Imagine 1,200 sharrows 'blanketing' downtown Portland
Posted by Jonathan Maus (Publisher/Editor) on January 14th, 2010 at 12:55 pm
(Photos © J. Maus)
Ever since City of Portland Bike Coordinator Roger Geller first publicly mentioned a downtown sharrow project, many of you have expressed interest in learning more about it. So, here you go.
In June of 2008, on behalf of the City of Portland Bureau of Transportation (PBOT), Geller submitted a grant application to the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT, through their Bike and Ped grant program) for what he calls the Downtown Sharrows Project.
The $384,000 project (PBOT asked ODOT for all but $19,500 of it) would have installed 1,200 sharrows on 17 miles of streets in Portland's downtown core. The sharrows would have been placed every 100 feet on every lane in every direction of selected streets.
Sharrows, or shared-lane markings, consist of a large bike symbol and two chevrons pointing in the travel direction. The markings have been approved for use by the Federal Highway Administration.
According to the grant application written by Geller, the project would "blanket" downtown with sharrows and the markings would "communicate to motorists they should expect cyclists to be ubiquitous throughout our downtown and that they are intended and welcome users of the downtown travel lanes."
The reasoning behind this project was that PBOT often hears that people on bicycles feel "abandoned" when riding downtown due to a lack of developed bikeways.
"This treatment will communicate to motorists they should expect cyclists to be ubiquitous throughout our downtown and that they are intended and welcome users of the downtown travel lanes."
-- From PBOT's grant application
For more experienced riders, taking the lane downtown is easy and preferred, since vehicle speeds are an easily bikable 12-16 mph. But for others, the heavy traffic environment is not welcoming. In addition to communicating to people driving cars that bikes are expected and allowed in the lane, sharrows also help guide less experienced riders to a safer position on the roadway (i.e. not too close to the door zone).
Or, as Geller puts it in the proposal,
"The shared lane markings will also help cyclists position themselves where they are most safe in such a low-speed environment: in the middle of the travel lanes rather than off to the far right or left sides of the roadway where they are susceptible to riding into an opened car door."
In the end, Geller and PBOT feel the sharrow project will hasten a "self-reinforcing behavior change" -- more people riding in the lanes and others realizing it's legal to do so -- that would result in more respect and sharing between all road users.
it clear that bikes can (and should)
be in the lane.
(Graphic: PBOT)
Unfortunately, the ODOT committee that doles out the grants, the Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee, was divided on the project and did not choose to award the grant.
Geller still likes the project and plans to keep looking for money to fund it.
What do you think? Have you ridden on sharrows? In Portland, there are several installed on NW 19th and they're popping up all over the country (San Francisco has many in their downtown core, as does Seattle). Would this Downtown Sharrows Project get your funding vote?
Email This Post
Possibly related posts 
January 14th, 2010 13:01
Yes sharrows! Go Roger!
January 14th, 2010 13:03
somehow, all the members of the committee have appointments thru 2013. that makes no sense; they don't stagger these?
anyway, it's a great & simple idea. keep us informed about progress & what we can do to help.
January 14th, 2010 13:05
This would be a great step forward, especially if it would be accompanied by the removal of door zone/hotel zone/taxi idling "bike lanes".
Sharrows are also desperately needed on NE Alberta. It makes me cringe to see 90% of cyclists on Alberta cowering in the door zone, then weaving out to get around the pedestrian bulb-outs. Alberta should not be considered a through street for motorists, and if we can't get local control of speed limits, then sharrows and more assertive cycling would help slow car traffic down enough that drivers would opt for Prescott or Killingsworth.
I would prefer sharrows all over town, instead of bike lanes.
January 14th, 2010 13:05
I LOVE the sharrows I've encountered in NW Portland. I feel that they do exactly what they're intended for, and I'd be glad to see them throughout the downtown core.
Sharrows would make me much more likely to ride my bike out on lunchtime errands and to restaurants farther from my office. And if they help drivers see that no, I really can't ride near the streetcar tracks, that'd be a plus.
January 14th, 2010 13:07
And, as a NE Portland resident, I heartily second @Giant Hogweed #3 on Alberta. Love the street, am too chicken to ride on it. That just seems wrong.
January 14th, 2010 13:31
I understand OBPAC's reluctance to fund this project, as it's quite nontraditional. This strikes me as more of an education and outreach type of project, using the pavement as a canvas rather than a website and billboards. It's an interesting idea, and I wonder if it would work... it sure would turn heads and attract a lot of media attention! I like it.
Jumping ahead, did PBOT say how long they expect these pavement markings to last? That's a lot of thermoplastic to replace when the time comes. I hope that it would come out of the general maintenance budget and not suck up bike funding to the tune of $400k every (5? 10?) years.
January 14th, 2010 13:31
I LOVE it!
When I lived in NW, the sharrows on 18th & 19th made a huge positive difference to my daily commute. Drivers didn't honk or tailgate aggressively at me as I cycled.
It would be nice to see this replicated downtown too.
January 14th, 2010 13:34
sharrows are exactly the kind of low cost, highly effective tool that this city needs. Putting these up in downtown, along with some other key spots on the east side, would end up being an incredibly productive thing to do with little money. It gets the point across very quickly to motorists that these are shared roads (which is sorely lacking), and also gets cyclists to stay away from the "door zone". I feel like this needs to happen, even if its just people going out with white paint in the night and doing it themselves.
January 14th, 2010 13:37
Shawn and I went to Seattle for a few days for my birthday in November.
There were sharrows damn near everywhere (on truly steep uphills, there was often a separate bike lane, apparently called a "climbing lane" because you'll be so slow).
We didn't have any unpleasant interactions with cars for the two days we were riding through Seattle. Whereas in Portland I get passed too close on a fairly regular basis. Might be coincidence, might not--but I loved the sharrows!!
January 14th, 2010 13:40
Best bike idea I've seen out of PBOT! I routinely use the sharrow lane on NW 19th and it works beautifully (cars queue up behind cyclists and wait for an opportunity to pass in the left lane). Car drivers easily understand what those markings mean and abide by them.
January 14th, 2010 13:40
On the other hand....the frequency of sharrows on that map seems a bit much. Wouldn't one set of markings per block be enough?
January 14th, 2010 13:41
I would also like to express support for this project. Sharrows are much more effective in my opinion than traffic signs and they instantly give both people on bikes and in cars a clear signal that it's OK to be in the lane.
As for the story above, I'm hoping to hear more about what concerns the ODOT committee had about the project. Stay tuned for a follow up.
This is definitely a project that could become a reality, but it will help a lot if PBOT heard loud and clear from the community that this is something worth doing.
January 14th, 2010 13:46
AWESOME! This should happen!
January 14th, 2010 13:49
I completely agree with #3, I just got honked at riding on alberta this morning. Drivers don't understand cyclists rights. On Alberta I've also had people yell out their car windows to stay off a "main artery" as well as racial slurs.
And in the past several months I've nearly been doored there several times.
January 14th, 2010 13:49
I forgot to add that adding these Sharrows would probably improve the situation I face there each day.
January 14th, 2010 13:50
Fantastic!!! Every little bit helps. These are a great reminder for motorists that bikes also belong on the road. Maybe it'll help them remember that rule when driving in areas w/o bike lanes or shared lanes as well.
January 14th, 2010 13:50
Isn't sharing fun?
January 14th, 2010 13:55
For everyone mentioning Alberta.... at our Get Together event on Alberta back in August, I brought up the issue of riding on that street. I specifically asked Geller what PBOT could do to make it more pleasant.
I personally think the city should remove on-street car parking, but unfortunately they are politically scared to do that right now. However, to the point of this story, Geller said that sharrows would indeed be a possibility on Alberta.
January 14th, 2010 14:04
I generally like this idea, but I agree with #6 above -- the cost to install them will not be that great, but, I'm concerned about maintenance and replacement.
Also, there's the idea that they will quickly become "Just another marking" to add to the mass of signs and paint that road users currently contend with.
Does anyone have the concern that, if LOTS of places have sharrows, those that do not could risk more bike-car friction as auto drivers mistakenly believe that bicycles are not permitted or recommended in those lanes lacking sharrows?
All in all, I'm in favor of as much accessibility as we can get. Portland has it pretty darn good, everyone. I live now in Tacoma, WA, and every time I return to PDX, compared with any city in the Puget Sound, I'm amazed by just how effective the bike infrastructure really is there.
January 14th, 2010 14:06
This is so great. Yesterday at the height of dark, rainy rush hour I was riding down SW 4th (almost 5:30pm). There were 2-3 bike commuters parallel to each other in ALL 3 lanes as we slowly leap- frogged each other to Burnside--which was an amazing feeling, like Critical Mass almost! Most drivers did not bat an eyelash, but I definitely had a few moments when I could imagine drivers thinking "Why are they in my lane? Why aren't they all the way on the right?" so I was still exceedingly cautious and defensive, assuming drivers might still want to take the lane and pass me (I was in the left lane). Sharrows would help here, and even more in streets where drivers are aggressive to the point of danger, like on 5th where drivers constantly squeeze me into the gutter and/or drift over into the bus lane in order to pass me, in their impatience to get by.
January 14th, 2010 14:06
I think they're a GREAT idea. Those already in NW work wonderfully.
January 14th, 2010 14:07
The new big bike lanes on SW Oak and SW Stark are very useful but the one problem with them is that many motorists don't 'get' that they are bike lanes.
With sharrows everywhere, the problem will get worse, the lanes will look similar to the sharrow lanes. How can we make these stand out as places for bikes only? Whatever the solution is, it should happen as or before the sharrows are implemented.
January 14th, 2010 14:10
I think this $ would be better spent fixing the scariest part of my ride - the PSU "bike track" area where I get to dodge people going to and from parked cars. That area is now to be avoided.
January 14th, 2010 14:11
I admit that I'm not generally a huge fan of sharrows. Oftentimes cities, like here in Minneapolis, install sharrows on the side of the road as an afterthought, as a way to express support for cyclists without actually building any meaningful infrastructure. I compare this to Vancouver, where the downtown has essentially reallocated tons of streetspace for cyclists with cycletracks and bike lanes from cars.
However, looking at these plans, if implemented to this extent, on every block, I think that you could cheaply send a statement that every downtown street is cyclist friendly, and that downtown Portland takes cycling seriously. Blanketing the city with these would make a profound statement about our transportation priorities. In the future, I'd love to see it extended out on major arterials (Hawthorne, Belmont, etc) without bike lanes as a way to normalize cyclists on the road.
January 14th, 2010 14:11
Seems like a simple, "shovel ready" stimulus project to me. Do it! Also, lay some down on Mississippi to let all the Richard Petty's know this is a shared street.
January 14th, 2010 14:13
Removing on-street parking on Alberta will just push the cars into the neighborhoods. Some streets don't have driveways so those would get even messier. Keep in mind that a lot of the cars on Alberta are not from the neighborhood anyway (e.g. somebody driving in from afar instead of walking or riding from close by).
January 14th, 2010 14:13
From a Seattle cyclist perspective: Good Sharrows are not everywhere here. Some of the newer Sharrows have been installed better (not all of them). Most Sharrows have been laid down following the most minimal guidelines. Most are in the door zone, small, and placed on wider roadways in a manner that "guides the cyclist" to a specific place in the roadway. Evidence: http://www.seattle.gov/Transportation/sharrows.htm "Use the sharrow to guide where you ride within the lane."
Seattle's community outreach regarding Sharrows has been dismal.
The pictures I've seen from Portland's use of Sharrows are much better than Seattle's (Portland picture above vs Seattle picture above - isn't that Seattle Sharrow just to the left of the parking strip, right in the door zone?)...hopefully Portland can once again provide a better example.
January 14th, 2010 14:27
another great reason to do this: to show Seattle the right way to do alternative transportation. again.
as someone who has tried to follow the worn-away little bike lane dots on dark, rainy nights - big is better. lots is good. but i do agree with the info overload concern. not a big deal on NE/SE 41st; downtown - more visual clutter?
January 14th, 2010 14:33
Doesn't the bike boulevard that's getting installed on Going make riding on Alberta unnecessary? The narrow street + the parking makes it too big of a pain in the ass to ride, I much prefer the side streets there.
January 14th, 2010 14:47
@ All- Obviously this project is a great idea.
WRT Alberta- this problem is even a problem on Freemont through Alemeda where the speed limit is 20. If I'm riding 19, you can't legally pass me! its impossible. Sharrows would help in all 'restaurant districts' or whatever the city wants to call them. This should get funded ASAP
January 14th, 2010 14:51
YES! My favorite thing about sharrows is that according to the 2004 study in S.F. they drastically reduce the percentage of cyclists riding on the sidewalk and against traffic.
January 14th, 2010 15:06
The downtown project sounds great to me, but I agree with everyone about Alberta, too. And the remark about Going is a good example of the advantages and disadvantages of all these planned bike boulevards -- sure, they are on quiet streets and can be nice for cross-town rides (as well as ideal for less-confident cyclists and kids), but not so good for retail access in commercial districts. There's still a need for bike infrastructure up and down the streets in those more congested areas where we eat, shop, drink, etc. That's why I think a dual-pronged approach of boulevards *and* sharrows/lanes makes the most sense. I'm sure we could all come up with a bunch of eastside streets that could use sharrows. My pet project would be NE 7th from the planned cycle-track at Weidler to Alberta -- there are already lots of people on bicycles on this street, and it would appear that PBOT has prioritized turning 9th into a bike boulevard, where there are much fewer bicyclists and the obstacle of Irving Park to deal with. Why not do both? Serve existing riders on 7th with sharrows. Add a bike box at Broadway and get rid of the right turn lane. Make 9th, the quieter street, a boulevard for the less confident/slower-moving cyclists. Does anyone else agree with me on this sort of approach?
January 14th, 2010 15:38
yes!
January 14th, 2010 15:44
I was in Corvallis this morning for a meeting and saw some sharrows, and they seemed to be working quite well, although I only encountered a few cyclists.
Probably would have a much better application in Portland.....SE 39th?
January 14th, 2010 15:44
Totally agree with Giant Hogweed #3 Broadway "bikelane" is a joke in front of hotels. I can't recall ever making up Broadway from Burnside to PSU without having to abandon the lane to avoid taxis and parked cars for hotel guests. Let's see.. doing the math in my head says about $350 per sharrow. If they could get the cost down to $100 per then maybe it would be like the bricks in Pioneer square. You know, buy a sharrow with your name on it for downtown PDX. And I know the city would not go for it, but if we (the creative bicycling community) had a large stencil cut and some donated paint and labor... hhhmmmmm.
January 14th, 2010 15:45
Well I have never personally ridden a sharrow before. I think this is a good concept that could be made better. The amount of markings on the road seems excessive. The concern on maintenance cost has already been mentioned. With that many I would think the cars would seem to just tune out the markings on the road and might miss an important one like showing a right turn only lane. As an outer SE commuter I would like to see the amount of sharrows proposed for downtown come down in quantity and get some out here where better infrastructure is really needed. I feel in heaven when riding the inner east side or downtown. Much better then 40mph main roads.
January 14th, 2010 15:48
I will contribute money to the fund to make this happen. I can't afford to give much though!
January 14th, 2010 16:03
Sharrows YES!, everywhere no. Mr. Geller YES! retrogressive politicians NO! why we've never done it that way before!.Not that I dont ever have to go, but how much were those solar toilets, it's not like the sun takes care of it.
January 14th, 2010 16:07
Hi 24, why not just bike on Salmon?
January 14th, 2010 16:12
I forgot, isn't there a sharrow example on SW Alder between 19th and around 14th? I normally ride that at night with minimal traffic but would love to hear if anyone rides it at a busier time.
January 14th, 2010 16:27
Andrew - Corvallis is not a big bike town, which is weird for how flat & small it is. students walk or drive; most people drive, for that matter. i don't think a bike community really exists there, although there are lots of bicyclists.
does that make any sense? lots of people bike but i never got the feeling that people consider C-town a "bike town" like we do in Pdx or even Eugene.
January 14th, 2010 16:29
i'd also like to add that in SE, sharrows won't matter until the horrible streets are repaired. it's ghastly, especially the further out you go. when i lived out in Woodstock, it was a matter of trying not to get beat to death by the roads. more than a few times i got my head & neck jammed halfway down my body slamming into some crack or pothole.
January 14th, 2010 16:55
Downtown sharrows...great idea.
Sharrows on the existing Sellwood Bridge...even better!
January 14th, 2010 17:37
cyclist #29
"Doesn't the bike boulevard that's getting installed on Going make riding on Alberta unnecessary?"
Today, for example, I rode from the co-op at 15th to the vegan bakery at 22nd. Got some cupcakes, then rode to Concordia Coffee shop at 29th. To take Going instead for each leg of the trip would have taken me 8 blocks out of my way. Besides, a street with as much pedestrian traffic as Alberta should have lower traffic speeds, and more bikes on the street would tend to result in lower car speeds.
January 14th, 2010 17:39
Great idea. I feel safer taking the lane.
January 14th, 2010 17:44
plus one to comment 3. sharrows instead of bike lanes. i just had the same experience on alberta against yesterday, motorist sounding her horn at me as i waited for oncoming traffic to clear to make a left into the co-op. and ofter motorists passing too close, even though i have claimed the lane. but when i am running several errands on alberta, i have no interest in dropping down to going. (also not certain they intend to signalize the intersection with 15th when they turn going into a boulevard.) downtown on 10th or 4th, rolling the green wave, it would be useful to have sharrows clarifying to motorists that i have a right to take the center lane, so as not to get hung up behind motorists making turns. props to roger geller.
January 14th, 2010 19:47
#35 Buy a Sharrow. Classic. I'd chip in for a couple if it'd fix the'door zone/hotel zone/taxi idling "bike lanes" Hogway mentioned in #3.
Though I would miss the excitement of mingling with harried tourists, their luggage, and cabs in rush hour traffic.
January 14th, 2010 20:34
Yes Sharrows! I highly recommend they also get added to the NE/SE one way couplet of 11th/12th *and* reset the traffic signals to drop the speed by 3-5mph. With two lanes, it's easy enough for cars to pass on the left. Catching the green wave is only possible on a fast bike with a motivated rider, not possible at an average commuter's speed.
January 14th, 2010 20:34
Sharrows are the best bang for the buck. Portland needs to use the giant bike marking on BIKE BOULEVARDS, too, instead of the paper plates that are invisible to drivers. Vancouver BC uses the large markings on all their bike routes (i.e. side streets) to let drivers know they're on a bike boulevard.
January 14th, 2010 20:51
SHARROW PARTY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
January 14th, 2010 23:35
that money sure would fix a lot of potholes.
January 15th, 2010 02:03
Zaphod #48- As an experienced surfer of that green wave, it can be very tricky to catch at times, for sure, but it sure is fun ;)
I would emphasize the concern one reader had about so many sharrows becoming a desensitizer and just another road marking to be ignored. Additionally, I wish it wasn't even necessary, since bicycles already have the legal right to be there, sharrow or not. I do like that they assert that right to motorists, who mostly seemed to have missed the concept when they learned to drive at 16 (maybe it was never taught, never emphasized; our education system is amazing). I think downtown could be improved with some sharrows yes, as could many other parts of town. In fact, they are a cheap tool sorely missing in Portland's seemingly otherwise endless arsenal of bike infrastructure improvements. Blanketing downtown seems a little over-the-top and heavy-handed, though.
As for Broadway, it's a straight mess from Burnside all the way south. The cycle track does nothing and is riddled with problems (perhaps we can get a different thread on this?), among them: people getting in and out of vehicles blocking the lane, insufficient room to pass slow cyclists, and cars turning into and out of the multiple parking lots along this short stretch. I'm not sure what we can do to make hotels and everyone all happy, but it's obvious the bike facilities there do the exact opposite of providing a safe place to ride.
I like that someone wants to do something with this (until now ignored) newly recognized road marking, but this is a little much.
January 15th, 2010 02:33
Sharrows DO make it safer and more pleasant to ride on the street. A bit of drivers education on the asphalt. Blanket the country with them, I say.
I agree with Laura that the Sellwood bridge needs them; and more urgently than downtown in my opinion. What a mess of confused pedestrians dodging timid bikers on the sidewalk, with motorists honking at and yelling at bikers who dare to use the roadway (as they should).
January 15th, 2010 04:09
As a commuter (car) who shares the road with bikes, I am in favor of respecting bike commuters space for obvious safety reasons. It goes both ways though. When a member of the bike community breaks traffic laws, running stop signs and traffic lights, it angers me just as much as if a motorist committed the violation. If there was a licensing provision for bikes, those taxes would help pay for the roads, bike lanes and infrastructure to keep this whole system working. Sharrows do sound like a good idea but why should a grant pay for it? Time to pony up folks! No free rides.
January 15th, 2010 07:28
Are these so-called 'sharrows' legal in any way, shape, or form? How about the MUTCD, what's they're take on these? Oh, the highest transportation authority in the land doesn't even acknowledge their existence? Well, these things are safe aren't they?
In 25+ years of daily riding in the downtown Portland 201 zipcode I've never once, not one single time, ever seen Geller on a bicycle down here. So how then, is his judgment about how best to navigate MY bike downtown, better than mine? I don't think so. His judgment about where 'best' to ride a bike downtown put Tracey Sparling on the right-hand-side of a right-turning Class A vehicle. That killed her. Is this an example of the type of judgment I can count on from Geller and the Bicycle Activist...er...I...mean...Advisory Committee? If so, count me out.
What function do these serve? They don't signal anything. They don't enforce any rules. They're not infrastructure, they're just pretty pictures on the ground. Hundreds of thousands of dollars worth now. What impact are these having in civil-court? What are my assurances these won't be mandated under 814.420?
Nah, from the asinine, childish, sounding name to their ridiculous lack of functionality these things are almost as embarrassing and useless as the BAC. Almost. Oh yeah, the single most densely biked area of the city needs these to send a message? Whatever. I mean, it's only people's lives and stuff.
January 15th, 2010 07:48
Vance,
Sharrows have been officially adopted by the FHWA in the latest edition of the MUTCD.
In other words, they are legit.
January 15th, 2010 08:49
Rich,
Thanks for the comment. It's great to hear perspective from the other side of the windshield. Just keep in mind that, while I understand it's frustrating and nerve-wracking to drive near bike traffic (I do it too on occasion), please remember the vast difference in consequence when someone on a bike makes a mistake (an annoyance) compared to what can happen when someone driving a car makes a mistake (people die).
Also keep in mind that our city, state and country are subsidizing our ownership and use of a motor vehicles to the tune of billions of dollars a year. Cars are very expensive to park, they have a very large environmental impact, they destroy our streets, they hurt our economy by causing thousands of wasted business hours sitting in traffic, they scare little kids and discourage them from riding to school, and they fill our hospitals with thousands of injured people and our cemeteries with dead people every day.
That being said, most people you see riding bikes also drive cars and own homes and businesses -- which means they already do pay their way.
Please also keep in mind that our system of laws was created with only motor vehicle traffic in mind and people on bicycles have to navigate both a legal system and a network of infrastructure that are both filled with scary and confusing gaps.
I'm in full support of a system where all road users pay their fare share, but we shouldn't slap on a symbolic fee for "bicyclists" without really addressing these other issues first. I'm with you -- it's all about fairness.
Thanks again for the comment.
January 15th, 2010 09:35
J #56 - Yes, so I see: http://tinyurl.com/ygjcqsg . That answers that question. But that's the 2009 edition: http://tinyurl.com/yjmgeex which means that some of our markings went down prior to them being included in the MUTCD, right? Which also opens the door to questioning whether or not the MUTCD Guidance were followed, you know, seeing as how they didn't exist at the time? I'm a regular here: http://tinyurl.com/yzqrlj6 and will be sure to seek the opinion of the authorities.
In other words, they're not legit. Marginally legal I'll grant you, legitimate, no way. And if these create a significant civil issue, they'll be gone in the blink of an eye from the MUTCD. Or so I'd hope anyway.
Oh, and the MUTCD call these - Shared Lane Markings, I think. Don't know where all the, "Sharrow", stuff is coming from. But you won't find it in the MUTCD DBA.
January 15th, 2010 09:46
Vance,
I realize the sharrows/shared-lane markings in Portland were put in before the MUTCD officially adopted them. However, there is a completely legal process for doing "experimentation" with oversight from the NCUTCD/FHWA.
If that experimentation was not done properly and/or if the current sharrows are not installed up to code, that's an issue PBOT will have to answer to.
And, I'm not sure what your motives are for being so fired up about a potential civil suit around these. Seems like, of all the safety issues facing those of us who ride bikes often, the legal standing and safety of shared-lane markings are pretty far down on the list.
cheers.
January 15th, 2010 10:23
All those hashmarks on that map, representing sharrows...give me the "warm and fuzzies!" What a great way to state the message without speaking a word!And so inexpensive, too!
Go PBOT!
January 15th, 2010 10:34
They're not infrastructure, they're just pretty pictures on the ground.
Pretty pictures that motorists will see, every block. That will put the existence of cyclists on the minds of motorists, which is bad how, exactly?
January 15th, 2010 11:22
Seems like overkill to me. Maybe just drop sharrows in about a third of those spots, and put the remainder on other, more gnarly roads.
Since most of these roads are one-way, will the sharrows exist in all lanes? When I roll through downtown I can usually keep up with the lights, so pick the lane with the least amount of cars stopped at the light ahead that's about to turn green.
January 15th, 2010 11:23
At Memo 39.
I am right there with you pal. On my commute to and from downtown I'll ALWAYS take the safer, lower traffic, and more stress free route (Salmon, Lincoln, Harrison) over the hectic, exhaust choked, perilous slug up Hawthorne and Belmont.
Downtown I think that the Sharrows are a good idea where such bike friendly routes are not always available.
January 15th, 2010 12:19
$400K worth of sharrows downtown seems like too much. That doesn't seem right.
January 15th, 2010 12:21
Why ride Hawthorne?
Because I can get from 39th to the bridge in minutes (if I time the lights right). Why should inconvenience myself on rutted, meandering, pot-holed bike boulevards peppered with stop signs and dangerous intersections. (For example, the crossing at 20th and Salmon is a terrible accident waiting to happen.)
I suspect some of the riders who are apparently afraid of Hawthorne, Belmont, or Alberta have not ridden them much. Frankly, these kind of posts seem like FUD. I've had far more problems with irate drivers downtown than on those bike-friendly thoroughfares.
January 15th, 2010 12:26
I have to agree with the "pretty pictures on the ground" comment. It's not bad in and of itself to make motorist aware of cyclists on the street, BUT these are being used as an "infrastructure" replacement. Sharrows will not entice the "interested but concerned crowd" like real infrastructure would, eg., Cycle Tracks, but rather embolden the already cycling crowd, further alienating us from the non-cycling public.
Dear Roger, Please don't waste money on sharrows, build cycle tracks instead.
January 15th, 2010 13:04
I'm all for slamming a message home, but that's A LOT of sharrows.
Cut the number by 50%, which might reduce the cost of the project maybe 25 - 30%, and make it more viable financially.
I do like the concept.
January 15th, 2010 13:45
I like the idea that people riding bikes have a right to ride main lanes of traffic downtown, and that bike lanes are there for them as a refuge when needed, to make way for faster traffic.
Despite ongoing efforts to understand and agree upon exactly what the law implies, I never, and still don't buy the idea that someone riding a bike is compelled to ride in the bike lane if the main lane is free and open for them to ride in.
With certain common sense exceptions, people riding bikes already have a right to ride the main lanes of traffic downtown. It's annoying that city employee Geller feels he has to spend his taxpayer paid time devising ways like this to get the point across to motor vehicle drivers that this right already exists.
Proposing to spend this amount of money...$384,000...to junk up the street with more plastic? I don't see it.
jim #51 is right....that money would fix a lot of potholes...and maybe that's where it would be better spent.
January 15th, 2010 13:58
So I used Google Maps' Street View and found that there are some of these Sharrows in Portland already. Again, has anyone been on those stretches and noticed a difference?
Spare_wheel, I have ridden on the streets you mentioned and busy streets here and in other cities, but I prefer the more bike friendly routes the most so not a FUD comment on my part.
January 15th, 2010 14:24
Heh, sometimes reading comments here makes me think I live in some "alternate Portland" where the vast majority of motorists are respectful and courteous, and where by-and-large I get around town with a minimum of fuss & bother & antagonism. (Which, in part, might be because I do obey traffic laws, don't run red lights, do ride with lights after dark, etc., unlike so many cyclists I see around town.) And I wonder what hell this Portland you all speak of must be like, where you are risking life & limb & getting honked at and yelled at everytime you hop aboard your bikes.
That aside, sharrows seem like a good idea, even if I'm not really sure what kind of difference they'll make. My only concern is that they be implemented smartly, so that it doesn't end up looking like some lanes are off-limits for cyclists (which is currently the case on SW Stark off Naito Pkwy, where the sharrows are only in the right lane). Also, I share the concern of Greg (#22) -- SW Oak & SW Stark extended bike lanes will be even less recognized as bike lanes than they are now, unless the existing implementation is enhanced.
January 15th, 2010 21:36
vance, since the purpose of the sharrow is both to suggest to the cyclist to ride farther to the left and to alert motorists that cyclists will be in the travel lane, not cowering over on the right edge, i really do not see how the city can be exposing itself to liability. this is the exact opposite of directing tracey sparling to ride inside the right hook.
January 18th, 2010 09:14
Mr. Willis #71- I have a lot of time in civil court, mostly as a defendant, but significant amounts as a plaintiff as well; and believe me when I tell you that arena will vivisect policy during this process. As a plaintiff, if I can prove that a Shared Lane Marking caused me to be injured, and that the lane marking itself had not been legally applied, such was my implication, then I get paid.
As Jonathan pointed out, Shared Lane Markings of this type are now part of the MUTCD/FHWA dogma. Hence no liability. This, however, was not the case when they went down, and J damn well knows it. It's why I brought it up.
I see from your blog that you are new to town, so I'll presume you've never ridden that stretch of SW 14th where Ms. Sparling was killed. I have. Several times a day for 15 years, followed by several times a week now for another 10. 100 feet south of the intersection where she was killed is the intersection of SW Oak Ave, and SW 14th. From that intersection to W Burnside, SW 14th sheds probably two-dozen feet in elevation. It's a very steep little hill. At the top of that hill, while piloting a bicycle, one is afforded an amazing view of the traffic in front of them. Only somebody as bad at their job as Roger Geller could look at this view, and route bicyclists, under penalty of law man, where they are routed. Any moron can see from this vantage point that riding where Sparling was directed by law to ride, is a death-wish.
Point of fact: Shared Lane Markings are intended to position cyclists laterally within their lane. You said as much yourself, but I've used the precise language from the MUTCD. The presence of a bicycle-lane-o-death at this intersection would then negate, in fact prohibit, the behavior 'recommended' by the Shared Lane Marking.
So, seeing as Shared Lane Markings, and so-called bicycle-lanes are mutually exclusive treatments I'm left scratching my head at whatever conclusion it is you are trying to draw.
January 18th, 2010 16:30
conclusion i am trying to draw is that sharrows are used in places where lanes are not, that lanes are in general a horrible idea, and that sharrows are in general an okay idea, especially in their educational function.
January 18th, 2010 21:53
All this bike infrastructure makes me want to vomit. All you cyclists need to contribute to the transportation systtem infrastructure before we spend money like this....this is disgusting!!!
I'm tired of all these bikes!!!!!
January 19th, 2010 05:51
down the hall and to your left, pd, near the drinking fountain
February 9th, 2010 07:00
Why can't this be made part of the regular street maintenance schedule/budget? They can be painted when streets are resurfaced and/or repainted. That way they would be maintained just like other pavement markings.