North Portland’s streets continue to evolve as a combination of neighborhood demands, City of Portland paving projects, and opportunistic activism are coming together to make significant changes to bikeways.
With the new bike lanes on Greeley near Adidas and the North Willamette Blvd bluff striped late last year; and a major parking-protected bikeway project underway on North Rosa Parks, the Portland Bureau of Transportation is just about to take the final wrapping off a new median island on North Greeley Avenue.
The median is at Willamette Blvd, a major bikeway that begins west of Interstate Avenue. It stretches many yards beyond the intersection to provide a safer crossing not just for bicycle users but for sidewalks users as well. As a traffic diverter, the median makes some turning movements from Greeley impossible (southbound Greeley to eastbound Willamette and northbound Greeley to westbound Willamette). The North American headquarters for Adidas is just a few blocks away and fast-growing neighborhoods in all directions have turned this once quiet corridor into a busy thoroughfare during the morning and evening peak hours.
As we’ve been reporting, there’s growing interest from local residents to defend their streets against abusive drivers and create neighborhoods that are more pleasant for walkers and bikers.
There’s also been initial talks to establish Willamette Blvd as an official neighborhood greenway; but according to PBOT, this new median isn’t part of any larger project. The estimated $12,000 project originated from a request into the City’s 823-SAFE hotline that was made last year.
I got a closer at the new median this morning. It looks like a relatively standard design that should have the desired effect of decreasing driving speeds by narrowing the available roadway space, and increasing safety by providing a refuge for people trying to cross.
So far reaction from our readers has been mostly good, but one person is concerned that the new median impedes their turning movements. “What are people to do coming [northbound] up the hill? We are SOL [s*** out of luck] with this design,” wrote @pdxblake on Twitter.
University Park resident Stephanie Turner loves it. “I am PSYCHED about this,” she wrote. “It will have a major change re how I interact with this intersection. After years of calling about the hazards regarding this intersection I witnessed cars slowing down from 45 to 35 and I’ll take it 🔥”
We’ll take another look after it’s finished to see how it all shakes out. In the meantime, let us know what you think.
— Jonathan Maus: (503) 706-8804, @jonathan_maus on Twitter and firstname.lastname@example.org
Never miss a story. Sign-up for the daily BP Headlines email.
BikePortland needs your support.
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 email@example.com, or phone/text at 503-706-8804. Also, if you read and appreciate this site, please become a supporter.
There is the possibility that this project will help but will also be moving the problem down the road a little bit.
I worry that we will have problems with drivers trying to do U-turns around either end of the median much like what happens at N. Michigan and Rosa Parks. People drive north on Michigan, turn right onto Rosa Parks and then do a U turn on the other side of the diverter to go back to the north bound freeway on ramp. And the drive in the bike lanes on both sides of the road to do it.
This happens over and over again every afternoon. What’s the solution to that problem? Is there one?
In other locales it would be enforcement. But that’s not the Portland way.
I walked up to N. Michigan and Rosa Parks this afternoon and shot video for about 20 minutes. Here is a selection of the u-turning action.
This goes on all afternoon, even on weekends.
It also looks like the east of I-5 reconfiguration of Rosa Parks is underway. Maybe the protected bike lane will tamp down some of the misuse of the N. Michigan greenway.
Have you sent this to anybody at PBOT?
I have seen that behavior a lot during the evening rush at that intersection. It is often preceded by excessive speeding on Michigan northbound. Enforcement is needed.
Anyone can look up the speed counts for N Michigan (and daily volume for that matter).
Also, logic error, how does anyone ‘speed up’ Michigan when the cars are queued up 10-15 deep?
have you ridden it? Or tried to cross it as a pedestrian? Cars speed up until they can’t. It IS a problem.
I like what this does for pedestrians and bikes crossing Greeley, and for protecting neighborhoods from thru-traffic. I don’t understand what happens now when you’re coming north on a bike, as PDX Blake referenced. A significant and growing number of cyclists come up Greeley, merge into traffic, then turn left onto Willamette. This seems to eliminate that free-flow option, and instead make cyclists stop, turn sharply, and wedge into one of the gaps between the diverters.
I think this illustrates the general trend of our bike network transitioning from a vehicular “strong and fearless” style, to a more intentional, Euro-style design that appeals to the “interested it concerned.”
In The Netherlands or CPH you never “merge into the lane.” Instead, you remain in the bikeway and connect to another bikeway at he intersection. In this case, I’d simply roll northbound, then move into the northeast corner of the intersection and then proceed across as if I was riding westbound on Willamette.
Screwed for cycling and driving. Just like Naito.
And how long will you wait for Northbound traffic to stop, but Southbound doesn’t… so now Northbound goes again just as someone Southbound decides to wait, etc…
Will bikes have right of way to cross here?
Is the median large enough to wait in while on a bike for a gap in traffic?
I hear what you are saying about building bikeways so those not comfortable with vehicular cycling don’t have to but… that just seems an excuse to allow unfettered auto use by getting cyclists out of the way at the expense of cyclists priority. In this situation I would merge into the auto lane and then turn left through the bicycle gap in the median. Would this violate the “no left turn” law in place? Or be ok given the “do not enter except bicycles” law. Once again, absolutely no cohesive plan to how cycling infrastructure is implemented throughout the city, let alone actually be based in traffic laws.
” getting cyclists out of the way at the expense of cyclists priority.”
This is an infuriating, useless design. It’s specifically designed to force bicycle commuters out of their path of travel onto side streets.
If you think this is bad, look at the proposal for Greeley south of Going: They are removing the southbound bike lane and routing bikes to a 2-way MUP (shared with peds/strollers/shopping carts). This takes care of about 2/3’s the distance to Interstate, then the MUP joins the concrete walkway that connects to Interstate- it is less than 10 feet wide and is used as a driveway to service trash, portable toilets and for the residents of Hazelnut Grove. The walkway meets the Interstate sidewalk, takes a 90-degree turn for a dozen feet or so, then another 90-degree down a single ramp into a 5-foot-wide bike lane. This is now supposed to handle 2-way bike traffic plus peds while providing bike infrastructure for a part of town that is growing while the City hopes (against reason?) that bike mode share will increase! Meanwhile, the traffic lanes, that are currently supporting median speeds of 53 and 56 mph, will be widened to 12′ and 13 feet. Do you think PBOT is trying to shunt bikes out of the way?
Totally agree. Push cyclists out of the way, into chutes, preventing free movements and easy left turns, forcing us to wait in long, single lines of cyclists for access through the new bike opening or cycleway…
Absolutely no cohesive design standards throughout the city. Every project is a new opportunity to try an “experiment”, some new euro-design, etc.
Have you noticed Eastbound Rosa Parks at Greeley – they have put the new bike lane to the right of the right turn lane! What non-sense is this? Make up your mind, COP, and stick to your design plans.
aka, 2-stage turn.
To be practical, this requires limited westbound car traffic on Willamette.
We cant be bothered to slow down (even to a near stop) to make a kind-of-tight turn? You’re going uphill, it’s not like a major momentum kill. You could also make the next left on Killingsworth.
Just curious…since this is an oblique intersection…did PBoT look into adding a roundabout here instead of the constructed median?
Roundabouts are larger than you’d think. They almost certainly would have had to purchase a portion of the properties on all four corners of the intersection to get enough room for the roundabout, plus room for sidewalks, curb ramps, etc. Private property acquisition takes a year at minimum and is very expensive. On top of that, it would have arguably made it worse for people on foot to cross Greeley. This is a long way of saying no, it was probably not considered because of its cost and lack of clear benefit.
Just asking…yes, you are correct that a R/A would not divert traffic from the side street…
A mini-roundabout would need a minimum of about 75 feet inscribed circle diameter.
An oval would fit well, but the cost would be 2-3 times due to the need to modify the street path around the raised section.
This looks like a great fix for crossing Greeley on a bike. It can be pretty rough, and I have been using Killingsworth instead, to be able to cross with the light. The people driving behind me can get a bit agitated though. I will try this, and switch back over IF it works. Too bad about the left-turning, northbound cyclists. It seems like they included a left turn pocket for them if they had thought of it.
This is such a huge improvement. I hated crossing Willamette and had also switched to using Killingsworth, but I’ll gladly use this instead.
Another poor design for cyclists. This design just completely leaves Northbound Greeley cyclists out in the cold. They could have made a little effort, here. It’s the little things.
this design is great for walkers, but for cyclists, it’s totally worse than the current design. once again, a race to the bottom for cycle commuters.
I might be missing something but what is the issue here?
The fix implemented to keep cars from cutting through forces cyclists who wanted to do the exact same thing to choose between making a tighter turn than they wanted or ride another 200′ on a road they’ve already been riding for a couple miles.
Even if the total distance ridden is identical, it’s outrageous!
I can’t tell if your comment is intended to be a joke or not. But to give you the benefit of the doubt, why couldn’t somebody biking on Greeley just dip onto Willamette and then cross Greeley through the island? If there’s a lot of car traffic backed up on Greeley, then the cars probably aren’t moving and it will be easy to filter across. If there’s no traffic it wouldn’t be hard to just turn through the island by either merging onto the travel lane, or doing what I described above.
I’m really scratching my head to find what’s outrageous about that.
I was joking.
It is sad that we have gotten to a point where trivial inconveniences lead to high drama so often that reasonable people think they should take over the top statements seriously. As you observe, there are options with insignificant delays that present no real challenges.
Likewise, I think the handwringing over the mountable curb is a tempest in a teapot. It’s not hard to climb a regular curb with a regular car (let alone an SUV or truck) if you want to. This areas of Greely is more chaotic than it should be, and I suspect the overall effect of this diverter will be to improve flow for all types of road users.
Kyle Banerjee – purveyor of sense on this BikePortland article’s comment section!
Ahhhh! You got me.
The funniest part about the tears shed about the mountable curb is that this median doesn’t even have a mountable curb.
‘200′ on a road they’ve already been riding for a couple miles.
Turning unimpeded onto a low traffic residential sidestreet as opposed to high traffic, signalized transit and auto prioritized intersection with a convenience store and tavern and attendant parking lots with multiple entrances/exits feeding into the roadway within 50 feet of each other.
Turning from Greeley onto Willamette (even in the flow of traffic) was safe. Turning onto Killingsworth westbound is not safe.
Please explain your ideal design.
The fix they have put in is a pedestrian island refuge for folks crossing greeley. For those cyclists who want to make a left turn from N-bound greeley onto Willamette, this left turn has now gotten more complicated and more dangerous. They could have done better with a much shorter length of concrete median to provide the pedestrian island, instead of the 100′ or so of median they installed, and by adding a sign that said “no left turn except bicycles”. Additionally, the cuts in the concrete median are too narrow and have too sharp of corner radii to easily allow bicycles through, especially when turning left (of course if you think a good cycling infra design is to pull over to the right, dismount and walk your bike here across the street, you may disagree – hence the “race to the bottom” comment, above). Why couldn’t the cuts in the median be wider and have rounded edges to more easily allow cycles to pass? Do they intend to have bicycles instead move up one block further north to make a left turn at the unprotected intersection of Killingsworth? Do they intend to have you get off your bike and walk it across the street?
This median was poorly designed and over built that makes the cycling conditions worse, not better. They could have achieved all the objectives of diverting cars and providing pedestrian refuge without degrading the cycling facility with a less heavy treatment.
There’s a link above that shows a shorter median failing to prevent people driving from making illegal u-turns, so I don’t think a weaker design using a sign to ask people to not turn left would work at all.
Saying that the only two options are 1) ride past the median to make a left turn further up the street or 2) get off your bike and walk it across the street is just silly and weakens your argument. If I was riding this, I’d pull off to the right on Willamette, wait for a gap at the stop sign and then bike across Greeley.
I think your frustration might be coming from your realization that the newer, more protective bike infrastructure isn’t designed with you in mind. As JM writes above, it seems like we’re moving past vehicular cycling and prioritizing speed in favor of safer crossings.
I’m all for that.
taking that turn at speed is easy with a bit of practice (countersteer and lean aggressively). my response to all of those who are whining about the indignity of the copenhagen left or –goddess forbid — using a crosswalk is to HTFU.
I do not support a Copenhagen left in Portland. These offer sub-standard options for cyclists, here at Greeley/Willamette, and in other locations in this city.
It’s only “more dangerous” if you keep trying to take the turn at 20+mph. You can slow down and make the turn, or make a Copenhagen left. I do this all the time at NE 33rd and Holman.
Yes, much safer to now make a turn through a narrow curb at much lower speed than other traffic. Moving into and through the auto lane at a speed more comparable to other traffic is much more dangerous.
if we’re aspiring to Copenhagen then we need to realize that 10 mph is the normal cycling speed…
Yes, this is the race to the bottom that some in Portland aspire to reach. The new city-wide bicycle speed-limits will be set at 10, perhaps 8 mph.
$1500 per year auto vehicle registration.
$20/ gallon gas
1/2 of all grid pattern roads closed to auto traffic
Government Issued bicycles
This is my daily commute and they just took away the best option for crossing Greeley northbound.
How do you cross Greeley northbound? Greeley is a N/S street…
Assuming he means his northbound commute. Which may involve turning west off Greeley or crossing it before heading north on Willamette.
Is there enough room for bicyclists and vehicles on Greeley heading northward? It looks a bit tight between the median, the vehicle, and the curb by the bus stop. Thank you for keeping us posted.
This is what is called a “mountable” curb meaning if you have a big enough vehicle you can simply drive over it. Not cool.
Also, if PBOT wants to prevent cut through traffic like at Michigan, they need to have signage at the beginning of the route which clearly states “Not A Through Street” lest cars get to the end and solve the problem with a u-turn or simply drive over the curb in frustration.
The whole point of mountable curbs is that they can be driven over by those with a legitimate reason — for example, emergency vehicles.
I can think of many others with less noble reasons who might do the same. E.g. brodozers and crossovers
Except the diversion in this case is not internal to Willamette, but at the end, on a collector-level street, so traffic can go ‘through’ on Willamette, they just can’t cross at this major intersection.
The sign you describe is uses for internal path obstruction.
I continue to have [unanswered] questions about funding allocations and project priorities. On one hand I think it’s amazing and awesome that this project happened within a year of someone requesting it via the 823-SAFE method. On the other it adds to my frustration over the continued lack of painted crosswalks where the SE 19th St greenway crosses SE Bybee. This project has has been funded for three years and under construction for over two years and we STILL don’t have simple, painted crosswalks. The RFB signs and equipment went in two months ago but are sitting unactive because they won’t activate them until the crosswalks are painted. Why do some projects take ridiculously long and others go in the blink of an eye? It’s not for lack of advocacy by the people in the neighborhood, I can assure you of that.
‘Simple painted crosswalks’ are not currently installed where they might endanger pedestrians. High volume roads with cars going too fast, is one example. At such locations, crosswalks are marked only after other changes are made. BTW, the legal crossing has always been there.
The crossing of Greeley at Willamette is a known issue from years past, not just something someone complained about last year.
Requests for changes occurred in 2009, 2013, 2014, 2017, 2018.
Oh, so it’s crosswalks that endanger pedestrians, not motor vehicle operators. Good to know.
People make mistakes.
Like presuming a road marking makes them safe.
Engineers that mark places unsafe to cross is another mistake.
Despite all the good work on N Willamette Blvd, many motor vehicle operators still drive faster than the 30 mph posted speed limit. For example, last night I was driving home along Willamette at 30 mph (I believe my speedometer is accurate), and as soon as I turned right into N Willis, the truck that had been tailgating me hit the accelerator and sped up. This morning as I was cycling along N Willamette on my way to work (around 5.30 a.m.) the few motor vehicles that were on the street were all driving faster than 30, as evidenced by the speed indicator near the intersection of N Willamette and N Rosa Parks. In addition to the several cyclists on the road this morning, there were quite a few pedestrians out for their morning jog, all these people are vulnerable to being struck by a fast moving vehicle – especially if the driver causes his/her vehicle to stray into the bicycle lane (a frequent occurrence especially at corners and bends).
Without enforcement, drivers have no fear that their actions will result in any kind of sanctions. Consequently, many drive in what they consider a safe manner (irrespective of the precepts of Oregon law), however, I believe many of these drivers seriously overestimate their ability to respond quickly to changing road conditions, including the presence of pedestrians and cyclists. We really need traffic enforcement cameras sprinkled throughout the Portland Metro area. If there is a real likelihood of facing sanctions, drivers will slow down and will obey the laws – they won’t want to pay the fines, increased insurance premiums or lose points on their licenses. The advantage of cameras is that they don’t discriminate and they work 24/7/365.
Where does Willamette cross Willis?
Meant N Woolsey, sorry, my bad.
we need to design cities with the idea in mind that a driver could die any second and how will their runaway vehicle effect the public… we really can’t afford to let motor vehicles go over 20 mph or go in a straight line for too long…
Wait a minute… this cost just $12,000? Why can’t they set aside $1 million and put up EIGHTY THREE (83!!!) diverters on Greenways all over Portland? That would create conditions safe for people of all ages and backgrounds to use our greenways. PBOT seems too afraid of the Neighborhood Associations to do something so bold and safe.
They don’t all cost $12k.
Have you looked into all the projects currently in play?
People driving cars get desperate driving through this area when Greeley backs up. Most likely you’ll see people in vehicles, frustrated, turning left at Killingsworth instead. Then they’ll either get back onto Willamette to eventually cut-through Villard to Rosa Parks, or they’ll bolt down Atlantic and zig-zag through the neighborhood to avoid the backup on Greeley. I lived on Atlantic for 13 years, the people who cut through this neighborhood are a menace, and a big reason my family left! Glad to see the city finally addressing and attempting to calm this area. I still visit often. This new median may require I slightly alter my existing route. I’d normally ride west on Emerson, turn right and merge into Northbound Greeley motor vehicle traffic then make my left turn onto Willamette. I’ll now probably ride west on Willamette, then utilize the crosswalks to cross Greeley to get onto Willamette. That’s probably safer in the long run if the crosswalks are honored by those driving their motor vehicles, but like I said, people get desperate in these parts!
It seems ironic that this traffic calming measure is being built on Greeley, and a few blocks south, PBOT is creating a design that will support speeds in excess of 60 MPH! The current plan to widen the outer lanes on Greeley to 12′ and 13′ on the stretch of Greeley south of Going, and area already suffering from high speeds in excess of 55 mph.
the facility is missing two bright green crossbikes.
these would not only encourage people driving to look out for vulnerable traffic but might make this facility even more offensive to the stereotypical fast-experienced-year-round commuter.
taking that turn at speed is easy with a bit of practice (countersteer and lean aggressively). my response to all of those who are whining about the indignity of the copenhagen left or –goddess forbid — using a crosswalk is to HTFU.
I’m getting confused here.
The soren I’ve always been able to count on always cheers on the most clueless forms of cycling. Only speed aficionados with decent handling skills and a reasonably responsive bike will even know what countersteer is, let alone pull a move off like that. I just don’t see that happening on some of the big upright rigs a lot of people have, though they can always just go one more block.
As someone who you’ve consistently identified as the commuter referenced, I’m not clear what the objection to the crossbike would be. Although they are legally meaningless, I find they remind people to look out for others which is always a good thing.
As for the meridian itself, anything that discourages motorists from turning left across busy streets without a light and hosing up flow on both the through and cross streets is a good thing in my book. I wouldn’t be surprised if the meridian helps speed things up.
kyle, i have to thank you for inspiring me to no longer wear a helment. it’s made me a far safer rider!
Do as you like — it’s no skin off my nose. Heck, if losing the helmet made you a better rider I can even feel good about it 😉 Good judgment is far more important than any safety device. Best way to avoid injury/death is not crash in first place.
Having said that, I still think helmets are a good idea for most riders. Stuff just happens. For example, wheel could get caught in a crack you didn’t notice, hit a rock or other debris that takes the wheel down, debris can be kicked into front wheel making it stop instantly, squirrel could run into the spokes, deer could jump in front of you, front wheel suddenly slips out on ice or wet metal, rim explodes on the seam, QR not secured for whatever reason causes wheel to come off, catastrophic front tire failure while turning at speed, and countless other reasons such as being hooked by a car. BTW, I have personally witnessed all of the examples I’ve given. I’ve personally been knocked out when wearing a helmet, and have witnessed some horrific crashes where at the very least they drastically reduced head injury.
Whether to wear one is an individual decision, but they make a massive difference in when your noggin hits anything really hard. I can’t help but notice that people who are experts at the sports I know take basic safety precautions and don’t take needless risks. They somehow do the most difficult things without getting hurt. There’s probably a reason for that.
It is true is that certain types of cycling are at much lower risk for head injury.
However, the vast majority of cycling deaths involve head injuries and cycling dwarfs other recreational sports when it comes to emergency room admissions for head injuries http://www.aans.org/en/Patients/Neurosurgical-Conditions-and-Treatments/Sports-related-Head-Injury
It’s a simple measure that can prevent tragedies that occasionally happen with even experienced riders separated from cars such as Boyd Littell. I believe that encouraging riders who still need to develop skills not to wear them, especially when riding near motor vehicles, is a disservice.
That would need to be part of a future neighborhood greenway project. The neighborhood association has been advocating for sharrows and speed bumps and another diverter on Willamette from Rosa Parks (next to the bluff) to Interstate.
First of all, two new crosswalks were striped. Why the double standard for crossbikes? Was a couple of hundred bucks of thermoplastic a deal breaker for $12,000 project?
Secondly, there is absolutely no requirement that crossbikes should only be restricted to neighborhood greenways. In fact, funding barriers actually make it harder for PBOT to install them on some greenway projects.
On the plus side, wet weather grip is terrible on thermoplastic particularly when covered with dirt/slime/whatever and frozen fog is downright treacherous. Regular pavement provides a much better surface for people pulling tight fast turns 🙂
Well, to be fair the crosswalks are just marking a legal crosswalk that was already there, whereas crossbikes are purely advisory. So they’re very different things.
In any case, PBOT’s policy is to only mark crossbikes where neighborhood greenways cross a major street.
pbot first tested crossbike-type markings in areas where autombobile traffic crossed a bike facility and where bike lanes cross a busy intersection. in fact, early iterations were blue, not green. crossbike-type markings are still widely used to designate conflict zones on non-greenway bike facilities.
that’s a great joke… let’s put a bunch of meaningless paint on the ground to confuse drivers into sitting there obstructing traffic because they think they’re supposed to yield to bikes whenever they need to cross a street…
no, no, no, no, and no!
these greeen crossbike crosswalk things just slow me down because I have to sit there in a staring contest with drivers… I’m pointing to my stop sign as they get frustrated and everybody behind them gets angry at one of us…
it’s so bad when trying to bicycle through quiet streets that it’s sometimes just easier to get on a main street… people will still be annoyed at you but you won’t be stuck at a stop sign every 5 blocks waiting for nice drivers to stop doing illegal things for you…
The perspective of working through the neighborhood board transportation committee for the past 2+ years on a project that has been on the map for 5 years and fully funded for 3 years and still isn’t completed? What perspective are you coming from paikiala?
Only on the map for 5 years? Ask some other neighborhoods how long their projects have been waiting.
Fully funded, or budgeted pending design for 3 years?
You already have curb and sidewalk and paved roads maintained by the city.
Oh hey! I just wanted to remind everyone that the diverter at 15th and Ankeny is still awful (visability). Seems like this is a continuing issue..
being planned for conversion to permanent.
snark aside, i am curious why lower curbs (like at 20th and ankeny) and adjusted signage can’t be used. the planters (especially with plants) and chevron signs really do reduce the visibility. this is a sketchy intersection and i have almost been hit countless times. if i can not see if there is a car at the stop line then they can not see me. please consider this as constructive criticism.
Visibility at that intersection would be much improved if the city cared to enforce ORS 811.550(17) which would prohibit parking within 20′ of the intersection, providing much better line of sight for all road users.
On my commute home this evening, I had drivers pull out in front of me at three different intersections on lower SE Ankeny. I ride in the middle of the lane with two headlights, but the cars parked all the way up to the intersection prevent impatient drivers from being able to notice me.
This is a good start and better than nothing but it would be preferred if the side streets were actually side streets. They still have those wide curves that encouraged taking the corner at high speed.
If the side streets have no essential motor vehicle access need then they should be closed off entirely to motor traffic.
If motor access is absolutely necessary (in real life not just someone’s opinion) then there could be an exit only lane with a diverter island.
no vehicle access need, you know, other than owners getting to their private property, the purpose of local streets.
Reconstructing a single standard corner in it’s current location is about $10k. Redesigning four, with new alignments, new drainage, etc., about 10x that.
your comment complains about exactly what their comment addressed… property access is easily maintained in both of their examples…
also, how much is the life of your loved one worth? less than $100k according to your comment…
The corners, as they are now, cannot be taken at speeds that cause significant risk of a fatal outcome in the event of a crash.
$9.6M is the estimated societal value of a life by the US DOT (2016).
Copenhagen lefts only work reliably when there is a light and a bike lane with a bike box. If there are cars lined up waiting to turn right, what do you do? Go to the back of the line? Put yourself into the right hook zone? Go to the left side of the cars, which essentially puts you into the lane of turning oncoming traffic. Asking cyclists to line up behind cars waiting to turn right seems like an unnecessary burden when the median could be designed to accommodate left turning cyclists from the northbound lane.
I like the ped in the yellow shirt… “thanks for stopping so I can cross illegally!”
I was in this area yesterday visiting a friend and saw two cyclists heading northbound turn into the oncoming traffic lane right before the median started to bypass it so they could turn left without dealing with the median. I hope everyone can learn to obey traffic laws and nobody gets hurt, but in the time I was there watching I saw bad behaviour on all sides.
We are traffic, and I prefer if drivers simply treat us as such. Practicality requires me to assume they’re not going to stop so when they yield when they shouldn’t, it just slows everyone