View/hide extracted text (may have errors)
Monsere, McNeil and Dill 1 1 ABSTRACT 2 In the early fall of 2009 the City of Portland Bureau of Transportation (PBOT) installed a cycle track and 3 a pair of buffered bike lanes in downtown Portland. A major objective was to test facilities that were 4 thought to bring higher levels of comfort to bicycle riders through increased separation from motor 5 vehicle traffic. After one year of use, an evaluation was conducted to understand how the facilities 6 affected the experience of the various users, including intercept surveys of cyclists, motorists, pedestrians 7 and adjacent business. The surveys found improved perceptions of safety and comfort among cyclists, 8 particularly women. Cyclists also preferred the new facilities over alternative routes and facility types. 9 Both motorists and cyclists liked the additional separation of the users. Motorists were more likely to 10 attribute additional travel delays and inconvenience to the facilities; this was especially the case for 11 motorists who never ride a bicycle and those surveyed on the buffered bike lane facility. Pedestrians liked 12 the increased separation from traffic but had concerns about interactions with cyclists when crossing the 13 cycle track. Businesses expressed support for these and other new bicycle facilities, but had concerns 14 about parking and deliveries. 15 INTRODUCTION 16 Cycle-friendly infrastructure has the potential to increase bicycling (1). However, levels of 17 cycling in the U.S. remain low (2). At the city level, several studies have demonstrated a positive 18 association between miles of bike facilities and bicycle commuting (3, 4, 5). In the U.S., the most 19 common types of bicycle facilities are striped bike lanes on streets and separate paths exclusive to 20 bicycles and pedestrians. Increasingly, U.S. cities are adopting more innovative types of infrastructure, 21 such as cycle tracks, commonly found in many European cities. Cycle tracks come in a variety of designs, 22 but can generally be characterized as one- or two-way bike lanes with greater physical separation from 23 motor vehicles (e.g. parked cars, curbs, raised pavement, or other physical barriers). Buffered bike lanes 24 create greater separation from motor vehicles through painted ―buffer‖ zones. The increased separation 25 from traffic is thought to improve the level of comfort of cyclists and potentially increase the number of 26 people cycling. 27 In the North American context, facilities such as cycle tracks have received limited research 28 attention. Several studies have found that, when asked, people generally prefer separated facilities over a 29 striped bike lane or sharing lanes with motor vehicles (6-9). Winters and Teschke (9) found in a random 30 sample of people in Vancouver, Canada, that the top four preferred facility types were separated facilities, 31 with cycle tracks following off-street paths but above all other street facilities. Routes with no parked cars 32 consistently ranked above similar route types with parked cars. Tilahun et al. (10) found that people 33 would go considerably out of their way to bicycle on a separated bike trail or on a similar on-street route 34 with no on-street parking. However, such preferences may vary by type of cyclist. Some studies have 35 found that more experienced cyclists prefer striped lanes over separate paths (10-13), perhaps because 36 using paths would require greater deviations from the most shortest route. On the other hand, women and 37 less-experienced cyclists prefer more separated facilities and avoiding high traffic volumes and speeds (9, 38 14, 15, 16). A Bureau of Transportation Statistics survey found that cyclists lacking nearby bike paths or 39 lanes felt more endangered by cycling than those with access to either or both facility types (17). 40 In terms of observed safety, the literature is mixed on whether separated on-road facilities reduce 41 the risk of crashes or injuries for cyclists. Lusk et al. (18) analyzed ten years of emergency medical 42 response records and compared them to interpolated average daily bicycle counts to calculate a relative 43 risk of injury on six cycle tracks and eight control streets in Montreal, Canada. Their findings indicate that 44 the cycle tracks resulted in a 28% lower risk of injury. Jensen (19) analyzed bicycle crash risk using 45 traffic volumes and one to five years of before and after crash counts on 20 km of cycle tracks and 110 46 km of comparison routes in Denmark. The study found that crashes and injuries along cycle tracks 47 increased at intersections, but decreased at links, with an overall increase of 10%. Jensen also noted that 48 cycle traffic increased 20%, and that the costs of injuries needed to be weighed against the benefits of TRB 2012 Annual Meeting Paper revised from original submittal.
