This brings up an interesting question: are these acceleration lanes (the merge lane after you turn right) really a good idea at all, especially when paired up with free right turn lanes (a.k.a. slip lanes)? As this thread points out, many people don't know how to use them in the first place, making them a risk for rear-end collisions (not the most serious type of collision, I might add, but worth considering). Furthermore, as Ducky points out, these lanes, which are suburban adaptations of freeway merge lanes, don't really help much, because at intersections controlled by traffic signals, the traffic tends to come in fairly tight platoons separated by large gaps. Cars in the platoons tend to be too close together to merge safely, while the gaps between platoons tend to very large. The result is that, even those who take the right turn and start to use the merge lane end up stopping to find a gap if there is traffic. And if there is not traffic, then you don't need a merge lane in the first place.I understand there's room to pull in that lane on a red, but what's the point if you see there's a steady stream of cars coming and there won't be an opportunity to merge once you get to the end? I think it's safer to stay stopped at the red until you see an opportunity or opening. That way, you have a better view of what's coming, who may be changing lanes from the No. 1 lane to the No. 2 (if they don't think turn signals are optional), and you don't have that impatient driver riding your bumper rear-end you when you get to the end of the merge lane and can't merge.
[Irish1, I always forget the lane numbering. Is No. 1 the slow lane or the fast lane?]
But why, you ask, even if they are not always effective (I will grant that occasionally they are helpful when traffic more spread out, as it sometimes is at this intersection due to the long distance between lights) would we want to get rid of them? Well, I already mentioned the rear-end collision risk. But the bigger reason is that they are a waste of pavement and the real-estate on which it sits. This extra pavement adds 12 to 16' to the width of an intersection, creating more run-off, more heat, using more resources, making it more hazardous for bicyclists passing through the intersection (from the bridge, in this case) and, maybe most importantly, making the crossing for pedestrians longer and less safe (particularly where there is a free right turn, meaning cars never stop). And why should you, the average motorist, care about pedestrians having to walk another 12-16'? Well, beyond the obvious inconvenience for you them, that extra pavement width results in an extra 3 to 5 seconds of pedestrian signal phase every time a pedestrian (or bicyclist) chooses to press the button to cross. Now, that may not sound like much, but it adds up (if you have one on every leg of the intersection, that can be 20 seconds added to the overall cycle length) that kind of time drives traffic signal engineers and people sitting at lights nuts. Finally, IMHO, they make intersections more dangerous (especially for pedestrians crossing the street the cars are turning on to) by further encouraging people not to actually stop when they make right turns on red (since they don't have to worry about getting hit by another car until after making the turn).
To my knowledge, there are no studies proving these facilities are safer for motorists, but there is plenty of evidence that they are more dangerous for all other users of the road; yet another example of how our transportation system caters to the convenience of one mode over the safety (and convenience) of all others.
