(Photos © J. Maus)
The intersection of NE Broadway and N Williams is notorious among many Portlanders.
The intersection (view on Google Maps) is a high-volume, high-speed, five-lane, one-way thoroughfare with a bike lane sandwiched between two right-turn lanes (one is also a through lane). That makes it bad enough, but several other factors make it even more of a nightmare;
- it’s just yards from a freeway on-ramp,
- it’s very popular for bike commuters headed into downtown Portland,
- N. Williams is a major north-south bikeway,
- there’s a gas station on the northeast corner,
- and the intersection’s future will likely include a Streetcar line.
Under the existing configuration, bikes must merge into motor vehicle traffic to get into the bike lane one block prior to the intersection, than stay aware of (and away from) right-turning cars once they get to Williams.
Given those complexities, it’s no surprise the intersection has been on the radar of the City’s bike planners for many years. Over a decade ago, the Office of Transportation included it in a list of ten intersections to receive their innovate ‘blue bike lane’ treatment.
Broadway and Williams was once again recognized as a dangerous intersection last winter when PDOT first embarked on their “bike box intersection safety project.” As one of the 14 intersections identified, it was initially slated to receive a bike box similar to the one recently installed at SE Hawthorne and 7th.
But now the bike box is on hold and PDOT is taking a closer look at the location. Last month they had an extensive engineering analysis performed by an outside consultant to help them weigh their options (the study looked at a large area around the Rose Quarter, not just this one intersection).
Currently, the two options on the table are a bike box and a bicycle-only traffic signal.
In the first option, illustrated in the graphic below, a bike box would be placed in the through/right lane (this option has not changed — except for color choice — since November).
(Graphic: PDOT)
This configuration would be helpful during red light situations, but it offers little improvement over existing conditions during a green light, when right-turning motor vehicles would still be to the left of the bicycle lane. This treatment also still requires bikes to merge into the lane one block prior to the intersection.
The other option being considered by PDOT is to move the bike lane curbside and add a bicycle-only traffic signal:
(Graphic: PDOT)
This option would also re-configure Broadway into two through lanes and two right-turn only lanes (in addition to the bike lane).
NE Interstate and NE Lloyd.
According to PDOT, this option would be coupled with a separate signal phase for bikes so that bike traffic does not have green at the same time the right turn lanes do. The signal would also have special detectors in the lane to sense when a bike is present. The signal might also be an “exclusive phase”, meaning all vehicles at the intersection would receive a red light when the bike light is green.
A study done by PDOT consultants called this second option, “promising” and it is currently undergoing further detailed analysis.
Clearly, this intersection presents many design issues for City engineers and planners. They have to figure out not only what is the safest and most comfortable treatment for all road users, but they must also take into account any significant decrease in traffic volume a new design would lead to. I don’t envy their task.
Whatever is done at this intersection to improve bike safety, it will be a welcome change for the hundreds of cyclists who use it each day and it will be one less roadblock in the way of the many Portlanders who would like to ride, but because of intersections like this, leave the bike at home.
What about you? Can you share your experiences? What do you think PDOT can do to improve bike safety at this location?
If you have questions or feedback about this site or my work, feel free to contact me at @jonathan_maus on Twitter, via email at maus.jonathan@gmail.com, or phone/text at 503-706-8804. Also, if you read and appreciate this site, please become a supporter.
I ride in the middle of the lane that has the option of going straight. The bike lane is a death trap. Recommend sharrows here instead, possibly painting the entire second lane green for a block and a half. Bike boxes make sense while traffic is stopped at a red light. The longer the light is red, the more sense they make. But the problems at this intersection are most grievous while the light is green and traffic is flowing.
I ride in the middle of the five lanes, mainly even to the left of the through/right turn lane.
I merge into the middle blocks ahead of time, then carry my speed and time the lights. If you merge early enough, the cars already know you are there, and you can cruise all the way to the other side of the bridge.
After the freeway interchange, there is the off ramp to deal with, but I don\’t even merge over until a block after passing Flint.
I hate this intersection; fortunately, I only ride it about once every other month or less. I, however, get to ride it tomorrow for some business over in that area and probably will find myself riding it more often in the future. I agree with G.A.R. – the bike lane is a death trap, which I usually ride, but tomorrow I\’m just going to take the lane to the left of it and see if it feels more comfortable.
Of the options outlined above, I think that the bicycle only light is a far better solution. A hurdle with that option is to make sure motorists do not make a right turn on red.
The bike box option really doesn\’t ameliorate the situation, as I\’ve only had issues at that intersection when traffic is already moving.
This is a one way street, and more traffic seems to turn right than left off broadway. Could this be a location where a physically separated bike lane on the left side of the street ala 9th avenue in NYC might be a better solution?
http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/09/20/nyc-gets-its-first-ever-physically-separated-bike-path/
Maybe it\’s time for a road diet?
This intersection must be daunting to inexperienced cyclists. My approach is to essentially follow the bike lane model while looking over my shoulder to make sure there is a gap for me to go straight. I indicate as such by quickly pointing straight. I adjust my speed faster or slower to make sure there is a gap. I have yet to not find this gap that I need so far. The reason for the gap magically appearing is partly due to luck.
I like the idea of taking the 2nd lane to eliminate the need for the aforementioned luck. The Sharrows would support this.
While I embrace a bike box concept under some circumstances, it may confuse the issue here and do nothing for moving traffic. The lights seem to be timed such that don\’t often wait for a green.
The separate light is a superb idea. I recommend a crossing button to augment the sensor.
A bike-only light has the opportunity to ruin a well timed set of lights, that, if ridden safely and properly, can propel you down over the freeway, down the hill, and most of the way across the bridge with little effort.
As it is, I think the bike lanes make a bad situation worse.
The riders with enough experience on the road usually have the confidence to essentially say \”screw the bike lane\” and put themselves into the lane of traffic that best insures their survival. It\’s actually a short bit of horrible traffic, and if you ride assertively and are aware of what can go wrong, you can usually get through it.
I mostly worry about the more casual riders who are perhaps a bit too obedient to the bike lane right around that area and end up riding where it can be anything but safe to do so.
I ride through this intersection everyday. I ride in the bike lane. Despite the clear prospect for conflicts, I have no more problems than I do at other right-turn intersections. But it is even more important here than at other intersections to avoid passing a car on the right as it enters the intersection. This is not an exercise for the inexperienced or the feint-hearted.
From the sound of it, the bike light would be the most correct treatment for the intersection. It avoids putting cyclists to the left of a \”car lane,\” which is difficult to do and a scary place to be for the inexperienced and feint-hearted. It\’s also consistent with the intersection at the west end of the Broadway bridge.
I think sharrows are a less-good solution here because the cyclist is still on the left-side of a \”car lane,\” which is just as hard a place to get to and be for the inexperienced and feint-hearted.
I prefer the take the lane early approach however, my normal commute takes me out Flint onto Broadway and across Broadway on Williams on the way home.
Sometime last week a car headed North on Williams crossed Broadway and proceeded to cut in front of 7 YES SEVEN bikes almost crushing the front two to turn into a gas station. A nice slap to their side panel as I passed on the left seemed to communicate the annoyance felt by the group of us. I was suprised no one got hurt.
I\’m really disappointed to see PDOT moving further and further down the path of treating bicyclists as rolling pedestrians rather than as vehicle operators, as the law indicates we are.
I used to ride through this intersection every day. Even with my experience I still had a number of close calls. I used to use the bike lane and when there was a red light I would scoot over in front of the cars in a de facto bike box. Even then it didn\’t feel safe.
My vote would be for the bike light and separate lane. I know that a lot of people don\’t like the idea of keeping cars and bikes physically apart, but in this case I think it is the safest and best option.
how long do you think that separate bicycle signal will be green for, compared to the length of the green lights for both the Broadway traffic and the Williams traffic? That light is gonna be red most of the time, and you will be sitting their waiting forever for the bike light to finally go green for a few seconds.
Will you still be able to get out into the lane and ride vehicularly if you want to, or will you be forced to use the bike lane / signal?
Not only is that intersection nasty but so is the crossover one block earlier. I almost got crushed by a HUGE Cadillac last week when a motorist decided not to yield when I was moving left with the bike lane!
#10 toddistic. Couldn\’t agree with you more regarding that gas station on Williams. I have had numerous drivers pull that same move on me and many others around me.
All in all this must be one of the more challenging intersections in all of Portland, from a planning standpoint. I\’m not sure what the best \”fix\” is but I would think that allowing bikes to flow through while all other traffic is stopped is about the best option we can hope for.
Personally I avoid that intersection as much as possible.
I ride through this intersection every morning as well. Once you know where to be and what to watch out for, it\’s pretty easy to navigate safely. It can be very dangerous for those that aren\’t familiar with it though. I came very close to being run over there when I first started commuting.
I think a seperate bike light here would slow traffic too much. I\’d rather make both right lanes right only, move the bike lane to the left of them, and move the merge another block back. Traffic backs up so much that it is difficult to merge into the bike lane where the merge is now. The merge and the entire bike lane through the turn should be painted green as well.
A bike signal doesn\’t seem appropriate here at all. It\’s just a two-way intersection; no need to screw up the signal phasing just for bikes.
Rather, the solution seems to be this:
* Keep one bike lane next to the curb. Mark it clearly as a bicycle right-hand turn lane only for bikes heading north on Williams.
* The next tow lanes to the left would be car right-hand-turn-only lanes (no through traffic allowed).
* The next lane to the left would be a through bicycle lane, which would continue across the bridge and past the on-ramp on the other side, before merging across that lane and back into the regular bike lane.
* The next two lanes to the left would be auto through-traffic lanes.
* A curb extension on the bridge itself would allow some trees to physically block traffic from going forward from the two right-hand-only lanes.
* No green box would be necessary, though green lane markings would be required for the bike-forward lane, and also possible to delineate the bike-right-hand-turn lane.
* Some kind of mid-block treatment before this intersection would be nice to indicate to traffic to watch for bikes merging two lanes to the left to get into the center lane. Maybe continuing this center bike lane, with colored pavement, all the way down this previous block would do the trick?
It would be really great to see some kind of fix at this location! I like the signal idea.
Getting to downtown from anywhere in the Northeast Quadrant is an absolute nightmare on a bike. The only facilities you can use are bikelanes. There\’s no bike boulevard or off-street bikepath that takes you to the Broadway Bridge. I don\’t know how families with small children on bikes do it. It just seems so impossible.
In the longer-term, perhaps we could think big! We should be looking at ways bicyclists can get from N or NE to downtown without having to touch a bikelane at all, or perhaps, even, seeing a car at all. I think THAT\’s how we\’re going to get all those NE Portlanders that currently drive on a bicycle!
I was strongly in support of the separate prioritized bike signal light until I read Garlynn\’s Post #15. I think Garlynn has a great solution to the issue. Someone should photoshop it up so we can all see it illustrated.
I like taking the through lane in these situations because I am traveling at the same speed as cars and want to demonstrate to drivers that my being there is less obstructive as I don’t block a right turn or trigger a light that stops all traffic.
But I like the curb lane and signal idea because it would be the most comfortable for all cyclists. I would use it as an option if I was not able to negotiate the through lane.
Bikes and cars in this intersection are totally incompatible. Desipte all the engineering you are always going to have cars croosing infront of (or on top of) of bikes creating a difficult situation.
This is where we just need to get bikes off of Broadway all together by using a dedicated street, bike boluvard or separte bike/pedestrian overpass. Maybe NE Schuyler St. on block to the North. Think of this as an analogue Clinton to Division.
Man, I love that we\’re trying to figure out how to improve the bicycle facilities here, but we wouldn\’t have to if it weren\’t for the high-speed traffic. How about:
– narrowing and reducing the auto lanes
– presenting impediments to zooming at freeway speeds on and off the freeway ramps (going up Broadway eastbound is also extremely dangerous because of freeway exiters)
– more enforcement for speed and stopping (PPB is already in practice for this from all the stings on cyclists up at Flint).
– eventual removal of the inner-city part of the freeway system that causes all these problems to begin with (okay, I can dream)
I love that Spencer and I simultaneously posted the same analysis but with opposite solutions.
Well, I sort of agree with you, Spencer. But it does seem to me that the motorists\’ dangerous behavior at this intersection shouldn\’t be taken for granted. Cyclists shouldn\’t *always* have to change our ways, or get out of the way.
Getting rid of the Freeway entrance ramp is the only way to make this intersection truly safer. The most dangerous intersections in town are almost all associated with freeway entrances or exits and no amount of bike boxes, blue or green paint or separate signal phases is going to make them much safer.
Like some commentors here, I found the intersection easier and easier to negotiate the more times I used it. However, it was a false sense of security because every now and then I\’d start feeling confident and have a clueless driver nearly run me over even though I\’m following the rules of the road. Since I started a new job elsewhere, I don\’t ride through it regularly and when I do come near it, I try to avoid it because it\’s been so long and I can\’t feel comfortable based on my experience last year.
If we are trying to create an environment where anyone interesting in bicycling will feel safe enough to do it, we need this intersection to be visibly safe to everyone. First, we need to start from scratch (pretend there are no lines on the pavement) and determine the safest way for bicycles and pedestrians to approach and cross the intersection, then we need to design the rest of the road (vehicle lanes and turning movements) in such a way as to maintain that level of safety for bikes/peds.
Bike signals are usually a bad idea because bikes are given four seconds out of 60 or more in the cycle, and reduced to the least respected and deserving mode of transportation. Ala Broadway Bridge westbound.
If anything we should be given priority, at least on common bike routes.
I\’m with you 49. Erase all the lines and start over. As long as there is a bike lane for bikes going straight between two right turning car lanes there is going to be trouble. I avoid this intersection as much as possible. I will even opt for the slower way across and use the steel bridge.
Intersections like this are not the reason why people don\’t bike at all. When I first started riding on the roads and outside of neighborhoods, I rode on the least busy roads I could find. Roads like Broadway are only for experienced cyclists. It takes far too much coordination to watch for traffic, pedestrians, signals, potholes, turn signals, etc to recommend any beginning cyclist to start commuting using this road.
Nonetheless, improvement to this intersection will be welcomed.
What about the dedicated/separated bike lane between the 2 right-turn only lanes and the 2 going straight only lanes?
Wouldn\’t that be the best solution? Of course, I suppose you would have to cross two lanes of traffic to get there… so nevermind.
I vote for the bike signal in the dedicated bike lane, as it simplifies everything. And inexperienced cyclists will be more apt to try riding if they do not have to contend with merging and weaving in and out of extremely heavy multi-laned traffic.
For those wondering what they do in Europe, most large streets like this would be underground, and cyclists aren\’t allowed near the intersections of them (nor would pedestrians, for that matter). They are routed around them in much nicer paths.
One last question for everyone,
As we are talking about spending 5 million to put in the old Savies Island bridge over 405, couldn\’t those funds be better spent putting in a bike bridge where we need it. For example in the broadway vicinity. Instead we are looking at essentially a beutification project for the NW and Pearl.
It is important to keep the cost benefit of projects in perspective if we want the final result to be funtional bike infrastructure and not cool gee gahs.
i used to ride through this intersection pretty much daily, and i still hit it regularly. despite the potentially catastrophic combo of traffic yuckiness here, ive never really had any problems – but i daresay im pretty damn good at reading and predicting cars, and probably a bit more ballsy than most about showing them whos boss 🙂 that being said, i definitely appreciate how it could be a really daunting intersection for even the average experienced portland cyclist.
Garlynns bike-lane sandwich idea is a damn good one. i actually find the right turn onto williams there more annoying than the straight through on broadway! i think a curbside full-block green bike lane would be great – and making the two rightmost car lanes right turn only? also great! thats what most people are doing in those lanes anyhow. then, putting a second green-for-the-whole-block bike lane inbetween the two right-turn-only lanes, and the two straight-only lanes would work great. yeah, you have to navigate over two lanes of traffic to get to it, but some signage for both cars and bikes starting 2 blocks ahead of the intersection would help there, perhaps. ooh, and maybe a head-start signal for bikes.
the idea of the left-side bike lane that someone else mention, while tempting, doesnt address the bike right turn onto williams, or the fact that those left lanes end up turning south onto vancouver, headed for the southbound freeway entrance. pretty much yuck there too, and you end up with cyclists piled up trying to sprint through traffic for the right-side bike lane on broadway past the freeway.
and elly, i am SO with you on the inner-city freeway removal ideas. ugh. freeways through the city core? stupidest. idea. ever. its like turning hyenas loose in a petting zoo. yeah, its fantasyland, but we can dream! i have a 1940 map of portland, sans freeways, and man it sure is purty.
and did i hear streetcar through broadway and williams? oh man, i hope i live to see that! i do loves me some light rail.
Look to the veteran users who first posted for input – take the lane. I\’ve been through here only a couple of times over the years and just take the first straight through optioned lane.
The \’improvement solution\’ may be to eliminate the bike lane as it exists now and integrate it within the 2nd traffic lane as a dashed and/or green lane [one step up from the sharrows concept]. This would validate the \”take the lane\” approach.
A similar condition exists on SW 1st between SW Madison and SW Jefferson [though PDOT left out the bike lane here after trying a couple of temporary solutions during the repaving last year].
Spencer #29 has a an excellent point.
The lights are timed such that cars, and cyclists, can go all the way down Broadway, from the point it becomes one-way, past this intersection, and onto the bridge without stopping. When moving with traffic at their speed, right-hooks don\’t happen. Plus, for cyclists, momentum is good. I\’d be loath to have to stop there EVERY TIME and wait for a signal to tell me I could go.
But, I understand that not everyone is willing or able to ride at the speed of traffic and mix with cars. The signal would be the best solution for those people, so long as it didn\’t make taking the through lane unlawful for those of us that still wished to do so.
@Spencer #29 –
I was looking at Google Maps trying to figure out what street would work in this area to bypass Broadway if a bridge could be added. I didn\’t see any viable options in the general vicinity. I mean you might be able to do something with Hancock, route cyclists through the parking lot, across Wheeler, and onto Dixon, then onto Larrabee before getting onto the bridge.
I agree that the reuse of the Sauvie Island Bridge at Flanders is NOT a priority. I live in that area and ride Everett/Glisan often and while neither is great for the inexperienced cyclist you are only a few blocks away from Couch, which runs straight through up till 19th and Johnson, which is a great and calm ride. I will say that one advantage of placing a bridge at Flanders is the fact that Flanders is one of the only streets to run from Westover to the Waterfront uninterrupted (except for the 405 area at 14th).
Anyways, enough rambling, if anyone sees anything by Broadway where a bridge could help make an alternative bike route I\’d be very interested in knowing where.
I like Garlynn\’s suggestions best. However for the less experienced/more chickens**t among us (by which I mean me) a bike boulevard through that area would be golden. I don\’t use the intersection much now – frankly it scares the bejesus out of me – but if there were a through bike lane with no cars crossing it, I expect I would use it. Except maybe in the dark and/or rain (or when I\’m feeling especially chickens**t) in which case I would seek out that bike boulevard.
🙂
It seems like that entire area is long overdue for not just a transportation review, but an entire land-use review.
It would be great to see a more comprehensive urban grid system installed around the Lloyd Center/RoseQuarter area as new development or redevelopment occurs.
As a great example they could follow, think about the great recent redevelopment of the Alder Creek Cayak/Canoe building next to the Hawthorne Bridge in SE.
As part of that redevelopment, they built a plaza to help people biking and walking from Clay St get down easily to the Eastband Esplanade.
Currently, it\’s so messy to navigate the Rose Quarter area on a bike, and your only choice to get anywhere is large arterials.
^^just like the urban grid system that used to exist right here up until circa the 1960\’s, and was removed to build the Coliseum, the Rose Quarter and the Freeway…
:-0
If you\’re trying to increase the cyclist mode split and make this area safer for cyclists, how about giving cyclists more than a crappy 4 – 5 foot door zone / drainage grate bike lane, and give them some real space on the street, like a full 9 – 10 foot lane?
Garalynn has some great ideas, and I thought I\’d add one I had:
Make it so cars in the right-hand turn lanes HAVE to turn right– for instance, a curved line of barrier at the outside of the outer-most right-hand turn lane.
That way, bikes to the left in the straight-going bike lane will have less to fear from cars turning right; people will not be able to change their mind at the last second and illegaly go straight from the turn lane, at least not without running over something that may damage their car.
And I like BURR\’s idea of a full lane for cyclists… 🙂
I concur with #15. I used to commute this route every day, and quickly gave up on the idea of using the existing bike lane. It. Is. Useless.
Instead, I ride in the right-most through traffic lane (vehicular cyclists applaud as I write, I know). Not only am I alive to tell the tale, but motorists get it, that I am the correct lane of travel.
One more comment on #15: after the bike lane is situated to the left of the right turn lanes, there should be a barrier to the left of the bike lane to prevent motorists from changing lanes into the right hand turn lanes. That would prevent motorists focused on the freeway ramp, their cell phone, and their double tall latte from darting across the lanes of through traffic at the last minute.
I know I\’m not saying anything new here… But I hate this intersection. I\’m an experienced cyclist and I still had a close call so scary that I\’ve simply refused to ride west through that intersection ever again.
The part that got me was that the car on my left turning right towards the freeway was BEHIND me until the last moment, when she sped up and cut me off.
I could see her being slightly ahead of me and not realizing I was there. But geez. So I straight up quit after that.
While the idea of having a bike lane to the left of the two turn lanes makes some spacial sense, it\’s not a viable idea. The people who need a bike lane there are the people who aren\’t riding fast enough and confident enough to take the lane in this section. They would also be the same people who would have a real struggle merging over two lanes through fast traffic.
The bike signal would be safest for all riders, but would suck for those of us who like to move fast and can make the timing.
I vote bike blvd. down Tillamook that connects to the bridge through Flint.
I also like BURR\’s idea of a full lane for cyclists… 🙂
Now I\’m not a traffic engineer, but I wonder about this:
It would be interesting if Todd Boulanger would comment on the Road Diet they did on that multi-lane road in Vancouver a while back. Or perhaps Mr. Refunk would like to comment? Any other Vancouverites that have personal knowledge of the situation?
My understanding is that it had a lot of freight truck movement to and from the port and they trimmed it down to one lane in each direction. It actually improved traffic flow if I remember correctly.
This would take us a long way in the direction of a full automobile sized lane for bicycles. Anyone at PDOT care to comment on the challenges with doing such a thing?
My simple, passive, boringly pragmatic solution:
I\’ve been riding from NE across the Broadway Bridge for about 15 years. I just avoid riding in the heavy traffic on Broadway.
Cars are drawn to Broadway because it\’s the fastest way to drive westbound from Northeast. And there are more and more cars, and less and less responsible drivers every day as Portland develops and grows. So why duke it out with the cars?
I ride west on secondary streets like TILLAMOOK (or St Raphael, etc) from the west side of MLK, cross Interstate 5 where it\’s quiet and then go left on FLINT (south) and connect with Broadway near the Rose Quarter.
It\’s mostly a nice, peaceful ride through quiet neighborhoods and it takes no longer.
I really don\’t think it\’s worth while taking a stand for bike vs car battles on Broadway. We can slip through nice neighborhoods just a block off Broadway on our safe, quiet bikes and let the stupid cars get all agro on the sadly over-commercialized, ugly strip mall mess that is lower Broadway.
Anyway, works for me. Just a thought.
Coming from Montavilla neighborhood near NE Halsey and 82nd, I already have to stop a gross amount of times on my daily commute. The Tillamook bike boulevard is a joke, it takes me way too long all ready to get to downtown. The one good thing about my commute is when I get to about 20th, I can get on the bike lane on Broadway and just cruise. If I time it right, I can make it through the lights pretty much all the way into town. With a bike light at this intersection it would just be adding one more stop to an already frustrating commute. I say move the bike lane to the left of the right turning auto lanes and be done with it.
If the city is going to put in a far-right pedestrian-style bike crossing here, they should also simultaneously making accomodations for the faster through cyclists that don\’t want to be delayed in this manner by providing for vehicular movement of cyclists and lobbying at the legislature in Salem to remove the mandatory use of bike lane provisions from the state traffic statutes. That way cyclists will have a choice of methods for negotiating this intersection.
I agree, the Tillamook bicycle boulevard has too many stop signs and is too slow. Can we turn all/most of the stop signs as was done on Ankeny and Lincoln/Harrison?
I guess I can\’t say I\’m surprised about this intersection being difficult, you have one stream of traffic (the bicycle traffic) moving straight between two turning streams of motor traffic. When you have one stream of vehicles moving on a collision course with another stream, naturally you have a difficult intersection!
When PDOT is successful at making it safe for motorists to exist the freeway from the fast lane (maybe they can paint the portion of the lanes they have to traverse blue?), then maybe I\’ll think Oregon bike lane law and bike lane design practices are safe. Until then, I\’m still going to break the law to preserve my life. Hopefully someday our mandatory bike lane law will be repealed, I\’m much more comfortable obeying normal traffic operating laws, they work pretty well and no one gets confused.
i\’ve rode down broadway aggressively to get across town real fast and i\’ve rode down it casually on my cruiser and haven\’t had problems any of my trips and i ride FREQUENTLY that way (quickest way downtown and to my favorite coffee shop). i have seen some potentially dangerous shit there, i\’ve been honked at multiple times, but it just isn\’t that bad. i agree with elly, maybe PPB should be stinging these intersections. they can meet their quota early and slack off for the remainder of the month.
all i have to say about that intersection is get aggro! ride in any lane you feel safest in and don\’t be afraid to get off the bike and have words with the person who\’s honking at you for not going 45 in a 35mph zone. i swear, i\’m gonna get braze-ons for a bat holder one of these days.
BTW, I agree with Burr about requiring all cyclists to use the proposed new bike lane with bicycle-specific traffic signal. Either repeal Oregon\’s mandatory bike lane law, or promise not to ticket cyclists using the normal traffic lanes. A new, mandatory facility that is slower will discourage me from riding on this road (as will the bike boxes, since they are dangerous, unapproved TCDs and mandatory).