I have volunteered to be a bicyclist representative on this project.
What follows is a summary of the interviews that the consultants did
with a a bunch of Caltrans employees. These interviews along with the
literature review
<http://docs.google.com/gb?export=download&id=F.dbf7313f-8f09-4d79-8f6f-2b91d352\
d2d7>
will be discussed at a meeting next Wednesday, July 1, in Sacramento
that I will be attending.

The interview memo mentions a guidebook, which I have not yet received.
I will forward a copy when I do.

It's interesting that bicyclists are lumped in with pedestrians even
though they fall under completely different rules of the road. I imagine
that a lot of my work will be emphasizing that bicyclists have all the
rights and duties of operators of vehicles. Also, I see that the
Caltrans districts are already asking for a lot of wiggle room ("Every
intersection is unique, – include a disclaimer that engineering judgment
will have to be used"). If anything you want to tell me before the
meeting, please get them to me before Wednesday.

To avoid having to send out frequent information to everyone on the
various mailing lists, I have formed a Google Group for those who want
to stay informed about this project. Please go to
<http://groups.google.com/group/caltrans-nonmotorized-intersection-guidebook>
or send me a message to sign up.

Thanks,
Bob Shanteau
Transportation Engineering Liaison
California Association of Bicycling Organizations

***
Memorandum
TO: Richard Haggstrom, California Department of Transportation
FROM: Eric Tang, Ryan Greene-Roesel, Wendy Tao, Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
DATE: May 12, 2009
RE: Non-Motorized Users at Intersections - Interview Summary

This memo summarizes interviews conducted for Task 2 to 4 of the
“Guidebook for Accommodating Non-Motorized Users at Intersections”
project. A total of 23 individuals were interviewed during February,
March and April of 2009.

A number of Caltrans staff from throughout the state were contacted for
these interviews. Initially, staff from Headquarters were interviewed
on-site in Sacramento, including:
Alex Kennedy and Thomas Schriber of Traffic Operations
John Steele, David Cordova, and Maggie O’Mara of Design
Ken McGuire of Local Assistance
Ann Mahaney of Planning

Headquarters staff recommended a number of district contacts who are
knowledgeable on bicycle and pedestrian topics. Although not all those
contacted responded to our interview request, we were able to arrange
meeting times with five districts, including:
District 3 – Rebecca Mowry and Clark Peri of Design
District 4 – Roland Au-Yeung, Emily Tang, Katie Yim, and Phillip Van of
Operations
District 5 – Deb Larson, Chris Engelmann, and Dario Senor of Traffic
Investigations
District 6 – Joel Aguillar of Traffic Investigations and David Arias of
Signal Operations
District 11 – Chuck Davis of Design; Chris Schmidt and Seth Cutter of
Planning; Bob James and Brian Hadley of Operations

While the interviews with District 3 and 4 took place at Caltrans
offices, the others were conducted via web conference. We were to
facilitate desktop sharing capability so that Caltrans staff could share
diagrams, documents, and other relevant electronic media over the
Internet in real-time. This graphical information made it easier for
staff to present their ideas and experiences, and allowed us to better
understand the challenges Caltrans staff face in accommodating
non-motorized users at intersections.

Different types of media were shared with us during the interviews,
including engineering plans from a variety of interchanges in Southern
California and presentation slides from Caltrans districts highlighting
local problems.

Interview Results - Headquarters

The initial interviews with Headquarters staff helped define the
structure of the guidebook and provided direction as to which types of
intersections should be included as content. Overall suggestions for
structuring the guidebook included:

* Organize by intersection type (e.g. signalized, non-signalized,
interchange ramps)
* For each intersection type, identify the key issues and the solutions.
Emphasize low cost solutions if possible, however, provide a range of
solutions, including an “idealized” intersection for each type that
shows ideally how peds and bikes should be accommodated.
* Include some information on state and Caltrans’ policies affecting
pedestrian and bicycle design, such as DD64, Complete Streets, ADA, and
other policies.
* Acknowledge the importance of planning for bicycle and pedestrian
accommodation early on in the project development process, especially in
the project “purpose and need” statement.
* To the extent possible, try to focus the guidebook on one or two key
topics. The message will be more likely to get across if the guidebook
is focused.

Interviewees from headquarters also pointed out a number of challenges
associated with designing for bicyclists and pedestrians:
* Caltrans’ staff may attempt to create designs that are bicyclist and
pedestrian friendly, but local governments and community members may
oppose the design. The reverse can also occur.
* Caltrans’ staff receive conflicting information from the Highway
Design Manual. The manual does not provide clear methods for
accommodating peds and bikes. The methods provided in the guidebook
could be undermined if they conflict with information in the Highway
Design Manual.
* There is a need for better performance management to hold Caltrans’
staff accountable for accommodating peds and bikes.

Interview Results – Districts

Although we interviewed staff from only five of the twelve districts, no
two districts were alike, so we were able to obtain a variety of
perspectives. In the urban districts, intersection problems were mainly
focused at freeway interchanges, while less densely populated districts
focused on conventional highways serving as main streets through small
communities. We were able to distill several key intersection-design
themes based on the responses from Caltrans staff. Many of the themes
reiterated points made by Headquarters staff:
* T-up intersections to slow turning traffic – a smaller turning radius
forces drivers to turn more slowly thereby reducing speed related
conflicts between motorized and non-motorized vehicles as well as crash
severity.
* Avoid the use of optional turn lanes (e.g. thru and right) –
separating movements into distinct lanes reduces the likelihood that
cyclists will be cut off by right-turning traffic, and reduces the need
for cyclists to weave quickly out of right-turn lanes.
* Avoid the use of double loop ramps – such ramps are usually designed
for higher speeds and present a long crossing distance for pedestrians.
* Build for varying abilities – there are different types of cyclists,
ranging from commuters to families, and each type has a different
tolerance for risk. Some cyclists prefer to ride next to the shoulder or
curb, while others can manage to use bike lanes painted several feet
away from the edge of pavement. Some cyclists can execute complicated
weaving movements to maneuver through an interchange while others will
prefer to dismount and cross in pedestrian crosswalks.
* Avoid overuse of signage to prevent desensitization - a sign that is
used too often may end up being ignored.

We distributed a proposed guidebook outline in advance of our interviews
with district staff. We received the following comments, suggestions and
advice:

(1) Comments on significant information needs:
* Some interviewees indicated they need information on when and how to
use bulbouts. There is no Caltrans guidance on this topic and little
information on best practices. * Information on accommodating bicyclists
at freeway ramp intersections is also needed. It would be most helpful
to have examples of a variety of solutions that range from good
accommodation, to the most basic accommodation, and even examples of
where accommodation was judged to be infeasible due to financial
constraints or community concerns.
* Information on accommodation at intersections for Class I, II, and III
bicycle facilities is also needed. The highway design manual includes
information on Class I, II, and III bicycle facilities, but doesn’t get
into detail about accommodation. Much of this is left to judgment and
vetted through HQ design. A guidebook can help better inform those
making the judgments.

(2) Other suggested topics to cover in the guidebook:
* Accommodating pedestrians and bicyclists at roundabouts;
* Bicyclist-only signals;
* Examples of education and enforcement opportunities to better educate
both motorized and non-motorized users.

(3) Challenges to be aware of:
* Particular treatments might result in the diversion of traffic to
adjacent streets
* Proposed solutions should not all require design exceptions, rather,
there should be mix of options if possible
* Be cognizant of ADA requirements, therefore, a proposed treatment for
non-motorized users may need to take into account ADA needs in order to
avoid costly future retrofitting.
* Proposed treatments should not result in the removal of existing
facilities for pedestrians (e.g. removing a sidewalk on one side of the
street and replacing it with another on the other side of the street),
rather, they should add to existing infrastructure.
* Be aware of the design walking speed and ensure there is enough time
for pedestrians to cross an intersection – proposed adjustments to the
design speed may require long crossing times for pedestrians.
* Every intersection is unique, not all solutions may work– include a
disclaimer that engineering judgment will have to be used.
* Be aware of the tension between providing capacity for vehicles and
accommodating non-motorized users.
* When making references, make sure that well known and reputable
sources are cited. Website references should be those that are
maintained and updated regularly.

(4) Examples of problems and solutions:
The following are examples of intersections mentioned as being relevant
for inclusion in the guidebook:
* Pacific Grove, SR-68 and 19th Street - Prior fatality led to the
reduction of lanes from two to one in each direction. This eliminated
the double-threat issue. There is a striped refuge in the middle.
* Santa Cruz, Mission Street and Olive Street (T-intersection) -
Flashing beacons still have about 50% noncompliance. Sharks teeth
pavement markings are being used for midblock crosswalks of multiple lanes.
* Fresno, SR-41 & Divisadero – Located in Downtown area. R10-15 is MUTCD
sign type that has text informing drivers to watch out for pedestrians.
The R1-5L sign type is now used, which is more a visual display. Right
turn on red only during non-peak hours.
Southbound SR99 to Bakersfield to SR58 - Proposing a W11-2 Signal and a
R1-5L sign at this highway ramp with a minimal sight distance for the
right turn movement.

(5) Other Suggestions
It was further emphasized by some staff that it would be helpful if the
training program be made mandatory for all Caltrans staff. The training
program could involve the use of quizzes to reinforce concepts and may
include questions to identify good and bad practices. Interviewees
suggested it would also be helpful if the program engaged participants
by having them walk / bike around an intersection or interchange.

A common refrain from the interviews was that the guidebook should reach
out to all Caltrans divisions. Emphasis was placed on getting the
involvement of designers and those in Operations. The interview schedule
was designed to involve these constituents and interviewees understood
that we were reaching out to them. It was clear to us that operations
and design are the most important groups to have at the table during
discussions as they could provide us with their perspectives on how they
approach problems with non-motorized users. Understanding their point of
view allows us to design a guidebook that can be understood by the
potential audience. We will continue to utilize Caltrans staff as
technical resources throughout the remainder of the guidebook and
training development process.

As mentioned in the list of advice above, emphasis was also placed on
thinking about how to deal with operational benefits. A guidebook should
provide methods to make a case for bike and pedestrian user improvements
by showing how they could be better accommodated while retaining
benefits for vehicles. For example, dedicated left turn lanes replacing
a thru lane could have an operations benefit and be safer for
pedestrians and vehicles alike. Training with this guidebook can help
Caltrans designers produce better intersection designs that improve
safety and mobility for all modes of transport.

It was suggested that we include a disclaimer at the beginning of the
guidebook that indicates the document is not intended to be a standard,
but rather, as the title indicates, a guidebook. Also, since local
agencies will likely reference the guidebook, it would be beneficial to
make it as user-friendly as possible to both local agencies and Caltrans.
Next Steps
* Finalize guidebook outline
* Compile intersection problems and solutions for the outline
* Conduct additional interviews and site visits as-needed to fill in
information gaps and obtain feedback on the draft guidebook.
***