Off street trials of a Bus Stop Bypass: An assessment of user perceptions, safety, capacity and accessibility (TRL730)

  • Published: TRL, 2014
  • Authors: Dr I. York & S. Tong
  • Date Added: 28 Aug 2016
  • Last Update: 28 Aug 2016
  • Format: pdf

Objectives

To evaluate the concept of a Bus Stop Bypass and assess pedestrian crossing options with varying pedestrian and cycle flows.

Methodology

Three trials were conducted at a facility at the TRL test track.

The first involved able bodied cyclist and pedestrian participants using the Bus Stop Bypass (BSB) at the same time, under different flow conditions (of both cyclists and pedestrians). Four different pedestrian crossing types were used: zebra crossing with a ramp, zebra crossing without a ramp, but with dropped kerbs, no zebra crossing with a ramp, and no zebra crossing and no ramp, but dropped kerbs, Video observations of behaviour were recorded and automatic tube counters measured cyclist speeds. A sample of both participant groups was asked to complete questionnaires for feedback.

The second trial involved pedestrian participants with different disabilities using the BSB facility. These participants completed a questionnaire and took part in a focus group to provide feedback on their experiences of using the BSB.

The third trial looked at the pedestrian capacity of the bus stop island, where participants wait for a bus after crossing the cycle track. The trial involved 97 participants, split into two groups, with one group starting upstream from the bus stop and the other starting downstream of the bus stop. Participants were released in different group sizes and asked to wait on the bus stop island. Measurements of how pedestrians queued, their distribution at the bus stop and the maximum number of pedestrians able to wait on the Bus Stop Island, were recorded via video observations.

Key Findings:

  • Formalised queuing stopped after 33 – 47 pedestrians were waiting on the bus stop island.

  • Zebra crossings reduced the interactions between cyclists and pedestrians and had the highest score for perceived safety. This type of crossing was easier for participants with impaired vision to locate. Participants generally understood priorities at the crossing and elsewhere.

  • Dropped kerbs were preferred by most at the zebra crossing with the exception of in high pedestrian flows. Both pedestrians and cyclists felt safer in the set ups with a dropped kerb.

  • Ramps generally increased the probability of interactions, although slightly decreased the number of serious interactions. When there was a high pedestrian flow, a ramp decreased the number of interactions.

  • Pedestrians with impaired mobility preferred the zebra crossing with ramp crossing, although others in the accessibility trial slightly preferred there to be no ramp.

  • Up to half of the cyclist participants said that they would be more likely to cycle in town with BSB facilities being available. This was more likely under higher traffic flows.

  • Cyclists considered the designated crossing point to be safer when it was at cycle track level (i.e. no ramp).

  • Cyclists were generally travelling faster when there was no zebra crossing, particularly when cyclist flows were high. This may have been related to the increase in ambiguity over priorities and cyclists therefore not giving way to pedestrians and being able to maintain higher average speeds.

  • The zebra crossing was easy for participant to identify and made it clear who have priority, thereby reducing the number of interactions between the cyclists and pedestrians.

  • Further on street trials are required before more definitive design recommendations can be made.

Themes

Bus stop bypass, cycle track, pedestrian crossing

Comments

An investigation into the capacity and understanding of a Bus Stop Bypass facility.

Free