1

Non-motorized Sidepath Safety Analysis and Design Guidelines

5th Annual Summer Conference on Livable Communities

Western Michigan University

June 21, 2018

Project background

• A sidepath is a type of shared usepath located parallel to a roadway

• Usually bi-directional

• Usually separated from the roadwith a buffer

MDOT Sidepath Safety Research 2

2

Project background

• In suburban conditions,sidepaths offer a greatcompromise

• Bicyclists find themcomfortable, but engineersworry about safety

MDOT Sidepath Safety Research 3

Project background

• Research and best practicesrelated to sidepaths are limited

• None yet in Michigan

MDOT Sidepath Safety Research 4

3

• Crash analysis

• Resident survey

• Design guide development

• Educational materials

MDOT Sidepath Safety Research 5

Key research efforts / outline

• Three components of crash analysis:1. Statewide analysis

2. Case-control for eight counties

3. In-depth examination of two high-crash counties

• Sidepath vs sidewalk in the data

• Exposure

Crash analysis work led by Wayne State University

MDOT Sidepath Safety Research 6

Crash analysis methodology

4

• 11,305 statewide crashes 2010-2015

• Data collection efforts included usingstate crash records, police crashreports and GPS locations toexamine road geometry

• Each crash assigned a three-digitcode described by Pedestrian andBicycle Crash Analysis Tool (PBCAT)

MDOT Sidepath Safety Research 7

Crash analysis methodology

• Research team initially attempted a case-control of 110 pairs, at 220 sidepathsites around the state

• After running bivariate and multivariate analyses, no statistically significantresults

MDOT Sidepath Safety Research 8

Case control : the best of intentions

5

• Primarily urban/suburbancounties

• Large number of sidepathsin a variety of conditions

• Southeast and WesternMichigan

• Total of 2,253 bicyclistinvolved crashes from2010-2015

MDOT Sidepath Safety Research 9

Oakland and Kent counties

MDOT Sidepath Safety Research 10

Crash analysis findings – injury severity

5%

35%

42%

0%

18%

Injuries for Sidewalk/Sidepath Bicycle Crashes

11%

37%

35%

2% 15%

Injuries for Roadway Bicycle Crashes

Disabl ing Injury

Poss ible Injury

No Injury

Fatal

Evident Injury

6

MDOT Sidepath Safety Research 11

Crash Analysis Findings – PBCAT Categories

#1 and #2 Motorist Drive Out Sign (#1) and Signal (#2) Controlled #3 Motorist Left Turn Opposite Direction

MDOT Sidepath Safety Research 12

Crash analysis findings – bicycle travel direction

31%

Crashes on sidepaths/sidewalks Bicycle traveling with traffic

7

MDOT Sidepath Safety Research 13

Crash analysis findings – bicycle travel direction

65%

Crashes on sidepaths/sidewalks Bicycle traveling against traffic

MDOT Sidepath Safety Research 14

Crash analysis findings – bicycle travel direction

Sidepath warning sign for motorists (CDOT)

Watch for turning vehicles sign for bicyclists (VDOT)

8

• Random sample of about 5,000Michigan residents

• Letters explaining survey printed inEnglish and Spanish

• 351 responses, for a 7% responserate

• Only one respondent per householdwho was 18 years or older

• $5 ‘gourmet coffee gift cards’ wereprivately-donated and acted as anincentive

MDOT Sidepath Safety Research 15

Resident survey methodology

• Images were used on survey asvisual aid to help participantsidentify facility preference

• Participants asked about near-missesthey experienced as drivers andbicyclists

MDOT Sidepath Safety Research 16

Resident survey methodology

9

MDOT Sidepath Safety Research 17

Resident survey findings

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

I would like to see more people bicycling in my city.***

I like the idea of sometimes walking or biking instead oftaking the car.***

Getting regular exercise is very important to me.***

I like bicycling.***

Percentage of respondents who agree/strongly agree

Frequent cyclist (n=116) Occasional cyclist (n=83) Rare cyclist (n=93) Never cyclist (n=54)

MDOT Sidepath Safety Research 18

Resident survey findings – what would encourage you

75%

50%

33%28%

13%

7% 7%

Separated bikefacilities* (n=264)

More bike facilities/acomplete bike network

(n=175)

Law enforcement ofmotorist behavior

(n=115)

Law enforcement ofcyclist behavior (n=99)

Lower speed limits onroads w/ bike facilities

(n=46)

Lower speed limits onroads w/out bikefacilities (n=26)

Easy access to bikesafety education

(n=24)

Per

cen

tage

of

resp

on

den

ts

10

• Initial intent: develop a guide to help practitioners know when it was safe toinstall a sidepath, based on roadway characteristics

• Findings were related to intersections, vehicle turns, and bicyclist direction oftravel

• Design guide focusing on intersection treatments developed

MDOT Sidepath Safety Research 19

Facility selection tool : the best of intentions

• Process and guidance forintegrating high-quality bikewaysinto a proposed roadway projector as a stand-alone project.

• Has guidance on the followingtopics:• Bikeway selection

• Safety considerations for sidepaths

• Intersection treatment selectionprocess

MDOT Sidepath Safety Research 20

Sidepath Intersection and Crossing Treatment Guide

11

MDOT Sidepath Safety Research 21

Intersection treatment recommendations

• Fillable form to walk through steps

• Encourages documentation

MDOT Sidepath Safety Research 22

Worksheet

12

• Data collection will be critical to addressing exposure issues and enhanceunderstanding of crash trends

• Public strongly prefers separated bicycle facilities, especially when bicyclingwith children

• Building more separated bicycle facilities and a more connected bicyclenetwork would help encourage people to bicycle more

• Contraflow bicycling increases crash risk along sidepaths

• The guide provides recommendations for treatments to reduce crashesalong sidepaths, especially at intersections

MDOT Sidepath Safety Research 23

Project takeaways

Thank you!Hannah Pritchard, P.E. PTOE

hpritchard@tooledesign.com

@bicyclehannah

www.Michigan.gov/mdot-sidepathresearchwww.Michigan.gov/