UW reverts Pend Oreille intersection, takes out stop signs for cars crossing the Burke

Image from the UW TIGER application.

Current conditions. Image from the UW TIGER application.

Well, that didn’t last long. We reported earlier this week on the University of Washington’s efforts to improve safety where the Burke-Gilman Trail crosses Pend Oreille Road by adding stop signs for cars about to cross the trail’s crosswalk.

After some traffic backups on 25th Ave NE during peak travel times, the UW is pulling the plug on the idea and taking out the stop signs, reverting the intersection to its previous dangerous and confusing state (as pictured above), the UW announced Friday.

“These are not the results we were expecting, and certainly not the results we were hoping for,” said Director of Transportation at UW Josh Kavanagh.

The number of people biking and walking on trail is high enough even in rainy November that too few cars were able to get through the crossing, leaving a line of people waiting to make left turns from 25th to Pend Oreille. This was seen as unacceptable, so they are going back to the drawing board to find a different solution.

The problem (if you want to call it that) is that people on the trail want to treat the crossing like any other mid-block crosswalk, where cross traffic is required to yield. But Kavanagh and UW transportation would like it operate more like a typical four-way stop intersection with all directions taking turns.

However, people are not accustomed to treating crosswalks this way, and most people continued to enter the intersection as though they have the right of way (which, since there’s a crosswalk, they do). This gave people driving on Pend Oreille waiting at the new stop signs too few chances to get through, causing the backups.

Unfortunately, UW is relying on a minimal design in a slow-to-adopt national road design manual that leaves a lot to be desired in terms of prioritizing the safety and movement of people on foot and bike:

This is the design guide from the MUTCD that UW is following. We can do better.

This is the design guide from the MUTCD that UW is following. We can do better.

While the image above does not picture a zebra-stripe crosswalk, Kavanagh said he is “hesitant to remove the crosswalk” markings currently there. That certainly seems wise.

The core “problem” here is not that it is a crosswalk, it’s that too many people are biking and walking. That’s a fantastic problem to have, and one that should be supported rather than fought. These are not glitches in the traffic system, they are human beings getting around on foot and bike, an activity the University claims to want more of. They are not impeding traffic, they are helping it by not being in a car in the first place. They are also helping UW meet its commute reduction goals.

People in a crosswalk have priority. That’s a fundamental principle of how people move around a place safely, and it can’t be undone without putting people on foot and bike in a dangerous situation. Safety trumps traffic flow, and people in a crosswalk have the right of way. This is a very good rule that does not need fixing.

I have suggested that rather than fighting people’s natural inclination to treat the intersection as a normal crosswalk, the UW work with it to design a crossing that clearly gives the trail priority and makes sure sight lines are unobscured and lighting is bright enough that people driving, biking and walking can all see each other. One excellent way to do this would be to turn the intersection into a raised crosswalk like the one planned at 30th Ave NE. Another way would be to get rid of the stop signs currently facing the trail, which only add to confusion about who actually has the right of way.

If traffic continues to back up, Kavanagh said the UW is opening talks with SDOT about the potential to retime the signal on 25th to help more people get through.

A grade-separated Pend Oreille intersection. Image from the UW's TIGER grant application.

A grade-separated Pend Oreille intersection. Image from the UW’s TIGER grant application.

If traffic flow is really a big enough problem, then the UW needs to pony up the cash for a more significant crossing option, like their currently unfunded plan to grade separate the crossing. Otherwise, they could install a traffic signal, though preferably one like this where the trail has the green by default unless a vehicle triggers the light (far more people use the trail than Pend Oreille, so signal priority makes sense).

But anything that would reduce safety for trail users 24 hours a day just to slightly improve traffic flow for one or two peak hours a day would be a big mistake. This is one of the busiest trails in the entire nation. At peak, it carries as many people as a lane on a freeway. It is a major success as a piece of transportation infrastructure.

The UW should not be looking backwards to designs that meet barely acceptable minimums for much lesser trails. The Burke-Gilman is a national leader, and its design should be innovative, safe and intuitive. There’s no need to fight the trail’s success and treat it as a problem. Instead, observe how people naturally want to move through the space and create a design that allows that to happen safely.

Here’s the press release from UW:

Over the last week, the intersection of the Burke-Gilman Trail and Pend Oreille has featured a four-way stop as part of a traffic study to explore permanent reassignment of right-of-way. The study has been revealing. Since the stop signs were installed on Pend Oreille, automobile queues have been longer than modeling predicted and the delay extended onto 25th Avenue NE as motor vehicles were unable to complete turning movements to Pend Oreille – sometimes for multiple signal cycles.

The results have proven this treatment unsuccessful, therefore, we are returning to an intersection configuration consistent with the prototypical multiuse path crossing in this illustration from the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD):
http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009r1r2/part9/fig9b_07_longdesc.htm

As the diagram and associated specifications indicate, the four way stop is a suitable treatment when conditions support it, and that option may be reconsidered pending signal improvements at 25th and Pend Oreille. We will also consider a range of other treatments as we expand our study of interim improvements that can improve safety for all users.

In pursuit of a permanent solution, we are seeking funding in the regional mobility grant competition that would allow us to grade separate this intersection. Those funds are subject to award by WSDOT and appropriation by the Washington State Legislature. For the current updates on this process, please subscribe to our Burke-Gilman Trail mailing list.

If you have questions or concerns about this change in navigating the Burke-Gilman Trail, please don’t hesitate to contact Transportation Services at ucommute@uw.edu. Thank you for your patience as we adapt to address safety and functionality at this key intersection and campus entrance.

This entry was posted in news and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

42 Responses to UW reverts Pend Oreille intersection, takes out stop signs for cars crossing the Burke

  1. Gary says:

    “too few cars getting a chance”… sounds like they need some new fangled thing to allow users of the trail and road to take turns. You know sort of like one of those thingy’s that let cars take turns… traffic lights!…. nah, that would never work.

    • William Wilcock says:

      Absolutely. And at the same time where the Burke-Gilman crosses the 25th lets have a no turn on red sign so that bikes do not keep on getting hit or nearly hit on the crosswalk.

    • ChefJoe says:

      But it’s a painted crosswalk and the crosswalk priority is what causes problems so we shouldn’t use a lighted signal like we’d do for a 4 way intersection but, instead, a beg button and crosswalk “walk/don’t walk” signal for the trail. Signalize it like you’d do for a crosswalk too.

      • William Wilcock says:

        Pedestrians do not have a right of way in a cross walk when there is a pedestrian crossing light and on “Wait, don’t walk” and same for bikes with a bike signal. There is no need for a beg button; pedestrians and bikes can have a walk/green light except for the short time when the 25th Ave lights let traffic in/out of campus or based on inductive loop automobile detectors.

      • Josh says:

        Just to clarify this, pedestrians are prohibited from entering a crosswalk when the DON’T WALK signal is lit, but RCW 46.61.235 does not limit itself to pedestrians lawfully within a crosswalk — whether the pedestrian is legally in the crosswalk or not. A driver is still required to stop and remain stopped for a pedestrian occupying a crosswalk, even if the pedestrian signal says DON’T WALK and the driver has a green light.

        Jaywalking is illegal, but the law doesn’t allow open season on jaywalkers. If a driver fails to stop for a jaywalker in a crosswalk, both people have committed offenses, both are at fault if there’s an avoidable collision.

        RCW 46.61.235
        Crosswalks.

        (1) The operator of an approaching vehicle shall stop and remain stopped to allow a pedestrian or bicycle to cross the roadway within an unmarked or marked crosswalk when the pedestrian or bicycle is upon or within one lane of the half of the roadway upon which the vehicle is traveling or onto which it is turning. For purposes of this section “half of the roadway” means all traffic lanes carrying traffic in one direction of travel, and includes the entire width of a one-way roadway.

        (2) No pedestrian or bicycle shall suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and walk, run, or otherwise move into the path of a vehicle which is so close that it is impossible for the driver to stop.

        (3) Subsection (1) of this section does not apply under the conditions stated in RCW 46.61.240(2).

  2. Pingback: Burke-Gilman Trail alerts: New 4-way stop near UW + Trail work near NE 145th St | Seattle Bike Blog

  3. Andres Salomon says:

    I wonder how many cars were backed up because not only did they have to stop, but bikes were also forced to come to a complete stop.. doubling or tripling the amount of time they were in the intersection as they negotiated w/ drivers about who should go first..

    • Tom Fucoloro says:

      Yeah, I get the sense that if they just made it clearly a crosswalk, traffic wold flow better. Having people delay, then look around confused, then go doesn’t help anyone. Any driver with half a sense of being safety minded is going to stop for someone on a bike approaching the crosswalk, even if that person has a stop sign. It’s the right thing to do, and most people driving already do this anyway. That’s a good thing.

      • Cheif says:

        “Any driver with half a sense of being safety minded is going to stop for someone on a bike approaching the crosswalk”

        Unfortunately the metro bus drivers who go through there are not of the same opinion.

    • biliruben says:

      That’s what I was witnessing. The more pro-active the dudes in vests were about forcing bikes to stop, the larger the backup.

      As long as you are experimenting, make it a two-way for cars and test that out.

      And lose the dudes with vests. That’s not a legitimate test to determine real-world behavior. It just jams up the process.

      And what kind of test was this supposed to be, anyway? Just 1 week, in the middle of November (huh?), giving neither direction time to adjust their behavior at all.

      UW really needs to get with the program. They were leaders in progressive transportation issues when I came here 20 years ago. Now they are barely able to hang onto the caboose with the fingernails.

  4. Cheif says:

    Sounds to me like it’s time to close the street to automobile traffic. There are plenty of alternative roads for the cars to use, only one burke gilman.

  5. David Amiton says:

    “far more people use the trail than Pend Oreille, so signal priority makes sense”

    Tom — I’ve seen this point raised on SBB before, but just repeating it over and over again doesn’t actually make it true. While I wish this were the case, it’s simply not so.

    2010 combined peak-hour bike/ped counts at Pend Oreille were about 650 (https://www.washington.edu/facilities/transportation/tip/sites/default/files/file/corridor-study.pdf, page 26). Auto/bus counts at the gatehouse west of the intersection were about 550 (http://www.washington.edu/facilities/transportation/files/reports/2010_Annual_Traffic_Count.pdf, page 18). So maybe there’s a SLIGHT edge to trail traffic during the peak-hour. But if you compare ADT it’s not even close. On its best day the trail maybe hits 3,000 at that point. The roadway is a consistent 6,500 every day.

    I’m not suggesting that we make traffic or policy decisions based on volume comparisons alone, but let’s at least use correct info to inform the discussion.

  6. jt says:

    I love how even in UW’s ideal rendering of a super-wide BG with separated ped and bike facilities, they realistically include two folks totally screwing it up: the blonde lady and North Face bike pusher in the foreground, walking headlong into oncoming bike traffic without a care in the world. This is actually pretty realistic, based on early results from the experimental section near the new dorms.

    Maybe this picture can give us more insight into UW’s thinking about the BGT. Of the 4 cyclists, only 1 has a helmet. The oncoming cyclist climbing from the underpass is staring off to the side, probably wondering, like us, why SIX people have taken to picnicking on a sloped little patch of grass near a massive car sewer, so he’s oblivious to the danger to his unprotected cranium from the blonde kamikaze cyclist veering hard left into his path, making use of the BGT’s rare downhill grade approaching the tunnel to achieve ramming speed. She’s also helmetless but I guess that fits with her general recklessness. The doomed oncoming dude naturally doesn’t have his hands in the drops, so he’ll have no hope of braking before blondie executes her dastardly mission. So out of 5 people in the glorious new bike path, UW expects only 1 will actually be a helmeted bicyclist riding a bike properly.

    All told, out of 20 people in the area, they expect: 1 will be a helmeted pleasure-cruising cyclist with no backback or saddlebag, 2 will be clueless helmetless cyclists about to end their biking (and breathing) days forever in a tragic head-to-head collision, 2 will be out jogging at mid-day, 7 will be walking, 7 will be picknicking/loitering, and 1 will be driving overhead on Pend Oreille.

    Not pictured: a SINGLE commuting cyclist with backpack/saddlebags and a helmet. In spite of such people accounting for 90% of cyclists through there, and I don’t know, 70% of all trail users there? Maybe I’m reading too much into it, but UW seems to think only about 45-55% of trail users are using it for transportation, the rest are just there for a scenic place to picnic or jog or pedal aimlessly/recklessly. No wonder they think it’s fine to stop the trail traffic for Pend Oreille drivers– we’re all just loafing about, looking for a place to plop down and start picnicking, so what’s the hurry! And 85% of us are on foot, so a crosswalk’s no trouble at all!

    • Tom Fucoloro says:

      I think you’re definitely reading too much into that rendering.

      • jt says:

        Just because I’m paranoid doesn’t mean they’re not out to get me! :)

        While I was drafting my traffic study based on the rendering, David Amiton posted that actual 2010 study, which on page 23 suggests that bikes are about 70-75% of BGT users at that location (though page 26’s breakdown has surprisingly different numbers, suggesting about 60-65% cyclists; I can’t suss out the different methodology at the moment). Either way, my seat-of-the-pants estimate of 70% was in the ballpark.

      • Andres Salomon says:

        And thus architecture/planner “renderfic” was born.

    • Dave says:

      Thank you for this analysis! Made my day,

    • Becky says:

      Ha! Nice analysis. Your last paragraph points to a continual frustration I have : I want our paradigm about biking to be that it’s an actual form of transportation, not just something we do for kicks on the weekends. I want to go places safely and quickly.

    • Ints says:

      If overblowing stereotypes from an illustrative rendering is your thing, don’t forget to demand that the commuter cyclist have a 1,000 lumen flashing strobe headlight-oh, that’s right, how do you draw a 1,000 lumen strobe headlight so it’s flashing?

  7. William Wilcock says:

    If the UW is serious about bike safety they would put lights at the intersection in sync with those at the bottom of the hill (25th Ave NE). This would give bikes and pedestrians the right of way ~75% of the time with cars getting the right of way when they actually make it through the light to get onto or off campus.

    The only problem might be that in comparison with nearly every other US city I have visited, SDOT seems to have enormous problems synchronizing lights in ways that help traffic flow.

    • Karl says:

      “… in comparison with nearly every other US city I have visited, SDOT seems to have enormous problems synchronizing lights in ways that help traffic flow.”

      Hear hear!

      • JR says:

        SDOT is seriously underfunded and understaffed in this area, not to mention that many Seattle signals are hopeless due to incredibly bad intersection geometry.

  8. Josh says:

    The “before” photo does NOT match the MUTCD intersection illustration. Will UW reconfigure the intersection to match MUTCD?

    Specifically, the STOP signs on the trail have STOP lines set well back from the street. Cyclists who have legally stopped at those lines and then proceed forward to the crosswalk are no longer controlled by the STOP sign, they’re crosswalk users governed by RCW 46.61.190 (2).

    So, despite what UW would appear to prefer, it’s not marked to operate like a 4-way stop, trail users are still preferred over street users.

    Reacting in part to overuse of the intersection design UW cites from MUTCD, AASHTO notes that:

    A common misconception is that the routine installation of stop control for the pathway is an effective treatment for preventing crashes at path‐roadway intersections. Poor bicyclist compliance with STOP signs at path‐roadway intersections is well documented. Bicyclists tend to operate as though there are YIELD signs at these locations: they slow down as they approach the intersection, look for oncoming traffic, and proceed with the crossing if it is safe to do so. Yield control (either for vehicular traffic on the roadway or for users on the pathway) can therefore be an effective solution at some midblock crossings, as it encourages caution without being overly restrictive.

    If you read the fine print on the MUTCD diagram, it notes that either STOP or YIELD can be used, either on the street or on the trail. Given the traffic volumes of the trail here, YIELD control on the streets seems like a much better alternative to me.

    • Al Dimond says:

      It would be sort of confusing to have “Yield” signs face the trail, if it crosses the intersection in a crosswalk that implies traffic on the road should yield!

      Of course, the sort of yield that drivers actually do in practice at a crosswalk (I’m of course talking about drivers that indeed respect crosswalks) is a lot softer than the sort of yield they’d do to enter an arterial road from a yield sign. In the latter case they act like cross-traffic probably doesn’t even see them, and certainly isn’t going to slow down for them at all. The crosswalk yield is more like, “I’m going to approach at slightly lowered speed, and yield if someone is waiting at the crosswalk by the time I can stop safely.” This is even somewhat suggested in the rule that pedestrians shouldn’t suddenly walk out in front of traffic that can’t possible stop in time.

  9. Al Dimond says:

    I wonder if there’s a Hans Monderman aspect to this — that people are capable of handling low-speed traffic situations safely and efficiently without much direction, and that uncertainty (sometimes even the appearance of danger, but around intersections primarily I mean not giving anyone the impression they have absolute right-of-way) is a better way to keep speed down than anything else around.

    Not that I think UW is intentionally applying Monderman’s ideas (it clearly isn’t)… or that Monderman’s ideas are unimpeachable, or that you could expect them to be directly applied in the US where we have more entitlement than responsibility in our driving culture. Just that there are some hints of his ideas in what just happened here. It’s not exactly what I thought would happen — I thought it would be good to clarify right-of-way.

    • Ints says:

      That would be interesting if UW was actually trying to go in the Monderman direction. Based on themes in recent post threads of people doing what they do at intersections, regardless of the signage, maybe peeling all of that away would instill a modicum of self responsibility in all users.
      That would be my hope.
      My fear would be that users would just ratchet up the tension with drivers relying on their larger vehicles and horns to get their way and cyclists self-illuminating to the point of overshadowing the Christmas Ships Parade.

  10. Jeff Dubrule says:

    Maybe make that road bus-only during peak hours (maybe also UW service vehicles)?

    -jeff

    • William Wilcock says:

      I do not think this will work. There are parking garages/areas on this side of campus which the UW is unlikely to close. Having people access these from other entrances would increase the volume of traffic on campus substantially. The UW does a good job of calming/discouraging traffic on campus mainly by making it move slowly and thus encouraging vehicles to enter the gate nearest to where they are going.

      Traffic lights would make the intersection very safe or the junction could be left as it was (and soon will be again) since it is relatively safe compared with the crossing of the Burke-Gilman at 25th Ave NE and 15th Ave NE on either side of campus both of which are plagued by cars turning right red.

  11. RossB says:

    Otherwise, they could install a traffic signal, though preferably one like this where the trail has the green by default unless a vehicle triggers the light (far more people use the trail than Pend Oreille, so signal priority makes sense).

    That’s it. Really, that’s it. This is a very well written post, but you only needed to write that one sentence.

    Let’s pretend these are all cars for a second. What do you if you have a major thoroughfare (like Aurora) and a very minor side street? It’s obvious, and you’ve described it already. You make the other street wait for the more important traffic. There is no four way stop on Aurora at 90th NE. There is a light, though, and 90% of the time, it favor Aurora travelers. Why, in heaven’s name, should the Burke Gilman be treated differently. The simple answer is it shouldn’t.

    Now, to be fair, at some intersections (like Roosevelt or 15th NE) everyone has to take turns. The same is true of 80th NE and Aurora. If Pend Oreille road is that kind of a street, then add the traffic lights and give equal priority to both directions. But Pend Oreille road isn’t that kind of a road. It is a minor road, and deserves minor treatment. Add a light, make it favor the main line (the Burke Gilman) 90% of the time and be done with it. Otherwise you are basically saying that biking isn’t a legitimate form of transportation, and that is ridiculous.

    • Al Dimond says:

      Pend Oreille gets a decent amount of traffic, with pretty peaky volumes. It’s closer to an 80th/Aurora sort of thing than a 78th/Aurora thing.

      That said, there are lots of streets that meet this description. You should be able to bike from NE 70th in Seattle all the way to Kenmore without even having to think about cross traffic except at a couple of signalized intersections — all the others should simply be controlled with two-way stop signs. There’s that one intersection by Log Boom Park where the four-way stop is sort of reasonable (it’s a bit like Pend Oreille, with the grade and everything, but with less traffic in both directions, and there’s no reasonable solution that would involve BGT through-traffic never stopping). Past that, every other intersection is either grade-separated, signalized, or again so minor the cross-street should have a two-way stop all the way through Redmond (continuing on the Sammamish River Trail).

  12. stardent says:

    Ah, that’s too bad. They had stationed a few people there for a few days to instruct the trailies and the roadies as to the changes. If you don’t stop at the intersection, you will be cited, I was warned. But I always stop or slow down before I make a right turn into Pend Oreille and begin my climb. However, I can understand, given the short distance between the busy intersection on the 25th the uphill traffic cannot be stopped for too long. But no such restrictions on the downhill traffic.
    I propose the following as a temporary solution:
    A stop sign for downhill traffic.
    A speed limit of 15 mph for all traffic.
    A speed bump for uphill traffic just east of the trail crossing.

    Comments?

  13. biliruben says:

    I am guessing the vast majority of SOV traffic coming through Pond Orielle is headed for the parking lots and large strunctures N16, N18, N20, N21 and N12. I would that probably adds up to 2-3000 stalls (anyone have hard numbers here? UW transportation doesn’t even discuss these on their site). Coming and leaving, that probably accounts for nearly all the total. Few cars get on the main loop around campus, as it’s slow and you can’t legally pass loading and unloading buses.

    Those are pricey spots I think ~$15 a day. They probably pay for a good chunk of the
    UPASS subsidy.

    It would have been awesome if they’d built some sort of grade separated access to these garages with their work near the triangle, then problem close to solved. But that’s water under the bridge.

    • biliruben says:

      Actually, a lot of that looks like student parking. That can’t be right. Students get parking on campus? Unless they are disabled, that’s absurd.

      • Al Dimond says:

        Don’t know about UW, but a lot of big state colleges do have a significant amount of on-campus parking available to students to accommodate “commuter” students that live way off campus for a variety of reasons (cheaper/free housing, convenience to other jobs, etc… not everyone “goes away” to college, not everyone studies full-time, this sort of thing). Often there’s a permit/application process.

    • jt says:

      Maybe 1/3 of the drivers continue all the way up Pend Oreille to the main campus loop (Stevens) at rush hour rather than bearing left onto Mason Lane toward the lots you mention. Beats me where they’re all headed, but that’s my ballpark estimate, based what I’ve seen while biking up from the BGT to the main quad every day via Pend Oreille.

      My best guesses on their destination, in order of volume: the giant surface lot in the north center of campus (N5); N8 parking under McCarty Hall; the tiny N3 lots near Foster Business School along Stevens Way. A number of them turn left at the Stevens Way intersection, and that just totally mystifies me. Maybe people are just shortcutting toward the massive garage to get around Montlake’s interminable backups?

      Generally I think the school would be better served restricting the surface roads within campus to buses, vehicles, bikes, and pedestrians.

  14. Rob Norheim says:

    This morning they still have someone up there telling bikes what to do, plus a sign that says “Cross traffic does not stop”. Since when does cross traffic not stop for a crosswalk?

    • jay says:

      “since when does cross traffic not stop for a crosswalk?”

      Since forever, for maybe half ? of the drivers out there, but they are of course breaking the law.

      For someone to put up a sign is something else. No doubt it was just vandalism and will be promptly removed, (as long as they have a crew out there one might hope they take the stop signs too).

      I’m curious, what is the person telling bicyclists to do? Is it like a school crossing guard who tells them “wait here until I go out with my flag an make sure the cars stop”? While that would probably be offensive to many adults, as long as they did not unduly delay trail traffic it would not be totally unreasonable, other than being a waste of money.
      Well, actually, I should first ask who the “someone” is, if it is a; ” duly authorized flagger, or a police officer, or a firefighter vested by law with authority to direct, control, or regulate traffic” (RCW 46.61.190) ? then perhaps I should hold back on the snark.
      Still, if there is no construction, accident, or other situation requiring unusual traffic control, they are probably on shaky legal ground, since in PUDMAROFF v. ALLEN the State Supreme Court said:
      “Obviously here, the marked crosswalk was intended for users of the bike trial [sic].   The rules of the road cannot logically apply in crosswalks, nor does it make sense to permit use of a crosswalk by bicyclists and yet require them to yield to motorists as if in a vehicle.”

      IANAL, but it seems pretty clear to me that a stop sign is unjustified, and perhaps unenforceable.
      Granted that was 15 years ago, and, I believe, on a state highway. I don’t know if there are local laws the override that, or if there have been relevant changes in state legislation or decisions to the contrary since then.
      Though, regarding changes, in Pudmaroff, the Court cites Crawford, The Crawford court held RCW 46.61.755 did not apply to Crawford when she was in the crosswalk, because the statute pertained to a bicyclist “upon a roadway.” since then, 46.61.755 has apparently been amended, to make that absolutely clear: ” (2) Every person riding a bicycle upon a sidewalk or crosswalk must be granted all of the rights and is subject to all of the duties applicable to a pedestrian by this chapter.” Also it appears that 46.61.235 has been amended to make it clear that bicyclists are included. In other words, it seems the legislature supports the courts position.

      Also, the MUTCD illustration the UW is using as justification says (emphasis added); “”Intersection traffic control devices might be STOP or YIELD signs facing shared-use path approaches, roadway approaches, or both, depending on conditions
      “Might” implies optional, and, in this case the local “conditions” include the ruling by the State Supreme Court quoted above (“nor does it make sense “).

      • Stardent says:

        When the stops were installed initially, UW police had stationed officers at the same intersection warning the bicyclists to come to a complete stop or else they’d be cited.

  15. Stardent says:

    “stop signs”

  16. JR says:

    Pend Oreille closed to vehicle traffic – seems reasonable. Make it bus only?

    It seems to be used as a shortcut around traffic on Pacific or 45th as much as an actual entrance to the University. The other two University entrances don’t cross the trail so moving traffic to them seems like a good decision.

    Of course the U will never do it, same as how they’ll never grade separate it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *