Conflicts and Collisions between Pedestrians and Cyclists: Case - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Conflicts and Collisions between Pedestrians and Cyclists: Case Study of the University of British Columbia Vancouver Campus Filippos Gkekas Master of Community and Regional Planning Alex Bigazzi Assistant Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering
Conflicts and Collisions between Pedestrians and Cyclists: Case Study of the University of British Columbia Vancouver Campus
Filippos Gkekas
Master of Community and Regional Planning
Alex Bigazzi
Assistant Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering and School of Community and Regional Planning
11th ICTCT Extra Workshop March 8th – 9th, 2018
Objective
Identi tify fy
make cycling and walking on campus safer, and more comfortable
Gain
better understanding
conflicts on campus
Propose
measures to mitigate this intermodal conflict
Context
Incre reas ase in UBC popula ulation
By 2041 there is a projected (at least) 44% increase of people that will live, work, and study in UBC1
Incre reas ase in active trans nsport rtati ation n trips on campus
Expected increase
population will increase, transit and cycling infrastructure will improve, and the introduction of a bike share system
Anecd cdotal tal evi videnc nce regard arding ng cyclist - pedestri rian an confli lict cts
Lack of empirical evidence regarding intermodal conflicts
1 UBC C+CP. (2015). Land Use Plan. Retrieved fromhttps://planning.ubc.ca/vancouver/planning/policies- plans/land-use-governance-documents/land-use-plan
Context
Pedestr trian n Priori rity ty Zone (PPZ)
Cyclists are asked to travel at slower speeds and give priority to pedestrians in these areas
PPZ Sign, Source: UBC C+CP Education sign about the PPZ at a bike parking on campus
Methodology
▪
Intercept survey in October 2017
▪
6 collection days
▪
Location: UBC Bookstore, UBC Sauder School of Business, AMS Nest
▪
337 respondents (68,789 daytime pop)
▪
Survey data are representative based
Retrieved from https://www.ubc.ca/about/facts.html
Findings
▪
97% walk lk on campus
▪
Similar to the 2017 UBC Transportation Survey* (93%)
▪
51% bike e on campus
▪
15% travel by transi sit or car *C+CP conducted a transportation
survey in 2017 with 2,502 responses
Findings
Are pedestri rian – cyclist st conflicts s an issue ue?
Findings
▪
Ped-Bike conflict, 70% agree
▪
21% strongly agree
▪
Same proportion (21%) strongly agreed in the UBC Transportation Survey
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Conflicts between pedestrians and cyclists
Conflicts between pedestrians and motor vehicles on campus is a safety issue Conflicts between cyclists and motor vehicles on campus is a safety issue
Perceived intermodal conflicts
Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Neither agree nor disagre Somewhat agree Strongly agree
Findings
▪
25% of the respondents had at least one incident*
▪
At least 199 incidents from 89 respondents
▪
At least 113 walking lking, 66 cycling ling, and 20 skateb teboard rding ing incidents
▪
Specific details only about the most recent incidents (100 incidents)
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Walking incidents Cycling incident Skateboarding incidents
While ____ on campus in the past year, how many times have you had an incident?
1 2 3 4+
*Incident: When someone falls to avoid contact, causes someone to fall, or made contact with a pedestrian, cyclist, skateboarder, motor vehicle, or a non-moving permanent object (e.g., structure, ground)
Findings
▪
Most incidents involved at least a cyclist and a pedestrian
▪
Alignment of perceived and experienced conflicts
▪
60% of the incidents took place in the Pedestrian Priority Zone
20% 29% 65% 29% 44% 63% 7% 9%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Walking incidents Cycling incident
Who was involved in the incident?
Contact with a non-moving permanent object A cyclist A pedestrian A vehicle
Findings
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
No incident At least one incident No incident At least one incident Walking Cycling
I feel safe walking/cycling on (sidewalks along) streets that motor vehicles also use on campus (e.g., West Mall, East Mall, Agronomy Rd, etc.)
Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Neither agree nor disagree Somewhat agree Strongly agree 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
No incident At least one incident No incident At least one incident Walking Cycling
I feel safe walking/cycling on non-motor-vehicle paths on campus (e.g., Main Mall)
▪
Cyclists feel less safe than pedestrians
▪
Cyclist perception of safety is less related to whether they have experienced incidents
Findings
▪
Incidents increase the perception of conflict for both modes
▪
Incidents were related to cyclists being more aware of this as an issue, but not necessarily feeling less safe themselves (i.e. empathetic safety concern).
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
No incident At least one incident No incident At least one incident Walking Cycling
Conflicts between pedestrians and cyclists on campus is a safety issue
Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Neither agree nor disagree Somewhat agree Strongly agree
Findings
▪
97% of the incidents were not reported
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Walking incidents Cycling incident Skateboarder incidents
Did you report the incident to the police or any campus authorities?
Yes No
Findings
▪
Regardless of severity respondents did not report the incident
▪
20% of the incidents involved an injury*
▪
20% of the injury incidents were reported
*Minor and Serious injuries
39 24 11 2 4 7 9 1 2 1
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Walking incidents Cycling incident Skateboarder incidents
Severity of incident
No injury, no property damage No injury (property damage only) Minor (scrapes and bruises) Serious (hospital visit, not overnight)
Findings
▪
79% considered the incident minor or not necessary to report
▪
75% of the unreported injury incidents did not report it for the same reason
▪
19% of the unreported injury incidents thought that the police
wouldn’t do anything
39 26 11 5 2 6 3 8 1 4 5 1 3 1
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Walking incidents Cycling incident Skateboarder incidents
If no, why did you not report the incident
Thought the incident was minor/not necessary to report Don’t know who to call to report Didn’t think the police/campus authorities would do anything No time No one else involved Other
Findings
What are the primary ry factors s that lead to an incident or make people e perceive ve location
s on c campus us as dangerous us?
Cyclists ts self-assessed Pedestrians for cyclists ts
Avoiding a pedestrian or cyclist (28%) Excessive speed (54%) Inattention (22%) Inattention (21%) Riding on the sidewalk (16%) Riding on sidewalk (11%)
Pedestrians self-assessed Cyclists ts for pedestr trians
Inattention (53%) Inattention (70%) Avoiding a cyclist
Pedestrians not abiding by the rules
Fatigue or sleepiness (15%) Avoiding a cyclist
Top-3 3 factors that contributed ed to the inciden ent
All reported incidents with a kernel density of 50m radius
Map with all the reported ed inci cidents
Cyclists ts self-assessed Pedestrians for cyclists ts
Avoiding a pedestrian or cyclist (28%) Excessive speed (54%) Inattention (22%) Inattention (21%) Riding on the sidewalk (16%) Riding on sidewalk (11%)
Pedestrians self-assessed Cyclists ts for pedestr trians
Inattention (53%) Inattention (70%) Avoiding a cyclist
Pedestrians not abiding by the rules
Fatigue or sleepiness (15%) Avoiding a cyclist
Top-3 3 factors that contributed ed to the incident
All reported incidents with a kernel density of 50m radius
Map with all the reported ed inci cidents
All reported incidents with a kernel density of 50m radius All reported hazardous locations with a kernel density of 50m radius
Map with all the reported ed inci cidents Map with all the locations perceived ed as hazardous
Pedestrians Cyclists ts
Over-crowded (76%) Over-crowded (81%) Sidewalk was narrow (26%) Bike lane was narrow/interrupted (27%) Bike lane was narrow/interrupted (14%) Sidewalk was narrow (24%)
Dangerous location for walking/c /cyc ycling
Too many pedestrians (53%) Inadequate lanes or paths (36%) Too many cyclists (32%)
Top-3 3 location-sp speci cifi fic factors s that contributed to the incident Top-3 factors that make this s location dangerous
All reported incidents with a kernel density of 50m radius All reported hazardous locations with a kernel density of 50m radius
Pedestrians Cyclists ts
Over-crowded (76%) Over-crowded (81%) Sidewalk was narrow (26%) Bike lane was narrow/interrupted (27%) Bike lane was narrow/interrupted (14%) Sidewalk was narrow (24%)
Dangerous location for walking/c /cyc ycling
Too many pedestrians (53%) Inadequate lanes or paths (36%) Too many cyclists (32%)
Top-3 3 location-sp speci cifi fic factors s that contributed to the incident Top-3 factors that make this s location dangerous
All reported incidents with a kernel density of 50m radius All reported hazardous locations with a kernel density of 50m radius
Findings
How can we mitigate e the pedestria rian – cyclist list conflict?
Hypothet etical cal bike trip on a fair-weat eather er weekday during school session
▪
Similar number of cyclists chose the PPZ (2) and the local street (3)
▪
The local street group is slightly more comfortable cycling on streets
▪
Most of the incidents for both groups took place away from streets
▪
Low awareness of the PPZ, not significant difference among groups
▪
Wayfinding is an issue, especially for the PPZ group
14% 38% 37% 12% Minor path PPZ Local street I wouldn't bike
Hypothetical cycling trip route
Findings
▪
Cyclist – pedestrian conflicts on campus is a widely perceived and experienced issue, despite lack of crash data
▪
High-volume use of shared bike and pedestrian paths in the core of the campus is a key factor in cyclist – pedestrian conflicts
▪
Wayfinding and avoidance of cars lead cyclists to use Main Mall
▪
The Pedestrian Priority Zone seems to have little effect in deterring cyclists from Main Mall
Reccomendations
1.
How can we enable all comfort levels of cyclists to choose peripheral routes for their bike trips on campus?
Implications
▪
Cyclist – pedestrian conflict is a real issue
▪
Perceived dangerous locations are probably hotspots of incidents
▪
Simple signage alone is not adequate
▪
Segregation of cyclists and pedestrians is not always` the cure
▪
Key factors for incidents:
▫
Inattention & overcrowding
▫
Excessive speed
Limitations
▪
Potential sample bias
▪
Lack of temporal aspect of incidents (day, night-time)
▪
Effectiveness of interventions
▪
Travel patterns on campus
▪
Further research
THANK YOU!
Any questions ns?
Filippo pos s Gkekas Master of Community and Regional Planning filipposgkekas@gmail.com Alex Bigazzi Assistant Professor, Dept Civil Eng and SCARP alex.bigazzi@ubc.ca