tholdawa t1_j85qqkn wrote on February 11, 2023 at 8:57 PM

Looks like this uses the same design for the cycle track to cross the road as the roundabout on Crescent. I don't understand this design, it seems dangerous and really inconvenient for bikes.

awebr OP t1_j85skzc wrote on February 11, 2023 at 9:10 PM

What would you do differently?

tholdawa t1_j85ukaz wrote on February 11, 2023 at 9:25 PM

Of course I'm not an urban planner or traffic engineer, but I am a frequent road user (as I believe you are :). There's a yield for cars and a stop for bikes is one thing that makes this intersection much slower for bikes than cars. Honestly it seems like it'd be safer and faster to have unidirectional protected lanes on either side of the road that maybe merged with vehicular traffic before the intersection. This also is a pretty unfamiliar pattern for drivers, who will not be watching for bikes at the crossing here (at least until this design becomes widespread).

That said, I think this is definitely an improvement over what was here before.

awebr OP t1_j85xhj8 wrote on February 11, 2023 at 9:46 PM

Yeah the stop for bikes was not part of the original design, the traffic dept made us put them in. There’s some proposed legislation that would allow bikes to treat stops like yields though.

But for cyclists who are comfortable riding in mixed traffic, they are absolutely free to leave the cycletrack and bike through the vehicle lane if they want to be quicker, as they are legally allowed to. This crossing is an option for those cyclists who aren’t comfortable riding in traffic yet and want a crossing that moreso resembles a pedestrian crosswalk (because it’s also that). US design manuals for bike crossings at roundabouts are pretty lacking but in general, the crossings are always set back from the vehicle yield line by one car length so that a car waiting to enter the roundabout won’t block the crosswalk/crossbike.

tholdawa t1_j860nyk wrote on February 11, 2023 at 10:10 PM

Sure, yes, bikes can use the vehicular lane to go around this, but this design has actually made that transition wildly more dangerous to do so, at least in one direction, than just having two unidirectional unprotected bike lanes (having to cross two lanes of traffic in an unpredictable way in order to enjoy the efficiency benefits of this intersection). This design has actually removed infrastructure that would've made that transition safer. Even fewer bike riders probably feel comfortable and confident doing this kind of maneuver than just taking the lane. The location of the yield line seems moot, since bikes will be required to stop for cars?

This design seems well-intentioned but ultimately still regressive, giving efficiencies only to cars, and adding marginal safety for bikes (maybe more for pedestrians?). I'm really curious to see how this intersection will work in practice.

Curious if you know, will there be follow-up studies of use and safety?

awebr OP t1_j878olu wrote on February 12, 2023 at 3:59 AM

I appreciate the different perspective you’re providing but i have to disagree that bike safety was only marginally approved as you say. The previous road had unprotected, door zone, paint only bike lanes that dropped out at a historically very dangerous intersection. Now, there is a 2-way bike facility that is off road, set back, and grade separated, with one crossing of chapel street split into two separate crossings with a median island and physical infrastructure that will force drivers to slow to 15-20 mph.

I’ve been biking through this to test it out frequently and I really don’t feel like there’s a noticeable difference in speed (maybe a few seconds) between taking the bike path around vs using the vehicle lane. I would encourage you to ride through it in all ways that you are able to, maybe experiencing it in person will provide some clarity compared to looking at a still photo.