Q&A - Turning left across a median, which route to take?

But what about this specific intersection? What is your opinion? Red or Blue?

I can't give you a firm answer!

In these sort of ambiguous boulevard situations, if there's a facing/oncomng vehicle turning left, I'll see which path they seem to want to follow and work with that.

My tendency would be toward choosing the blue path, for maybe diverse reasons; if you're the only person making the left turn from the street you're leaving, then it gives you a better chance to get your butt out of the way of the traffic behind you so they can continue. Conversely (I think that's the word), if there are other left turners behind you, it may allow more of them to occupy the intersection and get out of the control of the traffic light, which is also more efficient.

But if there's an opposing driver who's clearly determined to make a 'conventional' left turn, left of intersection centre, then there's not a whole lot of choice except to do-si-do with them.

Another factor always in my mind, as I spend a lot of time driving Senior's Buses and similar size vehicles, is that it can make more sense, in terms of occupying the physical space - the blue route is more practicable, and helps others to see past your vision-blocking vehicle.

I've been meaning to respond. Basically, I think we're on the same page (?).

Turning left into East 1st Avenue from Boundary Road (in order to change direction from northbound to westbound, in this case) does not involve changing lanes in the intersection, no matter which lane you finish your turn in, as there was only one lane that could be turned from.

Another way of looking at is if you were westbound on East 1st Avenue, arriving at Boundary. There's only one through lane that you can be in prior to Boundary, and two different lanes that you could end up in after crossing Boundary. A lane split, essentially. But not a lane change; you could equally well finish in either lane on the west side; if your destination is to head west on the #1 Highway shortly afterwards, then regardless of where you came from, the logical choice is to finish in the right hand lane.

Heck, apart from reversing maneuvers and turns at intersections, even something as simple as driving through curves such as on Canada Way, you place the front end of your tractor unit differently in the lane in order to avoid having your trailer wheels getting onto the centre line, or clipping curbs, or worse.

Krusty604 identified the difficulty (two opposing semis using the 'blue' path would inevitably meet in the middle of their trailers). But the red path cuts off the corner and you can't be putting your wheels over the curb; so typically one or the other will give priority, the professionals understand the real estate needed by both. I've often seen a left-turning semi driver at 1st & Boundary wait on the green, just with the front axle of his cab across the inner crosswalk line (so 'in' the intersection, and out of the control of the traffic light) then once the light changes, allowing all the facing left turners to exit before proceeding with a blue path turn and getting out of the intersection that way.

That's one of the problems with bike lanes (as shown on Cambie) in my opinion... without the bike lanes, the "roadway" as in, the width of the ashphalt cars could occupy was curb to curb. Cars are not supposed to travel in the bike lanes and that effectively reduces the roadway to bike lane curb to bike lane curb, or " the lateral boundary lines of the roadways".

I'm going to disagree with the way you're choosing to define the term 'roadway', which is, admittedly, a bit ambiguous. Let's see what the MVA has to say.

"roadway" means the portion of the highway that is improved, designed or ordinarily used for vehicular traffic, but does not include the shoulder, and if a highway includes 2 or more separate roadways, the term "roadway" refers to any one roadway separately and not to all of them collectively;

Just because cars are not supposed to travel in the bike lanes does not reduce the width of the roadway. Cars park on the roadway, too, in that part of town, in between the right hand curb and the adjacent bicycle lane. When cars turn right from one street to another, they oftentimes cross the bicycle lane, as well as the pedestrian crosswalks - but don't try to tell me that, at any time, they are leaving the roadway! Look at it another way - if you're a motorist, and you leave the roadway, then you're either on the shoulder, or maybe somebody's front lawn, or possibly your own driveway.

Another way that I would express this, in reference to cyclists travelling north/south in the vicinity of that intersection, would be with this analogy: if cyclists are on the Bikeway just east of Cambie, they are on a bikeway. It isn't a roadway by any stretch of the imagination, vehicles were never intended to be on it and drivers aren't invited, there. It may cross roads, but it isn't part of any intersection.

Cambie - as in, the asphalt portion of that arterial which cars may in fact travel or park on - is a roadway. By definition.

Given this, even when they add on pedestrian bulges at the intersection, the definition of the intersection (even if it's two intersections of a 2-way and a couple of 1-ways) does not change the fact that cyclists in the bike lanes on Cambie (not the Bikeway adjacent) are on the roadway.

In retrofitting existing streets to accomodate bike lanes, municipalities have made a total mess of things with bad and inconsistent design.

Well, let's think about this. First off, consistency is impossible, in terms of how they retro-engineer these things into an existing system, to better accommodate cyclists. It's entirely unreasonable to expect identical bike lanes at 64th & Cambie, on the Burrard Street Bridge, or along Hornby Street. They do their best, and in the downtown core this is usually at the expense of vehicle drivers as it usually results in fewer available traffic lanes, more difficult parking, more restricted turns, and excessive idling at lights.

For sure, some cycle lanes are easier for the cyclist to navigate than others (this thread is worth a look) but that's inevitable.

Just look at the STOP line AFTER the pedestrian crosswalk and bike path here! The distance from the NB road/bike path separator line to where the STOP line should be - prior to the crosswalk - is over 20m! How could you even tell it's safe to proceed into the intersection from that far back ?

It took me a while to figure out what you were referring to here, but in fact that Bikeway is an adjacent route to Cambie Street, legally it's mid-block and not part of the intersection. Plus which, it's very well marked, freshly painted with a green box adjacent to the clearly marked zebra stripe pedestrian crosswalk. It doesn't need an additional stop line beforehand.

Looking at the overview of that intersection, you can see that there's been a lot of work done in the last while, and those stop lines painted on West 64th are reinforcing the Stop signs at Cambie. They're designed to ensure that drivers stop before the unmarked crosswalk on the west side (a similar one probably existed on the east side) at a place where they can see and be seen by the Cambie street traffic - including the cyclists in the Cambie street bike lanes, the first point of conflict after pedestrians.

Stop signs, and Stop lines, are not primarily placed so that the driver can see cross-traffic, it's usually necessary to move forwards carefully before you can see enough to make a decision about proceeding at the intersection, once you've given pedestrians the right of way. And it's important to recognize that the majority of pedestrian crosswalks are not painted on the roadway, but they're just as real as real can be.

One intersection or two, it's a terrible design either way.

Well, I'm of the opposite point of view. I think that both the boulevard intersection of Cambie and West 64th Street, and the adjacent Bikeway on the east side of Cambie are excellent, and reflect modern thinking on intersection design. Study the overview, you can clearly see that they've spent a lot of money there - pedestrian bulges with new concrete sidewalks make it safe for pedestrians to see and be seen, while both northbound and southbound cyclists have a clearly defined cycle lane, whilst motorists still have two travelling lanes and sight lines are excellent for all. Meanwhile, parked cars are still accommodated where practical between the bulges.

Looking at the ICBC Crash Maps, I think you'll agree; it isn't the safest intersection on Cambie, but it only has 1/10th of the intersection collisions along that corridor compared to the most signficant spot, at SW Marine Drive. Those crash maps have cyclist specific information, too, and are worth reviewing.

Meanwhile, that Canada Line Bikeway is another alternative route for cyclists who want to avoid the Cambie Street traffic. What more can you ask? How would you improve any of it, even further?

---------------------------

Apologies to Outrageous about how this gets off topic, but I think we've done a good job of keeping it to one reply string amongst the rest of your boulevard turn questions ...