Originally Posted by patc
I think its a strange combination of separated and integrated facility, and I'd really like to hear from the engineers why they went this way. If you can merge into the nearest lane at any point, I would not consider it separated (I refuse to use 'segregated'). This design allows that, albeit through a shoulder, so its not truly separated. On the other hand I can't really call it integrated either when the "bike lane" is not adjacent to the other travel lanes.
If nothing else its different, and may be worth building for that reason alone. The feedback from people actually using the road will be far more valuable then our opinions.
In my area, there is a place with a short stretch like this: travel lane, crosshatched shoulder, then bike lane. Then it approaches an intersection and a right turn only lane appears in the space of the crosshatched shoulder. The bike lane disappears, but the bike lane cyclist would get dumped into a right turn only lane if she stayed in the bike lane. So I ride in the left hand portion of the crosshatched shoulder.