We’re pleased about NBC12’s coverage of Richmond’s new sharrows. But perhaps we should remind everyone why America’s traffic engineers have decided to use sharrows, to prevent the most common bike safety problems:
- To remind cyclists to ride with traffic
- To encourage cyclists to stay clear of the “door zone”
- To encourage cyclists to take the lane, and prevent motorists from squeezing by
- To remind motorists to expect cyclists in the lane, and that they have a right to be there
![\"Quantcast\"/](\"//pixel.quantserve.com/pixel/p-ffAr_0M34f91E.gif\")
Comments on this entry are closed.
Wonderful news. I look forward to reports on their effectiveness in Richmond.
Sharrows? Really??? Richmond is already 5-10 years behind other midsize and large cities throughout the country in building bike infrastructure, and the best it could come up with is some obscure marking that drivers routinely ignore? A world class cycling event calls for wold class facilities. Local advocates and the city’s bike coordinator need to put down their copy of Effective Cycling and pick up a copy of the NACTO or CROW guide if they want to get serious about creating safe places for people to ride.
Sharrows are a poor substitute for bicycle infrastructure. They show a lack of political committment to mainstream bicycle culture and lack of vision from bicycle advocates. American traffic engineers are decades behind the rest of the world.
Jeff and Mike, it is pretty easy to sit behind a computer and snipe isn’t it. A lot harder is the work to actually get things done.
CROW? Good lessons to be learned, but not a US manual so it isn’t something that can simply presented to engineers to use in the US. NACTO? Noble first attempt but sorely lacking. Have either of you actually USED the NACTO guide to desing/engineer a facility? I didn’t think so. I have, and guess what, the cycle track we were designing had several elements that aren’t addressed in the NACTO guide, rendering it useless in that instance. Oh, and it is ironic that NACTO chose to include design details for cycle tracks that the Dutch (CROW) threw out decades ago. But you probably knew that, didn’t you. Or maybe not.
I suppose you think that Richmond could take old, narrow streets and create a vast network of bike-specific infrastructure in less than two years (in horrible economic times no less). Nevermind that Portland has spent 15 years on this only to have recently moved beyond basic bike lanes and Holland/Denmark having taken 40+ years (more than my lifetime) to arrive where they are.
I wonder how many cycle tracks either of you have ridden. I’ve experienced several examples of US cycle tracks in a couple cities and I’m a bit underwhelmed with the products to date. Some are mediocre; others downright garbage and dangerously implemented. There is a lot of pressure to throw something out there, but too much of it is garbage that hasn’t been well conceived. I’d rather Richmond get it right (or at least close to right), than to rush headlong into stuff just to say we went outside the mainstream.
If either of you care to actually come sit down in my office and discuss real, meaningful, and realistic solutions I’d be happy to have the discussion. It’s always amusing to hear from people saying how it just needs to happen, as if there is a magic wand. In the meantime we’ll continue moving ahead with a variety of initiatives, capturing the low-hanging fruit, building momentum and working towards undertaking the logistically difficult and costly changes. And we’ll manage to do so despite folks like you sitting in the peanut gallery and failing to contribute anything meaningful.
Both Mike and I have ridden some of the country’s and world’s best facilities, and certainly have put in our work to make cities more bike-friendly- albeit wearing different hats than yours- but this isn’t about us. It shouldn’t be about just what Jake thinks is best either. This is about what can make Richmond more bike-friendly based on national and international best practices, and well, sharrows ain’t it.
It’s been awhile since I’ve reference CROW, but if I recall there are examples on how to handle narrow streets, hence the reference. True, it’s not a U.S. design manual, but Richmond isn’t exactly laid out like Tuscon, is it? Let’s not kid ourselves here, there are plenty of overbuilt and generally wide streets that have the room for bike lanes, cycletracks, etc. if you simply had the will. Yes, the NACTO guide could use some improvements as a manual, but to challenge the success of many of the included designs that are pulled form Portland, San Francisco and New York City is just dishonest, vehicular cyclist dogmatic and hurts Richmond cyclists.
True, it has taken Portland 15 years and Amsterdam and Copenhagen much longer. However, if you ask any transportation planner or engineer in those cities, they’ll tell you too learn from them- mistakes and all- and not to take that long. Richmond is afforded an amazing opportunity here to align the business community, political support and the cycling community to dramatically improve the bikeability of the city. If you’re not going to make the most of it now, when else are you going to have to chance to make that happen?
Richmond deserves better than do-nothing sharrows and I hope more local advocates take heed of your cynicism and go over your head to get more done.
As CEO for Copenhagenize Consulting I’ve had the privilege of cycling in cities on every continent – not to mention the cities I’ve lived and cycled in during my life.
This “Not Invented Here” mentality, I fear, will be the nail in the coffin of American mainstream bicycle culture. If action is not taken now, the seeds will not be sown, the garden will not grow.
Rio de Janeiro, in the two years prior to the first Climate Summit in 1992, implemented separated infrastructure along the beaches. Now the city has a connected network of cycle tracks and the bike usage exceeds any city in North America. They had no money back then – now they are prosperous and we are helping them plan an even more effective network.
Best Practice has been established in Denmark and the Netherlands over the past 30 years. In an age where cities struggle with budget deficits as well as car culture, we are seeing more and more cities choosing the cost efficient route and implementing existing, proven designs.
Other cities lack vision and are lagging behind. Especially those cities where “avid cyclists” are doing the advocacy – desperately trying to preserve their testosterone-driven desire to run with the bulls instead of advocating safe infrastructure that will get Citizen Cyclists to choose the bicycle.
There were no bicycles in Paris, Dublin, Barcelona, Seville four years ago. Now these cities are shining examples for the world about how change is possible. In just four years.
It takes visionaries to make it happen. It takes a desire for liveable cities and respect for The Common Good.
“Perfection is the enemy of the good.”
Though Richmond certainly has a long way to go to rival a Boulder, Portland or Davis, getting 80 miles of sharrrows installed is a great start.
The Mayor’s Bike, Pedestrian and Trails Commission which was formed in June, 2010 – and I happen to Co-Chair- had a limited time frame and funding available to begin implementing infrastructure. I feel this is a great start. The fact that we’re getting 80 miles of sharrows by next year is a huge win for Richmond’s cyclists.
As planned, these routes will cover all quadrants of the city.
These routes will reach a broad segment of our cycling community, I believe, will create a positive influence/ awareness on our citizens, more so than one or two miles of more expensive accommodations that would be used by far fewer riders.
More users and greater awareness should create more demand by citizens across the city to call for more accommodations and we accelerate demand for more infrastructure of all types.
Frankly, the fact that the city hired Jake as a full time Bike/ Ped/ Trails Coordinator (as recommended by the Commission) is a huge commitment and should help insure that the momentum will continue.
It’s easy to criticize when you don’t know the local practicalities and are watching from afar but if you knew the local politics, this is huge progress and I think the Richmond story – and our infrastructure – will continue to get better.
Rather than criticize, we’d hope other cyclists would applaud Richmond going from 3 miles of bike paths to 80 miles in 2 years.
I invite both of you to visit Richmond and come for a ride. Richmond has great bones to be a very bike friendly city. I think you’ll see how excited we are to begin the journey. I’ll take sharrows and appreciate that our story will continue to get better.
Not perfection, but a good start towards a more bike friendly Richmond.
Mike and Jeff, your responses say it all. Go over my head? To who? I’m advocating for some of the same things you are pushing for, but have the unfortunate task of working within reality, meaning there is a large apparatus that I have to deal with.
You make absurd assumptions that I’m resisting anything but VC because we have started with SLMs. In fact that intent was in place before I even started work at the city. Like I said; easy to sit and snipe when you aren’t dealing with the real challenges first-hand. 3 months after being hired, and 1.5 years after the city even started talking about this and we are supposed to have a network of physically separated facilities?
What is your point? Waxing poetic?
Not all local advocates are running on a “testosterone driven desire….”. As a female, with very low levels of testosterone, I’ve bicycled all over Richmond for nearly 30 years, and the simple fact is that Richmond is a great place to bike already.
As a member of the Richmond bike, ped, trails commission, I know that roadways and segments of roadways are being evaluated to determine what each area needs in terms of bike and ped improvements. “Sharrows” are likely all that will ever be needed on some roads, other roads will require more significant changes in order to improve safety or the perception of safety.
But my best days at work are the days that start with a ride along Richmond’s friendly streets!
Compared with Richmond the Euro infrastructure advocates should be gloating with glee about cities such as Virginia Beach: 75 miles of shared use paths, another 45 of wide sidewalks signed as bicycle facilities.
But maybe not; with few exceptions a cyclist is rarely seen. Build it and they (women, families, …) will come? Ok fine we did, but where are they? The multi-use paths are great for runners, dog walkers, and others who far outnumber the cyclists. I’m glad the paths are supporting those uses.
Given a free market choice, those who actually do ride here quite often choose the safety and convenience of the road. As a group they ask for far less than the segregated facility advocates: mainly just a bike lane, wide curb lane or shoulder here and there.
Addtionally, the paths have drawn more vigilantism targeting the roadies. Last Sunday an SUV attempted to shoulder my wife and I on our tandem along with 5 other cyclists off onto a sidepath. It made several passes within inches of us, all the time with the driver screaming “I paid millions for those paths and you will get off the road now…” Such reports are all too frequent and as often is the case we hadn’t even impeded this driver’s progress.
The lesson from Virginia Beach is that one size does not fit all. Cities should put in the right facility in the right place for the right user, instead of trying to model themselves after a culture 3000 miles away. We should always be looking at best practices elsewhere, but temper it within the context of what may or may not work locally.
In the case of sharrow’g key roads, Richmond is making progress where it can be made within a budget they can afford and with input from various local cycling constituencies.
Bravo Richmond!
Richmond is wise to START with sharrows, which can create an extensive, safe, and welcoming bicycling network with the least expense, delay, controversy, and adverse unintended impacts.
Before sharrows became officially sanctioned in the MUTCD less than two years ago, many U.S. cities mistakenly tried to accommodate bicycling with poorly designed and demonstrably unsafe door-zone bike lanes, which are unnecessary and contraindicated on slow-speed urban streets with narrow lanes and frequent intersections. With sharrows now an accepted tool, Richmond can avoid these serious mistakes made by many similar North American cities.
Urban bicycle facility installation programs typically have a steep learning curve where many SNAFUs in design and installation will occur. The news clip above shows the right tires of motor vehicles rolling over the sharrows and bicyclists riding in the door zone. With sharrows, the impacts of poor installations are greatly reduced, and bicyclists can be better educated to consistently ride outside of the door zone.
To my knowledge, nobody has argued that bicycling accommodation should be limited to sharrows, only that installing sharrows is a good way to START.
Pardon my curiosity. Richmond’s sharrows will cost about $3/4M. What’s the per-mile cost? What’s a ballpark estimate for hiring Mike’s consulting firm? What else could the city do after hiring a consultant with the leftover money?
Well, the first ones are in, and they are awful.
The Meadow street ones are located right in the door zone. In order to ride out of the door zone, you have to ride to the left of the sharrow markings. Should make motorists happy.
Of the four reasons listed above, the city pretty much ignored reasons 2-4.
Please go take a look at them, and please email Mr. Helmbolt as to their inadequacy.
An “F” in execution.
Pogue, the sharrows aren’t “lanes” as you are clearly conseving of them they are an indicator to cyclists and drivers alike that the road is to be shared with bicycles. they in no way restrict what part of the lane is to be used by the cyclists. If you’re too close to the door zone then take more space in the road, its yours to use.
Pogue, you correctly noted the installation issues on Meadow. I have already apprised DPW of that. The SLMs on Harrison were installed correctly (in fact I had them put them at 12′ rather than the minimum of 11′ to be farther outside the door zone.
We did these first two short segments as a means of seeing how labor intensive it was and to work out the installation kinks. I’m not sure what happened to be off by 2′, but it is a lesson learned in advance of the bigger installation in the spring.
but as Alesander noted, they are an advisory positioning marking, so the cyclist is entitled to position themselves where they deem appropriate in the lane. We’ll be coming out with ed/outreach media when the larger projects are being installed in the spring.
Alexander, I know quite well what sharrows indicate, and the law as well. However, our motoring friends do not, and will percieve them as being placed where the cyclists should be. Jake is right, the Meadow ones are badly installed, and their current placement will expose cyclists to motorist hostility, which is pretty regular on Meadow anyway. There’s really no way to make this installation good, short of a total re-do.
Richmond is lucky to have Jake– I don’t think he’s any more satisfied with the Meadow sharrows than I am.
As much as I dream of separate grade bicycle lanes, I appreciate Jake’s work in getting sharrows installed. I do understand the fiscal and political difficulties in getting this plan approved and executed.
I have two questions for anyone who knows:
1. Where can I find a comprehensive plan of the sharrow installation? I’d like to know what the final product of 80 miles of sharrows will look like on a map.
2. A major problem that I’ve experienced living in Bellevue on the Northside is getting into the Fan/Downtown safely across Broad Street. I’ve never had an accident, but I feel the pressure of traffic and drivers every single time. These “life-lines” into downtown are all stressful (e.g. Meadow, Lombardy, Chamberlayne/Adams, etc.). Is there anything planned to help cyclists in getting across Broad?
Thanks for all your help!
Anthony, feel free to contact me at jakob.helmboldt[AT]richmondgov.com
I can give you details and a PDF map. They consist of north/south, and east/west cross-city routes, as well as sharrows on existing US Bike Route 1 through the city.
All options are on the table for new bike infrastructure. Right now we’re trying to coordinate everyone internally to evaluate what is feasible near/long term and getting dialogue going on the improvements that will be more challenging (i.e. cost or changes to roadway geometrics and operations).
it didn’t insert the brackets when it posted, so just put @ after my name and before Richmond.
Anthony, try heading in via Hermitage, going behind the Diamond. Traffic volume is lower than the other streets you mention. I’ve been riding Bellevue to Downtown for years, this is my prefered route. Brook, with wide shoulders and far less traffic than parallel Chamberlayne, is much better than the routes you mention as well. I’d bet one of these routes will be sharrowed and/or laned eventually.
pogue,
Thanks for the feedback. I never have problems further up Hermitage or Brook, but getting across Broad is where the problem is. If you’re going down Hermitage, you cross at Meadow. If you go down Brook, you cross at Lombardy or the Brook/Chamberlayne/Adams area.
Given that you ride into downtown, and you take Hermitage (crossing Brook at Meadow), which streets do you take from the Fan into downtown?
Thanks again!
One correction – I typed:
Given that you ride into downtown, and you take Hermitage (crossing “Brook” at Meadow), which streets do you take from the Fan into downtown?
I meant “crossing Broad at Meadow”. Sorry for the confusion.
This is an area where lanes and sharrows do little good. To cross Broad, you simply have to take the lane and hold it. You can’t ride to the far right or you will be right hooked with regularity.
I’m interested to see what the city does at these intersections. Bike boxes? I really don’t know. Short of really bad paint, intersections are probably the toughest spot for urban cyclists.
Having ridden on some truly atrocious bike infrastructure, I’m hoping RVA doesn’t repeat some basic mistakes.
Anthony, if you’d like I’ll ride in with you one AM.
To be honest, I’ve ridden in a number of urban locales over the last thirty years, the worst probably being Boston (this was prior to infrastructure being put in). Richmond, despite some truly awful drivers, really is a pretty easy city to ride in– even with no infrastructure.
This is an important issue that often gets overlooked in the debate over bike lanes. Bike lanes don’t do anything for bicyclists at intersections (unless there is a dedicated turn lane in which case it can clarify proper positioning). Bike lanes can actually degrade safety at intersections due to right-hook potential which is why green bike boxes took off in Portland; they were a response to a sudden spate of right-hooks, a couple being fatal.
Some localities have actually used sharrows in multiples at intersections, or in conjunction with bike lanes, dropping the lane and indicating for the bicyclists to take the lane as Pogue mentions. The studies to date on bike boxes show some mixed results so the jury is still out on the best intersection treatments. Colored bike lanes at conflict points (e.g. intersection) now have interim approval, so that is now another option. The good news is that in recent years we have gotten a lot more tools in the toolbox.
I have to agree with Pogue on Boston, and I’ve heard others say the same thing. Even with new infrastructure I didn’t find Beantown to be too appealing from the seat of a bike.
Richmond’s streets are a double edged sword. We have a great grid of many lower volume streets with modest traffic speeds. but that also makes it tough to retrofit the busier ones without eliminating parking or travel lanes which inevitably elicits opposition, as well as resulting in less maintenance funding from the state. Not that we pack up and go home in the face of opposition, but it limits the low hanging fruit opportunities.
Taking the lane is really your only viable option at intersections. I whole heartedly agree with Pogue that RVA is a MUCH easier city in which to ride than most others.
“A Train” brings up a good point though, which is the discouraging effect of pressure from motorists. This pressure is a huge reason people are reluctant to ride as transportation. The pressure, in the form of aggression can be downright threatening. Being on a bicycle on a public street is an extremely compromised position, those in vehicles have a huge upper hand. When I was a motorcyclist I at least had the defensive benefit of speed and acceleration. When a vehicle was tailgating me or driving erratically it was a matter of a blip of the throttle for that driver’s threatening behavior to be kept at a distance.
Cyclists according to the current laws, are preposterously held to the same laws that restrict autos. This imbalance creates a dynamic that forces motorists to view a cyclist as just another vehicle on the road. This view, which is bafflingly popular amongst many cycling advocates, actually undermines the cause by placing cyclists, in the minds of the typical motorist, in the came category as lost out of towners, 90 year old Q-tips in crown victorias, and the Amish. Cyclists are turned into obstacles that can’t ‘play by the rules’ in virtue of their slowness. This is why prohibiting cyclists from filtering or making them wait at red lights for nobody doesn’t create equality; it further exacerbates our natural disadvantages. The key to leveling the playing field would be to give cyclists MORE rights than other vehicles. This makes bicycles more formidable, which is key in making cycling a more respected mode of transport that can be utilized without undue pressure from the surrounding drivers.
I found that wearing my gun in a conspicuous location, the small of the back, sharply reduces pressure from motorists, (i.e. aggressive acts and honking). I know that’s not an option for everyone, but it is a legal and surprisingly effective strategy.
Alexander, in an urban situation, bikes aren’t fast, but they are quick. We have an advantage in manuverability over our automotive brethren. We have to choose where and when to use it. And I believe filtering is legal in Va, though I would argue it needs to be used judiciously.
I don’t believe infrastructure makes much difference to me, I’ll ride regardless. But I believe it can go a long way towards making the city more accessible by bike for most folks, so I find myself for it. I’m against infrastructure for the sake of infrastructure, tho– I’ve seen too many poorly designed and dangerous lanes in my time.
Jake, I have yet to see a really good solution for intersections. As a longtime rider, I prefer them unmarked. But that may be my bias sneaking thru.
Real cycling infrastructure means dedicated lanes–and they require big streets. Many if not most Richmond streets are not anywhere near wide enough for bike lanes. Those that are have a lot of traffic and cross streets and little shopping centers into which motorists turn. To build a real cycling infrastructure would require reorienting the entire traffic grid in a city–and in Richmond you wouldn’t have that many new cyclists. Some young people and weekend riders, yes–but even with a good bike infrastructure people aren’t biking long distances (from the burbs into the city, for example) to work and back. That won’t happen. This, alas, isn’t big-city Europe, where many people live and work in the center-city area and thus biking makes sense. This (alas) is America, where most people live in the charmless suburban counties–long distances from the city and also full of traffic. I bike but I also think the biking idea has been grossly oversold. Better bike infrastructure would be great for those who already bike, but I seriously doubt it would result in a big surge of new bikers. So there is a cost-benefit question. Mayor Jones has latched onto biking mostly because he wants Richmond to seem cool. The fact is, Richmond needs to pour money into its public-school infrastructure before anything else.
Kazoo,
Can Richmond do better? You bet. However, with 30,000 plus students and nearly 10,000 employees, I think VCU, alone, shatters your point about no one is “downtown.”
Perhaps you should fire up your Hummer, leave the cul-de-sac and take a trip into the city. People are riding a lot more, but the average person doesn’t feel safe doing so.
If that doesn’t work for you, take a trip to Fairfax, Arlington and DC. If you can get folks to ride a bike there, RVA should be a slam dunk.