4.2 Bicycle and Pedestrian Solutions

While not universally applied, in general, travel for people walking in urban areas has long tended to be accommodated with features like sidewalks, crosswalks, dedicated signals, and curb extensions. The suggested pedestrian treatments in this section address a wide variety of issues identified within Omnitrans’ service area to enhance connectivity, safety, and access to transit stops. Pedestrian improvements help to ensure equitable multi-modal transportation because they serve populations that may not be able to afford a bicycle or likely to ride a bicycle, and instead rely on transit and walking. Newer innovations like pedestrian scrambles, modified signal timing, flashing beacons, and other pedestrian improvements are described in this chapter in addition to standard pedestrian treatments.

An increased focus on providing safer, less stressful bicycle travel has occurred more recently across the United States, with significant transformation in the state of practice for bicycle travel over the last decade. Much of this may be attributed to bicycling’s changing role in the overall transportation system. No longer viewed as an “alternative” mode, it is increasingly considered as legitimate transportation that should be actively promoted as a means of achieving community environmental, social, and economic goals. While connectivity and convenience remain essential bicycle travel quality indicators, recent research indicates the increased acceptance and practice of daily bicycling will require “low-stress” bicycle routes, which are typically understood to be those that provide bicyclists with separation from high volume and high-speed vehicular traffic and mixing cyclists with traffic only on low volume, low speed roadways. The bicycle improvements in this chapter ensure more convenient, more comfortable, and safer access to and from transit stops.

4.2.1 Bus-Bicycle Lane Bus-bicycle lanes are developed where there is inadequate space for a painted or separated bicycle lane on a bus route. The bus-bicycle lane can be established by converting a general car travel lane to exclusive bus and bicycle use only. Sometimes this conversion occurs after a traffic analysis shows the traffic impact. However, in many cases the existing level of service (LOS) is F and removing a travel lane and adding a bus-bicycle lane will serve to increase the overall people-moving capacity of the roadway due to the sheer number of people that fit on a bus. In Boston, Massachusetts, for example, there was over a mile length of roadway with LOS F (read: bumper to bumper congestion) on four-lane Washington Street from Roslindale Square to Forrest Hills. The City of Boston, as a pilot project, converted a travel lane to a busbike lane, given that buses on the road carry 60 percent of the people moving through the corridor. The pilot project was deemed a success and the project was made permanent.

Precedents for this exist around the world and are being implemented more in the U.S. starting in large cities like Boston, Philadelphia, Chicago, New York City, and Seattle. It may be counterintuitive for congested roads, but latest research and evolving best practices suggest bus-bicycle-only lanes can work in existing congested areas because, like in Boston, the overall increase in people-moving capacity of a bus-bicycle lane justifies the conversion from a travel lane.

Bus-Bicycle Only Lane (Washington Street, Boston, MA)

The overall strategy is to increase transportation options by making bicycle and bus travel attractive alternatives to cars. New dedicated bus-bicycle-only lanes (typically painted red) should be considered on roads supporting existing bus lines with high ridership levels, and proposed bicycle lanes that will not otherwise fit between jurisdictional rights of way or other constraints. Areas and bus routes with very high bus volumes may not be suitable for a bus-bicycle-only lane due higher potential for bus-bicycle conflicts. According to National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO), applications should generally be limited to bus lanes with transit headways of four minutes or longer. This applies to most bus routes within Omnitrans as most of them have transit headways of at least four minutes.

A dedicated lane for bicycles, whether it is a painted lane or separated lane, makes people feel safer and more people will be likely to ride to work, the store, or other destinations. A bus-only lane reduces bus travel times to all stops on a route, making it a quicker and more attractive option which can lead to increased ridership. A combined bus-bicycle-only lane is not ideal but it is preferrable to no bicycle facility at all. It is a compromise when a painted or fully separated bicycle lane will not fit. Reduced bus travel times can be leveraged to increase bus frequency to all stops without increasing the number of buses or drivers. This higher bus frequency reduces wait times and crowding which improves the experience and increases bus ridership. As noted in a recent article on dedicated bus lanes in Chicago, a dedicated bus lane can have a secondary traffic calming effect by generally reducing car speeds in the area around the dedicated bus lane. Bus-bicycle lanes are considered best practice not just in cities across the U.S. but in design guidelines including NACTO Bikeway Design Guide and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) BikeSafe Design Guide. 4.2.2 Research and Context This section of the report delves into the concept of personal safety and security at bus stops. Personal safety refers to freedom from assault, theft, and vandalism, as opposed to traffic safety which refers to freedom from collision with motor vehicles and other transport devices. Extensive research has been carried out on the topic entitled “Bus Stop Design and Placement Security Considerations”. The American Public Transit Association has a 2010 White Paper that delves into the minutia of bus stop safety design, describing features such as4:

1. Bollards 2. Closed-circuit television (CCTV) 3. Communication systems 4. Passenger amenities 5. Shelters 6. Visibility 7. Durability 8. Bus benches 9. Newspaper boxes 10. Trash containers

The White Paper also heavily details the concept of CPTED with its focus on increasing sight lines. This Plan uses a balanced approach to increase sight lines by focusing on the concepts of placemaking and space activation at bus stops. Instead of “hostile architecture,” the White Paper focused on increasing the aesthetics, the livability, the activation, and the appeal of bus stops, which encourages more use, which in turn increases safety. In a sense, it offers a “carrot” instead of a “stick” approach to increasing safety.

As explained by the Victoria Transport Policy Institute (VTPI), contrary to popular assumptions, transit users generally face lower overall crime risks than motorists. All else being equal, research has shown that per capita crime rates tend to decline as transit ridership increases in a given community (Devries, et al. 2018)5 .