Help us oppose SB 1216 Blakespear re: Sharrows & Bike Routes

[Jim Baross]

SB 1216 would prohibit the allocation of Active Transportation Program funds to a project that creates Class III bikeways and the use of Shared Lane Pavement Markings (Sharrows) on roads with a speed limit greater than 30 mph. It would remove useful tools for helping us share the roads we need motorists' cooperation to ride on.

You can easily use the attached document to find out if your State Senator is on the Senate Transportation Committee and then insert your opposition to SB 1216 on your senator's comment page. Especially impactful is to communicate your individual or group's opposition to the Chair of the Transportation Committee, Lori Wilson. That is easily done on her comments page if you are registered in her district.

You can even copy and paste reasons to oppose it from the CABO letter text that is also attached and pasted below.

It can cost you only a few minutes of your time.

Please help us stop this Bill.

Here is the CABO letter of opposition. Feel free to copy and paste any of it to support your opposition and request that the Senator vote NO.

The California Association of Bicycling Organizations (CABO) has significant questions about your SB 1216, which would prohibit Class III bikeways on roads with a speed limit greater than 30 mph and prevent Active Transportation Program funds from being allocated to a project that creates a Class III bikeway. We would have to oppose it in its current form.

As you know, Class III bikeways (bike routes) are defined in Streets & Highways Code §890.4. Caltrans Highway Design Manual Index 1003.3 describes them as shared facilities that provide continuity to the bikeway system or designate preferred routes through high-demand corridors. They are meant to offer a higher level of service to bicyclists than alternative streets, through improvements such as giving bicyclists greater priority at intersections, removal or restriction of street parking, correction of surface imperfections or irregularities, like filling potholes or adjusting utility covers to grade, or more frequent street sweeping. Bike routes are a useful component of the traffic engineer's toolbox to encourage and facilitate bicycling and promote safety, and if you have concerns about them, we'd like to understand why.

The SB 1216 fact sheet, however, refers instead to something quite different from bike routes, the shared lane marking (sharrow). Though it states that "Sharrows are Class III bikeways," that is not the case. Sharrows are pavement markings that can be used on bike routes, but their use there is optional; on the other hand, sharrows are often used on streets that are not designated as bike routes. These are really two distinct issues.

Standards for bike routes and sharrows even reside in separate design guides. Guidance for the shared lane marking is found in the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA-MUTCD). Section 9C.07 lists among its applications:
• Assist bicyclists with lateral positioning in a shared lane with on-street parallel parking in order to reduce the chance of a bicyclist impacting the open door of a parked vehicle
• Assist bicyclists with lateral positioning in lanes that are too narrow for a motor vehicle and a bicycle to travel side by side within the same traffic lane
• Alert road users of the lateral location bicyclists are likely to occupy within the traveled way
• Encourage safe passing of bicyclists by motorists
• Reduce the incidence of wrong-way bicycling
• Assist bicyclists with lateral positioning within a traffic circle or roundabout
• Supplement a signed bicycle route that is identified as a Class III bicycle facility
• Encourage the lateral positioning of bicyclists away from on-street angled parking
• Indicate that a bicycle can travel straight through a right-turn or left-turn only lane

Sharrows have also been used as wayfinding aids on routes that involve many turns, such as the Wiggle in San Francisco. The CA-MUTCD guidance seem to provide and justify useful functions to help facilitate bicycling and promote safety.
Your fact sheet states that "The previous model, 'vehicular cycling,' assumed cyclists were safest when they 'took the lane' and rode down the center of lanes shared with vehicles." That misstates vehicular cycling, which emphasizes sharing the road in a courteous and lawful manner and remains as safe and effective as it has always been. Normally this includes riding far enough to the right to let other traffic pass safely. Vehicular cycling advises taking the lane only when the lane (or the safe part of a lane, outside the range of car doors) is too narrow for a bike and car to share side by side, to make the bicyclist more visible to overtaking traffic and to discourage unsafe close passing.

The fact sheet goes on: "To emphasize that cyclists were entitled to using the road, cities began using 'sharrows' (a blend of the words share and arrows), a painted road marking of a bicycle and two chevrons." But sharrows are not used indiscriminately and are not always centered in the lane; the CA MUTCD contains extensive guidance for their placement. Eliminating these markings does not make the lane any wider; it only removes guidance that helps both bicyclists and motorists, with a net loss in safety.

The fact sheet further states: "Multiple research studies have found that sharrows are associated with increased risks of injury for cyclists. A recently published analysis found sharrows have 'estimated harmful effects,' which means 'drivers may actually be crashing into riders on such roads more than if there wasn’t any paint on the ground.' " It includes five hyperlinked references in support.

 
The first of these references (citing another source, not the authors' own research) finds that " 'sharrows' (painted arrows indicating shared bicycle and motor vehicle use) are less effective than bicycle lanes marked with painted lines." Note that it does not say that sharrows are unsafe or ineffective, only less effective than Class II bike lanes. But sharrows and bike lanes are used under different circumstances. Where there is insufficient right-of-way, bike lanes are not an option.

The second reference found a "suggestion of increased risk with shared lanes or sharrows," but it was not statistically significant. This is not a basis for policy. This study furthermore did not distinguish between the risks associated with sharrows and those of a narrow lane, where sharrows might be used, by itself.
The third reference says that sharrows can "increase attractiveness, and promote bicycle flow, but do not provide protection." "Protection" is used here in the sense of physical separation which sharrows do not and are not intended to provide. Shared lane markings and bikeways of various types are used in different locations for different reasons and are not interchangeable. It also says that sharrows can "reinforce the right to the road when placed adjacent to a separated bike lane, side path, or shared use path." These are arguments for sharrows, not against them.

You quote the fourth reference as stating that "sharrows have 'estimated harmful effects.' " It does not make such a statement. The fifth reference is merely a popular account of the fourth; it draws the conclusion about sharrows, including the hyperbolic "drivers crashing" part, on its own.

It is not a matter of eliminating the use of shared lane markings and replacing them with bicycle facilities of your preferred variety. They are not suitable for the same locations. All you would achieve is the loss of a useful traffic control device. 

Jim Baross

President, Calif. Assoc. of Bicycling Organizations

Sender notified by Mailtrack

06/05/24, 09:23:14 AM

[Karl Rudnick]

Jim and all - SB 1216 has been approved by the CA Senate (30-9) on 5/21/2024, so it is important to educate your CA Assembly representative to vote NO if you oppose this bill. You can find your representative at https://findyourrep.legislature.ca.gov.

-- Karl

On Wed, Jun 5, 2024 at 11:37 AM Jim Baross <jimb...@gmail.com> wrote:

SB 1216 would prohibit the allocation of Active Transportation Program funds to a project that creates Class III bikeways and the use of Shared Lane Pavement Markings (Sharrows) on roads with a speed limit greater than 30 mph. It would remove useful tools for helping us share the roads we need motorists' cooperation to ride on.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SDCBC Advocacy Committee" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sdcbc-advocac...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sdcbc-advocacy/CAG28zXfO8-QsocEw%2BrWfCZ%3DFo%2BKeuwto%3DJRBAtkvB8DNh37%3DjA%40mail.gmail.com.

[John Eldon]

Blakespear strikes again! Doing even more harm at the state level than in Encinitas. Read about removing CEQA standards from the coastal zone, as well. 

John 

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "San Diego Bicyclist Forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to San-Diego-Bicyclis...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/San-Diego-Bicyclist-Forum/CABkk2QYecJkQ%3DTbXeaTVWe_j2nhqAzUqooAQRG4f17uwj9_fzA%40mail.gmail.com.