A University Transportation Center sponsored by the

U.S. Department of Transportation

NATIONAL
INSTITUTE FOR
TRANSPORTATION AND
COMMUNITIES
FINAL REPORT













Lessons from the
Green Lanes:
Evaluating Protected
Bike Lanes in the U.S.


NITC-RR-583

June 2014








LESSONS FROM THE GREEN LANES:
EVALUATING PROTECTED BIKE LANES IN THE U.S.

FINAL REPORT

NITC-RR-583

by

Portland State University
Chiis Nonseie
}ennifei Bill
Nathan NcNeil
Kelly Clifton
Nick Fostei
Taia uouuaiu
Alta Planning
Natt Beikow
}oe uilpin
Kim voios
Biusilla van Bengel
Independent Consultant
}amie Paiks

foi

National Institute foi
Tianspoitation anu Communities (NITC)
P.0. Box 7S1
Poitlanu, 0R 972u7



June 2014




i
Technical Report Documentation Page
1. Report No.
NITC-RR-583

2. Government Accession No.


3. Recipients Catalog No.



4. Title and Subtitle
Lessons From The Green Lanes:
Evaluating Protected Bike Lanes In The U.S.
5. Report Date
June 2014
6. Performing Organization Code

7. Author(s)
Chris Monsere, Jennifer Dill, Nathan McNeil, Kelly Clifton, Nick Foster, Tara
Goddard, Matt Berkow, Joe Gilpin, Kim Voros, Drusilla van Hengel, Jamie
Parks

8. Performing Organization Report No.


9. Performing Organization Name and Address
Chris Monsere
Portland State University
P.O. Box 751
Portland, Oregon 97207
10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS)


11. Contract or Grant No.
NITC-RR-583
12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address
National Institute for Transportation and Communities (NITC)
P.O. Box 751
Portland, Oregon 97207
13. Type of Report and Period Covered
Final Report
14. Sponsoring Agency Code

15. Supplementary Notes

16. Abstract

This report presents finding from research evaluating U.S. protected bicycle lanes (cycle tracks) in terms of their use, perception, benefits, and
impacts. This research examines protected bicycle lanes in five cities: Austin, TX; Chicago, IL; Portland, OR; San Francisco, CA; and
Washington, D.C., using video, surveys of intercepted bicyclists and nearby residents, and count data. A total of 168 hours were analyzed in this
report where 16,393 bicyclists and 19,724 turning and merging vehicles were observed. These data were analyzed to assess actual behavior of
bicyclists and motor vehicle drivers to determine how well each user type understands the design of the facility and to identify potential conflicts
between bicyclists, motor vehicles and pedestrians. City count data from before and after installation, along with counts from video observation,
were used to analyze change in ridership. A resident survey (n=2,283 or 23% of those who received the survey in the mail) provided the
perspective of people who live, drive, and walk near the new lanes, as well as residents who bike on the new lanes. A bicyclist intercept survey
(n= 1,111; or 33% of those invited to participate) focused more on peoples experiences riding in the protected lanes. A measured increase was
observed in ridership on all facilities after the installation of the protected cycling facilities, ranging from +21% to +171%. Survey data indicates
that 10% of current riders switched from other modes, and 24% shifted from other bicycle routes. Over a quarter of riders indicated they are
riding more in general because of the protected bike lanes. A large majority of drivers and bicyclists stated that they understood the intent of the
intersection designs and were observed to use them as intended, though specific designs perform better than others on certain tasks. No collisions
or near-collisions were observed over 144 hours of video review for safety at intersections, including 12,900 bicyclists. Residents and bicyclists
indicated that any type of buffer shows a considerable increase in self-reported comfort levels over a striped bike lane, though designs with more
physical separation had the highest scores. Buffers with vertical physical objects (those that would be considered protected lanes - e.g. with
flexposts, planters, curbs, or parked cars) all resulted in considerably higher comfort levels than buffers created only with paint. Flexpost buffers
got very high ratings even though they provide little actual physical protection from vehicle intrusions cyclists perceive them as an effective
means of positive separation. Support for the protected lanes among residents was generally strong with 75% saying that they would support
building more protected bike lanes at other locations, and 91% of surveyed residents agreed with the statement, I support separating bikes from
cars. This agreement was high among primary users of all modes (driving, walking, transit, and bicycling), though motorists expressed concerns
about the impacts of protected lanes on congestion and parking. Most residents also agreed with the statement I would be more likely to ride a
bicycle if motor vehicles and bicycles were physically separated by a barrier, with Interested but Concerned residents expressing the highest
level of agreement at 85%. Nearly three times as many residents felt that the protected bike lanes had led to an increase in the desirability of living
in their neighborhood, as opposed to a decrease in desirability (43% vs 14%).
17. Key Words


18. Distribution Statement
No restrictions. Copies available from NITC:
www.otrec.us/NITC
19. Security Classification (of this report)

Unclassified
20. Security Classification (of this page)

Unclassified
21. No. of Pages
177

22. Price



ii












Page intentionally blank


iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This ieseaich was funueu by the National Institute foi Tianspoitation anu Communities (NITC), a
0.S. Bepaitment of Tianspoitation univeisity tianspoitation centei, People foi Bikes (foimeily
Bikes Belong) anu the Summit Founuation.
This ieseaich coulu not have been conuucteu without the significant paiticipation of oui city
paitneis. These inuiviuuals pioviueu uata, uesign plans, conuucteu numeious ieviews, anu hosteu
oui fielu visits: Nike Amsuen (CB0T), Baviu Smith (CB0T), }im Sebastian (BB0T), Nike uoouno
(BB0T), Rogei uellei (PB0T), Rob Buichfielu (PB0T), Ross Swanson (PB0T), Wenuy Cawley
(PB0T), Linusay Walkei (Lloyu Bistiict TNA), Seleta Reynolus (SFNTA), Niiiam Soiell (SFNTA),
Annick Beauuet (Austin), Nathan Wilkes (Austin), Aleksiina Chapman (Austin).
We acknowleuge the effoits of the following Poitlanu State 0niveisity Stuuents who assisteu in
suivey mailing anu viueo piocessing: Chase Ballew, Ban Stumpf, Ban Neicei, Lisa 0komoto, Allison
Buncan, anu Belinua }uuelman. We also acknowleuge the volunteeis in each city that helpeu
conuuct the bicycle inteicept suivey.
Finally, thanks to anonymous peei ievieweis who pioviueu immensely helpful insights anu
coiiections to this iepoit (incluuing suggesting the teim tuining zone which we auopteu).
DISCLAIMER
The contents of this iepoit ieflect the views of the authois, who aie solely iesponsible foi the facts
anu the accuiacy of the mateiial anu infoimation piesenteu heiein. This uocument is uisseminateu
unuei the sponsoiship of the 0.S. Bepaitment of Tianspoitation 0niveisity Tianspoitation Centeis
Piogiam in the inteiest of infoimation exchange. The 0.S. uoveinment assumes no liability foi the
contents oi use theieof. The contents uo not necessaiily ieflect the official views of the 0.S.
uoveinment. This iepoit uoes not constitute a stanuaiu, specification, oi iegulation.



iv














Page intentionally blank



v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of Contents ...................................................................................................................................................................... v
List of Tables ............................................................................................................................................................................. ix
List of Figuies ........................................................................................................................................................................... xi
List of Electionic Appenuices .......................................................................................................................................... xiii
Executive Summaiy ................................................................................................................................................................ 1
1 Intiouuction ..................................................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Reseaich 0bjectives ............................................................................................................................................ 2
1.2 0iganization of Repoit ....................................................................................................................................... 2
1.S Teiminology Summaiy anu List of Abbieviations.................................................................................. S
2 Finuings of Piioi Reseaich ......................................................................................................................................... 6
S Besciiption of Stuuy Facilities .................................................................................................................................. 8
S.1 Austin, TX ................................................................................................................................................................. 9
S.1.1 Baiton Spiings Roau .................................................................................................................................. 9
S.1.2 Bluebonnet Lane ....................................................................................................................................... 12
S.1.S Rio uianue Stieet ...................................................................................................................................... 14
S.2 Chicago, IL ............................................................................................................................................................. 17
S.2.1 Beaiboin Stieet ......................................................................................................................................... 17
S.2.2 Nilwaukee Avenue ................................................................................................................................... 19
S.S Poitlanu, 0R ......................................................................................................................................................... 22
S.S.1 NE Nultnomah Stieet .............................................................................................................................. 22
S.4 San Fiancisco, CA ............................................................................................................................................... 2S
S.4.1 0ak anu Fell Stieet ................................................................................................................................... 2S
S.S Washington, B.C. ................................................................................................................................................. 29
S.6 Summaiy of Facility Bata ................................................................................................................................ S1
4 Nethouology .................................................................................................................................................................. S4
4.1 viueo Collection anu Review ......................................................................................................................... SS
4.1.1 viueo Review 0bjectives ....................................................................................................................... S6
4.1.2 Location Selection .................................................................................................................................... S6
4.1.S viueo Bata Reuuction ............................................................................................................................. S7
4.1.4 Results ........................................................................................................................................................... 42
4.2 0sei Suiveys ......................................................................................................................................................... 44
4.2.1 Suivey 0bjectives ..................................................................................................................................... 44

vi
4.2.2 Suivey Besign anu Refinement ........................................................................................................... 44
4.2.S Suivey Instiuments ................................................................................................................................. 4S
4.2.4 Suivey Auministiation ........................................................................................................................... 47
4.S Bicycle Count Bata ............................................................................................................................................. 49
4.S.1 City Bicyclist Counts ................................................................................................................................ 49
4.S.2 Bicyclist Counts fiom viueo Review ................................................................................................. Su
S Suivey Responuents ................................................................................................................................................... S1
S.1 Suivey Response Rates .................................................................................................................................... S1
S.2 0veiview of Suivey Responuents ................................................................................................................ S2
S.2.1 Resiuent Suivey Responuents ............................................................................................................. S2
S.2.2 Bicyclist Suivey Responuents ............................................................................................................. S6
6 Finuings: Riueiship Changes ................................................................................................................................... 62
6.1 Bicycle Counts Conuucteu By Cities ........................................................................................................... 64
6.2 Bicycle Counts Conuucteu Buiing Stuuy viueo Review ..................................................................... 66
6.S Finuings fiom Inteicept Suiveys of Bicyclists ........................................................................................ 67
6.S.1 Bow fai out of the way will bicyclists go to iiue on the piotecteu facilities. .................. 69
6.4 Finuings fiom Resiuent Suiveys .................................................................................................................. 71
7 Finuings: Besign Evaluation .................................................................................................................................... 7S
7.1 Inteisections ......................................................................................................................................................... 7S
7.1.1 Befinition of Expecteu 0sei Behaviois ............................................................................................ 76
7.1.2 Bicyclist 0nueistanuing ......................................................................................................................... 77
7.1.S Biivei 0nueistanuing of Tuining Location ................................................................................... 81
7.1.4 Notoi vehicle anu Bicycle Inteiactions in the Nixing oi Neige Zones .............................. 84
7.1.S Summaiy of Evaluation Ciiteiia ......................................................................................................... 86
7.2 Bicycle-Specific Signal Compiehension anu Compliance .................................................................. 89
7.2.1 Compiehension of Bicycle-Specific Signals ................................................................................... 89
7.2.2 Compliance by Bicyclists ....................................................................................................................... 9u
7.2.S Compliance by Biiveis ........................................................................................................................... 92
7.2.1 0veiall Signal Compliance .................................................................................................................... 9S
7.2.2 Summaiy of Evaluation Ciiteiia ......................................................................................................... 94
7.S 0thei Elements of Besigns ............................................................................................................................. 94
7.S.1 Loauing Zones ............................................................................................................................................ 94
7.S.2 Tiansit Zones .............................................................................................................................................. 9S
7.S.S Wiuth of Facilities ..................................................................................................................................... 96

vii
7.S.4 Compiehension of uieen Pavement Naiking ............................................................................... 98
7.S.S Ninoi Inteisections ................................................................................................................................. 99
7.S.6 Look foi Bikes Pavement Naikings ............................................................................................ 1uu
8 Finuings: Safety.......................................................................................................................................................... 1u2
8.1 Peiceptions of Resiuents .............................................................................................................................. 1uS
8.2 Peiceptions of Bicyclists ............................................................................................................................... 1uS
8.2.1 Piotecteu Lanes, ueneial .................................................................................................................... 1uS
8.2.2 Inteisections ............................................................................................................................................ 1u6
8.2.S Buffei Besigns, Actual .......................................................................................................................... 1u7
8.2.4 Responses to Bypothetical Buffei Styles ..................................................................................... 1u9
8.2.S Self-Repoiteu Encounteis anu Peiception of Encounteis .................................................... 111
8.S Conflict Analysis .............................................................................................................................................. 114
8.S.1 Inteisections with Tuining vehicles .............................................................................................. 114
8.S.2 Inteisections with Bicycle Signals .................................................................................................. 118
8.S.S Summaiy of Conflict Analysis ........................................................................................................... 119
9 Finuings: Resiuent Peiceptions .......................................................................................................................... 12u
9.1 Peiceptions of Resiuents about theii Neighboihoou ....................................................................... 12u
9.2 Notoiist Peiceptions ..................................................................................................................................... 12S
9.S Peuestiian Peiceptions ................................................................................................................................. 126
1u Finuings: Appeal to Biffeient uioups .......................................................................................................... 127
1u.1 Inteiest in Bicycling ....................................................................................................................................... 127
1u.2 Bicyclist Typology ........................................................................................................................................... 127
1u.S uenuei .................................................................................................................................................................. 1S1
1u.4 Age ......................................................................................................................................................................... 1SS
11 Finuings: Economic Effects .............................................................................................................................. 1SS
12 Conclusions ............................................................................................................................................................. 1S7
12.1 Changes in Riueiship ..................................................................................................................................... 1S7
12.2 Safety .................................................................................................................................................................... 1S8
12.2.1 Stateu Peiceptions of Safety .............................................................................................................. 1S8
12.2.2 0bseiveu Safety ...................................................................................................................................... 1S9
12.S Besign-Relateu ................................................................................................................................................. 1S9
12.S.1 Buffei Besigns ......................................................................................................................................... 1S9
12.S.2 Inteisections ............................................................................................................................................ 14u
12.4 Suppoit foi the Piotecteu Lane Concept ............................................................................................... 141

viii
12.S Potential to Attiact New Riueis ................................................................................................................ 141
12.6 Peiceptions of People Biiving.................................................................................................................... 142
12.7 Impacts to Neighboihoou Besiiability anu Economic Activity .................................................... 142
12.8 Lessons foi Futuie Evaluation of Bicycle Facilities ........................................................................... 14S
1S Refeiences ............................................................................................................................................................... 144



ix
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1-1. Befinitions of Common Teiminology in the Repoit ............................................................................ S
Table 1-2. Abbieviations oi Alteinatives 0seu in the Repoit ............................................................................... S
Table S-1. Stuuy Cities anu Facilities ............................................................................................................................... 8
Table S-2. Pie-Installation Chaiacteiistics of Stuuy Routes ................................................................................ S2
Table S-S. Post-Installation Roauway Chaiacteiistics ........................................................................................... SS
Table 4-1. Timeline of Pioject Bata Collection Effoits ........................................................................................... SS
Table 4-2. Summaiy of viueo Bata Collection ........................................................................................................... S7
Table 4-S. Numbei of 0bseivations at Each Location ............................................................................................ 4S
Table 4-4. Count Bata Pioviueu by Paiticipating Cities ........................................................................................ Su
Table S-1. Suivey Bistiibution anu Response Rates ............................................................................................... S1
Table S-2. Resiuent Suivey Responuents with Census Compaiison ................................................................ SS
Table S-S. Imputeu Piimaiy Noue, with Census Compaiison ............................................................................ SS
Table S-4. Resiuent Responuents Categoiizeu into Foui Types of Cyclists .................................................. S6
Table S-S. Bicyclist Inteicept Suivey Responuents ................................................................................................. S7
Table S-6. Bicyclist Responuents Categoiizeu into Foui Types of Cyclists ................................................... S7
Table S-7. Peicent of Inteicepteu Bicyclists by Bistance of 0iigin oi Bestination to Piotecteu Bike
Lane (Niles) .................................................................................................................................................... 61
Table 6-1. 0veiview of Change in Riueiship .............................................................................................................. 62
Table 6-2. Summaiy of Bicyclist Count Change Calculateu fiom City Count Bata ...................................... 6S
Table 6-S. Summaiy of PS0 viueo Review Count Bata (when compaiable pie uata is available) ... 66
Table 6-4. Bicyclist NoueRoute Without the New Facility ................................................................................. 68
Table 6-S. Bicyclist Suivey Change in Stateu Fiequency of Riuing ............................................................... 68
Table 6-6. Change in 0veiall Levels of Bicycling by Inteicepteu Bicyclists .................................................. 69
Table 6-7. Tiip Bistance (Assumeu Path via the Piotecteu Lane)..................................................................... 7u
Table 6-8. Cumulative Tiip Bistances (Shoitest Path) ........................................................................................... 7u
Table 6-9. Beviation fiom Shoitest Path to Riue on Piotecteu Facility .......................................................... 71
Table 6-1u. Compaieu to two yeais ago, aie you taking moie oi fewei tiips by bicycling. .................. 71
Table 6-11. Peiception of Numbei of Bicyclists (all iesponuents) .................................................................. 72
Table 6-12. Resiuents Who Bicycle on Facility: Influence on Wheie anu Bow 0ften to Bicycle .......... 72
Table 7-1 Summaiy of Besign Bimensions anu Exposuies .................................................................................. 76
Table 7-2 Expecteu 0sei Behaviois ............................................................................................................................... 77
Table 7-S. Positioning Relateu Questions fiom the Cyclist Inteicept Suivey ............................................... 78
Table 7-4. Compiehension of Nixing Zone Naikings Self-Repoiteu in Suiveys, Bicycle Novements79
Table 7-S. 0bseiveu 0se of Thiough Bike Lanes in SF anu B.C. Besigns ........................................................ 8u
Table 7-6. 0bseiveu 0se of Nixing Zone in Poitlanu anu Shaiiow Paths in San Fiancisco ................... 81
Table 7-7. Compiehension of Lane Position foi Tuining Notoi vehicles, Self-Repoiteu in Suivey ... 82
Table 7-8. Compiehension of Yielu Naikings in the Nixing Zone with Yielu Entiy Naikings .............. 82
Table 7-9. Peiception of Notoi vehicle Behaviois, Self-Repoiteu in Bicyclists Suivey ........................... 8S

x
Table 7-1u. 0bseiveu Notoi vehicle Tuining Location at Nixing Zone Inteisections ............................. 84
Table 7-11. Cyclist Self-Repoiteu Peiceptions of Notoiist Yieluing Behavioi thiough Nixing Zone . 8S
Table 7-12. Cyclist Self-Repoiteu Peiceptions of Blockeu Path ......................................................................... 8S
Table 7-1S. 0bseiveu vehicle Position at Inteisections anu Tuining foi TBL Besigns ........................... 86
Table 7-14. Summaiy of Inteisection Zone Besign Evaluation .......................................................................... 88
Table 7-1S. Bicycle Signal Questions fiom Resiuent Suivey (Beaiboin - Chicago) ................................... 9u
Table 7-16. Self-Repoiteu Compliance anu 0bseivations fiom Suiveys (Austin anu Chicago) ........... 91
Table 7-17. Peiceptions of Notoiist Compliance fiom Cyclist Suivey (Chicago) ....................................... 92
Table 7-18. Cyclists Path anu Notoi vehicle Stopping Location, Botel Loauing Zone ............................. 9S
Table 7-19. Peiceptions of the Loauing Zone fiom Bicyclist Suivey ................................................................ 9S
Table 7-2u. Tiansit Stop Analysis ................................................................................................................................... 96
Table 7-21 Peiceptions of Facility Wiuth fiom Bicyclist Suivey ....................................................................... 97
Table 7-22 Peiceptions of Passing Wiuth fiom Bicyclist Suivey ....................................................................... 97
Table 7-2S Peiceptions of Siue-by-Siue Wiuth fiom Bicyclist Suivey ............................................................. 98
Table 7-24 Piefeiences of Siue-by-Siue Riuing fiom Bicyclist Suivey ............................................................ 98
Table 7-2S. Peiceptions of Ninoi Inteisection Tieatment ............................................................................... 1uu
Table 7-26. Peiceptions of Look foi Bikes Pavement Naikings of Resiuents Who Walkeu on
Facility ............................................................................................................................................................ 1u1
Table 8-1. Safety Peiceptions of Resiuents Suiveyeu, By Neaiest Facility ................................................. 1u4
Table 8-2. Safety Peiceptions of Resiuents Suiveyeu, By Cyclist Type ........................................................ 1uS
Table 8-S. Safety Peiceptions of Bicyclists Suiveyeu, By Facility ................................................................... 1u6
Table 8-4. Safety Peiceptions of Bicyclists Suiveyeu About Inteisection Besigns ................................. 1u7
Table 8-S. Safety Peiceptions of Bicyclists Suiveyeu about Buffei Besigns .............................................. 1u8
Table 8-6. Self-Repoiteu Fiequent Encounteis with 0bstacles oi 0thei 0seis ....................................... 112
Table 8-7. Self-Repoiteu Collisions anu Neai Collisions .................................................................................... 11S
Table 8-8. Summaiy of Conflict Analysis fiom viueo Review, Nixing Zones ............................................ 116
Table 8-9. Summaiy of Conflict Analysis fiom viueo Review, Signalizeu Inteisections ....................... 119
Table 9-1. Peiceptions of the Neighboihoou anu Tianspoitation, by Piimaiy Commute Noue ...... 12u
Table 9-2. Peiceptions of Bike Facilities, by Piimaiy Commute Noue ........................................................ 122
Table 9-S. Peiceptions about the New Facility, by Piimaiy Commute Noue ............................................ 12S
Table 9-4. Notoiist Peiceptions of New Bicycle Facilities ................................................................................ 12S
Table 9-S. Peuestiian Peiceptions of New Bicycle Facilities ............................................................................ 126
Table 1u-1. Inteiest in Bicycling, by Piimaiy Commute Noue ........................................................................ 127
Table 1u-2. Suppoit foi Sepaiateu Facilities, By Cyclist Type (Resiuents) ................................................ 129
Table 1u-S. Change in Bicycling, By Cyclist Type (Resiuents) ......................................................................... 1Su
Table 1u-4. Change in Bicycling, By Cyclist Type (Cyclists) .............................................................................. 1S1
Table 1u-S. Resiuents Peiception of Facility, by uenuei ................................................................................. 1SS
Table 1u-6. Safety by Age of Responuent ................................................................................................................. 1SS
Table 1u-7. Suppoit foi Piotecteu Lanes by Age of Responuent ................................................................... 1S4
Table 11-1. FiequencyLikelihoou of visiting Businesses ................................................................................ 1SS

xi
LIST OF FIGURES
Figuie ES 1u. Resiuents 0pinions of Piotecteu Bike Lanes, by Commute Noue ....................................... 12
Figuie ES-11. Resiuents Likelihoou of Riuing with Physical Sepaiation by Type of Cyclist ................ 1S
Figuie S-1. Stuuy Cities ......................................................................................................................................................... 8
Figuie S-2. 0veiview Nap of Austin Stuuy Facilities ................................................................................................ 9
Figuie S-S. Baiton Spiings Roau Piotecteu Bike Lane, Austin, TX.................................................................... 1u
Figuie S-4. Baiton Spiings Roau, Austin, TX, Befoie anu Aftei Installation of Piotecteu Bike Lane .. 1u
Figuie S-S. Sample Cioss section of Baiton Spiings Piotecteu Bike Lanes ................................................... 11
Figuie S-6. vicinity Nap of Baiton Spiings Facility Extents ................................................................................ 11
Figuie S-7. Bluebonnet Lane Piotecteu Bike Lanes, Austin, TX ......................................................................... 12
Figuie S-8. Bluebonnet Lane, Austin, TX, Befoie anu Aftei Installation of Piotecteu Bike Lane ......... 1S
Figuie S-9. Sample Cioss section of Bluebonnet Piotecteu Bike Lanes .......................................................... 1S
Figuie S-1u. vicinity Nap of Bluebonnet Lane Facility Extents ......................................................................... 14
Figuie S-11. Rio uianue Stieet Piotecteu Bike Lanes, Austin, TX ..................................................................... 1S
Figuie S-12. Rio uianue Stieet, Austin, TX, Befoie anu Aftei Installation of Piotecteu Bike Lane ..... 1S
Figuie S-1S. Sample Cioss section of Rio uianue Piotecteu Bike Lane .......................................................... 16
Figuie S-14. vicinity Nap of Rio uianue Facility Extents ..................................................................................... 16
Figuie S-1S. 0veiview Nap of Chicago Stuuy Facilities ........................................................................................ 17
Figuie S-16. Beaiboin Stieet Piotecteu Bike Lanes, Chicago, IL ....................................................................... 18
Figuie S-17. Beaiboin Stieet, Chicago, IL, Befoie anu Aftei Installation of Piotecteu Bike Lane ....... 18
Figuie S-18. Sample Cioss section of Beaiboin Stieet Piotecteu Bike Lanes .............................................. 19
Figuie S-19. vicinity Nap of Beaiboin Stieet Facility Extents ........................................................................... 19
Figuie S-2u. Nilwaukee Ave. Piotecteu Bike Lanes, Chicago, IL ........................................................................ 2u
Figuie S-21. Nilwaukee Ave. Chicago, IL, Befoie anu Aftei Installation of Piotecteu Bike Lane ........ 21
Figuie S-22. Sample Cioss section of Nilwaukee Piotecteu Bike Lanes ........................................................ 21
Figuie S-2S. vicinity Nap of Nilwaukee Facility Extents ...................................................................................... 21
Figuie S-24. 0veiview Nap of Poitlanu Stuuy Facilities ....................................................................................... 22
Figuie S-2S. NE Nultnomah St. Piotecteu Bike Lanes, Poitlanu, 0R ............................................................... 2S
Figuie S-26. NE Nultnomah St., Poitlanu, 0R, Befoie anu Aftei Installation of Piotecteu Bike Lane 2S
Figuie S-27. Sample Cioss section of NE Nultnomah Piotecteu Bike Lanes ................................................ 24
Figuie S-28. vicinity Nap of NE Nultnomah Facility Extents ............................................................................. 24
Figuie S-29. 0veiview Nap of San Fiancisco Stuuy Facilities ............................................................................ 2S
Figuie S-Su. Fell anu 0ak Stieet Piotecteu Bike Lanes, San Fiancisco, CA ................................................... 26
Figuie S-S1. Fell Stieet (top) anu 0ak Stieet (bottom), San Fiancisco, CA, Befoie anu Aftei
Installation of Piotecteu Bike Lane ....................................................................................................... 27
Figuie S-S2. Sample Cioss section of Fell Stieet Piotecteu Bike Lane ............................................................ 27
Figuie S-SS. Sample Cioss section of 0ak Stieet Piotecteu Bike Lane ........................................................... 28
Figuie S-S4. vicinity Nap of 0akFell Facility Extents .......................................................................................... 28

xii
Figuie S-SS 0veiview Nap of Washington, B.C., Facilities ................................................................................... 29
Figuie S-S6. L Stieet Piotecteu Bike Lane, Washington, B.C. .............................................................................. Su
Figuie S-S7. L Stieet, Washington, B.C., Befoie anu Aftei Installation of Piotecteu Bike Lane ............ Su
Figuie S-S8. Sample cioss section of L Stieet Piotecteu Bike Lane ................................................................. S1
Figuie S-S9. vicinity Nap of L Stieet Facility Extents ............................................................................................ S1
Figuie 4-1. Biagiam of Stuuy Elements ....................................................................................................................... S4
Figuie 4-2. Example viueo Scieenshots (2 views) fiom San Fiancisco at 0ak anu Bioueiick ............. S6
Figuie 4-S. Resiuent Suivey Stiuctuie .......................................................................................................................... 46
Figuie 4-4. Bicyclist Suivey Stiuctuie .......................................................................................................................... 47
Figuie 4-S. Suivey Auministiation Nethous .............................................................................................................. 47
Figuie S-1. Illustiation of Census Tiacts useu foi Resiuent Bemogiaphic Compaiison .......................... S4
Figuie S-2. Austin Bicyclist Suiveys - ueocoueu Tiip Enus ................................................................................. S9
Figuie S-S. Chicago Bicyclist Suiveys ueocoueu Tiip Enus .............................................................................. S9
Figuie S-4. Poitlanu anu San Fiancisco Bicyclist Suiveys ueocoueu Tiip Enus...................................... 6u
Figuie S-S. Washington B.C. Bicyclist Suivey ueocoueu Tiip Enus .............................................................. 6u
Figuie 6-1. Changes in volume of Bicycles aftei Piotecteu Bike Lane Installation .................................... 6S
Figuie 7-1. Inteisection Besigns Evaluateu ................................................................................................................ 74
Figuie 7-2 Plan Schematics foi Inteisections (Not to Scale anu Not all Besign Elements Shown) ..... 7S
Figuie 7-S. Inteisections with Bicycle Signals ........................................................................................................... 89
Figuie 7-4. 0bseiveu Cyclist Compliance with Bicycle Tiaffic Signal .............................................................. 91
Figuie 7-S. 0bseiveu Notoi vehicle Biivei Compliance with Left-Tuin Aiiow ......................................... 9S
Figuie 7-6. 0bseiveu Cyclist Compliance with Tiaffic Signal (All Locations) .............................................. 9S
Figuie 7-7. Botel Loauing Zone Evaluateu on L Stieet in Washington, B.C. .................................................. 9S
Figuie 7-8. Stateu Neaning of uieen Pavement Naikings .................................................................................. 99
Figuie 7-9. Image 0seu in Chicago Nilwaukee Suivey about Ninoi Inteisections ................................. 1uu
Figuie 7-1u. Image 0seu in Chicago Beaiboin Suivey about Look foi Bikes ........................................ 1u1
Figuie 8-1. Peicent of Resiuents Stating Safety Incieaseu foi Each Noue ................................................. 1u4
Figuie 8-2. Peicent of Resiuents Stating Safety Incieaseu foi Each Noue, by Cyclist Type ................ 1uS
Figuie 8-S. Nean Safety Scoie by Total Facility Wiuth ....................................................................................... 1u8
Figuie 8-4. Bicyclist Comfoit Rating of ueneiic Buffeis ..................................................................................... 1u9
Figuie 8-S. Bicyclist Nean Comfoit Scoie of ueneiic Buffeis .......................................................................... 11u
Figuie 8-6. Compaiison of Conflict Rates at Inteisections ................................................................................ 117
Figuie 8-7 Total (Piecautionaiy + Ninoi) Conflict Rates vs Exposuie at Inteisections ....................... 117
Figuie 8-8 Conflict Rates vs Exposuie at Inteisections ...................................................................................... 118
Figuie 9-1. Peiceptions of Neighboihoou Change, by City ................................................................................ 121
Figuie 9-2. Peicent of Resiuents Self-Repoiting Negative Effects on Paiking, by Facility anu Change
in Numbei of Spaces................................................................................................................................. 124
Figuie 1u-1. Types of Cyclists anu Potential Effect of Piotecteu Lanes ....................................................... 128
Figuie 1u-2. Inciease in 0veiall Bicycling uue to Piotecteu Lanes, by uenuei (Cyclist Inteicept
Suivey) ........................................................................................................................................................... 1S2


xiii
LIST OF ELECTRONIC APPENDICES
These uocuments will be available as a sepaiate online iesouice at http:otiec.uspiojectS8S
APPENBIX A: Suivey Instiuments
APPENBIX B: Suivey FiequenciesResults
APPENBIX C: Bicyclist 0iigin anu Bestination Analysis


xiv











Page intentionally blank


Executive Summary ES 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
As cities move to inciease levels of bicycling foi tianspoitation, many piactitioneis anu auvocates
have piomoteu the use of piotecteu bike lanes (also known as cycle tiacks oi piotecteu
bikeways) as an impoitant component in pioviuing high-quality uiban infiastiuctuie foi cyclists.
These on-stieet lanes pioviue moie space anu physical sepaiation between the bike lane anu motoi
vehicle lane compaieu with tiauitional stiipeu bike lanes. Bowevei, few 0.S. cities have uiiect
expeiiences with theii uesign anu opeiations, in pait because of the limiteu uesign guiuance
pioviueu in the past. 0ntil iecently theie was limiteu ieseaich on piotecteu bike lanes in Noith
Ameiican. Reseaicheis have been woiking to make up foi this shoitfall, with finuings suggesting
that piotecteu bike lanes can both impiove bicyclists level of comfoit anu safety, anu potentially
inciease the numbei of people cycling.
0ui ieseaich evaluates piotecteu bike lanes in
five uistinct contexts vaiying in population,
uiiving anu cycling iates anu cultuies, anu
weathei: Austin, Texas; Chicago, Illinois; Poitlanu,
0iegon; San Fiancisco, Califoinia; anu,
Washington, Bistiict of Columbia (see map,
Figuie 1). These five cities paiticipateu in the
inauguial uieen Lane Pioject (uLP) sponsoieu
by People foi Bikes (foimeily known as Bikes
Belong).
This evaluation focuseu on six questions:
1. Bo the facilities attiact moie cyclists.
2. Bow well uo the uesign featuies of the facilities woik. In paiticulai, uo both the useis of the
piotecteu bicycle facility anu aujacent tiavel lanes unueistanu the uesign intents of the
facility, especially unique oi expeiimental tieatments at inteisections.
S. Bo the piotecteu lanes impiove useis peiceptions of safety.
4. What aie the peiceptions of neaiby iesiuents.
S. Bow attiactive aie the piotecteu lanes to uiffeient gioups of people.
6. Is the installation of the lanes associateu with measuieable incieases in economic activity.

Figure ES-1. Map of Study Cities

ES 2 Executive Summary
Study Sites
The stuuy incluues nine new piotecteu bike lanes in the five cities (Figuie ES-2 anu Table ES-1).
The piojects weie completeu between spiing 2u12 anu summei 2u1S.
Austin, Texas
The Barton Springs Road piotecteu bike lane is a one-way, half-mile long lane sepaiateu by
flexposts anu a 1.S buffei. Space was cieateu by naiiowing the motoi vehicle lanes. Theie is a
shaieu-use path on the othei siue of the stieet.
The Bluebonnet Lane piotecteu bike lane is a two-way lane on a low-tiaffic piimaiily iesiuential
two-way stieet with an elementaiy school. The u.7 mile lane is sepaiateu by flexposts anu a 2
buffei, anu pioviues an alteinative commutei ioute to the busy Lamai Boulevaiu. 0n-stieet paiking
was iemoveu to pioviue ioom foi the piotecteu lane.
The Rio Grande Street piotecteu bike lane is a two-way, half-mile long lane on the left siue of a
one-way stieet a few blocks the 0niveisity of Texas-Austin campus. The stieet has a mix of
iesiuential, ietail, anu office uses. A motoi vehicle lane anu limiteu on-stieet paiking weie
iemoveu to pioviue ioom foi the piotecteu lanes anu 4 buffei with flexposts.
Chicago, Illinois
The Dearborn Street piotecteu bike lane is a two-way lane on a one-way stieet thiough Chicagos
Loop. 0ne motoi vehicle lane was iemoveu to pioviue space foi the lane, which is sepaiateu by
paiking, flexposts, anu a S buffei zone, with bicycle signals at each inteisection.
The N. Milwaukee Avenue piotecteu bike lanes, along a majoi iauial ioute between cential
Chicago with neighboihoous to the noithwest connect existing piotecteu bike lanes on W. Kinzie
Stieet anu N. Elston Avenue. The piotecteu bike lanes aie on both siues of the stieet along the u.8
mile ioute, buffeieu by a mix of a 2-S painteu buffeis with posts anu paiking piotecteu aieas.
Portland Oregon
The NE Multnomah Street piotecteu bike lanes iun u.8 miles along a commeicial stieet. The five-
lane stieet with stanuaiu bike lanes anu no on-stieet paiking was uieteu uown to one tiavel lane
in each uiiection, a two-way left-tuin lane, anu bike lanes piotecteu by a mix of paiking, painteu
buffeis, flexible bollaius, anuoi planteis, uepenuing on the ioau segment.
San Francisco, California
The Oak and Fell Street piotecteu bike lanes iun thiee blocks along a one-way stieet couplet,
connecting bike ioutes fiom uowntown to uoluen uate Paik anu neighboihoous to the west.
Paiking was iemoveu to accommouate the lanes with S buffeis anu flexposts.
Washington, District of Columbia
The L Street piotecteu bike lane is half of a planneu piotecteu bike lane couplet along two one-way
stieets in uowntown. L Stieet was uecieaseu fiom 4 to S motoi vehicle lanes in places, to make
ioom foi the 1.12-mile long, one-way left-siue lane sepaiateu by a S stiipeu buffei zone with
plastic flex-posts.

Executive Summary ES 3
Figure ES-2. Protected Bike Lanes included in the research
Austin, TX: Barton Springs Road
One-way protected bike lane on the south side of the road
Bluebonnet Lane
Two-way protected bike lane on a two-way street

Rio Grande Street
Two-way protected bike lane on one-way street
Chicago, IL: N/S Dearborn Street
Two-way protected bike lane on one-way street
N Milwaukee Avenue
Pair of one-way protected bike lanes on a two-way street

Portland, OR: NE Multnomah Street
Pair of one-way protected bike lanes on a two-way street
San Francisco, CA: Oak Street
One-way right-side lane on a one-way street
Fell Street
One-way left-side protected lane on a one-way street

Washington, DC: L Street NW
One-way protected bike lane on a one-way street

ES 4 Executive Summary
Table ES-1. Protected Bike Lane Elements
Data Element
Austin Chicago Portland San Francisco Washington DC
Barton
Springs Road
Bluebonnet
Lane
Rio Grande St
N/S
Dearborn St
N Milwaukee
Ave
NE Multnomah
St
Fell St Oak St L Street NW
Protected Lane
Description
One-way EB
protected
lane on south
side (+WB
shared path
on north side)
Two-way
protected
lanes on two-
way street
Two-way
protected
lanes on one-
way street
Two-way
protected
lanes on
one-way
street
Pair of one-
way protected
lanes on either
side of two-
way street
Pair of one-way
protected lanes
on either side of
two-way street
One-way
protected
lane on one-
way street
One-way
protected
lane on one-
way street
One-way
protected lane on
one-way street
Standard / Striped
Bike Lanes (pre)
None 1 nb, 1 sb 1 nb None 1 nb, 1 sb 1 eb, 1 wb 1 wb None None
Standard Traffic
Lanes (pre)
2 eb, 1 ctr turn
lane, 2 wb
1 nb, 1 sb 2 nb 3-4 nb 1 nb, 1 sb
2 eb, 1 center
turn lane, 2 wb
3 wb 3 eb 3 eb
Loss of MV Travel
Lane
No No In places One lane
Dedicated turn
or bus lane in
places
One lane in each
direction
No No In places
Parking Allowed
(pre)
No Both sides Left Side Left side Both sides No Both sides Both sides
Right side, Left
side (flex)
Net Loss of
Parking
No ~150 No 21 69 +27 gained ~28 ~27 ~150
Length (miles) 0.5 0.7 0.4 1.2 0.8 0.8 0.3 0.3 1.12
# Signalized
Intersections
4 0 2 12 to 13 7 10 4 4 15
# Unsignalized
Intersections
2 15 5 0 5 3 0 0 0
ADT (pre) 23-28,000 3,500 5,000 8-18,000 11,000 10,000 10-20,000 10-20,000 10,000
Construction
Timeframe
Spring 2013 August 2012 April 2012
Nov./ Dec.
2012, May
2013
April/May 2013
Fall 2012/ Winter
2013
Spring
/summer 2013
Spring
/summer 2013
October 2012
Bike Lane Width
(representative)
5'-7' 5' + 5' 6.5' + 5.5' 5' + 4' 7' 4'-7' 7'3" 7'3" 8'
Buffer Type Flexposts Flexposts Flexposts
Flexposts;
MV parking
Flexposts; MV
Parking
Concrete
Planters;
MV Parking
Flexposts Flexposts Flexposts
Typical Buffer
Width
1.5' 3' 4'
3'; 8' parking
strip
2-4'; 9' parking
strip
2'-8' 5' 5' 3'
# Bicycle Signals 2 0 1 12 to 13 1 0 0 0 0
Typical MV Lane
Width
10'-10.5 10' 14 9'-10' 10'-11' 10' 9'6" 9'6" 11'
# Mixing or
Turning zones
0 0 0 0 0 11 3 3 11

Executive Summary 5
Data and Methods
The piimaiy uata collection methous weie viueo collection anu obseivation at selecteu
inteisections, suiveys of inteicepteu bicyclists, anu mail-out suiveys of neaiby iesiuents. The uata
souices weie supplementeu with count uata pioviueu by each city. Bue to facility chaiacteiistics
anu available uata, some piotecteu lanes only lent themselves to ceitain types of uata collection anu
analysis (Table ES-2).
Table ES-2. Data used in Analysis, by Site

Austin Chicago Portland
San
Francisco
Washington
DC
Barton
Springs
Bluebonnet
Lane
Rio
Grande
Dearborn Milwaukee
NE
Multnomah
Fell Oak L Street
Video Data
Bicyclist Survey
Resident Survey
Count Data
Note: Due to construction activity and routes with relatively low traffic volumes at intersections, no video data were collected
for the Austin locations
The viueo uata help to assess actual behavior of bicyclists anu motoi vehicle uiiveis to ueteimine
how well each usei type unueistanus the uesign of the facility anu to iuentify potential conflicts
between bicyclists, motoi vehicles anu peuestiians. Cameias weie mounteu foi a minimum of 2
uays at 16 locations. A total of 168 houis of viueo weie analyzeu, in which 16,S9S bicyclists anu
19,724 tuining vehicles weie obseiveu.
The iesiuent suivey (n=2,28S oi 2S% of those who ieceiveu the suivey in the mail) pioviueu the
peispective of people who live, uiive, anu walk neai the new lanes, as well as iesiuents who bike on
the new lanes. The bicyclist inteicept suivey (n= 1,111 oi SS% of those inviteu to paiticipate)
focuseu moie on peoples expeiiences iiuing in the piotecteu lanes. Selecteu uemogiaphic
infoimation fiom suivey iesponuents in shown in Figuie ES-S. The inteicepteu bicyclists weie
youngei anu moie likely to be male than the iesiuents.
In contiast to the viueo uata, the suiveys collect uata on stated behavioi anu peiceptions. In
instances wheie the two analyses oveilap, the viueo ieview anu suivey iesults can be contiasteu to
compaie how inuiviuuals behave to how they say they uo, oi shoulu, act (Table ES-S).
Table ES-3. Overview of Data used in Analysis
Research Element Video Data Bicyclist Survey Resident Survey Count Data
Change in Ridership
Design Evaluation
Safety
Perceptions of Residents
Appeal to Different Groups
Economic Activity

6 Executive Summary

Figure ES-3. Resident and Bicyclist Survey Respondent Demographics
Findings: Changes in Ridership
We founu a measuieu inciease in obseiveu iiueiship on all facilities within one yeai of installation
of the piotecteu bike lanes, ianging fiom +21% to +171% (Figuie ES-4). The incieases appeai to be
gieatei than oveiall incieases in bicycle commuting in each city. Some of the inciease in iiueiship
at each facility likely came fiom new iiueis (i.e. iiueis who, absent the piotecteu bike lane, woulu
have tiavelleu via a uiffeient moue oi woulu not have taken the tiip) anu some fiom iiueis uiveiteu
fiom othei neaiby stieets (i.e. iiueis who weie attiacteu to the ioute because of the facility, but
woulu have chosen to iiue a bicycle foi that tiip iegaiuless).
55%
64%
15%
96%
50%
18%
81%
67%
53%
26%
40%
34%
81%
5%
5%
6%
66%
15%
41%
83%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Home Owners
2+ Adults in HH
Children in HH
Driver's License
Transit Pass
Car Share Membership
Own/Lease a car
Own working bicycle
Female
<35 years of age
35 to 54 years
55 + years
White
Black
Hispanic or Latino/a
Asian
Work Outside Home
Work From Home
Income >$100k
Four year degree +
Residents
78%
25%
97%
72%
28%
73%
32%
56%
37%
6%
89%
1%
5%
7%
93%
7%
48%
89%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Intercepted Bicyclists

Executive Summary 7

Figure ES-4. Change in Observed Bicycle Volumes
0ui inteicept suivey of bicyclists founu that 1u% woulu have maue the tiip by anothei moue anu
1% woulu not have maue the tiip, inuicating that theie aie some new iiueis attiacteu to the
facilities. The iemainuei woulu have bicycleu on a uiffeient ioute (24%) oi the same ioute (6S%).

Figure ES-5. Before the new facility was built, how would you have made this trip?
126%
68%
46% 46%
21%
171%
65%
58%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
140%
160%
180%
Rio Grande MultnomahBluebonnet Fell Milwaukee Dearborn L Street Barton
Springs
P
e
r
c
e
n
t

I
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
Two-way
One-way
Bike lanes prior
No bike lanes prior
60%
38%
34%
32%
29%
18%
11%
6%
21%
7%
10%
10%
6%
6%
7%
10%
17%
55%
56% 56%
65%
75%
80% 83%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Dearborn Rio Grande Multnomah L Street Barton Springs Oak Street Fell Street Milwaukee
By bicycle, using
this same route
Would not have
taken trip
By other mode
By bicycle, using
another route

8 Executive Summary
Bicyclists self-iepoiteu that they ioue moie fiequently on the facility aftei installation. }ust
ovei 49% of bicyclists inuicateu that they aie tiaveling on the iespective ioutes moie
fiequently than they weie piioi to piotecteu lanes. The peicentage iangeu between 28% foi
Fell Stieet in San Fiancisco to 86% foi Beaiboin Stieet
Neaily a quaitei of bicyclists inteicepteu on the facilities stateu that theii oveiall fiequency of
bicycling incieaseu because of the new piotecteu lanes. The inciease was highei among women.
Findings: Effectiveness of the Intersection Designs
A piimaiy focus of oui analysis was on inteisection uesigna ciitical component of making the
piotecteu lane concept function. Each of the facilities evaluateu useu uiffeient uesigns foi thiough
bicycles to mix with tuining motoi vehicle tiaffic. Thiee uiffeient uesign appioaches weie
evaluateu. Fiist, some uesigns iequiie the bicycles anu tuining vehicles to mix in the same space.
These uesigns aie calleu mixing zones. The seconu appioach moves the thiough bicycle fiom the
piotecteu lane neai the cuib to the left oi iight of the tuining tiaffic into a naiiow thiough bike
lane. These aie calleu tuining zones. Theie is a uefineu tuinmeige gap foi this maneuvei anu the
lanes aie maikeu with uotteu lines iecognizing that laigei vehicles may encioach on the bike lane
uue to the naiiow wiuths of the tuining lanes. The thiiu uesign involves signalization to sepaiate
the bicycle anu tuining vehicle movements.
With some exceptions noteu below anu in the main text, the laige majoiity of uiiveis anu bicyclists
stateu that they unueistoou the intent of the mixing zone uesigns anu weie obseiveu to use them as
intenueu. In auuition, a majoiity of bicyclists using the inteisections stateu feeling safe.
Foi the tuining zones, the uesign using the thiough bike lane (TBL) woiks well foi its intenueu
puipose. The TBLs help position cyclists anu ieuuce confusion compaieu to shaiiows in mixing
zones. The uesign in Washington B.C. (wheie vehicles have a limiteu entiy into the tuining
lane) hau high coiiect lane use by tuining vehicles (87%) anu by thiough bicyclists (91%, Table
ES-4). This suggests a cleai benefit of the iestiicteu entiy appioach anu cieating a semi-
piotecteu thiough bicycle lane.
Foi the mixing zones, the highest compliance of any uesign was at the Mixing Zone with Yield
Markings uesign in Poitlanu, 0R, wheie neaily all (9S%) of the tuining vehicles useu the lane as
intenueu. Bowevei, only 6S% of obseiveu bicycles coiiectly useu the mixing zone when a cai
was piesent (they chose to go aiounu vehicle in the buffei space to left). This is not necessaiily
a ciitical issue anu hatching this space woulu likely change this obseiveu behavioi. Bowevei,
the obseiveu behavioi uoes suggest a piefeience of giving cyclists space with a TBL.
A low of 1% to a high of 18% of the tuining vehicles at mixing zones actually tuineu fiom the
wiong lane. The Mixing Zone with Yield Markings uesign in Poitlanu anu the Turning Zone with
Post-Restricted Entry and TBL in Washington, B.C. hau the fewest vehicles obseiveu tuining
fiom the wiong lanes, inuicating that cleai maiking of the vehicle entiy point to the tuining lane
is beneficial.
Baseu on obseiveu behaviois, gieen pavement maiking is effective at communicating the space
that shoulu be useu by bicycles anu that ovei use of gieen maiking may iesult in some uiiveis
avoiuing the space.

Executive Summary 9
Table ES-4. Turning Motor Vehicle and Through Bicycle Use of Intersections
Image Design Type
Video: Correct Lane Use Survey: % of
Bicyclists
Agreeing They
Feel Safe
Turning
Motorist
Through
Bicyclist
Turning Zone with
Post Restricted Entry
and Through Bike Lane
(TBL): L Street
87% 91% 64%
Mixing Zone with
Yield Entry Markings:
NE Multnomah / 9th
93% 63% 73%
Turning Zone with
Unrestricted Entry
and Through Bike
Lane (TBL): Oak/
Divisadero
66% 81% 74%
Mixing Zone with
Sharrow Marking:
Oak/Broderick
48% 30% 79%
Mixing Zone with
Green Skip Coloring:
Fell/Baker
49% - 84%

10 Executive Summary
Findings: Use of Traffic Signals to Separate Movements
0ne uesign appioach is to sepaiate the conflicting
movements of tuining motoi vehicles anu thiough
bicycles using signal phasing. By uoing so, if all ioau useis
comply, theie shoulu be no conflicts. This option was useu
on Chicagos two-way facility. Compliance iates by uiiveis
anu bicycles to the tiaffic contiol weie compaiable anu
useis appeaieu to compiehenu the uesign.
At the thiee inteisections stuuieu, 77-9S% of
obseiveu bicyclists complieu with the bicycle signal
anu 84-92% of obseiveu motoiists complieu with the
left-tuin signal.
Neaily all cyclists (92%) who useu the inteisections
with sepaiate bicycle signal phases agieeu that they
felt safe when iiuing thiough the inteisection. This
exceeueu all othei inteisection uesigns anu is the only
uesign evaluateu wheie the piotecteu lane caiiies all
the way to the inteisection.
Findings: Buffer Designs Influence Cyclist Comfort
We assesseu bicyclists peiceptions of uiffeient buffei uesigns baseu upon theii stateu piefeiences
foi the actual facilities wheie they ioue anu some hypothetical uesigns piesenteu in uiagiams. 0ne
cleai takeaway is that uesigns of
piotecteu lanes shoulu seek to
pioviue as much piotection as
possible to inciease cyclists comfoit.
Besigns with moie physical
sepaiation hau the highest scoies.
Buffeis with objects (e.g.
flexposts, planteis, cuibs, oi
paikeu cais) hau highei comfoit
levels than buffeis cieateu only
with paint (Figuie ES-7).
Flexpost buffeis got veiy high
iatings even though they pioviue
little actual physical piotection
Any type of buffei shows a
consiueiable inciease in self-
iepoiteu comfoit levels ovei a
stiipeu bike lane.
Figure ES-6. Bicyclists wait at a bike signal
on Dearborn Street.
Figure ES-7. Bicyclists Stated Comfort Level with
Hypothetical Buffer Options
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
With a solid
painted buffer
With a painted
2-3 foot buffer
With a painted
buffer
and parked cars
With a raised
concrete curb
With a 2-3 foot
buffer
and plastic
With planters
separating the
bikeway
With a striped bike
lane
(no buffer)
(1) Very Uncomfortable (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Very Comfortable

Executive Summary 11
Findings: Perceived Safety for All Users
Theie was consistent eviuence that the piotecteu facilities impioveu the peiception of safety foi
people on bicycles. Peiceptions of the
change to the safety of uiiving anu
walking on the facility weie moie
vaiieu.
Neaily eveiy inteicepteu bicyclist
(96%) anu 79% of iesiuents
stateu that the installation of the
piotecteu lane incieaseu the
safety of bicycling on the stieet.
These stiong peiceptions of
impioveu safety uiu not vaiy
substantially between the cities,
uespite the uiffeient uesigns useu
(Figuie ES-8).
Neaily nine out of 1u (89%)
inteicepteu bicyclists agieeu that
the piotecteu facilities weie
safei than othei facilities in
theii city.
Peiceptions of the safety of uiiving on the facility weie moie vaiieu. 0veiall, S7% thought the
safety of uiiving hau incieaseu; Su% thought theie hau been no change; 26% thought safety
uecieaseu; anu 7% hau no
opinion. The peiceptions
vaiieu by facility (Figuie
ES-9).
Peiceptions of the
safety of the walking
enviionment aftei the
installation of the
piotecteu lanes weie also
vaiieu, but weie moie
positive than negative.
0veiall, SS% thought
safety incieaseu; 48%
thought theie hau been no
change; 1S% thought
safety uecieaseu; anu 6%
hau no opinion. These
peiceptions vaiieu by
facility.

Figure ES-8. Bicyclists: "I feel the safety of bicycling on ______
has . . ."
66%
81%
59%
65%
82%
66%
56%
29%
18%
33%
31%
18%
27%
33%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
DC L Street
SF Oak / Fell
Portland Multnomah
Chicago Milwuakie
Chicago Dearborn
Austin Rio Grande
Austin Barton Springs
Increased a Lot Increased Somewhat

Figure ES-9. Residents: Because of the protected bike lanes,
the safety of _____ on the street has increased
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Washington, D.C. - L St.
Chicago, Dearborn
Chicago, Milwaukee
Austin, Barton Springs
Austin, Bluebonnet
San Francisco, Oak
Portland, Multnomah
Percent of Residents Stating "safety increased"
Walking
Driving
Bicycling

12 Executive Summary
Findings: Observed Safety
Bue to the veiy iecent installation uates, iepoiteu ciash uata weie not available foi analysis on
most of the facilities. 0veiall, we uiu not obseive any notable safety pioblems anu suivey
iesponuents hau stiong feelings that safety hau impioveu. Taken togethei, these finuings (when
combineu with the iesults of piioi woik) suggest that conceins about safety shoulu not inhibit the
installation anu uevelopment of piotecteu bike lanesthough inteisection uesign uoes mattei, anu
must theiefoie be caiefully consiueieu.
In the 144 houis of viueo analyzeu foi safety in this ieseaich, stuuying neaily 12,9uu
bicycles thiough the inteisections, no collisions oi neai collisions weie obseiveu. This
incluueu both inteisections with tuin lanes anu inteisections with signals foi bicycles.
In the same viueo analysis, only 6 minoi conflicts (uefineu as piecautionaiy biaking anuoi
change of uiiection of eithei the bicycle oi motoi vehicle) weie obseiveu. At the tuining
anu mixing zones analyzeu theie weie S minoi conflicts in 6,1uu though bicycles oi 1 minoi
conflict foi eveiy 1,2uu though bicycles.
Theie was geneially a highei iate of conflicts obseiveu in the mixing zone uesigns than in
the tuining zone uesigns.
Findings: Overall Support for the Protected Lane Concept
0veiall, iesiuents suppoiteu the
piotecteu lanes.
Thiee in foui iesiuents
(7S%) saiu they woulu
suppoit builuing moie
piotecteu bike lanes at othei
locations (Figuie ES-1u).
This suppoit was stiong
even among iesiuents who
iepoiteu caitiuck as theii
piimaiy commute moue
69% agieement)
0veiall, 91% of suiveyeu
iesiuents agieeu with the
statement I suppoit
sepaiating bikes fiom cais.
This incluues piimaiy useis
of all moues (uiiving,
walking, tiansit, anu
bicycling).
0vei half the iesiuents
suiveyeu (S6%) felt that the stieet woiks bettei foi all people uue to the piotecteu bike lanes,
while only 26% felt the stieet woiks less well.

Figure ES 1. Residents Opinions of Protected Bike Lanes, by Commute Mode
I would support building
more protected bike
lanes at other locations
Because of the protected
bike lanes, how well the
street works for all
people has increased
All residents

Executive Summary 13
Findings: Neighborhood Desirability and Economic Activity
0n the iesiuent anu bicycle suiveys, questions weie askeu to pioviue insight into the impact of the
piotecteu lanes on neighboihoou uesiiability anu economic activity.
Neaily thiee times as many iesiuents felt that the piotecteu bike lanes hau leu to an inciease in
the uesiiability of living in theii neighboihoou, as opposeu to a ueciease in uesiiability (4S% vs
14%) - the iemainuei stateu theie hau been no change in uesiiability.
Appioximately 19% of inteicepteu bicyclists anu 2u% of iesiuents who bicycleu on the stieet
stateu that how often they stop at shops anu businesses incieaseu aftei the installation of the
piotecteu bike lanes. Few iesponuents inuicateu theii fiequency uecieaseu (1% anu 6%,
iespectively)most inuicateu no change.
Similaily, appioximately 12% of the iesiuents stateu that they aie moie likely to visit a business
on the coiiiuoi since the piotecteu bike lanes weie built9% inuicateu they weie less likely,
most self-iepoiteu no change.
Findings: Potential to Attract New Riders
Piotecteu bike lanes coulu inciease bicycling among people who uo not cuiiently iiue iegulaily foi
tianspoitation.
Neaily 2 in S iesiuents
agieeu with the statement
I woulu be moie likely to
iiue a bicycle if motoi
vehicles anu bicycles weie
physically sepaiateu by a
baiiiei. Agieement was
highei foi iesiuents in the
Interested but Concerned
segment (Figuie ES-11).
Interested but Concerned
iesiuents hau the highest
peiception of impioveu
safety uue to the
installation of the
piotecteu lanes anu the
highest agieement with the
statement, I suppoit
sepaiating bikes fiom
cais.




Figure ES-2. Residents Likelihood of Riding with Physical Separation
by Type of Cyclist
Strong and
Fearless, 5%
Enthused and
Confident,
27%
Interested but
Concerned,
43%
No Way No
How, 25%
Share of Residents
43%
62%
85%
37%
Strong and Fearless Enthused and
Confident
Interested but
Concerned
No Way No How
I would be more likely to ride a bicycle if motor vehicles and
bicycles were physically separated by a barrier.

14 Executive Summary
Findings: Perceptions of People Driving on the Street
The specific impacts to motoi vehicle tiavel vaiy between the cities, uepenuing on the befoie-anu-
aftei context.
0vei half (SS%) of iesiuents who hau uiiven a motoi vehicle on the stieet stateu the
pieuictability of bicycles anu motoiists hau incieaseu only 12% felt pieuictability hau
uecieaseu. We inteipiet this as suppoit foi the cleai oiueiing of the stieet space foi all useis.
0nly 14% of iesponuents inuicateu that they evei avoiueu uiiving on the stieet because of the
piotecteu bikeway.
About S1% of iesiuents who uiove on the stieet stateu that since the piotecteu bike lanes weie
built the amount of time it takes to uiive on this stieet has incieaseu, 1u% inuicateu it
uecieaseu, anu S9% inuicateu no change.
Paiking is a key issue when stieet space is ieassigneu anu cities. The impact to paiking was the
most negative peiception, with about Su-SS% of iesiuents inuicating the impacts to paiking
weie negative, even in cases wheie a minimal amount of paiking was iemoveu, oi paiking was
incieaseu.

Introduction 1
1 INTRODUCTION
Cycle-fiienuly infiastiuctuie has the potential to inciease bicycling (Pucher et al., 2010). Bowevei,
levels of cycling in the 0.S. iemain low compaieu to inteinational peeis (Pucher et al., 2011). At the
city level, seveial stuuies have uemonstiateu a positive association between miles of bike facilities
anu bicycle commuting (Nelson and Allen, 1997; Dill and Carr, 2003; Buehler and Pucher, 2011). In
the 0.S., the most common types of bicycle facilities aie stiipeu bike lanes on stieets anu sepaiate
paths exclusive to bicycles anu peuestiians. Incieasingly, 0.S. cities aie auopting moie innovative
infiastiuctuie options, similai to those founu in many Euiopean cities. 0ne type of innovative
facility gaining attention is a piotecteu bike lane, also known as a cycle tiack. These on-stieet lanes
pioviue moie space anu physical sepaiation between the bike lane anu motoi vehicle lane
compaieu with tiauitional stiipeu bike lanes.
The National Association of City Tianspoitation 0fficials (NACT0) uefines cycle tiack in its uiban
bikeway uesign guiue as an exclusive bike facility that combines the usei expeiience of a sepaiateu
path with the on-stieet infiastiuctuie of a conventional bike lane (NACTO, 2011). In this iepoit
cycle tiacks moie geneiically iefeiieu to as piotecteu bike lanes, piotecteu cycling facilities, oi
piotecteu bikeways. Cycle tiacks come in a vaiiety of uesigns, but can geneially be chaiacteiizeu
as one- oi two-way bike lanes with physical sepaiation fiom motoi vehicles. The physical
sepaiation may be flexposts (safe hit) oi bollaius, paikeu cais, cuibs, iaiseu pavement oi othei
veitical physical baiiieis.
0ne motivation foi the installation of these facilities is the hypothesis that they aie moie likely to
attiact new bicyclistspaiticulaily those who have an inteiest in bicycling moie but aie conceineu
foi theii safetybecause of an incieaseu peiception of safety anu highei level of comfoit while
iiuing in the lane. Attiacting laige shaies of these potential cyclists is essential to iealizing many of
the potential benefits of bicycling that cities aie aiming foi at an impactful scale, such as bettei
health anu ieuuceu pollution. Eaily eviuence fiom iecently constiucteu piotecteu bike lanes
suggests that they uo pioviue gieatei comfoit (Winters and Teschke, 2010; Monsere et al., 2012;
Goodno et al., 2013) anu impioveu safety (Lusk et al., 2011; Harris et al., 2013; Lusk et al., 2013;
Thomas and DeMartis, 2013).
The inteiest in innovative facilities is eviuent in a numbei of ways. In 2u11, NACT0 publisheu the
Urban Bikeway Design Guide, which was uevelopeu in pait uue to a lack of guiuance on cycle tiacks
anu othei innovative bicycle facilities in typical state anu national uesign stanuaius manuals. The
uieen Lane Pioject, sponsoieu by People foi Bikes (foimeily known as Bikes Belong), aims to
inciease implementation of piotecteu bike lanes anu attiacteu applications fiom ovei 4u cities in its
fiist yeai anu letteis of inteiest fiom ovei 1uu cities in its seconu phase in 2u14. The numbei of
piotecteu bike lanes is incieasing quickly. }ust ovei 6u facilities hau been built by 2u11, but S2 such
facilities weie built in the following two yeais, an inciease of ovei 8S% (Bikes Belong, 2013).
Evaluations of piotecteu bike lanes in the 0.S. aie spaise, anu many cities aie waiting foi moie
empiiical eviuence of the effects of such facilities befoie constiucting them. 0f paiticulai concein is
the uesign anu safety of the facilities at inteisections, wheie conflicts anu collisions can occui
between thiough-moving cyclists anu tuining motoi vehicles. In constiaineu uiban aieas, installing
new piotecteu lanes often iequiies ieallocation of space that was pieviously useu foi motoi vehicle
tiaffic, paiking, oi tiansit activities. Thus, cities aie inteiesteu in bettei knowing the benefits of

2 Introduction
installing the piotecteu lanes, incluuing incieasing the level of people using cycling foi
tianspoitation, impacts to economic activity, anu changes to peiceptions of safety anu actual safety.
1.1 Research Objectives
The oveiall objective of this ieseaich is to evaluate 0.S. piotecteu bicycle lanes (cycle tiacks) anu
inteisection tieatments in teims of theii use, peiception, benefits anu impacts. This ieseaich
examines piotecteu bicycle lanes in five cities: Austin, TX; Chicago, IL; Poitlanu, 0R; San Fiancisco,
CA; anu Washington, B.C. These five cities paiticipateu in the inauguial uieen Lane Pioject (uLP).
The ieseaich hau planneu to evaluate Nemphis, TN, but constiuction uelays put the facilities
outsiue the pioject winuow.
The ieseaich was uesigneu to gathei infoimation anu uata about a numbei of ielevant questions
ielateu to piotecteu infiastiuctuie. The pioject is the fiist in the 0.S. that evaluates piotecteu bike
lanes in multiple cities anu contexts, employing a consistent methouology anu timefiame, using
both obseivation of use anu usei anu iesiuent peiceptions. Thus, most of the piesentation of the
iesults anu uata aie stiuctuieu to piesent the contiasting oi similai iesults acioss cities, facility
types, uesigns, anu cycling anu uiiving cultuies. The evaluation sought to answei the following
questions:
1. Bo the facilities attiact moie cyclists.
2. Bow well uo the uesign featuies of the facilities woik. In paiticulai, uo both the useis of the
piotecteu bicycle facility anu aujacent tiavel lanes unueistanu the uesign intents of the
facility, especially unique oi expeiimental tieatments at inteisections.
S. Bo the piotecteu lanes impiove peiceiveu anu actual safety.
4. What aie the peiceptions of neaiby iesiuents.
S. Bow attiactive aie the piotecteu lanes to useis who aie least comfoitable on highei stiess
bicycling ioutes.
6. Is the installation of the lanes associateu with measuieable incieases in economic activity.
This ieseaich pioviues a unique look at the effectiveness of piotecteu bike lanes inteisection
uesign, the unueistanuing anu peiception of useis, anu peiceptions of neaiby iesiuents acioss a
vaiiety of contexts.
Safety is examineu thiough a viueo ieview conflict analysis (focuseu at inteisections) anu fiom usei
peiceptions baseu on suivey finuings. Auequate ciash uata to conuuct a ciash analysis was not yet
available uue to the shoit peiiou of time between constiuction anu evaluation.
Economic activity is examineu thiough a set of questions askeu of bicyclists anu neaiby iesiuents.
A thoiough analysis of tax uata anu uevelopment patteins will iequiie a longei timefiame to play
out, anu thus, is not incluueu in this iepoit.
1.2 Organization of Report
This iepoit attempts to pioviue a compiehensive oveiview of the ieseaich appioach, piocess anu
finuings of this stuuy. The chapteis of the iepoit aie as follows:

Introduction 3
Chaptei 2 (page 6) pioviues an oveiview of piioi ieseaich aiounu the implementation anu
impact of piotecteu bike lanes, with a focus on Noith Ameiica. The focus is on peei-
ievieweu ieseaich.
Chaptei S (page 8) pioviues uesciiptions of each facility incluueu in this iepoit along with
the context of the piotecteu bike lanes in the citys bicycle system. Also incluueu aie maps,
pictuies anu cioss sections of each facility. At the enu of Section S, two iefeience tables
pioviue a summaiy of the facility ioutes pie- (Table S-2) anu post- (Table S-S) constiuction.
Chaptei 4 (page S4) uesciibes the methouology employeu, incluuing the selection of the
stuuy locations, uevelopment of suivey anu viueo ieview tools, anu viueo anu suivey uata
collection.
Chaptei S (page S1) summaiizes the infoimation about the stuuys suivey iesponuents,
incluuing uetaileu uemogiaphic infoimation along with bieakuowns of iesponuents tiavel
behaviois.
Chapteis 6-11 pioviue the finuings fiom the ieseaich, with each chaptei focusing on one of
the ieseaich questions, in the oiuei listeu above. Finuings can be founu in the following
chapteis:
o Finuings: Riueiship Changes (page 62)
o Finuings: Besign Evaluation (page 7S)
o Finuings: Safety (page 1u2)
o Finuings: Resiuent Peiceptions (page 1u2)
o Finuings: Appeal to Biffeient uioups (page 127)
o Finuings: Economic Effects (page 1SS)
Chaptei 12 (page 1S7) summaiizes key finuings anu lessons foi futuie evaluation of bicycle
facilities.
The iepoits appenuices (available online) pioviue the uetail about the suivey instiuments, anu
iesponses foi each suivey question by city. The appenuix also incluues auuitional analysis of the
oiigin-uestinations of inteicepteu cyclists that is not uesciibeu in the iepoit.
1.3 Terminology Summary and List of Abbreviations
This iepoit incluues a numbei of teims anu uesciiptions that aie in neeu of cleai uefinition. Table
1-1 uefines the teims useu in this iepoit. Table 1-2 pioviues common abbieviations foi facilities in
figuie captions anu tables.
Table 1-1. Definitions of Common Terminology in the Report
Term Definition
Bicycle signals
Traffic signals intended to control bicycle movements. In the context of
this study, the signals used the bicycle symbol in the R-Y-G lens to
communicate this message.
Bike box
A space reserved for bicycles to stop ahead of the stop
bar for motor vehicles at the intersection approach.


4 Introduction
Term Definition
(Standard) Bike Lane
A standard bike lane usually consists of a four to six
foot lane, separated from traffic lanes by a six- to eight-
inch white line. They may be either curb-tight (left) or
adjacent to a parking strip (right).
Buffer
Extra space separating the bike lane and the standard moving traffic lanes. A buffer may
have flexposts or other vertical protection.
Chevrons
A double v-shaped pavement marking often used for lane
guidance. Part of the shared use marking (MUTCD Fig 9C-
9).

Construction/Installation
In this report, the construction or installation of a protected bike lane refers to the
time when the street was altered from its pre-existing layout to the updated protected
layout.
Flex parking
A lane or portion of a lane designated for parking at certain times and as a moving traffic
lane at other times (usually used for peak hour capacity).
Flexpost
A plastic post attached to the street surface. Flexposts are flexible
and are generally designed to withstand being driven over while
imposing minimal damage to vehicles. Also known as a safe hit
post, soft hit post, delineator post, etc.

Green skip coloring
A green pavement marking that consists of staggered wide green stripes
that mark a right-turn lane as shared space (used in San Francisco).
Mixing zone
A shared turn lane and bike lane at an intersection where bicyclists and turning motor
vehicles are both allowed.
On-street facility
A facility that is within the curb-to-curb area of the streetscape (e.g., as opposed to the
sidewalk, etc.).
Parking buffer
A buffer that consists of parking strip spaces (and an additional 2-3 space for opening
doors and passenger entrance/exit).
Protected bike lane
Protected bike lanes are bicycle exclusive lanes with protected separation between the
bike lane and standard traffic lanes where moving motor vehicles may be operating.
Protection may be in the form of buffered space with flexposts, a curb, a parking strip,
planters, or other vertical separation. They may be either one- or two-way. They are also
known as cycle tracks.
Shared-use path
A path designated for non-motorized traffic, including bicycles, pedestrians and other
non-motorized vehicles.
Sharrow
Also called a Shared Lane Marking (MUTCD Fig 9C-
9) consisting of a double chevron and bicycle
symbol indicating that a lane is marked for bicycle
shared use. A derivation of the sharrow with a
green background (right) used in San Francisco.
Through bike lane
A marked bike lane that suggests where bicyclists should ride that is used in the turning
zone designs. These bike lanes makings are dashed rather than solid meaning motor
vehicles may use these lanes when no bicycles are present. Abbreviated in places as TBL.

Introduction 5
Term Definition
Turning zone
Intersection designs where the protected lane ends and transitions to a through bike
lane adjacent to a motor vehicle turning lane. Similar to a combined turn lane.
Two-stage turn queue box
A marked space for bicyclists to wait before making
the second stage of a two-stage turn.

Table 1-2. Abbreviations or Alternatives Used in the Report
Primary Use in Report May also be referred to as:
Austin, TX Austin
Avenue Ave
Barton Springs Road Barton Springs; BS Road
Bluebonnet Lane Bluebonnet; BB Lane
Boulevard Blvd
Chicago, IL Chicago; Chi
Construction Installation
Fell Street Fell
Green Lanes Project GLP
L Street L St
Motor vehicle MV
N Milwaukee Avenue Milwaukee Avenue; Milwaukee; Milw Ave
n Number in sample
N/S Dearborn Street Dearborn Street; Dearborn
National Association of City
Transportation Officials
NACTO
NE Multnomah Street Multnomah Street; Mult St
North/South/East/West N/S/E/W, as well of compound directions (e.g. NE, SW)
Northbound/ Southbound/
Eastbound/ Westbound
NB/SB/EB/WB
Oak Street Oak
Portland, OR Portland; PDX
Protected Bike Lane Protected lane; Cycle track; Separated bike lane; Facility
Rio Grande Street Rio Grande; RG Street
San Francisco, CA San Francisco; SF
Through Bike Lane TBL
Street St
Washington, D.C. DC

6 Findings of Prior Research
2 FINDINGS OF PRIOR RESEARCH
0ntil iecently theie was limiteu ieseaich on piotecteu bike lanes in the Noith Ameiican context.
Reseaicheis have been woiking to make up foi this shoitfall, anu iecent finuings suggest that
piotecteu bike lanes can both impiove bicyclists level of comfoit anu safety, anu potentially
inciease the numbei of people cycling.
Seveial stuuies have founu that, when askeu, people piefei sepaiateu facilities ovei a stiipeu bike
lane oi shaiing lanes with motoi vehicles (Shafizadeh and Niemeyer, 1997; Rose and Marfurt, 2007;
Emond et al, 2009; Winters and Teschke, 2010). Winteis anu Teschke (2010) founu in a ianuom
sample of people in vancouvei, Canaua, that the top foui piefeiieu facility types weie sepaiateu
facilities, with cycle tiacks following off-stieet paths but above all othei on-stieet facilities.
Revealeu piefeience uata also suppoits the notion that people piefei piotecteu bike lanes; one
iecent stuuy of six cycle tiacks in Nontieal, Canaua, founu 2.S times as many bicyclists on stieets
with cycle tiacks compaieu to iefeience stieets (Lusk et al., 2011).
Some ieseaich ieveals that facility piefeience may vaiy among uiffeient gioups of bicyclists. Some
stuuies have founu that moie expeiienceu cyclists piefei stiipeu lanes ovei sepaiate multiuse paths
(Tilahun et al, 2007; Stinson and Bhat, 2003; Hunt and Abraham, 2007; Akar and Clifton, 2009). These
uiffeiences may uue to factois othei than comfoit, as paths often iequiie gieatei ueviations fiom
the shoitest ioute oi involve mixing with peuestiians. 0n the othei hanu, ieseaich has founu that
women anu less-expeiienceu cyclists piefei moie sepaiateu facilities anu avoiuing high tiaffic
volumes anu speeus (Winters and Teschke, 2010; Jackson and Ruehr, 1998; Garrard et al, 2008;
Krizek et al, 2005).
Recent ieseaich shows that peiceiveu safety plays an impoitant iole in a peisons uecision about
whethei oi not to iiue a bicycle, anu also plays an impoitant iole in community suppoit foi new
bicycling facilities (Sanders, 2013). Stuuies in Poitlanu anu Washington, B.C. founu that bicyclists
iepoit feeling safei on sepaiateu bike facilities (Monsere et al., 2012; Goodno et al., 2013).
In teims of obseiveu safety, pieliminaiy eviuence suggests that piotecteu bike lanes can ieuuce the
iisk of ciashes oi injuiies foi cyclists. Lusk et al. (2011) analyzeu 1u yeais of emeigency meuical
iesponse iecoius anu compaieu them to bicycle counts to calculate a ielative iisk of injuiy on six
cycle tiacks anu eight contiol stieets in Nontieal. Theii finuings inuicate that the cycle tiacks
iesulteu in a 28% lowei iisk of injuiy. A follow-up stuuy of 19 cycle tiacks in the 0niteu States
founu that that ciash iate foi bicyclists on cycle tiacks was lowei than on geneial ioauways (Lusk et
al., 2013). Anothei stuuy examineu iecoius of auults tieateu at hospital emeigency uepaitments foi
injuiies while bicycling, anu compaieu injuiy sites to contiol sites in vancouvei anu Toionto,
Canaua using a case-ciossovei uesign (Harris et al., 2013). They founu that sepaiateu facilities foi
bicyclists weie associateu with lowei injuiy iisk. A iecent liteiatuie ieview on the safety of uiban
cycle tiacks founu that cycle tiacks can ieuuce collisions anu injuiies when effective inteisection
tieatments aie employeu, though only one of the ievieweu papeis coveieu was fiom Noith Ameiica
(Thomas and DeMartis, 2013).
An acknowleugeu challenge with piotecteu bike lanes is that they geneially come back into conflict
with tuining anu cioss tiaffic at inteisections. A stuuy in a countiy with consiueiable expeiience
with piotecteu bike lanes (Benmaik) analyzeu bicycle ciash iisk using tiaffic volumes anu one to

Findings of Prior Research 7
five yeais of befoie-anu-aftei ciash counts on 2u km of cycle tiacks anu 11u km of compaiison
ioutes (Jensen 2008). The stuuy founu that ciashes anu injuiies along cycle tiacks incieaseu at
inteisections but uecieaseu along links, with an oveiall inciease of 1u%, inuicating the neeu foi
caieful uesign at inteisections. }ensen also noteu that cycle tiaffic incieaseu 2u%, anu that the costs
of injuiies neeueu to be weigheu against the benefits of incieaseu cycling. Theie is a small bouy of
ieseaich suggesting that iiuing on siuewalks is moie uangeious than iiuing on the stieet (Wachtel
and Lewiston, 1994), which some have inteipieteu as suppoiting the iuea that its safei to integiate
bicycles into tiaffic than to sepaiate them out. Bowevei, Lusk et al. (2011) aigue that Wachtel anu
Lewistons iisk figuie comes fiom analyzing inteisection inteiactions only, anu that when
accounting foi non-inteisection ciashes the iisk is equivalent between siuewalk iiuing anu
ioauway iiuing. Noieovei, siuewalks anu piotecteu bike lanes have entiiely uiffeient uesign
attiibutes. Piotecteu bike lanes aie uesigneu specifically foi bicycles anu contain bike safety
measuies at inteisections.
Nany benefits of incieaseu cycling aie wiuely accepteu, incluuing contiibutions to impioveu health
outcomes, the potential to ieuuce motoi vehicle uemanu anu uecieaseu aii pollution. Bowevei, as
moie Ameiican cities exploie investments in piotecteu cycle facilities, which usually iepiesent a
gieatei financial investment than tiauitional bike lanes, theie is incieaseu inteiest in
unueistanuing the economic impacts of such investments. Seveial stuuies have examineu the
benefits of iecieational bicycling anu bicycle touiism with a focus on expenuituies uiiectly ielateu
to bicycle equipment oi to tiavel expenses such as foou anu louging, with each finuing valuable
contiibutions to local economies (Wen and Rissel, 2008; Saelensminde, 2004; Meletiou et al, 2005;
Busbee, 2005; Grabow et al, 2010; CRESP, 2000). Bicycle manufactuiing, ietailing anu seivice sectois
have also been founu to pioviue valuable economic contiibutions in Wisconsin (Bicycle Federation
of Wisconsin, 2005) anu Poitlanu, 0R (Alta Planning + Design, 2008). A New Yoik City iepoit founu
that ietail businesses in the vicinity of piotecteu bike lanes saw a 49% inciease in sales, compaieu
to a S% inciease city wiue (NYC Department of Transportation, 2012). 0thei stuuies have shown
that customeis aiiiving by bicycle to shops anu iestauiants pioviue incieaseu numbei of oveiall
customeis, sales anu, by ceitain measuies, business equal to oi bettei than customeis aiiiving by
motoi vehicle (Clifton et al, 2013; Drennen, 2003; Meisel, 2010).

8 Description of Study Facilities
3 DESCRIPTION OF STUDY FACILITIES
The five cities anu eight piotecteu bike lanes incluueu in this evaluation covei a iange of piotecteu
bike lane uesigns (Table S-1) anu contexts (Figuie S-S). This chaptei pioviues a uetaileu oveiview
of each of the facilities. A paii of uetaileu tables at the enu of this chaptei pioviues an easy
iefeience of the chaiacteiistics of the ioute befoie the constiuction of the piotecteu bike lanes
(Table S-2) anu the facility as constiucteu (Table S-S). Specific inteisection uesigns (which vaiy
substantially anu aie a focus of the uesign evaluation aie uesciibeu in uetail in the Chaptei 7
(Besign Evaluation).
Table 3-1. Study Cities and Facilities
City Facility Studied Type of Protected Facility
Washington, D.C. L Street One-way protected lane on a one-way street
Austin, TX
Bluebonnet Lane Two-way protected lane on a two-way street
Barton Springs Road
One-way protected lane on the south side of the road
(other direction is shared use path)
Rio Grande Street Two-way protected lane on one-way street
San Francisco, CA Oak /Fell Streets Couplet of one-way protected lanes on one-way streets
Chicago, IL
N/S Dearborn Street Two-way protected lane on one-way street
N Milwaukee Avenue
One-way protected lanes on either side of a two-way
street
Portland, OR NE Multnomah Street
One-way protected lanes on either side of a two-way
street


Figure 3-3. Study Cities

Description of Study Facilities 9
3.1 Austin, TX
Austin constiucteu its fiist piotecteu cycling facility, the Lance Aimstiong Bikeway, in 2uu9. By
eaily 2u1S, Austin hau installeu foui moie, with plans foi an auuitional five facilities in 2u1S. The
city installeu piotecteu bike lanes on Baiton Spiings Roau, Bluebonnet Lane, anu Rio uianue Stieet
as its showcase piojects foi the uieen Lane Pioject. Theii locations aie shown in the oveiview map
in Figuie S-4. All thiee aie incluueu in this ieseaich.

Source: Google Maps
Figure 3-4. Overview Map of Austin Study Facilities
3.1.1 Barton Springs Road
Baiton Spiings Roau is a five-lane ioau with commeicial uses on the south siue anu a paik anu
events centei on the noith siue. The Baiton Spiings Roau piotecteu bike lane was constiucteu in
late spiing 2u1S anu is a one-way east-bounu piotecteu bike lane on the south siue of the ioau
(Figuie S-S anu Figuie S-6). Theie is a west-bounu, off-stieet path on the noith siue of the stieet
(Figuie S-7).
The piotecteu bike lane iuns about one-half mile fiom S 1st Stieet to Lamai Boulevaiu (Figuie S-8).
Space foi the south-siue piotecteu lane was cieateu by naiiowing the motoi vehicle lanes (Figuie
S-6). Flexible plastic posts (flexposts) pioviue a continuous buffei on the south-siue piotecteu lane.
Theie aie foui signalizeu inteisections along the ioute. Theie aie also two unsignalizeu
inteisections anu seveial uiiveways along the ioute, wheie the bike lane is maikeu with chevions.

10 Description of Study Facilities

(Photos: City of Austin)
Figure 3-5. Barton Springs Road Protected Bike Lane, Austin, TX


Figure 3-6. Barton Springs Road, Austin, TX, Before and After Installation of Protected Bike Lane


Description of Study Facilities 11

Graphics Source: Streetmix.com
Figure 3-7. Sample Cross section of Barton Springs Protected Bike Lanes


Source: Google Maps
Figure 3-8. Vicinity Map of Barton Springs Facility Extents


12 Description of Study Facilities
3.1.2 Bluebonnet Lane
The Bluebonnet Lane piotecteu bike lane in Austin was constiucteu in August 2u12 anu consists of
a two-way lane on a two-way stieet (Figuie S-9 anu Figuie S-1u). It iuns appioximately u.7 miles
fiom Lamai Boulevaiu to Robeit E Lee Roau (Figuie S-12). Along with the shaieu-use path anu bike
lanes on Robeit E. Lee Roau, it pioviues an alteinative bicycle ioute to the busy Lamai Boulevaiu.
Bluebonnet Lane is a piimaiily iesiuential stieet anu incluues access to Zilkei Elementaiy School.
0n-stieet paiking was iemoveu fiom the west siue of the stieet in oiuei to pioviue ioom foi the
piotecteu lanes (Figuie S-9). Flexible plastic posts pioviue a continuous buffei foi the uuiation of
the facility.
Theie aie no signalizeu inteisections along the facility. The southein teiminus of the piotecteu
lanes is an all-way stop inteisection (Rabb ulen Stieet), wheie noithbounu bicyclists aie pioviueu
theii own tuin lane to access the piotecteu lanes. The noithein enu connects to a iecently
constiucteu shaieu-use path on Robeit E. Lee Roau. In between the enus, theie aie 1S unsignalizeu
inteisections anu seveial iesiuential uiiveways. Chevions uelineate cyclists paths thiough the
unsignalizeu inteisections. uieen paint is also useu at the Zilkei Elementaiy School uiiveway.


Figure 3-9. Bluebonnet Lane Protected Bike Lanes, Austin, TX

Description of Study Facilities 13


Figure 3-10. Bluebonnet Lane, Austin, TX, Before and After Installation of Protected Bike Lane

Graphics Source: Streetmix.com
Figure 3-9. Sample Cross section of Bluebonnet Protected Bike Lanes

14 Description of Study Facilities

Source: Google Maps
Figure 3-12. Vicinity Map of Bluebonnet Lane Facility Extents
3.1.3 Rio Grande Street
The Rio uianue Stieet piotecteu bike lane was constiucteu in Apiil 2u12 anu consists of a two-way
piotecteu facility on the left siue of a one-way stieet (Figuie S-11). It iuns neaily one-half mile fiom
Naitin Luthei King }i. Boulevaiu to 24
th
Stieet (Figuie S-14). The facility is thiee blocks west of the
0niveisity of Texas-Austin campus on a stieet that is lineu with a mix of iesiuential, ietail anu office
uses. It is planneu foi fuithei expansion, but the expansion was not completeu in time foi this
stuuy.
A motoi vehicle lane oi limiteu on-stieet paiking weie iemoveu fiom the stieet in places to pioviue
ioom foi the piotecteu lanes (Figuie S-12). Flexible plastic posts at 2u-foot inteivals pioviue the
buffei neai inteisections, with painteu lines being the continuous buffei between these conflict
aieas (Figuie S-1S); the city has plans to upgiaue the buffei to incluue conciete cuibeu baiiieis.
The only signalizeu inteisections along the ioute aie at each enu. The two legs of Rio uianue Stieet
aie offset at the Naitin Luthei King }i. Boulevaiu inteisection. Noithbounu bicycle tiaffic is
pioviueu a lane maikeu thiough the inteisection to the cycle tiack, while southbounu bicycle tiaffic
is contiolleu by a bicycle signal (theie is no southbounu motoi vehicle tiaffic uue to Rio uianue
Stieet being one-way noith of NLK }i. Blvu.). At the time of the evaluation, the piotecteu lanes
enueu at the signalizeu 24
th
Stieet inteisection, wheie noithbounu cyclists aie uiiecteu to shaie the
ioau with motoi vehicle tiaffic via tempoiaiy shaiiows. Theie aie five unsignalizeu inteisections
along the ioute, along with a hanuful of uiiveways anu alleys. The inteisection ciossings lanes aie
maikeu with shaiiows at these locations. The shaiiows aie augmenteu with gieen paint in select
locations (both types of tieatments can be seen in Figuie S-11).

Description of Study Facilities 15

Figure 3-11. Rio Grande Street Protected Bike Lanes, Austin, TX

Figure 3-12. Rio Grande Street, Austin, TX, Before and After Installation of Protected Bike Lane


16 Description of Study Facilities

Graphics Source: Streetmix.com
Figure 3-13. Sample Cross section of Rio Grande Protected Bike Lane

Source: Google Maps
Figure 3-14. Vicinity Map of Rio Grande Facility Extents


Description of Study Facilities 17
3.2 Chicago, IL
Chicago has launcheu a majoi effoit to builu a netwoik of piotecteu bike lanes, with the goal of
completing 1uu miles of piotecteu bike lanes by 2u1S, staiting with the half-mile Kinzie Stieet
piotecteu bike lane in }uly 2u11. Between 2u11 anu 2u1S, Chicago installeu 49 miles of piotecteu
bike lanes incluuing Beaiboin Stieet (2u122u1S), Elston Avenue (2u12), anu Nilwaukee Avenue
(2u1S). Beaiboin anu Nilwaukee aie incluueu in this ieseaich anu theii location is shown in the
oveiview map in Figuie S-1S.

Source: Google Maps
Figure 3-15. Overview Map of Chicago Study Facilities
3.2.1 Dearborn Street
The Beaiboin Stieet piotecteu bike lanes consist of a two-way cycle tiack on a one-way
noithbounu stieet that iuns thiough Chicagos uowntown Loop, fiom West Kinzie Stieet to West
Polk Stieet (Figuie S-16). To install the piotecteu bikeway, this section of Beaiboin Stieet
uecieaseu fiom thiee motoi vehicle lanes to two lanes (Figuie S-17). The bike lanes aie sepaiateu
by paiking, flexposts, anu a thiee-foot buffei zone; with bicycle signals at each inteisection
(eastbounu cioss stieets only have bicycle signals foi southbounu bike tiaffic). The piotecteu lanes
aie on the west (left) siue of the ioauway anu uo not inteifeie with bus tiansit making stops on the
east siue of the ioau. Noithbounu motoi vehicles have a left-tuin bay anu signalizeu left tuin with
piotecteu phasing acioss the bike lanes at westbounu oi two-way cioss stieets. Aujacent to the left
tuin lanes wheie on-stieet paiking is iestiicteu, bicyclists aie piotecteu fiom motoi vehicles by a
one-foot buffei anu bollaius spaceu eveiy ten feet (Figuie S-16 top). The facility has a 4-S cuibsiue
southbounu lane anu a 4 noithbounu lane, anu bicyclist uetection at the Polk inteisection (Figuie

18 Description of Study Facilities
S-18). Bicyclists tuining eastbounu acioss Beaiboin Stieet aie pioviueu two-stage tuin queue
boxes at five locations. Along the 12-block, 1.2-mile facility, theie aie 11 cioss stieets in auuition to
Polk anu Kinzie, anu appioximately 12 auuitional motoi vehicle ciossing locations (e.g., paiking
entiances, alleys, etc.) (Figuie S-19). The ioute was constiucteu in Becembei 2u12 anu finalizeu in
Nay 2u1S.

Figure 3-16. Dearborn Street Protected Bike Lanes, Chicago, IL

Figure 3-17. Dearborn Street, Chicago, IL, Before and After Installation of Protected Bike Lane

Description of Study Facilities 19

Graphics Source: Streetmix.com
Figure 3-18. Sample Cross section of Dearborn Street Protected Bike Lanes

Source: Google Maps
Figure 3-19. Vicinity Map of Dearborn Street Facility Extents
3.2.2 Milwaukee Avenue
The Noith Nilwaukee Avenue piotecteu bike lanes in Chicago weie constiucteu in summei 2u1S
connecting piotecteu bike lanes on West Kinzie Stieet anu Noith Elston Avenue (Figuie S-2u anu
Figuie S-21). The facility is composeu of a paii of piotecteu bike lanes on eithei siue of the stieet
buffeieu by a mix of a two- to thiee-foot painteu buffeis with flexposts anu paiking piotecteu aieas
(Figuie S-22). The ioute is u.8 miles along a majoi iauial ioute connecting cential Chicago with
neighboihoous to the noithwest (Figuie S-2S). Nilwaukee is a uiagonal stieet anu contains a
numbei of complex inteisections of moie than foui legs anu non-stanuaiu angles. The ioute
incoipoiates seveial uiffeient tieatments foi bicycles anu iight-tuining tiaffic (incluuing tuining

20 Description of Study Facilities
zones anu uesignating yieluciossing aieas), as well as mixing zones foi bicycles anu buses at
tiansit stops. In auuition to seven signalizeu inteisections, theie aie seven unsignalizeu
inteisections anu appioximately 1S othei alleys oi uiiveways.
Because the ioauway was too naiiow foi piotecteu bike lanes in each uiiection while still
maintaining on-stieet paiking, significant paiking iemoval was iequiieu on blocks with piotecteu
lanes. Thioughout the coiiiuoi, S7 paiking spots, 1u loauingstanuing zone spots, anu 2 taxi stanu
spots weie iemoveu. Fouiteen paiking spots weie auueu to a siue stieet along the coiiiuoi to
offset some of the loss. Even with these effoits, theie aie poitions of the ioute that aie sepaiateu
by only a stiipeu two- to thiee-foot buffei.

Figure 3-20. Milwaukee Ave. Protected Bike Lanes, Chicago, IL

Description of Study Facilities 21

Figure 3-21. Milwaukee Ave. Chicago, IL, Before and After Installation of Protected Bike Lane

Graphics Source: Streetmix.com
Figure 3-22. Sample Cross section of Milwaukee Protected Bike Lanes

Source: Google Maps
Figure 3-23. Vicinity Map of Milwaukee Facility Extents


22 Description of Study Facilities
3.3 Portland, OR
Poitlanu intiouuceu its fiist piotecteu on-stieet lane on Southwest Bioauway in 2uu9, utilizing a
uesign that incluues a buffei of paikeu cais anu a buffei zone foi passengeis exiting the paikeu
vehicles. The city has since installeu auuitional piotecteu bike lanes on NE Cully Boulevaiu anu foi
shoit segments of NE SS
iu
Avenue. In 2u1S Poitlanu auueu piotecteu bike lanes to NE Nultnomah
Stieet. The location of the facility evaluateu in this ieseaich in shown in Figuie S-24.

Source: Google Maps
Figure 3-24. Overview Map of Portland Study Facilities
3.3.1 NE Multnomah Street
The NE Nultnomah Stieet piotecteu bike lanes iun between NE Wheelei Avenue on the west anu
NE 16
th
Avenue on the east. The stieet was oiiginally a five-lane stieet with two tiavel lanes in each
uiiection, a two-way left-tuin lane, stanuaiu bike lanes, anu no on-stieet paiking. The stieet was
uieteu uown to one tiavel lane in each uiiection, a two-way left-tuin lane, anu piotecteu bike
lanes (Figuie S-26). Theie is now a one-way bike lane on each siue of the ioauway, piotecteu fiom
motoi vehicle tiaffic by paiking, painteu buffeis, flexible bollaius, anuoi planteis, uepenuing on
the ioau segment (Figuie S-2S).
Theie aie 1u signalizeu inteisections anu thiee unsignalizeu inteisections along the ioute. In
auuition, theie aie uiiveways to majoi paiking lotsstiuctuies that seive the Lloyu Centei Nall anu
movie theateis (Figuie S-28). Theie aie seveial bus tiansit stops on the coiiiuoi (a typical uesign is
shown at NE 11
th
in Figuie S-2S). Because the new uesign incluues on-stieet paiking as a buffei, the
pioject iesulteu in 2u auuitional paiking spots. The bike-lane wiuth vaiies fiom foui to seven feet,
anu the buffeis vaiy fiom two to 11 feet, uepenuing on ioauway segment anu type of buffei (Figuie
S-27). The painteu buffei utilizes a pale yellow coloi (beeswax) as auuitional uemaication.
Constiuction was completeu in eaily 2u1S.

Description of Study Facilities 23


Figure 3-25. NE Multnomah St. Protected Bike Lanes, Portland, OR

Figure 3-26. NE Multnomah St., Portland, OR, Before and After Installation of Protected Bike Lane


24 Description of Study Facilities

Graphics Source: Streetmix.com
Figure 3-27. Sample Cross section of NE Multnomah Protected Bike Lanes

Source: Google Maps
Figure 3-28. Vicinity Map of NE Multnomah Facility Extents

Lloyd Mall

Description of Study Facilities 25
3.4 San Francisco, CA
Aftei a thiee-yeai injunction against new bicycle facilities was lifteu in August 2u1u, San Fiancisco
initiateu the installation of numeious new bicycle facilities, incluuing a numbei of piotecteu bike
lanes, incluuing piojects on Naiket Stieet, Laguna Bonua Boulevaiu, Bivision Stieet, Cesai Chavez
Stieet, anu }FK Biive thiough uoluen uate Paik. The 0ak anu Fell Stieet pioject incluueu in this
ieseaich cieateu a couplet of piotecteu lanes thiough a busy section of San Fiancisco that act as a
ciitical link between uowntown anu the westein neighboihoous. The location of the facilities is
shown in the oveiview map in Figuie S-29.

Source: Google Maps
Figure 3-29. Overview Map of San Francisco Study Facilities
3.4.1 Oak and Fell Street
The 0ak anu Fell Stieet piotecteu bike lanes iun thiee blocks each between Scott anu Bakei Stieets,
anu aie an extension of the Wiggle bike ioute that is the flattest way to get between some of San
Fianciscos notoiious hills. They also pioviue most uiiect connection fiom Naiket Stieet to the
Panhanule path, uoluen uate Paik, anu neighboihoous to the west of uowntown (Figuie S-Su). The
piotecteu lanes aie on the left siue of Fell Stieet anu on the iight siue of 0ak Stieet. To
accommouate wiuei bikeways, coinei siuewalk extensions, anu stoim watei management featuies
within the existing iight-of-way, the San Fiancisco Nunicipal Tianspoitation Agency (SFNTA)
ieallocateu cuibsiue space pieviously useu foi automobile paiking along these blocks (Figuie
S-S1). The bicycle lanes aie 7S wiue, buffeieu fiom the 96 motoi vehicle lanes by a S painteu
buffei with flexposts (Figuie S-S2 anu Figuie S-SS). Nuch of the bike ioute is aujacent to homes
with uiiveways, wheie theie aie no flexposts but just a painteu buffei. A iaiseu cuib will be auueu
to the buffeis along othei poitions of these blocks.
Theie aie eight signalizeu inteisections along the ioute. Special tieatments at these inteisections
incluue maikeu mixing zones anu signal timing impioveu foi bicyclists anu peuestiians. Theie aie
seveial builuingpaiking stiuctuie entiancesexits along the ioute, along with many uiiveways
(Figuie S-S4).

26 Description of Study Facilities


Figure 3-30. Fell and Oak Street Protected Bike Lanes, San Francisco, CA

Description of Study Facilities 27


Figure 3-31. Fell Street (top) and Oak Street (bottom), San Francisco, CA, Before and After Installation of
Protected Bike Lane


Graphics Source: Streetmix.com
Figure 3-32. Sample Cross section of Fell Street Protected Bike Lane

28 Description of Study Facilities


Graphics Source: Streetmix.com
Figure 3-33. Sample Cross section of Oak Street Protected Bike Lane


Source: Google Maps
Figure 3-34. Vicinity Map of Oak/Fell Facility Extents


Description of Study Facilities 29
3.5 Washington, D.C.
Washington, B.C., built a piotecteu bike lane buffeieu with paiking on 1S
th
Stieet NW in 2uu9, anu
expanueu it to a two-way (noithsouth) facility in 2u1u. Also in 2u1u, buffeieu centei bike lanes
weie auueu to Pennsylvania Avenue NW between the Capitol anu the White Bouse anu Capital
Bikeshaie openeu foi business, maiking a majoi commitment to bicycle infiastiuctuie. Piotecteu
lanes on L Stieet NW (eastbounu) anu N Stieet NW (planneu, westbounu) auu a significant
eastwest ioute to the piotecteu bikeway netwoik in uowntown BC. The L Stieet facility is incluueu
in this ieseaich anu its location is shown in Figuie S-SS.

Source: Google Maps
Figure 3-35 Overview Map of Washington, D.C., Facilities
The L Stieet piotecteu bike lane iuns fiom New Bampshiie Avenue to 12
th
Stieet, anu was
constiucteu in 0ctobei 2u12. It is a one-way left-siue piotecteu bike lane on a one-way eastbounu
stieet (uecieaseu fiom 4 Nv lanes to S Nv lanes in places) in uowntown Washington B.C.,
sepaiateu by a S stiipeu buffei zone with plastic flexposts (Figuie S-S7 anu Figuie S-S8). Bicycles
move with stanuaiu tiaffic signals along the 1.12-mile ioute (Figuie S-S9). The typical inteisection
uesign incluues a 1S wiue tuining zone foi bicycles anu left-tuining tiaffic at noithbounu cioss
stieets (incluuing a 4 thiough bike lane) anu a stieet-wiue bike box uesigneu to move cyclists
acioss the stieets at southbounu cioss stieets (both mixing lane anu bike box aie at two-way cioss
stieets). Along the ioute theie aie 1S signalizeu cioss stieets anu appioximately 14 auuitional
motoi vehicle ciossing locations (e.g., paiking entiances, alleys, etc.). Some inteisections along the
ioute give peuestiians a thiee-seconu heau stait (known as a leauing peuestiian inteival oi LPI)
befoie initiating the gieen signal phase foi vehicle tiaffic. Legislation is penuing in 2u14 to allow
bicyclists to move on the LPI, though at the time of the iepoit bicyclists weie legally bounu by the
motoi vehicle signal. The L Stieet ioute is the eastbounu poition of a planneu east-west piotecteu
bike lane couplet (along with N Stieet).

30 Description of Study Facilities

Figure 3-36. L Street Protected Bike Lane, Washington, D.C.


Figure 3-37. L Street, Washington, D.C., Before and After Installation of Protected Bike Lane


Description of Study Facilities 31

Graphics Source: Streetmix.com
Figure 3-38. Sample cross section of L Street Protected Bike Lane

Source: Google Maps
Figure 3-39. Vicinity Map of L Street Facility Extents

3.6 Summary of Facility Data
Table S-2 pioviues a summaiy of the pie-installation chaiacteiistics of the stuuy facilities. Table S-S
pioviues a summaiy of the post-installation chaiacteiistics of each facility.


32 Description of Study Facilities
Table 3-2. Pre-Installation Characteristics of Study Routes
Data Element
Austin Chicago Portland San Francisco Washington DC
Barton Springs
Road
Bluebonnet
Lane
Rio Grande St
N/S
Dearborn St
N Milwaukee
Ave
NE Multnomah
St
Fell St Oak St L Street NW
From S 1st St Rabb Glen St W MLK Jr Blvd W Polk W Kinzie NE 1st St Scott St Baker St Penn. Ave
To S Lamar Blvd Rabb Rd W 24th St W Kinzie N Elston NE 13th St Baker St Scott St Mass. Ave
Standard Traffic
Lanes
2 eb, 1 center
turn lane, 2 wb
1 nb, 1 sb 2 nb 3-4 nb 1 nb, 1 sb
2 eb, 1 center
turn lane, 2 wb
3 wb 3 eb 3 eb
Standard /
Striped Bike
Lanes
None 1 nb, 1 sb 1 nb None 1 nb, 1 sb 1 eb, 1 wb 1 wb None None
Parking Allowed No Both sides Left Side Left side Both sides No Both sides Both sides
Right side, Left
side (flex)
Length (miles) 0.5 0.7 0.4 1.2 0.8 0.8 0.3 0.3 1.12
# Signalized
Intersections
4 0 2 12 to 13 7 10 4 4 15
# Unsignalized
Intersections
2 15 5 0 5 3 0 0 0
ADT 23-28,000 3,500 5,000 8-16,000 12,000 10,000 28,000 30,000 12-14,000
Transit stops on
route
Yes No No Yes Yes Yes No No No
Speed Limit 35 30 30 30 30 25 30 30 25
85% Speed
(MPH)
34-36 30-32 21 n/a 36 28 n/a 30.5 n/a


Description of Study Facilities 33
Table 3-3. Post-Installation Roadway Characteristics
Data Element
Austin Chicago Portland San Francisco Washington DC
Barton
Springs Road
Bluebonnet
Lane
Rio
Grande St
N/S
Dearborn
N Milwaukee
Ave
NE Multnomah Fell Oak L Street NW
Protected Lane
Description
One-way EB
protected lane
on south side
(+WB shared
path on north
side)
Two-way
protected
lanes on
two-way
street
Two-way
protected
lanes on
one-way
street
Two-way
protected
lanes on one-
way street
Pair of one-
way protected
lanes on either
side of two-
way street
Pair of one-way
protected lanes
on either side of
two-way street
One-way
protected
lane on one-
way street
One-way
protected
lane on one-
way street
One-way protected
lane on one-way
street
Construction
Timeframe
Spring 2013 August 2012 April 2012
Nov./ Dec.
2012 and
May 2013
April/May 2013
Fall 2012/
Winter 2013
Spring
/summer
2013
Spring
/summer
2013
October 2012
BL Placement (in
relation to traffic)
Right Right Left Left Right Right Left Right Left
Bike Lane Width
(representative)
5'-7' 5' + 5' 6.5' + 5.5' 5' + 4' 7' 4'-7' 7'3" 7'3" 8'
Buffer Type Flexposts Flexposts Flexposts
Flexposts;
MV parking
Paint;
Flexposts; MV
Parking
Concrete
Planters;
MV Parking
Flexposts Flexposts Flexposts
Typical Buffer
Width
1.5' 2' 4'
3'; 8' parking
strip
2-4'; 9' parking
strip
2'-8' 5' 5' 3'
# Bicycle Signals 1 0 1 12 to 13 1 0 0 0 0
Loss of MV Travel
Lane
No No In places One lane
Loss of
dedicated turn
or bus lane in
places
One lane in
each direction
No No In places
Net Loss of
Parking
No ~150 No 21 69 +27 gained 28 27 151
Typical MV Lane
Width
10'-10.5 10' 14 9'-10' 10'-11' 10' 9'6" 9'6" 11'
# Mixing or
Turning zones
0 0 0 0 0
11 (6 bus/bike; 3
bus/mv/bike; 2
mv/bike)
3 3 11
ADT n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 7,600 n/a n/a n/a
85% speed n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 25-27 n/a 25 n/a


34 Methodology
4 METHODOLOGY
Cities anu canuiuate facilities weie iuentifieu baseu on inclusion in the uieen Lanes Pioject cohoit.
The potential facilities to be incluueu in this ieseaich weie then naiioweu to those constiucteu
between appioximately summei 2u12 anu eaily summei 2u1S. Bue to uelays in constiuction, no
facilities in Nemphis, TN, one of the oiiginal uLP cities, weie incluueu in this stuuy. Aftei site visits,
one to two facilities in each city weie selecteu foi evaluation. In geneial, evaluations employeu the
collection anu ieview of viueo at two to thiee locations foi each facility foi usei compliance anu
safety measuies, anu suiveys of cyclists (inteicept) anu iesiuents (mail-out) foi feeuback on
expeiiences anu peiceptions. Exceptions to this appioach weie that viueo uata was not collecteu in
Austin, the iesiuent suivey was not auministeieu foi Rio uianue Stieet, anu the bicyclist suivey
was not auministeieu foi Bluebonnet Lane.
In auuition, available count anu othei facility uata pioviueu by each city weie ievieweu to assist in
the safety anu count analyses. An oveiview of the pioject elements anu timeline is shown in Figuie
4-1. The timing anu scope of the stuuy uiu not allow us to collect oiiginal befoie uata oi uata foi
compaiison oi contiol locations.

Figure 4-1. Diagram of Study Elements

Early 2014 Summer/Fall 2013 Winter/Spring 2013 Fall 2012
Follow-Up
Findings
Data Collection and Analysis Site Visits and
Facility Specific
Methodology
and Design
Study
Kickoff and
Planning
Final
Report
Analysis
Bicyclist Surveys
(intercept/electronic)
Video Collection and
Review
Count Data
Economic Impact
Facility-
Specific
Methodology
Design
Survey Design
Economic
Follow-up
Report
(TBD)
Project
Planning and
Methodology
Initial Data
Collection
Input from
GLP partners
Resident Surveys
(mail/paper & electronic)

Methodology 35
The stuuy staiteu in late 2u12 with a goal of ueveloping the stuuy methouology, suivey instiuments
anu viueo ieview tools in wintei anu spiing 2u1S, with uata collection occuiiing ovei summei
2u1S. As shown in Table 4-1, uata collection extenueu into fall 2u1S. In auuition, because the
impacts of the facilities on the local economy likely take longei to actualize, the majoiity of the
ieseaich foi that objective will be completeu latei.
Table 4-1. Timeline of Project Data Collection Efforts
City Route
Site
Visit* Resident Survey
Bicyclist Intercept
Survey
Video Data
Collection Dates
Washington,
D.C.
L Street January May - June June May 14/15/16
Austin, TX
Bluebonnet
Lane
April July - August - -
Barton Springs
Road
April July - August
June
(+ October)
-
Rio Grande
Street
April -
June
(+ October)
-
San Francisco,
CA
Oak Street May September - October August September 25/26/28
1

Fell Street May September - October August September 25/26/28
1
Chicago, IL
N/S Dearborn
Street
May September - October September October 2/3/4
1
N Milwaukee
Avenue
May September - October September September 25/26
1
Portland, OR
NE Multnomah
Street
July October - November October October 8/9
*All dates 2013
1
Other dates were also collected at certain locations due to equipment failure or another issue on one of the original planned
dates
4.1 Video Collection and Review
Thiough site visits to each facility anu in cooiuination with the city staff at each location,
inteisections anu othei locations to collect viueo anu analyze usei behavioi anu opeiations weie
iuentifieu. Bue to constiuction activity at a builuing on Rio uianue anu ioutes with ielatively low
tiaffic volumes at inteisections, viueo was not collecteu foi the Austin locations. Foi all othei
facilities, the stuuy team woikeu with a contiactoi to mount a paii of cameias foi a two to thiee uay
peiiou at thiee uiffeient inteisections oi othei locations on each facility (Figuie 4-2). The cameia
views alloweu foi collection of vehicle positioning, bicyclist positioning, tiaffic signal inuications,
anu othei featuies. The following section uesciibes the objectives of the viueo ieview, the selecteu
locations, anu the uata ieuuction piocess.

36 Methodology

Figure 4-2. Example Video Screenshots (2 views) from San Francisco at Oak and Broderick
4.1.1 Video Review Objectives
The puipose of the viueo ieview was to analyze the actual behavioi of bicyclists anu motoi vehicle
uiiveis in oiuei to ueteimine how well each usei type unueistanus the uesign intent of the facility
anu how potential conflicts aiise. In contiast, the suiveys collect uata on stated behavioi anu
peiceptions. In instances wheie the two analyses oveilap, the viueo ieview anu suivey iesults can
be contiasteu to compaie how inuiviuuals behave to how they say they uo, oi shoulu, act. Finally,
the viueo uata weie also useu to supplement the bicyclist counts pioviueu by the cities foi the aftei-
constiuction peiiou.
4.1.2 Location Selection
viueo was iecoiueu at 12 locations along six stuuy ioauways in foui cities in the spiing anu fall of
2u1S. Cameia locations anu mounting positions at each stuuy site weie selecteu that woulu best
captuie potential tuining conflicts with motoiists anu peuestiians anu allow us to iuentify which
mixing zone tieatments oi othei ciossing tieatments weie most effective. The selecteu locations
anu a biief uesciiption of each aie pioviueu in Table 4-2.
Cameias weie mounteu foi at least 48 houis with the goal of captuiing two miuweek uays between
the houis of 7 a.m. anu 7 p.m. Because the 0ak Stieet anu Fell Stieet facilities aie populai weekenu
ioutes foi accessing uoluen uate Paik, viueo was collecteu on a Satuiuay at those locations.
ueneially the collection uays weie consecutive, though in a few cases equipment failuie
necessitateu ieueployment (Beaiboin at Ranuolph anu 0ak at Bioueiick).

Methodology 37
Table 4-2. Summary of Video Data Collection

Facility Cross Street Type Description Video Date Video Day
C
h
i
c
a
g
o

N/S
Dearborn
Street
Congress
Parkway
Intersection
Two-way facility, MV left-
turn signalized
10/2/2013 Wednesday
10/3/2013 Thursday
10/4/2013 Friday
Madison Street Intersection
Two-way facility, MV left-
turn signalized
10/2/2013 Wednesday
10/3/2013 Thursday
10/4/2013 Friday
Randolph Street Intersection
Two-way facility, MV left-
turn signalized
10/2/2013 Wednesday
10/4/2013 Friday
10/22/2013 Tuesday
N
Milwaukee
Avenue
Elston Avenue Intersection
Bicycle signal, right-turn
over facility
9/25/2013 Wednesday
9/26/2013 Thursday
P
o
r
t
l
a
n
d

NE
Multnomah
Street
9th Street Intersection
Mixing zone w/ right-
turning MVs
10/8/2013 Tuesday
10/9/2013 Wednesday
11th Street Transit
Right-turn over facility,
skip crossing markings
10/8/2013 Tuesday
10/9/2013 Wednesday
S
a
n

F
r
a
n
c
i
s
c
o

Fell Street Baker Street Intersection
Mixing Zone with Green
Skip Coloring (Left turns)
9/25/2013 Wednesday
9/26/2013 Thursday
9/28/2013 Saturday
Oak Street
Broderick Street Intersection
Mixing Zone with Sharrow
Marking (Right Turns)
9/25/2013 Wednesday
9/26/2013 Thursday
11/9/2013 Saturday
Divisadero
Street
Intersection
Turning Zone with
Unrestricted Entry and
TBL
9/25/2013 Wednesday
9/26/2013 Thursday
9/28/2013 Saturday
W
a
s
h
i
n
g
t
o
n
,

D
.
C
.

L Street
NW
Btwn 19
th
St and
18
th
St
Hotel Zone
Loading zone with MV
entrance and exit
5/15/2013 Wednesday
5/16/2013 Thursday
15th Street Intersection
Turning Zone with Post
Restricted Entry and
Through Bike Lane (TBL)
5/14/2013 Tuesday
5/15/2013 Wednesday
Connecticut
Avenue
Intersection
Turning Zone with Post
Restricted Entry and
Through Bike Lane (TBL)
5/14/2013 Tuesday
5/15/2013 Wednesday

4.1.3 Video Data Reduction
Stuuy team membeis manually vieweu the viueo footage anu coueu infoimation on bicyclists anu
tuining motoiists. The following section uesciibes how uata iegaiuing bicyclists anu motoi vehicle
uiiveis was ieuuceu, incluuing the types of uata collecteu, foi which locations it was collecteu anu
the types of quality contiol checks employeu.
4.1.3.1 Bicyclist Behaviors and Paths
Biffeient actions anu uesciiptions weie coueu foi each bicyclist tiaveling in the stuuy facility oi in
the aujacent ioauway. The types of uata collecteu vaiy fiom one location to the next, though many
elements weie collecteu foi all oi multiple locations to allow foi compaiison acioss facilities anu
uesigns. Nost of these elements aie at inteisections. See Chaptei 7 foi plan views of the
inteisections to bettei unueistanu the vaiiables. The following is a uesciiption of the types of uata
collecteu iegaiuing bicyclists anu at which locations they weie collecteu:

38 Methodology
Through Bike Lane Use: Whethei the bicyclist ioue in the thiough bike lane (TBL) in the mixing oi
loauing zone anu whethei a motoi vehicle was piesent at the time the cyclist ioue thiough the zone.
This vaiiable was also useu to note if the cyclist was not in the stuuy facility, foiceu out of the stuuy
facility by a motoi vehicle, oi tiaveling the wiong way in the stuuy facility. As noteu below, at foui
locations these uata weie collecteu not foi an TBL but foi anothei tieatment (e.g., shaiiow oi
painteu buffei). These uata weie collecteu at the following locations:
All locations on L Stieet
0ak StieetBivisaueio Stieet
0ak StieetBioueiick Stieet shaiiow use
NE Nultnomah Stieet9th Stieet buffei space use
Stopping Location: If a bicyclist uiu stop, wheie he oi she stoppeu in ielation to a bike box (if
piesent), ciosswalk, inteisection, oi othei featuie. These uata weie collecteu at the following
locations:
All inteisections
Signal Compliance: If a bicyclist was iequiieu to stop foi a signal, whethei he oi she stoppeu anu
iemaineu stoppeu until the signal tuineu gieen oi maue a legal tuin on ieu. These uata weie
collecteu at the following locations:
All inteisections
Turning Movement: The uiiection the bicyclist tiaveleu thiough the inteisection. If the bicyclist
tuineu acioss motoi vehicle lanes (e.g., a left tuin fiom a iight-siue facility), ievieweis noteu how
they maue the tuin (i.e., meigeu into motoi vehicle lanes, useu the ciosswalk, othei). These uata
weie collecteu at the following locations:
All inteisections
Number of Bikes at Intersection: The numbei of bikes alieauy piesent at the inteisection when the
subject bicyclist aiiives. This is typically only iecoiueu foi stopping bicyclists to ueteimine if the
piesence of othei bicyclists changes signal compliance behavioi. These uata weie collecteu at the
following locations:
All inteisections
Avoidance Maneuvers/Conflicts: Buiing the ieview of the viueo uata, all potential conflicts weie
flaggeu by the ieseaich assistants, who weie instiucteu to libeially uefine these events as any
motoi vehiclebicycle inteiaction that uiu not appeai typical. To ensuie iepeatability in uefining
conflicts, each flaggeu event was ievieweu by the leau ieseaicheis on the stuuy team. Biawing on
woik in eailiei stuuies, the conflicts weie iuentifieu anu categoiizeu baseu on obseiveu
piecautionaiy biaking, piecautionaiy change of uiiection, emeigency biaking, emeigency change of
uiiection, anuoi full stop by eithei the motoiist oi cyclist (Dill et all, 2011; Allen et al., 2005; Atkins,
2005; Hunter, 2000).
Each vehicle-bicycle inteiaction was iateu as majoi (neai collision with emeigency biaking anuoi
change of uiiection); substantial (emeigency biaking anuoi change of uiiection); minoi
(piecautionaiy biaking anuoi change of uiiection); oi piecautionaiy (a low-iisk inteiaction wheie
a minoi change in uiiection oi speeu was neeueu to avoiu a conflict); oi no conflict. The seveiity of

Methodology 39
conflicts was measuieu by actions of eithei the motoiist oi the cyclist. A conflict was uefineu as
seiies of events that coulu leau to a collision. These uata weie collecteu at the following locations:
All inteisections
Cyclist Location: The location of the cyclist, if theie is no mixing zone, in ielation to the ioauway
(i.e., in stuuy facility, in motoi vehicle lane, on siuewalk, wiong-way cyclist, oi othei). These uata
weie collecteu at the following locations:
All Beaiboin Stieet inteisections Also incluues infoimation on whethei the bicyclist was
in the coiiect oi incoiiect lane on the two-way facility
Nilwaukee AvenueElston Avenue
All NE Nultnomah Stieet inteisections
Direction: Biiection of the bicyclists tiavel in a two-way facility. These uata weie collecteu at the
following locations:
All Beaiboin Stieet inteisections
Bus Interaction: Action taken by the bicyclist if a bus is piesent at the tiansit stop (i.e., iiues
aiounu bus in motoi vehicle lane, iiues aiounu bus on siuewalk, oi waits behinu bus). These uata
weie collecteu at the following location:
NE Nultnomah Stieet11th Stieet Tiansit Stop
4.1.3.2 Motor Vehicle Driver Behaviors and Paths
Bata weie also collecteu on the actions of uiiveis of motoi vehicles that eithei meige into the
mixing zone, if applicable, oi tuin acioss the stuuy facility. As with bicyclists, some of the uata
collecteu aie location specific anu otheis weie collecteu foi multiple locations. The following is a
uesciiption of the types of uata collecteu iegaiuing motoi vehicle uiivei actions anu at which
locations they weie collecteu:
Vehicle Type: Type of vehicle obseiveu (i.e., peisonal vehicle, taxi, ueliveiy vantiuck,
motoicyclescootei, laige tiuck, oi othei). These uata weie collecteu at the following locations:
All locations
Turning or Mixing Zone/Turn-Lane Entrance: Wheie the uiivei enteieu the mixing zone oi tuin
lane (i.e., in the meige zone, befoie the meige zoneuiove in stuuy facility, othei point of access
|e.g., gaiagej, aftei the meige zoneacioss the buffei). If the uiivei uiu not entei the mixing zone oi
tuin lane, it was noteu if the uiivei tuineu fiom the wiong lane oi tuineu while stiauuling the
thiough lane anu the mixing zone lanebuffei. These uata weie collecteu at the following locations:
Both L Stieet inteisections tuining zones
All Fell Stieet anu 0ak Stieet inteisections tuining anu mixing zones
NE Nultnomah Stieet9th Stieet mixing zone
Merging Vehicle/Bike Interaction: Besciibes how the meiging motoi vehicle uiivei inteiacteu
with any bicyclists tiaveling in the stuuy facility (i.e., whethei a bike was piesent, who pioceeueu
fiist, whethei eithei usei sloweu oi yielueu foi the othei usei, anu whethei theie was a conflict).
These uata weie collecteu at the following locations:

40 Methodology
All L Stieet locations
All Fell Stieet anu 0ak Stieet inteisections
NE Nultnomah Stieet9th Stieet
NE Nultnomah Stieet11th Stieet iecoiueu foi the entiance anu the exit of the tiansit
stop only
Through Bike Lane Encroachment: Inuicates if the motoi vehicle stoppeu in the TBL oi tuineu
while still uiiving thiough the TBL. Tempoiaiy infiingements that weie pait of the meiging piocess
weie not counteu. Revieweis weie instiucteu to only use the coue if the infiingement was cleaily
visible on the viueo. At two locations, as noteu below, a stanuaiu bike lane, insteau of a TBL, is
piesent. These uata weie collecteu at the following locations:
All L Stieet locations
0ak StieetBivisaueio Stieet
Stopping Location: If a motoi vehicle stoppeu, wheie it uiu so in ielation to (i.e., behinu, in oi
beyonu) a bike box, ciosswalk, inteisection, oi othei featuie. These uata weie collecteu at the
following locations:
Both 0ak Stieet inteisections
Turning Location: Iuentifies wheie a motoi vehicle tuineu fiom (i.e., motoi vehicle lane, bike lane,
buffei between bike lane anu motoi vehicle lane, fiom wiong motoi vehicle lane, othei) at
inteisections without mixing zones. These uata weie collecteu at the following locations:
All Beaiboin Stieet locations
Nilwaukee AvenueElston Avenue
NE Nultnomah Stieet9th Stieet
Turning Vehicle/Bike Interaction: Besciibes how the tuining motoi vehicle uiivei inteiacteu with
any bicyclists tiaveling in the stuuy facility (i.e., whethei a bike was piesent, who pioceeueu fiist,
whethei eithei usei sloweu oi yielueu foi the othei usei, anu whethei theie was a conflict). These
uata aie foi locations wheie motoi vehicles uo not meige acioss the bike lane. These uata weie
collecteu at the following locations:
All Beaiboin Stieet locations
Nilwaukee AvenueElston Avenue
NE Nultnomah Stieet9th Stieet
Signal Compliance: The signal phase that a motoi vehicle tuineu on (i.e., gieenyellow oi ieu) oi
whethei the vehicle enteieu the inteisection on ieu (befoie completing theii passage thiough on
gieen). This is only collecteu at locations wheie piotecteu left-tuin phasing was iecently auueu to
sepaiate bicycles anu tuining motoi vehicles. These uata weie collecteu at the following locations:
All Beaiboin Stieet inteisections
4.1.3.3 Video Data Reduction Process
Pioject team membeis ieuuceu the uata fiom the viueo foi moining (7-9 a.m.), miuuay (11 a.m. 1
p.m.), anu evening (4-6 p.m.) peak peiious foi two oi thiee weekuays at each location. In San
Fiancisco, uata was also collecteu foi the Satuiuay miuuay (12-2 p.m.) peiiou to evaluate the

Methodology 41
anticipateu high piopoition of iecieational iiueis tiaveling to anu fiom uoluen uate Paik. This
effoit piouuceu uata fiom a total of 168 houis of viueo analyzeu in this iepoit.
The viueo was ievieweu anu ieuuceu by six inuiviuuals: thiee unueigiauuate stuuents anu thiee
giauuate stuuents. 0ne of the giauuate stuuents was involveu thioughout the pioject anu was also
iesponsible foi quality-contiol checks. The othei five ievieweis weie biought in to specifically help
with uata collection anu ieuuction effoits. Each ieviewei watcheu 8 to 2S two-houi time peiious. In
oiuei to avoiu a specific ievieweis tenuencies fiom biasing an entiie location, ieviews weie
assigneu such that no inuiviuual watcheu moie than one uays woith of viueo foi a location (e.g.,
Reviewei A ieuuceu the viueo foi Connecticut Avenue at L Stieet on Nay 14th, while Reviewei B
ieuuceu the viueo foi the same inteisection on Nay 1Sth). Reviews weie also assigneu to spieau
the inuiviuuals acioss the stuuy facilities as evenly as possible (e.g., five ievieweis ieuuceu viueo of
the Fell anu 0ak stieets couplet).
The pioject team piepaieu uata collection spieausheets foi each viueo location. Each spieausheet
containeu sepaiate woiksheets foi motoi vehicle uata, bicyclist uata, anu geneial comments about
the inteisection. The two moue-specific uata collection sheets weie set up with heaueis containing
a legenu foi how uiffeient actions shoulu be coueu. Foi items that weie collecteu acioss multiple
locations, the coues weie set up to be consistent. Revieweis weie pioviueu with these
spieausheets, along with wiitten instiuctions foi each facility. The wiitten instiuctions containeu
geneial guiuance, specific uiiections foi unique oi potentially challenging situations, anu tips on
what cameia locations pioviueu the best view. Revieweis weie also pioviueu with in-peison
instiuctions befoie staiting theii fiist viueos on theii own.
4.1.3.4 Quality Control
A pioject team membei peifoimeu spot checks on viueo foi eveiy uay at each location (except foi
viueo he ieuuceu himself). The aim of these spot checks was to ensuie that ievieweis weie not
missing obseivations, weie coiiectly inteipieting the pioject teams instiuctions, anu that
juugments weie geneially consistent (e.g., what counts as being stoppeu in a bike box vs. behinu a
bike box). These checks vaiieu in teims of theii length, but geneially incluueu at least 1S minutes of
viueo anu 2S obseivations each of bicyclists anu motoi vehicles. Nost of these spot checks ievealeu
only minoi coiiections, though some uiu uncovei consistent inteipietation issues that neeueu to be
auuiesseu. In ceitain cases, viueo neeueu to be ieuuceu again to iecoue a ceitain vaiiable. When
this was necessaiy, eithei the oiiginal viueo ieviewei oi the spot check ieviewei peifoimeu the
coiiection.
A seconu iounu of quality contiol was peifoimeu aftei the ieviews weie completeu. Bata foi each
inteisection weie compaieu on a uay-to-uay basis to iuentify any potentially significant biases
impaiteu by a ieviewei. While some vaiiation was to be expecteu uue to uaily vaiiations in tiaffic
anu minoi uiffeiences in viewei inteipietation, significant fluctuations fiom one uay to the next
may inuicate a moie seiious bias pioblem. Pioject team membeis iuentifieu 21 instances, out of a
possible 1S7 vaiiables, wheie fuithei investigation of the uiffeience might be waiianteu. 0f the 21
iuentifieu instances, 1S weie ievieweu anu iecoueu, while the othei six weie ueteimineu to not
likely mateiially impact the iesults of the stuuy. The types of changes maue as a pait of this piocess
incluueu:
Reviewing the use of the Piecautionaiy Avoiuance Naneuvei coues foi potential oveiuse
(nine instances)

42 Methodology
Reviewing the use of motoi vehicle tuining anu meiging location coues (thiee instances)
Reviewing the use of cyclist location anu stopping coues (two instances)
Removing the inclusion of bicyclists tuining onto the stuuy facility fiom a siue stieet (one
instance)
As noteu in the above list, the most common issue was the oveiuse of piecautionaiy conflict coues.
This is to be expecteu, as iuentifying anu classifying avoiuance maneuveis is likely the most
subjective task ievieweis weie askeu to peifoim. That theie weie only a few instances neeuing
fuithei ieview foi any of the othei coues inuicates that the ievieweis weie likely ielatively
consistent in theii juugment of them oi that any issues weie coiiecteu uuiing the spot check phase
of ieviews.
Finally, uue to the subjective natuie, as well as the potential infoimation to be gleaneu fiom them,
all instances that weie coueu as having a piecautionaiy conflict weie ievieweu by thiee pioject
team membeis. Because this pioceuuie was useu, the oiiginal ievieweis weie askeu to eii on the
siue of inclusion when it came to these instances. A total of 74 instances weie ievieweu, with the
thiee-peison committee voting on each instance as to whethei it constituteu a minoi
(piecautionaiy biaking anuoi change of uiiection), oi piecautionaiy (a low-iisk inteiaction wheie
a minoi change in uiiection oi speeu was neeueu to avoiu a conflict), oi no conflict. The instances
weie then iecoueu on what a majoiity of the committee iecommenueu it be iateu. This piocess
iesulteu in 1S instances iemaining as having a minoi conflict avoiuance maneuvei, S7 being
uowngiaueu to piecautionaiy maneuveis, 1S being uowngiaueu to not having an avoiuance
maneuvei, anu 11 as not being ielevant to the uesign of the piotecteu bike lane (i.e., took place
away fiom the facility in a motoi vehicle lane oi on the siuewalk).
4.1.4 Results
Table 4-S contains the numbei of obseivations at each location by time peiiou. In the sample of
locations, the laigest numbei of bicyclists was obseiveu on the Chicago facilities, NS Beaiboin
Stieet anu N Nilwaukee Avenue. These locations also geneially hau the highest numbei of motoi
vehicles meiging into mixing zones oi tuining acioss the facility.

Methodology 43
Table 4-3. Number of Observations at Each Location
Facility Cross Street Time Period
1
Bicyclists
Turning/Merging
Motor Vehicles
C
h
i
c
a
g
o

N/S
Dearborn
Street
Congress Parkway
7-9 a.m.
2
474 575
11 a.m. 1 p.m.
2
208 545
4-6 p.m.
2
496 468
Madison Street
7-9 a.m.
2
971 1,340
11 a.m. 1 p.m.
2
453 1,242
4-6 p.m.
2
1,283 1,310
Randolph Street
7-9 a.m.
2
943 1,053
11 a.m. 1 p.m.
2
423 1,446
4-6 p.m.
2
1,278 1,118
N
Milwaukee
Avenue
Elston Avenue
7-9 a.m. 74 922
11 a.m. 1 p.m. 162 792
4-6 p.m. 1,679 1,228
P
o
r
t
l
a
n
d

NE
Multnomah
Street
9th Street
7-9 a.m. 125 376
11 a.m. 1 p.m. 59 530
4-6 p.m. 79 618
11
th
Street (Transit Stop)
7-9 a.m. 12 9
11 a.m. 1 p.m. 21 9
4-6 p.m. 148 25
S
a
n

F
r
a
n
c
i
s
c
o

Fell Street Baker Street
7-9 a.m. 363 109
11 a.m. 1 p.m. 281 158
4-6 p.m. 903 190
12-2 p.m.
3
400 44
Oak Street
Broderick Street
7-9 a.m. 751 95
11 a.m. 1 p.m. 208 77
4-6 p.m. 331 99
12-2 p.m.
3
211 52
Divisadero Street
7-9 a.m. 804 504
11 a.m. 1 p.m. 234 510
4-6 p.m. 383 617
12-2 p.m.
3
292 269
W
a
s
h
i
n
g
t
o
n
,

D
.
C
.

L Street
NW
Btwn 19
th
St and 18
th
St
7-9 a.m. 225 15
11 a.m. 1 p.m. 142 28
4-6 p.m. 376 23
15th Street
7-9 a.m. 149 708
11 a.m. 1 p.m. 173 581
4-6 p.m. 441 691
Connecticut Avenue
7-9 a.m. 198 438
11 a.m. 1 p.m. 178 412
4-6 p.m. 462 498
1
All time periods includes two weekdays, unless otherwise noted,
2
Includes three weekdays,
3
Includes only one Saturday


44 Methodology
4.2 User Surveys
Two types of suiveys weie conuucteu in each city: 1) inteicept suiveys of bicyclists iiuing on the
facilities anu 2) suiveys of iesiuents living neaiby the facility. The suivey methou was ievieweu anu
appioveu by PS0s Buman Subjects Reseaich Review Committee (BSRRC). 0ne base suivey was
uevelopeu foi the bicyclist suivey anu one foi the iesiuent suivey. Ceitain questions aie consistent
between these two suiveys, incluuing a numbei of questions about geneial peiceptions of bicycling
anu comfoit on vaiious facilities, along with a set of uemogiaphic questions. Each of these base
suiveys was then auapteu by auuing moie uetaileu facility-specific questions anu iemoving ceitain
questions that may be iiielevant given the specific context.
This section uesciibes these pioject suiveys, theii objectives anu theii iespective uesign piocesses.
4.2.1 Survey Objectives
The piimaiy objective of both the iesiuent anu bicyclist suiveys was to gain a bettei unueistanuing
of the following foi all useis of the tianspoitation system (i.e., bicyclists, uiiveis, anu peuestiians):
Behavioi in anu aiounu the piotecteu bike lanes;
The level of compiehension of the piotecteu bike lanes uesign featuies;
Peiceptions of the piotecteu bike lanes impact anu effectiveness;
Bow effective the piotecteu bike lanes aie at accomplishing theii puiposes, especially in
iegaius to safety anu comfoit; anu
The level anu type of use of the piotecteu lanes.
The two suiveys uiffei in theii intenueu auuience anu level of uetail. The iesiuent suivey is
intenueu to gathei infoimation fiom inuiviuuals living neai the cycle tiack, incluuing those that
bike, uiive, oi walk on the stieet that it was built on. This was the only way this ieseaich gatheieu
systematic uata fiom inuiviuuals who uiive oi walk on the stieet. It may be possible that uiiveis
anu peuestiians who aie iesiuents have uiffeient opinions anu behavioi than othei uiiveis oi
peuestiians. The bicyclist suivey was auministeieu to bicyclists only anu attempts to collect moie
uetaileu uata about theii expeiiences iiuing in the piotecteu lanes.
In a few ciicumstances, eithei the iesiuent oi the bicyclist suivey was not completeu uue to a
failuie to geneiate enough iesponses foi analysis. In paiticulai:
A bicyclist inteicept suivey on Bluebonnet Lane in Austin iesulteu in only two completeu
iesponses aftei only about nine postcaius weie uistiibuteu. This ieflecteu the low use of the
facility uuiing the suivey peiiou (uuiing the summei, outsiue of the school yeai).
We uiu not conuuct a iesiuent mail-out suivey foi Rio uianue because the neaiby
population, uominateu by stuuent housing at the 0niveisity of Texas, hau alieauy enteieu
summei bieak at the time of uata collection. An email suivey was uistiibuteu thiough the
local neighboihoou association, but yielueu only five completeu iesponses.
4.2.2 Survey Design and Refinement
The fiist step in the uesign of the suiveys was the uevelopment of a geneiic template foi each
suivey type (i.e., iesiuent oi bicyclist) with common questions acioss facilities. With the exception
of when a question was not ielevant to a paiticulai facility, these questions weie askeu in each
suivey (e.g., a question about signalizeu inteisections was not askeu if theie weie no signalizeu

Methodology 45
inteisections along the facility). Baving the geneiic templates pioviueu not only foi easiei assembly
of each facility-specific suivey, it also ensuieu that all of the questions in the template weie being
askeu with the same woiuing foi each suivey anu that similai infoimation was being gatheieu foi
each facility. This unifoimity alloweu the pioject team to aggiegate uata anu to compaie iesults
acioss cities.
The initial templates foi each suivey weie uesigneu by the ieseaich team uiawing fiom its past
suiveys of bicycle facilities in Poitlanu anu Washington, B.C. An effoit was maue to piesent
questions neutially, allowing iesponuents to pioviue meaningful positive oi negative answeis
iegaiuing the facilitys impact anu effectiveness.
Aftei the inteinal uevelopment of the suivey templates, theie weie seveial iounus of ieviews anu
iefinement. Templates weie ievieweu by the othei team membeis anu staff fiom the stuuy cities.
Feeuback fiom this ieview was incoipoiateu into the initial suivey template. Pilot suiveys weie
testeu using a Poitlanu State 0niveisity suivey methous class foi the iesiuent suivey anu
tianspoitation stuuents at PS0 foi the bicyclist suivey. The feeuback fiom the pilot suivey tests
yielueu fuithei impiovements to the questions anu foimatting.
Aftei ievising the suivey templates fiom the piloting effoits, suiveys specific to each stuuy facility
weie uevelopeu. These suiveys began with the templates anu weie mouifieu in the following
mannei:
Facility anu location-specific language ieplaceu geneiic placeholueis (e.g., facility became
Bluebonnet Lane cycle tiack);
Non-ielevant questions to the specific stuuy facility weie iemoveu (e.g., economic-ielateu
questions weie not neeueu if theie weie no businesses along the coiiiuoi); anu
Specific questions that auuiesseu unique uesign featuies of the stuuy facility weie auueu
(e.g., questions ielateu to the opeiation of a specific mixing zone oi the functionality of a
two-way cycle tiack).
0nce the pioject team was satisfieu with the uesign of the facility-specific suivey, it was sent to the
appiopiiate citys staff membeis foi theii ieview. Theii feeuback was then incoipoiateu into the
final suivey.
4.2.3 Survey Instruments
The following section uesciibes the oveiall make-up of the iesiuent anu bicyclist suiveys anu the
piocess by which they weie uesigneu.
4.2.3.1 Resident Survey Structure
The iesiuent suiveys containeu aiounu Su questions coveiing a iange of topics. Figuie 4-S shows
the oveiall stiuctuie of the iesiuent suivey.
The fiist section of the suivey is about the iesponuents tiavel habits anu opinions, which helps to
unueistanu theii attituues about bicycling anu othei tiavel moues anu theii level of (theoietical)
comfoit unuei uiffeient bicycling scenaiios.

46 Methodology
The next section askeu all iesponuents (iegaiuless of how they use the stieet) about theii opinion
of the impact the facility has hau on theii
neighboihoou, the safety of the stieet, anu
the effectiveness of its uesign in
accomplishing its objectives (e.g., cleai anu
auequate sepaiation of bicyclists fiom
motoi vehicles).
Following this oveiall section, iesponuents
weie askeu questions ielateu to theii
expeiiences uiiving, bicycling, oi walking
on the stieet since the cycle tiack was built.
Responuents weie instiucteu to skip
sections that aie not ielevant to them (e.g.,
if they have not bicycleu on the cycle tiack
since it was built, they weie instiucteu to
skip the bicycling section). The goal of
these sections was to uiscein the impacts
anu benefits the piotecteu lane has hau on
useis of vaiious moues of tianspoitation
(e.g., uo uiiveis have a moie uifficult time
finuing paiking on the stieet. Bo bicyclists
feel comfoitable in the cycle tiack. Bo peuestiians think the cycle tiack has impioveu oi uegiaueu
the stieets walking enviionment.). The questions foi iesiuents who hau bicycleu on the new lane
weie a subset of the questions fiom the bicyclist suivey.
In an effoit to iuentify possible economic impacts of the new cycle tiack, the suivey containeu
questions iegaiuing consumei habits in the stuuy aiea. This block of questions was uesigneu to
evaluate whethei the facility hau any impact on uecisions about spenuing money at businesses in
the aiea of the new facility.
The suivey concluueu with uemogiaphic questions that weie stanuaiuizeu acioss all suiveys.
4.2.3.2 Bicyclist Survey Structure
The bicyclist suivey was uiffeient fiom the iesiuent suivey in its oveiall intent in that it was
taigeteu at a moie specific population (i.e., people who have bicycleu on the cycle tiack). It incluueu
moie uetaileu questions about the bicycling expeiience on the new lane anu about the iesponuents
stateu level of comfoit bicycling unuei uiffeient scenaiios. In this iegaiu, it complementeu the
iesiuent suiveys bioau ieach to many usei types anu moie geneial questions.
Travel Habits/
Opinions
Overall impacts
of the lanes
Facility-Specific
Questions
Driving
Bicycling
Walking
Business
Demographics
Figure 4-3. Resident Survey Structure

Methodology 47
Travel
habits/opinions
Trip Details
Facility-Specific
Experience with operations and
safety
Bikeway encounters and
collisions
Unique facility treatments and
intersections
Demographics
Figure 4-4. Bicyclist Survey Structure
Seveial questions weie baseu on oi iuentical to those fiom the iesiuent suivey, anu the oveiall
stiuctuie of this suivey is similai to that of the iesiuent suivey. The bicyclist suivey began with
geneial questions about tiavel habits anu opinions anu questions about the tiip they weie making
when they weie inteicepteu foi
the suivey. The next section
incluueu specific questions
about theii expeiience while
bicycling in the new facility.
These questions weie moie
uetaileu than those in the
bicyclist poition of the iesiuent
suivey. In auuition to the topics
coveieu in the iesiuent suivey,
iesponuents to the bicyclist
suivey weie askeu about
obstacles they encountei in the
cycle tiack anu potentially
uangeious situations they have
encounteieu. They weie askeu
the same set of uemogiaphic
questions.

4.2.4 Survey Administration
Figuie 4-S shows the uistiibution anu iesponse methous foi the iesiuent anu bicyclist suiveys,
which aie uesciibeu in gieatei uetail in the following subsections.

Figure 4-5. Survey Administration Methods
Resident Survey
Paper Copies Mailed
Bicyclist Survey
Intercept
Return Paper Copy
Complete Online
Version
Complete Online
Version
Survey Distribution Method Response Method

48 Methodology
4.2.4.1 Resident Survey
Papei copies of the iesiuent suivey weie maileu to up to 2,uuu iesiuent auuiesses within a specific
bounuaiy (up to a quaitei mile) of each stuuy facility. The size of the bounuaiy aiounu each facility
uiffeieu baseu on the uensity of the suiiounuing aiea anu the iesulting uistance neeueu to achieve
an ample sample size. Resiuent auuiesses aie taken fiom the Refeience 0SA uatabase accesseu
thiough a PS0 subsciiption seivice.
The papei suiveys weie piinteu in booklet foim anu iangeu in size fiom 8-12 pages. In auuition to
the suivey, each envelope incluueu an invitation lettei intiouucing the pioject, anu a postage-paiu
ietuin envelope. The packet also containeu a slip of papei on which the iesponuent coulu iecoiu
his oi hei contact infoimation (the suiveys themselves aie anonymous) to be enteieu into a
uiawing foi one of thiee $1uu Amazon.com gift caius. Each suivey hau a unique numbei to tiack
whethei a householu hau iesponueu. The suivey iesponses weie nevei linkeu to the names of the
inuiviuuals in the householu.
Suivey iecipients weie given two options foi completing the suivey. They coulu fill out the papei
copy of the suivey anu ietuin it in the postage-paiu envelope. Alteinatively, they weie given the
option of completing an online veision of the questionnaiie. The intiouuction lettei anu fiist page
of the papei suivey containeu an auuiess foi the online suivey anu a coue that the iesponuent hau
to entei to access the suivey. The coue foi the online suivey was the same as the one assigneu to
the papei suivey so that the pioject team can iemove any uuplicate suivey entiies. If completing
the online veision, the iesponuent coulu entei the incentive uiawing electionically.
A ieminuei postcaiu was sent a few uays aftei the fiist suivey. A seconu copy of the suivey was
sent to householus that hau not iesponueu to the oiiginal suivey by the iequesteu completeu uate
(typically about two weeks fiom when it was maileu).
4.2.4.2 Bicyclist Survey Intercepted Bicyclists
The bicyclist suivey was uesigneu as an inteicept suivey with iiueis ieceiving a postcaiu uiiecting
them to a web auuiess to complete the suivey electionically. Pioject team membeis, volunteeis oi
city staff inteicepteu bicyclists along the stuuy facility anu hanueu them a postcaiu encouiaging
them to take an online suivey. The postcaiu incluueu a web auuiess anu unique coue neeueu to
access the suivey. The logistics of the inteicept methou weie slightly uiffeient foi each facility.
Locations foi suivey uistiibution along each facility weie typically at locations wheie bicyclists
weie alieauy iequiieu to stop (i.e., stop-contiolleu oi signalizeu inteisections) so that the postcaiu
uistiibutois woulu not uistiact the bicyclists anu potentially enuangei theii safety. While
volunteeis weie able to pioviue some basic infoimation to the bicyclists if they askeu anu
encouiageu them to complete the suivey, they weie askeu not to encouiage iiueis to iesponu in
any ceitain way. The suivey inteicept times anu uays weie ueteimineu baseu on iiueiship patteins
along the ioute. Typically, the AN anu PN commutei peak peiious weie suiveyeu, along with a
possible miuuay oi weekenu peiiou. To ieuuce the likelihoou that an inuiviuual ieceiveu moie than
one suivey postcaiu, each time peiiou was geneially only suiveyeu once.
Similai to the iesiuent suivey, iesponuents to the bicyclist suivey weie pioviueu the option to
entei a uiawing foi one of thiee $1uu Amazon.com gift caius.

Methodology 49
4.2.4.3 Bicyclist Survey Open Survey
In auuition to the bicyclist inteicept suiveys, the ieseaich team uistiibuteu the suivey to the
Inteinet thiough local auvocacy gioups in each city. In the inteicept suiveys each iesponuent was
obseiveu on the facility anu given a caiu with a unique numbei. In the open suiveys, the
uistiibution coulu not be easily contiolleu. Foi this ieason, these uata aie not incluueu in the iesults
piesenteu in this iepoit.
4.3 Bicycle Count Data
The analysis of change in iiueiship baseu on bicycle count uata is uiaws fiom counts conuucteu by
each paiticipating citys staff oi volunteeis anu counts taken fiom the stuuy teams viueo ieview. All
pie-installation counts weie conuucteu by the cities inuepenuently of this stuuy. Post-installation
count uata is ueiiveu fiom a combination of city counts anu bicyclist tallies collecteu uuiing the
stuuys viueo ieview piocess. All of the counts useu in the analysis aie fiom specific time fiames
usually 2-4 houis uuiing AN oi PN peak tiavel peiious. Because count collection methous,
uuiation, timing, fiequency anu iegulaiity vaiieu fiom location to location, anu specific count
locations occasionally vaiieu on a specific facility, the best compaiable counts foi each specific
facility weie useu given the available uata.
Evaluating the effects of a facility on iiueiship using count uata has some limitations. In paiticulai,
it is uifficult to ueteimine whethei any changes in tiaffic volumes aie uue to net incieases (oi
uecieases) in iiueiship oi people changing theii ioutes fiom othei stieets. Although not incluueu in
this iepoit, analyzing iiueiship on paiallel ioutes woulu be one way to auuiess this limitation.
0thei factois influence counts, such as season, weathei anu events, which can also limit befoie-anu-
aftei compaiisons. Long uata collection time peiious (e.g., months oi a yeai) can minimize this
issue. The timing of this stuuy piecluueu the collection of thoiough count uata befoie constiuction.
Insteau, seconuaiy uata was ielieu upon foi this analysis.
4.3.1 City Bicyclist Counts
Table 4-4 shows the types of count uata pioviueu by paitnei cities at each location foi the pie- anu
post-installation peiious.

50 Methodology
Table 4-4. Count Data Provided by Participating Cities
City Street (s) Count Type Before Counts After Counts
Austin
Barton Springs Road Tube counter
Midweek 24-hour
collection
Midweek 24-hour collection
Bluebonnet Lane Tube counter
Midweek 24-hour
collection
Midweek 24-hour collection
Rio Grande St Tube counter
Midweek 24-hour
collection
Midweek 24-hour collection
Chicago
N/S Dearborn St Manual Count
Midweek 12-hour
collection (7am-7pm)
Midweek PM peak 430-630pm
N Milwaukee Ave Manual Count
Midweek 12-hour
collection (7am-7pm)
Midweek 7-9am and 4-6pm
Portland NE Multnomah St Manual Count Midweek 4-6pm Midweek 4-6pm
San Francisco
Fell St
Automated eco-
vision counter
May 2012 to May 2013.
n/a Counter positioned at old
BL location.
Pyro Sensor n/a May 2013
Tube Count n/a May 2013
Manual Count
Midweek 7-9am and 430-
630pm
n/a
Oak St Manual Count
Midweek 7-9am and 430-
630pm
n/a
Washington
D.C.
L Street Manual Count
Midweek 6-10am and 3-
7pm
Midweek 6-10am and 3-7pm

The best possible count compaiison oi compaiisons weie sought out foi each facility, taking into
account the count time of uay, uuiation, uay of week, anu time of yeai. In cases wheie count timing
foi pie- anu post-installation peiious weie not consistent, the shoitei count uuiation was useu to
conuuct the compaiison; foi example, if a 24-houi pie-installation count anu a 4-6 p.m. post-
installation count weie available, the 4-6 p.m. count was extiacteu fiom the 24-houi pie- count anu
useu as the pie- compaiison.
In auuition to being subject to the availability of existing count uata, this analysis also uiu not
explicitly aujust foi paiticulai ciicumstances, especially the weathei conuitions, of the count uays.
Foi example, Septembei 2u1S counts conuucteu on Nilwaukee Avenue in Chicago happeneu to
occui on an unusually hot uay, with tempeiatuies ieaching 9S uegiees anu potentially uepiessing
iiueiship numbeis. In anothei case, the best available pie-installation count foi one location on
Bluebonnet Lane in Austin took place aftei the school yeai at a location aujacent to an elementaiy
school, potentially causing the pie- counts to be low at that location.
4.3.2 Bicyclist Counts from Video Review
Bicyclists counts weie taken fiom tallies maue uuiing the stuuy viueo ieview. Foi each uay of viueo
ieview, tallies weie taken foi the 7-9 a.m., 11 a.m.-1 p.m. anu 4-6 p.m. houis (with the exception of
Satuiuay time peiious on 0ak anu Fell Stieets, foi which only the 12-2 p.m. peiiou was tallieu). See
Table 4-2 foi the uays tallieu. A similai piocess of iuentifying anu extiacting the best matcheu
compaiison peiious was conuucteu foi compaiing the stuuy viueo ieview bicyclist tallies.


Survey Respondents 51
5 SURVEY RESPONDENTS
5.1 Survey Response Rates
Response iates foi each suivey aie shown in Table S-1. A total of 1u,221 suiveys weie maileu to
iesiuents living neai the new facilities; 47S of those weie ietuineu as unueliveiable anu 2,28S weie
ietuineu with iesponses. Suiveys weie consiueieu completeu as long as any poition of the suivey
was completeu. Response iates iangeu fiom a low of 1S% neai the L Stieet facility in Washington
B.C., to a high of S4% neai NE Nultnomah Stieet in Poitlanu. The oveiall iesponse iate foi
iesiuents was 2S%. }ust ovei a thiiu of all iesponuents (S4%) opteu to complete the web suivey,
uemonstiating the value of having that option.
Response iates foi the bicyclist inteicept suivey weie calculateu by uiviuing the numbei of
iesponses by the numbei of postcaius uistiibuteu; the numbei of people who ueclineu to take a
postcaiu was not iecoiueu. Postcaius weie numbeieu but volunteeis uiu not always uiligently log
staiting anu stopping numbeis. The iesponse iate iangeu fiom 21% along Beaiboin Stieet in
Chicago to S6% along NE Nultnomah Stieet in Poitlanu, with an oveiall iesponse iate of SS%. Note
that the suiveys on Baiton Spiings anu Rio uianue in Austin yielueu the fewest completeu suiveys.
Table 5-1. Survey Distribution and Response Rates
City Route
Resident Survey Bicyclist Survey
Mailed
(not
delivered)
Paper
Responses
Web
Responses
Total
Responses
Response
Rate
Distrib-
uted*
Returned
Response
Rate
Washington,
D.C.
L Street
2,000
(168)
148 88 236 13% 763 300 39%
Austin, TX
Bluebonnet
1,661
(71)
304 135 439 28% - - -
Barton Springs
343
(10)
55 36 91 27% 73 18 25%
Rio Grande - - - 98 43 44%
San
Francisco,
CA
Oak /Fell
1,967
(32)
318 199 517 27% 900 278 31%
Chicago, IL
N/S Dearborn
1,200
(81)
121 76 197 18% 600 124 21%
N Milwaukee
1,500
(30)
185 126 311 21% 775 236 30%
Portland, OR NE Multnomah
1,550
(83)
368 124 492 34% 200 112 56%
Overall 9,746 1,499 784 2,283 23% 3,409 1,111 33%
Note: Response rate for resident survey calculated based upon number of mailed surveys not returned as undeliverable,
mailed minus not delivered.
*Estimated for San Francisco, Chicago, and Portland due to volunteer logging.

52 Survey Respondents
5.2 Overview of Survey Respondents
5.2.1 Resident Survey Respondents
0f the 2,28S iesiuent iesponses ieceiveu, 2,22S pioviueu some oi all of the iequesteu uemogiaphic
infoimation (which was the last section of the suivey). Infoimation about the basic chaiacteiistics
of iesiuent suivey iesponuents, along with peicentages fiom ioughly compaiable Census tiacts, is
shown in Table S-2. The Census tiacts useu foi compaiison aie not peifect matches, as only a
sample of iesiuents living within u.1 to u.2S miles of the new facility weie inviteu to paiticipate.
The Census tiacts geneially covei a laigei aiea (see Figuie S-1); howevei, the compaiison pioviues
a sense of the iepiesentativeness of the sample.
Compaiing the oveiall sample acioss the cities, iesiuent suivey iesponuents weie consiueiably
oluei, moie likely to be homeowneis, anu moie likely to have at least a foui-yeai college uegiee.
The suivey sample containeu a slightly highei peicentage of iesponuents iuentifying as white than
compaiison tiacts (81% compaieu to 76%), anu slightly fewei iuentifying as black,
BispanicLatino, oi Asian (S-6% compaieu 8-9%). Responuents weie also moie likely to have
chiluien in the householu anu woik fiom home. Although the combineu gioup of iesponuents was
only slightly moie likely to be eaining $1uu,uuu oi moie, this gioup was in fact oveiiepiesenteu in
most inuiviuual localities.

Survey Respondents 53
Table 5-2. Resident Survey Respondents with Census Comparison
Demographic Variable
Austin
Barton
Springs +
Bluebonnet
Chicago
Dearborn
Chicago
Milwaukee
Portland
Multnomah
San
Francisco
Oak + Fell
D.C. L
Street Total
Survey Census Survey Census Survey Census Survey Census Survey Census Survey Census Survey Census
H
o
u
s
e
h
o
l
d

Homeowners 79% 51% 72% 38% 63% 49% 39% 27% 39% 22% 50% 24% 55% 34%
3+ years at address 81% 74% 75% 56% 81% 68% 73%
2+ Adults in HH 70% 58% 67% 54% 69% 58% 64%
Children in HH 24% 15% 9% 4% 17% 11% 10% 10% 15% 12% 7% 3% 15% 10%
T
r
a
v
e
l

Driver's License 98% 96% 98% 92% 95% 95% 96%
Transit Pass 10% 87% 82% 27% 61% 86% 50%
Bike Share
Membership
n/a

6%

6%

n/a

1%

14%

5%

Car Share
Membership
14%

26%

8%

12%

27%

25%

18%

Own/Lease a car 96% 56% 89% 84% 78% 62% 81%
Own working bicycle 77% 62% 69% 59% 71% 50% 67%
D
e
m
o
g
r
a
p
h
i
c

Female 52% 50% 55% 41% 52% 48% 59% 53% 50% 46% 50% 53% 53% 48%
<35 years of age 15% 45% 25% 58% 39% 56% 23% 38% 27% 49% 44% 58% 26% 51%
35 to 54 years 43% 35% 41% 30% 42% 34% 32% 26% 46% 36% 30% 28% 40% 33%
55 + years 42% 20% 34% 12% 19% 9% 45% 36% 27% 15% 26% 15% 34% 16%
White 88% 92% 78% 65% 75% 75% 88% 83% 77% 73% 72% 70% 81% 76%
Black 0% 1% 5% 13% 7% 12% 4% 5% 7% 7% 7% 11% 5% 8%
Hispanic or Latino/a 6% 13% 4% 7% 6% 8% 2% 3% 7% 10% 7% 14% 5% 9%
Asian 2% 2% 6% 16% 8% 9% 5% 5% 8% 11% 9% 11% 6% 9%
Other or no response 3% 5% 7% 7% 4% 4% 1% 7% 1% 9% 4% 7% 3% 7%
E
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
/

E
m
p
l
o
y
m
e
n
t

Work Outside Home 61% 77% 76% 68% 78% 84% 57% 58% 69% 75% 72% 75% 66% 75%
Work From Home 20% 9% 15% 3% 16% 6% 9% 2% 18% 6% 10% 1% 15% 5%
In School 1% 5% 3% 4% 3% 5% 3%
Not Employed 17% 14% 6% 29% 8% 10% 35% 40% 16% 20% 10% 24% 18% 20%
Income <$50k 22% 38% 10% 28% 13% 20% 38% 57% 20% 29% 12% 41% 22% 21%
$50k to $100k 37% 35% 40% 36% 31% 29% 42% 23% 34% 27% 39% 24% 37% 40%
>$100k 41% 27% 50% 36% 56% 51% 19% 20% 46% 43% 48% 34% 41% 39%
Four year college + 83% 61% 90% 64% 85% 77% 79% 59% 82% 69% 90% 76% 83% 69%
n 516 195 296 481 508 229 2,225
Comparison Tracts - ACS
2008-2012 5 year data
Travis Co.:
13.03; 13.04
Cook Co.:
8391
Cook Co.:
2801; 2435;
8423
Mult. Co.:
23.03; 24.02
SF Co.: 164;
165; 166; 167
DC: 101; 107




54 Survey Respondents
Austin: Tiavis County Tiacts 1S.uS1S.u4 ChicagoBeaiboin: Cook County Tiact 8S91
ChicagoNilwaukee: Cook County Tiacts 28u124SS842S Poitlanu: Nultnomah County: 2S.uS24.u2
San Fiancisco: SF County Tiacts 16416S166167 B.C.: Tiacts 1u11u7
Figure 5-1. Illustration of Census Tracts used for Resident Demographic Comparison



Survey Respondents 55
Resiuent iesponuents weie askeu to inuicate how fiequently they useu a motoi vehicle, walkeu,
bicycleu oi useu public tianspoitation foi theii commute tiip, anu weie bioken uown baseu on
theii piimaiy stateu moue of commute. Foi each moue, iesponuents coulu select most tiips,
some tiips oi no tiips. Those that selecteu most tiips foi only one moue weie placeu into that
categoiy. If they selecteu most tiips foi moie than one moue they weie placeu in the mix
categoiy. If they uiu not select most tiips foi any moue, a similai categoiization piocess was uone
baseu on whethei they selecteu some tiips foi any moue. Those that iesponueu no tiips to each
moue weie placeu into a non-commutei categoiy (which may incluue those that woik fiom home,
aie ietiieu, oi aie otheiwise not employeu). The bieakuown of the assigneu piimaiy moue along
with compaiison commute moues fiom the selecteu Census tiacts can be seen in Table S-S.
Table 5-3. Imputed Primary Mode, with Census Comparison
City Source
Car/
Truck
Foot Transit "Other" Bicycle Mix
Non-
commut
er
Not in
Labor
Force
n
Austin
Survey 71% 2% 2% 1% 5% 7% 11% -
527
Census 58% 1% 2% 7% 17% 16%
Chicago
Dearborn
Survey 18% 37% 21% 1% 4% 17% 3% -
197
Census 12% 40% 10% 3% 7% 28%
Chicago
Milwaukee
Survey 42% 11% 19% 0% 4% 21% 3% -
311
Census 29% 22% 20% 6% 13% 10%
Portland
Survey 38% 9% 12% 1% 7% 13% 21% -
490
Census 31% 9% 10% 7% 10% 34%
San
Francisco
Survey 31% 10% 20% 1% 13% 19% 8% -
517
Census 22% 8% 30% 9% 12% 19%
Washington,
D.C.
Survey 16% 43% 12% 0% 5% 16% 9% -
235
Census 16% 34% 22% 2% 5% 21%
Total
Survey 40% 14% 13% 1% 7% 15% 10% -
2,277
Census 27% 15% 20% 7% 12% 19%

To take into account iesponuents views towaiu bicycling, iesiuents weie bioke them uown into
bicyclist types using an establisheu methouology foi giouping people into a cyclist typology
(Geller, 2009; Dill and McNeil, 2012). People weie gioupeu into foui categoiies: Strong and Fearless,
Enthused and Confident, Interested but Concerned, anu No How No Way (Table S-4). Seveial of the
finuings sections that follow use these categoiies to examine attituues of iesiuents towaiu the
piotecteu lanes. The giouping was laigely baseu upon theii stateu level of comfoit bicycling in
uiffeient enviionments, consistent with the methou uevelopeu in Bill anu NcNeil (2012). Bowevei,
the methou was not iuentical, so compaiisons with the uistiibution of bicyclists fiom that stuuy aie
maue cautiously. 0ne notable uiffeience is the laige shaie of iesponuents in the Enthused and
Confident categoiy. This may be uue to uiffeiences in suivey methous. Foi example, Bill anu NcNeil
useu a ianuom phone suivey which may be subject to less iesponse bias; moie confiuent bicyclists
may have been moie likely to iesponu to this mail suivey. In auuition, the uemogiaphics of the
neighboihoous stuuieu heie may iesult in moie confiuent bicyclists, compaieu to a ianuom suivey
acioss a city oi iegion.

56 Survey Respondents
Table 5-4. Resident Respondents Categorized into Four Types of Cyclists
Type of Cyclist Austin Chicago Portland
San
Francisco
Washington,
D.C.
All
Strong and Fearless 3% 5% 4% 7% 6% 5%
Enthused and Confident 22% 25% 32% 31% 26% 27%
Interested But Concerned 56% 40% 36% 40% 40% 43%
No Way No How 18% 30% 27% 22% 28% 25%
Total 489 456 411 469 211 2,036

5.2.2 Bicyclist Survey Respondents
Bicyclist suivey iesponuents (Table S-S) tenueu to be a ielatively multimoual gioup, with at least
two-thiius of iesponuents on each facility owning a cai (7S% oveiall aveiage) anu most having a
tiansit pass (72% oveiall aveiage). 0vei a quaitei (28%) has a cai-shaie membeiship. About a
fifth of iesponuents in cities with bike-shaie systems weie membeis at the time of the suivey
(19%). 0n aveiage, iesponuents owneu moie bicycles (2.9 pei householu) than cais (1.2 pei
householu).
In compaiison to the iesiuent iesponuents, the inteicepteu bicyclist iesponuents weie moie likely
to be white (89% compaieu to 81%); male (68% vs 47%); woik outsiue the home (9u% vs. 66%);
anu make ovei $1uu,uuu pei yeai (48% vs. 41%). The bicyclist iesponuents weie about as likely as
iesiuent iesponuents to possess a foui-yeai uegiee (82%). An oveiview of bicyclist suivey
iesponuents is pioviueu in Table S-S.

Survey Respondents 57
Table 5-5. Bicyclist Intercept Survey Respondents
Demographic Variable
Austin Chicago Portland S.F. D.C.
Barton
Springs
Rio
Grande
Dearborn Milwaukee Multnomah
Oak &
Fell
L Street Total
HH
2 + Adults 65% 62% 79% 78% 77% 82% 78% 78%
Children in HH 35% 10% 22% 18% 34% 24% 30% 25%
T
r
a
v
e
l

Own/Lease a car 76% 74% 68% 68% 86% 69% 73% 73%
Driver's License 82% 90% 97% 97% 95% 98% 98% 97%
Transit Pass 24% 33% 94% 90% 30% 57% 87% 72%
Bike Share Member n/a n/a 35% 17% n/a 6% 35% 19%
1
Car Share Member 12% 14% 23% 20% 31% 29% 35% 28%
D
e
m
o
g
r
a
p
h
i
c

Female 24% 24% 36% 36% 44% 28% 28% 32%
<35 years of age 41% 71% 58% 69% 37% 55% 51% 56%
35 to 54 years 53% 21% 34% 29% 44% 40% 41% 37%
55 + years 6% 5% 6% 1% 17% 4% 8% 6%
White 71% 81% 88% 91% 92% 85% 91% 89%
Black 0% 0% 3% 0% 0% 1% 3% 1%
Hispanic or Latino/a 6% 10% 3% 4% 7% 4% 4% 5%
Asian 12% 10% 10% 4% 2% 11% 4% 7%
Other 12% 7% 3% 3% 5% 5% 4% 4%
E
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
/

E
m
p
l
o
y
m
e
n
t

Work Outside
Home
76% 74% 91% 98% 89% 94% 93% 93%
Work From Home 18% 10% 7% 1% 8% 8% 7% 7%
In School 12% 43% 9% 6% 7% 7% 5% 8%
Not Employed 0% 0% 2% 1% 6% 2% 3% 2%
Income <$50k 35% 57% 23% 21% 21% 17% 11% 19%
Income >$100k 47% 29% 42% 43% 29% 47% 67% 48%
Four-year college
degree or more
76% 55% 92% 90% 90% 90% 93% 89%
n 17 42 117 208 108 248 282 1,022
1
Only includes cities with bike share
Inteicepteu bicyclists weie also categoiizeu into a cyclist typology using the same piocess
uesciibeu foi the iesiuents above, as shown in Table S-6. In the case of the bicyclists, theie weie
obviously no iesponuents in the No Way No How categoiy. As a iesult, the peicentage of
iesponuents falling into each of the othei type categoiies was somewhat highei foi the inteicepteu
bicyclists than foi the iesiuents. 0vei half of the inteicepteu bicyclists fell into the Interested But
Concerned categoiy.
Table 5-6. Bicyclist Respondents Categorized into Four Types of Cyclists
Type of Cyclist
Austin Chicago Portland S.F. D.C.
Total Barton
Springs
Rio
Grande
Dearborn Milwaukee Multnomah
Oak &
Fell
L Street
Strong and Fearless 0% 7% 5% 10% 3% 3% 16% 8%
Enthused and
Confident
41% 33% 39% 36% 37% 40% 41% 39%
Interested But
Concerned
59% 60% 56% 55% 60% 56% 44% 53%
No Way No How - - - - - - - -
Total 17 42 117 208 108 247 281 1,020


58 Survey Respondents
5.2.2.1 Where are bicyclists going to and from?
The bicyclist suivey askeu foi the auuiesses of wheie the iesponuent was tiaveling fiom (oiigin)
anu to (uestination) when they weie inteicepteu to complete the suivey. These auuiesses weie
geocoueu foi analysis to estimate how fai out of theii way cyclists may be going to use the new
piotecteu lane. In the absence of uetaileu ioute infoimation, ESRI's Netwoik Analyst tool was useu
to geneiate theoietical bicyclist tiavel ioutes, assuming that cyclists tenu to minimize out-of-
uiiection tiavel. Two sets of tiip ioutes weie iun foi each set of oiigin anu uestination points:
Shoitest Netwoik Bistance (Shoitest Path) - A ioute solution that founu the shoitest
netwoik uistance between each tiip oiigin anu uestination. This simple methou consiueieu
only uistance anu uiu not assign any benefit to tiavel on local stieets oi punishment foi
tiavel on high-speeu aiteiials.
Shoitest Netwoik Bistance with Cycle Tiack (Assumeu Path) - A ioute solution that
iequiieu a cyclist to tiavel on the cycle tiack foi at least one block. In this analysis each
block of the cycle tiack was tieateu as a uestination, anu a ioute was founu between each
tiip oiigin anu the closest uestination on the cycle tiack. A seconu ioute solution founu the
uistance between the cycle tiack miupoint anu the ultimate tiip uestination. Tiip legs weie
aggiegateu, summeu, anu then analyzeu against the shoitest netwoik uistance.
In some cases tiips weie excluueu fiom the analysis. This occuiieu when an inteiview iesponuent
iepoiteu iuentical oiigin anu uestination points, oi multiple oiigin anu uestination points. Tiips
ovei seven miles weie also excluueu to minimize the likelihoou of incluuing tiips that weie not
exclusively taken by bicycle (e.g., to excluue combineu bike anu tiansit tiips). Tiip-enu maps aie
shown in Figuie S-2 to Figuie S-S.

Survey Respondents 59
Figure 5-2. Austin Bicyclist Surveys - Geocoded Trip Ends
Figure 5-3. Chicago Bicyclist Surveys Geocoded Trip Ends

60 Survey Respondents
Figure 5-4. Portland and San Francisco Bicyclist Surveys Geocoded Trip Ends

Figure 5-5. Washington D.C. Bicyclist Survey Geocoded Trip Ends

5.2.2.2 Proximity to Protected Bike Lanes
Table S-7 iuentifies the uistance of the tiip oiigin anu uestination (whichevei is closest) fiom the
piotecteu lane. Theie appeais to be a split between the facilities stuuieu as to whethei useis hau an
oiigin oi uestination neai the facility. Foi example, moie than 8u% of suivey iesponuents iepoiteu
eithei a tiip oiigin oi uestination within a quaitei mile of the L Stieet lane. 0seis of the Baiton
Spiings facility in Austin anu Beaiboin in Chicago also tenueu to have an oiigin oi uestination
ielatively neaiby. 0n Nilwaukee Avenue in Chicago, by contiast, the closest tiip oiigin oi
uestination tenueu to be between 1-2 miles fiom the piotecteu bike lane (7S% of tiips). 0seis of
the 0akFell facility in San Fiancisco also tenueu not to have an oiigin oi uestination neaiby. The
uiffeiences acioss locations aie likely inuicative of the context of the given facility. Foi example,
while L Stieet is locateu in uowntown Washington, B.C., neai many likely woik (anu othei)
uestinations, the Nilwaukee Avenue anu 0ak anu Fell Stieet lanes seive as connectois between
theii citys uowntown anu moie uistant neighboihoous.

Survey Respondents 61
Table 5-7. Percent of Intercepted Bicyclists by Distance of Origin or Destination to Protected Bike Lane
(Miles)
Location
Distance (miles) between closest origin or destination to protected lane
Total
0.00 -
0.25
0.25 -
0.50
0.50 -
0.75
0.75
1.00
1.00
1.50
1.50
2.00
2.00
2.50 > 2.50
Barton Springs, Austin 20% 30% 0% 0% 10% 30% 10% 0% 100%
Rio Grande, Austin 30% 17% 26% 17% 4% 0% 0% 4% 100%
Dearborn, Chicago 30% 25% 25% 12% 7% 2% 0% 0% 100%
Milwaukee, Chicago 4% 1% 4% 8% 39% 37% 8% 0% 100%
NE Multnomah , Portland 13% 38% 13% 7% 18% 8% 3% 0% 100%
Oak & Fell, San Francisco 10% 4% 10% 11% 14% 21% 18% 12% 100%
L Street, Wash. D.C. 80% 15% 2% 3% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100%


62 Findings: Ridership Changes
6 FINDINGS: RIDERSHIP CHANGES
This chaptei summaiizes the ieseaich finuings ielateu to the question of whethei the facilities
attiact moie cyclists. The question of incieaseu levels of bicycling is answeieu heie using thiee
types of uata: pie- anu post-constiuction counts, inteicept suiveys of bicyclists, anu iesiuent
suiveys.
0veiall count uata show a substantial inciease in iiueiship acioss all facilities within the fiist yeai
of installation. Table 6-1 shows bicyclist count changes between the pie- anu post-constiuction
phases, aveiaging both the city count uata anu oui viueo count uata foi the post-constiuction phase,
as explaineu in Section 4.S.
The magnituue of change vaiies consiueiably between facilities. The count uata ieveal a positive
tienu, howevei, no cleai pattein with iespect to the existence of a stiipeu bike lane in the pie-
constiuction peiiou veisus no pie-existing bike lane (Figuie 6-1). Results fiom the inteicept suivey
suggest that fewei bicyclists on the ioutes with stiipeu lanes piioi to constiuction woulu have
taken anothei ioute oi moue pieviously, anu that highei shaies weie alieauy cycling on those
stieets befoie constiuction. The two one-way stieets with two-way facilities (Rio uianue anu
Beaiboin, shown in blue in the figuie) saw the laigest inciease (as expecteu since bicycles can now
tiavel in two uiiections).
Table 6-1. Overview of Change in Ridership
City Facility
Pre-
Existing
Bike
Facility
Increase
(City
Counts*)
Increase
(Video
Analysis**)
Average
Count
Increase
Citywide
Increase
2010 -
2012***
Survey:
share of
cyclists who
ride "more
frequently
Austin
Barton Springs No 58% n/a 58%
39%
39%
Bluebonnet Bike Lane 46% n/a 46% n/a
Rio Grande Bike Lane 126% n/a 126% 79%
Chicago
Dearborn No 126% 215% 171%
21%
86%
Milwaukee Bike Lane 4% 38% 21% 31%
Portland NE Multnomah Bike Lane 39% 97% 68% 10% 51%
San Francisco
Oak No n/a n/a n/a
10%
44%
Fell Bike Lane 50% 42% 46% 28%
Washington,
D.C.
L Street No 67% 63% 65% 31% 66%

Overall: 75%

*City Counts considers pre- and post-installation counts conducted by the City
**Video Analysis also uses pre-installation counts conducted by the City, and compares them with post-installation counts
from the study teams video review.
***Change in number of workers commuting by bicycle, based on American Community Survey 2010 and 2012 1-year
estimates. Note that the margins of error for the ACS data are not considered.

The iange in changes in bicyclist volumes may be uue as much to the context in each citys netwoik
as the specific uesign of each facility. Foi example, 0ak anu Fell Stieets in San Fiancisco weie well-
known bicycle ioutes piioi to the new lanes because of the lack of goou alteinatives; they function

Findings: Ridership Changes 63
as a key link between outei neighboihoous (incluuing a path thiough uoluen uate Paik) anu othei
bicycle infiastiuctuie leauing to uowntown. Stieets with ielatively high iiueiship befoie the
installation of the piotecteu lanes aie likely to see smallei percentage incieases in iiueis,
paiticulaily in this shoit timefiame (usually less than one yeai). Nilwaukee in Chicago was the
stieet with the highest iiueiship piioi to constiuction, with 2-1u times as many bicycles compaieu
with the othei stieets. The estimateu 21% inciease in iiueis on that facility iepiesents a laige
number, laigei than the total iiueis foi some lanes.

Figure 6-1. Changes in Volume of Bicycles after Protected Bike Lane Installation
Some of the iiueiship incieases at each facility likely came fiom new iiueis (i.e., iiueis who, absent
the piotecteu bike lane, woulu have tiavelleu via a uiffeient moue oi woulu not have taken the
tiip). The incieases also likely came fiom iiueis uiveiteu fiom othei neaiby stieets (i.e., iiueis who
weie attiacteu to the ioute because of the facility, but woulu have chosen to iiue a bicycle foi that
tiip iegaiuless). 0ui inteicept suivey of bicyclists founu that 1u% woulu have maue the tiip by
anothei moue anu 1% woulu not have maue the tiip, inuicating that theie aie some new iiueis
attiacteu to the facilities. The iemainuei woulu have bicycleu on a uiffeient ioute (24%) oi the
same ioute (6S%). Noie uetails on the suivey finuings aie in Section 6.S.
As explaineu in the methouology in Section 4.S, compaiable count uata on neaiby alteinatives was
not available. Insteau, the changes in iiueiship fiom the available count uata aie compaieu to
changes in bicycle commuting using uata fiom the 2u1u-2u12 Ameiican Community Suivey (ACS),
which seives as a measuie of oveiall bicycling in the city. In most cases, the inciease in the numbei
of bicycles on the stieet is highei than the inciease in the numbei of commuteis cycling citywiue.
Bowevei, oui calculations baseu on the peicentage change in the ACS counts uoes not take into
account the maigins of eiioi associateu with the ACS uata.
126%
68%
46% 46%
21%
171%
65%
58%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
140%
160%
180%
Rio Grande MultnomahBluebonnet Fell Milwaukee Dearborn L Street Barton
Springs
P
e
r
c
e
n
t

I
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
Two-way
One-way
Bike lanes prior
No bike lanes prior

64 Findings: Ridership Changes
The following two sections (6.1 anu 6.2) pioviue moie uetails of the count uata compaiisons.
6.1 Bicycle Counts Conducted By Cities
Each city conuucteu both befoie anu aftei counts of bicyclists along the facility ioutes. Count uata
weie fiom eithei automatic counteis oi two- to foui-houi manual counts uuiing peak AN oi PN
houis. Table 6-2 pioviues a summaiy of count uaystimes utilizeu to assess appioximate post-
constiuction iiueiship, along with notes on the pie-installation compaiison peiiou.
Bicyclist count uata pioviueu by each city show an inciease in iiueiship acioss all facilities, anu
with most facilities showing incieases of Su% oi moie on counts fiom one to two yeais piioi at
similai points in time. 0n aveiage, counts at two-way piotecteu facilities incieaseu the most
(Bluebonnet Lane anu Rio uianue Stieet in Austin, anu Beaiboin Stieet in Chicago), with an
aveiage inciease of 1Su%. Beaiboin Stieet anu Rio uianue Stieet, which saw the laigest incieases,
went fiom being one-way stieets to pioviuing two-way tiavel foi bicyclists, while Bluebonnet Lane
was a two-way stieet with a pait-time bikepaiking lane. Routes with new one-way piotecteu
lanes (Baiton Spiings Roau in Austin, Nilwaukee Avenue in Chicago, NE Nultnomah Stieet in
Poitlanu, Fell Stieet in San Fiancisco anu L Stieet in B.C.) saw an aveiage inciease of 47%.
Count uays hau an impact on ceitain facilities. Foi example, one of the counts on Bluebonnet Lane
uiu not have a compaiable count time uuiing the school yeai, anu thus is compaieu to a peiiou aftei
the school yeai enueu in 2u12 this likely accounts foi pait of the laige inciease. In the othei
uiiection, on Nilwaukee Avenue in Chicago, the aftei count fiom Septembei 2u1S was taken on a
veiy hot uay (9S uegiees uuiing the PN commute) that was much waimei than the compaiison uay
in Septembei 2u12, anu may have accounteu foi the ueciease in iiueiship seen uuiing that count.

Findings: Ridership Changes 65
Table 6-2. Summary of Bicyclist Count Change Calculated from City Count Data
City Facility Location
Date
(2013)
Day of
Week Count Time
#
Hours
Bicycle
Count
% Increase
(similar
period) Notes on comparison period
A
u
s
t
i
n

B
a
r
t
o
n

S
p
r
i
n
g
s

@ ~ Bouldin
5/6 Mon. 12am-12am 24 222 213% May 2012 (Thurs)
11/19-20 Tues/Weds 11am-11am 24 246 9% Nov 2011 (Tues-Wed)
Increase across two Barton Springs days: 58%
B
l
u
e
b
o
n
n
e
t

@ ~ Peach Tree 5/12 Weds 12am-12am 24 134 15% May 2012 (Weds &Thurs)
@ ~ Holland 5/12 Weds 12am-12am 24 106 123%
June 2012 (Thurs/Fri & Mon) -After
school year.
Increase across two Bluebonnet locations: 46%
R
i
o

G
r
a
n
d

@ West 22 11/18-19 Mon/Tues 11am-11am 24 746 126% Oct. 2011 (Mon/Tues)
Increase: 126%
C
h
i
c
a
g
o

D
e
a
r
b
o
r
n

@ Harrison 7/16 Tues. 430-630pm 2 166 538% August 2012 (Wed)
@ Washington 7/16 Tues. 430-630pm 2 467 151% August 2012 (Wed)
@ Kinzie 7/16 Tues. 430-630pm 2 523 75% August 2012 (Wed)
Increase across three Dearborn locations: 126%
M
i
l
w
a
u
k
e
e

@ Elston
7/10 Weds 7am-9am 2 1153 -1% July 2012 (Wed)
8/14 Weds 7am-9am 2 1199 8% August 2012 (Wed)
9/10 Weds 7am-9am 2 1128 -1%
Sept 2012 (Wed).
After period was 80 degrees.
7/10 Weds 4pm-6pm 2 1078 2% July 2012 (Wed)
8/14 Weds 4pm-6pm 2 1077 26% August 2012 (Wed)
9/10 Weds 4pm-6pm 2 804 -11%
Sept 2012 (Wed).
After period was 95 degrees.
Increase across all Milwaukee days: 4%
P
o
r
t
l
a
n
d

M
u
l
t
.
@ 7th 7/25 Thurs 4pm-6pm 2 134 33% Sept. 2012 (Tues & Weds)
@ Wheeler 7/30 Tues 4-6pm 2 99 48% July & Aug. 2012 (Thurs)
Increase across two NE Multnomah locations: 39%
S
F

F
e
l
l

West of Scott
430-630pm 2 684 50% Sept. 2011
Increase: 50%
D
C

L

S
t
r
e
e
t

@ Connecticut
5/9 Thurs. 6am-10am 4 196 37%
June 2010, 2011, 2012 (Ave. of 3
midweek days)
5/9 Thurs. 3pm-7pm 4 364 89%
June 2010, 2011, 2012 (Ave. of 3
midweek days)
Increase across L Street time periods: 67%

66 Findings: Ridership Changes
6.2 Bicycle Counts Conducted During Study Video Review
Counts conuucteu as pait of the viueo analysis foi this pioject suggest similai incieases in
iiueiship. Revieweu viueo segments with compaiable pie-constiuction counts available (pie-
constiuction counts weie pioviueu by the paiticipating cities) aie listeu in Table 6-S, along with the
aveiage inciease between the pie-constiuction peiiou anu the ievieweu houis.
Table 6-3. Summary of PSU Video Review Count Data (when comparable pre data is available)
City Facility
Location
Date Time # Bicyclists
Chicago
Dearborn
Street
@ Congress Pkwy (Video Count)
10/2/2013 4-6 p.m. 199
10/3/2013 4-6 p.m. 73
10/4/2013 4-6 p.m. 176
Compare to: @ Harrison Street 8/28/2012 430-630 p.m. 26
Post-Construction Count Increase: 474%
@ Madison Street
10/2/2013 4-6 p.m. 551
10/3/2013 4-6 p.m. 315
10/4/2013 4-6 p.m. 417
Compare to: @ Washington Street 8/28/2012 430-630 p.m. 186
Post-Construction Count Increase: 130%
@ Randolph Street
10/2/2013 4-6 p.m. 586
10/4/2013 4-6 p.m. 423
10/22/2013 4-6 p.m. 269
Compare to: @ Washington Street 8/28/2012 430-630 p.m. 186
Post-Construction Count Increase: 129%
Milwaukee
Avenue
@ Elston Avenue
9/25/2013 4-6 p.m. 859
9/26/2013 4-6 p.m. 946
Compare to: @ Elston Avenue
9/12/2012 4-6 p.m. 744
10/10/2012 4-6 p.m. 566
Post-Construction Count Increase:
38%
D.C. L Street
@ Connecticut Avenue
5/14/2013 7-9 a.m. 90
5/15/2013 7-9 a.m. 108
6/20/2012 7-9 a.m. 103
Post-Construction Count Increase: -4%
@ Connecticut Avenue
5/14/2013 4-6 p.m. 234
5/15/2013 4-6 p.m. 228
6/20/2012 4-6 p.m. 100
Post-Construction Count Increase:
131%
Portland
NE
Multnomah
Street
@ 7th Street (WB)
10/8/2013 4-6 p.m. 25
10/9/2013 4-6 p.m. 38
10/11/2011 4-6 p.m. 16
Post-Construction Count Increase:
97%
San Francisco Fell Street
@ Baker Street
9/25/2013 7-9 a.m. 185
9/26/2013 7-9 a.m. 178
Compare to: @ Divisadero
9/26/2012 7-9 a.m. 116
9/27/2012 7-9 a.m. 134
Post-Construction Count Increase:
45%

Findings: Ridership Changes 67
City Facility
Location
Date Time # Bicyclists
@ Baker Street
9/25/2013 11 a.m. - 1 p.m. 127
9/26/2013 11 a.m. - 1 p.m. 154
Compare to: @ Divisadero
9/26/2012 11 a.m. - 1 p.m. 118
9/27/2012 11 a.m. - 1 p.m. 131
Post-Construction Count Increase: 13%
@ Baker Street
9/25/2013 4-6 p.m. 444
9/26/2013 4-6 p.m. 459
Compare to: @ Divisadero
9/26/2012 4-6 p.m. 297
9/27/2012 4-6 p.m. 295
Post-Construction Count Increase: 53%
@ Baker Street (Sat.) 9/28/2013 12-2 p.m. 400
Compare to: @ Divisadero (Sat.) 9/29/2012 12-2 p.m. 316
Post-Construction Count Increase:
27%
Oak Street
@ Broderick Street
9/25/2013 7-9 a.m. 405
9/26/2013 7-9 a.m. 346
Compare to: @ Oak
bt Broderick & Divisadero
6/5/2012
7-9 a.m. 298
Post-Construction Count Increase: 26%
@ Divisadero Street
9/25/2013 7-9 a.m. 422
9/26/2013 7-9 a.m. 382
Compare to: @ Oak
bt Broderick & Divisadero
6/5/2012
7-9 a.m. 298
Post-Construction Count Increase: 35%
6.3 Findings from Intercept Surveys of Bicyclists
The inteicept suivey of bicyclists can help explain whethei any changes in the numbei of cyclists on
the facilities aie uue to new iiueis, iiueis shifting ioutes, anuoi iiueis iiuing moie often. Askeu
how they woulu have maue the inteicepteu tiip piioi to the constiuction of the new facility, 1u% of
iesponuents inuicateu they woulu have taken a moue othei than a bicycle (Table 6-4). Beaiboin
Stieet hau the highest iate of those who woulu have taken theii tiip by anothei moue at 2u%, while
othei facilities iangeu fiom about 6% to 1u%. Neaily one-quaitei (24%) stateu they woulu have
bicycleu but on a uiffeient ioute.

68 Findings: Ridership Changes
Table 6-4. Bicyclist Mode/Route Without the New Facility
City Route
Consider the trip you were making when you were handed the
postcard. Before the [facility] was built, how would you have made
this trip?
By bicycle,
using this
same route
By bicycle,
using another
route
By Other
Mode
Would not
have taken
trip
Total
Austin
Barton Springs 65% 29% 6% 0% 17
Rio Grande 55% 38% 7% 0% 42
Chicago
Dearborn 17% 60% 21% 2% 123
Milwaukee 83% 6% 10% 1% 231
Portland NE Multnomah 56% 34% 10% 0% 109
San Francisco
Oak Street 75% 18% 6% 1% 247
Fell Street 80% 11% 7% 1% 247
Washington, D.C. L Street 56% 32% 10% 2% 300
Total* 65% 24% 10% 1% 1316
*Oak and Fell respondents are counted twice in the total numbers once for their responses regarding Oak and once for Fell.
Neaily half (49%) of bicyclists inuicateu that they weie tiavelling on this ioute moie fiequently
than they weie piioi to the facilities constiuction (Table 6-S). This iangeu between a low of 28%
foi Fell Stieet in San Fiancisco anu S1% foi Nilwaukee Avenue in Chicago (wheie ovei two-thiius
of bicyclists stateu they weie tiavelling on the ioute at about the same fiequency as befoie) to a
high of 86% foi Beaiboin Stieet, wheie the stieet appeais to be much moie attiactive foi bicycling
than befoie.

Table 6-5. Bicyclist Survey Change in Stated Frequency of Riding
City Route
Since the [FACILITY] was built, do you travel on this route:
Less
frequently
More
frequently
About the
same
This is my
first time on
this route
n
Austin
Barton Springs 0% 39% 56% 6% 18
Rio Grande 0% 79% 12% 10% 42
Chicago
Dearborn 1% 86% 7% 6% 123
Milwaukee 1% 31% 67% 1% 231
Portland NE Multnomah 4% 51% 43% 2% 109
San Francisco
Oak Street 0% 44% 54% 2% 247
Fell Street 0% 28% 72% 0% 247
Washington, D.C. L Street 1% 66% 30% 3% 300
Total* 1% 49% 48% 2% 1,317
*Oak and Fell respondents are counted twice in the total numbers once for their responses regarding Oak and once for Fell.

Findings: Ridership Changes 69
We also askeu how the inteicepteu bicyclists oveiall amount of cycling hau changeu because of the
new facility. Not suipiisingly, no one inuicateu that theii fiequency of oveiall bicycling uecieaseu
(Table 6-6). Bowevei, neaily a quaitei of iesponuents stateu that theii oveiall fiequency of
bicycling incieaseu. 0n Beaiboin Stieet, ovei half of iesponuents inuicateu that theii bicycling hau
incieaseu because of the new piotecteu bike lanes, while Baiton Spiings, Rio uianue, Nilwaukee
anu L Stieet all hau aiounu a thiiu of iesponuents state the same.
Table 6-6. Change in Overall Levels of Bicycling by Intercepted Bicyclists
Because of the protected bike lane, how often I ride a bicycle
overall has . . .
Decreased Increased n
Austin
Barton Springs 0% 33% 18
Rio Grande 0% 40% 40
Chicago Dearborn 0% 53% 120
Milwaukee 0% 32% 225
Portland NE Multnomah 0% 21% 106
San Francisco
Oak Street 0% 19% 238
Fell Street 0% 23% 240
Washington, D.C.
L Street 0% 30% 292
Total 0% 24% 1,279

6.3.1 How far out of the way will bicyclists go to ride on the protected facilities?
0sing the analysis of the stateu tiip oiigin anu uestination of inteicepteu bicyclists, the stuuy team
examineu how fai out of theii way the cyclists might be going to use the new piotecteu lane. Table
6-7 shows the estimateu total tiip length of the tiips bicyclists weie taking when they weie
inteicepteu anu askeu to take oui suivey, assuming they took the shoitest possible path between
the piotecteu lane anu theii oiigin anu uestination. Theie weie veiy few tiips less than one mile.
The exception was Rio uianue, in Austin, wheie about 27% of the tiips weie one mile oi less. The
B.C. anu Poitlanu lanes hau the next shoitest tiips, with about half being one to thiee miles. Tiips
tenueu to be longei on 0akFell in San Fiancisco anu Nilwaukee Avenue in Chicago, wheie neaily
half of tiips weie between thiee anu five miles. A majoiity of the tiips (6u%) on the Baiton Spiings
cycle tiack weie foui miles oi moie.
Foi compaiison, Table 6-8 shows the estimateu tiip uistance if they hau taken the shoitest possible
path (whethei oi not it incluueu the stieet with the new piotecteu lane), anu Table 6-9 illustiates
the peicentage uiffeience between the shoitest anu assumeu path. 0ut-of-uiiection tiavel was
minimal foi a laige peicentage of useis on the Baiton Spiings anu Nilwaukee lanes, which seive as
the piimaiy uiiect connections between uowntown anu suiiounuing neighboihoous in theii
iespective cities. Nost tiips on the Rio uianue, Beaiboin, Poitlanu, anu San Fiancisco piotecteu
bike lanes iequiieu up to S% of out-of-uiiection tiavel. B.C. hau the highest peicentage of useis
with out-of-uiiection tiavel gieatei than S% (42% of useis), followeu by San Fiancisco (Su%),
Beaiboin (26%), anu Poitlanu (21%). The table also shows the shaie of bicyclists who agieeu that
they woulu go out of theii way to use the piotecteu lane. Theie uoes not appeai to be a stiong
coiielation between agieement with that statement anu the estimateu level of out-of-uiiection
tiavel.

70 Findings: Ridership Changes
Table 6-7. Trip Distance (Assumed Path via the Protected Lane)
Facility, City
Percent of trips longer than:
6 mi. 5 mi. 4 mi. 3 mi. 2 mi. 1 mi. .5 mi.
Barton Springs,
Austin
0% 10% 60% 70% 90% 100% 100%
Rio Grande, Austin 4% 8% 21% 25% 34% 73% 90%
Dearborn, Chicago 14% 30% 42% 58% 74% 93% 98%
Milwaukee, Chicago 8% 22% 46% 76% 95% 98% 99%
NE Multnomah,
Portland
2% 10% 26% 44% 83% 94% 97%
Oak & Fell, San
Francisco
11% 28% 52% 76% 90% 98% 99%
L Street, Wash. D.C. 6% 15% 22% 36% 58% 88% 97%


Table 6-8. Cumulative Trip Distances (Shortest Path)
Facility, City
Percent of trips longer than:
6 mi. 5 mi. 4 mi. 3 mi. 2 mi. 1 mi. .5 mi.
Barton Springs,
Austin
0% 10% 60% 70% 90% 100% 100%
Rio Grande, Austin 4% 8% 17% 26% 35% 70% 92%
Dearborn, Chicago 14% 26% 40% 56% 72% 93% 98%
Milwaukee, Chicago 7% 23% 47% 77% 96% 99% 100%
NE Multnomah,
Portland
2% 5% 25% 45% 83% 96% 99%
Oak & Fell, San
Francisco
7% 23% 43% 73% 89% 99% 100%
L Street, Wash. D.C. 5% 12% 19% 32% 55% 86% 96%


Findings: Ridership Changes 71
Table 6-9. Deviation from Shortest Path to Ride on Protected Facility
Location
Cumulative Estimated Deviation from Shortest Path
I would go out of my way to ride on
[this street] compared to other
streets
>30% >20% >10% >5% >1%
Agree
Somewhat
Agree
Strongly
Barton Springs,
Austin
0% 0% 0% 10% 30% 38% 44%
Rio Grande, Austin 0% 0% 0% 13% 52% 48% 40%
Dearborn, Chicago 4% 4% 16% 26% 62% 33% 59%
Milwaukee,
Chicago
2% 3% 3% 6% 15% 53% 33%
NE Multnomah,
Portland
2% 2% 4% 21% 50% 48% 31%
Oak & Fell, San
Francisco
4% 10% 22% 30% 72% 49% 33%
L Street, Wash.
D.C.
1% 6% 23% 42% 82% 44% 43%

6.4 Findings from Resident Surveys
All iesiuents weie askeu about theii geneial tiavel behavioi anu changes in the past two yeais.
Table 6-1u piesents iesponses to changes in the numbei of bicycle tiips gioupeu by iesponuent
bicyclist type. Not suipiisingly, almost none of those in the No Way No Bow gioup weie bicycling
moie than two yeais ago. Bowevei, between Su% anu S7% of iesiuents typeu into the othei gioups
inuicateu that they aie iiuing a bicycle moie often now. 0veiall, those who inuicateu they aie iiuing
moie now outnumbei those who aie iiuing less by two anu half times.
Table 6-10. Compared to two years ago, are you taking more or fewer trips by bicycling?
Participant Group:
Strong and
Fearless
Enthused and
Confident
Interested but
Concerned
No Way No How Total
More Trips 30% 37% 31% 1% 26%
No Change 60% 51% 57% 91% 63%
Fewer Trips 10% 12% 12% 8% 11%
n 91 491 841 393 1,816

Resiuents weie also askeu to inuicate whethei the numbei of people iiuing bicycles on the stieet
hau incieaseu oi uecieaseu uue to the bike lanes (iegaiuless of whethei the iesponuents
themselves aie iiuing a bicycle). As seen in Table 6-11, well ovei half of each paiticipant gioup (anu
66% of all iesponuents) inuicateu that the numbei of people they see bicycling hau incieaseu
somewhat oi incieaseu a lot. 0nly 1% inuicateu that the numbei of bicyclists hau uecieaseu.

72 Findings: Ridership Changes
Table 6-11. Perception of Number of Bicyclists (all respondents)
Because of the [facility],
Strong and
Fearless
Enthused and
Confident
Interested but
Concerned
No Way No How Total
the number
of people I
see riding
bikes on the
street has . . .
Decreased 2% 0% 1% 2% 1%
Increased 74% 70% 67% 57% 66%
n 98 522 815 487 1,922

Resiuents who hau bicycleu on the facility weie askeu about the facilitys influence on wheie anu
how often they iiue a bicycle, as shown in Table 6-12. Note that a few iesponuents (Su) who weie
categoiizeu into the No Way No How gioup baseu on statements about cuiient anu intenueu
bicycling behavioi nonetheless inuicateu that they hau iiuuen on the facility since it was built, anu
aie incluueu in this table. Neaily thiee-quaiteis stateu they aie now moie likely to choose the
stieet with the piotecteu bike lane as opposeu to othei stieets. Among this gioup of people that
have iiuuen a bicycle on the piotecteu bike lane, ovei 4u% inuicateu that they aie now iiuing a
bicycle moie often because of the new facility.

Table 6-12. Residents Who Bicycle on Facility: Influence on Where and How Often to Bicycle
Question Response
Strong and
Fearless
Enthused and
Confident
Interested but
Concerned
No Way
No How
Total
Because of the [facility],
the likelihood that I will
choose to bicycle on this
street as opposed to
other streets has . . .
Decreased 5% 2% 4% 34% 5%
Increased 43% 78% 78% 23% 73%
n 58 287 383 35 763
Because of the [facility],
how often I ride a bicycle
overall has . . .
Decreased 5% 1% 5% 23% 4%
Increased 20% 45% 43% 7% 41%

n 55 283 379 30 747


Findings: Design Evaluation 73
7 FINDINGS: DESIGN EVALUATION
This chaptei seeks to answei the ieseaich question about how well the uesign featuies of the
facilities woik. To uo so, compiehension anu compliance peiceptions fiom the suivey iesponses
anu paiieu them with obseivations fiom the viueo weie summaiizeu. The focus of the analysis is on
inteisection uesigns, which is a ciitical component of making the piotecteu lane concept function.
The chaptei fiist ieviews the uesigns of mixing zones, anu then examines the peifoimance of the
bicycle-specific signals. The final section ieviews some elements of uesign that weie only evaluateu
at one oi two locations (loauing zones, tiansit stops, minoi uiiveways, unueistanuing of gieen
pavement maikings, anu wiuth ielateu to two-way sections).
7.1 Intersections
Each of the facilities evaluateu piesenteu uiffeient uesigns foi bicycles to mix with tuining motoi
vehicle tiaffic. The uesigns accomplish this piimaiily thiough stiiping, the use of gieen pavement
maikings, shaieu lane-use maikings (shaiiows), anu the use of flexpost oi safe hit uelineatois. As
shown in Figuie 7-1, the contexts evaluateu incluue both left- anu iight-tuin uesigns. Biivei
behaviois aie likely to be uiffeient meigingtuining left oi iight but the sample of uesigns is too
small to make many obseivations about this uiffeience.
Table 7-1 summaiizes the thiough bicycle volumes, the tuining vehicle volumes, anu the uesign
uimensions foi each inteisections. The table also incluues the aveiage houily volumes fiom the 2-
uay peiiou in the viueo uata collection. Figuie 7-2 piesent the plan view schematics foi each of the
inteisections stuuieu. The uesign uimensions anu most uetails aie shown (note signage is not
shown anu was not evaluateu). The expecteu uiivei anu cyclists behaviois at these inteisections
aie piesenteu in section 7.1.1.
In geneial, theie aie thiee uiffeient uesign appioaches that weie evaluateu. Fiist, some uesigns
iequiie the bicycles anu tuining vehicles to mix in the same space. These uesigns aie calleu
mixing zones. The seconu appioach moves the thiough bicycle fiom the piotecteu lane neai the
cuib to the left oi iight of the tuining tiaffic into a naiiow thiough bike lane. These aie calleu
tuining zones. Theie is a uefineu tuinmeige gap foi this maneuvei. These thiough bike lanes aie
maikeu with uotteu lines iecognizing that laigei vehicles will piobably encioach on the bike lane
uue to the naiiow wiuths of the tuining lanes. The thiiu uesign involves signalization of the bicycle
movement (uiscusseu in the subsequent section).
The tuining vehicle volumes aie moie consistent ovei the thiee time peiious shown in the table.
The laigest volume of tuining vehicles is in Washington BC at L Stieet anu 1S
th
(177 in aveiage
peiiou), though NE Nultnomah9
th
anu 0akBivisaueio aie also high (1SS anu 1S4, iespectively).
The bicycle volumes vaiy much moie between the time peiious anu locations. The laigest numbei
of bicycles aie using the San Fiancisco inteisections with the lowest counts in Poitlanu at NE
Nultnomah 9
th
.
In the following subsections, the self-iepoiteu anu obseiveu behaviois of people on bicycles anu
people uiiving aie piesenteu.


74 Findings: Design Evaluation


Mixing Zone with Yield Entry Markings
Photo from survey (shown): NE Multnomah and NE 9
th
Ave
Video Location(s): NE Multnomah and NE 9
th
Ave
Turning Zone with Post Restricted Entry and Through Bike
Lane (TBL)
Photo from survey (shown): L Street
Video Location(s): L Street/ 15th Street, L Street/
Connecticut

Turning Zone with Unrestricted Entry and Through Bike
Lane (TBL)
Photo from survey (shown): Oak St. and Divisadero St.
Video Location(s): Oak St. and Divisadero St.

Turning Zone with Unrestricted Entry and Through Bike
Lane (TBL)
Photo from survey (shown): Fell St. and Divisadero St.
Video Location(s): No video
Mixing Zone with Sharrow
Photo from survey (shown): Oak St. and Broderick St.
Video Location(s): Oak St. and Broderick St
Mixing Zone with Green Coloring
Photo from survey (shown): Fell St. and Broderick St.
Video Location(s): Fell St. and Baker St.
Figure 7-1. Intersection Designs Evaluated


Findings: Design Evaluation 75

Mixing Zone with Yield Entry
Markings
NE Multnomah and NE 9
th
Ave
Turning Zone with Post Restricted
Entry and Through Bike Lane (TBL)
L Street/ 15th Street, L Street/
Connecticut
Turning Zone with Unrestricted
Entry and Through Bike Lane (TBL)
Fell St. and Divisadero St
Oak St. and Divisadero St



For each figure:

Dimension is width for mixing
zone, motor vehicle turn lane,
motor vehicle through lane,
through bicycle lane.

End of protected lane is measured
from the stop bar.

Turn merge gap is length.
Mixing Zone with Sharrow
Oak St. and Broderick St
Mixing Zone with Green Coloring
Fell St. and Baker St

Figure 7-2 Plan Schematics for Intersections (Not to Scale and Not all Design Elements Shown)

76 Findings: Design Evaluation
Table 7-1 Summary of Design Dimensions and Exposures
Design Type Intersection
Direction
of
Turning
Traffic
Through Bikes
(Avg. Hour
Count)
Turning
Vehicles Per
Hour (Avg. Hour
Count)
Width
of
Vehicle
Turning
Lane
(ft)
Width
of
Through
Bike
Lane or
Buffer
(ft)
Turn
Merge
Gap
(ft)
AM MID PM AM MID PM
Turning Zone with Post
Restricted Entry and
Through Bike Lane (TBL)
L Street /
15th
Left 37 43 110 177 146 173 8 4
85
Turning Zone with Post
Restricted Entry and TBL
L Street /
Connecticut
Left 50 45 116 110 103 125 9 4
50
Turning Zone with
Unrestricted Entry and
TBL
Oak /
Divisadero
Right 201 59 96 126 128 154 8'9" 4
97
Turning Zone with
Unrestricted Entry and
TBL
Fell /
Divisadero
Left No Video 8'3" 4
323
Mixing Zone with Yield
Entry Markings
NE
Multnomah
/ 9th
Right 31 15 20 94 133 155 11' 3
85
Mixing Zone with
Sharrow Marking
Oak /
Broderick
Right 188 52 83 24 19 25 12'9" -
90
Mixing Zone with Green
Skip Coloring
Fell / Baker Left 91 70 226 27 40 48 12'3" -
100
Note: Peak bicycle volume and corresponding vehicle volume highlighted.
7.1.1 Definition of Expected User Behaviors
In oiuei to evaluate the uesigns, the expecteu behaviois neeu to be uefineu. While the expecteu
behaviois aie labeleu coiiect in oui analysis othei obseiveu behaviois aie sometimes acceptable.
To the uegiee to which the incoiiect behavioi is ciitical issue uepenus on the situation. In Figuie
7-2, the appiopiiate tuinmeige gap is iuentifieu with puiple coloi (light giay in black anu white
piint).

Findings: Design Evaluation 77
Table 7-2 Expected User Behaviors
Design Type Through Bicycle Behavior Driver Turning Behavior
Turning Zone with Post Restricted
Entry and Through Bike Lane (TBL)
From the protected lane, follow sharrows
through the turn/merge gap to the through
bicycle lane, positioning themselves
completely in TBL
From the through vehicle lane, cross the
through bicycle lane at the turn/merge
gap and position vehicle for turn
entirely in motor vehicle turn lane Turning Zone with Unrestricted
Entry and TBL
From the protected lane, follow the TBL
marking through the turn/merge gap to the
through bicycle lane positioning themselves
completely in TBL
Mixing Zone with Yield Entry
Markings
From the protected lane, enter the mixing
zone (riding over sharrows if present),
positioning themselves completely in
mixing zone
From the through vehicle lane, enter
the mixing zone at the turn/merge gap
and position vehicle for turn entirely in
mixing zone
Mixing Zone with Sharrow Marking
Mixing Zone with Green Skip
Coloring
7.1.2 Bicyclist Understanding
This section summaiizes suivey anu viueo finuings ielateu to the cyclists unueistanuing of using
the mixing zone.
7.1.2.1 Findings from Survey
Table 7-S summaiizes the iesponses to two questions fiom the inteicept suiveys that gaugeu
cyclists unueistanuing of the uesigns. The fiist question askeu about iesponuents level of
agieement with the statement, I unueistanu wheie I am supposeu to iiue when appioaching the
inteisection. The self-iepoiteu unueistanuing of each uesign was veiy high anu consistent. 0vei
91% of iesponuents agieeu with the statement foi each uesign. Some uiffeience uoes exist between
the peicent of stiongly agiee iesponses. The stiongest agieement was foi the Turning Zone with
Post Restricted Entry and Through Bike Lane (TBL) uesign in Washington, B.C. (8S% stiongly agiee).
The similai uesign in San Fiancisco but without the iestiicteu entiy at the FellBivisaueio
inteisection hau the seconu-highest level of stiong agieement (81%). The same uesign but with
iight-tuining tiaffic at 0ak Bivisaueio has lowei stiong agieement (7S%), but the same total
agieement (98%). The two othei uesigns in San Fiancisco (Mixing Zone with Green Skip Coloring
anu Mixing Zone with Sharrow Marking) hau similai agieement levels (74% anu 71%, iespectively).
Finally, the Mixing Zone with Yield Entry Markings useu in Poitlanu hau the lowest stiong
agieement with this statement (91% total 6S% stiongly agiee, 28% somewhat agiee), though
still veiy high.
Foi the thiee uesigns using Thiough Bike Lanes (TBLs) that suggest cyclists to follow a path
thiough the inteisections, inteicepteu cyclists weie askeu theii agieement with the statement, I
usually follow the bicycle lane maiking anu move ovei to the iightleft (into the gieen maikeu bike
lane) when appioaching the inteisection. The iesponses aie summaiizeu in Table 7-S. Cyclists hau
high anu consistent level of oveiall agieement with this statement. Foi the B.C. uesign with
flexposts anu shaiiows inuicating the uesiieu path, the total agieement was 96% of iesponses
(82% stiongly agiee, 14% somewhat agiee). In San Fiancisco, the oveiall agieement was neaily

78 Findings: Design Evaluation
iuentical anu similai to B.C. (9S% anu 96% oveiall agieement). Bowevei, theie was a lowei
peicentage of stiong agieement in San Fiancisco (69% stiong agieement).
Table 7-3. Positioning Related Questions from the Cyclist Intercept Survey
Question Intersection
Strongly
Disagree
Somewhat
Disagree
Somewhat
Agree
Strongly
Agree
n
I understand where I
am supposed to ride
when approaching
the intersection.
Turning Zone with Post
Restricted Entry and Through
Bike Lane (TBL): L Street
1% 2% 12% 85% 283
Turning Zone with Unrestricted
Entry and TBL: Oak/ Divisadero
0% 2% 23% 75% 236
Turning Zone with Unrestricted
Entry and TBL: Fell/Divisadero
0% 2% 17% 81% 242
Mixing Zone with Yield Entry
Markings: NE Multnomah / 9th
5% 5% 28% 63% 170
Mixing Zone with Sharrow:
Oak/Broderick
0% 2% 26% 71% 231
Mixing Zone with Green Skip
Coloring: Fell/Broderick
0% 3% 22% 74% 239
I usually follow the
bicycle lane
marking and move
over to the right/left
(into the green
marked bike lane)
when approaching
the intersection.
Turning Zone with Restricted
Entry and TBL: L Street
1% 3% 14% 82% 283
Turning Zone with Unrestricted
Entry and TBL: Oak/ Divisadero
1% 4% 26% 69% 234
Turning Zone with Unrestricted
Entry and TBL: Fell/Divisadero
0% 4% 27% 69% 241

Communicating when a stieet space is shaieu foi two puiposes iight-tuining vehicles anu
thiough bicycles is a uesign challenge. Theiefoie, in the cyclist suivey in Poitlanu anu the
iesiuent suivey (that incluues useis of all moues) in San Fiancisco, questions weie askeu about the
piopei lane position foi a bicyclist continuing thiough the inteisection by selecting a iegion of a
photogiaph of the inteisection. A sample of the image of the suivey question foi Poitlanu can be
seen in Figuie 7-1. This type of question was not askeu in the B.C. suivey. Table 7-4 summaiizes the
self-iepoiteu unueistanuing of coiiect lane positioning foi bicycles going thiough the inteisection
anu tuining iight. In the table, the coiiect iesponse is bolueu anu in gieen text anu the cell is
shaueu since this vaiies foi each uesign.
When askeu to iuentify the coiiect lane foi thiough bicyclists, the Turning Zone with Unrestricted
Entry and TBL uesigns in San Fiancisco eliciteu the highest unueistanuing. A total of 9S-94% of
iesponuents iuentifieu the coiiect lane foi the thiough cyclists. Foi the Mixing Zone with Sharrow,
79% coiiectly iuentifieu the mixing zone as the piopei location foi bicyclists continuing stiaight.
Appioximately 2u% of iesponuents incoiiectly iuentifieu the motoi-vehicle thiough lane as the
space foi thiough bicycles. As seen in the photo in Figuie 7-1, the shaiiow anu iight-tuin- only
pavement maiking aie both visible. (Note that iight-tuining volume is low at this inteisection,
which is paitially why this uesign was chosen). The iesponses weie similai foi the Mixing Zone with
Green Skip Coloring; 7S% coiiectly iuentifieu the mixing zone anu 2S% of iesponuents incoiiectly

Findings: Design Evaluation 79
iuentifieu the motoi-vehicle thiough lane as the coiiect location. Again, the iight-tuin- only
pavement maiking might be communicating this is iight-tuin-only lane foi all vehicles. In Poitlanu,
neaily SS% of iesponuents incoiiectly iuentifieu the buffei space in the Mixing Zone with Yield
Entry Markings as the piopei location foi thiough cyclists. A possible inteipietation of the low
compiehension is that, in this case, the buffei maikings iesemble a bicycle lane. In the NACT0
uesign guiuance, the buffei space is hatcheu which might help uiiect cyclists to the mixing zones. If
the shaieu tuin lane is blockeu by vehicle, the viueo shows that a cyclists will move to the left to get
by both fastei anu easiei. Also, the Mixing Zone with Yield Entry Markings in the only uesign that
uoes not incluue gieen maikings of any soit.
When askeu to iuentify the coiiect lane foi iight-tuining bicyclists, the uesigns essentially flippeu in
the coiiect compiehension. 0vei 96% of the iesponuents coiiectly iuentifieu the mixing zone lane
foi the Mixing Zone with Yield Entry Markings, the Mixing Zone with Sharrow, anu the Mixing Zone
with Green Skip Coloring uesigns as the coiiect lane foi tuining bicycles. Inteiestingly, foi the two
Turning Zone with Unrestricted Entry and TBL uesigns, about 2S% of iesponuents thought a tuining
bicyclist shoulu be in the TBL to make a left oi iight tuin. A possible inteipietation is the
iesponuents believe when ioau space is maikeu with gieen, bicycles shoulu be tiavelling within it.
Table 7-4. Comprehension of Mixing Zone Markings Self-Reported in Surveys, Bicycle Movements
Movement and Options
Turning Zone
with
Unrestricted
Entry and TBL:
Fell/Divisadero
Turning Zone
with
Unrestricted
Entry and TBL:
Oak/ Divisadero
Mixing Zone
with Yield Entry
Markings:
NE Multnomah/
9th
Mixing Zone
with Sharrow:
Oak/Broderick
Mixing Zone
with Green Skip
Coloring:
Fell/Baker
A
bicyclist
continuin
g straight
should be
in:
Mixing Zone/MV
Turn Lane
4% 5% 51% 79% 73%
Through Bike
Lane or *Buffer
94% 93% *55% n/a n/a
MV Through
Lane
2% 2% 0% 20% 25%
n 480 512 107 105 511
A
bicyclist
turning
right/left
should be
in:
Mixing Zone/MV
Turn Lane
73% 74% 98% 97% 96%
Through Bike
Lane or *Buffer
27% 24% *4% n/a n/a
MV Through
Lane
0% 1% 0% 1% 2%
n 507 511 106 515 511
Source: Resident survey in San Francisco, Cyclist survey in Portland
Note: Correct response in bold green type with grey shading. Respondents allowed to choose multiple response options, so
column percentages may not add to 100%.
* means percentage refers to the buffer zone.
7.1.2.2 Findings from Video Review
In the viueo ieview, the paths anu actions of cyclists thiough the inteisection weie obseiveu anu
iecoiueu. To attempt to contiol foi the influence of motoi vehicles on path choice, the viueo ieview
noteu whethei a vehicle was piesent. Table 7-S summaiizes the iesults of the viueo ieview foi the
TBL in Washington, B.C., anu San Fiancisco. 0veiall volumes weie shown eailiei in iepoit anu note
the table excluues bicyclists not using the piotecteu facility. The table shows that bicyclists use the

80 Findings: Design Evaluation
TBLs at L Stieet at Connecticut Avenue anu 0ak Stieet at Bivisaueio Stieet neaily as often when
theie aie not cais as when theie aie about 87% of the time with the exception of L Stieet at 1Sth
Stieet. At L Stieet anu 1S
th
Stieet, bicyclists only use the TBL when cais aien't piesent two-thiius of
the time; howevei, this is piobably uue to the numbei of bicyclists tuining left onto the 1Sth Stieet
piotecteu bike lanes. Though not shown in the table, auuitional analysis founu that the use of the
TBL is 84% foi thiough bicyclists, which is compaiable to the othei two locations. The viueo ieview
also noteu when cais foiceu bicyclists out of the TBL. This is ielatively infiequent at the L Stieet
inteisections (about 4% of the obseivations when cais aie piesent) because the uesign has
iestiicteu entiy anu shoitei tuiningmeige space. At the 0akBivisaueio location, howevei, this
occuis moie fiequently, about 1S% of the time. This piimaiily occuis when motoi vehicles meige
late oi stiauule the TBL (which is shown in Table 7-1u to occui foi 21% of tuining motoi vehicles).
Table 7-5. Observed Use of Through Bike Lanes in SF and D.C. Designs
Through Bicyclist
Lane Use
Turning Zone with Post
Restricted Entry and TBL:
L Street/ 15th Street:
Turning Zone with Post Restricted
Entry and TBL:
L Street/ Connecticut
Turning Zone with
Unrestricted Entry and TBL:
Oak/ Divisadero:
No Cars
Present
Cars Present No Cars Present Cars Present
No Cars
Present
Cars Present
In TBL 68% 89% 87% 93% 83% 81%
Not in TBL 32% 8% 13% 3% 17% 6%
Forced out by MV 0% 3% 0% 4% 0% 13%
n 225 448 434 320 1237 404
Note: Excludes bicyclists observed not in protected lane or wrong way cyclists
Table 7-6 shows the obseiveu thiough lane use foi bicyclist foi the Mixing Zone with Yield Entry
Markings anu the Mixing Zone with Sharrow uesigns. The schematics uefining each space aie in
Figuie 7-2. 0vei half of all bicyclists suiveyeu thought they shoulu use the buffei space if
continuing stiaight at NE Nultnomah9th. In the obseiveu viueo, only about 1S% of the obseiveu
cyclists useu the buffei space when a cai was not piesent. When a cai was piesent, the buffei space
was moie than twice as likely to be useu (S7%). These peicentages aie significantly lowei than
what might have been expecteu given the iesponses to the suivey in Table 7-6. The obseiveu
behavioi possibly ieveals a piefeience to be out of the vehicle tuin lane anu ieveals a potential
weakness of the mixing zone uesigns. At the 0akBioueiick inteisection, theie was a significant
uiffeience in the cyclists path when cais weie piesent oi not, as shown in Table 7-6. When theie
weie no cais piesent, about 76% of cyclists ioue uiiectly ovei the shaiiows in the centei of the
lane. The viueo ieview uiu not log whethei the cyclists went to iight of left of the shaiiow. This may
be paitially influenceu by the shaiiows being locateu in the asphalt, not the conciete, section of the
lane, anu cyclists seemeu to want to avoiu the iough conciete section. When vehicles weie piesent,
how often the cyclists path took them ovei the shaiiows ueclineu to Su%.

Findings: Design Evaluation 81
Table 7-6. Observed Use of Mixing Zone in Portland and Sharrow Paths in San Francisco
Mixing Zone with Yield Entry Markings: NE
Multnomah/9th
Mixing Zone with Sharrow: Oak/Broderick
Through
Bicyclist Lane
Use
No Cars
Present
Cars
Present
Through Bicyclist
Lane Use
No Cars
Present Cars Present
In Mixing Zone 85% 63%
Cyclist Rode Over
Sharrow
76% 30%
Uses Buffer 15% 37%
Cyclist Did Not Ride
Over Sharrow
24% 70%
n 163 87 n 115 1351
Note: Excludes Bicyclists Observed Not in Protected Lane or Wrong-Way Cyclists
7.1.3 Driver Understanding of Turning Location
This section summaiizes suivey anu viueo finuings ielateu to motoiists unueistanuing anu
bicyclists peiception of motoiists using the mixing zone.
7.1.3.1 Findings from the Surveys
As uesciibeu, the cyclist suivey in Poitlanu anu the iesiuent suivey in San Fiancisco askeu
questions about the piopei lane position foi a uiivei tuining iight (oi left) at the inteisection by
selecting a iegion of a photogiaph of the inteisection. Table 7-7 summaiizes the answeis to
questions foi each of the uesigns. The mixing of the peispectives of cyclists anu iesiuents (who
uiive anu cycle) is a iesult of limiteu space on the Poitlanu iesiuent suivey. Nost cyclists
piesumably uiive (see uemogiaphics) but will have a uiffeient peispective than someone who only
uiives. When askeu wheie motoi vehicles shoulu be when making a tuin, the self-iepoiteu
unueistanuing of wheie motoi vehicles shoulu tuin fiom is high foi all the uesigns in San Fiancisco
(92% at 0akBivisaueio; 9S% at 0akBioueiick; 97% at FellBivisaueio; anu 9S% at FellBakei).
Inteiestingly, about 21% of iesponuents on the NE Nultnomah9th inteisection (all bicyclists)
thought that tuining cais shoulu be in the thiough lane to make theii iight tuin iathei than the
mixing zone.

82 Findings: Design Evaluation
Table 7-7. Comprehension of Lane Position for Turning Motor Vehicles, Self-Reported in Survey
Question Responses
Turning Zone
with
Unrestricted
Entry and TBL:
Fell/Divisadero
Turning Zone
with
Unrestricted
Entry and
TBL: Oak/
Divisadero
Mixing Zone
with Yield Entry
Markings:
NE Multnomah/
9th
Mixing Zone
with Sharrow
Mixing Zone:
Oak/Broderick
Mixing Zone
with Green
Skip Coloring:
Fell/Baker
A motorist
turning
right/left
should be
in:
MV Through
Lane
1% 3% 21% 5% 3%
Through Bike
Lane or
*Buffer
1% 4% *2% n/a n/a
Mixing
Zone/MV
Turn Lane
97% 92% 79% 95% 95%
n 513 506 107 515 487
Notes:
Source: Resident survey in San Francisco and bicyclist survey in Portland.
Correct response for each design in bold green type with grey shading.
* means percentage refers to the buffer zone.

In auuition, a specific question was askeu about the meaning of the shaik teeth yielu maiking to
iesiuents in the Poitlanu suivey, as shown in Table 7-8. The meaning of the symbol is not well
unueistoou by suivey iesponuents, as only 41% agiee that it inuicates they shoulu yielu to
bicyclists. This finuing is not suipiising as the symbols aie not commonly founu on most stieets,
uue to the lack of locations with yielu contiol.
Table 7-8. Comprehension of Yield Markings in the Mixing Zone with Yield Entry Markings
Question
Strongly
Disagree
Somewhat
Disagree
Somewh
at Agree
Strongly
Agree
I don't
know
n
The markings in Picture A (shark teeth)
indicate that motorists should yield to
bicyclists when making a right turn (RS).
14% 25% 21% 20% 12% 453
Note: 7% had no opinion
Two questions weie askeu of cyclists about theii peiception of motoiists tuining behaviois. Table
7-9 summaiizes these peiceptions. In the fiist question, bicyclists weie askeu about theii
agieement with the statement, Notoiists geneially unueistanu how to make leftiight tuins at
these inteisections. The highest level of agieement on whethei motoi vehicle uiiveis unueistanu
how to tuin was at the Mixing Zone with Sharrow at the 0akBioueiick inteisection (76% agiee)
anu the Mixing Zone with Green Skip Coloring at FellBioueiick (7u% agiee). The Mixing Zone with
Yield Entry Markings NE Nultnomah9th hau lowei oveiall agieement (64%). The cyclists
peiceptions weie the lowest foi the othei uesigns in San Fiancisco with the TBL at the Bivisaueio
inteisections the oveiall agieement with the statement is between S4% anu S7%.
In the seconu question, bicyclists weie askeu theii level of agieement with the statement, I often
see motoiists making leftiight tuins fiom the wiong lane. Table 7-9 summaiizes these iesults.
Bicyclists iepoit seeing motoi vehicles tuin fiom the wiong lane most often on Turning Zone with
Post Restricted Entry and Through Bike Lane (TBL) at L Stieet (S9% agiee, though only 9% stiongly
agiee). All othei locations have oveiall levels of agieement less than Su%. The lowest is Mixing Zone

Findings: Design Evaluation 83
with Sharrow at 0akBioueiick (S8%), followeu by Mixing Zone with Green Skip Coloring at
FellBioueiick anu Mixing Zone with Yield Entry Markings at NE Nultnomah9th (41% each). Also,
note that the stiongly-agiee peicentage is iemaikably similai acioss all locations, except the
0akBioueiick inteisection.
Table 7-9. Perception of Motor Vehicle Behaviors, Self-Reported in Bicyclists Survey
Question Intersection
Strongly
Disagree
Somewhat
Disagree
Somewhat
Agree
Strongly
Agree
n
Motorists generally
understand how to
make left/right
turns at these
intersections (BS):
Turning Zone with Post Restricted
Entry and TBL: L Street
10% 32% 49% 9% 269
Turning Zone with Unrestricted Entry
and Through Bike Lane (TBL): Oak/
Divisadero
11% 32% 44% 13% 230
Turning Zone with Unrestricted Entry
and Through Bike Lane (TBL):
Fell/Divisadero
13% 33% 41% 13% 239
Mixing Zone with Yield Entry
Markings: NE Multnomah/9th
9% 28% 53% 11% 104
Mixing Zone with Sharrow Marking:
Oak/Broderick
4% 19% 60% 16% 224
Mixing Zone with Green Skip Coloring:
Fell/Broderick
6% 24% 52% 18% 236
I often see
motorists making
left/right turns from
the wrong lane (i.e.,
the lanes to the
right/left of the
cycle track rather
than the left/right
turn lane) (BS):
Turning Zone with Post Restricted
Entry and TBL: L Street
15% 26% 44% 15% 266
Turning Zone with Unrestricted Entry
and TBL: Oak/ Divisadero
17% 35% 36% 12% 220
Turning Zone with Unrestricted Entry
and Through Bike Lane (TBL):
Fell/Divisadero
13% 39% 33% 14% 230
Mixing Zone with Yield Entry
Markings: NE Multnomah/9th
27% 32% 28% 13% 96
Mixing Zone with Sharrow Marking
Mixing Zone: Oak/Broderick
19% 42% 32% 6% 211
Mixing Zone with Green Skip Coloring:
Fell/Broderick
16% 43% 27% 14% 233

7.1.3.2 Findings from Video Review
In the viueo ieview, vehicles weie coueu baseu on wheie they enteieu the meige zone, anu if they
uiu not, if they meigeu eaily, meigeu acioss the buffeiABL (a late uecision to tuin), oi just tuineu
fiom the wiong lane. Table 7-1u summaiizes the iesult of the viueo ieview. The coiiect behavioi,
enteieu in the meige zone, is bolueu in gieen anu the cell is shaueu. 0f the uesigns evaluateu,
motoiists aie most likely to meige into the zone at the appiopiiate location at Mixing Zone with
Yield Entry Markings at NE Nultnomah9
th
(9S% of obseiveu vehicles enteieu coiiectly) anu the
two B.C. inteisections on L St. with the Turning Zone with Post Restricted Entry and TBL (88% anu
86%). These inteisections have stiong guiuance (i.e., posts anu paikeu cais) that make it uifficult oi
impossible foi motoi vehicles to entei the bike lane at any location othei than the uesignateu meige
point. They aie least likely at the San Fiancisco locations, especially the shaiiow at 0akBioueiick
(only 48%) anu the full gieen skip maiking at FellBakei (49%). Notoiists aie enteiing eaily at
0akBioueiick (2u% fully into the facility eaily anu anothei 11% just meiging a bit eaily acioss the
buffei). 0ne issue at the 0akBioueiick inteisection is theie aie not many posts befoie the meige

84 Findings: Design Evaluation
zone uue to uiiveways. Finally, at BakeiFell, wheie the gieen skip maikings covei the entiie lane,
neaily 2u% of the obseiveu motoi vehicles aie tuining fiom the wiong lane anu anothei 17% aie
tuining while stiauuling the tuin lane anu the thiough lane; 1S% also entei eaily.
Table 7-10. Observed Motor Vehicle Turning Location at Mixing Zone Intersections
Motor Vehicle
Actions
Turning Zone
with Post
Restricted
Entry and
TBL: L
Street/ 15th
Street
Turning Zone
with Post
Restricted
Entry and
TBL: L
Street/
Connecticut
Turning Zone
with
Unrestricted
Entry and
TBL: Oak/
Divisadero
Mixing Zone
with Yield
Entry
Markings:
NE
Multnomah/
9th
Mixing Zone
with Sharrow:
Oak/Broderick
Mixing Zone
with Green
Skip
Coloring:
Fell/Baker:
Entered in Merge
Zone
88% 86% 66% 93% 48% 49%
Wrong Lane 2% 8% 6% 1% 7% 18%
Entered Early 7% 2% 7% 2% 20% 15%
Entered from
Garage/Alley/etc.
2% 4% 0% n/a 4% 0%
Merged Across
Buffer/ABL
n/a n/a 11% n/a 11% 0%
Straddled
Lanes/Buffer
n/a n/a 10% 5% 9% 17%
Other 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 1%
n 1978 1348 1900 1524 323 501
Notes: Correct response for each design in bold green type with grey shading.

7.1.4 Motor Vehicle and Bicycle Interactions in the Mixing or Merge Zones
This section summaiizes suivey anu viueo finuings ielateu to the inteiactions using the mixing oi
meige zones. Note Figuie 7-1 the suiveys iefeiieu to the thiough bike lanes as auvisoiy bike lane
anu the meiging zones as mixing zones. Analysis of conflicts is piesenteu in Section 8.S.
7.1.4.1 Findings from Survey
Figuie 7-1u shows the iesponse uistiibution to the level of agieement with the statement, Tuining
motoiists geneially yielu to bicyclists when moving thiough the mixing zone anu into the leftiight-
tuin lane that was askeu of the inteicepteu cyclists. 0veiall, the bicyclists using the San Fiancisco
uesigns (except at the FellBivisaueio special situation with a gas station) have the highest oveiall
agieement with motoiist yieluing, although the "stiongly agiee" peicentages aie pietty consistent
acioss facilities. 0veiall agieement with the statement foi L Stieet is the lowest (66%).
Cyclists in San Fiancisco weie askeu to state theii level of agieement with the statement, Cais
iaiely block my pathway thiough the mixing zone. Table 7-12 shows the iesponse uistiibution.
Bicyclists stiongly uisagieeu (68% oveiall) that cais iaiely block theii pathway thiough the mixing
zone at Turning Zone with Unrestricted Entry and TBL at FellBivisaueio. This is most likely uue to
the queue of cais that fiequently waits to get into the gas station. The othei inteisection with the

Findings: Design Evaluation 85
same uesign (FellBivisaueio) hau lowei uisagieement (S9%) ieflecting some benefit of the
thiough bike lane. 0theiwise, the lowest peiception of blockage is at Mixing Zone with Green Skip
Coloring at FellBioueiick, which is most likely uue to lowei tuining volumes.
Table 7-11. Cyclist Self-Reported Perceptions of Motorist Yielding Behavior through Mixing Zone
Question Intersection
Strongly
Disagree
Somewhat
Disagree
Somewhat
Agree
Strongly
Agree
n
Turning motorists
generally yield to
bicyclists when
moving through the
mixing zone and
into the left/right-
turn lane.
Turning Zone with Post Restricted Entry
TBL: L Street
9% 24% 49% 17% 275
Turning Zone with Unrestricted Entry and
Through Bike Lane (TBL): Oak/ Divisadero
5% 18% 58% 19% 230
Turning Zone with Unrestricted Entry and
TBL: Fell/Divisadero
10% 29% 47% 15% 238
Mixing Zone with Yield Entry Markings:
NE Multnomah / 9th
13% 18% 55% 14% 104
Mixing Zone with Sharrow Marking:
Oak/Broderick
3% 19% 63% 15% 220
Mixing Zone with Green Skip Coloring:
Fell/Broderick
4% 16% 58% 22% 237

Table 7-12. Cyclist Self-Reported Perceptions of Blocked Path
Question Intersection
Strongly
Disagree
Somewhat
Disagree
Somewhat
Agree
Strongly
Agree
n
Cars rarely block
my pathway
through the
mixing zone.
Turning Zone with Unrestricted Entry and
TBL: Oak/ Divisadero
12% 31% 43% 14% 232
Turning Zone with Unrestricted Entry and
Through Bike Lane (TBL): Fell/Divisadero
33% 35% 24% 7% 241
Mixing Zone with Sharrow Marking:
Oak/Broderick
9% 30% 43% 17% 225
Mixing Zone with Green Skip Coloring:
Fell/Broderick
6% 24% 52% 18% 236

7.1.4.2 Findings from Video Review
In the viueo ieview, the obseiveu position of the vehicle aftei it hau completeu its meige thiough
the mixing zone anu hau staiteu its tuin was iecoiueu. vehicles weie coueu as eithei having wheels
still in the TBL oi not in the TBL at all. Note that it's not illegal oi unexpecteu to have some uiiveis
in the TBL given the uotteu maiking. Table 7-1S shows that motoiists aie most likely to stop in the
TBL oi tuin while still uiiving in it at 0akBivisaueio, followeu by L StConnecticut. The ielatively
high peicentage of encioachment is piimaiily uue to the naiiow tuin lane wiuths. If the tuin lanes
weie wiuei less encioachment woulu occui. At 0ak Bivisaueio this can be attiibuteu in pait to the
numbei of motoiists that meige late oi tuin while stiauuling the TBL anu the thiough lane, as well
as the lane being naiiowei than the L Stieet lanes.

86 Findings: Design Evaluation
Table 7-13. Observed Vehicle Position at Intersections and Turning for TBL Designs
Question Observed Behavior
Turning Zone with Post
Restricted Entry and
TBL: L Street/ 15th
Street
Turning Zone with Post
Restricted Entry and
TBL: L Street/
Connecticut
Turning Zone with
Unrestricted Entry and
TBL: Oak/ Divisadero
Motor
Vehicle
(Through
Bike Lane)
Use
Not in TBL 70% 59% 34%
Drove/Stopped in TBL 30% 41% 66%
n * 47 104 125
Turn Lane Width 8 ft 9 ft 8 9
Notes: *Observations excludes those who don't enter and those movements coded unable to determine
7.1.5 Summary of Evaluation Criteria
Table 7-14 summaiizes a select numbei of metiics fiom the suivey anu the viueo ieview foi each of
the uesigns piesenteu in this section. Note that the columns on peicent agieeing they feel safe aie
piesenteu anu uiscusseu in the following chaptei, but aie incluueu heie to make this summaiy
moie useful. Key finuings fiom this summaiy table incluue the following:
Foi all the mixing zone uesigns, neaily all (ovei 9u%) of the bicyclists geneially stateu that
they unueistoou wheie they weie supposeu to iiue.
Foi the tuining zones, the uesign using the thiough bike lane (TBL) woiks well foi its
intenueu puipose. The TBLs help position cyclists anu ieuuce confusion compaieu to
shaiiows in mixing zones. The uesign in Washington B.C. (wheie vehicles have a limiteu
entiy into the tuining lane) hau high coiiect lane use by tuining vehicles (87%) anu by
thiough bicyclists (91%). This suggests a cleai benefit of the iestiicteu entiy appioach anu
cieating a semi-piotecteu thiough bicycle lane.
Foi the mixing zones, evaluation of the viueo founu that in the Mixing Zone with Yield
Markings uesign in Poitlanu, 0R (geneially following the NACT0 Besign uuiuance) neaily
all (9S%) of the tuining vehicles useu the lane as intenueuthe highest compliance of any
uesign. Bowevei, only 6S% of obseiveu bicycles coiiectly useu the mixing zone when a cai
was piesent (they chose to go aiounu vehicle in the buffei space to left). This is not
necessaiily a ciitical issue anu hatching this space woulu likely change this obseiveu
behavioi. Bowevei, the obseiveu behavioi uoes suggest a piefeience of giving cyclists space
with a TBL.
When compaiing the tuining anu mixing zone inteisection uesigns, the viueo ievealeu that
a low of 1% to a high of 18% of the tuining vehicles at mixing zones actually tuineu fiom
the wiong lane. The incoiiect iate was highest at the Mixing Zone with Green Coloring at Fell
anu Bakei in San Fiancisco, which has since iemoveu anu ieplaceu with anothei uesign. The
Mixing Zone with Yield Markings uesign in Poitlanu anu the Turning Zone with Post-
Restricted Entry and TBL in Washington, B.C. hau the fewest vehicles obseiveu tuining fiom
the wiong lanes (2% anu 1% iespectively) inuicating that cleai maiking of the vehicle entiy
point to the tuining lane is beneficial.

Findings: Design Evaluation 87
Baseu on obseiveu behaviois, gieen pavement maiking is effective at communicating the
space that shoulu be useu by bicycles anu that ovei use of gieen maiking may iesult in
some uiiveis avoiuing the space.


88 Findings: Design Evaluation
Table 7-14. Summary of Intersection Zone Design Evaluation
Intersection Design
Turning
Vehicles
(Avg
Hour
During
Peak
Bicycles )
Through
Bicycles
(Avg
Hour,
Peak )
Survey Video Survey
Percent
Strongly
Agreeing
Bicyclists
Understand
Correctly Identified Location Correct Lane Use Percent
T
h
r
o
u
g
h

T
u
r
n
i
n
g

B
i
c
y
c
l
e


T
u
r
n
i
n
g

M
o
t
o
r
i
s
t

T
u
r
n
i
n
g

M
o
t
o
r
i
s
t

T
h
r
o
u
g
h

B
i
c
y
c
l
i
s
t

S
t
r
o
n
g
l
y

A
g
r
e
e
i
n
g

V
e
h
i
c
l
e
s

Y
i
e
l
d

A
g
r
e
e
i
n
g

T
h
e
y

F
e
e
l

S
a
f
e


Turning Zone with Post
Restricted Entry and Through
Bike Lane (TBL):
L Street & 15th
110 173
85% - - - 87% 91% 17% 64%
L Street & Connecticut Avenue 116 125
Turning Zone with Unrestricted
Entry and Through Bike Lane
(TBL): Oak/ Divisadero
126 201 75% 94% 73% 92% 66% 81% 19% 74%

Turning Zone with Unrestricted
Entry and Through Bike Lane
(TBL): Fell/Divisadero
- - 81% 93% 74% 97% - - 15% 72%

Mixing Zone with Yield Entry
Markings: NE Multnomah / 9th
94 31 63% 51% 98% 79% 93% 63% 14% 73%

Mixing Zone with Sharrow
Marking: Oak/Broderick
24 188 71% 79% 97% 95% 48% 30% 15% 79%

Mixing Zone with Green Skip
Coloring: Fell/Broderick or
Fell/Baker
48 226 74% 73% 96% 95% 49% - 22% 84%


Findings: Design Evaluation 89
7.2 Bicycle-Specific Signal Comprehension and Compliance
The pioject collecteu viueo at five locations wheie bicycle movements aie contiolleu by a sepaiate
bicycle signal: thiee inteisections on Beaiboin in Chicago at Ranuolph, Nauison, anu Congiess;
Nilwaukee at Elston in Chicago; anu in San Fiancisco at 0ak anu Bioueiick. In auuition, suivey
questions weie askeu of bicyclists on Rio uianue in Austin that useu an inteisection contiolleu by a
bicycle signal at NLK. These locations aie shown in Figuie 7-S.

Leading Bike Interval with Bike Signal
Photo from survey (shown): Oak/Broderick
Video Location(s): Oak/Broderick
Fully Signalized Intersection
Photo from survey (shown): Dearborn and Madison
Video Location(s): Randolph, Madison, Congress

Offset Intersection with Long Crossing
Photo from survey (shown): Rio Grande: MLK (Bike Signal)
Video Location(s): No video

Bicycle Lane to Right of Right-turn Lane
Photo from survey (shown): Milwaukee and Elston, Chicago
Video Location(s): Milwaukee and Elston, Chicago
Figure 7-3. Intersections with Bicycle Signals
7.2.1 Comprehension of Bicycle-Specific Signals
This section summaiizes suivey finuings ielateu to the unueistanuing of the bicycle signal uesigns.
7.2.1.1 Findings from Survey
In the suiveys, a numbei of questions weie askeu about whethei uiiveis anu cyclists noticeu anu
unueistoou the bicycle signal concept. Table 7-1S summaiizes these questions anu the iesponses
fiom the iesiuent suivey. Neaily all suivey iesponuents (97%) iesponueu Yes to the question,
Piioi to taking this suivey, hau you noticeu the bicycle signals on Beaiboin Stieet. Also, in a
ielateu question summaiizeu in Table 7-16, none of the inteicepteu bicyclists answeieu, I uiu not

90 Findings: Design Evaluation
know it was theie when askeu about the signal on Rio uianue at NLK in Austin (though the sample
is veiy small, n=S4).
In the Chicago iesiuent suivey, 78% of the 6u people who iesponueu to these questions think that
the bike symbol in the signal lens is a goou way to communicate that the signal contiols bicycle
movements. Theie was some self-iepoiteu confusion about which signal is intenueu foi the motoi
vehicle. In the suivey, only 66% agieeu that it cleai to them at the Beaiboin inteisections which
signal is foi the vehicles. Bowevei, it is not cleai if they aie confusing the left-tuin aiiow anu the
thiough motoi vehicle signal oi the bicycle signal on the mast aim. Finally, one question was askeu
about piefeience foi sepaiate signals foi bicycles. Table 7-1S summaiizes the iesponses to the
statement that, I like that bicyclists anu tuining cais each have theii own signal fiom the Chicago
iesiuent suivey on Beaiboin. 0veiall, 74% of the 84 iesponuents agieeu with this statement.
Table 7-15. Bicycle Signal Questions from Resident Survey (Dearborn - Chicago)
Question
Strongly
Disagree
Somewhat
Disagree
Somewhat
Agree
Strongly
Agree
n
At these intersections, it is always clear to me
which signal I should use as a motorist.
12% 22% 29% 37% 147
Using the small bicycle in the bicycle signal lens is
a good way to communicate the signal is only for
bicycles.
8% 5% 35% 52% 60
I like that bicyclists and turning cars each have
their own signal.
11% 15% 36% 38% 84

7.2.2 Compliance by Bicyclists
Compliance by bicyclists with tiaffic signals is influenceu by many factois (in auuition to uesign)
such as the wait time, length anu phasing of the inteivals, cioss stieet volumes, piogiession quality
anu cycling cultuie. Compliance obseivations aie summaiizeu heie but the many of the possible
confounuing factois weie not compileu oi analyzeu in this ieseaich.
7.2.2.1 Findings from Survey
A numbei of questions weie askeu iegaiuing the peiceptions of compliance of cyclists by motoiists
anu self-iepoiteu compliance by cyclists. Table 7-16 summaiizes these iesults. In Chicago, motoiist
peiception of how often they encountei bicyclists in theii path when attempting to make a left tuin
is high. A total of 4S% saiu they sometimes encountei a bicyclist when making a left tuin anu
anothei 16% saiu often. This implies that eithei the cyclist oi motoi vehicle uiivei is uisiegaiuing
the ieu inuication since all movements aie sepaiateu in time. This peiception is highei than actual
obseiveu behavioi (uiscusseu in next paiagiaph).

Findings: Design Evaluation 91
Table 7-16. Self-Reported Compliance and Observations from Surveys (Austin and Chicago)
Question
Intersection and
Source
Responses Percent
How often do you wait for the bicycle signal to
turn green before crossing MLK?
Austin Bicyclist
Surveys
I did not know it was there 0%
Never 6%
Some of the Time 24%
Most of the Time 38%
Always 32%
n 34
When making a left turn off of Dearborn
Street, how often do you encounter bicyclists
in your path?
Dearborn,
Resident Survey
Never 11%
Rarely 27%
Sometimes 45%
Often 16%
n 140

7.2.2.2 Findings from Video Review
Cyclist compliance with the bicycle signals was tabulateu uuiing the viueo ieview. Cyclists facing a
ieu bicycle signal inuication weie categoiizeu as waiting foi the gieenstopping anu making a legal
tuin on ieu oi pioceeuing illegally on ieu. Figuie 7-4 shows the iesults of these obseivations foi the
locations with bicycle signals. 0n Beaiboin, the cyclists thiough movement phase staits with the
motoi vehicle thiough movement; the bicycle gieen inteival enus then the piotecteu left-tuin
movement foi vehicles lags (though movement continues) 0bseiveu compliance at the
inteisections of Ranuolph anu Congiess on Beaiboin is highest (92-9S%).

Figure 7-4. Observed Cyclist Compliance with Bicycle Traffic Signal
93%
77%
92%
84%
80%
7%
23%
8%
16%
20%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Dearborn/ Congress (Bicycle Signal)
Dearborn/ Madison (Bicycle Signal)
Dearborn/ Randolph (Bicycle Signal)
Milwaukee/ Elston (Bicycle Signal)
Oak/Broderick (Leading Bicycle Signal)
Waited for green/legal right-turn on red Proceeded illegally on red

92 Findings: Design Evaluation
7.2.3 Compliance by Drivers
7.2.3.1 Findings from Survey
Bicyclists weie also suiveyeu about theii peispectives on how well motoiists unueistanu anu
comply with the signals on Beaiboin, as shown in Table 7-17. Theie is a geneial peiception that
they know anu unueistanu to follow the left-tuin aiiows. 0veiall, only 2S% somewhat oi stiongly
agiee that they often see motoiists tuining illegally when the bicycle signal is gieen.
Table 7-17. Perceptions of Motorist Compliance from Cyclist Survey (Chicago)
Question
Strongly
Disagree
Somewhat
Disagree
Neither
Agree
nor
Disagree
Somewhat
Agree
Strongly
Agree
n
Motorists know not to turn across the bike
lanes at intersections when the bicycle signal
is green (and the turn arrow for cars is red).
8% 26% n/a 40% 27% 113
Motorists generally understand to follow left
turn signals at these intersections.
2% 7% 5% 49% 37% 113
I often see motorists making left turns when
the bicycle signal is green (and the left-turn
signal is red).
23% 27% 24% 18% 7% 111

7.2.3.2 Findings from Video Review
The pioject evaluateu compliance by uiiveis using viueo at the thiee inteisections on Beaiboin
wheie motoi vehicles aie contiolleu with a sepaiate left-tuin phase. Figuie 7-S shows the summaiy
of motoiist compliance on Beaiboin with the left-tuin aiiow. Theie aie two key consiueiations
when compaiing compliance foi motoi vehicles anu foi bicyclists. Fiist, motoi vehicle compliance is
expiesseu as a peicentage of all tuining vehicles, but only the fiist vehicle in the queue has the
oppoitunity to violate the signal; theiefoie, motoi vehicle compliance may be oveistateu. Seconu, in
calculating bicyclist compliance, only those bicyclists that aie iequiieu to stop aie incluueu (i.e.,
bicyclists aiiiving on gieen aie not incluueu) Bowevei, this uistinction is not maue foi motoi
vehicles, which somewhat ieuuces the eiioi intiouuceu by the fiist point; though most tuining
motoi vehicles uo have to stop so the impact of this is likely minoi. In geneial, the compliance is
highei foi motoi vehicles than bicycles. The highest non-compliance is at Beaiboin anu Congiess.
In the ieview, it was noteu that between 2-6% of motoiists stait to attempt a tuin on the ieu aiiow
but then wait in the inteisection oi ciosswalk by exhibiting staitstop behavioi than waiting in the
ciosswalk to tuin. This coulu be a iesult of some minoi confusion (eithei mistaking the thiough
gieen oi bike signal gieen as contiol foi the left-tuining movement) oi just aggiessive uiiving.

Findings: Design Evaluation 93

Figure 7-5. Observed Motor Vehicle Driver Compliance with Left-Turn Arrow
7.2.1 Overall Signal Compliance
Figuie 7-6 summaiizes the compliance of bicyclists at all of the inteisections wheie viueo uata
collection was conuucteu. The compliance is the highest at the 0akBivisaueio inteisection in SF,
followeu closely by the inteisections on NE Nultnomah in Poitlanu. Compliance is lowest on
Nilwaukee, L St., anu the iemaining SF locations. These aie all aieas with ielatively high bike
volumes anu some of these inteisections have low minoi stieet tiaffic. Nany of the non-compliance
obseivations aie jumping the signal (e.g., staiting befoie gieen but uuiing the cleaiance inteival
foi ciossing tiaffic that is sometimes low). Finally, the low compliance at L St is paitially explaineu
by the obseivation that many L St. bicyclists following the leauing peuestiian inteival. It shoulu be
noteu the council of the Bistiict of Columbia passeu an amenument, citeu as the Bicycle Safety
Amenument Act of 2u1S making it legal foi bicyclists to follow the leauing peuestiian inteival at an
inteisection.

Figure 7-6. Observed Cyclist Compliance with Traffic Signal (All Locations)
84%
90%
92%
10%
5%
6%
6%
6%
2%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Dearborn/ Congress (Bicycle Signal)
Dearborn/ Madison (Bicycle Signal)
Dearborn/ Randolph (Bicycle Signal)
Legal Turn on Green Illegal Turn on Red Arrow Start/Stop Behavior - Wait in Crosswalk
93%
77%
92%
84%
76%
79%
67%
92%
96%
96%
98%
80%
80%
7%
23%
8%
16%
24%
21%
33%
8%
4%
4%
2%
20%
20%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Dearborn/ Congress (Bicycle Signal)
Dearborn/ Madison (Bicycle Signal)
Dearborn/ Randolph (Bicycle Signal)
Milwaukee/ Elston (Bicycle Signal)
Milwaukee/ Desplaines (Traffic Signal)
L Street/ 15th Street (Traffic Signal w/ LPI)
L Street/ Connecticut(Traffic Signal w/ LPI)
Multnomah/9th (Traffic Signal)
Multnomah/11th (Traffic Signal)
Multnomah/7th (Traffic Signal)
Oak/Divisadero (Traffic Signal)
Oak/Broderick (Leading Bicycle Signal)
Fell/ Baker
Waited for green/legal right-turn on red Proceeded illegally on red

94 Findings: Design Evaluation
7.2.2 Summary of Evaluation Criteria
0ne alteinative to mixing zones is to sepaiate the movements of motoi vehicles anu bicycles using
sepaiate signal phasing, incluuing bicycle tiaffic signals. By uoing so, if all ioau useis comply, theie
shoulu be no conflicts. This option was useu in Chicago anu compliance iates weie geneially high.
At the five inteisections stuuieu with bicycle tiaffic signals, 77-9S% of bicyclists weie
obseiveu on viueo to comply with the signal.
Theie was iecognition that the bicycle symbol in the tiaffic lens is a goou way to
communicate that the signal heau contiols bicycle movements. About 78% of the 148
people who iesponueu to these questions suppoiteu this statement.
At the thiee Chicago inteisections wheie signal phases foi bicycle anu motoi vehicles aie
completely sepaiateu, between 2-6% of motoiists staiteu to attempt a tuin on the ieu
aiiow but then waiteu in the inteisection oi ciosswalk. This coulu be a iesult of some minoi
confusion (eithei mistaking the thiough gieen oi bike signal gieen foi tuining movement)
oi just aggiessive uiiving.
0veiall compliance by people on bicycles with tiaffic signals (iegulai oi bicycle-specific)
iangeu fiom 67% to 98%. Compliance is lowest in aieas with ielatively high bike volumes,
sometimes at inteisections with low tiaffic on the cioss stieet oi with a leauing peuestiian
inteival. Nany of the non-compliance obseivations aie jumping the signal (e.g., staiting
befoie gieen but uuiing the cleaiance inteival foi ciossing tiaffic that is sometimes low).
7.3 Other Elements of Designs
7.3.1 Loading Zones
Pioviuing cuib access to some businesses is a challenging uesign issue foi piotecteu facilities. The
selecteu facilities hau few uesigns to consiuei, but two locations weie stuuieu that opeiateu as
loauing zones. A hotel zone in Washington, B.C., was incluueu in the viueo ieview. A scieen captuie
of the hotel loauing zone is shown in Figuie 7-7. The suggesteu path wiuth is 4 feet; the total wiuth
fiom the cuib to outsiue euge of the buffei is 9 feet. Suivey questions weie askeu about a uesign in
Poitlanu, but no viueo was conuucteu so the iesults aie not piesenteu heie (see the Appenuix foi
uetaileu iesponses).
The iesults of the viueo ieview foi the bicycle path anu stopping location foi motoi vehicles that
use the hotel loauing zone aie shown in Table 7-18. When a vehicle is using the loauing zone (as
shown in the figuie) 48% of the obseiveu bicyclists follow the TBL path, while appioximately 4u%
weie foiceu out of the bike lane uue to an impiopeily stoppeu vehicle blocking the lane. When
theie is no vehicle piesent, about S7% of bicyclists still follow the path (which is high given that the
path is out of uiiection). When vehicles uo use the loauing zone, just ovei 6u% keep the TBL cleai.
As shown in the table, about one-thiiu of motoiists enteiing the loauing zone stop at a location
othei than the loauing zone. In the bicycle suivey, bicyclists weie askeu theii agieement with the
statement, Stoppeu cais at these loauing zones usually allow enough space foi bicyclists to pass on
the iight. The iesults shown in Table 7-19 aie mixeu only about S4% agieeu with the statement
anu aie aligneu with the finuings fiom the viueo ieview.

Findings: Design Evaluation 95

Figure 7-7. Hotel Loading Zone Evaluated on L Street in Washington, D.C.
Table 7-18. Cyclists Path and Motor Vehicle Stopping Location, Hotel Loading Zone
Bicycle Use Motor Vehicle Use
Through Bicyclist
Lane Use
No Cars
Present
Cars
Present
MV Stopping
location Cars Present
In TBL 37% 48%
In TBL 30%
Not in TBL 63% 12%
Keeps TBL Clear 61%
Forced out 0% 40%
In Merge Zone 7%
n 615 128
n 44

Table 7-19. Perceptions of the Loading Zone from Bicyclist Survey
Question
Strongly
Disagree
Somewhat
Disagree
Somewhat
Agree
Strongly
Agree
n
Stopped cars at these loading zones usually allow
enough space for bicyclists to pass on the right (BS).
18% 29% 47% 7% 223

7.3.2 Transit Zones
The uesign of tiansit stops on piotecteu bike lanes is a challenging issue. 0nfoitunately, theie was
not significant tiansit activity on the coiiiuois selecteu foi evaluation (paitially because cities to
uate have avoiueu piotecteu lanes on heavy tiansit ioutes). In the Poitlanu bicycle inteicept
suivey, cyclists weie askeu about what path they woulu take aiounu a stoppeu tiansit bus. The
location was also iecoiueu with viueo. Table 7-2u summaiizes the iesults of this one question anu
viueo ieview. Nost iesponuents (S4%) saiu they woulu iiue aiounu the bus, anu that appeais to be
the case with the viueo ieview although the sample is too small (only nine obseiveu bicycle-bus
inteiactions) to uiaw any ieal conclusions.

96 Findings: Design Evaluation
Table 7-20. Transit Stop Analysis
Question / Observation
Stop and
wait for the
bus to move
Go around
the bus on
the left
Go up onto
the
sidewalk to
get around
Other n
SURVEY - If you encountered this bus
stopped in front of you, what would you do:
24% 54% 5% 18% 108
VIDEO - Cyclist action at transit stop: 33% 67% 0% 0 9

7.3.3 Width of Facilities
Inteicepteu bicyclists weie askeu questions iegaiuing whethei the facility was wiue enough foi
them to iiue comfoitable, to pass anothei bicyclist, anu to iiue siue-by-siue with anothei bicyclist.
They weie also askeu if they piefei to iiue siue-by-siue when bicycling with anothei auult. Table
7-21, Table 7-22 anu Table 7-2S show the iesults of this analysis. The typical wiuth of the total
bicycle facilities is shown in each table. Note that Rio uianue anu Beaiboin aie two-way facilities.
As shown in Table 7-21, almost all, appioximately 97%, of iesponuents agieeu with the statement
that the |facilityj is wiue enough foi me to iiue comfoitably anu just ovei thiee-quaiteis (77%)
selecteu stiongly agiee. Beaiboin, which allows foi two-way tiavel anu has a total typical wiuth
of 8.S but the naiiowest lanes (S feet anu 4 feet, uepenuing on tiavel uiiection) of any stuuy facility,
hau the lowest agieement iate, but it was still high at 91%. The stuuy facilities in Austin anu
Washington BC hau the highest agieement iates (1uu% anu 99% iespectively). The Rio uianue
facility is two-way but wiue (12 feet).
Slightly fewei, but still neaily all, about 89%, of iesponuents also agiee that theie is enough ioom
foi bicyclists to pass one anothei in the stuuy facilities as shown in Table 7-22. Beaiboin has the
lowest agieement iate, with appioximately S8% iesponuents agieeing theie is enough space foi
passing. It is much lowei than the othei two-way facility (Rio uianue) The San Fiancisco anu
Washington BC stuuy facilities have the highest agieement iates, ianging fiom 9S to 96%. These
aie the wiuest one-way facilities in this stuuy, with wiuths ianging fiom 7S to 8.
About two-thiius (67%) of iesponuents agiee that they can iiue siue-by-siue comfoitably with
anothei bicyclist in the stuuy facility as shown in Table 7-2S. Again, the agieement iate is lowest on
Beaiboin Stieet (18%), which is not suipiising as theie is not physically enough space foi bicyclists
to iiue siue-by-siue in the same uiiection if anothei bicyclist is appioaching in the opposite
uiiection. Similaily, the wiuei San Fiancisco anu Washington BC facilities have the highest
agieement iates (76-82%).
Finally, Table 7-24 shows the iesults when iesponuents weie askeu theii level of agieement with
the statement I piefei to iiue siue-by-siue when tiaveling with anothei auult. At the same time,
just ovei half, appioximately S4% of iesponuents, inuicateu that they piefei to iiue siue-by-siue
when tiaveling with anothei auult, suggesting that uesigning to allow this to occui may not be a
piessing concein on these heavily commutei ioutes.
In summation, neaily all iesponuents feel that the stuuy facilities aie wiue enough to allow foi
comfoitable iiuing anu passing of othei bicyclists. These feelings aie stiongest in the facilities that
aie ovei seven feet wiue anu the lowest on a two-way facility with inuiviuual lane wiuths of five feet

Findings: Design Evaluation 97
oi less (Beaiboin). Rio uianue Stieet, the othei two-way facility iepiesenteu in these tables, has
iesponses similai to the one-way facilities. It is uiffeientiateu fiom Beaiboin by having wiuei lanes
(S.S anu 6.S feet) anu lowei volumes of bicyclists, making passing events less fiequent.
Table 7-21 Perceptions of Facility Width from Bicyclist Survey
City Route
Typ. Width
of Bicycle
Facility (ft)
The [facility] is wide enough for me to ride comfortably
Strongly
Disagree
Somewhat
Disagree
Somewhat
Agree
Strongly
Agree
n
Austin
Barton Springs
7
0% 0% 25% 75% 16
Rio Grande*
12
0% 0% 10% 90% 41
Chicago
Dearborn*
8.5
1% 8% 31% 60% 118
Milwaukee
7
1% 4% 24% 71% 217
Portland NE Multnomah
7
0% 3% 19% 78% 110
San Francisco
Oak Street
7.25
2% 2% 17% 80% 247
Fell Street
7.25
0% 2% 25% 73% 243
Washington L Street
8
0% 1% 13% 86% 291
Total 1% 3% 20% 77% 1,036
* Two-way facility
Table 7-22 Perceptions of Passing Width from Bicyclist Survey
City Route
Typ. Width
of Bicycle
Facility (ft)
The [facility] is wide enough for one bicyclist to pass another
Strongly
Disagree
Somewhat
Disagree
Somewhat
Agree
Strongly
Agree
n
Austin
Barton Springs
7
0% 19% 44% 38% 16
Rio Grande*
12
0% 12% 34% 54% 41
Chicago
Dearborn*
8.5
11% 31% 39% 19% 118
Milwaukee
7
1% 12% 42% 44% 217
Portland NE Multnomah
7
3% 16% 43% 39% 108
San Francisco
Oak Street
7.25
1% 4% 34% 61% 240
Fell Street
7.25
2% 5% 31% 62% 242
Washington L Street
8
0% 4% 23% 73% 289
Total 2% 10% 34% 55% 1,029
* Two-way facility

98 Findings: Design Evaluation
Table 7-23 Perceptions of Side-by-Side Width from Bicyclist Survey
City Route
Typ. Width
of Bicycle
Facility (ft)
The [facility] is wide enough for two people to comfortably ride side-
by-side
Strongly
Disagree
Somewhat
Disagree
Somewhat
Agree
Strongly
Agree
n
Austin
Barton Springs
7
7% 27% 53% 13% 15
Rio Grande*
12
13% 28% 35% 25% 40
Chicago
Dearborn*
8.5
47% 36% 15% 3% 117
Milwaukee
7
12% 29% 36% 22% 214
Portland NE Multnomah
7
10% 33% 39% 19% 101
San Francisco
Oak Street
7.25
3% 18% 40% 39% 234
Fell Street
7.25
5% 19% 39% 37% 240
Washington L Street
8
4% 14% 35% 46% 272
Total 10% 23% 36% 31% 1,233
* Two-way facility
Table 7-24 Preferences of Side-by-Side Riding from Bicyclist Survey
City Route
If I am bicycling with another adult, I would prefer to ride side-by-side
Strongly
Disagree
Somewhat
Disagree
Somewhat
Agree
Strongly
Agree
n
Austin
Barton Springs 14% 29% 14% 43% 14
Rio Grande* 5% 29% 26% 39% 38
Chicago
Dearborn* 25% 32% 26% 17% 111
Milwaukee 20% 34% 30% 16% 210
Portland NE Multnomah 9% 26% 29% 37% 105
San Francisco
Oak Street 11% 30% 32% 27% 221
Fell Street 16% 27% 30% 26% 220
Washington L Street 16% 31% 29% 25% 256
Total 16% 30% 29% 25% 1,175
* Two-way facility
7.3.4 Comprehension of Green Pavement Marking
Inteicepteu cyclists on NE Nultnomah in Poitlanu anu on Nilwaukee anu Beaiboin in Chicago weie
askeu an open enueu question, What uo you think it means when the pavement is painteu gieen
along the bikeway. The question was askeu in the suivey piioi to any photos. A total of 1u2
iesponses fiom Beaiboin, 174 fiom Nilwaukee, anu 1u7 fiom Nultnomah weie ieceiveu. The
open-enueu iesponses weie coueu to five categoiies that best summaiize the iesponses, which aie
shown in Figuie 7-8. The iesponses by facility anu the oveiall iesponses aie shown in the figuie.
The question uiu not give a specific location oi uesign (e.g., bike box, two-stage tuin queue box,
inteisection maiking). In geneial, the gieen pavement maiking is cuiiently being useu in two
manneis: 1) to maik a potential conflict (e.g., thiough an inteisection) anu 2) inuicate paths oi
locations ieseiveu foi bicycles (e.g., bike boxes, lanes). The suivey iesponses inuicate that both of
these inteipietations aie iepiesenteu in the iesponses. Theie aie some contextual uiffeiences

Findings: Design Evaluation 99
shown in the figuie baseu on the types of maikings in use on that facility anu city. Combining all
iesponses, the majoiity (S2%) of the iesponuents iuentify the gieen pavement maiking as a conflict
aiea. 0nly 26% of the iesponuents suggesteu that the gieen pavement maiking means the space is
exclusive foi bicycles. Finally, about 1S% of iesponuents inuicateu that they uiu not know if the
pavement maiking hau any meaning at all. Some iecent uesigns have useu skip gieen pavement
maiking to inuicate conflict anu a soliu coloiing foi space foi bicyclists (this was not askeu in the
suivey).


Note: n=383
Figure 7-8. Stated Meaning of Green Pavement Markings
7.3.5 Minor Intersections
Foi piotecteu lanes, minoi inteisections can piesent an impoitant potential conflict aiea. Each city
uesigns these locations with slight vaiiations. 0nfoitunately, buuget limiteu the teams ability to
collect viueo at any minoi inteisections (the focus was on majoi inteisections). 0n most suiveys,
space constiaints also limiteu any uetaileu questions about minoi inteisection tieatments.
Bowevei, in the Chicago suivey, iesiuents in the Nilwaukee suivey weie askeu about a uesign
tieatment at minoi inteisections that featuies inteisection thiough maikings anu a post maikeu
Tuining vehicles Yielu to Bikes mounteu in the ioauway. In the suivey, the photo shown Figuie
7-9 was annotateu to inuicate bike lanes anu though vehicle lanes.
14%
62%
3%
3%
19%
31%
52%
1%
1%
15%
30%
42%
15%
3%
10%
26%
52%
5%
2%
15%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
Marked space is for bicycles only (a protected lane, a
bicycle lane, a place that bikes should be)
Marked space alerts motorists and/or bicycles of
conflict area (includes bicyclists have ROW, use
caution, shared area , merge area)
Marks space for bicyclists to stop
Other
I don't know
All Responses
Portland, Multnomah
Chicago, Milw
Chicago, Dearborn

100 Findings: Design Evaluation

Figure 7-9. Image Used in Chicago Milwaukee Survey about Minor Intersections
The iesults of the iesponse to the questions aie summaiizeu in Table 7-2S. Nost iesponuents
inuicateu that seeing appioaching bicycles when tuining iight is an issue (SS% uisagiee that they
can auequately see appioaching bicycles). Bowevei, 6S% of iesponuents stateu that the sign
heightens theii awaieness of bicycles when tuining off Nilwaukee Ave.
Table 7-25. Perceptions of Minor Intersection Treatment
Question
Strongly
Disagree
Somewhat
Disagree
Somewhat
Agree
Strongly
Agree
No
Opinion
n
When I want to turn right, I am able to adequately see if
there are any approaching cyclists in the bike lane.
25% 28% 32% 11% 4% 276
The Yield to Bikes signs have made me pay closer
attention to cyclists when turning off Milwaukee Ave.
11% 18% 39% 24% 9% 276

7.3.6 Look for Bikes Pavement Markings
0n Beaiboin in Chicago, peuestiian anu bicycle inteiactions weie a known issue. At some
inteisections the pavement stencil "Look Bikes" was auueu at some ciosswalks, as shown in Figuie
7-1u Some locations also incluueu a yellow waining sign on the pavement with a similai message.
0n the iesiuent suivey, foi those that inuicateu that they hau walkeu on Beaiboin, a question was
askeu about how effective they thought these maikings woulu be at waining peuestiians about
bicycle tiaffic. The iesults aie shown in Table 7-26. Theie was not a stiong sense eithei way on the
effectiveness (Su% iesponueu on the effective siue of the scale, Su% iesponueu on the not
effective scale).


Findings: Design Evaluation 101

Figure 7-10. Image Used in Chicago Dearborn Survey about Look for Bikes

Table 7-26. Perceptions of Look for Bikes Pavement Markings of Residents Who Walked on Facility
Question
Not
effective
at all (1)
(2) (3) (4) (5)
Very
effective
(6)
n
How effective do you think these
markings will be at warning pedestrians
about bicycle traffic?
14% 14% 22% 25% 16% 9% 191


102 Findings: Safety
8 FINDINGS: SAFETY
Safety of piotecteu lanes is a composite of the tiavel along the segment anu at inteisections. Safety
can be assesseu in two ways: obseiveu measuies such as ciashes, oi suiiogate measuies such as
conflicts anu peiceptions. Peiceptions of safety aie likely to influence inuiviuuals uecisions on
whethei anu when to use a facility. Foi this ieseaich, changes in peiceiveu safety aie ueiiveu fiom
the suiveys of iesiuents living neaiby the facility anu fiom bicyclists inteicepteu iiuing along the
facility. Bue to the veiy iecent installation uates, iepoiteu ciash uata weie not available foi analysis
on most of the facilities. Thus most of the analysis of obseiveu safety comes fiom the viueo uata foi
conflicts anu neai misses.
As noteu in othei sections of this iepoit, the analysis focuses only on the conflicts oi neai misses at
inteisections, not on the segments of the piotecteu lanes themselves (wheie veiy few, if any,
conflicts with motoi vehicles occui). The viueo uata weie not available foi the befoie conuitions.
Theiefoie, the analysis is cioss-sectionalcompaiing the safety of uiffeient piotecteu lane uesigns
at inteisectionsit is not an evaluation of the change in safety with anu without the piotecteu
lanes. The selection ciiteiia foi the facilities uiu not allow foi an optimal stuuy uesign so while the
analysis compaies acioss uesigns theie is only one of each uesign type to analyze (which makes
infeiences about thiesholus foi the opeiational vaiiables such as volumes uifficult).
In geneial, theie was consistent eviuence that the piotecteu facilities impioveu the peiception of
safety foi people on bicycles (fiom the suivey uata). This peiception helu foi both cyclists
inteicepteu iiuing on the facilities anu foi iesiuents. In geneial, the peiception of impioveu safety
was stiongest foi those who weie categoiizeu as using a bicycle as theii piimaiy moue of
tianspoitation. In auuition, those iesiuents typeu as Inteiesteu but Conceineu anu Enthuseu anu
Confiuent hau the stiongest safety peiceptions of the new lanes. With iespect to the inteisection
uesigns, the stiongest peiception of safety was foi the inteisections on Beaiboin in Chicago wheie
piotection is caiiieu all the way to the inteisection anu bicycle thiough movements aie sepaiateu
fiom tuining vehicles in time with signalization.
The analysis of the conflict uata yielueu less conclusive iesults though no majoi oi substantial
conflicts weie obseiveu in the 144 houis of viueo ieview. 0nly five minoi conflicts weie obseiveu
at the inteisections uesigns. The absence of any significant conflicts is in itself, a finuing. The
analysis of the conflicts contiolling foi exposuie so a cleai ielationship between incieasing
exposuie anu conflicts. Two of the mixing zone uesigns weie founu to have the highest conflict
iates.
The analysis of buffei uesigns ieveal that uesigns with moie physical sepaiation hau the highest
comfoitsafety scoies. Thus one cleai takeaway is that uesigns of piotecteu lanes shoulu seek to
pioviue as much piotection as possible to inciease cyclists comfoit. In auuition to the type of buffei,
fuithei analysis of the comfoit level inuicates that as the total space pioviueu foi bicycles
(measuiing fiom the cuib face to the euge of the aujacent vehicle lane) the oveiall comfoit scoie of
the facility incieaseu, though this ielationship was not paiticulaily stiong.


Findings: Safety 103
8.1 Perceptions of Residents
The iesiuential suivey uata showeu a veiy stiong peiception that the installation of the piotecteu
bike lanes incieaseu safety foi bicyclists, but moie vaiieu peiceptions of how the ioau changeu foi
uiiving anu walking. Table 8-1 shows the peicentage of iesponuents to each iesiuential suivey who
stateu that safety uecieaseu, incieaseu, oi uiu not change. Figuie 8-1 shows only the peicentage of
iesponuents who thought safety incieaseu foi each of the questions by moue. As shown in the
figuie, neaily 8u% of iesiuents suiveyeu thought that the safety of the bicycling on the stieet has
incieaseu with the installation of piotecteu lanes. The peiception of impioveu safety was consistent
acioss each of the piotecteu facilities even though the uesigns aie quite uiffeient. The iesiuents
categoiize as Enthuseu anu Confiuent anu Inteiesteu but Conceineu weie most likely to say that
the new lanes hau incieaseu safety foi bicycling (Table 8-2 anu Figuie 8-2). 0veiall, the No way No
Bow iesponuents aie uefinitely moie negative towaiu the bike facilitiesalmost half (47%)
believe the facilities maue uiiving less safe. Also of note was that the iesiuents typeu as Stiong anu
Feailess hau stiong peiceptions of incieaseu safety (79% stateu safety hau incieaseu).
Peiceptions of the change to uiiving safety on the facility weie moie vaiieu. 0veiall, S7% thought
uiiving safety hau incieaseu, Su% thought theie hau been no change, 26% thought safety
uecieaseu, anu 7% hau no opinion. These peiceptions weie geneially consistent except foi the
facilities evaluateu in Chicago. About SS% of iesiuents neai Nilwaukee anu 4S% of iesiuents neai
Beaiboin thought that safety foi uiiving uecieaseu. uiven that the piimaiy impiovement was foi
bicycling, that some iesiuents thought uiiving safety impioveu is notable.
Peiceptions of the safety of the walking enviionment aftei the installation of the piotecteu lanes
weie also moie vaiieu. 0veiall, SS% thought safety incieaseu, 48% thought theie hau been no
change, 1S% thought safety uecieaseu, anu 6% hau no opinion. Again, these peiceptions vaiieu by
facility anu context. Foi the two facilities in Austin, S2% (Bluebonnet) anu 44% (Baiton Spiings)
inuicateu that the facility impioveu walking safety. 0n Bluebonnet, the piotecteu lane auueu
walking space wheie siuewalks weie limiteu, anu on Baiton Spiings pait of the cycling facilities
incluueu the auuition of a shaieu-use path wheie theie hau been only a siuewalk befoie. In Chicago
on Beaiboin, 4S% of iesiuents suiveyeu thought safety uecieaseu foi walking. In this busy uiban
coie, the auuition of bicycling facilities uiu intiouuce auuitional inteiactions with peuestiians at
inteisections that uiu not exist befoie the two-way cycle tiack.

104 Findings: Safety
Table 8-1. Safety Perceptions of Residents Surveyed, By Nearest Facility
Question and Response
Percent of Residents
Austin Chicago Portland
San
Francisco
DC
Total
Barton
Springs
Bluebonnet Dearborn Milwaukee Multnomah Oak/Fell L Street
Because of the
protected bike
lanes, the safety
of BICYCLING on
the street has ...
Decreased 5% 5% 10% 13% 4% 7% 5% 7%
No Change 5% 7% 6% 7% 8% 5% 6% 6%
Increased 82% 85% 76% 74% 74% 80% 80% 79%
n 418 410 189 298 459 507 227 2508
Because of the
protected bike
lanes, the safety
of DRIVING on
the street has . . .
Decreased 15% 21% 45% 53% 18% 25% 28% 26%
No Change 38% 38% 26% 17% 25% 29% 32% 30%
Increased 43% 38% 23% 28% 45% 38% 30% 37%
n 417 408 192 297 463 505 228 2510
Because of the
protected bike
lanes, the safety
of WALKING on
the street has . . .
Decreased 4% 5% 43% 23% 5% 18% 16% 13%
No Change 44% 39% 40% 55% 47% 56% 54% 48%
Increased 44% 52% 15% 19% 37% 21% 27% 33%
n 418 412 191 299 464 506 230 2520
Note: No opinion responses are not shown. Therefore, percentages do not total 100%.


Figure 8-1. Percent of Residents Stating Safety Increased for Each Mode
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Washington, D.C. - L St.
Chicago, Dearborn
Chicago, Milwaukee
Austin, Barton Springs
Austin, Bluebonnet
San Francisco, Oak
Portland, Multnomah
Percent of Residents Stating "safety increased"
Walking
Driving
Bicycling

Findings: Safety 105
Table 8-2. Safety Perceptions of Residents Surveyed, By Cyclist Type
Question and Response
Residents in Each Cyclist Typology
Strong and
Fearless
Enthused
and
Confident
Interested
but
Concerned
No Way
No How
Total

Because of the protected bike
lanes, the safety of BICYCLING on
the street has ...
Decreased 10% 3% 4% 15% 7%
No Change 9% 4% 4% 11% 6%
Increased 76% 87% 88% 59% 80%
n 114 600 1025 551 2290
Because of the protected bike
lanes, the safety of DRIVING on
the street has . . .
Decreased 30% 16% 20% 47% 26%
No Change 25% 31% 34% 25% 31%
Increased 36% 46% 41% 21% 37%
n 115 602 1021 551 2289
Because of the protected bike
lanes, the safety of WALKING on
the street has . . .
Decreased 18% 8% 8% 26% 13%
No Change 41% 45% 50% 52% 48%
Increased 37% 42% 37% 17% 33%
n 115 602 1027 555 2299
Note: No opinion responses are not shown. Therefore, percentages do not total 100%.


Figure 8-2. Percent of Residents Stating Safety Increased for Each Mode, by Cyclist Type
8.2 Perceptions of Bicyclists
8.2.1 Protected Lanes, General
In the bicyclist inteicept suivey uata, theie was an even stiongei peiception of incieaseu safety foi
bicyclists. Table 8-S shows the peicentage of suivey iesponuents who stateu that safety uecieaseu,
incieaseu, oi uiu not change. Table 8-S also shows the peicentage who agieeu oi uisagieeu that the
piotecteu facility is safei than othei facilities in the iespective city.
Neaily eveiy inteicepteu bicyclist (96%) stateu that the installation of the piotecteu lane incieaseu
the safety of bicycling on the stieet (7u% incieaseu a lot, 26% incieaseu somewhat). Theie is
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Strong and Fearless
Enthused and Confident
Interested But
Concerned
No Way No How
Percent of Residents Stating "safety increased"
Walking
Driving
Bicycling

106 Findings: Safety
possibly some self-selection in the inteicepteu cyclists (i.e. those that think it is unsafe woulu
consiuei anothei ioute). Neaily nine out of 1u (89%) inteicepteu bicyclists agieeu that the
piotecteu facilities weie safei than othei facilities in theii city. A highei peicentage of women
agieeu (9S%) with this statement than men (87%). In Chicago on Beaiboin, 99% of inteicepteu
cyclists thought the safety hau incieaseu, which coulu be expecteu since no facility foi bicycles
existeu befoie. Even in Poitlanu anu Chicago (Nilwaukee), wheie bike lanes pieviously existeu, the
peicentage of iesponuents who thought safety incieaseu was 92% anu 96%, iespectively.
Table 8-3. Safety Perceptions of Bicyclists Surveyed, By Facility
Question and Response
Percent of Total Respondents to Question Intercepted on Facility
Austin Chicago Port. SF DC
Total
Barton
Springs
Rio
Grande
Dearborn
Milwauke
e
Multnom
ah
Oak/Fell L Street
I feel the safety of
bicycling on
[STREET] has . . .
Decreased 0% 5% 1% 3% 3% 0% 3% 2%
No Change 11% 2% 0% 1% 5% 2% 2% 2%
Increased 89% 93% 99% 96% 92% 98% 95% 96%
n 18 41 120 224 106 243 293 1045
The [FACILITY] is
safer than other
[FACILITIES IN
CITY].
Disagree 0% 5% 8% 4% 14% 8% 20% 11%
Agree 100% 95% 92% 96% 86% 92% 80% 89%
n 13 41 118 211 101 228 242 954
The [buffer] does
a good job at
protecting bikes
from cars.
Disagree 33% 20% 4% 9% 8% 9% 21% 13%
Agree 67% 80% 96% 91% 92% 91% 79% 87%
n 15 41 116 218 109 239 292 1030

8.2.2 Intersections
Bicyclists weie askeu many questions about the uesign of the vaiious mixing zones at inteisections.
With iespect to safety, bicyclists weie askeu how safe they felt with bicycling thiough the
inteisection. The question askeu the bicyclists if they geneially feel safe when bicycling thiough
the inteisections. It is acknowleugeu that teim geneially can intiouuce latituue into a
iesponuents answei. Table 8-4 shows the peicentage of iesponuents agieeing with the statement
foi each inteisection. The table is soiteu fiom lowest agieement to highest agieement. The highest
agieement is foi the Chicago Beaiboin inteisections, which aie signalizeu foi bicycles anu theie aie
no legal conflicts. The San Fiancisco 0akBioueiick anu FellBioueiick inteisections hau the next
highest peiceptions of safety, anu the L Stieet inteisections hau the lowest peiception of safety,
though a laige majoiity (64%) uiu feel safe. The uiffeiences in peiceptions of safety aie influenceu
not only by the uesign, but also by the volume, speeu, anu behavioi of motoi vehicle tiaffic.

Findings: Safety 107
Table 8-4. Safety Perceptions of Bicyclists Surveyed About Intersection Designs
Intersection
I generally feel safe when bicycling
through the intersections.
Agree Disagree n
Turning Zone with Post Restricted Entry and Through
Bike Lane (TBL): L Street
64% 35% 284
Intersection w/o Turn Lane: Multnomah / 7th 68% 28% 107
Turning Zone with Unrestricted Entry and Through
Bike Lane (TBL): Fell/Divisadero
72% 27% 242
Mixing Zone with Yield Entry Markings:
Multnomah /9th
73% 26% 107
Turning Zone with Unrestricted Entry and Through
Bike Lane (TBL): Oak/ Divisadero
74% 25% 238
Mixing Zone with Sharrow Marking: Oak/Broderick 79% 19% 234
Mixing Zone with Full Green Skip Marking:
Fell/Broderick
84% 15% 240
Bicycle-Signalized Intersections: Chicago, Dearborn 92% 2% 117
Note: Rows do not sum to 100% - responses with No Opinion not shown
8.2.3 Buffer Designs, Actual
Inteicepteu bicyclists weie askeu to state theii level of agieement with the statement about the
buffei foi the facility wheie they ioue (e.g., The buffei section with paikeu cais between the tiaffic
lanes anu the bike lanes makes me feel safe.) These questions theiefoie ieveal peiceptions about
the actual buffei uesign on the facility. Table 8-S summaiizes the mean scoie foi this iesponse,
wheie 1=stiongly uisagiee anu 4=stiongly agiee. The table piesents the facilities in oiuei fiom top
to bottom of highest mean scoie. The facility with the highest scoie was the shaieu- use path on the
Baiton Spiings in Austin. Though not a piotecteu on-ioau facility, it pioviues a iefeience point foi
the othei scoies. The oiuei of the iemaining facilities makes some intuitive sense, though theie aie
so many uesign vaiiations that it is uifficult to uiaw stiong conclusions. 0ne inteiesting
obseivations is that flexposts got veiy high iatings even though they pioviue little actual physical
piotection fiom vehicle intiusions cyclists peiceive them as an effective means of positive
sepaiation. The lowest scoiing sections aie those buffeis that only incluue paint.
Inspection of Table 8-S suggests that in auuition to the buffei type, auuitional contexts such as
aujacent motoi vehicle tiaffic anu facility wiuth might be playing a iole in peiceptions of safety.
The table also incluues the uimension measuiing fiom the cuib face to the euge of the neaiest
motoi vehicle lane. This is inclusive of the wiuth of the sepaiateu facility, the buffei anu any space
allocateu to paiking. The mean safety scoie anu the total wiuth aie plotteu in Figuie 8-S. The y-axis
is zoomeu to show the uiffeiences in the scoie. The ielationship is not stiong but shows an
incieasing tienu with wiuth is obseiveu. Consistent with othei woik ielateu to peiceptions of
safety anu comfoit, the total mean scoie incieases with total wiuth allocateu to bicycles. The
outliei point (the ieu squaie) is labeleu as the peiceptions foi the shaieu-use path that is aujacent
to the Baiton Spiings facility. The mean scoie is highei ielative to othei facilities with the same
total wiuth suggesting that positive sepaiation has a much moie significant impact than wiuth
alone. Finally, tiaueoffs between wiuei bike spaces to accommouate laigei bike volumes, passing,

108 Findings: Safety
may neeu to come at the expense of the buffei as long as the buffei is not too naiiow. Futuie woik
woulu neeu to evaluate the actual peiceiveu of these wiuei facilities with uiffeient buffei types.
Table 8-5. Safety Perceptions of Bicyclists Surveyed about Buffer Designs
Facility Type Primary Buffer
Typical Buffer
Width (ft)
Typical Width -
Far Edge of
Bicycle Facility
to Near Edge
of Motor
Vehicle (ft.)
Mean Score,
Buffer makes
me feel safe
Austin -Barton Springs Shared Use Path Curb, Grass n/a 10 3.73
Chicago-Dearborn Two-way Parked Cars 3 19 3.60
SF-Oak Fell One-way Flexposts 5 12.25 3.58
Chicago-Milwaukee One-way Parked Cars 2-4' 20 3.56
Austin - Rio Grande Two-way Flexposts 4 16 3.54
Portland NE Multnomah One-way Planters 7 14 3.49
Chicago-Dearborn Two-way Flexposts 3 11.5 3.49
Chicago-Milwaukee One-way Flexposts 2-4' 10 3.43
D.C. - L Street One-way Flexposts 3 11 3.42
Austin- Barton Springs One-way Flexposts 1.5 8.5 3.31
Portland - NE Multnomah One-way Flexposts 3 11 3.20
Chicago-Milwaukee One-way Paint 2-4' 10 3.06
Portland - NE Multnomah One-way Paint 3 10 3.04


Figure 8-3. Mean Safety Score by Total Facility Width
3.00
3.10
3.20
3.30
3.40
3.50
3.60
3.70
3.80
5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21
M
e
a
n

S
c
o
r
e

(
A
g
r
e
e
m
e
n
t

w
i
t
h

"
M
a
k
e
s

m
e

F
e
e
l

S
a
f
e
"
Total Width (ft)
Far Edge of Bicycle Facility to Near Edge of Motor Vehicle Lane
Shared-use path, Barton Springs

Findings: Safety 109
8.2.4 Responses to Hypothetical Buffer Styles
Bicyclists weie also askeu to iate how comfoitable they woulu feel on a set of geneiic ioutes with
vaiying types of buffeis, using uiagiams of each pioposeu buffei type. The uaik gieen aieas of the
bai iepiesent the peicentage of veiy comfoitable iesponses. Foi iefeience, iesponuents stateu
level of comfoit on the same hypothetical ioute with a stanuaiu bike lane without a buffei is
incluueu foi compaiison at the top of the figuie. The iemainuei of buffeis aie piesenteu in
uescenuing oiuei as iankeu by the mean scoie.
As seen in Figuie 8-4, foi all of the buffei uesigns ovei 8u% of bicyclists iateu theii comfoit level on
the comfoitable enu of the scale (4, S oi 6) iathei than on the uncomfoitable enu of the scale (1, 2
oi S). The plantei buffei, plastic flexpost buffei anu conciete cuib buffei hau the highest peicentage
of bicyclists expiessing theii comfoit in the highest two comfoit iatings, with the plantei buffei
stanuing out as the buffei iateu most comfoitable by the highest peicentage of iesponuents. Some
iesponuents may be influenceu by aestheticsthe planteis piesent an appealing setting while
some consiuei the flexposts ugly. It is peihaps suipiising that the iaiseu conciete cuib (which
pioviues continuous veitical sepaiation anu the most uefineu space foi bicycles) iateu lowei than
flexposts oi planteis. This coulu be ielateu to the lack of actual expeiience with a conciete cuib oi
peihaps the peiception that the cuib limits maneuveiability. The paiking buffei intiouuces
peuestiian fiiction (fiom exiting uiiveis anu passengeis) so even though the sepaiation is moie
uefineu, this incieaseu inteiaction may contiibute to its lowei iating.

Figure 8-4. Bicyclist Comfort Rating of Generic Buffers
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
With a solid
painted buffer
With a painted
2-3 foot buffer
With a painted buffer
and parked cars
With a raised
concrete curb
With a 2-3 foot buffer
and plastic flexposts
With planters
separating the bikeway
With a striped bike lane
(no buffer)
(1) Very Uncomfortable (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Very Comfortable

110 Findings: Safety
In geneial, theie was a consiueiable amount of agieement among suivey iesponuents about the
level of comfoit with the uiffeient buffeis acioss the uiffeient suiveys in each city, as is seen in
Figuie 8-S. The painteu buffei with paikeu cais lanes hau the laigest vaiiation in mean iesponse
levels between facilities. This may be uue to bicyclists expeiiences of iiuing with this type of buffei.
Foi example, San Fiancisco bicyclists stateu level of comfoit with the paikeu cai buffei is the
lowest of these cities. Anecuotally, this may be uue to expeiiences of bicycling on }FK uiive in
uoluen uate Paik, wheie a facility of this type has been implementeu anu faces the challenge of a
high volume of unfamiliai visitois paiking along the ioute. Chicago anu BC bicyclists hau the
highest peiception of safety foi the paikeu cai buffei, which may be the iesult of theii expeiience
with existing facilities. The lowei iatings in Austin may be uue to lack of expeiience; theie weie no
such facilities in the city at the time of the suivey.







Figure 8-5. Bicyclist Mean Comfort Score of Generic Buffers
1 2 3 4 5 6
With planters
separating the bikeway
With a 2-3 foot buffer
and plastic flexposts
With a raised
concrete curb
With a painted buffer
and parked cars
With a painted
2-3 foot buffer
With a solid
painted buffer
Austin - Rio
Grande
Austin - Barton
SF - Oak
Chi - Dearborn
Chi - Milwaukee
DC - L Street
Portland -
Multnomah

Findings: Safety 111
8.2.5 Self-Reported Encounters and Perception of Encounters
To unueistanu the types of obstacles iiueis aie encounteiing, the inteicept suivey askeu bicyclists
to inuicate how fiequently they encountei vaiious types of obstacles when iiuing in the piotecteu
bike lanes, with the option to select eithei nevei, iaiely, sometimes oi often foi each item. A
follow-up question askeu, Bow much of a pioblem is this. about each item, with possible
selections being not a pioblem, minoi pioblem oi majoi pioblem.
Table 8-6 shows the peicentage of bicyclists on each facility selecting that they often encountei
the item in the piotecteu lane, anu the peicent that feel this is a majoi pioblem. Table cells with
iesponses highei than SS% aie shaueu giey. These iesults can offei some help in iuentifying
pioblem issues to be auuiesseu, but also point to some of the contextual challenges of specific
facilities. Foi example, Beaiboin Stieet in Chicago has consiueiably moie aujacent peuestiian
tiaffic than any othei facility location; a laige shaie of bicyclists inuicateu that they often encountei
people walking anu waiting in the piotecteu bike lanes anu that this is a majoi pioblem. Piioi to
this suivey, Chicago took measuies to minimize peuestiian activity in the bike lane, though this still
aiose as a concein. 0n Nilwaukee Avenue, all of the encountei types that involveu motoi vehicles
stopping oi waiting in the piotecteu bike lane weie mentioneu as majoi pioblems by moie than a
thiiu of iesponuents its possible that the heavy bicycle tiaffic on Nilwaukee Avenue iesults in
backups when the piotecteu bike lane is blockeu in these situations. 0n L Stieet, the lack of paiking
on the noith siue of the stieet means that ueliveiy vehicles must paik on an aujacent stieet, acioss
the stieet, oi, as the suivey suggests many aie uoing, paiking in the piotecteu bike lane.
The table also pioviues some insight into which soit of encounteis bicyclists view as moie oi less
acceptable. Although ielatively few bicyclists acioss all facilities often encounteieu cais paiking
while in the piotecteu lane (8%), a much highei numbei inuicateu that this was a majoi pioblem
(2S%). Inteiestingly, while a highei peicentage of bicyclists encounteieu cais piepaiing to tuin off
of oi onto the facility ioute (24% anu 1S%, iespectively), a lowei numbei vieweu this as a majoi
pioblem (16% anu 1u%, iespectively). This implieu toleiance towaiu the encountei likely stems
fiom the locations wheie bicyclists expect to encountei cais, such as the tuining zones along L
Stieet anu 0ak Stieet.
Bicyclists weie also askeu about any collisions oi neai collisions (uefineu by the iesponuent) they
hau while iiuing in the piotecteu bike lane. If they hau a collision oi neai collision, suivey
iesponuents weie able to check whethei it was with a peison oi object; they weie alloweu to check
moie than one option. A summaiy of the iesponses is shown in Table 8-7. A total of 18 bicyclists,
oi less than 2% of those suiveyeu, inuicateu that they hau been involveu in a collision. A thiiu of all
bicyclists inuicateu they have been involveu in a neai collision. If theie was a collision, the suivey
askeu the iesponuent to pioviue a shoit naiiative. Baseu on these naiiatives, we can state that: 1)
no injuiies weie iepoiteu (although we uiu not explicitly ask them to tell us about injuiies) anu 2)
all iepoiteu bike-to-bike collisions occuiieu when one bike stoppeu foi a peuestiian oi motoi
vehicle in the piotecteu bike lane, anu anothei bicycle ian into them. Collisions with tuining cais
weie iepoiteu as both the highest collision iate (1.8%) anu the highest neai collision iate (2S%).
Encounteis with peuestiians hau a similaily high neai-collision iate at 19%, but a much lowei iate
of actual collision at u.4%, which may be uue to the gieat ease of avoiuing collisions with
peuestiians.


112 Findings: Safety
Table 8-6. Self-Reported Frequent Encounters with Obstacles or Other Users

Barton
Springs Rio Grande Dearborn Milwaukee
NE
Multnomah Oak* Fell* L Street Total*
Often
Major
Prob.
Often
Major
Prob.
Often
Major
Prob.
Often
Major
Prob.
Often
Major
Prob.
Often
Major
Prob.
Often
Major
Prob.
Often
Major
Prob.
Often
Major
Prob.
Cars parking 6% 6% 10% 27% 3% 24% 10% 33% 2% 15% 7% 26% 8% 23% 14% 25% 8% 25%
Cars loading or unloading
passengers
0% 13% 17% 24% 15% 32% 21% 37% 10% 21% 12% 22% 7% 20% 22% 30% 15% 27%
Delivery vehicles loading or
unloading
0% 25% 22% 32% 15% 28% 22% 42% 30% 31% 18% 29% 14% 30% 45% 50% 25% 36%
Taxis 0% 13% 7% 15% 18% 36% 27% 45% 2% 10% 13% 23% 7% 18% 22% 30% 15% 27%
Cars/trucks driving where they
are not supposed to (in the
[FACILITY])
6% 19% 12% 27% 5% 26% 10% 34% 1% 17% 3% 23% 12% 25% 11% 31% 8% 27%
Cars/trucks waiting to make
turns OFF of [STREET]
25% 25% 15% 15% 13% 15% 27% 23% 14% 12% 12% 6% 22% 22% 41% 15% 24% 16%
Cars/trucks waiting to pull out
ONTO [STREET]
19% 38% 24% 22% 8% 10% 24% 21% 11% 5% 5% 4% 12% 13% 13% 5% 13% 10%
People walking in the
[FACILITY]
6% 13% 20% 20% 47% 48% 17% 26% 4% 11% 2% 7% 1% 8% 6% 9% 10% 16%
People standing in the
[FACILITY] while waiting to
cross the street
6% 0% 17% 17% 66% 63% 27% 25% 10% 18% 4% 11% 4% 8% 26% 26% 20% 22%
Bicyclists traveling in the
WRONG direction
13% 13% - - - - 1% 25% 0% 13% 1% 16% 3% 19% 8% 18% 3% 16%
Buses loading and unloading
passengers
- - - - - - 31% 26% 26% 16% - - - - - - 29% 23%
n 16 41 117 209 105 223 237 288 1,236
*Oak and Fell respondents are counted twice in the total
Shaded cells indicate more than 1/3 respondents on that facility viewed that item as a major problem


Findings: Safety 113
Table 8-7. Self-Reported Collisions and Near Collisions

Barton Rio Grande Dearborn Milwaukee
NE
Multnomah Oak* Fell* L Street Total*
Coll. Near Coll. Near Coll. Near Coll. Near Coll. Near Coll. Near Coll. Near Coll. Near Coll. Near
Any Collisions or Near
Collisions
18% ** 19%
2.6%
(3)
6%
3.3%
(7)
48% ** 38%
1.3%
(3)
14%
1.7%
(4)
21%
1.7%
(5)
36%
1.8%
(18)
33%
Collisions or near collisions with
Another bicyclist

6%

5% 0.9% 16% 0.5% 27%

7% 0.9% 7%

11%

9% 0.3% 12%
A pedestrian

6%

17% 1.7% 59% 1.0% 25%

19%

5%

4% 0.3% 21% 0.4% 19%
A turning car

18% 2.4% 14% 0.9% 24% 4.3% 34% 0.9% 29% 0.4% 1% 1.7% 18% 1.7% 28% 1.8% 23%
A parking car

6%

7%

15% 0.5% 12% 0.9% 5%

4%

4% 0.3% 8% 0.2% 7%
A parked car

7%

1%

7% 0.9% 4%

1%

3%

9% 0.1% 6%
A delivery truck

6%

7%

9%

1%

12%

3%

5%

13%

8%
A bus

6%

3%

15%

6%

1%

1%

1%

4%
A taxi

6%

2%

15%

26%

4% 0.4% 3% 0.3% 15% 0.2% 11%
One of the plastic
flexposts
6% 2.4% 2% 0.9% 3% 1.0% 4%

2%

2% 0.4% 3% 0.7% 2% 0.6% 3%
Other stationary object

2.4%

2%

1%

4%

0.3% 1% 0.2% 1%
Something else

2.4% 2%

2% 0.5% 2%

3%

1%

2% 0.3% 3% 0.2% 2%
One of the concrete
planters
- - - - - - - -

3% - - - - - -

3%
n 17 42 117 210 108 228 238 287 1,247
Respondents were able to indirectly indicate if they had been involved in a collision or near-collision at all, and if so, to specify which type of collision, or near-collision.
Blank cells are 0%. Boldface type indicates any reported collisions. Shaded cells indicate that more than 10% of respondents had experienced a near collision of that type.
*Oak and Fell respondents are counted twice in the total.
** Respondents did not indicate they had been involved in either a collision or near collision with this first question but later but later specified a specific type of collision.

114 Findings: Safety
8.3 Conflict Analysis
Safety peifoimance was quantifieu by a suiiogate measuie of safetyconflicts between useis.
Suiiogate measuies (iathei than iepoiteu collision uata) weie useu because, in geneial, motoi
vehicle-bicycle collisions aie iaie occuiiences, theie is significant unueiiepoiting of events, anu
long time peiious anu a laige numbei of sites aie neeueu foi meaningful analysis with iepoiteu
ciash uata. The installation uates of the facilities meant that iepoiteu collision uata weie not yet
available foi most cities at the time of this iepoit. The methou useu to ieview anu iuentify conflicts
is uesciibeu in moie uetail in the methouology section (4.1.S). Each vehicle-bicycle inteiaction was
iateu as majoi (neai collision with emeigency biaking anuoi change of uiiection); substantial
(emeigency biaking anuoi change of uiiection); minoi (piecautionaiy biaking anuoi change of
uiiection); piecautionaiy (a low-iisk inteiaction wheie a minoi change in uiiection oi speeu was
neeueu to avoiu a conflict); oi no conflict. The seveiity of conflicts was measuieu by actions of
eithei the motoiist oi the cyclist. A conflict was uefineu as seiies of events that coulu leau to a
collision.
No majoi oi substantial conflicts weie iuentifieu in the ieview, so these types aie not incluueu in
the tables that follow.
8.3.1 Intersections with Turning Vehicles
Table 8-8 summaiizes the iesults of the conflict analysis foi the inteisections with the vaiious
mixing zone uesigns. uiven that none of the conflicts that weie obseiveu weie emeigency oi
substantial, theie is limiteu infoimation to be uiawn fiom the conflict analysis. The majoiity of
events that aie iuentifieu in the table aie piecautionaiy conflicts. It shoulu be stiesseu that these
aie veiy minoi events on the conflict scale. Also, note that the San Fiancisco locations incluueu two
auuitional weekenu houis of analysis.
Nonetheless, some auuitional analysis was uone using the exposuie infoimation (numbei of
thiough bicycles anu numbei of tuining vehicles) anu the total numbei of conflicts (minoi +
piecautionaiy). In the viueo ieview, it was noteu foi each tuining vehicle if a bicycle was piesent
within the analysis zone (uefineu as two cai lengths back of the meige point). Thus, both the total
numbei of tuining vehicles anu the tuining vehicles when a bicycle was piesent aie known. The
seconu measuie (the tuining vehicles when a bicycle was piesent) moie accuiately iepiesents
oppoitunity foi collision than total tuining vehicles. This measuie is less than iueal though, since
some of the tuining vehicles in this count may not have hau the oppoitunity to inteiact with
bicycles. Nonetheless, is allows foi a moie nuanceu exposuie iathei than total tuining vehicles anu
is bolueu in the Table 8-8 .
To bettei noimalize foi exposuie the conflicts foi exposuie, the final iows of Table 8-8 piesent two
calculateu conflict iates baseu using the following equation:
Conlict Rotc =
Conlicts 1uuu
Iurning Iciclcs Iroug Bicyclcs



Findings: Safety 115
The tuining vehicles count is eithei 1) tuining vehicles when a bike was piesent 2) all tuining
vehicles. The conflicts incluue both piecautionaiy anu minoi. To bettei visualize the iesults, the
conflict iates aie piesenteu in oiuei in Figuie 8-6 anu plotteu against exposuie in Figuie 8-7.
In the table, the tuining zones anu mixing zone inteisections aie gioupeu. The locations with the
two highest iates aie mixing zones. At NE Nultnomah anu 9
th
theie aie ielatively few bicycles
compaieu to total tuining vehicles (219 bicycles, 1,S24 tuining cais), anu the total conflict iate is
u.4u (conflicts pei tuining vehicles when bikes piesent * bicycles*1,uuu). At 0ak anu Bioueiick,
theie aie 1,S76 bicycles anu S2S tuining vehicles, anu the conflict iate is u.44. The othei mixing
zone (Fell Bakei) has the gieen skip coloiing which keeps some vehicles fiom enteiing the mixing
zone. The laigest obseiveu numbei of conflicts occuis at 0ak anu Bivisaueio, with 1u8 motoi
vehicle conflicts. Bowevei, the iate is the lowest (u.12) anu it has the seconu highest exposuie of
tuining vehicles (1,9uu) anu the highest bicycle volumes (1,6u9). The othei tuining zone
inteisections have similai conflict iates. 0ne obseivation is that the uesigns that place vehicles anu
bikes in the same space have highei conflict iates (though since so many of the conflicts aie veiy
minoi, it is uncleai if theie is a safety issue). Theie aie few obseiveu conflicts at these locations
with othei bicycles oi peuestiians.

116 Findings: Safety
Table 8-8. Summary of Conflict Analysis from Video Review, Mixing Zones
Observation Type
Number of
Observations
Turning Zones with Through Bike Lane
(TBL)
Mixing Zones
L St / 15th
Street
L St /
Connecticut
Avenue
Oak /
Divisadero
Street*
NE
Multnoma
h / 9th
Street
Fell / Baker
*Street
Oak /
Broderick
Street*
No Conflict
n
456 529 1491 206 1675 1319
% of total
88.0% 91.2% 92.7% 94.1% 94.1% 95.9%
Precautionary (Motor
Vehicle)
n
40 42 106 13 48 57
% of total
7.7% 7.2% 6.6% 5.9% 2.7% 4.1%
Minor Conflict (Motor
Vehicle)
n
0 2 2 0 1 0
% of total
0.0% 0.3% 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0%
Precautionary
(Pedestrian)
n
10 6 1 0 39 0
% of total
1.9% 1.0% 0.1% 0.0% 2.2% 0.0%
Minor Conflict
(Pedestrian)
n
0 0 0 0 0 0
% of total
0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Precautionary (Bike)
n
0 0 0 0 0 0
% of total
0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Minor Conflict (Bike)
n
0 0 0 0 0 0
% of total
0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Precautionary (Other)
n
12 1 9 0 17 0
% of total
2.3% 0.2% 0.6% 0.0% 1.0% 0.0%
Minor Conflict (Other)
n
0 0 0 0 0 0
% of total
0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Total Bicycles 518 580 1609 219 1,780 1376
Number of Turning Motor Vehicles 1978 1348 1900 1524 501 323
Number of Turning Motor Vehicles
When Bike Present
599 400 547 148 209 94
Conflict Rate (Turning Vehicles When
Bikes Present)
0.13 0.19 0.12 0.40 0.13 0.44
Conflict Rate (All Turning Vehicles) 0.04 0.06 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.13
* Includes 2 additional hours of weekend video

Findings: Safety 117

Figure 8-6. Comparison of Conflict Rates at Intersections
A stiongei ielationship is between the exposuie anu conflicts is shown in Figuie 8-7 anu Figuie 8-8.
In Figuie 8-7 the total numbei of conflicts aie shown on the y-axis with the exposuie plotteu on the
x-axis. The total numbei of conflicts incieases with exposuie. Figuie 8-8 shows the iates.

Figure 8-7 Total (Precautionary + Minor) Conflict Rates vs Exposure at Intersections
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50
Oak Divisadero Street
15th Street
Baker Street
Connecticut Avenue
Multnomah / 9th
Broderick Street
Conflict Rate (Turning Vehicles When Bicycle Present)
All Turning Vehicles
Turning Vehicles When Bike
Present
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
0 200 400 600 800 1,000
T
o
t
a
l

C
o
n
f
l
i
c
t
s

Turning Vehicles When Bike Is Present * Bicycles Thousands
Multnomah and 9th
Oak Divisadero
Oak and Broderick
Fell and Baker
L and 15th St
L and Connecticut

118 Findings: Safety

Figure 8-8 Conflict Rates vs Exposure at Intersections
8.3.2 Intersections with Bicycle Signals
Table 8-9 shows the conflict summaiy at the foui signalizeu inteisections in Chicago that weie
analyzeu. Theie weie only two obseiveu minoi conflicts; the iemainuei of the iuentifieu conflicts
weie flaggeu as piecautionaiy. The conflicts aie not noimalizeu by exposuie since the inteisections
aie completely signalizeu, anu eveiy conflict that was obseiveu was the iesult of a tiaffic contiol
violation by the peuestiian, uiivei oi cyclists (oi both). The most piecautionaiy conflicts weie
iuentifieu at Beaiboin anu Nauison with peuestiians. This is consistent with suiveyeu peiceptions
about peuestiian anu bicycle inteiactions being an issue on Beaiboin.
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
0.45
0.50
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
C
o
n
f
l
i
c
t
s

(
T
u
r
n
i
n
g

V
e
h
i
c
l
e
s

W
h
e
n

B
i
k
e
s

P
r
e
s
e
n
t

)
# of Turning Motor Vehicles When Bike Present

Findings: Safety 119
Table 8-9. Summary of Conflict Analysis from Video Review, Signalized Intersections
Avoidance Maneuvers
Congress
Pkwy
Madison
Street
Randolph
Street
Elston
Avenue
No Conflict
955 1919 2297 1328
90.3% 94.9% 95.0% 97.8%
Precautionary (Motor Vehicle)
39 7 25 2
3.7% 0.3% 1.0% 0.1%
Minor Conflict (Motor Vehicle)
0 0 1 0
0.0% 0.0% .0% 0.0%
Precautionary (Pedestrian)
17 76 67 0
1.6% 3.8% 2.8% 0.0%
Minor Conflict (Pedestrian)
1 0 0 0
.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Precautionary (Bike)
28 19 23 0
2.6% .9% 1.0% 0.0%
Minor Conflict (Bike)
0 0 0 0
0% 0% 0% 0.0%
Precautionary (Other)
18 2 5 28
1.7% .1% .2% 2.1%
Minor Conflict (Other)
0 0 0 0
0% 0% 0% 0%
Total 1058 2023 2418 1358
# Turning MV Conflicts 48 34 49 2942
8.3.3 Summary of Conflict Analysis
In the 144 houis of viueo analyzeu foi safety in this ieseaich, stuuying neaily 12,9uu
bicycles thiough the inteisections, no collisions oi neai collisions weie obseiveu. This
incluueu both inteisections with tuin lanes anu inteisections with signals foi bicycles.
In the same viueo analysis, only 6 minoi conflicts (uefineu as piecautionaiy biaking anuoi
change of uiiection of eithei the bicycle oi motoi vehicle) weie obseiveu. At the tuining
anu mixing zones analyzeu theie weie S minoi conflicts anu 6,1uu bicycles oi 1 minoi
conflict foi eveiy 1,2uu though bicycles.
Neaily all obseiveu inteiactions (conflicts) weie ueemeu piecautionaiya low-iisk anu
minoi event wheie a minoi change in uiiection oi speeu was neeueu to avoiu a conflict. A
total of S79 piecautionaiy conflicts with motoi vehicles, 216 with peuestiians, 7u with
othei bicycles weie obseiveu.
Theie was geneially a highei iate of conflicts obseiveu in the mixing zone uesigns than in
the tuining zone uesigns.


120 Findings: Resident Perceptions
9 FINDINGS: RESIDENT PERCEPTIONS
Resiuent peiceptions of the piotecteu bike lanes weie geneially positive, with a pluiality inuicating
that the facility incieaseu the uesiiability of theii neighboihoou. Although iesiuents expiesseu
conceins about how the ioau changeu foi walking anu uiiving, most still agieeu that the ioau now
woiks bettei foi all ioau useis. Not suipiisingly, people who use bicycles foi commuting weie moie
positive towaiu the facilities. People who commute piimaiily by cai oi foot (labeleu motoiists anu
peuestiians) also geneially suppoiteu the changes, but have conceins about congestion anu
paiking.
9.1 Perceptions of Residents about their Neighborhood
All iesiuents weie askeu a seiies of questions iegaiuing theii geneial peiceptions of theii
neighboihoou with iespect to tianspoitation, as shown in Table 9-1. In geneial, iesponuents aie
satisfieu with tianspoitation in theii neighboihoous anu feel changes iegaiuing bicycling have been
positive. A stiong majoiity (6u%) felt that changes in theii neighboihoou as a place foi bicycling
weie positive. About twice as many thought that changes have been positive foi walking compaieu
with negative (S6% vs. 18%, iespectively). This contiasts with half (Su%) saying that changes in
theii neighboihoou as a place foi uiiving have been negative. The peiceptions uiu vaiy some by city
(Figuie 9-1). Poitlanu iesiuents weie the least positive about the changes foi bicycling; insteau they
weie moie likely to say that any changes hau no impact. That may be because theii neighboihoou
was alieauy bike-fiienuly. Poitlanu iesiuents weie the most likely to say that they thought bicycling
in theii neighboihoou was safe. Poitlanueis weie also the least negative about changes foi uiiving.
Table 9-1. Perceptions of the Neighborhood and Transportation, by Primary Commute Mode
Question Response
Primary Commute Mode
Total Car/
Truck Foot Bicycle Transit Mix
Non-
commuter
Overall, my level of satisfaction
with transportation in my
neighborhood is . . .
Dissatisfied 36% 16% 13% 11% 19% 23% 24%
Satisfied 64% 84% 87% 89% 81% 77% 76%
Changes to my neighborhood as
a place for biking have been . . .
Negative 20% 9% 6% 10% 10% 21% 15%
Positive 54% 66% 86% 62% 65% 41% 60%
Changes to my neighborhood as
a place for walking have been . . .
Negative 21% 20% 8% 11% 15% 23% 18%
Positive 36% 37% 37% 39% 36% 31% 36%
Changes to my neighborhood as
a place for driving have been . . .
Negative 61% 45% 31% 44% 47% 42% 50%
Positive 8% 8% 8% 9% 10% 11% 9%
Changes to my neighborhood as
a place for public transportation
have been . . .
Negative 18% 17% 17% 15% 18% 15% 17%
Positive 16% 25% 17% 32% 23% 23% 21%
Bicycling in my neighborhood is
safe.
Disagree 35% 33% 19% 35% 29% 35% 33%
Agree 60% 63% 81% 58% 66% 51% 62%
n 920 313 157 301 335 237 2,277
Note: Respondents with Other primary mode not shown in table due to smaller number, but included in total n row.

Findings: Resident Perceptions 121

Figure 9-1. Perceptions of Neighborhood Change, by City
Resiuents weie also veiy positive about bicycle facilities, geneially. Foi example, 7S% woulu
suppoit builuing moie piotecteu bike lanes at othei locations, anu 8S% feel that bicycle facilities
aie a goou way to impiove public health (Table 9-2). Neaily all (91%) suppoit sepaiating bikes
fiom cais. Theie weie few notable uiffeiences between the cities. Chicago iesiuents weie the least
suppoitive, though a majoiity was still suppoitive; 64% suppoiteu builuing moie piotecteu
facilities compaieu to 76-8u% foi the othei cities.
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
DC Chicago Austin San
Francisco
Portland
Bicycling Negative No impact Positive
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
DC Chicago Austin San
Francisco
Portland
Walking Negative No impact Positive
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
DC Chicago Austin San
Francisco
Portland
Driving Negative No impact Positive
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
DC Chicago Austin San
Francisco
Portland
Transit
Negative No impact Positive

122 Findings: Resident Perceptions
Table 9-2. Perceptions of Bike Facilities, by Primary Commute Mode
Question Response
Primary Commute Mode
Total Car/
Truck
Foot Bicycle Transit Mix
Non-
commu
ter
I would support building
more protected bike lanes
at other locations.
Disagree 27% 19% 5% 17% 20% 20% 21%
Agree 69% 79% 95% 78% 76% 75% 75%
Overall I support
separating bikes from cars
Disagree
9% 6% 2% 6% 9% 6% 7%
Agree
89% 92% 96% 91% 89% 92% 91%
Facilities that encourage
bicycling for transportation
are a good way to improve
public health.
Disagree 13% 6% 1% 7% 8% 11% 10%
Agree 79% 88% 97% 82% 84% 80% 83%
n 920 313 157 301 335 237 2,277
Note: Respondents with Other primary mode not shown in table due to small number, but included in Total.
Askeu about the new piotecteu bike lane specifically, iesponses weie also geneially positive, as
shown in Table 9-S. Those whose piimaiy commute moue was bicycle weie geneially the most
positive about the new facility, though iesiuents who uiive to woik weie neaily always moie
positive than negative about the lanes. A majoiity of iesponuents acioss most moues felt the stieet
now woikeu bettei foi all ioau useis, while stiong majoiities of iesponuents inuicateu that the
facilities maue it cleai wheie bikes anu cais shoulu be, anu uiu a goou job of piotecting bikes fiom
cais. Neaily thiee times as many iesiuents oveiall felt the facility incieaseu iathei than uecieaseu
the uesiiability of living in theii neighboihoou (4S% vs 14%), with the iemainuei inuicating eithei
no change oi no opinion. 0vei one-thiiu (S8%) of the iesiuents felt that the new lane impioveu the
aesthetic appeal of the stieet, while 26% felt that aesthetics hau uecieaseu as a iesult of the lane.
This uiu vaiy significantly by city, with Poitlanu iesiuents being the most positive (S9% inciease
anu 18% ueciease) anu Chicago iesiuents the least positive (28% inciease anu 46% ueciease). The
foimei is likely uue to the inclusion of planteis with floweis in the buffei aiea.

Findings: Resident Perceptions 123
Table 9-3. Perceptions about the New Facility, by Primary Commute Mode
Question Response
Car/
Truck
Foot Bicycle Transit Mix
Non-
commu
ter
Total
Because of the protected
bike lanes, the desirability
of living in my
neighborhood has . . .
Decreased 18% 13% 3% 12% 11% 14% 14%
Increased 39% 45% 66% 43% 47% 36% 43%
Because of the protected
bike lanes, the aesthetic
appeal of the street has . . .
Decreased 33% 29% 10% 23% 23% 27% 26%
Increased 32% 40% 61% 43% 38% 45% 38%
Because of the protected
bike lanes, the number of
people I see riding bikes on
the street has . . .
Decreased 2% 0% 0% 1% 2% 2% 1%
Increased 58% 75% 82% 73% 71% 49% 65%
Because of the protected
bike lanes, how well the
street works for all people
has . . .
Decreased 30% 28% 8% 24% 27% 25% 26%
Increased 53% 59% 83% 54% 55% 46% 56%
The protected bike lanes'
design makes it clear where
cars can be and where the
designated bicycle lanes
are.
Disagree 14% 18% 9% 16% 16% 13% 15%
Agree 83% 81% 91% 82% 81% 82% 83%
The buffer does a good job
at protecting bikes from
cars.
Disagree 19% 18% 10% 15% 16% 17% 17%
Agree 77% 79% 89% 79% 82% 73% 78%
The protected bike lanes
improve the predictability
of drivers and bicyclists.
Disagree 28% 26% 10% 24% 25% 26% 25%
Agree 66% 70% 86% 70% 69% 64% 69%
n 920 313 157 301 335 237 2,277
Note: Respondents with Other primary mode not shown in table (n=14), but included in Total.
9.2 Motorist Perceptions
Resiuent suiveys askeu iesponuents if they hau uiiven a motoi vehicle on the facility ioute since its
constiuction anu, if so, to answei a seiies of questions on theii uiiving expeiience. An aveiage of
86% of iesponuents inuicateu that they hau uiiven on the ioute. Select iesponses aie shown in
Table 9-4. Responses weie mixeu, but seveial tienus emeigeu. Relatively few motoiists avoiueu
uiiving on these ioutes, with the exception of Beaiboin Stieet anu Nilwaukee Avenue in Chicago,
wheie aiounu a thiiu of iesponuents inuicateu they avoiu those stieets. A majoiity of iesponuents
noteu that they noticeu fewei bicyclists iiuing in the same lanes as cais, anu that bicyclists weie
now iiuing moie safely anu pieuictably. Responuents weie moie negative about issues of
uelaycongestion, uifficulty of tuining on anu off the stieet, anu the impact of the facility on finuing
paiking. 0veiall, S1% saiu that it took them longei to uiive on the stieet since the lanes weie built,
anu S6% saiu that the impact on tiaffic congestion has been negative. Similai shaies expiesseu
conceins ovei tuining on anu off of the stieet. As with the question of avoiuing the ioute with the
new facility, Beaiboin Stieet anu Nilwaukee Avenue weie consistently among the most negative.

124 Findings: Resident Perceptions
In all cities, uiiveis weie most negative about the impact on paiking, with 44% saying that is has
negatively impacteu theii ability to finu a paiking space anu 4S% saying it is stiessful to paik on the
stieet. Bowevei, as shown in Figuie 9-2, the opinions aie not closely coiielateu with the actual
magnituue of the change in paiking availability. Foi example, as a iesult of the lane in Poitlanu (NE
Nultnomah), the city auueu 27 paiking spaces. Bowevei, Su% of the iesiuents still felt that the lane
maue paiking moie uifficult to finu. Similaily, paiking ieuuction was minimal on Beaiboin in
Chicago (21 spaces lost in ovei one mile), yet 41% saiu that it was moie uifficult to finu a spot.

Figure 9-2. Percent of Residents Self-Reporting Negative Effects on Parking, by Facility and Change in
Number of Spaces


0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
Multnomah (+27 spots)
Dearborn (-21 spots)
Bluebonnet (-150 spots)
L Street (-151 spots)
Milwaukee (-69 spots)
Oak/Fell (-55 spots)
% indicating negative impact on...
ability to find a parking spot on the street how stressful it is to park on the street

Findings: Resident Perceptions 125
Table 9-4. Motorist Perceptions of New Bicycle Facilities
Question Response
Austin Chicago Portland San Francisco Wash. DC
B
a
r
t
o
n

S
p
r
i
n
g
s

B
l
u
e
b
o
n
n
e
t

D
e
a
r
b
o
r
n

M
i
l
w
a
u
k
e
e

N
E

M
u
l
t
n
o
m
a
h

O
a
k

F
e
l
l

L

S
t
r
e
e
t

Total
I have driven a motor vehicle on this section of [the
street] since the protected bike lanes were built.
393
(92%)
389
(93%)
146
(76%)
277
(92%)
369
(79%)
435
(87%)
165
(73%)
2,174
(86%)
Do you ever avoid driving on the street because of the
protected bikeway?
6% 9% 33% 36% 14% 11% 10% 14% 14%
Since the protected bike lanes were built,
the number of bicyclists riding in the same
lanes with cars on the street has . . .
Decreased 44% 54% 61% 59% 43% 50% 56% 54% 52%
Increased 22% 20% 22% 29% 16% 28% 22% 23% 23%
Since the protected bike lanes were built,
how safe and predictable bicyclists are
acting has . . .
Decreased 5% 6% 16% 26% 7% 18% 15% 12%
Increased 58% 59% 53% 44% 48% 54% 52% 53%
Since the protected bike lanes were built,
the amount of time it takes me to drive on
this street has . . .
Decreased 9% 7% 12% 12% 10% 10% 9% 13% 10%
Increased 18% 15% 54% 63% 32% 22% 20% 27% 31%
The impact of the protected bike lanes on
traffic congestion has been . . .
Negative 19% 17% 61% 68% 36% - 39% 36%
Positive 14% 9% 5% 8% 14% - 9% 11%
The impact of the protected bike lanes on
my ability to turn off of the street at
signalized intersections has been . . .
Negative 26% - 67% 67% 26% 35% 48% 40%
Positive 7% - 10% 8% 16% 20% 15% 13%
The impact of the protected bike lanes on
my ability to turn off of the street into
alleys, driveways, and parking lots has
been . . .
Negative 26% 26% 45% 69% 27% 36% 37% 36%
Positive 6% 7% 5% 5% 13% 11% 8% 8%
The impact of the protected bike lanes on
my ability to pull onto the street from
alleys, driveways, and parking lots has
been . . .
Negative 22% 29% 47% 68% 24% 32% 31% 34%
Positive 6% 9% 3% 5% 16% 9% 8% 9%
The impact of the protected bike lanes on
my ability to find a parking spot on the
street has been . . .
Negative - 44% 41% 49% 30% 55% 46% 44%
Positive - 4% 8% 4% 9% 1% 4% 5%
The impact of the protected bike lanes on
how stressful it is to park a car on the street
has been . . .
Negative - 38% 48% 60% 33% 52% 45% 45%
Positive - 3% 7% 3% 9% 2% 4% 4%

126 Findings: Resident Perceptions

9.3 Pedestrian Perceptions
Resiuents weie askeu if they hau walkeu on the facility ioute since its constiuction, anu 48-99%
hau uone so (Table 9-S). These peuestiians have mixeu peiceptions of the facilities. Balf of
peuestiian iesponuents inuicateu that theie aie fewei bicyclists on siuewalks now because of the
lanes, anu twice as many iesponuents inuicateu that theii satisfaction with the walking
enviionment hau incieaseu (S6%) as opposeu to uecieaseu (1S%). Consistent with the motoiist
section of the iesiuent suivey, moie iesponuents felt that motoiist speeus hau uecieaseu (27%)
veisus incieaseu (6%) likely a negative finuing foi people uiiving on the stieet, but a positive one
foi people walking on the stieet. 0n ioutes with unsignalizeu ciosswalks, howevei, six out of 1u
iesponuents inuicateu that bicyclists iaiely oi nevei stop foi peuestiians at these locations.
Bowevei, foi some of the facilities, a significantly highei shaie of the peuestiians saiu that theii
sense of safety while ciossing the stieet hau incieaseu; this was tiue foi Baiton Spiings,
Bluebonnet, NE Nultnomah, anu L Stieet. The opposite was tiue foi iesiuents who walkeu along
Beaiboin anu Nilwaukee in Chicago. San Fiancisco iesiuents weie about evenly split on this
question.
Table 9-5. Pedestrian Perceptions of New Bicycle Facilities
Question Response
Austin Chicago PDX SF DC
Total
B
a
r
t
o
n

S
p
r
i
n
g
s

B
l
u
e
b
o
n
n
e
t

D
e
a
r
b
o
r
n

M
i
l
w
a
u
k
e
e

N
E

M
u
l
t
n
o
m
a
h



O
a
k
/
F
e
l
l

L

S
t
r
e
e
t

I have walked on this section of [street] since the
facility was built.
200 285 194 266 341 471 222 1979
48% 68% 99% 89% 73% 94% 97% 78%
Do you ever walk or jog in the protected bike
lanes, rather than on the sidewalk?
7% 42% 10% 9% 3% 3% 7% 11%
How often do bicyclists in the
bike lanes stop for pedestrians
at unsignalized intersections?
"Usually" or
"Sometimes"
- 46% - 21% 51% - - 41%
"Rarely" or
"Never"
- 54% - 79% 49% - - 59%
Because of the protected bike
lanes, drivers' speeds on this
street have generally . . .
Decreased 17% 25% 28% 46% 40% 16% 17% 27%
Increased 7% 6% 5% 7% 4% 8% 5% 6%
Because of the protected bike
lanes, the number of bicyclists
riding on the sidewalk has . . .
Decreased 50% 66% 47% 41% 45% 47% 48% 49%
Increased 19% 7% 17% 20% 12% 19% 19% 16%
Because of the protected bike
lanes, my satisfaction with the
walking environment on this
street has . . .
Decreased 6% 10% 29% 25% 7% 18% 11% 15%
Increased 58% 49% 17% 19% 37% 33% 36% 36%
Because of the protected bike
lanes, my sense of safety when
crossing this street has . . .
Decreased 5% 9% 45% 37% 8% 22% 19% 20%
Increased 43% 34% 18% 17% 35% 24% 27% 28%


Findings: Appeal to Different Groups 127
10 FINDINGS: APPEAL TO DIFFERENT GROUPS
In most laige 0.S. cities, incluuing those in this stuuy, the people who iegulaily bicycle foi
tianspoitation aie not iepiesentative of the geneial population. As seen in the uemogiaphics of oui
bicyclist inteicept suiveys, people iiuing bicycles aie moie likely to be male anu youngei. Bowevei,
laige incieases in bicycling will only occui if a bioauei iange of people iiue iegulaily. Sepaiateu
facilities aie often consiueieu to have the most potential effect on people who aie uncomfoitable
bicycling with few oi no ueuicateu bicycling facilities anu mixing with high speeus anu volumes of
tiaffic. Theiefoie, they may help inciease the uiveisity of iiueis. Noieovei, significant investments
in new infiastiuctuie will likely iequiie bioau political suppoit. This section aims to bettei
unueistanu whethei uiffeient gioups of people, paiticulaily those who uo not typically iiue now,
suppoit piotecteu bike lanes anu whethei they might bicycle moie if such lanes aie pioviueu. To uo
so, we examine suivey iesponses by bicyclist typology, genuei, anu age. Nost of the analysis uses
the iesiuent suivey because it pioviues a bioauei spectium of people anu opinions.
10.1 Interest in Bicycling
A majoiity of the iesiuents (S8%) suiveyeu inuicateu that they weie inteiesteu in bicycling moie
often foi tianspoitation, incluuing S7% of people who piimaiily commute by caitiuck (Table
1u-1). Even laigei shaies, incluuing 61% of people who uiive to woik, saiu that they woulu be moie
likely to iiue a bicycle if they weie sepaiateu fiom motoi vehicles by a baiiiei.
Table 10-1. Interest in Bicycling, by Primary Commute Mode
Question Response
Primary Commute Mode
Total
Car/
Truck Foot Bicycle Transit Mix
Non-
commu
ter
I would like to bicycle more
often for transportation.
Disagree 32% 28% 5% 32% 21% 39% 29%
Agree 57% 60% 90% 52% 69% 33% 58%
I would be more likely to
ride a bicycle if motor
vehicles and bicycles were
physically separated by a
barrier.
Disagree 29% 21% 15% 22% 25% 27% 25%
Agree 61% 69% 78% 63% 64% 44% 62%
n 920 313 157 301 335 237 2,277
Note: Respondents with Other primary mode not shown in table due to the low number, but included in Total.
10.2 Bicyclist Typology
As uesciibeu in Section S.2.1, most iesiuents weie uefineu as being eithei Enthused and Confident
(27%) oi Interested but Concerned (4S%) baseu upon theii stateu level of comfoit bicycling on
uiffeient types of enviionments anu theii inteiest in anu ability to bicycle. These categoiies weie
the most likely to say that they woulu be moie likely to iiue a bicycle if motoi vehicles anu bicycles

128 Findings: Appeal to Different Groups
weie physically sepaiateu by a baiiiei (Figuie 1u-1). In paiticulai, 8S% of the Interested but
Concerned agieeu with this statement. The Strong and Fearless weie about evenly split, with 4S%
agieeing that they woulu bicycle moie with the sepaiation anu 41% uisagieeing.

Figure 10-1. Types of Cyclists and Potential Effect of Protected Lanes
These uiffeiences aie often miiioieu in iesponses to questions about suppoit foi moie piotecteu
lanes anu opinions about how well they woik (Table 1u-2). The Strong and Fearless weie geneially
not oveily suppoitive of the piotecteu bike lanes. This likely ieflects a moie vehiculai cycling
expeiience oi piefeience that helps uefine this gioup. This is not to say that the Strong and Fearless
felt negatively about the facilities; iathei, this gioup only iepoiteu moueiate changes in attituues oi
behavioi of eithei themselves oi otheis because of the facility.
0n the othei enu of the spectium, the No How Now Way gioup uisplayeu significantly moie negative
attituues towaiu the facilities. Foi example, with the statement, Because of the piotecteu bike
lanes, the uesiiability of living in my neighboihoou has uecieaseustayeu the sameincieaseu,
about half of the fiist thiee types felt theii neighboihoou uesiiability hau incieaseu uue to the
Strong and
Fearless, 5%
Enthused and
Confident, 27%
Interested but
Concerned, 43%
No Way No How,
25%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Share of Residents
43%
62%
85%
37%
Strong and Fearless Enthused and Confident Interested but Concerned No Way No How
I would be more likely to ride a bicycle if motor vehicles and
bicycles were physically separated by a barrier.

Findings: Appeal to Different Groups 129
facilities, while only 2u% of No How No Way felt the same. The No How No Way gioup, howevei,
uespite iepoiting ielatively low suppoit foi builuing moie piotecteu bike lanes at othei locations
(49% suppoit, veisus 74-87% in the othei gioups), iepoiteu stiong suppoit (81%) foi sepaiating
bikes fiom cais.
Peihaps of gieatest inteiest is the Interested but Concerned gioup. By uefinition, they aie the laigest
gioup, anu have inteiest in but measuieu caution about bicycling. 0n neaily eveiy measuie, they
equal oi suipass the Enthused and Confident gioup in theii positive view of the changes uue to the
piotecteu bike lanes. They iepoit the highest levels of suppoit foi piotecteu bike lanes, with 87%
suppoiting builuing moie piotecteu bike lanes at othei locations, anu 96% iesponuing that oveiall,
they suppoit sepaiating bikes fiom cais (Table 1u-2).
Table 10-2. Support for Separated Facilities, By Cyclist Type (Residents)
Question and Response
Cyclist Typology
Strong and
Fearless
Enthused
and
Confident
Interested but
Concerned
No Way
No How
I would support building more
protected bike lanes at other locations.
Disagree 21% 13% 11% 46%
Agree 74% 84% 87% 49%
Overall, I support separating bikes from
cars.
Disagree 13% 5% 3% 15%
Agree 83% 94% 96% 81%
Because of the protected bike lanes,
the desirability of living in my
neighborhood has
Decreased
10% 7% 8% 29%
Increased
50% 54% 53% 20%
Over time, my opinion of the protected
bike lanes has become
More negative 20% 11% 13% 45%
Not changed 21% 23% 28% 30%
More positive 59% 65% 58% 25%
The protected bike lanes' design makes
it clear where cars can be and where
the designated bicycle lanes are.
Disagree 13% 8% 13% 25%
Agree 85% 90% 86% 73%
The buffer effectively separates bikes
from cars.
Disagree 13% 5% 12% 28%
Agree 85% 93% 86% 69%
The buffer does a good job at
protecting bikes from cars.
Disagree 17 7% 14% 31%
Agree 80% 90% 83% 63%
The protected bike lanes improve the
predictability of drivers and bicyclists.
Disagree 19% 14% 20% 43%
Agree 76% 81% 74% 50%
The protected bike lanes make it clear
where bicyclists and pedestrians should
be.
Disagree 20% 8% 14% 26%
Agree 74% 90% 82% 69%
The protected bike lanes effectively
separate bicyclists from pedestrians.
Disagree 35% 15% 21% 44%
Agree 57% 77% 71% 49%
n 96-103 514-544 812-866 479-495
Note: n varies due to non-response to individual questions

130 Findings: Appeal to Different Groups
0n measuies of the effectiveness anu uesign of the piotecteu bike lanes, theie weie fewei
uiffeiences between gioups. While the No How No Way gioup was geneially less positive, the
uiffeiences weie smallei than othei attituue questions, with the exception of the questions of
impioveu pieuictability of uiiveis anu bicyclists anu the sepaiation of bicyclists fiom peuestiians.
The iesiuents weie also askeu if they hau bicycleu on the new piotecteu bike lane anu ovei half of
them hau. These iesiuents then answeieu some of the same questions that the inteicepteu cyclists
uiu on theii suivey. The Enthused and Confident anu Interested but Concerned gioups weie most
likely to say that they weie bicycling moie fiequently on the stieet with the lane anu moie often
because of the new lanes (Table 1u-S).
Table 10-3. Change in Bicycling, By Cyclist Type (Residents)
Question
Strong and
Fearless
Enthused
and
Confident
Interested
But
Concerned
No Way
No How*
All
Because of the [protected bike lane], the likelihood that I will choose to
bicycle on this street as opposed to other streets has . . .
Decreased a Lot 5% 1% 3% 23% 4%
Decreased Somewhat 0% 1% 1% 11% 1%
Not Changed 52% 19% 18% 43% 22%
Increased Somewhat 22% 29% 37% 23% 32%
Increased a Lot 21% 49% 41% 0% 40%
n 58 287 383 35 763
Because of the [protected bike lane], how often I ride a bicycle overall has . . .
Decreased a Lot 2% 0% 1% 20% 2%
Decreased Somewhat 4% 0% 3% 3% 2%
Not Changed 75% 54% 52% 70% 55%
Increased Somewhat 11% 29% 31% 7% 28%
Increased a Lot 9% 16% 12% 0% 13%
n 55 283 379 30 747
*A small share of residents categorized as No Way No How did state that they bicycled on the facility and answered these
questions. This may indicate that our method of typing the respondents is not perfect and/or that some respondents did not
answer questions accurately.
Similai patteins aie seen among the inteicepteu cyclists (Table 1u-4). The Enthused and Confident
anu Interested but Concerned weie moie likely to say that the piotecteu bike lane hau incieaseu
how safe they feel bicycling on the stieet by a lot compaieu to the Strong and Fearless. These two
gioups weie also moie likely to say that how often they ioue a bicycle oveiall hau incieaseu
(somewhat oi a lot) because of the new lanes.

Findings: Appeal to Different Groups 131
Table 10-4. Change in Bicycling, By Cyclist Type (Cyclists)
Question and Response
Strong and
Fearless
Enthused
and
Confident
Interested
But
Concerned
All
I feel the safety of bicycling on [STREET] has . . .
Decreased a Lot 1% 1% 1% 1%
Decreased Somewhat 0% 2% 1% 1%
Not Changed 2% 3% 1% 2%
Increased Somewhat 40% 23% 27% 26%
Increased a Lot 57% 71% 70% 69%
n 81 377 521 979
How often I ride a bicycle overall has . . .
Decreased a Lot 0% 0% 1% 2%
Decreased Somewhat 0% 0% 0% 0%
Not Changed 82% 70% 67% 70%
Increased Somewhat 9% 14% 19% 16%
Increased a Lot 10% 15% 14% 14%
n 82 375 516 973
Before the new facility, how would you have made this trip
By bicycle, using this same route 72% 65% 56% 61%
By bicycle, using another route -
(Please specify which route):
24% 25% 31% 28%
By Other Mode 4% 9% 12% 10%
Would not have taken trip 0% 2% 1% 1%
I would go out of my way to ride on [STREET] compared to other streets.
Strongly Disagree 8% 4% 2% 3%
Somewhat Disagree 20% 11% 10% 11%
Somewhat Agree 37% 45% 48% 46%
Strongly Agree 35% 40% 39% 39%
n 79 361 508 948
*A small share of residents categorized as No Way No How did state that they bicycled on the facility and answered these
questions. This may indicate that our method of typing the respondents is not perfect and/or that some respondents did not
answer questions accurately.
10.3 Gender
}ust unuei one-thiiu (S2%) of the cyclists who completeu the inteicept suivey weie women.
0veiall, women weie significantly moie likely to say that they hau incieaseu theii oveiall amount
of cycling a lot because of the piotecteu lanes (Figuie 1u-2). The genuei uiffeience vaiieu by city,
with the laigest uiffeiences seen in Austin, San Fiancisco, anu Washington, B.C. Bespite these
uiffeiences, inteicepteu women cyclists weie not moie likely to feel that the lane hau incieaseu
how safe they felt on the stieet. Bowevei, they weie moie likely to stiongly agiee that they go out
of theii way to iiue on this stieet.

132 Findings: Appeal to Different Groups


Figure 10-2. Increase in Overall Bicycling due to Protected Lanes, by Gender (Cyclist Intercept Survey)
The iesiuents uisplayeu few genuei uiffeiences in attituues towaiu the facilities. In iesponses about
the effectiveness oi claiity of the uesign, theie weie no notable uiffeiences by genuei. Auuitionally,
theie weie no significant genuei uiffeiences in suppoit foi piotecteu bike lanes. Nen anu women
iepoiteu neaily iuentical amounts of agieement with the statement, I woulu be moie likely to iiue
a bicycle if motoi vehicles anu bicycles weie physically sepaiateu by a baiiiei (6S% anu 62%,
iespectively).
Nen anu women weie neaily iuentical in theii attituues towaiu the impact of the piotecteu bike
lanes on safety of uiiving oi bicycling (Table 1u-S). Women weie slightly less positive in theii
attituues about the facilities impact on the neighboihoou oi stieet, but weie no moie neutial oi
negative than men (they weie moie likely to iesponu No opinion) (Table 1u-S).
u%
1u%
2u%
Su%
4u%
Su%
6u%
Nen Women Nen Women Nen Women Nen Women Nen Women Nen Women
San Fiancisco Washington BC Chicago Austin Poitlanu 0veiall
Incieaseu Somewhat Incieaseu a lot

Findings: Appeal to Different Groups 133
Table 10-5. Residents Perception of Facility, by Gender
Because of the protected bike lanes: Response Male Female
the desirability of living in my neighborhood
has
Decreased 13% 14%
Not Changed 32% 34%
Increased 47% 41%
the aesthetic appeal of the street has
Decreased 27% 28%
Not Changed 26% 29%
Increased 44% 36%
the safety of driving on the street has
Decreased 25% 29%
Not Changed 30% 26%
Increased 38% 37%
the safety of bicycling on the street has
Decreased 7% 7%
Not Changed 6% 6%
Increased 80% 77%
how well the street works for all people has
Decreased 25% 27%
Not Changed 9% 9%
Increased 61% 53%
n 940 1079

10.4 Age
Attituues towaiu the facilities weie compaieu acioss age gioups. The youngest iesponuents tenueu
to be the most positive towaiu the facilities, anu each subsequent gioup iepoiteu slightly less
positive views of the piotecteu bike lanes. Foi example, all gioups felt the facility hau a moie
positive impact on the safety of bicycling veisus uiiving, but on both measuies, the magnituue of
the positive attituue uiminisheu, anu the negative attituue incieaseu, with age. The only ieal outliei
on the measuie of incieaseu bicycling safety was the SS-64 age gioup, with 1S% iepoiting that the
safety of bicycling hau uecieaseu (Table 1u-6).
Table 10-6. Safety by Age of Respondent
Question Response
Age Group
Total
18-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+
Because of the protected
bike lanes, the safety of
driving on the street has

Decreased 12% 20% 26% 28% 32% 32% 26%
Not Changed 15% 30% 32% 29% 29% 21% 29%
Increased 62% 42% 37% 37% 32% 37% 38%
n 34 507 459 351 339 303 1993
Because of the protected
bike lanes, the safety of
bicycling on the street has

Decreased 0% 4% 4% 8% 13% 6% 6%
Not Changed 3% 3% 5% 5% 6% 10% 6%
Increased 91% 86% 83% 79% 73% 67% 79%
n 34 508 460 352 340 298 1992


134 Findings: Appeal to Different Groups
All of the age gioups weie geneially positive about the effectiveness anu claiity of the uesign of the
piotecteu bike lanes, although the attituues uemonstiateu that slight negative lineai ielationship
with age. All gioups showeu moueiately to highly stiong suppoit of builuing moie piotecteu bike
lanes at othei locations, with suppoit ueclining with age gioup (Table 1u-7). The iesponses to the
question, 0veiall, I suppoit sepaiating bikes fiom cais weie oveiwhelmingly positive, ianging
fiom 84% to 1uu%. All of the gioups weie moie likely than not to iepoit being moie likely to iiue a
bicycle if cais anu bicycles weie sepaiateu, except foi the oluest age gioup; one-thiiu iesponueu
that they hau no opinion on this question.
Table 10-7. Support for Protected Lanes by Age of Respondent
Question Response
Age Group
Total
18-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+
I would support building more
protected bike lanes at other
locations.
Disagree 0% 12% 18% 23% 27% 26% 20%
Agree 97% 84% 79% 74% 69% 66% 76%
n 35 521 471 359 364 318 2068
Overall, I support separating
bikes from cars.
Disagree 0% 4% 8% 6% 9% 8% 7%
Agree 100% 94% 90% 93% 88% 89% 91%
n 35 520 470 361 365 316 2067
I would be more likely to ride
a bicycle if motor vehicles and
bicycles were physically
separated by a barrier.
Disagree 11% 18% 24% 27% 28% 32% 25%
Agree 77% 74% 65% 65% 61% 38% 63%
n 35 525 477 361 371 304 2073


Findings: Economic Effects 135
11 FINDINGS: ECONOMIC EFFECTS
The constiuction of these piotecteu bike lanes weie not specifically unueitaken with the goal of
piouucing an economic impact. Bowevei, some iecent stuuies have shown that bicycle ielateu
infiastiuctuie can contiibute to local economic vitality (see uiscussion in Chaptei 2 of this iepoit).
Fuithei analyses of tax uata anu uevelopment patteins will iequiie a longei timefiame to play out,
but this suivey uata uoes pioviue an insight into uecisions about visiting local businesses. Foi
example, among people who have iiuuen a bicycle on the facility ioute theie appeais to be an auueu
incentive to visit businesses along the ioute. Responuents of the bicyclist inteicept suivey anu
iesiuents who inuicateu that they hau bikeu on the facility weie askeu to inuicate if the fiequency
with which they stop at shops anu businesses along the ioute hau uecieaseu, not changeu, oi
incieaseu uue to the new piotecteu bike lane. About one in five iesponuents inuicateu that they
stoppeu at businesses moie fiequently now, while about 6% of iesiuents who hau bicycleu on the
new facility inuicateu they stop at businesses less fiequently now.
Looking at all iesiuents sampleu in the suivey, incluuing those who have nevei bicycleu on the
facility, theie appeais to be moie vaiiety baseu on which city anu facility you look at. In Chicago,
moie iesponuents inuicateu that they woulu be less likely to visit a business on the coiiiuoi than
woulu be moie likely to uo the same (although most inuicateu that theie has been no change in the
likelihoou). In each of the othei cities, moie people inuicateu they woulu be moie likely to visit a
business now. Baiton Spiings shows the most uiamatic impact, with ovei one in foui iesiuents
saying they woulu be moie likely to visit a business along the ioute now, with only 2% inuicating
they woulu be less likely to uo so.
Table 11-1. Frequency/Likelihood of Visiting Businesses
Question
Austin
Barton
Springs
Austin
Rio
Grande
Chicago
Dearborn
Chicago
Milwaukee
Portland
NE
Multnomah
San
Francisco
Oak Fell
DC L
Street
Total
Because of the protected bike lanes, how often I stop at shops and businesses on this street has . . . .
Bicyclists
Decreased 0% 8% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 1%
Increased 11% 18% 20% 22% 12% 13% 24% 19%
n 18 38 115 221 104 229 280 1005
Residents
who
Bicycled
on
Facility
Decreased 7% - 6% 10% 5% 6% 4% 6%
Increased 24% - 14% 21% 13% 18% 42% 20%
n 45 - 66 121 175 234 77 718
Since the protected bike lanes were built, are you more or less likely to visit a business on the corridor?
Residents
Less likely 2% - 11% 21% 5% 7% 7% 9%
More likely 27% - 8% 10% 12% 11% 15% 12%
n 86 - 193 294 463 503 232 1771


136 Findings: Economic Effects
Theie aie seveial challenges in iuentifying connections between bicycle facilities anu economic
changes. These changes may be subtle oi tieu to an oveiall change in chaiactei of a coiiiuoi oi
neighboihoou. Foi example, on NE Nultnomah Stieet in Poitlanu, iesiuential uevelopment anu
incieaseu appeal foi commeicial uevelopment has pickeu up iecently. Anecuotal eviuence suggests
this uevelopment is tieu to a giowing sense of the stieet anu neighboihoous incieasing livability
anu vitality. The stuuy team hau oiiginally planneu to examine these effects thiough establishment-
level sales tax uata but founu suitable facilities with available uata limiteu in the facilities selects. A
follow-up analysis to this iepoit, anu will look at changes in economic activity thiough sales tax
collection uata befoie anu aftei the installation of piotecteu bike lanes in seveial locations.


Conclusions 137
12 CONCLUSIONS
The oveiall objective of this ieseaich is to evaluate 0.S. piotecteu bicycle lanes (cycle tiacks) in
teims of theii use, peiception, benefits, anu impacts. This ieseaich examines piotecteu bicycle
lanes in five cities: Austin, TX; Chicago, IL; Poitlanu, 0R; San Fiancisco, CA; anu Washington, B.C.,
using viueo, suiveys of inteicepteu bicyclists anu neaiby iesiuents, anu count uata. The key finuings
of this ieseaich aie summaiizeu below.
12.1 Changes in Ridership
The ieseaich evaluateu the change in people bicycling on the piotecteu lanes using obseiveu count
uata piioi to anu aftei installation.
The analysis estimateu that iiueiship incieaseu fiom +21% to +171% within one yeai of
builuing the piotecteu lanes. The incieases appeai to be gieatei than oveiall incieases in
bicycle commuting in each city.
The wiue iange of the incieases is explaineu by context of the facility in each citys netwoik
anu the existing numbei of cyclists using the ioute. These factois influence whethei new
bicyclists aie using the ioute, uiveiting fiom othei ioutes, oi woulu have bikeu on that
ioute anyway, anu, theiefoie, the magnituue of the change. Establisheu ioutes (e.g.
Nilwaukee) that aie key connections saw lowei giowth than new connections (e.g.
Beaiboin).
Counts weie taken not long aftei the lanes weie implementeu (one yeai oi less) anu it is not
cleai how iiueiship will change ovei time. It is ieasonable to expect that as people leain
about the facilities, anu if complementaiy ioutes cieate fullei netwoiks of piotecteu
facilities, iiueiship woulu continue to inciease, peihaps moie fiom new iiueis iathei than
existing iiueis changing ioutes.
The iesponses fiom the suivey pioviue some insight into how much of the inciease in iiueiship at
each facility likely came fiom new iiueis (i.e., iiueis who, absent the piotecteu bike lane, woulu
have tiavelleu via a uiffeient moue oi woulu not have taken the tiip) anu some fiom iiueis uiveiteu
fiom othei neaiby stieets (i.e., iiueis who weie attiacteu to the ioute because of the facility, but
woulu have chosen to iiue a bicycle foi that tiip iegaiuless).
0veiall, about 1u% of the inteicepteu cyclists stateu that they woulu have maue the tiip
they weie making by anothei moue anu 1% woulu not have maue the tiip, inuicating that
theie aie some new iiueis attiacteu to the facilities. The iemainuei woulu have bicycleu on
a uiffeient ioute (24%) oi the same ioute (6S%).
Bicyclists self-iepoiteu that they ioue moie fiequently on the facility aftei installation. }ust
ovei 49% of bicyclists inuicateu that they weie tiaveling on the iespective ioutes moie
fiequently than they weie piioi to piotecteu lanes. The peicentage iangeu between 28% foi
Fell Stieet in San Fiancisco anu S1% foi Nilwaukee Avenue in Chicago anu 86% foi
Beaiboin Stieet, wheie the stieet appeais to be much moie attiactive foi bicycling than it
was befoie anu now accommouates two-way iiuing.

138 Conclusions
Neaily a quaitei of bicyclists inteicepteu on the facilities stateu that theii oveiall fiequency
of bicycling incieaseu because of the new piotecteu lanes. 0n Beaiboin Stieet, ovei half of
iesponuents inuicateu that theii bicycling hau incieaseu because of the new piotecteu bike
lanes, while Baiton Spiings, Rio uianue, Nilwaukee anu L Stieet all hau aiounu a thiiu of
iesponuents state the same.
12.2 Safety
Safety of piotecteu lanes is a composite of the tiavel along the segment anu at inteisections. Safety
can be assesseu in two ways: obseiveu measuies such as ciashes, oi suiiogate measuies such as
conflicts anu peiceptions. Peiceptions of safety aie likely to influence inuiviuuals uecisions on
whethei anu when to use a facility. Foi this ieseaich, changes in peiceiveu safety aie ueiiveu fiom
the suiveys of iesiuents living neaiby the facility anu fiom bicyclists inteicepteu along the facility.
Bue to the veiy iecent installation uates, iepoiteu ciash uata weie not available foi analysis on
most of the facilities. Thus most of the analysis of obseiveu safety comes fiom the viueo uata foi
conflicts anu neai misses.
0veiall we uiu not obseive any notable safety pioblems, anu suivey iesponuents hau stiong
feelings that safety hau impioveu. Taken togethei, these finuings (when combineu with the iesults
of piioi woik) suggest that conceins about safety shoulu not inhibit the installation anu
uevelopment of piotecteu bike lanesthough inteisection uesign uoes mattei, anu must theiefoie
be caiefully consiueieu.
12.2.1 Stated Perceptions of Safety
Theie was consistent eviuence that the piotecteu facilities impioveu the peiception of safety foi
people on bicycles. This peiception helu foi both cyclists inteicepteu iiuing on the facilities anu foi
iesiuents. Peiceptions of the change to the safety of uiiving anu walking on the facility weie moie
vaiieu.
Neaily eveiy inteicepteu bicyclist (96%) anu 79% of iesiuents stateu that the installation of
the piotecteu lane incieaseu the safety of bicycling on the stieet. These stiong peiceptions
of impioveu safety uiu not vaiy substantially between the cities, uespite the uiffeient
uesigns useu.
Neaily nine out of 1u (89%) inteicepteu bicyclists agieeu that the piotecteu facilities weie
safei than othei facilities in theii city. A highei peicentage of women agieeu (9S%) with
this statement than men (87%)
Peiceptions of the safety of uiiving on the facility weie moie vaiieu. 0veiall, S7% thought
the safety of uiiving hau incieaseu; Su% thought theie hau been no change; 26% thought
safety uecieaseu; anu 7% hau no opinion. The peiceptions vaiieu by facility.
Peiceptions of the safety of the walking enviionment aftei the installation of the piotecteu
lanes weie also vaiieu, but weie moie positive than negative. 0veiall, SS% thought safety
incieaseu; 48% thought theie hau been no change; 1S% thought safety uecieaseu; anu 6%
hau no opinion. These peiceptions vaiieu by facility.

Conclusions 139
An impoitant finuing is that neaily all cyclists (92%) who useu the inteisections with
sepaiate bicycle signal phases agieeu that they felt safe when iiuing thiough the
inteisection. This exceeueu all othei inteisection uesigns anu is the only uesign evaluateu
wheie the piotecteu lane caiiies all the way to the inteisection.
12.2.2 Observed Safety
Bue to the veiy iecent installation uates, iepoiteu ciash uata weie not available foi analysis on
most of the facilities. 0bseiveu safety is uiawn fiom obseivation of the viueo uata taken at the
inteisections stuuieu.
In the 144 houis of viueo analyzeu foi safety in this ieseaich, stuuying neaily 12,9uu
bicycles thiough the inteisections, no collisions oi neai collisions weie obseiveu. This
incluueu both inteisections with tuin lanes anu inteisections with signals foi bicycles.
In the same viueo analysis, only 6 minoi conflicts (uefineu as piecautionaiy biaking anuoi
change of uiiection of eithei the bicycle oi motoi vehicle) weie obseiveu. At the tuining
anu mixing zones analyzeu theie weie S minoi conflicts in 6,1uu though bicycles oi 1 minoi
conflict foi eveiy 1,2uu though bicycles.
Neaily all obseiveu inteiactions (conflicts) weie ueemeu piecautionaiya low-iisk anu
minoi event wheie a minoi change in uiiection oi speeu was neeueu to avoiu a conflict. A
total of S79 piecautionaiy conflicts with motoi vehicles, 216 with peuestiians, 7u with
othei bicycles weie obseiveu.
Theie was geneially a highei iate of conflicts obseiveu in the mixing zone uesigns than in
the tuining zone uesigns.
12.3 Design-Related
12.3.1 Buffer Designs
The suivey assesseu bicyclists peiceptions of uiffeient buffei uesigns baseu upon theii stateu
piefeiences foi the actual facilities wheie they ioue anu some hypothetical uesigns piesenteu
thiough uiagiams. Both methous ieveal that bicyclists have a piefeience oiuei in teims of the
uegiee of piotection that affects comfoit.
Besigns with moie physical sepaiation hau the highest scoies. Buffeis with veitical physical
objects (those that woulu be consiueieu piotecteu lanes - e.g. with flexposts, planteis, cuibs,
oi paikeu cais) all iesulteu in consiueiably highei comfoit levels than buffeis cieateu only
with paint.
Flexpost buffeis got veiy high iatings even though they pioviue little actual physical
piotection fiom vehicle intiusions cyclists peiceive them as an effective means of positive
sepaiation.
Any type of buffei shows a consiueiable inciease in self-iepoiteu comfoit levels ovei a
stiipeu bike lane.

140 Conclusions
0ne cleai takeaway is that uesigns of piotecteu lanes shoulu seek to pioviue as much piotection as
possible to inciease cyclists comfoit.
12.3.2 Intersections
To unueistanu how well the inteisections woikeu, the ieseaich analyzeu motoiists anu bicycles
using viueo (obseiveu behavioi) as well as asking compiehension-ielateu questions in the
suiveys. In geneial, thiee uiffeient uesign appioaches weie evaluateu. Fiist, some uesigns iequiie
the bicycles anu tuining vehicles to mix in the same space. These uesigns aie calleu mixing
zones. The seconu appioach moves the thiough bicycle fiom the piotecteu lane neai the cuib to
the left oi iight of the tuining tiaffic into a naiiow thiough bike lane. These aie calleu tuining
zones. Theie is a uefineu tuinmeige gap foi this maneuvei anu the lanes aie maikeu with uotteu
lines iecognizing that laigei vehicles may encioach on the bike lane uue to the naiiow wiuths of the
tuining lanes. The thiiu uesign involves signalization to sepaiate the bicycle anu tuining vehicle
movements.
To evaluate the uesigns, we extiacteu vehicle anu bicycle paths anu behaviois thiough the
inteisections anu compaieu them to the path iequiieu oi intenueu by the uesign.
Foi the tuining zones, the uesign using the thiough bike lane (TBL) woiks well foi its
intenueu puipose. The TBLs help position cyclists anu ieuuce confusion compaieu to
shaiiows in mixing zones. The uesign in Washington B.C. (wheie vehicles have a limiteu
entiy into the tuining lane) hau high coiiect lane use by tuining vehicles (87%) anu by
thiough bicyclists (91%). This suggests a cleai benefit of the iestiicteu entiy appioach anu
cieating a semi-piotecteu thiough bicycle lane.
Foi the mixing zones, evaluation of the viueo founu that in the Mixing Zone with Yield
Markings uesign in Poitlanu, 0R (geneially following the NACT0 Besign uuiuance) neaily
all (9S%) of the tuining vehicles useu the lane as intenueuthe highest compliance of any
uesign. Bowevei, only 6S% of obseiveu bicycles coiiectly useu the mixing zone when a cai
was piesent (they chose to go aiounu vehicle in the buffei space to left). This is not
necessaiily a ciitical issue anu hatching this space woulu likely change this obseiveu
behavioi. Bowevei, the obseiveu behavioi uoes suggest a piefeience of giving cyclists space
with a TBL.
When compaiing the tuining anu mixing zone inteisection uesigns, the viueo ievealeu that
a low of 1% to a high of 18% of the tuining vehicles at mixing zones actually tuineu fiom
the wiong lane. The high incoiiect iate was at the Mixing Zone with Green Coloring at Fell
anu Bakei in San Fiancisco, which has since been iemoveu anu ieplaceu with anothei
uesign. The Mixing Zone with Yield Markings uesign in Poitlanu anu the Turning Zone with
Post-Restricted Entry and TBL in Washington, B.C. hau the fewest vehicles obseiveu tuining
fiom the wiong lanes (2% anu 1% iespectively) inuicating that cleai maiking of the vehicle
entiy point to the tuining lane is beneficial.
Baseu on obseiveu behaviois, gieen pavement maiking is effective at communicating the
space that shoulu be useu by bicycles anu that ovei use of gieen maiking may iesult in
some uiiveis avoiuing the space. 0pen-enueu suivey questions ieveal that bicyclists have
vaiious inteipietations of the gieen pavement maikings. About S2% think the gieen

Conclusions 141
maiking inuicates conflict, 26% think that the maiks the space foi bicycles only, anu 1S%
uont know.
0ne uesign appioach is to sepaiate the conflicting movements of tuining motoi vehicles anu
thiough bicycles using signal phasing. By uoing so, if all ioau useis comply, theie shoulu be no
conflicts. This option was useu in Chicago on the two-way facility. Compliance iates by uiiveis anu
bicycles to the tiaffic contiol weie compaiable anu useis appeaieu to compiehenu the uesign.
At the thiee inteisections on Beaiboin stuuieu with bicycle tiaffic signals, 77-9S% of
obseiveu bicyclists complieu with the signal anu 84-92% of obseiveu motoiists complieu
with the left-tuin signal.
At the thiee Chicago inteisections wheie signal phases foi bicycle anu motoi vehicles aie
completely sepaiateu, 2-6% of motoiists staiteu to attempt a tuin on the ieu aiiow but
then waiteu in the inteisection oi ciosswalk. This coulu be a iesult of some minoi confusion
(eithei mistaking the thiough gieen oi bike signal gieen foi tuining movement) oi just
aggiessive uiiving.
12.4 Support for the Protected Lane Concept
Suppoit foi the piotecteu lanes among iesiuents was geneially stiong.
Thiee in foui iesiuents (7S%) saiu they woulu suppoit builuing moie piotecteu bike lanes
at othei locations. This suppoit was stiong even among iesiuents who iepoiteu caitiuck
as theii piimaiy commute moue (69% agieement).
0veiall, 91% of suiveyeu iesiuents agieeu with the statement, I suppoit sepaiating bikes
fiom cais. This agieement was high among piimaiy useis of all moues (uiiving, walking,
tiansit, anu bicycling).
Youngei iesponuents weie moie likely to have a positive view of the changes, while oluei
iesponuents weie somewhat moie likely to feel that the safety of uiiving hau been
negatively affecteu, somewhat less likely to think the lanes maue bicycling safei, anu have
somewhat less suppoit foi builuing piotecteu bike lanes at othei locations.
12.5 Potential to Attract New Riders
Baseu on eailiei woik anu answeis to suivey questions, iesiuential iesponuents weie assigneu into
a cyclist typology (Geller, 2009; Dill and McNeil, 2012). Resiuents weie gioupeu into foui
categoiies: Strong and Fearless, Enthused and Confident, Interested but Concerned, anu No Way No
How. Attituues towaiu the piotecteu bike lanes weie examineu foi uiffeiences among the foui
types.
0f all iesponuents to the iesiuent suivey, neaily two-thiius agieeu with the statement, I
woulu be moie likely to iiue a bicycle if motoi vehicles anu bicycles weie physically
sepaiateu by a baiiiei. Agieement was highei foi iesiuents in the Interested but Concerned
segment (8S%).

142 Conclusions
Interested but Concerned iesiuents hau the highest peiception of impioveu safety uue to the
installation of the piotecteu lanes anu the highest agieement with the statement, I suppoit
sepaiating bikes fiom cais.
Among bicyclists, both men anu women inuicateu that the amount they aie iiuing a bicycle
oveiall has incieaseu because of the piotecteu bike lanes, but the inciease was laigei foi
women.
12.6 Perceptions of People Driving
The specific impacts to motoi vehicle tiavel vaiy between the cities, uepenuing on the befoie-anu-
aftei context. In geneial, motoiists like the sepaiation of bikes, but have some negative ieactions to
how changes impact uiiving.
Askeu if the piotecteu bike lanes hau changeu the pieuictability of ioauway useis, SS% of
those who hau uiiven a motoi vehicle on the stieet stateu the pieuictability of bicycles anu
motoiists hau incieaseu. This suggests suppoit foi the cleai oiueiing of the stieet space foi
all useis.
0nly 14% of iesponuents inuicateu that they evei avoiueu uiiving on the stieet because of
the piotecteu bikeway. Beaiboin Stieet anu Nilwaukee Avenue in Chicago hau the highest
iates of iesponuents inuicating they hau avoiueu those stieets (about one-thiiu).
About S1% of iesiuents who uiove on the stieet stateu that since the piotecteu bike lanes
weie built the amount of time it takes to uiive on this stieet has incieaseu, 1u% inuicateu it
uecieaseu, anu S9% inuicateu no change. Similaily, when askeu about the impact of the
piotecteu bike lanes on tiaffic congestion, S6% of iesponuents inuicateu that it has been
negative while 11% saiu positive. Foi both these measuies, the negative peiceptions
weie much highei in Chicago.
Paiking is a key issue when stieet space is ieassigneu anu cities. The impact to paiking was
the most negative peiception, with about Su-SS% of iesiuents inuicating the impacts to
paiking weie negative, even in cases wheie a minimal amount of paiking was iemoveu, oi
paiking was incieaseu.
12.7 Impacts to Neighborhood Desirability and Economic Activity
0n the iesiuent anu bicycle suiveys, questions weie askeu to pioviue insight into the impact of the
piotecteu lanes on neighboihoou uesiiability anu economic activity. The key conclusions aie:
Neaily thiee times as many iesiuents felt that the piotecteu bike lanes hau leu to an
inciease in the uesiiability of living in theii neighboihoou, as opposeu to a ueciease in
uesiiability (4S% vs 14%). The iemainuei stateu theie hau been no change in uesiiability.
0vei half the iesiuents suiveyeu (S6%) felt that the stieet woiks bettei foi all people uue
to the piotecteu bike lanes, while only 26% felt the stieet woiks less well.
Appioximately 19% of inteicepteu bicyclists anu 2u% of iesiuents who hau bicycleu on the
stieet stateu that how often they stop at shops anu businesses incieaseu aftei the

Conclusions 143
installation of the piotecteu bike lanes. Few iesponuents inuicateu theii fiequency
uecieaseu (1% anu 6%, iespectively); most inuicateu no change.
Similaily, appioximately 12% of the iesiuents stateu that they aie moie likely to visit a
business on the coiiiuoi since the piotecteu bike lanes weie built9% inuicateu they weie
less likely anu most self-iepoiteu no change.
12.8 Lessons for Future Evaluation of Bicycle Facilities
While this ieseaich pioviueu a substantial amount of eviuence about piefeiences anu peiceptions
of people uiiving, walking anu bicycling on the stuuy stieets, eviuence on the long-teim safety
peifoimance of these facilities will have to come at a latei uate. This woulu be a key next step in
establishing the oveiall safety especially if compaiable analysis coulu be uevelopeu foi othei
facilities (e.g., bike lanes).
Cleaily, one limitation of this ieseaich effoit was the challenge of systematically assessing a change
in the numbei of people using the facility on bicycles. This coulu be impioveu by iequiiing longei
uuiation counts anu aligning the time peiious. 0ne appioach might be to uo the following:
0ne-week count in the befoie peiiou at location, ioughly the same week of the yeai;
0ne-week count in the aftei peiiou at location, ioughly the same week of the yeai. Aftei
counts coulu be uone annually foi a few yeais;
0ne oi moie contiol locations to measuie changes on paiallel ioutes anu city-wiue change.
This coulu be uone with befoie-anu-aftei counts of the same uuiation oi by using
peimanent counteis, making coiiections foi weathei oi othei events if neeueu.
Anothei gap in the evaluation was the limiteu infoimation collecteu about tiansit inteiactions. 0n
some stieets, this will be a majoi issue foi the installation of a piotecteu lane. Futuie woik shoulu
seek to iuentify anu evaluate vaiious tiansit stops uesigns. Similaily, the tieatments of minoi
inteisections anu uiiveways coulu use moie uetaileu evaluations.
Finally, these facilities stuuieu weie geneially moie tempoiaiy piotecteu lanes (i.e. using paint anu
flex posts). Newei uesigns such as Seattles Fiist Bill Stieetcai cycle tiack on Bioauway, New Yoik
Citys 8
th
anu 9
th
Aves, St. Peteisbuigs Floiiua aie all moie haiuscape heavy (peimanent
infiastiuctuie). Futuie ieseaich shoulu examine these facilities to contiast the uiffeience with
these facilities stuuieu.
In evaluating how well the uesign featuies of the facilities woik, both compiehension anu
compliance peiceptions fiom the suivey iesponses anu obseivations fiom the viueo weie
examineu. The finuings fiom these two souices weie not always consistent. This inuicates that
ielying solely on suivey methous to assess compiehension may leau to unieliable finuings.


144 References
13 REFERENCES
Akai, u. anu K. }. Clifton. The Influence of Inuiviuual Peiceptions anu Bicycle Infiastiuctuie on the
Becision to Bike. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research
Board, No. 214u, 2uu9, pp. 16S-172.
Allen, B., S. Bygiave, anu B. Baipei. 2uuS. Behavioi at Cycle Auvanceu Stop Lines Repoit No.
PPR24u. Lonuon, 0K: Tianspoit foi Lonuon, Lonuon Roau Safety 0nit.
Atkins Seivices, 2uuS. Auvanceu Stop Line vaiiations, Reseaich Stuuy Repoit No. SuS 1271.
Lonuon: Tianspoit foi Lonuon.
Alta Planning & Besign. The Value of Bicycle Related Industry in Portland. 2uu8. Available online:
http:inuustiy.tiaveloiegon.comwp-
contentuploaus2u1Su22uu8poitlanubicycleielateueconomyiepoit.puf. Accesseu Apiil
18, 2u14.
Bicycle Feueiation of Wisconsin in conjunction with the Wisconsin Bepaitment of Tianspoitation.
The Economic Impact of Bicycling in Wisconsin, uoveinois Bicycle Cooiuinating Council,
2uuS. Available at http:www.uot.wisconsin.govbusinesseconuevuocsimpact-
bicycling.puf. Accesseu Apiil 18, 2u14.
Bikes Belong Founuation. Inventory of Protected Green Lanes.
http:gieenlanepioject.oiginventoiy-of-piotecteu-gieen-lanes. 0puateu Apiil Su, 2u1S.
Accesseu }une 1u, 2u1S.
Buehlei, R. anu }. Puchei. Cycling to work in 90 large American cities: new evidence on the role of bike
paths and lanes, Transportation, No. S9, 2u12, 4u9-4S2.
Busbee, R. L. Maximizing Economic Benefits from a Rails-to-Trails Project in Southern West Virginia.
A Case Study of the Greenbrier River Trail. 2uu1. Available at
http:atfiles.oigfilespufgieenbiieiecon.puf. Accesseu Apiil 18, 2u14.
Centei foi Reseaich on Economic anu Social Policy (CRESP) of the 0niveisity of Coloiauo at Benvei.
Bicycling and Walking in Colorado: Economic Impact and Household Results, commissioneu
by the Coloiauo Bepaitment of Tianspoitation BicyclePeuestiian Piogiam, Apiil 2uuu.
Employment numbei iefeis to full time equivalent. Available at
http:atfiles.oigfilespufC0bikeEcon.puf. Accesseu Apiil 18, 2u14.
Clifton, K., C. Nuhs, S. Noiiissey, T. Noiiissey, K. Cuiians, anu C. Rittei. Examining Consumei
Behavioi anu Tiavel Choices. Final Repoit, Febiuaiy 2u1S. Available at
http:ppms.otiec.usmeuia1S61999891S12e781Sbfa6u.puf. Accesseu Apiil 18, 2u14.
Bill, }. C. Nonseie, N. NcNeil. Evaluation of Bike Boxes at Signalizeu Inteisections. Acciuent
Analysis anu Pievention, Special Issue fiom Inteinational Confeience on Safety anu Nobility
of vulneiable Roau 0seis: Peuestiians, Notoicyclists anu Bicyclists. Accident Analysis and
Prevention. uoi:1u.1u16j.aap.2u1u.1u.uSu |

References 145
Bill, }. anu N. NcNeil. Foui Types of Cyclists. Examination of Typology foi Bettei 0nueistanuing of
Bicycling Behavioi anu Potential, Transportation Research Record: Journal of the
Transportation Research Board, No. 2S87, 2u1S, 129-1S8.
Bill, }. anu T. Caii. Bicycle Commuting anu Facilities in Najoi 0.S. Cities: If You Builu Them,
Commuteis Will 0se Them, Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation
Research Board, No. 1828, 2uuS, 116-12S.
Biennen, E. Economic Effects of Traffic Calming on Urban Small Businesses. Bepaitment of Public
Auministiation, San Fiancisco State 0niveisity. 2uuS. Available at
http:www.sfbike.oiguownloaubikeplanbikelanes.puf. Accesseu Apiil 18, 2u14.
Emonu, C. R., W. Tang, anu S. Banuy. Explaining uenuei Biffeience in Bicycling Behavioi. Piesenteu
at the 88th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board. Washington, B.C., 2uu9.
uaiiaiu, }., u. Rose, anu S. Lo. Piomoting Tianspoitation Cycling foi Women: The Role of Bicycle
Infiastiuctuie. Preventive Medicine, vol. 46, No. 1, 2uu8, pp. SS-S9.
uellei, R. Four Types of Cyclists. Poitlanu Buieau of Tianspoitation, Poitlanu, 0ie., 2uu6. Available
at http:www.poitlanuoiegon.govtianspoitationaiticle264746. Accesseu Apiil 18,
2u14.
uoouno, N., N. NcNeil, }. Paiks, anu S. Bock. Evaluation of Innovative Bicycle Facilities in
Washington, B.C. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research
Board, No. 2S87, 2u1S, 1S9-148.
uiabow, N., N. Bahn, anu N. White. 2u1u. Valuing Bicyclings Economic and Health Impacts in
Wisconsin, The Nelson Institute foi Enviionmental Stuuies, Centei foi Sustainability anu the
ulobal Enviionment, 0niveisity of Wisconsin-Nauison. Available at:
http:www.sage.wisc.euuIuERTuownloaubicycling_Final_Repoit.puf. Accesseu Apiil
18, 2u14.
Baiiis, N.A., C.C.0. Reynolus, N. Winteis, P.A. Ciipton, B. Shen, N.L. Chipman, N.B. Cusimano, S.
Babul, }.R. Biubackei, S.N. Fiieuman, u. Bunte, N. Nunio, L. veinich, K. Teschke. Compaiing
the effects of infiastiuctuie on bicycling injuiy at inteisections anu non-inteisections using
a caseciossovei uesign. Injury Prevention, vol. 19, No. S, 2u1S, pp. SuS-S1u.
Bunt, }. B. anu }. E. Abiaham. Influences on Bicycle 0se. Transportation, vol. S4, No. 4, 2uu7, pp. 4SS-
47u.
Buntei, W. W., B. L. Baikey, }.R. Stewait, anu N.L. Biik. 2uuu. Evaluation of Blue Bike-Lane
Tieatment in Poitlanu, 0iegon. Transportation Research Record, 17uS: 1u7-11S.
}ackson, N. E. anu E. 0. Ruehi. Let the People Be Beaiu - San Biego County Bicycle 0se anu Attituue
Suivey. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No.
16S6, 1998, 8-12.
}ensen, S.0. Bicycle Tiacks anu Lanes: A Befoie-Aftei stuuy. Piesenteu at the 87th Annual Meeting of
the Transportation Research Board, Washington, B.C., 2uu8.

146 References
Kiizek, K.}., B. N. Levinson, anu N. Tilahun. Tiails, Lanes, oi Tiaffic: valuing Bicycle Facilities with an
Auaptive Stateu Piefeience Suivey. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice. vol.
41, 2uu7, pp. 287-Su1.
Kiizek, K.}., P.}. }ohnson, anu N. Tilahun. uenuei uiffeiences in bicycling behavioi anu facility
piefeiences, In Conference Proceedings 35, Research on Womens Issues in Transportation
Volume 2: Technical Papers, Tianspoitation Reseaich Boaiu of the National Acauemies.
Washington, B.C., 2uuS, pp. S14u.
Lusk, A.C., P.u. Fuith, P. Noiency, L.F. Niianua-Noieno, W.C. Willett, anu }.T. Benneilein. Risk of
Injuiy foi Bicycling on Cycle Tiacks veisus in the Stieet, Injury Prevention. vol. 17, 2u11, pp.
1S1.
Lusk, A.C., P. Noiency, L.F. Niianua-Noieno, W.C. Willett, anu }.T. Benneilein. Bicycle uuiuelines
anu Ciash Rateis on Cycle Tiacks in the 0niteu States. American Journal of Public Health.
vol. 1u7, No. 7, 2u1S, pp. 124u-1248.
Neisel, B. Bike Corrals: Local Business Impacts, Benefits, and Attitudes. Poitlanu State 0niveisity
School of 0iban Stuuies anu Planning. 2u1u. Available at http:bikepoitlanu.oigwp-
contentuploaus2u1uuSPBX_Bike_Coiial_Stuuy.puf. Accesseu Apiil 18, 2u14.
Neletiou, N.P., }.}. Lawiie, T.}. Cook, S.W. 0Biien, anu }. uuenthei. Economic Impacts of Investments
in Bicycle Facilities: Case Stuuy of Noith Caiolinas Noithein 0utei Banks. In
Tianspoitation Reseaich Recoiu: }ouinal of the Tianspoitation Reseaich Boaiu, No. 19S9,
2uuS, 1S-21.
Nonseie, C., N. NcNeil, anu }. Bill. Nultiusei Peispectives on Sepaiateu, 0n-Stieet Bicycle
Infiastiuctuie. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research
Board, No. 2S14, 2u12, 22-Su.
National Association of City Tianspoitation 0fficials, Urban Bikeway Design Guide, 2u11, Available
at http:nacto.oigcities-foi-cyclinguesign-guiue. Accesseu Apiil 18, 2u14.
Nelson, A.C., anu B. Allen, If You Builu Them, Commuteis Will 0se Them, Transportation Research
Record, No, 1S78, 1997, 79-8S.
New Yoik City Bepaitment of Tianspoitation, Measuring the Streets: New Metrics for 21
st
Century
Streets, 2u1S. Available at http:www.nyc.govhtmluotuownloauspuf2u12-1u-
measuiing-the-stieet.puf. Accesseu Apiil 18, 2u14.
Puchei, }., }. Bill, anu S. Banuy. Infiastiuctuie, Piogiams, anu Policies to Inciease Bicycling: An
Inteinational Review, Preventive Medicine. vol. Su, 2u1u, pp. S1u6-S12S.
Puchei, }., R. Buehlei anu N. Seinen, Bicycling ienaissance in Noith Ameiica. An upuate anu ie-
appiaisal of cycling tienus anu policies, Transportation Research Part A-Policy and Practice
4S, 2u11, 4S1-47S.
Rose, u. anu B. Naifuit. Tiavel Behavioui Change Impacts of a Najoi Riue to Woik Bay Event.
Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice. vol. 41, No. 4, 2uu7, pp. SS1-S64.

References 147
Slensminue, K. Costbenefit analyses of walking anu cycling tiack netwoiks taking into account
insecuiity, health effects anu exteinal costs of motoiizeu tiaffic, Transportation Research
Part A: Policy and Practice, vol. S8, Issue 8, 2uu4, pp. S9S-6u6
Sanueis, R. Examining the Cycle: How Perceived and Actual Bicycling Risk Influence Cycling
Frequency, Roadway Design Preferences, and Support for Cycling Among Bay Area Residents,
2u1S, 0niveisity of Califoinia, Beikeley, Beikeley, CA, 218 pp.
Shafizaueh, K. anu B. Niemeiei. Bicycle }ouiney-to-Woik: Tiavel Behavioi Chaiacteiistics anu
Spatial Analysis. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research
Board, No. 1S78, 1997, 84-9u.
Stinson, N. anu C. Bhat. Commutei Bicyclist Route Choice: Analysis using a Stateu Piefeience
Suivey. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, vol.
1828, 2uuS, 1u7-11S.
Tilahun, N.Y., B.N. Levinson, K.}. Kiizek. Tiails, Lanes, oi Tiaffic: valuing Bicycle Facilities with an
Auaptive Stateu Piefeience Suivey, Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice. vol.
41, No. 4, 2uu7, 287Su1.
Wachtel, A., anu B. Lewiston. Risk Factois foi Bicycle-Notoi vehicle Collisions at Inteisections, ITE
Journal. vol. 64, 1994, pp. SuSS.
Wen, L.N., anu C. Rissel. Inveise associations between cycling to woik, public tianspoit, anu
oveiweight anu obesity: finuings fiom a population baseu stuuy in Austialia. Preventative
Medicine, vol. 46, 2uu8, 29S2.
Winteis, N., anu K. Teschke. Route Piefeiences Among Auults in the Neai Naiket foi Bicycling:
Finuings of the Cycling in Cities Stuuy, American Journal of Health Promotion. vol. 2S, 2u1u,
pp. 4u47.