Protected intersection: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 20:11, 13 July 2023

Latest revision as of 16:39, 29 August 2025

(26 intermediate revisions by 11 users not shown)

Line 1:

{{short description|At-grade road junction in which cyclists and pedestrians are separated from cars}}

[[File:Protected intersections for bicyclists.webm|thumb|upright=1.3|A video showing a protected signalised intersection to US standards]]

A '''protected intersection''' or '''protected junction''', also known as a '''Dutch-style junction''', is a type of [[intersection (road)|at-grade road junction]] in which [[cycling|cyclists]] and [[pedestrian]]s are separated from cars. The primary aim of junction protection is to makehelp pedestrians and cyclists saferbe and feel safer at road junctions.<ref name="Butler">Richard Butler, Jonathan Salter,

Dave Stevens, Brian Deegan (July 2019). Greater Manchester’s cycling and walking network: CYCLOPS – Creating Protected Junctions. [http://www.jctconsultancy.co.uk/Symposium/Symposium2018/PapersForDownload/CYCLOPS%20Creating%20Protected%20Junctions%20-%20Richard%20Butler%20Jonathan%20Salter%20Dave%20Stevens%20TFGM.pdf]</ref>

Line 10:

[[File:13-06-27-rotterdam-by-RalfR-25.jpg|thumb|A protected intersection in [[Rotterdam]] in the [[Netherlands]]. A safe way to cross the road on a [[bicycle]].]]

This type of [[intersection (road)|intersection]] has for decades been used in the bicycle-friendly [[Netherlands]], and [[Denmark]]. An alternative philosophy, design for [[vehicular cycling]], encourages having bicycle lanes simply disappear, or "drop", at intersections, forcing riders to merge into traffic like a vehicle operator ahead of the intersection in order to avoid the risk of a ''right-hook'' collision, when a right turning motorist collides with a through moving cyclist. Design policies which do not allow the cyclist to remain separated through the intersection have come under increasing scrutiny in recent years as causing difficulties for less capable riders,<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Dill|first1=Jennifer|last2=McNeil|first2=Nathan|date=2016-01-01|title=Revisiting the Four Types of Cyclists: Findings from a National Survey|url=https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.3141/2587-11|journal=Transportation Research Record|volume=2587|pages=90–99|language=en|doi=10.3141/2587-11|s2cid=114945037|url-access=subscription}}</ref> leading to lower overall ridership and sidewalk riding,<ref>{{Cite web|last=|first=|date=|title=Prospect Park West Traffic Calming and Bicycle Path Page 12|url=https://www1.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/2012_ppw_trb2012.pdf|url-status=live|archive-url=|archive-date=|access-date=|website=}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|last=|first=|date=|title=Designing for All Ages and Abilities. Page 2|url=https://nacto.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/NACTO_Designing-for-All-Ages-Abilities.pdf|url-status=live|archive-url=|archive-date=|access-date=|website=NACTO}}</ref> and being less safe.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Buehler|first1=Ralph|last2=Pucher|first2=John|date=2021-01-02|title=The growing gap in pedestrian and cyclist fatality rates between the United States and the United Kingdom, Germany, Denmark, and the Netherlands, 1990–2018|journal=Transport Reviews|volume=41|issue=1|pages=48–72|doi=10.1080/01441647.2020.1823521|s2cid=225108005|issn=0144-1647|doi-access=free}}</ref>

==History==

[[File:Groningen_Grote_Markt_1975_Museum_Exhibit.jpg|thumb|A museum exhibit about the Groningen Grote Markt shows a post-WWII bicycle lane that forced cyclists to merge with motorists. This design was eventually removed.]]

With the popularity of the bicycle, the Dutch began constructing separated cycle tracks as early as the late 1800s.<ref>{{Cite book|last=|first=|title=The Spectator|publisher=F.C. Westley|year=1898|isbn=|volume=18|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=23A_AQAAIAAJ&dq=The+Dutch+are+the+representatives+of+the+beavers+among+men.+On+the+route+from+the+Hague+to+Scheveningen,+for+instance,+there+lie+parallel+to+each+other+a+carriage+road,+a+canal,+a+bicycle+track,+a+light+railway,+side-paths+regularly+constructed&pg=RA1-PA980|pages=980}}</ref> The country's infrastructure was left in ruins by [[World War II]], and some cities like Rotterdam had to be completely rebuilt.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Post-War Reconstruction|url=https://wederopbouwrotterdam.nl/en/articles/post-war-reconstruction|access-date=2021-02-14|website=wederopbouwrotterdam.nl|language=en}}</ref> This presented the opportunity to create infrastructure more in line with the "modern" way. From the 1940s to the 70s, streets were built following a new design philosophy that attempted to integrate cyclists with vehicle traffic.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Peters|first=Adele|date=2015-11-03|title=These Historical Photos Show How Amsterdam Turned Itself Into A Bike Rider's Paradise|url=https://www.fastcompany.com/3052699/these-historical-photos-show-how-amsterdam-turned-itself-into-a-bike-riders-paradise|access-date=2021-02-14|website=Fast Company|language=en-US}}</ref> After three decades, these designs proved to be largely a failure, with the number of kilometers cycled falling by 65% and the per-km rate of cyclists being killed increasing 174%.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Pucher & Buehler|date=October 2007|title=Making Cycling Irresistible: Lessons from The Netherlands, Denmark and Germany|url=https://www.engr.scu.edu/~emaurer/bike/docs/PUCHERMakingCyclingIrresistibleJune2008.pdf|url-status=live|archive-url=|archive-date=|access-date=|website=|publisher=Transport Reviews|volume=28 No. 4, 495–528}}</ref>

In the 1970s, road traffic and urban quality of life began to be seen as a significant issue in Dutch city politics. This, combined with other political headwinds related to party reorganisation, the decline of national religious [[Pillarisation|pillars]], and opposition to the [[Vietnam War]] propelled left wing political parties to office in many city governments. In [[Groningen]], a northern Dutch city with one of the highest bicycle mode shares, the left wing party put forth a new circulation plan which again prioritised bicycle traffic and moved away from the notion of designing for bicyclists to act like motor vehicle operators.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Shinji|first=Tsubohara|date=2007|title=The effect and modification of the Traffic Circulation Plan (VCP) -– traffic planning in Groningen in the 1980s|url=https://www.rug.nl/research/portal/files/14433101/317.pdf|url-status=live|archive-url=|archive-date=|access-date=|website=University of Groningen}}</ref> [[Stop de Kindermoord|Stop De Kindermoord]] road safety protests also occurred. As the nation again began to desire separated bicycle infrastructure, the protected intersection rose to prominence as an engineering solution for optimizing sightlines. It joined other Dutch innovations in traffic calming and bicycle design, like the [[woonerf]], and the bicycle street (fietsstraat), a variant of which exists in North America (see [[bicycle boulevard]]). Today, the Netherlands is widely considered the world's premier country for cycling, with more than 25% of all trips made by bicycle.<ref>{{Cite web|last=|first=|date=2008|title=Cycling Facts|url=https://www.government.nl/binaries/government/documents/reports/2018/04/01/cycling-facts-2018/Cycling+facts+2018.pdf|url-status=live|archive-url=|archive-date=|access-date=|website=Kim Statistics Netherlands}}</ref> It has reported a significantly lower cyclist fatality rate following the return to separated infrastructure. In the US, 58% of bicycle crashes involving injury, and 40% of crashes involving death occurred at intersections.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Bicycle Safety Guide and Countermeasure Selection System|url=http://www.pedbikesafe.org/bikesafe/guide_statistics.cfm|access-date=2021-02-14|website=www.pedbikesafe.org}}</ref> In 1972, [[UCLA]] published a report demonstrating awareness in the US of the protected intersection design.<ref>{{Cite report|title=Lessons Learned: The Evolution of the Protected Intersection|publisher=Alta Planning & Design|year=2015}}</ref>

The protected intersection is only one of several treatments for addressing motorist-cyclist conflicts. While used in much of the Netherlands, including Amsterdam, local road authorities in other parts of the country do not use the classic protected intersection with middle islands, preferring to have cyclists move during a completely separated all directions green phase.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Dutch|first=Bicycle|date=2016-06-20|title=Traffic lights in 's-Hertogenbosch; an interview|url=https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2016/06/21/traffic-lights-in-s-hertogenbosch-an-interview/|access-date=2021-02-14|website=BICYCLE DUTCH|language=en}}</ref> Other options for reducing bicycle accidents at intersections, depending on context, include the use of bridges and tunnels, and planning or reconfiguring the neighborhood street/path system so that major amenities and schools can be reached without needing to travel along busy roads.

Line 24:

===Early release===

Early release uses [[advanced stop linesline]]s and separate cyclist traffic signals to allow cyclists a headstart on motor traffic. This permits them to turn across oncoming traffic without needing to wait in the centre of a junction.<ref name="Butler" />

===Hold the turn===

A hold the turn setup holds turning traffic at a red light while the cycle lane gets a green light in tandem with straight-ahead carriageway traffic, reducing the danger of hook collisions by turning vehicles.<ref>[https://healthyrider.weebly.com/hold-the-left-junctions.html Hold the left junctions - Cycling for Health]</ref><ref>[https://southwarkcyclists.org.uk/a-hold-the-left-junction-finally-built/ A “hold-the-left” junction finally built. – Southwark Cyclists]</ref> While this setup works well for cyclists turning to the nearside or going straight ahead, there is no provision for turning across oncoming traffic (unless a [[Hook turn|two-stage turn]] is permitted). Furthermore, it can lead to increased delay at junctions and is not highly space efficient (it requires a dedicated nearside-turn lane for motorists).<ref name="Butler" />

==Full protection==

Line 33:

[[File:13-06-27-rotterdam-by-RalfR-27.jpg|thumb|The protection of the vulnerable cyclists with a protected junction with bicycle traffic lights.]]

In terms of optimal spacing between the path and motorist lanes, it is generally practice to use 2–5 meters at signalised crossings and one car length >5 m at unsignalised intersections. Providing more buffer space allows vehicles, particularly those turning out of smaller roads, to queue in the waiting area. On the other hand, larger buffers could place the cyclist at a less optimal viewing point from the mainline, and delay the signal operation due to longer distances necessitating slightly longer bicycle signal yellow and all red clearance intervals. The exact optimal distance has been the subject of several studies.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Schepers|first=Paul|date=2011|title=Road factors and bicycle–motor vehicle crashes at unsignalised priority intersections|url=https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2010.11.005|journal=Accident Analysis and Prevention|volume=43|issue=3|pages=853–861|doi=10.1016/j.aap.2010.11.005|pmid=21376876|via=|url-access=subscription}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Richter|first1=Thomas|last2=Sachs|first2=Janina|date=2017-01-01|title=Turning accidents between cars and trucks and cyclists driving straight ahead|journal=Transportation Research Procedia|series=World Conference on Transport Research -– WCTR 2016 Shanghai. 10–15 July 2016|language=en|volume=25|pages=1946–1954|doi=10.1016/j.trpro.2017.05.219|issn=2352-1465|doi-access=free}}</ref>

===SingalisedSignalised junctions===

[[File:Protected intersection features.png|thumb|Features of a protected signalised intersection]]

Signal-controlled junctions are less sustainably safe as they normally prioritised the movement of motor vehicles. However, if they are used, they can be designed to provide full protection for those cycling. Cyclists ideally have a [[Cycle track|protected cycle track]] on the approach to the intersection, separated by a concrete median with splay [[curb]]s if possible, and have a protected bicycle lane width of at least 2 meters if possible (one way). In the Netherlands, most one way cycle paths are at least 2.5 meters wide.<ref>{{cite web|date=2015-10-01|title=How wide is a Dutch cycle path? &#124; BICYCLE DUTCH|url=https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2011/06/30/how-wide-is-a-dutch-cycle-path/|access-date=2018-04-04|publisher=Bicycledutch.wordpress.com}}</ref>

Clear ground striping is key to define the cycle lane and its priority. Wide strips are painted aside the cycle waylane and 'shark teeth' (triangles with pointy end oriented toward the non priority vehicles) are used to reinforce who must yield.{{Where|date=January 2022}} In addition to ground marking, the cycle lane color plays a role to remind motorists of cyclist priority. In the Netherlands, the cycle waylane red color is not painted but embedded in asphalt to increase durability and reduce costs.{{Citation needed|date=January 2022}}

The design makes a [[turn on red]] possible [[Idaho stop|for cyclists]]. In many cases, the cyclist who is separated from motor traffic can turn right without even needing to come to a complete stop.<ref>{{cite web|title=Out of the Box Transcript.docx|url=http://www.protectedintersection.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Falbo_ProtectedIntersection_Transcript1.pdf|access-date=2018-04-04}}</ref>

This protected intersection design features a number of common elements that optimise safety:

* A corner refuge island with a reduced turning radius

**A reduced radius could increase difficulties to turn for larger vehicles (trucks and busses), so in some cases, mountable islands have been used, similarly to the [[Truck apron|truck mountable aprons]] which surround the centre island of roundabouts.

* A setback crossing for pedestrians and cyclists, preferably 5 meters (16.5&nbsp;ft) at signalised junctions

* A forward stop line, which allows cyclists to stop for a [[traffic light]] well ahead of motor traffic who must stop behind the [[Pedestrian crossing|crosswalk]], therefore placing bicycles in better view of a vehicle turning to the nearside.

* Separate signal phases, or at least a leading green interval for cyclists and pedestrians, to give cyclists and pedestrians no conflicts or a head start over motor traffic.

Some countries such as the UK, do not permit partial conflicts.{{citation needed|date=June 2024}} A partial conflict is where turning motor traffic may conflict with a cycle lane going straight ahead and/or a pedestrian crossing. These may be prohibited on safety grounds to prevent motor traffic colliding if they fail to give way when turning. However, they can also be beneficial as one cycle crossing will not require traffic to wait at a red light while the cycle light is green. This cycle light may be accompanied by audio signals to aid the visually impaired. They generally shouldn'tshould not be used if the amount of turning traffic is high, a bidirectional cycle track is used or outside of built up areas.<ref name=":0" />{{Rp|page=153}}

===CYCLOPS junction===

Line 67 ⟶ 68:

===Protected roundabouts===

Protected roundabouts or Dutch roundabouts are a variation of protected intersections for lower [[traffic flow]], without the traffic lights.<ref>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41XBzAOmmIU Video:Dutch roundabout] and [https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2015/10/13/explaining-the-dutch-roundabout-abroad/ blog post] on the Youtube Chain and web site 'BicycleDutch'◘</ref> In the Netherlands, designers have been switching signalised junctions for roundabouts, as roundabouts are safer.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Dutch|first=Bicycle|date=2015-10-12|title=Explaining the Dutch roundabout abroad|url=https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2015/10/13/explaining-the-dutch-roundabout-abroad/|access-date=2021-12-28|website=BICYCLE DUTCH|language=en}}</ref> Specific facilities for cyclists are not needed at quieter roundabouts (<6,000 PCU[[passenger /car unit]]s per 24 hours), unless connecting roads have segregated cycle tracks. Cycle lanes on roundabouts may be considered by designers to increase the visibility of cyclists, however they are dangerous as drivers, especially lorries, might have an inadequate view of cyclists using a circulatory cycle lane.<ref name=":0">{{Cite book|url=https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/972096448|title=Design manual for bicycle traffic|date=2016|others=Rik de Groot, vervoer en infrastructuur CROW kenniscentrum voor verkeer|isbn=978-90-6628-659-7|___location=Ede, The Netherlands|oclc=972096448}}</ref>{{Rp|page=147}}

For the safety of cyclists, motor traffic speeds should be reduced. Single-lane roundabouts are generally used in the Netherlands. Otherwise, a turbo roundabout can be used, which has multiple lanes and separates motor traffic going in different directions, but multi-lane roundabouts have been found to be especially dangerous to cyclists since many cyclists choose to ride in the outside lane and become much less visible to drivers.<ref>{{cite web |quote=I studien til Campbell et al. (2006) utgjorde slike ulykker 68% av alle sykkelulykker i flerfelts rundkjøringer. Ifølge Cumming (2012) skjer mange slike ulykker fordi bilister ikke så syklisten, noe som forklares med at mange syklister sykler ytterst i rundkjøringen. Syklister synes best når de bruker midten av kjørefeltet i rundkjøringen, mest fordi bilistene er mest oppmerksomme på hva som skjer i midten av kjørefeltet. |title=TØI rapport 1597/2017 - Trafikksikkerhet for syklister, Alena Høye - Blandet trafikk i rundkjøringen (ved sykkelfelt i tilfartene) s. 54 |url=https://www.toi.no/getfile.php?mmfileid=46551}}<!-- auto-translated from Danish by Module:CS1 translator --></ref> The best form of protection is grade separation, however as an alternative a segregated cycle track should be placed around the roundabout. This should not normally be used if there is more than one lane on exit. The track normally circulates one-way in the same direction as motor traffic to reduce confusion for motorists.<ref name=":0"/>{{Rp|page=|pages=147–148}}

As cyclists will conflict with motorists at the exit arms of the motorised roundabout, priority must be established. In the Netherlands, cyclists will normally be given priority to [[Bicycle-friendly|promote cycling]] over driving.<ref name=":0"/>{{Rp|page=148}} This is the design that has often been transposed internationally, labelled the 'Dutch roundabout', e.g. in [[Cambridge]], UK.<ref>{{Cite news|date=2020-09-26|title=Cambridge's Dutch-style roundabout: Why all the fuss?|language=en-GB|work=BBC News|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-53947440|access-date=2022-01-17}}</ref>

<gallery widths="240" heights="240">

Line 86 ⟶ 87:

== Design and publications ==

The Dutch not-for-profit organisation CROW publishes design manuals summarizing best standards for bicycle infrastructure in the Netherlands, where biking is a much more dominant mode of transportation than in the United States.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.crow.nl/english-summary|title=About CROW -– CROW|website=www.crow.nl|access-date=2019-02-27|archive-date=2024-05-15|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240515051509/https://www.crow.nl/english-summary|url-status=dead}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2018/8/28/17789510/bike-cycling-netherlands-dutch-infrastructure|title=No helmets, no problem: how the Dutch created a casual biking culture|website=www.vox.com | date = 28 December 2018 | access-date = 12 October 2022}}</ref> The organisation's and country's longer experience with synthesizing biking and driving transportation modes have made CROW's design manual internationally popular. After decades of publications in the native Dutch, an English translation was released in 2017.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.crow.nl/publicaties/design-manual-for-bicycle-traffic-(1)|publisher= CROW| title = Design manual for bicycle traffic | date=2017}}</ref><ref>{{cite web | url = https://usa.streetsblog.org/2017/02/01/the-dutchs-beloved-bikeway-design-manual-just-got-an-update/ | publisher = Streetsblog USA | title = The Dutch's Beloved Bikeway Design Manual Just Got an Update | website = usa.streetsblog.org | date = 1 February 2017 | access-date = 12 October 2022}}</ref>

=== US Design Guide Controversy ===

Line 92 ⟶ 93:

In 2011, the primary North American planning organisation NACTO released new design guidelines which claimed to use international best practices while omitting Dutch best practices. This sparked controversy, especially after ambassador of Dutch bicycle infrastructure Mark Wagenbuur criticised NACTO for doing so in a prominent trade blog.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/2011/04/state-of-art-bikeway-design-or-is-it.html |title= blog post: State of art bikeway design, or is it? |publisher=A view from the cycle path| date = 7 April 2011}}</ref> Three years after the furor, Nick Falbo, then part of Alta Planning + Design, a firm behind the NACTO designs, published ‘protectedintersection.com’, which integrated more European design concepts.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.protectedintersection.com|title=Protected Intersection|publisher=Nick Falbo| date = February 2014 |access-date=8 January 2015}}</ref>

In 2015, Alta Planning + Design published schematics and some realisations of "protected intersections" in the US and Canada closer to Dutch practice.<ref name="PI evolution">{{cite web |url=https://altaplanning.com/wp-content/uploads/Evolution-of-the-Protected-Intersection_ALTA-2015.pdf | title= Evolution of the Protected Intersection |publisher= Alta planning+design |date=December 2015 |access-date=2019-02-21 |archive-date=2019-07-15 December |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190715173213/https://altaplanning.com/wp-content/uploads/Evolution-of-the-Protected-Intersection_ALTA-2015.pdf |url-status=dead }}</ref> Later in the year, the [[Massachusetts Department of Transportation]] released their Separated Bike Lane Planning and Design Guide, which includes extensive discussion of protected intersections, and was used as a pilot for the upcoming [[American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials|AASHTO]] Bike Guide.<ref>{{Cite web|title=AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities, 2020|url=https://tooledesign.com/project/update-to-the-aashto-guide-for-the-design-of-bicycle-facilities-2019/|access-date=2021-02-13|website=Toole Design|date=9 February 2018 |language=en-US}}</ref> In 2019, NACTO, whose original Urban Bikeways Design guide generated the controversy, released "Don't Give Up at the Intersection", which encourages protected intersections as an alternative to bicycle lane drops. In 2021, the [[Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act|Invest in America Act]] became law, which amended the federal Highway Safety Improvement Program to recognize "protected intersection features" along with other separated bikeway treatments.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2021-11-15 |title=H.R.3684 – Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act SEC. 11111. HIGHWAY SAFETY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM. |url=https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/3684/text |website=Congress.gov}}</ref>

==See also==

* [[Cyclability]], how well suited an area is for cycling

* [[Cycling infrastructure]], infrastructure used by cyclists

* [[Cyclist crossing]], point where a cyclists crosses a route for another mode of transport

* [[Hook turn]]

* [[Hook turn]], road-vehicular manoeuvre for turning across lanes of opposing traffic

* [[Right-hook accident]], traffic accident where a turning motor vehicle hits a pedestrian or cyclist

==References==

Line 103 ⟶ 106:

{{cycling}}

{{Cycling Infrastructureinfrastructure}}

{{Road types}}

[[Category:Road junction types]]