Sharrows at 5'

[Tricia Kovacs]

Dear Bicycle Drivers,
Here's what I plan to send to Columbus city engineers. Thanks to Wayne Pein for the suggestion to paint a sharrow and take a picture. Mine is a bit wobbly, but it is at 5'. Anything else I should say in my email?
When I praised the city for the sharrows on Karl Rd, they're not at 11'. They're in the center of the lane left of the parking lane.
Tricia
P.S. After I took my picture, I painted over the "sharrow" with black paint.

Dear Columbus city engineers,
I read in the T&PC bicycle subcommittee notes that you asked for recommendations on sharrow placement on Oakland Park and they voted unanimously for 5' from the curb. I don't understand why you would ask the subcommittee when the Ohio MUTCD clearly states that sharrows should be a minimum of 11' from the curb on streets with on-street parking. You did such a great job with sharrow placement on Karl Rd. Why would we put sharrows in the parking lane? I remember having this discussion when the bicycle subcommittee first met and we decided sharrows don't belong in parking lanes. Here's what it would look like:



That's a Honda Fit, parked as close as possible to the curb. This isn't directing cyclists to the door zone, it's the fender zone. In Columbus in 2011, 3% of bike/car crashes were cyclists running into the back of cars. Another 3% were cyclists swerving in front of cars. Both of these will be encouraged by sharrows in this location.
Tricia Kovacs

[Serge Issakov]

Sharrows 5' from the curb?  That's nuts!  They're thinking side-by-side lane sharing, totally missing the point.  That point is clearly explained in the MUTCD. 

Serge

Sent from my iPhone

On Apr 8, 2013, at 10:08 PM, Tricia Kovacs <pko...@att.net> wrote:

Dear Bicycle Drivers,
Here's what I plan to send to Columbus city engineers. Thanks to Wayne Pein for the suggestion to paint a sharrow and take a picture. Mine is a bit wobbly, but it is at 5'. Anything else I should say in my email?
When I praised the city for the sharrows on Karl Rd, they're not at 11'. They're in the center of the lane left of the parking lane.
Tricia
P.S. After I took my picture, I painted over the "sharrow" with black paint.

Dear Columbus city engineers,
I read in the T&PC bicycle subcommittee notes that you asked for recommendations on sharrow placement on Oakland Park and they voted unanimously for 5' from the curb. I don't understand why you would ask the subcommittee when the Ohio MUTCD clearly states that sharrows should be a minimum of 11' from the curb on streets with on-street parking. You did such a great job with sharrow placement on Karl Rd. Why would we put sharrows in the parking lane? I remember having this discussion when the bicycle subcommittee first met and we decided sharrows don't belong in parking lanes. Here's what it would look like:

<OaklandParkOopsSharrows.jpg>

That's a Honda Fit, parked as close as possible to the curb. This isn't directing cyclists to the door zone, it's the fender zone. In Columbus in 2011, 3% of bike/car crashes were cyclists running into the back of cars. Another 3% were cyclists swerving in front of cars. Both of these will be encouraged by sharrows in this location.
Tricia Kovacs

--
--
To post: bicycle...@googlegroups.com
Only rule: no personal commentary (please comment about content, not people)
 
To unsubscribe: bicycledrivin...@googlegroups.com
 
Group website: http://groups.google.com/group/bicycledriving
Discussion archives: http://groups.google.com/group/bicycledriving/topics?hl=en
Glossary: http://groups.google.com/group/bicycledriving/web/glossary
Links: http://groups.google.com/group/bicycledriving/web/links
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "BicycleDriving" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bicycledrivin...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

[Trevor Bourget]

The discussion is starting from Mars instead of Earth. Lane position for drivers of vehicles is always chosen either from the center of the drivable space, or as the distance from some adjacent stripe. A curb/shoulder can't be counted on as a guidance marker.

If there were a parking lane stripe, a sharrow could be 5ft left of that. In the picture you show, what looks like a 13ft lane has 6ft used by a parked car. It seems like a sharrow 4ft from the centerline would be a compromise.

-- trevor

On Apr 8, 2013, at 10:08 PM, Tricia Kovacs <pko...@att.net> wrote:

Dear Bicycle Drivers,
Here's what I plan to send to Columbus city engineers. Thanks to Wayne Pein for the suggestion to paint a sharrow and take a picture. Mine is a bit wobbly, but it is at 5'. Anything else I should say in my email?
When I praised the city for the sharrows on Karl Rd, they're not at 11'. They're in the center of the lane left of the parking lane.
Tricia
P.S. After I took my picture, I painted over the "sharrow" with black paint.

Dear Columbus city engineers,
I read in the T&PC bicycle subcommittee notes that you asked for recommendations on sharrow placement on Oakland Park and they voted unanimously for 5' from the curb. I don't understand why you would ask the subcommittee when the Ohio MUTCD clearly states that sharrows should be a minimum of 11' from the curb on streets with on-street parking. You did such a great job with sharrow placement on Karl Rd. Why would we put sharrows in the parking lane? I remember having this discussion when the bicycle subcommittee first met and we decided sharrows don't belong in parking lanes. Here's what it would look like:

<OaklandParkOopsSharrows.jpg>

That's a Honda Fit, parked as close as possible to the curb. This isn't directing cyclists to the door zone, it's the fender zone. In Columbus in 2011, 3% of bike/car crashes were cyclists running into the back of cars. Another 3% were cyclists swerving in front of cars. Both of these will be encouraged by sharrows in this location.
Tricia Kovacs

[Tricia Kovacs]

I wanted to clarify what the city is proposing. The city asked the bicycle advisory committee whether they should place sharrows at 5' or at 11' from the curb on Oakland Park Ave which allows on-street parking. There are seldom cars parked on Oakland Park so they are concerned that if they place the sharrows at 11', that motorists will pass cyclists on the right. I say that it is not permitted by the MUTCD to place sharrows in a parking lane. The only solutions I see are to do nothing, prohibit on-street parking and place the sharrows at 4' from the curb, or place the sharrows in the center of the travel lane (like they have done on another nearby street, Karl Rd).
My concern is that by pointing out that they are not following the MUTCD, they will end up putting the sharrows at 11' (the minimum MUTCD allows), which would be in the door zone.
Tricia

[Serge Issakov]

You need to measure the full lane width, curb face to center of near yellow center stripe.  

Serge

Sent from my iPhone

[Trevor Bourget]

yeah, it isn't wonderful telling them to follow a standard which is, itself, wrong.

[Wayne Pein]

I'm surprised I didn't suggest chalk, which washes away with water.

It seems obvious that the best action would be no action, as placing the
marking anywhere on this road has potential or demonstrable
disadvantages. A BMUFL sign is a better option.

Wayne

On 4/9/13 1:08 AM, Tricia Kovacs wrote:
> Dear Bicycle Drivers,
> Here's what I plan to send to Columbus city engineers. Thanks to Wayne
> Pein for the suggestion to paint a sharrow and take a picture. Mine is a
> bit wobbly, but it is at 5'. Anything else I should say in my email?
> When I praised the city for the sharrows on Karl Rd, they're not at 11'.
> They're in the center of the lane left of the parking lane.
> Tricia
> P.S. After I took my picture, I painted over the "sharrow" with black paint.
>
> Dear Columbus city engineers,
> I read in the T&PC bicycle subcommittee notes that you asked for
> recommendations on sharrow placement on Oakland Park and they voted
> unanimously for 5' from the curb. I don't understand why you would ask
> the subcommittee when the Ohio MUTCD clearly states that sharrows should
> be a minimum of 11' from the curb on streets with on-street parking. You
> did such a great job with sharrow placement on Karl Rd. Why would we put
> sharrows in the parking lane? I remember having this discussion when the
> bicycle subcommittee first met and we decided sharrows don't belong in
> parking lanes. Here's what it would look like:
>

[Robert Cooper]

The City could ask a group of savvy cyclists to ride down that street. Shoot video. Put the sharrows where the cyclists actually rode. (Not theoretical.) Probably astonishingly close to the center line. But Wayne's suggestion is simpler and more direct: No markings.

[Wayne Pein]

It's an odd road given the width and variable parking, which is a
dynamic characteristic. But the marking is static and can't well fit all
situations.

But some bicycle facility proponents see bike lanes and SLMs and such
things as broadcasting bicycle friendliness, and the lack thereof as
unfriendly, no matter how easy it is to bicycle. Can't tolerate that, so
they've got to fit a square peg in a round hole.

Wayne

[Kat Iverson]

I'm with Wayne (no markings, but a BMUFL sign) and Trevor (even the MUTCD standard is bad).  Go back out there, and chalk a sharrow 11' from the curb to show that it is a bad position, too.  I do see their point about cars passing on the right, but by asking whether the sharrows should be 5' or 11' from the curb, they begged the question of whether there should be sharrows at all.  Try to convince them that there is no good place for sharrows.  The position that works well for deterring right side passing is bad for cyclists, and the position that is good for cyclists invites right side passing.  Therefore, there is no good place for sharrows.

On that road, where you say there are very few cars parked, I might actually ride where you marked the sharrow.  Or maybe a bit left of there.  When I see the occasional parked car, if there is little traffic, I would make a shoulder check and start a gradual leftward move maybe 40 or 50 feet before the car.  If there is moderate traffic, I would use an early shoulder check to look for a gap, and move more sharply into the gap when it catches up with me, which might be closer to the parked car.  If there is heavy traffic, I might ride in the line of traffic the whole time, but if the parked cars are rare enough, I might ride just right of the line of cars.  In that position, I'm not quite in the way, but I am noticed.  Cars may move closer to or just over the centerline as they pass me.  From that position, it's easier to get into a smaller gap when I see a parked car ahead.

There is no perfect position on the road.  The best position at a given time depends on traffic, parking, lane width, number of lanes, debris on the road, etc., etc.

What was so great about the sharrow placement on Karl Rd.?  How wide are the lanes?  Parking?  Where is the sharrow placement?

Kat

On 4/9/2013 4:01 AM, Tricia Kovacs wrote:

[Michael Graff]

Does the MUTCD prohibit having more than one sharrow side-by-side?  Heck, put a row of sharrows across the entire lane.

[Serge Issakov]

We can always count on Michael for some fantastic out of the box thinking... I love it!

But realistically Wayne's suggestions - no markings on the street; just BMUFL signs - probably has the best chance.

But you can still demonstrate Michael's point by chalking a row of sharrows across the lane, and show cyclists riding across each one in various situations.  Awesome!

Serge

[Rodney Rudinger]

Goes to show you what happens when there are inexperienced individuals on committees deciding these issues.  To the best of my knowledge no members of the committee are experienced or commuting cyclists.  Some may not be cyclists at all.  Trish was experienced and the people who decided who should be on the committee decided not to renew her membership.

[Brent]

BMUFL signs will not see the light of day in wannabe bike friendly Columbus.  Authorities demand evil "Begin" and "End" signs be placed with BMUFL signs.   They rejected my suggestion to replace "Begin" and "End" signs with "Citywide" signs....  Poser wannabe "bike friendly" city...

[Serge Issakov]

Which is it?  No BMUFL signs, or BMUFL with begin/end signs?

In any case, the City of Encinitas (CA) did that too.  It bugs me, but I think most people don't notice.

In this case they put BMUFL/end right before a section with a bike lane started.   Of course there may be good reason to use the full lane instead of the bike lane, but it's a battle we're not fighting, for now.

Serge

[Mark Ortiz]

No matter what Columbus will or won’t do, sharrows are a bad idea, especially in a situation where there isn’t a single appropriate lane position for cyclists.  There is no harm riding where the cars park when there aren’t any parked.  If there are some parked, then you need to be out of the door zone, and therefore much further left.  No matter where you put paint telling cyclists where to ride, it will be wrong for one case or the other.  Even with “begin” and “end”, BMUFL signs at least wouldn’t have that problem.

 

Mark Ortiz

[Trevor Bourget]

On 4/9/13, Kat Iverson <kat_i...@comcast.net> wrote:
> I do see their point about cars passing on the right,

I routinely practice "reverse lane sharing", where I let motor
vehicles pass me on the right. It is no different than them passing me
on the left, but it requires them to travel in the dangerous
conditions (bad road surface, car door hazards, drive-out hazards,
debris) instead of me.

Actually a sharrow 2ft from the center line sounds good. If motorist
really thinks they can go around safely, I think most often they are
right.

-- trevor

[Kat Iverson]

I suppose you're right, really. I was thinking like an unthinking
engineer, who always objects to cars doubling up in a single lane. They
always say that it is dangerous, but whenever I see it done, it is
usually at low speed and very safe. I know of a T intersection where
cars do it regularly. The leg of the T has two lanes--left turn only
and a left or right turn lane. If the car in the right lane is close to
the lane line and signalling a left turn, a right turning car will pull
up on his right, stop, then turn right on red. It's never a problem.

That reminds me of the 8-foot bike lane. A while ago someone on this or
some other list mentioned a new 8-foot wide bike lane. It sounded good
to me until I actually encountered one. Because of the debris in it I
rode in the leftmost two feet, so it was no better than an ordinary
width bike lane.

What sounds good or bad in theory doesn't always turn out as expected in
practice.

Getting back to the sharrows, I can imagine the engineers bringing the
question to the bike committee. "The MUTCD says sharrows should be at
least 11' from the curb, but we're worried about cars passing cyclists
on the right. How do you feel about 5' from the curb?" Engineers have
a sneaky way of offering options in such a way that the citizen
committee votes the way the engineers wanted them to vote.

Kat,
former member of a few impotent citizen advisory committees.

[Trevor Bourget]

The MUTCD doesn't specify the curb to be measured from should be the
one adjacent to the lane, and it says "at least (4 or 11) feet", and
it doesn't say they should all be the same distance from either edge.
So I think the options are actually wide open. :-)

"If used in a shared lane with on-street parallel parking, Shared Lane
Markings should be placed so that the centers of the markings are at
least 11 feet from the face of the curb, or from the edge of the
pavement where there is no curb".
"If used on a street without on-street parking that has an outside
travel lane that is less than 14 feet wide, the centers of the Shared
Lane Markings should be at least 4 feet from the face of the curb, or
from the edge of the pavement where there is no curb."

-- trevor

[Tricia Kovacs]

Kat,
In general, the city is placing sharrows in the proper position. Let's
say it's a 6 lane road, with 2 parking lanes and 2 lanes in each
direction. They'll place the sharrow in the center of the 2nd lane from
the right, on both sides of the street. Directly in the center, so it
doesn't get worn out by motor vehicle tires and it's in the center since
almost all streets in Columbus have narrow (10-12') lanes.

The city typically punts on 5 lane roads. In other words, if there are
two parking lanes, one lane in each direction and a center turn lane,
they just stop applying sharrows. High St is our main business street
through the city, going through the Ohio State Univ campus and
continuing onto downtown, where it's the main street that the Ohio
statehouse is on. Our first big "Share the Road" campaign route was on
High St, and they did place the sharrows properly, except where it
narrowed to 5 lanes.

But Karl Rd is a semi-arterial road that they really did a pretty good
job on. They have bike lanes on sections that are wide enough. I know
many folks on this forum dislike bike lanes but I don't oppose them if
they're on streets without on-street parking. Where there was enough
width, they added buffers to the bike lanes (the buffer is left of the
bike lane). Where the on-street parking exists, they put the sharrows
in the center of the travel lane. In this case, it is a 4 lane road with
parking on both sides. So they actually indicated with sharrows that the
cyclists belong in the center of the travel lane. A minor miracle, IMHO.
Karl Rd is all narrow lanes (10-12' I think), definitely not wide enough
to share.

I need to measure the width of Oakland Park Rd, where they want the
sharrows at 5' from the curb with on-street parking. I think it's only
about 28' wide, which makes me wonder why they even allow on-street
parking. How do you fit 2 cars in 14'?
Tricia

[Tricia Kovacs]

I stopped requesting BMUFL signs when Ohio DOT put guidance in our MUTCD to use the BEGIN/END signs. We may use the full lane whenever we feel it is not safe or practicable to do otherwise.
As a member of Ohio Bicycle Federation, we're trying to get ODOT to remove the guidance from their MUTCD. But we're getting nowhere with that.
If I ever see a BMUFL with an END sign, I'll be removing the END sign. If someone throws me in jail, I hope the OBF or my husband will bail me out. I won't count on LAB to do it.
Tricia