History of Protected Intersections
These intersections originated in the Netherlands in the 1970’s and have been best practice in Europe for decades and are quickly gaining populari ty across the United States.
As of today, there are at least twenty (20) constructed protect ed intersections in California alone, seven (7) in Fremont, two (2) in San Luis Obi spo, two (2) in Richmond, three (3) in San Jose, and at least one (1) in Davis, Berkeley, Oakland, Palo Alto and San Francisco. Many more inte rsections throughout the state ha ve incorporated the various protective and offset elements that function like a pro tected intersection. Many more are in design or early construction phase as various juris dictions have codified these intersection treatments in their design standards and Cit y plans. City of San Luis Obispo mandates protective intersection elements be incorporated in all new and retrofit intersection projects per their recently adopted 2021 ATP plan.
The following information provides state and national recogniti on and support for these protective elements at intersection:
In 2014 Caltrans issued “Design Flexibility in Multimodal Desig n” Memorandum that stated the following:
“Publications such as the National Association of City Transportation (NACTO) “Urban Design Guide” and “Urban Bikeway Design Guide,” …are resources that Caltrans and local entities can reference when making planning and design decisions on the State highway system and local streets and roads.”
In 2015 FHWA issued “Separated Bike Lane Planning and Design Gu ide” that stated the following:
“Intersections are where most bicycle- vehicle collisions occur, and where riders feel the most stress. Desi gners have implement ed a variety of strategies, including both time- and s pace-separation, fo r maintaining the benefits of separated bike lanes through intersections.” In 2018 Caltrans issued Design Information Bulletin 89-01 (DIB 89-01) “Class IV Bikeway Guidance.” Which states the following:
“Intersection design should strive to mi nimize the potential conflict between the separated bikeway user and the crossi ng or turning of motorized traffic and pedestrians. Providing space for moto rists to wait wh ile yielding to bicyclists and pedestrians, separati ng bicycle crossing from pedestrian crossing, and providing space for turn ing and queuing bicyclists should be considered.”