Roger Geller explains PDOT’s position, plans for bike safety improvements
Posted by Jonathan Maus (Editor) on November 1st, 2007 at 12:31 pm
(Photo: Jonathan Maus)
[We’ve heard from the local media, we’ve heard from the Police Bureau, we’ve heard from the BTA, and we’ve heard from the community (through hundreds of comments on various websites and blogs). Now, in this guest article, PDOT bike coordinator Roger Geller shares an in-depth analysis of how the City of Portland Office of Transportation plans to improve bike safety through re-engineering and enhancing dangerous intersections.
Please note, all hyperlinks, callout quotes and some paragraph formatting are the work of the editor (me), not Mr. Geller.]
“PDOT has strongly endorsed the design that enhances separation… similar designs are employed in the world-class cycling cities… whose ridership levels, policies and practices we hope to emulate.”
In the light of two recent “right-hook” crashes resulting in fatalities, Commissioner Sam Adams and PDOT have recommended a pilot treatment at 14 targeted intersections to create safer conditions for bicycling. People following this issue — motorists and cyclists alike — legitimately have questions about the effectiveness of the proposed design and how we selected the 14 intersections.
Following these crashes, there arose two leading and opposing options for treating intersections. One of these options eliminates the separation of cyclists and motorists as they approach intersections; the other maintains and enhances the separation. PDOT has strongly endorsed the design that enhances separation. Our approach is based on two guiding principles:
- To increase bicycle ridership in Portland we need to create comfortable conditions for people to ride. The more people who ride, the better will be conditions for cycling,
- Bicycling is safer when awareness and visibility of road users is enhanced and movements are well defined and universally understood.
We are further encouraged in our decision by the fact that similar designs are employed in the world-class cycling cities throughout Europe whose ridership levels, policies and practices we hope to emulate.
The design we propose consists of three main elements: a bicycle lane that is colored as it approaches the intersection, a bicycle box at the intersection, and a colored bicycle lane leading away through the intersection (see Figures 1 and 2).
Other elements will include signing that alerts motorists to the presence of the bicycle lane and expected motor vehicle and bicycle movements through the intersection, a prohibition against turning right on a red signal, and, where feasible or considered necessary, flashing warning signing triggered by the presence of a cyclist approaching the intersection.
The primary intent of this design is to increase the visibility of cyclists at the intersections.
We wish to heighten motorist’s awareness to the presence, or potential presence of cyclists. We want to remind motorists to look for cyclists who may be crossing their paths as they proceed through the intersection. The blue lanes approaching and leading away from the intersections are intended to be the primary trigger for this awareness. By coloring blue the approach, and especially the trailing lanes through the intersection, we will send motorists a clear message to expect cyclists moving through the intersection.
“Separation without safety doesn’t serve anybody well.”
This practice of using color to define a cyclist’s path through an intersection is a common design feature in the bicycle-friendly cities of Denmark, The Netherlands, and Germany. It is also common in those countries to keep cyclists to the right of the roadway — in their own designated space-and to the right of right-turning motorists. Why? Because, those countries have determined, through the repeated feedback from their citizens and following decades of experimenting and refining their designs, policies, and approaches to managing traffic, that people riding bicycles want to stay separated from motor vehicles.
- [Editor note: Learn more about PDOT’s blue bike lanes, and view a study of their effectiveness here.]
It is this separation that creates comfortable conditions for bicycling. It is this feeling of comfort that serves to encourage more people to bicycle. Creating more cyclists, and having fewer people driving cars, makes bicycling safer.
stakeholders meeting last week.
(Photo © Jonathan Maus)
Of course, separation without safety doesn’t serve anybody well. In this case, safer conditions will be achieved, in part, by clearly and unavoidably making known the presence of cyclists at the approach to and through the intersection. We believe the colored bicycle lanes in Portland, as in Copenhagen, Amsterdam, Muenster, and in bicycle-friendly cities throughout Europe, will encourage motorists to stay out of the bicycle lane when approaching an intersection, and look for cyclists before executing their turn through an intersection.
The bicycle box is a separate but related part of the design and is intended to do two things:
- It will allow cyclists to go to the head of the line when the light is red so that they are more visible to queuing motorists and allowed to proceed through the intersection ahead of them,
- It will allow the entire queue of cyclists to come up to the head of the line, so that when the signal turns green there are none or few cyclists moving through the bicycle lane to the right of motorists.
Additional signing and flashing lights would reinforce to motorists the idea to expect cyclists. We feel comfortable testing these designs in Portland because of their successful use in Europe.
However, there is another approach that encourages mixing motor vehicle and bicycle traffic when approaching and going through the intersection. This second approach encourages cyclists and motorists to share either the travel lane by dropping the bicycle lane before the intersection, or to share the bicycle lane, by allowing motor vehicles into the bicycle lane in advance of their making a right turn (Figures 3 and 4).
(Click to enlarge)
This is an approach based on a “vehicular cycling” model, which suggests that bicycles, as vehicles operating on the roadway, should behave the same as the primary vehicles for which the roadways were designed: automobiles. The benefit of this approach is that it takes cyclists who are going straight through an intersection away from the path of a right-turning motorist. It conforms to standard automobile operating rules, in which a vehicle going straight is always to the left of a vehicle turning right.
We believe there are a few problems with this approach.
The main problem is that vehicular cycling is generally best used by those cyclists who are already the most fit and confident. While knowledge of vehicular cycling and the skills it encourages are beneficial to all cyclists, requiring such behavior at each intersection would not feel comfortable to the vast majority of Portlanders — the very people we are working to attract to bicycling.
Keep in mind that Dutch cyclists (and motorists) are perhaps the best trained in the world. They are taught throughout elementary school how to ride a bicycle. They generally begin riding a bicycle very young and continue to ride well into old age. Despite this intensity of training, the Dutch have firmly decided that maintaining separation between cyclists and motorists is what creates the most comfortable conditions for bicycling.
The other main problem with this approach is that cyclists and motorists will still cross paths at some point. Either motorists will merge into the bicycle lane (under the California law approach) or cyclists will have to weave across the path of cars (under the dropped bicycle lane approach). In either case, there will still be multiple conflict points. Instead of having one conflict point at the intersection, it is now moved some indeterminate and varied distance back from the intersection. Cyclists can still be in a motorist’s blind spot when the motorist merges to the right.
We believe that inviting motorists into bicycle lanes creates three conditions that will be uncomfortable to most cyclists.
First is the merge itself. It is not clear where this merge will occur and it still allows cyclists to be in a motorist’s blind spot when the motorist moves to the right.
Second is the blocking of the bicycle lane. One of the advantages of having a bicycle lane-the uninterrupted flow for the bicycle-would be eliminated at almost every intersection where there is a line of motorists waiting to turn right.
“We believe that inviting motorists into bicycle lanes creates… conditions that will be uncomfortable to most cyclists.”
Third is the weaving behavior this will encourage of cyclists, who will understandably not be content to stop in a bicycle lane, near the intersection, when the signal is green, and who will instead move left into the travel lane around the right-turning automobiles.
There are places in Portland where we have dropped bicycle lanes before an intersection. We hear many complaints from cyclists where that occurs. We don’t do it to create safe conditions for cyclists. Instead, we drop bicycle lanes in order to better serve motorists at the intersection. Typically dropping the bicycle lane in order to add an additional turn lane.
If Portland is to be successful in attracting the general public to bicycling as a main means of transportation, then we need to create conditions where cyclists both feel comfortable and are safe when operating their bicycles. Dropping bicycle lanes shy of an intersection and encouraging or requiring cyclists to merge left into the travel lane, is not the ticket.
We developed the list of 14 targeted intersections from three primary sources:
- Comments received from the cycling public at the June 2006 Portland Bike Summit
- Feedback from Portland’s Bicycle Advisory Committee regarding deficiencies in the city’s bikeway system
- Feedback from the general public and analysis performed by technical staff as part of the city’s work to define existing conditions for bicycling in Portland as part of the city’s process to update the bicycle master plan.
We have chosen a design approach that we believe will create comfortable conditions for cyclists, improve safety by clarifying what we expect of motorists and cyclists, and continue to encourage increased bicycle use among more of the general public.
We recognize that intersection design alone does not create safe conditions. Appropriate user behavior is crucial to an individual’s safety. Being aware, looking out for others, yielding to others, and operating at slower speeds all help promote safety for all. This is true no less for cyclists than it is for motorists.
Roger Geller
Bicycle Coordinator, City of Portland Office of Transportation
(503) 823-7671
Mr. Geller looks forward to reading and responding to your comments…
Email This Post
Possibly related posts
November 1st, 2007 12:44
1. where's the motorist education component?
2. stop building curb extensions that reduce bicyclist mobility and choice of roadway positioning at high hazard intersections.
November 1st, 2007 12:45
Roger,
Thanks for taking the time to provide such a thorough explanation.I'm supportive of the bike boxes as a pilot project but only if we take the opportunity to collect information about thier affect on safety. I haven't seen any information about how you'll determine the success or failure of this pilot project. Pilot projects usually have a goal of collecting data and a time period for that data collection. What is planned for this project?
November 1st, 2007 12:47
"where's the motorist education component?"
BURR,
This article is not meant to represent PDOT's comprehensive policy on bike safety. This is merely a look into one aspect (engineering at dangerous intersections) of what they're doing.
bArbaroo,
From what I know, PDOT did an analysis and follow-up study on their blue bike lane pilot project (it's linked in the article above) and I'm also aware that they have been doing extensive evaluation of their pilot project on sharrows.
With the sharrows project, they've had video cameras on the streets watching what happens... and now they've got someone going through and analyzing all that video.
I would expect they would have a similar process in place for evaluating the effectiveness of bike boxes, etc... but I'm sure Roger can tell you more...
November 1st, 2007 12:55
so when are we going to get a comprehensive plan that includes an education component? all we've seen so far is engineering and more engineering - a substantial portion of which up until now has been, in my opinion, substandard - and a misguided police enforcement policy.
November 1st, 2007 12:58
We're looking at various ways to evaluate how these intersections work. I'll be meeting next week with representatives from PSU's IBPI (Initiative for Bicycle and Pedestrian Innovation; http://www.ibpi.usp.pdx.edu/) to see how we might cooperate in evaluating these locations.
November 1st, 2007 13:00
"so when are we going to get a comprehensive plan that includes an education component?
It's called the Platinum Bicycle Master Plan. From what I've heard, there's an entire chapter on education and one on enforcement as well.
November 1st, 2007 13:01
I think one postive thing about the bike box design that hasn't yet been discussed on any forums is this...
It's big. It's brightly colored. It has an enourmous whopping great picture of a bicycle in the middle of it.
Thus, it should give motorists who have the green light wanting to make right-turns quite a substantial warning that they are at an intersection where they should be expecting high levels of bicycle movement.
I don't know about you, but if I was at an intersection in a car, and there was an enormous blue section of paint with a bicycle symbol in front of me on the road, I'd be looking.
November 1st, 2007 13:03
and when will that plan be finalized, how will it address education and enforcement for motorists (it's a bicycle plan after all), and what's to prevent it from sitting on a shelf gathering dust like most of the last bicycle master plan?
November 1st, 2007 13:09
"and when will that plan be finalized,"
I think by summer 2008.
"how will it address education and enforcement for motorists (it's a bicycle plan after all)
good question. I expect some of the educational information in the plan will be created by the Transportation Options division within PDOT. Their messages and programs reach all of Portland, not just cyclists.
"and what's to prevent it from sitting on a shelf gathering dust like most of the last bicycle master plan?
funding, staffing, community activism, political and bureaucratic will, public pressure to enact more bike-friendly policies, public education that it exists and that it is an official city document...
I know one thing, there will be a lot more awareness of the Bike Master Plan (what it is and what it means) this time around than when it was last completed in '95. .. that fact alone makes me optimistic that it will not become irrelevant.
November 1st, 2007 13:10
Roger, thanks for this really interesting explanation. It clarifies a lot of issues for me -- my gut feeling has always been against the California-style right turn merge, but I haven't been able to back it up with a very good argument -- and you've presented an ironclad one. Thanks.
One question: is there any statutory requirement for people to observe bike boxes and advanced stop lines while driving? Or in other words, is the bike box enforceable? I see people pull their cars all the way into the one on Clinton all the time, and always wonder about that.
November 1st, 2007 13:14
Yes, the bicycle box will be enforceable as it will include accompanying regulatory signing stating: "Stop Here on Red" and "No Turn on Red".
November 1st, 2007 13:22
Burr, you make a very good point. Without education, the best design in the world won't work the way it's meant to. Our infrastructure right now should be safe, if people understood their rights and responsilities on the road. But many don't. The recent tragedies were caused partly by engineering problems, but mostly by motorists unwilling to cede a legally mandated right of way to cyclists.
So, I applaud Roger for getting the work going on redesign - even if i fundamentally disagree with him about vehicular cycling - but I caution him that the bigger job lies ahead.
November 1st, 2007 13:32
"gathering dust..."
Seems like we've implemented a lot of the bicycle master plan adopted in 1996.
We've got a bikeway network of about 300 miles, we changed the city code in order to create requirements for short- and long-term bicycle parking, we've developed on-street bicycle corrals and bike oases, bicycles are now allowed on all transit (almost) all the time without a special pass, we've created an extensive encouragement program (Smart Trips) that each year provides an individualized marketing outreach to a 20,000 household swath of Portland, we have perhaps the most comprehensive Safe Routes 2 School program in the country, we have a bikeway maintenance program that is the envy of most large municipalities, we have a substantial number of bicycle events year-round, many of which are supported by the City, and we've continued to innovate with bikeway facility design.
Perhaps most importlantly, we have strong policies, including the lines on our bikeway map, that ensure that bicycle transportation is considered and provided for on classified city bikeways.
Has the plan been implemented perfectly in every case? Of course not. Show me one that has been. Are we done? Never. But, we continue to make progress in every area identified for action in the original master paln. The Bicycle Master Plan has been a necessary and important element that has led to bicycle trips across the four bicycle-friendly Willamette River Bridge (which was only 3 bridges back in 1998, and will soon be 5 bridges in 2009 once the Morrison Bridge bike ped project is completed) growing from 4,530 in 1996 when the plan was adopted to 14,560 this past summer.
I don't know how the plan can be described as "gathering dust," other than through the tired old jab that that's what plans do.
November 1st, 2007 13:46
Quite an eye opener - for some reason, I thought that Mark Krueger was Portland's biggest expert on bicycle traffic planning and intersection design. I guess not. You learn something new every day.
November 1st, 2007 13:48
Roger, thank you for you well considered explanation. Another problem, as I see it, with allowing auto traffic into the bike lane at a point decided by the driver is such a move essentially gives them the right of way when they decide they want it. Such action increases a bicyclist's danger, not decreases it. Applying the approach utilized in California follows the logic of that state, the car is dominant, all others survive as best they can.
November 1st, 2007 13:53
Roger, thanks for laying out the options in a clear and understandable manner. The images help me understand the blue box idea a little better. It's difficult to say if it would be the best solution, but I definitely am against the California law requiring vehicles to enter the bike lane before a right turn. In the last week and a half, I've been using the shared lane approach more often, merging into the vehicle lane at busy intersections with frequent right turns, but this can be extremely difficult and I think even dangerous if traffic is travelling at a higher rate of speed (as they do down the Interstate Ave. hill)--and when cars are following each other very closely as many often do. I also don't think this is a very good option for new and inexperienced cyclists. It's a very difficult issue to find a solution to. Of course, education for all users is paramount, but certainly more signage and bright colors to alert hurried drivers to use caution is a good thing.
November 1st, 2007 13:58
Roger Geller mentions the "No turn on red" with bike boxes. Previously, I had missed all mention of this in regards to bike boxes. I think this is an important component.
I would feel rather uncomfortable if the right turn was allowed. Especially if I rolled-up to the front of traffic and blocked drivers from making a right turn. I imagine this would anger many drivers.
November 1st, 2007 14:05
Since when does the blue lane keep cars out of the bike lane? The one on hall street in Beaverton doesn't have that effect. Motorists ignore it like they ignore just the regular white stripe. It seems to actually decrease safety since when its wet out, the stripe is extra slippery. I always enter the traffic lane to avoid the blue death strip.
November 1st, 2007 14:11
Roger,
I am glad to see PDOT propose the bike boxes as a strategy for increasing bike safety.
However, I have a couple of concerns:
1)We have a tremendous lack of awareness of the need to yield to cyclists in bike lanes community-wide. Close calls and accidents that don't result in fatalities happen frequently. These boxes may solve some of these problems, but I really think driver and cyclist awareness training or an ad campaign(right-of-way laws for drivers and safe riding training for cyclists) seems essential. Funding for street improvements does not address this community need.
2) These facilities cost money to implement. The money may be well-spent, but how long will it take to implement enough of them to address the safety issues in a meaningful way? How far does this initial proposal go towards addressing the problem?
3) There are locations where right turn hooks are not the issue, but that would lend themselves to similar or revised strategies to promote safety. Two downtown are the bike lane on the Hawthorne Bridge westbound off-ramp where cyclists go straight and cars and buses need to cross the bike lane to reach the turn lane. This is a frightening place right now, whether or not accidents occur.
The other is the approach to the Hawthorne Bridge on Madison east-bound. Between 2nd and 1st Aves. the bike and car lanes must shift to the north to allow the bus/right-turn lane in the next block. Drivers do not notice that they must shift left, and buses cross the bike lane without yielding consistently. A bike box is not the answer here, but an answer is needed.
Thanks for your efforts, and I look forward to hearing more.
Patty
November 1st, 2007 14:18
Activism involves an interesting frame of mind. For someone to consider themselves an activist, it often means they have a black and white view of one or more topics.
I live with an activist and have for nearly 20 years. It used to bother me, because I am much more willing to trust topics of importance to time and the inevitable need for consensus building. But eventually, after imagining what would happen in various (certainly not all) situations if my friends views were implemented, and seeing that The Right Thing really should be done immediately, it stopped bothering me.
This a long way of saying that despite mine and many other's willingness to be patient through the long march towards consensus and implementation, if it weren't for the activists demanding immediate action, for what is in many cases obviously The Right Thing, nothing much would really ever get done.
So Roger, your methods are sound, and you and others have built good plans with implementation schedules that fit the timing that is comfortable for the bureaucracy (not meant pejoratively), and I know you are passionate, and truly care about making things better. Left to my own devices, this is all I could or would personally ask of you.
But, thankfully, the "activists" continue to remind us that two young people are dead. They were guilty only of riding their bikes on a part of our infrastructure that is already supposed to be known as a mechanism to keep them safe, as vulnerable users of that infrastructure.
Yet... No citations... and officials of the Police Department at best claiming that things like this happen, and at worst out-right blaming the victims and spreading misleading and dangerous information...
Where are the public service commercials reminding motorists AND cyclists to care for each other? Where is the demand for the resignation of Kruger, and his replacement with someone who has ridden a bike and knows well how vulnerable you are, regardless of how defensively you ride?
If some immediate, tangible actions were taken today, more people would trust that the longer term plans were not only well-intended, but actually likely to be implemented.
I am angry. I think people should be held responsible for their actions, even if they were mistakes. That's all I want. I don't think the two drivers were necessarily bad people, but they made mistakes that cost 2 people their lives. And no, living with what they've done is NOT retribution enough. [Completely Reasonable] Laws meant to protect people were broken. They must be held responsible. And we must have a Police force that protects one and all, not just the majority.
Thank you, sincerely, for your hard work Roger. My hope that justice will be done for Tracey and Brett is all but gone, but my hope for the future of cycling in Portland is alive because of people like you -- AND the "activists".
Ron
November 1st, 2007 14:19
Jonathan,
Great to hear that the Bicycle Master Plan has an entire chapter on education and one on enforcement. However, it sounds like it might not do much to address these two key areas in the short term.
Many of us are alarmed about the recurring pattern in the most recent string of bike fatalities (both in Portland and WA County): motorists - seemingly on a frequent basis - are failing to watch for and yield to cyclists (I think the title of The Mercury's article is right on). Even some members of the PPB don't seem to fully recognize the right of way of cyclists in designated bike lanes.
My understanding from last week's press conference is that the bike boxes - which I personally am all for - will be put in place well before the Bicycle Master Plan gets rolled out. If the prevailing sentiment is that many motorists aren't aware of (or don't respect) cyclists' right-of-way in bike lanes (which have been around for a long time), I share the concerns of many here that the bike boxes could provide cyclists a false sense of protection (at least in the short run). That is unless the installation of the bike boxes goes hand-in-hand with a highly visible motorist education and enforcement campaign.
I don't expect neither Roger or you to address this concern, but I feel it would make all of us a little more at ease (and less impatient) if we would hear more specifics on what will happen in the short term in the area of education and enforcement.
Of course, we don't have to wait for the PPB or the City to take action. At a grassroots level, we should all do our part to educate our friends, neighbors, co-workers about cyclists' safety, sharing the road, etc. and of course be role models ourselves while riding or driving in traffic.
November 1st, 2007 14:19
Bike boxes work well as long as the light is red. After it has been green for several seconds, and traffic is flowing, what alerts the motorist to the cyclist on his back right, quickly approaching the intersection? We talk of educating the driver, but I believe we must also educate the bicyclist to NEVER trust a vehicle in front of him, regardless of blue boxes or anything other designs we implement.
November 1st, 2007 14:25
John F. verbalizes my apprehension about the bike boxes as the predominant engineering solution. I *like* the one on SE Cllinton and SE 39th. It's a lower traffic street and I feel comfortable using it. I don't actually get to use it all that often because very few motorists actually respect it. I don't feel particularly optimistic that motorists will respect other bike boxes, even if they are blue and even if there are more strongly worded signs. There are a few intersections on that list from the press conference that I'm downright pessimistic about. SE Hawthorne at SE 7th and SE 11th are intersections where I think it's got a greater chance of working. SW 14th and W Burnside is one that I don't think it will work at all, and my belief is based on the temperament of the motorists when they are travelling through there.
I was told very specifically by the PPB officer who visited Tracey Sparling's memorial ride that there was nothing the police could do about vehicles that are parked in bike lanes. He was *extremely* clear about this when we were conversing and I know a few other people heard it, too. I even repeated back what he said to make sure I understood him correctly. I guess I'm wondering how these treatments would work since cars can park in them and the Portland Police Bureau is helpless to stop that. I know the ORS states I am allowed to leave them if I felt existing conditions were unsafe, but the Portland Police Bureau *do* issue tickets to people who leave the bike lane for legitimate reasons. Given all of that, it seems like having these treatments would be something of a setup. If I had to leave a bike box/blue lane treatment because a car was blocking it (and the police can do nothing about that), how can I avoid getting a ticket from the police?
November 1st, 2007 14:26
Thank you Roger!
As part of the prototype bike box at 39th and Clinton, can we please get some police enforcement of the regulatory "stop here" and "no right on red" signs? I got honked at again today by a driver in the box, wanting to turn right on red. They seem to think the behavior is optional.
November 1st, 2007 14:26
I've always felt comfortable with the existing blue lanes,and look forward to seeing more. Thanks, Roger for the details...so good to have the City supporting cycling safety!
November 1st, 2007 14:26
Oh, and thank you to Roger for his explanation and all he does for us. You really are the cat's pyjamas, man. :)
November 1st, 2007 14:32
I was told very specifically by the PPB officer who visited Tracey Sparling's memorial ride that there was nothing the police could do about vehicles that are parked in bike lanes. He was *extremely* clear about this when we were conversing and I know a few other people heard it, too.
It sounds like we need an ordinance that prohibits cars from stopping within the bike box, with an appropriate level of fine to discourage the practice.
Then we need somebody to explain to the Traffic Division that the prohibition does not include the words "if the driver perceives that the law is being violated."
November 1st, 2007 14:39
I'm glad to hear the 'dropping of bike lanes" at intersections will end. I think that where we there exists a conflict between parking and continuance of a bike lane we should go with a bike lane ( ie. NW Everett @ 13th)
Thanks Roger for helping make Portland a better place to ride.
November 1st, 2007 14:44
Education and enforcement are key elements to safety. I recognize that we (at PDOT) tend to emphasize the engineering component. Perhaps that's a western thing--born from the idea that "science has the answers to everything." That said, engineerign is crucial and ideally we adopt engineering solutions that clearly communicate what we expect of roadway users. That's the intent behind the colored markings, the depth of the box, and the use of the big bike symbol in the middle of the box. There is research out of Britain on bike boxes that indicates that color, a big bike in the middle of the box, and a deep box are key elements to the box being respected by motorists.
We don't yet know what educational components will be associated with these intersection treatments. There are long-term education strategies (Safer Routes 2 School, changes in the DMV manual) and short-term strategies (billboards, PSAs, articles). We're currently very actively considering how to roll out these treatments in a manner so that everybody going through the intersections understands them.
Enforcement is a key component, as well. What's helpful about this treatment is that it shouldn't be ambiguous in terms of enforcement: there's to be no encroachment into the box on a red--and motorists must yield to cyclists going through the colored bicycle lanes on the green.
We're also aware that these 14 intersections are not the only difficult ones in the city. The city's Bicycle Advisory Committee, attendees at the Bike Summit in June 2006 and in the initial bicycle master plan open houses in June 2007, as well as PDOT staff and comments made to PDOT staff have resulted in a long list of intersections that could be improved. The master plan process will identify them all and develop conceptual designs for at least 50 of them, if not more.
November 1st, 2007 14:46
Geller sez: "Stop Here on Red" and "No Turn on Red".
These are the things that are gonna get motorists to comply. Not more education, not blue paint, not the location of the box.
By turning against a red light, regardless of whether there is a bicycle near him/her, a motorist commits an OBVIOUS traffic infraction.
The less confusion among motorists and bicyclists, the better.
Good planning!
November 1st, 2007 14:53
Roger -
How would the development of Bike Boxes have helped in Brett's accident?
How do they help when the light is green and cars are in motion? This is what scares me when driving a car and visibility is flawed.
Thanks,
November 1st, 2007 14:54
This seems like a set of positive, practical steps; I'm encouraged!
One note on blue lanes: until I began bike-commuting last spring, after many years of driving through the same areas, I was not even consciously aware of any blue lanes. Once on the bike, I noticed them, but did not understand what they meant. At first I figured they meant "bikes yield to buses merging left here" because that's the way the tri-met buses seem to operate at the one on eastbound Hawthorne crossing Grand.
I don't think I'm *that* much dumber or unaware than the average driver. Driver's/biker's ed is badly needed.
November 1st, 2007 14:54
This is a bit off-topic, but if you're like me you've been wondering about the design of the bicycle and pedestrian improvements to the Morrison Bridge that Roger mentions are coming in 2009.
You can see all the schematics at the bottom of this page: http://tinyurl.com/28slqk.
November 1st, 2007 14:56
Thanks Roger for pointing out that engineering solutions - when done well - can have a major educational function. The blue treatments definitely do the job for me, whether I am on the bike or driving my car.
As for tackling the issue of cars parking in bike lanes, there is always the option to resort to the way they do things in NYC ;o) http://tinyurl.com/38qz2g
November 1st, 2007 14:58
Sorry, apparently the site formatted the period into the web address. Here's a clickable link to the Morrison Bridge information: http://tinyurl.com/28slqk
November 1st, 2007 15:06
Rixtir #27:
There is a statute in place that will cover this. ORS 811.265 "Failure to obey a traffic control device" would include any lawfully placed stripe, sign or other device to control traffic. So the law already exists. 811.050 "Failure to Yield to rider on bicycle lane" may also come into play as the bicycle box may be viewed as an extension of the bike lane. At least I would venture to issue a citation under that proviso and let the judge tell me I'm wrong.
Flyingdog5000
November 1st, 2007 15:06
Roger's efforts are admirable, but the solutions that he and traffic engineers offer are necessarily limited by the human element. People are not flotsam that can be channeled like a river with "blue levees," so to speak. As this video from Manhattan demonstrates, even the most inventive barriers are no match for stubborn autonomy – especially in a society that values individualism far more than collectivism.
Several respondents have mentioned the need for "education," and I agree that it's critical. I also think that the bigger issue is the lack of real community in Portland – notwithstanding the popularity of that word (as if repetition would make it true).
Two prerequisites for community are shared values and communication. The people of Portland are deficient in both. The primary problem is that the city is simply too big. Like all other large American cities, Portland has automotive hegemony, not community.
Unlike other cities, however, Portland has thousands of residents who dissent from the American cultural norm. Many of them are even trying to build alternative culture within the city.
The critical question is whether there can ever be reconciliation between opposing values and culture. I don't think so. I expect the conflicts in public space to continue and even escalate – especially as we enter an age of energy and resource scarcity. I assert that there will never be real community in Portland within my lifetime. That's why I left.
November 1st, 2007 15:08
Thanks for clarifying that Flyingdog5000.
November 1st, 2007 15:26
Roger,
I'm curious... in the countries you are sighting as examples of how bike lanes function to make cyclists feel safer... do they put the lane between parked cars and traveling lanes? In all of the pictures I've seen, I don't think I've ever seen bike lanes adjacent to parked cars.
Also, what is the average width of the european bike lanes? I've seen some that are as narrow as ours, but most look considerably wider, making for more of an obvious bike presence, especially when two riders can ride side by side.
I'm asking, because perhaps if we really try to emulate those euro bike lanes, the bike boxes will work. But if we are only getting it half right, then what? Are there details in the design of those euro bike lanes, and in the culture, that we are missing? If so, are we compromising the safety? Will there be more unintended consequences that will require another round of debates, and further engineering to go back and fix?
As to culture, there are some glaring differences:
Most drivers are also riders and understand what to expect from a cyclist.
Cyclists always have the right of way.
Drivers are aware of this right of way, and show courtesy to cyclists.
And I'm not sure of the accuracy of these last two... but urban cycling seems to happen at a more leisurely pace, and I have the impression that they follow traffic rules such as stopping for stop signs and signals.
Thanks, Jacque
November 1st, 2007 15:27
The biggest thing I noticed about the separated bike lane that recently opened in NYC is that when a car wants to turn across it they first have to move over a lane at a point where the parking area becomes a turning lane. This alerts a cyclist that the car is definately about to turn. Many of the intersections also had separate bike and car signals but I think that any time we can implement this type of move over before you enter the bike lane/begin the actual turn we should.
bjorn
November 1st, 2007 15:30
Thanks Roger can't wait to see the bike boxes! Might have missed it - when do you expect them to be in place? Obivously lots of opinions outh there obviously - will be great to start seeing how they work in the real world.
November 1st, 2007 15:34
I'm putting in my support for bike boxes (including enforcement); no drop bike lanes; and huge amounts of public education, including billboards, bus tails, and pamphlets to all businesses for their employees. Sign me up, I'll deliver them!
November 1st, 2007 15:37
Would a cycle track like the one Jeff mentioned in #34 work for Hawthorne Blvd for bicyclists coming eastbound off the Hawthorne Bridge, until you hit 12th?
There is SO MUCH bike traffic coming off the bridge these days, the majority of it staying on Hawthorne in the bikelane until SE 12th Avenue.
The fast moving Hawthorne traffic coming off the bridge, the cars turning right at 7th Ave & 11th Ave, coupled with the narrow bike lane, and the endless parked cars, makes me nervous as a bicyclist.
It seems there would be enough room to put one in here, and the modeshare numbers of cyclists using the roadway would justify it.
Any thoughts?
November 1st, 2007 15:40
Err... in my post above I meant westbound, not eastbound Hawthorne crossing Grand.
November 1st, 2007 15:41
@ Patty #19
I concur with your assessment of the problems in both directions at the west end of the Hawthorne Bridge, plus for years there has been some really bad pavement in the eastbound bike lane on SW Main between SW 4th and SW 1st. The new curb extension on the SW corner of SW 5th and Main is also going to make it much harder for cyclists to get through this area during the PM peak, it's already one of the most congested streets downtown in the afternoon.
November 1st, 2007 15:41
I just read... bicycles represent 18% of bridge traffic for the Hawthorne Bridge!
I would hope this data could help justify a cycle track at this location :-)
November 1st, 2007 15:49
Jacque,
On-street parking is much less prevalent in those cities than it is here in Portland. However, they do have standard designs that include bicycle facilities (either cycle tracks or bicycle lanes) adjacent to parking.
From what I've read and from conversations I've had with planners over there, they're also much more willing to remove on-street parking when there's a conflict. Of course, it helps that they have about one-third of their trips being made by bicycle.
They did not achieve this ridership overnight and I imagine that they experienced incremental change over time in their policies, practices and designs much as any city goes through. They just started decades before we did.
Standard widths for striped bicycle lanes or cycletracks in many European cities range from 2m to 2.2m (roughly 6.5 feet to 7.2 feet) and Denmark is planning to widen their standard to 2.5m (8.2 feet). Safety is not the primary reason for these widths. In The Netherlands they talk about how cycling is a social activity and the 2m allows cyclists to comfortably ride side by side. In Copenhagen they need the width to allow faster cyclists (those traveling, by their estimate 10-11 mph!) to pass slower cyclists (typically children and the elderly, who travel at 4-5 mph).
Earlier this year we striped a bicycle lane at 6.5 feet on N Vancouver between Fremont and Broadway. We received very positive feedback about that at the bicycle master plan open houses.
There are clearly cultural differences between Portland and Amsterdam or Copenhagen. But, the culture here is changing--largely in response to the dramatic increase in bicycle use we've seen over the past 15 years. The key is to maintain and accelerate that growth. It's a bit of a chicken and egg problem.
November 1st, 2007 15:49
PDOT says they'll give bicyclists a whole lane on the bridge deck in each direction when bicycle traffic hits 25% of trips on the Hawthorne bridge.
[PLEASE NOTE: BURR meant this as a joke. It is not true.]
November 1st, 2007 15:54
BURR writes: "PDOT says they'll give bicyclists a whole lane on the bridge deck in each direction when bicycle traffic hits 25% of trips on the Hawthorne bridge."
We did?
November 1st, 2007 16:01
sorry, bikeportland doesn't have little emoticon smileys or I would have put a little winking one on the end of that last post.
November 1st, 2007 16:12
Janice (#31)
The bike box is not meant to help when the light is green--other than to provide a strong visual presence about cyclists coming to/through the intersection. Rather, it is the presence of the colored lanes leading to and through the intersection that would have provided one more visual cue to the truck driver to look for cyclists.
That's also a location where a sensor in the bike lane could be used to trigger a flashing warning sign at the intersection--which might be particularly useful in a downhill, high speed condition.
November 1st, 2007 16:15
"PDOT says they'll give bicyclists a whole lane on the bridge deck in each direction when bicycle traffic hits 25% of trips on the Hawthorne bridge."
Sounds like a great idea to me.
November 1st, 2007 16:19
Roger # 29:
"What's helpful about this treatment is that it shouldn't be ambiguous in terms of enforcement: there's to be no encroachment into the box on a red [...]"
One situation where encroachment into the box on a red might be ambiguous (at least for motorists) is when they are queuing bumper-to-bumper, at slow speed towards the intersection and the light turns yellow and then red. I know the answer is that they shouldn't enter the bike box until passage the intersection is clear - similar to crosswalks - but I think we can expect to see some conflict here.
November 1st, 2007 16:20
Roger, Great work. You seem to have some wonderful solutions to several problems. Can you speak to the biggest problem I still see of being safe when going through the intersection with traffic. I have adopted the "no trust rule". I will not enter an intersection at the same time with a vehicle on my left. I am a "fit rider" who uses the vehicular model and supports the California law. With an educated motorist, it forces them to look and take action when crossing the bike lane. While all these safety ideas are very help I still find the biggest component is driver safety and enforcement. I know this is repetitive, but I got hooked in West Linn this summer. Official accicent report and all that said the driver was at fault. But the officer did not issue a citation. He supervising officer also agreed with the report and has refused a request to order the officer to write a citation. Part of a safe plan needs to be enforcement. I want to see numbers on the citations issued for the laws we have now. My guess is that is is close to none.
November 1st, 2007 16:57
I know this is straying a bit from the point, but...
On the topic of enforcement, what can be done in the near-term (as in weeks, not next summer when the Master Plan is published) to get police to beging bike lane right of way enforcement actions? If citizen complaints brought 6+ traffic officers to Ladd's Circle this summer for stop sign enforcement, can similar complaints be made to bring police to, say, the intersection of NW 16th and Everett? If so, I'll get on the phone right now.
But back to the topic at hand. Roger, thanks for this report. If they prove useful, and I for one am optimistic they will, is there any timeline for expanding the program beyond 14 intersections? Also, echoing JCW in comment 41, when can we expect to see the initial 14 intersections completed?
November 1st, 2007 17:09
JCW #41 and Doug #55:
I can't tell you when they'll be complete. We've got some planning and design work to do and we may very likely run into weather that will not cooperate well with us (pavement must be dry and relatively warm to do these installations).
We also need to secure the funding from City Council needed to implement them.
November 1st, 2007 17:38
[...] latest safety push from Portland’s cycling community is for the installation of numerous bicycle boxes [...]
November 1st, 2007 17:39
What's the chance that Lt. Kruger will enforce the law requiring motor vehicles to stop at the stop bar behind the bike box?
November 1st, 2007 17:46
Roger,
Thanks for a through report. It's very reassuring to know that people high up take these issues seriously. Thanks again for your work on this and future projects.
November 1st, 2007 17:50
A few thoughts on N. Interstate and Greeley:
There are no intersections or business accesses on N. Greeley between Interstate and Going. Therefore, any destination reached by turning right at Interstate and Greeley can be reached from Interstate and Going.
Right turns from southbound Interstate onto Greeley should be prohibited.
Install copious signage on Interstate that says "No Right Turn Allowed at Greeley and Interstate, Use Going St.".
Provide a bail out route for traffic that needs to turn right but has not seen the signs. This could be at Interstate and Larrabee (right on Larrabee, around the pump station to Russell, left on Interstate, north to Greeley and make a left).
November 1st, 2007 18:05
Right hooks are in the news in the Netherlands, where an October 31 article on "Fietsnieuws" (Bike News) points out that 19 cyclists were killed in 2006 by right-turning trucks and that two cyclists (a 73-year-old woman from Alkmaar and a 46-year-old woman from Haarlem) died that way last week. The Fietserbond (Cyclists' Union) is proposing that truckers in built-up areas be required to carry a co-pilot to watch for dangerous situations. They point out that this type of fatality had fallen to 6 and 7 in 2002 and 2003 as an apparent result of an intense public-education campaign. Wide-angle mirrors were required starting in 2003, but that doesn't seem to have reduced the danger of blind-spot ("dead corner" in Dutch) collisions.
November 1st, 2007 18:29
"keep 'um separated" The Replacements
Gosh darn it my kids nearly drove me crazy with that one. Slowly, very slowly, it soaked into my old guy brain. If you separate discordant elements they will only become more discordant. (it is not Dillon, but it is not bad.)
I do not think that I am a vehicular cyclist, but dang it can't we get a discussion going about promoting civility before we simply start throwing money/engineering at perceived problems?
November 1st, 2007 18:34
so we're planning to institutionalize the worst flaws of the Dutch system??? Unfreakinbelievable!!!
November 1st, 2007 18:47
Whoops #62 is mine.
Cøyøte AKA dumbass
November 1st, 2007 18:49
The suggestion vehicular cycling is "behave the same as the primary vehicles for which the roadways were designed: automobiles" is wrong.
Vehicular cycling, or VC, is the practice of driving bicycles on roads in a manner that is visible, predictable, and in accordance with the principles for driving a vehicle in traffic.
Vehicles come in all shapes and sizes: like commercial trucks which have big blind spots! Try check out the Wikipedia definition of VC for more details.
Here is nice history quote: "riding in accordance to vehicular rules of the road go back to the 19th century when bicycles were invented and began sharing the roads with other vehicles, such as wagons and buggies".
Peace Out!
DanC
November 1st, 2007 19:22
Roger;
Thank you also for your work. I know that you have spent a great deal of time on this. My thinking is that cars ignore lines and strips. Not all drivers, but enough to be dangerous. The bike box at Clinton is ignored. Only once have I seen a car stop beforehand when there wasn't a bike in place. I very much like painting intersections blue before and after the intersection. That should do very well. I also consider pulling the bike lane left of the turn lane with a blue stripe just as the eastbound Hawthorne bridge shows. Drivers look carefully there. I also want to see fewer lanes ending before the intersection. Intersections are where they are needed most.
I look forward to talking with you more on Tuesday.
November 1st, 2007 19:34
Burr,
I don't know about you but from my cycling in Holland (Everywhere from big cities to the country side) the riding was easy and felt very safe.
Also Mr. Geller points out that this is to be a test of these ideas:
"In the light of two recent “right-hook” crashes resulting in fatalities, Commissioner Sam Adams and PDOT have recommended a pilot treatment at 14 targeted intersections to create safer conditions for bicycling."
A trial run is not institutionalization.
November 1st, 2007 20:43
In posting the note about Dutch cycling casualties, I didn't mean to imply that the Dutch cycleways are particularly unsafe. We've ridden them a lot and were quite impressed with the generally good behavior of the drivers and the ease of getting around by bike. But I also follow Dutch and German bike forums and read about the problems in cycling paradise. One real challenge with truckers is that they come from all over. You could have every Dutch truck driver perfectly trained, and then the Spanish, Polish, Slovenian, Italian, and Norwegian drivers could zip across your bike lanes and squash your cyclists. I suspect that's what nearly happened to us on one occasion. We had gotten over-confident about having the right of way, and then a truck driver nearly ran over us and blasted his horn at us in an industrial zone in Amsterdam. Any solution for right-hooks has to take into account the fact that lots of truckers come from places with few cyclists or with different rules for cyclists in traffic. You can probably improve the local Portland truck-drivers, but can you design a system that will keep drivers from California out of the bike lanes?
November 1st, 2007 21:26
Roger,
Thanks for your hard work and proposal. Although this may not be a silver bullet it will absolutely help the situation at intersections.
Perhaps the saddest part of all this is that I can be run over and killed in a bikelane and the driver nets a few sleepless nights.
The point made in #60 should be implemented immediatly.
November 1st, 2007 21:28
My apologies ahead of time for being so wordy:
a. I echo the concerns regarding the effectiveness of these designs when the light is green (#22,#31). Bike boxes don't seem to help at all and blue bike lanes seem to help but don't solve the problem.
From my experience both cycling and driving, the most dangerous scenerio is when a cyclist is coming downhill in a bike lane (usually fast) and comes up behind a stopped or slowed motorist. The motorist turns right not expecting a speeding cyclist from behind. I do think bike lanes can give a false sense of security in this scenerio.
As a defensive cyclist I don't trust cars anymore and rarely take my right of way at intersections until I make eye contact (even at the blue bike lane on the Hawthorne Bridge). In practice all it takes is one car not to yield for me to die, so even if they are legally required to yield, I am still cautious.
I know I am not the only cyclist who does this. It seems like this infrastructure (bike lanes on dwnhills) creates a scenerio where defensive cyclists yield to cars anyway but other cyclists (perhaps novices, though not always) get a false sense of security.
b. So in that regard I am wondering if any thought is ever given to the difference with bike lanes on downhills vs. uphills. I feel they are needed on uphills when I am traveling below the speed of traffic but on downhills I often feel much more comfortable taking the lane as I am traveling at the speed of traffic anyway. It forces me to slow down behind a stopped or slowing car and avoid the above scenerio and I can always pass a turning car on the left. So I guess I am saying I like vehicular cycling on downhills and bike lanes on uphills. Any thoughts on this? Roger?
c. I also like when the bike lane moves to the left of a designated right turn lane. That could really help an intersection like 16th and Everett (which does not currently have a designated turn lane). At that intersection right turning cars cue. If the bike lane went to the left of them, they could safely pass the cue w/out impeding traffic and inspiring road rage (these are morning commuters after all). A bike box on the other hand would work great when the light was red and cyclists could move to the front of the cue but not when the light was green and cyclists approaching the cue would have to slow down to ensure that right turning cars saw them. Even with the blue there would be that awkward dance in which drivers and cyclists try to read each others mind. One driver is wondering while this stupid cyclist won't just go and the cyclist is thinking it is because you are the first car out of five that yielded to me.
d. All that said, all in all, I love more signage and colors! Anything that can provide more awareness on the roadway, I like. Education is important of course, but any engineering that creates more awareness is a step in the right direction. I want our roads to be clear not just for Portland drivers but also drivers from out of town who are not used to seeing bikes.
Thanks for all the great info and for addressing this issue so swiftly after these recent tragedies. I cannot tell you how excited I was to see the changes already made to 16th and Everett (my nemesis intersection).
November 1st, 2007 21:45
I appreciate the thorough explanation, Roger.
I am one of those bicyclists who prefer to remain separate from cars, and who prefer to feel safe enough to ride at my own pace, rather than kill myself trying to ride faster so car drivers and bicyclists behind don't get annoyed that I go too slow.
Only thing that's an issue is that blue lanes sort of disappear at night. Harder to see. perhaps a little more reflective matieral mixed in with the paint? Dunno. Yes, we all need to be civil to one another, but we also need to engineer some solutions.
Bravo and keep at it.
November 1st, 2007 22:12
Roger,
I have a suggestion and perhaps this isn't the correct forum but here it is anyway, feel free to contact me directly for free consultancy ;^)
The suggestion is to identify key routes that would receive a higher level of treatment and infrastructure while continuing with the current growth plan. Here's a concrete example of what I mean. To connect NE and SE Portland, possible options include 15th through Lloyd, 21st across, 28th and a few more complex permutations that are all about the same level of safety and comfort. Suppose one of those routes had a higher investment level with wider lanes, traffic calming elements, bike signals, etc. to create a very pleasant, safe and inviting route for those that are intimidated by the narrower faster routes. These specially designated routes would increase ridership and would make an impressive statement about Portland's focus on livability and a multi-mode transportation model. If these were well executed and strategically placed, they would support high volumes of bikes and take our city to the next level.
November 1st, 2007 22:15
Donna wrote:
"I was told very specifically by the PPB officer who visited Tracey Sparling's memorial ride that there was nothing the police could do about vehicles that are parked in bike lanes. He was *extremely* clear about this when we were conversing and I know a few other people heard it, too. I even repeated back what he said to make sure I understood him correctly."
That's odd, because I was under the impression that it was a ticketable offense and call the Parking Enforcement number when I see it. Does anyone know if the law changed recently?
Another scary element of the westbound Hawthorne Bridge area is when you have to get into the left-merge lane to ride down First Avenue. Even with my mirror, as soon as you take your attention away from the last car there are others speeding up behind it that you didn't see. I have only once been able to make that merge without having to stop first in the bike lane to turn around and look. With the construction there is no room to cross the intersection first before turning left.
Speaking of scary intersections, I hope the westbound approach to 39th from Davis will also be studied. For a designated bike route, you shouldn't have to zig-zag down to Couch just to cross 39th. I would like to see a reduced speed limit sign for cars coming around the traffic circle on that blind turn to continue south on 39th which is made even more blind for westbound cyclists by the cars backed up at the northbound stop sign.
Motorists should be aware that they will have to watch for cyclists and pedestrians crossing at Couch as well which is marked by crosswalks. I think this would be a great place to have some signage. People drive so fast and recklessly through that traffic circle that even the bus drivers are given extra instructions on how to handle it (I was on a #19 bus the other day with an instructor coaching the driver).
Several years ago I used to cross 39th at Davis, however I've seen the amount of traffic on 39th increase so dramatically since then that it's pretty much impossible. The only way to safely cross at Couch is to use the crosswalks.
November 1st, 2007 22:43
Roger, thank you for a thoughtful and well engineered proposal to increase safety through separation and higher visibility.
Please consider the traction on the blue lanes. As we enter the rainy season it would be nice to put some engineering effort into making sure the blue lanes are both durable and offer increased traction to the cyclist. Since the blue areas are the highest danger it would stand to reason that they should offer the best stopping traction and help prevent slide outs.
November 2nd, 2007 00:04
Hi Roger, sorry if this has been mentioned already. Why doesn't the blue go through the crosswalk and the whole intersection. It seems like a good idea to have blue in the crosswalk (with bike stencil) to make peds more aware of cyclists biking through. More than once a ped has stepped off the sidewalk to jaywalk, not even looking for cyclists and I have to ring my bell.
It would also be good to have the blue on the other side of the intersection to make motorists who are turning right more aware of cyclists.
November 2nd, 2007 07:24
I'm seriously wondering whether Roger has any proposals for counteracting the continued adverse impacts of bike lane striping (and the yet further easily anticipated adverse impacts of these bike boxes) on motorist (and dare I say police) perceptions regarding their responsibility to share the remainder of the roadway?
There are already many motorists who do not think that cyclists are allowed(!) on a roadway that has no bike lane striping, as well as motorists (and police!) who believe, in the case of roadways that do have such striping, that cyclists must never leave those striped areas! Clearly this is erroneous, as an elementary examination of the law and consideration of practical necessity would reveal.
Naturally, it is not any kind of rationality that fuels these conceits, but preexisting intolerance and unwillingness to share the roads.
However, the notion is further fueled by bike lanes that "we already gave them THAT piece of the road, so what are they doing over HERE!", and will only be exacerbated by bike boxes, as far as I can tell. And unfortunately, the people we are currently most dependent on for educating motorists on their responsibilities for sharing the roads, the police, are overwhelmingly exclusively motorists themselves, with little insight into the practicalities of cycling. Experience has amply demonstrated that they are all too often inclined to interpret roadway striping with a punitive view towards cyclist mobility on the roadway.
There are many, many instances when it is not practical for cyclists to confine themselves to striped areas that have been designated for their exclusive use. Some of them have been described by others here: Coming down a hill, for instance, it is manifestly UNSAFE to attempt to shoot through the narrow gauntlet formed by a bike lane between parked cars and traffic at velocities > 20mph. At those velocities, there is not nearly enough time or space in such a narrow gauntlet to anticipate and avoid potential road hazards. Cyclists moving at those velocities need to take the lane.
Additionally, cyclists making left turns often need to commence those turns well in advance in order to cross multilaned thoroughfares (in the case of SW Broadway, for instance, it is advisable to plan a left turn several blocks in advance, in order to cross all the lanes starting from the bike lane on the far right).
Currently, as I say, there is nothing to prevent police from taking a punitive view of the bike lane laws and making these kinds of basic mobility considerations very difficult for cyclists, as they have in fact done on numerous occasions.
November 2nd, 2007 07:53
it is manifestly UNSAFE to attempt to shoot through the narrow gauntlet formed by a bike lane between parked cars and traffic at velocities > 20mph
Then why don't you slow down? That's what you expect drivers to do in unsafe conditions, isn't it? Adapt your speed to the conditions at hand.
November 2nd, 2007 08:14
I should add: I'm inclined to believe that civility on the road is a much bigger factor in improving cyclist safety than dedicated bike facilities and exclusive rights of way. Exclusive rights of way that aren't grade separated foster only an illusory sense of security, but also a very real and potentially dangerous rivalry between different road users, which is directly antithetical to civility on those shared facilities.
On the other hand, measures such as reduced speed limits and generic educational signage ("Share the road!") can foster roadway civility and increase the confidence of cyclists in using the roads in a lawful and predictable fashion, which in turn increases their own safety, whatever their levels of skill or fitness. Such win-win measures have no drawbacks and only benefits in terms of safety, for all parties.
I'm no expert in the history of cycling infrastructure or comparative historical and international studies of the same. "Who are you to argue with the Dutch?," one might rightly ask. However, I suspect that there is a fundamental flaw in the reasoning that Roger is using here regarding the European example: I'm not convinced that the demarcation of exclusive rights of way on shared roadways was a crucial factor in the success of cycling in Northern Europe. There are many other factors, such as reduced speed limits, high gas taxes, and other cultural incentives to increase cycling ridership, to account for that.
It may well be that the early decision was made in those places to promote cycling by painting bike lanes after our fashion, but that cycling participation improved largely because of other factors little related to that decision.
In any case, I think one needs a much more compelling argument than this anecdotal and dubious causal inference to justify creating potentially dangerous conflicts between road users such as Oregon law currently does in mandating that motorists must cross over bike lanes to execute turns without merging -- a truly monumental blunder in traffic safety planning, as far as I can see. Indeed, a blunder which is right now precipitating a costly and wideranging scheme for new roadway infrastructure in our city to compensate for the dangers it has created.
November 2nd, 2007 09:12
I think the ideal situation is the complete separation of bikes and cars: ie. bike only boulevards, separated bike paths etc. This will allow for cyclists of all abilities and confidence to use the system. I think we all realize though that this is indeed an "ideal" and is nothing we will ever see in practice, at least not in our lifetimes.
Until that day, I think implying that we can design facilities for cyclists of all ability and confidence levels is just impractical, and in fact may promote more unsafe cycling. The bottom line is you've just got to be comfortable mixing it up in traffic if you are going to ride in an urban area.
I support PDOT's efforts at trying new (at least to us) facilities such as bike boxes and more blue lane striping. Anything will help. Such engineered fixes are certainly not going to the answer to everything though, for reasons many have pointed out already.
One of the major barriers we need to get past is a cycling hostile outlook by the PPD. I find it ironic that the City, through PDOT, will put so much effort and money into improving the cycling infrastructure while at the same time the PDD supports officers ticketing cyclists for such negligible infractions as not having a brake (fixed gears) and not coming to a full stop at residential stop signs, all while refusing to ticket motorists for killing cyclists in the bike lane not to mention things like violating bike boxes and bike lanes.
The City needs to move past this schizophrenic behavior.
November 2nd, 2007 09:14
As much as I wish for road civility, the prospect of motorists respecting cyclists' rights to use the road during peak traffic periods seems futile. I try to avoid riding my bike between 7:30am and 9:30am and between 4:30pm and 6pm near business areas. It seems like drivers are racing to get off the road before the traffic builds up. These are drivers that are desensitized and hardened to the conditions they subject themselves to regularly. Can anyone really expect anything to change in this regard? We can't just change speed limits or add signs saying "share the road". People will drive at whatever speed they feel the road was designed for (and then some). That means wide traffic lanes are conducive speeding and careless turning movements.
I'm with Roger. We need greater separation between users. Vehicular bicycling doesn't make sense when you have multi-ton vehicles coupled with careless driving behavior ("road rage"). Most car drivers can't even stand to drive behind other cars and make unsafe passing movements on local streets. Don't expect me as a bicyclist to feel comfortable in this "shared" environment. Vehicular bicycling is advocated by those that resist spending precious few transportation dollars on bicycle facilities and instead want everything spent on facilities that they can drive on.
Lastly, I appreciate Sam Adams' effort to have bicycle safety questions on the DMV's written driving test. I think it's critical to keep DMV on board, despite the expected bureaucratic roadblocks they will throw up.
November 2nd, 2007 09:40
I ride eastbound through the 39th & Clinton bike box every weekday. Maybe half the drivers do stop at the sign. Many cyclists are not aware that they should move left in the box to make room for later-arriving cyclists. Otherwise, it works reasonably well on a red signal, but could use clarifying signs and paint. Why not fix this one, before doing more?
If the light turns green before I get to the box, I merge with the cars. Some later-arriving cyclists shoot by on the right, and usually the cars stop. I have to wait through another signal cycle, which is fine, because I am safe and alive. I never trust a car on my left (or right). Have you thought about separate signal phases, as are used at high-volume auto intersections, where bike lanes are to the right of a potential auto right turn?
Another problem -- bike-lane behavior carries over to inappropriate locations. This morning I was in line (on my bike) behind a westbound schoolbus on SE Salmon which was signaling for a right turn onto 34th. It was waiting for pedestrians (schoolkids) to clear. A cyclist came whizzing by on the right, didn't even stop for the safety patrol, and just went through the intersection.
I have biked in Portland since 1970, and my only crash was in 1970 when I pulled to the right of a right-turning car. If you don't educate cyclists about the dangers of bike lanes, you will kill even more. Educating motorists can help, but bicyclists should be given the mental tools to ensure their own survival.
November 2nd, 2007 09:53
"Have you thought about separate signal phases, as are used at high-volume auto intersections, where bike lanes are to the right of a potential auto right turn?"
This seems to me like such an obviously good solution (and it would clearly be mandatory if the through-going vehicles were cars); why isn't it in place? Is it just that we're not willing to pay for it?
November 2nd, 2007 09:58
Response for anonymous:
Allow me to answer that one: "Why don't you slow down?" How about because: I don't have to slow down in order to protect my safety. I can usually safely merge into a regular traffic lane and in many cases more than keep up with auto traffic while doing so, when going down a hill most of the time.
I only need to slow down in order to submit to a motorist's imperious demand to shove me off the roads -- a demand that is seemingly justified in their minds by the presence of bike lanes.
Well, I don't really appreciate that snide, contemptuous little question, ill-disguised as some sort of paternalistic concern for my safety. I'm quite capable of handling my own safety, thank you very much. As long as motorists are willing and able to follow the laws and civilly share the roadway with all users as they are legally obliged to.
And that actually kind of sums up my problem with bike lanes in their current incarnation, particularly as currently enforced by too many motorist cops. They are NOT an invention that equally serves all cyclists all of the time. All too often, they provide only illusory safety, but present real dangers, while depriving many of us in many instances of legitimate mobility and actually DECREASING our status in the eyes of other roadway users, as well as cops.
I don't have any illusions that we're ever going to get rid of bike lanes, given the psychological value they undoubtedly possess for many novice riders, but I DO think we need to revisit the incredibly ill advised Oregon laws, as well as the alignment of many current bike lanes. And I'm very much afraid that trying to paper over these fundamental defects with more lines of paint is a very dubious project indeed.
November 2nd, 2007 10:15
Come on, if you are passing cars on the right then by definition you *would* have to slow down to merge with traffic. And if you are passing cars on the right at a high rate of speed in the bike lane, then maybe you are riding too fast for safety in that situation. It's a reasonable question.
November 2nd, 2007 10:21
Lisa:
I think someone has to justify a demand for expensive new infrastructure like additional signals by weighing its costs and benefits against other alternatives on a case-by-case basis, such as realigning the bike lane to eliminate the hazard in question altogether. The realignment might not have zero cost, either, but if it would be cheaper, as I suspect it often would, then I think you will have a hard time making the case that your proposal for new signals makes sense.
From a safety point of view, too, I think the proposal you suggest is not a slam dunk. Having multiple different signals in the same direction is a complex scenario for most drivers, and even where it is used for auto traffic, I venture that it is often an attempted workaround for an unfortunate roadway alignment that is still far more hazardous than if the original hazard hadn't been created in the first place.
November 2nd, 2007 10:29
Lisa:
I'm honestly sorry if this sounds abrasive, but I must say this: It's only a reasonable question to someone who is very inexperienced at cycling. However, I'm happy to answer the question:
It is quite common to encounter relatively long downhills with sufficiently sparse traffic that one can merge easily into a regular traffic lane from a bike lane WITHOUT slowing. This may well have been the situation encountered by Brett Jarolimek -- it is plausible, at least from a cursory view of both the Google streetscapes for the area near his fatal collision, as well news accounts of the incident. But unfortunately for Brett, he evidently did not do so, entrusting his safety to a poorly aligned bike lane, much to his loss, and everyone who knew and loved him.
November 2nd, 2007 10:29
Roger,
First, thanks for taking the time to publicize this and to monitor the feedback. I've cycled in many Euopean cities, and am familiar with bike boxes and agree that they are gnerally a good idea and work well.
But two things are missing from the proposal as presented here. The first is education, for both cyclists and motorists. Most people driving in Portland seem to have no idea what to do with the existing bike lanes, other than parking in them --- probably becuase they learned to drive at a time or in a place wheren there were no such lanes. This aspect of the proposal has been amply commented on already, so I'll say no more.
The second missing item is advance greens for Cyclists. In Cambrigde, Amsterdam, Copenhagen, Bern and Berlin, to name just a few cities that use advanced stop lines like you propose, the cyclists get a separate light, which turns green 15 or 20 seconds before the light for the motorists. The idea is to get the cyclists out from in front of the cars and trucks, and back to the side of the road, before the trucks start to roll. Without this period of safe transit, I doubt that many novice cyclists will be willing to move in front of cars in the bike box.
I don't like the idea of banning right turn on red. I agree that right turn on red is a bad idea, but it's now common everywhere in the USA except NYC. If you ban it at these 14 intersections, you will just increase road rage in the drivers who like to target cyclists. It also seems unnecessary. If there is a bike in the box, it won't be possible to turn right. If there are no cycles present, it causes no harm, or at least no more harm than at present. Presumably the danger that you are trying to avoid is that mororists will turn right without looking for bikes, as they do at present. Yes, they do this right now, on green lights. Your proposal does little to deal with motorists turning in front of cyclists other than paining the roads blue -- which assumes that motorists look for bikes. This brings us back to education.
The real solution for busy intersections is to provide two bike lanes --- one for straight ahead, and one for turning right. This is done, for example, at the busy Lorrainebrüke in Bern, where the one-way system causes a lot of traffic to turn right. Of course, the brige isn't wide enough for two bike lanes, so the right-most bike lane shares space with the traffic lane. The result is that cars have to proceed slowly, behind the bikes Not such a bad idea, when you think of it, compared to crushing the cyclists under their wheels. Compare this solution to the present treatment on E. Broadway in Portland, where the signed bike lane is between two lanes of traffic, both of which are permitted to trun right onto the I-5 freeway entrance ramp. I'm sure that I'm not the only cyclist to have had some close shaves here.
November 2nd, 2007 11:15
So, to any experienced cyclist, the question "why don't you slow down?" in a situation which you yourself describe as "manifestly unsafe," is unreasonable? I better quit now before I acquire any more experience.
November 2nd, 2007 11:29
#23 and #73,
There are hundreds of cops in the police bureau, and thus hundreds of ways to police. Some are very intersted in domestic violence issues and are extremely well-versed in all laws and resources applicable to those types of crimes. Some cops are really enthusiastic about traffic and spend lots of times memorizing the traffic code, which is very thick with laws. Some cops are new and still learning the minutia of bureaucracy and hundreds of laws. Some cops have been working for a long time and are still learning new ways to use laws to help solve problems every day.
Most cops know a lot about many areas of criminal and traffic law, but still need to check little cheat books to remind them of the smaller details.
Laws are also changing, as well as bureaucratic rules--can we tow cars for such an offense or not? Are we still enforcing a particular law even though it was recently challenged in court but hasn't been appealed yet?
The officer who said there was nothing we could do about cars in bicycle lanes may have been misinformed or simply didn't know.
I could also be misinformed, as I don't work downtown, and who knows what policies might be going on there that are different from Southeast. But it is my understanding that cars parked in bicycle lanes are subject to a parking citation, a