HomeMy WebLinkAbout19 Venessa Garza 16---.......____-~--~~;-----
~-'
B\ILL. ~~i(~ ~+1J v / 0tTV1A..Q_cL J J~, ~) E~
-----+~ ~cle~ (}JM.k <.+itetcM. ~ ~ bru.is
-
C()V\$~· -
""'
-------
___ c:::-'-4---tu~,~ 1~~~j clvviU6--P ______ -'M-e., t-fmu-, _
~t<~fl... • '
___ ......_b.;;_1_/c.e._=--'--ho'(-es _ ( _____ _ sM-(IK~
--&~
~~-~~~·*~~~-----"----~~~-~
~~~~! _______________ _
Bicycle Box -MUTCD -Guidance -Bicycle and Pedestrian Program -Environment -FH. .. Page 1 of 3
Legislation
Funding
Guidance
Resources
State
Coordinator and
FHWA Division
Coordinator
Each State has a
Bicycle and
Pedestrian
Coord inator, and each
FHWA Div ision office
has a point of
contact .
FHWA
Headquarters
Contact
For more information,
please contact Dan
Go odman, 202 -366 -
9064 .
Bicycle Facilities and the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control
Devices ·
Bicycle Box
Design Elements
Performance Measures
Bicycle Box
This treatment is currently experimental.
Required elements:
• Advance stop bar, and
• Bicycle symbol pavement marking(s),
and
• Full-time turn on red prohibition, and
• The bicycle box must be setback
(setback) from the adjacent crosswalk or
pedestrian crossing movement if a
crosswalk is not present. The bicycle box
cannot be contiguous to the crosswalk,
and
• Pedestrian countdown signals must be
present or installed for the contiguous
crosswalk movement if the bicycle box is
installed laterally across more than one
approach lane, and
• Where an exisitng, advance stop bar is
relocated to accommodate the installation
of the bicycle box, a recalculation of the
yellow change and red clearance intervals
is required (see Section 40 .26) to
accommodate the length of the bic ycle
box and the new setback. This signal
timing analysis will not need to be
submitted with their request to
experiment for FHWA review or approval.
The agency is to retain the signal timing
analysis on file with their request to
experiment in the event the FHWA needs
to access the signal timing analysis at a
later date .
Optional element:
• Green colored pavement
The FHWA has approved 25 requests to experiment
since 2008 for the bicycle box. These experiments
have provided sufficient data to establish
conclusions regard ing the metrics provided in the
list below. However additional data is needed on
crash data, conflicts/avoidance maneuvers between
the motor vehicle and the bicycle, and motor vehicle
and bicycle compliance with the turn on red
prohibition . New requests to experiment must
include at a minimum these three performance
measures but they are not required to also analyze
statistical significance .
https ://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bicycle _pedestrian/guidance/muted/bicycle_ box.cfm 12/9/2 015
·~icycle Box -MUTCD -Guidance -Bicycle and Pedestrian Program -Environment -FH... Page 2 of 3
New requests may include these additional
perfo rmance measures if desired:
• Bicycle volume,
• Bicycle speed,
• Bicycle use/occupation of the
approaching bicycle lane, . Bicycle use/occupation of bicycle box
after installation,
• If the bicyclist entered/departed the
intersection before the motor vehicle,
• If the bicyclist makes an illegal
movement, such as running a red light,
• Bicycle surveys,
• Motor vehicle volume,
• Motor vehicle speed,
• Encroachment of the motor vehicle on
the stop line or in bicycle box,
• Turning motor vehicles encroaching into
the bike lane at the intersection or on the
approach, . Motor vehicle yielding behavior, or
• Motor vehicle surveys .
More information on the FHWA 's active official
experiments for bicycle boxes can be found at the
Of fic ial Rulings Database on th e MUTCD Web si t e.
Active official experiments include :
9-105 -Portland, OR
9-108 -Columbus, OH
9-110 -Phoenix, AZ
9 -121 -Austin, TX
9-127 -Washington , D.C.
9-129 -Le x ington-Fayette County, KY
9(09)-5 -Hennepin County, MN
9(09)-8 -Louisville, KY
9(09)-12 -Madison, WI
9(09)-15 -New Haven, CT
Existing Official Experiments 9(09)-17 -Missoula, MT
9(09)-18 -Fort Collins, CO
9(09)-21 -The University of Minnesota
9(09)-23 -Santa Monica, CA
9(09)-35 -Lakeland , FL
9(09)-40 -Quincy, MA
9(09)-41 -Davis, CA
9(09)-43 -Massachusetts DOT
9(09)-48 -Somerville, MA
9(09)-49 -Charlottesville, VA
9(09)-51 -Wauwatosa, WI
9(09)-52 -Boston, MA
9(09)-53 -Charlotte, NC
https ://www. fhwa. dot. gov I environment/bicycle _pedestrian/ guidance/muted/bicycle_ box.cfm 12/9/2015
Effects of Bicycle Boxes on Bicyclist and
Motorist Behavior at Intersections
Prepared by:
The City of Austin Bicycle Team
Jeff Loskorn, Alison Mills, John Brady, Jen Duthie, Randy Machemehl
Center for Transportation Research
The University of Texas at Austin
Phone : (512) 471-4541
Fax: (512)475-8744
Email : jloskorn@gmail.com
Prepared for:
The City of Aus.tin
Neighborhood Connectivity Division, Bicycle Division
Annick Beaudet, Nadia Barrea , Nathan Wilkes , Jason Fialkoff
Bicycle and Pedestrian Program
Department of Public Works
Report Submitted August 2, 2010
Bicycle Boxes at Intersections
Page 1 of 34
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank the City of Austin for sponsoring this research and particularly
the following staff for their assistance . From the Bicycle Program , the authors thank Annick
Beaudet, Nadia Barrera , Nathan Wilkes, and Jason Fialkoff. From the City 's Traffic
Management Center, the authors thank Ali Mozdbar, Jonathan Lammert, Kenneth Moses , and
Brian Craig .
Bicycle Boxes at Intersections
Page 2 of 34
Table of Contents
Acknowledgments ....................................................................................................................... 2
List of F igures ............................................................................................................................. 4
Execut ive Summary .................................................................................................................... 5
Background ................................................................................................................................. 6
Bicycle Box Deta il ....................................................................................................................... 7
Site Descriptions ......................................................................................................................... 9
Shoal Creek Boulevard at Anderson Lane ............................................................................... 9
Speedway at 38th Street ....................................................................................................... 11
Experimental Design ................................................................................................................. 12
Terminology .............................................................................................................................. 13
Results ...................................................................................................................................... 14
Shoal Creek Boulevard at Anderson Lane ............................................................................. 14
Speedway at 38th Street ....................................................................................................... 17
Conclusions and Recommendations ......................................................................................... 23
References ............................................................................................................................... 25
APPENDIX A: Bicycle Counts ................................................................................................... 26
APPENDIX B: Thermoplastic Cost, Maintenance , and Upkeep ................................................. 29
APPENDIX C: P-values ............................................................................................................ 34
Bicycle Boxes at Intersections
Page 3 of 34
List of Figures
Figure 1. Dimensions of bicycle box ............................................................................................ 7
Figure 2. The "No Right Turn On Red" sign installed at 38th Street ............................................ 8
Figure 3 . The bicycle box on Shoal Creek Boulevard at Anderson Lane ..................................... 9
Figure 4 . The intersection of Shoal Creek Boulevard and Anderson Lane ................................. 10
Figure 5. The intersection of Speedway and 38th Street ........................................................... 11
Figure 6 . Bicyclist behavior on Shoal Creek Boulevard and Anderson Lane ............................. 15
Figure 7. Motorist stopping position when a bicyclist is present at Shoal Creek
Boulevard and Anderson Lane .................................................................................................. 16
Figure 8 . Bicyclist stopping position by percentage on Shoal Creek Boulevard
before and after color is added to the bicycle box ..................................................................... 17
Figure 9 . Bicyclist behavior on Speedway and 38th Street.. ...................................................... 18
Figure 10. Bicyclist departure movements on Speedway and 38th Street ................................. 19
Figure 11 . Motorist stopping position when a bicyclist is present at Speedway
and 38th Street ......................................................................................................................... 20
Figure 12. Bicyclist stopping position by percentage on Speedway before and
after color is added to the bicycle box ....................................................................................... 21
Figure 13. Bicyclist using bicycle box on southbound Speedway at 38th Street ........................ 22
Figure 14. Number of bicyclists recorded each hour of the day on Shoal Creek
Boulevard .................................................................................................................................. 26
Figure 15. Number of bicyclists recorded each hour of the day on Speedway ........................... 27
Figure 16. Number of bicyclists recorded each day of the week on Shoal Creek
Boulevard .................................................................................................................................. 27
Figure 17. Number of bicyclists recorded each day of the week on Speedway .......................... 28
Figure 18. Deteriorating thermoplastic on Dean Keeton Street at one of the 1-35
exit ramps (breaking up in sheets) ............................................................................................ 29
Figure 19. Poor quality of road led to the deterioration of the thermoplastic bike
boxes on Speedway .................................................................................................................. 30
Figure 20. Thermoplastic thinning on the colored lane on San Jacinto
Boulevard .................................................................................................................................. 30
Figure 21. Central placement of sharrow resulted in thriving thermoplastic five
months after installation ............................................................................................................ 31
Figure 22. Central placement of sharrows on east-bound, downhill Dean
Keeton Street ............................................................................................................................ 32
Figure 23. Curb-justified placement of sharrows on west-bound , uphill Dean
Keeton Street ............................................................................................................................ 33
Bicycle Boxes at Intersections
Page 4 of 34
Executive Summary
While Austin has a sizeable network of bicycle lanes, traditional bicycle facilities at intersections are
often inadequate and can lead to unsafe interactions between motorists and bicyclists . One potential
tool to alleviate this problem is the bicycle box . This device is intended to improve the predictability
of bicyclist stopping position at an intersection by allowing bicyclists utilizing a bicycle lane to
position themselves in front of motorists waiting at a red light. A bicyclist in this position is more
visible to motorists and therefore less likely to be hit by a right-turning motorist. Typically, a "No Right
Turn on Red" sign is installed at a bicycle box intersection to further prevent bicyclist-motorist
collisions.
The primary goal of this study was to determine what effect , if any, bicycle boxes have on bicyclist
and motorist safety. Data of bicyclist and motorist behavior was collected under three conditions :
while no bicycle box existed, after bicycle box markings were installed at the intersection , and after a
chartreuse color was added to the bicycle box and the approaching bicycle lane . For this study,
safety was defined along the following lines : (1) The bicyclist used the bicycle lane to approach the
intersection, (2) the bicyclist used the bicycle box after installation, (3) motorists did not encroach on
the stop line or bicycle box, (4) the bicyclist departed the intersection before the motorist and (5) the
bicyclist did not make an illegal movement, such as running a red light. Bicycle boxes were installed
on Shoal Creek Boulevard at Anderson Lane and on Speedway at 38th Street. These sites were
chosen due to the high volume of bicyclists along these routes .
Bicyclists at Shoal Creek Boulevard and Anderson Lane took a more predictable position at the
intersection and were more likely to depart the intersection first after the bicycle box was
installed . Bicyclists were also more likely to approach the intersection in the bicycle lane after the
colored bicycle box was installed. Motorist stopping behavior improved after the bicycle box
markings were installed as indicated by the decrease in the proportion of motorists who encroached
beyond the stop line and into the bicycle box. The percentage of motorists that encroached on the
bicycle lane remained unchanged through the three phases of bicycle box installation. The
installation of the "No Right Turn on Red" sign did not discourage motorists from turning right on red .
The addition of the bicycle box on Speedway at 38th Street resulted in many improvements to
bicyclist and motorist behavior and interaction . In general, bicyclists ' behavior tended to become
more predictable, resulting in safer interactions at the intersection . After bicycle box markings were
installed and the color added, 26% of bicyclists maneuvered into or in front of the bicycle box. After
each phase of the installation, the proportion of bicyclists who used the bicycle lane to approach the
intersection instead of riding in the full lane increased substantially, as did the proportion of bicyclists
who departed the intersection first. The addition of the color to the bicycle box also encouraged
bicyclists to stop in the colored area in front of motorists . Lastly, a decrease in motorist
encroachment on the bicycle lane and bicycle box showed that motorist behavior improved as well.
Given these results, colored bicycle boxes are recommended at intersections where there is a high
volume of bicyclists and the volume of motorists turning right on red is not high . Using chartreuse
thermoplastic to color the bicycle box is recommended because it tended to make bicyclists'
movements more predictable, but it is not crucial. Applying color to the bicycle box increases costs
rather substantially, but had little effect on the percentage of bicyclists that used the bicycle box . The
bicycle box markings alone have proven to be an effective method of improving safety of bicyclists
and motorists at intersections at a much lower cost.
Bicycle Boxes at Intersections
Page 5 of 34
Background
Since Austin's bicycle program was re -established in 1992, the city has seen a growth in bicycle
facilities leading to a significantly improved bicycle network . Unlike many other cities , bicycle routes
in Austin were selected by identifying routes already used for bicycle commuting. This procedure,
along with a focus on network connectivity is at least partially responsible for the increase in the
percentage of adults commuting to work by bicycle . Douma and Cleaveland (2008) documented a
statistically significant increase in bicycle mode share in Austin from 1990 (0.87%) to 2000 (1 .19%)
in Census block groups with new bicycle routes developed during that period . During that time
period, the journey-to-work bicycle mode share for Austin increased significantly from 0.76% to
0.95%. The University of Texas , the largest university in Austin with approximately 68 ,000 students ,
faculty and staff members, estimates 5-7% of all trips to campus are made by bicycle (BMA, 2007).
While the proportion of commuting trips made by bicycle appears to be increasing , it remains small.
Surveys studying the factors affecting bicycling demand show safety to be a major concern. In a
survey of bicyclists in Texas, 69% of respondents stated they feel bicycling is "somewhat dangerous"
or "very dangerous" from the standpoint of traffic crashes (Sener et al., 2009). A recent survey in
Portland, Oregon showed that positive perceptions of the availability of bicycle facilities are
associated with more bicycling and a desire to bicycle more often (Dill and Voros , 2007). One
common type of collision between motorists and bicyclists is a right-hook collision, where a motorist
makes a right turn into a through moving bicyclist. To avoid this type of collision , the American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) recommends transitioning
bicycle lanes from the curb to the left of the right turn lane . However, this is not feasible for use in
intersections where there is not a dedicated right turn lane for turning vehicles . For these situations,
the City of Austin in conjuction with The University of Texas at Austin's Center for Transportation
Research proposed to study the effectiveness of bicycle box markings at reducing the risk of right-
hook collisions by moving bicyclists in front of motorists waiting at a red light, instead of waiting to
the right of motorists.
Several cities in the U .S . have implemented bicycle boxes, Eugene (Oregon) conducted a study of
bicycle boxes several years ago, and a preliminary report from Portland (Oregon) showed that
bicycle boxes improved perceptions of safety on the part of both bicyclists and motorists. In Tucson
(Arizona) a colored bicycle box was installed to help bicyclists at the University of Arizona campus
cross from the north side of an intersection (where there is a bicycle lane) to the south side of the
intersection where a bicycle lane does not begin for 200 feet. In Phoenix (Arizona), a bicycle box is
used to help bicyclists transition from a bicycle lane on the right side of the street , to a bicycle lane
on the right side of the street on the opposite side of the intersection. Researchers in Eugene
videotaped bicyclists traveling through an intersection before and after the placement of a bicycle
box designed to assist bicyclists for a similar purpose . Twenty-two percent of bicyclists used the
bicycle box for the intended purpose . Motorists, however, frequently encroached into the bicycle box .
New York City installed a bicycle box in at least one location where bicyclists are traveling on a
bicycle lane on the left side of a one-way street and risk left-hook collisions by left-turning vehicles.
Columbus (Ohio) is adding bicycle boxes to key intersections along a popular bicycle route .
Advanced stop boxes serve the same purpose as bicycle boxes and have been implemented more
frequently in Europe . Studies in the UK suggest a minimum reservoir depth of four meters based on
studies suggesting the bicyclists felt unsafe at depths of three meters or less . Deeper boxes ,
however, are hypothesized to increase the rate of motorist encroachment.
Bicycle Boxes at Intersections
Page 6 of 34
Bicycle Box Detail
The dimensions of the bicycle box are shown in Figure 1. The bicycle box consists of a 24-inch
advanced stop bar and an eight foot deep box (based on bicycle box measurements in Eugene,
Oregon) containing a bicycle symbol. Before bicycle box installation , both intersections studied
in Aust in had the motorist stop line set back 4.5 feet from the crosswalk (measurement taken
between the painted lines). After bicycle box installation , this distance increased to between 8
and 8 .5 feet. "Wait Here " is painted on the roadway to instruct motorists to wait at the stop bar.
The cost of the 'Wait Here" symbol is $267.66. Cold thermoplastic material was purchased at
$4.46 per square foot and was used for the box and approaching bicycle lane . As
recommended by the National Committee on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (NCUTCD), a
chartreuse (or strong yellow green) color was used. The material is embedded with corundum
for traction. In addition , bicycle symbols were installed at the beginning of the green
thermoplastic and in the middle of the bicycle box. Each symbol costs $98.21. Given these
numbers , an eight foot deep bicycle box in a ten foot wide lane costs $1596.92 in materials .
24.00 ir1 WAIT HERE
50.00 ft I
I 12 .00 ft
Figure 1. Dimensions of bicycle box
Additionally, "No Right Tum on Red " signs were installed when the color was added to the
bicycle boxes in attempts to prevent motorists from encroaching on the bicycle box and to
further prevent right-hooks , where a right turning motorist sideswipes a bicyclist traveling
straight through the intersection . The "No Right Tum on Red" sign installed at Speedway and at
38th Street is shown in Figure 2 .
Bicycle Boxes at Intersections
Page 7 of 34
._J~
Figure 2. The "No Right Turn On Red" sign installed at 38th Street
Bicycle Boxes at Intersections
Page 8 of 34
Site Descriptions
Bicycle Box applications were installed on two multi-lane facil ities in Austin . Speedway is a very
common commuter route for students of The University of Texas at Austin and bicycle boxes
were installed on both sides of the intersection at 38th Street. On Shoal Creek Boulevard ,
another popular bicycle route , a bicycle box was installed on the southbound side of the
intersection .
Shoal Creek Boulevard at Anderson Lane
Shoal Creek Boulevard in Austin experiences heavy bicycle traffic heading north and south .
However, heading south on Shoal Creek Boulevard from Anderson Lane, there is a gap in the
bicycle lane as the road narrows . After crossing the intersection, bicyclists are forced to share
the lane with motorists because of the absence of a bicycle facility. The researchers
hypothesized that the geometry of this intersection is ideal for a bicycle box because if bicyclists
enter the intersection from the bicycle lane rather than from the bicycle box, they will be entering
unsafe conditions when they reach the opposite side of the intersection where the lane narrows
and a bicycle lane does not exist. The cross street , Anderson Lane is a busy four lane roadway
with several commercial shopping centers. It is not a bicycle friendly roadway so most bicycle
movements through this intersection are through movements northbound or southbound . The
posted speed limit on Shoal Creek Boulevard is 35 mph and the observed traffic volume was
450 vehicles per hour (vph) in the PM peak hours and 350 vph in the AM peak hours.
A bicycle box was installed on Shoal Creek Boulevard heading south to alert motorists of the
presence of bicycles at the intersection and give bicyclists the right-of-way as they transition
from the bicycle lane to the stretch of roadway where the bicycle lane ends briefly . Figure 3
shows the colored bicycle box and Figure 4 shows a map of the intersection and the location of
the bicycle box .
Figure 3. The bicycle box on Shoal Creek Boulevard at Anderson Lane
Bicycle Boxes at Intersections
Page 9 of 34
Bicycle Boxes at Intersections
Page 10 of 34
Speedway at 38th Street
Speedway is primarily a one lane street that runs north-south through The University of Texas
and connects the Hyde Park area with campus . Bicycle lanes in both directions make this facility
attractive to many students living north of campus . Bicycle boxes were installed on both sides of
Speedway at 38th Street to alert motorists to the presence of bicycles at the intersection and
give them the right-of-way. The researchers hypothesized that bicyclists would be less likely to
use the bicycle box at this location because the bicycle lane continues on the oppos ite side of
the intersection. Data was collected on northbound Speedway during afternoon hours as
students departed the university . A map of the intersection and the location of the bicycle boxes
is shown in Figure 5 . The posted speed limit is 25 mph and the observed hourly traffic volumes
ranged from 150 vph to 250 vph in the afternoon .
Figure 5. The intersection of Speedway and 38th Street
Bicycle Boxes at Intersections
Page 11 of 34
Experimental Design
To measure and evaluate bicyclist and motorist behavior, video footage of traffic movements at
each site was collected . The experiment included three phases . Phase 1 involved videotaping
each location under existing facility conditions. Phase 2 was the installation of bicycle box
markings at each location and videotaping the experimental conditions. The bicycle box at this
time will often be referred to as "skeleton bicycle box ". Phase 3 was surveillance of the bicycle
box and approaching bicycle lane after it was painted chaurtrese with the bordering white lines
and all markings kept intact. Video was recorded between 2:00 PM and 7:00 PM at both sites ,
while Shoal Creek Boulevard was also observed between 6 :00 AM and 10:00 AM . All data
incorporated into the analysis was observed during daylight hours . Video was played back on
flat panel monitors where researchers answered binary (yes or no) questions for each bicyclist
observed .
The primary goal of this study was to determine what effect , if any , bicycle boxes have on
bicycle and motorist interaction at intersections . Therefore , data was collected while no bicycle
box existed , after the skeleton bicycle box was installed (no color), and after the color was
added . This allowed researchers to explore the effectiveness of the colored bicycle box versus
the skeleton bicycle box and pre-existing conditions. For this study, safety was defined along
the following lines : (1) The bicyclist uses the bicycle lane to approach the intersection , (2) the
bicyclist uses the bicycle box after installation , (3) the motorist does not encroach on the stop
line or bicycle box, (4) the bicyclist departs the intersection before the motorist and (5) the
bicyclist does not make an avoidance maneuver or illegal movement.
To evaluate safety as defined above , several measures of bicyclist behavior and bicyclist-
motorist interaction were recorded . Although no single measurement can comprehensively
measure bicyclist and motorist safety , the improvement of several safety indicators can
contribute to the conclusion that safety is indeed improved. Among the measurements taken
were the approach method of bicyclist , phase of stoplight, stopping position of the bicyclist and
motorist (when present}, the departing maneuver of the bicyclist (turning movement, if any , and
if the bicyclist entered the intersection before a motorist), any avoidance maneuvers or illegal
actions of bicyclists , and any conflicts between motorists and bicyclists .
Tests of statistical significance were conducted to determine if there were any notable
differences between the three conditions: no bicycle box, skeleton bicycle box , and colored
bicycle box. All proportions an d means were compared using a two-sided test of equality, where
the null hypothesis was that no change occurred and the alternative hypothesis that behavior
changed. Wh ile a campaign to alert the public to the presence of and proper use of the bicycle
box was not conducted for the this experiment , City of Austin citizens were involved in the
proposal's development. Bicyclists were surveyed for their preferences for experimental
locations , an opportunity for citizen comment was provided when the Austin City Council voted
to fund this project , and the proposal was presented to the City 's Bicycle Advisory Committee ,
where further comments from citizens were noted.
Bicycle Boxes at Intersections
Page 12 of 34
Terminology
The following terms are used throughout this paper to characterize the actions of bicyclists and
motorists at the various study sites .
• Event (or observation) -An event was recorded every time a bicyclist traveled through
the intersection, regardless if the rider had an opportunity to use the bicycle box .
Therefore , bicycles riding through the intersection with and without stopping were
recorded to keep an accurate count of the facility's use.
• Bicyclist stopping position (recorded when a bicyclist makes a complete stop at the
intersection)
o In bicycle box -Before the installation of the bicycle box , "in bicycle box" was
recorded when the bicyclist stopped where a bicycle box would be installed.
When the bicycle box was installed and the color was added , "in bicycle box"
was recorded when the bicyclist stopped in the existing bicycle box .
o In bicycle lane -For all phases , "in bicycle lane" was recorded when a bicyclist
stopped in or in front of the bicycle lane area to the right of the bicycle box.
o Before stop line -Before the installation of the bicycle box, "before stop line"
was recorded when a bicyclist did not encroach the stop line or pedestrian
crosswalk. Since the bicycle box abuts the crosswalk when installed, "before stop
line" was recorded when a bicyclist stayed behind the white lines marking the
crosswalk .
• Motorist encroachment (recorded only when a motorist was present as a bicyclist
approached the intersection)
o Stop line -Before the bicycle box was installed, a motorist encroached when the
front two wheels of the vehicle were on or over the designated stop line . After the
bicycle box was installed, stop line motorist encroachment was recorded when
the motorist's front two wheels were touching any part of the bicycle box,
including the bordering white lines.
o Bicycle lane -For all phases, bicycle lane motorist encroachment was recorded
when a motorist was occupying any part of the bicycle lane area.
• In queue (or in full lane) -A bicyclist waits behind motorists in the traffic lane or at the
front of the traffic lane if no motorists are present.
• Illegal - A bicyclist acted illegally when any traffic laws were broken. The most common
illegal movement was bicyclists running the red light at Speedway and 38th Street.
• Avoidance Maneuver -An avoidance maneuver was recorded whenever a bicyclist
rode outside of the lane (e.g. rode on the sidewalk or used a driveway instead of using
the bicycle lane).
Bicycle Boxes at Intersections
Page 13 of 34
Results
The follow ing section describes the results of the study . Although many pieces of information
were collected about bicyclis t and motorist behavior, the shifts in bicyclist and motorist stopping
position proved to be the most revealing and are studied in detail below. In the following figures ,
bicycle box and bicycle lane are referred to as 'bike box' and 'bike lane', respectively . Detailed
information about bicycle counts (organized by day of the week and hour of the day) can be
found in Appendix A. P-va lue s for sign ificance tests on all comparisons can be found in
Appendix B. Table 1 shows the number of observations gathered from each of the two study
sites.
Table 1. Total number of events for each condition at the two study sites
S ite No bicycle Box Skeleton bicycle Box Colored bicycle Box
Shoal Creek Boulevard 257 81 111
Speedway 182 150 170
Shoal Creek Boulevard at Anderson Lane
Figure 6 shows the changes in bicyclist behavior before the bicycle box existed , after the
skeleton bicycle box was installed , and after the chartreuse color was added . The percentage of
bicyclists who approached the intersection in the bicycle lane remained about the same after the
bicycle box skeleton was insta lled . However, after the color was added to the bicycle box the
percentage of bicyclists who approached the intersection using the bicycle lane significantly
increased from 77% to 93% (p = 0 .005). This may suggest that the colored lane leading to the
bicycle box encourages bicyclists to approach in the bicycle lane rather than the full lane .
The proportion of bicyclists that stopped before the stop line increased significantly after each
phase of bicycle box installation as shown in Figure 6 . This suggests that the bicycle box
skeleton and added color were successful in encouraging bicyclists to stay behind the stop line
within the bike box area . The percentage of bicyclists that departed first at the intersection also
steadily increased after each phase of installation. This increase proved to be more significant
from the before condition to the skeleton bicycle box condition than from the skeleton bicycle
box condition to the implemen tation of color (p < 0 .001 versus p = 0 .267). This could indicate
that the presence of the bicycle box causes motorists to be more aware of the presence of the
bicyclist. However, the higher percentage of bicyclists departing first may simply be attributed to
the fact that the motorist stop bar is advanced four feet further from the intersection when the
bicycle box is in place than under the original conditions. So even though bicyclists are stopping
further back from the intersection (because they are encroaching on the crosswalk less
frequently), right-turning and through-movement motorists are stopping even further back
(behind the advanced stop line) and are often allowing the bicyclists to pull into the intersection
first.
The percentage of bicyclists that waited in the queue did not change significantly across the
three bicycle box phases (p = 0 .286 and p = 0 .103 for the two phase changes). Researchers
discovered that bicyclists waited in the queue more often when it is dark so only daytime events
were considered for the 'Waits in the queue of motorists " variab le . Incidences where a bicyclist
made an avoidance maneuve r increased after the bicycle box skeleton was installed (p =
0 .132). However, no instances of avoidance occurred after the color was added indicating that
Bicycle Boxes at Intersections
Page 14 of 34
color may make bicyclists more comfortable with stopping at the intersection rather than on a
sidewalk . While only data observed during daylight hours was incorporated into the analys is, it
is interesting to note that bicycl ists riding at night were observed to stop in the motor vehicle
lane sign ificantly more frequently perhaps to increase their visibility to oncoming motorists .
Bicyclist Behavior
Percentage of Relevant
9 0 +-·--I
Events 8 0
II No Bike Bo x 70
II Skeleton Bi ke Box 6 0
D Co lor ed Bik e Box
4 0
3 0
20
10
0
Approach es in St o ps in bi ke Stops b efo re Wai t s in que u e M ak e s an
b ike lane lan e ar e a stop l ine of moto rists av oid an ce
ma nu ev er
Figure 6. Bicyclist behavior on Shoal Creek Boulevard and Anderson Lane
Bike de parts
first
"No Right Turn on Red" signs were installed at the same time color was added to the bicycle
box skeleton. Despite the presence of the sign , there was an extremely high rate of illegal right
turns on red . Of right-turning vehicles at the front of the queue at a red light about 79% turned
right illegally. Some bicyclists may have been discouraged from using the bicycle box due to the
heavy right turning traffic onto Anderson Lane . In several instances bicyclists that stopped in the
bicycle box were observed shifting their position to allow motorists to make the illegal right turns
on red.
Motorist stopping behavior is shown in Figure 7. The percentage of motorists that encroached
on the stop line significantly decreased after the bicycle box skeleton was installed (p = 0.099).
After the color was added the percentage of motorists encroaching on the stop line increased
compared to the Phase 1 condition . One hypothesis for why this occurred is that motorists were
inclined to initially comply with the new site design, but as it became clear that the percent of
time when a bicyclist was in the box was low, they began to ignore the advanced stop line .
Incidences of encroachment on the bicycle lane remained mostly constant over the different
phases of implementation.
Bicycle Boxes at Intersections
Page 15 of 34
Motorist Stopping Behavior
Percentage of
Relevant Ev e nts 40 -+--------i
No Bike Box 35
BSke lefon Bike Box 30
D Colored Bike Box 25
20
15
10
5
0
Encr oa<:hessto p line (or bi ke box) Encroa<:hes b ike lane
Figure 7. Motorist stopping position when a bicyclist is present at Shoal Creek Boulevard
and Anderson Lane
Figure 8 shows the percentage of bicyclists that stopped in each location at Shoal Creek
Boulevard and Anderson Lane before and after color was added to the bicycle box. Only events
when a bicyclist had the opportunity to access the bicycle box are shown . A bicyclist had the
opportunity to access the bicycle box when a motorist did not encroach on the bicycle lane or
stop line and there was no additional bicyclist blocking the bicycle box . This figure supports the
assertion that the color in the bicycle box encourages bicyclists to stay within the bicycle box
area. The percentage of bicyclists in this area increased while the percentage of bicyclists in the
queue and beyond the stop line decreased. Ultimately, not taking into account the bicyclists who
avoid or stop in the queue , the percentage of bicyclists who stopped behind the stop line
increased from about 76% to 94%. This increase proved to be significant (p = 0 .012).
Bicycle Boxes at Intersections
Page 16 of 34
4-2%
Crosswalk
ii 14.6%j
-----------------------------------------r----------
t
ovo
141 .7%1
'
IM ~~~~ Bik e
Lane
j22.9%j
Vehicle Lane
0.0%
Crosswalk
1 2.0% 1
Vehicle Lane
6 .1 %
69 .4%
B ike
Lane
Figure 8. Bicyclist stopping position by percentage on Shoal Creek Boulevard before and
after color is added to the bicycle box
Speedway at 38th Street
Figure 9 shows changes in bicyclist behavior before any bicycle box existed, after the skeleton
bicycle box was installed , and after the chartreuse color was added . There was a steady
increase in the number of bicyclists that use the bicycle lane on their approach to the
intersection . This fact combined with the significant decrease in the percentage of bicyclists that
waited in a queue of motorists (p=0 .007) and the increase in the percentage of bicyclists that
stopped before the stop line (p=0.015) after the skeleton bicycle box was installed suggests that
bicyclists used the facilities at the intersection more appropriately . Also, a significant increase in
the percentage of bicyclists that stopped in the bicycle lane area was observed . Since the
bicycle lane continues on the other side of the intersection, bicyclists at this location might find it
unnecessary to maneuver into the bicycle box area away from their straight line path. The main
problem that resulted from bicyclists stopping in the bicycle lane area was that it hindered
bicyclists who follow from entering the bicycle box. Often a queue of bicyclists would develop in
the bicycle lane causing the bicyclists further back in the queue to be a greater risk or being
right-hooked. Lastly, a significant decrease in the percentage of avoidance maneuvers
(p<0 .001) was observed when the skeleton bicycle box was installed, then this percentage
Bicycle Boxes at Intersections
Page 17 of 34
increased slightly after the color was added. In general , the addition of the bicycle box and color
led to safer and more predictable bicyclist actions.
Pe rcentage of
Relevant Event s
Iii No Bike Box
80
70
1111 Skeleton Bike Box 60
D Colored Bike Box so
40
30
20
10
0
Bicyclist Behavi or
Approa~hes in Stops in bike lane Stops before W aits in queue
bike lane area stop line o f motorists
Figure 9. Bicyclist behavior on Speedway and 38th Street
Makes an
avoidance
manu ev er
Safety was also quantified by how the bicyclist and motorist depart the intersection . Figure 10
shows an increase in the percentage of bicyclists that depart the intersection before a motorist
after each stage of implementation , which may suggest that motorists are more aware of the
presence of a bicyclist at the intersection and therefore more likely to yield to them when the
light turns green . Unfortunately , a significant increase in the percentage of bicyclists that ran a
red light was observed (p<0 .00 1 }, which could be due to the higher percentage of bicyclists
positioning themselves in front of motorists .
Bicycle Boxes at Intersections
Page 18 of 34
Percentage of
Re levant Events
II Before
Bskeleton Bike Box so
D Colored Bike Box
40
30
20
10
0
Bicyclist Departure
Bike departs first Runs red light Conflict
Figure 10. Bicyclist departure movements on Speedway and 38th Street
Additionally, motorist stopping position was recorded and is shown in Figure 11. Considerably
more motorists encroach on their stop line after the skeleton bicycle box was installed, which
could be due to motorists being unaware of the intention of the bicycle box . After the color was
added , a significant change in the percentage of motorists stopped behind the bicycle box in the
appropriate place was observed (p=0.002). Another positive result of the bicycle box was the
decrease in the percentage of motorists that encroach on the bicycle lane after the installation of
the skeleton bicycle box (p=0 .003), which allows for bicyclists to safely bypass a queue of
motorists and access the bicycle box. The small increase in motorists encroaching the bicycle
lane after color was added could be partially attributed to some motorists exiting a driveway
located just before the intersection. Lastly, the percentage of motorists making an illegal right
turn on red was recorded. Contrary to Shoal Creek Boulevard, only 5.3% of motorists made an
illegal right tum after the bicycle box was installed at this location . The low percentage of illegal
right turns combined with the high volume of bicyclists makes this site well suited for a bicycle
box. Also , the bicycle volume on this facility was much higher than on Shoal Creek Boulevard
(20-60 bicyclists per hour as opposed to 0-30 bicyclists per hour), which likely contributes to the
better motorist behavior since they know they are more likely to encounter a bicyclist.
Bicycle Boxes at Intersections
Page 19 of 34
Motorist Stopping Behavior
Percentage o f
Relevant: Eve n ts
Ill No Bi ke Bo x
0 Co lored Bik e Box
10
En croach esstop li ne (or bi ke box) Encroac he s bi ke lan e
Figure 11. Motorist stopping position when a bicyclist is present at Speedway and 38th
Street
Figure 12 shows the percentage of bicyclists stopped in each location at Speedway and 38th
Street before and after color was added to the bicycle box . Only events when a bicyclist was
given the opportunity to access the bicycle box are shown . A bicyclist had the opportunity to
access the bicycle box when a motorist did not encroach on the bicycle lane or stop line and
there was no additional bicyclist blocking the bicycle box . After the chartreuse was added ,
bicyclists stayed within the colored area 13% more often, indicating a positive reaction to the
color. A higher percentage of bicyclists began using the bicycle box correctly and did not
encroached on the crosswalk. Additionally , a lower percentage of bicyclists waited in a queue of
motorists , indicating that bicyclists are more confident using the bicycle lane to approach the
front of the intersection and wait in front of motorists . Overall , 25% of bicyclists stopped in or in
front of the bicycle box when only the skeleton was installed and 26.1 % used the bicycle box
after color was added . An ideal use of the bicycle box on southbound Speedway is shown below
in Figure 13 .
Bicycle Boxes at Intersections
Page 20 of 34
I
11s .9% 1 l40.9%j 111.0% I 132.9%1
Crosswalk Crosswalk
I
I
I
I
I -----------------------------------------r------------------------------------------------ ---r - - ------- -
I
• • ,
I 9.1% I 127.3%1
O'O
{{
I • • • t
t
I
15.1% l i 34 .2%1
1j~I I
t
t
t
I .
t
t
t
~ t
t • • I
II ~~~~ Bike
Lane
J 4.5% I
l~i ~~~~ Bike
I 1.4% I
Lane
Vehicle Lane Vehicle Lane
.. Figure 12. Bicyclist stopping pos1t1on by percentage on Speedway before and after color
is added to the bicycle box
Bicycle Boxes at Intersections
Page 21 of 34
Figure 13. Bicyclist using bicycle box on southbound Speedway at 38th Street
Bicycle Boxes at Intersections
Page 22 of 34
Conclusions and Recommendations
The resu lts of this study show that bicycle boxes accompanied with "No Right Turn on Red "
signs can improve the safety of bicyclists and motorists at intersections. At the two study sites ,
15-25% of bicyclists use the bicycle box when the bicycle lane and bicycle box were not blocked
by motorists or other bicyclists . The addition of the bicycle box allowed the bicyclist to take a
much safer stopping position in front of motorists, resulting in a significant increase in the
percentage of bicyclists that departed the intersection first. Although the addition of the color did
not significantly affect the percentage of bicyclists that used the bicycle box, it does allow
motorists to be more aware of the presence of a bicyclist ; a higher percentage of bicyclists
approach the intersection in the bicycle lane and stop within the colored area ahead of stopped
motorists .
In several cases , positive changes in bicyclist behavior were observed at the intersection of
Shoal Creek Boulevard and Anderson Lane. Despite positioning themselves further from the
intersection, motorists were observed to give bicyclists the right-of-way more often with the
presence of the bicycle box . Bicyclists riding at night tended to wait in the queue (or full lane) at
the intersection more often than those during the day. After the color was added to the bicycle
box, the percentage of bicyclists approaching the intersection in the bicycle lane increased
su'ggesting that the presense of color influenced this behavior. The fact that the bicycle box on
Shoal Creek Boulevard saw a slightly higher percentage of bicycle box usage may suggest that
the geometrey of this intersection (absence of bicycle lane on the opposite side) is more ideal
than that of Speedway and 38th . Shoal Creek Boulevard observed a high percentage of
motorists that turned right on red illegally after the "No Right Tum on Red " signs were
installed . Researchers observed bicyclists repositioning themselves at the intersection to allow
motorists to turn right on red so it may be possible that the heavy right turning traffic
discourages use of the bicycle box . In regards to motorist stopping behav ior, the percentage of
motorists that encroached on the stop line decreased significantly with the implementation of the
skeleton bicycle box. However, after the addition of color this percentage returned to a value
similar to that of the before condition . It is possible that this occurred because bicycle volumes
were not very high at this location , so although motorists initially complied with the new device ,
they eventually ignored the advanced stop line . Overall , results indicate that the bicycle box
resulted in safer conditions at the intersection.
At Speedway and 38th Street, the installation of the bicycle box proved to be effective in
increasing safety . A decrease in the percentage of bicyclists that waited in a queue of motorists
and an increase in the percentage of bicyclists departing first indicate that safety is indeed
improved. Due to the existing bicycle lane on the opposite side of the intersection, it is possible
that bicyclists did not maneuver into the bicycle box because they did not want to shift away
from their straight line path . The percentage of bicyclists that ran a red light increased after the
installation of the bicycle box. Although no conflicts or accidents were observed , this is an
undesirable condition . Additionally , motorist behavior improved , which is evident by the
decrease in bicycle lane encroachment and bicycle box encroachment after the color was
added .
Given these results , the CTR research team recommends that bicycle boxes be installed at
intersections where the majority of motorists do not turn right during a red phase and the volume
of bicyclists is high . Of the intersections that meet this condition , priority should be given to
intersections where the bicycle lane does not continue immediately after the intersection and to
intersections where a safety hazard (e .g ., a history of right-hook collisions) is evident. For
Bicycle Boxes at Intersections
Page 23 of 34
locations where the bicycle la ne does continue on the opposite side of the intersection , it may
be sufficient to implement an advanced stop bar or to simply color the bicycle lane near the
intersection to increase visibility. The team also recommends an educational campaign to inform
bicyclists and motorists how t o properly use the bicycle box. Given that the intersection of Shoal
Creek Boulevard and Anderson Lane is ideal for this particular bicycle box geometry since the
bicycle lane does not contin ue immediately on the other side of the intersection and the
roadway narrows , education about the bicycle box may increase the percentage of bicyclists
that utilize it. The fact that more bicyclists wait in the full lane at night than during the day
indicates that it may be worthwhile to further research differences in bicyclist riding behavior
based on light conditions.
Further research is needed to determine the appropriate sizing for the bicycle box. Feedback
from the public indicates that eight feet is not large enough to comfortably maneuver into the
box. However, previous research elsewhere has indicated that the rate of motorists encroaching
into the box increases as the size of the box increases .
Finally, the team recommends installing color on bicycle boxes if available and financially viable.
When color was added , bicyclists tended to follow and stay within the colored area . At
Speedway and 38th Street, motorists encroached on the bicycle box less frequently when the
color was added. Bicyclists were also given the right-of-way more often after installation of the
skeleton bicycle box , and more often still after the application of color. If including the color is
not an option , the team still re commends installing the skeleton bicycle box due to the positive
results indicated by this study.
Bicycle Boxes at Intersections
Page 24 of 34
References
Douma, F. and Cleaveland, F. "The Impact of Bicycling Facilities on Commute Mode Share ."
MNDOT Report No. MN/RC 2008-33, August 2008.
Bowman-Melton/Alta Planning and Design (BMA), 'The University of Texas Bicycle Plan:
Integrating Bikes into a Pedestrian Campus, Austin, Texas." August 2007 .
Sener, l.N., Eluru, N. and Bhat , C.R. "An Analysis of Bicyclists and Bicycling Characteristics:
Who, Why, and How Much are they Bicycling?", Transportation Research Record, 2009.
Dill, J. and Voros , K. "Factors Affecting Bicycling Demand: Initial Survey Findings from the
Portland, Oregon Region." Transportation Research Record, No . 2031 , pp. 9-17 , 2007.
Bicycle Boxes at Intersections
Page 25 of 34
APPENDIX A: Bicycle Counts
Figure 14 and Figure 15 show the total number of bicyclists observed by hour of the day at
Shoal Creek Boulevard and Speedway, respectively . Shoal C reek Boulevard experienced an
increasing number of bicyclists as the afternoon progressed for all three phases. Based on the
high number of bicyclists between 5 :00 PM and 7:00 PM, Shoal Creek Boulevard is most likely
a commuter route with about 10 bicyclists an hour. Bicycle volumes on Speedway also
increased as the afternoon progressed, but had a slightly more constant trend . This could be
due to its proximity to The University of Texas since students tend to have more flexible
schedules than typical comm uters. On average , about 10 bicyclists per hour and 30 bicyclists
per hour traveled along Shoal Creek Boulevard and along Speedway , respectively.
Number of
Bicyclists
Recorded
Per Hour :: L---·--·-·-·-·-------------0-----·-·--------------·--·-
20 -+----------------0~--
8 0
15 -+--------------· 0 --
0 -----h -------------10 ·-----------------
1 ____ ,~ g Q _o Sr 0 0 g ~
0 ~.----~--------~---~
0 2 4 6 8
Hour of the Day (PM)
ONoBike Box
O Ske leton Bike Box
0 Colored Bike Box
Figure 14. Number of bicyclists recorded each hour of the day on Shoal Creek Boulevard
Bicycle Boxes at Intersections
Page 26 of 34
Number of
Bicyclists
Reoord e d
Per Hour
70
60
50
40
30
20
1()
0
0 1
0
0
2
0
3 4
Hourof the Day [PM)
0
0
5
0
0
6 7
ONo Bike Box
O Skeleton Bike Box
O Col ored Bike Box
Figure 15. Number of bicyclists recorded each hour of the day on Speedway
Figure 16 and Figure 17 show the total number of bicyclists observed each day of the week at
Shoal Creek Boulevard and Speedway , respectively. Both sites show a varying number of
bicyclists for each day of the week. Bicycle volumes on Shoal Creek Boulevard were observed
to range from five to 10 bicyclists per hour, while they range from 20 to 40 bicyclists per hour on
Speedway over the course of the week.
35
Num ber of 30
Bicyclists
Recorded 25
Per Hour
20
15
10
5
0
1 2 3 4 5
Day of the week (whe r e Sund ay=l )
6 7
~NoB i ke Box
<>Skeleton Bike Box
O Colored Bike Box
Figure 16. Number of bicyclists recorded each day of the week on Shoal Creek Boulevard
Bicycle Boxes at Intersections
Page 27 of 34
70
'Numberof 60
Bicyclists
Recorded 50
Per Hour
40
30
20
10
0
Q
<>
1 2
(}
<.;> <> <>
<> e
A 0
I
3 4. 5
Day of the week (wbereSunday=t}
<>
~
v
6 7
<>No Bike Box
<>Skeleton B.ike Box
<> Colored Bike Box
Figure 17. Number of bicyclists recorded each day of the week on Speedway
Bicycle Boxes at Intersections
Page 28 of 34
APPENDIX 8: Thermoplastic Cost, Maintenance, and Upkeep
The colored thermoplastic, sharrows , and other thermoplastic forms were purchased from Flint
Trading Inc (Thomasville, NC). Costs for these materials are provided in Table 2 .
Table 2. Cost of thermoplastic units used in the studies
Item Cost Unit
Colored Thermoplastic $4.46 SF
Sh arrows $126.30 EA
"WAIT HERE" Legend $267.66 EA
Bicycle Symbol $98.21 EA
Per manufacturer guidelines , the installation of the colored thermoplastic first required the
application of an oil-based coating to the aspha lt. The optimal installation of this initial layer
would be an application to asphalt free of debris and sediment. The oil layer needed to dry (WC)
before the colored thermoplastic could be laid out. Otherwise , the heat applied to the
thermoplastic would cause the oil to burn through the material.
An installation error of the colored thermoplastic on Dean Keaton at the IH-35 exit ramp led to
its quick deterioration. While waiting for the oil layer to dry, one of the crew members spilled a
large amount of water onto the oil. This water eventually led to inadequate bonding between the
pavement and the thermoplastic , which resulted in the thermoplastic breaking up (illustrated in
Figure 18).
Also , the quality of pavement was a contributing factor to the quick deterioration of the colored
thermoplastic , shown in Figure 18 . In particular, the pavement on Speedway at 38th Street is
cracked and uneven from the high volume of bus traffic . Clearing debris from the deep cracks of
the application surface was nearly impossible ; applying the oil-layer to these same cracks and
the other surface flaws was also troublesome . The resultant colored thermoplastic was only
tenuously bonded to the street surface at best.
Figure 18. Deteriorating thermoplastic on Dean Keeton Street at one of the 1-35 exit
ramps (breaking up in sheets)
Bicycle Boxes at Intersections
Page 29 of 34
Additionally , the colored thermoplastic on Speedway was discolored very quickly (see Figure
19). This discoloration is likely due to the heavy bus traffic on Speedway , where there is a peak
hourly volume of over 15 buses/hour. This discoloration may have been compounded by the
buses, wider than personal cars, driving in the colored lane . Another concern with the
thermoplastic is shown in Figure 20 . It is unclear whether the uneven application of
thermoplastic shown in the photograph is the result of a misapplication, the rough nature of the
street surface , or a deterioration problem.
Figure 19. Poor quality of road led to the deterioration of the thermoplastic bike boxes
on Speedway
Figure 20. Thermoplastic thinning on the colored lane on San Jacinto Boulevard
Installing colo red thermoplastic on new pavement would be the optimal situation. In the future ,
the City of Austin will most likely be applying a fresh asphalt surface (seal coat, microsurface, or
overlay) before the installation of any proposed colored thermoplastic . A fresh street surface will
provide a surface free of cracks and other defects, which could lead to erroneous installation
and quick deterioration . These properties also lessen the importance of the oil layer in creating
a bond between the pavement and thermoplastic.
Bicycle Boxes at Intersections
Page 30 of 34
All sharrows were installed on top of a painted black box in order to provide visual
contrast. Additionally, all sharrows were installed in the outside travel lanes. The sharrows on
Guadalupe, Lavaca, and 51 st Streets were installed in the center of the outside travel lanes as
described by Figure 21 . Each sharrow was individually placed in order to keep the sharrow out
of the typical wheel paths and to avoid driveways where entering and exiting vehicles would
have more variable wheel paths. By placing the sharrows outside of wheel paths the integrity of
the thermoplastic was maintained.
Figure 21. Central placement of sharrow resulted in thriving thermoplastic five months
after installation.
The east-bound sharrows on Dean Keeton Street were installed in the center of the outside
travel lanes (see Figure 22) in the same manner as the sharrows on Guadalupe, Lavaca, and
51st Streets. Like these other streets, centralizing the east-bound Dean Keeton Street sharrows
helped to preserve the thermoplastic. Another reason these sharrows were installed in the
center of the travel lane was to keep them out of the path of buses. Dean Keeton Street has an
extremely high volume of bus traffic (peak hourly volume of 40 buses/hour) and there a number
of bus stops requiring buses to enter and exit the outer travel lane as shown in Figure 22.
Finally east-bound bicyclists are also able to reach faster speeds because of the downhill
allowing bicyclists and cars to travel at similar speeds.
Bicycle Boxes at Intersections
Page 31 of 34
Figure 22. Central placement of sharrows on east-bound, downhill Dean Keeton Street
The west-bound sharrows on Dean Keeton differed from the other locations as these sharrows
were aligned closer to the curb (see Figure 23). These sharrows were aligned closer to the curb
for the following reasons : the outside travel lane on west-bound Dean Keeton was very large ,
there were no bus stops , the sharrows were only utilized to provide a bicycle facility to link two
bicycle lanes , and west-bound bicyclists slow down to travel uphill.
Bicycle Boxes at Intersections
Page 32 of 34
Figure 23. Curb-justified placement of sharrows on west-bound, uphill Dean Keeton
Street
Bicycle Boxes at Intersections
Page 33 of 34
APPENDIX C: P-values
Table 3 and Table 4 show the p-values for the comparisons made on Shoal Creek Boulevard and Speedway , respectively . Tests of statistical
significance were used to determine if there were any significant differences between the different phases of bicycle box implementation
including: no bicycle box, skeleton bicycle box, and colored bicycle box. All proportions and means were compared using a two-sided test of
equality, where the null hypothesis was that no change occurred and the alternative hypothesis that behavior changed.
Table 3. P-values for comparisons of three stages for Shoal Creek Boulevard and Anderson Lane
Bicycle Behavior
Comparison Approaches Stops in bike Stops before Waits in queue Makes an avoidance
in bike lane lane area stop line of motorists maneuver
No Bike Box vs . 0 .343 <0 .001 0 .009 0.286 0.132 Skeleton Bike Box
Skeleton Bike Bo x 0 .001 0 .001 0 .005 0 .103 N/A vs. Colored Bike Box
No Bi ke Box vs . 0 .005 0 .317 <0 .001 0 .376 N/A Colored Bike Box
Table4. P-values for comparisons of the three stages for Speedway and 38th Street
Comparison Approaches
in bike lane
No Bike Box vs . 0 .101 Ske leton Bike Box
Skeleton Bike Box 0 .142 vs. Colored Bike Box
No Bike Box vs . 0 .002 Colored Bike Bo x
Bicycle Boxes at Intersections
Page 34 of 34
Stops in bike
lane area
0.001
0 .607
0 .002
Bicycl ist Behavior
Stops before Waits in queue Makes an avoidance
stop line of motorists maneuver
0 .015 0.007 <0.001
0 .329 0.516 0 .003
<0 .001 0 .001 0 .008
Bike
departs first
0 .000
0 .267
<0.001
Bike
departs first
0 .847
0 .315
0.224
Motorist Behavior
Encroaches Encroaches
stop line bike lane
0.167 0 .559
0 .099 0 .744
0 .624 0 .800
Motorist Behavior
Runs red Encroaches Encroaches
light stop line bike lane
0 .624 <0 .001 0 .003
<0 .001 0 .190 0 .058
<0 .001 0 .002 0 .110
~~~
-~"-~R"'\
~~·r-
w~ ~·
pttw~ -
Pf.,k-~>t
~pl-0\IJL
bJ~ ().., t;:_ .---e_ cli..{. c (;\_,~ ~
. 12.U..~
:r-o.++.
~ -
j / ~Cv
la.,--p .
~~
~ -,i>t+.
~ ~ ~ Ncl ~~"'"V\ I~ povuf/~,
l(j~J
' '*-'~ 1 "'" ~u c:h "UV\ e~ ~ I O"VL~ s ~1 cJ._
d~~
11
'
'
I
,' --
!~=========================--~~
Wron Way
Bicyc ist
Description: The bicyclist was on a parallel
path with the motorist and was riding in the
roadway against traffic.
Summary: The bicyclist age distribution for
this crash generally followed the pattern for all
crashes combined .
More than 1/4 happened under conditions of
darkness, with and without street lights.
Twenty two percent of adult bicyclists age 25
and older had been drinking. Twenty two percent
were motorist hit & run .
In 7 percent of these events , the pre-crash
evasive actions of both parties were
counteractive.
This crash tended to be more severe than the
average.
Frequency: 81 cases; 2. 7% of all crashes
Severity: 32% resulted in serious or fatal injuries
Bicyclist Age
..... c
30 ...................................................... .
25
20 -i·······················w
~ 15
G>
a.. 10
5
• All crashes
0--..... ----------.... --
0-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-44 45-64 65+
Figur e 23. Bicyclist age in "Wrong Way Bicyclist."
\O\N h
u ~ .
f-h~Jf~.€~.-
-----....--------------
- - ------------~----~·
---------
-------------------
----------------------------
-----------------------
--------------------------
--------~-----
---------
--------------+1-------
--------------IH---------
-----------
Engineering Study
Crosswalk Markings along Church Street at Midblock Locations
Evaluated by: James Robertson,
Graduate Traffic Engineer
City of College Station
Reviewed by: Troy Rother, P .E.
City Traffic Engineer
City of College Station
Last Edited: June 9, 2014
SUMMARY
The purpose of this engineering study is to determine if crosswalk markings should be installed
at the midblock locations with brick pavers and curb ramps along Church Street.
This engineering study finds that crosswalk markings should be installed at these two locations
for the following reasons:
• Based upon the pedestrian treatment evaluation method in TCRP 1 Report112/NCHRP2
Report 562, crosswalk markings are warranted at the midblock crossing locations along
Church Street.
• The brick pavers in the traveled way communicate to drivers and pedestrians that these
locations are marked crosswalks ; however, at non-intersection locations, the only traffic
control device approved for legally communicating the presence of a crosswalk are
crosswalk markings (2011 Texas MUTCD3 Section 3B.18 Paragraph 03; Texas State
Statute 552 .003).
• The "use of either non-reflective or retroreflective colored pavement treatments without
the white crosswalk lines specified by Section 3B .17, in a manner that would suggest to
pedestrians or drivers that it is a "marked" crosswalk, is not in compliance with the
MUTCD. " (FHWA 4 Official Interpretation 3-178(I), page 2 , paragraph 2).
• Of the options for bringing these locations into compliance with the Texas MUTCD , the
addition of 12-inch transverse lines on both side of the brick pavers is the best use of
public resources .
Additionally , to comply with FHWA Official Interpretations and the Texas MUTCD , the use of
curb ramps , brick pavers, and crosswalk markings should be based upon an engineering study .
The City of College Station Public Works Department and Planning and Development Service
1 Transit Cooperative Research Program
2 National Coo perative Highway Research Program
3 Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices
4 Federal Highway Administration
1
r
Department should work together to establish policies to guide the engineering decision to install
curb ramps , brick pavers , or crossw alk markings at locations away from intersections .
LOCATION
The crossing locations are shown in Figure 1 and Figure 2 .
_,a_ _ __,;··~
Figure 1. Church Street Mid block Crossing 100 ft South of Tauber Street.
Figure 2. Church Street Mid block Crossing 70 ft South of Nagle Street.
2
REQUIREMENT FOR AN ENGINEERING STUDY
According to the Section 3B.18 Paragraph 8 of the 2011 Texas MUTCD :
Cro ssw alk lines should not be used indiscriminately. An engineering study should be performed
before a marked crosswalk is installed at a location away from a traffic control signal or an
approach controlled by a STOP or YIELD sign. The engineering study should consider th e
number of lanes, the presence of a median, the distance from adjacent signalized intersections,
the pedestrian volumes and delays, the average daily traffic (ADT), the posted or statutory speed
limit or 85th-percentile speed, the geometry of the location, the possible consolidation of
multiple crossing points, the availability of street lighting, and other appropriate factors.
Other appropriate factors considered as part of this engineering study are the use of colored
pavements as traffic control devices (Chapter 3G) and FHWA official interpretations pertaining
to the use of colored pavements as traffic control devices .
APPLICABLE MUTCD SECTIONS AND OFFICIAL INTERPRETATIONS
The following is a summary of the Texas MUTCD sections, Texas State Statutes , and FHWA
official interpretations reviewed as part of this engineering study. Additionally, key paragraphs
and quotes pertinent to this engineering study are provided in full text.
In general , the documents and statutes reviewed suggest the following :
• Only pavement markings may be used to establish the presence of a "marked" crosswalk
away from intersections .
• Unmarked crosswalks may only occur at intersections.
• The midblock locations on Church Street do not meet the Texas MUTCD definition of a
crosswalk.
• According to FHW A , the use of brick pavers to suggest to roadway users the presence of
a "marked" crosswalk does not comply with the Texas MUTCD.
Applicable Texas MUTCD Sections
The applicable manual at the time of this Engineering Study is the 2011 Texas MUTCD with
Revision 1. The following portions of the MUTCD are applicable to this Engineering Study :
• Section lA.13 Definitions of Headings, Words, and Phrases in this Manual.
• Section 3B .18 Crosswalk Markings.
• Chapter 3G. Colored Pavements
Key paragraphs from the 2011 Tex as MUTCD with Revision 1 applicable to crosswalks
established away from intersections are:
• Definition of a crosswalk (Section lA.13 , Paragraph 03 , Definition 44).
• Definition of an intersection (Section lA.13 , Paragraph 03 , Definition 94).
• Definition of a traffic control de vice (Section lA.13 , Paragraph 03 , Definition 238).
• Legal establishment of a crosswalk at non-intersections (Section 3B.18 Paragraph 03).
3
Definition of a Crossw alk -Texas MUTCD
From Section lA.13 , Paragraph 03 , Definition 44 of the Texas MUTCD:
Crosswalk-( a) that part of a roadway at an intersection included within the
connections of the lateral lines of the sidewalks on opposite sides of the highway
measured from the curbs or in the absence of curbs, from the edges of the
traversable roadway, and in the absence of a sidewalk on one side of the roadway,
the part of a roadway included within the extension of the lateral lines of the
sidewalk at right angles to the center line; (b) any portion of a roadway at an
intersection or elsewhere distinctly indicated as a pedestrian crossing by pavement
marking lines on the surface, which might be supplemented by contrasting
pavement texture, style, or color.
Definition of an Intersection -Texas MUTCD
From Section lA.13, Paragraph 03 , Definition 94 of the Texas MUTCD (modified to remove the
typographical error in Revision 1 of the Te x as MUTCD):
Intersection-intersection is defined as follows:
(a) The area embraced within the prolongation or connection of the lateral curb
lines, or if none, the lateral boundary lines of the roadways of two highways that
join one another at, or approximately at, right angles, or the area within which
vehicles traveling on different highways that join at any other angle might come into
conflict.
(b) The junction of an alley or driveway with a roadway or highway shall not
constitute an intersection, unless the roadway or highway at said junction is
controlled by a traffic control device.
(c) If a highway includes two roadways that are 30 feet or more apart (see definition
of Median), then every crossing of each roadway of such divided highway by an
intersecting highway shall be a separate intersection.
( d) If both intersecting highways include two roadways that are 30 feet or more
apart, then every crossing of any two roadways of such highways shall be a separate
intersection.
(e) At a location controlled by a traffic control signal, regardless of the distance
between the separate intersections as defined in (c) and (d) above:
(1) If a stop line, yield line, or crosswalk has not been designated on the
roadway (within the median) between the separate intersections, the two
intersections and the roadway (median) between them shall be considered as
one intersection;
(2) Where a stop line, yield line, or crosswalk is designated on the roadway
on the intersection approach, the area within the crosswalk and/or beyond
the designated stop line or yield line shall be part of the intersection; and
(3) Where a crosswalk is designated on a roadway on the departure from the
intersection, the intersection shall include the area extending to the far side
of such crosswalk.
4
Definition of a Traffic Control Device -Texas MUTCD
From Section lA.13 , Paragraph 03 , Definition 238 of the Texas MUTCD:
Traffic Control Device-a sign, signal, marking, or other device used to regulate,
warn, or guide traffic, placed on, over, or adjacent to a street, highway, private road
open to public travel, pedestrian facility, or shared-use path by authority of a public
agency or official having jurisdiction, or, in the case of a private road open to public
travel, by authority of the private owner or private official having jurisdiction.
Legal Establishment of Crosswalks at Non-Inte rsections-Texas MUTCD
From Section 3B.18 Paragraph 03 in the Texas MUTCD:
At non-intersection locations , crosswalk markings legally es tablish the crosswalk.
Applicable FHW A Official Interpretations
Additionally, FHWA official interpretations pertinent to this engineering study are:
• 3-152 (I)-Colored Pavements Within Crosswalks , December 2001.
• 3-169 (I) Section 3B.19 Retroreflective Colored Pavement, September 2004.
• 3-178(1)-Retroreflective Colored Pavement -Additional Clarification , April 2005.
• 3(09)-8 (I)-Colored Pavement Treatments in Crosswalks , May 2011.
• 3(09)-24(1) -Application of Colored Pavements, August 2013 .
A key statement from FHW A Official Interpretation 3-178(1) is:
The "use of either non-reflective or retroreflective colored pavement treatments without
the white crosswalk lines specified by Section 3B. l 7 , in a manner that would suggest to
pedestrians or drivers that it is a "marked" crosswalk, is not in compliance with the
MUTCD . "(FHWA Official Interpretation 3-178(1), page 2, paragraph 2).
Applicable Texas State Statutes
Sec. 552 .003. PEDESTRIAN RIGHT-OF-WAY AT CROSSWALK.
(a) The operator of a vehicle shall yield the right-of-way to a pedestrian crossing a
roadway in a crosswalk if:
(1) No traffic control signal is in place or in operation; and
(2) The pedestrian is:
(A) On the half of the roadway in which the vehicle is traveling ; or
(B) Approaching so closely from the opposite half of the roadway as to
be in danger .
(b) Notwithstanding Subsection (a), a pedestrian may not suddenly leave a curb or other
place of safety and proceed into a crosswalk in the path of a vehicle so close that it is
impossible for the vehicle operator to yield.
5
( c) The operator of a vehicle approaching from the rear of a vehicle that is stopped at a
crosswalk to permit a pedestrian to cross a roadway may not pass the stopped vehicle.
Sec. 552.005 . CROSSING AT POINT OTHER THAN CROSSWALK.
(a) A pedestrian shall yield the right-of-way to a vehicle on the highway if crossing a
roadway at a place:
(1) Other than in a marked crosswalk or in an unmarked crosswalk at an
intersection; or
(2) Where a pedestrian tunnel or overhead pedestrian crossing has been provided.
ENGINEERING EVALUATION
Based upon NCHRP Report 563 , crosswalk markings are warranted at the midblock location.
Additionally, the removal of the curb ramps and brick pavers at the midblock locations would
not be the best use of public resources. This section documents the data an analysis used to
reach these conclusions.
Potential Engineering Alternatives
Based upon the Texas MUTCD, Texas State Statutes, and FHWA Official Interpretations , the
compliant options available for the midblock locations along Church Street with curb ramps and
brick pavers are :
1. Install 12-inch solid transverse lines on both sides of the brick pavers at the two midblock
crossing locations .
2. Remove the curb ramps and brick pavers at the midblock locations.
Data
A traffic count was conducted at the Intersection of Church Street and Tauber Street on April 16 ,
2014 from 11:30 am until 1:3 0 pm and again from 4:45 PM until 6 :15 PM. These data were used
to determine the Afternoon Peak Hour Traffic Volume along Church Street between Tauber and
College Main. While pedestrian crossing at the midblock location were not counted, based upon
field observations , the value is likely more than 20 crossings per hour.
A Summary of the engineering considerations and values are provided Table 1.
6
T bl 1 S a e . ummary o f E ngmeermg c 'd f ons1 era ions.
Engineering Study Considerations Values
Number ofLanes1 2 Lanes
Presence of a Median 1 No Median
Distance from Adjacent Signalized Intersections 1 Not Applicable
Distance from Adjacent Stop-Controlled 100 ft to Tauber Street Intersections for crossing between Tauber Street 190 ft to College Main and College Main
Distance from Adjacent Stop-Controlled 420 ft to Tauber Street Intersections for crossing between Tauber Street 70 ft to Nagle Street and Nagle Street
Pedestrian Volume 1 >2 0 crossings per hour
Peak-Hour Pedestrian Delay1•3 17.0 seconds/crossing
Total Peak-Hour Pedestrian Delay 1•3 0.1 hours
Estimated Average Daily Traffic (ADT)1•2 4, 290 veh/day
Noon Peak Hour Traffic Volume 374 veh/h
Afternoon Peak Hour Traffic Volume 429 veh/h
Posted Statutory Speed Limit 25 mph or 85th Percentile Speed1
These midblock crossing
Possible consolidation of multiple crossing locations move crossings
points1 away from intersections to
a centralized midblock
location.
Availability of street lighting 1 Street lighting is available
1 Stated in Texas MUTCD Section 3B .18 Guidance 08
2 ADT estimated under the assumption that the peak hour traffic volume is 10
percent of the ADT.
3 Pedestrian delay is calculated in (TABLE)
Engineering Evaluation Using TCRP 112 I NCHRP 562 Methods
TCRP Report 112 I NCHRP Report 562 provides a method of estimating pedestrian delay and
using pedestrian delay to determine traffic control. Using the methods provided in Worksheet 1
on page 69 , the values in Table 2 were determined. The calculations using the TCRP
112/NCHRP 562 methods, shown in Table 2, demonstrate that the installation of crosswalk
markings is warranted at the midblock locations with curb ramps and brick pavers.
7
T bl 2 S a e . ummarv o f TCRP 112/ NCHRP 562 C l l . a cu at10ns.
Traffic Control Device Warranted: YES
Peak-hour pedestrian volume (ped/h): 20 Input
Traffic Signal Warranted: no
Peak-hour roadway traffic volume (veh/h): 429 Input
Minimum warrant volume (veh/h): 607 Calculated
Pedestrian Delay (s/crossing): 17.0
Crossing distance (ft): 29 Input
Walking speed (ft/s): 3.0 Input
Pedestrian start-up time (s): 3.0 Default
Critical gap for crossing (s): 12.7 Calculated
Peak-hour roadway traffic volume (veh/h): 429 Calculated
Roadway traffic flow-rate (veh/s): 0.119 Calculated
Average pedestrian delay (s/crossing): 17.0 Calculated
Total pedestrian delay (h): 0.1 Calculated
Recommended Treatment: CROSSWALK
REFRENCES
Texas Department of Transportation (2012), Texas MUTCD Manual on Uniform Traffic Control
Devices Revision 1, Texas Department of Transportation, Austin, TX.
Fitzpatrick, K., S. Turner, M. Brewer, P. Carlson, B . Ullman, N . Trout, E .S . Park, J . Whitacre , N ,
Lalani , D. Lord (2006). Improving Pedestrian Safety at Unsignalized Crossings , Transit
Cooperative Research Program Report 112/National Cooperative Highway Research Program
Report 562 , Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C.
Federal Highway Administration (2001) Official Interpretation 3-152 (I)-Colored Pavements
within Crosswalks , December 2001 .
Federal Highway Administration (2004) Official Interpretation 3-169 (I) Section 3B.19
Retroreflective Colored Pavement, September 2004.
Federal Highway Administration (2005) Official Interpretation 3-178(I) -Retroreflective
Colored Pavement -Additional Clarification, April 2005.
Federal Highway Administration (2011) Official Interpretation 3(09)-8 (I) -Colored Pavement
Treatments in Crosswalks , May 2011 .
Federal highway Administration (2013) Official Interpretation 3(09)-24(!) -Application of
Colored Pavements, August 2013.
8