Bicycle Signals Discussion at the NCUTCD Meeting

At the National Committee on Uniform Traffic Control Devices Committee Joint Signals/Bicycles meeting last night we made progress on the provision of bicycle signals in the Manual. The FHWA staff started off with a discussion of the direction they have been given by Ray LaHood, who implements policy through the FHWA Administrator Victor Mendez. The report we got from the staff was that  that "75%" of the NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide would be implemented in the next Manual. The FHWA contact seemed to suggest that it would happen even if the National Committee did not support the changes which seems to be a big change to what the National Committee is used to.

Pedestrian hybrid beacon and bicycle signal farside

One of the elements that FHWA staff and the Signals folks raised at the end of the dialogue was the problems as they saw them with the combination of stop signs and the pedestrian hybrid beacon side street display. They believe that the combination of a stop sign and a bicycle traffic signal is in direct conflict and therefore should be strictly prohibited in the MUTCD (shall statement). I highlighted that we have not had an operational problem with this configuration at our two locations and we're planning to build two more (SE 19th & Tacoma and E 53rd & Burnside). This is similar to the complaint with the Half Signals. In the streamlining effort of the Manual, it was pointed out that Half Signals are no longer strictly prohibited. The intent is that the Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon would specifically prohibit bicycle signals being part of the installation. There was also specific feedback that Portland received with how the display was using flashing red and not to use the wig wag operation (wig wag is reserved for railroad signals in all other cases).

There was also the argument that beacons should not be at intersections. The fundamental research on the topic was focused in Tucson where they have deployed more than 80 beacons and they are mostly at intersections. There has been some conversation about eliminating that should not statement based on feedback from Tucson and other communities.

Portland Signals staff had concerns related to the pedestrian countdown timer and the safety of a person (running or cycling) arriving during the flashing don't walk countdown. There are some that are not interested in the argument as engineers often think of these crossing events as singular in nature (limited walking and cycling occurs in their communities?), so the late arriving person should just wait for the next opportunity and not cross on the Flashing Don't Walk.

The other element for bicycle signals that FHWA wanted the National Committee and the Task Force to consider was the inclusion of warrants. The warrants used in the California MUTCD are captured below. The entire CA MUTCD can be found here.

The one problem I see with the warrants (this is likely why there isn't a proliferation of bicycle signals in CA) is the need for >50 bicycles at a particular location. If there's no crossing opportunity now, it will be likely to not have 50 crossings. If the anticipation or projection of bicycle volumes is allowed than this isn't as significant of a barrier.

I confirmed with FHWA staff that the City of Portland's implementation of a bicycle signal at a pedestrian hybrid beacon is still under experimental review, if this prohibition comes to pass, the City would be notified.

How far is too far to walk to a traffic signal or beacon?

I was considering the question I fielded at the Livable Streets Talk last night and came across this excerpt from the NCHRP 562 report that is worth citing in the future.


Distance to Nearest Traffic Signal. The current(pre-2006) MUTCD includes a provision that a signal shall not be considered at locations within 300 ft (91 m) of another signal. This is believed to be based on the distance a pedestrian will walk in order to cross the major street. The researchers did not identify data that support this distance or other distances of how far beyond the desired path a pedestrian would be willing to walk. The USDOT’s 1995 Nationwide Personal Transportation Survey did find that most pedestrian trips (73 percent) are 0.5 mi (0.8 km) or less.With most trips being about 2,600 ft (792 m), pedestrians might not be willing to increase their trip length by more than 10 percent in order to walk to a different crossing location. As part of the on-street pedestrian surveys documented in Appendix K, those interviewed were asked “if this crossing was not here, would you walk to the next intersection (point to intersection of interest)?”For three of the sites, only about 25 percent of the respondents would walk to a signalized intersection at 550, 950, or 1,000 ft (168, 290, or 305 m). For the site with a signalized intersection about 200 ft (61 m) from the crossing, about 50 percent of those interviewed would walk to that crossing. The remaining site where this question was appropriate did not follow similar findings. A much higher percentage indicated that they would be willing to walk to another crossing. Over 65 percent of the respondents indicated that they would walk 600 ft (183 m) to cross at a signalized crossing. The number of individuals willing to walk such a distance was influenced by the number of lanes at the site (six lanes), speed and volume of traffic (high), and existing treatment (marked crosswalk only). Several of the respondents selected “yes” to the question and then commented that they walk to the nearby crossing “most of the time” or “sometimes” depending on the weather or other factors.
A future research effort should consider the same question for people on bicycles. Presumably, the speed of a cyclists expands the distance somewhat, but behavior seems largely sensitive to perceived risk.

Cycletrack and Blue Marking for Conflict & Transition Zones in Cambridge

Cambridge, MA was one of the earliest adopters of cycletracks in the U.S. and this was my first time cycling on the facility which is adjacent to the MIT campus. The cycletrack was enjoyable to ride on and reminded me of many of the Dutch cycletracks I had used last summer or the one way facilities common in Copenhagen.  The nature of having the cycling facility flush with the driveway (which is lower speed traffic) is a nice touch. The markings at the driveway denote the potential for a conflict or a transition at the locations where the cycletrack is ending.
The City was using the blue markings prior to the feedback the City of Portland got related to using green and apparently they haven't had the need to go back and refresh the markings.  
The treatment that was worth noting was the yield to bikes sign and the lane configuration sign which included the blue bike lane to indicate to motorists that the lane exists and there should be an awareness of the potential for a conflict. The first time I saw the sign, I had a hard time noting the bike marking in the lane, the black and blue does not provide a very good contrast that is easy to pick up and doesn't offer a consistent marking for the bike symbol, I tend to prefer the addition of the rider to match the striping, but that's a detail that's something to talk with the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) National Committee about this week.    
This post reminded me of the early work done by Alta to summarize some of the facilities in 2009, which seemed like an eternity ago what with the Green Lane Project and so much emphasis on cycletracks and protected facilities in the past several years.

Turning Vehicles Yield to Bicycles Dynamic Sign



The City of Portland installed a dynamic warning sign at NE Grand and Couch in Portland during the past week. The intent was to clarify the traffic control at the intersection and to warn motorists of an approaching cyclist.

Inductive loop detection is located upstream from the traffic signal by 200 feet. We have second  detector in the bike lane approximately 60 feet downstream is used to identify and confirm that all people on bicycles are approaching the signal.

The active sign is behind the no turn on red sign and the advance ctop here on red sign.

50' from the intersection you can see the bike box and the active warning sign. The arrow in the bike lane advances.

A close up of the sign shows the information. This is the same message as the MUTCD sign with the exception of the bike lane and the bicycle (the MUTCD sign is only for pedestrians). The sign is the same size as the signal head (3' x 3')

UPDATED: Video that shows the animation of the sign prior to deployment. 

 

SW Moody Nearside Bike Signal

Bicycle scale traffic signal indications have been implemented in Portland. We purchased 4" signal heads from Gesig, a company in Austria that we were able to contact and make arrangements to procure the equipment.  That was a significant obstacle because of the small quantity order, the lack of a local distributor, and the Euro-US financial transaction (IRS forms, etc). 

The supplemental 4" signal head will be placed on the nearside pole shown above (there is also some ornamental canopy treatments on the pole) to provide a nearside installation that is consistent with the scale that a person on the bicycle needs to get an indication that doesn't blind them with the brightness of an automobile signal. The nearside indication is simply a supplemental head, supporting the 8" indication that is farside of the intersection. The initial installation shown in this picture (this was taken before the signal was turned on)  shows 12" heads that are standard, but  the contractor and the distributor of the equipment they were working with failed to read the plans correctly. 

BikePortland.org author Jonathon Maus has a really nice video on opening day. If you watch the video, this was developed prior to the turnon of the signal at SW Moody and Gibbs.

We modified a signal to the north of this location at SW Sheridan and SW Moody and added a diagonal bicycle crossing complete with green striping that indicates that the crossing is for bicycles in a diagonal direction. I especially like in the video at 2:20 the flagger conversation. 

Updated with another blog post from Portlandize.com
http://portlandize.com/2011/11/cycle-track-after-a-couple-of-weeks/

It goes like this:

Flagger: Got something new here for you, it's a pressure point, that light will turn green for you"

BikePortland: Bike only, ok, very cool

And at 3:03

Flagger 2: Go Green light, just for you!

New York City Bike Lane and Mixing Zone (Left Turn)

The following photos show the striping for the left side bike lane where there is on-street parking that is removed to make room for an exclusive left turn lane. To maintain as much parking as possible the amount of length for the left turn lane is kept to a minimum. The vehicles are presented with the teeth to indicate yield on entry. The green bike lane marking is dropped at this same point to indicate shared space with the traffic and sharrows are used in this space.

The second photos shows the Turning Vehicles Yield to Bicycles sign, which is in the MUTCD specifically for pedestrians, but it makes sense to call out bicycle traffic at this location because you have a left turn lane that conflicts with the left side bike lane.

The farside of the intersection is where I think NYC has offered the greatest innovation. The provision of the curbing for a pedestrian refuge presents an opportunity for yielding between the person on a bicycle and reducing the amount of time (potentially) that is necessary for the pedestrian clearance. To reduce the total time for the intersection, you'd have to do something on the nearside.

PSU Delft Experience highlights

Taking the students on this adventure was a great experience. The program achieved its objective of presenting an introduction into transportation engineering applications in the European context. It built on earlier courses with a special emphasis on differences between U.S. and Dutch standards. The course curriculum featured material that shows the contrast between engineering principles and policies focusing on the standards presented in both the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices and the Highway Capacity Manual. More on the PSU website:

The last full day in Delft is marked with heavy rains and wind that will soak cyclists to the core on even the shortest trips. The woman helping me check out of the place I was staying chalked it up to climate change. Climate change is a serious issue for the Dutch considering that a good percentage of them live below sea level. It's going to rain 55 mm today, just over 2 inches.

I am pleased with the rain because it is giving me a chance to catch up on the students' projects and blog posts.

So here's my Top 5 things that happened on the trip (not in rank order, sorry Brian).

1. Jane Jacobs and her Influence - How European Cities Have Social Networks (no not Facebook)
My favorite post to date was a psuedo assignment related to the book I assigned for the class: Death and Life of American Cities by Jane Jacobs. Brian Davis provided this insightful blast related to how communities can be organized to provide social support. It's not something I ever learned in a transportation engineering course, but creating a transportation system that allows a place to play seems as important as any effort I would produce in my profession. Recognizing the importance of a local community is key to the success of city planning. The density of the City allows this easily in Delft, but I wonder if the combination of the Farmers Market, local businesses, and interactions surrounding Llewllyn Elementary will contribute to the sort of community that will make Sellwood like this.

2. Education of the Future Users of the Transportation System
I really enjoyed the lectures that were part of the program. I learned a lot that I am looking forward to taking back to the City of Portland to apply in our community. One of the most important elements in the Netherlands is their education of future users of the transportation system. It is mandatory that each student take a test on navigating the City by bicycle in the 7th grade. This is all part of the sustainable safety program. They get police involved during the test and the students go through a course that is on city streets. This is after a detailed program on an off-street course.

3. It's All About the Bike (in Urban Planning)

It's often debated of whether there is a bike culture here. I would argue there is, yet it is not a subculture. Everyone has a bicycle. Most use it on occasion which results in them appreciating the vulnerability you feel when one is cycling. This results in a fairly courteous driving population overall and everyone concerned with the safety of each other. They also appreciate the importance of mobility, so the streets carefully discriminate between those that are for cars and freight and ones that are community oriented. They have support for the bike oriented streets because most people cycle. The City of Houten was an extreme example for making it irresistible to cycle to most destinations as highlighted in Sam's post on the community. Kirk and Pam from the class have also done an amazing report that shows some of the bike vs. car routing. Kirk summarized his visit with some more pictures. We also saw the ring road that seemed to work really well for freight and other traffic movements that were longer than just a few miles.

4. What's Wrong with the U.S. - Getting the Little Things Right

I borrowed the last part of the title from Marc Schlossberg Most of the concepts common in the Netherlands are considered radical in the U.S. It seems that working with some of the principles will take time but that incorporating small items like bicycle signal heads that are 10 cm are worth moving the industry towards design at a human scale. It is also clear from this trip that many of the things I have been introducing at the City are consistent with practice here. It is very interesting to consider how the public and the press will take to these ideas. The Portland Mercury followed some of the work here, but they are also the newspaper that post the Pedalpalooza schedule (not exactly on the coffee table of every home in Portland).


Traffic Signal Timing for Cyclists from Peter Koonce on Vimeo.


Here's another one that we did for Broadway/Williams. This is important for the Broadway bicycle traffic that we're trying to make safer. There's a slight tradeoff currently for motorist traffic that we will improve when we make the modification at Victoria associated with the streetcar.

5. Creating the Transportation Leaders of the Future

Lastly, I had a great time getting to know the students of PSU, Peter Furth, and Tom Bertulis. Their energy and excitement about the future of transportation was an inspiration during the trip.

So, in all a great experience. Now, it will be great if it will just stop raining.

Traffic Signal Treatments in the CROW Manual

The CROW Manual is written to describe measures that will make cycling irresistible.
Here's the list of treatments and selective text taken from the Manual that I copied down while listening to a lecture by Peter Furth. The "V" is used in the Manual to identify where there is a sketch in the back of the document.

Traffic lights - Page 203 - Section 6.3.3.2
Criteria and design requirements
Location of traffic lights
Flow capacity
Waiting time and chance of stopping

Cycle time
Preferably not longer than 90 seconds. 120 s for motorized traffic is too long for cyclists.

Subconflicts between motor vehicle and bicycle
Cycle track, cycle lane, or combine cyclists with other traffic
Three main movements can be distinguished for cyclists at an intersection: they turn right, they ride straight on, or they turn left. The choice of type of bicycle facility on a controlled intersection depends on the bicyle facilities present on the approach roads, the existence of subconflicts and the motorized traffic intensities that occur.

Cyclists turn right V47, 48
At an intersection with traffic lights, delays for cyclists turning right can be limited by leading these cyclists around the provision (right turn past red) or if necessary by permitting ‘right turn through red’. In that case, cyclists turning right must not be hindered by cyclists riding straight ahead (and vice versa). Attention must also be paid to cyclists merging (use protected are, if necessary).
V49 If neither ‘right turn past red’ or ‘right turn through red’ are possible then the stacking space for the cyclists is important. Cyclists who are stacked in front of a red light with the intention of turning right must not hinder cyclists proceeding straight ahead or turning left. To increase the flexibility of the provision, it may be desirable for cyclists turning right to be allocated their own signal group. IN that case it is desirable that they have their own stacking lane.

Treatments for "Cycles ride straight on" V 50
With a combined profile

Treatments for Cyclists that turn left V51, 52, 53

The Manual goes on to identify "Maximum waiting time for motorized traffic."
Naturally, the criteria for the flow of motorized traffic should also be considered together with the criteria and design requirements for bicycle-friendly traffic control systems. The quality requirements for motorized traffic also determine the options of shortening waiting times for bicycle traffic. In general, an average waiting time of 60 s and a maximum waiting time of 120 s is used for motorized traffic.

Policy and management
One of the most significant improvement options for bicycle traffic in traffic lights control systems is at the level of policy development, or more concretely, in the formulation of clear basic policy principles. Experience has shown that many traffic light provisions are created by a traffic control engineer with a large degree of independence. Taking account of the interest of all traffic participants and based on their own knowledge and expertise, engineers create a traffic control system that is always a ‘compromise’. Such an approach means that the control engineer has a significant influence on traffic policy of the road management authority concerned.

In order to avoid this ( I guess they assume Dutch signal engineers aren't designing for cyclists?), but also so as not to leave such dilemmas to the engineer during the design process, road management authorities responsible for various traffic control systems should develop ‘TCS policy’. (We wrote about this in the Signal Timing Manual's Chapter 2, but not specifically with bikes in mind). This should state what priorities are assigned to the various categories of traffic participants in the various road situations. A basic principle that can be applied is that (sections with) main cycle routes have right of way at intersections inside the built-up area. It is also possible to indicate maximum values for waiting or cycle times. If such basic principles are recorded in administrative regulations, the control engineer has very clear goals, which can also be tested easily.

(We have now started this in Portland with our half signals)

In many situations, current practice often results in unnecessary and unnecessarily long waiting times for cyclists, without this having any basis in policy. Research has shown that at almost all intersections where waiting time for cyclists were judged to be unacceptable this was the result of priority for other traffic (green waves or priority to public transport); in most cases, this was not based on adopted policy (even in the Netherlands).

Another important measure is carrying out regular maintenance of the control system. Once a traffic control system is up and running, it is all too often neglected. Carrying out regular maintenance and checking on the street to see whether specifications are still satisfactory helps to ensure that a system is optimally adjusted to the traffic situation.

Options for bicycle friendly provisions V 54 to 67, 76 & 77
The facility sheets of this Design Manual contain many measures to improve the situation for cyclists at intersections with traffic lights. A large number of these measures concern shortening the waiting time for cyclists. A minimum waiting time is essential for bicycle-friendly control. The various measures can be implemented individually, but often also in combination (see table 26). The effects of the various options can differ from situation to situation. Consequently, every situation must be thoroughly analyzed to determine the most appropriate measures.

Now if only the MUTCD was more like this.