Advocacy & Safety - Berkeley Bike Boulevards much safer than parallel arterial routes

more evidence supporting planning for roadway bike traffic in a community, and the efficacy of a network of bike boulevards providing safer riding conditions than 'taking the lane' or otherwise fighting it out on arterial roads.


....collision rates on Berkeley's bicycle boulevards are two to eight times lower than those on parallel, adjacent arterial routes. The difference in collision rate is highly statistically significant, unlikely to be caused by any bias in the collision and count data, and cannot be easily explained away by self-selection or safety in numbers. Though the used dataset is limited and the study design is correlational, this study provides some evidence that Berkeley's bicycle boulevards are safer for cyclists than its parallel arterial routes. The results may be suggestive that, more generally, properly implemented bicycle boulevards can provide cyclists with a safer alternative to riding on arterials.

Berkeley bike boulevard report in science direct (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001457511001941)

I haven't been in the flats of Berkeley for about five years, but unless they have changed the traffic controls on their bike boulevards, I wouldn't bother using them for a trip of any distance. They're fine if you enjoy stopping every couple of blocks and always having a long wait at arterioles, but if you are actually trying to get somewhere, they are really not much good. It's kind of amusing to me that they are calling them bike boulevards since I recall very few traffic diverters that would keep motorists from using them as shortcuts and the only enhancements I recall were a few speed humps that don't really slow cars down much and some oh-so-special signs. Really, the only thing that keeps traffic levels low on these streets is the same thing that makes them annoying for cyclists: the multitude of stop signs and the long waits for traffic lights at arterioles.

Now I'm not saying that Berkeley shouldn't have bike boulevards. I'm just saying that they should do them correctly. By that I mean that they should use traffic diverters to prevent through-car traffic, remove the majority of the stop signs and set up the signals at the intersections with the arterioles so that the bike boulevards take priority. That would be "planning for roadway bike traffic in a community".

Carfree, I don't live in Berkeley or ride there especially often, but I do remember there being dividers to prevent through car traffic in a lot of areas. For what it's worth bicycle boulevards are probably my favorite infrastructure to ride on, without a lot of the problems that can be associated with bike lanes and dedicated bike paths.

There's a proposed bike boulevard in Santa Cruz paralleling Mission St/Hwy 1 on King St which I ride every day that I'd love to see come through, although admittedly I don't personally really mind riding it now that much, aside from the relatively poor pavement conditions. Besides the reduced auto traffic, I would really like the reduced number of stop signs.

What is a bike boulevard?

ETA: Nevermind, wikipedia has an article.

Bicycle Boulevard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_boulevard)

Been on the one in Palo Alto, it works well. Yes, there are stoplights at the major streets, but in residential areas the cross streets all have the stop signs.

In other news, quiet low-speed streets much safer than busy high-speed arterials.

Yes, the 'bicycle boulevard' treatment often makes streets quieter and lower speed, as well as having a navigational benefit, but it's hard to say that the same streets weren't safe prior.

I ride these boulevards daily and the assessment coming together in this thread is essentially spot on. Yes, the signage is good, and the traffic diverters help. The diverters make it difficult for cars to use the side streets as a cut through (Berkeley is a grid), which also makes it safer for pedestrians and children. I don't use them when I'm trying to go quickly across town, but when my path follows near one, I typically use it. It is difficult to cross main arterials without a signal.

I think the other argument that could be made about Berkeley is that the sheer volume of bicycles makes it safer due to awareness.

I do love the bike boulevards. I think their best feature is that they keep cars on the main roads where they belong. It makes the neighborhoods safer for slow bikers, pedestrians and children. It keeps things quiet and just makes for a more enjoyable residential environment.

It's a measure that probably cost the city pennies (a few signs and paint, a few barriers), yet raises awareness 500%.

Not a big deal for veteran cyclists, but a springboard for timid riders.

I do love the bike boulevards. I think their best feature is that they keep cars on the main roads where they belong. It makes the neighborhoods safer for slow bikers, pedestrians and children. It keeps things quiet and just makes for a more enjoyable residential environment.

Not a big deal for veteran cyclists, but a springboard for timid riders.
I think the improvement in neighborhood quality of life is the big point here. I don't see why motorists should be able to go whatever speed they want on any road they want. There are a couple of roads I ride on where they really need this treatment, it's just ridiculous to have through traffic through some of these neighborhoods.
I always pick side streets over arterials if the time penalty isn't too much, I can't think of too many experienced cyclists that don't

I think the improvement in neighborhood quality of life is the big point here. I don't see why motorists should be able to go whatever speed they want on any road they want. There are a couple of roads I ride on where they really need this treatment, it's just ridiculous to have through traffic through some of these neighborhoods.
I always pick side streets over arterials if the time penalty isn't too much, I can't think of too many experienced cyclists that don't

I think that bicycle boulevards do not have much to do with improving the quality of life of the street's residents. A predominant improvement for bicycle boulevards is to protect them with stop signs, so that cyclists have the smooth operation of arterials while on a residential street. The problem that this causes is to allow motorists also to use the bike boulevard as an arterial street. Therefore, to counteract the effect of protecting the traffic on the bike boulevard with stop signs one has to discourage use by motorists. Hence the diverting barriers and other mechanisms to keep the bicycle boulevard as nice as it was before. The question for the cyclist is whether the mechanisms used to discourage motorists are so bad for the cyclist that the improvement disappears. That depends on what gets done.

more evidence supporting planning for roadway bike traffic in a community, and the efficacy of a network of bike boulevards providing safer riding conditions than 'taking the lane' or otherwise fighting it out on arterial roads.

Berkeley bike boulevard report in science direct (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001457511001941)

The paper says nothing about taking the lane.

Anyway, thanks for sharing. I'm glad people are at least looking at the issue; although as degnaw writes below, I find it hard to believe that too many people are going to argue otherwise.



In other news, quiet low-speed streets much safer than busy high-speed arterials.

Yes, the 'bicycle boulevard' treatment often makes streets quieter and lower speed, as well as having a navigational benefit, but it's hard to say that the same streets weren't safe prior.
*

The paper says nothing about taking the lane.

Anyway, thanks for sharing. I'm glad people are at least looking at the issue; although as degnaw writes below, I find it hard to believe that too many people are going to argue otherwise.



*

The paper does not specifically mention taking the lane in way... however one might assume that if the arterial roads were narrow in places, then taking the lane is an expected cyclist maneuver in those circumstances.

The paper does however address some differences in riding style.


The hypothesis of this paper is based on literature findings about motor vehicle speed and volume and the presence of heavy vehicles, so it expects that a difference in these motor vehicle traffic characteristics is what creates the difference in safety for cyclists. However, there are other possible explanations for the observed difference in safety between bicycle boulevards and arterials which must be addressed.

One is self selection: perhaps arterials simply attract more risk-taking cyclists, while bicycle boulevards attract more safety-conscious cyclists. Yet of the 1715 bicycle–motor vehicle collisions in the Berkeley dataset, police found the cyclist at fault in just 705 (41%). The motorist was found at fault in 925 collisions (54%) and the remaining 85 (5%) were no-fault. While this simple either–or assignment of fault does not tell the whole story of what causes a collision, these numbers are nonetheless hard to square with the idea that cyclist behavior wholly determines risk level, which is necessary in order for self-selection alone to create the apparent difference in collision rate.

It would be interesting to see the selection criteria for roads converted to bicycle boulevards.

I would assume they weren't picked randomly, so it's quite possible that roads identified as safe bicycle routes would be safer than primary arterials even if there were no special treatments on the bike routes.

Before-and-after accident rates for individual routes would also draw a much clearer picture.

None of which means I doubt the utility of bicycle boulevards -- they're a very effective traffic calming measure for creating pedestrian and bicycle friendly streets. Even if they add no safety advantage at all, peer reviewed public health research from multiple continents clearly shows that bicycle transportation is safer, overall, than driving. So simply getting people bicycling, with no added safety benefit, is a net positive for public health.

It would be interesting to see the selection criteria for roads converted to bicycle boulevards.

I would assume they weren't picked randomly, so it's quite possible that roads identified as safe bicycle routes would be safer than primary arterials even if there were no special treatments on the bike routes.

Before-and-after accident rates for individual routes would also draw a much clearer picture.

None of which means I doubt the utility of bicycle boulevards -- they're a very effective traffic calming measure for creating pedestrian and bicycle friendly streets. Even if they add no safety advantage at all, peer reviewed public health research from multiple continents clearly shows that bicycle transportation is safer, overall, than driving. So simply getting people bicycling, with no added safety benefit, is a net positive for public health.What a kill joy. Looking at the reality of things rather than the presumptions that would lead to the demand for more facilities. Oh My.

Kinda supports the idea that cycling should be restricted to bicycle lanes, mups, and sidewalks for their own good. This is also keep cyclists from impeding the flow of traffic or otherwise annoying motorists.

The paper does not specifically mention taking the lane in way... however one might assume that if the arterial roads were narrow in places, then taking the lane is an expected cyclist maneuver in those circumstances.

Sure. But how frequently the strategy is executed matters if one is trying to generalize.

I'm sorry for giving fodder to the semanticians in the crowd when i said "taking the lane or otherwise fighting it out on arterial roads."

taking the lane or otherwise fighting it out on arterials was meant to encompass all riding positions on both bikeway and non bikeway arterial roads.

The data from Berkeley showing much safer riding conditions on bike boulevards is straightforward. it is easily understandable and self-evident to anyone who has ever ridden a bike boulevard.

the success and benefits from bike boulevards and neighborhood greenways even extends to non-cyclists living along or near the greenway. Cities report property values go up for properties situated on or near a neighborhood greenway.

Kinda supports the idea that cycling should be restricted to bicycle lanes, mups, and sidewalks for their own good. This is also keep cyclists from impeding the flow of traffic or otherwise annoying motorists.

since bike boulevards seem to get the majority of riders to 'take the lane' on slow, traffic calmed streets designated as bicycle priority roadways shareable with motor vehicle traffic, it doesn't support your contention at all.

It would be interesting to see the selection criteria for roads converted to bicycle boulevards.

I would assume they weren't picked randomly, so it's quite possible that roads identified as safe bicycle routes would be safer than primary arterials even if there were no special treatments on the bike routes.

Before-and-after accident rates for individual routes would also draw a much clearer picture.

None of which means I doubt the utility of bicycle boulevards -- they're a very effective traffic calming measure for creating pedestrian and bicycle friendly streets. Even if they add no safety advantage at all, peer reviewed public health research from multiple continents clearly shows that bicycle transportation is safer, overall, than driving. So simply getting people bicycling, with no added safety benefit, is a net positive for public health.

I cycled in Berkeley from 1942 to 1958. The roads selected for bb treatment were already considerably safer from the point of through traffic than the nearby arterial roads. The problem, as always, was the crossing traffic, which was equal to that of the nearby arterials. That required frequent slows and stops. The initial conversion to bb was to protect the bb street from crossing traffic by means of stop signs, which then required means to prevent motorists from using it as another arterial.

taking the lane or otherwise fighting it out on arterials was meant to encompass all riding positions on both bikeway and non bikeway arterial roads.

Perhaps. But your reputation speaks for itself.

:rolleyes:

but the discussion is about the proven reputation of the bike boulevards and the findings, not the way I characterize riding arterial roads.

I wonder if John or invisible hand have ever even seen or ridden a bicycle priority boulevard.

My impression of them is "nice way to plan for bikes".

A growing number of cities also think they are quite effective ways to plan for bike traffic across town for select routes.

property values go up, ridership goes up, findings suggest safety for riders choosing bike boulevards is safer than bicyclists on arterial roads.

I ride these boulevards daily and the assessment coming together in this thread is essentially spot on. Yes, the signage is good, and the traffic diverters help. The diverters make it difficult for cars to use the side streets as a cut through (Berkeley is a grid), which also makes it safer for pedestrians and children. I don't use them when I'm trying to go quickly across town, but when my path follows near one, I typically use it. It is difficult to cross main arterials without a signal.

I think the other argument that could be made about Berkeley is that the sheer volume of bicycles makes it safer due to awareness.

I do love the bike boulevards. I think their best feature is that they keep cars on the main roads where they belong. It makes the neighborhoods safer for slow bikers, pedestrians and children. It keeps things quiet and just makes for a more enjoyable residential environment.

It's a measure that probably cost the city pennies (a few signs and paint, a few barriers), yet raises awareness 500%.

Not a big deal for veteran cyclists, but a springboard for timid riders.
Did Berkeley actually add any traffic diverters when they christened these bike boulevards, or are we talking about the diverters that were put in place in the '70s and '80s? If they added some new ones, how many? Also, did they finally take out some of those infernal stop signs along these routes? I'll be back in the Bay Area in May, so I suppose I could take a more active approach to finding the answers, but since you are there and ride along them daily...

Berkeley bike boulevards up close and personal


http://vimeo.com/11909885

The data from Berkeley showing much safer riding conditions on bike boulevards is straightforward. it is easily understandable and self-evident to anyone who has ever ridden a bike boulevard.As jputnam notes, only if you choose to ignore (not gather) the before data.


Though the used dataset is limited and the study design is correlational

Even the authors know that they did not do a real study.

collision rates on Berkeley's bicycle boulevards are two to eight times lower than those on parallel, adjacent arterial routes. The difference in collision rate is highly statistically significant, unlikely to be caused by any bias in the collision and count data, and cannot be easily explained away by self-selection or safety in numbers.

yet its all gloom and doom from the naysayers in the crowd. :rolleyes:

maybe, someday, honolulu will get a bike boulevard network.

yet its all gloom and doom from the naysayers in the crowd. :rolleyes:

maybe, someday, honolulu will get a bike boulevard network.
I'm not a naysayer by any means - I'm all for bike boulevards, but the study is inherently deceptive by comparing bike boulevards to busy, high speed arterial roads (instead of to local streets without boulevard treatment, which seems a more logical comparison).

how can that be construed as deceptive?

the boulevards were developed as alternates to the arterial routes. It stands to reason a safety comparison can be made between the two.

people that choose to ride the arterial roads ride a less safe environment.

Anyone that has ridden an arterial road then switched to a parallel bike boulevard (my occasional experience wayfinding in Portland) would be able to endorse the safety findings of the study.

I think the point, Bek, is that it's difficult to tell how much infastructural improvements to the roads the boulevards are on makes them safer than the intrinsic safety of the roads the boulevards are built on. I'd would guess that they are, but it's indeed difficult to measure.

Thanks for sharing that video, Bek, it does a good job explaining Berkeley's program. I wish they would build the proposed boulevard project near me (http://www.cityofsantacruz.com/modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=2527). I feel pretty safe riding this anyways, but the removal of stop signs would be nice, and it really is the only alternative to genuinely dangerous Mission St. Better pavement would be nice also, but whatever.

I'm not a naysayer by any means - I'm all for bike boulevards, but the study is inherently deceptive by comparing bike boulevards to busy, high speed arterial roads (instead of to local streets without boulevard treatment, which seems a more logical comparison).

This depends on what the study is intended to determine. The bb treatment is not intended to make the bb safer than its original state. It may do so, somewhat, by providing a greater proportion of intersections protected by stop signs, but that is not the prime intent. It may be that the motor traffic deterrents cause increased car-bike collisions, but I think that that type of deterrents have not been installed on the bbs. The prime intent is to make the bb faster with much the same level of safety, thus attracting cyclists from the parallel arterial street. One could well measure the average speeds on the bb vs parallel untreated streets to determine the speed advantage that bb treatment provides. One could also measure the average speed on the bb vs the parallel arterial to see how well the bb's speed increasing features function.

But since the prime purpose of the bb is to provide a safer route than the parallel arterial, the study investigated the effectiveness of the bb in achieving that purpose.

Thanks for the video Bek. It answered some of my questions.

According to the video, Berkeley added some paint and a signal or two to roadways that previously had a few traffic diverters and speed humps. Rather than assess the effects of the paint and signal(s) by comparing safety (and speed) before and after the paint dried, they are comparing them to the parallel arterioles. That would make sense if they also compared the bike boulevards to the arterioles prior to the small changes they made, but they didn't. This is just so much propaganda.

Now, if they want to add to the diverters that they put in thirty-five years ago and remove some of those stop signs, then they're moving forward. I also noticed in their video that the cyclists all had to wait at the signal, so it clearly wasn't set to give them any priority. Oh well, baby steps.

somehow, and please don't fault me for saying so,


the complaints are coming off as trite and a desperate grasping at straws.

somehow, and please don't fault me for saying so,


the complaints are coming off as trite and a desperate grasping at straws.Actually your claims and the so called study that even the authors admit are inadequate, are trite and a desperate grasping at straws.

If you want to make such claims, then base it on sound scientific information.