Google sponsored links
Interesting article, and comments, from the May 2nd Portland Tribune, about Portland's experiment with European style "bike box" road markings at intersections. The city is using them in an attempt to encourage cycling, and reduce right hook accidents. But, some cycling advocates (and some traffic engineers) think they're ill-advised.
"Some cycling advocates are trying to stick a wrench in the spokes of Portland’s new bike box program, saying they’re confusing and inherently unsafe, and should not be approved by the federal government."
http://portlandtribune.com/news/story.php?story_id=120967579764787700
This is an archived thread, you can find the full version of this thread, with images, links and more content
here.
Ready to buy? Check out these two online bike stores:
-
http://www.nashbar.com (you can find the latest bike nashbar coupons in
this thread)
-
http://www.performancebike.com (you can find the latest performance bike coupons in
this thread)
Cya on the forums,
- The BikeForums Team
-
http://www.bikeforums.net
Several cyclists, however, including two Portlanders and a California-based traffic engineer and cycling advocate, have challenged Portland’s application to have the boxes’ design approved by the federal government.
Gee, I wonder who this was... Not mentioned by name, and from the next state under... yet he has to "get involved... "
This was presented by someone respectable in the comments section to the article referenced above:
"• Increasing the visibility of bicyclists by allowing them to move to the front of the queue where they are in full view of motorists on all sides of the intersection
• Enabling bicyclists to maneuver to the correct position for turning movements during the red signal phase"
I'm actually all for bike boxes, but then again, I'm all for lane-splitting, too. And if lane splitting is not legal, or if you're one of them who thinks you should wait in a dedicated position in traffic at stop lights and signs, then these make no sense because of course they encourage 'filtering' to the front of a stopped line of traffic. In places where bicycling is an accepted and respected form of travel, these work great and are a great idea. In the US? Not so sure...
Are the ones in Portland for bikes only? Because I think in other countries, they're set up for and used by motorized two-wheelers as well.
Gee, I wonder who this was... Not mentioned by name, and from the next state under... yet he has to "get involved... "
His comments and name appeared below the article:
Robert M Shanteau, PhD, PE
Consulting Traffic Engineer
13 Primrose Cir
Seaside, CA 93955-4133
Bike boxes can and do work in other countries. the anti accomodationalists HAVE to flock like vultures to the large US city that entertains the highest percentage of bicycle commuters in the country- due in no small part to a focus on bikes as transportation and using bike specific infrastructure implementations.
Oh wow, I got an answer...
I am the "California-based traffic engineer and cycling advocate [who has] challenged Portland’s application to have the boxes’ design approved by the federal government." If anyone would like to join the effort against Portland's efforts to include bike boxes and colored bike lanes in the national Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, then email me at rmshant@gmail.com. Bob Shanteau
There is more... Some commenters have asked about the reasons for my opposition to Portland's request to experiment with bike boxes. Here is the letter that I wrote to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA):
http://rmshant.googlepages.com/Letterrequestingrejectionofbikeboxex.pdf
Here is a quote:
"[T]he proposed traffic control device cannot meet the intent of the application, particularly at locations without right turn only lanes. Furthermore, bicycle lane striping practices at such intersections in Oregon do not conform to the 2003 Manual on Uniform Traffic Ccntrol Devices (MUTCD). Oregon traffic law at such intersections does not conform to the guidance in the American Association of State Highway and Transporation Officials (AASHTO) Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities. Even though the proposed traffic control device would be installed at signalized intersections, signal operation is not part of the test. The proposed research study is not scientifically sound because the control locations are not randomly elected, the experimental treatment is confounded with no right turn on red, and the control treatment is inappropriate."
"The safety issues that the City of Portland's application is intended to address were created by the failure of the State of Oregon to follow the MUTCD and the AASHTO Guide. The appropriate response by FHWA should be to encourage the State of Oregon to change their traffic laws and bicycle lane design practices, not to experiment with a new traffic control device."
By the way, Portland's application relates to including bike boxes as an approved traffic control device in the the national Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. If they succeed, then it will apply nationwide, including in front of my house. That is why I am involved in the effort to deny their application.
Robert M Shanteau, PhD, PE
Consulting Traffic Engineer
13 Primrose Cir
Seaside, CA 93955-4133
Voice: (831) 394-9420
Cell: (831) 917-0248
FAX: (831) 394-6045
email: rmshant@gmail.com
So apparently he is not objecting to the Bike Boxes, but to this particular form of bike box without corresponding traffic signal controls. OK I do remember seeing bike boxes in Paris, and indeed they did have their own special traffic lights... I don't know if that is 100% 1:1 bike box for bike traffic light, but that seems to be the argument here.
Mr. Shanteau's voice can be heard more clearly, when he faces away from you and bends over
Gee, I wonder who this was... Not mentioned by name, and from the next state under... yet he has to "get involved... "
See Chainguard List for the answer. Various Strategies for obstructing the Portland plans are discussed and the CA fellow of interest is active there.
By the way, Portland's application relates to including bike boxes as an approved traffic control device in the the national Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. If they succeed, then it will apply nationwide, including in front of my house. That is why I am involved in the effort to deny their application.
This is a silly fear. They only way the Bike Box is going to get approved is if Portland can demonstrate that they work. If they work then their is nothing to complain about and if they don't work then they won't get approved, end of story.
Even if they do get approved they will not miraculously appear around the US. It is still up to the localities to choose what is appropriate. So if Bob does not want one in front of his house he still has opportunity to get involved locally. Of course what might really hurt his case is if the Bike Box proves to work real well, that would be real hard to fight. So there might be some legitimate concern here. :rolleyes:
I saw the boxes used extensively by motorcycles in London, and I dont think anyone was confused about how to use them. They didnt have the bright coloured marking of the Portland one shown, which I like.
I have no objection to properly designed bike boxes, but when the come up on the right (i.e., wrong) side of a through-or-right travel lane, they lose my support. If you are going to have a bike box, let's at least follow norms of proper traffic flow, with all through traffic, including cyclists, to the left of all right-turning traffic.
WHy not just lane split to the front, then get to the center front of the lane? Seems right hooks are unlikely at that point. SO you accomplish the same thing without having to do anything special.
I have no objection to properly designed bike boxes, but when the come up on the right (i.e., wrong) side of a through-or-right travel lane, they lose my support. If you are going to have a bike box, let's at least follow norms of proper traffic flow, with all through traffic, including cyclists, to the left of all right-turning traffic.
This appears to be the issue of why Robert M Shanteau disagrees with these bike boxes... unlike European bike boxes there is no "no turn on red" sign nor separate stop light signal for cyclists that allows them to go ahead before the motor traffic, as is the case in parts of Europe.
As a frequent pedestrian, I see many intersections at which a prohibition against turns on red would enhance safety. For starters, I would very much like to see right turn on red privileges granted to the curb lane only, such that there would be an automatic "no right on red" for that second right turn lane.
As a frequent pedestrian, I see many intersections at which a prohibition against turns on red would enhance safety. For starters, I would very much like to see right turn on red privileges granted to the curb lane only, such that there would be an automatic "no right on red" for that second right turn lane.
Right turns on red are nasty especially for a contraflow pedestrian but two right turn on red lanes? TWO!!! That's totally nuts.
Right turns on red are nasty especially for a contraflow pedestrian but two right turn on red lanes? TWO!!! That's totally nuts.
Welcome to California, where the car is king.
I have noticed new signs being posted at many busy corners reminding motorists to wait for pedestrians that are crossing... so indeed the laws have been forgotten by the majority of motorists... it is right on red, AFTER STOPPING.
Right turns on red are nasty especially for a contraflow pedestrian but two right turn on red lanes? TWO!!! That's totally nuts.
It is common to have two RT lanes at busier intersections. The outside one is RTO, the inside one thru and RT. There is no law I am aware of that indicates that RTOR is restricted to inside lane only.
S and N bound Price have dual RT lanes:
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&ie=UTF8&ll=33.378504,-111.893126&spn=0.00136,0.002146&t=k&z=19
Al
bike boxes are used extensively in other countries. Portland Oregon should install, monitor, modify and continue to improve their use of bike infrastructure including bike boxes.
Would all the city have to do to make this irritant from California go away is make the bike boxed intersections "no right turn on red?'
the only reason these guys are protesting:
1) ego
2) paid by car interests.
i'm not completely convinced bike boxes are the answer, but is that a reason to block efforts to find an answer to that question?
and the oregon state dude's argument is a joke - it really seems he has no idea what the purpose of a bike box is, nor how they work. that's not so good coming from the head of transportation of one's state.
bike boxes are used extensively in other countries. Portland Oregon should install, monitor, modify and continue to improve their use of bike infrastructure including bike boxes.
Would all the city have to do to make this irritant from California go away is make the bike boxed intersections "no right turn on red?'
No, apparently a separate traffic control light for cyclists is also needed.
the only reason these guys are protesting:
1) ego
2) paid by car interests.
i'm not completely convinced bike boxes are the answer, but is that a reason to block efforts to find an answer to that question?
and the oregon state dude's argument is a joke - it really seems he has no idea what the purpose of a bike box is, nor how they work. that's not so good coming from the head of transportation of one's state.
More info about lack of love by some Portland cyclists for VC friends/experts who know what's best for everybody else.
http://bikeportland.org/2008/04/30/magazine-editor-blames-bike-lanes-for-portland-fatalities/
seperate signalized traffic heads are NOT required for installation or effective use of bike boxes. they do aid and guide traffic movements, so consideration is merited, but hardly required for a bike box to be effective.
For a bike box to work well the entire width of the lane should be painted blue, perhaps starting 100' back from stop line - motorist would of course be permitted to enter it. A separate stop line for cyclists ahead of motorist line can be added with or without advance signaling.
But in shown implementation by only painting the right most part of the lane blue provides filtering space only for right turning cyclists (some thru or left cyclists may try to get to box with sufficient time before light changes green to merge left in bike box.) Thru and left turning cyclist will need to filter on the left, however now motor vehicles will be left biased in lane reducing filtering room on the left.
Al
fearmongering.
Dedicated bike boxes provide the following advantages(natbi and ridgeway, 2002)
:Increasing the visibility of bicyclists by allowing them to move to the front of the Queue, in full view of motorists on all sides of an intersection.
:enable bicyclists to manuver to the correct position for turning movements during the red signal phase.
:not significantly increasing delay to motor traffic.
;reduces conflicts between turning bicycles and motor vehicles
: provides a buffer between ped and motorized traffic at crosswalks.
It is common to have two RT lanes at busier intersections. The outside one is RTO, the inside one thru and RT. There is no law I am aware of that indicates that RTOR is restricted to inside lane only.
S and N bound Price have dual RT lanes:
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&ie=UTF8&ll=33.378504,-111.893126&spn=0.00136,0.002146&t=k&z=19
Al
Depends on the locale. Almost all double RTOR lanes in SC the inside lane (closest to the center of the road) is not normally allowed to RTOR, where as the lane closest to the curb can. This is a stupid situation, the center lane will creep up making it difficult to see if you can safely make a RTOR. Personally I think the RTOR should be done away with in the name of pedestrian safety. I have had to jump out of the way and in one case bang on the side of a car that was in the process of turning with the driver looking left and not at the cross walk.
Aaron:)
bike boxes are used extensively in other countries. Portland Oregon should install, monitor, modify and continue to improve their use of bike infrastructure including bike boxes.
Would all the city have to do to make this irritant from California go away is make the bike boxed intersections "no right turn on red?'
FYI...
All the bike boxed intersections in Portland are "no right turn on red" and are explicitly signed as such. It wouldn't make sense otherwise.
http://www.portlandonline.com/transportation/index.cfm?c=46717&
Why does Portland want bike boxes included in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices? Does it have to do with federal funding or the city's (potential) liability?
Otherwise, if Portland wants bike boxes, why go through the hassle prior to demonstrating its efficacy?
It is unclear whether Shanteau or Schubert are acting on self-interest, ego, altruism, and so on. But it really matters little; either you think they have a good argument or not.
This appears to be the issue of why Robert M Shanteau disagrees with these bike boxes... unlike European bike boxes there is no "no turn on red" sign nor separate stop light signal for cyclists that allows them to go ahead before the motor traffic, as is the case in parts of Europe.
incorrect
But in shown implementation by only painting the right most part of the lane blue provides filtering space only for right turning cyclists (some thru or left cyclists may try to get to box with sufficient time before light changes green to merge left in bike box.) Thru and left turning cyclist will need to filter on the left, however now motor vehicles will be left biased in lane reducing filtering room on the left.
Al
I am missing part of your point Al. I got the sense that bike boxes often have staggered lights as well; i.e., bikes get a green light ... wait a five seconds ... cars get a green light. Do you think that the amount of time would be adequate for cyclists to adjust if they are in the process of filtering and the light changes?
Or is my understanding that bike boxes come with staggered lights incorrect?
Some commenters have asked about the reasons for my opposition to Portland's request to experiment with bike boxes. Here is the letter that I wrote to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA):
http://rmshant.googlepages.com/Lette...fbikeboxex.pdf
Here is a quote:
"[T]he proposed traffic control device cannot meet the intent of the application, particularly at locations without right turn only lanes. Furthermore, bicycle lane striping practices at such intersections in Oregon do not conform to the 2003 Manual on Uniform Traffic Ccntrol Devices (MUTCD). Oregon traffic law at such intersections does not conform to the guidance in the American Association of State Highway and Transporation Officials (AASHTO) Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities. Even though the proposed traffic control device would be installed at signalized intersections, signal operation is not part of the test. The proposed research study is not scientifically sound because the control locations are not randomly elected, the experimental treatment is confounded with no right turn on red, and the control treatment is inappropriate."
"The safety issues that the City of Portland's application is intended to address were created by the failure of the State of Oregon to follow the MUTCD and the AASHTO Guide. The appropriate response by FHWA should be to encourage the State of Oregon to change their traffic laws and bicycle lane design practices, not to experiment with a new traffic control device."
By the way, Portland's application relates to including bike boxes as an approved traffic control device in the the national Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. If they succeed, then it will apply nationwide, including in front of my house. That is why I am involved in the effort to deny their application.
Robert M Shanteau, PhD, PE
Consulting Traffic Engineer
13 Primrose Cir
Seaside, CA 93955-4133
Voice: (831) 394-9420
Cell: (831) 917-0248
FAX: (831) 394-6045
email: rmshant@gmail.com
Mr Shanteau has a very simplistic view of a "scientific experiment". What he means is that this is a small scale experiment which will give limited information... but we knew that already. Even if it only gives information about traffic at those specific intersections, the information is quite useful.
FYI...
All the bike boxed intersections in Portland are "no right turn on red" and are explicitly signed as such. It wouldn't make sense otherwise.
http://www.portlandonline.com/transportation/index.cfm?c=46717&
Opps I read the blurb from Robert M Shanteau wrong, I thought he was implying that right turn on red should not be used at these intersections... Apparently that is the case here as you have pointed out.
...the proposed research study is not scientifically sound because the control locations are not randomly elected, the experimental treatment is confounded with no right turn on red, and the control treatment is inappropriate."
Of course all this does is emphasize that indeed Right Turn on Red is a problem for cyclists, as I have long felt. (There was no RTOR in Texas where I first learned to ride a bike... and the streets worked quite well for even the young me, way back then... only later, especially in California, did I come to dislike RTOR as motorists often do not really look for anything but other cars when making their decisions to go at a red, and often pull right out in front of cyclists, whether centered in the lane or not).
Mr Shanteau has a very simplistic view of a "scientific experiment". What he means is that this is a small scale experiment which will give limited information... but we knew that already. Even if it only gives information about traffic at those specific intersections, the information is quite useful.
I suppose that any data collected from years of use in parts of Europe is just not valid, eh?
I am missing part of your point Al. I got the sense that bike boxes often have staggered lights as well; i.e., bikes get a green light ... wait a five seconds ... cars get a green light. Do you think that the amount of time would be adequate for cyclists to adjust if they are in the process of filtering and the light changes?
Or is my understanding that bike boxes come with staggered lights incorrect?
Staggered or not there will be times when a cyclist finds themselves filtering forward in the BL or turn/merging left from the BL into/across the Box as the 'car' light turns to green. If staggered the cyclist may see the 'bike' light turn green and know the 'car' light will shortly. At what point do they make a decision to not try and make it to the box to turn left and instead attempt to merge left into traffic flow at a point that is often too late to begin a safe negotiated merge?
Al
Mr Shanteau has a very simplistic view of a "scientific experiment".
Didn't we have the same problem with another "engineer" and advocate that used one ride on one path to determine that all paths are inferior? :rolleyes:
At what point do they make a decision to not try and make it to the box to turn left and instead attempt to merge left into traffic flow at a point that is often too late to begin a safe negotiated merge?
Al
OK. Presumably they would have to wait for the next light past some threshold -- might get exciting for the aggressive cyclist -- if they are still in the extreme right position. Which I guess is not that different from someone riding a sidewalk.
General question: What typically happens in the European model?
My guess is that timing the lights differently would largely avoid the scenario that Al envisions.
Mr Shanteau has a very simplistic view of a "scientific experiment". What he means is that this is a small scale experiment which will give limited information... but we knew that already. Even if it only gives information about traffic at those specific intersections, the information is quite useful.
Well ... that isn't quite right. A non-random sample could be biased as well as less informative -- which I take to mean higher variance than would be implied by naive sample statistics.
But I do think that Mr. Shanteau misses the point that bike boxes would not be applied randomly either. At least that is my understanding of bike boxes. That is, they are intending to address specific traffic conditions and if Portland's trial intersections satisfy those conditions well, then the trial is informative.
I suppose that any data collected from years of use in parts of Europe is just not valid, eh?
There is one -- I guess at least one would be more accurate -- big difference between Europe and the US/Britain. Auto drivers have a greater burden of proof with respect to liability for an accident.
Personally I think the RTOR should be done away with in the name of pedestrian safety. I have had to jump out of the way and in one case bang on the side of a car that was in the process of turning with the driver looking left and not at the cross walk.
Amen! Personally as a pedestrian I have gotten a free ride on a hood of a car from time to time as drivers tried to creep up while I'm in the crosswalk right in front of them.
Bike box? Will my bike get scratched?
:p
For guys like me who had no idea how to use one:
http://www.streetfilms.org/archives/how-to-use-a-bike-box/
There is another way also, if the one-way street you're on has no bike lane. Merge early into the rightmost lane before turning right; merge left for left.
Why does Portland want bike boxes included in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices? Does it have to do with federal funding or the city's (potential) liability?
My understanding is yes on both counts.
Regardless, speaking as a Portland cyclist, I'm all for them. Mr. Shanteau may be right about the efficacy or the validity of the "experiment". I'm of the opinion that it doesn't mean a damn thing. Portland's bike boxes either work or they don't. They either make those 14 intersections safer, or they don't. If they don't, then Portland's Office of Transportation will remove them. The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices has proven itself unable to create safer streets - as it should: as a manual, it can only contain those items which have PROVEN themselves to be safe. Portland is so far ahead of the curve in the US for bike modeshare that it *has* to experiment. We're leading the way, and if what we experiment with works, then other communities should be able to try those methods and treatments for themselves.
Maybe VC and shared infrastructure *is* the best. Maybe it's not. What's more effective - writing 10,000 pages on "Effective Cycling", or actually building and testing the infrastructure? My opinion is for the latter.
In any case, I debate the relevance of ANY experiment to validate one particular treatment over another - every intersection, every community is unique, and the relevance of any "uniform" or "standard" treatment is debatable. A larger issue is distracted drivers, and the communal failure of both motorists and cyclists to maintain situational awareness, i.e. to pull their heads out of their respective behinds.
It looks to me that bike boxes encourage cyclists to get away from the right edge of the road at intersections. Since this is something I typically do, I find it hard to dismiss the bike boxes. Of course the issues of no right turn on red also tend to eliminate the problem of being on the right at intersections... But the total result is making cyclists more visible to other traffic, and that has to be a good thing.
It looks to me that bike boxes encourage cyclists to get away from the right edge of the road at intersections. Since this is something I typically do, I find it hard to dismiss the bike boxes. Of course the issues of no right turn on red also tend to eliminate the problem of being on the right at intersections... But the total result is making cyclists more visible to other traffic, and that has to be a good thing.
But Al's point is that there is a no-man's-land where a rider is either forced to navigate left or is trapped on the right if the rider mis-times the light. This may or may not counter-act the "total result" you refer to.
But Al's point is that there is a no-man's-land where a rider is either forced to navigate left or is trapped on the right if the rider mis-times the light. This may or may not counter-act the "total result" you refer to.
Ideally these bike boxes should have bike specific traffic lights... maybe that will be the next evolution.
Mr Shanteau can criticise the design of any experiment to his heart's content. Me, I used 3 such Advanced Stop Lines (ASLs UK usage) on my daily commute to work for 5 years and never experienced a left hook (UK equivalent). I did, on rare occasions do so on junctions with no ASL. I didn't, however, suffer a collision, since I always assumed that one was possible, if unlikely.
Equally, I didn't let the existence of and ASL affect my judgement about safety at such junctions. I still kept an eye on the likelihood of the lights changing as I approached and used common sense led caution to protect myself.
ASLs are simply one tool in the highway designer's kit. They aren't designed to remove the possiblity of a right hook, simply to reduce it by putting the rider in a driver's eyeline as he waits at red. Approaching the ASL when the lights are at red or green still requires your judgement and appropriate caution.
Years of European experience show that they work. They don't stop stupid drivers from misusing them, but neither do traffic signals, roundabouts, RTOR, stop signs or any other road condition. Like any other change in highway design, they will take time to "bed in" to road users' mindset - but then, roundabouts cause similar levels of initial confusion when they're installed.
The same caveat applies to any piece of highway design, even those for cyclists' benefit. Use the Mark One eyeball, common sense, caution, and your brain.
Regardless, speaking as a Portland cyclist, I'm all for them. Mr. Shanteau may be right about the efficacy or the validity of the "experiment". I'm of the opinion that it doesn't mean a damn thing. Portland's bike boxes either work or they don't. They either make those 14 intersections safer, or they don't. If they don't, then Portland's Office of Transportation will remove them. The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices has proven itself unable to create safer streets - as it should: as a manual, it can only contain those items which have PROVEN themselves to be safe. Portland is so far ahead of the curve in the US for bike modeshare that it *has* to experiment. We're leading the way, and if what we experiment with works, then other communities should be able to try those methods and treatments for themselves.
Maybe VC and shared infrastructure *is* the best. Maybe it's not. What's more effective - writing 10,000 pages on "Effective Cycling", or actually building and testing the infrastructure? My opinion is for the latter.
In any case, I debate the relevance of ANY experiment to validate one particular treatment over another - every intersection, every community is unique, and the relevance of any "uniform" or "standard" treatment is debatable. A larger issue is distracted drivers, and the communal failure of both motorists and cyclists to maintain situational awareness, i.e. to pull their heads out of their respective behinds.
I have yet to see PDOT remove any bicycle infrastructure that doesn't work. In my opinion, PDOT is correct that safety issues for cyclists need to be addressed; on the other hand, I am not convinced these bike boxes do a damn thing to either educate motorists or make cyclists safer. IMO we'd be much better off with destination-positioned bike lanes to the left of an RTOL at many of these intersections. PDOT used to build bike lanes like this but they appear to have regressed significantly recently. I avoid most of the bike lanes in Portland nowadays, as I believe most of the designs are significantly flawed.
:(
Previous -
Top -
Next
Copyright 1999 - 2007
BikeForums.Net - All rights reserved.
Common bike forum topics in clue bicycles, cycling, mountain biking,
cycling jerseys, shorts, socks, shoes and bike equiptment selection.