LA Metro Bike/Bus Interface Study by Fehr & Peers

Bike/Bus Interface Study

May, 2018 1

This page intentionally left blank

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Project Staff

Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority

Lia Yim, Project Manager Scott Greene Tony Jusay Andrew Kao Jacqueline Martinez

Board of Directors Eric Garcetti, Chair, Mayor, City of Los Angeles Sheila Kuehl, Vice Chair, Los Angeles County Supervisor Third District) James Butts, Second Vice Chair, Mayor, City of Inglewood Kathryn Barger, Los Angeles County Supervisor (Fifth District) Mike Bonin, Council Member, City of Los Angeles Jacquelyn Dupont-Walker, City of Los Angeles Appointee John Fasana, Mayor Pro Tem, City of Duarte Robert Garcia, Mayor, City of Long Beach Janice Hahn, Los Angeles County Supervisor (Fourth District) Paul Krekorian, Council Member, City of Los Angeles Ara Najarian, Council Member, City of Glendale Mark Ridley-Thomas, Los Angeles County Supervisor (Second District) Hilda L. Solis, Los Angeles County Supervisor (First District) Carrie Bowen, Caltrans District 7 Director (Non-voting)

The following staff provided invaluable assistance during the study: Stewart Chesler Steve Rank Georgia Sheridan Consultant Team

Fehr & Peers Andy Kosinski Jeremy Klop Jeremiah LaRose Mike Samuelson

Independent Consultant Sumire Gant Consulting

T&T Public Relations Eneida Talleda Phyllis Tucker Continued on next page

Working Group Members

Peer Review Panel

Tina Backstrom, LADOT Dale Benson, Caltrans Colin Bogart, LACBC Susan Bok, LADOT Eric Bruins, Culver City Lee Burner, Long Beach Transit Jane Chan, Culver CityBus Pauline Chan, LADOT Diana Chang, Culver CityBus Nora Chin, LADOT Bob Cheung, City of West Hollywood Rich Dilluvio, City of Pasadena Abigail Flores, LAC DPW Tim Fremaux, LADOT Rubina Ghazarian, LADOT Michelle Glickert, City of Santa Monica Charles Herbertson, Culver City Anthony Higgins, Caltrans Eric Hoch, Big Blue Bus Shirley Hsiao, Long Beach Transit Jason Kligier, City of Santa Monica Josh Landis, Foothill Transit Hyeran Lee, LACBC Adonia Lugo, MCM Tim McCormick, Big Blue Bus Michele Mowery, City of Long Beach Gina Nguyen, Long Beach Transit Riley Oâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;Brien, Culver CityBus Cynthia Rose, Santa Monica Spoke Tony Salcido, Metro OCI Keyvan Shahrouz, LADOT David Somers, LADOT Mateusz Suska, LAC DPW Paul Van Dyk, City of Long Beach Eric Widstrand, City of Long Beach Vince Wilkes, OCI Andrew Yip, Bike SGV Kaitlyn Zhang, Culver CityBus

Josh Gottlieb, SEPTA, Philadelphia Owen Kehoe, King County Metro, Seattle Malva Slachowitz, King County Metro, Seattle Brian Van Abbema, King County Metro, Seattle Sandra Woods, City of Seattle Jamie Parks, SFMTA, San Francisco

iii

Executive Summary Findings and recommendations, presented as shortform takeaways with page references for more details

1 Part I: Literature Review Review of existing bike-bus interface research, design guidance and best practices

16 Part II: Before-After Analysis of Local Projects Quantitative analysis of outcomes on 15 corridors in Los Angeles County with recently-installed bike or bus infrastructure

46 Part III: Bike-Bus Interface Training and Education Assessment of education, training, and user perceptions regarding bike-bus interface, and recommendations for improvement

251

This page intentionally left blank

Executive Summary On most streets, buses and people riding bicycles are expected to travel along the right side of the road, sharing space and crossing each otherâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s path as buses pull to the curb to serve stops while people on bicycles tend to ride continuously in a relatively straight line. A bus and a bicycle are about the opposite ends of the spectrum of vehicles. Buses are large, with limited maneuverability and relatively limited visibility for the operator, while bicycles are small, and people riding have great maneuvering ability, as well as an unobstructed field of vision. People riding bicycles are highly vulnerable to injury or fatality in the event of nearly any collision. The Bike/Bus Interface Study examines the experience of these groups of road users, how various road designs affect safety and operations for both groups, and how the users themselves perceive the experience. The Study pairs the stakeholder input and data analysis to develop recommendations for improving bus operator training, bicycle safety education, and design guidelines for bus and bicycle infrastructure. The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) initiated this study in 2016. Much of the inspiration was in response to the need to improve or maintain bus quality of service while encouraging the increase of bicycle riding throughout Los Angeles County. Metro provides a large proportion of rail and bus service in Los Angeles County alongside dozens of smaller â&#x20AC;&#x153;municipalâ&#x20AC;? bus operators. Metro also provides countywide active transportation planning, outreach and education programs and administers a growing bike share program. Although Metro is not a principal agency responsible for roadway planning in Los Angeles County or the local cities, its network of bus, rail, and active transportation programs both influence and are influenced by the roadway network throughout of the county. Because of the need for buses and people on bicycles to travel near one another along the road, Metro sought to understand the changes on shared corridors in the county after new bus or bicycle infrastructure was completed, and develop best practices for future bicycle and transit priority corridors. This work began and concluded with the assumption that buses and bicycles do, and often must, share the road, and that sharing can be done safely even when physical separation of bikeways is not possible. The goal of the study is to better understand what is happening on streets as bicycling activity is 1

increasing, and how design and education can improve the safety and comfort of buses and bicycles sharing the road. The research is informed and directed by the following elements: a literature review, analysis of fifteen study corridors selected from around Los Angeles County, six focus groups with bus operators from various agencies, five focus groups engaging the bicycling community around Los Angeles, an online bicycling survey with over 4,000 respondents, interviews with numerous city planners and engineers, input from a Working Group of transportation professionals from around the county, and a Peer Review Group of transportation professionals from three other major U.S. cities. Collectively, thousands of people helped inform what bicycling and bus activity traveling alongside one another is like, and how current designs and educational practices could be improved. The Bike/Bus Interface Study developed two final products. The first is this report, which culminates the research conducted, the analysis conclusions, and the training and education recommendations resulting from that analysis. The expected audience for this report includes transit agency staff (especially those working in operator training, service planning, and daily operations), municipal officials, city planners, transportation engineers, bicycle educators and advocates, and all those interested in topics related to transit and bicycle planning and traffic safety. The second product is a companion resource, titled Bike Bus Interaction on Our Streets: A Working

Planning and Design Guidebook for Municipal Transportation Professionals. This design guidebook is intended to live alongside existing guidelines such as materials from the National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO), providing additional insight into designing streets to better accommodate both buses and bicycles. The following pages summarize the high-level conclusions from nearly 18 months of research and outreach. Several pages include page references for finding related information further into the report. The report is then made up of three parts. Part I is a literature review of selected studies and best practice documents regarding bus and bicycle interaction. The literature review informed the analysis methodology and study process that followed. Part II is the Before-After Analysis of Local Projects, which extensively details the context of the street conditions prior and subsequent to new bikeway infrastructure. A more graphical and condensed version of the corridor analysis is presented in â&#x20AC;&#x153;cutsheetsâ&#x20AC;? throughout Part II. Part III contains recommendations for bus operator training and bicycle education, based on perceptions and input from stakeholder focus groups and supported by survey data and the corridor analysis. Potential next steps for Metro and interested readers closes out the report. The appendices contain the corridor data collection and stakeholder input, the education and training resources that informed our work in Part III, and a review of the outreach methodology with recommendations for changes in future bike-bus studies.

Study Process Overview

Literature review Transportation research

Data collection & analysis

Planning and design guides

Comparative before/after evaluation of new bicycle facilities

Focus on bike-bus interaction U.S. and international research

15 corridors in LA County 4 categories of road treatments Metrics include: bicycle and bus activity, transit operations, bicycle facility comfort, and traffic safety

Comprehensive outreach across LA County

39 57 22

people on bicycles in focus groups bus operators in focus groups planners and engineers interviewed

4,200 online bicycle survey respondents

42 working group and peer review contributors

Recommendations Bus Operator Training and Bicycling Safety Education

Bike/Bus Interaction On Our Streets:

A Working Planning And Design Guidebook for Municipal Transportation Professionals

Bike Infrastructure Findings Bicycling increased across all 15 corridors studied No apparent correlation between bus frequency and bicycling activity People on bicycles generally prefer to ride alongside buses rather than alongside general motor vehicle traffic 63 percent of people on bicycles are generally unconcerned with the level of bus activity along their ride

Regardless of amount of bicycling, bus frequency, or facility type, bus operators and people on bicycles generally share streets safely with very few collisions Across 15 study corridors, three bike-bus collisions were recorded Total collisions involving bicycles generally declined after installation of bike facilities Near-misses were not quantified and their influence on bicycling remains unclear Increased separation had increased safety benefits

Bus operators and people on bicycles both prefer green â&#x20AC;&#x153;skipstripeâ&#x20AC;? markings at conflict points and mixing zones Main Street in Santa Monica facing north at Hollister Avenue, August 2016

Separated bikeways most preferred by people on bicycles and bus operators Substantially more comfortable and safest for people on bicycles Lowest incidence of sidewalk riding Mixed effect on transit operations Level of usage highly dependent on surrounding network connectivity

Buffered bicycle lanes second most-preferred Comfort improved for people on bicycles Minimal effect on transit operations Collisions declined overall on corridors with buffered bike lanes

More info in this report: Past research on treatments

Analysis methodology

Findings across all corridors

Separated bikeways Findings

Analysis

Buffered bicycle lanes Findings

Analysis

131

Standard bicycle lanes Findings

Analysis

161

Design guidance

Standard bicycle lanes are preferred over a â&#x20AC;&#x153;do-nothingâ&#x20AC;? approach Bicycle usage increased â&#x20AC;&#x201C; especially close to urban centers Safety was relatively unchanged on corridors with standard lanes Bus speeds were unchanged or decreased somewhat, possibly due to increased ridership or reduction in general travel lanes

Separated Bikeways provide the greatest comfort and safety for riders. Bike network connections can lead to increased bicycle riding Rosemead Boulevard Separated Bikeway in Temple City facing north at Hermosa Drive, July 2016

is presented in the

Metro Roadshare Guidebook, a companion document

Shared Bike-Bus Lanes Bike riding increased by up to double on Shared Bike-Bus Lanes (SBBLs) All three study corridors are located near downtown Los Angeles where bus traffic and bicycling is relatively high to begin with More info in this report:

Bus speed and reliability was mostly unchanged

Analysis methodology

Many factors could affect bus speed and reliability

Shared Bike-Bus Lanes

The SBBL is shared with turning vehicles and people on bicycles, and often obstructed by illegally parked or stopped vehicles

Findings

Analysis

213

Design guidance

Bicycle collisions decreased 13-31 percent

is presented in the

Sidewalk riding on two corridors remained high during peak periods, ranging between 31 and 89 percent of all people on bicycles

Metro Roadshare Guidebook, a companion document

Bus collisions increased by up to 33 percent One collision between a bus and person on a bicycle occurred during the study period Operator reports show the overall increase arose from conflicts with other buses and motor vehicles at busy stops

Where space is limited, SBBLs are a compromise that improved comfort and safety for people on bicycles compared to riding in general traffic, while at least maintaining transit operations. Wilshire Boulevard SBBL in Los Angeles facing east at Western Avenue, September 2016

Planning Process Findings Coordination between cities and transit agencies can be improved Current level of interaction and involvement in planning process varies Most city planning participants believed they could improve coordination with transit agencies for better design

Planning process for bicycle and transit infrastructure is evolving Each participating city described increasing communication with transit agency on recent projects Few cities engage local bicycle interest groups during the process

Bus operators can provide valuable input to improve design Operators have daily experience and observations about the outcomes Buses have specific needs maneuvering on the street, especially at stops

Engaging the transit agency early in the process can ensure design goals are met while supporting transit operations

Collaboration between cities, the bicycling community, and the transit agency can secure positive outcomes for new infrastructure Reseda Boulevard in Los Angeles facing north at Plummer St, November 2017

More info in this report: Outreach methodology

Planning Process Findings

User Perceptions Analysis

258

Recommendations for Planners

279

Bus Operator Training Improve specificity on bike-bus interactions in training: Minimum passing distance of 3 feet, increasing as bus speed increases Teach bus operators about the â&#x20AC;&#x153;door zoneâ&#x20AC;? bicycling concept Allow more time and space when encountering unpredictable riders Understand leapfrogging and agency expectations for safe management

Help operators understand the perspectives of riding bikes in traffic Bus operators who also ride bicycles were much more likely to express comfort with sharing the road with people riding bicycles Better understanding of the bicycling experience will improve accuracy in assessing and anticipating behavior of bicycle riders Agencies could provide practical bicycle riding exercises during trainings and/or video of bike-bus interaction from the bicycling perspective

Agencies should provide mechanisms for peer-sharing about changing road infrastructure and bike-bus interaction Sharing information within and between agencies will help keep all operators informed and prepared as the popularity of bicycling grows and new road designs are implemented

Engage operators in practical bicycle riding exercises to improve their understanding of riding in traffic and assessing riding behavior 7th Street in downtown Los Angeles facing west at Hill Street, July 2016

More info in this report: Outreach methodology User Perceptions Analysis

84 258

Existing Operator Training

254

Recommendations for Transit Agencies

280

Bicycle Safety Education Improve specificity on bike-bus interactions in education materials: Ride consistently in view of the side mirrors when following a bus Make eye contact if possible and communicate with hand signals Only pass a stopped bus to the left, never to the right along the curb Stay in view of the left side mirror when approaching and passing

More info in this report: Outreach methodology User Perceptions Analysis

Demonstrate the limited visibility and maneuverability of buses Video could be effective for showing the perspective from bus operatorâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s seat Focus on operatorâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s difficulty tracking someone riding behind the bus

84 258

Existing Bicycle Safety Education

255

Recommendations for Bicycle Educators

281

Lessons learned for applying the outreach methodology in future

Make bicycle education accessible and distribute materials widely Video education can be made available online Provide pop-up sessions and public awareness campaigns in addition to continued classroom training in the community Seek out communities with greatest need Use exterior advertising space on buses as educational opportunities

Bicycle safety education should specifically address sharing the road with buses, including safe practices for passing or waiting for buses at stops 7th Street in downtown Los Angeles facing east at Alvarado Street, September 2016

studies can be found in Appendix 3

Metro Bike/Bus Interface Study â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Final Report

TABLE OF CONTENTS LITERATURE REVIEW ..................................................................................................... 16 Part I: In This Section ..................................................................................................................... 17 Literature Review Introduction ..................................................................................................... 18 Summary of Key Issues in the Literature ...................................................................................... 21 Design Treatments ........................................................................................................................ 27 Training and Education Approach ................................................................................................ 40 Literature Review Conclusions...................................................................................................... 43 BEFORE- AFTER ANALYSIS OF LOCAL PROJECTS ....................................................... 46 Part II: In This Section ................................................................................................................... 47 Before-After Analysis Introduction ............................................................................................... 48 Part IIA: Summary of Findings .................................................................................................... 50 Findings and Trends ...................................................................................................................... 51 Part IIB: Detailed Analysis ............................................................................................................. 71 Methodology.................................................................................................................................. 72 Corridor Analysis Results .............................................................................................................. 86 BIKE-BUS INTERFACE TRAINING AND EDUCATION ................................................ 251 Part III: In This Section ............................................................................................................... 252 Training and Education Introduction .......................................................................................... 253 Assessment of Bike-Bus Interface Content in Existing Road Safety Training ........................... 254 Perceptions of Bike-Bus Interface and Roadway Design ........................................................... 258 Conclusion and Recommendations for Transit Agencies, Bicycle Educators, and Planners ... 279 NEXT STEPS .............................................................................................................................. 284 Local Implementation ................................................................................................................. 284 Educational Programs ................................................................................................................. 285 Continued Research .................................................................................................................... 285 APPENDIX 1.

Corridor Analysis Data

Education and Training Resources

Outreach Methodology: Lessons Learned

Metro Bike/Bus Interface Study â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Final Report

Acronyms in this Report ADT APC AVL BikeSGV BSS CVC DMV FHWA GPS ISF LACBC LADOT LCI LTS Metro MUTCD NACTO CROW OTP OTS SBBL SCAG SEPTA SWITRS TCRP TRL USF VPD

Average daily traffic Automatic passenger counter Automated vehicle location Bike San Gabriel Valley Bureau of Street Services California Vehicle Code Department of Motor Vehicles Federal Highway Administration Global Positioning Systems University of Technology Sydney, Institute for Sustainable Futures Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition Los Angeles Department of Transportation League [of American Bicyclists] Cycling Instructors Level of Traffic Stress Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices National Association of City Transportation Officials National Information and Technology Platform for Transport, Infrastructure and Public Space On-time performance California Office of Traffic Safety Shared Bike-Bus Lane Southern California Association of Governments Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System Transit Cooperative Research Program Transportation Research Laboratory University of South Florida Vehicles per day

Metro Bike/Bus Interface Study – Final Report

Figures Figure I-1 Conflict between bus and people riding bicycles at a bus stop at Spring Street and 7th Street, Los Angeles, CA. Fehr & Peers..................................................................................................................................................................... 21 Figure I-2 Original graphic: NACTO Transit Street Design Guide time-space diagram of bicycle and bus travel (NACTO 2016, 123). The yellow line, overlaid by Fehr & Peers, traces the same bicycle travel line closer to the bus, illustrating how similar average speeds over a distance could lead to leapfrogging. ............................................................. 22 Figure I-3 Dimensions of typical buses and bicyclists (USF 2012, 4) ........................................................................................... 23 Figure I-4 Design concepts for sharing road space (TCRP 2015, 221). The “Raised Bike Lane” treatment at left is commonly referred to throughout this document as a “bus boarding island” or “diverted bike lane” and does not always feature a raised path for bicycles. .......................................................................................................................... 29 Figure I-5 Two examples of bus stop bicycle diversion illustrate different design approaches. .................................................. 36 Figure I-6 Minneapolis' Hennepin Avenue SBBL Design Source:

http://www.minneapolismn.gov/bicycles/projects/Hennepin-Ave Accessed June 14, 2016 ................................ 37

Figure I-7 Paris Bus Lane markings showing bikes allowed (top) and prohibited (bottom) Source: Mairie du 10e

Arrondissement, “Velo dans le 10e”. http://www.mairie10.paris.fr/mairie10/jsp/site/Portal.jsp?page_id=341 (accessed June 14, 2016) ........................................................................................................................................ 38

Figure I-8 London Department for Transport recommended application of bus lane signage and striping Source: "Traffic Signs Manual" 2008. Chapter 3, 131 ...................................................................................................................... 39 Figure I-9 Road User Yield Pyramid (SEPTA 2009, 28) ................................................................................................................ 40 Figure I-10 Excerpt from Pima County, Arizona A Guide for Bicyclists and Motorists ................................................................ 42 Figure II-1 Corridor locations in Los Angeles County.................................................................................................................... 76 Figure II-2 Typical design of the separated bikeway on Broadway................................................................................................ 96 Figure II-3 Typical intersection design transitions to a buffered bicycle lane running along the curb and a left-turn lane to the right of the bicycle lane. Bicycles and left-turning vehicles have separate signals ............................................... 97 Figure II-4 Left-turn design at Long Beach Boulevard and Pacific Avenue, where people on bikes are directed to ride to their right and a left-turn lane is provided adjacent to the curb .................................................................................... 97 Figure II-5 Bicycle facilities and bike connectivity near Broadway .............................................................................................. 100 Figure II-6 Bus boarding island on Los Angeles Street ............................................................................................................... 104 Figure II-7 Typical configuration of separated bikeway on Los Angeles Street .......................................................................... 104 Figure II-8 2-stage turn box on Los Angeles Street at Temple Street .......................................................................................... 105 Figure II-9 Striping at bus stops north of 1st Street .................................................................................................................... 106 Figure II-10 Merge area near U.S. 101, where cars must cross the bicycle facility to access the freeway ...................................107 Figure II-11 At the bus boarding islands, people on bikes do not interact with buses but may interact with boarding or alighting passengers..............................................................................................................................................107 Figure II-12 Bike box along Los Angeles Street used for making a left turn out of the separated bikeway................................ 109 Figure II-13 Bicycle facilities and bike connectivity near Los Angeles Street ............................................................................... 110 Figure II-14 Striped green paint at bus stops indicates shared space between buses and bikes ............................................... 117 Figure II-15 Merging area for right turns, buses and bikes .......................................................................................................... 117 Figure II-16 Bicycle facilities and bike connectivity near Reseda Boulevard ............................................................................... 120 Figure II-17 Landscaped and curbed islands protect the bikeway from traffic ............................................................................126

Metro Bike/Bus Interface Study â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Final Report

Figure II-18 A near-side bus stop is also shared space with the bikeway and for right-turning vehicles. Photo taken at Hermosa Drive facing south ................................................................................................................................................. 127 Figure II-19 Bicycle network connections near Rosemead Boulevard .........................................................................................129 Figure II-20 Above: green dashed paint is used to show bicycle lane at intersections. Below: Typical design of the buffered bicycle lane ............................................................................................................................................................ 136 Figure II-21 Green dashed striping indicates a merging area for bicycles, cars and buses......................................................... 137 Figure II-22 Bicycle facilities and bike connectivity near Alamitos Avenue ................................................................................. 139 Figure II-23 Typical design of the buffered bicycle lane at bus stops indicates shared space between buses and bikes.......... 146 Figure II-24 At bus stops and intersection approaches, the bike lane striping is discontinued and only a single, dashed line remains .................................................................................................................................................................. 147 Figure II-25 Bicycle network connections near Colorado Boulevard ........................................................................................... 149 Figure II-26 Separated bikeway design used on Venice Boulevard.............................................................................................. 155 Figure II-27 Buffered bicycle lane design on Venice Boulevard ................................................................................................... 155 Figure II-28 Bicycle Facilities and bike connectivity on Venice Boulevard ................................................................................... 156 Figure II-29 Dashed buffer adjacent to a bus stop (in this photo the bus stop is located adjacent to the bush visible immediately far side of the driveway curb cut) ..................................................................................................... 157 Figure II-30 Standard bicycle lane striped between bus stop and general travel lanes ............................................................... 157 Figure II-31 Dash striping indicates a merged area for bicycles, buses, and private vehicles at a nearside bus stop ............... 168 Figure II-32 Merging area at a far side bus stop .......................................................................................................................... 168 Figure II-33 The intersection of 7th Street & Vermont Avenue. Bus stop zone shown in red .....................................................170 Figure II-34 Bicycle network connections near 7th Street ............................................................................................................ 171 Figure II-35 In Santa Monica, green paint is used in the bicycle lane to highlight merging areas between turning vehicles, buses, and bicycles ................................................................................................................................................ 179 Figure II-36 Narrow lane widths at certain intersections prompted Santa Monica staff to test additional designs, such as this through-sharrow in the right-turn lane ................................................................................................................ 180 Figure II-37 Standard bicycle lane with a buffer between the lane and parking .......................................................................... 180 Figure II-38 Bicycle network connections near Main Street ......................................................................................................... 183 Figure II-39 A typical bus stop, where the bike lane striping becomes a single, dashed line for buses and right turns ........... 190 Figure II-40 Typical bike lane design at a far-side bus stop ......................................................................................................... 191 Figure II-41 Bicycle connectivity near Pacific Avenue ...................................................................................................................192 Figure II-42 Above: Dash striping indicates a merged area for bicycles, buses, and private vehicles. Below: Bicycle lanes are delineated with a solid white line approaching the intersection, and dashing striping is used closer to the intersection to indicate where buses and vehicles should merge to turn or access the stop ............................ 200 Figure II-43 Typical design of the bike lane on San Pedro Street ................................................................................................ 201 Figure II-44 Bicycle network and connectivity near San Pedro Street......................................................................................... 202 Figure II-45 A dashed line indicates that buses may cross into the edge line to access a stop. Bicycles are permitted to ride between the edge line and the curb. Parking is permitted immediately adjacent to the bus stop, which operators felt makes it difficult to fully pull into and out of stops with articulated buses ................................. 209 Figure II-46 Bicycle facilities and bike connectivity near Van Nuys Boulevard............................................................................ 212 Figure II-47 Standard bicycle lane adjacent to bus-only lane ....................................................................................................... 218 Figure II-48 Pavement markings used to differentiate bus-only lanes from general travel lanes ...............................................219 Figure II-49 On Figueroa, bikes are permitted in the bus-only lane by signage posted at intervals along the corridor ............219

Metro Bike/Bus Interface Study â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Final Report

Figure II-50 Dashed striping near 6th Street shows that cars may cross the bus-only lane to access a right-turn lane ........... 220 Figure II-51 Bicycle facilities and bike connectivity near Figueroa Street .................................................................................... 224 Figure II-52 Orange cones used to delineate the bus-only lane are only used when the Dodger Shuttle is running ................. 231 Figure II-53 Dash striping indicates a merging area for bicycles, buses, and private vehicles.................................................... 231 Figure II-54 Signage and striping used to differentiate the bus-only lane from general travel lanes .......................................... 231 Figure II-55 Bicycle facilities and bike connectivity near Sunset Boulevard ................................................................................. 235 Figure II-56 On Wilshire Boulevard, bikes are permitted in the bus-only lane by signage posted at intervals along the corridor .............................................................................................................................................................................. 242 Figure II-57 Bicycling in the bus-only lane is permitted by way of signage posted at regular intervals. The lane is not wide enough for a person riding a bicycle to share side-by-side with a bus................................................................ 243 Figure II-58 Sidewalk riding was prevalent along Wilshire Boulevard ........................................................................................ 244 Figure II-59 People on bicycles passing a stopped bus in the bus-only lane.............................................................................. 244 Figure II-60 A person biking in the Wilshire Boulevard bus-only lanes approaches cars parked illegally in the lane, which caused the person to veer into the general travel lane ........................................................................................ 245 Figure II-61 Bicycle facilities and bike connectivity near Wilshire Blvd. ...................................................................................... 249 Figure III-1 Two examples of intersection treatments that were unfamiliar to many study participants. Above: Wide shared right-turn/bicycle lane/bus stop conflict zone with unique striping design. Below: Far-side two-stage bicycle turn box. ................................................................................................................................................................. 258 Figure III-2 Temporary signage can be used to instruct people on bicycles when a new treatment is opened ........................ 262 Figure III-3 Due to their size and lack of rear window, buses have different blind spots than most private vehicles. Areas in red indicate areas that fall within a typical bus's blind spot ...................................................................................... 266 Figure III-4 Two examples of bike-bus interactions which cause concern for bus operators. When people enter the street from the sidewalk or a driveway, the bus operator may have insufficient view or reaction time to yield to a bicycle. Although similar to common actions of car drivers, the risk of injury or death for the person on the bike is far greater ................................................................................................................................................................... 268 Figure III-5 Guidance on interacting with buses at bus stops or bus zones .............................................................................. 272 Figure III-6 People on bicycles often ride on the left side of the bike lane to avoid the door zone ........................................... 276

Tables Table I-1 Literature Review Sources ............................................................................................................................................... 19 Table I-2 Shared Road Space Types and Aspects for Analysis ...................................................................................................... 30 Table I-3 Design Characteristics of Bus-Only Lanes and Shared Bike-Bus Lanes ........................................................................ 32 Table I-4 Recommended Volumes and Speeds for Treatments ................................................................................................... 34 Table II-1 What is your willingness to ride on streets with bus routes (e.g. Metro, Long Beach Transit, Big Blue Bus)? ............52 Table II-2 Corridor Selection Criteria ............................................................................................................................................. 72 Table II-3 Selected Study Corridors Segments ............................................................................................................................... 75 Table II-4 Selected Corridors by Treatment Type .......................................................................................................................... 77 Table II-5 Broadway at a Glance ..................................................................................................................................................... 96 Table II-6 Los Angeles Street at a Glance ..................................................................................................................................... 105

Metro Bike/Bus Interface Study â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Final Report

Table II-7 Reseda Boulevard at a Glance ...................................................................................................................................... 116 Table II-8 Rosemead Boulevard at a Glance ................................................................................................................................126 Table II-9 Alamitos Avenue at a Glance........................................................................................................................................ 137 Table II-10 Colorado Boulevard at a Glance ................................................................................................................................ 146 Table II-11 Venice Boulevard at a Glance ...................................................................................................................................... 156 Table II-12 7th Street at a Glance .................................................................................................................................................. 167 Table II-13 Main Street at a Glance ............................................................................................................................................... 178 Table II-14 Pacific Avenue at a Glance ......................................................................................................................................... 189 Table II-15 San Pedro Street at a Glance ...................................................................................................................................... 199 Table II-16 Van Nuys Boulevard at a Glance ............................................................................................................................... 208 Table II-17 Figueroa Street at a Glance ......................................................................................................................................... 218 Table II-18 Survey Respondent Experience with Leapfrogging ..................................................................................................... 223 Table II-19 Sunset Boulevard at a Glance .................................................................................................................................... 230 Table II-20 Sunset Boulevard Collision Summary ........................................................................................................................ 235 Table II-21 Wilshire Boulevard at a Glance .................................................................................................................................. 242 Table II-22 Metro Bus-Involved Collisions on Wilshire Boulevard between Alvarado and Western .......................................... 247 Table II-23 Metro Collision Data Case-by-Case Review Using SWITRS Crash Types ................................................................. 248 Table III-1 Survey Responses to Familiarity with Bicycle Treatments ......................................................................................... 260 Table III-2 Survey Respondent Willingness to Ride Alongside Buses ........................................................................................ 264 Table III-3 Have Bike-Bus Interactions Caused Respondent to Change Routes? ....................................................................... 264

Literature Review

Metro Bike/Bus Interface Study â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Final Report

Part I: Literature Review

PART I: IN THIS SECTION LITERATURE REVIEW INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................... 18 Sources Consulted ........................................................................................................................ 19 SUMMARY OF KEY ISSUES IN THE LITERATURE ...................................................................... 21 Travel Behavior Interactions and Conflicts .................................................................................. 21 Quality of Service........................................................................................................................... 24 Risk of Collision ............................................................................................................................. 25 DESIGN TREATMENTS ............................................................................................................... 27 Separation and Lane Designs ....................................................................................................... 27 Stop Designs .................................................................................................................................. 35 Signage and Pavement Markings ................................................................................................. 38 TRAINING AND EDUCATION APPROACH ................................................................................. 40 LITERATURE REVIEW CONCLUSIONS ....................................................................................... 43 Common Themes and Conflicting Guidance ............................................................................... 43 Research and Data Collection Needs ........................................................................................... 43 Applicability to Los Angeles .......................................................................................................... 44

Metro Bike/Bus Interface Study â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Final Report

Part I: Literature Review

LITERATURE REVIEW INTRODUCTION Buses and bicycles differ greatly in size, visibility, and maneuverability but are generally required or expected to share the same space on the right side of the road. Despite the potential discomfort and risk of sharing space on the road, buses and people riding bicycles often interact when buses pull over to make curbside stops, wait at traffic lights, or overtake people riding bicycles mid-block. This literature review synthesizes a range of approaches from around the world for designing streets to accommodate buses alongside bikes with a particular focus on how interactions can be made safer or avoided. The review includes a summary of key issues in the literature, a review of applicable design treatments, information on training and education programs, and initial conclusions on applicability of the literature to Los Angeles County. Around the United States and across the world, transit agencies, planning agencies, and research institutions have studied these interactions and trialed design treatments to reduce conflicts. Most of the work in this field has been to catalog and examine such treatments. However, the University of South Florida (2012) conducted a thorough survey of the practice and found that very little empirical study exists to support the various treatments and designs that had been implemented by that time (pp viiixi; 110), whether by reducing collisions, increasing comfort of users, or any other measure. This is confirmed by more recent research which documented no substantial changes in practice or additional evidence in support of any particular design guidance (TCRP, 2015, 224). Design treatments range from shared use within general purpose lanes (where expectations of behavior are more ambiguous) to fully separated and explicitly designated road space for both buses and people riding bicycles. Full separation for every mode is uncommon in the United States, but bike lanes and/or bus-only lanes are present in many cities. In cases without sufficient space for both bus-only lanes and separated bike lanes, shared bike-bus lanes (SBBL) are a common compromise, particularly in the United States and the United Kingdom. The presumed advantage of allowing people to ride bicycles in a bus-only lane, where legal, is that it reduces the interactions of bicyclists with most other road users and, unless bus frequency is very high, people riding bicycles can enjoy a less busy and wider travel space than provided by general traffic lanes. However, bikes and buses must still cross paths, which most frequently occurs at bus stops and intersections. In addition to design treatments, education and policy play an important role in creating streets that are safe and efficient for both people riding bicycles and bus operators. Surveys of bicyclists and bus operators from the literature suggest there is a high degree of discomfort for both parties during passing maneuvers (ISF 2012). While the literature acknowledges the importance of education for both bus 18

Metro Bike/Bus Interface Study â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Final Report

Part I: Literature Review

operators and people riding bicycles, evaluations of existing educational campaigns or programs for conflict reduction were not found. Although transit agencies commonly include some training about watching for people riding bicycles, guidance tends to be very general (USF, 2012, 102-104). Less clear from the literature is what sort of training is available to people riding bicycles regarding anticipating bus operator behavior or what methods of communicating safety messaging are most effective.

Sources Consulted The table below describes the documents included in this literature review. The body of work available on bus and bicycle interactions is relatively small. While additional local design guidance documents may be found, this review is focused on guidance that has undergone a national review and approval process and guidance that includes specific references to thresholds for bus and bicyclist activity levels. Where appropriate, page numbers are included in the parenthetical citation (Author, Year, Page[s]) to assist the reader in locating specific detail within the source material. Table I-1 Literature Review Sources

Document

Author

Year

Description

Research Papers

TRL Report 610: Cycling in Bus Lanes

Transportation Research Laboratory (TRL) on behalf of Transport for London

2004

Observational and personal survey analysis of cycling in bus lanes across various U.K. locales

Bike-Bus Interaction within the Road Network

Austroads 1

2005

Survey of Australian and international practice in bike-bus accommodation and crash history; treatment-specific toolkit

Bicycle-Bus Conflict Area Study

Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA)/Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission

2009

Review of location-specific bike-bus conflicts; survey of best practices to address similar issues and strategies for resolution

Bike Rider and Bus Driver Interaction Study

Institute for Sustainable Futures (ISF), University of Technology Sydney

2012

Social research surveying hundreds of bike riders and bus drivers to understand experience and comfort level of interactions

Austroads is the agency responsible for developing Australian guidelines for urban planning and roadway standards. The standards produced are advisory, not compulsory. The Agency is a conference of representatives from various roadway authorities in Australia and New Zealand.

Metro Bike/Bus Interface Study â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Final Report

Document

Author

Part I: Literature Review Year

Description

Design Guidance

Design Manual for Bicycle Traffic

National Information and Technology Platform for Transport, Infrastructure and Public Space (CROW, Netherlands)

2007

Internationally-recognized best practice design guide for bicycle facilities

Design Treatments for Bicycles and Buses on Arterial and Collector Roads

Stephanie McNeely & Garrett Donaher, Dillon Consulting

2009

Brief guide focusing on technical details of design alternatives containing thresholds for application of specific treatments

TCRP Report 183: A Guidebook on TransitSupportive Roadway Strategies

Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) of the Transportation Research Board

2015

Survey of transit priority treatment best practices, including an appendix dedicated to bike-bus interactions and design guidance to improve safety and operations

Transit Street Design Guide

National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO)

2016

Comprehensive design guide for urban transit facilities that prioritize transit and improve quality of service

Survey of Best Practices

Shared-Use Bus Priority Lanes on City Streets: Case Studies in Design and Management

Mineta Transportation Institute at San Jose State University

2012

Global case studies of cities with bus-only lane networks focusing on implementation and design details

A Summary of Design, Policies and Operational Characteristics for Shared Bicycle/Bus Lanes

University of South Florida (USF) on behalf of Florida Department of Transportation

2012

Survey of current practice document prepared to inform the planning for a shared bicycle-bus lane network

Metro Bike/Bus Interface Study – Final Report

Part I: Literature Review

SUMMARY OF KEY ISSUES IN THE LITERATURE Travel Behavior Interactions and Conflicts Buses and bikes have very different travel patterns, maneuverability, and travel needs. When measured over a long distance in the urban environment, buses and bicycles exhibit a similar average speed (Austroads 2005, 2). People riding bicycles tend to maintain a steady pace (Mineta 2012, 30), while buses start and stop repeatedly over the course of their route. Restarting from a stop requires great effort for people riding bicycles, who may try to adjust their pace over the course of travel to minimize the need to stop. Buses are frequently required to shift laterally to reach the curb at bus stops. Because the duration that buses remain at a stop varies from only a few seconds up to several minutes, other road users can struggle to predict the movement of buses.

Figure

I-1

illustrates

example of a conflict between a bus and people riding bicycles. As the bus reenters traffic from a stop, the bicyclist on the right has chosen to swerve around the bus but continue Figure I-1 Conflict between bus and people riding bicycles at a bus stop without pause, while the bicyclist on at Spring Street and 7th Street, Los Angeles, CA. Fehr & Peers the left slowed on approach until the bus was completely out of the bike lane. Due to these differences in travel behavior, there is a possibility of “leapfrogging” in which buses and people riding bicycles must repeatedly pass each other. Leapfrogging can be highly risky and undesirable because it entails a high degree of lateral and angular movement as buses and bikes cross each other’s paths. Bus/bicycle collisions overall are relatively rare, but many of the crashes that occur result from angular or lateral movement (Austroads 2005, 24). While leapfrogging is identified as a concern by some sources, it is possible this experience is so undesirable that both bus operators and people riding bicycles may adjust their speeds to minimize it, making it hard to observe in data collection (USF 2012, 101-102). Figure I-2 illustrates how over a distance, bikes and buses travel the same average speed, although people on bikes tend to ride consistently at the same rate while buses dwell at stops repeatedly for some length of time and move faster between them. In the original diagram, a bicyclist and a bus start down a corridor at different points (on the Y axis) and never cross paths, despite traveling at roughly the same rate over a mile. However, if the bicyclist started near mile 0 traveling at the same speed, 21

Metro Bike/Bus Interface Study â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Final Report

Part I: Literature Review

leapfrogging could occur as the bicyclist catches up while the bus is stopped. The yellow line overlaid on the original graphic shows the same bicyclist rate of travel and the potential for leapfrogging as the bicyclist catches up to a bus.

Figure I-2 Original graphic: NACTO Transit Street Design Guide time-space diagram of bicycle and bus travel (NACTO 2016, 123). The yellow line, overlaid by Fehr & Peers, traces the same bicycle travel line closer to the bus, illustrating how similar average speeds over a distance could lead to leapfrogging.

Passing movements for buses overtaking bikes, and vice versa, are particularly challenging when there is inadequate space to comfortably do so. Visibility issues exist for both users. Figure I-3 illustrates the comparative sizes of buses and bikes. People riding bicycles can be hard to see due to their narrow profiles; a problem that is magnified in low-light conditions when bicycles may have diminutive or no lighting. Buses are very easy for people riding bicycles to see but block the view ahead and reduce the ability of a bicyclist to predict a stop or sudden change in conditions. These problems can lead to bicyclists swerving abruptly to the side of a bus that is stopping, or bus operators suddenly swerving to avoid people riding bicycles who were out of view. Buses can also block other motoristsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; view of a

Metro Bike/Bus Interface Study â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Final Report

Part I: Literature Review

bicyclist, resulting in car-bike collisions in which the driver did not anticipate a person riding a bicycle behind or to the side of a bus.

Figure I-3 Dimensions of typical buses and bicyclists (USF 2012, 4)

Bus operators may have difficulty anticipating bicyclist paths of travel or accurately judging the distance and speed required to safely pass a person riding a bicycle (Austroads 2005, 35). In some cases, this leads to buses cutting off people riding bicycles in order to execute a turn or make a bus stop. The pressure to remain on schedule may also lead operators to drive more aggressively or unsafely pass 23

Metro Bike/Bus Interface Study – Final Report

Part I: Literature Review

people riding bicycles (Austroads 2005, 35). If a bus operator fails to pull over fully to the curb at a stop, the rear of the bus will remain angled into the travel lane and can force people riding bicycles to move towards the left and into other lanes in order to pass (SEPTA 2009, 10).

Quality of Service The presence of a person riding a bicycle in a travel lane will generally require the bus to slow when passing unless the bus can completely move into an adjacent lane. In narrow lanes, delay to buses can be more significant; studies have found passing delays from 3 to 30 seconds per maneuver (TRL 2004, 8-11; USF 2012, 19-21, 108). Bicyclists passing buses typically experience little measureable delay because they are more able to quickly maneuver around obstacles. However, in very constrained or unsafe situations, people riding bicycles may have to come to a stop when a bus or other vehicle is blocking their path and then wait for a clear lane (TRL 2004, 8). Although bicyclists may not experience measurable delay, this is only one measure of roadway performance or level of service that affect a person’s experience riding a bike. A bicycle rider’s perception of safety, speed and comfort on the roadway may influence their decision to ride at all – an effect that has so far been mostly measured through surveying people who are already riding (TRL 2004; ISF 2012; USF 2012). Dutch design guidance recommends that in locations where bus speeds are likely to exceed a maximum speed of 30 km/h (19 mph), buses and bikes should not share space (CROW, 2007, 130). The rationale for this threshold is based on several factors: •

Safety for the person riding the bicycle, in which higher speeds are more likely to result in severe or fatal injuries in the event of a collision (p. 37-38, 101)

•

Comfort of the person riding the bicycle, in which their perception of safe and efficient travel between point A and B is directly related to their desire to ride. “The infrastructure should enable the cyclist to make direct, comfortable bicycle journeys in attractive, safe traffic surroundings…Good quality cycling infrastructure actually leads to a higher proportion of bicycles in the modal split.” (p. 12)

•

Maintaining quality of service for transit, where if the purpose of the facility is to allow buses to operate at speeds higher than 30 km/h, separation is best to maintain safety and comfort for people riding bicycles while permitting higher speeds for transit to observe schedule demands (p. 131)

The speed threshold used in the Dutch guidance is substantially lower than commonly found in practice in the United States, reflecting a political culture in the United States that prioritizes bicycle travel to a far lesser degree than the Netherlands. The Design Manual for Bicycle Traffic provides only two

Metro Bike/Bus Interface Study – Final Report

Part I: Literature Review

categories of roads to consider sharing space for bicycles and motor vehicles 2. Their “estate access roads” classification (p. 36) is analogous to neighborhood streets in the United States, where the recommended (or perhaps, required) speed limit is 30 km/h (19 mph). The second primary classification is direct access roads, which seems to encompass all other road types that are not controlled-access highways (in other words, anything that is not a freeway or neighborhood street). A survey of shared bike-bus lanes (SBBL) across the United States showed that posted speed limits varied from 20 mph to 45 mph, with 30 mph being the most common limit (USF 2012, 73). In their review of domestic and international practice and research, the USF study concluded that shared bikebus lanes are appropriate on streets with speeds up to 30 mph (75). However, their conclusion is tempered by noting, “Researchers found no research to date measuring the relationships among crash rates, crash severity and SBBL speeds.” This finding mirrors earlier work in Great Britain (TRL 2004, 4), and is restated as the first conclusion in some of the most recent research on interactions between buses and people on bicycles (TCRP 2015, 224).

Risk of Collision The risk of severe injury or fatality due to bike and vehicle conflicts is very high for people riding bicycles, although from what studies are available the rate of crashes between people riding bicycles and buses appears low. Studies in Philadelphia and Australia both indicate that the amount of bike-bus collisions is very low compared to all crashes for their respective groups in their study area (SEPTA 2009, 5; Austroads 2005, 22). In Philadelphia, for example, only 1.8 percent of all bicycle crashes involved a bus, and 2.6 percent of all bus collisions involved a bicycle. The SEPTA study notes that while collision data were examined for the entire city of Philadelphia, there is some degree of uncertainty of accuracy where crashes may be miscoded. The Philadelphia results found three fatalities from 46 bike-bus collisions in a five-year period. However, as many as one in seven reported bike-bus collisions result in a fatality in Australia, which had similar bike-bus crash rates. Severe injury and fatal crashes are most commonly a result of angular or rear-end crashes. Angular crashes were attributed to the lateral movement of buses or when people riding bicycles rode into the general travel lane from a driveway or other path that was not an intersection; in other words, a sideswipe collision. Slightly more than half of the collisions occurred at intersections (Austroads 2005, 22). Intersections present increased opportunities for bike-bus conflict, being both a stopping point for all vehicles traveling in the same direction, and frequently a location where buses must pull to the curb to serve a stop. A study in Philadelphia observed that nearly every instance of buses and people riding

A third classification, “distributor roads”, includes the equivalent of freeways, which do not allow for bicycle traffic in the Netherlands or the United States

Metro Bike/Bus Interface Study â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Final Report

Part I: Literature Review

bicycles arriving at an intersection simultaneously could result in potential conflict, although not all interactions are unsafe (SEPTA 2009, 10). In many cases, people riding bicycles are faced with the choice to either merge into the adjacent general traffic lane to pass a stopped bus, or move to the right of a bus, putting themselves in potential conflict with boarding and disembarking passengers

Metro Bike/Bus Interface Study â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Final Report

Part I: Literature Review

DESIGN TREATMENTS Separation and Lane Designs Many of the consulted documents from cities around the US and the world recommended that where space is available, separated facilities for bicycles should be provided to maximize safety and comfort to the rider, especially when bus volumes and/or speeds are high, although the threshold of observed or recommended high volume or speed is wide (see Table I-4). However, the literature recognized that separation of bike and bus facilities can be difficult in urban areas with limited street space, and decisions often need to be made on a block-by-block basis. Figure I-4 shows several design alternatives to accommodate buses alongside bikes. Each of the design treatment types are outlined in Table I-2 with focus areas applicable to the Metro Bike-Bus Interface Study. There is a limited range of design solutions for designating street space for bicyclists, regardless of the presence of bus-only lanes. People riding bicycles typically travel to the far-right side of the road, even if they are permitted to take the center of a general purpose lane. Where there is a bus-only lane and a bike facility, the bike lane most often remains to the right of the bus lane, meaning buses must cross over or block the bicycle lane to make a bus stop (USF 2012, 12, 15). Dutch design guidance advises against placing the bike lane to the left of a bus-only lane, which places a bicyclist uncomfortably between bus traffic and general traffic (CROW 2007, 131). On one-way streets, bike lanes can sometimes be located in the left-most lane, which eliminates the interaction with buses stopping along the right-side curb to serve passengers (SEPTA, 2009, 27-28). As an alternative to installing a dedicated bike lane, a shared bike-bus lane (SBBL) can improve transit service and reduce some of the risk for people riding bicycles by removing most of the interaction with general traffic. In most cases, bus-only lanes still permit general traffic to use the lane for turns into driveways and onto cross-streets, and in some jurisdictions the lane can also be used for deliveries or taxi loading. The use of bus-only lanes or SBBLs by general traffic, both legally or illegally, can deteriorate transit service and was a common complaint among planners (USF 2012, 21). Bus-only and SBBLs are widely used in Paris, where some facilities are even physically separated from traffic by a wide curb (Mineta 2012, 93-108). Paris has gradually updated the lane design to incorporate designated loading zones for deliveries which occupy a small portion of both the SBBL and the sidewalk. Many of the consulted documents recommend that SBBLs are most appropriate when there is enough width for both buses and people riding bicycles to pass each other comfortably, but not enough width that other motorists are encouraged to use the extra space (Dillon 2009, 8-9; TCRP 2015, 218-219). The source documents typically place this width in the range of 13 feet to 15 feet, although it is important to note that many jurisdictions now have a â&#x20AC;&#x153;3 feet passing lawâ&#x20AC;? in which motorists must maintain at least 27

Metro Bike/Bus Interface Study – Final Report

Part I: Literature Review

3 feet of lateral distance when passing bicyclists 3. With the dimensions of a typical bus, bicyclist, and the 3 feet safety buffer, a shared bike-bus lane would technically require a minimum of 16 feet and 7 inches (USF 2012, ix; 78). However, once a lane is 15 feet width, a separate facility for bikes and buses is preferred (TCRP 2015, 219, USF 2012, 30, 34). Where lanes are less than 13 feet, buses typically cannot pass people riding bicycles without encroaching upon the next lane (USF 2012, 85). Table I-3 outlines the design characteristics of bus-only lanes and SBBLs.

For example, in California, the “Three Feet for Safety Act” was adopted as AB1371. The California Vehicle Code 21760(c) states:

A driver of a motor vehicle shall not overtake or pass a bicycle proceeding in the same direction on a highway at a distance of less than three feet between any part of the motor vehicle and any part of the bicycle or its operator.

Metro Bike/Bus Interface Study – Final Report

Part I: Literature Review

Figure I-4 Design concepts for sharing road space (TCRP 2015, 221). The “Raised Bike Lane” treatment at left is commonly referred to throughout this document as a “bus boarding island” or “diverted bike lane” and does not always feature a raised path for bicycles.

Metro Bike/Bus Interface Study â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Final Report

Part I: Literature Review

Table I-2 Shared Road Space Types and Aspects for Analysis

Treatment Type

Purpose

Advantages

Disadvantages

Focus for Study Do bus stop diversions reduce crashes between buses and bikes at stops?

Raised/Diverted Bike Lane (Also known as Boarding or Transit Islands)

Routing the bike lane around the bus stop (boarding island) eliminates need for bikes to shift into general traffic

Reduces common conflict point between buses and people riding bicycles as well as between bicyclists and general traffic

Sends people riding bicycles into the path of pedestrians trying to board or disembark from a bus

Do diverted bike lanes increase bike-ped collisions? Does the raised-diverted bike lane reduce bike-ped collisions? Do diverted bike lanes have an effect on transit operations?

Exclusive Bus and Bike Lanes

Clearly designates separate space through paint and signage for each user group. Can include sharrows to guide people riding bicycles around buses at stops

Provides separated space for buses and bicycles along a corridor; improves transit service in congested conditions

Buses and bikes must still cross paths when buses pull to the curb for a stop

Left-Side Bike Lane

On one-way streets, places people riding bicycles opposite buses and eliminates potential for leapfrogging

Separates buses and people riding bicycles entirely and eliminates potential for righthook collisions

One-way streets may still have left-side driveways which still introduce conflicts for people riding bicycles

Are there treatments for guiding bicyclists around stopped buses that reduce collisions between the two? What are the safety effects where curbside bus lanes exclude bikes and no bike lane is designated? Do left-side bike lanes reduce overall collisions for people riding bicycles compared to right-side lanes on one-way streets?

Metro Bike/Bus Interface Study â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Final Report

Treatment Type

Shared Bike and Bus Lane (SBBL)

Purpose

Where space is constrained, buses and people riding bicycles can share curbside lane. Sharrows can be used to guide people riding bicycles around buses at a stop

Part I: Literature Review Advantages

Reduces bicycle interaction with general traffic and improves transit service in congested conditions

Disadvantages

Buses and bikes still conflict at stops and intersections; also, typically, general traffic turning right causes conflicts with both bikes and buses. Inadequate lane width may require buses to encroach on other lane to pass people riding bicycles, or vice versa when buses stop

Focus for Study Do wider SBBLs improve comfort and safety for people riding bicycles and bus operators? Does allowing bicyclists to share a bus only lane have a measurable effect on transit operations compared to strict bus-only policy? Are people riding bicycles more likely to use SBBL than ride in general traffic lanes with no bike lane? Are people riding bicycles more likely to use SBBL at a certain width?

Exclusive Bike Lane

Designates space for bikes only where no transit priority lane exists. Sharrows can be used to guide people riding bicycles around bus stops

Provides separate space for people riding bicycles

Buses and bikes still conflict at stops and intersections as well as right-turning traffic

Do exclusive bike lanes reduce bike-related delays for buses compared to a general traffic lane? Are there striping and signage designs that reduce collisions between buses and people riding bicycles at stops?

Metro Bike/Bus Interface Study – Final Report

Part I: Literature Review

Table I-3 Design Characteristics of Bus-Only Lanes and Shared Bike-Bus Lanes

Lane Type Mixed Traffic Curb Lane (typical)

Minimum Width

Maximum Width

Recommended Width

12' 6

15' 2

14' 2

10’-13' 1,2,4,6,7

Shared BikeBus Curb Lane (SBBL)

(< 13' lanes do not allow bus to pass bike or vice versa without moving out of lane)

13’-15' should be avoided to discourage unsafe passing 4,7

Separation Design

Domestic Examples

Notes

• Washington, D.C. • Illinois • Maryland • Tucson, AZ • Los Angeles, CA • San Francisco, CA • Albuquerque, NM • Minneapolis, MN • Denver, CO • Seattle, WA

Some SBBLs utilize sharrows, dashed white lines or full green lanes for people riding bicycles within bus lane

• Some use of sharrows 6

• 15'-18' (approx. 16' needed for bus/bike to pass each other without leaving lane)

• If 13’-15', marked buffer between SBBL and general purpose lanes1,2,6,7

1,2,6,7

• NACTO recommends 10’11’, with speeds 20mph or less 4

• If 15’-16', separate facilities for buses and people riding bicycles 2

6,7

3,5,6,7

• Solid white stripe between lanes 3,6

Bus-Only Curb Lane

10’ 3,6

11’-12' 3,6

• Some red painted lanes 3,6

New York City

Some jurisdictions prohibit bicyclists in busonly lanes 1,3,6

• Rumble strips (suggested) 6

Offset BusOnly Lane with curbside parking

• Red painted lane

10-11'

3,6

• San Francisco • New York City 3,6

No examples of sharing offset lanes with people riding bicycles

Metro Bike/Bus Interface Study – Final Report

Lane Type

Diverted Bike Lane At Bus Stops

Notes: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

Minimum Width

Requires minimum 8' clear space for bus stop, plus adequate space (5’+) for bike facility in addition to sidewalk 6

Part I: Literature Review Maximum Width

Recommended Width

Separation Design • Angle of diversion should slow people riding bicycles approaching pedestrians 1,5,6,7

• Can utilize slight ramp for people riding bicycles to alert riders to pedestrian conflict zone 1,6,7

Austroads 2005 McNeely & Donaher 2009 Mineta 2012 NACTO 2016 SEPTA 2009 TCRP 2015 USF 2012

Domestic Examples

• Austin, TX • Seattle, WA • Boulder, CO 6,7

Notes

International guidance on bus stop diversion differs in terms of lateral angle and slope 1,5,6

Metro Bike/Bus Interface Study â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Final Report

Part I: Literature Review

There is not a consensus amongst the literature concerning the benefit of people riding bicycles and buses sharing a dedicated lane. One survey of people riding bicycles suggests that the lanes were generally safe thanks to separation from general traffic (TRL 2004, 16-20). Other work states that an SBBL is neither high in comfort for people riding bicycles nor appropriate for high volumes of buses, making the SBBL a poor substitute for dedicated facilities for each mode, although no evidence is cited to support this assertion (NACTO 2016, 122). The NACTO guide recommends against the sharing of bus lanes with bikes unless maximum speeds are 20 mph or less. The shared lane approach is considered inappropriate when the lane is too narrow, bus and/or bike volumes are too high, or roadway speeds are too high, but there is no definitive threshold for any of these measures (TCRP 2015, 224). Table I-4 provides recommendations from various sources on the type of lane that should be provided based on bicyclist volumes, bus volumes, bus speeds and bus headways. Because no information was available for bus only curb lanes and offset bus only lanes, these infrastructure types are omitted from the table. Table I-4 Recommended Volumes and Speeds for Treatments

Lane Type

Bicyclist Volumes

Bus Volumes

Mixed Traffic Curb < 50 bicyclists/hr 1,3 Lane (typical)

<= 20 bus/hr 1,3

Shared Bikes + Bus Curb Lane (SBBL)

<= 20 bus/hr 1,3

Notes: 1. 2.

< 50 bicyclists/hr 1,3

Bus Maximum

Bus Headway

Operating Speed

<= 37 mph 1,3

<= 20 mph 2

>= 4 min 2

<= 37 mph 1,3

15-20 min

1,3

McNeely & Donaher 2009 NACTO 2016 (Note: NACTO guide is somewhat ambiguous about whether the 20mph bus speed is average operating or maximum; given that it recommends use of an SBBL only for short distances to fill in network gaps, it is likely that this refers to maximum speed) USF 2012

Some jurisdictions such as San Francisco and New York City prohibit the sharing of bus-only lanes with bicycles, often through interpretation of legal language rather than an explicit prohibition of bicycles (Mineta 2012, 85, 120). Some laws governing the use of bus-only lanes will state the specific exemptions to the bus-only rule, such as allowing taxis limited use of a bus-only lane to load at the curb. In jurisdictions where there is no specific exemption for people riding bicycles to use the bus-only lanes, the legal interpretation would be that they are prohibited because bicycles are generally treated the same as vehicular traffic.

Metro Bike/Bus Interface Study – Final Report

Part I: Literature Review

However, many jurisdictions worldwide with bus-only lanes explicitly indicate that bus-only lanes can be used by people riding bicycles as well. The city of Paris provides an extensive bus-only lane network with a context-sensitive approach to allowing or prohibiting bicycling in the lanes. About 83 percent of the bus-only lane network is open for the use of bicyclists; pavement markings and signs clearly indicate to bicyclists if they are prohibited, and the limitations are in place generally where lanes are less than 4.5 meters (14.8 feet) wide or other safety concerns are present (Mineta 2012, 98-104). Examples of the Paris lane markings are found in Figure I-7 as part of the discussion on markings and signage. Research conducted for TCRP suggests that the SBBLs allow people riding bicycles at least some separation from traffic and can also garner popular support for bus-only lanes by increasing the number of beneficiaries (TCRP 2015, 209). Bus-only lanes can be designed as either curb running lanes or “offset” lanes, in which the lane is separated from the curb, typically by a parking lane (NACTO 2016, 120, 122). This design is intended to reduce conflicts between buses and turning vehicles or delivery vehicles that might block a curbside busonly lane. However, few, if any, examples of the offset bike lane expressly permit bicyclists; San Francisco is most notable for its use of these lanes, but the City’s municipal vehicular code prohibits people riding bicycles from using bus-only lanes (Mineta 2012, 120).

Stop Designs Offset lanes often feature a bus boarding island or a curb bulb-out so that the bus need not pull over to the right to serve a stop. In these and other similar instances, a bike lane can divert around to the rear of the bus stops. This type of diversion has been used in Seattle, Portland, and Austin to reduce the lateral interactions between buses and bikes (TCRP 2015, 212-213), including cases without offset bus lanes. The potential for conflict is instead shifted to pedestrians and people riding bicycles and sufficient visual and tactile warning should be given to both parties. People riding bicycles would yield to pedestrians in this configuration; in some cases, the bicycle path is raised slightly to further alert the rider to the conflict zone (Austroads 2005, 58-61; TCRP 2015, 220). Installing bus boarding islands can be costly to implement and require greater amounts of street space than use of an existing sidewalk offers. The Seattle and Austin examples are shown in Figure I-5, highlighting the difference among applications even in the U.S. Note that neither example elevates the bike lane, despite international guidance for doing so (SEPTA 2009, 17; Austroads 2005, 60-61; TCRP 2015, 212; CROW 2007, 132). Another application to address conflict zones at bus stops includes a fullypainted bicycle lane either in addition to or in place of bus-only lane markings to highlight the potential danger. The only domestic example of this treatment found in the literature was on Hennepin Avenue in Minneapolis, MN (USF 2012, 51), where part of the shared bike-bus lane is painted green (to guide bicyclists) and stenciled with “RIGHT TURN BIKE BUS” to clarify the permitted uses. Recent aerial and 35

Metro Bike/Bus Interface Study â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Final Report

Part I: Literature Review

street imagery suggests this treatment has not been carried forward in recent years. The cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s design guide for this lane design is shown in Figure I-6. Other design considerations for reducing bicycle and bus interactions include adjusting signal progression timing to favor bicyclesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; average speed, median-running transit ways with bicycles remaining to the right, or right-turn prohibitions to further reduce the potential for angular crashes (NACTO 2016, 36). Right turn prohibitions can be effective in locations with high bike and pedestrian volumes. Finally, a comprehensive network-planning approach can reduce bus and bicycle interactions by minimizing the overlap of major cycling

and

bus

networks

(Austroads 2005, 39). In many instances this is difficult because major destination corridors will naturally overlap for all travelers.

Figure I-5 Two examples of bus stop bicycle diversion illustrate different design approaches. Top: Dexter Avenue in Seattle, WA is nearside to the intersection so that pedestrians reach the boarding island from the intersection crosswalk area. Bottom: Guadalupe Avenue in Austin, TX in which the bike lane is painted green, and the lane angled to increase awareness of the pedestrian crossing to the rear of the stop. The shelter is located at the sidewalk, rather than on the boarding island as above.

Photo credit: Phil LaRose (top), Caroline Ivy (bottom)

Metro Bike/Bus Interface Study â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Final Report

Part I: Literature Review

Figure I-6 Minneapolis' Hennepin Avenue SBBL Design

Source: http://www.minneapolismn.gov/bicycles/projects/Hennepin-Ave Accessed June 14, 2016

Metro Bike/Bus Interface Study – Final Report

Part I: Literature Review

Signage and Pavement Markings Designation of bus-only lanes, bike lanes, or SBBLs is handled differently across the world, and even differently by various U.S. cities despite national standards for roadway signage and design. Designating explicitly if people riding bicycles may travel in a “bus-only lane” and marking where they are expected to ride can reduce confusion and alert bus operators to expect bikes. Conversely, safety concerns may also be attributed to poor design, such as in Minneapolis, where people riding bicycles complained about inadequate pavement markings to understand the configuration (USF 2012, 48). In this example, the design of the bus/bike-only lane markings were not adequately visible for all users and this was thought to lead to unauthorized lane use by general traffic. At a minimum, cities with bus-only lanes typically designate SBBLs with lettering on the pavement, and typically a solid white line (as opposed to the standard dashed line indicating separate lanes traveling in the same direction). Several cities, including London, Sydney, New York, and San Francisco, stripe some or all of the lane with red paint (Mineta 2012, 27; TCRP 2015, 138). Fewer cities use pavement markings to explicitly indicate the allowance of bikes in a bus-only lane, and there are many different designs in use. In some cases, the lane is stamped with the words “BUS BIKE ONLY”, or “BUS BIKE RIGHT TURNS” as seen in Minneapolis (USF 2012, 48; 98). Sharrows are used in addition to the “bus only” markings (TCRP 2015, 214), although the FHWA has indicated that this is incorrect use of a sharrow (USF 2012, 98). There is at least one example, in Minneapolis, of an SBBL in which the bike lane is fully or partially painted green (USF 2012, 46-51). This type of treatment or application of sharrows has also been used to explicitly guide bikes around bus stops, one of the most significant conflict points. An example illustrating this use of sharrows at bus stops can be seen in Figure I-4 under the “Shared bike-bus lane” diagram. In Paris, pavement markings include explicit designation of where a bus lane allows for Figure I-7 Paris Bus Lane markings showing bikes allowed (top) and prohibited (bottom)

Source: Mairie du 10e Arrondissement, “Velo dans le 10e”. http://www.mairie10.paris.fr/mai rie10/jsp/site/Portal.jsp?page_id =341 (accessed June 14, 2016)

sharing with people riding bicycles or prohibits those users (Mineta 2012, 101), as seen in Figure I-7. In many cities, the signage also indicates that people riding bicycles are allowed. Los Angeles is notable for its bus-only lane signage which features the words, “BIKES OK” at the bottom (Mineta 2012, 66).

Metro Bike/Bus Interface Study â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Final Report

Part I: Literature Review

London uses a more pictographic approach with their signage that explicitly details where and when lanes are restricted to buses, bicycles, and taxis (53); an example is shown at right in Figure I-8. In San Francisco, signage explicitly designates that taxis may use a bus-only lane but makes no statement about bicycles (119). Signage concepts are presented in the TCRP research (some of which are seen in Figure I-4) including MUTCD-compliant signs to designate shared lanes, although their survey on existing implementation is ambiguous about how many jurisdictions follow these guidelines (TCRP 2015, 214-215).

Figure I-8 London Department for Transport recommended application of bus lane signage and striping Source:

"Traffic Signs Manual" 2008. Chapter 3, 131

Metro Bike/Bus Interface Study – Final Report

Part I: Literature Review

TRAINING AND EDUCATION APPROACH Design approaches to reducing conflict or confusion are most prevalent in the literature, but several studies note the importance of educational programs for both bus operators and bicyclists to understand risks, limitations, and perspectives on sharing the road. Research suggests that drivers who cycle are better able to analyze and predict bicyclist behavior while driving (Austroads 2005, 28). However, there are wide variations in survey results on driver and bicyclist perceptions of one another on the road. Although education campaigns for bus operators and people riding bicycles alike are recommended by some studies, no information was found to suggest the effectiveness of educational campaigns. Because interactions on the road will continue to exist regardless of markings and signage, SEPTA developed a conceptual “yield pyramid” (Figure I-9) that designates which road users give courtesy and yield to which (2009, 27-28). Pedestrians are given top priority, followed by people riding bicycles, transit vehicles and finally cars and trucks. The study recommended an educational campaign with targeted marketing to include signs on the rear of buses that would discourage people riding bicycles from passing stopped buses Figure I-9 Road User Yield Pyramid (SEPTA 2009, 28) on the right side, for example (SEPTA 2009, 29). The University of Technology Sydney undertook a study of bike rider and bus driver perceptions of interacting with each other in the roadway. More than half of the respondents from each group expressed at least some level of discomfort in close proximity to the other; young and/or female bike riders were more inclined to feel uncomfortable around buses (ISF 2012, 6). Bike riders expressed the need for bus operators to be patient and provide as much space as possible when passing, while bus operators felt that people riding bicycles could minimize the need to be passed by not riding ahead of a bus at a stop light. Bus operators believed it was important for people riding bicycles to make themselves more visible, especially at night, and to avoid riding in a blind spot (14-15). Bus operators also hoped for people riding bicycles to ride in a more predictable manner. Users in both groups believed the other group could make better use of hand and vehicular signals and eye contact to show intent, and to yield the right of way to the other (7-8). An early 2000s study in the United Kingdom involved surveys of people riding bicycles and on-street observations from both stationary and on-bus perspectives (TRL 2004, 1). The study found that SBBLs were generally viewed positively and observed to be relatively safe even with buses passing people riding bicycles. However, both bus operators and bicyclist respondents expressed unfavorable opinions of the other group with respect to sharing space. The study suggests that efforts be made to address the 40

Metro Bike/Bus Interface Study â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Final Report

Part I: Literature Review

concerns of both parties by further reducing the possibility of conflict and educating each party of users to the otherâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s needs. Few transit agencies provide explicit training regarding interactions with or expected behaviors of people riding bicycles; the USF study (2012, 102) found no domestic agencies that provided such training with respect to SBBLs, while a study for the City of Ottawa suggested that their transit operators receive at least some bicycle awareness training (Dillon, 2009, 10). Although specialized training programs for bus operators were not observed, bus operators do receive guidance during their general training on checking for bicyclists and being aware of the limitations of mirrors. Some local efforts, such as a training course organized by the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition, can help inform bus operators about cycling behavior and is provided even for drivers of private services 4. The USF study suggests technology could be adapted to buses that helps alert operators to lateral collisions, including those with people riding bicycles (2012, 102). Several studies identify the need to educate people riding bicycles not to pass stopped buses on the right, which would lead to conflicts with passengers boarding and disembarking. Otherwise, the studies found few examples of bicyclist training specific to bus interactions. Such programs do exist, as outlined in a 2008 City of Oakland document on their Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Program (pp12-13) 5, and could serve as a model for similar bike-bus interaction education. Figure I-10 on the following page illustrates an example of training literature from Pima County, Arizona.

4 5

https://www.sfbike.org/news/bike-education-classes-for-google-shuttle-drivers/ http://www2.oaklandnet.com/oakca/groups/pwa/documents/report/oak031456.pdf

Metro Bike/Bus Interface Study â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Final Report

Part I: Literature Review

Figure I-10 Excerpt from Pima County, Arizona A Guide for Bicyclists and Motorists 6

https://webcms.pima.gov/UserFiles/Servers/Server_6/File/Government/Transportation/1318%20share%20the%20road%20 update%20v12%20low%20res.pdf

Metro Bike/Bus Interface Study â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Final Report

Part I: Literature Review

LITERATURE REVIEW CONCLUSIONS Common Themes and Conflicting Guidance Based on studies around the world, streets have rarely been designed to accommodate full separation for all users, and instead myriad treatments attempt to reduce interactions between buses and people riding bicycles. Recommendations vary widely on minimum and maximum lane widths appropriate for shared space, pavement markings for clarifying expectations, and thresholds at which treatments should be considered, (or if thresholds should be applied at all). Ultimately, research on bike-bus interaction agrees only that conflicts are best avoided through separation but, with limited space, the immediate context from block to block will dictate the type of treatment that is appropriate. Shared bike-bus lanes as an acceptable design treatment are considered differently among the various studies. Some, like the USF, Austroads, and TRL studies, begin from the presumption that bike-bus lanes are a reasonable approach to accommodating two modes that benefit from dedicated space apart from general traffic. The SEPTA research and NACTO Transit Streets Design Guide are less conclusive that an SBBL is a beneficial strategy and treat them more as a compromise or gap-filling approach, instead preferring separation and other approaches to increasing bicycle safety that do not compromise transit operations. Perhaps less contentious, but also less common is the recommendation to divert people riding bicycles behind a transit stop when possible. Although this treatment is more infrastructure-intensive than painting lanes and adding signs, it more directly addresses the inherent conflict of buses and bikes interacting around bus stop areas.

Research and Data Collection Needs The existing literature contains several gaps on the subject of bike-bus interactions: the need for empirical data on safety and delays related to bike-bus interactions; the need to understand the perceptions and assumptions people riding bicycles and driving buses are making; and, how both these qualitative and quantitative measures are affected by different design treatments and access policies. Studies of behavior and safety perceptions have highlighted areas of concern for bus operators and people riding bicycles, but only a few studies have analyzed data on these interactions. Data analysis in Philadelphia and Minneapolis led to recommendations and implementation of designs to reduce risk and severity of crashes (SEPTA 2009; USF 2012, 13-14), but the majority of design examples surveyed have seemingly evolved without this attention to data-related findings (USF 2012). A study in the U.K. also provides a model for data collection methods such as on-street, on bus, and video-recorded observations as well as bus driver and bicyclist intercept surveys to assess the effectiveness of

Metro Bike/Bus Interface Study – Final Report

Part I: Literature Review

treatments such as shared bike-bus lanes, diverted bike lanes around bus stops, lane markings, and more (TRL 2004, 5-12). These examples can serve as models to fill in the information gaps for specific treatment types or particular roadway designs or corridor contexts in a before-and-after study. Qualitative research is required to establish the effectiveness of implementing treatments or revising existing designs by understanding what makes potential bicycle riders comfortable enough to use a certain facility or whether bus operators believe their needs are met, for example. There is a large range of recommended lane widths in published studies, but targeted rider and operator surveys can help establish perceptions of safety and comfort among different implementations and better define the acceptable range. The TRL (2004) and ISF (2012) studies have approached this issue, but do not contribute enough to understanding before/after results of implementing treatments or comparing one approach to another.

Applicability to Los Angeles Although the lack of clear direction or preference for certain treatments can be a challenge, it may also present an opportunity for the kind of flexibility that is important to determine what works best in a given situation. Without rigidly prescribed treatments, jurisdictions can use design treatments that are appropriate for the wide variety of road types and traffic mixes that are found across Los Angeles County. As the Mineta research document notes, “cities that have embraced bus lanes most extensively…tend to make highly contextual decisions about the design and alignment of these lanes, rather than relying on a fixed design template.” (Mineta, 2012, 24) In addition, some of those same contextual decisions may require and result in differing legal interpretations of both local and statewide vehicle code language that is not perfectly explicit on the appropriate use for a given design. Metro will face the challenge of developing a guideline that provides an effective basic framework, developed through data analysis and survey efforts that will be applicable in most situations. This guidance must allow for context-sensitive accommodations where some elements are adjusted to fit the circumstances and alternatives are clearly referenced, rather than simply avoiding the implementation of an improvement or the addition of an illfitting treatment. The USF study recommends improved data collection and measurement of the effectiveness of shared bike-bus lanes and bus stop treatments in improving the comfort and desirability of cycling and reducing crashes (2012, xi; 107). Not included in their recommended analysis but touched upon by the TRL study (2004, 20) and NACTO (2016, 122) is analysis of the influence of people riding bicycles in bus-only lanes on bus schedule adherence, and in what context the trade-off in bus performance may be required to balance performance goals for bicycling. The TRL study was able to combine static on-street observation with video to collect bike counts and record quantity and quality of bike-bus interactions, but a method unavailable at the time was measuring delay using Global Positioning Systems (GPS) or automatic 44

Metro Bike/Bus Interface Study – Final Report

Part I: Literature Review

vehicle location (AVL) technology that is now prevalent in Los Angeles. These analysis gaps and range of potential designs represent an opportunity for Los Angeles to lead the field in improving bus and bicycle interaction and standardizing safe road designs for both user groups. Plans throughout the region, such as the Los Angeles Mobility Plan 2035 or the Metro’s Complete Streets Policy, call for the inclusion of multiple users of the road. The Mobility Plan 2035 in particular acknowledges that certain roads should be prioritized for certain modes and that in some cases these priorities will overlap. This could present an opportunity, such as when a “Transit Enhanced Network” and a “Bicycle Enhanced Network” overlap, to implement and analyze the treatments found in this research. The Mobility Plan 2035 also suggests, “Alternatively, a parallel corridor can be identified…that can meet the network connectivity needs of an area,” a concept that is addressed by the Austroads network planning guide, for example (2005, 39). Los Angeles County has great potential to become a recognized industry leader in the training and education of bus operators and people riding bicycles. Metro can unify the many agencies across the county that influence or are influenced by bus and bicycle traffic. The Mineta research (2012) focused heavily on documenting agency coordination in setting policy and enforcement in their case studies; few single agencies have the ability to reach and partner with as many stakeholders in one region as Metro does. The ISF research on bike rider and bus driver behavior and interactions (2012) and the TRL surveys of people riding bicycles (2004) both highlight areas of behavior that must be further studied in Los Angeles. SEPTA identified some potential marketing tools that Los Angeles is already familiar with, such as advertising safety messages to people riding bicycles and motorists using space on the rear of its own bus fleet (2009, 28, 29).

BeforeAfter Analysis of Local Projects

Metro Bike/Bus Interface Study â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Final Report

Part II: Before-After Analysis

PART II: IN THIS SECTION

BEFORE-AFTER ANALYSIS INTRODUCTION ............................................................................. 48

PART IIA: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS FINDINGS AND TRENDS ............................................................................................................ 51 Across All Corridors ....................................................................................................................... 51 General Comments on the Planning Process .............................................................................. 54 Separated Bikeway Findings ......................................................................................................... 58 Buffered Bicycle Lane Findings ..................................................................................................... 62 Standard Bicycle Lane Findings .................................................................................................... 64 Shared Bike-Bus Lane Findings .................................................................................................... 67

Metro Bike/Bus Interface Study â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Final Report

Part II: Before-After Analysis

BEFORE-AFTER ANALYSIS INTRODUCTION Part II presents findings from a before/after analysis of 15 corridors throughout Los Angeles County where new bicycle and/or bus infrastructure was installed. The results from this Part inform the design recommendations presented in the companion document, Bike Bus Interaction on Our Streets: A

Working Planning and Design Guidebook for Municipal Transportation Professionals. Much of the analysis process, especially the outreach component, also informed the study approach, findings, and recommendations presented in Part III of this report, Bike-Bus Interface Training and Education. The corridor study provides planners with data and findings on the effects of new bus and bike infrastructure, intended to be a reference for understanding how particular design treatments have affected corridor safety and operations. Quantitative data-driven analysis evaluates how particular street designs affect bike and bus safety, comfort, and operations. In Los Angeles County, people on bicycles and bus operators interact on streets with varying designs, land use contexts, purposes, and speed profiles. The interactions themselves are just as varied. Furthermore, each locality makes different street design choices, creating important differences in how road users interact despite standard existing guidance for street design. Thus, it is important to examine how bike/bus interactions differ across these different contexts to ensure that recommendations are applicable to streets throughout Los Angeles County.

Organization of Part II The four categories of infrastructure â&#x20AC;&#x201C; standard lanes, buffered bike lanes, separated bikeways, and shared bike-bus lanes â&#x20AC;&#x201C; form the structure of Part II. Part IIA contains a summary of overall findings and trends, including general comments on how the planning process could be improved to better accommodate bicycles and buses. Findings and trends are then presented individually for each infrastructure type. Part IIB presents discussion of the methodology and detailed analysis for each of the 15 corridors. Findings throughout are typically grouped together under the categories of safety, operations, and infrastructure.

Study Corridors Fifteen corridors were selected that represent a diversity of street typologies across the County. The selection criteria encouraged a variety of street designs and prioritized streets with high numbers of buses and people on bicycles to ensure higher levels of interaction. The 15 corridors included four street treatment categories: standard bike lanes, buffered bike lanes, separated bikeways (also known as protected bike lanes), and shared bike-bus lanes (with bikes permitted). 48

Metro Bike/Bus Interface Study â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Final Report

Part II: Before-After Analysis

Data Collected Both quantitative and qualitative analyses were conducted for this chapter. The quantitative element focused on determining trends from an analysis of bike, vehicle, and transit data before a change in street treatment, and then again after the condition change. These metrics include bus safety, operations, and ridership; bicycle volumes, safety, comfort, and behavior; and traffic operations and safety. Although data collection and analysis efforts were designed to capture effects of infrastructure changes, this project is not able to isolate the infrastructure changes from other factors that may have an influence on how people travel on a corridor. Along with street design, changes in land use, regional travel patterns, construction, and other elements outside of this study can affect corridor conditions. This analysis provides a â&#x20AC;&#x153;snapshotâ&#x20AC;? look at the activity and function of the study corridors before and after the treatment of interest was installed. This was supplemented by a qualitative outreach component, whereby people on bicycles, bus operators, and municipal planners gave their opinions and experiences through interviews, focus groups, and surveys.

PART IIA: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS FINDINGS AND TRENDS Across All Corridors ....................................................................................................................... 51 General Comments on the Planning Process .............................................................................. 54 Separated Bikeway Findings ......................................................................................................... 58 Buffered Bicycle Lane Findings ..................................................................................................... 62 Standard Bicycle Lane Findings .................................................................................................... 64 Shared Bike-Bus Lane Findings .................................................................................................... 67

Metro Bike/Bus Interface Study â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Final Report

Part IIA: Before-After Analysis

FINDINGS AND TRENDS This section presents an overview of findings across all infrastructure types, and includes a summary of general comments relating to the planning process.

Across All Corridors On most of the study corridors, bicycle volumes and comfort increased after the implementation of new bike or bus facilities, with minimal or no impact on transit performance. However, many factors together influence the change in operations and performance on any corridor. For example, the level of bike network connectivity was as influential a factor in bicycle volumes as the analyzed type of bicycle facility itself. Each corridor had a unique context of many factors, so while adding new facilities corresponded with growth in bicycling, the change must be considered in light of each corridorâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s characteristics. The increase in number of people on bicycles is supported by focus group and online survey remarks, whose participants stated that any type of bicycle treatment is better for people bicycling than no treatment at all. In particular, for locations where bicycle or bus activity was already comparatively high, people on bicycles and/or bus operators were often pleased with new facilities that created separation or clear guidance for where the other group should travel on the street. On many of the corridors, the perceptions of road users were not supported by the data. This neither invalidates the perceptions nor the data. Instead, it shows how biases amongst groups can affect how they view change. These apparent contradictions are important to recognize as Los Angeles County continues to implement more bicycle and bus facilities, and shows the importance of increased education before, during, and after the unveiling of new designs or configurations. How road users reacted to change is also influenced by corridor context. In locations where road space was repurposed for bicycles but was not accompanied by a noticeable growth in bicycling, bus operators were often frustrated by what they perceived as new configurations that slowed traffic and made their job more difficult. Even in cases where the data on bus speeds did not support the notion that new bikeways negatively impacted transit performance, the increased stress that some operators noted after new bikeways were installed, often due to narrowing of travel lanes or tighter angles to access stops, should not be ignored.

Focus Groups and Survey Responses Although perceptions from focus group and survey participants clearly favor facilities with greater degrees of separation or physical protection from traffic, there was no consistency in the magnitude of

Metro Bike/Bus Interface Study – Final Report

Part IIA: Before-After Analysis

increased riding relative to the facility type. For example, many focus group and interview participants agreed that the Rosemead Boulevard separated bikeways were among the most pleasant and wellprotected facilities, improving riding comfort more than any other. However, the increase in bicycling on this corridor was the lowest among the study corridors. Temple City staff identified the lack of bike connections to the separated bikeways on Rosemead Boulevard, reducing its attractiveness for people whose route extends beyond city lines. This pattern can also be seen on Reseda Boulevard, where the increase in bicycle activity was measurable but not among the strongest of the 15 study corridors. Reseda Boulevard’s separated bikeways also have few connections to robust bicycle facilities. Both corridors are located in lower-density areas compared to other study corridors. There was also not an obvious positive or negative correlation between bus frequency and the change in bicycling activity. This finding is supported by people who ride bicycles that participated in focus groups. A common theme among participants was that they are far more concerned about other traffic than they are about bus operators, based on the professionalism of the operators. Nearly one-third of respondents to the bicycling survey stated they were willing to ride on a street regardless of how much bus traffic there was, and another 30 percent chose the response “I don’t consider the level of bus traffic when choosing my [bicycle] route.” The responses to this question are shown in Table II-1.

Table II-1 What is your willingness to ride on streets with bus routes (e.g. Metro, Long Beach Transit, Big Blue Bus)?

I will ride on any street regardless of how much bus traffic

1,322

32.6%

I will ride on streets with bus routes if the bus does not come frequently

670

16.5%

I will ride on streets with bus routes only if absolutely necessary

697

17.2%

I don’t consider the level of bus traffic when choosing my route

1,227

30.2%

I will not ride on a street if there is any bus route, no matter how frequent

143

3.5%

Total

4,059

100%

The results of the shared bike-bus lanes analysis also support the theory that facility type and level of bus activity are not the primary motivators for changes in bicycle activity. Although the focus group and survey results suggest that riding in shared bike-bus lanes is favored only among people who are more confident riders, all three corridors showed notable increases in people riding after the installation of shared bike-bus lanes. On some shared bike-bus lane corridors, many people riding bicycles still prefer to use the sidewalk than the street. Overall, the growth in bicycling activity on study corridors was consistently stronger in the more densely developed areas, regardless of the type of bicycling facility installed or the nature of transit service on

Metro Bike/Bus Interface Study – Final Report

Part IIA: Before-After Analysis

the study corridor. When considering the feedback from people who ride bicycles, it is clear that although all prefer more robust and separated bicycle facilities, bike connectivity is an important factor for many people when choosing how to travel. However, increases in bicycle activity occurred mostly in areas that had both a strong supporting land use and development density and the presence of an extended bicycling network. This could be because areas with denser land uses allow for short trips, which can be made partially or entirely on a bicycle facility. Because Los Angeles’ bicycle network is still disconnected in many parts of the County, as trip lengths increase there is a greater likelihood that there will be a large gap in bicycle connectivity which discourages a trip on a bicycle.

Safety As found in the literature review, collisions between buses and people on bicycles are rare. Although complete datasets were unavailable for all of the “after” analysis for some corridors, only a few recorded collisions between the two user types occurred anywhere at any time. The risk of a collision between a bus and a person on a bicycle is always present, but even on the facilities with the greatest exposure (no physical separation and high volumes of both buses and people on bicycles), such as 7th Street, Main Street, Figueroa Street, Sunset Boulevard, and Wilshire Boulevard, only one incident was documented of a bike-bus collision. The data suggest that regardless of volume or facility type, buses and bicycles share streets with very few collisions. This does not necessarily mean that the users feel comfortable with sharing the space, and if there is a significant skew towards more confident and experienced people riding bicycles on streets shared with buses, it could mask the true nature of the interactions. Despite the rarity of collisions between buses and people on bicycles, the data demonstrate that improving bicycle infrastructure – even using standard bicycle lanes without repurposing general travel lanes – has a positive effect for the safety of people riding. Bicycle collisions declined on the majority of corridor for which data were available, and typically the magnitude was greater for bicycle collisions than for the change in total collisions. It should be noted that despite the decline in bicycle collisions, the prevalence of sidewalk riding on many corridors with standard bike lanes or shared bus lanes indicates that many people on bicycles do not feel comfortable using these types of bicycle infrastructure. Corridors with buffered bicycle lanes or separated bikeways exhibited much fewer sidewalk riders. New bikeways or shared bike-bus lanes did not have a clear effect on the number of total collisions on a corridor, or on the severity of collisions.

Operations The effects of bicycling infrastructure on transit operations are related to the context of each corridor. On most of the study corridors, transit speed and reliability improved or was unchanged after new treatments were added. On other corridors, speed and reliability did decrease, however there may be other contributing factors, such as increased transit ridership. Although the perception of most

Metro Bike/Bus Interface Study â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Final Report

Part IIA: Before-After Analysis

operators regarding most facilities is that the changes have slowed transit operations, the data do not consistently support this perception. The corridors that underwent a reconfiguration of general purpose lanes were more likely to have caused decreases in average transit speed, although the changes in reliability were not consistent among these corridors. Overall, transit reliability was more likely to be unaffected after a treatment was installed; in a few cases, reliability and/or speeds actually improved. Using site and video observations along all 15 corridors, the project also documented how bicycles and buses interact at bus stops with different designs. These interactions varied greatly depending on the conditions at each stop. When possible, people riding bicycles passed stopped buses by continuing to ride in the bikeway or shared bike-bus lane. However, in many instances, this was not possible due to a narrow right-of-way, which either does not allow for a bikeway adjacent to a stop, or results in a blockage of the bikeway when a bus is not able to fully pull to the curb at the stop. People riding bicycles often chose to pass the bus by merging to their left into the adjacent travel lane, while less frequently people riding bicycles passed the bus to the right, either in the street or by riding on the sidewalk. In rare cases, people riding bicycles waited behind the stopped bus until it had completed boarding and alighting passengers. Notably, no collisions occurred during any of these observation periods. Site observations were paired with anecdotal evidence from focus groups in order to evaluate how bikes and buses interact at intersections and street segments. Interactions at intersections often took one of two forms: bicycles passing buses stopped at a red light (a process known as filtering) in order to move to the front of the vehicle queue when the light turns green, and bicycles maneuvering to their left across travel lanes in order to make a left turn. Interactions on segments typically involved buses passing bicycles, as buses are able to reach higher top speeds than people riding bicycles. In more congested locations, bicycles may pass buses on segments, either because they have a dedicated bikeway that is not congested, or by riding between vehicles or vehicles and parked cars.

General Comments on the Planning Process Discussions with city staff, bus operators, and people on bicycles revealed many insights into the planning and design process. While city staff are most heavily involved in this process, they receive direction and guidance from elected officials, peers from other cities and other departments within their city, planning documents, and design manuals. Bus operators and people on bicycles were vocal about wanting to participate more centrally in the planning process. This section summarizes general comments on the planning process that are not specific to individual corridors, but are nevertheless important in the design of bicycle and bus facilities. The following groups/staff play key roles in the planning process, and are defined here to avoid confusion:

Metro Bike/Bus Interface Study – Final Report

•

Part IIA: Before-After Analysis

City staff: planners and engineers responsible for the planning and design of roadways in their jurisdiction. These staff work with transit agency staff to site and design bus stops and often coordinate with elected officials in response to public comment about roadway designs.

•

Elected officials: elected representatives for cities or counties. Elected officials, which include mayor and council members, serve as a point of contact for residents and business owners and they typically work with city staff during the planning process to ensure that the needs of local roadway users are represented.

•

Bus operators: paid staff for transit agencies who are responsible for driving the bus on designated routes. Bus operators often work on multiple routes within the same service area.

Role of Elected Officials City staff from all four cities that were interviewed discussed the role that council members play in the planning process. Several of the projects originated from council directives to change the conditions on a corridor, often due to broader safety concerns rather than a need to improve conditions specifically for people on bicycles or buses. The level of council involvement varied by city and project. In Temple City, there was a standing committee of council members that were active in the design of Rosemead Boulevard, according to staff. Staff from the City of Los Angeles stated they typically consult with council offices, who communicate directly with residents and businesses that have questions or concerns about a new treatment. Staff stated that due to the contentious nature of some bicycle infrastructure, council support is important when working on new projects, and the level of support varies by individual member. City of Santa Monica staff stated they generally will take a new design to city council for approval before installing it in the streets. In addition to working with city elected officials, staff from all cities who were interviewed stated they typically confer with police and fire departments when planning changes to street configurations to assess how response times and emergency vehicle maneuverability might be affected. While elected officials are sometimes the driving force for new projects, policy documents also provide important guidance as cities work to incorporate better conditions for buses and bicycles. Both the cities of Long Beach and Los Angeles recently adopted Vision Zero policies, which aim to eliminate traffic deaths. Although Long Beach already considers safety a “primary factor” in their design, according to staff, the new policy should make it easier to work with other City agencies when planning and designing streets because there is a clear policy goal related to street design. Long Beach is planning to create a working group that includes members from several departments that will provide guidance on the direction of Vision Zero. However, as the city was still creating its Vision Zero strategic plan, they were not able to provide additional detail about how the new policy would affect the planning process. Staff from LADOT noted that for several years the department’s goal had been to build out the bike network by a certain amount of new miles each year. Vision Zero places a renewed focus on safety and the desire

Metro Bike/Bus Interface Study – Final Report

Part IIA: Before-After Analysis

to reduce speeds, which may result in more road reconfigurations and separated bikeways. Staff also said that Vision Zero expands the City’s “toolbox” for both bicycle and pedestrian design, and provides a clear, data driven approach to identify corridors and intersections based on safety. All cities also use their current general plans and bicycle plans (if available) when determining where to prioritize new facilities for bicycles and buses.

Transit Agency Involvement in the Planning Process The level of consultation with transit operators varied across the different cities. City of Santa Monica and City of Long Beach staff both appeared to work closely with transit operators. City of Long Beach planners work with Long Beach Transit to determine stop locations and consolidation, and stated that they had shown Long Beach Transit new street designs from the “10 percent” stage onward. City of Santa Monica works with Big Blue Bus when installing new facilities to anticipate how bicycles and buses will interact and to ensure there is enough space for buses to access stops. In Temple City, the type of coordination appeared to be less regimented, although staff noted that they worked with Metro throughout the redesign of Rosemead Boulevard, and that new bus pads were installed on the corridor as part of the process. While staff from the City of Los Angeles said there is some coordination with transit agencies (including LADOT Transit), they acknowledged this is an area where they hope to improve. Larger projects are now going to a Complete Streets Committee, an internal group within LADOT, which includes more people at the table from LADOT Transit who can comment on the design for transit operations. The City plans in the future to do more internal consultation to learn about how changes will impact their transit service, and also plans to conduct more outreach to Metro and other transit operators who might be affected by new street designs. Many of the transit operators themselves expressed a desire to contribute to new street designs, as they know the streets in which they operate very well. Both city staff and bus operators who were part of the study stated that operators are seldom consulted when new street designs are being considered, while people on bicycles are generally only consulted as part of a general community outreach process, and not sought out specifically for comment. Bus operators, as professionals who are very familiar with conditions on the streets where they drive every day, and who are invested in the success of new treatments, are a valuable resource for planners and engineers who are designing new bicycle and bus facilities. Bus operators provided specific feedback on several treatments, particularly separated bikeways, which they believed, if implemented, would still provide safe and comfortable facilities for people to bike while making incremental and important improvements for bus service. For example, bus operators noted on both Reseda and Van Nuys Boulevards that the bus zones were either not optimally placed or had constrained geometry, making it difficult for a bus to safely exit and re-enter traffic, or in some cases

Metro Bike/Bus Interface Study â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Final Report

Part IIA: Before-After Analysis

making it impossible for larger buses to completely exit the traffic flow. Some city planners and engineers may not consider these details when planning new street designs. Likewise, city staff consistently expressed that even when they have reached out to transit agencies for their review, agency staff may not have known to review the design at the appropriate level of detail. Finally, city staff also consistently stated that rarely are projects evaluated once they are implemented to determine if the project was successful at meeting all of its goals or if any adjustments could be made. Given these circumstances, regular and improved communication between planners, engineers, and transit operators could facilitate better design that meets the safety goals, comfort, and needs for all road users.

Bicycle Groups Involvement in the Planning Process and Bicycle Design Guidance None of the cities stated that they consulted bicycle advocacy groups or people on bicycles in general beyond meetings which are open to the general public. Several participants at the focus group for people on bicycles expressed concern that not all city staff who design bicycle facilities are themselves familiar with traveling by bicycle. These participants felt that familiarity with riding bicycles would help city staff plan and design better bikeways. Despite these comments, several of the city staff who were interviewed mentioned that they frequently traveled by bicycle in the areas where they work. The design guidance that cities use depends on the type of project they were trying to implement. For standard bicycle lanes, design guidance is well established and city staff usually have experience working on similar treatments. Several cities noted that the transportation design guidebooks from the National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) provide ideas for more innovative designs. Staff from the Cities of Santa Monica and Long Beach often contact peers from other cities that have already implemented innovative treatments to learn more about the designs and how they can be applied in the local contexts. City of Los Angeles staff stated that the Wilshire Boulevard shared bike-bus lanes analyzed in this study were designed in coordination with Metro, while the Figueroa Street shared bike-bus lanes also received funding from Metro.

Metro Bike/Bus Interface Study – Final Report

Part IIA: Before-After Analysis

Separated Bikeway Findings Los Angeles Street, Reseda Boulevard, Rosemead Boulevard, Broadway Separated bikeways were studied in three cities: Reseda Boulevard and Los Angeles Street in Los Angeles, Rosemead Boulevard in Temple City, and Broadway in Long Beach. The separated bikeway streets tend to represent the newest bicycle facilities, with the exception of Broadway in Long Beach, which is one of the older facilities studied. Unlike standard and buffered bicycle lanes, which in this study are relatively consistent in design and application, the separated bikeways each feature unique design elements. Each corridor uses different barriers between bicycles and traffic: •

Broadway: raised curb with parking protection in most locations

•

Rosemead Boulevard: landscaped islands with parking protection in some locations

•

Los Angeles Street: plastic bollards

•

Reseda Boulevard: plastic bollards with parking protection in some locations

Broadway is also a left-sided bikeway on a 1-way street. Each corridor features different striping patterns. Separated bikeways in Southern California are among the newer approaches to bicycle infrastructure, and the variation in design among the four study corridors shows that cities are still testing and adjusting their designs to determine the best type of infrastructure for different contexts.

Infrastructure Bus stop treatments were varied across the different corridors. Los Angeles Street marks the first location in the region with bus boarding islands adjacent to a separated bikeway. Participants of bus operator and bicycling focus groups generally liked the treatment, both because it minimized interaction between the modes and allowed bus operators to access the bus stop without pulling to the curb. At the time of the interview with LADOT staff, approximately three months after the bus boarding islands were installed, there had not been any reported conflicts between people on bicycles and people boarding or alighting the bus at boarding islands, although staff noted that volumes are low for both groups at these locations. The bus stop treatments on Rosemead Boulevard and Reseda Boulevard both featured merging areas similar to treatments used for buffered and standard bicycles lanes. The merging areas on Reseda Boulevard featured green pavement markings meant to highlight where bicycles, buses, and right-turning vehicles must share space. On Rosemead Boulevard, a painted buffer is provided between nearside bus stops and landscaped islands, which provides more longitudinal space for buses to access the curb when they are pulling over to a stop. As this type of striping pattern was unique to Reseda Boulevard, both people on bicycles and bus operators found it initially confusing. However, people

Metro Bike/Bus Interface Study â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Final Report

Part IIA: Before-After Analysis

riding bicycles generally approved of using paint to highlight merging areas. There is no merging area for bicycles and buses on Broadway because the separated bikeway is located on the left side of the street and bus stops are on the right side. Signal phasing along the corridors also varied. Portions of both Los Angeles Street and Broadway each contain intersections with dedicated bicycle signal phases (split bicycle phase) that eliminate conflicts between bicycles and turning motor vehicles. Participants in the bicycling focus group did express concerns that some drivers (not specifically bus operators) did not follow signals that prohibited vehicles from going when there was a split bicycle phase, which increases the risk of unsafe interactions between drivers and people on bicycles. Only one location on the study corridors, Los Angeles Street & Temple Street, features a dedicated bicycle signal phase where buses are making right turns. As the signals on Los Angeles Street were still new when the focus groups were held, no participants had comments specific to bus operations at this intersection. As this type of signal phasing continues to expand in Los Angeles County, additional analysis of operations and safety is needed to ensure that dedicated bicycle phases are having the desired effect. Because the separated bikeways are generally newer or higher-profile projects, before and after data on riding behaviors was consistently available for all four facilities. All of these facilities corresponded with a decrease in people riding bicycles on the sidewalk, and sidewalk riding levels are closely comparable at between 15 and 18 percent for all four corridors. Sidewalk riding on separated bikeways is generally lower than on all other treatment types that were studied. Wrong-way riding declined on Reseda and Rosemead Boulevards and remained the same on Los Angeles Street. Wrong-way riding on Broadway actually increased, which suggests that a fully-separated bikeway on a 1-way street may make some people feel comfortable enough to ride against the flow of traffic, even if that is not the intended use of the facility.

Safety Separated bikeways are considered some of the safest on-street bicycle facilities, a finding supported by the data analysis for the study corridors. Although post-installation data for Los Angeles Street is not yet available, Broadway and Reseda Boulevard both had reductions in collisions involving either people on bicycles or buses. One collision was recorded on Rosemead Boulevard after the separated bikeways were installed, but the collision occurred on a portion of the corridor where only a signed bike route exists (no separated bikeway). Total collisions (i.e., including motor vehicle-on-motor vehicle) after the roadway reconfigurations remained similar to what they had been before the installation. Broadway is especially notable with regards to safety. Municipal staff, people on bicycles, and bus operators all expressed concern over the unexpected location, navigation, safety, and comfort of a leftsided bicycle facility. The concerns stem from belief that drivers would not expect people on bicycles on

Metro Bike/Bus Interface Study – Final Report

Part IIA: Before-After Analysis

the left of the road, and the perception that this made it inherently more dangerous than other treatment design. The bus operators raised the same concern even while acknowledging that the facility was more comfortable for them because it provided the maximum separation between buses and people riding bicycles. Despite this clear and commonly-held perception that left-sided bicycle lanes are inherently dangerous, the data in terms of safety and effect on bicycle activity do not support these beliefs. The collision data suggest that the left-sided separated bikeway is at least as safe as any other facility studied, and the growth in bicycle activity suggests that it is also more comfortable than many of the other corridors studied. In addition, 85th percentile speed on Broadway decreased after the implementation of the separated bikeway, which further improves safety.

Operations The separated bikeways do hold some things in common. Each was implemented with minor levels of disruptions to vehicle flow and parking 7. Only Broadway saw the removal of a travel lane, while Los Angeles Street saw travel lanes repurposed at a few intersections to allow space for the separated facility. The study corridors were in some ways also “low-hanging fruit” – on Reseda Boulevard and Los Angeles Street existing bikeways were enhanced, while on Rosemead Boulevard and Broadway excess roadway was repurposed without altering the number of general purpose travel lanes. They also tend to carry higher average daily traffic (ADT) than most of the unseparated bicycle lane types – with the exception of Broadway, ADT ranged from about 23,000 to 35,000. The ADT on all studied separated bikeway corridors remained similar after the installation of the bicycle facility. None of the separated bikeways were among the high-activity corridors for people bicycling prior to installation of the facility, except for Broadway in downtown Long Beach. Still, following installation, Long Beach’s Broadway separated bikeway experienced a substantial increase in observed use by people on bicycles (from a maximum of 55 people per hour to 80), and there was a measurable increase on Los Angeles Street (20 to 30) and Reseda Boulevard (5 to 15). However, although more people are using the separated bikeways than were riding on the corridors prior, the gains on these facilities were generally not among the strongest gains seen among all corridors in the study. This may also be attributed to these corridors having low to moderate bike network connectivity, which may discourage some potential bike riders.

No parking existed on Los Angeles Street. Parking remains on Rosemead Boulevard and Broadway although some individual spaces were removed. Only Reseda Boulevard saw large reductions in parking (removal of parking on one side on some blocks) although the high extent of nearby off-street parking moderated the level of disruption.

Metro Bike/Bus Interface Study â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Final Report

Part IIA: Before-After Analysis

The effects of the separated bikeways on transit operations are mixed. Transit speed and reliability data were unavailable for Broadway 8 and Los Angeles Street 9. Only one of the four corridors, Reseda Boulevard, features bus service of more than three buses per hour per direction (it has six). Speed and reliability effects of the infrastructure are mixed. In the northbound direction, where parking was mostly removed to accommodate the bikeway, speeds remained unchanged in the AM period but decreased substantially (-1.5 MPH) in the PM period; these patterns correspond with comments from bus operators at focus groups. While removal of parking would eliminate delays on bus travel from parking maneuvers, prior to removal most parking maneuvers occurred largely within the bike lane, such that the effect of parking removal on bus operations on this corridor is likely limited. Bus operator did note that the angle at which they now have to access stops is different with the separated bikeways, and that pulling to the curb is now more difficult. GPS travel data in the corridor also shows a slight decrease in the AM and PM for vehicles heading northbound, which could partially explain the decrease in northbound bus speeds in the PM period. However, these explanations do not explain why a similar decrease in northbound speed is not occurring in the AM period. In the southbound direction, where parking was largely retained, speeds increased substantially in the AM period (+1.2 MPH) but decreased somewhat in the PM period (-0.4 MPH). In both AM and PM periods, reliability of bus speeds increased across the board such that while bus travel times sometimes increased and sometimes decreased, they ultimately became more consistent. Bus operators were critical of the Reseda Boulevard facility, because although no travel lanes were removed, entering and exiting bus stops around the separated bikeway was perceived to be more difficult to do safely. The operators also commented that the new facility increased congestion during the peak period on Reseda Boulevard. We could not substantiate this perception with the data available as while bus speeds decreased in the PM period, they increased in the AM period. Additionally, on-time performance (OTP) on Reseda Boulevard improved slightly after the change. Rosemead Boulevard is also served by Metro. Negligible changes were observed in bus operations before and after. If anything, a slight improvement may have been expected as parking maneuvers were eliminated and ADT reduced slightly, but changes in speed and reliability were negligible. Although Rosemead Boulevard carries more daily traffic than Reseda Boulevard, it is less densely developed, possibly contributing to less potential for transit delay even after the implementation of the bikeway. Rosemead also has longer bus stop zones than most of the study corridors, which allows for easier entry and exit to the stop.

Long Beach Transit did not make AVL data available for any of their services. Los Angeles Street is primarily served by bus operators other than Metro, who also did not have AVL data available for this corridor. Metroâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s only bus route serving the study corridor operates too infrequently for accurate analysis.

Metro Bike/Bus Interface Study – Final Report

Part IIA: Before-After Analysis

Key Findings The installation of separated bikeways on the study corridors had the following notable changes: •

Conditions improved for people on bicycles; however the impacts to transit operations are unclear based on data available

•

Level of bicycling increased for all four corridors; however level of bicycling on Reseda Boulevard and Rosemead Boulevard remains relatively low, possibly due to limited bike network connectivity

•

All corridors had substantial reductions in sidewalk riding; separated bikeways had the lowest levels of sidewalk riding of the four bike facility categories studied

•

All corridors except for Broadway saw reductions in wrong-way riding; 1-way streets like Broadway with fully separated bikeways may make people feel more comfortable riding against the flow of traffic

•

Total collisions decreased or were relatively unchanged; collisions involving people on bicycles and buses has decreased on all corridors

Buffered Bicycle Lane Findings Alamitos Avenue, Colorado Boulevard, Venice Boulevard The buffered bicycle lane study corridors serve a somewhat narrower range of neighborhood types. None are located within a major urban center, although the Alamitos Avenue corridor is near downtown Long Beach. Each has a mixture of retail and low to moderate density of housing. Colorado Boulevard and Venice Boulevards are among the widest of the streets that were studied and both previously contained six travel lanes and were narrowed to four, while Alamitos Avenue was reconfigured from four to two travel lanes. Two of the three buffered bicycle lanes under study, Alamitos Avenue and Colorado Boulevard, were implemented with the primary goal of traffic safety, rather than the primary goal of expanding the bicycle network. In both cases, however, city staff noted that the buffered bicycle lanes would provide important bicycle network connections in the long term. The Venice Boulevard buffered bicycle lane was installed as both a safety measure and to make progress on connecting the bicycle network to downtown Los Angeles.

Infrastructure Most people who participated in the bicycling focus groups preferred buffered bicycle lanes over standard bicycle lanes for the increased safety and comfort they provide. Nevertheless, bicycling levels

Metro Bike/Bus Interface Study – Final Report

Part IIA: Before-After Analysis

did not increase substantially with the implementation of buffered lanes, even though all three cases had no bicycle lane prior to installation. Long Beach city staff noted that although they’ve observed more people riding bicycles on Alamitos Avenue, they expect a greater increase in activity once the facility is extended south to connect with other bicycle facilities downtown and to the beach. Although Alamitos Avenue had moderate bike connectivity, extending the buffered bicycle lanes south would provide connections to several dedicated bikeways that lead directly to downtown Long Beach. Both Venice and Colorado Boulevards have low bike connectivity, but could see greater increase in bicycle usage if these bike facilities are extended and/or if new bikeways better connect them to other streets with bikeways, particularly to serve key destinations such as Downtown Los Angeles.

Safety Buffered bicycle lanes appear to have improved safety for all users on all three study corridors. Collisions involving bicycles dropped by 50 percent on Colorado Boulevard, and at an even greater rate on Venice Boulevard. Collisions involving buses also decreased by more than 50 percent on both corridors. On Alamitos Avenue, there was no change in the number of collisions involving bicycles or buses. Total collisions decreased on all corridors after buffered bicycle lanes were installed, with particularly large reductions on Venice Boulevard and Alamitos Avenue.

Operations The three corridors represent a range of daily traffic volume commensurate with the street width; Alamitos Avenue carries about approximately 15,000 vehicles daily, while Colorado and Venice Boulevards each carry twice the daily vehicles with twice the number of travel lanes. Counter to overall trends among all study corridors, the ADT on Colorado Boulevard increased, despite reduction of a travel lane in each direction for most of the corridor. On the other two buffered bicycle lane corridors, ADT decreased. Transit operations were largely unaffected by the new buffered bicycle lanes. Transit speed and reliability remained unchanged on Venice Boulevard and mostly unchanged on Colorado Boulevard, despite the loss of a travel lane and increase in ADT. Data were not available for speed or reliability on Alamitos Avenue, but data from Long Beach Transit indicates that OTP improved along that corridor. These findings may support bus operators’ perception that buffered bicycle lanes provide space for people on bicycles without deteriorating bus operations. Many operators suggested that at peak periods some buses may use the buffered bicycle lane to bypass the traffic queue at intersections to reach a stop, so long as no people on bicycles are present, which they felt helps to maintain schedule adherence and reliability. The operators were clear that buses did not typically travel more than a block in the buffered lanes, and they only did so to get around a queue to reach the nearest stop. At peak times on these study corridors, the operators have not observed many people on bicycles using the lanes and this is

Metro Bike/Bus Interface Study – Final Report

Part IIA: Before-After Analysis

supported by the bicycling count data. Although buses operating in buffered bicycle lanes could contribute to the low growth in bicycling on these corridors, the results of the focus groups and survey do not provide evidence to support such an assumption. Generally, participants at the bicycling focus groups were in favor of the comfort and safety benefits of buffered bicycle lanes and none of the focus group participants expressed concerns about buses using the lanes to access stops. Data collected on riding behavior on the three corridors found that the vast majority of people riding bicycles on these corridors did not ride on sidewalks or in the wrong direction, supporting the comments from the bicycling focus groups.

Key Findings The installation of buffered bicycles lanes on the study corridors had the following notable changes: •

Across the three study corridors, comfort improved for people on bicycles with minimal or no impact to transit operations

•

Bus speeds and reliability were largely unchanged on Colorado and Venice Boulevards, and OTP on Alamitos Avenue and Colorado Boulevard increased

•

The increase in comfort for people on bicycles translated to an increase in bicycling, although the magnitude of increase varied across study corridors

•

Most corridors saw substantial decrease in the number of collisions for bicycles, buses, and private vehicles after buffered bicycle lanes were installed

Standard Bicycle Lane Findings 7th Street, Main Street, Pacific Avenue, San Pedro Street, Van Nuys Boulevard All five standard bicycle lane segments included in the study are located in the City of Los Angeles, though approximately half of the Main Street study corridor lies in the City of Santa Monica. The standard bicycle lanes studied cover a broad range of characteristics. Two corridors, 7th Street and Main Street, are located in dense, older neighborhoods of Los Angeles and surrounded by a large number of origins and destinations. Pacific Avenue in the neighborhood of San Pedro is somewhat similar, although much lower in land use intensity, while the remaining two corridors feature lower-density areas and greater distance from commercial centers. As such, travel on San Pedro Street and Van Nuys Boulevard tends to be more motor vehicle-dependent. City staff reported that most of these facilities were implemented with the primary goal of improving the bicycle network or decreasing vehicle speeds. On most of the study corridors, this was done through conversion from four general travel lanes to two general travel lanes with a center turn lane and two standard bike lanes (referred to in this document as a “road reconfiguration”). As streets with relatively

Metro Bike/Bus Interface Study – Final Report

Part IIA: Before-After Analysis

low traffic volumes, they were considered “low-hanging fruit” for road reconfiguration and bicycle network build-out. With the exception of Van Nuys Boulevard, each of these standard bicycle lanes was implemented through a road reconfiguration on streets with an ADT near or below 20,000 vehicles before implementation, whereas most of the other corridors studied had volumes above 20,000. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) advises that roadways with ADT of 20,000 vehicles per day (vpd) or less may be good candidates for a road reconfiguration and should be evaluated for feasibility. 10 As part of a previous administration’s goals, the City of Los Angeles dramatically increased the number of bicycle lanes by installing lanes in locations that would have little effect on roadway operations, which in part explains the similarity of design between the standard bicycle lanes within the City of Los Angeles. However, staff at the City of Los Angeles stated that they are shifting away from such blanket implementation of standard bicycle lanes, in favor of more context-sensitive approaches, which could include different striping patterns, lane widths, or facilities considered for a corridor 11.

Infrastructure Counts of people on bicycles riding the wrong way and riding on sidewalks were not available for any of these facilities before implementation, but after implementation of standard bicycle lanes wrong-way riding was below 20 percent for all corridors. The relatively low percentage of wrong-way riders suggests that standard bicycle lanes promote increased riding in the correct direction. The streets with standard bicycle lanes generally demonstrated a higher average rate of sidewalk riding than all other facility types, although this rate ranged from a low of three percent on Main Street to a high of 70 percent on Van Nuys Boulevard, even though these two streets have the two highest ADTs. There did not appear to be a correlation between ADT or bicycle counts and bicycle riding behavior, and there are likely many factors which affect someone’s decision on where to ride which were not all captured as part of this study. The two corridors that are best connected to other bicycle facilities, Main Street and 7th Street, experienced the greatest increase in people on bicycles, while the other corridors saw minimal gains. Main Street connects with several other bike facilities, and connects to the larger bikeway network in downtown Santa Monica. Although the study segment of 7th Street appears to have low bikeway connectivity, the overall 7th Street corridor is very well connected to the larger downtown Los Angeles bikeway network. Van Nuys Boulevard, San Pedro Street, and Pacific Avenue are all not part of large bikeway networks and do not have as many destinations in close proximity as Main Street and 7th Street. Corridors with standard bicycle lanes that are better connected to destinations and a broader bike network were more likely to experience increases in bicycle usage than corridors that do not. Main Street

Road Diet Implementation Guide. Federal Highway Administration. November 2014. Accessed: January 10, 2017. http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/road_diets/info_guide/rdig.pdf 11 Interview with LADOT staff, October 27, 2016.

Metro Bike/Bus Interface Study â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Final Report

Part IIA: Before-After Analysis

and 7th Street both connect to downtown-like areas and are part of a bike network with a relatively substantial amount of bike lane miles. Pacific Avenue, San Pedro St, and Van Nuys Boulevard exist in separated clusters of bike lanes, which could explain why bicycle usage along these corridors remains relatively low.

Safety Changes in collisions varied greatly on standard bicycle lane corridors. Changes in total collisions and collisions involving bikes did not show a clear pattern, while collisions involving buses were largely unchanged on four corridors and increased on one corridor. There was not a clear trend in changes regarding collision severity across the corridors. Fatal and severe collisions decreased on San Pedro Street and 7th Street but increased on Van Nuys Boulevard. Pacific Avenue and Main Street had minimal or no change. The mixture of results after standard bicycle lanes were installed echoes the sentiments shared by focus group participants. While most participants stated they felt safer in standard bicycle lanes compared with no bicycle facility, most said the increase in their perception of safety is slight.

Operations Bicycling volumes increased on each of the five study corridors, and bus ridership increased on all corridors except for Van Nuys Boulevard. Analysis of transit operations did find decreases in travel speed in some instances, but it was not clear from the analysis if this decrease was due to increases in transit ridership, changes to the road configuration, or other factors. There were also some instances for most of the other standard bicycle lane corridors where transit speeds and/or reliability improved compared to the previous configuration. Most analysis periods saw no change in reliability, but some corridors included time-of-day periods where reliability increased or decreased, with no clear trend related to bus ridership. Overall, after factoring in how changes in bus ridership on these corridors could affect transit speed and reliability, there is not a clear pattern of how standard bicycle lanes affect transit operations. After the installation of each standard bicycle lane, the level of bicycling increased at least slightly and sometimes substantially, while traffic volumes decreased or remained stable. The two streets that saw the greatest increase in the number of people on bicycles, 7th Street and Main Street, also saw the largest decrease in vehicle volumes. Those two streets, along with Pacific Avenue, also had the highest level of bike network connectivity, which may also help explain the increases in bicycle ridership. The other three corridors experienced minimal change in daily vehicle volumes and peak hour bicycle volumes, based on the count data available. Only San Pedro Street experienced no change in traffic volume, though it carries relatively little daily traffic compared to all other study corridors to begin with.

Metro Bike/Bus Interface Study – Final Report

Part IIA: Before-After Analysis

Key Findings The installation of standard bicycle lanes on the study corridors had the following notable findings: •

Bicycle activity increased on all five corridors; 7th Street and Main Street had the most substantial increases in bike usage, likely due to strong bike network connectivity along the entirety of these corridors.

•

Wrong-way riding across all five corridors is relatively low, which suggests standard bike lanes promote riding in the correct direction

•

Total collisions remained relatively similar on most corridors; there was not a clear pattern of collisions involving buses and bicycles

•

Bus speeds decreased by between zero and two MPH on many corridors, however because these same corridors also had increases in transit ridership the cause of this change in speed is undetermined

Shared Bike-Bus Lane Findings Figueroa Street, Sunset Boulevard, Wilshire Boulevard Shared bike-bus lanes primarily serve to improve transit operations, and the level of usage by people on bicycles differs by city. The three facilities studied are all within the City of Los Angeles, and design is largely consistent across each corridor. All three are located near downtown Los Angeles in denselydeveloped areas. All three corridors have among the highest ADT in the study, with Figueroa Street carrying the least of the three but featuring heavy congestion northbound in the morning peak. All three are, unsurprisingly, among the highest for frequency of bus service among any study corridors. However, the number of people bicycling on these corridors prior to installation of the shared bike-bus lanes was also higher than most other study corridors. City of Los Angeles staff explained that the decision to permit people on bicycles to ride in the shared bike-bus lane was made because the corridors are not wide enough in most locations to accommodate both a shared bike-bus lane and a bicycle lane without further reducing the number of general travel lanes 12. Staff were concerned that without expressly permitting people on bicycles to use the lane, some 12

The one exception to this is a two-block segment of Figueroa Street where the width allows for a separate bus-only and standard bicycle lane. Most operators preferred the configuration of a standard bicycle lane adjacent to the bus-only lane, although some preferred just the bus-only lanes for the reason that this could decrease the total number of people riding bicycles that they would have to interact with in a bus-only lane. However, such a configuration requires at least 15 feet, and is not considered by city staff in most locations based on tradeoffs to space for parking and general travel lanes.

Metro Bike/Bus Interface Study – Final Report

Part IIA: Before-After Analysis

people would attempt to ride at the edge of the general travel lanes next to shared bike-bus lane, which staff perceived to be hazardous and not consistent with the California Vehicle Code. Prior to the initiation of this study, the signage on all three corridors read “BUSES / RIGHT TURNS ONLY” with additional text at the bottom of the sign that stated, “BIKES OK”. Many participants in both the bus operator and bicyclist focus groups felt this presentation was confusing. Unrelated to this study, the City developed new phrasing for a recently installed shared bike-bus lane with signage that reads “BUSES / BIKES / RIGHT TURNS ONLY”. This signage was not installed when the stakeholder outreach effort was underway. Figueroa Street features one of the oldest study facilities, having originally been installed in 2004. Therefore, before data was not available for the original installation of the shared bike-bus lanes. Thus, the analysis for this facility analyzed the effects of publically available Metro Bike Share in downtown Los Angeles, so the baseline bicycle and bus ridership for Figueroa Street represents demand on a longestablished shared bike-bus lane.

Infrastructure The behavior of people on bicycles on the shared bike-bus lanes was inconsistent across corridors. Wilshire Boulevard recorded the highest proportion of sidewalk riding of any study corridor at 89 percent, while Sunset Boulevard was the lowest at 2 percent. Sidewalk conditions likely play an important role in determining sidewalk bicycling rates. Long stretches of the sidewalk on Sunset Boulevard are narrow which make sidewalk riding less comfortable, while Wilshire Boulevard typically has wider sidewalks which are more comfortable for people on bikes. Pedestrian count data is not available, although there appeared to be more pedestrians on Wilshire Boulevard than Sunset Boulevard during field observations. Sunset Boulevard is a relatively curvy street, with many driveways, while Wilshire Boulevard is straight with fewer driveways, which likely creates greater visibility for people riding bicycles and fewer interactions with vehicles on Wilshire Boulevard compared to Sunset Boulevard. While both streets have similarly high ADT and bicycle counts, the vast majority of people ride in the street on Sunset Boulevard and on the sidewalk on Wilshire Boulevard. The reason could be that Sunset Boulevard has wider shared bike-bus lanes compared to Wilshire Boulevard (12 feet compared to 10-11 feet), although no participants at the bicyclist focus groups specifically opined on whether this additional space creates increased comfort.

Safety Collisions involving people on bicycles decreased on shared bike-bus lanes corridors, with a decrease of 13 and 31 percent on Wilshire and Sunset Boulevards, respectively. Despite decreases in collisions involving people on bicycles on corridors where shared bike-bus lanes were installed, participants at bicycle focus groups expressed concerns that lanes are not wide enough to share with passing vehicles,

Metro Bike/Bus Interface Study â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Final Report

Part IIA: Before-After Analysis

which can create discomfort. Total collisions on Wilshire Boulevard were effectively unchanged, and total collisions on Sunset Boulevard increased by 20 percent. Wilshire Boulevard has the highest permile incidence of collisions among the 15 study corridors by almost double any other of the other corridors, despite having nearly the same ADT as Sunset Boulevard. A possible contributing distinction between the two corridors is the cross-street volume, which is very high for almost every intersection on Wilshire Boulevard, and results in more incidences of vehicular conflicts. Wilshire Boulevard also has narrower shared bike-bus lanes, but the general travel lanes are the same on both streets. Sunset Boulevard is not as frequently intersected by major north-south streets, and land uses north of Sunset Boulevard are typically lower density homes. Collisions involving buses increased on both Sunset and Wilshire Boulevards after the installation of shared bike-bus lanes. On Sunset Boulevard, none of the collisions involving buses after the installation of the shared bike-bus lane occurred during the time of the day and in the direction when the shared bike-bus lanes were in operation. Even though total collisions increased on Wilshire Boulevard, the percent of collisions occurring in the peak periods remained similar before and after the shared bike-bus lanes were installed, indicating that there may be other issues leading to an increase in collisions. More study is required on each corridor to determine the cause of the increase in collisions involving buses during times when shared bike-bus lanes are not in operations. No post-installation collision data was available for Figueroa Street.

Operations Despite the corridors being some of the busiest in terms of traffic and bus activity, there was substantial growth in the level of people on bicycles after the facility change. Although the total number of bicycle connections on and near the study corridors qualified them only for low or moderate bike connectivity, all three corridors connect to bicycle facilities that provide access to the dense residential and commercial centers of downtown Los Angeles and Koreatown. In downtown Los Angeles, these connections also link the study corridors to a more developed bicycle network. On Figueroa Street, five percent of people counted riding bicycles were using Metro Bike Share after it was launched. Transit operations on Sunset Boulevard and Figueroa Street remained largely unchanged during peak periods (when the shared bike-bus lane is active) compared to before installation of the facility (or in the case of Figueroa, after the launch of Metro Bike Share). Bus speeds on Wilshire Boulevard did measurably increase westbound in the PM peak period, although reliability declined, while eastbound reliability in the AM peak period improved. The decline in westbound reliability may be due to the increased difficulty for bus operators to maneuver around blockages in the bus lane (turning vehicles, people or bicycles or illegally parked vehicles), because there are fewer general purpose lanes to handle the remaining vehicles on the street, creating increased congestion. This concern was mentioned by operators in the focus groups on Wilshire Boulevard. Transit ridership decreased slightly on all corridors,

Metro Bike/Bus Interface Study – Final Report

Part IIA: Before-After Analysis

which may have had an impact on bus operations. However, because the declines in bus ridership were small, the impact to bus operations are also likely to be small. A common perception held by bus operators participating in the focus groups is that allowing people on bicycles in the shared bike-bus lanes slows down transit service. It is difficult to make a conclusion in support of or against that perception based on the data analysis. While shared bike-bus lanes are typically installed with transit service in mind and are assumed to improve bus speed and reliability, our analysis shows little or no change on these three corridors. One possible interpretation is that people on bicycles in the shared bike-bus lane are disruptive enough to bus service as to offset the potential gains in transit speed and reliability we might expect from the shared bike-bus lanes. On Wilshire Boulevard, people riding bikes are mostly on the sidewalk, which supports general comments made by some operators that interactions with bicycles in shared bike-bus lanes are rare, and indicates that there are likely other factors affecting bus speed and reliability. It may also be that motor vehicle drivers using the shared bike-bus lanes, either legally to make right turns or illegally, also slow bus speeds enough to offset potential gains. Further analysis on the impact of right turning vehicles on transit operations is needed to better understand how turning vehicles affect bus operations.

Key Findings The installation of shared bike-bus lanes on the study corridors resulted in the following notable changes: •

Level of bicycling increased substantially

•

Wrong-way riding is low on all three corridors, however sidewalk riding is still high on Figueroa Street and especially high on Wilshire Boulevard

•

The number of collisions involving people on bicycles decreased

•

Although bus collisions increased in general, the ratio of collisions occurring during the peak period remained similar on Wilshire Boulevard, and no bus collisions occurred during the period of operations on Sunset Boulevard, indicating that increases in collisions do not appear to be directly associated with shared bike-bus lanes

•

Average daily traffic decreased slightly on Sunset and Wilshire Boulevards, both of which had amongst the highest vehicle volumes of the study corridors

PART IIB: DETAILED ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................................................ 72 Corridor Selection ......................................................................................................................... 72 Selected Corridors ......................................................................................................................... 74 Data Collection and Analysis ........................................................................................................ 78 Collision History ............................................................................................................................ 78 Vehicle and Bike Counts ............................................................................................................... 79 Transit Data ................................................................................................................................... 80 Corridor Bus Ridership ........................................................................................................... 81 On-Time Performance ............................................................................................................ 81 Bus Speed and Reliability ....................................................................................................... 82 Bus Frequency ......................................................................................................................... 82 Level of Traffic Stress .................................................................................................................... 82 Bike Connectivity ........................................................................................................................... 83 Field Visits and Video Review ....................................................................................................... 84 Outreach ........................................................................................................................................ 84 CORRIDOR ANALYSIS RESULTS ................................................................................................ 86 Separated Bikeways ....................................................................................................................... 91 Broadway: Left-Sided Separated Bikeway............................................................................... 96 Los Angeles Street: Separated Bikeway................................................................................ 104 Reseda Boulevard: Separated Bikeway .................................................................................. 116 Rosemead Boulevard: Separated Bikeway ........................................................................... 126 Buffered Bicycle Lanes ................................................................................................................. 131 Alamitos Avenue: Buffered Bicycle Lanes ............................................................................. 136 Colorado Boulevard: Buffered Bicycle Lanes ....................................................................... 146 Venice Boulevard: Buffered Bicycle Lanes ............................................................................ 155 Standard Bicycle Lanes ................................................................................................................ 161 Seventh Street: Standard Bicycle Lanes ............................................................................... 167 Main Street: Standard Bicycle Lanes ..................................................................................... 178 Pacific Avenue: Standard Bicycle Lanes ............................................................................... 189 San Pedro Street: Standard Bicycle Lanes ........................................................................... 199 Van Nuys Boulevard: Standard Bicycle Lanes ..................................................................... 208 Shared Bike-Bus Lanes ................................................................................................................. 213 Figueroa Street: Bike Share Implementation/Shared Bike-Bus Lane ................................. 218 Sunset Boulevard: Shared Bike-Bus Lanes .......................................................................... 230 Wilshire Boulevard: Shared Bike-Bus Lanes ........................................................................ 242

Metro Bike/Bus Interface Study â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Final Report

Part IIB: Before-After Analysis

METHODOLOGY This section presents a detailed description on the corridor selection process, the corridors selected, the data collection process and the data types collected.

Corridor Selection The corridor selection process began with the development of a list of streets thought to experience high levels of bike/bus interactions. Streets without any dedicated bike or bus infrastructure were not considered. As the study is examining the effects of infrastructure changes, a street with no infrastructure, and therefore no infrastructure change, would not be suitable for the study. The initial list of corridors and screening criteria were reviewed with the Working Group featuring planning and engineering staff from multiple cities, transit operators, and bicycle advocacy and education organizations. Working Group members provided feedback on the proposed corridors and suggestions for additional corridors. After receiving feedback from the project team, the list included approximately 65 potential corridors. The list was then filtered using the criteria shown in Table II-2. Table II-2 Corridor Selection Criteria

Variable

Criteria The study aimed to include corridors between 2,000 feet and two miles. The minimum distance of 2,000 feet ensured there

Length of Corridor

was sufficient length on each corridor to collect data, while limiting corridor length to two miles allowed the project to proceed within the project schedule. Corridors with infrastructure installed between January 1, 2013

Date of Infrastructure Change

and August 31, 2016 were preferred in order to avoid corridors where it would be difficult to collect before or after data. The study aimed to analyze at least one corridor in each Metro

Geographic Diversity

Service Council Area to ensure that corridors in different parts of the County were included.

Metro Bike/Bus Interface Study – Final Report

Variable

Part IIB: Before-After Analysis Criteria In order to look at a variety of infrastructure types, and to not be overly reliant on one corridor to represent one infrastructure

Diversity of Infrastructure

type, the study planned to include at least two corridors with each of the following treatment types: separated bikeways, buffered bicycle lanes, standard bicycle lanes, and shared bikebus lanes. To ensure that selected corridors have enough bike/bus interaction, the study set a minimum peak hour bus frequency

Diversity & Volume of Transit and People Riding Bikes

of four buses per hour per direction. The study also aimed to include corridors with multiple service types (local, rapid, express, etc.). Similarly, the study preferred corridors with at least 20 people riding bikes during the peak hour to avoid corridors that did not have high levels of bike/bus interaction. Because bike/bus interactions are different at nearside and far

Stop Diversity

side stops, the study aimed to include a mixture of stop types on the selected corridors.

The criteria listed in Table II-2 were used to guide the selection of the study corridors. They were not used as a “cut-off” to eliminate corridors that did not meet certain criteria as this would have been too restrictive. Some study corridors were chosen specifically to meet certain goals, even when they did not meet all of the selection criteria. In order to assess each corridors’ bike and bus activity during the selection process, data was obtained from the following locations: •

Preliminary bike count data were collected from the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Bike Count Data Clearinghouse and from the City of Los Angeles’

Navigate LA website; •

Bus counts were collected from the most recently available schedule from the operating agencies’ websites;

•

The date of infrastructure change was taken from municipal websites and by contacting local cities; and

Metro Bike/Bus Interface Study – Final Report

•

Part IIB: Before-After Analysis

Additional information about corridors was determined via site visits, using aerial photography, and Google Street View.

Several corridors – portions of Santa Monica Boulevard, Venice Boulevard and Westwood Boulevard among others – were considered and ultimately not included in the study because they contained older treatments where the likelihood of getting data before the treatment was installed was very low. Additionally, several corridors – Los Angeles Street, Pacific Avenue, and Alamitos Avenue – with recentlyinstalled infrastructure changes were chosen even though the project team acknowledged it may not be possible to obtain all of data for the corridor for the “after” portion of the study. Data constraints are discussed in more detail in the Data Collection and Analysis section. Corridors such as Rosemead Boulevard and Broadway were also chosen because of their unique design characteristics, which are not found elsewhere in the County. Using the above criteria and available data, 15 candidate corridors were selected. The list was presented to the project team for review and comment and then finalized.

Selected Corridors The 15 corridors chosen for the study are shown in Table II-3 and Figure II-1. There are corridors in the Cities of Los Angeles, Long Beach, Santa Monica, and Temple City.

Metro Bike/Bus Interface Study â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Final Report

Part IIB: Before-After Analysis

Table II-3 Selected Study Corridors Segments

Corridor Street Name

Start

End

Length

City

(mi) 7th Street

Vermont Avenue

Francisco Street

1.9 Los Angeles

Alamitos Avenue

7th Street

Pacific Coast Highway

1.0 Long Beach

Broadway

Magnolia Avenue

Alamitos Avenue

0.9 Long Beach

Colorado Boulevard

Eagle Rock Boulevard

N Figueroa Street

1.6 Los Angeles

Figueroa Street

W Washington Boulevard W 4th Street

1.6 Los Angeles

Los Angeles Street

E 1st Street

N Alameda Street

0.5 Los Angeles

Main Street

Venice Way

Pico Boulevard

1.8

Pacific Avenue

15th Street

1st Street

1.1

Reseda Boulevard

Plummer Street

Parthenia Street

1.0 Los Angeles

Rosemead Boulevard Ardendale Street

Pentland Street

1.9 Temple City

San Pedro Street

87th Place

Imperial Highway

1.9 Los Angeles

Sunset Boulevard

Figueroa Street

Echo Park Boulevard

1.3 Los Angeles

Van Nuys Boulevard

Nordhoff Street

Beachy Avenue

1.3 Los Angeles

Venice Boulevard

S La Brea Avenue

Arlington Avenue

1.6 Los Angeles

Wilshire Boulevard

S Western Avenue

S Alvarado Street

2.0 Los Angeles

Santa Monica/ Los Angeles Los Angeles (San Pedro)

Metro Bike/Bus Interface Study â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Final Report

Part IIB: Before-After Analysis

Figure II-1 Corridor locations in Los Angeles County

Metro Bike/Bus Interface Study – Final Report

Part IIB: Before-After Analysis

The corridors span a variety of contexts: arterials within downtowns, urban arterials, neighborhood collector streets, and suburban arterials. Table II-4 shows the 15 corridors by the “after” treatment type, and also includes the “before” treatment type. Table II-4 Selected Corridors by Treatment Type

“After” Treatment Type

Separated bikeways

Buffered bicycle lanes

Street Segment Name

“Before” Treatment Type

Broadway

None

Los Angeles St

Buffered bike lanes

Reseda Blvd

Standard bike lanes

Rosemead Blvd

None

Colorado Blvd

None Standard bike lanes on some

Venice Blvd

portions

Alamitos Ave

None

7th Street

None Standard bike lanes in City of

Main St

Santa Monica; no treatments in City of Los Angeles

Standard bicycle lanes

Shared bike-bus lanes

Pacific Ave

None

San Pedro St

None

Van Nuys Blvd

None

Figueroa St 13

Shared bike-bus lanes Standard bike lanes on some

Sunset Blvd

portions

Wilshire Blvd

None

There was no infrastructure change on the segment of Figueroa Street that is being evaluated. Instead, the study is analyzing whether the launch of bike share, which has several stations on Figueroa Street, is changing behavior and interactions on the corridor.

Metro Bike/Bus Interface Study â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Final Report

Part IIB: Before-After Analysis

Data Collection and Analysis The study examined several different factors on each corridor: bus safety, operation, and ridership; bicycle volumes, safety, comfort, and behavior; and traffic operations and safety. Below are descriptions of the analysis methods used and their respective data collection methods.

Collision History A collision history analysis was preformed to determine if the change in infrastructure affected the number of collisions on each corridor. Collision data were obtained from the Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS), a database maintained by the California Highway Patrol, which collates collision information from local agencies. SWITRS data contains information on collision severity, parties involved and location for collisions involving all road users. The analysis compiled data from 2009 to 2015, the latest year when collision records were available. Data from 2015 was marked as provisional at the time of analysis, which indicates that there may be missing state highway information such as post mile or route number. There may also be missing collision records, although statewide collision numbers are similar to previous years. SWITRS data were supplemented where available with bus collision data supplied directly by transit agencies. Collision data were mapped for each corridor, with collisions grouped to the nearest intersection for summary comparisons. SWITRS reports each collision with the nearest cross street and a latitude and longitude location. However, there can be inconsistencies in how the locations of collisions are reported, and the location where vehicles are after a collision may not be the same location where the collision occurred. The study therefore chose to group collisions to the nearest intersection for ease of organization, presentation and accuracy. The analysis illustrates changes in collisions for buses and people on bicycles, in addition to evaluating overall change in collision frequency on each study corridor. Total collisions and collision severity were shown in order to indicate locations where there were both high numbers of collisions and where collisions involved greater injuries. In addition, collisions involving either a bus or bicycle were highlighted. Where available, data was analyzed during the two years prior to and two years after the infrastructure change. On corridors where new roadways had been reconfigured too recently to obtain two years of data after the treatment was installed, data was presented for the most recent time period available, and for a comparable amount of time before the corridor changed. For instance, if a corridor changed on June 30, 2014, data would be presented for the 18 months following the change when collision data was available (until the end of 2015), and the 18 months prior to the corridor change. Appendix 1I presents the timeframes used for the before and after collision analysis on each corridor.

Metro Bike/Bus Interface Study â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Final Report

Part IIB: Before-After Analysis

Vehicle and Bike Counts Daily traffic counts were collected to determine if infrastructure changes led to a change in the number or type of users on each corridor. Data was provided by local municipalities and sourced from prior studies. In cases where counts from multiple days were available, volumes were averaged. Counts collected from these sources occurred throughout the year. In addition, 24-hour traffic counts were taken on all study corridors in September and October 2016 to supplement data collected from municipalities and prior projects, and shown in Appendix 1A. Count data of people riding bikes were obtained via the SCAG Bike Count Data Clearinghouse and directly from municipalities. The level of detail varied widely across data sources. For instance, some counts were aggregated over a 6-hour period, whereas others were aggregated over 15-minute periods. Data is presented as a range of hourly averages. The level of demographic and behavioral information recorded also varied widely. Information on gender, age, sidewalk riding, wrong-way riding, and helmet use was available on seven of the corridors for before conditions and all corridors for after conditions. New AM and PM 2-hour peak-period bike counts were taken on all study corridors in September and October 2016, which included tallying of wrong-way riding, sidewalk riding, and helmet use. These counts supplemented data collected from municipalities and SCAG. A range of bikes per hour was derived across the multi-hour count period. Wrong-way riding and sidewalk riding percentages were calculated using all data within each multi-hour count period. Bicycle counts are shown in Appendix 1B. Speed data were obtained from INRIX, a platform that aggregates data from personal GPS devices, road sensors, and other sources. Speeds during peak periods (7:00 to 9:00 AM and 4:00 to 6:00 PM) on Tuesdays, Wednesdays, and Thursdays were evaluated for one month to determine typical conditions. Inrix data is shown in Appendix 1K.

Metro Bike/Bus Interface Study – Final Report

Part IIB: Before-After Analysis

Transit Data Transit data was collected to analyze if transit service was altered after the infrastructure changes were made. The following operators with routes on study corridors were contacted for transit data: •

Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro)

•

Los Angeles Department of Transportation (LADOT)

•

Santa Monica Big Blue Bus

•

Long Beach Transit

•

Foothill Transit

The following categories of transit data were provided, although not every agency was able to provide every data type: •

Automated vehicle location (AVL) records

•

Bus schedule/frequency

•

On-time performance (OTP) by stop

•

Automatic passenger counter (APC) records

•

Shapefiles of bus routes and stop locations

•

Bus speed/travel time

•

Bus collisions records

•

Stop-level transit ridership

Data were requested for the month of October in the year immediately prior to and following installation of a corridor treatment, i.e., if a treatment was installed in March 2013, data from October of 2012 and 2013 was requested. October was chosen as a month when typical non-summer travel patterns are prevalent, because school is in session and there are no major holidays that can alter travel. If a treatment was installed in the month of October, data from the prior year and subsequent year were requested. In some cases where agencies were not able to provide the data during the requested time period, the best available data from a different, yet valid, time period was instead provided. In some cases, transit data were aggregated over an entire bus route. In most cases, the data were discarded because transit performance along the study corridor could not be isolated. Appendix 1G shows the locations where on-time performance was captured on each corridor. Appendix 1H notes the month and

Metro Bike/Bus Interface Study â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Final Report

Part IIB: Before-After Analysis

year that was analyzed for each corridor. Three corridors did not have sufficient data to analyze speed and reliability: Los Angeles Street, Alamitos Avenue, and Broadway.

Corridor Bus Ridership Each transit agency provided average boarding and alighting data for one month, as shown in Appendix 1F. Using this data, corridor bus ridership was calculated by summing weekday average boardings and alightings at all stops within and at the edge of the corridor.

On-Time Performance Varying methodologies were used to calculate on-time performance (OTP), depending on the data source. OTP is determined by comparing the actual time a bus departs a time point 14 to the scheduled time of departure. Each agency decides what parameters they use to determine if a bus is on-time, early, or late. Metro defines on-time performance as departing no more than one minute early or five minutes late at a particular time point 15. Unlike bus speed and reliability, discussed in more detail below, OTP references the bus schedule at specific time points along each route. Changes in OTP may be due to faster or slower travel time outside of (i.e. prior to reaching) the study corridor, leading to better or worse schedule adherence, even though travel within the study corridor may not have seen a change. Metro OTP was calculated using the APC data provided for each corridor, which contains bus arrival at stops and schedule information for each time point on a route. If a time point within the segment itself was not available, data from a time point within one mile of the end of the segment was used. If there was no time point within the study corridor or within a mile of the end of the segment, OTP was not analyzed. Foothill Transit, Long Beach Transit, Big Blue Bus and LADOT OTP were calculated by each agency for each stop on a route. OTP methodology is consistent with the approach in TCRP Report 113 Using

Archived AVL-APC Data to Improve Transit Performance and Management 16.

Time points are stops along a bus route assigned a scheduled time of departure that is part of the larger line schedule. Transit agencies use time points to determine if a bus is running early, on-time, or late. If a bus is early, it may wait at a time point until the scheduled time of departure.

Transit Service Policy, October 2015. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro). Accessed: August 15, 2016. http://media.metro.net/images/service_changes_transit_service_policy.pdf

Using Archived AVL-APC Data to Improve Transit Performance and Management. Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP). Accessed: December 20, 2016. http://www.trb.org/Publications/Blurbs/156999.aspx

Metro Bike/Bus Interface Study – Final Report

Part IIB: Before-After Analysis

Bus Speed and Reliability The bus speed and reliability analysis was conducted using Fehr & Peers’ Reliability+ tool. The GIS-based tool calculates bus speeds and travel times across segments of customizable length, using automatic vehicle location (AVL) data. AVL data records a bus location with a time stamp, allowing a bus’s location to be tracked over the course of its route. Each transit agency defines how often they record a bus’s location, which typically ranges from every 30 seconds up to every five minutes. The data received for this project typically recorded a bus’s location approximately every three minutes. Recording a bus’s location more frequently provides greater accuracy on travel patterns, but is offset by the need to store large amounts of data. After aggregating data from multiple runs, the tool outputs average bus speed and transit reliability 17. The number of data points was typically between one and five, for a corridor. If only one data point was recorded in a corridor, then that trip had to be discarded, because the tool needs two points to calculate speed. Due to the short distance of the study corridors (no greater than two miles) and the infrequency of AVL data, the corridors were not segmented to analyze differences in speed or reliability within each corridor. The number of trips and the number of data points varied by corridor. Unlike bus OTP, speed and reliability were calculated using data completely within the study segment. Also unlike OTP, speed and reliability calculations are independent of bus schedule.

Bus Frequency Bus frequencies were determined using schedule data provided by each operator. The number of buses per hour was determined by summing the number of buses that passed a time point in each direction during the two hour peak period in the AM (7:00 to 9:00) and PM (4:00 to 6:00), and then dividing by four (the number of hours of data) and rounding to the nearest whole number.

Level of Traffic Stress Level of Traffic Stress (LTS) is a metric, based on roadway characteristics, that is commonly used to determine comfort for people riding bikes along street segments and through intersections. The LTS 17

The metric used to represent reliability is the coefficient of variation of travel time, which is unitless and therefore allows for like-for-like comparison across corridors of varying lengths. Reliability measures how consistent transit speeds are through a particular corridor over multiple runs. It is equal to the standard deviation of travel time divided by the average travel time. A higher coefficient indicates higher variability in travel time across a multiple runs, i.e. low reliability. Transit reliability is presented with transit speed to show how transit time can vary on a corridor. Average speed masks that individual bus runs can fluctuate greatly due to congestion and boarding/alighting patterns. Including average speed and reliability, gives a more holistic view of transit behavior on a corridor.

Metro Bike/Bus Interface Study – Final Report

Part IIB: Before-After Analysis

analysis is based on the Low-Stress Bicycling and Network Connectivity methodology (Mekuria, Furth, and Nixon, 2012). 18 This methodology assigns each segment and intersection a score between 1 (high level of comfort) and 4 (low level of comfort). Input data are facility type, typical vehicle speed, lane width, presence of parking, frequency of bike lane blockages, and number of vehicle lanes. This study’s separated bikeway approach differs slightly from the method presented by Mekuria et al., who assume that all separated bikeways receive a score of 1 regardless of facility design. The level of protection afforded to people on bikes along separated bikeways can vary greatly, particularly at intersections where designs may require mixing with vehicular traffic. This is apparent in the four separated bikeways analyzed as part of this study, which provide different treatment types, such as different buffer types and distances, and therefore different level of stress for users. As a result, when analyzing separated bikeways, this analysis incorporates best practices from the National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) Urban Bikeway Design Guide, 2nd Edition, to reflect a more nuanced estimate of the level of comfort or stress. The Guide was developed by bicycle planners and engineers from cities across the country and also included a literature review of design guidelines from across the globe. It includes required and recommended features for separated bikeway, which were used to define user comfort for the expanded level of traffic stress analysis. This includes: •

Consideration of a raised or in roadway bike lane,

•

Visibility between people driving and biking,

•

Type of physical separation,

•

Presence of a dedicated signal phase at intersections, and

•

Treatment of left turns for people on bikes at intersections.

This methodology allows for a finding of varying levels of comfort, typically a score of 2 or 3 on separated bikeways in this analysis, compared to the methodology developed by Mekuria et al. Level of Traffic Stress scores are shown in Appendix 1C.

Bike Connectivity Even though Los Angeles County has seen a large increase in the number of bikeways in recent years, the bike network is still disjointed in many locations. The research from Mekuria et al. notes that many people will chose not to ride their bike if a portion of their route does not have high comfort streets or paths. This study described bike connectivity for each corridor by looking at the number of and type of

18 Low-Stress Bicycling and Network Connectivity. Mekuria, Maaza; Furth, Peter; Nixon, Hilary. Mineta Transportation Institute. May 2012.

Metro Bike/Bus Interface Study – Final Report

Part IIB: Before-After Analysis

connections to bikeways. For this analysis, bikeways were considered Class I (off-street paths), Class II (on-street bicycle lanes), Class III (signed routes), and Class IV (on-street separated bikeways). The study counted the number of bikeways that intersected with the study corridors and with the study corridor street within one mile on edges of the study corridor. Bike connectivity was divided into three categories: •

Low bike connectivity: Less than 1.5 connections per mile

•

Moderate bike connectivity: Between 1.5 and three connections per mile

•

High bike connectivity: More than three connections per mile

Field Visits and Video Review Each corridor was observed in person to ascertain patterns and trends across interactions, and to better understand their mechanics and contributory factors. Stops that have high bus ridership are more likely to see bike/bus interactions as buses often must merge across a bike facility to access a stop. Therefore, bus ridership data from 2014 and 2015 was used to select stop locations on each corridor where interaction between bikes and buses was expected to be the highest. At each of these stops the number of bike/bus interactions and their type (bike passes stopped bus in adjacent lane, bike waits behind bus, etc.) were recorded. Other characteristics were also noted, such as lane widths, pavement quality, pavement markings, and bus stop facilities. These observations were documented in written summaries and are shown in Appendix 1D. To supplement the in-person field visits, video recordings of bus stop interactions were reviewed in order to further document the level and type of bike/bus interactions on each corridor. Eight hours of video footage per corridor were reviewed (7:00 to 9:00 AM and 4:00 to 6:00 PM in both directions of travel). The quantity of each type of interaction was noted in the same fashion as described above. Video review notes are shown in Appendix 1E.

Outreach In addition to the quantitative evaluation of each corridor and the qualitative field surveys that were conducted, the study also draws upon focus groups and interviews conducted with bus operators, people who bike and municipal staff. These sessions enhance the analysis by providing first person accounts by individuals who are most familiar with the study corridors. The study conducted seven municipal staff interviews with planners and engineers who were involved in the design of each corridor: four with staff from the City of Los Angeles and one each from City of Long Beach, City of Santa Monica, and City of Temple City. These interviews discussed the goals and

Metro Bike/Bus Interface Study â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Final Report

Part IIB: Before-After Analysis

motivations for the new treatments on each corridor, how policy influences design decisions, and the processes that city staff goes through during the planning and implementation process. Focus groups with people who ride bikes were held in downtown Los Angeles, the San Fernando Valley, Santa Monica, Long Beach, and Watts, while bus operator focus groups were held with Metro, LADOT, Big Blue Bus and Long Beach Transit. The project team contacted bike advocacy and community groups to solicit interest in the focus group for people who ride bikes. Although the project team sought to include people who ride bikes with a range of experience and confidence, most participants were very confident riders. Bus operators who were familiar with study corridors were selected by each agency to participate in the focus groups. Focus group participants were asked about the 15 study corridors and gave their opinion on the new design and their interaction with bikes or buses on each corridor. More general questions on education and design were also part of the focus groups, and will be discussed in more detail in Part III. A summary of outreach conducted for the project is shown in Appendix 1J.

Metro Bike/Bus Interface Study â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Final Report

Part IIB: Before-After Analysis

CORRIDOR ANALYSIS RESULTS This section presents the data analysis results for all 15 corridors, organized by treatment type. Separated bikeways are presented first, followed by buffered bicycle lanes, standard bicycles lanes, and shared bikebus lanes. For each corridor, a cut sheet is presented first followed by in-depth account of the data analysis. The cut sheets briefly summarize the corridor context, findings, and data collected for the periods before and after the treatment installation. Each cut sheet graphically presents information for an easy-to-read overview of the corridor analysis. A Data Glossary is also provided on the following pages which gives information on each data type listed. As not all data was available for every corridor, some facets of the analysis are missing for individual corridors. All data used in the analysis is presented in Appendix 1.

Data Glossary

Treatments Types

Bus Speed and Reliability

Separated Bikeway: An exclusive facility for bicyclists that is located within or directly adjacent to the roadway and that is physically separated from motor vehicle traffic with a vertical element such as a curb or barrier.

Definition: The metric used to represent reliability is the coefficient of variation of travel time, which is unit-less and therefore allows for like-for-like comparison across corridors of varying lengths. Reliability measures how consistent transit speeds are through a particular corridor over multiple runs. It is equal to the standard deviation of travel time divided by the average travel time. A higher coefficient indicates higher variability in travel time across a multiple runs, i.e. low reliability.

Buffered Bicycle Lane: A standard bicycle lane paired with a designated buffer space separating the bicycle lane from the adjacent motor vehicle travel lane and/or parking lane. Standard Bicycle Lane: A portion of a roadway which has been designated by striping, signing, and pavement markings for the preferential or exclusive use of bicyclists. Shared Bus-Bike Lanes: Travel lanes reserved for the exclusive use of transit vehicles and bicycles, with taxis and private vehicles prohibited. Many shared bike-bus lanes also allow for turning vehicles to use the lane.

Bikes Per Hour Definition The number of people on bicycles counted within one hour during the AM (7-9) and PM (4-6) peak periods. Data Collection and Methodology: Data presented shows the range of people recorded during these time periods in order to represent the variation of people on bikes traveling on the street. “Before” data was obtained from local municipalities and Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). “After” data was obtained from counts taken on each corridor in fall of 2016 and from local municipalities and SCAG if available. These counts include only people riding along the corridor and not people riding on cross streets. All counts taken in fall 2016 include information on wrong-way riding and sidewalk riding. Count data from local municipalities typically does not contain information on wrong-way riding and sidewalk riding, while data from SCAG typically does have information about riding behavior. Count volumes typically vary by as much as 20% in a single day. If data from multiple counts was available it was averaged in order to reduce variability that can stem from single day counts.

Data Collection and Methodology: Bus speed was calculated by charting a bus's position over time using Automatic Vehicle Location (AVL) data by dividing the change in distance along the corridor by the change in time. Bus speed was used to calculate bus travel time through each study corridor. Reliability of bus service, which is a metric that explains the spread of travel times along a corridor, is defined as the coefficient of variation of travel time, i.e. the standard deviation of travel time divided by the average travel time. AVL data contains timestamped bus locations, allowing a bus’s location to be tracked over the course of its route. Each transit agency defines how often they record a bus’s location, which typically ranges from every 30 seconds from every five minutes. Data received from Metro for this project typically recorded a bus’s location approximately every three minutes. The AVL frequency allows for analysis at a corridor level, but does not provide enough granularity to pinpoint where on a corridor changes in speed and reliability are occurring. The number of trips in a peak period (6-9 AM and 4-7 PM) in a direction for a month varied by corridor from as many as 874 trips to as few as nine. No AVL data from municipal agencies were used on this project. Data was received over a span of a single month, typically for the month of October. Due to the coarseness of the AVL data, the analysis is not able to note where on a corridor a vehicle slowdown is occurring, which makes it difficult to determine the cause of changes in speed and/or reliability. Many different factors can result in changes to bus speed and reliability, such as changes in stop location, increases or decreases in ridership, and changes in vehicle speeds on the route. AVL data analyzed on Los Angeles Street was insufficient to provide accurate results because the corridor length is too short and the service too infrequent.

Data Glossary Lines 240, 741, 744 Bicycle Traffic Stress

Collisions

Definition: Level of Traffic Stress (LTS) is a comfort index for people on bicycles at intersections and on street segments derived from roadway characteristics. The approach used for this project builds upon the methodology initially developed by the Mineta Institute by including additional best practices from the National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO). Input data are facility type, typical vehicle speed, lane width, presence of parking, frequency of bike lane blockages, and number of vehicle lanes. Each intersection and segment is given a score from one (highest level of comfort) to four (lowest level of comfort). No methodology exists to measure comfort on shared bike-bus lanes, so the three study corridors featuring shared bikebus lanes did not receive an LTS score.

Definition: Collision data consists of a record of all reported collisions between street users of all types.

Data Collection and Methodology: Data was collected through site visits, aerial photography and from Google Street View photography.

Average Speed and 85th Percentile Speed Data Collection and Methodology: Average speed data was calculated using data provided by Inrix, who aggregate data from multiple data sources including road sensors, traffic cameras, and GPS devices to provide average speed on roadway segments. Data was provided for Quarter 4 of 2014 and Quarter 4 of 2016 in one minute intervals, and was aggregated to 15 minute intervals for the AM (7-9) and PM (4-6) peak periods. The data presented in the cut sheets is the average of the 15 minute periods for both the AM and PM periods in each direction. As the data reports average speed over a period of time, this includes speed when a vehicle is stopped or slowed, either due to congestion or at a signal. Therefore, Inrix speed data is typically well below the posted speed limit on a street. However, as the methodology is the same for the before and after periods, and across all corridors, the average speed data informs a useful comparison across corridors and time periods. Several corridors that were installed before fall 2014 do not have “before” speed data available. On one such corridor, Broadway, data showing the 85th percentile speed that was collected during an FHWA study is used, because this is the only data available showing before and after speed on the corridor.

Daily Bus Ons & Offs Definition: The average number of weekday boardings and alightings at all bus stops on the study corridor. Data Collection and Methodology: Unless noted within the text, data for a single month was obtained from transit agencies, typically for October.

Data Collection and Methodology: Collision data were obtained from the Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS), a database maintained by the California Highway Patrol, which collates collision information from local agencies, using data from 2009 to 2015. Data from 2015 was marked as provisional at the time of analysis, which indicates that there may be missing state highway information such as post mile or route number. SWITRS data were supplemented where available with bus collision data supplied directly by transit agencies. For two corridors installed in 2016 – Los Angeles Street and Figueroa Street – no after collision data is available. Collision data for Alamitos Avenue was provided by the City of Long Beach. Collision data were mapped for each corridor, with collisions grouped to the nearest intersection for summary comparisons. SWITRS reports each collision with the nearest cross street and a latitude and longitude location. However, there can be inconsistencies in how the locations of collisions are reported, and the location where vehicles are after a collision may not be the same location where the collision occurred. The study team therefore chose to group collisions to the nearest intersection based on the reported location from SWITRS for ease of organization and presentation, and accuracy. Collision severity is based on information from SWITRS, which rates collisions as “fatal”, “severe”, “other visible injury”, or “complaint of pain”. "Less than severe" is defined as collisions that are neither fatal nor severe. As default, the collision analysis uses data over a two year period for both before and after the new treatment was installed. If two years of data was not available because the treatment was installed within two years of the end of 2015 (i.e. the point after which no data is available), then the analysis used as many months of data as was available, while ensuring the time periods for before and after data were of the same length. SWITRS Collision data was supplemented with bus collision data provided by Metro and Long Beach Transit, as described in the text. Bus collisions that were between a stationary object and a bus were removed if there was no mention of another vehicle in the description. In instances where two buses collided with each other, the collision is counted as a single incident even though in some cases the data represents it as two incidents.

Data Glossary

Sidewalk Riders

Bus On-Time Performance

Definition: The percent of people on bicycles who were observed to be riding on the sidewalk either with or against the direction of traffic.

Definition: The percent of buses which arrive on time, early, and late. OTP is determined by comparing the actual time a bus departs a time-point to the scheduled time of departure. Unlike bus speed and reliability, discussed in more detail below, OTP references the bus schedule at specific time points along each route. Changes in OTP maybe due to conditions outside of the study corridor.

Data Collection and Methodology: Data was collected as part of bicycle counts. Sidewalk riding data was not available as part of some “Before” corridor counts.

Wrong Way Riders Definition: The percent of people on bikes who were observed to be riding on the road against the direction of traffic. Data Collection and Methodology: Data was collected as part of bicycle counts. Wrong way riding data was not available as part of some “Before” corridor counts.

Average Daily Traffic Definition: The number of motor vehicles counted over a weekday 24 hour period, typically collected on a Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday. Data Collection and Methodology: “Before” data was obtained from local municipalities, typically for spring or fall periods and “After” counts were taken in September and October of 2016. Individual count sheets are shown in the appendix. Count volumes typically vary by as much as 20% in a single day. When available, multiple counts were averaged in order to reduce variability that can stem from single day counts.

Buses Per Hour Definition: The scheduled number of buses per hour per direction averaged over the AM (7-9) and PM (4-6) peak periods. Data Collection and Methodology: Schedule data was provided by transit agencies.

Data Collection and Methodology: On-time performance was calculated using Metro's criteria, defined as a bus that is no more than one minute early or five minutes late. Municipal operators provided data that was pre-processed for a stop at or near the study corridor. Metro provided data in Automated Passenger Count (APC) format, showing the scheduled time of departure and the actual time of departure for buses at time points at or near the study corridor, from which on-time performance was calculated. Data was only analyzed for weekdays in the peak periods, 7-9 AM and 4-6 PM, and was received over a span of a single month, typically October. Time points used for this analysis are typically either at the end of the corridor or within one mile of the corridor after a bus has finished driving through the corridor. If a corridor did not have a time point that met these criteria, then data was not collected for the analysis. As time point locations can change over time, some corridors had a valid time point during the after period of analysis, but not the before period of analysis. There is also the potential for changes in time point location to alter on-time performance unrelated to conditions on the corridor. No applicable time point data was provided for Los Angeles Street, while certain streets only had applicable time points for one direction: Main Street (eastbound data only), Figueroa Street (northbound only), Reseda Boulevard (northbound only), Sunset Boulevard (westbound only), and Venice Boulevard (westbound only). More detail on individual time points is provided in the appendix.

Typical Facility Designs Lines 240, 741, 744 Separated Bikeway

Buffered Bicycle Lane

Standard Bicycle Lane

Shared Bus-Bike Lane

Metro Bike/Bus Interface Study â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Final Report

Part IIB: Before-After Analysis

(Placeholder for Data Glossary)

Separated Bikeways

SEPARATED BIKEWAYS ANALYSIS

Broadway Magnolia Avenue to Alamitos Avenue (1.0 miles)

Downtown, City of Long Beach

Corridor Context The City of Long Beach installed a left-side running separated bikeway in April 2011 in order to minimize conflict between people on bicycles and buses. This type of facility can only be installed on one-way streets, and is the only facility of its type in Los Angeles County. This corridor has moderate connectivity with the bike network.

Focus Group Perceptions

Findings

>> People who ride bicycles typically prefer separated bikeways over other facility types, however they also felt that left-side running bikeways can confuse people driving and biking >> Bus operators prefer the division provided by the separated bikeway to avoid interactions with people on bicycles

>> Increase in the number of people riding bikes >> Substantial decrease in sidewalk riding >> Increase in wrong way riding from 9% to 15% >> Reduction in number of crashes for all modes, despite an increase in bike and transit ridership and an increase in bus frequency

before

after

No treatment

Left-sided separated bikeway

12'

Broadway at Atlantic Avenue

11'

10'

Broadway at Atlantic Avenue

Broadway before snapshot

after shapshot

Average Daily Traffic

12,740

before

after

Bus On-Time Performance

12,900

85th Percentile Speed (posted speed limit: 30 mph)

30 MPH

26 MPH

No Data 96%

Daily Bus On & Offs

2,260

Long Beach Transit Lines 111 & 112

3,790

Late On time /Early

Buses Per Hour

Bikes Per Hour

5 - 55

5 - 80

Wrong Way Riders

15%

Sidewalk Riders

65%

18%

This portion of Broadway now features a separated bikeway with protection for the people riding bicycles created vehicular parking.

Broadway

Most intersections on Broadway feature dedicated bicycle signal phases, which prevent conflicts between left-turning vehicles and people riding bicycles. This treatment improves bicycle comfort at intersections.

Separated bikeways on only one side of the street sometimes result in wrongway riding by people on bicycles.

Change in Bicycle Traffic Stress

W BROADWAY

Units of Analysis

E BROADWAY

ALAMITOS AVE

LIME AVE

ATLANTIC AVE

LINDEN AVE

Segment

ELM AVE

LONG BEACH BLVD

PINE AVE

PACIFIC AVE

CHESTNUT AVE

MAGNOLIA AVE

Comfort improves both at intersections and segments for people on bikes

Intersection

Level of Stress Much More Comfortable More Comfortable No Change In Comfort Less Comfortable

Broadway Collisions

Severe Collisions

AV E I TO S ALAM

1 N MARIETTA CT

LIME AVE

ATLANTIC AVE

E BROADWAY

Ò 1

AV E I TO S

W 3RD ST

Other Collisions

Collisions Involving All Modes

Collisions

x # Involving

Buses But Not Bicycles

LIME AVE

N MARIETTA CT

LINDEN AVE

Collisions Involving Bicycles But Not Buses

ATLANTIC AVE

2 N LONG BEACH BLVD

THE PROMEN ADE N

E BROADWAY

ALAM

ÒÒ

PINE AVE

N LONG BEACH BLVD

THE PROMEN ADE N

PINE AVE

PACIFIC AVE

W BROADWAY

| 0

N CEDAR AVE

| 0

LINDEN AVE

PACIFIC AVE

VIRGINIA CT

MAGNOLIA AVE

Fatal Collisions

ÒÒ

W BROADWAY

20 total | 3

W 3RD ST

CHESTNUT AVE

after:

| 0

ÒÒ

1 VIRGINIA CT

MAGNOLIA AVE

| 1 N CEDAR AVE

CHESTNUT AVE

before: 29 total | 6

Collisions Involving Buses and Bicycles

Metro Bike/Bus Interface Study â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Final Report

Part IIB: Before-After Analysis

Broadway: Left-Sided Separated Bikeway Broadway is a 1-way arterial street carrying eastbound traffic in downtown Long Beach. The study corridor extends one mile from Magnolia Avenue to Alamitos Avenue and contains a left-side 1-way separated bikeway. The separated bikeway was installed in April 2011, and is typically protected by both a low curb and parallel parking. A 5-foot painted buffer separates the parked cars and curb from the bikeway. Figure II-2 shows a typical design of the separated bikeway. Some intersections are not fully separated, discussed in more detail below. The study Figure II-2 Typical design of the separated bikeway on Broadway

corridor does not directly connect to any other bicycle facilities. However, there are nearby

Table II-5 Broadway at a Glance

bikeways on the eastern side of the corridor

City

Long Beach

separated bikeway on Broadway is part of a paired

Land Use Context

Downtown

couplet with 3rd Street, one block north of

Direction

East (1-way street)

Street Type

Arterial

Roadway Configuration

Three general purpose lanes prior to installation; two general purpose and separated bikeway after installation

Median Type

None

Parking

Parallel provided intermittently on both sides of the street

Bike Score

Walk Score

Transit Score

running along 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Streets. The

Broadway, which also provides a separated bikeway but does not have transit service. Table II-5 summarizes the characteristics of the study corridor. Prior to the installation of the separated bikeway, Broadway provided three general travel lanes with parallel parking available on both sides of the street on some blocks and one side of the street on some blocks. When the separated bikeway was installed, one general travel lane was removed, and lane widths were narrowed by approximately one foot each. On-street parking was removed on the north side of the street, the same side as the bikeway, in some locations to improve sightlines,

Metro Bike/Bus Interface Study – Final Report

particularly driveways.

Part IIB: Before-After Analysis

near The

study

corridor has a mix of commercial, residential, and municipal buildings. In addition to the onstreet parking on the corridor,

off-street

parking is available but is often concentrated in large parking facilities. Few businesses on the Figure II-3 Typical intersection design transitions to a buffered bicycle lane running corridor provide their along the curb and a left-turn lane to the right of the bicycle lane. Bicycles and leftown parking.

turning vehicles have separate signals

Long Beach Transit (Routes 111 and 112) provides local bus service on Broadway east of Pacific Avenue. Long Beach Transit (Routes 151, 181, 182, 191, and 192) and Metro (Route 232) operate on smaller portions on the western end of the study corridor, and data for this route was not used as part of the analysis. Bus stops are located on the far side of intersections. As the separated bikeway is on the left side of the street and bus stops are on the right, people on bicycles using the separated bikeway would be expected to have minimal interactions with buses. At most intersections, bicycles are given their own protected signal phase, and thus there is no merging area between people on bicycles and leftturning vehicles, as demonstrated in Figure II-3. However, at two intersections – Long Beach Boulevard and Pacific Avenue – people on bicycles are directed to ride to their right and leftturning vehicles are given their own lane along the curb, as shown in Figure II-4. The merging area at these two locations

Figure II-4 Left-turn design at Long Beach

is marked by green paint. At driveways, conflict areas are also Boulevard and Pacific Avenue, where people on bikes are directed to ride to their right and marked with green paint.

a left-turn lane is provided adjacent to the curb

According to City of Long Beach staff, the bikeway was installed on the left side of the street to avoid interactions with buses. However, staff noted that there is confusion among some people on bicycles on how to enter and exit the separated bikeway, because people on bicycles must switch from the right side of the street to the left side. Due to this confusion, the City is unlikely to install future bicycle facilities on the left side of one-way streets. Staff also stated the decision to give people on bicycles a dedicated signal phase was made to reduce the potential for collisions between turning vehicles and people on

Metro Bike/Bus Interface Study â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Final Report

Part IIB: Before-After Analysis

bicycles. By providing a dedicated bicycle phase, left-turning vehicles would not have to weave across the bicycle facility. Infrastructure Long Beach Transit operators were especially supportive of the separated bikeways on Broadway, since the left-sided separated bikeway positions bikes and buses on opposite sides of the street. Participants at the focus groups for people on bicycles generally stated that separated bikeways provide the highest level of comfort. However, people on bicycles gave mixed responses in regards to their preference for the left-sided separated bikeways on Broadway, expressing some concerns with the design of this bicycle facility, as discussed below. Based on the LTS methodology that was used for this analysis, the separated bikeway creates greater level of comfort for people who bike both between intersections and at intersections. People on bikes now have a dedicated and protected space to ride on Broadway where previously none existed, which increases comfort greatly. At intersections, people on bikes have a clearly demarcated space and at most intersections have a dedicated signal phase that separates them from turning vehicles. Increased comfort for people on bicycles could be achieved by providing clear direction and facilities for people on bicycles turning right off of Broadway, such as providing a bike box with additional signage instructing people how to make right turns or fully protected intersections. After the installation of the separated bikeway, observed sidewalk riding reduced from 65 percent to 18 percent though wrong-way riding increased slightly, from 9 percent to 15 percent. The increase in wrong-way riding may be due to people riding within the separated bikeway because it provides a more convenient option than riding in the parallel facility providing legal westbound riding on 3rd Street one block to the north of Broadway or because they are used to riding on the right side of the street and consider this street a safe venue in which to do so. Despite the increase in wrong-way riding, the increase in overall usage and the large decrease in sidewalk riding indicate that more people are now comfortable riding on-street along Broadway. Several participants of the people who bike focus groups noted concerns with the left-sided design on Broadway. Echoing the comments from Long Beach staff, people on bicycles noted it can be difficult and confusing to transition from riding on the right side of the street to the left, and vice versa, at the beginning and ends of the facility. There were also comments from focus group participants that motorists are also not familiar with people on bicycles to their left, and often do not look for people on bicycles on the driver side of the car. Some participants also stated they have seen people driving who are confused by the bicycle signal head, and do not understand these signals are only for people on bicycles. Opinions were mixed amongst focus group participants on whether the benefits of left-sided separated bikeways (mainly the decrease in interaction with buses) outweigh the concerns.

Metro Bike/Bus Interface Study â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Final Report

Part IIB: Before-After Analysis

Long Beach Transit bus operators who participated in the studyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s focus group and used the corridor were generally very supportive of the treatment. While operators at the focus group had concerns that people on bikes do not always ride predictably, they were nearly universal in their praise of the separated bikeway on Broadway because it separated buses and bicycles. With the bikeway located on the left side of the street, interaction between buses and bicycles is minimized, regardless of the behavior of people on bikes (so long as they are riding in the bikeway). Operators acknowledged that people riding bikes have different experience levels and thus a range of riding styles, and while many people on bicycles ride predictably, operators felt most comfortable when they do not have to interact with people on bikes. Safety Total collisions decreased during the 2-year period following the installation of the left-sided separated bikeway. In the 2-year period prior to the installation, there were 29 collisions on the study corridor, with six involving people on bicycles. In the 2-year period after the installation, there were 20 collisions, with only three involving people on bicycles. There was one collision involving severe injuries in both the before and after time period, and no collisions resulting in fatalities. Long Beach Transit provided bus collision data along Broadway for the months of October 2010 (prior to installation) and October 2011 (after installation). During the period prior to installation, there was one recorded collision involving buses, a sideswipe near the intersection with Cedar Avenue. The information provided does not indicate if a bicycle was involved in the collision. There were no recorded collisions involving buses in the period after the separated bikeway was installed based on the data provided by Long Beach Transit. Metro provided collision data for the two years before and after the bikeway installation. The data show there were no collisions involving buses before or after the installation of the separated bikeway. Overall, travel safety appears to have improved along the study corridor, with substantial decreases in collisions for all road users. Operations Bicycle and transit usage increased substantially along the study corridor. Hourly bicycle usage on Broadway ranged from five to 55 people on bicycles before the installation of the separated bikeway, to five to 80 people on bicycles afterward. City staff expect the number of people on bicycles to increase further when the bicycle facilities on Alamitos Avenue are extended south to connect with Broadway, a treatment that is currently being designed. Figure II-5 shows the bicycle facilities and bike connectivity near Broadway. The street has moderate bike connectivity, with connections to three bikeways along the study segment but fewer connections outside of the study corridor. Long Beach Transit provided data on bus schedules and ridership. For stops served by Routes 111 and 112, located between Long Beach Boulevard and Alamitos Avenue, bus ridership increased by approximately 20 percent, from 290 to 350. The increase in transit ridership may be partly attributed to a small increase in the average number of

Metro Bike/Bus Interface Study – Final Report

Part IIB: Before-After Analysis

buses per hour in the peak period, from three to four, although such a large increase in ridership would likely be influenced by other unknown factors. Long Beach Transit was not able to provide data on bus OTP, bus speed, or bus reliability. Daily vehicle volumes on the corridor were unchanged after the separated bikeway was installed, and the 85th percentile speed on the corridor dropped from 30 to 26 MPH (the speed limit was 30 MPH both before and after implementation). The consistent vehicle volumes suggest the street provided excess capacity, as the reduction in lanes has not seen a drop in motor vehicle trips. The reduction in

Figure II-5 Bicycle facilities and bike connectivity near Broadway

general travel lane width, from 34 to 22 feet, is a possible contributory cause to the reduced speed on the street. Summary of Key Findings The installation of left-sided separated bikeways on Broadway resulted in the following changes in the study corridor: •

People on bicycles typically prefer separated bikeways over other facility types, however, they also felt that left-side running bikeways can confuse people driving and biking

•

LTS was reduced at intersections and along segments

•

Wrong-way riding increased from 9 percent to 15 percent

•

Long Beach Transit operators were especially supportive of the left-sided separated bikeways

•

Reduction in number of crashes for all modes, despite an increase in bicycling and transit ridership

100

Los Angeles Street 1st Street to Alameda Street (0.5 miles)

Downtown, City of Los Angeles

Corridor Context Separated bikeways were installed on Los Angeles Street in June 2016 to reduce the amount of illegal parking in the bicycle facility. The street provides a direct connection between Union Station and the downtown core. Los Angeles Street is also the first example in Los Angeles of bus boarding islands. This corridor has low connectivity with the bike network.

Focus Group Perceptions

Findings

>> People on bicycles are supportive of separated bikeways and bus boarding islands, but had concerns about the bus boarding island designs on Los Angeles Street >> Bus Operators prefer to be separated from people on bicycles, but believe that increased congestion since the installation of the new treatments on Los Angeles Street make it harder to meet their schedule.

>> Wrong-way riding and sidewalk riding remained low >> The number of people riding bikes increased moderately; the bikeway was opened just prior to the launch of Metro Bike Share >> Bicycle level of comfort increased on all segments and at most intersections >> The impact on bus operations is unclear based on the transit data provided

before

after

Buffered bicycle lanes

Separated bikeways

10'

4' 6'

Los Angeles Street at Aliso Street

6' 4'

10'

4' 6'

Los Angeles Street at Aliso Street

Los Angeles Street before snapshot

after shapshot

after

Average Daily Traffic

23,360

22,540

Average Speed (Posted Speed Limit: 35 MPH)

13 MPH

9 MPH

Daily Bus On & Offs

200

190

Buses Per Hour

3 SB

Some intersections on Los Angeles Street feature dedicated bicycle signal phases, which prevent conflicts between turning vehicles and people riding bicycles. This treatment improves bicycle comfort at intersections.

Bikes Per Hour

5 - 20

10 - 30

Wrong Way Riders

Sidewalk Riders

20%

15%

People on bicycles ride behind bus boarding island on Los Angeles Street, reducing interactions between people on bicycles and buses.

Los Angeles Street Change in Bicycle Traffic Stress

Comfort improved along the corridor and at most intersections for people on bicycles Units of Analysis Segment

LOS ANGELES ST 101

ARCADIA ST

ALISO ST

ST TEMPLE

1ST ST

Intersection

Level of Stress Much More Comfortable More Comfortable No Change In Comfort

T AS

Less Comfortable

Collisions

N LOS AN GEL ES ST

! E ALISO ST

N LOS ANGELES ST

Ò x1

E TEM PL

E 1S T ST

E ST

L NA

Fatal Collisions

Severe Collisions

Other Collisions

Collisions Involving All Modes

Collisions Involving Bicycles But Not Buses

PASEO DE LA PLZ

(no after data available at this time)

ARCADI A ST

| 0

US HIGHWAY 101

| 0

W ALISO ST

before: 47 total | 3

Collisions

x # Involving

Buses But Not Bicycles

T AS ED

Collisions Involving Buses and Bicycles

Metro Bike/Bus Interface Study â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Final Report

Part IIB: Before-After Analysis

Los Angeles Street: Separated Bikeway Los Angeles Street is located in downtown Los Angeles running north/south. The study corridor is a half-mile segment from Alameda Street to 1st Street, connecting Union Station with the Civic Center area. A separated bikeway replaced buffered bicycle lanes in June 2016. The new separated bikeway includes bus boarding islands in both directions between Temple Street and Aliso Street, as shown in Figure II-6. The bikeway is separated from general travel lanes by a painted

buffer,

varying

from

approximately three to eight feet wide, and plastic bollards. Figure II-7 shows a typical design of the separated bikeway. The corridor connects to standard bicycle lanes on 1st Street at the southern end of the study segment.

Figure II-6 Bus boarding island on Los Angeles Street

Los Angeles Street is also the first location in the City of Los Angeles to incorporate a 2-stage turn box, which allows people on bicycles an alternative way to make left turns

multi-lane

signalized

intersections from a right-sided bikeway. People on bicycles who arrive during the green light ride into the intersection and stop at the 2-stage turn box, located away from through-moving bicycles and in front of cross-street traffic. When the crossstreet light turns green, people on bicycles are then positioned in front of motor vehicles and are able to cross the intersection. The 2-stage turn box is Figure II-7 Typical configuration of separated bikeway on Los Angeles Street shown in Figure II-8.

104

Metro Bike/Bus Interface Study – Final Report

Part IIB: Before-After Analysis

The number of approach lanes did not change at the intersections with 1st Street and Temple Street: the street maintained two travel lanes, a center turn lane and right-turn lanes in each direction. In the northbound direction, one general purpose lane was reconfigured north of the mid-block crossing between Aliso Street and Temple Street, while in the southbound direction one general purpose lane was reconfigured north of Arcadia Street. The study corridor is fronted by commercial and Figure II-8 2-stage turn box on Los Angeles Street at Temple governmental buildings. No on-street parking is available on the corridor, although there is a school/charter bus loading/unloading zone

Street

Table II-6 Los Angeles Street at a Glance

adjacent to El Pueblo de Los Angeles

City

Los Angeles

Historical Monument on the northern end of

Land Use Context

Downtown

Direction

North/south

Street Type

Arterial

Roadway Configuration

Varies from two to four lanes both before and after; two standard and buffered bike lanes before and two separated bikeways after

Median Type

Raised south of Aliso Avenue; no median north of Aliso Avenue. No change before or after

Parking

No parking before or after

Bike Score

Walk Score

Transit Score

100

the corridor. Table II-6 summarizes the characteristics of the study corridor. Los Angeles Street is served by four bus routes: •

•

Metro Route 442 (Express Service), running along the entire length of the corridor LADOT Commuter Express 534 (Express Service), running on the corridor between 1st Street and Aliso Street/Arcadia Street LADOT DASH Downtown B (Local Service), running between Temple Street and Alameda Street Big Blue Bus Rapid 10 (Express Service), running between Temple Street and Alameda Street

105

Metro Bike/Bus Interface Study â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Final Report

Part IIB: Before-After Analysis

Bus stops are located north of 1st Street and mid-block between Aliso Street and Temple Street. At the stops located north of 1st Street, the bicycle lanes are dashed to indicate that buses may use the bicycle lane to access the stops at curb, as shown in Figure II-9. Staff from LADOT stated that a primary impetus for converting Los Angeles Street from a buffered bicycle lane to a separated bikeway was to reduce the number of people who were double parking in the lane. When there were standard and buffered bicycle lanes on the street, police and other municipal vehicles often parked in the bicycle lane, forcing people on bicycles to ride in the general travel lane in order to pass the parked vehicles. Bollards on Los Angeles were closely spaced to prevent vehicles from driving between them to park in the lane. Staff also noted that Los Angeles Street is an important connection between Union Station and downtown Los Angeles, and improving the facility would create a better connection between these two locations. Another lesson learned for staff was to shorten the merge area for vehicles turning from Los Figure II-9 Striping at bus stops north of 1st Street Angeles Street to US 101 North. In the merge area, shown in Figure II-10, cars must cross the bikeway to access the freeway. This portion of the bikeway features green paint to highlight the presence of bicycles. As there was also a reduction in general travel lanes adjacent to the on-ramp, from two to one, staff stated that many vehicles waiting to get onto the freeway queue in the bikeway. Staff stated that for similar projects in the future they would considered adjusting the design to shorten the merging area and provide a separated bicycle facility leading up to the merging area. According to staff, the installation of the separated bikeway created some additional congestion along the corridor for two reasons: some space previously used for general purpose lanes was repurposed for the bikeway; and, signal timing was changed to give bicycles dedicated phases at Temple Street, Arcadia Street, and Aliso Street in exchange for green time for motor vehicles.

106

Metro Bike/Bus Interface Study â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Final Report

Part IIB: Before-After Analysis

Los Angeles Street marks the first location in the City of Los Angeles where the City has installed bus boarding islands, shown in Figure II-11. LADOT staff worked with the Bureau of Street Services (BSS) to design the islands, using guidance developed by NACTO. In the future, LADOT staff said they would bevel curbs to decrease the likelihood of a bike pedal striking the curb as people Figure II-10 Merge area near U.S. 101, where cars must cross the bicycle ride between the bus boarding island

facility to access the freeway

and the curb, and would focus more on areas where concrete and asphalt surfacing

meet,

because

uneven

street surfaces can cause people on bicycles to crash. At the time of the interview

with

LADOT

staff,

approximately three months after the bus boarding islands were installed, there had not been any reported conflicts between people on bicycles and people boarding or alighting the bus at boarding islands, although staff noted that volumes are low for both Figure II-11 At the bus boarding islands, people on bikes do not groups at these locations.

interact with buses but may interact with boarding or alighting passengers

Infrastructure Bus operators generally liked that separated bikeways create greater separation between bikes and buses than other bike facilities. In regards to the design of the separated bikeway on Los Angeles Street, bus operators were concerned that the installation of the bikeway has increased congestion on the corridor, which has affected their ability to stay on schedule. Participants at the focus groups for people on bicycles stated that separated bikeways provide the highest level of comfort. This was also supported by the findings from the online bicycling survey where separated bikeways were the highest ranked bicycle facility of all four analyzed in this study. For the design treatment on Los Angeles Street, people on bicycles had suggestions on how to improve interactions with pedestrians at bus boarding islands as well as expressed some concerns with bicycle signal-phasing and left-turn movements for bicycles.

107

Metro Bike/Bus Interface Study â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Final Report

Part IIB: Before-After Analysis

Based on the Level of Traffic Stress methodology that was used for this analysis, the separated bikeway provides a greater level of comfort for people who bike, both between intersections and at most intersections on the corridor. Providing a solid, raised protection for people on bikes would further increase level of comfort. At Aliso and Arcadia Streets, providing clear and safe options for people biking who need to turn left, such as the 2-stage turn boxes at Temple Street, would also further increase comfort. No changes were made at the intersections with Alameda and 1st Streets, and thus there was no change to bicycle comfort. Riding behavior was largely unchanged based on the count data available: wrong-way riding remained at 2 percent and sidewalk riding dropped slightly from 20 percent to 15 percent. The reduction in sidewalk riding and increase in the number of people on bicycles may reflect an increase in comfort experienced by people on bicycles, although the variations fall within the expected variation of single day counts such that firm conclusions cannot be drawn. As the separated bikeways on Los Angeles Street are one of the newest treatments in this study, few of the focus group participants had ridden on the facility. However, most people who participated in the focus groups were supportive of separated bikeways. Participants generally liked the concept of the bus boarding island, and several stated they would rather negotiate around crossing pedestrians than interact with a bus. Participants gave two pieces of feedback on the design of the boarding islands: raise the bikeway to the same level as the bus stop, which will strengthen the messaging to people on bikes that they are approaching a location where pedestrians have right of way; and install larger and more apparent signage and pavement markings to notify people walking and those on bicycles. Consideration of the pedestrian experience and safety should continue to be paramount during design of this facility type. There were also differing opinions about bike-only signal phasing, with some participants praising the separation for bicycles, while others felt the separate signal was confusing and was not readily apparent which signal was for bikes and which was for cars. Participants also had conflicting views on how to handle left turns exiting the separated bikeway. At some locations, a 2-stage bike box is provided, which directs people where to go if they are making a 2-stage left turn from the separated bikeway, while at other locations there is no specific direction on how to turn left. At intersections without the 2-stage turn box, participants did not reach a consensus on whether it was best to find a gap in traffic and cross

108

Metro Bike/Bus Interface Study – Final Report

Part IIB: Before-After Analysis

the bicycle lane separation to reach the left-turn lane, or if the rider should initiate a box-turn despite the lack of a painted turn box. Many participants found

bike

boxes

difficult

understand or questioned the specific design of the bike boxes on Los Angeles Street, which are placed in front of crosswalks, as shown in Figure II-12. When

asked

about

the

new

configuration on Los Angeles Street, bus operators had mixed opinions. The

operators

supported

both Figure II-12 Bike box along Los Angeles Street used for making a left turn

separated bikeways and bus boarding

out of the separated bikeway

islands, which limit the amount of interaction between buses and bicycles. They also like that bus boarding islands allow buses to access stops without having to pull in and out of general travel lanes. However, operators felt that traffic congestion has increased due to the installation of the new treatment on Los Angeles. Many operators stated that it was now harder to meet their schedule and that their passengers are being inconvenienced due to the installation of the separated bikeway. Safety There were 47 collisions during the most recent 2-year period when data was available (which is the “before” period) including two collisions with severe injuries (neither of which involved a bicycle or bus), and none with fatalities. Three collisions involving people on bicycles were recorded during this period, and no collisions involving buses. There is no collision data available on the corridor after the separated bikeway was installed, as it was installed so recently. Operations Bicycle and transit usage changed after the installation of the separated bikeway. Hourly bicycle counts on Los Angeles Street ranged from five to 20 people on bicycles before the installation of the separated bikeway, to 10 to 30 people on bicycles afterward. The launch of Metro Bike Share also occurred between when the before and after counts were taken, which may account for some of the increase in people on bicycles. Transit ridership decreased slightly by 5 percent, from 200 trips to 190 trips. Figure II-13 shows the bicycle facilities and bike connectivity on Los Angeles Street. The street has low bike connectivity, with only one direct connection to another dedicated facility, a standard bicycle lane on 1st Street.

109

Metro Bike/Bus Interface Study â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Final Report

Part IIB: Before-After Analysis

Figure II-13 Bicycle facilities and bike connectivity near Los Angeles Street

Big Blue Bus provided data on average speed on segments of the Rapid 10 for September 2015 and 2016. For northbound buses, the segment including the study corridor extends from Bundy Drive & Olympic Boulevard in West Los Angeles to the routesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; terminus near Union Station, a distance of approximately 15 miles with the bus mostly running on the freeway. Speeds along this segment decreased by 3 percent in the AM peak period and did not change in the PM peak period. Due to the length of this segment, it is difficult to determine if a change in bus speeds is due to the new bikeways and boarding islands on Los Angeles Street or other changes along the route. The segment for southbound buses stretches from the intersection at Main Street & Alameda Street to the stop at Flower Street & 4th Street for a length of 1.7 miles. Speeds along this segment increased by 7 percent in the AM peak period and 1 percent in the PM peak period. Although the southbound segment is shorter than the segment used to calculate northbound speeds, the study corridor is only a small portion of the total segment length and this analysis cannot determine if these changes in speeds are due to the changes on the study corridor. Big Blue Bus also provided OTP data for Rapid 10 route as a whole. The percent of buses arriving on-time increased from 68 percent to 71 percent, but the data provided does not suggest where this improvement may have occurred. Daily vehicle volumes decreased on the corridor by approximately 4 percent. This is within the expected variation of daily vehicle counts and suggests traffic is behaving similarly after the separated bikeways were installed.

110

Metro Bike/Bus Interface Study – Final Report

Part IIB: Before-After Analysis

Summary of Key Findings The analysis of separated bikeways on Los Angeles Street had the following findings: •

People on bicycles are supportive of separated bikeways and bus boarding islands, but had concerns about the design of the bus boarding islands on Los Angeles Street

•

The number of people riding bikes increased moderately, but some of this increase may be due to the launch of Metro Bike Share

•

Bicycle level of comfort increased on all segments and at most intersections

•

Bus operators prefer to be separated from people on bicycles, but believe that increased congestion since the installation of the new treatments on Los Angeles Street makes it hard to meet their schedule

•

The impact on bus operations is unclear based on data provided by transit operators

•

There was a slight decrease in average daily traffic (ADT)

111

Reseda Boulevard Plummer Street to Parthenia Street (1.0 miles)

Northridge, City of Los Angeles

Corridor Context The separated bikeway was installed in April 2015 as part of the City of Los Angeles' Great Streets program, which aims to increase economic activity, improve mobility and enhance neighborhood character. This corridor has moderate connectivity with the bike network.

Focus Group Perceptions

Findings

>> People on bicycles liked the separated bikeways but some expressed confusion about the unique striping >> Operators said parked cars can limit sight lines of bicyclists in some places >> Operators are concerned about pulling in/out of stops from a wide angle

>> Decrease in the percent of people riding the wrong way or on the sidewalk >> Bicycling along the corridor remains low; bike network connectivity is limited >> Number of collisions involving people on bicycles declined >> Bus OTP has remained relatively unchanged since the installation >> Number of bus related collisions declined

before

after

Standard bike lanes

Separated bikeways

10'

12'

10'

Reseda Boulevard at Prairie Street

10'

Reseda Boulevard at Prairie Street

Reseda Boulevard before snapshot

after shapshot

Average Daily Traffic

33,010

before Bus On-Time Performance Before: Metro Lines 240 & 741

33,740

Average Speed (Posted Speed Limit: 35 MPH)

16 MPH

15 MPH

Daily Bus On & Offs

2,210

after

2,050

After: Metro Lines 240 & 744

33%

31%

67%

69%

Late On time /Early

Buses Per Hour

6 SB

Bikes Per Hour

0-5

10 - 15

Wrong Way Riders

52%

29%

Sidewalk Riders

34%

16%

People on bicycles and bus operators expressed some confusion with the painted merging areas, due to the unique striping on the corridor.

Reseda Boulevard Bus Reliability

Before: Metro Lines 240 & 741 / After: Metro Lines 744 Lines 240,240 741,&744

Reliability improved somewhat in both directions during the PM peak period SOUTHBOUND

PLUMMER ST

PARTHENIA ST

Change In Reliability

RESEDA BLVD

NORTHBOUND

Much Less Reliable Less Reliable Minimal Change More Reliable Much More Reliable

Change in Bus Speed

Before: Metro Lines 240 & 741 / After: Metro Lines 240 & 744

Slight increase in average speed southbound in the AM; decreased northbound speed in the PM peak period 14.2 MPH

15.4 MPH

11.4 MPH

11.0 MPH

BEFORE

AFTER

14.8 MPH

12.0 MPH

10.5 MPH

PARTHENIA ST

SOUTHBOUND RESEDA BLVD

NORTHBOUND

Change in Mean Speed PLUMMER ST

-3 MPH or More -3 MPH to -1 MPH Minimal Change 1 MPH to 3 MPH

Change in Bicycle Traffic Stress

Comfort increased on street segments but was unchanged at intersections for people on bikes Units of Analysis Segment

RESEDA BLVD

Intersection

PLUMMER ST

VINCENNES ST

PRAIRIE ST

DEARBORN ST

NORDHOFF ST

RAYEN ST

NI A

GRESHAM ST

P AR T H E

Level of Stress Much More Comfortable More Comfortable No Change In Comfort Less Comfortable

Reseda Boulevard Collisions

DEARBORN ST

PRAIRIE ST

VINCENNES ST

PLUMMER ST

NORDHOFF ST

Collisions Involving Bicycles But Not Buses

Collisions

x # Involving

Buses But Not Bicycles

PLUMMER ST

NORDHOFF ST

Collisions Involving All Modes

VINCENNES ST

RAYEN ST

Other Collisions

PRAIRIE ST

GRESHAM ST

FIC R R

N PA CI HER

SOUT

RAYEN ST

GRESHAM ST

N PA CI HER SOUT

T IA S

EDDY

BAIRD AVE

RESEDA BLVD

Severe Collisions

ÒÒ x1

PA R T H E N

Fatal Collisions

| 0

Ò x1

T IA S

after: 35 total | 4

RESEDA BLVD

x2 x2

Ò Ò

BAIRD AVE

PA R T H E N

EDDY

FIC R R

Ò x1

| 2

DEARBORN ST

before: 30 total | 5

Collisions Involving Buses and Bicycles

Metro Bike/Bus Interface Study â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Final Report

Part IIB: Before-After Analysis

Reseda Boulevard: Separated Bikeway Reseda Boulevard is located in the City of Los Angeles, running north/south in the western part of the San Fernando Valley. The portion of Reseda Boulevard being studied extends for one mile from Parthenia Street to Plummer Street. This mile-long segment is part of the City of Los Angelesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; Great Streets program, which aims to increase economic activity, improve access and mobility, enhance neighborhood character, and create safer communities. As part of the program, separated bikeways were installed to replace standard bike lanes in April 2015. The areas of Reseda Boulevard directly north and south of the study corridor have standard bike lanes, which have been in place since 2011.

The separated bikeways are parking-protected in some locations and are separated by vertical

Table II-7 Reseda Boulevard at a Glance

City

Los Angeles

corridor maintained its four travel lanes and

Land Use Context

Commercial

center turn lane, although lanes were narrowed

Direction

North/south

Street Type

Arterial

Roadway Configuration

Four general purpose lanes before and after installation; standard bike lanes in each direction were replaced by separated bikeways

Median Type

Left-turn lane after installation

Parking

Parallel provided on both sides of the street, some parking spaces were repurposed with the installation of the separated bikeway

Bike Score

(Routes 240 and 167), Metro Rapid (currently

Walk Score

Route 744, which replaced Route 741 in

Transit Score

plastic bollards in other locations. The study

some

locations.

Parking

spaces

were

repurposed on some portions of the corridor in order to accommodate the separated bikeways. The street is bordered by commercial land use, some of which include parking lots fronting the streets and others with either no parking or parking located behind the business. California State University, Northridge is located adjacent to the corridor. Table II-7 describes the characteristics of the study corridor. Reseda Boulevard is served by Metro Local

December 2014), and LADOT DASH buses (DASH Northridge). Bus stops are typically located on the far side of intersections, and are also striped with green paint to indicate a shared space between bikes and buses, as shown in Figure II-14. Where there are nearside bus stops, there is a merging area for bikes, buses and motor vehicles, which is also delineated by green dashed paint, as shown in Figure II-15.

116

Metro Bike/Bus Interface Study â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Final Report

Part IIB: Before-After Analysis

According to LADOT staff, the local Council Member supported the installation of a separated bikeway as part of the Great Streetsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; investments into the corridor. The Council Office provided additional outreach and communicated with local business owners who had concerns about the loss of parking. The presence of nearby off-street parking reduced the stress on the parking supply; staff noted this made it much easier politically for LADOT to install the treatment. Infrastructure Bus operators generally liked that separated bikeways create greater separation between bikes and buses than other bike facilities. Figure II-14 Striped green paint at bus stops indicates shared However, bus operators expressed some space between buses and bikes concerns with design of the separated bikeways on Reseda Boulevard, such as having difficulties pulling in or out of bus stops from wide angles and parked cars limiting

sight

lines

certain

places.

Participants at the focus groups for people on bicycles generally stated that separated bikeways provide the highest level of comfort. This was also supported by the findings from the online bicycling survey where separated bikeways were the highest ranked bicycle facility of all four analyzed in this study. People on bicycles were generally supportive of the separated bikeways on Reseda Boulevard, but had varying opinions on whether the green paint used in the design at Figure II-15 Merging area for right turns, buses and bikes intersections made it clear how bikes, motorists, or buses should interact with one another. Based on the level of traffic stress methodology that was used for this analysis, the separated bikeway creates a greater level of comfort between intersections for people who bike, but does not increase comfort at intersections because bikes must continue to share space with motor vehicles and buses at

117

Metro Bike/Bus Interface Study â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Final Report

Part IIB: Before-After Analysis

intersection approaches. The increased level of comfort that the new facility provides is possibly reflected in the reduction of wrong-way and sidewalk riding after the separated bikeways were installed. Prior to the installation of the separated bikeways, riding behavior was observed as 52 percent riding the wrong way and 34 percent on the sidewalk, afterwards wrong-way riding declined to 29 percent and sidewalk riding to 16 percent. These reductions represent more predictable riding by people on bikes, and should reduce the potential for conflict between buses and bikes. However, because there were relatively few people on bikes during the count days, there is less degree of certainty about changes in riding behavior. Some participants in the people on bikes focus groups stated that they feel safer because the introduction of green paint makes drivers more likely to look for people riding bikes at intersection approaches. Other focus group participants believe that the design does not make clear how bikes, motor vehicles and buses should share space at the intersection and is therefore confusing for multiple parties. While bus operators liked that there were fewer interactions with people on bikes on the corridor once the separated bikeway was installed, they also commented that pulling into and out of stops has become more difficult because buses must now pull directly into the traffic lane instead of being able to speed up in the bike lane. Operators suggested reducing parking further with this design to allow more space for accessing stops. There was also a perception amongst bus operators that the new design reduced the number of travel lanes on the street. However, there was no change to the number of general travel lanes on Reseda Boulevard and this viewpoint may reflect a feeling amongst operators of a â&#x20AC;&#x153;zero sumâ&#x20AC;? mindset regarding street space allocation: any street space reserved explicitly for bikes is a loss for buses. The general perception amongst operators is that the street functioned well during off-peak periods but was more difficult during peak periods. During peaks, operators stated they now have to pull into travel lanes from a greater distance after accessing stops, causing stress and creating the impression that the likelihood of a collision is higher. There were also concerns from operators that they now are driving closer to parked vehicles, which has manifested itself in a recorded collision between a driver opening their door and a bus (previously general travel lanes were separated from parked vehicles by a standard bike lane). Operators were also concerned that buses have less space between where a bus stop ends and parking begins in which to pull back into travel lanes after servicing a stop. Operators also commented that the green paint used for conflict zones was initially confusing, because it was a new type of design. Although this level of discomfort decreased over time, operators express that they were not certain they were driving correctly on the corridor. Safety Total collisions increased slightly during the 8-month period following the installation of the separated bikeway. In the 8-month period prior to the bikeway installation, there were 30 collisions on the study

118

Metro Bike/Bus Interface Study â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Final Report

Part IIB: Before-After Analysis

corridor, with five collisions involving people on bicycles. In the 8-month after period, there were 35 collisions, with four collisions involving people on bicycles. There was one collision involving severe injuries in both the before and after time period, and no collisions resulting in fatalities. During the eight months prior to the installation of the separated bikeways, there were two collisions involving Metro buses on the study corridor. Both of these collisions took place near the intersection with Nordhoff Street, and both were categorized as sideswipes. The collision narratives did not disclose any injuries resulting from any of the collisions. In the eight months after the installation of the separated bikeway where data was available, there were no Metro bus collisions on the study corridor. Striping at Nordhoff Street, where the two bus collisions occurred, appears similar after the installation of the separated bikeway, with the largest difference being that the merging areas (both for right-turning vehicles with bikes, and at bus stops with bikes) are now demarcated with green paint and dashed white lines. Previously, these areas were only marked with dashed white lines. Although it is possible these changes may have led to a reduction in the number of collisions involving buses, there was also an increase in the number of total collisions at this intersection. Based on the limited collision data available at the intersection, it is difficult to draw conclusions on the safety benefits of the new design at Nordhoff Street. Although the number of collisions on the corridor increased slightly, travel safety appears to have improved along the study corridor for buses and people bicycling, with modest decreases in collisions for both groups. Operations Both bicycle and transit usage experienced slight changes after the installation of the separated bikeways. Bicycle usage on Reseda Boulevard ranged from zero to five people on bicycles per hour before the installation of the separated bikeway, to 10 to 15 people on bicycles per hour afterward. Transit ridership decreased by 7 percent from 2,210 trips to 2,050 trips. Figure II-16 shows the bicycle facilities and bike connectivity near Reseda Boulevard. The street barely meets the moderate bike connectivity threshold, with some connectivity at the northern end of the study corridor, but no connections between Plummer Street and Parthenia Street. Standard bicycle lanes on Reseda Boulevard continue north and south of the study corridor.

119

Metro Bike/Bus Interface Study â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Final Report

Part IIB: Before-After Analysis

Figure II-16 Bicycle facilities and bike connectivity near Reseda Boulevard

The change in street configuration had minimal impact on most bus service metrics. On-time performance, i.e., the percentage of buses meeting Metroâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s schedule requirements, remained essentially unchanged. Speed and reliability effects of the infrastructure are mixed. In the northbound direction, where parking was mostly removed to accommodate the bikeway, speeds remained unchanged in the AM period but decreased substantially (-1.5 MPH) in the PM period; these patterns correspond with comments from bus operators at focus groups. While removal of parking would eliminate delays on bus travel from parking maneuvers, prior to removal most parking maneuvers occurred largely within the bike lane, such that the effect of parking removal on bus operations on this corridor is likely limited. Bus operators did note that the angle at which they now have to access stops is different with the separated bikeways, and that pulling to the curb is now more difficult. GPS travel data in the corridor also shows a slight decrease in the AM and PM for vehicles heading northbound, which could partially explain the decrease in northbound bus speeds in the PM period. However, these explanations do not explain why a similar decrease in northbound speed is not occurring in the AM period. In the southbound direction, where parking was largely retained, speeds increased substantially in the AM period (+1.2 MPH) but decreased somewhat in the PM period (-0.4 MPH). In both AM and PM periods, reliability of bus speeds increased across the board such that while bus travel times sometimes increased and sometimes decreased, they ultimately became more consistent. Daily vehicle volumes and the percentage of vehicles speeding on the corridor both increased slightly since the installation of the separated bikeways, although these increases are within the expected variation of daily vehicle counts and suggests traffic characteristics are relatively unchanged after the separated bikeways were installed.

120

Metro Bike/Bus Interface Study – Final Report

Part IIB: Before-After Analysis

Summary of Key Findings The analysis of separated bikeways on Reseda Boulevard had the following findings: •

People on bicycles liked the separated bikeways, but some expressed confusion about the unique striping pattern at intersections and merge areas

•

The percentage of people riding the wrong way or on the sidewalks declined

•

Bicycling along the corridor remains low; bicycle network connectivity is moderate

•

Operators said parked cars can limit sight lines and make it harder to see people on bicycles in some places

121

Rosemead Boulevard Ardendale Street to Pentland Street (1.9 miles)

City of Temple City

Corridor Context When local control was granted to Temple City by Caltrans, City Council undertook a gateway-beautification and traffic calming project in May 2014 that resulted in a landscaped separated bikeway in each direction. This corridor has very low connectivity with the bike network.

Focus Group Perceptions

Findings

>> Bicyclists enjoy the improved comfort and safety of separated bikeways, but feel this facility is limited without any connecting bike facilities >> Bus Operators agree that safety is improved along the corridor but are concerned about reduced visibility at bus stop mixing zones

>> Bicycling activity increased slightly but remains low >> Wrong way riding and sidewalk riding decreased >> Number of collisions for all modes remain low

before

after

No Treatment

Separated bikeway

14'

12'

14'

Rosemead Boulevard at Garabaldi Avenue

5' 7'

11'

12'

11'

7' 5'

Rosemead Boulevard at Garabaldi Avenue

Rosemead Boulevard before snapshot

after shapshot

Average Daily Traffic

35,060

before

after

Bus On-Time Performance

Metro Lines 266 & 489

34,380

Average Speed (Posted Speed Limit: 35 MPH)

No Data

19 MPH

Daily Bus On & Offs

860

930

Late

41%

48%

59%

52%

On time /Early

Buses Per Hour

3 SB

Bikes Per Hour

0-5

0 - 10

Wrong Way Riders

12%

Sidewalk Riders

44%

17%

The separated bikeway improves comfort but provides little protection at intersections and driveways. Obstacles are often found in the bikeway including trash cans and parked cars.

Rosemead Boulevard Bus Reliability

Metro Lines 489 Lines 240,266 741,&744

Reliability changed minimally in either direction or time period after the corridor change SOUTHBOUND

ARDENDALE ST

PENTLAND ST

Change In Reliability

ROSEMEAD BLVD

NORTHBOUND

Much Less Reliable Less Reliable Minimal Change More Reliable Much More Reliable

Change in Bus Speed

Metro Lines 266 & 489

Speeds changed minimally in either direction or time period after the corridor change 16.2 MPH

15.7 MPH

15.9 MPH

15.0 MPH

BEFORE

AFTER

16.7 MPH

14.3 MPH

15.1 MPH

PENTLAND ST

SOUTHBOUND ROSEMEAD BLVD

NORTHBOUND

Change in Mean Speed ARDENDALE ST

-3 MPH or More -3 MPH to -1 MPH Minimal Change 1 MPH to 3 MPH

Change in Bicycle Traffic Stress

Adding separated bikeways improved comfort, but there was no change at intersections or in locations with standard bicycle lanes due to 40 MPH posted speed limit

Units of Analysis Segment

ROSEMEAD BLVD

Intersection

AVE

ALE END ARD AVE

EROR EMP

LONGDEN AVE

GARIBALDI AVE

R SD NA TU

HERMOSA DR

LAS

BROADWAY

PENTLAND ST

Level of Stress Much More Comfortable More Comfortable No Change In Comfort Less Comfortable

Rosemead Boulevard Collisions

| 0

HERMOSA DR

LONGDEN AVE

GARIBALDI AVE

HERMOSA DR

ELM AVE BROADWAY

LONGDEN AVE

E E AV

E R AV

Buses But Not Bicycles

DAL

ERO

Collisions

x # Involving

DEN E AR

Collisions Involving Bicycles But Not Buses

EMP

Collisions Involving All Modes

L I TA

Other Collisions

HART AVE

CAL

OLIVE ST

E E AV

E R AV

DAL

Severe Collisions

| 0

ROSEMEA D BLVD

Fatal Collisions

ERO

BROADWAY

HART AVE

DEN E AR

| 0

EMP

1 total | 0

OLIVE ST

after:

L I TA

ROSEMEA D BLVD

CAL

GARIBALDI AVE

| 0

ELM AVE

before: 5 total | 0

Collisions Involving Buses and Bicycles

Metro Bike/Bus Interface Study â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Final Report

Part IIB: Before-After Analysis

Rosemead Boulevard: Separated Bikeway Rosemead Boulevard is located in the City of Temple City, running north/south in the central part of the San Gabriel Valley. The portion of Rosemead Boulevard being studied extends for 1.9 miles from Ardendale Street to Pentland Street. Separated bikeways were installed in May 2014. The bikeways are

curb-separated

some

locations,

with

landscaped dividing islands (sometimes called parkways) of approximately 7 feet between the travel lane and the bicycle lane, as shown in Figure II-17.

Figure II-17 Landscaped and curbed islands protect

The following analysis pertains primarily to those the bikeway from traffic stretches of the corridor where separated bikeways are installed. The separated bikeways extend 0.5 miles from Pentland Street to Broadway. Between

Table II-8 Rosemead Boulevard at a Glance

Broadway and Elm Avenue, a distance of 0.4 miles,

City

Temple City

Land Use Context

Residential and Commercial

to Emperor Avenue for 0.9 miles, and the

Direction

North/south

northernmost 0.2 miles of the corridor from

Street Type

Arterial

Roadway Configuration

Four general purpose lanes prior to installation; four general purpose lanes and two separated bikeways after installation

Median Type

2-way left-turn lane prior to installation; Landscaping and left-turn lane after installation

Parking

Parallel provided intermittently on both sides of the street

Bike Score

N/A

homes. Businesses along the corridor typically

Walk Score

provide off-street parking, which supplements the

Transit Score

N/A

the street has a standard bicycle lane. The separated bikeways continue north of Elm Avenue

Emperor Avenue to Callita Street have standard bicycle lanes. The study corridor maintained its four travel lanes and center median, although lanes were narrowed. Parking spaces were repurposed on some portions of the corridor in order to accommodate the separated bikeway. The street is an arterial with a mixture

single-family

residential

and

commercial spaces, with many driveways along the corridor that provide access to businesses and

on-street parking provided. Table II-8 summarizes the characteristics of the study corridor.

126

Metro Bike/Bus Interface Study â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Final Report

Part IIB: Before-After Analysis

Rosemead Boulevard is served by Metro Local (Routes 266) and Express (Route 489). Bus stops are located on the near and far sides of intersections in roughly equal numbers. At intersections and bus stops, dashed striping and sharrows designate a merging area where bikes, buses, and motor vehicles share space, as shown in Figure II-18. This merging area allows buses to pull to the curb to access stops and allows for motor vehicles to turn right across the bike lane. According to Temple City staff, when the City assumed ownership of Rosemead Boulevard, which is also State Route 19, the idea to include the separated bikeways was first discussed as part of larger goals the City had for the street. Local control of the route afforded the opportunity to improve the streetscape and beautify the corridor. The original City staff working on the project design

have

transitioned

from

these

positions; current staff believe that providing better connections for people riding bicycles may have been a secondary goal, and beautification of the gateway corridor was the

Figure II-18 A near-side bus stop is also shared space with the

projectâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s impetus. Despite some pushback bikeway and for right-turning vehicles. Photo taken at Hermosa from motorists about lane-narrowing, no Drive facing south travel lanes were removed and ultimately the project was implemented with a separated bikeway. The City continues to encounter operational issues that were created by the separated bikeway. For example, because most of the corridor is lined by single-family housing and there are no service alleys (as is common in older cities in the County), residents must place their garbage and recycling bins at the curb for pickup. With the installation of the separated bikeway running along the curb, many local residents and businesses now place their bins in the bikeway, impeding people on bicycles. In the segments with on-street parking, drivers sometimes park their cars encroaching on the bikeway to the right. The City has not implemented any physical changes to mitigate these issues, but has worked with the contractor for garbage collection to return empty cans to the curb, rather than the bikeway. Parked vehicles encroaching on the bikeway remains an ongoing challenge.

127

Metro Bike/Bus Interface Study â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Final Report

Part IIB: Before-After Analysis

Infrastructure Bus operators generally liked that separated bikeways create greater separation between bikes and buses than other bike facilities. However, bus operators had varying opinions about the design of the separated bikeways on Rosemead Boulevard, such as expressing concerns that the design obscures the visibility of people riding bicycles. Participants at the focus groups for people on bicycles generally stated that separated bikeways provide the highest level of comfort. This was also supported by the findings from the online bicycling survey where separated bikeways were the highest ranked bicycle facility of all four analyzed in this study. In regards to the separated bikeways on Rosemead Boulevard, people on bicycles generally approved of the design, but pointed out a few issues such as low connectivity to other bike facilities. Based on the LTS methodology, the separated bikeways improve comfort between intersections for people who bike, but do not increase comfort at intersections because people on bikes must continue to share space with motor vehicles and buses at intersection approaches. The increased level of comfort that the new facility provides is reflected in the decrease of wrong-way and sidewalk riding after the separated bikeways were installed. Prior to the installation of the separated bikeways, riding behavior was observed as 12 percent riding the wrong way and 44 percent on the sidewalk, afterwards wrong-way riding declined to 4 percent and sidewalk riding to 17 percent. These reductions reflect more predictable riding by people on bikes, and should reduce the potential for conflict between buses and bikes. However, because there were relatively few people on bikes during the count days, there is less degree of certainty about changes in riding behavior. In certain portions of the study corridor where there was not adequate room or too many driveways to install separated bikeways, notably between Broadway and Hermosa Drive, the corridor has standard or buffered bicycle lanes. In these portions, comfort does not improve a step grade according to the LTS methodology. On a road with a 40 MPH or higher posted speed limit, the LTS methodology states that the benefit gained from adding standard bicycle lanes does not change the overall comfort because the difference in speed between bicycles and cars is still great and the level of protection provided by the facility is relatively low. People who participated in the bicycling focus groups agreed that Rosemead Boulevard provides an aesthetically pleasing separated bikeway. However, there were a number of issues cited, some of which city staff also mentioned, including trash cans obstructing the path of travel, and the gutter pan taking up a large portion of the riding area. The bikeway is harder to keep clean because a typical street sweeper truck cannot drive down the path. Additionally, an uneven seam between the gutter pan and the asphalt may present hazards to people on bicycles. Overall, people riding bicycles through the corridor felt that the separated bikeway on Rosemead Boulevard does improve conditions, but without bicycle facilities extending beyond the study corridor, they often ride another route that overall is less direct.

128

Metro Bike/Bus Interface Study â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Final Report

Part IIB: Before-After Analysis

Bus operators had mixed perceptions regarding separated bikeways. While they generally appreciate the improvement in safety and separation through the corridor, some participants in the focus groups were concerned that physically-separated bikeways with landscaping or those separated by parked cars could obscure the view of people on bicycles when approaching mixing zones such as bus stops. It was noted that there is difficulty in seeing people riding recumbent bicycles, which is exacerbated with any visual obstruction such as a parked car. Safety There were five collisions in the 18 months prior to the installation of the separated bikeway and landscaping. In the 18 months following the installation of the separated bikeway, collisions decreased to just one along the corridor. There were no collisions involving people on bicycles, and no collisions resulted in either severe injuries or fatalities. During these same periods before and after the installation of the separated bikeways, Metro recorded no collisions involving buses. Metro operates relatively limited service on Rosemead Boulevard, with at most approximately three buses per hour, equating to about 20-minute headways. Operations

Figure II-19 Bicycle network connections near Rosemead Boulevard

Both bicycle and transit usage increased slightly along the corridor after the installation of the separated bikeways. Bicycle usage on Rosemead Boulevard ranged from zero to five people per hour before the installation of the separated bikeway, to zero to 10 people on bicycles per hour afterward. For context, Figure II-19 shows the bicycle facilities and network connections around the study corridor. The bicycle network connectivity in this area is low, with the Rosemead Boulevard facility nearly isolated. The bicycle lanes continue south on Rosemead for less than 1,100 feet beyond Pentland Avenue, the southern extent of the study area. There are no connecting bicycle facilities to the east, west, or north. Transit ridership increased slightly by less than 10 percent from 860 trips to 930 trips, so the fluctuation is possibly within the expected range of variability from year to year. Additionally, there was no change in the frequency of service during the study period.

129

Metro Bike/Bus Interface Study – Final Report

Part IIB: Before-After Analysis

There were no measurable changes in transit speed or reliability on this corridor after the installation of the separated bikeways. The lack of measurable change is expected given the road capacity was not altered by the bikeway and ADT and transit ridership were both steady. Although travel lanes on Rosemead Boulevard were narrowed, which has the potential to reduce bus speeds as there is less clearance on either side of the vehicle, travel lanes remained at least 11 feet, which is wider than many of the other study corridors. Daily vehicle volumes decreased by approximately 2 percent after installation of the separated bikeway, a difference that is within the expected variation of daily vehicle counts and suggests that the separated bikeways have not caused traffic flows to change markedly. According to Temple City planning staff, although there is anecdotal evidence that overall speeds on the corridor have decreased, Rosemead Boulevard remains a relatively high-speed corridor with 40 MPH posted speeds, especially on either end where travel lanes are wider and there are no bicycle facilities. City staff report that incidents are still regularly reported of speeding vehicles on Rosemead Boulevard in which drivers collide with the median or the curb-islands protecting the bikeway. Staff suspect that some of these incidents are due to motorists failing to slow when entering the narrower segment within Temple City. Summary of Key Findings The installation of separated bikeways on Rosemead Boulevard had the following notable results: •

People on bicycles enjoy the improved comfort and safety of separated bikeways, but feel this facility is of limited utility without any connecting bike facilities

•

Bicycling activity increased slightly, but remains low

•

Bus operators agree that safety is improved along the corridor, but are concerned about reduced visibility at bus stops mixing zones

•

Number of collisions for all modes remains low, despite relatively high ADT and high speeds (compared with other study corridors)

130

Metro Bike/Bus Interface Study â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Final Report

Part IIB: Before-After Analysis

Buffered Bicycle Lanes

BUFFERED BICYCLE LANES ANALYSIS

131

Alamitos Avenue 7th Street to Pacific Coast Highway (1.0 miles)

Central, Saint Mary's, and Hellman, City of Long Beach

Corridor Context The City of Long Beach installed a road reconfiguration on the corridor in April 2016 to increase safety. The road reconfiguration allowed for the installation of buffered bicycle lanes on Alamitos Avenue, and was made possible by a reduction in travel lane widths to 10.5 feet. This corridor has moderate connectivity with the bike network.

Focus Group Perceptions

Findings

>> People on bicycle stated that buffered bike lanes generally provided high levels of comfort >> Reduction in number of through lanes impact bus operations

>> Sidewalk and wrong way riding decreased substantially >> The number of people riding bikes increased despite limited bikeway connectivity >> Bicycle comfort increased along the entire corridor, including at intersections >> OTP improved significantly

before

after

No Treatment

Buffered bike lanes

12'

11'

12'

Alamitos Avenue at 10th Street

7.5' 10.5'

10'

10.5'

7.5'

Alamitos Avenue at 10th Street

Alamitos Avenue before snapshot

after shapshot

Average Daily Traffic

15,190

before

after

Bus On-Time Performance

13,950

Average Speed (Posted Speed Limit: 35 MPH)

19 MPH

23%

12%

78%

87%

16 MPH

Daily Bus On & Offs

270

Long Beach Transit Lines 71 & 72

170

Late On time /Early

Buses Per Hour

2 SB

Bikes Per Hour

0-5

0 - 20

Wrong Way Riders

39%

13%

Sidewalk Riders

78%

26%

Most intersections on Alamitos Avenue feature a demarcated bicycle lane with dashed striping and green paint. People on bicycles continue riding straight, while vehicles must merge across the bike lane. This treatment improves bicycle comfort at intersections.

Alamitos Avenue Change in Bicycle Traffic Stress

Comfort improved along the corridor and at most intersections for people on bikes Units of Analysis Segment Intersection

S 17TH

15TH

T EIM S

ANAH

11TH

10TH

7TH

At intersections, the bike lane buffer is dropped and green paint is used to indicate bicycle position.

PCH

ALAMITOS AVE

Level of Stress Much More Comfortable More Comfortable No Change In Comfort Less Comfortable

Where possible, a dedicated turn lane is provided for right-turning vehicles, and bicycles must ride slightly to the left to continue in the bikeway.

Alamitos Collisions

before: 72 total | 4

S TAT UTE E RO

T TH S E 16

ST 17TH ! E

AV E

| 0

Buses But Not Bicycles

Collisions

x # Involving

ST 17TH ! E

Collisions Involving Bicycles But Not Buses

AV E

NGE

15TH ! E

Collisions Involving All Modes

ORA

UTE E RO

K ST

2 ALAMITOS AVE

S TAT

T TH S E 16

YOR

T TH S E 10

E HELMAN ST

H ST E 7T

BRA

Ò Ò !

11TH ! E

Other Collisions

W E NE

EIM

HAM E AL

VE JR A AH E AN

H ST E 8T

T IN

ING ER K UTH

Severe Collisions

NGE

2 ALAMITOS AVE

15TH ! E

ORA

Fatal Collisions

K ST

| 1

MAR

11TH ! E

H ST E 7T

46 total | 4

T TH S E 10

ST ! E HELMAN

after:

IA CT

Ò x1

YOR

LU T

W E NE

T IN

VE JR A CAD E AR

MAR

KING HER

EIM

x2 x1

| 0

AH E AN

H ST E 8T

Ò Ò

| 1

Ò x2

Collisions Involving Buses and Bicycles

Metro Bike/Bus Interface Study â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Final Report

Part IIB: Before-After Analysis

Alamitos Avenue: Buffered Bicycle Lanes Alamitos Avenue is located in the City of Long Beach, east of downtown Long Beach. The street is an arterial running north/south, with a study corridor that is 1.0 mile long between 7th Street and Pacific Coast Highway. The study corridor contains buffered bicycle lanes that were installed in April 2016. The buffer is approximately 1.5 feet wide between the general travel lane and the bicycle lane, as shown in Figure II-20. The corridor does not connect to dedicated bicycle facilities, but does connect to designated bicycles routes on Pacific Coast Highway and on Alamitos Avenue south of the study corridor. The study corridorâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s striping was altered to incorporate buffered bike lanes. Previously, the street had two travel lanes in each direction and parallel parking on either side of the street. With the installation of the buffered bicycle lanes, one travel lane in each direction was repurposed to create space for the bicycle facilities and a center turn lane. The study Figure II-20 Above: green dashed paint is used to show bicycle corridor has mostly residential land uses lane at intersections. Below: Typical design of the buffered fronting the street, with some businesses at

bicycle lane

intersections with major streets. Businesses on the corridor typically provide off-street parking, in addition to the on street parking provided. Table II-9 summarizes the characteristics of the study corridor. Long Beach Transit (Routes 71 and 72) provides local bus service on Alamitos Avenue. Bus stops are roughly evenly split between far side and near side of intersections. At intersections and bus stops where bike lanes are present, dashed striping and green paint are used to convey a merging area where bikes, buses, and private vehicles share space, as shown in Figure II-21. This merging area allows buses to pull to the curb to access stops and allows for private vehicles to turn right across the bike lane. According to City of Long Beach staff, the primary intent of the City Council directive to reconfigure the road on the study corridor was to increase safety. Staff analyzed different configurations that would allow the City to narrow the lane width on the street.

136

Metro Bike/Bus Interface Study â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Final Report

Previously the street had 12-foot lanes, which the City characterized as the same standard used for vehicles traveling 60 MPH. As Alamitos Avenue is a mostly residential street, city staff and Council altered the street to better fit the context of the neighborhood without altering the curb or street width. Although Long Beach Transit prefers a wider lane to ease bus operations, they

Part IIB: Before-After Analysis Table II-9 Alamitos Avenue at a Glance

City

Long Beach

Land Use Context

Residential with commercial at major intersections

Direction

North/south

Street Type

Arterial

Roadway Configuration

Four general purpose lanes prior to installation; two general purpose lanes with buffered bicycle lanes after installation

Median Type

None prior to installation; 2way left-turn lanes after installation

Parking

Parallel provided on both sides of the street

Bike Score

Walk Score

Transit Score

were approving of a 10.5-foot lane, which was the eventual travel lane width on Alamitos Avenue. In addition to improvements for people on bicycles, the road reconfiguration also aimed to improve pedestrian conditions by reducing vehicle speeds. Staff acknowledged that motor vehicle level of service worsened at several intersections along the study corridor, but the City was willing to make this trade-off in order to advance safety goals. Infrastructure People on bicycles and bus operators both preferred buffered bicycle lanes over sharing general travel lanes because the lanes more clearly define where each road user belongs on the street and reduce areas of conflict between modes. According to the online bicycling survey, people who ride bicycles rated buffered bicycle lanes as the second most comfortable bicycle facility after separated bikeways. Bus operators liked buffered bike lanes because it is easier to see when people on bicycles are present and there is an additional cushion of space between people on bikes and the bus. Despite buffered

bike lanes being highly preferred by both groups, Figure II-21 Green dashed striping indicates a merging area there were a few concerns expressed during the

for bicycles, cars and buses

focus groups as discussed below.

137

Metro Bike/Bus Interface Study â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Final Report

Part IIB: Before-After Analysis

Participants at the focus groups for people on bicycles stated that buffered bicycle lanes generally provide a high level of comfort. Based on the LTS methodology that was used for this analysis, the buffered bicycle lane creates greater level of comfort for people who bike between intersections and at intersections. People on bikes now have a dedicated space to ride on Alamitos Avenue where previously none existed, which increases comfort. At intersections, people on bikes continue to share space with right-turning vehicles, but now have a clearly demarcated space to ride at intersections, which better alerts drivers to the presence of people biking and the need to drive with care. Further separation of bicycles from motor vehicles could increase comfort, either in the form of a wider painted buffer or a vertical separation such as a curb or bollard (both of which would be difficult on Alamitos Avenue without further reducing travel lanes or removing parking). Bicycling behavior also became more conventional after the installation of the buffered bicycle lanes according to count data: previously 39 percent of people on bikes rode in the wrong direction and 78 percent of people rode on the sidewalk, but these numbers decreased to 13 percent and 26 percent, respectively, after the new bikeways were installed. These changes reflect that people on bicycles are now more comfortable riding on the street and more likely to ride in a conventional manner within the bicycle lane. Additionally, people on bicycles appreciated the extra space between bicycles and motor vehicles, including buses, which allows them to better avoid the â&#x20AC;&#x153;door zone,â&#x20AC;? the space adjacent to parked cars where an opened car door can hit a person on a bicycle, without riding in the general travel lane. Buffered bicycle lanes typically provide more space at bus stops to pass stopped buses. The buffered bicycle lanes also provide additional space to pass other people on bicycles without crossing over into the adjacent travel lane. Some of the concerns that participants had related to buffered bicycle lanes included motor vehicles using the bicycle lane as a travel lane and double parking, although the buffer can make it easier for a person on a bicycle to pass a double-parked car compared with a similar situation in a standard bicycle lane. Long Beach Transit bus operators who were familiar with Alamitos Avenue and participated in the focus group generally had positive things to say about the infrastructure change. Operators stated that they appreciate when there is a dedicated space for bicycles on a street, as this provides a more predictable location for people on bicycles to ride. The operators also said they preferred the additional space between their bus and bicycles that the buffer on Alamitos Avenue provides compared with a standard bicycle lane. For several operators, the presence of a bicycle facility is a cue that they should be looking for people on bicycles. However, some operators still had concerns about sharing the street with people on bikes, and noted that even with the new striping some people on bikes do not use the buffered bicycle lanes or zig-zag between the general travel lane and the bicycle lane. The operators mostly approved of the colored lanes, which they felt makes it easier to see on the pavement, but some operators were not accustomed to seeing green paint and therefore did not associate it with bicycle use.

138

Metro Bike/Bus Interface Study â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Final Report

Part IIB: Before-After Analysis

Safety Due to the recent installation of the buffered bicycle lanes, collision data was not available in SWITRS after the roadway reconfiguration. Instead, collision data for both before and after the buffered bike lanes were installed on Alamitos Avenue were provided directly by the City of Long Beach. The data represents collisions from May 2015 to March 2016 for the before period, and May 2016 to March 2017 for the after period. Long Beach Transit provided bus collision data on the study corridor for the months of May 2015 and May 2016, with one bus collision in each period. Total collisions declined by approximately 37 percent after the roadway reconfiguration, and there was no change in collisions involving bicycles (four before and after) and buses (one before and after). There were no collisions involving fatalities and one collision involving a severe injury for both the before and after time periods. Operations Bicycle usage on Alamitos Avenue ranged from zero to five people on bicycles per peak hour before the installation of buffered bicycle lanes, to zero to 20 people on bicycles per peak hour afterward. The increase in bicycle activity also reflects that people on bikes are more comfortable riding on the street after the implementation of the roadway redesign. City staff expect the number of people on bicycles to increase further when the lanes are extended further south on Alamitos Avenue, which will connect to both additional bicycle facilities and destinations in downtown Long Beach, a treatment which is currently being designed. Figure II-22 shows the bicycle facilities and bike connectivity near Alamitos Avenue. The street has moderate bike connectivity, with most of the connections to bike lanes and bike routes south of the study corridor.

Figure II-22 Bicycle facilities and bike connectivity near Alamitos Avenue

Long Beach Transit provided data on bus schedules and ridership for May 2015 and May 2016. While the frequency of bus service remained constant in both peak and off-peak periods, daily ridership decreased by 59 percent, from 270 to 170. There were minor alterations in schedule, but these modifications would not be expected to cause such a large difference in ridership and therefore the ridership decline remains unexplained. This study also analyzed OTP data from Long Beach Transit for the months of October 2015 and October 2016 at the time point at Anaheim Street, approximately equal

139

Metro Bike/Bus Interface Study – Final Report

Part IIB: Before-After Analysis

distance from both ends of the corridor. Weekday OTP increased after the installation of the buffered bicycle lanes from 77 percent to 86 percent. The change in OTP could be attributed to several factors: •

Changes in the schedule, making it easier for operators to meet their schedule

•

Reduction in private vehicles on the corridor

•

Reduction in bus ridership on the corridor, decreasing the amount of stops and dwell time for buses

There may be other factors that impacted OTP which are not present in the data available for this study and were not discussed at the bus operator focus group. Long Beach Transit was not able to provide data on bus speed or bus reliability. Daily vehicle volumes decreased on the corridor by approximately 8 percent. The decrease in vehicle volumes is likely due to the reduction in general travel lanes on the corridor, although capacity reductions from road reconfigurations vary based on the amount of left turns on a street. If streets are operating as de facto 3-lane roadways due to a high amount of left turns, the effective capacity reduction may be less than expected. In addition to improving left-turn operations, road reconfigurations can also reduce speed differences between vehicles, which can increase traffic flow 19. Some drivers may have chosen to travel on adjacent streets in the area, as there is a gridded network of streets with other options for vehicles traveling in the same direction. Summary of Key Findings The installation of buffered bicycle lanes on Alamitos Avenue led to the following notable changes in the study corridor: •

Sidewalk and wrong-way riding decreased significantly

•

The number of people on bicycles increased despite direct connectivity between the study corridor and other bike facilities. A future expansion of the bikeway to downtown Long Beach and additional bike facilities may further increase bike activity

•

Level of Traffic Stress for people on bicycles reduced along the entire corridor, including at intersections

•

OTP improved substantially

•

ADT decreased by 8 percent

Road Diet Implementation Guide. Federal Highway Administration. November 2014. Accessed: January 10, 2017. http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/road_diets/info_guide/rdig.pdf

140

Colorado Boulevard Eagle Rock Boulevard to Figueroa Street (1.6 miles)

Eagle Rock, City of Los Angeles

Corridor Context A wide road with three travel lanes in each direction was reconfigured in October 2013 to two general purpose lanes, with the third lane converted into a buffered bicycle lane. Community members worked with City staff to determine how safety could be improved on Colorado Boulevard, which resulted in the new buffered bicycle lanes on the corridor. This corridor has low connectivity with the bike network.

Focus Group Perceptions

Findings

>> People who ride bikes and bus operators prefer buffered bike lanes over no treatment or standard bike lanes >> When traffic is congested some operators may use the buffered bike lane to bypass traffic to access bus stops >> Reduction in number of through lanes impact bus operations

>> Increase in the number of people riding bikes >> Substantial decrease in the number of bike collisions and bus collisions >> ADT increased despite a reduction in general purpose travel lanes >> On time performance improved >> Bus speeds have declined somewhat but reliability has remained constant

before

after

No treatment

Buffered bicycle lanes

11'

17'

11'

Colorado Boulevard at Highland View Avenue

5' 4'

12'

17'

12'

12' 4' 5' 8'

Colorado Boulevard at Highland View Avenue

Colorado Boulevard before snapshot

after shapshot

Average Daily Traffic

27,040

before

after

Bus On-Time Performance

Metro Lines 81, 180, 181 & 780

31,790

Average Speed (Posted Speed Limit: 35 MPH)

No Data

21%

74%

79%

23 MPH

Daily Bus On & Offs

3,890

26%

3,730

Late On time /Early

Buses Per Hour

11 WB

12 EB

Bikes Per Hour

5 - 10

10 - 15

Wrong Way Riders

Sidewalk Riders

20%

19%

The typical design on Colorado Boulevard is a 4'-6' buffered bike lane with parallel parking, but the width of the bike lane and buffer vary in some blocks.

Colorado Boulevard Bus Reliability

Metro Lines 81, 180, 780 Lines 240,181 741,&744

Reliability changed minimally in either direction or time period after the corridor change WESTBOUND

PM COLORADO BLVD

EASTBOUND

Much Less Reliable

FIGUEROA ST

EAGLE ROCK BLVD

Change In Reliability

Less Reliable Minimal Change More Reliable Much More Reliable

Change in Bus Speed

Metro Lines 81, 180, 181 & 780

Speeds declined slightly in the eastbound direction during the PM peak hour 17.1 MPH

16.7 MPH

16.5 MPH

15.8 MPH

BEFORE

AFTER

17.6 MPH

17.1 MPH

17.7 MPH

16.1 MPH

EAGLE ROCK BLVD

WESTBOUND 134

COLORADO BLVD

EASTBOUND

Change in Mean Speed -3 MPH or More

FIGUEROA ST

-3 MPH to -1 MPH Minimal Change 1 MPH to 3 MPH

Change in Bicycle Traffic Stress

Adding bicycle lanes improved comfort along study corridor segments, but there was no change at intersections Units of Analysis Segment

R OA ST NF IGU E

MONTE BONITO DR

EAGLE VISTA DR

LOLETA AVE

TOWNSEND AVE

MOUNT ROYAL DR

ARGUS DR

MAYWOOD AVE

AR A VE C AS P

EAGL

E RO

CK B

LVD

COLORADO BLVD

Intersection

Level of Stress Much More Comfortable More Comfortable No Change In Comfort Less Comfortable

Colorado Boulevard Collisions (East end of segment)

AV SA

RO A ND LI

IEV GENEV AVE

VD BL

LA L OMA RD

| 0 x1

BL VD

RO A ND LI

Collisions Involving All Modes

Other Collisions

Collisions Involving Bicycles But Not Buses

VE NG A

6 AD

Collisions

x # Involving

Buses But Not Bicycles

LA L OM

R LO

VD BL

ROA

KIPLI

O N IT O DR TE B

R LB

MON

CO L

IEVE GENEV AVE

FR AD O

GLACIER

VE TA N A

T BLES S LO S R O

RIS

ICK ST HARTW

E ENA AV MT HEL

AV E

N FI GUE

LO L E TA

Severe Collisions

10 ST

VE NG A

ROA

BL VD

KIPLI

N FI GUE

| 0

F LO

Fatal Collisions

GLACIER

T BLES S LO S R O

VE TA N A

ICK ST

RIS

B OL

R OF RAD O L CO

O N IT O DR TE B

HARTW

F LO

E ENA AV MT HEL

AV E

after: 22 total | 1

Ò Ò x1 x1

| 0

MON

LO L E TA

| 1

before: 20 total | 3

A RD

Collisions Involving Buses and Bicycles

Colorado Boulevard Collisions (West end of segment)

Fatal Collisions

Severe Collisions

Other Collisions

Collisions Involving All Modes

Collisions Involving Bicycles But Not Buses

Ò x1 4

TOWNSEND AVE

VINCENT AVE

COLO RAD O BLVD

LA RODA AVE

GLE N IRIS AVE

SHE ARIN AVE

MAYWOOD AVE

EAG

CAS PAR AVE

HER MO SA AVE

LE R OCK B LV D

MOUNT ROYAL DR

LA RODA AVE

GLE N IRIS AVE

SHE ARIN AVE

MAYWOOD AVE

CAS PAR AVE

EAG

HIG HLA ND VIEW AVE

| 0

Ò Ò x1

COLO RAD O BLVD

MOUNT ROYAL DR

| 1

HER MO SA AVE

HIG HLA ND VIEW AVE

after: 22 total | 3

x1 x1

TOWNSEND AVE

ÒÒ

Ò ÒÒ

VINCENT AVE

x1 x1

LE R OCK B LV D

| 0

ARGU S DR

Ò Ò

| 6

ARGU S DR

before: 29 total | 5

Collisions

x # Involving

Buses But Not Bicycles

Collisions Involving Buses and Bicycles

Metro Bike/Bus Interface Study â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Final Report

Part IIB: Before-After Analysis

Colorado Boulevard: Buffered Bicycle Lanes Colorado Boulevard is located in the City of Los Angeles, northeast of downtown Los Angeles in the Eagle Rock neighborhood. The street is an arterial running east/west, with a study corridor that is 1.6 miles long between Eagle Rock Boulevard and North Figueroa Street. The study corridor contains buffered bicycle lanes installed in October 2013; prior to which there was

bicycle

facility.

The

buffer

approximately 4 feet wide between the general travel lane and the bicycle lane, which is 7 feet Figure II-23 Typical design of the buffered bicycle lane at bus stops wide, as shown in Figure II-23. The corridor indicates shared space between buses and bikes connects to standard bicycle lanes on Eagle Rock Boulevard, providing a nearly-continuous bicycle

Table II-10 Colorado Boulevard at a Glance

City

Los Angeles

Land Use Context

Commercial residential

II-10 summarizes the characteristics of the study

Direction

East/west

corridor.

Street Type

Arterial

Roadway Configuration

Six general purpose lanes prior to installation; four general purpose lanes and two buffered bike lanes after installation

Median Type

Landscaped or left-turn lane

bicycle lanes, one travel lane in each direction was

Parking

Parallel provided on both sides of the street

repurposed to create space for the bicycle

Bike Score

Walk Score

Transit Score

facility to downtown Los Angeles. The bicycle lanes on Colorado Boulevard continue west of Eagle Rock Boulevard towards the city of Glendale. Table

The study corridorâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s striping was altered to incorporate buffered bike lanes. Where the bicycle lanes are buffered, the street had three travel lanes and a raised median with curbside parallel parking on either side. With the installation of the buffered

facilities. The study corridor is surrounded by single-family and multi-family neighborhoods, but the western half of the study area is lined by retail

with

some

business and restaurants. Some businesses on the corridor provide parking in front or back lots, in addition to the metered or short-term on-street parking.

146

Metro Bike/Bus Interface Study â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Final Report

Part IIB: Before-After Analysis

Metro Local (Routes 81 and 180/181), Metro Rapid (Route 780), and LADOT DASH (Highland Park/Eagle Rock) provide bus service on Colorado Boulevard. Bus stops are located on the near side of intersections. At intersections and bus stops, the bike lane and buffer are discontinued and replaced by dashed striping, as shown in Figure II-24. According to City of Los Angeles staff, the community requested changes to reduce speeds and improve safety on the study corridor. City of Los Angeles Department of City Planning documents show that between 2001 and 2010, there were 50 collisions involving people walking and biking on Colorado between Avenue 64 and Eagledale Avenue, including two fatalities 20. LADOT repurposed a general purpose travel lane to a buffered bicycle lanes in each direction, maintaining the parallel parking. Colorado Figure II-24 At bus stops and intersection approaches, the bike

lane striping is discontinued and only a single, dashed line

Boulevard also provides good bike network remains

connections. The curb-to-curb width along the commercial area of Colorado Boulevard, which is about 96 feet curb-to-curb, allowed for conversion of a standard travel lane to a buffered bicycle lane in each direction. East of Dahlia Drive, the roadway narrows and the bicycle lane is provided without a buffer until the downhill segment beginning east of Eagle Vista Drive. Infrastructure People who ride bicycles and bus operators both preferred buffered bicycle lanes because the lanes more clearly define where each road user belongs on the roadway and also reduce areas of conflict between modes. According to the online bicycling survey, people who ride bicycles rated buffered bicycle lanes as the second most comfortable bicycle facility after separated bikeways. Bus operators liked buffered bike lanes because it is easier to see when people on bicycles are present and there is an additional cushion of space between people on bikes and the bus. Despite buffered bike lanes being highly preferred by both groups, there were a few concerns expressed during the focus groups discussed below. Participants at the focus groups for people on bicycles stated that buffered bicycle lanes generally provide a high level of comfort. Based on the LTS methodology that was used for this analysis, the buffered bicycle lane creates greater level of comfort for people on bicycles between intersections, but 20

Department of City Planning Recommendations Report. May 24, 2013. https://planning.lacity.org/cwd/gnlpln/transelt/NewBikePlan/Txt/DCPStaffRecReport_FirstYear_NE.pdf

147

Metro Bike/Bus Interface Study – Final Report

Part IIB: Before-After Analysis

there is no change in comfort at intersections. People on bicycles now have a dedicated space to ride on Colorado Boulevard where none existed, which increases comfort. At intersections, however, people on bikes do not have a clearly demarcated space to ride and must negotiate with buses and turning vehicles. Further separation of bicycles from motor vehicles at intersections could increase comfort and contribute to more uniform riding behavior. Nearly 19 percent of people continue to ride on the sidewalk, essentially unchanged from 20 percent, indicating that the introduction of the buffered bike lanes in this corridor was ineffective in altering this riding behavior. Participants stated that they like the additional space from motor vehicles, including buses, and that they are better able to avoid the “door zone,” the space adjacent to parked cars where an opened car door can hit a person on a bike. The buffered lanes also provide additional space to pass other people on bikes without encroaching into an adjacent lane. Some of the concerns that participants had related to buffered bicycle lanes included motor vehicles and bus operators using the bike lane as a travel lane and for double parking, although the buffer can make it easier to pass a double-parked car compared with a similar situation in a standard bicycle lane. Metro and LADOT bus operators expressed concern that many other motorists don’t understand the buffered bike lanes and often will drive in the bikeway for example. The bus operators believe that the buffered bicycle lane on Colorado Boulevard helps improve visibility of and expectation for people on bikes compared with the previous configuration with no bicycle facility. However, the operators were especially critical of the effect of the lane reductions on the western portion of the corridor where more drivers need to turn right into business parking lots or, further west outside of the study area, where drivers need to access freeway ramps. Queuing of right-turning vehicles forces bus operators to change lanes to continue servicing the route; although operators needed to do this previously, the reconfiguration has reduced the number of through lanes, which can make it more difficult to find a gap.

148

Metro Bike/Bus Interface Study â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Final Report

Part IIB: Before-After Analysis

Safety Overall, travel safety appears to have improved for all road users on Colorado Boulevard, with significant decreases in collisions involving buses or bicycles. SWITRS data suggest a decrease in the number of collisions occurring after the conversion of a travel lane to a buffered bicycle lane. Total collisions decreased by 8 percent during the 2-year period following the installation of the buffered bicycle lanes while overall ADT increased by 18 percent. In the 2-year period prior to the installation of the bike lanes, 49 collisions occurred on the study corridor, with eight involving people on bicycles. In the after period, there were 44 collisions, with the number of bicycle collisions decreasing by 50 percent from eight to four. There was one collision involving severe injuries in each of the before and after time periods, and no collisions resulting in fatalities in either. During the two years prior to the installation of the buffered bike lane, Metro documented seven bus collisions in the study area, concentrated towards the busier western portion where there are more businesses and driveways. In the two years following, only a single collision was reported involving a bus. Operations Bicycle usage on Colorado Boulevard ranged from five to 10 people per hour before the installation of buffered bicycle lanes, and increased to 10 to 15 people per hour afterward. The modest increase in bicycling along the corridor is possibly an indication that perception of safety has improved for people on bicycles through this portion of the corridor. For context, Figure II-25 shows the bicycle network

Figure II-25 Bicycle network connections near Colorado Boulevard

149

Metro Bike/Bus Interface Study – Final Report

Part IIB: Before-After Analysis

connections near the Colorado Boulevard study corridor. The study corridor has low bicycle connectivity, but does connect to bicycle lanes east and west of the study corridor, as well as bicycle lanes connecting to the south along Eagle Rock Boulevard. Transit service within the study corridor remained constant before and after the installation of the buffered bicycle lanes. An average of 3,890 trips per day were made from stops within the corridor, which decreased slightly to 3,730, or down about 4 percent. This decrease is possibly within the bounds of typical fluctuation. Daily vehicle volumes increased on the corridor by approximately 18 percent. The increase in vehicle volumes is possibly due to general growth in employment and economic activity since 2012 and corresponding general growth in traffic. The absence of the third lane did not deter motorists from using the street. Transit speeds decreased in the eastbound direction during the PM peak hour. This is the peak travel direction for motorists at that time. A reduction of a travel lane coupled with an increase in daily traffic would likely increase delay. However, there was no appreciable change in the variability of bus speed, suggesting that despite somewhat slower service, average travel times are no less variable than prior to the installation of the buffered bicycle lane. When traffic is congested some operators may use the buffered bike lane to bypass traffic to access bus stops. Summary of Key Findings The installation of buffered bicycle lanes on Colorado Boulevard had the following notable changes in the study corridor: •

Decrease in overall collisions, despite an increase in ADT

•

Substantial decrease in both bus and bicycle related collisions

•

Increase in ADT despite a reduction in the number of general purpose lanes

•

Improvement in OTP for buses

•

Motorists and bus operators have each been observed to use buffered bike lanes for through travel

150

Venice Boulevard La Brea Avenue to Arlington Avenue (1.5 miles)

Mid-City and Arlington Heights, City of Los Angeles

Corridor Context Buffered bicycle lanes were added in February 2015 to Venice Boulevard to extend the bicycle network closer to downtown Los Angeles. Bollards were installed on a short section of Venice Boulevard to discourage people from driving in the new bikeway. This corridor has low connectivity with the bike network.

Focus Group Perceptions

Findings

>> People on bicycles preferred the buffered bicycle lanes over standard bicycle lanes >> Bus operators stated that few people use the new buffered bicycle lanes, and some operators drive in these lanes to avoid congestion >> Reducing the number of through general purpose lanes affects throughput

>> Drastic reduction in number of collisions overall >> Sidewalk and wrong way riding are relatively low >> Number of bicyclists increased slightly, but bikeway not fully connected to DTLA >> Minimal change in bus reliability and speed >> ADT decreased by 20%, increase in bicyclists, and decrease in daily bus ridership

before

after

No treatment

Buffered bicycle lanes

12'

10'

12'

Venice Boulevard at 6th Avenue

6' 4'

12'

10'

12'

4' 6'

Venice Boulevard at 6th Avenue

Venice Boulevard before snapshot

after shapshot

Average Daily Traffic

32,890

before

after

Bus On-Time Performance

Metro Lines 33 & 733

26,970 33%

Average Speed (Posted Speed Limit: 35 MPH)

17 MPH

15 MPH

Daily Bus On & Offs

5,810

67%

5,710

Late

52%

48%

On time /Early

Buses Per Hour

12 WB

10 EB

Bikes Per Hour

15 - 20

15 - 25

Wrong Way Riders

No Data

Sidewalk Riders

No Data

18%

A person on a bike uses the painted buffer space to pass a stopped bus.

Venice Boulevard Bus Reliability

Metro 33 &744 733 LinesLines 240, 741,

Reliability changed minimally in both directions and time periods after the corridor change WESTBOUND

ARLINGTON AVE

LA BREA AVE

Change In Reliability

VENICE BLVD

EASTBOUND

Much Less Reliable Less Reliable Minimal Change More Reliable Much More Reliable

Change in Bus Speed

Metro Lines 33 & 733

Speeds changed minimally in either direction or time period after the corridor change 13.7 MPH

14.3 MPH

13.3 MPH

13.5 MPH

BEFORE

AFTER

14.4 MPH

15.3 MPH

12.4 MPH

12.8 MPH

LA BREA AVE

WESTBOUND VENICE BLVD

EASTBOUND

Change in Mean Speed ARLINGTON AVE

-3 MPH or More -3 MPH to -1 MPH Minimal Change 1 MPH to 3 MPH

Change in Bicycle Traffic Stress

Comfort improved along the segments where new infrastructure was installed, but did not change at intersections for people on bicycles. Separated bikeways further improved comfort over buffered bicycle lanes. Units of Analysis

4TH AVE

6TH AVE

SHA

TE R D

RIMPA U BLVD

VEN

AVE ARLINGTON

LVD

LA F AYE T

EA AV LA BR

VD E BL

Segment

LVD

NTE B

CRE N

VICE

SAN

Intersection

Level of Stress Much More Comfortable More Comfortable No Change In Comfort Less Comfortable

Venice Boulevard Collisions

BLV

8 !

Ò Ò

Severe Collisions

Other Collisions

2ND AVE

3RD AVE

4TH AVE

5TH AVE

TON A 6 T H VE AV E

HA VE 12T

NO R

1 !

2 !

5 !

3RD AVE

4TH AVE

5TH AVE

RTO NA 6 T H VE AV E

AVE 12T H

AV ON

ARLINGTON AVE

2ND AVE

BLV

BL VD AW SH EN

ICE

VEN

TTE

FAY E

E YA

1 !

6 !

2 !

AV E

I TA

SP L

LO M

VIN

W1 7TH

SR IM

PA U

B LV

AV E OD S LO N GW O

Fatal Collisions

RLE

4 !

W P ICO B LV D

W1 6TH CH A

x1 x1

1 !

x2 x3

4 !

Ò ÒÒ Ò Ò

| 1

1 !

3 !

AW SH EN CR

RD TTE

ICE

| 3

VEN

FAY E

AV E

E YA

W1 7TH ST

SR IM

PA U

SP L

I TA

HP L

6 !

AV E

RLE

23 total | 2

x1 x1 x1

S LA BRE A

CH A

LO M

VIN

B LV

OD S LO N GW O

Ò Ò Ò Ò

W1 6T

AV E

AV E S LA BRE A

after:

7 !

5 !

1 1 ! !

8 !

BL VD

W P ICO B LV D

x2 x3 x1

Ò Ò Ò Ò Ò ÒÒ Ò

ARLINGTON AVE

| 1

SB RO

before: 43 total | 11

Collisions Involving All Modes

Collisions Involving Bicycles But Not Buses

Collisions

x # Involving

Buses But Not Bicycles

Collisions Involving Buses and Bicycles

Metro Bike/Bus Interface Study â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Final Report

Part IIB: Before-After Analysis

Venice Boulevard: Buffered Bicycle Lanes Venice Boulevard is located in the City of Los Angeles, running east/west in the MidCity and Arlington Heights neighborhoods. The study corridor on Venice Boulevard runs for 1.5 miles from La Brea Avenue to Arlington Boulevard. The segment contains three different types of bicycle facilities: buffered bicycle lanes, standard bicycle lanes, and separated bikeways (otherwise known as Class IV Bike Facilities with vertical delineator separation from general travel lanes). The bicycle treatments on Venice Boulevard differ from one side to the other in several places. In locations where the street has a raised median, west

Figure II-26 Separated bikeway design used on Venice Boulevard

of Crenshaw Boulevard, each direction has different lane widths. Selection of bicycle treatment for each direction was based on the available right-of-way, which varies along the corridor. In locations where there is a buffered bicycle lane, the buffer is typically three to four feet wide, with a 5-foot wide bicycle lane. Standard bicycle lanes on the corridor are five to six feet wide. Separated bikeways on the corridor typically include a 7-foot bicycle lane with a painted buffer, six to 15 feet wide, and plastic bollards spaced approximately 50 feet apart. Figure II-26 and Figure II-27 show examples of separated bikeways and buffered bicycle lanes on Venice Boulevard. Figure II-27 Buffered bicycle lane design on Venice Boulevard

155

Metro Bike/Bus Interface Study – Final Report

Part IIB: Before-After Analysis

Each treatment is applied in the following locations, and shown in Figure II-28: •

Separated bikeways: Westbound between Crenshaw Boulevard and La Fayette Road (0.4 miles)

•

Buffered bicycle lanes: Between Crenshaw Boulevard and Arlington Avenue (0.6 miles); eastbound between Crenshaw Boulevard and La Fayette Road (0.4 miles); westbound between San Vicente Boulevard and Rimpau Boulevard (0.2 miles)

•

Standard bicycle lanes: eastbound from La Brea Avenue to La Fayette Road (0.7 miles); westbound from Rimpau Boulevard to La Brea Avenue and from La Fayette Road to San Vicente Boulevard (0.3 miles)

Figure II-28 Bicycle Facilities and bike connectivity on Venice Boulevard

The standard and buffered bicycle lanes west of La Fayette Road were installed prior to 2015 and are

Table II-11 Venice Boulevard at a Glance

not the primary focus of this study. The buffered

City

Los Angeles

bicycle lanes and separated bikeways east of La

Land Use Context

Residential and commercial

Direction

East/west

Street Type

Arterial

Roadway Configuration

Four to six general purpose lanes. Lanes were repurposed in some locations for the new bicycle facilities

Median Type

Raised median west of Crenshaw Boulevard, 2-way left-turn lane east of Crenshaw Boulevard

Parking

Parallel parking provided on some blocks

Bike Score

Walk Score

Transit Score

Fayette Road were installed in February 2015, which serves as the demarcating time for the before/after study. One travel lane was repurposed in each direction with the installation of the new bicycle facilities east of La Fayette Road, with the exception of the eastbound direction between La Fayette Road and Crenshaw Boulevard, where lanes were narrowed to accommodate the new buffer. The study corridor has low bike connectivity, as it only directly connects with the standard bicycle lanes on 4th Avenue and west of the corridor on Venice Boulevard, and few other bikeways are located nearby. People riding east of the corridor to downtown do not have a dedicated bicycle facility.

156

Metro Bike/Bus Interface Study – Final Report

Part IIB: Before-After Analysis

Table II-11 describes the general characteristics of the corridor. Venice Boulevard is served by Metro Local (Routes 33) and Metro Rapid (currently Route 733). Bus stops are located on the nearside and the far side at approximately the same rate. At locations where bus stops are adjacent to buffered bicycle lanes, the buffer is dashed, as shown in Figure II-29. In one location, eastbound at Crenshaw Boulevard, a standard bicycle lane is striped to the left of the bus stop and right-turn lane, as shown in Figure II-30. Staff

from

LADOT

stated

that

the

installation of the new bicycle facilities east Figure II-29 Dashed buffer adjacent to a bus stop (in this photo the of La Fayette Road are part of the bus stop is located adjacent to the bush visible immediately far side of department’s goal to create a bicycle

the driveway curb cut)

connection to downtown Los Angeles. With the new buffered bicycle lanes and separated bikeways, there is still a gap of several miles between Arlington Avenue (the easternmost extent of the bicycle lanes on Venice Boulevard) and downtown. LADOT stated they hope to extend the facilities further east, but the narrower right-of-way east of Arlington Avenue presents challenges. Staff stated that bollards (also called “vertical delineators”) were placed on the westbound bicycle facility between Crenshaw Boulevard and La Fayette Road after the design was unveiled Figure II-30 Standard bicycle lane striped between bus stop and because people were driving in in the

general travel lanes

bicycle lanes.

157

Metro Bike/Bus Interface Study – Final Report

Part IIB: Before-After Analysis

Infrastructure People who ride bicycles and bus operators both preferred buffered bicycle lanes because the lanes more clearly define where each road user belongs on the roadway and reduce areas of conflict between modes. According to the online bicycling survey, people who ride bicycles rated buffered bicycle lanes as the second most comfortable bicycle facility after separated bikeways. Bus operators liked buffered bike lanes because it is easier to see when people on bicycles are present and there is an additional cushion of space between people on bikes and the bus. Despite buffered bike lanes being highly preferred by both groups, there were a few concerns expressed during the focus groups discussed below. Participants at the focus groups for people on bicycles stated that buffered bicycle lanes generally provide an increased level of comfort over standard lanes. Based on the LTS methodology that was used for this analysis, the new bikeways offer a greater level of comfort between intersections for people who bicycle, but does not increase comfort at intersections because bikes must continue to share space with motor vehicles and buses at intersection approaches. The westbound segment between Crenshaw Boulevard and Lafayette Road, which received separated bikeway treatment with plastic bollards, saw a greater increase in comfort than the portions of the corridor that received buffered bicycles lanes. Segments on the corridor that did not receive new bicycle facilities did not see an increase in comfort. There is no data on bicycling behavior before the new bikeways were installed, but data from counts after the new bikeways were installed shows that both wrong-way riding and sidewalk riding is low, reflecting a high level of comfort on the street for people riding bicycles. Participants stated that they like the additional space from motor vehicles, including buses, and that they are better able to avoid the “door zone,” the space adjacent to parked cars where an opened car door can hit a person on a bike. The buffered lanes also provide additional space to pass other people on bicycles without encroaching into an adjacent lane. Some of the concerns that participants had related to buffered bicycle lanes included motor vehicles and bus operators using the bike lane as a travel lane and double parking, although the buffer can make it easier to pass a double-parked car compared with a similar situation in a standard bicycle lane. Some bus operators expressed concern that many other motorists don’t understand the buffered bike lane and often will drive down the lane. Operators were supportive of the buffered bicycle lanes on Venice Boulevard, and felt that the new street design did not hinder their ability to access stops and make their schedule. Unlike other corridors, where operators expressed concerns about general travel lanes being repurposed for bikeways, there were no comments about the reduction of travel lanes from six to four on Venice Boulevard. Operators stated that they did not see many people using the buffered bicycle lane, and have been observed to drive in the buffered bicycle lanes during peak periods to bypass traffic queues to reach a bus stop.

158

Metro Bike/Bus Interface Study â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Final Report

Part IIB: Before-After Analysis

Safety In the nine months prior to the installation of the new bicycle facilities on Venice Boulevard, there were 43 total collisions, compared with only 23 collisions during the nine months after the installation, representing an approximately 47 percent decrease in the number of collisions. There were two collisions resulting in severe injuries in the before period, and no collisions causing severe injuries in the after period. Between Arlington Avenue and Crenshaw Boulevard, where the new buffered bicycle lanes were installed, the decrease in collisions was even more pronounced, from 21 to nine, representing a reduction of over 55 percent. Counts were taken at the intersection with Crenshaw Boulevard, where buffered bicycle lanes are present. While hourly bicycle counts were similar before and after the separated bikeways were installed, collisions involving people on bicycles along the entire study corridor decreased from 11 to two, a decrease of 75 percent. The number of collisions involving buses decreased substantially after the installation of the new bikeways. In the nine months prior to the installation, there were 10 collisions involving buses, compared with only four collisions over a similar period following the installation of buffered bicycle lanes. In both periods, there was one collision involving both a bus and a bicycle. In both instances, the collision narrative provided by the bus operator states that the person biking initiated the contact with the bus. The collision in the before period occurred when a bicycle moved out of the standard bicycle lane into the general travel lane and collided with the bus. According to the operator collision narrative, the collision in the after period occurred when a bus was approaching a stop and a bicycle made contact with the bus when entering the street from the sidewalk. Both collisions occurred in locations where standard bicycle lanes were present. Overall, travel safety appears to have improved on Venice Boulevard, with decreases in collisions involving all road users. Operations Bicycle and transit usage remained relatively unchanged after the installation of the new bikeways on Venice Boulevard. Peak hour bicycle usage on the corridor ranged from 15 to 20 people in the before period to a range of 15 to 25 people afterward. Transit usage accounted for 5,810 daily trips in the before period and 5,710 trips in the after period. The change in street configuration had minimal impact on most bus service metrics. The number of buses remained consistent between the two time periods. Average bus speeds and variability remained similar in both peak periods. However, bus OTP decreased considerably, from 67 percent previously on

159

Metro Bike/Bus Interface Study – Final Report

Part IIB: Before-After Analysis

time or early to 48 percent after the installation of the new bikeway. On-time performance data is taken only for buses traveling westbound, as the eastbound time point was too far from the study corridor to provide relevant data. The decrease in OTP could be due to the repurposing of travel lanes on the corridor from three to two, which can make it difficult for buses to merge back into traffic after making a stop, and thus reduce OTP. The decline in OTP may also be due to factors on Venice Boulevard east of the study corridor. Based on the data available, the installation of the new bikeways appears to have had a mixed impact on bus operations on the corridor. However, despite some decline in OTP, the continuity in average speed and reliable travel times is reflected in the number of transit riders on the corridor, which is nearly identical before and after the new facilities were installed. Daily vehicle volumes decreased on the study corridor by 18 percent. This decrease reflects the reduction in capacity on portions of the study corridor from three to two lanes per direction. The volumes on the study corridor are similar to volumes further east on Venice Boulevard where there are also a total of four travel lanes. Summary of Key Findings The installation of buffered bike lanes on Venice Boulevard had the following changes in the study corridor: •

Large reduction in collisions for all vehicles

•

Increase in comfort for the segment where buffered bicycle lanes or separated bikeways were installed

•

ADT decreased by 20 percent

•

There was minimal change in bus reliability and speed

160

Metro Bike/Bus Interface Study â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Final Report

Part IIB: Before-After Analysis

Standard Bicycle Lanes

STANDARD BICYCLE LANES ANALYSIS

161

7th Street Vermont Avenue to Francisco Street (2.0 miles)

Westlake and Koreatown, City of Los Angeles

Corridor Context Bike lanes were installed at the request of the City Councilorâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s office in August 2011 to complete a missing east-west link in the bicycle network to downtown. A fourto-three lane road reconfiguration was necessary in order to accommodate bike lanes and maintain parking. This corridor has high connectivity with the bike network.

Focus Group Perceptions

Findings

>> Bus operators and people on bicycles felt that standard bike lanes are an improvement over no bike lanes because it provides a designated space to expect bicycles >> Reduction in number of through lanes impact bus operations

>> The number of riders increased substantially; bike-involved collisions rose only slightly >> Decline in total number and severity of collisions, butÂ bus-related collisions increased >> Average bus speeds and OTP decreased slightly, but ridership increased by 20% >> Reliability remained constant >> Number of bus related crashes increased

before

after

No Treatment

Bike lanes

10'

7th Street at Valencia Street

10'

7th Street at Valencia Street

7th Street before snapshot

after shapshot

Average Daily Traffic

20,600

before Bus On-Time Performance Before: Metro Line 26

12,230

Average Speed (Posted Speed Limit: 35 MPH)

No Data

After: Metro Line 51, 52 & 352

20%

22%

80%

78%

10 MPH

Daily Bus On & Offs

8,330

after

9,840

Late On time /Early

Buses Per Hour

18 WB

17 EB

Bikes Per Hour

5 - 25

5 - 70

Wrong Way Riders

No Data

Sidewalk Riders

No Data

34%

At stops, people on bikes were observed both passing buses on the left and waiting behind buses while they boarded and alighted passengers.

7th Street Bus Reliability

Before: Metro Lines 26, 51, 52 & 352 / After: Metro Line240, 51, 741, 52 &744 352 Lines

Minimal change in reliability WESTBOUND

FRANCISCO ST

VERMONT AVE

Change In Reliability

7TH ST

EASTBOUND

Much Less Reliable Less Reliable Minimal Change More Reliable Much More Reliable

Change in Bus Speed

Before: Metro Lines 26, 51, 52 & 352 / After: Metro Line 51, 52 & 352

Average bus speeds decreased in both directions in the PM peak period 14.4 MPH

13.6 MPH

14.8 MPH

13.3 MPH

BEFORE

AFTER

12.8 MPH

12.5 MPH

13.0 MPH

11.9 MPH

VERMONT AVE

WESTBOUND 7TH ST

EASTBOUND

Change in Mean Speed FRANCISCO ST

-3 MPH or More -3 MPH to -1 MPH Minimal Change 1 MPH to 3 MPH

Change in Bicycle Traffic Stress

Comfort improved along the corridor but did not change at intersections for people on bicycles Units of Analysis CO ST 110

FRAN CIS

BIXEL ST

LUCAS AVE

WITMER ST

VALENCIA ST

UNION AVE

BURLINGTON AVE

BONNIE BRAE ST

WESTLAKE AVE

ALVARADO ST

GRAND VIEW ST

PARK VIEW ST

S ER

OV HO

ON RM VE E AV

L EP HIR LS RE WI MO ST VE WE D A N LA

RAMPART BLVD

7TH ST

Segment Intersection

Level of Stress Much More Comfortable More Comfortable No Change In Comfort Less Comfortable

7th Street Collisions (West end of segment)

Ò x1

VE T RS

| 0

OO SH

W 7TH ST

Ò 3!

S LAKE ST

S GRAN D VIEW ST

x1 x2

S PARK VIEW ST

Ò Ò Ò

S CARON DELET ST

13 !

S CORON ADO ST

| 6

D AN EL OR TM ES SW E AV

T ON RM VE E AV

Ò Ò x2 x3

OO SH

D AN EL OR TM ES SW E AV

T ON RM VE E AV

after: 42 total | 5

W 7TH ST

S LAKE ST

3 1

S GRAN D VIEW ST

S RAMPART BLVD

2 S CARON DELET ST

Ò Ò x1 x1

Ò ÒÒ

Ò x1

S PARK VIEW ST

S CORON ADO ST

| 2

S RAMPART BLVD

before: 42 total | 6

VE T RS

12 !

Fatal Collisions

Severe Collisions

Other Collisions

Collisions Involving All Modes

Collisions Involving Bicycles But Not Buses

Collisions

x # Involving

Buses But Not Bicycles

Collisions Involving Buses and Bicycles

7th Street Collisions (East end of segment)

Fatal Collisions

Severe Collisions

Collisions Involving All Modes

x1 x1

10 !

Collisions Involving Bicycles But Not Buses

0 11 TE E1 10

x1 x1

Ò Ò

x2 x1

ST AT E

ER OU

T HS

LUCAS AVE

x1 x1

ST AT

S BIXEL ST

GARL AND AVE

HAR TFOR D AVE

WITM ER ST

VAL ENC IA ST

W 7TH ST

Other Collisions

S BIXEL ST

Ò x1

x2 x1

GARL AND AVE

HAR TFOR D AVE

x1 x2

Ò Ò Ò Ò ÒÒ Ò Ò Ò Ò VAL ENC IA ST

S WESTLAKE AVE

BEA CON AVE

WITM ER ST

S UNI ON AVE

| 0

Ò Ò Ò Ò x3 x1

S ALVAR ADO ST

S LAKE ST

| 12

S BURLINGTON AVE

x1 x1

S BON NIE BRA E ST

Ò Ò

BEA CON AVE

after: 53 total | 12

S BURLINGTON AVE

S BON NIE BRA E ST

S WESTLAKE AVE

S ALVAR ADO ST

W 7TH ST

Ò Ò Ò Ò Ò Ò Ò x3

COLU MBIA AVE

Ò Ò x1 x1

COLU MBIA AVE

| 9

S UNI ON AVE

before: 58 total | 8

T HS

Collisions

x # Involving

Buses But Not Bicycles

Collisions Involving Buses and Bicycles

Metro Bike/Bus Interface Study â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Final Report

Part IIB: Before-After Analysis

Seventh Street: Standard Bicycle Lanes Seventh Street is located in the City of Los Angeles, west of downtown Los Angeles in the neighborhoods of Westlake and Koreatown. The street is an arterial running east/west. The study segment is 1.9 miles from Francisco Street to Vermont Avenue. Standard bicycle lanes were installed in August 2011. Seventh Street also has bicycle lanes east of the study corridor into downtown Los Angeles, which were installed in October 2013. Previously there had been no bus or bike infrastructure on any portion of 7th Street.

The study corridor previously included four general travel lanes and parallel parking. In 2011, the study corridor was restriped for a single general purpose

Table II-12 7th Street at a Glance

City

Los Angeles

Land Use Context

Residential and small retailers

retained in the reconfiguration. Seventh Street

Direction

East/west

within the study boundary has mostly dense

Street Type

Arterial

Roadway Configuration

Four general purpose lanes prior to installation; two general purpose lanes and two bike lanes after installation

Median Type

None prior to installation; leftturn lane after installation

Parking

Parallel provided on both sides of the street

intersections and bus stops where bicycle lanes are

Bike Score

present, dashed striping is used to convey a

Walk Score

merging area where people on bicycles, buses and

Transit Score

lane in each direction, a center turn lane, and bike lanes in both directions. On street parking was

residential land uses and ground-floor retail fronting the street. Table II-12 summarizes the characteristics of the study corridor. Seventh Street is served by Metro Local (Routes 51 and 52) and Metro Limited (Route 351). A short portion between Hoover Street and Park View also includes service for Metro Local Route 603. At

right-turning vehicles share space, as shown in

Figure II-31. Figure II-32 shows a far-side bus stop with additional striping that guides vehicles turning right onto 7th Street. The striping is intended to help drivers position themselves for entry into the travel lane and to avoid driving in the standard bicycle lane. According to LADOT staff, reconfiguring the travel lanes on 7th Street was part of an initiative to add bikeway facilities in underserved communities. At the time, there were few other east/west connections available in the area. The recollection of the staff interviewed was that the project was implemented primarily to improve the bicycle facility network.

167

Metro Bike/Bus Interface Study â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Final Report

Part IIB: Before-After Analysis

Infrastructure Participants in the bus operator and bicyclist focus groups generally preferred standard bike lanes over no treatment at all. Both groups agreed that standard bike lanes alert all road users on where to expect people who bike on the roadway and provides guidance on where they should ride. However, both groups indicated that treatments, such as buffered or separated bike lanes, were preferred over standard bike lanes. No data is available on bicycle riding behavior before the bicycle lanes were installed, but Figure II-31 Dash striping indicates a merged area for bicycles, buses, and private vehicles at a nearside bus stop among the approximately 160 people on bicycles counted after installation, wrongway riding was recorded amongst 5 percent of people on bikes and sidewalk riding was recorded amongst 34 percent of people on bikes. Based on the LTS methodology, the standard bicycle lane increases the level of comfort

for

bicycle

riders

between

intersections, but does not increase comfort at

intersections

because

bikes

must

continue to share space with motor vehicles and buses at intersection approaches. Although

level

comfort

increased

compared to the street with no bikeway, the Figure II-32 Merging area at a far side bus stop level of comfort is still low, which is reflected in the high levels of sidewalk riding after the standard bicycle lanes were installed. Without data on riding behavior before the installation of the lanes, the study cannot say if the standard bicycle lanes changed riding behavior on the corridor. On a roadway with standard bicycle lanes next to parallel parking, like 7th Street, bus operators typically experience people riding to the extreme left of the bike lane to avoid being struck by a car door in the door zone of parked cars. This circumstance typically forces the bus operator to encroach on the center turn lane (or over the double yellow line if there is not a center turn lane) in order to safely pass a

168

Metro Bike/Bus Interface Study â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Final Report

Part IIB: Before-After Analysis

bicyclist. Some operators perceived that prior to the road reconfiguration, most people would ride bicycles on the sidewalk, which the operators believed was safer for everyone. Since no data is available on bike riding behavior prior to the installation of the bike lanes this perception cannot be confirmed. However, biking on the sidewalk introduces different safety concerns regarding pedestrians and visibility by motorists at driveways and intersections. People who ride bicycles also expressed concern that standard bike lanes can place them too close to parked cars, which can lead to being struck by a car door. Additionally, the online bicycling survey revealed 25 percent of respondents expressed discomfort riding in standard bike lanes, whereas 8 percent or fewer were uncomfortable riding in buffered, separated, or left-side bike lanes. Overall, standard bike lanes are an improvement over no treatment at all because road users are made aware of where people on bikes should ride on the road. However, this treatment does not provide adequate comfort for bus operators and people on bikes as compared to other treatments. Safety According to SWITRS data, the number of collisions involving all vehicle types across the corridor declined slightly after the standard bicycle lanes were installed. There were 100 collisions prior to the road reconfiguration, including 14 involving people on bicycles. Following the road reconfiguration, total collisions declined to 95. In this same time period, collisions involving people on bicycles increased from 14 to 17. As detailed below in the Operations section, observed counts of people on bicycles before and after the roadway change suggest that riding on this corridor has more than doubled. No bicycleinvolved collision in either period was severe or fatal. Travel safety for transit along on the corridor appears to have declined. During the two years prior to the installation of the bike lanes, there were 11 collisions involving Metro buses on the study corridor. In the two years following the installation of the bike lanes, where data was available, there were 18 Metro bus collisions on the study corridor. The increase was spread across multiple intersections, without any localized spikes. The types of collisions (sideswipes, turns, exiting bus stops) did not change noticeably after the installation of the standard bicycle lanes. None of the collisions involving buses involved people on bicycles. Based on the collision details provided by Metro, there is no clear relationship between the design of the bicycle lanes on 7th Street and the increase of bus-involved collisions. However, a greater degree of traffic congestion could have a relationship with more bus-car incidents. Collisions on any given corridor will fluctuate year to year, and the conditions on 7th Street could be monitored in the future to determine if there is, in fact, a pattern that is more clearly attributable to the roadway change. It is also important to note that collisions were significantly less severe after the road configuration. Two fatal and six severe

169

Metro Bike/Bus Interface Study – Final Report

Part IIB: Before-After Analysis

collisions were documented in the 2-year period prior to the road reconfiguration, whereas in the after period, there was only one fatal and one severe collision.

Collision Analysis at 7th Street & Vermont Avenue A more in-depth, case-by-case analysis was conducted at the intersection of 7th Street & Vermont Avenue. At this intersection, most bus traffic on 7th Street turns onto Vermont Avenue northbound towards the Red and Purple Line station (or buses heading towards 7th Street turn from Vermont Avenue). Prior to installation of the bicycle lane, only one Metro collision was documented. After the road reconfiguration and addition of a bicycle lane, there were three Metro-involved collisions, and total collisions documented in SWITRS increased from five to nine. Upon closer examination of the data, there is some evidence to support an issue related to increased congestion following the reduction of travel lanes. Operator accounts of incidents at this location suggest an increase in vehicles trying to “make the light.” Based on available turning movement counts at this location after the road reconfiguration, relatively

high

there

volume

a of

vehicles turning right from westbound

7th Street onto

northbound Vermont Avenue; the bus stop is also located at corner,

sandwiched

Vermont Ave

this

between the intersection and a driveway to a corner strip-mall. Aerial imagery of the location is shown Figure II-33. Broadside, rear-end,

vehicle-bicycle

vehicle-pedestrian

and

collisions

increased at this location.

7th Street

Figure II-33 The intersection of 7th Street & Vermont Avenue. Bus stop zone shown in red

Although a road reconfiguration adding bicycle lanes may improve safety and comfort along the corridor for people riding bicycles, this implementation features no additional intersection improvements, and collisions increased for all users. A similar volume of traffic was funneled into fewer lanes at an intersection where many vehicles are turning onto or from a major street. Moving the westbound bus stop on 7th Street eastward and away from the intersection, plus adding a bus boarding island with a diverted bicycle lane, could be successful to reduce conflicts. People riding bicycles would still face a major conflict zone with right-turning traffic at the intersection, including with buses turning onto Vermont. Additional improvements at the intersection, such as marked conflict zones through the

170

Metro Bike/Bus Interface Study â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Final Report

Part IIB: Before-After Analysis

turning lane, could better balance the capacity for right turns (and maneuverability for buses) with the awareness of and safety for people riding bicycles, most of whom are making a through movement. Operations Bicycle and transit usage increased for 7th Street, with a particularly significant increase in bicycle activity. Hourly bicycle usage on 7th Street ranged from five to 25 people before the installation of bicycle lanes to as many as 70 people afterward, which is up to a 180 percent increase. Figure II-34 shows the context of bicycle network connectivity near 7th Street. Although connectivity appears limited in the study segment, overall connectivity for the 7th Street corridor beyond the study segment is high; bicycle lanes continue east on 7th Street through downtown Los Angeles, linking the study corridor with many bikeways in the downtown core. Within the corridor, there is a signed bicycle route on Rampart Boulevard that intersects near the western end of the corridor.

Figure II-34 Bicycle network connections near 7th Street

Daily transit ridership in the study corridor increased by approximately 18 percent from 8,300 to 9,800. The number of buses per hour remained consistent between the two time periods. Average bus speeds for eastbound buses remained similar after the installation of standard bicycle lanes in the AM peak period. During the PM peak period, average speeds decreased by 1.4 MPH for westbound and 1.1 MPH for eastbound buses. Service reliability experienced minimal change in the after period.

171

Metro Bike/Bus Interface Study – Final Report

Part IIB: Before-After Analysis

Bus operators expressed concern that the reduction in travel lanes has substantially slowed bus speeds and affected OTP. While a decrease was measured for both speed and OTP, it is important to acknowledge there was an 18 percent increase in transit ridership, which could account for these changes. Certain transit agency staff were especially critical of the increased delay for bus operations following the road reconfiguration. The administrative staff had not been warned about the change and as a result, the schedule was not adjusted initially to accommodate increased traffic delay. Until the schedule was extended to accommodate the slower travel times, buses were consistently not on-time with their schedules. Only Metro OTP data was used in the analysis, so this perception could not be confirmed. However, the pattern described by these bus operators is similar to what was shown by Metro’s OTP data, when buses experienced a small drop in on-time arrivals. Despite the increased delays experienced by buses, bus operators did generally accept that streets like 7th Street and other neardowntown arterials should accommodate bike lanes in order to improve safety and visibility for the substantially higher rates of people riding bikes and to provide a designated space where all road users can expect to find people on bikes. Daily vehicle volumes decreased on the corridor by approximately 41 percent. The substantial decrease in traffic is likely due to the reduction in general purpose lanes as part of the road reconfiguration. 7th Street is part of a densely gridded street network, providing many alternate options for vehicles traveling east/west in the area. Summary of Key Findings The 7th Street reconfiguration resulted in the following notable changes in the study corridor: •

Bike usage increased by up to 180 percent, from 25 to 70 bicyclists counted in the peak hour

•

Collisions involving people on bicycles increased slightly, but at a substantially lower rate than the growth in riding

•

Bus-involved collisions increased, possibly due to increased congestion after the reduction in general traffic lanes

•

Collisions involving all vehicles, and severity of collisions, decreased along the corridor

•

While bus speeds and OTP decreased slightly, transit ridership increased by 18 percent

•

ADT decreased by 40 percent

172

Main Street Venice Way to Pico Boulevard (1.8 miles)

Cities of Santa Monica and Los Angeles (Venice)

Corridor Context Los Angeles implemented a road reconfiguration in January 2012 to add standard bicycle lanes connecting with an existing facility in Santa Monica; the City of Santa Monica updated the bicycle lane striping to include a small door-zone buffer without narrowing the adjacent travel lane. This corridor has high connectivity with the bike network.

Focus Group Perceptions

Findings

>> Bike riders felt that wider bicycle lanes and door-zone buffers in Santa Monica improve comfort and safety compared to standard 5â&#x20AC;&#x2122; bike lanes >> Bus operators know to expect very high levels of biking activity on Main Street and acknowledge the need for bicycle lanes. Bus stop zones are too short to pull parallel to the curb, leaving the rear of the bus angled out into the bicycle lane

>> Bicycling activity increased substantially >> 1-3% bike riders were observed wrong way or sidewalk riding >> Number of bike related collisions reduced despite an increase in bicycling >> Bus speeds experienced a minimal decline, while reliability fluctuated slightly >> Design guidance/implementation needs to provide adequate space for the context

before (los angeles part)

after (los angeles part)

No Treatment

Standard bicycle lanes

10'

Main Street at Brooks Avenue

10'

Main Street at Brooks Avenue

Main Street before snapshot

after shapshot

Average Daily Traffic

20,410

before Bus On-Time Performance

after Metro Lines 33 & 733

17,150 23%

Average Speed (Posted Speed Limit: 35 MPH)

No data

15 MPH

No Data 77%

Daily Bus On & Offs

1,770

2,080

Late On time /Early

Buses Per Hour

12 NB

9 SB

Bikes Per Hour

35 - 55

20 - 125

Wrong Way Riders

No Data

Sidewalk Riders

No Data

The door-zone buffer in the Santa Monica segment of the Main Street standard bicycle lanes improves awareness of the safe riding zone on a street bustling with activity.

Main Street Bus Reliability

Metro 33 &744 733 LinesLines 240, 741,

Reliability was slightly worse in the PM northbound and significantly better in the AM southbound SOUTHBOUND

PICO BLVD

VENICE WAY

Change In Reliability

MAIN ST

NORTHBOUND

Much Less Reliable Less Reliable Minimal Change More Reliable Much More Reliable

Change in Bus Speed

Metro Lines 33 & 733

Speeds were not measurably different after installation of the standard bicycle lanes 16.9 MPH

16.4 MPH

14.0 MPH

13.7 MPH

BEFORE

AFTER

17.5 MPH

17.1 MPH

13.9 MPH

13.4 MPH

VENICE WAY

SOUTHBOUND MAIN ST

NORTHBOUND

Change in Mean Speed PICO BLVD

-3 MPH or More -3 MPH to -1 MPH Minimal Change 1 MPH to 3 MPH

Change in Bicycle Traffic Stress

Adding standard lanes in Venice in 2012, as well as wider lanes in Santa Monica in 2013, improved comfort across the corridor Units of Analysis Intersection PICO BL

HILL ST

ASHLAND AVE

MARINE ST

ROSE AVE

SUNSET AVE

BICKNELL AVE

MAIN ST

OCEAN PARK BLVD

CITY OF LOS ANGELES

CITY OF SANTA MONICA

BROOKS AVE

HORIZON AVE

WINDWARD CIR

Segment

Level of Stress Much More Comfortable More Comfortable No Change In Comfort Less Comfortable

Main Street Collisions (City of Los Angeles, West end of segment)

| 0

x 2

ÒÒ x1

M A IN S T

Severe Collisions

WESTMINISTER AVE

SAN JUAN AVE

MA RKE T ST

BL VD D AN GR

WIN DWA RD AVE

NI VE

Fatal Collisions

NAV Y ST

2N D ST

Other Collisions

HA MP TO N DR

C RI

Collisions Involving All Modes

Ò Ò x1

Collisions Involving Bicycles But Not Buses

Collisions

x # Involving

Buses But Not Bicycles

x2 2

2N D ST MA RIN E ST

CITY OF SANTA MONICA

PA CIF IC AVE

| 0

Ò Ò x1

PA RK PL

| 3

C RI

BROOKS AVE

28 total | 9

WESTMINISTER AVE

SAN JUAN AVE

MA RKE T ST

WIN DWA RD AVE

BL VD D AN GR

after:

HA MP TO N DR

MA RIN E ST

CE VE

M A IN S T

CITY OF SANTA MONICA

CITY OF LOS ANGELES

NAV Y ST

CITY OF LOS ANGELES

RO SE AV E

PA CIF IC AVE

SUNSET AVE

x1 x1

SUNSET AVE

Ò ÒÒ Ò

PA RK PL

| 1

BRO O KS AVE

before: 19 total | 6

Collisions Involving Buses and Bicycles

Main Street Collisions (City of Santa Monica, East end of segment)

Severe Collisions

Other Collisions

Collisions Involving All Modes

Collisions Involving Bicycles But Not Buses

BI CK NE LL AV E

BAY ST

PA CI FI C ST

ST RA ND ST

MA IN ST

HOL LIST ER AVE

MI LL S ST

OCEAN PARK BLVD

HI LL ST

2N D ST

NORMAN PL

3 AS HL AN D AV E

PIER AVE

CITY OF LOS ANGELES CITY OF SANTA MONICA

MARINE ST

Fatal Collisions

ÒÒ

NE ILS ON WY

| 0

ÒÒ Ò Ò Ò ÒÒ Ò x1

PI CO BLVD

BAY ST

HOL LIST ER AVE

NE ILS ON WY

Collisions

x # Involving

Buses But Not Bicycles

x1 5

PI CO BLVD

| 1

KINNEY ST

36 total | 12

MA IN ST

MI LL S ST

2N D ST

NORMAN PL

KINNEY ST

OCEAN PARK BLVD

PIER AVE

after:

HI LL ST

AS HL AN D AV E

6 MARINE ST

CITY OF LOS ANGELES CITY OF SANTA MONICA

x4 x1

BI CK NE LL AV E

Ò Ò ÒÒ Ò

Ò ÒÒ x2 x1

| 0

PA CI FI C ST

| 2

ST RA ND ST

before: 49 total | 16

Collisions Involving Buses and Bicycles

Metro Bike/Bus Interface Study â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Final Report

Part IIB: Before-After Analysis

Main Street: Standard Bicycle Lanes Main Street is an arterial street located in the cities of Santa Monica and Los Angeles, several blocks from and parallel to the beach. The study corridor runs north/south for 1.8 miles between Pico Boulevard in Santa Monica and Venice Way in Los Angeles. The north 1.0 mile of the corridor is in the City of Santa Monica, and the southern 0.8 miles is in the City of Los Angeles. Standard bicycle lanes were installed on the Los Angeles portion of the corridor in January 2012 to connect with standard bicycle lanes that Santa Monica had installed several years earlier; in 2013, Santa Monica made improvements to the existing bike lanes. Bicycle lanes continue north of the study area, where they connect to numerous other east/west bikeways in Santa Monica. The southern end of the corridor connects to standard bicycle lanes on Venice Boulevard via standard bicycle lanes on Venice Way. Through the study area, Main Street crosses dedicated bicycle facilities on Ocean Park Boulevard, Market Street, Windward Avenue and Grand Boulevard, as well as bicycle routes on Bicknell Avenue, Ashland Avenue, and Rose Avenue.

Within the City of Los Angeles portion of the study corridor,

road

reconfiguration

was

Table II-13 Main Street at a Glance

implemented, with travel lanes reduced from two

Cities

Santa Monica & Los Angeles

to one in each direction to incorporate the bike

Land Use Context

Commercial and residential

lanes. A center turn lane was added and parallel

Direction

North/south

Street Type

Arterial

Roadway Configuration

Four general purpose lanes prior to installation; two general purpose lanes and two bike lanes after installation

Median Type

None prior to installation; 2-way left-turn lane after installation

Parking

Parallel provided on both sides of the street

Bike Score

private lots nearby in Los Angeles. Table II-13

Walk Score

summarizes the characteristics of the study

Transit Score

parking on each side of the street was retained. The portion of the corridor within Santa Monica has mostly commercial land uses fronting the street, while in Los Angeles there are a mix of commercial and residential uses. Businesses on the corridor typically do not provide parking aside from the on-street parking. Main Street is a robust active transportation corridor where many patrons walk, bike and roll their way to businesses. There are additional paid public lots to the west of Main Street in Santa Monica and

corridor.

178

Metro Bike/Bus Interface Study – Final Report

Part IIB: Before-After Analysis

Main Street is currently served by Metro Local Route 33, Metro Rapid Route 733, and Big Blue Bus Route 1. Bus stops are typically located on the near side of intersections. At intersections and bus stops where bike lanes are present, dashed striping is used to convey a merging area where bikes, buses, and motor vehicles share space. This merging area allows buses to pull to the curb to access stops and allows for private vehicles to turn right across the bike lane. In 2013, Santa Monica restriped the bicycle lanes to incorporate green markings for conflict zones at major driveways and at the Figure II-35 In Santa Monica, green paint is used in the bicycle approach to intersections and bus stops, as lane to highlight merging areas between turning vehicles, buses, shown in Figure II-35. The City of Los

and bicycles

Angeles portion of the study corridor does not feature the green conflict zone markings. Santa Monica has also experimented with a modified sharrow design at some intersections where the bicycle lane could not be carried through the intersection in addition to marked turn lanes. At these locations, the city has placed a sharrow stencil on the left edge of the right-turn lane, to indicate to drivers that bikes are expected to continue through the intersection. An example of this design is shown in Figure II-36. Sharrow stencils are also used by the City of Santa Monica in left-turn lanes to indicate that people on bicycles may use these lanes when turning, as shown in Figure II-35. Santa Monica has also developed additional striping changes in that portion of the study corridor. The standard bicycle lane includes a dashed “buffer” along the right side of the bicycle lane, adjacent to the parking lane, as shown in Figure II-37. The additional striping is intended to indicate to both people riding bicycles and people parking and exiting their vehicles of the potential for conflict. Although this treatment is innovative, it was not considered a “buffered bicycle lane” for the purposes of this study, because it does not technically provide additional buffer zone between the person on a bicycle and a passing bus. However, its presence was noted by participants in focus groups as discussed below. City of Los Angeles staff suggested that the extension of the standard bicycle lanes in the Venice portion of Main Street was in response to the citywide initiative to expand the bikeway network. Additionally, the LADOT staff was aware of high volumes of people on bicycles in the City of Los Angeles portion of the street despite the lack of any bikeways.

179

Metro Bike/Bus Interface Study – Final Report

Part IIB: Before-After Analysis

City of Santa Monica staff stated that the bicycle lanes on Main Street were originally installed around 2000 in response to already-high levels of activity. Since that time, the City has developed and largely implemented its Bicycle Action Plan, which dramatically expanded the network of bicycle lanes across the city and specified new design standards for green conflict zone striping and painted buffers where space is available. As part of the implementation, the City restriped the Main Street bicycle lanes with a small door-zone buffer by slightly reducing the width of the travel and turn lanes. The restriping was done in consultation with Big Blue Bus staff, who asked that the City not implement the originally planned 10 feet lanes because they were too narrow to accommodate buses. Ultimately, a compromise was made and travel lanes were narrowed slightly to 10.5 feet, with a 6-foot bicycle lane and a 2-foot door-zone buffer. Green dashed paint in the

Figure II-36 Narrow lane widths at certain intersections prompted

bicycle lane as it is used at intersection Santa Monica staff to test additional designs, such as this approaches

and

“green-back”

sharrow

through-sharrow in the right-turn lane

markings appear at intervals along the corridor. Infrastructure Participants in the bus operator and people who bike focus groups generally preferred standard bike lanes over no treatment at all. However,

both

groups

indicated

that

and parking

recent incremental improvements of green-painted conflict zones and door-zone buffer markings.

180

Metro Bike/Bus Interface Study – Final Report

Part IIB: Before-After Analysis

No data is available on riding behavior of people on bikes before the standard bicycle lanes were installed, but wrong-way riding was recorded among only one percent of people on bikes and sidewalk riding was recorded among only three percent of people on bikes after the bike lanes were installed. Based on the LTS methodology that was used for this analysis, the standard bicycle lane increases the level of comfort between intersections for people who bicycle, but does not increase comfort at intersections because bikes must continue to share space with motor vehicles and buses at intersection approaches. Sidewalk width on the corridor varies between approximately five and 12 feet, but the corridor has both a high level of pedestrian activity. Because there is no data on riding behavior before the installation of the lanes, it is unknown if implementing standard bicycle lanes changed riding behavior on the corridor. Incremental updates have been made in the Santa Monica segment since the original lanes were installed, including addition of green conflict zone markings and the somewhat unique door-zone buffer design. The LTS methodology does not attribute any increase in comfort for the additional paint; however, Santa Monica’s 2013 restriping increased the width from the left edge of the bicycle lane to the curb from approximately 13 feet to about 15 feet, giving a slight increase in comfort according to the LTS methodology. This change is reflected in our LTS analysis, but for all other data analysis on this corridor, the installation date is considered the 2012 implementation of the bicycle lanes in the Los Angeles-Venice segment. Operators cited a number of issues on the corridor they felt could be changed to improve bus operations. The operators noted that many bus zones on Main Street, both in Santa Monica and Venice, were too short to pull completely parallel to the curb, leaving the rear of the bus angled out into the bicycle lane. Removing one or more parking spaces at most bus zones would improve the safety and comfort for all users. Bus operators praised Santa Monica’s green conflict zone striping, but were also critical of the City’s use of sharrow stencils to suggest that people riding bikes should cross from the bicycle lane into the through traffic and over to the left-turn lane in order to turn. These pavement markings and movements into the left turn lane are permitted by the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) and California Vehicle Code (CVC); however, proper education is needed to maximize safety. The operators recounted specific incidents in which a rider has suddenly veered out of the bicycle lane in order to reach the left-turn lane without adequately checking for traffic behind them. Some bus operators believed that the use of 2-stage turn boxes instead of the left-turn sharrows would reduce the risks associated with people on bicycles turning left. People who ride bicycles expressed concern that standard bike lanes can place them too close to parked cars, which can lead to being struck by a car door, which is a particular concern on busy commercial corridors like Main Street. However, people who ride bicycles participating in focus groups praised Santa Monica’s door-zone buffered bike lanes, suggesting that this incremental improvement of standard bicycle lanes has a great effect on a street with short-term on-street parking.

181

Metro Bike/Bus Interface Study â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Final Report

Part IIB: Before-After Analysis

There is a bus layover area on southbound Main Street just south of Sunset Avenue which accommodates two buses. Buses layover at this location for 10 to 15 minutes at a time. Buses are unique in that there is no door on the left side of the vehicle for people on bicycles to be concerned about when riding alongside. The City of Los Angeles utilized broken striping at this location to indicate that buses crossover into the bike lane when accessing and departing from a layover. Safety According to data from SWITRS and Metro, there were a total of 68 collisions during the two years prior to the installation of the standard bicycle lanes in Los Angeles, and 64 total collisions during the two years following the installation. Considering only the City of Los Angeles section of the segment, collisions actually increased from 19 to 28. In the City of Santa Monica section, there were 49 collisions in the before period and 36 in the after period. Across the corridor, the number of collisions resulting in severe injuries fell from two to one, and there were no collisions resulting in fatalities either before or after. Bicycle safety appears to have improved along the corridor. During the two years prior to the installation of standard bicycle lanes in the City of Los Angeles, along the length of the 1.8-mile study corridor, there were 22 collisions involving people on bicycles, while during the two years after the installation this number dropped to 21 collisions despite an increase in the number of people on bicycles. On the portion of the corridor in the City of Los Angeles where the new lanes were installed, collisions involving people on bicycles in that segment increased from six to eight. However, considering the number of people on bicycles in the corridor increased, with the highest hourly count more than doubling, the rate of collisions likely decreased. In the City of Santa Monica portion of the standard bicycle lanes, collisions involving people on bicycles dropped from 16 collisions in the before period to 12 collisions in the after period. On the entire study corridor during the two years prior to the installation of the standard bicycle lanes, three collisions were reported involving Metro buses. None of the collisions involved people on bicycles. Following the installation of the bicycle lanes, there were four reported collisions involving Metro buses over a 2-year period, two of which occurred at the intersection with Sunset Avenue, which is a layover location for Line 33. Two of the incidents involved other motorists failing to observe stop signs on the side streets approaching Main Street. None of the collisions during this period involved people on bicycles. Collision data for Big Blue Bus was not available.

182

Metro Bike/Bus Interface Study â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Final Report

Part IIB: Before-After Analysis

Operations Both bicycle and transit usage increased on the corridor, with bicycle usage experiencing a significant increase. Bicycle usage on Main Street ranged from 35 to 55 people on bicycles before the installation of standard bicycle lanes in the City of Los Angeles portion and was 20 to 125 people on bicycles afterward. Counts were taken during the spring and fall to capture regular travel patterns, although bicycling activity may be even higher during the summer tourist season. For context, the bicycle network in the study area is shown in Figure II-38. Bicycle connectivity around Main Street is high, with the bicycle lanes continuing on Main Street both to the north and south of the study corridor, as well as several east/west bicycle lanes dispersed along the way.

Figure II-38 Bicycle network connections near Main Street

Transit service on Main Street shifted slightly between 2011 and 2012 from 12 northbound and nine southbound trips to 10 buses per hour in each direction, with transit ridership increasing 18 percent from 1,770 daily trips to 2,080. Average transit speeds remained steady for Metro buses after the installation of the bicycle lanes, although the travel time reliability fluctuated slightly. The reliability in the southbound direction in the morning improved substantially, while the northbound reliability in the afternoon worsened slightly. Reliability in the reverse directions was unchanged. There is no clear indication of why the service on the corridor changed during some time periods and not others.

183

Metro Bike/Bus Interface Study – Final Report

Part IIB: Before-After Analysis

Bus operators participating in focus groups generally felt that Main Street was one of the most significant places in Los Angeles where bus operators needed to be “on their guard” for people on bicycles and other active transportation modes. Both Metro and Big Blue Bus operators expected to interact with very high volumes of people riding bicycles on every trip down Main Street – often groups of riders four or five abreast. The diversity of people riding bicycles on Main Street was more mixed than most parts of Los Angeles, with bicycles that also have surfboard racks, tourists, local riders, and recreational riders all using the street at all times of day. Due to the high number of riders, the varying levels of familiarity with the area, and the range of confidence and experience of people riding bicycles on Main Street, operators expected service on Main Street to be slow. Participants acknowledged that the bicycle lane was necessary in a way that contrasted with other corridors where operators were more frustrated about losing road space for “only a few people” riding bikes. Daily vehicle volumes decreased on the corridor by approximately 16 percent. The decrease in vehicle volumes is possibly due to the reduction in general travel lanes on the corridor, although capacity reductions from similar reconfigurations vary based on the amount of left turns on a street as described in the discussion on 7th Street. Some drivers may have chosen to travel on adjacent streets in the area, as there is a gridded network of streets with other options for vehicles traveling in the same direction or may have opted to shift modes of transportation. Summary of Key Findings The Main Street reconfiguration resulted in the following notable changes in the study corridor: •

Bike usage increased by up to 127 percent, from 55 to 125 people on bicycles counted in the peak hour

•

There was a reduction in the overall number of bike-related collisions

•

Bus speeds declined minimally despite a substantial increase in bicycle usage

•

Bus operators felt that many bus zones are too short to pull completely parallel to the curb, leaving the rear of the bus angled out into the bicycle lane. Although this situation seems unsafe and may decrease comfort, there were no incidents or data that suggested an ongoing safety problem

•

People on bicycles felt that widening bicycle lanes and adding door-zone buffers, as was done in the Santa Monica portion of the segment, improve comfort and safety compared to standard 5 feet bike lanes

184

Pacific Avenue 15th Street to 1st Street (0.9 miles)

San Pedro, City of Los Angeles

Corridor Context Using Safe Routes to School funding, the City implemented a redesign of the street layout in October 2015, reducing motor vehicle travel lanes from 4 to 3 with a center turn lane and standard bicycle lanes; crosswalks and mid-block crossings were improved with new signage and lighting. This corridor has high connectivity with the bike network.

Focus Group Perceptions

Findings

>> People on bicycles acknowledge that standard bicycle lanes are better than no lanes, but also stated that they donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t substantially improve comfort or safety >> Bus operators have observed with the reconfiguration that transit speeds have noticeably slowed

>> Collisions increased slightly, although sample is small (3-month period) >> Bicycling has increased, but 44% were observed as sidewalk riding >> Bus service has increased and ridership more than doubled >> Bus speeds have generally decreased

before

after

No treatment

Standard bicycle lanes

10'

Pacific Avenue at 9th Street

10'

Pacific Avenue at 9th Street

Early/On Time Late

79% 21%

85% 15%

Pacific Avenue before snapshot

after shapshot

Average Daily Traffic

17,810

before

after

Bus On-Time Performance

16,590

Average Speed (Posted Speed Limit: 35 MPH)

23 MPH

21%

15%

79%

85%

20 MPH

Daily Bus On & Offs

1,460

Metro Lines 205, 246 & 950

3,220

Late On time /Early

Buses Per Hour

4 SB

Bikes Per Hour

0-5

5 - 15

Wrong Way Riders

No Data

Sidewalk Riders

No Data

44%

A bus is serving a stop at Pacific Avenue and 15th Street. At bus stops and intersections, the bicycle lane striping becomes a single, dashed white line to indicate a merging area for buses, right-turning vehicles, and people on bikes.

Pacific Avenue Bus Reliability

Metro Lines 950 Lines205, 240,246 741,&744

Bus reliability decreased southbound during the AM peak hour and improved northbound during the PM peak hour Change In Reliability

SOUTHBOUND

Much Less Reliable 1ST ST

15TH ST

PM PACIFIC AVE

NORTHBOUND

Less Reliable Minimal Change

More Reliable

Much More Reliable

Change in Bus Speed

Metro Lines 205, 246 & 950

Speeds declined slightly in both directions in the PM peak period 13.3 MPH

14.1 MPH

12.9 MPH

11.2 MPH

BEFORE

AFTER

12.6 MPH

11.6 MPH

13.7 MPH

11.1 MPH

15TH ST

SOUTHBOUND PACIFIC AVE

NORTHBOUND

Change in Mean Speed -3 MPH or More 1ST ST

-3 MPH to -1 MPH Minimal Change 1 MPH to 3 MPH

Change in Bicycle Traffic Stress

Adding bicycle lanes improved comfort across the study corridor, but there was no change at intersections Units of Analysis Segment

PACIFIC AVE

Intersection

1ST ST

2ND ST

3RD ST

4TH ST

5TH ST

6TH ST

7TH ST

8TH ST

9TH ST

10TH ST

11TH ST

12TH ST

13TH ST

14TH ST

15TH ST

16TH ST

Level of Stress Much More Comfortable More Comfortable No Change In Comfort Less Comfortable

Pacific Avenue Collisions

| 0

Other Collisions

W 1ST ST

W 2ND ST

W 3RD ST

W 4TH ST

Collisions Involving Bicycles But Not Buses

Buses But Not Bicycles

W 2ND ST

W 3RD ST

Collisions

x # Involving

W 1ST ST

W 4TH ST

W 5TH ST

W 8TH ST

W 9TH ST

W 10TH ST

Collisions Involving All Modes

W 6TH ST

W 7TH ST

W 11TH ST

W 13TH ST

Severe Collisions

W 12TH ST

S PACIFIC AVE

W 14TH ST

W 15TH ST

W 5TH ST

W 9TH ST

W 10TH ST

W 12TH ST

W 13TH ST

W 14TH ST

W 15TH ST

W 11TH ST

| 0

Fatal Collisions

11 total | 3

after:

W 6TH ST

S PACIFIC AVE

W 7TH ST

W 8TH ST

before: 6 total | 2

Collisions Involving Buses and Bicycles

Metro Bike/Bus Interface Study â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Final Report

Part IIB: Before-After Analysis

Pacific Avenue: Standard Bicycle Lanes Pacific Avenue is an arterial street located in the City of Los Angeles, in the South Bay community of San Pedro. The study corridor runs north/south for 0.9 miles between 1st Street and 15th Street, including through the Central Business District of San Pedro. Standard bicycle lanes were installed on the corridor in October 2015. Bicycle lanes continue south of the study area, where they connect to a bicycle lane on Shepard Street and West Paseo Del Mar. The bicycle lanes on Pacific Avenue also run parallel to bike lanes one block west on Grand Avenue and connect to a bike route with sharrows that transitions to a bike lane on West 9th Street. There are no bicycle facilities on Pacific Avenue north of the study area. The City installed a road reconfiguration, repurposing travel lanes from two to one in

Table II-14 Pacific Avenue at a Glance

City

Los Angeles

Land Use Context

Sub-regional downtown Commercial & Residential

Direction

North/south

Street Type

Arterial

Roadway Configuration

Four general purpose lanes prior to installation; two general purpose lanes and two bike lanes after installation

Median Type

None prior to installation; 2-way left-turn lane after installation

Parking

Parallel provided on both sides of the street

Bike Score

stops are typically located on the near side of

Walk Score

intersections. At intersections and bus stops,

Transit Score

each direction and installing a center 2-way left-turn lane and a standard bicycle lane in each direction. Parallel parking on each side was retained. Pacific Avenue within the study boundary has mostly commercial land uses fronting the street, with some residences. Businesses on the corridor typically provide offstreet parking, in addition to the on-street parking available. Table II-14 summarizes the characteristics of the study corridor. Pacific Avenue is served by Metro Local (Routes 205 southbound only and 246 both directions) and Metro Silver Line Express (Route 950). Bus

with

dashed striping designates a merging area where bikes, buses, and private vehicles share space, as shown in Figure II-39. This merging area allows buses to pull to the curb to access stops and allows for private vehicles to turn right across the bike lane.

189

Metro Bike/Bus Interface Study â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Final Report

Part IIB: Before-After Analysis

In order to address concerns about pedestrian safety, the City secured Safe Routes to School funding and determined that a road reconfiguration would be appropriate given the average daily traffic of less than 20,000 vehicles. The road reconfiguration was installed with the primary goal of reducing speeds on the street. The roadway redesign allowed for the inclusion of a standard bicycle lane. Infrastructure Participants in the bus operator and people who bike focus groups generally preferred standard bike lanes over no treatment at all. However,

both

groups

indicated

that

treatments, such as buffered or separated bike lanes, were preferred over standard bike lanes. Still, both groups agreed that standard bike lanes alert all road users on where to expect people who bike on the roadway and provides guidance on where they should ride. No data is available on riding behavior of people on bikes before the standard bicycle lanes were installed, but among the 48 Figure II-39 A typical bus stop, where the bike lane striping people on bicycles counted, wrong-way becomes a single, dashed line for buses and right turns riding was recorded amongst only 8 percent of people on bikes and sidewalk riding was recorded among 44 percent of people on bikes after the standard bicycle lanes were installed. Based on the Level of Traffic Stress methodology that was used for this analysis, the standard bicycle lane creates greater level of comfort for people on bicycles between intersections, but does not increase comfort at intersections because bikes must continue to share space with cars and buses at intersection approaches. Although level of comfort increased compared to the street with no bikeway, the level of comfort is still low, which is reflected in the high levels of sidewalk riding observed after the standard bicycle lanes were installed. Because there is no data on riding behavior before the installation of the lanes, it is unknown if implementing standard bicycle lanes changed riding behavior on the corridor.

190

Metro Bike/Bus Interface Study – Final Report

Part IIB: Before-After Analysis

People who ride bicycles also expressed concern that this type of design can place them too close to parked cars, which can lead to being struck by a car door, a collision also known as “dooring.” Additionally, the online bicycling survey revealed 25 percent of respondents expressed discomfort riding in standard bike lanes, whereas 8 percent or fewer were uncomfortable riding in buffered, separated, or left-side bike lanes. Overall,

standard

bike

lanes

are

improvement over no treatment at all because road users are made aware of where people on bikes should ride on the road. However, this treatment does not provide adequate comfort for bus operators and people on bikes as compared to other treatments. Safety Because

the

Pacific

Avenue

road

reconfiguration was implemented in late 2015, post-installation data available for collision analysis was limited. SWITRS data

Figure II-40 Typical bike lane design at a far-side bus stop

were available only through the end of 2015, limiting the “before” analysis period to July 1, 2015 to September 30, and the “after” period from October 1 through December 31, 2015. In order to make a consistent comparison, Metro bus collision data were also limited to this period. Prior to the street reconfiguration, there were six collisions in the study corridor for this three-month period, of which two involved people riding bicycles. Following the reconfiguration, there were 11 collisions for this 3-month period, three of which involved bicycle riders. The number of collisions causing severe injuries increased from zero to two, and there were no collisions causing fatalities in either period. With such a short analysis period, no reasonable level of confidence can be asserted for any patterns that could be discerned from the data. There were no Metro bus collisions on the corridor during either time period.

191

Metro Bike/Bus Interface Study â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Final Report

Part IIB: Before-After Analysis

Operations Both bicycle and transit usage increased for Pacific Avenue. Bicycle usage on Pacific Avenue ranged from zero to five people on bicycles in the peak hour before the installation of standard bicycle lanes to five to 15 people in the peak hour on bicycles afterward. Figure II-41 shows the context of the bicycle facility network near the study corridor. Bicycle connectivity with the study corridor is high; bicycle lanes continue to the north and south of the study corridor, and there is an intersecting bicycle lane on 14th Street, as well as signed routes at intervals crossing Pacific Avenue. There are also several bikeways immediately to the north and south of the study corridor.

Figure II-41 Bicycle connectivity near Pacific Avenue

Bus service on Pacific Avenue changed somewhat alongside the implementation of the road reconfiguration and standard bicycle lanes. In 2015, Metro replaced Line 450, an express bus route, on Pacific Avenue with an extension of the Metro Silver Line, a mostly-express service to Downtown Los Angeles via the 110 Freeway. The new Silver Line Extension featured a slightly higher frequency and single-seat rides to Downtown Los Angeles. As a result, the average buses per hour on the corridor increased slightly and transit ridership from these stops increased over 120 percent, from about 1,460 daily trips to 3,220. Bus operators generally had mixed feelings about streets that receive road reconfigurations. While the operators were in favor of people on bicycles having a dedicated space on the street, they were concerned about the loss of travel lanes which they felt would increase congestion and reduce bus speeds. Bus speeds along the study corridor generally decreased except in the southbound direction during the morning peak period. The decrease in average speed is in keeping with expectations for a road reconfiguration; buses must now wait for a gap in a busier adjacent traffic lane in order to exit bus stops. Bus service became slightly less reliable in the southbound direction during the AM peak, but improved in the northbound direction during the PM peak period. It is important to note there was an increase in average buses per hour and transit ridership increased by over 120 percent; these changes could account for the decreases in bus speed and reliability. Daily vehicle volumes decreased on the corridor by approximately 7 percent after the standard bicycle lanes were installed. Capacity reductions from road reconfigurations vary based on the amount of left-

192

Metro Bike/Bus Interface Study – Final Report

Part IIB: Before-After Analysis

turning vehicles along a street. On a 4-lane street, left-turning vehicles into driveways and side streets must wait in the travel lane for a gap in traffic, effectively decreasing motor vehicle capacity along the street as they do so. With a dedicated left-turn lane, left-turning vehicles no longer block a through travel lane. Left-turning activity was observed along the corridor, and this may explain why the traffic decrease observed was modest. In addition to improving left-turn operations, road reconfigurations can also reduce speed differences between vehicles, which can increase traffic flow, which help to offset the lane reduction effect discussed above 21. Some drivers may have chosen to travel on adjacent streets in the area, as there is a gridded network of streets with other options for vehicles traveling in the same direction. Summary of Key Findings The Pacific Avenue reconfiguration resulted in the following notable changes in the study corridor: •

While there is too little data available to confidently draw conclusions, the first three months of the new road configuration featured an increase in automobile crashes and a very slight increase in bicycle collisions

•

Bicycling has increased, but 44 percent were observed as sidewalk riding (no before data available)

•

Bus service has increased and ridership more than doubled

•

Bus speeds have generally decreased

Road Diet Implementation Guide. Federal Highway Administration. November 2014. Accessed: January 10, 2017. http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/road_diets/info_guide/rdig.pdf

193

San Pedro Street 87th Place to Imperial Highway (1.9 miles)

Broadway-Manchester and Green Meadows, City of Los Angeles

Corridor Context The City implemented a road reconfiguration in June 2013, reducing travel lanes from 4 to 3 including a center turn lane to create space for implementation of standard bicycle lanes. This corridor has moderate connectivity with the bike network.

Focus Group Findings

Findings

>> Both bus operators and people who ride bikes felt that the inclusion of standard bike lanes are an improvement over no bike lanes because it provides a designated space to expect bicycles >> Bus operators have observed with the reconfiguration that transit operations have noticeably slowed down

>> Collisions involving buses or bicycles remained low >> Average daily traffic remained constant >> Bus ridership increased by 12% >> Bicycle activity on the corridor remains low >> Slight increase in bus ridership >> Mixed effect on bus speeds

before

after

No treatment

Standard bicycle lanes

10'

San Pedro Street at 111th Place

10'

San Pedro Street at 111th Place

San Pedro Street before snapshot

after shapshot

Average Daily Traffic

10,850

before

after

Bus On-Time Performance

Metro Line 48

10,870

Average Speed (Posted Speed Limit: 35 MPH)

No Data

21 MPH

Daily Bus On & Offs

680

760

Late

40%

60%

On time /Early

Buses Per Hour

3 SB

Bikes Per Hour

0-5

0 - 10

Wrong Way Riders

No Data

18%

Sidewalk Riders

No Data

25%

A person on a bicycle waits in the right lane behind a stopped bus approaching Century Boulevard on San Pedro Street. At intersections, the right lane is marked with only a single dashed white line to designate a merging area for bus stops, right-turning vehicles, and people on bikes.

San Pedro Street Bus Reliability

Metro Line 48 Lines 240, 741, 744

Bus reliability improved in the northbound direction during the PM peak period SOUTHBOUND

IMPERIAL HWY

87TH PLACE

Change In Reliability

SAN PEDRO ST

NORTHBOUND

Much Less Reliable Less Reliable Minimal Change More Reliable Much More Reliable

Change in Bus Speed

Metro Line 48

Speeds declined slightly in the peak travel direction during peak periods 17.3 MPH

16.2 MPH

16.5 MPH

15.8 MPH

BEFORE

AFTER

15.3 MPH

15.9 MPH

16.7 MPH

15.4 MPH

87TH PLACE

SOUTHBOUND SAN PEDRO ST

NORTHBOUND

Change in Mean Speed IMPERIAL HWY

-3 MPH or More -3 MPH to -1 MPH Minimal Change 1 MPH to 3 MPH

Change in Bicycle Traffic Stress

Adding bicycle lanes improved comfort across the study corridor, but there was no change at intersections Units of Analysis Segment

S SAN PEDRO ST

Intersection

E 87TH PL

E 88TH PL

E 92ND ST

E 93RD ST

E COLDEN AVE

E 98TH ST

E CENTURY BLVD

E 104TH ST

E 108TH ST

E 111TH ST

E 111TH PL

E 112TH ST

IMPERIAL HWY

Level of Stress Much More Comfortable More Comfortable No Change In Comfort Less Comfortable

San Pedro Street Collisions (South end of segment)

E 103RD ST

E 102ND ST

1 E 102ND ST

E 101ST ST

E 103RD ST

E 104TH ST

E 107TH ST

E 104TH ST

1 E 105TH ST

E 108TH ST

AV E

| 0

S SAN PEDRO ST

1 E 101ST ST

E 105TH ST

E 111TH ST

ZIT

E 112TH ST

AN EL

E 113TH ST

E 111TH PL

x2 x1

E 106TH ST

Ò Ò

E 107TH ST

| 1

E 109TH PL

25 total | 2

E 110TH ST

after:

AV E

IMPERIAL HWY

2 E 109TH ST

E 111TH PL

S SAN PEDRO ST

E 109TH ST

E 111TH ST

2 E 112TH ST

ZIT

IMPERIAL HWY

AN EL

E 113TH ST

E 106TH ST

| 0 E 109TH PL

| 0

E 110TH ST

before: 21 total | 1

Fatal Collisions

Severe Collisions

Other Collisions

Collisions Involving All Modes

Collisions Involving Bicycles But Not Buses

Collisions

x # Involving

Buses But Not Bicycles

Collisions Involving Buses and Bicycles

San Pedro Street Collisions (North end of segment)

Fatal Collisions

E 88TH ST

S SAN PEDRO ST

E 87TH PL

E 91ST ST

E 88TH PL

E 89TH ST

E 90TH ST

E 92ND ST

E 93RD ST

E COLDEN AVE

Other Collisions

Collisions Involving All Modes

Collisions Involving Bicycles But Not Buses

Collisions

x # Involving

Buses But Not Bicycles

E 88TH PL

E 89TH ST

Ò x1

4 E 87TH PL

2 E 91ST ST

E 92ND ST

E 90TH ST

2 E 93RD ST

S SAN PEDRO ST

E 88TH ST

| 0

Severe Collisions

E COLDEN AVE

| 0

E 98TH ST

E 97TH ST

E 99TH ST

21 total | 1

E 97TH ST

E CENTURY BLVD

2 E 98TH ST

E 99TH ST

E 101ST ST

after:

E CENTURY BLVD

E 101ST ST

E 94TH ST

| 0 E 95TH ST

| 0

E 95TH ST

before: 25 total | 2

Collisions Involving Buses and Bicycles

Metro Bike/Bus Interface Study â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Final Report

Part IIB: Before-After Analysis

San Pedro Street: Standard Bicycle Lanes San Pedro Street is an arterial in the City of Los Angeles, specifically South Los Angeles. The study corridor runs between the neighborhoods of Broadway-Manchester and Green Meadows for 1.9 miles from 87th Place to Imperial Highway. Standard bicycle lanes were installed on the corridor in June 2013. The corridor connects to standard bicycle lanes on East 98th Street and a bicycle route on East 108th Street. Bicycle lanes continue south of the study area for half a mile, where they connect to bike lanes on East 120th Street. There are no bicycle facilities on San Pedro north of the study corridor.

The City reconfigured the road on San Pedro

Table II-15 San Pedro Street at a Glance

Street, which previously had two travel lanes in

City

Los Angeles

Land Use Context

Mostly Residential with some and Neighborhood Commercial

repurposed to create space for the bicycle

Direction

North/south

facilities and a left-turn lane, and parking was

Street Type

Neighborhood

Roadway Configuration

Four general purpose lanes prior to installation; two general purpose lanes and two bike lanes after installation

Median Type

None prior to installation; 2-way left-turn lane after installation

Parking

Parallel provided on both sides of the street

Bike Score

48. Bus stops are located on the near side of

Walk Score

intersections and mid-block at approximately the

Transit Score

each direction and parallel parking on either side of the street. With the installation of the bicycle lanes, one travel lane in each direction was

retained. San Pedro Street within the study boundary has mostly residential land uses fronting the street, with several schools and some businesses at intersections. Businesses on the corridor typically provide off-street parking, in addition to the on-street parking provided. Table II-15 summarizes the characteristics of the study corridor. San Pedro Street is served by Metro Local Route

same rate. At intersections and bus stops, dashed striping designates a merging area where bikes, buses, and private vehicles share space, as shown in Figure II-42. This merging area allows buses to pull to the curb to access stops and allows for private vehicles to turn right across the bike lane. The city implemented standard bicycle lanes on San Pedro Street in order to rapidly expand the citywide bicycle network utilizing streets that could be reconfigured based on low average daily traffic.

199

Metro Bike/Bus Interface Study â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Final Report

Part IIB: Before-After Analysis

Infrastructure Participants in the bus operator and people who bike focus groups generally preferred standard bike lanes over no treatment at all. However, both groups indicated that treatments, such as buffered or separated bike lanes, were preferred over standard bike lanes. Still, both groups agreed that standard bike lanes alert all road users on where to expect people who bike on the roadway and provides guidance on where they should ride. No data is available on riding behavior of people on bikes before the standard bicycle lanes were installed, but after standard bicycle lanes were installed, wrong-way riding was recorded amongst 18 percent of people on bikes and sidewalk riding was recorded among 25 percent of people on bikes. Based on the LTS methodology that was used for this analysis, the standard bicycle lane creates greater level of comfort for people who bike between intersections, but

does

not

increase

comfort

intersections, because bikes must continue to share space with motor vehicles and buses at intersection approaches. Although

Figure II-42 Above: Dash striping indicates a merged area for

level of comfort increased compared to the bicycles, buses, and private vehicles. Below: Bicycle lanes are street with no bikeway, relatively small delineated with a solid white line approaching the intersection, and dashing striping is used closer to the intersection to indicate

increases in people on bicycles and about a where buses and vehicles should merge to turn or access the stop quarter of people riding on the sidewalk suggest that comfort along the corridor remains low. Because there is no data on riding behavior before the installation of the lanes, it is unknown if implementing standard bicycle lanes changed riding behavior on the corridor.

200

Metro Bike/Bus Interface Study – Final Report

Part IIB: Before-After Analysis

standard

bike

lanes

are

2-year

period

following

the

reconfiguration of the roadway. In both the 2-year period before and after the road Figure II-43 Typical design of the bike lane on San Pedro Street reconfiguration, 46 collisions occurred on the study corridor, with three involving people on bicycles in each period. In the 2-year period prior to the installation of the bicycle lanes, there were no collisions documented involving Metro buses in the study area. During the two years following the installation of the bicycle lanes, one minor collision was documented involving a bus making a right turn at the intersection of San Pedro Street & Imperial Highway. The collision involving the bus did not also involve people on bicycles. Travel safety for people on bicycles and transit appears to have remained relatively unchanged after the installation of the standard bicycle lanes. However, collisions for other road users increased notably, although the data does not indicate why this may have occurred. It is also important to note that collisions were less severe after the road reconfiguration. Two fatal and four severe collisions were documented in the 2-year period prior to the road reconfiguration, whereas in the after period, there were no fatal collisions and only three severe collisions.

201

Metro Bike/Bus Interface Study â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Final Report

Part IIB: Before-After Analysis

Operations Both bicycle and transit usage experienced minimal increases. Bicycle usage on San Pedro Street ranged from zero to five people on bicycles before the installation of standard bicycle lanes to zero to 10 people on bicycles afterward. For context, the bicycle facility network near San Pedro Street is shown in Figure II-44. Bicycle network connectivity is moderate in this area, with lanes continuing to the north and south of the study area, and east/west bicycle lanes provided on several cross-streets.

Figure II-44 Bicycle network and connectivity near San Pedro Street

Bus service on San Pedro Street remained essentially the same after the road configuration, with a similar number of buses per hour; transit ridership rose approximately 12 percent from 680 to 760 trips. Bus operators had mixed feelings about streets that had travel lanes repurposed to accommodate bicycle lanes. While the operators were in favor of bicycles having a dedicated space on the street, they were concerned about the loss of travel lanes, which they felt would increase congestion and reduce bus speeds. This concern was reflected in data collected for bus travel speeds. Bus speeds declined somewhat in the southbound direction during the AM peak period and the northbound direction in the PM peak period. Despite decreases in bus speeds, service reliability was slightly better northbound in the PM peak period but unchanged otherwise. Daily vehicle volumes on the corridor remained steady at approximately 10,900 vehicles per day after installation of the road reconfiguration. As the street was serving low volumes of vehicles in relation to its capacity, the reduction in capacity did not change the ability of the street to serve the existing demand.

202

Metro Bike/Bus Interface Study – Final Report

Part IIB: Before-After Analysis

Summary of Key Findings The San Pedro Street reconfiguration resulted in the following notable changes in the study corridor: •

Average daily traffic remained constant

•

Bus ridership increased by 12 percent

•

Bicycle usage increased from zero-to-five bicyclists per peak hour to zero-to-10 bicyclists per peak hour

•

There was a mixed effect on bus speeds

203

Van Nuys Boulevard Nordhoff Street to Beachy Avenue (1.3 miles)

Arleta and Panorama City, City of Los Angeles

Corridor Context Standard bicycle lanes were installed in April 2013 on Van Nuys Boulevard as part of the goal to expand the bikeway network in the City of Los Angeles. Van Nuys Boulevard was chosen in part because bicycle lanes could be installed without removing parking or general travel lanes. This corridor has moderate connectivity with the bike network.

Focus Group Perceptions

Findings

>> Standard bicycle lanes are an improvement over previous configuration, but would benefit from door zone buffer and green conflict zone markings >> Bus operators expressed frustration that the restriping on Van Nuys Boulevard was not used to lengthen stops, which would make it easier to pull in and out; additionally, narrower lanes may increase number of collisions

>> Slight increase in number of people biking, but sidewalk riding is high >> Number of bicycle collisions decreased >> Number of bus collisions increased slightly

before

after

No treatment

Standard bicycle lanes

16'

11'

10'

11'

16'

Van Nuys Boulevard at Plummer Street

10.5'

12'

10.5'

Van Nuys Boulevard at Plummer Street

Van Nuys Boulevard before snapshot

after shapshot

Average Daily Traffic

28,030

before Bus On-Time Performance

17%

19%

83%

81%

20 MPH

Daily Bus On & Offs

6,080

Metro Lines 233, 744 & 788

32,630

Average Speed (Posted Speed Limit: 35 MPH)

No Data

after

5,480

Late On time /Early

Buses Per Hour

10 SB

Bikes Per Hour

5 - 10

5 - 20

Wrong Way Riders

No Data

10%

Sidewalk Riders

No Data

70%

The standard bicycle lane becomes a simple dashed line at intersection approaches and bus stops.

Van Nuys Boulevard Bus Reliability

Metro Lines 788 Lines233, 240,744 741,&744

Reliability decreased slightly northbound in the AM peak period, but changed minimally otherwise. SOUTHBOUND

BEACHY AVE

NORDHOFF ST

Change In Reliability

VAN NUYS BLVD

NORTHBOUND

Much Less Reliable Less Reliable Minimal Change More Reliable Much More Reliable

Change in Bus Speed

Metro Lines 233, 744 & 788

Bus speeds increased in the AM period for northbound buses but changed minimally during other time period and directions. 13.3 MPH

12.4 MPH

13.1 MPH

12.8 MPH

BEFORE

AFTER

13.2 MPH

14.7 MPH

12.4 MPH

12.8 MPH

NORDHOFF ST

SOUTHBOUND VAN NUYS BLVD

NORTHBOUND

Change in Mean Speed BEACHY AVE

-3 MPH or More -3 MPH to -1 MPH Minimal Change 1 MPH to 3 MPH

Change in Bicycle Traffic Stress

Comfort improved along the corridor but did not change at intersections. UR Y

Segment

Intersection

Level of Stress

CA N

AN W OO DM

Much More Comfortable

AC BE

ST FF

AV E

PER

BLV

PLU

TUP

VAN

UYS

AV E

Units of Analysis

More Comfortable No Change In Comfort Less Comfortable

Van Nuys Boulevard Collisions

BEA AV CHY E

12 VA

VIC NO

T ES

Ò x1

NN UY

SB LV D

YS T

Ò x1 7 E AV

BU CA

T RS

Other Collisions

Collisions Involving All Modes

Ò x2

x2 x1

Severe Collisions

E AV

Ò Ò

Fatal Collisions

BU NT CA

ÒÒ

HIL

T FS

F HO RD

| 0

ED GL ST

VIN

x1 x1

T RS

| 5

Ò Ò

after: 69 total | 4

IA OB

Ò x1

SB LV D

Ò x2

NN UY

YS T

Collisions Involving Bicycles But Not Buses

Collisions

x # Involving

Buses But Not Bicycles

BEA AV CHY E

L HIL

ED GL ST

VIN

x1 x1

T ES VIC NO

Ò Ò Ò Ò Ò

FF HO

RD NO

S BIA

| 3

before: 68 total | 10

Collisions Involving Buses and Bicycles

Metro Bike/Bus Interface Study â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Final Report

Part IIB: Before-After Analysis

Van Nuys Boulevard: Standard Bicycle Lanes Van Nuys Boulevard is an arterial street located in the City of Los Angeles, in the eastern San Fernando Valley. The study corridor runs through the neighborhoods of Arleta and Panorama City for 1.3 miles from Nordhoff Street to Beachy Avenue. The street runs north/south between Nordhoff Street and Vesper Avenue, then turns and travels northeast/southwest from Vesper Avenue and Beachy Avenue. The study corridor is also being considered for the East San Fernando Valley Transit Corridor project, which would operate along Van Nuys Boulevard from the Van Nuys Metro Orange Line Station to San Fernando Road. Standard bicycle lanes were installed on the corridor in April 2013. The corridor connects to standard bicycle lanes south of Nordhoff Street, and standard bicycle lanes on cross streets at Nordhoff Street and Woodman Avenue. There are no bicycle facilities on Van Nuys Boulevard north of the study corridor.

The study corridorâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s travel lane configuration was not changed with the installation of the standard

Table II-16 Van Nuys Boulevard at a Glance

City

Los Angeles

center turn lane, and parallel parking on the

Land Use Context

Neighborhood Commercial & Residential

corridor. Previously the street had wide outside

Direction

North/south

Street Type

Arterial

Roadway Configuration

Four lanes before and after with standard bicycle lanes after

Median Type

Center 2-way left-turn lane

Parking

Parallel provided on both sides of the street

Table II-16 summarizes the characteristics of the

Bike Score

study corridor.

Walk Score

Van Nuys Boulevard is served by Metro Local

Transit Score

bicycle lanes: the street offers four travel lanes, a

lanes, which were narrowed to accommodate the standard bicycle lanes. Van Nuys Boulevard within the study boundary has mostly residential land uses fronting the street, with some businesses at intersections with major streets. Businesses on the corridor

typically

provide

off-street

parking

supplementing the available on-street parking.

(Route 233), and Metro Rapid (Routes 744 and 788). Bus stops are located on the near side and far side of intersections at approximately the same rate. At intersections and bus stops where standard bicycle lanes are present, dashed striping designates a merging area where bicycles and buses (and at nearside stops also private vehicles turning right) share space, as shown in Figure II-45. This merging area allows buses to pull to the curb to access stops and allows for private vehicles to turn right across the bike lane.

208

Metro Bike/Bus Interface Study â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Final Report

Part IIB: Before-After Analysis

LADOT staff stated that the standard bicycle lane on Van Nuys Boulevard was installed as part of an initiative to expand the bikeway network in the City. As Van Nuys Boulevard had enough space to add a standard bicycle lane without repurposing general travel lanes or parking, it was a street where bicycle comfort could be increased without repurposing other facilities on the street, according to LADOT staff. Although the main purpose of the lanes was to improve the corridor for people on bikes, staff from LADOT Figure II-45 A dashed line indicates that buses may cross into

the edge line to access a stop. Bicycles are permitted to ride

also stated the lanes should help slow traffic and between the edge line and the curb. Parking is permitted immediately adjacent to the bus stop, which operators felt

increase safety. Other treatment types were not makes it difficult to fully pull into and out of stops with considered for this corridor because they would articulated buses include the removal of parking and/or travel lanes, which was not deemed practical at the time for this corridor. Infrastructure Participants in the bus operator and people who bike focus groups generally preferred standard bike lanes over no treatment at all. However, both groups indicated that other treatments, such as buffered bicycle lanes or separated bikeways, were preferred over standard bike lanes. Still, both groups agreed that standard bike lanes alert all road users on where to expect people who bike on the roadway and provides guidance on where they should ride. No data is available on riding behavior of people on bikes before the standard bicycle lanes were installed, but wrong-way riding was recorded amongst only 10 percent of people on bikes and sidewalk riding was recorded among 70 percent of people on bikes after the standard bicycle lanes were installed. Based on the LTS methodology that was used for this analysis, the standard bicycle lane creates greater level of comfort for people who bike between intersections, but does not increase comfort at intersections because bikes must continue to share space with motor vehicles and buses at intersection approaches. Although level of comfort increased compared with when the street had no bikeway, the level of comfort is still low, which is supported by the high levels of sidewalk riding observed after the standard bicycle lanes were installed. The sidewalk is narrow in most locations, approximately five feet, but may still provide a more comfortable place to ride because pedestrian activity on the corridor is generally low. Both the relatively high auto volumes and high speed limit, 35 MPH, contribute to the low level of comfort on Van Nuys Boulevard. However, because there is no data on riding behavior before

209

Metro Bike/Bus Interface Study – Final Report

Part IIB: Before-After Analysis

the installation of the lanes, it is unknown whether implementing standard bicycle lanes affected riding behavior on the corridor. Operators felt that Van Nuys Boulevard was a difficult corridor to drive on due to the high level of general activity on the corridor. Operators said that the corridor had a lot of activity that they needed to be aware of, particularly because there are a lot of driveways that vehicles are pulling in and out of along the street. In order to minimize confusion between operators and people on bicycles, operators stated in the focus group for Van Nuys Boulevard that they would like the City to use green paint to differentiate bicycle lanes, and pointed towards Reseda Boulevard as an example of effective use of green-painted conflict areas. Operators expressed their frustration that the City did not use the restriping on Van Nuys Boulevard to extend bus stop lengths and make it easier to pull in and out of stops. Many operators said it was difficult to fully pull over to the curb with articulated buses at the current stop designs, which can lead to the rear of the bus obstructing the bicycle lane when the bus is at stops. Several people on bicycles mentioned buses blocking the bicycle lane as a problem in the focus groups, although none specifically mentioned Van Nuys Boulevard. Articulated buses in particular pose challenges for operators’ vision when exiting bus stops, because the back of the bus may be angled and obstruct the side view mirrors, which increases the risk of colliding with people on bicycles or vehicles passing the bus. People who ride bicycles also expressed concern that this type of design can place them too close to parked cars, which can lead to being struck by a car door, a collision also known as “dooring.” Additionally, the online bicycling survey revealed 25 percent of respondents expressed discomfort riding in standard bike lanes, whereas 8 percent or fewer were uncomfortable riding in buffered, separated, or left-side bike lanes. Overall, standard bike lanes are an improvement over no treatment. People on bicycles are given a designated space to ride, and road users are made aware of where people on bikes should ride. However, this treatment does not provide adequate comfort for bus operators and people on bikes as compared to other treatments. Safety Total collisions remained similar during the 2-year period following the reconfiguration of the roadway. In the 2-year period prior to the road reconfiguration, 68 collisions occurred on the study corridor, with 10 involving people on bicycles. After the redesign of the travel lanes and installation of bicycle lanes, there were 69 collisions, with the number of collisions involving bicycles declining to four. Collisions were largely concentrated at the intersections with Nordhoff Street, Plummer Street, and Woodman Avenue. There were two fatal collisions after the installation of the standard bicycle lanes,

210

Metro Bike/Bus Interface Study â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Final Report

Part IIB: Before-After Analysis

both occurring at the intersection with Canterbury Avenue, and both of which involved pedestrians and neither of which involved a bus or a bicycle. The number of collisions involving transit on the corridor increased from three to five in the two years after the installation of the standard bicycle lanes compared with the two years before the installation. None of the Metro collisions on the corridor also involved people on bicycles, and there was no pattern in the collision types. In general, total collisions remained relatively unchanged and collisions involving people on bicycles decreased. However, collisions involving Metro buses increased. Only two severe collisions were documented in the 2-year period prior to the road configuration, whereas in the after period there were two fatal collisions involving pedestrians (that did not involve a bus or bicycle) and five severe collisions.

Collision Analysis at Van Nuys Boulevard & Canterbury Avenue Due to the increase in total collisions from two to seven, including two fatal collisions in the after analysis period, at the intersection of Van Nuys Boulevard & Canterbury Avenue, the study examined the collision history and changes in design at this location more closely to determine if the new standard bicycle lanes may have contributed to this increase. During both the before and after study period, the intersection was side-street stop-controlled, but a signal was recently installed at the intersection following the study period for this project. Before the signal was installed, the intersection was over 1,000 feet from the closest signalized intersections, at Woodman Avenue & Beachy Avenue. The intersection is located near several activity centers, including Arleta High School, the Arleta Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV), and two large commercial centers. The SWITRS collisions data does not show a strong pattern at the intersection. During the before period, there was one broadside collision and one collision with a stationary object, and during the after period collisions occurred that were classified as head-on, sideswipe, broadside, and vehicle pedestrian. In the after period, no collision type accounted for more than two incidents. An analysis of the time of day also did not reveal a strong patterns, with collisions before and after in similar proportions throughout the day. The lack of a signal at this intersection would have created a situation where pedestrians and vehicles attempting to cross the street had to do so by darting between vehicles traveling on Van Nuys Boulevard. The presence of vehicle/pedestrian collisions and broadside collisions, and the recent installation of a signal, suggest that the lack of a signal may have been a factor in some of the collisions. The collision data at this intersection does not indicate that the new standard bicycle lanes contributed to the increase in collisions, and the new signal that was recently installed should help to increase safety and reduce the risk for crossing pedestrians and vehicles by adding a pedestrian crossing phase.

211

Metro Bike/Bus Interface Study – Final Report

Part IIB: Before-After Analysis

Operations Bicycle usage on Van Nuys Boulevard increased, while transit ridership decreased. Bicycle usage on Van Nuys Boulevard ranged from five to 10 people on bicycles before the installation of standard bicycle lanes to five to 20 people on bicycles afterward. Figure II-46 shows the bicycle facilities and bike connectivity near Van Nuys Boulevard. The street has moderate bike connectivity, although it is just over the threshold of 1.5 connections per mile between low and moderate connectivity, with links to dedicated bikeways at the southern edge of the corridor and at Woodman Avenue. Daily transit ridership declined by 10 percent from 6,080 trips to 5,480 trips.

Figure II-46 Bicycle facilities and bike connectivity near Van Nuys Boulevard

The number of buses per hour remained consistent between the two time periods. Bus speeds and reliability in the peak periods on Van Nuys Boulevard were mostly unchanged, except for northbound buses in the AM peak period, which showed a moderate increase in speeds. Daily vehicle volumes increased on the corridor by approximately 15 percent, indicating that the standard bicycle lanes did not limit traffic demand. The number of collisions on the corridor remained similar before and after the installation of the standard bicycle lanes. Summary of Key Findings The analysis of the reconfiguration on Van Nuys Boulevard had the following findings: •

Slight increase in the number of people on bicycles, but sidewalk riding is high

•

Number of collisions involving people on bicycles decreased

•

Bus operators expressed frustration that the opportunity to use the restriping on Van Nuys Boulevard to lengthen stops was not used, which would have made it easier to pull in and out

•

Number of bus collisions increased

212

Metro Bike/Bus Interface Study â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Final Report

Part IIB: Before-After Analysis

Shared Bike-Bus Lanes

SHARED BIKE-BUS LANES ANALYSIS

213

Figueroa Street Washington Boulevard to 5th Street (1.5 miles)

Downtown, City of Los Angeles

Corridor Context Metro Bike Share launched in July 2016, with nine stations within two blocks of Figueroa Street, and 62 stations across Dowtown Los Angeles. Data was collected before and after the launch of bike share to determine the effects of bike share on travel patterns, operations, and safety. No infrastructure changes occurred during the study period. This corridor has moderate connectivity with the bike network.

Focus Group Perceptions

Findings

>> Bus operators felt strongly that allowing bicycles in the shared bus-bike lane >> The number of bicyclists increased without impact to bus speed and reliability counteracts the benefit of the lane for transit, is unsafe for people riding bikes, and >> Bicycle volumes have increased, but only 5% of the new riders are bike share generally preferred standard bicycle lanes adjacent to bus-only lanes users >> Bike riders had mixed opinions; they generally felt comfortable interacting with buses in the lane, but were concerned by the number of motorists who use the lane

before (for one-way extent)

after (for one-way extent)

Peak-hour shared bus-bike lanes

Peak-hour shared bus-bike lanes (no change)

e Bik tro Me hare S

12'

10'

Figueroa Street at 7th Street

12'*

Bus lane width varies 12' - 18'

10'

Figueroa Street at 7th Street

Figueroa Street before snapshot

after shapshot

Average Daily Traffic

24,684 NB ONLY

before Bus On-Time Performance

NB ONLY

13 MPH

Daily Bus On & Offs

5,870

Metro Lines 81, 460, 910 & 950

25,080

Average Speed (Posted Speed Limit: 35 MPH)

16 MPH

after

5,000

Late

39%

42%

61%

58%

On time /Early

Buses Per Hour

23 NB

8 SB

Bikes Per Hour

10 - 25

NB ONLY

30 - 45 NB ONLY

Wrong Way Riders

Sidewalk Riders

63%

31%

North of 6th Street, there are separate bicycle and shared bus-bike lanes on Figueroa Street. People on bicycles can ride past buses in the travel lanes, but buses must still pull over to the curb to serve stops.

Figueroa Street Metro Lines 81, 460, 950 Lines 240,910 741,&744

Bus Reliability

Change In Reliability

SOUTHBOUND

Much Less Reliable 5TH ST

WASHINGTON BLVD

Reliability changed minimally in either time period after the launch of Metro Bike Share

FIGUEROA ST

NORTHBOUND

Less Reliable Minimal Change

More Reliable

Much More Reliable

Change in Bus Speed

Metro Lines 81, 460, 910 & 950

10.9 MPH

10.8 MPH

10.4 MPH

10.3 MPH

BEFORE

AFTER

13.0 MPH

12.9 MPH

11.9 MPH

12.3 MPH

SOUTHBOUND FIGUEROA ST

NORTHBOUND

Change in Mean Speed -3 MPH or More 5TH ST

WASHINGTON BLVD

Speeds changed minimally in either time period after the launch of Metro Bike Share

-3 MPH to -1 MPH Minimal Change 1 MPH to 3 MPH

Figueroa Street Collisions

Ò Ò Ò ÒÒÒ S FIGUEROA ST

LVD W OLYM PI C B

W 8TH ST

x1 x1

CH IC HE AR

T NC

ON ST

LE BA N

T ROA S

E S F IG U

Ò x1

H W 18T

INT ERS TAT E 10

FIGUE

B LV D W P ICO

R ROA D

ON LN

4 13

x1 x4

CA M E R

x2 x1

Ò Ò

R 15TH D

D E B LV

B LV D

x1 x7

x1 x 10

V E N IC

ST W 17TH

GTO N

H ST W 18T

H IN W WA S

Ò Ò Ò ÒÒ

Ò ÒÒ

x3 x3

W 4TH ST

x3 x5

110

W 11TH ST

E STATE R O U T

W 5TH ST

(after data not available)

W 7TH ST

W 8T H P L

ST W 9TH

Ò Ò

| 0

W 6TH ST

| 35

WILSHIRE BLVD

before: 118 total | 17

S FLOWER ST

Fatal Collisions

Severe Collisions

Other Collisions

Collisions Involving All Modes

Collisions Involving Bicycles But Not Buses

Collisions

x # Involving

Buses But Not Bicycles

Collisions Involving Buses and Bicycles

Metro Bike/Bus Interface Study â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Final Report

Part IIB: Before-After Analysis

Figueroa Street: Bike Share Implementation/Shared Bike-Bus Lane Figueroa Street is located in the City of Los Angeles, running north/south on the western edge of downtown Los Angeles. The study corridor extends from Washington Boulevard to 5th Street, a distance of 1.5 miles. A peak-hour shared bike-bus lane was installed on the street in the northbound direction over a decade ago to assist

express

buses

exiting

the

Harbor

Transitway and traveling towards downtown. In July 2016, Metro Bike Share was launched, Figure II-47 Standard bicycle lane adjacent to bus-only lane which includes nine stations within two blocks of the study corridor. As the initial installation of the shared bike-bus lanes was too long ago to secure data before the change on the corridor was made, the project team decided to instead analyze how the addition of bike share trips has affected the corridor. More people biking in the shared bike-bus lanes will increase the number of interactions between bicycles and buses, which

Table II-17 Figueroa Street at a Glance

City

Los Angeles

Land Use Context

High density residential and commercial

Direction

North/south

Street Type

Arterial

Roadway Configuration

1-way north of Olympic Boulevard with three or five travel lanes. 2-way south of Olympic Boulevard with two southbound travel lanes and three northbound travel lanes.

Median Type

Left-turn lane south of Olympic Boulevard

Parking

Parallel parking provided on some blocks

Bike Score

Walk Score

Transit Score

could lead to both more passing by each mode and more frequent need for bikes and buses to exit the lane in order to execute a pass. However, bicycle counts taken on the corridor several months after the launch of bike share found that only 5 percent of people riding on the corridor were using bike share. Due to the comparatively low level of bike share usage when counts were taken, further study is needed to determine if bike share may have a greater effect on safety and operations. The effects on this corridor may be particularly

insightful due to the importance of Figueroa Street for both bus and bicycle movement, and the high level of both bicycle and bus volumes existing on the corridor. The My Figueroa project, which will include new buffered and separated bikeways and pedestrian improvements, is currently under

218

Metro Bike/Bus Interface Study – Final Report

Part IIB: Before-After Analysis

construction, with an expected completion date in 2018. Due to the timing of this study, the My Figueroa Project is not part of this evaluation. Additional study of this corridor can be undertaken once the My Figueroa Project is complete, with data from this study as a baseline reference. Figueroa Street is an arterial featuring a mixture of commercial, residential, and entertainment destinations. Table II-17 describes the general characteristics of the corridor. The northern portion of the corridor is characterized by dense office space, while the southern part of the corridor has a mix of residential, commercial and also is adjacent to the Los Angeles Convention Center and L.A. Live. North of Olympic Boulevard, Figueroa Street is a 1-way street, providing three or five general travel lanes for northbound vehicles (depending on the block). On-street parking is typically provided on both sides of the street. The peak hour shared bike-bus lane runs on the right-most lane, on some blocks occupying the space of non-peak period parking and in some locations becoming a general purpose lane during off-peak periods. Two blocks (approximately 1,000 feet) of Figueroa Street north of Wilshire Boulevard contains shared bike-bus lanes adjacent to standard bicycle lanes, as shown in Figure II-47. South of Olympic Boulevard, Figueroa Street is bi-directional, typically providing two general travel lanes southbound and three northbound. In addition, the northbound shared bike-bus lane is present and converts to a general travel lane in most locations outside of the peak period. Street parking is prohibited on most blocks. Shared bike-bus lanes are marked by a solid line and stenciled “BUS ONLY” markings, as shown in Figure II-49. Figure II-49 shows typical signage used on Figueroa Street for shared bikebus lanes with permitted bicycle usage.

Figure II-49 Pavement markings used to differentiate bus-only lanes from general travel lanes

219

Figure II-49 On Figueroa, bikes are permitted in the bus-only lane by signage posted at intervals along the corridor

Metro Bike/Bus Interface Study – Final Report

Part IIB: Before-After Analysis

Figueroa Street is served by Metro Local (Route 81), LADOT DASH (Downtown A and F), and several express buses: •

Metro Route 442, 460, and Silver Line

•

LADOT Commuter Express Routes 409, 419, 422, 423, 431, 437, 438 and, 448

•

Torrance Transit Route 4

•

OCTA Route 701

•

Foothill Transit Routes 493, 495, 496, 497, 499, 498, and 699

Bus stops are located on both near side and

far

side

intersections

approximately the same rate. In some locations, due to the high number of bus lines, bus stops are located both on the nearside and far side of intersections. In some locations, right-turn lanes are provided to the right of the shared bikebus lane. In these instances, the shared bike-bus lane is dashed to signify that cars may cross into the lane to access the right-turn lane. Figure II-50 shows an area near 6th Street with striping for a standard bicycle lane adjacent to the Figure II-50 Dashed striping near 6th Street shows that cars may cross shared bike-bus lane. Striping is dashed

the bus-only lane to access a right-turn lane

to show that buses may cross the bike lane to access a stop and cars can cross the shared bike-bus lane and bicycle lane to access the right-turn lane. According to LADOT staff, the shared bike-bus lane on Figueroa Street was installed using funding from Metro to improve bus service. Unlike some of the other shared bike-bus lanes in the City of Los Angeles which were created as shared facilities, the lanes on Figueroa Street were originally created as shared bike-bus lanes, but bicycles were later permitted upon review of the California Vehicle Code, to allow people to ride “as far to the right as practicable.” LADOT staff also stated that there needs to be at least 15.5 feet to accommodate a shared bike-bus lane (minimum 10.5 feet) and a standard bicycle lane (minimum five feet), and that few places have enough room to accommodate both treatments alongside each other. LADOT stated that they do not have specific design standards for shared bike-bus lanes, but that they follow the California MUTCD for general design criteria.

220

Metro Bike/Bus Interface Study – Final Report

Part IIB: Before-After Analysis

Infrastructure Participants of the bus operator focus groups and focus groups for people riding bicycles were generally supportive of shared bike-bus lanes. Bus operators liked the separation between motor vehicles, particularly on congested corridors, because it minimized interactions with other motorists. Operators generally preferred not to share the shared bike-bus lane with people riding bicycles to avoid conflict and the risk of interaction between themselves and people on bicycles. In the people on bicycle focus groups, more experienced bike riders indicated a preference to riding in shared bike-bus lanes based on the professionalism of bus operators and their preference to share the road with bus operators rather than motorists. Existing LTS methodologies do not have an approach for evaluating level of traffic stress for lanes shared only by buses and people on bicycles. Attendees at the focus groups for people riding bikes were asked about their level of comfort when riding in shared bike-bus lanes. Most indicated they had a high level of comfort with these lanes, and that they felt bus operators were courteous and safe when driving near people on bikes. However, there were comments and concerns that were raised by participants: •

At bus stops if a person on a bike is behind a bus, it is not clear what they should do if they wish to pass the bus.

•

It is often not clear that bikes are allowed to ride in shared bike-bus lanes. Existing signage states “Bikes OK”, but the stenciling on the street does not indicate bicycles are allowed. Several focus group participants indicated they were concerned about being cited when riding in shared bikebus lanes, a topic which has been covered recently on Streetsblog 22.

•

Many shared bike-bus lanes are only in place during peak periods, so people riding bikes outside of peak periods do not benefit.

•

A large bus directly behind the rider can be stressful and made some people feel that they were “in the way”. Several participants felt that not all bus operators were aware that people on bicycles are allowed in shared bike-bus lanes, which they felt is the reason why bus operators honked at them. However, 45 percent of survey respondents stated that they were never honked at in the shared bike-bus lane, and 34 percent stated they were honked at fewer than once per trip when in a shared bike-bus lane. 23

22“How Can L.A. Sheriffs Support Buses and Bikes Sharing Bus-Only Lanes?” Streetsblog Los Angeles. June 3, 2016. Accessed: January 12, 2017. http://la.streetsblog.org/2016/06/03/how-can-l-a-sheriffs-support-buses-and-bikes-sharing-bus-only-lanes/ 23

Survey data is not specific to Figueroa Street.

221

Metro Bike/Bus Interface Study â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Final Report

Part IIB: Before-After Analysis

Despite these concerns, most people attending bicycle focus groups preferred riding in a shared bikebus lane than in a general purpose lane, but most also felt the lanes were not preferable compared with various other bicycle lane designs. Several participants also noted the frequency of buses is a large determinant of the level of comfort for riding in a shared bike-bus lane, as is the frequency and number of private vehicles that travel in the lane (either illegally or to turn right). These anecdotes are supported by the findings in the survey, which found that 46 percent of respondents preferred riding in a shared bike-bus lane compared to a mixed-flow lane only if there is relatively infrequent bus service (where they are unlikely to encounter a bus on their trip). Frequency of buses and motor vehicles are both inversely correlated with level of comfort. Nonetheless, data on riding behavior along the corridor shows that wrong-way riding remains very low, while sidewalk riding has dropped by 50 percent since the launch of bike share indicating that people on bicycles are more comfortable riding on the roadway. Focus group participants suggested that better education, signage, and striping could increase their level of comfort in shared bike-bus lanes. Several participants felt the existing signage in the City of Los Angeles which states only â&#x20AC;&#x153;Bikes OKâ&#x20AC;? is not sufficient and asked for signage that more explicitly indicates legal bicyclist use. Participants also requested sharrows striped within shared bike-bus lanes to further convey that bikes are allowed. Bus operators who participated in focus groups generally supported the idea of shared bike-bus lanes, as these lanes typically give buses more space and less interaction with other vehicles, particularly in congested areas. However, operators perceived there were several problems with the current design and operation of the facility. Cars often travel for extended distances in the bus lane, even though they are only allowed in the lanes to make right turns. Some operators stated that law enforcement does not adequately discourage private vehicles illegally using the shared bike-bus lanes, and as there is no physical separation between the shared bike-bus lane and general lanes, there is little disincentive for people to break the law. Operators generally disapproved of people on bicycles using the shared bikebus lanes, however some did not mind doing so since interactions are rare and bicyclists that comply with traffic laws are not an issue. Most operators who participated in focus groups stated they saw very few people on bicycles using the lanes.

222

Metro Bike/Bus Interface Study – Final Report

Part IIB: Before-After Analysis

Several operators stated that they hadn’t noticed the existing wording on some signs, which state bus and right-turning vehicles only at the top of the sign and “Bikes OK” below. One operator pointed out that Figueroa Street in particular has a great deal of signage, to the point that many motorists may be unable to read and absorb everything, which leads to people driving in the shared bike-bus lanes, or bus operators being unaware that people on bicycles are permitted. Survey respondents were asked if they had experienced leapfrogging in shared bike-bus lanes, with results displayed in Table II-18. Respondents indicated that leapfrogging is a similar concern in shared bike-bus lanes as on other facilities. Table II-18 Survey Respondent Experience with Leapfrogging

All roadway facilities

Shared bike-bus Lanes

Several times per trip

32%

33%

Once per trip

18%

26%

Less than once per trip

28%

Never

15%

13%

N/A

How frequently do you experience leapfrogging?

Overall, both groups expressed concern that better clarity and education on which vehicle types and when they are allowed to ride in the shared bike-bus lane would help improve interactions and comfort between all road users. Safety Collision data after the launch of Metro Bike Share is not currently available as agencies have not yet published the data. During the two most recent years when collision data is available, before the launch of Metro Bike Share, there were a total of 118 collisions on the corridor, no fatalities and no severe injuries. In the two years prior to the launch of Metro Bike Share, there were 35 collisions involving buses on Figueroa Street. Of these collisions, 21 occurred at three intersections: Washington Boulevard, Venice Boulevard, and Pico Boulevard. All three of these intersections are in places where Figueroa Street is 2way, although most of the collisions happened in the northbound direction, which is attributed to the fact that there are more buses serving the northbound direction than the southbound direction; southbound buses generally use Flower Street rather than Figueroa Street. Of the 26 collisions that occurred in the northbound direction, 13 occurred during time periods when the shared bike-bus lane

223

Metro Bike/Bus Interface Study â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Final Report

Part IIB: Before-After Analysis

was active. Four of the collisions on Figueroa Street took place when the bus was driving in the shared bike-bus lane, two occurred when the bus was traveling in a general purpose lane, two occurred when a bus was servicing a stop, and five collisions did not provided sufficient information to determine the location of the bus. Operations Bicycle usage on the corridor increased, whereas transit ridership decreased slightly. Northbound bicycle usage on Figueroa Street ranged from 10 to 25 people on bicycles before the launch of Metro Bike Share, to 30 to 45 people on bicycles afterward. Count data taken three months after the launch indicates that approximately 5 percent of people on bicycles were using bike share. Daily transit ridership in the study corridor decreased by approximately 15 percent from 5,870 to 5,000. Figure II-51 shows the bicycle facilities and bike connectivity near Figueroa Street. The street has moderate bike connectivity, with links to the 7th Street standard bicycle lane and to the standard bicycle lane north of the corridor.

Figure II-51 Bicycle facilities and bike connectivity near Figueroa Street

The number of buses per hour remained consistent between the two time periods. Bus speed and reliability along Figueroa did not change after the launch of Metro Bike Share. Data on bus speeds and reliability were derived only from Metro buses, although there is no reason to suspect that bus operations would be different on Figueroa Street for other bus operators. Operators stated that bikes in shared bike-bus lanes slow bus speeds, and dilute their perceived purpose of shared bike-bus lanes which is to provide a dedicated space for buses. Although most of the buses running on Figueroa Street are express buses, the corridorâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s context means there are many other vehicles using the shared bike-bus lanes, both legally and illegally. Therefore, average bus speeds when

224

Metro Bike/Bus Interface Study – Final Report

Part IIB: Before-After Analysis

the lane is in operation are not higher than other corridors in this study. Data on bus speeds and reliability also show these metrics were minimally impacted despite the increase in bicycle usage in the period following the launch of Metro Bike Share. Most operators preferred the configuration of a standard bicycle lane adjacent to the shared bike-bus lane, as they felt this would decrease the total number of people riding bicycles that they would have to interact with in a shared bike-bus lane. After the introduction of bike share, daily vehicle volumes in the same direction as the shared bike-bus lane were stable, which is expected, as the street’s capacity did not change. Summary of Key Findings Although it is not clear how the launch of Metro Bike Share may have changed operations and safety on Figueroa Street, several themes were apparent from the study of the corridor: •

Bus operators felt strongly that allowing bicycles in the shared bike-bus lane counteracts the benefit of the lane for transit, and generally preferred standard bicycle lanes adjacent to shared bike-bus lanes

•

The number of people on bicycles increased without impact to bus speed and reliability

•

People on bicycles had mixed opinions on shared bike-bus lanes; they generally felt comfortable interacting with buses in the lane, but were concerned by the number of motorists who use the lane illegally

•

Bus operators and people on bicycles both expressed uncertainty about the best way to safely pass another user in the shared bike-bus lane. Additional education is needed in this area.

•

Bus operators and people on bicycles each noted that many private vehicles use the lane illegally. Additional education and enforcement could help discourage this behavior.

225

Sunset Boulevard Figueroa Street to Echo Park Avenue (1.3 miles)

Echo Park, City of Los Angeles

Corridor Context Peak period directional shared bus-bike lanes were installed in the summer of 2013 on Sunset Boulevard. The lanes are active in the eastbound direction from 7-9 AM and in the westbound direction from 4-7 PM. This corridor has moderate connectivity with the bike network.

Focus Group Perceptions

Findings

>> People on bicycles are concerned that shared bus-bike lanes are not wide enough for safe passing but still prefer them over general purpose lanes >> Some bus operators stated people on bicycles using shared bus-bike lanes creates confusion and slows bus speed; opinions were mixed on whether shared bus-bike lanes are better than general purpose lanes

>> Bicycle volumes increased after shared bus-bike lanes were installed >> Percent of sidewalk bike riding is very low >> Bike collisions decreased with the implementation of bus only lanes >> Bus speed and reliability remained similar after shared bus-bike lanes were installed although OTP declined slightly

before

after

West of Vin Scully Avenue - Standard bicycle lanes (Not shown) East of Vin Scully Avenue - No treatment

West of Vin Scully Avenue - Standard bicycle lanes (Not shown)

12'

10'

East of Vin Scully Avenue - Peak-hour directional shared bus-bike lanes

12'

Sunset Boulevard at Marion Avenue

12'

Bicycle lanes not shown

10'

12'

Sunset Boulevard at Marion Avenue

Early/On Time Late

91% 9%

83% 17%

Sunset Boulevard before snapshot

after shapshot

Average Daily Traffic

35,780

before

after

Bus On-Time Performance

Metro Lines 2, 4, 302 & 704

32,840

Average Speed (Posted Speed Limit: 35 MPH)

No Data

17%

91%

83%

20 MPH

Daily Bus On & Offs

7,150

6,190

Late On time /Early

Buses Per Hour

16 WB

20 EB

Bikes Per Hour

15 - 20

15 - 45

Wrong Way Riders

No Data

21%

Sidewalk Riders

No Data

People on bicycles were observed passing stopped buses within the shared busbike lane, as shown in the above photo, and crossing into adjacent travel lanes.

Sunset Boulevard Metro Lines 4, 302 704 Lines2,240, 741,&744

Bus Reliability

Change In Reliability

WESTBOUND

FIGUEROA ST

ECHO PARK AVE

Bus reliability changed minimally

SUNSET BLVD

EASTBOUND

Much Less Reliable Less Reliable Minimal Change More Reliable Much More Reliable

Change in Bus Speed

Metro Lines 2, 4, 302 & 704

15.6 MPH

14.8 MPH

12.8 MPH

12.2 MPH

BEFORE

AFTER

15.0 MPH

14.0 MPH

16.0 MPH

15.1 MPH

WESTBOUND SUNSET BLVD

EASTBOUND

Change in Mean Speed FIGUEROA ST

ECHO PARK AVE

Bus speeds generally declined slightly after the shared bus-bike lanes were installed.

-3 MPH or More -3 MPH to -1 MPH Minimal Change 1 MPH to 3 MPH

Sunset Boulevard Collisions

TON

NA VE

NB OYL S

RIO MA SA VE

NE IN

! ST

110

NB OYL STO N

AVE

UTE

MA RIO N

E RO

Collisions Involving Bicycles But Not Buses

x2 x4

S TAT

x4 x2

Ò Ò

LL Y

VIN AV SC U E

! !

ST 110

ER UTE

I NF

E RO

ÒÒ Ò Ò E

Collisions Involving All Modes

S TAT

Other Collisions

x1 x1

During the study period, no incidents occurred while the shared bus-bike lanes were in effect.

Severe Collisions

I NF

R PA HO EC E AV

Fatal Collisions

Ò Ò

x1 x2

x1 x3

Ò Ò

IN QU ST

R PO

Ò Ò

x3 x3

| 0 C I LA

| 12

| 9

R PA HO EC E AV

after: 78 total

Ò ÒÒÒ ÒÒ x2 x1

E DO

L AL

x1 x4

Ò ÒÒ

IN QU ST

L 1

C I LA

SA VE

|0 LY

| 9

VIN AV SCU L E

before: 66 total | 13

Collisions

x # Involving

Buses But Not Bicycles

Collisions Involving Buses and Bicycles

Metro Bike/Bus Interface Study â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Final Report

Part IIB: Before-After Analysis

Sunset Boulevard: Shared Bike-Bus Lanes Sunset Boulevard is located in the City of Los Angeles, northwest of downtown Los Angeles in

Table II-19 Sunset Boulevard at a Glance

the neighborhood of Echo Park. The street is an

City

Los Angeles

1.3 miles from Figueroa Street to Echo Park

Land Use Context

Mixture of commercial and residential

Avenue and contains both standard bicycle lanes

Direction

East/west

Street Type

Arterial

Roadway Configuration

Four during non-peak period; six during peak period (one lane in the peak direction converted to shared bike-bus lane)

Median Type

Left-turn lane

Parking

Parallel provided on both sides of the street, except in the peak period

Bike Score

Walk Score

Transit Score

arterial running east/west. The study segment is

(from Vin Scully Avenue to Echo Park Avenue, approximately 0.5 miles) and shared bike-bus lanes (from Vin Scully Avenue to Figueroa Street, approximately 0.8 miles). The shared bike-bus lanes were installed in late summer of 2013, while the standard bicycle lanes were installed over a decade ago. This analysis studies the corridor before and after the shared bike-bus lanes were installed. There was no change on the portion of the corridor, between Vin Scully Avenue to Echo Park Avenue, during the time period that is being analyzed. The shared bike-bus lanes are only in effect on weekdays during the peak periods (7:00

to 9:00 AM and 4:00 to 7:00 PM) in the peak direction (eastbound in the morning and westbound in the afternoon). People on bicycles are allowed in the shared bike-bus lanes during their hours of operation. During all other hours, the 12-foot lanes are used for parking; people on bikes can continue to ride adjacent to the parked cars to the right of the general purpose lane. The study corridor maintained its four travel lanes (two in each direction) with a center turn lane after the installation of the shared bike-bus lane; a third peak travel lane in each direction was repurposed to be a shared bike-bus lane. The corridor connects to standard bike lanes west of Echo Park Avenue and shared bike-bus lanes east of Figueroa Street. However, the shared bike-bus lanes east of Figueroa Street to Broadway were installed in November 2016, and thus were not present when most of the data for this project was collected. Some site observations and photos were taken after the installation of the shared bike-bus lanes. Previously there had been no bus or bike infrastructure east of Figueroa Street. The eastern end of the corridor also connects to standard bicycle lanes on Figueroa Street. Sunset Boulevard within the study boundary has mostly commercial land uses fronting the street, with some residential, particularly on the eastern side of the corridor. Many of the businesses have small

230

Metro Bike/Bus Interface Study â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Final Report

Part IIB: Before-After Analysis

parking lots, in addition to the on-street parking provided. Table II-19 describes the characteristics of the corridor. Sunset Boulevard is served by Metro Local (Routes 2 and 4), Metro Limited (Route 302), and Metro Rapid (Route 704). The Dodger Stadium Express, a shuttle that operates for home games between Union Station and Dodgers Stadium with one stop on Cesar Chavez at Broadway, uses Sunset Boulevard to the Stadium.

When

the

Dodgers

Shuttle

operating, orange cones are used to demarcate Figure II-52 Orange cones used to delineate the bus-only lane the shared bike-bus lane, as shown in Figure are only used when the Dodger Shuttle is running II-52. Right turns to access driveways and side streets are permitted by breaks in the orange cones when the Dodgers Shuttle is operating. At all other times, a solid white line separates the shared bike-bus lane from general travel lanes. There is also â&#x20AC;&#x153;bus laneâ&#x20AC;? stenciling and signage on the corridor stating the lane can only be used by buses, right-turning vehicles, and bikes during certain hours of the day. Figure II-54 depicts signage and striping for shared bike-bus lanes on Sunset Boulevard. Bus stops are typically located on the near side of intersections, although some intersections have stops on the far side. At intersections and bus stops where bike lanes are present, dashed striping is used to convey a merging area where bikes, buses, and private vehicles share space, as shown in Figure II-53. This merging area allows buses to pull to the curb to access stops and allows for private vehicles to turn right across the bike lane.

Figure II-54 Signage and striping used to differentiate the bus-only lane from general travel lanes

Figure II-53 Dash striping indicates a merging area for bicycles, buses, and private vehicles

231

Metro Bike/Bus Interface Study – Final Report

Part IIB: Before-After Analysis

According to LADOT staff, the shared bike-bus lanes were installed to connect the standard bicycle lanes on Sunset Boulevard with downtown Los Angeles. However, there was not enough space on Sunset Boulevard east of Vin Scully Avenue to install standard bicycle lanes without removing parking or general travel lanes. In addition, because of the high frequency of transit on the corridor, LADOT felt the context was appropriate for a shared bike-bus lane. Unlike several other shared bike-bus lanes in the region, the shared bike-bus lanes on Sunset Boulevard were planned by the City and not by Metro, according to LADOT staff. Infrastructure Participants of the bus operator focus groups and focus groups for people on bicycles were generally supportive of shared bike-bus lanes. Bus operators liked the separation between motor vehicles, particularly on congested corridors, because it minimized interactions with other motorists. Operators generally preferred not to share the shared bike-bus lane with people on bicycles to avoid conflict and the risk of interaction between themselves and people on bicycles. In the bicyclist focus groups, more experienced bicycle riders indicated a preference to riding in shared bike-bus lanes based on the professionalism of bus operators and their preference to share the road with bus operators rather than motorists. Existing Level of Traffic Stress methodologies do not have an approach for evaluating level of traffic stress for lanes shared only by buses and people on bicycles. Attendees at the focus groups for people riding bikes were asked about their level of comfort when riding in shared bike-bus lanes. Most indicated they had a high level of comfort with these lanes, and that they felt bus operators were courteous and safe when driving near people on bikes. However, there were also comments and concerns that were raised by participants: •

At bus stops if a person on a bike is behind a bus, it is not clear what they should do if they wish to pass the bus.

•

It is often not clear that bikes are allowed to ride in shared bike-bus lanes. Existing signage states “Bikes OK,” but the stenciling on the street does not indicate bicycles are allowed. Several focus group participants indicated they were concerned about being cited when riding in shared bikebus lanes, a topic which has been covered recently on Streetsblog 24.

•

Many shared bike-bus lanes are only in place during peak periods, but people riding bikes are often riding outside of peak periods and therefore do not benefit.

24“How Can L.A. Sheriffs Support Buses and Bikes Sharing Bus-Only Lanes?” Streetsblog Los Angeles. June 3, 2016. Accessed: January 12, 2017. http://la.streetsblog.org/2016/06/03/how-can-l-a-sheriffs-support-buses-and-bikes-sharing-bus-only-lanes/

232

Metro Bike/Bus Interface Study – Final Report

•

Part IIB: Before-After Analysis

A large bus directly behind the rider can be stressful and made some people feel that they were “in the way.” Several participants felt that not all bus operators were aware that people on bicycles are allowed in shared bike-bus lanes, which they felt was the reason why bus operators honked at them. However, 45 percent of survey respondents stated that they were never honked at in the shared bike-bus lane, and 34 percent stated they were honked at fewer than once per trip when in a shared bike-bus lane. 25

Despite these concerns, most people attending bicycle focus groups preferred riding in a shared bikebus lane than in a general purpose lane, but most also felt the lanes were not preferable compared with various other bicycle lane designs. Several participants also noted the frequency of buses is a large determinant of the level of comfort for riding in a shared bike-bus lane, as is the frequency and number of private vehicles that travel in the lane (either illegally or to turn right). These anecdotes are supported by the findings in the survey, which found that 46 percent of respondents preferred riding in a shared bike-bus lane compared to a mixed flow lane only if there is relatively infrequent bus service (where they are unlikely to encounter a bus on their trip). No data is available on riding behavior of people on bikes before the shared bike-bus lanes were installed, but wrong-way riding was recorded amongst 21 percent of people on bikes and sidewalk riding was recorded among two percent of people on bikes after the shared bike-bus lanes were installed. Low sidewalk riding may indicate that people on bicycles are comfortable riding on the roadway; however, sidewalk condition, narrow sidewalks (often only five feet wide), and the amount of pedestrian activity may also be a factor. The high level of wrong-way riding is not consistent with other streets that have similar ADTs, and is further surprising as Sunset Boulevard does not have a dedicated bikeway. This unique behavior on Sunset Boulevard maybe due to signal spacing, with many signalized intersections more than 1,000 feet or more apart, providing fewer locations for people on bicycles to safely cross the street to ride in the correct direction. Focus group participants suggested that better education, signage and striping could increase their level of comfort in shared bike-bus lanes. Several participants felt the existing signage in the City of Los Angeles which states only “Bikes OK” is not sufficient and asked for signage that more explicitly indicates legal bicyclist use. Participants also requested sharrows striped within shared bike-bus lanes to further convey that bikes are allowed. Bus operators who participated in focus groups generally supported the idea of shared bike-bus lanes, as these lanes typically give buses more space and less interaction with other vehicles, particularly in congested areas. However, operators perceived several problems with the current design and operation of the facility. Cars often travel in the bus lane, even though they are only allowed in the lanes to make right turns. Operators felt that law enforcement does not adequately discourage private vehicles illegally

Survey data is not specific to Figueroa Street.

233

Metro Bike/Bus Interface Study â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Final Report

Part IIB: Before-After Analysis

using the shared bike-bus lanes, and as there is no physical separation between the shared bike-bus lane and general lanes, there is little incentive to obey the law. On Sunset Boulevard, operators felt the only time the lanes were respected was during Dodgers games, when the lane is marked using orange cones. Operators generally disapproved of people on bicycles using the shared bike-bus lanes; however, some did not mind doing so since interactions are rare and bike riders that comply with traffic laws are not an issue. The existing wording on some signs, which state bus and right-turning vehicles only at the top of the sign and â&#x20AC;&#x153;Bikes OKâ&#x20AC;? below, is unclear and confusing, according to some operators. Almost all operators noted that the large difference in the size of buses and bikes creates a compelling need to separate the two modes. Overall, both groups expressed concern that better clarity and education on which vehicle types and when they are allowed to ride in the shared bike-bus lane would help improve interactions and comfort between all road users. Safety Total collisions increased during the 2-year period following the installation of the shared bike-bus lanes. In the 2-year period prior to the installation of the lanes, 66 collisions occurred on the study corridor. After the implementation of the shared bike-bus lanes, there were 78 collisions, which accounts for approximately an 18 percent increase. Collisions resulting in severe injuries decreased from three to two. The number of collisions involving bicycles declined by 30 percent, from 13 to nine, despite an increase in the number of people on bicycles counted. During the two years prior to the installation of the shared bike-bus lanes, there were nine collisions involving Metro buses on the study corridor. In the two years after the installation of the shared bikebus lanes, 14 collisions occurred. Notably, none of the collisions after the installation of the shared bikebus lane occurred during the time of the day and in the direction when the shared bike-bus lanes were in operation and closer scrutiny of collision types did not reveal any robust trends. Table II-20 details the nature of the collisions.

234

Metro Bike/Bus Interface Study â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Final Report

Part IIB: Before-After Analysis

Table II-20 Sunset Boulevard Collision Summary

Collision Type

Prior to Installation

Bus with car

After Installation Shared bike-bus Lane in Operation

Shared bike-bus Lane Not in Operation

Bus with stationary object

Bus with bus

Bus with bike

Unclear

Total

Operations Bicycle usage on Sunset Boulevard increased, while transit ridership decreased. Bicycle usage on Sunset Boulevard ranged from 15 to 20 people on bicycles before the installation of shared bike-bus lanes, to 15 to 45 people on bicycles afterward. Transit ridership declined by 13 percent, from 7,150 trips to 6,190 trips. The number of buses per hour remained relatively consistent between the two time periods. Figure II-55 shows the bicycle facilities and bike connectivity near Sunset Boulevard. The street has moderate bike connectivity, with connections west on Sunset Boulevard and south via Figueroa Street at the edges of the study corridor, and several bikeways located close to the study segment.

Figure II-55 Bicycle facilities and bike connectivity near Sunset Boulevard

235

Metro Bike/Bus Interface Study – Final Report

Part IIB: Before-After Analysis

On-time performance declined slightly after the installation of the shared bike-bus lanes, from 91 percent of buses on-time or early to 83 percent. While this is not a substantial decline, it is unexpected based on the reduction in motor vehicle traffic and the provision of a shared bike-bus lane. However, the reduction is within the expected margin of error. Operators stated that bikes in shared bike-bus lanes slow bus speeds, and dilute their perceived purpose of shared bike-bus lanes, which is to provide a dedicated space for buses. Speed data from Sunset Boulevard show that average bus speeds declined slightly across both peak hour time periods in both directions. As bus speed showed similar patterns on Sunset Boulevard both when shared bike-bus lanes were in operation and when they were not, because the lanes are peak direction only, it is possible that the decline in average bus speed were caused by other elements on the corridor rather than the installation of the shared bike-bus lanes. Daily vehicle volumes decreased on the corridor by approximately 10 percent. The decrease in vehicle volumes may be in part due to the repurposing of 1/3 of the general travel lanes in the peak direction during peak hours, prompting some drivers to change their travel choices such as selecting an alternate route. Summary of Key Findings The analysis of shared bike-bus lanes on Sunset Boulevard found: •

People on bicycles are concerned that shared bike-bus lanes are not wide enough for safe passing but still prefer them over general purpose lanes

•

The number of people of bicycles increased after shared bike-bus lanes were installed

•

The percentage of people on bicycles observed riding on the sidewalk is very low, only 2 percent

•

Bicycle collisions decreased with the implementation of shared bike-bus lanes

•

Some operators stated people on bicycles using shared bus lanes creates confusion and slows bus speed; operator opinions were mixed on whether bus lanes are better than general purpose lanes

•

Bus speed and reliability remained consistent before and after the shared bike-bus lane was installed

•

Bus operators and people on bicycles both expressed uncertainty about the best way to safely pass another user in the shared bike-bus lane. Additional education is needed in this area.

236

Wilshire Boulevard Western Avenue to Alvarado Street (2.0 miles)

Westlake and Koreatown, City of Los Angeles

Corridor Context Metro implemented peak-period shared bus-bike lanes in June 2013 to improve bus service on its most heavily-used route; the City of Los Angeles appended â&#x20AC;&#x153;BIKES OKâ&#x20AC;? to the posted signage to clarify where people are allowed to ride. This corridor has very low connectivity with the bike network.

Focus Group Perceptions

Findings

>> People who bicycle had mixed opinions about biking in shared bus-bike lanes; there was greater trust of the bus operators but greater risk perceived from other motorists using the lane improperly >> Bus operators felt the shared bus-bike lane was ineffective at improving operations due to illegal motorist use and sharing the lane with people on bicycles

>> Number of bike related collisions decreased, despite an increase in bicycling >> 89% of observed bicyclists were riding on the sidewalk >> Bus OTP improved by 9%; bus speeds had minimal change/slight improvement >> Bus collisions increased by 25% >> Limited number of bike riders utilizing the shared bus-bike lanes

before

after

No Treatment

Peak-hour shared bus-bike lanes

10' av.

(6'-20' range)

10'

10' av.

(6'-20' range)

Wilshire Boulevard at Catalina Street

10' av.

(6'-20' range)

10'

10' av.

(6'-20' range)

Wilshire Boulevard at Catalina Street

Wilshire Boulevard before snapshot

after shapshot

Average Daily Traffic

39,400

before

after

Bus On-Time Performance

Metro Lines 20 & 720

32,400

Average Speed (Posted Speed Limit: 35 MPH)

No Data

19%

72%

81%

12 MPH

Daily Bus On & Offs

39,830

28%

39,320

Late On time /Early

Buses Per Hour

23 WB

20 EB

Bikes Per Hour

10 - 20

20 - 40

Wrong Way Riders

No Data

Sidewalk Riders

No Data

89%

People on bikes sometimes choose to merge into the next lane to pass stopped buses.

Wilshire Boulevard Metro 20 &744 720 LinesLines 240, 741,

Bus Reliability

Reliability was slightly worse in the westbound direction but slightly better eastbound in the AM peak period WESTBOUND

ALVARADO ST

WESTERN AVE

Change In Reliability

WILSHIRE BLVD

EASTBOUND

Much Less Reliable Less Reliable Minimal Change More Reliable Much More Reliable

Change in Bus Speed

Metro Lines 20 & 720

Speeds did not measurably change except in the westbound direction during the PM peak period 14.3 MPH

13.9 MPH

12.9 MPH

14.0 MPH

BEFORE

AFTER

15.0 MPH

15.3 MPH

13.9 MPH

WESTERN AVE

WESTBOUND WILSHIRE BLVD

EASTBOUND

Change in Mean Speed ALVARADO ST

-3 MPH or More -3 MPH to -1 MPH Minimal Change 1 MPH to 3 MPH

Wilshire Boulevard Collisions (West end of segment)

before: 162 total | 20

| 36

| 0 A S ALEX AVE

M S NOR AV E

M S A RD AV E

S S K IN G

VA R D S HAR

RANO S SER

ORD S OXF

T S WES

Ò Ò Ò Ò x1 x5

S H AT T

x1 x 13

O PL

VE ONT A

E I R E AV

M S VER

SH HAMP S NEW

ST W 7TH

3 ENDO S BER

L IN A S C ATA

| 43

x3 x5

A AV E

after: 169 total | 17

IP O S S MAR

x2 x2

VE ORE A

x1 x1

NDRIA

A N D IE

ORE

M S A RD

R LEY D

x1 x1

B LV D

x1 x6

B LV D

ART S H OB

AV E

VE E RN A

Ò Ò Ò Ò Ò Ò Ò Ò ÒÒ Ò Ò Ò Ò Ò Ò

| 1

Buses But Not Bicycles

O PL

Collisions

x # Involving

S H AT T

AV E

Collisions Involving Bicycles But Not Buses

x1 x3

VE ONT A

SHIRE

ST W 7TH

x3 x6

M S VER

HAMP S NEW

IN A S T

Collisions Involving All Modes

L S C ATA

x1 x1

A AV E

VE ORE A

Other Collisions

IP O S S MAR

x1 x5

ENDO S BER

DRIA

A N D IE

x1 x2

AN S ALEX AVE

M S NOR AV E

M S A RD

x2 x1

ORE

Severe Collisions

M S A RD AV E

R LEY D

S S K IN G

B LV D

VA R D S HAR

Fatal Collisions

x 2 x 2

x2 x2

B LV D

AV E

VE E RN A

x1 x9 x1

ART S H OB

T S WES

ORD S OXF

RANO S SER

Ò Ò Ò Ò Ò Ò Ò Ò Ò Ò Ò Ò Ò Ò Ò ÒÒ Ò Ò Ò Ò Ò Ò Ò ÒÒ Collisions Involving Buses and Bicycles

Wilshire Boulevard Collisions (East end of segment)

S LA F AYETT E PARK PL

RE PL

4 E OOV SH

6 1

DO ST

VIEW

S A LV ARA

VIEW

Ò x2

WIL S HI R

S RAM

SHI

T RS

WIL PL

Severe Collisions

x1 x1

DO ST

x1 x1

S A LV ARA

Fatal Collisions

x1 x3

S PA R K

x2 x2

NADO

Ò Ò Ò Ò Ò Ò Ò

S CO R O

LAN

Ò Ò 17

LVD

E L AV

ORE

E BL VD

| 0

MON COM TH L WEA AVE

RGI S VI

M EST SW AVE

WIL S HI R

| 14

PART B

69 total | 9

S LA F AYETT E PARK PL

after:

S RAM

SHI

T RS

x2 x2

S PA R K

E OOV SH

WIL

NADO

E L AV

ELA

MOR

x1 x3

x3 4

Ò Ò Ò Ò Ò Ò

MON COM TH L WEA AVE

RGI S VI

EST SW AVE

| 0

S CO R O

| 10

PART BLVD

before: 70 total | 10

Other Collisions

Collisions Involving All Modes

E BL V

Ò Ò x4 x6

Collisions Involving Bicycles But Not Buses

Collisions

x # Involving

Buses But Not Bicycles

Collisions Involving Buses and Bicycles

Metro Bike/Bus Interface Study â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Final Report

Part IIB: Before-After Analysis

Wilshire Boulevard: Shared Bike-Bus Lanes Wilshire Boulevard is located in the City of Los Angeles and is a major arterial running between downtown Los Angeles and Santa Monica. The study segment is 2.0 miles from Western Avenue to Alvarado Street, running through the Westlake and Koreatown neighborhoods. Wilshire Boulevard on this segment contains peak-hour shared bike-bus lanes that began operation in summer 2013. The shared bike-bus lanes are only in effect on weekdays during the peak periods (7:00 to 9:00 AM and 4:00 to 7:00 PM) for both directions. During all other hours, the lane is used for parking or is a general-purpose travel lane, depending on the block. The extent of the shared bike-bus lanes that continue west of Western Avenue were Figure II-56 On Wilshire Boulevard, bikes are installed between 2014 and 2015 (not included in this study). permitted in the bus-only lane by signage Previously Wilshire Boulevard had neither bus- nor bike-

posted at intervals along the corridor

specific travel lanes. The study corridor maintained its four travel lanes, center turn lane or landscaped median strip, and

Table II-21 Wilshire Boulevard at a Glance

parallel parking (where present) during non-peak

City

Los Angeles

periods. During the peak periods, one travel or

Land Use Context

High density mixed-use

parking lane in the peak direction was converted to

Direction

East/west

Street Type

Major Arterial

Roadway Configuration

Six general travel lanes at all times prior to installation; four during peak after installation

Median Type

Landscaped median strip or left-turn lane

Parking

Some portions of the bus lane are available for parking offpeak

operations as a shared bike-bus lane. Wilshire Boulevard within the study boundary has a mix of commercial and residential buildings, with high densities abutting the street. The sidewalk is mostly fronted by buildings, although there are some surface parking lots. Table II-21 summarizes the characteristics of the corridor. Wilshire Boulevard is served by Metro Local (Line 20), Metro Rapid (Line 720), and Foothill Transit 481. The shared bike-bus lane is delineated from the adjacent travel lane by a solid white line. The solid white line becomes dashed at intersection

Bike Score

Walk Score

Transit Score

approaches to allow other vehicles to move into the shared bike-bus lane for right turns. At some

242

Metro Bike/Bus Interface Study – Final Report

Part IIB: Before-After Analysis

locations the words “BUS LANE” are stenciled on the pavement. Signage at regular intervals and at each signalized intersection along the facility is worded “BUSES,” “RIGHT TURNS ONLY” and designates the hours of operation for the shared bike-bus lane. Additional wording is included below, reading “BIKES OK.” An example of the signage can be seen in Figure II-56. The shared bike-bus lanes were developed as a project by Metro in cooperation with the City of Los Angeles. A study undertaken by Metro showed that due to the high frequency Figure II-57 Bicycling in the bus-only lane is permitted by way of and popularity of the Wilshire bus routes, a signage posted at regular intervals. The lane is not wide enough peak-period shared bike-bus lane would

for a person riding a bicycle to share side-by-side with a bus

improve travel time and reliability for a majority of people despite the loss of a general travel lane on most blocks. According to LADOT staff, the decision to post signage along the facility allowing bikes in the shared bike-bus lane was made to clarify that bikes should continue to ride “as far to the right as practicable” rather than risk people riding bicycles in the general travel lane between traffic and fastmoving buses. Because the shared bike-bus lane is not physically separated from the rest of the roadway, bus operators are able to merge into the adjacent lane in order to pass people on bicycles. Figure II-57 shows a bus in the shared bike-bus lane with traffic in the general purpose lanes; there is not adequate room for a person on a bicycle to pass the bus in the same lane. Infrastructure No data is available on riding behavior of people on bikes before the shared bike-bus lanes were installed. Observations made in fall 2016 suggest that despite signs permitting bicycle riding in the shared bike-bus lane, the majority of people riding bicycles used the sidewalk. Sidewalk width varies on the corridor from six to 20 feet, although typical sidewalk width is about 10 feet. Sidewalk condition also changes, but is generally smooth. Many portions of the corridor have large amounts of street furniture and landscaping. People on bicycles using the sidewalk tended to ride slowly, although still faster than a normal pedestrian walking speed. No collisions between pedestrians and people on bicycles were observed during site visits. Figure II-58 shows a person riding on the sidewalk near the intersection with Vermont Avenue. People riding bicycles may choose to ride on the sidewalk because of the wide sidewalks, which provide conditions that people may find more safe, comfortable, and/or convenient.

243

Metro Bike/Bus Interface Study â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Final Report

Part IIB: Before-After Analysis

Although the majority of people riding bicycles on Wilshire Boulevard do not ride in the street, people moving faster did tend to use the shared bike-bus lanes. Figure II-59 shows people on bicycles passing a stopped bus in the shared bike-bus lane. In focus groups, people who identified themselves as more experienced riders indicated a preference for riding in shared bike-bus lanes over general traffic lanes and even standard bicycle lanes. These participants cited the professionalism of bus operators and their preference to share the Figure II-58 Sidewalk riding was prevalent along Wilshire road with bus operators rather than motorists. Boulevard Although the shared bike-bus lanes are not wide enough to ride alongside a bus in the same lane, the participants felt that for the majority of their ride, they had a full lane to themselves and that buses seemed to pass them without issue. Some participants stated that they would monitor whether there were buses following and would move out of the way when given the opportunity, to not hold up the bus in the lane. Existing LTS methodologies do not have an approach for evaluating level of traffic stress for lanes shared only by buses and people on bicycles. Attendees at the focus groups for people riding bikes were asked about their level of comfort when riding in shared bike-bus lanes. Most indicated they had a high level of comfort with these lanes, and that they felt bus operators were courteous and safe when driving

near

people

bikes.

Several

comments were raised by participants, as discussed in the Figueroa Street section. However, based on the high percentage of people riding on sidewalks on Wilshire Figure II-59 People on bicycles passing a stopped bus in the bus-only lane

Boulevard, people appear to feel more comfortable bicycling on the sidewalk rather

than in the shared bike-bus lanes. This may be due to the high frequency of buses on Wilshire Boulevard, where buses are often spaced out by only a couple minutes, which would lead to high levels of interaction

244

Metro Bike/Bus Interface Study – Final Report

Part IIB: Before-After Analysis

between a person riding a bicycle and buses. Vehicles were also observed parking illegally in the shared bike-bus lane, as shown in Figure II-60, which would force people on bicycles into the general travel lanes. Focus group participants suggested that better education, signage and striping could increase their level of comfort in shared

bike-bus

lanes.

Several

participants asked for signage that more explicitly

included

people

bikes

Figure II-60 A person biking in the Wilshire Boulevard bus-only lanes

compared to the existing signage in the approaches cars parked illegally in the lane, which caused the person City of Los Angeles, which states only to veer into the general travel lane

“Bikes OK.” Participants also requested sharrows striped within shared bike-bus lanes to further convey that bikes are allowed, although whether this treatment is currently permissible within local and state guidelines is unclear. Bus operators who participated in focus groups generally supported the idea of shared bike-bus lanes, as these lanes typically help maintain or improve schedule adherence and operations, particularly in congested areas. However, operators perceived of several problems with the current design and operation of the facility. Cars often travel in the bus lane, even though they are only allowed in the lanes to make right turns. Operators felt that law enforcement does not adequately discourage private vehicles illegally using the shared bike-bus lanes, and without physical separation there are no other practical means for preventing general traffic from driving in the shared bike-bus lane. Most operators participating in the focus groups did not approve of bicycles being permitted to use the shared bike-bus lane. The existing wording on some signs, which state bus and right-turning vehicles only at the top of the sign and “Bikes OK” below, is unclear and confusing, according to some operators. Operators believed that people riding bicycles in the shared bike-bus lane create delays for the bus, which has to find an opportunity to pass in the adjacent and congested traffic lane. Most bus operators believed this decreased the value of the shared bike-bus lane and was not actually safer for people riding bicycles, nor the bus, which is now making traffic maneuvers it could otherwise avoid. However, there were some operators in each focus group who did not follow this sentiment; these bus operators were often people who also ride bicycles.

245

Metro Bike/Bus Interface Study â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Final Report

Part IIB: Before-After Analysis

Overall, both groups expressed concern that better clarity and education on which vehicle types and when they are allowed to ride in the shared bike-bus lane would help improve interactions and comfort between all road users. Safety For the 2-year period prior to the installation of the shared bike-bus lanes, a total of 232 collisions were recorded within the study segment, of which 30 involved people on bicycles. Although collisions occur throughout the corridor, the highest incidences of crashes are found at the major intersections: Western Avenue, Normandie Avenue, Vermont Avenue, and Alvarado Street. Collisions involving people on bicycles were distributed throughout the corridor. In the 2-year period following the implementation of shared bike-bus lanes, total collisions remained nearly the same at 238, although collisions involving people on bicycles decreased slightly to 27, including one collision between a bus and a bike which did not result in an injury. Given the uptick in biking activity discussed later, this is a potentially positive sign for the safety benefits of shared bike-bus lanes. Collisions resulting in severe injuries remained the same (nine), while collisions involving a fatality increased from three to four. Wilshire Boulevard is one of the most heavily-served bus transit corridors in Los Angeles County, with peak headways, when considering Lines 20 and 720 together, averaging less than two minutes apart. During the two years prior to the installation of the shared bike-bus lane, there were 46 collisions involving Metro buses on the study corridor. Collisions occurred most frequently near Vermont Avenue and Western Avenue. None of the incidents reported at that time involved a person riding a bicycle. In the two years following the installation of the shared bike-bus lane, there were 57 collisions involving Metro buses on the study corridor. In that time, slightly fewer bus-involved collisions occurred at Vermont Avenue, but there was an uptick in the number of collisions near Normandie Avenue. Table II-22 summarizes the Metro bus-involved collisions on the corridor prior to and following installation of the shared bike-bus lanes, and distinguishes between the active and inactive shared bike-bus lane (peak) periods.

246

Metro Bike/Bus Interface Study – Final Report

Part IIB: Before-After Analysis

Table II-22 Metro Bus-Involved Collisions on Wilshire Boulevard between Alvarado and Western

After Installation Collision Type

Prior to Installation

Shared Bike-bus Lane

in Operation

Not in Operation

Bus with car

Bus with bus

Bus with bike

Unclear

Total

One incident involved a collision between a person riding a bicycle and a bus departing the stop at Western Avenue. According to the operator’s incident description, the person riding the bicycle was passing on the left side of the bus as the bus was pulling away from the stop. The most common types of bus-related collisions on the corridor are conflicts with buses exiting stops, including sideswipes with other motorists, and conflicts with other motorists turning right in front of a bus exiting a stop. Based on the operator descriptions of sideswipe collisions, the limited room to maneuver in narrow lanes and heavy traffic in this portion of the corridor are substantial risk factors, which correlates with the opinions of people riding bicycles that there is inadequate lane width to share with passing vehicles. Wilshire Boulevard, especially in the study corridor between Western Avenue and Vermont Avenue, is most likely the single busiest transit corridor in the county. Many buses arrive and depart at these intersections, making connections between crossing lines as well as the Red and Purple Line subways. Many of the collisions documented at these intersections appear to be related to the high volume of bus traffic serving stops, turning at intersections, or passing one another to either continue on route or to the nearby layover locations. Many buses lay over at either the Vermont or the Western terminals, meaning there is a higher degree of bus “looping” around the block at both of these intersections. With so many buses trying to serve the curbside stops at these intersection approaches, a high degree of sideswipes occurs between buses and other vehicles (or other buses). However, examining Metro collision reports closely at the three subway station intersections – Western Avenue, Normandie Avenue, and Vermont Avenue – it is unclear that the shared bike-bus lane or the permission of people to ride bicycles in that lane have had any meaningful effect on collisions at these

247

Metro Bike/Bus Interface Study – Final Report

Part IIB: Before-After Analysis

locations. Bus-involved collisions increased at Wilshire Boulevard & Western Avenue and Wilshire Boulevard & Normandie Avenue, but decreased notably at Wilshire Boulevard & Vermont Avenue. The data in Table II-23 will differ slightly in counts from collision data presented elsewhere as this intersection-specific analysis was a case-by-case review. Metro collisions were reviewed and classified using categories to match the SWITRS data: Table II-23 Metro Collision Data Case-by-Case Review Using SWITRS Crash Types

Western

SWITRS Crash

Normandie

Vermont

Total

Before

After

Before

After

Before

After

Before

After

Head-On

Sideswipe

Rear End

Broadside

Hit Object

Overturned

Vehicle/Pedestrian

Other

Not Stated

Total

Type

Lane widths and intersection approaches at each of these three locations are effectively the same on Wilshire Boulevard, although the cross-street widths vary widely. In terms of traffic collisions, the “broadside” category declined at all three intersections – these types would include turning vehicles colliding with vehicles proceeding through an intersection. There is no apparent reason why addition of a shared bike-bus lane would reduce occurrence of broadside collisions among general traffic. Broadside collisions with buses would typically involve other vehicles attempting to turn right around a stopped bus. Motorists may incorrectly assume that a bus stopped at the corner will be stationary, and pull up along the left side of the bus to turn right. Several incidents on Wilshire Boulevard are related to this issue, but there was only one more collision of this type after installation of the shared bike-bus lanes.

248

Metro Bike/Bus Interface Study – Final Report

Part IIB: Before-After Analysis

Bus operators are trained to anticipate this type of collision, and although they can be challenging to avoid, are typically very low-speed and minor in damage. One possible way to address this and improve bus operations on the shared bike-bus lanes would be to add signalized queue jumps. A queue jump is an additional traffic signal that gives the bus operator a “go” signal a few seconds ahead of general traffic. It can be paired with an additional LED sign for “no right turns,” activated only when a bus is present. This combination would allow the bus to proceed from the curbside stop through the intersection with less risk of a car turning right around it. Such a configuration would help reduce transit delay on major corridors like Wilshire Boulevard, reduce vehicle conflicts, and potentially help to separate bus and bicycle traffic at intersections. Operations Bicycle usage on Wilshire Boulevard increased, while transit ridership remained unchanged. Bicycle volumes on Wilshire Boulevard ranged from 10 to 20 people on bicycles per peak hour before the installation of shared bike-bus lanes, to 20 to 40 people on bicycles per peak hour afterward. For context, Figure II-61 shows the Wilshire Boulevard-area bicycle network. The study corridor has low bicycle

Figure II-61 Bicycle facilities and bike connectivity near Wilshire Blvd.

connectivity, with connections continuing west on Wilshire Boulevard in the shared bike-bus lanes, and only a signed route crossing Wilshire on Rampart Boulevard. The daily bus ridership within the study corridor remained similar after the installation of shared bikebus lanes. The rate of buses per hour on the corridor decreased slightly after the shared bike-bus lanes opened due to minor scheduling changes. Average travel speed through the corridor increased slightly in the westbound direction during the afternoon peak period, which is also opposite the peak travel flow

249

Metro Bike/Bus Interface Study – Final Report

Part IIB: Before-After Analysis

for traffic and transit ridership. There was no measurable change in speeds in either direction in the AM peak period nor eastbound in the PM peak period. Reliability decreased westbound in both time periods, while the eastbound AM peak period reliability improved slightly. Possible reasons for these changes are unclear. Bus operators appreciated the theoretical improvements of the shared bike-bus lanes for transit operations, but strongly expressed that in reality the present implementation is not ideal. On Wilshire Boulevard, operators noted the combination of delivery trucks parking in the shared bike-bus lane and the high volume of vehicles turning right creates slow bus speeds on most of the study corridor, although conditions are slightly better on the eastern part of the route, which is less dense than the western part of the route. Bus operators also had concerns with people on bicycles using the lanes, noting the difference in size between a bus and a person riding a bicycle. Overall operators did not feel the lanes were “effective” because of the many other users in the lane, both legal and illegal. Daily vehicle volumes decreased on the corridor by approximately 18 percent. The decrease in vehicle volumes may be in part due to the repurposing of one general travel lane during peak hours. Summary of Key Findings The analysis found that installation of the shared bike-bus lanes on Wilshire Boulevard had the following effects: •

People on bicycles had mixed opinions about biking in shared bike-bus lanes; people trust the bus operators, but perceived greater risk from other motorists using the lane improperly

•

Number of bicycle-related collisions decreased, despite an increase in bicycling activity

•

89 percent of observed bike riders were riding on the sidewalk despite signage indicating that bicycles are allowed to ride in the shared bike-bus lanes

•

Bus operators felt that the shared bike-bus lane was ineffective at improving operations due to illegal motorist use including parked vehicles, lack of enforcement, limited room to maneuver, and sharing the lane with people on bicycles

•

On time performance improved by 9 percent, bus speeds were observed to stay unchanged or improve slightly, while changes in bus reliability varied greatly

250

Bike-Bus Interface Training and Education 251

Metro Bike/Bus Interface Study – Final Report

Part III: Training and Education

PART III: IN THIS SECTION TRAINING AND EDUCATION INTRODUCTION ....................................................................... 253 ASSESSMENT OF BIKE-BUS INTERFACE CONTENT IN EXISTING ROAD SAFETY TRAINING 254 Bus Operator Training Methods and Materials ......................................................................... 254 Bicycle Safety Training Methods and Materials .......................................................................... 255 PERCEPTIONS OF BIKE-BUS INTERFACE AND ROADWAY DESIGN ....................................... 258 New Road Treatments ................................................................................................................ 258 Differing Perceptions of Risk for People on Bicycles and Bus Operators ................................. 262 Riding Practices of People on Bicycles ....................................................................................... 268 Differing Speed Profiles .............................................................................................................. 273 Lane Position When Riding in Bike Lanes .................................................................................. 276 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR TRANSIT AGENCIES, BICYCLE EDUCATORS, AND PLANNERS ........................................................................................................... 279 Recommendations for Transit Agencies .................................................................................... 280 Recommendations for Bicycle Safety Educators ........................................................................ 281 Recommendations for Transportation Planners........................................................................ 282 Metro’s Role ................................................................................................................................ 283

252

Metro Bike/Bus Interface Study â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Final Report

Part III: Training and Education

TRAINING AND EDUCATION INTRODUCTION Ensuring a safe and comfortable street environment for both bus operators and people on bicycles is accomplished partially through infrastructure improvements, the subject of Part II, but also through continual education. Specifically, desired behaviors and particular knowledge pertaining to new design treatments should be promoted both independently of and in response to infrastructure changes. Part III identifies existing safety training resources and provides recommendations for training and education for bus operators and people on bicycles, to help foster safe and comfortable bike-bus interactions. The recommendations in this Part were primarily developed from input received from bus operators and people who ride bicycles. Focus groups, interviews with city planners and engineers, and an online survey were each conducted in the fall of 2016 as part of this study. The perceptions of these stakeholders were supplemented with both quantitative and qualitative data. These inputs have informed our recommendations for updating or developing new training, guidelines, and outreach efforts. The first chapter of this Part reviews existing bus operator training and bicycle safety education used in Los Angeles County. This chapter identifies content gaps regarding bike-bus interface and opportunities for improved content delivery for greater effectiveness. The second chapter presents the perceptions from participants in bus or bicycling focus groups. Five subjects are discussed in terms of how the two populations agreed or disagreed on the subject, followed by supporting data largely from the online bicycling survey and to some extent from the corridor beforeafter analysis. Each perception is followed by detailed recommendations to address the issue from the perspective of bus operators (and transit agencies), or people on bicycles (and bicycle educators). A third chapter summarizes the recommendations, categorized by the expected audiences of this document: transit agencies, bicycle educators, and transportation planners. This summary will be most valuable for readers who wish to learn what to incorporate into their training content or methods of delivery. It is followed by a brief discussion of conclusions.

253

Metro Bike/Bus Interface Study – Final Report

Part III: Training and Education

ASSESSMENT OF BIKE-BUS INTERFACE CONTENT IN EXISTING ROAD SAFETY TRAINING This section reviews existing bus operator training and bicycle safety education materials used in Los Angeles County. These materials were compiled with the cooperation of partner agencies. Bus operator training materials include training slides for new bus operators, videos, and documentation from agencies including Metro, Los Angeles Department of Transportation (LADOT), Culver City Bus, and Pasadena Transit. Materials for bicycle safety training were obtained from the League of American Bicyclists, the City of Pasadena, and the City of Los Angeles. The discussion in each section identifies gaps in the existing content regarding bike-bus interface. This assessment guided, to some degree, the research conducted in the outreach component of this study. The gaps in content and delivery method identified here are addressed in the recommendations later in Part III.

Bus Operator Training Methods and Materials All bus operators in the United States are required to pass a Federally-mandated minimum standard for commercial vehicle operation, including a specific written knowledge test for passenger-carrying vehicles, as well as a stringent on-road examination, in order to obtain a commercial driver’s license and related passenger endorsements. Standards relevant to bicycle interaction for safe commercial vehicle operation include knowledge of large vehicle stopping distances and limitations of visibility in commercial vehicles. Recent updates to materials such as the California Department of Motor Vehicle’s Commercial Driver Handbook 26 discuss the risks of distracted driving, and bring awareness to the “Three Feet for Safety Act”, which requires a minimum of 3 feet distance when passing someone riding a bicycle. In general, people who have obtained the commercial operator’s license and renew it regularly are not required to retake the full license examination, and the Federal agencies overseeing commercial vehicle transportation (Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, Federal Transit Administration, and U.S. Department of Transportation) do not mandate regular refresher training for individuals or agencies. Therefore, once licensed, professional drivers are not likely to be tested on their familiarity with newer standards or roadway designs that a driver handbook might cover. Individual states and transit agencies may have their own standards and requirements for regular refresher training. In interviews with transit operator staff and administrators, specialized coursework on handling bicycle interactions during initial training is limited and typically relies on printed materials. Most training materials for bus operators could be summarized as cautionary language about 26

California Department of Motor Vehicles. https://www.dmv.ca.gov/web/eng_pdf/comlhdbk.pdf

“California

254

Commercial

Driver

Handbook”

2017.

Metro Bike/Bus Interface Study – Final Report

Part III: Training and Education

maintaining safe distances, assuming the bicyclist is unaware of the bus and/or unprepared for what to do when crossing paths. Materials that we reviewed instruct operators to use caution and be prepared to stop when encountering unpredictable bicycle riding behaviors. The primary message of these materials was to focus on the increased risk of crossing paths with a person on a bicycle compared to automobiles, although the strategies for avoiding and preventing collisions are similar. Materials also typically caution the trainee to remember to continually scan for people riding bicycles, which are less common than most other road users, and easy to lose sight of given the limited visibility from the bus operator’s seat. The depth of initial training for bus operators regarding interacting with bicyclists depends on the agency. Metro provided the most detailed information from their Standard Operating Procedures rulebook, which includes minimum distances for passing alongside a person riding a bicycle as well as look-ahead distances for making right-turns. While these printed materials are important for reference, professional driving requires a substantial amount of practical, on-road training, and learning how to assess and anticipate circumstances in ways that are hard to communicate in writing. Although the amount of on-road training hours varies greatly by agency, it is typically a minimum of several weeks of fully-supervised training with an instructor on general driving skills, as well as route-specific training that may be conducted by other trainers. There will inherently be variation in the detail an operator trainee receives from instructors with varying experiences about interaction with people riding bicycles. Another factor will be the local context of the operator’s service area; as heard in the focus groups for this study, some service areas may have relatively extensive bicycle infrastructure, but few people riding. Operators learning to drive in these areas may have relatively less exposure to interacting with people on bicycles. Developing stronger reference and training materials that all staff – including experienced trainers – are familiar with would improve consistency in approach and perspective. In addition to the recommendations developed as part of this project, other efforts are underway across the County to create more standardized training materials, most notably a new educational video from LADOT focusing on bus and bike interaction.

Bicycle Safety Training Methods and Materials Unlike bus operator training, bicycle education is not mandatory for bike riders in order to be able to ride on the road. Nonetheless, there are organizations that provide voluntary bicycle education courses. Local training in Los Angeles County is often provided by staff or volunteers from the Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition (LACBC) and Bike San Gabriel Valley (Bike SGV), who frequently contract with local cities and/or Metro to provide educational opportunities for people who bicycle. Metro in the past has also provided grants, via the California Office of Traffic Safety (OTS), to these organizations to hold 255

Metro Bike/Bus Interface Study – Final Report

Part III: Training and Education

8-hour Traffic Skills 101 course free of charge to participants, who also received a free helmet and bike lights as part of the course. Metro also sought out non-English speaking communities where Spanishlanguage courses were provided. All of these courses are led by League Cycling Instructors (LCIs), who are certified by the national non-profit group the League of American Bicyclists. The League of American Bicyclists’ Smart Cycling program is a set of educational courses designed to teach participants how to ride bicycles safely, confidently, and enjoyably. The introductory, eight-hour long course, Traffic Skills 101, which takes place in classroom and on the road, forms the base of many of the local classes taught in Los Angeles County and features both classroom and on-road elements. The course is broken into three parts: I. II. III.

The Basics: Choosing the right bicycle, simple bicycle maintenance, and bicycle handling basics Bicycling in Traffic: principles of traffic laws, changing lanes safely, and how to avoid crashes Enjoying the Ride: nutrition/hydration, sharing the path/trail, riding with a group, how to drive around bicyclists, common bicyclist errors

Of these three, Part II is most relevant to this study with regards to safe bicycle riding behavior, and portions of Part III discuss common errors and how to share the road safely with other roadway users. The framework developed by the League of American Bicyclists does not explicitly address how people can ride safely next to transit vehicles, although the general discussion of safe riding behavior is applicable for people on bicycles’ interactions with buses. For instance, the course discusses yielding at intersections and when changing lanes, lane position, and how to make a turn safely. The section on lane position is particularly pertinent to this study, and recommends: “Ride three feet to the right of the motorized traffic when the lane is wide enough (about 14 feet) to share safely. When lanes are too narrow to share safely, control the lane by riding in the center of the lane or just to the right of the center in the right hand tire track. This is legal in all states. If traveling at the speed of traffic, a bicyclist should control the lane unless it is a very wide lane. If traveling faster than other traffic, overtake on the left, keeping a safe distance from slower traffic.” The training briefly discusses riding in bicycle lanes and advises to “pay special attention in bike lanes that are adjacent to parked cars and always ride outside the door zone,” (the space adjacent to parked cars where an opened car door can hit a person on a bicycle). The course curriculum also discusses the potential for collisions near large trucks due to wind blasts, which is also applicable to people on bicycles near buses. Even without specific mention of buses, the course’s emphasis on following local traffic laws, riding predictably, and choosing lane position carefully provides a solid foundation for people to bicycle safely.

256

Metro Bike/Bus Interface Study – Final Report

Part III: Training and Education

One area where the course is lacking in is the discussion of how riding near larger vehicles, including buses, is different from riding near cars. Buses have several key differences compared to cars: • • • • •

Buses have larger blind spots for the driver, especially to the rear of the vehicle Buses take longer to accelerate and decelerate Buses make more frequent stops, which typically require them to pull to the curb Buses must make wide turns which others may misinterpret or misjudge Buses are physically larger than cars, creating additional visibility challenges, requiring more time to pass, and creating wind blast effects

All of these differences affect the way that buses and bicycles interact, and create different potential concerns for people riding bicycles. Another area that the curriculum could expand upon is how to ride in dedicated bicycle facilities. Although the Traffic Skills 101 manual has a short sidebar on bike lanes, the material does not discuss other bicycle facilities, such as separated bikeways or shared bike-bus lanes. The manual states that the same principles of safe riding apply when riding in bike lanes as in mixed traffic, and advises riders to be prepared to merge into adjacent lanes. Riding conditions in these facilities may be different, as the interactions between people on bicycles and vehicles are different than mixed travel lanes or standard bicycle lanes. Educational materials reviewed for this project from the Cities of Los Angeles and Pasadena followed a similar format as the one created by the League of American Bicyclists. Neither city offers much specific guidance on riding on streets with buses. Pasadena notes that larger vehicles, including buses, have larger blind spots than normal vehicles, while Los Angeles’ safety guidelines notes that people on bicycles should move to the left of a right-turning vehicle or bus. Although bicycle safety courses are typically offered at multiple points in the year in Los Angeles County, 68 percent of the over 4,000 people surveyed for this project stated they had never taken a safety class. Only 10 percent of respondents had taken a course in the last three years, while the remainder had taken a course more than three years prior to the survey. Strategies should be considered to expand the reach of bicycle safety education, especially continuing to reach out to communities of color. Many of the desired practices for sharing the road safely with buses are applicable to all modes on the road in addition to bicycling, so reaching out to a broad audience will be beneficial, as well.

257

Metro Bike/Bus Interface Study â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Final Report

Part III: Training and Education

PERCEPTIONS OF BIKE-BUS INTERFACE AND ROADWAY DESIGN Bus operators from Metro, LADOT, Long Beach Transit, and Big Blue Bus were interviewed regarding their interactions with people on bicycles as part of six focus groups. In total, 57 bus operators took part. Transit operators ranged in experience from less than a year to over 35 years of driving a bus. In addition, 37 people with varying amounts of bicycling experience were interviewed during five focus groups across the county, to better understand their experience with riding near buses. In addition, a survey on how people in Los Angeles ride bicycles and perceive their experience received over 4,000 responses. This section presents common perceptions voiced by bus operators and people on bicycles about their interactions and presents data, when available, related to these perceptions. Each Figure III-1 Two examples of intersection treatments that were perception is accompanied by a set of unfamiliar to many study participants. Above: Wide shared

right-turn/bicycle lane/bus stop conflict zone with unique

recommendations, based on what was shared in striping design. Below: Far-side two-stage bicycle turn box. focus groups and the data available. Each set of

recommendations is partitioned into those that address bus operator perceptions and those that address perceptions of people who ride bicycles.

New Road Treatments Perception: Newer road treatments, especially those including innovative treatments for bicycles, are not always intuitive â&#x20AC;&#x201C; for motorists, bus operators, and people riding bicycles alike. Throughout focus groups with all stakeholders, participants communicated that some of the new bicycle treatments were confusing, leading to discussion or debate about expected behavior at locations where buses, bicycles, and/or cars interact. Figure III-1 shows two examples of infrastructure that focus group participants were less familiar with and unsure of how to use. Although standard bicycle lanes are fairly well understood by all groups, streets with green-painted bicycle lanes and/or separated bikeways are less familiar. The top image in Figure III-1 shows a merging area with green paint striping that both 258

Metro Bike/Bus Interface Study – Final Report

Part III: Training and Education

people on bicycles and bus operators felt did not clearly direct them how to navigate the location. The bottom image in Figure III-1 depicts a painted bike turn-box and bike signals, which instructs people where to position themselves if they are making a two-stage bicycle turn. However, some members of the bicycle focus groups expressed confusion or concern with the design, which instructs people on bicycles to wait in front of the crosswalk. As one bus operator pointed out, every driver receives driver’s education once, probably when they are in high school, but planners and engineers continue to develop and refine traffic control devices and most drivers do not receive formal training about newer treatments. Innovations in street design may be thoroughly tested in some places, but a “proven” design isn’t necessarily intuitive. Improving communication between planners/engineers and road users can lead to better designs that are more intuitive and user-friendly for everyone. More dialogue between these groups also provides an opportunity for planners and engineers to share with operators and people on bicycles how innovative treatments should be navigated, to better avoid uncertainty between groups. Collaboration with transit agencies could provide insights to improving or accommodating transit when planning bicycle and traffic treatments. Planners and engineers could improve communication with transit agencies using several different forums: planner/engineer “ride alongs” with operators, regular meetings between planners/engineers and transit agency staff to discuss challenges, and incorporating a meeting with transit agency staff from operations and service planning into all road reconfiguration projects at the beginning of the process. Such forums not only provide an opportunity for planners and engineers to receive comments on their designs, but also allow them to educate transit staff, including operators, on how certain treatments should be navigated. This frequent dialogue may include discussion of new or upcoming treatments, or older treatments that may not still be fully understood. Planners and engineers should also engage the bicycling community to better understand the level of awareness on new designs treatments. These conversations will allow street designers to receive feedback on their initial designs and how they relate to the needs of people on bicycles, which will allow them to adjust their plans as needed. Engagement with people on bicycles also provides a valuable opportunity to educate people on bicycles about how new treatments should be used, which can lead to more consistent riding behaviors. These conversations will provide planners and engineers an opportunity to explain the reasons behind certain street treatments, inform people on bicycles how to safely navigate new treatment designs, and will also allow operators to share how different street designs affect their ability to drive safely and stay on schedule. The exchange of information should foster both better designs and better understanding of how to drive and ride where these treatments are present.

259

Metro Bike/Bus Interface Study – Final Report

Part III: Training and Education

Supporting Data The online survey asked respondents to rate their familiarity and level of comfort for various midblock, intersection, and bus stop bicycle treatments. The survey data supported the experience from stakeholder focus groups of unfamiliarity and uncertainty about the treatments discussed above. This data is presented in Table III-1. Table III-1 Survey Responses to Familiarity with Bicycle Treatments

Have you ever ridden on a street with this type of treatment before? Yes

Average Comfort Score (0-10)1

Standard Bike Lanes

95%

7.7

Buffered Bike Lanes

74%

26%

8.7

Separated Bikeways

56%

44%

9.2

Left-Side Bikeways

28%

72%

7.6

Bus-Only Lanes

56%

44%

5.1

Bus stop with no bike markings

89%

11%

5.3

Bus stop with green sharrow

28%

72%

6.8

Bus stop with diverted bike lane

35%

65%

8.7

Intersection with no bike treatment

97%

4.1

Intersection with sharrows on approach

84%

16%

5.8

Intersection with green conflict tracks

79%

21%

7.5

Intersection with shared right turn conflict zone

28%

72%

6.1

Intersection with physically separated lane and bike signals

54%

46%

8.3

Intersection with bicycle turn box

18%

82%

5.2

1. A score of 0 represents no comfort, while a score of 10 represents the highest level of comfort.

The responses indicating unfamiliarity with a treatment (a “No” response) are greater for less-common designs like left-side bikeways and intersections with bicycle turn boxes. It is difficult to measure empirically the effect of unfamiliar designs and whether they contribute to decreased safety or effectiveness of traffic and bicycle operations. However, the commonly-held concern about these new 260

Metro Bike/Bus Interface Study â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Final Report

Part III: Training and Education

designs among all stakeholders suggests that new designs can create confusion and may not be used as they were intended. The survey also helps to shed light on this issue; respondents were asked to rate their comfort with a design based on an image or diagram, even if they hadnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t ridden it personally. For some of the least familiar designs such as the bicycle turn box, the comfort score was low even though a bicycle turn box is intended to improve safety and visibility for people who need to make a left turn at a busy intersection.

Recommendations for Bus Operators Type of Training: The agency implementing a change to roadway treatments, typically the City or County, should provide notice to all transit agencies using a street when new road designs are planned. These notices should discuss the intentions of the design, how other modes are expected to behave (cars, bicycles, pedestrians), how buses are expected to behave, and seek input from bus operators on the street design. Input from transit agency staff, both operations and service planning, should be sought both during the design phase and after the treatment has been installed. Likewise, transit operators should alert their supervisors when new elements appear on the road and administration should follow-up with the bus operators and training staff to ensure a consistent approach. Method and Timing of Training: Updates should be provided to bus operators through regular means of updating bus operators about changes on their route, alongside regular refresher training. Periodic refresher training should include new street designs in the region that bus operators may not have seen, even if they are not specifically located in the area of concern for the operating division. As the largest planning entity and transit agency in the County, Metro could serve as a clearinghouse to collect and distribute new types of street designs throughout the Los Angeles County. Metro could also facilitate sharing of road designs and training recommendations to other transit agencies in the region so that bus operators across agencies follow consistent approaches as new treatments proliferate. This sharing of information should follow existing channels of communication between Metro and other agencies, if possible.

Recommendations for People on Bicycles Type of Training: Bicycling infrastructure designs are changing quickly, and providing detailed training on all facility types is neither realistic nor practical. However, all bicycle safety programs should equip people on bicycles with a basic understanding of traffic laws and safe riding practices that ensure they are able to safely navigate new bicycle facilities that they encounter. Trainings should discuss how these new treatments may alter bike/bus interactions, including when merging at bus stops and intersections, when transitioning from a parking-separated facility to a non-separated facility (where visibility can be an issue due to parked vehicles), and when making a left-turn from a right-sided facility. Trainings should

261

Metro Bike/Bus Interface Study – Final Report

Part III: Training and Education

reiterate best practices for bike-bus interaction even if a new facility has no effect on typical expectations, in order to reinforce safe riding habits. Method and Timing of Training: As only a subset of people biking can be expected to have taken a bicycle education class, based on the data from this project’s survey, education should not be limited to formal courses. For bikeway designs that are new to the region or city, planners and engineers should provide additional signage and striping guidance to instruct people on bicycles where to ride. This could include temporary advance warning signs, such as the example shown in Figure III-2, and/or permanent signs instructing on proper yielding for both drivers and people on bicycles. Cities may also consider pop-up education activities, such as Figure III-2 Temporary signage can be used to deploying “ambassadors” adjacent to new facilities to instruct people on bicycles when a new communicate with people riding the route. This method of

treatment is opened

education helps ease the transition period when new facilities are first opened and does not rely on occasional elective opportunities, like taking a bicycle safety course, to spread the word about new designs. Cities such as Seattle have had success implementing programs like this during the first week a new facility is open, with ambassadors on each block during peak periods.

Differing Perceptions of Risk for People on Bicycles and Bus Operators Perception: Bus operators generally feel uncomfortable sharing the road with people riding bicycles, but the feeling is not mutual; people riding bicycles typically have a greater degree of trust for bus operators than any other motorists. Bus operators participating in six focus groups all stated a common concern about sharing the road with bicycles. Bus operators often stated that people riding bicycles have unpredictable riding behaviors, which likely results from a combination of lack of visual communication between people on bicycles and bus operators, lack of understanding of bicycle travel context by bus operators, and limited visibility of people on bicycles from an operator’s point-of-view. On the other hand, people who ride bicycles participating in the focus groups expressed greater trust in bus operators than with other drivers. Participants stated that they felt bus operators’ training made them more likely to treat people riding bicycles with respect and interact with them safely. However, 262

Metro Bike/Bus Interface Study – Final Report

Part III: Training and Education

some people on bicycles stated that they had experiences with buses that made them wary of riding on certain streets and did influence route choice. What is clear from discussions with both groups is that most members do not fully comprehend why the other group behaves as they do. Education can help fill these gaps into the underlying causes of certain behaviors.

Supporting Data The perceptions from the focus groups for people who ride bikes were supported by several questions on the online survey. The survey found that, for more than half of respondents, the level of bus activity and frequency of interacting with buses (being passed, having to pass, leapfrogging with buses) had no influence on their choice of streets to bicycle on, as shown in Table III-2 and Table III-3. The most common interaction that did influence a rider’s choice of route was when they felt the bus passed or pulled in front of them too closely – although a specific distance wasn’t measured in the survey.

263

Metro Bike/Bus Interface Study â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Final Report

Part III: Training and Education

Table III-2 Survey Respondent Willingness to Ride Alongside Buses

What is your willingness to ride on streets with bus routes? I will ride on any street regardless of how much bus traffic there is

33%

I will ride on streets with bus routes if the bus does not come very often (chance of riding near a bus is low)

17%

I will ride on streets with bus routes only if absolutely necessary (for example, my final destination is on a street with bus traffic)

17%

I donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t consider the level of bus traffic when choosing my route

30%

I will not ride on a street if there is any bus route, no matter how infrequent it may be

Table III-3 Have Bike-Bus Interactions Caused Respondent to Change Routes?

Have any of these experiences caused you to change your regular bicycle trip route?1 None of these experiences have caused you to choose a new route

56%

Bus operator drives too close to you

31%

You have to change lanes and merge with other traffic to pass a stopped bus

27%

"Leapfrogging" - you and the bus pass each other repeatedly along the road

27%

Bus operator cuts too close in front of you when pulling into my lane or at a bus stop

25%

You follow behind a bus or stop and wait for a stopped bus because you cannot pass

23%

Bus operator passes you at too high a speed

23%

Bus operator leaves rear of bus angled into the lane when stopped

19%

Bus follows behind you because it cannot pass

17%

A bus passes you without the bus having to change lanes

14%

Bus operator honks at you

14%

Bus operator does not use signals to indicate entering or exiting a bus stop

13%

A bus passes you after changing lanes and merging into other traffic

12%

You pass a stopped bus that is pulled over to the curb without having to change lanes

11%

1. Respondents could select multiple answers.

264

Metro Bike/Bus Interface Study – Final Report

Part III: Training and Education

In each of the bus operator focus groups, all of the operators stated that they encountered numerous people on bicycles during their work – typically on every trip, although these responses varied based on where in the county the bus operator typically works. When asked if operators felt it was safe to share the road with people riding bicycles, the most common answer was “No.” This was due to operators’ perception that there is not enough enforcement of traffic laws for people riding bicycles and that many people riding bikes are unfamiliar with safe riding behavior around traffic. Bus operators were also asked if they feel comfortable operating a bus around people riding bicycles, to which the most common answer was also “No”. Although many people on bicycles do ride predictably, operators shared stories of individuals on bicycles behaving in an unsafe manner, which affect their perceptions of people on bicycles. When pressed on the subject, most operators acknowledged that people who ride predictably and according to the rules of the road were not the main concern. Operators’ frustration was directed at a minority of people on bicycles who do not ride predictably with respect to traffic regulations and best practices, which can create situations difficult for operators to foresee and leads to close calls. Many bus operators mentioned that the presence of a bike facility did help alert them where to expect a person riding a bike and that certain bike facilities, such as separated bikeways, made sharing the road much more comfortable.

Recommendations for Bus Operators Type of Training: Several of the bus operators in focus groups who expressed support and understanding for people riding bicycles identified themselves as experienced bicycle riders, and tended to be more comfortable reading cues and anticipating behavior of people riding bicycles. Engaging bus operators in practical bicycle riding exercises could help shift the operator culture towards understanding and acceptance of sharing the road with bicycles. Method and Timing of Training: Training for new operators and refresher training should include practical experience of riding bicycles to better understand the perspective of a bicycle rider interacting with a bus, which in turn should reduce the uncertainty of trying to anticipate behaviors of people riding bicycles. The suggested method of delivery should involve bus operators riding bicycles in controlled circumstances (likely on agency property) to experience the perspective of being on a bicycle around a bus. Exercises should focus on the experience of trying to ride along parked cars or a curb with other vehicles moving relatively quickly on the opposite side. This can be safely simulated in bus yard conditions. Using stationary bikes is an alternative that could be provided for operators who may have no bicycling experience or may have trouble with balance. According to project participants for this study, this type of exercise has been successfully conducted elsewhere and would help operators better appreciate the feeling of being on a bicycle passed by buses and the vast difference in visibility. Recognizing the potential limitations of providing this training to an entire agency, it could instead be delivered as an occasional training program to a more limited group of bus operators, with opportunities 265

Metro Bike/Bus Interface Study – Final Report

Part III: Training and Education

for those individuals to disseminate their experience amongst their peers. This type of training is also an opportunity to engage local bicycle safety education providers if the transit agency does not also have a bicycle program as Metro does. Often, an effective time for delivery of this training is in the middle of the day, when many operators are on standby between “splits” – shifts where they drive only part of the morning rush and part of the evening rush with no runs in-between. If an agency is unable to provide any on-bicycle practical experience, substituting video training should focus on the same elements as above – the perspective of the bicycle rider around bus traffic.

Recommendations for People on Bicycles Type of Training: For people riding bicycles to better understand the challenges that bus operators face, and to better understand how their behavior on a bicycle is perceived by bus operators, rider safety courses could include either a practical or video component showing footage from the driver’s seat of the bus to portray how little the operator can see on their sides and to the rear. Many people who ride bicycles may not be aware of the locations of bus’ blind spots, Figure III-3, and how they should avoid these locations. This portion of the course would also show the difficulty for a bus to quickly respond to a person on a bicycle behaving unexpectedly or appearing suddenly in their path. It may not occur to many people that the only way a bus operator can see what Figure III-3 Due to their size and lack of rear window, is happening behind them is from a relatively narrow buses have different blind spots than most private vehicles. Areas in red indicate areas that fall within a

view in their side mirrors, making it very easy to lose typical bus's blind spot track of someone riding a bicycle.

266

Metro Bike/Bus Interface Study â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Final Report

Part III: Training and Education

Method and Timing of Training: In addition to being part of safety courses, videos taken from a bus operatorâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s point of view could be made available via the internet, which would make them easily accessible to the general population. These videos could be included on existing bicycle safety sites for local cities, Metro, and bike advocacy groups. It would also be valuable to disseminate this information and provide these videos for regular driver training courses, whether initial driverâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s education or remedial training related to infractions. Better understanding of the perspective of bus operators and the challenges of safely maneuvering a bus would benefit all road users. Given that the vast majority of the public are licensed drivers, it stands to reason that this would also be effective in reaching people who ride bicycles.

267

Metro Bike/Bus Interface Study â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Final Report

Part III: Training and Education

Riding Practices of People on Bicycles Perception: Bus operators feel that people on bicycles sometimes behave unpredictably, such as riding the wrong-way against traffic or frequently switching between the sidewalk and street. Across six distinct focus groups, bus operators all shared a concern about the perceived danger of people riding bicycles entering the roadway without warning and causing avoidable collisions. Combining the narrow physical profile and relatively fast speed compared to pedestrians, the movement of people on bicycles can be difficult for bus operators to predict, or that a person on a bicycle can come into view relatively quickly, surprising the operator and leaving inadequate reaction time. Operatorsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; common complaints included wrong-way riding, cutting in front of buses without allowing enough space, merging into traffic unexpectedly from sidewalks or driveways, difficulty in seeing people on bicycles, not signaling their intentions, and not following traffic signals or stops signs. People on bicycles rapidly approaching the street from the sidewalk, a driveway, or side-street is a source of anxiety for bus operators, one that was also noted in the literature review in Part I. Examples of these types of sudden and stressful encounters are illustrated in Figure III-4. The main element of concern is that

when

bicycles moves,

people

make especially

sudden when

first entering the street, the operator has little time to anticipate or react safely. The operator cannot be sure that the person on the bicycle will stop or avoid contact and the ability and options for the operator to safely maneuver the bus to Figure III-4 Two examples of bike-bus interactions which cause concern for bus operators. When people enter the street from the sidewalk or a driveway, the bus operator may have insufficient view or reaction time to yield to a bicycle. Although similar to common actions of car drivers, the risk of injury or death for the person on the bike is far greater

avoid collision are limited. The person on the bicycle may or may not be planning on stopping with adequate

time and distance, and it is not always possible for the bus operator to know or assess this. While completely eliminating unpredictable riding is unlikely, further education can promote safer riding behavior from people on bicycles and better equip bus operators to handle unpredictable behavior.

268

Metro Bike/Bus Interface Study – Final Report

Part III: Training and Education

Supporting Data The perception of risk for bus operators hitting people riding bicycles unpredictably is one of the most challenging subjects to address, in part because of the divergence of operator perception from observed data. Although this was clearly and understandably the greatest concern for bus operators with regards to people riding bicycles, these types of incidents occur extremely rarely based on all available sources. Relevant data collected include bicycle rider behaviors (wrong way or sidewalk riding), collision data between bicycles and buses, review of bus on-board video incident recordings, survey responses from people who ride bicycles, and on-street observations. Out of all 15 study corridors and covering a range of several years’ worth of data, there was a single bicycle-bus collision on Wilshire Boulevard and two bicycle-bus collisions on Venice Boulevard, both of which are among the busiest study corridors for ADT, buses, and bicycle riders. On Wilshire Boulevard, observed sidewalk riding was as high as 89 percent; however, other corridors with high proportions of sidewalk riding such as Van Nuys Boulevard (70 percent) and Pacific Avenue (44 percent) had no bus-bicycle incidents during the study period. Metro staff regularly review operator reports of all incidents with people on bicycles, including nearmisses. For this effort, an additional review was made of approximately 15 bike-bus incidents on the study corridors for which video was available within approximately the past five years. Several of the recorded incidents included cases where bicyclists collided with stationary buses, often coming into view perpendicular to the bus, and at relatively high speed. None of the incidents involved a bus in motion colliding with a person riding in the flow of travel. In many of the incident videos, the people on bicycles appeared to be not fully in control – consistent with bus operator descriptions of the types of interactions they fear, although not representative of the vast majority of interactions that happen on any given day, based on our data and field observations. However, it is also difficult to quantify near-misses, which may strongly color the operators’ perceptions. Collisions involving people between buses and bikes are relatively few compared to the myriad of interactions happening daily between buses and people on bikes. Clearly, driving near people riding bicycles does create a great deal of stress for some operators, but the data suggests that there are very few actual collisions between bikes and buses. Additional education for both bus operators and people on bicycles, discussed throughout this document, can further reduce the number of collisions and result in safer and less stressful interactions.

Recommendations for Bus Operators Type of Training: Bus operators already receive some training about driving near unpredictable people on bicycles, to which the strategy is often to hold back and avoid crossing paths if possible. This type of training should continue, and should include video examples of proper and improper behavior near people on bicycles. Training should include strategies for initiating visual contact with unpredictable 269

Metro Bike/Bus Interface Study – Final Report

Part III: Training and Education

riders who are generally traveling in the same direction, proceeding with extra caution and using signals even earlier when approaching bus stops or turns. Encountering people who are riding haphazardly into traffic from side streets and other extreme situations is difficult to predict, regardless of training. Events that caused the greatest emotional responses from operators like people riding perpendicular into the side of a stopped bus, are those which would be difficult or impossible to prevent. Operator training should be pragmatic, acknowledging that such incidents could occur, and beyond the standard messaging about being aware of surroundings for any warning, the operator’s best strategy is to slow or stop as soon as safely possible and document any resulting incident. Transit agencies should continue to provide clarity about the policies for reviewing collisions, be consistent about application of these policies, and communicate regularly with the operators about the seriousness of bike-bus interaction. All bus operators should be expertly trained in securing and documenting the scene in the event of a collision, even if they have never been involved in a collision. Accurate and detailed accounting of an incident, supported by functional safety cameras, can help to protect an operator who followed their training but was unable to avoid a collision, whether it was with an erratic driver or an erratic bicycle rider. It will help temper the perception of extreme risk in sharing the road if all operators are very well versed in these elements and the agency has a deserved reputation for fair and careful collision review. Knowing how to accurately document a collision is, of course, secondary to safe driving training and preventing involvement in a collision in the first place. Method and Timing of Training: During initial operator training, a typical core subject is understanding collision prevention and incident procedures. This is an appropriate and relevant time to discuss (and reinforce) strategies for bike-bus interaction, as well as the extreme cases of unpredictable riders.

Recommendations for People on Bicycles Type of Training: Many of the most common concerns expressed by bus operators about people bicycling – riding predictably, being visible, following traffic laws, communicating intent – are already central themes of the bicycle safety material that was reviewed for this study. Bicycle education should include education specifically on how to ride safely near buses. For instance, while passing any vehicle on the right can be hazardous, it is particularly risky near buses because of bus driving patterns. Buses pull to the right side of the road to serve bus stops and also make very wide right turns, both of which can be difficult for someone to accurately recognize and anticipate from behind the bus. Boarding and alighting passengers on the right side of the bus present additional hazards if a person bicycling were to pass on the right of the bus. Figure III-5 shows the options for a person on a bicycle when they encounter a bus at a stop and indicates the preferred, proceed with caution, and never-do approaches.

270

Metro Bike/Bus Interface Study – Final Report

Part III: Training and Education

Bicycle safety education related to bus interaction should focus on: avoiding the right side of buses; staying in view of the operator’s left side mirror; making visual contact and communicating intent with physical signals; how to assess safe situations for passing stopped buses, and how to pass safely to the left of the bus. Making visual contact is best accomplished by remaining in full view of the driver’s left side mirror at least until the bicycle rider sees the eyes of the bus operator. Bus operators typically check their mirrors many times a minute – as frequently as every few seconds in intense circumstances. A person riding a bike should ensure when they are making hand signals before turning that it is within view of the operator, and do so long enough in advance of actually shifting direction to allow other drivers time to see and react.

271

Metro Bike/Bus Interface Study â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Final Report

Part III: Training and Education

Figure III-5 Guidance on interacting with buses at bus stops or bus zones

272

Metro Bike/Bus Interface Study – Final Report

Part III: Training and Education

Method and Timing of Training: Critically, agencies promoting better bicycling behavior must find ways to target the population that poses the greatest perceived risk to bus operators. This is perhaps the most challenging aspect – reaching a loosely-defined audience of people who ride bicycles unpredictably and who are presumably the least likely to seek out rider education opportunities. The best places to start are the corridors which the data show as having the greatest incidence of bicyclerelated collisions and wrong-way or sidewalk riding, even after installation of a new facility. All formal bicycle education should include discussion specifically about riding near buses. The way people ride bicycles towards intersections or enter roadways is also important to indicate to traffic, including bus operators, that the rider is prepared to stop. As discovered throughout this study, most bus operator focus group participants who were not experienced with riding bicycles in traffic expressed less understanding of the habits of bike riders and indicated challenges predicting their behavior. To mediate this concern, bicycle safety education can help reinforce good habits of slowing down early when approaching a perpendicular path of travel and making visual contact with approaching bus operators to indicate intentions. A strong public awareness campaign can reach more of the people who may not be aware of and/or practice safe riding techniques and remind them to make themselves visible. Transit agencies could also consider placing messages on the back of buses for both people driving and on bicycles warning them not to pass to the right of the bus and/or “if you can't see my mirrors I can't see you”, as seen on some large trucks. As with the previous perception, much of the training regarding visibility for bus operators, appropriate lane positioning, and not passing on the right are applicable to motorists and pedestrians as well. This general training about safety around city buses should be covered in driver education courses, even if it is addressed primarily from a bicycling perspective. Another opportunity may be including outreach materials in license renewal and other Department of Motor Vehicle mailings, which have a wide audience.

Differing Speed Profiles Perception: People on bicycles travel more slowly than buses, which could impact bus operations. Bus operators expressed concern that sharing space with people on bicycles can slow buses down, as buses must either ride behind or pass a bicycle. This is primarily an issue on streets without bicycle lanes, and in shared bike-bus lanes. This can make it difficult for operators to meet their scheduled time points and increase the level of stress that they experience. These conditions are exacerbated in shared bike-bus lanes, where bus operators must merge into adjacent lanes to pass, often difficult on corridors 273

Metro Bike/Bus Interface Study – Final Report

Part III: Training and Education

with bus-only lanes because there are fewer general lanes and greater traffic congestion. As discussed in Part I, over a longer distance, buses and bikes move at similar average speeds, which can create “leapfrogging”, where buses and bikes must frequently pass one another. Both bus operators and people who ride bicycles identified this as a concern they had dealt with in the past.

Supporting Data Although bus operators in focus groups generally agreed that their ability to stay on schedule is hampered by people riding bicycles, this is difficult to support with data. Comparing Metro’s bus Automatic Vehicle Location (AVL) data for before and after each of the study corridor improvements were installed, several corridors showed small decreases in average transit speed at least in one direction. However, it is difficult to attribute this solely to the presence of bicycles as any number of other factors could have also influenced transit speeds, such as increased transit ridership. For select study corridors, additional in-field observations were made to document types of bus-bicycle interaction. By far the most common interactions were people on bicycles passing stopped buses on the left side. In only a few instances were there observations of buses having to slow and wait for a bicycle to clear a bus stop zone. These observations are largely anecdotal, but they also do not align with the perspective of the bus operators. A study conducted in Great Britain in the early 2000s, and included as part of the literature review, examined bus delay in bus-only lanes when encountering a person on a bicycle. That study found that buses might be delayed between 3 and 30 seconds per encounter with a person riding a bicycle, depending on the width of the lane, the frequency of encountering bicycle riders, and the adjacent traffic. The study concluded that, “delays to buses as a result of cyclists using bus lanes were minimal” and that delay from people on bicycles “is only a significant problem if cycle flows are high.” 27

Recommendations for Bus Operators Type of Training: Bus operators should continue to be trained in how to safely pass people on bicycles when needed. Training videos and practical on-road experience will help operators assess when and how to choose passing a person riding a bicycle or waiting to allow the rider to gain some distance. Experienced operators may be aware of which segments of a particular corridor are best to pass people on bicycles and safely gain distance or which segments are best to simply wait. In addition, transit agencies should provide consistent guidance on how to best avoid leapfrogging situations. Several operators in focus groups stated that they may wait at a stop to allow people on bicycles to ride ahead of them in order to avoid leapfrogging. Agencies are able to and should set policy that clearly prioritizes

Transportation Research Laboratory. TRL Report 610: Cycling in Bus Lanes. 2004.

274

Metro Bike/Bus Interface Study – Final Report

Part III: Training and Education

safety and collision prevention over maintaining a schedule; doing so would make expectations clear to operators and ease concerns about encountering people riding bicycles who might be following the bus route for a long time. Finally, like all traffic, bus operators have no control over the delay incurred, if any, when encountering people on bicycles. Operator training should always focus on strategies to manage delay within the operator’s control. Method and Timing of Training: Initial operator training can introduce the critical elements such as prioritizing safety over schedule and assessing safe passing distance. On-route training should include guidance from operators who are experienced and have a proven safe record on the particular corridor, and specifically include guidance about when to wait and when to pass people riding bicycles. Ongoing and refresher training should include peer discussions much like those during the focus groups for this study, where operators of all experience levels are able to share perspectives on safe operation near people riding bicycles and how to safely avoid leapfrogging patterns.

Recommendations for People on Bicycles Type of Training: As buses have fixed routes, they have little or no flexibility to shift streets in a situation where leapfrogging is occurring. Bicycle education should discuss the stress that leapfrogging can have for bus operators and people riding bicycles, and encourage people riding bicycles to consider parallel streets (low stress bicycle networks) without bus service where possible. However, there are many instances where buses and bicycles will continue sharing space on streets, including in shared bike-bus lanes. In these instances, people riding bicycles should be instructed to ride in view of the bus’ side mirror and to pass safely, as discussed above. People riding bicycles should be instructed to always follow the California Vehicle Code, which states that people riding bicycles should “ride as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway.” However, riding directly adjacent to the right-hand curb is not always possible. Some exceptions include when a bicyclist is passing, preparing to make a left-turn, to avoid objects or hazardous conditions in the roadway, or if “a lane is too narrow for a bicycle and a vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane.” 28 In these cases, people biking may be instructed to ride in the middle of the lane, as discussed above in the overview of training material from the League of American Bicyclists. Beyond classroom education, a public safety campaign could be created to note that people on bicycles may wish to briefly exit the roadway to allow a bus behind them to pass safely. Further public safety campaigns could advise people on bicycles to avoid passing stopped buses at red lights, an activity known as “filtering”, if the bus does not have a stop on the far side of the intersection. Passing a stopped bus at a red light can create a situation where a bus would need to immediately pass a person biking 28

California Vehicle Code § 21202

275

Metro Bike/Bus Interface Study – Final Report

Part III: Training and Education

once the light turns green, while waiting behind the bus at the intersection would eliminate the need for a bus to pass. Method and Timing of Training: Classroom settings and public advertisements.

Lane Position When Riding in Bike Lanes Perception: When standard bicycle lanes are present, people on bicycles ride on the left side of the lane, which puts them closer to buses. When bicycling next to parked cars, people often ride outside of the “door zone”, the space adjacent to the car that an open door takes, which is approximately 4 feet wide. Riding in the door zone can lead to “dooring”, when a door is opened in the path of a person riding a bicycle, leading to a collision. Parts of some standard bicycle lanes fall within the door zone and this leads to people riding on the left side of a bicycle lane, as shown in Figure III-6, or towards the middle of an adjacent general travel lane particularly when the bicycle lane is too narrow to accommodate people on Figure III-6 People on bicycles often ride on the left side of the bike lane to avoid the door zone

bicycles avoiding the door zone. Given that standard bicycle lanes typically range

in width from 4 feet to 6 feet, the door zone encompasses most of or nearly all of the lane. In buffered bicycle lanes or separated bikeways, this is typically not a concern, as people on bicycles have additional space between them and adjacent travel lanes and/or between adjacent parked vehicles. According to data from the League of American Bicyclists, seven percent of bicycle crashes occur due to “Opening car door into path of the bicyclist” 29. People may also ride to the left side of the shoulder or bicycle lane to avoid the seam between the asphalt surface and concrete drain gutter or debris that collects along the curb.

League of American Bicyclists. Smart Cycling: Traffic Skills 101.

276

Metro Bike/Bus Interface Study – Final Report

Part III: Training and Education

Supporting Data Bus operators participating in focus groups often mentioned the concern about people riding bicycles very close to the travel lane even when there was a standard bicycle lane. Additional data is not available on typical lane positioning for people riding bicycles in standard bike lanes. The size of the door zone varies based on the size of the vehicle door, but can often take up the majority of a standard bicycle lane. Buffered bicycle lanes provide additional space for people to ride in, depending on the size of the buffer, allowing people to ride in a dedicated space for bicycles and outside of the door zone. Additionally, a wider parking space provides some space for the car door to be opened without intruding into the bicycle lane.

Recommendations for Bus Operators Type of Training: Many bus operators are not familiar with biking on city streets and likely are not familiar with the door zone. Educating these bus operators on why people riding bicycles behave as they do, including riding bicycles themselves, should help create greater understanding between the two groups. As discussed above, bus operators should always be instructed to pass people biking with care and following all relevant laws, including the state’s three foot passing law 30. Bus operators are already trained to scan far ahead for potential obstacles; when doing so, operators should think ahead and set themselves up to safely pass a person riding near their travel lane. Passing may require encroaching on the adjacent travel lane or even across the yellow line into the opposing direction. Bus operators should be trained to do so within an appropriate distance to make as clear as possible to other traffic what is happening. Vehicles behind the bus should be able to see that the bus is not necessarily fully changing lanes, so as not to try to cut to the right of the bus, thus putting the person on the bicycle in danger. Some of the more experienced operators during focus groups referred to these strategies as “managing” the traffic. Method and Timing of Training: Discussion of bicycle riding behavior should be included in all training for new operators and refresher training. Images or videos of why people ride bicycles to the left of the bike lane (gutter seams, door zones, etc.) will help operators better understand the bicyclist perspective.

Recommendations for People on Bicycles Type of Training: While people on bicycles should continue to be educated on the importance of riding outside of the door zone, as stated in the material from the League of American Bicyclists, educational material should also discuss how their riding is perceived by operators and be advised to ride in a 30California

Vehicle Code § 21760

277

Metro Bike/Bus Interface Study – Final Report

Part III: Training and Education

manner that is both safe and balanced with the needs of bus operations. As with any situation where sharing the road with buses, people riding bicycles should make eye contact when possible so the bus operator knows the rider is aware of their presence, and indicate using hand signals well enough in advance of any change where the rider might have to exit the bike lane. Method and Timing of Training: Formal education and PSA videos available on the internet should show people riding bicycles from a bus operator’s point of view and provide advice on making one’s self visible to motorists and bus operators, as well as cautions about where and how a rider can disappear from view for a bus operator. Educational information can be disseminated to the public through targeted online advertising including platforms such as YouTube, or provided more broadly through social media and agency website.

278

Metro Bike/Bus Interface Study – Final Report

Part III: Training and Education

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR TRANSIT AGENCIES, BICYCLE EDUCATORS, AND PLANNERS Safe and efficient interaction between bus operators and people on bicycles depends on good street design and proper education among each group. As roadway design evolves, better education will ensure that people on bicycles and bus operators understand how to navigate new street designs, and will help all travelers share the road regardless of the design. Education should focus on teaching proper maneuvers for buses and bicycles to interact safely, as well as discussing motivations and perspectives for each group. One of the most critical issues to address is better understanding the perspective of the other road user to avoid poor or incorrect assumptions. Bus operators and people who ride bicycles alike raised concerns that, at the core, signify a lack of awareness about the context of the other group. For example, people who ride bikes are generally unaware of the limited visibility and maneuverability of a bus, while bus operators are sometimes unfamiliar to the needs of bicycle riders who are often making do with infrastructure designed primarily for automobiles. In each example, people who were better informed about the other group’s perspective expressed greater comfort in sharing the road safely. The existing educational programs for bicycle riders already include discussions of traffic laws and general safety behavior on the road, but should include more details about specific behavior for interactions between bus operators and people on bicycles. Bus operator training already includes some discussion of interacting with people riding bicycles and on-road training would typically build on that knowledge, but training should also focus on why people on bicycles behave as they do. Knowing why someone chooses to ride to the left side of a bike lane (to avoid the door zone) can help the operator see and anticipate the rider’s moves down the road. While bus operators have periodic refresher training, many people who ride bicycles either have never received formal training or have not taken an educational course in a long time. Enhancing the content to incorporate interaction with buses is important, and getting this material out to a broad audience is critical. The important work of bicycle advocacy and education organizations to educate the public on safe bicycle riding has had a limited reach so far. Coordinating and prioritizing the messaging between bicycle educators and transit agencies could result in an effective outreach campaign on the exterior of buses, where the message will be seen by the intended audience in the moment where it matters most. The work of the Bike/Bus Interface Study has broad applicability to practitioners in organizations and local governments, but these stakeholders are not likely to approach this study seeking to address one specific perception surrounding bike-bus interface. The following sections present the high-level takeaways regarding education about roadway design, organized by the implementers: transit agencies 279

Metro Bike/Bus Interface Study – Final Report

Part III: Training and Education

and bicycle educators (or curriculum developers). These recommendations are presented independent of the supporting perceptions and data analysis, which were detailed in the previous chapter. Following these recommendations, related takeaways applicable to other groups involved with bike-bus interface, transportation planners and Metro, are outlined.

Recommendations for Transit Agencies •

Transit agencies should, at a minimum, include the following critical elements on bike-bus interaction in initial and ongoing operator training: o

A minimum passing distance of 3 feet at low speed with increasing separation at higher speeds

Assessing the distance ahead needed to safely pass a person riding a bicycle or slowing down to pull into a stop or make a turn behind the bicycle

Understanding why people ride bicycles to the left of bike lanes, including avoiding the door zone and gutter pan

Allowing time and space to anticipate unpredictable or erratic riding

Making visual contact with riders to communicate intent

Understanding leapfrogging behavior and agency expectations and strategies for safely managing these encounters

•

Transit agencies should reinforce with operators, during ongoing and refresher training, policies emphasizing the primacy of safety over schedule concerns when encountering people riding bicycles, focusing on strategies to manage delay within the operator’s control

•

Transit agencies should provide opportunities for operators to engage in practical bicycle riding exercises, which could be provided in training for new operators and as periodic refresher training group exercises: o

Personal experience on a bicycle will help operators better understand the behavior of riders, improve their ability to anticipate behavior of people riding, and assess safe passing distances more accurately

In addition to informing bus operators of the perspective of bicycle riding around buses, this training should cover common bicycle safety education topics such as avoiding the door zone, lane positioning, making turns, and other elements of bicycling in traffic

Understanding the road experience and decision-making factors for people riding bicycles will help bus operators better anticipate their actions and share the road more safely and comfortably

280

Metro Bike/Bus Interface Study – Final Report

•

Part III: Training and Education

When the provision of on-bike experience in controlled circumstances is infeasible, provide bicyclist-perspective video covering the same material and provide peer discussions where operators of all experience levels are able to share perspectives on safe driving near bike riders

Transit agencies should provide regular updates on new road designs and expectations for safe maneuvering and interaction with other road users (especially with people riding bicycles) as part of established mechanisms for informing operators about route changes, and as part of refresher or ongoing training: o

Agencies can provide opportunities for operators to share knowledge and best practices about safe operation around people on bicycles and on new infrastructure

Recommendations for Bicycle Safety Educators •

•

All formal bicycle education – courses, printed material, and online content – should specifically include information on how to ride safely near buses, with an emphasis on: o

Riding in view of one of the bus side mirrors as consistently as is practical

Making visual contact with the operator and communicating intent with physical signals

How to assess safe situations for passing stopped buses, and how to pass safely to the left of the bus while staying in view of the operator’s left side mirror

Avoiding the right side of a stopping, stopped, or turning bus, where the operator’s visibility is most limited and potential conflicts for the bicycle rider include, collision with the bus as it pulls to the curb or collisions with pedestrians boarding or alighting

How leapfrogging affects bus operators and people on bicycles, and offers the option to ride on parallel streets with less or no bus service

How riding behavior may be perceived by bus operators, including either a practical or video component showing footage from the driver’s seat of the bus to portray an operator’s large blind spots

While the long-form Traffic Skills 101 course is valuable, education should not be limited to formal courses requiring most of a day: o

Signage, striping, and pop-up education activities can help communicate safe riding behavior in an easy and accessible manner

A public awareness campaign can further extend the reach of safe riding practices near buses, such as placing messages on the back of buses stating no passing on the right

Public service announcements made available on the internet as part of a public awareness campaign, targeted ads and videos, or through regular efforts on social 281

Metro Bike/Bus Interface Study – Final Report

Part III: Training and Education

media and agency websites can provide advice on how people riding bicycles can make themselves visible to operators and motorists

•

Creating a bicycle ambassador program to educate people through programming at existing events and along well used bike facilities. A similar program in Chicago educated 100,000 people in 2016 with four full time staff and two part time staff 31

Continue holding sponsored small group rides around Los Angeles County to provide practical on-street biking opportunities in a safe and informal setting, as Metro has done in the past with C.I.C.L.E., a bike advocacy organization.

Utilize Metro Bike Hubs and similar bike station facilities to host bike education clinics and informational resources.

Bicycle safety trainings should discuss how new road treatments may alter interactions between buses and bikes: o

Trainings should reiterate best practices for bike-bus interactions even if a new facility has no effect on typical expectations

Recommendations for Transportation Planners •

•

Planning and engineering staff should solicit transit operations and service planning staff for their input throughout the design process of roadway reconfigurations, including striping bike lanes: o

Strong lines of communication and stakeholder input will improve outcomes for transit operations even if the focus of the design is for bicycling

Bus operators are on the same roads more times per day than almost anyone else and can provide detailed feedback on the conditions at most times of day

Planners should engage the local bicycling community when planning for implementing a newto-the-region design: o

Many people bicycle beyond their local neighborhood and may have valuable input on treatments used elsewhere

Engaging people who ride bicycles in the process can help educate the public about the intention and expectations for new infrastructure designs

Cities or County planning staff should communicate effectively to stakeholders when a new road design is planned on streets they operate, which should include how to use the new treatment:

Chicago Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Initiative 2016 Final Report. Chicago Department of Transportation. http://chicagocompletestreets.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/2016-Final-Report.pdf

282

Metro Bike/Bus Interface Study â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Final Report

Part III: Training and Education

New road designs may be unfamiliar to transit supervisors and their staff; providing context can help the transit operation adapt to changes more effectively

Providing pop-up education, on-street ambassadors, and temporary signage can help people on bicycles know what to expect and how to ride when encountering a new design

Metroâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Role As both a transit operator and countywide planning agency, Metro is uniquely positioned in Los Angeles County to expand educational opportunities for both road users to further improve safety. Cities, bicycle education and advocacy groups, and transit agencies interested in connecting with people to educate them on the safe ways to ride near buses must think about methods beyond typical elective education courses that people must actively choose to attend. Metro is also the ideal agency to serve as a clearinghouse for operator and bicycle education and training materials. The agency is already working to develop a new bicycle safety education curriculum that will include bike/transit information, and will continue to serve as a countywide resource for collecting and disseminating educational materials. Because Metro also operates one of the largest bus transit networks in the nation, the agency is also best positioned to facilitate continued conversations on the bike-bus interface with respect to busoriented education and delivery methods. Metro also closely coordinates with other local bus agencies, many of which provided direct input on this study.

283

Metro Bike/Bus Interface Study â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Final Report

Next Steps LOCAL IMPLEMENTATION Roadway design and planning are core functions of local government, and these professional fields are rapidly evolving after decades of primarily automobile-focused effort. As communities seek to improve safety, encourage travel by means other than single-occupant vehicles, and improve air quality and health outcomes, this report and its companion design guide can help communities balance the needs of two modes â&#x20AC;&#x201C; public transit and bicycling â&#x20AC;&#x201C; without compromising safety. Planners and engineers should consider this information a reference when developing new bicycle or bus infrastructure. Metro has developed this research and resulting design guidance to support the communities it serves, in part because the agency is not directly responsible for planning and constructing the local street infrastructure. By providing these resources, Metro can empower local governments to make informed choices about roadway design that will improve the quality of life for their constituents and lessen the ambiguity about the potential outcomes of new bikeways or bus lanes. Metro will continue to act as a reference and partner for communities seeking to improve the operation of transit and bicycling, and the implementation of individual corridor and local network treatments will remain the responsibility of those communities. Each community or agency that encounters this document will likely find a different application for the information presented. Throughout this study, the focus has been on developing context. Every corridor has its own unique characteristics that define the experience of traveling through it, and shape the outcomes when the infrastructure is changed. Every community will have different needs; some will seek to refine existing bicycle or bus infrastructure, while others may be undertaking their first such projects. Regardless, the context of the study corridors will guide the reader in setting expectations for outcomes and to develop best practices for their specific application. It is important to note that the analysis, findings, and recommendations presented in this report are based on available data from a relatively limited time period specific to each corridor. The recommendations are conceptual and the full scope of their potential outcomes is uncertain. The reader must consider specific site conditions and other local conditions and features that were necessarily unable to be considered within the limited scope of this study.

284

Metro Bike/Bus Interface Study â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Final Report

EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS Another outcome of the Bike/Bus Interface Study is the education and training component for both bus operators and people who ride or wish to ride bicycles. The study concluded that materials for both groups were lacking in coverage about sharing the road with the other and identified a number of areas where additional content will improve safety and comfort for travelers. Metro will adapt its own training and educational programs based on this research, and the hope is that other transit agencies and bicycle educators will do the same. Like the corridor studies, this report provides enough context about the perceptions and data analysis that anyone practicing in the fields of transit or bicycling should find value in the findings and recommendations. It will be up to each stakeholder to adapt their materials or develop new programs based on this and other guidance. As with all education and training, the responsibility for safety ultimately falls to the individual. The research presented here involved a limited number of participants with backgrounds and experience specific to their own circumstances. The conceptual recommendations presented here should be considered alongside recognized educational materials. The full scope of potential outcomes for these concepts is uncertain. No training or educational materials are a replacement for sound judgment and common sense.

CONTINUED RESEARCH The literature review concluded that while bike-bus interface has been an area of interest for city planners, engineers, and researchers for some time, few comprehensive studies have been carried out. The Metro Bike/Bus Interface Study successfully developed and executed a methodology for studying interactions and infrastructure that can be carried forward to other corridors around the county or the world. Cities and regional planning agencies can use this methodology to analyze their own corridor implementations. Researchers can use and adapt the process to further the scope of understanding of bicycle and bus influence on traffic safety, operations, and comfort. It is expected that this study serve as the stepping-off point for further research on bike-bus interaction, facility design, and educational program development. Through the course of study, certain aspects were identified for improvement or additional research in future efforts. These conclusions are presented here for consideration if and when others intend to undertake a similar project. Additionally, Appendix 3 contains a short review of lessons learned from conducting the outreach process that could inform the design of future bike-bus interface stakeholder studies.

285

Metro Bike/Bus Interface Study – Final Report

Actual interactions between buses and bicycles are difficult to study because of their distribution in both time and space. In the literature review, some studies conducted in-person data collection of interaction from on-board the bus looking through the windshield. In this study, fixed cameras recorded 24-hour periods on each of the study corridors. In both studies, seemingly “few” interactions were observed, despite bus operators agreeing that in the course of a regular work shift they typically encounter people riding bicycles at least several times per trip. In the case of this project, focus groups and an online survey bolstered the analysis of interactions with qualitative, perception-based data. However, the prevalence and effects of “near-misses” between buses and people riding bikes remains unclear and represents a need for further, focused study.

2. Designs for bikeways continue to evolve in communities around the world. This study included several corridors which were so recently implemented that the data available for studying aftereffects were limited. Replicating this study to follow-up on those corridors and other bikeway designs would be valuable for broadening the knowledge base on bike-bus interaction. 3. Intersection treatments for bicycles were not found in Los Angeles County at the time of this study. Much of the methodology would likely remain useful for studying intersection treatments, along with a more focused study of individual interactions, as intersections are the most common locations for collisions. As with the rest of this methodology, the research need not be limited to the Los Angeles County region, and the results may be valuable in supporting communities nationwide when considering intersection treatments.

286