Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

S thompson 11.15.13

454 views

Published on

Sam Thompson, Portland State University

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

S thompson 11.15.13

  1. 1. Bicyclist Compliance at Signalized Intersections: The makings of a thesis Presenter: Sam R. Thompson, E.I.T Graduate Research Assistant Portland State University Civil & Environmental Engineering Friday Transportation Seminar November 15, 2013
  2. 2. Why study cyclist compliance? § Growing mode of utilitarian travel ú Room for further growth Increasingly bicycle-­‐friendly transportation policy Decline in car use by younger generations Large percentage of trips are bikeable (under 3 miles) § Little is known about the actual compliance rates for cyclists in the United States. ú Much anecdotal evidence of cyclist non-­‐ compliance. Introduction Methodology Results Outcomes Continuing Work Acknowledgements 2
  3. 3. Origins of the study § Part of Operational Guidance for Bicycle-­‐ specific Traffic Signals project with ODOT ú DISCLAIMER Introduction Methodology Results Outcomes Continuing Work Acknowledgements 3
  4. 4. Data Collection § Two data sources: ú City of Portland Archived from previous research 3 intersections ú Portland ú Bicycle-­‐specific Signals ú Portland State Project-­‐specific 4 intersections ú Varying intersection characteristics/locations Introduction Methodology Results Outcomes Continuing Work Acknowledgements 4 City of Portland Footage PSU Camera Setup PSU Study-­‐Specific Footage
  5. 5. Data Reduction § Cyclists were eligible to become part of the study if they were observed to: ú Arrive on the red indication ú Utilize bicycle infrastructure (and bicycle signal where applicable) on both sides of the intersection Introduction Methodology Results Outcomes Continuing Work Acknowledgements 5
  6. 6. Data Reduction § Three types of data collected: ú Descriptive ú Event ú Compliance-­‐ specific Type: Introduction Methodology Results Outcomes Continuing Work Acknowledgements 6 Bike Mountain Helmet: Yes Cargo: Yes Car in Adjacent Lane: Yes Clothing Type: Casual Sex: Male
  7. 7. Compliance Indicators § Compliant § Non-­‐compliant 1. Gap Accepted 2. Signal Jump Introduction Methodology Results Outcomes Continuing Work Acknowledgements 7
  8. 8. Compliance Indicators Introduction Methodology Results Outcomes Continuing Work Acknowledgements 8 Gap Accepted
  9. 9. Compliance Indicators Introduction Methodology Results Outcomes Continuing Work Acknowledgements 9 Signal Jump
  10. 10. Results § Total of 2,617 cyclists § Compliance Rate: 89.7% Introduction Methodology Results Outcomes Continuing Work Acknowledgements 10 Compliance Indicator Percent Number of Observations Compliant 89.7 1809 Gap Accepted 5.9 118 Signal Jump 4.3 87 Other 0.1 3
  11. 11. Comparison to Other Modes § The average non-­‐compliance rate for pedestrians is 15.8%2. ú Cyclists in this study had combined violation rate for signal jumps and accepted gaps of 7.8% § Motorists were found to run red indications at a rate of 1.3%3. ú Cyclists in this study accepted gaps at a rate of 4.5%. Introduction Methodology Results Outcomes Continuing Work Acknowledgements 11
  12. 12. Compliance at Bike-Specific Signals Introduction Methodology Results Outcomes Continuing Work Acknowledgements 12 100% 75% 50% 25% 0% Compliant Gap Accepted Signal Jump Other No Bike Signal Bike Signal
  13. 13. Compliance per Location Compliant Gap Accepted Signal Jump Other Introduction Methodology Results Outcomes Continuing Work Acknowledgements 13 100% 75% 50% 25% 0%
  14. 14. Compliance by Presence of Cargo Introduction Methodology Results Outcomes Continuing Work Acknowledgements 14 100% 75% 50% 25% 0% Compliant Gap Accepted Signal Jump Other No Cargo Some Cargo
  15. 15. Compliance by Helmet Use Introduction Methodology Results Outcomes Continuing Work Acknowledgements 15 100% 75% 50% 25% 0% Compliant Gap Accepted Signal Jump Other Helmet No Helmet
  16. 16. Compliance by Peak Period Introduction Methodology Results Outcomes Continuing Work Acknowledgements 16 100% 75% 50% 25% 0% Compliant Gap Accepted Signal Jump Other AM PM Off Peak
  17. 17. Compliance by Wait Time 0 20 40 60 Introduction Methodology Results Outcomes Continuing Work Acknowledgements 17 100% 75% 50% 25% 0% Gap Accepted Signal Jump Other Wait Time (sec)
  18. 18. Gap Accepted by Cross Traffic 0 500 1000 1500 Introduction Methodology Results Outcomes Continuing Work Acknowledgements 18 4 3 2 1 0 Cross Traffic (veh/hr) Ratio of Accepted Gap to AASHTO BCT
  19. 19. Outcomes § Compliance at bicycle-­‐specific signals is comparable to compliance at traditional signals ú Cyclists understand bicycle signals § Observed compliance nearly 90% Introduction Methodology Results Outcomes Continuing Work Acknowledgements 19
  20. 20. Continuing Work § Further analysis needed ú Previous analysis was descriptive ú Varying compliance at study locations ú Risk-­‐taking profile for non-­‐compliant cyclists More likely to not wear a helmet Not influenced by wait time Minimum gap accepted equal to or less than minimum crossing time (determined by AASHTO) for high volume intersections. Introduction Methodology Results Outcomes Continuing Work Acknowledgements 20
  21. 21. Continuing Work -- Modeling Introduction Methodology Results Outcomes Continuing Work Acknowledgements 21 [PRELIMINARY] Factors Affecting Gap Acceptance # Cyclists Already Waiting Sex = Female Cross Traffic Squared Lack of helmet
  22. 22. Continuing Work – Survey § Personality type § Justifications § Intersection types § Demographics Introduction Methodology Results Outcomes Continuing Work Acknowledgements 22
  23. 23. Acknowledgements § Oregon DOT Research Project TAC § OTREC and Oregon DOT § Dr. Christopher Monsere, Dr. Miguel Figliozzi, Kirk Paulsen § All the potential takers of the attitudes survey Introduction Methodology Results Outcomes Continuing Work Acknowledgements 23
  24. 24. 24 Sam Thompson s.r.thompson@pdx.edu Find interim report, TRB papers, and presentations at http://bit.ly/SxRrZd * Opening photo credit via itdp @ flickr Questions?
  25. 25. References for Discussion 1. Zeeger, C. V., & Cynecki, M. J. (1985). Determination of Motorist Violations and Pedestrian-­‐related Countermeasures Related to Right-­‐Turn-­‐On-­‐Red. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, (1010), 16–28. 2. Virkler, M. R. (1998). Pedestrian Compliance Effects on Signal Delay. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, (1636), 88–91. 3. Retting, R. A., Williams, A. F., Farmer, C. M., & Feldman, A. F. (1999). Evaluation of Red Light Camera Enforcement in Oxnard, California. Accident Prevention & Analysis, 31, 169–174. Introduction Methodology Results Outcomes Continuing Work Acknowledgements 25

×