BIKEPGH MESSAGE BOARD ARCHIVE

my mind hurts after thinking about contra flow bike lanes on roads that are opposite of ours

A coworker of mine has a book called "Crap Cycle Lanes" that shows a lot of the UK's finest work. I'm not sure if it's funny or just appalling.

at least the markings are visible...

See for comparison: http://www.portlandonline.com/TRANSPORTATION/index.cfm?c=46717

http://blog.oregonlive.com/commuting/2010/01/are_portlands_bike_boxes_worki.html

The main difference seems to be that Portland's bike boxes are connected to a lane. It's pretty obvious that this marking is not intended to be a bike lane but rather to highlight placement at some sort of an intersection...

this is a picture of one of the shortest bike lanes in dc. it looks like a proper route compared to that other one though.

I was just in Portland and saw a bike box first hand. Note how bikes stop in front of the cars.



also, I thought this was cool:

">

The main difference seems to be that Portland's bike boxes are connected to a lane. It's pretty obvious that this marking is not intended to be a bike lane but rather to highlight placement at some sort of an intersection...

That was my first thought as well, but when I was over there the first thing I noticed was that anytime bikes and serious traffic met, it was indicated very clearly where the bikes should be. Out in the country there were few bike lanes, but even small towns had either part of the sidewalk designated or part of the road clearly designated as a bike lane.

So having an unconnected bike box would be pretty odd. Actually, I don't recall seeing any bike boxes over there at all... usually at the major intersections there were signs that indicated cyclists should dismount to cross the intersection. So this might be a trial run of something they'll be rolling out elsewhere in future.

[Granted, I didn't ride on every road in the country, so they could be very common in the many places I didn't see. But given the reaction of the press, I think this is something new or newish over there.]

I'd rather have no bike lane, and proper markings at the intersection than bike lanes on the rest of the road, which are sacrificed in favor of turning lanes at the intersection (see Wightman and Beacon). I don't know for sure, but I'd guess more accidents happen at these intersections than on other parts of the road. Merging into traffic right at an intersection where cars are also moving from lane to lane in order to turn is far more dangerous than going in a straight line on the side of a wide road.

It seems like the photo they chose does not actually tell the entire story.

@dwillin:

Merging into traffic right at an intersection where cars are also moving from lane to lane in order to turn is far more dangerous than going in a straight line on the side of a wide road.

Yup, unless there's a right-turning car to your left, or you're trying to make a left turn, or...

Unfortunately, "proper markings" at intersections are fundamentally impossible, which is why the AASHTO bikelane designs disappear. You are absolutely correct that merging right at the intersection is more dangerous, which is why the better thing is to merge well in advance of the intersection.

If you're turning right, you only have to merge far enough to the left to be sure you don't get right hooked. If you're going straight, you have to merge left and control the lane through the intersection, and if you're going left, you have quite a ways to go. You don't want motorists passing you in an intersection.

I doubt a little paint will prevent me from getting right hooked, but yea, straight shots can be dangerous too.

I am saying I'd prefer markings at some intersections. I bike up Greenfield Rd everyday and make a left, where the uphill bike lane kind of fades off into the grass. When the bike lane is ending, I signal and attempt to move over into the left turn lane, sometimes with little luck. I've had people cross the double yellow to pass me, then when barely in front of me, cut over to the right to make a right hand turn. If there was some marking in that left turn lane, it might help them understand I will be going that way so they could wait half a second and pass me on the right. Also, the left turn arrow light is super short, on the order of about 5-10 seconds, so if you get stuck behind more than about 2 cars, you can't make a protected left until the next light cycle. Jumping to the front of that line would be great (something similar to the photos above). I know none of this is likely possible, and I am appreciative of the improvements that have been made. At the same time, these DC whiners should be thankful they have some markings at an intersection!

@dwillen,

I'm the DC whiner you seem to be referring to and now I live here. I lived and rode bikes in DC for many years and thought/ still think that offering a critique of useless infrastructure was warranted.

I think being thankful for any markings is a defeatist proposal so I suggested an alternative that makes streets safer for everyone -- exactly the one that jeffinpgh showed above. That abbreviated bike lane is more dangerous because it coaxes cyclists into it for a few feet and then abruptly ends and forces you to merge back into traffic.

Apologies, I should have chosen my words more eloquently. I honestly meant it in good humor.

I see the benefit of brief markings at the intersection, and believe they would have a significant impact on my daily commute should they ever be incorporated into problematic intersections here in Pittsburgh. It tells the cyclist, and more importantly the drivers, where bikes belong at these large and dangerous intersections. Almost every accident I've seen, heard about, or been in (near misses and actual contact) have been near or in intersections, so additional markings here, rather than other places on the road (given limited resources or whatever) should yield more safety benefit, at least in my mind.

I think my response was overly sensitive, I just want some bike boxes!

I would have reacted the same way. Like I said, I should watch what I type.

I want bike boxes too.

Bike boxes require prohibiting right turns at intersections where they are placed. And they require that motorists obey that law. Placing a bike box without banning right turns is deeply cynical.

I noted that asobi's article concluded that the bike boxes don't *actually* help, but cyclists like them anyway, which presents an ethical dilemma.

Bike boxes require prohibiting right turns at intersections where they are placed

I'm not an expert on bike boxes, but looking at my photo above, and thinking about that street when I crossed it, I'm pretty sure you could turn right there. You'll note the bike box is in the left lane and there is room on the right for cars. Of course, Portland has a lot of nice wide streets downtown so that's more practical.

@lolly this is a picture of one of the shortest bike lanes in dc.

I agree with your friend, Lolly - that lane makes sense in an intersection that would otherwise be a pain in the butt with right turn lane and a biker going straight.

Looking carefully at that picture, I think jeff is right. The key issue is not putting the bike lane to the right of (possibly) right-turning traffic. I still don't like the possibility of someone riding up the bike lane and then heading to the left of the bike box just when the light turns green. I think it's better to make sure that you can communicate with the motorists before you move laterally across the lane.

@dwillen: what time of day do you ride through that intersection of Greenfield Rd? Do you turn left onto the sidewalk, or do you ride up the roadway? I never come up from that direction -- just not someplace I'm likely to go -- but I'd like to give it a try and see what it's like for you.

@lolly: I agree with Mick, that lane makes perfect sense to me. That's right where I would teach a straight-through cyclist to ride if there were no bike lane at all. It's doing a good job of informing novice cyclists to stay away from the right edge of the turning lane.

@dwillen I'd rather have no bike lane, and proper markings at the intersection than bike lanes on the rest of the road, which are sacrificed in favor of turning lanes at the intersection (see Wightman and Beacon).

+1

Also, what lolly said about celebrating any bike marking whether they do good or not.

Beacon seems to me to be an example of that.

I think the bike lane between the right-turn-only lane and the straight lane is a very good idea. I don't care if the lane continues on the next block or not; I want it where there is traffic to the right and to the left of me, independently moving.

Really, the jury is still out here, and I don't think we should criticize the city (or other cities) too harshly when their efforts result in what appear to be poor implementations. Studies of effectiveness are still in their infancy because these bike accommodations are still not very widespread.

I actually DO think it makes sense to celebrate whatever infrastructure they choose to give us, and instead of complaining loudly in the press (with a photo of a cyclist pointing at it and making faces) we should offer constructive criticism to those in government who can improve the infrastructure. In Pittsburgh, we're lucky enough to have a responsive Bike-Ped coordinator and a seemingly well-staffed 311 complaint center.

On average, we're a cheerier group of people than those who have to drive to commute. We made our way just fine before the lane markings, we can tolerate improvement in fits and starts.

How would you feel about that little bike lane of lolly's if you found out that cars passed cyclists more closely with the bike lane than without it?

@ Lyle.

Depends. On fifth ave, for example, on average cars pass at a decent distance. On average.

I don't give a fig about average though.

The closest cars? About 5% or less? They are way too close.

If I could keep that closest 5% a foot or more away from me, I would not care if "on average" the cars were closer to me.

Mick

@Lyle what time of day do you ride through that intersection of Greenfield Rd? Do you turn left onto the sidewalk, or do you ride up the roadway? I never come up from that direction -- just not someplace I'm likely to go -- but I'd like to give it a try and see what it's like for you.

It depends. Sometimes I feel like sprinting up the little hill so I'll make a proper left and take the rightmost lane of Panther Hollow Rd and go into Oakland that way, otherwise I make a pseudo-left and take the trail down into the woods (Upper Panther Hollow?) This is usually between 8:30 and 9:30 am. Sometimes there are only a few cars and I have no troubles, but often there is a steady stream of em, all in a rush. I am puttering along pretty slow, having just biked up the big ass hill, so I always seem to have trouble merging. My left arm stretched out doesn't seem to slow anyone down, despite the light being red a short distance ahead. About once a week I'll have to stop in the bike lane, unclip, and wait there for a break in the cars before I can move over into the left turn lane.

I think it's ESSENTIAL to analyze all parts of cities because we live in them. I'm not content to "celebrate whatever infrastructure they choose to give us, and instead of complaining loudly in the press".

We're not GIVEN infrastructure. We pay for it. We work for it, it is ours. This city does not belong to cars, it belongs to US. We ride it and we live it and it is our city.

By selecting bikes, we're making the choice that is not only time, but also space and resource efficient. And Pittsburgh belongs to us just as much as drivers of cars and we need to assert that.

I may exhaust the hell out of people who think I'm stubborn or demanding but I'm going to keep fighting for my space and your space and the right to mobility for everyone whether 7 or 21 or 39 or 98.

Mick - good point. I couldn' figure out how to say that succinctly. So, to put it another way -- I wonder who would oppose that bike lane if it turned out that the closest 5% of passes were closer with it than without. Or would people still say it doesn't matter because it makes people feel better about bikes?

Dwillen - I'll go check this out now. Hope I'm not too late for the worst of it.

Boy was I feeling exuberant last night! I was high on life and hops and celebrating a day that was I'd been waiting for four months and feeling demanding.

Pittsburgh has made tremendous progress in the past few years and is ready for more. It's up to us to define what will make this and other cities more bike and people friendly. Patrick Dowd said this: "Just look at the books…the City has priviledged the automobile…and did that work 100 years ago.” He went on to say that “what we’re trying to accomplish is just that, but for the bicycle.”

I don't think we should be coy. When cities are safe for cyclists they are safe for everyone.

@ lolly When cities are safe for cyclists they are safe for everyone.

That is the best quote that i've seen about bicycle development. Might be a good motto for Bike-Pgh

Mick.

So, I rode around that intersection of Greenfield Rd a few times and sat and watched for a while from about 9:20 to 9:45.

Maybe that was too late, or it was just a light day, but in general I found that the platoons of cars were 5 or fewer. There was one platoon of 5 with a short break, that was then followed by a platoon of 3, and maybe not everyone would feel comfortable jumping into the gap, so we can call that one 8.

One thing that I noticed is that the bike lane stripe definitely continues on much too far up to the intersection (and it's painted solid all the way over to the curb, which implies that you're just supposed to stop there or something?). By the time the bike lane ends, you're already in the wrong position in the wrong lane. You need to be out there in the left-turning lane quite a bit sooner.

This is my snapshot of the road as it exists today. Hopefully you all can see what I mean about the lane running up into the right-turn position.

So if you:

When the bike lane is ending, I signal and attempt to move over, then you're waiting too late to make that lateral move.

This image, from last spring before the stripe was painted, shows about where I recommend a slow-moving rider should start working on that move to the left. (sooner if you're going fast, but these streetview images make the distances look a lot farther than they really are) Also note that the double-solid breaks there, to encourage motorists to make a left turn, but the bike lane stripe is solid, discouraging cyclists from getting out of the lane soon enough for the left up to Overlook Drive.

I saw what you mean about the left-turn phase being short. The nice thing about being behind a couple of cars in that left-turn, though, is that they clear through the intersection right away and then you have clear sailing up the Blvd for a minute or so until the light changes and the platoon from Hobart comes through and catches you.

Unfortunately, waiting at lights is something you do a lot of in Amsterdam, and I presume Copenhagen as well. Adding separate light phases for bikes and pedestrians and cars and turns in one direction or another... well, it slices up an hour into a whole lot of pieces.

Yes, it sort of fades into the grass, no dashed lines, no arrows indicating bikes are merging with traffic (as I've seen in other cities), it just kind of curves into the grass, at the most dangerous part of the entire street, which I guess is my gripe. I don't wait until the lane ends, I try to move over sooner than that. Unfortunately, I'm going about 7 mph and the cars are moving at 30+ mph, so me jumping out in front of them seems like not the best idea. Often, when I do, they quickly catch up, and like I said, cross that double yellow (or where the double yellow should be painted) and cut over to get in one of the two lanes. If I wait for a significant break, sometimes the bike lane runs out before I find one and I'm forced to stop on the hill. I'm not advocating you go sit at the intersection, but it seems worse earlier in the morning. I think the parkway gets backed up and people get off at the Greenfield exit and cut through the park or something.

Its not the most dangerous intersection in Pittsburgh by any stretch, but seems like it could be improved for pedestrian and bike use. After all, its smack in the middle of a park. Even trying to cross the street on foot is very dangerous from any direction. There are two crosswalks (and two sides with "don't cross here" signs). I don't know if its sight lines or what, but cars don't yield to peds at all. We've had a number of people honk at us crossing the small crosswalk between the little island and the north side of Greenfield Road. They have a yield sign, which apparently means yield to cars, and honk at peds in your way. A protected ped light cycle (activated by a button, so cars don't wait when there are no peds) would be a welcome addition even if it wouldn't do much good for making a left coming up the hill on a bike.

Whoa, that's a completely different location than I thought you were discussing. Picture, 1,000 words, etc.

That fading bike lane is a perfect example of a line painter who is completely uninformed or uninstructed of the INTENT of what they are doing in the field. An engineer in an office can't possibly address all field conditions.

The best alternative here might actually be to paint a bike box in the far right lane of inbound Bldv of the Allies, so you can cross through the intersection and have a specific place to wait for the light to turn, then proceed inbound on the Blvd.

To finish the statement: "we should offer constructive criticism to those in government who can improve the infrastructure", as opposed to voicing our opinions in this way: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1263069/Britains-shortest-cycle-lane-opened-Cardiff--just-8ft-long.html

Look, it's a matter of tactics. All of us here want the same things. But despite the fact that roads were originally built for bikes, that's no longer the perception and the truth is, today we are a minority of road-users. Also, there are people out there that think bike lanes are a waste of money. In Pittsburgh, the local government doesn't agree with them. But politicians triangulate -- every year they have to make difficult decisions about where to spend limited funds. A black eye in the media doesn't make them more willing to allocate funding to bike accommodations.

I've written several notes to 311 online and all but 1 have been handled quickly and professionally. I just think that's a better way to handle issues in Pittsburgh than going to the media. If I were ignored or rebuffed for no good reason then maybe I'd try other channels. I'm not trying to tell anyone what they can or can't do to make their voices heard, just trying to point out that sometimes your story can be taken by some media outlets in a counter-productive way. I suspect the Tribune-Review would be more than willing to write such a story here...CMU students might also remember the investigative reporting of Marty Griffin.

I sat at this intersection for a little while Thursday morning, from 8:30-8:50, and again Friday at around 9. Unfortunately I injured my knee Wednesday, so I didn't try riding up the hill in traffic again. My opinion? This is easier than the the Main St/Liberty intersection that people complain about.

Traffic was definitely a little heavier at 8:30, by 9 it was down to almost nothing. There were fewer platoons, interestingly. It seemed that the cars were farther apart but there were more of them. It's almost like there was a different light pattern further upstream that was letting cars run free longer.

I watched three cyclists negotiate that left turn. All appeared to be late-twenties white men in blue jeans riding mountain bikes or hybrids. All were moving quite slowly. 7mph would be a generous estimate. (The cars were slowing from around 35 mph down to 20mph or below.) One cyclist was wearing a light-colored helmet, the other two were bare-headed.

Two cyclists rode all the way up to the end of the bike lane, and then wobbled way across to the left-turn lane without signalling.

The third moved over to the left-turn lane earlier, though without signalling, and not quite as early as I would recommend.

I didn't see any of them look behind until the moment they were ready to change lanes.

a few things that would have helped them:

1. use a mirror

2. scan for open spaces earlier

3. be willing to wait for a large gap

4. get out of the bike lane earlier

5. pedal soft up the hill so they have some energy left to accelerate at the moment they need it to merge

6. learn to look over the left shoulder longer without wobbling.

On Friday, I saw an innovative approach. Someone REALLY wanted to avoid cars. He rode up the sidewalk on the left side of the road (which I personally dislike as it has a sharp dropoff, but to each his own). Then he rode down the grass, across the trail, across Overlook Dr, across the grass to the Blvd / Panther Hollow Rd, dismounted, waited for traffic to clear, jogged across four lanes of traffic to the opposite sidewalk, pulled his bike up the curb, and then rode the sidewalk up and over the hill. Maybe he just didn't want to wait for the light.

I think unless you're a very experienced cyclist the best tactic would be something like, finding a gap in traffic on the way up and taking the left at Overlook Drive, following the sidewalk up, cautiously cross that somewhat dangerous crosswalk across the right turnout onto Greenfield and get the jump of the light from the island there. From that point you could either follow the sidewalk up, or turn left right onto the road.

If I go slow enough I usually follow the sidewalk up Panther Hollow Road to the crest of the hill, wait for a reasonable gap in traffic and then hop the curb into the road for the big downhill.

Please don't do that. That's just asking for trouble from the free-flowing traffic on the Blvd outbound.

If you're really worried about the left turn, go straight through the intersection to Bartlett, stop at the island, wait for the light to change, cross Bartlett as a pedestrian (there's no right turning traffic from Hobart to trouble you), and then continue up the sidewalk on Panther Hollow Rd.

I think that's what edmonds59 was suggesting.

Having gone through taht intersection a bunch, I think Impala method would work fine at that corner - as long as you are cognizant of the outbound traffic.

When traffic is heavy, I also sometimes take the sidewalk to the crest, the take a lane downhill. The danger is drivers passing you and then veering in front to the right for the exit. In previous years drivers used to get inflamed with, say, a 3-second wait for exit right, but they seem to be getting over that.

Mick

It might work, but it's kind of rude and confusing, doesn't really gain you anything, and exposes you to needless risk -- even though, as you say, you can be cognizant of it.

I assume you mean doing what the cyclist in this picture is doing. Anybody know him?

Pretty much, Lyle, except without the pedestrian or sidewalk parts.

Another trick I have found useful in many situations wherein you want to make a left, is to go straight through the intersection until past any oncoming traffic, when safe make a U-turn, and then make a right turn on to the cross street when traffic on the cross street is adequately clear. I haven't really identified this thing before, but I suppose it could be called a "P-turn". That way really reduces your exposure to the vagaries of drivers.

When making a left at a busy intersection, I'll change it up depending on the traffic light situation. I might make a right then U-turn.

Keri, at Commute Orlando, has a great animated overview of different tactics for handling left turns.

@ lyle It might work, but it's kind of rude and confusing, doesn't really gain you anything, and exposes you to needless risk -- even though, as you say, you can be cognizant of it.

I assume you mean doing what the cyclist in this picture is doing. Anybody know him?

Hmmm.

What is rude about it? What is confusing about it?

If you feel that bicycles on the sidewalk or approaching an intersection in a non-vehicular way are inherently rude? Then it's rude. Other than that, I don't see a rudeness problem.

Needless risk? If you do it with an awareness of traffic, it would be less risk than a vehicular approach. For example, the guy in the pic might be waiting for traffic to clear before crossing. The only risk I see there is that he might have to wait another light.

I think that often posters here confuse riders approaching a intersection cautiously on the sidewalk with guys who just blast out of the sidewalk into the street. That is sort of like conflating people who ride on the street with traffic and people who ride against traffic.

As far as the guy pictured, he might be making a left. Or he might be going from the trail below Overlook drive to the trail in Panther Hollow.

Is there safer way to go between the trails? Left from Overlook onto Greenfield has wretched visibility against fast traffic and still leaves you with a left at the light.

Before the bike lane, I would often take the sidewalk up the hill, which would also safely place a person there. Friday/Saturday night around midnight, I'll still take the sidewalk and leave the street to the drunks.

Mick

Yeah, my "pedestrian turn" idea isn't the greatest, but if you're one that doesn't feel like keeping up with or stressing with traffic, it's an option. There are usually very few pedestrians in the area of that intersection so my method poses less of a problem. You just have to use caution when negotiating across the free-moving right turn lane there too: eye-contact and a slight bit of assertion helps.

Entertaining the "box-turn" idea for this intersection (where you stay on the right side and reposition yourself with perpendicular traffic and go when safe or end of signal) might be useful. I think the box-turn idea is great in theory, but I feel like you're quite likely to piss off motorists with them feeling you've "cut them off".

Also, being a fast-moving uphill intersection doesn't help either, but hey I'm used to that garbage in South Oakland when I occasionally ride on the Boulevard of the Allies.

I think the bigger issue at stake here is "completing" intersections to handle bike traffic, not to mention completing bike infrastructure to connect the Greenfield Road bike lanes to the ones on Beacon.

Also, some key placed "Share the Road" signs would be welcome along Panther Hollow Rd./Blvd. of the Allies. I think that most people driving on that stretch (possibly lots of out-of-town commuters) tend to not expect bicycles.

Impala26 Also, some key placed "Share the Road" signs would be welcome along Panther Hollow Rd./Blvd. of the Allies.

+1 on that. People tend to think of roads with exits and on-ramps as being forbidden to bicycles.

What is rude about it? What is confusing about it?

You're right, I overstated that. I was thinking of something far worse when I wrote the first sentence, and then realized Impala didn't mean the bizarre thing that I first imagined.

As for "needless risk" -- I'm not saying OMG YER GUNNA DIEEE!!1!. Only that it's got more points of uncontrolled conflict than either the vehicular left or the box turn, and I know how hard it is for people to stand and wait for extra light cycles (especially since the original complaint was about the short advance left phase). I also have lots of experience that those "not expert cyclists" are prone to falling over if they have to stop suddenly at pedestrian speeds. Which makes them inclined not to stop when they really ought to. So to truly be safe, they'd have to be walking.

As far as "pissing off motorists" with the box turn, the solution there is to wait for a moment at the second light, and let the motorists go first, instead of plopping yourself right in front of the line there. But if you're going to go up the sidewalk, that's not an issue here.

For traversing from Overlook to the Panther Hollow Trail, yeah. The left from Overlook is hard in a car.

Also, Mick, it seems like people from the exurbs tend to think of any street between their work and their living room as an exit or on-ramp, regardless of the humanity to the contrary.

And, re; pissed off motorists, I've said before, I prefer a p.o.m. to one who is oblivious to my existence.

I'll take Panther Hollow/Blvd inbound, but never outbound. I simply go too slow up that hill, and cars passing me within 2 feet going 50mph, because they're trying to avoid cars in the other lane makes me want to dive into the grass. On nasty, rainy days I will take the sidewalk contraflow (very slowly/carefully) up the hill outbound. I just don't want to deal with the mud pits on the trails sometimes (which coincidently have "trail closed" signs at every entrance now, why?).

I always use the left turn lane at that intersection, but I rarely feel safe doing so. I've just had too many close calls to speed up and assert myself into a gap in traffic. I've had too many cars not slow down to trust anyone is going to do that. Coming home, exiting the trail there, heading straight onto Greenfield Road is equally sketchy. Cars get 2-3 seconds of protected left turn, but they don't stop after their protected left goes away and just keep rolling one after another, preventing you from going straight for the entire light cycle. Even if the cars waiting at the light finish going, you get a green and start to go, you don't know what the cars zooming up the hill are going to do. In some cases they left turn right into you at 30+ mph. Not fun.

Seems (a) redoing timing on the light may help, and be next to free. (b) Adding ped signals and push buttons would be excellent for peds and bikes, seeing as this is a busy ped corridor for multiple park facilities, and (c) incorporating bike paint into the intersection, instead of just trailing it off into the grass would be the best solution, at least for cyclists.

I don't think any goofy biking over grass hills and walking my bike across the 4 lane parkway methods are an acceptable solution in a park. If it was someplace I wouldn't expect people to bike, thats one thing, but this is a well-used corridor for cyclists.

For anyone else having trouble, the Bridle trail is an acceptable solution if you want to avoid this intersection and Panther Hollow/Blvd and the "closed" Panther Hollow trails. If you can get through the construction at the Blvd end of it, it dumps you off near the bridge. You can cut through the playground parking lot to get to the Panther Hollow bridge if you are heading towards CMU, but use caution making your illegal left onto it though.

I hope there comes a time when a bicycle on the street is totally expected and respected by all the cars and a bike on the sidewalk would be as bizarre and outlandish as, say, a motorcycle on the sidewalk is now.

I look forward to that, but, IMO, we aren't even close to that time now.

Mick

It was suggested to me privately that the simplest way to satisfy both me and dwillen would be to remove the bad 50' of the bike lane, and replace it with a sharrow that heads right down the center of the lane up to the lane split. Or just add the sharrow and wait for the bike lane to wash off.

I'm still wary of something like a sharrow in the middle of a busy, single-lane (at that point), uphill road. Much like the sharrow right above Margaret Morrison Street on Forbes, something like that is quite harrowing for all but experienced cyclists.

My idea for that Forbes-Maggie Mo intersection is first and foremost remove those four parking spaces. Secondly the bike lane should be extended there. To prevent people in the right-turn only lane on Forbes from proceeding straight into the bike lane space, a sidewalk "bump-out" should be installed, but also slim enough to allow the bike lane to be side-by-side with the lane of traffic starting at the intersection. Also to avoid additional dangers, make Maggie Mo a "No Turn on Red".

Lyle, I agree, sharrows would be an improvement on what is there, but still seems like a half assed solution. My first point when bringing it up is that intersections, especially low speed ones (at least for bikes) like this, are the most dangerous points for cyclists. Sharrows are great if you're cruising along, but doesn't do much for telling motorists, hey, watch out for cyclists merging here! For that, I think you need some different kind of signage, or paint.

In the past, I've seen a series of arrows near the end of the bike lane, pointing at an angle into the center of the roadway, like you'd see on a freeway when a lane is ending. It is universally understood to most drivers to indicate two lanes becoming one, and you should watch out for cars coming from that lane with the arrows pointing at you. Same should hold true for bikes.

I googled for an image I could use to illustrate this, and instead found paint like this, which seems to be a bike specific version of what I was talking about (the one on the right).

Here is a PDF with more details: http://www.getaboutcolumbia.com/autoimages/2009-02-25_greenmergeareas_224.pdf

Maybe plans for future bike lanes could incorporate something similar to this into the termini, to improve visibility for merging bikes wishing to move into turning lanes.

@dwillen: Anything like you've described is miles better than the current "fade into the curb" markings that are commonplace now. I think it gives drivers that bikes are just going to magically disappear at those points in the road... 8-/

Though, I can't really figure which of those options would be safer, and I think there would be varying opinion on them, especially between segregated and vehicular cyclists.