#27 Road Diets – Improving Safety for Everyone - Dougherty

964 views

Published on

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
964
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
3
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
18
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

#27 Road Diets – Improving Safety for Everyone - Dougherty

  1. 1. Road Diets: The Seattle Experience Pro Walk / Pro Bike: Pro Place September 11, 2012 Brian Dougherty Carol McMahan
  2. 2. Where is Seattle?
  3. 3. Complete Streets• 16% of households do not have a car• Seniors• Youth• Safety• Transit riders Ultimately, we all need complete streets
  4. 4. Seattle’s Complete Streets Approach• Vision: Streets that are • Implementation: Complete safe, convenient and Streets checklist accessible for everyone • Outreach: Community• Plans: Bicycle, Pedestrian, collaboration Transit, Freight • Opportunities: Redesigning• Funding: Bridging the Gap, city streets state, federal grants
  5. 5. For whom road diets might apply• ADT < 15,000 OK• ADT 15,000 - 20,000 Evaluate• ADT >20,000 Maybe Small Cities Large Cities Towns Suburbs
  6. 6. Why Road Diets?
  7. 7. Complete Streets Approach
  8. 8. Economic Benefits
  9. 9. Economic Benefits
  10. 10. Why Road Diets? Fewer Collisions US Federal Highway Administration Proven Safety Measure to reduce all collisions by 29%The image cannot be display ed. Your computer may not hav e enough memory to open the image, or the image may hav e been corrupted. Restart y our computer, and then open the file again. If the red x still appears, y ou may hav e to delete the image and then insert it again.
  11. 11. Why Road Diets? Pedestrian SafetyA modest decrease in motor vehiclespeed can dramatically increasesurvival in pedestrian crashes Speed reduction from 40 to 30 increases survival rate by 5x
  12. 12. Seattle Road Diet History1412108 Miles6 Projects420 1972 - 1979 - 1986 - 1993 - 2000 - 2007 - 1978 1985 1992 1999 2006 2012
  13. 13. Seattle Road Diet History• 34 road diets have been installed in Seattle since 1972• 1972 – 2006: 21 Projects• 2007 – 2012: 13 Projects
  14. 14. How are Corridors Identified?• Complete Streets for capital projects• Bicycle Master Plan• Pedestrian Master Plan• Community requests for neighborhood plan implementation S Columbian Way
  15. 15. What Factors are Considered? Tier 1: Traffic OperationsBefore After Nickerson St
  16. 16. What Factors are Considered? Tier 2: Safety/CollisionsBefore After N 130th St (2010)
  17. 17. What Factors are Considered? Tier 3: LivabilityBefore After 7th Ave (2010)
  18. 18. Don’t Forget the Design Details•Freight •Lane width •Turning movements•Transit •Lane width •Turning movements •Stop consolidation •Trolley lines
  19. 19. Don’t Forget the Design Details• Parking – Peak hour – Utilization
  20. 20. Don’t Forget the Design Details• Pedestrian crossings – Refuge islands – Marked crosswalks
  21. 21. Don’t Forget the Design Details• Signals – Detection – Optimize corridor
  22. 22. Don’t Forget the Design Details• Pavement Condition Spot repair
  23. 23. Out Reach: Common Concerns• There will be gridlock! – Maintain capacity at signalized intersections – Gain efficiency by removing left turns from travel lanes• People will cut though the neighborhood! – Monitor pre and post project implementation – Implement traffic calming measures if problems occur• I’ll be trapped in my driveway by all the traffic! – Sight distance is improved for left turns – Access from side streets and driveways improved by crossing only one travel lane to the two-way left turn lane.
  24. 24. Out Reach: Common ConcernsStreet Before After Requests to Comments Comments removeNE 125th St 394 7 3Nickerson St 66 8 0
  25. 25. PitfallsCarolina Beach, North Carolina
  26. 26. Before & After StudiesData needs Before Study After Study (>1 year)ADT √ √Bike and Ped Counts √ √Crash Data √ √Speed √ √Transit Operations √ √Turning vehicle counts √ √Gap Studies √ √Parking use √ √Side street diversion √ √Vehicle Classification √ √Resident Satisfaction √ √Business Satisfaction √ √
  27. 27. Case Study: Stone Way N• 1.2 miles• ADT – 13,000• Burke-Gilman Trail Access• Woodland Park Access• Within 5 blocks – 8 schools, 2 libraries and 5 parks
  28. 28. Stone Way N: Marked Crosswalks• Uncontrolled, marked crosswalks at 4 intersections.• Crosswalk guidelines changed in 2004.• Marked crosswalks would be non-compliant with four-lane cross section.
  29. 29. Stone Way N: Bicycle Master Plan• Adopted in 2007.• Stone one of the first projects completed under the plan.• Recommended climbing lane and sharrow.
  30. 30. Stone Way N: 85th Percentile Speed• Speed limit 30• 85th percentile was 37 mph prior to rechannelization• Dropped to 36 mph northbound• Dropped to 34 mph soundbound
  31. 31. Stone Way N: Aggressive Speeders• 3% of vehicles traveled at 40 mph+ prior to rechannelization• Fewer than 1% traveled at 40mph+ after rechannelization• Reducing the number of top speeders greatly reduces seriousness of collisions and injuries.
  32. 32. Stone Way N: Bicycle Volume• Increased 35%• Represents almost 15% of the peak hour traffic volume!
  33. 33. Stone Way N: Motor Vehicle Volume• ADT Dropped 6% (consistent with citywide trend between 2006-08)• Peak Hour volume dropped approximately 5%• Off-peak volume actually increased south of 45th Street
  34. 34. Stone Way N: Neighborhood Traffic• Four non-arterial streets commonly mentioned as alternatives to Stone• Volume decreased on all four of those streets• Traffic did not divert after rechannelization.
  35. 35. Stone Way N: Collisions• Total collisions declined 14%• Injury collisions declined 33%• Angle collisions declined 56%• Bicycle collisions no change, but rate declined• Pedestrian collisions declined 80%
  36. 36. Stone Way N: Conclusions• Speed has declined• Collisions have declined• Pedestrian crossings are safer• Bicycle volume has increased• Traffic has not diverted to neighborhood streets• Peak hour capacity has been maintained• Strong case for implementing road diets
  37. 37. Possible Elements of Future StudiesStudy Data: To Address/Answer:• Pre and Post survey • Livability of nearby businesses • Impact to business and residents • Travel time• Traffic signal LOS • Diversions to other• Volume of parallel arterial streets arterials
  38. 38. Follow-up studies and monitoring• Volume of principal street /peak hour capacity• Speed and collisions• Traffic signal level of service• Volume of parallel arterials• Travel time• Bicycle volumes Stone Way
  39. 39. NE 125th StFactors:• ADT 16,200• 4 lanes to 2 lanes with TWLTL and bike lanes• Business district• High bus usage• High number of pedestrian collisions Before
  40. 40. NE 125th StreetBefore After
  41. 41. NE 125th StVolume ADT AM PM 4% 6% 12%Speed 85th% OVER TOP -8% 30 END -12% -69%
  42. 42. Nickerson St:Before After
  43. 43. Nickerson Case StudyBefore
  44. 44. Nickerson Case StudyAfter
  45. 45. Columbian Way Complete Street• ADT 11,200• Repave project• 4 lanes to 2 lanes with TWLTL and bike lanes• New sidewalks
  46. 46. Recent ResultsStreet ADT ADT Collisions 85th % Top end Travel begin change speeders timeStone Way 13,000 -6% - 14% - 6% - 80% N/A + 1.5NE 125th St 16,200 + 4% N/A - 8% - 69% minNickerson St 18,600 - 1% - 23% - 21% - 94% N/AColumbian 11,200 + 20% No change - 6% -50% N/AWay
  47. 47. Not the end of the story: Dexter Ave NBefore After
  48. 48. Not the end of the story: Dexter Ave NBefore After
  49. 49. Just Completed: S Othello StreetBefore After
  50. 50. Additional Resources• Nickerson Street Before and After Study – http://www.seattle.gov/transportation/nickerson.htm• Stone Way Before and After Study – http://www.seattle.gov/transportation/docs/StoneWaybeforeafterFINAL.pdf• FHWA: Proven Safety Countermeasures – http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/provencountermeasures/index.htm• NACTO Guides – http://nacto.org/• National Complete Streets Coalition – http://www.completestreets.org/•

×