Sharrow lane width recomendations

[The Human Car]

One of the cool things about Sharrows is they can be used irregardless of lane width and the do something positive for biking. But it looks like the accompanying documentation does not specify the minimal lane width where the Sharrows will function well to create some extra space for cyclists.

My observations is that on lanes 10' or less Sharrows encourage liner lane sharing and on 12' or more you get a fuzzy bike lane with sharrows. A problem has come up where the city might be changing lane widths from 10' inside and 12' outside to 11' for both lanes and sharrows and personally I would like to keep the 10' 12' combo and add sharrows to the 12' lane.

So the question is; is there any official documentation where wider lanes work better with sharrows. And as always I would be interested in your thoughts on lane widths and sharrows.

[Bekologist]

i dont think the idea of a sharrow is 'creating extra space' for bicyclists, barry. You want cyclists and motorists to share a 12' lane side by side?

i believe sharrows will 'work' only on low speed 25-30 MPH, narrow laned roads with the sharrow centered in the lane, but that's my opinion.

locally the discussion has been on how far centered in the lanes they are; here in Seattle there is some movement to use both super sized sharrows as well as 'standard' size sharrows further out from their current placements...

[noisebeam]

i dont think the idea of a sharrow is 'creating extra space' for bicyclists, barry. You want cyclists and motorists to share a 12' lane side by side?

i believe sharrows will 'work' only on low speed 25-30 MPH, narrow laned roads with the sharrow centered in the lane, but that's my opinion.

locally the discussion has been on how far centered in the lanes they are; here in Seattle there is some movement to use both super sized sharrows as well as 'standard' size sharrows further out from their current placements...

Those are similar to my thoughts as well, although I don't see why those speed restrictions would be needed. I always assumed/expected sharrows were for lanes that tended to be more appropriate for front to back sharing vs. side by side sharing. Also having them closer to the center of the lane makes that clearer.

Al

[Bekologist]

regarding traffic flow, noisebeam, the general consensus is that at higher speed differentials, greater traffic seperation is desired for all sorts of reasons.


this is widely accpeted in the transportation engineering community.


Sharrows in the USA need to morph into unmistakeable signs to both drivers and bicyclists that bicyclists have FULL use of the lane.

[John E]

I concur w/ Bekologist.

[noisebeam]

regarding traffic flow, noisebeam, the general consensus is that at higher speed differentials, greater traffic seperation is desired for all sorts of reasons.


this is widely accpeted in the transportation engineering community.


Sharrows in the USA need to morph into unmistakeable signs to both drivers and bicyclists that bicyclists have FULL use of the lane.

I still don't think they should only be used on low speed roads. There are many roads over 30mph that would benefit with easily implemented sharrows - roads that would unlikely be widened anytime soon. There are also roads that are over 30mph that would not benefit with traffic separation - for example roads with frequent intersections.

Al

[invisiblehand]

Sharrows in the USA need to morph into unmistakeable signs to both drivers and bicyclists that bicyclists have FULL use of the lane.

I think that is what SHARROWs are good at. Sending a signal that the cyclist can use the center -- or right-center -- of the lane. Probably most useful in the context that Al suggests -- promote front to back sharing -- unless the lane is particularly wide.

I don't know whether SHARROWs actually help people who need it -- that is, will an inexperienced cyclist actually move further away from the curb over the arrow? -- but in the few places that I have seen them here and in Santa Fe, they do seem to provide a signal to drivers that "yes, HPVs are supposed to be here."

Regarding width and placement on a narrow lane, roughly speaking, I would paint it 4-5 feet wide in a right-centerish position with no part of the arrow within 2-feet of the curb.

EDIT: I guess the other advantage is that SHARROWs are presumably cheaper to implement and maintain.

[Bekologist]

sending the signal the cyclist should be in the right side of a narrow lane is not the message to be sent out about unshareable, substandard width lanes. off centered sharrows do not provide the message 'full use of lane'.

[invisiblehand]

sending the signal the cyclist should be in the right side of a narrow lane is not the message to be sent out about unshareable, substandard width lanes. off centered sharrows do not provide the message 'full use of lane'.

I don't know about that. Remember if the lane gets really narrow -- say ten feet -- and you can't use the two right-most feet of the lane, the five-foot-wide arrow is essentially going to be in the center. At nine feet, the arrow is dead center. At twelve feet -- assuming we follow the minimum standard outlined earlier -- the arrow still reaches the center. Roughly speaking, people slide further left for left-turns or extraordinary situations. Both of which are generally pretty easy to communicate.

I write right-centerish since, anecdotally, you are not going to get inexperienced cyclists to ride there regardless of signage, special arrows, or diety intervention. An experienced cyclist will often slide over either by preference or necessity with or without the SHARROW.

[noisebeam]

sending the signal the cyclist should be in the right side of a narrow lane is not the message to be sent out about unshareable, substandard width lanes. off centered sharrows do not provide the message 'full use of lane'.

Totally agree. It is one reason I prefer sharrows (in concept) over "Share The Road" signs when narrow lanes are present. The StR signs most often do not indicate that sharing may result in a centerish cyclist position.

Al

[genec]

Totally agree. It is one reason I prefer sharrows (in concept) over "Share The Road" signs when narrow lanes are present. The StR signs most often do not indicate that sharing may result in a centerish cyclist position.

Al

Agreed, not to mention the misinterpretation of StR... "hey cyclist, move over... you're supposed to share..." :rolleyes:

[noisebeam]

Agreed, not to mention the misinterpretation of StR... "hey cyclist, move over... you're supposed to share..." :rolleyes:

Worse is that some share the road signs (namely the ones used in AZ) show the cyclist riding in the gutter. I'd rather not have this type of sign adjacent to roads with NOLs.

Al

[Bekologist]

i can't find any specific reference to recommended lane width for sharrows except for blanket statements like 'designed to be placed in lanes too narrow to be safely shared'.

since these are experimental in the US in about a dozen cities so far, perhaps some forward thinking municipal planners have a developing standard? I'd cull Sheboygan and the other cities for any design recommendations.

[DCCommuter]

Around here (DC and Arlington, VA) sharrows are misused to create "back-door" bike lanes on roads that are too narrow for a bike lane. The sharrow is painted next to the gutter in 11' or narrower lanes. On North Harrison Street in Arlington they've even put a "bike lane" sign next to a lane painted that way.

The DC DOT has a Bicycle Facility Design Guide (available at http://ddot.dc.gov/ddot/cwp/view,a,1245,q,640118.asp) that specifies the symbol be centered 4' from the curb without parking, 11' with parking -- even if that means putting it in the parking lane.


Some people just don't get it.

[invisiblehand]

Worse is that some share the road signs (namely the ones used in AZ) show the cyclist riding in the gutter. I'd rather not have this type of sign adjacent to roads with NOLs.

Al

:thumb:

[invisiblehand]

Around here (DC and Arlington, VA) sharrows are misused to create "back-door" bike lanes on roads that are too narrow for a bike lane. The sharrow is painted next to the gutter in 11' or narrower lanes. On North Harrison Street in Arlington they've even put a "bike lane" sign next to a lane painted that way.

Whew ... glad that someone else hates that SHARROW. I tried to show it to Barry from space that other week but could not view it.

[The Human Car]

The design specs of sharrows is such that they are placed on the right side of the lane. As much as I or anyone else would like to see sharrows in the center lane position that really is not in the stars for this treatment in the near future. So IMHO any discussion about better positioning of sharrows in the lane is mute in this thread.

So far I have not experienced any real significant negative influence of sharrows on "proper" VC style. What I have experienced is this type of "bike facility" on narrow lanes is not that effective in getting more people out on bikes (but it's still early in the season so who knows.)

So what I am thinking is if sharrows are not performing well on narrow lanes to get more people out on bikes (and is not needed for the VC) so perhaps some other treatment might be preferred on narrow lanes or narrow lanes could be widened a bit.

I will also note to my DC brethren that are concerned about side by side sharing in a 12' lane, DC law does not allow you to take the lane unless the lane is less then 12' wide.

[Bekologist]

Why????

super sized sharrows are being considered for Seattle streets, Barry. Sharrows ARE experimental in about 10(?) cities right now, perhaps Toole Design could help with more forward thinking sharrow placement, they are currently advising many US cities with bicycle master plans and are forward thinking transportation engineers....

www.tooledesign.com

and a DC requirement to always share lanes that are over 12 feet wide? I'd be ignoring that 'rule' left and right. aren't there exemptions for unsafe lane conditions, turning traffic, avoiding obstacles... most of these 'requirements' have multiple conditionals that allow cyclists full use of any traffic lane regardless of width.

[invisiblehand]

I'd be ignoring that 'rule' left and right.

I forget the details ... I believe that there are the typical exemptions. But yes ... we ignore the rule often.

[Bekologist]

so let's see...lanes less that 12 feet wide, DC bicyclists are required to take a full lane? And sharrows are pretty much indicated only in lanes too narrow to be shared safely??

Seems a very compelling reason to have sharrow placements moved to the left a few feet IMO, and now is the time to lobby for it!! in cities that are adopting MUTCD standards for sharrows.

remember, too, municipalities are generally NOT liable for design standards in excess of MUTCD designations. or so I've read, let me search for that article...

[The Human Car]

Why????

super sized sharrows are being considered for Seattle streets, Barry. Sharrows ARE experimental in about 10(?) cities right now, perhaps Toole Design could help with more forward thinking sharrow placement, they are currently advising many US cities with bicycle master plans and are forward thinking transportation engineers....

www.tooledesign.com

and a DC requirement to always share lanes that are over 12 feet wide? I'd be ignoring that 'rule' left and right. aren't there exemptions for unsafe lane conditions, turning traffic, avoiding obstacles... most of these 'requirements' have multiple conditionals that allow cyclists full use of any traffic lane regardless of width.

Sharrows are in the final stages of being adopted into the MUTCD which is why so many cities are adopting them because of the previous documented success and the assumed final adoption by the MUTCD. Baltimore has not applied to study different placement of sharrows so therefore cannot place them outside the original design specs and I assume the same thing for DC. Toole can only do so much if the city they are working with does not agree to do and fund all the extra things needed for a new experimental design they are stuck with what's available (even though the do push the envelope a bit.)

Super Sized Sharrows are not regular sized sharrows which is why they are different.

[randya]

I have no idea what the MUTCD actually says about positioning of sharrows in the lane; however, for maximum effectiveness, sharrows should be placed in the middle of the lane, and not in the right tire track position, IMO.

[DCCommuter]

So what I am thinking is if sharrows are not performing well on narrow lanes to get more people out on bikes (and is not needed for the VC) so perhaps some other treatment might be preferred on narrow lanes or narrow lanes could be widened a bit.

That "other treatment" would be sharrows in the middle of narrow lanes.


I will also note to my DC brethren that are concerned about side by side sharing in a 12' lane, DC law does not allow you to take the lane unless the lane is less then 12' wide.

That's not true. You can take the lane any time conditions make it unsafe to ride to the right, or when traveling at the prevailing speed. What the law says is that a lane 11' or less is presumed to be unsafe to ride right.

What's interesting is the design guide does not show any examples of sharrows on lanes less than 12' wide. The presumption in the design guide is that cyclists will ride in the door zone when parking is present.

[Bekologist]

I think the MUTCD will be adopting the guidelines that the edge of sharrows allow 2 and a half feet for the door zone in edge striped parking, minimum of 11 feet from edge of unstriped parking.

The problem Seattle is running into is the 11 feet minimum. cars commonly park out past their expected footprints, leaving sharrows in the door zone.

Barry, check out this legal opinion re: federal design mandates on communities.....

http://www.planetizen.com/node/30681

I see absolutely no compelling reason why a community could not redesign sharrows to be larger and centered in the lane as the design intent of sharrows is indicating cyclist road position in lanes too narrow to be safely shared, meaning, bikes should be riding center lane......

it looks to be a flawed implementation, Barry, if sharrows are morphing into side of road designators in marginally wide lanes. Sharrows have the planned use for marking lanes too narrow to be safely shared on roads also too narrow to allow implementation of well designed bike lane infrastructure.

in fact, the design mandate states they may be placed further than 11 feet from the curb, so there's even allowances to have sharrows centered in the lane!

and noisebeam, sharrows will not be recommended on streets over 35 MPH. seems the traffic engineers still got some sense, eh!

[The Human Car]

Good points all.

To DCCommuter: As long as you are aware that additional proof may be required in order to legally take the lane in a over 11' lane in DC.

To Bek: All good points but what do you see the advantage of a centered positioned sharrow over a BMUFL sign (Bikes May Use Full Lane) or the standard share the road signs?

For those of you who want to officially comment on Sharrows I'll direct you here: http://www.baltimorespokes.org/article.php?story=20080330163659675

And getting back to my problem in more general terms what would be the best treatment for two travel lanes (same direction) with 22' of ROW with the right lane used as off peak parking and the speed limit is 35mph (major arterial.)

[Bekologist]

WAIT- your city is looking to install them in lanes that are used as off peak parking as well??

RED FLAG - BAD IMPLEMENTATION - RED FLAG

well, sharrows are recommended to be at least 11 feet from the curb. where does that place the sharrow?

in the middle of the lane line? or will baltimore place them further right, in the middle of parked cars during off peak hours???

It sounds like baltimore is going to royally screw up your sharrow placements, Barry.

The 'best' treatment, perhaps, would be sharrows in both narrow lanes if one lane is a also a parking lane 18 hours a day..... or design as directed by the MUTCD and place them starting 2.5 feet out from a 7 foot imaginary car footprint....which leaves them pretty darn far out in the lane.

and signage versus sharrows? sharrows better guidance for bicyclists, signage lost in static from excessive signage. the recent NCHRP report discussed pros/cons of sharrow over signage i think.....

[noisebeam]

and noisebeam, sharrows will not be recommended on streets over 35 MPH. seems the traffic engineers still got some sense, eh!

Seems like an arbitrary speed restriction based on the idea that cyclists should not use higher speed roads. Basically it would rule out the effective use of sharrows where I live. The only place I could see them as useful is on 40mph+ arterials, not the 25mph quiet residential streets.

There is no sense in this speed restriction.

Al

[Bekologist]

umm, there's a lot of sense in it Al. the weight of scads of transportation engineer and planning wisdom back it; Nat'l government committees usually weed out arbitrary.

maybe YOU think there's no need for a speed restriction, but the current widely accepted wisdom is that sharrows are not accomodations designed for high speed roads.

[noisebeam]

maybe YOU think there's no need for a speed restriction, but the current widely accepted wisdom is that sharrows are not accomodations designed for high speed roads.
For new roads that can be understood if the choice is betwen different accommodations vs. sharrows or none - if road will have >35mph traffic then a WOL may be preferred over a NOL with a Sharrow.
However there are many existing roads with NOL - there is no way to increase the pavement width, nor reduce lanes. Here sharrows seem more appropriate for roads >35mph, I think better than a StR sign which is what is in place today on 45mph roads with a NOL.

Al

[Bekologist]

al- you will see road diets, road widening, bike lanes along those 45 MPH streets before you ever see a traffic engineer place a sharrow in a 45 MPH traffic lane, bro!

you may THINK there's no way for governments to change road design or claim greater ROW thru imminent domain rules but that's not very realistic.

[randya]

WAIT- your city is looking to install them in lanes that are used as off peak parking as well??

RED FLAG - BAD IMPLEMENTATION - RED FLAG

well, sharrows are recommended to be at least 11 feet from the curb. where does that place the sharrow?

in the middle of the lane line? or will baltimore place them further right, in the middle of parked cars during off peak hours???

It sounds like baltimore is going to royally screw up your sharrow placements, Barry.

The 'best' treatment, perhaps, would be sharrows in both narrow lanes if one lane is a also a parking lane 18 hours a day..... or design as directed by the MUTCD and place them starting 2.5 feet out from a 7 foot imaginary car footprint....which leaves them pretty darn far out in the lane.

and signage versus sharrows? sharrows better guidance for bicyclists, signage lost in static from excessive signage. the recent NCHRP report discussed pros/cons of sharrow over signage i think.....

Bek - After reading a bit more here I think it may be the MUTCD that is screwing up the sharrow placements, they should be placed squarely in the middle of the lane if the issue is lanes that are too narrow too safely share; but it sounds like the MUTCD placement is in the 'as far right as practicable' bike lane position.

[Bekologist]

what is as far right as practicable in a lane too narrow to be safely shared? In spite of it legally being up to the bicyclist? THE revised MUTCD design mandates appear to leave it wide open for communities to place sharrows further into the lane.

it appears municipalities are not going to be restricted to the 11' edge of road placement... bike advocates could easily make a compelling issue to have sharrows centered in the middle of narrow lanes!

But, Baltimore putting sharrows in lanes that gets used for parking 18 hours a day (or whatever?) Seems bad, very very bad. Marginalizing, not integrating.

[DCCommuter]

The sharrow is specified for use in lanes that are too narrow for bike lanes. Where I differ from my local traffic engineers is that I feel, with the guidelines in use locally, any lane that is too narrow for a bike lane is too narrow to be shared. So any time a sharrow is used it should be centered in the lane. Just my opinion.

Our local standards allow bike lanes on a road with parking that is a minimum of 22' feet wide -- 7' for the parking lane, 5' for the bike lane, and 10' for the travel lane. On a road without parking, the minimum is 15'-- 5' for the bike lane and 10' for the travel lane. However, the standard only requires 3' of usable pavement for the cyclist; up to 24" of the gutter pan is allowed to be unusable and still count toward the 5' width of the bike lane. This sounds like a lot, until you get onto a road that is striped this way with any kind of traffic. DC allows vehicles to be up to 8' 8", not including mirrors. On large vehicles the end of an open driver side door can be 10' or more from the right edge. Drivers do not normally park right up against the curb, nor are they required to. Drivers do not normally drive against the left edge of their lanes, nor are they required to do that either.

What's frustrating is our local engineers feel that these standards give cyclists more room than they actually need. They see the sharrow as a way of guiding cyclists to the edge of the lane when the lane is not wide enough to use a bike lane. Our engineers also feel that cyclists should never be encouraged to take the lane, so sharrows are only allowed on lanes over 12' wide, where cyclists don't have a clear right to take the lane. On lanes with parking, the minimum allowed road width is 8' for parking and 12' for the travel lane. The sharrow is painted with 8' between the centerline and the left edge of the sharrow, and 5' between the left edge of the sharrow and the left edge of the parking lane.

Note that DC does not allow 7' parking lanes except adjacent to a bike lane. If a bike facility is not adjacent, the minimum size for a parking lane is 11'. DC also does not allow outside lanes to be less than 10' unless a bicycle facility is present, in which case they will allow 8'. A street must have at least one 10' lane, again unless a bike facility is present. The most common current configuration in downtown DC is 44' streets, with a 10' lane and a 12' parking lane on each side. With that configuration it is legal for cyclists to take the lane and these streets are very convenient to ride on. These are the streets they are trying to shoe-horn bike lanes and sharrows onto, to force cyclists out of the lane. Cyclists gain nothing when these streets are reconfigured with an 8' parking lane to allow either a sharrow or a bike lane.

[randya]

^^Blatant mis-use of sharrows

:mad:

[randya]

what is as far right as practicable in a lane too narrow to be safely shared? In spite of it legally being up to the bicyclist? THE revised MUTCD design mandates appear to leave it wide open for communities to place sharrows further into the lane.

it appears municipalities are not going to be restricted to the 11' edge of road placement... bike advocates could easily make a compelling issue to have sharrows centered in the middle of narrow lanes!

But, Baltimore putting sharrows in lanes that gets used for parking 18 hours a day (or whatever?) Seems bad, very very bad. Marginalizing, not integrating.

Do you really think? It won't happen, even in Portland.

[Bekologist]

concur with the comments about DC's poor use of bike lanes.

Do you really think? It won't happen, even in Portland.

do you mean the advocates lobbyling for them, or cities placing them centered in narrow lanes? COZ in Seattle there's movement afoot to do exactly that....

[derath]

concur with the comments about DC's poor use of bike lanes.

Welcome to the MD/DC metro area!

You should see some of the piss poor excuses for a bike lane as well.

-D

[Bekologist]

HEY! I thought you have never seen a bike lane OR a wide lane, derath!!!

yeah, DC could probably learn a lot from Portland and Seattle on how to better engineer your public space for bikes. car ain't king no more....

[derath]

HEY! I thought you have never seen a bike lane OR a wide lane, derath!!!

Never said that Bek. I said that I encounter no bike lanes or WOL anywhere that I ride.

My job (IT consulting) requires driving as most of my clients are well outside cycling range (I have a few I can bike to. They even have showers :D ) During my driving I have seen some really REALLY stupid bike lanes.

-D

[Bekologist]

:D so you ARE familiar with what a wide lane is, and what a bike lane is too!

Riesterstown's likely LONG OVERDUE for some well provided bike lanes, wide lanes, and sharrows in narrow lanes...

SHARROWS.

Derath- if your community WERE installing sharrows, would you want them under parked cars 18 hours a day, to the right in narrow lanes, or centered in the narrow lane? assume 'no sharrows' isn't an option, pretend riestertown has got the design mandate, city approval, and local cyclists are advising yoour municipality on placement of the sharrow stencils-

where on the road barry describes would you like the sharrows, and how would you prefer roads like Barry described- striped 10 foot and 12 foot , or 11 for both? what are the rationale for your choice?


BTW i meant to chide DC for its poor implemention of SHARROWS, not bike lanes, but was distracted just as i was writing it.

[derath]

:D so you ARE familiar with what a wide lane is, and what a bike lane is too!
Well sure. I have never said otherwise. As I have clearly stated in other threads, I declined to comment because I don't have practical experience riding in those conditions personally. I don't like to pretend to know something when I don't. But sure I have seen pictures and videos of both to know what they are. But knowing what something is and having first hand experience are 2 different things.

Reisterstown is LONG OVERDUE for some well provided bike lanes, wide lanes, and sharrows in narrow lanes...

Fixed it for you.


Derath- if your community WERE installing sharrows, would you want them under parked cars 18 hours a day, to the right in narrow lanes, or centered in the narrow lane? assume 'no sharrows' isn't an option, pretend riestertown has got the design mandate, city approval, and local cyclists are advising yoour municipality on placement of the sharrow stencils

Wherever they work best. Personally I would consider that to be right smack in the middle. But I am not a sharrow expert. For that matter I would love if they stenciled "hey A**hat, I'm allowed to ride here" but I don't think that will happen :D

where on the road barry describes would you like the sharrows, and how would you prefer roads like Barry described- striped 10 foot and 12 foot , or 11 for both? what are the rationale for your choice?

Honestly I don't know. I don't remember the road Barry is describing, and honestly I don't feel like opening another browser and going back to re-read it. But I would trust Barry's judgement. He is a heck of a good guy and an excellent advocate in our area.


BTW i meant to chide DC for its poor implemention of SHARROWS, not bike lanes, but was distracted just as i was writing it.

Sorry if I distracted you. There are lots of things you can easily chide DC for it's lousy implementation. I haven't seen any sharrows in DC to comment. Most of the roads I have driven on in DC with bike lanes looked so so (narrow, jammed in between the car lane and the door zone). I am still waiting for them to close down Beach drive to car traffic (that would be a huge boon to cycling).

-D

[Bekologist]

Derath, you may be detracting but you weren't distracting, that was my girlfriend!

sooooo, you jumped into a thread about sharrows to spout how bad DC bike lanes are (but you have never ridden them.)

Then, when I asked about the OP, instead of bothering to reread Barrys' post, all you have to say about sharrows is you haven't seen them but think they should be centered in the lane and that Barry's a good advocate. oh, and you corrected my grammar and went on about how bad bike acomodations are.

I was going for a brief summary there, forgive me if i missed one of your more obscure opinions.



if you could just distill any of the rest of your feelings on sharrows here, I'D love to see that, i bet barry would too!

[derath]

Bek,

Wow, I don't know if you lack reading comprehension, or maybe it was just really late. Let me try to reiterate

1. Yes I spouted how bad the bike lanes that I have seen are. I don't need to ride them to know that a bike lane barely wide enough for one bike that forces the rider into the door zone is bad design. I have pictures and examples from you to know that. I was merely pointing out that sharrows aren't DC's only problem.

2. No I didn't go back to read Barry's post last night. It was close to 1am. I was tired. I answered as best as I could without re-reading it. I have now, so I will respond below. I don't want to confuse you here.

3. Yes Barry is a great advocate.

4. No I didn't correct your grammar. Go read it again. I changed the sentance in a slight way that alters its meaning significantly. (I will give you a hint, it was to highlight my agreement)

5. Where did I say bike accomodations are bad? Are you trying to change the meaning or was that just a slip of the keyboard? I talked a bit about how bad the implementations are, but not that bike accomodations are bad in general.

As far as Sharrows on 11 foot lanes, I would still think a more centerish position would be best, to help eliminate the "fuzzy bike lane" effect that Barry gets with sharrows on a 12 foot lane.

-D

[Bekologist]

i agree, having sharrows indicating edge or door zone -or riding thru parked cars when parking restrictions are lifted streets! :O riding side biased in marginally wide lanes is a worse plan than sharrows centered in narrow lanes.

[donnamb]

I have no idea what the MUTCD actually says about positioning of sharrows in the lane; however, for maximum effectiveness, sharrows should be placed in the middle of the lane, and not in the right tire track position, IMO.
There's talk of putting them in on SE Clinton, randya - and smack in the middle (thank goodness). I'm going to try to get on that committee...

[The Human Car]

what is as far right as practicable in a lane too narrow to be safely shared? In spite of it legally being up to the bicyclist? THE revised MUTCD design mandates appear to leave it wide open for communities to place sharrows further into the lane.

it appears municipalities are not going to be restricted to the 11' edge of road placement... bike advocates could easily make a compelling issue to have sharrows centered in the middle of narrow lanes!

But, Baltimore putting sharrows in lanes that gets used for parking 18 hours a day (or whatever?) Seems bad, very very bad. Marginalizing, not integrating.

Let me qualify things a bit, so far it seems that Baltimore's unwritten policy is to use sharrows to "connect the dots" when "better" bike facilities cannot be installed. On the section of road under discussion there will be sharrows at least in sections where on-street parking is always prohibited. What is or is not under parked cars I really don't care. Also real life has some similarities to here... staying on topic is hard and it was interesting to note that sharrows do not have an associated ideal lane width.

In regards to the placement of sharrows in the center of lane what's wrong with near the right tire track? On 33rd street (2 10' lanes in the same direction) the sharrows are just left of the right tire track. While I have some concerns about wear of the paint the placement seems VC enough to me. I'll also note that LAB recommends riding in the right 1/3 of the lane (http://www.bikeleague.org/resources/better/roadrules.php) which is not the center position.

I'll also note that since I am familiar with most of the roads before and after sharrow placement all sharrows in 10'-12' lanes were placed near the right hand tire track. But now in 12' lanes the result is something like a 8' travel lane and a 4' bike lane. I'll share one situation where I think this works well; North bound University @ 39th St we lose extra width to a bridge on the far side of the intersection. Before placing a sharrow to the right of a 12' lane I would witness cyclists riding outside of the travel way and then swerve to ride near the gutter on the bridge just to be barely missed by a car. Now with the sharrow, cyclists are heading straight for the sharrow (no swerve) and cars are leftmost in the lane so there is more anticipation of space needed for cyclists and/or motorists seem to be yielding the right-of-way to cyclists (so it seems like a lower potential for a (serious) crash here) and the sharrow has not hindered me from taking the new right hand tire track. Let me emphasize that it seems to me that sharrows (even those that are far right in the lane) are less of a encumbrance to the VC then bike lanes so if we have to have facilities I prefer sharrows. And to cover the other side of the coin the sharrows on 33rd (no moving cars leftmost) so far have done nothing for the non-VC and the benefit for the VC is marginal at best so I really have to question what's the additional benefit of centered placed sharrows if the only ones that are going to use them are the ones who don't need them?

So far from what I have observed it is not the placement of sharrows that is the issue but it is lane width that governs how sharrows work.

[The Human Car]

BTW i meant to chide DC for its poor implemention of SHARROWS, not bike lanes, but was distracted just as i was writing it.

FWIW I am trying to get some traction on getting door zone bike lanes (some are really bad in Baltimore) replaced with sharrows.

I'll also note that a typical NYC parking attendant can get two cars parked in 12' of width so 12' is overly accommodating most cars. IMHO a 8' travel lane is good enough for most cars (as Baltimore has some 8' lanes) so 8+4 lane can be mostly shared and for those vehicles that need more width they can use the sharrow width when there is no cyclist and when there is a cyclist they can change lanes to pass. So far from my experience sharrows seem to work well in this fashion.

[The Human Car]

For that matter I would love if they stenciled "hey A**hat, I'm allowed to ride here"

I like it! ;)


But I would trust Barry's judgement. He is a heck of a good guy and an excellent advocate in our area.

While I appreciate the complement I'll note that what I think makes me a good advocate is not my judgment but the fact that I put my ideas out for discussion (just ask anyone I ride with as I talk their head off about this boring stuff.) So in part members of this forum have helped my advocacy as I try to collect "the best of BF" in my work. :thumb:

[derath]

While I appreciate the complement I'll note that what I think makes me a good advocate is not my judgment but the fact that I put my ideas out for discussion (just ask anyone I ride with as I talk their head off about this boring stuff.) So in part members of this forum have helped my advocacy as I try to collect "the best of BF" in my work. :thumb:

Barry,

I was referring to your judgement considering the fact that you have heavy first hand knowledge of cycling around Baltimore. If I end up in downtown Baltimore once a month that is a lot.

-D

[Bekologist]

agreed that there are benefits of sharrows versus none but side of road placement in narrow lanes is being reported as problematic in the Seattle bicycling community.

we are seeing some fairly well placed sharrows and some poorly placed ones that wind up underneath parked cars, etc..... likely the codifiying of sharrow placement could use firming up.


i think turning a marginally wide lane into one where bikes ride next to the doors of parked cars while cars try to pass within that lane during busy, high static traffic periods is likely as problematic or perhaps even more so then a so called door zone bike lane.

I've personally observed worse (closer) passing on roads with sharrows while opposing traffic was present than I do in a bike lane, so perhaps there's a bit of ambiguity as to what accomodates 'better', barry.


There's talk of putting them in on SE Clinton, randya - and smack in the middle (thank goodness). I'm going to try to get on that committee...

now THAT'S what I'm talking about, donna! get municipalities to place sharrows in the middle of narrow lanes...bike advocacy can work!

needless to say, sharrows are being codified in the MUTCD for lanes that are 'too narrow to be shared' side by side by bikes and cars.

Baltimore choosing to push the envelope and encourage side by side sharing with markings designed for treatments in lanes where that action is unsafe seems a strong misuse of their intent.

sharrows are likely not going to be placed on 14 foot or wider lanes, roads that sharing side by side makes a lot more sense in regards to traffic safety.