Re: Digest for rhcoc@googlegroups.com - 4 Messages in 1 Topic

[tom mcmahon]

I was just in Sedona, Arizona which features many turning circles and brand new bike lanes. We took a guided bike tour to begin our little vacation there, and the guide explained how we needed to navigate the turning circles. The bike lanes end just before a turning circle, and start again just after. The cyclist should take the centre of the lane and go around the circle in the centre of their lane. If the cyclist tries to stay to the side, it can cause problems for everyone, with cars trying to squeeze past and then (perhaps) trying to make a turn that could T-bone a cyclist. So we followed the guide's instructions and always went to the middle of the lane entering and through the turning circles, and had no problems at all. The basic principle is that cyclists are entitled to the whole lane, not just cars. Perhaps some signage in Winnipeg for motorists might be needed or helpful; all the motorists in Sedona were perfectly accommodating and there was no special signage.

Tom

On 16-Oct-10, at 4:39 PM, rhcoc+...@googlegroups.com wrote:

  Today's Topic Summary

Group: http://groups.google.com/group/rhcoc/topics

• Grosvenor treatment [4 Updates]

 Topic: Grosvenor treatment

Gord McGonigal <gord.mc...@gmail.com> Oct 15 02:09PM -0700 ^

 
Add me to the list of people that currently don't understand the
treatment on Grosvenor.
 
West of Cambridge, at the traffic circles every couple of blocks, the
bike lane ends and bikes must merge with cars before going through the
circle. The geometry further implies that cyclists must yield to
overtaking motorists (as it is clearly the bike lane that ends). I am
not sure how this is an improvement for me. I suppose it is nice I may
not have to stop at a 4-way stop, but the constant need to merge I
found to be quite annoying (even in light traffic). And for
inexperienced cyclists it seems downright dangerous if they have to
merge with cars every several blocks!
 
East of Grosvenor it is not as bad, but I think there are still
problems. The sharrows are not placed far enough away from the parked
cars. It makes no sense that the safest line for a bicycle should be
along the edge of the sharrow and not the middle.
 
 
Gord

 

Gord McGonigal <gord.mc...@gmail.com> Oct 15 02:11PM -0700 ^

 
Add me to the list of people that currently don't understand the
treatment on Grosvenor.
 
West of Cambridge, at the traffic circles every couple of blocks, the
bike lane ends and bikes must merge with cars before going through the
circle. The geometry further implies that cyclists must yield to
overtaking motorists (as it is clearly the bike lane that ends). I am
not sure how this is an improvement for me. I suppose it is nice I may
not have to stop at a 4-way stop, but the constant need to merge I
found to be quite annoying (even in light traffic). And for
inexperienced cyclists it seems downright dangerous if they have to
merge with cars every several blocks!
 
East of Cambridge it is not as bad, but there is still a problem. The
sharrows are not placed far enough away from the parked cars. It makes
no sense that the safest line for a bicycle should be along the edge
of the sharrow and not the middle.
 
 
Gord

 

David Wieser <david...@gmail.com> Oct 15 04:13PM -0500 ^

 
I agree with everything Gord said. I do like that there are the traffic calming circles instead of stop signs. They could just be designed better for cyclists.
 
David
 
Sent from my iPhone
 

 

Mark Cohoe <mco...@mts.net> Oct 15 04:33PM -0700 ^

 
I agree with Gord on the issue of the placement of sharrows on
Grovesenor, but disagree about the design of the traffic calming
circles.
 
I measured the location of the sharrows for west bound traffic last
Sunday, and found that they were centered just 10ft (3m) from the
curb. Given that a typical car door will open to 9 1/2 feet, a
cyclist traveling in the center of the sharrow (which is the intuitive
and intended positioning of cyclists) would be cycling within the door
zone, which defeats the purpose of the sharrow. The lane widths along
this section of road are 2.4m (8ft) for parking, plus 4.3m (14ft) for
each of the travel lanes. So far, so good. The Transportation
Association of Canada recommends a minimum distance of 3.4m from curb
to the center of the sharrow marking when they are painted next to
parked cars. Clearly, that is not the case here. I sent an email to
Kevin Nixon and Ruth Marr pointing out this discrepency on Sunday. I
have not yet heard back. Presumably this can be fixed.
 
Regarding the traffic circles, Gord is right that the geometry will
force cyclists to merge into the travel lane prior to the traffic
circle, with bicycles and cars traveling single file through the
traffic circle. In the CROW manual I have, the recommended best
practice for bike lanes entering roundabouts (and presumably traffic
circles) is to drop the bike lane and merge cyclists into the travel
lane. Although this seems counter intuitive, it does make sense.
Anyone approaching a traffic circle must scan for vehicles already in
the traffic circle and give way to any vehicles that are present.
That means drivers will be focused on traffic from their left as they
enter the traffic circle. I think asking them to merge to the right
as they come up to a traffic circle would have led to drivers cutting
off cyclists. Similarly, I think that if the bike lane extended up to
the traffic circle, cyclists would have been tempted to ignore the
traffic circle and follow the straight line through without yielding
to traffic already in the traffic circle. The one complaint I may
have with the design is that the dashed line leading up to the traffic
circles does not begin early enough (although I have not measured
it). I would like to see the dashed line start 10m in front of the
traffic circles to give a reasonable amount of space to complete this
merge.
 
This need to merge in and out of the traffic lane is a bit of a catch
22. The traffic circles slow down traffic, which is good, and having
cyclists merge in and out heightens awareness of our presence. The
downside is that some cyclists might not be very comfortable doing
that. One area where the city definitely failed was in public
education over how to use the new traffic circles. We asked for and
received assurances there would be an educational component to the new
infrastructure, but obviously that never came through. I guess it
will be up to us to provide that education.
 
Mark
 
 

 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "River Heights-Corydon-Osborne" group.
To post to this group, send email to rh...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rhcoc+un...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rhcoc?hl=en.

[Anders Swanson]

Tom, 

In the case of the traffic calming circle in Sedona, were there any other indications that it was a bike route, other than the physical infrastructure and the painted bike lane?     ......such as signs indicating "bike boulevard", etc... or "Bike Route X" . ..  ..I ask because a comprehensive route signage strategy is the next step here. It seems to me that, aside from providing benefits for wayfinding, the route signage might help inform motorists that a particular street has special significance (if the bike lanes weren't enough), perhaps prompting folks to give a little more leeway?

Also, I've attached a couple examples of the signs you are suggesting. . . . perhaps placed just before the bike lane becomes hatched?

Anders