In our coverage of the new bike boulevard on Spokane Street in Sellwood many of you have shared questions and concerns about the new “channelizer” islands that have been installed. The islands are meant to channel motor vehicle and bike traffic into specific areas at intersections to avoid pinch-point conflicts, but several readers have said they don’t plan on using them and others say they actually increase danger for people on bicycles.
Here’s how one commenter responded to them:
These channelizers are wonderful until you hit one at night and crash your bike and break your ribs. Like I did. What the hell are they supposed to do? I’ve been using this street for years and nobody warned me that someone would be pouring twenty tons of concrete in my path.
Greg Raisman with the City of Portland Bureau of Transportation has heard these concerns and he responded with a lengthy comment about them. In the comment, Raisman explains, in detail, the City’s rationale for channelizers (and why PBOT prefers them over traffic circles). It’s a bit wonky, but also highly informative (emphasis mine):
“The channelizers were based on designs seen in Utrecht, The Netherlands and developed in conversation with traffic safety specialists from Utrecht. In addition, they are a very common traffic calming element in residential settings throughout the rest of The Netherlands.
The basic answer is that they are a device that slows the speed of motor vehicle traffic by narrowing the travel lanes for cars. In general, motor vehicle speed is slowed in one of two ways. Either through “vertical deflection” where you send the vehicle over something like a speed bump. Or, through “horizontal deflection” where you introduce a curve in the travel line. In addition, “oppositional friction” can be used to slow speed as often happens on narrow residential streets in Portland (we often refer to the situation as courtesy queuing).
In the past, we’ve had two basic devices to slow speed on a residential street. Speed bumps, which are the most effective tool available to slow speed, and residential traffic circles.
The residential traffic circles are often considered a popular device because they are pretty. However, they have not proven to be very effective at addressing the safety concern from speed. That’s why you will see some segments with traffic circles having speed bumps added (like on SE Lincoln or NE 53rd). Those new speed bumps are in place because the traffic circles did not bring the speed down to the desired travel speed.
The other problem with traffic circles is that they cause a very uncomfortable pinch point when a person on a bicycle and a person driving a car arrive at the circle at the same time. They are designed to have one vehicle go through at a time. However, when you have a driver that tries to pass while traversing the circle, it creates a very uncomfortable condition that can compromise safety, particularly for children or seniors.
On occasion, people who have not experienced this condition question whether it’s a real problem. My suggestion is always to take a bike ride on NE 7th from Broadway to Alberta. There are a series of traffic circles on that road and exposure to motor vehicle traffic is high enough that you are sure to experience the issue. When you do, imagine you’re traveling with an 8-year-old child or an adult who is a new, novice rider. This condition happens less often on successful boulevards because of the lower volumes of motor vehicle traffic. However, when it does happen, it’s a problem.
In addition to not achieving desired speed reductions and causing pinch points, traffic circles are also quite expensive to install and have very high maintenance needs. Without proper maintenance, they can cause intersection visibility problems.
The channelizer produces a similar speed reduction benefit to a traffic circle by both narrowing the roadway and creating a courtesy queuing situation for cars. However, they present a bicycle rider with an option if they arrive at the same time as a motor vehicle traveling down the street. The bicycle rider can travel through the middle of the device at any time. But, if there is a car approaching at the same time, they can take the channel and have physical separation between them and the car as they travel through the intersection. This is particularly useful for children and seniors who often react in less predictable ways when facing more stressful traffic conditions. In addition, they are lower cost to install and have maintenance needs that are many orders of mangnitude lower than a traffic circle.
There are two of the channelizers in place. One at 7th and one at 15th. In addition to reducing speed, the one placed at 7th is to gently encourage motorists leaving Oaks Park to turn and continue their trip on Tacoma. A traffic barrier was not installed here because there was a need to allow motor traffic to continue eastward to 13th to be able to access the signal at 13th and Tacoma if they are heading eastbound. So, the soft-barrier approach with the channelizer was used to send the cue to turn. We do not expect all east bound travelers to turn because of this treatment. However, we believe there will be some increase in the turning movement in our after measurements.
The channelizer at 15th is in place to pay particular focus on reducing speed at the Sellwood Community Center. The combination of the new speed bump in front of the Center with the channelizer on the east side of the intersection should make this location acheive the lowest travel speed of any location on the corridor. In addition, St. Agnes School is one block to the north at 15th and Miller. The islands help create a shorter crossing distance for children that are walking to that school.
These are the only two channelizers that are currently slated to be installed. There are no additional examples on any of the remaining 7 bike boulevards that will be built by the end of June 2010.
If they are successful at reducing speed and provide the desired operational effects, it’s possible they would be considered on future projects. All of these decisions would be discussed as part of open houses that are always held and publicized when new bike boulevards are in the design phase.“
For more information about this and other bike boulevard projects, visit the City’s website.
Thanks for reading.
BikePortland has served this community with independent community journalism since 2005. We rely on subscriptions from readers like you to survive. Your financial support is vital in keeping this valuable resource alive and well.
Please subscribe today to strengthen and expand our work.
I didn’t understand channelizers for a long time. I’m still not sure I do, but it helps to know that these were installed as an alternative to a traffic circle.
I kept reading that these avoid pinch points. On a street without traffic calming, there are no pinch points. Traffic circles cause pinch points. So these islands supposedly have the same effect as traffic circles but don’t cause pinch points. I get that.
Just a thought, but a modest blinking yellow light on the channelizer (an ugly neologism I must say) might help to both warn cyclists of the hazard and further calm traffic. Or maybe more subtle lights like those in the roadway at Hawthorne and 20th?
Probably too expensive…
Any curbed hardscape that narrows the available right of way width as a means of calming motor vehicle traffic, such as curb extensions, residential traffic circles in intersections, or these chanellizers, will also negatively affect cyclists.
All of these treatments are specifically designed to slow motorists down and none of these treatments are particularly cyclist-friendly.
@BURR: I don’t understand how any kind of thing which narrows the available right of way in order to calm motor vehicle traffic negatively effects cyclists.
If you mean it negatively effects your ability to keep moving at a constant speed, then I understand that. However, I don’t think continuing to move at a constant speed is necessarily the highest goal to strive for.
I don’t get it…are some people in this town forgetting to actually watch where they’re riding?
one basic rule in racing is NEVER stop looking forward for any length of time…
why? because you’ll run into something/someone. its pretty easy.
lights at night are good to have as well for not running into stationary objects. again, pretty easy.
I’ve not seen channelizers used at intersections before, only mid-block. If I am turning from 15th onto Spokane while pulling a trailer with my kids I will not be riding around the island. If a motorist wants to drive through that space at the same time, I’ll bet he’ll be pissed at having to wait. He will claim I’m required to use the space behind the channelizer in spite of Greg R’s statements. I’m concerned motorist-cyclists relations will be further strained. We’ll just have to wait and see.
They need to pull out at least four or five car parking spaces on either side of those things then, otherwise they’re forcing cyclists to swerve out of the lane and then back into it, which is wreckless and dangerous riding.
SE Cyclist @ 5 – from the photo, that space looks ample to maneuver a trailer through. In fact, it may lead a bike driver to more considered, safer control, since the bump follows right after. Autos parking up too close behind might be more of a safety issue.
As for comments about placement of flashers on the channelizer island, how about taking some responsibility as a cyclist and equipping yer ride with an actual headlamp for night ops, instead of a cute little blinky light? (if any!) The island in the pic looks like it has reflectors installed already, beside paint & signage.
Perhaps change the “leading edge” to be something more like a ramp to prevent a sudden stop might help.
The major problem with these channelizers is that they are placed right in the normal location of travel for cyclists. Once a cyclist gets to intersection, they are expected to swerve to the right to avoid hitting the median and breaking ribs like the above quoted rider. That’s simply a design flaw regardless of the intention of Mr. Raisin.
Seems to me like a well-intentioned engineering intervention but executed rather poorly.
I think a lot of the confusion has to do with where in the street the channelizers are placed. I think the idea is to place them close to the intersection to discourage folks from turning onto Spokane. It would be great to see this sort of thing used on uphill segments, mid-block where there isn’t extra concern about cross traffic.
Thanks, Greg for the explanation, it is helpful to hear this is part of horizontal deflection, and an alternative from the traffic circles. I ride that stretch of 7th and know exactly what you’re talking about.
Hart/Paul have it about right…looking at the photo it appears they do less about reducing the car lane but instead reduce the bike lane width as well as change the bike direction. Sneaking these in behind parked cars doesn’t help.
I continue to believe the ‘designers’ are trying too hard.
The pictured channelizer appears to allow cars to proceed straight ahead at full speed while forcing bicyclist to veer to the right and slow down. This amplifies the speed differences between bikes and cars at intersections.
Is that really a good thing?
Hmmmmm….
Headlamp
Proper Speed for Conditions
Paying Attention to Surroundings
Sobriety
Just a few ways to avoid an embarrassing and painful channel diverter crash. Now if a car driver used that lame excuse after hitting a cyclist or pedestrian (but..but..I’ve been driving this road for years and that new stop sign/crosswalk/speed bump/etc. was never there before!) there would be calls for blood.
am i wrong in assuming that there are no parked cars once you get through these? it empties into the intersection, right? so it’s not like you’re weaving all over the place, right?
It’s unfortunate that this person had an accident, but isn’t any change in traffic control devices bound to trip up some people who didn’t expect the change? They appear to be marked quite well with reflective material.
This design makes perfect sense to me and I’m glad they are there.
@cold worker
Note that the channelizers on on both sides of the intersection. So, yes, heading into an intersection, you have no parked cars. Heading out of the intersection, you might have parked cars you have to swerve back out to avoid when exiting the channelizer.
Seems to me that the “horizontal deflection” is far greater on the bikes than it is on the cars.
I agree that at first glance it seems that if this device is used in the future, it should be implemented so that bikes travel in a more-or-less straight line through the device, or take the middle of the lane if they want to bypass it – but we’ll see how it goes and how it works out in actual use.
Note that the channelizers on on both sides of the intersection. So, yes, heading into an intersection, you have no parked cars. Heading out of the intersection, you might have parked cars you have to swerve back out to avoid when exiting the channelizer.
Seems to me that the “horizontal deflection” is far greater on the bikes than it is on the cars.
Do we really need more ‘traffic control devices’ that increase cyclists’ risk of being right-hooked at the intersection???
What Brent@13 said.
It doesnt’ look as if the channelizer narrows the lane at all for the motor vehicle, but rather that it diverts the bicycle lane moving them away from the cars at the stop sign.
Is this some sort of compromise design? Do the European models project into the motor vehicle lane or the other way round?
If you are not able to see/avoid bright yellow curbs with a huge reflective yellow and black striped sign – then you probably shouldn’t be riding a bike.
Day or night.
Sure – if the things were painted a flat dark grey color with no markings you might have a complaint.
But come on. They are bright yellow and have big bright signs…
And we complain that people in cars don’t “see” bicycles…
Hhmmm? Seems like I’ve seen these before? Maybe in Ladds addition about thirty years ago? Hawthorne around 48th about 25 years ago. They did have a caged blinking yellow light, but not a vertical sign, some driver would have crushed it in a New York minute. The edges were rounded and had either a yellow stripe or were all yellow. As I recall on Hawthorne they were installed to keep motorists from entering Hawthorne on 49th or 48th whichever and going east on Hawthorne.
Am I alone in being a little tired of the fetishization of Dutch transportation approaches? The fact that the Bureau of Transportation representative had to explain how these thingies are meant to be navigated (and how many lingering questions remain after the explanation) shows just how in-apt they are.
I don’t want to poodle along at 12 mph on 50 Lbs of upright Dutch City Bike, and I guarantee that were I to arrive at the intersection pictured above, I would channelize myself to the left of that dangerously designed and installed obstruction, you know, like a damn vehicle. If there’s a stop sign, I’d stop; if there’s another vehicle to my right, I’d yield.
I’m not sure I want bicycle facilites; I just want some respect on the roadway.
I don’t see what was wrong with Spokane St before. It might have had more stop signs, they don’t slow you down too much if you treat them as yield signs.
If you are not able to see/avoid bright yellow curbs with a huge reflective yellow and black striped sign – then you probably shouldn’t be riding a bike.
There’s one of those red and yellow striped signs on the totally unnecessary curb extension on the SE corner of SE Grand and SE Clay, and it’s down more than it’s up. Big hint – it’s not the cyclists hitting it, but rather, the motorists. Anyone want to make book on when the first of these signs on Spokane is taken out by a motorist?
The thing is, hitting the diverter with your motor vehicle is unlikely to cause any personal injury, but hitting it on a bike sure as heck is.
thanks john @18
i’ll take your word for it. i’m not seeing it but the pics only show one side of the road in all the ones i’m looking at. unless i’m missing one of them. it looks like all the pictures are the same to me.
if these don’t slow auto traffic what is the point?
@ valkraider #22 and others…
I am not a “cyclist” (although I ride a bike every once in a while) so I was going to withhold my initial judgment on the commenter who was unfortunate enough to find themselves on the bad side of one of these bicycle channelers (let’s be reasonable…these don’t do a thing for automobile traffic, based on the photo).
Assuming those who have commented on the injured cyclist’s misfortune so far are cyclists, I feel much better about my judgment:
You’ve got to be doing something entirely wrong while riding a bike at night if you hit that thing. ENTIRELY WRONG.
Ugly chunks of concrete. Waste of time and money.
I appreciate the explanation, but it doesn’t address what I mentioned in my last post —
The problem with the channelizers is that it forces bikes out of the flow of traffic, only to force them to merge back in (“pinch point”) a little later to avoid hitting parked cars.
This graphic from the boregonian:
http://blog.oregonlive.com/commuting/2009/12/channelizing_gets_green_light.html
… shows an imminent confrontation between the yellow bike and the white car!
Also: Greg says you have the choice to use it or not, but it is marked with bike lane markings. Doesn’t that mean that by-law we are required to use it per ORS 814.420?
repeal ORS 814.420!
What are you doing riding at night without adequate lighting? If you had an adequate headlight, you would have seen the retroreflective paddle on the island. Your broken ribs are your own fault and I have little sympathy for that.
Get a headlight so you can see and others can see you!
The intent of the channelizers is to reduce motor vehicle speed and volume and also provide a comfortable option for cyclists that may at times find themselves “pinched” within this traffic calming device — this type of treatment is used in numerous bicycle friendly designs that were reviewed in developing Portland 20-year Bicycle Plan. We will use the placement of the sharrows to ensure that cyclists and drivers are aware that the pass through for cyclists is an option not a requirment. Due to the timing of stimulus funding, that is providing the funding for sharrow markings, we will not be installing the sharrows until Spring. To ensure that the placement of the sharrows achieves our intent, we will provide Portland’s Bicycle Advisory Committee with a draft pavement marking plan in the next few months.
I ride this portion of Spokane (up to 13th) all the time. I have similar concerns and confusion about these structures. They do create more linear deflection for bikes than cars. I’ve got to swing way to the right and then back out to the edge of the traffic lane when using one of these things. Coming downhill I tend to move at or near the speed of traffic and just stay in my lane. Coming uphill I’ve done both. I guess I’d prefer to ride in a straight predictable line then swerve in towards the curb then back out again.
I think you could probably argue a ticket (if you were to ever get one for not using these things) based on the following exemption from ORS 814.420:
(c) Avoiding debris or other hazardous conditions.
‘Other hazardous condtions’ is pretty darn subjective.
Also, these things are absolutely covered with reflectors. Even the wimpyest blinky light will make them light up. There’s no excuse for riding at night without a light. I almost ran into another cyclist on the Springwater trail last week because he didn’t have a light, reflectors, and was dressed in dark clothes. That would have hurt both of us.
FWIW, I’ve had more issues with cars who don’t realize the stop signs were turned 90-degrees then with these structures.
RE: Max [good point BTW] – by all means you must use the lane if it exists [assuming the exceptions don’t apply] and similarly when you are in the intersection where the lane magically “disappears” – well, we all know what happens then!
All hail added and redundant road use laws with poor pro-tem rulings!
Comments here sure point out the immense diversity of bicyclists. So I guess if you are cruising along at less than 12 mph and have a 700 lumen $450 night light, and are willing to slow down to negotiate through the opening and then back into traffic, these channelizer things aren’t so bad. If the intent is to slow cars then why not post speed limit at 20 mph and put in a permanent photo radar. That should do the trick.
A 100 lumen lamp would light that thing up a least a half block away. Approach at 15-20 mph, flick your hips right, roll through the channel, flick the hips back to the left, done deal.
Although 7th and Spokane is far from my normal bike riding territory, I did find myself making several auto trips to Oaks Park earlier this month. These things sure slowed me down in my automobile, because of their visible narrowing of the street. So yes, at least one motorist was slowed down, even after I knew to expect them. I would rate them fairly high in terms of slowing automobiles.
I’m still not buying it. The potential problem is motor traffic down the street, not the bikes.
As I said, there isn’t much of a pinch point with the channelizers in place for autos.
Photo radar is not an effective traffic calming device. Just ask Beaverton about Allen Boulevard.
I agree with Brad, my light’s not even 100 lumens and it lights up retroreflective traffic control devices quite effectively.
http://www.portlandonline.com/transportation/index.cfm?c=50518&a=253268
for a reasonably clear picture of how this is set up. if the clearance for motorists at these two intersections is actually reduced to 16 ft., it probably will have some traffic calming effect. but if the comparison is to a traffic circle, count me in favor of the circle, because it is easy to avoid the pinch there by taking the lane. have ridden 7th north to alberta any number of times (actually the relevant stretch ends at fremont), and how i would advise the eight year old or the novice (to answer greg’s question) is “take the lane, don’t let the overtaking motorist pinch you.” the facility here, on spokane, forces the pinch, and 814.420 probably requires you to submit.
oh, and re comment 36: it is possible portland does not have authority to reduce the speed limit to 20 here. this and the repeal of the mandatory far to right and mandatory sidepath laws ought to be much higher on BTA’s agenda.
sorry if some version of this posts twice. a reasonably good graphic depiction of this project is at
http://www.portlandonline.com/transportation/index.cfm?c=50518&a=253268
indicating that the distance between the islands at each of these intersections is sixteen feet. this probably does have the effect of slowing motor traffic, at least if there is oncoming. however, it does force the cyclist to the edge and then requires a swerve back into the travel lane to avoid parked cars. a traffic circle would accomplish the calming effect without requiring the cyclist to divert. to answer greg’s question, how i would advise an eight year-old or a novice adult negotiating the circles on 7th betw. tillamook and fremont is: take the lane. technically, 814.420 does not leave me that option on spokane. also, re comment 36, possibly the city does not have authority to reduce the limit to 20 mph here.
if BTA is looking for an agenda to further their former mission statement, let me suggest (1) get local authority to reduce speed limits, (2) repeal the mandatory sidepath and mandatory far to right laws.
IMO, these appear to work a heck of alot better than traffic circles at reducing car speed. And I wonder how many of the people complaining about positioning and danger have actually ridden on Spokane. What I particularly like is that if you take the lane (and you really should on bike blvd) there is no way cars can pass at the choke point. I’ve been buzzed by demented drivers at traffic circles on several occasions.
Greg Raisman’s comment emphasizes that these particular channelizers are trials, the idea being to see if and how well they work and how well they’re suited as a solution to the situation. It’s important to experiment.
Not having ridden the street with these new features installed, I can’t have much of a real sense of how they would function. Looking at that picture above with the red car in the left background, the channelizers don’t seem to make a lot of sense; maybe it’s ‘the camera’.
What reasoning determined the width of the channelizer island, and its placement affecting the width of the channel offered to bikes to ride through? Just looking at the picture, the island appears to either be wider than necessary, or extending too far into the channel(whose width looks skimpy) offered to people riding bikes through it. Again though, maybe it works just fine and a person has to ride it to know that.
Before they actually install something like this, does the transportation department ever give the fixture a trial using a temporary mock up?
Did they do it on this street? You know…set up something completely temporary made with cardboard, plastic bottles or whatever. Once set up, have people on bikes ride down the street with cars and have the bikes traveling 20mph veer into the channel when they come to the channelizer, just to see how well this European idea actually works in this particular location here in Portland.
“Photo radar is not an effective traffic calming device. Just ask Beaverton about Allen Boulevard.” paul johnson
Paul, have you asked Beaverton about the effectiveness of photo radar? Read any news reports or come across any related information that says they don’t calm traffic? Have those sources told you photo radar aren’t calming traffic?
I live in Beaverton, don’t go over to Allen very often, but do cross Beav/Hillsdale quite a bit where the photo stoplight cameras are very conspicuously mounted on poles at the corner of the intersection.
I’d be very surprised to hear they’re not having some effect on increasing stop light compliance on streets that have them. Same with speed reduction where the photo vans are parked at points on Canyon Rd between West Slope and Sylvan.
Depends on the traffic circle design. Good: SW Sorrento Circle in Beaverton. Bad: NE Coe Circle.
Sorrento features choke points in advance that gives cyclists an opportunity to merge in safely and prevents passing by motorists entirely.
Coe violates the MUTCD egregiously. Maybe if they changed the stop signs to yields and set the lanes to do the right thing instead of treating it like a glorified four-way stop, Coe wouldn’t be such a tremendous pain in the ass for cyclists.
@24 (JAT in Seattle) – No, you’re not alone. From blind want of appropriation of engineering solutions from elsewhere to uhr-smug riffing on vacuum cleaners, The Copenhagen Kink some folks seem to have in their drawers is worrisome in the extreme.
Test case? Okay, okay. But from what I see here, the same issue that plagues most other forms of physically separated infrastructure is a concern – that is, turning. What’s PBOT doing to explain how to negotiate a bike and motor vehicle reaching this thing at the same time, explaining where the cyclist needs to position themselves in order to make a left, and so on? I’m sure the official line is that existing laws and a bit of subsequent reasoning determine all this, but people tend to react oddly to traffic control devices they’ve never seen before. Hopefully nobody suffers an accident from one of these things while they’re new.
And yes, I’m well aware that Greg Raisman has an explanation above. I’m more thinking about anyone who might be approaching such a device and isn’t an avid reader of BikePortland.org. 🙂
I haven’t been to the site, but it looks like the same problem that occurs at bike boxes (Clinton at 39th heading west), and the little bike lanes at Clay and 11th and 12th. The idea that the bicyclist will veer over to the right perhaps has some validity. But, only if the city removes parking for at least 100 feet so you can get over there. At the Clinton location especially, it’s difficult to get around that last parked vehicle, usually a big pickup truck, and maneuver over to the curb. If there are one or two cars stopped at the intersection it’s impossible. None of these devices work well because it’s politically unpalatable to remove enough parking for them to work. So I and many others will just take the lane.
I am visiting my family from Honolulu for the holidays and decided to ride to downtown through the Sellwood neighborhood. Being originally from Portland, I am always touting to fellow cyclists in Hawaii the interesting and innovative solutions Portland has used to make cycling safe for everyone (auto drivers and cyclists). I came up on the “channelizer” and immediately thought about the interaction between cyclist and cars. It’s awkward at best and certainly not intuitive. The space created for the cars would be perfect for small autos in Europe or Asia, but it is a little narrow IMHO. I understand how this would slow drivers down, I just don’t know how “calming” it would be to pass another car in such close quarters. To make matters worse, as a cyclist you have to swerve to the right and then back to your normal position in the lane, next to the car that did not know how to navigate the “channelizer”. Most every cycling solution in Portland have worked flawlessly, this one still needs tweaking. I am sure the design will evolve and become a standard feature, it just isn’t that good in it’s current form. Just my opinion of course.