1. Bicycle Safety Countermeasures Module 4

2. http://pedbikesafe.org/BIKESAFE/index.cfm

3. Countermeasures

4. Roadway Reconfiguration (Road Diet) Median Center Turn- Lane Bike Lanes

5. Before

6. After

7. Before/after studies: 1. Crash rate 1 crash every 2.5 days 34% Reduction (146 per yr) 1 crash every 4.2 days (87 per yr) Designing for Pedestrian Safety – Road Diets

8. 68% Reduction 1 injury every 9 days (41 per yr) 1 injury every 30 days (12 per yr) Before/after studies: 2. Injury rate Designing for Pedestrian Safety – Road Diets

9. Before/after studies: 3. Speeding analysis Designing for Pedestrian Safety – Road Diets

10. 30% Increase Before/after studies: 7. Bicyclist volumes Designing for Pedestrian Safety – Road Diets

11. Which road produces the higher speed? With a 4-lane road a fast driver can pass others With a 2-lane road the slower driver sets the speed Which road produces the higher crash rate? Which is better for bicyclists, pedestrians, businesses? Which road carries more traffic? Designing for Pedestrian Safety – Road Diets San Antonio TX

12. What are some benefits of road diets for bicyclists?  Reduce crossing distance  Eliminate or reduce “multiple threat” crash types  Install crossing island to cross in 2 simple steps  Reduce top end travel speeds  Reclaim street space for “higher and better use” than moving peak hour traffic

13. This area was recaptured from a 4 th travel lane; the street took on a whole new life Portland OR

14. ADT (Road Diet Candidate) o 20,000 or less 1 o 23,000 or less 2 Peak hourly volume (Road Diet Candidate) o 1,700 or less 1 o 1,500 – 1750 or less depending on 2 : Percentage of left turns at intersection VPH on side street Case with higher ADT o Lake Washington Blvd. Kirkland, WA 3 Initial volume of 23,000 vehicles per day Increased nearly 26,000 after conversion During one period about 30,000 vehicles per day Road Diet Candidate Guidelines 1. Rosales 2. Kentucky 3. Burden and Lagerwey (1999)

15. Countermeasures

16. Contraflow Bike Lanes Benefits o Connectivity on one-way streets o Reduce long detours o Reduce wrong-way o Alternate to higher speed route Considerations o Expectations of motorists at intersections and driveways o Terminus location o Parking conflicts o Bike signal o Legal

17. Countermeasures

18. Essential roundabout characteristics Slow speed entry = yield Slow speed exit Truck apron Splitter island Crosswalk 1 car length back Lots of deflection = slow speeds throughout Separated sidewalks direct peds to crosswalks Bend OR

19. Roundabouts are a type (or subset) of circular intersections Roundabouts Rotaries Neighborhood traffic circles All circular intersections Others Bottom Line: Not all circular intersections are roundabouts!!

20. Before and After Example Asheville NC 8-20 Designing for Pedestrian Safety – Roundabouts

21. Before and After Example Asheville NC 8-21 Designing for Pedestrian Safety – Roundabouts

22. Roundabout Conflict Points

23. Bicycle Design at Roundabouts

24. Roundabout Advantages for Bicyclists Reduced vehicle speed Reduced conflict points

25. Countermeasures

26. Chicanes Features o Diverting path o With or without lane restrictions Design o Tapers reflect desired speed o Speed posted in advance Benefits for bicyclists o Lower speeds Considerations o Landscaping & sight lines o Affect on parking o Don’t reduce bicycle mobility

27. Countermeasures

28. 4-28 Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon aka “HAWK” (High Intensity Activated Crosswalk) Included in the 2009 MUTCD 2009 MUTCD Chapter 4F Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons Tucson AZ

29. 4-29 Drivers see Hybrid Beacon Peds & Bikes see Pedhead Tucson AZ

30. 4-30 Designing for Pedestrian Safety – Crossing Countermeasures Hybrid Beacon Sequence 1 2 3 4 5 Return to 1 Flashing yellow Blank for drivers Steady yellow Steady red Wig-Wag 2009 MUTCD Section 4F.3

31. Countermeasure Selection by Crash Type

32. Review Lane Reductions Contra-flow lanes Roundabouts Chicanes Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons