« Bike lane disputes aren't identical, but they do rhyme | Main | Martin Luther King, Jr. Avenue Corridor Safety Study Public Meeting »

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Glad to hear that the modes are separated, but someone didn't get the memo at the intersections. DDOT clearly has at least seen how to design bike lanes through intersections. Toole created excellent designs for C St NE:
http://www.cstreetstudy.com/system/images/1528/original/Recommended_Alternative.pdf

Good intersection design is not rocket science. See page 33 of this summary of the new Mass Bike Lane Design guide:
1) Separate Conflict Points in space:
• Negotiate one potential conflict at a time
• Provide space for motorist to wait while yielding to bicyclists
• Separate bicycle crossing from pedestrian crossing
• Provide space for turning and queuing bicyclists
2) Separate Conflict Points in Time
• Protected signal phase for bicyclists
• Provide head start
http://www.massdotinnovation.com/Pdfs/Session2E-SeperatedBikeLanes.pdf

In DDOT's intersection designs, instead of separating the bike crossing from the ped crossing, they actively and unnecessarily merge them together into a confusing shared space. The awkward shared curb ramps are also at an angle that isn't even aligned with the directions cyclists want to travel (straight!). It's just bad design, and DDOT should know better, especially since these are being built in concrete and cannot be easily altered.

At 2nd glance, it looks like the intersection of Virginia at 5th is done properly, but the other one is terrible.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Banner design by creativecouchdesigns.com

City Paper's Best Local Bike Blog 2009

Categories

 Subscribe in a reader