Name that problem spot...

[wsbob]

Was in the mood, so I thought I'd go ahead and get a view of the 185th/Baseline intersection, also, for the purpose of comparison, a view of another intersection, not so far away, making use of an uncommonly used directional traffic method that could work to transition bike and motor vehicle traffic in intersections like 185th and Baseline:

Shows the three main travel lanes and the bike lane on both sides of the intersection. Might need further explanation from Simple Nature regarding 'the right turn only' thing he's talking about.

About 3 miles away, this is Jenkins Rd on the south Nike's home campus...Nikeland of Beaverton...huge...planted berms the whole way around...it's own massive reflecting pool. It was kind of a big deal for Nike to get approved for this intersection. As I recall, they had to pay for the traffic light regulating traffic through this intersection.

The pic doesn't show any cars, but it's no secret Jenkins is a very busy road (tektronix, etc., plus Nike's own traffic). Still, even with the light, people riding bikes faced quite a regular right hook threat. So somebody came up with this bike traffic through travel pavement marking method. I've ridden it. Making the transition still requires lots of signaling and making sure that rear approaching road users understand what the funny pavement lines mean for people on bikes to do. Basically works, though Jenkins road traffic during rush hour can be fierce, though probably no less than on Baseline.

Road is different at 185th and Jenkins, but I thought about it a bit, and it seems like it would work there too.

[Simple Nature]

I probably should have done this up front...
The problem spot is just past the light. A novice will find themselves doing a pedestrian mode to cross the traffic lanes (blue) where the seasoned rider will take the lane and become traffic (yellow). Unfortunately, the stretch is long enough to create impatience with drivers who don't want to go 20mph to the problem intersection following a bicycle.

I don't see any easy way to fix this, but it is just another traffic feature that put a gap in cycling connectivity and the promotion of cycling. This is why I think the "expert" planners should revisit this serious shortcoming.

In light traffic, I take the lane. During rush hour, I count on the kindness of others at the crosswalk. There are -very few- kind drivers in rush hour BTW. Even if one kind soul holds up, someone else is turning right speeding around them where they cannot see you making the crossing.



When they set up MAX, they should have -required- a parallel bike path. That would have been sweet

[Simple Nature]

...and no, there is no pedestrian crossing lights at this problem spot last time I looked.

[wsbob]

Originally Posted by Simple Nature

I probably should have done this up front...
The problem spot is just past the light. A novice will find themselves doing a pedestrian mode to cross the traffic lanes (blue) where the seasoned rider will take the lane and become traffic (yellow). Unfortunately, the stretch is long enough to create impatience with drivers who don't want to go 20mph to the problem intersection following a bicycle.

I don't see any easy way to fix this, but it is just another traffic feature that put a gap in cycling connectivity and the promotion of cycling. This is why I think the "expert" planners should revisit this serious shortcoming.

In light traffic, I take the lane. During rush hour, I count on the kindness of others at the crosswalk. There are -very few- kind drivers in rush hour BTW. Even if one kind soul holds up, someone else is turning right speeding around them where they cannot see you making the crossing.



When they set up MAX, they should have -required- a parallel bike path. That would have been sweet

Thanks for posting the pic of the intersection and adding red and blue lines. I seldom ride the road, and it's been awhile. On seeing the your jagged blue line marking, I remembered though, taking this crosswalk route rather than taking a lane in advance of the intersection, or holding a course with the bike lane through the intersection.

Being kind of tired and out of shape at the time, was why I took the crosswalk route. Also due to being a little less familiar than I am now, with the character of traffic there. More so today, if my energy is up, I'd just take the lane in advance...assuming I've got the juice to readily accelerate to 15mph.

That probably leaves out quite a number of less confident type, potential cyclists. It's kind of difficult to imagine older, not especially fit people on cruisers, summing up the courage to ride through this intersection during rush hour, by holding the line set by the bike lane.

Still, a lot of that could be overcome by simple, more knowledgeable familiarity with rights to the road, proper procedures for navigating heavy traffic, and assertiveness on the part of people, of all conditioning levels that ride bikes. They, and the people driving motor vehicles would come to know and understand, if the practice were more common and consistently used, that when a person on a bike adequately in advance, signals a turn into the main lane, that's where they're going...and traffic should yield accordingly.

It's a big intersection...maybe 80' wide, but it's not that big that a few bikes taking the lane through it is going to delay traffic or interrupt traffic flow very significantly, if at all. Because of their design parameters, everyone has unwittingly contributed to giving roads like this one, over to high levels of stress and limited function.

[lynnef]

I've got a couple of co-workers who would have to be passing through there if they rode all the way from Hillsboro. I myself would take the lane, but I don't see them wanting to do that. I've only gone through there on off-peak times, but I still don't like it. Poor engineering, that's for sure.

[wsbob]

Originally Posted by lynnef

I've got a couple of co-workers who would have to be passing through there if they rode all the way from Hillsboro. I myself would take the lane, but I don't see them wanting to do that. I've only gone through there on off-peak times, but I still don't like it. Poor engineering, that's for sure.

And in case it's forgotten or not considered, everyone should keep in mind that even with the benefit of fully signaled crosswalks, for pedestrians, crossing the street at the intersections of high volume, high speed speed streets like 185th and Baseline, is a miserable experience almost guaranteed to discourage travel other than by motor vehicle.

The noise...the motor vehicle generated filth and danger, the perhaps unintended but consequential sense of relative inferiority that the design of roads like this one impose on people traveling by foot or bike, probably costs us much more than many people might generally imagine. Regrettably, roads with intersections like this one say: If you're not in a motor vehicle, you really shouldn't be here at all.

As the general public continues to wake up to the increasing need to be able, on foot or bike, to do more errands around the neighborhood, intersections like this one may come to be designed with better pedestrian/biking functionality.

[dmc]

Originally Posted by wsbob

And in case it's forgotten or not considered, everyone should keep in mind that even with the benefit of fully signaled crosswalks, for pedestrians, crossing the street at the intersections of high volume, high speed speed streets like 185th and Baseline, is a miserable experience almost guaranteed to discourage travel other than by motor vehicle.

The noise...the motor vehicle generated filth and danger, the perhaps unintended but consequential sense of relative inferiority that the design of roads like this one impose on people traveling by foot or bike, probably costs us much more than many people might generally imagine. Regrettably, roads with intersections like this one say: If you're not in a motor vehicle, you really shouldn't be here at all.

As the general public continues to wake up to the increasing need to be able, on foot or bike, to do more errands around the neighborhood, intersections like this one may come to be designed with better pedestrian/biking functionality.

Poetry.

[DaveT]

The really sad part is that double right turn lane EB on Baseline is totally unneeded. I go by there morning and evening (on 185th) and there is never that much traffic trying to go from EB Baseline to NB 185th. This should have been designed with a single right turn only lane, then a through bike lane, then two through car lanes. It would have worked just as well for cars and MUCH better for bikes.

We really need traffic engineers to consider all modes at the beginning of these designs, rather than getting it done then thinking "ah crap, I have to fit bicycles in here somehow".

[Simple Nature]

Dave, if you are correct in your assuption then maybe it can be addressed. They should have the statistics in hand by now. The other nice thing is that they could make the second lane in the right-turn loop a bike lane for those cyclists who want to go NB. If you notice, there is no bike lane in the curve either. How did they get away with that?

[biciclero]

When I take the middle lane as traffic back at the 185th light, people in Beamers get really upset.

Impatient people in BMWs can suck it. Poor engineering on the part of road designers does not compel me to endanger or inconvenience myself so some driver can get up to 45mph 6 seconds sooner. People wonder why so many cyclists appear to be arrogant a-holes--designs like this are part of it. Sure, we could play our apparently intended role as subservient mice and scurry out the way at all times, but that gets so tiresome.