Street engineering question

[savory]

Before presenting a concept to our city’s traffic engineers, I wanted to learn if my suggestion is missing something obvious. If you have some experience or just want to provide feedback, it would be appreciated.

Problem trying to solve

A new bike lane was installed heading south on X street. When it reaches the intersection of X and Y street, the bike lane merges with a right turn lane forcing cyclists and motorists to share that space. Motorists are obviously turning right. Cyclists are typically going straight rejoining the bike lane on the other side of the intersection. This seems dangerous to me. But I am told engineering does not want to eliminate the right turn lane.

Todays traffic light sequence

Traffic light schedule is for north and south traffic to have green lights at the same time with through traffic having the right of way and left turns yielding to the through traffic. A typical intersection in my experience except the introduction of the shared bike/car space.

East and west traffic also moves and stops at the same time when they receive their green light. Again a very common traffic plan.

Suggestion- looking for input

The suggested solution would be to rephrase the traffic signal and eliminate the motorist exclusive right turn lane.

1. Motorists heading south on X street would que in one lane whether turning right, left or going straight. The bike lane would continue and the right turn lane eliminated. When it is the motorists turn to enter the intersection, they would be the only vehicles at the intersection with the right of way. Without left turning vehicles needing to yield to oncoming vehicles, it is hoped traffic would clear quickly, even within a single lane.
2. Motorists heading south on X street would also have exclusive use of the intersection for phase 2 when it is their turn.
3. Y street would have no change in their behavior since motorists going east and west would both have green lights and would follow existing right of way rules.
4. The intersection will provide a right of way for the cyclists heading south. (The intersection heading north does not need to be altered). A bicycle traffic light would be installed and during the phasing of the lights, cyclists will be provided a right of way.

This is in a high population area of a large city. The speed limit is about 30.

Thoughts?

 

[PaunchyPirate]

I guess I'm not familiar with #4. Are you saying there is a light that would permit the bicycles to proceed straight or turn right while all other car traffic is entirely stopped? I've never seen that, but I guess it could be out there.

Putting that aside, I see a lot of cars deciding to turn right just as a biker enters into the area (perhaps in the blind spot) and the biker gets hit by a turning car from their lane. This would include cars doing a legal "right turn on red", unless you're going to make that illegal at this intersection. Lots of cars still do it even when it is signed as not being permitted.

Your city's current solution is what I'm used to seeing in most places. I'm not sure the city will want to spend money re-doing it.

 

[Midpack]

Your city's current solution is what I'm used to seeing in most places. I'm not sure the city will want to spend money re-doing it.

+1. If I understand the OP’s proposal, he’s reducing the number of lanes for cars by one - giving the right turn lane to cyclists only. That’s going to be very unpopular with motorists. And the universal lane will be less efficient, as now right turn on red turners may all be stuck behind cars going straight or left.

 

[savory]

I guess I'm not familiar with #4. Are you saying there is a light that would permit the bicycles to proceed straight or turn right while all other car traffic is entirely stopped? I've never seen that, but I guess it could be out there.

Putting that aside, I see a lot of cars deciding to turn right just as a biker enters into the area (perhaps in the blind spot) and the biker gets hit by a turning car from their lane. This would include cars doing a legal "right turn on red", unless you're going to make that illegal at this intersection. Lots of cars still do it even when it is signed as not being permitted.

Your city's current solution is what I'm used to seeing in most places. I'm not sure the city will want to spend money re-doing it.

Lots of cities that have encouraged cycling throughout the world have bicycle traffic lights. We only have one so far.

Good point about right turn on red. We actually have many intersections with signs not allowing right turns. You may not know, car and bike collisions are most frequent at intersections. Most people assume bike/motor vehicle collisions happen in driving lanes. But it is corners and driveways that are most dangerous for bicyclists.

 

[SecondCor521]

I live in a city with some bicycle lanes and a lot of motor vehicles. Most drivers respect bicyclists, but many are not as careful and respectful as the law requires, and a few are downright hostile towards cyclists. In my family we've both ridden bikes and driven cars and have had two car->bicycle collisions and one hostile encounter.

The plain truth of it seems to be that although the law indicates otherwise, bicyclists are second-class citizens of the road. As a result of this, I suspect you will not be able to convince any city road planner to get rid of a right turn only lane (item 1 in your list). I also doubt you will get them to install a bicycle traffic light (item 4 in your list).

What they will likely say is that the law requires motorists entering the right turn lane and/or turning right from street X to street Y to yield to bicyclists. And while true, the fact that motorists are probably going faster than bicyclists in that area does create a risk for the bicyclists.

What you might suggest instead, and what I have seen done in my city, is have signage or markings to indicate to motorists that there is a bike lane there and that they should look out for bicyclists. This could be something like a sign with flashing yellow caution lights on the west side of street X just north of where the right turn lane starts. Or it could be pavement markings showing the bike lane on the roadway as it transitions into the right turn lane area -- in my city the bike lanes are painted green with white borders on either side, and when they enter a right turn lane there is some continuation of the lane.

Actually, here is a link to the intersection I'm thinking of:

https://www.google.com/maps/@43.5414631,-116.1572677,184m/data=!3m1!1e3

Look at the north side of the roadway, and you can see the bike lane markings. (Also of note, the right turn lane is on to an interstate freeway!)

 

[Philliefan33]

The bike lanes near our old house do the same as in SecondCor’s example. While the cars still cross the bike lane, it’s well before the intersection. You might have better luck getting this implemented

 

[pb4uski]

Before presenting a concept to our city’s traffic engineers, I wanted to learn if my suggestion is missing something obvious. If you have some experience or just want to provide feedback, it would be appreciated.

Problem trying to solve

A new bike lane was installed heading south on X street. When it reaches the intersection of X and Y street, the bike lane merges with a right turn lane forcing cyclists and motorists to share that space. Motorists are obviously turning right. Cyclists are typically going straight rejoining the bike lane on the other side of the intersection. This seems dangerous to me. But I am told engineering does not want to eliminate the right turn lane.

Todays traffic light sequence

Traffic light schedule is for north and south traffic to have green lights at the same time with through traffic having the right of way and left turns yielding to the through traffic. A typical intersection in my experience except the introduction of the shared bike/car space.

East and west traffic also moves and stops at the same time when they receive their green light. Again a very common traffic plan.

Suggestion- looking for input

The suggested solution would be to rephrase the traffic signal and eliminate the motorist exclusive right turn lane.

1. Motorists heading south on X street would que in one lane whether turning right, left or going straight. The bike lane would continue and the right turn lane eliminated. When it is the motorists turn to enter the intersection, they would be the only vehicles at the intersection with the right of way. Without left turning vehicles needing to yield to oncoming vehicles, it is hoped traffic would clear quickly, even within a single lane.
2. Motorists heading south on X street would also have exclusive use of the intersection for phase 2 when it is their turn.
3. Y street would have no change in their behavior since motorists going east and west would both have green lights and would follow existing right of way rules.
4. The intersection will provide a right of way for the cyclists heading south. (The intersection heading north does not need to be altered). A bicycle traffic light would be installed and during the phasing of the lights, cyclists will be provided a right of way.

This is in a high population area of a large city. The speed limit is about 30.

Thoughts?

I agree with the engineers in not eliminating the right turn lane. What I have seen around here is from left to right a left turn/straight lane, a narrower bicycle lane, and a right turn lane. Bicycles going straight stay in the bike lane and if they are turning right they share the right turn lane with vehicles.

I've never seen an intersection as you describe and I think it is a bad idea.

ETA: Along the lines of SecondCor's link.

 

[savory]

I live in a city with some bicycle lanes and a lot of motor vehicles. Most drivers respect bicyclists, but many are not as careful and respectful as the law requires, and a few are downright hostile towards cyclists. In my family we've both ridden bikes and driven cars and have had two car->bicycle collisions and one hostile encounter.

The plain truth of it seems to be that although the law indicates otherwise, bicyclists are second-class citizens of the road. As a result of this, I suspect you will not be able to convince any city road planner to get rid of a right turn only lane (item 1 in your list). I also doubt you will get them to install a bicycle traffic light (item 4 in your list).

What they will likely say is that the law requires motorists entering the right turn lane and/or turning right from street X to street Y to yield to bicyclists. And while true, the fact that motorists are probably going faster than bicyclists in that area does create a risk for the bicyclists.

What you might suggest instead, and what I have seen done in my city, is have signage or markings to indicate to motorists that there is a bike lane there and that they should look out for bicyclists. This could be something like a sign with flashing yellow caution lights on the west side of street X just north of where the right turn lane starts. Or it could be pavement markings showing the bike lane on the roadway as it transitions into the right turn lane area -- in my city the bike lanes are painted green with white borders on either side, and when they enter a right turn lane there is some continuation of the lane.

Actually, here is a link to the intersection I'm thinking of:

https://www.google.com/maps/@43.5414631,-116.1572677,184m/data=!3m1!1e3

Look at the north side of the roadway, and you can see the bike lane markings. (Also of note, the right turn lane is on to an interstate freeway!)

Thanks. I have biked in Boise a couple of times. Once about 45 miles throughout the entire city. For a USA city, they have done a good job. The compromises Boise has done is similar to other cities, including the city where I am now. I am hoping I can move this city to the next level. But no disagreement about the difficulty of doing that. BTW, I would bet in the not to distant future, if Boise continues to support its infrastructure, you will see your first bicycle traffic light. Their placements are increasing in the USA.

 

[38Chevy454]

I agree with the engineers in not eliminating the right turn lane. What I have seen around here is from left to right a left turn/straight lane, a narrower bicycle lane, and a right turn lane. Bicycles going straight stay in the bike lane and if they are turning right they share the right turn lane with vehicles.

I've never seen an intersection as you describe and I think it is a bad idea.

ETA: Along the lines of SecondCor's link.

This bolded above seems such an easy obvious solution. Why make it more difficult with eliminating a vehicle traffic lane and all the extra signal issues you are proposing.

 

[zinger1457]

I agree with the engineers in not eliminating the right turn lane. What I have seen around here is from left to right a left turn/straight lane, a narrower bicycle lane, and a right turn lane. Bicycles going straight stay in the bike lane and if they are turning right they share the right turn lane with vehicles.

That's the way the bike lanes are where I live.

 

[Time2]

All I can add is, just because they design it doesn't make it right.
We have a 5 mile projected project now in the design phase, in our area. The reason for the for the project is increased traffic from trucks to and from the port. You would think this would include increasing the one lane road to two, but that's not the case. The proposal has a green divider between the two lanes in opposite direction, a bike path on one side and a wider pedestrian/bike path on the other. So really no improvement for truck traffic.
I suggested they needed two lanes, I was told, they will have the property to expand for that. Yes, but only if the rip out the green divider and both pedestrian path ways. I think maybe the pedestrian parts are to garner more support for the project. Cynical me!

The area near me will have a round-about or as I like to call it a truck impediment and something to confuse the locals.
My ulterior motive is, I want the state to buy more of my property frontage.

 

[savory]

This bolded above seems such an easy obvious solution. Why make it more difficult with eliminating a vehicle traffic lane and all the extra signal issues you are proposing.

We also have that design on our streets. The particular corner is too narrow for a bike and car lane.

One of the reasons there are not more cyclists on the road is road designs that put cyclists very close to motorists. But the road design your suggesting is better than no bike lane. So it does help in getting more people to practice active transportation but not as many as a design that does not place a cyclist between two cars. Many people are just too uncomfortable.

 

[pb4uski]

Does the road have a bike lane before it gets to that intersection?

 

[savory]

Just to be clear, my expectation is that motorists heading south would all clear the light once it turns green. The ‘arriving’ south bound motorists would need to wait through one additional light cycle but many will arrive during the cycle. The bike traffic light may add 15 seconds. If you missed the comment above, this intersection does not have room for a bike lane at the intersection of the car lane remains. It must be one or the other with the current street width.

 

[savory]

Does the road have a bike lane before it gets to that intersection?

YES, a protected bike lane. The cyclist rides for 3/4 of a mile in a protected bike lane and then the single lane of cars either remain straight or move to the ‘now introduced’ motor lane. Which is right in front of the bike lane. It even scared me and that does not happen often on my bike.

 

[anethum]

4. The intersection will provide a right of way for the cyclists heading south. (The intersection heading north does not need to be altered). A bicycle traffic light would be installed and during the phasing of the lights, cyclists will be provided a right of way.

What you describe is currently done in Washington, DC, which has built many dedicated bike lanes in recent years. They did something like you're suggesting along Pennsylvania Ave between the White House and the Capitol. The bike lanes are actually in the middle of PA Ave and there are dedicated traffic lights for cyclists (with green & red lights in the form of a bicycle) as well as lights for motor vehicles wishing to turn left to cross the bike lanes at intersections.

The system works well, esp. after they added physical concrete curb-height barriers between the traffic lanes and the 2 bike lanes in the middle of the Avenue. Before that, there were problems with taxis suddenly doing U-Turns in the middle of the road. I was almost hit by a taxi doing this while I was in the bike lane.

DC has also installed dedicated 2-way bike lanes on some one-way streets. (Paris has many of these now). 15th Street NW is an example. It's one-way for motor vehicles going north, but with 2-way bike lanes on the left side of the street. There are dedicated bicycle traffic lights for bikes at each intersection when necessary. It works quite well. These dedicated bike lanes get lots of use in DC.

BTW, they have to temporarily remove everything in PA Ave (not just the bike lane dividers) every 4 years when there's an Inaugural Parade along PA Ave.

The number of cyclists has exploded in Paris. This began before Covid. The city is actively discouraging driving and has replaced many traffic lanes with bike lanes--often 2-way bike lanes on one-way streets. Boulevard Sebastopol is a major north-south route for cyclists (on a one-way street) with 2-way bike lanes that have recorded 19,000 cyclists per day! I biked on it a few months ago at rushhour and it was pretty crazy. Bikes, e-bikes, and lots of scooters. Here's a brief video. Someone in Paris told me that this street now has more bike traffic than any bike lane in the Netherlands.

 

[Ronstar]

The situation you describe is typical bike lane design where there is a right turn lane.

I suggest that you learn to live with it. I've gone through several intersections like this on my bike without incident. If you want to go straight, get into the go straight lane with the cars. If you want to go right, get into the right turn lane.

You forgot a solution - a bike/ pedestrian underpass or overpass through the intersection. Or better yet a separate bike path.

 

[savory]

What you describe is currently done in Washington, DC, which has built many dedicated bike lanes in recent years. They did something like you're suggesting along Pennsylvania Ave between the White House and the Capitol. The bike lanes are actually in the middle of PA Ave and there are dedicated traffic lights for cyclists (with green & red lights in the form of a bicycle) as well as lights for motor vehicles wishing to turn left to cross the bike lanes at intersections.

Thanks for sharing this. Google maps might be dated but Pennsylvania Ave has the extra room I wish we had.

I love biking in DC. Its been a little while since I was there but each time I have biked there, the city has made additions to the infrastructure.

We were in Paris 2019 on a ride from Venice to Paris. They were just discussing the changes in Paris. There were cyclists then and some infrastructure but not what was in the video. Amazing what can be done if you want to in DC and Paris.

 

[isisdave]

Here's one near me.

https://www.google.com/maps/@37.9550923,-87.4926524,53m/data=!3m1!1e3

The westbound 1 car lane and 1 bike lane become a left turn, straight through, and right turn, with the bike lane migrating to the left of the right turn lane. This works well, although I almost never see any bikes here, which probably helps.

OTOH, the left turn from southbound to eastbound is very sharp. The pushed-back southbound left-turn lane is to accommodate buses that turn north there. There are no special bike signals, just a confusing flashing yellow left arrow (common in Indiana).

 

[skyking1]

YES, a protected bike lane. The cyclist rides for 3/4 of a mile in a protected bike lane and then the single lane of cars either remain straight or move to the ‘now introduced’ motor lane. Which is right in front of the bike lane. It even scared me and that does not happen often on my bike.

When you say protected, is it behind a curb or barriers?

 

[savory]

Here's one near me.

https://www.google.com/maps/@37.9550923,-87.4926524,53m/data=!3m1!1e3

The westbound 1 car lane and 1 bike lane become a left turn, straight through, and right turn, with the bike lane migrating to the left of the right turn lane. This works well, although I almost never see any bikes here, which probably helps.

OTOH, the left turn from southbound to eastbound is very sharp. The pushed-back southbound left-turn lane is to accommodate buses that turn north there. There are no special bike signals, just a confusing flashing yellow left arrow (common in Indiana).

Thanks for the link. As Ronstar mentioned in his post, this is the 'standard' design on roads to allow a bike lane along with the other turn lanes. An editorial comment is that it is a design that does not really encourage a cyclist to share the road with motor vehicles. Your comment about not seeing many cyclists is not surprising. In studies, most people find that street design not to be safe when on a bicycle. Cars crossing a bicycle's path is not a desired bicycle route.

So, while it does encourage a few more people, most still do not feel safe. It is a compromise mostly so motorists, majority of constituents for elected officials, do not become upset. Then, the same motorists concerned about the design of 'their' road changing point to the lack of cyclists wondering why anything was done to the road.

If we really want to see more acceptance of bicycling without a real major change in motor vehicle timing issues, we need to do the things like Paris and even DC, as posted by anethum, in an earlier post on this thread.

 

[savory]

When you say protected, is it behind a curb or barriers?

It is probably a 4" wide lane with another 2" of double strips and lined with plastic poles. The poles will not stop motor vehicles but it is encouraging enough for people who would formally only bike on trails to ride on the road. Obviously, only until they reach a point where that infrastructure disappears, which is the next intersection.

 

[savory]

What you describe is currently done in Washington, DC, which has built many dedicated bike lanes in recent years. They did something like you're suggesting along Pennsylvania Ave between the White House and the Capitol. The bike lanes are actually in the middle of PA Ave and there are dedicated traffic lights for cyclists (with green & red lights in the form of a bicycle) as well as lights for motor vehicles wishing to turn left to cross the bike lanes at intersections.

The system works well, esp. after they added physical concrete curb-height barriers between the traffic lanes and the 2 bike lanes in the middle of the Avenue. Before that, there were problems with taxis suddenly doing U-Turns in the middle of the road. I was almost hit by a taxi doing this while I was in the bike lane.

DC has also installed dedicated 2-way bike lanes on some one-way streets. (Paris has many of these now). 15th Street NW is an example. It's one-way for motor vehicles going north, but with 2-way bike lanes on the left side of the street. There are dedicated bicycle traffic lights for bikes at each intersection when necessary. It works quite well. These dedicated bike lanes get lots of use in DC.

BTW, they have to temporarily remove everything in PA Ave (not just the bike lane dividers) every 4 years when there's an Inaugural Parade along PA Ave.

The number of cyclists has exploded in Paris. This began before Covid. The city is actively discouraging driving and has replaced many traffic lanes with bike lanes--often 2-way bike lanes on one-way streets. Boulevard Sebastopol is a major north-south route for cyclists (on a one-way street) with 2-way bike lanes that have recorded 19,000 cyclists per day! I biked on it a few months ago at rushhour and it was pretty crazy. Bikes, e-bikes, and lots of scooters. Here's a brief video. Someone in Paris told me that this street now has more bike traffic than any bike lane in the Netherlands.

I just read the background of the person leading the department of Mobility & Infrastructure worked in DC during her recent career. Perhaps she will bring those ideas here.