My issue with channelizers is that it really doesn't force motor traffic queuing as stated, as Spokane is about 5-6 car widths wide before the modification. It may slow them down, but no queue.

Furthermore, it makes motor traffic assume that bikes will go in that channel and possibly stop for a car making a right turn, thus being the victim of a right hook, which have a good chance of being lethal.

Why would anyone take a channel if they were going straight? Spokane is wide enough to have a painted bike lanes instead.

Please if you do anything on Umatilla, just paint in bike lanes!

Are they 'wonderful' even before a person has a catastrophic encounter with one? For the most part, I don't like any of this kind of thing crapping up the street. It's ugly and dangerous, even if it is so 'european'.

'traffic calming' is right. People everywhere seem to feel the need to go fast, regardless of what kind of area they're traveling through, so various types of 'calming devices' seem to be a called, and so traffic departments experiment.

I hate speed bumps, but designs for them have gotten better; such as the variation that's bisected by 2' spaces between segments, allowing a bike to slip right between the segments while a car has to drive right over them.

The mini traffic circle with lane division buttons are ugly and annoying, but usually there's at least some physical barrier that lets them be seen easier than the painted curb of the concrete channnelizer in the top picture. Over on...I think it's NW 25th, those big concrete Jersey barriers squeezing down the street width are significantly evil.

They're not aesthetically wonderful or 'green' particularly, but I kind of like those big orange plastic bollards filled with sand. At least those things can be seen and probably moved with a lift truck pretty easily.

Lot less likely for a drunk (not saying you were drunk Dominique)on a bike to hit one, but if they or anyone else did, unless it was square on, they'd probably just glance off it without destroying anything.

Geez, go take your bike boulevard somewhere else.

Is it clear to motorists (and cyclists) that cyclists are permitted to use the wider lane rather than the bike channel? I see a bike symbol in the channel, but no sharrow in the wider line. Agreeing with "are" (#24), where bike infrastructure is present but unsafe, and an experienced cyclist refuses to use it, she is more likely to get harassed than when there's no bike infrastructure present.

So how do we get across 13th? Am I missing something here.

Thanks Greg Raisman for understanding my frustration with traffic circles. Although "are" is correct about taking the lane I have found myself being "pinched" by cars in circles and it is very scary.

That said, I feel even these initial ones are an improvement over traffic circles and curb extensions.

My question is, why must we use curbs to direct traffic instead of barriers or bollards that are high and narrow like I've seen in Europe and even Baltimore?

http://www.flickr.com/photos/cosmolux/4209260765/