Virtues of the WLSP Improvement Project with Northbound Bike Lane
The existing facility is unsafe. The proposed project will fix it at a small cost while addressing all the concerns of the community. While citizens expect this neighborhood to have boulevard style sidewalks, curb and gutter, typical Redmond bicycle lanes, and planters in the median, this would require the full 60' of public ROW and astronomical costs for slope, drainage, soil, and vegetation mitigation. The proposed project addresses all the concerns at a fraction of the cost:
|
 Space taken by 40 non-moving cars (add 100' separation for 30 MPH safe travel distance)
|
The existing facility, which looks and feels like a shared use path, violates all major American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) principles for roadway design (listed below). A study done on the parkway validates these concerns. Go to the call to action page to tell Redmond City Council your firsthand experience. Here's an excerpt from AASHTO. Violated principles are highlighted:
Separation Between Shared Use Paths and Roadways
When two-way shared use paths are located immediately adjacent to a roadway, some operational problems are likely to occur. In some cases, paths along highways for short sections are permissible, given an appropriate level of separation between facilities [such as in the SR520 bike path]. Some problems with paths located immediately adjacent to roadways are as follows:
1. Unless separated, they require one direction of bicycle traffic to ride against motor vehicle traffic, contrary to normal rules of the road.
2. When the path ends, bicyclists going against traffic will tend to continue to travel on the wrong side of the street. Likewise, bicyclists approaching a shared use path often travel on the wrong side of the street in getting to the path. Wrong-way travel by bicyclists is a major cause of bicycle/automobile crashes and should be discouraged at every opportunity.
3. At intersections, motorists entering or crossing the roadway often will not notice bicyclists approaching from their right, as they are not expecting contra-flow vehicles. Motorists turning to exit the roadway may likewise fail to notice the bicyclist. Even bicyclists coming from the left often go unnoticed, especially when sight distances are limited.
4. Signs posted for roadway users are backwards for contra-flow bike traffic; therefore these cyclists are unable to read the information without stopping and turning around.
5. When the available right-of-way is too narrow to accommodate all highway and shared use path features, it may be prudent to consider a reduction of the existing or proposed widths of the various highway (and bikeway) cross-sectional elements (i.e., lane and shoulder widths, etc.). However, any reduction to less than AASHTO Green Book1 (or other applicable) design criteria must be supported by a documented engineering analysis.
6. Many bicyclists will use the roadway instead of the shared use path because they have found the roadway to be more convenient, better maintained, or safer. Bicyclists using the roadway may be harassed by some motorists who feel that in all cases bicyclists should be on the adjacent path.
7. Although the shared use path should be given the same priority through intersections as the parallel highway, motorists falsely expect bicyclists to stop or yield at all cross-streets and driveways. Efforts to require or encourage bicyclists to yield or stop at each cross-street and driveway are inappropriate and frequently ignored by bicyclists.
8. Stopped cross-street motor vehicle traffic or vehicles exiting side streets or driveways may block the path crossing.
9. Because of the proximity of motor vehicle traffic to opposing bicycle traffic, barriers are often necessary to keep motor vehicles out of shared use paths and bicyclists out of traffic lanes. These barriers can represent an obstruction to bicyclists and motorists, can complicate maintenance of the facility, and can cause other problems as well. For the above reasons, other types of bikeways are likely to be better suited to accommodate bicycle traffic along highway corridors, depending upon traffic conditions. Shared use paths should not be considered a substitute for street improvements even when the path is located adjacent to the highway, because many bicyclists will find it less convenient to ride on these paths compared with the streets, particularly for utility trips. When two-way shared use paths are located adjacent to a roadway, wide separation between a shared use path and the adjacent highway is desirable to demonstrate to both the bicyclist and the motorist that the path functions as an independent facility for bicyclists and others. When this is not possible and the distance between the edge of the shoulder and the shared use path is less than 1.5m(5 feet), a suitable physical barrier is recommended. Such barriers serve both to prevent path users from making unwanted movements between the path and the highway shoulder and to reinforce the concept that the path is an independent facility. Where used, the barrier should be a minimum of 1.1 m (42 inches) high, to prevent bicyclists from toppling over it. A barrier between a shared use path and adjacent highway should not impair sight distance at intersections, and should be designed to not be a hazard to errant motorists.
Here are some excerpts from AASHTO regarding design of bike lanes and incorporated into Redmond's typical bicycle lanes:
Bike lanes can be incorporated into a roadway when it is desirable to delineate available road space for preferential use by bicyclists and motorists, and to provide for more predictable movements by each. Bike lane markings can increase a bicyclist’s confidence in motorists not straying into their path of travel. Likewise, passing motorists are less likely to swerve to the left out of their lane to avoid bicyclists on their right...Drainage grates, railroad crossings, traffic control devices, etc., need to be evaluated and upgraded if necessary for bicycle use. Bike lanes should be one-way facilities and carry bike traffic in the same direction as adjacent motor vehicle traffic. Two-way bike lanes on one side of the roadway are not recommended when they result in bicycles riding against the flow of motor vehicle traffic. Wrong-way riding is a major cause of bicycle crashes and violates the rules of the road as stated in the UVC.
Bike Lane Widths
For roadways with no curb and gutter, the minimum width of a bike lane should be 1.2 m (4 feet). If parking is permitted, as in Figure 6(1), the bike lane should be placed between the parking area and the travel lane and have a minimum width of 1.5 m (5 feet). Where parking is permitted but a parking stripe or stalls are not utilized, the shared area should be a minimum of 3.3 m (11 feet) without a curb face and 3.6 m (12 feet) adjacent to a curb face as shown in Figure 6(2). If the parking volume is substantial or turnover is high, an additional 0.3 to 0.6 m (1 to 2 feet) of width is desirable.