Sharrows

[Angela King]

The safety evaluation and discussion about Sharrows (shared lane markings) has been going on since they took off.  

This recent article gives the history and outcome.  Something to reference when that is the only thing a municipality proposes to address bike safety concerns.

Good to see that you were able to do the walk audit given the weather conditions. Probably gave you more insight and ideas for improvements!

Thanks,

Angela  

     

[Denise Brautigam]

Really interesting article, thanks.....Denise

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Portland Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to PBPAC+un...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/PBPAC/CA%2B8vbjBWb%3Dp5tHxN9LVPW6YyMX444VH72--zBmNcnm2KWiAngw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Michael Dixon]

Thank you, Angela. 

This part stood out to me:

"Sharrows do, however, accomplish something pernicious which I did not anticipate. They allow officials to take credit for doing something for bicycle safety without impacting car traffic, even though that something is next to nothing. It’s just pretending, and it’s worse than being honest about priorities. It’s insulting to the public to encourage bicycling by painting bike symbols on the street but doing nothing to actually make riding a bike any safer."

And then:

"We never suggest using sharrows to create a bikeway. We’ve learned our lessons. Now that we know better, it’s time to do more."

[Emilie Swenson]

Thanks for sharing! Sharrows on Forest Ave between Woodsfords Corner and USM are a great example of this... completely useless and dangerous when traffic blasts past you at 35 mph. You can take up the whole lane (which I do), but it feels VERY risky. 

I wish that were the outcome! --> "usher in a new era of safer streets, one where motorists would patiently wait behind bicyclists “taking the lane” because this painted symbol made it clear they had the right to do so." 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/PBPAC/CAGPwo-JdmKMjjZoHa5DA53bkr5Oo1oXSL%3DBYcMs7EysnUZjoNw%40mail.gmail.com.

[John Brooking]

It would be great if sharrows had the desired effect of both influencing cyclist position to be away from edge hazards like parked cars, and also to increase motorist tolerance. That they don't, to the extent hoped, I think says as much about other factors (cyclists' fear of moving traffic, lack of motorist education and just human nature) than it does about the sharrows themselves. Personally, despite their shortcomings, I appreciate them in the same way that I appreciate "Bikes May Use Full Lane" signs. (Indeed, the MUTCD guidance includes the potential of using them in combination.) I value them for informing both cyclists and motorists of the possibility of cyclists using more of the travel lane. Whether people listen or not, I have to think we're better off informing them than not.

Cognitive dissonance is strong. You can show motorists (and some police officers) sharrows, BMUFL signs, and the actual language of the "Far Right as Practicable" statute with all its "exceptions" (examples of where not practicable), and still they will insist that it can't possibly mean you should ride in the middle of the lane. We're fighting well-established motoring dominance.

The objection that they allow engineers to "take the easy way out" I think depends a lot on context. There are places, perhaps Woodfords Corner is one, where separated infrastructure would be an expensive undertaking. I'm not necessarily saying not to do it, but it would take years and millions of dollars, and meanwhile, give me sharrows/BMUFL signs to let everyone know that what I'm doing is legal.

Emilie, when people pass you while you are taking the lane in Woodfords Corner, do they change lanes completely? In my experience, they do, and as a result I often get better passing distance when doing that than when in a bike lane next to a narrow two-lane road. But maybe your experience differs? And I'll admit I don't ride through there at rush hour, because that's not my commute. But I do often ride through there later at night, if I have been in Portland for something. Some of the motorists do travel pretty fast at that hour, because it's not as congested, but maybe they're not as aggravated at the time either.

My commute is between Westbrook (where I live) and the mall area, and I always ride in the middle of the lane on those 4-lane roads by the mall. I'd love to see sharrows and/or BMUFL signs there. And the constant commercial driveways would make a separated bikeway a challenge.

John Brooking

Cyclist, Cycling Educator, Technologist

http://cyclingsavvy.org

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/PBPAC/CAHNtm9OyR2rJ%2BCvrzMuny0cgfHw-7RWNxBm5JZq1kYDCqnD_Qw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Angela King]

Good morning,

I agree that sharrows and bike signage make me feel welcome when riding a bike.  But as we know, educating motorists about sharing the road takes more than that.

Most road designs prioritize cars – are about speed and volume – which is a cultural norm that driver behavior is based on. 

It's good that there are engineers recognizing this and working to change the current norms. 

The book, Confessions of a Recovering Engineer, sums it up and has helped work on changing this norm. 

     

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/PBPAC/CAJg%3D2ox%2BxgTQsBeAhwjGk86%2Bz%2BCRkRiTKXONwXZboLy_Ov%3DLGA%40mail.gmail.com.

[cecilia smith]

Ana,

Thank you for bringing this topic up. I’ve been quiet on this group due, in great part, because of the promotion of “sharing the road” and promoting sharrows (at least amongst some members). If I am not mistaken, I remember the Bicycle Coalition of Maine had a bike map that showed the city of Portland’s painted bike lanes on our major arterials and I was very disappointed. Sharing the road works for low-speed, low-traffic areas, so it may work along the Portland Peninsula, and in inner neighborhoods, but that’s about it. They work great, for instance, in some areas of NYC, where drivers are used to people using the streets.

I’m in the mindset that a child should be able to ride in anything called a bike lane by the government or by the Bicycle Coalition of Maine. The painted bike lanes in high traffic-high speed roads give the false impression of safety and, thank goodness, few people use them. I imagine an increase of fatalities, or serious injuries would result, as we saw during the pandemic as more people got out in their bikes. I am definitely one of those persons who does not feel comfortable riding on our arterials. 

If the Bicycle Coalition is not familiar with NACTO, and their guidelines, please share this guideline: 

https://nacto.org/publication/urban-bikeway-design-guide/designing-ages-abilities-new/

Keep up the good work!

Cecilia

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/PBPAC/CA%2B8vbjDmXGt5VxWuiB%2BRwKT6PojyCAL2jkKsaVmszE%3DqYy%3Dt7w%40mail.gmail.com.

[Emma Scudder]

Hi Cecilia, 

Thanks for raising these points and sharing your perspective. One upcoming opportunity to advocate for better bike facilities on our major arterials would be at the Libbytown Safety and Accessibility Project meeting on February 1st (https://portland.civilspace.io/en/projects/libbytown-safety-accessibility-project/announcements/you-are-invited-2-1-23-open-house-public-meeting) where plans will be presented for raised cycle tracks (https://nacto.org/publication/urban-bikeway-design-guide/cycle-tracks/raised-cycle-tracks/) on Park Ave and Congress St! I encourage you and others to come out if you're able.

Best,

Emma

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/PBPAC/CALR4CS8xw6rx%3Dy6Mj%2BoybzAHKbp2AGm8cvUQ2q03EVudQU%2BbYA%40mail.gmail.com.

[John Brooking]

Please keep in mind that a child riding in a bike lane, and even on quiet neighborhood streets, still needs to know about intersections. They’ll never all have separated signals, even on arterials.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/PBPAC/CAG5BejjoaQkRVZouii62LA0aFBLk2OFk-OciFNWr3W-mYJSDMA%40mail.gmail.com.

--

[Angela King]

NACTO is definitely the most progressive transportation design guide compared to AASHTO (American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials)  

When this design guide came out and I circulated it, the response was mostly that Maine is different, not the same urban cities as other states so that's why they weren't following NACTO.

Definitely residents need to get out to that Libbytown meeting!

Thanks for putting the link out Emma, and I'm sure it'll continue being circulated as the date gets closer:) 

     

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/PBPAC/CAJg%3D2oxfEqS6_Fv-1Kw6yGTPdNURYf%2BCtdGwoNbdBKEMj2v21w%40mail.gmail.com.

[Jim Tasse]

Agreed on all points, John! 

On Thu, Jan 26, 2023 at 9:34 PM John Brooking <johnbr...@gmail.com> wrote:

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/PBPAC/CAJg%3D2ox%2BxgTQsBeAhwjGk86%2Bz%2BCRkRiTKXONwXZboLy_Ov%3DLGA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Winston Lumpkins]

4 lane roads with frequent side streets, businesses, residences & speed limits upwards of 30mph aren't safe for anyone.  They cause accidents, and even for people with SUV airbags, those accidents can be life altering events.  I blame no one on a bicycle, motorcycle or e-bike, or even in a car, for avoiding them like the plague they are.  Furthermore, the suburban landscape they create is more or less doomed.  Charles Marohn's first book "Strong Towns" describes why- simply put, because of how municipalities like Portland are allowed to levy taxes (based on real estate value and not maintenance costs) those roads (called "Stroads" by Marohn) and the neighborhoods around them are dead weight.  If we were allowed to charge them what it costs to maintain the roads, sewer infrastructure etc in taxes... they never would have been built!

Their continued existence is incompatible with any true vision zero mindset- I have sworn to fight them until the last one has been ripped out.

Nonetheless, the findings this article mentions are frustrating- I do think that edge riding on roads like those that often have sharrows is much more dangerous that taking the lane, and I've considered them a good tool to indicate that, to cyclists & drivers alike.  I've always thought of them as a temporary measure, because all "stroads" must go & be put on road diets as soon as they are re-paved, but, since they don't require much investment, potentially worth the cost of the paint.  However, if they don't work & everyone just keeps doing what they're doing, there's no point in wasting the money on paint.

If you have to fight for any infrastructure treatment one street at a time you're bound for failure- I believe that's at the root of the problem faced by advocates everywhere- eventually we miss something, burn out, lose an election or move away, and progress stops.  They need to become the default, baked into the technical manuals & simply the way streets are re-constructed, in a way that would take years to begin to undo.

Thanks in part to advocacy from members of PBPAC, Portland's Technical Manual (section 1, page 16) now references the NACTO separated bikeway design guide, and, even better, the Mass DOT separated bikeway guide- (a resource I believe to be much better for a northern city such as Portland than the NACTO guide, which doesn't really account for snow & has terrifyingly insufficient daylighting requirements).  I think the most pertinent example is Park Ave- it may meet the NACTO guidelines, but falls short of the Mass DOT ones.  I think, if it was maintained and the Mass DOT guidelines were applied, it would be far more popular.

No one person (even executive members such as myself) represent PBPAC unless we're authorized to do so through a direct vote at our monthly meeting, on a specific issue.  I would look at our official letters & meeting notes to gain a true sense of the organization, not just this google group, however significant it might be structurally.

~Winston

[John Brooking]

I agree with a lot of what you say, Winston, and thank you for that document comparing the Park Avenue separated lane to the MassDOT standard. Maybe you can set the security so that others can comment on it? One comment that occurs to me reading about ice not melting on the non-park side is I'd bet that that side is in the shade most of the day. The sun being in the southern part of the sky, and the overshadowing hill and buildings, would both cause this. And of course the frequent driveways on that side would be a vantage problem even without allowing parking in between.

I do take some issue with your evaluation of stroads "not being safe for anyone". While I agree that they have a lot of characteristics that make them less safe than other designs, and I'm not defending them, I also feel that safety is not a black and white issue and that no design or context can ever be 100% safe, any more than it is 100% unsafe. 30 MPH is not that fast, although of course the wide roadway does encourage exceeding that. I think it would be fine if the engineering community were to suddenly decide to tear them all down and never build any more, but that's obviously not going to happen anytime soon. In the meantime, I think many people underestimate the power they can have to influence the behavior of other drivers on the road by communicating, and sometimes when I hear an absolute statement about something just "being unsafe", it feels to me like just giving up on using that road in the present day, and denying the power of education to help people make it safer for themselves, in the here and now, not in some future ideal world. My opinion.

But thank you for your dedication and thoughtful leadership!

John Brooking

Cyclist, Cycling Educator, Technologist

http://cyclingsavvy.org

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Portland Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to PBPAC+un...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/PBPAC/CABaJc7yTB%2B-uJxdkCoXAqyfuMy8%3DWD-oZQG8uU5NN2eVxoAuBA%40mail.gmail.com.