Sharrows Suck

 Look, this is a pretty basic post, and I know that.

I'm hardly the first person to note that sharrows are "bullshit," that they are "useless," and that any initial optimism about them when they were first introduced was "wrong." 

But I'm going to talk about them a little anyway, because the ones on the Goose Creek Connector annoyed me so much.

But because I'd like to focus on the positive despite the post title, I'm going to focus on other options that can exist that do a better job than sharrows--without much more in the way of infrastructure investment.

That is, I'm not going to talk about this:

Because that divided, separated, bike-specific roadway requires real infrastructure investment that many cities aren't willing to put in. Sharrows are lazy--but so too are better options. 

1. Targeted Bike Spaces at Intersections

One problem with sharrows is that they just sort of generically act as a sign of "expect bikes here, somewhere, because there won't be a bike lane for them." They don't have any specific, targeted expectations for either bicyclists or drivers, since pretty much every street at least in the US (sharrows or not) could, legally, have bikes on it, and the sharrows rarely make any legal difference to their presence (you can't hit me on my bike without the sharrows either!).

This little box, however, does: and it doesn't require anything more than paint on the road, just like a sharrow. By giving a clear area at the intersection where bikes are allowed, nay, encouraged to be, and cars aren't, it makes the turn easier  for the bikes, makes the cars understand where the bikes will be, and allows everyone to move by each other more easily.

This is at a stoplight in Montréal; I've also seen them at stop signs (if the cross-traffic doesn't stop, so there's an expectation that cars will back up). Wherever they're positioned, giving a clear sense of where bikes can stop without cars there (and often in front of cars) is a very helpful and low-impact way to make cycling safer and easier--unlike sharrows.

2. More Complex Signage for More Complex Places

Building on this, but adapting it, is the next level: acknowledging that there are spaces where bikes in particular might have difficulty being seen and properly yielded to, and accommodating that--again, just with paint and signage, not with physical barriers.

Chicago does this beneath the El:

See both the "look bikes" signage and the clearly marked space for bikes to stop at the light (as in #1). The El supports by the Loop here make it hard to see bikes, and the expectation of slow and single-direction car traffic (which puts bikes out of mind for many drivers) makes this a place where the reminder is very important. Clearly indicating the presence and location of bikes--not just a generic "there may be bikes" but a specific, targeted indication of where to expect them--is a big help.

3. Consistent Visual Indicators

Look, this example is cheating, because it comes from Amsterdam, but I'll explain why you don't need to be Amsterdam to use it in a moment.

The Dutch bike paths are a distinctive red color. Now, I'm not saying that everywhere needs to be the Netherlands to accommodate bikes (no matter how much I might wish they were, that ain't happening anytime soon). What I am suggesting is that the very consistency of that usage makes a huge difference in people's acknowledgement of the presence of bikes.

A sharrow appears intermittently on the pavement to indicate the possibility of needing to share with bikes.

The changed color of the path is constant and thus makes obvious the expectation of bikes.

This is why what I'm suggesting here isn't full Dutch-scale urbanism: I'm not expecting a whole network of separate bike paths (see above when I explicitly disclaimed that!). What I am saying is that bit of paint on the road could be more paint on the road, in a distinctive color, to indicate a shared street. 

And that, unlike a sharrow, might actually help communicate to the car driver that it is a shared street.

The consistency would be my emphasis, rather than the separation in the Dutch style.

None of these would be expensive in terms of infrastructure (at least not the version of the painted lane I'm suggesting). What they would be is a lot better than a sharrow, which honestly does nothing at all.