sggoodri

Does anybody have a photo or diagram of a bike lane that ends a proper distance before the adjacent through lane turns into a right-turn-only lane?

My home city of Cary, NC recently added bike lane striping to a road widening project, and striped the bike lane on the right hand side of a right-turn-only lane all the way to the stop line (actually, it continues to the right with the turn lane and ends after the turn). The right travel lane starts as a through lane and becomes a right turn only lane at the intersection. A through cyclist must merge out of the bike lane, across the right lane, and merge into the through lane before reaching the intersection. Most of the bicycle traffic will be going straight here. The only through lane here is a narrow lane.

I complained to the city engineering department about the striping on the right (incorrect) side of the right turn only lane and asked that the bike lane striping be dropped entirely before the right turn only markings begin, per MUTCD guidelines:

In response to my complaint, the city dashed the bike lane stripe 100 feet before the stop line! This does not provide nearly enough distance to merge over two lanes of traffic before queueing at the signal.

The city engineer made the argument that since this type of intersection (where a through lane becomes a right turn only lane) does not appear in any of the MUTCD bike lane diagrams, the markings they provided are non inconsistent with MUTCD. I provided a counter-example illustration from the North Carolina Bicycle Facilities Planning and Design Guidelines, which originally appeared in the 1991 AASHTO guide but does not appear in the newer AASHTO guide. It shows the bike lane end before the right turn only markings begin, and a new bike lane starts farther down the road to the left of the right turn only lane, with no markings connecting them. However, the city has rejected this design, presumably because it does not appear in MUTCD.

Does anybody have a picture of an intersection where the bike lane is ended properly prior to a right turn only lane that I can use to try to convince to drop the bike lane far enough in advance?

-Steve Goodridge

JeffB502

I don't have a picture, but there is a section I ride regularly where the bike lane ends well before the intersection, then is striped to the left of the RTOL. I usually turn right there, so I ride in the center of the RTOL and signal to any motorists that seem confused.

CB HI

Sorry, the ones in Hawaii are worse than NCs.

Bekologist

without any pavement widening, the travel lane turns into a right turn lane, and the bike lane is dashed to merge across the lane that turns into a right turn lane.

I think this is close to what you're describing.

sggoodri

Thanks, that's exactly the intersection type.

The 1991 AASHTO guide features a diagram much like your photo, except without the dashed line connecting the two bike lane segments. The more recent AASHTO guide has nothing like it.

The rationale for having no dashed line connecting the two bike lane segments is that having no line encourages cyclists to merge laterally across the travel lane by looking and yielding. The dotted stripe sort of implies that motorists are crossing a bike lane, and are required to yield to cyclists, as opposed to cyclists being required to yield before moving laterally. I believe that it's safer for the cyclist to yield, because some motorists won't expect the cyclist to suddenly move across their path.

Does anyone have a picture like this one, but without the dashed line crossing the travel lane?

This picture is still a lot better than what Cary built, with the bike lane continuing all the way to the stop line on the right side of the travel lane.

Bekologist

'sort of implies?'

why not place a big sign that states 'Cars yield to bikes' and a stencil that reads the same approaching the yield zone?

I've seen long stretches of bike lane striped to the left of a right turn lane, and signs regualarily stating 'cars yield to bikes'.....

fight the fight, your road engineers sound distinctly anti-bicycle. sounds like NC wants to keep bikes for transportation stunted.

Mr. Underbridge

Not only that, that's inconsistent with what you just showed them from the code, right? 100 feet before it starts, not 100 feet before it ends. They'll probably be pissed, but they seem to be lacking in reading comprehension skills.

sggoodri

Yes, they don't like it when I point out their problems at reading comprehension.

Some people, including traffic engineers, have a hard time imagining cyclists merging with through traffic. They view intersections as places where turning motorists and through cyclists cross paths, not actually merge past one another. This prevents the engineers from interpreting the MUTCD properly, and results in designs lacking adequate distance to merge.

This is why I'm signing up local planners and engineers to take an LAB Road 1 course this summer, so they will understand how merging works on a bike.

-Steve Goodridge, LCI 1690

sggoodri

At this type of intersection, bicycle drivers must move laterally from the right to left, across a lane of traffic. Motorists in that lane are just going straight in the vicinity of the cyclists' lateral movement. The conventional rules of the road require drivers to yield before moving laterally; straight drivers staying in their lane are not required to yield. Expecting car drivers to yield to cyclists moving laterally across the car drivers' lane is contrary to the normal rules of the road and therefore a likely source of problems.

But at other, more common right turn only lanes, where a new RTO lane starts to the right of the bike lane and the right through lane continues straight, it is the right turning motorist who must merge across the path of bicycle traffic in order to change lanes. In such a case, "yield to bikes" is an appropriate idea consistent with the normal rules for vehicular traffic since the motorist must change lanes.

Itsjustb

Is this a North Carolina special? The worst stretch of my commute (i.e. the stretch where I've had the most dangerous/insane interactions with drivers) is this scenario exactly, with the added bonus of having a hard median divider between the northbound and southbound lanes providing no room for cars to pass me. All of this at 55+ mph because they've never bothered to replace the signs redcuing the speed limit after the last round of construction.

But I'm not bitter.

randya

It will be years before the MUTCD and AASHTO design guides catch up to current practice in this area. Any City traffic engineer who claims to be 'conservative' in his or her practice yet insists on using out-of-date standards is exposing their city to a ton of liability, IMO. The flip side is that their should be an accelerated process for revising the MUTCD and AASHTO guidelines, to get rid of outdated and dangerous designs and replace them with state of the current practice designs.

sggoodri

NCDOT seems to have a talent for approving road projects that place narrow through lanes to the left of either wide right turn only lanes or RTO lanes with either right-side bike lanes or right-side wide paved shoulders. It seems that they view cyclists as pedestrians on wheels, MUTCD and the legislature be darned.

What worries me especially is that I think a lot of these projects are getting the blessing of the NCDOT Bike-Ped Division, which seems to have taken a turn for the worse lately regarding accommodating proper roadway cycling and supporting cyclists' rights on the road.

randya

you probably need to identify the individual or individuals in the bike-ped division who are responsible and reeducate them. I have some similar concerns about the new crop of 'safety experts' at PDOT locally. Some of the new projects seem to be a step backwards from the projects of ten years ago, and it's taking PDOT forever to adopt sharrows, the City's Traffic Engineer is doing way to much hemming and hawwing about the fact that sharrows aren't in the MUTCD; they should follow San Francisco's lead and JUST DO IT.

yes

Steve, don't know if this helps, but there is a bike lane that goes to the left of the RTO lane on Edwards Mill at the Reedy Creek intersection in Raleigh. I forget exactly how the merge portion works (how the lines are painted), but the bike lane is straight. The RTO lane appears to the right of the bike lane.

B/t/w - do you know what is going on with the bike lanes that are newly painted on 54 just east of Maynard?
Seems like they are orphaned, but it's a nice improvement for that section of 54.

noisebeam

This design is terrible.
An experienced cyclist would merge long before the dashed diagonal line indicates the merge point
An inexperienced cyclist is likely to be lulled into thinking they can merge left without negotating first

Al

sggoodri

At the intersection of Highway 54/Chapel Hill Road westbound and Maynard Road, a new right-turn-only lane begins to the right of the bike lane. The markings comply with MUTCD.

At the intersection of Highway 54/Chapel Hill Road westbound and Reedy Creek Road, the bike lane is striped to the right of a right-turn-only lane. This is the problem intersection I am writing about.

Elsewhere on the newly repaved 54 are numerous high-volume intersections without right turn only lanes. The bike lane striping continues all the way to the intersection, to the right of travel lanes that are marked as dual destination straight-and-right-turn. These are likely right-hook locations for cyclists who stay in the bike lane. It seems to me that if the right turning volume is high enough to warrant a multi-destination lane marking, the bike lane striping should end early or at least become dashed to encourage turning drivers to merge right and legitimize cyclists merging left on approach. This is supported by the AASHTO guide. However, I have not brought up these intersections with the city yet.

Between the intersections, the additional pavement width may improve conditions for cyclists as long as it stays clean. If the Edwards Mill bike lane is any indication, it probably will fill up with debris. I don't know if Cary will be willing to sweep the bike lanes when cyclists complain, since Highway 54 is a state maintained road. The state certainly won't sweep it.

Helmet Head

zeytoun

I haven't ridden on it, so I don't know how smoothly it works in the real world.

However, I think it's much better then a bike lane routing to the right of the RTOL. Do you think it is better or worse then that?

noisebeam

Of course having the BL stay to the right of a RTOL is worse. But why fix terrible with bad, when better is possible?

Al

zeytoun

If he can try to get something better then the one in the picture, then by all means he should. Do you have a pic of what you consider a good lane negotiating around a RTOL?

Helmet Head

Do you mean a film clip?

Anyway, noisebeam has long stated his position: end bike lanes 200' prior to intersection.

noisebeam

Thats right. And I have a film clip of such that works very well. I can post tomorrow.

This is a good example of trying to force a bike lane where one just isn't appropriate.

Al

zeytoun

Ah, OK, got it. No bike lane of any kind within 200 feet of an intersection. Because the lack of bike lane will encourage cyclists to be destination positioned, and a bike lane in the picture will cause everyone to just assume that the other party will yield.

btw, is this based on any real world data, albeit anecdotal?

My anecdotal evidence is that when I observe behavior on the sort of laned intersection in the pic, both drivers and cyclist negotiate fairly smoothly, drivers being especially cognizant of cyclists, and cyclists exhibiting more destination based positioning. But you have found the opposite to be true on the roads you have observed?

randya

I don't think so, I think they're just blowing smoke out their posterior orifices.

Helmet Head

No one has ever claimed the bold part to be true, so far as I know.
The point is you either know what you're doing, in which case the stripe does nothing for you, or you don't, in which case the stripe is more likely to cause more harm (in the form of inducing a false sense of security) than good.

My anecdotal evidence is that when cyclists are not killed it's mostly because motorists are competent.
Most cyclists are sitting ducks if a motorist happens to make a bonehead move in a context that is relevant to the cyclist.