave sensors) at eight study intersections through a user intercept survey and through before/after observations. The interventions were evaluated to see if they positively impacted the safety, legibility of design, and efficiency of the intersection for all roadway users. Results of the study showed the following: 



 



BICYCLE TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATION PROJECT

CITY OF SANTA MONICA

City of Santa Monica

Appendix A â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Survey Instruments Paper Survey Instrument

Bicycle Technology Demonstration Project |Appendix A | Page 60

City of Santa Monica

Appendix B â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Raw Survey Responses

Bicycle Technology Demonstration Project |Appendix B | Page 61

City of Santa Monica

Bicycle Technology Demonstration Project |Appendix B | Page 62

City of Santa Monica

Bicycle Technology Demonstration Project |Appendix B | Page 63

City of Santa Monica

Bicycle Technology Demonstration Project |Appendix B | Page 64

City of Santa Monica

Bicycle Technology Demonstration Project |Appendix B | Page 65

City of Santa Monica

Bicycle Technology Demonstration Project |Appendix B | Page 66

City of Santa Monica

Bicycle Technology Demonstration Project |Appendix B | Page 67

City of Santa Monica

Bicycle Technology Demonstration Project |Appendix B | Page 68

City of Santa Monica

Bicycle Technology Demonstration Project |Appendix B | Page 69

City of Santa Monica

Bicycle Technology Demonstration Project |Appendix B | Page 70

City of Santa Monica

Bicycle Technology Demonstration Project |Appendix B | Page 71

City of Santa Monica

Bicycle Technology Demonstration Project |Appendix B | Page 72

City of Santa Monica

Bicycle Technology Demonstration Project |Appendix B | Page 73

City of Santa Monica

Bicycle Technology Demonstration Project |Appendix B | Page 74

City of Santa Monica

Bicycle Technology Demonstration Project |Appendix B | Page 75

City of Santa Monica

Bicycle Technology Demonstration Project |Appendix B | Page 76

City of Santa Monica

Bicycle Technology Demonstration Project |Appendix B | Page 77

City of Santa Monica

Bicycle Technology Demonstration Project |Appendix B | Page 78

City of Santa Monica

Bicycle Technology Demonstration Project |Appendix B | Page 79

City of Santa Monica

Bicycle Technology Demonstration Project |Appendix B | Page 80

City of Santa Monica

Bicycle Technology Demonstration Project |Appendix B | Page 81

City of Santa Monica

Bicycle Technology Demonstration Project |Appendix B | Page 82

City of Santa Monica

Bicycle Technology Demonstration Project |Appendix B | Page 83

City of Santa Monica

Bicycle Technology Demonstration Project |Appendix B | Page 84

City of Santa Monica

Bicycle Technology Demonstration Project |Appendix B | Page 85

City of Santa Monica

Bicycle Technology Demonstration Project |Appendix B | Page 86

City of Santa Monica

Bicycle Technology Demonstration Project |Appendix B | Page 87

City of Santa Monica

Bicycle Technology Demonstration Project |Appendix B | Page 88

City of Santa Monica

Bicycle Technology Demonstration Project |Appendix B | Page 89

City of Santa Monica

Bicycle Technology Demonstration Project |Appendix B | Page 90

City of Santa Monica

Bicycle Technology Demonstration Project |Appendix B | Page 91

City of Santa Monica

Bicycle Technology Demonstration Project |Appendix B | Page 92

City of Santa Monica

Bicycle Technology Demonstration Project |Appendix B | Page 93

City of Santa Monica

Bicycle Technology Demonstration Project |Appendix B | Page 94

City of Santa Monica

Bicycle Technology Demonstration Project |Appendix B | Page 95

City of Santa Monica

Bicycle Technology Demonstration Project |Appendix B | Page 96

City of Santa Monica

Bicycle Technology Demonstration Project |Appendix B | Page 97

City of Santa Monica

Bicycle Technology Demonstration Project |Appendix B | Page 98

City of Santa Monica

Bicycle Technology Demonstration Project |Appendix B | Page 99

City of Santa Monica

Bicycle Technology Demonstration Project |Appendix B | Page 100

City of Santa Monica

Bicycle Technology Demonstration Project |Appendix B | Page 101

City of Santa Monica

Bicycle Technology Demonstration Project |Appendix B | Page 102

City of Santa Monica

Bicycle Technology Demonstration Project |Appendix B | Page 103

City of Santa Monica

Bicycle Technology Demonstration Project |Appendix B | Page 104

City of Santa Monica

Bicycle Technology Demonstration Project |Appendix B | Page 105

City of Santa Monica

Bicycle Technology Demonstration Project |Appendix B | Page 106

City of Santa Monica

Bicycle Technology Demonstration Project |Appendix B | Page 107

City of Santa Monica

Bicycle Technology Demonstration Project |Appendix B | Page 108

City of Santa Monica

Bicycle Technology Demonstration Project |Appendix B | Page 109

City of Santa Monica

Bicycle Technology Demonstration Project |Appendix B | Page 110

City of Santa Monica

Bicycle Technology Demonstration Project |Appendix B | Page 111

City of Santa Monica

Bicycle Technology Demonstration Project |Appendix B | Page 112

City of Santa Monica

Bicycle Technology Demonstration Project |Appendix B | Page 113

City of Santa Monica

Bicycle Technology Demonstration Project |Appendix B | Page 114

City of Santa Monica

Bicycle Technology Demonstration Project |Appendix B | Page 115

City of Santa Monica

Bicycle Technology Demonstration Project |Appendix B | Page 116

City of Santa Monica

Bicycle Technology Demonstration Project |Appendix B | Page 117

City of Santa Monica

Bicycle Technology Demonstration Project |Appendix B | Page 118

City of Santa Monica

Bicycle Technology Demonstration Project |Appendix B | Page 119

City of Santa Monica

Bicycle Technology Demonstration Project |Appendix B | Page 120

City of Santa Monica

Bicycle Technology Demonstration Project |Appendix B | Page 121

City of Santa Monica

Bicycle Technology Demonstration Project |Appendix B | Page 122

City of Santa Monica

Bicycle Technology Demonstration Project |Appendix B | Page 123

City of Santa Monica

Bicycle Technology Demonstration Project |Appendix B | Page 124

City of Santa Monica

Bicycle Technology Demonstration Project |Appendix B | Page 125

City of Santa Monica

Bicycle Technology Demonstration Project |Appendix B | Page 126

City of Santa Monica

Appendix C â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Raw Observation Data Link to Excel workbook

Bicycle Technology Demonstration Project |Appendix C | Page 127

City of Santa Monica

Appendix D â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Intersection Images

Lincoln & Michigan

11th & Broadway

2011

2018

Bicycle Technology Demonstration Project |Appendix D | Page 128

City of Santa Monica

Ocean & California

11th & Olympic

2012

2018

Bicycle Technology Demonstration Project |Appendix D | Page 129

City of Santa Monica

11th & Pico

17th & Broadway

2012

2018

Bicycle Technology Demonstration Project |Appendix D | Page 130

City of Santa Monica

Ocean & Arizona

11th & Michigan

2012

2018

Bicycle Technology Demonstration Project |Appendix D | Page 131

City of Santa Monica

Appendix E â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Control Intersection Observations Observed bicycle encroachment at 17th Street & Broadway

Approach Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Total

Pre-Installation Observed Total Prevalence 2 21 9.5% 1 17 5.9% 13 75 17.3% 12 82 14.6% 28

195

14.4%

Post-Installation Observed Total Prevalence 5 32 15.6% 1 9 11.1% 8 83 9.6% 7 81 8.6% 21

205

10.2%

Difference 64.1% 88.9% -44.4% -40.9% -28.7%

Observed motorist encroachment at 17th Street & Broadway

Approach Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Total

Pre-Installation Observed Total Prevalence 35 664 5.3% 17 700 2.4% 12 823 1.5% 16 911 1.8% 80

3,098

2.6%

Post-Installation Observed Total Prevalence 11 648 1.7% 13 804 1.6% 19 908 2.1% 11 1,013 1.1% 54

3,373

1.6%

Difference -67.8% -33.4% 43.5% -38.2% -38.0%

Observed wrong-way riding at 17th Street & Broadway

Approach Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound

Pre-Installation Observed Total Prevalence 0 21 0.0% 0 17 0.0% 1 75 1.3% 0 82 0.0% 1

Total

195

0.5%

Post-Installation Observed Total Prevalence 2 32 6.3% 0 9 0.0% 0 83 0.0% 0 81 0.0% 2

205

1.0%

Difference N/A N/A -100.0% N/A 90.2%

Observed motorist rolling right turns at 17th Street & Broadway

Approach North Leg South Leg East Leg West Leg Total

Pre-Installation Observed Total Prevalence 10 68 14.7% 8 58 13.8% 19 139 13.7% 9 69 13.0% 46

334

13.8%

Post-Installation Observed Total Prevalence 14 86 16.3% 3 52 5.8% 21 152 13.8% 19 118 16.1% 57

408

14.0%

Difference 10.7% -58.2% 1.1% 23.4% 1.4%

Bicycle Technology Demonstration Project |Appendix E | Page 132

City of Santa Monica

Observed bicyclist red light running at 17th Street & Broadway

Approach Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound

Pre-Installation Observed Total Prevalence 1 21 4.8% 0 17 0.0% 7 75 9.3% 2 82 2.4% 10

Total

195

5.1%

Post-Installation Observed Total Prevalence 4 32 12.5% 0 9 0.0% 4 83 4.8% 13 81 16.0% 21

205

10.2%

Difference 162.5% N/A -48.4% 558.0% 99.8%

Observed bicyclist push-button activation at 17th Street & Broadway

Approach Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound

Pre-Installation Observed Total Prevalence 0 21 0.0% 0 17 0.0% 0 75 0.0% 0 82 0.0%

Total

195

Post-Installation Observed Total Prevalence 0 32 0.0% 0 9 0.0% 0 83 0.0% 0 81 0.0%

0.0%

205

0.0%

Difference N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Observed jaywalking at 17th Street & Broadway

Approach North Leg South Leg East Leg West Leg Total

Pre-Installation Observed Total Prevalence 0 68 0.0% 0 26 0.0% 0 18 0.0% 4 31 12.9% 4

143

2.8%

Post-Installation Observed Total Prevalence 1 90 1.1% 0 104 0.0% 2 55 3.6% 0 116 0.0% 3

365

0.8%

Difference N/A N/A N/A -100.0% -70.6%

Observed pedestrians crossing at the red signal phase at 17th Street & Broadway

Approach Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Total

Pre-Installation Observed Total Prevalence 0 68 0.0% 0 26 0.0% 0 18 0.0% 0 31 0.0% 0

143

0.0%

Post-Installation Observed Total Prevalence 3 90 3.3% 4 104 3.8% 0 55 0.0% 0 116 0.0% 7

365

1.9%

Difference N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Bicycle Technology Demonstration Project |Appendix E | Page 133

City of Santa Monica Observed bicyclist sidewalk riding at 17th Street & Broadway

Approach Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound

Pre-Installation Observed Total Prevalence 3 18 16.7% 10 21 47.6% 9 78 11.5% 2 78 2.6% 24

Total

195

Post-Installation Observed Total Prevalence 1 24 4.2% 0 13 0.0% 1 93 1.1% 1 75 1.3%

12.3%

205

1.5%

Difference -75.0% -100.0% -90.7% -48.0% -88.1%

Observed bicyclist outer lane positioning at 17th Street & Broadway

Approach Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound

Pre-Installation Observed Total Prevalence 5 16 31.3% 2 11 18.2% 37 70 52.9% 46 75 61.3%

Total

172

Post-Installation Observed Total Prevalence 3 6 50.0% 1 2 50.0% 11 19 57.9% 11 28 39.3%

52.3%

47.3%

Difference 60.0% 175.0% 9.5% -35.9% -9.7%

Observed behaviors at 17th Street & Broadway

Pre-Installation Observed Total Prevalence

Post-Installation Observed Total Prevalence

Difference

28 1 10 0 24 90 -

195 195 195 195 195 172† 195

14.4% 0.5% 5.1% 0.0% 12.3% 52.3% -

21 2 21 0 3 26 -

205* 205* 205* 205* 205* 55† 206

10.2% 1.0% 10.2% 0.0% 1.5% 47.3% -

-28.7% 90.2% 99.8% N/A -88.1% -9.7% 5.6%

4 0 -

143 143 143

2.8% 0.0% -

3 7 -

365 365 365

0.8% 1.9% -

-70.6% N/A 155.2%

80 46 -

3,098 334‡ 3,098

2.6% 13.8% -

54 57 -

3,373 408‡ 3,373

1.6% 14.0% -

-38.0% 1.4% 8.9%

* Volumes collected by automatic counters, and totals may vary from the in-person observations of other metrics † Bicyclists that did not fall clearly into “inner” and “outer” lane positioning categories were excluded ‡ Number of right-turning motor vehicles

Bicycle Technology Demonstration Project |Appendix E | Page 134

City of Santa Monica Observed bicyclist encroachment at Ocean Avenue & Arizona Avenue

Approach Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Total

Pre-Installation Observed Total Prevalence 18 140 12.9% 0 4 0.0% 3 8 37.5% 21

152

13.8%

Post-Installation Observed Total Prevalence 4 88 4.5% 2 37 5.4% 0 1 0.0% 6

126

4.8%

Difference -64.6% N/A -100.0% -65.5%

Observed motorist encroachment at Ocean Avenue & Arizona Avenue

Approach Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Total

Pre-Installation Observed Total Prevalence 3 1,379 0.2% 15 1,103 1.4% 31 137 22.6% 49

2,619

1.9%

Post-Installation Observed Total Prevalence 6 1,544 0.4% 15 1,048 1.4% 18 131 13.7% 39

2,723

1.4%

Difference 78.6% 5.2% -39.3% -23.4%

Observed bicyclist wrong-way riding at Ocean Avenue & Arizona Avenue

Approach Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound

Pre-Installation Observed Total Prevalence 0 140 0.0% 0 4 0.0% 0 8 0.0% 0

Total

152

0.0%

Post-Installation Observed Total Prevalence 2 88 2.3% 0 37 0.0% 0 1 0.0% 2

126

1.6%

Difference N/A N/A N/A N/A

Observed rolling right turns at Ocean Avenue & Arizona Avenue

Approach North Leg South Leg East Leg West Leg Total

Pre-Installation Observed Total Prevalence 13 165 7.9% 21 88 23.9% 34

253

13.4%

Post-Installation Observed Total Prevalence 36 201 17.9% 17 80 21.3% 53

281

18.9%

Difference 127.3% 40.3%

Bicycle Technology Demonstration Project |Appendix E | Page 135

City of Santa Monica Observed bicyclist red light running at Ocean Avenue & Arizona Avenue

Approach Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Total

Pre-Installation Observed Total Prevalence 23 140 16.4% 0 4 0.0% 0 8 0.0% 23

152

15.1%

Post-Installation Observed Total Prevalence 28 88 31.8% 9 37 24.3% 1 1 100.0% 38

126

Difference 93.7% N/A N/A

30.2%

99.3%

Observed bicyclist push-button activation at Ocean Avenue & Arizona Avenue

Approach Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Total

Pre-Installation Observed Total Prevalence 0 140 0.0% 1 4 25.0% 1 8 12.5% 2

152

1.3%

Post-Installation Observed Total Prevalence 0 88 0.0% 0 37 0.0% 0 1 0.0% 0

126

Difference N/A -100.0% -100.0%

0.0%

-100.0%

Observed pedestrians jaywalking at Ocean Avenue & Arizona Avenue

Approach North Leg South Leg East Leg West Leg Total

Pre-Installation Observed Total Prevalence 1 70 1.4% 0 34 0.0% 0 72 0.0% 1

176

0.6%

Post-Installation Observed Total Prevalence 0 64 0.0% 3 44 6.8% 3 60 5.0% 6

168

Difference -100.0% N/A N/A -

3.6%

528.6%

Observed pedestrians crossing against the red at Ocean Avenue & Arizona Avenue

Approach North Leg South Leg East Leg West Leg Total

Pre-Installation Observed Total Prevalence 3 70 4.3% 0 34 0.0% 0 72 0.0% 3

176

1.7%

Post-Installation Observed Total Prevalence 0 64 0.0% 1 44 2.3% 11 60 18.3% 12

168

7.1%

Difference -100.0% N/A N/A N/A 319.0%

Bicycle Technology Demonstration Project |Appendix E | Page 136

City of Santa Monica Observed bicyclist sidewalk riding at Ocean Avenue & Arizona Avenue

Approach Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound

Pre-Installation Observed Total Prevalence 1 97 1.0% 1 42 2.4% 2 8 25.0% 4

Total

147

2.7%

Post-Installation Observed Total Prevalence 2 69 2.9% 0 52 0.0% 4 11 36.4% 6

132

4.5%

Difference 181.2% -100.0% 45.5% 67.0%

Observed bicyclist outer lane positioning at Ocean Avenue & Arizona Avenue

Approach Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound

Pre-Installation Observed Total Prevalence 34 137 24.8% 0 0 0.0% 1 5 20.0%

Total

142

24.6%

Post-Installation Observed Total Prevalence 21 52 40.4% 12 34 35.3% 0 0 0.0% 33

38.4%

Difference 62.7% N/A -100.0% 55.7%

Observed behaviors at Ocean Avenue & Arizona Avenue

Behavior Bicyclists Encroachment Wrong Way Riding Red Light Running Push Button Sidewalk Riding Inner Lane Position Bicyclist Volumes Pedestrians Jaywalking Cross Against Red Pedestrian Volumes Motorists Encroachment Rolling Rights Vehicle Volumes

Pre-Installation Observed Total Prevalence

Post-Installation Observed Total Prevalence

Difference

21 0 23

149* 149* 149*

14.1% 0.0% 15.4%

6 2 38

127* 127* 127*

4.7% 1.6% 30.7%

-66.5% N/A 99.3%

2 4 35 -

149* 147* 142† 152

1.3% 2.7% 24.6% -

0 6 33 -

127* 132* 86† 134

0.0% 4.5% 38.4% -

-100.0% 67.0% 55.7% -11.8%

1 3 -

176 176 176

0.6% 1.7% -

6 12 -

168 168 196

3.6% 7.1% -

528.6% 319.0% 11.4%

49 34 -

2,619 253‡ 2,619

1.9% 13.4% -

39 53 -

2,723 281‡ 2,723

1.4% 18.9% -

-23.4% 40.3% 4.0%

Bicycle Technology Demonstration Project |Appendix E | Page 137

City of Santa Monica Observed bicyclist encroachment at 11th Street & Michigan Avenue

Approach Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound

Pre-Installation Observed Total Prevalence 0 23 0.0% 0 28 0.0% 0 12 0.0% 0 26 0.0% 0

Total

0.0%

Post-Installation Observed Total Prevalence 1 61 1.6% 0 6 0.0% 5 46 10.9% 4 8 50.0% 10

121

8.3%

Difference N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Observed motorist encroachment at 11th Street & Michigan Avenue

Approach Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Total

Pre-Installation Observed Total Prevalence 10 1,077 0.9% 12 784 1.5% 34 478 7.1% 53 252 21.0% 109

2,591

4.2%

Post-Installation Observed Total Prevalence 4 1,167 0.3% 10 857 1.2% 23 348 6.6% 23 255 9.0% 60

2,627

2.3%

Difference -63.1% -23.8% -7.1% -57.1% -45.7%

Observed wrong-way bicycling at 11th Street & Michigan Avenue

Approach Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound

Pre-Installation Observed Total Prevalence 0 23 0.0% 0 28 0.0% 1 12 8.3% 0 26 0.0% 1

Total

1.1%

Post-Installation Observed Total Prevalence 0 61 0.0% 0 6 0.0% 0 47 0.0% 1 8 12.5% 1

122

0.8%

Difference N/A N/A -100.0% N/A -27.0%

Observed motorist rolling right turns at 11th Street & Michigan Avenue

Approach North Leg South Leg East Leg West Leg Total

Pre-Installation Observed Total Prevalence 10 229 4.4% 2 62 3.2% 13 45 28.9% 12 77 15.6% 37

413

9.0%

Post-Installation Observed Total Prevalence 7 180 3.9% 2 44 4.5% 11 52 21.2% 19 71 26.8% 39

347

11.2%

Difference -10.9% 40.9% -26.8% 71.7% 25.5%

Bicycle Technology Demonstration Project |Appendix E | Page 138

City of Santa Monica Observed bicyclist red light running at 11th Street & Michigan Avenue

Approach Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound

Pre-Installation Observed Total Prevalence 0 23 0.0% 0 28 0.0% 3 12 25.0% 0 26 0.0% 3

Total

3.4%

Post-Installation Observed Total Prevalence 5 61 8.2% 0 6 0.0% 9 47 19.1% 0 8 0.0% 14

122

11.5%

Difference N/A N/A -23.4% N/A 240.4%

Observed bicyclist push-button activation at 11th Street & Michigan Avenue

Approach Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound

Pre-Installation Observed Total Prevalence 0 23 0.0% 0 28 0.0% 0 12 0.0% 0 26 0.0% 0

Total

Post-Installation Observed Total Prevalence 0 61 0.0% 0 6 0.0% 0 47 0.0% 0 8 0.0%

0.0%

122

0.0%

Difference N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Observed jaywalking at 11th Street & Michigan Avenue

Approach North Leg South Leg East Leg West Leg Total

Pre-Installation Observed Total Prevalence 0 23 0.0% 4 68 5.9% 0 20 0.0% 0 6 0.0% 4

117

3.4%

Post-Installation Observed Total Prevalence 2 29 6.9% 0 45 0.0% 4 14 28.6% 0 12 0.0% 6

100

6.0%

Difference N/A -100.0% N/A N/A 75.5%

Observed pedestrians crossing against the red signal phase at 11th Street & Michigan Avenue

Approach Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Total

Pre-Installation Observed Total Prevalence 0 23 0.0% 0 68 0.0% 0 20 0.0% 0 6 0.0% 0

117

0.0%

Post-Installation Observed Total Prevalence 0 29 0.0% 1 45 2.2% 1 14 7.1% 0 12 0.0% 2

100

2.0%

Difference N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Bicycle Technology Demonstration Project |Appendix E | Page 139

City of Santa Monica Observed sidewalk riding at 11th Street & Michigan Avenue

Approach Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound

Pre-Installation Observed Total Prevalence 2 27 7.4% 2 24 8.3% 2 10 20.0% 1 28 3.6% 7

Total

Post-Installation Observed Total Prevalence 0 48 0.0% 0 19 0.0% 4 11 36.4% 1 44 2.3%

7.9%

122

4.1%

Difference -100.0% -100.0% 81.8% -36.4% -47.9%

Observed bicyclist outer lane positioning at 11th Street & Michigan Avenue

Approach Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound

Pre-Installation Observed Total Prevalence 19 23 82.6% 2 23 8.7% 4 8 50.0% 13 25 52.0%

Total

Post-Installation Observed Total Prevalence 6 14 42.9% 0 0 0.0% 14 47 29.8% 2 7 28.6%

48.1%

32.4%

Difference -48.1% -100.0% -40.4% -45.1% -32.7%

Observed behavior at 11th Street & Michigan Avenue

Pre-Installation Observed Total Prevalence

Post-Installation Observed Total Prevalence

Difference

0 1 3 0 7 38 -

89 89 89 89 89 79† 89

0.0% 1.1% 3.4% 0.0% 7.9% 48.1% -

10 1 14 0 5 22 -

121* 122 122 122 122 68† 122

8.3% 0.8% 11.5% 0.0% 4.1% 32.4% -

N/A -27.0% 240.4% N/A -47.9% -32.7% 37.1%

4 0 -

117 117 117

3.4% 0.0% -

6 2 -

100 100 100

6.0% 2.0% -

75.5% N/A -14.5%

109 37 -

2,591‡ 413‡ 2,591

4.2% 9.0% -

60 39 -

2,627 347‡ 2,627

2.3% 11.2% -

-45.7% 25.5% 1.4%

Bicycle Technology Demonstration Project |Appendix E | Page 140

City of Santa Monica

Appendix F – Collision Data

5-year Annual Average of Bicyclist Injuries 0.00/year

Assumed AM Peak Bicyclist Volumes (length of peak period) 102 (3 hours) 185 (3 hours) 187 (2 hours) 130 (3 hours) 105 (3 hours) 709 N/A

ID 1

Intersection Lincoln/Michigan†

Reported Bicyclist Injuries 0

11th/Broadway††

0.00/year

Ocean/California†††

0.00/year

11th/Olympic††††

0.00/year

11th/Pico†††††

0.40/year

Study Intersection Total 6 17th/Broadway‡,*

2 2

0.40/year 0.40/year

Ocean/Arizona‡‡,*

0.20/year

11th/Michigan‡‡‡,*

0.20/year

0.80/year

152 (2 hours) 89 (2 hours) 241

584

161.80/year

Control Intersection Total Citywide Total

Pre-installation (2007-2011) Assumed Assumed PM Peak midday Peak Bicyclist Bicyclist Volumes Volumes (length of Estimated (length of peak Bicyclist peak period) period) AADT*** N/A 103 63,000 (3 hours) N/A 294 151,000 (3 hours) 111 169 124,000 (2 hours) (2 hours) N/A 111 76,000 (3 hours) N/A 80 75,000 (2 hours) 111 757 489,000 N/A 195 141,000 (2 hours) N/A N/A 256,000

Bicyclist Injuries per 10,000 Bicyclists 0.00

Reported Bicyclist Injuries 1

5-year Annual Average of Bicyclist Injuries 0.20/year

0.00

0.60/year

0.00

0.20/year

0.00

0.00/year

0.05

0.60/year

0.05 0.03

8 1

1.60/year 0.20/year

0.01

0.00/year

Assumed AM Peak Bicyclist Volumes (length of peak period) 125 (3 hours) 282 (3 hours) 154 (2 hours) 125 (3 hours) 102 (3 hours) 788 N/A

N/A

150,000

0.01

0.80/year

195

547,000

0.05

1.00/year

134 (2 hours) 122 (2 hours) 256

535

107.00/year

Collison Data Source: TIMS, SWITRS, UC Berkeley; collisions within 100 feet of center of intersection * Study intersections (no bicycle interventions implemented between 2012 and 2018) ** 2016-2017 is provisional and subject to change *** AADT extrapolation based on National Bicycle and Pedestrian Document Project method <http://bikepeddocumentation.org/index.php/downloads> † Two-day average; 3-hour AM period (7-10 AM); 3-hour PM period (3-6 PM) †† 3-hour AM period (7-10 AM); 3-hour PM period (4-7 PM) ††† 2-hour AM period (7-9 AM); 2-hour midday period (12-2 PM); 2-hour PM period (5-7 PM) †††† 3-hour AM period (7-10 AM); 3-hour PM period (4-7 PM) ††††† 3-hour AM period (7-10 AM); 2-hour PM period (4-6 PM) ‡ 2-hour PM period (5-7 PM) ‡‡ 2-hour AM period (7-9 AM) ‡‡‡ 2-hour AM period (7-9 AM)

Post-installation (2013-2017)** Assumed Assumed PM Peak midday Peak Bicyclist Bicyclist Volumes Volumes (length of Estimated (length of peak Bicyclist peak period) period) AADT*** N/A 147 83,000 (3 hours) N/A 303 185,000 (3 hours) 110 150 110,000 (2 hours) (2 hours) N/A 100 71,000 (3 hours) N/A 58 65,000 (2 hours) 110 758 514,000 N/A 206 149,000 (2 hours) N/A N/A 225,000

Bicyclist Injuries per 10,000 Bicyclists 0.02

Difference between Pre- and Post-installation Bicyclist Injury Rate (N/A)

0.03

(N/A)

0.02

(N/A)

0.00

(N/A)

0.09

(+73%)

0.17 0.01

(+213%) (-53%)

0.00

(-100%)

N/A

205,000

0.04

(+193%)

206

579,000

0.05

(+6%)

Bicycle Technology Demonstration Project |Appendix F | Page 141

City of Santa Monica

Appendix G â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Additional Collected Data Observed bicyclist red light running at Lincoln Boulevard & Michigan Avenue

Approach Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound** Total

Pre-Installation* Observed Total Prevalence 1 40 2.5% 0 55 0.0% 1 56 1.8% 1 55 1.8% 3

206

1.5%

Post-Installation Observed Total Prevalence 3 28 10.7% 6 47 12.8% 13 119 10.9% 5 78 6.4% 27

272

9.9%

Difference 328.6% N/A 511.8% 252.6% 581.6%

* Two-day average ** Extended bike pocket installed after the pre-installation window

Observed bicyclist outer lane positioning at Lincoln Boulevard & Michigan Avenue

Approach Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound** Total

Pre-Installation* Observed Total Prevalence 2 24 8.3% 3 32 9.4% 2 28 7.1% 9 35 25.7% 16

119

13.4%

Post-Installation Observed Total Prevalence 8 22 36.4% 13 34 38.2% 4 6 66.7% 0 0 0.0% 25

40.3%

Difference 287.9% 358.8% -159.3% -100.0% 199.9%

* Two-day average ** Extended bike pocket installed after the pre-installation window

Observed motorist encroachment at Lincoln Boulevard & Michigan Avenue

Approach Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound** Total

Pre-Installation* Observed Total Prevalence 50 7,628 0.7% 83 8,031 1.0% 65 942 6.9% 221 1,217 18.2% 419

17,818

2.4%

Post-Installation Observed Total Prevalence 15 7,497 0.2% 144 7,816 1.8% 0*** 0*** 0.0% 207 1,221 17.0% 366

16,534

2.2%

Difference -69.5% 78.3% -100.0% -6.6% -5.9%

* Two-day average ** Extended bike pocket installed after the pre-installation window *** The eastbound travel lane was replaced by a protected bikeway and a contraflow bicycle lane

Bicycle Technology Demonstration Project |Appendix F | Page 142

City of Santa Monica Observed push button activations by bicyclists at Lincoln Boulevard & Michigan Avenue

Approach Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound**

Pre-Installation* Observed Total Prevalence 1 40 2.5% 1 55 1.8% 1 56 1.8% 1 55 1.8% 4

Total

206

Post-Installation Observed Total Prevalence 2 28 7.1% 1 47 2.1% 1 120 0.8% 0 78 0.0%

1.9%

273

1.5%

Difference 185.7% 17.0% -53.3% -100.0% -24.5%

* Two-day average ** Extended bike pocket installed after the pre-installation window

Observed wrong-way bicycle riding at 11th Street & Broadway

Approach Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Total

Pre-Installation Observed Total Prevalence 0 69 0.0% 1 67 1.5% 0 164 0.0% 0 179 0.0% 1

479

0.2%

Post-Installation* Observed Total Prevalence 1 59 41.7% 3 97 0.0% 0 216 0.8% 5 214 0.0% 9

586

1.5%

Difference N/A -100.0% N/A N/A 635.7%

* Partially-colored bike boxes installed on all approaches

Observed push button activations by bicyclists at 11th Street & Broadway

Approach Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Total

Pre-Installation** Observed Total Prevalence 0 69 0.0% 0 67 0.0% 0 164 0.0% 0 179 0.0% 0

479

0.0%

Post-Installation* Observed Total Prevalence 0 59 0.0% 4 97 4.1% 0 216 0.0% 0 214 0.0% 4

586

0.7%

Difference N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

* Partially-colored bike boxes installed on all approaches ** There were no pedestrian push buttons during the pre-installation window

Observed bicyclist outer lane positioning at 11th Street & Broadway

Approach Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Total

Pre-Installation Observed Total Prevalence 9 45 20.0% 4 50 8.0% 5 151 3.3% 7 166 4.2% 25

412

6.1%

Post-Installation* Observed Total Prevalence 9 11 81.8% 18 39 46.2% 23 31 74.2% 31 45 68.9% 81

126

64.3%

Difference 309.1% 476.9% 2,140.6% 1,533.7% 959.4%

* Partially-colored bike boxes installed on all approaches

Bicycle Technology Demonstration Project |Appendix G | Page 143

City of Santa Monica Observed pedestrians jaywalking riding at 11th Street & Broadway

Approach Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Total

Pre-Installation Observed Total Prevalence 0 172 0.0% 0 184 0.0% 0 98 0.0% 0 130 0.0% 1**

584

0.2%

Post-Installation* Observed Total Prevalence 2 330 0.6% 1 276 0.4% 3 94 3.2% 9 110 8.2% 15

810

1.9%

Difference N/A N/A N/A N/A 981.5%

* Partially-colored bike boxes installed on all approaches ** Pedestrian crossing at a diagonal

Observed pedestrians crossing against the red at 11th Street & Broadway

Approach Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Total

Pre-Installation Observed Total Prevalence 0 172 0.0% 0 184 0.0% 0 98 0.0% 0 130 0.0% 0

584

0.0%

Post-Installation* Observed Total Prevalence 0 330 0.0% 2 276 0.7% 1 94 1.1% 0 110 0.0% 3

810

0.4%

Difference N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

* Partially-colored bike boxes installed on all approaches

Observed wrong-way bicycle riding at Ocean Avenue & California Avenue

Approach Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound** Total

Pre-Installation Observed Total Prevalence 0 308 0.0% 0 40 0.0% 0 80 0.0% 0 39 0.0% 0

467

0.0%

Post-Installation* Observed Total Prevalence 5 12 0.0% 0 210 0.0% 1 119 0.0% 0 27 0.0% 6

368

1.6%

Difference N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

*Installation of microwave sensors at all four approaches ** Installation of a fully-colored bike box in the westbound approach

Bicycle Technology Demonstration Project |Appendix G | Page 144

City of Santa Monica Observed bicyclist outer lane positioning at Ocean Avenue & California Avenue

Approach Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound**

Pre-Installation Observed Total Prevalence 72 179 40.2% 3 94 3.2% 3 19 15.8% 4 19 21.1% 82

Total

311

26.4%

Post-Installation* Observed Total Prevalence 9 21 42.9% 39 58 67.2% 4 9 44.4% 0 1 0.0% 52

58.4%

Difference 6.5% 2,006.9% 181.5% -100.0% 121.6%

*Installation of microwave sensors at all four approaches ** Installation of a fully-colored bike box in the westbound approach

Observed pedestrian jaywalking at Ocean Avenue & California Avenue

Approach North Leg South Leg East Leg West Leg Total

Pre-Installation Observed Total Prevalence 0 202 0.0% 0 237 0.0% 0 286 0.0% 0 914 0.0% 0

1,639

0.0%

Post-Installation* Observed Total Prevalence 3 193 1.6% 5 364 1.4% 3 359 0.8% 2 898 0.2% 13

1,814

Difference N/A N/A N/A N/A

0.7%

N/A

*Installation of a fully-colored bike box in the westbound approach and microwave sensors at all four legs

Observed pedestrians crossing against the red signal at Ocean Avenue & California Avenue

Approach North Leg South Leg East Leg West Leg Total

Pre-Installation Observed Total Prevalence 2 202 1.0% 2 237 0.8% 7 286 2.4% 9 914 1.0% 20

1,639

1.2%

Post-Installation* Observed Total Prevalence 2 193 1.0% 0 364 0.0% 14 359 3.9% 0 898 0.0% 16

1,814

0.9%

Difference 4.7% -100.0% 59.3% -100.0% -27.7%

*Installation of a fully-colored bike box in the east leg and microwave sensors at all four legs

Bicycle Technology Demonstration Project |Appendix G | Page 145

City of Santa Monica Observed pedestrian jaywalking at 11th Street & Pico Boulevard

Approach North Leg South Leg East Leg West Leg Total

Pre-Installation Observed Total Prevalence 0 144 0.0% 0 96 0.0% 0 40 0.0% 0 39 0.0% 0

319†

0.0%

Post-Installation* Observed Total Prevalence 2 110 1.8% 0 87 0.0% 0 31 0.0% 1 38 2.6% 3

266†

Difference N/A N/A N/A N/A

1.1%

N/A

* Video detection was installed at all approaches † Data collection error excluded bicyclist and pedestrian turning movement counts between 6:00 PM and 7:00 PM during the pre-installation period; reported post-installation bicyclist and pedestrian turning movement counts limited to match pre-installation period

Observed pedestrians crossing against the red signal at 11th Street & Pico Boulevard

Approach North Leg South Leg East Leg West Leg Total

Pre-Installation Observed Total Prevalence 0 144 0.0% 0 96 0.0% 0 40 0.0% 0 39 0.0% 0

319†

0.0%

Post-Installation* Observed Total Prevalence 0 110 0.0% 3 87 3.4% 0 31 0.0% 0 38 0.0% 3

266†

1.1%

Difference N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Observed motorist encroachment at 11th Street & Pico Boulevard

Approach Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Total

Pre-Installation Observed Total Prevalence 69 2,498 2.8% 160 2,822 5.7% 27 3,866 0.7% 41 3,669 1.1% 297

12,855

2.3%

Post-Installation* Observed Total Prevalence 52 2,384 2.2% 148 3,014 4.9% 27 3,688 0.7% 64 3,324 1.9% 291

12,410

2.3%

Difference -21.0% -13.4% 4.8% 72.3% 1.5%

* Video detection was installed at all approaches

Bicycle Technology Demonstration Project |Appendix G | Page 146

City of Santa Monica

Observed motorist rolling right turns at 11th Street & Pico Boulevard

Approach North Leg South Leg East Leg West Leg Total

Pre-Installation Observed Total‡ Prevalence 93 580 16.0% 21 264 8.0% 16 285 5.6% 3 115 2.6% 133

1,244

10.7%

Post-Installation* Observed Total‡ Prevalence 180 722 24.9% 19 216 8.8% 22 307 7.2% 12 135 8.9% 233

1,380

16.9%

Difference 55.5% 10.6% 27.6% 240.7% 57.9%

* Video detection was installed at all approaches ‡ Number of right-turning motor vehicles

Bicycle Technology Demonstration Project |Appendix G | Page 147