Salt Lake City to Install Nation’s First Protected Intersection for Bicycling

Salt Lake City has plans to install the first protected intersection for cyclists. Image: Salt Lake City via KSL.com
This intersection design Salt Lake City plans to install minimizes potential conflicts between cyclists, drivers, and pedestrians. Image: Salt Lake City

Salt Lake City is on track to implement America’s first protected intersection for bicycling this summer.

The intersection design is based on a Dutch template that minimizes potential conflicts between people biking, driving, and walking. For example, it allows cyclists to make a left turn in two stages without crossing against oncoming car traffic. It will be part of a protected bike lane running a little more than a mile through a central portion of the Utah capital.

The National Association of City Transportation Officials said that to the best of its knowledge, this will be the first protected intersection design in the United States.

This intersection treatment is best known from Dutch streets. Last year, Portland-based Nick Falbo campaigned to introduce the basic template to America and submitted a protected intersection design to a competition at George Mason University. His video is a great introduction to how protected intersections work. Falbo and the team at Alta Planning + Design were consultants on the project working with Salt Lake City transportation officials.

The new Salt Lake City bike lane on 200 West will include just one protected intersection. Construction will start in August and will take about two months, local news station KSL reports.

The intersection of 300 South and 200 West in Salt Lake City is on track to be the first protected intersection in the U.S. Image: Salt Lake City
The intersection of 300 South and 200 West in Salt Lake City is on track to be the first protected intersection in the U.S. Image: Salt Lake City

Hat tip to Jacob Mason.

Updated: (5/7/15 at 3:08 p.m.) to include information about Alta’s involvement in the project. 

 

  • Gezellig

    Oh yeah, please excuse the confusion, what I meant was it’s not protected for the full range of bike motions:

    http://www.utilitycycling.org/wp-content/uploads/Screen-Shot-2014-02-20-at-1.53.36-PM.jpg

    In other words, it’s not protected if you’re looking to change direction to/from the Panhandle bike/pedway.

    Example of a Before/After unprotected -> protected intersection in Vancouver, where a series of protected bike lanes now meet and intersect with the protected refuge island.

    http://edmontonbikes.ca/uploads/post/before-and-after-transforming-a-15-lane-pedestrian-crossing/Burrard-and-Cornwall-before-810×492.jpg

    No matter which direction you’re coming from or going to in this intersection you are never sharing lanes with motorized vehicle traffic:

    http://edmontonbikes.ca/uploads/post/before-and-after-transforming-a-15-lane-pedestrian-crossing/Burrard-and-Cornwall-after-810×457.jpg

    When people mention protected intersections such as the typical Dutch kind or the new intersection in Vancouver shown above (and now the one SLC is building) the reference is that the entirety of bike movements is protected and separated from vehicle traffic…whether you’re continuing straight ahead, going left, or right.

    Btw, even once Masonic gets its redesign with protected bike lane the Fell/Masonic intersection will continue to be unprotected for people on Masonic going to the Panhandle bikeway and vice versa (in fact, even midblock the bike lane will be a subpar conventional bike lane between Hayes and Fell)

    http://sfdpw.org/modules/showdocument.aspx?documentid=4014

    That is not the stuff of 8-to-80/Vision Zero/20% modeshare infrastructure, unfortunately.

    There are still no existing nor planned protected bike intersections in SF at this time.

  • AndreL

    I’m sorry for your accident and hope you are recovering well, but there is no place for this attack on “all Utah” [drivers].

  • Serious. I met some of them at WCC15, they’re good folks indeed.

  • Blackcatprowliii

    All those jutting curbs & the minimization of space do not make it safer for bicyclists {or motorists}. This is bad design. As a cyclist, a motorist or a walker, I would avoid this intersection, therefore, it is oppression. This is a very dangerous intersection.

  • Gezellig

    Got any stats to back up your claim?

    This design is widely used in the Netherlands, which has the lowest rate of bike injuries per capita in the world.

  • Blackcatprowliii

    I can just look at that & see it would be hard to navigate, particularly, at night. The car lanes would be the safer bet {for a bike}. Where is one going to go if that pickup truck cuts your bike off in the bike lane? A curb, at best. No, thanks. I vote no.

  • Gezellig

    Have you experienced this kind of infrastructure in person? It actually works quite well.

    Short of experiencing it in person this video addresses the issues you raise:

    As for night? The road and the intersection has streetlights.

    An example of this kind of intersection at night:

    https://youtu.be/cf-OP6vDqdI?t=9m32s

  • Blackcatprowliii

    I have ridden roads with jutting curbs, roundabouts, restricted bike lanes on roads, speedbumps. Traffic engineer designs for the past few decades make one almost long for the days of the danger of the ditch on the side of the road. If the desire is for pedestrians to be so safe, just shut the road down. The already unaware pedestrian is lulled further into a false sense of security, having no regard for their circumstances or surroundings. {The right of the pedestrian is trumped by the physics of the two~plus ton car or truck.} It does not help in the real world to learn about the dangers that exist. Be wise. As for cars & bikes, bikers should give the car easy ability to pass. If that opportunity is not taken, the biker should take control of the road {& the situation}. Unfriendly, undemocratic speedbumps, dangerous {almost always unmarked} curbs, & pretty much useless islands {except in some circumstances~ & that is more medians~} do not make the roads safer. This is not about bicycle safety. It is almost anti~bicycle &, certainly, anti~car. It puts a driver of a car not on the road but in a parking lot~ except still on the road~ making for hard driving & excessive danger (for everyone)}. Complete Streets is a poor idea, just as speed bumps are used instead of proper road design. Spend the money & do it right. Make the moves for real safety. For my own safety, I would avoid this intersection.

  • Gezellig

    Do keep in mind that the data-driven approach is what’s been guiding these best practices.

    That’s of course fine if you don’t personally prefer protected infrastructure. However, good public policy isn’t guided by feelings or preferences if there’s not data to back them up.

    There’s no denying the safety and modeshare improvements that are typically seen *for all modes* when a particular road stretch upgrades to protected infra.

    This is the case whether we’re talking about places in North America as disparate as suburban Southern California:

    https://youtu.be/H3fGVAZ8o4A

    or NYC:

    http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/2014-09-03-bicycle-path-data-analysis.pdf

    Or Toronto or Vancouver:

    http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2012.300762?journalCode=ajph&

    Not to mention places such as Davis, California, which has a long history of implementing separated infrastructure:

    https://a.disquscdn.com/uploads/mediaembed/images/1837/6568/original.jpg

    http://www.davisenterprise.com/files/2014/07/CycleTrack1w-1024×691.jpg

    Davis has much lower injury rates than the US average. In fact, note that in the 9-year period in the study below Davis did not have a single fatality involving someone on a bike, despite (and probably actually because of) its high modeshare and prevalent protected bike infrastructure:

    http://www.cnu.org/sites/www.cnu.org/files/marshallw_cnu18.pdf

    This is also not to mention the Netherlands, where this stuff is even more pervasive and the injury rates are even lower.

    http://www.economist.com/node/21528302

  • That’s been my impression as well.

  • Blackcatprowliii

    I am sure injuries do go down if you push traffic away from the area. The Netherlands has its own topography, different types of vehicles & a different culture. There is no way that that is safe to drive a car through, with those low islands. Sure, it might work for a bicycle~ & certainly a hiker~ with great concentration, but it is not an inviting intersection, nor would any transit safety really be ultimately gained by the offset of its alternate dangers, involving a total change in behavior. It is an obstacle course. I am a very seasoned, rider, driver, walker & if I saw that intersection, I would find an an alternate route. Forcing someone to walk their bike through an intersection & cars to crawl at two miles an hour will surely make it safe. Yet, it is bad road design. Are you seriously saying someone can take a right turn, there?! While looking to see if a bicycle is coming up from behind?! Additionally, the bicycle lane severely moves ten feet over, then, back, again! Forcing a bicyclist to evade curbs & islands when they should be looking out for cars & pedestrians does not instill confidence & invites an accident. The safest route for a bicycle is to ride in the middle of the road &, probably, cutting to the left of that island {most, likely, illegally}~ because it is safer for a bicycle to get out of a traffic intersection than to try to navigate one on one with cars, to make a left turn. With the people in cars being unsure what to do with a bicycle there, they will hesitate. Or not see the bicyclist, or who knows. Making the whole design a failure at what it proposes! It is a mess!

  • Gezellig

    The Netherlands has its own topography, different types of vehicles & a different culture.

    So what about all the places I mentioned in the US that have implemented Dutch-style protected infrastructure to nearly uninamous injury reductions and modeshare increases?

    Btw, having lived in the Netherlands I can assure you drivers there aren’t always angels, either. In the places where their bike infrastructure remains subpar, drivers behave predictably. Check this out:

    Notice how in the first seconds of the Before (unprotected) intersection the driver turning right barely misses the poor woman on the bike trying to cross the intersection–as in the US the driver should not have entered if she was anywhere in the intersection, but old unprotected design encouraged reckless turns. The woman even looked back nervously like “whew, that was close.”

    The poor sightlines of the Before unprotected intersection made this a statistically dangerous intersection, where drivers often did far worse–because the infrastructure allowed it.

    If you have any remaining doubts, look at another example of an old-school conventional bike lane in the Netherlands which–just as in the US–creates the same classic and dangerous right-hook problem:

    Or this video below, which shows an old-fashioned unprotected intersection in the Netherlands which invites awkward angles, bad sight lines, and, in this case–a double-parked car on the conventional lane (just we see all too often here in the US. Also, notice the prevalence of fairly large SUVs and minivans–such as the double-parked one–there. So much for “different vehicles.”):

    There’s nothing saintly about Dutch drivers. The same general laws of physics and human behavior apply there as here. It’s just that their best-practice infrastructure strongly encourages much better behavior.

    There is no way that that is safe to drive a car through, with those low islands.

    You’re still not backing up your claims with any evidence.

    It’s also apparent that your objections are theoretical and not based on having experienced this type of stuff in person. It actually works great. Data backs it up, too!

    Are you seriously saying someone can take a right turn, there?! While looking to see if a bicycle is coming up from behind?!

    Did you watch the video? It addresses this exact issue:

    Additionally, the bicycle lane severely moves ten feet over, then, back, again! Forcing a bicyclist to evade curbs & islands when they should be looking out for cars & pedestrians does not instill confidence & invites an accident.

    Then why do injuries lower when these are introduced?

    The safest route for a bicycle is to ride in the middle of the road

    https://openclipart.org/image/2400px/svg_to_png/110257/citaton-needed.png

    Additionally, the bicycle lane severely moves ten feet over, then, back, again!

    Bike lanes tend to move inward in the US at intersections–I don’t think anyone expects a bike lane to be perfectly straight all the time. And 10 feet is really minimal. What the protected intersection does well is move *away* from the intersection:

    http://41.media.tumblr.com/7e5bfd41371d7b60f717ad027b531862/tumblr_n1tmgd430b1s5r3bco3_r1_1280.png

    http://www.peopleforbikes.org/page/-/uploads/GLP/set%20back%20crossing.JPG

    –> for cars, the 90º turn that must be performed and the entire car-length before the car even meets the crossbike makes visibility very high for all parties involved.

    –> remember that due to the tight turning radius the protruding refuge island causes, cars are truly unable to speed around corners at high speeds in the first place because they don’t have the wide berths that encourage fast right turns as in conventional intersections.

    Compare this to a common design in the US, which invites bad angles and terrible sightlines:

    http://cdn.urbancincy.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Green-Bike-Lane-at-Intersection.jpg

    Forcing a bicyclist to evade curbs & islands when they should be looking out for cars & pedestrians does not instill confidence & invites an accident.

    There is no evading of curbs or islands. The bike path bends gently outward from the intersection but does introduce major obstacles. It’s not hard:

    http://41.media.tumblr.com/7e5bfd41371d7b60f717ad027b531862/tumblr_n1tmgd430b1s5r3bco3_r1_1280.png

    Do you have any evidence to back up your claim that this design invites more accidents than conventional intersections?

  • Blackcatprowliii

    You are not going to convince me it is a good design~ it is not~ & I will not convince you, obviously. I would not use this intersection. In my capacity as a voter, I will vote against it, & in other capacities, will fight against it. It is part of the bad design that has been used in recent years. Having real time experience with such, I do not need statistics, I have physics. It is bad design.

  • Gezellig

    I do not need statistics, I have physics.

    Huh?

    Statistics are not mutually exclusive to physics. After all, statistics don’t exist in a vacuum but describe phenomena in the world around us–which follows the expected laws of physics.

    The numerous studies I linked above in the thread show the demonstrable, peer-reviewed, replicable and statistical benefits of separated infrastructure in the US.

    It’s actually fine for you not to like it–everyone’s entitled to an opinion. It’s just that it’s data–not opinions–that guide infrastructure. Especially when we’re talking about lives saved and injuries reduced.

  • Blackcatprowliii

    No, actually, it is not fine that I do not like it. Pushing people off public roads is wrong. It, along with undemocratic action involving public roads, is an argument against public roads, if that is to be the case. As to statistics. An intersection with islands, near here, like that, had to be redone because so many ran over them, causing vehicle damage. The method of safety through making it harder to operate on is a poor idea. As for statistics. We will wait. If people stood up against bad design, instead of being cowered, there would be less bad design. Slower is not necessarily safer. A small vocal contingency thinks they can cower everyone to their way & their design. Proper design would control speeds & increase safety & without increasing resentment & road rage. Implementation of this sort of design has not slowed people down & actually, probably has, overall, increased speeds. It makes for people who do not rely on themselves, as they should, but on artificial & arbitrarily imposed signage & rules. & those are the people who are most dangerous to bicyclists. Pushing down the ability of users will only result in more danger. The roads have become maxed out & because of property ownership, people’s aversions to taxes, & the lack of vision & impetus resort to poor ideas like speed bumps. An intersection so busy in design is dangerous. It is successful only if speeds are dropped to a crawl. No one can feel safe in this intersection. A car looking for ‘ants’, bicyclists looking not to crash into anything, rather than just going through & being done, & hikers led further into oblivion~ rather than being aware that they are entering into a by nature dangerous area. Everyone entering this intersection will do so with apprehension~ as they should. Making for unsure drivers, bikers & walkers. Accidents & injuries will go down because people will avoid it. It will do what this type of poor design has done, push cars to side streets. Which will piss off the people of the neighborhood, who will push to put in speedbumps. To push cars elsewhere. Anger & frustration increases. Businesses lose or do not gain customers & the economy falls further into decay. Statistics show less accidents & injuries at this particular point & every body applauds how great they are. The disaffected youth further isolate & the system falters & GDP is 0.02%. Local businesses lack revenue. Rather than the upward spiral there is a downward spiral. But, look at the statistics! The now less used & unwanted way is so much safer! So, no, it is not fine that I do not like it. I certainly will rely on statistics, but will look at the big picture, not just some select social engineering traffic engineer’s numbers. ‘Well, we didn’t take that aspect into account.’ The future holds conflict.

  • Gezellig

    Pushing people off public roads is wrong.

    By this logic, sidewalks are also “pushing people off public roads.” The protected bike lane is within the ROW of the road, just as the sidewalk, car lanes and parking are.

    Slower is not necessarily safer.

    Actually, speed is highly correlated to safety:

    http://www.coolshoes.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/peds-pedestrian.jpg

    Good design reduces potential conflicts in the first place, and then adds checks into the system so that if they do occur, they are less injurious.

    That’s exactly what the protected bike intersection does.

    Implementation of this sort of design has not slowed people down & actually, probably has, overall, increased speeds.

    The studies I linked earlier in the thread noted reduced vehicle speeds. For example:

    Businesses lose or do not gain customers & the economy falls further into decay.

    You’re really not citing your sources here.

    Meanwhile look at the actual experience of places as different as NYC:

    http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/2012-10-measuring-the-street.pdf

    –> Speeding decreased by 16%, while median speeds increased by 14%

    –> Injury crashes fell by 26%

    –> 49% fewer commercial vacancies (compared to
    5% more borough-wide)

    Or Indianapolis:

    “We have seen no fewer than 25 new businesses open in the last few years, all within a five-block area,” said Ed Rudisell, owner of three Indianapolis restaurants, including the popular Siam Square in Fountain Square.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/09/travel/in-indianapolis-a-bike-path-to-progress.html?_r=0

    Or Toronto, New Zealand, Wales, Davis, and Portland:

    http://kellyjclifton.com/Research/EconImpactsofBicycling/OTRECReport-ConsBehavTravelChoices_Nov2012.pdf

    But, look at the statistics! The now less used & unwanted way is so much safer!

    Actually, bike modeshare shoots up practically without exception when a stretch of road retrofits to a protected bike lane. This was referenced in all the studies I mentioned earlier.

    Facts are facts. You’re not citing any sources or studies to back up your claims.

  • Blackcatprowliii

    I looked at your statistics.

    ‘Our results? consistently? show? that? high? intersection? density? appears? to? be? the? single? most? important? street? design? factor? affecting? crash? severity.’

    ‘The majority of cyclist injury events, including hospitalisations, result from bicycle-only crashes’

    ‘Carlsbad ? one of the less safe? cities ? …? also? happens? to? have the highest? percentage? of? bike? lanes?…

    On? the? other? hand,? Berkeley? ? one? of? the? highest? biking? cities ? has? one? of? the? lowest? percentages? of? bike? lanes? present on? the? major? roads.?’

    ‘We? do? not? yet? have? the? data? to? disentangle? these? effects,? but? our? results? strongly? suggest? that? safety? benefits? for? all? road? users? can? be? derived? from? an? amalgamation? of? the? steps? taken? to? attract? more? bicyclists;? that? is, as? long? as? we? define? safety? in? terms? of? reducing? fatality? and? severe? crashes? and? not? just? in? terms? of? reducing? overall? rates? of? crashes. Improving? the? streets? to? accommodate? bicycles? may? in? fact? lead? to? a? self? reinforcing? cycle? that? can? help? enhance? overall? safety for? all? road? users.? This? combination of? factors? seems? to ?go ?a? long ?way ?toward ?overall ?safer ?and ?more ?sustainable ?cities.’

    ‘The frequency of crashes at an intersection is related to the number of conflict points at an intersection, as well as the magnitude of conflicting flows at each conflict point.’

    ‘14% of respondents indicated that they avoided driving on the street because of the protected bikeway.’

    ‘Our intercept survey of bicyclists found that 10% would have made the trip by another mode and 1% would not have made the trip. The remainder would have bicycled on a different route (24%) or the same route (65%).’

    The increase in bicyclists & those who ride more frequently did not correlate to whether a bike lane existed.

    ‘There does not appear to be a strong correlation between agreement with that statement {bike lane attractiveness} and the estimated level of out-of-direction travel.’

    ‘Perceptions of safety are likely to influence individuals’ decisions on whether and when to use a facility.’

    ‘Perceptions of the change to driving safety on the facility {protected intersections}: Overall, 37% thought
    driving safety had increased, 30% thought there had been no change, 26% thought safety decreased, and 7% had no opinion.

    Perceptions of the safety of the walking environment: Overall, 33% thought safety increased, 48% thought there had been no change, 13% thought safety decreased, and 6% had no opinion.’

    On survey results:
    ‘possibly some self-selection in the intercepted cyclists (i.e. ) those that think it is unsafe would consider another route).’

    ‘[H]alf (50%) saying that changes in their neighborhood as a place for driving have been negative.’

    ‘Overall, my level of satisfaction
    with transportation in my neighborhood {with bike features available} is . . . Dissatisfied: 24% {all respondents}.’

    ‘One third of respondents indicated they avoid those streets.’

    ‘Respondents were more negative about issues of delay/congestion, difficulty of turning on and off the street, and the impact of the facility on finding parking. Overall, 31% said that it took them longer to drive on the street since the lanes were built, and 36% said that the impact on traffic congestion has been negative. Similar shares expressed concerns over turning on and off of the street.

    In all cities, drivers were most negative about the impact on parking, with 44% saying that is has negatively impacted their ability to find a parking space and 45% saying it is stressful to park on the street.’

    ‘[P]edestrians have mixed perceptions of the facilities.
    15% indicated that their satisfaction with the walking environment decreased’

    ‘The “Strong and Fearless” were generally not overly supportive of the protected bike lanes. The “No How Now Way”group displayed significantly more negative attitudes toward the {bike} facilities: 80% disagreed that “Because of the protected bike lanes, the desirability of living in my neighborhood has increased”

    ‘In Chicago, more respondents indicated that they would be less likely to visit a business on the corridor {with bike facilities} than would be more likely to do the same.’

  • Gezellig

    You got links for any of these? Not possible to respond to all of them, but here are a few:

    The increase in bicyclists & those who ride more frequently did not correlate to whether a bike lane existed.

    You’re not providing a specific link to verify this, but in any case this thread is about *protected* bike infrastructure, not general bike lanes.

    The body of evidence indicates that *protected* bike lanes–not just conventional bike lanes–lead to significant modeshare increases:

    http://peopleforbikes.org/page/-/uploads/GLP/city-bike-traffic-increases.jpg

    http://peopleforbikes.org/page/-/uploads/GLP/pennsylvania.PNG

    http://peopleforbikes.org/page/-/uploads/GLP/15th%20markedup.PNG

    ‘Our results? consistently? show? that? high? intersection? density? appears? to? be? the? single? most? important? street? design? factor? affecting? crash? severity.’

    Yup, all the more reason to design better intersections!

    Typically about 80% of bike injuries occur at intersections. Since the US has no presently built protected intersection, by definition this means they’re all at various types of conventional intersections.

    ‘The majority of cyclist injury events, including hospitalisations, result from bicycle-only crashes’

    And the overwhelming majority of cyclist deaths involve cars. This is true with pedestrians, as well. People who fall are generally not dying from randomly falling.

    ‘Carlsbad ? one of the less safe? cities ? …? also? happens? to? have the highest? percentage? of? bike? lanes?…

    Yup. Not all bike lanes are created equal. Almost all of Carlsbad’s bike lanes are subpar conventional bike lanes.

    Apples : oranges.

    Conventional bike lanes : protected bike lanes.

    On? the? other? hand,? Berkeley? ? one? of? the? highest? biking? cities ? has? one? of? the? lowest? percentages? of? bike? lanes? present on? the? major? roads.?’

    The Bike Boulevard strategy has indeed gotten them pretty far! At least by North American standards.

    Remember, no one ever said protected bike lanes need to be on all streets. Only those above certain speed thresholds forming smart, connected intervals. Even in the Netherlands, PBLs form a small minority of streets, while the rest are low-traffic enough to be fine for shared-space treatments. A typical Dutch network:

    https://a.disquscdn.com/uploads/mediaembed/images/1565/9700/original.jpg?w=600&h

    Also, Berkeley is currently in the works of increasing its current 5-6% modeshare to the teens or higher by implementing more protected bike infrastructure.

    ‘14% of respondents indicated that they avoided driving on the street because of the protected bikeway.’

    Oh no, they only have 99.99% of the rest of the roads to choose from!

    Seriously, though, that’s not even always the case:

    “The most requested item, across the board, was a bicycle lane on the corridor,” Sanders told Streetsblog. “It was the most requested item by drivers, it was the most requested item by pedestrians, and it was the most requested item by bicyclists. That was quite surprising to us.”

    This wasn’t just a Bay Area trend, either. Bike lanes placed a “close second,” after crosswalks, in Sanders’ similar Los Angeles survey.

    Sanders even found that many car drivers said they’d come to a street more often if it had a bike lane.

    Eight percent of those who arrived by car said a bike lane would be in their top five list of amenities that would make them visit a place more frequently, compared to 11 percent who said it’d be trees and landscaping, 11 percent who wanted retail, food and entertainment and 6 percent who wanted street lighting.”

    http://www.peopleforbikes.org/blog/entry/car-users-would-prefer-separated-bike-lanes-too-study-finds

    Also remember that some of the car traffic decline–when it happens–is also due in part to modeshare switching, as several studies such as the New York ones linked before have found.

    http://www.peopleforbikes.org/blog/entry/car-users-would-prefer-separated-bike-lanes-too-study-finds

    Overall, 31% said that it took them longer to drive on the street since the lanes were built, and 36% said that the impact on traffic congestion has been negative.

    People always say traffic is getting worse, even when it’s demonstrably not:

    http://sf.streetsblog.org/2014/11/12/studies-show-car-traffic-in-san-francisco-is-dropping/

    Traffic has dropped by 7% in SF despite an economic boom and a growing population. Yet drivers still widely believe traffic is getting worse.

    Remember, perceptions of increased traffic and actual increased traffic are far different things. For example, the Long Beach and NYC studies I linked which actually showed no vehicle LOS change.

    Perceptions of the safety of the walking environment: Overall, 33% thought safety increased, 48% thought there had been no change, 13% thought safety decreased, and 6% had no opinion.’

    Meanwhile, it was mentioned over and over again the studies I linked before that the *actual* data on pedestrian safety pretty much unanimously increased on protected stretches.

    ‘The “Strong and Fearless” were generally not overly supportive of the protected bike lanes. The “No How Now Way”group displayed significantly more negative attitudes toward the {bike} facilities:

    Haha, well that’s to be expected! The Strong and Fearless are the 1%. Or less.

    http://usa.streetsblog.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/6/2010/12/image.jpg

    And The No Way No How group will not or cannot bike regardless.

    Some more on the different groups:

    http://peopleforbikes.org/page/-/uploads/GLP/interested%20but%20concerned%20infra.PNG

  • Joe R.

    Why does the bike lane need to jog out and back again? A better design would have a smaller island but the bike lane would run straight through. It would be really annoying having to deal with several intersections like this in a row. I can’t see how a cyclist going 20 to 25 mph would be able to pass through that intersection. And yes, if the speed limit on the adjacent motor traffic lane is 20 or 25 mph, then the bike lane should be usable at that speed or it’s substandard infrastructure.

    Yes, right turns are always without delay and that’s a good feature but cyclists going left or straight will sometimes be delayed by red lights. That’s not a good feature. This type of intersection might work if you only have one per km but in general bikes going through busy, high-traffic areas need to be completely separated from all traffic in order to have a quick, speedy journey without time-consuming, energy-intensive stopping.

  • Joe R.

    You have valid points about this intersection design, and also with a lot of so-called bike infrastructure in general. That said, I honestly don’t feel bikes and cars can effectively share the same streets when traffic volumes become too high. The issue here is you suddenly need all sorts of traffic controls at high vehicle volumes to keep motor vehicles from hitting pedestrians, and each other. Those same traffic controls cause ridiculous delays for cyclists (or more likely end up being ignored). We should be moving in the direction of completely separate infrastructure for cyclists, especially at intersections, at least on roads with heavy motor traffic and many intersections. This may involve partial or total grade separation. It may involve routing bikes away from or around main roads.

    The problem with “complete” streets is that they only work relatively well when you have a small number of users. Add more users, they end up being highly suboptimal for everyone. At that point it makes more sense to consider giving each type of traffic its own level. Yes, it’s more costly, but in the end it’s the only way to allow safe, efficient movement of all users in dense urban areas.

  • Gezellig

    Why does the bike lane need to jog out and back again?

    By bowing gently away from the intersection it creates the space for a full car length between the crossbike and cars, so that cars must have turned the full 90º before reaching the crossbike and crosswalk:

    http://media.independent.com/img/photos/2015/04/09/Protected_intersection.jpg

    http://41.media.tumblr.com/7e5bfd41371d7b60f717ad027b531862/tumblr_n1tmgd430b1s5r3bco3_r1_1280.png

    Yes, right turns are always without delay and that’s a good feature but cyclists going left or straight will sometimes be delayed by red lights.

    This is also true of conventional intersections.

    I can’t see how a cyclist going 20 to 25 mph would be able to pass through that intersection. And yes, if the speed limit on the adjacent motor traffic lane is 20 or 25 mph, then the bike lane should be usable at that speed or it’s substandard infrastructure.

    Here’s an example of a bike going quite fast through just such an intersection:

    David Hembrow has another great video on this very topic:

    This type of intersection might work if you only have one per km

    That’s about the typical frequency. These treatments are for more significant intersections.

  • John Boyle

    It would be nice if SLC uploaded the Sketchup file they created to share. I did upload a somewhat imperfect 2D sketch of the design which you can take to modify in Sketchup’s 3D Warehouse.

  • Blackcatprowliii

    ‘People always say traffic is getting worse, even when it’s demonstrably not’

    You are a bully.

  • Blackcatprowliii

    You are bully that thinks a bunch of numbers means a lot. Driving a car at a slower speed, particularly, with obstacles put in the roadway, with the danger of people thinking they can just walk in the road, makes for nervous driving, which makes for bad driving. Driving below the level that attracts the attention of the driver, causes distraction, which causes dangers. You can sling you statistics around all you want~ every statistic I presented was from studies, by the way~ but you do not know what you are talking about. You have an agenda. & unfortunately, your agenda is funneled into one idea. You are not really interested in better roads or even safer roads, not really. You are interested in your idea. Your interested in the power of your clique. All that support your idea reïnforce your idea. ‘Look, we agree!’ The sad thing is I am big on bicycling. The sad thing is you are not interested in my support, you are interested in yourself. ‘Look at how smart I am! Look at all my numbers from people who believe exactly as I do.’ It is bad design. Time & reälity will prove that. ‘It moves over to give the car a full lane.’ No, it moves over, presenting a hazard in an intersection. Which is a danger. Discount others views all you want. You megamonolith you are trying to shove downs people’s throats… Just because you have the government backing you, doesn’t mean you will win in the end.

  • Gezellig

    Nah, I’m not very interested in anyone’s milk money.

  • Gezellig

    Numbers and data represent actual people in real situations.

    Good public policy, including infrastructure choices, espouses the data-driven approach. Complete streets–including protected bike lanes–have proven over and over to be safer for people of all modes. It’s really as simple as that.

  • Blackcatprowliii

    People in real situations actually represent people in real situations, not numbers that can be manipulated. Protected bike lanes, I am not that against, though, simply having a bike lane is, probably, better. Yet, a bike lane is not really a part of ‘Complete Streets’, which is a much more invasive & dangerous idea. The better solution is better roads, lanes, for all. ‘Complete Streets’ is an incredible poor idea. A man was hit riding his wheelchair on the highway {for a cause}. Mixing different vehicles & hikers, without them realizing the realities of the situation is a very dangerous mindset. ~How many people walk in front of a car when crossing the street, when it would be just as easy~ & safer~ to walk behind? For downtown areas, close off the area to larger vehicles. For neighborhoods, let them invest in proper design. Allowing public roads to be controlled by a handful of people makes them no longer public roads. ‘Safety’ is a buzzword, used to manipulate the masses for as long as opportunity has existed. Politicians easily fall the manipulation, are actively involved in the manipulation, all those that benefit monetarily & in other forms of power, from this, are all too eager to be involved. It is a ruse. There are much less invasive ways to gain safety. There are much better, inclusive, & naturally safer, albeit, more expensive ways to gain safety. There is also changing people’s patterns, allowing them modifying their actions~ which this past, the inchoate ‘complete streets’ strategy, has only worsened. Will only worsen. We are talking two very different strategies, here. A people unaware, uneducated, unexperienced, made more vulnerable, coddled & led by the government, & supporters, or one that allows people to grow, society to grow, truly allows for economy & structure to grow, yet better delivers ‘safety’. These two ideas cannot meet. They are fundamentally different. Live the brave life that moves forward. That is what the people really crave. Not the coddled life that is forever smothered. Live the brave life that is our tradition & our future.

  • Gezellig

    By providing people on foot with a mode-specific channel designed especially for their needs are sidewalks “coddling” pedestrians? Or should we just tell everybody to “brave it out” and walk vehicularly in mixed traffic on busy high-speed roads?

  • Blackcatprowliii

    No, cars do not drive on sidewalks. “Complete Streets serve all users, be they drivers, bicyclists or pedestrians.” It remains a bad idea mixing all forms of transportation together in the CS scheme. Having a way to cross the street or walk somewhere is a good idea. Having people ‘ walk vehicularly {sic} in mixed traffic on busy high-speed roads ‘ is a bad idea. Forcing cars to go excessively slow to patronize & pacify a vocal faction is also a bad idea. Taking a main artery & making it not is a road to stagnation. When that is backed by politicians supported by construction, real estate & engineering & hardware companies, one sees it is a scam. But yes, if one wants to go out on a road with large vehicles that go at a good speed, one should be brave. Because one should expect danger there. If one has an interest in providing adequate, safe & proper routes & transit, by all means design, pay for & build such. Complete Streets is not that.

  • Blackcatprowliii

    How has it been ‘proven over and over’ {in America} when we are discussing the first opening? If you are talking about converting public roads to unfriendly & effectively private roads, yes, if you make people not want to go on the road, it will seem safe. Except, it just adds to people’s complacency & lack of awareness of the realities that surround them. They are a danger to themselves & to others. They do not learn because they are sheltered from reality. How many kids are bitten by dogs every year because they assume the dog will not bite? That is a failure of the parents & of society. “Don’t pet strange dogs” should be taught early on, rather than some unexisting utopia. People first have a responsibility to themselves. Jaywalking & running in front of cars at night in dark clothes… Taking the extra care to properly cross a street is the safe way. Laws will not stop a three ton car from crushing a person. Unsafe design will not make people safer other than people going elsewhere. How is that public? Walk in a park, play in the road at one’s own risk. If one wants to build a special bridge so those that need it can have it, get the money from the people through a non~misleading referendum. The promised after studies are never really made. The cars that no longer go down the road, go down the next, until they too block travel. The promised free~flowing traffic lights never appear. The supposed efforts have made the roads more dangerous, crowding cars together, making it harder for a bicyclists or hikers to cross. The damage to vehicles~including bikes~ is ignored. The increased danger because people feel they can just nonchalantly step into the road at any time. because of this new false sense of security. They do not even realize the concept of a road any more. Your data fails to register these facts. It is simply the use of statistics to blind & hogwash people. It is part & parcel of a manipulative feel good campaign. Taking select facts & escalating them to cause fear. Pushed by those that will benefit from them for gain. As for milk money. Where do you think the money comes from? A traffic light costs a 100,000 dollars. That is just putting it in. The congestion is only getting worse. The time lost by these slowing efforts causes people to make it up elsewhere. If one truly rides a bike or walks, one has obviously seen this. This effort is on its way to collapse. It is failing & is making the streets more dangerous through the resentment it causes. It has made the roads more tedious, less enjoyable. It is a failure.

  • Gezellig

    Before protected bike lanes and other Complete Streets implementations were implemented in the US, similar naysayers said “well that may work for Europe, but it’ll never work here.” As if the laws of physics are somehow different. Turns out, protected bike lanes nearly uniformly reduce injures *across modes* and increase bike modeshare, whether we’re talking about Long Beach, NYC or DC. These have been mentioned ad nauseam on this thread and others on this site.

  • Gezellig

    Having people ‘ walk vehicularly {sic} in mixed traffic on busy high-speed roads ‘ is a bad idea.

    Yup. Same with bikes.

    But yes, if one wants to go out on a road with large vehicles that go at a good speed, one should be brave.

    Nope. Same as with pedestrians.

  • Blackcatprowliii

    Well, I mix with cars~ or bikes~ as the case may be, & have not had a problem. I see many bikers doing the same. There have been few, if any, reports of injuries. Three in same some years. One biker hurt a year? Crossing at a crosswalk one still should be aware. Data driven? No. A posting echo chamber? Sure. Manipulated people for some agenda? Absolutely. The usual “It’s for the children!” & regular politician talk. “If it were to make the streets safer, would you support…” “Oh, why, yes, if it make the streets safer.” ‘There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.’

  • NoeValleyJim

    The only bullies I see on the roadway are those driving two ton weapons recklessly and over the speed limit, honking at everyone and everything in their way and passing vulnerable road users in a reckless and illegal fashion. I see those every day.

  • NoeValleyJim

    Designing the roadway so that car drivers are forced to obey the law and drive the speed limit is effectively privatizing them? You make the incredibly arrogant assumption that only car drivers are the general public. Pedestrians and cyclists are members of the public too and deserve infrastructure for them too. It is not too much to ask car drivers to stop running over and killing people.

  • Blackcatprowliii

    They interfere with bicyclists, too. My rear rim went out of true just today because of the ‘design’. They are effectively privatizing them when a handful of people get to vote on the fate of a public road. That is private. They are not designing the roads, they are using a patch for their lack of design. The government, a year a half ago, stated, specifically, that they do not take bicyclists into mind when putting up speed bumps. How many were killed on the road? One person twenty years ago. One person on a street starts telling horror stories riling up the neighbors. The safety features have failed as the cars have not slowed down~ in fact, they are probably going faster. That says bad design.

  • Gezellig

    Well, I mix with cars~ or bikes~ as the case may be, & have not had a problem

    So do I. And hopefully that will continue to be the case for people like you and me. However, we must acknowledge that the plural of anecdote is not anec-data.

    We also need to acknowledge that–at best–we’re probably within the 7% or less of people willing to bike this way:

    http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-hUqNSuUAlgQ/TZSdSdjHxzI/AAAAAAAAIjA/noIkgF8WmH8/s1600/4+types+of+cyclists.jpg

    Our current infrastructural status quo makes 93% or more of people take a hard pass on biking to get around. Ever. Even though a majority of them can bike and would actually like to more, were the infrastructure designed for it.

    Remember, too, that the single largest factor predicting bike safety is strength in numbers, and in addition to their own inherent benefits, factors such as protected infrastructure and bikeshare go a long way towards encouraging greater modeshare.

    Very few want to bike vehicularly everywhere. That’s just how it is.

    We have to stop thinking about designing for who currently bikes and instead design for who could bike. Btw, equitable infrastructure doesn’t just benefit those on bikes:

    It’s not about -ists vs. -ians vs. -ers. Equitable, balanced infrastructure benefits everyone.

  • farazs

    > There have been few, if any, reports of injuries.
    It is one thing to argue that CS does not address the problem, quite another to deny the problem altogether!

    Since you deny the legitimacy of all statistics, the only incidents in your world are those that you’ve personally seen, heard or read about. Not surprised you believe ^that^. Unfortunately, there is a world beyond your senses that the rest of us have to live in.

  • Blackcatprowliii

    I did not deny the use of statistics, I said they can be manipulated. Or not properly gathered in full. Once, again, a use of intimidation degrading what I have found available. As many of those studying the problem believe a certain way, they also tend to find that solution, & those that support their vision. Accepting certain criteria, the solutions come upon can be influenced by others the person comes into contact with. The politician that is backed by those wanting to do something a certain way is likely to go that way. They will then sell that idea to other people, using the usual ways. ie, ‘protecting the kids’. Solutions allowing liberty of choice & operation, even if overall, less effective, are better than the authoritarian approach forcing a solution. People who freely choose an option are more readily apt to choose that option. Forcing something on a person, especially, when taking away their liberty, will generate resentment, a questioning of the solution, & even a disregarding of the solution. Alternate solutions will also have their downsides, such as cost, time, inconvenience {as it is implemented}. Which is why inferior choices are oft chosen. Allowing individuals to choose, to be in the world & react & progressively learn is a better solution than forcing people to go what others feel is a “better way”. Especially, when that better way has adverse consequences. It cannot be denied that there is great friction in the political world. Forcing solutions by a group will result in another group wanting to, & possibly achieving, reversals on a grand scale, with no good solution ever permanently being arrived at. When there is such a large proportion of the population at odds with one another, solutions for “everyone’s better good” smacks of Orwell. That the goal is often somewhat the same, it makes it a shame.

  • farazs

    > I did not deny the use of statistics, I said they can be
    > manipulated. Or not properly gathered in full.
    So when you speak of “few, if any” injuries to pedestrians/bicyclists attributed to cars, are you saying that:

    a. the statistics are manipulated to show more deaths than actual
    OR

    b. the statistics are not gathered in full so that the actual number may be more than what is presented?

    There is a difference between claiming that statistics can be manipulated and that a particular statistic has been manipulated. Unless you have specific evidence of the latter, you’re not really contributing any thing to the discussion, except noise.

  • Sounds good, glad to see that some are quietly moving forward even without recognition. I unfortunately missed it when I was passing through there two weeks ago.

  • The “elephant feet” markings to delineate the crossing certainly helps in jogging people’s memory. Also, as seen above, “shark teeth” indicating a yield are often included as well.

  • Gezellig

    They are effectively privatizing them when a handful of people get to vote on the fate of a public road. That is private.

    Because car-centric streets from the 1950s onward were always voted in by a democratic majority and always considered all stakeholders along the way:

    http://sf.streetsblog.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2014/08/10475149_1502393510002265_596110867_n.jpg

  • John Harshbarger

    Actually it’s very safe. The dutch have been doing this for decades and it has a safety record the far exceeds anything we have in this country. You can try and claim it’s more dangerous, but the data tells a different story.

  • John Harshbarger

    To be fair, that is just a two way sidewalk, or MUP (Multi use path). Not a dedicated lane for bicycles alone. The salt lake city design is also the proper way as it’s one way on each side, and in all 4 directions. So it is still the first fully protected intersection with dedicated bicycle infra.

  • Blackcatprowliii

    What data? Where’s the data of the United States that shows this? Traffic calming is undemocratic, selfish, & an abuse of the public roads. Poorly designed roads that cause people to use other avenues can certainly lead to statistics changing. This is a political fight & all the smugness in the world does not give an advantage. Neither does a clique reïnforcing itself, or a cabal using the government for its own profit, or the government to garner further its power, under the guise of safety. ‘Complete Streets’ is not what is or will make the streets safer. It might just shift power in the nation.

  • Blackcatprowliii

    I do not see where this is really being pushed in America, except for the low end & not really in accordance with what is stated here.

    Roads by safety policy category

    Single carriageway expressway that was economically upgraded to (mostly) meet the new Regional flow road standard. A physical traffic barrier, and a hard shoulder were added.

    Dutch roads are typically built for cyclists as well

    In 1997 the collective Dutch road management authorities reached agreement on a major traffic safety program, called Duurzaam Veilig
    (“Sustainable Safety”). One of its principles is a clear-cut
    categorisation of roads, into a small number of visually distinct and
    clearly recognisable designs, that must be applied consistently
    throughout the country. Three main categories were established:

    Stroomwegen (literally “Flow roads” or “Through roads”), aimed at a consistent flow
    of large amounts of motorised traffic, over long(er) distance, and with
    generally high speed. In the design of these roads, traffic flow is
    consistently paramount, meaning: physical separation of traffic in
    opposite directions (ideally multiple carriageways), controlled highway access and grade separated junctions without traffic lights.
    Motorways and expressways fall into this category. General maximum
    speeds are 130 km/h for motorways, and 100 km/h for regional flow roads.
    In the long term, the new road type “regional flow road” will reshape
    the existing collection of non-motorway expressways (Autowegen) in the Netherlands.

    Gebiedsontsluitingswegen (“Distributor roads”) prioritize traffic flow on road sections, but traffic exchange at intersections. Fast and slow road users are separated, for instance cycle tracks are segregated from the main carriageway. Intersections are at grade, aimed at the most effective traffic exchange in terms of changing direction, road type, or speed. Junctions are in the form of roundabouts where possible, or otherwise have traffic lights. For motor traffic the speed limits are 80 km/h in the country, and 50 or 70 km/h in the built-up area. Arterial roads fall in this category.

    Erftoegangswegen (“Access roads”) connect individual properties to the rest of the road system. Traffic exchange
    takes place not only at intersections, but also in between. Road users
    are pulling in and out of lots, and traffic modes mix. The street design
    must facilitate ingress and egress from vehicles, and loading and
    unloading. A living
    function as well as a traffic function is intended. Speeds are
    therefore kept low: 60 km/h on rural or regional access roads, and
    30 km/h on access roads in the built-up area, except for woonerfs (woonerven)
    where only 15 km/h is allowed. Out of town there should ideally be
    separate cycle tracks, or clearly painted bike lanes at the least. In
    town there can be cycle lanes, but on smaller 30 km/h roads cyclists can
    typically mix with cars without problems. Among others, Frontage roads and fietsstraten (bike streets) are considered access roads.

  • John Harshbarger

    Asking for data from just one country is being narrow minded. We are all people, no matter the country. Data from one country is relevant for another, so long as you take any differences into account. Of which there are none substantial enough to invalidate data from the Netherlands.

    Now if you have data that shows dutch style infra is unsafe, please present it.

  • Blackcatprowliii

    ‘The results of this study suggest that “Bicycles May Use Full Lane” signs do improve bicyclist and motorist safety along routes where commuter bicyclists are common users of the facility. After signs were installed along Lamar Boulevard, bicyclists tended to ride closer toward the center of the lane and motorists provided more space when passing bicyclists.

    Given these results, there exists a very reasonable expectation that signs can be effective at improving the safety of bicyclists who already ride in the full lane along narrow, multi-lane facilities where the signs can be placed next to the bicyclist lane of travel.

    The histograms suggest that after the installation of signs, bicyclists tended to take a stronger lateral position in the lane as evidenced by the slight shift in the distributions to the right. These trends are confirmed by the changes in the average LPB {lateral position of bicyclists}. After installation, the LPB during passing events increased substantially from 2.42 to 2.73 feet (p<0.001) and the LPB during non-passing events increased from 2.83 to 3.03 feet (p=0.184).

    The average LPM { lateral position of motorists} increased from 6.23 to 7.93 feet after the sign installation (p<0.001)… In October 2009, the City of Austin passed a vulnerable road users ordinance that requires motorists to give at least three feet of space when passing pedestrians, workers, bicyclists, and other vulnerable road users. Figure 13 below shows the space between the bicyclist and passing motorist during passing events. After the sign installation, the proportion of motorists who passed within 3 feet of a bicyclist decreased from 44% to 0%.

    Results & Conclusions: After the installation of the signs, motorists were observed to provide more space when passing…

    Given the improvement in bicyclist safety observed on Lamar Boulevard, there is a reasonable expectation that signs can be effective at improving the safety of bicyclists who already ride in the full lane along narrow, multi-lane facilities where the signs can be placed next to the bicyclist lane of travel. Further research conducted by the City of Austin or corroborating findings by another institution could clarify the exact effect “Bicycles May Use Full Lane” signs have on bicyclist and motorist safety.'

    http://catsip.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/2010-06%20Effects%20of%20bicycles%20may%20use%20full%20lane%20signs%20on%20bicyclist%20and%20motorist%20behavior%20along%20multi-lane%20facilities_0.pdf

  • Blackcatprowliii

    ‘In general, results were consistent with previous research efforts, showing crash reductions for wider paved widths, wider lanes, and wider shoulders, all else being equal.

    For 7.92- to 9.75-m (26- to 32-ft) total paved widths, 3.66-m (12-ft) lanes provide the optimal safety benefit.

    Officials recommends, as a minimum, that 0.61 m (2 ft) of the shoulder width should be paved to provide for pavement support, wide vehicles, collision avoidance, and additional pavement width for bicyclists.’

    http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/09032/index.cfm

    ‘Wide outside lanes allow motorists to more safely pass slower moving bicyclists without changing lanes.Wide outside lanes are intended for bicyclists with traffic-handling.’

    https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/BikePed/Documents/Wide%20Outside%20Lanes.pdf

    Bicycle Lanes vs Wide Outside Lanes

    http://www.bicyclinglife.com/EffectiveAdvocacy/blvswol.htm

    ‘When Bike Lanes May Be Dangerous

    Bike lanes may be valuable when car drivers respect them, but one recent UK study suggests that drivers may not really be factoring these bike-only lanes into their own behavior. The study followed Edinburgh cyclists (who were equipped with cameras) as they biked down streets with white-outlined bike lanes, filled-in green lanes, and no bike lanes.

    After reviewing the video footage, researchers found that there was no significant difference in motor vehicle passing distance based on the presence (or lack thereof) of a bike lane. Rather, passing distance was influenced by the width of the road, the presence of street parking, and whether or not there was oncoming traffic. Based on this study, it appears that bike riders may be safer traveling on wider roads without bike lanes than narrower, busy roads that have a white stripe painted on them.

    The League of American Bicyclists also suggests there are situations when a cyclist is better off leaving the designated bike lane. They recommend that a cyclist at an intersection be in the “right-most lane that serves their destination.’

    http://www.winstonpersonalinjury.com/do-bike-lanes-protect-cyclists/

    ‘An alliance survey found 95 per cent of its members opposed them. And 98 per cent said a better safety policy is for drivers to adjust their speed to the conditions rather than blindly obeying a 20mph limit.

    The call came after the Institute of Advanced Motorists discovered last month that the number of serious
    accidents on 20mph roads increased by 26 per cent last year and slight accidents by 17 per cent. In the same period, the total number of accidents fell on 30mph and 40mph roads.

    Alliance spokesman Sean Corker said: This suggests the ultimate aim of reducing speed limits is to discourage driving rather than making the roads safer.’

    http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/504466/20mph-speed-limit-is-too-slow-for-safety

    ‘When cyclists act as drivers of vehicles they are most visible and predictable. The law supports cyclists acting as drivers of vehicles. Cyclists must act as drivers of vehicles to be treated as drivers of vehicles. Motorists must also be educated that cyclists have the same rights and duties.’

ALSO ON STREETSBLOG

Salt Lake City’s Groundbreaking Protected Intersection Is Open

|
#ProtectedIntersection in @saltlakecityUT is UT’s first! Creating a safer destination for downtown visitors. #GoSLCpic.twitter.com/zxrLRdifRU — Alta Planning (@altaplanning) October 15, 2015 The second protected intersection in the country is open in Salt Lake City, another milestone for American bike infrastructure. Using paint and concrete islands, the intersection of 200 West and 300 South lowers the stress level […]

Four Cities Race to Finish the Country’s First Protected Intersection

|
Michael Andersen blogs for The Green Lane Project, a PeopleForBikes program that helps U.S. cities build better bike lanes to create low-stress streets. Sometimes, change builds up for years. And sometimes, it bursts. Fifteen months after American bikeway designer Nick Falbo coined the phrase “protected intersection” to refer to a Dutch-style intersection between two streets […]

America Could Have Been Building Protected Bike Lanes for the Last 40 Years

|
Salt Lake City is on track to implement the nation’s first “protected intersection” — a Dutch-inspired design to minimize conflicts between cyclists and drivers at crossings. For American cities, this treatment feels like the cutting edge, but a look back at the history of bike planning in the United States reveals that even here, this idea is far from new. In fact, […]

Where Are the Best Places for Protected Intersections in Your City?

|
Protected intersections are the best new thing in American bike infrastructure since, well, protected bike lanes. They greatly reduce the potential for turning conflicts between drivers and cyclists — left turns on a bike, especially, become easier and less stressful — and they make pedestrian crossings much safer too. So far, a few cities around the country have […]

Vote for the Best Urban Street Transformation of 2015

|
It’s almost time to say goodbye to 2015, which means we’re about to hand out Streetsies to recognize achievements for walking, biking, and transit in American cities this year. Earlier this month we asked readers for nominations for the Best Urban Street Transformation of the year, and here are the standouts from your submissions. It’s a great batch and […]

A “Dutch Junction” With Glow-in-the-Dark Bike Lanes Now Exists — in Texas

|
It’s America’s first unsignalized “Dutch Junction” — a type of intersection with protected space for cycling. It even has solar luminescent bike lanes. And here’s the kicker — it’s in the heart of Texas. The Texas Transportation Institute at Texas A&M led the design and installation at a campus intersection in College Station. The Dutch Junction is designed to keep bicyclists out of […]